1993.12.30 / Matt Kennel /  Re: OrbitFun!
     
Originally-From: mbk%anl433.uucp@Germany.EU.net (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: OrbitFun!
Date: 30 Dec 1993 23:09:23 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

Norman H Redington (redingtn@athena.mit.edu) wrote:
: The Mills theory does not attempt to combine classical and quantum
: physics, but to start modern physics over in 1913. It has a very
: respectable pedigree. 

It's the stuff that came *after* 1913 that makes the Mills stuff
look silly.

: The existence of stable non-radiating classical
: moving charge distributions was made by Ehrenfest long before the Bohr 
: model. These distributions - orbitspheres and orbitrings - were the
: basis of the various "plum-pudding" atomic models: the electrons didn't
: radiate because they were on orbitsurfaces inside a blob of positive
: atom-stuff. 

What's the stability of the nucleus inside a uniform ball of charge?
How does *it* stay in the middle?

:Why no-one made the obvious modification (i.e. the Mills
: theory) after Rutherford found the positive charge to be all con-
: centrated in the nucleus I have no idea.

: If someone had, would life be different? Well, I doubt we'd believe
: in orbitspheres today, any more than we believe in Bohr-Sommerfeld
: elliptical orbits. But the founders of quantum mechanics would have
: had a different image of what atoms "look like", and would probably
: have formulated a different paradigm...

No I don't think so.  How does the Mills 'theory' explain electron
diffraction and other *experimental* facts known by the Founders of Quantum
Mechanics.  How does it explain splitting in magnetic fields?  Orbital
angular momentum coupling?  Remember all of those come out of the spherical
harmonic solutions + radial wave function solutions to the *wave* equation
and work in quantitative detail.  How does Mills explain hybridization?

Yes, you need a *wave* equation, for the wavefunction psi  (*not* the 
charge density Z|Psi|^2) in order to have interference.  (This is why
I am uncomfortable with the frequent assertion that the 'wave function
has no physical reality', because there seems to be few alternatives for
predicting physical results)

Schroedinger thought 'Well DeBroglie says that electrons work like
waves!  Well then, if we have waves, there must be a wave equation'.

And then it was unified with Heisenberg's stuff & quantization and uncertainty
and it worked.

Mills takes the point of view that you *axiomatically* impose the condition
of "no classical radiation".  It's not clear how the dynamics of the
nucleus is supposed to work.

Quantum mechanics takes as an axiom "radiation isn't necessarily classical".
Einstein got the Nobel prize for that one.  Experiments seem to be
on Einstein's side.

--
-Matt Kennel  		mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu
-Institute for Nonlinear Science, University of California, San Diego
-*** AD: Archive for nonlinear dynamics papers & programs: FTP to
-***     lyapunov.ucsd.edu, username "anonymous".
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenuucp cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.30 / Steven Robiner /  ANSWERS
     
Originally-From: srobiner@pollux.usc.edu (Steven Robiner)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: ANSWERS
Date: 30 Dec 1993 16:41:12 -0800
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA

As promised here is the summary of responses, not many, but nevertheless,
informative on the following questions:

RE: WHERE ARE P & F:
From Tom Droege:

Pons and Fleischmann were last seen by me personally 9 December 1993 in Maui
Hawaii.  I personally shook Pons hand 6 December and can report that it was 
warm so he was likely alive - or at least had been heated up for the occasion.
They are in the employ of the Japanese, IMRA (I think) which is an R&D arm 
of Toyota.  They work in Nice, France where they have roughly a 50,000 sq ft
laboratory.  

RE: WHAT OTHER USES ARE THERE FOR PALLADIUM:
Also Tom:

Palladium has a number of uses.  You can speculate in it as a precious metal
at your local coin store where you can buy one ounce Palladium bars.  I last
paid $105 for them but they are more expensive now.  

They are a heavy duty industrial catalyst.  You can buy catalyst pellets in
many forms.  It is also used in some brands (Ford I remember) of catalytic 
converters.  

The Japanese use Palladium for wedding bands.  They like it because it is 
shiny but not too shiny.  

My favorite use is as a hydrogen valve.  For something like a proton source 
as used in a particle accelerator, hydrogen can be valved out of a bottle by 
heating a Palladium membrane.  

Dentists use a lot of it for crowns.  Cheaper than platinum, and I think 
stronger than platinum and gold and about as inert.  

I think that dentistry, catalysts, and wedding bands cover most of the 
production.  But this is from memory.  

You will usually find the price of Palladium listed in the Wall Streed Journal
next to Platinum.  You can buy futures contracts on it for speculation.  The 
contract is for 100 oz, about $15,000 settlement at recent prices.  

When the P&F news hit, one experimenter here at Fermilab found a piece of 
Palladium from the lead of an ancient x-ray tube.  It will hole over 1000 
relative volumes of hydrogen.  

You can electroplate it.  Some printed circuit houses use it as an alternate 
to gold for printed circuit board fingers.  Look at some of the boards in your
PC.  If they have silver colored fingers they are likely Palladium.  

You can make jewelry using Palladium plated parts.  It makes a good (but 
expensive) underplate for gold.  Particularly where the object is in contact
with the skin.  Normally nickel is used under gold to make it shiny.  But the
nickel will work through the gold and make missys ears red if it is used under
gold for ear ring wires.  Palladium makes a good "seal" layer.  

 -------------------------
More from Mike Pettigrew:

Palladium has a unique outer electron shell configuration and can adsorb
vast quantities of hydrogen gas.  The basis of Cold Fusion theory is that
the hydrogen atoms in such solids are disassociated from their electron
shells, and can be brought together by some unknown process that neutralizes
the replusion between the protons without requiring measurable activation
energy.

cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudensrobiner cudfnSteven cudlnRobiner cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.30 / Peter Olsen /  Cold Fusion: "potential future energy source"?
     
Originally-From: pcolsen@super.org (Peter C Olsen)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Cold Fusion: "potential future energy source"?
Date: Thu, 30 Dec 1993 16:26:32 GMT
Organization: Supercomputing Research Center, Bowie, MD

I would like to contact anyone who has any information about the
current state of research into "Cold Fusion" as a "potential future
energy source"?

I recently obtained a copy of a United States Coast Guard publication
titled "The Road to 2012: Looking Toward the Next Two Decades".  It
claims to be a "scan of the global environment in which the Coast
Guard is likely to operate in the next 20 years" which "emphasizes the
critical roles that political, economic, societal, technological and
environmental driving forces have in chaping the future."  The report
is the product of a commercial "think tank" and was published under
the auspices of the

   Strategic Planning Staff (G-CX), 
   Commandant, United States Coast Guard, 
   2100 Second Street S.W., 
   Washington, DC 20593-0001
 
   (202-267-2690/6813-FAX) 

and paid for Department of Transportation Contract
DTOS59-91-R-00190.  Copies for non-Government purchasers will be
available soon from the National Technical Information Service in
Springfield, VA, (document control number AD-A272448), telephone
703-487-4650.  Government agencies (or organizations with contractual
relationship with the government) can obtain copies now from the
Defense Technical Information Center, 703-274-7633.

Most of the report deals with anticipated social and economic changes,
about which I know little, so I've concentrated on trying to
understand the "technology" section.  Although I am an engineer with a
fairly good background in physics and math, I frankly don't understand
lots of things in it, including the statements about cold fusion.  I'm
not a physicist (or an electrochemist), so my entire knowledge comes
from reading "Scientific American", "American Scientist", sci.physics,
and the book "Bad Science" by Gary Taubes.  As all of these sources
seem to have been negative, but the Coast Guard report seems quite
positive, it's possible (likely?) that I don't have the complete
story.  If anyone can point me to a documented *positive* reference, I
would appreciate it.  I have quoted part of the report below:

Pg 79:  Cold Fusion ...

   Room-temperature fusion research, effectively dismissed by the
   American scientific community, is alive and well in Japan and India.
   Cold fusion is the process that researchers believe takes place when
   an electric current is sent into palladium and platinum electrodes
   that are immersed in a jar of heavy water, rich in deuterium.  The
   experimental results sometimes suggest that lots of energy is released
   in the process.  If it is true, it could lead to the development of a
   virtually unlimited supply of inexpensive energy.  

   The idea was largely depreciated, especially in the U.S., when the
   experiments of Drs. Pons and Fleischmann, who claimed to have
   discovered cold fusion, could not be replicated by other researchers.
   But Japanese scientists, intrigued with the concept invited Pons and
   Fleischmann to Japan to discuss their work in 1989.  Since then
   Japanese experimenters have apparently replicated Pons and
   Fleischmann's findings, producing up to 70 percent more entergy in
   heat than was put into the system in electricity.  

   The "Wall Street Journal": reported that 5 to 6 labs in the U.S.,
   India, and Japan had conducted experiments that produced as much as 3
   to 4 times more excess heat than the input power although researchers
   are questioning whether it is "cold fusion" they are seeing or an
   other phenomena.

   Twenty or so university groups are pursuing cold fusion in Japan, most
   on financial shoestrings. But now, Japan's Ministry of International
   Trade and Industry (MITI) has decided to fund some of the research.
   If this new effort produces more concrete results it could open a
   whole new avenue of potential future energy sources and would shift
   the focus of a good deal of energy research.  
-- 
   Peter Olsen, n2ell, pcolsen@super.super.org  ...!uunet!super!pcolsen
         P.O. Box 410, Simpsonville, MD 21150-0410; 410-997-8584
     "Engineering is the art of applying a professional knowledge of
   mathematics and the physical sciences to improve the quality of life"
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenpcolsen cudfnPeter cudlnOlsen cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.29 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Sonofusion (Terry's UC) Revisited
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Sonofusion (Terry's UC) Revisited
Date: 29 Dec 93 17:39:00 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

Pre-script:  I enjoyed Terry Bollinger's hard-hitting yet humorous posting
on "orbitfun".  Now to revisit some theoretical work of his which
may really lead somewhere  -->  sonoluminescence revisited.

December 29, 1993

Dear Terry,

As notions of "cold fusion" in deuterided palladium
fade, I have re-visited your lengthy paper entitled "ULTRA
CAVITATION" (UC) which was posted on sci.physics.fusion on 31
December 1992 (one year ago!).  This has re-vitalized my interest
in your ideas regarding (low-level) fusion during D2-bubble
cavitation in D2O, and their relationship to sonoluminescence.
The physics here is potentially rich; there are clearly a large
number of issues to be explored both experimentally and
theoretically:

How long does the implosion last?  How dense does the hydrogen
(all isotopes) become during the implosion?  How hot?  Can we use
fusion-generated neutrons as a probe of processes occuring during
the UC?  (E.g., with d-d or better d-t fusion.)  With hydrogen
and deuterium present, we may be able to generate 5.4 MeV gammas
from p-d fusion -- how does the p-d reaction rate compare with
neutron production from d-d fusion?  What does this tell us about
the temp./pressure during UC?

What if we use mercury as a driver rather than water (D2O)?  (You
posted in '92 a very well-motivated idea here.)  Will the UC result
in higher temperatures and pressures, thus in larger fusion
rates?  What if we use liquid lithium as a driver -- will we see
and p-Li or d-Li nuclear effects during the extreme conditions of
UC?  Does your "wedge-out" mechanism serve to generate high-
temperature ions, so as to enhance fusion rates?  How can we
monitor such a process?

If fusion occurs, what is the time-distribution of generated
neutrons?  (The BYU detector system is set up to answer this
question very well.  See below.)

A crucial first step is to push conditions for stable
sonoluminescence in D2O with a central deuterium bubble, until
neutrons are seen.  I'll be happy to see a few neutrons by
reproducible means.  (I seem to have devoted my career to off-
beat fusion paths, including in particular muon-catalyzed
fusion.)  IFF this is achieved, we can proceed to answering the
questions above, using neutrons and gammas as probes.  And maybe
we can even get some outside funding...

Wait -- you have already taken an initial step by postulating
fusion under extreme conditions of sonoluminescence -- e.g.,
using mercury as the fluid driver.  And I am enthused by this
approach of having theoretical ideas suggest experiments --
something pitifully lacking in the "excess-heat-is-nuclear" camp.
But this is not "cold fusion" which you are proposing and should not
be mistaken as such.

Now let me ask a big favor:  please supply *numerical*
predictions.  How many neutrons or gammas per bubble-collapse?
Then we can determine whether our detectors will see anything
(see below.)  I will dig up some numbers on fusion rates at low
temperatures for d-d, p-d and d-t fusion and post these soon (as
long as you agree we should continue this discussion openly,
letting others eavesdrop and participate).

For completeness for this discussion, I include below a
description of detectors available here.  Note that we have
already run piezoelectric crystals *inside* our most sensitive
neutron detector -- and have demonstrated that our detector does
not pick up noise-artifacts from this process.  But we are still
(ugh!) working on achieving stable sonoluminescence.  And it
appears we will be getting expert assistance.


OVERVIEW OF DETECTOR SYSTEMS AVAILABLE IN PROVO CANYON TUNNEL LAB

Our primary detector for low-level neutron emissions consists of
a combination of a large plastic scintillator core with a
surrounding bank of sixteen 3He-filled proportional counter tubes
(Figure 1), with all signals digitized at 50 Mhz and stored in
computer memory. The central plastic scintillator is 25 cm in
length and 8.9 cm in diameter.  A central cavity of 4.4 cm
diameter admits test cells.  Fast neutrons from the sample can
generate a recoil proton in the plastic generating scintillations
(efficiency about 45%) which are viewed by a photomultiplier
tube.  Then the neutron slows further in polyethylene moderator
28 cm diam. X 30 cm long, and finally may be captured in one of
16 helium-3-filled proportional counter tubes embedded in the
moderator (efficiency about 34%).  These tubes are arranged in
four quadrants incorporating 4 proportional-counters in each.

The detector and experiments have the following special features:

1.  All signals are digitized using a LeCroy fast-waveform
digitizer operating 50 MHz, so that we retain pulse-shape
information as well as timing between pulses.  Pulse-shape
analysis permits excellent noise rejection, along with giving
some neutron-energy information (from the prompt plastic
scintillator pulse).  By rejecting events having small or no
plastic pulse, we strongly discriminate against slow (especially
thermal) neutrons.  This background-reducing feature is not
available to many detectors including those using BF3, 3He and
even the Kamiokande.  By studying neutron-capture time
distributions based on prompt and capture-neutron pulses, we
check whether the distributions agree with those found with a
plutonium source.

2.  The PC-based data acquisition system records which of the
four quadrants of the 3He-type counter showed neutron capture,
allowing for checking that the quadrants are hit in equal
proportions.

This detector segmentation has, for example, allowed us to throw
out apparent large bursts of neutrons (over 60 "neutrons" in a
160-microsecond window) whose signals unrealistically came from
just one quadrant.  We have seen several cases of such large
bursts in the past year of running (see for example Figure 2);
but all bursts of over five detected neutrons have proven to be
spurious.  Therefore, we suggest that compelling data for large
neutron bursts requires detector segmentation and pulse
digitization, allowing signal visualization and scrutiny, as we
have done.

3.  Three large cosmic-ray veto counters show the passage of
cosmic rays, which events are rejected off-line.  Passive
shielding of at least 35 m of rock (12,000 g/cm2) also greatly
reduces cosmic ray-induced events and removes dependence of
cosmic-ray rates on atmospheric pressure.  After cosmic-ray
rejection, the event rate is approximately 0.7 neutron-like
singles per hour with an efficiency of 15% for 2.5 MeV neutrons,
and 0.07 burst-events per hour with a detection efficiency
exceeding 20% (increasing with neutron-burst multiplicity).

4.  Two additional highly-sensitive neutron detectors are
available in the same deep-underground facility based on a
different neutron-capture scheme (capture in lithium-doped
glass), to permit checking of results found in the primary
detector.

5.  For gamma-ray detection, we have two large NaI detectors
(which are ideal for registering 5.4 MeV gammas from proton-
deuteron fusion) as well as two germanium detectors.  A portable
X-ray spectrometer has also been used in the Provo Canyon Tunnel
Laboratory.

Let's go:  son-o-fusion in '94!

Best Regards and Happy New Year (to all),
Steven Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenjonesse cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.29 /  jonesse@physc1 /  cancel <1993Dec29.173237.1201@physc1.byu.edu>
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cancel <1993Dec29.173237.1201@physc1.byu.edu>
Date: 29 Dec 93 17:40:29 -0700

cancel <1993Dec29.173237.1201@physc1.byu.edu>
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenjonesse cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1993 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Sat Jan  1 04:37:03 EST 1994
------------------------------
1993.12.31 / Dieter Britz /  CNF bibliography update and book review: Gary Taubes "Bad Science"
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CNF bibliography update and book review: Gary Taubes "Bad Science"
Date: Fri, 31 Dec 1993 10:53:56 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway


Hello all,

I have spent the last week reading The Book, and the update, about to go into
the file cnf-bks, is seen below. As usual, the abstract is neutrally bland,
but I want to add some less bland remarks here, in the form of a review, plus
some extra remarks.

Review:

Despite having been burned once before, I am going to stick my neck out and
say that, despite a few flaws, this book is the best written and most
significant book on "cold fusion". It has the ring of truth (obviously, some
will dispute that) and is thus the nail in the coffin of the cold fusion
affair. Where Frank Close has given us the sordid details of the gamma
spectrum story, GT gives us the sordid details of the helium and tritium
stories, and - most significantly - the main investigators' scientific
behaviour, and all this damns "cold fusion" thoroughly. This is the bottom
line; there never was such a thing as "cold fusion" in this context (it still
lives, of course, in the form of muon catalysed fusion, the original cold
fusion and a real, verified phenomenon). As I write in my abstract, GT has
picked out the main players in the game and thus by (mostly) ignoring the
large number of minor ones, making up the bulk of the authorship of the 846
papers in the bibliography, has made the story very clear. He writes in a
clear style and in clear chronological sequence.

The book was not written in haste, and has very few errors. GT is, according
to the back of the book, a physicist as well as aeronautical and astronautical
engineer, and his training shows. I will list some of those few errors I
found, as well as some weak points: On p.45, there is "the temperature emitted
by the cell"; p. 201 "Kuzmin ... would not be heard again on the subject"
shows that GT did not read the "scientific" literature on CNF, as there is a
paper by Kuz'min (on "erzions"); p. 215 "a gold cathode", where anode is
correct; p. 235, where gas phase cold fusion "became known as dry fusion" - I
have never seen this term used for "gas phase" or "Italian-style" CNF; p. 257,
middle paragraph, shows GT's (understandable) lack of knowledge of the
difference between cell voltage and electrode overpotential (the paper under
discussion, FPH-89, does not help him, however); p. 271, Fleischmann's video
of the dispersal of a dye in his cell is not bogus and does indeed support his
assertion of a 20 s mixing time constant, applying both to solutes and heat
content in the solution; p. 325, definition of tritiated water is in error,
this being ordinary light water with some content of tritium oxide, rather
than all tritium oxide; p. 406 "linear regression" was in fact nonlinear; and
same page, "100 pages of paper" was in fact 56 pp and shows that GT only saw a
draft, not the final paper. I found only two typing errors in the whole book:
"Pleith" (p. 290) instead of Plieth, and a doubling of the word "that" on p.
418 - remarkable. None of these errors is serious or detracts in any way from
GT as a writer or from his competence to judge the issue. I find his remark on
Steve Jones, on p.41, a little more serious: he writes that "Jones once again
began to work on cold nuclear fusion, although still by proxy through his
students"; every supervisor of graduate students to some extent works by
proxy, and this sentence seems to indicate that GT is trying to discredit
Steve Jones here by inference.

The book provides some useful and interesting history, for example the
"prehistory" of Steve Jones' work on piezonuclear fusion, also called
pycnofusion, and muon catalysis.  We see also that not only did the U team, at
the press conference, fail to mention the Jones work only 45 miles away, but
(p. 60) there are instances of Jones failing to mention the F&P work. GT
brings out quite clearly how the "melt-down" or "explosion" in Pons' lab,
allegedly making a 4" hole in the concrete, was used again and again to
bolster the cold fusion claim, despite being doubtful. We note as well that
Pons has perhaps been misrepresented in some ways. It seems that he never did
want that $5m from the State of Utah, and this might explain his lack of
enthusiasm for cooperating with the NCFI; he is also reported on several
occasions to be looking pale or green, and Fleischmann smoothly taking over
from him. So perhaps the driving force was/is more likely Fleischmann, not
Pons, in this affair.

It appears that some of the scientists that provided what has at times seemed
solid, quality, support for the phenomenon, were not so solid after all.
Huggins was, at least at one time, a highly respected materials man, but
according to GT, has discredited himself with his excess heat claims; the case
for this appears solid. Similarly, Hagelstein never was a physicist (he is an
electrical engineer) and has strayed into physics without the necessary
training. Not even his famous x-ray laser is in fact real (p.218). Schwinger's
theory predicted that the dp reaction is more likely, and the only effect of
this was to provide some spurious explanations here and there, as convenient
(when there was light water in a cell, per se or as a contaminant). There is
great detail on Bockris and this is very damaging of the man's credibility.
The quote on p. 276, giving his reasons for leaving the US for Australia in
1972, is food for thought, at the very least. I hope it is a paraphrase but am
afraid that it is not.

I have long suspected that Wolf was trying to extricate himself gracefully
from his tritium results and used the prior contamination of the Pd wire as a
handy vehicle. GT more or less supports this view; the contamination level
really was not sufficient to account for all Wolf's results, being only a few
hundreds of disintegrations/min/ml, whereas at least one of his cells had
"produced" some hundreds of thousands. So here is a case of incommensurability
in reverse.

What has kept this affair going for so long? It is certainly not the fact that
CNF is real; rather, a number of people have been successful in persuading
others to provide money, using circular reference to each other as evidence
that the effect is real. There must have been (and still are) some key persons
at EPRI and several other agencies, who wanted to believe, and pushed for
support. No doubt there was wide-spread reluctance to believe in scientific
misconduct. The University and the State of Utah wanted fame and fortune, and
scientists wanted the money, whether personally or for research; and GT hints
at the end also at what I believe is now the main motivation for the most
vocal proponents of CNF: investment money. The accumulation of money in
certain places will be the most tangible outcome of "cold fusion".

Added remarks:

Having read the book, I feel like a boobie for not being an ultrahard skeptic
like Huizenga, or Douglas Morrison, or Frank Close, or Dale Bass, or Greg
Kuperberg, or Dick Blue etc etc, all along. I was skeptical, but was impressed
by some of those (very few) papers that seemed like quality positives to me.
None of it means a thing. The F&P work is preposterous; so is that of Bockris
et al; Steven Jones has retracted and will no doubt leave the area soon. I
congratulate the ultrahard skeptics on their steadfast refusal to believe the
impossible, despite the considerable propaganda and false information, and I
apologise to them for having occasionally been critical of their absolute
stand. I apologise to Douglas for embarassing him with his cigarette lighter
effect; I thought that my demolition of his attempt to explain the "boiling
cell" of F&P was required in the interest of science and even-handedness. In
fact, the "boiling cell" is a scientific absurdity, and my little pedantry
about Douglas's argument laughable, taken in proportion. It is useless
pedantry to try to find rational explanations, or argue about such, for these
"experimental findings", as becomes abundantly clear from reading GT's book. I
have vigorously defended Bockris; true, he is a pillar of electrochemistry,
but he does not deserve such a defense, given his behaviour in this affair.
The same goes for Fleischmann, whom I have also defended here on occasion. Let
them now defend themselves.

I have wasted quite a deal of valuable research time on this house of cards
during the last four years or so. It has not been all for nothing, as my
bibliography documents this affair, and will no doubt be useful to science
sociologists and philosophers. I will continue the work (there is little to do
anymore now), with that in mind, but in a slightly different form, which I
will announce in this group some time soon.
==============================================================================
                     COLD NUCLEAR FUSION BIBLIOGRAPHY
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                           Additions 31-Dec-1993
                   Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
                     Total no. of journal papers: 846

Books: file cnf-bks
^^^^^
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Taubes G;        "Bad Science. The Short Life and Weird Times of Cold Fusion".
Random House, NY 1993, ISBN 0-394-58456-2.
** This book, by physicist and aeronautical and astronautical engineer Gary
Taubes, turned science journalist, focusses on the stories behind the story of
cold fusion. It is based not only on newspaper reports and (a few) journal
papers on cold fusion, but mostly on a huge number of interviews (over 260).
The book is filled with material from these interviews. It deals mainly with
the major US players in the area, i.e. the groups of/around Pons &
Fleischmann, Jones and Bockris; some others, such as Huggins, Martin, McKubre
etc are mentioned, as well as a very few foreign teams such as that of
Scaramuzzi. This enables GT to go into great detail, and brings out the story
very sharply. It ends (except for an Epilogue) in the middle of 1991, as the
National Cold Fusion Institute closes its doors. The conclusion of the book is
inescapable: "cold fusion" as used in this context is wholly imaginary.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.12.31 / Robert Horton /  Re: TFTR and commercial fusion
     
Originally-From: Robert Horton <wente@lll.llnl.gov>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: TFTR and commercial fusion
Date: 31 Dec 1993 19:18:04 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

In article <EACHUS.93Dec29180159@spectre.mitre.org>
Robert I. Eachus, eachus@spectre.mitre.org writes:
>      For those lost by what I am saying, the losses in a mirror
> machine would mostly be at the ends.  You can connect these together
> (Actually you build two side by side mirror machines, and feed the
> "lost" particles from one into the other.)  However last time I played
> this game the "best guess" dimensions for ignition were seven to eight
> hundred meters long, and about one to two MW(t) generated per meter...
> (Unlike tokamaks, in mirror machines ignition really is ignition, once
> you are there, you turn off the pumping and generate useful power.)

As one who spent a few years working on the Livermore mirror program,
I'd like to quench your enthusiasm for mirrors a bit. Why do you believe
that parallel mirror machines connected by (I presume) semicircular
axial-field sections wouldn't suffer from the same problems as
a simple torus? The whole reason people bother to provide a rotational
transform, either from external coils (stellarator) or internal
plasma currents (tokamak) is that a curved axial field doesn't confine
particles: they drift, on average, in a direction perpendicular
to the directions of magnetic field and magnetic field gradient
(i.e., up or down). Wouldn't your mirror-with-end-benders have the
same problem?
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenwente cudfnRobert cudlnHorton cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1994.01.01 / John Logajan /  Re: CNF bibliography update and book review: Gary Taubes "Bad Science"
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CNF bibliography update and book review: Gary Taubes "Bad Science"
Date: Sat, 1 Jan 94 18:52:03 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz) writes:
>What has kept this affair going for so long? It is certainly not the fact that
>CNF is real; rather, a number of people have been successful in persuading
>others to provide money, using circular reference to each other as evidence
>that the effect is real.

While this seems to explain it, it really explains nothing, as all science
is but circular reference.

>Having read the book, I feel like a boobie for not being an ultrahard skeptic

It was amusing to see your "lightning bolt conversion."  

Unfortunately, such conversions are powerful indications of "true-believerism."
My advice is to take a few minutes every couple weeks and double-check your
assumptions.

-- 
- John Logajan MS612, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.01 / Greg Kuperberg /  The End
     
Originally-From: gk00@ellis.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: The End
Date: Sat, 1 Jan 1994 20:21:51 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

In article <01H74MWR4PMQ95MVAK@vms2.uni-c.dk> BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz) writes:
>Having read the book, I feel like a boobie for not being an ultrahard skeptic
>like Huizenga, or Douglas Morrison, or Frank Close, or Dale Bass, or Greg
>Kuperberg, or Dick Blue etc etc, all along...

Thanks for the credit.  The past few weeks have brought an interesting
turn of events:  Two of the very few honest and competent scientists
remaining in the cold fusion fiasco, Dieter Britz and Steve Jones, have
jumped ship.  To be sure, you two were only half-believers rather than
True Blue True Believers.  Still, it was a puzzle to me and perhaps
others as to why you still took cold fusion seriously.  Perhaps it was only
intellectual generosity stretched to the limit.

In any case, let me apologize for being brutally critical at times in
the past.  I wanted to drive my point home, but I know that I wasn't
being very nice.  Let me say that scientific sobriety is not a matter
of always being right, it is a matter of being able to change your mind
when you are completely wrong.  Incessant practice at intellectual
self-criticism is the only way to be right most of the time.

Of course, there is such a thing as being right.  One of the main
defenses of cold fusion is an annoying relativism whereby you can
always claim that all standard physics is wrong.  Changing your mind in
flights of fancy is not the same thing as being able to tell when you
are wrong.

Who is the best scientist left in the fray?  Schwinger, maybe?  Fritz
Will?  I am not counting people who used to be competent and honest
scientists but obviously no longer are.  Perhaps we can all soon call
it quits and leave the cold fusion discussion to the nincompoops.  In
fact I have already vowed to do so; I am mainly responding here to
temper my previous comments about Steven Jones and Dieter Britz.
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudengk00 cudfnGreg cudlnKuperberg cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.01 / Greg Kuperberg /  Piezonuclear fusion
     
Originally-From: gk00@ellis.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Piezonuclear fusion
Date: Sat, 1 Jan 1994 23:36:35 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago -- Academic Information Technologies

Piezonuclear fusion is Steve Jones' term for inducing fusion by
squeezing deuterium nuclei together (in a more literal sense
than by heating them to millions of degrees).  Of course, this
has nothing to do with electrochemical cold fusion, because their
is nothing particularly piezo about the hydrogen-palladium
system; the deuterium nuclei are farther apart than in a D2 molecule.
Nevertheless, the idea has some merit.

Steve Jones suggests constant pressure in the form of a diamond anvil
as a way to get the piezo.  However, it's pretty clear that highest
pressures that you can get are with extreme violence.  The typical
diamond anvil pressure of 1 Mbar is a mere caress compared to what you
get with an implosion with high explosives.  Alas, violence often begets
violence.  The only currently successful fusion technology, thermonuclear
bombs, relies on an implosion twice, first in its fission trigger
and second in the confinement of its lithium hydride fuel.
However, the resulting energy release is too violent for conversion
to electricity (to say the least).

In fact, an implosion is exactly the goal of laser fusion, also called
fusion by inertial confinement.  Before I knew anything about laser
fusion, I assumed that the lasers were there to heat the deuterium
pellets that they are aimed at.  They might do that, but their main
role is to explode the outer shell of hydrogen to make the innermost
core implode.  Although it is far from breakeven, I think that laser
can give you a measurable neutron flux.

In short, piezonuclear fusion is a good idea but not a new one.
We might hear more about it if and when more research on laser 
fusion is declassified.
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudengk00 cudfnGreg cudlnKuperberg cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.02 / Matt Kennel /  Re: Piezonuclear fusion
     
Originally-From: mbk%anl433.uucp@Germany.EU.net (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Piezonuclear fusion
Date: 2 Jan 1994 02:02:46 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

Greg Kuperberg (gk00@ellis.uchicago.edu) wrote:
: Piezonuclear fusion is Steve Jones' term for inducing fusion by
: squeezing deuterium nuclei together (in a more literal sense
: than by heating them to millions of degrees).  Of course, this
: has nothing to do with electrochemical cold fusion, because their
: is nothing particularly piezo about the hydrogen-palladium
: system; the deuterium nuclei are farther apart than in a D2 molecule.
: Nevertheless, the idea has some merit.

But fusion depends on the probability of very close encounters rather
than equilibrium distance.

: Steve Jones suggests constant pressure in the form of a diamond anvil
: as a way to get the piezo.  However, it's pretty clear that highest
: pressures that you can get are with extreme violence.  The typical
: diamond anvil pressure of 1 Mbar is a mere caress compared to what you
: get with an implosion with high explosives.  Alas, violence often begets
: violence.  The only currently successful fusion technology, thermonuclear
: bombs, relies on an implosion twice, first in its fission trigger
: and second in the confinement of its lithium hydride fuel.
: However, the resulting energy release is too violent for conversion
: to electricity (to say the least).

: In fact, an implosion is exactly the goal of laser fusion, also called
: fusion by inertial confinement.  Before I knew anything about laser
: fusion, I assumed that the lasers were there to heat the deuterium
: pellets that they are aimed at.  They might do that, but their main
: role is to explode the outer shell of hydrogen to make the innermost
: core implode.  Although it is far from breakeven, I think that laser
: can give you a measurable neutron flux.

: In short, piezonuclear fusion is a good idea but not a new one.
: We might hear more about it if and when more research on laser 
: fusion is declassified.

What *exactly* are the pellets in ICF fusion made out of?  Anbody
here who knows?  If it's hydrogen is it a gas in some ampule? 

H-bomb fuel is lithium hydride.  So somehow is it all timed that
neutrons from the fission explosion get there right away to convert
lithium into tritium, right before the implosion?   

How does ICF work then?

One thing to remember is that bomb and ICF piezonuclear fusion implosions
are *not* driven by physical fluid pressure (as in 'anvil' or hypothetical
sonoluminesence-fusion) , but rather by photon pressure, which operates
*much* more quickly (speed of light vs. speed of sound).  Alot of ICF work
doesn't directly use the laser light but rather the x-rays from a high-Z
shell surrounding the fuel that's vaporized by the lasers.

To ignite it appears you need to squeeze hard and squeeze fast---if you
squeeze slow, the stuff will just bounce back without ever getting to a
high-enough density.  

If you squeeze slower, you have to hope that you can keep it hot for
longer.

--
-Matt Kennel  		mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu
-Institute for Nonlinear Science, University of California, San Diego
-*** AD: Archive for nonlinear dynamics papers & programs: FTP to
-***     lyapunov.ucsd.edu, username "anonymous".
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenuucp cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.02 / Greg Kuperberg /  Re: Piezonuclear fusion
     
Originally-From: gk00@ellis.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Piezonuclear fusion
Date: Sun, 2 Jan 1994 03:50:20 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

In article <2g5a06INN47i@network.ucsd.edu> mbk%anl433.uucp@Germany.EU.ne
 (Matt Kennel) writes:
>Greg Kuperberg (gk00@ellis.uchicago.edu) wrote:
>: Piezonuclear fusion is Steve Jones' term for inducing fusion by
>: squeezing deuterium nuclei together (in a more literal sense
>: than by heating them to millions of degrees).  Of course, this
>: has nothing to do with electrochemical cold fusion, because their
>: is nothing particularly piezo about the hydrogen-palladium
>: system; the deuterium nuclei are farther apart than in a D2 molecule.
...
>But fusion depends on the probability of very close encounters rather
>than equilibrium distance.

Your comment is true but it doesn't work as a defense of
electrochemical cold fusion either.  Whether or not you intended it
that way, and whether or not electrochemical cold fusion has any good
scientific motivation (which it doesn't), there is nothing particularly
"piezo" about the hydrogen-palladium system.

>What *exactly* are the pellets in ICF fusion made out of?  Anbody
>here who knows?  If it's hydrogen is it a gas in some ampule? 

I have seen a photograph of IC fusion pellets sitting on a quarter.
They were each about the size of the eyeball of the eagle on the
quarter if it had one (one was sitting in the eye socket).  The owner
of the photograph explained to me that each pellet is three concentric
gold shells with hydrogen gas between them.  I assume that the hydrogen
is segregated into three different mixtures of H, D, and T.  A thing
that I don't know is how the gold shells stay separated.  I might
suggest electrostatic repulsion, except that I think that it does not
work.

>H-bomb fuel is lithium hydride.  So somehow is it all timed that
>neutrons from the fission explosion get there right away to convert
>lithium into tritium, right before the implosion?

It is true that a large neutron flux from several places in a
thermonuclear device converts the lithium into tritium.  However, I do
not think that timing is a problem.  As I will explain below, I think
that bomb fusion is confined by fluid pressure, which as you note is
much slower than photon flux and neutron flux alike.  Another thing
that I do not understand is why it is Li-6 rather than Li-7.  Unlike
Li-6, Li-7 creates a new neutron to replace the old one that it ate and
is a more abundant isotope.  I bet the reason is that a single Li-7 is
too unlikely to capture a neutron, thus the conversion rate is too
inefficient.  One could call that a question of timing.

>How does ICF work then?

I'm not completely sure, but I think that it is similar to bomb fusion.

>One thing to remember is that bomb and ICF piezonuclear fusion implosions
>are *not* driven by physical fluid pressure (as in 'anvil' or hypothetical
>sonoluminesence-fusion), but rather by photon pressure, which operates
>*much* more quickly (speed of light vs. speed of sound).  

According to Richard Rhodes, *The Making of the Atomic Bomb*, the X
rays are there to heat both the lithium deuteride and a plastic jacket
around it.  The plastic jacket, finding itself to be a very hot,
light-nucleus plasma, explodes in a big way, and that explosion
squeezes both the lithium deuteride and extra fission material.

>A lot of ICF work doesn't directly use the laser light but rather the
>x-rays from a high-Z shell surrounding the fuel that's vaporized by the
>lasers.

That might be useful for heating the fuel.
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudengk00 cudfnGreg cudlnKuperberg cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.02 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Re: Mossbauer and momentum / Multi-State BEC? / No Rotating Mossbauers?
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Mossbauer and momentum / Multi-State BEC? / No Rotating Mossbauers?
Date: Sun, 2 Jan 1994 06:33:34 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

Hi folks,

Some nice comments from Gary Collins, and a _question_...


In article <1993Dec29.163921.1@jaguar.csc.wsu.edu>
collins@jaguar.csc.wsu.edu writes:

> Do you still think that the emission or absorption takes place in only
> 10^-23 seconds, Terry?


A simply delightful question!  Here is how to figure out my answer to it:

    Do _you_ believe that the gamma photon absorption/emission event takes
    place within a region of space no more than 2 angstroms in diameter?

      o  If your answer is YES, my answer to your question is also YES.

      o  If your answer is NO,  my answer to your question is also NO.


				Cheers,
				Terry

cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenterry cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Sun Jan  2 04:37:04 EST 1994
------------------------------
1994.01.02 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Re: Terry finally notices Chubb's remark
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Terry finally notices Chubb's remark
Date: Sun, 2 Jan 1994 06:40:11 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)


Hi folks,

In article <tomkCIu45x.BFI@netcom.com>
tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich) writes:

> In article <1993Dec29.212221.27112@asl.dl.nec.com>
> terry@asl.dl.nec.com writes:
> 
> | Hey, you've got my vote!  What a brat!  (No degree in physics, either!)  :-)
> 
> Well, I think you got the point. That sort of misunderstanding is what
> is really holding back CNF...

Note:  You may be assuming that I am a "CNF" advocate.  I am not.  I have in
the past remained opened to the _possibility_ of unusual heat events in some
types of transition metal hydride systems, but after the retraction in 1993
of a couple of (for me) key points of evidence -- the magical "disappearing
hole-in-the-floor" of P&F, and another less publicized but perhaps even more
critical reproducibility failure -- I would judge that there is no evidence
for "excess heat" worth considering.  Plus true "CNF" has been dead ever
since the products ratios were shown to be wrong, no matter how much its
proponents have been inclined to pummel the corpse.

My position about low-level nuclear signatures is more complicated.  I bow
to Steve Jones and others for assessments of how good the physical evidence
for such events may be (not good, excepting perhaps the volcanic tritium
results?).  But I remain open that their may exist unexpected mechanisms in
condensed matter that could result in detectable "hot spots," which could
then lead to some enhancement in _fully conventional_ fusion reactions.

> ... Everyone's ideas have at least the merit of their own. There is
> nothing new under the sun -- or at least very little.  Who's to say that
> some classical Greek 2,500 years ago hadn't the universe figured out. Yet
> such a discovery would be of interest to me should I be the one to stumble
> across it no small time later. :-) ...

I really do appreciate the more amiable tone of these comments, but it is
perhaps a less profound situation than this.  Dr. Chubb made a remark to
the effect that I had used some ideas of his without properly referencing
his paper.  The remark was not true, and that made me angry.  I reacted
more strongly than I should have because I could not understand why he
had not simply _asked me privately_ whether I had used some of his ideas.

I apologize to Dr. Chubb for the anger and excessiveness of the response.
A short reply to the effect that his remark was incorrect would have been
the correct response; I did not succeed in creating a correct response.

(Incidentally, the post office returned the Chubb envelope back to me, with
big tractor-style marks on it that I presume to mean: "Don't try returning
months-old mail again, turkey!"  So once again it remains on my desk, still
unopened.  Perhaps I should have it bronzed?)


> ... Your ideas are yours, but others could be completely capable of having
> the same revelation from the same evidence.  If we must argue physics at
> least let's argue with the understanding that we could _all_ be wrong.
> (And probably are.)

Good comments -- thanks.

				Cheers,
				Terry

cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenterry cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.02 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Replies to Schultz and Page
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Replies to Schultz and Page
Date: Sun, 2 Jan 1994 07:02:41 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)


Richard Schultz:

    If you will look back at my original Mossbauer posting to this group
    (sci.physics.fusion) group, you will note that it was a courtesy copy
    only.  The original was sent to sci.physics.research.  In that group
    this and similar earlier postings of the same general type have tended
    to get thoughtful responses, including excellent and highly relevant
    references, sets of appropriate equations, and comments on whether or
    not there are key errors in the approach.

    My original Mossbauer posting thus was neither derived from, nor in any
    way intended to be, a "cold fusion" posting.  I simply hoped that there
    might be some participants in this group who still enjoy physics simply
    because it is a fascinating topic in its own right.


Bill Page:

    Heh.  Amazing how familiar you and Richard seem to think you are with
    what I have and haven't read over the past 25 years.

    If you are convinced that the secrets of the Vigier molecule are right
    in the front of any standard QM text, I don't think it's my place to
    try to dissuade you.  You might instead try corresponding with the
    authors of one or two of those texts, and see how _they_ react to such
    an assertion.  In fact, I would strongly recommend that you do just
    that.  Please let us know how it goes.

    More generally, Mat Kennel posted some very good commentary on the
    dangers of using pre-1925 physics to come up with "new" ways of looking
    at physics.  Since you mentioned some of these older models in your
    discussions of Vigier-style molecules, you might look at his comments.

    Judging by his subsequent key role in developing the Copenhagen way
    of interpretation of post-1925 quantum theory, I believe it would be
    quite safe to surmise that Niels Bohr would have been very upset --
    not just a little upset, but _very_ upset -- at anyone using parts
    of his old Bohr atom publications to support a "new" interpretation
    of how atoms work.  The DeBroglie/Schroedinger/Planck revelation that
    quantum states were nothing more than _standing waves_, with wave
    equations strikingly similar to those of the well-understood wave
    equations of the previous century, was an incredibly powerful and
    unifying concept.  It caused a nearly immediate abandonment the
    extremely arbitrary and inelegant assumptions of the Bohr and early
    post-Bohr formalisms, and allowed the basic themes of modern quantum
    theory to be completed within a remarkably short period of time.

				Cheers,
				Terry

cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenterry cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.02 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Re: Sonofusion (Terry's UC) Revisited
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Sonofusion (Terry's UC) Revisited
Date: Sun, 2 Jan 1994 07:34:52 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

Dear Steve,

Thank you for the interest, and _wow_ was that an impressive/intimidating
list of mostly hard questions.

I will be examining his list in detail.  Folks, I hope you won't mind if
I keep my responses on other topics a bit short for a while.

I would note that as best I can recall, the idea of using D2 for cavitation
was Tom Droege's idea.  Tom also pointed out a potentially rich source of
photo documentation from old bubble chambers.  I don't recall at the moment
whether I even mentioned D2 anywhere in the UC document, and even if I did
it was just in passing.  I certainly would never have come up with the neat
bubble chamber idea, either.

More later.  Profound thanks again for the interest, Steve.  The liquid
metal approaches were, are, and should continue to be highly interesting
if any of the ideas in the UC document are even roughly correct.

				Cheers,
				Terry

cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenterry cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.02 / Paul Dietz /  Re: Piezonuclear fusion
     
Originally-From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Piezonuclear fusion
Date: 2 Jan 94 13:40:14 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester

In article <1994Jan1.233635.21020@midway.uchicago.edu> gk00@midway.uchicago.edu writes:

> In short, piezonuclear fusion is a good idea but not a new one.
> We might hear more about it if and when more research on laser 
> fusion is declassified.


This is confused.  Inertial confinement fusion is not "piezo" or
"pycno" nuclear fusion.  The compression itself is too little to cause
significant fusion to occur.  The fusion that does occur is
thermonuclear.

The actual reason for the compression is to allow much smaller amounts
of fuel to be efficiently burned.  A compressed target of a given
temperature and composition will disassemble in time proportional to
its radius.  The time required to burn a given fraction of its fuel,
however, is proportional to 1/density, or radius^3.

The figure of merit for targets is the density x radius; for DT
targets the necessary figure is around 4 g/cm^2.  Note that this means
that a sufficiently large target could be ignited without any
compression, but an extremely large driver would be needed (the
required mass, and therefore the energy needed to heat to ignition, go
as density^-2.)

	Paul
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudendietz cudfnPaul cudlnDietz cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.02 / Greg Kuperberg /  Re: Piezonuclear fusion
     
Originally-From: gk00@ellis.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Piezonuclear fusion
Date: Sun, 2 Jan 1994 14:36:06 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

In article <1994Jan2.134014.25694@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.e
u (Paul Dietz) writes:
>In article <1994Jan1.233635.21020@midway.uchicago.edu> gk00@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>> In short, piezonuclear fusion is a good idea but not a new one.
>> We might hear more about it if and when more research on laser 
>> fusion is declassified.
...
>This is confused.  Inertial confinement fusion is not "piezo" or
>"pycno" nuclear fusion.  The compression itself is too little to cause
>significant fusion to occur.  The fusion that does occur is thermonuclear.

I admit that it is a bit sloppy to call inertial confinement fusion
piezonuclear, since however piezo it may be, it is not piezo enough for
nuclear reactions in the absence of high temperatures.  The fusion
threshold is usually given in terms of a minimum temperature and
a minimum density times confinement time.

The fact remains that in laser fusion one sees extremely high
pressures, much higher than in a diamond anvil.  (And a diamond anvil
in turn achieves much higher pressures than the electrochemical
pressure of Pd-D.)  I have not seen actual numbers, but my guess is
that they are in the gigabar range.  If the implosion in laser fusion
is not enough to cause fusion without heating in addition, a diamond
anvil doesn't stand a chance.

Admittedly a diamond anvil has a particularly long confinement time,
but in fusion research it is well-established that that does not
make up for insufficient temperature and pressure.
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudengk00 cudfnGreg cudlnKuperberg cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.02 / Greg Kuperberg /  Confining jello with rubber bands
     
Originally-From: gk00@ellis.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Confining jello with rubber bands
Date: Sun, 2 Jan 1994 18:00:06 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago -- Academic Information Technologies

Someone recently said that magnetic fusion is as hard as confining
jello with rubber bands.  It's good to remember this famous analogy,
but the words "as hard as" do not do it justice.  Magnetic confinement
of a plasma is surprisingly similar to confining jello with rubber
bands, and it is instructive to compare the two to understand
the barriers to magnetic fusion.

The first model of magnetic plasmas is called ideal magnetohydrodynamics
(ideal MHD), determined by Maxwell's equations, the Lorentz force
of a magnetic field on a current-carrying object, and the pressure
equation and other fluid equations.  The plasma is assumed to be
an ideal, non-viscous gas with zero electrical resistance; these
assumptions are the "ideal" part of ideal MHD.  It is also assumed
that there is no significant charge separation in the plasma or
other possible source for a significant electric field, so Maxwell's
equations simplify to equations for the magnetic field only.

The main qualitative conclusions of the ideal MHD equations are that
the magnetic field lines carry an effective tension, and that they are
swept with the perpendicular motion of the plasma, although the plasma
can travel parallel to the magnetic field freely.  Thus, ideal MHD is
similar to an impermeable jello (representing the plasma) with greased
rubber bands suspended in it.  The rubber bands cannot cut through the
jello, but the jello can slide up and down the bands.  Squeezing the
rubber bands together (i.e., decreasing the spacing between them) is
akin to ramping up the magnetic field; what happens to the jello?  If
you squeeze hard, it narrows in the perpendicular directions and
lengthens parallel to the bands.  In fact it can lengthen to the point
that it spills off the ends of the rubber bands or crashes into
whatever suspends them.  Oops.  This suggests the well-known problem in
magnetic fusion of tying the ends of magnetic field lines.  In a
tokamak you connect the ends to make a torus.  In a mirror machine you
try electrostatic repulsion and other tricks to keep enough plasma away
from the ends.

In reality, a hydrogen plasma is slightly non-ideal, and although the
corrections to the ideal theory are numerically small, they can have
large consequences.  A non-ideal plasma can be likened to a jello that
is not quite impermeable.  Suspended rubber bands can cut through the
jello at a slow rate.  If you squeeze the jello with the rubber bands,
a little bit of jello spills out the sides, and then a little more, and
a little more, and so on.  Eventually the rubber bands are in the
middle and the jello is on the outside.  Most importantly, there is no
way to push back the jello that has slipped part way out.  This
phenomenon also appears in magnetic confinement of plasmas.

A final lesson of the analogy is that bigger is better.  If you want to
build up a certain minimum pressure or confinement time in a jello, one
strategy is to pile on more and more pressure, a little bit a time,
with more jello and more rubber bands.  (You have to ignore gravity or
launch the jello confinement assembly into space to make it intuitive.)
On the periphery the rubber bands give a gentle tug, but in the middle,
if it is far enough in, the pressure is quite large.  Similarly, the
magnetic confinement problem gets easier if you are willing to build a
bigger machine.  This is the scientific rationale (or rationalization,
perhaps) for building tokamaks and other machines as large and
expensive as the TFTR.  If we were a breed of titans with tremendous
power needs and we thought nothing of tokamaks ten times as large as
TFTR, we would have commercial fusion now.  Unfortunately, although we
are large animals with even larger energy appetites, we are not big
enough for current technology to be practical.

Of course, the jello-plasma connection doesn't do everything for you.
There are various instabilities and barriers to magnetic confinement
not suggested by this analogy, things like "sausage instabilities" and
so forth.  Magnetic fusion is ever more complicated the more
you learn about it.
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudengk00 cudfnGreg cudlnKuperberg cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Mon Jan  3 04:37:03 EST 1994
------------------------------
1994.01.03 / Robert Eachus /  Re: TFTR and commercial fusion
     
Originally-From: eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: TFTR and commercial fusion
Date: 3 Jan 94 11:34:51
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.

In article <2g1ttc$c0o@lll-winken.llnl.gov> Robert Horton <wente@lll.llnl.gov> writes:

  > As one who spent a few years working on the Livermore mirror program,
  > I'd like to quench your enthusiasm for mirrors a bit. Why do you believe
  > that parallel mirror machines connected by (I presume) semicircular
  > axial-field sections wouldn't suffer from the same problems as
  > a simple torus?

      It would, but...

  > The whole reason people bother to provide a rotational transform,
  > either from external coils (stellarator) or internal plasma
  > currents (tokamak) is that a curved axial field doesn't confine
  > particles: they drift, on average, in a direction perpendicular to
  > the directions of magnetic field and magnetic field gradient
  > (i.e., up or down). Wouldn't your mirror-with-end-benders have the
  > same problem?

    Yep.  However...

    In any mirror geometry without additional electrostatic fields,
there are paths that "escape" through the end caps.  If the end caps
are connected together like I described deuterons, etc. in these paths
will rapidly drift out of confinement--IF they do not collide with
another nucleon first.  (This collision need not result in fusion,
just in a different "orbit.")  If the machine is large enough, and the
density is high enough, the likelihood of a nucleon staying in an
escape orbit long enough to drift out is small.

    Of course, that last scaling observation was exactly the point of
my posting.  Build it big enough, and a mirror machine will work.  The
science that needs to be done is to get "big enough" down to something
humans can and want to build.  What I have seen recently in the
tokamak community is that a "big enough" tokamak will be as large as a
workable mirror machine, and have lots more engineering problems.

    So tokamaks may have been the right choice for plasma experiments,
but I think we have now reached the point where there is NO reason to
build larger tokamaks.  It is time to start on geometries that power
companies will be willing to build.  I don't say that mirrors, or
electrostatic confinement, or stellarators, or sphereomaks, or z-pinch
is the right way to go--just that tokamaks are not it.

--

					Robert I. Eachus

with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudeneachus cudfnRobert cudlnEachus cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.03 /  collins@jaguar /  Re: Mossbauer and momentum / Multi-State BEC? / No Rotating Mossbauers?
     
Originally-From: collins@jaguar.csc.wsu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Mossbauer and momentum / Multi-State BEC? / No Rotating Mossbauers?
Date: 3 Jan 94 10:19:52 -0800
Organization: Washington State Univ.

In article <1994Jan2.063334.4084@asl.dl.nec.com>, terry@asl.dl.nec.com writes:
> Hi folks,
> 
> Some nice comments from Gary Collins, and a _question_...
> 
> 
> In article <1993Dec29.163921.1@jaguar.csc.wsu.edu>
> collins@jaguar.csc.wsu.edu writes:
> 
>> Do you still think that the emission or absorption takes place in only
>> 10^-23 seconds, Terry?
> 
> 
> A simply delightful question!  Here is how to figure out my answer to it:
> 
>     Do _you_ believe that the gamma photon absorption/emission event takes
>     place within a region of space no more than 2 angstroms in diameter?
> 
>       o  If your answer is YES, my answer to your question is also YES.
> 
>       o  If your answer is NO,  my answer to your question is also NO.
> 
 
My answer is YES.  It is only accelerating charge distributions that
radiate.  During a nuclear transition, the charge of the nucleus oscillates
between distributions of the excited and ground state.  An emitting
nucleus itself has a radius of about 1-10 x 10^-5 angstroms.  (Thermal
motion in a solid will increase the effective radius of the emitting
volume to about 0.1 angstroms.)

Your answer should be NO.  Previously, I pointed out that, from the
measured width (energy uncertainty) of the Mossbauer resonance of 57Co, 
the time of emission must be of the order of 100 ns (or longer).  
Here are two other arguments.

(1)  I already noted that the energy uncertainty of a photon emitted 
within a time period of 10^-23 seconds would be about 70 MeV.  But the 
energy uncertainty can be no less than the energy, as shown by the
following simple argument.  The energy E of a photon corresponds to
frequency f of the (complementary) light wave, with E= hf.  The shortest
possible pulse from a wave of frequency f must be roughly equal to the
inverse of the period of a wave, so that E= hf >= h/T.  For a 14 keV
photon, this gives a lower limit on the time of emission equal to about
3 x 10^-19 seconds, that is, 4 orders of magnitude longer than your claim.

(2)  Experimentally, Mossbauer gamma rays are found to produce 
sharp Bragg diffraction peaks, meaning peak widths much less than one
radian (57 degrees).  From the Bragg diffraction formula, it can be shown
that the peak width is (roughly) equal to the fractional change in the
wavelength of the (complementary) light wave.  But since the fractional 
uncertainties in the energy of a photon and the wavelength of the 
corresponding light wave are equal, the energy uncertainty of the emitted
photon is also much less then 14 keV.  Using the argument from point (1)
leads to the conclusion that the time of emission of a 14 keV photon 
must be at least several orders of magnitude longer than 10^-19 seconds. 

 -------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary S. Collins              | e-mail: collins@cougar.csc.wsu.edu

cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudencollins cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.03 / Michael Andrews /  magnetic fields
     
Originally-From: mra@bink.mit.edu (Michael Raskin Andrews)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: magnetic fields
Date: 3 Jan 1994 19:13:03 GMT
Organization: Massachvsetts Institvte of Technology

Is anyone familiar with state of the art technology in creating a magnetic  
field whose absolute magnitude is spherically symmetric? 

I know of the so-called "Baseball Trap" magnetic field configuration used  
several decades ago in fusion research, but do not know of progress beyond  
that point.

My field is "Neutral Atom Trapping," where such a magnetic field is of  
interest.

[If its not too much trouble, could those who reply give me a quick note  
via email just to let me know to look back to this newsgroup? Thanks.]

cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenmra cudfnMichael cudlnAndrews cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.03 / John Cobb /  Re: magnetic fields
     
Originally-From: johncobb@emx.cc.utexas.edu (John W. Cobb)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: magnetic fields
Date: 3 Jan 1994 13:34:22 -0600
Organization: The University of Texas - Austin

In article <2g9qnv$j4f@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu>,
Michael Raskin Andrews <mra@bink.mit.edu> wrote:
>Is anyone familiar with state of the art technology in creating a magnetic  
>field whose absolute magnitude is spherically symmetric? 
>
>I  know of the so-called "Baseball Trap" magnetic field configuration used  
>several decades ago in fusion research, but do not know of progress beyond  
>that point.
>

I can't say that I am familiar with the state of the art, but I did play
on an intramural softball team once. :>

I think your question may not yet be specific enough. By magnitude, I
assume that what you wish is to have a field strength that doesn't vary
with polar or azimuthal variables (in spherical coordinates). Of course,
the direction of the field must vary or you will not be able to satisfy
Div B = 0 (unless you have Carreras' monopole in your pocket :> ).

One simpleton answer is let B be completely uniform (i.e. the field from
a solenoid). Since this is such a trivial solution, I must assume that you
are really asking for a bit more. So maybe you can clarify a bit.



cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenjohncobb cudfnJohn cudlnCobb cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.03 /  collins@jaguar /  Re: D unloading rates
     
Originally-From: collins@jaguar.csc.wsu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: D unloading rates
Date: 3 Jan 94 02:51:35 GMT
Organization: Washington State Univ.

In article <1994Jan3.061352.6150@ns.network.com>, logajan@ns.network.com
(John Logajan) writes:
> Tom Droege, I have been looking at the ICCF4 abstracts sent to me by Jed
> Rothwell, and I see that in a paper numbered M 2.10 by Tsuchida, Akita,
> Nakata and Kunimatsu of IRMA, that upon current shut off, H diffuses out
> of standard Pd electrodes from about a loading ratio of 0.86 to about 
> 0.81 in the period of several hours -- but then stays at the 0.81
> loading ratio for several days thereafter (looks like forever from the
> slope of the graph :-)
> 
> It doesn't look like Pd unloads H easily beyond the 0.81 level under
> static conditions.  It seems to me that that hasn't been necessarily
> your observation.  These guys look like they were very careful in their
> methods.
>  ...
> - John Logajan MS612, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
> - logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853

The observed differences might be due to differing unloading conditions.
For example, suppose that unloading occurs at 20 degrees Celsius under 
(effectively) 1 atmosphere of hydrogen.  According to pressure/loading 
isotherms for H2, [see E. Wicke and H. Brodowsky, in Hydrogen in Metals II, 
ed. G. Alefeld and J. Voelkl (Springer, 1978) p. 81]  the loading should 
be about 0.725.  Once the ambient pressure drops below about 0.005 
atmospheres, the loading drops rapidly to about  0.1.  Things should be 
qualitatively the same under D2.

 -------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary S. Collins              | e-mail: collins@cougar.csc.wsu.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudencollins cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.03 / Michael Andrews /  Re: magnetic fields
     
Originally-From: mra@bink.mit.edu (Michael Raskin Andrews)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: magnetic fields
Date: 3 Jan 1994 19:48:22 GMT
Organization: Massachvsetts Institvte of Technology

In article <2g9rvuINNitt@emx.cc.utexas.edu> johncobb@emx.cc.utexas.edu  
(John W. Cobb) writes:
> I think your question may not yet be specific enough. By magnitude, I
> assume that what you wish is to have a field strength that doesn't vary
> with polar or azimuthal variables (in spherical coordinates). Of course,
> the direction of the field must vary or you will not be able to satisfy
> Div B = 0 (unless you have Carreras' monopole in your pocket :> ).
> 
> One simpleton answer is let B be completely uniform (i.e. the field from
> a solenoid). Since this is such a trivial solution, I must assume that  
you
> are really asking for a bit more. So maybe you can clarify a bit.
> 
> 
Please excuse my original message's lack of specificity. Now that I look  
at what I wrote two messages back, I realize I did not ask for useful  
information at all! What I meant is this:

The kind of magnetic field I'm interested in is one whose absolute field  
magnitude is monotonically increasing and spherically symmetric about
a central point. 

Anyone know of such a magnetic field? 

--- Thanks

cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenmra cudfnMichael cudlnAndrews cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.03 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Sonofusion (Terry's UC) Revisited
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Sonofusion (Terry's UC) Revisited
Date: Mon, 3 Jan 1994 19:51:18 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1994Jan3.104532.16824@desire.wright.edu>,
 <jbatka@desire.wright.edu> wrote:
>> 
>I don't know what percentage of the sci.physics.fusion group also read
>Scientific American, but it seems that interesting topics that appear
>in this group, magically appear in the short articles of that magazien
>a month or two later (this was the case for sonoluminescence [sp?] amoungst
>others).
>
>In the Sci. Am. article on it, they stated that one researcher reached
>bubble temperatures of at least 10,000 (C I believe).  However, as a fluid
>dynamicist these high temperatures seem very highly improbable if generated
>by shock waves, even if it is a gas-liquid phase driven one.  However,
>I have not been involved in experiments or computations involving a
>gas-liquid phase shock either.

     Last I checked, the 'temperatures' are inferred from light spectra 
     assuming blackbody emission.  As this is clearly a nonequilibrium
     process, the 'temperatures' may be quite misleading.

     And 'temperatures' up to 100,000C have been mentioned, and
     I find them improbable too.

                           dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.03 / Michael Andrews /  Re: Magnetic fields
     
Originally-From: mra@bink.mit.edu (Michael Raskin Andrews)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Magnetic fields
Date: 3 Jan 1994 20:30:56 GMT
Organization: Massachvsetts Institvte of Technology

You wrote: ( "GARY S. COLLINS, PHYSICS, WASHINGTON STATE  
UNIV.<COLLINS@JAGUAR.CSC.WSU.EDU>)
>Using Gauss's law for the magnetic field shows that you would need to 
>have a magnetic monopole at the center of the sphere in order for the
>magnetic field to be spherically symmetric (and radial, as I suppose
>that you meant).
>-- 
>Gary S. Collins, Physics, Washington State U.   
>(collins@cougar.csc.wsu.edu)

Thanks for the reply. The field I am interested in would not be radial,  
but would have the looser constraint of its _magnitude_ being spherically  
symmetric. To make myself more clear, by magnitude I mean the square root  
of the sum of squared field components. By "spherically symmetric," I  
actually mean "as spherically symmetric as possible."
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenmra cudfnMichael cudlnAndrews cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1993.12.30 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Re: Steve Jones on Fritz Will
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Steve Jones on Fritz Will
Date: 30 Dec 93 17:21:36 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

This exchange is getting rather lengthy, so while I will answer Tom's questions
below, let me provide a precis of my arguments about the significance of null
results for neutrons and x-rays (in state-of-the-art detectors) 
in cold fusion experiments.

1.  In his recent paper under discussion, F. Will et al. state:
"It is concluded that the tritium was generated inside the Pd; only nuclear
reactions, whose nature is as yet unknown, could have produced the observed
tritium."  (J. Electroanal. chem.  360 (1993) 161.)
Notice that this is a variation of the old song, "We don't know what it is, but
it must be fusion"  -- here the 'f' word is replaced by "nuclear reactions."

2.  How do we check whether the premise of "unknown" "nuclear reactions" holds
up?  We don't even know the end products, except for (in this case) tritium.

3.  Well, we know that nuclear reactions are characterized by MeV-scales.
And we are constrained by momentum and energy conservation and light-cone
constraints, as we have previously explored.  In the case of tritium
production, *charge conservation* becomes a useful tool, since in the arbitrary
unknown nuclear reaction:

   A  +  B  -->  3H  +  X,               (reaction 1)

X *must* be charged.  Charged particles with just tens of keV of energy will
produce lattice-ion excitations, resulting in characteristic X-ray emissions,
in this case the 21 keV k-alpha line of Pd should be pronounced-- as I have
argued here before.  And no one has shown the presence of this line in any
cold fusion experiment.  Makes you think, doesn't it?

4.  In my critique of the Will paper, I added that secondary neutrons *must*
be produced also, from triton interactions on deuterons which are present in
the Pd:  

t (just requires keV energies!)  +  d  -->  4He(3.5MeV) + n(14.1 MeV).  (2)

What irks me about the 1993 paper and Will's talk at ICCF-4, which both 
contain the *same* data as the 1991 paper included in the NCFI Final Report,
is that Dr. Will failed to report in 1993 that they indeed looked for neutrons
but did not find anything significant, certainly not the (order) 10^6 neutrons
which would be expected from reaction 2 above.  (NOTE that I am speaking
of *secondary* neutrons from t+d reactions;  I am NOT requiring that d+d -->
3He + n produce neutrons via ordinary fusion-type reactions.  That's *another*
problem.  Here I'm focussing on the absence of (sufficient) neutrons from
secondary reactions which must be present no matter what the "unknown" nuclear
reaction should turn out to be, as long as the secondary reaction includes
tritium as claimed by Will.  The secondary neutrons being absent, so is the
"unknown" nuclear reaction.  Thus the tritium is not nuclear in origin.) 

5.  Now, Tom, think:  is there any way for the triton produced in *nuclear*
reaction (1) above to have less than keV energies?  No way.  Even the crazy
argument that   d + d --> 4He + (energy dumped on the lattice) fails for
reaction 1 (which includes tritium production )
since there are at least two final-state species -- both charged!
Phase space/ momentum conservation *requires* that the charged species carry
off the MeV-scale energy of the "unknown" nuclear reaction.  And those charged
nuclei, products of "unknown" nuclear reactions, must produce *copious* x-rays
and the tritons must produce copious (secondary) neutrons.  These secondary
products tell us whether a nuclear reaction indeed produced the claimed tritium.
In particular, the absence of significant neutrons means that the tritium
claimed by Will et al.
was *not* nuclear in origin.  Thus we have a *crucial test*, provided by
x-rays and neutrons even when the reaction is "unknown."  Can't hide the fact.
And Will failed to see the neutrons.  End of story. 

In article <931228165048.20a030ee@FNALD.FNAL.GOV>,      Tom Droege
DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:
> Under the heading "F. Will tritium claims/Not a "quality positive" paper" 
> Steven Jones writes:
> ____________________________________________________________________________
> In his "CNF bibliography update" dated 22 Dec. 1993, Dieter Britz says:
> 
> "Then we have a quality positive, the Will et al paper...  From his criticism
> of F&P, we know that Will is no naive TB, and I know him as a solid
> electrochemist.  The one niggling doubt in this work is that it was a batch of
> Pd wire (the 2mm lot) from Hoover and Strong only that produced tritium. ...
> I will add this paper to my small list of quality positives."
> 
> Will is indeed a solid electrochemist.  And he claimed no excess heat
> production in his extensive electrolytic-cell experiments at NCFI before its
> demise.  But does this mean that he is competent to claim tritium production?
> He boldly states in this paper:
> "it is concluded that the tritium was generated inside the Pd;  only nuclear
> reactions, whose nature is as yet unknown, could have produced the observed
> tritium."  (F. Will et al., J. Electroanal. Chem. 360 (1993) 161-176.)
> 
> "Whose nature is unknown"... what could it be?  How can they be so sure of a
> nuclear reaction, if there are no other evidences, such as MeV-scale energies
> associated with the reaction?  In particular, if tritons are produced via
> nuclear reactions, where are the *secondary* reactions such as
>   t + d (there is abundant deuterium available in the Pd) --> 4He + n.
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Quotation ended here although there is much more.
> 
> I am confused.  If we do not understand the primary reaction, then how can 
> Steve be so sure that there must be a secondary reaction?  How does x --> t 
> guarantee that t + d --> 4He + n???  Steve Jones' assumption seems to be that 
> the t must be created with high energy and so later fuses with a d.  The logic 
> seems to be that we don't know what happens, but if it happens it must happen 
> in a certain way.  We have a miracle, but it must be a conventional miracle.  
> 

See above.  I just start from the claim that tritium is produced by a nuclear
reaction, albeit "unknown," as Will et al. published.  The rest falls out from
conservation laws.  

> I agree that it would be nice if there was a multi-MeV particle coming off.  
> We could all measure that.  Until there is, we must try to understand the 
> experiments as presented.  

"mult-MeV:"  not needed for secondary reactions to make neutrons (and x-rays) --
we just need keV's.
> 
> I am surprised that Steve Jones did not mention the Fritz Will paper at ICCF4.  

Excusez-moi.  Actually, I did mention speaking to Fritz about neutrons
privately at that meeting, and this was in response to his paper.  But that
paper is *not* new data, my friend -- it's the same stuff presented in the NCFI
Final Report, and is about three years old.  It *was* presented as new and
exciting at ICCF-$, I think -- but it is neither.

> For me, it was one of the better presentations at the conference.  150 control 
> samples were sliced and diced and measured for tritium.  Is this the same old 
> data Steve?  To me, the paper looks like an heroic effort to use a variety of 
> controls to insure that the tritium somehow appeared in the experimental 
> samples.  150 control samples were cut from the supply spool interleaved with 
> the active test samples of a few times 4.  You got it folks, many more control 
> samples than test samples.  Also H2SO4 control runs to compare with the D2SO4 
> runs.  

Sounds impressive, but a close look at the NCFI Final Report reveals irksome
details:  "In *previous* analysis of over 100 as-manufactured palladium samples
from the same supplier as the present palladium cathodes, we have found no
evidence for tritium contamination within the detection levels of our
procedure."  My stars.  That means to me that they looked at a different
*batch* of Pd than used in the tritium-producing cathodes.  But they looked at
several batches/suppliers of Pd, and only *one* showed tritium -- a certain
batch from Hoover & Strong!  Remember that Wolf found contamination in a batch
of Pd.  As far as I can tell from the NCFI report (which has more detail than
either the NCFI talk or the 1993 J. Electroanal. Chem. paper), only *four*
controls were run in H2SO4 from the same batch of Pd.

On a scale from contamination to cold-fusion-without-secondary-neutrons,
I would rank contamination as more likely, wouldn't you honestly?  Will's
evidence for tritium production via "unknown" nuclear reactions is not
compelling. 

[Droege again:]
>Seems to me that this paper only offers 3 possibilities: 
> 
> 1) a) The data has been falsified.  and/or
>    b) Gross error and incompetence.
> 
> 2) The experiments produce tritium.
> 
> 3) Tritium/pseudotritium can appear to hide in certain batches of Palladium so 
>    that it cannot be detected by dissolving the Palladium and using 
>    conventional tritium measurement.  Electrolysis "uncloaks" the 
>    tritium/pseudotritium so that it can be detected.  
> 
> Fritz Will seems to have a good reputation, so one easily rules out 1) b).  

Whoa -- an appeal to authority?  And is Will an authority in nuclear
measurements?  Hardly.

>  Is 
> there a possibility for 1) a)?  I assume that Will has tenure, so it is hard 
> to figure a reason for 1) a).  2) is unthinkable, so we are left with 3).

F. Will works for EPRI, the sponsor of the ICCF-4 meeting in Maui.  Figure any
reasons now?
1b and 3 go together; much more likely than 2 I agree.

> 
> With 3) there appear to be much better chances for a "miracle".  My 
> investigation into the measurement of tritium indicates that it is not all 
> that easy.  Remember that early on I talked to my physicist friends about 
> whether to look for neutrons, tritium, or to do heat.  I chose to look for 
> heat, not because it looked easy but because neutrons and tritium are likely 
> beyond any basement experimenter.  As I understand it, tritium analysis is 
> performed by dissolving the sample, then mixing it with a liquid scintillator 
> and putting the result in a "whole body" counter.  One must shield the mess 
> from cosmic rays and veto out what makes it trough the shielding.  This I 
> thoroughly understand.  What I do not understand is the alchemical brew that 
> makes up a liquid scintillator.   One mixes in tiny amounts of the stuff in 
> those odd branches of the periodic table.  Now we need only to chemically 
> change by electrolysis some impurity in the "good" palladium so that the 
> likelihood of seeing a scintillation flash is improved.  I know that this is 
> unlikely (the direction is wrong - Murphy normally decreases sensitivity), but 
> this is in an area where there is already a lot of fussing going on.  
> 
> I am told that there are real problems with liquid scintillators.  They can 
> "glow" for a while after mixing, so it is necessary to wait for the glow to 
> die down before counting.  What if some impurity in the "good" palladium 
> is activated by electrolysis so that it produces a delayed fluorescence which 
> extends into the counting period?  Seems to me that this sort of speculation 
> is not even in the "astounding" class, much less a "miracle".

And note that NCFI had to retract one set of tritium-production claims before:

"The low levels of tritium production discussed at the conference (8 DPM/ml
average) were quite preliminary.  Completion of routine consistency checks
revealed them to be only an *artifact* of calibration..."   My stars!
  
(In "Attempt to confirm the X-ray radiography results reported by S. Szpak et
al." by Tian, Barrowes and Bergeson, NCFI, Univ. of Utah, in AIP Conf.
Proceedings 228, p. 551.)  

Will et al. used  a Beckman LS5000 TD for tritium counting, which is
susceptible to problems as you mentioned, Tom.
>                            
> OK, you experts can now jump me.  I likely have it all wrong.  But I will 
> persist in looking for the good work of Dr. Murphy when faced with an 
> astounding result.  Very likely something has gone wrong.  Very careful 
> workers like Fritz Will can sometimes be had by the good Murphy because they 
> are so careful and repeat the exact process that caused the error.  
> 

Then why did Will et al. conveniently "leave out" the neutron measurements?
Not good.  Actually, the absence of neutrons in the Will experiments shows that
the tritium was not produced by nuclear reactions.  And they should have
kept the neutron results in their 1993 presentations even if these did not
"fit" their conclusion:  

"It is concluded that the tritium was generated inside the Pd; only nuclear
reactions, whose nature is as yet unknown, could have produced the observed
tritium."  (J. E. Chem. 1993)

> So to me Fritz Will's experiment looks good as far as it goes.  He now has a 
> nice result, so it is time to "break it" by learning how to fool the tritium 
> analysis.  While Dieter knows him as a "solid electrochemist" he may have less 
> than solid tritium measurement advice. 
> 
> Tom Droege
> 

I suggest that the lack of *secondary* neutrons as reported dutifully in 1991
already "breaks" the Will claims of tritium production via nuclear reactions. 
 Too bad he neglected to mention these neutron studies in 1993.

I think I've had enough of dissecting others' hyped-up claims for 1993.
I'd rather talk about sonoluminescence, or even nuclear waste.
See you next year!

--Steven Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenjonesse cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1994.01.02 / Cameron Bass /  Re: CNF bibliography update and book review: Gary Taubes "Bad Science"
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CNF bibliography update and book review: Gary Taubes "Bad Science"
Date: Sun, 2 Jan 1994 18:32:45 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <01H74MWR4PMQ95MVAK@vms2.uni-c.dk>,
Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk> wrote:
>
>Having read the book, I feel like a boobie for not being an ultrahard skeptic
>like Huizenga, or Douglas Morrison, or Frank Close, or Dale Bass, or Greg
>Kuperberg, or Dick Blue etc etc, all along. I was skeptical, but was impressed
>by some of those (very few) papers that seemed like quality positives to me.
>None of it means a thing. The F&P work is preposterous; so is that of Bockris
>et al; Steven Jones has retracted and will no doubt leave the area soon.

     This must be *some* book.  I'm impressed by the speed of your 
     'conversion', completing mine took a couple of years. 

     Was it a specific piece of evidence that crystalized your
     new stance or was it the sum of the interviews and evidence presented in
     the book?  Really, I must now try to find Taubes' book.

                               dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.03 / John Logajan /  D unloading rates, question for Droege
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: D unloading rates, question for Droege
Date: Mon, 3 Jan 94 06:13:52 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

Tom Droege, I have been looking at the ICCF4 abstracts sent to me by Jed
Rothwell, and I see that in a paper numbered M 2.10 by Tsuchida, Akita,
Nakata and Kunimatsu of IRMA, that upon current shut off, H diffuses out
of standard Pd electrodes from about a loading ratio of 0.86 to about 
0.81 in the period of several hours -- but then stays at the 0.81
loading ratio for several days thereafter (looks like forever from the
slope of the graph :-)

It doesn't look like Pd unloads H easily beyond the 0.81 level under
static conditions.  It seems to me that that hasn't been necessarily
your observation.  These guys look like they were very careful in their
methods.

These guys were trying things like thiourea, Pd/Rh and Au coatings to see
the effects on maximum loading versus overvoltage.  Thiourea and/or Pd-Rh
alloys increased ultimate loading ratios, whereas Au plating slowed down
loading but didn't increase the ultimate loading, and it *didn't* much
slow down unloading!

-- 
- John Logajan MS612, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.03 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: Terry finally notices Chubb's remark
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Terry finally notices Chubb's remark
Date: Mon, 3 Jan 1994 06:52:13 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1994Jan2.064011.4138@asl.dl.nec.com> terry@asl.dl.nec.com writes:
>
>Note:  You may be assuming that I am a "CNF" advocate.  I am not.

I think that you are confusing my statements (like that's difficult :-))
It is my opinion that CNF has all of the earmarks of a con game. However
there are some very good scientists working on the idea that are very hard
pressed to report negative results or retract past positives when they
discover experimental errors when they are sure to be treated as buffoons
for even having the thought that there might be something to CNF.

It appears that we are seeing something of this nature with Dr. Bokris
at the present time. (No matter what _my_ opinion of his alchemic theories.)

>Dr. Chubb made a remark to
>the effect that I had used some ideas of his without properly referencing
>his paper.  The remark was not true, and that made me angry.  I reacted
>more strongly than I should have because I could not understand why he
>had not simply _asked me privately_ whether I had used some of his ideas.

If I understood what went on, it was in a private conversation that Dr. Chubb
suggested that some of your ideas might have been responses to his letter
to you. Since you admit that he did send you a letter (granted you didn't 
open it, but how is that appatent to Dr. Chubb?) it might _seem_ pretty
plain to him should you thereafter say something in a similar vein.

I do agree that it would have probably been more polite to ask you first
but I interpretted that statement that you printed to be Dr. Chubb suggesting
that you _extended_ his ideas, not claimed credit for them. That wasd
more along the lines of a compliment than an insult.



cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.03 / Mark Gemmell /  Re: bicycle physics, generator light patent
     
Originally-From: mark@tid.es (Mark Gemmell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: bicycle physics, generator light patent
Date: Mon, 3 Jan 1994 11:53:42 GMT
Organization: Telefonica I+D

:    Does anyone know where I can mail order for a " Sturmey-Archer
: Dynohub." I have 3 mountain bicycles-- a German Kettler, a Trek 7600,
: and a Trek 9800. 

When i was a kid in Scotland these were very common on our bikes. I
agree that they worked very well and would have expected them to have
had more success.

I'm afraid I can't say where they can be obtained as I'm now in Spain
but I can tell you that the hub dynamo was about 6" in diameter on
one side and a normal hub size on the other. This meant that the spokes
on the fat hub side had to be shorter. For you that's going to mean
re-building your wheels and getting hold of considerably shorter
spokes too. Not impossible by any means, but perhaps more hastle
than clamping a tyre wall dynamo to some oversized tubing?

It may not have been succesfull simply for this reason, and perhaps
because the axle was also a bit special and thus expensive to replace.


					...Mark...
					mark@tid.es
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenmark cudfnMark cudlnGemmell cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.04 /  blue@dancer.ns /  Vigier and ORBITFUN
     
Originally-From: blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Vigier and ORBITFUN
Date: Tue, 4 Jan 1994 01:13:13 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Thanks to Terry for the concept of orbitfun!  Now what does that have
to do with Vigier?  This is where the flim-flam gets you.  By using
simplistic pictures of particular configurations of an electron between
two dueterons Vigier, as Terry points out, is sneeking in a particular
form of radial wave function without ever demonstrating that this functional
form has any justification.  Is it a solution to the Schroedinger
equation?  I doubt it.  If the d-e-d picture is the ground state for
this system what are the ordinary dd+ molecular ions?

Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU

cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenblue cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.04 /  blue@dancer.ns /  Re: Laughing and Hissing
     
Originally-From: blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Laughing and Hissing
Date: Tue, 4 Jan 1994 01:13:13 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Bill Page correctly notes that spin-spin and spin-orbit interactions are
treated perturbatively in orthodox quantum calculations, but suggests that
leaves room for other solutions to the d-e-d three-body problem in which
those interactions could play a significantly large role.  If indeed such
solutions were to exist, what is the "correct" approach toward establish-
ing their reality?

As I understand it the Vigier approach starts with a Hamiltonian for
a totally non-relativistic quantum sytem that includes the spin-spin
and spin-orbit terms with unspecified strengths and never so much as
demonstrates that there is a solution to the problem that has the
desired properties.  In what sense is this a theory?

My reason for suggesting that this approach is far enough off base to
be laughable stems largely from the sense that until there is some
experimental evidence confirming the existance of exotic states having
the desired properties these incomplete speculations are totally
pointless.  At the very least they can be considered as nothing more
than suggestions for new experiments to look for these states by
more definitive means than the typical CF experiment.  Since no one
seems inclined to design experiments that can answer any questions
concerning these unexpected interactions all these half-baked
theories float around without ever being challanged.  In this
case I would at least like to know how many d-e-d systems are
supposed to exist and what happens to them in the course of the
typical CF electrolysis experiment.  Somewhere I heard some
speculation that this ion is supposed to have a binding energy
sufficient to put the total mass down near that of 4He.  Anybody
making such statements ought to have some experimental evidence.

Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU

cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenblue cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.04 /  blue@dancer.ns /  What did Bockris do wrong?
     
Originally-From: blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: What did Bockris do wrong?
Date: Tue, 4 Jan 1994 01:13:17 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

In the flap resulting from Bockris's recent adventures into bad science
many commentators seem to lose contact with what constitutes proper
action relating to scientific research done in an academic setting under
the sponsorship and funding of some outside party.  Having been around
I can tell you JOMB is not the first to cross over the line between what
is common practice and what is unacceptable.

Generally speaking, funded research at universities involves more than
just a deal between a Professor and the party putting up the cash.
There is presumably some document that defines obligations of all parties
involved and the conditions underwhich money will change hands.
Normally the University takes its cut, the infamous overhead, and
handles all the bookkeeping, etc.  In this case it appears that
Bockris used a gimmick (Not uncommon practice when it suits both
parties.) to avoid the overhead.  In this case the $200,000 is
accepted as a designated gift to support Bockris's research program.
Ordinarily there would be nothing wrong with this unless Bockris
agreed to some unspecified stipulation, something not clearly made
part of the documents defining the terms of the gift.  Now if
TAMU accepted a gift specifically to fund screwball research, I
would think Bockris is not the only one who should be called on
the carpet.

As to what the signers of that petition have to complain about, well
that comes down to what Bockris did to get that money, what he said
he was doing by way of research, and what he actually did with the
money.  Dishonesty could have crept in any of the three parts of
the transaction.  If, as seems to be the case, he talked freely
about transmutation of elements being the goal of the research I
would say he was being scientifically dishonest in that he had
no reason to expect that his research would make progress toward
the stated goal.  If he actually believed that he could achieve
that goal, then he probably should be put out to pasture for
being incompetent.  TAMU should certainly not accept any more
gifts, grants, or contracts to fund his research without some
oversight by others better able to judge what Bockris is
capable of doing.  The institution does have some responsibility
for what is done on campus, and I would hope that TAMU has
seen enough examples of what can go wrong that they will be
extremely cautious about anything relating of cold fusion and
nuclear reactions induced by chemical means.

Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU

cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenblue cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.03 /  jbatka@desire. /  Re: Sonofusion (Terry's UC) Revisited
     
Originally-From: jbatka@desire.wright.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Sonofusion (Terry's UC) Revisited
Date: 3 Jan 94 10:45:32 EST
Organization:  Wright State University 

In article <1994Jan2.073452.4738@asl.dl.nec.com>, terry@asl.dl.nec.com writes:
>
> I would note that as best I can recall, the idea of using D2 for cavitation
> was Tom Droege's idea.  Tom also pointed out a potentially rich source of
> photo documentation from old bubble chambers.  I don't recall at the moment
> whether I even mentioned D2 anywhere in the UC document, and even if I did
> it was just in passing.  I certainly would never have come up with the neat
> bubble chamber idea, either.
> 
> More later.  Profound thanks again for the interest, Steve.  The liquid
> metal approaches were, are, and should continue to be highly interesting
> if any of the ideas in the UC document are even roughly correct.
> 
I don't know what percentage of the sci.physics.fusion group also read
Scientific American, but it seems that interesting topics that appear
in this group, magically appear in the short articles of that magazien
a month or two later (this was the case for sonoluminescence [sp?] amoungst
others).

In the Sci. Am. article on it, they stated that one researcher reached
bubble temperatures of at least 10,000 (C I believe).  However, as a fluid
dynamicist these high temperatures seem very highly improbable if generated
by shock waves, even if it is a gas-liquid phase driven one.  However,
I have not been involved in experiments or computations involving a
gas-liquid phase shock either.

regards,


-- 

   Jim Batka  | Work Email:  BATKAJ@DAYTON.SAIC.COM     | Elvis is
              | Home Email:  JBATKA@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU   |   DEAD!

    64 years is 33,661,440 minutes ...
             and a minute is a LONG time!  - Beatles:  _ Yellow Submarine_
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenjbatka cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.03 /  jbatka@desire. /  Re: Piezonuclear fusion
     
Originally-From: jbatka@desire.wright.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Piezonuclear fusion
Date: 3 Jan 94 10:36:18 EST
Organization:  Wright State University 

In article <1994Jan2.035020.26648@midway.uchicago.edu>, gk00@ellis.uchic
go.edu (Greg Kuperberg) writes:
> In article <2g5a06INN47i@network.ucsd.edu> mbk%anl433.uucp@Germany.EU.
et (Matt Kennel) writes:
>>A lot of ICF work doesn't directly use the laser light but rather the
>>x-rays from a high-Z shell surrounding the fuel that's vaporized by the
>>lasers.
> 
> That might be useful for heating the fuel.

Although this didn't jump out at me until after stated here, this makes
alot of sense.  If you used normal (optical, UV, IR, or microwave) wavelength
lasers on this material, the photons would tend to interact with the
electrons.  This would lend itself to 'heating' the material in the
conventional sense or ionizing the atoms.  The X-rays, however, would be
alot more likely to directing interact with the nucleus and impart momemtum.

Just some idle observations from a physicist wannabe,
-- 

   Jim Batka  | Work Email:  BATKAJ@DAYTON.SAIC.COM     | Elvis is
              | Home Email:  JBATKA@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU   |   DEAD!

    64 years is 33,661,440 minutes ...
             and a minute is a LONG time!  - Beatles:  _ Yellow Submarine_
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenjbatka cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.03 / Jim Carr /  Re: Piezonuclear fusion
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Piezonuclear fusion
Date: 3 Jan 1994 21:45:28 GMT
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

>Greg Kuperberg (gk00@ellis.uchicago.edu) wrote:
>
>: In short, piezonuclear fusion is a good idea but not a new one.
>: We might hear more about it if and when more research on laser 
>: fusion is declassified.

They are not very closely related, given the temp and time scales. 

In article <2g5a06INN47i@network.ucsd.edu> 
mbk%anl433.uucp@Germany.EU.net (Matt Kennel) writes:
>
>What *exactly* are the pellets in ICF fusion made out of?  Anbody
>here who knows?  If it's hydrogen is it a gas in some ampule? 

Based on a colloquium I heard over a decade ago, it is d+t 
frozen into a pellet.  Based on the way the speaker put on 
ballet slippers to tiptoe around certain issues, it would appear 
that classification enters with respect to certain pellet designs 
that he could not talk about.  Most of the research in ICF seemed to 
concern big lasers and pellet implosion configurations, so it does not 
have much at all to do with the diamond-anvil work. 

--
J. A. Carr       <jac@scri.fsu.edu>           |  "The New Frontier of which I  
Florida State University  B-186               |  speak is not a set of promises
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Tallahassee, FL  32306-4052                   |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.03 / Jack Treger /  Sonofusion (Terry's UC) R
     
Originally-From: jack.treger@channel1.com (Jack Treger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Sonofusion (Terry's UC) R
Date: Mon,  3 Jan 94 15:42:00 -0500
Organization: Channel 1 Communications

ST>3900.1202@physc1.byu.edu>
ST>Newsgroup: sci.physics.fusion
ST>Organization: Brigham Young University

ST>What if we use mercury as a driver rather than water (D2O)?  (You
ST>posted in '92 a very well-motivated idea here.)  Will the UC result
ST>in higher temperatures and pressures, thus in larger fusion
ST>rates?  What if we use liquid lithium as a driver -- will we see
ST>and p-Li or d-Li nuclear effects during the extreme conditions of
ST>UC?  Does your "wedge-out" mechanism serve to generate high-
ST>temperature ions, so as to enhance fusion rates?  How can we
ST>monitor such a process?

  Steven,

    What if sonofusion was attempted at temperature that would
    promote Bose type condensdation?  Let's say, in a liquid helium
    driver?  Perhaps such conditions might be useful in Pd lattice
    cold fusion experiments (in that case we should call it frigid
    fusion <g>).  Any thoughts?

    ...Jack
---
 ~ SLMR 2.1a ~ -
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudentreger cudfnJack cudlnTreger cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.04 / Jay James /  Laser Fusion
     
Originally-From: jayjames@rahul.net (Jay James)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Laser Fusion
Date: Tue, 4 Jan 1994 00:40:09 GMT
Organization: a2i network


Whatever happened to laser fusion?  When I was in school back in the early
80's it was all the rage (I haven't kept up since) ... First Internet
posting...pls excuse the format...
-- 
Jay James <jayjames@rahul.net>
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenjayjames cudfnJay cudlnJames cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.03 /  jonesse@physc1 /  ICCF-4 Paper
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: ICCF-4 Paper
Date: 3 Jan 94 16:58:27 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

Draft 3 January 1993 
Nearing final draft; for the ICCF-4 proceedings and, probably, Fusion
Technology.  Comments welcomed.  --Steven Jones

SEARCH FOR NEUTRON AND GAMMA EMISSIONS IN Pd/LiOD ELECTROLYTIC
CELLS:  A NULL RESULT

Steven E. Jones, David E. Jones, David S. Shelton, and Stuart F.
Taylor
Departments of Physics and Chemistry
Brigham Young University
Provo, Utah  84602


ABSTRACT

We have conducted a series of experiments using state-of-the-art
neutron and gamma detectors to look for evidence for nuclear
reactions occurring in Pd/LiOD electrolytic cells.  No evidence
for neutron or gamma emissions was obtained in extended
experiments.


OVERVIEW OF DETECTOR SYSTEMS AT BYU

Our primary detector for low-level neutron emissions consists of
a combination of a large plastic scintillator core with a
surrounding bank of sixteen 3He-filled proportional counter tubes
(Figure 1), with all signals digitized at 50 Mhz and stored in
computer memory. The central plastic scintillator is 35 cm in
length and 8.9 cm in diameter.  A central cavity of 4.8 cm
diameter admits test cells.  Fast neutrons from the sample can
generate a recoil proton in the plastic generating scintillations
(efficiency about 40%) which are viewed by a photomultiplier
tube.  Then the neutron slows further in polyethylene moderator
28 cm diam. X 30 cm long, and finally may be captured in one of
16 helium-3-filled proportional counter tubes embedded in the
moderator (efficiency about 34%).  These tubes are arranged in
four quadrants incorporating 4 proportional-counters in each.

[Figures 1&2 not transmitted electronically.]

The detector and experiments have the following special features:

1.  All signals are digitized using a LeCroy fast-waveform
digitizer operating 50 MHz, so that we retain pulse-shape
information as well as timing between pulses.  Pulse-shape
analysis permits excellent noise rejection, along with giving
some neutron-energy information (from the prompt plastic
scintillator pulse).  By rejecting (in software) events having
small or no plastic pulse, we strongly discriminate against slow
(especially thermal) neutrons.  This background-reducing feature
is not available to many detectors including those using BF3, 3He
and even the Kamiokande detector in Japan [1].  By studying
neutron-capture time distributions based on prompt and capture-
neutron pulses, we check whether observed distributions agree
with those found using a plutonium source.

2.  The PC-based data acquisition system records which of the
four quadrants of the 3He-type counter showed neutron capture,
allowing for checking that the quadrants are hit in equal
proportions.  
 
This detector segmentation has, for example, allowed us to throw
out apparent large bursts of neutrons (over 60 "neutrons" in a
160-microsecond window) whose signals unrealistically came from
just one quadrant. (Occasionaly two quadrants are involved, due
to electronic cross-talk).  We have seen several cases of such
large bursts in the past year of running (see for example Figure
2); but all bursts of over five detected neutrons have proven to
be spurious.  Therefore, compelling data for large neutron bursts
would require detector segmentation and pulse digitization
(allowing signal visualization) or other reliable methods of
noise elimination. 

3.  Three large cosmic-ray veto counters show the passage of
cosmic rays, which events are rejected off-line.  Passive
shielding of at least 35 m of rock (12,000 g/cm2) also greatly
reduces cosmic ray-induced events and removes dependence of
cosmic-ray rates on fluctuations in atmospheric pressure.  After
cosmic-ray rejection, the event rate is approximately 0.6
neutron-like singles per hour with an efficiency of 14% for 2.5
MeV neutrons, and 0.07 burst-events per hour with a detection
efficiency exceeding 20% (increasing with neutron-burst
multiplicity) [2].

4.  Two additional highly-sensitive neutron detectors are
available in the same deep-underground facility based on a
different neutron-capture scheme (capture in lithium-doped
glass), to permit checking of any positive results found in the
primary detector [2].  


RESULTS USING Pd/LiOD ELECTROLYTIC CELLS

The data presented below represent 1,054.6 hours (6.3 weeks) of
observation of Pd/LiOD cells [3] and backgrounds in our most
sensitive neutron detector, described above.  Experimental
protocols follow those provided by Dr. Thomas Passell [4],
namely:

1.  Pd cathodes (6mm diam. expect 4mm diam rod described in 2
below) were used in a 0.1 M LiOD solution (in D2O).   Electrode
spacing of the Pd rods relative to Ni-gauze which formed the
cylindrical anode is approximately 2 mm, with a septum used to
prevent electrical contacts.

2.  Three cells were polarized in series at 40 mA from Sept. 24,
1993 to October 25, 1993, then at 80 mA until October 29, 1993.  

3.  Following a suggestion of Prof. K. Wolf [5], a fourth Pd/LiOD
cell was operated at high altitude (8,500') for three weeks at
20mA/cm2, then added in series connection with the other three
cells on October 25, 1993.

4.  The palladium cathode rods were scraped/sanded approximately
every seven days, and replaced in the cells within a period of
about fifteen minutes to minimize deuterium loss from the
cathodes during the cleaning procedure.  We noticed that the cell
potential slowly increased over days of (constant-current)
operation, then decreased after the cathodes were cleaned,
showing that a resistive surface coating had built up during cell
operation.  We also observed a gradual rise in electrolytic cell
temperature, using a platinum-resistance probe, consistent with
increased resistance and joule heating as the resistive surface
coating developed.

5.  A 12-hour cooling treatment was applied to the three primary
cells on day 17.  The fourth cell (described in 2 above) was
subjected to diurnal cooling and heating due to its exposure to a
mountain environment; the electrolyte was found to be frozen on
two occasions.

6.  Boron and aluminum (about 0.001 molar) were added to the LiOD
electrolyte on the 18th day.


*Time-correlated (burst) neutron-like rates

A neutron burst event is defined as having a hit in the plastic
scintillator core followed by two or more signals in the 3He-
filled proportional-counter tubes within 320 microseconds.  Since
the die-away time for neutrons in the outer detector/polyethylene
moderator is 55 microseconds, there is a possibility to see
multiple distinct neutron hits there.  In effect, the outer
detector "de-multiplexes" neutrons should an instantaneous burst
occur, as first reported by H. Menlove et al. [6].  A burst is
then defined as two or more neutrons captured in 3He within 320
microseconds of a start pulse in the plastic scintillator.  The
background rate for bursts is (0.07 +- 0.01) n/hr, all from
multiplicity = 2 events, established using Pd loaded with
hydrogen in 394 hours of separate runs.

We also scrutinize the time spectra of 3He-captured neutrons
relative to the start pulse in the plastic scintillator to
determine whether the time distribution corresponds to the 55-
microsecond die-away time for neutrons in the 3He-portion of the
counter, as seen with a plutonium neutron source.

The Pd/LiOD cells described above were polarized for 708.8 hours. 
During this time, 24 neutron-like burst events were seen, all
having multiplicity = 2.  (This represents approximately one
burst candidate per 30 hours, a very low rate indeed.)  Thus, the
neutron-like rate for these events was 48/708.8h = (0.07 +- 0.01)
n/hr.  These numbers are in complete agreement with those found
with hydrogen controls discussed above.  There is therefore no
indication of a neutron burst signal above a very low background.

To complete the scrutiny for burst-like events, we compare time
spectra from these Pd/LiOD electrolytic cell runs with those
obtained from H2-control runs and from Pu-source runs.  Figure 3
shows the time between each start pulse in the plastic
scintillator detector and each stop pulse from the 3He-type outer
detector.

Figure 3.  Neutron capture times for Pu source, H2 control, and
Pd/LiOD electrolytic cells.

Capture time   Pu source (known neutrons)   H2 control  P/F cells
 (microsec.)      (1310 second run)          (394 hrs)   (708.8h)

0-25            32                           6            14
25-50           17                           5             3
50-75           11                           8             9
75-100           8                           2            11
100-125          1                           5             0
125-150          1                           2             4
150-175          0                           0             7

The neutrons from the plutonium source follow a pattern
consistent with the 55-microsecond die-away time for neutrons in
the counter, but neither the controls or the Pd/LiOD cells show
such a distribution (the latter two spectra being consistent with
backgrounds.)  We conclude that there is no evidence for neutron-
burst activity in the electrolytic cells.


*Total neutron-like count rates

Even if there are no burst-like events, there may still be
neutron counts above background which we consider "singles."  The
background rate for such events has been established as (0.7 +-
0.1) counts/hour using Pd loaded with hydrogen.  Figure 4
displays results from each run of the electrolytic cells, showing
1-sigma error bars (statistical only).

*Numbers given here for Fig. 1 for electronic distribution; more
significance is given than the error justifies -- in order to
permit data-plotting:

Before current application:
0.73 +- 0.10  neutron-like signals/hour
0.64    0.24

40 mA runs using Pd/LiOD electrolytic cells:
0.70 +- 0.10
0.28    0.26
0.63    0.13
0.63    0.12
0.62    0.14
0.52    0.12
0.61    0.11
0.44    0.08
0.55    0.11
0.63    0.11
0.39    0.16
0.58    0.11
0.91    0.17
1.33    0.33
0.73    0.18

80 mA runs:
0.59 +- 0.14
0.82    0.21
0.85    0.13
0.69    0.4
0.88    0.20
0.77    0.20
0.64    0.24
0.38    0.14

Empty detector runs:
0.72 +- 0.11
0.65    0.11


Again, we see that the rates are entirely consistent with
background levels of 0.7 h^-1.  This exercise has as its
conclusion that no neutrons were seen above very low background
levels, in a high-efficiency detector.  The most important
observation may be that state-of-the-art neutron detectors are
now available for studies requiring high-sensitivity instruments.

*Gamma-ray spectroscopy

Immediately following the neutron search, all palladium rods were
taken to Los Alamos for gamma-ray spectroscopic analysis.  The
purpose of this search was to determine whether radioactive
isotopes of palladium, rhodium, ruthenium and silver might have
been generated during the electrolytic runs, pursuant to claims
of Y. Kucherov and others of such transmutations in deuterium-
loaded palladium [7].  All four Pd rods were placed in a low-
background germanium detector operated by Dr. J. Parker and
counted for 75,000 seconds.  No gamma lines above background were
seen, except for a weak 59.5 keV line which represents americium-
241.  The americium contamination was traced to the nickel gauze
used for anodes.  The migration of americium from anode to Pd
cathode during operation of the electrolytic cells demonstrates
that radioisotopes can be picked up by the cathode originating
from either the electrolyte or the anode.  Therefore, any claims
of nuclear transmutation in such cells must first show that the
claimed radioisotopes were not originally present in the
electrolyte or the anode.  These checks must supplement checks
for contamination of the cathode.

Further gamma-spectrographic analysis of essentially all of the
palladium cathodes used in experiments at BYU and Kamiokande over
the past five years have been undertaken:  we found absolutely no
evidence for radioisotope formation in any palladium cathodes. 
Careful scrutiny should therefore be applied to any claims that
nuclear reactions produce transmutations in electrolytic cells. 
In particular, claims that radioisotopes are formed far off the
line of nuclear stability should immediately arouse suspicion
that materials used in the electrodes or electrolyte could have
been contaminated or subjected to irradiation by an energetic
particle beam.  For example, if palladium-100 is found by gamma
spectroscopy, then beam irradiation is likely since negative-Q
reactions are implicated.

We also report here that we have followed our own challenge [8]
of searching for x-rays as would be expected if nuclear reactions
are indeed producing measureable heat in electrolytic cells. 
Nuclear reactions are characterized by release of MeV-scale
energies, hence their importance to power-production schemes. 
Energy release at the nuclear level implies that secondary x-
rays will be produced in the environment of a metal lattice,
where only tens of keV are required to generate x-rays.  That is,
if nuclear reactions are indeed producing heat at the levels
claimed (>1 mW), then sufficient x-rays should be produced to be
detectable, since x-rays arise from ionizing effects of nuclear
products on the materials in which the purported heat develops. 
Thus, x-ray measurements provide a crucial test for the presence
of heat-generating nuclear reactions.

Characterisitic x-rays of Pd (K-alpha of 21.1 keV) or Ni (K-
alpha of 7.5 keV) which result from K shell vacancies produced by
nuclear products are readily detected.  We have searched for such
lines using two x-ray spectrometers, a 10mmX10mm reverse-biased
photodiode having high sensitivity down to about 4 keV [8] and a
lithium-drifted silicon detector with high sensitivity down to
approximately 1 keV.  We used a Pd/D2O electrolytic cell in which
25 micron Pd foil formed both cathode and external wall; no x-
ray production was seen with this electrolytic cell.  We also
used a Ni/H2O cell in which the Ni cathode was placed against a
very thin plastic window.  Again, no x-ray production was in
evidence in the electrolytic cell.  

Indeed, *no* "cold fusion" experiment anywhere has shown the
presence of secondary x-rays lines (using a spectrometer) which
would characterize fusion or any other nuclear reaction in a
metal lattice to the best of our knowledge [9].  We conclude that
there is no compelling evidence to link nuclear reactions to
excess-heat production claims.  Indeed, the absence of
significant (primary or secondary) x-rays, gammas and neutrons
after five years of searching argues convincingly against claims
of excess heat production by nuclear reactions in electrolytic
(or equivalent) cells.  This conclusion is supported by related
experiments at BYU which show up to 700% "excess heat", but which
is in fact due to hydrogen-oxygen recombination in the cells
coupled with commonly-used (but misleading) analysis techniques
for excess-power production in "cold fusion" experiments [10].


CONCLUSIONS

In order to find compelling evidence for cold-fusion effects,
state-of-the-art calorimeters and nuclear detectors are required. 
Table 1 juxtaposes such systems with other systems now more
generally in use.  It is disquieting that some researchers select
open electrolytic cells over closed cells, and very long sampling
intervals (e.g., 5-minute sampling intervals for input voltage
used by Pons and Fleischmann in recent boiling-cell experiments
[11]).  Some researchers continue to use x-ray films instead of
x-ray spectrometers, helium or tritium gas sampling (and Geiger
counters) instead of charged-particle spectrometers, and neutron
survey meters instead of sensitive neutron detectors as described
above.  It is time to strongly question claims of cold fusion
based on crude techniques and to demand tests at a rigorous
scientific-proof level.  Compelling evidence requires use of the
best instruments available, incorporating fast data-sampling and
digitization methods, the use of different detectors whose
signals agree quantitatively, and presence of signals well above
background levels.  A real signal should be capable of scaling,
and should not shrink as background levels are reduced.  However,
as we have proceeded to better detectors, cold-fusion data surety
has diminished.  

With these criteria for state-of-the-art detectors, we find that
no compelling evidence for neutron or gamma production from
deuterided materials currently exists in any cold-fusion
experiment, including our own [12].  The only verified form of
cold nuclear fusion to date is muon-catalyzed fusion. 
Nevertheless, the search will continue for several more months. 
We invite those with evidence for neutron production to accept
our invitation to test their systems in the deep-underground
neutron detection facility in Provo Canyon.  Gamma and x-ray
spectrometers are also available on request.

We acknowledge the assistance of J.B. Czirr, L.D. Hansen, G.L.
Jensen, and E.P. Palmer of BYU and valuable comments from the
following:  J. Parker, N. Hoffman, D. Britz, T. Droege, R.
Schroeppel, B. Liebert, R. Eachus, R. Blue, C. Sites, T.
Schneider, T. Passell, T. Claytor, D. Morrison, J. Huizenga and
H. Menlove.


REFERENCES

1.  T. Ishida, "Study of the Anomalous Nuclear Effects in Solid-
Deuterium Systems," Masters Thesis, Feb. 1992, University of
Tokyo, ICRR-Report-277-92-15.

2.  J. B. Czirr, G.L. Jensen, and J.C. Wang, "High efficiency
neutron and charged particle spectrometers," in AIP Conf.
Proceedings #228 (BYU, Provo, UT, October 1990), editors S.E.
Jones, F. Scaramuzzi and D. Worledge (NY: American Institute of
Physics), 1991.

3.  M. Fleischmann, B.S. Pons, M. Hawkins, J. Electroanal. Chem.
261 (1989) 301.

4.  T. Passell, priv. comm., 16 July 1993.

5.  K. Wolf, priv. comm.; see also K.L. Wolf, J. Shoemaker, D.E.
Coe, L. Whitesell, AIP Conf. Proc. #228 (NY:  Am. Inst. Physics,
1991), p. 341-353.

6.  H.O. Menlove, M.M. Fowler, E. Garcia, A. Mayer, M.C. Miller,
R.R. Ryan, S.E. Jones, J. Fusion Energy 9 (1990) 495-506.

7.  A.B. Karabut, Y.R. Kucherov, I.B. Savvatimova, "Possible
nuclear reaction mechanisms at glow discharge in deuterium,"
Proc. ICCF-3, editor H. Ikegami, Frontiers Science Series. No. 4,
pp. 165-168.

8.  D.B. Buehler, L.D. Hansen, S.E. Jones and L.B. Rees, "Is
Reported 'Excess Heat' Due to Nuclear Reactions?", Frontiers of
Cold Fusion, ed. H. Ikegami, 1993, p. 245.

9.  See Proceedings of International Conferences on Cold Fusion.

10. J.E. Jones, L.D. Hansen, S.E. Jones, D.S. Shelton, and J.M.
Thorne, paper in preparation.

11. M. Fleischmann and B.S. Pons, "Calorimetry of the Pd-D2O
system:  from simplicity via complications to simplicity," Phys.
Lett. A 176 (1993) 176; and "Fleischmann responds to Jones,"
sci.physics.fusion, 28 October 1993 posting; and M. Fleischmann
remarks at ICCF-4 (Maui, HI, 6 December 1993).

12. S.E. Jones, E.P. Palmer, J.B. Czirr, D.L. Decker, G.L.
Jensen, J.M. Thorne, S.F. Taylor and J. Rafelski, Nature, 338
(1989) 737-740.


TABLE 1.  COMPARISON OF COLD-FUSION RESEARCH METHODS

It is evident that much of the present confusion surround "cold
fusion" stems from the continued use of inadequate detectors. 
This list juxtaposes crude, better and state-of-the-art systems
to help in the quest for compelling data, one way or the other. 
Use of the best available methods is clearly the path-of-logical
science.

Crude                    Better                State-of-the-art
(simply add to the       (but not good enough) (can provide 
 confusion)                                     compelling evidence)
______________________   _____________________ ______________________

Neutron survey meters,   Segmented 3He,        Segmented 3He or Li-
  BF3                    Plastic scintillators doped glass *plus*
                                               scint. with digitizing

Helium gas detection,    Charged-particle det. Thin dE/dx detector
 Tritium gas detection   (Si surface barrier)  plus Si spectrometer
                         (requires thin foil)  (particle ID & energy)
                          
X-ray film               X-ray film with foil  X-ray spectrometer
                         energy-filters        (SiLi, etc.)

Geiger counter            see detectors listed above; Germanium det.

Infrequent I*V(t) sampling                     Integral I*V(t) correct
 (e.g., every 300 s)                            via frequent, redundant
                                                sampling

Open cell calorimetry,   Measure H2/D2 + O2    Recombiner inside
no H2/D2 +O2 monitoring,  simultaneous w/heat   separate calorimeter
during experiment

Metal of unknown source,                       Alloyed with known
quality or purity                              purity and properties

D2O of unknown source    D2O from known source,  Highly distilled D2O,
                         not exposed to reactor  known H,O isotopes

Visual techniques        Computer-logging,     Redundant probes with
                          several probes       fast data acquisition

Theories which dis-       Fractofusion ignoring     ???
regard P, E conservation  e- vs. d+ acceleration 
or light-cone constraints
(e.g., "heating lattice")
or known branching ratios
from muon-catalyzed cold
fusion (e.g. 4He or 3H 
but no neutrons)
or which use incorrect 
wavefunctions

 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
Please send comments to Steven Jones.
              






cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenjonesse cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Tue Jan  4 04:37:09 EST 1994
------------------------------
1994.01.04 / Craig Harmon /  Re: Sonofusion (Terry's UC) Revisited
     
Originally-From: harmon@csulb.edu (Craig Harmon)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Sonofusion (Terry's UC) Revisited
Date: 4 Jan 1994 07:00:29 GMT
Organization: Cal State Long Beach

jonesse@physc1.byu.edu wrote:
: Pre-script:  I enjoyed Terry Bollinger's hard-hitting yet humorous posting
: on "orbitfun".  Now to revisit some theoretical work of his which
: may really lead somewhere  -->  sonoluminescence revisited.

: fade, I have re-visited your lengthy paper entitled "ULTRA
: CAVITATION" (UC) which was posted on sci.physics.fusion on 31
: December 1992 (one year ago!).  This has re-vitalized my interest
: in your ideas regarding (low-level) fusion during D2-bubble
: cavitation in D2O, and their relationship to sonoluminescence.
: The physics here is potentially rich; there are clearly a large
: number of issues to be explored both experimentally and
: theoretically:


: For completeness for this discussion, I include below a
: description of detectors available here.  Note that we have
: already run piezoelectric crystals *inside* our most sensitive
: neutron detector -- and have demonstrated that our detector does
: not pick up noise-artifacts from this process.  But we are still
: (ugh!) working on achieving stable sonoluminescence.  And it
: appears we will be getting expert assistance.
                             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^                
I hope this expert assistance is not Seth Putterman from UCLA.  I took 
his acoustics course last year, and I approached him with the idea of 
using D2O in his experiment.  My reasoning being that since the asymmetry 
of the bubble's compression and rarefactions was cause by the difference 
in compressibilities between air and water, perhaps by using a more 
dense, water like fluid, would increase this asymmetry, and generate more 
power.  He thought about it for about ten seconds and said that it would 
not work because the equation which discribes the motion is sensitive to 
the density in the other direction, that you would want a less dense fluid.
BTW, if it is him, ask him about his belief in neutrinos.  He is still 
sure they don't exist.  Given this last statement, I probably should have 
found a more competent physicist to talk to.
You might want to vary the temperature of your sample also.

: Best Regards and Happy New Year (to all),
: Steven Jones

Same to you.

Craig Harmon

BTW on your background subtraction, have you considered muon induced 
spallation?  I am writing a Monte Carlo for this background for the 
Super-Kamiokande people.  If you are interested, let me know.
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenharmon cudfnCraig cudlnHarmon cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.05 /  blue@dancer.ns /  Re: Jones on F. Will quality
     
Originally-From: blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Jones on F. Will quality
Date: Wed, 5 Jan 1994 01:14:02 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I agree totally with Steve Jones remarks concerning the tritium detection
claims present at ICCF4 by Fritz Will.  I think Steve is on very solid
ground with his arguement that any observation claiming tritium production
in the absence of both neutrons and X-rays is already so suspect that
it cannot stand as compelling evidence.  I would further point out that
the tritium detection technique employed is not well suited for low-level
measurements, particularly in the hands of an electrochemist without
extensive experience with the technique.

While the counting of tritium beta actitivity in scintillation cocktails
is routinely practiced in a great variety of experiments by many people
with limited understanding of the processes involved,  they succeed in
making meaningful measurements largely because they employ the technique
at activity levels much higher than 50 times background.  As the
activity being detected drops the difficulties inherent in the technique
clearly become more significant.  To list some of the problems with the
method: (1) The beta spectrum is a continuum which merges into the noise
such that count rates are sensitive to detection threshold. (2) The
signal is nonspecific and may be generated by other forms of radioactivity
in the sample or by non-nuclear processes which depend on chemical 
composition. (3) The signal can be suppressed by quenching of the
scintillation light by chemical means.

In addition to the problems involved in the use of scintillation
cocktails there are features of the typical cold fusion experiment
that should not be overlooked when tritium measurements are considered.
First the D2O is most certainly contaminated with tritium at a level
which sets the "background" for the apparent enhancements.  Other
ingredients of the cell may also be contaminated.  Secondly the
processes of electrolyzing the D2O and loading/unloading the
Pd cathode may transport and concentrate tritium in unanticipated
ways making it difficult to establish meaningful controls.  Furthermore
the chemistry employed in such operations as the dissolving of Pd
or PdD may lead to false differences between samples.

While the making of 100 or 150 control measurements may be seen as
an indication that sufficient care was taken to reduce the possibility
that the results are spurious, it may also be an indication of the
large number of possible ways in which errors can creep into the
measurements.

Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU

cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenblue cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.05 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  The Will experiments
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: The Will experiments
Date: Wed, 5 Jan 1994 01:13:58 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Steve Jones says "Whoa -- and appeal to authority" about my 1b - Will is 
obviously a competent experimenter.  I stick to my opinion Steve, Will's 
presentation shows that he has considered enough possibilities that his work
looks to me to be high quality.  Each of us makes judgements of the work we 
see and that is mine about Will.  This does not mean that he is right.  It 
just means that I judge that he is careful enough that he will not be caught
by the "easy" traps in research.  

Later you ask "Then why did Will et. al. conveniently 'leave out' the neutron
measurements?"

I think we know why the neutron measurements were left out, Steve.  And you 
are the source.  Steve introduced me to an experimental group with a negative
"cold fusion" result that was invited by their funding agency to *not present*
their result.  

Consider that you are a research group with a negative result and your funding
agency suggests that you do not report it.  What do you do?  You can submit the
result anyway - and considering who controls the conference expect it tp 
(to) be rejected.  Of course then your research project is termintated.  But 
then what is your chance of "going public" with such a result?  Not very good!
Who will publish your "straight" paper?  Just where do you publish these days
a "negative" cold fusion paper?  What are the chances of calling a press 
conference and claiming bias of the funding agency?  Not very good seems to me.
Besides, we just don't do science by press conference do we?

Looks like a no win situation for the "negative" researchers to me.  Looks like
they just have to keep quiet and hope that they don't loose their reputations
by just being associated with this work, even though they have done good work.

I remember sitting around in the Math department of the University of Kentucky
in 1953 discussing whether or not Universities should accept government funds
for research.  Sounds really funny today, but I actually had such a discussion.
We worried about just such problems.  Once you get in bed with the devil, it is
hard to preserve your virginity?

Tom Droege

cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenDROEGE cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.05 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Maui Papers #1
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Maui Papers #1
Date: Wed, 5 Jan 1994 01:14:16 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Maui1  First three papers from the first session of ICCF4

Now that the "Hot Fusion" flap has died down, these reports from the Maui 
conference can be put up in a fairly clear environment.  I have a much better 
associative memory than a linear detail memory, so it is very hard to 
reconstruct all the papers.  Still, I have succeeded to write something on 
almost every paper attended.  My emphasis has been on running an experiment so 
that if cell voltage, cell current, loading, or any other operating detail was 
mentioned it likely found it's way into my notes.  Comparisons with earlier 
reports, or conflict with theory are less apt to be noted by me.  

I have written up nine sections about the length of this one.  I will post one 
a day until they run out.  The first three will be repeats of previous 
postings.  

I listened to all the calorimetry papers, and after that the materials papers.  
This means that I missed many of the nuclear papers.  I started writing with 
the idea that I would first report what I heard, and then have a separate 
section of opinion.  This resolve was broken with the first paper.  Be warned, 
there is a lot of opinion here! 

The program book was quite well prepared.  Presenters were apparently 
instructed to give stand alone two page abstracts.  Many of the key graphs are 
included in the program book.  Thank you EPRI.  
                         
I will separate the papers with ***** so you can search to the start.  I also 
include the paper number and the claims for heat, tritium, 4He and neutrons 
and other claims in the the header so that it is easy to locate and tabulate 
claims.  I am working on a summary list of the claims, which will come at the 
end.  The ***** headings are not consistent in these posts, but they are made 
so in the summary list.  

Martin Fleischmann started off the presentations.  

***** Paper C 1.1  Excess Heat  Yes  Neutrons  No   Tritium  No  4He  No   

Calorimetry of the Pd-D2 System: the Search for Simplicity and
Accuracy
     M. Fleischmann, S. Pons, Monique Le Floux, Jeanne Roulette

The first thing that I noticed about this paper was that things are apparently 
not so rough in Nice, since Stan and Martin seem to have been joined by two 
French ladies.  Some of you may remember that we have in the past here 
wondered about missing co-authors.  While shown as authors, they were not 
listed as conference attendees.  Possibly there are at least four cars in the 
parking lot.  

Part of the abstract is quoted below: 

Start quotation--
"Our search for high levels of the rates of excess enthalpy generation in the 
Pd-D2O and Pd-alloy-D2O systems has been based inter alia on the following 
preconditions and suppositions:

i) that it is necessary to use materials which will withstand the high 
stresses induced by the experiments;

ii) given that i) is assured, that it is necessary to adopt particular 
experimental protocols to achieve excess enthalpy generation at elevated 
temperatures;

iii) that the protocols ii) should ensure a high D/Pd ratio at all conditions;

iv) that the protocols ii) and iii) should allow one to take advantage of 
"positive feedback" in the systems;

v) that the systems are sensitive to "hidden state variables:

vi) that the state variables need to be further generalised to take account of 
cross-terms and of gradients with position."
End quotation--

This all sounds pretty scientific except that I have written:

                        OBFUSCATION!

In large letters at the top of the page.  Fleischmann started out with a 
reference to Alfred Coehn - 1926?  Which I think is in german.  Percy 
Bridgeman 1934 was also mentioned.  These works apparently discuss how 
hydrogen ions can migrate in a wire under an electric field.  My notes say 10 
Kv per cm is possible.  (I guess this is inside the Pd - yes it can be done 
but not for long!) Some important factors that were listed and made it to my 
notes were:  alloy composition, Processing variables, phase changes, pressure, 
shear compression, chemical potential, surface potential, voltage potential, 
temperature.  Again the time variable was noted as 8 megaseconds.  It is 
necessary to go through the loading at the correct speed to be sure to reach 
high loading at high temperature.  They have now given up on non-linear 
regression as it is not "user friendly" and are now using linear regression.  
They are also now (possibly) using Rhodium - Palladium alloys.  

"There are no cell oscillations"
"Isothermal calorimetry is an unduly restrictive approach"
"Not limited by the Shannon limit"
"There is no recombination"
"The measurements are precise and accurate, precision is 1 in 10E4, accuracy 
is 1 in 10E3"

There was as usual little presented to substantiate these claims.  I would 
certainly like to see how they get 1 in 1000 real calorimetry accuracy with 
their cells and using their methods.  Please do not give me any more 
regressions as they give me a headache.  

Fleischmann pointed out that their results have increased over time:
(And with no improvement in calorimetry - DROM can this be pathological?)

20 W/cc      Mar 89
100 W/cc     Oct 89
1 KW/cc     June 90
4 KW/cc     Summer 92 

He showed the same old anomalous heat slide from ACCF1.  My notes say: "This 
talk covered only how they approach their data - it did *not* cover anything 
about what their experiments were."  Again I have listened to a talk by the 
master and have learned little new.  

***** Paper C 1.2  Excess Heat  Yes  Neutrons  No   Tritium  Yes  4He  Yes   

Excess Heat and Nuclear Product Measurments In Cold Fusion Electrochemical 
Cells
     Gozzi, Bakducci, Caputo, Cignini, Gigii, Tomellini,
     Frullani, Cibani, Garibaldi, Jodice,Urciucii

This will likely be the experiment that is referenced to prove "cold fusion". 
A curve was presented which shows 4He from an on line mass spectrometer 
lagging the excess heat by 100 hours.  (But please wait for what others say 
about how 4He can get out of the lattice before concluding that this is the 
definitive experiment.)  Simultaneous measurements of 20Ne were made to check 
for atmospheric contamination.  

Measurements were carried out on 6 cells for 1000 hours.  Best excess heats 
were 100 W/cc, with 10 watt excess absolute.  Claimed 10% accuracy for the 
calorimetry.  Their call #10 showed 20 watts excess with 30 watts input power 
and a claimed error of 1 watt.  Heat appeared after 600 hours my notes seem to 
say. 

They claim that they can control the confinement of D in Pd by using a second 
power supply and a "confinement current".  The attempt is to pass a current 
between the center of the cathode and a gold plated area on the surface.  
Currents four times the cathode current are used.  The surface is made more 
positive.  The desired effect is apparently to increase the current in the 
palladium cathode from the surface to the center without increasing the 
electrolytic current.  I did not catch enough of the detail to see how they 
actually accomplished this.  I cannot figure out how to do it.  I will have to 
wait for the paper.  The above is from my notes and is likely in error.  
Reading the abstract, I see that it says: "Modification of the Pd cathode 
design both to test our theoretical ideas on the role of current on D charging 
and to show as the electrochemical confinement of D depends on the current.  
In fact, one of the cell has been prepared with a Pd cathode containing a Au 
core acting as blocking interface for migrating deuterons.  A secondary d.c. 
circuit has been connected between the Au core and a surface spot-welded 
platinum thin sheet.  Preliminary results obtained indicate that it is 
possible to control the D confinement by both the primary (electrolysis 
current) and secondary current.(sic)" 

My notes say "claim excess T"  "No neutrons seen"
(Neutrons?  We don't need no stinking neutrons!"

***** Paper C 1.3  Excess Heat  Yes  Neutrons  No   Tritium  No  4He  No   

Observation of Excess Heat During Electrolysis of 1M LiOD in a
Fuel Cell Type Closed Cell
     Hasegawa, Hayakawa, Yamamoto, Kunimatsu

This is a very large group from IMRA Japan Co. Ltd.  In the US, you can either 
be a Co. or a Ltd., not both.  No wonder they beat us out in consumer 
electronics.  As usual with the Japanese, there seem to be many related groups 
doing the work with slightly different names.  In any case, I could count up 
14 or so related names from the attendee list.  

Their basic scheme is to use a fuel cell anode and a 5 - 10 atmosphere over 
pressure of D2 (or H2) gas.  Under these conditions, liberated oxygen is 
recombined on the anode and the cell pressure goes down as D is absorbed by 
the cathode.  Between this and the paper from the materials session (and an 
excellent presentation by Akiko Kubota) dozens of very carefully prepared 
graphs are shown.  If you only write for one preprint, these are the ones to 
get.  

In general the graphs showed current density on the x-axis with a log scale 
from 1 ma to 1 ampere.  On the y axis was either loading, usually from 0.6 to 
1 D/Pd, or hydrogen overvoltage, 0 to -1.5 volts.  Other nice curves showed 
days on the x axis and D/M (M=Pd or some alloy) on the y axis.  Again usually 
0.6 to 1.  Then there were curves which show loading on the x-axis and % alloy
on the y-axis - nice curve for Rhodium.  

One of two nice curves in the abstract book show current density log 0.01 to 1 
on the x-axis and excess heat on the y-axis in watts per sq cm.  The curves 
show 5 different alloys in LiOD and LiOH as a control.  Most of the LiOH 
points sit on the x-axis, though several are a little below - as much as 0.5 
watts per cm3 negative.  A few of the LiOD points are also below the axis - as 
much as 0.2 watt per cm3.  The largest value is at 3.3 watts per cm3 for I/M 
9112 material.  Eyeballing the data I give the LiOH control -0.1 watt/cm3 +/- 
0.2 watts/cc.  I give the I/M 9112 material 3.0 watts/cm3 +/- 0.5 watt.  No 
excess heat below 0.2 A/cm2.  All in all, it looks like good and careful data 
with a control.

The second curve shows D(H)/Pd on the x-axis 0.7 to 1.0, and excess heat in 
Watts per cm3 on the y-axis.  All the excess heat points are clumped up 
between 0.80 and 0.88.  The control points are mostly on the axis and are 
spread out between 0.90 and 0.98.  

They presented data from cyclic loading experiments.  Here the x-axis was 
current density and the y-axis was loading.  They traced the path of loading 
vs current as several current changes were made.  From notes "so some cycling 
of current density can increase loading."  They gave a list of important 
parameters:

1.  D/Pd
2.  Current Density
3.  Cathode Overvoltage
4.  Temperature (But notes say they mostly charge at 10 C)
5.  Impurities.  (notes say Li bad ???)
6.  Time - Be Patient!  (Very Japanese!)
7.  ?

The first four variables are interdependant.  

Notes say "Non steady state - know better than last year"
"Above 0.85 no relation between loading and excess heat"
"But there is a relationship between current density and excess heat"
"Plotting data versus cathode overvoltage shows better excess heat 
correlation."
"Teflon absorbs D2"

They measured various alloys.  10% Rhodium gave the highest loading, 1.05, but 
no excess heat.  Thiourea (THU) (NH2)2C=S also gave higher loading, as did 
some of the Silver alloys, but also no excess heat.  Used 0.6 milli Molar THU 
to get to 0.9 D/Pd.  For some reason they did not want to add Al (Per McKubre)
and used the THU.  McKubre says THU is unstable.  During the conference 
whenever THU was mentioned, someone asked about stability.  

>From the questions:

Q.) Scott Chubb had a question on crystalline order and resistance.
A.) Resistance measurement does measure crystalline order.  Their answer was 
that they are able to match cathode resistance with their loading measurement. 

Q.) (Unknown) Films wash off from time to time - need good method to measure 
true overvoltage.  
A.) We measure overvoltage by current interruption method.

At first glance, this looks like a quality positive by a competent group.  It 
may well be just that.  Now my impressions from scribbled notes all over the 
abstract.  

"Calorimetry looks awful!!  Data does not look significant."  This because the 
excess heat plot over time looked exactly like a calorimeter settling to a new 
offset error point.  No bumps or wiggles.  Just steady state.  
"No error bars" True, but they can sort of be inferred from the many data 
points.  
"Old Data" "New Data 0.2 watts"  My recollection of this is that the larger 
excess heats were from the old experiments.  Newer points were smaller.  
        
Tom Droege
        

cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenDROEGE cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.05 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  The Will Quality Positive
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: The Will Quality Positive
Date: Wed, 5 Jan 1994 01:14:17 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Dieter Britz reviewed the F. Will paper in J. Electroalal. Chem. and found it 
to be a "quality positive".  Dieter then received some commentary from Steve 
Jones and/or had a full conversion to skepticism, and now changes his review.  

Not Fair!  Or more valid, Not consistent with your own procedure!

Dieter, you have set up your review process in a specific way.  You review 
only publications that appear in "refereed journals".  While I have had some 
disagreement with you in the past about this, it is your process, and when 
applied in a consistent fashion, it gives meaning to your reviews.  

Seems to me, Dieter, that your process is to look at what is written, and to 
base your opinion on what is in the refereed, printed, journals.  You do not 
read proceedings, you do not (I hope) listen to hearsay, you just apply what 
you know and understand to that which is printed and give a review.  

Once you have used that process, it seems to me that the only consistent way 
that you can change a review is from further information from a refereed 
journal, either a retraction, or new papers which allow further insight into 
the material of the paper.  

No matter that your whole view on the subject may have changed.  Your value as 
a reviewer depends on an even handed consistent viewpoint.  

Would you change earlier negative reviews if I were to present some further 
information? 

Tom Droege

cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenDROEGE cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.04 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Mossbauer and momentum
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Mossbauer and momentum
Date: Tue, 4 Jan 1994 20:47:54 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1994Jan4.191250.28999@asl.dl.nec.com>,
 <terry@asl.dl.nec.com> wrote:
>Sigh.
>
>The conjugate variable for "energy uncertainty" is "time uncertainty," not
>"time [length] of emission." That is, if you can force an extremely precise
>frequency, what you will lose is knowledge of _when_ the photon was emitted.
>At best you will only be able to give a ballpark estimate of when the photon
>was radiated (or more meaningfully, when you will detect it).
>
>What you were actually calculating was the size of this temporal uncertainty
>frame, not the duration of the photon emission event itself.  This is also
>why I disregarded your earlier energy calculations, although in retrospect
>I guess should have been a bit more explicit about that.  If you try to
>create a _wave packet_ that is as short as 10^-23 s, then yes indeedy, you
>will have to wallop in a tremendous amount of energy.  However, neither you
>nor I ever have suggested doing that.  I stated pretty early in this debate
>that the _wave packet_ was going to be very large and very precise indeed,
>but that a wave package _cannot_ be considered as synonymous with the photon
>itself.

     Please read the discussion of energy uncertainty in Landau and Lifshitz
     or any other QM text.  One cannot act as if there is some sort
     of 'timing' mechanism independent of delta E.

     If one finds such a mechanism ...

                             dale bass

     "I think that Poisson's fallacious explanation and the Magnus
     Effect Paradox both illustrate the unreliability of qualitative
     explanations.  One can argue cynically that qualitative deductions
     have a fifty percent chance of appearing verified, no matter
     whether they are correct or not!  I think that students should be taught 
     to not set much store by them; they are corrupting to one's critical
     sense."  Birkhoff (1950).
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.04 /  collins@jaguar /  Re: Sonofusion
     
Originally-From: collins@jaguar.csc.wsu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Sonofusion
Date: 4 Jan 94 13:35:14 -0800
Organization: Washington State Univ.

In article <CJ4D83.35G@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, crb7q@watt.seas.Virgin
a.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
> In article <1994Jan4.095737.1@jaguar.csc.wsu.edu>,
>  <collins@jaguar.csc.wsu.edu> wrote:
>>
>>I heard talks in December describing such measurements given by Ronald Roy
>>and Pierre Mourad, Applied Physics Laboratory, University of Washington.
>>They showed sonoluminescence spectra which looked very roughly like
>>blackbody spectra, with peak intensities, as I recall, at a wavelength of about
>>2000 angstroms.  Using Wien's law, this suggests a temperature of 15000 K.
>>Roy and Mourad mentioned others (whom I forget) who had fitted 
>>spectra to blackbody curves, but presented no spectral fits, themselves, 
>>and did not commit themselves to any single interpretation of the light.
> 
>      Do you know if they've published the spectra anywhere?
> 
>                             dale bass

No.  They are more interested in the temporal behavior of the light
output, including light from a repetitively-excited single bubble.  The 
light output has a duration less that 100 ps, but is synchronized, as I recall,
from pulse to pulse with a time jitter much, much smaller.  As I recall,
they obtained good estimates of the time evolution of the bubble radius from
experiment and are trying to model same using shock dynamics methods.
 -------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary Collins

cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudencollins cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.04 / Ad aspera /  FYI #167, 27 Dec 93
     
Originally-From: jtchew@csa3.lbl.gov (Ad absurdum per aspera)
Newsgroups: sci.research,sci.space.policy,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
sci.physics.accelerators
Subject: FYI #167, 27 Dec 93
Date: 4 Jan 1994 09:33 PST
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA


[Written by individuals at the American Institute of Physics and
merely posted by me, so respond to <fyi@aip.org> or other
references below.  Always posted here on sci.research; sometimes
crossposted to an eclectic selection of other newsgroups, with
followups directed here. Back issues may be ftp'd from NIC.HEP.NET,
along with PHYSICS NEWS UPDATE and the American Physical Society 
news/opinion column WHAT'S NEW.  Enjoy! -jc]


Looking Back: Major Science Policy Developments in 1993

FYI No. 167, December 27, 1993

Looking back over 1993, here are some of the major science policy
developments affecting the physics community:

JANUARY: Hazel O'Leary becomes DOE secretary...John Gibbons
confirmed as OSTP director...Walter Massey resigns as NSF director.

FEBRUARY: Administration requests an additional $207 million for
current year funding for NSF...House science committee chairman
George Brown announces plans for earmarking hearings...GAO predicts
difficulty in obtaining foreign SSC funding...Administration
releases new technology policy report.

MARCH: GAO releases SSC report, finding it "is over budget and
behind schedule" (a phrase to be repeated by SSC critics countless
times during the rest of the year)...Administration calls for
redesign of space station...White House completes fiscal year 1994
budget request...House appropriations subcommittee hearings start
on administration's budget request.

APRIL: Senate kills administration's economic stimulus plan
including $207 million for NSF.

MAY: Senator J. Bennett Johnston holds hearing on U.S. fusion
program, calls for stronger administration support for
program...Rep. George Brown starts examination of DOE national labs
mission...House appropriations subcommittee finishes work on NSF
budget (up 11%) and NASA (providing the space station with $1.85
billion, later increased to $2.1 billion by the House.)

JUNE: House appropriations subcommittee recommends $620 million for
SSC...President Clinton selects a "middle-of-the-road" space
station design...House votes 280-150 to terminate SSC...House
authorizes space station by one vote, later  approves actual
station funding by 24 votes.

JULY: The President names physicist Neal Lane as the new NSF
director...National Science Board issues statement in support of
basic research...The President selects Martha Krebs to be director
of DOE Office of Energy Research.

AUGUST: DOE announces plans to change SSC management...Brown
releases earmarking report...House SSC critics escalate opposition.

SEPTEMBER: DOE review committee identifies "significant cost and
schedule risks" in SSC construction...Senate appropriations
subcommittee recommends a 9% NSF increase and $1.94 billion for the
space station...Senate appropriations subcommittee issues "The
Future of NSF" report language, stating "Not less than 60% of the
agency's annual program research activities should be strategic in
nature"...Senate approves space station funding...Senate approves
SSC funding.

OCTOBER: Work completed on NSF funding bill; funding increases 10%
(later rising to 11%)...Congress approves $1.946 billion for space
station...Congress slashes AXAF program funding...Advanced Solid
Rocket Motor program is terminated...Senate confirms Neal Lane as
NSF director...SLAC wins B Factory competition...House SSC
opponents force the termination of the collider...Congress provides
full DOE fusion energy program funding, full funding for high
energy physics, full funding for materials sciences (under basic
energy sciences), additional funding over the request for nuclear
physics, provides less than the DOE request for the Advanced
Neutron Source...NIST receives 35% budget increase

NOVEMBER: Administration proposes joint U.S.-Russian space
station...House rejects deficit cutting package which would have
established a new Department of Science and cut fusion funding.

DECEMBER: President establishes National Science and Technology
Council...U.S. and Russian Federation sign space station agreement.

###############
Public Information Division
American Institute of Physics
Contact: Richard M. Jones
(301) 209-3095
###############
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenjtchew cudfnAd cudlnaspera cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.04 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Sonofusion (Terry's UC) Revisited
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Sonofusion (Terry's UC) Revisited
Date: Tue, 4 Jan 1994 17:35:53 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <2gc28eINN5ho@emx.cc.utexas.edu>,
John W. Cobb <johncobb@emx.cc.utexas.edu> wrote:
     
>Others have commented about how the experiments measure T by looking
>at its black-body spectrum. I have a question about this process. Has
>anyone examined whether the spectrum is a blackbody. That is, has the
>spectrum been fit using many different frequencies, so that a Black-Body
>could be distinguished from say a power law spectrum, or have the measurements
>simply used ratios of emission from two different frequencies and computed a
>temperature ASSUMING the spectrum was black-body. If it is the later,  then
>the experiment may greatly overestimate the temperature if the spectrum has
>a long tail (from non-equilibrium effects) and the emission lines used to 
>measure T were in the tails.

     They estimate T by fitting a blackbody spectrum to 
     something that looks sorta like a tail of a blackbody spectrum, I've
     never seen anything that even looks like a spectral peak.
     Representative is Hillerman, Putterman and Barber, PRL 69:1182 (1992).
     
                            dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.04 /  collins@jaguar /  Re: Sonofusion
     
Originally-From: collins@jaguar.csc.wsu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Sonofusion
Date: 4 Jan 94 09:57:37 -0800
Organization: Washington State Univ.

In article <2gc28eINN5ho@emx.cc.utexas.edu>, johncobb@emx.cc.utexas.edu 
	(John W. Cobb) writes:
> In article <1994Jan3.104532.16824@desire.wright.edu>,
>  <jbatka@desire.wright.edu> wrote:
>>In article <1994Jan2.073452.4738@asl.dl.nec.com>, terry@asl.dl.nec.com writes:
>>>
> [discussion about;sono-fusion, it's history, and Sci. Am.'s net-lurking]
> 
> [presumably referring to a Sci. Am. Article on sonoluminescence ]
> 
>>In the Sci. Am. article on it, they stated that one researcher reached
>>bubble temperatures of at least 10,000 (C I believe).  ...
> 
> ...
> Others have commented about how the experiments measure T by looking
> at its black-body spectrum. I have a question about this process. Has
> anyone examined whether the spectrum is a blackbody. That is, has the
> spectrum been fit using many different frequencies, so that a Black-Body
> could be distinguished from say a power law spectrum, or have the measurements
> simply used ratios of emission from two different frequencies and computed a
> temperature ASSUMING the spectrum was black-body. If it is the later,  then
> the experiment may greatly overestimate the temperature if the spectrum has
> a long tail (from non-equilibrium effects) and the emission lines used to 
> measure T were in the tails.
> 
> -john .w cobb

I heard talks in December describing such measurements given by Ronald Roy
and Pierre Mourad, Applied Physics Laboratory, University of Washington.
They showed sonoluminescence spectra which looked very roughly like
blackbody spectra, with peak intensities, as I recall, at a wavelength of about
2000 angstroms.  Using Wien's law, this suggests a temperature of 15000 K.
Roy and Mourad mentioned others (whom I forget) who had fitted 
spectra to blackbody curves, but presented no spectral fits, themselves, 
and did not commit themselves to any single interpretation of the light.

Reportedly, the spectra have been corrected for attenuation of the 
luminescence, but it should be remembered that most materials become
very absorptive below about 2500 angstroms.  Experimenters are using
quartz-windowed photomultiplier tubes to avoid attenuation found in
ordinary windows, but it is not obvious to me that the corrections
are easy to make.
 -------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary S. Collins    			(collins@cougar.csc.wsu.edu)

cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudencollins cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.04 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Sonofusion
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Sonofusion
Date: Tue, 4 Jan 1994 19:09:39 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1994Jan4.095737.1@jaguar.csc.wsu.edu>,
 <collins@jaguar.csc.wsu.edu> wrote:
>
>I heard talks in December describing such measurements given by Ronald Roy
>and Pierre Mourad, Applied Physics Laboratory, University of Washington.
>They showed sonoluminescence spectra which looked very roughly like
>blackbody spectra, with peak intensities, as I recall, at a wavelength of about
>2000 angstroms.  Using Wien's law, this suggests a temperature of 15000 K.
>Roy and Mourad mentioned others (whom I forget) who had fitted 
>spectra to blackbody curves, but presented no spectral fits, themselves, 
>and did not commit themselves to any single interpretation of the light.

     Do you know if they've published the spectra anywhere?

                            dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.04 / Qian Qian /  Re: Magnetic fields II, Baseball Trap
     
Originally-From: qianqian@tucson.Princeton.EDU (Qian Qian)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Magnetic fields II, Baseball Trap
Date: Tue, 4 Jan 1994 19:01:39 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

In article <2gc5mi$odg@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> mra@bink.mit.edu
(Michael Raskin Andrews) writes:
>Does anyone out there know if a magnetic field whose absolute magnitude is  
>spherically symmetric and monotonically increasing radially is useful in  
>fusion research/development these days? My guess is that when fusible  
>particles are confined by such a magnetic field configuration, the whole  
>system is made simpler.   
>
>I know that some time back a useful magnetic field configuration called  
>the "baseball trap" was _somewhat_ similar to the idealization I just  
>mentioned. What I'm interested in is if something closer to the ideal of  
>perfect spherical symmetry (etc.) would be better.
> 

I remember in our first year plasma course several magnetic field 
configurations including 'baseball trap' were discussed. the difficulty
is that not only making complicated magnets presents a big engineering
problem but the imperfection of magnets would induce lots of instabilities
which would become disaster to the confinement. Stellerator is one of the
examples. I was told Japan spent lots of money to try to build biggest
stellerator in the world and, if finished, it could have competed against
TFTR and other major tokamaks. However, as I know, because of engineering
problem, the project is far delayed. Tokamaks get to survive up to now
just because they are not difficult to build compared with other more
sophisticated machines and have better overall performance.

Qian

-- 
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Real physics is originated from simplest systems!       | PPL, P.O.Box 451
                                          ---Qian Qian   | Princeton, NJ 08540
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenqianqian cudfnQian cudlnQian cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.04 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Re: Mossbauer and momentum
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Mossbauer and momentum
Date: Tue, 4 Jan 1994 19:12:50 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

Sigh.

____________________________________________________________________________
Gary Collins:  Do you still think that the emission or absorption takes
               place in only 10^-23 seconds, Terry?

T. Bollinger:  Do _you_ believe that the gamma photon absorption/emission
               event takes place within a region of space no more than
               2 angstroms in diameter?  If your answer is YES, my answer
               to your question is also YES.  If your answer is NO,  my
               answer to your question is also NO.

Gary Collins:  My answer is YES.  It is only accelerating charge
               distributions that radiate.  During a nuclear transition,
               the charge of the nucleus oscillates between distributions
               of the excited and ground state...
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Hmm.  Isn't this the same situation on a different scale as the classical
ammonia molecule radiation problem?  Two superimposed stationary states,
one higher in energy and one lower, with the resulting linear combination
corresponding classically to a non-stationary state in which the nitrogen
atom rapidly oscillates between the "up" and "down" positions relative to
the three hydrogens?  That one radiates a microwave photon with the same
frequency as the oscillation, I believe.

If you are speaking of anything fundamentally different, could you please
clarify?  It surely sounds very similar, and to the best of my knowledge
there just aren't that many fundamentally different ways to get spatial
oscillations into quantum wave functions.  I realize that the physical
arrangement in the gamma/nuclei case will be different.  I am only asking
about the general principle of linear superposition of low and high energy
stationary states to produce a non-stationary wave function that oscillates
spatially with a frequency proportional to the energy difference between
the two stationary states.  If the wave function particle is charged, then
the semi-classical interpretation would be that of a distinct charge "lobe"
that oscillates (accelerates) with the same frequency as the photon that
that would be emitting by a drop from the high state to the low state.

So... are we reasonably well in sync on this point, or not?

If so, then to the best of my recollection this is the same relationship
that was first pointed out by Schroedinger in an attempt to explain the
frequency of the photons emitted by atomic electrons dropping from an
excited state to the ground state.  This is one reason why I find your use
of it perplexing.  Schroedinger apparently later reluctantly admitted that
model to be incorrect [Feynman Lectures III].  My best understanding of the
issue was that attempting a _classical_ interpretation of these nominal
charge accelerations led to absurd results.  E.g., the photon would _always
be emitted immediately, and always in exactly the same fashion_.  That is
patently wrong.  Photons are emitted randomly from excited atoms, often with
long delays that are completely incompatible with idea of an immediate
classical radiation due to acceleration of charge density function "lobes."

The situation was not cleared up until Born's work forced Schroedinger and
others to recognize that the square of the wave function was _not_ a charge
distribution ("smeared electron") function at all, but rather a _probability
density_ function.  The probability interpretation puts a quite different
spin on the "accelerating charges" you mentioned, one much more in sync
with the very solid experimental observation excited systems decay at random
intervals.  The probability function permits _uncertainty_ in when the
photon will be emitted, which is not possible for charges undergoing fully
classical acceleration.

I assume that you are getting your points from a specific textbook.  Could
you perhaps provide a reference?  The charge density interpretation of
wave functions is a certainly a tempting one, and it gets a lot of use in
chemistry books.  (Everyone recall those "electron clouds"?)  I have no
idea how much play in gets in nuclear chemistry books.  It doesn't matter
in any case.  Useful or not, it's fundamentally inaccurate.

___________________________________________________________________________
Gary Collins:  ... An emitting nucleus itself has a radius of about
               1-10 x 10^-5 angstroms.  (Thermal motion in a solid will
               increase the effective radius of the emitting volume to
               about 0.1 angstroms.) ...
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Thermal motion as large as a radius of 0.1 Angstroms?  I don't think so.

Your gamma wavelengths are significantly shorter than one Angstrom, meaning
that a 0.1 thermal oscillation would utterly destroy the long-term (100 ns)
temporal phase coherency for which you had been arguing rather adamantly.
The spatial location of the nucleus thus must instead remain incredibly
_stable_ for the entire duration of the gamma absorption/emission event.


___________________________________________________________________________
Gary Collins:  ... Your answer should be NO.  Previously, I pointed out that,
               from the measured width (energy uncertainty) of the Mossbauer
               resonance of 57Co, the time of emission must be of the order
               of 100 ns (or longer)...
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

The conjugate variable for "energy uncertainty" is "time uncertainty," not
"time [length] of emission." That is, if you can force an extremely precise
frequency, what you will lose is knowledge of _when_ the photon was emitted.
At best you will only be able to give a ballpark estimate of when the photon
was radiated (or more meaningfully, when you will detect it).

What you were actually calculating was the size of this temporal uncertainty
frame, not the duration of the photon emission event itself.  This is also
why I disregarded your earlier energy calculations, although in retrospect
I guess should have been a bit more explicit about that.  If you try to
create a _wave packet_ that is as short as 10^-23 s, then yes indeedy, you
will have to wallop in a tremendous amount of energy.  However, neither you
nor I ever have suggested doing that.  I stated pretty early in this debate
that the _wave packet_ was going to be very large and very precise indeed,
but that a wave package _cannot_ be considered as synonymous with the photon
itself.  It's a probability density function, or at least the square root of
a probability density function.  The event in question -- photon emission --
occurs _within_ that probability density function, but is not synonymous
with it.

In fact, you can in principle measure the photon emission event in other
contexts that don't suffer from the temporal uncertainty of Mossbauer.
For example, what is the duration photon emission in _ordinary_ gamma
absorption/emission by 57Co?  Whatever it is, I think we would both agree
that it's a heck of a lot less than 100 ns.  And the emission event remains
very much the same whether it's Mossbauer or non-Mossbauer.  The main thing
that changes is what an external observer can _know_ about the event, not
the fundamental nature of the event.

My answer in this context -- _actual photon emission time_ -- remains YES.

The point of my two-way answer was to try to point out that there are
really _two_ issues rumbling around here:  duration of gamma photon emission
event (_any_ such event), and the size (uncertainty) of the wave packet
generated by Mossbauer events.  By answering YES you were acknowledging
the idea that a precise "size" of the emission event is meaningful, even if
(as I believe to be the case) you cannot _find_ that event in Mossbauer.
(I would judge offhand that you will _necessarily_ never know which of the
atoms radiated the gamma photon, or the effect would not be possible.)

Had you replied NO, I would assumed that what you were really talking about
was the (delocalized) wave function, and would therefore have been quite
comfortable with saying that parallel idea of the photon wave packet in
time could also become quite large.

You instead chose an asymmetrical combination.  You have said that precise
spatial location is meaningful, _even if the wave packet can never provide
you with the information to locate that atom_, while at the same time saying
that a precise temporal location is _not_ a meaningful concept in a very
similar circumstance: the packet can never provide sufficient information
to locate the event in time.

___________________________________________________________________________
Gary Collins:  Here are two other arguments.

               (1)  I already noted that the energy uncertainty of a photon
               emitted within a time period of 10^-23 seconds would be
               about 70 MeV.  But the energy uncertainty can be no less
               than the energy, as shown by the following simple argument.
               The energy E of a photon corresponds to frequency f of the
               (complementary) light wave, with E= hf.  The shortest
               possible pulse from a wave of frequency f must be roughly
               equal to the inverse of the period of a wave, so that E= hf
               >= h/T.  For a 14 keV photon, this gives a lower limit on
               the time of emission equal to about 3 x 10^-19 seconds, that
               is, 4 orders of magnitude longer than your claim.
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

Again, this argument blurs the distinction between temporal uncertainty and
duration of event.  That alone is sufficient basis to disqualify it.  You
are attempting to force a genuinely high-energy "compression" -- that of
the wave packet that _must_ include the photon -- into a situation where
it does not apply, which is the duration of the photon emission event as
measured in other non-Mossbauer contexts.

As a _hypothesis_, your "one pulse" idea frankly sounds about as good as
my "speed of light across the nucleus" idea.  Alas, even if you did make it
"4 orders of magnitude longer" than the time it takes light to cross the
diameter of a nucleus, you would at best only wind up somewhere in the
inner electron shells of the same atom.  Atoms run roughly 10^5 times larger
than nuclei.  Thus it would leave you in pretty much the same pickle that
started the whole debate:  How _does_ one transfer momentum throughout the
entire crystal in such a very short time period?  Momentum distribution to
_one_ atom just won't cut it.

___________________________________________________________________________
Gary Collins:  (2)  Experimentally, Mossbauer gamma rays are found to
               produce sharp Bragg diffraction peaks, meaning peak widths
               much less than one radian (57 degrees).  From the Bragg
               diffraction formula, it can be shown that the peak width is
               (roughly) equal to the fractional change in the wavelength
               of the (complementary) light wave.  But since the fractional
               uncertainties in the energy of a photon and the wavelength
               of the corresponding light wave are equal, the energy
               uncertainty of the emitted photon is also much less then 14
               keV.  Using the argument from point (1) leads to the
               conclusion that the time of emission of a 14 keV photon must
               be at least several orders of magnitude longer than 10^-19
               seconds.
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

Well, you invoked (1), which is already invalid, so (2) has a problem real
quick.

More to the point, Bragg diffraction measures the _wave packet_, not the
photon itself.  (A delightful and quite explicit reference for this point:
Feynman's "QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter").  So again, this
doesn't say anything about emission time, but rather how badly the photon
is "lost in time."  Ironically, the more "lost" the photon is -- that is,
the less you know _when_ it will reach the detector -- the more precisely
you will be able to predict _where_ it will reach the detector.

.....

One last point someone mentioned:  Photons most certainly _are_ point
particles, and they meet the criteria every bit as well as electrons do.
As Feynman mentions in the very beginning of "QED", this wouldn't even be a
debate if our eyes were about 10 times more sensitive.  We would have been
able to _see_ individual photons in very weak light impinging on our retinas
as tiny, discrete sparks, and thus would have "known" when we started to
build physics models of them would have to be treated as particles.

You might just as well complain that it's the _electrons_ that are going
around behaving as waves, as they do it every bit as much as the photons
when you go down to the scale of individual atoms.

.....

Gary, I really am getting a bit weary of this one.  I don't care if you
have texts quoting your side of this debate falling out your shelves.  If
they try treat photon emission as identical with wave packet generation,
they are simply wrong -- the issue is just at too fundamental a level of QM
to have much play in it.  I'm sure you can do all sorts of neat math based
on just that model, but in a pinch such models are going to give faulty
results unless you are very careful how you use them.

So.  What's next?

				Cheers,
				Terry

cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenterry cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.04 / John Cobb /  Re: Magnetic fields II, Baseball Trap
     
Originally-From: johncobb@emx.cc.utexas.edu (John W. Cobb)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Magnetic fields II, Baseball Trap
Date: 4 Jan 1994 16:54:55 -0600
Organization: The University of Texas - Austin

In article <1994Jan4.190139.14022@princeton.edu>,
Qian Qian <qianqian@tucson.Princeton.EDU> wrote:
>In article <2gc5mi$odg@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> mra@bink.mit.edu
(Michael Raskin Andrews) writes:
>>Does anyone out there know if a magnetic field whose absolute magnitude is  
>>spherically symmetric and monotonically increasing radially is useful in  
>>fusion research/development these days? My guess is that when fusible  
>>particles are confined by such a magnetic field configuration, the whole  
>>system is made simpler.   
>>
>>I know that some time back a useful magnetic field configuration called  
>>the "baseball trap" was _somewhat_ similar to the idealization I just  
>>mentioned. What I'm interested in is if something closer to the ideal of  
>>perfect spherical symmetry (etc.) would be better.
>> 
>
>I remember in our first year plasma course several magnetic field 
>configurations including 'baseball trap' were discussed. the difficulty
>is that not only making complicated magnets presents a big engineering
>problem but the imperfection of magnets would induce lots of instabilities
>which would become disaster to the confinement. Stellerator is one of the
>examples. I was told Japan spent lots of money to try to build biggest
>stellerator in the world and, if finished, it could have competed against
>TFTR and other major tokamaks. However, as I know, because of engineering
>problem, the project is far delayed. Tokamaks get to survive up to now
>just because they are not difficult to build compared with other more
>sophisticated machines and have better overall performance.
>
>Qian
>
I have to disagree with this assessment. There are a lot of difficulties
in building complex coils, but baseball coils are not the most complex.
Especially compared to stellerators, which have been successfully
built. ATF is in Oak Ridge, and its biggest problem is that it keeps
getitng shut down for budget reasons (which are only marginally related
to the science it does). Also Wendelstein-7 is running (or perhaps it is
down for an upgrade). I think the machine you are thinking of in Japan is
LHD, the large Helical Device. I am not in a position to comment on its
schedule or success, but hey that never stopped me before. I vaguely
remember having the feeling that it was pretty much on course. The 
reason TFTR is complete before LHD was that it was started many years
beforehand.


If you are worried about magnetic field errors from imprecise coils, then
all of magnetic fusion is pretty much in the same boat. Locked modes and
ripple effects can be seen in tokamaks as well as other machines. Granted,
stellerators may have it a bit tougher, but baseballs are pretty simple by
comparison. I would suggest looking at the coil structure that TOKAMAKS
are going to need to have to accomodate a high power divertor. There are
some odd shapes that are required and they are going to need really tight
tolerances if they want the angle of attack to be between 0 and 5 degrees,
reliably --- That's a tough one.


-john .w cobb


cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenjohncobb cudfnJohn cudlnCobb cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.04 /  jonesse@physc1 /  A few notes
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: A few notes
Date: 4 Jan 94 15:36:01 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

A few notes:
1.  In the latest draft of the ICCF-4 paper, I neglected to acknowledge
Terry Bollinger, Al Mann and Charlie Barnes -- which oversight will be
corrected.
2.  In response to the discussion of piezonuclear fusion, initiated
this go-round by Greg Kuperberg, I have a few comments.  Our ideas about
piezonuclear fusion have no connection that I can see to the excess-heat
claims of P&F.  (I am tired of reiterating this.)  Quite independent of
that business, we continue
to explore the possibility that metallic or high-density-low-temp.-plasma
forms of
deuterium (and by extension p and t also) may form under extreme conditions.
And we are looking at fusion rates under these conditions.  I would concur
with Terry in calling this "conventional" fusion in that I expect the
branching ratios to be as expected from muon-catalyzed fusion or extrapolations
from "hot" fusion.  But none of this is a change from my thinking over the
past several years.  Achieving these conditions *is* more difficult than I
realized in 1986 when we published our first paper on "piezonuclear fusion"
or even 1989 when P&F-style "cold fusion" hit the fan.

3.  Dieter in his review of Taube's book suggests that there was underhandness
on BYU's part in not acknowledging the P&F work in our discussion regarding
patent disclosures to DOE as required by our DOE grant (p. 60 of Taubes' book).
Nonsense:  DOE was well aware of P&F's work and of our awareness of that work.
I think the minutes of the meeting were simply incomplete.  These were not
my minutes, however.
Moreover, we never denied knowledge of the P&F work -- as the U. Utah people
however did of our work at their press conference on March 23, 1989.  

You will recall that at that infamous press conference,
the question was raised to the panel, which included P&F, 
"Is anyone else doing related work?"  The response was a clear denial of
awareness of anyone doing related work.  We never did anything like that,
Dieter, to my knowledge.  After our work became known due to the efforts of
Jerry Bishop of J. Wall Street, primarily, *then* a U. Utah representative
(James Brophy) said that, yes, they had known about the BYU work -- and he
added that our work confirmed theirs!  (Which I considered obfuscation in the
extreme.)  I have this on videotape from a news broadcast in 1989.

--Steven Jones


cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenjonesse cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.04 /  jonesse@physc1 /  cancel <1994Jan4.142640.1215@physc1.byu.edu>
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cancel <1994Jan4.142640.1215@physc1.byu.edu>
Date: 4 Jan 94 15:36:14 -0700

cancel <1994Jan4.142640.1215@physc1.byu.edu>
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenjonesse cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.05 / Jon Noring /  Re: What did Bockris do wrong?
     
Originally-From: noring@netcom.com (Jon Noring)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What did Bockris do wrong?
Date: Wed, 5 Jan 1994 01:02:39 GMT
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)

In article blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu writes:

>If he actually believed that he could achieve that goal, then he probably
>should be put out to pasture for being incompetent.

This is somewhat of a strong statement, especially since you did not mention
what process he was advocating.  As another poster mentioned, one of the
natural isotopes of mercury, when bombarded with neutrons (possibly even
thermal neutrons), will be transmutated to a radioactive isotope of mercury
which then rapidly decays to the natural isotope of gold.  This nuclear
reaction appears to be possible.  It's just a matter of making such a process
economical.

Of course, this may not have been his process (he may have attempted it
without a source of neutrons), but it certainly shows that making such
statements without providing the proper information is itself very
unscientific and can lead to blind witch hunts.  After all, what do the guys
at LBL do but to continue to make new elements?  Alchemy is being done all
the time!  It's just a matter of providing the right ingredients.

So, anybody, what is the process that Bockris is studying for converting
mercury into gold?

Jon Noring

-- 

If you are an INFJ, then join the INFJ mailing list - ask me for more details.
If you don't know what INFJ means, ask me, and I'll send more info (46Kb file).
=============================================================================
| Jon Noring          | noring@netcom.com        | "Fanny Hill" and other   |
| JKN International   | IP    : 192.100.81.100   | famous literary works in |
| 1312 Carlton Place  | Phone : (510) 294-8153   | Windows 3.1 Help format  |
| Livermore, CA 94550 | V-Mail: (510) 417-4101   | are available!  Ask me!  |
=============================================================================
       Read alt.psychology.personality!  That's where the action is.
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudennoring cudfnJon cudlnNoring cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.05 / Greg Kuperberg /  Re: A few notes
     
Originally-From: gk00@ellis.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A few notes
Date: Wed, 5 Jan 1994 02:14:46 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

In article <1994Jan4.153601.1219@physc1.byu.edu> jonesse@physc1.byu.edu writes:
>2.  In response to the discussion of piezonuclear fusion, initiated
>this go-round by Greg Kuperberg, I have a few comments.  Our ideas about
>piezonuclear fusion have no connection that I can see to the excess-heat
>claims of P&F.  (I am tired of reiterating this.)

You have my sympathy, even conerning your parenthetical comment.
However, I think that you are the first to mention either Pons,
Fleischmann, or excess heat in the piezonuclear discussion.
If it turns out that I was the first to mention them, then
that would have been a regretful error on my part.

>Quite independent of that business, we continue to explore the
>possibility that metallic or high-density-low-temp.-plasma forms of
>deuterium (and by extension p and t also) may form under extreme
>conditions.  And we are looking at fusion rates under these
>conditions.

With all due respect, I do not think that your conditions are
particularly extreme in the nuclear scale.

>I would concur with Terry in calling this "conventional" fusion in that
>I expect the branching ratios to be as expected from muon-catalyzed
>fusion or extrapolations from "hot" fusion.

I would hope that it is conventional fusion.  Unconventional fusion
would be like an unconventional isotope of hydrogen, maybe quadratium.
But we are in agreement here, so I won't pursue this point further.
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudengk00 cudfnGreg cudlnKuperberg cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.05 / Jay James /  Why???
     
Originally-From: jayjames@rahul.net (Jay James)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Why???
Date: Wed, 5 Jan 1994 02:23:28 GMT
Organization: a2i network


Maybe I'm missing something.... but *why* does it matter that Group A did
not "acknowledge" Group B's past/present/future efforts in field XYZ, at a
certain news conference ABC?  

I think the problem with you guys is that you got mixed up with too much
patent law.  Stick to science guys....leave the word games and priority
issues to the lawyers...

--Jay
-- 
Jay James <jayjames@rahul.net>
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenjayjames cudfnJay cudlnJames cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.05 / R Schroeppel /  Americium contamination
     
Originally-From: rcs@cs.arizona.edu (Richard Schroeppel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Americium contamination
Date: Wed, 5 Jan 1994 01:14:23 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

>From Steven Jones latest ICCF-4 draft,

>   No gamma lines above background were
    seen, except for a weak 59.5 keV line which represents americium-
    241.  The americium contamination was traced to the nickel gauze
    used for anodes.

This suggests a radiological safety problem somewhere:
How did the gauze become contaminated with a substance
whose location is supposed to be closely monitored?
Is any followup being done?

Rich Schroeppel  rcs@cs.arizona.edu

cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenrcs cudfnRichard cudlnSchroeppel cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.05 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Sonofusion
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Sonofusion
Date: Wed, 5 Jan 1994 01:14:29 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I am pretty sure that the D2 sonofusion idea was not mine, though Terry 
tries to give me credit for it.  It all mushes together over time.  Stil,
we have this nice audit trail to straighten it out for the historians if 
anyone ever cares.  I think I did recall that a lot of D2 bubble chambers 
wer run, but give Douglas Morrison credit for having actually seen DD fusion
in a bubble chamber picture - also Louis Alverez, I believe, who saw it 
first - but Douglas's observation was independant.  

Tom Droege

cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenDROEGE cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.05 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Reply to John Logajan
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Reply to John Logajan
Date: Wed, 5 Jan 1994 01:14:32 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I really know nothing about long term loading.  I will put up a review of 
the Kunimatsu work in about a week.  That group's work was one of the 
highlights of the conference.  They used pressure drop in a H or D pressurized
cell.  I use excess oxygen.  I think long term accurace of either method is
not so good.  (That is accuracy in last sentence).  With H or D you suspect 
that they leak out of the cell over time.  With O, you suspect that it finds
something to combine with over time.  Thus I do not trust anyone's long term
measurements.

So, I don't know where a cathode will unload to over time.  But I am pretty 
sure it does not go to zero.  Somewhere in the 0.7 to 0.8 range (depending
on temperature) sounds right to me.  One of the workers at the conference 
studied loading versus resistance and found that it was safe to use resistance
as a measurement as the loading never went below the resistance peak at 0.75
(looked it up - it was McKubre).

Now that the hot fusion stuff has died down, I am going to put up my talk 
reviews.  One section a day.  I have finished 9 sections, so it will take 
two weeks.  

Tom Droege

cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenDROEGE cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.05 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Re: Steve Jones on Fritz Will
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Steve Jones on Fritz Will
Date: Wed, 5 Jan 1994 01:14:37 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

The Fritz Will presentation at ICCF4 was new to me as I had not seen the ICCF3
presentation, nor read the Fusion Technology paper.  The big question for me 
is what is new material and what is old?  For me it has the appearance of a
long term continuing program.  

To settle the question of the number of controls, I quote from the abstract:
"Thirteen control pieces were cut from the same spool of 2 mm Hoover & Strong
Pd wire from which the four Pd cathodes were cut that had shown significant 
tritium after high D loading in D2SO4.  None of the thirteen controls showed 
any tritium".

So Steve, it was more than four.  

I still bet on some artifact of the liquid scintillator that is activated by
electrolysis of something in the Hoover & Strong wire.  This is a pretty 
complicated "miracle", but not quite as improbable as all the missing high
energy products.  Note also that Will found more tritium in the center of the
wires than at the ends.  This is also something that matches electrolysis.  

Tom Droege

cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenDROEGE cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.04 / John Cobb /  Re: Sonofusion (Terry's UC) Revisited
     
Originally-From: johncobb@emx.cc.utexas.edu (John W. Cobb)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Sonofusion (Terry's UC) Revisited
Date: 4 Jan 1994 09:33:34 -0600
Organization: The University of Texas - Austin

In article <1994Jan3.104532.16824@desire.wright.edu>,
 <jbatka@desire.wright.edu> wrote:
>In article <1994Jan2.073452.4738@asl.dl.nec.com>, terry@asl.dl.nec.com writes:
>>
[discussion about;sono-fusion, it's history, and Sci. Am.'s net-lurking]

[presumably referring to a Sci. Am. Article on sonoluminescence ]

>In the Sci. Am. article on it, they stated that one researcher reached
>bubble temperatures of at least 10,000 (C I believe).  However, as a fluid
>dynamicist these high temperatures seem very highly improbable if generated
>by shock waves, even if it is a gas-liquid phase driven one.  However,
>I have not been involved in experiments or computations involving a
>gas-liquid phase shock either.
>
>regards,
>
>
>-- 
>
>   Jim Batka  | Work Email:  BATKAJ@DAYTON.SAIC.COM     | Elvis is
>              | Home Email:  JBATKA@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU   |   DEAD!

The crucial phrase in your comment is "as a fluid dynamicist". It is
indeed difficult to imagine a fluid process leading to such high
temperatures. However, one must remember that fluid dynamics is only
an approximation (albeit very useful over a wide range of phenomena)
to reality. The critical issue to ask is: Is the assumption of a local
Thermodynamic equilibrium (Boltzmann distribution) valid for this
phenomena? Although I don't have the figures of merit for this
experiment, I seemed to remember the last time I looked at them, it
seemed very possible that the assumptions required for the fluid
approximation to be valid are quite possibly violated. In that case,
we should go back to a kinetic treatment. There temps. of 10,000 C are
not impossible, merely extremely odd (and therefore intriguing, I guess)

Others have commented about how the experiments measure T by looking
at its black-body spectrum. I have a question about this process. Has
anyone examined whether the spectrum is a blackbody. That is, has the
spectrum been fit using many different frequencies, so that a Black-Body
could be distinguished from say a power law spectrum, or have the measurements
simply used ratios of emission from two different frequencies and computed a
temperature ASSUMING the spectrum was black-body. If it is the later,  then
the experiment may greatly overestimate the temperature if the spectrum has
a long tail (from non-equilibrium effects) and the emission lines used to 
measure T were in the tails.

-john .w cobb






cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenjohncobb cudfnJohn cudlnCobb cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.04 / John Cobb /  Re: magnetic fields
     
Originally-From: johncobb@emx.cc.utexas.edu (John W. Cobb)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: magnetic fields
Date: 4 Jan 1994 10:18:32 -0600
Organization: The University of Texas - Austin

In article <2g9sq6$mdq@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu>,
Michael Raskin Andrews <mra@bink.mit.edu> wrote:
>In article <2g9rvuINNitt@emx.cc.utexas.edu> johncobb@emx.cc.utexas.edu  
>(John W. Cobb) writes:

[referring to Michal's request for a magnetic field configuration uniform
in magnitude and spherically symmetric]

>The kind of magnetic field I'm interested in is one whose absolute field  
>magnitude is monotonically increasing and spherically symmetric about
>a central point. 


Do you mean monotonically increasing or constant? I assume you don't
care about its direction.

There are 2 other questions:

Will you allow currents to exist inside your region of interest?

What is your region of interest and what are the boundary conditions? 
specifically, is the origin included in the region?

Well, in order to not just be a kibuttzer, I'll try to give you part of the
answer that can be answered from what has been asked so far.

There are 2 pieces of information you have given, the magnitude is given and
the system is spherically symmetric. There is also the
fact that Div B = 0 which is very important also.

The goal is to find all possible solutions for the components of B, the 
magnetic field (B_r, B_theta, and B_phi)

Let's use spherical coordinates, r,theta,phi where phi is the azimuthal
coordinate and theta is the polar angle.

Spherical symmetry implies that the components are independent of theta and
phi.

The magnitude constraint is: (B_r)**2 + (B_theta)**2 + (B_phi)**2 = A(r)
Where A(r) is a constant if you want the magnitude to be constant and it 
depends on r if you want some radial dependence such as "monotonically
increasing"

The divergence-Free constraint reduces to d/dr[r**2 * B_r] = 0, which
implies that

			B_r = K/r**2

where K is an integration constant. Note: if you wish to include the
origin in your system, then regularity conditions require K=0.

Now you have 2 relations for the 3 components, so the system is not completely
specified. Therefore, in principle you may be able to create such a field.

So we need to specify another constraint. The natural one to introduce is the
current distribution. Curl B = 4 pi J / c.

Spherical symmetry requires that J_r = 0

J_theta = (c/4pi) * (-1/r) d/dr[r B_phi]

and

J_phi = (c/4pi) * (1/r) d/dr[r B_theta]

Thus if you specify J_theta and J_phi you can in principle solve for
B. However, know you have 4 relations for 3 variables, so my suggestion
is to pick J_phi and let J_theta be specified from the "constant magnitude"
relation.

This of course is all mathematics up to this point. You have to ask
whether such solutions can be experimentally realized, unless you are
a theorist, then you don't care. For instance, if J_theta <> 0 and/or
J_phi <> 0 then you will probably have a difficult time getting J_r=0
because you will need leads to your coils. This will break the symmetry,
but if you are careful, it may be minimized.

A case that may be of interest is the J=0 case. This says that you
will not allow currents in your region of interest. This is unusual
in a plasma, but you said you were working on neutral atom trapping, so
this may be just the condition you want to impose. You can have any current-
carrying wires in the path of the laser beams, right? 

The J=0, Div B=0, and spherical symmetry together give:

B_r     = K_1 / r**2

B_theta = K_2 / r

B_phi   = K_3 / r

Now this field is by no means "constant in magnitude" It has a strong
radial dependence.

In this instance, I am imagining that you want to create a small volume in your
chamber that will have such a field. In that case you will want to include
the region at or near r=0. That is you are interested in a spherical region and 
not just a spherical shell, I presume.

In that case, there is no solution except the B=0 solution that is
current free and contains the origin (and of course is monopole free).

If you restrict your region and pick your current carefully, you may find
other solutions.

If you relax spherical symmetry, you will also get more possibilities, for
example the minimum B baseball coils you referred to originally has some
good properties for plasma stability, but it is not spherically symmetric.
The dual requirements of spherical symmetry and zero divergence are really
rather difficult constraints.

hope it helps,

-john .w cobb



cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenjohncobb cudfnJohn cudlnCobb cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.04 / Michael Andrews /  Magnetic fields II, Baseball Trap
     
Originally-From: mra@bink.mit.edu (Michael Raskin Andrews)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Magnetic fields II, Baseball Trap
Date: 4 Jan 1994 16:32:18 GMT
Organization: Massachvsetts Institvte of Technology

Does anyone out there know if a magnetic field whose absolute magnitude is  
spherically symmetric and monotonically increasing radially is useful in  
fusion research/development these days? My guess is that when fusible  
particles are confined by such a magnetic field configuration, the whole  
system is made simpler.   

I know that some time back a useful magnetic field configuration called  
the "baseball trap" was _somewhat_ similar to the idealization I just  
mentioned. What I'm interested in is if something closer to the ideal of  
perfect spherical symmetry (etc.) would be better.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenmra cudfnMichael cudlnAndrews cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.04 / John Cobb /  Re: Magnetic fields II, Baseball Trap --Long
     
Originally-From: johncobb@emx.cc.utexas.edu (John W. Cobb)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Magnetic fields II, Baseball Trap --Long
Date: 4 Jan 1994 16:42:55 -0600
Organization: The University of Texas - Austin

In article <2gc5mi$odg@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu>,
Michael Raskin Andrews <mra@bink.mit.edu> wrote:
>Does anyone out there know if a magnetic field whose absolute magnitude is  
>spherically symmetric and monotonically increasing radially is useful in  
>fusion research/development these days? My guess is that when fusible  
>particles are confined by such a magnetic field configuration, the whole  
>system is made simpler.   
>
>I know that some time back a useful magnetic field configuration called  
>the "baseball trap" was _somewhat_ similar to the idealization I just  
>mentioned. What I'm interested in is if something closer to the ideal of  
>perfect spherical symmetry (etc.) would be better.
> 

I think I know the answer to this question, but to tell the truth, this 
issue raged, and to some extent was setlled a little before my time.

I'll give the explanation, but it is long and a bit pedagogic for those
who are not familiar with fusion/plasma physics.

The baseball magnets were used for mirror machines. So let me give a brief
description of my understanding of the issues facing fusion with magnetic
mirrors. A mirror machine is called an "open field" device becuase you can
travel along the magnetic field an go from inside the plasm to outside the
plasma. Usual plasma motion restricts particles to travelling parallel to
the magnetic field as a first order approximation. The name of the game is
to contain the plasma long enough so that the rate of energy production is
greater than rate of energy loss from the plasma diffusing to the walls. The
diffusion rate is orders of magnitude larger, in general, for motion parallel
to the magnetic field as compared to motion perpendicular to the field.

So at first glance, mirrors seem to suck as a containment scheme becuase they
allow parallel motion (i.e. motion parallel to B) from the inside to the
outside. However, there is a saving grace. The particle motion conserves
something called the magnetic moment which is the ratio of kinetic energy
in perpendicular motion to the strength of the magnetic field. If this ratio,
mu, is constant, then if the strength of the magnetic field becomes very
intense along the parallel motion, the particles will not be able to escape
because they do not have enough energy to pass through the high field
"throat" region toeep to the outside. So the mirror concept is a magnetic
bottle where the sides are formed by virtue of the fact that perpendicular
motion is restricted and the endcaps are formed by virtue of the fact that
conservation of magnetic moment will cause the particles to bounce off of the
ends, hence the name "magnetic mirror".

The weakest link in the bottle is the end-caps. mu is not strictly conserved.
In particular, Coulomb collisions will alter mu. Therefore, the mirror
confinement time was set by the Coulomb collision time. The average
particle would stick around until it collided enough for mu to be small enough
for the particle to escape out the end.

A picture that one can use to think about this is to imagine gathering
a bundle of straws and holding them together near the ends with a strong
rubber band. The straws will be wider in the middle and thin at the end.
The straws stand for the magnetic field-lines and the rubber band is the
external current coils.

This configuration possesses a symmetry in that it can be rotated around its
axis without change.

This works all well and fine, until one begins to consider the collective
plasma motions. It turns out thet there is something called an
interchange instability, or a fluting instability. In this instance, the 
initial symmetric configuration is unstable to perturbations that vary
azimuthially. That is where the name fluting comes from. The instability
mode changes a axi-symettric plasma column into one that looks like a
fluted column. It turns out that there is a nice compact rule of thumb
that can be used to determine whether a configuration is stable or unstable
to fluting. Look at the field lines. If they are straight, then fluting cannot
occur. If they are curved, the you can locally define a vector field associated
with the magnetic field, called the curvature. This is straight out of 
sophomore multi-variate calculus courses where you talk about local ortho-
normal coordinates. However, it is not a complicated idea. When you look at
a curve, at each point along the curve, it looks like a circle (to some
approximation). The curvature is just a vector that points from the curve
to the center of this radius of curvature and has a magnitude of 1/R where
R is the radius of curvature. 

The other thing that is needed is the gradient of the plasma pressure, this
is also a vector. Now the simple rule of thumb is to take the dot product of
the curvature and the pressure gradient. If it is positive, then the plasma
is unstable. Physically, what is happening is that the plasma is 
"interchanging" a high pressure flux tube on the inside of the plasma with a
lower pressure flux tube further out. It works out the the energy required to
compress the magnetic field and pressure in the outer tube is less than the
energy gained by the expansion of the inner tube, so it is energetically
favored. Not only is it favored, but it can be shown that it is an allowed
perturbation.

This situation is called "bad curvature". Imagine the magnetic field-lines as
a cup and the plasma as water. If the field lines are shaped to "hold water"
then the curvature is bad. Otherwise, it is good. The case of straight field
lines is the border line.

So it turned out that the biggest problem for mirrors was not the end-loss
so much as hydromagnetic stability.

So the next idea was to cook up a field structure that had "good curvature"

The first idea was a cusp field. Here one takes one of the current loops and
reverses its sign. Now the mirror changes from a "straw pack" to look more
like a child's top. It is very wide at the midplane. If you cut a 
cross-section, it looks more like a hyperbola then like vase.

This solves the problem because now the curvature is good. However, it
also introduces another problem. The cusp field has regions where the
magnetic field changes very rapidly in space. The magnetic moment, mu,
is not an exactly conserved quantity. It is what is called an
adiabatic invariant. This means that it is very well preserved (error
less than any arbitrary perturbation order) in the limit of mildly varying
magnetic fields (i.e. adiabatic variation). However, the cusp field has regions
that are very non-abiabatic. Therefore the particles that go through that 
region may find that mu changes. Thus the velocity-space diffusion is 
enhanced. Now instead of sticking around in the mirror machine for a Coulomb
time, the particles only stay around a characteristic magnetic moment
diffusion time, which depends on the details of the field. This is bad
news.

So the mirror people went back to the drawing board. They found that it was
posible to have as a minimum-B, or good curvature field structure without
having to have cusps. The idea was to attache current lengths that ran
along the the length of the mirror on the outside. This created a multipole 
field. These are sometimes called Ioffe bars for the Russian who thought of
using them on mirrors. It was shown that such a configuration was stable to
all hydromagnetic perturbations.

The next step was to realize that the demarcation between end coils and
Ioffed bars was a little artificial and the result of thinking 2-dimensionally.
If you take 4 Ioffe bars and 2 end coils and put them together, you find that
you get something that topologically looks like the edges of a cube. Now, on
the top of the cube, erase 2 opposite edges and on the bottom of the cube
also erase 2 opposite edges, but in a manner that keeps all the
other edges connected. If you round off the corners, you find you
have something that looks 
like the seam of a baseball, hence the name baseball coils.

The "erasing" of the 4 edges is not so important becuase all that is needed 
is that the magnitude of the magnetic field must increase near the edge in 
order for the mirroring bound to occur. This will happen whether the high 
field "throat" region is formed from a coil or 2 almost straight
current carrying segments.

However, it is not spherically symmetric. In fact that may not be the
most desired shape. Ideally you want the ratio of the field in the throat 
compared to the field in the core of the plasma to be very high. So you would
like to expand the field along the midplane a bit.

The story continues however. The mirror program also had to face issues
such as thermal losses out of the ends. Even if the particles are trapped,
it is possible to lose energy out of the end  due to thermal conduction. There
is also an issue concerning the floating plasma potential. If enough electrons
escape out the end, then it will create an electric field that will act to
pull out the ions. Thus the ions diffuse much faster than one would expect.
This also increases the losses. The "powers that be" declared in the U.S.
that we could no longer afford 2 magnetic fusion programs and the killed the
mirror program in favor of the TOKAMAK program based on their assessment that
it offered better prospects of success.

As an aside, the TOKAMAK, is a different ball game. It's magnetic field
is toroidal, like a doughnut. Therefore it never has to face the problem
of parallel transport that killed the U.S. mirror program. However, if
you look at it for a while, you will see that it is impossible to create
a TOKAMAK that has good curvature everywhere. If it has good curvature
on one side then it will have bad curvature on the other side.

However, for a tokamak, the field lines are twisted. That is, they don't just
go around the doughnut, but they also twist. At one point they are on the
outside edge and later they are on the inside edge. When you look at the
equations, you can find that there is an appropriate averaging procedure 
that can  be used to calculate an "average" curvature. That is , eventhough,
the TOKAMAK may have regions of locally bad curvature, the average curvature
can be made good by having the good outweight the bad. This indeed happens.
So a TOKAMAK is also stable to interchange modes. However, there is a
variation for TOKAMAKS that is similar to the interchange mode, but
instead of exhanging the entire flux tube, it just swaps only a small piece
of it. This is usually not found becauase it requires a lot of compression
which is stabilizing. However, in some cases, the unstable driving force is
strong enough to overwhelm the stabilizing compression. Then you can get
a mode that is localized to the bad curvature region but does not extend into
the good curvature regions. This mode is called a "ballooning mode" since
it streches the field lines in a manner similar to a auto tire that is about
to blow out. The inner tube protudes out beyond the outer tube and as it gets
bigger, the rubber streches and it gets easier to push out even further leading
to an instability. On an auto it leads to a bursting of the tire. In a TOKAMAK,
it is thought to lead to a rearranging of the plasma and degraded 
confinement. This it is a regulating mechanism. This ballooning mode is thought
to be responsbile for the current limitations of TOKAMAK performance. The
reactor would work better if we could stuff in more plasma, but as we stuff in
more plasma we increase the pressure, which increases the pressure gradient.
This increases the unstable driving terms. At some point they overwhelm the
stabilizing effects of compression and shear, and stability is lost. This
is why there has been a great deal of work, particularly at GA in San Diego,
but also elsewhere that has looked into shaping of the field structure
(elongation, triangularity) and low aspect ratios and other games in order to
push this limiting criteria further and further. They have had some amazing
success, but the TOKAMAK still has a lot of warts. As an energy source we
are still wrestling with scientific questions about stability and scaling.
There are immensely difficult technological questions about actually getting 
the things to run reliably, efficiently, and cost effectively that may never
be resolved.



So in anwer to you question, the baseball concept applied to mirror
devices (open field line). However, today it appears that the best 
fusion devices are closed field devices like stellerators, TOKAMAKS,
RFP's, FRC's or spheromaks. They all have a toroidal field line topology.

I think there is a very strong statement that can be made about the 
non-existence of a toroidal vector field that is spherically symmetric,
although I am not up to the task today of guessing what that statement
is (and I am probably not up to the task of proving such a statement on
any day --- geometric topology is not my forte).

-john .w cobb

 




cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenjohncobb cudfnJohn cudlnCobb cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Wed Jan  5 04:37:06 EST 1994
------------------------------
1994.01.04 /  collins@jaguar /  Re: Mossbauer and momentum
     
Originally-From: collins@jaguar.csc.wsu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Mossbauer and momentum
Date: 4 Jan 94 16:09:56 -0800
Organization: Washington State Univ.

The exchanges concerning the Mossbauer effect between Terry Bollinger 
and myself bring out features of the wave-particle dual nature of light.

In article <1994Jan4.191250.28999@asl.dl.nec.com>, terry@asl.dl.nec.com writes:
> Sigh.
> 
> ____________________________________________________________________________
> Gary Collins:  Do you still think that the emission or absorption takes
>                place in only 10^-23 seconds, Terry?
> 
> T. Bollinger:  Do _you_ believe that the gamma photon absorption/emission
>                event takes place within a region of space no more than
>                2 angstroms in diameter?  If your answer is YES, my answer
>                to your question is also YES.  If your answer is NO,  my
>                answer to your question is also NO.
> 
> Gary Collins:  My answer is YES.  It is only accelerating charge
>                distributions that radiate.  During a nuclear transition,
>                the charge of the nucleus oscillates between distributions
>                of the excited and ground state...
> """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
> Hmm.  ...

[ Terry suggests (incorrectly) that Gary is unaware of the difference 
between  sigh and sigh^2. :)]

> ___________________________________________________________________________
> Gary Collins:  ... An emitting nucleus itself has a radius of about
>                1-10 x 10^-5 angstroms.  (Thermal motion in a solid will
>                increase the effective radius of the emitting volume to
>                about 0.1 angstroms.) ...
> """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
> Thermal motion as large as a radius of 0.1 Angstroms?  I don't think so.

Quite so.  As a rule of thumb, the root-mean-square displacement of an
atom in a solid at the melting temperature is about 1/10 of the 
interatomic distance (Lindemann melting formula), and the mean-squared
displacement is roughly proportional to the absolute temperature.

> Your gamma wavelengths are significantly shorter than one Angstrom, meaning
> that a 0.1 thermal oscillation would utterly destroy the long-term (100 ns)
> temporal phase coherency for which you had been arguing rather adamantly.
> The spatial location of the nucleus thus must instead remain incredibly
> _stable_ for the entire duration of the gamma absorption/emission event.

I rather think of the effect you describe in terms of spacial coherence.  
What you write would be true for high-energy gamma rays, but 14 keV 
radiation has a wavelength of 0.86 Angstroms, much larger than the 
thermal rms displacement.

> ___________________________________________________________________________
> Gary Collins:  ... Your answer should be NO.  Previously, I pointed out that,
>                from the measured width (energy uncertainty) of the Mossbauer
>                resonance of 57Co, the time of emission must be of the order
>                of 100 ns (or longer)...
> """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
> 
> The conjugate variable for "energy uncertainty" is "time uncertainty," not
> "time [length] of emission." That is, if you can force an extremely precise
> frequency, what you will lose is knowledge of _when_ the photon was emitted.
> At best you will only be able to give a ballpark estimate of when the photon
> was radiated (or more meaningfully, when you will detect it).
> 
> What you were actually calculating was the size of this temporal uncertainty
> frame, not the duration of the photon emission event itself. 

Remember that you only know you have a photon when it is *detected* in
some way, such as by interaction in a photon detector to produce an
electrical "click".  My claim is that the time uncertainty and duration
of the emission process ARE the same.  To try to avoid misunderstanding, 
let me give my simple, intuitive picture of the emission process:

The 100 ns, 14 keV state of 57Co is populated by a preceding gamma-ray 
emission at some time (time t= 0).  Immediately afterwards, a wave-function
sigh(x,t) starts to be set up in space, with its square giving the probability
of detecting the photon at x at time t.  The energy of the photon 
detected at time t is uncertain by an amount deltaE ~ hbar/t, in which hbar is
Planck's constant divided by 2pi.  This is analogous to the frequency
uncertainty of a harmonic wave extending over the same time t.  

The linewidth obtained in Mossbauer spectroscopy is consistent with the
above uncertainty relation.  For example, consider the not-well-known 
delayed-coincidence-Mossbauer-spectroscopy.  Here, one uses a preceding 
nuclear emission as a marker for creation of the Mossbauer level (at t= 0) 
and collects a spectrum only for those (recoilless) gamma rays 
emitted between later times t1 and t2.  
For example, if one sets t1= 0 and t2= 50 ns (half the average
lifetime), then one is selecting out only those photons detected
after a shorter time ("young" photons, if you like).  As the
reader may guess, the measured energy uncertainty is then found to be 
roughly double the value inferred from hbar over the average lifetime.  
Or, you can select out "old" photons by choosing t1= 100 ns and t2= 200 ns, 
in which case the linewidth becomes narrower.  Now Terry, how would you 
explain why "old" photons have less energy uncertainty?

> ...
> In fact, you can in principle measure the photon emission event in other
> contexts that don't suffer from the temporal uncertainty of Mossbauer.

The point of your postings was special features of the Mossbauer effect.

> For example, what is the duration photon emission in _ordinary_ gamma
> absorption/emission by 57Co?  Whatever it is, I think we would both agree
> that it's a heck of a lot less than 100 ns.

I would submit that the intrinsic energy uncertainty remains the same, 
although it will be hard to measure because of the energy change from
creation or annihilation of a phonon.  Thus, I do not agree.

> ...
> My answer in this context -- _actual photon emission time_ -- remains YES.
> ... 
> ___________________________________________________________________________
> Gary Collins:  Here are two other arguments.
> 
>                (1)  I already noted that the energy uncertainty of a photon
>                emitted within a time period of 10^-23 seconds would be
>                about 70 MeV.  But the energy uncertainty can be no less
>                than the energy, as shown by the following simple argument.
>                The energy E of a photon corresponds to frequency f of the
>                (complementary) light wave, with E= hf.  The shortest
>                possible pulse from a wave of frequency f must be roughly
>                equal to the inverse of the period of a wave, so that E= hf
>                >= h/T.  For a 14 keV photon, this gives a lower limit on
>                the time of emission equal to about 3 x 10^-19 seconds, that
>                is, 4 orders of magnitude longer than your claim.
> """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
> Again, this argument blurs the distinction between temporal uncertainty and
> duration of event.  

I stand by point (1).  See above.  

> ___________________________________________________________________________
> Gary Collins:  (2)  Experimentally, Mossbauer gamma rays are found to
>                produce sharp Bragg diffraction peaks, meaning peak widths
>                much less than one radian (57 degrees).  From the Bragg
>                diffraction formula, it can be shown that the peak width is
>                (roughly) equal to the fractional change in the wavelength
>                of the (complementary) light wave.  But since the fractional
>                uncertainties in the energy of a photon and the wavelength
>                of the corresponding light wave are equal, the energy
>                uncertainty of the emitted photon is also much less then 14
>                keV.  Using the argument from point (1) leads to the
>                conclusion that the time of emission of a 14 keV photon must
>                be at least several orders of magnitude longer than 10^-19
>                seconds.
> """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
> Well, you invoked (1), which is already invalid.

Not so.

> Gary, I really am getting a bit weary of this one.  I don't care if you
> have texts quoting your side of this debate falling out your shelves.  

I am also getting weary.  I do have texts falling off the shelf, but that is
only because my office is so small  ( deltav ~ h/m deltax).  :) 

Sighning off,
 -------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary S. Collins              | e-mail: collins@cougar.csc.wsu.edu

cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudencollins cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.05 /  dowen@vaxc.cc. /  Concerning Fracto-fusion .........
     
Originally-From: dowen@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Concerning Fracto-fusion .........
Date: 5 Jan 94 20:35:56 +1100
Organization: Computer Centre, Monash University, Australia


Hi Folks,
Best wishes to all for the new year.

 Firstly, to Dieter,
 I was saddened to see your remorseful post of the 31st Dec 93.
 Dieter, you are *the* stalwart of this newsgroup, and if anything should
come of my research into fracto (and maybe, sono) fusion, be assured that your
interest, Knowledge and criticism have had no little influence on the results.

 Also, every success to Steve Jones in his sonofusion experiments.

 The following post on fracto-fusion is mainly derived from the paper by
Dickinson et al "Fracto-emission from deuterated titanium: Supporting evidence
for a fracto-fusion mechanism." in the "J.Mater.Research, Vol 5, No.1, 1990."
where they state in the introduction .........

 "....... We (ref.5), Cohen and Davies (ref.6), Mayer et al (ref.7), Furth
(ref.8) and Segre et al (ref.9), have independently proposed a mechanism
leading to a D + D fusion reaction involving crack propagation in the
embrittled material. { D2 loaded Pd and Ti }  A schematic of the model is
shown in figure 1. We suggest that the crack growth results in charge
separation on the newly formed crack surfaces, which act as a miniature 
"linear accelerator;" i.e., D + ions are accelerated in the electric field
across the crack tip to kinetic energies of 10-10^4 eV or more, sufficient to
raise significantly the D + D fusion probability.  An important requirement 
of this model is that during fracture and because of fracture, D+ exists as
a free ion in the volume ot the crack. We refer to this proposed fracture-
induced fusion mechanism as fracto-fusion. ........"

 They describe a long series of (vacuum) experiments aimed at detecting
various charged particles and radiation emited from fractures in TiD samples.
 In their results and discussion on page 111 they state .......

 "We therefore have strong evidence that positive ion emission is produced
by fracture of this material.  If D+ is indeed a component of this positive
charge emission, then a crucial requirement for the fracto-fusion model,
namely free D+ in the crack, would be met."

 As always I would be grateful for informed opinions and criticism 
concerning the above ........

                                     Kind Regards to all,
                                     Daryl Owen.
                                  dowen@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au

  The above text is only attributable to myself.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudendowen cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.06 / Dieter Britz /  The bibliography from now on
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: The bibliography from now on
Date: Thu, 6 Jan 1994 01:13:39 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway


I hinted in my review of and comments on "Bad Science" that I will retire from
posting to this group. I will keep doing the bibliography, but have in mind a
different modus operandi. There are the two options:
1. I keep posting new additions the way I have been doing, but with
   practically no comments of my own, except maybe those pertaining to changes
   or corrections to the archives, etc;
2. I post only notice that an addition or correction has been made, with a
   current count of the numbers of items in the various files, plus some
   brief info on how to access the archives. I add to the archives a new file,
   CNF-NEW, which contains the additions for the last 4 weeks or so, for all
   sections. Thus, anyone can ftp into that file and look up the new stuff,
   if any. I would be approachable by private email for anyone who really does
   not have ftp - but surely you all have it now, no? Even I, who doesn't even
   know what GIF is, have ftp {:]

Clearly, I prefer variant (2), but will consider (1) if enough people send me
private email asking me to do that. I have set a minimum number of such emails
that will persuade me (and I am not letting on what the number is {:] ).

If I go for variant (2), then, after some time, I would even stop posting the
notices, as people get used to ftp'ing for the new stuff. I would then just
post, say, a monthly note on the current counts and how to get into the
archives. I really do want to wind down my involvement with "cold fusion".
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.06 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Maui Papers #2
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Maui Papers #2
Date: Thu, 6 Jan 1994 01:13:51 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Maui2  Three more papers complete the first plenary session

The ICCF4 write up continues.  My boss came in and wants me to do some work.  
Looks like my capacity is three papers a day.  Note that I am using quotes "  
" for exact copies of what I have written on my program book.  This may or may 
not correspond to what was actually said. 

***** Paper C 1.4  Excess Heat Yes  Neutrons  No  Tritium  No  4He  No
 
Triggering and Structural Changes in Cold Fusion Electrodes
     Bockris, Sundaresan, Letts, Minevski

Start Quotation from the abstract:

Two types of triggering the Cold Fusion effects have been studied.  The first 
type concerns electrochemical triggering, employing Low-High Current sequences 
of the type introduced by Bockris and Hodko and later by Takahashi.  During 
this pulsing, the D/Pd ratio remained at about 0.83.  The increase in the 
electrolyte temperature during the period of high current indicated an excess 
heat which was aprox. 17% higher than that computed on the basis of classical 
electrolytic theory.  The overpotential measurements on the Pd indicated a 
value of about 350 and 950 mV during low and high currents, respectively.  

The other kind of triggering involved Radio Frequency stimulation at MHz 
frequiencies and at 20-100 mW intensity ...

End quotation.

My notes say:
"Damage very important"  "10-100-500 hours to turn on."
Protocol used was 20 minute saw tooth ramps for one week then low-high at 12 
hour period.  Variation of D/Pd during high low was .81-.85.  Excess heat of 
order 23 watts was achieved.  A complete load/unload sequence shows heat build 
up over 6 or so cycles.  Bockris says that hydrogen sticks to Pd much better 
than D.  Dislocations attract hydrogen.  My notes say "Yes, as we know the 
pulsing flushes H from the dislocations."  As I understand it the potential is 
reversed for the unloading cycle, but not to the point of forming oxygen at 
the cathode.  

General note:  Many of the papers discussed and measured overvoltage this 
year.

R.F. stimulation has been done by D. Letts and D. Cravins.  Use 100-1000 MHz 
up to 100 mw of power.  60 mw of excitation has produced 2-3 watts of excess 
heat.  Exact frequencies used were 81.95, 365.608, and 533.68.  I was 
frantically writing down the significant figures as a slide was disappearing 
from the overhead projector.  I think there were even more significant 
figures!  There is certainly possibility for my making an error.  Those 
ordering crystals to be ground should possibly contact Bockris for the exact 
numbers.  Consider my good friends the problem of determining a six 
significant figure optimum frequency number with a calorimeter with a time 
constant of an hour or so.  It was noted that these frequencies amounted to 
0.001 mm skin depth or 10 atoms. (But do they make it through the 
electrolyte?)

Damage was studied.  Notes say "(cracking is advanced form of damage)".  I 
think study was by etching off successive layers in 2000 A steps.  They took 
pictures at each step.  They saw little black holes? aprox. 2000 A across.  My 
notes say "Pot holes for D escaping".  Notes say "There is damage seen inside 
the Pd at high overvoltage."  Bockris says "most of the D of interest to us is 
not in the lattice - but it is that in the voids." "You must have damage to 
increase the number of dislocations to gain close spacing in the voids - 
(rest of quote not certain - my interpretaion of what was said) but then 
possibly  D+Pd > xx " "The initial basic voids are of order 1000 A"

The abstract says there is very little damage below -0.25 overpotential, but 
that at an overpotential of -1.0 cracks developed very quickly.  

(Note: all this brings back to me the Moore thesis, which says that at a 
measured loading of 2.3, over half was in the voids.)

***** C 1.5 Excess Heat Yes  Neutrons No  Tritium No  4He No

Calorimetry Studies of the D/Pd System
     McKubre, Bush, Crouch-Baker, Hauser, Jevlic, Passel,
     Smedley, Tanzella, Williams, Wing

McKubre easily wins the "Rube Goldberg" award this year for the most fantastic 
real time on line Palladium munching machine.  A spool of Pd wire if fed into 
an annealing furnace and then into a pre-conditioner (not sure what this is - 
possibly ion implantation), and then through an electrolytic cell where (I 
remember) a four point resistance measurement is made.  Finally it is realed 
back onto a second spool.  I suppose there is a scheme for marking the "good 
parts" of the wire as they go by.  This whole process seems to be designed to 
select cathodes for further experiments.  I remember the wire as 2 mm.

McKubre says loading is necessary but not sufficient.  Temperature is 
important but not everything.  Long time periods are necessary.  One needs 
high current densities at high loading for long time periods.  

He is setting up gamma spectroscopy, neutron spectroscopy, a charged particle 
double telescope, tritium analysis, helium analysis, and a search for isotopic 
shifts.  Results so far are that no nuclear process has been confirmed.  
McKubre says that "it is difficult to search for more than one product per 
calorimeter".  "Separate systems are difficult to optimize."

He is presently exploring batch differences, anode sleection (My notes say - 
should I have written cathode??  The purpose of the fancy machine.  But he is 
concerned about anodes too - see later.), surface modification, alternating 
polarity, and annealing condition.

McKubre presented his usual resistance vs loading curve.  This starts at Ro at 
zero loading and increases sort of quadraticly to a peak of 2R at a D/Pd ratio 
of 0.75.  Coming down hill it hits 1.6 R at 0.95 and 1.5 R at 1.0 D/Pd.  
(Sorry if I do not have these values exactly one has only a few seconds to get 
them down, and I was trying to listen.)  McKubre commented that alternating 
the loading does increase loading in the lattice.  He pointed to the top of 
the curve and said that it never deloads beyond the peak.  Thus he said, 
reduced resistance always indicates high loading.  (I know I have wondered 
about which side of the curve a measurement was on in this forum - could this 
be a response?)  He stated that loading above 0.95 D/Pd (R < 1.6 Ro) always 
gives excess heat.  

He put up a curve for one of their loading experiments.  I think a typical 
example from previous discussions.  Charging is at -20 ma until the loading 
reaches 0.75 (the R peak) then it is increased to -40 ma.  The resistance 
further decreases (indicating higher loading), but gradually levels off.  In 
some experiments it increases again indicating loss of loading.  Now the 
current is reversed to +20 ma.  My notes say "reverse current and strip".  
This increases the resistance (lower loading) but when now reversed again to -
20 ma, higher loading is reached (lower resistance) than the previous steady 
state.  During the reverse current operation, the voltage is clamped at 0.8 
volts to prevent the formation of Pd oxide.  

The preferred annealing is 3 hrs at 850 C.  Longer annealing is worse than 
three hour time.  

McKubre says the function of Aluminum is to prevent unloading over long 
periods of time.  He showed curves where on the application of a higher 
current density, the resistance decreased (higher loading) over a relatively 
short period of time, then gradually increased indicating that the cathode was 
unloading.  When Aluminum was added, the resistance did not increase, or 
increased less indicating that the loading was maintained.  

He said that he could not get good loading with Nickel anodes.  Also Pt/Nb 
anodes (may not have this right?) were also not so good.  He runs at 1.1 to 
1.6 ampers per cm^2.  He has a 50 mw error limit for his calorimetry.  
"Nothing succeeds as a blank like a cathode that does not load."  "When there 
is nothing we can see nothing well."  My notes indicate 55 watts at 1.35 amps 
per cm^2 but don't say if this was excess heat??  Heating cell up to aprox. 
100 C caused an event with excess heat of 100 watts per cc.  Normally R at the 
end of the experiment is the same as at the beginning after striping (reverse 
current) but they have one wire which showed excess heat where it ended up at 
0.7 of the original resistance. 

OK, this completes debriefing of my notes.  My general impression is that 
McKubre's results are creaping down into the noise.  I think the one excess 
heat experiment slide showed less anomalous heat than the experiments I saw 
described in Washington (Nagoya results).  No doubt that McKubre is doing 
first class work.  It also looks like he is being well supported else he could 
not attempt that wonderful Rube Goldberg machine.  

***** C 1.6  Excess Heat Yes  Neutrons No  Tritium No  4He No

Deuterium Charging in Palladium by the Electroysis of Heavy
Water: Production of Heat Excess
     Bertalot, DeMarco, DeNinno, LaBarbara, Scaramuzzi, Violante

This paper was scheduled as C 2.1 but was moved into the plenary session.

In this experiment the Palladium cathode was sealed in the mouth of an 
evacuated dewar.  (At least my sketch shows two walls, not clear that a dewar 
is necessary.)  The dewar side is evacuated to start the experiment.  The 
other side is in electrolyte in a Takahashi style cell (cooling coils).  My 
notes show close anode to cathode spacing.  The Pd cathode was 1 cm square by 
0.05 cm and operates as a membrane.  

My notes say: "Based on knowing gas side concentration and knowing diffusion 
rate one can determine electrolysis D/Pd."  Elsewhere they say "The 
equilibrium pressure behind the cathode determines the D/Pd ratio.  A cryptic 
note indicates loadings of 0.65 to 0.7 were measured.  Yet one more place says 
"During heat events, gas was reabsorbed."  I tell it like I heard it, later I 
will think about this.  

Looks like the cathode was loaded at 50 ma per cm^2 then run at 750 to 1000 ma 
per cm^2.  The cell voltage was noted at 24 to 28 volts.  The noted 4-4.5 
watts excess heat for 8 hours or an 8% excess.  One curve from my notes shows 
low current initial loading then high-low Takahashi style.  Another showed 
relation between current density and excess heat.  

The calibration was 2.94 watts per C for the calorimeter.  They claim +/- 50 
mw error limits.  They can run at 30 C or 50 C.  

OK.  I note that they quote 8% excess with 4-4.5 watts excess.  This indicates 
that the input power is 56 watts.  They also indicate that they have a 50 mw 
error limit.  That is to say that they claim to be doing 0.1% calorimetry.  
>From what I have seen, I would give them 10%, and then the signal is in the 
noise.  So I cannot take this result too seriously.  

Tom Droege

cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenDROEGE cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.06 /  blue@dancer.ns /  Re: What Bockris did wrong
     
Originally-From: blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What Bockris did wrong
Date: Thu, 6 Jan 1994 01:13:52 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Jon Noring questions my assertion that promising too much in regard to
the transmutation of elements is a mark of incompetence.  He makes 
reference to neutron capture as a means of converting mercury to gold
as if this typified what Bockris may have been considering.  I believe
what we have here is some confusion over what the basic issue of
modern alchemy is about.

The fact that it is possible to transmute elements via nuclear reactions
such as neutron capture is not at issue nor is there much question
relating to making such processes more "feasable".  There are just some
very simple, basic reasons why nuclear reactions don't occur in normal
materials under normal conditions, and we all depend very greatly on
that being so.  My assertion is that an practicing professional chemist
ought to have a clear understanding of barriers that prevent nuclear
reactions and should not make assertions about lowering those barriers
by some sort of mumbo-jumbo or magic.  That does not, however, preclude
investigations into the domain of influencing nuclear reaction rates
by chemical means.  It just means that you don't oversell a research
program as having the potential of fulfilling the alchemists dream.
If you think about a bit you won't start with the conversion of mercury
into gold as your first research project.  Actually the cold fusion
of deuterons is probably as good a starting point as any I can think
of for such research, but when you consider what has been achieved
to date in this field I find it difficult to avoid thinking that
anyone soliciting funds to support such research is coming very close
to commiting scientific fraud unless they make it very clear that
none of the experiments performed to date show any direct evidence
for nuclear reactions at a level sufficient to justify further
investigations.  Basically I still believe that no neutrons means
no fusion!  That is why anyone neglecting to mention a null result
for neutron detection in order to keep a funding agency in the
dark has probably moved over the line to the side of unacceptable
behavior as far as I am concerned.

Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU

cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenblue cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.06 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  DD Fusion in a Bubble Chamber
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: DD Fusion in a Bubble Chamber
Date: Thu, 6 Jan 1994 01:14:08 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

In reply to Terry, I no longer remember for sure if Douglas Morrison saw 
DD fusion in a bubble chamber.  But remember in experiments at Fermilab,
lots of junk can come off a reaction with a lot of energy.  If a D comes 
flying off with any energy, then it is for sure going to hit another D in
a D2 filled bubble chamber.  My guess is that an energetic D is not too 
likely, or else it would have been a common occurance, and not worthy of note
by Alvarez and Morrison.

Tom Droege

cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenDROEGE cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Thu Jan  6 04:37:04 EST 1994
------------------------------
1994.01.06 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Not DD fusion in Bubble Chamber
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Not DD fusion in Bubble Chamber
Date: Thu, 6 Jan 1994 01:14:11 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I have piles of paper carefully put away in three ring binders.  The problem
is to find something.  Those of you who know how to do such things could have
just put "bubble+chamber" into a search string and gone into the zorch files.
In any case, I found a reference dated 11 Jan 93.  It was muon catalized 
fusion that was observed by Alvarez and Morrison.  

I also found my post of the ultrasonic D2O experiment.  I looked with my trusty
geiger counter and saw no change with various combinations of Pd, charged Pd,
D2O and H2O.  My ultrasonic machine is pretty high powered, and boild the 
D2O/H2O rather quickly.  So if it were easy, the geiger counter would have 
picked up something.  But then Roger Stringham in ICCF4 found excess heat,
4He, and 114Cd in paper C 3.9, doing much the same thing.  I guess I did not
have the right impurity in my Pd.  

The question that might be interesting to ask Douglas is whether DD fusion is
ever seen in D2 filled bubble chambers?  I do not mean passively, I mean 
somewhere in that fireball when a reaction takes place is there ever a D
flying off that interacts with another D?  I can't remember for sure if 4He 
chambers have been run but seems to me like they have.  Much safer than D.
Then obviously there would be gamma + 4He --> D + D + ... to be seen.  My
point is that I remember that anything possible is seen in a bubble chamber
when there is enough energy.  

Tom Droege

cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenDROEGE cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.05 / Terry Bollinger /  Re: Mossbauer and momentum
     
Originally-From: terry@aslss01.asl.dl.nec.com (Terry Bollinger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Mossbauer and momentum
Date: Wed, 5 Jan 1994 16:09:15 GMT
Organization: NEC America, Advanced Switching Laboratory

Hi folks,

Interesting dialog, but I won't attempt any more lunch munch on it.  Any
further comments will require some specifics from texts, and even with my
other hobbies this looks like it's worth checking into a wee bit.

I will in particular take up Dale's suggestion and check out Landau and
Lifshitz, although I honestly don't expect too many surprises in it.  But
at least I can perhaps "resynch" my terminology and verify whether or not
I've really been using the standard terminology.

I should note that one reason why my approach may seem perplexing is that
at some level I may have introduced _two_ views of the nature of time.
E.g., I've made comments both about a wave-packet length in time, _and_
about that same packet "moving" in time.  That's an odd perspective that
definitely is _not_ used in most QM texts, and may be the source of at
least part of the disjointed feel of this dialog with Gary Collins.  I
believe I picked up that perspective from reading Feynman's classic two-
part paper in which he introduces his QED method, since part of the
reasoning he used in that paper included both the idea of wave fronts
"reflecting backwards" in time, and electron-positron-electron interactions
as _one_ electron moving forward-backward-forward in time.  If you stop an
think about those two cases, they are really treating time in two quite
distinct ways:  one as a simple, relativistically space-like dimension
that can be _freely_ traversed in either direction (which is absolutely
essential for the QED method, by the way), and another _non_-space like
interpretation as the "ability of the wave or electron to move," _even if
the direction of motion is backwards in time_.  Very weird stuff that,
yet clearly an integral part of _how_ Feynman came up with the QED method.

The wave model I was (inadvertantly) borrowing from early Feynman is very
close to the kind of "waves reflected backwards in time" idea seen in those
two papers.  However, I should also immediately note that I cannot blame
my use of such a model on Feynman.  In his later works (especially QED)
he is very careful to keep his QED diagrams "atemporal," using them _only_
to calculate end-to-end amplitudes (probabilities).  I think that at some
point Feynman must have recognized the implicit assumption in his earlier
work and chosen to abandon it by focusing soley on end-to-end amplitudes.

Me, I'm too stupid to abandon it yet.  Any use of two part (spatial/change)
time in my previous postings is my own fault, but cheerfully so.  I just
want to warn folks of an unusual assumption that could require _different_
formalisms from the usual to express in quantum terms.

Does anyone out there (Aephraim Steinberg -- do you monitor this group?)
know whether any quantum work using _two_ time terms (one spatial-only, the
other "change" based) has ever been set up by anyone?  A reference would
be great if anyone has one.

				Cheers,
				Terry

cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenterry cudfnTerry cudlnBollinger cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.05 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Re: Sonofusion
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Sonofusion
Date: Wed, 5 Jan 1994 16:14:38 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

In article <940104125010.23c01e46@FNALD.FNAL.GOV> DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:

> I am pretty sure that the D2 sonofusion idea was not mine, though Terry 
> tries to give me credit for it.  It all mushes together over time.  Stil,
> we have this nice audit trail to straighten it out for the historians if 
> anyone ever cares.  I think I did recall that a lot of D2 bubble chambers 
> wer run, but give Douglas Morrison credit for having actually seen DD fusion
> in a bubble chamber picture - also Louis Alverez, I believe, who saw it 
> first - but Douglas's observation was independant.  

Say WHAT??  Hey, Tom, you never told me he actually _found_ DD reactions!
(Or at least, like you, I have a hard time recalling it 12 months later.)

So what's the scoop?  Dr. Morrison, are you still with us?

				Cheers,
				Terry

cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenterry cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.05 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Sonofusion
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Sonofusion
Date: Wed, 5 Jan 1994 17:54:47 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1994Jan5.161438.10603@asl.dl.nec.com>,
 <terry@asl.dl.nec.com> wrote:
>In article <940104125010.23c01e46@FNALD.FNAL.GOV> DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:
>
>> I am pretty sure that the D2 sonofusion idea was not mine, though Terry 
>> tries to give me credit for it.  It all mushes together over time.  Stil,
>> we have this nice audit trail to straighten it out for the historians if 
>> anyone ever cares.  I think I did recall that a lot of D2 bubble chambers 
>> wer run, but give Douglas Morrison credit for having actually seen DD fusion
>> in a bubble chamber picture - also Louis Alverez, I believe, who saw it 
>> first - but Douglas's observation was independant.  
>
>Say WHAT??  Hey, Tom, you never told me he actually _found_ DD reactions!
>(Or at least, like you, I have a hard time recalling it 12 months later.)

     Say 'muon', I believe.
               
                             dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.05 / Jon Arnold /  Fusion for the ignorant
     
Originally-From: arnoldj@telerama.lm.com (Jon Arnold)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Fusion for the ignorant
Date: 5 Jan 1994 14:32:45 -0500
Organization: Telerama Public Access Internet, Pittsburgh, PA

Ok... I've been following the posts in this newsgroup for a couple of 
weeks now as I am particuly interested in the happingings of Nuclear 
Fusion. I am a high school senior and my current level of Physics has not 
brought me to the point where I am able to understand everything. I'd 
appriciate it if some of the "bigger minds" out there would be willing to 
explain the proccess of Nuclear Fusion, both the theoritical as well as 
the actual processes, in a manner that could be understood by someone who 
has taken a first year college level Physics class. I tend to pick things 
up very quickly when it comes to Physics, so I've begun to understand 
more of the discussions, but when it comes to things that are specific 
and often times abriviated (D-T), I get lost. Thanx in advance.

-- 
 Jonathan Arnold----------------------------------arnoldj@telerama.lm.com
Tell them you came & saw & look'd into my eyes & saw the shadow of the 
guard receding Thoughts in time & out of season The hitchiker stood by 
the side of the road & levelled his thumb in the calm calculus of reason.
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenarnoldj cudfnJon cudlnArnold cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.06 / Robert Heeter /  Re: Fusion for the ignorant
     
Originally-From: rfheeter@rogue.Princeton.EDU (Robert Franklin Heeter)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion for the ignorant
Date: Thu, 6 Jan 1994 02:35:28 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

In article <2gf4kt$1qi@telerama.lm.com> arnoldj@telerama.lm.com (Jon Arnold) writes:
>Ok... I've been following the posts in this newsgroup for a couple of 
>weeks now as I am particuly interested in the happingings of Nuclear 
>Fusion. I am a high school senior and my current level of Physics has not 
>brought me to the point where I am able to understand everything. I'd 
>appriciate it if some of the "bigger minds" out there would be willing to 
>explain the proccess of Nuclear Fusion, both the theoritical as well as 
>the actual processes, in a manner that could be understood by someone who 
>has taken a first year college level Physics class. I tend to pick things 
>up very quickly when it comes to Physics, so I've begun to understand 
>more of the discussions, but when it comes to things that are specific 
>and often times abriviated (D-T), I get lost. Thanx in advance.
>
I replied to Jonathan via email, but I'm wondering how many other
curious people are lurking out there hungering for information?
There seem to be a few frequently asked questions, and maybe
a very simple FAQ for fusion (at least hot fusion) is in order?
There are some general concepts that are worth making generally
available, at least to those who ask.  Of course, there are also
political and environmental questions, which there is little
agreement on.  (Here we could have an FQA - "Frequently Questioned
Answers" :)  Anyway, does anyone else think something like this
would be a good idea?  (Email replies are fine.)  I'd be willing
to work on it, although it would take a while as I have exams
for the next couple weeks.  

This is an idea still in its infancy - all comments and suggestions
are welcome.  I don't know if posting the FAQ periodically would
be worthwhile, but we could at least make it available to whoever
asks...  ???  

************
Robert F. Heeter
Graduate Student, Princeton Plasma Physics Lab
rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu (disclaimers apply)




cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.06 / arthur blair /  fusion at princeton
     
Originally-From: blair@mksol.dseg.ti.com (arthur blair)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: fusion at princeton
Date: Thu, 6 Jan 1994 04:39:13 GMT
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc

Anyone here from princeton? I hear they made some breakthru in
hot fusion but haven't heard the details. It was on the
national news so it must have been interesting. Can
anyone fill us in?
Art. 
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenblair cudfnarthur cudlnblair cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.06 / Benjamin Carter /  Re: Fusion for the ignorant
     
Originally-From: bpc@netcom.com (Benjamin P. Carter)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion for the ignorant
Date: Thu, 6 Jan 1994 11:05:29 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

arnoldj@telerama.lm.com (Jon Arnold) writes:

> ...  but when it comes to things that are specific 
>and often times abriviated (D-T), I get lost. Thanx in advance.

Most of the discussion here concerns fusion of hydrogen isotopes,
of which there are three:

  Protium (P) the nucleus of which is a proton (p),
  Deuterium (D) "    "    "    "   "  " deuteron (d), and
  Tritium (T)   "    "    "    "   "  " triton (t).

The deuteron contains a proton and a neutron.  The triton contains
a proton and two neutrons.  The abbreviation D-T means a mixture of
deuterium and tritium, or fusion in a plasma made from such a mixture,
or (sometimes) fusion between a deuteron and a triton (depending on the
context).  The last of these meanings is fairly simple; the reaction is
d + t --> n + He4, where by He4 I mean the nucleus of the most common
and stable isotope of helium (which contains two protons and two
neutrons).  The other isotope of helium, which can also be a fusion
product, is He3 (which contains two protons and one neutron).  For
example, in D-D fusion the reactions are  d + d --> p + t    and
d + d --> n + He3.  

I would like to encourage everyone, including high-school students,
to participate in this newsgroup, as long as the discussion has
something to do with nuclear fusion.  This group is not just for
experts.  If you don't understand something, keep asking questions
until you do.
-- 
    Ben Carter                  internet address: bpc@netcom.com
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenbpc cudfnBenjamin cudlnCarter cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.06 / Chuck Sites /  Re: A few notes
     
Originally-From: chuck@coplex.coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A few notes
Date: Thu, 6 Jan 1994 08:40:05 GMT
Organization: The Internet Gateway of Louisville, KY

gk00@ellis.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg) writes:

>In article <1994Jan4.153601.1219@physc1.byu.edu> jonesse@physc1.byu.edu writes:
>>2.  In response to the discussion of piezonuclear fusion, initiated
>>this go-round by Greg Kuperberg, I have a few comments.  Our ideas about
>>piezonuclear fusion have no connection that I can see to the excess-heat
>>claims of P&F.  (I am tired of reiterating this.)

>You have my sympathy, even conerning your parenthetical comment.
>However, I think that you are the first to mention either Pons,
>Fleischmann, or excess heat in the piezonuclear discussion.
>If it turns out that I was the first to mention them, then
>that would have been a regretful error on my part.

>>Quite independent of that business, we continue to explore the
>>possibility that metallic or high-density-low-temp.-plasma forms of
>>deuterium (and by extension p and t also) may form under extreme
>>conditions.  And we are looking at fusion rates under these
>>conditions.

>With all due respect, I do not think that your conditions are
>particularly extreme in the nuclear scale.

From what I can tell (at least for the Pd/D) system it doesn't take 
much of a flucuation to induce a DD event. I site S. Koonin on this 
one.  The enhancment of tunneling mechanism due to flucuations in 
the surounding body should lead to increased fusion rate.  This then 
begs the question, what kind of parameters can we modify to enhance
the reaction rate.  A solid state fusion mechanism does have some 
variables that can be modified (in the metal used, the electronic 
configuration, external variables, temprature, current and such).
Thats one reason I wouldn't give up so easily on fracto-fusion as 
an example. [Note:  I know Dick Blue argued that after a fracture,
electrons should neutralize the D ions (I argued it should screen them),
but look at the precursor dynamics.  I think there you will find there the
enhancements Koonin suggested in his early works.]  That's probably 
un-interesting now since we all now *KNOW* that in the world according 
to Taubes all cold fusion scientist are skeeming, stupid, money grubbing 
cheats and boobs with a fancy for the nobel prize. (Cool down Chuck, cool
down). 
       
>>I would concur with Terry in calling this "conventional" fusion in that
>>I expect the branching ratios to be as expected from muon-catalyzed
>>fusion or extrapolations from "hot" fusion.

Ok I cooled down a bit.  Lets get down on this question of how the 
branching ratio should remain conventional in a cold fusion reation.
I think Steve and I are looking at the fusion reation in two different 
ways. Others may wish to drop in thier opion here, but the way I see it 
is the characteristics of D ion bose condensate can effects the ratio. I
think the example of the ratio defined by muon-catalization is valid but
for a two body interation.  It does not have the influence that multi-body
interaction would have.  Here is why: When a system of bosons are condensed,
in momentum space they are overlaped and thus continuous in momentum. With
respect to forces of the nucleus if unperturbed, they should also be in 
continueum of interaction, which in the case of a deuteron implies a 
potential for a strong interaction. That is, just as E/M forces of a
superconducting charge carrier are overlaped in momentum space allowing 
migration of charge without resistance, the much short range but strongly
attractive nuclear potential should allow pion migration without 
localization. (That effect in itself seems to be enough to allow 
extraction of small bits of nuclear energy via the uncertanty 
relation and a Mossbauar *like* effect).  What is interesting to ponder
then is how the system will react if the delocalized exchange is strong
enough to localize an interaction. Since the pair is not localized until
the deed is done, the whole interaction should be controlled by the 
momentum of system. To the fusing pair, everyting around it should look
like excited He4*. This may alter the distributiion of the reaction 
products. 

>I would hope that it is conventional fusion.  Unconventional fusion
>would be like an unconventional isotope of hydrogen, maybe quadratium.
>But we are in agreement here, so I won't pursue this point further.

Glad we can argue such things.  There certainly is something to all
this, or we wouldn't be here after 4 years.    

Have Fun,
Chuck Sites
chuck#coplex.coplex.com
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.07 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  ICCF4 reviews, part 3
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: ICCF4 reviews, part 3
Date: Fri, 7 Jan 1994 01:13:16 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Maui3   Starting the first afternoon calorimetry sessions  

The ICCF4 write up continues.  Those of you that have been collecting the 
commentary will note that you already have 29 single spaced pages.  Almost 
all of it from the "Maui Sunset" gang.  I am working frantically to get to 
paper C 2.12 which contains the quote of the conference as far as I am 
concerned.  I hope someone has it on video tape.

These reviews start the first day's afternoon session.  There were parallel 
sessions on theory and nuclear.  I stuck with the calorimetry.  I really came 
to this conference to hear about the calorimetry and to be convinced that the 
techniques used were effective.  Apparently these issues have already been 
settled as few papers bothered with error bars on the calorimetry.  

For the most part I did not attempt to parallel session hop, but stuck to one 
group.  

I now realize that my little header does not tell the whole story.  There is a 
difference between looking and not finding and not looking and not finding 
which my header does not indicate.  I will try to correct this in a summary 
note after I have completed the reviews.  

Note that C 2.1 was moved to the plenary session where I show it as C 1.6

***** Paper C 2.2  Excess Heat No  Neutrons No  Tritium No  4He No
 
Search for Nuclear Products of Cold Fusion
     Miyamaru, Chimi, Inckuchi, Takahashi

That last author is Akito Takahashi of high-low fame I think, at least it is 
Nuclear Engineering at Osaka Takahashi.  But tracking Takahashi's in Japan is 
like tracking Jones's in the US.  My notes say Miyamaru made the presentation 
although I believe I saw Takahashi at the conference and he is listed in the 
attendee list.  

They used a completely closed stainless steel cell with excess oxygen and a 
pressure gage.  Charging ranged from 32 to 640 ma per cm^2 and experiments ran 
from 11 to 30 days.  Electrolysis gas was completely collected and stored in 
the cell for the helium analysis with a high resolution mass spectrometer.  
A fast neutron detector (NE213, 10" dia) was placed in front of the cell and 
the spectrometer.  

They note that the (apparent) D/Pd ratio decreased from 0.87 to 0.70 over the 
month of electrolysis.  I inserted the "apparent" because I also see this.  I 
think that the enriched oxygen atmosphere (at high pressure in this case) 
finds something to oxidise given enough time.  So don't count on a real 
decrease in D/Pd.  

The Japanese seem to like a closed cell with a pressure gage.  Then pressurize 
with oxygen and look for a pressure increase, or deuterium and look for a 
drop.  The abstract does not mention a catalyst, and I do not remember one, 
but John Logajan will assure us that one is necessary for electrolysis at 640 
ma for a month. 

My notes (from the talk) say one expects 10E11 helium atoms per watt (but the 
dimensions are wrong, so I don't know if this is per second or per 
experiment).  The abstract then lists their sensitivity at 10E13 atoms.  
Possibly this is why such a negative paper was let in the conference.  The 
abstract says "The result is that the D/Pd ratio was gradually decreased from 
0.87 to 0.70 and no significant excess heat and helium generation were 
observed.  The amount of helium was less than detection limit (approximately 
10E13 atoms)."

My notes say "No heat, no loading, no 4He, no 3He, no neutrons."  "Likely OK 
group to present data this negative here."  "Had error bars!"  Wow!, a group 
that presents their data with error bars.    

***** C 2.3 Excess Heat Yes  Neutrons No  Tritium No  4He No

A Remarkable Excess Heat Generated Using a New Type Pd Cathode
     Arata, Zhang

I have no notes on this paper, I think there was a language problem, and my 
mind just glazed over.  The abstract notes that they used a double structured 
cathode with a Pd cathode inside a Pd cathode.  I vaguely recall trying to 
understand their structure, and just went into overload for the whole paper.  
Studying the 4 nice curves in the abstract, I remember a thermometer on the 
inner cathode and one on the outer cathode.  I remember puzzling over the 
thermometers and what they meant.  

Hmmm!  I guess it is all there in the abstract.  There is a cathode 
thermometer, and an electrolyte thermometer.  There is one on the inlet and 
the outlet of the Takahashi style cooling coil inside a dewar flask.  

Curve 1 shows the various temperatures during the experiment.  At about 300 
hours the cathode takes about a 1 C jump up over the electrolyte temperature.  
Curve 3 shows an increase in Pout/Pin at this time of about 100%.  Curve 2a 
and 2b show the power levels.  100 watts in and 200 watts out.  

I do not remember any discussion about how they determined the heat output, 
but it is presumably by the difference in temperature of the inlet and outlet 
of the cooling coil.  Curve 3 does indeed look like a sudden increase in 
power.  I can only think of a hundred or so ways that they could have made 
such an error.  I will await the full paper to try to understand the apparatus 
better.  Meanwhile, true believers can sure latch on to this paper as it is 
100 watts excess.  How could this be in error?

Possibly when John Logajan beats us into accepting a standard, we can scan 
some of the nice curves in the abstract book and pass them around.  These are 
worth getting to all interested parties.  

***** C 2.4  Excess Heat Yes  Neutrons Yes  Tritium No  4He No

Excess Heat Generation, the Over Voltage Deviation and the
Neutron Emission in D2O-LiOD-Pd Systems
     Okamoto, Yoshinaga, Kusunoki

Honest, folks, I am no more prejudiced than the next person, but at this point 
I was beginning to be saturated with Japanese papers and they are all mushing 
together in my head.  But the Japanese abstracts are all very good, and say a 
lot.  I hereby resolve to write my next abstract as a mini-paper instead of a 
sales pitch so that some poor Japanese or Italian has a chance to figure out 
what I am talking about.  Too bad that I did not take more time to read the 
abstracts more carefully before the talks, or I would have been able to take 
better notes.  There was really not enough time had I tried, as you get them 
at registration when the emphasis is on renewing old acquaintances and making 
new ones.  I am now reading them half dozen a day and learning a lot.  

The authors refer to another paper N 3.4 which I did not attend.  I will try 
to fold a reading of this abstract into my notes on C 2.4.

This is a Takahashi style open cell with inlet and outlet cooling water 
thermometers and 3 thermometers in the cell.  They take the appropriate 
correction.  In large lettering on my abstract is "SHOWS ERROR BARS".  
Neutrons were detected by a NE-213 liquid scintilation neutron spectrometer.  
The measured the temperatures, the neutron count, and the overvoltage.  

>From the abstract: "Three foreground runs and a background run were performed 
on the same system.  The background run was performed in H2O-LiOH-Pd system, 
and did not give the positve neutron emission and excess heat.  All of the 
three foreground runs gave the positive neutron emissions and one of them gave 
an appreciable excess heat.  In this case, three thermocouples placed around 
the electrodes gave almost same temperature deviation from the calibration 
curve.  The temperature deviations from the calibration curve increased as 
incresing of the input power upto 36W in the high current mode.  The excess 
power was evaluated from the average value of the temperaarues of the three 
thermocouples to be upto 6W in and upt 18%.  The corelation between the excess 
heat generation and the neutron emissions has been checked as a function of 
operation periods and the neutron energies.  There was no clear 
correlation.(sic)"

They noted an exponential increase of the overvoltage on the excess heat run.  
They point out that the control runs and the non-heat producing runs had a 
linear increase in overvoltage.  My notes show that excess power of 35W began 
at 125 hours into the run.  Abstract N 3.4 notes that a previous paper found 
that the Lithium deposition profile was monotonous in the samples with no 
neutron emission while nutron emitting samples contained irregular structures.  
This paper shows irregular profiles for Na and Si and slight irregularities of 
d, Al and Pd in the neutron emitting samples vs the not emitting samples.  

***** C 2.5  Excess Heat Yes  Neutrons No  Tritium No  4He No

Study of Concentrations of Helium and Tritium in Electrolytic Cells with 
Excess heat Generations
     Aoki, Kurata, Ebihara, Yoshikawa

Looks like this group is close enough to KEK that they think in terms of error 
limits as they placed them on everything they did.  Good for them.  I hope 
some of the other groups here notice.  

They used a "softly" closed system with a gas bag and a Pd black catalyst.  Pt 
anodes and Pd 25mm by 30 mm by 1 mm cathodes.  More or less Takahashi style 
except (I remember) oversize Pt solid anodes 50mm by 50 mm by 0.1 mm.  From 
abstract:  "Concentration of He gas was measured by a gas chormatographic 
method during electrolysis.  Production rates (He atoms/sec) were (4.5 +/- 
1.5)x10E10 ..." (following measurements show no meaningful increase in He.) 
"Concentration of DT gas in the same cell was measured by a homemade 
proportional gas chamber.  Gaseous samples of 20 cc were taken from the 
electrolytic bath and were put into the chamber.  The energy spectra from 0.1 
keV to 12 keV were always measured.  The difference of counting rate before 
and during the excess heat generations was 0.03 +/- 0.04 cps.  Therefore we 
had no meaningful T increase in the gas phase." 

They conclude" "It might be concluded that the extremely small increases of He 
and T atoms in gas and liquid phases in the cells could not explain the 
amounts of excess heat."  My notes further say "Either not nuclear or products 
are held in the cathode" I assume this is their comment, but could be me.  

But I am interested in excess heat and they report a lot of it.  They state 
their error as < 0.5 watt.  A reasonable value, but I cannot remember anything 
about their calorimetry.  Their H2O cells gave 0.0 +/- 0.5 watt at any current 
density.  (Hot Dawg! Note them error limits Sam!)  With D2O there was a 
threshold at 0.18 amps/cm^2 for excess heat with a second break point at 0.6 
amps per cm^2.  They ran 4 D2O cells, all of which showed excess heat of 
between 2 to 12 watts.  Electrolyte was 0.1 M LiOD.  They observed one 98 watt 
pulse for one hour. 

For those tracking super nova, sun spots, and sonic booms; the "hot" event 
took place May 23, 1993 at 3:45.  You will have to guess the time zone and 
whether it was AM or PM.  There is only so much one can record at a meeting.

These look like OK guys that worry about their errors.  I, at least, must take 
them seriously.  I just wish I could remember more of their calorimetry.

***** C 2.6  Excess Heat Yes  Neutrons No  Tritium No  4He No

Some Characteristics of Heat Production Using the "Cold Fusion"
Effect
     Storms

Here goes the full Storms abstract as many are interested in it: 

"Evidence is presented to further show that heat production using the Pons-
Fleischmann Effect has a positive temperature coefficient, has a critical 
onset current density, and originates at the palladium cathode. 

Numerous studies have shown that the amount of excess power production depends 
on the D/Pd ratio above a critical value and the area of the palladium having 
the necessary ratio.  The D/Pd ratio is sensitive to chemical conditions that 
exist on the surface of the palladium.  This work shows that these chemical 
conditions produce a temperature coefficient for the heat producing reaction 
that imply a barrier energy of aprox. 15 kcal/mole.  The large magnitude of 
this value suggests diffusion in palladium is not the limitation to achieving 
an increased D/Pd ratio.

Studies have shown that an increased cell current causes an increased D/Pd 
ratio.  However, the current needed to achieve the critical D/Pd ratio depends 
on various factors that are difficult to quantify or control.  This work shows 
that these factors are different between different studies and change with 
time during a study.  These factors seem to be the major reasons for the 
difficulty in reproducing the effect." 

End of abstract. 

Storms uses a pressurized D2 isoparobolic calorimeter.  Pt wire anode 
Takahashi style.  I have this nice curve written on the abstract.  It has a y 
axis labeled "log excess heat" and an x-axis labeled "1/T".  The curve is a 
straight line descending from left to right and it is labeled 
         log excess = 11.57S -3387T
I feel like I am in a Douglas Adams book.  Here is the secret (42) of the 
universe and all that, and I don't know what "S" is.  Perhaps it is a "5" and 
I know the secret after all?  But then there it is to 5 significant figures 
and I thought this effect was hard to reproduce.  Under the curve I have again 
written that 15 kcal/mole.  I wish I knew what it meant.  Perhaps dear 
readers, one of you will explain.

Storms has been studying:

1) Current density effect on power
2) Temperature effect on power
3) Location of source of excess power

Stormes has placed two thermometers in his cell, one inside the anode to 
cathode space, and one just outside.  When there is no anomalous heat, the 
power is evenly distributed in the cell, when there is anomalous heat, the the 
temperature is higher on the inside thermometer.  Storms says there is a 
threshold for anomalous heat at aprox. 150 ma per cm^2.  Again my notes say: 
"The energy of the barrier that determines the D/Pd ratio is aprox. 15 
kcal/mole."  I guess Storms made that sound really important.  I wish I knew 
why 42  42  42  42 ...

Tom Droege

cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenDROEGE cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.06 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Re: Fusion for the ignorant
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion for the ignorant
Date: Thu, 6 Jan 1994 15:55:36 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

Hi folks,

In article <bpcCJ7G56.L1G@netcom.com> bpc@netcom.com
(Benjamin P. Carter) writes:

> arnoldj@telerama.lm.com (Jon Arnold) writes:
>
> | ...  but when it comes to things that are specific and often times
> | abriviated (D-T), I get lost. Thanx in advance.
>
> ... [nice explanation by Ben Carter] ...
>
> I would like to encourage everyone, including high-school students,
> to participate in this newsgroup, as long as the discussion has
> something to do with nuclear fusion.  This group is not just for
> experts.  If you don't understand something, keep asking questions
> until you do.

I like the sentiments expressed, and would ask this:

    Are there high school students out there who would be interested in a
    highly graphical short introduction to some of the basics of quantum
    theory, focusing mainly on how wave behavior can be used to "build"
    objects such as atoms?

The presentation would be introduce all special terms in an orderly fashion,
and would avoid assuming knowledge of college mathematics.

This is not nuclear physics per se, of course, but on the other hand it's
pretty universal material.  If you understand better how an electron
behaves in an atom, you will almost unavoidably also have a better "feel"
for what is going on in highly quantum events as alpha particle emission.

I have some such materials pretty much ready to go, but haven't quite gotten
around to doing anything with them.  Are there any high school types out
there who would be interested in such a posting?  (Direct emails responses,
whether from high school folks or other folks, would be fine.)

				Cheers,
				Terry

cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenterry cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.06 / Ad aspera /  Re: Fusion for the ignorant
     
Originally-From: JTCHEW@lbl.gov (Ad absurdum per aspera)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion for the ignorant
Date: 6 Jan 1994 17:02:01 GMT
Organization: Purely personal 'pinions

rfheeter suggests that...

> There seem to be a few frequently asked questions, and maybe
> a very simple FAQ for fusion (at least hot fusion) is in order?

And also point them toward some books.  Although books are
obviously not a good way to acquaint people with the state 
of the art, there are a number of pretty good ones that
are available in libraries.  Many of them are accessible
to the layman, at least in the early going.

I've also got a variety of pamphlets put out by this or that 
lab or agency over the years; feel free to give out my address
as a source for photocopies of such things. 
Joe
"Just another personal opinion from the People's Republic of Berkeley"
Disclaimer: Even if my employer had a position on the subject,
I probably wouldn't be the one stating it on their behalf.
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenJTCHEW cudfnAd cudlnaspera cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.06 /  jbatka@desire. /  Branching ratios for hot and cold fusion?
     
Originally-From: jbatka@desire.wright.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Branching ratios for hot and cold fusion?
Date: 6 Jan 94 11:59:39 EST
Organization:  Wright State University 

Good morning,

Are the branching ratios for cold (muon) fusion different than hot
fusion?  If so, is there a significant difference and which branches
are preferred for the different fusion types.

Also someone mentioned that mercury can be changed to gold indirectly via
neutron bombardment (possibly using thermal neutrons).  Although this is
a nuclear process, if you mixed a high neutron density source with the
mercury it might appear to be a chemical reaction which generates the gold.
I guess I'm not trying to defend Bockris, but I spent a year at TAMU and
don't like the press it's been getting lately (about it's football team
too (: ).  I really liked my Quantitative Chemistry  prof (who retired
after the semester I had him) and feel that not all of them are bad.
BTW, no flames please, I tend to agree with the sentiment expressed here
about Bockris' and the TAMU Chemistry Department's behaviour but it is
still hard to see them about a school you liked.

-- 

   Jim Batka  | Work Email:  BATKAJ@DAYTON.SAIC.COM     | Elvis is
              | Home Email:  JBATKA@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU   |   DEAD!

    64 years is 33,661,440 minutes ...
             and a minute is a LONG time!  - Beatles:  _ Yellow Submarine_
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenjbatka cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.06 / Andy Holland /  Re: What did Bockris do wrong?
     
Originally-From: zcrah@trumpet.pgh.wec.com (Andy Holland)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What did Bockris do wrong?
Date: 6 Jan 1994 21:28:46 GMT
Organization: Westinghouse CNFD

In article <94010313410197@dancer.nscl.msu.edu> blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu writes:
>
>As to what the signers of that petition have to complain about, well
>that comes down to what Bockris did to get that money, what he said
>he was doing by way of research, and what he actually did with the
>money.  Dishonesty could have crept in any of the three parts of
>the transaction.  If, as seems to be the case, he talked freely
>about transmutation of elements being the goal of the research I
>would say he was being scientifically dishonest in that he had
>no reason to expect that his research would make progress toward
>the stated goal.  If he actually believed that he could achieve
>that goal, then he probably should be put out to pasture for
>being incompetent.  TAMU should certainly not accept any more
>seen enough examples of what can go wrong that they will be
>extremely cautious about anything relating of cold fusion and
                                               ^^^^^^^^^^^
Something interesting appears to be going on in electrolysis.
Lets drop the F word (Fusion), and investigate!

>nuclear reactions induced by chemical means.
>

I agree, on the surface what he did appears to be wrong. However, it
might not have been completely crazy. I don't believe in a chemical
process for creating gold out of mercury, but the nuclear process
is there, and is commercially available.

The Hg197 created in a reactor, might be useful for PET (positon decay) 
imaging studies on the transportation of Hg in dental fillings. Obviously,
the subjects for such tests would be animals. This is the most legitimate
purpose I can imagine. 

In the nuclear feild, we often enrich B10 in boron for burnable absorbers 
for commercial nuclear reactors. There is even talk of enriching the B10
in the coolant for PWRs. A burnable absorber, highly enriched in Hg196 
(Not desirable for a number of reasons, but possible), has a cross section
comparable to boron, and looking at the table of isotopes and the transmuted
products, if the stuff was more abundant (Hg196), it might even be used! As the
tail product is gold, it might have been seriously considered, if the natural
abundance of Hg196 was 15% rather than 0.15%. However the atomic abundance is pitiful,
and as boron is avaiable in 20% abundance naturally (B10 is enriched to twice the 
natural abundance for some commercial nuclear applications). 

The final product after irradiation in an 18 month fuel cycle would be a combination 
of stable Au197 (over 90% of the Hg196 would be converted based on a back of the envelope
estimate), and a small number of active gold isotopes which would
quickly decay to stable mercury
                 ^^^^^                                            ^^^^^^^
isotopes. In principle, its possible to have a burnable absorber made of Hg196, with the
end product being stable gold, but I would hate to try to perform a safety analysis 
on the stuff, and the burnable absorber rod pressure would be excessive, etc, etc, etc...
Also, the NRC would never allow you to sell the gold in the BAs
within a reasonable period
of time, and there would be clowns at the nuclear site eager to rip off the BAs from the
spent fuel pool. One added benefit, it may be possible to use the
positronic decay of Hg197 to
obtain "imaging" data within the core, kind of like a PET scan (OK, I'm stretching
it).

For an exotic power reactor designed with Hg coolant, it would
be possible, and perhaps economical,
to enrich the primary circuit coolant in Hg196. The tails of the
enrichment process would be 
used in the secondary mercury vapor loop. The enriched Hg196 primary
loop would require extraction
of the gold on line to maintain the pure chemistry of the system.
 Obviously, the gold could be
sold at a future date. The primary circuit Hg196 would be used
to control reactivity of the first
core. This is a real benefit in nuclear reactor design, not to
be dismissed completely. However,
most reactor concepts of this type were dropped long ago, and were
intermediate reactors as
opposed to a thermal neutron energy reactors.   

Research in chemical separation of isotopic products in nuclear activitated samples
is certainly legitimate. There are a large number of uses for medical isotopes, and
ways of better managing, and seperating out products before they are further irradiated
should be researched. Whether the guy was a fraud, or a legitmate scientist cannot be
ascertained without alot more facts. I suspect he's pulling something,
but the people who want
to fire him did not carefully, or scientifically state their case,
because a multi-billion dollar global
industry has been transmuting elements for 40 years.


| Andy Holland		            |  A  |                  * Doing Work          
| Westinghouse NMD	            |  C  |                  + rn         
| zcrah@ncstate.pgh.wec.com         |  T  | ***   +++++++******
| Views Expressed here are soley my |  V  |    * +      +*
| own and are not representitive of |  I  |      *      +*
| Westinghouse Electric Corporation |  T  |____+___*____________
| etc...                            |  Y       time      ^(boss)

cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenzcrah cudfnAndy cudlnHolland cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.05 / Teri Story /  High School Experiments
     
Originally-From: teris@comtch.iea.com (Teri Story)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: High School Experiments
Date: 5 Jan 1994 05:31:41 GMT
Organization: CompuTech

Hello.  I'm a highschool student in Spokane, WA. I (along with the help of
our physics teacher) have been working on a 'cold fusion' experiment. We
haven't been able to determine where our excess energy is coming from, and I
was hoping someone could offer us some help. Okay.

Our cell is a platinum cathode and a nickel anode submerged in an
electrolyte (K2CO3) with current running through the liquid.  Running this
for about an hour inside an insulated container, we have had about 160% heat
generated than we should have for the energy in. We haven't been able to
find any chemical reaction (other than a little Ni and O bonding to form NiO
which wouldn't account for THAT much heat). Our calculations take into
account energy lost from the electrolysis and the evaporation of K2CO3. We
can't for the life of us figure out where else the heat could be coming from
other than what the original creator (Eugene F. Mallove) hypothesises which
is that electrons are moving to a lower energy level, thus giving off heat. 

Can anyone please help me out with this? Reply in mail or actually post if
you thik this is worthy enough to bother with..

cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenteris cudfnTeri cudlnStory cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.07 / Matt Kennel /  Re: Sonofusion
     
Originally-From: mbk%anl433.uucp@Germany.EU.net (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Sonofusion
Date: 7 Jan 1994 00:01:06 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

collins@jaguar.csc.wsu.edu wrote:
: In article <CJ4D83.35G@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, crb7q@watt.seas.Virg
nia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
: > In article <1994Jan4.095737.1@jaguar.csc.wsu.edu>,
: >  <collins@jaguar.csc.wsu.edu> wrote:
: >>
: >>I heard talks in December describing such measurements given by Ronald Roy
: >>and Pierre Mourad, Applied Physics Laboratory, University of Washington.
: >>They showed sonoluminescence spectra which looked very roughly like
: >>blackbody spectra, with peak intensities, as I recall, at a wavelength of about
: >>2000 angstroms.  Using Wien's law, this suggests a temperature of 15000 K.
: >>Roy and Mourad mentioned others (whom I forget) who had fitted 
: >>spectra to blackbody curves, but presented no spectral fits, themselves, 
: >>and did not commit themselves to any single interpretation of the light.
: > 
: >      Do you know if they've published the spectra anywhere?
: > 
: >                             dale bass

: No.  They are more interested in the temporal behavior of the light
: output, including light from a repetitively-excited single bubble.  The 
: light output has a duration less that 100 ps, but is synchronized, as I recall,
: from pulse to pulse with a time jitter much, much smaller. 

From what I remember Prof Putterman telling me a couple of years ago
is that the 'jitter' in the pulse output timing was very very small, and
most interestingly, quite a bit smaller than the jitter in their 
expensive pulse generator.   Who knows, but maybe this thing might
eventually make an inexpensive alternative to atomic clocks?

: As I recall,
: they obtained good estimates of the time evolution of the bubble radius from
: experiment and are trying to model same using shock dynamics methods.
: --------------------------------------------------------------------
: Gary Collins

--
-Matt Kennel  		mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu
-Institute for Nonlinear Science, University of California, San Diego
-*** AD: Archive for nonlinear dynamics papers & programs: FTP to
-***     lyapunov.ucsd.edu, username "anonymous".
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenuucp cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Fri Jan  7 04:37:04 EST 1994
------------------------------
1994.01.08 /  blue@dancer.ns /  Comments on Chuck Sites view of CF
     
Originally-From: blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Comments on Chuck Sites view of CF
Date: Sat, 8 Jan 1994 01:14:04 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

There are a few points at which Chuck fails to present a coherent picture
that would make observations and speculations about cold fusion gell.
The solid state effects, such as the formation of a Bose condensate,
seem to me to depend on there being a lattice as in the bulk PdD material.
Fracto-fusion, on the other hand, is said to occur at factures where the
bulk properties of the material have been altered.  How do you fit those
two ideas together?

Chuck says that I suggested that in a facture electrons should neutralize
the D ions and then counters with "I (Chuck) argue it should screen them.)
I get the feeling that the words "neutralize" and "screen" are being used
in ways that do not have clear meanings.  Let me back up a bit to try to
explain what I had said on this question previously, and then perhaps
Chuck could comment further.  Clearly fracto-fusion (if it occurs) involves
a transient situation.  When a fracture occurs, as I picture it various
atoms and electrons move to one side of the fracture or the other in a way
which does not preserve electrical neutrality at the two resulting surfaces.
That is to say, one surface may have a surplus of electrons and the other
a surplus of positive ions.  Thus an electric field spans the gap as the
fracture forms.  However various mobile charged species will move under
the influence of that field in a relaxation process which ultimately
reduces the field to zero in some rather short characteristic time.  There
can be motion along the surfaces which I would expect to involve mobilities
not too different from the bulk material prior to facture, and there may
be some acceleration of ions or electrons across the gap.  In that case
there must first be some sort of injection process in which the charge
carrier breaks free from the forces that bind it to the surface and
then accelerates in the gap, gaining energy in proportion to the field
strength and the distance moved.

If PdD retains its bulk resistivity at the fracture the relaxations of
fields parallel to the surface must be due to electrons primarily so
the relaxation process that could involve deuterons must involve charges
crossing the gap.  If, as Chuck says, the deuterons are screened I would
think that means they don't move at all.  My view is that supposing
I have these surfaces with electrons and deuterons ready to race across
the gap.  Electrons should win the race!  To alter that picture you have
to bind the electrons more tightly than the deuterons at the surface.
Show me data for Pd or something similar where it is easier to pull
deuterons off the surface in an electric field than electrons and you
could get me to change my thinking (a little bit).

The next puzzle I see with Chucks comments has to do with the role
three-body interactions could have in altering fusion reaction
branching ratios.  The central feature of all models of cold fusion
is that two nuclei are held apart by the coullomb force, but that
there is sufficient overlap between the extreme tails of their wave
functions that tunneling through the coulomb barrier can occur at
an observable rate.  I have a hard time seeing how you bring a third
body into this picture with sufficient symmetry between the three
nuclear centers that only two interact but that interaction is still
strongly altered by the presence of the third.  In particularly the
traditional compound nucleus picture of the reaction process rules
out the possibility that a nearby third nucleous makes a difference.
It has to do with the time scale overwhich the process occurs.  Once
two deuterons merge to form 4He* the decay process occurs very
rapidly.  Now you expect us to believe that a third nucleus that
isn't close enough to exchange pions at any significant rate is still
going to prevent 4He* from emitting a neutron?  Get real!   You must
remember that we aren't concerned with small changes in the branching
ratios.  The requirement is for change by something like six orders
of magnitude in the neutron emission rate relative to gamma decay.
Then, since the single gamma is never seen, the requirement is for
some multistep process that is perhaps hundreds or thousands of times
slower than the single gamma emission.  You true believers are
pushing the boundaries everywhere.

Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU 

cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenblue cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.08 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  The Storms Paper
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: The Storms Paper
Date: Sat, 8 Jan 1994 01:14:11 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I have received several responses to the possible meaning of the Storms'
curve.  I suggest that these be posted here, except for the respondee that
does not want to be identified.  If asked, I will edit the response to remove
identity and repost.  My sources will be protected.  It seems that there are
still those that fear for their jobs if caught thinking about "cold fusion".
A good idea - no prudent person would be caught in this field.

No one really addressed my concern.  Where in the world did Storms get all 
those significant figures?   OK, I will allow anyone 2 without criticism as 
one feels silly just writing down integers. (How does one indicate less than 
one significant figure?  I guess by putting on an error limit.  No one seems
to do that much in this field.)  In any case the 11.57 and the 3387 imply that
they have meaning.  Wow!  A four figure "cold fusion" experiment.  

The TB's may feel that I am too hard on Storms.  In a field like this with 
all the criticism, one should at least *try* to follow careful scientific
practice.  

Tom Droege

cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenDROEGE cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.08 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Maui Papers #4
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Maui Papers #4
Date: Sat, 8 Jan 1994 01:14:17 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Maui4  

Slowly we work towards C 2.12 and the quotation of the conference.  

***** Paper C 2.7  Excess Heat Yes  Neutrons No  Tritium No  4He No
 
Heat Measurement of Water Electrolysis Using Pd Cathode and the
Electrochemistry
     Ota, Yoshitake, Yamazaki, Kuraisuka, Yamaki, Ando, Iida,
     Kamiya

This group took a round rod, cut notches in it, then squished it out like 
stepping on a sausage.  Lord knows why they did this.  But note that this does 
cold work the material, and the notches would create points of high stress.  

The general scheme is a flow calorimeter run with constant electrolysis power.  
The paper does not discuss calorimetry error, but I have written error?? 2% ?? 
in the margin of the abstract.  They did 16 runs with D2O and 4 runs with H2O.
Three of the heavy water runs displayed excess heat, none of the light water 
runs did.  

Figure 1. shows electrolysis for of order 1000 hours before "anomalous heat" 
appears.  The caption says this is for Palladium 10% Silver alloy.  I judge 
the signal to noise ratio to be 3 - 5 to one.  The excess heat continues for 
300 hours or so then goes back to the baseline.  Figure 2. shows the cell 
voltage and current during this time.  (Very nice to see this kind of data, 
although I cannot understand why a slightly different time scale was used - 
it just makes work for the xerox machine.)  The cell voltage was decreasing in 
anticipation of the event and then increased during the event.  The current 
did the opposite since it was a constant power set up.  Curves 3 and 4 show 
loading studies and depth of Li penetration vs current density.  

The abstract is a nice little stand alone paper, very well done.  I am 
confused since I wrote at the top of the page, "No Ag alloys show heat."  I 
obviously got this from the talk, but the abstract is all about Ag alloys 
showing heat.  Just below that I have written "5% Ce very large".  Ahh! the 
problems of absorbing everything at a conference.  Adsorption possibly takes 
place and comes off in the swimming pool.  I think the 5% Ce data was a late 
result - beware, it could be 5% Co.  

They noted that the lower temperatures gave higher loading.  The lowest 
temperature of operation was 28 C where they achieved 0.88.

They quote 3.6 MJ energy accumulation which was 6.5% average and 13% peak 
power.  Remember the 2% error number.  So they are just out of the noise.  
Hand written note in the margin says 18.5 MJ per cc so you can likely figure 
the cathode size.  They determined loading by the evolved gas method checked 
by weighing the sample.  

This is a good abstract to get and stare at.  They show data for 500+ hours 
after the event.  This is very important.  One has to look at this data and 
think what could change to look like "anomalous heat" that then changes back 
to look like zero?  They show the voltage and the current into the cell.  
There is no obvious thing to look at like a change of operating condition just 
when the excess heat starts.  There is in fact a voltage and current point 
before the "anomalous heat" that is the same as a point when there is 
"anomalous heat".  This looks like a competent experiment by a competent 
group.  They show the things I want to see.  But they do not talk enough about 
error.  

***** Paper C 2.8  Excess Heat Yes  Neutrons Yes  Tritium No  4He No

Reproducible Anomalous Heat Production and "Cold Fusion" in
Au)/Pd/PdO Heterostructure Electrochemically Saturated by
Hydrogen (or Deuterium)
     Lipson, Lyakhov, Derjaguin

I have marked that Lipson gave the talk, otherwise no other notes, sorry.

>From the abstract:

"An anamalous pulse heat production has been estabblished in the PdO/Pd/PdO 
(or Au/Pd/PdO) heterostructure about 20-50 um Pd thick saturated by hydrogen 
(deuterium) by electrolisis in 1M solution of KOH (NaOD).  Reproducibility of 
the heat evoluation is very high and amounts to about 150-200 thermal bursts 
in succession.  Every thermal burst corresponds to each hydrogenation cycle.  
...  (skipping) ... For the system Au/Pd/PdO:H the level of neutrons counts 
doesn't exeed a background level.  But in the system Au/Pd?PdO:D the neutrons 
emission in a for of bursts (5-20 pulses in a time gate of 128 us) takes 
place.  ...  These bursts precede of heat production and correspond to moments 
of maximum plastic deformations of the sample. (sic)"

***** Paper C 2.9  Excess Heat Yes  Neutrons No  Tritium No  4He Yes
 
Heat and Helium Measurements in Deuterated Palladium
     Miles, Bush

Everyone will remember that Miles hauled out his all metal sampling flask and 
laid it on the overhead projector for the whole audience to see.  

The other memorable thing is the computation by Miles that generates a 
probability for error of 1/238,000,000.  There seems to be a little dispute 
between Steven Jones and Miles about which experiments can be included in the 
probability product.  Jones questions why certain experiments were left out 
of the result.  Including these experiments would materially change the 
probability.  

The real problem is that Miles has not been able to get large amounts of 
excess heat lately, the new experiments being of order 0.1 watt excess where 
the error is 22% (quadrature).

Miles argues that the excess heat matches the 4He seen.  The two page abstract 
is a good mini-paper and tells everything that one needs to know to evaluate
the result.  Looks pretty close to noise level to me. 

***** Paper C 2.10  Excess Heat Yes  Neutrons No  Tritium No  4He Yes

Calorimetry of D2O Electrolysis Using a Palladium Cathode in a
Closed Cell System: AC Current Electrolysis Method
     Oyama, Hirasawa, Tadsuma, Yamamoto

I thought this group said that they achieved excess heat.  My notes say "Yet 
another paper with aprox. 2 months to excess heat.  But looking at the result 
in the abstract, it just looks like noise.  As is often the case, there is no 
mention of error and no error bars on the data.  

The scheme is to superimpose an ac current on a dc current.  The period is 60 
minutes.  The cell temperature is 8 C.  They use a 100/1 anode to cathode 
area and 0.1 M LiOD.  A twin cell calorimeter of unknown accuracy is used 
which measures the difference in generated heat between the two cells.  Figure 
1. shows the first few hours where the mean value is about 25 ma with a high 
of 40 ma and a low of 10.  The power curve for the first few hours shows more 
power in that out.  Reasonable.  Figure 2 is titled "Excess heat (Rex) 
observed for each cycle for two experiments (A and B).  B goes only to 450 
hours where it is beginning to look noisy.  They say: "Although it is not 
clear whether the unstable region includes excess heat generation or not, the 
present method was found to be effective in leading the system to an unstable 
state.  Loading amount of D2 has never been considered. (sic)" 

Notes seem to indicate switching to 243 ma / cm sq at 360 hours to get heat.
At least in curve 2B the instability starts at 360 hours.  If there is excess 
heat in curve 2B it is at most 2% and is balanced by a heat deficit at other 
times.  

My notes seem to indicate this as an "excess heat" experiment, so possibly it 
was claimed.  But the abstract does not seem to support such a claim.

***** Paper C 2.11  Excess Heat Yes  Neutrons No  Tritium No  4He Yes

Subtraction of a New Thermochemical Effect from the Excess Heat,
and the Emerging Avenues in Cold Fusion
     Handel

Handel seems to claim that all excess heat can be explained by the Seebeck 
effect.  I have no idea why his paper was accepted, but the abstract starts 
out:

"Electrolytic cells are shown to work like heat pumps, pumping in an infinite 
amount of environmental heat per 1 Joule of excess energy supplied, for a 
vanishing temperature difference between the hot and cold sources, in the 
reversible limit of arbitrarily low current densities."

I guess that "infinite" heat pump caught the attention of the program 
committee.  I do not understand this paper.  Later Handel asked questions of 
other presenters.  I do not think they understood him either.  I will await an 
infinite environmental heat pump to heat my house.  My name is not Thomas for 
nothing.  

***** Paper C 2.12  Excess Heat Yes  Neutrons No  Tritium No  4He Yes

Heat After Death
     Pons, Fleischmann

And now we get the quote of the conference, cleverly elicited by Steven Jones.  
I have written FLIM FLAM in a box on the left margin of my notes.  Due to 
great interest, I will type in the whole abstract.

Begin abstract:

"We have described elsewhere (eg see (1,2) that Pd and Pd-Alloy electrodes 
cathodically polarized in D2O solutions under extreme conditions can drive the 
calorimetric cells to the boiling point.  We have then adopted the procedure 
of allowing the cells to boil to dryness.  For these conditions the 
galvanostats are driven to the rail voltage (100V) but the cell current is 
reduced to zero.  We have then found that cells which contained D2O frequently 
remain at high temperatures (in the vicinity of 100 C) before cooling rapidly 
to the bath temperature.  Cells containing H2O can also be driven to the 
boiling point but such cells cool immediately on terminating the experiments.  

This phenomenon has become known as "Heat after Death" (the death referring to 
cessation of polarisation).  Calibrations of the cells for such conditions 
show the generation of high levels of enthalpy at zero enthalpy input.  

Methods of investigating such systems will be outlined and we will also refer 
to related  observations by other research groups."

End abstract (references not typed)

Some assorted notes from my book:

"It remembers the temperature, for example 100 C.  We have seen other 
temperatures";  "2 ev stored in atom due to nuclear reaction";  "(have seen) 
100 C for 3 hours, measured in the gas"; "(cathode) which boiled was 1 mm x 
12.5 mm"; "fully loaded cathode would hold 360 joules"(so there is not enough 
energy by far stored in the cathode to explain the result) ; "solid 
electrolyte left in the bottom of the cell"(so it did not leave with the 
liquid - therefore it boiled away);  "claims current is off and does 
not contribute to input power (for heat after death)". 

Sorry for the "stream of consciousness" style, but many of these items are 
points that we have discussed here, and I wanted to present them just as the 
notes were taken to eliminate distortions.  Again, the quotes mean that they 
are directly transcribed from the notes in my book with only expanded 
abbreviations.  

At the end of the talk, Pons put up the "beware of ignition" slide from the 
first paper.  This got everyone excited.  

As usual when Pons and Fleischmann give talks, I learned very little.  
Everything is in the quoted notes above. We were not burdened with any of the 
details of the experiments.  

During the question period, Steven Jones asked a question, which I do not 
remember exactly, but from the response you can see that he was pushing for 
Pons to differentiate between the D2O boiling cell and the H2O control.

****************************************************************************
Said Dr. Pons "with Palladium it blows (very brief pause as he realized what 
he was saying) - it evaporates it all out"
****************************************************************************

I hope someone has this on tape.  When I heard this statement I frantically 
wrote it in my book.  I was so startled by it that it caused nearly a full 
erase of Pons' talk in my head.

I think you were right the first time Dr. Pons.  

Tom Droege

cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenDROEGE cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.07 / Matt Kennel /  Re: A few notes
     
Originally-From: mbk%anl433.uucp@Germany.EU.net (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A few notes
Date: 7 Jan 1994 00:18:52 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

Chuck Sites (chuck@coplex.coplex.com) wrote:

: Ok I cooled down a bit.  Lets get down on this question of how the 
: branching ratio should remain conventional in a cold fusion reation.
: I think Steve and I are looking at the fusion reation in two different 
: ways. Others may wish to drop in thier opion here, but the way I see it 
: is the characteristics of D ion bose condensate can effects the ratio. I
: think the example of the ratio defined by muon-catalization is valid but
: for a two body interation.  It does not have the influence that multi-body
: interaction would have.  Here is why: When a system of bosons are condensed,
: in momentum space they are overlaped and thus continuous in momentum. 

: With
: respect to forces of the nucleus if unperturbed, they should also be in 
: continueum of interaction, which in the case of a deuteron implies a 
: potential for a strong interaction.

I have no idea what this means.

: That is, just as E/M forces of a
: superconducting charge carrier are overlaped in momentum space allowing 
: migration of charge without resistance, the much short range but strongly
: attractive nuclear potential should allow pion migration without 
: localization.

Argh.  I feel like a broken record.  Again!! How can you keep the strong
force turned on but eliminate the electromagnetism?

Mumbling about Bose condensation *doesn't explain it.*

The electrons in a a Cooper pair in superconductors are *not* physically
close.  

Now, suppose there were some very short-range (nuclear or smaller distances)
e-/e- leptonic interaction.

Would this reaction rate be substantially elevated in a metal, because
there's a "band state"?  No.

Would this reaction rate be substantically elevated in a superconductor,
because of the Cooper pairs?  No.

All that matters is the relative distance.  You have to get that small,
and if that's small the electrostatic energy will be big.

: (That effect in itself seems to be enough to allow 
: extraction of small bits of nuclear energy via the uncertanty 
: relation and a Mossbauar *like* effect).  What is interesting to ponder
: then is how the system will react if the delocalized exchange is strong
: enough to localize an interaction. 

This seems inevitable considering that the strong force works only
at nuclear *distances*.  If the momenta are similar or overlapping, it
doesn't make any difference to the strong force.  But the distance
does matter.

: Have Fun,
: Chuck Sites
: chuck#coplex.coplex.com

--
-Matt Kennel  		mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu
-Institute for Nonlinear Science, University of California, San Diego
-*** AD: Archive for nonlinear dynamics papers & programs: FTP to
-***     lyapunov.ucsd.edu, username "anonymous".
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenuucp cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.07 / arthur blair /  Re: Fusion for the ignorant
     
Originally-From: blair@mksol.dseg.ti.com (arthur blair)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion for the ignorant
Date: Fri, 7 Jan 1994 01:41:58 GMT
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc

Ad absurdum per aspera (JTCHEW@lbl.gov) wrote:
: rfheeter suggests that...

: > There seem to be a few frequently asked questions, and maybe
: > a very simple FAQ for fusion (at least hot fusion) is in order?

: And also point them toward some books.  Although books are
: obviously not a good way to acquaint people with the state 
: of the art, there are a number of pretty good ones that
: are available in libraries.  Many of them are accessible
: to the layman, at least in the early going.

: I've also got a variety of pamphlets put out by this or that 
: lab or agency over the years; feel free to give out my address
: as a source for photocopies of such things. 
: Joe

Could you post even a brief list of such books? Twould be much appreciated.
Art.
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenblair cudfnarthur cudlnblair cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.07 / Robert Heeter /  Re: Fusion for the ignorant
     
Originally-From: rfheeter@flagstaff.Princeton.EDU (Robert Franklin Heeter)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion for the ignorant
Date: Fri, 7 Jan 1994 04:16:25 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

In article <1994Jan7.014158.12681@mksol.dseg.ti.com> blair@mksol.dseg.ti
com (arthur blair) writes:
>Ad absurdum per aspera (JTCHEW@lbl.gov) wrote:
>: rfheeter suggests that...
>
>: > There seem to be a few frequently asked questions, and maybe
>: > a very simple FAQ for fusion (at least hot fusion) is in order?
>
>: And also point them toward some books.  Although books are
>: obviously not a good way to acquaint people with the state 
>: of the art, there are a number of pretty good ones that
>: are available in libraries.  Many of them are accessible
>: to the layman, at least in the early going.
>
>: I've also got a variety of pamphlets put out by this or that 
>: lab or agency over the years; feel free to give out my address
>: as a source for photocopies of such things. 
>: Joe
>
>Could you post even a brief list of such books? Twould be much appreciated.
>Art.

Here are some baby steps towards an FAQ/FQA - a short list of 
fusion references for non-fusioneers.  This list was compiled
by me looking at my bookshelf and scrapbook, and is not
comprehensive in any way! :)  Additions and comments are welcome.

These are the (relatively) nontechnical references I can give:

(1) Herman, Robin.  _Fusion: Search for Endless Energy_.  Published
1989, I believe.  (I loaned my copy out temporarily.)  Relatively
optimistic history of fusion research, emphasis on the U.S. and 
particularly Princeton.  Lucid and entertaining.

(2) Bromber, Joan Lisa.  _Fusion: Science, Politics, and the Invention
of a New Energy Source_.  MIT Press, 1982.  DOE-authorized history
of the US fusion program.  Author claims no political pressures;
tends to emphasize the political side of the program.  Focuses on
US efforts at DOE labs.

(3) Heppenheimer.  _The Man-Made Sun_.  I haven't read it.

(4) Voronov, GS.  _Storming the Fortress of Fusion_.  Translated
from the Russian by R.S. Wadhwa.  Original text 1985, revised 1988.
Mir Publishers, Moscow.  Appears to be highly enthusiastic, contents
indicate chapters on inertial confinement and muon-catalyzed fusion
as well as tokamaks, stellarators, pinches, etc.  I haven't yet
read it, though.

* Editorial comment:  I'd recommend Herman's book as a first read
at this point.  Despite the problems with the slant, I felt it 
was more readable and interesting than Bromberg's book, which 
felt a bit dry. *

In addition to these popular works, there are of course several
textbooks on the subject of plasma physics and controlled fusion.

In addition to books, there are some interesting and significant
review articles, plus articles in the popular press.

(1) If I remember correctly (I will check this), the Sept 1991 issue
of Nuclear Fusion was devoted to a complete review of the
state of controlled fusion research.

(2) In the 1992 issue of _Annual Reviews of Energy and the Environment_,
two european authors (Colombo and Farinelli) review "Progress in Fusion
Energy" (pp. 123-160).  I felt this was a good summary.

(3) Conn, et al, had an article on ITER (International Thermonuclear
Experimental Reactor) in _Scientific American_, April 1992, pp. 103-110.
ITER is supposed to be a proto-prototype of an economical tokamak
reactor, is a US/EC/Russia/Japan collaboration, and won't be built
for quite some time yet.

(4)  There were a number of articles on the recent TFTR results in
the national media in mid-late December of 1993, including
the New York Times and _Time_.  I would like to accumulate references
if anyone has them.  


Hope this helps!

************
Robert F. Heeter
Graduate Student, Princeton Plasma Physics Lab
rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu  -  Disclaimers Apply






cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.07 / John Logajan /  Re: Not DD fusion in Bubble Chamber
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Not DD fusion in Bubble Chamber
Date: Fri, 7 Jan 94 05:33:48 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:
>Those of you who know how to do such things could have
>just put "bubble+chamber" into a search string and gone into the zorch files.

Unfortunately the WAIS system at sunsite.unc.edu has not worked for at least
two months.  I telnet to the WAIS there, but maybe remote WAIS's can get
at the database.  boo hoo

-- 
- John Logajan MS612, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.07 / John Logajan /  Re: Maui Papers #2
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Maui Papers #2
Date: Fri, 7 Jan 94 06:05:43 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:
>(Note: all this brings back to me the Moore thesis, which says that at a 
>measured loading of 2.3, over half was in the voids.)

What kind of a change in volume of the original Pd are we talking about here?
I would imagine that at start, the measured volumetric density of the Pd is
within a few percent of the density implied by crystallographic imaging.

The initial amount of the volume occupied by voids would then be that 
fractional difference -- a few percent of the total volume.

Making the wild assumption that we get a total volume expansion at this
high loading of another few percent and we are establishing lower limits
on the pressure and density of gases in the voids.

Let's say 2 percent initial voids and 3 percent additional expansion
volume in the voids for a total void volume of 5% of the overal total Pd/void
volume.

Since a loading of 2.3 implies (if I recall) on the order of 2000 atmospheres
equivalent pressure, then if half that loading is in 1/20th the total volume,
we are talking 40,000 atmospheres in the voids.  If we only have a 1% delta
volume, then we are talking 200,000 atmospheres in the voids, etc.

In any event, if the system can pump pressures uphill into the voids, (since
the density is obviously greater in the voids than in the lattice) then even
higher pressures might well be possible -- especially in non-equilibrium
conditions.

Let me reask an old question -- at what pressures do we expect average
spacing to allow sufficiently probable quantum tunneling to allow noticeable
"cold" fusion?

-- 
- John Logajan MS612, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.07 / Craig Harmon /  Re: Branching ratios for hot and cold fusion?
     
Originally-From: harmon@csulb.edu (Craig Harmon)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Branching ratios for hot and cold fusion?
Date: 7 Jan 1994 06:23:37 GMT
Organization: Cal State Long Beach

jbatka@desire.wright.edu wrote:
: Good morning,

: Are the branching ratios for cold (muon) fusion different than hot
: fusion?  If so, is there a significant difference and which branches
: are preferred for the different fusion types.

Although I don't know the numbers for hot fusion, I don't think you can 
compare the two.  Hot fusion you are trying to overcome coulomb 
repulsion, while in muon fusion it is your ally.  I don't know much about 
the *fusion* involved with this and I doubt many people seriously consider 
it a potential energy source.  I can give you my simplistic argument 
against it.

Muon fusion follows from muonic atoms.  A muon is a lepton, like an 
electron, and has the same charge (mu minus).  It weighs about 200 times 
more, so if a muon gets captured in an atom it can behave like an 
electron.  It will then quickly radiate its way down to the K shell of 
the atom through electron ejection, or photon emision.  In the K shell, 
it, due to its heavier weight will (in medium and heavier nuclei) be 
inside the nucleus. (the ratio of muon Bohr radius to nuclear radius is 
about 200/ Z times A to the 1/3 power.  A is the atomic number, Z is the 
number of protons.  This ratio is less than one for heavier nuclei).

Once in the nucleus, there is a good chance it will undergo the following 
reaction
muon + p --> n + mu neutrino.  The neutrino carries off most of the energy.
So you now have a few MeV neutron which can interact (without coulomb 
repulsion) with other nuclei.  So how you get fusion out of this is 
anyones guess.  I suppose in hydrogen gas you could get deuterium, but it 
would not be very efficient.

Another problem is that muons decay (in about 10 to the minus 6 seconds), 
so in order for it to get close enough to the nucleus to you have to 
consider the ratio of the muon's life to the sum of the intermediate  
decays it takes to 
get close enough to react.  For Z less than 11, this ratio is substantially 
less than one.  For heavier elements, nuclear capture dominates.  For 
hydrogen, the ratio is about 1/1000.  So to fuse lighter elements, this is 
not an efficient means.  Of course you can overcome this low ratio with a 
large flux, but it takes energy to make these muons, and at best you can 
get less than 1/1000 return on this investment.

De Shalit and Feshbach's book _Theoretical Nuclear Physics_ is pretty 
readable, and has some theoretical calculations for Muonic atoms.
 
Best Regards,

Craig Harmon
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenharmon cudfnCraig cudlnHarmon cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.07 /  blue@dancer.ns /  Stringham detection of 114Cd?
     
Originally-From: blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Stringham detection of 114Cd?
Date: Fri, 7 Jan 1994 15:43:46 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Almost as an aside Tom Droege reports that "...Roger Stringham in ICCF4
found excess heat, 4He, and 114Cd in paper C 3.9."  I would be
curious to know more about the 114Cd observation and what significance
RS attaches to it.  I note the 114Cd is stable and has a 29% relative
abundance.  It also is a rather volatile metal and spreads easily as
a trace contaminant.  For those reasons I would recommend that this
observations be taken with a large dose of salts.  Questions to be
ask include: (1)How was the 114Cd identified and at what levels and
(2) What steps were taken to check possible origins of this material
as a contaminant?  Any suggestion that 114Cd is produced by a
nuclear process involving Pd looks pretty silly.

Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU

cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenblue cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.07 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Re: Maui Papers #2
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Maui Papers #2
Date: 7 Jan 94 11:38:35 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

In article <1994Jan7.060543.1226@ns.network.com>, 
logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan) writes:
> DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:
>>(Note: all this brings back to me the Moore thesis, which says that at a 
>>measured loading of 2.3, over half was in the voids.)
> 
> What kind of a change in volume of the original Pd are we talking about here?
> I would imagine that at start, the measured volumetric density of the Pd is
> within a few percent of the density implied by crystallographic imaging.
> 
> The initial amount of the volume occupied by voids would then be that 
> fractional difference -- a few percent of the total volume.
> 
> Making the wild assumption that we get a total volume expansion at this
> high loading of another few percent and we are establishing lower limits
> on the pressure and density of gases in the voids.
> 
> Let's say 2 percent initial voids and 3 percent additional expansion
> volume in the voids for a total void volume of 5% of the overal total Pd/void
> volume.
> 
> Since a loading of 2.3 implies (if I recall) on the order of 2000 atmospheres
> equivalent pressure, then if half that loading is in 1/20th the total volume,
> we are talking 40,000 atmospheres in the voids.  If we only have a 1% delta
> volume, then we are talking 200,000 atmospheres in the voids, etc.
> 
> In any event, if the system can pump pressures uphill into the voids, (since
> the density is obviously greater in the voids than in the lattice) then even
> higher pressures might well be possible -- especially in non-equilibrium
> conditions.
> 
> Let me reask an old question -- at what pressures do we expect average
> spacing to allow sufficiently probable quantum tunneling to allow noticeable
> "cold" fusion?
> 
> -- 
> - John Logajan MS612, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
> - logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853

Let me give an old answer -- goes back to our paper published in 1986.
-->C. DeW. Van Siclen and S.E. Jones, "Piezonuclear fusion in isotopic hydrogen
molecules," J. Phys. G: Nucl. Phys.  12 (March 1986) 213.

We calculated that by reducing the mean d-d separation to half that of a 
D2 molecule, that is, to 0.36 Angstroms, the d-d fusion rate would increase by
about 50 orders of magnitude.  This translates to approximately one fusion
per minute for one kilogram of deuterium compressed with over 10^8 atmospheres.
Such pressures cannot be sustained in palladium or any other material.
The pressure at Jupiter's core is estimated at 60 million atmospheres.

As I have postulated here before, IF we can produce *metallic* deuterium
(requires 2-3 megabars in a diamond-anvil cell), and if some deuterons
occupy interstitial sites in the metal transiently so that d-d separations
are reduced to around 0.2 Angstroms, then we *may* achieve barely measurable d-d
fusion at the 10^-24 fusion/d-d pair/sec level.  Not easy, and certainly
I see no way to increase this by 13 or so orders of magnitude to get out
measurable "excess heat".  No way.

--Steven Jones


cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenjonesse cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.07 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Some responses
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Some responses
Date: 7 Jan 94 11:59:54 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

I have received a couple of questions about our ICCF-4 paper which was posted
here, via private e-mail.  Responses:

1.  Even if neutrons were somehow emitted in "jets", the 3He-tubes would still
pick up neutrons in all 4 quandrants for a large neutron burst, since the
neutrons must first thermalize in the polyethylene moderator before capture
in 3He.  In the process of slowing down, the neutrons are scattered so that
directional information is lost.

2.  Menlove at LANL also saw large neutron bursts which he determined to be
spurious in his 3He-type detectors -- without the pulse digitization
electronics.  So the artifacts cannot be blamed simply on the LeCroy fast
waveform digitizers.  Menlove has traced the problem to high-voltage breakdown
associated with the 3He-filled proportional counter tubes.  He agrees with me
now that claims of large-multiplicity bursts of neutrons must be retracted.
Previous claims of a correlation of neutron burst activity with liquid-nitrogen
cooling are also dismissed; this cooling has been linked to moisture
condensation in the detector leading to high-voltage breakdown and spurious
"bursts."   (See my early caveats about this type of artifact in paper to BYU 
1990 Conf, AIP proceedings # 228.)

3.  We followed experimental protocols suggested to us by Tom Passell of EPRI,
evidently following Kevin Wolf's protocols.  Dr. Passell
encouraged us to do the experiments but EPRI did not fund them.

4.  We did not measure the d/Pd loading ratio.  However, colleagues at LANL
have achieved d/Pd > 0.8 using gas-loading techniques; they looked for neutrons
under these high-loading conditions and saw none.  I gather that McKubre has
failed to see neutrons with high deuterium-loading conditions likewise.

5.  Tom Droege posted that the funding agency may have induced Fritz Will
to withold information about not seeing significant neutrons when he presented
positive tritium data.  Are you suggesting unscientific behavior here, Tom?

It will be interesting to see whether our ICCF-4 paper is accepted for the
proceedings, or for publication in _Fusion Technology_.

--Steven Jones

cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenjonesse cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.07 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Re: Americium contamination
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Americium contamination
Date: 7 Jan 94 12:38:30 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

In article <199401041846.AA18135@leibniz.cs.arizona.edu>, rcs@cs.arizona
edu (Richard Schroeppel) writes:
>>From Steven Jones latest ICCF-4 draft,
> 
>>   No gamma lines above background were
>     seen, except for a weak 59.5 keV line which represents americium-
>     241.  The americium contamination was traced to the nickel gauze
>     used for anodes.
> 
> This suggests a radiological safety problem somewhere:
> How did the gauze become contaminated with a substance
> whose location is supposed to be closely monitored?
> Is any followup being done?
> 
> Rich Schroeppel  rcs@cs.arizona.edu
> 

Your questions are pointed and appropriate.  The nickel gauze came to us
from Texas A&M University, and that is a fact.  So when we found out about
the contamination, I asked Kevin Wolf there.  He assures me the contamination
could *not* have occurred there.  But I cannot find any other place where
it could have been introduced.  I'm not trying to start another "contamination"
rumor here; the amount of Am was very small.  No further followup is planned.
Any suggestions?
 --Steven Jones

cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenjonesse cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.07 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Re: High School Experiments
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: High School Experiments
Date: 7 Jan 94 12:52:20 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

In article <2gdjbt$4ac@krel.iea.com>, teris@comtch.iea.com (Teri Story) writes:
> Hello.  I'm a highschool student in Spokane, WA. I (along with the help of
> our physics teacher) have been working on a 'cold fusion' experiment. We
> haven't been able to determine where our excess energy is coming from, and I
> was hoping someone could offer us some help. Okay.
> 
> Our cell is a platinum cathode and a nickel anode submerged in an
> electrolyte (K2CO3) with current running through the liquid.  Running this
> for about an hour inside an insulated container, we have had about 160% heat
> generated than we should have for the energy in. We haven't been able to
> find any chemical reaction (other than a little Ni and O bonding to form NiO
> which wouldn't account for THAT much heat). Our calculations take into
> account energy lost from the electrolysis and the evaporation of K2CO3. We
> can't for the life of us figure out where else the heat could be coming from
> other than what the original creator (Eugene F. Mallove) hypothesises which
> is that electrons are moving to a lower energy level, thus giving off heat. 
> 
> Can anyone please help me out with this? Reply in mail or actually post if
> you thik this is worthy enough to bother with..
> 

Yes, Teri, we have done the same experiments (Ni cathode etc.) with light
water and have found apparent "excess heat" repeatedly.  This was aired on
this net some 8 months ago.  To be brief, we found that the supposed xs heat
derived from hydrogen + oxygen recombination which actually does occur
significantly in these cells.  Did you assume no recombination?  Are you
sure none occurred?  Did you use   I*(V-1.48volts) in calculating xs heat?

Here's a quick check which we did:  place glass tubes around the electrodes
(partially covering them)
to increase the path length which ions must travel between them,
and particulary to direct most of the evolving H2 and O2 bubbles out of the
electrolyte, separately.  Or, better but more difficult, bubble nitrogen into
the electrolyte through a glass frit for tiny N2 bubbles, to drive dissolved
H2 and O2 from the electrolyte.  In either case, recombination is greatly
reduced.  I predict you will see the "excess heat" go away.  That's just
what we saw -- we used both techniques mentioned above.

Alternatively, place the electrodes closer together and turn Vcell down to just
over 1.48volts  -- you should see more recombination and calculate even
more excess heat!  We got up to 700% supposed excess heat.  But it wasn't
really.

Let me know what you see, and your answers to questions above please.

If you send me an address, I'll send a copy of our paper on all this, which
is in draft form still but nearing submission.

We found, finally, no "excess heat" which could not be explained
conventionally.  Careful calorimetry is crucial, too, of course.
And we looked for characteristic Ni K x-rays which should have been present if
*any* nuclear reaction were causing excess heat:  we found none.

Good luck.

--Steven Jones


cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenjonesse cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.07 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Re: What did Bockris do wrong?
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What did Bockris do wrong?
Date: 7 Jan 94 13:18:15 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

In article <noringCJ4tKH.9Lz@netcom.com>, noring@netcom.com (Jon Noring) writes:
> In article blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu writes:
> 
>>If he actually believed that he could achieve that goal, then he probably
>>should be put out to pasture for being incompetent.
> 
> This is somewhat of a strong statement, especially since you did not mention
> what process he was advocating.  As another poster mentioned, one of the
> natural isotopes of mercury, when bombarded with neutrons (possibly even
> thermal neutrons), will be transmutated to a radioactive isotope of mercury
> which then rapidly decays to the natural isotope of gold.  This nuclear
> reaction appears to be possible.  It's just a matter of making such a process
> economical.
> 
> Of course, this may not have been his process (he may have attempted it
> without a source of neutrons), but it certainly shows that making such
> statements without providing the proper information is itself very
> unscientific and can lead to blind witch hunts.  After all, what do the guys
> at LBL do but to continue to make new elements?  Alchemy is being done all
> the time!  It's just a matter of providing the right ingredients.
> 
> So, anybody, what is the process that Bockris is studying for converting
> mercury into gold?
> 
> Jon Noring

A chemical process, involving mixing flammable materials with mercury and
igniting the mixture -- *not* involving neutron irradiation.  This I gather
from comments from people who were invited to Dr. Bockris meeting
which was to be held at TAMU in early 1993 to demonstrate this 
*chemical* process (hence Blue's use of "alchemy" is correct), but
which meeting was cancelled when legal problems arose.  

I also heard a man speak on just such a process at the 
Nagoya "cold fusion" meeting, but I do not know whether
this is the same man whom John Bockris got mixed up with.  At Nagoya, the
alchemy proponent discussed mixing various ingredients with ores then
igniting these to increase the amount of precious metals which could later be
extracted.  He included in the ingredients list "whole wheat flour." (I've
discussed this here before.)  I raised my hand and queried whether whole wheat
flour was essential -- wouldn't white flour do just as well?  No, one needed
whole wheat flour.  It was too much; I left.  

I spoke to Dr. Bockris about this briefly at the Maui meeting.  He said that
a high-ranking prof. in the TAMU chemistry dept. was trying to get Bockris
dismissed, suggesting that this was the basis of the flap over alchemy.  
I cannot remember the name of this prof. now, however.

--Steve Jones

cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenjonesse cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.07 /  collins@jaguar /  Re: High School Experiments
     
Originally-From: collins@jaguar.csc.wsu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: High School Experiments
Date: 7 Jan 94 10:52:14 -0800
Organization: Washington State Univ.

In article <2gjlp4INN8dd@daisy.pgh.wec.com>, zcrah@trumpet.pgh.wec.com
(Andy Holland) writes:
> In article <2gdjbt$4ac@krel.iea.com> teris@comtch.iea.com (Teri Story) writes:
>>Hello.  I'm a highschool student in Spokane, WA. I (along with the help of
>>our physics teacher) have been working on a 'cold fusion' experiment. We
>>haven't been able to determine where our excess energy is coming from, and I
>>was hoping someone could offer us some help. Okay.
>>
>>Our cell is a platinum cathode and a nickel anode submerged in an
>>electrolyte (K2CO3) with current running through the liquid.  Running this
>>for about an hour inside an insulated container, we have had about 160% heat
> 
> 
> Be very very careful. If your cathode is made of a cast material, you could be
> getting significant Hydrogen Stress Corrosion Cracking of the cathode (this might
> be the excess energy). As alot of energy is put into the casting of the material,
> you may be liberating that energy. HSCC failure modes can be violent, and as you
> have hydrogen gas around, this isn't good.  People have been killed doing this
> sort of thing. I implore you to drop it!                     ^^^^^^
> 
> 
> In my opinion, this is not a High School experiment, and in my youth, two
> young friends of mine died in seperate, stupid "High School" type experiments. 
> 
> 
> | Andy Holland		            | 
> | Westinghouse NMD	            |           
> | zcrah@ncstate.pgh.wec.com         |  
> | Views Expressed here are soley my |             
> | own and are not representitive of |  
> | Westinghouse Electric Corporation |     
> | etc...                            |  

I think this is an unnecessary warning and that there is no risk of the
Pt cathode exploding or whatever.  Presumably, because of material cost, 
the Pt cathode being used is a thin wire, probably having a mass less than 
a gram.  If so, then the wire almost certainly was cast and extruded, and
the energy stored in the wire by deformation will be very small.  Also, 
as a noble metal, Pt is unlikely to make unstable compounds in any quantity.  

Andy, could you be more specific about the failure mode and mechanism
that you have in mind?
 -------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary S. Collins              | e-mail: collins@cougar.csc.wsu.edu

cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudencollins cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.07 / Cary Jamison /  CNF makes a profit!
     
Originally-From: cary@esl.com (Cary Jamison)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CNF makes a profit!
Date: 7 Jan 1994 21:14:23 GMT
Organization: ESL, Inc.  A TRW Company

Cold Fusion is profitable!  Well, not really, I just wanted to get your
attention.  Our friend Jed and his Cold Fusion Research Adcovates are
selling copies of CNF proceedings and other favorable reports.  He is doing
this "for the copying cost."  I just thought this group would be interested
in what he's up to.

The following article was posted to sci.energy.hydrogen.  Notice that he
specifically avoids this newsgroup, as promised!


In article <940102.85807.JEDROTHWELL@delphi.com>, JEDROTHWELL@delphi.com
wrote:
> 
> Greetings
>  
> My name is Jed Rothwell and I keep track of cold fusion. My specialty is
> Japanese research in this area, because I read and write Japanese, and I
> am in close contact with some of the leading scientists there. I distribute
> information about this topic to interested scientists. I recently returned
> from the Fourth International Conference on Cold Fusion, which was
> sponsored by EPRI's Advanced Nuclear Systems Division. I brought back 400
> pages (!) of Abstracts and some other related information, which I can make
> available for the copying cost.
>  
> The full proceedings will probably be twice as big as last year's, which ran
> 500 pages or so, so they will be published in two editions: an unabridged
> version, and a peer-reviewed selection of the best papers in a special
> issue of Fusion Technology.
>  
> I think that readers of this newsgroup will find cold fusion fascinating.
> As I am sure you know, many of the leading cold fusion scientists are
> electrochemists, including some of the leading fuel cell and conventional
> hydrogen energy experts, like Bockris.
>  
>  
> For more information, please contact me via CompuServer or regular mail.
> I do not generally participate in e-mail discussions of this topic, and I
> am sorry to say that I go out of my way to avoid the "sci.energy.fusion"
> group here on Internet, because I find their attitude unscientific.
>  
> Attached is my standard list of general references. This is a little out
> of date, but it will do for now.
>  
> Jed Rothwell
> Cold Fusion Research Advocates
> 2060 Peachtree Industrial Court, Suite 313
> Chamblee, Georgia 30341
>  
> Phone: 404-451-9890   Fax: 404-458-2404
>  
> Recommended Publications, November 4, 1993 Version
>  
> Here are some recommended publications relating to cold fusion. Contact us
> if you want one of these items and you cannot get a copy. Items marked [E-
> Mail] are available from the CFRA in e-mail or diskette. Items marked
> [SCIENCE Lib 2] can be downloaded from the CompuServe SCIENCE forum physics
> library 2.
>  
> To contact us by e-mail, address messages to Jed Rothwell, Compuserve:
> 72240,1256  From Internet: ub-gate.UB.com!compuserve.com!72240.1256, or
> JEDROTHWELL@DELPHI. The CompuServe connection is best for me.
>  
>  
> General
>  
> Cold Fusion 1992: Basic Facts, by Dr. Eugene F. Mallove, author of Fire
> from Ice. [E-Mail]
>  
> Fire from Ice: Searching for the Truth Behind the Cold Fusion Furor, (John
> Wiley & Sons, May, 1991), by Dr. Eugene F. Mallove $26 (including postage)
> The definitive book on the subject.
>  
> EPRI, Advanced Nuclear Systems conference announcement: FOURTH
> INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON COLD FUSION (ICCF-4), December 6 - 9, 1993,
> Hyatt Regency Maui, Lahaina, HI. Contact: Linda Nelson, Conference
> Coordinator, Electric Power Research Institute, P.O. Box 10412, Palo Alto,
> CA  94303-9743, Tel: (415) 855-2127 * Fax: (415) 855-2041
>  
> Statements and letters entered into the Congressional Record during the May
> 5, 1993 Fusion Energy hearings, by Rep. Dick Swett, Dr. Edmund Storms and
> Dr. Eugene Mallove. [E-Mail]
>  
> The complete record of the May 5, 1993 hearings covering both hot and cold
> fusion: "FUSION ENERGY, Hearing before the Subcommittee on Energy of the
> Committee on Science, Space and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives,"
> ISBN 0-16-041505-5. For sale from the U.S. Government Printing Office, 202-
> 783-3238 (may be sold out).
>  
> Address delivered on behalf of the late Mr. Minoru Toyoda during the
> Banquet for the Third Annual Conference on Cold Fusion in Nagoya, Japan,
> on October 23, 1992. Mr. Toyoda was a senior member of the Toyoda family,
> the founders and principle owners of the Toyota Motor Company. He was
> considered the "father of Japanese cold fusion," and he was directly
> responsible for Toyota's commanding lead in this field. [E-Mail]
>  
> Letters, and extracts from a speech by Arthur C. Clarke to the Pacific Area
> Senior Officers Logistics Seminar (PASOLS), March 29, 1993, "2001: The
> Coming Age of Hydrogen Power."
>  
> Statistics from the Third International Conference on Cold Fusion: The
> "Nagoya Conference" [E-Mail]
>  
> Cold Fusion Times, by Mitchell Swartz, P.O. Box 81135, Wellesley Hills, MA
> 02181 E-mail address: mica@world.std.com
>  
> Technical
>  
> Frontiers of Cold Fusion, ed. H. Ikegami. The proceedings of the Third
> International Conference on Cold Fusion which was held from October 21 -
> 25, 1992 in Nagoya, Japan. Available from Universal Academy Press, Inc.,
> PR Hogo 5 Bldg., 6-16-2, Hongo, Bunkyo Tokyo 113, JAPAN. Tel. 011-81-3-
> 3813-7232, Fax: 011-81-3-3813-5932. Price 22,000 yen (U.S. $194.77, Air
> shipping: $26.65)
>  
> M. Fleischmann (Univ. Southampton), S. Pons (IMRA Europe), "Calorimetry of
> the Pd-D2O system: from simplicity via complications to simplicity,"
> Physics Letters A, 176 (1993) 118-129
>  
> Summary Of Third International Conference On Cold Fusion In Nagoya, Peter
> L. Hagelstein, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 43 pages, $5 [E-Mail]
> [SCIENCE Lib 2]
>  
> The "Proceedings of the II Annual Conference On Cold Fusion." (June 29 -
> July 4, 1991); contact: SIF, Via L. degli Ondalo 2, 40124 Bologna, ITALY
>  
> From the Proceedings, we recommend: M. McKubre (SRI), "Isothermal Flow
> Calorimetric Investigations Of The D/Pd System," p. 419 - 443
>  
> Fusion Technology, a technical journal published by the ANS. Contact:
> Publications Manager, The American Nuclear Society, 555 North Kensington
> Ave, Lagrange Park, IL 60525. Back issues of Fusion Technology are
> available from the APS publications office at 708-352-6611.
>  
> E. Storms (Los Alamos), "Review of Experimental Observations About The Cold
> Fusion Effect," Fusion Technology, Vol. 20, Dec. 1991 433 - 477. A superb
> technical introduction to the field.
>  
> Fusion Facts, a monthly newsletter. Contact subscription office at: P.O.
> Box 48639, Salt Lake City, UT 84158. Tel: 801-583-6232  Fax: 801-583-6245
>  
> M. H. Miles and R. A. Hollins (Naval Air Weapons Center), B.F. Bush and
> J.J. Lagowski (Univ. Texas), "Correlation of excess power and helium
> production during D2O and H2O electrolysis using palladium cathodes," J.
> of Electroanalytical Chemistry, 346 (1993) 99 - 117.
>  
> Information about the Mills light water experiment. [E-Mail] [SCIENCE Lib
> 2]
>  
> A. B. Karabut, Ya. R. Kucherov, I. B. Savvatimova, "Nuclear product ratio
> for glow discharge in deuterium," Phys. Lett. A 170 265 (1992).
>  
> "Memorandum On The Present State Of Knowledge On Cold Fusion," Heinz
> Gerischer of the Fritz Harber Institute Der Max Plank, Berlin [E-Mail]
> [SCIENCE Lib 2]
>  
> Takahashi's 1992 ISEM paper; raw data; viewgraphs; 80 pages total. $10.
>  
> M. Swartz, "Reexamination of a Key Cold Fusion Experiment: 'Phase-II'
> Calorimetry by he MIT Plasma Fusion Center," Fusion Facts, August 1992, 27
> - 40. Analysis of the fraudulent data published by M.I.T. in an experiment
> attempting to prove that cold fusion does not exist.
>  
>  
> Media Coverage
>  
> Popular Science, August 1993 issue, "COLD FUSION Fact or Fantasy," by Jerry
> Bishop, cover story
>  
> Daily News (Sri Lanka), July 13, 1993, "2001: The coming age of hydrogen
> power," by Arthur C. Clarke
>  
> Sunday Times (U.K), June 27, 1993, "Nuclear confusion," by Neville
> Hodgkinson, cover story
>  
> The National Public Radio (NPR) program "Science Friday" on June 25, 1993
> was devoted to cold fusion. It was moderated by Ira Flatow. Panelists
> included Michael McKubre of SRI, John Huizenga of Rochester University,
> Peter Hagelstein of MIT, Melvin Miles of the Naval Air Warfare Center, and
> Bruce Lewenstein of Cornell University. For a tape, send $12.50 to: NPR
> Tapes * Washington, DC 20036 * Visa orders: 202-822-2323. Specify the date
> (06/25/93)
>  
> The Canadian Broadcasting Company (CBC) broadcast a superb documentary on
> cold fusion on June 24, 1993, titled "The Secret Life of Cold Fusion." For
> a copy, contact: Canadian Broadcasting Corporation * Post Broadcast Unit
> * Room 5-E, 314 J * P.O. Box 500 * Station A * Toronto, Canada  M5W 1E6.
> The cost is $85 Canadian plus appropriate tax. Specify program title and
> date.
>  
> New York Times, November 17, 1992, "Cold Fusion, Derided in U.S., Is Hot
> In Japan," by Andrew Pollack, p. B5
>  
> The Observer (UK), December 6, 1992, "Western sceptics hand Japan cheap
> power on a plate," by Michael White
>  
> CFRA's News Release summary of MITI cold fusion research program [E-Mail]
>  
> Translations of recent Japanese press coverage of cold fusion [E-Mail], in
> particular: article translated from the Nikkei Shimbun, September 26, 1992,
> "Evidence Supporting Cold Fusion Pours In."
>  
> Translation from Trigger magazine, March, 1993 edition, Vol. 12, No. 3,
> page 6, "COLD FUSION IS HERE! Special interview with Hideo Ikegami," by
> Soichiro Tahara
>  
> Translation of September 1991 Bungeishunju article, "The Reality Of Cold
> Fusion Can No Longer Be Denied" (Japanese monthly magazine)
>  
> Translation of June 1992 Aera article, "Cold Fusion: from a religion to a
> science" (Japanese Asahi Newspaper's weekly news magazine.)
>  
> * End of File *

  ********************************************************************
   EEEEE   SSS   L      Excellence                       Cary Jamison
   E      S      L       Service                         cary@esl.com
   EEEE    SSS   L        Leadership
   E          S  L
   EEEEE   SSS   LLLLL      A TRW Company
  ********************************************************************
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudencary cudfnCary cudlnJamison cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.07 /  jonesse@physc1 /  cancel <1994Jan7.142426.1237@physc1.byu.edu>
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cancel <1994Jan7.142426.1237@physc1.byu.edu>
Date: 7 Jan 94 14:31:29 -0700

cancel <1994Jan7.142426.1237@physc1.byu.edu>
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenjonesse cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.08 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Re: High School Experiments (Spokane, WA)
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: High School Experiments (Spokane, WA)
Date: Sat, 8 Jan 1994 01:14:33 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway


>> Re: High School Experiments
>>Hello.  I'm a highschool student in Spokane, WA. I (along with the help of   
>>our physics teacher) have been working on a 'cold fusion' experiment. We  
>>haven't been able to determine where our excess energy is coming from, and I 
>>was hoping someone could offer us some help. Okay. 
>>Our cell is a platinum cathode and a nickel anode submerged in an 
>>electrolyte (K2CO3) with current running through the liquid.  Running this 
>>for about an hour inside an insulated container, we have had about 160% heat

>Be very very careful. If your cathode is made of a cast material, you could be 
>getting significant Hydrogen Stress Corrosion Cracking of the cathode (this 
>might be the excess energy). As alot of energy is put into the casting of the 
>material you may be liberating that energy. HSCC failure modes can be violent,
>and as you have hydrogen gas around, this isn't good.  People have been killed
>doing this sort of thing. I implore you to drop it!                     ^^^^^^ 

>In my opinion, this is not a High School experiment, and in my youth, two 
>young friends of mine died in seperate, stupid "High School" type experiments. 

>| Andy Holland                      | 
  
Well, in my high school class, one of my friends accidently shot and killed 
his best friend (1944).  No class therapy then.  He came to school the next 
day.  Several were killed in car crashes.  One was permanently crippled 
playing football.  Me and my friends were safe at home trying to make 
nitroglycerin.  To this day I do not know what we were doing wrong.  We made 
every other explosive possible at home, and a type of rocket that would be 
called a "pipe bomb" today.  In those days you could buy almost everything 
needed in the drug store - but the feed store was a second favorite spot.  On 
the side we would electrocute flies, make tissue paper balloons that could 
start fires, and other minor things.  

Youth tends to want a thrill.  Even us old giezers want a thrill and do "cold 
fusion" in our basements.  

So young high schoolers, GO FOR IT!!  While your friends are blowing their 
brains with crack, trying to get AIDS, frying their liver with alcohol, or 
turning into vegetables smoking pot, you will be feeling your pulse pound as 
you load up some Nickel which someone has told you might blow up.  (I always 
stood on the other side of a brick wall when I lit the pipe bombs (er 
rockets)). 

I have done at least some of the things above, and I can assure you that the 
most sustained thrill comes from adventuring into science.  It is one of the 
few frontiers left on this planet.  When you drink a lot you are hung over the 
next day.  No such problem with science puzzles - but you do sometimes get 
discouraged, or struggle for ideas.  But you can sometimes stay on a "high" in 
science for years at a time.

I too (for legal purposes) forbid you to do it.  Nudge, nudge, wink, wink!

As someone who has survived in spite of the odds to 63, I can tell you that I 
was always more concerned about getting caught than with getting hurt.  Both 
fears help you to be safe.  Those around you (Parents, School Officials etc.)
will try to stop you from doing anything.  They will always say that they are 
concerned about you being hurt, but they are mostly concerned with preserving 
the status quo.  After all, if you kill yourself blowing up the house, who 
will clean up the mess?

So do what it takes not to get caught.  Vent that hydrogen - oxygen mixture 
somewhere where it will not collect and blow up.  If you are wildly successful 
and blow the wing off your school, (and survive the process) you will be some 
of the brave few that will lead us into the next century.  It will be a little 
lonely as there are not many of you.  When Edison was growing up there were a 
lot of you.  Just read Popular Mechanics and Popular Science from the early 
part of this century.  Now we want to play it safe everywhere.  What for? 

Tom Droege

PS. Having done the experiment, I will be happy to answer any questions. 
Public on the net is preferred, but private is OK.  My first question for 
you is "how do you measure the heat?"

cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenDROEGE cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.07 / Andy Holland /  Re: High School Experiments
     
Originally-From: zcrah@trumpet.pgh.wec.com (Andy Holland)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: High School Experiments
Date: 7 Jan 1994 12:49:40 GMT
Organization: Westinghouse CNFD

In article <2gdjbt$4ac@krel.iea.com> teris@comtch.iea.com (Teri Story) writes:
>Hello.  I'm a highschool student in Spokane, WA. I (along with the help of
>our physics teacher) have been working on a 'cold fusion' experiment. We
>haven't been able to determine where our excess energy is coming from, and I
>was hoping someone could offer us some help. Okay.
>
>Our cell is a platinum cathode and a nickel anode submerged in an
>electrolyte (K2CO3) with current running through the liquid.  Running this
>for about an hour inside an insulated container, we have had about 160% heat


Be very very careful. If your cathode is made of a cast material, you could be
getting significant Hydrogen Stress Corrosion Cracking of the cathode (this might
be the excess energy). As alot of energy is put into the casting of the material,
you may be liberating that energy. HSCC failure modes can be violent, and as you
have hydrogen gas around, this isn't good.  People have been killed doing this
sort of thing. I implore you to drop it!                     ^^^^^^


In my opinion, this is not a High School experiment, and in my youth, two
young friends of mine died in seperate, stupid "High School" type experiments. 


| Andy Holland		            | 
| Westinghouse NMD	            |           
| zcrah@ncstate.pgh.wec.com         |  
| Views Expressed here are soley my |             
| own and are not representitive of |  
| Westinghouse Electric Corporation |     
| etc...                            |  

cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenzcrah cudfnAndy cudlnHolland cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.07 / John Cobb /  Re: Branching ratios for hot and cold fusion?
     
Originally-From: johncobb@emx.cc.utexas.edu (John W. Cobb)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Branching ratios for hot and cold fusion?
Date: 7 Jan 1994 09:12:19 -0600
Organization: The University of Texas - Austin

In article <2giv59$juv@garuda.csulb.edu>,
Craig Harmon <harmon@csulb.edu> wrote:
>jbatka@desire.wright.edu wrote:
>: Good morning,
>
>: Are the branching ratios for cold (muon) fusion different than hot
>: fusion?  If so, is there a significant difference and which branches
>: are preferred for the different fusion types.
>
>Although I don't know the numbers for hot fusion, I don't think you can 
>compare the two.  Hot fusion you are trying to overcome coulomb 
>repulsion, while in muon fusion it is your ally. 

...

>
>Muon fusion follows from muonic atoms.  A muon is a lepton, like an 
>electron, and has the same charge (mu minus).  It weighs about 200 times 
>more, so if a muon gets captured in an atom it can behave like an 
>electron.

...

>Once in the nucleus, there is a good chance it will undergo the following 
>reaction
>muon + p --> n + mu neutrino.  The neutrino carries off most of the energy.
>So you now have a few MeV neutron which can interact (without coulomb 
>repulsion) with other nuclei.  So how you get fusion out of this is 
>anyones guess.  I suppose in hydrogen gas you could get deuterium, but it 
>would not be very efficient.

I think this is not the reaction people are talking about when they
talk about muon catalyzed fusion. This is a weak-nuclear reaction, so
it will take a long time to happen. There is a strong-nuclear reaction,
fusion by tunnelling that will happen much faster (and therefore with
a much greater probability).

In that case, you are fusing nuclei and you still have to overcome their 
Coulomb barrier. The Probability of the nuclei tunnelling close enough together
for the strong forces to dominate the action goes like the exp(-LE) where
L is a characteristic length from the classical turning point to the
inside edge where strong nuclear binding happens. E is the height of
the Coulomb barrier (potential energy - kinetic energy). This are just scaling 
arguments. You might talk to a real nuclear physicist to the get exact Gamow
factors correct.

In thermo-nuclear fusion, the name of the game is to heat up the plasma
so that the classical turning point is closer to the nucleus, which decreases
L. Additionally, the higher kinetic energy also reduces E so that you can
get fusion easier.

For muon catalyzed fusion, you replace en electron with a muon in a hydrogen 
atom. This causes L -> L/200 since the muon is much heavier than the electron,
its orbit is smaller. So the fusion rate is increased dramatically, even for
room temperatures.

In that case, the name of the game is to take molecular hydrogen where one
atom is deuterium and the other is tritium. Then let this molecule capture
a muon. The muon then changes the orbitals so that there is a tightly
bound muon in a 3-body molecular orbital, and a loosely bound electron
much further out. Then fusion occurs and you get 4He and a neutron.
In most cases, the energy of the reaction is so strong that the 4He flies
of so fast that the muon is "left behind in the dust". In that case, it
will wander off to attach to another molecule and repeat the process. That
is why it is called muon catalysis. The muon is not changed in the reaction

This would all be great except there is a fly in the ointment. For each
reaction, there is a chance that the muon will "stick" to the departing
helium nucleus. In that is no longer useful for catalyzing fusion. Each
muon costs you 200 MeV (divided by an operating efficiency factor) to create.
Each fusion gives you 17 MeV (times an efficiency factor for energy conversion.
So each muon must catalyze about 30 reactions to even hope to use this as
an energy production scheme. In a reactor it would have to be much more
because the efficiency factors may be low.

Many very bright and inventive "fellers" have worked on this. There are
many neat tricks to reduce the sticking ratios and increase the reaction 
rates and collision rates, but my understanding of the consensus is that
there is not a realistic hope at this time of getting enough reactions to
pay the price of creating the muons. Some of the people who have/are doing
research on this topic occasionally post to this group. Perhaps they will
add some comments (or correct any of my gaffes)?

-john .w cobb



cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenjohncobb cudfnJohn cudlnCobb cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.07 / Dr Memory /  Re: Fusion for the ignorant
     
Originally-From: netz@esa.lanl.gov (Dr. Memory)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion for the ignorant
Date: Fri, 7 Jan 1994 15:55:30 GMT
Organization: Shoes for Industry

In article <1994Jan6.023528.19410@Princeton.EDU>,
rfheeter@rogue.Princeton.EDU (Robert Franklin Heeter) wrote:


> >
> I replied to Jonathan via email, but I'm wondering how many other
> curious people are lurking out there hungering for information?
> There seem to be a few frequently asked questions, and maybe
> a very simple FAQ for fusion (at least hot fusion) is in order?
> There are some general concepts that are worth making generally
> available, at least to those who ask.  Of course, there are also
> political and environmental questions, which there is little
> agreement on.  (Here we could have an FQA - "Frequently Questioned
> Answers" :)  Anyway, does anyone else think something like this
> would be a good idea?  (Email replies are fine.)  I'd be willing
> to work on it, although it would take a while as I have exams
> for the next couple weeks.  
> 
> This is an idea still in its infancy - all comments and suggestions
> are welcome.  I don't know if posting the FAQ periodically would
> be worthwhile, but we could at least make it available to whoever
> asks...  ???  
> 
> ************
> Robert F. Heeter
> Graduate Student, Princeton Plasma Physics Lab
> rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu (disclaimers apply)
..... I think that it is a very good idea ...... 

...... you've got my vote.......
Dana "as if it counted" Netz
-- 

===Dana Netz, Electrical Systems Engineer  | "All I know is, everything
===AEC/DOE Electrochemical Engine Program  |  you know is wrong"
===Los Alamos Nat'l Labs, New Mexico       |  - "Happy" Harry Cox 
===sVuIbClKiImRiOnBaIlN.SsOiNg
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudennetz cudfnDr cudlnMemory cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.07 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Re: Branching ratios for hot and cold fusion?
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Branching ratios for hot and cold fusion?
Date: 7 Jan 94 11:13:48 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

There have been several questions regarding muon-catalyzed fusion here lately.
I recommend as reviews:

0.  "Atomic and molecular processes in muon-catalyzed fusion", James S. Cohen,
Ch 2 in
_Review of Fundamental processes and applications of atoms and ions_,
C.D. Lin editor (1993).
1.  "Muon-catalysed fusion revisited," S.E. Jones, Nature 321 (1986) 127
2.  "Muon-catalyzed fusion," W.H. Breunlich et al., Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.
     39 (1989) 311
3.  "Cold Nuclear Fusion," J. Rafelski and S.E. Jones, Sci. American 255 (1987)
     84.
Interesting that I never noticed that D. Morrison did experimental work in
mu-c-f as Tom Droege, I think, alluded to; 
if you're tuned in, Douglas, please set the record straight on this one.

Interesting also the misconceptions that are promulgated about even mu-c-f,
with such assertiveness, by Craig Harmon (below).  I don't mean to be unkind, 
Craig, but you need to read up on mu-c-f a bit (see below).

In article <2giv59$juv@garuda.csulb.edu>, 
harmon@csulb.edu (Craig Harmon) writes:
> jbatka@desire.wright.edu wrote:
> : Good morning,
> 
> : Are the branching ratios for cold (muon) fusion different than hot
> : fusion?  If so, is there a significant difference and which branches
> : are preferred for the different fusion types.

Let me emphasize that we are discussing muon-catalyzed fusion here, not
P&F style "cold fusion" (for which there is no compelling evidence!).
The most interesting case is d-d fusion, where the branching ratios from
the two approaches do differ slightly:
  d + d --> 3He + n   [1]
  d + d -->  t  + p   [2]
  d + d -->  4He + gamma [3]

In "hot" fusion, the branching probabilities are 50% into [1], 50% into [2] and
about 10^-7 into [3].  This is nearly the case in mu-c-f, with 58% into [1],
42% into [2] and a negligible fraction into [3].  Notice that the *neutron*
end-product is slightly favored, at the expense of the tritium-production
(just the opposite from what some CF advocates point to in CF experiments).

The reason for this difference stems from the fact that in the muon-bound d-d
molecule, fusion occurs primarily from the J=1 state; that is, the deuteron
spins significantly affect the branching ratio.  Jim Cohen explains the
anomaly thus:
"The muon-catalyzed d-d fusion reaction is also of interest for its breakdown
of the expected mirror-symmetry relation (due to the electric-charge
independence of nuclear forces), which predicts a 50:50 yield of protons and
neutrons [reactions 1 and 2 above];   
this anomaly is a Coulomb-field effect which is different from that
seen in d-d scattering experiments because d-d mu-c-f usually occurs in a 
p-wave while low-energy beam fusion usually occurs in an s-wave."
Ref. 0 above.

Begin Craig Harmon comments:
> 
> Although I don't know the numbers for hot fusion, I don't think you can 
> compare the two.  Hot fusion you are trying to overcome coulomb 
> repulsion, while in muon fusion it is your ally.  I don't know much about 
> the *fusion* involved with this and I doubt many people seriously consider 
> it a potential energy source.  

I have given the numbers for both and the comparison is revealing.  Coulomb
repulsion is the important barrier for both types of fusion.  And barrier
tunnelling is important for both, also.  Mu-c-f involves *fusion*, yes indeed.
Useful power from any fusion approach looks difficult (except from the sun).

>I can give you my simplistic argument 
> against it.
> 
> Muon fusion follows from muonic atoms.  A muon is a lepton, like an 
> electron, and has the same charge (mu minus).  It weighs about 200 times 
> more, so if a muon gets captured in an atom it can behave like an 
> electron.  It will then quickly radiate its way down to the K shell of 
> the atom through electron ejection, or photon emision.  In the K shell, 
> it, due to its heavier weight will (in medium and heavier nuclei) be 
> inside the nucleus. (the ratio of muon Bohr radius to nuclear radius is 
> about 200/ Z times A to the 1/3 power.  A is the atomic number, Z is the 
> number of protons.  This ratio is less than one for heavier nuclei).
> 
> Once in the nucleus, there is a good chance it will undergo the following 
> reaction
> muon + p --> n + mu neutrino.  The neutrino carries off most of the energy.

A good chance?  Hardly:  this reaction is extremely rare, especially compared
with muonic atom and molecule formation, which lead to fusion of hydrogen
isotopes.  See refs above (please).

> So you now have a few MeV neutron which can interact (without coulomb 
> repulsion) with other nuclei.  So how you get fusion out of this is 
> anyones guess.  I suppose in hydrogen gas you could get deuterium, but it 
> would not be very efficient.
> 

Come on.  Fusion occurs due to the binding together of hydrogen-isotopic
nuclei in a tiny molecule, where real *fusion* occurs rapidly.  See any
of the reviews above my friend.

> Another problem is that muons decay (in about 10 to the minus 6 seconds), 
> so in order for it to get close enough to the nucleus to you have to 
> consider the ratio of the muon's life to the sum of the intermediate  
> decays it takes to 
> get close enough to react.  

  Huh?

> For Z less than 11, this ratio is substantially 
> less than one.  For heavier elements, nuclear capture dominates.  For 
> hydrogen, the ratio is about 1/1000.  So to fuse lighter elements, this is 
> not an efficient means.  Of course you can overcome this low ratio with a 
> large flux, but it takes energy to make these muons, and at best you can 
> get less than 1/1000 return on this investment.

Actually, we have achieved at LAMPF on average 150 fusions in deuterium-tritium
liquid mixtures, *per muon*, releasing nearly 3000 MeV per muon.  
I think I'll let you read a review or two about this rather than reiterating 
here.
> 
> De Shalit and Feshbach's book _Theoretical Nuclear Physics_ is pretty 
> readable, and has some theoretical calculations for Muonic atoms.
>  
> Best Regards,
> 
> Craig Harmon

See reviews above, especially Cohen's.
--Steven Jones

cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenjonesse cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.07 /  jonesse@physc1 /  cancel <1994Jan7.111000.1227@physc1.byu.edu>
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cancel <1994Jan7.111000.1227@physc1.byu.edu>
Date: 7 Jan 94 11:14:16 -0700

cancel <1994Jan7.111000.1227@physc1.byu.edu>
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenjonesse cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.07 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Re: Sonofusion (Terry's UC) Revisited
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Sonofusion (Terry's UC) Revisited
Date: 7 Jan 94 13:01:41 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

In article <2gb46d$r0g@garuda.csulb.edu>, harmon@csulb.edu (Craig Harmon) writes:
> jonesse@physc1.byu.edu wrote:
> : Pre-script:  I enjoyed Terry Bollinger's hard-hitting yet humorous posting
> : on "orbitfun".  Now to revisit some theoretical work of his which
> : may really lead somewhere  -->  sonoluminescence revisited.
> 
> : fade, I have re-visited your lengthy paper entitled "ULTRA
> : CAVITATION" (UC) which was posted on sci.physics.fusion on 31
> : December 1992 (one year ago!).  This has re-vitalized my interest
> : in your ideas regarding (low-level) fusion during D2-bubble
> : cavitation in D2O, and their relationship to sonoluminescence.
> : The physics here is potentially rich; there are clearly a large
> : number of issues to be explored both experimentally and
> : theoretically:
> 
> 
> : For completeness for this discussion, I include below a
> : description of detectors available here.  Note that we have
> : already run piezoelectric crystals *inside* our most sensitive
> : neutron detector -- and have demonstrated that our detector does
> : not pick up noise-artifacts from this process.  But we are still
> : (ugh!) working on achieving stable sonoluminescence.  And it
> : appears we will be getting expert assistance.
>                              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> I hope this expert assistance is not Seth Putterman from UCLA.  I took
> his acoustics course last year, and I approached him with the idea of
> using D2O in his experiment.  My reasoning being that since the asymmetry
> of the bubble's compression and rarefactions was cause by the difference
> in compressibilities between air and water, perhaps by using a more
> dense, water like fluid, would increase this asymmetry, and generate more
> power.  He thought about it for about ten seconds and said that it would
> not work because the equation which discribes the motion is sensitive to
> the density in the other direction, that you would want a less dense fluid.

I think one wants a *more* dense fluid to increase fusion probability; this
is consistent with Terry's suggestion in Dec. 1992 UC posting 
that we try mercury with a D2 bubble.
No, I do not expect assistance from Dr. Putterman at this point, although
I respect his work and wish him well.

> BTW, if it is him, ask him about his belief in neutrinos.  He is still
> sure they don't exist.  Given this last statement, I probably should have
> found a more competent physicist to talk to.
> You might want to vary the temperature of your sample also.
> 
We plan to.

> : Best Regards and Happy New Year (to all),
> : Steven Jones
> 
> Same to you.
> 
> Craig Harmon
> 
> BTW on your background subtraction, have you considered muon induced
> spallation?  I am writing a Monte Carlo for this background for the
> Super-Kamiokande people.  If you are interested, let me know.

Yes, and we use 3 large scintillation counters to veto cosmic-ray muons,
along with a mountain for shielding.  I am interested in your montecarlo
work, please keep me informed.

--Steven Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenjonesse cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.07 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Alchemy in NEWSWEEK
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Alchemy in NEWSWEEK
Date: 7 Jan 94 14:30:27 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

There is an article entitled "All that glitters isn't chemistry;
  "Does academic freedom protect a professor who wants to be an alchemist?"
in the 10 January 1994 issue of Newsweek, that should lay to rest the
question of whether Bockris was studying a chemical or nuclear transmutation
approach.  The method that produced gold allegedly was clearly *chemical*:

"They mixed potassium nitrate ( a component of gunpowder) in a coffee can with
carbon and various salts, then burned it at high temperatures.  In four
separate experiments, says  Bockris, this produced small amounts of gold.  But
when other scientists in Bockris's lab tried more than 20 times to reproduce
the stunning result, they failed.  Ramesh Bhardwaj, who used to be an associate
research assistant for Bockris and is now in private industry, believes the
"successful" experiments were faked.  "That's why it worked [only] when
Champion was around," he told NEWSWEEK."

Clearly Dick Blue was on the right track.

The article goes on to discuss Bockris' association with M. Fleischmann and
B.S. Pons and cold fusion.  "Bockris reported that his own cold-fusion
experiments produced heat and tritium..."   "Bockris defends his current work
as 'very serious and very advanced research into low-energy nuclear change in
condensed media ...I am not inclined to magic.'"

This remark does imply a link between cold fusion and alchemy experiments for
Dr. Bockris.

It concludes:  "Last month State Superior Court in
Arizona sentenced Champion to one year in prison in a felony-theft case.  These
guys are enough to give alchemy a bad name." 

Ouch.  My 1994 prediction is that it won't be a good year for
either alchemy or cold fusion.

--Steven Jones

cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenjonesse cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Sat Jan  8 04:37:06 EST 1994
------------------------------
1994.01.07 /  jonesse@physc1 /  New magazine:  "Cold Fusion"
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: New magazine:  "Cold Fusion"
Date: 7 Jan 94 13:56:13 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

The following was received in the mail recently, and is reprinted
here for information only (I do *not* endorse this publication).
--Steven Jones
>>

"Cold Fusion" Magazine will help ignite the industry and advance
your career...

     Dear Colleague......

     This is an invitation for you to become a Charter Subscriber
to "Cold Fusion" Magazine, which will premiere in April 1994.  The
April Fool is on cold fusion's detractors since the empirical
evidence is clear that Pons and Fleischmann were on to something
five year ago.  You can call it "new hydrogen energy," as the
Japanese do, but let's just keep on generating excess heat in more
and more ways, and let the theory buffs catch up later.
 
    No, you won't have to wait until April to find out what's
happening.  Things are moving so fact that we're going to start off
with some "Cold Fusion" Update newsletters to early subscribers. 
We'll let you know what's going on in various research labs, and
who the players are, both pro and con.  Frankly, we love the
pontifical negative pronouncements by enormously important people
and we're planning some wonderful crow recipes for them.  That
noise you hear isn't the death rattle of cold fusion, it's the
excited typing of papers by successful research lab teams and the
depositing of legal fees by their patent attorneys.

     "Cold Fusion" is your communications medium.  The better the
communications, the faster this incredible new field will grow into
a new industry.  The publication will not only help researchers
benefit from each other's failures and successes, it will attract
new people to the field and help bring them up to speed.  Even more
important, it will allow your potential suppliers to reach you with
word of their new products.  Thus, what are now just exciting lab
projects will eventually generate a whole new industry.  A multi-
trillion-dollar new industry.

     The magazine also will be providing information for potential
investors in this new industry.  It isn't quite time to sell oil
stocks short, but it sure isn't a prudent time to put money into
them.  If this industry develops as expected we're going to see
several oil-rich countries losing their power.  The prospect of
cheap, non-polluting power is heady stuff.  Maybe our big cities
will finally be de-smogged. 

     The Maui conference proved to anyone other than those with
pathologically closed minds (and the Wall Street Journal) that the
Pons and Fleischmann effect was not only reproducible, it was just
the beginning.  Some surprisingly high power outputs were reported
and we are even seeing success with light water, and metals other
than palladium...such as platinum, rhodium, rubidium...even nickel! 
Lacking a solid theory, we're working empirically, finding out what
works and what doesn't.  These are exciting times.  But don't you
wish for faster communications?  You'll have it!

     Your editor is ...
     Gene Mallove, the author of Fire From Ice, which Arthur C.
Clarke called, "the only gook book on the subject."  His
credentials include Hughes Research Laboratories, The Analytical
Science Corporation, Jaycor Systems Division, Northrop Precision
Products Division, and  IT Lincoln Laboratory.  For the last few
years his work has been in cold fusion calorimetry.

     And your publisher is.....
     Wayne Green.  He's been editing and publishing magazines for
over 40 years.  He has a Ph.D. in Entrepreneurial Science.  Five
months after the first microcomputer was announced he started
publishing Byte.  He followed this with Kilobaud, Microcomputing,
80 Micro, InCider, Run, Desktop Computing, Selling Micros, Pico,
Digital Audio, CD Review, etc.

     Subscriptions... 
     "Cold Fusion" will be on the newsstands at $10 a copy.  One
year subscriptions are $98 in the US; $108 in Canada and Mexico;
and $122 everywhere else.   ...
                                         
>>

cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenjonesse cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.08 / Craig Harmon /  Re: Branching ratios for hot and cold fusion?
     
Originally-From: harmon@csulb.edu (Craig Harmon)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Branching ratios for hot and cold fusion?
Date: 8 Jan 1994 06:30:39 GMT
Organization: Cal State Long Beach

jonesse@physc1.byu.edu wrote:

: Interesting also the misconceptions that are promulgated about even mu-c-f,
: with such assertiveness, by Craig Harmon (below).  I don't mean to be unkind, 
: Craig, but you need to read up on mu-c-f a bit (see below).

OOps.  Looks like I made an ignorant mistake in thinking muonic atoms and 
muon fusion where the same thing.  It's not the first mistake, and 
probably won't be my last.

foolish comments deleted)

: Actually, we have achieved at LAMPF on average 150 fusions in deuterium-tritium
: liquid mixtures, *per muon*, releasing nearly 3000 MeV per muon.  
: I think I'll let you read a review or two about this rather than reiterating 
: here.

Since you have been so patient and civil, perhaps you would answer a few 
questions.  

1) How much energy does it take and how efficient is it to 
create the deuterium and tritium?  

2)Are there competing reactions for your deuterium-tritium molecule 
formation?

3)How did you produce the muon beam?  Since there are primarily produced 
through weak interactions, I believe you must first produce a pion or 
Kaon beam, then let it decay into muons.  

The point being even though 3 Gev per muon is impressive, I don't 
believe it is even close to the break even point in terms of energy. 
And then there is the problem of extracting that energy from the liquid, 
and all the inefficiencies involved in that.

I will look up those references you listed.  It sounds interesting.  
Perhaps I'll talk to C.Y. Hu here at Long Beach.  I think she used to do 
some research in this area.

: See reviews above, especially Cohen's.
: --Steven Jones

Craig Harmon
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenharmon cudfnCraig cudlnHarmon cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.08 / Jed Rothwell /  No profit in it
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: No profit in it
Date: Sat, 8 Jan 1994 14:35:49 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG

Cary Jamison writes:

     "Cold Fusion is profitable!  Well, not really..."

Not really at all, unless your copy machine run on CF energy and your postage
machine runs on air


     "I just wanted to get your attention.  Our friend Jed and his Cold
     Fusion Research Advocates are selling copies of CNF proceedings and
     other favorable reports.  He is doing this "for the copying cost."  I
     just thought this group would be interested in what he's up to."

That is not the proceedings, it is the Abstracts and addresses. This group
was told exactly what Jed was up to by John Logajan who specifically stated
that he got his copy from me. He also graciously thanked me for it. Several
other people in this group also got copies from me. I made 15 and there are
3 left. I have no intention of making any more, because it cost me 250 bucks
for the copying charges and it is a pain in the butt. I will send out the
remaining 3 on a first come first serve basis to anyone I consider legit.
Known pathological skeptics need not apply; I trash your messages without
reading them.

I also have 30 or 40 copies of the NEDO brochure because the copy place got
mixed up and made 100 instead of 25. They gave me the extra 75 free.

In any case, Jamison's tone is ridiculous. Here I am publishing statements
in the Congressional Record and putting my phone number and address in every
message I send, and he is insinuating that I am sneaking around trying to
keep secrets. Nobody in this business is more open, more accessible, or more
easy to get free information from than me.

- Jed

cudkeys:
cuddy8 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.07 / John Moore /  Re: Sonofusion (Terry's UC) Revisited
     
Originally-From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Sonofusion (Terry's UC) Revisited
Date: Fri, 7 Jan 1994 06:24:43 GMT
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA

jbatka@desire.wright.edu writes:

>In the Sci. Am. article on it, they stated that one researcher reached
>bubble temperatures of at least 10,000 (C I believe).  However, as a fluid
>dynamicist these high temperatures seem very highly improbable if generated
>by shock waves, even if it is a gas-liquid phase driven one.  However,
>I have not been involved in experiments or computations involving a
>gas-liquid phase shock either.

I did a partial literature search on cavitation and it looks like several
people are claiming these sorts of temperatures - based on spectroscopy.
Temperatures as high as 100,000K have been claimed.

The capability of cavitation to cause pitting in all sorts of materials
may be due to these extreme temperatures.
-- 
DISCLAIMER: These views are mine alone, and do not reflect my employer's!
John Moore 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  USA  (602-951-9326)
john@anasazi.com   Amateur call:NJ7E  Civil Air Patrol:Thunderbird 381
Get into Ham Radio today! Morse Code no longer needed! It's a hobby, a sport, a
convenience, a technical challenge, a public service. Go rec.radio.amateur.misc
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenjohn cudfnJohn cudlnMoore cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.08 / Cameron Bass /  Re: New magazine:  "Cold Fusion"
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: New magazine:  "Cold Fusion"
Date: Sat, 8 Jan 1994 16:47:39 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1994Jan7.135613.1236@physc1.byu.edu>,
 <jonesse@physc1.byu.edu> wrote:
>
>"Cold Fusion" Magazine will help ignite the industry and advance
>your career...
...
>     Your editor is ...
>     Gene Mallove, the author of Fire From Ice, which Arthur C.
>Clarke called, "the only gook book on the subject." 

     gook \'gu.k, 'g:uk\ n [origin unknown] (1935)
        2  gook var of GUCK 

     guck \'gek\ n [perh. alter. of goo] (1949)
        :oozy sloppy dirt or debris: GOO, GUNK 

     Freudian slip?

                       dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.08 / John Logajan /  Re: No profit in it
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: No profit in it
Date: Sat, 8 Jan 94 18:18:11 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
>This group was told exactly what Jed was up to by John Logajan who
>specifically stated that he got his copy from me.

Jed has sent me several hardcopy items over the last several months at
*his* expense.  I imagine the ICCF4 abstracts cost him about $12 in materials
and postage alone to send to me -- not counting the cost of acquiring it all.

>He also graciously thanked me for it.

In private so far -- that oversight will now be corrected -- Thank you Jed!

>Nobody in this business is more open, more accessible, or more easy to get
>free information from than me.

And contrary to occasional accusations of credulity directed against him,
I've found Jed to have reasonable standards of evidence. 

There is a vast continuum of certainty, from believeing anything to requiring
unattainable metaphysical certainty.  We all end up somewhere on that
continuum for each different thing we believe -- but the nature of reality
doesn't care where we sit, and is likely to make monkeys of us regardless of
our best intentions.

A plea for a little civility between us monkeys.

-- 
- John Logajan MS612, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.08 /  an62345@anon.p /  Fusion for the Ignorant
     
Originally-From: an62345@anon.penet.fi
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Fusion for the Ignorant
Date: Sat,  8 Jan 1994 19:57:33 UTC
Organization: Anonymous contact service


>Are there high school students out there who would be interested 
>in highly graphical short introduction to some of the basics of
>quantum theory, focusing mainly on how wave behavior can be used to
>"build" objects such as atoms? 
>				  -Terry


>(Here we could have an FAQ - "Frequently Questioned
>Answers" :)  Anyway, does anyone else think something like this
>would be a good idea? 
>       		-Robert F. Heeter

 Like Jon Arnold, I am a High School student, and certainly not an
 expert on fusion. In fact, I've been reading this group for quite
 a while without understanding a lot of what comes up. Nevertheless,
 I'm still interested and I think that these two ideas would be great.
 I for one would use both, and probably distribute them to other
 students at school. 

 I doubt that there are many High School students on
 sci.physics.fusion (those who are, are probably quiet), but with
 the permission of the authors, I'd like to post messages about
 the FAQ and intro.program to "Schoolnet-l", a listserv for
 Canadian High Schools, when they're ready.

 These are two very useful initiatives, I hope they can be
 realised!


>I would like to encourage everyone, including high-school students,
>to participate in this newsgroup, as long as the discussion has
>something to do with nuclear fusion.  This group is not just for
>experts.  If you don't understand something, keep asking questions 
>until you do. 
>		-Benjamin P. Carter


Thanks for your help.

 ------------------------------------------------------------------------
To find out more about the anon service, send mail to help@anon.penet.fi.
Due to the double-blind, any mail replies to this message will be anonymized,
and an anonymous id will be allocated automatically. You have been warned.
Please report any problems, inappropriate use etc. to admin@anon.penet.fi.
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenan62345 cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Sun Jan  9 04:37:03 EST 1994
------------------------------
1994.01.08 / Ed Barty /  Re: Fusion for the ignorant
     
Originally-From: bart0140@mach1.wlu.ca (Ed Barty)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion for the ignorant
Date: Sat, 8 Jan 1994 21:58:42 GMT
Organization: Wilfrid Laurier University

In article <bpcCJ7G56.L1G@netcom.com> bpc@netcom.com (Benjamin P. Carter) writes:
>context).  The last of these meanings is fairly simple; the reaction is
>d + t --> n + He4, where by He4 I mean the nucleus of the most common
>and stable isotope of helium (which contains two protons and two
>neutrons).  The other isotope of helium, which can also be a fusion
>product, is He3 (which contains two protons and one neutron).

Not to be crass, but basicly, the fusion reactor takes a pile of (specific
type of) hydrogen, and squishes it together, to create helium. Right?

Would it be possible to crack apart the helium and re-use it? Or should we
just sell it to Circuses and Festivals to put it in balloons?


 ____       /\       ____   _______   __      __       /\       __    _ 
| _  \     /  \     | _  \ |__   __| |  \    /  |     /  \     |  \  | |
| L> /    / /\ \    | L> /    | |    |   \  /   |    / /\ \    |   \ | |
| _ <    / /__\ \   |   /     | |    | |\ \/ /| |   / /__\ \   | |\ \| |
| L> \  /  ____  \  | \ \     | |    | | \  / | |  /  ____  \  | | \   |
|____/ /__/    \__\ |_|\_\    |_|    |_|  \/  |_| /__/    \__\ |_|  \__|

==============================================================================
            Wilfrid Laurier University, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
                            bart0140@mach1.wlu.ca
==============================================================================
                           And don't you forget it!

"What are we going to do tonight, Brain?"
"The same thing we do every night, Pinky. Try to take over the world."
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenbart0140 cudfnEd cudlnBarty cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.09 / Matt Austern /  Re: No profit in it
     
Originally-From: matt@physics2.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: No profit in it
Date: 09 Jan 1994 01:25:26 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (Theoretical Physics Group)

In article <940108143327_72240.1256_EHK30-1@CompuServe.COM> 72240.1256@c
mpuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:

>      "Cold Fusion is profitable!  Well, not really..."
> 
> Not really at all, unless your copy machine run on CF energy and your postage
> machine runs on air

On the contrary, lots of people seem to be making tidy profits from
cold fusion.

Here in California, lots of people are also making profits from EST
and Dianetics.
--
Matthew Austern                       Never express yourself more clearly
matt@physics.berkeley.edu             than you think.    ---N. Bohr
cudkeys:
cuddy09 cudenmatt cudfnMatt cudlnAustern cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.09 / Matt Austern /  Re: New magazine:  "Cold Fusion"
     
Originally-From: matt@physics2.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: New magazine:  "Cold Fusion"
Date: 09 Jan 1994 01:22:06 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (Theoretical Physics Group)

In article <1994Jan7.135613.1236@physc1.byu.edu> jonesse@physc1.byu.edu writes:

> The following was received in the mail recently, and is reprinted
> here for information only (I do *not* endorse this publication).
> --Steven Jones

Is this put out by the Larouche-ites, like Fusion Magazine?
--
Matthew Austern                       Never express yourself more clearly
matt@physics.berkeley.edu             than you think.    ---N. Bohr
cudkeys:
cuddy09 cudenmatt cudfnMatt cudlnAustern cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.09 / J Interguru /  Re: New magazine:  "Cold Fusion"
     
Originally-From: jdavidson@clark.net (Joseph Davidson - Interguru)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: New magazine:  "Cold Fusion"
Date: 9 Jan 1994 02:06:09 GMT
Organization: Clark Internet Services, Inc., Ellicott City, MD USA

No Gene Mallove has not association with the Larouche group.

Matt Austern (matt@physics2.berkeley.edu) wrote:
: In article <1994Jan7.135613.1236@physc1.byu.edu> jonesse@physc1.byu.edu writes:

: > The following was received in the mail recently, and is reprinted
: > here for information only (I do *not* endorse this publication).
: > --Steven Jones

: Is this put out by the Larouche-ites, like Fusion Magazine?
: --
: Matthew Austern                       Never express yourself more clearly
: matt@physics.berkeley.edu             than you think.    ---N. Bohr

--
 ----------------------------------------------------
Joseph Davidson Ph.D.     
InterGuru -- Internet Consulting and Training    
Internet Information Searching        
1501 Dublin Drive, Silver Spring, Md. 20902  
voice 301 593 4152 ; fax 301 593 4152 (call first)           
j.davidson@ieee.org   
For more information send to guru-info@clark.net                        
 ----------------------------------------------------

cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenjdavidson cudfnJoseph cudlnInterguru cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.07 / Bob Pendleton /  Re: Why???
     
Originally-From: bobp@wixer.bga.com (Bob Pendleton)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Why???
Date: Fri, 7 Jan 1994 03:36:22 GMT
Organization: Real/Time Communications

From article <CJ4xB5.JE8@rahul.net>, by jayjames@rahul.net (Jay James):
> 
> Maybe I'm missing something.... but *why* does it matter that Group A did
> not "acknowledge" Group B's past/present/future efforts in field XYZ, at a
> certain news conference ABC?  

Let's say you spend a major part of your life, 10 or 20 years, working on
something. Then someone else takes credit for it. Then when forced to
acknowledge your work they misrepresent it in a way that leaves you looking
like a complete idiot in front of the only people in the world you can
understand what you've done. And, just by chance, the people who control
the money that let's you continue to do what you have dedicated you life to
and that lets you and your family continue to eat...

You might be interested in being able to prove that the others lied.

> I think the problem with you guys is that you got mixed up with too much
> patent law.  Stick to science guys....leave the word games and priority
> issues to the lawyers...

In science the only way to "count coup" is to have priority.
Scientists compete with each other just like all other human beings
do. What is being discussed has little to do with lawyers but a lot to
do with personal honor and the respect of those you respect.

No question, you're missing something.

				Bob P.
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenbobp cudfnBob cudlnPendleton cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.09 / Eugene Mallove /  "Cold Fusion" Magazine
     
Originally-From: 76570.2270@compuserve.com (Eugene Mallove)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: "Cold Fusion" Magazine
Date: Sun, 9 Jan 1994 05:59:27 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

        It was so good of Steve Jones to let this forum know about "Cold 
Fusion" Magazine.   

        Perhaps Steve will soon also let the world know about the "Case of the
Missing Scientist" at ICCF4 -- the non-show of Dr. Kevin Wolf of Texas A&M, 
who was to be a featured speaker on the second day of ICCF4.  Dr. Wolf was to 
have reported on the gamma-ray signatures of numerous transmuted elements in 
Pd cathodes obtained in his P&F-type cold fusion cells. Too bad the world was 
deprived of this information for "political," NOT scientific reasons. The 
story behind the non-show of Wolf is quite interesting, from our preliminary 
investigation.  Strange that Dr. Jones should be so hung-up and disparaging 
about the alchemical experiments of Bockris, but not a peep from him about 
Wolf's serendipitous alchemy. My, my -- how selective Dr. Jones is about data!

        Since Steve Jones published only *part* of the invitation to subscribe
to "Cold Fusion" magazine -- perhaps his fingers got tired -- let me submit 
most of the rest:

__________________________________

If you would like to contribute...

Article submissions are solicited. Please remember that one of the purposes of
this publication is to attract researchers and developers into the field, so 
be sure to explain things clearly and in plain English. The mark of a good 
writer is being able to explain complex technology so that it is 
understandable. In line with this, please keep the math to a minimum, but when
it's unavoidable, use it to prove points rather than to make them.

                        Send your article submissions to:

                                "COLD FUSION"
                                  Magazine

                        A Wayne Green Publication
Write to: WGI Center, 70 Rte. 202 North, Peterborough, NH 03458
                    Telephone: 800-677-8838  Fax to: 603-924-8613
                          Subscriptions: 800-234-8458


Who's  behind "Cold Fusion" Magazine?

Wayne Green, PhD.,
Publisher of "Cold Fusion" Magazine

An internationally-known technology visionary and author, Wayne Green has a 
long history of using communications media to bring about change; often 
assisting new industries in emerging from the research laboratory and entering
the realm of mainstream commerce.

Wayne Green's *73 Amateur Radio Magazine*, published monthly for the past 33 
years, has helped bring amateur radio communications to virtually every 
country on Earth. He was among the first to see the impact personal computers 
could have on not just science and business, but also on the global human 
condition. His launch of *Byte* magazine spurred the PC's development. Later, 
to help integrate the PC into daily life, he decided to launch 
*Microcomputing*, *80 Micro*, *Desktop Computing*, *InCider*, *Run*, *Pico*, 
and several other computer publications.

In the early 1980s Wyane Green recognized the potential of the compact disc. 
Against the conventional wisdom of the day, he launched *Digital Audio* 
magazine (now named *CD Review*), which has been viewed as a major reason why 
the CD is now the world's primary music format.

Wayne holds seats on the Board of Overseers at Rensselaer Polytechnical 
Institute and the Board of Directors of the New Hampshire High Tech Council, 
and he is Commissioner of the New Hampshire Economic Development Commission.



Dr. Eugene F. Mallove,
Editor of "Cold Fusion" Magazine

Author of several books, including Pulitzer-nominated *Fire from Ice: 
Searching for the Truth Behind the Cold Fusion Furor* (John Wiley & Sons, 
1991), which Arthur C.  Clarke has called "the only good book on the subject,"
Gene Mallove brings a lifetime of research and a clear objectivity to "Cold 
Fusion" Magazine.

His credential for high-technology engineering include Hughes Research 
Laboratories, TASC (The Analytical Sciences Corporation), Jaycor Systems 
Division, Northrop Precision Products Division, and MIT Lincoln Laboratory. 
For the past few years his work has been on "cold fusion" calorimetry.

Dr. Mallove holds engineering degrees from Harvard and MIT, has taught science
journalism at MIT and Boston University, and was Chief Science Writer at the 
MIT News Office when Pons and Fleischmann made their announcement, and the 
controversy surrounding "cold fusion" erupted.

He is a recognized expert on the science, history, and politics of "cold 
fusion."

___________________________________________

Not included in the invitation received by Dr. Jones -- and many others who 
have expressed interest in cold fusion through the years -- was word of the 
initial composition of the Scientific Advisory Board of "Cold Fusion" 
Magazine. The *initial* group of  scientists on the Scientific Advisory Board 
includes so far:

Dr. Talbot Chubb, Research Systems, Inc.
Professor Daniele Gozzi, Dept. of Chemistry, University of Rome
Professor Xing Zhong Li, Dept. of Physics, Tsinghua University, Beijing
Professor Julian Schwinger, Nobel laureate, Dept. of  Physics, UCLA
Dr. M. Srinivasan, Bhabha Atomic Research Center
Dr. Edmund Storms, ENECO

___________________________

A note about my contributions to this electronic forum: they will continue to 
be VERY limited. In this forum, I will *generally* not engage in arguments 
with "skeptics" (True Dis-Believers -- TDB's) -- except in the most egregious 
instances of slanders and lies.  I will be far too busy with Editorial 
responsibilities at "Cold Fusion" Magazine. I have a much wider audience to 
attend to. Furthermore, folks such as Dale Bass, Greg Kuperberg, et al, who 
regularly display their ignorance of and contempt for investigations on the 
frontiers of science and technology, are simply not worth the time.

Sincerely, Gene Mallove




cudkeys:
cuddy9 cuden2270 cudfnEugene cudlnMallove cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.09 / arthur blair /  Re: Fusion for the ignorant
     
Originally-From: blair@mksol.dseg.ti.com (arthur blair)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion for the ignorant
Date: Sun, 9 Jan 1994 05:30:13 GMT
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc

Robert Franklin Heeter (rfheeter@flagstaff.Princeton.EDU) wrote:

: In addition to these popular works, there are of course several
: textbooks on the subject of plasma physics and controlled fusion.

Could you recommend a few of these for the technically inclined?
Thanx,
Art. 
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenblair cudfnarthur cudlnblair cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.09 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: No profit in it
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: No profit in it
Date: Sun, 9 Jan 1994 09:01:04 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1994Jan8.181811.18589@ns.network.com> logajan@ns.network.com
(John Logajan) writes:

>And contrary to occasional accusations of credulity directed against him,
>I've found Jed to have reasonable standards of evidence. 

Then you must have looked at someone that hasn't been much in evidence on
this conference. I've found Jed to believe practically anything. So where
is this water heater he told us would be here by the end of '93?

There wasn't the least shred of evidence that such a thing was even possible
let alone close enough for a serious engineering attempt.

I started out in this conference willing to believe anything if an iota of
evidence was supplied. Not only was that evidence not supplied but it is
quite plain that many of these people claiming positives are avoiding
proper experimental techniques in an effort to confuse their findings.

Rothwell has been acting as a sort of unofficial appologist for these
people.

I anm willing to believe that Jed is a fine person with all sorts of
positive attributes. But a scientist he ain't and scientific method 
appears to be beyond him.

cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.09 / Benjamin Carter /  Re: Fusion for the ignorant
     
Originally-From: bpc@netcom.com (Benjamin P. Carter)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion for the ignorant
Date: Sun, 9 Jan 1994 10:14:50 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

bart0140@mach1.wlu.ca (Ed Barty) writes:

>Not to be crass, but basicly, the fusion reactor takes a pile of (specific
>type of) hydrogen, and squishes it together, to create helium. Right?

Pressure (squishing) is only part of the story.  The other part, in
most of the types of reactors that have been proposed, is heating.
You need both high temperature and high pressure to get a significant
amount of fusion.

>Would it be possible to crack apart the helium and re-use it? Or should we
>just sell it to Circuses and Festivals to put it in balloons?

If it were possible to change the helium back into hydrogen, you wouldn't
want to do it, because that would take more energy than you got out of
the fusion process.  It's like asking if you should change your car's
exhaust back into gasoline and air.
-- 
    Ben Carter                  internet address: bpc@netcom.com
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenbpc cudfnBenjamin cudlnCarter cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.10 / Jed Rothwell /  An imaginary person
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: An imaginary person
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 1994 01:13:34 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG

Thomas H. Kunich writes:

     "...you must have looked at someone that hasn't been much in evidence
     on this conference. I've found Jed to believe practically anything. So
     where is this water heater he told us would be here by the end of '93?"

It is a good thing these e-mail forums are in writing, rather than mere idle
vocal chit-chat. Anyone who bothers to go back and examine the record of my
postings will see that time after time I have *insisted* that CF is basic
scientific research and that it is impossible to put a strict timetable on
science. For that matter, it is impossible to put a timetable on a humble,
prosaic software development. The success or failure of any truly ground-
breaking, creative process can never be predicted. As my dear friend Hideo
Ikegami says:

          "If you know you can do it, it isn't science."

I have NEVER said that CF is a sure thing, or that it will be done by a
certain date, or that it will take a certain form. All I have said is that
the signs are very good, great progress has been made, and no severe problems
are blocking development. Compared to most fundamental R&D, CF is moving
rapidly ahead, but only God can predict with certainty when and how it will
turn out.

Furthermore, for all I know, Toyota might have their 10 KW unit working. I
have no idea what the status of that project is. The results they presented
at ICCF4 were mind-boggling enough. They showed run-on, "heat after death"
reactions in the 100 to 200 watt range that continue for as long as two days.

I will not get involved in any stupid tit-for-tat arguments with scientific
illiterates, but I do feel like saying this: before Kunich makes any more
stupid personal attacks on me, he better check the record, because everyone
who does will see that he is misrepresenting the truth. That goes double for
Steve Jones, who wrote the most absurd, transparent lie in his last "paper"
that I have seen from him yet. He claims that Pons and Fleischmann measure
the power once every five minutes only, with no backup systems and no other
instruments or data. Yet, Fleischmann showed the assembled ICCF4 audience his
oscilloscope traces and other data which was on a much finer scale than this,
and he *specifically* pointed out that this shows Steve is wrong. Steve even
had the chutzpa to cite the letter that I posted from Fleischmann where
Fleischmann clearly stated that he employs other methods of recording data
besides the one he showed in the paper. Steve has no shame! He will write
anything about anyone, in utter disregard of the truth, even when the facts
are publicly available, and have been clearly stated on the first day of an
international physics conference in front of 250 people. Steve and the other
"skeptics" who post on this forum are the biggest collection of crackpot
pathological liars I have ever seen. They are a disgrace to science.

- Jed

cudkeys:
cuddy10 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.09 / Andy Holland /  Re: High School Experiments
     
Originally-From: zcrah@trumpet.pgh.wec.com (Andy Holland)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: High School Experiments
Date: 9 Jan 1994 17:37:18 GMT
Organization: Westinghouse CNFD

In article <1994Jan7.105214.1@jaguar.csc.wsu.edu> collins@jaguar.csc.wsu.edu writes:
>
>Andy, could you be more specific about the failure mode and mechanism
>that you have in mind?
>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>Gary S. Collins              | e-mail: collins@cougar.csc.wsu.edu
>

Not being a materials type, I really must admit, I don't know much about the subject.
It is my understanding however, that the impregnation of a cast material by hygrogen
will cause hydrogen corrosion cracking. The energy of the casting is liberated in
this mechanism. As I recall (from many moons ago), the material forms micro-scopic 
cracks. If one is trying to push hydrogen into a metal, I imagine this sort of thing
would happen. 

As to size etc, your probably right BUT, I would never, ever advise a young person to
perform one of these kinds of science experiments. I have no idea what the scale is,
but to advise any kid on this sort thing opens one up to liability; both moral and
legal.

Andy Holland
Westinghouse.
(Usual Disclaimer)


cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenzcrah cudfnAndy cudlnHolland cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.09 / Andy Holland /  Re: High School Experiments (Spokane, WA)
     
Originally-From: zcrah@trumpet.pgh.wec.com (Andy Holland)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: High School Experiments (Spokane, WA)
Date: 9 Jan 1994 17:47:14 GMT
Organization: Westinghouse CNFD

In article <940107183247.206061de@FNALD.FNAL.GOV> DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:
>
>>In my opinion, this is not a High School experiment, and in my youth, two 
>>young friends of mine died in seperate, stupid "High School" type experiments. 
>
>>| Andy Holland                      | 
> 
 
>
>So young high schoolers, GO FOR IT!!  While your friends are blowing their 
>

>I have done at least some of the things above, and I can assure you that the 
>most sustained thrill comes from adventuring into science.  It is one of the 

 Yes, and there are safe ways of doing it, and stupid ways. Two freinds of 
 mine rot in the grave because they pushed the envelope at a far too young
 age.
 
 Take a fools advice, and come to a fools end.

>
>I too (for legal purposes) forbid you to do it.  Nudge, nudge, wink, wink!
>
>Tom Droege
>

If something happens to that boy, be it on your hands, and on your head old man.
Give advice worthy of your age, or keep your peace.

Andy Holland

zcrah@trumpet.pgh.wec.com

cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenzcrah cudfnAndy cudlnHolland cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.10 / John Logajan /  Re: Fusion for the ignorant
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion for the ignorant
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 94 02:03:48 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

bpc@netcom.com (Benjamin P. Carter) writes:
>bart0140@mach1.wlu.ca (Ed Barty) writes:
>>Not to be crass, but basicly, the fusion reactor takes a pile of (specific
>>type of) hydrogen, and squishes it together, to create helium. Right?
>
>Pressure (squishing) is only part of the story.  The other part, in
>most of the types of reactors that have been proposed, is heating.
>You need both high temperature and high pressure to get a significant
>amount of fusion.

Technical nit -- I think you meant to say high temperature and high density,
since the *product* of temperature and density is pressure.

The use of high temperature is a method to reach high pressure.  So one could
theoretically  "squish" hydrogen together at low temperature.  
-- 
- John Logajan MS612, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.10 / Mark Hittinger /  Re: No profit in it
     
Originally-From: bugs@NETSYS.COM (Mark Hittinger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: No profit in it
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 1994 04:46:55 GMT
Organization: Netsys Inc.

Jed supplies info at cost and does not make a living doing it I'm sure.  He
isn't getting tons of brownie points either :-).  Lighten up.
---------
Whats back with the wrong-ups?
-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Version: 2.3a

mQCNAiz4FWMAAAEEALBCb7HZS7V4gbsp9yJ7Yty49jQ9wcgRhkLjNNgdyJbrJZCq
5/sv4Ljy/4AhVhjlJyZS8L3owS8l0ClZVzWw4/kO3KN7MPz4YPPR7+qIlPQVM0yv
gWpJ43EZZ8b8cvAkE9HATCKWktY2ReRSX5DLnScDH/n5jivw+MD/UO8fURCVAAUR
tCBNYXJrIEhpdHRpbmdlciA8YnVnc0BuZXRzeXMuY29tPg==
=VbKi
-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenbugs cudfnMark cudlnHittinger cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.10 / Mark Hittinger /  Re: "Cold Fusion" Magazine
     
Originally-From: bugs@NETSYS.COM (Mark Hittinger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: "Cold Fusion" Magazine
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 1994 04:50:49 GMT
Organization: Netsys Inc.


I have also received the solicitation to become a charter subscriber
to the cold fusion magazine.  This is obviously a no-loose deal.  If
it eventually blows over you have some fine collectors items.  If all
h-ll breaks loose you have some fine collectors items.  I'll be sending
in my check when its payday at my day job :-) it pays to work on payday.
---------
Whats back with the wrong-ups?
-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Version: 2.3a

mQCNAiz4FWMAAAEEALBCb7HZS7V4gbsp9yJ7Yty49jQ9wcgRhkLjNNgdyJbrJZCq
5/sv4Ljy/4AhVhjlJyZS8L3owS8l0ClZVzWw4/kO3KN7MPz4YPPR7+qIlPQVM0yv
gWpJ43EZZ8b8cvAkE9HATCKWktY2ReRSX5DLnScDH/n5jivw+MD/UO8fURCVAAUR
tCBNYXJrIEhpdHRpbmdlciA8YnVnc0BuZXRzeXMuY29tPg==
=VbKi
-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenbugs cudfnMark cudlnHittinger cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.09 / Robert Heeter /  Re: Maui Papers #5
     
Originally-From: rfheeter@theory.pppl.gov (Robert F. Heeter)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Maui Papers #5
Date: 9 Jan 1994 23:50:30 -0500
Organization: Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory, Princeton University,
Princeton NJ 08540

I'm feeling a random urge to respond to something here.  Please
excuse me. :)

In article <940109204043.20a057da@FNALD.FNAL.GOV>,
 <DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov> wrote:
>Maui5  
>     
>***** C 3.1  Excess Heat Yes  Neutrons No  Tritium No  4He No 
>     
>Heat Production with Multilayer Thin-Film Electrodes
>     Miley, Batyrbakov, Patel, Hora, Zich, Tompkins
>
>The experiment employed a calorimeter technique, which used paired, 
>calibrated electrolytic cells.  These cells were identical except that one 
>utilized the multilayer cathode, while the second used a plain stainless steel
>plat of the same size.  A wound Pt wire was used as th anode.  Both cells were
>connected in parallel to the same power supply, in order to provide a matched 
>power deposition.  Midway during the experimental run, as an added control, 
>the electrodes were interchanged between the two cells. 

Umm, I know this is a silly question, but how does connecting two
resistors in parallel ensure matched power deposition unless you
also ensure the resistances are *precisely* equal?  Your power 
deposition is going to go as V^2/R, right?  But how can the resistances
remain precisely equal over the course of the experiment when the thin 
films are flaking off and the chemical composition of the two systems 
is different?  Granted, this is a simple problem, and they'll probably
explain it in their full paper, but it leaves one feeling just a tad
nervous about the results.  As I see it the only way to *ensure* 
equal power deposition is to stick a variable resistor in the
electrolyte, in series with the anode-cathode bath resistance, 
and tune the resistor so that the total current through both
cells is equal, as well as the voltage.  But then this has the
problem that the voltage across the anode-cathode part of the
circuit will no longer be fixed...
>
>The temperature of the multilayer-cathode cell was consistently 1.5 +/- 0.5 C 
>higher than that of the reference cell.  This corresponds to aprox. 2 kW/cm^3 
>energy production in the thin-film interface region, assuming reaction occurs, 
>as predicted, over a region extending an electron-Debye length from the 
>interface.  The total volume average power, if applicable, would be several 
>orders of magnitude lower than the interface value.  

Of course, it might also correspond to a lowered cell resistance.  In 
particular, if one cell has a slightly lower initial resistance, it 
will sponge up slightly more current, and evolve slightly more water
into H2 and O2.  This in turn will increase the concentration of 
electrolyte remaining in the bath, which (I imagine) would tend
to lower the cell resistance further, leading to an eventual
imbalance in the power deposition between the two cells due to
a difference in resistances.  This could easily be seen as excess heat,
if one were not carefully monitoring the current through each
cell, as well as the voltage.

>These results must be viewed as very preliminary, since the length of 
>experimental runs has been limited by flaking of the thin layers, probably due 
>to overheating.  Also, this preliminary calorimeter technique involves some 
>assumptions that need to be studied.

I'd like to hear if they addressed the above concerns in their research.

I realize the absence of commentary in their abstract is probably
due to lack of space.  I just don't know what trick they would
have used to avoid the problems I've described.  If they tracked
both I and V through both cells and indeed verified that power
deposition was equal, I of course have no leg to stand on.

Robert F. Heeter
rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu (as most of you probably know by now)
Usual rest of signature.

Just on a short visit to the land of Cold Fusion (it is winter, after all! :)
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.10 / Robert Heeter /  Status of Hot Fusion FAQ/FQA
     
Originally-From: rfheeter@flagstaff.Princeton.EDU (Robert Franklin Heeter)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Status of Hot Fusion FAQ/FQA
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 1994 02:27:07 GMT
Organization: Princeton University


Well, having somehow managed to volunteer myself to organize 
something resembling an FAQ for the hot fusion segment of this
newsgroup, I'm starting to realize the magnitude of the task,
and it's looking pretty big!  I've received a pretty decent
email response, both from fusion neophytes looking for more
informatin, and from fusioneers volunteering advice (which
is needed) and help (which is even more needed!).  So this
thing looks like a go.

I would like to share with y'all my current vision of what
this will be like, and get a lot of input from everyone
so that the finished FAQ/FQA will be as useful as possible
to everyone.  I myself can only work in snippets on the
project, as study breaks from exams here.  (What a life!  Sigh.)

These are some of the ideas that have come to me in one way
or another (email, me thinking, dreams, nightmares, etc.):

(1) For every question, the FAQ should give two answers,
one at a level for someone with a high-school physics
background, and one at a level for someone with a collegiate
physics/engineering background.  I think discussions at
the graduate level are likely to be advanced enough that
the FAQ will not be valuable.  

(2) The FAQ must stick to the technical facts of fusion
science, and avoid the realms of big science politics
and energy policy politics.  Ideally the only disagreements
there should be about a given answer in the FAQ will be on
whether the answer is sufficiently clear, concise, 
comprehensive, etc.

(3) The FAQ should discuss as many different confinement
schemes and fuel mixes as possible.  

(4) Some sort of standard procedure should be set up to
determine when/how the FAQ needs to be revised.  (Some
sort of voting mechanism, I think, with some sort
of impartial volunteer arbitrator.)

(5) There should be a standard, fairly comprehensive
annotated bibliography.  Answers in the FAQ should refer
to relevant references in the bibliography.  Jim Day
has already sent me a large list of references, to which
I will add a couple, and then I would like to post the
list so that people can comment on the sources they've
read and add to the list.

(6) Rather than decide what should be discussed in the FAQ,
and rather than writing all the answers myself, I would
prefer to see questions submitted (especially by those
who don't know the answers) to the group for discussion,
and answers submitted for comments and revision.  I
don't mind writing, but I would prefer to use my time
as the editor of a group production than in simply running
off at the mouth.

To get things started I would like to throw out a few
topics (these are not in any special order):

    General:
	(a) What is fusion / how does it work?
	(b) What are the different possible fusion reactions?	
	(c) Where does fusion occur in nature?
	(d) What is plasma physics, and how is it related to fusion?
	(e) What opportunities are there for students interested in fusion?
	(f) What is the current state of fusion research?

    Approaches to fusion:
	(a) What is a tokamak / how does it work?
	(b)   "  "  " mirror  / "   "    "   " ?
	(c)   "  "  inertial confinement / " " "?
	(d) What is a stellarator / " " " " ?
	(e)   "  "  " Plasmak / "   "    "   " ?
	(f)   "  " electrostatic confinement/ "  "  " ?
	(g)   "  " reversed-field pinch / " " " " ?
	(h) What are some other confinement approaches?

    Current Devices: (avoid discussing promises :)
	(a) What is ITER?
	(b) What is TFTR?
	(c) What is JET?
	(d) What is DIII-D?
	(e) What is JT-60U?
	(f) What is Alcator?
	** My apologies that the list is currently all tokamaks. **
	** I recommend we leave costs, parameters, promises and
		achievements out, but supply references, at least 
		at first. **	
	(g) What are some other research devices?
	
    History:
	(a) When did fusion research begin?
	(b) When was fusion research declassified?
	(c) What level of international cooperation is there?
	(d) What is the history of fusion funding (US, FUSSR, EC, Japan)?


(7) As I have only 7 months experience with the group, and
zero experience at generating an FAQ, I'd appreciate all
the help and constructive criticism you can give.  In
particular, if someone recalls an earlier discussion of
some topic, it might be useful to dig it out of the archives
and submit it for discussion.


Hopefully this will get the ball rolling.  This should be fun!


****************
Robert F. Heeter
rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Graduate Student, Princeton Plasma Physics Lab (Disclaimers Apply)

I still can't believe I'm doing this. :)

cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.10 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Maui Papers #5
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Maui Papers #5
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 1994 02:42:08 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Maui5  

As the conference goes on, my notes get thinner and thinner.  It is hard to 
listen to paper after paper and still keep one's antenna tuned to maximum 
sensitivity.  
     
***** C 3.1  Excess Heat Yes  Neutrons No  Tritium No  4He No 
     
Heat Production with Multilayer Thin-Film Electrodes
     Miley, Batyrbakov, Patel, Hora, Zich, Tompkins

Because someone is interested I will type in the whole abstract:

Start abstract:

"Two types of experiments are needed to understand and verify the existence of 
chemically-induced, or "cold,"fusion: the measurement of nuclear reaction 
products and the measurement of excess heat phenomena.  In the present 
research, we have concentrated on the latter, using a unique multilayer 
electrode design that is predicted to increase reaction rates by increasing 
the electrode interface area and by using select metals with large Fermi-
energy-level differences.  Initial experimental studies of heat production by 
electrolysis, using a multilayer thin-film cathode specially designed on the 
basis of the "swimming electron layers" [1] theory, are described.  This 
theory, which is based on the existing knowledge of the electron theory of 
metals and the interaction of plasma with metal surfaces, suggests that 
multilayer electrodes comprised of thin films of titanium and palladium would 
exhibit enhanced cold fusion reactions.[2]  The application of this theory to 
the design of multilayer electrodes was discussed earlier, [3] and the 
experiments described here are designed as a test of this theory.  One major 
departure from earlier plans [3] was the use of an electrolyte employing LiOH 
in light water.  This was done in view of the consistent positive results from 
heat experiments reported by various groups using this electrolyte, typically 
with a nickel electrode. [4-9]  The multilayer cathode is made from a 
stainless steel plate, 25 mm x 25 mm x 3 mm-thick, coated with alternating 
layers of Ti and Pd, deposited by a unique e-beam evaporation method 
specifically developed for this purpose.  The cathode has six layers of Ti, 
alternating with five layers of Pd per side (having a total thickness of 100 
A), sandwiched around the stainless steel core, and finished off with a Cr 
top-coating (60 A thick) on both sides.  This outermost Cr layer acts as a 
barrier layer to retain a high loading of hydrogen or deuterium in the 
electrode.  

The experiment employed a calorimeter technique, which used paired, 
calibrated electrolytic cells.  These cells were identical except that one 
utilized the multilayer cathode, while the second used a plain stainless steel 
plat of the same size.  A wound Pt wire was used as th anode.  Both cells were 
connected in parallel to the same power supply, in order to provide a matched 
power deposition.  Midway during the experimental run, as an added control, 
the electrodes were interchanged between the two cells. 

The temperature of the multilayer-cathode cell was consistently 1.5 +/- 0.5 C 
higher than that of the reference cell.  This corresponds to aprox. 2 kW/cm^3 
energy production in the thin-film interface region, assuming reaction occurs, 
as predicted, over a region extending an electron-Debye length from the 
interface.  The total volume average power, if applicable, would be several 
orders of magnitude lower than the interface value.  

These results must be viewed as very preliminary, since the length of 
experimental runs has been limited by flaking of the thin layers, probably due 
to overheating.  Also, this preliminary calorimeter technique involves some 
assumptions that need to be studied.  The advantages and disadvantages of 
this calorimetric method have been considered in detail, and a new design is 
being constructed.  Most of the disadvantages have been eliminated in this 
design, which provides a closed system and allows simultaneous measurement of 
both gas and heat production.  Also, a new electrode design, with several 
improvements to increase film stability, has been developed.  Experimental 
results with this newly designed setup will also be discussed."

[1-9]  References not typed.  Will send on request.  

End of quoted abstract.  

This talk was sort of like having "relativity" explained by someone really 
good at it.  At the time I felt that he gave a well organized talk with a 
complete explanation of everything.  It did just not stay with me very well.  
My notes say "Nice experiment, but no error bars"  They also say "film breaks 
up after a while" I remember this to be of order the time constant of the 
calorimeter, or a few hundred minutes.  The operating point was 0.2 ampere at 
a voltage of 2.365 volts.  

One thing did stick with me.  My notes say "200-500 min tau".  The time 
constant of the calorimeter was of same order as the period of excess heat.  
Thus it was quite difficult to separate the transient effects of putting the 
electrolysis power into the calorimeter from the presumed excess heat.  This 
sent me chasing after Miley with a proposal to run one of his electrodes in my 
new "heat pipe" calorimeter.  My hope (not yet achieved) is that this design 
will have a very short time constant.  This was well received by Dr. Miley, 
and we plan to correspond to develop an experiment.  

***** C 3.2  Excess Heat ?  Neutrons ? Tritium ? 4He ?

Back to the Future: The Fleischmann-Pons Effect in 1994
     Melich, Hansen

I got very little out of this "true believer" talk.  My notes say "Tell him 
about teaching for a patent"  I remember he talked about the P&F patents like 
they were real, yet I do not find sufficient teaching for one "trained in the 
art" to duplicate the P&F results.  No teaching no patent.  

***** C 3.3  Excess Heat ?  Neutrons ? Tritium ? 4He ?

Pd/D Calorimetry - The Key to the F/P Effect and a Challenge to
Science
     Hansen, Melich

Another "true believer talk with no information.

***** C 3.4  Excess Heat Yes  Neutrons No  Tritium No  4He No

Calorimetric Measurements of the Electrolysis of Heavy Water at
Palladium Cathodes
     Zhang, Sun, Wang, Yan, Tan

My notes say "Not followed".  But the abstract claims up to 10% excess heat 
with a 5% error limit.  Both steady state and heat pulses were observed.  Note 
that they differentiate the calorimeter calibration (1%) from the overall 
experimental accuracy of 5%.  "The final 'over-all" standard deviation ... 
could be estimated ... +/- 5% only because of the obtained results caused by 
many uncertain factors, such as the changes of room temperature, etc. in this 
work."  It is nice to see a group try to understand all those "other" errors 
and to base their error estimate on that understanding.  

***** C 3.5  Excess Heat ?  Neutrons ? Tritium ? 4He ?

Excess-Heat, Heat Production Equation
     Waisman, Kertamus

I do remember this talk.  If it looks like BS, and sounds like BS, then what 
is it?

***** C 3.6  Excess Heat Yes  Neutrons No Tritium No 4He No  Transmutation Yes

Calorimetric Studies for Several Light Water Electrolytic Cells
with Potassium Carbonate and Sodium Carbonate Electrolytes and
Nickel Cathodes
     Bush, Eagleton

You all may recall that Bush has this theory with maxima and minima as the 
current density is increased.  He put up this data with points all over the 
place, which he then overlaid with the theory, and we were supoosed to see the 
fit.  I could not see a fit.  I do recall that he had error bars on the data, 
so I have to give him credit for the error bars.  He then put up data where 
nearby (excess heat vs current data I remember) points were averaged together.  
My notes say "As larger and larger groups of points are averaged together - it 
still looks like noise"

Bush uses Teflon coated glass cells operating at a few ma per cm sq.  Nickel 
cathodes are typically 60-80 cm sq.  Cell voltage is typically 5 volts.  My 
notes say "Do not get high output at high input power" pointing to the 
definition of efficiency as (out -in)/(in).  Notes say 0.02 watts in, 0.12 
watts out.  Notes say "reverse the current for a blank".  Thermocouples are 
used for temperature measurement.  A big point was made that Copper is to 
Nickel as Ag is to Pd.  Notes say "copper is a cofactor for light water 
effect".  The suggestion thus is that a small amount of copper would enhance 
the anomalous heat output for a "light water" experiment.  I would suggest 
that the relationship might be true, but not in the way Bush proposes.  My 
absorption of the Japanese data is that Ag helps loading but I remember that 
none of the high loaded Ag alloy Pd was claimed to produce excess heat.  

Bush claims that potassium is transmuted to calcium and claims to have 
detected 1 ppm of calcium in his cells.  My notes show 1.11 MJ +/- 0.17 
typical experiment with 1.36 +/- 1.36 calculated (I remember from the 
conversion to calcium - but incomplete notes). 

In one of the conversations in the halls, I asked Bush to introduce me to 
Eagleton as I wanted to discuss calorimetry with him.  Eagleton had a bout 
with the flue and was spending most of the time in his room.  Bush said you 
can talk to be about the calorimetry, but nothing came of it.  I do not come 
off very well in a conversation with someone like Bush.  He out talks me and 
no information is passed.  Pity, I would have liked to understand their 
calorimetry.  It never seems to be discussed in their papers.   

***** C 3.7  Excess Heat Yes  Neutrons No Tritium No 4He No  

Anomalous Heat Evolution from SrCeO3-Type Proton Conductors
During Absorption/Desorption of Deuterium in Alternate Electric
Field
     Mizuno, Enyo, Akimoto, Azumi

Once again, we have a very nice two page abstract that very well describes the 
experiment.  I will not type it in, but those interested in this experiment 
should get it.  Samples were made from a mixture of SrCOe, CeO2, Y2O3, and 
ONb2O3 powders.  These were ground up and sintered at 1440 C.  Twice and 
formed into .8 cm dia by .1 cm thick plates.  The two sides were coated with a 
porous Pt paste and fired again.  The resulting sample was fixed between Pt 
plates. The sample was operated in an electric field, the abstract indicates 
that it is 18 v dc at 40 ua.  When put in a reaction vessel, the sample gets 
hotter with Deuterium gas than with Hydrogen.  They also ran a Al2Si0.5O4 
control.  They say 50 watts of excess heat output for 7.2E-4 watt input.  They 
thus claim a power gain of 7E4. 

My notes say "Claim several x10 watts - nothing for me"  "Calorimetry not up 
to claim".  "Very flat for long period of time where they claim excess heat.  
Looks like it is just coming to a null balance to me".

There were several experiments like this where the experimental result is a 
straight line running parallel to the calibration.  Looks like a systematic 
error to me.

Tom Droege

cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenDROEGE cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.09 / Robert Heeter /  Re: Fusion for the ignorant (long)
     
Originally-From: rfheeter@flagstaff.Princeton.EDU (Robert Franklin Heeter)
Originally-From: bds@hagar.ph.utexas.edu (Bruce Scott)
Originally-From: buckles@cae.wisc.edu (Robert Buckles)
Originally-From: bds@hagar.ph.utexas.edu (Bruce Scott)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Newsgroups: sci.energy,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion for the ignorant (long)
Subject: REFERENCES: magnetic confinement fusion
Subject: Re: REFERENCES: magnetic confinement fusion
Subject: Re: REFERENCES: magnetic confinement fusion
Date: Sun, 9 Jan 1994 16:10:13 GMT
Date: 6 Oct 1993 23:51:27 GMT
Date: 6 Oct 93 23:46:52 CDT
Date: 7 Oct 1993 15:36:57 GMT
Organization: Princeton University
Organization: Institute for Fusion Studies, UT-Austin
Organization: College of Engineering, Univ. of Wisconsin-Madison
Organization: Institute for Fusion Studies, UT-Austin

In article <1994Jan9.053013.17887@mksol.dseg.ti.com> blair@mksol.dseg.ti
com (arthur blair) writes:
>Robert Franklin Heeter (rfheeter@flagstaff.Princeton.EDU) wrote:
>
>: In addition to these popular works, there are of course several
>: textbooks on the subject of plasma physics and controlled fusion.
>
>Could you recommend a few of these for the technically inclined?
>Thanx,
>Art.

Actually, I probably couldn't!  I haven't really found a book I
could fall in love with as a textbook / reference yet.  No,
that's not true.  Francis F. Chen's _Introduction to Plasma Physics
and Controlled Fusion_ (Volume 1 is plasma physics, volume 2 
is not yet written, or at least published) is a pretty good
text, written at the level of a junior/senior physics undergraduate.
Emphasis is on physical principles; the math is not that rigorous
but generally easy to follow and illustrates the principles well.

Two graduate-level plasma texts are Nicholson's _Introduction
to Plasma Theory_ and Krall & Trivelpiece, _Principles of Plasma
Physics_.  Both have their pluses and minuses.  I've only
been a student here for 6 months, so I don't think I have enough
knowledge of the subject to really tell if a text is good or
not - here at Princeton we have mostly used locally-generated
lecture notes so far.

The question of what books are good came up last October, and
I saved much of the thread; I've trimmed it somewhat and reproduced
it below.  (I hope Bruce Scott and Robert Buckles don't mind. :)

<<<  Begin quoted text. >>>

Originally-From: bds@hagar.ph.utexas.edu (Bruce Scott)
Newsgroups: sci.energy,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: REFERENCES: magnetic confinement fusion
Date: 6 Oct 1993 23:51:27 GMT
Organization: Institute for Fusion Studies, UT-Austin
Message-ID: <28vllv$i24@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>

Someone involved in engineering (Art ____) asked me a couple of weeks
ago for some good intro references on the science of magnetic
confinement fusion. Here are two on the science and one on the history
and politics (note that they are fusion and not plasma physics
references):

T Kammash, _Fusion Reactor Physics_ (Ann Arbor Science, 1975)

DJ Rose and M Clark, Jr, _Plasmas and Controlled Fusion_ (MIT, 1961)

For those who care mostly about engineering aspects and want to know
the physics involved in controlling and heating a reactor plasma,
Kammash is the first place to go. For those who want a good dose of
some plasma physics aspects and a little less reactor technology, Rose
and Clark is better (also for those like me who are familiar with the
physics and want a really basic intro to the engineering aspects).
Unfortunately it is pre-tokamak, so the methods and _basic_
calculations involved in things like induction emf fields are not
present (I am currently looking for that, because I need it in physics
language).

A recent one on mostly on the physics is

RD Hazeltine and JD Meiss, _Plasma Confinement_ (Addison Wesley, 1992),

who recommend as a fusion text

RA Gross _Fusion Energy_ (Wiley, 1984).

<< Recommendation of Bromberg's history - similar to the one I gave -
deleted - rfheeter. >>

Happy reading!
-- 
Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds@hagar.ph.utexas.edu (to 12 Oct)                   -- W Gibson
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1993.10.06 / Robert Buckles /  Re: REFERENCES: magnetic confinement fusion
     
Originally-From: buckles@cae.wisc.edu (Robert Buckles)
Subject: Re: REFERENCES: magnetic confinement fusion
Organization: College of Engineering, Univ. of Wisconsin-Madison
Date: 6 Oct 93 23:46:52 CDT
Message-ID: <1993Oct6.234652.23597@doug.cae.wisc.edu>
Originator: buckles@sun-12.cae.wisc.edu
References: <28vllv$i24@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>

You might try getting "Introduction to Plasma Physics and Controlled
Fusion", Francis F. Chen, Plenum Press, Inc., Vol. I: Plasma Physics,
Second Edition, 1983.

Much of plasma physics is contained in books on confinement and heating,
but they are not physics books.

I am a graduate student in a fusion program at UW Madison and this text
is required in the introductory plasma physics course.

It provides all the plasma physics you could need.  However, like the
title states, it is an INTRODUCTORY text.  Sometimes, the physical
descriptions are not very rigorous, almost too simple.

If you are a hardline physicist, try Jun Miyamoto, Plasma Physics for
Controlled Thermonuclear Fusion...

It reads like a graduate level electrodynamics text...

Happy Reading indeed.

Robert Buckles

<< long .sig deleted by rfheeter; Buckles' email address is above. >>
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenbuckles cudfnRobert cudlnBuckles cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1993.10.07 / Bruce Scott /  Re: REFERENCES: magnetic confinement fusion
     
Originally-From: bds@hagar.ph.utexas.edu (Bruce Scott)
Subject: Re: REFERENCES: magnetic confinement fusion
Date: 7 Oct 1993 15:36:57 GMT
Organization: Institute for Fusion Studies, UT-Austin
Message-ID: <291d2p$c3j@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>
References: <28vllv$i24@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu> <1993Oct6.234652.23597@doug.cae.wisc.edu>

I know Chen's book pretty well, Miyamoto's less well. Both are
inferior to Hazeltine and Meiss, or R White's recent book.  I am a
physicist in this field who is pretty familiar with the material in
these books.

<< Note:  R White's book is, I believe, _Theory of Tokamak Plasmas_. >>

<< Other comments not containing references deleted by rfheeter. >>

-- 
Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds@hagar.ph.utexas.edu (to 12 Oct)                   -- W Gibson
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------


<<<  End quoted text. >>>

Hopefully one or two of these books will suit your needs!

***

Robert F. Heeter
rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Graduate Student, Princeton Plasma Physics Lab
Disclaimers Apply...




cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnScott cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1993 
------------------------------
1994.01.09 / Ed Barty /  Re: Fusion for the ignorant
     
Originally-From: bart0140@mach1.wlu.ca (Ed Barty)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion for the ignorant
Date: Sun, 9 Jan 1994 18:58:11 GMT
Organization: Wilfrid Laurier University

In article <bpcCJCxsq.Fq8@netcom.com> bpc@netcom.com (Benjamin P. Carter) writes:
>bart0140@mach1.wlu.ca (Ed Barty) writes:
>>Not to be crass, but basicly, the fusion reactor takes a pile of (specific
>>type of) hydrogen, and squishes it together, to create helium. Right?
>
>Pressure (squishing) is only part of the story.  The other part, in
>most of the types of reactors that have been proposed, is heating.
>You need both high temperature and high pressure to get a significant
>amount of fusion.

So, what is used to create the `energy' that we are working towards? Is it
exess heat? How does that work?

>>Would it be possible to crack apart the helium and re-use it? Or should we
>>just sell it to Circuses and Festivals to put it in balloons?
>If it were possible to change the helium back into hydrogen, you wouldn't
>want to do it, because that would take more energy than you got out of
>the fusion process.  It's like asking if you should change your car's
>exhaust back into gasoline and air.

Oh....What *do* we do with the helium? Are there any disposal concerns? Or
is the Circus idea feasable?


 ____       /\       ____   _______   __      __       /\       __    _ 
| _  \     /  \     | _  \ |__   __| |  \    /  |     /  \     |  \  | |
| L> /    / /\ \    | L> /    | |    |   \  /   |    / /\ \    |   \ | |
| _ <    / /__\ \   |   /     | |    | |\ \/ /| |   / /__\ \   | |\ \| |
| L> \  /  ____  \  | \ \     | |    | | \  / | |  /  ____  \  | | \   |
|____/ /__/    \__\ |_|\_\    |_|    |_|  \/  |_| /__/    \__\ |_|  \__|

==============================================================================
            Wilfrid Laurier University, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
                            bart0140@mach1.wlu.ca
==============================================================================
                           And don't you forget it!

"What are we going to do tonight, Brain?"
"The same thing we do every night, Pinky. Try to take over the world."
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenbart0140 cudfnEd cudlnBarty cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.09 / Robert Heeter /  Re: Fusion for the ignorant
     
Originally-From: rfheeter@flagstaff.Princeton.EDU (Robert Franklin Heeter)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion for the ignorant
Date: Sun, 9 Jan 1994 21:40:30 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

In article <CJDM0z.7By@mach1.wlu.ca> bart0140@mach1.wlu.ca (Ed Barty) writes:
>In article <bpcCJCxsq.Fq8@netcom.com> bpc@netcom.com (Benjamin P. Carter) writes:
>>bart0140@mach1.wlu.ca (Ed Barty) writes:
>>>Not to be crass, but basicly, the fusion reactor takes a pile of (specific
>>>type of) hydrogen, and squishes it together, to create helium. Right?
>>
>>Pressure (squishing) is only part of the story.  The other part, in
>>most of the types of reactors that have been proposed, is heating.
>>You need both high temperature and high pressure to get a significant
>>amount of fusion.
>
>So, what is used to create the `energy' that we are working towards? Is it
>exess heat? How does that work?

Jumping in randomly here, I'll put in my 2c worth.

It turns out that the binding energy of a helium nucleus is less
than that of either deuterium (D) or tritium (T), or the combination
for that matter.  This means that if you can persuade a D and T to
come close to each other and stick, the resulting He has less 
nuclear binding energy, and the surplus energy gets released as
a fast neutron and a recoiling He++ ion.  The reason why you need
high temperature and pressure is because your T and D are both
positively charged particles, and they repel each other at
normal distances.  But if they are moving fast enough, and they
collide head-on, they can get close enough for the nuclear forces
to overcome the electrical repulsion, so that they stick together.

It's similar to burning wood, where you have to heat the wood
up first, but once it's hot enough it will release the stored
chemical energy.  In the case of the deuterium-tritium reaction,
there isn't really any "stored" energy, except insofar as the
D and T are not already a He of lower energy.  The energy
you get out of the fusion reaction isn't really "excess" heat,
since energy is conserved; the fusion reaction just allows us
to convert a relatively un-useful sort of energy (nuclear
binding energy) into a more useful sort of energy (heat,
which you can use to make electricity, warm things up, drive
chemical reactions, etc).  Fusion is sort of like fission
in reverse.

You can play the fusion game with any two elements which
could be combined to form a heavier element, provided the
heavier element is lower than iron in the periodic table.
Iron is the most stable nucleus.  However, the closer you
get to iron, the more energy it takes to overcome the
electrical repulsion.  Also, the binding energies are closer
together and less surplus energy is released in the fusion
reaction.  

One interesting example of this is a large star,
which will fuse all its hydrogen into helium and all its
helium into higher elements, trying to generate enough
internal heat to keep up its internal pressure and prevent
gravitational collapse.  But once the He is burned, the
diminishing returns of the more advanced fusion reactions
make it less and less possible to maintain the thermodynamic
balance, and eventually the star collapses and goes supernova.

>
>>>Would it be possible to crack apart the helium and re-use it? Or should we
>>>just sell it to Circuses and Festivals to put it in balloons?
>>If it were possible to change the helium back into hydrogen, you wouldn't
>>want to do it, because that would take more energy than you got out of
>>the fusion process.  It's like asking if you should change your car's
>>exhaust back into gasoline and air.
>
>Oh....What *do* we do with the helium? Are there any disposal concerns? Or
>is the Circus idea feasable?

Well, the helium isn't radioactive, and it should not be too difficult
to separate it from the D and T in the exhaust, I suppose, so they
probably *will* collect it.  But there are a lot of uses for He
besides circuses!  I don't know if this method of making He will
be cost-effective relative to collecting it out of natural gas
(I think that's the primary method nowadays).

Anyway, I hope this was useful!

***************
Robert F. Heeter
rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu

"Fusion:  Deuterium + Tritium => Heat + Helium Balloons"


cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.10 / Justin Fang /  Re: Fusion for the ignorant
     
Originally-From: justinf@cco.caltech.edu (Justin Fang)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion for the ignorant
Date: 10 Jan 1994 01:27:31 GMT
Organization: chaotic

In article <1994Jan9.214030.9704@Princeton.EDU>,
rfheeter@flagstaff.Princeton.EDU (Robert Franklin Heeter) wrote:
 
> In article <CJDM0z.7By@mach1.wlu.ca> bart0140@mach1.wlu.ca (Ed Barty) writes:

> >Oh....What *do* we do with the helium? Are there any disposal concerns? Or
> >is the Circus idea feasable?

> Well, the helium isn't radioactive, and it should not be too difficult
> to separate it from the D and T in the exhaust, I suppose, so they
> probably *will* collect it.  But there are a lot of uses for He
> besides circuses!  I don't know if this method of making He will
> be cost-effective relative to collecting it out of natural gas
> (I think that's the primary method nowadays).

Well, my back-of-the-envelope calculations, assuming 10 MeV per fusion and
a 100 MW reactor give about 9 moles He a day. Doesn't seem like much, but
it *is* free...
 
> Anyway, I hope this was useful!
> 
> ***************
> Robert F. Heeter
> rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
> 
> "Fusion:  Deuterium + Tritium => Heat + Helium Balloons"

Justin Fang (justinf@cco.caltech.edu)
                    This space intentionally left blank.
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenjustinf cudfnJustin cudlnFang cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Mon Jan 10 04:37:06 EST 1994
------------------------------
1994.01.10 / Robert Heeter /  Re: Status of Hot Fusion FAQ/FQA - one more thought
     
Originally-From: rfheeter@flagstaff.Princeton.EDU (Robert Franklin Heeter)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Status of Hot Fusion FAQ/FQA - one more thought
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 1994 02:45:53 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

In article <1994Jan10.022707.6727@Princeton.EDU> rfheeter@flagstaff.Prin
eton.EDU (Robert Franklin Heeter) writes:
>
>These are some of the ideas that have come to me in one way
>or another (email, me thinking, dreams, nightmares, etc.):

Here's an addition to that list:
(If you haven't seen the list yet, it should show up
soon.  I just posted it here a few minutes ago.)

(8) In addition to the bibliography and FAQ file, some sort
of lexicon, a dictionary of fusion jargon, would be good.
I remember how nice it was to read the Alcator reports
by Mr. Fairfax last fall, and have no clue what a four-quadrant
power supply was, and then see it explained right there.
I think the basic high-school level answers should use a 
minimum of fusion terminology, but that the collegiate-level
answers should be free to use the language of the field.
Rather than try to build the lexicon independently, it
might be best if those writing up answers would simply
append a short list of the jargon they used, with the
meanings of the terms.  The definitions could then be
separated and integrated into a lexicon when the FAQ is
compiled.

(9) Submitted answers should have the writer's name appended
at the bottom so we can keep track of who contributes what.

****************
Robert F. Heeter
rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Graduate Student, Princeton Plasma Physics Lab (Disclaimers Apply)

Random thought: When this is done I think I'll send copies to all my 
friends and family so they'll have some clue what I'm really doing here.




cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.10 / Bruce Dunn /  Re: Fusion for the ignorant
     
Originally-From: Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Dunn)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion for the ignorant
Date: 10 Jan 94 05:25:59 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada

> Justin Fang writes:
>
> Well, my back-of-the-envelope calculations, assuming 10 MeV per fusion and
> a 100 MW reactor give about 9 moles He a day. Doesn't seem like much, but
> it *is* free...

In reasonably large quantities, helium is about 3 cents per gram. 9 moles x 4
grams per mole = 36 grams per day, or about a dollar's worth.  I am afraid it
isn't going to help defray the costs of the project very much :-)



--
Bruce Dunn    Vancouver, Canada   Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenBruce_Dunn cudfnBruce cudlnDunn cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.09 / Mark Thorson /  Re: What did Bockris do wrong?
     
Originally-From: mmm@cup.portal.com (Mark Robert Thorson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What did Bockris do wrong?
Date: Sun,  9 Jan 94 21:03:54 PST
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

Bockris wasn't working with RED MERCURY, was he?
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenmmm cudfnMark cudlnThorson cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.09 / John Campbell /  FAQ Structuring
     
Originally-From: soup@penrij.kd3bj.ampr.org (John R. Campbell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: FAQ Structuring
Date: Sun, 9 Jan 1994 09:07:52 GMT
Organization: The Other "Woman" of the House

It seems to me that, due to the uncertainties and flaming of this group,
we will need 2 (or more) FAQs:

		a)	from a TB's point of view;
		b)	from an NFW point of view;
and, perhaps,	c)	from a BTSOOM point of view.

	TB	==	True Believer (Fanatic, Chauvinist, etc...)
	NFW	==	No F**king Way! (Fanatic-Anti, etc...)
	BTSOOM	==	Beats The Sh*t Out Of Me (Something is happening,
			but what?)

Right now, I'm in BTSOOM mode;  I'd love it if something is happening,
(either CNF or Hydrinoes) but I'm not gonna stake my life on it (after
all, I'm only a programmer).

Now we need to find knowledgable TB and NFWs that are not rabid.	:-)

-- 
 John R. Campbell				     soup%penrij@kd3bj.ampr.org
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudensoup cudfnJohn cudlnCampbell cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.10 / Dieter Britz /  Conf Procs again
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Conf Procs again
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 1994 08:19:54 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway


I haven't dropped out quite yet, there are still some loose ends to tie. One
of these is the matter of conference proceedings. Mitch Swartz, before he (and
the rest of the vocal cnf proponents) went up in a puff of smoke, was very
adamant that I should put these into the bibliography. I suggested that he do
it, but nothing has happened. So I'll do half a job of it, and need some help.
One of the things I got out of Taubes' book is a complete list of conferences
on cnf, up to the point from which these annual events started; these are not
mentioned in the book. Here is what I got; meetings in order:

1. Erice, Sicily, April 12 1989
2. American Chemical Society, Dallas, April 12 1989
3. Materials Research Society, San Diego [when??]
4. American Physical Society, Baltimore, May 1 1989
5. Electrochemical Society, Los Angeles May 8, 1989
6. Santa Fe Workshop [on cold fusion?] May 23, 1989.
7. EPRI cold fusion meeting [where?] Aug 16, 1989.
8. NSF-EPRI Workshop on "Anomalous effects in deuterated metals",
   Washington, Oct. 16, 1989.
9. First Annual National Cold Fusion Conference, Salt Lake City,
   Mar. 29, 1990.

[Now I am guessing a bit, although I happen to have the AIP Proceedings,
 kindly sent to me by Steve Jones]

10. AIP Conference Proceedings 228; Anomalous nuclear effects in deuterium/
    solid systems; Provo, Utah, 1990. Eds: S.E. Jones, F. Scaramuzzi,
    D. Worledge. Published 1991, AIP.
11. Second [?] Annual Cold Fusion Conference, Como, Italy, 1991 [??]
12. Third       "      "     "        "     , Nagoya, Japan, 1992
13. Fourth  bla bla                           Maui, Hawaii, 1993.

Can you (this means YOU) help me fill in the missing details, please, or
correct any errors? I.e. I would like the exact dates of these meetings, full
titles of the proceedings, editors, published date and publisher. When I get
all this info, I'll put it all into a new file for the archives, called
cnf-conf. This is as much as I want to do; the information will then be
sufficient for anyone to get his/her librarian to get the material for them.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.10 /  dowen@vaxc.cc. /  Ref.Dick and Chuck on Fracto-fusion ......
     
Originally-From: dowen@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Ref.Dick and Chuck on Fracto-fusion ......
Date: 10 Jan 94 18:37:08 +1100
Organization: Computer Centre, Monash University, Australia

Hi Folks, 
In article <94010710422742@dancer.nscl.msu.edu>, blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu
 writes:
> "....... 
> Chuck says that I suggested that in a facture electrons should neutralize
> the D ions and then counters with "I (Chuck) argue it should screen them.)
> I get the feeling that the words "neutralize" and "screen" are being used
> in ways that do not have clear meanings.  Let me back up a bit to try to
> explain what I had said on this question previously, and then perhaps
> Chuck could comment further.  Clearly fracto-fusion (if it occurs) involves
> a transient situation.  When a fracture occurs, as I picture it various
> atoms and electrons move to one side of the fracture or the other in a way
> which does not preserve electrical neutrality at the two resulting surfaces.
> That is to say, one surface may have a surplus of electrons and the other
> a surplus of positive ions.  Thus an electric field spans the gap as the
> fracture forms.  However various mobile charged species will move under
> the influence of that field in a relaxation process which ultimately
> reduces the field to zero in some rather short characteristic time.  There
> can be motion along the surfaces which I would expect to involve mobilities
> not too different from the bulk material prior to facture, and there may
> be some acceleration of ions or electrons across the gap.  In that case
> there must first be some sort of injection process in which the charge
> carrier breaks free from the forces that bind it to the surface and
> then accelerates in the gap, gaining energy in proportion to the field
> strength and the distance moved.
> 
> If PdD retains its bulk resistivity at the fracture the relaxations of
> fields parallel to the surface must be due to electrons primarily so
> the relaxation process that could involve deuterons must involve charges
> crossing the gap.  If, as Chuck says, the deuterons are screened I would
> think that means they don't move at all.  My view is that supposing
> I have these surfaces with electrons and deuterons ready to race across
> the gap.  Electrons should win the race!  To alter that picture you have
> to bind the electrons more tightly than the deuterons at the surface.
> Show me data for Pd or something similar where it is easier to pull
> deuterons off the surface in an electric field than electrons and you
> could get me to change my thinking (a little bit).
> ........................".

Dear Dick and Chuck,
 Dickinson et al has found photons, negative charge emission,
"radio frequency" radiation and positive ions to be *simultaneously*
emitted during the fracture of TiD samples. They have published a graph
(see ref.) showing the peaking of "negative charge" emission at about
6000 counts direcly after the fracture, but declining *slowly* to
about 200 counts *80 seconds* after the fracture. They discuss this and
other fascinating phenomena in their excellent paper.....
 "Fracto-emisssion from deuterated titanium: Supporting evidence for
a fracto-fusion mechanism." in the "J.Mater.Research,Vol 5,No.1,Jan 1990."
 If either of you would like a copy of this article and cannot obtain one
from your library, please email your fax numbers, and I will send it/them.
 In fairness to the very cautious attitude of Dickinson et al
regarding "cold fusion", I quote the following from their conclusion ......

 "Obviously, if the fracto-fusion mechanism is valid, it would not be a 
cold fusion process due to the necessary electrostatic acceleration
provided charge seperation."
					Regards to all,
					Daryl Owen.


 This text is attributable only to myself. 
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudendowen cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.10 /  dowen@vaxc.cc. /  RE: Ref.Dick and Chuck on Fracto-fusion .......
     
Originally-From: dowen@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: Ref.Dick and Chuck on Fracto-fusion .......
Date: 10 Jan 94 19:04:49 +1100
Organization: Computer Centre, Monash University, Australia

Sorry Folks,
In my last article, the last line of the last quote should not be
" ..... provided charge seperation."   but rather 
" .........provided by charge seperation.".
                                              Kind Regards to all,
                                              Daryl Owen.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudendowen cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.10 / Peter Merel /  Re: Not DD fusion in Bubble Chamber
     
Originally-From: pete@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU (Peter Alexander Merel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Not DD fusion in Bubble Chamber
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 1994 11:35:19 GMT
Organization: Information Services, Sydney University, Sydney, NSW, Australia

logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan) writes:
>Unfortunately the WAIS system at sunsite.unc.edu has not worked for at least
>two months.  I telnet to the WAIS there, but maybe remote WAIS's can get
>at the database.  boo hoo

Have you tried wais.com?

-- 
Internet: pete@extro.su.oz.au          |         Accept Everything.            |
UUCP: {uunet,mcvax}!munnari!extro!pete |         Reject Nothing.               |
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenpete cudfnPeter cudlnMerel cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.11 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Reply to Jed Rothwell
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Reply to Jed Rothwell
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 1994 01:30:20 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Jed and I appear to have attended an entirely different conference.  Jed says
"... the facts are publicly available, and have been clearly stated on the 
first day of an international physics conference in fron t of 250 people."  I
was one of those 250 of so people.  My full comments were presented here as
Maui Papers #1.  Note that my main comment was OBFUSCATION!  Fleischmann made
a few claims, such as 0.1% calorimetry accuracy, and that there were "no
oscillations", and that there results were "not limited by the Shannon limit".
There was however, no conventional scientific evidence presented to support
the claims.  No details of how the experiments were done, or where the 
oscilliscope was connected to look for the oscillations, or how an astounding
0.1% calorimetry accuracy was claimed.  They also claimed calorimetry precision
of 0.01% which I find equally astounding.  Calling us liars does not make it
true, Jed.  

Responding to a different post, I have found Jed to be a very valuable source 
of information on "cold fusion".  If there is a positive result anywhere I can
count on him to pass it on.  This is very useful as I do not have to worry 
about missing something on the positive side.  He has sent me a large variety 
of stuff at considerable expense to himself.  This is all very much 
appreciated.  I just wish Jed could hold his position without calling us liars
and cheats.  Some of us are just trying to discover the facts.  Note that I
do ***not*** cal Jed a liar even though he presents his side of the argument
rather strongly.  We are all entitled to do that without being considered 
dishonest.  

Tom Droege

cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenDROEGE cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.11 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Re: High School Experiments
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: High School Experiments
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 1994 01:30:29 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Andy Holland would never have let the Wright brothers get into their flier.  He
would have been right in there boxing the young Tom Edison's ears.  His 
attitude is what makes space stations so expensive.  

You miss my whole point Andy, young people have always done adventerous things.
They get out on the highway with their fast cars and play "chicken".  Or they
drink themselves stupid, or they try crack.  Lets face it.  Life is dangerous.
It kills us all.  We might as well try for a little glory along the way.  

Andy Holland's "play it safe" attitude is killing this country.  At the 
beginning of this century we were "pushing the envelope" to harness nature and
to bend it to make a better life for all of us.  Just compare the news photos
of the poorest nation with the pictures of the appalachians in the 30's.  The
poorest country now is richer than they were.  But we can loose all this and
be poor again!  All we have to do is to put all our efforts into saving "snail
darters" instead of saving us.  I am not advocating destroying our environment,
but I am advocating daring to control it and to risk the consequences.  We will
all be dead if we don't.

Lets hear from the high schoolers who started this.  Do you want your thrills 
from cocaine or science?  (Not a fair question, but who said life was fair?)

Tom Droege

cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenDROEGE cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.11 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Re: Maui Papers #5
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Maui Papers #5
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 1994 01:30:39 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Robert Heeter asks some good questions about the Miley result.  My review was
restrained since I want to try to work with Miley and put one of his cells in
my upcoming calorimeter (if I ever get heat pipes working).  I agree with all
the problems outlined by Bob Heeter.  It is even harder than you think.  If
the power into each calorimeter is not exactly the same, then there is no 
way to be sure of a correction.  If it is the same and both calorimeters have
the same calibration, then there is a chance.  

The big problem with the Miley experiment as I have pointed out, is the attempt
to measure heat in of order one time constant of the apparatus.  Now you have
to calibrate to a partial differential equation solution.  Seems hard to me.

Tom Droege

cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenDROEGE cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.10 / Robert Heeter /  Re: FAQ Structuring
     
Originally-From: rfheeter@theory.pppl.gov (Robert F. Heeter)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: FAQ Structuring
Date: 10 Jan 1994 09:30:20 -0500
Organization: Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory, Princeton University,
Princeton NJ 08540

In article <1994Jan9.090752.832@penrij.kd3bj.ampr.org>,
John R. Campbell <soup%penrij@kd3bj.ampr.org> wrote:
>It seems to me that, due to the uncertainties and flaming of this group,
>we will need 2 (or more) FAQs:
>
>		a)	from a TB's point of view;
>		b)	from an NFW point of view;
>and, perhaps,	c)	from a BTSOOM point of view.
>
>	TB	==	True Believer (Fanatic, Chauvinist, etc...)
>	NFW	==	No F**king Way! (Fanatic-Anti, etc...)
>	BTSOOM	==	Beats The Sh*t Out Of Me (Something is happening,
>			but what?)
>
>Right now, I'm in BTSOOM mode;  I'd love it if something is happening,
>(either CNF or Hydrinoes) but I'm not gonna stake my life on it (after
>all, I'm only a programmer).
>
>Now we need to find knowledgable TB and NFWs that are not rabid.	:-)

Uh-oh.  I thought I made it clear earlier that this FAQ was for
the HOT FUSION part of this group.  I have no intention of touching
a cold fusion FAQ - I have no expertise, and as you say above, there's
no way anyone would agree on anything.  Even within hot fusion, there
are lots of fun disagreements - but in general we all agree on
what the science is, even if the policy and machine-design choices
are not agreed on.

The project is not to create an FAQ for the whole group, but merely
to create some information resources for those who want to know
about hot (magnetic or inertial or electrostatic confinement) 
fusion.  This suggests another point for the design of the FAQ:

(10) At the VERY VERY TOP of the FAQ, there will have to be
a disclaimer explaining what the FAQ will and will not address,
and how those interested in the things the FAQ will not address
can get their questions answered.  This is *not* a cold fusion
FAQ; it's not even a complete hot fusion FAQ.  The FAQ is not
designed to comprehensively answer every known question about
hot fusion, but merely to provide some basic information to
interested people so that they can have enough background
to follow the discussions.  In general, if the hot fusion
people in this group can't agree on something, it will probably
either be left out of the FAQ, or all points of view will
be allowed to have some space.


If the cold fusion crew would like to make an FAQ, too, that's
fine.  But that's not what I've been talking about.  Just want
to make that clear!

*************
Robert F. Heeter
rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu

"Apparently I'm the only one deluded enough to think he has time for this."



cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.10 / Jose Amaral /  Looking for e-mail/Univ. Miami
     
Originally-From: nelson@sunbar.mc.duke.edu (Jose Nelson Amaral)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Looking for e-mail/Univ. Miami
Date: 10 Jan 1994 15:22:48 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas

I need to find the e-mail address of Prof. Peter McLaren at
the Physics Dept. of University of Miami.

Thanks for any help.

nelson@pine.ece.utexas.edu

cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudennelson cudfnJose cudlnAmaral cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.10 /  jbatka@desire. /  Re: High School Experiments
     
Originally-From: jbatka@desire.wright.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: High School Experiments
Date: 10 Jan 94 10:34:45 EST
Organization:  Wright State University 


My only recommendation is BE CAREFUL.  As Andy stated, profession cold
fusion researchers have been KILLED doing cold fusion research.  The
one deadly explosion I know about was not caused by fusion.  It was
caused by the nearly instantious increase in pressure produced by the
sudden out gasing of Hydrogen from a Pd cathode.  Note this is a different
setup than what you are using, but some of the safety concerns are still
the same.  Therefore, I would recommend that whether you are using a closed
system (sealed from the atmosphere) or not, please talk to Tom Droege
about safety issues and precautions.

Also remember that Hydrogen (any isotope) is extremely flammable (ever
see the Hindenburg crash or Challanger explosion?).  Therefore, you
should treat the liberated H2 with caution.  Two options here are to
run the gas over a catalyst so that it recombines in a controlled way
or vent it outside so that it recombines on its own away from you.
I recommend that you talk with Tom Droege about this also.

I remember stealing chemicals from my high school chemistry labs to conduct
experiments at home.  One time I even got 23 molar sulfuric acid in my
eyes.  I didn't suffer any damage, but that is because I KNEW
what to do when that sort of thing happen.

-- 

   Jim Batka  | Work Email:  BATKAJ@DAYTON.SAIC.COM     | Elvis is
              | Home Email:  JBATKA@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU   |   DEAD!

    64 years is 33,661,440 minutes ...
             and a minute is a LONG time!  - Beatles:  _ Yellow Submarine_
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenjbatka cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.10 / Ed Barty /  Re: Fusion for the ignorant
     
Originally-From: bart0140@mach1.wlu.ca (Ed Barty)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion for the ignorant
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 1994 15:56:29 GMT
Organization: Wilfrid Laurier University

 (quick question)
qq: What is so important about D and T? How are they related to the
    `average joe' Hydrogen?

qq: Should I be the one making the idiots guide?

In article <1994Jan9.214030.9704@Princeton.EDU> rfheeter@flagstaff.Princ
ton.EDU (Robert Franklin Heeter) writes:
>In article <CJDM0z.7By@mach1.wlu.ca> bart0140@mach1.wlu.ca (Ed Barty) writes:
>>In article <bpcCJCxsq.Fq8@netcom.com> bpc@netcom.com (Benjamin P. Carter) writes:
>>>bart0140@mach1.wlu.ca (Ed Barty) writes:
>>>>Not to be crass, but basicly, the fusion reactor takes a pile of (specific
>>>>type of) hydrogen, and squishes it together, to create helium. Right?
>>>Pressure (squishing) is only part of the story.  The other part, in
>>>most of the types of reactors that have been proposed, is heating.
>>>You need both high temperature and high pressure to get a significant
>>>amount of fusion.
>>So, what is used to create the `energy' that we are working towards? Is it
>>exess heat? How does that work?
>
>It turns out that the binding energy of a helium nucleus is less
>than that of either deuterium (D) or tritium (T), or the combination
>for that matter.  This means that if you can persuade a D and T to
>come close to each other and stick, the resulting He has less 
>nuclear binding energy, and the surplus energy gets released as
>a fast neutron and a recoiling He++ ion.  The reason why you need
>high temperature and pressure is because your T and D are both
>positively charged particles, and they repel each other at
>normal distances.  But if they are moving fast enough, and they
>collide head-on, they can get close enough for the nuclear forces
>to overcome the electrical repulsion, so that they stick together.

Oops, this confused me....

Lets see if I can figure it out..... (`oh no' is heard in fusion labs
                                              around the world....)

So, we take one D, and one T. We then throw them together at high speed,
they stick together, and make a Helium? See my next paragraph (I did it
first), on: the energy that `appears'.

Now, what's the deal with the fast Neutron, and the recoiling He++ ion?
(Gonna have to explain the ++ bit, has something to do with the charge on it?)

>It's similar to burning wood, where you have to heat the wood 
>up first, but once it's hot enough it will release the stored
>chemical energy.  In the case of the deuterium-tritium reaction,
>there isn't really any "stored" energy, except insofar as the
>D and T are not already a He of lower energy.  The energy
>you get out of the fusion reaction isn't really "excess" heat,
>since energy is conserved; the fusion reaction just allows us
>to convert a relatively un-useful sort of energy (nuclear
>binding energy) into a more useful sort of energy (heat,
>which you can use to make electricity, warm things up, drive
>chemical reactions, etc).  Fusion is sort of like fission
>in reverse.

The energy that `appears'

So, there is `binding energy' holding the D together, and `binding energy'
holding the T together, right? This amount of `binding energy' is less
than what is required to hold the resulting Helium together? So the unused
`binding energy' takes off, in the form of heat? Or the fast Neutron?

I see that the `excess energy' is the unused portion in keeping the Helium
together. The excess energy is `stored', by holding the Ds and Ts
together, seperately. This stored energy is released in the reaction.

Right?

>You can play the fusion game with any two elements which
>could be combined to form a heavier element, provided the
>heavier element is lower than iron in the periodic table.
>Iron is the most stable nucleus.  However, the closer you
>get to iron, the more energy it takes to overcome the
>electrical repulsion.  Also, the binding energies are closer
>together and less surplus energy is released in the fusion
>reaction.  

This tells me why you fine folks are using Hydrogen, and not iron.

>One interesting example of this is a large star,
>which will fuse all its hydrogen into helium and all its
>helium into higher elements, trying to generate enough
>internal heat to keep up its internal pressure and prevent
>gravitational collapse.  But once the He is burned, the
>diminishing returns of the more advanced fusion reactions
>make it less and less possible to maintain the thermodynamic
>balance, and eventually the star collapses and goes supernova.

This is another GOOD reason for using Hydrogen.

>>>>Would it be possible to crack apart the helium and re-use it? Or should we
>>>>just sell it to Circuses and Festivals to put it in balloons?
>>>If it were possible to change the helium back into hydrogen, you wouldn't
>>>want to do it, because that would take more energy than you got out of
>>>the fusion process.  It's like asking if you should change your car's
>>>exhaust back into gasoline and air.
>>Oh....What *do* we do with the helium? Are there any disposal concerns? Or
>>is the Circus idea feasable?
>Well, the helium isn't radioactive, and it should not be too difficult
>to separate it from the D and T in the exhaust, I suppose, so they
>probably *will* collect it.  But there are a lot of uses for He
>besides circuses!  I don't know if this method of making He will
>be cost-effective relative to collecting it out of natural gas
>(I think that's the primary method nowadays).

Can anybody give me a general ruling on this? Put a collector on the
system that collects some of the Helium, not all, just some. This is
stored for other uses (like Circuses, and for the technitans to make their
voice sound funny, when things get really boring.....)

Uh, what are some of the OTHER uses for the Helium? It's inert right? (I
seem to remember that much from grade 11 chemistry) BTW, I failed grade 11
chemistry, miserably. (another `oh no', or favorite `oh shit' term....)

>Anyway, I hope this was useful!

Ed nods his head franticly.

>"Fusion:  Deuterium + Tritium => Heat + Helium Balloons"
Ed got a good laugh out of this....

==============================================================================
            Wilfrid Laurier University, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
                            bart0140@mach1.wlu.ca
==============================================================================
                           And don't you forget it!

"What are we going to do tonight, Brain?"
"The same thing we do every night, Pinky. Try to take over the world."
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenbart0140 cudfnEd cudlnBarty cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.10 / Robert Eachus /  Re: Branching ratios for hot and cold fusion?
     
Originally-From: eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Branching ratios for hot and cold fusion?
Date: 10 Jan 94 10:59:16
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.

In article <1994Jan7.111348.1228@physc1.byu.edu> jonesse@physc1.byu.edu writes:

  > Actually, we have achieved at LAMPF on average 150 fusions in
  > deuterium-tritium liquid mixtures, *per muon*, releasing nearly
  > 3000 MeV per muon.

    I hadn't realized that the 150 fusions was in DT!  That certainly
puts muon-catalyzed fusion well above scientific break-even.

    What as the current estimated energy cost for a dedicated
electron-positron colliding ring tuned to produce muons?  If you throw
the energy from decaying particles back in the pot, how close are you
to technical break-even?

--

					Robert I. Eachus

with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudeneachus cudfnRobert cudlnEachus cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.10 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Re: What did Bockris do wrong?
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What did Bockris do wrong?
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 1994 15:47:00 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

Someone just had to write:

> ... RED MERCURY ...

No, I think it was PURPLE POTASSIUM...  or was it SAFFRON SULPHER?
GREEN GOLD?  TAN TERBIUM?  YELLOW YTTRIUM?  NEON NIOBIUM?
PURPLE PRAESODYMIUM?  BLUE BORON?  ORANGE OSMIUM?  MAUVE MOLYBDENUM?
ASH ACTINIUM?  PINK PLUTONIUM?...

AIEEEEEeeeee!!!!

				--Terry

cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenterry cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.10 / Robert Eachus /  Making Gold (was Re: What did Bockris do wrong?)
     
Originally-From: eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Making Gold (was Re: What did Bockris do wrong?)
Date: 10 Jan 94 11:11:00
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.

In article <2ghvqeINNgpd@daisy.pgh.wec.com> zcrah@trumpet.pgh.wec.com
(Andy Holland) writes:

   > For an exotic power reactor designed with Hg coolant, it would be
   > possible, and perhaps economical, to enrich the primary circuit
   > coolant in Hg196. The tails of the enrichment process would be used
   > in the secondary mercury vapor loop. The enriched Hg196 primary
   > loop would require extraction of the gold on line to maintain the
   > pure chemistry of the system.  Obviously, the gold could be sold at
   > a future date. The primary circuit Hg196 would be used to control
   > reactivity of the first core. This is a real benefit in nuclear
   > reactor design, not to be dismissed completely. However, most
   > reactor concepts of this type were dropped long ago, and were
   > intermediate reactors as opposed to a thermal neutron energy
   > reactors.

   EBR I (Experimental Breeder Reactor One) used mercury as a
coolant. (EBR II used molten sodium.)  Anyone want to do some FOIA
archeology to follow through on this?

--

					Robert I. Eachus

with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudeneachus cudfnRobert cudlnEachus cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.10 / James Crotinger /  Re: Fusion for the ignorant
     
Originally-From: jac@moonshine.llnl.gov (James A. Crotinger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion for the ignorant
Date: 10 Jan 94 17:26:08 GMT
Organization: Magnetic Fusion Energy - LLNL

bart0140@mach1.wlu.ca (Ed Barty) writes:
> So, we take one D, and one T. We then throw them together at high speed,
> they stick together, and make a Helium? See my next paragraph (I did it
> first), on: the energy that `appears'.

  The energy doesn't just "appear". I think the simplest way to
explain this is to remember that mass == energy (Einstein's E = mc^2).
The sum of the rest masses of a He4 nucleus + a neutron is less than
the sum of the rest masses of a deteron + a triton. The mass
difference appears as kinetic energy of the fusion products (and after
they've bounced into a few other nuclei, this energy is randomized and
can be considered "heat").  If you do an energy balance, and include
the energy tied up in the mass of the constituents, then it all
balances out.

> Now, what's the deal with the fast Neutron, and the recoiling He++ ion?
> (Gonna have to explain the ++ bit, has something to do with the charge on it?)

  Right. Hot fusion temperatures are much, much greater than electron
binding energies, so all ions are completely stripped.

> Can anybody give me a general ruling on this? Put a collector on the
> system that collects some of the Helium, not all, just some. This is
> stored for other uses (like Circuses, and for the technitans to make their
> voice sound funny, when things get really boring.....)

  As others have pointed out, the quantity of He produced by a reactor
is so small that this is just not an issue. 

  Jim

--
 ------------------------------------------------/\--------------------------
James A. Crotinger     Lawrence Livermore N'Lab // \ The above views are mine
jac@moonshine.llnl.gov P.O. Box 808;  L-630 \\ //---\  and are not neces-
(510) 422-0259         Livermore CA  94550   \\/Amiga\  sarily those of LLNL.
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenjac cudfnJames cudlnCrotinger cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.10 / Ad aspera /  Re: Making Gold (was Re: What did Bockris do wrong?)
     
Originally-From: jtchew@csa3.lbl.gov (Ad absurdum per aspera)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Making Gold (was Re: What did Bockris do wrong?)
Date: 10 Jan 1994 09:53 PST
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA

>The enriched Hg196 primary loop would require extraction of the gold 
>on line to maintain the pure chemistry of the system.  Obviously, the 
>gold could be sold at a future date. 

How much later, and at what remaining purity? And how much would you get?
A superficial look at the problem (actually, a look at the Chart of the
Nuclides) indicates that most of the versions of Au have short half-
lives (seconds, minutes, hours), but it keeps getting harder and more 
expensive to re-use or even dispose of anything that's detectably active 
above background...

--Joe
"Just another personal opinion from the People's Republic of Berkeley"
Disclaimer:  Even if my employer had a position on the subject,
I probably wouldn't be the one stating it on their behalf.
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenjtchew cudfnAd cudlnaspera cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.10 / John Cobb /  Re: Branching ratios for hot and cold fusion?
     
Originally-From: johncobb@emx.cc.utexas.edu (John W. Cobb)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Branching ratios for hot and cold fusion?
Date: 10 Jan 1994 12:03:25 -0600
Organization: The University of Texas - Austin

In article <EACHUS.94Jan10105916@spectre.mitre.org>,
Robert I. Eachus <eachus@spectre.mitre.org> wrote:
>In article <1994Jan7.111348.1228@physc1.byu.edu> jonesse@physc1.byu.edu writes:
>
>  > Actually, we have achieved at LAMPF on average 150 fusions in
>  > deuterium-tritium liquid mixtures, *per muon*, releasing nearly
>  > 3000 MeV per muon.
>
>    I hadn't realized that the 150 fusions was in DT!  That certainly
>puts muon-catalyzed fusion well above scientific break-even.
>
>    What as the current estimated energy cost for a dedicated
>electron-positron colliding ring tuned to produce muons?  If you throw
>the energy from decaying particles back in the pot, how close are you
>to technical break-even?
>
>--
>
>					Robert I. Eachus
>
>with Standard_Disclaimer;
>use  Standard_Disclaimer;
>function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...

Actually, there is even a better idea. If you create muons, apparently
you have a problem slowing them down and getting them into a colimated beam.
Actually, I'm a little fuzzy here because it has been a long while since I 
looked at  this problem. Maybe Steve Jones will comment on this thread. I am 
sure he is more aware of this idea since this is in one of his fields of 
research.

Anyway, the idea is to use the beam to create pions in a thin sheet (foil).
Then use a large magnetic field to trap the pions. Then let them decay into 
muons and use that for catalysis. The advantage is that you can better trap
the expensive pions and muons instead of letting them go all over the
place and over 4 pi steradians. (I hope I'm not mangling the idea too much).

The source I am thinking of is an article in the mid 1980's in Phys. Rev.
Lett., I believe by Rosenbluth and Tajima.

The bottom line of their paper was that they wanted to minimize the energy
cost per muon produced so that muon fusion would be more realistic.

-john .w cobb 


-- 
 --------------------------------------------------------------
John W. Cobb	My posts don't reflect the views of my employer
                Because my posts are usually opaque.
 --------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenjohncobb cudfnJohn cudlnCobb cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.10 / John Logajan /  Re: Not DD fusion in Bubble Chamber
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Not DD fusion in Bubble Chamber
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 94 18:06:58 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

pete@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU (Peter Alexander Merel) writes:
>logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan) writes:
>>Unfortunately the WAIS system at sunsite.unc.edu has not worked for at least
>>two months.
 
>Have you tried wais.com?

Just this very day, Charles Harrison has informed me that the WAIS at
sunsite.unc.edu is back in operation.  I have verified today that it is 
working.

-- 
- John Logajan MS612, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-391-1159, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.10 / John Logajan /  Re: High School Experiments
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: High School Experiments
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 94 18:14:22 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

jbatka@desire.wright.edu writes:
>The one deadly explosion I know about was not caused by fusion.  It was
>caused by the nearly instantious increase in pressure produced by the
>sudden out gasing of Hydrogen from a Pd cathode.

I seem to recall it was due to the ignition of D2 and O2 gases in the 
headspace of a pressure chamber under many atmospheres of pressure.

The moral of the story is that you don't want to allow a lot of head
space in your electrolysis cell.  Keep it topped off with water and
let the gasses vent from the cell to the outside.

-- 
- John Logajan MS612, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-391-1159, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.10 / Jim Carr /  Re: What did Bockris do wrong?
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What did Bockris do wrong?
Date: 10 Jan 1994 21:54:52 GMT
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

In article <94010313410197@dancer.nscl.msu.edu> blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu writes:
>
>                ...                                    Now if
>TAMU accepted a gift specifically to fund screwball research, I
>would think Bockris is not the only one who should be called on
>the carpet.

You got that right.  And since those administrators get paid the 
big bucks (much more than any senior distinquished prof) to do 
precisely this job, the faculty should have jumped all over 
those vice presidents.  

(Thought for the day: if those faculty think electrochemical alchemy 
is screwball research, they have not read the weekly "dissertation 
defense" list on a regular basis.  Pot and kettle if you ask me.) 

--
J. A. Carr       <jac@scri.fsu.edu>           |  "The New Frontier of which I  
Florida State University  B-186               |  speak is not a set of promises
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Tallahassee, FL  32306-4052                   |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.10 / Jim Carr /  Re: Why???
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Why???
Date: 10 Jan 1994 22:04:47 GMT
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

In article <CJ4xB5.JE8@rahul.net> jayjames@rahul.net (Jay James) writes:
>
>Maybe I'm missing something.... but *why* does it matter that Group A did
>not "acknowledge" Group B's past/present/future efforts in field XYZ, at a
>certain news conference ABC?  

You *are* missing something. 

Such acknowledgements are expected based on the ethical principles 
subscribed to by essentially all scientists.  In fact, one of 
the surest ways to anger a scientist is to not quote his or her 
prior work on a subject, even if done out of ignorance.  When 
done deliberately, it is downright disgusting. 

>I think the problem with you guys is that you got mixed up with too much
>patent law.  Stick to science guys....leave the word games and priority
>issues to the lawyers...

This has nothing to do with patent law.  Patent law only cares when 
the discovery was made, not what someone says when not under oath. 

As the old saying goes about university politics being so vicious 
because the stakes are so low, in most areas of science the issue 
of priority for an idea is the *only* thing anyone cares about. 

--
J. A. Carr       <jac@scri.fsu.edu>           |  "The New Frontier of which I  
Florida State University  B-186               |  speak is not a set of promises
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Tallahassee, FL  32306-4052                   |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.10 / Steven Sharp /  Re: Maui Papers #4
     
Originally-From: sharp@craycos.com (Steven Sharp)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Maui Papers #4
Date: 10 Jan 1994 15:10:49 -0700
Organization: Cray Computer Corporation

In article <940107124415.206061de@FNALD.FNAL.GOV> DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:
>"Electrolytic cells are shown to work like heat pumps, pumping in an infinite 
>amount of environmental heat per 1 Joule of excess energy supplied, for a 
>vanishing temperature difference between the hot and cold sources, in the 
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>reversible limit of arbitrarily low current densities."
>
>I will await an infinite environmental heat pump to heat my house.


No problem if your house is at the same temperature as the outside (see the
part of the abstract I have emphasized).  If you keep your house slightly
cooler than the outside, you don't even need an electrolytic cell :-).

This does bring up a question I have wondered about.  Have experimenters been
careful to avoid or measure thermoelectric effects that could be pumping heat
into the cells from outside, thereby getting "excess heat" as per standard
Carnot cycle efficiencies?  I would assume the Peltier effect would be the
most likely mechanism.
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudensharp cudfnSteven cudlnSharp cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.10 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Re: New magazine:  "Cold Fusion"
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: New magazine:  "Cold Fusion"
Date: 10 Jan 94 10:49:44 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

In article <CJBLBF.G92@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, crb7q@watt.seas.Virgin
a.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
> In article <1994Jan7.135613.1236@physc1.byu.edu>,
>  <jonesse@physc1.byu.edu> wrote:
>>
>>"Cold Fusion" Magazine will help ignite the industry and advance
>>your career...
> ...
>>     Your editor is ...
>>     Gene Mallove, the author of Fire From Ice, which Arthur C.
>>Clarke called, "the only gook book on the subject." 
> 
>      gook \'gu.k, 'g:uk\ n [origin unknown] (1935)
>         2  gook var of GUCK 
> 
>      guck \'gek\ n [perh. alter. of goo] (1949)
>         :oozy sloppy dirt or debris: GOO, GUNK 
> 
>      Freudian slip?
> 
>                        dale bass

No doubt.
(Actually, I asked a secretary to type up the text, which I then kermitted
over in order to post.  Of course, she may have certain opinions on the 
subject also...)

cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenjonesse cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.10 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Re: New magazine:  "Cold Fusion"
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: New magazine:  "Cold Fusion"
Date: 10 Jan 94 10:55:26 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

In article <MATT.94Jan8172206@physics2.berkeley.edu>, matt@physics2.berk
ley.edu (Matt Austern) writes:
> In article <1994Jan7.135613.1236@physc1.byu.edu> jonesse@physc1.byu.edu writes:
> 
>> The following was received in the mail recently, and is reprinted
>> here for information only (I do *not* endorse this publication).
>> --Steven Jones
> 
> Is this put out by the Larouche-ites, like Fusion Magazine?
> --
> Matthew Austern                       Never express yourself more clearly
> matt@physics.berkeley.edu             than you think.    ---N. Bohr

I don't think so:  the publisher is Wayne Green, if I remember correctly.

A while back, Terry Bollinger noted that Hideo Ikegami, John Bockris and
Guiliano Preparata were on the editorial board for the Larouche-ian magazine,
now called "21st Century Science" or something like that.  Terry:  is
Wayne Green on this board, or Eugene Mallove?

--Steve

cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenjonesse cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.10 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Re: Fusion for the ignorant
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion for the ignorant
Date: 10 Jan 94 11:06:56 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

In article <bpcCJCxsq.Fq8@netcom.com>, bpc@netcom.com (Benjamin P. Carter) writes:
> bart0140@mach1.wlu.ca (Ed Barty) writes:
> 
>>Not to be crass, but basicly, the fusion reactor takes a pile of (specific
>>type of) hydrogen, and squishes it together, to create helium. Right?
> 
> Pressure (squishing) is only part of the story.  The other part, in
> most of the types of reactors that have been proposed, is heating.
> You need both high temperature and high pressure to get a significant
> amount of fusion.
> [rest deleted]
>   Ben Carter

An important counter-example to your statement is provided by moun-catalyzed
fusion.  The highest yields observed in mu-c-f were obtained when negative
muons were injected into *liquid* deuterium-tritium mixtures at about 20K 
(see, e.g., Sci. American July 1987 article).  

Best Regards,
Steven Jones

 

cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenjonesse cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.10 /  jonesse@physc1 /  cancel <1994Jan10.121112.1248@physc1.byu.edu>
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cancel <1994Jan10.121112.1248@physc1.byu.edu>
Date: 10 Jan 94 12:37:40 -0700

cancel <1994Jan10.121112.1248@physc1.byu.edu>
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenjonesse cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.10 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Re: An imaginary person
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: An imaginary person
Date: 10 Jan 94 12:42:32 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

In article <940109160425_72240.1256_EHK52-2@CompuServe.COM>, 
72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
> To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
> 
> Thomas H. Kunich writes:
> 
>      "...you must have looked at someone that hasn't been much in evidence
>      on this conference. I've found Jed to believe practically anything. So
>      where is this water heater he told us would be here by the end of '93?"
> 
> It is a good thing these e-mail forums are in writing, rather than mere idle
> vocal chit-chat. Anyone who bothers to go back and examine the record of my
> postings will see that time after time I have *insisted* that CF is basic
> scientific research and that it is impossible to put a strict timetable on
> science. For that matter, it is impossible to put a timetable on a humble,
> prosaic software development. The success or failure of any truly ground-
> breaking, creative process can never be predicted. As my dear friend Hideo
> Ikegami says:
> 
>           "If you know you can do it, it isn't science."
> 
> I have NEVER said that CF is a sure thing, or that it will be done by a
> certain date, or that it will take a certain form. 

Really? I went back and found some interesting statements posted previously by
Jed which I will let the reader judge for himself or herself:

JR>  "I am sure that CF will be more forgiving about contamination, cooling
water blockages, and leaks than fission plants, because CF chemicals are less
toxic.  I predict that small CF systems will be closed and sealed, like
rechargeable batteries, hard disks, or laser printer cartridges, which all die
with contamination.   ... A CF engine will probably be simpler and cheaper to
make than a standard auto engine.  Also, CF cars will be cheaper, since they
will not have to invorporate expensive plastics and light alloys.   A CF
generator will be *far* easier and cheaper to make (per watt). 
... You should never pay any attention to what the majority says in matters of
business, future predictions, or breakthrough technology.  Pay attention to
people like Arthur Clarke and me  --  because we have a rare and valuable track
record of being right."  [Jed Rothwell posting in response to Dick Blue,
dated 18 January 1993.]

JR> "One conclusive experiment can and MUST overrule the entire existing
database, no matter how certain or long established it may be.  ...Okay,
a million, million previous experiments showed that E = mc^2.  So what?
Every single one of them was wrong. Period.  It does not work in metal lattices
under electrolysis, and Einstein was flat out wrong."
  (Wow, Jed. Tell me more. 
   From JR's 21 Dec. 1992 posting in response to my challenge regarding missing
   nuclear ash products, which I said must be present according to 
   delta-m = E/c^2.)

JR> "Nobody at MITI or the NHEP gives a damn about neutrons, because they
are not there.  they do not care whether CF is nuclear energy, zero point
energy, or green cheese.  They know it yields megajoules of heat from each tiny
bit of fuel, and they know the fuel is water, and that is ALL they care
about.  PERIOD."  (Jed's posting 26 January 1993)

>All I have said is that
> the signs are very good, great progress has been made, and no severe problems
> are blocking development. Compared to most fundamental R&D, CF is moving
> rapidly ahead, but only God can predict with certainty when and how it will
> turn out.
> 
> Furthermore, for all I know, Toyota might have their 10 KW unit working. I
> have no idea what the status of that project is. The results they presented
> at ICCF4 were mind-boggling enough. They showed run-on, "heat after death"
> reactions in the 100 to 200 watt range that continue for as long as two days.
> 
> I will not get involved in any stupid tit-for-tat arguments with scientific
> illiterates, but I do feel like saying this: before Kunich makes any more
> stupid personal attacks on me, he better check the record, because everyone
> who does will see that he is misrepresenting the truth. That goes double for
> Steve Jones, who wrote the most absurd, transparent lie in his last "paper"
> that I have seen from him yet. He claims that Pons and Fleischmann measure
> the power once every five minutes only, with no backup systems and no other
> instruments or data. 

No, I maintain that P&F measure_d_ only the input voltage every 5 minutes
for the data that went into their Phys. Lett. A paper.  Some will remember
that this has been thoroughly aired previously on the net.  Fleischmann is
quoted by Jed as saying:  "We read each cell (4-5 parameters per cell) once
every 5 minutes  -  but there are 64 cells and there is only one computer!
We have other ways of doing this (averaging meters), BUT FOR THE EXPERIMENTS WE
REPORTED IN PHYS. LETT. A ... READINGS WERE EVERY 300S]" 
  -- from Jed's posting 10-28-93; capitalization added for emphasis.

In my "paper", I refer to these measurements made for the P&F Phys. Lett. A
"paper" by P&F for which the readings were taken once every 5 minutes.
Based on similar experiments which we performed here to repeat the P&F
experiments, we then found that the voltage (for constant current conditions as
used also by P&F) varied rapidly, with several swings per second typically,
and with up to 60-volt spreads, as recorded by  our strip-chart recorder.
Thus, by taking measurements "every 300 s", we claim that P&F do not have
sufficient data to accurately determine the input power (integrated I*V(t) ) 
and therefore their
published claims of "excess heat" in boiling cells are far from compelling.

Not only do our experiments show that the cell resistance (V/I) varies
rapidly in a boiling cell, but this also is expected from the fact that the
contact of the electrolyte with the electrodes varies rapidly in the condition
of boiling combined with rapid D2 (and at the anode O2) bubble formation.
Therefore, the use of 5-minute sampling intervals by P&F in their published
report is sloppy and leads to unfounded claims of excess heat.  Nor did they
admit that the cell parameters were measured only once in 300 s in their
published paper, but this Fleischmann admitted when I asked about the
experiments.

So they're finally measuring input power more frequently, since this
publication, as Jed says.  Fine, this is progress.  I'll wait now to see
whether the claims of excess heat hold up when *these* data are published.
But I'll be on my toes looking for other tricks now -- for what *isn't*
said in the paper.  So far, they have *no compelling* evidence for excess heat
production, for reasons I have stated in detail here and in written papers.


> Yet, Fleischmann showed the assembled ICCF4 audience his
> oscilloscope traces and other data which was on a much finer scale than this,
> and he *specifically* pointed out that this shows Steve is wrong. Steve even
> had the chutzpa to cite the letter that I posted from Fleischmann where
> Fleischmann clearly stated that he employs other methods of recording data
> besides the one he showed in the paper. 

This is new data which we can scrutinize when it is published.  I recall from
Fleischmann's presentation that there were indeed variations in the input 
voltage as measured _since_ the Phys. Lett. A paper
as a function of time, but I could not make out the time and voltage scales --
too small.  Yes, he probably now has better methods.  But will the
data be compelling, and will his methods approach the state-of-the-art methods
used e.g. by Droege?  We must find out when the new data are published.

My criticism of the P&F paper was based on the crude methods used in that
paper, not on their more recent "improvements", whose outcome has yet to be
scrutinized when those data are published.

Incidentally, in response to a question from me, Pons stated that they had seen
boiling also with light water, and that this was due to resistive heating in
the electrolyte "of course".  Too bad this was not mentioned in their Phys.
Lett. A paper.  But the excess heat in these latest experiments,
I understand, is *not* in the boiling, but rather that in the D2O case
(only) the temperature near the cathode stays high for hours after the
electrolyte has all boiled away. (Called by Pons "life after death.") 
Isn't this what you heard at the Maui meeting, Tom or Mark or Bill?

>  Steve has no shame! He will write
> anything about anyone, in utter disregard of the truth, even when the facts
> are publicly available, and have been clearly stated on the first day of an
> international physics conference in front of 250 people. Steve and the other
> "skeptics" who post on this forum are the biggest collection of crackpot
> pathological liars I have ever seen. They are a disgrace to science.
> 
> - Jed

Slander.  Disgraceful, Jed.  I have tried to be truthful and to check the
published claims of P&F with experiments of our own here, which I have
and will report openly.  Our experiments show that the P&F claims of
excess heat via nuclear reactions are simply not compelling; the lack of
significant x-ray spectra and neutrons shows that they were wrong.

--Steven Jones


> 
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenjonesse cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.10 /  jonesse@physc1 /  cancel <1994Jan10.123617.1249@physc1.byu.edu>
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cancel <1994Jan10.123617.1249@physc1.byu.edu>
Date: 10 Jan 94 12:42:48 -0700

cancel <1994Jan10.123617.1249@physc1.byu.edu>
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenjonesse cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.11 / Edward Lewis /  More About Plasmoids and Cold Fusion
     
Originally-From: edward@uhuru.uchicago.edu (Edward Lewis)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: More About Plasmoids and Cold Fusion
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 1994 01:16:54 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago


cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenedward cudfnEdward cudlnLewis cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.10 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Response to Mallove
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Response to Mallove
Date: 10 Jan 94 12:56:03 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

Eugene Mallove recently posted [9 Jan 1993]:

"Perhaps Steve will soon also let the world know about the "case of the Missing
Scientist" at ICCF4 -- the non-show of Dr. Kevin Wolf of Texas A&M...
not a peep from him [Jones] about Wolf's serendipitous alchemy.  My, my -- how
selective Dr. Jones is about data!" 

The fact is, I *have* posted the "non-show" of Wolf at ICCF-4, in my posting
titled "Here today, gone to Maui," dated 13 Dec 1993.  You must have missed it,
Gene-- would have saved you some false and vituperative accusations to have
read it.  Furthermore, I *have* also posted discussions about alleged
transmutations producing gamma-ray signatures in the past.  I particularly
called into question claims of Pd-100 production, since this isotope is far off
the line of nuclear stability and therefore would require irradiation by
an energetic beam, of over 10 MeV.

Look, I see no reason to repeat the postings again, as if Mallove is serious
and would pay attention to scientific arguments *this time*.  Let him read
what I and Terry and Dick and others have posted about the transmutation
matter.  Frankly, I am annoyed at his and Jed's repeated and slanderous
statements.

--Steven Jones

cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenjonesse cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Tue Jan 11 04:37:06 EST 1994
------------------------------
1994.01.10 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Re: Branching ratios for hot and cold fusion?
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Branching ratios for hot and cold fusion?
Date: 10 Jan 94 14:15:47 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

I hope this posting will satisfy the questions of Craig Harmon also
(at first I thought you were Harmon Craig, the geologist!):

In article <EACHUS.94Jan10105916@spectre.mitre.org>, 
eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus) writes:
> In article <1994Jan7.111348.1228@physc1.byu.edu> jonesse@physc1.byu.edu writes:
> 
>   > Actually, we have achieved at LAMPF on average 150 fusions in
>   > deuterium-tritium liquid mixtures, *per muon*, releasing nearly
>   > 3000 MeV per muon.
> 
>     I hadn't realized that the 150 fusions was in DT!  That certainly
> puts muon-catalyzed fusion well above scientific break-even.
> 
The general definition of scientific break-even is
  q = Energy out (thermal) / Energy in (of driver alone).

That is, inefficiencies in producing the fusion-driver or of converting heat 
to electrical energy are ignored.  Following these definitions, the energy-in
is the total (mass + kinetic) energy of the muon-catalyst = 150 MeV, approx.
So 9 d-t fusions suffices to recover the energy of the fusion-driving muon.
You are right therefore.   

Of course, commercial break-even is a different matter, since all losses
and inefficiencies must be included in the evaluation; as you ask:

>     What as the current estimated energy cost for a dedicated
> electron-positron colliding ring tuned to produce muons?  If you throw
> the energy from decaying particles back in the pot, how close are you
> to technical break-even?
> 
> --
> 
> 					Robert I. Eachus
> 

Considering state-of-the-art muon generation and energy conversions,
several estimates put the muon-catalyzed fusion process just a factor of
about 15 below what is needed for *commercial* power.  It's that close.
(Refer to recent issues of the journal _Muon Catalyzed Fusion_ for details.)

Now I put it to you:  since mu-c-f has surpassed scientific breakeven
(experiments I lead at LAMPF did this in 1982-5) and since it only needs
an order of magnitude to reach *commercial* levels -- and since it is real! --
explain to me why the Japanese and EPRI and so on are pumping money into 
P&F style "cold fusion" instead of into muon-catalyzed fusion research.

Why all this craziness about test-tube fusion?  Media hype?  Wild promises?
Saving face?  Tom Passell once told me that cold fusion is his "end game."
(He will soon retire.)  This may account for some of Fleischmann's behavior,
too.  But the Japanese?
Really, I've been in the middle of it (ugh!) for some time, but I cannot
understand all the craziness.

Puzzled in Provo,
Steven Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenjonesse cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.10 /  jonesse@physc1 /  cancel <1994Jan10.141150.1254@physc1.byu.edu>
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cancel <1994Jan10.141150.1254@physc1.byu.edu>
Date: 10 Jan 94 14:16:14 -0700

cancel <1994Jan10.141150.1254@physc1.byu.edu>
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenjonesse cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.11 / Edward Lewis /  More About Plasmoids and "Cold Fusion"
     
Originally-From: edward@uhuru.uchicago.edu (Edward Lewis)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: More About Plasmoids and "Cold Fusion"
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 1994 03:30:45 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

Edward Lewis, 5719 S. Harper, Chicago, Illinois 60637
This is a repost of an article that I posted on December 4, 1993.

			More About Plasmoids

	Anomalous phenomena are produced as sets at approximately 80
year intervals, according to my theory about the history of science.
The sets have patterns, and one may identify the anomalous phenomena
as one or more fundamental phenomena.  One fundamental phenomena of
the current set is that of plasmoid phenomena as I describe in my
abstract for the ICCF4 and in several short articles.
	I use the word plasmoid to name this phenomena, though there
are many different kinds of this phenomena.  It seems to be a
universal phenomena in that all phenomena may be described as a
plasmoid phenomena.  W. Bostick produced that which he called
plasmoids by discharging through electrodes.  Several people including
Bostick and Alfven who is a Nobel prize winner in physics have led in
the development of similar theories that model the universe as
plasmoids.  It has become evident that atoms can be defined as
plasmoids, especially as according to the phenomena produced by Ken
Shoulders.  It seems that there are many different kinds of plasmoid
phenomena.  I suspect that the EVs that Ken Shoulders produced and
ball lightning are kinds of this general phenomena.
	Based on the phenomena that Matsumoto produced, the traces,
the pictures and descriptions of electrodes, the pictures of
stationary BL and corona-like phenomena, the visible BL-like phenomena
that he reports, and the sparks that he observed that left traces like
those produced during electrolysis and discharge, one may categorize
CF phenomena as tiny ball-lightning or plasmoids.  Important evidence
is the holes and trails on and in emulsions and electrodes that
Matsumoto produced by discharging and electrolysis, the holes in
electrodes that Liaw produced, the holes in electrodes that others
produced, the empty areas in electrodes that are shaped liked grains
that Matsumoto and Silver produced and the half-empty grains that
Matsumoto produced, and the holes and tunnels and trails on and in
electrodes that Silver produced.  These tunnels, holes, and trail-like
marks are similar to those that are produced by ball lightning
phenomena, though ball lightning are associated with bigger effects.
These tunnels, holes, and trail-like marks are also similar to those
produced by the EV phenomena that K. Shoulders produced.  Silver and
his co-authors who published a paper in the December issue of Fusion
Technology have reproduced the tunnels, holes, and trail-like markings
in metals that Matsumoto produced.  These tunnels, holes, and
trail-marks are evidence of the conversion and change of materials.
Important evidence that both CF phenomena and substance in general are
plasmoid phenomena is Matsumoto's experience of the production of
electricity by apparatus.  I suspect that plasmoid phenomena such as
electrodes and other materials may convert to be bigger plasmoids and
light and electricity.  EVs and ball lightning are known to convert to
light and electricity.
	I suspect that the round holes in electrodes that Matsumoto
produced and the round holes and tunnels that Silver produced are due
to the boring of BL-like phenomena, and that the grain-shaped holes
that they produced is evidence of the conversion of the grain to light
or electricity or of the production of plasmoids.  Some if not all
plasmoids are apparently able to travel through materials, even if the
plasmoids are very big.  The plasmoids that Matsumoto has produced
does this, and this is major evidence to support my deductions.
Matsumoto has also shown pictures of sectioned electrodes with what
seem to me to be trail-like tracks, as if tiny BL-like phenomena
traveled inside and left tracks.
	Many other anomalous phenomena can be described as plasmoid
phenomena.  For example, superconductivity seem to be similar to the
phenomena of ball lightning traveling though materials such as
ceramics and glass without leaving holes or visible effects, yet ball
lightning may convert to an electrical surge after touching a wire or
it may convert to a bolt of lightning.  Also, sonoluminescence seems
to be a phenomena of the water converting to light and perhaps
electricity.


cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenedward cudfnEdward cudlnLewis cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.11 / John Logajan /  Re: New magazine:  "Cold Fusion"
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: New magazine:  "Cold Fusion"
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 94 04:15:53 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

jonesse@physc1.byu.edu writes:
>A while back, Terry Bollinger noted that Hideo Ikegami, John Bockris and
>Guiliano Preparata were on the editorial board for the Larouche-ian magazine,
>now called "21st Century Science" or something like that.  Terry:  is
>Wayne Green on this board, or Eugene Mallove?

There is a fine line between an honest question and an attempt to smear.
Let's watch our interpretations of this pending *any* evidence.

-- 
- John Logajan MS612, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-391-1159, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.11 / Albert Chou /  Re: Fusion for the ignorant
     
Originally-From: albert@cloudburst.seas.ucla.edu (Albert E. Chou)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion for the ignorant
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 1994 05:55:10 GMT
Organization: School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, UCLA

In article <jac.758222768@gandalf> jac@moonshine.llnl.gov (James A. Crotinger) writes:
>  As others have pointed out, the quantity of He produced by a reactor
>is so small that this is just not an issue. 

Well, insofar as the question of what to do with any extracted helium is
concerned, yes.  But concerning what effects the helium "ash" will have on the
fusion plasma, this is a big and important issue.


Al
-- 
Internet:  albert@seas.ucla.edu
GEnie:  A.Chou1
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenalbert cudfnAlbert cudlnChou cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.11 / Benjamin Carter /  Re: Fusion for the ignorant
     
Originally-From: bpc@netcom.com (Benjamin P. Carter)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion for the ignorant
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 1994 06:06:49 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

jonesse@physc1.byu.edu replied to my statement:

>> Pressure (squishing) is only part of the story.  The other part, in
>> most of the types of reactors that have been proposed, is heating.
>> You need both high temperature and high pressure to get a significant
>> amount of fusion.

as follows:

>An important counter-example to your statement is provided by moun-catalyzed
>fusion.  The highest yields observed in mu-c-f were obtained when negative
>muons were injected into *liquid* deuterium-tritium mixtures at about 20K 
>(see, e.g., Sci. American July 1987 article).  

Steven Jones is absolutely right.  It was because of this example that
I qualified my original statement by saying "... in most of the types
of reactors ...".  Muon catalysis is unique in that the Coulomb barrier
between two hydrogen nuclei is overcome by a type of chemical binding,
and not (primarily) by heating or squeezing.
 

-- 
    Ben Carter                  internet address: bpc@netcom.com
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenbpc cudfnBenjamin cudlnCarter cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.11 /  blue@dancer.ns /  How to get 700% excess for nothing
     
Originally-From: blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: How to get 700% excess for nothing
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 1994 09:35:52 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Steve Jones's most recent comment about the false excess heat that
can result from recombination has prompted me to post a little bit
of algebra to show how large "excesses" can be generated.  You might
assume that 10% recombination rate would look like a 10% ratio of
excess heat relative to power input.  Not so!

Assume   Power In = I*(V - 1.48)   and  Power to Heat = I*[V - 1.48*(1 - R)]
          where R is the fraction of dissociated hydrogen that recombines.

The ratio of the apparent excess to the power in then becomes

      Excess Ratio   =  ( I*1.48*R )/ [I*(V - 1.48)]

                     =  R / ( V/1.48 - 1)         .

What this tells us is that the recombination fraction gets divided by
something that approaches zero as the cell overvoltage is reduced.  So
if you want to make a little recombination look like a large excess heat
run your CF cell at as low a voltage as possible - just the sort of
effect Steve described.  When I first looked into this effect I saw
that it generally did not apply to the usual D2O experiments to any
significant degree, but the H2O experiments with nickel cathodes of
large effective area are a different matter.  I don't have any good
data as to what the typical overvoltage is in those experiments, but
if anyone has that information it might be fun to see what 
recombination rates are required to explain the results.

Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU

cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenblue cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.11 / John Cobb /  Re: Branching ratios for hot and cold fusion?
     
Originally-From: johncobb@emx.cc.utexas.edu (John W. Cobb)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Branching ratios for hot and cold fusion?
Date: 11 Jan 1994 08:19:28 -0600
Organization: The University of Texas - Austin

In article <1994Jan10.141547.1255@physc1.byu.edu>,
 <jonesse@physc1.byu.edu> wrote:
...
>> In article <1994Jan7.111348.1228@physc1.byu.edu> jonesse@physc1.byu.edu writes:
>> 
>>   > Actually, we have achieved at LAMPF on average 150 fusions in
>>   > deuterium-tritium liquid mixtures, *per muon*, releasing nearly
>>   > 3000 MeV per muon.
>> 
...
>The general definition of scientific break-even is
>  q = Energy out (thermal) / Energy in (of driver alone).
>
>That is, inefficiencies in producing the fusion-driver or of converting heat 
>to electrical energy are ignored.  Following these definitions, the energy-in
>is the total (mass + kinetic) energy of the muon-catalyst = 150 MeV, approx.
>So 9 d-t fusions suffices to recover the energy of the fusion-driving muon.
>You are right therefore.   
>
>Of course, commercial break-even is a different matter, since all losses
>and inefficiencies must be included in the evaluation; as you ask:
>
...
>
>Considering state-of-the-art muon generation and energy conversions,
>several estimates put the muon-catalyzed fusion process just a factor of
>about 15 below what is needed for *commercial* power.  It's that close.
>(Refer to recent issues of the journal _Muon Catalyzed Fusion_ for details.)
>

Thanks for the order of magnitude numbers. I was not aware that the
maximum numver was now 150. That is actually pretty good progess
considering where people (or at least I) thought the absolute limits
on \mu catalysed fusion were.

>Now I put it to you:  since mu-c-f has surpassed scientific breakeven
>(experiments I lead at LAMPF did this in 1982-5) and since it only needs
>an order of magnitude to reach *commercial* levels -- and since it is real! --

... [puzzlement about EPRI/ Japanese CF interest in comparison]

>Puzzled in Provo,
>Steven Jones

I really appreciate your sharing your knowledge in this area. I would like
to ask, is it your opinion that muon catalysed fusion offers the
possibility of commercial success?

My understanding was that there are some very strong arguments that there
is an upper limit on the Q value, such as there is an absolute minimum
sticking fraction, even when you scane over all temperatures and pressures
and this sets an upper limit on the energy gain possible, even in theory.
Is this your impression also? If so, what is the "absolute upper bound" and
are their ways around it through innovative experimental design, like what was
exploited at Los Alamos ?

The reason I ask is that I am truly curious. With magnetic fusion (hot fusion)
the science has always been that if you build it bigger you will get higher
Q. There is no fundamental limit on the energy gain since ignition is Q = 
\infty. And there is no scientific barrier to ignition. It only requires 
bigger and bigger machines. The trouble with magnetic fusion is that the
level of bigness required may be so large and so unweildy (especially with
a TOKAMAK) that it may be an utter economic failure. This is in sharp
contrast to \mu fusion where iti s not so big, but you have fundamental
limits on Q.

your thoughts?

-john .w cobb

-- 
 --------------------------------------------------------------
John W. Cobb	My posts don't reflect the views of my employer
                Because my posts are usually opaque.
 --------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenjohncobb cudfnJohn cudlnCobb cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.11 / Cary Jamison /  Re: An imaginary person
     
Originally-From: cary@esl.com (Cary Jamison)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: An imaginary person
Date: 11 Jan 1994 19:33:33 GMT
Organization: ESL, Inc.  A TRW Company

Well, I guess I succeeded in getting on Jed's black list.  I wasn't going
to respond, but after seeing Jed's post in this new thread, I decided to
make some comments.

I agree with Tom Droege that Jed Rothwell is a good source for the TB's
point of view.  I just hate having to wade through all his slanderous
remarks
to get to the meat.  This thread is a perfect example.

Jed writes: <940109160425_72240.1256_EHK52-2@CompuServe.COM>
> He [Steve Jones] claims that Pons and Fleischmann measure
>the power once every five minutes only, with no backup systems and no other
>instruments or data. Yet, Fleischmann showed the assembled ICCF4 audience his
>oscilloscope traces and other data which was on a much finer scale than this,
>and he *specifically* pointed out that this shows Steve is wrong. 

Steve's response was: <1994Jan10.124232.1251@physc1.byu.edu>
>This is new data which we can scrutinize when it is published.  I recall from
>Fleischmann's presentation that there were indeed variations in the input 
>voltage as measured _since_ the Phys. Lett. A paper
>as a function of time, but I could not make out the time and voltage scales --
>too small.  Yes, he probably now has better methods.  But will the
>data be compelling, and will his methods approach the state-of-the-art methods
>used e.g. by Droege?  We must find out when the new data are published.

I read this as saying that new evidence was presented, but he didn't get a
chance to look at it close enough to comment on it.  This seems like
important
new evidence, though, and I wondered why no one else had mentioned it.  I
checked back through the articles I saved on the Maui conference and only
found one other reference to this trace:

>From: bugs@NETSYS.COM (Mark Hittinger)
>Subject: some ICCF4 Monday notes 
>Message-ID: <bugs.755723476@netsys.com>
[..]
>4. On Monday morning Dr. Fleischmann gave a short talk on calorimetry with
>emphasis on "Simplicity and Accuracy".  It looked good as this is one of
>the main problems with the current work.  If you have never heard him speak
>I'll just say he is an old world smoothie and a pleasure to listen to.  He
>began speaking of building a model of their calorimetry using linear and
>non-linear regressions.  Instead of getting specific about the model he
>tossed out some distractions such as a plot of cell temperature and voltage
                                       
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>over time.  Pointing at the graph he mentioned "chaos" and that there
>may be one or two "strange attractors" at work.  My antennas are instantly
>up and wavering around "non-linear", "linear", or "chaos"?  Meanwhile he
>tosses out another distraction, namely, that there may be a third phase in
>the D/Pd system and that the effect that they see may be tied to "crashing"
>the system through the endo/exo phases as rapidly as possible.  How many
>antennas is a guy supposed to have?  

Here this important new evidence is called a "distraction".  Steve promised
to mention positive aspects of the conference; I expected to see a bit of
the TB's point of view, but his post was a list of old friends it was good
to see again: Subject: More Maui Reflections, Message-ID:
<1993Dec15.124617.1185@physc1.byu.edu>.

Well, apparently this evidence was only interesting to Jed.  I think it
should
have been reported, though.  My point of all this is that I hope to show
that everyone is at fault, myself included.  Everybody gets different
opinions and impressions of what is happening.  It would sure be nice if we
could get all those impressions posted without reverting to personal
attacks.

Jed, and everyone, please keep posting, but please, just the facts.  Even
if your "facts" don't match someone elses, through some civilized
discussion we can all benefit.

  ********************************************************************
   EEEEE   SSS   L      Excellence                       Cary Jamison
   E      S      L       Service                         cary@esl.com
   EEEE    SSS   L        Leadership
   E          S  L
   EEEEE   SSS   LLLLL      A TRW Company
  ********************************************************************
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudencary cudfnCary cudlnJamison cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.11 / Andy Holland /  Re: Making Gold (was Re: What did Bockris do wrong?)
     
Originally-From: zcrah@trumpet.pgh.wec.com (Andy Holland)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Making Gold (was Re: What did Bockris do wrong?)
Date: 11 Jan 1994 21:58:10 GMT
Organization: Westinghouse CNFD

In article <EACHUS.94Jan10111100@spectre.mitre.org> eachus@spectre.mitre
org (Robert I. Eachus) writes:
>In article <2ghvqeINNgpd@daisy.pgh.wec.com> zcrah@trumpet.pgh.wec.com
(Andy Holland) writes:
>
>   > For an exotic power reactor designed with Hg coolant, it would be
>   > possible, and perhaps economical, to enrich the primary circuit
>   > coolant in Hg196. The tails of the enrichment process would be used
>
>   EBR I (Experimental Breeder Reactor One) used mercury as a
>coolant. (EBR II used molten sodium.)  Anyone want to do some FOIA
>archeology to follow through on this?
>

I don't know about ERB I, sounds familiar, but if you have a fast reactor,
you would want to de-enrich in the absorber if anything, since you want the 
fast neutrons to either because fission or breed fuel. Actual fuel isotopes
are more valuable than gold, over $560/oz. by a very quick estimate :-)


| Andy Holland		            |        
| Westinghouse NMD	            |  A Penny saved is a Penny.      
| zcrah@ncstate.pgh.wec.com         |         Richard Shelton Holland
| Views Expressed here are soley my |  
| own and are not representitive of |  
| Westinghouse Electric Corporation |  
| etc...                            |  
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenzcrah cudfnAndy cudlnHolland cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.11 / Andy Holland /  Re: Making Gold (was Re: What did Bockris do wrong?)
     
Originally-From: zcrah@trumpet.pgh.wec.com (Andy Holland)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Making Gold (was Re: What did Bockris do wrong?)
Date: 11 Jan 1994 22:16:28 GMT
Organization: Westinghouse CNFD

In article <10JAN199409533762@csa3.lbl.gov> jtchew@csa3.lbl.gov
(Ad absurdum per aspera) writes:
>>The enriched Hg196 primary loop would require extraction of the gold 
>>on line to maintain the pure chemistry of the system.  Obviously, the 
>>gold could be sold at a future date. 
>
>How much later, and at what remaining purity? And how much would you get?
>A superficial look at the problem (actually, a look at the Chart of the
>Nuclides) indicates that most of the versions of Au have short half-
>lives (seconds, minutes, hours), but it keeps getting harder and more 
>expensive to re-use or even dispose of anything that's detectably active 
>above background...
>
>--Joe

Don't take this thread too seriously. I kind of had my tongue in 
my cheek.

For the primary reaction of interest, the product is stable Ag197.
It has a relatively low thermal neutron cross section, hence secondary
reactions will occur at a slow rate, and you loose the higher gold 
isotopes to stable mercury on around a 3 day half life or less. For
other mercury isotopes, the reaction is quick too. The activation 
cross sections are low, and the half lives for the higher gold
isotopes are all less than 3.14 days. I believe the radioactivity
would be acceptably small in a couple of years (just guestimating).

If the abundance of Hg196 was about 100 times higher, I would 
have patented this in a heart-beat, using some solid, like HgF2 as the
medium for the absorber (In which case you would not have seen this on
the Net). Recovering the Gold would be a serious issue, and I don't 
think you'd have to wait too long. If the abundance were higher, I would 
do the calculation, but I wouldn't be able to tell you the answer (the other 
golden rule, them that has the gold makes the rules, Westinghouse in this case).

Again, the problem of idiots trying to steal the gold would be very real. As it
would be radioactive to some extent, it might even be dangerous in the near
term.

Andy Holland
Westinghouse  - Not a spokesman, obviously.



cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenzcrah cudfnAndy cudlnHolland cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.11 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Re: New magazine:  "Cold Fusion"
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: New magazine:  "Cold Fusion"
Date: 11 Jan 94 14:21:17 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

In article <1994Jan11.041553.15994@ns.network.com>, 
logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan) writes:
> jonesse@physc1.byu.edu writes:
>>A while back, Terry Bollinger noted that Hideo Ikegami, John Bockris and
>>Guiliano Preparata were on the editorial board for the Larouche-ian magazine,
>>now called "21st Century Science" or something like that.  Terry:  is
>>Wayne Green on this board, or Eugene Mallove?
> 
> There is a fine line between an honest question and an attempt to smear.
> Let's watch our interpretations of this pending *any* evidence.
> 
> --
> - John Logajan MS612, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
> - logajan@network.com, 612-391-1159, Fax 612-424-2853


Indeed.  John Logajan himself comes close to the "attempt to smear"  fine line
by not acknowledging that my question was a follow-up to the question posted
Jan. 7 by Matthew Austern when he asked 

"Is this put out by the Larouche-ites, like Fusion Magazine?"

[Reference to the new "Cold Fusion" magazine put out by Eugene Mallove,editor,
and Wayne Green, publisher.] 
We're trying to get some answers, John, and I was trying to respond to Matt
Austern.

--Steven Jones

P.S.   John, while you're at the "smear" issue, why don't you comment on
Jed's statement a few days ago:  "Steve and the other 'skeptics' who post on
this forum ar the biggest collection of crackpot pathological liars I have ever
seen.  They are a disgrace to science."

Is this not a smear?

cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenjonesse cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.11 /  jonesse@physc1 /  cancel <1994Jan11.141800.1258@physc1.byu.edu>
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cancel <1994Jan11.141800.1258@physc1.byu.edu>
Date: 11 Jan 94 14:23:33 -0700

cancel <1994Jan11.141800.1258@physc1.byu.edu>
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenjonesse cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.11 /  blue@dancer.ns /  Getting the binding energy straight
     
Originally-From: blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Getting the binding energy straight
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 1994 15:17:45 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

There seems to be some questions from the younger set relating to binding
energy that perhaps I can clear up.

For starters, let's say we have some particles that can exist either
lumped together as a group or separated into two or more subgroups that
can move sufficiently far from each other that the initial grouping is
no longer significant.  Next we determine the total energy of these
particles when they are in one lump and again when they are separated.
Of these two possible arrangements, one may have a lower total energy
than the other, and that arrangement is the one that is stable.  That
is a direct result of energy conservation wherein the system can move
from the higher energy state to the lower energy by releasing the
energy difference, but to reverse the process and move from a lower
energy to a higher total energy requires an energy input from something
outside the system.

Now I can say what a bound system of particles is.  It is a system
for which the total energy is lower when all the constituent particles
are together relative to the total energy when a piece is separated
off.  The "binding energy" is the term for the difference between
these two quantities.  It tells you how hard it is to pull the system
apart.

As long as we are talking about the magnitude of the binding energy
a large binding energy goes with a system that is hard to take apart
and a small binding energy indicates that it is easy to take the sytem
apart.  However, it is probably clearer if we define our energy scale
in an absolute sense with a  specified zero and positive and negative
levels on that scale.  Common practice is to use the point where a
system becomes unbound as zero.  Then a system is bound whenever
the energy is negative.  A lower energy, i.e. more negative, indicates
more binding.  Thus, there can be some confusion as to what is meant
by a lower energy or a lower binding energy.  I guess in common
chit-chat "binding energy" refers to the magnitude of this energy
difference so that a lower binding energy indicates a less bound
system.  You would think that we scientists would have learned how
to deal with negative numbers by now even it the IRS hasn't come up
with a consistant way of describing negatives.

Well, the thing that set me off was a discussion of the binding
energy for 4He.  That nucleus is the lowest energy configuration
of the constituents - 2 protons and 2 neutrons.  If I put a proton
and a neutron together to form a deuteron that also is a stable
bound nucleus, but its binding energy is small.  Thus by taking
two deuterons and fusing them we can move still further down
the energy scale to make 4He.  Actually the fusion process is
not complete until some energy leaves the system.  Otherwise
the fusion can be reversed and the two deuterons separate as if
they had never met.  It is the fact that something has to leave
the fusing system to carry away energy remains controversial
with regard to cold fusion.  CF believers have not been sufficiently
inventive to describe the energy transfer from the fusing system
in a way that makes good sense.

In actual fact, the requirement that something has to leave the
fusing system to carry away energy leads not to the formation of
4He with all four nucleons bound together, but rather it is to
be expected that only three nucleons bind together to form
either tritium (pnn) or 3He (ppn) and the other flies away with
most of the released energy.  Only a tiny fraction of the time
will all four nucleons bind together and, and then the energy
gets carried away by the emission of a gamma ray, i.e. electro-
magnetic radiation.

Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU

cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenblue cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.12 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  re: Maui Papers #4
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: re: Maui Papers #4
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 1994 01:13:05 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Steven Sharp looks at the Handel paper and worries that the Seebeck effect 
might be significant for "cold fusion" experiments.  This has been argued 
here before.  First, it is a small effect, just try to do it.  Second, if it 
were an effect, it would show up somehow related to current.  Those of us that
calibrate carefully do not see any current related effect.  Third, this is one
more reason for running an H2O control.  The Seebect effect should not care 
if you are using light or heavy water.

This comment led me to read the Handel abstract one more time.  He seems to 
be saying that he is talking about a limit.  Vanishingly small temperature 
difference, and vanishingly small current gives infinite heat transfer.  Just
suppose that he has worked this out and suppose that it is even true.  Then I
think the further implication is that it will take an infinite amount of time.
As always, one takes things to limits with care.  

Tom Droege

cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenDROEGE cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.12 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Re: Making Gold
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Making Gold
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 1994 01:13:05 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

--Joe says:

"How much later, and at what remaining pruity?  And how much would you get?
A superficial look at the problem (actually, a look at the Chart of the
Nuclides) indicates that most of the versions of Au have short half-
lives (seconds, minutes, hours), but it keeps getting harder and more
expensive to re-use or even dispose of anything that's detectably 
active above background."

A rough back of the envelope calculation (and a wild guess for the number of
atoms in the universe) indicates that if the entire universe were radioactive
gold with a half life of one hour, there would be not a single radioactive 
atom left after two weeks.  

I hereby offer to buy up to one ton of radioactive gold, and I will pay $10 
an once for it.  But it has to be pure radioactiv gold.  And I am no liable 
for your health bringing it to me. 

(note the above calculation does not take into account secondary effects, like
reactivation from all that radiation from all that gold decaying - bound to 
be some mess somewhere)

Tom Droege]

cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenDROEGE cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.11 / Mark Hittinger /  Re: An imaginary person
     
Originally-From: bugs@NETSYS.COM (Mark Hittinger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: An imaginary person
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 1994 07:48:34 GMT
Organization: Netsys Inc.

>> Yet, Fleischmann showed the assembled ICCF4 audience his
>> oscilloscope traces and other data which was on a much finer scale than this,
>> and he *specifically* pointed out that this shows Steve is wrong. Steve even
>> had the chutzpa to cite the letter that I posted from Fleischmann where
>> Fleischmann clearly stated that he employs other methods of recording data
>> besides the one he showed in the paper. 

>Incidentally, in response to a question from me, Pons stated that they had seen
>boiling also with light water, and that this was due to resistive heating in
>the electrolyte "of course".  Too bad this was not mentioned in their Phys.
>Lett. A paper.  But the excess heat in these latest experiments,
>I understand, is *not* in the boiling, but rather that in the D2O case
>(only) the temperature near the cathode stays high for hours after the
>electrolyte has all boiled away. (Called by Pons "life after death.") 
>Isn't this what you heard at the Maui meeting, Tom or Mark or Bill?

"Heat after death".  Dr. Pons did show a graph of a cathode cooling curve
from a D2O cell and it was obviously taken on a very fine scale.  I suspected
that team P&F do not want to give details for fear of revealing a trick.  It
is very easy to hide stuff within coarse or moving averaged data.

Also that the temperature of the cell at "shut down" is "remembered", i.e.
the cell wants to stay at that temperature and fights the cooling trend.
Several attempts to move back up in temperature and then falling more
rapidly.

That cooling curve graph still bothers me a lot.  It makes me a worried
skeptic.  Its the only "yeah but..." piece of info from ICCF4 as far as I'm
concerned.  Maybe we will find out more in Nice!  How many people want to hang
out in Monte Carlo after the sessions?
---------
Whats back with the wrong-ups?
-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Version: 2.3a

mQCNAiz4FWMAAAEEALBCb7HZS7V4gbsp9yJ7Yty49jQ9wcgRhkLjNNgdyJbrJZCq
5/sv4Ljy/4AhVhjlJyZS8L3owS8l0ClZVzWw4/kO3KN7MPz4YPPR7+qIlPQVM0yv
gWpJ43EZZ8b8cvAkE9HATCKWktY2ReRSX5DLnScDH/n5jivw+MD/UO8fURCVAAUR
tCBNYXJrIEhpdHRpbmdlciA8YnVnc0BuZXRzeXMuY29tPg==
=VbKi
-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----

cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenbugs cudfnMark cudlnHittinger cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.11 / STUART TAYLOR /  Alternative Routes to Nuclear Energy Using Neutrons
     
Originally-From: taylors@mpx2.lampf.lanl.gov (STUART F. TAYLOR (505)662-0711)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Alternative Routes to Nuclear Energy Using Neutrons
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 1994 05:01:00 GMT
Organization: LAMPF Data Analysis Center, Los Alamos, New Mexico


I summarize the Science News Jan 1 1994 p. 12 article entitled
"Accelerator route to nuclear energy":

Carlo Rubbia, director of CERN, announce an alternative scheme
to generate nuclear energy: use particle accelerators to supply
neutrons to drive fissionable reactions involving thorium-232.
Collisions between these neutrons and thorium nuclei transform
thorium 232 into U 233.  This reaction is not self-sustaining, but
could be kept going by being supplied with extra neutrons from
a proton accelerator.

Critics have questioned Rubbia's claims.  At the same time,
Charles D. Bowman of the Los Alamos Nat'l Lab and his group
have disputed the novelty of RubbiaUs scheme, and has filed a
patent on a similar accelerator based technique, which would be
used not only for generating power but also for transmuting
radioactive waste into elements safer to handle.
<end of summary>

Having attended muon catalyzed fusion conferences, I know
that John Davies of the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, UK,
has long championed the use of thorium in reactions; indeed he
and some Russians have suggested the use of a "hybrid"
fusion/fission reactor, with the extra neutrons supplied by muon
catalyzed fusion.  It appeared that many saw this as energetically
feasible, in contrast to muon catalyzed fusion alone, but not
politically feasible as mixing the beautifully "clean" (relatively
to fission) fusion with "dirty" fusion, as radioactive waste
would still be produced.

I should add to the thread on muon catalyzed fusion that the
stickler that most limits the prospect of power from muon
catalyzed fusion is that the muon remains bound to the helium
produced in the reaction; this "sticking" (std MCF jargon) appears
to be nearly fundamentally unchangeable (aside from a limited
amount of "stripping" that occurs as the helium nucleus loses its
energy), and thus the muon is lost in one of every ~300 reactions,
placing this upper limit on fusions per muon.

Jan Rafelski has had some ideas on how to remove the muon, but his enthusiasm
hasn't been wide spread in the MCF community -- the sticking just looks too
fundamental for pure fusion to succeed.  But if the fission alternative becomes
acceptable, perhaps MCF would be a more efficient source of neutrons.

Stuart Taylor, Graduate Student at Los Alamos National Lab and Brigham Young
University 
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudentaylors cudfnSTUART cudlnTAYLOR cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Wed Jan 12 04:37:04 EST 1994
------------------------------
1994.01.11 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Re: Branching ratios for hot and cold fusion?
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Branching ratios for hot and cold fusion?
Date: 11 Jan 94 15:44:40 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

John Cobb raises some insightful questions regarding muon-catalyzed fusion
to which I will respond briefly below.

In article <2guchgINN35t@emx.cc.utexas.edu>, 
johncobb@emx.cc.utexas.edu (John W. Cobb) writes:
> In article <1994Jan10.141547.1255@physc1.byu.edu>,
>  <jonesse@physc1.byu.edu> wrote:
> ...
>>> In article <1994Jan7.111348.1228@physc1.byu.edu> jonesse@physc1.byu.edu writes:
>>> 
>>>   > Actually, we have achieved at LAMPF on average 150 fusions in
>>>   > deuterium-tritium liquid mixtures, *per muon*, releasing nearly
>>>   > 3000 MeV per muon.
>>> 
> ...
>>The general definition of scientific break-even is
>>  q = Energy out (thermal) / Energy in (of driver alone).
>>
>>That is, inefficiencies in producing the fusion-driver or of converting heat 
>>to electrical energy are ignored.  Following these definitions, the energy-in
>>is the total (mass + kinetic) energy of the muon-catalyst = 150 MeV, approx.
>>So 9 d-t fusions suffices to recover the energy of the fusion-driving muon.
>>You are right therefore.   
>>
>>Of course, commercial break-even is a different matter, since all losses
>>and inefficiencies must be included in the evaluation; as you ask:
>>
> ...
>>
>>Considering state-of-the-art muon generation and energy conversions,
>>several estimates put the muon-catalyzed fusion process just a factor of
>>about 15 below what is needed for *commercial* power.  It's that close.
>>(Refer to recent issues of the journal _Muon Catalyzed Fusion_ for details.)
>>
> 
> Thanks for the order of magnitude numbers. I was not aware that the
> maximum numver was now 150. That is actually pretty good progess
> considering where people (or at least I) thought the absolute limits
> on \mu catalysed fusion were.

Yes, the number is higher than the "theoretical limit" expected a decade
ago, principally because (as our LAMPF expts. showed later confirmed by PSI,
KEK, etc.) the probability for the alpha partice following d-t fusion to
"stick" to the muon catalyst is smaller than expected.  Indeed, the smallness
of this "sticking coefficient" (about 0.4%) is _still_ not completely
understood theoretically.  That is, theory gives now a sticking of about
0.56%, still above the best experimental values in liquid d-t.

> 
>>Now I put it to you:  since mu-c-f has surpassed scientific breakeven
>>(experiments I lead at LAMPF did this in 1982-5) and since it only needs
>>an order of magnitude to reach *commercial* levels -- and since it is real! --
> 
> ... [puzzlement about EPRI/ Japanese CF interest in comparison]
> 
>>Puzzled in Provo,
>>Steven Jones
> 
> I really appreciate your sharing your knowledge in this area. I would like
> to ask, is it your opinion that muon catalysed fusion offers the
> possibility of commercial success?
> 

Thanks, John.  [Much nicer than some of the verbal attacks sometimes voiced.
We should follow John's example.]
Let's read the rest of the questions, then I'll address the issue of
commercial possibilities.

> My understanding was that there are some very strong arguments that there
> is an upper limit on the Q value, such as there is an absolute minimum
> sticking fraction, even when you scane over all temperatures and pressures
> and this sets an upper limit on the energy gain possible, even in theory.
> Is this your impression also? If so, what is the "absolute upper bound" and
> are their ways around it through innovative experimental design, like what was
> exploited at Los Alamos ?
> 
> The reason I ask is that I am truly curious. With magnetic fusion (hot fusion)
> the science has always been that if you build it bigger you will get higher
> Q. There is no fundamental limit on the energy gain since ignition is Q = 
> \infty. And there is no scientific barrier to ignition. It only requires 
> bigger and bigger machines. The trouble with magnetic fusion is that the
> level of bigness required may be so large and so unweildy (especially with
> a TOKAMAK) that it may be an utter economic failure. This is in sharp
> contrast to \mu fusion where iti s not so big, but you have fundamental
> limits on Q.
> 
> your thoughts?
> 
> -john .w cobb

You are correct that the "sticking coefficient" sets an upper bound on the
number of fusions per muon that can be achieved, i.e., 
  Maximum yield = 1/w  =  250 fusions/mu = roughly 4.4GeV/mu
where w = sticking coefficient.

A good community of researchers continues to grapple with the possibility of
achieving some use for muon-cat. fusion.  Right now, it appears that about
4-6 GeV at least would be needed to produce muons from collecting pions
(as John discussed in a previous post, and as I discussed here some months
ago).  So commercial applications for a "pure" mu-c-f device look rather
remote.  The only ways around this that I can see now are:

1.  Perhaps when the sticking fraction is better understood theoretically,
we could then understand how to reduce it.  
    Experiments planned for Dubna (I'm part of the collaboration) aim to
provide more data to guide theorists.

2.  Reducing the cost of muons by super-technologies such as colliding
triton beams.  Not easy.

3.  Using fissile materials with a mu-c-f core, perhaps as a sub-critical
reactor.  Studies by Yu. Petrov, Tajima (I think) and others suggest that such
fusion-fission hybrids would be practical now.  (But no one wants such
a beast now -- see recent posting by my colleague Stu Taylor on this also.)

Number 1 is our best hope, and adds excitement to our research (which is
_greatly_ complicated by the need for tritium coupled with severe safety
constraints.)

Some have suggested that mu-c-f could now make a high-intensity source
of 14 MeV neutrons for fusion materials tests.  (Petrov, Petitjean, myself.)

Rabi asked about the muon:  "Who ordered that?"  [If I remember him correctly.]
I would add:  "Why does muon-catalyzed fusion have to come so close to
commercial viability without reaching it?  -- Or can we boost it up?"

Stay tuned.
--Steven Jones

cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenjonesse cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.12 / John Logajan /  Re: New magazine:  "Cold Fusion"
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: New magazine:  "Cold Fusion"
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 94 03:51:51 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

Jones:
>...the editorial board for the Larouche-ian magazine... Terry:  is
>Wayne Green on this board, or Eugene Mallove?

Logajan:
> There is a fine line between an honest question and an attempt to smear.
> Let's watch our interpretations of this pending *any* evidence.

Jones:
>Indeed.  John Logajan himself comes close to the "attempt to smear"  fine line
>by not acknowledging that my question was a follow-up to the question posted
>Jan. 7 by Matthew Austern when he asked 
>
>"Is this put out by the Larouche-ites, like Fusion Magazine?"

I didn't mean to pick on you specifically, yours was just the most recent
arriving here on this thread.  My comment would apply to Matthew Austern
too, or anyone else who bandies about the name of Larouche.

My defense, by the way, was not of Eugene Mallove (who is occasionally
on this net and doesn't therefore need my defense) but of Wayne Green who
has published many fine magazines, several of which I have subscribed to in
the past.

>We're trying to get some answers, John, and I was trying to respond to Matt
>Austern.

Well, my analogy would be something like during the McCarthy era -- have 
Wayne Green and Eugene Mallove ever been or are they now members of the
Communist Party?

>P.S.   John, while you're at the "smear" issue, why don't you comment on
>Jed's statement a few days ago:  "Steve and the other 'skeptics' who post on
>this forum ar the biggest collection of crackpot pathological liars I have ever
>seen.  They are a disgrace to science."
>
>Is this not a smear?

Well, it certainly isn't flattery. :-)

If you want even handed treatment, let me say this, I don't necessarily accept
Jed's characterizations of you, and I don't necessarily accept your 
characterizations of Jed.  And I sure didn't want to jump into a cross-fire
between the two of you :-)

I think you both have great worth as scientific investigators and I think it
is a shame that there is so much bad blood on this issue.

-- 
- John Logajan MS612, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-391-1159, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Thu Jan 13 04:37:04 EST 1994
------------------------------
1994.01.13 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Re: Overselling muon catalyzed fusion
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Overselling muon catalyzed fusion
Date: 13 Jan 94 17:51:05 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

Dick, I'm not selling anything.  

In article <94011210443253@dancer.nscl.msu.edu>, 
blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu writes:
> I think we should be a bit cautious about defining "breakeven" for
> various forms of fusion in a way that then leads to states that we
> are now "only a factor of n" away from achieving breakeven.  Heck, in
> my business we have been quite close to breakeven for accelerator-induced
> fusion for perhaps 50 years.  You see you can always recover all the
> beam power as heat even if it doesn't produce much fusion.
> 

Estimates for commercial breakeven using mu-c-f suggest that it is not
possible with "pure" mu-c-f, as I have stated.  However, the energy balance is
close enough that a hybrid mu-c-fusion / fission hybrid indeed looks possible.
I'll dig up references tomorrow as I respond to James Shearer also.
 
> In the case of muon-catalyzed d + t fusion my understanding is that
> the efficiency with which muons get used multiple times is very
> sensitive to the medium in which the reaction occurs.  If the requirement
> can only be met by a cryogenic liquid there is an added burden to
> be considered.  If the reaction is d + t -> 4He + n one fifth of the
> energy release goes to the 4He recoil which is then degraded in the
> liquid to heat.  But this heat is not just a loss.  It has to be
> removed by refrigeration at a cost multiplier of something like
> 1000.  Thus for each watt of neutron power out you need perhaps
> 250 watts of refrigeration.  That, of course, is not the whole
> story, but it does illustrate my point. 
> 
> Dick Blue
> NSCL@MSU
> 

Cryogenic liquids are not required, a point James Shearer asked about also.  
But since the mu-c-f yield increases
with both d-t density and temperature (up to about 1200 K), the pressure
quickly becomes a major engineering challenge for high yields.  Most of
the design studies therefore compromise on the density in order for the 
mu-c-f part of the reactor to operate at around 700 K for reasonable
Carnot efficiency.

Look, I'm not trying to say that mu-c-f will reach commercial energy
production -- in fact I have published:  "the energy cost of producing muons
must be very substantially reduced before energy production by means of
mu-c-f could be seriously considered."  (AIP conf proc. #181, 1989.)
My point was that compared to so-called "cold fusion", mu-c-f looks much
more attractive (in particular, mu-c-f is the only verified form of fusion
without the need for high temperatures).

References tomorrow.
--Steven Jones

cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenjonesse cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.13 /  jonesse@physc1 /  cancel <1994Jan13.174838.1265@physc1.byu.edu>
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cancel <1994Jan13.174838.1265@physc1.byu.edu>
Date: 13 Jan 94 17:51:23 -0700

cancel <1994Jan13.174838.1265@physc1.byu.edu>
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenjonesse cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.15 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Maui Papers Summary
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Maui Papers Summary
Date: Sat, 15 Jan 1994 01:10:17 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Summary of the ICCF4 Maui Meeting Papers. 

Peter Hagelstein came up to me at the lunch on Thursday and said that everyone 
respected my calorimetry but my experiments were junk (more tactfully put by 
Peter).  Peter commented that he would like to get this matter settled.  Why 
not get me together with some of the more successful experimenters?  He then 
proceeded to drag me around to various groups.  In particular we talked with 
Gozzi, Ikegami, and McKubre.  Peter would have had better success getting them  
to give a home to a two week old Mackrel that had washed up on the beach.  As 
mentioned earlier, I did contact Miley and Liaw about the possibility of 
running their experiments in my new calorimeter.   

The rumor of the meeting.  Vigier was overheard saying "Have you noticed that 
there are no Germans at this meeting?"  It seems that Vigier thinks that they 
have developed a "cold fusion" bomb trigger, and all the Germans are clamped 
under some secrecy pledge.  (I notice that there were *no* Germans at ACCF1 
and only one german group at ICCF2 - unless you count the Droege brothers who 
are about as German as you can get and still be 4th generation US citizens.) 

There was a summary panel Thursday afternoon.  Storms led off with a 10 minute 
summary for which I seem to have taken no notes and have no memory.  Then came 
the following at 2 minutes each:

Gozzi           Better materials data.  Wants more and better experimental 
                results.  More discussion of experimental results.
Claytor         Nuclear papers will give a handle on the underlying situation.  
                Neutrons are very hard.  3T less so.  He time dependence is 
                critical and important.  Look for nuclear activation.  
Fleischmann     Yan Kucherov should win the best paper award for his low 
                voltage discharge work which ***P&F have replicated***.  
                However he instead nominates Dennis Cravens because "he has 
                revealed all our tricks". 
Russian?        Apparently the senior Russian.  Next thing needed is a full 
                experiment where all the particles at the input and the output 
                are measured.  He also mentioned a coincidence experiment as 
                desirable and also mentioned one of the talks (Kim?) which 
                showed cloud chamber pictures as a means of detecting 
                particles from a cathode.  
Hagelstein      Hagelstein mentioned everyone, even me!  Get me to confirm 
                some of the heat results.  See above. 
Kucherov        We are now sure of the heat.  Not sure that it is nuclear.  
                Understanding heat from at least 3 cases of 1.0 loading 
                (notes very vague here).
Kunimatsu       "(We have) passed over the mountain of loading" 
Morrison        Look at all the data, not just the positive results.  
                Scientists try to prove themselves wrong.  
Oriani          The interesting results for him were Gozzi with 4He and heat.  
                Mizuno with 10E4 power amplification.  Russ George - 
                sonication (While George is listed as an attendee, I cannot 
                find him listed with a paper, and have no memory of a talk).  
                "The Matsui result should excite us" (Only again I cannot find 
                a Matsui paper, although he is again listed as an attendee.  
                Perhaps they give private talks to Oriani!) 
Lee             Important papers were P&F - Heat After Death.  Nuclear 
                products, 4He.  My notes say "happy heat, calorimetry Zhang".  
                (I give up as to what I meant by "happy" heat!) 
Rolison         My notes say "Loading ratios challenge by M. McKubre > 0.85"
                I think this means we should test whether the 0.85 is a magic
                loading ratio heat threshold.  Materials science is 
                important.  (Said of course by a materials scientist.)  Future 
                papers should include very careful analysis of materials used.  
                Analysis, dislocations, etc..  For strategy follow the SRI 
                experiment.  
Scaramuzzi      Important experiments are heat excess in light water, gas 
                experiments.  Nuclear experiments and heat are two branches.  
                Now there are outstanding experiments, Kunimatsu and McKubre.  
                Heat excess is a reality.  He likes Preparata as a theorist 
                because he predicts a threshold loading, 4He and ?. 
Srinivasan      There are now (positive results from) 78 D2 based experiments 
                and 7 H2 based experiments.  The new "Cold Fusion Journal" is 
                a landmark.   

This is the best I can do from some rather frantic note taking.  I apologize 
if I have quoted anyone badly. 

Here are my selections for the best (and worst) presentations at this 
conference: 

Best English Language Presentation:               Miley

Best Presentation by Non Native English speaker:  Akiko Kubota (Kunimatsu 
                                                  group)

Most Thorough Scientific Presentation:            Will

Best Combined Presentation (several papers):      Kunimatsu Group

Least Information In a Presentation:              Fleischmann
(Three Papers - Three Way Tie)                    Pons
                                                  Fleischmann

The schedule calls for ICCF5 in the south of France, spring of 95.  ICCF6 is 
scheduled for China, in mid 96.  The Chinese lost the olympics but have won the 
cold fusion conference.  Will either be held?  Today I give it a much smaller 
chance than I gave for ICCF2 after ACCF1.  Say .5 for ICCF5 and .1 for ICCF6.

Here are the summary lines from my reviews, slightly repaired to make them 
consistent, and with a more uniform coding structure.  Yes now means that the 
item was looked for and found.  No means the item was looked for and not 
found.  x means the item was not measured.  ? means it was looked for and 
possibly found.  Trans is short for transmutation.  Ex Heat for excess heat.  
Neutrons Tritium 4He/3He and Gammas are also listed.  The first column is an 
author, either the first author or the one who gave the paper.  The second 
column is the paper number.  

Remember that the table below is biased in favor of calorimetry as I attended 
the calorimetry sessions to the exclusion of some nuclear sessions, and only 
lists the papers that I attended.  Only papers that measured something are 
listed.  
                                                                           
                      Ex Heat   Neutrons  Tritium   4He/3He   Trans     Gamma
Fleischmann    C 1.1  Yes        [2]        x        x         x         x
Gozzi          C 1.2  Yes        No       Yes      Yes         x         x
Kunimatsu      C 1.3  Yes         x         x        x         x         x
Bockris        C 1.4  Yes         x         x        x         x         x
McKubre        C 1.5  Yes        [1]       [1]      [1]       [1]       [1]
Bertalot       C 2.1  Yes         x         x        x         x         x
Miyamaru       C 2.2   No        No        No       No         x         x
Zhang          C 2.3  Yes         x         x        x         x         x
Okamoto        C 2.4  Yes       Yes         x        x         x         x
Aoki           C 2.5  Yes         x       Yes       No         x         x
Storms         C 2.6  Yes         x         x        x         x         x
Ota            C 2.7  Yes         x         x        x         x         x
Lipson         C 2.8  Yes       Yes         x        x         x         x
Miles          C 2.9  Yes         x         x      Yes         x         x 
Oyama          C 2.10 Yes         x         x        x         x         x
Pons           C 2.12 Yes        [2]        x        x         x         x
Miley          C 3.1  Yes         x         x        x         x         x 
Zhang          C 3.4  Yes         x         x        x         x         x 
Bush           C 3.6  Yes         x         x        x       Yes         x
Mizuno         C 3.7  Yes         x         x        x         x         x  
Srinivasan     C 3.8  Yes         x       Yes        x         x         x
Stringham      C 3.9  Yes         x         x      Yes       Yes         x
Zhang          C 3.11 Yes         x         x        x         ?         x
Cravens        C 3.12   ?         x         x        x         x         x  
Kucherov       N 1.2  Yes       Yes         x        x       Yes       Yes
Gozzi          N 1.3  Yes         x         x      Yes         x         x
Tuggle         N 1.4    x         x       Yes        x         x         x
Will           N 1.5    x         x       Yes        x         x         x
Dufour         N 1.6  Yes         x         x        x         x         x
Celani         M 1.5  Yes       Yes         x        x         x         x
Dash           M 2.1  Yes         x         x        x         x         x
Miyamoto       M 2.4   No         x         x        x         x         x
Liaw           M 2.7  Yes         x         x        x         x         x

[1] Looking, but "No Nuclear process confirmed"
[2] "Our research is on hold until that we can make absolutely sure that the 
    neutrons which we are observing are within acceptable limits"

Even considering my calorimetry bias, it is not hard to see that calorimetry 
is the place to be if you are looking for a result.  For the most part I have 
eliminated double entries cause by multiple papers from the same group.  P&F 
get two votes.  Twenty eight out of 30 groups that looked for heat found it.  

I went to this conference "loaded for bear" on calorimetry.  So I was always 
looking at the calorimetery issues as the papers were presented.  I did not 
see anything that impressed me.  No one to my mind addressed a single 
calorimetry issue.  Well, not quite.  There was the Makoto et al paper with a 
Takahashi style cell and *3* cell thermometers.  Then there was McKubre who 
said it is hard to do calorimetry and something else.  I believe that.  No one 
convinced me that they were doing good calorimetry, almost everyone put up 
something that turned on alarm bells in my head.  

There also seems to be a general trend in the older experimental groups 
towards smaller and smaller heat results.  This was noted in the Kinimatsu and 
McKubre experiments.  

No matter what a skeptic seeks, someone has found it.  The problem continues 
to be the evaluation of the experiments. 

Tom Droege

cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenDROEGE cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Sat Jan 15 04:37:05 EST 1994
------------------------------
1994.01.15 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Maui Papers #9
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Maui Papers #9
Date: Sat, 15 Jan 1994 01:10:17 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Maui9

***** M 2.1  Excess Heat Yes
          
Surface Morphology and Microcomposition of Palladium Cathodes
after Electrolysis in Acidified Light and Heavy Water
     Dash, Noble

They used a rod anode and a thin foil Palladium cathode rolled from a single 
crystal of Pd.  Electrolyte was 0.6 M H2SO4 (15%) + D2O.  Charging in this 
manner causes distortion of the cathode which becomes concave on the side 
facing the anode.  Pitting was observed with a SEM and the pits had little 
needles pointing down into the crater.  The pits appeared on the side of the 
cathode away from the anode.  Typical crater was 2000 nm dia by 500 nm deep.  
Holes appeared on the side toward the anode.  These looked like they had been 
melted and recooled.  They found patches of gold mostly on the concave side 
(toward anode) of the cathode.  They use closed cell calorimetry with a 
catalyst but just use thermometers.  My notes say this experiment was 
performed by several generations of students.  

We note that Oriani has told us that these sorts of pits and craters are to be 
expected from natural causes.  My notes say "Bad calorimetry gives bad 
results.  Cannot compare.  Really bad student experiment."  I sometimes write 
terrible things in my notes.  But they do express my feelings at the time.
Then they say in a box: [ OK, THIS ONE IS CONVERTING PLATINUM INTO GOLD.  
ANOTHER WONDERFUL REACTION!]

The calorimetry looked really bad.  In the question period, Nate Hoffman 
commented that one can get local heating of a thermometer from gas flow out of 
a pore.  A good point to be remembered by all trying to do calorimetry with 
thermometers in the cell.  Better put an isothermal surface between the cell 
and the rest of the calorimetry.  How to do it?  A heat pipe of course!

***** M 2.2 

Some Materials Aspects of the Electrochemical Insertion of
Hydrogen and Deuterium in Metals
     Huggins

Between this paper, the Lee of Savanna River paper, and the Oriani paper, one 
can begin to get an idea of what happens with D/H in Pd.  It wants to go to 
the crystal dislocations.  My notes say "Local hyperloading can by caused by 
movement of a dislocation."  So a dislocation collects a bunch of D/H, then 
for some reason the dislocation moves, and high loading is left behind in a 
"normal" section of crystal.  

But my notes also say "Hydrogen moves with dislocations - as dislocation moves 
it takes it interstitial species (with it)."  So it looks like it can go both 
ways.  I think the difference between a sudden and slowly changing situation.  

Other notes "Don't be surprised if things happen in bursts"  Long delay times 
are characteristic of time to failure for hydrogen embrittlement in steel.  
Thousands of hours."

He noted that a few micron square patch can be observed to suddenly change 
from alpha to beta phase.  Later in the question period Preparata commented 
that what was being observed was the formation of a coherent zone.

I notice that most listen carefully to Huggins, and Huggins listens carefully 
to Oriani.   

***** M 2.3 

Measurements of Hydrogen Loading Ratio of Pd Anodes Polarized in
LiH-LiCl-KCl Molten Salt Systems
     Okamoto, Nazu

This is a molten salt experiment.  Notes say LiH-LiCl-KCl 59:41.  Loading was 
measured using a gas burette, and measurement was by the evolved H2.  I do not 
understand the reaction which is nicely outlined in the abstract.  They 
achieved a D/Pd ratio of 0.06 typical at loading currents of 100-600 ma per cm 
sq.  They noted no dependence on loading current.  For cyclic voltammogram 
fans, they give several in the abstract.  Notes say "must run in a glove box - 
no oxygen".  I cannot find that excess heat was either looked for or measured.  

***** M 2.4  Excess Heat No

Movement of Li during Electrolysis of 0.1M-LiOD/D2O Solution
     Miyamoto, Sueki, Fujii, Shirakawa, Chiba, Kobayashi,
     Yanokura, Aratani, Nakahara

This group studied depth of absorption of Li in the Pd cathode.  Also the mix 
of D/H found in the surface under various conditions.  Electrolysis was at 
constant voltage using a reference electrode.  A closed cell with a catalyst 
was used.  My notes say calorimetry had 6.8% precision, but I do not know why 
I wrote precision instead of accuracy.  In any case, they do not claim any 
anomalous heat. 

They found Li down to at least 0.5 microns, and at concentrations of 6.86 E-4 
to 1.1 E -1 Li/Pd ratio.

An interesting result was a comparison of D/H ratios in the surface under 
different loading conditions.  With normal loading, the D/H ratio at the 
surface was 0.1 to 0.3.  With gas pre loading, this increased to 4/1 D/H.

***** M 2.5  

Deuterium Changing in Palladium by the Electrolysis of Heavy
Water:  Measurement of the Cell Parameter
     Cilloco, Felici, Bertalot, DeMarco, DenInno, Lebarbera,
     Scaramuzzi, Violante

My notes say "Very nice experiment to get loading.  (Very expensive)"  The 
abstract says that they used an on line X-ray spectrograph, so I guess that is 
the source of my "expensive" comment.  The samples were annealed in vacuum at 
970 C.  I think this experiment also used pulsed current.  My notes show 
charging at 20, 200 and 1000 ma per cm sq., and the note that higher currents 
gave more loading.  Loadings listed were 0.7 - 0.8.

***** M 2.6  

Sonofusion: Maximum Temperature Hot Spots
     Fukushima, Yamamoto

Not Presented

***** M 2.7  Excess Heat Yes

Charging Hydrogen into Ni in Hydride-Containing Molten Salts
     Liaw, Liebert, Ding

I will type in the abstract as it is short"

"Recent reports on excess heat production during charging hydrogen into Ni 
electrodes in carbonate aqueous solutions at near room temperature prompted 
our interest in studying this reaction at elevated temperatures.  Ni is a 
reasonably inert electrode in hydride containing molten salts such as LiH in 
LiCl-KCl eutectic.  Ni has a relatively low solubility toward hydrogen and 
lithium, although it has been reported that some Ni hydride formed under a 
high hydrogen partial pressure or electrochemically.  We studied the 
electrochemical behavior of Ni electrodes in the LiH-containing LiCl-KCl 
eutectic solutions near 400 C.  This paper will discuss the thermodynamic and 
electrochemical aspects of the Ni electrode in such an electrolyte system.  
Cyclic voltammetry is a useful tool to characterize this system.  We found a 
surface poisoning changed the the hydrogen reactions with the electrodes.  
Particularly, the hydrogen evolution reaction was suppressed to a higher 
overpotential and a limiting current situation was detected.  We will discuss 
our cyclic voltammetry results and other complementary studies.  We will also 
compare the results with those fo the light water electrolysis in terms of 
thermodynamic considerations and calorimetry."

My notes say "used 6031 alloy aluminum" (for the cell).  They claim 150% 
excess heat.  The cell "died" after three hours of operation.  This is 
another group that I want to get together with if I can get a fast "heat pipe" 
calorimeter working.  Three hours is not very much time for a conventional 
calorimeter to settle down, so it is hard to be sure of such a measurement. 

In the question period, Tom Passell (EPRI) asked extensive questions about the 
excess heat.  I think it was a surprise to him.  

***** M 2.8

Measurements of Hydrogen Loading Ratio of Pd Electrodes
Cathodically Polarized in Aqueous Solutions
     Sano, Nezu

This paper investigates loading.  Nicely done, they worried about errors and 
tried to put a limit on them.  Measured loading with mass flow meters and gas 
burettes.  Tried various alloys of Pd with Ag, Ce, and Rh.

Hard material achieved higher loading than annealed. Rh alloy increased 
loading.  D/Pd is more sensitive to material characteristics than H/Pd.  I 
think that I sell this experiment short by writing so little.  It was a nice 
experiment. 

***** M 2.9

Evidence of Agglomeration and Syneresis in Regular and Excess
Heat Cells in H2O
     Criddle

I have a lot of notes on the abstract, but mostly they seem to say a cell can 
collect crud.  This is a Mills type experiment.  While I remember that he 
claimed excess heat, I did not write it down, and I cannot figure out the 
curves in the abstract.  Sorry.  

***** M 2.10

Absorption of Hydrogen into Palladium Hydrogen Electrode-Effect
of Thiourea
     Tsuchida, Akita, Nakata, Kunimatsu

Another nice paper from this group.  See also C 1.3 and M 1.4.  Thiourea (THU) 
is found to increase loading.  THU helps for H but for D it increases loading 
relatively more.  D/Pd reached 0.94 with 0.6 mM THU.  The THU held up over a 5 
month run.  The benefit of the THU is during the desorption phase.  Curves 
were shown similar to those for Aluminum shown by McKubre.  These show that 
the advantage of THU is that less loading is lost when the current is 
decreased.  The best they could do with 21 atmospheres of high pressure gas 
loading for comparison was 0.89.  My notes say "checked on R crossing peak".  
I remember that they checked this and that once over the peak, there was no 
confusion as one does not accidentally go back to low loadings. 

***** M 2.11

The Measurments and the Control of the Loading Ratio of Deuterium
in Palladium
     Shao, Huang, Mo, Yu, Yao, Li

This is glow discharge loading of Pd wire.  Eventually they got to 0.89 
as measured by resistance and checked by weighing.  Notes say "heating pulses 
help loading".


***** M 2.12

Relativistic Band Structure Calculation of Palladium Hydride
     Waber, Perger, Schletizer

My eyes instantly glaze over when anyone mentions "relativity" as this author 
does in line 2 of the abstract.  A good place to end this effort.  

I went to this conference loaded for bear on calorimetry.  So I was always 
looking at the calorimetery issues as the papers were presented.  I did not 
see anything that impressed me.  No one to my mind addressed a single 
calorimetry issue.  Well, not quite.  There was the Makoto et al paper with a 
Takahashi style cell and *3* cell thermometers.  Then there was McKubre who 
said it is hard to do calorimetry and something else.  I believe that.  No one 
convinced me that they were doing good calorimetry, almost everyone put up 
something that turned on alarm bells in my head.  

Tom Droege

cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenDROEGE cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.15 / Umberto Cotti /  CAM 94 PHYSICS MEETING
     
Originally-From: ucotti@fis.cinvestav.mx (Umberto Cotti)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CAM 94 PHYSICS MEETING
Date: Sat, 15 Jan 1994 06:41:48 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

                                                 #####  #
                     ####     ##    #    #      #     # #    #
                    #    #   #  #   ##  ##      #     # #    #
                    #       #    #  # ## #       ###### #    #
                    #       ######  #    #            # #######  
                    #    #  #    #  #    #      #     #      #
                     ####   #    #  #    #       #####       #

                            
              #####   #    #   #   #   ####      #     ####    ####             
              #    #  #    #    # #   #          #    #    #  #
              #    #  ######     #     ####      #    #        ####
              #####   #    #     #         #     #    #            #
              #       #    #     #    #    #     #    #    #  #    #
              #       #    #     #     ####      #     ####    ####


              #    #  ######  ######   #####     #    #    #   ####
              ##  ##  #       #          #       #    ##   #  #    #
              # ## #  #####   #####      #       #    # #  #  #
              #    #  #       #          #       #    #  # #  #  ###
              #    #  #       #          #       #    #   ##  #    #
              #    #  ######  ######     #       #    #    #   ####

                              CANCUN, MEXICO

                           SEPTEMBER 26-30, 1994 
                               

The Canadian Association of Physicists (CAP), The American Physical Society 
(APS), and The Mexican Physical Society (SMF), invite all physicists and 
professionals interested in the Physical sciences to participate and present 
their works in the following areas :
 
 Applied Physics and Technology      Elementary Particle Physics
 
 Astronomy and Astrophysics          Material Science   
 
 Atomic and Molecular Physics        Mathematical Physics and Gravitation       
  
 Biophysics                          Nuclear Physics 
  
 Condensed Matter Physics            Optics
 
 Education                           Physics and Society
  
                                     Statistical Physics and Thermodynamics 
  
   
The official language of the meeting will be English.  

Contributions for the poster and library areas in English, Portuguese, 
Spanish, and French will be accepted.

For further information complete the following form
and return it to the Local Organizing Committee via fax 

+52 +5 +754-68-01 or 
+52 +5 +622-48-48

or e-mail 

cam94@fis.cinvestav.mx  or  
cam94@astroscu.unam.mx

or regular mail

CAM 94 Organizing Committee
Sociedad Mexicana de Fisica
P.O. Box 70-348
04511 Mexico, D.F.
Mexico

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

                             CAM 94 PHYSICS MEETING

                            REQUEST FOR  INFORMATION



____________________________________________________________
First Name  	Middle Initial  	Family Name


____________________________________________________________
Institution or Affiliation


____________________________________________________________
Institution Address	
	

____________________________________________________________
City		State		Postal Code   	Country	


________________________________
Telephone


________________________________
Fax Number


_________________________________________________
E-mail Address


_________________________________________________
Area of interest


____________________________________________________________
Status (Professor, Researcher, Postdoctoral, Student, Other)




^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenucotti cudfnUmberto cudlnCotti cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.14 / Robert Eachus /  Re: Overselling muon catalyzed fusion
     
Originally-From: eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Overselling muon catalyzed fusion
Date: 14 Jan 94 14:44:36
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.


   Steve said:

   ...the design studies therefore compromise on the density in order
   for the mu-c-f part of the reactor to operate at around 700 K for
   reasonable Carnot efficiency.

   Ouch! Blush!  I was thinking that I remembered 800 F, then took a
second look at the units.  I must have translated this to steam plant
units when I first saw it.  (700 K = 800.3 F ;-)

   But the reason I was posting is that most of the energy will be in
the neutrons.  Putting that energy to use either burning up rad
wastes, or producing energy by fissioning normally stable materials
looks very intriguing, and might even result in net engineering power.
Any thoughts in this direction?

--

					Robert I. Eachus

with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudeneachus cudfnRobert cudlnEachus cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.14 / N Stchedroff /  Re: High School Experiments (Spokane, WA)
     
Originally-From: zcacnst@ucl.ac.uk (Niels Stchedroff)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: High School Experiments (Spokane, WA)
Date: 14 Jan 1994 18:45:48 -0600
Organization: UCL

In article <2h29rv$hi7@telerama.lm.com>, arnoldj@telerama.lm.com (Jon Arnold) writes:
> much rather read about the Taylor Allderdice student that was killed 
			     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> while reproducing cold Nuclear Fusion in the Chem Lab (killing Miss P?) 
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

What happened? This is the first I've heard about any such accident
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenzcacnst cudfnNiels cudlnStchedroff cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.14 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Re: commercial muon fusion
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: commercial muon fusion
Date: 14 Jan 94 12:08:48 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

In article <19940112.143744.218@almaden.ibm.com>, 
jbs@watson.ibm.com writes:
>          Steve Jones posts:
>>Considering state-of-the-art muon generation and energy conversions,
>>several estimates put the muon-catalyzed fusion process just a factor of
>>about 15 below what is needed for *commercial* power.  It's that close.
>>(Refer to recent issues of the journal _Muon Catalyzed Fusion_ for details.)
> 
>          I find this difficult to believe (especially if the high rate
> is only achievable in liquid DT).  I have no access to the journal
> Muon Catalysed Fusion.  Could you explain how given a 15 fold enhance-
> ment in the fusion rate in liquid DT one could build a commercial
> reactor (or at least give exact references so I can order the articles)?
> How do you prevent the fusion energy from heating the DT stopping the
> reaction?
>                            James B. Shearer

Let's first dispose of the notion that liquid DT is needed:  it is not.
We have shown
 [S.E. Jones et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 51 (1983) 1757
  and  S.E. Jones et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 56 (1986) 588]
that the mu-c-f cycling rate and hence fusion yield increase with increasing
density and temperature (up to about 1200K) of the d-t mixture.
Liquid was simply the most convenient way to achieve high d-t density for
our experiments, but this does not imply that low temps are necessary or
even desirable.  The best target for high fusion yields would have both
high density (say 0.5 liquid-hydrogen-density or better) and high temp.
(say 700-1000K for reasonable Carnot efficiency).  Unfortunately, this
implies a thick-walled vessel.  Somewhere on this vessel we require a
window to admit muons.  Muons are penetrating, but to cut down on muon
losses and window-heating difficulties, the window needs to be thin.
These and other engineering considerations applied to a hypothetical mu-c-f
reactor are explored in:
 S.E. Jones, Fusion Technology 8 (July 1985) 1511.

Now for energy considerations:  a mu-c-f reactor would be driven by a
beam of muons, rather than ignited like a thermonuclear reactor could be.
This has advantages of control and safety(e.g., no thermal runaway problem)
with disadvantages as well.  The primary disadvantage with respect to energy
production is that power must be recycled in the reactor system to drive
the reactor.  This leads to a need for roughly a factor of five for the
output power relative to the accelerator power.  You
may argue this number, it's what I recall and I think I could find the
justification if you pushed me to take the time.

So now we need, in our overview of the energy balance for mu-c-f, to
know how much energy out we can get with mu-c-f and how much energy is
needed to produce the muon-drivers.  Power for other systems in the "reactor"
are nominal compared with that required to produce muons.

Energy out is straightforward:  we have achieved 
150 fusions/muon X 17.6 MeV/d-t fusion = 2.6 GeV per muon (average),
not even counting for the energy gain of using neutrons to produce tritium,
which boosts the energy out to about 21 MeV/fusion.  Of course, this was 
done in liquid d-t for experimental reasons as published in PRL 1986.  However,
again we can achieve these conditions with a target at 800K, but with
some engineering challenges.  So here I will use 
2.6 GeV/mu (thermal) energy out from mu-c-f.

How much energy is needed to produce mu- is a bit stickier, and there is still
room on this point for creativity.  In the Fus. Tech. article cited above, I
summarize mu- production 'costs' in MeV/mu- in Table 1.  The numbers range
from 1700 MeV/mu- (G. Chapline,  in Proc. Mu-c-f workshop, 1984,
S.E. Jones editor, not published)  for colliding tritons, to
about 8000 MeV/mu- for fixed (Li or Be) targets 
[H. Takahashi et al.  Atomkernenergie/Kerntechnik 36 (1980) 195]  and
[Yu. Petrov and Tu. Shabelski, Sov. J. Nucle. Phys. 30 (1979) 66] and
[Yu. Petrov, Nature 285 (1980) 466 and Muon Cat. Fusion 3 (1988) 525].
Let's be reasonably conservative and take 8 GeV/mu-.

I would like to show that recent reviewers of mu-c-f agree with these numbers.
James S. Cohen in Los Alamos pre-print LA-UR-93-0052, pub'ed in chapter 2 of
Rev. of Fundamental Processes and Applications of Atoms and Ions, D.D. Lin ed.,
World Scientific, 1993) -- highly recommended for mu-c-f information -- states:

"The estimated cost of producing a muon is approx. 8 GeV [ref. to Petrov, 
given above]
(this is perhaps the most uncertain factor).  The energy yield of 17.6 MeV per
d-t fusion then implies breakeven at ~450 fusion per muon.  This is about three
times the current yield, which is near the maximum permitted by the accepted
model.  This equation apparently rules out a pure fusion reactor, though it is
interesting to note that a yield of 150 fusions is already 25 times the
rest-mass energy of the muon."

So we miss by a factor of about 3 to get "breakeven", and I have argued for
another factor of 5 to reach commercial reality.  Hence the factor of _roughly_
15 I have posted.  Note the sense of "close but no cigar" in Cohen's review,
and Petrov's as you read it.

I recommend also W.H. Breunlich et al. in Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 39 (1989)
311-356, who also use 150 fusions/mu out and 8 GeV/mu in as part of their
discussion of energy balance:
"Yields of up to 125 [PSI] or even 150 [LAMPF] fusions per muon 
have been reported; thus about 2.5 GeV of energy are released.  However,
according to present estimates, at least 8 GeV of beam energy are needed to
produce a usable mu- with an accelerator;  hence, direct energy production
would appear to be excluded without a significant breakthrough.
A hybrid system devised by Petrov [cited above], which is claimed to be more
efficient than competing breeding schemes, combines electronuclear breeding
with a mu-c-f 'reactor' to produce fuel for conventional fission reactors.
Externally applied fields to enhance the molecular formation rate and reaction
and even mu-c-f in dense plasmas [ Menshikov and Ponomarev, JETP Lett. 46
(1987) 312] are also being explored theoretically.  Finally we mention that
instead of energy production, dt mu-c-f might possibly find application as an
intense source of 14-MeV neutrons."

In Muon-Cat. Fusion 5/6 (1990/91) 335, H. Daniel argues that with 13
"reactivations" of the muon (i.e., stripping mu- captured by alpha from the
d-t reaction)  "an economical energy-producing 'pure' mu-c-f reactor may be
possible, i.e. a reactor that does not rely on breeding to yield a positive
energy balance."   There's that factor of about 15 again.                        

I wish I had more time to discuss all this; you'll have to read some of these
refs, however, to get details.  One more:  S.E. Jones, Nature 321 (1986) 213.
 
All of this should perhaps be revisited in light of Carlo Rubbia's promotion
of an accelerator-driven reactor, since mu-c-f could enhance the viability
of such schemes in principle.

--Steven Jones


cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenjonesse cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.15 / Karl Kluge /  Re: Maui Papers #8
     
Originally-From: kckluge@glasnost.eecs.umich.edu (Karl Kluge)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Maui Papers #8
Date: 15 Jan 1994 03:14:44 GMT
Organization: University of Michigan EECS Dept., Ann Arbor, MI

In article <940113124232.20a01898@FNALD.FNAL.GOV> DROEGE@FNALD.FNAL.GOV writes:

   From: DROEGE@FNALD.FNAL.GOV
   Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
   Date: 13 Jan 1994 12:42:38 -0600

   Slowly I come down the home stretch.  I attended the theory plenary session 
   but got very little out of it.  The only alternative was to go lay on the 
   beach.  

Uhhhh...Tom, the way you phrase that implies a sad inversion of your values.
Or am I implicit-:-)-challenged? If the talks stank, hit the beach, dude.

cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenkckluge cudfnKarl cudlnKluge cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.15 / Gary Steckly /  Re: What did Bockris do wrong?
     
Originally-From: gsteckly@dgim.doc.ca (Gary Steckly)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What did Bockris do wrong?
Date: Sat, 15 Jan 94 02:29:21 GMT
Organization: Communications Canada

Mark Robert Thorson (mmm@cup.portal.com) wrote:
: Bockris wasn't working with RED MERCURY, was he?

I personally don't find the stories about this red mercury all that
strange.  I've had a thermometer with a red liquid in it for years, but up
here in Ottawa, with the temperature dipping to -40 at times (c or F, take
your pick) I assumed it was a special additive to keep the mercury from
freezing ;-)

(Didn't that "red" murcury originate in the Soviet block?  Maybe it was
just a political pun) 

regards

Gary
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudengsteckly cudfnGary cudlnSteckly cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.15 / Cary Jamison /  Re: High School Experiments (Spokane, WA)
     
Originally-From: cary@esl.com (Cary Jamison)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: High School Experiments (Spokane, WA)
Date: 15 Jan 1994 03:31:07 GMT
Organization: ESL, Inc.  A TRW Company

In article <1994Jan14.110856.112125@ucl.ac.uk>, zcacnst@ucl.ac.uk (Niels
Stchedroff) wrote:
> 
> In article <2h29rv$hi7@telerama.lm.com>, arnoldj@telerama.lm.com (Jon Arnold) writes:
> > much rather read about the Taylor Allderdice student that was killed 
> 			     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > while reproducing cold Nuclear Fusion in the Chem Lab (killing Miss P?) 
>   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> What happened? This is the first I've heard about any such accident

Don't worry, it's not the first time that something was reported in this
group that never actually happend :-)

He's just trying to make a point, don't take it literally.

  ********************************************************************
   EEEEE   SSS   L      Excellence                       Cary Jamison
   E      S      L       Service                         cary@esl.com
   EEEE    SSS   L        Leadership
   E          S  L
   EEEEE   SSS   LLLLL      A TRW Company
  ********************************************************************
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudencary cudfnCary cudlnJamison cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.15 /  dowen@vaxc.cc. /  Breakthrough with new phenomenon ?.....
     
Originally-From: dowen@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Breakthrough with new phenomenon ?.....
Date: 15 Jan 94 19:34:54 +1100
Organization: Computer Centre, Monash University, Australia

Hi Folks,
The following snippet of news I saw on page 16, Vol 1907, 8 Jan 1994 of
the "New Scientist", under the heading of........
 "Ancient experiment turns heat up on cold fusion."
Apparently 30 years ago, Otto Reifenschweiler, a scientist in the employ
of the electronics company Philips, searched for a compound to protect
GM tubes from damage when they are first ionised. He was successfull in
finding a mixture of titanium and tritium. He also discovered that when
the mixture was heated from 115 to 160 degrees Centigrade, its emission
of beta particles fell by 28 percent.
 Hendrik Casimir the then research director at Philips is, according to
the "New Scientist", going to to publish the results with Reifenschweiler
in the 3 Jan.1994 issue of "Physics Letters A".               

 This sounds incredible, but from an ex-director of the Philips' labs ????

					Kind Regards to all,
					Daryl Owen.

This text is only attributable to myself.


cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudendowen cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Sun Jan 16 04:37:04 EST 1994
------------------------------
1994.01.14 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Re: Not a smear/Set a spell, Jed
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Not a smear/Set a spell, Jed
Date: 14 Jan 94 14:26:30 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

Jed, you ol' rascal, nippin' at my heels like a hungry coyote.  What's eatin'
ya, Jed?
Why don't we set a spell around this here campfire and see if we cain't come to
some understanding.  Sure beats fightin'!

In article <940112151624_72240.1256_EHK53-1@CompuServe.COM>, 
72240.1256@CompuServe.COM (Jed Rothwell) writes:
> To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
> 
> Steve Jones asks:
> 
>      "...while you're at the "smear" issue, why don't you comment on Jed's
>      statement a few days ago:  "Steve and the other 'skeptics' who post on
>      this forum ar the biggest collection of crackpot pathological liars I
>      have ever seen.  They are a disgrace to science."
> 
> My statement is not a smear. A "smear" is an attempt to destroy a reputation
> by spreading false rumors, or by vilification, or guilt by association. If I
> said that Jones is a communist La Ruchite who has sex with animals, that would
> be a smear, because it is not true as far as I know. I am saying that Steve
> Jones, Douglas Morrison, and Gary Taubes are lying, scheming jackasses who
> have disgraced and betrayed science. 

Them's fightin' words... but I'll hear ya out.  Don't think yonder jackass 
would like what you're sayin' neither.

> I show the reasons why: Jones does things
> like stealing the first half of my statement for his so-called "paper." He
> leaves out the second half, he gives his readers the false impression that
> Pons and Fleischmann measure only every five minutes. By selectively quoting,
> by stripping out key details, he deliberately gives a false impression. If he
> was to say:
> 
>      "They also measure with recording oscilloscopes, and they showed this
>      data at ICCF4, but they did not include it in the paper..."
> 
> ...that would be acceptable, but he doesn't do that. He throws away facts, he
> re-arranges the text, he quotes only the parts that he finds convenient to
> "prove" his ideas.

Well, Jed, we've already been over this before  -- didn't y'all read my post
[Re: An Imaginary Person, dated 10 Jan 1994] ?  Ya know, I think the difference
lies in grammar, past tense versus present tense.  'Learned something in
school!  As I understand it, for their work in the Nagoya Proc. and in Phys.
Lett A. 1993, gooood ol' P&F just measured every 5 minutes -- now here's the
'xact quote from Mr. Fleischmann hisself, posted by you, Jed, away back in
October of '93 when we first aired this matter:

"But for the experiments we reported in Phys. Lett. A... readings were every
300s]" -- Fleischmann quoted by Jed 10-28-93 posting

Now I know these dudes since then use their 'scilloscope to do a bit better.
But confound it Jed, I was talking about their method in that ol' paper there!

Now I ain't so sure their sillyscope method is the best neither.  Good ol'
Tom Droege, an expert if I ever seen one, said this [11 Jan 1994, Reply to
Jed Rothwell]:

"Jed and I appear to have attended an entirely different conference. ...
My full comments were presented here as Maui Papers # 1.  Note that my main
comment was   OBFUSCATION!  Fleischmann made a few claims... there was,
however, no conventional scientific evidence presented to support the claims.  
No details of how the experiments were done, or where the oscilliscope was
connected to look for the oscillations, or how an astounding 0.1% accuracy
was claimed.   ... Calling us liars does not make it true, Jed." -- Tom Droege

Yup, he said it Jed.  You can look it up right here.  And should, too.
Now I reckon I should add some words along these lines to my little ol' paper
you're gripin' about, just to bring things up to date.  How's that?
> 
> Another example: he natters on and on about the light water experiments and
> recombination, without ever mentioning the fact that many people use closed
> cells with recombiners, and that many others observe more heat energy out than
> total electric energy in (I*V). Recombination is ruled out, it cannot be a 
> factor. You will never hear that from Steve Jones, even though I and others
> have told him about it dozens of times. The Jones/Taubes method of selective
> reporting and leaving out key facts is tantamount to lying. Actually, it is
> worse. Taubes and Jones are blood brothers -- they deserve one another!
> 

Now hold on there, Jed.  A day before I seen your fightin' words above, 
I had already   [see "Re:  How to get 700% excess for nothing", 12 Jan 94]
posted 'xactly that information about Mills' claims of exceeding I*V --
ain't that interestin'!  Yup, I did it, then you turn around and say
"You will never hear that from Steve Jones."  Missed that one by a mile,
my friend.  Why, we even wrote this up in our paper on the subject 'way back in
October of '93.

Say, that "Jones/Taubes" business you're talking about, "Taubes and Jones
are blood brothers" -- ain't that "guilt by association" you was just a minute
ago saying would be a smear?  Hmmmmmm...  Nope, I ain't in no fightin' mood,
lucky for you.  
You might want to try this here flapjack, Jed, might settle
your stomach a tad.  

> If you want an example of an old fashioned out-and-out falsehood from Jones,
> see the Miles letter (6/9/93):
> 
>      "Professor Steven E. Jones of Brigham Young University has been
>      aggressively attacking my scientific publications involving the
>      Fleischmann-Pons effect (cold fusion) for almost two years and has
>      recently accused me of rejecting heat/helium data points and fudging my
>      results... 
> 
>      Professor Jones has recently made false allegations regarding my work by
>      his statements of "rejected data points", "shifts the window", "fudging
>      or worse", etc. (see reference 2). Although Professor Jones tries to use
>      some unknown author for several negative statements, the implications
>      regarding my experiments are very clear. These damaging statements by
>      Professor Jones are outright lies since there are absolutely no rejected
>      helium measurements in my recent publication (reference 3)..."

Guess I'll have to call old Mel over by the 'fire, too.  I keep on askin', and
he keeps on not answerin'.  Right frustratin'.  Now some of the folks here
tonight may not have waded through this before, and I should ask 'em to go back
to my postings of last spring.  To save 'em some time, I'll point out several
unanswered concerns I raised to Mel Miles:

1. "I ask again for the *first twelve days* of data from the cell which on Oct.
21, 1990 produced the maximum xs heat (27%) claimed by Miles et al. in their
open calorimetric system."  (Jones 19 May 1993 posting to Miles)
 
Ain't heard a word on this yet, Jed...

2.  "Do the GM [Geiger-Mueller] detector readings (may we see them?) correlate
with xs heat?"  [Jones 8 July 1993 posting to Miles]
Ditto.

3.  "There are *ten runs* reported in Table 1 of this 1993 paper [Miles et al.]
bbut only *nine* are discussed in the conclusions... Run 12/17/90-B shows more
heat than three of the runs used in the argument, but *no* helium-4.  Hence,
these data may alter and should be included in the conclusions. ...
I maintain that the uncertainty associated with these data must be included in
the calculation of the statistical significance of the alleged one-to-one
correspondance between heat and helium-4 production.  This was not done.  It is
not enought to simply report all the data, one must include *all* the data in
statistical arguments and conclusions.  This is my concern about evident (to
me) "rejected data."  Also, the observation of helium-4 in several of the
nitrogen-filled control flasks should be brought in."
  [Jones post to Miles June 18, 1993, re-posted 8 July 1993]

No response.  And same ol' story of won-er-ful statistical significance from
ol' Mel in Maui.  Right frustratin'.

> 
> 
> Cary Jamison suggests that I should have a "civilized" discussion with Jones,
> Taubes, Britz and the other hard line "skeptics." That's absurd! You cannot
> have a civilized dialog with people who are trying to destroy you by spreading
> vicious rumors and lies. Britz goes around telling people that I engineered a
> deliberate hoax at the Nagoya conference! Morrison says that all CF results
> are fake, and he parades his neo-Nazi Aryan Science Numerology charts to prove
> it. I will not have any "discussions" with such disreputable, contemptible
> idiots, liars and loony-toons. That would be like going to Central Park and
> getting into a fist fight with a gang of winos and whores. These people are at
> war with us, and they are losing. This will only end when they are laughed at,
> scorned and disgraced for life. They have gone too far, too often. No
> reconciliation is possible.
> 
> - Jed
> 
Too bad, Jed.  Hoped the fire might warm your heart a tad, maybe open your
eyes to a few things.  Don't like yer sayin' that good men like Britz and 
Morrison are "trying to destroy you by spreading vicious rumors and lies."  
These are good scientists, Jed.  Darn sight better than you, dude, I gotta say. 
Just who is being vicious, Jed?  Your words are chokin' ya, friend.  
Settle down and maybe we'll chat again
sometime.  G'night now, and watch out for them cow pies.

--Steve
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenjonesse cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.14 /  jonesse@physc1 /  cancel <1994Jan14.140516.1270@physc1.byu.edu>
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cancel <1994Jan14.140516.1270@physc1.byu.edu>
Date: 14 Jan 94 14:27:19 -0700

cancel <1994Jan14.140516.1270@physc1.byu.edu>
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenjonesse cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.15 / J Interguru /  A request
     
Originally-From: jdavidson@clark.net (Joseph Davidson - Interguru)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: A request
Date: 15 Jan 1994 21:30:56 GMT
Organization: Clark Internet Services, Inc., Ellicott City, MD USA

Does anyone have any Mathematica scripts dealing with force-free plasmoid 
magnetic configurations, such as a Spheromak?  I want to model these 
plasmoids.

--
 ----------------------------------------------------
Joseph Davidson     
1501 Dublin Drive, Silver Spring, Md. 20902  
voice 301 593 4152 ; fax 301 593 4152 (call first)           
j.davidson@ieee.org   
 ----------------------------------------------------

cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenjdavidson cudfnJoseph cudlnInterguru cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.15 / John Logajan /  Re: Breakthrough with new phenomenon ?.....
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Breakthrough with new phenomenon ?.....
Date: Sat, 15 Jan 94 22:01:41 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

dowen@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au writes:
> 30 years ago, Otto Reifenschweiler ... discovered that when the mixture
> [titanium and tritium] was heated from 115 to 160 degrees Centigrade, its 
> emission of beta particles fell by 28 percent.

I was thinking that perhaps the tritium either moves deeper into the titanium
or moves out of the near surface layer into the surrounding air and is
convected away.  Since beta particles (electrons) won't travel far through
the titanium, either case would tend to reduce the apparent external
emission rate without really changing the tritium decay mode.

-- 
- John Logajan MS612, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-391-1159, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.16 /  dowen@vaxc.cc. /  Re: Breakthrough with new phenomenon ?.....
     
Originally-From: dowen@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Breakthrough with new phenomenon ?.....
Date: 16 Jan 94 10:30:43 +1100
Organization: Computer Centre, Monash University, Australia

In article <1994Jan15.220141.20032@ns.network.com>, logajan@ns.network.com 
(John Logajan) writes:

> dowen@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au writes:
>> 30 years ago, Otto Reifenschweiler ... discovered that when the mixture
>> [titanium and tritium] was heated from 115 to 160 degrees Centigrade, its 
>> emission of beta particles fell by 28 percent.
> 
> I was thinking that perhaps the tritium either moves deeper into the titanium
> or moves out of the near surface layer into the surrounding air and is
> convected away.  Since beta particles (electrons) won't travel far through
> the titanium, either case would tend to reduce the apparent external
> emission rate without really changing the tritium decay mode.
> 

Thanks for the post John.
 In reply, I would think that normally the distribution of tritium in the Ti
should remain the same throughout the sample even if some tritium is lost in
the heating process. So there would have to have been a net loss of 28 percent
of the tritium from the Ti. One would think that this loss of tritium surely
would have been noticed.
 If however the heating resulted in stress of the Ti then the Gorsky effect
could be responsible for unequal loading. It is therefore possible that some
of the tritium may have moved from the side of the sample facing the detector,
to the opposite side and the increased beta emission from that side would
have been shielded by the bulk of the Ti sample.
 There is sure to be replication of the experiment and it is to be hoped
that the above conjectures will be taken into consideration, indeed they may
have been addressed in the original experiment. I can't wait to get my hands
on the original paper in the 3 Jan 1994 issue of the "Physics Letters A."

						Best Regards to all,
						Daryl Owen.

  This text is only attributable to myself.



cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudendowen cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Mon Jan 17 04:37:03 EST 1994
------------------------------
1994.01.16 / Jon Arnold /  Re: High School Experiments (Spokane, WA)
     
Originally-From: arnoldj@telerama.lm.com (Jon Arnold)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: High School Experiments (Spokane, WA)
Date: 16 Jan 1994 12:09:12 -0500
Organization: Telerama Public Access Internet, Pittsburgh, PA

Cary Jamison (cary@esl.com) wrote:
: In article <1994Jan14.110856.112125@ucl.ac.uk>, zcacnst@ucl.ac.uk (Niels
: Stchedroff) wrote:
: > 
: > In article <2h29rv$hi7@telerama.lm.com>, arnoldj@telerama.lm.com (Jon Arnold) writes:
: > > much rather read about the Taylor Allderdice student that was killed 
: > 			     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: > > while reproducing cold Nuclear Fusion in the Chem Lab (killing Miss P?) 
: >   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: > 
: > What happened? This is the first I've heard about any such accident

: Don't worry, it's not the first time that something was reported in this
: group that never actually happend :-)

: He's just trying to make a point, don't take it literally.

:   ********************************************************************
:    EEEEE   SSS   L      Excellence                       Cary Jamison
:    E      S      L       Service                         cary@esl.com
:    EEEE    SSS   L        Leadership
:    E          S  L
:    EEEEE   SSS   LLLLL      A TRW Company
:   ********************************************************************

Thank you... Exactly... Miss P is still alive, there are no radiation 
cleanup crews at allderdice and noone died in the chem lab (yet). Just 
saying that I would rather see people exparament with chemicals than 
guns. You can do a whole lot more with chemicals anyways. So, once more 
NO ONE DIED IN MISS "P"'s CLASS!!! (although, I know some people who 
might kill her if she doesn't lay off the homework trip) OK.... C-Ya


-- 
| Jonathan Arnold   ------======*======-------     arnoldj@telerama.lm.com  |
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I too am not a bit tamed, I too am untranslatable,    |   Uncle \/
I sound my barbaric yawp over the roofs of the world  |   Walt  /\ 
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenarnoldj cudfnJon cudlnArnold cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.17 /  blue@dancer.ns /  30-year-old data supports CF?
     
Originally-From: blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: 30-year-old data supports CF?
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 1994 16:45:43 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I am amazed to see that low grade data from 30 years ago gets trotted
out as something significant relating to CF.  So we have titanium with
some tritium in it and, after heating the activity decreases.  I agree
with John Logajan that there is nothing unusual going on here.  Temperature
change influences what happens to the hydrid.  The effect has been used
for years to move tritium into and out from metal matrices as a storage
mechanism.  As for the detection of tritium that leaves the titanium,
that requires a special flow-through detector.  My guess would be such
a detector was not employed during the heating so there simply is no
data to explain the missing activity.  To suggest that simple heating
"destroyed" some tritium when there clearly is no evidence to support
that notion is absurd.

Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU

cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenblue cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.17 /  blue@dancer.ns /  CF(?) device for sale
     
Originally-From: blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CF(?) device for sale
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 1994 17:02:23 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

In a recent post on CompuServe Jed Rothwell (You remember him.) reports
on a device being offered for sale by one Mr. Griggs somewhere in
Georgia.  The device is supposed to take in 10 kW and output 16 kW as
steam and Jed has checked it out.  Furthermore you get a written
guarantee from Mr. Griggs should you wish to purchase one of these
beauties of your very own for a mere $10,000.  There is a demonstration
unit in operation under the watchful eye of a county sheriff, apparently
heating the local jail.  Mr. Griggs calls his device a hydrosonic pump
and makes no claim that cold fusion is involved, but Jed thinks it
must use cold fusion.  Jed's reasoning is basically that it would be
too weird to have two wonderful new sources of free energy showing up
in the same time frame.  I am sure Jed would respond to queries from
anyone seeking more information about this device.  (Note:  I do
not endorse either the Griggs claim or Jed Rothwell's evaluation
of this device.)

Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU

cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenblue cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.17 / Brian Rauchfuss /  Re: Red Mercury (What did Bockris do wrong?)
     
Originally-From: brauchfu@fnugget.intel.com (Brian D. Rauchfuss)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Red Mercury (What did Bockris do wrong?)
Date: 17 Jan 1994 21:08:58 GMT
Organization: INTEL.FOLSOM

Mark Robert Thorson (mmm@cup.portal.com) wrote:
: Bockris wasn't working with RED MERCURY, was he?

> I personally don't find the stories about this red mercury all that
> strange.  I've had a thermometer with a red liquid in it for years, but up
> here in Ottawa, with the temperature dipping to -40 at times (c or F, take
> your pick) I assumed it was a special additive to keep the mercury from
> freezing ;-)
>
> (Didn't that "red" murcury originate in the Soviet block?  Maybe it was
> just a political pun)

Red mercury *isn't* strange.  Cinnabar, a common ore of mercury, is red.
What is strange is all the stories and secrecy about it.

I saw a television show about the illegal arms trade from Russia.  Much of 
it was about people with contacts getting rich selling tanks and planes to 
third world nations.  The last part of the show was about nuclear weapons.  
They had two people posing as arms buyers who had no problem getting quotes
on various conventional weapons, but it was alot more difficult to get info
on nuclear.  They finally got a quote for plutonium which was by the *gram*.
Red mercury was alot easier to get, but it wasn't clear what it was!  The
arms dealers were willing to sell a few kilograms for few million dollars.
They showed a picture of a lead canister (implying it is radioactive) which was 
marked as red mercury.  After some more bargaining, the arms dealers gave them
a small sample, and they sent it to be analysed.  It was iron oxide, with
various impurities. 

They ended the show with the question on whether red mercury was a hoax, a 
code word for enriched uranium, or really a new way to build a nuclear weapon.

(BTW, I have some suspicion that the show itself was faked, since they were 
supposedly filming arms dealers by hidden camera, which seems just short 
of suicidal.  If anyone has a better information source,please tell us.)

Brian Rauchfuss
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenbrauchfu cudfnBrian cudlnRauchfuss cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.17 / Andy Holland /  Re: Breakthrough with new phenomenon ?.....
     
Originally-From: zcrah@trumpet.pgh.wec.com (Andy Holland)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Breakthrough with new phenomenon ?.....
Date: 17 Jan 1994 20:29:24 GMT
Organization: Westinghouse CNFD

In article <1994Jan15.220141.20032@ns.network.com> logajan@ns.network.co
 (John Logajan) writes:
>dowen@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au writes:
>> 30 years ago, Otto Reifenschweiler ... discovered that when the mixture
>> [titanium and tritium] was heated from 115 to 160 degrees Centigrade, its 
>> emission of beta particles fell by 28 percent.
>
>I was thinking that perhaps the tritium either moves deeper into the titanium
>or moves out of the near surface layer into the surrounding air and is
>convected away.  Since beta particles (electrons) won't travel far through
>the titanium, either case would tend to reduce the apparent external
>emission rate without really changing the tritium decay mode.
>
>-- 
>- John Logajan MS612, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
>- logajan@network.com, 612-391-1159, Fax 612-424-2853


Seems to be a most reasonable explanation to me, but this is not my field. 
However, is the process reversible? In other words, if you lower the 
temperature, does the emission increase again? This would confirm either
a loss or transport of tritium within the titanium, as the tritium would
be locked in the interior, or transported away by the initial heating. 
Seems to me, this would be the first thing the experimenters would have checked.


| Andy Holland		            || Views Expressed here are solely my |     
| Westinghouse NMD	            || own and are not representitive of  |       
| zcrah@ncstate.pgh.wec.com         || Westinghouse Electric Corporation   |    
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenzcrah cudfnAndy cudlnHolland cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.18 /  mdjannke@gsbac /  Princeton Development Questions
     
Originally-From: mdjannke@gsbacd.uchicago.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Princeton Development Questions
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 1994 00:11:48 GMT
Organization: 

On Nightly Business Report today Adam Smith made reference to a new fusion 
development recently in Princton.  Does Anyone know what he was referring to?
Appreciate your response.
Dave
On8	On Nightyly On Nightly Business Report to 
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenmdjannke cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.17 / Clarence IV /  Global Alert For All: Jesus is Coming Soon
     
Originally-From: clarence@orion.cc.andrews.edu (Clarence L. Thomas IV)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Global Alert For All: Jesus is Coming Soon
Date: 17 Jan 1994 20:56:18 -0500
Organization: Andrews University, Berrien Springs, MI, 49104

The earthquake in Los Angeles, California, the flood in Europe, the seemingly
unstoppable war in the former Yugoslavia, the devastating fires in Australia,
the flood in the Midwest of the United States of America, the devastating fires
near Los Angeles, California, the rapid and appalling increase in violence in
cities, towns, villages all over the world, the famines, the diseases, the rapid
decline of the family unit, and the destructive earthquake in India (in 1993)
are signs that this world's history is coming to a climax. The human race
has trampled on God's Constitution, as given in Exodus 20:1-17 (King James
Version Bible), and Jesus is coming to set things right. These rapidly
accelerating signs are an indication that Jesus is coming soon (Matthew 24).

God's Holy Spirit is gradually withdrawing its protection from the earth
and the devastating events you see are demonstrations of Satan's power. All
those who are not guarded by God are in danger of forever losing eternal life.

If you want to know what's about to happen, please study the books of Daniel
and Revelation which are located in God's Word, the Bible.  They are not
sealed or closed books. They can and must be understood by all. Every word
in the Bible from Genesis to Revelation is true. The Bible and the Bible only
must be your guide.

When God's Law (the Constitution for the Universe) is consistently ignored, 
disregarded, changed, and questioned, He permits certain events to occur to 
wake us up.  I would urge all, wherever you are and regardless of the 
circumstances, to directly call on Jesus and ask Him to intervene in your life.
Jesus who created this planet and every living creature in it and on it, died 
on the cross, was raised from the dead by God the Father, and is now in Heaven
interceding for you. Jesus is the only One who can rescue us from the slavery,
misery, and death Satan is causing us.

For reference I'm including God's Constitution as given in the King James
Version Bible. Please note that when God says the seventh day, he means Sabbath
(the 7th day of the week) not Sunday (1st day of the week).

Commandment #1:  Exodus 20:1-3 (KJV)  And God
                 spake all these words, saying, I am         
                 the LORD thy God, which have brought
                 thee out of the land of Egypt, out
                 of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have
                 no other gods before me.

Commandment #2:  Exodus 20:4-6 (KJV) Thou shalt not make
                 unto thee any graven image, or any
                 likeness of any thing that is in heaven
                 above, or that is in the earth beneath,
                 or that is in the water under the earth.
                 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them
                 that love me, and keep my commandments.

Commandment #3:  Exodus 20:7 (KJV) Thou shalt not take
                 the name of the LORD thy God in vain;
                 for the LORD will not hold him
                 guiltless that taketh his name in vain.

Commandment #4:  Exodus 20:8-11 (KJV) Remember the sabbath
                 day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou
                 labour, and do all thy work: But the
                 seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD
                 thy God: in it thou shalt not do any
                 work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter,
                 thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor
                 thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is
                 within thy gates: For in six days the
                 LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and
                 all that in them is, and rested the seventh
                 day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath
                 day, and hallowed it.

Commandment #5:  Exodus 20:12 (KJV) Honour thy father and thy
                 mother: that thy days may be long upon the
                 land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.

Commandment #6:  Exodus 20:13 (KJV) Thou shalt not kill.

Commandment #7:  Exodus 20:14 (KJV) Thou shalt not commit
                 adultery.

Commandment #8:  Exodus 20:15 (KJV) Thou shalt not steal.

Commandment #9:  Exodus 20:16 (KJV) Thou shalt not bear
                 false witness against thy neighbour.

Commandment #10: Exodus 20:17 (KJV) Thou shalt not covet
                 thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not
                 covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his
                 manservant, nor his maidservant, nor
                 his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that
                 is thy neighbour's.

I also recommend that the following books be obtained and closely studied:

         The Great Controversy
         By Ellen G. White
         Review and Herald Publishing Association
         Hagerstown, MD 21740

	 The Desire of the Ages
	 By Ellen G. White
	 Review and Herald Publishing Association
	 Hagerstown, MD 21740

         Patriarchs and Prophets
         By Ellen G. White
         Review and Hearld Publishing Association
         Hagerstown, MD 21740

	 Daniel and the Revelation
         By Uriah Smith
         Review and Herald Publishing Association
         Hagerstown, MD 21740
-------
Clarence L. Thomas IV
Phone:  616-471-6116
E-mail: thomas@redwood.cc.andrews.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenclarence cudfnClarence cudlnIV cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Tue Jan 18 04:37:03 EST 1994
------------------------------
1994.01.18 / John Logajan /  Re: Breakthrough with new phenomenon ?.....
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Breakthrough with new phenomenon ?.....
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 94 04:00:58 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

zcrah@trumpet.pgh.wec.com (Andy Holland) writes:
>However, is the process reversible? In other words, if you lower the 
>temperature, does the emission increase again? This would confirm either
>a loss or transport of tritium within the titanium, as the tritium would
>be locked in the interior, or transported away by the initial heating. 

I think a few cycles of this treatment would establish an unmistakeable
signature.  If they did this in the original experiment is will probably
be mentioned in the journal.

-- 
- John Logajan MS612, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-391-1159, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.18 / John Logajan /  Re: Global Alert For All: Jesus is Coming Soon
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Global Alert For All: Jesus is Coming Soon
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 94 04:23:36 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

clarence@orion.cc.andrews.edu (Clarence L. Thomas IV) writes:
>The earthquake in Los Angeles, California, the flood in Europe, the seemingly
>unstoppable war in the former Yugoslavia, the devastating fires in Australia,
>the flood in the Midwest of the United States of America, the devastating fires
>near Los Angeles, California, the rapid and appalling increase in violence in
>cities, towns, villages all over the world, the famines, the diseases, the
>rapid decline of the family unit, and the destructive earthquake in India
>(in 1993) are signs that this world's history is coming to a climax....

>These rapidly accelerating signs are an indication that Jesus is coming soon
>(Matthew 24).

Or they are a sign that the local prophet has a unlearned grasp of the
comparative magnitudes of historical devastations.

Before the industrial revolution, cycles of famines wiped out 10's of millions.
Plagues wiped out millions more.  Ignorance begat poverty, and poverty begat
enslavement.  Wars of conquest, racial and religious intolerances have wiped
out yet millions more.

And this possibly unwise prophet has not learned from history what happens to
those who cry wolf too often.  Many a sad story revolves around such failed
prophecies, the most recent tragedy being the Branch Davidians, but perhaps
one of the largest being the the Jehovah's Witnesses, in which the entire
religion was shaken to its foundations when the predicted end of the world 
did not come (in the early part of this century, I believe.)  The religion
survives but had to be re-invented that fateful day.
 
-- 
- John Logajan MS612, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-391-1159, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.18 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Global Alert For All: Jesus is Coming Soon
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Global Alert For All: Jesus is Coming Soon
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 1994 04:31:44 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <2hffk2$5uj@orion.cc.andrews.edu>,
Clarence L. Thomas IV <clarence@orion.cc.andrews.edu> wrote:
>The earthquake in Los Angeles, California, the flood in Europe, the seemingly
>unstoppable war in the former Yugoslavia, the devastating fires in Australia,
>the flood in the Midwest of the United States of America, the devastating fires
>near Los Angeles, California, the rapid and appalling increase in violence in
>cities, towns, villages all over the world, the famines, the diseases, the rapid
>decline of the family unit, and the destructive earthquake in India (in 1993)
>are signs that this world's history is coming to a climax. The human race
>has trampled on God's Constitution, as given in Exodus 20:1-17 (King James
>Version Bible), and Jesus is coming to set things right. These rapidly
>accelerating signs are an indication that Jesus is coming soon (Matthew 24).

     1942 was worse.  And 1917 was much worse.

     And those don't hold a candle to several years in 
     the 6th and 14th centuries when up to half of the people in Europe,
     the Middle East and Asia lost their lives to the bubonic plague

     Compared to those times, we're in paradise.  Enjoy it.

                           dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.18 / Dieter Britz /  What did we get out of it?
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: What did we get out of it?
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 1994 12:57:06 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway


Jorge Stolfi, who used to post to this list occasionally before he left the
USA to go back home, has emailed me and asked me to do a sort of post mortem.
That is, on the occasion of my dropping out of here, he would like me to tell
what the cold fusion affair has been good for; what has been achieved?

This deserves a much longer and more thoughtful answer than I have time for at
the moment, so I'll fob you off with a quickie. Jorge himself named several of
the things that come to mind. A lot of people have thought about the physics
of fusion, and learned a lot. Some have been inspired to read QM texts and are
no doubt richer for it. There has been some (but not all that much) solid and
fundamental work on metal hydrides (or deuterides) and this will continue,
independently of "cold fusion". It has of course been a research field since
the last century, and there are good reasons for this. Metal hydrides are
potentially useful for hydrogen storage (one of the possibilities considered
for storing hydrogen in hydrogen-driven cars, for example); Pd is in use for
the ultrapurification of hydrogen by virtue of its permeability to hydrogen
and not much else; and hydrogen embrittlement of metals as they take up
hydrogen continues to worry us. So one gain is that perhaps there will be more
work done in this field. The trouble is, of course, that one must not mention
the association with "cold fusion", or there won't be any money.

Calorimetry in electrochemical cells has not previously had very much
attention, possibly because it is not of great interest. When it is, one wants
good measurements and after 4+ years of discussion, we are now in much better
shape for doing good calorimetry, and for identifying the special problems in
doing it in electrochemical cells, which can never be quite closed systems.
You might say that nothing can be a closed system, but in "normal" chemical
microcalorimetry, it is easier to define the interface between the space under
investigation and the space around it. In an electrochemical cell, this gets
messy, what with gases, recombiners, and electrical leads. Some useful work
has been done here, even by F&P: whether you believe their "results" or not,
they have given some useful pointers to the processes of heat transfer and the
way to analyse results, and so have many others, our own Tom Droege being
prominent here.

Many people have been prodded into thinking about how science operates, and
some myths have been exposed, e.g. the one about logical progress of work, how
to do experiments, run controls, etc. We find that science does not work quite
as we liked to think, there are fashions, over-interpretation of data, perhaps
even some faking - unconscious or otherwise - a lot of "ME TOO!" work, etc.
Sociologists and philosophers of science have been given more data for their
studies, adding another story to those of N-rays, polywater, homeopathy,
UFO's, worlds in collision, extrasensory perception and what have you. Like
"cold fusion", some of these are still alive.

"Cold fusion" has been profitable in terms of money - to a few. I cannot see
how those people who dragged the Italian newspaper La Repubblica into court
(F&P and a couple of Italians) for printing the words "scientific fraud", can
fail to win all those billions of lire, so they will undoubtedly be rich. This
new company just formed, ENERCO or whatever, does not seem to be short of
funds, having pledged considerable finance to some "cold fusion" research. The
people running it are profiting, while investors lose their money. It's a free
country, some of you will say, and the investors themselves choose to fork the
money out.

Personally speaking, "cold fusion" has not impinged on my own research except
in a very small way. We are still in the process of gauging the effect of cell
impedance fluctuations on the measurement of power, but this is a very small
digression from the research that the grad student will be doing and is
teaching him how to use the apparatus, while we wait for some stuff. I have of
course invested quite some time on the bibliography, but have got a couple of
small publications out of the work already, and a big one will follow. Best of
all, I have made a lot of electronic acquaintances and a few good friends as a
result of this affair. Some of these I may never meet in the flesh but some I
no doubt will, some day. On the debit side, I seem also to have made some
enemies, but I don't give them much thought.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.18 / Dieter Britz /  New but not improved bibliography
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: New but not improved bibliography
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 1994 13:33:35 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway


Just before the New Year, I posted notice that I might change the way I
operate on the bibliography. I won't say I got an overwhelming response but
the concensus seems to be that I go on as I have been doing. This is not 100%
on, but I have decided on what I think is a good compromise, a combination of
the old way and the new-items file in the archives. This file, to be called
cnf-new, will always contain all new stuff of the last month or so, across the
biblio-groups. Probably each item will be marked with its entry date, so that
I can sort out the old from the new when I update the file. As for the Updates
I will post them as before, but without any remarks beyond the abstracts
themselves, probably about once a month, together with the reminder about how
to retrieve stuff from the archives. If there should be an unusual rate of
appearance of papers, I'll update more often, of course.

Lastly, I have changed the file headers slightly, and changed my software so
that the files will be automatically marked with the current number of items
and date of last update, by the program that merges new items into the files.
I should have done this long ago and would have saved myself a lot of
hand-editing in of this information.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.18 / Jed Rothwell /  A useless, garbled report
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: A useless, garbled report
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 1994 14:02:46 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org

Dick Blue wrote the following nonsense about the Griggs device:

     "There is a demonstration unit in operation under the watchful eye of
     a county sheriff, apparently heating the local jail."

That is incorrect:

That is not a demonstration device; it was purchased by the county. It is
not available for demonstration purposes. DO NOT attempt to contact the
county about this, they don't have time for you.

It is definitely not under the eye of the sheriff. All information that I
have about that unit comes from the county facilities manager, and from
qualified HVAC engineers.

It is not installed in the jail. It is at the county police headquarters.


I posted a simple, straightforward message describing this. Richard made
corn beef hash out if it! He got critical details completely wrong! He made
up all kinds of garbage about the sheriff's watchful eye. It is amazing how
inaccurate and sloppy his reporting is. How can a trained scientist make
so many mistakes reporting a few simple facts? It is a bit like describing
yesterday's earthquake along these lines:

     "Yesterday, an 2.6 Rickover scale earthquake in the city of Seattle,
     California killed 27 million people, or maybe it was 27 people."

This kind of inaccurate reporting, mixed in with rumor, imagination, and
outright fabrication, is worse than useless. It is better to remain
completely ignorant of the subject, rather than depend on whacko reports
from people like Richard, who can't string three facts together without
adding two bone-headed mistakes and a lie. This is symptomatic of
everything that is wrong with the e-mail networks. Anyone who seriously
wants to know about Griggs should read his paper in the ICCF4 proceedings.
That goes for all other reports and papers about CF, from that conference
or from anywhere else. DO NOT depend on flakes like Richard Blue, Tom
Dreoge, or Gary Taubes to tell you what the papers say. Their versions are
so distorted and so filled with mistakes and with blatant fabrications that
you end up knowing less about the subject than when you started. Do not
depend on me, either, even though I try to stick to the facts. Always go
directly to the original sources.

- Jed

cudkeys:
cuddy18 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.18 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Re: CF Seminar / A small favor to ask
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CF Seminar / A small favor to ask
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 1994 23:42:22 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Hi folks,


OUCH!  I HOPE THAT ONE GOT REVISED...

In article <CJntp5.BCo@world.std.com>
mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:

>   Announcement:    MIT  IAP 1994  (**)--   Third Annual
>                     COLD FUSION SEMINAR SERIES
> 
>        Saturday  January 22, 1994     8:30  -   4:30  PM
>                    Room  2-190    [Rm 6-120 after 11 AM]
>  Massachusetts Institute of Technology,   Cambridge, Massachusetts 
   .....
> 
> R. Bernecky         '76   "Conditions for Bose Condensation"

Whoa!  If this is based on the posting of the same title that W.R. Bernecky
posted in this group back on about 1993 Dec 1, I would note that that:

 o  The latter parts of that posting showed a serious confusion of
    symmetric/antisymmetric (bose/fermi) wave functions with particle-in-
    a-box derivation of low-momentum band states.  The two are unrelated,
    and trying to "merge" them leads to nonsensical conclusions.

 o  The posting created a number of highly discontinuous (and meaningless)
    "strawman" wave functions, then arrived at the desired conclusion by
    knocking down these physically meaningless strawmen.  The greatest
    problem was that there seemed to be no idea at all of the importance
    of continuity across the wavefunction.  In several places parts of the
    wave function were moved and inverted cut-and-paste style, leading to
    flatly unreal mathematical discontinuities in them.  The rationale for
    such odd cut-and-paste operations was based on the misunderstanding of
    the unrelated "symmetric" and "antisymmetric" (fermi/bose) concepts.

 o  Since the whole thrust of the argument was _based_ on the above two
    assumptions, the piece was not "correctable" in any meaningful sense
    of the word.  You could, I suppose, completely re-write it with using
    some entirely different approach.  But if the _only_ goal is to come
    to the same conclusion all over again ("atoms _will_ condense at the
    top band energy state"), I suspect you could pretty easily wind up in
    the same boat all over again:  creating strawmen and then knocking them
    down to support what is really a "foregone" conclusion.

I am baffled.  Peter Hagelstein surely knows enough QM to have seen these
problems, too.  Has he participated in the review of these presentations,
or not?  Or (perhaps) has Mr. Bernecky completely re-written this piece?


A SMALL FAVOR OF THE MIT GROUP?

I also have a small favor to ask of the participants in the MIT meeting.

In a posting to another group (and also to this one), I recently proposed
a multi-stage Bose condensation effect that I called "phonon condensation
cooling" as a highly speculative re-interpretation of the Mossbauer effect.

My favor is simply that should phonon condensation cooling or multi-stage
Bose condensation come up at the MIT meeting, would folks ensure that it
will be properly credited to my posting, and that it be correctly described
as a speculation that unrelated to "cold fusion?"  (It was an exploration
of the Mossbauer effect, nothing more.)

Please note that I am in no way assuming any interest on the part of the
participants.  It's just that given high level of interest by some of the
MIT participants in both atomic Bose condenstion and the Mossbauer effect,
I could see an idea that relates both of them popping up in conversation.


(It remains nothing more than a speculation, by the way, but one which I
am having great fun looking into a bit more.)

				Cheers,
				Terry

cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenterry cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.18 /  clarence@orion /  cmsg cancel <2hffk2$5uj@orion.cc.andrews.edu>
     
Originally-From: clarence@orion.cc.andrews.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cmsg cancel <2hffk2$5uj@orion.cc.andrews.edu>
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 1994 15:06:32 GMT
Organization: UseNet Cabal (West Wales Cadre) Active Service Unit

Autocancel of: "Global Alert For All: Jesus is Coming Soon"
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenclarence cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.18 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Sorting out the Chubb/Bollinger snafu...
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Sorting out the Chubb/Bollinger snafu...
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 1994 15:46:25 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)


Hi folks,

For those of you who saw my rather appallingly overdone reaction to a
comment by Scott Chubb, you may be pleased to know that we seem to have
worked things out.

Scott sent me a paper that, unbeknownst to me, contained a quite detailed
discussion of the helium two-electron wave function.  Due to distractions
and lack of time, I must confess that I never looked at the paper that he
had been kind enough to take the time and effort to send me.

A couple of months later the issue of correlated wave functions came up
again, and I tried to think of a way explain why I did _not_ think that
such "overlapping" wave functions had much physical significance.  The
simplest possible example I could think of was helium, which contains two
very simple particles (electrons) with opposing spins (which simplifies
the Pauli exclusion issue by making it irrelevant).

So off I went describing why the helium atom proves that overlapping
electron wave functions are _not_ physically significant, not realizing
that I had in my hot little hands (briefcase, actually) a paper that used
just about the same model to come up with _exactly the opposite conclusion_.

I don't blame Scott one bit for thinking that I got the model from him,
given that sequence of events.  We were both looking for the simplest
possible model in which to make our respective points, and perhaps not too
surprisingly wound up in the same place -- a neat little helium atom.  We
both not realize that and have exchanged mutual apologies for the snafu.
(I still think I owe him the larger apology, though.)

Incidentally, we both _still_ maintain our respective positions, so even
having a common model does not necessarily mean immediate conversion by
one side or the other.  At this point, I _am_ going to open Scott's paper
and have a look, probably this weekend.

				Cheers,
				Terry


cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenterry cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.18 / V Guruprasad /  Re: Global Alert For All: Jesus is Coming Soon
     
Originally-From: 71155.3116@compuserve.com (V. Guruprasad)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Global Alert For All: Jesus is Coming Soon
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 1994 16:14:08 GMT
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research

whenever anyone exclaimed "oh my god!", I had a friend who just had to say
"Yes, my child?"
guess he'd now be saying:
	"Let's get this straight. Do you or don't you want me to come?!"
or perhaps even:
	"Why should my presence matter to your reasoning (sorry, that's
rhetorical)?"

well, it should take all sorts of events as well as people to make this world,
and we in this physics group will study them as meticulously as we can,
but what the hell is a non-physics thing doing in this group anyway?

-----
disclaimer: responsibility (my employers, my words & ideas here) = 0.
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cuden3116 cudfnV cudlnGuruprasad cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.18 / Rich Hawryluk /  TFTR Status January 18, 1994
     
Originally-From: rhawryluk@pppl.gov (Rich Hawryluk)
Newsgroups: pppl.tftr.news,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: TFTR Status January 18, 1994
Date: 18 Jan 1994 13:54:07 -0500
Organization: Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory

Status (January 18, 1994):

Activities have resumed on TFTR after the holidays.

For our D-T campaign in December 1993, we have run shots

        59      Trace Tritium plasmas (<2% mixture)
        13      Tritium gas puffing plasmas (100% T)
        27      Tritium neutral beam plasmas

We have obtained very valuable data on the confinement, stability, and
transport in D-T plasmas.  In addition, we have checked out all our
diagnostics in a D-T environment.
  
Preliminary results show that:
1.      The confinement in a D-T plasma is better than in a deuterium
plasma, the ion and electron temperatures are higher and the plasma stored
energy is higher in a D-T plasma.

2.      Deuterium wall recycling is very important in determining the ratio
of deuterium to tritium in the plasma core.

3.      One of the exciting results is that we did not observe any enhanced
loss of alpha particles as the fusion power was increased.
Since December, we have performed about 120 TRANSP code runs to study and
analyze the D-T data.  At present we are still analyzing the data with the
help of the computer codes.

We are preparing three research reports on the main results from the D-T
experiments.  These reports should be available in draft versions by the
end of January 1994.

Operation with pure tritium in the tritium systems in December enabled us
to complete an operational checkout of the system at full parameters. 
Hardware deficiencies in the Tritium Storage and Delivery System, Torus
Cleanup System and the vacuum pumping system for the Quadrupole Mass
Spectrometer were observed.  Corrective actions to address these
deficiencies are underway.


Plans:

Maintenance activities are underway.  Deuterium operations will resume in
the beginning of February and deuterium-tritium operations in mid-February.

The research effort is focussed on analyzing the data from the
deuterium-tritium experiments.

A workshop on the results from the deuterium-tritium experiments will be
held at PPPL on March 2-4.  A description of the workshop is appended
below. For further information about the workshop contact S. Zweben
(szweben@pppl.gov or kmcguire@pppl.gov).

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


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




                        First Announcement

        U.S. Transport Task Force Fast Particle Working Group 
        IEA Large Tokamaks Workshop (W.28)
        U. S.-Japan Workshop Q187
        Workshop on DT Experiments

        March 2-4, 1994

        Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory
        Princeton, New Jersey, USA


Topics:

        Confinement and Heating in DT Plasmas
        Alpha Particle Experiments and Theory
        Alpha Particle Simulations and Diagnostics


Format:

        o 2 days of talks on present DT results
        o 1/2 day of discussions of future DT issues            
This workshop will include the first presentations of the TFTR DT results
to the fusion community

For further information, return the attached form or contact:
        S.  Zweben (609-243-3243 or e-mail szweben@pppl.gov) or
        K. McGuire (609-243-3187 or e-mail kmcguire@pppl.gov).
U.S. Transport Task Force Fast Particle Working Group 
IEA Large Tokamaks Workshop (W.28)



Workshop on DT Experiments

March 2-4, 1994

Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory
Princeton, New Jersey, USA



I would like to ( give a talk )  ( just attend )  -- circle one -- 

Title of Talk (if applicable):___________________________________

______________________________________________________


Name:_________________________________________________


Address:_______________________________________________


______________________________________________________


Phone and/or FAX #:______________________________________


Please mail back or FAX before Feb. 1, 1994 to:

B. Carey, LOB B204
PPPL, P.O. Box. 451, Princeton, N.J. 08543
FAX 609-243-2874; e-mail szweben@pppl.gov or kmcguire@pppl.gov
Phones: S. Zweben 609-243-3243, or K. McGuire 609-243-3187

 
Further information and a tentative agenda will be sent out about Mid-February.


cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenrhawryluk cudfnRich cudlnHawryluk cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.18 / Joshua Levy /  Re: "Cold Fusion" Magazine
     
Originally-From: joshua@veritas.com (Joshua Levy)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: "Cold Fusion" Magazine
Date: 18 Jan 1994 13:52:06 -0800
Organization: VERITAS Software Corp., Santa Clara  CA

76570.2270@compuserve.com (Eugene Mallove) writes:
>Who's  behind "Cold Fusion" Magazine?

In addition to knowing the people behind a magazine, it is also important
to know the funding source.  Who is funding the "Cold Fusion" Magazine?  
Is it Wayne Green?  You?  Someone else?  Or have there not been any 
major expenses yet?

>Dr. Eugene F. Mallove,
>Editor of "Cold Fusion" Magazine
>
>His credential for high-technology engineering include Hughes Research 
>Laboratories, TASC (The Analytical Sciences Corporation), Jaycor Systems 
>Division, Northrop Precision Products Division, and MIT Lincoln Laboratory. 
>For the past few years his work has been on "cold fusion" calorimetry.

Why no mention of Clustron Sciences Corp?  Didn't you work there?
Also, what cold fusion calorimetry have you been doing, and where
has it been published, or has it been published?

Joshua Levy <joshua@veritas.com>
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenjoshua cudfnJoshua cudlnLevy cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.18 /  jbatka@desire. /  Re: Global Alert For All: Jesus is Coming Soon
     
Originally-From: jbatka@desire.wright.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Global Alert For All: Jesus is Coming Soon
Date: 18 Jan 94 15:44:43 EST
Organization:  Wright State University 

In article <1994Jan18.042336.15856@ns.network.com>, logajan@ns.network.c
m (John Logajan) writes:
> clarence@orion.cc.andrews.edu (Clarence L. Thomas IV) writes:
>>The earthquake in Los Angeles, California, the flood in Europe, the seemingly
>>unstoppable war in the former Yugoslavia, the devastating fires in Australia,
>>the flood in the Midwest of the United States of America, the devastating fires
>>near Los Angeles, California, the rapid and appalling increase in violence in
>>cities, towns, villages all over the world, the famines, the diseases, the
>>rapid decline of the family unit, and the destructive earthquake in India
>>(in 1993) are signs that this world's history is coming to a climax....
> 
>>These rapidly accelerating signs are an indication that Jesus is coming soon
>>(Matthew 24).
> 
> Or they are a sign that the local prophet has a unlearned grasp of the
> comparative magnitudes of historical devastations.
> 
[Good description of the relative magnitudes of disasters deleted]

Later on this fruit cake states that we should call on Jesus for salvation.
I just wanted to say to this guy that I tried to do this right after the
earthquake but all the phone lines were busy.

[ :) <-- for any humor impaired out there]

BTW, I saw this post in every non-moderated news group I looked in, so
there is no way he will ever read any of this.
-- 

   Jim Batka  | Work Email:  BATKAJ@DAYTON.SAIC.COM     | Elvis is
              | Home Email:  JBATKA@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU   |   DEAD!

    64 years is 33,661,440 minutes ...
             and a minute is a LONG time!  - Beatles:  _ Yellow Submarine_
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenjbatka cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Wed Jan 19 04:37:04 EST 1994
------------------------------
1994.01.19 / Ivan Yu /  Want information on RADIOACTIVE WASTE!
     
Originally-From: yu@gaul.csd.uwo.ca (Ivan Yu)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Want information on RADIOACTIVE WASTE!
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 1994 03:12:33 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Dept., Univ. of Western Ontario, London, Canada

I need to write about half a page on RADIOACTIVE WASTE.  Since I've been a
Computer Science undergraduate for the past 4 years, my knowledge of Physics
has already decayed exponentially to zero!  I am just wondering if anybody
can give me some information on say 1) What kinds of radioactive waste are
there in our world?  2) How are they generated?  One way I know is from
nuclear fission of Uranium.  3) How will they affect people and how long
will they last and still be able to cause harm?  4) How can they be disposed
of?  5) How can they be stopped from being generated?  6) Where are they
mostly generated?

Any other information on it that I haven't mentioned is very very welcome.

Thanks very very much.

-- Ivan

cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenyu cudfnIvan cudlnYu cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.19 /  blue@dancer.ns /  Correcting post on Hydrosonic Pump
     
Originally-From: blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Correcting post on Hydrosonic Pump
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 1994 14:26:26 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I want to thank Jed Rothwell for correcting the information I had given
concerning the Griggs device that is said to output 16 kW while being
supplied only 10 kW of input power.  It is not heating the county jail
and the Sheriff is not watching.  Sorry about that.

Meanwhile since I have Jed's attention I would like to ask a question
about the measurement of the input power.  My understanding is that
the input power is delivered via a three-phase motor.  When I look
in the handbook to determine how power in a three-phase system should
be calculated from measured voltage and current I see several alternatives
with Y and delta subscripts on them and factors of 3 or root 3 floating
around.  Since root 3 is 1.732, not far from the stated ratio of output
to input, I was just a bit curious as to how the input power was 
determined. 

Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU

cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenblue cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.19 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Just Checking
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Just Checking
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 1994 15:18:32 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

The last two posts on the Maui conference, Maui Papers #9 and Maui Summary
showed up here in Fusion Digests, but not on the local news reader.  If regular
readers did not see them, send me a note and I will repost.

Meanwhile I struggle with making heat pipes work.  Soon I will have one that 
is Copper, Nickel, and Gold plated.  

Tom Droege

cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenDROEGE cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.19 / John Logajan /  Gateway interruption
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Gateway interruption
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 94 15:33:35 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

Perhaps due to the LA earthquake, articles sent to the fusion digest gateway
at zorch are not making it on to the Usenet group sci.physics.fusion.

The e-mailed fusion digests continue to be delivered correctly and do include
things posted to the s.p.f. group.   Hmmmm

-- 
- John Logajan MS612, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-391-1159, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.21 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Heat Pipe Success
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Heat Pipe Success
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 1994 01:09:28 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

HP1     Heat Pipe Development                                   20 Jan 94

Success at last!  Finally I have a unit that measures a thousand or so 
improvement over the conductivity of the copper pipe.  

I think I am back in the cleaning business. Where did we hear that before?  If 
all "cold fusion" work requires ultra clean procedures then I want out!  I am 
not fit for such work!

After progressive deterioration of HP #0, HP #1, and HP #2 under various 
tests, I dug out what I will call HP #00.  This is a 36" long piece of 5/8" 
copper tubing (about 0.025" wall) that previously indicated good performance.  
This tube has a pipe cap soldered on each end, and a 9 ohm heater (18 ea 18 
ohm 3 watt resistors) glued around the bottom.  

#00 was set up with the heater end down.  The bottom was wrapped with 
fiberglass around the heater location, and was insulated with 1/2" thick foam 
pipe covering over most of it's length.  At the top it was clamped to a large 
aluminum heat sink, which in turn rests on the water cooled plate.  

In the middle section, 8 thermometers (AD 590) are glued at 2" intervals 
through the seam in the foam with "crazy glue" which seems to work great for 
such an application. 

If the heater is turned on with the pipe open, the temperature distribution 
along the thermometers is similar to what is expected, but reveals a lot about 
the problems of doing such work.  I generate a display on the PC which plots 
the temperatures in color, with a reading every ten seconds.  Computing the 
thermal resistance of the copper pipe, we expect about 25 C / watt - foot.  
What I measure with this set up is more like 4 C / watt - foot at 9 watts in 
the heater.  It is non-linear with heat input.  What this means is that most 
of the heat escapes through the insulation rather that going up the tube to 
the heat sink.  More insulation does not help much.  It just adds to the 
thermal capacity of the system and makes measurement harder.  In any case, I 
can perform experiments looking at this array of spaced colored lines, which 
should be equally spaced, but in practice are not for the reasons above.  But 
they should make sense - one expects the temperature differences at the hot 
end to be larger than at the cold end due to heat loss through the insulation.  

With this set up experiments can be performed.  But it is not easy.  First, 
the thermometers were matched by putting them all inside a hole bored in a 
large chunk of aluminum.  There is roughly 1" of aluminum all around.  Then 
constants were adjusted so that they all read the same to 0.01 C.  This takes 
a day or so.  One learns to appreciate that the environment is constantly 
changing.  Then they are glued on the tube.  Yep, glue gives off heat as it 
dries.  For hours.  So connected to copper under all that insulation they 
should all come to the same reading, right?  Nope, there is a significant 
temperature gradient in my basement workshop.  Several degrees between the 
floor and ceiling.  This set up sees it.  Note that with perfect insulation, 
they would all come to the same temperature.  But insulation is not very good.  
That is why good calorimetry will require active heat shields with heat pipes.  
I do not have the furnace vent open in the room to keep down drafts from the 
circulation fan.  The eight thermometers spread over 14" wander around degrees 
with time constants of many hours.  After a while I give up and call it a 1 
degree C system.  

Now my friends, if I cannot get a string of thermometers glued to a copper 
pipe under a lot of insulation to make sense, how in the world can workers 
claim to do calorimetry on uninsulated cells which depend on fractional degree 
temperature readings?  Enough said, most of the calorimetry at ICCF4 was junk.  
But some do good work, McKubre is one.   

In any case, now we have some sort of experimental set up.  So turn on the 
heater with the pipe open to the atmosphere, and watch the temperature curves.  
We note a relatively even spacing of the temperature plots and get about 4 C 
/watt - foot.  ( i.e. 9 watts into the bottom heater produces 36 C difference 
between two thermometers one foot apart.  But all 9 watts do not go up the 
pipe or there would be a 225 C difference.)  This condition was run for 
several hours boiling out a few cc of of the (Gibleys 80 proof gin) fill from 
the previous experiment.  The vent tube at the top of the pipe was then 
clamped off.  After a while, we noticed that the thermometers near the top 
(cold end) of the pipe were getting closer together.  This continued until the 
difference between the test pair of thermometers that are 10" apart decreased 
from of order 30 C to 9 C.  Then the pipe make a "chunk" sound which was sort 
of like a perkolator starting up.  The temperature readings went suddenly to 
the same value (within 2 C or so).  This value was more or less mid way 
between the hottest and coldest thermometer.  The time constant of this set up 
is of order 15 minutes.  That is if I heat one end and cool the other, note 
the temperature difference, then turn off the heater, the temperature 
difference down the thermometer string will move to the steady state value 
with a fifteen minute time constant.  After a chunk, the thermometers come 
together in less than the 10 second sampling time.  We can thus claim a 90/1 
change in time constant (it is much faster - more on this later).  We can also 
claim a 15/1 change in conductivity, but this is conservative since we do not 
know what the thermometers would read if the conductivity were infinite.  

For lack of an official word for it, I will call the high conductivity mode 
"super heat" or Sh for short.  Would like to call it super conductivity but 
that name is already taken.  

Watching the device operate, we note that it can pop in and out of Sh mode 
over time.  I do not yet understand this.  But entry into the Sh mode is often 
(but not always) accompanied by a "chunk".  The general trend is to work 
better with high heat flow than with low, and often the top three quarters 
(cold end) of the tube was in Sh mode while the bottom quarter was normal.  

This lead to an experiment to measure the thermal resistance of the tube with 
heat load.  Heat input to the hot end was set at 40, 20, 10 and 5 watts.  The 
result was actually negative, i.e. the drop down the pipe was less at 40 watts 
than at 5.  But it did not change very much, and I can put a limit on the 
change from 40 watts to 5 watts at +/- 0.1 C.  This would give a thermal 
resistance of 0.0028 C /watt - ft compared to the calculated value for the
copper tube of 25 C /watt -ft.  This is an 8900 / 1 improvement.  Note that it 
is hard to tell what is really happening.  In non Sh mode, most of the heat is 
lost through the insulation and only about 16% of it goes down the pipe.  In 
Sh mode, likely most of the heat goes down the pipe.  

One quickly learns how poor thermal conductors things like big chunks of 
aluminum are.  With the pipe in non Sh mode, I was feeling the joint at the 
top where the copper pipe is clamped to a large aluminum heat sink.  There was 
clearly a large thermal drop across the clamped surface.  I was able to cool 
down the copper pipe with my finger to where it was comfortable.  Then the 
pipe happened to go "chunk" and instantly burned my finger.  No more than a 
0.1 second time constant.  Likely the only thing that protected my finger from 
a sudden 80 C contact was 0.025" of copper.  

The various experiments; time constant, steady state conductivity, 
conductivity as a function of heat flow, all indicate an large improvement in 
thermal conductivity.  A lower limit is 15, an upper limit is 10,000 

Why did this unit work while the others have been duds?  Don't know for sure, 
but I suspect that the longer piece of pipe has a longer "factory clean" 
section in the middle.  Think about it, it costs money to dirty high 
production products (with stuff like oil and grease).  If we assume that 
soldering the caps on the ends dirtied up 6" of the pipe then HP #2 had no 
clean area left while HP #00 had 24" left.  Something like that I think. 

Another possibility is that this unit is long and is heated from the bottom.  
The others have been mostly heated from the top.  Heating from the bottom, the 
liquid will boil off and condense at the top, then run down the sides, and 
then boil off again.  The efficiency of the process is such that the liquid is 
likely boiled many times before it exits at the top.   

My general opinion is that this heat pipe is barely working.  Likely there is 
only a partially wetted surface.  I now appreciate Robert Eachus's discussion 
about mating copper parts in a vacuum oven.  I do not quite have the 
facilities for that, but will do the best I can for a good cleaning job before 
assembling the gold plated unit.  Then we will see if Robert's magic gin 
boiling procedure works.   

Tom Droege

cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenDROEGE cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.19 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Re: Overselling muon catalyzed fusion
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Overselling muon catalyzed fusion
Date: 19 Jan 94 15:08:45 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

In article <EACHUS.94Jan14144436@spectre.mitre.org>, 
eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus) writes:
> 
>    Steve said:
> 
>    ...the design studies therefore compromise on the density in order
>    for the mu-c-f part of the reactor to operate at around 700 K for
>    reasonable Carnot efficiency.
> 
>    Ouch! Blush!  I was thinking that I remembered 800 F, then took a
> second look at the units.  I must have translated this to steam plant
> units when I first saw it.  (700 K = 800.3 F ;-)
> 
>    But the reason I was posting is that most of the energy will be in
> the neutrons.  Putting that energy to use either burning up rad
> wastes, or producing energy by fissioning normally stable materials
> looks very intriguing, and might even result in net engineering power.
> Any thoughts in this direction?
> 
> --
> 
> 					Robert I. Eachus
> 

You're right:  muon-catalyzed fusion neutrons could well be applied for
producing energy by means of a mu-c-fusion / fission hybrid system, or
to incinerate rad wastes.  In fact, these issues are very active research
areas in the mu-c-f community.

Let me point you to applicable literature:

Yuri Petrov, Nature 285 (1980) 466 -- clever scheme for a power reactor
based on mu-c-f combined with fission processes.  He found that a commercial
hybrid reactor would require approx. 100 fusions/muon average.  Then in
1984-86, our experiments at LAMPF attained 150 fusions/mu (average).
(Other refs are given in my posting of 14 Jan 94, "re: commercial muon
fusion".)
  So a
fusion/fission hybrid indeed looks possible, but no one seems to want it.  
HOWEVER, 
the idea of an accelerator-driven fission reactor has been given a boost
recently by Carlo Rubbia, and mu-c-f could provide more energy kick from
a beam than obtainable with fission alone.

And your idea of using 14-MeV neutrons from mu-c-f for rad-waste incineration,
and for fusion-reactor materials testing, is also being revisited.  
Stay tuned.

Best Regards,
Steven Jones

cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenjonesse cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Fri Jan 21 04:37:03 EST 1994
------------------------------
1994.01.21 / f wilson /  Fusion "burn"
     
Originally-From: fwilson@SantaFe.edu (frederick george wilson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Fusion "burn"
Date: 21 Jan 1994 00:30:08 GMT
Organization: The Santa Fe Institute


  According to the news media 3 or 4 years back, a "burn" or net energy
production was achieved in a hot fusion experiment.  Now they are
clamoring over a large energy production achieved recently that was short
of a burn.  What is the layman to believe?
 
Concerned Laity for the Achievement of Production Test Results Authentic
and Proven (CLAPTRAP)
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenfwilson cudfnfrederick cudlnwilson cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.20 /  gmd1@ukc.ac.uk /  Gas discharge coefficients wanted
     
Originally-From: gmd1@ukc.ac.uk
Newsgroups: sci.physics.research,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics
Subject: Gas discharge coefficients wanted
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 1994 16:24:47 GMT
Organization: University of Kent at Canterbury, UK.


[Mod. note: As requested by the poster, please followup via mail.  -- MWJ.]


Hi,

A friend who has no access to scientific journals and publications is
interested in a few values for the following parameters:

1. Normal and abnormal (anomal) diffusion coefficients for gas
   discharges in Helium, Neon, Argon, Xenon and Nitrogen. He wants
   them as f(E/p) or f(Te)

   (E = electric field, p = pressure, Te = electronic temperature)

2. Drift velocities as f(E/p) for the same gas discharges as above.

3. Collision parameters f(E/p) or f(p) or f(Te) for the following 
   types of collisions:
   - excitation (also in metastable levels)
   - resonant charge transfer and excitation
   - recombination   

   for the same gas discharges.

Could you please help me with this, sending whatever information you
think appropriate to me: gmd1@ukc.ac.uk

Thank you.
George Mihai Dobre 

cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudengmd1 cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.21 / Dieter Britz /  Again, conf procs
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Again, conf procs
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 1994 08:28:16 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway


I need more help here. Below you see what I have on conferences now. I have
received some information from a few people but need more. For each meeting, I
need the name, date and place of the meeting, name of the Proceedings,
editor(s), publisher and year of publication. Some of this is missing from
many entries and in a few places (e.g. entry no. 1) there are temporary notes
instead of proper info. If you can fill in any of this, please email me. When
it is finished, it goes into the archives. Thank you.


1. details (including dates as it lasted some days) were written up by
   Dick Garwin in Nature a little later (Apr-89?)
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Erice, Sicily, April 12 1989
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. American Chemical Society, Dallas, April 12 1989
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Materials Research Society, San Diego [when??]
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. American Physical Society, Baltimore, May 1-2 1989
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Electrochemical Society, Los Angeles May 8, 1989
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. "Highlights of papers presented at the Workshop on Cold Fusion Phenomena,
Sante FE, New Mexico, May 23-25, 1989", LA-11686-C, Conference. Report, LANL.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. EPRI cold fusion meeting [where?] Aug 16, 1989.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. NSF-EPRI Workshop on "Anomalous effects in deuterated metals",
   Washington, Oct. 16, 1989.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. Hawaii Hydrogen 90.  World Hydrogen Energy Conference No. 8.
   July 22-27, 1990, Honolulu, HI.
   Proceedings: Special Symp. Cold Fusion, Ed.: B. Liebert. Hawaii Natural
   Energy Institute, 1991 (?)
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. The First Annual Conference on Cold Fusion, March 28-31, 1990
   Salt Lake City, Utah.
>From over title leaf:
"Reprint Permissions: Abstracting is permitted with credit to the source.
For copying, reprint or republication permission, write to Director,
National Cold Fusion Institute, 390 Wakara Way, Salt Lake City, UT
84106 (801) 581-5771
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. AIP Conference Proceedings 228; Anomalous nuclear effects in deuterium/
    solid systems; Provo, Utah, 1990. Eds: S.E. Jones, F. Scaramuzzi,
    D. Worledge. Published 1991, AIP.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 2nd Annual Conference on Cold Fusion, Jun-29 to Jul-4 1991, Como, Italy.
    Proceedings: "The Science of Cold Fusion", Eds T. Bressani, E. DelGiudice
    and B. Preparata, 1991. Italian Physical Society, ISBN 88-7794-045-X.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. ICCF-3, Nagoya, Japan, <date??> 1992. Proceedings: "Frontiers of Cold
    Fusion", Ed. H. Ikegami, Universal Academy Press, Inc. Tokyo 1993.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Fourth International Conference on Cold Fusion, Dec-6 to -9, 1993,
   Maui, Hawaii. Proceedings:
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.21 / Terry Bollinger /  Not much is getting through...
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com (Terry Bollinger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Not much is getting through...
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 1994 15:12:47 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Hi folks,

Internet traffic has expanded enormously recently, and as a result our
News disk is running very near capacity.  As a consequence I am seeing
very little of the message flow in this group these days -- most of the
messages are getting queued for disk space until they are simply lost.
Performance has become especially poor over the past two weeks.

I've only seen about six of the postings to this group over the last week,
so if I don't respond to something that it seems I should have, I probably
never saw it.

				Cheers,
				Terry

cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenterry cudfnTerry cudlnBollinger cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.22 /  blue@dancer.ns /  Rad waste creation and disposal
     
Originally-From: blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Rad waste creation and disposal
Date: Sat, 22 Jan 1994 01:12:15 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

In response to Ivan's questions perhaps I can provide a few answers.

< 1. What kinds of radioactive wastes are there? >
Let's ignore the "waste" designation, and just say what kinds of radio-
activities are significant.  Firstly a given nucleus of Z protons and N
neutrons may be stable, i.e. lasts forever if left unperturbed, or it
may be radioactive, i.e. it will undergo a spontaneous nuclear transformation
on some characteristic time scale.  If we exclude those cases for which
the time scale is so short that the nucleus is never found outside the
location where it was created  we are left with those nuclei that decay
by perhaps four different processes.  These are alpha decay, the emission
of a 4He++ ion, which is common for nuclei heavier than lead.  There is
beta decay which involves the emission of an electron or positron or
some related processes involving atomic electrons.  There is gamma decay,
the emission of high-energy electromagnetic radiation, frequently following
one of the other forms of decay.  Finally there is fission, the splitting
of a heavy nucleus into two lighter parts along with the emission of
some neutrons.  The resulting fission fragments are themselves generally
radioactive and decay further by beta emission.

<2. How is radioactive waste generated? >
Waste, which includes some radioactive materials, can be generated as
tailings from mining operations where the material being mined is itself
is radioaction.  Uranium mining is perhaps the prime example of this.
In addition there is usually some radioactivity associated with the mining
of nonradioactive materials such as coal and phosphate rock.  Whether you
call the leftovers from such mining operations "radioactive waste" is
somewhat arbitrary.

Natural radioactivity concentrated for commercial applications and then
discarded contributes to the waste stream.  Radium was once a prime
example of that sort although its applications have declined in recent
years.

Man made sources of radioactive materials may be produced by accellerators
for specific applications such as radiopharmaceuticals or may be the
result of unintended processes peripheral to the main purpose for the
accellerator.

Nuclear reactors employed for energy production, weapons production, or
other applications produce large quantities of fission fragments and
also produce, intentionally or unintentionally, other radioactive materials
through the process of neutron capture.

Finally the testing of nuclear weapons produced large quantities of
radioactive materials, but we can expect that source to become less
significant in the future.

I think that covers most of the sources except for the natural processes
associated with cosmic rays.

<3. How will they affect people and how long will they last?>
To answer the second part first, radioactive decays of the types described
cover a range of decay times ranging from milliseconds to forever.  Material
which is "highly radioactive" by definition decays rapidly.  Long-lived
materials are decaying slowly and since it is the decay that represents
a hazard they are radioactive in inverse proportion to their lifetime.
The affect on people results from the fact that the emissions are sufficiently
energetic that upon penetration of a living organism they can disrupt
molecular structures resulting in the death of cells or interference with
cell reproduction.  While high levels of exposure can result accute 
radiation sickness, a concern for workers on the site of a major accident,
the exposure to the general public is of concern generally as a cause for
radiation-induced cancer.  

<4. How can they be disposed of? >
Normally disposal just implies taking some steps to isolate the waste
from human activity and the general biosphere as much as possible within
limits of reasonable cost.  One approach, that probably never be acceptable
to the general public, would be to disperse waste so there are no places
where it is concentrated to give anyone a significant exposure.  There
are also some more exotic approaches to be considered such as "burning"
the radioisotopes by exposure in a reactor or accellerator beam to
induce nuclear reactions that would alter the decay rates.

<5.  How can we stop generating radioactive wastes?>
The simply answer is to stop those activities that result in waste production,
but that price we would pay in quality of life is much too high to be
considered seriously.  There will always be a tradeoff between the benefits
of producing, concentrating, and using radioactive materials and the total
costs including the hazards and the steps taken to deal with those hazards.

<6.  Where are they mostly generated? >
I don't really know the answer, but my guess is that the largest sources
are nuclear weapons development and the fuel cycle for power reactors.

Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU

cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenblue cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.22 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Heat Pipe Tests #2
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Heat Pipe Tests #2
Date: Sat, 22 Jan 1994 01:12:21 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

HP2     Heat Pipe Development                                   21 Jan 94

Some more observations on heat pipes.  

Last night I filled HP #00 with alcohol from the hardware store (Denatured 
with methyl alcohol ethyl alcohol) to see if that would work also.  This 
morning it was not yet up to the temperature that would boil off the alcohol, 
but the thermometer readings were nicely spaced.  So I cranked up the heater.
The eight thermometer readings which had been nicely spaced, moderately 
quickly came together to near the same reading (but not nearly as quickly as 
closely as with a "chunk"). 

It is clear to me that there was some sort of sudden transition between a 
temperature stratification in the alcohol filled tube, and a convection 
circulation pattern.  

Beware!, those of you trying to do calorimetry by looking at thermometers in 
the soup.  Something can change the circulation pattern.  Depending on where 
the thermometer is located, it may look like a sudden heat input and you will 
be "hooked" on "cold fusion".  On the other hand, it may look like a sudden 
heat loss, and you can go fishing.  On the large scale, these sort of effects 
are sometimes seen in lakes which can suddenly go from a stratified state to a 
mixed state.  This could also affect the fishing!

I believe I remember Douglas R. O. Morrison reporting this type of effect as 
having been seen at GE.  

Tom Droege

cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenDROEGE cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Sat Jan 22 04:37:02 EST 1994
------------------------------
1994.01.21 / J Perez-Cordoba /  Monte Carlo integration
     
Originally-From: jlpc@eng.umd.edu (Jose L. Perez-Cordoba)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Monte Carlo integration
Date: 21 Jan 1994 16:39:38 GMT
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park


HI

I wonder if there is anybody who can help me with the method of 
Monte Carlo integration and with the program 'vegas'.

I got it from the book "Numerical recipes". But now i don't
know how to use it. I need to compute some integrals in some
volumens. I bought also the "Example book" and I saw a example 
in, which I tried to follow in

In this example they compute an integral over all space and 
they use a rectangular box extending from 0 to 1 in all 
dimensions (4 dimensions). Also, they normalize the function
to get 1 as result.

The function is :

                              -100*( x - x0 )^2
                   10                -   --
	f(x) =  -------- * exp       
                sqrt(PI)


The result is :  (1/2)^4   (4 = dimension)

First question , why does if happen this ?
Second, why do they use such regtangule ?

Third, what would it be the volumen (or rectangule) if I need
to compute integrals in which variables are ranging from 0 to 
infinity ?

I computed the integral of the function (2 dimensions), and I 
used the parameters in the example listed above. (the name of 
the examples is xvegas.c)
                              
                 1.0          -( x - x0 )^2 - (y - y0)^2
	f(x) =  -------- * exp       
                sqrt(PI)

over all space and I got the result 0.1777. I did 

   0.1777 * (1/2)^2 = sqrt(2)/2,    not 1 !!

Also the integral of 

                              
                    -( x - x0 )^2 - (y - y0)^2
	f(x) =   exp       
                
 is PI * sqrt(2)/2, not PI !  

Why does it happen this ?


I would appreciate any help. Please, e-mail me to jlpc@src.umd.edu

With advanced thanks.

Jose
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenjlpc cudfnJose cudlnPerez-Cordoba cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.21 / Joshua Levy /  CNF in the net.news (sort of)
     
Originally-From: joshua@veritas.com (Joshua Levy)
Originally-From: dhorvath@sas.upenn.edu (David Horvath)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Newsgroups: rec.humor.funny
Subject: CNF in the net.news (sort of)
Subject: Apple Project Names
Date: 21 Jan 1994 09:45:38 -0800
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 94 12:20:04 EST
Organization: VERITAS Software Corp., Santa Clara  CA

I found this in rec.humor.funny: 

Message-ID: <S651.1eb@clarinet.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 94 12:20:04 EST
Newsgroups: rec.humor.funny
Subject: Apple Project Names
Originally-From: dhorvath@sas.upenn.edu (David Horvath)

>From Computerworld:

Sources at Apple say astronomer Carl Sagan was so upset that Apple
engineers had used his moniker as the code name for a 66-Mhz PowerPC in
development that he called up the Cupertino, Calif., company and gave them
an earful.  Ever the gentlemen (and women), the techies backed down.  The
new name of the project, BHA, stands for Butt-Head Astronomer.  Sagan, as
well as code names Cold Fusion and PDM, were orignally chosen by Apple
engineers, who consider them the three biggest hoaxes of all time (PDM
stands for Piltdown Man, trumpeted as the oldest human remains when
found), according to an engineer who recently left Apple.

cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenjoshua cudfnJoshua cudlnLevy cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.21 / Mark Thorson /  Heavy Water Suppliers
     
Originally-From: mmm@cup.portal.com (Mark Robert Thorson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Heavy Water Suppliers
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 94 09:03:53 PST
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

I didn't save the info posted in this group back when it was first
created on where to buy heavy water.  Could someone please inform me
where to order it at the best price (say, one-liter quantity).
It all comes from Ontario Hydro, right?  What sort of quantity would
I need to buy direct?
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenmmm cudfnMark cudlnThorson cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.21 / Ad aspera /  Re: Fusion "burn"
     
Originally-From: JTCHEW@lbl.gov (Ad absurdum per aspera)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion "burn"
Date: 21 Jan 1994 18:24:59 GMT
Organization: Purely personal 'pinions

>   According to the news media 3 or 4 years back, a "burn" or net energy
> production was achieved in a hot fusion experiment.  Now they are
> clamoring over a large energy production achieved recently that was short
> of a burn.  What is the layman to believe?

Certainly not whatever news medium published the former claim
(which, for what it's worth, I've never seen). Perhaps someone
misreported or misremembers the first D-T shot at the Joint
European Torus (JET) in Culham.  It provided Q << 1 and I never
heard any responsible and knowledgeable reporter represent it 
otherwise...

Cheers,
Joe
"Just another personal opinion from the People's Republic of Berkeley"
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenJTCHEW cudfnAd cudlnaspera cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.22 / Uday Shah /  Re: TFTR Status January 18, 1994
     
Originally-From: shah@galois.uoregon.edu (Uday Shah )
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: TFTR Status January 18, 1994
Date: 22 Jan 1994 00:08:59 GMT
Organization: University of Oregon

In article <2hhb8f$od8@lyman.pppl.gov> rhawryluk@pppl.gov (Rich Hawryluk)  
writes:
> Status (January 18, 1994):
> 
> Activities have resumed on TFTR after the holidays.
> 
> For our D-T campaign in December 1993, we have run shots
> 
>         59      Trace Tritium plasmas (<2% mixture)
>         13      Tritium gas puffing plasmas (100% T)
>         27      Tritium neutral beam plasmas
> 
> We have obtained very valuable data on the confinement, stability, and
> transport in D-T plasmas.  In addition, we have checked out all our
> diagnostics in a D-T environment.
>   
> Preliminary results show that:
> 1.      The confinement in a D-T plasma is better than in a deuterium
> plasma, the ion and electron temperatures are higher and the plasma  
stored
> energy is higher in a D-T plasma.
> 
> 2.      Deuterium wall recycling is very important in determining the  
ratio
> of deuterium to tritium in the plasma core.
> 
> 3.      One of the exciting results is that we did not observe any  
enhanced
> loss of alpha particles as the fusion power was increased.
> Since December, we have performed about 120 TRANSP code runs to study  
and
> analyze the D-T data.  At present we are still analyzing the data with  
the
> help of the computer codes.
> 
> We are preparing three research reports on the main results from the D-T
> experiments.  These reports should be available in draft versions by the
> end of January 1994.
> 
> Operation with pure tritium in the tritium systems in December enabled  
us
> to complete an operational checkout of the system at full parameters. 
> Hardware deficiencies in the Tritium Storage and Delivery System, Torus
> Cleanup System and the vacuum pumping system for the Quadrupole Mass
> Spectrometer were observed.  Corrective actions to address these
> deficiencies are underway.
> 
> 
> Plans:
> 
> Maintenance activities are underway.  Deuterium operations will resume  
in
> the beginning of February and deuterium-tritium operations in  
mid-February.
> 
> The research effort is focussed on analyzing the data from the
> deuterium-tritium experiments.
> 
> A workshop on the results from the deuterium-tritium experiments will be
> held at PPPL on March 2-4.  A description of the workshop is appended
> below. For further information about the workshop contact S. Zweben
> (szweben@pppl.gov or kmcguire@pppl.gov).
> 
> R. J. Hawryluk
> 609-243-3306
> e-mail rhawryluk@pppl.gov
> 
> 
> P.S.  If you do not wish to receive notices of TFTR status, please  
contact
> me or send a message to postmaster@pppl.gov.  If you are aware of others
> who wish to receive notices, please send a message to  
postmaster@pppl.gov
> and do not send a message to tftr_news_info.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>                         First Announcement
> 
>         U.S. Transport Task Force Fast Particle Working Group 
>         IEA Large Tokamaks Workshop (W.28)
>         U. S.-Japan Workshop Q187
>         Workshop on DT Experiments
> 
>         March 2-4, 1994
> 
>         Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory
>         Princeton, New Jersey, USA
> 
> 
> Topics:
> 
>         Confinement and Heating in DT Plasmas
>         Alpha Particle Experiments and Theory
>         Alpha Particle Simulations and Diagnostics
> 
> 
> Format:
> 
>         o 2 days of talks on present DT results
>         o 1/2 day of discussions of future DT issues            
> This workshop will include the first presentations of the TFTR DT  
results
> to the fusion community
> 
> For further information, return the attached form or contact:
>         S.  Zweben (609-243-3243 or e-mail szweben@pppl.gov) or
>         K. McGuire (609-243-3187 or e-mail kmcguire@pppl.gov).
> U.S. Transport Task Force Fast Particle Working Group 
> IEA Large Tokamaks Workshop (W.28)
> 
> 
> 
> Workshop on DT Experiments
> 
> March 2-4, 1994
> 
> Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory
> Princeton, New Jersey, USA
> 
> 
> 
> I would like to ( give a talk )  ( just attend )  -- circle one -- 
> 
> Title of Talk (if applicable):___________________________________
> 
> ______________________________________________________
> 
> 
> Name:_________________________________________________
> 
> 
> Address:_______________________________________________
> 
> 
> ______________________________________________________
> 
> 
> Phone and/or FAX #:______________________________________
> 
> 
> Please mail back or FAX before Feb. 1, 1994 to:
> 
> B. Carey, LOB B204
> PPPL, P.O. Box. 451, Princeton, N.J. 08543
> FAX 609-243-2874; e-mail szweben@pppl.gov or kmcguire@pppl.gov
> Phones: S. Zweben 609-243-3243, or K. McGuire 609-243-3187
> 
>  
> Further information and a tentative agenda will be sent out about  
Mid-February.
> 
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenshah cudfnUday cudlnShah cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.23 / Ketil Malde /  plutonium!
     
Originally-From: ketil@ii.uib.no (Ketil M. Malde)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,alt.magnus.and.ketil,alt.religion.
ibology,alt.suicide.holiday,alt.evil,alt.worst.of.internet,sci.physics,s
i.philosophy.meta,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: plutonium!
Date: 23 Jan 1994 22:53:34 GMT
Organization: student of numerical analysis at the University of Bergen, Norway


Ode To A Synthetic Element
     (by kZ)

Plutonium, Plutonium
I have some in my trunk
Plutonium, Plutonium
would you like a little chunk?

It tastess quite well,
makes you feel swell
and makes your innards glow
your doctor's sure
to find no cure,
for what the X-rays show

Plutonium, Plutonium
could turn the world insane
Plutonium, Plutonium
so slowly eats my brain

Well roll it out
and all about
the world will be perfect
a Pee-U shell
that's thick as hell
our sphere it will protect

Plutonium Plutonium
It's Pee-U everywhere
Plutonium, Plutonium
It's Pee-U, have no fear

(Yeah!)

--

 + Ketil Malde                        In real life:  ketil@ii.uib.no ;
 + Nuke The Whales!  Pave The Earth!  And Honk If You Love Unicorns! ;

   <a href="http://eik.ii.uib.no:8080/~ketil/"> Click Here Now! </a>
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenketil cudfnKetil cudlnMalde cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.24 /  griffin /  Re: plutonium!
     
Originally-From: griffin@destiny.dorm.umd.edu (griffin)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.kibology,alt.suicide.holiday,alt.evil,sci.physi
s,sci.philosophy.meta,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: plutonium!
Date: 24 Jan 1994 04:37:55 GMT
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park

Holy shit!  This is just very ironic.  I wrote a poem about plutonium 
just a few days ago.  Well, now I have to post it.  Here it is:

"Plutonium"  by Scott Weintraub

Plutonium.
Oh sweet milk of life;
It makes me want to kiss my wife.
Bag clips dancing on my head;
Please, mommy, Freddy is DEAD!
Nuclear Yoo-Hoo and pretzels, too;
Remote control inside Bill's zoo.
Dairy whey.
Dinnerware.
Day-Glo.
Dignified.
Plutonium in my ear.
Plutonium, Plutonium everywhere.
Plutonium up your fucking ass.
Plutonium crawling in the grass.
Mouse?
It looks neat-o with my red hat;
I even stapled it to my cat.
Please, baby don't take away my precious Plutonium.
It's so funky.
I love it.
Come shoot it with me.
Oh yes, I give it as birthday presents.
My mom loved it.
She makes kasha. 
Divine.


--
*****************************************************************************
* Scott Weintraub - scottw@wam.umd.edu - * "The extreme always seems to     *
* University of Maryland at College Park *  make an impression."            *
*  iN   dREaMS   i   WalK   wItH   YoU   *              --J.D., "Heathers"  *
***************************************************************************** 
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudengriffin cudlngriffin cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.24 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Synchronous Picosecond Sonoluminescence
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Synchronous Picosecond Sonoluminescence
Date: 24 Jan 94 10:47:08 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

Prof. Lawrence Crum of the University of Washington provided a
colloquium on the subject of "Synchronous Picosecond
Sonoluminescence" (SP-SL) at BYU on January 21, 1994.  Here is his
abstract for his talk:

When an acoustic wave of moderate pressure amplitude is propagated
through an aqueous liquid, light emissions can be observed.  This
conversion of mechanical energy into electromagnetic energy
represents and energy amplification per molecule of over eleven
orders of magnitude!  Recently, we made the discovery that a
single, stable gas bubble, acoustically levitated in a liquid, can
emit optical emissions each cycle for an unlimited period of time. 
Presumably, the oscillations of the bubble cause the gas in the
interior to be heated to incandescent temperatures during the
compression portion of the cycle.  We have no current explanation
for how this mechanical system sustains itself.  Furthermore, some
recent evidence from Putterman and colleagues at UCLA indicates
that the lifetime of the optical pulse is less than 50 picoseconds,
and that the temperatures elevated in the interior of the bubble
for times on the order of tens of nanoseconds, it is likely that
some rather unusual physics is occurring.  The best guess is that
a shock wave is created in the gas which is then elevated to high
temperatures by inertial confinement.  If shock waves are the
mechanism for SL emission, then optimization of the process could
lead to extraordinary physics.  A general review of this intriguing
phenomenon will be presented as well as the latest explanations for
the anomalous behavior.


Here I provide notes based on his talk and our discussions
together, along with other literature.

First, it is important to distinguish stable, SP-SL from the
previously known *transient* sonoluminescence (T-SL).  These appear
to be quite different phenomena, as a table will demonstrate:

Transient SL                   Synchronous Picosecond SL
 ----------------------------- -------------------------------- 

Multiple cavitation sites      One cavitation site (or few)
 with random spatial and         with same bubble(s) repeatedly
 temporal distribution           collapsing
                               
(To simplify discussion, I will consider the SP-SL case of a single
bubble at the center of a spherical flask full of H2O.)

Can be produced by traveling   Requires standing sound waves (SW)
or standing waves of sound

Easily obtained, with much     Very difficult to realize; requires
gas dissolved in liquid         <5% dissolved gasses.

Discovered 1934 by H. Frenzel  Discovered 1988 by D. Gaitan, L. 
& H. Schultes.                  Crum and C. Church.

Emitted light spectrum shows   Emitted light shows no distinct
distinct lines, e.g., N+N -->   lines; rather, spectrum fits black
N2; so chemiluminescence         curve quite well.  Not chemilumin.?
postulated.

From above, Temp ~ 5000 K      From above, Temp up to 100,000 K
deduced, during cavitation.     deduced during cavitation.

Normal physics, no shock       "Extraordinary physics"; shock waves
waves needed.                   implied.  

Time between pulses quite      Time between pulses clock-like; 
random; pulse-length not       pulse-length < 50 *pico*seconds.
measured yet.

(Sychronous picosecond SL:

!__________!__________!__________!__________!__________!____
   Time between light-flashes ! = 50 microsec +- 50 Picosec
     for 20 kHz driving field; sound source good to 1 part in
     10^4, light source stable to 1 part in 10^6.  Explain that!)
   

No fusion possible.             Fusion during cavitation possible;
                                 like inertial-confinement approach
                                 with holraum-like target.  Allows
                                 compression with less heating than
                                 ablation approaches.  No        
                                 experimental tests yet.  I suggest
                                 comparing p-d,d-d and d-t targets
                                 (gasses in cavitating bubble).


Curious:  Patent 4,333,796 by Hugh Flynn was issued evidently for
liquid-metal with hydrogen isotopic gas in bubble, so as to drive
fusion-- a concept described independently here by Terry Bollinger
here in December 1992.  I think the patent pre-dates Terry's
posting, but I wrote down a 1982 date on the patent from Prof.
Crum's seminar and this seems wrong since stable, synchronous SL
was not discovered until 1988.  Request help on this patent:  when,
why, how patented without any experimental demonstration, even
today?


Additional notes from Barber and Putterman, Nature 352 (1991) 318:

1.  "SL is a non-equilibrium phenomenon in which the energy in a
sound wave becomes highly concentrated so as to generate flashes
of light in a liquid.  We show here that these flashes, which
comprise over 10^5 photons, are too fast to be resolved by the
fastest photomultiplier tubes available.  Furthermore, when SL is
driven by a resonant sound field, the bursts can occur in a
continuously repeating, regular fashion."

2.  "These bursts represent an amplification of energy by eleven
orders of magnitude."

3.  "The flash widths that we find are so short that one wonders
whether some phenomenon stimultes the atoms to fire in usison. 
Known cooperative phenomena include laser action, super-radiance
and super-fluorescence.  Any cooperative phenomenon underlying our
observations must be of a spherical nature, however, because a
randomly oriented dipose emission would lead to a broad spread in
the distribution of pulse heights....no such broadening is seen.
Nevertheless, it is reasonable to expect that some type of
correlation characterizes the outgoing photons, because the spacing
between light-emitting sources is much less than the wavelength of
the emitted light."   [Terry Bollinger and others take note!]

4.  "The huge, spontaneous (non-equilibrium) amplification factors
discussed above are noteworthy in that they are controllable and
reproducible.  In this respect, stable synchronous SL differs from
other phenomena (such as dust explosions, ball lightning and highly
speculative conditions for nuclear fusion) that also require large
spontaneous energy concentrations. [Note evident reference to cold
fusion.]  If we could understand the mechanism behind synchronous
SL, we might see a way to achieve large but controllable energy
concentrations more generally."

It's a wide open field, gentlemen (and ladies).  Roll up your
sleaves.

--Steven Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenjonesse cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.23 /  james.baker@hi /  PROJECT IDEAS
     
Originally-From: james.baker@his.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: PROJECT IDEAS
Date: Sun, 23 Jan 94 19:44:28 
Organization: Heller Information Services, Inc., Rockville MD


OK...I'm a high school student who once again must go thru the painful
experience of a science fair project!!!

I'm currently in advanced physics and need an idea.....all are welcome...but if
anyone has an idea for a physic "program" written in think pascal that I could
do THAT would be something special...for the life of me I can't think of
anything to do!!!!

any suggestions are most appreciated!!!

thanks

James Baker

cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenbaker cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.25 / f wilson /  Hawking
     
Originally-From: fwilson@SantaFe.edu (frederick george wilson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Hawking
Date: 25 Jan 1994 01:17:02 GMT
Organization: The Santa Fe Institute

I have compared notes with someone who interprets one of Stephen Hawking's
hypotheses as being that the speed of propagation of gravity is infinite. 
If this is incorrect, what is the correct speed (a text I considered
reliable put it at roughly C), and what experiments proving the correct
speed would you direct me towards?
 
Email if you wish, but please post, as this would be of general interest.
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenfwilson cudfnfrederick cudlnwilson cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Tue Jan 25 04:37:03 EST 1994
------------------------------
1994.01.24 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Synchronous Picosecond Sonoluminescence
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Synchronous Picosecond Sonoluminescence
Date: 24 Jan 94 11:32:47 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

Prof. Lawrence Crum of the University of Washington provided a
colloquium on the subject of "Synchronous Picosecond
Sonoluminescence" (SP-SL) at BYU on January 21, 1994.  Here is his
abstract for his talk:

When an acoustic wave of moderate pressure amplitude is propagated
through an aqueous liquid, light emissions can be observed.  This
conversion of mechanical energy into electromagnetic energy
represents and energy amplification per molecule of over eleven
orders of magnitude!  Recently, we made the discovery that a
single, stable gas bubble, acoustically levitated in a liquid, can
emit optical emissions each cycle for an unlimited period of time. 
Presumably, the oscillations of the bubble cause the gas in the
interior to be heated to incandescent temperatures during the
compression portion of the cycle.  We have no current explanation
for how this mechanical system sustains itself.  Furthermore, some
recent evidence from Putterman and colleagues at UCLA indicates
that the lifetime of the optical pulse is less than 50 picoseconds,
and that the temperatures elevated in the interior of the bubble
for times on the order of tens of nanoseconds, it is likely that
some rather unusual physics is occurring.  The best guess is that
a shock wave is created in the gas which is then elevated to high
temperatures by inertial confinement.  If shock waves are the
mechanism for SL emission, then optimization of the process could
lead to extraordinary physics.  A general review of this intriguing
phenomenon will be presented as well as the latest explanations for
the anomalous behavior.


Here I provide notes based on his talk and our discussions
together, along with other literature.

First, it is important to distinguish stable, SP-SL from the
previously known *transient* sonoluminescence (T-SL).  These appear
to be quite different phenomena, as a table will demonstrate:

Transient SL                   Synchronous Picosecond SL
 ----------------------------- -------------------------------- 

Multiple cavitation sites      One cavitation site (or few)
 with random spatial and         with same bubble(s) repeatedly
 temporal distribution           collapsing
                               
(To simplify discussion, I will consider the SP-SL case of a single
bubble at the center of a spherical flask full of H2O.)

Can be produced by traveling   Requires standing sound waves (SW)
or standing waves of sound

Easily obtained, with much     Very difficult to realize; requires
gas dissolved in liquid         <5% dissolved gasses.

Discovered 1933 by N.Marinesco  Discovered 1988 by D. Gaitan, L. 
& J. Trillat.                    Crum and C. Church.

Emitted light spectrum shows   Emitted light shows no distinct
distinct lines, e.g., N+N -->   lines; rather, spectrum fits black
N2; so chemiluminescence         curve quite well.  Not chemilumin.?
postulated.

Bubbles tend to collapse asym-  Bubbles tend to collapse symmetrically,
metrically, thus introducing    "developing an imploding shock wave within
liquid into bubble, which is     the gas." [L.A. Crum, J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
heated by adiabatic compression.            94 (1993) 1 ]

From above, Temp ~ 5000 K      From above, Temp up to 100,000 K
deduced, during cavitation.     deduced during cavitation.

Normal physics, no shock       "Extraordinary physics"; shock waves
waves needed.                   implied.  

Time between pulses quite      Time between pulses clock-like; 
random; pulse-length typically    pulse-length < 50 *pico*seconds (!)
several nanoseconds.


(Sychronous picosecond SL:

!__________!__________!__________!__________!__________!____
   Time between light-flashes ! = 50 microsec +- 50 Picosec
     for 20 kHz driving field; sound source good to 1 part in
     10^4, light source stable to 1 part in 10^6.  Explain that!)
   

No fusion possible.             Fusion during cavitation possible;
                                 like inertial-confinement approach
                                 with holraum-like target.  Allows
                                 compression with less heating than
                                 ablation approaches.  No        
                                 experimental tests yet.  I suggest
                                 comparing p-d,d-d and d-t targets
                                 (gasses in cavitating bubble).


Curious:  Patent 4,333,796 by Hugh Flynn was issued evidently for
liquid-metal with hydrogen isotopic gas in bubble, so as to drive
fusion-- a concept described independently here by Terry Bollinger
here in December 1992.  I think the patent pre-dates Terry's
posting, but I wrote down a 1982 date on the patent from Prof.
Crum's seminar and this seems wrong since stable, synchronous SL
was not discovered until 1988.  Request help on this patent:  when,
why, how patented without any experimental demonstration, even
today?


Additional notes from Barber and Putterman, Nature 352 (1991) 318:

1.  "SL is a non-equilibrium phenomenon in which the energy in a
sound wave becomes highly concentrated so as to generate flashes
of light in a liquid.  We show here that these flashes, which
comprise over 10^5 photons, are too fast to be resolved by the
fastest photomultiplier tubes available.  Furthermore, when SL is
driven by a resonant sound field, the bursts can occur in a
continuously repeating, regular fashion."

2.  "These bursts represent an amplification of energy by eleven
orders of magnitude."

3.  "The flash widths that we find are so short that one wonders
whether some phenomenon stimultes the atoms to fire in usison. 
Known cooperative phenomena include laser action, super-radiance
and super-fluorescence.  Any cooperative phenomenon underlying our
observations must be of a spherical nature, however, because a
randomly oriented dipose emission would lead to a broad spread in
the distribution of pulse heights....no such broadening is seen.
Nevertheless, it is reasonable to expect that some type of
correlation characterizes the outgoing photons, because the spacing
between light-emitting sources is much less than the wavelength of
the emitted light."   [Terry Bollinger and others take note!]

4.  "The huge, spontaneous (non-equilibrium) amplification factors
discussed above are noteworthy in that they are controllable and
reproducible.  In this respect, stable synchronous SL differs from
other phenomena (such as dust explosions, ball lightning and highly
speculative conditions for nuclear fusion) that also require large
spontaneous energy concentrations. [Note evident reference to cold
fusion.]  If we could understand the mechanism behind synchronous
SL, we might see a way to achieve large but controllable energy
concentrations more generally."

It's a wide open field, gentlemen (and ladies).  Roll up your
sleeves.

--Steven Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenjonesse cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.24 /  jonesse@physc1 /  cancel <1994Jan24.104709.1289@physc1.byu.edu>
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cancel <1994Jan24.104709.1289@physc1.byu.edu>
Date: 24 Jan 94 11:34:43 -0700

cancel <1994Jan24.104709.1289@physc1.byu.edu>
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenjonesse cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.25 / John Logajan /  Re: Synchronous Picosecond Sonoluminescence
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Synchronous Picosecond Sonoluminescence
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 94 04:31:45 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

jonesse@physc1.byu.edu writes:
>Curious:  Patent 4,333,796 by Hugh Flynn was issued evidently for
>liquid-metal with hydrogen isotopic gas in bubble, so as to drive
>fusion-- ... but I wrote down a 1982 date on the patent from Prof.
>Crum's seminar and this seems wrong since stable, synchronous SL
>was not discovered until 1988.

If they issue patent numbers sequentially, then the 4,3xx,xxx series was
indeed being issued in the 1982 time frame.  1988 patents would already
be in the 4,7xx,xxx range or greater.
-- 
- John Logajan MS612, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-391-1159, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.25 / Edward Ray /  Particle Accelerator Research Time Available.
     
Originally-From: edray@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Edward Ray)
Newsgroups: sci.research,sci.space.policy,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Particle Accelerator Research Time Available.
Date: 25 Jan 1994 12:53:58 GMT
Organization: The Ohio State University

The Linear Electron Particle Accelerator (LINAC), located at The
Ohio State University, in Columbus, Ohio, has been used in the
Chemistry Department for graduate level instructional programs
and research since the middle 60's. This instrument provides
reproducible doses of ionizing radiation useful for a variety of
studies; e.g., the properties and reactivities of free radicals,
radiation damage to solids, dosimetry, and the properties of
unstable oxidation state species.  Due to funding difficulties
and diminishing local interest, serious consideraion is now being
given, to opening the facility to outside users, to increase the
utilization of this instrument. In an effort to determind the
interest and the potential market for such a facility, a survey
is now being conducted, to identify both the number of individuals
and their specific areas of scientific interest, without regards to
thier research interest. e.g. academic, industrial or commercial.
   If you are interested and wish to be considered as a potential
user, please contact us immediately. In particular, we are interested
in: i) whether you would use such a facility were it were available
with technical support, at minimal (or no) cost; and ii) how this
facility might be utilized in your research and/or academic program.
    Should you not be interested, it will be appreciated if this
information be shared with others researchers who, may have an
interest.

Direct All inquiries -

Chemistry Application:               Physics/Engineering
                                     Application:

LINAC Evaluation Committee           LINAC Evaluation Committee
c/o Edward Ray                       c/o Don W. Miller
Department of Chemistry (Box 78)     Nuclear Engineering Program
100 West 18th Avenue                 206 West 18th Avenue
Ohio State University                Ohio State University
Columbus Ohio 43210                  Columbus Ohio 43210
Phone: (614) 292-7570                Phone: (614) 292-7979
Fax: (614) 292-1685                  Fax: (614) 292-3163
Email:                               Email:
edray@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu      miller@element.eng.ohio-state.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenedray cudfnEdward cudlnRay cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.25 / David Taylor /  Re: Heat Pipe Success
     
Originally-From: dct@batman.cs.byu.edu (David Taylor)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Heat Pipe Success
Date: 25 Jan 1994 15:53:11 GMT
Organization: Brigham Young University

Tom - just a silly speculation - but is there any way to measure the  
electrical resistance of the pipe after it goes "chunk"?  Idle  
curiosity wants to know.

****************************************************************
*  Soaring - the ultimate three  *   David C. Taylor           *
*  dimensional art form          *   dct@newt.cs.byu.edu       *
****************************************************************
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudendct cudfnDavid cudlnTaylor cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.25 / Ad aspera /  STTR solicitation available
     
Originally-From: JTCHEW@lbl.gov (Ad absurdum per aspera)
Newsgroups: sci.research,sci.physics,sci.chem,sci.energy,sci.bio,misc.en
repreneurs,sci.misc,sci.physics.accelerators,sci.physics.fusion,sci.elec
ronics
Subject: STTR solicitation available
Date: 25 Jan 1994 21:22:19 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory

The Department of Energy has put out the Solicitation, or
call for proposals, for the STTR program.  STTR means Small
Business Technology Transfer (yeah, I know the acronym
doesn't work out...).  

This relatively new funding opportunity seems to be much 
like the familiar Small Business Innovation Research 
(SBIR) program, but with a key difference:  STTR proposals 
must involve not only a small business, but also a research 
institution, which performs perform 30-60% of the work.   

As with SBIR, only the specified topics and subtopics are 
eligible; other ideas must be put into the STTR topic mill 
in the hopes that they will appear in a future Solicitation.

The deadline is April 11.  

For a copy of the Solicitation or answers to questions, call
or write *this person*  (I'm just a lab guy passing this 
along as a service to others and have no official connection 
with the STTR program):

   Ms.  Kay Etzler, Program Spokesperson
   c/o STTR Program Manager, ER-16
   US Department of Energy
   Washington, DC 20585
   301/903-5797 
   
For information on areas in which LBL might be interested in
collaboration (or other aspects of technology transfer), contact:

   Technology Transfer Office
   Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory
   1 Cyclotron Road, 90-1070
   Berkeley, CA 94720
   510/486-6457

Good luck with your proposals,

Joe
"Just another personal opinion from the People's Republic of Berkeley"
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenJTCHEW cudfnAd cudlnaspera cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Wed Jan 26 04:37:03 EST 1994
------------------------------
1994.01.25 / Robert Eachus /  Re: Heat Pipe Success
     
Originally-From: eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Heat Pipe Success
Date: 25 Jan 94 16:50:22
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.


In article <940120162607.206024c5@FNALD.FNAL.GOV> DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:

  > Success at last!  Finally I have a unit that measures a thousand or so 
  > improvement over the conductivity of the copper pipe.  

  Happy to hear it, but a little worried that this is copper again.  I
hope this doesn't mean that there really is a problem with brass.

  > I think I am back in the cleaning business. Where did we hear that
  > before?  If all "cold fusion" work requires ultra clean procedures
  > then I want out!  I am not fit for such work!

   Grease free and oxide free were the two commandments we had.  i.e.
Once the copper was cleaned only handle wearing gloves.  (But the
gloves got pretty cruddy from the degreasing and deoxidizing baths.)

  > In any case, now we have some sort of experimental set up.  So
  > turn on the heater with the pipe open to the atmosphere, and watch
  > the temperature curves.  We note a relatively even spacing of the
  > temperature plots and get about 4 C /watt - foot.  ( i.e. 9 watts
  > into the bottom heater produces 36 C difference between two
  > thermometers one foot apart.  But all 9 watts do not go up the
  > pipe or there would be a 225 C difference.)  This condition was
  > run for several hours boiling out a few cc of of the (Gibleys 80
  > proof gin) fill from the previous experiment.  The vent tube at
  > the top of the pipe was then clamped off.  After a while, we
  > noticed that the thermometers near the top (cold end) of the pipe
  > were getting closer together.  This continued until the difference
  > between the test pair of thermometers that are 10" apart decreased
  > from of order 30 C to 9 C.  Then the pipe make a "chunk" sound
  > which was sort of like a perkolator starting up.  The temperature
  > readings went suddenly to the same value (within 2 C or so).  This
  > value was more or less mid way between the hottest and coldest
  > thermometer.  The time constant of this set up is of order 15
  > minutes.  That is if I heat one end and cool the other, note the
  > temperature difference, then turn off the heater, the temperature
  > difference down the thermometer string will move to the steady
  > state value with a fifteen minute time constant.  After a chunk,
  > the thermometers come together in less than the 10 second sampling
  > time.  We can thus claim a 90/1 change in time constant (it is
  > much faster - more on this later).  We can also claim a 15/1
  > change in conductivity, but this is conservative since we do not
  > know what the thermometers would read if the conductivity were
  > infinite.

    That "chunk" sounds right.  When we were trying to calibrate the
"working" temperature range for the heat pipes, I remember learning
that "chunk" from a heat pipe translated into let go NOW!  We tried to
measure the response time and figured that the main delay we saw was
the time for the heat to get through the copper, period.  (We actually
tried an experiment with a 30 foot pipe--no noticeable difference from
a 3-foot one, except it took a lot longer to set up.

  > Watching the device operate, we note that it can pop in and out of
  > Sh mode over time.  I do not yet understand this.  But entry into
  > the Sh mode is often (but not always) accompanied by a "chunk".
  > The general trend is to work better with high heat flow than with
  > low, and often the top three quarters (cold end) of the tube was
  > in Sh mode while the bottom quarter was normal.

  Ice = no work.  All vapor = no work.  Part of the game is to get a
mixture in the pipe with a useful range between freezing and all
vapor.  This is one of the areas where the wick helps (more working
fluid = higher internal vapor pressure before everything is in vapor).

  > This lead to an experiment to measure the thermal resistance of
  > the tube with heat load.  Heat input to the hot end was set at 40,
  > 20, 10 and 5 watts.  The result was actually negative, i.e. the
  > drop down the pipe was less at 40 watts than at 5.  But it did not
  > change very much, and I can put a limit on the change from 40
  > watts to 5 watts at +/- 0.1 C.  This would give a thermal
  > resistance of 0.0028 C /watt - ft compared to the calculated value
  > for the copper tube of 25 C /watt -ft.  This is an 8900 / 1
  > improvement.  Note that it is hard to tell what is really
  > happening.  In non Sh mode, most of the heat is lost through the
  > insulation and only about 16% of it goes down the pipe.  In Sh
  > mode, likely most of the heat goes down the pipe.

  The negative response at low heat loads sounds familiar--it isn't an
artifact.  If you do very careful measurements on the same heat pipe,
you should discover that the power/temperature drop ratio goes through
several discrete values, so when you cross one one of several magic
heat input levels the temperature drop will drop.  (Yes, this is
negative HEAT resistance--want to build an amplifier?)

  > One quickly learns how poor thermal conductors things like big
  > chunks of aluminum are.  With the pipe in non Sh mode, I was
  > feeling the joint at the top where the copper pipe is clamped to a
  > large aluminum heat sink.  There was clearly a large thermal drop
  > across the clamped surface.  I was able to cool down the copper
  > pipe with my finger to where it was comfortable.  Then the pipe
  > happened to go "chunk" and instantly burned my finger.  No more
  > than a 0.1 second time constant.  Likely the only thing that
  > protected my finger from a sudden 80 C contact was 0.025" of
  > copper.

  The problem with aluminum is the low specific heat.

  > The various experiments; time constant, steady state conductivity,
  > conductivity as a function of heat flow, all indicate an large
  > improvement in thermal conductivity.  A lower limit is 15, an
  > upper limit is 10,000

  Great!

  > Why did this unit work while the others have been duds?  Don't know
  > for sure, but I suspect that the longer piece of pipe has a longer
  > "factory clean" section in the middle.  Think about it, it costs
  > money to dirty high production products (with stuff like oil and
  > grease).  If we assume that soldering the caps on the ends dirtied
  > up 6" of the pipe then HP #2 had no clean area left while HP #00
  > had 24" left.  Something like that I think.

  It may be the solder flux.  I don't like acid flux, but for this
purpose it may be a lot better.  (Actually best is probably CLEAN the
copper, use no flux.)

  > Another possibility is that this unit is long and is heated from
  > the bottom.  The others have been mostly heated from the top.
  > Heating from the bottom, the liquid will boil off and condense at
  > the top, then run down the sides, and then boil off again.  The
  > efficiency of the process is such that the liquid is likely boiled
  > many times before it exits at the top.

  Yes. Reflux again and again.  The "dirtier" the pipe, the longer
this may take, but I would aim for four hours minimum before you boil
it dry.  Remember part of what you are trying to do in this step is to
drive off adsorbed gasses, and vacuum can't get it.

  > My general opinion is that this heat pipe is barely working.
  > Likely there is only a partially wetted surface.  I now appreciate
  > Robert Eachus's discussion about mating copper parts in a vacuum
  > oven.  I do not quite have the facilities for that, but will do
  > the best I can for a good cleaning job before assembling the gold
  > plated unit.  Then we will see if Robert's magic gin boiling
  > procedure works.

    I don't know where to look for adsorption coefficients, but I
suspect that gold is okay, even if brass doesn't work.  The other
thing I wonder about the brass is that you may have surface cracking.
I wonder if annealing would help?  We did try chrome plating, and it
created more problems than it was worth--I don't rememeber if we ever
got a heat pipe plated on the inside to work.  On the outside the
plating would peel off.

--

					Robert I. Eachus

with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudeneachus cudfnRobert cudlnEachus cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.26 /  blue@dancer.ns /  Re: Synchronous Picosecond Sonoluminescence
     
Originally-From: blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Synchronous Picosecond Sonoluminescence
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 1994 15:43:35 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I am puzzled by the statements concerning the time characteristics of this
phenomena as described in the recent post by Steve Jones.  Let's see if
I understand what has been said.  A 20 kHz accoustic source in water
results in the cyclic emission of light from a single bubble in bursts
of picosecond duration.  Now as understand it, the source frequency is
only stable to one part in 10^4 but the response is stable in frequency
to one part in 10^6.  That cries out for some explaination!  Is there any
data equivalent to a tuning curve to see how far the driving frequency
can be detuned before there is an observable effect on the frequency and
amplitude of the response?  What happens when the source frequency is
modulated?

Perhaps we should back up one step to ask how the stability of the
response is determined and what detection system is up to the task
of measuring that stability.  Next I wonder what there is in the
system under study that could be suggested as capable of exhibiting
such stability?  To build any sort of electromechanical device that
would have that stability is not, in my book, a piece of cake.  To
stumble on one by accident is, shall we say, unlikely.  I guess if
I had any sort of device with a stable oscillator in the same room
with the experiment I would look ways to alter the coupling between
them.  I would also look very carefully at the noise on the signal
that provides the picosecond trigger.  Perhaps a local TV transmitter
is part of the problem.  As long as there is an indication that
the response is more strongly coupled to something unknown than it
is to the driven oscillator I would keep these data on the doubtful
list.     

Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU 

cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenblue cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.27 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Various Replies
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Various Replies
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 1994 01:15:04 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

David Taylor wants to know the electrical resistance of my heat pipe when it
goes "chunk".  Unfortunately I have torn down that set up and am trying to get
the gold plated unit working.  Don't see why it would have any effect, but if
I get this unit working, I will put the ohm meter on it.  With the device I 
have, I could likely see 0.001 ohm.  With a little effort, I could see a 
0.000001 ohm change.  Why not, I will try anything.

Mark Thorson wants to buy heavy water.  Aldrich Chemical Co. is the cheap 
source.  You should be able to find them in something like the Thomas Register.
Of order $500 a liter.  Please no mail from someone who got it for $476.83.
You can also buy it in 100 ml quantities from most chemical supply houses - 
but at a very high price - of order $200 per 100 ml.  So go to Aldrich as 
almost everyone else has done.  The big problem is that because of the legal
problems brought on by the MSDS, and similar regulations, chemical supply 
houses do not just sell to anyone anymore.  Best to find a friend that buys 
chemicals regularly and have him order it.  

Meanwhile, the heat pipe work is not going well, and I am getting discouraged.

Tom Droege

cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenDROEGE cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.27 / R Schroeppel /  Sonoluminescence
     
Originally-From: rcs@cs.arizona.edu (Richard Schroeppel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Sonoluminescence
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 1994 01:15:04 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Some off the wall speculations about sonoluminescence:

If various other liquids are substituted for water in the
sonoluminescence experiments, the high temperatures should
cause various chemical rearrangements to occur, with
detectable spectral lines, and perhaps products.  For example,
If we started with propane, we'd expect lots of other
hydrocarbons (in minute quantities).

This might be useful for carrying out new chemical reactions.

Once single bubble stabilization has been achieved, it will
be interesting to look at multi-bubble configurations.
Can we establish arrays of bubbles?  Other patterns?  Can
we add a focussing field to the sound pattern, so that bubbles
form at preferred locations?  Does varying the shape of the
container do anything useful?  How about stringing wires or
putting plates in the water?  If the bubbles can be precisely
placed, they might be part of a computer display system.
They might be a good "inverted population" for a soft Xray
laser, with a wavelength at the bubble spacing.  They might make
a very interesting kind of optical filter, with a high shutter
speed; or a diffraction grating; or a variable lens, since the
index of refraction probably changes near a bubble.

If the bubbles have interesting interactions, then precisely
positioning bubbles & choreographing the phases might lead to
interesting shock focussing at distant places in the fluid, or
even in a nearby solid if the impedance match can be worked out.
This might lead to fusion, explosives, jackhammers, drills,
or loudspeakers.

If the bubbles affect each other strongly enough, it may be
possible to do computation with them, using bubbles as gates,
memory, etc.

Rich Schroeppel   rcs@cs.arizona.edu

cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenrcs cudfnRichard cudlnSchroeppel cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Thu Jan 27 04:37:03 EST 1994
------------------------------
1994.01.26 /  dowen@vaxc.cc. /  Re:Synchronous Picosecond Sonoluminescence.
     
Originally-From: dowen@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re:Synchronous Picosecond Sonoluminescence.
Date: 26 Jan 94 11:04:42 +1100
Organization: Computer Centre, Monash University, Australia

Hi Folks,
 In his post "Synchronous Picosecond Sonoluminescence" of the 25-Jan-94,
Prof. S. Jones writes...........

"Synchronous picosecond SL:
__________!__________!__________!__________!__________!__________!____
 Time between light flashes ! = 50 microsec +- 50 picosec for 20 KHz
driving field; sound source good to 1 part in 10^4, light source stable
to 1 part in 10^6. Explain that!"

 The above implies that when the sound source drifts slightly in its
frequency then the light source does not follow it but remains "locked"
(within limits) at its original repetition rate.
 This raises some interesting questions:
1) How much does the sound source frequency have to vary before the light
begins to follow it ?  (Surely it cannot remain completely independent
of the sound source frequency ?)
2) Does the light source track a slowly varying frequency sound source in
a series of (quantum?) jumps or in a smooth linear fashion ?
3) If (quantum) jumps do occur, what parameters influence the magnitude of
the jump ?

 It would be much appreciated if these questions could be passed onto
Prof. Crum or alternatively could someone please email me his email address.
Many thanks in anticipation.
                                      Kind Regards to all,
			       		Daryl Owen.

This text is only attributable to myself.
	
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudendowen cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.26 / John Manuel /  Re: 2nd RFD: sci.physics.computational
     
Originally-From: john.r.manuel@dartmouth.edu (John Manuel)
Newsgroups: sci.geo.fluids,sci.nonlinear,sci.physics.fusion,comp.lang.fortran,news.groups
Subject: Re: 2nd RFD: sci.physics.computational
Date: 26 Jan 1994 18:27:07 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH, USA

This posting has already appeared recently in several newsgroup. I am
reposting it to five additional newsgroups (sci.geo.fluids,
sci.nonlinear, sci.physics.fusion, sci.physics.research and
comp.lang.fortran) where I believe there is also interest in the
possible formation of this new newsgroup. Note that followups are
directed to news.groups.

In article <sci.physics.computational-RFD2@uunet.uu.net>
lind@glue.umd.edu (Charles A. Lind) writes:

>                  SECOND REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
> 
> This is a formal Request for Discussion for the creation of a new
> newsgroup under the sci.* hierarchy.  This RFD is being cross
> posted to sci.aeronautics, sci.engr.mech, sci.math,
> sci.math.num-analysis, sci.physics and news.announce.newgroups.
> Discussion of this RFD is to take place in news.groups.
> 
> NAME:  sci.physics.computational 
> 
> STATUS: Unmoderated
> 
> One line description for the List of Active Newsgroups:
> 
> sci.physics.computational - Forum for the discussion of
> all issues relating to the computation of physics, specifically
> in the area of fluid dynamics.
> 
> RATIONAL:
> 
> An overwhelming number of researchers are depending on computers to
> solve state of the art fluid problems.  The need for a group
> dedicated specifically to Computational Fluid Dynamics is evidenced
> by the increased traffic in other groups.  The proposed newsgroup
> is intended to provide an international forum for all issues
> concerning the numerical solution of fluid related problems.
> 
> The proposed name sci.physics.computational is specific
> enough to define the group, but general enough to welcome
> researchers from all disciplines.
> 
> PROPOSED CHARTER:
> 
> sci.physics.computational is a forum for the discussion of
> all issues relating to computational fluid dynamics.  
> 
> TOPICS OF DISCUSSION
> 
>         Discussion on all aspects of CFD are welcome, including, but
> not limited to:
>         
>         * grid generation - elliptic, algebraic, adaptive, structured,
>                 unstructured, 2D, 3D, 
>         * Specific flow problems: plasmas, real gases, MHD
>         * Multigrid methods
>         * Finite difference methods
>         * Finite volume methods
>         * Finite element methods
>     * Panel methods
>         * Solution issues: explicit vs. implicit, structured grids vs.
>                       unstructured, ADI vs. SLOR, etc.
>         * High order numerical methods (TVD, ENO)
>     * Turbulence Modeling
>         * Commercial codes - problems, issues, limitations
>         * Visualization
>     * Code validation
> 
> PROCESS
> 
> The normal group creation guidelines are being followed.  This is the
> final draft of this proposal.  A Call for Votes is expected in three
> days.
> -- 
>             Charles Lind -- lind@eng.umd.edu
>                Hypersonics Research Group
>           Department of Aerospace Engineering
>        University of MD, College Park, MD 20742


----
John R. Manuel                              john.r.manuel@dartmouth.edu
Thayer School of Engineering, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH, 03755 USA
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenmanuel cudfnJohn cudlnManuel cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.27 / Dieter Britz /  CNF bibliography; recent updates and archive retrieval, Jan-90.
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CNF bibliography; recent updates and archive retrieval, Jan-90.
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 1994 10:17:00 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway


Current count:
-------------
  7 books
851 papers
135 patents
209 comment items
 73 peripherals
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Journal papers:

cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.28 / BERNECKY R /  H bands
     
Originally-From: BERNECKY@nl.nuwc.navy.mil (BERNECKY WILLIAM R)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: H bands
Date: Fri, 28 Jan 1994 01:27:08 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

>From Nature, VOL 356, March 26, 1992. p 289-291
"Hydrogen atoms band together", Risto Nieminen.

This short article presents evidence for band structures of H/D
atoms on a metal surface.  Let me quote the first and last
paragraphs:

"Electrons moving through a crystal have their energies divided
up into different bands, separated by band gaps.  Whether a
material is insulating, semiconducting, semimetallic or metallic
depends on the nature of these bands, on the band-gap separation
between them and on the way they are populated. The bands and
gaps arise because the traveling electrons are diffracted by the
crystal lattice, and transmission is completely impossible for
electrons of certain energies.  What is good enough for electrons
is good enough for protons, their chemical counterparts 2,000
times more massive, report C. Astaldi, et al., who have discovered
band-like behaviour of hydrogen atoms moving over the surface of
copper."

The last paragraph:

"Surface hydrogen is thus a candidate for an interesting, strongly
correlated quantum liquid, intimately coupled to the underlying
surface and its excitations.  A number of hydrogen-related properties
have been intensely studied by surface physicists.  The competition
between hydrogen-substrate and hydrogen-hydrogen interactions leads
to a wealth of ordering phenomena of both hydrogen adatoms (surface
phases) and substrate atoms (surface relaxation and reconstruction).
The new quantum aspect discussed here is the importance of zero-point
motion.  Yet to be explored are the possible consequences of quantum
statistics for hydrogen-related surface phenomena.  Should one
consider screened hydrogen adatoms moving around on a metal surface
as fermions (like electrons), or as bosons, like the Cooper pairs of
electrons responsible for superconductivity? Can the system exhibit
superfluidity? "


cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenBERNECKY cudfnBERNECKY cudlnR cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.26 / Robert Eachus /  Re: Heat Pipe Success
     
Originally-From: eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Heat Pipe Success
Date: 26 Jan 94 14:46:31
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.

In article <2i3f97$jgi@hamblin.math.byu.edu> dct@batman.cs.byu.edu (David Taylor) writes:

  > Tom - just a silly speculation - but is there any way to measure the  
  > electrical resistance of the pipe after it goes "chunk"?  Idle  
  > curiosity wants to know.

    Probably wouldn't help, or "did it, did it."  Remember what we
were using these for way back when.  We routinely used the voltage
drop in the electrode to measure things like premature arcing.  (The
arc moving back from the tip of the electrodes.)

    However we also did speculate about superfluid like effects in
these pipes, and did manage to establish that the energy flow maxed
out near (but above) the round trip speed of sound in the gas phase.
I've mentioned this before, the speed of sound in the adsorbed film
is higher so the round trip is subsonic, but not by much when you are
near the limit.  The noise is from the temperature change propagating
down the pipe faster than the speed of sound in air, but slower than
in copper.

   Supersonic temperature changes are not an everyday experience,
although they do happen under other conditions.  It looks like Tom may
have to change his instrumentation strategy with the new
calorimeter--even recording every second may not be enough.  A good
technique so that you don't devour magnetic media is to record
significant jumps as well as, say, one minute integrated averages.
(Some rule of thumb or back of envelope calculations...Sound travels
1000 feet/second or one foot per millisecond, about one million times
slower than light.  We expected a 30 millisecond (about a thirtieth of
a second delay) when applying heat at one end and measuring a foot
from either end.  We never got that out of the smear caused by the
heat transfer through the copper pipe wall.  Thermocouples stuck
inside the tube did show a delay, but we never could get the inside
temperature measurements to correlate with outside measurements--the
inside measurements matched each other much more closely than any
exterior measurements, that we finally gave up. (i.e. Let the pipe
reach equilibrium.  Now heat one end--the internal thermocouples start
down, the outside one wait then start up, and finally the inside
thermocouples start up.  We guessed it was due to evaporation,
adiabatic expansion, the phases of the moon, etc. but never came up
with a believable model.)

--

					Robert I. Eachus

with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudeneachus cudfnRobert cudlnEachus cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.28 / L Plutonium /  REIFENSCHWEILER & GEIGER-MUELLER TUBES, SPONTANEOUS NEUTRON 
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,alt.sci.physics.plutonium
Subject: REIFENSCHWEILER & GEIGER-MUELLER TUBES, SPONTANEOUS NEUTRON 
Date: 28 Jan 1994 04:30:09 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

SEE 3JAN PHYSICS LETTERS A
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.28 / L Plutonium /  Reifenschweiler radioactivity is spontaneous neutron 
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,alt.sci.physics.plutonium
Subject: Reifenschweiler radioactivity is spontaneous neutron 
Date: 28 Jan 1994 04:33:15 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

Just say the word and I will repost SNM.
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.28 / L Plutonium /  Re: Sonoluminescence
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,alt.sci.physics.plutonium
Subject: Re: Sonoluminescence
Date: 28 Jan 1994 19:32:16 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In article <199401261737.AA27536@leibniz.cs.arizona.edu>
rcs@cs.arizona.edu (Richard Schroeppel) writes:

> Some off the wall speculations about sonoluminescence:
> 
> If various other liquids are substituted for water in the
> sonoluminescence experiments, the high temperatures should
> cause various chemical rearrangements to occur, with
> detectable spectral lines, and perhaps products.  For example,
> If we started with propane, we'd expect lots of other
> hydrocarbons (in minute quantities).
> 
> This might be useful for carrying out new chemical reactions.

  The answer is spontaneous neutron materialization.
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.28 / L Plutonium /  Re: Synchronous Picosecond Sonoluminescence
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Synchronous Picosecond Sonoluminescence
Date: 28 Jan 1994 19:38:59 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In article <1994Jan24.113247.1290@physc1.byu.edu>
jonesse@physc1.byu.edu writes:

> Prof. Lawrence Crum of the University of Washington provided a
> colloquium on the subject of "Synchronous Picosecond
> Sonoluminescence" (SP-SL) at BYU on January 21, 1994.  Here is his
> abstract for his talk:
> 
> When an acoustic wave of moderate pressure amplitude is propagated
> through an aqueous liquid, light emissions can be observed.  This
> conversion of mechanical energy into electromagnetic energy
> represents and energy amplification per molecule of over eleven
> orders of magnitude!  Recently, we made the discovery that a
> single, stable gas bubble, acoustically levitated in a liquid, can
> emit optical emissions each cycle for an unlimited period of time. 
> Presumably, the oscillations of the bubble cause the gas in the
> interior to be heated to incandescent temperatures during the
> compression portion of the cycle.  We have no current explanation
> for how this mechanical system sustains itself.  Furthermore, some
> recent evidence from Putterman and colleagues at UCLA indicates
> that the lifetime of the optical pulse is less than 50 picoseconds,
> and that the temperatures elevated in the interior of the bubble
> for times on the order of tens of nanoseconds, it is likely that
> some rather unusual physics is occurring.  The best guess is that
> a shock wave is created in the gas which is then elevated to high
> temperatures by inertial confinement.  If shock waves are the
> mechanism for SL emission, then optimization of the process could
> lead to extraordinary physics.  A general review of this intriguing
> phenomenon will be presented as well as the latest explanations for
> the anomalous behavior.

  The answer to this plus Reifenschweiler radioactivity plus
electrochemical cold fusion plus cosmic gamma ray bursts are all the
same---Spontaneous Neutron Materialization. That is how according to
Dirac-Plutonium, how the universe grows. Now it is time for those
mindless naysayers of cold fusion to get to work.
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Sun Jan 30 04:37:02 EST 1994
------------------------------
1994.01.29 / L Plutonium /  Re: Light-water cells/Recombination
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Light-water cells/Recombination
Date: 29 Jan 1994 20:42:52 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In article <1994Jan28.124225.1301@physc1.byu.edu>
jonesse@physc1.byu.edu writes:

> Boy this net is getting quiet!

  It is quiet because this group was subconsciously set up to destroy
cold fusion. Most of the posters to this group were negative about cold
fusion. Now those posters realize that they were wrong and their flames
and bias towards cold fusion will be preserved. They are upset that us
pro cold fusioners will be able to say in the future-- oh don't trust
so and so's opinion, in the past he was anti cold fusion, laughs go up.
  It is quiet because the Dirac-PLutonium spontaneous neutron
materialization is being verified via sonoluminescence, electrochemical
cold fusion, Reifenschweiler radioactivity.  HA HA HA HA HA. All the
anti cold fusioners are running for cover. Ha Ha Ha Ha
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.28 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Light-water cells/Recombination
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Light-water cells/Recombination
Date: 28 Jan 94 12:42:25 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

Boy this net is getting quiet!  Further evidence IMHO that the Maui 
meeting on CF in Dec. '92 had little new or exciting (quite the contrary).

Relative to the BYU research on light water cells, and my comment that
a proper control is ill-defined, I received the following:

"The proper control for such an experiment is to use a Na2CO3 electrolyte
instead of K2CO3.  That's the control used by Mills et al.  No excess
enthalpy should be found."

We did some experiments to test this notion and think we found the basis
for the difference.  Quoting now from our forthcoming paper:

"The H2 bubbles were smaller when K2CO3 was the electrolyte than when Na2CO3
was the electrolyte in the same cell.  Smaller bubbles on the electrode allow
better contact between the electrolyte and the electrode surface, thus 
allowing more recombination of dissolved gases to occur.  When detergent was
added to the Na2CO3 electrolyte, the bubbles became much smaller, did not
adhere to the electrode, and resulted in about the same rate of apparent
excess heat as was observed with the K2CO3 electrolyte."
(BYU preprint, J. Jones et al.)

In all cases in our experiments, we found that recombination accounted for
observed "excess" heat as described previously on this net and in our
forthcoming paper.

I sent a copy of our preprint to Prof. Richard Oriani, who reported that he,
too, found apparent excess heat in Ni/K2CO3/Pt cells, and
"found that nearly 50% of the gases had recombined in the electrolysis cell.
[After further verification,] "I dropped the work with Ni/K2CO3 then, being
convinced that the Mills-Noninski results were artifactual."

--Steven Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenjonesse cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.31 / Dieter Britz /  RE: CNF bibliography; recent updates and archive retrieval, Jan-90.
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: CNF bibliography; recent updates and archive retrieval, Jan-90.
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 1994 09:26:50 GMT
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 1994 10:17:00 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway


Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz) in FD 1913:
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 1994 10:17:00 GMT


>Current count:
>-------------
>  7 books
>851 papers
>135 patents
>209 comment items
> 73 peripherals
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>Journal papers:
>
>--------------------

... and that was all. Well, it wasn't but that was all that got through. Along
with my new abbreviated modus operandi, I decided to change the format of the
bibliography, dispensing with those 78-character '-' or '=' lines that used to
delimit each item, and replacing it with a '.' in column 1. I found that this
shortened the files by as much as 10%. So I went ahead and changed all the
programs that handle these files, to look for that dot... Most of you probably
know what I didn't know (as usual), i.e. that (it seems) a dot in col.1
means end of input. I'll have to pick a better symbol, a shame, I liked that
dot. Can't use '$' either because it means "here comes a VMS command" on this
system. Guess I'll use '#' - anyone know a reason why I can't?

Apart from that, there is still no response to my plea for more info on conf
procs. If you have any, please post it here, or email it to me.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.31 / Dieter Britz /  CNF bibliography; recent updates and archive retrieval,  Jan-90. (Repost)
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CNF bibliography; recent updates and archive retrieval,  Jan-90. (Repost)
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 1994 13:24:34 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway


Current count:
-------------
  7 books
851 papers
135 patents
209 comment items
 73 peripherals
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Journal papers:
#
Boucher GR, Collins FE, Matlock RL;             Fusion Technol. 24 (1993) 200.
"Separation factors for hydrogen isotopes on palladium"
** It is well known that there is hydrogen isotope separation during the
electrolysis of water. Until now, there has only been indirect evidence for
the separation factor for tritium enrichment due to this effect, in heavy
water electrolysis. Here, an experiment is reported where this factor,
calculated from that for h/d and h/t separation (about 2) is used to predict
tritium concentration in a cell containing heavy water and 0.1M LiOD, and to
compare this with measured tritium. The measured points fall on the predicted
line. The line showed an "event", i.e. a sudden increase in tritium on day 21,
but this was due to a greater tritium background in a replenisher. The cell
had a Pd cathode, Pt anode and a recombiner.                     Jul-92/Sep-93
# 23-Jan-94
Choi E, Ejiri H, Ohsumi H;              Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. 32A (1993) 3964.
"Application of a Ge detector to search for fast neutrons from DD fusion in
deuterized Pd".
** A sensitive Ge detector for fast neutrons was used to measure neutrons at
2.45 MeV, right up close to an electrochemical cold fusion cell. 0.1M LiCl in
heavy water, a 5cm * 5 cm * 2 mm Pd plate cathode and two Pt sheets as anode,
were the cell; current was held constant at 0.7 A, and cell voltage was 8 V.
On both sides of the cell there was a 16mm thick Fe slab to scatter neutrons,
with the Ge detector on the other side of one slab. After 471 h of
electrolysis, the upper limit of cold fusion rate was about 1.6*10^-24
fusions/dd pair/s, i.e. this is a null result.                   Mar-93/Sep-93
# 23-Jan-94
Dufour J;                                       Fusion Technol. 24 (1993) 205.
"Cold fusion by sparking in hydrogen isotopes".
** This (24-page) paper follows a patent by the author, and reports results
from a "campaign" of many runs. In all experiments, Pd and stainless steel
cylinders were placed in various gases and subjected to a spark discharge. The
whole system was placed in a calorimeter bath and the power from the cell
measured and compared with the input power. The controls, using nitrogen and
argon as well as heater calibrations, all lie close to zero excess heat (for
the gas controls: 0.63 W average), while both the deuterium (5 points) and
hydrogen (2 points) runs, with Pd and stainless steel, showed excess heat up
to 2.4 W or 20%. Some active and passive radiation devices were also employed,
but nothing definite was detected, nor was tritium found. A better detector of
ionising radiation was later used, and the level as a function of time during
some runs was clearly different for D2 and H2. Since there was excess heat for
both hydrogen and deuterium, a theory is needed to explain both. This is
provided, in the form of 3-body reactions, of hydrogen isotope particles with
virtual neutrons or dineutrons, with most of the energy being carried off by
neutrinos.                                                       Nov-92/Sep-93
# 23-Jan-94
Kobayashi M; Kagaku Kogaku 57(10) (1993) 715 (in Japanese).
"Present of 'cold fusion'".
** Short review of cold fusion, drawing mainly on the 3rd Int. Conf. at
Nagoya (9 out of the 11 references are to papers given there), and focussing
on the McKubre work, and that of Takahashi at NTT, both presenting
correlations: McKubre correlates excess heat with D/Pd loading; Takahashi
correlated heat with the production of (4)He.
# 27-Jan-94
Notoya R;                                       Fusion Technol. 24 (1993) 202.
"Cold fusion by electrolysis in a light water-potassium carbonate solution
with a nickel electrode".
** The Mills-Kneizys/Bush scenario, which predicts the formation of calcium.
The author used a sintered Ni slab (10 mm * 5 mm * 1 mm) and currents from 10
to 550 mA, with cell voltages up to about 5 V. The cell was placed in a
calorimeter with calibration heaters, and the temperature measured as a
function of input power (corrected for enthalpy of water electrolysis). The
electrolysis runs (2 cells) show a straight line relation of temperature
against total input power, much steeper that than for electrical heating,
implying excess heat linear with input power, up to close to 4 W, greater than
recombination heat. An increase in Ca concentration from 21-22 ppm to about 25
ppm resulted from the electrolysis, confirming Bush's theory of fusion of
hydrogen with potassium. Further study is required here.         Sep-92/Sep-93
# 23-Jan-94
Takahashi A;                          Oyo Butsuri 62 (1993) 707 (In Japanese).
"Production of neutron, tritium and excess heat".
** Chemical Abstracts (119:280105) calls this a review but it is limited in
this respect, with only 11 refs. largely to Japanese work. Storms. The figures
are taken from Takahashi's own work, and show neutron counts going up with
electrolysis current, a neutron peak at 2.5 MeV, a figure with a large number
of points showing excess heat increasing with D/Pd loading.           Mar-93/?
# 18-Jan-94



Patents:
^^^^^^^
#
Matsumoto T, Harada H (Kurorin Engineers Kk; Mitsui Bussan);
Jpn. Kokai Tokkyo Koho JP 05,134,098 15-Nov-91.
Cited in Chem. Abstr. 119:258256 (1993).
"Creation of elements from water by nuclear fusion".
** "In the process, D2O electrolytically dissolved using a Pd (or its alloy)
cathode heated >= 80 degC vacuum, and a Pt anode, the cathode is surrounded by
atoms to induce cold nuclear fusion on and/or inside the cathode with the D
atoms as a catalyst, and the nuclear fusion creates various useful elements".
(Direct quote from CA).
# 4-Jan-94

Comments:
^^^^^^^^
#
Anon.;                                        Science 262 (1993) 1643, 10-Dec.
"Utah puts fusion out in the cold".
** After 4 years and 8 months, The Univ. of Utah licensed off its patents to
the new firm ENERCO for a sum "in the low six figures". The involvement has
cost UU about $0.7m in legal fees. The University will receive royalties for
profits arising from the patents. ENECO's president Fred Jaeger says that they
will work closely woth F&P, thus "reuniting the inventors with the invention".
# 18-Jan-94
Bown W;                                                New Scientist 8-Jan-94.
"Ancient experiment turns up on cold fusion".
** In the early 1960's, O. Reifenschweiler, at the Philips labs in Eindhoven,
found that when he heated a mixture containing tritium, its radioactivity
declined by 28%, as measured by the beta count. The mixture was presumably in
a closed container (although the note does not say so). Now Casimir, the
former research director at Philips, has decided with Reifenschweiler to
publish this result and the paper should appear in the Jan. 3 issue of Physics
Letters A.
# 21-Jan-94
Crooks RM;                                     Science 263 (1994) 106 (7-Jan).
"Cold Fusion revisited". Review of Taubes "Bad Science".
** RMC says straight-out that this is far and away the best book written on
cold fusion; the others were either rushed into publication or serve as a
soap box. He goes on to describe the book, and has few complaints except that
Taubes appears to have geographic prejudices against some universities "in the
provinces". RMS has talked to 10 out of the 257 persons interviewed by Taubes,
and these 10 vouch for the correctness of the rendition ("80 to 90%").
# 21-Jan-94

Peripherals:
^^^^^^^^^^^
#
none
#

Books
^^^^^
(This one is just a change from the earlier entry; I now have this book).
#
Kuzmin RN, Shvilkin BN;
"Cold Nuclear Fusion"         ("Kholodnij Yadernij Sintez")
Znanie, Moscow 1989, 64 pp. In Russian.
** Description of the cold fusion saga up to June 1989. Starts with the
physics of fusion itself, then describes muon catalysed fusion, and then
d-d fusion by electrolysis. The F&P, as well the Jones team work is described,
not uncritically, i.e. the problems are mentioned (lack of commensurate
neutrons in the F&P work, e.g.). The Russian fractofusion work is presented,
going back to 1986. There is a useful chronology at the back of this slim
volume, starting in 1866, when T. Grahame ("Grem") found the large hydrogen
absorbing capacity of Pd, followed by the 1926 work of Paneth and Peters,
etc. The "prehistory" of "cold fusion" is therefore dealt with thoroughly,
not leaving out Russian workers.
# 4-Jan-94

Retrieval of the archived files:
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. By anonymous FTP from vm1.nodak.edu (134.129.111.1).  Login anonymous, with
   your e-mail address as the password. Type CD FUSION, DIR FUSION.CNF* to get
   a listing. The general index is large. Use GET (ie. GET FUSION.CNF-PAP1).
2. Via LISTSERV. You get a (large) index of the archives by sending an email
   to listserv@vm1.nodak.edu, with a blank SUBJECT line, and the "message"
   'index fusion'. To get any one of these files, you then send to the same
   address the message, e.g.,
   get fusion 91-00487
   get fusion cnf-pap1                    etc, according to what you're after.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The bib-files are: cnf-bks (books), cnf-pap1..cnf-pap6 (papers, slices 1..6),
cnf-pat (patents), cnf-cmnt (comments), cnf-peri (peripherals), cnf-unp
(unpublished stuff collected by Vince Cate, hydrogen/metal references from
Terry Bollinger). There is also the file cnf-brif, which has all the -pap*
file references without annotations, all in one file (so far); and cnf-new,
with the last month's or so new items in all biblio files.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: It appears that you can GET only 512 kb on any one day, so it might take
you a couple of days to get the whole pap file; each cnf-pap slice is about
150 kb long.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
==============================================================================

cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.01 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Heat Pipe (non) Success
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Heat Pipe (non) Success
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 1994 01:32:45 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Thankst to Robert Eachus for the comments on heat pipes.  I have been 
struggling to patch the leaks in the gold plated unit currently under test.
I am quit worried about the negative resistance phenomina seen in the last
tests of the copper heat pipe and the high speed data acquisition comments
made by Robert.  

What I need is a device that has very high thermal conductivity at *zero*
heat (or very small) flow.  Jumps in conductivity would almost guarantee
that some spectacular (wrong) results would be obtained.  So I am worried.

On another topic, what would be the result if the good Drs Pons and 
Fleischmann had their cells suddenly go into "heat pipe" mode?  Note that in
the boiling cells, the conditions are quite right:

1) Very clean conditions.  Electrochemists (remember the tales told by Jed 
Rothwell of Natoya cleaning her cells, and the ultra pure materials required)
are well known to worry about surface films, and are apt to perform the right
cleaning proceedures to produce the clean surfaces required for heat pipes.

2) Long pre-boil away time.  Remember that there is a slow boil away time 
ahead of the trigger, so that Robert Eachus' recipe for a heat pipe is followed
in the P&F boil away experiment.  

It is not clear exactly how this might produce a funny result, but there might
be sudden changes between cell thermal gradient, and very low thermal
gradient.  This could be mis-in
interpreted as a change in heat.  

Tom Droege

cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenDROEGE cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.01 /  vnoninski@fscv /  Re: Oriani's experiments
     
Originally-From: vnoninski@fscvax.fsc.mass.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Oriani's experiments
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 1994 01:33:22 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Dear Colleagues,

I would like to let you know that a long time ago  I  have  asked 
Oriani to submit  his  findings  on  energy  balance  during  the 
electrolysis of water with Ni cathode to a peer-reviewed archival 
journal. In this way he would have been given the chance to avoid 
ignoring some serious concerns connected  with  the  calorimetric 
method he applies and with  other  problems  connected  with  his 
experiment.

Instead, Oriani prefers to privately discuss these  matters  with 
S. Jones. Some incidents last year  revealed  that  S.  Jones  is 
capable of deliberately changing data so that these data can  fit 
his own needs. Provoked by this behavior, a second reading of  S. 
Jones et al's publication on the subject  in  Nature  reconfirmed 
the conclusion  that  a  worst  publication  on  the  subject  of 
electrochemistry is difficult to  be  found  in  the  literature. 
Unfortunately, the mentioned facts about S. Jones hardly  present 
him as the qualified, honest and objective researcher Oriani,  or 
anybody else seriously interested in the reality of the effect in 
question, needs to discuss these matters  privately  or  publicly 
with.

Truly yours,



Vesselin Noninski                                       01/31/94










cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenvnoninski cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Tue Feb  1 04:37:04 EST 1994
------------------------------
1994.01.31 / L Plutonium /  Re: Light-water cells/Recombination
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.plutonium
Subject: Re: Light-water cells/Recombination
Date: 31 Jan 1994 12:58:33 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In article <qy6Zgc1w165w@burger.wimsey.com>
barclay@burger.wimsey.com (Alan Barclay) writes:

> I don't think this is fair.  I thought part of the scientific process 
> involved debate between both pro- and con- in the field.  Healthy 
> skepticism helps weed out incompatible hypotheses.  Should we laugh at 
> Einstein because he denied the validity of quantum theory?  I don't think
> so.  I applaud both sides of the argument and point out that the 
> issue still has a ways to go. 
>  
> Shame on you for such petty needling.
>  
> Alan

  Alan, I agree with you somewhat. I think it is good to be
conservative but I think it bad to be skeptical. I think it is a
judgement call. And I think the future historians will look at  the
cold fusion debate with sad eyes. I think the cold fusion skepticism
was a "pitiful" example of where scientists, especially in the sci
groups since it is a permanent record, showed their feelings when they
should have said "hey, there is something to this, let us roll-up our
sleeves and get to work." The stakes for cold fusion are so high and
yet the virulent sniping, suggests to me that many doctorates of
physics are better labelled as childates of physics. F.E.Close comes
immediately to mind. So many have their own pet project to protect and
will bend over backwards in an attempt to destroy new and valuable
science.
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.31 / L Plutonium /  Re: Hot Fusion Help
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Hot Fusion Help
Date: 31 Jan 1994 16:18:42 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In article <2i9kuh$p57@telerama.lm.com>
arnoldj@telerama.lm.com (Jon Arnold) writes:

>  I have until monday (that's 3 
> days) to write it!

  Oh, in that case some bleeding heart will help you. At least you are
not one of those 3 minute type homeworkers.
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.02 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Gary Taubes
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Gary Taubes
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 1994 01:17:58 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Looks like I will have lunch with Taubes at Fermilab, February 9.  He is 
coming here to present a seminar, I guess to promote his book.  The custom
here is to invite the speaker to lunch with an appropriate group, someone
put the finger on me.  

So send me your nasty questions.  I will have two shots at him, one at lunch,
and later at his talk.  Questions that might not be appropriate at the 
seminar can be asked at lunch.  Or I will ask him really nasty ones privately.

I will be pleased to present either side of the issue.  I will attempt to 
present views that I do not necessarily hold for any of you.  

Local people may want to try to attend.  I think there is no problem getting 
into the lab for such a seminar.  If anyone wants to attend I will provide 
directions, and the scheduled time.  

Tom Droege

cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenDROEGE cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.27 / Jon Arnold /  Hot Fusion Help
     
Originally-From: arnoldj@telerama.lm.com (Jon Arnold)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Hot Fusion Help
Date: 27 Jan 1994 19:06:41 -0500
Organization: Telerama Public Access Internet, Pittsburgh, PA

Ok.... I know I've posted a similar plea to all the "larger brains" out 
there in fusion land, but I'm in need of some more specific info than the 
last "tell me about fusion" (oh... and to all the people who helped, 
thanx a whole bunch!). I have to write a paper on fusion for my advanced 
chem class. Nothing fancy, just a way of educating my teacher and fellow 
classmates in the ideas of hot fusion. I have until monday (that's 3 
days) to write it! I hope to do more of a synopsis of many peoples work 
(cited o'corse) due to my general lack of outside knowledge in this area. 
Any help in the following catagories would be VERY apriciated...

     *Methods of plasma containment
     *Methods of heating
     *Structure of the reactor/ why?
     *Materials used in reactor
     *By products (besides He)
     *Tempuratures and pressures 
     *Equipment used in measurments
     *Current problems facing the fusion research community
     
Any other topics that you might think are important and I havent covered 
as well! 

One question of my own.... How are the neutrons emmited contained and how 
are they prevented from eating away at the structure? Thanx.....

				Jon "the future science wiz" Arnold

-- 
| Jonathan Arnold   ------======*======-------     arnoldj@telerama.lm.com  |
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I too am not a bit tamed, I too am untranslatable,    |   Uncle \/
I sound my barbaric yawp over the roofs of the world  |   Walt  /\ 
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenarnoldj cudfnJon cudlnArnold cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.31 / mitchell swartz /  Light-water cells/Recomb/Heavywatergate
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: Light-water cells/Recomb/Heavywatergate
Subject: Re: Light-water cells/Recombination
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 1994 16:59:24 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

in  Message-ID: <2iiv9p$ldb@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Subject: Re: Light-water cells/Recombination
Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium) writes:

   == > "I don't think this is fair.  I thought part of the scientific process 
   == > involved debate between both pro- and con- in the field.  Healthy 
   == > skepticism helps weed out incompatible hypotheses.  Should we laugh at 
   == > Einstein because he denied the validity of quantum theory?  I don't think
   == > so.  I applaud both sides of the argument and point out that the 
   == > issue still has a ways to go. 
   == > Shame on you for such petty needling.    Alan"
==   "Alan, I agree with you somewhat. I think it is good to be
== conservative but I think it bad to be skeptical. I think it is a
== judgement call."

  Skepticism is good, but destructive criticism is bad. 

    skeptic  from the L. scepticus   for ====>   thoughtful
   from Webster (ibid)     an adherent or advocate of skepticism
        1)   the doctrine that true knowledge or knowledge
                 in a particular area is uncertain
          2) method of suspended judgment, systematic doubt, or criticism
                 an attitude of disposition towards doubt

  The problem?
 Rather then carefully consider the limits of their logic and definitions  
and understanding, the hard-core-TB-CF-skeptics have, on occasion
too frequent in the past, attacked the scientists and posters 
rather then deliberately debate the science.

   Result?   L'Chatelier's law (or its sociologic equivalent) might
predict that the proponents/scientists would leave such surrounds ...
and they have.  

   Since ICCF-4 again demonstrated the existence of the cold fusion
phenomena -- with 105 experimental papers and more than 35 confirming
the excess heats,  with more than 6 confirming the 4-helium generation,
there is not longer any debate about cold fusion.  

   The debate now must include why there has been a cover-up
(heavywatergate)  of these interesting phenomena and results
and why there has been so much subsequent obstruction 
of information about these important phenomena first described by
Fleischmann and Pons in March 1989.

                                            Mitchell Swartz
                                           [mica@world.std.com]






cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.31 / Robert Eachus /  Re: Synchronous Picosecond Sonoluminescence
     
Originally-From: eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Synchronous Picosecond Sonoluminescence
Date: 31 Jan 94 14:43:45
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.

In article <94012609593600@dancer.nscl.msu.edu> blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu writes:

  > I am puzzled by the statements concerning the time characteristics of this
  > phenomena as described in the recent post by Steve Jones.  Let's see if
  > I understand what has been said.  A 20 kHz accoustic source in water
  > results in the cyclic emission of light from a single bubble in bursts
  > of picosecond duration.  Now as understand it, the source frequency is
  > only stable to one part in 10^4 but the response is stable in frequency
  > to one part in 10^6.  That cries out for some explaination!

  It does?  The papers I have seen on sonoluminescence all used
spherical vessels, and I would assume that there is a natural
resonance at multiples of the round trip time for a sound pulse to
reflect off the vessel.   This time would vary with temperature and
pressure, but one part in 10^6 sounds reasonable.  (Note that if you
have a resonance at several times the round trip, successive pulses
will not be strongly correlated, but the transform of the data will
show a very sharp peak.)

--

					Robert I. Eachus

with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudeneachus cudfnRobert cudlnEachus cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.31 / Robert Eachus /  Re: H bands
     
Originally-From: eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: H bands
Date: 31 Jan 94 15:10:11
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.


   Bill Bernecky quotes Risto Nieminen talking about C. Astaldi, et. al.:

   "Surface hydrogen is thus a candidate for an interesting, strongly
   correlated quantum liquid, intimately coupled to the underlying
   surface and its excitations...  The new quantum aspect discussed
   here is the importance of zero-point motion.  Yet to be explored
   are the possible consequences of quantum statistics for
   hydrogen-related surface phenomena.  Should one consider screened
   hydrogen adatoms moving around on a metal surface as fermions (like
   electrons), or as bosons, like the Cooper pairs of electrons
   responsible for superconductivity? Can the system exhibit
   superfluidity? "

   The more Tom gets discouraged, the more interested I get...

   Way back when, we knew that alcohol and water in copper made great
heat pipes.  (And clean, clean, clean!)  Tom has revalidated that, but
is having major problems using other metal surfaces.  (I certainly
encouraged Tom to try other metals, since any impurities could lead to
degradation and changes in the calorimeter constant.)

   I've mentioned several times that the heat transport we measured
was at the edge of believability for the amount of fluid involved.
You had to assume very ordered flow over solid surfaces.  I thought
about superfluidity and said "Naaah!" But here are two people
suggesting the same thing within days.

   Of course this implies some bad news for Tom.  It sounds like clean
pure copper works with just about any hydrogen rich fluid.  (We tried
ether and ethelyne gylcol/water, Tom has tried methanol, this paper is
talking about H2.)  But I know of no results using metals other than
copper that worked.  (Oh, yes.  Add Hg in copper and aluminum to the
above, and I think I bought some sodium in aluminum heat pipes once,
but the only water, etc. pipes I know about have used copper.)

   I know that copper is a very easy metal to wet, and has a high
surface tension.  (If you want to know if a piece of copper is clean
enough, put some water on it.  Water doesn't bead on a clean copper
surface.)

--

					Robert I. Eachus

with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudeneachus cudfnRobert cudlnEachus cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.31 /  PAUL /  Undergraduate Fellowships in Plasma Physics and Fusion Engineering
     
Originally-From: stek@amazon.pfc.mit.edu (PAUL)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Undergraduate Fellowships in Plasma Physics and Fusion Engineering
Date: 31 JAN 94 22:14:04 GMT
Organization: MIT PLASMA FUSION CENTER

This appeared on the cork board near my office:
Open to Juniors and smart sophomores
There are 2 parts to the program.
First one week at Princeton where basic plasma physics
will be taught.  THen there is a 9 week resarch possition
at a major research institution.

This is sponsored by DOE.
Applications and letters of rec are due Feb. 22.
For more info Phone (609) 243-2116 ore
Email nuf@pppl.gov

I know no more than what I just wrote
other than it starts June 13 and ther is a $4800
stipend.  If you are looking at a doing research
in fusion, this would be a good way to check things out.

Paul Stek
Stek@cmod.pfc.mit.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenstek cudlnPAUL cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.31 / Jon Arnold /  Re: Hot Fusion Help
     
Originally-From: arnoldj@telerama.lm.com (Jon Arnold)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Hot Fusion Help
Date: 31 Jan 1994 20:15:09 -0500
Organization: Telerama Public Access Internet, Pittsburgh, PA

Ludwig Plutonium (Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu) wrote:

:   Oh, in that case some bleeding heart will help you. At least you are

	Hmmm... that's strange, I remember there being a sense of 
frienliness on this newsgroup a while back. I did by the way get the help 
I needed in the form of an archive of postings that I was able to sort 
through. I'd apriciate it if this group could be kept to the fusion topic 
instead of snide remarks (perhaps you misread fusion to mean fussy/snide, 
who knows?) 
-- 
| Jonathan Arnold   ------======*======-------     arnoldj@telerama.lm.com  |
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I too am not a bit tamed, I too am untranslatable,    |   Uncle \/
I sound my barbaric yawp over the roofs of the world  |   Walt  /\ 
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenarnoldj cudfnJon cudlnArnold cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.31 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Light-water cells/Recomb/Heavywatergate
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: Re: Light-water cells/Recomb/Heavywatergate
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 1994 23:41:51 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <CKI772.DnB@world.std.com>,
mitchell swartz <mica@world.std.com> wrote:
>
>   The debate now must include why there has been a cover-up
>(heavywatergate)  of these interesting phenomena and results
>and why there has been so much subsequent obstruction 
>of information about these important phenomena first described by
>Fleischmann and Pons in March 1989.

     The only cover-up I've seen is of methods and of results
     by Pons and Fleishmann themselves.  Indeed, certain parties have
     implied that such a coverup *by the investigators themselves* is
     necessary and laudable.       

     I think you are mistaking 'lack of belief' for coverup and 
     ignoring the published obfuscation of certain key investigators.
     The obstruction is not on 'this' side, it's on yours.

                             dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Wed Feb  2 04:37:03 EST 1994
------------------------------
1994.01.31 / Alan Barclay /  Re: Light-water cells/Recombination
     
Originally-From: barclay@burger.wimsey.com (Alan Barclay)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.plutonium
Subject: Re: Light-water cells/Recombination
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 94 21:30:24 PST
Organization: The Big Bang Burger Bar - Vancouver Canada

Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium) writes:

>   Alan, I agree with you somewhat. I think it is good to be
> conservative but I think it bad to be skeptical. I think it is a
> judgement call. And I think the future historians will look at  the
 
Well, I've just looked up "skepticism" in my dictionary.  I paraphrase: 
"a skeptic is one who denies the possiblity of knowing absolute truth."
 
After reading that I have to agree with you.  This is not exactly what I 
meant.  I guess the closest thing I can think of is "scientific method" 
where one acknowledges hypotheses but doesn't acept them as theory 
without rigorous duplication of experiment.  The part I'm getting at is a 
an element of willingness to suspend final judgement til convincing 
evidence is in. 
 
I think the big problem with the cold fusion debate is that, for whaever 
reason, it has been difficult to get data and experiment proceedure 
information that other scientists need to reproduce (or rule out) cold 
fusion.  I think that the original scientists working in this area are 
partly at fault for their premature interaction with the media, while 
there is also a contingent of conservatives who so want to deny the idea 
that they are willing to cloud or block the transmission of information.
 
It reminds me of the blockheads who are determined that the Blue Jays 
will win the 94 World Series and the other teams are a "buncha bums."  
And the game hasn't even been played out...  Geez!
 
Alan
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenbarclay cudfnAlan cudlnBarclay cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.01.31 /  jonesse@physc1 /  SL -- various replies
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: SL -- various replies
Date: 31 Jan 94 18:04:51 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

I will try to respond to various comments about sonoluminescence (SL).

Dick Blue asks about how the time between light (SL) pulses is determined,
a valid point!  This is described in "Resolving the picosecond characteristics
of synchronous SL" by Barber et al., J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 91 (1992) 3061.
Experimental set-up (responds also to John Moore and John Logajan):

Vacuum pump----------|
                     ^
                     |      / bubble in center of sphere
                   /   \
 power amp -- PZT |  o  |  M  microchannel plate PM tube--
  \Synthesizer     \ _ /      Hamamatsu                  \sampling oscilloscope
                                                           HP54124T, triggered
                                                           through 22ns delay
                     |                                   \time interval meter
                  water in spherical 100 ml flask         SRS 620/01


It looks straightforward, but I can tell you from experience (John) that
getting stable SL with a levitated bubble in the center of the sphere is
*very* difficult.

I don't know much about the "time interval meter, SRS 620/01" -- perhaps
someone can clarify how it works.  Paper says:  "The time interval meter has a
rated jitter of 50 ps.  However, this estimate is conservative since when we
used it to measure the output of a 10-MHz tuned crystal (HP 3325A), it
consistently recorded a jitter less than 35 ps."  "The effect of noise is
particularly apparent in our measurements of the flash to flash synchronicity.
for these measurements the output of the PMT feeds into a time interval meter
that generates a histogram of times between flashes.  ... Figure 3 shows a
histogram that was obtained with the deciliter flask.  The best-fit Gaussian
has a standard deviation of only 50 ps!  This should be compared to the
acoustic period ... of 33 microsec and the 3-ns jitter in the synchronous output
of the HP3325A synthesizer that drives the sound field.  With a 1-liter flask
the jitter is greater than 125 ps.  We think that the noise (especially the
coupling of the sound field to the free surface in the neck) is greater in the
1-liter flask; and so accounts for the larger jitter."

It appears that the resonance frequency of the sphere-water system is stable
to 1 in 10^6 for the 100-ml flask, not for the 1-l flask, consistent with
John Moore's comment.


Richard Schroeppel generated some intriguing ideas.  With regard to
SL-influenced chemical reactions, Richard, people are looking into this
interesting business, called 'sonochemistry' by Prof. Crum - see his paper
in January 1994, J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 95 (1994) 559.
Multiple bubbles -- yes, but to be stable, these must sit at antinodes.
For fundamental, this is only at sphere's center.  For higher harmonics,
spherical antinode regions form at finite R values where bubbles can sit
-- good thinking,
Richard!  Crum has seen a few stable SL'ing bubbles, he said.
We haven't.

Wires and plates in the chamber?  Would change the symmetry, probably not
a good idea to do too much since symmetrical collapse of bubbles seems key
to SL (see Crum paper cited above).  Your idea of arranging bubbles to generate
interference effects is great fun -- let's think on this along with other
brainstorming-type ideas you mention.

--Steven Jones

cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenjonesse cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.01 / John Lewis /  Re: Light-water cells/Recombination
     
Originally-From: court@newton.physics.mun.ca (John Lewis)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Light-water cells/Recombination
Date: 1 Feb 1994 17:32:02 GMT
Organization: Memorial University of Nfld, St. John's, NF

In article <qy6Zgc1w165w@burger.wimsey.com>
barclay@burger.wimsey.com (Alan Barclay) writes:
...
>Should we laugh at 
>Einstein because he denied the validity of quantum theory? 

He didn't.  He said it was incomplete.  See Einstein and Infeld, "The
Evolution of Physics"

J.Lewis
St. John's, Newfoundland

cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudencourt cudfnJohn cudlnLewis cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.01 / Jon MN /  WANTED: Information of Nuclear Pulse Engines
     
Originally-From: jej007@vax1.mankato.msus.edu (Jon Jeckell, Mankato State University, MN)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: WANTED: Information of Nuclear Pulse Engines
Date: 1 Feb 94 13:51:25 -0500
Organization: Mankato State University

 


   I am doing a project for graduation on Nuclear Pulse Engines (like Project
Orion), and I would like as much information on this as possible.  I would 
also like as much info as possible on related topics as project NERVA (the
Nuclear thermal rocket) and solar-ion drives, etc.

  Any information you can send me on these drives would be GREATLY appreciated.
Thank you very much.

  You can EMAIL it to me at jej007@vax1.mankato.msus.edu.

Note: standard disclaimers apply.  I do NOT speak for the Army or the US govt.
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
/Jon Jeckell                 |Waiting for the University to say it's OK for  /
/C/2Lt, AROTC                |me to join the Army...WHAT A NIGHTMARE!        /
/Ex A Co Cdr, Maverick Bn    |"Don't forget nothing."--rule #1, Standing     / 
/Mankato State University, Mn| Orders for Roger's Rangers, from SH 21-76     /
/Brave Rifles '92 grad.      | MS V with on a mission to graduate!           /
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenjej007 cudfnJon cudlnMN cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.01 / Robert Heeter /  Re: Undergraduate Fellowships in Plasma Physics and Fusion Engineering
     
Originally-From: rfheeter@flagstaff.Princeton.EDU (Robert Franklin Heeter)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Undergraduate Fellowships in Plasma Physics and Fusion Engineering
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 1994 17:00:13 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

In article <31JAN94.22140463@amazon.pfc.mit.edu> stek@amazon.pfc.mit.edu (PAUL) writes:
>This appeared on the cork board near my office:
>Open to Juniors and smart sophomores
>There are 2 parts to the program.
>First one week at Princeton where basic plasma physics
>will be taught.  THen there is a 9 week resarch possition
>at a major research institution.

Ack!  I can't believe I didn't advertise this myself!  I've known about
this for months, and even mentioned it to a couple people who sent
me email, but it never occurred to me to post an announcement.  Silly me!
I think this fellowship ought to be mentioned somewhere in the FAQ,
so I will add it to my list of things-to-include.  In the meantime,
though, I will add a few more bits of information.

While individual students can state their preferences for which
research institutions they'd like to work at, the program administrators
have to match students with research opportunities, and they can't
guarantee a student's choice.  Apparently they do a pretty good
job of matching students with their interests, though.  (This info
is from a blurb that goes with the application packet, so your
mileage may vary.)

>
>This is sponsored by DOE.
>Applications and letters of rec are due Feb. 22.

The application is a single-page form with a one-page statement of
interest requested as well.  Only two recommendation letters are
required.

>For more info Phone (609) 243-2116 ore
>Email nuf@pppl.gov
>

>I know no more than what I just wrote
>other than it starts June 13 and ther is a $4800
>stipend.  If you are looking at a doing research
>in fusion, this would be a good way to check things out.

Some of my fellow students here at Princeton started out in this
program as undergraduates.  The opportunities are in a variety of
engineering and applied-science fields.  I should add that there
is a $1000 travel allowance, and I believe that this is in
addition to the stipend.

>Paul Stek
>Stek@cmod.pfc.mit.edu

I'd love to meet whoever makes it into the program when they
come to Princeton!  Good Luck!

--Bob Heeter
rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
First-year Graduate Student, Princeton Plasma Physics Lab


cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.03 /  blue@dancer.ns /  Re: Superstable oscillations 
     
Originally-From: blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Superstable oscillations 
Date: Thu, 3 Feb 1994 01:17:06 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

In response to my question concerning the supposed stability of the
light output frequency from sonoluminescence,  Robert I. Eachus suggests
there is nothing strange about it.  However, I am not sure that he and
I are on the same wavelength, so to speak.  Robert says, "Note that if
you have a resonance at several times the round trip, successive pulses
will not be strongly correlated but the transform of the data will
show a very sharp peak."

If I understand this statement, we are talking about standing waves
in a mechanical resonator in which the wavelength is small compared
to the resonator dimensions.  Thus there are a large number of wave
lengths in the standing waveform between the wall and focal point
where the bubble forms.  Robert seems to be saying that the bubble
"fires" at a reproducible phase of the wave, but that the firing
point may jump from the nth wave to the n + 1 wave.  I don't see
this as addressing the question.  The original statement as passed
to us by Steve Jones was that the firing frequency is stable to
one part in 10^6.  That is an additional condition beyond the
statement that the data shows a very sharp peak.  I don't think
one can get 10^6 stability from an oscillator based on standing
waves in water.

Here are some handbook numbers.  The speed of sound in water
is 1441 meters/sec at 13 C and 1461 meters/sec at 19 C.  From that
I get a fraction change of 0.0025 per deg C.  That suggests that
10^6 stability in frequency would require 1/2500 deg C temperature
stability.  It would seem that at the very least this effect
would make a darn good thermometer.  It would be extremely sensitive
to any energy input from cold fusion.  In fact the numbers are
already there in the data that say there is no significant
energy input present - provided you accept the notion that the
frequency depends on the temperature of the water.  To say the
least, I am still puzzled.  Sorry Robert, but I don't get the
drift of what you are saying. 

Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU

cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenblue cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.02 /  dowen@vaxc.cc. /  Re:Breakthrough with new phenomenon ?.......
     
Originally-From: dowen@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re:Breakthrough with new phenomenon ?.......
Date: 2 Feb 94 17:37:20 +1100
Organization: Computer Centre, Monash University, Australia



Hi Folks,
 Firstly thanks to Prof. Jones for his offer to pass the SL questions
on to Prof. Crum.
 For those readers who can't get easy access to the original article,
here is my review of the paper by Otto Reifenschweiler entitled
"Reduced radioactivity of tritium in small titanium particles" as 
published in "Physics Letters A" of the 3-Jan-94.
This paper is based on work done at the Philips Research Laboratories
Eindhoven, Holland, in the early 1960's.
Otto Reifenschweiler is a retired chief physist of the Philips Research 
Laboratories.

Summary ........
The author describes two experiments involving the reduction of
radiation. The first concerns the reduction of radiation in tritium
loaded titanium particles as they are slowly heated, the second
relates how the loading of small uniform amounts of tritium into
fine Ti particles produces a (very) non proportional variation in 
radioactivity. A "highly unorthodox hypothesis" called "the nuclear
pair hypothesis" is put forward as a possible explanation of the above.

The First Series of Experiments .......
Ti was evapourated in argon at a suitable pressure "eg 0.5 to 2 cm Hg"
and deposited as monocrystaline soot like particles about 15 nm in 
diameter, arranged in chains on the inner wall of the measuring vessel.
A diagram is drawn of a covar cylinder 5.3cm in diameter, one end going
to vacuum facilities, the other terminated in a 18 micrometre thick stainless
steel window through which radiation is measured by an air cooled GM tube.
The cylindrical vessel is located inside an oven and its temperature
monitored by three thermocouples.
 In other similar experiments the radiation was measured by means of a
vibrating reed electrometer monitoring the electron current produced by
"Beta particles and secondaries" via a cylindrical electrode placed inside
the vessel.
 After the argon was evacuated, tritium was added and completely absorbed
"... within a few seconds. This was confirmed by hundreds of experiments."
 In one experiment a Ti T(sub)0.0035 preparation was heated for about 10 
hours and the radiation monitored by a GM tube. The results are shown in
graph. Note that here the lower graph shows the rate of tritium
expulsion from the Ti with increasing temperature and that there is....
"...no measurable release of tritium below about 300 deg. C (confirmed by
many experiments)."
                                              
    |                                                            |
1000-                                       **                   |
    |* * * * * * *                        *    *                 |
    |              *                     *                       |
    |               *                   *       *      o         |  
 800-                *                 *                         |- 10
    |GM tube <------- *               *          *               |Tritium
    |Counts            *             *               o---------->|Pressure
    |per minute           *  **      *            *              | x 10^-5
 600-                             **                             | mm Hg
    |                                               o            |
    |                                              *             |
    |                                                            |
 400-                                               *            |-  5
    |                                             o              |
    |                                                *           |
    |                                                            |
 200-                                           o                |
    |o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o        *          |
    |*********<---Background                            *        |- 1.0
    |___________.___________.___________.___________.___________.|
 Temp.in deg C. 100         200         300         400         500

"In two other experiments carried out under different conditions a similar
decrease and increase of the radioactivity with increasing temperature
was observed. But there was also one experiment with a 10 times higher
concentration of tritium and a roughly 5 times faster increase in
temperature where the decrease of count rate did not occur."

The second series of experiments .....
"In order to obtain further evidence ...........  another series of 
experiments was made at room temperature. The concentration x of the tritium
was varied in a finely divided TiT(sub)x  preparation and the corresponding 
increase of the emission current caused by the Beta-electrons of tritium was
measured."..."In these experiments a substantial deviation from the expected 
proportionality between current i and concentration x was observed."
 In this experiment a 55% decrease (followed by a similar increase) from
the expected level of delta i/delta x versus concentration of tritium in
the Ti occured. (Sorry folks, no time now for the graph).

The hypothesis......
".......it seems justified to put forward a highly unorthodox hypothesis,
the nuclear pair hypothesis. If we assume that tritons absorbed in the 
extremely small single Ti-crystals an combine into pairs and that the decay
constant of such a pair is smaller than that of a free triton, then the 
observed behaviour of all TiT(SUB)x  can be explained.
 The author, though well aware that the experimental evidence is rather 
limited and that a theoretical foundation is lacking, feels strongly 
attracted to the idea of nuclear pairing with reduced radioactivity and he
believes that it may have other applications. The author hopes to come back
to these questions in later publications."

What would happen if......
1) A small amount of tritium was absorbed into the Ti as in expt.2 and then
equal quantities of deuterium were successively added (instead of equal
successive quantities of tritium). Would the radioactivity decrease the 
same as in experiment 2 ?
2) Hydrogen were substituted for the deuterium in 1) ?

 The idea behind these two proposals is that if "nuclear pairing" does take
place it means that the tritium nuclei are intimately interreacting ie
they are *very* close. If the same bonding occurs between D (or H) and
the tritons, then they too must be *very* near to the tritons.
 Could this be an indication that two deuterons can get very close ?
 
As allways, I am interested in all informed comments and criticisms.

						Best regards to all,
						Daryl Owen.


The above views are only attributable to myself.
					 
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudendowen cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.02 / Robert Horst /  Heat pipes/2-phase coolers
     
Originally-From: horst_bob@tandem.com (Robert Horst)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Heat pipes/2-phase coolers
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 1994 21:05:21 GMT
Organization: Tandem Computers

Recently I saw an article in EE Times about a new type of cooling device
for high-powered ICs.  Quoting from the article:

"The liquid-cooling scheme puts Fluorinert, a material that has a low
boiling point, in a plastic case that sits atop the chip.  When the chip
heats up to around 60 deg C, the Fluorinert boils, pushing open a valve
that lets it go to a series of tubes located away from the IC.  There, the
heat is dissipated and the Flourinert returns to liquid form, flowing back
to the chip."

Tom, you might think about using this type of "two phase cooler" instead of
a heat pipe, or you might investigate using Fluorinert for your heat pipe.

The article goes on to say that this cooler leverages plastics and tubing
used in medical applications, and it is can be used to cool any IC that
draws more than 10W. It is being developed by Aavid Engineering of Laconia,
N.H.

-- Bob Horst 
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenhorst_bob cudfnRobert cudlnHorst cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.02 / Albert Chou /  Graduate Fellowships in Magnetic Fusion Science/Engineering
     
Originally-From: albert@cloudburst.seas.ucla.edu (Albert E. Chou)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Graduate Fellowships in Magnetic Fusion Science/Engineering
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 1994 18:01:38 GMT
Organization: School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, UCLA

While we're on the subject of fellowhips, I should mention that DOE sponsors
three-year graduate fellowships in magnetic fusion science and engineering
(two separate programs, one each for science and engineering).

For more info, see your local bulletin boards for the pinup or contact the
program office at

MFSF (or MFEF) Program
ORAU
P.O. Box 117
Oak Ridge, TN  37831-0117


BTW, this was how I got started in grad school.

Al
-- 
Internet:  albert@seas.ucla.edu
GEnie:  A.Chou1
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenalbert cudfnAlbert cudlnChou cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.02 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Re: Synchronous Sonoluminescence
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Synchronous Sonoluminescence
Date: 2 Feb 94 09:58:36 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University


I received an e-mail message from Ronald Roy of Univ. of Washington
in which he discusses the question of synchronicity observed in
stable, single-bubble sonoluminescence (per my posting here on
sonoluminescence circa January 24, 1994).  He asked me to post to the
net the following comments:

>    How much does the sound source frequency have to vary before
> the light begins to follow it?

It is important to realize that this 1 part in 10^6 synchronicity
does not always accompany single-bubble sonoluminescence (SBSL). 
The highly synchronous behavior occurs only under the most ideal
conditions.  Measurements carried out by Holt et al. suggest
fluctuations on the order of microseconds are commonly observed. 
Indeed, they found that for small variations in the relevant
parameters driving pressure, driving frequency, and equilibrium
bubble radius), period doubling, chaos and quasiperiodicity can
occur.

Regardless of the observations of Holt et al., remarkable stability
in the bubble motion HAS been observed and I, for one, do not have
a good explanation for it.  The main point that I bring up here is
that this stability is apparently not as robust as one might think. 
You're certainly correct in pointing out that more data is needed!

cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenjonesse cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.03 / Dave Grieve /  no subject (file transmission)
     
Originally-From: grieve@medb.physics.utoronto.ca (Dave Grieve)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: no subject (file transmission)
Date: Thu, 3 Feb 1994 05:59:38 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway


Frank Close just gave a talk here at U of T on cold fusion.
He's a physicist from England whose visiting and gave the
Graham Lecture  (a prestigious public lecture which the Uni runs).
Real eyeopener.Seems Pons and Fleischmann evidence for fusion was
forged a few days after their press conference and Close showed
original faxes and data from Pons and the journal editors that
proved that someone has done a great job of forgery. It might be
Close who forged all the stuff he showed but if not then no wonder
those guys are sunning themselves out of Utah. Can Tom Droege ask
Taubes if this is all true or what?

Sorry if this is all well known but its the first Id seen of it
and my prof was talking about it afterwards like it was news to him
too.

Close showed correspondence between Pons and the journal that took place
AFTER the original press conference which proves that they had no
evidence for fusion at all. Somehow Close has obtained copies of
the original manuscripts, (which are different from what appeared in
their published paper) page proofs from the journal including some
with handwritten corrections on them, and even showed faxes from Pons 
to the journal in which he changed some of the data. What made it all
so amazing was that Close then showed us the actual results from the
experiment (which were measured by someone called Hafman(?)) and these
showed that there were no signals for fusion in the data at all, and
that what appeared in the publication were produced out of thin air 
afterwards. 

Someone asked about Taubes in the questions afterwards and Close said
that Taubes had not seen all this stuff and had got the story wrong
at this point and mixed up the history a bit.He said this might mess up
the trial of some Italian journalist whose being sued by P and F for
saying cold fusion was a fraud. But Close also said theres an 
interesting coincidence between something Taubes wrote about
Hawkins, the student who got left off the paper, and what Close was
showing about Pons activities.

Taubes says that Hawkins the student of Pons, was thrown off the experiment
on the 28March when Pons couldnt get his hands on the data logbooks.
(I went and looked this up again in Taubes book). Close claimed that
this was the same day that Pons learned they had screwed up (seems 
someone in England had spoken with Fleischmann who passed on the news to
Pons and Close had a dated memo to prove it). Pons then threw Hawkins off
the project (Taubes) and forged data to replace the stuff they had
previously sent off to the journal (Close). It was amazing! Close
showed the fax from the Utah Chemistry department all nicely dated and
timed(!) even though the data logs contained nothing of the sort in them.
He said that the fact that Hawkins was thrown off the same day as Pons
was redrawing the data was worth following up! 


At cookies after the talk  Frank showed lots more recent stuff that
he has been sent and which werent in the public talk. There was
something about some sort of official enquiry in Europe but I got
lost in the crowd and missed this. Maybe Taubes knows something.


cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudengrieve cudfnDave cudlnGrieve cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.02 / Bruce Brown /  cold fusion forums
     
Originally-From: brownb@fhs.byu.edu (Bruce L. Brown)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cold fusion forums
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 1994 17:39:31
Organization: BYU

If this formu is pretty quiet, where is most of the exchange going on?  I'd 
like to know.   Please post in this forum, if you can help.

H. Tracy Hall, Jr.
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenbrownb cudfnBruce cudlnBrown cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Thu Feb  3 04:37:07 EST 1994
------------------------------
1994.02.02 / Matt Mahoney /  Re: Light-water cells/Recomb/Heavywatergate
     
Originally-From: mvm@caesun6.epg.harris.com (Matt Mahoney)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: Re: Light-water cells/Recomb/Heavywatergate
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 1994 22:12:19 GMT
Organization: Engineering Productivity Group, Harris Corp., Melbourne, FL

mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:

>   Since ICCF-4 again demonstrated the existence of the cold fusion
>phenomena -- with 105 experimental papers and more than 35 confirming
>the excess heats,  with more than 6 confirming the 4-helium generation,
>there is not longer any debate about cold fusion.  

What about:

  6-Li + 2-H -> 2 4-He

I understand that some of the cold fusion experiments used lithium 
salts to improve conductivity, but they were not assumed to
be involved in the reaction.

 -------------------------------        _\/_
Matt Mahoney, mvm@epg.harris.com       |(TV)|  Drug of the Nation
#include <disclaimer.h>                |____|

cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenmvm cudfnMatt cudlnMahoney cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.02 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Re: Oriani's experiments
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Oriani's experiments
Date: 2 Feb 94 17:20:47 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

Just last Monday (31 January), Mitchell Swartz stated that
"skeptics have, on occasion too frequent in the past, attacked the scientists
and posters rather than deliberately debate [sic] the science."  What examples
does he cite?  
Not long ago, CF advocate Jed Rothwell referred to skeptics as "pathological
liars".
Below we have a CF advocate again attacking, it seems, the scientists
and posters rather than addressing specific technical issues.
You be the judge:

In article <009795FA.D32B4520.18981@FSCVAX.FSC.MASS.EDU>, 
vnoninski@fscvax.fsc.mass.edu writes:
> Dear Colleagues,
> 
> I would like to let you know that a long time ago  I  have  asked 
> Oriani to submit  his  findings  on  energy  balance  during  the 
> electrolysis of water with Ni cathode to a peer-reviewed archival 
> journal. In this way he would have been given the chance to avoid 
> ignoring some serious concerns connected  with  the  calorimetric 
> method he applies and with  other  problems  connected  with  his 
> experiment.
> 

Oriani states that in experiments of the "Mills-Noninski type" he
"set up an Ni/K2CO3/Pt cell without a catalyst.  This seemed to produce excess
power.  I then
employed a catalyst to recombine the gases in a separate vessel (not the
electrolysis cell) which, however, was within the calorimeter.  This produced
zero excess power."

These results are completely consistent with BYU results:  the apparent excess
heat in these cells can be traced to recombination effects. Our results will
soon be submitted for publication.

Has Noninski used a recombiner within his calorimeter?  (I find nothing he
has published to say he has.)  If so, did he find excess heat?  Just what are
the problems with Oriani's experiment, vis-a-vis Noninski's?  Be specific!  


> Instead, Oriani prefers to privately discuss these  matters  with 
> S. Jones. Some incidents last year  revealed  that  S.  Jones  is 
> capable of deliberately changing data so that these data can  fit 
> his own needs.

This charge is unsubstantianted.
I ask V. Noninski to substantiate this serious charge.
If he is referring to our measurements of the Notoya light-water cells in
Nagoya, I have already responded as has David Buehler who made the direct
measurements.  I made a correction to originally posted numbers, and David
posted that this correction was correct -- certainly not "deliberately
changing data so that these data can fit his own need." 
On Nov. 18, 1992, David posted:
"Because there was a question concerning the voltage on Dr. Notoya's
electrolysis cell, Steve Jones asked me to post a clarification.  As he
explained, the voltage on the electrolysis cell was about 1.5 volts higher than
on the resistive [control] cell.  This was all explained with little signs in
front of the two cells [at the Nagoya conference]."

Does Dr. Noninski wish to challenge this?  If not, wherein have I erred?
 
But this was posted way back in November of 1992, so perhaps Dr. N. refers to 
some incident in 1993 -- again I demand he substantiate his accusation.  
Prove it or stop these repeated and baseless attacks.  

> Provoked by this behavior, a second reading of  S. 
> Jones et al's publication on the subject  in  Nature  reconfirmed 
> the conclusion  that  a  worst  publication  on  the  subject  of 
> electrochemistry is difficult to  be  found  in  the  literature. 
> Unfortunately, the mentioned facts about S. Jones hardly  present 
> him as the qualified, honest and objective researcher Oriani,  or 
> anybody else seriously interested in the reality of the effect in 
> question, needs to discuss these matters  privately  or  publicly 
> with.
> 
> Truly yours,
> 
> 
> 
> Vesselin Noninski                                       01/31/94
> 

Our paper in Nature discusses neutron measurements -- has Noninski instigated
neutron studies with better detectors, or indeed with any detectors?
Let him compare his detectors with ours.  We pointed out that our strange
brew of an electrolyte followed from our hypothesis of fusion inside the earth,
rather than from conventional electrochemical considerations.  I admit, the
soup was strange, but we were after neutrons [not excess heat] and a test
of our geological-fusion hypothesis.

Is his experiment really better than Oriani's?  Continuing with Oriani's
discussion, which he can express or publish as he chooses:

"I proceeded to another experiment in which I weighed the recombined gases in
the separate vessel and found that nearly 50% of the gases had recombined iin
the electrolysis cell.  In an additional experiment I used gas-collection
burettes and found 22% recombination to occur in the electrolysis cell.  
I dropped the work with Ni/K2CO3 then, being convinced that the Mills-Noninski
results were artifactual."

Has Noninski taken these steps?  Has he measured the percentage of
recombination *during* his calorimetric heat measurements?

I have asked specific questions, and trust that Dr. Noninski will provide
specific answers while avoiding ad hominem comments.

--Steven Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenjonesse cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.02 /  jonesse@physc1 /  cancel <1994Feb2.155159.1314@physc1.byu.edu>
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cancel <1994Feb2.155159.1314@physc1.byu.edu>
Date: 2 Feb 94 17:22:15 -0700

cancel <1994Feb2.155159.1314@physc1.byu.edu>
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenjonesse cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.03 /   /  IEEE Feb. '94 Article on FUSION
     
Originally-From: ems6467@ritvax.isc.rit.edu (Eric**)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: IEEE Feb. '94 Article on FUSION
Date: Thu, 3 Feb 1994 01:08:57 GMT
Organization: Rochester Institute of Technology

Has anyone seen the recent article in the IEEE magazine "Spectrum" that lists
good information on this topic.. one line of information recalled...
"10 MW were produced during the 2 second pulses."  
Eric
VVVV   VVVVVVVV
 VV     VVVV
  VVV  VVV     A    X                    "VM" (tm)-ALG'92
MMM VVVV MMM
MMMM VV MMMM
MM MM  MM MM   O    N    S    T    E    R  		
MM  MMMM  MMM                              
MMM      MMMMMM
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenems6467 cudln cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.03 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: Light-water cells/Recomb/Heavywatergate
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: Re: Light-water cells/Recomb/Heavywatergate
Date: Thu, 3 Feb 1994 02:50:13 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <CKI772.DnB@world.std.com> mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
> Rather then carefully consider the limits of their logic and definitions  
>and understanding, the hard-core-TB-CF-skeptics have, on occasion
>too frequent in the past, attacked the scientists and posters 
>rather then deliberately debate the science.

I find it very interesting that you would declare poorly done experiments
fraught with experimental errors and (increasingly) improperly
documented to be considered anything worthy of being claimed as
experimental evidence of anything.

Yes there have been personal attacks that were unwarranted, but it looks to 
me as if they have come chiefly from the 'believers' camp for the 
skeptics audacity in asking for real experimental evidence.

Now, where is that water heater that Jed Rothwell promised us that
P&F were to deliver by the new year?

And just to show you that there isn't a complete void between us:
You have been one of those claiming that the Mossbauer effect
or something similar could possibly be the cause that high
energy particles or gamma rays are absent. OK, then show
me one of these positive experiments that have the energy spectrum
defined. Since the Mossbauer effect is a resonance effect any
spectrum caused by a like effect should have a notable and otherwise
unexplainable peak. After all, that's how they discovered
the Mossbauer effect in the first place. :-)

cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.02 / Robert Heeter /  Hot Fusion FAQ Status Report...
     
Originally-From: rfheeter@theory.pppl.gov (Robert F. Heeter)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Hot Fusion FAQ Status Report...
Date: 2 Feb 1994 23:54:38 -0500
Organization: Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory, Princeton University,
Princeton NJ 08540


Thanks once more to all those who sent me supportive email regarding
the FAQ project.  I am currently in the process of digesting all
the information I have received, having finished exams and returned
from vacation to find several megabytes waiting for me...  I 
expect that in the next couple weeks I'll be able to generate
a skeleton-FAQ/FQA file.  Once I get that set up, I'll be looking
for help in generating and discussing answers to go into the
FAQ; I don't intend to do the whole thing myself.  

As an initial foray into the world of interactive FAQ-generation,
I'd like to start building a bibliography of useful books
(and review articles too), and to start generating a 
"Novice's Dictionary of Hot Fusion Terminology" so that the
more eager of the curious neophytes can get up-to-speed
on the discussions here and participate in the FAQ-generating
process.  

Hopefully this will help to increase the traffic on the group;
wouldn't want anyone to get bored around here!

*****************
Robert F. Heeter
rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Graduate Student, Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory
(Standard Disclaimers Apply)
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Fri Feb  4 04:37:03 EST 1994
------------------------------
1994.02.04 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Re: On Oriani's experiments
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: On Oriani's experiments
Date: 4 Feb 94 11:02:59 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

In article <CKnMKt.33C@world.std.com>, mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
>    In Message-ID: <1994Feb2.172047.1315@physc1.byu.edu>
> Subject: Re: Oriani's experiments
> Steve Jones (jonesse@physc1.byu.edu;  Brigham Young University)  writes:
> 
> = "Just last Monday (31 January), Mitchell Swartz stated that
> = "skeptics have, on occasion too frequent in the past, attacked the scientists
> = and posters rather than deliberately debate [sic] the science."  What examples
> = does he cite?"  
> 
Here I ask for specific examples.  Does Mitch provide them?  No:

>    Although Steven Jones'  own behavior constitutes a portion of this, 
> the author was attempting to be gracious in order to move on to the
>  science.    Steven Jones appears to fall into this more frequently than
>  he ought.      Truth should be his goal, not just his motto. 

Can you substantiate these charges, Mitch, with specific examples?  I ask you
to do this not to be tedious, but because I believe that as you review what
"appears" to you to be an attack on scientists you will find that I have in
fact tried to debate the science, avoiding ad hominem attacks.  
This is part of the scientific process, to
openly debate and challenge results and ideas, to correct and be corrected.
Indeed, I think that the scientific method with peer review is largely to
help scientists get past the remarkable human tendency to self-deception.

Now when I or Oriani or Hansen or others claim based on our own experiments
that we are "convinced that the Mills-Noninski results were artifactual"
[quoting Oriani]
this is a scientific conclusion preceeded by careful statements of experimental
methods and observations -- not an ad hominem attack! 

> 
>  Furthermore, debate is spelled correctly.
>  Perhaps Mr. Jones is feeling sic(k).               ;-)
>           Best wishes.
>                     Mitchell  Swartz   

Not wanting to belabor this minor point, I think it should be "debating."

--Steven Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenjonesse cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.05 / Matt Kennel /  Re: Superstable oscillations
     
Originally-From: mbk%anl433.uucp@Germany.EU.net (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Superstable oscillations
Date: 5 Feb 1994 00:05:40 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu wrote:
: Here are some handbook numbers.  The speed of sound in water
: is 1441 meters/sec at 13 C and 1461 meters/sec at 19 C.  From that
: I get a fraction change of 0.0025 per deg C.  That suggests that
: 10^6 stability in frequency would require 1/2500 deg C temperature
: stability.  It would seem that at the very least this effect
: would make a darn good thermometer.  

From my recollection of the tour Prof Putterman gave me around his lab, I
think that the syncronization and stability of the pulses were extremely
good; requiring some very expensive state-of-the-art HP test equipment to
observe.  To accurately measure the pulses, they needed to use one of the
fastest photomultipliers in industrial production.  (Multi thousands of $$,
made in Japan, of course.)

He described the hypothetical possibility of using such an effect as the
basis for a low-cost almost-as-good-as-an-atomic-clock.

My intuition is that it would be unlikely that such a precise effect
could be explained by simple acoustic resonance.

Consider that sound would scatter and refract over the variations in density
of the liquid (I think water and glycogen in practice).  Any bulk motion at
all could ruin it (Doppler effect), in addition to the mentioned temperature
dependence.

: Dick Blue
: NSCL@MSU

cheers
Matt

--
-Matt Kennel  		mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu
-Institute for Nonlinear Science, University of California, San Diego
-*** AD: Archive for nonlinear dynamics papers & programs: FTP to
-***     lyapunov.ucsd.edu, username "anonymous".
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenuucp cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.05 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Where to find information on cold fusion
     
Originally-From: barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Where to find information on cold fusion
Date: Sat, 5 Feb 94 04:35:48 GMT
Organization: UCLA, Mathematics Department

In article <940203204136_72240.1256_EHK46-1@CompuServe.COM>  
72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
> Information on cold fusion is not available on e-mail. The exchange of

..

> and other literature. A brief bibliography is attached.
> 

> The Observer (UK), December 6, 1992, "Western sceptics hand Japan
> cheap power on a plate," by Michael White
> 
> - Jed Rothwell

Also, remember, no matter what the skeptics do
to suppress it, CF is real, and always will be. :-)


--
Barry Merriman
UCLA Dept. of Math
UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)


cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.04 / Robert Eachus /  Re: Superstable oscillations
     
Originally-From: eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Superstable oscillations
Date: 4 Feb 94 11:31:01
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.


    All I was saying was that if the excitation frequency is several
times the resonance frequency (let's use twice), then you can get a
situation where adjacent pulses are not strongly correlated but the
interval between two pulses with an intervening pulse is highly
repeatable.  I have dealt with data where the "round trip" was order
fifty pulses or so--working with sound, but not sonoluminesence--and
although the apparent signal was chaotic, there was a very strong and
sharp peak in the Fourier transform.

--

					Robert I. Eachus

with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudeneachus cudfnRobert cudlnEachus cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.05 / Chuck Sites /  Re: Reifenschweiler tritium data
     
Originally-From: chuck@coplex.coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reifenschweiler tritium data
Date: Sat, 5 Feb 1994 12:41:36 GMT
Organization: The Internet Gateway of Louisville, KY


I just had to follow up on this.  Daryl presented an interesting 
paper.  There certainly are some aspects of the 30 year old experiment  
that could be critisized on technical grounds.  Perhaps someone out
there would like to reproduce the experiment with better controls, 
like Dick watching over thier shoulder as the counts start to drop. 
(Unfortunately with tritium envolved, it's not for the basement
experimenteer) 

  As far as the dependence of the decay rate of tritium to temperature,
I suspect the the simplest explination is the best (if the experimental
results are acceptable). That's the titanium blocks the decay product
of the intersitual tritium. The temperature dependence of the decay rate
is then explained by the absorbtion and defusion in to the metal. 

blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu writes:

>to this question?   If something more than ordinary chemical bonds is
>supposed to be involved here, I would think that the author should say
>what he has in mind.  I suppose it could be a Bose condensate except
>for the fact the a triton is not a Bose particle. <g>

Hum, It's funny you should mention Bose condensation in connection with 
an experiment like this.  While you are correct in saying a triton
(t+) is not Bose, that still does not rule out a Fermi band 
state. That would seem to make pairing a more viable solution. <Grin>

Have fun,
Chuck Sites
chuck@coplex.coplex.com
       










cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.05 / John Logajan /  Re: Superstable oscillations 
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Superstable oscillations 
Date: Sat, 5 Feb 94 17:12:39 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

dan@galaxy.nsc.com writes:
>Could it be that the center frequency is determined by some molecular
>constant/resonance and not by the mechanical (macro) properties of water ?
>In other words it may not be related to the speed-of-sound in water.

Any kind of resonance requires some sort of memory (energy or state storage) 
of the immediately preceeding event.  Recalling that the local conditions
are reaching extremely energetic states, it is not inconceivable that some
local state behavior could linger briefly after an event.  If a second incident
sound wave impinges upon this "afterglow", the memory of the previous event
has found its way into the succeeding event.

This implies two seperate resonators -- the bulk resonance of the device,
and some local (bubble area) resonance.  By tuning the bulk resonance 
parameters, one ought to be able to sweep through various sub-resonances
or harmonics of the localized resonator.  One could then produce a signature
of these localized resonators that would perhaps eliminate certain theoretical
explanations.

-- 
-John Logajan MS612; Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
-logajan@network.com, 612-391-1159, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.05 /  Publius /  HOT FUSION? NO WAY!
     
Originally-From: publius@inca.gate.net (Publius)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: HOT FUSION? NO WAY!
Date: 5 Feb 1994 13:18:17 -0500

  It is obvious that the assault by the "scientifically correct"
  community on "cold fusion" is motivated by the fact that "hot fusion"
  is a gigantic multi-billion-dollar boondoggle that must be preserved.
  But even if "hot fusion" is successful in emulating the sun (literally)
  it is an impractical sledge-hammer solution.
  In the not-too-distant future everyone wll laugh at how idiotically
  simple the solution turned out to be.
  The secret is in the composition of that marvelous compound we
  call "water". Somehow, the energy that brought together the oxygen
  and hydrogen is available to us in a form yet unknown.
  The Japanese are pumping big bucks into "cold fusion" research.
  It may be wishful thinking because they want to be shut of imported
  oil for the production of electricity.
  I hope not - and I'm cheering for them and others exploring "cold fusion".
  
  PUBLIUS

cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenpublius cudlnPublius cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.05 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Re: Where to find info on cold fusion
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Where to find info on cold fusion
Date: 5 Feb 94 09:07:58 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

Jed Rothwell says:
"There are several reasons why cold fusion is not discussed on the e-mail
networks."
"Information on cold fusion is not available on e-mail.  The exchange of
information in this field occurs through traditional scientific channels only"

I have on a desk in front of me hundreds of postings by very capable scientists
on this e-mail network which discuss cold fusion, and which demonstrate
compellingly that Jed misleads in the statements above.  He is wrong.  

How can he overlook the fine postings by Tom Droege of Fermilab, who provided
extensive reviews of the recent cold fusion meeting in Maui (Dec. 1992) as well
as commentary on his own ongoing experiments in cold fusion?  

How can Jed ignore the postings on the Maui meeting by Mark Hittinger and 
Bill Page?  Their comments contain a great deal of information and complement
the postings by Tom Droege.

How can Jed say that "cold fusion is not discussed on the e-mail networks"
when we now have years of discussion on this topic recorded magnetically for
anyone to read?  His statement is demonstrably false.  We have hundreds of
papers cited, quoted and reviewed by Dieter Britz and others.

How can he ignore the extensive reviews of experiments by Pons & Fleischmann,
Notoya, Yamaguchi, Miles, Mills that have been aired right here?

How can Jed overlook the reviews of theoretical efforts by Farrell&Mills,
Vigier, Chubb&Chubb and others?  

I find his statements an affront to the many fine contributors to this net;
in addition to Droege, Hittinger, Page and Britz, I would add Bollinger,
Sites, Blue, Owen, Schroeppel, Liebert, Eachus, Morrison, Carr, Bass,
... the list goes on and on.  It is by participation in the net that
ideas can be and are analyzed and debated and experiments suggested and
reported.  Clearly this medium complements the slower paper journals, with
rapid and in-depth reviews of conferences and papers.  One difference is
that this net provides faster peer-reviews, and permits rapid critique of
criticisms.  I for one find it enlightening and predict that the net will
continue to have an impact as we try to sort out the truth of the matter.

--Steven Jones 
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenjonesse cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Sun Feb  6 04:37:04 EST 1994
------------------------------
1994.02.05 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Re:  Superstable oscillations in SBSL
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re:  Superstable oscillations in SBSL
Date: 5 Feb 94 11:11:01 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

I agree with Dick Blue that the 1 part in 10^6 synchronicity of single-
bubble sonoluminescence (SBSL) is *very* difficult to account for, the
more we analyze this.

1.  Does anyone have information regarding the 'time interval meter,
SRS 620/01' as used by Barber et al., J. Acoust. Soc. Am. [JASA] 
91 (1992) 3061 and discussed in my post of 31 Jan 94?   

Barber et al. say that "The time interval meter has a rated jitter
of 50 ps.  However, this estimate is conservative since when we used it to 
measure the output of a 10-MHz tuned crystal (HP 3325A), it consistently
recorded a jitter less than 35 ps."   This seems good enough to believe that
their jitter is less than 50 ps for light pulses  some 50 microseconds apart as
they report, thus giving 1 part in 10^6 stability.

2.  I have a response from Prof. Crum of Univ. of Washington on this question
of synchronicity, from which I will quote:
"In the paper in JASA, by Gaitan et al. [91 (1992] 3166 -3183],
you can see regular, bifurcations in the phase, bubble bifurcations and even
some evidence of chaos.  We never studied the concept in much detail as it
seemed too complicated.
"I would imagine that the stability is somehow related to mode locking
between the resonances of the bubble and that of the cell -- thus, if it is
detuned somewhat, there are instabilities generated.  It's all a pretty
nonlinear dynamical system that has lots of potential for complexity --
sometimes the real oddness of these systems is their islands of stability that
are amazingly robust -- which is what I think happens in SBSL.
"Any clearer?"

3.  I hope others will comment on this and on the JASA paper he cites.  The
paper is rather long, so I have just reviewed it quickly this morning (Saturday
after all).  The timing is evidently not as precise as that used later by
Barber et al. cited above.  The Gaitan paper makes interesting observations:
"During the initial experiment, it was found that the scatter in the phase of
SL at times decreased until it was less than +- 1 degree -- i.e., below the
noise level -- indicating that the phase was constant in time."
Hmmmmm.... puzzling.

"The motivation behind these experiments was to discriminate among the
different models based on the conflicting predictions concerning the phase of
the SL emission.  for example, the Triboluminescence, Microdischarge and
Mechanochemical models predict the light to be emitted during bubble growth,
[ sound vaguely familiar, CF fans?]
whereas the Balloelectric, the Anion Discharge, the Hotspot, and the
Chemiluminescence models predit it to occur during the bubble collapse."
The result:  "The simultaneity of the light emission and the collapse of the
bubble was established."
Making progress.

4.  Note that heating due to shock waves in the bubble is now the favored
model for SBSL -- see "Shock-wave propagation in a SL'ing gas bubble,"
Phys Rev. Lett. 70 (1993) 3424.  Here I learned that the bubble collapse
requires roughly 2 microseconds, a long time on the 50 ps scale of
synchronicity.  "A strong imploding shock front is formed during the collapse
and, after its reflection from O [center], the temperature behind it becomes so
large that the air ionizes, resulting in a plasma that emits a burst of light."
"The temperature jumps discontinuously at the time of focusing."  The plot in
Fig. 3 shows a sharp jump in temp. to about 10^8 K -- that's hot enough for
fusion, folks!
"The luminosity of the bubble is ... about 30 mW ... its duration was only
about 1.2 ps ... approximately 0.018 ns before the bubble attains Rminimum."

This paper is worth trying to understand  (Terry or Dick or someone, can you
comment?).  However, it does not address the
1 in 10^6 synchronicity question as far as I can see.

5.  Finally, notes from the Dec. 1993 Scientific American, "Challenges for
1994":
"What uses are there for the prodigious energy released from molecules by
collapsing bubbles?"
...
"The surprising result [of SBSL]:  the flashes of light emerge like clockwork
and last only a fleeting 50 trillionths of a second.  'That turns out to be
orders of magnitude shorter than the hot-spot theory predicts,' Putterman
says. ... 'The temperature could be well above 50,000 degrees C.'  That level
is a factor of 10 higher than that deduced with previous descriptions.'
...
"One key to the shock-wave scenario, Crum believes, seems to be the 'exquisity
symmetry' of the single bubble;  the hot-spot theory of molecular excitations
probably holds sway in situations in which the bubbles do not collapse
symmetrically."

I'd like to understand all this.  It's getting clearer, but there are clearly
several outstanding puzzles.

--Steven Jones

cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenjonesse cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.06 / L Plutonium /  SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, Feb1994
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, Feb1994
Date: 6 Feb 1994 01:31:31 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

  In the article titled Particle Metaphysics by John Horgan, senior
writer, writes "In the aftermath of the Superconducting Super
Collider's death, physicists are divided over how - or even whether -
they should continue their search for a unified theory of nature.
  
  I say let us take the long view. The expected cost of building this
device was $11 billion. And $2 billion was already spent. It is highly
likely that the search for the Higg's particle would have failed. It is
highly likely that the Weinberg-Glashow-Salam model of unification is a
FAKE. To have spent over $11 billion to confirm a failure is sheer
stupidity.
  On this rare occasion I applaud the politicians for they were wiser
than these trumped-up gurus of physics.
  We must now consider, worldwide, that to build a huge science project
for dubious questions and results should never be allowed to happen.
  Those billions of dollars should go into fusion energy and
biotechnology. Not into the concerns and propaganda of a group of
little minded physics professors. Weinberg and Glashow advocate the
spending of huge sums of money for their own birdbrain physics
munchings.

  Why does Scientific PanglossAmerican show a picture of unification on
pages 98-99? Are they trying to propagandize the young? I think so.

  The Atom Totality theory unifies all the sciences and mathematics.
But since the physics birdbrains have momentary control over the
physics presses they are vehement in keeping the Atom Totality theory
off the news presses. Their downfall will come soon.

  On page 102 it shows the physics birdbrain Steven Weinberg. It is my
opinion that if he were in charge, would he spend the GNP just to find
out that his theory is FALSE?

  On page 106 of Scientific PanglossAmerican the word "panglossian" is
printed several times. I coined the term Scientific PanglossAmerican
many months ago. I feel that John Horgan reads these sci. newsgroups
net and my postings. I feel that as John read my many postings with the
word Scientific PanglossAmerican that he used it in this article. John,
please tell the editors of SA that I will stop making fun of Scientific
American if you publish "Atom Totality" sometime this year of 1994.
Otherwise I ask of my successors to recycle every SA starting with the
year 1995. 
  Give my sincere thanks to the editors of Scientific American for they
published my letter to the editor of APRIL1993. However they printed
that I lived in White River Junction, Vermont. That is false. I never
lived there, instead, I live in Hanover,New Hampshire. The White River
Junction must have been the postage stamp cancelling of my letter to
you. By the way, of all the journals I make fun of, I like SA the best.
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.06 / Richard Eisner /  Nuclear Energy (help)
     
Originally-From: reisner@infi.net (Richard Eisner)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Nuclear Energy (help)
Date: Sun, 6 Feb 1994 12:39:41 GMT
Organization: wyvern.com

I am working on a talk for a speech class (undergraduate level) on "Safe
Nuclear Energy".  I remember hearing about a European (German or Swiss)
experiment, a "pebble" reactor.  Information on the experiment in the
libraries is limited. 

Is ther any one who can comment on the experiment. ANY help would be
appreciated.

Rick
N4NKR

reisner@wyvern.wyvern.com

cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenreisner cudfnRichard cudlnEisner cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.06 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  SL: Suggesting a Subject prefix for the SL thread...
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: SL: Suggesting a Subject prefix for the SL thread...
Date: Sun, 6 Feb 1994 19:19:40 GMT
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)

Hi folks,

For those of us who have utterly lost interest in transition metal hydride
anomalies, may I suggest a simple convention for the much less radical and
far more mainstream SL thread that that is now running in this group?

If you wish to explicitly label your posting as non-"cold fusion" and focused
only on SL phenomena and the _possibility_ (nothing more yet) of SL-induced
plasmas, you might label your posting subject line like this:

  Subject: SL: TitleOfYourPosting

Besides stating explicitly that you have no wish to have the posting
misconstrued as part of the sagging "cold fusion" debate, the majority of
News readers have utilities (e.g., "rn" -- thanks Larry Wall!) by which
you can junk everything that does _not_ have the explicit SL label to mark
it as part of that thread.  Some of the practicing physicists out there are
pretty busy, and such conveniences can really help boost the signal ratio
when reading this group.

I suggest this in part because I suspect there are more folks in the physics
research community who would like to discuss SL here or somewhere else, but
are probably inhibited by the polemics of the majority CF thread of this
group.

Opinions?  I will watch the entire group myself, but may start treating
SL-labeled entries as a separate, unrelated "sub-group" if folks take me up
on the idea of using SL as a quick way to distinguish threads.

				Cheers,
				Terry

P.S. --	Have been very busy with real work and thus unable to participate
	in the SL debate, but am delighted to see the back-and-forth Steve
	Jones has initiated.

	BTW, note that SL bubbles are _significantly_ influenced by the
	presence of nearby "walls" and cannot be made highly symmetrical
	when they are too close to such walls.  Tom Droege once faxed me
	some very persuasive graphic pictures on this point.  (Also, you
	will find that this same general point is discussed in terms of
	"cells" back in my UC document of a year ago.

	Has anyone dredged up the posting I made about etching corner cube
 	reflectors into cubic crystals (e.g., rock salt, silicon)?  Those
	are lower-symmetry (cubic vs. spherical) bubbles, but probably a
	whole lot easier to form than the purely spherical approaches since
	the cubic reflections are largely self-aligning and thus far more
	tolerant of misalignment in the direction of the oncoming plane
	wave.  (Remember that plate they set on the moon to act as a laser
	reflecter?  Nothing but corner reflectors.  Take that as a hint as
	to how well good such reflectors are at creating standing waves
	when they bounce the waves back.

	Higher symmetry reflectors are also possible, but you can't etch
	them out of readily occuring crystals.  High quality crystals
	should give very nice alignment of the 3 orthogonal faces needed.

	Good luck to everyone working on SL!

cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenterry cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.07 / L Plutonium /  spontaneous neutron materialization explains sonoluminescence
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics,sci.chem
Subject: spontaneous neutron materialization explains sonoluminescence
Date: 7 Feb 1994 00:16:53 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

and electrochemical cold fusion, and Reifenschweiler radioactivity, and
cosmic gamma ray bursts. Spontaneous Neutron Materialization was
hypothesized as a new form a radioactivity by P.A.M. Dirac. More
physics intuition in Dirac's little finger than the collective minds of
the entire physics community of today, excepting me.

In article <2ia4ch$7u7@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium) writes:

> SEE 3JAN PHYSICS LETTERS A

In article <1994Jan28.124225.1301@physc1.byu.edu>
jonesse@physc1.byu.edu writes:

> Boy this net is getting quiet!

  It is quiet because this group was subconsciously set up to destroy
cold fusion. Most of the posters to this group were negative about cold
fusion. Now those posters realize that they were wrong and their flames
and bias towards cold fusion will be preserved on record. They are
upset that us pro cold fusioners will be able to say in the future--
"oh don't trust
so and so's opinion, in the past he was anti cold fusion." Laughs go
up.
  It is quiet because the Dirac-Plutonium spontaneous neutron
materialization is being verified via sonoluminescence, electrochemical
cold fusion, Reifenschweiler radioactivity, cosmic gamma ray bursts. 
HA HA HA HA HA. All the
anti cold fusioners are running for cover. Ha Ha Ha Ha
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.07 / Benjamin Carter /  Re: HOT FUSION? NO WAY!
     
Originally-From: bpc@netcom.com (Benjamin P. Carter)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: HOT FUSION? NO WAY!
Date: Mon, 7 Feb 1994 09:04:18 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

publius@inca.gate.net (Publius) writes:

>  It is obvious that the assault by the "scientifically correct"
>  community on "cold fusion" is motivated by the fact that "hot fusion"
>  is a gigantic multi-billion-dollar boondoggle that must be preserved.
>  ...

It's not obvious to me, and I have no vested interest in any "hot fusion"
project.  Isn't it possible that "cold fusion" has been given a fair
hearing by the appropriate experts, and been found to lack merit?

-- 
    Ben Carter                  internet address: bpc@netcom.com
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenbpc cudfnBenjamin cudlnCarter cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Tue Feb  8 04:37:03 EST 1994
------------------------------
1994.02.08 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  HP3 Heat Pipe (Success?)
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: HP3 Heat Pipe (Success?)
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 1994 01:08:19 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

HP3     Heat Pipe Success (For Sure?)                              7 Feb 94

I have lost track and don't have my log book here, but this is about the gold 
plated unit, which I think is HP #3.

It has taken several weeks to get it working.  At first there was a leak, but 
that should not have stopped it from working, as we shall see.  I think that 
is just requires a number of fill - boil off cycles before things work.  From 
memory, the present unit is made from a 3" dia brass tube inside of a 3 1/2" 
brass tube.  Walls are 1/16".  Height is about 8".  Everything was copper 
plated then nickel plated and then gold plated.  The finish is not very good.  
It does not look gorgeous but is rather dark streaked as this was not Lee's 
usual plating operation, and he did it in a hurry.  

The structure is a cup within a cup, and is operated with the open end down.  
Presently I am using a 50-50 di-water, ethyl alcohol (hardware store de-natured 
with ethyl) mixture.  There are eight thermometers tacked on to the outside of 
the pipe.  Five at 2" intervals measure the temperature distribution from the 
top to the bottom.  

The experiment is started by using the vacuum pump to pump down the pipe.  
Then a fill of the alcohol mix is drawn in form a flask that is arranged so 
that the tube from the pipe goes to the bottom of the flask and the top of the 
flask is vented to air or the vacuum pump.  

The flange at the bottom of the pipe is bolted to a 1/4" copper plate to which 
is attached four 25 watt power resistors.  So this unit is heated from the 
bottom.  This is a key difference from previous efforts.  By driving the power 
resistors, the liquid can be boiled out of the pipe at atmospheric pressure.

Significant heat pipe effect was not observed until about the third boil off.  
With this configuration, there is high heat loss from the pipe and about 50 
watts are required to hold the unit at of order 80 C where it boils.  (Note 
this temperature increased over the several boil outs, so likely there was 
some alcohol loss from the mixture.)  Some runs were made with a fiber glass 
wrap to increase the rate of boil off.  

It is tricky to tell what is actually going on, and I will not bore you with 
all the details, but the general method is to observe the spread between the 5 
thermometers attached bottom to top on the pipe.  One expects the bottom of 
the "pot" to be the hottest when it is open to the air as there are convection 
losses up the pipe.  A little insulation though, and it can go either way.  

On one experiment, the pipe was boiled at 70 watts until 95% or more of the 
alcohol mix was boiled into the flask.  At this point the difference between 
the bottom and the top thermometer was 1.2 C.  The exhaust tube was then 
sealed, and the various heat loads were tried.  The temperature differential 
stayed small for loads from 0 to 70 watts.  Boiling was then resumed, and when 
the pipe was "dry" the temperature differential rose to 43 C.  This looks like 
a 36/1 conductivity improvement in heat pipe mode.                

Errors for this type of work tend to be rather large and unpredictable.  I 
quote the top to bottom temperature above as 1.2 C.  This is what was 
measured.  But the thermometers were matched at 25 C.  The measurement was 
made at about 80 C.  While I think the tracking error was no more than a 
degree or so, I won't know until I buy an oven and do some thermometer 
calibration curves.  One could be endlessly diverted off the main track of 
building a good calorimeter.  Remember one of the key features of my design is 
that it does *not* depend on tracking thermometers.  Note that when the 
temperature drop down the pipe is large, we are not operating under the same 
conditions as when it is small - the temperatures are higher at one end and 
lower at the other.  So the 36/1 number is suspect.  I give it a range of 18/1 
to infinity.     

I have taken some data which will allow me to tell what is really going on.  
Robert Eachus will be proud of me as I plan to use one of his favorite 
techniques.    
                          
Tom Droege

cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenDROEGE cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.08 /  blue@dancer.ns /  Re: Superstable oscillators
     
Originally-From: blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Superstable oscillators
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 1994 01:09:03 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I think there is agreement amoung all who have commented that the
10^6 stability observed for sonoluminescence requires something other
than an acoustic resonance.  Perhaps part of the problem is gaining
a clearer understanding of what, in fact, has been claimed.  As Robert
Eachus points out,  a seemingly chaotic pulse train can still result
in a peak in the Fourier transform time spectrum.  I am not familiar
with the instrumentation that was employed to make the measurements,
but I vaguely remember that some types of time interval measuring
instruments don't do exactly what you may think they do.  In some
cases there is some sort of averaging going on such that the number
output is valid only if the pulse train is actually regular, i.e.
the measurement is akin to an inverse frequency measurement in which
pulses are counted for a fixed time interval and then the time
separation is calculated.

As a nuclear physicist, I would expect the time interval between two
successive pulses to be measured with a time digitizer and then have
those time values accumulated for a random sampling of pulse pairs.
One can then extend those measurements by looking at nonadjacent
pairs.  Also a simple counting of pulses should show whether there
are any missing pulses in the pulse train.

Once you have come to an understanding as to what is most likely
NOT responsible for the observed pulse regularity I think, perhaps,
you can begin to see that the phenomenon may not be just quite the
simple making and compressing bubbles as it had been represented
as being.  I would then question whether the interpretation of
the optical spectrum as being "black body"  is not also in doubt. 

Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU

cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenblue cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.08 /  blue@dancer.ns /  Closing off the debate
     
Originally-From: blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Closing off the debate
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 1994 01:09:14 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

MItchell Swartz and Jed Rothwell seen to be overly anxious to declare
victory for cold fusion advocates and then exit the scene of the debate.
I think, however, there are a few loose ends remaining to be clarified.
Perhaps they could give us their insight on these remaining questions.

(1)  If cold fusion using D20 is said to result in the production of
     4He in commensurate quantities, what is the complete data set
     that supports that thesis, and how do you justify the discounting
     of the various null results that have been obtained for helium
      analyses?
(2)  Is the issue of neutron production completely resolved and the
     apparent inconsistancies between various observations cleared up?

(3)  Is there an established level of tritium production in relation
     to excess heat, 4He production, or any other experimental parameter?

(4)  Are all issues relating to other reaction products, such as Pd
     isotopes not normally present, laid to rest?

(5)  Is there clear agreement as to the production of X-rays, gamma rays,
     or charged particles in conjunction with cold fusion?

(6)  Has there been any significant advance is the state of theoretical
     justifications or explanations for any of the currently accepted
     valid data sets?

(7)  Is there any data whatsoever relating to nuclear reaction products
      resulting from cold fusion with H2O or is the currently accepted
      hypothesis that this type of fusion is totally non-nuclear?

Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU

cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenblue cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.08 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Re: On Light Water Cells /Recomb/Heavywatergate
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: On Light Water Cells /Recomb/Heavywatergate
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 1994 01:09:18 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To add my two cents, I found none of the "Positive" heat results at ICCF4 to
be convincing.  There was very little discussion of calorimetry.  In fact, one
of the papers that I have says there is no reason to discuss calorimetry 
anymore, as that was disposed of at ICCF3.  As far as I am concerned, all the
calorimetry of ICCF4 was "in the noise".  I will try to discuss this more when
I have gotten a little further on some fun calculations with heat pipes. 

Tom Droege

cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenDROEGE cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.09 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  HP4  Heat Pipe Success
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: HP4  Heat Pipe Success
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 1994 01:14:32 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

HP4     Heat Pipe Success                                      8 Feb 94

For review:

>The present heat pipe is made from a 3" dia brass tube inside of a 3 1/2" 
>brass tube.  Walls are 1/16".  Height is about 8".  Everything was copper 
>plated then nickel plated and then gold plated.  The finish is not very good.  
>It does not look gorgeous but is rather dark streaked as this was not Lee's 
>usual plating operation, and he did it in a hurry.  

>The structure is a cup within a cup, and is operated with the open end down.  
>Presently I am using a 50-50 di-water, ethyl alcohol (hardware store de-
>natured with ethyl) mixture.  There are eight thermometers tacked on to the 
>outside of the pipe.  Five at 2" intervals measure the temperature 
>distribution from the top to the bottom.  

>The flange at the bottom of the pipe is bolted to a 1/4" copper plate to 
>which is attached four 25 watt power resistors. 

>It is tricky to tell what is actually going on, and I will not bore you with 
>all the details, but the general method is to observe the spread between the 
>5 thermometers attached bottom to top on the pipe.  One expects the bottom of 
>the "pot" to be the hottest when it is open to the air as there are 
>convection losses up the pipe.  A little insulation though, and it can go 
>either way.  
           
End of review material.

I have now taken several data runs where I apply a time varying heat input to 
the hot end of the heat pipe and record temperature with time at various 
points on the heat pipe.  The idea is to record say T1 at the hot end and T2 
at the cold end.  Then the FFT is used to compute the power spectrum at T1 and 
T2.  The ratio of the spectral points (I think) is then the transfer function 
between T1 and T2.  The last time I did this, for the Mark II calorimeter, the 
process generated what looked like an idealized transfer function, with a pole 
at 0.000013 Hz.  Furthermore, when used to design the control system for the 
calorimeter, it closed the loop with very nearly an ideal response.  So I 
believe that this technique works for investigating these very slow transfer 
functions. 

I have now use this technique on HP #3.  So far, two data runs have been 
made, one with ten second sample intervals, and one with two second sample 
intervals.  The result is a nearly flat transfer function.  This is pretty 
astounding.  The transfer function is flat to a db or so over a 4096 point FFT 
with both 10 second and 2 second data.  Note with two second data, the highest 
frequency investigated is 0.25 cycle per second.  This may not seem very fast 
but it is blinding speed for calorimetry.  Consider that the Mills calorimetry 
time constant is closer to a day than an hour.  I do not have a good estimate 
for the P&F calorimetry, but it is not all that different from the time 
constant of a cup of hot coffee I will bet - 20 minutes or so.  The problem 
with this technique is getting enough energy in the harmonics so that the 
measurement is not down in the noise.  Very hard to do.  Impulsing a heater 
does not do any good as the thermal capacity of the power resistors filters 
out the high frequency components.  I may try a shot of circuit cooler, but 
that is pretty uncontrolled!   

I have also looked at T1 - T2.  Note that when heat is applied, T1 and T2 go 
from 25 C to 85 C at 70 watts input.  T1 and T2 do not track perfectly, but by 
using T1 - (T2+k(T2-T2zero)) the tracking can be mostly corrected.  What is 
left is remarkably good tracking between the two ends of the heat pipe as the 
heat is switched on and off.  There is some lag in T2 following T1, and the 
FFT should show it, but it is small and I am just learning how to interpret 
the FFT output.  

I would appreciate comments on the technique.  I am just doing cook book 
mathematics, and computing the power spectrum at T1 and T2.  I most certainly 
do not know what I am doing.  There is 8" of heat pipe between T1 and T2.  
Seems to me that T2/T1 (point by point of the power spectrum) should give the 
power transfer function between T1 and T2.   

Tonight I will boil out the heat pipe, and take data in non heat pipe mode.  
Likely will not report for a few days as tomorrow I get to do some work and 
also listen to Mr. Taubes.       

This discussion is appropriate for this forum since the key claims of "cold 
fusion" rest on calorimetry.  
                          
Tom Droege

cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenDROEGE cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.07 /  EMERGE@delphi. /  egos on parade!
     
Originally-From: EMERGE@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: egos on parade!
Date: Mon, 7 Feb 94 12:19:02 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

I have been following this conference now for about a week.  I am
simply a "novice" (computer programmer) who is curious to see what
the scientific community is up to in this field.  I initially
approached this conference with awe and respect.  I can only say
now that I am thoroughly disgusted.
 
I can't believe that the cold fusion quest has evolved into a huge
ego clash.  What the hell is wrong with you guys?  What ever
happened to real science?  I keep reading postings that include
"HAHAHAHAHA" and unbelievable personal assaults.  What ever
happened to good old experimentation and open mindedness?  The only
person I enjoy reading who's still willing to still stick his neck
out in this group is Tom Drouge, playing with his tube experiments.
Good luck to you Tom!
 
I am really dismayed at the lack of respect you all show to one
another.  Why would anyone want to post in this conference anymore?
Conflict and disagreement are integral parts of science, but this
is obviously not a group of cutting edge scientists.  It's more
like a group of close-minded political rosters pecking at one
another.  The sad part of it all is that this type of bickering
shuts down the free exchange of ideas.  No wonder this conference
is so quiet.
 
I had hoped that cold fusion would be an issue above politics.
Obviously I.Q. has nothing to do with intelligence.  Japan will
certainly beat us on this one.
 
 
 Michael
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenEMERGE cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.07 / Jim Carr /  Re: Where to find information on cold fusion
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Where to find information on cold fusion
Date: 7 Feb 1994 16:31:28 GMT
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

I find it interesting that Jed does not cite any of the technical 
papers published before 1992 as being relevant to an understanding 
of Cold Fusion.  Mention of a 1991 Conference Proceedings does not 
do justice to the hundreds of papers published in 1989 and 1990.  
I have to assume that this means he does not believe their claims 
and thus finds them irrelevant to a person trying to get an initial 
understanding of the field.  Normally one would cite the first paper 
that led to a working patented device, since that facillitates a 
Citation Index search, and then cite a recent article that brings 
one up-to-date on refinements. 

I also find it interesting that Jed does not consider Dieter's 
bibliography worth mentioning -- and it *is* available electronically. 

--
J. A. Carr       <jac@scri.fsu.edu>           |  "The New Frontier of which I  
Florida State University  B-186               |  speak is not a set of promises
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Tallahassee, FL  32306-4052                   |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.07 / Jim Carr /  Re: Bockris in the news (again)
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Bockris in the news (again)
Date: 7 Feb 1994 16:34:46 GMT
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

In article <2iu4ih$po7@sugar.NeoSoft.COM> 
dharper@sugar.NeoSoft.COM (David Harper) writes:
>The following is from The Houston Chronicle, Friday, February 4, 
>1994.  Quoted without permission.

 ...

>A Texas A&M University chemistry professor who conducted research 
>about turning lead into gold was found not guilty of scientific 
>misconduct, according to a new university report.

Not a surprising result.  Wonder if the media will report this as 
prominently as they did the original story? 

>Still to come from A&M are an internal audit of accounts related 
>to the project and a probe of the policies and procedures for 
>gifts and grants.

Now it is the administrators turn to squirm.  Keep us informed. 

--
J. A. Carr       <jac@scri.fsu.edu>           |  "The New Frontier of which I  
Florida State University  B-186               |  speak is not a set of promises
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Tallahassee, FL  32306-4052                   |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.07 / Rich Hawryluk /  TFTR Update February 7, 1994
     
Originally-From: rhawryluk@pppl.gov (Rich Hawryluk)
Newsgroups: pppl.tftr.news,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: TFTR Update February 7, 1994
Date: 7 Feb 1994 15:32:58 -0500
Organization: Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory

Status (February 7, 1994):

Sufficient work in the tritium areas has been completed to enable the
resumption of deuterium operation last week..  The emphasis during the
deuterium experiments is on preparing for a series of experiments to
explore ICRF wave physics in deuterium-tritium latter this month.  Plasma
operation began with Bays L, M, N and K antennae.  A power level of 7MW was
reached on the four antennas limited by the available source power.  This
plasma conditioning was performed in H minority He-4 discharges with a 2
sec rf pulse.  A total of 64 shots were taken.  13 shots above 6 MW were
taken.  Bays L & M antennae were operated at 90 degree phasing and
operating points for power and matching were obtained.  (about 50 shots) 
Bays K, L, and M antennae were operated in a modulated mode setting up the
waveforms for the DT experiments.  (about 15 shots).  Successful modulation
upto 10kHz was obtained.

ICRF wave physics in deuterium-tritium plasmas is complicated by the
presence of additional resonances and by alpha-damping which can compete
with electron absorption in the fast wave current drive regime. A promising
scenario for D-T plasmas is heating at the second harmonic of the tritium
cyclotron frequency, which is degenerate with the 3He fundamental. Though
the core damping is predicted to be acceptable, off-axis absorption at the
deuterium fundamental can compete with the second harmonic tritium core
damping in tokamaks with moderate aspect ratio. Modeling indicates that
deuterium fundamental heating occurs off the midplane in regions where the
shear Alfven resonance layer (n||**2 = S resonance) approaches the
deuterium fundamental layer. In TFTR supershot plasmas with the second
harmonic tritium layer coincident with the Shafranov-shifted axis at 2.82m
(assuming an 0.2m shift), the second harmonic deuterium  layer is out of
the plasma on the low field side, but the fundamental deuterium layer is in
the plasma on the high field side at 5.66T, or R = 2.1m. For the present
range of TFTR magnetic fields and ICRF frequencies, the n||**2 = S
resonance can be positioned in the core region only by adding a relatively
high concentration of 3He minority to the D-T plasma. Under these
conditions, significant mode conversion of the launched fast waves to slow
Alfven waves is predicted to occur, resulting in significant direct
electron heating. Experiments planned on TFTR will be able to document the
effectiveness of second harmonic tritium heating and to explore the regimes
in which damping associated with the n||**2 = S resonance is expected to be
important.  The emphasis of the first set of deuterium-tritium experiments
will be to evaluate second harmonic tritium heating.


Plans:

Repair activities in the tritium area will be completed this week. 
Deuterium-tritium operations will resume in mid-February.  During the week
of February 14, additional tritium will be shipped on-site and put into
service to support the experiments.

A workshop on the results from the deuterium-tritium experiments will be
held at PPPL on March 2-4.   For further information about the workshop
contact S. Zweben (szweben@pppl.gov or kmcguire@pppl.gov).

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


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


cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenrhawryluk cudfnRich cudlnHawryluk cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.07 / Robert Lutz /  Re: egos on parade!
     
Originally-From: Robert W. Lutz <rlutz@acad.drake.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: egos on parade!
Date: Mon, 7 Feb 1994 20:41:41 GMT
Organization: Drake University

In article <19940207.12190253.emerge@delphi.com> , 
EMERGE@delphi.com writes:
>I have been following this conference now for about a week.  I am
>simply a "novice" (computer programmer) who is curious to see what
>the scientific community is up to in this field.  I initially
>approached this conference with awe and respect.  I can only say
>now that I am thoroughly disgusted.

Before you take on folks and provide a harsh critique, you might
want to consider expanding your knowledge base.  Over the course
of the last several years, a great deal of quality, useful
information has been posted to this newsgroup.  One week's worth
of reading is hardly representative of the quality of postings.
 
>I can't believe that the cold fusion quest has evolved into a huge
>ego clash.  What the hell is wrong with you guys?  What ever
>happened to real science?  I keep reading postings that include
>"HAHAHAHAHA" and unbelievable personal assaults.  What ever
>happened to good old experimentation and open mindedness?  The only
>person I enjoy reading who's still willing to still stick his neck
>out in this group is Tom Drouge, playing with his tube experiments.
>Good luck to you Tom!

Free speech is the order of the day here.  Not everyone who reads
and posts is a working scientist.  Like other groups, we have a
few folks who post ludicrous things at times.  Flames are not an
unknown phenomenon.   However, the rush to judgement on your part
is unfair to the serious, informed folks who do post regularly.

>I am really dismayed at the lack of respect you all show to one
>another.  Why would anyone want to post in this conference anymore?
>Conflict and disagreement are integral parts of science, but this
>is obviously not a group of cutting edge scientists.  It's more
>like a group of close-minded political rosters pecking at one
>another.  The sad part of it all is that this type of bickering
>shuts down the free exchange of ideas.  No wonder this conference
>is so quiet.

The newsgroup is not quiet.  Before you began reading, there were
a wealth of marvelous conference summaries with discussion which
contributed greatly to my understanding of the current status of
the field.
 
>I had hoped that cold fusion would be an issue above politics.
>Obviously I.Q. has nothing to do with intelligence.  Japan will
>certainly beat us on this one.

There are NO issues above politics!  Anytime you have more than
two people interested in any topic, you have politics.  Your
conclusions make some assumptions not shared by several who
read this group.  (It still isn't clear to some of us that there
is anything with which to beat anyone.)

-bob-

Robert W. Lutz
Assistant Provost for Information Technology
Drake University
Des Moines, IA 50311
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenrlutz cudfnRobert cudlnLutz cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.07 / Gregory Meholic /  Test - Please ignore
     
Originally-From: meholicg@db.erau.edu (Gregory V. Meholic)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Test - Please ignore
Date: 7 Feb 1994 16:24:18 -0500
Organization: Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, Daytona Beach, FL USA


Test -Please ignore

cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenmeholicg cudfnGregory cudlnMeholic cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.07 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Where to find information on cold fusion
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Where to find information on cold fusion
Date: Mon, 7 Feb 94 17:29:23 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Jim Carr writes:
 
     "I find it interesting that Jed does not cite any of the technical
     papers published before 1992 as being relevant to an understanding
     of Cold Fusion..."
 
My short Bibliography includes the Mallove book "Fire from Ice," which
has an excellent bibliography of early papers on pages 313 - 323. I also list
the Second International Conference Proceedings, which covers much of
the early work. I would list the First Conference Proceedings, but I don't
know where to order them.
 
 
     "Mention of a 1991 Conference Proceedings does not do justice to
     the hundreds of papers published in 1989 and 1990...
 
This is a *short* bibliography. These are scientific papers. They all have
footnotes showing the reader where to find additional information. I intend
to hand the reader a key to the garden, I do not offer a guided tour.
 
 
     "I have to assume that this means he does not believe their claims
     and thus finds them irrelevant to a person trying to get an initial
     understanding of the field..."
 
Nonsense. That assumption is completely unwarranted.
 
 
     "I also find it interesting that Jed does not consider Dieter's
     bibliography worth mentioning..."
 
Nothing about Britz is worth mentioning. He is not to be trusted, he has no
more credibility than Taubes. He knows nothing about this field, his
bibliography notes are a travesty.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenjedrothwell cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.07 / Robert Eachus /  Re: Reifenschweiler tritium data
     
Originally-From: eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reifenschweiler tritium data
Date: 7 Feb 94 17:20:31
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.


    I thought there was a paper recently where continuous observation
of a system decreased the rate of radioactive decay?  The
"observation" used a laser, and the idea was that since some
intermediate phase in the decay was unobservable (virtual), constant
observation prevented the decay.  I can see this being true for
trtium, which has a 10 year half-life beta decay, but I'm not sure how
heating the metal would cause sufficient collisions to count as
observations.  (Virtual pair production followed by capture of the
positron by the nucleus?  Sounds like a very short intermediate
lifetime.)

    However this could be a spin coupling thing I guess.  If that is
the case however, I would expect the tritium half-life to be different
in water (T2O) and gaseous (T2) form.  Anyone done that measurement?


--

					Robert I. Eachus

with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudeneachus cudfnRobert cudlnEachus cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.07 / Matt Kennel /  Re: HOT FUSION? NO WAY!
     
Originally-From: mbk%anl433.uucp@Germany.EU.net (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: HOT FUSION? NO WAY!
Date: 7 Feb 1994 23:34:47 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

Publius (publius@inca.gate.net) wrote:
:   It is obvious that the assault by the "scientifically correct"
:   community on "cold fusion" is motivated by the fact that "hot fusion"
:   is a gigantic multi-billion-dollar boondoggle that must be preserved.
:   But even if "hot fusion" is successful in emulating the sun (literally)
:   it is an impractical sledge-hammer solution.
:   In the not-too-distant future everyone wll laugh at how idiotically
:   simple the solution turned out to be.
:   The secret is in the composition of that marvelous compound we
:   call "water". Somehow, the energy that brought together the oxygen
:   and hydrogen is available to us in a form yet unknown.

Well, actually, you get energy when you bring together oxygen and 
hydrogen, and it takes energy to bring them apart, it it's
in a form very well known and is hardly a mystery to modern
science.

:   The Japanese are pumping big bucks into "cold fusion" research.
:   It may be wishful thinking because they want to be shut of imported
:   oil for the production of electricity.
:   I hope not - and I'm cheering for them and others exploring "cold fusion".

Well, I say, for once, let the Japanese spend all the money for painstaking
fundamental research on 'cold fusion', and then if it (somehow) turns out to
work and be profitable, GE should license or steal the ideas and make money
off of it.

Turnabout for the transistor.

:   PUBLIUS


--
-Matt Kennel  		mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu
-Institute for Nonlinear Science, University of California, San Diego
-*** AD: Archive for nonlinear dynamics papers & programs: FTP to
-***     lyapunov.ucsd.edu, username "anonymous".
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenuucp cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.08 / L Plutonium /  Re: egos on parade!
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,alt.sci.physics.plutonium
Subject: Re: egos on parade!
Date: 8 Feb 1994 00:57:11 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In article <19940207.12190253.emerge@delphi.com>
EMERGE@delphi.com writes:

> I can't believe that the cold fusion quest has evolved into a huge
> ego clash.  What the hell is wrong with you guys?  What ever
> happened to real science?  I keep reading postings that include
> "HAHAHAHAHA" and unbelievable personal assaults.  What ever
> happened to good old experimentation and open mindedness?

  In my opinion, sci.physics.fusion is a higher quality group than
sci.physics. Mr. John Logajan is very helpful in this group. 
  And although I get few follow-ups in this group I know almost all
read me. They like to pretend that they have me in a kill-file as to
put on pretenses to their peers and comrades. But they read me on the
sleuth, regardless. They are scared of me. This is all good because I
am of the opinion it is better to say what I need to and not be
hampered by replying to numerous nimnull requests of dubious
importance.
  Even though most of the posters were against cold fusion at the start
and there is a permanent record of their negativism here on
sci.physics.fusion, showing their weak physical intuition. They now
realize they were wrong and are being quiet. Perhaps some of those
skeptics will now help the science. And unlike sci.physics where there
are far too many mouths per brains, resulting in a huge background
NOISE. Once sci.physics.fusion is on the correct physical track, the
posters to this group will more than likely help the cause and cut the
noise. Unlike, sci.physics where an accomplishment of importance will
still have the huge NOISE, and grow even larger.
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.07 /  jonesse@physc1 /  SL:  Superstable oscillations
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: SL:  Superstable oscillations
Date: 7 Feb 94 17:21:34 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

[SL:  Superstable Oscillations  -- following Terry's suggestion of SL as
identifier for postings on sonoluminescence]

Further information on the 1 part in 10^6 synchronicity in
single-bubble SL from Dr. Roy by e-mail:

"The effect has been achieved in both relatively high-Q (spherical quartz) and
relatively low-Q (rectangular plexiglass) resonators.
...it is probably a form of mode locking between the bubble and the cell."

I appreciated John Logajan's input on this problem, and am trying to translate
his comments into experiments.  Any particular suggestions, John?

We started looking into the use
of a streak-camera to analyze the SL light pulses, but Dr. Crum said this had
already been tried but was unsuccesful due to low intensities of light.

Also received e-mail from Marc Delvaux of Belgium regarding the time-interval
meter SRS 620/01 used by the UCLA team:

Time interval/Frequency counter
*25 ps single shot resolution
*1.3 GHz max. freq., 11 digit resolution
*statistics, Allan variance, histogram outputs
*GPIB, RS232 and printer interfaces
* $4,500.

Thanks, Marc.

Sounds up to the task of resolving 1 in 10^6 jitter for the SL system, Dick. 

--Steven Jones

cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenjonesse cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.07 / Cameron Bass /  Re: egos on parade!
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: egos on parade!
Date: Mon, 7 Feb 1994 19:37:24 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <19940207.12190253.emerge@delphi.com>,  <EMERGE@delphi.com> wrote:
> 
>another.  The sad part of it all is that this type of bickering
>shuts down the free exchange of ideas.  No wonder this conference
>is so quiet.

    It's so quiet because we've run out of things to discuss.
    Discussing P&F's experiments seems like beating a dead horse.
    It's rare that I've seen such poorly described experiments
    published, and their published reports have so many implausabilities
    and apparent impossibilities that it is quite apparent that 
    a) their basic claim is false, or b) they are obfuscating in 
    such a way that we will not be able to determine if their
    claims are false.  Case b) seems unethical though that *has*
    been implied by proponents.  In either case, what is there to 
    discuss?  Either P&F will get rich, or they'll waste a bunch of 
    money.  I'd be willing to bet a substantial sum on the 'waste'
    side.

    'Cold Fusion' seems to be finally dying except in a couple of discrete
    places.  The surprising thing is not that the corpse is finally
    cooling off, but that it was induced to twitch for so long.

>I had hoped that cold fusion would be an issue above politics.
>Obviously I.Q. has nothing to do with intelligence. 

    I'm curious what you think politics has to do with intelligence.  Politics
    is a part of most facets of social life, get used to it.

> Japan will
>certainly beat us on this one.

    Beat us in what?  Dumping money into P&F's lab?  I gladly cede them
    that honor.

                            dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.08 / Barry Merriman /  Re: egos on parade!
     
Originally-From: barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: egos on parade!
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 94 04:35:39 GMT
Organization: UCLA, Mathematics Department

In article <2j6o17$i77@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu  
(Ludwig Plutonium) writes:
>   Even though most of the posters were against cold fusion at the start
> and there is a permanent record of their negativism here on
> sci.physics.fusion, showing their weak physical intuition. They now
> realize they were wrong and are being quiet.

With friends like Ludwig V.P., cold fusion doesn't need enemies :-)

--
Barry Merriman
UCLA Dept. of Math
UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)


cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.08 / mitchell swartz /  COLD FUSION TIMES vol 1 number 4
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: COLD FUSION TIMES vol 1 number 4
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 1994 06:57:17 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

                  ANNOUNCEMENT of UPDATE
        from one  SOURCE FOR MORE INFORMATION

ISSUE #4 OF THE COLD FUSION TIMES IS AVAILABLE
==============================================
  ****   What is Cold Fusion?
Cold fusion began as the generation of anomalous excess 
heat from an immersed palladium electrode,
 electrically activated, in heavy water.

  Although in March 1989 such electrochemically induced
reactions were  reported but were initially very difficult to
reproduce, the technology has since blossomed to include 
anomalous heats of both steady-state and burst type,
 and  has developed to  include the use of titanium, nickel,
 and other metals, as well as gas glow (electrode) discharge, 
gas (non-aqueous) and other systems.

 Much understanding has developed as to why these reactions 
were initially  so difficult to reproduce.  

   The reported excess heats are in the range of a few to 400% 
for the  steady state excess enthalpies and occasional heat 
bursts demonstrate  even greater amounts of potential useful 
energy.   Helium-4 is correlated with the generation of the 
excess enthalpy in careful experiments.

  ***   What is the COLD FUSION TIMES?
    On the 4th Anniversary of the Cold Fusion 
                announcement, a new periodical devoted to this field
                 was launched (in part due to the obstruction of 
          information in conventional journals and newspapers,
          matched by antiscientific hostility by some
          on the Internet). 

 COLD FUSION TIMES was, and is, dedicated to novel 
research and developments in the field.     The fourth edition of 
the COLD FUSION TIMES  is now just out  -- and is available 

   It is  chock full of  information on this subject from around 
the world, including access to more info.    It just might be the 
most information-dense journal in the cold fusion field.   
 Listed below are some topics which were covered in issue 4.

  Those interested in more information  on this  journal may  
simply send me  a brief message by e-mail
       (to mica@world.std.com             subject: CFT). 

    Best wishes.
                                                         Mitchell Swartz
                                                        mica@world.std.com
       ========================================
    Some topics included in issue vol. 1, number 4 are:

Pd-Rh Cathodes in Fuel Cells,
Proton Conducting CF Electrolytes,
RF Activation of Cold Fusion, 
Sonic Induced Cold Fusion,
SrCeO3-Type Proton Conductors,
THE PATENT PAGE,  some additional theories,
WHATS HAPPENING and PEOPLE columns and
 many articles and excerpts including,
state-of-the-art info on Absorption of Pd, Rh, Pd-Ag, on 
papers from the Charles Beaudette-Paxton Award and by
Dennis Cravens, recipient of the First Riley Citation
also details on the First UK Cold Fusion Patent,
data on Russian Glow Discharge experiments,
the US NAVY Helium-4 Linked with Heat experiments.
as well as theoretical and material developments including
Jahn Teller Symmetry,  information sources
Light Water Experiments,  ICCF-4 Summaries,
business developments,  equipment available
Nuclear Power by 2000,  ..... and much much more! 
 

cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.08 / James Parry /  Re: egos on parade!
     
Originally-From: kibo@world.std.com (James "Kibo" Parry)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,alt.religion.kibology
Subject: Re: egos on parade!
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 1994 08:52:50 GMT
Organization: HappyNet Headquarters

In sci.physics.fusion article <2j6o17$i77@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>,
Ludwig Plutonium <Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> 
>   And although I get few follow-ups in this group I know almost all
> read me. They like to pretend that they have me in a kill-file as to
> put on pretenses to their peers and comrades. But they read me on the
> sleuth, regardless. They are scared of me. This is all good because I
> am of the opinion it is better to say what I need to and not be
> hampered by replying to numerous nimnull requests of dubious
> importance.                      ^^^^^^^

That's "nimnul(TM)";  I point this out only because I showed a particle
physicist recently that I can still fit into my "I Feel Like A Nimnul(TM)"
short.  I see I'm not the only one who had bad taste in television back
in the dark ages.

>        Once sci.physics.fusion is on the correct physical track, the

Yes, it's new steam-locomotive-powered Usenet, in which the groups move
over physical tracks.  

Personally, I feel far too many posters have one-physical-track minds.

							-- K.
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenkibo cudfnJames cudlnParry cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.08 /  uhap067@vax.rh /  Re: no subject (file transmission)
     
Originally-From: uhap067@vax.rhbnc.ac.uk
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: no subject (file transmission)
Date: 8 Feb 1994 11:10:58 GMT
Organization: Positron1,Physics, RHUL, London

In article <9402022056.AA07699@medb.physics.utoronto.ca> grieve@medb.phy
ics.utoronto.ca (Dave Grieve) writes:
>
>Frank Close just gave a talk here at U of T on cold fusion.
>He's a physicist from England whose visiting and gave the
>Graham Lecture  (a prestigious public lecture which the Uni runs).
>Real eyeopener.Seems Pons and Fleischmann evidence for fusion was
>forged a few days after their press conference and Close showed
>original faxes and data from Pons and the journal editors that
>proved that someone has done a great job of forgery. 

I saw the same lecture here in England a little while ago.
It left me very disturbed that scientists had apparently been
caught fiddleing their results. If this is the case the the main
damage that has been caused is not to science but to the public
perception of science. 

Chris Haynes.
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenuhap067 cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.08 / Andy Holland /  Re: egos on parade!
     
Originally-From: zcrah@trumpet.pgh.wec.com (Andy Holland)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: egos on parade!
Date: 8 Feb 1994 13:29:35 GMT
Organization: Westinghouse CNFD

In article <19940207.12190253.emerge@delphi.com> EMERGE@delphi.com writes:
> 
>I can't believe that the cold fusion quest has evolved into a huge
>ego clash.  What the hell is wrong with you guys?  What ever
>happened to real science?  I keep reading postings that include
>"HAHAHAHAHA" and unbelievable personal assaults.  What ever
>happened to good old experimentation and open mindedness? 


>I am really dismayed at the lack of respect you all show to one
>another.

> 
>I had hoped that cold fusion would be an issue above politics.

 

AMEN. I have also been reading this post for some time, and have
found some of things written utterly shameful and mean spirited.

| Andy Holland                      || Views Expressed here are solely my|
| Westinghouse NMD                  || own and are not representative of |
| zcrah@ncstate.pgh.wec.com         || Westinghouse Electric Corporation |  

cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenzcrah cudfnAndy cudlnHolland cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Wed Feb  9 04:37:04 EST 1994
------------------------------
1994.02.08 / mitchell swartz /  Politics and Fusion (was "egos on parade!")
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Politics and Fusion (was "egos on parade!")
Subject: Re: egos on parade!
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 1994 17:49:50 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

Message-ID: <2j843vINNain@daisy.pgh.wec.com>
Subject: Re: egos on parade!
Andy Holland    (zcrah@trumpet.pgh.wec.com) writes:

     =   >I had hoped that cold fusion would be an issue above politics.

= "AMEN. I have also been reading this post for some time, and have
= found some of things written utterly shameful and mean spirited."

  Perhaps one etiology is that "cold fusion", both its initial report,
the acute cover-up, the near half-decade obstruction of information
dissemination, the secondary attack on the scientists
and reporters in the field have precisely occurred because 
CF has to be "political".
   [I do not agree, but rather hope it should be scientific]

   This occurs because there must have been a reason
to explain this, and thumping through the dictionary
reveals that the word comes from:

                "politics" (after Webster's ibid.) 
            from the Greek    "politika" (plural of government)
            perhaps also  from     "polites"  (citizen)
            and "polituein"  (from citizens engaged in political
                          and/or police activity)

  politics   --  the art of influencing government 
       --  competition between competing interest groups
        or individuals for power and leadership in a 
        government or other group

     Just thinking. ....       Best wishes.
                      Mitchell Swartz   
                      [mica@world.std.com]


cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.08 / Mark North /  Re: egos on parade!
     
Originally-From: north@watop.nosc.mil (Mark North)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: egos on parade!
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 1994 19:06:51 GMT
Organization: NCCOSC RDT&E Division, San Diego, CA

EMERGE@delphi.com writes:

>I have been following this conference now for about a week.  I am
>simply a "novice" (computer programmer) who is curious to see what
>the scientific community is up to in this field.  I initially
>approached this conference with awe and respect.  I can only say
>now that I am thoroughly disgusted.
> [ rest of apparent newbie rant deleted ]

I was about to answer this post seriously when it became obvious to
me that 'Michael' is none other than our own Jed Rothwell.

Nice try Jed, but no cigar.

Mark

> Michael
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudennorth cudfnMark cudlnNorth cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.08 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Re: Where to find information on cold fusion
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Where to find information on cold fusion
Date: 8 Feb 94 11:56:52 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

In article <J89KV67.jedrothwell@delphi.com>, 
jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:
> Jim Carr writes:
>  [stuff deleted]
>  
>      "I also find it interesting that Jed does not consider Dieter's
>      bibliography worth mentioning..."
>  
> Nothing about Britz is worth mentioning. He is not to be trusted, he has no
> more credibility than Taubes. He knows nothing about this field, his
> bibliography notes are a travesty.
>  
> - Jed

Au contraire:  Dieter Britz' electronic bibliography on "cold fusion" 
has proven useful in numerous discussions on this net and elsewhere.  It is
extensive (nearly 1000 entries) and shows an enormous investment of time and
energy that ought not be denigrated so glibly.

Britz has done his homework and shared its results with us.  Having read much
of his bibliography notes, I strongly disagree with Jed's jibe "He knows
nothing about this field."  Preposterous!  

Several weeks ago, Britz announced that he has 
"lost all vestiges of faith in ANY positive CNF work"
[D. Britz posting on sci.physics.fusion, 30 Dec 1993, "Re:  F. Will tritium
claims/Not a 'quality positive' paper].
However, this is no reason to attack his bibliography notes or his credibility.

Jed's remarks are unsubstantiated and, I find, demonstrably wrong -- like
similar attacks we have been subjected to from V. Noninski and Ludwig 
von Plutonium (is that a real name?).  What do you people gain by making
mean-spirited remarks then (at least for Noninski) not responding further?  
You're just hurting your own credibility, in my opinion.

-- Steven Jones

cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenjonesse cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.08 /  jonesse@physc1 /  cancel <1994Feb8.115330.1341@physc1.byu.edu>
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cancel <1994Feb8.115330.1341@physc1.byu.edu>
Date: 8 Feb 94 11:57:26 -0700

cancel <1994Feb8.115330.1341@physc1.byu.edu>
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenjonesse cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.08 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Re: egos on parade!
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: egos on parade!
Date: 8 Feb 94 15:16:30 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

In article <2j6o17$i77@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>, 
Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium) writes:
>  [stuff deleted] 
>   And although I get few follow-ups in this group I know almost all
> read me. They like to pretend that they have me in a kill-file as to
> put on pretenses to their peers and comrades. But they read me on the
> sleuth, regardless. They are scared of me. 

Can you substantiate any of this?  Just who pretends to have a kill-file
on you, reads you regardless?  Who is scared of you?  Why?  Are you sure?

> This is all good because I
> am of the opinion it is better to say what I need to and not be
> hampered by replying to numerous nimnull requests of dubious
> importance.
>   Even though most of the posters were against cold fusion at the start
> and there is a permanent record of their negativism here on
> sci.physics.fusion, showing their weak physical intuition. They now
> realize they were wrong and are being quiet. 

Can you substantiate these claims?  Who now 'realizes they were wrong
and are being quiet'?  Please be specific.

> Perhaps some of those
> skeptics will now help the science. And unlike sci.physics where there
> are far too many mouths per brains, resulting in a huge background
> NOISE. Once sci.physics.fusion is on the correct physical track, the
> posters to this group will more than likely help the cause and cut the
> noise. Unlike, sci.physics where an accomplishment of importance will
> still have the huge NOISE, and grow even larger.

Just what is the 'correct physical track'?  How do you know?
( 8^)=|

cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenjonesse cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.09 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: Where to find information on cold fusion
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Where to find information on cold fusion
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 1994 01:28:18 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <J89KV67.jedrothwell@delphi.com> jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:

>Nothing about Britz is worth mentioning. He is not to be trusted, he has no
>more credibility than Taubes. He knows nothing about this field, his
>bibliography notes are a travesty.


I think that we all understand that knowledge is a definite handicap in
the field of Cold Fussion.

If this is the case then Dieter would obvoiusly be one of the less likely
candidates for understanding and Rothwell should be the world's formost
expert.

cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.09 / L Plutonium /  Re: egos on parade!
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,alt.sci.physics.plutonium
Subject: Re: egos on parade!
Date: 9 Feb 1994 04:16:14 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In article <1994Feb8.151630.1344@physc1.byu.edu>
jonesse@physc1.byu.edu writes: [most deleted]

> Can you substantiate any of this?  Just who pretends to have a kill-file
> on you, reads you regardless?  Who is scared of you?  Why?  Are you sure?
  Well, Steven this is the first time you replied to any of my
follow-ups, indicating that you like many others to this group read my
posts even though no reply.

> Can you substantiate these claims?  Who now 'realizes they were wrong
> and are being quiet'?  Please be specific.

  I am not familiar whether you yourself are pro or con cold fusion. I
do remember reading a Sci.Amer. article on cold fusion back around
1987? authored by you. I do remember you were active when the P & F
announcement came out. If memory serves me, you were downplaying cold
fusion to only a significant contribution to the warming of the core
and mantle of the Earth's interior. Please correct me if wrong on these
notions.
  Steven, keep up the good work of informing-posts such as
sonoluminescence (SL). Has SL been published in any journals? 
  I sense you would not believe me when I say cold fusion and all of
these phenomenon are spontaneous neutron materialization (just as Dirac
conjectured). But I will keep plugging it. Hopefully it will get
through to someone.
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.09 / L Plutonium /  Re: egos on parade!
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,alt.sci.physics.plutonium
Subject: Re: egos on parade!
Date: 9 Feb 1994 04:43:37 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In article <2j843vINNain@daisy.pgh.wec.com>
zcrah@trumpet.pgh.wec.com (Andy Holland) writes:

> >I can't believe that the cold fusion quest has evolved into a huge
> >ego clash.  What the hell is wrong with you guys?  What ever
> >happened to real science?  I keep reading postings that include
> >"HAHAHAHAHA" and unbelievable personal assaults.  What ever
> >happened to good old experimentation and open mindedness?

  No, I think you have it blase. I suspect the best players of physics
and mathematics love those two subjects more than they like people.
This sounds harsh and cold to those who lack math or physics intuition,
but it is the truth I feel. It is at the heart of what Dirac meant by
physics is true when the mathematics is beautiful. It is the beauty in
the intuition that will finally shine through as the truth no matter
how loud the opposing background noise is. In other words, to be a top
genius and productive in math or physics you must divorce and separate
yourself from humans and their many human feelings of disbelief and
failings. You must rely on the beauty of your intuition foremost, and
heavily discount the background noise of the bandwagons opposing you.
You must like and prefer human company only when it furthers, or leads,
or spurs you on into newer intuitive insights. Just read the history of
mathematicians or physicists and you will see that controversy and
adversity leads to good production and final products.
  So then when a winner of a nasty but very important fight like cold
fusion emerges, it is only fair that we go on parade. 
  I suspect your notions of how science is done and carried out is very
naive.
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.09 /  dowen@vaxc.cc. /  Re: Reifenschweiler tritium data.
     
Originally-From: dowen@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reifenschweiler tritium data.
Date: 9 Feb 94 16:11:01 +1100
Organization: Computer Centre, Monash University, Australia


Hi folks,
 Firstly let me say that I posted the Reifenschweiler data, in my post
of 2-Feb-94 entitled "Re:Breakthrough with new phenomenon?", with the idea
of giving people without access to the original article (in the 3-Jan-94
"Physics Letters A") *a short outline* of the Reifenscheiler experiments.
 Dick in his post "Re:Reifenschweiler tritium data" of the 4-feb-94, on
the first line (see below) acknowledges my post for what it was,
a summary...

In article <94020312580593@dancer.nscl.msu.edu>, blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu
 writes:
> I want to thank Daryl Owen for posting the summary of the 30-yr old
> data that is supposed to show some form of miracle relating to the
> radioactivity of tritium show a temperature dependence.  In my opinion
> the data presented shows no such thing!  As I understand the experiment
> titanium soot in a closed volume is loaded with tritium and then the
> activity detected by a GM tube is monitored as a function of temperature
> for the tritium-titanium system.

Your understanding of the experiment(s) is incorrect.....
In my post I clearly stated:  "In other similar experiments the radiation
was measured by means of a vibrating reed electrometer monitoring the
electron current produced by "Beta particles and secondaries" via a
cylindrical electrode placed inside the vessel."   In the original article,
Reifenscheiler states, concerning the GM tube and the electrometer......
 "Various experiments established for both detection systems the linear 
   relationship between the read-out and the activity."
It appears that you did not bother to read the original article which was
in itself an outline of the authors experiments.  He also states....
 "A more detailed description of our experiments with proposals to improve
the experimental technique can be obtained on request from ........"
So there is no excuse Dick, the data was/is available in depth, for those
who wish to avail themselves of it.

> There is clearly a problem with the experimental technique, however.
> The GM tube (outside) clearly cannot respond directly to the tritium
> beta activity.  The response has to be only to secondary radiation and,
> I suspect, only the high energy end of a continuum spectrum of radiation.

This is not so, he "established a linear relationship between the read-out
and the activity." See above.

> What this detected radiation is and how it relates to the actual
> activity of the tritium is anybodies guess.

Incorrect, see above.

>                                             The experimental situation
> is extremely poorly controlled.  For example, relocating the tritium
> from within the titanium to a gas filling the container could have
> a dramatice effect on the production and detection of secondary radiation
> without there, in fact, being any change in the total tritium activity
> present.

The experimental situation was not poorly controlled, you *obviously* have
not read the original paper which states .....
"The tritium which is released - if any - is pumped out continuously."
Also, and more importantly, there was  "....no measurable release of 
tritium below about 300 deg. C (confirmed by many experiments)."
Moreover this was shown in the lower graph I included in my post.
The effect takes place substantially below 300 deg. C.

>  Even relocating the tritium within the titanium can have such
> an effect.  If the temperature is not uniform a relocation of tritium
> from one part of the cell could well occur once the temperature at one
> point had made the tritium mobile.
> 
> While publishing this scrap of poor quality data reflects bad editorial
> judgement, in my opinion,

As you do not understand the experiment correctly (see above), it follows
that any opinions at this point are worthless.

>                            the attachment of foolish speculation regarding
> an effect of "pairing" on tritium activity pushes this over the edge
> into "extremely bad science."  What precisely is meant by "pairing?"

Letters submited to "Physics Letters A" are outlines of experiments and 
are usually much shorter than full journal articles. Reifenschweiler was
writing within these constraints and could not give full and complete details.

> If we are to consider monatomic tritium, molecular tritium, and tritiated
> metals as possible examples where some form of pairing effect might be
> observed, what has previously been observed with regard to the tritium
> decay rate?  Does anyone actually believe that there is no data relating
> to this question?   If something more than ordinary chemical bonds is
> supposed to be involved here, I would think that the author should say
> what he has in mind.  I suppose it could be a Bose condensate except
> for the fact the a triton is not a Bose particle. <g>
> 
> Dick Blue
> NSCL@MSU
> 

 I consider it to be very unprofessional to use the term 
"extremely bad science" to describe an article which you have *clearly not
read* and have damned the author on the basis of (your misinterperation of)
a third parties' summary. Shame on you Dick.

						Regards to almost everybody,
						Daryl Owen.

The above text is only attributable to myself.


cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudendowen cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.09 / mitchell swartz /  Turning on the scientific debate (was closing off...)
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Turning on the scientific debate (was closing off...)
Subject: Closing off the debate
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 1994 13:35:03 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

   In Message-ID: <94020711145070@dancer.nscl.msu.edu>
Subject: Closing off the debate
Dick Blue (blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu) writes:

= MItchell Swartz and Jed Rothwell seen to be overly anxious to declare
= victory for cold fusion advocates and then exit the scene of the debate.
=  I think, however, there are a few loose ends remaining to be clarified.
= Perhaps they could give us their insight on these remaining questions.

   ;-)        Hark.  Doth my ears hear a science question from Dick Blue?

     As usual this will probably be one-sided.   Here are some answers
on the condition that Dick Blue and the other anxious skeptics
offer answers to a few loose ends posed
 by the questions beneath these answers.   Any lurker, or contributor,
with any answer to any of them is invited to offer any serious response.


= (1)  If cold fusion using D20 is said to result in the production of
=      4He in commensurate quantities, what is the complete data set
=      that supports that thesis, and how do you justify the discounting
=      of the various null results that have been obtained for helium
=       analyses?

    Read the ICCF-4 Proceedings (and other information sources including
Cold Fusion Times, Fusion Facts, Fusion Technology). 

    Reason for null results?    The helium-4 is linked to the excess enthalpy and
is only generated when conditions are sufficient and adequate for the
reactions.


= (2)  Is the issue of neutron production completely resolved and the
=      apparent inconsistencies between various observations cleared up?

   No.   Neutronpenic levels can occur intermittently under some conditions.


= (3)  Is there an established level of tritium production in relation
=      to excess heat, 4He production, or any other experimental parameter?

   There are multiple pathways which depend upon material (and other)
    parameters


= (4)  Are all issues relating to other reaction products, such as Pd
=      isotopes not normally present, laid to rest?
   No.


= (5)  Is there clear agreement as to the production of X-rays, gamma rays,
=      or charged particles in conjunction with cold fusion?

   No.

= (6)  Has there been any significant advance is the state of theoretical
=      justifications or explanations for any of the currently accepted
=      valid data sets?

   Yes.  

= (7)  Is there any data whatsoever relating to nuclear reaction products
=       resulting from cold fusion with H2O or is the currently accepted
=       hypothesis that this type of fusion is totally non-nuclear?

   I am still looking for good data here.  There were about 78 experimental
 papers with D2O at ICCF-4, but only 8 (? or so) for H2O.   

     =====================================================
             opening the debate  ---  questions to the skeptics --- 
      =====================================================
  Now for you, Dick.  [or Steve.  or John or Frank.  or  Dieter, or Tom ....  ]

   A) What proof do you have (mathematical and rigorous) that cold fusion
 must occur in the solid state EXACTLY as it does in a plasma?

   B) What proof do you have (mathematical and rigorous) that cold
 fusion in the solid state must produce neutrons?     isotopically   

  C) What proof do you have (mathematical and rigorous) that cold
 fusion in the solid state cannot involve non-gas (long-range)
 interactions like (but not necessarily equal to) Mossbauer effect?

  D) What proof do you have (mathematical and rigorous)
 that any of your "explanations" can give a semiquantitative reason
 as to the observed generated excess enthalpy, nuclear products
 on a reasonable order-of-magnitude basis?

    E)  Why do you hold F+P's purported behavior to a higher
 ethical standard then those who apparently covered up the
 cold fusion effect?

   F)  How do you explain the helium-4 linked to the excess heat?

   G)  How do you explain the excess enthalpy?

   H)  How do you explain the helium?

    I)  How do you explain the tritium generation?

   J)  How do you explain the fact that the materials always give
 positive (i.e. >0) excess heat, and if it were a "systematic error"
 then some would be negative?

  K)  How can you explain the fact the observed power density
 levels have been increasing since 1989 (10Watt/cm3) by two orders 
of magnitude?

  L) How can you explain the proliferation of subtechnologies
 which now increase the likelihood of these reactions occurring?

    M) How can you account for the energy produced which can
 exceed the known energy storage capacity of materials?

  No handwaving, folks, professors.
     Thanks in advance for your serious  answers based upon 
physics, chemistry, metallurgy, and engineering
                           and not just words of physics, etc.

     Best wishes.
                      Mitchell Swartz   
                      [mica@world.std.com]






cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.09 /  emerge@delphi. /  Re: egos on parade!
     
Originally-From: emerge@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: egos on parade!
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 94 12:24:23 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Mark North <north@watop.nosc.mil> writes:
 
>I was about to answer this post seriously when it became obvious to
>me that 'Michael' is none other than our own Jed Rothwell.
 
 
Dear Mark,
 
     Your recent response kind of typifies the problem I have with
this conference.  Your assumption that I am masquerading under a
secret identity for some unspecified sinister reason are so far out
in left field, it doesn't warrant comment.
 
     This is essentially the same problem I see happening at all
levels of this conference.  I expected to see disagreement based on
different interpretation of test data.  I have no problem with
debate, that's the nature of science.  Only a few discussions seem
to fall into this category however.  The overwhelming majority of
comments here fall into the category of "yes it is, no it's not"
dribble without much supporting evidence.
 
     The destructive negativity going on here has no place in
science.  I believe that if I were treated the way some of you
treat one another, I would simply stop participating.  Right or
wrong, everyone deserves respect.
 
     I have always subscribed to the notion that "one test is worth
a thousand expert opinions."  Cold fusion is way out of the
mainstream of science and bound to have zealots on both sides.
I'd just appreciate more facts and less pure guess work.
 
    I have no idea whether there is any validity to cold fusion. I
stated reading this conference to gain a little knowledge on the
subject!  I admit to being biased in so much as I *want* it to be
true.  But even to layman, it's obvious there is much work to be
done before the *truth* will be known.  Claiming victory on either
side seems premature to me.
 
      Let's keep the blows above the belt!
 
 
Michael Mozina
Emerging Technologies
P.O. Box 1539
Mt. Shasta, CA 96067
 
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenemerge cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.09 / Brian Rauchfuss /  Spontaneous Neutrons?
     
Originally-From: brauchfu@fnugget.intel.com (Brian D. Rauchfuss)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Spontaneous Neutrons?
Date: 9 Feb 1994 18:34:41 GMT
Organization: INTEL.FOLSOM

>  I sense you would not believe me when I say cold fusion and all of
>these phenomenon are spontaneous neutron materialization (just as Dirac
>conjectured).

This sounds like the theories of a steady-state expanding universe which would
gain matter (to keep the density the same) by spontaneous materialization.

I am not sure what it would have to do with cold fusion, though; the rate of
new matter creation would be so low as to have no energy effect over such a 
small volume.  Do you have a theory that hydrogen isotopes in palladium/nickel/
etc would somehow greatly increase this effect?  If so, would not the 
characteristic radiation of neutron decay be seen by a number of experimenters?

BDR
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenbrauchfu cudfnBrian cudlnRauchfuss cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.09 /  emerge@delphi. /  Re: egos on parade!
     
Originally-From: emerge@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: egos on parade!
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 94 13:46:21 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Ludwig Plutonium <Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu> writes:
 
>  No, I think you have it blase. I suspect the best players of physics
>and mathematics love those two subjects more than they like people.
 
Dear Ludwig Plutonium.
 
     I think you're missing the point of life entirely.  Science is
a study of the universe around us.  Without bringing God into the
subject I will simply say that for me, science is a quest to
understand the beauty that surrounds me, to understand the nature
of the universe.  To try to separate  science from humanity is
absurd and dangerous.
 
     Swimming against the tide of false human belief is nothing
new.  It's been done since people first roamed the earth.  It isn't
necessary to cut yourself off from human contact entirely, just
ignore the false beliefs!
 
     Compared to eternity, a human life span is nothing more than
a blink of an eye.  What we gain in understanding in a life span
cannot possibly offset our loss of humanity.  Your notion of having
to separate yourself from humans to be a "top genius" is
destructive and can only lead to misery. I hope your current
attitudes change as you grow older and wiser.
 
     Human beings are not simply "thinkers."  Our existence goes
well beyond our current understanding of the universe.  What we
learn in science is only a small part of a much bigger picture.
 
     Being right isn't as glorious as you seem to think.  At best
we can claim to understand the universe better in one specific area
than someone else.  I have been both right and wrong enough times
to know that these are transitory states at best.  Love endures.
 
 
Michael
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenemerge cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.09 / Mark North /  Re: egos on parade!
     
Originally-From: north@watop.nosc.mil (Mark North)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: egos on parade!
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 1994 18:57:57 GMT
Organization: NCCOSC RDT&E Division, San Diego, CA

zcrah@trumpet.pgh.wec.com (Andy Holland) writes:

>AMEN. I have also been reading this post for some time, and have
>found some of things written utterly shameful and mean spirited.

OK, hotshot, how about giving some examples other than Rothwell and
Swartz.

Mark

cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudennorth cudfnMark cudlnNorth cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.10 /  blue@dancer.ns /  Resolving 1 in 10 to the 6
     
Originally-From: blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Resolving 1 in 10 to the 6
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 1994 01:30:48 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

My thanks to Steve Jones for posting the specs for the instrument used
to determine time intervals between sonoluminescence pulses.  I am not
sure I fully understand how this device works, so let me recap the 
numbers.  The SRS 620/01 is said to have a single shot resolution
of 25 psec, and max operating frequency of 1.3 GHz and 11 bit resolution.
>From the 1.3 Ghz I calculate 0.7 psec per count so the 25 psec is
believable.  The number that draws me up short is the 11 bit resolution.
That is only 2048?  Does that mean that a single shot (start to stop)
measurement is only made with a resolution of 1 in 2048?  My question
then would be how you get from there to measuring stability for a
series of these measurements to 1 in a million?  Somehow the 11 bit
resolution number seems low so I suspect there is something missing
from the specs.  Anyway I can believe this box could do what is
required.

More to the point, I think, is clearing up the physics that must be
involved to give the stated stability.  If the answer is to be
"mode locking between the cell and the bubble", I wonder if anyone
could explain that further.  If we agree that an acoustic resonance
in the cell cannot be that stable, what else is there other than
the bubble?  Is anyone going to assert that the bubble expands and
contracts with great regularity?  If the light output results from
the propagation of a shock wave into the bubble, what starts that
shock wave?

Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU 

cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenblue cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.09 /  emerge@delphi. /  Egos: Part II
     
Originally-From: emerge@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Egos: Part II
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 94 14:53:07 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

     The response from my initial posting "egos on parade," both in the
conference and to my personal mailbox has been somewhat overwhelming.
Obviously more people read this conference than post to it.
 
     Several people have commented that a week's worth of reading doesn't
constitute much of a knowledge base.  I agree.  I would point out however
that I had read about 3 weeks worth of postings in this conference including
the two previous weeks I had access to.  This still certainly doesn't qualify
me as an expert.  I truly hope to be swayed from my initial opinion over the
next few months.  I keep an open mind.
 
     After re-reading my original post, it's clear to me that I am guilty of
what I was pointing the finger at.  My wording was a bit "moody" and somewhat
inflammatory.  It was not my desire to create a controversy here, I was
simply dismayed at what I've been reading.  I wanted trying to express an
*opinion* of what it looks like from the outside looking in.  It seems my
criticism irritated more than those it was intended for.  Sorry, I'm not a
critic by nature.
 
     I do however stand by belief that this conference is WAY long on
personal attacks on short on facts.  It's tough to learn anything if all you
read is "HAHAHAHAHA" and personal insults.  I'm here to learn.
 
 
Michael Mozina                             Voice: (916) 926-0218
Emerging Technologies                      Fax:   (916) 926-2985
P.O. Box 1539
Mt. Shasta, CA  96067
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenemerge cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.10 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  re: egos on parade!
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: re: egos on parade!
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 1994 03:26:15 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Gosh, Michael, you have tuned in on this group during one of its more
rational periods.  Look at some of last years stuff.  Still, there is
good information passed, and science does get discussed.  Even the 
strongly biased pass some information.  As Harry Truman said, "if you
can't stand the heat, then keep out of the kitchen."  But I hope you
stay, and contribute.

To a certain extent, the HAHAHA...s are fun.  Who says science has to 
be dead serious all the time.  Seems to me that they used to have fist
fights in the Brittish meuseum.  So partisanship does not offend me.  I
am not even sure that I draw the line at outright lying.  It sharpens you
up for science listening to lies.  I notice that my apparatus lies to me 
all the time.  I better be sharp or it gets me.  So I read Jed Rothwell
*and* Dick Blue as practice for honing up my skills for recognizing 
truth!  Not that I am calling either a liar, but they represent for me
the opposite ends of partisanship.

Tom Droege

cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenDROEGE cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.10 / John Logajan /  Re: HP4  Heat Pipe Success
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: HP4  Heat Pipe Success
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 94 00:43:19 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:
>The transfer function is flat to a db or so over a 4096 point FFT 
>with both 10 second and 2 second data.

>I have also looked at T1 - T2.  Note that when heat is applied, T1 and T2 go 
>from 25 C to 85 C at 70 watts input.

Considering that the internal transfer speed is on the order of the speed
of sound -- loads that do not tax the throughput of the system are going
to only generate very tiny and brief delta T's.

Let's imagine an RC electrical analogy.  Your heat pipe is the R(esistor)
and your heat sink is the C(apacitance.)  Small C's and/or small R's make
for very short time constants -- your sensing equipment has to have adequate
time resolution to even notice the RC effect.  And note that once you
get the heatsink material to an equilibrium temperature gradient, the
situation is no longer RC, but R/R' where R of the heatpipe is much smaller
than R' of the heatsink.

>I may try a shot of circuit cooler, but that is pretty uncontrolled!   

Being perhaps the quickest way to produce the needed "AC" transients, this is
a good idea -- but make it several dozen squirts.  Unfortunately the squirts
change the value of "C" from your normal "aircooled" (or whatever) mode, so
the time constant you see will have little bearing to the eventual operational
time constant.  But remembering that the squirt "C" is larger than the 
operational "C" gives you a nice upper limit on your operation time constant.


-- 
-John Logajan MS612; Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
-logajan@network.com, 612-391-1159, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.10 / John Logajan /  Re: SL:  Superstable oscillations
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: SL:  Superstable oscillations
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 94 00:54:37 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

jonesse@physc1.byu.edu writes:
>...am trying to translate [John Logajan's] comments into experiments.  Any
>particular suggestions, John?

I wish I had some.  I was approaching the problem from the highest levels of
abstraction.  Filling in the details requires a deeper understanding and
a broader base of practical experience.

-- 
-John Logajan MS612; Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
-logajan@network.com, 612-391-1159, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.10 / L Plutonium /  Re: egos on parade!
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,alt.sci.physics.plutonium
Subject: Re: egos on parade!
Date: 10 Feb 1994 01:38:37 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In article <ZY0pF3F.emerge@delphi.com>
emerge@delphi.com writes:

> I think you're missing the point of life entirely.  Science is
> a study of the universe around us.  Without bringing God into the
> subject I will simply say that for me, science is a quest to
> understand the beauty that surrounds me, to understand the nature
> of the universe.  To try to separate  science from humanity is
> absurd and dangerous. [body herein deleted]
>  Being right isn't as glorious as you seem to think.  At best
> we can claim to understand the universe better in one specific area
> than someone else.  I have been both right and wrong enough times
> to know that these are transitory states at best.  Love endures.

  Michael, you grossly misunderstand me. It is fine to argue against
someone when they are in the same ballgame. But it is ridiculous to
pretend to argue against someone when you are playing say tennis and I
am playing say soccer. My previous post to you was in a SCIENCE (MATH)
arena, where I thought you were, but come to find out I was mistaken.
Your follow-up is outside my arena. Suppose I am talking about the
Masterpiece Theater mini-series The Last Place on Earth (Amundsen
versus Scott to the South Pole.) I want to talk about the action and
decisions of Amundsen and Scott as shown within the movie. But you
Michael seem to want to talk about something beyond the movie itself---
perhaps how the film crew takes pictures on location to make the movie
or something else meta-movie. Do you see my point? 
  I would not have followed-up on your post if you had argued against
me in the plane of Science. So let me make it more clear to you and
perhaps others who misunderstood my previous post and which you have
muddled even more.

>  No, I think you have it blase. I suspect the best players of physics
>and mathematics love those two subjects more than they like people.
[Continued but deleted]

  What I meant by that is that physics intuition when you are endowed
with it. Then it is best to heavily discount most human contact. Dirac
had physics intuition and observe his own personal characteristics. He
was very shy and wanted to be left alone, and the reason was that he
saw physics in his mind's eye that he knew if he would start a
conversation with say Michael, that there would have been little if
anything noteworthy of physics. So do not even bother to start a
discussion. M. Faraday had it and observe his personal character. 
  The point that sailed over your head Michael is this. When you have
physics intuition and an important new idea, then 90% of "other
peoples" reactions, or comments or advice or opinion of your new idea
is false and wrong. Perhaps only 10% to 1% is it the case that "other
peoples" comments or advice or opinion of your new idea is worth
considering. So, for a new science idea such as cold fusion, perhaps
90% of the other people responding are wrong and it is the intuition of
what is physically correct that will pass through that noise box of
"other people." And perhaps 1% of other peoples advice or opinion is
really good and will help push and further the original new idea.
  The stage where sci.physics.fusion is at is this--many of the regular
posters here now sense that cold fusion is a new and true physics
phenomenon. And so it is welcomed by the pro-cold fusion folk to have a
bit of parade. The anti-cold fusion folk have had their cake for so
long in this newsgroup that the pro folk deserve to dish it out to them
for a change.
  You Michael came into this newsgroup without knowing the past history
and you seem to have little physics background, judging from your
posts.

  From your gross misunderstanding of my previous post, it is my
opinion that you have little science background. You complain about
this newsgroup as not giving facts. But it is this newsgroup which has
kept apace of fusion reports and it is here that sonoluminescence is
given much detail. If anyone should complain, it is us who should
complain that now the nonscience people like "tourists" come onto the
scene and misinterpret posts and have no fusion contribution to make
whatsoever.
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Thu Feb 10 04:37:05 EST 1994
------------------------------
1994.02.12 / Dieter Britz /  CNF bibliography; recent updates and archive retrieval, Feb-90.
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CNF bibliography; recent updates and archive retrieval, Feb-90.
Date: Sat, 12 Feb 1994 01:15:58 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway


Current count:
-------------
  7 books
864 papers
135 patents
211 comment items
 78 peripherals
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Journal papers:
#
Arata Y, Zhang Y-C; Kakuyuogo Kenkyo 69(8) (1993) 963 (in Japanese).
"Excess heat in a double structure deuterated cathode".
** "A new type cathode, a double structure cathode which contained another Pd
inside a Pd-rod was developed. Using the new cathode, remarkable excess heat
larger than the input energy was observed consistently after a certain
incubation period". (Cited directly from the English abstract). There are some
Figures showing excess heat, and a picture of a double structure, with
pressures of H and D marked, as well as the Nernst equation, noting pressures
up to 5000 atm. One cathode apparently deformed explosively after prolonged
electrolysis.         Feb-92/Apr-93
# ....................................................................7-Feb-93
Frederico T, de Groote JJ, Hornos JE, Hussein MS;
Braz. J. Phys. 23(1) (1993) 96.
"Microscopic calculation of the molecular-nuclear d+d-->3He+n or 3H+p
reactions at close to zero energies".
[The character '+' within 'O' is used where 'or' is written    ^     ]
** This Brazilian team looks at theoretical fusion rates for a number of
fusion reactions (dd, dp, pt) at low energies, in order to assess the
likelihood of cold fusion. The model is fully microscopic and the sensitivity
of lambda to the short distance behaviour of the radical d+d wave function is
of interest, rather than absolute fusion rates. Fadeev functions and the B-O
approximation finally yield no clear results.     Apr-92/Mar-93
#.....................................................................10-Feb-94
Fukai Y; Nippon Butsuri Gakkaishi 48(5) (1993) 354 (in Japanese).
Cited in Chem. Abstracts 119:235210 (1993).
"Present status on cold fusion".
** Review with 29 references. A few experimental results are selected and
discussed, such as the many excess heats vs D/Pd loading by McKubre. Some
theory is discussed, and the Salamon vs Pons story. All the books and
conferences on cold fusion to date are in the references.
# ....................................................................7-Feb-94
Jin S, Zhang F, Yao D, Wang Q, Wu B, Feng Y, Chen M;
Gaojishu Tongxun 1(5) (1991) 25 (In Chinese; English abstract).
"Anomalous nuclear effects in palladium-deuterium systems during the gas
discharge process".
** "A burst of nuclear products far larger than background was reproducibly
detected for the first time by using CR-39 solid state nuclear track detector
during the experiments of Pd-D system stimulated by a high voltage discharge.
No any anomalous effects were found in the control experiments of Pd-H and
Cu-D systems under the same experimental conditions. This indicates that
anomalous nuclear effects were definitely produced in the Pd-D system under
certain conditions" (Direct cite of the abstract). This looks like a Wada and
Nishioka reenactment, with similar results.       Apr-91/?
# ....................................................................7-Feb-94
Kapali V, Ganesan M, Kulandainathan MA, Mideen AS, Sarangapani KB,
Balaramachandran V, Iyer SV, Muthuramalingam B;
J. Electroanal. Chem. 264 (1994) 95.
"Comparison of electrochemical behaviour of the Pd-NaOD and Pd-NaOH systems".
** Experimental investigation of Pd electrolysis in NaOD and NaOH
electrolytes, H and D electropermeation through Pd and ionisation of H and D
at the Pd-alkaline solution interface, optical studies of these systems and
H or D loading of the Pd. Foils of thickness 0.025 mm and wires of diameter
0.25-4mm were used. Permeation measurements yielded diffusion coefficients of
D (1.2E-08 cm**2/s) and H (3-4E-09) in Pd. Optical studies showed the
formation of deuterium clusters, especially with thicker Pd specimens. This
may be due to electrochemical compression, and may be the cause of fusion.
No clusters were formed by H. All the findings taken together leave some
things unexplained and cannot prove or rule out cold fusion.   Jan-93/Jan-94
#..................................................................10-Feb-94
Keesing RG, Gadd AJ; J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 5 (1993) L537.
"Thermoelectric heat pumping and the 'cold fusion' effect".
** Once again, Peltier heat is considered as an explanation of excess heat,
prompted by the observation that claimed excess heat appears to scale with
electrolysis current. The thermoelectric coefficient at a Pd/Pt junction
reverses and gets four times larger in magnitude, as Pd absorbs hydrogen. K&G
make a rough measurement of the change for the absorption of deuterium. The
effect is roughly the same, and amounts to about 6 mW/A. This is still about 2
orders of magnitude too small to explain excess heat claims. But semiconductor
junctions do have a sufficiently large Peltier effect, so the authors then
speculate that there might be migration of, e.g., Ni within the Pt and Pd
towards either the Pt/Pd or the Pd/electrolyte junction; the NiD might act as
a semiconductor. They will examine this in future experiments.  Aug-93/Oct-93
# ...................................................................10-Feb-94
Lipson AG, Sakov DM, Saunin EI, Kalinin VB, Kolovov MA, Deryagin BV,
Khodyakov AA; JETP (76 (6) (1993) 1070.
(Originally in Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 103 (1993) 2142).
"Cold nuclear fusion induced in KD2PO4 single crystals by a ferroelectric
phase transition".
** Most cnf studies have used deuterated group IV and V metals, expecting high
local deuteron concentrations, cracking and phase transitions. All this would
hold better in ferroelectric deuterated KD2PO4 crystals, where cracking can
give us deuteron accelerations of 10 eV - 1 keV, and thus fusion, from strong
phase transitions. This team made single crystals of this kind and temperature
cycled them from 100 K upwards, measuring neutron emission with  an array of 8
proportional BF3 counters. Controls were run, counting neutrons under various
non-fusion conditions. The crystals' Curie point Tc was at 222 K, and at this
temperature, neutrons at 2.45 MeV were found. The effect wears off after a
large number (80-90) of cycles, when there is a network of cracks in the
cystals. The suggested mechanism is a combination of close d-d approach (0.45A
and acceleration to about 10 eV; this is enough to explain the results.
Dec-92/Jun-93
# ....................................................................4-Feb-94
Okabe S; Poverkhnost. Fis. Khim. Mech. (7) (1993) 34.
"Some new scientific fields related to exoelectron emission and
fracto-emission".
** The author is concerned with the field of exoelectron emission (EEE) and
deplores the lack of interest in it among scientists. In this paper, he
surveys the field and how EEE impinges on, among other areas, cold fusion,
through fracto-emission. This started with Klyuev et al in 1986, and there has
been some confirmation since then, by others.    Jun-92/?
# .....................................................................7-Feb-94
Reifenschweiler O;  Phys. Lett. A 184 (1994) 149.
"Reduced radioactivity of tritium in small titanium particles".
** Reports results obtained as long ago as 1958 but not fully reported, while
working with Ti soot with absorbed tritium. In one experiment, with T/Ti
loading at 0.0035, the sample was slowly heated in a closed space and the
radioactivity measured by the x-radiation. Any tritium released was pumped out
continuously. A separate experiment established the temperature (about 350C)
at which the tritium begins to be released from the Ti; the radioactivity is
seen to decrease clearly at 115C, at first rapidly, then more slowly, finally
to increase again at 275C, going through a maximum slightly higher than the
starting value at 360C (R calls it "the initial value"), and then dropping
rapidly to zero as expected. Two other runs showed similar behaviour; however,
one run with a loading 10 times these and a faster temperature rise did not
show the effect. An explanation in terms of tritium movement within the
counting space is not likely. In an attempt to find an explanation,
beta-electron emission was measured as a function of the T/Ti loading x, and
found to be not linear with x. There is an activity minimum, about the same as
the one found in the first experiment, at an intermediate x of 3E-04. The same
minimum was found separately, measuring x-rays instead of beta electrons. The
author proposes the formation of nuclear pairs by the absorbed tritons, and a
smaller decay of these pairs than for isolated tritons. This might have a
bearing on the behaviour of deuterium in metals as well. The author plans to
publish more on this subject.  Nov-94/Jan-94
#..................................................................10-Feb-94
Yamaguchi E, Nishioka T;
Oyo Butsuri 62(7) (1993) 712 (in Japanese).
"Helium-4 production and its correlation with heat evolution".
** The Chem. Abstracts translation (CA 119:280106 (1993) has: "A review with 8
refs. Using the authors' 'in vacuo'  method with a heterostructure of
deuterated Pd(Pd-D) at low temps. < 300C, the authors have detected in situ
4He prodn. The real-time observation has been performed by high-resoln.
quadrupole mass spectroscopy (0.001 amu at 4 amu). The signal attributable to
4He prodn. appeared when the samples exhibited a sudden increase in temp. The
system of H-loaded Pd(Pd-H) heterostructure, on the other hand, produced no
4He. A new class of nuclear fusion occurred in condensed matter".
The papers's Fig. 1 shows a mass spectrogram and shows a clear distinction
between 4He and D2, the major peak. Fig. 2 shows a 4He peak appearing at a
time where the temperature rose from about 120C by about 10C. The peak lasts
about 100 m.
# ...................................................................1-Feb-94
Yamaguchi E, Nishioka T;
Kakuyuogo Kenkyo 69(7) (1993) 743 (in Japanese, English abstract).
"Helium-4 production from deuterated palladium".
** Another paper describing the heterostructures arising in Pd coated on one
side with an oxide film and with gold on the other. High resolution quadrupole
mass spectroscopy showed the production of 4He at 4.0026 amu, distinct from
the peak due to D2. The authors rule out contamination from the air, and
conclude  that a new type of nuclear fusion is the cause.  Apr-93/?
# ...................................................................7-Feb-94
Zhang J-S;  Commun. Theor. Phys. 16 (1991) 439.
"The estimation of the difference between d(d,n)3He and d(d,p)T cross sections
in the cold fusion".
** If the deuteron energiy is above several keV, the two branches, n+3He and
p+T are about equal. The question is whether this is so at the low eV energies
at which cold fusion takes place. The paper goes through some theory, whose
result is that branching ratios indeed differ from 1, but not as much as
required to explain results. "One should study further".       Feb-91/?
#....................................................................7-Feb-94



Patents:
^^^^^^^
#
none
#

Comments:
^^^^^^^^
#
none
#

Peripherals:
^^^^^^^^^^^
#
Coehn A; Naturwiss. 16 (1928) 183 (in German).
"Evidence for protons in metals".
** The observation that the absorption of hydrogen in Pd, Fe etc is
proportional to SQRT(pressure) indicates the atomic nature of hydrogen in the
metal, and this leads to the suspicion that it is present as protons. C
measured hydrogen diffusion along wires, while imposing potential gradients
along the wire, and observed a hydrogen migration towards the negative end.
#..................................................................11-Feb-94
Coehn A, Specht W;  Z. Phys. 62 (1930) 1 (in German).
"On the contribution of protons to the conduction of electricity in metals".
** Further experiments, following those reported in 1928. As well as gaining
further evidence for the existence of protons in Pd, hydrogen loading was also
measured by its effect on the resistance of the metal. As before, it was found
that protons contribute to current flow.
#.................................................................. 11-Feb-94
Coehn A, Juergens H;  Z. Phys. 71 (1931) 179 (in German).
"On the contribution of protons to the conduction of electricity in metals.
Resistance measurements"
** Continuation of the work published in 1930, here focussing on the relation
of metal resistance with hydrogen loading. This was done with pure Pd and Pd
alloyed with 20% Ag, where the same effect was noted (increase of R/R0 with
loading). There is a maximum, previously observed by Smith.
#.................................................................. 11-Feb-94
Enemoto Y, Hashimoto H;  Nature 346 (1990) 641.
"Emission of charged particles from indentation fracture of rocks".
** The author's main interest is earthquake prediction. It appears to be well
known that cp's are emitted from stressed and fractured materials, and here
are reported results of experiments with 11 kinds of rock. This may have
application to fractofusion (but this is not mentioned by the authors).
#.................................................................. 11-Feb-94
Flanagan TB, Oates WA; Ann. Rev. Mater. Sci. 21 (1991) 269.
"The palladium-hydrogen system".
** Up to date review of the field, 35 pp and 126 refs. A must-read for any
serious 'cold fusion' buff.
#.................................................................. 11-Feb-94


Books
^^^^^
#
none
#

Retrieval of the archived files:
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. By anonymous FTP from vm1.nodak.edu (134.129.111.1).  Login anonymous, with
   your e-mail address as the password. Type CD FUSION, DIR FUSION.CNF* to get
   a listing. The general index is large. Use GET (ie. GET FUSION.CNF-PAP1).
2. Via LISTSERV. You get a (large) index of the archives by sending an email
   to listserv@vm1.nodak.edu, with a blank SUBJECT line, and the "message"
   'index fusion'. To get any one of these files, you then send to the same
   address the message, e.g.,
   get fusion 91-00487
   get fusion cnf-pap1                    etc, according to what you're after.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The bib-files are: cnf-bks (books), cnf-pap1..cnf-pap6 (papers, slices 1..6),
cnf-pat (patents), cnf-cmnt (comments), cnf-peri (peripherals), cnf-unp
(unpublished stuff collected by Vince Cate, hydrogen/metal references from
Terry Bollinger). There is also the file cnf-brif, which has all the -pap*
file references without annotations, all in one file (so far); and cnf-new,
with the last month's or so new items in all biblio files.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: It appears that you can GET only 512 kb on any one day, so it might take
you a couple of days to get the whole pap file; each cnf-pap slice is about
150 kb long.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
==============================================================================

cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.10 / Robert Heeter /  Re: Energy required for Fusion
     
Originally-From: rfheeter@theory.pppl.gov (Robert F. Heeter)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Energy required for Fusion
Date: 10 Feb 1994 20:07:58 -0500
Organization: Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory, Princeton University,
Princeton NJ 08540

In article <bmcauley.11.2D5A1068@its.dundee.ac.uk>,
Bernard McAuley <bmcauley@its.dundee.ac.uk> wrote:
>As a complete novice in the realm of Fusion and power generation I gather that
>whilst a Self-sustainable plasma has yet to be achieved a Fusion reactor can 
>be run with a stable plasma if external energy is used to drive the 
>containment field.  Is this correct?  If so how much is the difference between
>the energy produced by the reactor and the energy required to contain a 
>constant fusion reaction in modern reactor?
>

So far, the best achieved power-out/power-in ratio is about 1/5,
achieved on the Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor here at Princeton last
December.  However, the energy was only generated for 1-2 seconds.
Other machines are in operation which can sustain plasma discharges
for far longer, but by and large they aren't large enough to
generate a large fraction of power from fusion.  This should
change in (at most) a few years, as TPX, the Tokamak Physics eXperiment,
is constructed and begins operation here at Princeton.  I
believe TPX will achieve a decent power-out/power-in ratio
and sustain discharges for on the order of a thousand seconds.
The International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor, projected
to begin operation around 2010 or so, should be a nearly-steady-state
machine generating fusion energy well in excess of the input energy.

This at least is what I understand.  I'd love to hear what everyone
else knows, since this looks like a good candidate for inclusion
into the FAQ file (also something still being planned & constructed).

The numbers above are most likely only approximately correct;
if you can hold out for roughly a month until I get the FAQ
assembled, there should be more info there.  

I should add that after the SSC, we can't assume that because
TPX and ITER are both significant budget priorities they will
necessarily be completed.  Write your congressperson if fusion
is important to you!

Hope this answers the question you asked, and not just what
I thought you asked!

**********************
Robert F. Heeter
Graduate Student, Princeton Plasma Physics Lab
rfheeter@lyman.pppl.gov
Disclaimers Apply


cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.08 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Politics and Fusion (was "egos on parade!")
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Politics and Fusion (was "egos on parade!")
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 1994 22:06:10 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <CKx2v3.Mr4@world.std.com>,
mitchell swartz <mica@world.std.com> wrote:
>
>  Perhaps one etiology is that "cold fusion", both its initial report,
>the acute cover-up, the near half-decade obstruction of information
>dissemination, the secondary attack on the scientists
>and reporters in the field have precisely occurred because 
>CF has to be "political".

     You mean the half-decade obstruction of information exchange
     by Pons and Fleischmann themselves?  And the attack on scientists
     and reporters evidenced by P&F's legal action in Italy and 
     threats elsewhere in the attempt to squelch reports
     not to their liking?
     
                        dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.10 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Debating cold fusion claims
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Debating cold fusion claims
Date: 10 Feb 94 15:29:01 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

Dear colleagues,

In the past, I have endeavored to respond to Jed and Mitch 
(and Gene Mallove) point by point when they make bold statements
about the surety of cold fusion.  (E.g., Mitch recently posted:
"Since ICCF-4 again demonstrated the existence of the cold fusion phenomena  --
with 105 experimental papers and more than 35 confirming the 4-helium
generation, there is not longer any debate about cold fusion.")
 However, I
find that I have had to repeat myself, as if my technical arguments are
being dismissed without much consideration.  Rather than respond
to Mitch (and Jed and Ludwig) point-by-point this time, I will
re-post extracts (for brevity) from a recent paper which I posted
in its entirety in January 1994.  I ask *anyone* to specify *any*
'positive' CF experiment which uses state-of-the-art detectors as
defined in this report, then we can discuss such an experiment
here further.


SEARCH FOR NEUTRON, GAMMA AND X-RAY EMISSIONS FROM Pd/LiOD
ELECTROLYTIC CELLS:  A NULL RESULT

S.E. Jones, D.E. Jones, D.S. Shelton and S.F. Taylor
BYU  

ABSTRACT

We have conducted a series of experiments using state-of-the-art
neutron and gamma detectors to look for evidence for nuclear
reactions occurring in Pd/LiOD electrolytic cells.  No evidence
for neutron or gamma emissions was obtained in extended
experiments.

[stuff deleted for brevity]
The [BYU] detector and experiments have the following special
features:

1.  All signals are digitized using a LeCroy fast-waveform
digitizer operating 50 MHz, so that we retain pulse-shape
information as well as timing between pulses.  Pulse-shape
analysis permits excellent noise rejection, along with giving
some neutron-energy information (from the prompt plastic
scintillator pulse).  By rejecting (in software) events having
small or no plastic pulse, we strongly discriminate against slow
(especially thermal) neutrons.  This background-reducing feature
is not available to many detectors including those using BF3, 3He
and even the Kamiokande detector in Japan [1].  By studying
neutron-capture time distributions based on prompt and capture-
neutron pulses, we check whether observed distributions agree
with those found using a plutonium source.

2.  The PC-based data acquisition system records which of the
four quadrants of the 3He-type counter showed neutron capture,
allowing for checking that the quadrants are hit in equal
proportions.  
 
This detector segmentation has, for example, allowed us to throw
out apparent large bursts of neutrons (over 60 "neutrons" in a
160-microsecond window) whose signals unrealistically came from
just one quadrant. (Occasionaly two quadrants are involved, due
to electronic cross-talk).  We have seen several cases of such
large bursts in the past year of running (see for example Figure
2); but all bursts of over five detected neutrons have proven to
be spurious.  Therefore, compelling data for large neutron bursts
would require detector segmentation and pulse digitization
(allowing signal visualization) or other reliable methods of
noise elimination. 

. . .

RESULTS USING Pd/LiOD ELECTROLYTIC CELLS
[much deleted]

The Pd/LiOD cel
ls described above were polarized for 708.8 hours.  During this
time, 24 neutron-like burst events were seen, all having
multiplicity = 2.  (This represents approximately one burst
candidate per 30 hours, a very low rate indeed.)  Thus, the
neutron-like rate for these events was 48/708.8h = (0.07 +- 0.01)
n/hr.  These numbers are in complete agreement with those found
with hydrogen controls discussed above.  There is therefore no
indication of a neutron burst signal above a very low background.

[much deleted for brevity]
Again, we see that the rates are entirely consistent with
background levels of 0.7 h^-1.  This exercise has as its
conclusion that no neutrons were seen above very low background
levels, in a high-efficiency detector.  The most important
observation may be that state-of-the-art neutron detectors are
now available for studies requiring high-sensitivity instruments.

*Gamma-ray spectroscopy

Immediately following the neutron search, all palladium rods were
taken to Los Alamos for gamma-ray spectroscopic analysis.  The
purpose of this search was to determine whether radioactive
isotopes of palladium, rhodium, ruthenium and silver might have
been generated during the electrolytic runs, pursuant to claims
of Y. Kucherov and others of such transmutations in deuterium-
loaded palladium [7].  All four Pd rods were placed in a low-
background germanium detector operated by Dr. J. Parker and
counted for 75,000 seconds.  No gamma lines above background were
seen, except for a weak 59.5 keV line which represents americium-
241.  The americium contamination was traced to the nickel gauze
used for anodes.  The migration of americium from anode to Pd
cathode during operation of the electrolytic cells demonstrates
that radioisotopes can be picked up by the cathode originating
from either the electrolyte or the anode.  Therefore, any claims
of nuclear transmutation in such cells must first show that the
claimed radioisotopes were not originally present in the
electrolyte or the anode.  These checks must supplement checks
for contamination of the cathode.

Further gamma-spectrographic analysis of essentially all of the
palladium cathodes used in experiments at BYU and Kamiokande over
the past five years have been undertaken:  we found absolutely no
evidence for radioisotope formation in any palladium cathodes. 
Careful scrutiny should therefore be applied to any claims that
nuclear reactions produce transmutations in electrolytic cells. 
In particular, claims that radioisotopes are formed far off the
line of nuclear stability should immediately arouse suspicion
that materials used in the electrodes or electrolyte could have
been contaminated or subjected to irradiation by an energetic
particle beam.  For example, if palladium-100 is found by gamma
spectroscopy, then beam irradiation is likely since negative-Q
reactions are implicated.

We also report here that we have followed our own challenge [8]
of searching for x-rays as would be expected if nuclear reactions
are indeed producing measureable heat in electrolytic cells. 
Nuclear reactions are characterized by release of MeV-scale
energies, hence their importance to power-production schemes. 
Energy release at the nuclear level implies that secondary x-
rays will be produced in the environment of a metal lattice,
where only tens of keV are required to generate x-rays.  That is,
if nuclear reactions are indeed producing heat at the levels
claimed (>1 mW), then sufficient x-rays should be produced to be
detectable, since x-rays arise from ionizing effects of nuclear
products on the materials in which the purported heat develops. 
Thus, x-ray measurements provide a crucial test for the presence
of heat-generating nuclear reactions.

Characterisitic x-rays of Pd (K-alpha of 21.1 keV) or Ni (K-
alpha of 7.5 keV) which result from K shell vacancies produced by
nuclear products are readily detected.  We have searched for such
lines using two x-ray spectrometers, a 10mmX10mm reverse-biased
photodiode having high sensitivity down to about 4 keV [8] and a
lithium-drifted silicon detector with high sensitivity down to
approximately 1 keV.  We used a Pd/D2O electrolytic cell in which
25 micron Pd foil formed both cathode and external wall; no x-
ray production was seen with this electrolytic cell.  We also
used a Ni/H2O cell in which the Ni cathode was placed against a
very thin plastic window.  Again, no x-ray production was in
evidence in the electrolytic cell.  

Indeed, *no* "cold fusion" experiment anywhere has shown the
presence of secondary x-rays lines (using a spectrometer) which
would characterize fusion or any other nuclear reaction in a
metal lattice to the best of our knowledge [9].  We conclude that
there is no compelling evidence to link nuclear reactions to
excess-heat production claims.  Indeed, the absence of
significant (primary or secondary) x-rays, gammas and neutrons
after five years of searching argues convincingly against claims
of excess heat production by nuclear reactions in electrolytic
(or equivalent) cells.  This conclusion is supported by related
experiments at BYU which show up to 700% "excess heat", but which
is in fact due to hydrogen-oxygen recombination in the cells
coupled with commonly-used (but misleading) analysis techniques
for excess-power production in "cold fusion" experiments [10].


CONCLUSIONS

In order to find compelling evidence for cold-fusion effects,
state-of-the-art calorimeters and nuclear detectors are required. 
Table 1 juxtaposes such systems with other systems now more
generally in use.  It is disquieting that some researchers select
open electrolytic cells over closed cells, and very long sampling
intervals (e.g., 5-minute sampling intervals for input voltage
used by Pons and Fleischmann in boiling-cell experiments as
published [11]).  Many researchers continue to use x-ray films
instead of x-ray spectrometers, helium or tritium gas sampling
(and Geiger counters) instead of charged-particle spectrometers,
and neutron survey meters instead of sensitive neutron detectors
as described above.  It is time to strongly question claims of
cold fusion based on crude techniques and to demand tests at a
rigorous scientific-proof level.  Compelling evidence requires
use of the best instruments available, incorporating fast data-
sampling and digitization methods, the use of different detectors
whose signals agree quantitatively, and presence of signals well
above background levels.  A real signal should be capable of
scaling, and should not shrink as background levels are reduced. 
However, as we have proceeded to better detectors, cold-fusion
data surety has diminished.  

With these criteria for state-of-the-art detectors, we find that
no compelling evidence for neutron or gamma production from
deuterided materials currently exists in any cold-fusion
experiment, including our own [12].  The only verified form of
cold nuclear fusion to date is muon-catalyzed fusion.
. . .

TABLE 1.  COMPARISON OF COLD-FUSION RESEARCH METHODS

It is evident that much of the present confusion surround "cold
fusion" stems from the continued use of inadequate detectors. 
This list juxtaposes crude, better and state-of-the-art systems
to help in the quest for compelling data, one way or the other. 
Use of the best available methods is clearly the path-of-logical
science.

Crude                    Better                State-of-the-art
(simply add to the       (but not good enough) (can provide 
 confusion)                                     compelling evidence)
______________________   _____________________ ______________________

Neutron survey meters,   Segmented 3He,        Segmented 3He or Li-
  BF3                    Plastic scintillators doped glass *plus*
                                               scint. with digitizing

Helium gas detection,    Charged-particle det. Thin dE/dx detector
 Tritium gas detection   (Si surface barrier)  plus Si spectrometer
                         (requires thin foil)  (particle ID & energy)
                          
X-ray film               X-ray film with foil  X-ray spectrometer
                         energy-filters        (SiLi, etc.)

Geiger counter            see detectors listed above; Germanium det.

Infrequent I*V(t) sampling                     Integral I*V(t) correct
 (e.g., every 300 s)                            via frequent, redundant
                                                sampling

Open cell calorimetry,   Measure H2/D2 + O2    Recombiner inside
no H2/D2 +O2 monitoring,  simultaneous w/heat   separate calorimeter
during experiment

Metal of unknown source,                       Alloyed with known
quality or purity                              purity and properties

D2O of unknown source    D2O from known source,  Highly distilled D2O,
                         not exposed to reactor  known H,O isotopes

Visual techniques        Computer-logging,     Redundant probes with
                          several probes       fast data acquisition

Theories which dis-       Fractofusion ignoring     ???
regard P, E conservation  e- vs. d+ acceleration 
or light-cone constraints
(e.g., "heating lattice")
or known branching ratios
from muon-catalyzed cold
fusion (e.g. 4He or 3H 
but no neutrons)
or which use incorrect 
wavefunctions

--Steven Jones 2-10-1994







cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenjonesse cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.11 / Greg Kuperberg /  What did Taubes say?
     
Originally-From: gk00@ellis.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: What did Taubes say?
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 1994 15:08:07 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

Can anyone here tell me what Taubes said at his talk at Fermilab?
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudengk00 cudfnGreg cudlnKuperberg cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.12 /  blue@dancer.ns /  Comments on Mitchell Swartz's answers
     
Originally-From: blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Comments on Mitchell Swartz's answers
Date: Sat, 12 Feb 1994 01:16:02 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Having answered Mitchell's questions, I would now like to comment on his
answers to my questions.

<db> (1)  If cold fusion using D20 is said to result in the production of
<db>   4He in commensurate quantities, what is the complete data set
<db>   that supports that thesis, and how do you justify the discounting
<db>   of the various null results that have been obtained for helium
<db>   analyses?

-ms-  Reason for null results?  The helium-4 is linked to the excess
-ms-  enthalpy and is only generated when conditions are sufficient and
-ms-  adequate for the reactions.

[db]  But there are cases where excess enthalpy was observed with no
[db]  helium-4 being detected.  Hence the link between enthalpy and
[db]  and helium production is not so firmly established.

<db> (2)  Is the issue of neutron production completely resolved and the
<db>   apparent inconsistencies between various observations cleared up?

-ms- No.   Neutronpenic levels can occur intermittently under some conditions.

[db] As long as words like "intermittently" and "under some conditions"
[db] are needed to describe cold fusion results it is clear that the
[db] reality of the effect is on skakey grounds.

<db> (3)  Is there an established level of tritium production in relation
<db>  to excess heat, 4He production, or any other experimental parameter?

-ms- There are multiple pathways which depend upon material (and other)
-ms- parameters.

[db] Note that the pathways, material dependences, and other parameters
[db] remain unspecified.  Wouldn't it be simpler to admit that 5 years
[db] of experimentation have not established anything with regard to
[db] tritium production?

<db> (4)  Are all issues relating to other reaction products, such as Pd
<db>   isotopes not normally present, laid to rest?

-ms-   No.

<db> (5)  Is there clear agreement as to the production of X-rays, gamma rays,
<db>   or charged particles in conjunction with cold fusion?

-ms-   No.

<db> (6)  Has there been any significant advance is the state of theoretical
<db>   justifications or explanations for any of the currently accepted
<db>   valid data sets?

-ms-   Yes.

[db]  This has to be one of the best kept secrets relating to cold fusion.

<db> (7) Is there any data whatsoever relating to nuclear reaction products
<db>   resulting from cold fusion with H2O or is the currently accepted
<db>   hypothesis that this type of fusion is totally non-nuclear?

-ms- I am still looking for good data here.  There were about 78 experimental
-ms- papers with D2O at ICCF-4, but only 8 (? or so) for H2O.

[db] Perhaps H2O makes a good "control" in that it shows that excess enthalpy
[db] measurements can be totally off base.

To wrap up this little exercise I would say that nothing beyond the
excess enthalpy measurements seems to be established.  Advocates seem
to be convinced that the excess enthalpy link to 4-Helium production
is also solid, but the data is still pretty limited.  I want to thank
Mitchell for his frank responses.


cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenblue cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.10 / Mark North /  Re: Mark North's ego on parade
     
Originally-From: north@watop.nosc.mil (Mark North)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Mark North's ego on parade
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 1994 19:09:52 GMT
Organization: NCCOSC RDT&E Division, San Diego, CA

mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:

>Mark North <north@watop.nosc.mil>  has 
>already been shown at least once to post false
>and malicious attacks upon
>persons using Internet as when he wrote:
> 
>=mn "I was about to answer this post seriously 
>=mn    when it became obvious to
>=mn me that 'Michael' is none other than 
>=mn     our own Jed Rothwell."
> 

Interesting. How the hell do you know whether or not Michael is
Jed Rothwell. As for malicious, I don't know I thought it amusing
myself. Anyway, I find your overblown reaction not amusing, especially
when it's none of your business. BTW, is there any reason why Michael
or anybody else would not be proud to be mistaken for Jed Rothwell?
If there is that might explain your loudmouthed whining.

>  However he was corrected by emerge@delphi.com
>in Message-ID: <RU6p17P.emerge@delphi.com>
>Subject: Re: egos on parade!
>Date: Wed, 9 Feb 94 12:24:23 -0500
>  when he was informed that his attack was wrong,

Sorry, still not convinced. Where do you get off calling it an 'attack'
anyway? What's your problem? 

>and a needless and a potential misuse of (US government?,
>corporate) funds by the posting:

Talk about attack. Look, Swartz, you can always write your congressman
and complain if  you think you have a legitimate beef. I'm sure
he'll get a good laugh out of it. Lesee, we're only half way thru
this post and you have already been mean-sprited, shameful *and*
slimey.

>==    "X-To: Mark North <north@watop.nosc.mil> 
>==  Dear Mark,
>==   
>==   Your recent response kind of typifies the problem I have with
>==  this conference.  Your assumption that I am masquerading under a
                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>==  secret identity for some unspecified sinister reason are so far out
     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>==  in left field, it doesn't warrant comment. .... Michael Mozina"

Thanks for leaving this in because it explains why I am still unconvinced.
The above highlighted text doesn't make sense coming from Michael but
sure does coming from Jed. You see, if I suggested anyone was
masquerading it was Jed, not Michael.  

>  Having been corrected once, the sun hardly sets
>before Mr. North, reminiscent of a pit-bull
>shows his vacuous unprincipled ego and lack of depth.

Here you say I'm lacking in ego and below you say my ego is bloated.
Which is it? Better get out that dictionary you're so fond of quoting.

>   So in Message-ID: <north.760820277@watop>
>Subject: "Re: egos on parade!" 
>Mark North (north@watop.nosc.mil)  
>continues driven by either his bloated ego
>which he says is "on parade!" or by his company
>[NCCOSC RDT&E Division in San Diego, CA]
>as he continues for his second(!) in his weekly series
> of venomous attacks using misstatement, writing:

All I can say is, you're one sick puppy, Swartz.

>=ah  "AMEN. I have also been reading this post for
>=ah   some time, and have found some of things written
>=ah   utterly shameful and mean spirited."
>        [zcrah@trumpet.pgh.wec.com (Andy Holland)]

>=mn    "OK, hotshot, how about giving some examples other 
>=mn      than Rothwell and Swartz."

Mea Culpa. I forgot Mallove.

>  Mr. North, again lacking data to support his 
>"brick-toss tactics",  has now decided to merely
>continue his rabid unsupported absurdities
>from the NCCOSC RDT&E Division desk.

I don't really need data because it's only obvious to the most
casual observer. But if you insist you can use your above words
as an example of shameful behaviour. And the email you sent me
accusing me of libel. Now that's mean-spirited. So sue me.
And if you're not willing to do that then shut up.

>    Attention is directed to the fact that it certainly
>has been easy to find and document at least two
>stupid utterly shameful and mean-spirited postings
>from Mr. North, NCCOSC RDT&E Division, and 
>watop.nosc.mil just this week.

I think you protest a wee bit too much. Diversionary tactics perhaps?

Normally I find your rants amusing but anymore you just look petty
and foolish. You bore me.

Have a nice day,

Mark




cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudennorth cudfnMark cudlnNorth cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.10 / Peter Seidl /  "Heavy Ion Drivers" in Science magazine
     
Originally-From: seidl@next1.lbl.gov (Peter Seidl)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.accelerators,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: "Heavy Ion Drivers" in Science magazine
Date: 10 Feb 1994 23:08:35 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley CA

The following was scanned from
SCIENCE o VOL. 263 o 28 JANUARY 1994 PAGE 453, LETTERS:

"Heavy Ion Drivers
	I write to add a footnote to Gary Taubes' interesting article about laser
fusion of 3 December (News & Comment, p. 1504).
     My first involvement in reviewing this program was in 1978 when John
Deutch, then director of energy research at the Department of Energy (DOE), set
up a review panel chaired by John Foster to go over the entire DOE fusion
program (magnetic and inertial). In three phases (known in the community as
"Jaws One, Two, and Three"), the entire program was reviewed; inertial
confinement fusion was identified as a serious potential competitor for power
plant applications; and heavy ion drivers were identified as the most promising
technology to ignite a fusion pellet, whether the applications be civilian or
military. Many other suggestions with respect to the program were also made,
most of which were eventually carried out. The report was classified and
remains locked in a filing cabinet at DOE.
Since that time, many other reviews of the inertial fusion program have been
made, and all have come to the same general conclusion as the Foster panel with
respect to drivers. I personally reached the point in the mid-1980s when I
refused to serve on any more review panels, because no matter what one said,
the most promising approach, heavy ion drivers, continued to be starved and
virtually ignored.
It is interesting to note in Taubes' article that heavy ion accelerators are
still regarded as "the best bet for drivers." What is not said is that nearly
16 years after the first Foster panel report, the heavy ion program is still
starved for funds, and we have made very little progress on "the best bet."
I learned one other lesson from my service on the Foster panel-never agree to
serve on a classified panel that will not, at the very least, have an
unclassified executive summary.

              Burton Richter
Director, Stanford Linear Accelerator Center,
            Stanford, CA 94309"


--
Peter Seidl
Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory
Berkeley, CA 94720

seidl@next1.lbl.gov
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenseidl cudfnPeter cudlnSeidl cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.10 / Peter Seidl /  heavy ion drivers for inertial confinement fusion
     
Originally-From: seidl@next1.lbl.gov (Peter Seidl)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: heavy ion drivers for inertial confinement fusion
Date: 10 Feb 1994 23:11:01 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley CA

The following was scanned from
SCIENCE o VOL. 263 o 28 JANUARY 1994 PAGE 453, LETTERS:

"Heavy Ion Drivers
	I write to add a footnote to Gary Taubes' interesting article about laser
fusion of 3 December (News & Comment, p. 1504).
     My first involvement in reviewing this program was in 1978 when John
Deutch, then director of energy research at the Department of Energy (DOE), set
up a review panel chaired by John Foster to go over the entire DOE fusion
program (magnetic and inertial). In three phases (known in the community as
"Jaws One, Two, and Three"), the entire program was reviewed; inertial
confinement fusion was identified as a serious potential competitor for power
plant applications; and heavy ion drivers were identified as the most promising
technology to ignite a fusion pellet, whether the applications be civilian or
military. Many other suggestions with respect to the program were also made,
most of which were eventually carried out. The report was classified and
remains locked in a filing cabinet at DOE.
Since that time, many other reviews of the inertial fusion program have been
made, and all have come to the same general conclusion as the Foster panel with
respect to drivers. I personally reached the point in the mid-1980s when I
refused to serve on any more review panels, because no matter what one said,
the most promising approach, heavy ion drivers, continued to be starved and
virtually ignored.
It is interesting to note in Taubes' article that heavy ion accelerators are
still regarded as "the best bet for drivers." What is not said is that nearly
16 years after the first Foster panel report, the heavy ion program is still
starved for funds, and we have made very little progress on "the best bet."
I learned one other lesson from my service on the Foster panel-never agree to
serve on a classified panel that will not, at the very least, have an
unclassified executive summary.

              Burton Richter
Director, Stanford Linear Accelerator Center,
            Stanford, CA 94309"




--
Peter Seidl
Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory
Berkeley, CA 94720

seidl@next1.lbl.gov
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenseidl cudfnPeter cudlnSeidl cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.11 /  morrison@vxpri /  Review of Progress in Cold Fusion. Talk at ICCF-4.
     
Originally-From: morrison@vxprix.cern.ch
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Review of Progress in Cold Fusion. Talk at ICCF-4.
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 1994 01:29:29 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway



22 December 1993                                                  DM-93-3

             REVIEW OF PROGRESS IN COLD FUSION

                 Douglas R.O. Morrison
             CERN, Geneva 23, Switzerland.
  
ABSTRACT
     Experimental papers published over a 12 month period are summarized and
the theoretical papers are abstracted. What one would have expected to see is
listed and compared with what was published.  The conditions for good
experiments are listed, in particular "try to prove yourself wrong". The list
of four miracles required for Cold Fusion to be fusion are explained. The
contradiction is noted between experiments which observe Cold Fusion effects
with deuterium and as a control find no such effects with hydrogen, and those
experiments which find Cold Fusion with hydrogen. Information is requested on
the boundary layer between the inside of the lattice where Cold Fusion is
claimed to occur, and the rest of the Universe where the normal laws of Science
apply and Cold Fusion is not claimed. Since a claim  in 1989 that a working
Cold Fusion device existed, the time delay to such a practical device has
steadily increased.

SUBJECTS
1. Introduction
2. Data Base for Review
3. Classification of Published Papers
4. What do we Expect to See?
5. Do Good Experiments
     5.1. Do Not use Poor Detectors
     5.2. Do Use Detectors that Discriminate
     5.3. Do Look for Correlations
     5.4. Do Use Adequate Data Recording Instrumentation
     5.5. Design Experiments to Avoid Problems
     5.6. Try to Prove Yourself Wrong
     5.7. Do Experiments to Test Theories
     5.8 Do Reproducible Experiments
6. List of Miracles if Cold Fusion is Fusion
     6.1. D-D Separation
     6.2. Excess Heat with Hydrogen
     6.3. Lack of Nuclear Ash with respect to Excess Heat
     6.4. Ratios of Nuclear Ash  Components
7. Theory - General. Boundary Layer between Cold Fusion and Rest of the
Universe
8. List of Theories published in last 12 Months
9. When a Cold Fusion Working Device?
10. Conclusions. 
 
      Presented at the Fourth International Conference on Cold Fusion,
               6th to 9th December 1993, Maui, Hawaii.

 

1. INTRODUCTION
      At the Third Cold Fusion Conference in Nagoya, October 1992, gave a
Review of Cold Fusion[1]. For this Fourth conference, the papers published in
the following 12 months are reviewed and a comparison is made between what we
expected to see performed in these 12 months and what actually happened. With 5
groups reporting at Nagoya that they had observed excess heat and other effects
using not deuterium but normal light hydrogen, new results were expected. The
question of when a working device giving useful power, would be produced (or
may already have been made) is discussed.

2.  DATA BASE FOR REVIEW
     A review should look at ALL the data, both positive and null experiments.
ICCF meetings are unsuitable as very few of the experiments which find no
effect (null experiments) are presented even though as shown in ref. 1, most
published experimental results find nothing. Hence have taken all the published
papers which are said to have been refereed, from the bibliography of Dieter
Britz covering his period;
October 1992 to September 1993.
This is a continuation to the compilation presented at Nagoya [1] which covered
his period of April 1989 to September 1992.
     It is agreed by all that statistics of published papers alone are not
decisive in any controversy and hence NO CONCLUSIONS WILL BE DRAWN FROM
STATISTICS ALONE. However it is interesting to see trends.

3. CLASSIFICATION OF PUBLISHED PAPERS
     During the Dieter Britz's period Oct. 1992 to Sept. 1993, 76 papers
concerning Cold Fusion were published in refereed journals. 27 were
experimental, 26 theory, and 22 were "Others". Of the experimental papers, 13
were null (i.e. no effect found), 10 positive (some effect found) and 4 with no
decision. The theory papers had 3 predicting no effect, 20 predicting an
effect, and three discussing a possible explanation of claimed effects.
     Comparing with previous years, the rate of publishing is slightly higher
than the first 9 months of 1992 (43 papers) but appreciable lower than 1989
(237 papers in 9 months), 1990 (305 papers) and 1991 (154 papers). Thus the
rate is now about 6 papers per month (of which 2 are experimental) compared
with a 1990 peak of 25 papers per month (of which 11 were experimental).
     The experimental papers were then classified according to the claim
(neutrons, tritium etc.) so that a paper could give several entries. It was
found that new classifications were needed, After each class two numbers are
given, the first is the number of null experimental results and the second is
the number of positives. They are;
      3.1. New Classifications 
          Fracto-fusion   2 null ; 2 positive.      Laser-induced  1 ; 0.     
Transmutation 0 ; 1   
          Light Hydrogen (i.e. not deuterium)  ? ; 1.      Mossbauer  1 ; 0.
          Black Holes  ? ; 1     Gammas  2 ; 0
           Excess heat but no input ("Life after Death")  0 ; 2
     3.2. Previous Classifications   
          3He  3 ;1     4He  1 ; 3     X-Rays 0 ; 0    Protons  1 ; 0    
Tritium  6 ; 2
           Neutrons  12 ; 9      Excess Heat  3 ; 10.
     It may be recalled that for 1989 to Sept. 1992, all the classes gave more
null experiments than positive ones. Adding the new statistics does not change
this - for all major classifications there are more null results, than positive
ones, e.g. for Excess Heat the totals are 50 null results and 37 positive
claims.

4. WHAT DO WE EXPECT TO SEE?
     Previous meetings held in 1989 to 1992, gave guides for future experiments
- these recommendations are hard to find as the meetings tended not to have
summary speakers and the concluding Round Table discussions were not written
up; so had to rely on notes taken. The advice for future work was;  
     4.1. Do Good Experiments
     4.2. Make Experimental Results Reproducible
     4.3. Theory that Fits All Data
     4.4. Make a Working Model
We will now consider how far these requirements have been met.

5. DO GOOD EXPERIMENTS
     The field might be expected to be mature now since it is more than four
and a half years since the Fleischmann and Pons Press Conference of 23 March
1989, and over 10 years since Fleischmann and Pons started working hard
experimentally on Cold Fusion (they claim that they began to work intensively
five and a half years before their Press Conference). Also many groups have
been well-funded for some period. The main points are;
   5.1. Do not use Poor Detectors
     Certain detectors are notorious for giving artifacts, e.g. BF3 counters
which easily give false signals due to vibration, humidity etc., or X-ray
plates which can be stained by many effects.
   5.2. Do Use Detectors that Discriminate
     Instead of using an X-ray plate that records a vague darkening, it much
better to use an X-ray detector which can measure the energy of the individual
X-rays - for example the observation of the 21 keV line from Palladium would be
an important result. Steve Jones has made such a detector which is so small
that it can easily be inserted into anyone's experiment. He himself has not
observed the 21 keV line in his experiments. For over a year he has offered his
detector free to anyone who seriously wants to measure X-rays, but no one took
up his offer, though now at Maui, Prof. Oriani has accepted one. Similarly
instead of simply counting neutrons, it would be more convincing to measure the
energy spectrum and see if there is a peak at 2.45 MeV as  expected - the
original 1989 Nature paper of Steve Jones et al. [2] reported such a peak and
even though its statistical significance was rather small, the fact that it was
at 2.45 MeV was impressive; similarly the Turin group has recently reported [3]
a peak at the desired value of 2.5 MeV.
   5.3 Do Look for Correlations
     It is unsatisfactory to measure only one effect, e.g. only neutrons, when
many effects are predicted to occur simultaneously, e.g. excess heat is
expected to occur with 4He on some theories and with 3He on others and with
neutrons, tritons, protons, gammas, X-rays, 14 MeV neutrons on conventional
models. By making measurements of these effects simultaneously, the value of
the results is greatly increased. It may be commented that up to now when the
better experiments have looked for several effects simultaneously, they have
observed no effects at all [1]. In this connection it is interesting to recall
the statement by Dr. Fleischmann "1992 must be the year of mass spectroscopy"
so it is clear that he is in favour of seeking correlations but it is
surprising that we are still waiting for such results.
   5.4 Do Use Adequate Data Recording Instrumentation
   Using a single thermister to record temperature changes in a fast changing
environment as in the latest Fleischmann and Pons paper [4] is not satisfactory
or convincing - it does not allow an adequate check on the detailed heat flow
calculations such as the assumption that the heat loss is 100% by radiation
whereas the original Fleischmann and Pons paper [5] emphasized that Newton's
Law of Cooling was used and the heat flow was 100% conduction - it is the
difference between assuming that the heat loss was proportional to the
difference in the temperature to the fourth power or to the first power -
vastly different assumptions.
     Similarly in ref. 4, Fleischmann and Pons describe how the cell boils
vigorously and about half-empties in 600 seconds - but this work only has a
single temperature recording device and the current and voltage data are only
recorded every 300 seconds which means that only about two (or three) readings
were recorded during the crucial 600 seconds. This is highly inadequate and
casts serious doubts on the claims of huge excess heat. Similarly with the
claim that the cell stayed hot for some three hours after the electrolyte had
boiled off so that it was believed that there was no input - now called "Life
after Death" - it is hard to believe when there is only one local isolated
measuring device. It is to be hoped that these experiments will be repeated
with adequate convincing measuring instruments.
     It is normal experimental practice to make redundant measurements and to
have more than the strict minimum number of detectors - this allows checks of
assumptions. Unfortunately many Believers in Cold Fusion follow Fleischmann and
Pons in under-equipping their experiments - more detailed comments on their
recent Physics Letters A paper is given in ref. 6. The conclusion is; make
redundant measurements to check and to avoid theoretical assumptions such as
whether the heat loss is 100% conduction or 100% radiation.
   5.5 Design Experiments to Avoid Problems
     The design of some experiments is such that a large number of assumptions
are needed to analyze the data and many calibrations are required - an example
is the open cell calorimetry with no measurements of the out-going gases, of
Drs. Fleischmann and Pons where the make assumptions such as (1) that there is
no recombination of the deuterium and the oxygen although the anode and cathode
are very close, (2) that the heat outflow is 100% radiative or alternatively is
100% conductive, (3) that no lithium is carried out of the cell, (4) that the
gas escaping does not carry any liquid with it or is blown out near boiling
temperature, etc. Many of these doubtful assumptions (and which are doubted
[7]) are treated by calculations. However it would be better if they could be
largely avoided by using standard electrochemical technique e.g. employing a
closed cell with a catalyser inside and the anode and cathode well-separated.
Best technique is to use a null measurement method as in the Wheatstone bridge.
Here one could use three baths at temperatures kept by heaters at temperatures
of say 30, 40 and 45 degrees C. If there is excess heat produced by a cell in
the inner bath, then its heater is turned down and this excess heat measured -
this system is easy to calibrate. All is with no change in the temperatures of
the three baths so that complicated calculations and doubtful assumptions are
not needed.
     Since Fleischmann and Pons often use small specks of palladium (e.g. 0.04
cm3 of Pd in ref. 4), they then only observe a small effect at lower
temperatures and have to multiply by a large factor - it would be better
technique to use a larger piece of palladium so that it could be seen if the
effect is larger than the background and error assumptions. Note in Polywater,
all the experiments produced very small quantities of the controversial water,
less than one cc, and the authors did not try to use large samples, thus they
did not try to prove themselves wrong.
   5.6. Try to Prove Yourself Wrong
      "The easiest person in the World to deceive, is yourself" is a well-known
warning in Science and one is taught by good professors, such as Phillip I. Dee
in my case, to go out and actively try and find ways to prove yourself wrong. 
     If one wishes to assume there is no recombination of the hydrogen and
oxygen, then one should not do it by calculation, but do clear active
experiments to try and prove yourself wrong, e.g. by varying the distance
between the anode and cathode. This has in fact been done by Prof. Lee Hansen
at BYU [8] who varied the separation of the anode and cathode. He found that
assuming no recombination, there was an calculated excess heat  but this
disappeared when the electrodes were separated suggesting that the origin of
the calculated excess heat was recombination. To check this further, he blew in
nitrogen gas from the bottom  when the electrodes were close together, and
again the calculated excess heat vanished. It is surprising that after ten
years intensive work, that Fleischmann and Pons have never published any such
experiments to test their assumption that there is no recombination.
     The actual excess heats claimed by Fleischmann and Pons in their 1989 and
1990 papers [5, 9] are small, but they are then multiplied up by dubious
assumptions e.g normally one uses the well-known fact that the power used to
separate the deuterium and oxygen is (1.54 Volts times the current), but in
their 1989 paper, Fleischmann and Pons use (0.5 Volts times the current). It is
this and other assumptions that allow Fleischmann and Pons to use the
of-repeated claim of "one watt in and four watts out". This number of 0.5 Volts
seems to be unknown apart from this paper and it is surprising that experiments
to justify such a crucial number have not been done. This story of Fleishmann
and Pons's unusual excess heat calculations, is clearly explained on pages 351
to 353 of Frank Close's book "Too Hot to Handle" [10].
     The contradiction between Fleischmann and Pons' 1989 and 1990 papers as to
whether the heat loss is 100% by conduction [3] or 100% by radiation [8] could
be resolved by experiment, but seems not to have been done (they silvered the
top part of the cell later but as it was claimed this changed the heat loss
from 100% radiative to 100% radiative (i.e. no change!), this can hardly be 
considered a decisive experiment). The estimate of the heat losses is critical 
to calculations of the xcess heat.
     The message is, do more experiments, vary parameters and seriously try to
prove yourself wrong.
   5.7. Do Experiments to Test Theory
     There are many theories and it is surprising that people do not seriously
design experiments to make critical tests of the theories. For example the
crucial point about Nobel Prize winner Julian Schwinger's theory[11] is that pd
fusion is much more likely than dd fusion. And pd fusion would give 3He rather
than 4He in the electroweak mode. Hence one would have expected that someone
would have varied the hydrogen to deuterium content and looked for the excess
heat and for 3He and 4He as a function of the H to D ratio. For example one
could try the following mixtures in the electrolyte;
     H2O     1%     25%     50%     75%     99%
     D2O    99%      75%     50%     25%      1%.
   5.8 Do Reproducible Experiments
     So far the only reproducible experiments that have been achieved are by
those who find no Cold Fusion effect. Those who find positive Cold Fusion
effects do not claim 100% reproducibility.

6. LIST OF MIRACLES IF COLD FUSION IS FUSION
    6.1. D-D Separation
     The great problem of D-D fusion is the difficulty of overcoming the
Coulomb potential  barrier. This can be overcome by using fast deuterium nuclei
as in the Sun (keV energies), or in tokamaks, or ion implantation, energetic
arc or glow discharges, etc. but these are called Hot Fusion and well
appreciated. For Cold Fusion the thermal energies are too small and the
probability is very, very small, e.g. Koonin and Nauenberg [12] have calculated
that for a separation of 0.74 Angstroms, it is only 10-64 fusions per dd pair
per second - that is negligible as can be seen that if the mass of deuterium
was as large as the solar system mass, there would be only one fusion per
second which would give a power of a million millionth of one watt.
     Under normal conditions, in D2 gas or deuterium liquid, the separation of
the deuterium nuclei is 0.74 A. As explained the probability is negligible
except when a thermal muon (effectively almost zero velocity) with a mass some
200 times greater than the electron mass, approaches the dd pair and displaces
one of bound electrons and this causes the dd pair to be pulled closer together
giving a separation of about 0.035 A when fusion can occur - this is called
muon-catalyzed fusion. However with the very short lifetime of the muon it can
easily be shown that this is not an economic process but it does indicate how
the fusion probability varies very steeply with the d-d separation.
     There is an enormous literature on hydrogen and deuterium in palladium and
other metals - see for example, Fukai at the Third Cold Fusion Conference [13].
The basic fact is that palladium is normally a face-centred crystal with a side
of about 3.9 A - if hydrogen is forced into it, the crystal expands slightly
e.g to 4.03 A for a D to Pd ratio of 0.8. The normal separation of d-d
particles is 2.85 A - this is when they are in the orthohedral sites. When the
deuterons are forced into the palladium e.g by ion implantation, then
tetrahedral sites can be occupied and the separation is reduced to 1.74 A, but
this value is still much greater than the normal 0.74 A.
      Thus the deuterium nuclei are further apart in the Pd lattice than normal
- it goes the wrong way for Cold Fusion, to put deuterium into metal lattices.
     There are thousands of experiments, papers and many books on hydrogen and
deuterium in metals and there is a unifying theory which fits the data - except
Cold Fusion data. To claim excess heat from Cold Fusion is Miracle Number 1.
   6.2 Excess heat with Hydrogen
     If one observes fusion with D-D then one does not expect to observe it
with H-H as the rate is many orders of magnitude lower. Thus one would then
observe it with D2O but not with H2O. In the period April 1989 to 1991,
Fleischmann and Pons and others claimed to have observed D-D fusion but not H-H
fusion so they used H2O as a control and stated that the excess heat claimed
was from D-D fusion and was a nuclear process. However at the Third Cold Fusion
conference in October 1992, five groups claimed to have obtained excess heat
using hydrogen. Further some produced theories stating that the excess heat was
not from a nuclear reaction, e.g. Vigier [14] who said it was quantum
chemistry. At this fourth conference seven groups have reported experimental
data supporting the claims of excess heat with hydrogen - (and still living
under the banner of Cold Fusion).
     There is an enormous contradiction here - most of the Cold Fusion
community claim that Cold Fusion is  deuterium fusion and the excess heat has a
nuclear origin and this is confirmed because it is NOT observed with light
hydrogen, but there is a strong minority which claim excess heat with light
hydrogen and sometimes say it is not nuclear. Surprisingly this contradiction
was not discussed at the Third meeting and seems to be being ignored here at
the Fourth.
     This the second miracle.
     6.3 Lack of Nuclear Ash with respect to Excess heat
         If Cold Fusion has its origin in nuclear reactions as Fleischmann and
Pons and others have claimed, then there must be some nuclear particles
produced - called the Nuclear Ash by Frank Close [10]. 
      Thousands of experiments have established what this nuclear ash is, both
at high energies (hot fusion) and at thermal energies (cold fusion - in
muon-catalyzed fusion). The conclusion is that for one watt of power, the
products are;
      1012 particles per second of tritons, neutrons, protons, and 3He
     107 particles per second of 4He and gammas of 24 MeV.
Such numbers of particles are not observed. For watts of power, the above
numbers would give fatal doses of radiation but no such casualties have been
reported and it appears that most scientists and laboratory assistants or
cleaners do not take radiation precautions or do radiation monitoring by
wearing film badges.
     This is miracle number three.
   6.4. Ratios of Nuclear Ash Components
     The ratios of the nuclear products given in 6.3 above are very well
established, e.g see Cecil et al. [15] in the proceedings of the Second Cold
Fusion conference where he shows that the (neutron plus 3He ) channel is equal
to the (tritium plus proton) channel as would be expected from charge symmetry,
while the (4He plus gamma) is indeed a factor of ten million lower. This is not
observed in experiments making Cold Fusion claims, and indeed the tritium to
neutron ratio is said to be between 104 to 109.
     This Cold Fusion miracle number four.
     For many, four miracles is a bit too much, especially before breakfast, as
Alice would say.

7 THEORY- GENERAL. BOUNDARY LAYER BETWEEN COLD FUSION AND REST OF THE UNIVERSE
     There are many experiments on fusion and there is a well-established
theory [13] which fits fusion data and many other aspects of Science. However
it is remarkable (a miracle) that this theory is claimed not to apply to Cold
Fusion experiments when performed by Fleischmann, Pons and some others but does
apply to the larger number of experimenters on Cold Fusion who find no effects.
There are a large number of theories which have been proposed to account for
the Cold Fusion claims. They concern the behaviour of deuterium (and sometimes
hydrogen) in a lattice. 
     In such theories it is remarkable that this lattice in which Cold Fusion
is claimed to occur, is not defined. Questions such as can Cold Fusion occur in
ice, are not given clear answers. Some such as Dr. Preparata use their theory
that justifies Cold Fusion, to support the claims of Dr. Benveniste et al. [16]
that water has a memory and that after diluting it many times (up to 10120),
this memory is retained. One would then expect their theory of Cold Fusion
would also apply to water - do they then predict that Cold Fusion should occur
in water? It may be noted that Hirst et al. [17] have tried to reproduce the
findings of Benveniste et al. using dilutions from 102 to 1060, but could not
reproduce the results of Benveniste et al.
     In general it is good that theorists try to prove themselves wrong by
applying their theories to other applications as Preparata has done for the
memory of water, and this scientific approach is to be encouraged.
     A further important question that does not seem to have been considered,
is what happens at the boundary of the lattice? Outside the lattice the normal
laws of Science seem to apply but on entering the lattice, the four miracles
listed in section 6, come into operation. It would be important to study and
understand this transition layer - it may be a way to distinguish between the
very different theories of Cold Fusion.

8. LIST OF THEORIES PUBLISHED IN THE LAST 12 MONTHS
     In the period of 12 months of Dieter Britz, given in section 2, a variety
of theories that might explain Cold Fusion have been published in refereed
journals (references and author list are in Dr. Britz's bibliography). These
are summarized;
a). Gerlovin; New unified field theory. The Earth's movements with respect to
the vacuum of space are important and best results should be obtained at 10.00
hours, 11.00 hours, and noon.
b). Hagelstein; coherent and semi-coherent neutron transfer with increased
phonon coupling. Under some conditions, gammas should be observed.
c). Matsumoto; new elementary particle, the Iton which gives di-neutrons and
higher neutron assemblies. The theory explains the gravity decays and
transmutations observed.
d). Mendes; ergodic motion. Three-body collisions dominate, especially dde.
e). Bockris; high fugacity (as Fleischmann and Pons [5]) giving 1026
atmospheres. Electron capture by deuterium.
f). Matsumoto; Nattoh theory. Collapse of neutron clusters giving Black Holes.
g). Swartz; Quasi-one-dimensional model of loading. Crystal structures are
important (defects, dislocations, shape, small surface features - spikes).
h). Yasui; Fracto-fusion, cracks.
i). Fisher; polyneutrons.
j). Yang; D captures electron giving D plus a di-neutron. Theory explains
neutron bursts (this claim now withdrawn by Steve Jones).
k). Cerofolini; Binuclear atoms (dd)ee, capture thermal neutrons giving D, T,
4He, tritium enrichment, neutron bursts.
l). Matsumoto; double iton explains warming for three hours afterwards. Could
this be the theoretical explanation of the "Life after Death" claimed by
Fleischmann and Pons who about a year later also said they had observed a
similar three-hour effect?
m). Takahashi; high loadings give 3-body and 4-body fusions.
n). Bracci; Collective effects ruled out (contrary to Hagelstein and to
Preparata, Bressani and Del Gudice). Explains by high effective electron
masses, 5 to 10 times greater.
o). Lo; Densely coupled plasmas.
p). Stoppini; Superconductivity, < 11oK.
q). Hora; Dense plasma. Transmutation by neutron swapping, e.g Pd + D ---> Rh 
+ 4He.
r). Filimonov; Deuteron soliton coherent with palladium anti-soliton - should
coat electrode with palladium black.
s). Lipson; Super-condensates - fracto-fusion mechanism is improbable.
t). Chatterjee; stochastic electron accumulation.
u). Gammon; Negative Joule-Thompson effect.
v). Granneau; Ampere force.
w). Hagelstein; n-transfer, 3-phonon.
x). Ichimark; coherent plasmas. One to two fusions per year per cm3.
Note - in reply to a question as to whether Cold Fusion could be observed in
water, Dr. Preparata declared that he had never written a paper applying his
theory of Cold Fusion to Benveniste's work. Dieter Britz has written "We have
an article from an Italian Magazine, where Preparata and Del Guidice describe
their theory of long-range effects in water, and relate this to both cold
fusion and homeopathy (i.e. Benveniste claims)".
     It is interesting that there is a rather wide  spread of journals - not
just Fusion Technology (10 times here) and Physics Letters A  where J.-P.
Vigier is an Editor (quoted twice here).

9. WHEN A COLD FUSION WORKING DEVICE?
8 December 1993; the previous speaker, Dr. H. Fox, giving he said, a business
man's point of view, declared he expected a working Cold Fusion device in 
TWENTY YEARS.
November 1993. Dr. S. Pons said that by the year 2000 there should be a
household power plant - SIX YEARS.
 1992. Dr. M. Fleischmann said a 10 to 20 Kilowatt power plant should be
operational in  ONE YEAR.
July 1989. The Deseret News published an article by Jo-Ann Jacobsen-Wells who
interviewed Dr. S. Pons. There is a photograph in colour, of Dr. Pons beside an
simple apparatus with two tubes, one for cold water in and one for hot water
out. This working unit based on Cold Fusion was described as; " 'It couldn't
take care of the family's electrical needs, but it certainly could provide them
with hot water year-round' said Pons".
Later in the article it was written "Simply put, in its current state, it could
provide boiling water for a cup of tea".
Time delay to this working model - ZERO YEARS.
     Thus it appears that as time passes, the delay to realisation of a working
model increases.

10. CONCLUSIONS
     No conclusions are presented - everyone can judge for themselves. However
some questions can be asked;
     Are Cold Fusion results consistent in claiming Cold Fusion effects in
Deuterium but not in normal Hydrogen, while other groups claim Cold Fusion
effects with hydrogen?
     Is the ratio of tritium to neutron production about unity as Fleischmann
and Pons originally claimed [5] or is the ratio in the wide range 104 to 109 as
most other workers claim?
     Are transmutations, Black Holes, Biology [18] part of the normal world of
Cold Fusion?
     To explain the null experiments there is one theory - the conventional
theory of Quantum Mechanics, but there are a wide variety of theories to
explain positive Cold Fusion results - can they all be valid simultaneously -
if not, which should be rejected?
     When can we have a cup of tea?

Acknowledgements
     It is a pleasure to thank Dieter Britz for the use of his Bibliographic
compilation.

REFERENCES
1. D.R.O. Morrison, Cold Fusion Update No. 7, Email.
2. S.E. Jones et al., Nature 338(1989)737.
3. T. Bressani et al. 3rd Intl. Conf. on Cold Fusion, "Frontiers of Cold
   Fusion", Ed. H. Ikegami, Univ. Acad. Press, Tokyo, (1993), p 433.
4. M. Fleischmann and S. Pons, Phys. Lett. A 176(1993)1.
5. M. Fleischmann and S. Pons, J. Electroanal. Chem. 261(1989)301.
6. J. Wilson et al., J. Electroanal. Chem. 332(1992)1.
7. D.R.O. Morrison, CERN preprint CERN-PPE/93-96 and to be published in Phys.
   Lett. A.
8. L. Hansen, priv. comm.
9. M.Fleishmann et al., J. Electroanal. Chem. 287(1990)293.
10. F. Close, "Too Hot To Handle", W.H Allen Publ., London, (1990).
11. J. Schwinger, 1st Annual Conf. on Cold Fusion, National Cold Fusion
    Institute, Salt Lake City, (1989), p 130.
12. S.E. Koonin and M. Nauenberg, Nature 339(1989)690.
13. Y. Fukai, 3rd Intl. Conf. on Cold Fusion, "Frontiers of Cold Fusion", Ed.
    H. Ikegami, Univ. Acad. Press, Tokyo, (1993), p 265.
14. J.-P. Vigier, 3rd Intl. Conf. on Cold Fusion, "Frontiers of Cold Fusion",
Ed. H. Ikegami, Univ. Acad. Press, Tokyo, (1993), p325.
15. F.E. Cecil and G.M. Hale, 2nd Annual Conf. on Cold Fusion, "The Science of
    Cold Fusion", Ed. T. Bressani, E. Del Guidice, and G. Preparata, Soc. It. di
    Fisica, Bologna, (1991), p. 271. 
16. Davenas et al. Nature 333(1988)816-818.
17. S. J. Hirst et al, Nature 366(1993) 525-527.
18. The IgNobel Prize for Physics was awarded to L. Kervran for his book
    "Biological Transmutations" in which he argues that a cold fusion process
    produces the calcium in eggshells - Science, 262(1993)509.




cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenmorrison cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.10 / L Plutonium /  Re: Spontaneous Neutrons?
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,alt.sci.physics.plutonium
Subject: Re: Spontaneous Neutrons?
Date: 10 Feb 1994 01:51:37 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In article <2jbac2$mhk@ornews.intel.com>
brauchfu@fnugget.intel.com (Brian D. Rauchfuss) writes:

> This sounds like the theories of a steady-state expanding universe which would
> gain matter (to keep the density the same) by spontaneous materialization.
> 
> I am not sure what it would have to do with cold fusion, though; the rate of
> new matter creation would be so low as to have no energy effect over such a 
> small volume.  Do you have a theory that hydrogen isotopes in palladium/nickel/
> etc would somehow greatly increase this effect?  If so, would not the 
> characteristic radiation of neutron decay be seen by a number of experimenters?
> 
> BDR

  Thanks Brian. It is not the steady-state model for this model is
wrong. What Dirac had in mind was violation of conservation of
energy/mass. I believe this is true also and believe that is how the
universe grows. In fact the Sun and planet Earth grew from spontaneous
neutron materialization. My patent is how to induce it. Muon
Catalyzation,cosmic gamma ray bursts,cold fusion, sonoluminescence,
Reifenschweiler radioactivity loss are all examples of inducing
spontaneous neutron materialization. Please read below and if you want
me to repost my entire patent on neutron materialization devices, just
give a holler.
 
  Excerpts from my patent pending of Neutron Materialization Devices

	Radioactive decay (rd) is when any atom of an atomic number Z
transmutates to an atom/s of lower atomic number.  For example, when
uranium decays to lead and neon. Before 0050, the weak nuclear
interaction was known as comprising only radioactive decay and
radioactive growth.  Shortly after 07/11/0050, I had postulated
radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization (rsnm) from DiracUs
book Directions in Physics . 
	P.A.M. Dirac specifically asserted spontaneous materialization of
particles from out of nowhere in his book Directions in Physics  on
pages 76-78.  His book states, and I quote:
"Now, according to the Large Number Hypothesis, all these very large
dimensionless numbers should be connected together.  We should then
expect that 
		total mass /proton mass =  10 78 proportional time 2
Using the same argument again, we are therefore led to think that the
total number of protons in the Universe is increasing proportionally to
time 2.  Thus, there must be creation of matter in the Universe, a
continuous creation of matter." (Continued.)
	"According to the ordinary physical processes, which we study in the
laboratory, matter is conserved.  Here we have direct nonconservation
of matter.  It is, if you like, a new kind of radioactive process for
which there is nonconservation of matter and by which particles are
created where they did not previously exist. (Continued.)  
	If there is new matter continually being created, the question arises:
"where is it created?" There are two reasonable assumptions which one
might make.  One is that the new matter is continually created
throughout the whole of space, and in that case, it is mostly created
in intergalactic space.  I call this the assumption of additive
creation.
	Alternatively, one might make the assumption that new matter is
created close by where matter already exists.  That newly created
matter is of the same atomic nature as the matter already existing
there.  This would mean that all atoms are just multiplying up.  I call
that the assumption of multiplicative creation."
	Dirac in his book discusses particle materialization out of nowhere
can occur either additive or multiplicative.  Dirac proposed particle
materialization. I specifically propose neutron materialization and
that this neutron materialization occurs both additive and
multiplicative simultaneously. I had surmised from Dirac's book by late
0050 that something must induce rsnm, but what the induction was I did
not discover until 0051. Shortly thereafter submitting the patent
application.
	PHYSICAL EVIDENCES FOR SPONTANEOUS NEUTRON MATERIALIZATION. 
	(1) MUON CATALYZED FUSION.  
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.10 / mitchell swartz /  Mark North's ego on parade
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Mark North's ego on parade
Subject: Re: egos on parade!
Subject: "Re: egos on parade!" 
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 1994 01:47:21 GMT
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 94 12:24:23 -0500
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA


Mark North <north@watop.nosc.mil>  has 
already been shown at least once to post false
and malicious attacks upon
persons using Internet as when he wrote:
 
=mn "I was about to answer this post seriously 
=mn    when it became obvious to
=mn me that 'Michael' is none other than 
=mn     our own Jed Rothwell."
 
  However he was corrected by emerge@delphi.com
in Message-ID: <RU6p17P.emerge@delphi.com>
Subject: Re: egos on parade!
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 94 12:24:23 -0500
  when he was informed that his attack was wrong,
and a needless and a potential misuse of (US government?,
corporate) funds by the posting:

==    "X-To: Mark North <north@watop.nosc.mil> 
==  Dear Mark,
==   
==   Your recent response kind of typifies the problem I have with
==  this conference.  Your assumption that I am masquerading under a
==  secret identity for some unspecified sinister reason are so far out
==  in left field, it doesn't warrant comment. .... Michael Mozina"

  Having been corrected once, the sun hardly sets
before Mr. North, reminiscent of a pit-bull
shows his vacuous unprincipled ego and lack of depth.

   So in Message-ID: <north.760820277@watop>
Subject: "Re: egos on parade!" 
Mark North (north@watop.nosc.mil)  
continues driven by either his bloated ego
which he says is "on parade!" or by his company
[NCCOSC RDT&E Division in San Diego, CA]
as he continues for his second(!) in his weekly series
 of venomous attacks using misstatement, writing:

=ah  "AMEN. I have also been reading this post for
=ah   some time, and have found some of things written
=ah   utterly shameful and mean spirited."
        [zcrah@trumpet.pgh.wec.com (Andy Holland)]

=mn    "OK, hotshot, how about giving some examples other 
=mn      than Rothwell and Swartz."

  Mr. North, again lacking data to support his 
"brick-toss tactics",  has now decided to merely
continue his rabid unsupported absurdities
from the NCCOSC RDT&E Division desk.

    Attention is directed to the fact that it certainly
has been easy to find and document at least two
stupid utterly shameful and mean-spirited postings
from Mr. North, NCCOSC RDT&E Division, and 
watop.nosc.mil just this week.

                        Mitchell Swartz
                       [mica@world.std.com]






cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.10 / Bernard McAuley /  Energy required for Fusion
     
Originally-From: bmcauley@its.dundee.ac.uk (Bernard McAuley)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Energy required for Fusion
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 1994 10:46:00 GMT
Organization: IT service University of Dundee

As a complete novice in the realm of Fusion and power generation I gather that 
whilst a Self-sustainable plasma has yet to be achieved a Fusion reactor can 
be run with a stable plasma if external energy is used to drive the 
containment field.  Is this correct?  If so how much is the difference between 
the energy produced by the reactor and the energy required to contain a 
constant fusion reaction in modern reactor?

Hope you can help..

Bernard McAuley

cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenbmcauley cudfnBernard cudlnMcAuley cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.10 / Andy Holland /  Re: egos on parade!
     
Originally-From: zcrah@trumpet.pgh.wec.com (Andy Holland)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: egos on parade!
Date: 10 Feb 1994 13:57:40 GMT
Organization: Westinghouse CNFD

In article <RU6p17P.emerge@delphi.com> emerge@delphi.com writes:
>Mark North <north@watop.nosc.mil> writes:
> 

>     I have always subscribed to the notion that "one test is worth
>a thousand expert opinions."  Cold fusion is way out of the
>mainstream of science and bound to have zealots on both sides.
>I'd just appreciate more facts and less pure guess work.
> 
>    I have no idea whether there is any validity to cold fusion. I
>stated reading this conference to gain a little knowledge on the
>subject!  I admit to being biased in so much as I *want* it to be
>true.  But even to layman, it's obvious there is much work to be
>done before the *truth* will be known.  Claiming victory on either
>side seems premature to me.
> 
> 
>Michael Mozina

Exactly. What intrigues me reading this news group as an interested party,
is that the pro-cold-fusion guys could learn alot from the con-side, *and*
visa-versa. Scientific skeptism is a very powerful tool, and *civilized*
interaction might eventually yeild the real *truth*, whatever that is. 
When people dig themselves ego pits by making snap judgements of one
another, the ability to obtain the real *truth* almost disappears.

Some of the best scientific and engineering discoveries came from gross
scientific errors, like 'bad air' from the eighteenth century and so on.
Very good scientists believed them; nobody condemns Newton for thinking
that comets fueled the sun! If you think that way, you might as well
through calculus and F=dP/dt away because he was wrong a couple of times.

Maybe cold fusion is not fusion at all, but investigating the phenomenon
would be useful in the long run. Maybe there is a quantum effect at low 
temperatures that greatly increases the fusion cross section. Perhaps there
is a catalyst particle, yet undiscovered. Why not work together and find out
whats really going on, verify it and prove it without personal attacks,
snide remarks, and snap jugements?

Its time to discuss these issues rationally, scientifically, and try to 
reconcile the differences in a constructive manner. It is possible, it
just takes a little humility.


| Andy Holland, Westinghouse NMD    |  
| zcrah@ncstate.pgh.wec.com         | 
| Views Expressed here are solely my|  
| own and are not representative of |   
| Westinghouse Electric Corporation |                   






cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenzcrah cudfnAndy cudlnHolland cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.10 / Ad aspera /  FYI #16, 10 Feb 94 (FY95 budget, part 2 of several: DOE)
     
Originally-From: JTCHEW@lbl.gov (Ad absurdum per aspera)
Newsgroups: sci.research,sci.energy,sci.physics.accelerators,sci.materia
s,sci.environment,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: FYI #16, 10 Feb 94 (FY95 budget, part 2 of several: DOE)
Date: 10 Feb 1994 18:46:22 GMT
Organization: Relayed, not written, by Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory

[Written by individuals at the American Institute of Physics and
merely posted by me, so respond to <fyi@aip.org> or other
references below.  Always posted here on sci.research; sometimes
crossposted to an eclectic selection of other newsgroups, with
followups directed here. Back issues may be ftp'd from NIC.HEP.NET,
along with PHYSICS NEWS UPDATE and the American Physical Society 
news/opinion column WHAT'S NEW. Enjoy! -jc]


Department of Energy FY95 Budget Request:  An Overview

FYI No. 16, February 10, 1994

Secretary of Energy Hazel O'Leary's belief in Total Quality
Management, shifting priorities after the end of the Cold War, and
the demise of the SSC, are changing the face of DOE.  In President
Clinton's fiscal year 1995 budget request for DOE, funding for
defense programs would continue to fall, while environmental
restoration and energy resources, particularly efficiency and
renewables, would receive increased attention.  Down also would be
funding for science, largely due to the termination of the
Superconducting Super Collider.  In line with the Administration's
overall R&D objectives (see FYI #15), emphasis would be placed on
the contribution DOE's missions can make to advancing US
competitiveness, productivity, and job creation.  Strategically,
the budget highlights a shift toward setting measurable goals,
(such as increased exports and reduced emissions) so the
Department's performance can be evaluated.

The budget request for DOE totals $18.5 billion, a decrease of
$501.9 million (2.7%) from FY94.  While funding levels shift
throughout the Department, it is of note that most of this amount
can be accounted for by the reduction from $640 million in FY94 to
$180 million (a difference of $460 million) for termination costs
related to the SSC.

DOE's Science and Technology Programs (S&T) would take the largest
hit, decreasing $453.3 million (13.5%) to $2,902.5 million.  But
when the $460 million decrease for the SSC is considered, a slight
increase is available for other S&T programs.  High Energy Physics
would grow 0.7%, to $621.9 million.  Other programs to see
increases would be the Advanced Neutron Source (up 135.3% to $40.0
million to begin construction) and Fusion Energy (up 8.5% to $372.6
million.)  Funding for facilities upgrades at DOE's multi-program
labs would increase 8.5% to $44.8 million, and funding for
Technology Transfer at the labs would increase 36.5% to $53.5
million.

S&T programs being cut would include Basic Energy Sciences (down
6.2% to $741.3 million) and Nuclear Physics (down 13.7%, to $300.8
million.)  According to DOE Office of Energy Research Director
Martha Krebs, part of the reduction for Nuclear Physics is due to
completion of the construction of CEBAF, and preparations for the
possible close-out of LAMPF.

National Security Programs would also be reduced, dropping $342.6
million (6.2%) to $5,191.4 million.  Emphasis within DOE's defense
programs continues to transition from weapons production to
dismantlement, stockpile maintenance, nonproliferation, and safety
issues.

Environmental Management, DOE's largest program area for the second
year in a row, would receive a $104.5 million increase (1.7%) to
$6,280.3 million, to continue clean-up of contaminated sites.
DOE's fourth major area, Energy Resources, would also grow, gaining
$186.8 million (5.3%) to $3,691.2 million.  Energy priorities would
shift away from nuclear energy to programs in efficiency,
renewables and natural gas.

Future FYIs will provide details on the budget request for selected
DOE programs.


###############
Public Information Division
American Institute of Physics
Contact:  Audrey T. Leath
(301) 209-3094
##END##########
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenJTCHEW cudfnAd cudlnaspera cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.08 / Jim Bowery /  Re: HOT FUSION? NO WAY!
     
Originally-From: jabowery@netcom.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: HOT FUSION? NO WAY!
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 1994 21:25:54 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

bpc@netcom.com (Benjamin P. Carter) writes:
> publius@inca.gate.net (Publius) writes:
> 
> >  It is obvious that the assault by the "scientifically correct"
> >  community on "cold fusion" is motivated by the fact that "hot fusion"
> >  is a gigantic multi-billion-dollar boondoggle that must be preserved.
> >  ...
> 
> It's not obvious to me, and I have no vested interest in any "hot fusion"
> project.  Isn't it possible that "cold fusion" has been given a fair
> hearing by the appropriate experts, and been found to lack merit?

The "scientifically correct" community might actually being correct and 
still, at the same time, have been subject to less-than-honorable 
motives.

The circumstances surrounding the "one month debunking" that occured 
at the start of the controversy are conclusive of such ill-motivation 
IMNSHO.

The preemptive rabid attack was a win either way.  Either P&F were right
and the government HF guys had nothing to lose by stretching out their
funding a little longer or P&F were wrong and the government HF guys
could claim prescience.
-- 
The promotion of politics exterminates apolitical genes in the population.
  The promotion of frontiers gives apolitical genes a route to survival.
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenjabowery cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.11 /  morrison@vxpri /  Cold Fusion Update No. 9.
     
Originally-From: morrison@vxprix.cern.ch
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Cold Fusion Update No. 9.
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 1994 15:14:37 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Dec. 1993/Jan. 1994.                                                DM/94-1

                   COLD FUSION UPDATE No. 9

   Impressions and Some Highlights of Fourth Intl. Cold Fusion Conference.
       Science Down; Funding Up: Enthusiasm Down; Weird Results Up.
          Do Fleischmann and Pons Sincerely Believe in Fusion?

1. General Impressions
     1.1 General
     1.2 Why such Major Japanese Funding?
2. Experimental Talks
     2.1 M. Fleischmann
     2.2 D. Gozzi
     2.3 IMRA Japan, K. Kunimatsu
     2.4 IMRA Europe, S. Pons and M. Fleischmann, "Heat After Death"
     2.5 J. Dufour
     2.6 Spark and Glow Discharges - Lukewarm Fusion
     2.7 Transmutation, Alchemy
3. Theory
     3.1. P. Hagelstein
     3.2 G. Preparata
4. Historical Talks
     4.1 Y. Kim
     4.2 Other Examples - Fleischmann, Reifenschweller
5. Round Table


1. GENERAL IMPRESSIONS
     1.1 General
     The Fourth (not-annual) International Cold Fusion Conference, ICCF4, was
held at the Hyatt Regency Hotel - one of the most luxurious on the island of
Maui. However the cost was semi-reasonable (fortunately for my pocket)- the
conference was not, as far as could be seen, sponsored by anyone (certainly not
the University of Hawaii), but was "facilitated" by the Electrical Power
Research Institute, EPRI, which must have cost them a fair sum, but Tom Passell
and Linda Norman should be congratulated for the very competent organization of
the meeting. 
     There were about 300 attendees - the exact number was not clear as there
were a certain number of noticeable no-shows. There seems to have been no press
conferences; indeed there were only two representatives of the press present -
Jerry Bishop of the Wall Street Journal and Sandi Magaoay of Ka Leo O Hawai'i
which is the student journal of the University of Hawaii at Manoa. Both wrote
of the funding and of the outside skepticism and mentioned some positive
results.
      Perhaps the most outstanding feature compared with previous 'annual'
conferences, was the lack of enthusiasm for Cold Fusion. Even when Dr.
Fleischmann spoke, he was not successful in rousing his audience as he had done
at the first annual conference.
     Another outstanding feature was that there were many very strange results
and some which were in major contradiction to the original 1989 work of
Fleischmann and Pons. In particular F&P and most True Believers had up to 1992,
declared that they knew it was nuclear fusion because they observed excess heat
and other effects with heavy water, D2O, but not with normal light water, H2O,
but at the 3rd conference at Nagoya in October 1992, five groups had declared
that they now observed excess heat with light water, H2O. This tremendous
change was not really discussed at Nagoya but one expected it to be a main
subject at the 4th meeting. Despite some efforts, particularly by Steve Jones,
this contradiction was rather swept under the carpet again even though there
was said to be seven groups claiming excess heat now with normal H2O. Apart
from this major weird claim, there were many very strange claims, both
experimental and theoretical, a few of which will be listed below - some of the
most frequent were claims of transmutations. Another weird claim was by
Fleischmann and Pons which they named "Heat After Death". These weird claims
were interpreted differently by different people, e.g. Fleischmann said "We are
seeing a much wider diversity of experimenting being discussed here with
important measuring techniques. We're seeing a body of results, either with
conventional chemists or nuclear physicists. Sooner or later people are going
to have to come to grips with this" - from Ka Leo.
     The Monday morning finished with Dr. Kazuaki Matsui announcing the
creation by MITI, of an entirely new organization, New Hydrogen Energy, NHE, to
investigate, confirm and demonstrate the excess heat phenomena. The NHE project
would collaborate with major Japanese companies (Toyota, Sony, Nippon Steel,
Toshiba and Japanese Electrical Utility companies, have been mentioned) and
would have a budget of $30 million over four years. Dr. Matsui said that at the
end of next year, 1994, they would have a major review of progress and one
would decide whether to continue - it will be interesting to see whether they
invite also serious and well-informed skeptics of Cold Fusion in order to have
a serious study or whether it will be a tame committee. It may be noted that
the name NHE does not mention Cold Fusion - some would say this is a
far-sighted precaution.
     The other major source of funding is EPRI, although because of strong
internal disagreements, this appears to be called "facilitating" rather than
"supporting" Cold Fusion.
     Ka Leo reports that "The Italian government is working with the Fiat Motor
Corp. to develop a cold-fusion field" - did not hear this myself - would be
interesting to discover which Italian agency this is.
     A new Cold Fusion financial organization has been set up in Utah called
ENECO Inc. It has bought or acquired a large number of patents or licensing
rights including those of the University of Utah for Fleischmann and Pons' work
- for a sum "in the low six figures" according to Science, and the U. of U will
receive royalties for (any) profits arising from these patents. From the
literature distributed from their booth, they have "funded and acquired
technology rights in heavy-water, light-water, molten-salts, gas-plasma and
solid-state cold-fusion reactions". "ENECO has sponsored or is sponsoring cold
fusion research at MIT (Hagelstein), Texas A&M (Bockris), Cal-Poly (Bush and
Eagleton), Univ. of Hawaii (Liebert and Liu), Local universities (U. Utah),
ENECO's Lab., and at two laboratories in Russia (Kucherov etc.). As a result
ENECO is sponsoring 22 representatives, including 8 Russian scientists to the
ICCF-4" in Maui. Mark Hittinger, who has some stock experience, wrote that
"ENECO looks like it is being readied for some type of public stock offering."
This could be interesting as believe the SEC requires that when a stock
offering is made, adequate information is given to the potential investors - so
will ENECO say that most scientists do not believe in Cold Fusion and that most
published scientific papers do not find the effects claimed - for example there
are 37 published claims to have observed excess heat but 50 papers which find
no effect?
     There were a very large number of papers submitted to the conference -
almost all were presented and only a few were posters. This was achieved by
having plenary sessions in the morning and three parallel sessions in the
afternoon plus some posters - this meant that only half of the presentations
could be attended. Hence any account of the talks must be incomplete though
abstracts were provided which helps. The fact that they were many papers,
encouraged some to say this showed that Cold Fusion was proved, especially
excess heat, but in fact rather few were experimental measurements searching
for direct evidence for Cold Fusion, while many were descriptions of how to
load the hydrogen into metals (people who could not now repeat their previous
claims tended to do associated experiments). There were many theoretical
papers; these tended to be mutually exclusive - if theory A explained the
positive results fully, then there was no need for theories B, C. D, ...which
also fully accounted for the results. Those who believe that having large
numbers of papers and a busy four-day meeting, means that Cold Fusion is
established, should note that a conference on dousing was scheduled to last
five days.
     Another feature of ICCF4 was the absences and the silences. Kevin Wolf had
been advertised beforehand and had been given a place of honour opening the
Tuesday programme, but no explanation was given for his non-appearance, though
having talked to him recently, was not surprised. Dr. Ikegami who was a major
figure and conference chairman of the Third conference in Nagoya and who is the
only Japanese scientist I have ever met who was impolite, was at the meeting
but did not speak as far as I know. Some other stars of Nagoya did not talk,
such as Dr. E. Yamaguchi of NTT whose talk caused NTT shares to increase by
some $8 billion for a day or two. Dr. Huggins whose reported work on excess
heat at Stanford, was exploited in the media, is now in Germany and does not
seem to have any new results on excess heat. Dr. McKubre gave a talk so was
technically not silent, but he mainly said that they were going to start good
experiments soon - one is still waiting for a published and refereed paper,
even in Fusion Technology or Physics Letters A, from him.
     There was a curious tendency of Fleischmann et al. to re-write history and
show that Cold Fusion had already been discovered some 60 to 70 years ago - one
might have thought they would instead have been fully employed doing good 
critical experiments to try and prove themselves right or wrong.
     As there have already been a number of reports of ICCF4 on the net,
especially by Tom Droege, will concentrate on other highlights. Since I have
been involved in the law suit where the Italian newspaper La Repubblica said
Cold Fusion was "scientific fraud" and Fleischmann, Pons, Preparata, Bressani
and Del Guidice are suing them for 8 billion lire (about $5 million) - see
Nature 363(1993)107 - have been checking carefully all the claims these five
people have been making at various times, and hence some of my questions at
ICCF4 arose from extensive studies of the facts.
     Perhaps the most far-reaching question was to Dr. Pons who was asked if
people near their experiments wore film badges? The point is that if
Fleischmann and Pons sincerely believed that excess heat came from d-d fusion,
then they had a responsibility to ensure the safety from the resultant
radioactivity, of all the people who would be near their experiments. This
discussed in section 2.4 below.
     After the un-Japanese behaviour of Dr. Ikegami following my talk at
Nagoya, I had intended not to give a talk at Maui but was strongly encouraged
to give one and to write it up, by Japanese friends. Wondered how the
conference organizers would react - on the one hand they wished it to be a
scientific conference where all shades of opinion were allowed to be presented,
but on the other hand.... Soon found out. One of the weirdest talks was by Dr.
K. Chukanov from Bulgaria who is now president of General Energy International
Inc. of West Jordan, Utah. He said that he has a theory - "Dr. Chukanov's
Quantum Limitations of Matter Theory", which explains his and Fleischmann and
Pons's experimental excess heat results. Most of the energy "is the result of
the violation of the Law of Conservation of Energy. This effect is called the
'Chukanov Effect'". He claims his company has created "two-stage SE Boiler and
Cooler" which "can produce about 20 KW power" - "Very soon General Energy's SE
Generators will be presented for commercialization on the World Energy Market".
Now these quotations are from the Abstract published before the meeting, so
asked Tom Passell who is from EPRI and was the Chairman of the ICCF4 meeting,
how EPRI could allow such a talk to be given, for Chukanov is likely to claim a
successful presentation and support from EPRI. Also this seemed a very doubtful
legal question (was worried that the SEC would want to investigate). Tom
replied that it did not matter as Chukanov had been scheduled to speak in a
small parallel session where no one would attend. I said "Tom, that's where you
have scheduled me to speak"! 
     The actual order of speaking on the session on "Special Topics" was; Fox,
Morrison, Mallove, Chudakov, ..... Tom's ploy was partly successful as the room
held about 70 chairs and when I spoke there were many standing but many left by
the time Chudakov spoke. 

1.2 Why such MajorJapanese Funding?
       At present the greatest part of the funding for Cold Fusion comes from
Japan; IMRA (supported basically by Toyota) has set up labs in France and
Japan: and MITI is starting to devote $30 million over four years. The question
is, why? Have talked to several Japanese people and their replies are
basically;
1. We have no oil.
2. As the World's oil will not last for ever, new sources of energy are needed.
3. If there is a 1% chance of Cold Fusion giving energy, then it is worth
trying.
     Would agree with this reasoning for MITI if the probability of Cold Fusion
being an energy source were 1% since the Return on Investment, ROI, would be
100 times $30 million = $3 billion and a new major energy source is worth more
than $3 billion. So it would be a good investment.
     However for an investment decision, the Risk Return Profile must be
studied.
     If the probability of Cold Fusion being useful were one per thousand, then
the ROI would be 1000 times $30 million = $30 billion and this would still be a
reasonable return on the investment. However if the probability were one in a
million, then the Return on Investment would be a million times $30 million = 
$30 000 billion and this would not be a reasonable figure, that is the 
$30 million would be a poor investment.
     So the basic question to determine the ROI, is; What is the probability of
Cold Fusion being a useful energy source?
     If one considers the Kamiokande experiment in the Japanese Alps with its
3000 ton detector, to be one of the most careful and well-controlled
experiments, then they found the  neutron rate to be less than 10 E-4 neutrons
per second (T. Ishida, ICRR-Report -277-92-15, Univ. of Tokyo). Now normally
one watt of power produces 10 E12 neutrons/second, so that the probability of
Cold Fusion is then 10 E-16. hence an investment of $30 million would be
justified if the expected return were $3.10 E14 billion - an unreasonable
expectation.
     Taking all knowledge previous to 1989, about d-d reactions and the
behaviour of hydrogen isotopes in metals such as palladium, then the
theoretical framework consistent with all these data, would give a probability
of less than 10 E-50. So a $30 million investment would require a ROI of at 
least $10 E48 billion.
    On the other hand, if La Repubblica is right and Cold Fusion is "scientific
fraud", then considerations of the Risk Return Profile do not apply.
     Hence the importance of the question "Do Fleischmann and Pons sincerely
believe in Fusion?"

2. EXPERIMENTAL TALKS

     2.1 M. Fleischmann. "Calorimetry of the Pd D2O system: the Search for
Simplicity and Accuracy"
            The first speaker at 08.00 hours was M. Fleischmann on behalf of
himself, S. Pons, Monique Le Roux and Jeanne Roulette of IMRA Europe SA. It was
entitled "Calorimetry of the D2O System; the Search for Simplicity and
Accuracy". It was a typical Fleischmann talk with frequent references to
undefined things and to named effects where it was assumed that all the
audience already knew what the effect was. Thus there were references to the
1928 work of Alfred Coehn, the work in 1934 of Pereg (?), the Gorsky factor,
pondermotive force, and "hidden state variables" which naturally were not
defined or explained. Next was what he called a "multi-linear regression
analysis" where the equations seemed similar to those of the non-linear
regression analysis published previously. He then said this was not
user-friendly and therefore he would recommend employing a linear regression
analysis.
     He stated that there was no oscillation in the cell voltage - this was in
answer to many people's astonishment that data were only recorded every 300
seconds when F&P were studying the final boiling period which lasted a total of
only 600 seconds, so that they wondered how one could detect any oscillations.
So now we have an affirmation but no evidence. Some graphs were shown but even
from the front row, it was impossible to read the writing so like others, do
not know what was being shown. Tom Droege very well described the talk as
"obfuscation".
     Fleischmann said an interesting phrase - "We should not invoke miracles to
explain results".
     After his talk, D.R.O. Morrison asked two questions;
a) In the present work it is assumed that the heat loss from the cell was 100%
radiative and there was no conductive loss. But in the original 1989 work, the
heat loss was always based on Newton's Law of Cooling which assumes the heat
loss is 100% conductive and 0% radiative. Both cannot be correct - which is
correct and which is wrong? (note; this can be seen from the power of the
temperature in the heat loss term - for 100% radiation the term has temperature
to the fourth power (Stefan's law) while for 100% conduction the temperature
is to the first power). The only group to use the non-linear regression
analysis were the General Electric group with Fritz Will, who found that one
needed both radiative and conductive terms.
b). In the original F&P 1989 paper and lectures, it was said that fusion
occurred because of the tremendous pressure on the deuterium, some 10 E26
atmospheres. Was this statement still valid?
     Fleischmann replied only to the first question saying that the problem of
radiation was solved by applying a silvered coating to the top of the tube of
the cell. The matter was left there although this reply did not in any way,
answer the first question.
     Later in his talk, Dr. Oriani answered the second question saying that
while the fugacity was high, it could not be used to assume a pressure of 10 E27
atmospheres.
     Further critical comments were made by Drs. Bockris and Oriani. Finally
the lecture did not seem to have inspired great enlightenment or enthusiasm.

     2.2 D. Gozzi - Excess Heat and Nuclear Product Measurements in Cold Fusion
Electrochemical Cells.
        Dr. Gozzi reported the new work of the Rome group. Excess heat and 4He
in the gas stream were found but the time correlation of the two effects were
not as expected.  No analysis of 4He in the palladium seems to have been done
nor was any analysis reported for 3He, particularly important when the amount
of H2O in the D2O was varied.. The excess heat does not seem to have been
measured as a function of the separation of the anode and cathode yet. There
were two rings of neutron counters (were they segmented as Steve Jones does
now?) and no effect seems to have been found. Found it difficult to follow all
the results and would like to study the full paper - also there seems not to
have been enough time to make some of the variations that allows one to try and
prove oneself wrong.

     2.3 IMRA Japan Co. Ltd - K. Kunimatsu "Observation of Excess Heat During
Electrolysis of 1M LiOD in a Fuel Cell Type Closed Cell".
       Here one had the excellent impression of an honest scientist who
expected to be able to find Cold Fusion effects, especially with the help of
the experts from IMRA Europe, but who was surprised that the results were not
quite as expected. Excess heat was observed especially at high loadings. The
use of thiourea and of choice of palladium was discussed, forgetting that in
1989, Fleischmann had said that there was no secret to obtaining excess heat.
With the facilities at their disposal it is to be hoped that soon they will
design and perform major experiments looking for 3He, 4He, t, n, p, and 21 keV
X-rays and will also vary the electrode separation. One looks forward with
pleasure to future reports in this honest style.

      2.4 IMRA Europe S.A. - S. Pons and M. Fleischmann - "Heat After Death"
     S. Pons presented results of experiments where the cell was made to boil
and then noted that when the cell was dry, instead of the cell temperature
falling steadily as expected from the estimated heat loss rate, it maintained
its temperature near 100 oC for some three hours - this was described in their
Physics Letters A paper ( Phys. Lett. A 176(1993)118). They now name it "Heat
After Death" where death refers to the "cessation of polarization" in their
language. This paper has been criticize by D. R.O. Morrison (Phys. Lett A, to
be published and CERN preprint CERN-PPE/93-96), one of the comments being that
at the higher temperatures, there had been no control experiment performed with
H2O instead of D2O. In Pons's talk an important new result was that a control
has now been done with H2O and is no Heat after Death was found, as the
temperature falls immediately on terminating the experiment. This claim, Heat
after Death, is considered truly miraculous by many and it will be very
interesting to see if it is confirmed by many other Believers, for it is a 
very simple experiment to perform.. An important consequence of the claim that 
the heat after death is observed with D2O but not H2O is that this indicates 
that fusion is occurring - though it was remarkable that their Phys. Lett. A 
paper never used the word "fusion" - very diffferent from March 1989 when
Cold Fusion was declared to be fusion.
    S. Pons then showed a slide from their original 1989 paper saying "Warning!
Ignition!" Steve Jones then asked if this result meant that they were claiming 
fusion? Pons seemed very reluctant to reply and avoided for some time repeated 
questions, saying it was evidence for fusion. Jones then reported that at BYU 
they had repeated these experiments of making the cell boil, and had observed 
no excess heat. Further he noted that they had observed wild fluctuations of 
the current and voltage during boiling, so that making observations every 
300 seconds for a phenomenon that only lasted 600 seconds (the time to boil dry 
the last half of the cell), would give incorrect results. Thus the first 
reported attempt to repeat the simple experiment of F&P had resulted in strong
contradiction with F&P's results and claims of "Heat After Death" etc. 
    During this discussion, S. Pons made a Freudian slip. One of the arguments
presented (CERN-PPE/93-96) against the F&P paper, was that the water would
leave the cell in an orderly way as gas vapour only, and would not carry water
droplets with it as it was blown out. This would mean that the basic assumption
used in claiming excess heat, that all the water could be assumed to have been
converted into vapour in the cell, was incorrect. Pons said "with palladium it
blows......it evaporates it all out". Tom Droege called this the "quote of the
conference".
     D.R.O. Morrison then followed up the "Warning! Ignition!" claim by asking
if in view of the dangers of ignition caused by fusion, whether they had worn
film badges. This greatly disturbed Pons who again was very evasive and tried
not to reply, causing the question to be re-phrased several times to be
absolutely clear. Finally it was appreciated that they did not wear film
badges.
     Most people appeared not to have understood the great importance of this
question - an exception was M. Fleischmann who was furious. The point of the
question is, do Fleischmann and Pons themselves really believe that they have
observed nuclear fusion? For if they had really and sincerely believed that it
was fusion, then they would have insisted that everyone took precautions
because of the danger of radioactivity. The carrying of film badges would be
not merely to check for the sake of their own health, but as responsible
people, they should worry about the safety of the lab assistants, cleaners,
technicians and others who may enter their lab. 
     One should also ask if normal safety controls for radioactivity have been
carried out elsewhere? - at SRI, IMRA Europe, IMRA Japan, Rome, Turin, China
Lake, etc? If a cleaner claims she has cancer because of radioactivity caused
by Cold Fusion experiments, will those responsible for the lab be able to
produce records covering the period?
     The fact that over the 8 years that they claim to have worked on Cold
Fusion in Utah, they appear not to have used film badges, casts great doubts on
the sincerity of Fleischmann and Pons's belief that excess heat came from
deuterium-deuterium fusion.

     2.5 J. Dufour - "Cold Fusion by Sparking Hydrogen Isotopes, Energy
Balances and Search for Fusion Products".
      In May 1989, was surprised to find that there was a "Regionalisation of
Results" - that in some parts of the World, Cold Fusion was never observed.
This seemed a good indicator of Pathological Science since one believes that
Science is universal and should not depend on the region. Until recently it was
the case that, as Dr. Scaramuzzi said "Cold Fusion stops at the Alps", for no
Cold Fusion claim had been made in France, Germany, Britain, Switzerland, etc.
However this clean situation has been changed by Dr. Dufour of Shell Research
who has carried out experiments at the Laboratoire des Sciences Nucleaires,
CNAM in Paris with Profs. Foos and Millot which they have published (in Fusion
Technology). The technique is by passing sparks through hydrogen isotopes
between electrodes made of palladium or stainless steel. They claim 100% excess
heat and suggest it comes from three-body reactions, the simplest being
          1H  +  1H  +  e-    --->   2H  +  neutrino
In the discussion, D.R.O. Morrison pointed out that the rates of three-body
reactions are exceedingly small as is shown in calculations of neutrinos from
the Sun. Tom Droege comments that "The problems of sorting out where the power
goes in this system are 'Awesome dude'". Further he notes that they say that in
the three-body reaction "most of the fusion energy being carried away by the
neutrino" and since neutrinos have a very low interaction rate, Tom
commented: "Let's see, how many earth diameters of moderator do we need to
capture that energy and turn it into useful heat?"

     2.6 Spark and Glow Discharges - Lukewarm Fusion
     A number of results were presented using glow or spark discharges, which
appear to show production of nuclear particles which were attributed to Cold
Fusion effects. However it was pointed out several times that it is quite easy
to generate high voltages of several keV and this would be enough to cause
energetic deuterons to produce nuclear reactions yielding the observed products
(note the particles near the centre of the Sun have about one keV energy). Thus
such glow and spark discharge experiments should really be considered as normal
nuclear reactions, that is lukewarm fusion (note - when I was talking with Dr.
Kucherov, someone approached and provocatively asked me what I thought of Dr.
Kucherov's experiments? Replied as above that I thought it was lukewarm fusion
and quite normal - Dr. Kucherov did not comment).

     2.7 Transmutation, Alchemy
          Several groups have claimed to have observed transmutations.
Sometimes these are modest claims, Potassium to Calcium, Rubidium to Strontium,
but some are more extensive such as the Russian claim of Kurcherov et al.,
"Concentration of individual elements (Na, S, In, Ag, Zr, Nb, Sn, K, Cl, Br,
Se, Ni, Mg, Zn, Ge, Sr, and some other) which were not present in the discharge
environment increased up to 104 times."
     The most dramatic claim, made first a year ago, was from Texas A&M. They
claimed to be able to transmute mercury into GOLD - the alchemist's dream!
However the only person who could perform this alchemy, Mr. Champion, was
arrested in Arizona on a fraud charge - a different one. Apparently he was
hired after he offered to a True Believer to bring $200000 for the research
work at Texas A&M. The question is where did this $0.2 million come from? It
appears there was an investment advisor in San Diego who had raised $7.8
million and who has now been charged by the SEC. The Texas A&M authorities are
considering the matter.
      Some researchers at Hokkaido University claim to have transmuted gold
into iron. Is this a success or a failure?  as it is much more useful to go in
the other direction and to transmute iron into gold.

3. THEORY

     3.1 Peter Hagelstein - "Nuclear Transfer Reactions and Lattice-induced
Nuclear Decay"
     A typical talk with many familiar looking Feynman graphs and many
multi-integrals and multi-summations - impressive but not too easy to follow
the physics. The main idea was that "significant energy transfer between nuclei
and a lattice can occur when highly excited impurity phonons modes are
frequency-shifted in the course of a nuclear reaction". Including coherence
effects, this gives four classes of reaction which can give different products
- however perhaps missed a precise prediction of the relative rates of tritium
to neutrons to 4He to gammas to 3He to excess heat - such ratios would have
allowed tests of the model. However many transmutations were predicted and
these will allow some tests of the model.
     D.R.O. Morrison asked two questions;
        (1) It appears that the Laws of Physics apply everywhere in the
Universe from the largest to the smallest scales except in Cold Fusion
experiments performed by Believers inside certain metal lattices where
different laws apply which result for instance, in different ratios of nuclear
products from d-d reactions. Now there must be a boundary where there is a
transition from the Universal Laws of Physics to Cold Fusion Laws - could
such a boundary be described in this theory?
        (2). The essential feature of the model is the presence of a lattice -
could this lattice be defined? For example could Cold Fusion occur in water,
perhaps in a lattice of ice?
     No real answer was given to the first question. For the second, Peter said
that he did not expect Cold Fusion to occur with water.

     3.2  G. PREPARATA - "COLD FUSION '93 - SOME THEORETICAL IDEAS".
     Dr. Preparata essentially explained his theory of Cold Fusion based on QED
coherence.
     D.R.O. Morrison noted that Dr. Preparata had applied his ideas of
coherence to water and had used them to support the claims of Dr. Benveniste
who said that it was possible to dilute antiserum by enormous amounts, up to
10 E120 times, and the beneficial effects were retained or enhanced - this was
considered the only scientific proof of homeopathy. Did Dr. Preparata consider
that Cold Fusion could occur in water? Dr. Preparata replied that he had never
written a paper to justify Benveniste's work. This rather surprised Morrison as
he had strong indications to the contrary, but in view of this unequivocal
statement, which did not even say that he had not published any paper, let the
matter drop while searching for references. During his talk later he quoted
Dieter Britz who had abstracted an article from Panorama of 18 April 1993.
Dieter's article says "A popular article describing the latest theory of of
Prof. Preparata, Milano, and co-worker Del Guidice, as well as the persons
themselves. Water, they point out, is quite anomalous. They suggest the
existence of egg-like clumps and long-range cooperative properties in water,
even at ambient temperatures. They then suggest that this may have a bearing on
Cold Fusion, as well as support the claims of Benveniste, a few years ago, who
claimed a kind of structural memory in water, and was ridiculed, especially by
the journal Nature, in which his paper appeared". By a coincidence the 9th
December edition of Nature contains a paper by Hurst et al. (Nature
366(1993)525) who repeated Benveniste's experiments and could not find the
effects claimed by Benveniste even going to dilutions of 10 E60.
     It was not a very happy conference for Dr. Preparata. According to Tom
Droege's report, the talk by Dr. Rabinowitz on "Opposition and Support for
Cold Fusion", made Dr. Preparata mad as he was not mentioned. The shouting
match finished with Dr. Rabinowitz saying that "there were three possible types
of errors that it was possible to make, and that Preparata had made all of
them". 

4. HISTORICAL TALKS

     4.1 Y. Kim, Special Lunch-time talk.
       One day it was suddenly announced that the lunch-break would be
shortened by 20 minutes to allow us to hear a special plenary talk by Dr. Y.
Kim, a theoretician from Purdue University, about early evidence for Cold
Fusion. A large fraction of the delegates cut their lunch short to hear this
important new result. Was greatly astonished to hear Dr. Kim report that Philip
Dee when working at the Cavendish Laboratory in Cambridge in the early 1930's,
had observed Cold Fusion in an experiment of firing deuterons on deuterons. Now
Prof. Phillip I. Dee was one of Lord Rutherford's closest colleagues and when he
became my professor in Glasgow, taught us all the Rutherford no-nonsense
approach to research. Prof. Dee was a man that I greatly admired as a scientist
and as a person. Unfortunately Prof. Dee is no longer with us and I am sure is
in Heaven, so I felt it was my responsibility to defend his honour. Told Dr.
Kim that Prof. Dee would have a strong opinion about Cold Fusion and would be
horrified at a theoretician taking one of his experiments as evidence for Cold
Fusion. If Dr. Kim was unfortunate enough to have to change his abode, would
recommend him not to chose Heaven as he would meet a very angry Prof. Dee.
     Dr. Kim replied at length, but the main thing I learnt was that he has
done little experimental physics. For a previous conference, he had written
that Cold Fusion could explain the Solar Neutrino Problem.
     4.2 Other Examples - Fleischmann, Reifenschweller
        In view of the relatively few new positive experimental results,
especially from IMRA Europe, it is perhaps not surprising that Fleischmann and
others have tried to scrape the barrel of science history to try and find some
odd result that would bolster Cold Fusion. Naturally there are a few odd
results caused by poor experimentation, poor analysis etc. which are in
contradiction with the majority of results which form a coherent picture. 
     At Maui Dr. Fleischmann presented a paper by himself, Larramona, Pons,
Preparata and Suigiura entitled "Alfred Cohen and After; the alpha, beta and
gamma of the Pd-H system". The first part of the talk was a discussion of how
Cohen's name should be spelt - apparently he favoured a different spelling.
This was followed by a rambling account of who said what when. In the second
part the phases of the Pd-H system were discussed and in addition to the
well-known alpha and beta phases, it was proposed that there must be another
new phase, the gamma phase. However no evidence apart possibly from Cold
Fusion, was presented to justify this hypothesis and possible contradictory
evidence was not discussed. A serious paper on this subject is awaited.
     While discussing Cold Fusion with Arthur C. Clarke at his home in Sri
Lanka, he showed me a paper he had received from a Cold Fusion advocate, which
was an article by William Bown in the New Scientist of 8 January saying that
Dr. Reifenschweller of Phillips had made some experiments in the 1960's where
he had observed that when a mixture of titanium and tritium was heated, the
radioactivity declined. This is now published in Phys. Letters A 184(1994)149.
He proposes "a highly unorthodox hypothesis, the nuclear pairing hypothesis"
where he assumes "that tritons absorbed in the extremely small single
Ti-crystals can combine into pairs and the decay constant of such a pair is
much smaller than that of a free triton". However Dr. Reifenschweller does not
seem to have checked that the tritons in Titanium are further apart than in T2
gas so this goes in the wrong direction to overcome the coulomb barrier effect.
His director then, Dr. Casimir, a famous and respected physicist, is quoted as
having said "it could be extremely important - but I didn't believe it". In
fact there are many experiments and a solid theoretical understanding based on
them, which have shown that radioactivity is not affected by external effects, 
and there is no reason to suppose that this single experiment performed many 
years ago, is different. Is it worth repeating? One has to take great care to 
avoid movement of tritium since the viscosity of hydrogen is very small
(spent part of my life checking hydrogen seals - tough). Opinions will differ
just as they differ as to whether one should check all Elvis sightings. 

5. ROUND TABLE
     The meeting finished with a round table (as usual it was not round but a
row of tables). It was announced that the next meeting - the fifth - would be
in early 1995 (March?) in the South of France and possibly a sixth in China in
the summer of 1995. Twelve people were asked to describe in three minutes, the
best talk that they had heard. Many ignored this and gave their opinion of the
conference or some other matter. For myself, nominated Steve Jones's talk for
it is my experience that when a scientist has announced an experimental result
which turns out to have been a mistake, he generally is reluctant to state
publicly that he was wrong. Steve has said that when he checked his claim that
large bursts of neutrons occur and this was evidence for Cold Fusion, he found
on improving his technique, that the effect vanished and hence he withdrew his
claim. This public scientific morality should be recognized, which is why he
got my vote.
     After the 12 three-minute statements were made, Tom Passell asked for any
comments from the audience - no one spoke. He asked for the panel members to
say something - silence. Then a voice from the audience asked "When can we go
to the beach?" This was supported and agreed to. It seemed a good reflection of
the enthusiasm of the True Believers for Cold Fusion and a fitting end to the
conference.

                                            (c)  Douglas R.O. Morrison.


cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenmorrison cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.11 / mitchell swartz /  On Mark North's ego on parade
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: On Mark North's ego on parade
Subject: Re: Mark North's ego on parade
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 1994 04:11:53 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA


  Previously Mark North <north@watop.nosc.mil> 
had incorrectly claimed Michael was actually Jed.

       >=mn "I was about to answer this post seriously 
       >=mn    when it became obvious to
       >=mn me that 'Michael' is none other than 
       >=mn     our own Jed Rothwell."

  Although definitively corrected by Michael, the
 correction proves to be of no effect.
In Message-ID: <north.760907392@watop>
Subject: Re: Mark North's ego on parade
Mark North (north@watop.nosc.mil) writes:
 
=mn "Interesting. How the hell do you know whether or not
=mn  Michael is Jed Rothwell.   ......
=mn The above highlighted text doesn't make sense coming from
=mn Michael but sure does coming from Jed. You see, if I
=mn  suggested anyone was masquerading it was Jed, not Michael. " 

   Since North now states that he
wishes to continue and post his half-baked  (or less)  delusion
regarding Michael purportedly being Jed, any reader ought
discount his other comments accordingly.


=mn  "Here you say I'm lacking in ego and below you say my
=mn  ego is bloated.   Which is it? Better get out that dictionary
=mn   you're so fond of quoting."

   Don't need a dictionary to know which way your wind blows.
"Lack of principle" is not mutually exclusive with ego bloat.


=  "All I can say is, you're one sick puppy, Swartz."

Sentient readers know that some mentally-handicapped
and most power-crazed individuals often begin 
ad hominems with such personal projections
like you now demonstrate, Mr. North,.


   >=mn    "OK, hotshot, how about giving some examples other 
   >=mn      than Rothwell and Swartz."

==mn    "Mea Culpa. I forgot Mallove."

  Mr. North proves that the theory of fractals
does apply to patterns of conduct which
Internet-muggers like himself demonstrate.   


      >  Mr. North, again lacking data to support his 
       >"brick-toss tactics",  has now decided to merely
        >continue his rabid unsupported absurdities..."

=mn  "I don't really need data  ....  So sue me.
=mn  And if you're not willing to do that then shut up."

Please post your, and the NCCOSC RDT&E Division, 
addresses.       Incidentally, given your hubric
knowledge of the field, exactly what do you do?  
        We thank you in advance.


== "Look, Swartz, you can always write your congressman
==  and complain if  you think you have a legitimate beef. "

Mr. North seems to admit and then boast that it is OK that
he might use U.S. Government money -- paid for by the reader --
to fund any personal, unscientific attacks, on the INTERNET
against scientists, citizens, and students of cold fusion.


     >    Attention is directed to the fact that it certainly
     >has been easy to find and document at least two
     >stupid utterly shameful and mean-spirited postings
     >from Mr. North, NCCOSC RDT&E Division, and 
     >watop.nosc.mil just this week.

== "I think you protest a wee bit too much.
==  Diversionary tactics perhaps?"

   No need for diversion.   I posted scientific 
questions which have never been answered by
even one of the TB-skeptics.  This was 
just an attempt at a statement of fact, Mr. North.
   I was wrong, however, in the quantity, because
 there are now three stupid utterly shameful and
 mean-spirited postings by you just this week.

  Best wishes. 
               Mitchell Swartz   [mica@world.std.com]










cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.11 /  blue@dancer.ns /  Replies to Mitchell Swartz
     
Originally-From: blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Replies to Mitchell Swartz
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 1994 15:44:35 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Mitchell Swartz has responded to my questions so I have taken the time
to answer his questions to the best of my ability.  I will probably
comment later on what he had to say.
     =====================================================
             opening the debate  ---  questions to the skeptics ---
      =====================================================
  Now for you, Dick.  [or Steve.  or John or Frank.  or  Dieter, or Tom ....  ]

<ms>   A) What proof do you have (mathematical and rigorous) that cold fusion
<ms>   must occur in the solid state EXACTLY as it does in a plasma?

 I have never made such an assertion!  What I have said is that basic
 physics does apply to this system, and that places some real constraints
 on what can occur.  For example, simple estimates of the interaction
 strengths and ranges can be used to set limits on perturbations of various
 nuclear processes.  Conservation laws still apply.  Now, if there were
 a specific hypothesized process on the table, we could apply sound
 logic to evaluate it; but cold fusion advocates have no hypothesis
 which can be tested.  Until YOU define that process it is pointless
 to request from us proof that it cannot occur.

<ms>   B) What proof do you have (mathematical and rigorous) that cold
<ms>   fusion in the solid state must produce neutrons?     isotopically

 In every nuclear system that has ever been studied neutron emission
 occurs if: (a) it is energetically possible  and (b) there is no
 competing decay process that is faster.   A simple application of
 good, old-fashioned inductive logic says that this applies independent
 of the matrix in which the reaction process occurs.  Unless you can
 provide a clear example to the contrary, I would say that constitutes
 as good a proof as science is likely to provide.

 <ms> C) What proof do you have (mathematical and rigorous) that cold
<ms> fusion in the solid state cannot involve non-gas (long-range)
<ms> interactions like (but not necessarily equal to) Mossbauer effect?

 How much freedom to invent new interactions are you asking for?  I don't
 consider it a reasonable approach in doing physics to rely on special
 pleading by demanding that the particular system under study exhibits
 features that have never been observed in any other system.  Within
 the constraints of known physics there simply is no interaction that
 can do all that is required.  There is no theory of cold fusion that
 agrees with your personal selection of valid data.

<ms>  D) What proof do you have (mathematical and rigorous)
<ms> that any of your "explanations" can give a semiquantitative reason
<ms> as to the observed generated excess enthalpy, nuclear products
<ms> on a reasonable order-of-magnitude basis?

 This is much too broad a topic for me to comment on completely.  Let
 me confine my remarks to one example.  Yamaguchi of NTT published the
 results of experiments which he claimed provided evidence for the
 production of 4He.  As I pointed out, his results were totally spurious
 because: (1) The mass spectrometer was operated at a sufficiently
 high pressure that peaks were broadened and distorted in shape. (ref
 see Yamaguchi).  (2) The presence of 4He was infered on the basis
 of changes in the shape of a peak that was predominantly due to D2+
 ions. (ref. see Yamaguchi).  (3) Since peaks were recorded in a slow
 scanning mode they are sensitive to rapid changes in partial pressure.
 (Figure that one out yourself.)  (4) The "4He signal" appeared only
 when the deuterium pressure was changing at a maximum rate. (ref see
 Yamaguchi.)  (5) There was no residual 4He signal when the operating
 pressure for the mass spectrometer returned to a more normal range.
 (see Yamaguchi.)  In other words the proof that the result was spurious
 is contained in the careful documentation that Yamaguchi provided.

<ms>   E)  Why do you hold F+P's purported behavior to a higher
<ms> ethical standard then those who apparently covered up the
<ms> cold fusion effect?

  Are you asking that our standards for F&P be lowered because you
 allege that someone else fudged their results?

<ms>  F)  How do you explain the helium-4 linked to the excess heat?

 If you are refering to the Miles data, I would say that the accuracy of
 the calorimetry is marginal and contamination of samples from atmospheric
 helium has been suggested as a likely explaination for at least some
 of the helium observations.  If the data set were pruned of these more
 doubtful results it is not clear that the link is so clearly established.
 More importantly the Miles result has not been confirmed or is partially
 contradicted by other results.  Until these questions are cleared up I
 don't see there is much to explain.

 <ms>  G)  How do you explain the excess enthalpy?

 This is the one question that is central to most discussions of the
 reality of cold fusion.  To rephrase it, how good are the measurements
 of excess enthalpy?  There are clear examples where the measurements
 are not good enough.  Recombination can easily account for some of
 the false positives.  Inadequate stirring, calibration drifts, poor
 thermometry, and faulty power measurement techniques are also involved.
 Particularly in early experiments with very poor reproducibility,
 the post selection of "positives" from a highly variable data set
 may be all that is required to explain the excess.

 <ms>  H)  How do you explain the helium?

 There are two effects here.  One is simple contamination directly from
 the atmosphere or indirectly from helium in glass or dissolved in the
 electrolyte.   The other effect is the erroneous identification of
 D2+ ions as 4He in a mass spectrometer.  I would prefer to see some
 form of optical spectroscopic identification of helium, but to the
 best of my knowledge no one has done this.

 <ms>   I)  How do you explain the tritium generation?

 Tritium is present in the D2O at some level to begin with.  The
 electrolysis process can lead to a concentrating of that tritium,
 and contamination from other sources has occured in some cases.
 The reliance on scintillation cocktail techniques without proper
 precautions against spurious signals of chemical origin may also
 account for some false claims.

 <ms>  J)  How do you explain the fact that the materials always give
 <ms> positive (i.e. >0) excess heat, and if it were a "systematic error"
 <ms> then some would be negative?

 You are making an assumption regarding the statistics of "systematic
 errors" that may not apply to this case.  For example, the presence
 of "bursts" in which there is an apparent large positive production
 of excess heat may be offset by longer periods in which the
 excess is negative.  The two signals are not equally detectable in
 relation to the noise.  Recombination represents a systematic error
 that is always positive.  It may also be that the measured power
 input has a biased error, i.e. is always underestimated.


 <ms> K)  How can you explain the fact the observed power density
 <ms> levels have been increasing since 1989 (10Watt/cm3) by two orders
<ms> of magnitude?

 I believe this assertion is more fiction than fact.  For example,
 if measurements made with small samples are compared with measurements
 made with large samples while the measured quantity is relatively
 insensative to sample volume, the small samples will result in
 a larger effect when that effect is scaled by sample volume.
 Unless you can provide data sets which show a clear scaling with
 sample volume  or data sets confined to comparable sample sizes
 that indicate the increase to which you refer there is nothing
 to explain.

 <ms> L) How can you explain the proliferation of subtechnologies
<ms> which now increase the likelihood of these reactions occurring?

 Without some underlying rational for linking observations on these
 subtechnologies the proliferation is more indicative of there
 being a pathology here in which the acceptance of one type of
 off-the-wall observation is used to justify more of the same.
 I don't see that adding more unexplained results does much to
 shore up the case being made for the original one.

 <ms>   M) How can you account for the energy produced which can
 <ms> exceed the known energy storage capacity of materials?

 I still believe in energy conservation.  It does seem to me, however,
 the relatively large energy storage capacity of the PdD system
 may present some difficulties for the types of measurements that
 are being put forth in support of cold fusion.  I would prefer
 the use of simpler, more direct, and more sensitive techniques
 to determine whether nuclear reactions are occuring.

 <ms> No handwaving, folks, professors.
<ms>     Thanks in advance for your serious  answers based upon
<ms> physics, chemistry, metallurgy, and engineering
<ms>                           and not just words of physics, etc.

Mitchell, until there is a specific, quantitative model for the
cold fusion process there is not much for a physicist to really
come to grips with.  Basically the data, as it presently stands,
does not make good sense so "just words of physics" is all that
can be used to address the question.  When you have some numbers
and equations of physics I am sure the response from the skeptics
will change.   But as long as the true believers stand around
waving their hands all we can do is wave back.

Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU






cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenblue cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Sat Feb 12 04:37:15 EST 1994
------------------------------
1994.02.11 / Scott Haney /  Re: Energy required for Fusion
     
Originally-From: haney@maverick.llnl.gov (Scott W. Haney)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Energy required for Fusion
Date: 11 Feb 94 16:26:11 GMT
Organization: Magnetic Fusion Energy - LLNL

rfheeter@theory.pppl.gov (Robert F. Heeter) writes:

>In article <bmcauley.11.2D5A1068@its.dundee.ac.uk>,
>Bernard McAuley <bmcauley@its.dundee.ac.uk> wrote:
>>As a complete novice in the realm of Fusion and power generation I gather that
>>whilst a Self-sustainable plasma has yet to be achieved a Fusion reactor can 
>>be run with a stable plasma if external energy is used to drive the 
>>containment field.  Is this correct?  If so how much is the difference between
>>the energy produced by the reactor and the energy required to contain a 
>>constant fusion reaction in modern reactor?
>>

>So far, the best achieved power-out/power-in ratio is about 1/5,
>achieved on the Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor here at Princeton last
>December.  However, the energy was only generated for 1-2 seconds.
>Other machines are in operation which can sustain plasma discharges
>for far longer, but by and large they aren't large enough to
>generate a large fraction of power from fusion.  This should
>change in (at most) a few years, as TPX, the Tokamak Physics eXperiment,
>is constructed and begins operation here at Princeton.  I
>believe TPX will achieve a decent power-out/power-in ratio
>and sustain discharges for on the order of a thousand seconds.
>The International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor, projected
>to begin operation around 2010 or so, should be a nearly-steady-state
>machine generating fusion energy well in excess of the input energy.

>This at least is what I understand.  I'd love to hear what everyone
>else knows, since this looks like a good candidate for inclusion
>into the FAQ file (also something still being planned & constructed).

>**********************
>Robert F. Heeter
>Graduate Student, Princeton Plasma Physics Lab
>rfheeter@lyman.pppl.gov
>Disclaimers Apply

Robert,

  The mission of TPX is to try to find reactor-relevant steady-state operating
scenarios, largely through control of profiles. To keep the price in the
4-500M$ range the machine is being designed with a major radius of 2.25m,
a minor radius of 0.5m, a field of 4T, and a current as high as ~2MA. One
important feature of TPX is its superconducting coil set. It is a D-D machine
and requires significant amounts of beam and wave power for current drive. 
It won't have a high power out/power in ratio but it will have really long
pulse lengths (much longer than 1000s I thought).
  As ITER is currently envisioned, it will be a whopper of a tokamak: 
approximately 8m major radius, 3m minor radius, 6T field, 25MA current.
The main mission of ITER is generating lots of fusion power (1500MW+) in
an ignited D-T plasma. Therefore, the power out/power in is infinity. The pulse
length envisioned is 1000s or so. The main ITER operating mode is inductive,
meaning that current is driven by changing the flux through the hole in the
donut. However, some recent studies have suggested that it might not be
outside the realm of possibility to have the ITER current driven non-inductively
(most by self-generated current called bootstrap current and some by ICRH or
beams). ITER will cost several billion dollars split between the
US, Japan, Russia, and the European Community.
  A relatively recent paper giving an overview of the state of Magnetic 
Fusion Energy research can be found in

   K.I. Thomassen, "Progress in Magnetic Fusion Energy Research," Proc. of the
   IEEE, Vol. 81, No. 3 (1993) 390.

Scott
--
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scott W. Haney        || Lawrence Livermore N'Lab || The above views are 
haney@random.llnl.gov || P.O. Box 808;  L-637     || mine and not neces-
(510) 423-6308        || Livermore, CA  94550     || sarily LLNL's.
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenhaney cudfnScott cudlnHaney cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.10 / Paul Koloc /  Re: (Long) Dictionary of Fusion Terms - first draft
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: (Long) Dictionary of Fusion Terms - first draft
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 1994 06:50:16 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <2iq563$icm@tom.pppl.gov> rfheeter@theory.pppl.gov (Robert F. Heeter) writes:
>Dictionary of Conventional Fusion Terminology
>The following is the beginning of a dictionary of terms used
>in conventional (not Cold) fusion research.  

>The current list was submitted by Jim Day (Jim.Day@support.com);
>I am looking for additional contributions (and improvements)
>to the list.  I have already made a few modifications myself.
>The current list is rather sketchy; however,  there are ..  .

>tokamak: a toroidal discharge chamber in which a 
>longitudinal magnetic field is used to confine a 
>plasma filament.

TOKAMAK  (tokomak)  
A three component magnetoplasma toroidal construct in which 
the poloidal magnetic component is provided by a toroidal plasma 
current. The other two components are coil driven, namely, the
vertical field (which opposes the major radial expansion) and
the toroidal field (which acts to provide a "stiff guide" field
for the plasma to gain more MHD stability.    

NOTE:
It is better to think that the toroidal or longitudinal field  
"stiffens" the plasma as against flopping or kinking, while the 
plasma current driven poloidal (locally azimuthal) field provides 
"confinement" pressure.  Actually, the toroidal field interacting 
with plasma diamagnetism may also contribute to a "magnetic 
bouyancy", which is a sort of UN-confinement -- (it actually gives 
the plasma a tendency to expand radially outward in the equatorial 
plane).  

>That's all there is so far!  Please add to the list as you
>get some spare time!
>
>*******************
>Robert F. Heeter
>rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
>Graduate Student, Princeton Plasma Physics Lab
>Usual disclaimers apply.


+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc,Bx 1037, Prometheus II, Ltd., College Park, MD 20740-1037 |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.10 / Paul Koloc /  Pd (Palladium) Recent Price Rise - CF Nearly Commercial??
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Pd (Palladium) Recent Price Rise - CF Nearly Commercial??
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 1994 07:32:14 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.


After reaching a low around 75$ per troy oz (35 grams) the  price
of Pd has been resting very stably at 125$ per oz for a goodly number 
of months.  It has drifted a bit, but only slightly following far 
behind the price fluxuations of other precious metals.  

Now however, with the Au and Pt retreating, Pd has instead just jumped 
10$ an oz.  Well any ideas..  Does J&M know something we don't??? or 
are the Japanese just anticipating a surge in  Nikki because of recent 
enacted supports.   When that happens, profits taken, often are "stored" 
in the form of Pd bars, and this tends to drive the Pd price up.  But 
when the Nikki crashes for a few days, the price of the metal then 
usually dives (also true for Pt -- but to a lesser degree).   I don't 
think that is the case this time, however.  

We shall see if it's a fluke or some perhaps some other use of Pd has 
arisen.  

+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc,Bx 1037, Prometheus II, Ltd., College Park, MD 20740-1037 |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.11 / L Plutonium /  Re: Debating cold fusion claims
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Debating cold fusion claims
Date: 11 Feb 1994 22:38:42 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In article <1994Feb10.152902.1359@physc1.byu.edu>
jonesse@physc1.byu.edu writes: [many paragraphs deleted]

>  However, I
> find that I have had to repeat myself, as if my technical arguments are
> being dismissed without much consideration.  Rather than respond
> to Mitch (and Jed and Ludwig) point-by-point this time, I will
> re-post extracts (for brevity) from a recent paper which I posted
> in its entirety in January 1994.

  Steve, a question, please. Has anyone tried doing the same
experimental set-up of cold fusion in Pd/LiOD electrolytic cells by
using only hydrogen. Just run an electric current or electric potential
through hydrogen? Then look for nuclear byproducts.
  What I am suggesting is that the repetition of experimental results
is enhanced by hydrogen vice Pd/LiOD. I believe Pd/LiOD is one of the
worst materials for this new phenomenon (spontaneous neutron
materialization.) I am aware that uranium and titanium was used in some
tests in place of Pd, with not much more satisfaction.
  I am suggesting that cold fusion is a new physics phenonemon
(spontaneous neutron materialization) where lab experimenters are going
in with the wrong theory in mind and false preconceptions -- yet the
phenomenon occurs in their experiments, some more or less than others.
Yet the measurements were prearranged under the wrong mindset and the
results are disappointing only because they disagree with the wrong
mindset. It is like everyone including Michelson in his famous
experiment saying that his experiment must be wrong because the ether
had to make it otherwise. 
  But if we entered the experiments of cold fusion with the correct
theory and performed the experiment under the correct theory. It would
be duplicated around the world and the new phenomenon (spontaneous
neutron materialization would then start to maximized for energy
production. Thanks for an answer.
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.12 / Mark North /  Re: egos on parade!
     
Originally-From: north@watop.nosc.mil (Mark North)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: egos on parade!
Date: Sat, 12 Feb 1994 00:17:05 GMT
Organization: NCCOSC RDT&E Division, San Diego, CA

emerge@delphi.com writes:

>Mark North <north@watop.nosc.mil> writes:
> 
>>I was about to answer this post seriously when it became obvious to
>>me that 'Michael' is none other than our own Jed Rothwell.
> 
>Dear Mark,
> 
>     Your recent response kind of typifies the problem I have with
>this conference.  Your assumption that I am masquerading under a
>secret identity for some unspecified sinister reason are so far out
>in left field, it doesn't warrant comment.

You've been here one week and you have a problem? Think of the rest of
us who've been here since its inception as alt.fusion about 4 years
ago! I suggest you lurk for a while longer before you come in here and
start chiding us. As a matter of fact, if you're so concerned about
us behaving as you think scientists should why don't you post some
scientific questions or comments instead of fueling the meta-debate?
If you would I am sure you would get serious and polite responses
from the many knowledgable and thoughtful folks who post here.
The responses will remain serious and polite until the perception
of obstinance sets in. Then you can expect some flak. So ponder
what you learn here and grow with it. 

I did not *assume* anything. It was based on several observations.
My conclusion may be wrong. For now, I will go an the assumption that
it was wrong, OK? On the other hand, I find your turn of phrase
interesting. My inference was that JR, if anyone, was 'masquerading'.
In your position, as a totally innocent bystander, my comment (if I were you) 
would
have been, 'Why does this person think I sound like JR'? Well, enough
of that, I just find your response peculiar. Now, here's the kicker.
Where in the hell did you get 'unspecified sinister reason'? It
certainly was unspecified so where did you get sinister? *Your*
negative assumptions put you right in the category of folks you're
bleating about.  And also in the category of JR, I might add. As for
not warranting comment, then why did you? Why didn't you keep your
own council and count to 10 as, I'm sure, many here have done many
times. I certainly have. After all, you've only been here a week, right?

>     This is essentially the same problem I see happening at all
>levels of this conference.  I expected to see disagreement based on
>different interpretation of test data.  

There's been plenty of that but you've only been here a week. Why 
didn't you lurk for a while before shooting your mouth off?

>I have no problem with
>debate, that's the nature of science.  

Not that I disagree, but what are your qualifications to pontificate
on the nature of science?

>Only a few discussions seem
>to fall into this category however.  The overwhelming majority of
>comments here fall into the category of "yes it is, no it's not"
>dribble without much supporting evidence.

Well, if you'd been here longer than a week (which I am *assuming*
you have not) and if you know anything about the nature of science
you would realize that the lack of supporting evidence on the one
side (TB) is devastating to their argument and causes them great
anguish (especially those that are financially involved) and that
the other side (skeptical) doesn't have the burden of demonstration
that such a thing as CF is not possible. So the issue is not
symmetrical. This is a very important point, think about it. 
The fact is, you have come into the debate at a very late
stage when most of the issues have been settled (i.e. that
CF is probably chimera) and all that are left are a few rabid
true believers and a larger number of folks who are interested in dotting
every 'i' and crossing every 't'. I include myself in the latter group
which is why I'm still here. Don't get me wrong, a lot of good
has come from the debate of scientific issues. And, I'm sure, a lot
of good has come from the meta-debate. But it is time to draw the
curtain of charity on this fiasco (apolgies to MT).  

>     The destructive negativity going on here has no place in
>science.  I believe that if I were treated the way some of you
>treat one another, I would simply stop participating.  Right or
>wrong, everyone deserves respect.

No, not everyone deserves respect. One must earn it. You seem to
have the same disease as Creationists in that all ideas are
basically democratic (when it suits one). Not true. Some ideas are
flawed from the beginning and deserve higher scrutiny.  

>     I have always subscribed to the notion that "one test is worth
>a thousand expert opinions."  Cold fusion is way out of the
>mainstream of science and bound to have zealots on both sides.
>I'd just appreciate more facts and less pure guess work.

Here, you really show your ignorance. The guess work has been on
the side of the TB's the facts have been on the side of careful
workers. If 'one test is worth a thousand expert opinions' why don't
you do your own? I have. I did the experiment. If CF is out of the
mainstream of science then what are we talking about? The paranormal?
Zealots on both sides? Again, you cast both sides equally. I suggest
you  learn more of the issue before making foolish statements. 

>    I have no idea whether there is any validity to cold fusion. I
>sta[r]ted reading this conference to gain a little knowledge on the
>subject!  

Keep reading, maybe you'll learn more than you have demonstrated
thus far.

>true.  But even to layman, it's obvious there is much work to be
>done before the *truth* will be known.  Claiming victory on either
>side seems premature to me.

Seems I hosed part of the above. Oh well. Anyway, no, not much more
work to be done. However, there is some interesting physics that has
come out of the whole fiasco. My personal favorite is fractofusion.
But you wouldn't know about that since you just started lurking
a week ago. Your sports anology again shows that your attitude is
on par with your complaint.

> 
>      Let's keep the blows above the belt!
> 

Let's keep the 'blows' on target.

Have a nice day,

Mark



cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudennorth cudfnMark cudlnNorth cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.12 / f wilson /  Welcome!
     
Originally-From: fwilson@SantaFe.edu (frederick george wilson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Welcome!
Date: 12 Feb 1994 00:59:40 GMT
Organization: The Santa Fe Institute

[ Article crossposted from sfi.bbs.syntactics-war-study ]
[ Author was frederick george wilson ]
[ Posted on 12 Feb 1994 00:46:35 GMT ]


to a newsgroup that will focus upon the study of the causes and prevention
of war, drawing upon all fields of endeavor, from cultural and artistic to
scientific and philosophical, and all lateral points of the spectrum. 
Input from users of diverse newsgroups is welcome, stressing the focus of
this one.
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenfwilson cudfnfrederick cudlnwilson cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.12 / Mark North /  Re: egos on parade!
     
Originally-From: north@watop.nosc.mil (Mark North)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: egos on parade!
Date: Sat, 12 Feb 1994 02:28:02 GMT
Organization: NCCOSC RDT&E Division, San Diego, CA

zcrah@trumpet.pgh.wec.com (Andy Holland) writes:

>In article <RU6p17P.emerge@delphi.com> emerge@delphi.com writes:
>>Mark North <north@watop.nosc.mil> writes:
>> 

>>     I have always subscribed to the notion that "one test is worth
>>a thousand expert opinions."  Cold fusion is way out of the
>>mainstream of science and bound to have zealots on both sides.
>>I'd just appreciate more facts and less pure guess work.
>> 
>>    I have no idea whether there is any validity to cold fusion. I
>>stated reading this conference to gain a little knowledge on the
>>subject!  I admit to being biased in so much as I *want* it to be
>>true.  But even to layman, it's obvious there is much work to be
>>done before the *truth* will be known.  Claiming victory on either
>>side seems premature to me.
>> 
>> 
>>Michael Mozina

>Exactly. What intrigues me reading this news group as an interested party,
>is that the pro-cold-fusion guys could learn alot from the con-side, *and*
>visa-versa. Scientific skeptism is a very powerful tool, and *civilized*
>interaction might eventually yeild the real *truth*, whatever that is. 
>When people dig themselves ego pits by making snap judgements of one
>another, the ability to obtain the real *truth* almost disappears.

I don't why you included my by line up there since you deleted what
I said. But since you did I feel obligated to comment. Real *truth*
is what philosophers seek, not scientists, OK? As far as snap 
'judgements' are concerned. If either you or 'Michael' had been here
more than a week and had any critical thought skills you would realize
that the folks who post around here have bent over backwards to 
accomodate the most bizzare 'theories' on how CF could be real.

I haven't been one of them. But no matter. You have a forum. 
Look, I don't know where you whiners get off. The folks that 
try to inject a little science around here have spent their
*lives* trying to learn something about the nature of the
world. And you come in here and try to suggest that they're
on an equal footing with the last guy you ran into at
the local bar. Hence, suggesting an ego trip. Why don't you 
comment on some scientific issue that has been discussed here?

>Some of the best scientific and engineering discoveries came from gross
>scientific errors, like 'bad air' from the eighteenth century and so on.
>Very good scientists believed them; nobody condemns Newton for thinking
>that comets fueled the sun! If you think that way, you might as well
>through calculus and F=dP/dt away because he was wrong a couple of times.

No, stuff that works works. Show something that works and you'll get
a lot of respect. Flap your lips and you'll get ridicule. 

>Maybe cold fusion is not fusion at all, but investigating the phenomenon
>would be useful in the long run. Maybe there is a quantum effect at low 
>temperatures that greatly increases the fusion cross section. Perhaps there
>is a catalyst particle, yet undiscovered. Why not work together and find out
>whats really going on, verify it and prove it without personal attacks,
>snide remarks, and snap jugements?

Well, if you knew any physics it would hone your 'maybes'. That way you
wouldn't look like a complete fool. Sound arrogant? Spend half your life
learning the trade, then whine. 

>Its time to discuss these issues rationally, scientifically, and try to 
>reconcile the differences in a constructive manner. It is possible, it
>just[s] takes a little humility.

Humility? You could start with yourself. Where have you been when
far greater beings than yourself have discussed rationally, scientificaly
and with  grace the issues in this forum? 

Mark

cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudennorth cudfnMark cudlnNorth cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.09 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Turning on the scientific debate (was closing off...)
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Turning on the scientific debate (was closing off...)
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 1994 19:04:35 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <CKyLqG.11o@world.std.com>,
mitchell swartz <mica@world.std.com> wrote:

>  Now for you, Dick.  [or Steve.  or John or Frank.  or  Dieter, or Tom ....  ]
>
>   A) What proof do you have (mathematical and rigorous) that cold fusion
> must occur in the solid state EXACTLY as it does in a plasma?
>
>   B) What proof do you have (mathematical and rigorous) that cold
> fusion in the solid state must produce neutrons?     isotopically   
>
>  C) What proof do you have (mathematical and rigorous) that cold
> fusion in the solid state cannot involve non-gas (long-range)
> interactions like (but not necessarily equal to) Mossbauer effect?
>
>  D) What proof do you have (mathematical and rigorous)
> that any of your "explanations" can give a semiquantitative reason
> as to the observed generated excess enthalpy, nuclear products
> on a reasonable order-of-magnitude basis?

     I'm afraid the burden of proof (mathematical and rigorous)
     is on y'all.  Along those lines, what proof (mathematical and 
     rigorous) do you have that anything is happening anywhere?

     As usual, the ackolytes of cold fusion completely misunderstand
     science.

>    E)  Why do you hold F+P's purported behavior to a higher
> ethical standard then those who apparently covered up the
> cold fusion effect?

      Why do you claim a coverup when the principals (P&F) have
      been covering up *their own experiments* and threatening legal
      action against people who disagree with their conclusions.
   
      Indeed, several bad papers have been published in respectable
      journals.  I'm quite sure *I'd* have not been able to get by with 
      their papers, so I think a good case can be made that they've
      received preferential treatment.

>   F)  How do you explain the helium-4 linked to the excess heat?

      Experimental error.

>   G)  How do you explain the excess enthalpy?

      Experimental error.

>   H)  How do you explain the helium?

     Atmospheric contamination.  You have helium in your spleen, but I 
     don't think any cold fusion is occurring there.

>    I)  How do you explain the tritium generation?

     Outside contamination, possibly including intentional spiking
     in one lab and natural fractionation during long boiling runs.
     Spiking has been alleged with circumstantial substantiation
     in several of the more ballyhooed tritium 'events'.

>   J)  How do you explain the fact that the materials always give
> positive (i.e. >0) excess heat, and if it were a "systematic error"
> then some would be negative?

     Experimental self-selection.

>  K)  How can you explain the fact the observed power density
> levels have been increasing since 1989 (10Watt/cm3) by two orders 
>of magnitude?

     This is not true.  P&F were claiming far higher levels in 
     1989 (1000 W/cm^3).

>  L) How can you explain the proliferation of subtechnologies
> which now increase the likelihood of these reactions occurring?

     This is just BS.
     
>    M) How can you account for the energy produced which can
> exceed the known energy storage capacity of materials?

     The premise is false.  Long term experimental error voids 
     the 'can exceed the known energy storage ...'.

>  No handwaving, folks, professors.
>     Thanks in advance for your serious  answers based upon 
>physics, chemistry, metallurgy, and engineering
>                           and not just words of physics, etc.

     No, words of the experimental method will suffice.

     Face it, no one has even given semi-reasonable responses to 
     the severe difficulties with P&F's last 'peer-reviewed' paper.
     The burden of proof is on those asserting new and wonderful effects,
     not on those who disbelieve.  And if Pons had created that 
     little ol' heater he promised in *1989*, then we'd not be having
     this discussion.  The fact that he hasn't is telling, and the
     fact that they cannot write clear papers is telling, and every
     new tidbit out of the south of France seems damning...

     You tell me the import of measuring wildly fluctuating voltage
     and current once every 300 seconds for a 600 second 'event'?
     Or how about a cell that *sits* at 100C for three hours
     with the power turned off?  So not only is cold fusion new and 
     wonderful, but it's magical too.

     You're flogging a dead horse and attributing the moving tail to 
     life.

                              dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.10 / Lars Joedal /  Basic information of fusion wanted
     
Originally-From: joedal@dfi.aau.dk (Lars Joedal)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Basic information of fusion wanted
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 1994 09:47:06 GMT
Organization: Aarhus University

My father is a teacher for a high school class that is going on a
trip to England where (among other things) they are going to visit
the JET fusion laboratory.  He has asked me if I could find some
basic material on (hot) fusion.

So: Can anybody point me to some FAQs, basic review articles (in
electronic form or in journals), or any other not-too-advanced
information on fusion?
Second, can anybody give me a status report on JET - has there
been any news recently (i.e., within the last few years), for how
long are they funded, etc.

Thank you in advance!

/Lars

+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Lars J|dal                | Q: What's the difference between a quantum |
| email: joedal@dfi.aau.dk  |    mechanic and an auto mechanic?          |
| Physics student at the    | A: A quantum mechanic can get his car into |
| University of Aarhus      |    the garage without opening the door.    |
| Denmark                   |                    -- David Kra            |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+



cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenjoedal cudfnLars cudlnJoedal cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.10 / Cameron Bass /  Re: egos on parade!
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: egos on parade!
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 1994 00:30:33 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <RU6p17P.emerge@delphi.com>,  <emerge@delphi.com> wrote:
>Mark North <north@watop.nosc.mil> writes:
> 
>>I was about to answer this post seriously when it became obvious to
>>me that 'Michael' is none other than our own Jed Rothwell.
> 
> 
>Dear Mark,
> 
>     Your recent response kind of typifies the problem I have with
>this conference.  Your assumption that I am masquerading under a
>secret identity for some unspecified sinister reason are so far out
>in left field, it doesn't warrant comment.
> 
>     This is essentially the same problem I see happening at all
>levels of this conference.  I expected to see disagreement based on
>different interpretation of test data.  I have no problem with
>debate, that's the nature of science.  Only a few discussions seem
>to fall into this category however.  The overwhelming majority of
>comments here fall into the category of "yes it is, no it's not"
>dribble without much supporting evidence.

    I was under the impression you've been around a very short time.
    From whence did you get a detailed impression of the group, it's been
    pretty quiet around here since the Maui conference?  I'm beginning
    to smell a rat.

    So, how could you know what we've discussed in the past?  In fact,
    we had quite a time with P&F's most recently published paper
    in a peer-reviewed journal.  To my knowledge, none of the proponents
    have even attempted to answer very grave criticisms regarding that paper.

    The only tidbit we did get, about the horribly inadequate sampling
    rates for data collection, just increased the problems with that
    paper.

>    I have no idea whether there is any validity to cold fusion. I
>stated reading this conference to gain a little knowledge on the
>subject!  I admit to being biased in so much as I *want* it to be
>true.  But even to layman, it's obvious there is much work to be
>done before the *truth* will be known.  Claiming victory on either
>side seems premature to me.
> 
>      Let's keep the blows above the belt!
   
     Make whatever blows you wish, but it seems a bit odd for someone
     with two contentless posts to be lecturing on posting content.

     Besides, the 'truth' became apparent several years ago, and it's certainly
     no 'victory' for anyone.  The phenomenon remains undemonstrated,
     and there is no basis for attributing any of the results to 
     'cold fusion', but I don't consider that a victory, just a fact.

                               dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.10 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Egos: Part II
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Egos: Part II
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 1994 00:45:58 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <Rc0K9LL.emerge@delphi.com>,  <emerge@delphi.com> wrote:
> 
>     Several people have commented that a week's worth of reading doesn't
>constitute much of a knowledge base.  I agree.  I would point out however
>that I had read about 3 weeks worth of postings in this conference including
>the two previous weeks I had access to.  This still certainly doesn't qualify
>me as an expert.  I truly hope to be swayed from my initial opinion over the
>next few months.  I keep an open mind.

    So that's how long our 'probation' lasts?  I think you'll find that
    no one cares, we're not here to entertain you, nor are we paid to 
    inform you.  However, if you want to foot the bill, I'm sure there
    are many of us who would be willing to engage in exchanges of 
    technical reports on this subject.  Otherwise, we're going to have
    to look at this the way it is:  a bunch of people who post on what
    they please, when they please.  If you have fun and learn something,
    great.  If you don't, there's always alt.swedish.chef.bork.bork.bork.

>     I do however stand by belief that this conference is WAY long on
>personal attacks on short on facts.  It's tough to learn anything if all you
>read is "HAHAHAHAHA" and personal insults.  I'm here to learn.

    Then post about something.  That's four postings now about
    nothing, except an effort to attack the group itself.  I admit
    that that's not a 'personal attack', but it's a subtle distinction,
    and it doesn't seem 'long on facts' the lack of which you have 
    now bemoaned repeatedly.

    I'd be more than willing to discuss anything in P&F's recent
    paper in Phys. Lett. A.  I'm sure others would be more than happy
    to discuss any technical issue you care to raise.

                              dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Sun Feb 13 04:37:04 EST 1994
------------------------------
1994.02.12 / Robert Heeter /  (Long!) Conventional Fusion Reading List, 2nd draft, Part 1
     
Originally-From: rfheeter@flagstaff.Princeton.EDU (Robert Franklin Heeter)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: (Long!) Conventional Fusion Reading List, 2nd draft, Part 1
Date: Sat, 12 Feb 1994 21:33:10 GMT
Organization: Princeton University


Conventional Fusion Reading List - second draft

******* Introductory Notes ************

This file is my attempt to answer the FAQ, 
"What literature is there on the subject of fusion?"

Note that this Reading List is for the "conventional" types
of fusion, and not for Cold Fusion.  

******* Notes on the construction and organization of the Reading List ******

I have revised and improved the initial draft.

The goal here is to provide a few major references at a
variety of levels on each of a variety of topics.  The
current Reading List is pretty sketchy, and owes much of
its current size to a list of references sent to me
by Jim Day (Jim.Day@support.com).  In general I intend
to limit the size of the bibliography by ignoring any work
over 15 years old, unless it is considered a classic in
the field.  I may need to drop the limit to 10 years,
since the list is getting large.

I am not yet sure precisely what format this Reading List
will take, nor do I have enough references to flesh it
out completely.  I would appreciate it if everyone would 
contribute suggestions of books, review articles, articles
in the popular literature, and even new topics to be included 
in the Reading List.

In order to make this bibliography easier to use, I have sorted
the books into the following general categories:
  
A. Recent articles in the popular literature.
B. General References and Histories 
(suitable for those with minimal background in physics or fusion).
C. Fusion Research Review Articles
D. Plasma Physics - General Texts 
(focus is on the science of plasmas, rather than engineering of reactors)
E.  Plasma Physics - Device-Specific
(applications of plasma physics to specific devices)
F. Fusion Reactor Engineering References
G. List of Relevant Scientific Journals
H. Unclassified / Unsummarized works.  (Please help me move references
out of this section and into sections 1-4 by contributing reviews of
sources you know about!)

Currently I suggest that each reference included in the
Reading List contain the following information:

<<<
Name of Topic:

(#) LastName, Firstname/Initials.  _Title_. [# of pages] Publisher. 
Date.
	
	Descriptive blurb including summary of contents.  
	
	Level of Text
	[Name & Email address of reviewer.]
>>>

(this appears to be similar to what you get in a library search)

Here is a sample application of the above template:

History of Fusion Research:

(1) Herman, Robin.  _Fusion: The Search for Endless Energy_. 
	[267 p.] Cambridge University Press. 1990.

	A relatively nontechnical history of fusion energy research
	from 1951-1989.  Focus on U.S. magnetic confinement research.
	Includes glossary of terms and scientists.

	High-school level.
	[Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu]

Note that it would be best to avoid editorial comments and to
try not to make too many judgment calls in the summaries!

Ok, with this as a template, here is what I have currently:
(acknowledgements to Jim Day and Bruce Scott whose contributions
account for the majority of what appears here.)


************************************************************************
********** Reference List of Conventional Fusion Literature ************ 
************************************************************************

*** A. Recent articles in the popular literature.

* Conn, et al, "The International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor," 
_Scientific American_, April 1992.  

	Describes plans for ITER.

	Level - high school physics.
	[Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu]


* Lemonick, Michael.  "Blinded by the Light," _Time_, Dec. 20, 1993, p. 54.

	Describes the first high-power D-T experiments on TFTR.

	Level - basic literacy. :)
	[Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu]

Note:  Science, Scientific American, and Nature often have articles.



*** B. General References and Histories 
(suitable for those with minimal background in physics or fusion).

* Bromberg, Joan Lisa.  _Fusion: science, politics, and the invention of a 
new energy source_.  [376 p.] MIT Press. 1982.

	DOE-authorized history of the US fusion program.  Author claims 
	no political pressures and a focus on political influences on
	science.  Focuses on US efforts at DOE labs.

	High-school level.
	[Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu]


* Herman, Robin.  _Fusion: The Search for Endless Energy_. 
	[267 p.] Cambridge University Press. 1990.

	A relatively nontechnical history of fusion energy research
	from 1951-1989.  Focus on U.S. magnetic confinement research.
	Includes glossary of terms and scientists.

	High-school level.
	[Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu]


* Voronov, GS.  _Storming the Fortress of Fusion_. [335 p.] Translated
from Russian by R.S. Wadhwa.  Original text 1985, revised 1988. Mir
Publishers, Moscow.  

	Appears to be highly enthusiastic; contents
	indicate chapters on inertial confinement and muon-catalyzed
 fusion as well as tokamaks, stellarators, pinches, etc.  

	Level: one year college physics.
	[Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu]



*** C. Fusion Research Review Articles

* Colombo and Farinelli, "Progress in Fusion Energy," _Annual Reviews of 
Energy and the Environment_, 1992, pp. 123-160.

	A comprehensive summary of the state of fusion research.

	Level - Not very technical, some familiarity with terminology helpful.
	[Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu]


* Holdren, et al, "Exploring the Competitive Potential of Magnetic Fusion 
Energy:  The Interaction of Economics with Safety and Environmental 
Characteristics," _Fusion Technology_, Jan 1988.

	Summarizes the results of the ESECOM fusion-reactor-design study.  
	Concludes that improved tokamaks are likely to be economically 
	competitive with fission and breeder-fission reactors.

	Level - familiarity with fusion terminology necessary.
	[Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu]


* Holdren, John P., "Safety and Environmental Aspects of Fusion Energy," 
_Annual Reviews of Energy and the Environment_, 1991, pp. 235-58.

	??? Probably what it sounds like.  Holdren is a fusion proponent 
	and does reactor design studies, among other things. ???
	[Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu]



*** D. Plasma Physics - General Texts 
(focus is on the science of plasmas, rather than engineering of reactors)

* Chen, Francis F. _Introduction to plasma physics and controlled fusion, 
	vol 1._  [421 p.]  Plenum Publishing Corporation. 2nd edition, 1984.

	Intuitive (vs. mathematically rigorous) general plasma physics 
	text.  Chapters on single-particle motion, MHD, waves, diffusion & 
	resistivity, equilibrium & stability, kinetic theory, nonlinear 
	effects.  IMHO, frequently used as an undergraduate / basic 
	graduate text.  "It provides all the plasma physics you could need.  
	However, like the title states, it is an INTRODUCTORY text.  
	Sometimes, the physical descriptions are not very rigorous, almost 
	too simple." - Robert Buckles
	
	Level:  Junior/Senior Undergraduate		
	[Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu]
	[Albert Chou, albert@seas.ucla.edu]
 [Robert Buckles, buckles@cae.wisc.edu]


* Hazeltine, RD, and Meiss, JD, _Plasma Confinement_ [411 p.]
	(Addison Wesley, 1992)

	Confinement-oriented approach to plasma physics, largely 
	fusion-oriented, tending towards theoretical as opposed to 
	experimental topics (from the intro). Chapters on Equilibrium 
	of confined plasmas, Kinetic description, Coulomb collisions, 
	Fluid Description, Stability of confinement, Collisional transport, 
	Nonlinear processes. "I know Chen's book pretty well, Miyamoto's 
	less well. Both are inferior to Hazeltine and Meiss..." - Bruce Scott

	Level:  Graduate or advanced undergraduate.
	[Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu]
	[Bruce Scott, bds@hagar.ph.utexas.edu]


* Ichimaru, S. _Statistical Plasma Physics_ [2 volumes] Addison-Wesley. 
1992.  

	First volume treats plasma theory from statistical-kinetic 
	point of view as an extension/application of statistical
	mechanics.

	Graduate level.
	[Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu]


* Krall, N., and Trivelpiece, A.. _Principles of Plasma Physics._ [674 p.]
San Francisco Press, 1986.

	Comprehensive introductory text for graduate students.  Chapters 
	on basic concepts and terminology, fluid/MHD models, 
	statistical/kinetic models, waves, stability, transport.

	Graduate level.
	[Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu]


* Miyamoto, Kenro. _Plasma physics for nuclear fusion._ [640 p.]
	MIT Press. 1989.

	This is another general plasma physics textbook, angled 
	towards the fusion applications.  Major sections on introductory 
	material, MHD, Kinetic descriptions, and "Heating, 
	Diagnostics, and Confinement."

	Graduate or senior undergraduate Level.
	[Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu]


* Nicholson, Dwight R.  _Introduction to Plasma Theory._ [292 p.]
	John Wiley and Sons. 1983.

	Introductory plasma physics textbook, emphasis on theory, not 
	meant to be used as a reference.  Contents, in order:  
	Introduction, Single-Particle Motion, Kinetic Theory 
	(3 chapters with progressively more approximations), 
	Vlasov Equation, Fluid Equations, MHD, Discrete Particle 
	Effects, Weak Turbulence Theory.

	Beginning graduate / advanced undergraduate level.
	[Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu.]


* Rose, DJ, and Clark, M, Jr, _Plasmas and Controlled Fusion_ (MIT, 1961)
	
	"For those who want a good dose of some plasma physics aspects 
	and a little less reactor technology, Rose and Clark is better 
	than Kammash (also for those like me who are familiar with the 
	physics and want a really basic intro to the engineering aspects).  
	Unfortunately it is pre-tokamak, so the methods and _basic_ 
	calculations involved in things like induction emf fields are 
	not present." - Bruce Scott

	[Bruce Scott, bds@hagar.ph.utexas.edu]



*** E.  Plasma Physics - Device-Specific

* Wesson, John. _Tokamaks_ [309 p.] Oxford Science Publications, 1987.

	A clear introduction to the Tokamak concept, to the related 
	plasma physics and to some diagnostic techniques.

	Graduate level, basic plasma knowledge required.
	[Emilio Martines, martines@pdigi3.igi.pd.cnr.it]


* White, R. _Theory of tokamak plasmas._  [361 p.] North-Holland Physics, 1989.

	From the Preface: "These notes accompany a graduate course 
	taught at Princeton, designed to provide a basic introduction 
	to plasma equilibrium, particle orbits, transport, and those 
	ideal and resistive magnetohydrodynamic instabilities which 
	dominate the behavior of a tokamak discharge, and to develop 
	the mathematical methods necessary for their theoretical analysis."

	"I know Chen's book pretty well, Miyamoto's less well. Both are
	inferior to R White's recent book." - Bruce Scott 

	Advanced Graduate Level.
	[Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
	 - I take the course next year and will know this text intimately. :)]
	[Bruce Scott, bds@hagar.ph.utexas.edu]



*** F. Fusion Reactor Engineering References

* Kammash, Terry.  _Fusion reactor physics: principles and technology._
Ann Arbor Science Publishers. 1975.

	"For those who care mostly about engineering aspects and want 
	to know the physics involved in controlling and heating a 
	reactor plasma, Kammash is the first place to go." - Bruce Scott

	[Bruce Scott, bds@hagar.ph.utexas.edu]

(This section certainly needs to have more literature reviewed, but
it's not (yet) my field of expertise.  Help anyone?)



*** G. List of Relevant Scientific Journals
 (Anyone care to write short blurbs about some of these journals?)

	Fusion Technology
	Nuclear Fusion
	Physical Review Letters
	Physics of Fluids B (Now Physics of Plasmas)
	(there are certainly others)


*****************************
Part 2 to follow shortly.

Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@lyman.pppl.gov
Graduate Student, Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory
(Disclaimers Apply)

cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.13 / mitchell swartz /  Politics and Fusion (misstatements by North)
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Politics and Fusion (misstatements by North)
Subject: Re: Politics and Fusion (was "egos  on parade!")
Date: Sun, 13 Feb 1994 03:53:55 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Organization: NCCOSC RDT&E Division, San Diego, CA

  In Message-ID: <north.761094175@watop>
Subject: Re: Politics and Fusion (was "egos  on parade!")
Mark North (north@watop.nosc.mil) writes:   

=mn  "Yes, threat of legal action is one of the tactics of a scoundrel. Not
=mn  only are P&F guilty of it but so, of course, is Swartz. "

    Mark North, void of principle, remains long on error
as he makes several new misstatements in fewer
sentences.  

 First,P&F did not "threaten" litigation, they did it.

 Second, that would make P&F the plaintiffs, and the
defendants would then be "guilty" or "innocent", unless
of course they settle out-of-court.

  Third, as the record demonstrates, despite North's
ridiculous false statements, 
all comments of requesting legal action against him
were actually from none other than: Mark North. 

    And here is the proof.   Previously, North  posted: 

     ==mn  "So sue me.
     ==mn  And if you're not willing to do that then shut up."
[From:  north@watop.nosc.mil (Mark North) [Subject:Mark North's ego on parade]
Message-ID: <north.760907392@watop> Sender: news@nosc.mil (Network News)
Organization: NCCOSC RDT&E Division, San Diego, CA
References: <CKzJMy.2nr@world.std.com> Date: Thu, 10 Feb 1994 19:09:52 GMT]

   So as anyone can read, North wrote "So sue me".
 Therefore, the request for "legal action" actually originated
in Mark North's (north@watop.nosc.mil;NCCOSC RDT&E
Division, San Diego, CA) mouth/terminal.  

   One interpretation is that North has not told the truth.
    A second implication of this now debunked fraud 
is that North has acted like a scoundrel.
  Another implication is that if this continues, North may 
demonstrate that he is unable to tell the truth.
[For those who follow North and his nonscientific comments,
this was no less than the fourth utterly shameful, illogical,
and  mean-spirited posting made by North 
(of NCCOSC RDT&E Division) this week.]

QUAERIE?
    Why does North  use a "crow-bar"-approach against citizens interested
in cold fusion who are wandering down the Information Superhighway?
   [On any other highway this would be a mugging.]

           Best wishes, colleagues. 
                           Mitchell Swartz   [mica@world.std]





cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.12 / Robert Heeter /  Re: Basic information of fusion wanted
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Basic information of fusion wanted
Subject: Re: Laymen Q: Was Princeton's Fusion a 'breakthrough?'
Date: Sat, 12 Feb 1994 17:42:43 GMT
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1993 12:01:28 GMT
Organization: Princeton University
Organization: Joint European Torus

In article <joedal.760873626@dfi.aau.dk> Lars Joedal, joedal@dfi.aau.dk
writes:
>My father is a teacher for a high school class that is going on a
>trip to England where (among other things) they are going to visit
>the JET fusion laboratory.  He has asked me if I could find some
>basic material on (hot) fusion.

Well, this is the place to ask!

>So: Can anybody point me to some FAQs, basic review articles (in
>electronic form or in journals), or any other not-too-advanced
>information on fusion?

The FAQ is still under construction (I'm the one editing
it), but I'd be happy to send you the parts I have here via 
email.  How soon do you need the info?  If you can hold
out for another day or so, the latest revisions of the 
bibliography and dictionary-of-terminology will be posted
(as soon as I revise them!).  There should be enough
references there that you can get some good information.

>Second, can anybody give me a status report on JET - has there
>been any news recently (i.e., within the last few years), for how
>long are they funded, etc.

There are people working at JET who read this group;
hopefully one of them can give you a complete rundown.
In the meantime, here are excerpts from a posting
I have here in my archives.  After giving some
background info, I will post the article, and then
make comments in various places to help the non-fusioneer 
decipher what is being said.

Historical Background:  

The Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor
here at Princeton switched from a pure-deuterium fuel
to a deuterium-tritium (D-T) fuel mixture in December 1993.
The D-T fuel is easier to fuse, but the neutrons produced
in the reaction D + T -> 4He + n will slowly make the
reactor radioactive, so this set of experiments will be
the last for TFTR.  In these reactions, over 6 million
watts (MW) of fusion power were produced for about a second.
(There was an article on this in _Time_, Dec 20, 1993,
p. 54, at least in the American edition; there are of course 
other articles out there too.)

In 1991, the Joint European Torus (JET) in Britain did a few 
similar shots using a lower-power D-T fuel mixture (less T 
than optimal to avoid activating the reactor too much), and 
generated 1.7 MW of fusion power.  The following article
was submitted by a researcher at JET in response to some
questions regarding the two machines and their results.

Article follows:

***********

TFTR results vs JET results from 1991:
(Written by Stephen R. Cooper at JET.)

From src@jet.uk Tue Dec 14 11:14:34 EST 1993
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Laymen Q: Was Princeton's Fusion a 'breakthrough?'
Organization: Joint European Torus
References: <2ebdvg$44e@Mercury.mcs.com> <2ei3vk$o7o@mailer.fsu.edu>
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1993 12:01:28 GMT

In <2ei3vk$o7o@mailer.fsu.edu> jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) writes:
>As I recall, the reports from JET in November 1991 indicated a Q of
>about 1/9 for the light load of t, with plans to increase the t 
>to 50% by 1996.  I think their extrapolation to 50% indicated 
>they would be very close to breakeven at that point, but do not
>recall the details. 

>Could some JET person fill us in?

[ Note by rfheeter: Q is the ratio of power produced in the
machine by fusion to power put into the machine to heat
the plasma. Q = 1 means fusion yield is equal to power
input.  Economical fusion will require Q significantly 
greater than 1.]

Results quoted from "The JET Preliminary Tritium Experiment", 
invited talk given to the 1992 International Conferance on 
Plasma Physics by P-H Rebut, Innsbruck, Austria, 29th June-3rd 
July 1992).

"Two Deuterium plasmas were heated by high power deuterium 
neutral beams from fourteen sources and fuelled by two neutral 
beam sources injecting tritium. In the best of the two D-T 
discharges, the tritium concentration was about 11% of bulk plasma 
at peak performance, when the total neutron emmision rate was 
6.0E17 per second, with 1.7MW of fusion power. The fusion amplification
factor Q(DT) was 0.15. With an optimum tritium concentration, this pulse
would have produced a fusion power 
~ 5MW and nominal Q(DT) of 0.46. The same extrapolation for the 
best pure deuterium discharge of the PTE series gives about 
11MW and a nominal Q(DT) of 1.14.

[ Note by rfheeter:  neutral beams are made by accelerating
deuterium ions, and then neutralizing the ions so that they
can fly into the magnetic field of the tokamak without being
deflected.  As they enter the plasma, they are re-ionized
and their energy is subsequently shared with the other 
ions in the plasma.  Thus this is a method for simultaneously
heating and refueling the plasma. ]

The total integrated total neutron yield was 7.2E17 with an 
accuracy of +/- 7% and the total fusion energy was about 2MJ. 
The tritium injections last just 2 seconds out of a 10 second, 
3MA flat top. The amount of tritium injected and the limited 
number of shots were deliberatly restricted for operational convenience."

[ Note by rfheeter:  2 MJ = 2 million joules = 1 million
watts for a duration of 2 seconds, or 2 million watts for
a duration of one second.  1 Joule = 1 watt * 1 second.
A "10 second, 3 MA flat top" refers to the relatively stable
flat peak of a current-vs-time graph, indicating that
the plasma current is stable at about 3 million amps
(3 MA) for 10 seconds.  "Operational convenience" should
probably be interpreted as "because we didn't want to
make our reactor too radioactive, and tritium handling
is a pain." - that's an editorial comment. ]

--> Personal remarks start 
[this Cooper writing now, and not quoting others.]

The above seems to indicate that if JET had gone into it's full 
D-T phase at this time and with this configuration, we certainly
should have got to 50% of breakeven. As to if we could have 
matched our best Deuterium pulse, I guess we would have come 
close especially as the TFTR results show no pathological 
problems with a 50/50 D-T mix. But this is all hypothetical, 
we no longer have anything like the configuration we had in 
1991, we're just about to finish a major shutdown incorporating 
a pumped divertor to look at impurity control and ash removal. 
The old H mode shots that the 1991 experiment were based on 
are a thing of the past and we'll have to wait and see how she performes
with the new configuration.

[ Note by rfheeter: a "divertor" is a magnetic or physical
way of channeling particles from the edge of the plasma
out of the way, and helps to improve confinement of the plasma
as well as remove impurities. "H mode" is a relatively
stable operational mode of the tokamak, as contrasted with
"L mode", which is less stable.  I believe H = High and
L = Low, referring to high and low confinement.]

[[ The rest of the article was about TFTR and not JET,
and I have omitted it to save some space. ]]

Stephen R Cooper                 Physics Operations Group
src@jet.uk               Operations Division, JET.
-	Disclaimer: Please note that the above is a personal view and should
not be construed as an official comment from the JET project.


[End of quoted/commented text.]

******************

I hope this information proves useful to your father.
Please post/email if you have further questions!

[ Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@lyman.pppl.gov
  Graduate Student, Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory
  Similar disclaimer applies. ]
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.12 / mitchell swartz /  Comments on Dick Blue's answers
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Comments on Dick Blue's answers
Subject: Comments on Mitchell Swartz's answers
Date: Sat, 12 Feb 1994 13:56:32 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

      In Message-ID: <94021113200390@dancer.nscl.msu.edu>
Subject: Comments on Mitchell Swartz's answers
Dick Blue [blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu]
answered several scientific questions.
We would like to thank him for his time and comments.
IMHO there is disagreement here on many things,
and would now like to comment on his answers.
I want to clarify the Pd/Ni confusion and a few
other matters, and augment one
 of his answers because the helium data is much more
significant then sometimes appreciated.

        --------------------------------------------------------
   <db> (1)  If cold fusion using D20 is said to result in the production of
   <db>   4He in commensurate quantities, what is the complete data set
   <db>   that supports that thesis, and how do you justify the discounting
   <db>   of the various null results that have been obtained for helium
   <db>   analyses?
   -ms-  Reason for null results?  The helium-4 is linked to the excess
   -ms-  enthalpy and is only generated when conditions are sufficient and
   -ms-  adequate for the reactions.
[db]  "But there are cases where excess enthalpy was observed with no
[db]  helium-4 being detected.  Hence the link between enthalpy and
[db]  and helium production is not so firmly established."

   First, the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.
   Second, consider; if the atmosphere can leak in, and glass (and rubber
is actually much worse) can serve as a He source, they both can act
also as He sinks.
    Third, in addition there are the issues of helium migration from the 
lattice and difficulties of resolving He4 from a few other substances.
   Fourth, as I've said in past postings the background is substantial
and there are ways to improve signal/noise [e.g. checking Ne20 as 
a control in the same sample (see Gozzi's paper)].

  Now for the paper in questions.  At the International 
Conference on Cold Fusion (ICCF-4) there were scores of 
confirmations of nuclear and thermal products created by 
several cold fusion phenomena. These confirmations ranged in 
numerous systems including heavy water (with and without 
lithium), D2 gas, and high voltage glow discharge systems.   
Many materials have now been successfully loaded with 
deuterium.   Melvin Miles and B. Bush, of the Chemistry 
Division, Research Department Naval Air Warfare  Center 
Weapons Division China Lake, CA spoke of demonstrating 
"ash" consistent with a nuclear process, where that ash is 
helium-4.  Their high caliber research demonstrated the 
linking of helium-4 with the excess heat.   Their paper "HEAT 
AND HELIUM MEASUREMENTS IN DEUTERATED 
PALLADIUM"   has the following important excerpts. 

 "Our previous results present a correlation between the 
measured excess poser and  helium production in D2O-LiOD 
electrolysis cells using palladium cathodes.  The  measured 
rate of 4He production (10^11-10^12 4He/s*W) is the correct 
magnitude for typical  deuteron fusion reactions that yield 
helium as a product.  *****   Metal flasks were used  to collect 
the electrolysis gas samples in order to minimize atmospheric 
contamination  due to helium diffusion through glass.  The 
helium concentrations in Table II support a  detection limit of 
approximately 10^l3 4He/500 mL in these experiments as 
reported  previously.  Mean values for the measured helium 
concentrations in these control  experiments are 4.4 +/-0.6 ppb 
or 5.1 +/-0.7 x 10^l3 4He/500 mL.   ...  For experiments 
producing excess power, five helium measurements using these 
same  metal flasks have been completed. These experiments 
yield a mean value of 2.0 +/-0.5 x  1011 4He/s*W after 
correcting for background levels of helium measured in control  
studies (Table II).  This value is once again the correct 
magnitude for typical deuteron  fusion reactions that yield 4He 
as a product. "

These are important because the show that no glass was used, and
that adequate controls were.

        --------------------------------------------------------
  <db> (2)  Is the issue of neutron production completely resolved and the
  <db>   apparent inconsistencies between various observations cleared up?
  -ms- No.   Neutronpenic levels can occur intermittently under some conditions.
[db] "As long as words like "intermittently" and "under some conditions"
[db] are needed to describe cold fusion results it is clear that the
[db] reality of the effect is on skakey grounds."

   The problem is that there are two types of cold fusion in D2O-Pd
systems.  I have suggested the use of "regular anomalous" for the steady
state heats (which occur under difficult to achieve conditions) and
"irregular anomalous" heats for the (rare) bursts.
   Regarding the "words".  The fact remains is that the development
of a good language might take some time.   For example, Steve Jones
(assuming his data passes the test for validity, and order-of-
magnitude reasonableness) says that "recombination accounts
for the excess heat (I am paraphrasing)".   In fact, recombination
may contribute an incremental component, and should always
be considered, but it does not negate the other process(es).   We
need to consider fractional contributions towards the observed 
effect. 
        --------------------------------------------------------

   <db> (3)  Is there an established level of tritium production in relation
   <db>  to excess heat, 4He production, or any other experimental parameter?
  -ms- There are multiple pathways which depend upon material (and other)
  -ms- parameters.
[db] "Note that the pathways, material dependences, and other parameters
[db] remain unspecified.  Wouldn't it be simpler to admit that 5 years
[db] of experimentation have not established anything with regard to
[db] tritium production?"

   Actually, Fritz Will's data alone is very interesting and probes
that this has been established.
        --------------------------------------------------------

    <db> (7) Is there any data whatsoever relating to nuclear reaction products
    <db>   resulting from cold fusion with H2O or is the currently accepted
    <db>   hypothesis that this type of fusion is totally non-nuclear?
   -ms- I am still looking for good data here.  There were about 78 experimental
   -ms- papers with D2O at ICCF-4, but only 8 (? or so) for H2O.
[db] "Perhaps H2O makes a good "control" in that it shows that excess enthalpy
[db] measurements can be totally off base."

  First, H2O is used with nickel.   D2O is used with palladium.
   Two separate systems.  Two separate materials.  OK?

  Second, given the importance of quite a few parameters, 
     there may be more than one good control.
 ------------------------------------------------------------

   I want to thank Dick Blue for his frank responses, which has 
contributed to increasing the S/N here, and to getting
this back on track towards science.

    Best wishes (to almost all)
           Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com)

cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.12 / mitchell swartz /  On Turning on the scientific Debate (cont'd)
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: On Turning on the scientific Debate (cont'd)
Subject: Re: Turning on the scientific debate (was closing off...)
Date: Sat, 12 Feb 1994 13:58:05 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <CKz0zn.Hsy@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
Subject: Re: Turning on the scientific debate (was closing off...)
Cameron Randale Bass (crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU) wrote

   =>  D) What proof do you have (mathematical and rigorous)
   = that any of your "explanations" can give a semiquantitative reason
   = > as to the observed generated excess enthalpy, nuclear products
   = > on a reasonable order-of-magnitude basis?
=dbass   "I'm afraid the burden of proof (mathematical and rigorous)
=dbass     is on y'all.  Along those lines, what proof (mathematical and 
=dbass     rigorous) do you have that anything is happening anywhere?
=dbass    As usual, the ackolytes of cold fusion completely misunderstand
=dbass     science."

  Scores of labs make observations.   New hypothesis are required to
explain the results.   You have the order incorrect.
            ---------------------------------------------

>   F)  How do you explain the helium-4 linked to the excess heat?
>   G)  How do you explain the excess enthalpy?
=dbass         "Experimental error."

    Did you read Dr. Miles' papers?  or are you just lapping up more
"info" from the "Tonya Harding", and other assassins, of cold fusion.
            ---------------------------------------------

>   H)  How do you explain the helium?
=dbass  "Atmospheric contamination.  You have helium in your spleen, but I 
=dbass  don't think any cold fusion is occurring there."

   My spleen does not have incremental increases 
compared to levels elsewhere in my body.
   There is always contamination, but it is at a level below
the "background" and much much below the generated levels
[if and when care is taken, and the reactions proceed].
            ---------------------------------------------

   >   J)  How do you explain the fact that the materials always give
   > positive (i.e. >0) excess heat, and if it were a "systematic error"
   > then some would be negative?
=dbass    "Experimental self-selection."

   You think hundreds of experimenters did this?
   How about the skeptics?
   Do you think people at Harwell, or other laboratories
which generated so-called "negative" expts. did a little "self-selection"
too?     or are they immune in your scenario?

    >  K)  How can you explain the fact the observed power density
    > levels have been increasing since 1989 (10Watt/cm3) by two orders 
    >of magnitude?
=dbass       " This is not true.  P&F were claiming far higher levels in 
=dbass         1989 (1000 W/cm^3)."

   This is blatant misstatement, which if it were true (since you
falsely claim it regularly) ought to provable.  How about a 
reference, dale?  Bet you can't find one.     <---------
  
   Face it, Dale, not one of the skeptics has ever given
a partially reasonable response to support their bleating
and anxious handwaving. 
Your comments continue it now.  Where is the proof of
your purported claims of 
"spiking", 1000 W/cm3 (1989 value), and atmospheric
contamination?   You have none but must rely on
continued and unsupported denigration. 
    
  Therefore eventually readers and lurkers
will catch on, obtain some of the papers themselves,
and this "boil" on the scientific landscape will be burst
with the result that some "light" will disinfect this
scientific abscess and then the cold fusion phenomena will
take their place with other once-less-understood physical
processes which were also once unanticipated.
            ---------------------------------------------

=dbass    "You tell me the import of measuring wildly fluctuating voltage
=dbass    and current once every 300 seconds for a 600 second 'event'?"

    They have already said that other measuring equipment were also 
used and that there were not fluctuating voltages and currents present
at that time.  So why the selective use of information and the 
continued use of false claims?
    That is not science.   That is not even fair.

                     Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com)

cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.13 / Jed Rothwell /  Question for Dale Bass
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Question for Dale Bass
Date: Sun, 13 Feb 1994 02:59:52 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org

Cameron Randale Bass writes:

     "I'd be more than willing to discuss anything in P&F's recent paper in
     Phys. Lett. A.

I have a question for Mr. Bass about this paper:

     Have you actually read this paper, Mr. Bass? I mean carefully, from
     beginning to end.

     I ask because Dr. Blue recently published a series of comments about
another Physics Letters A paper which revealed that he had not actually
taken the trouble to read the paper. Perhaps it would a good idea for
posters to mark their messages with some symbol indicating that they have
not actually read the scientific papers they are discussing.

- Jed

cudkeys:
cuddy13 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.12 / mitchell swartz /  On SL: Update / & fractofusion)
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: On SL: Update / & fractofusion)
Subject: SL: Update / also: Fractofusion
Date: Sat, 12 Feb 1994 18:28:20 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <1994Feb11.133459.1361@physc1.byu.edu>
Subject: SL: Update / also: Fractofusion
Steven Jones (jonesse@physc1.byu.edu) writes:

==sj " a student in our research class and I have conducted a
==sj series of experiments looking for evidence of fractofusion (a la Lipkin et al
==sj in Russia).  We had built a steel cylinder whose cap has a tube to allow
==sj pulling a vacuum then backfilling with D2.  The cap also has a mechanical
==sj feed-through allowing a shaft with a burr welded on the end to be turned by an
==sj electric drill.  Into this cylinder, we placed the following crystals:
==sj ND4DPO4
==sj KH2PO4 in D2O
==sj Wint-o-green lifesavers (these are known to produce triboluminescence, so
==sj please don't laugh),
==sj  one at a time, then evacuated and backfilled with deuterium gas.
==sj The winto-green lifesavers we soaked in D2 for 72 hours; the other crystals
==sj were already deuterided.
==sj We then proceed to grind the crystals (in D2) using our drill arrangement.
==sj Results:  *no* neutron signals, either bursts or singles, were observed 
==sj above our low background rates (described in previous postings)."

   Whew!!..   That's a relief.   Neutrons being released with 
winto-0-green chewing will require revised
labelling of the candy.  
   And probably will require radiation badges 
     (modified with paraffin) for the chewees, since
    saliva contains some deuterons.

   Actually, the chewers of such candy might still be 
in a potential  danger given your post which suggests
 the possibility of neutron emission by wintergreen
Life Savers.

   The active materials in the triboluminescence are
purported to be a combination of methyl salicylate with
the crystalline sugar which comprises the candy.  Perhaps
you should itemize the brand, %CH3-salicylate, and %sugar
if you want this to really be scientific and repeatable.

  -  Also, what do you mean by "soak"
in D2 (D2O)?  In triboluminescence studies moisture seems to act
against some of  the reactions.  
     Did you see any light?
    What was the humidity?   
    Why that particular material?
    How much D <-> H conversion was there actually in your
    system?

   [BTW, Steven, your posted paper does not address the questions,
  nor have you in that or in previous posts.]
    Best wishes,   
                     Mitchell Swartz    [mica@world.std.com]

         



cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.11 /  jonesse@physc1 /  SL: Update / also: Fractofusion
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: SL: Update / also: Fractofusion
Date: 11 Feb 94 13:34:59 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

The pieces for our sonoluminescence experiments are coming together slowly.
We have recieved a 125-ml spherical quartz flask from GM Associates.
We ordered the appropriate PZT transducers, but unfortunately the supplier
sent us someone else's order, so these will be delayed.
We have an oscillator for the stable SL experiments.  With regard to finding
the resonant frequency of the flask-water system, I will pass along this idea
from Prof. Crum:  One starts with tap water, which is loaded with gases, of
course.  This is loaded into the flask and a sinusoidal signal is fed to the
PZT glued onto the flask.  When one reaches the resonance frequency of the
flask+water, then large numbers of bubbles are formed in the flask, as the gas
comes out of solution under the driving sound field.  The bubbles are
illuminated with a bright light and seen against a dark background.  This
determines the resonance frequency of the system.  In order to achieve stable
single-bubble sonoluminescence (SB-SL), one must then use water in which the
dissolved gases are reduced at least by a factor of twenty from ordinary water. 
The dissolved gases are removed by pumping the water under vacuum.

While waiting for parts, a student in our research class and I have conducted a
series of experiments looking for evidence of fractofusion (a la Lipkin et al
in Russia).  We had built a steel cylinder whose cap has a tube to allow
pulling a vacuum then backfilling with D2.  The cap also has a mechanical
feed-through allowing a shaft with a burr welded on the end to be turned by an
electric drill.  Into this cylinder, we placed the following crystals:
ND4DPO4
KH2PO4 in D2O
Wint-o-green lifesavers (these are known to produce triboluminescence, so
   please don't laugh),
one at a time, then evacuated and backfilled with deuterium gas.
The winto-green lifesavers we soaked in D2 for 72 hours; the other crystals
were already deuterided.
We then proceed to grind the crystals (in D2) using our drill arrangement.

Results:  *no* neutron signals, either bursts or singles, were observed 
above our low background rates (described in previous postings).

I'm chomping at the bit to leave such work and move on to SL.  However,
Ben wants to try LiD and lithium niobate, as used by Russian and Japanese teams
respectively, while we have things set up.  This is undergraduate research
training for Ben, incidentally.

--Steven Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenjonesse cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.11 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Re: Breakthrough with new phenomenon ?.......
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Breakthrough with new phenomenon ?.......
Date: 11 Feb 94 16:51:21 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

While the Phys. Lett. A article discussed by Daryl Owen below is interesting,
I agree with Dick Blue that the data are hardly compelling for a change in
radioactivity of tritium in titanium.  Indeed, we find below the statement by
the author of the paper:  
"The author, though well aware that the experimental evidence is rather limited
and that a theoretical foundation is lacking..."

Why should we attach a great deal of credence to the data when the researcher
himself says "the experimental evidence is rather limited"?

We should remember that the notion of changing radioactive decay rates by
changing the chemical environment of isotopes has been tried before, and indeed
small effects have been observed under unusual conditions.  But as far as I
know, these *all* relate to electron capture (EC) processes, wherein an atomic
electron is captured by the nucleus.  Clearly, for electron capture, one can
influence the decay rate by reducing the population of electrons in S states,
since these have the highest probability of having electrons in (near) 
the nucleus.

7Be is a prime example of a nucleus that decays only by EC, since the mass
difference between 7Be and its daughter 7Li is only 477 keV.  (This is less
than an electron mass, so that decay cannot proceed via beta+ emission.)
The decay rate has been changed by 0.2% by chemical means (I can dig up the
ref. if anyone needs it; I remember the number).  This was done decades ago.

But tritium decays by electron *emission*, via the weak interaction.  I cannot
see any way that presence of the tritium in Ti could affect this; there is
no other example in nature I can think of.  And people use tritiated Ti targets
all the time -- we have one here, for instance.  If the decay rate of 3H was
indeed affected dramatically by Ti, I think this would have been noticed.

I note that the data were acquired using a Geiger counter or a vibrating reed
electrometer using an electrode placed inside the vessel.  These are crude
techniques.  As I argued in a posting 2-10-94, one must question data acquired
with less than optimal detectors.  Until confirmed (or rejected) by use of
state-of-the-art detectors, one must follow the author's own advice and be
cautious of these data.

(Below is the post by Owen to which I respond.)

In article <1994Feb2.173720.1@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au>, dowen@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au writes:
> 
> 
> Hi Folks,
>  Firstly thanks to Prof. Jones for his offer to pass the SL questions
> on to Prof. Crum.
>  For those readers who can't get easy access to the original article,
> here is my review of the paper by Otto Reifenschweiler entitled
> "Reduced radioactivity of tritium in small titanium particles" as 
> published in "Physics Letters A" of the 3-Jan-94.
> This paper is based on work done at the Philips Research Laboratories
> Eindhoven, Holland, in the early 1960's.
> Otto Reifenschweiler is a retired chief physist of the Philips Research 
> Laboratories.
> 
> Summary ........
> The author describes two experiments involving the reduction of
> radiation. The first concerns the reduction of radiation in tritium
> loaded titanium particles as they are slowly heated, the second
> relates how the loading of small uniform amounts of tritium into
> fine Ti particles produces a (very) non proportional variation in 
> radioactivity. A "highly unorthodox hypothesis" called "the nuclear
> pair hypothesis" is put forward as a possible explanation of the above.
> 
> The First Series of Experiments .......
> Ti was evapourated in argon at a suitable pressure "eg 0.5 to 2 cm Hg"
> and deposited as monocrystaline soot like particles about 15 nm in 
> diameter, arranged in chains on the inner wall of the measuring vessel.
> A diagram is drawn of a covar cylinder 5.3cm in diameter, one end going
> to vacuum facilities, the other terminated in a 18 micrometre thick stainless
> steel window through which radiation is measured by an air cooled GM tube.
> The cylindrical vessel is located inside an oven and its temperature
> monitored by three thermocouples.
>  In other similar experiments the radiation was measured by means of a
> vibrating reed electrometer monitoring the electron current produced by
> "Beta particles and secondaries" via a cylindrical electrode placed inside
> the vessel.
>  After the argon was evacuated, tritium was added and completely absorbed
> "... within a few seconds. This was confirmed by hundreds of experiments."
>  In one experiment a Ti T(sub)0.0035 preparation was heated for about 10 
> hours and the radiation monitored by a GM tube. The results are shown in
> graph. Note that here the lower graph shows the rate of tritium
> expulsion from the Ti with increasing temperature and that there is....
> "...no measurable release of tritium below about 300 deg. C (confirmed by
> many experiments)."
>                                               
>     |                                                            |
> 1000-                                       **                   |
>     |* * * * * * *                        *    *                 |
>     |              *                     *                       |
>     |               *                   *       *      o         |  
>  800-                *                 *                         |- 10
>     |GM tube <------- *               *          *               |Tritium
>     |Counts            *             *               o---------->|Pressure
>     |per minute           *  **      *            *              | x 10^-5
>  600-                             **                             | mm Hg
>     |                                               o            |
>     |                                              *             |
>     |                                                            |
>  400-                                               *            |-  5
>     |                                             o              |
>     |                                                *           |
>     |                                                            |
>  200-                                           o                |
>     |o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o        *          |
>     |*********<---Background                            *        |- 1.0
>     |___________.___________.___________.___________.___________.|
>  Temp.in deg C. 100         200         300         400         500
> 
> "In two other experiments carried out under different conditions a similar
> decrease and increase of the radioactivity with increasing temperature
> was observed. But there was also one experiment with a 10 times higher
> concentration of tritium and a roughly 5 times faster increase in
> temperature where the decrease of count rate did not occur."
> 
> The second series of experiments .....
> "In order to obtain further evidence ...........  another series of 
> experiments was made at room temperature. The concentration x of the tritium
> was varied in a finely divided TiT(sub)x  preparation and the corresponding 
> increase of the emission current caused by the Beta-electrons of tritium was
> measured."..."In these experiments a substantial deviation from the expected 
> proportionality between current i and concentration x was observed."
>  In this experiment a 55% decrease (followed by a similar increase) from
> the expected level of delta i/delta x versus concentration of tritium in
> the Ti occured. (Sorry folks, no time now for the graph).
> 
> The hypothesis......
> ".......it seems justified to put forward a highly unorthodox hypothesis,
> the nuclear pair hypothesis. If we assume that tritons absorbed in the 
hat the decay
> constant of such a pair is smaller than that of a free triton, then the 
> observed behaviour of all TiT(SUB)x  can be explained.

>  The author, though well aware that the experimental evidence is rather 
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> limited and that a theoretical foundation is lacking, feels strongly 
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

> attracted to the idea of nuclear pairing with reduced radioactivity and he
> believes that it may have other applications. The author hopes to come back
> to these questions in later publications."
> 
> What would happen if......
> 1) A small amount of tritium was absorbed into the Ti as in expt.2 and then
> equal quantities of deuterium were successively added (instead of equal
> successive quantities of tritium). Would the radioactivity decrease the 
> same as in experiment 2 ?
> 2) Hydrogen were substituted for the deuterium in 1) ?
> 
>  The idea behind these two proposals is that if "nuclear pairing" does take
> place it means that the tritium nuclei are intimately interreacting ie
> they are *very* close. If the same bonding occurs between D (or H) and
> the tritons, then they too must be *very* near to the tritons.
>  Could this be an indication that two deuterons can get very close ?
>  
> As allways, I am interested in all informed comments and criticisms.
> 
> 						Best regards to all,
> 						Daryl Owen.
> 

> 					 
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenjonesse cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.12 / Mark North /  Re: Politics and Fusion (was "egos on parade!")
     
Originally-From: north@watop.nosc.mil (Mark North)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Politics and Fusion (was "egos on parade!")
Date: Sat, 12 Feb 1994 23:02:55 GMT
Organization: NCCOSC RDT&E Division, San Diego, CA

crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:

>In article <CKx2v3.Mr4@world.std.com>,
>mitchell swartz <mica@world.std.com> wrote:
>>
>>  Perhaps one etiology is that "cold fusion", both its initial report,
>>the acute cover-up, the near half-decade obstruction of information
>>dissemination, the secondary attack on the scientists
>>and reporters in the field have precisely occurred because 
>>CF has to be "political".

>     You mean the half-decade obstruction of information exchange
>     by Pons and Fleischmann themselves?  And the attack on scientists
>     and reporters evidenced by P&F's legal action in Italy and 
>     threats elsewhere in the attempt to squelch reports
>     not to their liking?

Yes, threat of legal action is one of the tactics of a scoundrel. Not
only are P&F guilty of it but so, of course, is Swartz. Apparently,
he would like to squelch my report that I think he is mean-
spirited. Hence, he has accused my of libel. In private email, mind
you, not out in the open for all to see. I find that behaviour
utterly shameful.

Note to Swartz: You may now add to your legal brief the fact that I
think you are a scoundrel as well as mean-spirited.

Mark
 
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudennorth cudfnMark cudlnNorth cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.12 / Mark North /  Re: On Mark North's ego on parade
     
Originally-From: north@watop.nosc.mil (Mark North)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: On Mark North's ego on parade
Date: Sat, 12 Feb 1994 23:18:34 GMT
Organization: NCCOSC RDT&E Division, San Diego, CA

mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:

>  Previously Mark North <north@watop.nosc.mil> 
>had incorrectly claimed Michael was actually Jed.

That's quite a categorical statement, how about some *proof*.
Don't tell me, 'because Michael said so'. That's not proof.
That begs the question. (Aside to the rational folks reading
this: In fact, if I wanted to insist on maintaining my
claim that I believed Michael to be Jed the burden of proof
would be on me but I think Swartz too stupid to realize this
so it'll just be our little secret, OK?) BTW, Swartz, you
may now add to your legal brief the fact that I think you're 
stupid and proclaimed such in a public forum.

>  Although definitively corrected by Michael, the
> correction proves to be of no effect.

As I stated in my post, which you chose to edit leaving out the
relevant parts, it was not 'definitive'. I made my point, you
didn't answer the point, but I realize this is too fine a
point (gak! a pun) for your tiny brain. I have no desire to make
an issue as to whether Michael is Jed or not. BTW, Swartz, you
may now add to your legal brief the fact that I think you have
a tiny brain and have published such in a public forum. 

>In Message-ID: <north.760907392@watop>
>Subject: Re: Mark North's ego on parade
>Mark North (north@watop.nosc.mil) writes:
> 
>=mn "Interesting. How the hell do you know whether or not
>=mn  Michael is Jed Rothwell.   ......
>=mn The above highlighted text doesn't make sense coming from
>=mn Michael but sure does coming from Jed. You see, if I
>=mn  suggested anyone was masquerading it was Jed, not Michael. " 

(Aside to those still reading and not bored to death: I'm being
very sparing on editing because I don't want to be accused
by the Schwartz of malicious editing, of which he is certainly
guilty). BTW, Swartz, you may now add to your legal brief the
fact that I think you malicious and have mispronounced your name
in a disparaging way all in a public forum for the sole purpose
of ridicule. 

>   Since North now states that he
>wishes to continue and post his half-baked  (or less)  delusion
>regarding Michael purportedly being Jed, any reader ought
>discount his other comments accordingly.

Of course, you were unable to take your own advice. I have a theory
as to why. Since we have already established that you have a point
sized brain your normal sized head must be filled with ego. Of
course, I assume you have a normal sized head or else your mother
would have asked for a post-partum abortion. BTW, Schwartz, you
may now... ahhh, yer mudder.

>=mn  "Here you say I'm lacking in ego and below you say my
>=mn  ego is bloated.   Which is it? Better get out that dictionary
>=mn   you're so fond of quoting."

>   Don't need a dictionary to know which way your wind blows.
>"Lack of principle" is not mutually exclusive with ego bloat.

Yes, but vacuous is. I admire the way you edit reality.

>=  "All I can say is, you're one sick puppy, Swartz."

>Sentient readers know that some mentally-handicapped
>and most power-crazed individuals often begin 
>ad hominems with such personal projections
>like you now demonstrate, Mr. North,.

Lesee, you've called me mentally-handicapped (it's nice to see
that you're politically correct and didn't call me moronic), power-crazed,
malicious and a lot of other mean-spirited, nasty, low stuff and
I have yet to wave lawyers in your face. I won't either because
I find your comments humurous and moronic. (I am not pollitically
correct). BTW, Swartz, you may now add nasty, low and moronic
to your legal brief.  

>   >=mn    "OK, hotshot, how about giving some examples other 
>   >=mn      than Rothwell and Swartz."

>==mn    "Mea Culpa. I forgot Mallove."

>  Mr. North proves that the theory of fractals
>does apply to patterns of conduct which
>Internet-muggers like himself demonstrate.   

That's a nice turn of phrase. Yes, you may consider yourself mugged
and high time I would say.

>      >  Mr. North, again lacking data to support his 
>       >"brick-toss tactics",  has now decided to merely
>        >continue his rabid unsupported absurdities..."

>=mn  "I don't really need data  ....  So sue me.
>=mn  And if you're not willing to do that then shut up."

>Please post your[s], and the NCCOSC RDT&E Division, 
>addresses.       

No problem. I am so glad you asked for it gives me the opportunity
to show what a truly incredible bag of wind you are.

Res: 1826 Galveston St
     San Diego, Ca 92110

Ofc: NRaD
     Code 754
     271 Catalina Blvd
     San Diego, CA 92152

Now if we don't hear from your lawyers pretty soon I will have to tell
the net that not only are you malicious, bullshit, etc, etc but that
you are also an ass. (Of course, they already knew that). BTW, Swartz,
...  

>Incidentally, given your hubric
>knowledge of the field, exactly what do you do?  
>        We thank you in advance.

Well, I've done the lab work on (so-called) CNF and published the results
in NOSC TR-1214 (or 1412, I forget). Look it up, read it, and
then let's discuss it. If there are any technical questions you have
after reading the report I would be more than happy to discuss them
with you in public or private, for that matter -- as long as you
are being sincere. (Something I am ever hopeful for).

>== "Look, Swartz, you can always write your congressman
>==  and complain if  you think you have a legitimate beef. "

>Mr. North seems to admit and then boast that it is OK that
>he might use U.S. Government money -- paid for by the reader --
>to fund any personal, unscientific attacks, on the INTERNET
>against scientists, citizens, and students of cold fusion.

I told you what you could do about it. So why bitch here? Get off
your lazy ass and write your congressman. You won't though, because
you're a bullying coward. BTW, Swartz...

>     >    Attention is directed to the fact that it certainly
>     >has been easy to find and document at least two
>     >stupid utterly shameful and mean-spirited postings
>     >from Mr. North, NCCOSC RDT&E Division, and 
>     >watop.nosc.mil just this week.

I never said *I* was above the fray. I promise you this, Swartz,
I will dog you on this forum until you fade away in disgrace (which
is the usual fate of net.loons). Never again will I let one of your
diatribes against the likes of Britz, Blue, Morrison or anybody else
that tries, patiently, to explain reality to dolts like you, go
unanswered. Consider it personal.

>== "I think you protest a wee bit too much.
>==  Diversionary tactics perhaps?"

>   No need for diversion.   I posted scientific 
>questions which have never been answered by
>even one of the TB-skeptics.  

This is not true. You need to understand. Your questions
have been more than adequately answered by Dick Blue, e.g.
It's just that you don't like the answers. The man knows
what he is talking about. You poll this group and you will
find a consensus amoung scientists that this is true.
You reject that consensus at your peril.

>This was 
>just an attempt at a statement of fact, Mr. North.
>   I was wrong, however, in the quantity, because
> there are now three stupid utterly shameful and
> mean-spirited postings by you just this week.

As I said, I am not above the fray. I am an ornery
person and a scientist. I will speak my mind against
willful ignorance or worse. I suspect you are worse
so expect more trouble around here than you have had.
You have had a free ride too long. Most folks around
here are far too polite.

BTW, I am sure you will edit this long post to suit
yourself. Go ahead, you only fool yourself.

Mark

cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudennorth cudfnMark cudlnNorth cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.12 / Jon Arnold /  Re: Basic information of fusion wanted
     
Originally-From: arnoldj@telerama.lm.com (Jon Arnold)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Basic information of fusion wanted
Date: 12 Feb 1994 13:11:30 -0500
Organization: Telerama Public Access Internet, Pittsburgh, PA

Lars Joedal (joedal@dfi.aau.dk) wrote:
: So: Can anybody point me to some FAQs, basic review articles (in

: Thank you in advance!

: /Lars

: +------------------------------------------------------------------------+
: | Lars J|dal                | Q: What's the difference between a quantum |
: | email: joedal@dfi.aau.dk  |    mechanic and an auto mechanic?          |
: | Physics student at the    | A: A quantum mechanic can get his car into |
: | University of Aarhus      |    the garage without opening the door.    |
: | Denmark                   |                    -- David Kra            |
: +------------------------------------------------------------------------+



Actually, I asked for the same... a FAQ list, but there is none to this 
point. At the moment, someone is making one up but it is a huge job and I 
don't think it'll be done real soon, but I may be wrong. Keep lookin on 
the newsgroup for it to be posted...

				jon

-- 
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
"I'm goin where the water tastes like wine..." @      Jonathan Arnold
                                               @  arnoldj@telerama.lm.com
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ See ya on the golden road!
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenarnoldj cudfnJon cudlnArnold cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.12 / Jon Arnold /  Nuclear Burn
     
Originally-From: arnoldj@telerama.lm.com (Jon Arnold)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Nuclear Burn
Date: 12 Feb 1994 13:18:27 -0500
Organization: Telerama Public Access Internet, Pittsburgh, PA


-- 
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
"I'm goin where the water tastes like wine..." @      Jonathan Arnold
                                               @  arnoldj@telerama.lm.com
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ See ya on the golden road!
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenarnoldj cudfnJon cudlnArnold cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.12 / Benjamin Carter /  Re: HOT FUSION? NO WAY!
     
Originally-From: bpc@netcom.com (Benjamin P. Carter)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: HOT FUSION? NO WAY!
Date: Sat, 12 Feb 1994 23:29:05 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

Concerning ulterior motives for the debunking of "cold fusion",
jabowery@netcom.com (Jim Bowery) writes:

>The preemptive rabid attack was a win either way.  Either P&F were right
>and the government HF guys had nothing to lose by stretching out their
>funding a little longer or P&F were wrong and the government HF guys
>could claim prescience.

The trouble with this argument is that most of the debunkers were not
government HF guys but, rather, academic physicists and chemists whose
main interests were not closely related to any kind of commercial power
generation.  They took time away from their usual work in order to
clear up the confusion about P&F's sensational claims.  There were
some heated words, but on the whole it was a disinterested inquiry,
not a rabid attack on P&F et al.  The fact that it didn't take too
long to reach a consensus is, IMHO, evidence that P&F's results were
entirely spurious.  
-- 
    Ben Carter                  internet address: bpc@netcom.com
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenbpc cudfnBenjamin cudlnCarter cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Mon Feb 14 04:37:05 EST 1994
------------------------------
1994.02.12 / Robert Heeter /  Part 2 - (Long!) Conventional Fusion Reading List, 2nd draft, Part 2
     
Originally-From: rfheeter@flagstaff.Princeton.EDU (Robert Franklin Heeter)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Part 2 - (Long!) Conventional Fusion Reading List, 2nd draft, Part 2
Date: Sat, 12 Feb 1994 21:43:31 GMT
Organization: Princeton University


Continuation of References from Part One:

*** H. Unclassified / Unsummarized works.  (Please help me move 
references out of this section and into sections A-G by contributing 
reviews of sources you know about!)

* Akiyama, M., ed.
Design technology of fusion reactors. [636 p.] World Scientific 
Publishing. 1990.

* Artsimovich, L. A.
A physicist's ABC on plasma.
Mir Publishers. 1978.

* Boenig, Herman V.
Plasma science and technology.
Cornell University Press. 1982.

* Brunelli, B., et al., eds.
Safety, environmental impact and economic prospects of nuclear fusion. 
[360 p.]
Plenum Publishing Corporation. 1990.

* Brunelli, B., et al., eds.
Unconventional approaches to fusion. [544 p.]
Plenum Publishing Corporation. 1982.

* Casini, G.
Plasma physics for thermonuclear fusion reactors. [496 p.]
Harwood Academic Publishers. 1982.

* Casini, G., ed.
Engineering aspects of thermonuclear fusion reactors. [646 p.]
Harwood Academic Publishers. 1982.

* Coppi, B., et al., eds.
Physics of plasma close to thermonuclear conditions. [2 v.]
Pergamon Press. 1981.

* Dean, Stephen O., ed.
Prospects for fusion power. [112 p.] 
Pergamon Press. 1981.

* Dolan, Thomas J.
Fusion research. [3 v.]
Pergamon Press. 1980.

* Gill, Richard, ed.
Plasma physics and nuclear fusion research.
Academic Press. 1981.

* Golant, V. E., et al.
Fundamentals of plasma physics. [405 p.]
John Wiley and Sons. 1980.

* Golant, V. E., et al.
Plasma heating in toroidal fusion devices. [202 p.] Plenum Publishing 
Corporation. 1989.
 
* Gross, R. A. _Fusion energy._  John Wiley and Sons. 1984.
	(Recommended in Hazeltine & Meiss.)

* Heppenheimer, T. A.
The man-made sun: the quest for fusion power. [320 p.] Little, Brown  
and Company. 1983.

* Hora, Heinrich.
Physics of laser driven plasmas. [317 p.] John Wiley and Sons. 1981.

* Joachain, Charles J., and Douglas E. Post, eds. Atomic and molecular 
physics of controlled 
thermonuclear fusion. [575 p.]
Plenum Publishing Corporation. 1983.

* McDowell, M. R., and A. M. Ferendeci, eds.
Atomic and molecular processes in controlled nuclear fusion. [500 p.]
Plenum Publishing Corporation. 1980.

* Motz, H.
The physics of laser fusion. 
Academic Press. 1979.

* Nishikawa, K.
Plasma physics: basic theory with fusion applications. [320 p.]
Springer-Verlag. 1990.

* Raeder, J., et al.
Controlled nuclear fusion: fundamentals of its utilization for energy 
supply. [400 p.]
John Wiley and Sons. 1986.

* Schmidt, George.
Physics of high temperature plasmas.
Academic Press. 1979.

* Stacey, W. M.
Fusion plasma analysis. [376 p.]
John Wiley and Sons. 1981.

* Teller, Edward.
Fusion: Magnetic confinement. [2 v.]
Academic Press. 1981.


I've summarized all the books I've seen, and included what information I've
received from others on the net.  If you are familiar with any of these books,
or with other books you feel should be included in the reading list,
please submit a summary in roughly the above format.

Thanks!

*************

Revision history:
	First draft, Feb. 3, 1994
	Second draft, Feb. 12,1994 - new references, new structure

*************
Robert F. Heeter
rfheeter@lyman.pppl.gov
Graduate Student, Princeton Plasma Physics Lab
Standard Disclaimers Apply

cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.13 / mitchell swartz /  Mark North clucks defiant
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Mark North clucks defiant
Subject: Re: On Mark North's ego on parade
Date: Sun, 13 Feb 1994 04:47:55 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <north.761095114@watop>
Subject: Re: On Mark North's ego on parade
Mark North [north@watop.nosc.mil] clucks defiant:

=mnorth   "(your are) too stupid to realize this"  ........     
=mnorth   "I think you're stupid"  ........     
=mnorth  "your tiny brain"  ........     
=mnorth   "a tiny brain"   ........     
=mnorth   "I think you malicious and have mispronounced your name
        in a disparaging way all in a public forum for the sole purpose
         of ridicule. "  ........     
=mnorth   "you have a point sized brain"   ........     
=mnorth    "your mother would have asked for a post-partum abortion"  ........     
=mnorth    "you may now... ahhh, yer mudder.  ........     
=mnorth    "Yes, you may consider yourself mugged and high time I would say."
=mnorth   
=mnorth   Res: 1826 Galveston St
=mnorth        San Diego, Ca 92110  ........     
=mnorth   
=mnorth   Ofc: NRaD         
=mnorth        Code 754
=mnorth        271 Catalina Blvd
=mnorth        San Diego, CA 92152  ........     
=mnorth     
=mnorth   "t you malicious, bullshit, etc, etc "  ........     
=mnorth   "you are also an ass.  ........     
=mnorth   "I will dog you on thi"s forum"   ........     
=mnorth   "I am an ornery person"   ........     
                  /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\

   Q.E.D.     Not very scientific for sci.physics.fusion.    
   Rather these words, hysteric psychobabble frankly,
represent the very definition of  an "ad hominem" attack.
Furthermore, this continual vulgarity is hardly worthy
of the office from which this nastiness is continually
being posted.  

   Given the pathological spouting, I will no longer
respond.
                           Mitchell Swartz   [mica@world.std]







cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.12 / P SHEAFFER /  HELIUM FUSION REACTIONS??
     
Originally-From: PATRICK_SHEAFFER@LabsLine.win.net (PATRICK SHEAFFER)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: HELIUM FUSION REACTIONS??
Date: Sat, 12 Feb 1994 20:04:00 GMT


A>Is there any reaction which gives a stable product
A>involving fusion of 4    and any other particle?
A>		     He 

All elements can be fused to yield anything up to Iron, which is the 
most stable element's nucleus.  Nobody's ever probed the center of a 
star, and it's so damn dense there that almost any reaction will go 
forward.   Just start combining simple particles to make something you 
see in a periodic table of the elements, then look at the masses of the 
particles (added up) and the mass of the light element. If the element 
is LIGHTER, then it is MORE STABLE.  This is because the mass difference
(between the particles that make up the element and the element itself) 
is converted to *binding* energy, which makes it more stable.  If it is 
heavier than its particles, it is less stable.

4-He is 4.002603, 3-He is 3.016049  the sum is   7.018652
7-Li is 6.941, making it MORE STABLE.

Now in a rarefied plasma, like in a reactor, it may not be so simple :-)

DS

cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenPATRICK_SHEAFFER cudfnPATRICK cudlnSHEAFFER cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.13 / Robert Heeter /  Part 2 - (Long!) FUT: Frequently Used Terms, second draft
     
Originally-From: rfheeter@flagstaff.Princeton.EDU (Robert Franklin Heeter)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Part 2 - (Long!) FUT: Frequently Used Terms, second draft
Date: Sun, 13 Feb 1994 06:07:40 GMT
Organization: Princeton University


***** Picking up where we left off, at the letter L  *******

@ L-mode: see low mode.

@ LANL - Los Alamos National Laboratory

@ LLNL - Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

* Landau Damping:

* Langmuir probe: a small conductive electrode used to 
measure the density of a plasma.

* Larmor radius: the radius of the path of a charged 
particle in a magnetic field.  Also known as gyroradius
and cyclotron radius.

@ Laser: Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation. 

* Laser: (from Herman) an optical device that amplifies and
concentrates light waves, emitting them in a narrow, intense 
beam.

> Laser Fusion:  Form of inertial confinement fusion where
laser beams are used to compress the fuel pellet.

* Laser scattering device: (from Herman)  Formally known as
Thomson scattering device.  A diagnostic device used to
measure electron temperature in a plasma by directing laser
light into the plasma.  The laser's photons scatter off 
the electrons in the plasma, spreading in a manner proportional
to the electron temperature.

* Lawson Criterion:

* Limiters:  (from Herman) structures placed in contact 
with the edge of a confined plasma which are used to 
define the shape of the outermost magnetic surface.

* Lithium:

* Low Aspect Ratio:

* Low mode or L-Mode:  (from Herman) The normal behavior of 
a plasma undergoing ohmic heating, that is, as the 
plasma's temperature climbs higher, the confinement of 
the plasma deteriorates.

* Lower Hybrid Waves:

@ MIT - Massachusetts Institute of Technology

@ MHD - Magnetohydrodynamics; see entry

* Magnetic Bottle (from Herman) The magnetic field used to
confine a plasma in controlled fusion experiments.

* Magnetic Confinement Fusion:  Method of fusion which uses
magnetic fields / magnetic bottles to confine a hot plasma
until fusion occurs.

* Magnetic Field:

> Magnetic Mirror: See mirror effect, mirror device

* Magnetohydrodynamics:

* Maxwell:

* Maxwell-Boltzmann Distribution:

* Maxwellian Distribution: see Maxwell-Boltzmann Distribution

* Maxwell's Equations: The key equations governing
electrical and magnetic phenomena. (more?)

* Meltdown:  (from Herman) A buildup of heat in the core of
a nuclear fission reactor due to an uncontrolled chain
reaction of the fission fuel causing the fuel rods to 
melt down to (through, in some cases) the reactor floor.

* Microinstability: 

* Mirror effect: A particle travelling into an increasing
magnetic field will (if the field becomes strong enough)
reverse direction and be reflected back.

> Mirror device, mirror machine:  (Adapted from Herman)
Generally, linear fusion machines which confine the plasma
using the mirror effect.  Basically there is a weak field
in the center, and strong fields at the ends.

> Muon-Catalyzed Fusion: (Steve Jones?)

@ NBI - Neutral Beam Injection; see entry

* Neutral Beam Injection: (from Herman) A method for producing
neutrally charged atoms of high energy and injecting beams 
of these atoms into a magnetically confined plasma, where 
they are soon ionized.  The high-energy ions then transfer 
part of their energy to the plasma particles in repeated
collisions, thus increasing the plasma temperature.

* Neutron:

* Non-inductive current drive:

> Nova: (from Herman) The United States' largest laser fusion
facility, at LLNL.

* Nuclear Binding Energy:

* Nucleus:  The tiny core of an atom, positively charged,
containing protons and neutrons.  Electrons orbit the nucleus.

@ OH - Ohmic Heating; see entry

@ ORNL - Oak Ridge National Laboratory

* Ohmic heating: (from Herman)  Heating resulting from the
resistance a medium offers to the flow of electrical current.
In plasma subjected to ohmic heating, ions are heated
almost entirely by transfer of energy from the hotter
electrons.

@ PBX-M - Princeton Beta Experiment-Modified; see entry

@ PLT - Princeton Large Torus; see entry

@ PPPL - Princeton Plasma Physics Lab

* Pellet Injection / Pellet Injector: (from Herman) A device
that shoots small frozen pellets of hydrogen isotopes at
high speed into the inner regions of hot plasma.

* Pinch effect: (from Herman) The constriction of a plasma
carrying a large current caused by the interaction of that 
current with its own encircling magnetic field.

> Pinch machine:  Fusion machine which confines plasma
using the pinch effect.

* Plasma: a gas in which many of the atoms or molecules 
are ionized.  Examples:  the sun, fluorescent light tubes,
very hot flames, much of interplanetary, interstellar,
and intergalactice space, the earth's ionosphere, parts
of the atmosphere around lightning discharges, and of
course what's inside a fusion reactor when it's working
right.

> Plasma Focus:

* Plasma Frequency:

> PLASMAK(tm):  (Paul M. Koloc?)

* Plutonium:  (from Herman) A radioactive metallic element
whose isotope, plutonium-239, is used in nuclear weapons 
and as a fission reactor fuel.

* Poloidal:

* Power:

* Pressure:

> Princeton Beta Experiment-Modified (PBX-M):  mid-sized tokamak
research device at Princeton. (need more here!)

> Princeton Large Torus (PLT): Large tokamak formerly operated
at the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory (PPPL).

* Project Matterhorn:  (from Herman) The code name of the 
United States' first secret controlled fusion project 
started by Lyman Spitzer at Princeton University in 1951.

* Proton: (from Herman) An elementary particle found in the
nucleus of all atoms.  It carries a single positive electrical
charge.

* Q: See Q-factor

* Q-factor:  Ratio of power produced by fusion to power
put into the reactor to heat the plasma and drive the
magnetic fields.  Q = 1 is the definition of scientific
breakeven, where power out = power in.  Economical fusion
will require Q significantly greater than 1.  Fortunately
Q increases dramatically as the plasma parameters 
approach the Lawson criterion for ignition.

* Quasi-neutral plasma: an ionized gas in which positive 
and negative charges are present in approximately 
equal numbers.

@ RF Heating - Radio Frequency Heating

! RF Heeter - Plasma physics graduate student at PPPL;the editor 
of the sci.physics.fusion FAQ, bibliography, and FUT :)

@ RFP: Reversed Field Pinch; see entry

* Radiation: The emission of energy from a body in the form
of light or heat rays, or energetic particles such as
alpha particles, electrons, or neutrons.  Radiation is
*what is emitted*, not *what does the emitting*.  A nucleus
which does the emitting is said to be radioactive.  Electrons
in atoms can also emit radiation in the form of ordinary 
visible light; such atoms are not said to be radioactive.

* Radioactive waste: (from Herman) Equipment and materials
from nuclear operations which are radioactive and for which
there is no further anticipated use.

* Radioactivity:  Characteristic property of unstable nuclei
which decay to other nuclei by emission of radiation.

* Reactor:  See fission reactor, fusion reactor.

* Recombination Radiation: radiation produced when a 
free electron in a plasma is captured by an ion.

* Resistance:

* Resistivity:

> Reversed-Field Pinch:

* Runaway Electrons:  (from Herman) Those electrons in a 
plasma that gain energy from an applied electrical field 
at a faster rate than they lose it through collisions 
with other particles.  These electrons tend to "run away" 
in energy from the remainder of the plasma.

! Sakharov, Andrei: Among other achievements, he is 
credited with the initial design of the tokamak.

* Scaling Laws:  (from Herman)  Laws stating that if two
quantities are proportional and are known to be valid at
certain orders of magnitude, then they can be used to
calculate the value of one of the quantities at another
order of magnitude.  

* Scientific Feasibility: (from Herman) "The successful 
completion of experiments which reach 'breakeven' plasma
conditions (minimum values of temperature, density,
confinement time) in laboratory devices which lend themselves
to development into net power-producing systems.  
Reactor-grade (eg, D-T) fusion fuels need not be used in
these experiments.

* Sheared Flow:

> Spheromak:

! Spitzer, Lyman:  Early Princeton Fusion Scientist; 
astrophysicist who first proposed orbiting space telescope;
inventor of the stellarator.

> Stellarator: (from Herman) Device invented by Lyman Spitzer
for the containment of a plasma inside a racetrack-shaped
(figure-8) tube.  The plasma is contained by a magnetic 
field created by helical windings around the tube.

* Superconductor:  (from Herman) A type of electrical 
conductor that permits a current to flow with zero resistance.

@ TFTR - Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor; see entry

@ TPX - Tokamak Physics Experiment; see entry

> T-3: (from Herman) A Soviet tokamak located at the 
Kurchatov Institute in Moscow that first proved viability
by producing a plasma temperature of 10 million degrees
centigrage/Kelvin.

> T-10: (from Herman) A later Soviet tokamak located at 
the Kurchatov Institute (a copy of which is PLT, only 
PLT had neutral beams).

> T-15: (from Herman) A Soviet tokamak with superconducting
magnets currently under construction.  (Was it completed?
Is it operational?)

> T-20:  (from Herman) A large Soviet tokamak that was to 
have operated under reactor conditions (net energy 
production) but which was abandoned for budgetary reasons.

* Temperature, Plasma:  (adapted from Herman) A measure of 
the random (thermal) kinetic energy of the ions or electrons
in the plasma.

* Thermonuclear Fusion: fusion achieved by heating
up the fuel into the plasma state to the point where
ions have sufficient energy to fuse.

> Theta Pinch:

* Thomson Scattering:

> Tokamak: (From a Russian acronym for Toroidal Magnetic Chamber)

Because the tokamak is the primary research machine for
magnetic confinement fusion, we provide several 
descriptions from various sources:

"One of several types of toroidal discharge chamber 
in which a longitudinal magnetic field is used to confine a 
plasma.  The tokamak is distinguished by a plasma current
running around the torus, which generates a stabilizing
poloidal magnetic field."

TOKAMAK  (tokomak)  (contributed by Paul M. Koloc)
"A three component magnetoplasma toroidal construct in which 
the poloidal magnetic component is provided by a toroidal plasma 
current. The other two components are coil driven, namely, the
vertical field (which opposes the major radial expansion) and
the toroidal field (which acts to provide a "stiff guide" field
for the plasma to gain more MHD stability.    
Note:
It is better to think that the toroidal or longitudinal field  
"stiffens" the plasma as against flopping or kinking, while the 
plasma current driven poloidal (locally azimuthal) field provides 
"confinement" pressure.  Actually, the toroidal field interacting 
with plasma diamagnetism may also contribute to a "magnetic 
bouyancy", which is a sort of UN-confinement -- (it actually gives 
the plasma a tendency to expand radially outward in the equatorial 
plane)."  

(from Herman:) "Based on an original Soviet design, a device
for containing plasma inside a torus chamber by using the 
combination of two magnetic fields - one created by electric
coils around the torus, the other created by intense electric
current in the plasma itself, which also servers to
heat the plasma [partially].  TFTR and JET are tokamaks."

> Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor:  Large tokamak at Princeton,
first machine to use 50-50 mix of D-T fuel, current world's
record holder in fusion energy production.  Largest tokamak
in the United States.  

> Tokamak Physics Experiment:  Smaller successor to TFTR at
Princeton.  Engineering design underway; construction 
scheduled to begin in FY 1995.

> Tore Supra:  small superconducting French tokamak (?)

* Toroidal: in the shape of a torus, or doughnut.  
Or: Coordinate indicating which part of the torus a 
particle is in.  Or: General term referring to toruses
as opposed to other geometries.

> Toroidal Pinch:

> Torsatron:

* Tritium: (from Herman) A radioactive isotope of hydrogen with
one proton and two neutrons in its nucleus and one orbiting
electron.  A more efficient fuel than ordinary hydrogen
(protium) because of the extra neutrons.

* Universal gas constant: R = 8.314 x 10^7 ergs per 
degree C per mole.

* Upper Hybrid Waves:

* Uranium:  (from Herman) A radioactive metallic element whose
isotope, uranium-235, is a nuclear fission fuel.  Plutonium,
another fission fuel, can be produced from the more
plentiful isotope uranium-238.

@ ZETA - Zero Energy Thermonuclear Assembly; see entry

> Zero Energy Thermonuclear Assembly: (from Herman) A British
fusion device in which scientists made the erroneous
observation in 1958 of thermonuclear fusion reactions.

Velocity:

Viscosity:

> Z-Pinch:


****************************************

*** Acknowledgements:

Jake Blanchard, blanchard@engr.wisc.edu - suggested we have a 
list of acronyms too.

Albert Chou, albert@seas.ucla.edu - quality control

Jim Day, jim.day@support.com - initial list of terms

Robin Herman, _Fusion: Search for Endless Energy_; I
borrowed a lot of terms from her glossary.  Cited
as (from Herman).

Emilio Martines, martines@pdigi3.igi.pd.cnr.it - quality control

Paul M. Koloc, pmk@prometheus.UUCP - quality control

**********************

That's all there is so far!  Please add to the list as you
get some spare time!

*******************
Robert F. Heeter
rfheeter@lyman.pppl.gov
Graduate Student, Princeton Plasma Physics Lab
Standard disclaimers apply.
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.13 / Robert Heeter /  Part 1 - (Long!) FUT: Frequently Used Terms, second draft
     
Originally-From: rfheeter@flagstaff.Princeton.EDU (Robert Franklin Heeter)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Part 1 - (Long!) FUT: Frequently Used Terms, second draft
Date: Sun, 13 Feb 1994 05:43:24 GMT
Organization: Princeton University


*** Guide to Conventional (not Cold) Fusion Terminology ***

Editorial Note:  Like any discipline, fusion research has 
evolved terminology used to facilitate discussion.  This 
includes the scientific vocabulary of the discipline, 
the names of various research machines and research 
centers, the acronyms frequently used as shorthand for 
some of the above, and also the names of various researchers 
in the field.  In the case of conventional (magnetic 
confinement, inertial confinement, thermonuclear, 
muon-catalyzed, etc - but not Cold) fusion, this terminology 
has grown to the point where newcomers may be intimidated 
by the apparent obscurity of the discussions.  This file 
is our attempt to provide a comprehensive and detailed 
listing and explanation of terms frequently used, so that 
those new to the group will be able to understand what is 
being said, and to contribute with a minimum of confusion 
and frustration.  (Hmm:  Frequently Used Terminology = FUT?)  

The following is the beginning of a guide to terminology used
in conventional (not Cold) fusion research.  This is
the second draft of the terminology guide, and unfortunately
it remains rather incomplete.  (Hint:  If you don't
like something, submit a revision/correction, and I'll
put it in if it looks good.)

I've taken an initial list supplied by Jim Day 
(Jim.Day@support.com), added some comments from various
responses I received to the first draft, incorporated
the contents of the glossary of Robin Herman's _Fusion: The
Search for Endless Energy_ (without permission, but with
attribution where they occur), begun adding acronyms, 
machine names, and names of important scientists as they 
come to me, and written up a few preliminary definitions 
based upon explanations that have appeared in the newsgroup
recently.

Many of the terms used do not yet have explanations given.
I am looking for additional contributions (and improvements)
to the list.  It would be nice if people posting to the
group could occasionally take a few moments to include
definitions of a few terms used (as I have tried to do
lately) when you use them; in browsing through the group
I can then snip out the terms and definitions and simply
paste them into the evolving FUT file.

It would be nice, eventually, if references to the 
FAQ/FQA and the Reading List could be given to supplement 
the FUT descriptions, at least for some of the more
complicated terms.  (For instance, the description below 
for "Alfven waves" should come with references to a few 
texts which derive & discuss them, so the interested person
knows where to go for more information.)

--Robert F. Heeter
rfheeter@lyman.pppl.gov
Graduate Student, Princeton Plasma Physics Lab
(Usual disclaimers apply.)


======================================================= 
FREQUENTLY USED TERMS IN CONVENTIONAL FUSION RESEARCH
(AND PLASMA PHYSICS)
 
* = vocabulary; > = device type or machine name; 
! = scientist; @ = acronym


@ ASDEX - Axially Symmetric Divertor EXperiment; see entry

* Activation: Activation occurs when a particle interacts
with an atomic nucleus, shifting the nucleus into an
unstable state, and causing it to become radioactive.
In fusion research, where deuterium-tritium is a common
fuel mixture, the neutron released when (D + T) combine
to form (4He + n) can activate the reactor structure. 

* Activation Product: The unstable nucleus formed when
activation occurs.  (See activation above.)

> Alcator: (from Herman) A family of tokamaks developed and
built at MIT and characterized by relatively small diameters
and high magnetic fields.  Plasmas in these devices have
relatively high current and particle densities.

* Alfven waves: transverse electromagnetic waves 
that are propagated along lines of magnetic force 
in a plasma.

! Alfven, Hannes:  Nobel Prize-Winning Plasma Physicist

* Alpha particle:  The nucleus of a Helium-4 atom; is a
typical product of fusion reactions; also released
in various nuclear decay processes.

* Ampere, kiloampere, megampere:  (from Herman) The standard
unit for measuring the strength of an electric current
representing a flow of one coulomb of electricity per second.
1 kiloampere = 1000 amperes; 1 megampere = 1,000,000 amperes.
Common abbreviations:  amps, kiloamps, megamps, kA, MA

* Aspect Ratio:  In toroidal geometry, the ratio of
the major radius (total width of the torus) to the 
minor radius (width of a slice taken through one side
of the ring).  (This would be much better with a picture!)

> Axially Symmetric Divertor EXperiment (from Herman)
(ASDEX, Asdex: Garching, Germany)  A large tokamak designed 
for the study of impurities and their control by a magnetic
divertor.  The H mode or high mode of operation with neutral 
beam injection was first observed on ASDEX.

* Atom:  (from Herman)  The smallest unit of an element that
retains the characteristics of that element.  At the center
of the atom is the nucleus, made up of neutrons and protons,
around which the electrons orbit.  Atoms of ordinary hydrogen,
the lightest element, consists of a nucleus of one proton
orbited by one electron.

* Atomic Bomb, A-Bomb:  (from Herman) A weapon with a large
explosive power due to the sudden release of energy when the
nuclei of heavy atoms such as plutonium-239 or uranium-235
are split.  This fission is brought about by the bombardment
of the fuel with neutrons, setting off a chain reaction.
The bomb releases shock, blast, heat, light, and lethal
radiation.  The world's first atomic bomb was successfully
tested by the United States on July 16, 1945.

* Avogadro's number: N = 6.02497 x 10^23.  Number of particles 
in a mole of a substance.  Coefficient relating Boltzmann's 
constant to the ideal gas constant. This is the number of 
atoms per gram-atom.

* Azimuthal: 

* Beryllium: (Be)

* Blanket: (from Herman) a region surrounding a fusion reactor 
core within which the fusion neutrons are slowed down, heat 
is transferred to a primary coolant, and tritium is bred 
from lithium.  In hybrid applications, fertile materials 
(U-238 or Th-232) are located in the blanket for conversion 
into fissile fuels.

* Bohm diffusion:  (from Herman) A rapid loss of plasma
across magnetic field lines caused by microinstabilities.
Theory formulated by the physicist David Bohm.

* Boltzmann constant: k = 1.38 x 10^-16 erg/degree. This 
is the ratio of the universal gas constant to Avogadro's number.
It is also used to relate temperatures (Kelvin) to energies (ergs
or Joules) via E = (constant of order unity) * kT.

* Boltzmann distribution:  See Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution

* Boron: (B)

@ BPX - Burning Plasma eXperiment; see entry

* Breakeven:
     Commercial:  When fusion power can be converted into
enough electric power to power the reactor and generate
enough electricity to cover the costs of the plant at
economically competitive rates. (?)
     Scientific:  When fusion power = input power; Q=1.

* Breeder Reactor:  (from Herman) A kind of nuclear reactor that
produces more fissionable material than it consumes to
generate energy.  The liquid-metal "fast breeder," a promising
type of breeder, splits plutonium-239, producing an intense
flow of neutrons and a self-sustaining chain reaction. 

> Burning Plasma eXperiment:  Proposed U.S. successor to TFTR;
not funded.

> Bumpy Torus:

* Carbon:

* Celsius: see Centigrade

* Centigrade: Temperature scale where zero degrees corresponds 
to the freezing point of water (32 Fahrenheit) and 100 degrees
corresponds to the boiling point (212 Fahrenheit).  Zero
centigrade/celsius = 273.16 Kelvin. 

* Chain Reaction: (from Herman) A self-sustaining series of
chemical or nuclear reactions in which the products of the
reaction contribute directly to the propagation of the process.

* Collision Cross-Section:

> Compact Torus:  Any of a series of fusion experiments in
toroidal geometries in which the ratio of the radius of the
torus to the plasma radius is nearly one.  (See also Low 
Aspect Ratio)

* Conductivity:

* Confinement Time:  (from Herman)  The amount of time the
plasma is contained by magnetic fields before its energy
leaks away.

* Controlled Thermonuclear Fusion:  (from Herman) The process
in which light nuclei, heated to a high temperature in a 
confined region, undergo fusion reactions under controlled
conditions.

* Corona:

* Coulomb: standard unit of electric charge.

* Coulomb Collision:

* Coulomb's Law:

* Curie:  French radiation scientist; unit of radioactivity.

* Current Drive:

* Cyclotron:

* Cyclotron Frequency:

* Cyclotron radius:  Radius of orbit of charged particle about
a magnetic field line.  Also called gyroradius, Larmor radius.

@ DIII-D - Doublet III-D; see entry

@ DOE - Department of Energy (United States)

* D-shaped plasma:  A plasma whose cross section is a D (instead
of a circle).

* Debye Length:

* Debye Shielding:

! Debye, (names?):  Physicist, early plasma researcher

* Department of Energy:  (from Herman) U.S. cabinet-level
department that has overseen atomic energy research since 1977.

* Deuteron: A deuterium ion; nucleus consisting of a proton
and a neutron.

* Deuterium: A heavy isotope of hydrogen whose nucleus
contains both a neutron and a proton.

* Diagnostics:  (from Herman) Procedures for determining
(diagnosing) the state of a plasma during an experiment;
also refers to the instruments used for diagnosing.

* Disruption:  (from Herman) A gross instability which gives 
rise to an abrupt temperature drop and the termination of 
the plasma.

* Divertor: (from Herman) Component of a toroidal fusion 
device that diverts charged particles on the outer edge 
of the plasma where they beomce neutralized.  This prevents 
the particles from striking the chamber walls and dislodging
secondary particles that would cool the plasma.

> Doublet III-D:  (from Herman) Latest in a series of
tokamaks designed by GA Technologies (formerly General Atomic)
in San Diego making plasmas with noncircular cross sections,
including kidney shapes and D-shapes.

@ EC - European Community; see entry

@ ECH - Electron Cyclotron Heating; see entry

* Electric Field:

* Electron: (from Herman) Elementary particle with a negative
electric charge.  Electrons orbit around the positively 
charged nucleus in an atom.

* Electron Cyclotron Heating:

* Electron-volt: 1 eV = 1.6 x 10^-12 erg. This is a unit of 
kinetic energy equal to that of an electron having 
a velocity of 5 x 10^7 cm/sec.  This is the energy an 
electron gains as it's accelerated through a potential 
difference of 1 volt.  In plasma physics the eV is used 
as a unit of temperature; when the mean particle energy 
is 1eV, the temperature of the plasma is 11,600 Kelvin.

> Electrostatic Confinement:

* Energy:

* European Community: (from Herman) Organization of European
countries (formerly European Economic Community, EEC) 
established in 1967 to coordinate policies on the economy,
energy, agriculture, and other matters.  The original member
countries were France, Belgium, West Germany, Italy,
Luxembourg, and the Netherlands.  Joining later were
Denmark, Ireland, the United Kingdom, Greece, Spain, and
Portugal.
* Euratom:  (from Herman) European Atomic Energy Community.
International organization established in 1958 by members
of the European Economic Community to form a common market
for the development of peaceful uses of nuclear power.

* Field Lines:

* Fission (Nuclear): (adapted from Herman) the division 
of an atomic nucleus into two smaller nuclei.  In large 
nuclei, frequently accompanied by large energy release 
and generally one or more neutrons.

* Fission Bomb:  see atomic bomb, A-bomb.

* Fission Reactor:  (from Herman) A device that can initiate 
and control a self-sustaining series of nuclear fissions.

* Flat-top:  Stable period in the middle of a tokamak
discharge, characterized by a flat, stable peak in a plot
of plasma (current, temperature) vs. time.

* Fokker-Planck Equation:

* Fusion (Nuclear): a nuclear reaction in which light atomic 
nuclei combine to form heavier nuclei.  (See also Controlled
Thermonuclear Fusion)

* Fusion Reactor: (from Herman) A nuclear reactor in which
a self-sustaining series of nuclear fusions would produce
energy (that could be converted to electric power).

> Fusion-Fission Hybrid: (from Herman) A proposed type of
nuclear reactor relying on both fusion and fission reactions.
A central fusion chamber would produce neutrons to provoke
fission in a surrounding blanket of fissionable material.
The neutron source could also be used to convert other
materials into additional fissile fuels (breeder hybrid).

* Gyrofrequency:

* Gyroradius: radius of charged particle in magnetic field.
Same thing as cyclotron radius, Larmor radius.

> Glow Discharge: a relatively cool form of plasma discharge;
a common form is in fluorescent lights. (more?)

* Half-life:  (from Herman) The time in which half the 
atoms of a particular radioactive isotope disintegrate 
to another nuclear form.  Half-lives range from millionths 
of a second to billions of years.

* Helium: Element whose nuclei all contain two protons.
Stable isotopes are 3He and 4He.  3He is rare on earth,
but relatively abundant in the crust of the moon.

@ H-mode:  see high-mode

* High-mode or H-mode:  (from Herman) A regime of operation
attained during auxiliary heating of divertor tokamak plasmas
when the injected power is sufficiently high.  A sudden
improvement in particle confinement time leads to increased
density and temperature, distinguishing this mode from
the normal "low mode."

* Hybrid reactor:  see fusion-fission hybrid.

* Hydrogen: (H) Element whose nuclei all contain only one proton.
Isotopes are protium (p, no neutrons) deuterium (D or d, 
one neutron), and tritium (T or t, two neutrons).

* Hydrogen bomb or H-bomb: (from Herman) An extremely 
powerful type of atomic bomb based on nuclear fusion.  
The atoms of heavy isotopes of hydrogen (deuterium and 
tritium) undergo fusion when subjected to the immense 
heat and pressure generated by the explosion of a nuclear 
fission unit in the bomb.

@ IAEA - International Atomic Energy Agency; see entry
 
@ IBHP - Integrated Biological Hazard Potential; see entry

@ ICF - Inertial Confinement Fusion; see entry

@ ICRH - Ion Cyclotron Resonance Heating; see entry

@ ITER - International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor; see entry

* Ignition:  (from Herman) The point at which the plasma 
produces so much energy from fusion reactions that it no 
longer needs any external source of power to maintain 
its temperature.

* Impurities: atoms of unwanted elements in the plasma, 
inhibiting fusion.

* Inductive Current Drive:

* Inertial Confinement Fusion:

* Instability:  (from Herman) A state of plasma in which a
small perturbation amplifies itself to a considerable 
alteration of the equilibrium of the system, leading to
disruptions.

* Integrated Biological Hazard Potential:

* International Atomic Energy Agency: (from Herman)  An
autonomous intergovernmental organization established in 1956
with the purpose of advancing peaceful uses of atomic energy,
with headquarters in Vienna.

> International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER):
Huge fusion reactor being planned by the EC, US, Japan,
and Russia (former USSR?).  Should generate far more
energy than it consumes.

* Ion Cyclotron Resonance Heating:

* Ion:  (from Herman) An atom whic hhas ecome charged as a 
result of gaining or losing one or more orbiting electrons.  
A completely ionized atom is one stripped of all its electrons.

* Ionization:  process by which a neutral atom is converted 
to an ion (or one ion is converted to another of a different 
type).

* Ionization Energy:

* Ionosphere:

* Isotope: (from Herman) One of several variations of the 
same element, possessing different numbers of neutrons but
the same number of protons in their nuclei.

@ JET - Joint European Torus; see entry

@ JT-60: (?)

> Joint European Torus:  (from Herman) A large tokamak 
in Oxfordshire, England, commonly owned by the European 
Community.  First reactor to achieve > 1 MW of fusion
power, in 1991.

> JT-60: (from Herman) A large Japanese tokamak located north 
of Tokyo.

* Kelvin: (K) temperature scale where zero degrees corresponds
to absolute zero (no thermal energy); degrees have same
size as in Celsius/centigrade scale.  273.16 K = zero C;
373.16 = 100 C.

* Kink Mode; Kink Instability:


====== See part 2 for the rest! =======

Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
etc etc.
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.13 / mitchell swartz /  Replies to Dick Blue : on helium-4 & glass
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Replies to Dick Blue : on helium-4 & glass
Subject: Replies to Mitchell Swartz
Date: Sun, 13 Feb 1994 15:04:53 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

   In Message-ID: <94021110315372@dancer.nscl.msu.edu>
Subject: Replies to Mitchell Swartz
Dick Blue [NSCL@MSU; blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu]
responded to questions.  A comment on what he had to say.  

    =====================================================
   continuing the debate  ---  questions to the skeptics ---
    =====================================================

  <ms> F)  How do you explain the helium-4 linked to the excess heat?

  =db  "If you are referring to the Miles data,I would say that the accuracy of
  =db the calorimetry is marginal and contamination of samples from atmospheric
  =db helium has been suggested as a likely explanation for at least some
  =db   of the helium observations."

  Mel Miles sent his samples to three independent laboratories.  Apparently
this was one more careful control he has used.   What is in doubt is
whether the skeptics have read any of these papers.

   <ms>  H)  How do you explain the helium?
   =db "There are two effects here.One is simple contamination directly from
   =db the atmosphere or indirectly from helium in glass or dissolved in the
   =db electrolyte. "  

     Melvin Miles and B. Bush, of the Chemistry 
Division, Research Department Naval Air Warfare  Center 
Weapons Division China Lake, CA demonstrated 
"ash" consistent with a nuclear process, where that ash is 
helium-4.  Their high caliber research demonstrated the 
linking of helium-4 with the excess heat.   Their paper "HEAT 
AND HELIUM MEASUREMENTS IN DEUTERATED 
PALLADIUM" has the following important excerpts. 

 "Our previous results present a correlation between the 
measured excess poser and  helium production in D2O-LiOD 
electrolysis cells using palladium cathodes.  The  measured 
rate of 4He production (10^11-10^12 4He/s*W) is the correct 
magnitude for typical  deuteron fusion reactions that yield 
helium as a product."
      *** 
  "Metal flasks were used  to collect 
the electrolysis gas samples in order to minimize atmospheric 
contamination  due to helium diffusion through glass.  The 
helium concentrations in Table II support a  detection limit of 
approximately 10^l3 4He/500 mL in these experiments as 
reported  previously.  Mean values for the measured helium 
concentrations in these control  experiments are 4.4 +/-0.6 ppb 
or 5.1 +/-0.7 x 10^l3 4He/500 mL."
       ***
  "For experiments 
producing excess power, five helium measurements using these 
same  metal flasks have been completed. These experiments 
yield a mean value of 2.0 +/-0.5 x  1011 4He/s*W after 
correcting for background levels of helium measured in control  
studies (Table II).  This value is once again the correct 
magnitude for typical deuteron  fusion reactions that yield 4He 
as a product."

These excerpts demonstrate that no glass was used, and
that adequate controls were.
Given the excess heat, nuclear products, and the
linking of these,  there is much for scientists to
consider.

  Best wishes, colleagues. 
                           Mitchell Swartz  [mica@world.std]

cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.13 / Albert Chou /  Re: HELIUM FUSION REACTIONS??
     
Originally-From: albert@cloudburst.seas.ucla.edu (Albert E. Chou)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: HELIUM FUSION REACTIONS??
Date: Sun, 13 Feb 1994 20:23:40 GMT
Organization: School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, UCLA

In article <528@LabsLine.win.net> PATRICK_SHEAFFER@LabsLine.win.net
(PATRICK SHEAFFER) writes:
>
>A>Is there any reaction which gives a stable product
>A>involving fusion of 4    and any other particle?
>A>		     He 
>
>Nobody's ever probed the center of a 
>star, and it's so damn dense there that almost any reaction will go 
>forward.   Just start combining simple particles to make something you 
>see in a periodic table of the elements, then look at the masses of the 
>particles (added up) and the mass of the light element. If the element 
>is LIGHTER, then it is MORE STABLE.  This is because the mass difference

Actually, what reactions go on inside a star depend on exactly how dense
and hot it is there.  You generally don't get much past the formation of carbon,
I think.  I think most of the heavy elements beyond that are produced by
supernovae.

Also, not every fusion reaction is really possible on the grounds of nuclear
and/or particle physics.  The mass defect / binding energy criterion is
only the most basic of constraints on the possibility of a reaction.  So
even if the binding energy calculation says the product is stable, that's
no guarantee that the product is ever _produced_.


Al
-- 
Internet:  albert@seas.ucla.edu
GEnie:  A.Chou1
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenalbert cudfnAlbert cudlnChou cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.13 / P SHEAFFER /  HELIUM FUSION REACTIONS??
     
Originally-From: patrick_sheaffer@labsline.win.net (PATRICK SHEAFFER)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: HELIUM FUSION REACTIONS??
Date: Sun, 13 Feb 1994 16:26:00 GMT


A>Is there any reaction which gives a stable product
A>involving fusion of 4    and any other particle?
A>		     He 

All elements can be fused to yield anything up to Iron, which is the 
most stable element's nucleus.  Nobody's ever probed the center of a 
star, and it's so damn dense there that almost any reaction will go 
forward.   Just start combining simple particles to make something you 
see in a periodic table of the elements, then look at the masses of the 
particles (added up) and the mass of the light element. If the element 
is LIGHTER, then it is MORE STABLE.  This is because the mass difference
(between the particles that make up the element and the element itself) 
is converted to *binding* energy, which makes it more stable.  If it is 
heavier than its particles, it is less stable.

4-He is 4.002603, 3-He is 3.016049  the sum is   7.018652
7-Li is 6.941, making it MORE STABLE.

Now in a rarefied plasma, like in a reactor, it may not be so simple :-)

DS

cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenpatrick_sheaffer cudfnPATRICK cudlnSHEAFFER cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.14 / Robert Heeter /  Conventional Fusion protoFAQ (outline)
     
Originally-From: rfheeter@flagstaff.Princeton.EDU (Robert Franklin Heeter)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Conventional Fusion protoFAQ (outline)
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 1994 01:47:21 GMT
Organization: Princeton University


General Status of the Conventional (not Cold) Fusion FAQ, 2/13/94:

We appear to have a pretty good start on the reading list / annotated
bibliography, and the Frequently Used Terms (FUT) dictionary is also
starting to come together.  Many thanks to those who have helped
out thus far!  (Second drafts of both files were both posted yesterday, 
in case you haven't seen them yet.)

I'm now prepared to begin work on the FAQ proper.  I have 
put together an outline, and I have enough information to write
answers to several of the questions, but I don't want to do all
the work myself, so I'm asking y'all to pitch in - pick a question
you'd like to answer, and I'll keep track of who is doing what.
Then when your answer is ready, we'll include it in the FAQ (and
we can all enhance and improve it)!  First come, first served
on the choice of questions to answer.

There are a few basic guidelines I'd like each answer to follow:

1.  Two answers to every question - one for people with little background,
and one for people with a physics/engineering undergraduate background.
Low-background answers should avoid high-level jargon as much as possible.

2.  Please try to be factual and avoid controversial / political answers.
(Let's save that for the discussions!)  The FAQ should be stuff we
can all agree on, I think.

3.  Eventually I'd like it if the FAQ, bibliography, and dictionary could
all cross-reference each other.  With this in mind, it would be helpful
if you could submit bibliography references and dictionary entries for the
jargon terms used, unless they're already in the dictionary.
	
4.  Your name and email address will be included with your answer, so 
you will get credit for what you do.

5.  If I have information relevant to a particular question, I will be
glad to share it with whoever chooses to write the answer.


PROPOSED FAQ STRUCTURE (subject to change if desirable)

1. General:
	(a) What is fusion / how does it work?
	(b) What are the different possible fusion reactions?
	(c) What conditions are needed for controlled fusion?
		(i.e., explain the Lawson criterion)   
	(d) Where does fusion occur in nature?
	(e) What is plasma physics, and how is it related to fusion?
	(f) What opportunities are there for interested students? 
	(g) What is the current state of fusion research? 
		Close / far from achieving practical benefits?
	(h) Who is doing fusion, and where?  (funds distribution?)
	(i) Benefits of developing fusion energy?
		Applications to spaceflight?
	(j) How to spread the word to get more support?
		Is this too political?

2. History:
	(a) When did fusion research begin?
	(b) When was fusion research declassified?
	(c) What level of international cooperation is there?
	(d) What is the history of fusion funding (US, FUSSR, EC, Japan)?
	(e) What is the history of achievement of fusion parameters?

3. Methods of Containment / Approaches to fusion:
	(a) What is a tokamak / how does it work?
	(b)   "  "  " mirror  / "   "    "   " ? 
	(c)   "  "  inertial confinement / " " "? 
	(d) What is a stellarator / " " " " ? 
	(e)   "  "  " Plasmak / "   "    "   " ? 
	(f)   "  " electrostatic confinement/ "  "  " ? 
	(g)   "  " reversed-field pinch / " " " " ? 
	(h) What are some other confinement approaches? (Migma?)

4. Status of and plans for Current Devices: (Give references!)
 * Not in any particular order. Perhaps chronological by 
      date of first plasma? *	
	(a) What is TFTR?
	(b) What is JET?
	(c) What is DIII-D?
	(d) What is JT-60U?
	(e) What is Alcator-C-Mod?
	(f) What is Nova?
	(g) What is the state of Plasmak(tm) research? (Paul?)
	(h) What are some other research devices?
	
5. Recent Results on TFTR:
	(a) What was done?
	(b) Why does it matter?

6. Future:
	(a) Plans for TPX?
	(b) Plans for ITER?
	(c) Prospects for funding? (US, EC, Japan, FUSSR)
	(d) What problems in designing a fusion powerplant?
		Rad waste, materials choices, device parameters ???
	(e) What are the key research problems/opportunities?

7. Bibliography / Reading List

8. Dictionary / Terminology List


*******

Thanks for any suggestions / comments / ideas / help 
you can provide!

Robert F. Heeter
rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Graduate Student, Princeton Plasma Physics Lab
Disclaimers Apply

cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.14 / mitchell swartz /  More info on helium production
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: More info on helium production
Subject: Some *Newbie* questions.
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 1994 14:17:33 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

   In Message-ID: <RG2LtN+.emerge@delphi.com>
Subject: Some *Newbie* questions.
Michael Mozina [emerge@delphi.com] writes:

=mm     "Mitchell Swartz talked about Helium and Tritium production in
=mm    some tests.  Where would I find copies of these results Mitchell?"

Hi Michael. 
    There is quite a bit information on nuclear products by
these reactions.   The information here is only some of that which
is available.    If this not helpful, let me know.

On helium:
Recent results includes papers by Miles, Will, and others at ICCF-4.
The paper which was cited, written by Melvin Miles and B. Bush.,
was "HEAT AND HELIUM MEASUREMENTS IN DEUTERATED 
PALLADIUM".   Their previous paper was by
M. Miles, R. Hollins, B.F. Bush and J.J. Lagowski, 
Correlation of excess power and
helium production during D2O and H2O electrolysis using palladium
cathodes," J. of Electroanalytical Chemistry, 346 (1993) 99 - 117.

Miles, Bush, and Stilwell  also have a scheduled article
 "Calorimetric Principles ..." which may
appear in this weeks J. Phys. Chem (check 2/17/94 issue).

The Fourth International Conference on Cold Fusion (ICCF-4)
will have one (or two) compendium(a) which are pending.

on tritium:
  to supplement F. Will's paper which has not been
accurately discussed here, try 
E. Storms (Los Alamos), "Review of Experimental Observations About
The Cold Fusion Effect," Fusion Technology, Vol. 20, Dec. 1991 433 -
477. 

on helium-4 and other nuclear products:
Some results were discussed in the COLD FUSION TIMES
(various, but volume 1, issue 4, January 1994 discussed ICCF-4).
COLD FUSION TIMES    ISSN 1072-2874
P.O. Box 81135, Wellesley Hills, MA 02181

Scores of results before 1993 are available and are
listed in Eugene Mallove's book "FIRE FROM ICE:
 Searching for the Truth Behind the 
Cold Fusion Furor" (John Wiley & Sons, May, 1991)

Some additional results have been covered in a May 5, 1993,
 Congressional hearing involving both hot and cold fusion. 
"FUSION ENERGY, Hearing before the Subcommittee on
Energy of the Committee on Science, Space and Technology,
 U.S. House of Representatives," ISBN 0-16-041505-5.

Much further information is also already available in both
Fusion Technology, a technical journal published by the ANS, and
Fusion Facts, a monthly newsletter.  

   In addition, for He4 and other nuclear product information from
ICCF-3  get P. Hagelstein (M.I.T.), "Summary Of Third International
 Conference On Cold Fusion In Nagoya"
(also in vol 1, issue 1 of COLD FUSION TIMES).
 
    Best wishes, 
                     Mitchell Swartz   [mica@world.std]


cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Tue Feb 15 04:37:04 EST 1994
------------------------------
1994.02.13 /  emerge@delphi. /  Some *Newbie* questions.
     
Originally-From: emerge@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Some *Newbie* questions.
Date: Sun, 13 Feb 94 21:37:34 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

    My special thanks to Robert F. Heeter for his posting of
commonly used terms.  For a novice like myself, a "translation
table" was very appreciated.  I also appreciated recent postings
from Steven Jones about methodologies and Douglas Morrison on the
Maui conference.
     I have seen the term "loading" used several times now.  Is the
electrical energy used to "load" the palladium factored into the
energy output figures being written about?  What exactly is this
process supposed to be doing to the palladium lattice?
     I also have a couple of comments that stuck out in my mind
this weekend after reading the postings by Steven Jones & Douglas
Morrison.  I'm surprised that Steven isn't receiving more requests
for his sensitive test equipment.  It seems like someone serious
about researching the validity of Cold Fusion would want the right
tools for the job.  I was also shocked to hear that no radiation
badges are used by F+P.  It's almost inconceivable to me that they
would not take basic precautions considering the nature of their
work.   How can someone claim a result that is not able to be
duplicated?  That's pretty tough to swallow.  Any particular reason
for this inability to duplicate it?
     While I'm willing to entertain the idea that the palladium
lattice might "control" a fusion reaction somehow limiting the by-
products one would normally expect to observe, I'm uncomfortable
with the notion that there would be no by-product production.  I
would also expect to see some molecular change in the Palladium as
Steven was alluding to.  I think Mr. Jones brings up some very
crucial questions.
     Mitchell Swartz talked about Helium and Tritium production in
some tests.  Where would I find copies of these results Mitchell?
     Thanks for putting up with a (What was it Mark called
me?...Newbie?).  I certainly enjoyed *most* of the postings this
weekend.
 
Michael Mozina
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenemerge cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.10 / Cameron Bass /  Re: egos on parade!
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: egos on parade!
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 1994 17:50:39 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <2jdegkINN4to@daisy.pgh.wec.com>,
Andy Holland <zcrah@trumpet.pgh.wec.com> wrote:
>
>Some of the best scientific and engineering discoveries came from gross
>scientific errors, like 'bad air' from the eighteenth century and so on.
>Very good scientists believed them; nobody condemns Newton for thinking
>that comets fueled the sun! If you think that way, you might as well
>through calculus and F=dP/dt away because he was wrong a couple of times.

     Name three.  I'm curious what good you think came from 'bad air'
     and 'Newton thinking comets fueled the sun'?   And no one is suggesting
     throwing away the scientific equivalent of Newton's laws or 
     calculus because P&F were wrong about something peripheral.
     My suggestion is that P&F are wrong about everything.

>Maybe cold fusion is not fusion at all, but investigating the phenomenon
>would be useful in the long run. Maybe there is a quantum effect at low 
>temperatures that greatly increases the fusion cross section. Perhaps there
>is a catalyst particle, yet undiscovered.

     Maybe.  But as the original phenomenon remains convincingly 
     undemonstrated, I fail to see the point of additional hypotheses 
     needed to 'explain' the phenomenon.  We might as well hypothesize
     a race of malevolent pixies that makes the process *work* well
     only for P&F.

> Why not work together and find out
>whats really going on, verify it and prove it without personal attacks,
>snide remarks, and snap jugements?

     It's been nearly *5* years, and I waited about 3 (about 2.9 years
     longer than most everyone else).  How long do you want us to wait
     before judging?  

                              dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.14 / Andy Holland /  Re: egos on parade!
     
Originally-From: zcrah@trumpet.pgh.wec.com (Andy Holland)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: egos on parade!
Date: 14 Feb 1994 19:25:35 GMT
Organization: Westinghouse CNFD

In article <CL0s8F.EGC@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> crb7q@watt.seas.Virgini
.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>In article <2jdegkINN4to@daisy.pgh.wec.com>,
>
>     Name three.  I'm curious what good you think came from 'bad air'

     Did you ever see that PBS show about technology? To mitigate "Bad
     Air", thought to cause Maleria, a doctor invented Air conditioning,
     and the ice maker.
     
     Remember Pareto, and his data reduction techniques, still used
     today, and the famous 80-20 rule (80% of the wealth is controlled
     by 20% of the people)? He was trying to measure individual
     economic utility.
     
     These are free, further numerous examples are available, my
     rate is $100/hr. I don't have time for more non-sense.
       
>> Why not work together and find out
>>whats really going on, verify it and prove it without personal attacks,
>>snide remarks, and snap jugements?
>
>     It's been nearly *5* years, and I waited about 3 (about 2.9 years
>     longer than most everyone else).  How long do you want us to wait
>     before judging?  
>

How long am I willing to wait without "personal attacks, snide remarks,
and snap jugements"?  Forever. I was not against scientific critism,
only the use of personal insults, snide remarks, and other personal
stuff which is not worth mentioning. 

Many of the posts that I have read from Dick Blue have been excellent,
he seems to leave alot of personal stuff out of it, and constructively
engages in cogent scientific arguments. If he can do it, I am sure
you could too, and I think some of your posts on the subject have been
pretty good. Why defend bad manners?

A final observation, one should not write anything, that they are not
willing to say to someones face. Posts which contain snide remarks and
personal insults evoke pity for the poster, not respect.

| Andy Holland                      || Views Expressed here are solely my|
| Westinghouse NMD                  || own and are not representative of |
| zcrah@ncstate.pgh.wec.com         || Westinghouse Electric Corporation |  

cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenzcrah cudfnAndy cudlnHolland cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.14 / Lee Rudolph /  a letter about Bockris from the Chronicle of Higher Education
     
Originally-From: lrudolph@black.clarku.edu (Lee Rudolph)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: a letter about Bockris from the Chronicle of Higher Education
Date: 14 Feb 94 20:44:50 GMT
Organization: Clark University (Worcester, MA)

Here are some excerpts from a letter in the Feb. 16, 1994, 
Chronicle of Higher Education.  The letter-writer is Jennifer
Lapierre, Graduate Student in English and American Literature,
Harvard University Extension School, Cambridge, Mass.
(I preface the excerpted lines with : to keep future attributions 
cleaner.)

:To the Editor:
:
:I was not surprised to read about the persecution of John O'M
:Bockris for his alchemical experiments.  The fact that his 
:pedagogical peers want him demoted indicates the same
:intolerance shown to most imaginative innovators in science
:throughout history.
:
: [Boyle and Newton both practicing alchemists...evidence Newton
: once intended alchemy in Principia...what Newton was looking
: for]
:
:Paracelsus (1493-1541), considered by many as the father of modern
:medicine, pioneered the use of alchemical remedies and became the
:first to realize the superiority of chemicals taken internally over
:traditional herbal remedies.  He also believed that the most 
:poisonous substance could be used aas medicine, thus preparing the
:way for immunization.
:
:The fact that Mr. Bockris is experimenting with alchemy should
:not cause embarassment for Texas A&M.  Imaginative scientific
:growth must challenge the currently accepted paradigms; ...
:Copernicus's heliocentric theory was once the object of
:``derisive laughter,'' too.
:
:Whether or not alchemy can produce gold is beside the point;
:the ability to remain tolerant of seemingly irrational research
:should be viewed as the ultimate expression of intellectual 
:maturity and the mark of academic freedom. [end of letter]

I'd have typed in the whole thing but for fear of copyright 
infringement.  Loathsome as the Chronicle is (I only read it 
because I get a free copy), you should look up this issue for
this letter alone--and more (including an article on the recent
CERT advisory).

Lee Rudolph
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenlrudolph cudfnLee cudlnRudolph cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.14 /  rmichael@nuacv /  Re: a letter about Bockris from the Chronicle of Higher Education
     
Originally-From: rmichael@nuacvm.acns.nwu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: a letter about Bockris from the Chronicle of Higher Education
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 94 16:49:38 CDT
Organization: Northwestern University

In article <lrudolph.761258690@black.clarku.edu>
lrudolph@black.clarku.edu (Lee Rudolph) writes:
 
>
>Here are some excerpts from a letter in the Feb. 16, 1994,
>Chronicle of Higher Education.  The letter-writer is Jennifer
>Lapierre, Graduate Student in English and American Literature,
>Harvard University Extension School, Cambridge, Mass.
>(I preface the excerpted lines with : to keep future attributions
>cleaner.)
>
>:To the Editor:
>:
>:I was not surprised to read about the persecution of John O'M
>:Bockris for his alchemical experiments.  The fact that his
>:pedagogical peers want him demoted indicates the same
>:intolerance shown to most imaginative innovators in science
>:throughout history.
>:
>: [Boyle and Newton both practicing alchemists...evidence Newton
>: once intended alchemy in Principia...what Newton was looking
>: for]
>:
>:Paracelsus (1493-1541), considered by many as the father of modern
>:medicine, pioneered the use of alchemical remedies and became the
>:first to realize the superiority of chemicals taken internally over
>:traditional herbal remedies.  He also believed that the most
>:poisonous substance could be used aas medicine, thus preparing the
>:way for immunization.
>:
>:The fact that Mr. Bockris is experimenting with alchemy should
>:not cause embarassment for Texas A&M.  Imaginative scientific
>:growth must challenge the currently accepted paradigms; ...
>:Copernicus's heliocentric theory was once the object of
>:``derisive laughter,'' too.
>:
>:Whether or not alchemy can produce gold is beside the point;
>:the ability to remain tolerant of seemingly irrational research
>:should be viewed as the ultimate expression of intellectual
>:maturity and the mark of academic freedom. [end of letter]
>
>I'd have typed in the whole thing but for fear of copyright
>infringement.  Loathsome as the Chronicle is (I only read it
>because I get a free copy), you should look up this issue for
>this letter alone--and more (including an article on the recent
>CERT advisory).
>
>Lee Rudolph
 
Somehow this sort of thing reminds me of an old Woody Allen movie (I forget the
title, but it was a James Bond parody, with Woody playing a lunatic nephew(?)
of Bond); the following dialog reproduced as near as I remember it:
(girl): You're mad!
(Woody): Ha! They called Einstein mad!
(girl): Nobody ever called Einstein mad.
(Woody): Well, they would have if he'd carried on like I do.
 
Bob Michaelson
rmichael@nwu.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenrmichael cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.14 / James Rice /  Re: a letter about Bockris from the Chronicle of Higher Education
     
Originally-From: rice@KSL.Stanford.EDU (James Rice)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: a letter about Bockris from the Chronicle of Higher Education
Date: 14 Feb 1994 23:52:40 GMT
Organization: Knowledge Systems Lab, Stanford University

In article <16F5DECA6.RMICHAEL@NUACVM.ACNS.NWU.EDU> rmichael@nuacvm.acns.nwu.edu writes:


   Somehow this sort of thing reminds me of an old Woody Allen movie (I forget the
   title, but it was a James Bond parody, with Woody playing a lunatic nephew(?)
   of Bond); the following dialog reproduced as near as I remember it:
   (girl): You're mad!
   (Woody): Ha! They called Einstein mad!
   (girl): Nobody ever called Einstein mad.
   (Woody): Well, they would have if he'd carried on like I do.

   Bob Michaelson
   rmichael@nwu.edu

Rather reminds me of the scene in _Love and Death_ (I think) in which
Woody is in bed with the some young lass (from [recovered] memory)

Girl:  Wow, you're a wonderful lover.
Woody: Yes, I know.  I practice a lot when I'm alone.



Rice.
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenrice cudfnJames cudlnRice cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.14 / Robert Heeter /  PPPL Video News Release on TFTR
     
Originally-From: rfheeter@theory.pppl.gov (Robert F. Heeter)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: PPPL Video News Release on TFTR
Date: 14 Feb 1994 19:02:39 -0500
Organization: Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory, Princeton University,
Princeton NJ 08540


The Princeton Plasma Physics Lab had a video made on the latest 
record-breaking fusion experiments on the Tokamak Fusion Test
Reactor.  This video was released to the news media back in December.
Since then, people at the lab have made videocassetes with the
initial news release and various spots that were televised
as a result of the TFTR experiments.

I purchased a copy of the videotape, and then digitized the
original 4-minute segment prepared by the lab.  I expect to
receive permission to distribute the digitized video over
the network, but I haven't quite figured out the mechanics
of how it would work.  (Right now the video is taking up
17 MB of space on the macintosh I have at home; it's in
Mac Quicktime format, and I'm not sure what format it should
be in for network distribution, nor how to convert it,
nor where I could store it to make it FTP-able.

The video is 160x120, 16-bit color, and 4 minutes long.
The quality isn't super high, but it's reasonable and
if I try to improve the quality, the file gets a lot bigger.

At any rate, what I'm asking is:

(a) Would anyone be interested in downloading and looking at
this thing, provided I can make it ftp-able?

(b) If so, how do I go about setting it up so you can access it?


If anyone has any expertise on such matters, please help me out!
(In the meantime, I will be asking around here at the lab, too.)

********
Robert F. Heeter
rfheeter@lyman.pppl.gov
Graduate Student, Princeton Plasma Physics Lab
(usual disclaimers apply - in particular, this is my own pet project,
not the lab's!)

cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.15 /  blue@dancer.ns /  Reactions which produce 4He
     
Originally-From: blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Reactions which produce 4He
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 1994 14:35:34 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

There certainly are reactions which produce 4He through the fusion of
lighter nuclei such as two deuterons.  These reactions have been investigated
in a great variety of circumstances and over a range of energies covering
many decades.  The nuclear physics of these reaction processes is well
understood from start to finish.  The depth of knowledge of the fusion
reaction processes is sufficient to allow extrapolation with some confidence
into domains that are not experimentally accessible.  It is basically
a denial of the fundamental universality of physics to assert, as cold
fusion advocates do, that this prior knowledge of fusion reactions has
no bearing on questions relating to cold fusion.  However, short of
adopting this special pleading approach, we are left with the very
strong inference that should the fusion of two deuterons occur under
any conditions the formation of 4He would be accompanied by the
emission of energetic charged particles, neutrons, or gamma rays.
Measurements which provide clearly null results for the detection of
any of these reaction products, or secondary radiations which could
result from their interaction with surrounding materials are more
definitive, less error prone, and capable of greater sensitivity
by many orders of magnitude.  Any cold fusion experiment in which
no attempt is made to detect at least neutrons, gammas, or X-rays
should be seen as marking the experimenter as having such a bias
against a search for truth that his results can hardly be credible.
Failure to report such measurements that have given a null result
as part of a series of investigations seems to be all to common
in cold fusion research.  The present position taken by Mitchell
Swartz, and other cold fusion advocates, the 4He is the primary
reaction product while neutrons, gammas, and X-rays remain at
undetectable or marginally detectable levels is not tenable.

Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU

cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenblue cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.15 /  blue@dancer.ns /  Contamination in Miles 4He results
     
Originally-From: blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Contamination in Miles 4He results
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 1994 15:27:43 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

In the first series of experiments for which Miles, Bush, et al. reported
the production of 4He in correlation with excess heat the issue of
contamination, directly or indirectly, from atmospheric sources was
immediately seen as the key matter relating to validation of the results.
(For the record I did read three papers describing these results.)
It was clear from the descriptions of the experiments that there had
been little appreciation for the possibilities for contamination in
the planning and execution of these experiments.  The controls that
were included in the measurements did not serve the intended purpose
because they were not transported in the same manner as the samples
for effect.  They did not serve to establish a level of sensitivity
for the analyses because they contained none of the most troublesome
background source, deuterium.  In short these initial efforts to
establish 4He as the primary reaction product of cold fusion were
very doubtful experiments.

Now Miles has presented a second series of measurements as confirming
the initial results.  I believe it would be better if the early
measurements were dropped from any further consideration and not
included to bolster claims regarding the strength of the correlation
between 4He production and excess heat.  So what do we have in these
new results?  The assertion has been made that there is NO GLASS
involved.  I can see that the use of metal sample bottles for
the storage and transport of gasses to be analyzed represents a
clear improvement.  I wonder, however, about the calorimeter in which
the 4He is supposed to be produced.  Has that part of the experiment
been cleaned up?  What was done to improve the calorimetry and
radiation detection?  Were the Pd samples or the electrolyte
analyzed for helium content?

Now suppose the Miles experiment is to be taken at face value.  What
can be done to improve upon these measurements?  One thing that comes
to mind would be to run an experiment in a closed calorimeter with
periodic sampling for 4He analysis.  McKubre's experiments come to
mind.  Oh, I forgot!  He has already tried helium analysis.

Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU

cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenblue cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.16 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Taubes Fermilab Talk Postponed
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Taubes Fermilab Talk Postponed
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 1994 01:12:35 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Taubes talk was rescheduled for June.  The weather got him.  As a result,
and for obscure reasons, I had to spend the whole day in a meeting and 
did not even get my free lunch.  

Tom Droege

cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenDROEGE cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.15 /  dowen@vaxc.cc. /  Re: Breakthrough with new phenomenon ?......
     
Originally-From: dowen@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Breakthrough with new phenomenon ?......
Date: 15 Feb 94 16:41:35 +1100
Organization: Computer Centre, Monash University, Australia



Hi Folks,
In article <1994Feb11.165121.1363@physc1.byu.edu>, jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
writes:
> While the Phys. Lett. A article discussed by Daryl Owen below is interesting,
> I agree with Dick Blue that the data are hardly compelling for a change in
> radioactivity of tritium in titanium.  Indeed, we find below the statement
> by the author of the paper:  
> "The author, though well aware that the experimental evidence is rather
> limited and that a theoretical foundation is lacking..."
> 
> Why should we attach a great deal of credence to the data when the
> researcher himself says "the experimental evidence is rather limited"?

This is incorrect, the researcher was *not* refering to his
data when he stated "the experimental evidence is rather limited".
He was in fact stating that *for his rather way-out theory*, the body of
scientific experimental evidence is rather limited. There is a difference
between the *experimental evidence for his theory* which even he describes as
"a highly unorthodox hypothesis" and the data he presents in his experiments.   
See below.

> 
> We should remember that the notion of changing radioactive decay rates by
> changing the chemical environment of isotopes has been tried before, and
> indeed small effects have been observed under unusual conditions.  But as
> far as I know, these *all* relate to electron capture (EC) processes,
> wherein an atomic electron is captured by the nucleus.  Clearly, for
> electron capture, one can influence the decay rate by reducing the
> population of electrons in S states, since these have the highest
> probability of having electrons in (near)  the nucleus.
> 
> 7Be is a prime example of a nucleus that decays only by EC, since the mass
> difference between 7Be and its daughter 7Li is only 477 keV.  (This is less
> than an electron mass, so that decay cannot proceed via beta+ emission.)
> The decay rate has been changed by 0.2% by chemical means (I can dig up the
> ref. if anyone needs it; I remember the number). This was done decades ago.
> 
> But tritium decays by electron *emission*, via the weak interaction.
> I cannot see any way that presence of the tritium in Ti could affect this;
> there is no other example in nature I can think of.  And people use
> tritiated Ti targets all the time -- we have one here, for instance. 
> If the decay rate of 3H was indeed affected dramatically by Ti, I think
> this would have been noticed.
> 
> I note that the data were acquired using a Geiger counter or a vibrating
> reed electrometer using an electrode placed inside the vessel.  These are
> crude techniques.  As I argued in a posting 2-10-94, one must question
> data acquired with less than optimal detectors.  Until confirmed
> (or rejected) by use of state-of-the-art detectors, one must follow the
> author's own advice and be cautious of these data.
> 

Again a misconstruction of the original paper, the author offered *no*
advice to be "cautious of these data". See below.

> (Below is the post by Owen to which I respond.)
> 
> In article <1994Feb2.173720.1@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au>,
> dowen@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au writes:
>> 
>> 
>> Hi Folks,
>>  Firstly thanks to Prof. Jones for his offer to pass the SL questions
>> on to Prof. Crum.
>>  For those readers who can't get easy access to the original article,
>> here is my review of the paper by Otto Reifenschweiler entitled
>> "Reduced radioactivity of tritium in small titanium particles" as 
>> published in "Physics Letters A" of the 3-Jan-94.
>> This paper is based on work done at the Philips Research Laboratories
>> Eindhoven, Holland, in the early 1960's.
>> Otto Reifenschweiler is a retired chief physist of the Philips Research 
>> Laboratories.
>> 
>> Summary ........
>> The author describes two experiments involving the reduction of
>> radiation. The first concerns the reduction of radiation in tritium
>> loaded titanium particles as they are slowly heated, the second
>> relates how the loading of small uniform amounts of tritium into
>> fine Ti particles produces a (very) non proportional variation in 
>> radioactivity. A "highly unorthodox hypothesis" called "the nuclear
>> pair hypothesis" is put forward as a possible explanation of the above.
>> 
>> The First Series of Experiments .......
>> Ti was evapourated in argon at a suitable pressure "eg 0.5 to 2 cm Hg"
>> and deposited as monocrystaline soot like particles about 15 nm in 
>> diameter, arranged in chains on the inner wall of the measuring vessel.
>> 
   ......................Many lines deleted............................

>> varied in a finely divided TiT(sub)x  preparation and the corresponding 
>> increase of the emission current caused by the Beta-electrons of tritium was
>> measured."..."In these experiments a substantial deviation from the expected 
>> proportionality between current i and concentration x was observed."
>>  In this experiment a 55% decrease (followed by a similar increase) from
>> the expected level of delta i/delta x versus concentration of tritium in
>> the Ti occured. (Sorry folks, no time now for the graph).
>> 
>> The hypothesis......
>> ".......it seems justified to put forward a highly unorthodox hypothesis,
>> the nuclear pair hypothesis. If we assume that tritons absorbed in the 
>> extremely small single Ti-crystals an combine into pairs and that the decay
>> constant of such a pair is smaller than that of a free triton, then the 
>> observed behaviour of all TiT(SUB)x  can be explained.
> 
>>  The author, though well aware that the experimental evidence is rather 
>     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> limited and that a theoretical foundation is lacking, feels strongly 
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
>> attracted to the idea of nuclear pairing with reduced radioactivity and he
>> believes that it may have other applications.

The contentious (misunderstood) sentence is *partially* underlined by
Prof. Jones.
Here the author clearly states that the experimental evidence and theoretical
foundation FOR HIS NUCLEAR PAIRING THEORY is lacking. This is *not*
a caution about *his* data is in some respect lacking in its veracity, but
rather he is drawing attention to the fact that *his theory* is a tenous,
"highly unorthodox hypothesis" (See above) which, as such, does not have
a large amount of *any* supportive experimental evidence or theoretical
foundation, be it derived from his experiments or the body of science.


>>                                              The author hopes to come back
>> to these questions in later publications."
>> 
>> What would happen if......
>> 1) A small amount of tritium was absorbed into the Ti as in expt.2 and then
>> equal quantities of deuterium were successively added (instead of equal
>> successive quantities of tritium). Would the radioactivity decrease the 
>> same as

........................Many lines deleted...............................

					       Best Regards to all,
					       Daryl Owen.

The above text is only attributable to myself.
			
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudendowen cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.15 / James Crotinger /  Re: Energy required for Fusion
     
Originally-From: jac@moonshine.llnl.gov (James A. Crotinger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Energy required for Fusion
Date: 15 Feb 94 17:37:22 GMT
Organization: Magnetic Fusion Energy - LLNL

crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:

> In article <haney.760983971@maverick>,
> Scott W. Haney <haney@maverick.llnl.gov> wrote:

> >  As ITER is currently envisioned, it will be a whopper of a tokamak: 
> >approximately 8m major radius, 3m minor radius, 6T field, 25MA current.
> >The main mission of ITER is generating lots of fusion power (1500MW+) in
> >an ignited D-T plasma. Therefore, the power out/power in is infinity. 
>                                                              ^^^^^^^^
>      Boy, that *is* a bunch of fusion power!

  Er, fusion power if finite. Power in (to heat the plasma) is zero. 

           -> Q = P_f/P_i = infinity

  Jim
--
 ------------------------------------------------/\--------------------------
James A. Crotinger     Lawrence Livermore N'Lab // \ The above views are mine
jac@moonshine.llnl.gov P.O. Box 808;  L-630 \\ //---\  and are not neces-
(510) 422-0259         Livermore CA  94550   \\/Amiga\  sarily those of LLNL.
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenjac cudfnJames cudlnCrotinger cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.14 /  jonesse@physc1 /  <None>
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: <None>
Date: 14 Feb 94 16:46:20 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

In his rebuttal to Dale Bass in a 12 Feb post, Mitch Swartz states:

"Face it, Dale, not one of the skeptics has ever given a partially reasonable
response to support their bleating and anxious handwaving."

Nonsense.  Dick Blue gave reasonable responses to Mitch over the last few days,
and Mitch even acknowledged that.  Douglas Morrison has supported his bleatings
quite admirably, as have Dieter Britz and Terry Bollinger and others.  
I have presented
experimental evidence that contradicts claims of excess heat via nuclear
reactions.    Face it, Mitch.

Dale said:  "P&F were claiming far higher levels in 1989 (1000W/cm^3)" to which
Mitch retorted:
"This is a blatant misstatement, which if it were true (since you falsely claim
it regularly) ought to be provable.  How about a reference, dale?  Bet you
can't find one."  (Swartz Feb 12)

How about the famous P&F exploding cube of Pd, announced in 1989 by them?
This has been discussed at length here and appears, shall we say, exaggerated.
Clearly, if this cube really burned a hole in concrete, its power level
exceeded 1000 W/cm^3.  Reference:  F. Close, Too Hot to Handle, p. 138.
F. Will reported that he looked for evidence of damage in the concrete where
Pons said the event took place, but found *no trace* of damage to the concrete.

Also, in 1989, Pons claimed to have a working hot water heater:

'"It wouldn't take care of the family's electrical needs, but it certainly
could provide them with hot water year-round," said Pons, who said he's always
believed that the practical application of cold fusion could happen this fast.'
Reference:  Salt Lake Deseret News, July 8, 1989, p. B1, complete with color
photo of the small device.  Of course, the scientific details such as 
W/cm3 were left out.  But you can work it out that a number of kilowatts would
be needed, and palladium is very expensive, so if "practical" as Pons claimed,
the power density would have to be quite high.

(This claim was widely publicized.  I asked Stan about the
status of his 'water heater' in 1990 at the first CF conference after the
infamous press conference;  by then, claims of a working water heater had been
abandoned.  But a similar device was anticipated last year, or perhaps it was
by the year 2000 ....)

Mitch tries to justify P&F's use of sampling once every 300 seconds for the 600
second 'boiling episode' in which P&F claimed excess heat.  Again, this has
been thoroughly aired here already.  For instance, Tom Droege heard what
Fleischmann said about this at the Maui mtg. and pointed out that the
oscilloscope usage was not described sufficiently.  Nor were readable, 
quantitative data
given.  In any case, Fleischmann admitted (here) when I raised this issue with
him, that these measurements on a finer time scale than once every 5 minutes
were *not* done for the data published in Phys. Lett. A.  Mitch seems to ignore
the point that P&F used very poor technique in what has been published.
The facts of infrequent sampling and questionable integrated I*V(t)
input power were *not* even mentioned in their publication.  Face it, Mitch. 

We don't have to prove what
they did wrong, Mitch; they have to do it right and provide the details.
They have not done this, nor has Miles (I have posted much on this over the
last year -- can you deny it?)  nor Yamaguchi  nor Mills ... it goes on and
on.  All of these claims have been aired here, discussed patiently, and found
wanting.

I just don't think you're listening, Mitch, to scientific reasoning.

--Steven Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenjonesse cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.14 /  jonesse@physc1 /  cancel <1994Feb14.163809.1364@physc1.byu.edu>
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cancel <1994Feb14.163809.1364@physc1.byu.edu>
Date: 14 Feb 94 16:46:51 -0700

cancel <1994Feb14.163809.1364@physc1.byu.edu>
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenjonesse cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.15 / John Logajan /  Who own's the Internet?
     
Originally-From: logajan@demento.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Who own's the Internet?
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 94 16:46:52 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>mitchell swartz <mica@world.std.com> wrote:
>>Mr. North seems to admit and then boast that it is OK that
>>he might use U.S. Government money -- paid for by the reader --
>>to fund any personal, unscientific attacks, on the INTERNET
>>against scientists, citizens, and students of cold fusion.
>
>      Disregarding the characterization, *you* use U.S Government
>      money to fund *your* particular brand of discussion as 
>      well.  

I get to disagree with this general theme -- that the fed's own the
Internet.  There are individual, corporate, private and public educational,
and various local, state and federal agencies all interconnected and
paying for the Internet.  No one interest owns it, and no one is beholden
to the fed's.

Government is usurping authority over our lives at an alarming rate,
let's not just hand it over to them on a silver platter on just any
imaginable pretext.

-- 
-John Logajan MS612; Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
-logajan@network.com, 612-391-1159, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.11 / Cameron Bass /  Re: On Mark North's ego on parade
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: On Mark North's ego on parade
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 1994 08:17:24 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <CL1Kzu.7Ar@world.std.com>,
mitchell swartz <mica@world.std.com> wrote:
>
>Mr. North seems to admit and then boast that it is OK that
>he might use U.S. Government money -- paid for by the reader --
>to fund any personal, unscientific attacks, on the INTERNET
>against scientists, citizens, and students of cold fusion.

      Disregarding the characterization, *you* use U.S Government
      money to fund *your* particular brand of discussion as 
      well.  

>   No need for diversion.   I posted scientific 
>questions which have never been answered by
>even one of the TB-skeptics.  This was 
>just an attempt at a statement of fact, Mr. North.

     To the contrary, you asked a bunch of vague questions in a vague 
     attempt to shift the burden of proof.  Even under those conditions,
     I responded to each one.  

     However, I've got at least 10 detailed queries
     about P&F's last paper that have *never* been answered by
     y'all acolytes of cold fusion.  I don't ever expect an answer either.

                                 dale bass

cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.15 / mitchell swartz /  Reply to Jones on 1000W/cm^3 (1989 level)
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Reply to Jones on 1000W/cm^3 (1989 level)
Subject: <None>
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 1994 20:03:48 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA


    In Message-ID: <1994Feb14.164621.1365@physc1.byu.edu>
Subject: <None>
Steven Jones [ jonesse@physc1.byu.edu] states:

=sj   "Dale said:  "P&F were claiming far higher levels in 1989 (1000W/cm^3)"   .....
=sj   How about the famous P&F exploding cube of Pd, announced in 1989 by them?"
=sj   This has been discussed at length here and appears, shall we say, exaggerated.
=sj   Clearly, if this cube really burned a hole in concrete, its power level
=sj   exceeded 1000 W/cm^3.  Reference:  F. Close, Too Hot to Handle, p. 138."

  OK.  let's just see ......  
    I have the book in front of me and from page 137-139
 there are no power levels listed.   The only numbers on the page you
cite are a date and time. 
Is this another instance of fabrication?      :-(
After examining the reference it is apparent that
the answer is "yes".

  This  example is yet another good case for a reader, or 
scientist, or student,  to simply check and
see exactly who is correct.   Get the book (and Gene 
Mallove's too) and check.   The power levels are derived and
published, and are simply derivable from either Frank Close's
or Eugene Mallove's books or the original papers.
Every reader ought check that page cited by Steven
Jones which does not say that the F&P
1989 power levels were 1000 W/cm^3 and         \/\/
then simply check the original article by F&P.        

  In fact, even Frank Close's book, using
data on pages 352-353 therein gives enough data (output in watts,
and electrode size) for any reader to show the allegations made by
Steven  and Dale that F&P  claimed 1000W/cm^3 in 1989
is not supported by Steven's claimed references.
   In contrast, the allegations which Steve and Dale
misreport is apparently  not even backed up by the reference
which was claimed to state "(the F&P) cube (electrode) really burned
 a hole in concrete, its power level exceeded 1000 W/cm^3".

  One interpretation of this two-order-of-magnitude manipulation
is that, if a reference can not be found quickly by Steven and Dale,
this statement adds to the list of TB-skeptic delusional,
 but apparently self-consistent, misstatements made to denigrate
this field.

Fact 1)    The level in the original paper was in the range of 10-20 W/cm3
    of palladium.
Likely Fact 2)    The TB-skeptics are apparently unable to provide, again,
   any true reference to the contrary.
    [Dale, if you have the reference for your ridiculous claim give it please.
       Thanks in advance, and still waiting.]
Comment 3)  Jed is correct.   Perhaps TB-skeptics ought indicate if they have even
   read a paper before pontificating and trashing it.
Warning 4)  There is so much false information posted by the skeptics that
   a warning label will soon be required.         ;-)

      Best wishes.
                                 Mitchell  Swartz   (mica@world.std.com)





cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.15 / Albert Chou /  Re: Energy required for Fusion
     
Originally-From: albert@cloudburst.seas.ucla.edu (Albert E. Chou)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Energy required for Fusion
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 1994 18:04:46 GMT
Organization: School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, UCLA

Power plant issues that are independent of the energy source will also
come into play eventually.  They include plant availability (the fraction of
time that the plant is producing power rather than standing idle) and a
number of economic issues such as raising of capital, investment recovery
time vs. plant lifetime, and economies of scale.

Al
-- 
Internet:  albert@seas.ucla.edu
GEnie:  A.Chou1
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenalbert cudfnAlbert cudlnChou cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.15 / Jim Carr /  Re: HOT FUSION? NO WAY!
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: HOT FUSION? NO WAY!
Date: 15 Feb 1994 14:03:40 -0500
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

>Concerning ulterior motives for the debunking of "cold fusion",
>jabowery@netcom.com (Jim Bowery) writes:
>
>>The preemptive rabid attack was a win either way.  Either P&F were right
>>and the government HF guys had nothing to lose by stretching out their
>>funding a little longer or P&F were wrong and the government HF guys
>>could claim prescience.

Not sure what 'preemptive' attack you refer to.  The original NYTimes 
article quotes a 'no comment' from the hot fusion labs, and the Science
News and C&ENews and Science included quotes that typically expressed 
skepticism of the result but intentions to try to replicate it.  The 
closest I can come to this would be a paragraph in C&EN from 3 April 89 
that simply stated 

  Plasma physicists have reacted with profound skepticism.  That's 
  understandable, a source says, because they have spent decades 
  trying to use powerful magnets and lasers to force nuclei to 
  fuse under extreme conditions of temperature and pressure. 

Buried 7 column inches into the article, this is hardly what I would 
call an effective preemptive attack.  The more common reaction was 
that of a local experimentalist who was quoted in the local paper 
saying "Interest is very high.  We haven't been able to come up with a 
model to explain how it works so we're going to attempt a re-creation."

In article <bpcCL4x8I.E3D@netcom.com> 
bpc@netcom.com (Benjamin P. Carter) writes:
>
>The trouble with this argument is that most of the debunkers were not
>government HF guys but, rather, academic physicists and chemists whose
>main interests were not closely related to any kind of commercial power
>generation.  

Exactly.  The special APS session in May was organized by the Few Body 
Topical Group, physicists who had good reasons to hope this phenomena 
was real and no economic interest to prove it wrong. 

-- 
J. A. Carr       <jac@scri.fsu.edu>           |  "The New Frontier of which I  
Florida State University  B-186               |  speak is not a set of promises
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Tallahassee, FL  32306-4052                   |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.15 / Clive Feather /  Re: a letter about Bockris from the Chronicle of Higher Education
     
Originally-From: clive@sco.com (Clive D.W. Feather)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: a letter about Bockris from the Chronicle of Higher Education
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 1994 11:26:03 GMT
Organization: Santa Cruz Organization

In article <16F5DECA6.RMICHAEL@NUACVM.ACNS.NWU.EDU> rmichael@nuacvm.acns.nwu.edu writes:
> Somehow this sort of thing reminds me of an old Woody Allen movie (I forget
> the title, but it was a James Bond parody, with Woody playing a lunatic
> nephew(?) of Bond)

Casino Royale

with David Niven, Peter Sellers, and several other people playing James
Bond, and Woody Allen playing Jimmy Bond.

A great film for messing up trivia quizzes: "How many actors have played
James Bond in James Bond films".
-- 
Clive D.W. Feather     | Santa Cruz Operation    | If you lie to the compiler,
clive@sco.com          | Croxley Centre          | it will get its revenge.
Phone: +44 923 816 344 | Hatters Lane, Watford   |   - Henry Spencer
Fax:   +44 923 817 688 | WD1 8YN, United Kingdom |
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenclive cudfnClive cudlnFeather cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.11 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Energy required for Fusion
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Energy required for Fusion
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 1994 19:49:28 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <haney.760983971@maverick>,
Scott W. Haney <haney@maverick.llnl.gov> wrote:

>  As ITER is currently envisioned, it will be a whopper of a tokamak: 
>approximately 8m major radius, 3m minor radius, 6T field, 25MA current.
>The main mission of ITER is generating lots of fusion power (1500MW+) in
>an ignited D-T plasma. Therefore, the power out/power in is infinity. 
                                                             ^^^^^^^^
     Boy, that *is* a bunch of fusion power!

     The only problem I can see now is siting.  I'd fight hard to 
     make sure I'm not near wherever they dump the heat.  My suggestion
     is somewhere in M31 in Andromeda.

                                 dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.15 / mitchell swartz /  Reply to Jones - On Nyquist criterion
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Reply to Jones - On Nyquist criterion
Subject: <None>
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 1994 20:35:17 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

    In Message-ID: <1994Feb14.164621.1365@physc1.byu.edu>
Subject: <None>
Steven Jones [ jonesse@physc1.byu.edu] states:

=sj   "Mitch tries to justify P&F's use of sampling once every 300 seconds for the 600
=sj   second 'boiling episode' in which P&F claimed excess heat.  Again, this has
=sj   been thoroughly aired here already."

  More absolutely false information promulgated from Brigham Young Physics 
Department by Steven Jones.

     I did not justify, or recommend, a low sampling rate.
In fact I posted on the importance of the Nyquist criterion years 
ago on sci.physics.fusion.  The criterion requires a sampling at
twice the highest frequency contained in the waveform. 

   I did say that other electrical monitoring equipment was reported
to have also followed these parameters 
in parallel with those instruments that produced the curves in question.
    \/\/\/\/               

   Steven's most recent confabulation is an allegation which
simply ingnores what the actual author says.
  This is unfortunattely consistent with a possible pattern of his 
comments regarding (just a partial list)
Mel Miles expts (glass beging alleged present when there was no glass),
Michael McKubre (no helium in metal vs. insufficient resolving power),
F&P (not enough electrons in the universe to list the list here    ;-)     ),
Close (page 138 comment on 1000W/cm^3 which does not say that),
Kucherov (no xrays alleged measured when the paper actually reported
    many xrays,  also issue of autoradiography), various
letters with alleged paragraphs removed(Jed and others), etc. etc. and 
other events as described here by both Dr.  Noninski and Jed Rothwell.   

         Try more honesty and science, Steven, as it would make your
case much more compelling.

                                 Mitchell Swartz  [mica@world.std.com]


cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.15 / Richard Schultz /  Clearing up the confusion on the 1000 W/cm3 claim
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Clearing up the confusion on the 1000 W/cm3 claim
Date: 15 Feb 1994 21:05:07 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley

Quoted without comment from the original F&P paper (J. Elecotroanal. Chem.,
261 (1989) 301-308).

"Enthalpy generation can exceed 10 W cm-3 of the palladium electrode; this is
maintained for experiment times in excess of 120 h, during which typically heat
in excess of 4 MJ cm-3 of electrode volume was liberated.  It is 
inconceivable that this could be due to anything but nuclear processes. . . .

The effects have been determined using D2O alone.  Projection to the use of
appropriate D2O + DTO + T2O mixtures (as is commonly done in fusion research)
might therefore be expected to yield thermal excesses in the range of 
10^5 - 10^6 % (even in the absence of spin polarisation) with enthalpy 
releases in excess of 10 kW cm-3.  [bf] We have to report here under the 
conditions of the last experiment, even using D2O alone, a substantial 
portion of the cathode fused (melting point 1554 C), part of it vapourised,
and the cell and contents and a part of the fume cupboard housing the
experiment were destroyed."

					Richard Schultz


cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.15 / mitchell swartz /  Reply to Jones - On tritium, Will, Britz conversion
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Reply to Jones - On tritium, Will, Britz conversion
Subject: Re: Where to find information on cold fusion
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 1994 20:56:43 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA


    In Message-ID: <1994Feb8.115652.1342@physc1.byu.edu>
Subject: Re: Where to find information on cold fusion
 Steven Jones [jonesse@physc1.byu.edu] wrote:

=sj "Several weeks ago, Britz announced that he has 
=sj "lost all vestiges of faith in ANY positive CNF work"
=sj [D. Britz posting on sci.physics.fusion, 30 Dec 1993, "Re:  
=sj F. Will tritium
=sj claims/Not a 'quality positive' paper]."

   This is boot-strapping.   Here is why.  As the reader will see,
Dieter Britz thought favorably of Will's paper until it was denigrated
by Jones still out to knee-cap coldfusioneers.  Then upon being told
what appears to be incorrect information Dieter changes his
mercurial review.  

     [KEY to to this discussion about a previous postiing
     under the heading "F. Will tritium claims/Not a 
     "quality positive" paper" by Steven Jones] 
     ==DB  Dieter Britz        ==SJ   Steve Jones
     ==FW  Fritz Will          ==TD   Tom Droege 

 ==SJ  "In his "CNF bibliography update" dated 22 Dec. 1993, Dieter Britz says:
  ==DB "Then we have a quality positive,the Will et al paper..From his criticism
  ==DB of F&P, we know that Will is no naive TB, and I know him as a solid
  ==DB electrochemist. The one niggling doubt in this work is that it was 
  ==DB a batch of
  ==DB Pd wire (the 2mm lot) from Hoover and Strong only that produced 
  ==DB tritium. ...
  ==DB   I will add this paper to my small list of quality positives."
 ==SJ Will is indeed a solid electrochemist.  And he claimed no excess heat
 ==SJ production in his extensive electrolytic-cell experiments at NCFI before 
 ==SJ  its
 ==SJ demise.  But does this mean that he is competent to claim tritium 
 ==SJ  production?
 ==SJ   He boldly states in this paper:
   ==FW  "it is concluded that the tritium was generated inside the Pd;  only 
   ==FW  nuclear
   ==FW reactions, whose nature is .. unknown, could have produced the 
   ==FW  observed
   ==FW   tritium."  (F. Will et al., J. Electroanal. Chem. 360 (1993) 161-176.)
 ==SJ   "Whose nature is unknown"... what could it be?  How can they be so 
 ==SJ  sure of a
 ==SJ   nuclear reaction, if there are no other evidences, such as MeV-scale 
 ==SJ  energies
 ==SJ  associated with the reaction? In particular, if tritons are produced via
 ==SJ   nuclear reactions, where are the *secondary* reactions such as
 ==SJ     t + d (there is abundant deuterium available in the Pd) --> 4He + n." 

==TD   ".....  Steve Jones' assumption seems to be that 
==TD  the t must be created with high energy and so later fuses with a d. The
==TD  logic 
==TD  seems to be that we don't know what happens, but if it happens it must
==TD  happen  in a certain way." 
  [Message-ID: <931228165048.20a030ee@FNALD.FNAL.GOV>
       Subject: Re: Steve Jones on Fritz Will]

     But must it happen in a certain way?   What about the Fritz Will's experiment?
     What about the data?
     As usual, the the brick-toss tactic misses the "point",
  attempts to denigrate the experiment, and ignores the science.
    This was enough however to convert Dieter Britz to change the category
of a paper. 

   This change is unfortunate since the data supports Dr. Will's interpretation.
 As Tom Droege's comments further corroborate. 

==TD  "I am surprised that Steve Jones did not mention the Fritz Will paper at
==TD  ICCF4.  For me, it was one of the better presentations at the 
==TD  conference.  150 
==TD  control samples were sliced and diced and measured for tritium.  Is this
==TD  the 
==TD  same old data Steve?  To me, the paper looks like an heroic effort to
==TD  use a 
==TD  variety of controls to insure that the tritium somehow appeared in the
==TD  experimental samples.  150 control samples were cut from the supply 
==TD  spool 
==TD  interleaved with  the active test samples of a few times 4.  You got it
==TD  folks, 
==TD  many more control  samples than test samples.  Also H2SO4 control 
==TD  runs to 
==TD  compare with the D2SO4  runs.  Seems to me that this paper only 
==TD  offers 3 
==TD  possibilities: 
==TD  1) a) The data has been falsified.  and/or    b) Gross error and 
==TD  incompetence.
==TD  2) The experiments produce tritium.
==TD  3) Tritium/pseudotritium can appear to hide in certain batches of 
==TD  Palladium 
==TD  so that it cannot be detected by dissolving the Palladium and using    
==TD  conventional tritium measurement.  Electrolysis "uncloaks" the    
==TD  tritium/pseudotritium so that it can be detected."  

  Fritz Will carried out experiments in H2SO4 and D2SO4 and used control Pd 
as well.  His cyclic loading system [using 0.5 M solutions, 27C, and 2mm 
diameter 2 cm long electrodes, Pt anode,  intermediary glass fritted 
separator] yielded high loadings (> 0.7-1.0).

 In one group of such experiments there were 3 cut control palladium 
control samples  and about seventeen aqueous expts 
(mainly H2O experiments and 4 D2O expts).   

 ** Brief summary of results:
 The production rate in the positive expts was circa 1-3 x 10^5 
 tritons/sec-gmPd.

  None of the H2O or Pd samples were reported as elevated 
   
 **  Was the tritium present ab initio?
      It was not initially present because it would have shown up 
immediately rather than at t=2 days and only after high loadings.

  **  Could it be contamination from background?  
  It is not contamination since it was 37 to >200x larger than 
background in palladium stock.

   **Could it be random separation of tritium in the wire to those 
portions used with D2? 
   Extremely unlikely given the number of the 17 expts 
(and 4 with D2O).   Random separation would be expected to produce
similar results with a probability of less than ca. 1 in 10^5.

    Conclusions: (1) This paper is a quality positive, comments by any
                "Tonya Harding-wanna-be" in the field notwithstanding.

                 (2) Papers ought to be read directly by interested
                 students, scientists, historians, rather than rely
                 on incessant low S/N obfuscation by the TB-skeptics.

                 (3) Jed is correct.  Reviewers ought indicate if they
                    have ever obtained the paper.      ;-)  
  
  Best wishes, 
                     Mitchell Swartz   [mica@world.std]

cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.15 / Matt Kennel /  Re: egos on parade!
     
Originally-From: mbk%anl433.uucp@Germany.EU.net (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: egos on parade!
Date: 15 Feb 1994 21:20:54 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

Cameron Randale Bass (crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU) wrote:
: > Why not work together and find out
: >whats really going on, verify it and prove it without personal attacks,
: >snide remarks, and snap jugements?

:      It's been nearly *5* years, and I waited about 3 (about 2.9 years
:      longer than most everyone else).  How long do you want us to wait
:      before judging?  

As a contrast, consider how much progress, experimental and theoretical, in
quantum mechanics was made between 1925 and 1930.

:                               dale bass

--
-Matt Kennel  		mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu
-Institute for Nonlinear Science, University of California, San Diego
-*** AD: Archive for nonlinear dynamics papers & programs: FTP to
-***     lyapunov.ucsd.edu, username "anonymous".
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenuucp cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.15 / Mark North /  Re: Mark North clucks defiant
     
Originally-From: north@watop.nosc.mil (Mark North)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Mark North clucks defiant
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 1994 15:47:32 GMT
Organization: NCCOSC RDT&E Division, San Diego, CA

mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:

>   Given the pathological spouting, I will no longer
>respond.

Kinda thin skinned, arncha. Well, now that we've cleared the
air, let's get back to the science.

Mark




cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudennorth cudfnMark cudlnNorth cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.15 / Mark North /  Re: Politics and Fusion (misstatements by North)
     
Originally-From: north@watop.nosc.mil (Mark North)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Politics and Fusion (misstatements by North)
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 1994 16:06:54 GMT
Organization: NCCOSC RDT&E Division, San Diego, CA

mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:

Having now, a couple of times, slogged through your BS point by
point I find enough is enough. But one point must be answered.

>   One interpretation is that North has not told the truth.

This can be easily settled by me posting the email you sent me.
I spare you that embarrassment unless you wish to make an issue
of it.

Mark




cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudennorth cudfnMark cudlnNorth cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Wed Feb 16 04:37:10 EST 1994
------------------------------
1994.02.15 / John Cobb /  Re: Energy required for Fusion
     
Originally-From: johncobb@emx.cc.utexas.edu (John W. Cobb)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Energy required for Fusion
Date: 15 Feb 1994 10:46:57 -0600
Organization: The University of Texas - Austin

In article <CL2sEG.GJ8@murdoch.acc.virginia.edu>,
Cameron Randale Bass <crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU> wrote:
>In article <haney.760983971@maverick>,
>Scott W. Haney <haney@maverick.llnl.gov> wrote:
>
>>  As ITER is currently envisioned, it will be a whopper of a tokamak: 
>>...
>>an ignited D-T plasma. Therefore, the power out/power in is infinity. 
>                                                             ^^^^^^^^
>     Boy, that *is* a bunch of fusion power!
>
>     The only problem I can see now is siting.  I'd fight hard to 
>     make sure I'm not near wherever they dump the heat.  My suggestion
>     is somewhere in M31 in Andromeda.

Not really, N/0 --> infinity. The power ratio, or Q is infinite because
ITER is supposed to reach ignition. However, the numerator, the power out
is finite. I am not up on the current ITER design iteration (is anybody 
for that matter --- only the Shadow and Rebut know) but the power output
used for reactor studies is on the order of 1 Gigawatt.

As for siting, I suggest we put in in Dale's back yard since he has 
already generously donated space for a high level waste facility. Certainly
that could decrease costs.

Seriously, there is one thing tht people should be aware about these
power out/power in ratios. They are a strictly defined concept. The power
out (in D-T fuel cycles) is the sum of the neutron and alpha power. (about
17.6 MeV/reaction. The power indes power used to heat the plasma. This
would be the Neutral Beam Power delivered to the plasma plus the neutral
Beam power delivered to the plasma. This is a natural and useful quantity
for doing science. It is a natural figure of merit in the same sense that
plasma beta or q is. 

However, Q, defined in this manner, is not quite what is needed economic
reactor analysis. There are other reactor power requirements that must
be included in the analysis in order to get a measure of the net power
that a reactor could sell to the power grid. The other factor is that
the cost per kilowatt-hour has to be low.

1) Q assumes that the magnetic field doesn't cost any power. Now if you
use a superconducting coil, the energy is initially stored and the
required power is 0, but if you used normal materials, you will have a
resistive power loss. Of course, superconducting magnetics are a big
technological problem. One can choose to either place the magnet in front
of or behind the sheilding blanket. If you put it in front, you will need 
megawatts of refrigeration to cool the magnets to keep them superconducting.
This means tens of megawatts are needed to power the refrigeration systems.
In any case such a large liquid helium temperature (or liguid nitrogen)
refrigeration system is technologically difficult, no matter what the
power because the heat capacity of the cooling fluids is so low. So you
would probably not want to place the superconductding coils 
in front of the blanket. The other choice is to put the blanket in front of the
coils, but in this case, you will need larger currents in the coils and higher
near coil fields so the magnet system will now cost more, increasing the cost
per kilowatt-hour.

2) While Q --> infinity is theoretically possible, it is probably not
the running conditions that will be used. That is, even if ignition is 
achieved, there may very well be a need to keep the RF and Neutral beams
turned on to control the plasma density, current, and temperature profiles.

3) the RF and Neutral beam heating systems will have an efficiency factor
that means the "wall socket" power they draw is somewhat larger than the
power they deliver to the reactor. In fact this is a big issue in neutral 
beam design because the neutralizer efficiency is notoriously low so they
have to build elaborate schemes to recapture energy of the charged
particles that do not get neutralized when passing through the neutralizer.

4) Normal plant operations will also take some power. That is to power
the diagnostics and control, etc. This is probably small.

5) Operations involving the blanket will also involve
an efficiency factor hit and some power drain. The main energy output will
be in the form of heat deposited in the blanket by the neutrons. Thus the 
blanket is the equivalent of the "primary coolant". As in any thermal
cycle, you must pay homage to the second law by taking a pretty big
efficiency hit in converting thermal power to electric power. I am not a 
blanket expert, but there is a need to do a great deal of pumping in order to 
keep it operating and this will take some power also.

6) Tritium breeding will not be free. One idea that is proposed is to
use lithium, or lithium salts (perhaps mixed with a neutron multiplier for 
the blanket fluid. This is because neutron collisions with the lithium will
breed trtium. However, oncethis is done, the triutm must be collected and
purified in a processing facility. This will also cost some power, but
it will probably be a lot less than fission isotopic separations since
much of the preliminary stages can be done chemically.

So the economically relvant net power produced vis somewhat lower than
expected based on simply using power-out = Q * (RF power + NBI power).

All in all, however, these "corrections" to the scientific value of Q
may be small at ignition. You can siphon off a few megawatts with little
adverse problems when your output power is 1 gigawatt. The biggest hit
is the thermodynamic efficiency hit. However, it should be clear that
even when the science part of fusion is completed, there are still
some very very challenging technological issues that also must be
addressed before we start powering our computers from fusion.

One final note. I have noticed a lot of people who are curious about
fusion ask whether power-out is greater or less than power-in. For
magnetic fusion this is a solved problem (demonstration is left as an
exercise for the experimenters :>). If you build the bloodly things
big enough, you will get more power out than power in. In fact the
hydrogen bomb is one empirical point on this graph. (Note: this is not
at all a settled question for more marginal fusion ideas like
muon-catalyzed fusion or cold-fusion) If you give me $40 Billion
dollars, I guarentee ( 5-sigma confidence) that I could build an
ignited fusion reactor that will put power on the grid. The problem
is, I won't be able to produce enough power to recover the $40 Billion
investment.  The name of the game is economic feasibility. You need to
design and build a reactor that will provide cheap and reliable power.
If there is a single bottom line it is price per kilowatt-hour. Now
the problem is that fusion reactors need to be big in order to get
more power out than power in. But big costs more. Moreoever, for
really, really big the cost goes up very fast. So the ideal would be
to build smaller, but our current knowledge suggestts that we don't
know how to build a small device with positive power output.

What I am saying is that there is a tradeoff, or as economists would say
an "efficient frontier". You can trade size for net power in a well known
fashion. The proper goal for present and future fusion research is to learn 
how to push that frontier further --- i.e. push the envelope. How do you
increase the power for the same size machine, or how do you keep the power
output constant but reduce the machine. If this is the case, you can
produce the same amount of power cheaper. Now this is how I measure
real progress in fusion research.

If you look at some of the big tokamaks that run today you will see that
many of their studies are aimed just at that point. For instance, DIII-D
has spent a great deal of time on the L-mode --> H-mode --> VH-mode
issue. With each step they find improved confinement. This means a
lower energy diffusion coefficient. This means it is possible to build
a reactor of given power in a smaller vessel. Of course other big tokamaks
are doing the same thing.

There are also what I call the "end run" ideas which are usually very
radically different from tokamaks, but offer the hope of lower power,
lower cost devices that might be feasdible. These tend to be "longshots"
in the sense that it is not clear they will work, but if they do, they
will be very attractive as energy production devices.

-john .w cobb
-- 
 --------------------------------------------------------------
John W. Cobb	My posts don't reflect the views of my employer
                Because my posts are usually opaque.
 --------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenjohncobb cudfnJohn cudlnCobb cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.15 / Scott Haney /  Re: Energy required for Fusion
     
Originally-From: haney@maverick.llnl.gov (Scott W. Haney)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Energy required for Fusion
Date: 15 Feb 94 17:11:35 GMT
Organization: Magnetic Fusion Energy - LLNL

crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:

>In article <haney.760983971@maverick>,
>Scott W. Haney <haney@maverick.llnl.gov> wrote:

>>  As ITER is currently envisioned, it will be a whopper of a tokamak: 
>>approximately 8m major radius, 3m minor radius, 6T field, 25MA current.
>>The main mission of ITER is generating lots of fusion power (1500MW+) in
>>an ignited D-T plasma. Therefore, the power out/power in is infinity. 
>                                                             ^^^^^^^^
>     Boy, that *is* a bunch of fusion power!

>     The only problem I can see now is siting.  I'd fight hard to 
>     make sure I'm not near wherever they dump the heat.  My suggestion
>     is somewhere in M31 in Andromeda.

>                                 dale bass

Dale,

  If you read a little closer you'll notice that I said the fusion power
was about 1500MW. However, as the plasma is ignited (meaning that no external
heating is added) the ratio of power-out (1500MW) to power-in (0) is indeed
infinity.  As for siting at M31, this might help solve some of the political
difficulties associated with having four international parties fund the
thing. Any idea what the Andromedeans' nuclear regulations look like?

Scott
--
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scott W. Haney        || Lawrence Livermore N'Lab || The above views are 
haney@random.llnl.gov || P.O. Box 808;  L-637     || mine and not neces-
(510) 423-6308        || Livermore, CA  94550     || sarily LLNL's.
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenhaney cudfnScott cudlnHaney cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.15 / Jim Carr /  Re: egos on parade!
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: egos on parade!
Date: 15 Feb 1994 17:19:22 -0500
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

In article <2joj7fINN62l@daisy.pgh.wec.com> 
zcrah@trumpet.pgh.wec.com (Andy Holland) writes:
>
>     Did you ever see that PBS show about technology? To mitigate "Bad
>     Air", thought to cause Maleria, a doctor invented Air conditioning,
>     and the ice maker.

That would be Gorrie.  His house, complete with the first 'air conditioned' 
room, is now a charming little museum in Appalachicola, about 100 miles 
from here.  Home of the world's best oysters. 

 -------

I agree with Andy on the ad hominem attacks.  Unfortunately, his 
suggestion for avoiding them is not a very good one, since there 
are plenty of folks who engage in such practices in a public 
forum.  Sometimes it is hard to keep your emotions in check even 
when you are doing science. 

-- 
J. A. Carr       <jac@scri.fsu.edu>           |  "The New Frontier of which I  
Florida State University  B-186               |  speak is not a set of promises
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Tallahassee, FL  32306-4052                   |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.15 / N Stchedroff /  Re: HELIUM FUSION REACTIONS??
     
Originally-From: zcacnst@ucl.ac.uk (Niels Stchedroff)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: HELIUM FUSION REACTIONS??
Date: 15 Feb 1994 17:42:17 -0600
Organization: UCL

In article <550@labsline.win.net>, patrick_sheaffer@labsline.win.net
(PATRICK SHEAFFER) writes:
|> 
|> A>Is there any reaction which gives a stable product
|> A>involving fusion of 4    and any other particle?
|> A>		     He 
|> 
|> All elements can be fused to yield anything up to Iron, which is the 

Am I correct is saying that anything up to iron produces energy, but 
reactions past it require net energy input? Hence the "iron minimum".
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenzcacnst cudfnNiels cudlnStchedroff cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.16 /  blue@dancer.ns /  Re: Owen on Reifenscheiler tritium results
     
Originally-From: blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Owen on Reifenscheiler tritium results
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 1994 09:38:13 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Daryl Owen takes me to task for my harsh comments on the recently
published results which Reifenshcheiler asserts demonstrate a mysterious
decline in the activity of a tritium sample.  At the heart of the matter
seems to be the following:

<do> Reifenscheiler states, concerning the GM tube and the electrometer
<d0> "Various experiments established for both detection systems the
<do>  linear relationship between read-out and the activity."

Clearly Daryl accepts the Reifenscheiler statement as "true" while I
am quite skeptical that this could, in fact, be done in a way that
establishes the linearity under conditions equivalent to the experiment.
That is to say,  the linearity may hold if the distribution of tritium
relative to the GM tube and to various materials in the surroundings
remain fixed, but you don't have to make much of a change in the tritium
distribution to alter the relationship between read-out and activity.
If Daryl is so keen on reading original sources he should determine for
himself the range of tritium betas in various materials such as titanium,
steel, and air.  Of course one would also have to obtain from
Reifenscheiler the complete details relating to the distribution (on
an appropriately small scale)of tritium and all possible absorbing
materials between the source and the detector.   The point of this
paper would appear to be the assertion that a decline in the
readout of GM countrate or electrometer current must imply a decline
in the tritium decay rate.  My comments were intended to call attention
to the fact that experimentally this is an extremely difficult measurement,
not the sort of thing that should be used to backup some revolutionary
claim as to how radioactivity can be altered by chemical means.

Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU 

cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenblue cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.16 / mitchell swartz /  cold fusion FAQ
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cold fusion FAQ
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 1994 19:33:20 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

                    
             Subject: Cold Fusion FAQ-Table

  This FAQ-Table is a very short list of some of the cold fusion
phenomena - and skeptics "explanations".  The list is based upon the 
literature and the responses to this net.
This Table is developing and does not at present include 
muon-driven cold fusion or putative  fractofusion
systems.   Additions, suggestions, updates, and corrections 
are both appreciated and invited.
 
I will update with ICCF-4 data (power levels and product
generation)  over the next few months.
  
                                    Mitchell Swartz
                                    mica@world.std.com

 ===================================================
 FAQ TABLE SUMMARY OF SOME COLD FUSION RESULTS
                  AND SOME POSSIBLE EXPLANATIONS
   1. Survey of Physical Results
   2. Tabulation of Arguments against and order-of-magnitude
   3. Partial References.

   1. Survey of Physical Results
   ============= Excess Power (milliwatts)  === % of input =====
   ---   Representative Positive Results in Heavy Water/D2O   --------------
   Fleischmann & Pons (1989)     60  (circa)
     Miles (1992)               540
     McKubre (1992)                             30% (ca. average input excess,
                                                     with rare bursts higher)

     ===========   Excess Power densities (W/cm3 Pd) ==============
   ---   Representative Positive Results in Heavy Water/D2O   --------------
      1989     circa   10  W/cm3 Pd
      1993     circa  1500 W/cm3 Pd

   ===========   Helium-4 generation levels Heavy Water/D2O   --------------
       10^11 to  ca. 3 x 10^11   helium-4/watt-sec    (Miles 91, 92, 93)
 
  ============= Excess Power (watts)               === % of input =====
  ---   Other Representative Positive Results D2 and D2O systems  --------------
     Stringham (1994 acoustic only D2O)               90 watts
     Mizuno     (1994 proton conductor SrCeO3)        100 watts/cm^2
     Kucherov   (1994, glow discharge)                 30 watts   ca. 50% excess

 ===========   Excess Power ===================================
   ---   Representative Positive Results in Light Water/H2O   --------
  Mills (1989)            (ca. several hundred % input, peak input ca. 160 W
  Noninski (1991)                              160%
  Srinivasan (1993)             3.5 max        70% input 
  Notoya (1993)                 2.7 max        270-240% 
  _________________________________________________________________________


   2. Tabulation of Arguments against and order-of-magnitude
    ========  Putative Effects put forth to Explain Excess enthalpies (*) ====
  =============  Excess Power (milliwatts) accounted for =========
   Anode Effect (**)                             0.0   
   EMI interference                           << 0.001  (est.)
   Logajan Effect (^ D2O thermal cond.)          ***
                   in cell IF not considered
   Recombination                  1993)          1.6       **--
   Silicate Deposition            1992)          0.0 (max)  
   Lithium Deposition             1993)          0.0 (max)  **##
   Beuhler Effect                 1992)          0.0 (max)  ****
   Peroxides                                                **@@
  ====================================================================
*  Some of these are not applicable to all systems (eg. both D2O and H2O)
  Furthermore, the final column is excess heat, and not generated heat.
**    The Anode Effect is characterized by a very recognizable V-I curve
 and lamellar gas flow characteristics and occurs at
 the anode in the vast majority of cases reported therein.  
"Anode Effect in Aqueous Electrolysis" Herbert H Kellogg, J. Electrochem.
 Soc., 97, 133 (1950)
***    Sign is such that this effect, if it occurs actually increases previous
       estimates of reported excess heats.
**--  Steven and J. Jones posted data of about 1.6 milliwatt at ambient.
**##  Hypothesis involving depositing metallic lithium upon the cathode
  (ca. 1/30 mole) covering it with a surface to prevent reaction with water,
  and then suddenly converting the cathode to anode which now become the
  site of oxidation.  No mention made of the transferrance required. 
  One good recent article on Lithium morphology of anodes (i.e. Li batteries)
  undergoing such processes (max 0.5 C/cm2, 2 mA/cm2 DME +/- propylene 
    carbonate) shows cycling is dependant upon the morphology of the lithium
   deposits (In Situ Observation & Eval of Electrodeposited Lithium by .. 
   Op Microscopy and AC Impedance Spec., J. Elec. Soc, 140, 10 p2745 ('93)).
****  Brought up on Internet circa 1992 regarding alligator-like clips
 incurring significant in-line electrical resistances.  Argued both ways
 (see. postings of Jones and Noninski and others circa Nov. 19, 1992)
 but in any case could not account for observed and calibrated excess 
 heats in experiments using protium and nickel.
**@@  Thought to be a component of potential interference by some, but 
 levels sufficient to account for excess enthalpies have not been measured.

 3. Partial References.

M. Miles, R. Hollins, B.F. Bush and J.J. Lagowski, 
Correlation of excess power and helium production 
during D2O and H2O electrolysis using palladium 
cathodes," J. of Electroanalytical Chemistry, 
346 (1993) 99 - 117.

E. Storms (Los Alamos), "Review of Experimental 
Observations About The Cold Fusion Effect," 
Fusion Technology, Vol. 20, Dec. 1991 433 - 477.  

Eugene Mallove "FIRE FROM ICE: Searching for the Truth
 Behind the Cold Fusion Furor"
 (John Wiley & Sons, May, 1991)
  Those who want to know much more about cold fusion can read Gene Mallove's
book "Fire from Ice -- Searching for the Truth Behind the cold Fusion
Furor" (Wiley Press)   Note the table on pages 246 through 248 which
lists scores of laboratories who have measured and reported 
excess heat, and in many cases other particles.

"FUSION ENERGY, Hearing before the Subcommittee on
Energy of the Committee on Science, Space and Technology,
 U.S. House of Representatives," ISBN 0-16-041505-5.

Further information is available in COLD FUSION TIMES [ISSN 
1072-2874; P.O. Box 81135, Wellesley Hills, MA 02181], Fusion 
Technology [a technical journal published by the ANS] and Fusion 
Facts, a monthly newsletter, and shortly "COLD FUSION", and other 
sources.  
      ------------------------ v.0215
        Best wishes.
                      M. Swartz (mica@world.std.com)

       

cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.16 / Chuck Sites /  Re: More on Fractofusion
     
Originally-From: chuck@iglou.iglou.com (Chuck Sites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: More on Fractofusion
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 1994 23:25:52 GMT
Organization: The Internet Gateway of Louisville, KY

jonesse@physc1.byu.edu writes:

>The use of wintogreen mints in studies involving triboluminescence, although
>ridiculed by Mitch Swartz, has been previously published in scientific
>literature (Am. J. Physics).  So I see no reason to ridicule this any more than
>use of, say, LiD or lithium niobate which we are also using since claims of
>low-level fusion from such samples has been published.  We checked that
>our mint samples did emit light when fractured, several times.  The samples were
>placed in D2 gas, not in D2O.  The suggestion of fractofusion is a serious one
>which we are examining and we are well-equipped to do so.

>Incidentally, we tried for fractofusion also at Kamiokande, and found *no*
>evidence of fusion in those experiments.  (See Ishida thesis, issued as report
>ICRR-Report-277-92-15.)  

>Finally, as Dick Blue pointed out some time ago, in fracto-emission, it is
>predominately the electrons (as opposed to d+ or other ions) that are
>accelerated, so d-d fusion is highly unlikely during fracture of solids.

Dear Steve,
   Correct me if I'm wrong here, but isn't your method of creating 
fractures done by simple grinding in a deuterium enviroment.  To me
I don't see how that can create kind of fractures I've seen in Pd.
At best I would think grinding them would be equivilant to loading
up the metal to some low value and hitting it with a hammer, (knife blade,
or what ever) and looking for fusion events.  The type of event I would 
look for would be a plastic fracture from stress due to high loading.
The reason I think this would be different from grinding is a major portion
of the stress required to start the fracture is the repusive forces 
of the D ions them selves.  This means means then at that point of
fracture you have and additional accelleration of the D ions from the
fracture wall.  Tom had a a beautiful fractured cell split during
electrolysis that had to be fairly energetic.  It probably gave a
pretty good pop.  I remember estimating the number of deuteriums 
that would be exposed on the fracture walls in this cell, based on
a loading of PdD(x=0.8) and it was huge.  
   Anyway, I was wondering if you have done any estimates on the 
number of D ions you think are created during the grinding process.
          
>--Steven Jones

Have Fun,
Chuck Sites 

New mail address: It's now chuck@iglou.com
Also, try chuck@stunner.iglou.com  (That's my basement Lab)

cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.17 /  dowen@vaxc.cc. /  Re: More on Fractofusion
     
Originally-From: dowen@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: More on Fractofusion
Date: 17 Feb 94 11:56:19 +1100
Organization: Computer Centre, Monash University, Australia

 Hi Folks,
This is part of my post of the 10-Jan-94, hope it is of assistance to you
Mark. 
> In article <94010710422742@dancer.nscl.msu.edu>, blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu
>  writes:
>> "....... 
>> Chuck says that I suggested that in a facture electrons should neutralize
>> the D ions and.......
......................MANY LINES DELETED............................           
>> ....If PdD retains its bulk resistivity at the fracture the relaxations
>> of fields parallel to the surface must be due to electrons primarily so
>> the relaxation process that could involve deuterons must involve charges
>> crossing the gap.  If, as Chuck says, the deuterons are screened I would
>> think that means they don't move at all.  My view is that supposing
>> I have these surfaces with electrons and deuterons ready to race across
>> the gap.  Electrons should win the race!  To alter that picture you have
>> to bind the electrons more tightly than the deuterons at the surface.
>> Show me data for Pd or something similar where it is easier to pull
>> deuterons off the surface in an electric field than electrons and you
>> could get me to change my thinking (a little bit).
>> ........................".
> 
> Dear Dick and Chuck,
>  Dickinson et al has found photons, negative charge emission,
> "radio frequency" radiation and POSITIVE IONS to be *simultaneously*
> emitted during the fracture of TiD samples. They have published a graph
> (see ref.) showing the peaking of "negative charge" emission at about
> 6000 counts direcly after the fracture, but declining *slowly* to
> about 200 counts *80 seconds* after the fracture. They discuss this and
> other fascinating phenomena in their excellent paper.....
>  "Fracto-emisssion from deuterated titanium: Supporting evidence for
> a fracto-fusion mechanism." in the "J.Mater.Research,Vol 5,No.1,Jan 1990."

This paper has a rich set of references which should also be of interest
to you Mark.

>  In fairness to the very cautious attitude of Dickinson et al
> regarding "cold fusion", I quote the following from their conclusion ......
> 
>  "Obviously, if the fracto-fusion mechanism is valid, it would not be a 
> cold fusion process due to the necessary electrostatic acceleration
> provided charge seperation."
>

 					Regards to all,
 					Daryl Owen. 
 
  This text is attributable only to myself. 
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudendowen cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.16 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Oriani's experiments
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Oriani's experiments
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 94 20:58:28 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Hey, don't lump us together Steve! Mitch is Mr. Nice Guy, he probably
does not think you are a pathological liar. He speaks for he, and I speak
for me. I think that you would not recognize the truth if it bit you on the
butt, and I think maybe Taubes was right, and maybe you did steal your
ideas from P&F. I would not put it past you. I notice that you have come
out four square in favor of Britz, and Britz says he believe the Taubes
book... So, by extension, does that mean that you believe Taubes? Is this
a mea culpa? Are you admitting that the Taubes accusations are true? Or,
are you saying he judged everyone in this field honestly and correctly
except you. He is wrong about you, but all the others are liars?
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenjedrothwell cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.17 / Kent EECS /  Re: Reply to Jones' "more on Fractofusion"
     
Originally-From: kjones@decserv1.eecs.wsu.edu (Kent Jones - EECS)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reply to Jones' "more on Fractofusion"
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 94 01:03:46 GMT
Organization: ^

In article <CLBrFK.6vD@world.std.com> mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
>  In Message-ID: <1994Feb14.170321.1368@physc1.byu.edu>
>Subject: More on Fractofusion
>Steven Jones (jonesse@physc1.byu.edu) writes;
>
>=sj  "The use of wintogreen mints in studies involving 
>=sj triboluminescence,although ridiculed by Mitch Swartz,has been 
>=sjpreviously published in scientific literature(Am.J. Physics)."
>

It is interesting to note that wintogreen mints are not necessary. You
can see a similiar (same?) effect if you crush ordinary sugar in a glass 
bowl in a dark room after your eyes adjust to the darkness. 

Kent Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenkjones cudfnKent cudlnEECS cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Thu Feb 17 04:37:06 EST 1994
------------------------------
1994.02.17 / Brian Rauchfuss /  Re: Energy required for Fusion
     
Originally-From: brauchfu@fnugget.intel.com (Brian D. Rauchfuss)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Energy required for Fusion
Date: 17 Feb 1994 20:39:22 GMT
Organization: INTEL.FOLSOM

In article <CL2sEG.GJ8@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> crb7q@watt.seas.Virgini
.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
*>an ignited D-T plasma. Therefore, the power out/power in is infinity. 
...                                                           ^^^^^^^^
*     The only problem I can see now is siting.  I'd fight hard to 
*     make sure I'm not near wherever they dump the heat.  My suggestion
*     is somewhere in M31 in Andromeda.

If the power ratio is really infinity, you might want to vote for a more 
distant location.  Actually, though, they probably just rounded to the
nearest infinity.

BDR
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenbrauchfu cudfnBrian cudlnRauchfuss cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.17 / Norberto Amaral /  ICPS'94 in Russia
     
Originally-From: fisnapta@ci.ua.pt (Norberto Amaral)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: ICPS'94 in Russia
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 1994 15:03:35 GMT
Organization: Universidade de Aveiro, Portugal




	Hi there, everybody!

	I'm a physics student in Portugal, and I'm posting this small article
to announce the ICPS'94. ICPS stands for International Conference For Physics
Students.

	I bet you never heard of it, but here goes some info on it.

	A few years ago, in 1986, there was a group of people from several
european coutries who decided to make the International Association for
Physics Students. It started in Hungary, then the Central Office passed to
Holland, and now some very nice people in Copenhagen, Denmark, have the
Presidency.
	Every year, the IAPS organizes a conference -ICPS-, always in a 
different location, but in Europe, once almost every participant comes from
this continent. So, previous ICPS's I've heard (and been to two of them were:

	1990 Amsterdam, Holland
	1991 Wien, Austria
	1992 Lisbon, Portugal
	1993 Bodrum, Turkey

	This year, ICPS will be held in Saint Petersburg, Russia, and next year
in Copenhagen, Denmark.
	We, in the IAPS, are looking forward to extend our Association to other
countries. In USA, IAPS is not very difused, although some american physics
students attended ICPS'92, and another one, who graduated in Harvard, and now is
in Paris, in Universite de Paris VII, is one of the most dynamic persons.

	If any one of you is interested in this, ICPS'94 will take place from
15 to 21st of August, and you have to pay a very reduced fee - US$110 - to
attend it, including lodging, food, conference materials, etc.
	Meanwhile, you can prepare a lecture, which  just must be about physics
or related - doesn't really interest which branch of physics you'll talk about.
	You can get more info from Alexander Pavlov, by e-mail:

	APAVL@ihq.samson.spb.su

	Or from the IAPS Central Office, either from Bente Hansen or Nanna
Nicolajsen, from their e-mails:
	IAPS@meyer.fys.ku.dk

	Anyway, I shall send this message to some other groups where some
physics students are more likely to write to, as well as making sure this 
message is always posted in this group.

	Academic Salutations, Norberto Amaral

 -----------------------------------------
e-mail:  fisnapta@zeus.ci.ua.pt
address (home) Norberto Amaral
		Rua do Viso, 120
		3800 Aveiro Portugal
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenfisnapta cudfnNorberto cudlnAmaral cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.17 / Jon Arnold /  Re: Nuclear Burn
     
Originally-From: arnoldj@telerama.lm.com (Jon Arnold)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Nuclear Burn
Date: 17 Feb 1994 19:42:18 -0500
Organization: Telerama Public Access Internet, Pittsburgh, PA

OK.... I guess the 1st didn't post. What I was wondering is the 
conditions needed for nuclear burn/ignition. Has this point ever been 
reached and if so for how long. Does anyone know the theoretical 
conditions needed for this? Also... how hot and under what pressure has a 
plasma ever reached? Is the proposed international Fuson reactor expected 
to reach ignition and sustain fusion to the point of reaching 
sci/commercial breakeven? Thanx for any responces. 

				Jon (the soon to be scientist) Arnold


-- 
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
"I'm goin where the water tastes like wine..." @      Jonathan Arnold
                                               @  arnoldj@telerama.lm.com
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ See ya on the golden road!
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenarnoldj cudfnJon cudlnArnold cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.18 / Dieter Britz /  Once more, Bockris
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Once more, Bockris
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 1994 09:29:13 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway


I come out of my hole with a bit of unfinished business. There is one part of
Taubes' book pertaining to Bockris, that the man really cannot defend himself
against, so others have to do it.

On p.276, Taubes quotes Bockris, giving his reasons for leaving Pennsylvania
in 1972, and it could look as if he is racist. I remember thinking at the time
that this is a bit strong and really needs to be verified before one condemns
the man. So I have contacted Bockris, and have his answer. The answer
satisfies me that Bockris is not racist. He and I happily agree that in the
academic context, the only thing that matters is a person's brain, not his or
her skin colour, etc. The quoted remark in the book only says something about
Bockris' stand on PC - and again, he and I probably agree totally. This is
quite another story. Advocates of PC like to label their opponents as racist,
but they are wrong.

None of this has anything to do with what I think of Bockris' cold fusion
work. Neither is this a vote of no confidence in Taubes' book. I have no idea
whether Taubes was using this quote for any purpose (again, one would have to
ask him) and I still find the book compelling, and a total demolition of 'cold
fusion'.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.17 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Question for Dale Bass
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Question for Dale Bass
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 94 21:21:10 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

You actually read the paper? Bully for you! How unusual for a "skeptic."
 
Listen Dale, I am not going to answer your questions. I already answered
them, months ago, time after time. I described how other people simulated the
results with an ordinary test tube with a small vent and a joule heater. John
Logajan also reported some interesting work along these lines. I suggested
you do the same. Go ahead! Spend some time in the lab with test tubes,
heaters, thermistors. You are bound to learn something, and have fun too.
Nobody on earth is so smart he cannot learn more.
 
Martin also addressed many of the points you raised in a long response to
Morrison, and in a shorter response to Jones. If you want copies of those, I
would be happy to zap them to you. Stan and Martin also addressed many of
these points during ICCF4, you should get the proceedings.
 
You, apparently, were not satisfied with my response, or with Martin's. So
why not just drop the subject? Let us agree to disagree. I will not continue
this dialog of the deaf. You say the calorimetry is bad, I say it is good. A
bunch people agree with you: Taubes, Morrison, Huizenga, Blue, Britz... A
bunch of other people agree with me: the top scientists at EPRI, MITI, NEDO,
Toyota, Hitachi, 10 of Japan's largest power companies, the Japanese
Electrochemical Society, The Physical Society of Japan, and most of the 250
people who showed up at ICCF4.
 
So who is right? I suppose that only time will tell. Why don't you and I
agree to wait a year, or two years, or ten years if that is how long it
takes? We will find out how this comes out. Typing message after message, and
asking the same old questions time after time will not change the outcome.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenjedrothwell cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.17 / Cameron Bass /  Re: On Nyquist criterion (cont'd)
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: On Nyquist criterion (cont'd)
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 1994 19:10:23 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <CLDHIK.MBG@world.std.com>,
mitchell swartz <mica@world.std.com> wrote:
>
>   In Message-ID: <tomkCLCwwD.Jt3@netcom.com>
>Subject: Re: Reply to Jones - On Nyquist criterion
>Thomas H. Kunich (tomk@netcom.com) writes:        
>
>==  "Could you please give me a reference to these "reports"?
>==   When did P&F publish this information? 
>
>   You might try more accuracy.  The word used was singular, that 
>is: "reported".  It refers to a short discussion between myself 
>and the author of the paper made to check this out.  The comment 
>was then simply "reported" here.  I do not know with specificity 
>which equipment was used, therefore, if you want supplemental 
>information, perhaps either you or Dale Bass ought write your own 
>letter(s), fax your own fax(es), or make your call(s), and check 
>it out further for yourself(ves).  Thanks in advance for the 
>information which we are certain you will both share and comment 
>upon.

     So 'reported' is an unsubstantiated rumor promulgated by an author
     him(her)self in response to a query from one of the least
     critical humans on the planet?

     Bwahahahahahahahaha.

     Perhaps they should be putting this stuff in the papers instead.
     'If there's any question as to our data collection methods, you
     can be assured that we checked our inadequate sampling rates
     by unspecified means.  Just don't ask us how.'

     Bwahahahahahahahaha.

                        dale bass

cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.17 / Cameron Bass /  Re: egos on parade!
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: egos on parade!
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 1994 19:22:49 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <2jvpnmINNjv3@daisy.pgh.wec.com>,
Andy Holland <zcrah@trumpet.pgh.wec.com> wrote:
>In article <CL8qJ9.74H@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> crb7q@watt.seas.Virgin
a.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>>In article <2joj7fINN62l@daisy.pgh.wec.com>,
>>Andy Holland <zcrah@trumpet.pgh.wec.com> wrote:
>>>In article <CL0s8F.EGC@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> crb7q@watt.seas.Virg
nia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>>>>In article <2jdegkINN4to@daisy.pgh.wec.com>,
>>>>
>>>>     Name three.  I'm curious what good you think came from 'bad air'
>>>
>>>     Did you ever see that PBS show about technology? To mitigate "Bad
>>>     Air", thought to cause Maleria, a doctor invented Air conditioning,
>>>     and the ice maker.
>>
>>     That's one of the best scientific and engineering discoveries?
>>     I don't think that counts a discovery at all, unless we can credit
>>     Carnot with it.
>>
>   
>   Try living without refrigeration. I'll take the patents and the spin offs
>   any day.

     You missed the point.  He didn't invent cooling, and it doesn't
     exactly qualify as a 'scientific and engineering discovery'.

>>>     Remember Pareto, and his data reduction techniques, still used
>>>     today, and the famous 80-20 rule (80% of the wealth is controlled
>>>     by 20% of the people)? He was trying to measure individual
>>>     economic utility.
>>
>>     That's one of the best scientific and engineering discoveries?
>>     It's a rule of thumb without universal application.
>>
>
>   Maybe not, but his data reduction analysis methods have been used in various
>   fields for 100 years. The 80-20 rule was just an amusing side note. The data
>   reduction techniques are used in business and economics. I guess those fields aren't 
>   important though.

     Amusing side note?  I thought it was a 'great discovery'.

>   Again, very many more examples available (some proprietary), require research,
>   Westinghouse NMD consulting rates. Contact me if your serious. I am not going
>   to look up stuff related to this silly argument for free.

     That's rich.  You didn't even come up with one.  That's not
     a good start if you're trying to sell your services to find
     'further examples'.

>  What really irks me is that the original post was refering mostly, to comments
>  made by others which were way out of line, it had nothing to do with Dale Bass. 
>  Seems he fell into the pit, and kept digging. Guess I did too to some extent.

     Free advice:  Don't get irked on Usenet.  Take it for the
     oft-entertaining oft-raucous discussion it is.

                            dale bass


cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.18 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Question for Dale Bass
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Question for Dale Bass
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 1994 04:49:07 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <xW-p2ge.jedrothwell@delphi.com>,  <jedrothwell@delphi.com> wrote:
>You actually read the paper? Bully for you! How unusual for a "skeptic."
> 
>Listen Dale, I am not going to answer your questions.

     I'm not surprised.  How usual for a religious adherant.

> I already answered
>them, months ago, time after time.
 
     I don't recall an answer to any of them, much less all of them.
     Would you like me to repost all of your responses on the
     subject including the thrust and parry as y'all tried to avoid
     each one of them?

> I described how other people simulated the
>results with an ordinary test tube with a small vent and a joule heater.

     Not a chance Jed.  Even if the simulation was an accurate depiction
     of circumstances, which I strongly doubt, that implies that a) P&F
     don't know what 'dry' means, b) P&F don't understand what's
     going on in their cell.

>Martin also addressed many of the points you raised in a long response to
>Morrison, and in a shorter response to Jones. If you want copies of those, I
>would be happy to zap them to you. 

     Repost them if you would.  The only think I recall is a damning bit
     about a 300 s sampling.

>Stan and Martin also addressed many of
>these points during ICCF4, you should get the proceedings.

     I've got better things to buy these days.  And that seems quite
     unnecessary since I have a published paper in a peer reviewed 
     journal by P&F right on my desk.  If you have additional light
     to shed on their *published* *peer-reviewed* paper, I'm sure
     we'd be more than happy to listen...

     ...and perhaps chuckle a bit.

>You, apparently, were not satisfied with my response, or with Martin's. So
>why not just drop the subject?

     I'm not satisified there *was* a response.  Even before we
     get to the calorimetry numbers there are a bunch of strange things
     about the paper.  And I've *never* seen even a hint of a discussion
     about the kel-F melting.  That still seems impossible without 
     significant arcing in the cell.   From the diagram in the
     paper, it would be impossible to melt the kel-F using the Pd electrode
     without seeing a substantial rise in the temperature at the thermister,
     even ignoring the fact that the kel-F was likely insulated by
     the electrolyte and the thermister was *not*.

      So, no, I'm not dropping an inconvenient subject.

> Let us agree to disagree. I will not continue
>this dialog of the deaf. You say the calorimetry is bad, I say it is good

     No, I asked a number of questions about the experiment reported
     in their *published* work.  These remain unanswered, and they should
     be quite troubling for those proponents of the 'phenomenon'.

>So who is right? I suppose that only time will tell. Why don't you and I
>agree to wait a year, or two years, or ten years if that is how long it
>takes? We will find out how this comes out. Typing message after message, and
>asking the same old questions time after time will not change the outcome.

     I agree as the questions are never answered.  But continuing to ask them
     succinctly underscores the religious nature of belief in this
     'phenomenon'.

     Anyway we've got but two short years to wait; I still have a file 
     entitled README.1996 enclosing the words of one Jed Rothwell.
     I plan to post it as a weekly Jed_Rothwell.FAQ in 1996.

                               dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.18 / Dieter Britz /  The Will paper: a quality positive?
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: The Will paper: a quality positive?
Subject: F. Will tritium claims/Not a "quality positive" paper
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 1994 10:29:41 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway


Well, Hilaire Belloc in his "Road to Rome" (I think that is the title of this
excellent book) left no vows unbroken, and here I am, breaking my promise not
to post to this group anymore. But I want to clear up the question of what
made me change my mind about the Will paper (Will, Cedynska and Linton,
J. Electroanal. Chem. 360 (1993) 161). I have unfortunately lost the posting
in which someone, a few days ago, wrote, more or less, that Britz is being
unreasonable changing his mind like this, because the paper is clearly quality
work. So here my reasons; they are, I think, important.

My original posting, in FD 1830, 22-Dec-93, said

>Then we have a quality positive, the Will et al paper, already referred to by
>Mark Hittinger, I think it was. The team went about their experiment very
>carefully, did lots of controls, and found significant levels of tritium. We
...
>niggling suspicion seems to be laid to rest. I will add this paper to my small
>list of quality positives.

Then, in FD 1842, 27-Dec-93, Steve Jones pointed out a very significant thing:

Subject: F. Will tritium claims/Not a "quality positive" paper

In his "CNF bibliography update" dated 22 Dec. 1993, Dieter Britz says:

>Will is indeed a solid electrochemist.  And he claimed no excess heat
>production in his extensive electrolytic-cell experiments at NCFI before its
>demise.  But does this mean that he is competent to claim tritium production?
>He boldly states in this paper:
>"it is concluded that the tritium was generated inside the Pd;  only nuclear
>reactions, whose nature is as yet unknown, could have produced the observed
>tritium."  (F. Will et al., J. Electroanal. Chem. 360 (1993) 161-176.)
>
>"Whose nature is unknown"... what could it be?  How can they be so sure of a
>nuclear reaction, if there are no other evidences, such as MeV-scale energies
>associated with the reaction?  In particular, if tritons are produced via
>nuclear reactions, where are the *secondary* reactions such as
>  t + d (there is abundant deuterium available in the Pd) --> 4He + n.

>The neutron in this case carries 14.1 MeV and is readily detectable -- or did
>they not look for neutrons?  With the quantity of tritium production they
>claim, "2.1 X 10^11 tritium atoms" in one case, copious neutron production is
>expected; about a million neutrons in the mentioned case.  Oddly, their paper
>does not mention looking for neutrons at all.
>
>But they *did* look for neutrons, using "two 3He counters", and they found no
>significant neutron production from the 4 electrolytic cells that purportedly
>produced tritium via nuclear reactions -- certainly nothing at the
>million-neutron level, which they were easily capable of detecting.
>
>This information I had to dig out by going to the 1991 paper by the same three
>authors as appears in the 1993 paper -- and the *same data* -- published in the
>Final Report, "Investigation of cold fusion phenomena in deuterated metals,"
>Volume 1, pp. 1-131 - 1-150, 1991, U. of Utah NCFI.

>I talked to Fritz about looking for neutrons at the meeting in Maui, privately.
>He said that they had looked, but that he was glad they had not mentioned
>neutrons in their 1993 paper since neutron production now looked so
>questionable.

>But he missed the crucial point:  *absence of neutrons* effectively rules
>triton production via nuclear reactions, in deuterated Pd!  Secondary t+d
>reactions have a threshold of only tens of keV; energetic tritons cannot be
>stopped from producing tell-tale neutrons -- but the neutrons *were not there!*

>This absence of neutrons I find damning to the conclusion that "tritium was
>generated inside the Pd; only nuclear reactions, whose nature is as yet
>unknown, could have produced the observed tritium."
>And damning to the 1993 paper is the failure to report that neutrons were
>looked for, and that no neutron production was found corresponding to the
>level of tritium "production."

>Indeed, the absence of (sufficient) secondary neutron emissions is
>damning to claims of
>tritium production generally, including claims of Thomas Claytor at Los Alamos
>(but Tom acknowledges the problem).

>I would ask Britz to reconsider his assessment of this as a "quality positive"
>for cold fusion claims.

... and I agree fully. Therefore, in FD 1849, on 30-Dec-93, I wrote

>Alright: Britz reconsiders, agrees with the above, and will not put this paper
>into the qual+ list.


The point here is not that Britz is fickle, but that an apparently sound paper
can become instantly flawed if you find out that some crucial information has
been left out. In this case, there were actual attempts to measure neutrons
and they were not found. As Steve points out, they must be there and if they
are not, then the tritium came from something other than a nuclear reaction
and I am not interested in finding out why the controls behaved as they did.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.18 / V Guruprasad /  Griggs effect question
     
Originally-From: c1prasad@watson.ibm.com (V. Guruprasad)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Griggs effect question
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 1994 14:04:24 GMT
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

[ question basically to Jed Rothwell and others knowing more about this device
of Griggs ]

Thanks to Jed for a prompt pointer to a CIS upload on the Griggs phenomenon.
I'm sure that that file was as informative as it could possibly be.  Just
in case someone has noticed anything that might bear on my questions,

a. Steam and real gas isothermals have an S shape near the critical point.
   Could one say the unusual operation of the Griggs device occurs in the
   *rising* portion of the S curve in the pV diagram [ the curve goes like
    \_/^\, and the / part has not been realizable for any useful duration ] ?

b. The output steam was observed to be hotter than expected.  Could one assume
   that the boiler body was also got unusually hot or was it only as usual?

Thanks.
prasad.
-------
if (email) (* compuserve) (71155, 3116);
else post ();



cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenc1prasad cudfnV cudlnGuruprasad cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.19 /  blue@dancer.ns /  Re: Tom Droege's better calorimetry
     
Originally-From: blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Tom Droege's better calorimetry
Date: Sat, 19 Feb 1994 01:14:46 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Sorry, if I have appeared to belittle Tom Droege's achievements in
bringing a significantly higher level of accuracy to cold fusion
calorimetry.  I basically agree with Tom that there is little point in
setting up radiation detectors (except for personal safety) until there
is some indication that cold fusion is occuring.  Since the only indicator
that has been "accepted" is the appearance of excess heat, the calorimeter
has to come first.  My attack was aimed at those who do the calorimetry,
claim positive results, and then pretend the issue of the reality of cold
fusion has been resolved.  Furthermore, in case after case where neither
heat nor radiation was detected the cold fusion advocates have rejected
these data has having no bearing simply because the experiment never
demonstrated any connection to cold fusion.  (Note that Mitchell Swartz
in preparing references for an FAQ file lists no null results and
fails to mention any of the books that present a negative view of CF
research.)

It now seems that progress toward resolving the cold fusion question
can come only from the side of the advocates.  They have to provide more
convincing data, backed by better understanding of the processes that are
occuring, or by their ongoing failure to do that give further indication
that all is not well with cold fusion.  Unfortunately Tom is presently
in much the same position that all those who got null results for neutron
detection were in right from the start.  Unless he can get a clear
positive result comparable to those of Pons and Fleischmann or McKubre
what can he possibly prove about cold fusion?  In fact you can almost
hear the cries from some quarters that Tom Droege's lack of "success"
is the result of bringing a better calorimeter to bear on the problem.

Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU

cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenblue cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.18 / Richard Schultz /  Re: Reactions which produce 4He
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reactions which produce 4He
Date: 18 Feb 1994 18:26:40 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley

In article <940216144413.23c0ac85@fnald.fnal.gov>,
 <DROEGE@FNALD.FNAL.GOV> wrote:

>. . .Note that the nuclear claim 
>in the original paper was indirect.  They said that they saw heat and the only 
>explanation that they could think of to explain it was that it was nuclear.  
>
>Please, I know there were nuclear claims in the original paper.  These looked 
>to me like afterthoughts, just attempts to justify their premise that it "had 
>to be nuclear". . . .

I for one cannot agree with this interpretation.  What they said in the paper
was (this is a direct quote) "it is inconceivable that this could be due to
anything but nuclear processes."  Not that nuclear processes were the only
thing they could think of, but that that was the only thing it could be.
Further, they state that "the bulk of the energy release is due to an
hitherto unknown nuclear process or processes (presumably again due to
deuterons)."  They claimed to be "close to the break-even point" and 
said that "a plausible interpretation of the experiment of using the Pd-cube
electrode is in terms of ignition."  This last statement is certainly true,
although not in the sense they meant it (the ignition reaction was almost
certainly D2 + 0.5 02 -> D2O, not D + D -> He).  Furthermore, I was at both
the original press conference and Pons's and Hawkins's "scientific" [sic]
seminars.  At no time did any of them equivocate about the heat being due
to fusion. . . even though they had a hard time putting up slides with 
balanced nuclear equations on them.

					Richard Schultz
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.19 / Paul Schauble /  Retrieving from archives
     
Originally-From: pls@shell.portal.com (Paul L Schauble)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Retrieving from archives
Date: Sat, 19 Feb 1994 08:47:54 GMT
Organization: Portal Communications Company -- 408/973-9111 (voice) 408/973-8091 (data)

Could someone please MAIL me instructions for retrieving material from the
sci.physics.fusion archive? I need mail because my newsfeed for this group
is presently broken. 

  Thanks,
    ++PLS

cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenpls cudfnPaul cudlnSchauble cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.18 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Reply to Mitch 1: P&F 5-min. sampling
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Reply to Mitch 1: P&F 5-min. sampling
Date: 18 Feb 94 13:41:06 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

2-18-94  Reply to Mitch, part 1

Dear colleagues,

A great deal of time can be expended replying to the likes of Jed and
Mitch which could be spent in other, doubtlessly more productive ways. 
I find that Mitch, for example, has dredged up old topics -- perhaps
this time he will respond to my questions.  We'll see -- he does
sometimes.  My hope is that in doing so he will think and *maybe* even
change his mental fix to agree with facts and reasoning.  And I may
change some of my views, too -- as I have with regard to large "cold
fusion" neutron bursts, for example.  Not because of Mitch, of course -
- but because of what we have found in our experimental work.  (I do not
think these bursts are real now, and in our improved detectors, we have
found clear cases of artifactual bursts, as I have reported before, and
as we are now publishing.)

Perhaps some of you will change your thinking, too -- this is the
purpose of discussion, isn't it?

So here we go again.  I will respond to Mitch in severeal short essays
rather than in a long novelette, in part to make my responses more
readable.  I wonder about the worth of using my time this way; when the
parts are all together for sonoluminescence experiments, I will not be
so inclined.

In "Reply to Jones - On Nyquist criterion", Mitch first quotes me:

>> Steven Jones states:
>> "Mitch tries to justify P&F's use of sampling once every 300 seconds
>> for the 600 second 'boiling episode' in which P&F claimed excess >>
heat. Again, this has been thoroughly aired here already."

Here's Mitch Swartz's reply:
>ms More absolutely false information promulgated from Brigham Young 
>ms Physics Department by Steven Jones.
>ms I did not justify, or recommend, a low sampling rate.
>ms In fact I posted on the importance of the Nyquist criterion years
>ms ago on sci.physics.fusion.  The criterion requires a sampling at
>ms twice the highest frequency contained in the waveform.

Now my first question (marked number [1]) for Mitch:

[1] Then do you agree that P&F's sampling rate for the data published
in Phys. Lett. A 176 (1993) is inadequate?  This is not clear from your
post.  [2] Or do you justify their use of sampling once every 300 s as
was done for the published paper?  Please clarify.  I would be delighted
to see agreement, finally, on this point.

>ms I did say that other electrical monitoring equipment was reported 
>ms to have  also followed these parameters
>ms in parallel with those instruments that produced the curves in
>ms    \/\/\/\/ 
>ms question.
>ms Steven's most recent confabulation is an allegation which simply
>ms ignores what the actual author says. 

Hmmmmm... [3] Are you saying that P&f took measurements more frequently
than once every 300 seconds for the published data in Phys. Lett. A
1993?  Those are of course the data I was speaking of, the "curves in
question."  Please, I am speaking here and was referring to that
*published* paper, not work since then which has not been published. 
Do not obfuscate that issue!  (Thomas Kunich and Dale Bass were right
to challenge you on this point also in his recent post.)

Indeed I do not ignore "what the actual author says;" as posted here via
Jed Rothwell, Fleischmann said:
"We read each cell (4-5 parameters per cell) once every 5 minutes - but
there are 64 cells and there is only one computer!  We have other ways
of doing this .. but for the experiments we reported in Phys. Letts. A
readings were every 300s]."

That's what the man said.

I can't resist reprinting here the witty rejoinder to Mitch from Dale
Bass posted here recently, paraphrasing P&F:  "If there's any question
as to our data collection methods, you can be assured that we checked
our inadequate sampling rates by unspecified means.  
Just don't ask us how."

End of first essay.  More soon.
--Steven Jones

cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenjonesse cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.18 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Reply to Mitch 2: Miles &c expts.,glass
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Reply to Mitch 2: Miles &c expts.,glass
Date: 18 Feb 94 13:42:59 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

As I am replying to Mitch in convenient-to-handle essays, here is part
2 of my reply, beginning with Mitch's statement:

>ms  This is unfortunately consistent with a possible pattern of his
>ms  [Jones'] comments regarding (just a partial list)  
>ms  Mel Miles expts (glass being alleged present when there was no 
>ms glass),

I was referring to the Miles et al. papers which have been
published up to mid 1993 and which show that indeed there "was glass"
present -- they used glass flasks.  Thus my question #4:  
[4] Are you really claiming there "was no glass" in these experiments
to which I was referring?  I specifically read and cited the papers
which I was analyzing;  let me quote from one of these on this matter:

"Possible error sources proposed by cold fusion critics include air
contamination, helium diffusion into the GLASS FLASKS [my emphasis], and
the escape of helium contained in the palladium rod."
Miles et al., Conf. Proc. of Como meeting, "The Science of Cold Fusion,"
Bologna, 1991.

While it is true that Miles et al. more recently have used metal
containers, those data have not yet been published as far as I know
(correct me if they have by now -- I anticipate this in the ICCF-4
proceedings.)  As apparently Mitch has a pre-print of a recent Miles et
al. paper (I do not), let me ask him [questions #5-7]:  [5] Has the 4He
has increased or decreased from the experiments where glass flasks were
used, and [6] are the amounts now greater than ambient in the lab (which
was higher than atmospheric norms by several fold), and [7] do they give
better than order-of magnitude estimates of the amount of 4He present
[which is all they did in the past] ?

Also:  do they report x-ray spectra or gammas or *anything showing
nuclear effects* along with the 4He gas, which could support the notion
that the 4He is nuclear in origin rather than contamination? [8]

--Steven Jones

cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenjonesse cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.18 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Reply to Mitch 3: McKubre expts., helium
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Reply to Mitch 3: McKubre expts., helium
Date: 18 Feb 94 13:44:43 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

As I am replying to Mitch in convenient-to-handle essays, here is part
3 of my reply, beginning with Mitch's statement:

>ms  This is unfortunately consistent with a possible pattern of his
>ms  [Jones'] comments regarding (just a partial list)  
>ms  ... [part deleted to which I replied in previous posts]

>ms  Michael McKubre (no helium in metal vs. insufficient resolving
power), 

Let's read what McKubre actually published:  quoting from the McKubre
et al. paper in the proceedings of the "First Annual conference on Cold
Fusion,"
published by NCFI (now defunct):

"Mass spectrometry was used to analyze the residual D2 gas in the
pressure vessel for 3H, 3He and 4He.  At a detection level of 1 ppm,
none of these isotopes were found."  
"Approximately 10% of the total mass of the electrode, comprising one
sample from the surface and one from the bulk, were analyzed by Rockwell
International for 3he and 4He by mass spectrometry of a molten sample. 
This technique is capable of detecting 10^11 atoms; no He was observed
at that detection level."

Question #9 for Mitch:  [9] Do you agree that if approx. 10^17 atoms of
helium were produced, that they should have seen something?

They claimed 300 kJ was produced, which would imply roughly 300 kJ X
10^12 atoms/J by nuclear reaction (that's the scale of nuclear
reactions) = 3 X 10^17 atoms of 4he or 3He or 3H -- *some* kind of
nuclear ash must be present; this follows from delta-mass = Energy/c2. 
That level is not difficult to detect.  Incidentally, this paper
erroneously says "we would expect to see [approx.] 3 X 10^15 atoms of
product that would be associated with 300 kJ of heat from a nuclear
process."  Their estimate is low by two orders of magnitude -- this may
be the source of Mitch's (and perhaps their) confusion.  I've provided
details so someone can check my calculation above.

>ms  F&P (not enough electrons in the universe to list the list here  
>ms  ;-) 

[10] What list?  There are over 10^70 electrons in the universe; can you
give me just 70 items, or even 10, where I have mistakenly critiqued
F&P's work? 

--Steven Jones



cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenjonesse cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.18 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Reply to Mitch 4: Pd cube;water heater
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Reply to Mitch 4: Pd cube;water heater
Date: 18 Feb 94 13:46:56 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

As I am replying to Mitch in convenient-to-handle essays, here is part
4 of my reply, beginning with Mitch's statement:

>ms  This is unfortunately consistent with a possible pattern of his
>ms  [Jones'] comments regarding (just a partial list)  
>ms  ... [part deleted to which I replied in previous posts]
>ms  Close (page 138 comment on 1000W/cm^c which does not say that),

The Close reference is to the famous exploding Pd cube of P&F which
Close does indeed reference.   P&F did not estimate the W/cm3 in that
incident, but it appears to be at least 1000W/cm3 from the damage it did
to the cement etc. which is what I said.   
You asked for a reference; I tried to supply one, although these guys
don't give out much detail in general; hence my estimate.

Richard Shultz pointed out that another (and primary) ref. on this is
given in the J. Elect. Anal. 261 (1989) 301 paper:
"We have to report here under the conditions of the last experiment,
even using D20 alone, a substantial portion of the cathode fused
(melting point 1554 C), part of it vapourised and the cell and contents
and a part of the fume cupboard housing the experiment were destroyed."

Question #11:  [11] Will you say that the exploding cube incident really
happened?  [12]  If so, do you claim that the power density was less
than 1000 W/cm3 and still did all this damage? 
Remember the damage to the cement in your calculation.

Oh yes, you forgot to comment on my citation and quotations from a
Deseret News publication regarding a water heater claimed by Pons in
1989.  [13]  Do you think, Mitch, that they had a working water heater
back in July 1989?  [14]  If not, any idea why Pons stated:  
" 'It wouldn't take care of the family's electrical needs, but it
certainly could provide them with hot water year-round,' said Pons, who
said he's always believed that the practical application of cold fusion
could happen this fast."  [Deseret News, July 8, 1989, p. B-1]

That's 14 questions so far, Mitch.  Looking forward to your replies.

--Steven Jones

cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenjonesse cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.18 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Reply to Mitch 5: Kucherov expts,x-rays
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Reply to Mitch 5: Kucherov expts,x-rays
Date: 18 Feb 94 13:49:31 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

As I am replying to Mitch in convenient-to-handle essays, here is part
5 of my reply, beginning with Mitch's statement:

>ms  This is unfortunately consistent with a possible pattern of his
>ms  [Jones'] comments regarding (just a partial list)  
>ms  ... [part deleted to which I replied in previous parts]
>ms Kucherov (no xrays alleged measured when the paper actually reported
>ms many xrays, also issue of autoradiography),  

Yes, Kucherov reported x-ray detection using x-ray *film*, in a paper
subsequent to the one I originally commented on here. We hashed this
over about a year ago!  My main argument is this:  if they claim x-rays
using film, then why not use a spectrometer to determine the energies
and intensities of any lines present? [14b] I've stressed this many times
here and in print.  An autoradiograph will not do this job.

When they get around to using a good detector (x-ray spectrometer) to
check their film studies, they may find that their film results were
artifactual as others have found.

Mitch:  [15] has anyone published results showing x-ray *spectra*,
showing the presence of characteristic Pd x-ray lines?
I know of none.  We have looked using good x-ray spectrometers and so
has McKurbre:  nothing yet, my friend.  
This is devastating to claims that excess heat is nuclear in origin (not
restricted to fusion as in a plasma!).

At the Maui meeting, Kucherov said 
"After four years, I'm not so sure this is nuclear effect", 
a direct quote as fast and well as my pencil could get it.  Now if *he*
does not think his data is compelling, why should we? [Question #16]

--Steven Jones

cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenjonesse cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.18 / Lee Rudolph /  Fusion soon! (was, Re: Roots of Aluminum)
     
Originally-From: rudolph@cis.umassd.edu (Lee Rudolph)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Fusion soon! (was, Re: Roots of Aluminum)
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 1994 18:20:46 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts Dartmouth

In a.f.* dbd@martha.utcc.utk.edu (David DeLaney) writes:

[Derek Tearne wrote:]
>>Aluminium smelting is still very power hungry, which is why aluminium 
>>smelters are near either massive hydro power schemes or nuclear power 
>>stations (guess which method is used here in New Zealand).

>True; it still needs mass quantities of electricity. However, in a while
>when hydrogen fusion becomes workable, it'll be basically suddenly-dropping
>electricity prices time...

Tb. Tomorrow never comes.

Lee Rudolph
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenrudolph cudfnLee cudlnRudolph cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.18 / Andy Holland /  Re: egos on parade!
     
Originally-From: zcrah@trumpet.pgh.wec.com (Andy Holland)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: egos on parade!
Date: 18 Feb 1994 19:58:45 GMT
Organization: Westinghouse CNFD

In article <CLDv61.n2r@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> crb7q@watt.seas.Virgini
.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>In article <2jvpnmINNjv3@daisy.pgh.wec.com>,
>>>
>>>     That's one of the best scientific and engineering discoveries?
>>>     I don't think that counts a discovery at all, unless we can credit
>>>     Carnot with it.
>>>
>>   
>>   Try living without refrigeration. I'll take the patents and the spin offs
>>   any day.
>
>     You missed the point.  He didn't invent cooling, and it doesn't
>     exactly qualify as a 'scientific and engineering discovery'.
>

    Gee, refrigeration is not engineering! Really.....

    Carnot did not invent cooling, God invented cooling. Face it, your wrong. 
    In fact, Pareto might say Dale Bass is wrong 80% of the time. It would equally
    apply to myself, however, I try to learn from my mistakes, and I am
    not afraid of making them, or learning from them. Perhaps then Pareto
    would say, 80% of the people are wrong 80% of the time, but only 20%
    of them have guts enough to face and learn from their mistakes.
    
    He might also say that 20% of those who make mistakes, dig themselves
    pits from which they cannot extricate themselves. This maybe because 
    80% of that population have egos in the top 20% percentile.
    
    Mistakes are a great tool for learning. Goof-ups and mishaps, incorrect
    interpretations; without them we would be nowhere.
    
    At least the cold fusion guys have guts enough to experiment and try. If
    you can't respect them for that, perhaps it is because you lack self respect.
    This observation is in line in with your own undisciplined musings on the net.
    
    (Psycho-analysis free)

>
>                            dale bass
>

Andy Holland

| Westinghouse NMD	            |        R E S P E C T
| zcrah@ncstate.pgh.wec.com         |   (I feel like Dan Rather; Oops, that
| Views Expressed here are solely my|    was C O U R A G E)
| own and are not representative of |  
| Westinghouse Electric Corporation |  
 
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenzcrah cudfnAndy cudlnHolland cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.18 / Mike Jamison /  SL and LIB
     
Originally-From: edwlt12@mars.lerc.nasa.gov (Mike Jamison (ADF))
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: SL and LIB
Date: 18 Feb 1994 17:08 EDT
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center


First, my thanks to Dr. Steve Jones on his updates in the world of
sonoluminescence.  Second, LIB:

LIB stands for "Laser Induced Breakdown."  The typical experiment is to
zap a drop of liquid (normally water, though other liquids have been used)
with a pulsed or cw laser.

The result, when the laser intensity is greater than about 1 GW/cm^2, is
the formation of a plasma inside the droplet.  The theories and computer codes
suggest that the plasma forms because the droplet acts like a lens, focusing
the plane wave laser light.

Of course, lenses only work well when the wavelength of the light is small
compared to the size of the lens - these droplets are typically 20 to 70 
micrometers in diameter (see the end of this post for a few references).

There is also mention of a resonance effect, but I was unable to find the
journal articles dealing with it.

So, what does this have to do with SL?

First, both experiments deal with sub-nanosecond events.
Second, both appear to created ionized plasmas.

The two biggest differences are:

1)  SL bubbles are time varying.
2)  SL bubbles will act like diverging lenses (the index of refraction
    inside the bubble is less than it is outside).

(2) may not be a big deal, because once light is inside an SL bubble, a lot
of it will be internally reflected, the inside of the bubble acting like
a mirror - I think.

Also, instead of illuiminating the SL bubbles with plane wave laser light,
I'd suggest using converging light - basically, illuminate a large portion
of the quartz flask with a high intensity plane-wave beam, and let the 
geometry of the flask/D2O act as a lens.  Some optics will be necessary to
get the beam to focus where the SL bubbles form, of course.

Problems associated with the experiment will include the fact that when the
size of the SL bubble is large compared to the wavelength of high intensity
light, light intensity will be non-uniform inside the bubble - this could
prevent the formation of SL bubbles.

Using a CO2 laser may alleviate this, since its lasing wavelength is about
10 micrometers.  The papers I've read suggest that the light intensity is
uniform when the "size parameter" of the droplet (defined as 2pi * radius
of droplet divided by the wavelength of the light) is small (same order as
the wavelength).


For LIB, the amount of light absorbed by the droplet is at first small, due
to the low absorption coefficient of water for visible light.

However, once a plasma begins to form, light is absorbed much more efficiently.

The paper "Laser-induced breakdown in large transparent water droplets"
(Applied Optics, Vol. 27, No. 12, pp 2377-2385) describes how researchers
estimated the plasma density in the droplet.  Their estimate was about
1e18/cm^3 for the high density plasma, 1e16/cm^3 for the lower density
plasma (there are two LIB regions, one just inside the "shadow" face - the
face of the droplet farthest from the beam entrance, and the other just outside
the droplet face, in the gas surrounding the droplet (air, Ar, etc.)).

The goal of combining SL and LIB would be to get a plasma to begin forming
when the SL bubble is fairly large, and hopefully to generate a much more
energetic plasma than either SL or LIB is able to do on their own.

The references:

"Laser-induced breakdown in large transparent water droplets" by Richard K.
Chang, Johannes H. Eickmans, Wen-Feng Hsieh, Carol F. Wood, Jian-Zhi Zhang,
and Jia-biao Zheng; Applied Optics, Vol. 27, No. 12, pp. 2377 thru 2385

"Explosive vaporization of a large transparent droplet irradiated by a high
intensity laser" by Jian-Zhi Zang, Joseph K. Lam, Carol F. Wood, Boa-Teh Chu,
and Richard K. Chang;  Applied Optics, Vol. 26, No. 22, pp 4731-4737.

I have several other references listed, but was unable to find them.  If you
(anyone reading this) want to try, drop me an e-mail and I'll divulge my
sources :-)


Mike Jamison


"Scientific research consists in seeing what everyone else has seen, but
thinking what no one else has thought"

						-A. Szent-Gyorgyi
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenedwlt12 cudfnMike cudlnJamison cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.15 / Robert Eachus /  Re: Energy required for Fusion
     
Originally-From: eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Energy required for Fusion
Date: 15 Feb 94 17:40:45
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.

In article <haney.761332295@maverick> haney@maverick.llnl.gov (Scott W. Haney) writes:

  >   If you read a little closer you'll notice that I said the fusion
  > power was about 1500MW.  However, as the plasma is ignited (meaning
  > that no external heating is added) the ratio of power-out (1500MW)
  > to power-in (0) is indeed infinity.

   The power companies have a slightly different definition of
break-even ratio which includes all input power to the plant.  In the
case of a tokamak this in particular includes the losses in
maintaining the poloidal current, magnet losses, power to cool the
magnets, etc.

   While I have seen some definitions of "scientific break-even" which
ignored all external departures from ideal, I have never seen one
where eddy-current losses into the plasma were not counted as heating.

   So if you do get that infinite ratio, I'd also like my ringside
seat to be at a two million light year remove.  Have we finally
discovered the secret of creating quasars?



--

					Robert I. Eachus

with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudeneachus cudfnRobert cudlnEachus cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.16 / Robert Eachus /  Re: Owen on Reifenscheiler tritium results
     
Originally-From: eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Owen on Reifenscheiler tritium results
Date: 16 Feb 94 13:46:49
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.

In article <94021516060868@dancer.nscl.msu.edu> blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu writes:

  > My comments were intended to call attention to the fact that
  > experimentally this is an extremely difficult measurement, not the
  > sort of thing that should be used to backup some revolutionary
  > claim as to how radioactivity can be altered by chemical means.

   I think you go a little too far here.  There have been experiments,
quite well accepted, in which intense illumination by visble light
decreases the decay rate.  Since the sample under observation can be IN
a chemically pumped laser, does that meet your revolutionary criteria?
How about indirect drive inertial fusion?  Most nuclear effects are in
the KeV to MeV range, and most chemical effects are in the eV range,
but there are overlaps.

   This experiment claims very surprising results, but I would hardly
call them revolutionary.

--

					Robert I. Eachus

with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudeneachus cudfnRobert cudlnEachus cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.19 / Bradley Sherman /  Re: Who owns the Internet? [We do.]
     
Originally-From: bks@s27w007.pswfs.gov (Bradley K. Sherman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Who owns the Internet? [We do.]
Date: 19 Feb 1994 02:56:22 GMT
Organization: Dendrome, A Genome Database for Forest Trees

In article <tomkCLCwJL.IyA@netcom.com> tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich) writes:
>The government originally set up what has become the Internet. I believe
>that originally it was part of DARPA (Arpanet was, I believe, the original
>designation). However, the phone lines are owned by the telephone companies,
>the computers are owned by the various entities of the net and the
>discussions and time is paidf for by you and me.
>
>Uncle Sam has no business on the net for any reason.

If you don't know what you're talking about why jump into a
discussion that's not remotely relevant to the conference?

NSF currently funds the backbone of the Internet.  If it were not
for federal $$ there would be no Internet.  There is no privately
run internet (note small i) that even comes close to the federally
financed Internet in terms of size or free exchange of ideas.  If
you fellows really think that private industry will allow untrammeled
discussions such as these, you haven't spent much time in the corporate
culture.

The hottest program on the Internet is Mosaic.  It is free.

Each of us US citizens has a say in how the government of the USA
is run.  Exactly why you fear democracy is not clear to me.

    --bks

-- 
Bradley K. Sherman               P.O. Box 245                    
Computer Scientist               Berkeley, CA, 94701
Dendrome Project                 510-559-6437 FAX: 510-559-6440  
Institute of Forest Genetics     Internet: bks@s27w007.pswfs.gov
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenbks cudfnBradley cudlnSherman cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.19 / Cameron Bass /  Re: egos on parade!
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: egos on parade!
Date: Sat, 19 Feb 1994 00:04:25 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <2k36llINN1og@daisy.pgh.wec.com>,
Andy Holland <zcrah@trumpet.pgh.wec.com> wrote:
>In article <CLDv61.n2r@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> crb7q@watt.seas.Virgin
a.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>>In article <2jvpnmINNjv3@daisy.pgh.wec.com>,
>>>>
>>>>     That's one of the best scientific and engineering discoveries?
>>>>     I don't think that counts a discovery at all, unless we can credit
>>>>     Carnot with it.
>>>>
>>>   
>>>   Try living without refrigeration. I'll take the patents and the spin offs
>>>   any day.
>>
>>     You missed the point.  He didn't invent cooling, and it doesn't
>>     exactly qualify as a 'scientific and engineering discovery'.
>>
>
>    Gee, refrigeration is not engineering! Really.....

     No, in-depth polling of engineers around here reveals that
     no one considers his efforts an 'engineering discovery'.
     Since we believe everything without careful checking, you 
     can have my assurance that I did not bias the poll in any way.
          
>    Carnot did not invent cooling, God invented cooling. Face it, your wrong. 

     My wrong what?  At least Carnot discovered something.

>    In fact, Pareto might say Dale Bass is wrong 80% of the time. It would equally
>    apply to myself, however, I try to learn from my mistakes, and I am
>    not afraid of making them, or learning from them. Perhaps then Pareto
>    would say, 80% of the people are wrong 80% of the time, but only 20%
>    of them have guts enough to face and learn from their mistakes.
>    
>    He might also say that 20% of those who make mistakes, dig themselves
>    pits from which they cannot extricate themselves. This maybe because 
>    80% of that population have egos in the top 20% percentile.

     On the other hand, the rule of thumb is worthless a priori in telling
     us which person is wrong.

>    Mistakes are a great tool for learning. Goof-ups and mishaps, incorrect
>    interpretations; without them we would be nowhere.
>    
>    At least the cold fusion guys have guts enough to experiment and try. If
>    you can't respect them for that, perhaps it is because you lack self respect.
>
>    This observation is in line in with your own undisciplined musings on the net.
>    
>    (Psycho-analysis free)

     Several of them seem to have limitless credulity as well.  This is
     not appropriate for scientific pursuits.

     On the other hand, I suppose yours is just another example of the
     'utterly shameful and mean-spirited' comments that had y'all
     bothered the other day.  I suppose that you'll now agree with me
     that 'shameful and mean-spirited' is in the eye of the beholder,
     and we can now move on to asking more questions that the
     fans of 'cold fusion' can or will never answer.

                            dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.20 / mitchell swartz /  Reply to Steve 5: Power/energy faux pas, incorrect reference
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Reply to Steve 5: Power/energy faux pas, incorrect reference
Subject: Reply to Mitch 4: Pd cube;water heater
Date: Sun, 20 Feb 1994 06:02:30 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

   In Message-ID: <1994Feb18.134656.1394@physc1.byu.edu>
Subject: Reply to Mitch 4: Pd cube;water heater
Steven Jones [jonesse@physc1.byu.edu] writes:

    >ms  This is unfortunately consistent with a possible pattern of his
    >ms  [Jones'] comments regarding (just a partial list)  
    >ms  ... [part deleted to which I replied in previous posts]
    >ms  Close (page 138 comment on 1000W/cm^c which does not say that),
=sj "The Close reference is to the famous exploding Pd cube of P&F which
=sj Close does indeed reference.   P&F did not estimate the W/cm3 in that
=sj incident, but it appears to be at least 1000W/cm3 from the damage it did
=sj to the cement etc. which is what I said."  

   Since you stuck your own neck out please prove it.
   Where is your proof?
You have claimed this to be a fact in 
a grotesque flailing attempt to rescue Dale Bass.
Remember, you referenced a page in Frank Close's
book that actually did not have the derivation, or even reference,
which you claimed.   I looked.  So did thousands, and if Frank
sold enough tens of thousands, of readers of your stuff here.
If you are a physicist worth your Utahn salt, you
ought be able to prove this in short order since you can
reference it.                ;-)

 
=sj "You asked for a reference; I tried to supply one, although these guys
=sj don't give out much detail in general; hence my estimate."

   You tried and failed.    Good thing this was not a gom jobbar.
The reference you provided did not contain any data as you
claimed, and (not surprisingly) neither have you. 
Citing a reference that does not have the data is not worthy of
a physicist of your reputation.

  {question to Steve Jones:
     {Q4J 10}    Can you support your claim?

=sj "Richard Shultz pointed out that another (and primary) ref. on this is
=sj given in the J. Elect. Anal. 261 (1989) 301 paper:
=sj "We have to report here under the conditions of the last experiment,
=sj even using D20 alone, a substantial portion of the cathode fused
=sj (melting point 1554 C), part of it vapourised and the cell and contents
=sj and a part of the fume cupboard housing the experiment were destroyed."

    Neither the floor, nor your claimed power level is here either, is it?
If you cannot prove your claim, why do you keep pushing this?
Just post a reference that gives an order of magnitude estimate.
Where exactly is the basis of the 1000W/cm^3 in the incident as
you allege? 

=sj "Question #11:  [11] Will you say that the exploding cube incident really
=sj happened?"

  I have not seen the cube, nor examined any direct evidence but
will be willing to share my thoughts as you provide more info.

     {Q4J 11}     What exactly is your point?

=sj "[12]  If so, do you claim that the power density was less
=sj than 1000 W/cm3 and still did all this damage?" 

  Excuse me, but
   1)  it was YOU who made this, possibly fallacious, comment.
You apparently have absolutely no data to support it, but
then again

   2) As an e-friend, may I suggest, that for your calculation
affirming or negating your previous claim that 1000W/cm^3 
has been derived from putative damage in a floor.

   Consider:
 -   Damage in a floor requires expended energy, and you keep
asking for power levels. 
The knowledge of physics of one who confuses energy
and power continuously does not shine very brightly here.
Please talk to a physicist, or an engineer (mechanical or
electrical at your university)  and you will see that 
energy is the time integral of power, and therefore
your very claim and assertion has an element of 
senselessness. 

    In any case, we await proof to support your, what
now appears to be a, presently-lame, claim.

                  Mitchell Swartz  [mica@world.std]


cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.20 / Robert Heeter /  Part 3 (O-Z;Long) FUT: Frequently Used Terms, 3rd draft
     
Originally-From: rfheeter@theory.pppl.gov (Robert F. Heeter)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Part 3 (O-Z;Long) FUT: Frequently Used Terms, 3rd draft
Date: 20 Feb 1994 01:32:30 -0500
Organization: Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory, Princeton University,
Princeton NJ 08540


==================================================================

FREQUENTLY USED TERMS IN CONVENTIONAL FUSION RESEARCH 
AND PLASMA PHYSICS

Part 3:  O-Z

Edited by Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@lyman.pppl.gov

3rd Draft, Last Revised Sunday, Feb. 20, 1994.


Guide to Categories:
 
* = vocabulary 
> = device type or machine name
# = name of a constant or variable
! = scientists 
@ = acronym
% = labs & political organizations

Citations and Acknowledgements appear at the end.

==================================================================


OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

@ OH - Ohmic Heating; see entry

@ ORNL - Oak Ridge National Laboratory; see entry

% Oak Ridge National Laboratory:  Located in Oak Ridge, TN.  Home of 
a series of various fusion devices.  (Could use more info!)

! Ohm: physicist...

* Ohm:  Unit of electrical resistance.

* Ohmic heating: (from Herman)  Heating resulting from the
resistance a medium offers to the flow of electrical current.
In plasma subjected to ohmic heating, ions are heated
almost entirely by transfer of energy from the hotter
electrons.

* Ohmic heating coil:  Coil used to induce an electric field
in the plasma via a transformer effect, resulting in ohmic heating.

* Ohmic heating solenoid:  See ohmic heating coil, solenoid.


PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP

# p, P - Variables used for plasma (kinetic) pressure.

@ PBX-M - Princeton Beta Experiment-Modified; see entry

@ PF - Poloidal Field

@ PLT - Princeton Large Torus; see entry

@ PPPL - Princeton Plasma Physics Lab; see entry

* Particle Density:  number of particles present per unit volume
(typically a cubic centimeter).  See also density; typically
represented by the variable "n".

* Pellet Injection / Pellet Injector: (from Herman) A device
that shoots small frozen pellets of hydrogen isotopes at
high speed into the inner regions of hot plasma.

* Phase Velocity:

* Pinch effect: (from Herman) The constriction of a plasma
carrying a large current caused by the interaction of that 
current with its own encircling magnetic field.

> Pinch machine:  Device which confines plasma using the pinch effect.

* Plasma: a gas in which many of the atoms or molecules 
are ionized.  Examples:  the sun, fluorescent light tubes,
very hot flames, much of interplanetary, interstellar,
and intergalactice space, the earth's ionosphere, parts
of the atmosphere around lightning discharges, and of
course what's inside a fusion reactor when it's working
right.

* Plasma Beta:  see Beta

* Plasma, Cold:  See Cold Plasma Model

* Plasma Containment:  (quoting from the PPPL Glossary of Fusion Terms)
"In plasma physics experiments or nuclear fusion experiments, operation
is intended to prevent, in an effective and sufficiently prolonged
manner, the particles of a plasma from striking the walls of the
container in which this plasma is produced.  Plasma confinement is 
a fundamental requirement for obtaining net energy from a fusion plasma.
The reason is that scattering (hence diffusion) is at least an order
of magnitude more probable than fusion reactions.  Hence, without
confinement, the plasma fuel would disperse before enough fusion
reactions could take place."

> Plasma Focus:

* Plasma Frequency:  The natural collective oscillation frequency 
of free electrons in a plasma in the absence of a magnetic field.
Also known as Langmuir frequency; see also electrostatic waves.

> PLASMAK(tm):  (Paul M. Koloc?)

* Plutonium:  (from Herman) A radioactive metallic element
whose isotope, plutonium-239, is used in nuclear weapons 
and as a fission reactor fuel.

* Poloidal:  In toroidal geometries, the direction along the
circumference of a slice through one side of the torus. 
"The short way around a torus".
	- Albert Chou, albert@seas.ucla.edu

* Poloidal Field:  In toroidal devices, the magnetic field that
encircles the plasma axis.

* Poloidal Field Coils:  In toroidal devices (eg, tokamaks), the
sets of windings which are (typically) aligned along the plasma
axis and produce poloidal fields.  These include ohmic heating,
shaping, vertical, equilibrium, and divertor windings. (Adapted from
PPPL Glossary)

* Power:

* Pressure:

> Princeton Beta Experiment-Modified (PBX-M):  mid-sized tokamak
research device at Princeton. (need more here!)  Original research 
goal was to investigate the so-called "second stability regime" in
tokamaks. (? I should know more, I work near it! - rfheeter)

> Princeton Large Torus (PLT): Large tokamak formerly operated
at the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory (PPPL).

% Princeton Plasma Physics Lab:  Located in Princeton, New Jersey.
Single largest fusion research facility in the United States; sole 
U.S. single-purpose plasma physics laboratory; operated by Princeton
University for the Department of Energy.  Site of PLT, PBX-M, TFTR, 
several other past and present experiments, and future site of TPX.
(Refer to entries for relevant machines, both here and in FAQ.)

* Project Matterhorn:  (from Herman) The code name of the 
United States' first secret controlled fusion project 
started by Lyman Spitzer at Princeton University in 1951.

* Project Sherwood:  Name often used to describe the U.S. controlled
fusion program in the 1950s and '60s.  (PPPL Glossary)

* Proton: (from Herman) An elementary particle found in the
nucleus of all atoms.  It carries a single positive electrical
charge.


QQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQ

# q - Variable used to indicate electric charge; also used for
the "safety factor" (see charge, safety factor).  Usually clear
from context which is meant.

# Q: See Q-factor

* Q-factor:  Ratio of power produced by fusion to power
put into the reactor to heat the plasma and drive the
magnetic fields.  Q = 1 is the definition of scientific
breakeven, where power out = power in.  Economical fusion
will require Q significantly greater than 1.  Fortunately
Q increases dramatically as the plasma parameters 
approach the Lawson criterion for ignition.

* Quasi-neutral plasma: an ionized gas in which positive 
and negative charges are present in approximately 
equal numbers.


RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

@ RF - RadioFrequency; see entry

@ RF Current Drive - Radio Frequency Current Drive; see entry

@ RF Heating - Radio Frequency Heating; see entry

! R.F. Heeter - Plasma physics graduate student at PPPL;the editor 
of the sci.physics.fusion FAQ, bibliography, and FUT. :)

@ RFC: Reversed-Field Configuration: see Field-Reversed Configuration.

@ RFP: Reversed-Field Pinch; see entry

@ RFX: Reversed-Field eXperiment; see entry

* Radiation: The emission of energy from a body in the form
of light or heat rays, or energetic particles such as
alpha particles, electrons, or neutrons.  Radiation is
*what is emitted*, not *what does the emitting*.  A nucleus
which does the emitting is said to be radioactive.  Electrons
in atoms can also emit radiation in the form of ordinary 
visible light; such atoms are not said to be radioactive.

* Radioactive waste: (from Herman) Equipment and materials
from nuclear operations which are radioactive and for which
there is no further anticipated use.

* Radioactivity:  Characteristic property of unstable nuclei
which decay to other nuclei by emission of radiation.  A list
of common decay / transmutation modes should be in the FAQ.

* Radio Frequency or radiofrequency:

* Radio Frequency Current Drive:

* Radio Frequency Heating:  Process for heating the plasma by
transferring energy to ions or electrons using waves generated
by an external oscillator at an appropriate frequency.  (This is
similar to how a microwave oven heats food.)  There are various
types:  see also ECRH, ICRH, and Lower Hybrid...  (PPPL Glossary)

* Ramsauer Effect: (spelling?)

* Reactor:  See fission reactor, fusion reactor.

* Recombination Radiation: radiation produced when a 
free electron in a plasma is captured by an ion.

* Resistance:

* Resistive Instability:  Instability resulting from macroscopic
equations used to model a plasma of finite conductivity / nonzero
resistivity.

* Resistivity:

> Reversed-Field Pinch (RFP):  A toroidal magnetic confinement scheme
which could constitute an alternative to the Tokamak for building a
fusion reactor.  It is characterized by a magnetic field mostly
generated by the plasma itself, with toroidal and poloidal components 
of comparable intensities, in contrast with the Tokamak where most of
the field is toroidal and externally applied. The name of the
configuration is given by the fact that the toroidal component of the
magnetic field changes sign in the outer region of the plasma. The 
main attractivness of the Reversed Field Pinch is that, according to
presently established scalings, it could reach ignition without the 
need of auxiliary heating. 
(Emilio Martines, martines%pdigi3.igi.pd.cnr.it)

> Reversed-Field eXperiment (RFX): It is the largest Reversed Field
Pinch device presently in operation.  Located in Padova (Italy) it 
is planned to reach a plasma current of 2 MA.
(Emilio Martines, martines%pdigi3.igi.pd.cnr.it)

* Rogowski Loop or Coil:  A coiled wire loop which encircles a
current-carrying plasma.  Changes in total plasma current induce a
voltage in the loop; integrating (adding up) the voltage over time
gives the plasma current.

* Rotational Transform:

* Runaway Electrons:  (from Herman) Those electrons in a plasma that
gain energy from an applied electrical field at a faster rate than 
they lose it through collisions with other particles.  These electrons
tend to "run away" in energy from the remainder of the plasma, because
the collision cross-section decreases as the particle's velocity 
increases, so that the faster the particle goes, the less likely it 
is to be stopped.  See also:  collision cross-section.


SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

@ SI - Systeme Internationale; see SI Units

@ SNL - Sandia National Laboratory; see entry

* Safety Factor:

! Sakharov, Andrei: Russian physicist; among other achievements, he 
is credited with the initial design of the tokamak.

% Sandia National Laboratory:  Located in Albuquerque, New Mexico.
Another large DOE laboratory; has PBFA-II (Particle Beam Fusion
Accelerator, an ICF device) and some pinch devices.

* Scaling Laws:  (from Herman)  Laws stating that if two
quantities are proportional and are known to be valid at
certain orders of magnitude, then they can be used to
calculate the value of one of the quantities at another
order of magnitude.  

* Scattering:  The deflection of one particle as a result of
collisions.  See also Elastic.

* Scientific Feasibility: (from Herman) "The successful 
completion of experiments which reach 'breakeven' plasma
conditions (minimum values of temperature, density,
confinement time) in laboratory devices which lend themselves
to development into net power-producing systems.  
Reactor-grade (eg, D-T) fusion fuels need not be used in
these experiments.

* Second-stability:

* Sheared Flow:

* Shear Fields:

* Sheath:  See Debye Sheath

* Shock Heating:  The heating produced by the impact of a shock wave.

* Shock Wave:  Wave produced as a result of a sudden, violent 
disturbance which occurs in a particular region faster than sound
waves can traverse the region.

* Shot: Fusion jargon for the production of a (short-lived) plasma.  
In the early days, plasmas were produced by the "discharge" of capacitor
banks, which (frequently) made a BANG.  A modern tokamak produces a 
few dozen "shots" per day, each lasting a few seconds and, if nothing
goes wrong, inaudible.
See also: capacitor, tokamak
(Arthur Carlson, awc@ipp-garching.mpg.de)

* SI Units:  (also known as MKS, MKSA Units)  System of measurement
in which the fundamental units are meters, kilometers, seconds, and
the ampere.

* Solenoid:

* Sound Waves:

* Spallation:

> Spheromak:

! Spitzer, Lyman:  Early Princeton Fusion Scientist; 
astrophysicist who first proposed orbiting space telescope;
inventor of the stellarator.

> Stellarator: (adapted from Herman) Device invented by Lyman Spitzer
for the containment of a plasma inside a racetrack-shaped
(sometimes a figure-8) tube.  The plasma is contained by a magnetic 
field created by helical windings around the tube.  More generally, 
a toroidal sort of device that attempts to average out particle 
drifts that would otherwise take plasma to the walls of the vacuum
vessel by imposing a given amount of helicity to the toroidal field
lines.  "A toroidal plasma configuration, which, unlike a tokamak, 
is not axially symmetric.  The poloidal fields necessary for 
confinement are produced by external coils (rather than a current 
in the plasma), either helical coils in addition to plane toroidal 
field coils, or out-of-plane toroidal field coils (pioneered in 
Germany on Wendelstein 7-AS).  The stellarator is generally considered
to be the most serious alternative to the tokamak.  Since the concept 
is inherently steady state, it would not have the tokamak's problems 
with thermal and mechanical cycling, current drive, and disruptions."
	-- Arthur Carlson, awc@ipp-garching.mpg.de

* Superconductor:  (adapted from Herman) A type of electrical 
conductor that permits a current to flow with zero resistance.
Without superconducting coils, a fusion reactor would not be possible, 
because too much energy would be required to maintain the magnetic 
fields against resistive energy losses in the coil conductors.

* Synchrotron radiation:  electromagnetic energy radiated from
a charged particle moving in a curved orbit (typically in a magnetic
field), due to the acceleration required to change the direction 
of the particle's velocity.  See also bremsstrahlung.


TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT

# t - variable generally used to represent time

# T - variable generally used to represent temperature

@ T - nuclear/chemical symbol for tritium/triton.

@ TF - Toroidal Field

@ TFTR - Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor; see entry

@ TPX - Tokamak Physics Experiment; see entry

> T-3: (from Herman) A Soviet tokamak located at the 
Kurchatov Institute in Moscow that first proved viability
by producing a plasma temperature of 10 million degrees
centigrage/Kelvin.

> T-10: (from Herman) A later Soviet tokamak located at 
the Kurchatov Institute (a copy of which is PLT, only 
PLT had neutral beams).

> T-15: (from Herman) A Soviet tokamak with superconducting
magnets currently under construction.  (Was it completed?
Is it operational?)

> T-20:  (from Herman) A large Soviet tokamak that was to 
have operated under reactor conditions (net energy 
production) but which was abandoned for budgetary reasons.

* Temperature, Plasma:  (adapted from Herman) A measure of 
the random (thermal) kinetic energy of the ions or electrons
in the plasma.  The temperature of each component of a plasma depends
on the mean kinetic energy of that component.  An example of this
is the fluorescent light bulb, which is an example of a weakly-ionized
plasma where the electrons are at temperatures of tens of thousands 
of degrees, whereas the ions and neutrals are much cooler (so that you 
can touch the bulb without being burned).
See atomic temperature, electron temperature, and ion temperature.  

* Thermal Conductivity:  degree to which a substance transmits heat.
(basic definition, I believe, is: 
	(heat flow) = (thermal conductivity) * (temperature gradient) )

* Thermal Conversion Cycle:  Process of generating electrical power
with a fusion reactor by means of a steam / other gas turbine.  This
is distinct from "direct conversion" cycles.

* Thermonuclear Fusion: fusion achieved by heating
up the fuel into the plasma state to the point where
ions have sufficient energy to fuse.

> Theta Pinch:  A pinch device in which the external current 
imposed goes in the azimuthal/circumferential direction around a
cylindrically shaped plasma.

* Thomson Scattering:  Collective(?) electron scattering.  Used to
measure electron temperature? Density?  (Find out in the next edition?)

* Thomson Scattering Device: (adapted from Herman)  A diagnostic 
device used to measure electron temperature in a plasma by directing
laser light into the plasma.  The laser's photons scatter off the
electrons in the plasma, spreading in a manner proportional to the
electron temperature.

> Tokamak: (Acronym created from the Russian words, 
"TOroidalnaya KAmera MAgnitnaya," or "Toroidal Chamber-Magnetic".)

Because the tokamak is the primary research machine for
magnetic confinement fusion today, we provide several 
descriptions from various sources:

-> One of several types of toroidal discharge chamber 
in which a longitudinal magnetic field is used to confine a 
plasma.  The tokamak is distinguished by a plasma current
running around the torus, which generates a stabilizing
poloidal magnetic field.  An externally-applied vertical
(electric? magnetic?) field is also used to achieve plasma 
stability.

-> TOKAMAK  (tokomak)  (contributed by Paul M. Koloc)
"A three component magnetoplasma toroidal construct in which 
the poloidal magnetic component is provided by a toroidal plasma 
current. The other two components are coil driven, namely, the
vertical field (which opposes the major radial expansion) and
the toroidal field (which acts to provide a "stiff guide" field
for the plasma to gain more MHD stability.    
Note:
It is better to think that the toroidal or longitudinal field  
"stiffens" the plasma as against flopping or kinking, while the 
plasma current driven poloidal (locally azimuthal) field provides 
"confinement" pressure.  Actually, the toroidal field interacting 
with plasma diamagnetism may also contribute to a "magnetic 
bouyancy", which is a sort of UN-confinement -- (it actually gives 
the plasma a tendency to expand radially outward in the equatorial 
plane)."  

-> (from Herman:) "Based on an original Soviet design, a device
for containing plasma inside a torus chamber by using the 
combination of two magnetic fields - one created by electric
coils around the torus, the other created by intense electric
current in the plasma itself, which also servers to
heat the plasma [partially].  TFTR and JET are tokamaks."

> Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor:  Large tokamak at Princeton,
first machine to use 50-50 mix of D-T fuel, current world's
record holder in fusion energy production.  Largest tokamak
in the United States.  

> Tokamak Physics Experiment:  Smaller successor to TFTR at
Princeton.  Engineering design underway; construction 
scheduled to begin in FY 1995.

> Tore Supra:  Large tokamak in Cadarache (southern France).  
The second largest tokamak in Europe; uses superconducting magnets.  
Tore Supra has a circular cross-section (like TFTR), which limits the
achievable confinement time and experimental flexibility.  In addition
to developing superconducting technology, it concentrates on the 
physics of long pulses and ergodic magnetic limiters.
See also: ergodic; magnetic limiter; superconductor; tokamak.

* Toroidal: in the shape of a torus, or doughnut.  
Or: Coordinate indicating which part of the torus a 
particle is in.  (Azimuthal coordinate) Or: General term referring 
to toruses as opposed to other geometries.

* Toroidal Field Coils:  Coils in a tokamak, typically wound around
the torus in a solenoid-like arrangement, used to generate the 
toroidal magnetic field.  Each turn completely surrounds the plasma.

> Toroidal Pinch:

> Torsatron:

* Transformer, Transformer Effect:

* Transverse Waves:

* Trapped-Particle Instability:

* Trapped-Particle Modes:

* Tritium: (adapted from Herman) A radioactive isotope of hydrogen with
one proton and two neutrons in its nucleus and one orbiting electron.  
A more efficient fuel than ordinary hydrogen (protium) because of 
the extra neutrons.  Tritium decays to helium-3 by emission of an
electron ("beta emission") with a half-life of 12.3 years.  Tritium 
can be synthesized from deuterium via neutron bombardment, or by
fissioning lithium (see lithium).

* Triton: nucleus of a tritium atom; tritium ion.

* Turbulence:  "Violent macroscopic fluctuations which can develop
under certain conditions in fluids and plasmas and which usually
result in the rapid transfer of energy through the medium." 
(PPPL Glossary)

* Turbulent Heating:  "Mode of heating of a plasma where the orderly
motion of the particles created by external sources is converted
into disorderly motion, by the excitation of microinstabilities."
(PPPL Glossary)

* Two-Stream Instability:


UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU

# u - variable commonly used for energy density of electric or
magnetic fields; also sometimes used for velocity.

* Universal gas constant: R = 8.314 x 10^7 ergs per 
degree C per mole.

* Upper Hybrid Waves:  Similar to lower hybrid waves, but at a 
higher frequency.  (more description?)  Not truly propagating 
waves, but plasma oscillations. (?)

* Uranium:  (from Herman) A radioactive metallic element whose
isotope, uranium-235, is a nuclear fission fuel.  Plutonium,
another fission fuel, can be produced from the more
plentiful isotope uranium-238.


VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV

# v - variable typically used for velocity

# V - variable typically used for electrical potential (Voltage)

* Vector:

* Vector Notation:

* Velocity:

* Velocity Space:

* Velocity Space Instability:

* Viscosity:

* Voltage Loop:  "A wire which encircles the main axis of a tokamak
in the vicinity of the vacuum vessel."  The voltage induced in this
loop during the shot is a measure of the ohmic heating voltage
induced by transformer action and applied to the plasma.
(PPPL Glossary)


WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW

* Wavelength:  The length of a single cycle of a wave; usually
measured from crest-to-crest.  For electromagnetic waves, the
wavelength determines the type (radio, infrared, visible, ultraviolet,
X-Ray, gamma-ray) of radiation; in the case of visible light,
wavelength determines the color of the light.


XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

* X-Point:


YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY

* Yin-Yang Coil:  See baseball coil.


ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

# Z - see atomic number
 
@ ZETA - Zero Energy Thermonuclear Assembly; see entry

> Zero Energy Thermonuclear Assembly:  A British fusion device in 
which scientists observed fusion neutrons in 1958.  They were
erroneously considered to be thermonuclear (coming from particles 
with a Maxwellian velocity distribution) and were a cause for the
initial optimism that fusion energy would be easy.  They were actually
due to electromagnetic acceleration during a plasma instability, an
effect which cannot be scaled up to produce useful energy.

> Z-Pinch:  Pinch device in which the externally-driven pinching 
current goes in the z direction (parallel to / through the 
cylindrical plasma).


********************************************************************

*** Acknowledgements:

! Jake Blanchard, blanchard@engr.wisc.edu - suggested we have a 
list of acronyms too.

! Arthur Carlson, awc@ipp-garching.mpg.de - supplied additional 
definitions, made corrections / amplifications / revisions to earlier 
definitions.

! Albert Chou, albert@seas.ucla.edu - supplied additional definitions, 
made corrections / amplifications / revisions to earlier definitions.

!? Jim Day, jim.day@support.com - initial list of terms, additional
definitions, modifications to earlier definitions.

  Robin Herman, _Fusion: Search for Endless Energy_; I borrowed a 
lot of terms from her glossary.  Cited as (from Herman).

! Emilio Martines, martines@pdigi3.igi.pd.cnr.it - quality control,
reversed-field entries & information.

! Paul M. Koloc, pmk@prometheus.UUCP - quality control

Princeton Plasma Physics Lab, Glossary of Fusion Terms - list of
terms prepared by PPPL staff at some point.  Consulted in many
cases, blatantly paraphrased in some, quoted and cited in others.


*** Revision History:

	First draft was an accumulation of sources & Jim Day's list.
	
	Second draft, Feb. 12, 1994 - incorporated Herman's glossary,
						added list of undefined terms,
						defined labeling scheme

	Third draft, Feb. 20, 1994 - incorporated new terms and 
					     corrections to old terms.
						added #, % to structure.
						separated A,B,C,D...

That's all (!) there is so far!  Please add to the list as you
get some spare time!

*******************
Robert F. Heeter
rfheeter@lyman.pppl.gov
Graduate Student, Princeton Plasma Physics Lab
Usual disclaimers apply.

cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.20 / Robert Heeter /  Part 2 (F-N;Long) FUT: Frequently Used Terms, 3rd draft
     
Originally-From: rfheeter@theory.pppl.gov (Robert F. Heeter)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Part 2 (F-N;Long) FUT: Frequently Used Terms, 3rd draft
Date: 20 Feb 1994 01:30:23 -0500
Organization: Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory, Princeton University,
Princeton NJ 08540


==================================================================

FREQUENTLY USED TERMS IN CONVENTIONAL FUSION RESEARCH 
AND PLASMA PHYSICS

Part 2:  F-N

Edited by Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@lyman.pppl.gov

3rd Draft, Last Revised Sunday, Feb. 20, 1994.


Guide to Categories:
 
* = vocabulary 
> = device type or machine name
# = name of a constant or variable
! = scientists 
@ = acronym
% = labs & political organizations

Citations and Acknowledgements appear at the end.

==================================================================


FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF

# F:  Variable typically used for force; sometimes flux.

@ FRC: Field-Reversed Configuration; see entry

* Field Lines:

> Field-Reversed Configuration:  A compact torus produced in a 
theta pinch and having (in principle) no toroidal field.  The potential
advantages for a fusion reactor include a simple (linear) machine
geometry, an average plasma pressure close to the confining field
pressure, and physical separation of formation and burn chambers.  The
are predicted to be violently unstable to tilting, but this has never
been observed.  See also: compact torus, theta pinch.
(Arthur Carlson, awc@ipp-garching.mpg.de)

* First Wall:  The first physical boundary that surrounds a plasma.

* Fission (Nuclear): (adapted from Herman) the division 
of an atomic nucleus into two smaller nuclei.  In large 
nuclei, frequently accompanied by large energy release 
and generally one or more neutrons.  Fissioning of atoms
into more than two pieces seems not to happen, but see
spallation.  See also: radioactivity.

* Fission Bomb:  see atomic bomb, A-bomb.

* Fission Reactor:  (from Herman) A device that can initiate 
and control a self-sustaining series of nuclear fissions.

* Flat-top:  Stable period in the middle of a tokamak
discharge, characterized by a flat, stable peak in a plot
of plasma (current, temperature) vs. time.

* Flute Instability:  Term used to describe an interchange
instability occuring in a cyclindrical geometry, due to the
resemblance of the unstable cylinder to a fluted column in classical
architecture.

* Flux:  The total amount of a quantity passing through a given
surface per unit time.

* Flux Density:  Total amount of a quantity passing through a
unit surface area in unit time.

* Flux freezing:  See frozen-in law.

* Flux trapping:  See frozen-in law.

* Fokker-Planck Equation:  An equation that describes the time rate 
of change of a particle's velocity as a result of small-angle 
collisional deflections.  Applicable when the cumulative effect of 
many small-angle collisions is greater than the effect of rarer
large-angle deflections.

* Force:  There are four presently known forces among elementary 
particles:  etc.  force between charged bodies is k Q1 Q2 / r^2, 
weak ..., strong, gravity.
	(need to take some time and write this up nicely.

* Frozen-in Law:  In a perfect conductor, the total magnetic flux
through any surface is a constant.  In a plasma which is nearly
perfectly conducting, the relevant surfaces move with the plasma;
the result is that the plasma is tied to the magnetic field, and
the field is tied to the plasma.

* Fusion (Nuclear): a nuclear reaction in which light atomic 
nuclei combine to form heavier nuclei.  (See also Controlled
Thermonuclear Fusion)

* Fusion Reactor: (from Herman) A nuclear reactor in which
a self-sustaining series of nuclear fusions would produce
energy (that could be converted to electric power).

> Fusion-Fission Hybrid: (from Herman) A proposed type of
nuclear reactor relying on both fusion and fission reactions.
A central fusion chamber would produce neutrons to provoke
fission in a surrounding blanket of fissionable material.
The neutron source could also be used to convert other
materials into additional fissile fuels (breeder hybrid).


GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG

! Gauss (Karl Friedrich?) - physicist

* Gaussian Units - See CGS Units

* Gradient:

* Gyrofrequency:  See cyclotron frequency.

* Gyroradius: radius of charged particle in magnetic field.
Same thing as cyclotron radius, Larmor radius.

> Glow Discharge: a relatively cool form of plasma discharge;
a common form is in fluorescent lights. (more?)

* Group Velocity:

* Guiding Center:


HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

@ H - chemical symbol for the element hydrogen.

@ He - chemical symbol for the element helium.

! Hertz, Heinrich:  19th-century German physicist.

* Hertz:  Unit of frequency equal to one complete oscillation (cycle)
per second.

* Half-life:  (from Herman) The time in which half the 
atoms of a particular radioactive isotope disintegrate 
to another nuclear form.  Half-lives range from millionths 
of a second to billions of years.

* Helicity:

* Helium: Element whose nuclei all contain two protons.
Stable isotopes are 3He and 4He.  3He is rare on earth (only 1.3
ppm of naturally-occuring He), can be generated from decaying
tritium (half life of about 12 years), and is relatively abundant 
in the crust of the moon.  Helium is the second most abundant element 
in the universe and in the sun.

@ H-mode:  see high-mode

* High-mode or H-mode:  (from Herman) A regime of operation
attained during auxiliary heating of divertor tokamak plasmas
when the injected power is sufficiently high.  A sudden
improvement in particle confinement time leads to increased
density and temperature, distinguishing this mode from
the normal "low mode."

* Hybrid reactor:  see fusion-fission hybrid.

* Hydrogen: (H) Element whose nuclei all contain only one proton.
Isotopes are protium (p, no neutrons) deuterium (D or d, 
one neutron), and tritium (T or t, two neutrons).  The single most
abundant element in the universe, and in the sun.

* Hydrogen bomb or H-bomb: (from Herman) An extremely 
powerful type of atomic bomb based on nuclear fusion.  
The atoms of heavy isotopes of hydrogen (deuterium and 
tritium) undergo fusion when subjected to the immense 
heat and pressure generated by the explosion of a nuclear 
fission unit in the bomb.  

* Hydromagnetic Instability:  See MHD Instability


IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

# I - variable used to indicate total current through a conductor.

@ IAEA - International Atomic Energy Agency; see entry
 
@ IBHP - Integrated Biological Hazard Potential; see entry

@ ICF - Inertial Confinement Fusion; see entry

@ ICH - Ion Cyclotron Heating - see ICRH

@ ICRH - Ion Cyclotron Resonance Heating; see entry

@ ITER - International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor; see entry

* Ignition:  (from Herman) The point at which the plasma 
produces so much energy from fusion reactions that it no 
longer needs any external source of power to maintain 
its temperature.

* Impurities: atoms of unwanted elements in the plasma, 
inhibiting fusion.

* Inductive Current Drive:

* Inertial Confinement Fusion:  Approach to fusion where the plasma
is imploded so quickly that the inertia of the converging particles
is so high that they fuse before they disperse.  This is the method
used in a hydrogen bomb; ICF schemes for power production usually
use small pellets of fuel in an attempt to make "miniature"
h-bomb type explosions.  Methods for imploding the pellet include
bombardment from all sides with high-powered laser and particle
beams, and of course implosion in a fission bomb.  Parts of ICF
fusion research remain classified due to their implications for
construction of hydrogen bombs.

* Instability:  (adapted from Herman) A state of plasma in which a
small perturbation amplifies itself to a considerable 
alteration of the equilibrium of the system, leading to
disruptions.  Most are associated with waves and other natural
modes of oscillation in the plasma, which can sometimes grow.
There are (unfortunately!) many kinds.   See also:
Flute instability, MHD instability, Interchange instability,
microinstability, kink instability, resistive instability, 
trapped particle instability, two-stream instability, universal
instability, velocity-space instability.

* Integrated Biological Hazard Potential:

* Interchange Instability:

* Interferometer:

* Interferometry:
	Optical -
	Microwave -

% International Atomic Energy Agency: (from Herman)  An
autonomous intergovernmental organization established in 1956
with the purpose of advancing peaceful uses of atomic energy,
with headquarters in Vienna.

> International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER):
Huge fusion reactor being planned by the EC, US, Japan,
and Russia (former USSR?).  Should generate far more
energy than it consumes.  Research goals include engineering
studies of reactor materials, component designs for steady-state
devices, and testing/proving commercial feasibility.

* Ioffe Bars:  Special configuration of conductors which, when
added to a conventional magnetic mirror, generate a "magnetic
well" which stabilizes the mirror against the hydromagnetic
instability.

* Ion:  (from Herman) An atom whic hhas ecome charged as a 
result of gaining or losing one or more orbiting electrons.  
A completely ionized atom is one stripped of all its electrons.

* Ion Cyclotron Resonance Heating:  Like ECH, but heats ions 
using the ion cyclotron frequency.  See Electron Cyclotron Heating.

* Ion Temperature: the temperature corresponding to the
mean kinetic energy of the ions in a plasma.

* Ionization:  Process by which a neutral atom is converted to an ion 
(or one ion is converted to another of a different type).

* Ionization Energy:  Generally refers to the amount of energy 
required to strip a particular electron from an atom.  The 
first-ionization-energy is a commonly used quantity in many fields 
of physics and chemistry.  Typically measured in electron-volts.

* Ionization Potential:  See ionization energy.

* Ionosphere:  Ionized region of the upper earth atmosphere, which
behaves like a plasma, including reflection of AM radio waves and
generation of auroral glows.

* Isomer, Nuclear:  two nuclei with the same nuclear mass (total
number of protons and neutrons) but different nuclear compostions.
(e.g.: T & 3He are isomers: T has 1p, 2n; 3He has 2p, 1n)

* Isotope: (from Herman) One of several variations of the 
same element, possessing different numbers of neutrons but
the same number of protons in their nuclei.


JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ

# J - variable used to indicate current density

@ JET - Joint European Torus; see entry

@ JT-60: Japan Torus - 60 (??)

> Joint European Torus:  (from Herman) A large tokamak in Oxfordshire,
England, commonly owned by the European Community.  First reactor to
achieve > 1 MW of fusion power, in 1991.  Largest tokamak currently 
in operation (to the best of the editor's knowledge).

> JT-60: (from Herman) A large Japanese tokamak located north 
of Tokyo.

* Joule Heating: See ohmic heating


KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK

# k: Mathematical symbol usually used for Boltzmann's Constant.

* Kelvin: (K) temperature scale where zero degrees corresponds
to absolute zero (no thermal energy); degrees have same
size as in Celsius/centigrade scale.  273.16 K = zero C;
373.16 = 100 C.

* Kinetic Pressure:  Density of kinetic energy (energy in the
thermal motions of the plasma particles).  For an ideal plasma,
p = nkT.

* Kink Instability:  Instability resulting from excessive growth
of a kink mode; see kink mode.

* Kink Mode:

* Kruskal Limit:  In tokamaks, limiting value for plasma current
beyond which MHD instabilities are predicted.  (Has it been tested?)


LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL

@ L-mode: see low mode.

@ LANL - Los Alamos National Laboratory

@ LLNL - Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

* Landau Damping:  Damping of a wave propagating in a hot plasma,
due to the interaction of the wave with particles whose velocity
is close to the phase velocity of the wave.  Depends on the shape
of the velocity-space distribution function at the phase velocity.
(Anybody got a nice, brief, intuitive explanation of this?)

! Langmuir, Irving: Chemist. (more info?)

* Langmuir frequency:  See plasma frequency.

* Langmuir oscillation:  See electrostatic waves.

* Langmuir probe: a small conductive electrode used to measure the
density, temperature, and electric potential (voltage) of a plasma.

* Larmor radius: the radius of the path of a charged 
particle in a magnetic field.  Also known as gyroradius
and cyclotron radius.

@ Laser: Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation. 

* Laser: (adapted from Herman) an optical device that amplifies and
concentrates light waves, emitting them in a narrow, intense beam.
Laser light radiation is notable for its brightness and to some 
extent for its monochromaticity and spatial and temporal coherence.

> Laser Fusion:  Form of inertial confinement fusion where
laser beams are used to compress the fuel pellet.

* Laser scattering device: See Thomson scattering device.

% Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory:  Located in Livermore, CA,
about an hour east of the SF Bay Area.  Home of the Nova laser ICF
program, the largest laser in the world.  Home of the former mirror
projects MFTF (Mirror Fusion Test Facility, shut down on the day 
it became operational, or thereabouts), TMX-U (Tandem Mirror eXperiment
Upgrade), and the recently shut down Microwave Tokamak eXperiment (MTX).
Workplace of Albert Chou and several other sci.physics.fusion
participants. :)

* Lawson Criterion:  Scientific breakeven criterion based on the 
product of energy confinement time, particle density, and plasma
temperature.

* Limiters:  (from Herman) structures placed in contact 
with the edge of a confined plasma which are used to 
define the shape of the outermost magnetic surface.  See also: divertor.

* Lithium: (Li)  Third element in the periodic table, so all isotopes
contain 3 protons; highly reactive; stable isotopes are Li-6 (7.5%
abundance) and Li-7 (92.5%); candidate for breeding tritium from 
fusion neutrons via the reactions: 

	n + 6Li -> 4He + T + 4.8 MeV, n + 7Li -> 4He + T + n - 2.5 MeV.

* Longitudinal Waves:

* Lorentz Force:  Total electromagnetic force on a charged particle
moving in electric & magnetic fields.  F = q(E + (v/c)xB).  See
also force, cross product, charge, velocity, and variable symbols.

* Lorentz Gas:  Plasma model in which the electrons are assumed
not to interact with each other, but only with ions (Z -> infinity)
and where the ions are assumed to remain at rest/fixed (M-i -> 
infinity).

* Lorentz Model - see Lorentz Gas

% Los Alamos National Laboratory:  Major DOE research facility, located
in Los Alamos, New Mexico, about an hour west of Santa Fe.  (Home of 
a frozen-deuterium-fiber Z-pinch device?)  (Need to add more info here.)

* Loss Cone:

* Low Aspect Ratio:

* Low mode or L-Mode:  (from Herman) The "normal" behavior of 
a tokamak plasma, characterized by poor confinement and a particular
scaling of decreasing confinement with increasing temperature.

* Lower Hybrid Heating:  form of RF heating using Lower Hybrid Waves.

* Lower Hybrid Waves:  "Electrostatic ion oscillations at a frequency
intermediate to the electron extraordinary wave (high frequency) and 
the magnetosonic wave (low frequency).  Not waves, strictly speaking,
because they do not propagate (I think)." 
	- Albert Chou, albert@seas.ucla.edu


MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

# m, M - variable typically used for mass.

@ MFTF - Mirror Fusion Test Facility; see entry

@ MIT - Massachusetts Institute of Technology; see entry

@ MHD - Magnetohydrodynamics; see entry

@ MHD Instability - see Magnetohydrodynamic instability.

@ MKS - Meters, Kilometers, Seconds - see SI Units

@ MKSA - Meters, Kilometers, Seconds, Amperes - See SI Units.

@ MTX - Microwave Tokamak eXperiment; see entry

* Magnetic Bottle (from Herman) The magnetic field used to
confine a plasma in controlled fusion experiments.

* Magnetic Confinement Fusion:  Method of fusion which uses
magnetic fields / magnetic bottles to confine a hot plasma
until fusion occurs.

* Magnetic Field:

* Magnetic Limiter:  See divertor (??)

> Magnetic Mirror: See mirror effect, mirror device

* Magnetic Pressure:  Pressure which a magnetic field is capable
of exerting on a plasma; equal to the magnetic energy density;
proportional to B^2.  (Constant is 1/(2*mu-o) in SI units, 1/8pi
in CGS units).

* Magnetic Pumping:  Form of plasma heating where the plasma is
successively compressed and expanded by means of a fluctuating
external magnetic field.  (See also adiabatic compression, frozen-in
law.)

* Magnetic Well:  see Minimum-B Configuration.

* Magnetohydrodynamics:  Electrodynamic fluid model that takes 
into account electric current and magnetic field; relevant at 
relatively low frequencies and for distance scales larger than 
the larmor radius.

* Magnetohydrodynamic Generator:  A device that extracts
kinetic energy from a jet of plasma and generates electricity.

* Magnetohydrodynamic Instability:

% Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT):  Located in Cambridge, 
MA (just outside Boston).  Home of the Plasma Fusion Center and the
Alcator series of compact tokmaks.

! Maxwell, James Clerk:  19th-century British physicist, responsible 
for the synthesis of the equations of electromagnetism and the 
prediction of electromagnetic waves, among other things.

* Maxwell-Boltzmann Distribution:  Distribution function of particle
velocities corresponding to a system in thermal equilibrium with a
temperature value of T.  See also: distribution functions, temperature.

* Maxwellian Distribution: see Maxwell-Boltzmann Distribution

* Maxwell's Equations: The key equations governing
electrical and magnetic phenomena. (more?)

* Mean Free Path:

* Meltdown:  (from Herman) A buildup of heat in the core of
a nuclear fission reactor due to an uncontrolled chain
reaction of the fission fuel causing the fuel rods to 
melt down to (through, in some cases) the reactor floor.

* Metastable state:  several types
	Electronic
	Nuclear
	
* Microinstability: Instabilities due to particle / kinetic 
theoretical effects, typically occuring on small scales, as opposed 
to those derivable from fluid models valid on larger scales.

* Microwave Interferometer:  See interferometer, interferometry.

* Microwave Tokamak eXperiment (MTX): a reincarnation of Alcator C
at LLNL, now shut down.

> Minimum-B Configuration:  Confinement configuration where the
magnetic field strength is a minimum where the plasma is to be
confined, and increases in all directions away from the confinement
region.  Stability is favorable in such a configuration because the
magnetic pressure increases in all directions away from the plasma.

> Mirror device, mirror machine:  (Adapted from Herman)
Generally, linear fusion machines which confine the plasma
using the mirror effect.  Basically there is a weak field
in the center, and strong fields at the ends.

* Mirror effect: A charged particle travelling into an increasing
magnetic field will (if the field becomes strong enough) reverse 
direction and be reflected back.

> Mirror Fusion Test Facility (MFTF):  A large mirror device built 
at LLNL in the late 1970s and mothballed for political reasons 
just before it was to begin operation.

* Mirror Ratio:  In a magnetic mirror configuration, the ratio
between the strongest and weakest values of the magnetic field;
a key ratio in determining confinement properties of the system.

* Mobility:

* Mole: The amount of given substance such that the mass in grams 
is equal to its [atomic weight, molecular weight, mass number].
The number of particles in a mole of a substance is Avogadro's
Number (see entry).

* Motor-Generator:  Device used to store energy by accelerating
a rotating flywheel to high speeds; energy may be rapidly discharged
and converted to shorter-pulse energy.  (Used to power TFTR; the
electric utility would be a little unhappy if TFTR were to suddenly
draw its 30 MW+ of power at random intervals. :)

> Muon-Catalyzed Fusion: (Steve Jones?)


NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN

# n - variable used for number density of particles.

@ NBI - Neutral Beam Injection; see entry

* Neo-classical Diffusion:

* Neutral Beam Injection: (from Herman) A method for producing
neutrally charged atoms of high energy (high velocity) and 
injecting beams of these atoms into a magnetically confined plasma,
where they are soon ionized.  The high-energy ions then transfer
 part of their energy to the plasma particles in repeated
collisions, thus increasing the plasma temperature.

* Neutron:

* Neutron Wall Loading:  Energy flux carried by fusion neutrons into
the first wall.  (see also First Wall, Flux, Neutrons)

* Non-Inductive Current Drive:  Current drives schemes that do not 
rely upon the "transformer" effect in tokamaks.  The attainment of 
non-inductive current drive is crucial to the success of tokamaks 
as truly steady-state devices.  See also inductive current drive.

> Nova: (from Herman) The United States' largest laser (ICF) fusion
facility, at LLNL.  "Originally called Shiva Nova; the successor to
Shiva.  The next generation will be known as Nova Upgrade; a proof 
of concept experiment called Beamlet is in operation now.  (I think.)"
	- Albert Chou, albert@seas.ucla.edu

* Nuclear Binding Energy:

* Nucleus:  The tiny core of an atom, positively charged,
containing protons and neutrons.  Electrons orbit the nucleus.


cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.20 / mitchell swartz /  Reply to Steve 6: Kucherov's expt. & statement, x-rays
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Reply to Steve 6: Kucherov's expt. & statement, x-rays
Subject: Reply to Mitch 5: Kucherov expts,x-rays
Date: Sun, 20 Feb 1994 06:59:53 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

   In Message-ID: <1994Feb18.134931.1395@physc1.byu.edu>
Subject: Reply to Mitch 5: Kucherov expts,x-rays
Steven Jones (jonesse@physc1.byu.edu) writes:

=sj "Yes, Kucherov reported x-ray detection using x-ray *film*, in a paper
=sj subsequent to the one I originally commented on here. We hashed this
=sj over about a year ago!"

        ;-)     There were several misstatements then, but bandwidth
     preservation will require readers to check the archives


=sj  "My main argument is this:  if they claim x-rays
=sj using film, then why not use a spectrometer to determine the energies
=sj and intensities of any lines present? [14b] I've stressed this many times
=sj here and in print.  An autoradiograph will not do this job."

  When I first separated the modalities into a table, this is
what it read:

             "FILM RECORDER                    SPECTROPHOTOMETER
   Ease of use and wide area coverage vs. more difficult calibration and
                                          better energy resolution"

 You have since elaborated.  But issues remain.
Each separate experiment yields a parallax view of this NEW
 TECHNOLOGY.   Each detector has yielded more information on what is
happening.    However, not all palladium
electrodes are active and there are few such x-ray spectrophotometers to
go around.

  What was stressed is that:
      1) such films are universally available, and 
      2) if appropriate measures  are taken for both adequate cassetting
 and other issues (feel free to call  if you are interested)  such
 recordings offer significant time- and space-integration.  Both
 instruments are good, but each has individual separate features.

{Questions to Steve Jones}
   {Q4J12} 
     Where is the proof your system has a "clear advantage"? 
 When CAT scans were
 compared with MRI scan data reconstructions (for just one example)
 there was an attempt to  determine which was better. 
 But is was based upon proof by actually comparing matched objects. 
       Have you done that?
  Is the high-tech instrument always better?   Probably not.
         Artificial lungs were high tech too,  but the Salk polio vaccine
          was a much smarter plan for the long-run.

=sj "Mitch:  [15] has anyone published results showing x-ray *spectra*,
=sj showing the presence of characteristic Pd x-ray lines?
=sj I know of none. " 
=sj  At the Maui meeting, Kucherov said 
=sj "After four years, I'm not so sure this is nuclear effect", 
=sj a direct quote as fast and well as my pencil could get it.  Now if *he*
=sj does not think his data is compelling, why should we? [Question #16]

  Further confirmation for the existence of nuclear products being
formed by cold  fusion (i.e. loading of isotopic material into a material)
comes from other systems of  cold fusion phenomena
 which now include gaseous glow  discharge systems
      (the Kucherov system to which Steve refers)
in addition to the aqueous electrolytic system first described
in  March 1989 (Fleischmann). 

   Kucherov (1993) has confirmed the colder fusion processes
 in the gas glow discharge systems.
   Dear reader,
   Does this say "I'm not so sure this is nuclear effect" as
Prof. Jones claims?     Here are excerpts from
his abstract at ICCF-4.   

     ==kuch  "The results of four years of experimental work on
     ==kuch  glow discharge in deuterium with  cathodes made of 
     ==kuch palladium and other materials are presented.  About 
     ==kuch 500 experiments  were made. 
     ==kuch  ****
     ==kuch  Discharge current varied in 10-100mA and voltage 
     ==kuch in 100-500V range  *****  maximal measured excessive 
     ==kuch heat was about 30W and about 10KJ, about ten  
     ==kuch times the heat that could be produced in chemical reactions 
     ==kuch with existing deuterium and  up to five times the electric input.
     ==kuch      
     ==kuch   Excessive heat was observed in about 50% out of 78  
     ==kuch experiments in which calorimeter was used. 
     ==kuch   
     ==kuch    In different experiments heat production  was not 
     ==kuch correlated with neutron or gamma fluxes, but in a separate 
     ==kuch experiments it was.        ****     Neutron fluxes with 
     ==kuch intensity up to 107n/S were observed by activation of silver 
     ==kuch foil  3He-filled detectors and scintillation detectors. 
     ==kuch Neutron spectra showed neutron  energies up to 17MeV 
     ==kuch with anomalous shift to high energies (five orders) 
     ==kuch relative to d-d  reaction.  Gamma-spectrometry 
     ==kuch howed low level radioactive isotopes formation. 
     ==kuch Together with  half-life time measurements it allowed 
     ==kuch to identify some of the isotopes, such as Rh and  Sr isotopes. 
     ==kuch Most of the lines (~100) are still unidentified. 
     ==kuch Non-background gamma-lines  sometimes can be seen for 
     ==kuch few days.  Most of the gamma-lines appear in lower than  
     ==kuch 300KeV region.
     ==kuch   X-ray films outside the chamber with led  screens show some
     ==kuch  beam-like  spots with energy 100-200 KeV. 
     ==kuch    Charged particles registration with SSB and CR-39  
     ==kuch detectors showed good correlation of the results obtained 
     ==kuch by these methods. Maximal  observed fluxes of charged particles 
     ==kuch were ~106 S-1.
     ==kuch                   ***** 
     ==kuch  X-ray film with lead screens  showed X-ray fluxes up to 109  
     ==kuch s-1] with soft (<1KeV) and hard (10-30KeV) components.  
     ==kuch Sometimes characteristic X-rays of palladium can be seen 
     ==kuch with Ge-Li detector."
     ==kuch 
     ==kuch   [from "Calorimetric and Nuclear Products Measurements 
     ==kuch at Glow Discharge in  Deuterium"; Yan KUCHEROV, 
     ==kuch Alexander KARABUT, Irina SAVVATIMOVA Scientific  
     ==kuch industrial Association "Luch", Podolsk,  Moscow Region, 
     ==kuch Russian Federation (1993)]   

  {Q4J13}   Exactly when did he say this claim that there
was "no nuclear effect", Steve?      

  BTW, readers, there were other discussions of such systems as covered
previously in the archives (also COLD FUSION TIMES vol 1., numbers 1,4).

   "There was a Chinese team{17-20} that presented results from a somewhat
    similar system to that described by Kucherov. A glow discharge was
    created by applying high voltage (7-11 KV, 50 Hz) between two
    electrodes inside of a glass bulb containing deuterium at low pressure
    (4-13 torr)."
                 [after Peter Hagelstein (1993)]

  "V. A. Romodanov... The glow discharge was run in deuterium gas 
 at 100-200 torr, with an applied voltage in the range of 40-125 V, 
 and a current of 3-4 A.  Various cathode metals were used, including 
 Y, Mo, Nb, Er, Ta, and W.
     "Tritium generation rates between 10{5} atoms/second and 
 10{9} atoms/second were measured in the different metals under 
 various conditions. The largest rate (1.7 X 10{9}) was obtained in 
 Nb at 1170 Deg. K, corresponding to an increase in tritium activity 
 in the deuterium gas of 2.3 X 10{4}."
                 [after Peter Hagelstein (1993)]

   It is hoped that this laborious update corrects information for readers
   of sci.physics.fusion.   

 Best wishes, colleagues.
       Mitchell  Swartz  (mica@world.std.com)



cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.20 / mitchell swartz /  Reply to Steve 7: Compelling evidence for cf
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Reply to Steve 7: Compelling evidence for cf
Subject: Reply to Mitch 6: No compelling evidence for cf
Date: Sun, 20 Feb 1994 07:01:13 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

   In Message-ID: <1994Feb18.135207.1396@physc1.byu.edu>
Subject: Reply to Mitch 6: No compelling evidence for cf
Steven Jones [jonesse@physc1.byu.edu] writes:

   ==   "(I) have stated:
   == " A real signal should be capable of scaling, and should not shrink as
   == background levels are reduced.  However, as we have proceeded to better
   == detectors, cold-fusion data surety has diminished."

{Questions for Steven Jones:
  {Q4J14}
  Please itemize your assertion since it so broad, and
also because the data has been quite the
opposite as regards cold fusion (other then neutron production
where it may be true for most static conditions).  

  {Q4J15}   Also, why is the field "crazy"?     You actually published
your findings and now retract several of them.
Perhaps this is more a barometer of yourself
rather than the field.  


   == "With these criteria for state-of-the-art detectors, we find that no
   == compelling evidence for neutron, gamma or x-ray production from
   == deuterided materials currently exists in any cold-fusion experiment,
   == including our own.  The only verified form of cold nuclear fusion to
   == date is muon-catalyzed fusion."  
   ==  (S.E. Jones, submitted for publication and posted here in Jan. 1994)

  Yipes.  Therefore it is apparent that
you are retracting not one, but two,  of your experimental claims, is that
correct.   Both the cold fusion neutronpenic level neutrons, and in
cement as you posted here (methinks in '92 - please correct). 
  {Q4J16} Are there any other experimental findings you 
have posted or published you would now like to retract?    

   ==  "Has anyone provided compelling evidence for the existence 
   ==  of cold fusion nuclear effects   ....?"

  Steve, at the beginning of this post are positive
results.  They are compelling.
At the end of this post are some estimates of the 
skeptics "explanations".   They are not close
in magnitude to explain the phenomena.  
  
 {Q4J17}                Comments?

   ============= Excess Power (milliwatts)  === % of input =====
   ---   Representative Positive Results in Heavy Water/D2O   --------------
   Fleischmann & Pons (1989)     60  (circa)
     Miles (1992)               540
     McKubre (1992)                             30% (ca. average input excess,
                                                     with rare bursts higher)

     ===========   Excess Power densities (W/cm3 Pd) ==============
   ---   Representative Positive Results in Heavy Water/D2O   --------------
      1989     circa   10  W/cm3 Pd
      1993     circa  1500 W/cm3 Pd

   ===========   Helium-4 generation levels Heavy Water/D2O   --------------
       10^11 to  ca. 3 x 10^11   helium-4/watt-sec    (Miles 91, 92, 93)

 _________________________________________________________________________

  ========  Putative Effects put forth to Explain Excess enthalpies (*) ====
  =============  Excess Power (milliwatts) accounted for =========
   Anode Effect (**)                             0.0   
   EMI interference                           << 0.001  (est.)
   Logajan Effect (^ D2O thermal cond.)          ***
                   in cell IF not considered
   Recombination                  1993)          1.6       **--
   Silicate Deposition            1992)          0.0 (max)  
   Lithium Deposition             1993)          0.0 (max)  **##
   Beuhler Effect                 1992)          0.0 (max)  ****
   Peroxides                                                **@@
  
================================================================
*  Some of these are not applicable to all systems (eg. both D2O and H2O)
  Furthermore, the final column is excess heat, and not generated heat.
**    The Anode Effect is characterized by a very recognizable V-I curve
 and lamellar gas flow characteristics and occurs at
 the anode in the vast majority of cases reported therein.  
"Anode Effect in Aqueous Electrolysis" Herbert H Kellogg, J. Electrochem.
 Soc., 97, 133 (1950)
***    Sign is such that this effect, if it occurs actually increases previous
       estimates of reported excess heats.
**--  Steven and J. Jones posted data of about 1.6 milliwatt at ambient.
**##  Hypothesis involving depositing metallic lithium upon the cathode
  (ca. 1/30 mole) covering it with a surface to prevent reaction with water,
  and then suddenly converting the cathode to anode which now become the
  site of oxidation.  No mention made of the transferrance required. 
  One good recent article on Lithium morphology of anodes (i.e. Li batteries)
  undergoing such processes (max 0.5 C/cm2, 2 mA/cm2 DME +/- propylene 
    carbonate) shows cycling is dependant upon the morphology of the lithium
   deposits (In Situ Observation & Eval of Electrodeposited Lithium by .. 
   Op Microscopy and AC Impedance Spec., J. Elec. Soc, 140, 10 p2745 ('93)).
****  Brought up on Internet circa 1992 regarding alligator-like clips
 incurring significant in-line electrical resistances.  Argued both ways
 (see. postings of Jones and Noninski and others circa Nov. 19, 1992)
 but in any case could not account for observed and calibrated excess 
 heats in experiments using protium and nickel.
**@@  Thought to be a component of potential interference by some, but 
 levels sufficient to account for excess enthalpies have not been measured.

                      -    Mitchell Swartz
                                    mica@world.std.com

cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.20 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: On Nyquist criterion (cont'd)
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: On Nyquist criterion (cont'd)
Date: Sun, 20 Feb 1994 07:28:06 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <CLDHIK.MBG@world.std.com> mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
>I do not know with specificity 
>which equipment was used, therefore, if you want supplemental 
>information, perhaps either you or Dale Bass ought write your own 
>letter(s), fax your own fax(es), or make your call(s), and check 
>it out further for yourself(ves).  Thanks in advance for the 
>information which we are certain you will both share and comment 
>upon.

Or to be more blunt, you accepted some off-the-cuff remark and
have been spreading disinformation. I'm glad you made that clear
(finally).

cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.20 / Robert Heeter /  Part 1 (A-E;Long) FUT: Frequently Used Terms, 3rd draft
     
Originally-From: rfheeter@theory.pppl.gov (Robert F. Heeter)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Part 1 (A-E;Long) FUT: Frequently Used Terms, 3rd draft
Date: 20 Feb 1994 01:26:17 -0500
Organization: Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory, Princeton University,
Princeton NJ 08540


*** FUT: Guide to Frequently Used Terms in Conventional Fusion ***

3rd Draft, Last Revised on Sunday, Feb. 20, 1994.

* Editorial Note:  

Like any discipline, fusion research has evolved terminology used 
to facilitate discussion.  This includes the scientific vocabulary 
of the discipline, the names of various research machines and 
devices used, the names of various researchers in the field, the 
names of the various research labs and funding authorities, the
mathematical symbols used, and the acronyms frequently used as 
shorthand for some of the above,.  

In the case of conventional (magnetic confinement, inertial confinement,
thermonuclear, muon-catalyzed, etc - but not Cold) fusion, this
terminology has grown to the point where newcomers may be intimidated
 by the apparent obscurity of the discussions.  This file is our attempt
to provide a comprehensive and detailed listing and explanation of terms
frequently used, so that those new to the group/field will be able to
understand what is being said, and to contribute with a minimum of
confusion and frustration.  

The following is a rough draft of a guide to terminology used in
conventional (not Cold) fusion research.  This is the third draft of 
the terminology guide, and while considerable progress has been made, 
many relevant terms are still unlisted, undefined, or poorly defined. 
(Hint:  If you don't like something, submit a revision/correction, 
and I'll put it in if it looks good.)


* What's in the FUT:  

We started with an initial list supplied by Jim Day 
(Jim.Day@support.com).  To this were added some comments from various
responses I received to the first draft.  I then incorporated much of
the terms in the glossary of Robin Herman's _Fusion: The Search for
Endless Energy_ (without permission, but with attribution where they
occur).  Then acronyms, machine names, and names of important scientists
were added as they came. This completed the second draft.  

For the third draft, I have incorporated comments and new definitions
received in response to the second draft, and added some new terms from 
the "Princeton Plasma Physics Laboaratory Glossary of Fusion Terms",
which I obtained at PPPL.  I added categories for research and 
funding/political agencies, tried to broaden the base of basic
science terms, and wrote up a few more preliminary definitions based
upon explanations that have appeared in the newsgroup and in my studies.
Many of the terms listed still do not have explanations given.  


* What's Needed to Improve the FUT:

I am looking for additional contributions (and improvements) to 
the list.  It would be nice if people posting to the group could
occasionally take a few moments to include definitions of a few 
terms used (as I have tried to do lately) when you use them; in 
browsing through the group I can then snip out the terms and 
definitions and simply paste them into the evolving FUT file.
It also would be nice if references to the FAQ/FQA and the 
Reading List / Bibliography could be given to supplement 
the FUT descriptions, at least for some of the more
complicated terms.


* Comment on Sources:

The terms and definitions occurring here represent a collection
of contributions from numerous sources.  Rather than include
acknowledgements for each individual definition, I have made
blanket acknowledgements at the end.  I have tried to include 
citations in most cases where only a single source was used.


* This file may be freely distributed; I recommend you retain the
revision date, and in any case I'd like to be cited as the editor. *

****************
Robert F. Heeter
rfheeter@lyman.pppl.gov
Graduate Student, Princeton Plasma Physics Lab
(Usual disclaimers apply.)

************ Cut Here for FUT Proper *****************************


==================================================================

FREQUENTLY USED TERMS IN CONVENTIONAL FUSION RESEARCH 
AND PLASMA PHYSICS

Edited by Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@lyman.pppl.gov

3rd Draft, Last Revised Sunday, Feb. 20, 1994.


Guide to Categories:
 
* = vocabulary 
> = device type or machine name
# = name of a constant or variable
! = scientists 
@ = acronym
% = labs & political organizations

Citations and Acknowledgements appear at the end.

==================================================================


AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

@ AEC - (US) Atomic Energy Commission; see entry

@ ASDEX - Axially Symmetric Divertor EXperiment; see entry

* Activation: Activation occurs when a particle interacts
with an atomic nucleus, shifting the nucleus into an
unstable state, and causing it to become radioactive.
In fusion research, where deuterium-tritium is a common
fuel mixture, the neutron released when (D + T) combine
to form (4He + n) can activate the reactor structure. 

* Activation Product: The unstable nucleus formed when
activation occurs.  (See activation above.)

* Adiabatic:  Not involving an exchange of heat between the
system said to be adiabatic and the rest of the universe.

* Adiabatic Invariant:

* Afterglow:  Recombination radiation emitted from a cooling
plasma when the source of ionization (heating, etc) is removed.

* Advanced Fuels:  There are several elements/isotopes which
could be fused together, besides the DT fuel mixture.  Many such
fuel combinations would have various advantages over DT, but
it is generally more difficult to achieve fusion with these
advanced fuels than with the DT mix.  See fuels section of FAQ
for discussion. 

> Alcator: (from Herman) A family of tokamaks developed and
built at MIT and characterized by relatively small diameters
and high magnetic fields.  Plasmas in these devices have
relatively high current and particle densities.  Current incarnation
is Alcator C-mod.  Alcator C was donated to LLNL for use as the 
Microwave Tokamak eXperiment (MTX), now shut down.

* Alfven waves: Transverse electromagnetic waves that are 
propagated along lines of magnetic force in a plasma.  The waves
have frequency less than the ion cyclotron frequency, and are
characterized by the fact that the field lines oscillate (wiggle)
with the plasma.  The propagation velocity depends on the particle
density and the strength of the magnetic field.  "[Relatively] 
Low frequency ion oscillation in the presence of an equilibrium 
magnetic field.  Also called the hydromagnetic wave along Bo.  
The torsional Alfven wave in cylindrical geometry was first measured 
in liquid mercury by B. Lehnert.  Alfven waves were first generated 
and detected in plasma by Allen, Baker, Pyle, and Wilcox in Berkeley 
and by Jephcott in England in 1959."  (quoting from Chen's book; 
see bibliography) - Albert Chou

! Alfven, Hannes Olof:  Nobel Prize-Winning Plasma Physicist
and Astronomer who first suggested the possibility of MHD waves
in 1924.

* Alpha particle:  The nucleus of a Helium-4 atom; is a
typical product of fusion reactions; also released
in various nuclear decay processes.

* Ampere, kiloampere, megampere:  (from Herman) The standard
unit for measuring the strength of an electric current
representing a flow of one coulomb of electricity per second.
1 kiloampere = 1000 amperes; 1 megampere = 1,000,000 amperes.
Common abbreviations:  amps, kiloamps, megamps, kA, MA

! Ampere, Andre Marie:  19th century (?) French physicist
responsible for much of what we know about electromagnetism.

* Ampere's Law:  General equation in electromagnetism relating
the magnetic field and the currents generating it.

* Aneutronic Fuels:  Advanced fusion fuels which would not
produce fusion neutrons.  See fuels section of FAQ for discussion.

* Aspect Ratio:  In toroidal geometry, the ratio of
the major diameter (total width of the torus) to the 
minor diameter (width of a slice taken through one side
of the ring).  (This would be much better with a picture!)

* Atom:  (from Herman)  The smallest unit of an element that
retains the characteristics of that element.  At the center
of the atom is the nucleus, made up of neutrons and protons,
around which the electrons orbit.  Atoms of ordinary hydrogen,
the lightest element, consists of a nucleus of one proton
orbited by one electron.  (Note:  distinct from a molecule,
which is the smallest unit of a substance which retains the
characteristics of that substance.  It takes far less 
energy to break apart a stable molecule into its constituent 
atoms than to divide a stable atom into two smaller atoms.)

* Atomic Bomb, A-Bomb:  (from Herman) A weapon with a large
explosive power due to the sudden release of energy when the
nuclei of heavy atoms such as plutonium-239 or uranium-235
are split.  This fission is brought about by the bombardment
of the fuel with neutrons, setting off a chain reaction.
The bomb releases shock, blast, heat, light, and lethal
radiation.  The world's first atomic bomb was successfully
tested by the United States on July 16, 1945.

% Atomic Energy Commission: United States governmental 
authority for atomic energy; split into ERDA and NRC in 1975.
(may not be 100% correct)

* Atomic Number (Z):  The number of protons in a nucleus; same
as the number of electrons in a neutral atom; determines the 
position of an element in the periodic table.

* Atomic Temperature:  The temperature corresponding to the mean
kinetic energy of the neutral atoms in a plasma.  (If there were
no ions or electrons, the atomic temperature would be what we
normally think of as the temperature of a gas, such as the air.)

* Avogadro's number: N = 6.02497 x 10^23.  Number of particles 
in a mole of a substance.  Coefficient relating Boltzmann's 
constant to the ideal gas constant. This is the number of 
atoms per gram-atom.  See also: mole

> Axially Symmetric Divertor EXperiment (from Herman)
(ASDEX, Asdex: Garching, Germany)  A large tokamak designed 
for the study of impurities and their control by a magnetic
divertor.  The H mode or high mode of operation with neutral 
beam injection was first observed on ASDEX.

* Azimuthal: Generally an angle, measured "around" an object.
In spherical geometries, the angle which is *not* the "polar angle".  
On the earth, one incarnation of the azimuthal angle is the longitude 
of a location relative to the prime meridian through Greenwich, 
England.  In toroidal geometries, the longitude idea still applies, 
but the other angle is the "poloidal" angle, not the "polar" angle.  
The azimuthal direction is the "long way" around a torus.  
See also: poloidal.


BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB

# B - variable used for Magnetic Field

@ B - chemical symbol for the element boron.

@ Be - chemical symbol for the element beryllium.

@ BPX - Burning Plasma eXperiment; see entry

* Banana Orbit:

* Baseball Coils:  Used in magnetic-mirror geometries to
produce a minimum-B configuration; so-called because of their
resemblance to the characteristic shape of lacing on a baseball.

* Beryllium: (Be)  Element with atomic number 4 (four protons).
May be useful in multiplying fusion neutrons to enhance tritium
production in a lithium blanket; rather hazardous to handle.
(See relevant terms mentioned.)

* Beta, or beta-value:  Ratio between plasma kinetic pressure and 
magnetic-field pressure; same as the ratio between plasma kinetic
energy density and magnetic field energy density; characterizes the
efficiency with which the magnetic field confines the plasma.  
See also: pressure, kinetic pressure, magnetic pressure, 
second stability.

* Binary Collisions:  Collisions involving only two particles; 
multiparticle collisions (eg, three-body collisions) are usually
neglected/approximated...

* Biot-Savart Law:  General formula for determining the magnetic field
due to a steady line (not space) current.  Related to Ampere's Law.

* Blanket: (from Herman) a region surrounding a fusion reactor 
core within which the fusion neutrons are slowed down, heat 
is transferred to a primary coolant, and tritium is bred 
from lithium.  In hybrid applications, fertile materials 
(U-238 or Th-232) are located in the blanket for conversion 
into fissile fuels.

* Bohm diffusion:  (from Herman) A rapid loss of plasma
across magnetic field lines caused by microinstabilities.
Theory formulated by the physicist David Bohm.
  From Chen's book (see bibliography): Semiempirical formula for 
the diffusion coefficient given by Bohm in 1946 (noted by Bohm, 
Burhop, and Massey, who were developing a magnetic arc for use in 
uranium isotope separation).  See also: diffusion, 
microinstabilities, field lines...

* Boltzmann constant: k = 1.38 x 10^-16 erg/degree. This 
is the ratio of the universal gas constant to Avogadro's number.
It is also used to relate temperatures (Kelvin) to energies (ergs
or Joules) via E = (constant of order unity) * kT.

* Boltzmann Distribution:  See Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution

* Bootstrap Current:

* Boron: (B)  Fifth element (Z=5) in the periodic table; has
5 protons; potential use as an aneutronic fuel.  (See FAQ section
on reactions.)

* Breakeven:  there are several types:
	Commercial:  When fusion power can be converted into enough 
		electric power to power the reactor and generate enough
 		electricity to cover the costs of the plant at economically
 		competitive rates. (?)
	Engineering:  When enough energy can be generated from the
		fusion power output to supply power for the reactor and
		generate a surplus; sort of commercial breakeven without
		the economic considerations. (?)
	Scientific:  When fusion power = input power; Q=1.
		(See also Lawson Criterion)
		Extrapolated - projected for actual reactor fuel using 
			an alternative fuel.
		Actual - determined using the actual fusion fuel to be
			used in the reactor (typically DT).

* Breeder Reactor:  (from Herman) A kind of nuclear reactor that
produces more fissionable material than it consumes to
generate energy.  The liquid-metal "fast breeder," a promising
type of breeder, splits plutonium-239, producing an intense
flow of neutrons and a self-sustaining chain reaction. 

* Bremsstrahlung:  (German for "Braking Radiation")  Electromagnetic
radiation from a charged particle as it slows down (decelerates).  
Similar to synchrotron radiation (see also).

> Burning Plasma eXperiment (BPX):  Proposed U.S. successor to TFTR;
never funded.  See also: CIT, TPX.

> Bumpy Torus:  I believe this concept tries to combine mirror 
concepts with toroidal ones.  My understanding is that it is 
essentially a series of mirrors stuck end to end and bent into 
a ring.  - Albert Chou (corrections / enhancements welcome!)


CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC

# c - Speed of light; 3.0x10E+8 meters/second or 3.0x10E+10 cm/sec

@ CGS - Centimeters, Grams, Seconds; see CGS Units

@ CGS Units - see CGS; see entry

@ CIT - Compact Ignition Tokamak; see entry

* Carbon: (C)

* Capacitor:  device used to store electrical energy by accumulating
charges on nearby conductors.  Energy may be stored and withdrawn
at varying rates.  Used in short-pulse plasma devices where only
a moderate amount of energy is needed.

* Celsius: Temperature scale where zero degrees corresponds to the
freezing point of water (32 Fahrenheit) and 100 degrees corresponds to
the boiling point (212 Fahrenheit).  Zero celsius = 273.16 Kelvin. 

* Centigrade: see Celsius

* CGS Units:  System of measurement where the fundamental units
are centimeters, grams, and seconds.

* Chain Reaction: (from Herman) A self-sustaining series of
chemical or nuclear reactions in which the products of the
reaction contribute directly to the propagation of the process.

* Charge, Electrical:  

* Charge Exchange:  Phenomenon in which a positive ion colliding with
a molecule (or an atom) neutralizes itself by capturing an electron
from the molecule/atom, and transforming the molecule/atom into a
positive radical/ion.

* Charge Transfer:  see charge exchange

* Classical Diffusion:

* Coherent Radiation:

* Cold Plasma Model:  Model of a plasma in which the temperature is
neglected with respect to the effects of interest.

* Collision Cross-Section:  Effective surface area of a particle
when it collides with another; describes probability of collisions
between the two particles.
 
* Collisionless Plasma Model:  Model of a plasma in which the density
is so low that close binary collisions have practically no significance
because the time scales of interest are smaller than the collision time.

* Collision Time:

> Compact Ignition Tokamak (CIT): Proposed U.S. successor to TFTR;
never funded.  See also, BPX, TPX.

> Compact Torus:  Any of a series of axially symmetric fusion 
configurations having closed flux surfaces (like a tokamak, not 
like a mirror machine), but having no material objects piercing 
the core (as do the toroidal field coils of a tokamak).  These 
devices have an inherently low aspect ratio.  The most successful
variants are the spheromak and the Field Reversed Configuration.
See also: low aspect ratio, spheromak, field-reversed configuration.
(Arthur Carlson, awc@ipp-garching.mpg.de)

* Compression Waves:

* Conductivity:  Degree to which a substance transmits (conducts)
a given physical property. (is this vague or what?) See electrical
conductivity, thermal conductivity.

* Confinement Time:  Several types:  (adapted from Herman)  
The amount of time the plasma is contained by magnetic fields before
its [energy, particles] leak / dissipate away.  The different types
are, in general, not equal.

* Controlled Thermonuclear Fusion:  (from Herman) The process
in which light nuclei, heated to a high temperature in a 
confined region, undergo fusion reactions under controlled
conditions.

* Cooperative Phenomena:

* Corona: The outermost (?) part of a star's atmosphere; characterized
by high temperatures and low densities; home to many plasma phenomena.

* Coulomb: standard unit of electric charge.  A single electron or
proton has a charge of 1.6022E-19 coulombs.  Hence there are 6.2414E+18
electrons in a coulomb of electrons.

* Coulomb Collision:  An interparticle collision where Coulomb's Law
is the governing force.

* Coulomb's Law:  Force law governing the electrical interaction
between charged particles.  Force is proportional to (charge of
first particle) * (charge of second particle) / (square of separation
between particles).  Constant of proportionality depends on system
of units used.

* Curie:  amount of radioactivity in a gram of radium; named
after Marie Curie (see below).

! Curie:  Marie and Pierre; husband-wife pair of French scientists.
Marie Curie won the Nobel prize in the early 1900s.  Pierre's name
is attached to the "Curie point" in magnetism, which is not 
discussed here.  Marie Curie is also known as Madame Curie.

* Current Density:  Amount of current flowing through a substance,
per unit area perpendicular to the direction of current flow.

* Current Drive:  Any of a variety of techniques used to cause
current flow in a plasma.  See inductive current drive, RF current
drive, non-inductive current drive.  Usually applied to schemes
used to generate current in tokamaks and other toroidal devices
which require internal plasma currents.  See also: bootstrap current.  

* Cusp Geometry:

* Cyclotron:

* Cyclotron Frequency:  Number of times per second that a particle
orbits in a magnetic field.

* Cyclotron Radius:  Radius of orbit of charged particle about
a magnetic field line.  Also called gyroradius, Larmor radius.

* Cyclotron Radiation:  See synchrotron radiation

* Cyclotron Resonance Heating:  see Electron Cyclotron Resonance
Heating, Ion Cyclotron Resonance Heating.


DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD

@ D - nuclear/chemical symbol for deuterium/deuteron

@ DT - Deuterium-Tritium; see entry labeled DT Fuel

@ DIII-D - Doublet III-D; see entry

@ DOE - Department of Energy (United States)

* D-shaped plasma:  A plasma whose cross section is a D (instead
of a circle).

* Debye Length: The characteristic distance over which charges are
shielded in a plasma.  See also: Debye shielding.
lambda_D = ( epsilon_0 k_B T_e / (n_e e^2) )^(1/2) 
lambda_D[m] = (7.434*10^3)*(_e[eV])^(1/2)*n[m^(-3)]^(-1/2)
(Arthur Carlson, awc@ipp-garching.mpg.de)

! Debye, Peter Joseph:  Physical chemist, studied behavior of 
conductive solutions (plasmas have some similar behaviors).

* Debye Radius:  See Debye Length.

* Debye Sheath:  The region of net positive charge in front of a
material surface in contact with a plasma.  Its characteristic
thickness is the Debye length, and it is caused by Debye shielding
of the negative surface charge resulting from electrons flowing to 
the surface much faster (initially) than the ions.
See also: Debye Length, Debye Shielding.
(Arthur Carlson, awc@ipp-garching.mpg.de)

* Debye Shielding:  If a positive (or negative) charge is inserted 
into a plasma, it will change the local charge distribution by 
attracting (repelling) electrons.  The net result is an additional
negative (positive) charge density which cancels the effect of the
initial charge at distances large compared to the Debye length.
(There is a corresponding effect of shielding by the ions, which, 
for various and subtle reasons, usually is less important.)
See also: Debye Length.
(Arthur Carlson, awc@ipp-garching.mpg.de)

* Debye Sphere:  Sphere around a charged test particle whose
radius is equal to the Debye length.

* Decay Modes:  Different pathways for decay of radioactive nuclei.
	(need a list!)

* Density:  amount per unit of volume (sometimes surface area).  
Several types:
	Energy density   - amount of energy per unit volume.
	Flux density     - flux per unit of transverse surface area.
	Mass density     - mass per unit volume.
	Number density   - number of particles per unit volume.
	Particle density - same as number density.
	Current density  - current flow per unit transverse surface area.

% Department of Energy:  (adapted from Herman) U.S. cabinet-level
department that has overseen atomic energy research since 1977.
Created by merging of ERDA and (?).  Also supervises other 
energy research, and some defense work.

* Deuterium: A heavy isotope of hydrogen whose nucleus
contains both a neutron and a proton.

* Deuteron: A deuterium ion; nucleus consisting of a proton
and a neutron.

* Diagnostics:  (from Herman) Procedures for determining
(diagnosing) the state of a plasma during an experiment;
also refers to the instruments used for diagnosing.

* Diamagnetic Effects:  Application of a magnetic field to a plasma
will tend to create circulating current within the plasma that will
reduce the strength of the magnetic field.

* Diffusion:  The interpenetration of one substance into another
as a result of thermal / random motion of the individual particles.
(e.g., the diffusion of a plasma across a magnetic field as a 
result of collisions which cause particles to move along new
field lines.)

* Direct Conversion:  The generation of electricity by direct
recovery of the kinetic energy of the charged fusion reaction
products.

* Disruption:  (from Herman)  Plasma instabilities sometimes grow
and cause disruptions of the carefully-engineered plasma conditions
in the reactor.  Major disruptions can cause an abrupt temperature 
drop and the termination of the plasma.  

* Distribution Function:

* Divertor: (from Herman) Component of a toroidal fusion 
device that diverts charged particles on the outer edge 
of the plasma where they become neutralized.  In a reactor, the
divertor would incorporate a system for pumping out the neutralized
particles as exhaust from the machine.  A divertor, like a limiter, 
prevents the particles from striking and degrading the chamber 
walls, and dislodging secondary particles that would cool and 
contaminate the plasma.  Whereas a limiter is a material object 
used to limit the shape of the plasma, a divertor is a 
magnetic-field construction.  
See also: limiter.

> Doublet III-D:  (from Herman) Latest in a series of
tokamaks designed by GA Technologies (formerly General Atomic)
in San Diego making plasmas with noncircular cross sections,
including kidney shapes and D-shapes.  Though the current 
configuration does not (so far as the editor knows) involve 
doublet plasmas, this is still the official name for the device.

* Drift Motion:  (several types) (need more here) 
For a good introduction at the undergraduate level, see Chen.

* Drift Velocity:

* DT Fuel:  Easiest fuel mixture to use in achieving fusion;
unless otherwise specified, probably refers to a 50-50 (by numbers 
or by moles) mix of deuterium and tritium.


EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

# E - Variable typically used for Energy or Electric Field
(usually in vector notation in the latter case; which is meant
is usually clear from context; when both are used in the same place
the energy is usually represented as U instead of E.)

@ eV - Electron-volt; see entry

@ EBT - Elmo Bumpy Torus; see entry

@ EC - European Community; see entry

@ ECH - Electron Cyclotron Heating; see entry

@ ECRH - Electron Cyclotron Radiofrequency Heating - same as ECH.

@ EM - Electromagnetic

@ EM Wave - Electromagnetic Wave; see entry

@ ERDA (?) - Energy Research and Development Agency (?); see entry

* Effective Collision Cross-section: (See collision cross section)

* Effective Collision Radius:

* Elastic:  Term used to describe a process in which kinetic energy
is conserved; usually refers to (elastic) collisions or (elastic)
scattering.

* Electric Charge:  See charge, electrical.

* Electric Field:

* Electrical Conductivity:  Degree to which a substance conducts
electric current.  Can be defined by: 
	(current density) = (conductivity) * (applied electric field)

* Electromagnetic Coupling:  A means of extracting energy from a
magnetically confined plasma, where the plasma expands and pushes
on the confining magnetic field, causing electrical energy to
be generated in the external field-generating circuits.

* Electromagnetic Wave:

* Electron: (from Herman) Elementary particle with a negative
electric charge.  Electrons orbit around the positively 
charged nucleus in an atom.

* Electron Cyclotron Heating (ECRH):  Radiofrequency (RF) heating 
scheme that works by injecting electromagnetic wave energy at the
electron cyclotron gyration frequency.  The electric field of the 
EM wave at this frequency looks to a gyrating electron like a 
static electric field, and it causes acceleration of the electron.  
The accelerated electron gains energy, which is then shared with 
other particles through collisions, resulting in heating.

* Electron Temperature:  The temperature corresponding to
the mean kinetic energy of the free electrons in a
plasma.

* Electron-volt: 1 eV = 1.6 x 10^-12 erg. This is a unit of 
kinetic energy equal to that of an electron having a velocity of 
5 x 10^7 cm/sec.  This is the energy an electron (or other particle 
of charge=1 such as a proton), gains as it's accelerated through 
a potential difference of 1 volt.  In plasma physics the eV 
is used as a unit of temperature; when the mean particle energy
 is 1eV, the temperature of the plasma is 11,600 Kelvin.

> Electrostatic Confinement:

* Electrostatic Waves:  Longitudinal oscillations appearing in a
plasma due to a perturbation of electric neutrality.  For a cold
unmagnetized plasma, or at large wavelengths, the frequency of
these waves is by definition the plasma frequency.

* Element: (need short discussion, with list and perhaps periodic
table in appendix?  isotope table with half-lives and decay modes
might also be useful.)

* Elementary Particles worth knowing about:  
	(at the nuclear-energy level)
 	electron & positron - seem to be stable
 	proton - thought to be stable, life > 10^30 sec
 	neutron - decays in ?10 min unless it's in a nucleus, which often
  		extends its life.
	other particles important for nuclear energy: 
		muon, neutrino (m,e,tau),
	photon
	muonic atoms
	pi-meson

		this part is new - maybe separate entries with listing
		here??

> Elmo Bumpy Torus:  Bumpy Torus at ORNL; no longer operating (?)
See Bumpy Torus, ORNL.

* Energy:

* Energy Balance:  Comparison of energy put into a plasma with the
energy dissipated by the system; related to energy confinement.

* Energy Loss Time:

% Energy Research and Development Agency (ERDA):  US Agency created 
by splitting of the AEC into ERDA and NRC in about 1975, charged
with managing US energy R&D (???).  Merged with ??? to become the
Department of Energy in about 1977. (???? correct? help??)

* Ergodic: (Tore Supra has "ergodic magnetic limiters" ??)

% European Community: see European Union
 
% European Union: (from Herman) Organization of European
countries (formerly European Community, EC, formerly European
Economic Community, EEC) established in 1967 to coordinate policies 
on the economy, energy, agriculture, and other matters.  The original
member countries were France, Belgium, West Germany, Italy, Luxembourg,
and the Netherlands.  Joining later were Denmark, Ireland, the United
Kingdom, Greece, Spain, and Portugal.

% Euratom:  (from Herman) European Atomic Energy Community.
International organization established in 1958 by members
of the European Economic Community to form a common market
for the development of peaceful uses of nuclear power.

cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.20 / mitchell swartz /  Reply to Steve 1: Sampling theory
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Reply to Steve 1: Sampling theory
Subject: Reply to Mitch 1: P&F 5-min. sampling
Date: Sun, 20 Feb 1994 05:54:35 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

    In Message-ID: <1994Feb18.134106.1391@physc1.byu.edu>
Subject: Reply to Mitch 1: P&F 5-min. sampling
Steven Jones [jonesse@physc1.byu.edu] writes:

=sj  "Now my first question (marked number [1]) for Mitch:
=sj  [1] Then do you agree that P&F's sampling rate for the data published
=sj  in Phys. Lett. A 176 (1993) is inadequate?"

   Steve, it will take a considerable amount of time to answer
your questions (and you rarely answered mine)
but I suggest we continue on the condition that the
responses are serious and meaningful with direction
to science only.   And also upon the
condition that you answer my questions (to the degree that
you can), so here are my answers to yours.

   (reply to [1])  Therefore, to begin:
   As was said,  "The criterion requires a sampling at twice (2x)
the highest frequency contained in the waveform."   

  {Questions for Steve Jones:}
    {Q4J1}  Steve, do you agree or not with the above?
    {Q4J2}  Do you have any evidence either that F&P did not use
parallel systems as is typical in the field 
(e.g. high impedance voltmeter in parallel with 
a digital data acquisition system) and that they failed at
twice the highest frequency contained in the waveforms?

   This data is simply not clear from your post, 
and given the pattern of "brick-toss" tactics, there is
substantial doubt that you really have 
the information to backup your claim.


=sj  "[2] Or do you justify their use of sampling once every 300 s as
=sj was done for the published paper?"
   Please see above.
  I look forward to see your answer(s) re: the data, and
if you have any agreement, finally, on any of the sampling
criteria.  


=sj    " ... I may change some of my views, too -- as I have with regard
=sj      to large "cold fusion" neutron bursts, for example. "

   The question actually was: 
   {Q4J3}   Which neutron experiments do you stand behind
and which have you withdrawn?
  You have simply not answered,  thereby perhaps 
leaving all your experimental work in question 
to the readers, like myself, who closely follow your
writings.

  Best wishes.                         Mitchell Swartz
                                                    [mica@world.std.com]

cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.20 / mitchell swartz /  Reply to Steve 2: Miles &c expts., glass, ash
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Reply to Steve 2: Miles &c expts., glass, ash
Subject: Reply to Mitch 2: Miles &c expts.,glass
Date: Sun, 20 Feb 1994 05:57:21 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <1994Feb18.134259.1392@physc1.byu.edu>
Subject: Reply to Mitch 2: Miles &c expts.,glass
Steven Jones [jonesse@physc1.byu.edu] writes:

==sj [4] Are you really claiming there "was no glass" in these experiments
==sj   to which I was referring?
 
   As answered previously (why do you do you keep asking this?  but
per the agreement to continue the science)
the 90-92 expts used Pyrex glass flasks.    The 93 expts used 
metal flasks and full consideration of atmospheric contamination.
All backgrounds were subtracted to derive the incremental helium-4 
production rate normalized to power, and the helium
in the metal flask set was reportedly examined by two 
additional labs (Rockwell and Bureau of Mines).
   The increases in helium-4 are linked and are about 12 sigma 
above background.
   
{Questions to Steve Jones
    {Q4J4}  Comments on that, Steve?  And what might be some implications?


=sj  "While it is true that Miles et al. more recently have used metal
=sj  containers, those data have not yet been published as far as I know
=sj  (correct me if they have by now -- I anticipate this in the ICCF-4
=sj  proceedings.)"

  {Q4J5}  Are you stating that you were not sent a copy
          of Miles' paper?
  Remember your post is dated 2/18.      Really?       ;-)
  Also the data was presented at ICCF-4. 
  How can you account for the failure to hear Mel Miles,
 or the failure to see the abstract which you might have 
received when registering at ICCF-4?


=sj    As apparently Mitch has a pre-print of a recent Miles et
=sj  al. paper (I do not), let me ask him [questions #5-7]: 
=sj   [5] Has the 4He
=sj  has increased or decreased from the experiments where glass flasks were
=sj  used, and
=sj   [6] are the amounts now greater than ambient in the lab (which
=sj  was higher than atmospheric norms by several fold), and
=sj   [7] do they give
=sj  better than order-of magnitude estimates of the amount of 4He present
=sj  [which is all they did in the past] ?

  I presented the data previously  in my post
and look forward to your comments upon it. 

=sj  "Also:  do they report x-ray spectra or gammas or *anything showing
=sj  nuclear effects* along with the 4He gas, which could support the notion
=sj  that the 4He is nuclear in origin rather than contamination? [8]"

  Why, Steve, yes they did.
  Their well-controlled autoradiography work stands to documents
the ionizing radiation, albeit not the spectrum beyond suggestive
evidence that it probably includes photons in the photoelectric range
over some areas of the active electrode.

  In fact Steve, to prove that there is an element of an attempt
to waste my time (or genuine amnesia    ;-)   
Please stop repeating yourself.   You said:

= "Here I answer... the issues raised in the latest letter from Mel Miles 
=sj  of China Lake, posted by M. Swartz.  The interested reader will recall
=sj  that Miles et al. claim production of excess heat and helium using open
=sj calorimetric systems,and glass flasks to hold gasses tested for
=sj  helium, while
=sj  the helium found is *less* than ambient concentrations. 
=sj  For nuclear-product detectors, they employ dental x-ray film,
=sj  neutron survey
=sj  meters and Geiger counters.I have argued that for compelling results, much
=sj  better techniques are available and needed.  [See my postings here dated
=sj  7-7-93.]
=sj         [Message-ID: <1993Jul8.165156.756@physc1.byu.edu>
=sj           Subject: Point-by-point response to Dr. Miles]

   So you see, you really knew.    Furthermore, Steve,  this is not 
the first attempt to denigrate the work of Dr. Miles.
Previously you claimed that he only had one (1) control in his 
x-ray film studies.   However, as he then replied

=miles  "3. In several places, Professor Jones states that there was only one
=m control for the dental film studies.   This is false.   As stated on page
=m  108 of Reference 1, dental film studies were also conducted in H2O+LiOH
=m  control experiments and no exposure of the films occurred.  Furthermore,
=m  it is stated on page 109 of Reference 1 that following experiments in
=m  D2O+LiOD failed to produce any excess enthalpy or dental film exposure.
=m   There were a total of more than 20 studies involving dental films where
=m   no exposure could be detected. I doubt that any journal would permit me to
=m   fill their pages with photographs of unexposed films. There are, however,
=m   twenty of these control films taped into my laboratory notebook. They all
=m   look very similar to the controls shown in Figure 7 of Reference 1."

 {Q4J6}       So, as the record demonstrates,
despite your later claims that only one control was *published*
[which was also incorrect and which led to the posting of the GIF
image -- (don't worry, not to be reposted due to bandwidth)],
there were several.   Why is there an obsession/
compulsion to put down everything done by that laboratory?
You have savaged their controls, autoradiography, construction
of equipment (e.g. glass), helium assessments, etc.
  For what purpose?


 {Q4J7}      With a Qt  of circa 23 MeV (generated per reaction of H4)
this data would put the 
ash measured within a factor of 3 of what is expected.
    Because there may not be only one pathway;
and because the material(s) absorbs 4He, this level is worth
considering.   If you do not agree, why not?

    Best wishes, 
            Mitchell Swartz  [mica@world.std]


cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.20 / mitchell swartz /  Reply to Steve 3: Steve's Pt and Pd data (was Oriani's expts)
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Reply to Steve 3: Steve's Pt and Pd data (was Oriani's expts)
Subject: Re: Oriani's experiments
Date: Sun, 20 Feb 1994 05:58:35 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <1994Feb17.104447.1385@physc1.byu.edu>
Subject: Re: Oriani's experiments
Steven Jones [jonesse@physc1.byu.edu] writes to Jed Rothwell (jr):

   =jr "... I think maybe Taubes was right, and maybe you did steal your
   =jr ideas from P&F. I would not put it past you." 
=sj "Just what ideas do you or Taubes allege I stole from P&F?
=sj   Our work on possible fusion in metals and in the earth
=sj  goes back to early 1986, as recorded in log books in some detail.  
=sj Frank Close and Gary Taubes both relate the
=sj early work we did, some 2 1/2 years before we even heard 
=sj of P&F, although I think Close provides more information.
=sj   Taubes records: ....  He cites my April 7, 1986 notes as follows:
  =taubes "What is indisputable is that he scribbled a list of elements:
  =taubes   "Al, Cu, Ni, Pt, Pd,  Li ..."  And next to Pd, palladium, 
  =taubes      and Pt, platinum, were the
  =taubes   portentous words "dissolves much hydrogen."  And Jones did, 
  =taubes at Rafelski's
  =taubes   suggestion, take the lab book to the BYU patent attorney, 
  =taubes   Lee Phillips, and ask that the page be notarized."(P. 27)
=sj "So just what ideas did I allegedly steal, Jed?"  


Questions for Steve Jones:
  [Q4J8}      Steve.  When did you notarize the lab book?  
Was the dissolution of "much hydrogen" into both Pd and Pt your
discovery?

  Best wishes.                 Mitchell Swartz
                              [mica@world.std.com]
           
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.20 / mitchell swartz /  Reply to Steve 4: McKubre expts., He sensitivity & discrimination
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Reply to Steve 4: McKubre expts., He sensitivity & discrimination
Subject: Reply to Mitch 3: McKubre expts., helium
Date: Sun, 20 Feb 1994 06:00:15 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

      In Message-ID: <1994Feb18.134443.1393@physc1.byu.edu>
Subject: Reply to Mitch 3: McKubre expts., helium
Steven Jones [jonesse@physc1.byu.edu] writes:

==sj  "Let's read what McKubre actually published:  quoting from the McKubre
==sj  et al. paper in the proceedings of the "First Annual conference on Cold
==sj  Fusion," published by NCFI (now defunct):
 =mm "Mass spectrometry was used to analyze the residual D2 gas in the
 =mm pressure vessel for 3H, 3He and 4He.  At a detection level of 1 ppm,
 =mm none of these isotopes were found."  
 =mm "Approximately 10% of the total mass of the electrode, comprising one
 =mm sample from the surface and one from the bulk, were analyzed by Rockwell
 =mm International for 3he and 4He by mass spectrometry of a molten sample. 
 =mm This technique is capable of detecting 10^11 atoms; no He was observed
 =mm at that detection level."
==sj  "Question #9 for Mitch:  [9] Do you agree that if approx. 10^17 atoms of
==sj  helium were produced, that they should have seen something?"

  Yes, if sufficient resolving power, and calibrated sensitivity were
present, and if the generation rate exceeds the combined absorption
and other loss rate constants.   [For example, 1 atom a second
(obviously a very long experiment) might be undetectable.]

  Now to address the issue here:
  the quoting of this " ancient" article  [which some readers 
may remember was clarified by the author and others
last year.] previously occurred after Steve Jones claimed 
that Dr. McKubre "found nothing " (15 Sept. 93)"
[Steven Jones Message-ID: <1993Sep17.192320.940@physc1.byu.edu>]

   However, as Jed Rothwell stated:
    =jr "Let me repeat, one last
    =jr time, that both McKubre and Passel have emphatically
    =jr  denied that they have
    =jr looked for products and not found them.
    =jr   As Steve disingenuously points out,
    =jr they have done some preliminary work in this area,
    =jr  but McKubre has said time
    =jr after time:"   <930916141732_72240.1256_EHK46-1] 

    =mm  "We haven't seen any products which could come from a nuclear reaction,
    =mm  but we wouldn't have expected to with the tools applied so far." 
          [Dr. McKubre as quoted in Sunday Times (U.K), June 27, 1993,
                "Nuclear confusion," by  Neville Hodgkinson]

    =jr "  ....  He has issued similar statement in other
    =jr major newspapers, on NPR, during lectures, and in comments made to me
    =jr and to many other people. Perhaps they have done additional 
    =jr work, but this is where things stood as of June, 1993."

   So there are elements of either nonsense or
obsession to continue this when your claim
is outdated   -> according to the author <--- Nota bene
because it was taken from an article from YEARS before.

   In addition, Dr. McKubre has clarified this to several people.
I posted that Dr. McKubre had stated that such equipment was 
simply unable to resolve D2 and He4. 
 This has been (over)discussed a lot here, 
and for some incomprehensible reason,
someone is compulsively promulgating information 
highly wanting in reliability.

{Questions to Steve Jones:
   [Q4J9]  Steve, it really ought to matter what the author really said and reported.
   It ought to.   Or do you disagree?


    >ms  F&P (not enough electrons in the universe to list the list here  
    >ms  ;-) 
=sj  "[10] What list?  There are over 10^70 electrons in the universe;"

 A few more electrons than that perhaps. 
 List of points of disagreement.    ;-)

=sj  " ...  can you
=sj  give me just 70 items, or even 10, where I have mistakenly critiqued
=sj  F&P's work?"

   Please share your own work and parallax view
on this matter, not just because I am busy
but wouldn't touch this with a 100 meter pole.

As to compare it to the number of e- in the universe,
I may have been off by a few orders of magnitude in 
my estimate of the list but not in the number of trees
prematurely felled to provide newspaper to
cover the Harding-Kerrigan-like battle(s) with F&P.

                            Mitchell Swartz
                               mica@world.std.com

cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.20 / mitchell swartz /  Reply to Steve 8: Recombination Data of Joneses
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Reply to Steve 8: Recombination Data of Joneses
Date: Sun, 20 Feb 1994 08:35:16 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

   This missive will end the reply to Steven Jones'
magnum opus of questions to me, and end the questions posted
back to him.   This, the last of the reply postings,
is hardly the least important. 

  In various messages, Steven (jonesse@physc1.byu.edu)
writes that his recombination studies on nickel (possibly 
involving additional gases) negate the from of Fleischmann,
Pons, Mills, Noninski, Miles, ... 

  Several issues for critical scientists, and
{Questions for Steven Jones}
 {Q4J18} 
 Since Steven Jones cites (in his posts and ICCF-4 paper posted
 a dozen times) his *****  own *****  "compelling experiment" 
to publicly  denigrate both protium-nickel & palladium-deuterium 
systems, it would seem reasonable to see the data, would it not?    
Given all the megabytes of your postings, and your continued
reliance upon it, how about it, Steve?

 {Q4J19} 
It would seem reasonable to compare equal power intensities, 
would it not? 

  Steve, therefore, is it not simply natural to ask the following questions?
 {Q4J20}  What is the maximum amount of excess heat you have generated in 
your cells by this method?

 {Q4J21} Did you do anything different? (like add an oxygen tank)
Your posting electronically all over the world, with several
possibly mutually exclusive values makes one wish that
you might indulge us and reveal the maximum
amount of heat you've seen this way (it is also ok to specify electrodes,
areas, current densities, total current, voltage, overvoltage, and
even the PO2 or oxygen content), and whether an oxygen tank was used?

  {Q4J22}   If yes, what was the max "excess heat" without it?

  {Q4J23} How can you prove that it COMPLETELY accounts for
calibrated excess heats in all cases, including those where 
recombination has already been considered?

  {Q4J24} Regarding the recombination, real and of putative substantial
effect:  Please also notice that it cannot account for
the storage of energy exceeding chemical explanations for the amount
of mass therein.  Can it?

  {Q4J25} Could you reconcile the following  postings, OK?
        or post the data?

  First, Steve, you claimed 120% increase:
      ============= excerpts from past posting claiming 120% ===============
====sj "... this student with Prof. Lee Hansen of BYU has bubbled oxygen
====sj past the nickel cathode -- and found an immediate burst of xs heat of
====sj about 120% (calculating xs heat using the "no recombination" assumption,
====sj of course).      Thus, we get
====sj xs heat in the Notoya-Noninski-Mills-Bush -Srinivasan (all claim xs heat
====sj in nickel-light water cells), but we found that recombination of H2+O2
====sj cannot be ignored!"
   [ID:<1993May7.173724.619@physc1.byu.edu>, Sub: Re: S.Jones' advice
   (Reply to Noninski); Steve Jones jonesse@physc1.byu.edu)]

  By August 10th, you were claiming 700% excess heat, 
      ============= excerpts from past posting claiming 700% =======
==sj "Remember we found over 700% excess heat in electrolytic cells, but only
==sj  when recombination was ignored."
  [ID: <1993Aug10.181606.836@physc1.byu.edu>;Sub: Response to Mitchell Swartz
            Steven Jones [jonesse@physc1.byu.edu]]

Meanwhile Johnathan said:
==== Excerpt from Jonathan Jones' 134% Excess Heat Posting =========
=jj "In the first set of experiments a 1 cm2 piece of sintered nickel was
=jj used as the hydrogen electrode and #22 platinum wire was used as
=jj the oxygen electrode.  While running with an input power of 320
=jj microwatts --qinp = 1mA(1.8V - 1.48)--the measured output was 750
=jj microwatts.  This gives 134% excess heat when calculated with the
=jj formulas given to us by Mr. Mallove."
=jj "When glass tubes where placed over the electrodes allowing a flow
=jj of ions but inhibiting the flow of evolved gas between electrodes
=jj the output measured corresponded to the input power(qinp), thus no
=jj excess heat was observed."
=jj "In the second set of experiments a frit was placed in the bottom of
=jj the cell through which nitrogen or oxygen was bubbled.  When
=jj nitrogen was used to purge the cell of the evolved gases no excess
=jj heat was observed.  When oxygen was used to purge the cell, the
=jj calorimetric output was 7 times the input power(q=1mA(1.6V-1.48))."
         [Sub: 700% Excess Heat at BYU ????;
         ID: <1993May26.163714.668@physc1.byu.edu>
         Jonathan E. Jones [jonesj@physc1.byu.edu];
           Date: 26 May 93 16:37:14 -0600]
   
So which story was it, Steve?   120%, 134%, 700%,  90000%  
   See why some data helps...                   ;)

  
  {Q4J26}   Please reconcile your recent wide-ranging 
claims against cold fusion with Jonathan Jones' statements.     

  First you claim your purported Ni recombination data
negates F&P and Miles etc.    but Jonathan said:

=jj "Mitch also included a nifty table comparing our results with F&P
=jj and Miles.  Our results are orders of magnitude smaller than either
=jj of the other results."  
=jj           [Message-ID: <1993Sep20.171857.947@physc1.byu.edu>
=jj              Subject: Recombination in light water cells
=jj              Jonathan Jones (jonesj@physc1.byu.edu)]

  {Q4J27}   Please reconcile your recent claims with Jonathan
Jones' statements.     
  First you claim your purported Ni recombination data
negates F&P and Miles etc.    but Jonathan said:

=jj " Note, we our not dealing with a F&P type
=jj cell. ... Comparing our light
=jj water work to heavy water work does no good."  
=jj           [Message-ID: <1993Sep20.171857.947@physc1.byu.edu>
=jj              Subject: Recombination in light water cells
=jj              Jonathan Jones (jonesj@physc1.byu.edu)]

   Best wishes to Jonathan.   Guess that's enough for
now, Steve.  We do await your reply sorting this out, given
the laborious effort put into answering your detailed
questions.                 Thanks in advance.

                Mitchell Swartz  (mica@world.std.com)
 
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.20 / mitchell swartz /  Correction to Thomas Kunich on Nyquist
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Correction to Thomas Kunich on Nyquist
Subject: Re: On Nyquist criterion (cont'd)
Date: Sun, 20 Feb 1994 08:46:57 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

   In Message-ID: <tomkCLII2u.7vL@netcom.com>
Subject: Re: On Nyquist criterion (cont'd)
Thomas H. Kunich  [tomk@netcom.com] speculates:

= Or to be more blunt, you accepted some off-the-cuff remark and
= have been spreading disinformation. I'm glad you made that clear
= (finally).
 
   Of course, that is neither what I said nor implied.    

                    Mitchell Swartz  (mica@world.std.com)
 ------------------------------------------------------------
    "The safest place for a "skeptic" at an archery competition is directly
 in front of the target.  No danger in a "skeptic" so placed being hit.
               All the points will naturally elude them"




 
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.20 / Chuck Sites /  Re: Still no fractofusion 
     
Originally-From: chuck@iglou.iglou.com (Chuck Sites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Still no fractofusion 
Date: Sun, 20 Feb 1994 15:36:35 GMT
Organization: The Internet Gateway of Louisville, KY

jonesse@physc1.byu.edu writes:

>Chuck Sites asked whether we deuterided the samples in our fracto-
>fusion expts, or if the fracturing was just done in D2 gas.  
>In all cases, the samples were deuterided.  In some cases, we also arranged
>to generate the fracturing in a D2 gas, following a suggestion of
>T. Shirakawa of Otsuma Women's University, Tokyo, et al.

>BTW, the data from that expt are certainly not compelling.  From the
>Maui meeting abstracts, we find for cracking lithium niobate in D2,
>H2  and background neutron counts/h:

>BG:  5.65 +- 0.08 /h
>H2:  5.7  +- 0.75 /h
>D2:  6.38 +- 0.51 /h

>The D2 data are not significantly above the background rates.

>We have continued expts this week, including cooling LiD, ND4DPO4 and another
>piezoelectric crystal whose formula I do not have at my fingertips,
>in liquid nitrogen then allowing to warm while inside our best neutron
>detector.  We have also fractured the materials mechanically, though not
>quite like Dick Blue's amusing expt.  

>No neutron signals above background.  Nada.

>Fractofusion, says the student working with me (Ben Horne),
>is not all it's cracked up to be.

>I'm about ready to join Dieter Britz and Dick Blue, 
>and seek other forms of entertainment.

>I'm not even sure that this forum is the right place to discuss
>sonoluminescence  -- perhaps we should go elsewhere, Terry and others who are
>interested in SL.  What do you think? 

>--Steven Jones

Thanks for the reply Steve.  Your student, Ben Horne is correct.  
Fracto Fusion is not all that is cracked up to be. If I remember
my estimate of the number of fracto fusion event from Tom's cell 
it was only like 8 fusion events out of 10E28 fracture wall
deuteriums.  A very small number indeed. (I'll have to check,
but I think those are the numbers I got.)  It certainly seems 
probable to me that it could be higher if there is some screening 
effect.  

  I aplaud you and your students efforts in this area.  There are
certainly a number of methods that could and should be tried.  I would
like to hear the results of the pizoelectric crystal fracturing
experiments.  I've always wanted to try something along those lines,
but instead of fracturing the crystal, I wanted to place a layer of
deuterium sandwiched between two crystals and oscilatting them.  But
as I thought through the idea I couldn't see the mechanism for fusion.
At least in a fracture there can be some farily large energies
released that can be deposited to the deuterium in the fracture wall.
I can see, that in certain britle materials mechanically, fracturing
can release some energy stored in the material.  I just wanted to
point out that in other softer and more plastic materials,
mechanically fracturing the material doesn't release any additional
energy, except what was put into it. It follows from this, you
wouldn't see fracto-fusion in certain deuterated ductile metals by
mechanical fracturing.  (Dick Blue's experiment not withstanding :-)

Have Fun,
Chuck Sites
chuck@iglou.com
chuck@stunner.iglou.com  (My home basement lab) 

Ps.  On SL, I'm somewhat sitting on the side lines for now.  I still 
     don't have a good mental picture of whats causing these apparently
     highly syncronized high energy photon emission.  Something in the
     bubble is certainly getting ionized, but is it trace gasses inside 
     the bubble or the bubble's inner surface?  Anyway I look forward to 
     hearing more about it.

       
             
    
    





cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.19 / Scott Haney /  Re: Energy required for Fusion
     
Originally-From: haney@maverick.llnl.gov (Scott W. Haney)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Energy required for Fusion
Date: 19 Feb 94 19:13:45 GMT
Organization: Magnetic Fusion Energy - LLNL

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

>In article <haney.761332295@maverick> haney@maverick.llnl.gov (Scott W. Haney) writes:

>  >   If you read a little closer you'll notice that I said the fusion
>  > power was about 1500MW.  However, as the plasma is ignited (meaning
>  > that no external heating is added) the ratio of power-out (1500MW)
>  > to power-in (0) is indeed infinity.

>   The power companies have a slightly different definition of
>break-even ratio which includes all input power to the plant.  In the
>case of a tokamak this in particular includes the losses in
>maintaining the poloidal current, magnet losses, power to cool the
>magnets, etc.

(1) I'm fully aware of the various definitions of break-even. I simply
    gave a ratio of power-out to power-in for the plasma. This is a
    reasonable figure-of-merit that is used all the time in the magnetic
    fusion community. Moreover, it is an appropriate FOM for an *experiment*
    like ITER.

(2) Given that the poloidal field and toroidal field magnets are superconducting,
    how big, in terms of MW, to you think "maintaining the poloidal current
    [in the TF coils???], magnet losses" are? Any idea about cryogeninc system 
    requirements? Do you think they should be the dominant part of the plant 
    power balance?

I will say that high Q is not the whole story as far as plant power balance.
There are finite recirculating power requirements other than heating or
driving current in the plasma but they are not the economics-killer that
low Q is. That is why getting Q=infinity in ITER is a big deal.

>   While I have seen some definitions of "scientific break-even" which
>ignored all external departures from ideal, I have never seen one
>where eddy-current losses into the plasma were not counted as heating.

What do you mean by "eddy-current losses into the plasma?" Are you talking
about ohmic heating? If so, this is not added from the outside (i.e.,
doesn't cross the plasma boundary). Therefore, this shouldn't be considered
"power-in". BTW, how big in terms of MW, do you think the ohmic heating
in ITER should be (HINT: hot plasmas don't have very big resistances).

Sorry, the Q-value of an ignited plasma is infinite. Like the Bills
being in the SuperBowl, you'll just have to live with it :-).

>   So if you do get that infinite ratio, I'd also like my ringside
>seat to be at a two million light year remove.  Have we finally
>discovered the secret of creating quasars?

Warning: ;-) alert.

If Q=infinity did mean infinite power (as you seem to imply), what
makes you think you'd be safe 2 million light years away? I think
you'd be a pretty crispy critter any finite radius away from such
a thing.

I'm surprised at how much trouble you have with the concept of a ratio
coming out to infinity. It's really not that hard to imagine: all you
need to do is have the denominator zero. I'll illustrate with a
experiment that CAN safely be done at home (really!): consider 2
buckets A & B. Bucket A has one gallon of water in it and bucket B has
zero gallons of water. Now, let's compute the ratio of the number of
gallons of water in bucket A to the number of gallons of water in
bucket B. This is a perfectly good figure of merit with regard to
relative amounts of water in buckets. Yikes! The ratio is infinity.
But, wait, we're still here, we didn't get blown to Alpha Centauri.
Whew.

End: ;-) alert.

My point is simply that infinite ratios do not imply impossible physical
situations.

Finally, I think we've beat this issue of the implications, or lack thereof,
of infinte Q to past death.

>--
>					Robert I. Eachus

Scott

--
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scott W. Haney        || Lawrence Livermore N'Lab || The above views are 
haney@random.llnl.gov || P.O. Box 808;  L-637     || mine and not neces-
(510) 423-6308        || Livermore, CA  94550     || sarily LLNL's.
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenhaney cudfnScott cudlnHaney cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.19 / Bradley Sherman /  Re: Who owns the Internet?
     
Originally-From: bks@s27w007.pswfs.gov (Bradley K. Sherman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Who owns the Internet?
Date: 19 Feb 1994 21:09:16 GMT
Organization: Dendrome, A Genome Database for Forest Trees

In article <1994Feb19.193057.14124@ns.network.com> logajan@ns.network.co
 (John Logajan) writes:
> ...
>Tell that to the fifonet boys, etc.

You mean FidoNet, John.  FidoNet dates from around 1983; the ARPA
Internet from 1969.  FidoNet is a workable cooperative setup for
MessyDos systems using low to medium speed modems.  It is not
in the same league as the Internet which now has over 2 x 10^6 hosts.

> ...
>Things always flow toward subsidies -- nevertheless, demands create
>their own supplies -- subsidies or no.   On average, government funds in
>this area are a transfer from the less well to do to the more well to do.

Economic gobbledygook.  If we applied the same tests to economics
that this conference does to cold fusion, economics in the large
would be relegated to the same academic niche as astrology.

> ...
>Get the picture?  You can't make immoral things moral by the power of the vote.

Acknowledging the accomplishments of the US Government support for the
sciences hardly seems to have much to do with questions of morality.

    --bks

-- 
Bradley K. Sherman               P.O. Box 245                    
Computer Scientist               Berkeley, CA, 94701
Dendrome Project                 510-559-6437 FAX: 510-559-6440  
Institute of Forest Genetics     Internet: bks@s27w007.pswfs.gov
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenbks cudfnBradley cudlnSherman cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.19 / Chuck Sites /  Fusion from Bose Condensation of D+ ions
     
Originally-From: chuck@iglou.iglou.com (Chuck Sites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Fusion from Bose Condensation of D+ ions
Date: Sat, 19 Feb 1994 22:03:31 GMT
Organization: The Internet Gateway of Louisville, KY

Hi folks, 
   
   Dick Blue made a comment in a reply to Darryl Owen that I wanted 
to reply to.  He slid in a remark about Bose condensation, and as you
all know, it's one of my favorite areas of discussion.  A couple of 
months ago, there was a discussion about this effect that I wanted to
finish. Unfortunately things got in the way (I got a real bad flu bug)
and I never got around to replying to Matt Kenell and Dale Bass's 
criticisms of the condensation effect.  Anyway, this is a much delayed
reply to those posts. 

   Matt Kenell makes the argument that because the electrostatic
potential between deuterons in a D+ bose condensate is repulsive, this
implies that the nuclear potential between D ions is reduced. (Ie, the
interaction for D ions must overcome the Coulomb potential). I would
agree with that argument except it has problems.  It's one of the
reasons I really like this idea.  Basically, if you consider what
superconductivity implies, it's the degenerate-delocalization of the
charge carriers. (Overlapped particle pair wave functions in the case
of electron superconductors.)  In detail, D+ is a far simpler form
superconductivity than in the case of electron superconductors,
however it's also quite different.  For example the D+ ion is baryon
and thus carries a strong force potential where as an electron is a
lepton and can only interact by EM and the weak force. In the case of
electron superconductivity, magnetic flux lines and flux line pinning
play a huge role in the creation of the Cooper pair superfluid
current.  A very good paper that reviews the situation with HTCSs is
in Nature V.348 No.6387 "Are Superconductors really Superconducting"
by Huse, Fisher & Fisher. In the case of D+ superconductivity, the
Cooper pair formation is not necessary for Bose condensation and the
implied wave overlap.  All that is needed is a cryogenic system which
causes a D+ ion plasma system to condense.  It's been show by R.
Liboff this occurs at 11K and the fusion rate is approximately 10E-19
f/s/DD.

   The point I want to make is that with respect to the electrostatic
forces, they should be delocalized as well in the sense that the actual
charge carrier is delocalized when the system is Bose condensed. That 
is, until an external observer adds energy to localize the charge carrier
you cannot tell where the carrier is or the source of electrostatic
potential. Matt's argument is that when the a pair of bose particles
are localized the separation will be defined by electrostatic potential
and thus should define the particle separation within the condensate.
That's a good argument but it really does not exclude the potential 
for a strong interaction.  You see the phenomenon of Bose condensation
does not occur until the psi's of the individuals in the collection are
degenerate with psi's overlapped.  Within this type of collection, one
has to look at it as a collection in constant interaction, if you look
at it from the point of view of the individuals. This is where I think
your argument fails Matt.  Your argument is to treat the system as static
from the individual's perspective while the psi-psi overlap implies
interaction. 

    So while you can argue that the electrostatic charges maintain 
particle separation, you can not claim they are in a state of 
non-interaction! It's the last point that allows for the enhancement 
of fusion potential in a D ion Bose condensate by that line of 
thought. If you argue from the point of view that the individuals
are non-interacting, then you must deal with PSI=psi1 + psi2 + ... psi_n,
in which case the nuclear and electrostatic potentials are delocalized
and allowed to interact via the operators on PSI. 

    From quantum statistics, there is another way to look at the
psi-psi-psi.. problem.  One can define a PSI that represents the
collective states of all the particles.  From this point of view the
electrostatic potential is continuous and the nuclear potential is as
well.  This hints at the "Spooky interaction" effect Terry discussed in
the Mossbauer exchange a month or so back.  [NOTE: The main problem I have 
with the super-solid concept is the mass of metal lattice nuclei is so large
and the respective deBroglie wave length so small it does not allow
psi overlap necessary for a condensate.  Ditto to your question Matt
regarding why iron does not condense from our "last broken record"
exchange.  Still, with respect to a mixed system like Pd/D (or what ever
host metal/contaminate looks good), there may be paired psi operator
that allows it to form a supersolid. If it exists, it should have some
really interesting nuclear reactance properties to photon (gamma) absorption
and emmision.  For example it may be that a gamma is absorbed but two
photons are emitted at Egamma=E1 + E2.  If the system is truly
supersolid, it may do something like Egamma=E1 + E2 + E3 + ... + En.
This type of absorption/emission should happen if the basic psi is
overlapped so that the absorption acts on PSI and emission occurs at
psi1 + psi2 +psi3 + ... + psi n.  I'll speculate and say the emission
follows a black-body spectrum curve with higher energies localized to
to the point of gamma impact and spreading out from that point as
Compton scattering doppler shifts the energy with distance when photon
emission occurs from the individuals.]

   Now, as far as making a D ion condensate, there are two ways I see
possible.  One is the method R. Liboff is using (who I've mentioned 
previously).  This is to circulate a D plasma ribbon bound in a
resonance matched magnetic field such that the D plasma is
quantum-mechanically chilled to about 11K. At that temp the D ion
plasma ribbon enters a superconducting state which is the main indicator
for Bose condensation.  Liboff predicts that in this configuration he
gets about 10E-19 F/s/DD due to the overlap of psi from the
condensation effect.  This is a very interesting experiment in my
opion from a number of angles.  For example, the superconductivity in
this configuration doesn't have the complexity of the electron/metal super-
conductors and thus might allow better understanding of this QM effect.
(Does it allow 'spooky' interaction at a distance? Does it have odd-
Mossbauer *like* dissipative effects effects when energy is added to the
system?)  Since it does not have the complexities of a deuterated metal, 
it might allow one to explore the condensation effect directly and obviously,
but also may the study of the fusion potential of a lomg range strong
carrier via a condensed state.  In Liboff's work, perhaps Degenerate Bose
fusion describes the effect best. 

   In the case of a metal hydride system like Pd/D, there are aspects
of Bose condensation that may apply. The approach to the question of
Bose condensation of D in metals was first explored by Talbot & Scott
Chubbs.  (Terry and I had discussed the Bose verses Fermi aspects of
heavy particle banding via email so Scott and Talbot's work was a
pleasant surprise and intellectual pleasure to read back in 1990). The main
difference between their work and ordinary Bose condensation is the
introduction of solid state QM in the description of wave equation for
the intersitual deuteron collection. Their work follows closely what
Nieminens, Astaldi and others have seen experimentally.  That is at
low concentrations Hydrogen and Deuterium form ion band states across
surfaces and in metals structures.  What is interesting here is that
some effects of Bose/Fermi nature of D+ on metal surfaces has already
been observed in some pre-CF and post-CF experiments (as seen by
electron energy loss spectroscopy experiments).  Now what makes Scott
& Talbott Chubbs theory so unique is that they recognized the Bose
condensation implies the wave function overlap and the solid state
band system yields that property even at high ion separation distances
(and thus low ion concentration).  Scott and Talbott also derive their
fusion yield based on the wave function overlap of the condensed
deuterons only in this case, its based on the quantum mechanics of the
D+ ions in the periodic potential of the lattice.    
  
   After close to 5 years and counting, I still find Cold Fusion
incredibly fascinating.  In the case of D+ Bose condensation, there is
a large increased probability of a strong interaction as is born out
by the physics of the problem.  That is exciting since this is a
phenomena that has a handle and can be controlled and scaled as the
materials aspects are explored and know. After several false starts,
the physics to make CF real and repeatable is in our grasp.  It's just
a matter of doing experiments that exploit the effect.
  
Have Fun,
Chuck Sites
chuck@iglou.com
chuck@stunner.iglou.com
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.20 / Robert Heeter /  (Long) Conventional Fusion Annotated Reading List, 3rd draft
     
Originally-From: rfheeter@theory.pppl.gov (Robert F. Heeter)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: (Long) Conventional Fusion Annotated Reading List, 3rd draft
Date: 20 Feb 1994 01:59:25 -0500
Organization: Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory, Princeton University,
Princeton NJ 08540


Conventional Fusion Reading List - third draft

Edited by Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@lyman.pppl.gov

Last Revised Sunday, Feb. 20, 1994

************ Introductory Notes *********************************

This file is my attempt to answer the FAQ, 
"What literature is there on the subject of fusion?"

Note that this Reading List is for the "conventional" types
of fusion, and not for Cold Fusion.  

************ Notes on Construction and Organization  ************

I have revised and improved the second draft.

The goal here is to provide a few major references at a variety 
of levels on each of a variety of topics.  The current Reading 
List is still somewhat sketchy.  In general I intend to limit 
the size of the bibliography by ignoring any work over 15 years 
old, unless it is considered a classic in the field.  I may need 
to drop the limit to 10 years, since the list is getting large.

I would appreciate it if everyone would contribute suggestions 
of books, review articles, articles in the popular literature, 
and even new topics to be included in the Reading List.

In order to make this bibliography easier to use, I have sorted
the books into the following general categories:
  
A. Recent articles in the popular literature.
B. General References and Histories 
(suitable for those with minimal background in physics or fusion).
C. Fusion Research Review Articles & Texts
D. Plasma Physics - General Texts 
(focus is on the science of plasmas, rather than engineering of reactors)
E.  Plasma Physics - Device-Specific
(applications of plasma physics to specific devices)
F. Fusion Reactor Engineering References
G. List of Relevant Scientific Journals
H. Unclassified / Unsummarized works.  (Please help me move references
out of this section and into sections 1-4 by contributing reviews of
sources you know about!)

* So far only sections B and D have solid lists of references. * 

Currently I suggest that each reference included in the
Reading List contain the following information:

<<<<<<
* LastName, Firstname/Initials.  _Title_. [# of pages] Publisher. 
Date.
	
	Descriptive blurb including summary of contents.  
	
	Level of Text
	[Name & Email address of reviewer.]
>>>>>>

Here is a sample application of the above template:

* Herman, Robin.  _Fusion: The Search for Endless Energy_. 
[267 p.] Cambridge University Press. 1990.

	A relatively nontechnical history of fusion energy research
	from 1951-1989.  Focus on U.S. magnetic confinement research.
	Includes glossary of terms and scientists.

	High-school level.
	[Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu]

Note that it would be best to avoid editorial comments and to
try not to make too many judgment calls in the summaries!

Ok, with this as a template, here is what I have currently:
(acknowledgements to Jim Day and Bruce Scott whose contributions
account for the majority of what appears here.)

************************************************************************
********** Reference List of Conventional Fusion Literature ************ 
************************************************************************

*** A. Recent articles in the popular literature.

* Conn, et al, "The International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor," 
_Scientific American_, April 1992.  

	Describes plans for ITER.

	Level - high school physics.
	[Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu]


* Lemonick, Michael.  "Blinded by the Light," _Time_, Dec. 20, 
1993, p. 54.

	Describes the first high-power D-T experiments on TFTR.

	Level - basic literacy. :)
	[Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu]

Note:  Science, Scientific American, and Nature often have articles.



*** B. General References and Histories 
(suitable for those with minimal background in physics or fusion).

* Bromberg, Joan Lisa.  _Fusion: science, politics, and the invention of
a new energy source_.  [376 p.] MIT Press. 1982.

	DOE-authorized history of the US fusion program.  Author claims 
	no political pressures and a focus on political influences on
	science.  Focuses on US efforts at DOE labs.

	High-school level.
	[Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu]


* Heppenheimer, T. A.  _The man-made sun: the quest for fusion power._
[347 p.] Little, Brown and Company. 1983.

	Nontechnical history.  Since it is ten years old, some of it 
	is badly out of date -- e.g., it was published before MFTF-B 
	was mothballed, and the Engineering Test Reactor was still 
	being promoted as "the next step." However, it has some good basic
	explanations and some interesting material on the politics of
	fusion.

	Includes index, glossary, bibliography, and chapter notes. 

	High-school level.
	[Bonnie Nestor, mnj@ornl.gov]	


* Herman, Robin.  _Fusion: The Search for Endless Energy_. 
	[267 p.] Cambridge University Press. 1990.

	A relatively nontechnical history of fusion energy research
	from 1951-1989.  Focus on U.S. magnetic confinement research.
	Includes glossary of terms and scientists.

	High-school level.
	[Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu]


* Voronov, GS.  _Storming the Fortress of Fusion_. [335 p.] Translated
from Russian by R.S. Wadhwa.  Original text 1985, revised 1988. Mir
Publishers, Moscow.  

	Appears to be highly enthusiastic; contents
	indicate chapters on inertial confinement and muon-catalyzed
 fusion as well as tokamaks, stellarators, pinches, etc.  

	Level: one year college physics.
	[Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu]



*** C. Fusion Research Review Articles & Texts

* Colombo and Farinelli, "Progress in Fusion Energy," _Annual Reviews of 
Energy and the Environment_, 1992, pp. 123-160.

	A comprehensive summary of the state of fusion research.

	Level - Not very technical, some familiarity with terminology helpful.
	[Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu]


* Dolan, Thomas J.  _Fusion research._ [3 v.]  Pergamon Press. 1980.

	A decent overview of just about every aspect having to do 
	with fusion research, from physics (plasma, atomic, nuclear, 
	etc.) to large experiments (again, caveat emptor wrt the 
	currency of information on specific projects) to fusion 
	engineering issues (magnets, materials, nuclear engineering, 
	etc.).

	Graduate Level (?)
	[Albert Chou, albert@seas.ucla.edu]


* Holdren, et al, "Exploring the Competitive Potential of Magnetic Fusion 
Energy:  The Interaction of Economics with Safety and Environmental 
Characteristics," _Fusion Technology_, Jan 1988.

	Summarizes the results of the ESECOM fusion-reactor-design study.  
	Concludes that improved tokamaks are likely to be economically 
	competitive with fission and breeder-fission reactors.

	Level - familiarity with fusion terminology necessary.
	[Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu]


* Holdren, John P., "Safety and Environmental Aspects of Fusion Energy," 
_Annual Reviews of Energy and the Environment_, 1991, pp. 235-58.

	??? Probably what it sounds like.  Holdren is a fusion proponent 
	and does reactor design studies, among other things. ???
	[Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu]


* Thomassen, K.I., "Progress in Magnetic Fusion Energy Research," 
_Proc. of the IEEE_, Vol. 81, No. 3 (1993) 390.
 
	"A relatively recent paper giving an overview of the state of 
	Magnetic Fusion Energy research..."
	[Scott W. Haney, haney@random.llnl.gov]


* Teller, Edward, ed.  _Fusion: Magnetic confinement._ [2 v.]  Academic 
Press. 1981.

	Good review articles on many subjects by important people in the
	field (e.g., Kunkel on NBI, Porkolab on RF heating, Conn on 
	reactors [a helluva long chapter!], Dawson on advanced reactors).

	Level: ??
	[Albert Chou, albert@seas.ucla.edu]



*** D. Plasma Physics - General Texts 
(focus is on the science of plasmas, rather than engineering of reactors)

* Chen, Francis F. _Introduction to Plasma Physics and Controlled
Fusion, vol 1._  [421 p.]  Plenum Publishing Corporation. 2nd 
edition, 1984.

	Intuitive (vs. mathematically rigorous) general plasma physics 
	text.  Chapters on single-particle motion, MHD, waves, diffusion & 
	resistivity, equilibrium & stability, kinetic theory, nonlinear 
	effects.  IMHO, frequently used as an undergraduate / basic 
	graduate text.  "It provides all the plasma physics you could
 	need.  However, like the title states, it is an INTRODUCTORY text.  
	Sometimes, the physical descriptions are not very rigorous, almost 
	too simple." - Robert Buckles
	
	Level:  Junior/Senior Undergraduate		
	[Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu]
	[Albert Chou, albert@seas.ucla.edu]
	[Robert Buckles, buckles@cae.wisc.edu]


* Hazeltine, RD, and Meiss, JD, _Plasma Confinement_ [411 p.]
	(Addison Wesley, 1992)

	Confinement-oriented approach to plasma physics, largely 
	fusion-oriented, tending towards theoretical as opposed to 
	experimental topics (from the intro). Chapters on Equilibrium 
	of confined plasmas, Kinetic description, Coulomb collisions, 
	Fluid Description, Stability of confinement, Collisional
 	transport, Nonlinear processes. "I know Chen's book pretty 
	well, Miyamoto's less well. Both are inferior to Hazeltine 
	and Meiss..." - Bruce Scott

	Level:  Graduate or advanced undergraduate.
	[Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu]
	[Bruce Scott, bds@hagar.ph.utexas.edu]


* Ichimaru, S. _Statistical Plasma Physics_ [2 volumes] Addison-Wesley. 
1992.  

	First volume treats plasma theory from statistical-kinetic 
	point of view as an extension/application of statistical
	mechanics.

	Graduate level.
	[Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu]


* Krall, N., and Trivelpiece, A.. _Principles of Plasma Physics._ [674 p.]
San Francisco Press, 1986.

	Comprehensive introductory text for graduate students.  Chapters 
	on basic concepts and terminology, fluid/MHD models, 
	statistical/kinetic models, waves, stability, transport.  Readers 
	should be forewarned that the book was published around the few 
	years when the fusion program in the US took a serious downturn 
	and thus is seriously out of date concerning "current" 
	experiments.

	Graduate level.
	[Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu]
	[Albert Chou, albert@seas.ucla.edu]


* Miyamoto, Kenro. _Plasma physics for nuclear fusion._ [640 p.]
	MIT Press. 1989.

	This is another general plasma physics textbook, angled 
	towards the fusion applications.  Major sections on introductory 
	material, MHD, Kinetic descriptions, and "Heating, 
	Diagnostics, and Confinement."

	Graduate or senior undergraduate Level.
	[Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu]


* Nicholson, Dwight R.  _Introduction to Plasma Theory._ [292 p.]
	John Wiley and Sons. 1983.

	Introductory plasma physics textbook, emphasis on theory, not 
	meant to be used as a reference.  Contents, in order:  
	Introduction, Single-Particle Motion, Kinetic Theory 
	(3 chapters with progressively more approximations), 
	Vlasov Equation, Fluid Equations, MHD, Discrete Particle 
	Effects, Weak Turbulence Theory.

	Beginning graduate / advanced undergraduate level.
	[Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu.]


* Rose, DJ, and Clark, M, Jr, _Plasmas and Controlled Fusion_ (MIT, 1961)
	
	"For those who want a good dose of some plasma physics aspects 
	and a little less reactor technology, Rose and Clark is better 
	than Kammash (also for those like me who are familiar with the 
	physics and want a really basic intro to the engineering aspects).  
	Unfortunately it is pre-tokamak, so the methods and _basic_ 
	calculations involved in things like induction emf fields are 
	not present." - Bruce Scott

	[Bruce Scott, bds@hagar.ph.utexas.edu]


* Schmidt, George.  _Physics of high temperature plasmas._  Academic 
Press. 1979.

	An advanced graduate text, I believe.  I've looked at it, but 
	not in great depth.  A good reference, I think.

	Level: Advanced Graduate
	[Albert Chou, albert@seas.ucla.edu]




*** E.  Plasma Physics - Device-Specific

* Wesson, John. _Tokamaks_ [309 p.] Oxford Science Publications, 1987.

	A clear introduction to the Tokamak concept, to the related 
	plasma physics and to some diagnostic techniques.

	Graduate level, basic plasma knowledge required.
	[Emilio Martines, martines@pdigi3.igi.pd.cnr.it]


* White, R. _Theory of tokamak plasmas._  [361 p.] North-Holland Physics, 1989.

	From the Preface: "These notes accompany a graduate course 
	taught at Princeton, designed to provide a basic introduction 
	to plasma equilibrium, particle orbits, transport, and those 
	ideal and resistive magnetohydrodynamic instabilities which 
	dominate the behavior of a tokamak discharge, and to develop 
	the mathematical methods necessary for their theoretical 
	analysis."

	"I know Chen's book pretty well, Miyamoto's less well. Both are
	inferior to R White's recent book." - Bruce Scott 

	Advanced Graduate Level.
	[Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
	 - I take the course next year and will know this intimately. :)]
	[Bruce Scott, bds@hagar.ph.utexas.edu]



*** F. Fusion Reactor Engineering References

* Kammash, Terry.  _Fusion reactor physics: principles and technology._
Ann Arbor Science Publishers. 1975.

	"For those who care mostly about engineering aspects and want 
	to know the physics involved in controlling and heating a 
	reactor plasma, Kammash is the first place to go." - Bruce Scott

	[Bruce Scott, bds@hagar.ph.utexas.edu]

(This section certainly needs to have more literature reviewed, but
it's not (yet) my field of expertise.  Help anyone?)



*** G. List of Relevant Scientific Journals
 (Anyone care to write short blurbs about some of these journals?)

	Fusion Technology
	Nuclear Fusion
	Physical Review Letters
	Physics of Fluids B (Now Physics of Plasmas)
	(there are certainly others)



Continuation of References from Part One:

*** H. Unclassified / Unsummarized works.  (Please help me move 
references out of this section and into sections A-G by contributing 
reviews of sources you know about!)

* Akiyama, M., ed.
Design technology of fusion reactors. [636 p.] World Scientific 
Publishing. 1990.

* Artsimovich, L. A.
A physicist's ABC on plasma.
Mir Publishers. 1978.

* Boenig, Herman V.
Plasma science and technology.
Cornell University Press. 1982.

* Brunelli, B., et al., eds.
Safety, environmental impact and economic prospects of nuclear fusion. 
[360 p.]
Plenum Publishing Corporation. 1990.

* Brunelli, B., et al., eds.
Unconventional approaches to fusion. [544 p.]
Plenum Publishing Corporation. 1982.

* Casini, G.
Plasma physics for thermonuclear fusion reactors. [496 p.]
Harwood Academic Publishers. 1982.

* Casini, G., ed.
Engineering aspects of thermonuclear fusion reactors. [646 p.]
Harwood Academic Publishers. 1982.

* Coppi, B., et al., eds.
Physics of plasma close to thermonuclear conditions. [2 v.]
Pergamon Press. 1981.

* Dean, Stephen O., ed.
Prospects for fusion power. [112 p.] 
Pergamon Press. 1981.

* Gill, Richard, ed.
Plasma physics and nuclear fusion research.
Academic Press. 1981.

* Golant, V. E., et al.
Fundamentals of plasma physics. [405 p.]
John Wiley and Sons. 1980.

* Golant, V. E., et al.
Plasma heating in toroidal fusion devices. [202 p.] Plenum Publishing 
Corporation. 1989.
 
* Gross, R. A. _Fusion energy._  John Wiley and Sons. 1984.
	(Recommended in Hazeltine & Meiss.)

* Hora, Heinrich.
Physics of laser driven plasmas. [317 p.] John Wiley and Sons. 1981.

* Joachain, Charles J., and Douglas E. Post, eds. Atomic and molecular 
physics of controlled 
thermonuclear fusion. [575 p.]
Plenum Publishing Corporation. 1983.

* McDowell, M. R., and A. M. Ferendeci, eds.
Atomic and molecular processes in controlled nuclear fusion. [500 p.]
Plenum Publishing Corporation. 1980.

* Motz, H.
The physics of laser fusion. 
Academic Press. 1979.

* Nishikawa, K.
Plasma physics: basic theory with fusion applications. [320 p.]
Springer-Verlag. 1990.

* Raeder, J., et al.
Controlled nuclear fusion: fundamentals of its utilization for energy 
supply. [400 p.]
John Wiley and Sons. 1986.

* Stacey, W. M.
Fusion plasma analysis. [376 p.]
John Wiley and Sons. 1981.


**********************

I've summarized all the books I've seen, and included what information 
I've received from others on the net.  If you are familiar with any of 
these books, or with other books you feel should be included in the 
reading list, please submit a summary in roughly the above format.

Thanks!

*************

Revision history:
	First draft, Feb. 3, 1994
	Second draft, Feb. 12,1994 - new references, new structure
	Third draft, Feb. 19, 1994 - new references; incorporated
				     corrections & comments since 2nd.

*************
Robert F. Heeter
rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Graduate Student, Princeton Plasma Physics Lab
Standard Disclaimers Apply

cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.18 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Reply to Mitch 6: No compelling evidence for cf
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Reply to Mitch 6: No compelling evidence for cf
Date: 18 Feb 94 13:52:07 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

As I am replying to Mitch in convenient-to-handle essays, here is part
5 of my reply, beginning with Mitch's statement:

>ms  This is unfortunately consistent with a possible pattern of his
>ms  [Jones'] comments regarding (just a partial list)  
>ms  ... [part deleted to which I replied in previous parts]
>ms  various letters with alledged paragraphs removed (Jed and others)
>ms  etc. etc. and other events as described here by both Dr. Noninski
>ms  and Jed Rothwell.
>ms  Try more honesty and science, Steven, as it would make your case
>ms  much more compelling.

These charges are just too vague to merit a response.  Let Mitch respond
to the questions I have asked while replying to him before.  Then if he
wants to raise specifics, I'll respond some more.

As regards honesty and science, I have shown in my replies the bases for
my statements in the past, quoting from sources about glass being
present in the *published* Miles expts., no x-ray *spectra* showing
characteristic x-ray lines in the Kucherov expts., and so on.  So I have
not been dishonest.  It is quite possible I have been mistaken, so let
Mitch (or others) show me where.   Meanwhile, let Mitch answer, in turn,
my questions posed to him, all 17 or so of them.

Science?  I've been conducting real experiments and publishing results
in this crazy field for years.  Mitch asked about our cement results,
too.  Let me reiterate that as our detectors have improved, we have
found artifacts in apparent large neutron bursts and have retracted
these, and have stated:

" A real signal should be capable of scaling, and should not shrink as
background levels are reduced.  However, as we have proceeded to better
detectors, cold-fusion data surety has diminished.  

With these criteria for state-of-the-art detectors, we find that no
compelling evidence for neutron, gamma or x-ray production from
deuterided materials currently exists in any cold-fusion experiment,
including our own.  The only verified form of cold nuclear fusion to
date is muon-catalyzed fusion."  
 (S.E. Jones, submitted for publication and posted here in Jan. 1994)

I will end this exchange with a final question for Mitch [#18]:
Has anyone provided compelling evidence for the existence of cold fusion
nuclear effects, as defined in excerpts from our paper (below)?

I have tried diligently to explain wherein cf claims are lacking, and
what must be done to generate compelling evidence.
I hope that Mitch, Daryl, Jed and others will take these questions
seriously and not dodge them.

In conclusion, here's more from our submitted paper:
No "cold fusion" experiment anywhere has shown the presence of
characteristic secondary x-rays lines (using an x-ray spectrometer)
which would characterize fusion or any other nuclear reaction in a metal
lattice to the best of our knowledge [10].  There are some experiments
that show fogging of x-ray dental film, but such experiments are too
crude to provide quantitative information regarding x-ray energies and
intensities, and are subject to artifacts.  

Thus, we find no compelling evidence to link nuclear reactions to
excess-heat production claims.  Instead, the lack of significant
(primary or secondary) x-rays, gammas and neutrons after five years of
searching argues convincingly against claims of excess heat production
via nuclear reactions in electrolytic cells (or equivalent).  This
conclusion is supported by related experiments at BYU which show up to
700% "excess heat", but which apparent "excess heat" is in fact due to
hydrogen-oxygen recombination in the cells coupled with commonly-used
(but misleading) analysis techniques for excess-power production in
"cold fusion" experiments [11].


Conclusions

In order to find compelling evidence for cold-fusion effects, state-
of-the-art calorimeters and nuclear detectors are requisite.  Table 1
juxtaposes such systems with other systems which are still more
generally in use.  It is disquieting that some researchers select open
electrolytic cells over closed cells, and very long sampling intervals
(e.g., 5-minute sampling intervals for input voltage used by Pons and
Fleischmann in recent boiling-cell experiments [12]).  Some researchers
continue to use x-ray films instead of x-ray spectrometers, helium or
tritium gas sampling instead of charged-particle spectrometers, Geiger
counters rather than silicon or germanium detectors, and neutron survey
meters instead of sensitive neutron detectors as described above.  It
is time to strongly question claims of cold fusion based on crude
techniques and to demand tests at a rigorous scientific-proof level. 
Compelling evidence requires use of the best instruments available,
incorporating fast data-sampling and digitization methods, the use of
different detectors whose signals agree quantitatively, and presence of
signals well above background levels.  A real signal should be capable
of scaling, and should not shrink as background levels are reduced. 
However, as we have proceeded to better detectors, cold-fusion data
surety has diminished.  

With these criteria for state-of-the-art detectors, we find that no
compelling evidence for neutron, gamma or x-ray production from
deuterided materials currently exists in any cold-fusion experiment,
including our own.  The only verified form of cold nuclear fusion to
date is muon-catalyzed fusion.  Nevertheless, having an obligation to
resolve a few remaining issues [13], we will continue our search for
several more months.  We invite those with evidence for neutron
production to accept our invitation to test their systems in the deep-
underground neutron detection facility in Provo Canyon in order to
confirm results.  Gamma and x-ray spectrometers are also available on
request.


TABLE 1.  COMPARISON OF COLD-FUSION RESEARCH METHODS

It is evident that much of the present confusion surround "cold fusion"
stems from the continued use of inadequate detectors.  This list
juxtaposes crude, better and state-of-the-art systems to promote the
quest for compelling data, one way or the other.  Use of the best
available methods is clearly the path-of-logical science.

Crude                    Better                State-of-the-art
(simply add to the       (but not good enough) (can provide 
 confusion)                                     compelling evidence)
______________________   _____________________ ______________________

Neutron survey meters,   Segmented 3He,        Segmented 3He or Li-
  BF3                    Plastic scintillators doped glass *plus*
                                               scint. with digitizing

Helium gas detection,    Charged-particle det. Thin dE/dx detector
 Tritium gas detection   (Si surface barrier)  plus Si spectrometer
                         (requires thin foil)  (particle ID & energy)
                          
X-ray film               X-ray film with foil  X-ray spectrometer        
                         energy-filters        (Si, HgI2, CdTe,etc.)

Geiger-Mueller counter     see detectors listed above; Ge detector

Infrequent I*V(t) sampling                     Integral I*V(t) correct
 (e.g., every 300 s)                            via frequent, redundant
                                                sampling

Open cell calorimetry,   Measure H2/D2 + O2    Recombiner inside
no H2/D2 +O2 monitoring,  simultaneous w/heat   separate calorimeter
during experiment

Metal of unknown source,                       Alloyed with known
quality or purity                              purity and properties

D2O of unknown source    D2O from known source,  Highly distilled D2O,
                         not exposed to reactor  known H,O isotopes

Visual techniques        Computer-logging,     Redundant probes with
                          several probes       fast data acquisition

Theories which dis-       Fractofusion ignoring     ???
regard P, E conservation  e- vs. d+ acceleration 
or light-cone constraints
(e.g., "heating lattice");
or discount known branching 
ratios from muon-catalyzed 
cold fusion (e.g. 4He or 3H 
but no neutrons);
or which use incorrect 
wavefunctions

--Steven Jones







--Steven Jones

cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenjonesse cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.18 /  jonesse@physc1 /  cancel <1994Feb18.141147.1397@physc1.byu.edu>
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cancel <1994Feb18.141147.1397@physc1.byu.edu>
Date: 18 Feb 94 14:14:38 -0700

cancel <1994Feb18.141147.1397@physc1.byu.edu>
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenjonesse cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.18 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Still no fractofusion 
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Still no fractofusion 
Date: 18 Feb 94 14:14:25 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

Chuck Sites asked whether we deuterided the samples in our fracto-
fusion expts, or if the fracturing was just done in D2 gas.  
In all cases, the samples were deuterided.  In some cases, we also arranged
to generate the fracturing in a D2 gas, following a suggestion of
T. Shirakawa of Otsuma Women's University, Tokyo, et al.

BTW, the data from that expt are certainly not compelling.  From the
Maui meeting abstracts, we find for cracking lithium niobate in D2,
H2  and background neutron counts/h:

BG:  5.65 +- 0.08 /h
H2:  5.7  +- 0.75 /h
D2:  6.38 +- 0.51 /h

The D2 data are not significantly above the background rates.

We have continued expts this week, including cooling LiD, ND4DPO4 and another
piezoelectric crystal whose formula I do not have at my fingertips,
in liquid nitrogen then allowing to warm while inside our best neutron
detector.  We have also fractured the materials mechanically, though not
quite like Dick Blue's amusing expt.  

No neutron signals above background.  Nada.

Fractofusion, says the student working with me (Ben Horne),
is not all it's cracked up to be.

I'm about ready to join Dieter Britz and Dick Blue, 
and seek other forms of entertainment.

I'm not even sure that this forum is the right place to discuss
sonoluminescence  -- perhaps we should go elsewhere, Terry and others who are
interested in SL.  What do you think? 

--Steven Jones

cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenjonesse cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.19 / John Logajan /  Re: Who owns the Internet?
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Who owns the Internet?
Date: Sat, 19 Feb 94 19:30:57 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

bks@s27w007.pswfs.gov (Bradley K. Sherman) writes:
>If it were not for federal $$ there would be no Internet.

Tell that to the fifonet boys, etc.  Sorry Charley, all wisdom does not
flow only from Washington DC.

>There is no privately run internet (note small i) that even comes close
>to the federally financed Internet in terms of size

Things always flow toward subsidies -- nevertheless, demands create
their own supplies -- subsidies or no.   On average, government funds in
this area are a transfer from the less well to do to the more well to do.

>Each of us US citizens has a say in how the government of the USA
>is run.  Exactly why you fear democracy is not clear to me.

Look, democracy doesn't justify anything.  When the crowds signalled thumbs
up or thumbs down to Christians in the lion cages, it was democratic, but
it was devoid of moral justification.

Even if you gave each Christian an equal vote, it would still have been
immoral to send them to their deaths.

Get the picture?  You can't make immoral things moral by the power of the vote.

-- 
-John Logajan MS612; Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
-logajan@network.com, 612-391-1159, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.20 / Scott Mueller /  Re: Who owns the Internet?
     
Originally-From: scott@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Scott Hazen Mueller)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Who owns the Internet?
Date: Sun, 20 Feb 1994 02:35:20 GMT
Organization: At Home; Salida, CA

In article <1994Feb19.193057.14124@ns.network.com> logajan@ns.network.co
 (John Logajan) writes:
>bks@s27w007.pswfs.gov (Bradley K. Sherman) writes:
>>If it were not for federal $$ there would be no Internet.
>
>Tell that to the fifonet boys, etc.  Sorry Charley, all wisdom does not
>flow only from Washington DC.
>
>>There is no privately run internet (note small i) that even comes close
>>to the federally financed Internet in terms of size

First off, the Internet (originally ARPANet) was designed to survive a
nuclear attack.  Cutting out any section, even the NFSNet backbone, will
not disable it.

Second off, there are now three non-NFSNet backbones to the Internet that
I know of:  ANSNet (contractor that provides NFSNet service) T3 backbone,
AlterNet T1 backbone, and PSINet T? backbone.  All three are completely
nation-wide.

Third off, Usenet is different from Internet.  Usenet is basically an
application that runs over a variety of transports, and the Internet is
just one of them.  Remove the Internet entirely, and Usenet will re-
configure to operate without it.

Fourthly, Usenet started over dialup modem.  The Network News Transport
Protocol was invented only a few years ago and has only become widespread
since the end of the 1980s.  Usenet has been around since about 1980.

Zorch has been on Usenet since 1987 without ever being on the Internet.

Postings made to Usenet are coincidentally carried over NFSNet, but that
is the responsibility of institutions that subscribe to NFSNet, not of
the posters to Usenet.  Saying that person X is using "government funds"
to express their opinions is semantically null; the real situation is
that institution Y is subscribed to a forum that carries the opinions
of person X, and institution Y is responsible for use of whatever
government funds are involved.

Just the studied opinion of a medium-time participant.

-- 
Scott Hazen Mueller scott@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG or (tandem|ub-gate)!zorch!scott
Moderator, ba.announce; submissions to sfbay-announce@uunet.UU.NET
Moderator, comp.sys.sun.announce; submissions to sun-announce@uunet.UU.NET
Moderator, rec.arts.sf.announce; submissions to sf-announce@uunet.UU.NET
Moderator, news.admin.technical; submissions to natech@uunet.UU.NET
Maintainer of the ba.weather posting droid at 'zorch@uunet.UU.NET'.
Write to weather-users-request@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG to join the WU mailing list.
Write to info-tandem-request@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG to join the Tandem mailing list.
Mail fusion-request@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG for emailed sci.physics.fusion digests.

cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenscott cudfnScott cudlnMueller cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.20 / Matt Kennel /  Re: Fusion from Bose Condensation of D+ ions
     
Originally-From: mbk%anl433.uucp@Germany.EU.net (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion from Bose Condensation of D+ ions
Date: 20 Feb 1994 23:36:24 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

Chuck Sites (chuck@iglou.iglou.com) wrote:
:    The point I want to make is that with respect to the electrostatic
: forces, they should be delocalized as well in the sense that the actual
: charge carrier is delocalized when the system is Bose condensed. That 
: is, until an external observer adds energy to localize the charge carrier
: you cannot tell where the carrier is or the source of electrostatic
: potential.

Huh?   So how *does* one calculate the electrostatic repulsion?

Personally I think you can calculate the energy using a Hamiltonian like
H =  sum_{i,j;i/=j}  e^2 Z_i Z_j / |r_i - r_j|

and then compute

E_electrostatic = <Psi | H | Psi>.

With any Psi for all the particles, delocalized or not.  I submit that
this number will be *very* high if it includes substantial overlap at
nuclear-scale displacements.

: Matt's argument is that when the a pair of bose particles
: are localized the separation will be defined by electrostatic potential
: and thus should define the particle separation within the condensate.

I don't recognize this.

My argument is that the repulsion due to electrostatic force applies
all the time, particles delocalized or not, and this will necessarily cause
a sharp reduction in the probability for very close wave-function overlap.

: That's a good argument but it really does not exclude the potential 
: for a strong interaction.  You see the phenomenon of Bose condensation
: does not occur until the psi's of the individuals in the collection are
: degenerate with psi's overlapped.  Within this type of collection, one
: has to look at it as a collection in constant interaction, if you look
: at it from the point of view of the individuals. This is where I think
: your argument fails Matt.  Your argument is to treat the system as static
: from the individual's perspective while the psi-psi overlap implies
: interaction. 


:     So while you can argue that the electrostatic charges maintain 
: particle separation, you can not claim they are in a state of 
: non-interaction! It's the last point that allows for the enhancement 
: of fusion potential in a D ion Bose condensate by that line of 
: thought. If you argue from the point of view that the individuals
: are non-interacting, then you must deal with PSI=psi1 + psi2 + ... psi_n,

You mean PSI =psi1*psi2*...psi_n?

: in which case the nuclear and electrostatic potentials are delocalized
: and allowed to interact via the operators on PSI. 

I emphatically *do* think that particles are interacting.  And that's
the point!

Think about this:  when nuclear particles overlap at fermi-scale distances,
you say the strong force takes over and may permit an energetically
favorable nuclear reaction take place.  OK.

But if you permit the strong force---then why not electromagnetism?  It
counts just as much.  What's so different about the strong force and
electromagnetic force?  What's so magical about overlapped wave functions
that somehow makes electrostatic repulsion not work, but permits the strong
force to keep on going?  Obviously I think "nothing."

Before nuclear particles overlap at fermi-scale distances, I think that
the electromagnetic force will come into play and will permit a energetically
favorable mechanical reaction to take place (which will repsulse the
particles).  

Even if a particle is *delocalized*, that doesn't mean that many of them
will necessarily have a tendency to overlap---especially over the objection
of a powerful mutually repulsive force.

Just to take a simple example:

Consider the Helium atom.  Two electrons whose positions are well
*delocalized* over a nice wide fuzzy ball.  If you only
looked at the one-electron wave functions you might think, "wow lots
of fat wave function overlap."

***But---if you measure one electron then you find that the other electron
always seems to arrange itself to be far away from the first electron.
Why?  Because it's lower energy that way.  

If you measure one electron, what will be the chance of finding the other
electron within a fermi?  Really small!  In fact, *much* smaller than if you
took a 1 fermi-radius ball and measured the probability of the one-electron
wave function that falls inside that ball.  Even though each particle is
delocalized, both share the same probability densities (look like they
should be overlapping), nevertheless the overall wave function arranges itself
so that there is very very little overlap at very close radii.
 
I submit that the same thing will happen with delocalized deuterons.

Remember, you cannot just *assume* at the beginning that you somehow
have delocalized deuterons with strongly overlapping wavefunctions *at
nuclear distances.*  That's assuming the end result.  Everybody acknowledges
that you will have fusion then.  But the same reasoning shows that before
that happens you will have buttloads of electrostatic repulsion, and
that energy has to come from *somewhere*.

: Have Fun,
: Chuck Sites
: chuck@iglou.com
: chuck@stunner.iglou.com

--
-Matt Kennel  		mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu
-Institute for Nonlinear Science, University of California, San Diego
-*** AD: Archive for nonlinear dynamics papers & programs: FTP to
-***     lyapunov.ucsd.edu, username "anonymous".
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenuucp cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.20 / Robert Heeter /  Re: Reply to Steve 6: Kucherov's expt. & statement, x-rays
     
Originally-From: rfheeter@theory.pppl.gov (Robert F. Heeter)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reply to Steve 6: Kucherov's expt. & statement, x-rays
Date: 20 Feb 1994 15:34:41 -0500
Organization: Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory, Princeton University,
Princeton NJ 08540


In Mitchell Swartz's response to Steve Jones' queries, the
discussion turns to claimed nuclear effects in gaseous discharges.
Since we're now talking plasma science and not excess-heat
calorimetry, and because there are errors and relatively meaningless
statements here which even a neophyte grad student like me can pick up
on, I felt compelled to respond:

In article <CLIGru.9r6@world.std.com>,
mitchell swartz <mica@world.std.com> wrote:

>  Further confirmation for the existence of nuclear products being
>formed by cold  fusion (i.e. loading of isotopic material into a material)
>comes from other systems of  cold fusion phenomena
> which now include gaseous glow  discharge systems
>      (the Kucherov system to which Steve refers)
>in addition to the aqueous electrolytic system first described
>in  March 1989 (Fleischmann). 

Well, perhaps - but as I will show below, one would expect *some*
low-level nuclear-product formation in such systems, and even
if we accept the claimed data as accurate, the nuclear products
claimed are insignificant compared to the input energy and claimed
excess heat.  Furthermore, the set of observations presented cannot
all be correct; there are too many inconsistencies in the picture.

>   Kucherov (1993) has confirmed the colder fusion processes
> in the gas glow discharge systems.

On the contrary, as I will explain below, he has presented a
confusing set of claims which are not mutually consistent.
The claimed nuclear data are inconsistent with both the claimed
excess heat and expected fusion rates for the system described.

>   Dear reader,
>   Does this say "I'm not so sure this is nuclear effect" as
>Prof. Jones claims?     Here are excerpts from
>his abstract at ICCF-4.   

Depends on what "this" is supposed to refer to.  Kucherov's 
evidence is consistent with conventional physics, and suggests
that aqueous cold-fusion systems would not show nuclear effects.

>     ==kuch  "The results of four years of experimental work on
>     ==kuch  glow discharge in deuterium with  cathodes made of 
>     ==kuch palladium and other materials are presented.  About 
>     ==kuch 500 experiments  were made. 

Use of "500" here is not significant unless we know what his
conception of an experiment is.  Did he take 500 data points?
Run 500 one-minute trials?  Vary parameters 500 times?  Build 500
separate machines?

>     ==kuch  Discharge current varied in 10-100mA and voltage 
>     ==kuch in 100-500V range  *****  maximal measured excessive 
>     ==kuch heat was about 30W and about 10KJ, about ten  
>     ==kuch times the heat that could be produced in chemical reactions 
>     ==kuch with existing deuterium and  up to five times the electric input.

So input power ranged from 1-50 W.  Assuming that "maximal measured
excessive heat" occurred for 50 W input, the statement "up to five times
the electric input" is extremely misleading.  There isn't sufficient
data presented that we can really understand the claims made. 

>     ==kuch   Excessive heat was observed in about 50% out of 78  
>     ==kuch experiments in which calorimeter was used. 

What about the other 50%?  Deficient heat?  What was the calorimetry?
I've run glow discharges, and have no idea how one would do power
calorimetry measurements on one.

>     ==kuch    In different experiments heat production  was not 
>     ==kuch correlated with neutron or gamma fluxes, but in a separate 
>     ==kuch experiments it was.        ****     Neutron fluxes with 
>     ==kuch intensity up to 107n/S were observed by activation of silver 
>     ==kuch foil  3He-filled detectors and scintillation detectors. 

What on earth is the first sentence supposed to mean?  As for the 
second sentence, at roughly 10 MeV per claimed fusion (nuclear)
reaction, we see that even a continuous (as opposed to peak) neutron
production rate of 10E+7 (assuming that 107 is not what was meant)
corresponds to 10E14 eV/sec of fusion energy = 1.6 x 10E-5 Watts.
Sorry, 20 microwatts of fusion production is *not* proof that 
the excess heat is nuclear in origin.

I note that neutron *flux* should really be (neutrons)/( (sec) (Area),
so there could be some confusion regarding the claimed neutron production.

Now, how much fusion would one expect to see when deuterium ions 
are accelerated in a glow discharge to up to 500 eV and then collide
with deuterated cathodes?   I calculate the cross section for
D-D collisions with a collision energy of (for instance) 500 eV
to be about 1.5 E-26 barns.  Factoring in the velocity of the 
500 eV deuterons and the density of deuterons in the target (assumed
equal to the density of Pd), and the current of 100 mA = 6E17 ions/sec,
I get a fusion rate of about 0.0004 fusions/sec.  This is several
orders of magnitude below the fusion rate corresponding to the 
claimed neutron flux, which in turn is far below the fusion rate
required to generate the claimed excess heat.  Since no consistent
picture is presented by the given data, we have to conclude that
significant experimental error is involved somewhere.

Note that my calculation is just a ballpark figure, and while it
could be off by a couple orders of magnitude in either direction,
I don't think I'm off by ten orders of magnitude as would be
required to sustain a claim of 10E7 neutrons/second.

>     ==kuch Neutron spectra showed neutron  energies up to 17MeV 
>     ==kuch with anomalous shift to high energies (five orders) 
>     ==kuch relative to d-d  reaction.  Gamma-spectrometry 
>     ==kuch howed low level radioactive isotopes formation. 

"Anomalous shift" or experimental error?  What controls were made
for these measurements?  How low is "low level"?

>     ==kuch Together with  half-life time measurements it allowed 
>     ==kuch to identify some of the isotopes, such as Rh and  Sr isotopes. 

Perhaps Rh just happened to be in the Pd sample?  Sr is of course a
fission byproduct...  What controls were made for sample contamination?
Were the observed isotopes present in any abundance that might correlate
with the claimed neutron levels?

>     ==kuch Most of the lines (~100) are still unidentified. 
>     ==kuch Non-background gamma-lines  sometimes can be seen for 
>     ==kuch few days.  Most of the gamma-lines appear in lower than  
>     ==kuch 300KeV region.

With 100 unidentified lines, and no indication of the quality of the
gamma-spectroscopy, how can we assume the identification of isotopes
is correct and that the equipment wasn't simply acting up for
some reason?  "Sometimes... for a few days..."  Could there be 
radioactive contamination in the lab?  Was the lab scanned with a 
geiger counter?  I don't see evidence that the authors attempted to
eliminate alternative explanations.

>     ==kuch   X-ray films outside the chamber with led  screens show some
>     ==kuch  beam-like  spots with energy 100-200 KeV. 
>     ==kuch    Charged particles registration with SSB and CR-39  
>     ==kuch detectors showed good correlation of the results obtained 
>     ==kuch by these methods. Maximal  observed fluxes of charged particles 
>     ==kuch were ~106 S-1.

Where were the detectors located?  Were they in the glow chamber?
Couldn't they simple have detected stray plasma particles?
Why should there have been beam-like emissions from a glow discharge?
Again, the data presented are not mutually consistent.

>     ==kuch  X-ray film with lead screens  showed X-ray fluxes up to 109  
>     ==kuch s-1] with soft (<1KeV) and hard (10-30KeV) components.  
>     ==kuch Sometimes characteristic X-rays of palladium can be seen 
>     ==kuch with Ge-Li detector."

Again, the "sometimes" here really worries me.  Is it reproducible or
isn't it?

>     ==kuch   [from "Calorimetric and Nuclear Products Measurements 
>     ==kuch at Glow Discharge in  Deuterium"; Yan KUCHEROV, 
>     ==kuch Alexander KARABUT, Irina SAVVATIMOVA Scientific  
>     ==kuch industrial Association "Luch", Podolsk,  Moscow Region, 
>     ==kuch Russian Federation (1993)]   
>
>  {Q4J13}   Exactly when did he say this claim that there
>was "no nuclear effect", Steve?      

Perhaps what he meant was there was no nuclear effect capable of
providing substantial amounts of excess heat.

If the paper is ever published, I'd like to see how they explain
what they did, in particular what controls were used.  They may
have used a lot of different detectors, but there are a number 
of conceivable explanations besides cold fusion.

>  BTW, readers, there were other discussions of such systems as covered
>previously in the archives (also COLD FUSION TIMES vol 1., numbers 1,4).
>
>   "There was a Chinese team{17-20} that presented results from a somewhat
>    similar system to that described by Kucherov. A glow discharge was
>    created by applying high voltage (7-11 KV, 50 Hz) between two
>    electrodes inside of a glass bulb containing deuterium at low pressure
>    (4-13 torr)."
>                 [after Peter Hagelstein (1993)]

Sure, so they created a glow discharge at high voltage.  Looks to me
like they made a fluorescent light bulb using deuterium gas.  Did 
they see anything?

>  "V. A. Romodanov... The glow discharge was run in deuterium gas 
> at 100-200 torr, with an applied voltage in the range of 40-125 V, 
> and a current of 3-4 A.  Various cathode metals were used, including 
> Y, Mo, Nb, Er, Ta, and W.

The voltage and current parameters given are consistent with an arc
discharge, not a glow discharge.

>     "Tritium generation rates between 10{5} atoms/second and 
> 10{9} atoms/second were measured in the different metals under 
> various conditions. The largest rate (1.7 X 10{9}) was obtained in 
> Nb at 1170 Deg. K, corresponding to an increase in tritium activity 
> in the deuterium gas of 2.3 X 10{4}."
>                 [after Peter Hagelstein (1993)]

Again, a tritium generation rate of 2x10E9 would give a fusion energy
production rate of about 0.2 watts.  But how were the measurements
done?  If the author doesn't know the difference between an arc and
a glow discharge, why should I assume he/she is competent to measure
tritium generation? 

When it comes down to it, if you can't present a coherent and 
consistent picture for an experimental phenomenon, if there's no
clear set of compelling evidence, you have to assume that
experimental error is playing a significant role somewhere.

Where are the references so interested parties can see for themselves?

**************
Robert F. Heeter
rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Disclaimers Apply



cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.20 / John Lewis /  Re: Question for Dale Bass
     
Originally-From: court@newton.physics.mun.ca (John Lewis)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Question for Dale Bass
Date: 20 Feb 1994 21:52:34 GMT
Organization: Memorial University of Nfld, St. John's, NF

In article <xW-p2ge.jedrothwell@delphi.com> jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:
 ...
>takes? We will find out how this comes out. Typing message after message, and
>asking the same old questions time after time will not change the outcome.
> 
>- Jed

There's really only one important question that needs to be answered by
the "cold fusion" advocates, and it is indeed very old and very tedious and
VERY boring.  But you may rest assured that almost every reader of this
newsgroup asks it after each and every one of your postings, whether or not we
bother to post it:

	"WHEN WILL THE HOT WATER HEATER BE READY?"

J.Lewis
St. John's, Newfoundland

cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudencourt cudfnJohn cudlnLewis cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.21 / mitchell swartz /  Reply to Robert Heeter (re: Jones on Kucherov, excerpt posted)
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Reply to Robert Heeter (re: Jones on Kucherov, excerpt posted)
Subject: Re: Reply to Steve 6: Kucherov's expt. & statement, x-rays
Date: Mon, 21 Feb 1994 02:29:22 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

   In Message-ID: <2k8hh1$cp8@tom.pppl.gov>
Subject: Re: Reply to Steve 6: Kucherov's expt. & statement, x-rays
Robert F. Heeter (rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu)
writes critical comments, based apparently only upon excerpts
obtained from portions of an abstract posted by this author:

   > Kucherov (1993) has confirmed the colder fusion processes
   > in the gas glow discharge systems.
=rh   "On the contrary, as I will explain below, he has presented a
=rh   confusing set of claims which are not mutually consistent."

   Robert brings up several good points.
   First, the poorly chosen choice of excerpts is not the fault of the 
paper's authors, nor is it representative of the experiments.
It was my choice, and had a few errors on the typing.

    Second, I am not going to spoon-feed
papers to physicists and hot-fusion people who obviously
have access to obtain, 
and presumably the talent to read, and comprehend
the cited papers and abstracts (etc.). 
Honest scientific questions will flourish when
an effort is put in by the TB-skeptics to honestly 
read, and report upon, the literature.


=rh   "The claimed nuclear data are inconsistent with both the claimed
=rh   excess heat and expected fusion rates for the system described."

   Not if there are more then one pathway.  
Not if neutrons are not involved in that pathway.
Do you disagree, Robert?   
Do you demand that neutrons accompany each an every reaction?
  

   > ==kuch  Discharge current varied in 10-100mA and voltage 
   >==kuch in 100-500V range  *****  maximal measured excessive 
   > ==kuch heat was about 30W and about 10KJ, about ten  
   >==kuch times the heat that could be produced in chemical reactions 
   >==kuch with existing deuterium and  up to five times the electric input.
=rh   "So input power ranged from 1-50 W.  Assuming that "maximal measured
=rh   excessive heat" occurred for 50 W input, the statement "up to five times
=rh   the electric input" is extremely misleading."

  You have deduced the widest possible, but not necessarily
the actual parametric values.   

=rh    "There isn't sufficient
=rh   data presented that we can really understand the claims made."

   These were only excerpts.  There will be no more 
spoon-feeding (vide supra)
Have you made any effort to obtain the
paper? Abstract? previous papers?   Read any of them?


     >==kuch   Excessive heat was observed in about 50% out of 78  
     >==kuch experiments in which calorimeter was used. 
=rh   "What about the other 50%?  Deficient heat?  What was the calorimetry?
=rh   I've run glow discharges, and have no idea how one would do power
=rh   calorimetry measurements on one."

   If you learn from your teachers, since many of your questions
are clever, you might make a compelling contribution.


   >==kuch    "In different experiments heat production  was not 
   >==kuch correlated with neutron or gamma fluxes, but in a separate 
   >==kuch experiments it was.        ****     Neutron fluxes with 
   >==kuch intensity up to 107n/S were observed by activation of silver 
   >==kuch foil  3He-filled detectors and scintillation detectors." 
=rh   "What on earth is the first sentence supposed to mean?"

  It is English, not their first language.   Have patience.


=rh    "As for the 
=rh   second sentence, at roughly 10 MeV per claimed fusion (nuclear)
=rh   reaction, we see that even a continuous (as opposed to peak) neutron
=rh   production rate of 10E+7 (assuming that 107 is not what was meant)
=rh   corresponds to 10E14 eV/sec of fusion energy = 1.6 x 10E-5 Watts.
=rh   Sorry, 20 microwatts of fusion production is *not* proof that 
=rh   the excess heat is nuclear in origin."

   You have made some good points and a couple of possible mistakes here.

     1) You assume, probably incorrectly, that neutrons are the only
pathway.  Clearly in this system, the neutron pathways far exceeds
the neutronpenic levels seen with cold (electrolytic) fusion. 
   In both systems, there are obviously other pathways.

    2) You have assumed a Qt about half of the  22.4 MeV/rxn which
might be more appropriate for some of these putative reactions
(producing 4He).    This  minor change might make your calculation
off by a factor of ca. two for one calculation of the putative 
production rate.


=rh  "Now, how much fusion would one expect to see when deuterium ions 
=rh  are accelerated in a glow discharge to up to 500 eV and then collide
=rh  with deuterated cathodes?   I calculate the cross section for
=rh  D-D collisions with a collision energy of (for instance) 500 eV
=rh  to be about 1.5 E-26 barns.  Factoring in the velocity of the 
=rh  500 eV deuterons and the density of deuterons in the target (assumed
=rh  equal to the density of Pd), and the current of 100 mA = 6E17 ions/sec,
=rh  I get a fusion rate of about 0.0004 fusions/sec. "

   One error may be the cross-section calculation, although
the occupancy factor, and activation energy(ies), may contribute.
   Please share how you "calculate" the ("classical"?)
cross-section.   The density might be similar, but 
given the Bose condensations and other factors, it might
be larger.   It would be good to hear from some others on this.


=rh   "This is several
=rh  orders of magnitude below the fusion rate corresponding to the 
=rh  claimed neutron flux, which in turn is far below the fusion rate
=rh  required to generate the claimed excess heat."
=rh  Note that my calculation is just a ballpark figure, and while it
=rh  could be off by a couple orders of magnitude in either direction,
=rh  I don't think I'm off by ten orders of magnitude as would be
=rh  required to sustain a claim of 10E7 neutrons/second."
 
   Less by some calculations.   To the degree that his excess levels 
are correct, this means the neutron pathways are 0.00012% 
of the total in this system (assuming 30W excess heat).
  That is not quite ten orders of magnitude.   


   >==kuch Neutron spectra showed neutron  energies up to 17MeV 
   >==kuch with anomalous shift to high energies (five orders) 
   >==kuch relative to d-d  reaction.  Gamma-spectrometry 
   >==kuch howed low level radioactive isotopes formation. 
=rh  "Anomalous shift" or experimental error?  What controls were made
=rh  for these measurements?  How low is "low level"?

   I gather you think these people are rubes and forgot controls, dude?


   >==kuch Together with  half-life time measurements it allowed 
   >==kuch to identify some of the isotopes, such as Rh and  Sr isotopes. 
=rh  "Perhaps Rh just happened to be in the Pd sample?  Sr is of course a
=rh fission by product...  What controls were made for sample contamination?"

   Do you think they were too stupid to take controls about this, too?
[Only Princeton gets it right?       ;-)    ]        Any evidence?


   >==kuch Most of the lines (~100) are still unidentified. 
   >==kuch Non-background gamma-lines  sometimes can be seen for 
   >==kuch few days.  Most of the gamma-lines appear in lower than  
   >==kuch 300KeV region.
=rh  "With 100 unidentified lines, and no indication of the quality of the
=rh  gamma-spectroscopy, how can we assume the identification of isotopes
=rh  is correct and that the equipment wasn't simply acting up for
=rh  some reason?  "Sometimes... for a few days..."  Could there be 
=rh  radioactive contamination in the lab?  Was the lab scanned with a 
=rh  geiger counter?  I don't see evidence that the authors attempted to
=rh  eliminate alternative explanations."

   You think they were too lightweight to take controls and background
levels too?    Any evidence for this allegation?  
   Interesting.    Very interesting.


   >==kuch   X-ray films outside the chamber with led  screens show some
   >==kuch  beam-like  spots with energy 100-200 KeV. 
   >==kuch Charged particles registration with SSB and CR-39  
   >==kuch detectors showed good correlation of the results obtained 
   >==kuch by these methods. Maximal  observed fluxes of charged particles 
   >==kuch were ~106 S-1.
=rh  "Where were the detectors located?  Were they in the glow chamber?
=rh  Couldn't they simple have detected stray plasma particles?
=rh  Why should there have been beam-like emissions from a glow discharge?
=rh  Again, the data presented are not mutually consistent.   ...
=rh  If the paper is ever published, I'd like to see how they explain
=rh  what they did, in particular what controls were used.  They may
=rh  have used a lot of different detectors, but there are a number 
=rh  of conceivable explanations besides cold fusion."

  You ought obtain the paper.  Your good questions, except for the
sophomoric and unfounded statements, need more data. 
    Any comments, young grad student, on the implications
if this is correct?   If they really took controls?
How about the implications if cold fusion becomes (eventually)
as explainable as piezoelectricity (or the actions of a 
poled ferroelectric under compression)?



=rh  "Where are the references so interested parties can see 
=rh   for themselves?"

    Posted this once already, but for the record:
    1)  Calorimetric and Nuclear Products Measurements 
Glow Discharge in  Deuterium"; Yan KUCHEROV, 
Alexander KARABUT, Irina SAVVATIMOVA Scientific  
Russian Federation (1993), ICCF-4

    2)  Hagelstein refs in COLD FUSION TIMES vol 1., number 1.
See also Conf Proc for ICCF-3.    

    Best wishes
            -   Mitchell Swartz  (mica@world.std.com)

  "It is to be regretted I confess, that democratical states must always
 feel before they can see; it is this that makes their governments
 slow, but the people will be right at last"
       George Washington, Letter to Lafayette  7/25/1785




cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.21 / Robert Heeter /  Re: Reply to Robert Heeter (re: Jones on Kucherov, excerpt posted)
     
Originally-From: rfheeter@theory.pppl.gov (Robert F. Heeter)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reply to Robert Heeter (re: Jones on Kucherov, excerpt posted)
Date: 21 Feb 1994 00:03:51 -0500
Organization: Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory, Princeton University,
Princeton NJ 08540

In article <CLJywz.Mnt@world.std.com>,
mitchell swartz <mica@world.std.com> wrote:
>   In Message-ID: <2k8hh1$cp8@tom.pppl.gov>
>Subject: Re: Reply to Steve 6: Kucherov's expt. & statement, x-rays
>Robert F. Heeter (rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu)
>writes critical comments, based apparently only upon excerpts
>obtained from portions of an abstract posted by this author:

That's correct; I haven't been able to obtain the articles yet.
>
>   > Kucherov (1993) has confirmed the colder fusion processes
>   > in the gas glow discharge systems.
>=rh   "On the contrary, as I will explain below, he has presented a
>=rh   confusing set of claims which are not mutually consistent."
>
>   Robert brings up several good points.
>   First, the poorly chosen choice of excerpts is not the fault of the 
>paper's authors, nor is it representative of the experiments.
>It was my choice, and had a few errors on the typing.

Well, the intent of my post was to indicate that the excerpts
did not prove the sort of nuclear effects you were claiming.
I would have been delighted to read a complete, self-consistent,
unambigous presentation to justify the claimed nuclear origin
for the excess heat reported in cold fusion.

(I'll acknowledge that I'm still reading textbooks, so perhaps
I prefer my physics to be a little more cut-and-dried than most.)

>    Second, I am not going to spoon-feed papers to physicists and 
>hot-fusion people who obviously have access to obtain, and presumably 
>the talent to read, and comprehend the cited papers and abstracts (etc.). 

Actually, I'm not sure our library carries the ICCF conf. procs.,
not the Cold Fusion Times, nor some of the other literature
you cited.  But I need to do a library run later this week,
and I'm curious about these glow discharge experiments (might
see about persuading someone to let me put deuterium in our
glow discharge), so I'll look...

While I would not expect you to spoon-feed anything to anyone,
I would have liked it if the excerpts you presented gave more 
conclusive proof for *your* (not their) claims.

>Honest scientific questions will flourish when
>an effort is put in by the TB-skeptics to honestly 
>read, and report upon, the literature.

Don't make the mistake of assuming that because I am in a plasma
physics program, and am organizing the hot fusion FAQ, that I
am a "TB-skeptic".  No one with my lack of experience can claim
to know enough about any field of science that he/she could be 
a true-blue skeptic regarding any unusual new claims.

>=rh   "The claimed nuclear data are inconsistent with both the claimed
>=rh   excess heat and expected fusion rates for the system described."
>
>   Not if there are more then one pathway.  
>Not if neutrons are not involved in that pathway.
>Do you disagree, Robert?   
>Do you demand that neutrons accompany each an every reaction?

I wasn't referring solely to the neutrons.  The observed neutrons,
x-rays, and charged particles are all several orders of magnitude
too low for the claimed levels of excess heat, and several orders
of magnitude too high for the expected (conventional) fusion rate
which I estimated.

If you are going to claim a nuclear reaction releasing 10s of MeVs
worth of energy, and if you claim it's a fusion reaction involving
two nuclei merging to form a larger nucleus, then regardless of
what pathway may be involved, there will be some sort of 
energetic emission.  A nucleus is not so tightly coupled to the
lattice that a nuclear interaction between two particles, releasing
10s of MeVs worth of energy, will generate only heat.  

At least, that's the conventional-physics explanation.  What
new pathway is there which would be neutron-penic, x-ray-penic,
and charged-particle-penic, all at the same time?

>   > ==kuch  Discharge current varied in 10-100mA and voltage 
>   >==kuch in 100-500V range  *****  maximal measured excessive 
>   > ==kuch heat was about 30W and about 10KJ, about ten  
>   >==kuch times the heat that could be produced in chemical reactions 
>   >==kuch with existing deuterium and  up to five times the electric input.
>=rh   "So input power ranged from 1-50 W.  Assuming that "maximal measured
>=rh   excessive heat" occurred for 50 W input, the statement "up to five times
>=rh   the electric input" is extremely misleading."
>
>  You have deduced the widest possible, but not necessarily
>the actual parametric values.   

Having played with glow discharges, I would claim that current and
applied voltage scale together, so that 100V and 10mA = 1 W, and
500V and 100mA = 50 W, are the correct parametric values.

>=rh    "There isn't sufficient
>=rh   data presented that we can really understand the claims made."

>   These were only excerpts.  There will be no more 
>spoon-feeding (vide supra)  Have you made any effort to obtain the
>paper? Abstract? previous papers?   Read any of them?

Not yet; I was simply trying to make an effort to understand how
the excerpt, where the data didn't allow me to understand the claim,
supported your claim for a nuclear origin to cold-fusion energy.

>     >==kuch   Excessive heat was observed in about 50% out of 78  
>     >==kuch experiments in which calorimeter was used. 
>=rh   "What about the other 50%?  Deficient heat?  What was the calorimetry?
>=rh   I've run glow discharges, and have no idea how one would do power
>=rh   calorimetry measurements on one."

>   If you learn from your teachers, since many of your questions
>are clever, you might make a compelling contribution.

Alas, the power calorimetry we're taught here at Princeton generally
involves measuring neutrons and alpha particles, and determining
power outputs from them.  But with the internet and the library
system as my teachers, I'll go look up the paper and ask more questions
later...

>   >==kuch    "In different experiments heat production  was not 
>   >==kuch correlated with neutron or gamma fluxes, but in a separate 
>   >==kuch experiments it was.        ****     Neutron fluxes with 
>   >==kuch intensity up to 107n/S were observed by activation of silver 
>   >==kuch foil  3He-filled detectors and scintillation detectors." 
>=rh   "What on earth is the first sentence supposed to mean?"
>
>  It is English, not their first language.   Have patience.

Patience is generally not a problem among fusion scientists. :)
(How many years to go?)

>=rh    "As for the 
>=rh   second sentence, at roughly 10 MeV per claimed fusion (nuclear)
>=rh   reaction, we see that even a continuous (as opposed to peak) neutron
>=rh   production rate of 10E+7 (assuming that 107 is not what was meant)
>=rh   corresponds to 10E14 eV/sec of fusion energy = 1.6 x 10E-5 Watts.
>=rh   Sorry, 20 microwatts of fusion production is *not* proof that 
>=rh   the excess heat is nuclear in origin."

>   You have made some good points and a couple of possible mistakes here.
>
>     1) You assume, probably incorrectly, that neutrons are the only
>pathway.  Clearly in this system, the neutron pathways far exceeds
>the neutronpenic levels seen with cold (electrolytic) fusion. 
>   In both systems, there are obviously other pathways.

With charged-particle production and x-ray output both at about the
same level as for neutrons, the estimate given above shows that regardless 
of what pathway is involved, the observed nuclear effects are orders of
magnitude below the claimed 30 watts of excess heat.

>    2) You have assumed a Qt about half of the  22.4 MeV/rxn which
>might be more appropriate for some of these putative reactions
>(producing 4He).    This  minor change might make your calculation
>off by a factor of ca. two for one calculation of the putative 
>production rate.

The D-D reactions are:
	D + D -> T + p + 4.03 MeV
	D + D -> 3He + n + 3.27 MeV

It's only when you include the D-T reaction that can follow from the
first of the D-D reactions listed, or the D-He3 reaction that can
follow from the second reaction, that you get into the 20 MeV range.

There are two possibilities:  

(1) At low reaction rates, little of the
T or He3 produced will be consumed in subsequent reactions, and
my estimate of 10 MeV/reaction is then a factor of 2-3 above the
3-4 MeV produced in the D-D reactions.  This is the situation
prevailing in the glow discharge; I was being conservative.

(2) At higher reaction rates, much of the T and He3 will be consumed
in subsequent reactions.  In this case, 21-23 MeV will be released,
but there are *two reactions* generating this release, so an
estimate of 10 MeV per reaction is still correct to within 15%.

In any event, even if I am off by the factor of two as you suggest,
or even a factor of 6, so that the power corresponding to the
observed nuclear reactions is on the order of 100 microwatts,
this is still 5 orders of magnitude below the claimed 30 watts of 
excess heat.  

>=rh  "Now, how much fusion would one expect to see when deuterium ions 
>=rh  are accelerated in a glow discharge to up to 500 eV and then collide
>=rh  with deuterated cathodes?   I calculate the cross section for
>=rh  D-D collisions with a collision energy of (for instance) 500 eV
>=rh  to be about 1.5 E-26 barns.  Factoring in the velocity of the 
>=rh  500 eV deuterons and the density of deuterons in the target (assumed
>=rh  equal to the density of Pd), and the current of 100 mA = 6E17 ions/sec,
>=rh  I get a fusion rate of about 0.0004 fusions/sec. "

>   One error may be the cross-section calculation, although
>the occupancy factor, and activation energy(ies), may contribute.
>   Please share how you "calculate" the ("classical"?)
>cross-section.   The density might be similar, but 
>given the Bose condensations and other factors, it might
>be larger.   It would be good to hear from some others on this.

I can certainly make the calculation more transparent.  

Fusion cross-section data are widely available; I used the formula on 
page 44 of the Naval Research Lab's _Plasma Formulary_, NRL Pub #177-4405.

First note the following curve parameters:

Parameter	D+D->T+p	D+D->He3+n
A1		46.097		47.88
A2		372		482
A3		0.000436	0.000308
A4		1.22		1.177

I also used the following variables/constants:

Energy: 500 eV = 0.5 KeV = 8 x 10E-17 Joule
Deuteron Mass: 3.35 x 10E-34 kg
Velocity of incident deuteron with above mass and energy: 6.9 km/sec
Current in glow discharge plasma: 100 mA
	(assume discharge optimized for D ion collisions with Pd
	cathode, so current is not too heavily dominated by
	electrons; if electrons dominate, drop expected
	fusion output correspondingly.)
Current of 100 mA corresponds to 6 x 10E17 ions/sec hitting cathode.
Density of Palladium metal:  about 12 gm/cm^3
Number density of Pd atoms:  12 gm/cm^3 * 1 mol/106.4gm * 6x10E23/mol
				= 6.8 x 10E+22 atoms/cm^3
Assume that after steady state operation with deuterated Pd and
deuterium ion implantation into the Pd, that the number density
of deuterium atoms in the Pd is comparable to that of Pd atoms.

Given the above parameters, the cross section formula is:

Sigma = A2 / [ E * (1 + (A4-E*A3)^2) * (exp(A1/sqrt(E)) - 1) ]

For the above reactions, this yields Sigma = 1.45 x 10E-26 barns
for D + D->T + p, and Sigma = 1.6 x 10E-27 barns for D + D -> He3 + p.

Given the cross-section Sigma, and converting 1 barn = 10E-24 cm^2,
the standard reaction-rate formula is (so far as I know),

Reactions per ion (per second) = Sigma * Velocity * Density of target 
particles.

Using the above parameters (with appropriate unit conversions)
I get a reaction probability of about 6.8 E-22.  I'm not 100%
sure that this formula is correct; if anything I'd expect it
to overestimate the reaction probability because it basically
assumes the D ions fly through the Pd lattice for one second
at their original velocity!  This of course is dreadfully
wrong, and undoubtedly the actual reaction rate is far below
what I have indicated.

At any rate, given the above reactions/ion, we then find:

Reactions per second = reactions per ion * ions per second

This gives us the 0.0004 expected fusions/second which I
originally claimed.  The estimate is probably far too high,
however.  If we assume that the D ion travels as much as a
millimeter into the Pd lattice before stopping, then its 
average velocity will be about 3.5 km/sec, which means
that it stops in something like (1 mm)/ (3.5x10E6 mm/sec),
or about 3 x 10E-7 seconds.  This would then push my fusion
estimate down by at least 6 orders of magnitude, to about
0.0000000004 reactions/second.

>=rh   "This is several
>=rh  orders of magnitude below the fusion rate corresponding to the 
>=rh  claimed neutron flux, which in turn is far below the fusion rate
>=rh  required to generate the claimed excess heat."
>=rh  Note that my calculation is just a ballpark figure, and while it
>=rh  could be off by a couple orders of magnitude in either direction,
>=rh  I don't think I'm off by ten orders of magnitude as would be
>=rh  required to sustain a claim of 10E7 neutrons/second."
> 
>   Less by some calculations.   To the degree that his excess levels 
>are correct, this means the neutron pathways are 0.00012% 
>of the total in this system (assuming 30W excess heat).
>  That is not quite ten orders of magnitude.   

That was not quite what I meant.  I meant that a claim of 10E7
neutrons/second is at least ten orders of magnitude greater than
would be expected based upon the expected number of fusion events
due to D-D collisions from ions in the glow discharge hitting
the Pd-D cathode.

To the degree that the excess heat levels are correct, the 
combination of neutron + charged particle + x-ray pathways
is many orders of magnitude below the total.  But what other
pathways can there be?  And the combination of neutron + charged
particle + x-ray pathways is *at least* ten orders of magnitude
above what one would predict from conventional fusion theory.

The data are simply not consistent, either with fusion physics
or with each other.

>   >==kuch Neutron spectra showed neutron  energies up to 17MeV 
>   >==kuch with anomalous shift to high energies (five orders) 
>   >==kuch relative to d-d  reaction.  Gamma-spectrometry 
>   >==kuch howed low level radioactive isotopes formation. 
>=rh  "Anomalous shift" or experimental error?  What controls were made
>=rh  for these measurements?  How low is "low level"?
>
>   I gather you think these people are rubes and forgot controls, dude?

No, I was just hoping you'd have tried to present a more complete
picture, so that the honest skeptics could take this on more than faith.

>   >==kuch Together with  half-life time measurements it allowed 
>   >==kuch to identify some of the isotopes, such as Rh and  Sr isotopes. 
>=rh  "Perhaps Rh just happened to be in the Pd sample?  Sr is of course a
>=rh fission by product...  What controls were made for sample contamination?"
>
>   Do you think they were too stupid to take controls about this, too?
>[Only Princeton gets it right?       ;-)    ]        Any evidence?

By asking "what controls were made", I was not in any way implying that
"no controls were made"; I simply wanted to know "what controls were
made", so that I could lay to rest my curiosity about possible 
experimental errors.  I believe in the Sherlock Holmes method of
science - it's only when every conceivable explanation has been
eliminated that the inconceivable (or should I say farfetched)
explanation must be true. :)  So long as there are questions regarding
whether cold fusion researchers have eliminated the conceivable
explanations, I would think it would be good scientific practice
to summarize the controls used in the abstracts as well as the
observed data.  I also think it would be good to cite the controls 
whenever the data are cited.

>   >==kuch Most of the lines (~100) are still unidentified. 
>   >==kuch Non-background gamma-lines  sometimes can be seen for 
>   >==kuch few days.  Most of the gamma-lines appear in lower than  
>   >==kuch 300KeV region.
>=rh  "With 100 unidentified lines, and no indication of the quality of the
>=rh  gamma-spectroscopy, how can we assume the identification of isotopes
>=rh  is correct and that the equipment wasn't simply acting up for
>=rh  some reason?  "Sometimes... for a few days..."  Could there be 
>=rh  radioactive contamination in the lab?  Was the lab scanned with a 
>=rh  geiger counter?  I don't see evidence that the authors attempted to
>=rh  eliminate alternative explanations."
>
>   You think they were too lightweight to take controls and background
>levels too?    Any evidence for this allegation?  

Umm...  Mitch?  How have you inferred that I thought there were no
controls?  I simply said I didn't see the evidence of them.  To my
mind the natural implication is simply that you didn't include it,
not that it didn't exist.  How you convert my simple questions regarding
experimental procedures into an allegation of any sort is beyond me.

>   Interesting.    Very interesting.

While you don't want to be spoon-feeding everything to us poor
readers, it would be helpful if the data were presented a little
more completely, with controls, background levels, and error bars,
so that these sorts of questions would be less likely to arise.

The person who asks critical questions is not necessarily a critic.
When the picture presented by the data is not self-consistent,
explanations must be found.

>   >==kuch   X-ray films outside the chamber with led  screens show some
>   >==kuch  beam-like  spots with energy 100-200 KeV. 
>   >==kuch Charged particles registration with SSB and CR-39  
>   >==kuch detectors showed good correlation of the results obtained 
>   >==kuch by these methods. Maximal  observed fluxes of charged particles 
>   >==kuch were ~106 S-1.
>=rh  "Where were the detectors located?  Were they in the glow chamber?
>=rh  Couldn't they simple have detected stray plasma particles?
>=rh  Why should there have been beam-like emissions from a glow discharge?
>=rh  Again, the data presented are not mutually consistent.   ...
>=rh  If the paper is ever published, I'd like to see how they explain
>=rh  what they did, in particular what controls were used.  They may
>=rh  have used a lot of different detectors, but there are a number 
>=rh  of conceivable explanations besides cold fusion."

>  You ought obtain the paper.  Your good questions, except for the
>sophomoric and unfounded statements, need more data. 

Not sure what was sophomoric or unfounded, but I'm glad you agree
that I shouldn't be convinced without more data.

>    Any comments, young grad student, on the implications
>if this is correct?   If they really took controls?
>How about the implications if cold fusion becomes (eventually)
>as explainable as piezoelectricity (or the actions of a 
>poled ferroelectric under compression)?

If what is correct?  The excess heat measurements, the
nuclear-products measurements, or the existence of controls? 
All three?  I'm withholding an answer until I understand
the question.

The implications if cold fusion becomes as explainable as
piezoelectricity or ferroelectrics depend a lot on what the
final explanation is. :)  

>=rh  "Where are the references so interested parties can see 
>=rh   for themselves?"
>
>    Posted this once already, but for the record:
>    1)  Calorimetric and Nuclear Products Measurements 
>Glow Discharge in  Deuterium"; Yan KUCHEROV, 
>Alexander KARABUT, Irina SAVVATIMOVA Scientific  
>Russian Federation (1993), ICCF-4

"Scientific Russian Federation" is the name of the journal?
I don't have access to ICCF-4 proceedings.  (Anyone want
to send me the relevant stuff?)

>    2)  Hagelstein refs in COLD FUSION TIMES vol 1., number 1.
>See also Conf Proc for ICCF-3.    

I will look.


*****************
Robert F. Heeter
"Bearding the lion in his den..."
rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Graduate Student, Princeton Plasma Physics Lab
Disclaimers most certainly apply.



cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.21 / John Logajan /  Re: Who owns the Internet?
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Who owns the Internet?
Date: Mon, 21 Feb 94 05:47:21 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

bks@s27w007.pswfs.gov (Bradley K. Sherman) writes:
>FidoNet ... is not in the same league as the Internet which now has over
>2 x 10^6 hosts.

The point was that internets exist outside the influence of government
funding and that your argument that the internet would not exist except
for the largess of government is as silly as suggesting that private mail
carriers could never compete with the government (Lysander Spooner's
American Letter Mail Company was forced out of business by an act of Congress
in 1845 after embarrasing the government Post Office with far lower rates
and faster delivery times.)

>>You can't make immoral things moral by the power of the vote.
 
>Acknowledging the accomplishments of the US Government support for the
>sciences hardly seems to have much to do with questions of morality.

You are the one who wanted to justify tax (coerced) funding by appealing
to the idea of democracy as a blanket justification.  Now when your feet
are to the fire, you attempt to context switch to the spending side and
ignore the revenue side.

Coercion is inimical to morality, and always will be -- your appetites
not withstanding.

-- 
-John Logajan MS612; Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
-logajan@network.com, 612-391-1159, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.21 /  dowen@vaxc.cc. /  Re: Breakthrough with new phenomenon ?.......
     
Originally-From: dowen@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Breakthrough with new phenomenon ?.......
Date: 21 Feb 94 19:52:50 +1100
Organization: Computer Centre, Monash University, Australia

Hi folks,
Sorry about the length, but I *have* chopped a fair bit out this time....
In article <1994Feb17.111754.1387@physc1.byu.edu>, jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
writes:
> This is getting lengthy; sorry.  Those who have followed this thread may
> wish to skip to the relatively short portions which I now contribute,
> which do not have > or >> before the text.
> 
> In article <1994Feb15.164135.1@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au>, 
> dowen@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au writes:
>> 
>> 
>> Hi Folks,
>> In article <1994Feb11.165121.1363@physc1.byu.edu>, jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
>> writes:
>>> While the Phys. Lett. A article discussed by Daryl Owen below is
>>> interesting, I agree with Dick Blue that the data are hardly compelling
>>> for a change in radioactivity of tritium in titanium.  Indeed, we find
>>> below the statement by the author of the paper:  
>>> "The author, though well aware that the experimental evidence is rather
>>> limited and that a theoretical foundation is lacking..."
>>> 
>>> Why should we attach a great deal of credence to the data when the
>>> researcher himself says "the experimental evidence is rather limited"?
>> 
>> This is incorrect, the researcher was *not* refering to his
>> data when he stated "the experimental evidence is rather limited".
>> He was in fact stating that *for his rather way-out theory*, the body of
>> scientific experimental evidence is rather limited. There is a difference
>> between the *experimental evidence for his theory* which even he describes
>> as "a highly unorthodox hypothesis" and the data he presents in his 
>> experiments. See below.
> 
> I disagree.  I have the Phys. Lett. A 184 (1993) 149-153 paper before me
> and find several instances where the author Reifenschweiler dutifully
> points out that the "experimental evidence is rather limited" for the data
> presented in these experiments he is now (belatedly) publishing.  
> 

He does *not* imply that the "experimental evidence is rather limited"
for the experimental data as presented in his two graphs (fig.2 and fig.3).
This data is the basis of his reports of reduced radioactivity.

> For example, on p. 150, he states:  "But there was also one experiment with
> a 10 times higher concentration of tritium and a roughly 5 times faster
> increase of temperature where the decrease of count rate did  not  occur."
> Sounds like a note of caution to me.

Indeed, his data only shows the reduced radioactivity effect for levels of
tritium below Ti T(sub)0.0035. This could well be a "caution" that the effect
is only present for these small concentrations of tritium. This does *not*
imply that the experimental evidence is "limited" within that range.
 
> 
> "This observation, however, is not quite certain because the evaporator
> was not removed from the measuring vessel and could have absorbed some
> tritium." So he expresses caution about his data -- this is proper.
> 

It should be noted that this sentence was lifted from a description
of "two independent experiments" he describes *as an aside*. These
experiments differ substantially from those experiments from which he
derives his graphical data on which he bases his reports of reduced
radioactivity.  

> The author says: "The counting efficiency of the GM-tube was tested several
> times and may be assumed constant during the experiment."
> Assumed constant?  A Geiger-Muller tube is hardly a sufficiently 
> sophisticated detector on which to base a claim of a departure from a large
> body of data on behavior of tritium decay, especially when he "assumes" the
> constancy of a single GM-tube.  My own experience with Geiger counters
> suggests that this is a probable source of error in this experiment.  
> 
> Now hear this:  it is not my duty to *prove* what he did wrong.

Now hear this.....??????   Getting a trifle pompous aren't we?
Not talking to one of your undergrads now Steve.
Still, if you can do it.............Heh,heh,

I tell you three times:  Steve, nobody is asking you to prove anything.

> Rather, it is *his* duty to use state-of-the-art detectors (multiple
> detectors, and repeatable experiments) to demonstrate a new effect. 
> He has not done this. So his paper does not provide compelling evidence
> for alteration of the tritium decay rate in titanium, by some 28%.

In his preface on page 149, Reifenschweiler states "....a decrease of the
radioactivity by 40% was observed."
 
>> 
>>> 
>>> We should remember that the notion of changing radioactive decay rates by
>>> changing the chemical environment of isotopes has been tried before, and

........................MANY LINES DELETED...............................
 
>>> If the decay rate of 3H was indeed affected dramatically by Ti, I think
>>> this would have been noticed.
>>> 
>>> I note that the data were acquired using a Geiger counter or a vibrating
>>> reed electrometer using an electrode placed inside the vessel. These are
>>> crude techniques.  As I argued in a posting 2-10-94, one must question
>>> data acquired with less than optimal detectors.  Until confirmed
>>> (or rejected) by use of state-of-the-art detectors, one must follow the
>>> author's own advice and be cautious of these data.
>>> 

I believe that in 1903 Madam Curie was awarded the nobel prize for work
done with a far cruder electrometer than that used by Otto Reifenschweiler.
Do you suggest she should be be damned for using "crude techniques" ?
In 10 years time current state of the art detectors will also probably
be thought of as "crude".

> 
> I stand by my statement directly above.
> 
>> 
>> Again a misconstruction of the original paper, the author offered *no*
>> advice to be "cautious of these data". See below.
> 
> I have provided evidence to the contrary from the paper (see above).
> 

And I in turn have found it wanting (See above)

>>> (Below is the post by Owen to which I respond.)
>>> 
>>> In article <1994Feb2.173720.1@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au>,
>>> dowen@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au writes:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Hi Folks,
>>>>  Firstly thanks to Prof. Jones for his offer to pass the SL questions
>>>> on to Prof. Crum.
>>>>  For those readers who can't get easy access to the original article,
>>>> here is my review of the paper by Otto Reifenschweiler entitled
>>>> "Reduced radioactivity of tritium in small titanium particles" as 
>>>> published in "Physics Letters A" of the 3-Jan-94.
>>>> This paper is based on work done at the Philips Research Laboratories
>>>> Eindhoven, Holland, in the early 1960's.
>>>> Otto Reifenschweiler is a retired chief physist of the Philips Research 
>>>> Laboratories.
>>>> 
>>>> Summary ........
>>>> The author describes two experiments involving the reduction of
>>>> radiation. The first concerns the reduction of radiation in tritium
>>>> loaded titanium particles as they are slowly heated, the second
>>>> relates how the loading of small uniform amounts of tritium into
>>>> fine Ti particles produces a (very) non proportional variation in 
>>>> radioactivity. A "highly unorthodox hypothesis" called "the nuclear
>>>> pair hypothesis" is put forward as a possible explanation of the above.
 
.........................MANY LINES DELETED.............................
                                                                      
>>>> proportionality between current i and concentration x was observed."
>>>>  In this experiment a 55% decrease (followed by a similar increase) from
>>>> the expected level of delta i/delta x versus concentration of tritium in
>>>> the Ti occured. (Sorry folks, no time now for the graph).
>>>> 
>>>> The hypothesis......
>>>> "......it seems justified to put forward a highly unorthodox hypothesis,
>>>> the nuclear pair hypothesis. If we assume that tritons absorbed in the 
>>>> extremely small single Ti-crystals an combine into pairs and that the
>>>> decay constant of such a pair is smaller than that of a free triton,
>>>> then the observed behaviour of all TiT(SUB)x  can be explained.
>>> 
>>>>  The author, though well aware that the experimental evidence is rather 
>>>     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>> limited and that a theoretical foundation is lacking, feels strongly 
>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>> 
>>>> attracted to the idea of nuclear pairing with reduced radioactivity and
>>>> he believes that it may have other applications.
>> 
>> The contentious (misunderstood) sentence is *partially* underlined by
>> Prof. Jones.
>> Here the author clearly states that the experimntl evidence and theoretical
>> foundation FOR HIS NUCLEAR PAIRING THEORY is lacking. This is *not*
>> a caution about *his* data is in some respect lacking in its veracity, but
>> rather he is drawing attention to the fact that *his theory* is a tenous,
>> "highly unorthodox hypothesis" (See above) which, as such, does not have
>> a large amount of *any* supportive experimental evidence or theoretical
>> foundation, be it derived from his experiments or the body of science.
>> 
> 
> His theory is certainly tenuous, but so also is the evidence for a large
> change of the tritium decay rate.   The author states:
> 
> "If we assume that tritons absorbed in the extremely small single Ti-crystals
> can combine into pairs and that the decay constant of such a pair is much
> smaller than that of a free triton,
> then the observed behaviour of all TiTx experiments can be explained."
> 
> Handwaving.  Assumptions not substantiated by any calculations whatever.
> Connection of assumptions, even if granted, to experiments is not established
> quantitatively.  Can such a "theory" account also for the experiment with
> null results?  Had I been a reviewer, I would have pointed out these blatant
> problems in the paper.
> 

The theory is not required to account for the null result experiment if the 
effect only occurs with low concentrations of tritium. (See above.)

> --Steven Jones
>
					Best regards to all,
					Daryl Owen.

This text is only attributable to myself.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudendowen cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.21 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Energy required for Fusion
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Energy required for Fusion
Date: Mon, 21 Feb 1994 10:54:49 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <1994Feb16.135209.60476@ucl.ac.uk> zcacnst@ucl.ac.uk
(Niels Stchedroff) writes:
>In article <haney.761332295@maverick>, haney@maverick.llnl.gov (Scott W. Haney) writes:
>|> crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>|> 
>|> >In article <haney.760983971@maverick>,
>|> >Scott W. Haney <haney@maverick.llnl.gov> wrote:
>|> 
>|> >>  As ITER is currently envisioned, it will be a whopper of a tokamak: 
>|> >>approximately 8m major radius, 3m minor radius, 6T field, 25MA current.
>|> >>The main mission of ITER is generating lots of fusion power (1500MW+) in
>|> >>an ignited D-T plasma. Therefore, the power out/power in is infinity. 

>|> >     make sure I'm not near wherever they dump the heat.  My suggestion
>|> >     is somewhere in M31 in Andromeda.
>|> >                                 dale bass
>|> 
>|>   If you read a little closer you'll notice that I said the fusion power
>|> was about 1500MW. However, as the plasma is ignited (meaning that no external
>|> heating is added) the ratio of power-out (1500MW) to power-in (0) is indeed
>|> infinity.  As for sitting at M31, this might .. .. .     .

I don't think so.  Your statement is still ridiculous on the face of it.  
Afterall, without plasma current and it's associated poloidal mag field's 
contribution to stability and confinement, the ITER would be toast.  That 
current also provides ohmic heating.  Further, the power supplying the 
continously running enormous vacuum pumps, the divertors, the cooling 
pumps for the diverse heating and field apparatus, the external heat 
exchangers etc., etc.,all must be considered.  The truth is that with
a crowbarring of the massive continued energy input (and heating) and 
the auxilliary heating, your ITER scientific breakeven ignition would 
be snuffed within an instant.  

But, dream on..  Your spin could save the ITER program!   It's not 
that far a field from the grist we get year after year after year on 
coming from (stand up and salute) the NATIONAL FUSION PROGRAM.   
I suppose a nice feature of what you have produced is a kind of "preview 
of what's coming" while they try to hold this piece of growing ITERpola 
together long enough to get it through the various goverment funding 
exercises each year.  

Just to stick a bit of reality in the equation, consider that "scientific"
breakeven only considers roughly 1/2000ths of barest minimal amount that 
must be considered for a "commercial" break-even.  Since TFTR is roughly 
a factor of 6 away from that kind of 'scientific breakeven' (depends on 
who's counting) they may have to use exactly your perfected TOTAL 
blanking of the 'energy in' to keep it 'in-the-money'. Do you really think
a bigger loop will jump an order 3 (2000times) gap???

You must find work on solar eclipses fascinating.  
Your scientific nose for political reality 30sec bites is astonishing. 
Of course, I trust these break-even conceptualizations are your own 
and not the influence of DoE sponsored or backed up paychecks recycled 
from hemp or something similarly toxic. You do work for the Board of 
Reagents of the Univ of CA. *know* doubt?        

Madame Clinton needs you on her upcoming campaign staff.  
If your efforts along this vane do work, influence the bucks to the
deficit with just a bit more to small techy things like plasma techno 
programs at NSF, NIST or ARPA.  It's okay re-orient ones view. I do
it once or twice a week.  
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc,Bx 1037, Prometheus II, Ltd., College Park, MD 20740-1037 |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.21 / Marc Verbruggen /  NIST publication 800-2
     
Originally-From: mvbr@se.alcbel.be (Marc Verbruggen)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: NIST publication 800-2
Date: 21 Feb 94 14:53:48 GMT
Organization: Alcatel Bell Telephone


--
Some time ago I retrieved a document written by J. Nechvatal from a ftp site (i
don't know anymore which one). Its title is "Public key cryptography", and it
is referred to as a NIST Special Publication 800-2.
I only have a text version. But because it contains much mathematics, the
mathematical symbols are unreadable.
Has anyone e.g. a postscript version of this document ? Has it been updated (my
version dates april 1991) ?
 ----------------------------------------------------------
Marc Verbruggen-GZ3             tel : 03.240.94.19
Alcatel Bell Telephone          fax : 03.240.99.50
F. Wellesplein 1                email : mvbr@se.alcbel.be
B-2018 Antwerp
Belgium
 
"System Manager's Headaches Are Not Cured With Aspirin,
 There Is A Better Way ..."
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenmvbr cudfnMarc cudlnVerbruggen cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.21 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Enough already.(Endless debates/Mitch)
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Enough already.(Endless debates/Mitch)
Date: 21 Feb 94 15:51:25 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

Robert Heeter, in his latest response to Mitch Swartz, generated a post
of over 400 lines.  My responses were of comparable length, and I regret
spending so much time on this guy, very frankly.  
Does he have any evidence of x-ray *spectra* showing characteristic Pd
(or other host lattice metal) lines, indicative of nuclear
processes?  No.  Does he have *quantitative* evidence of primary or 
secondary neutron
generation, which would accompany tritium or helium production via nuclear
reactions?  No.  Does he agree that the 5-minute sampling time
between voltage measurements as was done for the data reported by P&F in their
1993 Phys. Lett. A paper was inadequate?  He does not say. 

Robert Heeter hits the nail on the head (for the umpteenth time on this net):

"If you [Mitch, and one might include Jed and Gene and others] are going
to claim a nuclear reaction releasing 10s of MeVs worth of energy, and if you
claim it's a fusion reaction involving two nuclei merging to form a larger
nucleus, then regardless of what pathway may be involved, there will be some
sort of energetic emission.  A nucleus is not so tightly coupled to the lattice
that a nuclear interaction between two particles, releasing 10s of MeVs worth
of energy, will generate only heat."

The arguments could be strengthened by appeals to fundamental, empirical laws
of conservation of energy and momentum and charge, and to the relationship
delta-m = E/c2 -- as I and others have done in the past.  To no avail,
evidently, at least not with Mitch or Jed or Gene Mallove.  
But perhaps this is because we are arguing with people who are not
physicists and do not demand these foundational, experiential equations.
Jed once posted that E=mc2 does not work in a lattice:

"Okay, a million, million previous experiments whoed that E=mc2.  So what?
Every single one of them was wrong.  Period.  It does not work in metal
lattices under electrolysis, and Einstein was flat out wrong."
[Jed Rothwell post in Dec. 1992]

What basis do we have to reason scientifically with such people?

Now with regard to Kucherov, let me say that Kucherov has visited BYU in recent
months.  He told me that he finds that at least some of the products he has
claimed  may stem from "hot" fusion -- just as Heeter surmised.  
And this is consistent with
 evidence he has that there may have been voltage 'spikes' in his
power supply, so that well over 500 V of accelerating potential was present.
I don't think this is written down; but anyone having an interest can ask him
about this, and if he still worries that so-called "cold fusion" heat
may not be connected in fact to nuclear processes as he clearly stated during
the 'panel discussion' at the Maui meeting.

Here finally is the question to Mitch, which if he answers, we can consider
resuming a rational scientific discussion: 

"What new pathway is there which would be neutron-penic, x-ray-penic,
and charged-particle-penic, all at the same time?"
[thanks to R. Heeter, posted 21 Feb. 1994]

--Steven Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenjonesse cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.21 / Bradley Sherman /  Re: Who owns the Internet?
     
Originally-From: bks@s27w007.pswfs.gov (Bradley K. Sherman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Who owns the Internet?
Date: 21 Feb 1994 16:17:43 GMT
Organization: Dendrome, A Genome Database for Forest Trees


This thread does not belong in this conference.  This will be 
my last rejoinder.

Here is the statement to which I objected:
 In <tomkCLCwJL.IyA@netcom.com> tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich) writes:
 >>>>...
 >>>>Uncle Sam has no business on the net for any reason.
 >>>>...
I read "the net" in the context of the original subject line which was
"Who own's the Internet" [sic].

In article <1994Feb21.054721.28660@ns.network.com> logajan@ns.network.co
 (John Logajan) writes:
>
>             ... your argument that the internet would not exist except
>for the largess of government is as silly as ...

What I said was that *the* Internet exists because of ARPA and
NSF.  *The* Internet was born and thrives due to U.S. Government
money.  This is fact.  There are other networks, but they are not
being discussed on the 6:00 news and in the Wall Street Journal.
What might have been, or might be, I leave to your crystal ball.

> ...
>You are the one who wanted to justify tax (coerced) funding by appealing
>to the idea of democracy as a blanket justification.  Now when your feet
>are to the fire, you attempt to context switch to the spending side and
>ignore the revenue side.

Now you're getting carried away. Here's what I said:
 |Each of us US citizens has a say in how the government of the USA
 |is run.  Exactly why you fear democracy is not clear to me.

I think that you're trying to steer me towards one of more of your
hobby horses, John.  Take it to email or to sci.econ.

    --bks

    Whenever you have an efficient government,
    you have a dictatorship.  --Harry S. Truman

-- 
Bradley K. Sherman               P.O. Box 245                    
Computer Scientist               Berkeley, CA, 94701
Dendrome Project                 510-559-6437 FAX: 510-559-6440  
Institute of Forest Genetics     Internet: bks@s27w007.pswfs.gov
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenbks cudfnBradley cudlnSherman cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.21 / Scott Haney /  Re: Energy required for Fusion
     
Originally-From: haney@maverick.llnl.gov (Scott W. Haney)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Energy required for Fusion
Date: 21 Feb 94 20:43:13 GMT
Organization: Magnetic Fusion Energy - LLNL


Paul:

  In my post I was refering to the so-called Q-value for a plasma.
This quantity is infinity for an ignited plasma by definition. This
isn't an attempt to provide "spin" for ITER, it is a fact.
  Your reply was insulting and mean-spirited, not to mention
technically incorrect. A paycheck from the government does not cause
one, and myself in particular, to lose their ethics and scientific
objectivity. You know nothing about me and, quite frankly, your
comments, I believe, tell more about yourself and your biases. Posts
such as your reply are, in my opinion, extremely counter-productive
and inappropriate for a newsgroup whose charter is supposed to be
a TECHNICAL discussion of fusion. 
  By all means, let's talk about the power balance in a magnetic
fusion reactor. However, try to keep politics out of it. Also,
try to be polite and keep the personal attacks and invective out
of the discussion.

Scott Haney
--
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scott W. Haney        || Lawrence Livermore N'Lab || The above views are 
haney@random.llnl.gov || P.O. Box 808;  L-637     || mine and not neces-
(510) 423-6308        || Livermore, CA  94550     || sarily LLNL's.
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenhaney cudfnScott cudlnHaney cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.21 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Enough already.(Endless debates/Mitch)
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Enough already.(Endless debates/Mitch)
Date: 21 Feb 94 16:00:30 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

Robert Heeter, in his latest response to Mitch Swartz, generated a post
of over 400 lines.  My responses were of comparable length, and I regret
spending so much time on this guy, very frankly.  
Does he have any evidence of x-ray *spectra* showing characteristic Pd
(or other host lattice metal) lines, indicative of nuclear
processes?  No.  Does he have *quantitative* evidence of primary or 
secondary neutron
generation, which would accompany tritium or helium production via nuclear
reactions?  No.  Does he agree that the 5-minute sampling time
between voltage measurements as was done for the data reported by P&F in their
1993 Phys. Lett. A paper, specifically for the 10-minute boiling period for
which excess heat was calculated in that paper, was inadequate?  
He does not say. 

Robert Heeter hits the nail on the head (for the umpteenth time on this net):

"If you [Mitch, and one might include Jed and Gene and others] are going
to claim a nuclear reaction releasing 10s of MeVs worth of energy, and if you
claim it's a fusion reaction involving two nuclei merging to form a larger
nucleus, then regardless of what pathway may be involved, there will be some
sort of energetic emission.  A nucleus is not so tightly coupled to the lattice
that a nuclear interaction between two particles, releasing 10s of MeVs worth
of energy, will generate only heat."

The arguments could be strengthened by appeals to fundamental, empirical laws
of conservation of energy and momentum and charge, and to the relationship
delta-m = E/c2 -- as I and others have done in the past.  To no avail,
evidently, at least not with Mitch or Jed or Gene Mallove.  
But perhaps this is because we are arguing with people who are not
physicists and do not demand these foundational, experiential equations.
Jed once posted that E=mc2 does not work in a lattice:

"Okay, a million, million previous experiments whoed that E=mc2.  So what?
Every single one of them was wrong.  Period.  It does not work in metal
lattices under electrolysis, and Einstein was flat out wrong."
[Jed Rothwell post in Dec. 1992]

What basis do we have to reason scientifically with such people?

Now with regard to Kucherov, let me say that Kucherov has visited BYU in recent
months.  He told me that he finds that at least some of the products he has
claimed  may stem from "hot" fusion -- just as Heeter surmised.  
And this is consistent with
 evidence he has that there may have been voltage 'spikes' in his
power supply, so that well over 500 V of accelerating potential was present.
I don't think this is written down; but anyone having an interest can ask him
about this, and if he still thinks that so-called "cold fusion" heat
may not be connected in fact to nuclear processes, as he clearly stated during
the 'panel discussion' at the Maui meeting.

Here finally is the question to Mitch, which if he answers, we can consider
resuming a rational scientific discussion: 

"What new pathway is there which would be neutron-penic, x-ray-penic,
and charged-particle-penic, all at the same time?"
[thanks to R. Heeter, posted 21 Feb. 1994]

--Steven Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenjonesse cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.21 /  jonesse@physc1 /  cancel <1994Feb21.155125.1408@physc1.byu.edu>
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cancel <1994Feb21.155125.1408@physc1.byu.edu>
Date: 21 Feb 94 16:00:47 -0700

cancel <1994Feb21.155125.1408@physc1.byu.edu>
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenjonesse cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.22 / arthur blair /  Poloidal field?
     
Originally-From: blair@mksol.dseg.ti.com (arthur blair)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Poloidal field?
Date: Tue, 22 Feb 1994 01:07:21 GMT
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc

Could someone explain the what's and how's of the poloidal
field in a tokomak and how it generates the helical toroidal
field?
Thanx,
Art.
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenblair cudfnarthur cudlnblair cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.22 / mitchell swartz /  "Jones"-debate (Lack of reply from Steve)
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: "Jones"-debate (Lack of reply from Steve)
Date: Tue, 22 Feb 1994 05:31:22 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Subject: Enough already.(Endless debates/Mitch)
Message-ID: <1994Feb21.155125.1408@physc1.byu.edu>
Steven Jones (jonesse@physc1.byu.edu) writes:
  
=sj  "My responses were of comparable length, and I regret
=sj  spending so much time on this guy, very frankly."

  The one who unfortunately spent the time, 
diligently responding and replying, was me.

  Steven Jones began this by asking near-endless questions
in his marathon series of six posts.
Some of those questions contained some sly 
misstatements made by Steve Jones involving 
sampling theory, helium measurements, recombination, etc. 

  Steve was set straight in a series of posts which were a 
laborious reply to his questions and comments.

  Astonishingly, the reply questions were so good that
Steven has avoided, and veers from, ALL of the
questions unable to answer A SINGLE ONE.

  It is ironic that Steven began this, and then
Steven ignores the reply but merely continues to 
pontificate safely hidden in his ivory tower,
avoiding normal science discourse, and insulated
from even a reply to any of the topics HE BEGAN
even AFTER HIS starting HIS "debate".

  NOTA BENE:  The questions asked to Steven Jones
 remain valid, and several demand simple answers.


  TEN POSSIBLE REASONS STEVEN JONES WILL (CAN) NOT 
REPLY TO A SCIENTIFIC DEBATE WHICH HE BEGAN

1. Steven Jones purpose was only to waste
other peoples' time once again by his asking 
a score of questions purportedly for the purpose
of a "'JONES'-debate" [one designed to stall, but
never intended to be taken seriously].

2. Steves posts were apparently for
propaganda only.

3. Steven deserves sympathy for being borne
some six centuries too late,

4. Steven would like to hide behind the 
e-skirt of Robert Heeter since the
excess heat in the kitchen is too great.

5. Steven has a feigned interest in true science.

6. Steve recognizes the inconsistencies of his 
past postings.

7. Steve has a lack of concern about the 
inconsistencies of his past postings.

8.  Steve recognized that some of his information
appears to have elements which are non-linear
and time-variant.

9.  Steve is uncomfortable with those that actually
reason scientifically, rather than kow-tow.

10.  Steve has a fear of the truth coming out about this.

    Best wishes colleagues.

                 Mitchell Swartz  (mica@world.std.com)
  -------------------------------------------------------

     "Truth fears no trial"
Thomas Fuller (1654-1743)  Gnomologia, 1732, no 5,297



cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.21 / Robert Heeter /  Re: Poloidal field?
     
Originally-From: rfheeter@theory.pppl.gov (Robert F. Heeter)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Poloidal field?
Date: 21 Feb 1994 22:13:30 -0500
Organization: Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory, Princeton University,
Princeton NJ 08540

In article <1994Feb22.010721.21776@mksol.dseg.ti.com>,
arthur blair <blair@mksol.dseg.ti.com> wrote:
>Could someone explain the what's and how's of the poloidal
>field in a tokomak and how it generates the helical toroidal
>field?

I'd better not write too much more or the people I work with 
are going to start wondering when I'm actually working, but:

The toroidal field is simply that piece of the magnetic field
which runs straight around the torus; that is, if we took
the torus, cut it, and stretched it out into a long straight tube,
the toroidal field would run down the axis of the tube.

The poloidal field, by contrast, is whatever component of the field 
runs around the tube.

Another way to say it is that the toroidal field runs around the
torus the long way, and the poloidal field runs around the torus
the short way.

Now it starts to get confusing.  The way to generate a toroidal
field is to run a current through a winding which goes in the
poloidal direction.  For instance, if you imagine that tube we
made up above, and you wrap a coil of wire around the tube
(making a solenoid), then if you run an electric current through
the coil, you will generate a toroidal field through the coil,
and this field will run along the axis of the coil as described
above.  (To see this for a torus, instead of a tube, just
reconnect the ends of the tube to make the tube back into
a torus.)

Conversely, the way to generate a poloidal field is to run a
current in the toroidal direction.  One can do this with electrical
cables outside the torus, which run parallel to the torus,
or one can do it with currents through the plasma inside the
torus.

In a tokamak, the toroidal field is primarily generated by 
external coils, and simply runs straight through the torus.
The poloidal field is controlled partly by external coils
and partly by the internal plasma current.

If you add a toroidal vector and a poloidal vector together,
and follow the resultant around your torus, then you get
the helical shape which you ask about.  The helix is the
*combined* magnetic field shape.

So to summarize:

The toroidal field is generated by coils/currents which run in the
poloidal direction.

The poloidal field is generated by coils/currents which run in the
toroidal direction.

The combination of poloidal plus toroidal fields results in
a twisted, helical field.


It would be a little incorrect to say that the poloidal field
generates the helical toroidal field (did it say that in the FUT?),
but it would be correct that when one adds the poloidal field
to the toroidal field, the result is a helical field.

In a tokamak, the toroidal field is generally substantially stronger
than the poloidal field, so the resulting helical field is
*predominantly toroidal*, and as a result one might speak of
the total field as "helical toroidal".

Not sure if that was clear / too basic, but I hope it helps!

*******
Robert F. Heeter
rfheeter@lyman.pppl.gov
Graduate Student, Princeton Plasma Physics Lab
Usual Disclaimers Apply - especially when I'm wrong.

cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.22 / mitchell swartz /  cancel <CLM1vE.CJw@world.std.com>
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cancel <CLM1vE.CJw@world.std.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Feb 1994 05:48:00 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

cancel <CLM1vE.CJw@world.std.com> in newsgroup sci.physics.fusion
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.22 / mitchell swartz /  The cure for retrograde amnesia (reply to Steve)
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: The cure for retrograde amnesia (reply to Steve)
Date: Tue, 22 Feb 1994 05:52:44 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Subject: Enough already.(Endless debates/Mitch)
Message-ID: <1994Feb21.155125.1408@physc1.byu.edu>
Steven Jones' (jonesse@physc1.byu.edu's)  facts
"turn on a dime".

 First Steven Jones pontificating, wasting 
much time by his asking a score of questions
purportedly for the purpose of a "debate"
   [which he apparently never intended to,
    of  could, take seriously], said:

=sj1    "At the Maui meeting, Kucherov said 
=sj1    "After four years, I'm not so sure this is nuclear effect"
=sj1    [Message-ID: <1994Feb18.134931.1395@physc1.byu.edu>
=sj1    Subject: Reply to Mitch 5: Kucherov expts,x-rays
=sj1    Steven Jones (jonesse@physc1.byu.edu)}

This sounds pretty substantial, right?
Death-of-cold-fusion-type stuff.   
   (The kind of thing that might even make Dieter Britz 
    reconsider and dump the paper out of the cohort
    of significant positives   ;-)
                              just kidding, we hope)


 But then Robert Heeter, who hasn't even had the
opportunity to peruse the cited papers, posts some
comments.   And the result?

  Why professor Steve Jones new post demonstrates
his remarkable recovery from a retrograde amnesia
as he now reports:

=sj2   "Kucherov has visited BYU in recent
=sj2     months.    
=sj2  "He told me that he finds that at least some of the products he has
=sj2  claimed  may stem from "hot" fusion -- just as Heeter surmised. " 
=sj2      [Message-ID: <1994Feb21.155125.1408@physc1.byu.edu>
=sj2      Steven Jones (jonesse@physc1.byu.edu)}

  "(not) a nuclear effect"    "may stem from 'hot' fusion"
     2/18/94            v.s.         2/21/94

            QED.            
=========================================================
      ODE to BYU's PROF. STEVEN JONES (*)
   There are some problems of quite large number,
   Foe to the ease of TB-skeptics' slumber,
   The clever posting by a doctoral candidate [or less?],
   Creates a sudden strange memory metamorphosis,  
   Absolute "No Fusion" claimed once is now no more,
   And compelling what impossible was before.

  ( * based on grad student Robert Heeter's awakening
         Steven's memory via an e-post)
 -------------------------------------------------------
    Best wishes colleagues.

                 Mitchell Swartz  (mica@world.std.com)


cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.22 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: Correction to Thomas Kunich on Nyquist
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Correction to Thomas Kunich on Nyquist
Date: Tue, 22 Feb 1994 07:05:55 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <CLILq9.Ht8@world.std.com> mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
>   In Message-ID: <tomkCLII2u.7vL@netcom.com>
>Subject: Re: On Nyquist criterion (cont'd)
>Thomas H. Kunich  [tomk@netcom.com] speculates:
>
>= Or to be more blunt, you accepted some off-the-cuff remark and
>= have been spreading disinformation. I'm glad you made that clear
>= (finally).
> 
>   Of course, that is neither what I said nor implied.    

On the contrary Mitchell, this is _exactly_ what you have said.

You have stated as fact heresay information that contradicts the
published information in the Pons and Fleischman paper. You have repeatedly
stated that others on this net are spreading lies because they are
questioning the effectiveness of measuring power in such a slipshod manner
as reported in the F&P papers.

Yet, it turns out that you want us to believe that F&P operated their
experiments differently then they reported. Somehow you seem to think that
reporting that F&P's fraudulently reporting information in a published
scientific paper will lend credence to cold nuclear fusion and cast
doubts on those who continue to ask for repeatability, a workable
theory and honest experimentation.
 
You sir, and Jed Rothwell, have, between you, done more to demonstrate
the inefficacy of CNF and it's advocates than any other possible
proof.



cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.22 /  DROEGE@FNALD.F /  Re: The Will Paper: a quality positive?
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@FNALD.FNAL.GOV
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The Will Paper: a quality positive?
Date: Tue, 22 Feb 1994 09:04:18 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Dieter Britz writes:

>Well, Hilaire Belloc in his "Road to Rome" (I think that is the title of this 
>excellent book) left no vows unbroken, and here I am, breaking my promise not 
>to post to this group anymore. But I want to clear up the question of what 
>made me change my mind about the Will paper (Will, Cedynska and Linton, J. 
>Electroanal. Chem. 360 (1993) 161). I have unfortunately lost the posting in 
>which someone, a few days ago, wrote, more or less, that Britz is being 
>unreasonable changing his mind like this, because the paper is clearly 
>quality work. So here my reasons; they are, I think, important. 

All the reasons deleted.  

Possibly the posting was from me.  My problem is not with your thinking, which 
likely comes to a reasonable conclusion, but with your procedure.  You have 
set up a specific procedure for your reviews.  You only review papers which 
have appeared in refereed journals (also some other specified items like 
patent reviews).  You only *read* papers which have appeared in refereed 
journals.  Note that in the past, I have tried to get you to look at other 
material but you have refused.  I remember you saying that some friends wanted 
to give you a copy of the ICCF2 proceedings but that you had refused them.  My 
memory of your reason for not looking at other material was that you wanted a 
consistent view of the field.  

I supported that view.  You have value as a reviewer to the extent that you 
apply an even handed approach to all material.  

But now, you appear to be responding to hearsay and "other" sources.

In FD 1967 you quote the following, but I cannot figure out if it is your 
quote or Steve Jones' quote: 

>This information I had to dig out by going to the 1991 paper by the same three
>authors as appears in the 1993 paper -- and the *same data* -- published in the
>Final Report, "Investigation of cold fusion phenomena in deuterated metals,"
>Volume 1, pp. 1-131 - 1-150, 1991, U. of Utah NCFI.

Now I ask you Dieter, does the NCFI Final Report meet your definition of a 
"refereed" journal?  Further, is it not proper to publish in a refereed 
journal material that has previously appeared in an "internal report" like the 
NCIF Report, so that it can be more widely read by the scientific community?  
(But this is likely a sticky point - the journals want to get it first.)  So 
why the emphasis *same data* ?

Are you ready now to hear pleadings from other sources on all of your reviews?

Seems to me that to be consistent, and consistency is vital for a review, you 
have to bite the bullet and stick with your original opinion.  Not so bad.  
Will has likely been caught by some subtle feature of liquid scintillator 
counting.  Eventually he will sort it out and take his lumps.   

Tom Droege

cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenDROEGE cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.22 /  blue@dancer.ns /  Solids, discharges, plasmas, and beams
     
Originally-From: blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Solids, discharges, plasmas, and beams
Date: Tue, 22 Feb 1994 09:04:18 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I think it's time to take Mitchell Swartz through a little exercise
like ones I have watched on Sesame Street.  Which of these things is
not like the others, which of these things are not the same?  Cold fusion
is said to occur in solids, and by magic the physics is not like that
involved in plasma-induced fusion.  Now in reporting the results of
Kucherov et al., Mitchell introduces his cold-fusion thought processes
into the domain of glow discharges seemingly without noticing that
this involves the acceleration of ions just as in plasma physics or
nuclear physics.  Now Mitchell please tell us where the boundary is
that divides the domain where physics is in accord with cold-fusion
rules from the domain where real physics is operational?

If you wonder how to recognize Mitchell's cold-fusion thinking, it is
perhaps indicated by the notion that a given reaction can change
character and become neutronpenic "if neutrons are not in that
pathway."  Real physics, on the other hand, would require something
by way of an interaction, a perturbation, a change in the wave function,
to introduce a new pathway or alter branching ratios.  Now even if
you accept the cold-fusion notion that a PdD lattice can by unspecified
means provide a neutronpenic pathway, what connects that to the Kucherov
experiments?  By trying to stack out new territory for cold fusion
claims, Mitchell may be revealing that cold fusion is just a house of
cards waiting to collapse as more measurements of the Kucherov type
get piled on top.

My problem with the Kucherov claims is that there are so many questionable
statements that it becomes impossible to believe that any part of
the measurements was done well.  Take for example the neutron measurements
made with silver foils, 3He detectors, and scintillators with observed
rates up to 10^7 neutrons/sec.  If you give this any thought you will
note that you can't determine a rate using silver foil activation.  I
will also assert that you probably can't measure a count rate that high
with either a 3He detector or a scintillator so how is this number
obtained?  Then there are the claims for X-ray detection.  As Steve
Jones has often remarked the measurements made with film are very
nonspecific.  I will also point out that if, in fact, the experiment
produces anything like 10^7 neutrons/sec the detection of X-rays
by any means becomes somewhat problematic.  Consider what neutrons
do by way of activation of virtually everything present around the
experiment.  If you brought an X-ray detector near that device after
firing 500 discharges I have no doubt that you would detect gamma
rays or X-rays.  Next we move onto the claim that neutron energies
up to 17 MeV were observed.  Well, Mitchell what reaction would you
care to suggest that could result in 17 MeV neutrons?  

Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU

cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenblue cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.22 / Matt Kennel /  Re: Enough already.(Endless debates/Mitch)
     
Originally-From: mbk%anl433.uucp@Germany.EU.net (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Enough already.(Endless debates/Mitch)
Date: 22 Feb 1994 06:48:02 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

jonesse@physc1.byu.edu wrote:
: Now with regard to Kucherov, let me say that Kucherov has visited BYU in recent
: months.  He told me that he finds that at least some of the products he has
: claimed  may stem from "hot" fusion -- just as Heeter surmised.  
: And this is consistent with
:  evidence he has that there may have been voltage 'spikes' in his
: power supply, so that well over 500 V of accelerating potential was present.
: I don't think this is written down; but anyone having an interest can ask him
: about this, and if he still worries that so-called "cold fusion" heat
: may not be connected in fact to nuclear processes as he clearly stated during
: the 'panel discussion' at the Maui meeting.

That's encouraging.  It sounds like Kucherov might actually be a physicist.

It's certainly not at all clear what's going on in his experiments, but at
least Kucherov appears to give indications of substantial numbers of nuclear
reactions (like millions per second, not onesies and twosies), measured in
different ways, of course including spectroscopy.

I really can't comment on the quality of the nuclear instrumentation, but
at least with this experiment one could start with a good assumption that
nuclear things probably *are* happening, in enormous contrast with
everything else.  

Also, there might be the possiblity of actually doing physics and trying
to figure out the detailed *cause* of such nuclear reactions.

It's still not obvious that his claimed excess heat has anything to do 
with the nuclear reactions, but at least there's something to start with.

It may be that this particular configuration might in fact be able to
enhance rates of nuclear reactions above traditional calculations---but of
course there's no way to *hide* energetic nuclear products.

In my mind, this has *zippo* to do with P&F-style water boilers.

My library computer had this reference:

 ---------------------
1. Karabut, A.B.; Kucherov, Ya.R.; Savvatimova, I.B.
     Nuclear product ratio for glow discharge in deuterium.
   Physics Letters A, 9 Nov. 1992, vol.170, (no.4):265-72.
     Pub type:  Experimental.

Abstract: New results for glow discharge in deuterium calorimetry are presented.
     In separate experiments a heat output five times exceeding the input
     electric power was observed. The result for the charged particle spectrum
     measurement is presented. Charged particles with energies up to 18 MeV and
     an average energy of 2-4 Mev were seen. Beams of gamma-rays with energies
     of about 200 keV and a characteristic X-ray radiation were registered. The
     summed energy of the registered products is three orders short of the
     values needed to explain the calorimetric results.
 ----------------------

Obviously they did spectroscopy---which any physicist considers "de rigueur"
but P&Fite apologists try to whinge around.  Even the Japanese are
circumspect and calling the supposed effect something like "hydrogen energy"
instead of "cold fusion" or otherwise implying nuclear processes without any
good nuclear evidence.  Hell, P&F originally presented a spectrum of "fusion
products"---this was the result that really got the physicists interested,
*NOT* the x-s heat---which turned out to be faked.





: --Steven Jones

--
-Matt Kennel  		mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu
-Institute for Nonlinear Science, University of California, San Diego
-*** AD: Archive for nonlinear dynamics papers & programs: FTP to
-***     lyapunov.ucsd.edu, username "anonymous".
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenuucp cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.21 / Cameron Bass /  What's the point? (was Re: Reply to Robert Heeter)
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: What's the point? (was Re: Reply to Robert Heeter)
Date: Mon, 21 Feb 1994 04:03:23 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <CLJywz.Mnt@world.std.com>,
mitchell swartz <mica@world.std.com> wrote:

>   Robert brings up several good points.
>   First, the poorly chosen choice of excerpts is not the fault of the 
>paper's authors, nor is it representative of the experiments.
>It was my choice, and had a few errors on the typing.
>
>    Second, I am not going to spoon-feed
>papers to physicists and hot-fusion people who obviously
>have access to obtain, 
>and presumably the talent to read, and comprehend
>the cited papers and abstracts (etc.). 

     You know, I was going to respond to the lunacy inherent in the above
     message, but who cares?  I was going to do likewise about 'Bose 
     condensation', but who cares?

     There's just not much point in discussing this anymore.

     I never thought the Rothwells and the Swartz's of the world 
     would see the light, and I suspect everyone else who understands
     even a modicum of science has already seen the light.  
     A recent poster has it right when he asks

           "WHERE'S THE WATER HEATER"

     or words to that effect.  That's the only question anyone needs to 
     ask.  

     We can discuss the problems with each experiment, and get 
     stonewalled until the cows come home, but there's little 
     point in playing science with those who don't even understand
     the rules.

                            dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.22 /  blue@dancer.ns /  Re: Nyquist and P&F
     
Originally-From: blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Nyquist and P&F
Date: Tue, 22 Feb 1994 14:27:14 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

In light of the recent message traffic concerning the role of the
Nyquist criterion as applied to the published data from Pons and Fleischmann,
I rather wish someone would go back and look at the published graphs to
see if they agree with what I think I see in that data.  We have all heard
that the sampling rate was once every 5 minutes, but when I look at the
graphs it would appear that the plotted data is actually courser than
that so those plots.  I suppose we can only wonder whether the plotted
points represent a sampling of the recorded data or has some kind of
averaging been done on the raw data?

Aside from the Nyquist question, there are other features of these plots
that mystify me.  If we ignore the structure for a moment and look just
at the trends it seems to me that the steady rise in temperature indicated
by these plots is perhaps too regular to be the result of cold fusion,
a phenomenon that has most often been characteristically irregular.
Then if I look at the structure, the regular calibration pulses are
clearly seen, but what are all the other regular glitches on and
about these calibration pulses?  

Let me suggest that the features of the Pons&Fleischmann data to which
I have alluded indicate the following:  As noted by others the steady
temperature rise reflects an increase in cell resistance and power
input.  This behavior is unexpected if the cell chemistry remains
unchanged (Rising temperature should lower the resistance.).  Thus
we have a clear indication that the temperature rise is predominantly
due to chemistry of some sort.  Secondly it seems that the glitches
are indicative of cross talk between signals, i.e. the temperature
reading is influenced significantly by something other than
temperature.

If I were looking for a signal to indicate the occurance of cold
fusion I would start by trying to minimize spurious influences
on that signal such as chemistry or whatever.

Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU

cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenblue cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.22 / Jed Rothwell /  Tantamount to a lie
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Tantamount to a lie
Date: Tue, 22 Feb 1994 14:43:54 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG

Steve Jones is forever quoting people out of context and leaving out
critical details in order to confuse people. Taubes also loves to do this. In
my opinion, this is tantamount to lying. Steve does this so often that it no
longer bothers me, but in this case I would like to set the record straight.
Steve quotes me:

     "Okay, a million, million previous experiments showed that
     E=mc2.  So what? Every single one of them was wrong.  Period. 
     It does not work in metal lattices under electrolysis, and Einstein
     was flat out wrong."

     [Jed Rothwell post in Dec. 1992]

It is true that I wrote this, but it was a *hypothetical* statement. I do not
believe that CF is a violation of mass-energy conservation, and I never
said that I did. If you chop this one sentence out of my message it makes
me look pretty foolish and radical. What I said was that IF cold fusion
experiments do not find commensurate nuclear ash; or IF these reactions
show far more energy coming out of system than any possible nuclear
reaction can generate; THEN that will disprove mass-energy equivalence.
That has not happened, and I do not think it will happen. My guess is
that in the next few years we will see definitive, replicated evidence of
helium commensurate with nuclear reactions.

My point was that experimental evidence always overrules theory. There
are no exceptions granted, period. Any law of science can be overruled at
any time by replicated, high sigma experimental evidence. Even Newton's
laws, even Einstein's mass-energy. Nothing is sacred, and we can never
be *absolutely* certain that a "law" (as we understand it) is correct.

- Jed

cudkeys:
cuddy22 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.22 / Greg Kuperberg /  Re: What's the point? 
     
Originally-From: gk00@ellis.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What's the point? 
Date: Tue, 22 Feb 1994 14:03:46 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

In article <CLK39o.BKn@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> crb7q@watt.seas.Virgini
.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>
>      "WHERE'S THE WATER HEATER?"
>

What a rash question.  Where is the proof that there is no water heater?

Besides, everyone knows that cold fusion is water-heater-penic.
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudengk00 cudfnGreg cudlnKuperberg cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.22 /  terry@asl.dl.n /  Terry quits.
     
Originally-From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Terry quits.
Date: Tue, 22 Feb 1994 17:08:48 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

In article <CLK39o.BKn@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:

> You know, I was going to respond to the lunacy inherent in [an M.S.]
> message, but who cares?  I was going to do likewise about 'Bose 
> condensation', but who cares?
>
> There's just not much point in discussing this anymore... A recent poster
> has it right when he asks
>
>     "WHERE'S THE WATER HEATER"
>
> or words to that effect.  That's the only question anyone needs to ask.

Concur.  In fact, I'm out of here as of this entry.  Not because I'm angry,
but because I'm utterly bored.  Hopefully the hot fusion types can make good
use of the name if they can shake off the remaining CF types.  After all,
several CFers have claimed repeatedly that this forum is absolutely useless
to them anyway in comparison to their private newsletters, so why not just
let the HF folks have the group totally?

I remain pretty upset that I devoted so much energy to looking at paths for
an imaginary event -- the supposed melting of a hole in the concrete floor
of the P&F lab, and a couple of other things less publicized -- and apologize
to anyone for whom I may have prolonged an interest in this junk by my path-
exploration.  But by this point my level of cynicism in "excess heat" has
grown so high that I make Douglas Morrison look like a true believer.  He at
least went to Hawaii and summarized the results.  I can't even picture myself
going to one for any reason any more.

I promised a posting on introductory QM to some on this group, so I'll just
mail that directly to the folks who expressed an interest (and perhaps to
the sci.physics group, or even sci.physics.research if they'll accept entry-
oriented tutorial info).

Thanks for all the interesting conversations.  If anything _genuinely new_
pops up, somebody let me know and maybe I'll jump back on board.  (At this
point it would take some pretty impressive many-results-at-many-locations
data to perk up any interest on my part, however.)

Five years is quite, quite enough.

				Cheers,
				Terry

cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenterry cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.22 / mitchell swartz /  More Correction To Thomas Kunich on Nyquist
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: More Correction To Thomas Kunich on Nyquist
Subject: Re: Correction to Thomas Kunich on Nyquist
Date: Tue, 22 Feb 1994 16:15:06 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

   In Message-ID: <tomkCLM6E3.BsM@netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Correction to Thomas Kunich on Nyquist
Thomas H. Kunich  [tomk@netcom.com] writes:

=tk  "You have stated as fact heresay information that contradicts the
=tk  published information in the Pons and Fleischman paper."

  Incorrect.  Any reported heresay information supplemented both
what is standard in the state-or-the-art and what the authors reported.

  It is customary for anyone doing any electrochemical expt.
to place a voltmeter (high impedance, or its functional equivalent)
across the cell (and between other locations).
Therefore this matter seems trivial, except in the camp where
no such activity is performed.

    In fact, I seriously doubt if any good experimentalist
would ever trust a computer to begin data acquisition without the
parallel check of that parameter by a voltmeter.
Would you?   [Methinks not,   even if you "duck" this.]

  My comments on sampling, and the state-of-the-art
stand until you present evidence that the Nyquist sampling
theorem is wrong, and that (at least in your lab, sir) 
experimentalists do not (or would not)
use voltmeters (scopes, ...) in parallel to monitor potential
(or other parameter) during computer facilitated data acquisition. 

              -    Mitchell Swartz   (mica@world.std.com)


cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.22 / mitchell swartz /  What TBskeptics do when they can't "beat it"
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: What TBskeptics do when they can't "beat it"
Subject: Re: What's the point? 
Date: Tue, 22 Feb 1994 16:36:07 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

   In  Message-ID: <1994Feb22.140346.14691@midway.uchicago.edu>
Subject: Re: What's the point? 
Greg Kuperberg  gk00@ellis.uchicago.edu ) writes:

   =gk   "Besides, everyone knows that cold fusion is water-heater-penic."

 and in Message-ID: <1994Feb21.160030.1409@physc1.byu.edu>
 Subject: Enough already.(Endless debates/Mitch)
 Steve Jones (jonesse@physc1.byu.edu) writes:

    =sj  "What new pathway is there which would be neutron-penic, x-ray-penic,
    =sj and charged-particle-penic, all at the same time?"
    =sj  [thanks to R. Heeter, posted 21 Feb. 1994]   Steven Jones

   That's what we like about the TB(*)-skeptics.     * true blue
When the physics and mathematics get just too tough for
Greg and Steve (etc.)  and they can't beat it, they "bobbit".

   Best wishes 
                     Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com)





cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.22 / mitchell swartz /  On "What TBskeptics do..." (reply Greg)
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: On "What TBskeptics do..." (reply Greg)
Subject: Re: What TBskeptics do when they can't "beat it"
Date: Tue, 22 Feb 1994 19:53:28 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

   In Message-ID: <1994Feb22.175641.29482@midway.uchicago.edu>
Subject: Re: What TBskeptics do when they can't "beat it"
Greg Kuperberg (gk00@ellis.uchicago.edu) writes:

    >When the physics and mathematics get just too tough for
     >Greg and Steve (etc.)  and they can't beat it, they "bobbit".

=gk  "I agree that it is high time that we cut off this discussion."

  after Webster [ibid]        
        discussion  - 
       from  L.   discussus      [dis-  apart  &  quatere -  to shake]
           1)  consideration of a question in open informal debate
           2)  a formal treatment of a topic
    
 Since the TB-skeptics ignore each and every question,
it is blatantly obvious that there has been no discussion,
Greg's "cut-off" strategy is thus irrelevant and sad,
since Greg simply can't cut off that which he never had.

          ;-)                       - Mitchell








cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.22 / V Guruprasad /  Re: What TBskeptics do when they can't "beat it"
     
Originally-From: c1prasad@watson.ibm.com (V. Guruprasad)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What TBskeptics do when they can't "beat it"
Subject: Re: What's the point? 
Date: Tue, 22 Feb 1994 18:36:11 GMT
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

-----
   In  Message-ID: <1994Feb22.140346.14691@midway.uchicago.edu>
Subject: Re: What's the point? 
Greg Kuperberg  gk00@ellis.uchicago.edu ) writes:

   =gk   "Besides, everyone knows that cold fusion is water-heater-penic."

 and in Message-ID: <1994Feb21.160030.1409@physc1.byu.edu>
 Subject: Enough already.(Endless debates/Mitch)
 Steve Jones (jonesse@physc1.byu.edu) writes:

    =sj  "What new pathway is there which would be neutron-penic, x-ray-penic,
    =sj and charged-particle-penic, all at the same time?"
    =sj  [thanks to R. Heeter, posted 21 Feb. 1994]   Steven Jones
-----

what's penic?
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenc1prasad cudfnV cudlnGuruprasad cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.22 / Greg Kuperberg /  Re: What TBskeptics do when they can't "beat it"
     
Originally-From: gk00@ellis.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What TBskeptics do when they can't "beat it"
Date: Tue, 22 Feb 1994 17:56:41 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

In article <CLMws7.3FB@world.std.com> mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
>When the physics and mathematics get just too tough for
>Greg and Steve (etc.)  and they can't beat it, they "bobbit".

I agree that it is high time that we cut off this discussion.
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudengk00 cudfnGreg cudlnKuperberg cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.22 / Robert Heeter /  Re: On "What TBskeptics do..." (reply Greg)
     
Originally-From: rfheeter@theory.pppl.gov (Robert F. Heeter)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: On "What TBskeptics do..." (reply Greg)
Date: 22 Feb 1994 18:35:04 -0500
Organization: Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory, Princeton University,
Princeton NJ 08540

In article <CLn5x5.9G@world.std.com>,
mitchell swartz <mica@world.std.com> wrote:
>   In Message-ID: <1994Feb22.175641.29482@midway.uchicago.edu>
>Subject: Re: What TBskeptics do when they can't "beat it"
>Greg Kuperberg (gk00@ellis.uchicago.edu) writes:
>
>    >When the physics and mathematics get just too tough for
>     >Greg and Steve (etc.)  and they can't beat it, they "bobbit".
>
>=gk  "I agree that it is high time that we cut off this discussion."
>
>  after Webster [ibid]        
>        discussion  - 
>       from  L.   discussus      [dis-  apart  &  quatere -  to shake]
>           1)  consideration of a question in open informal debate
>           2)  a formal treatment of a topic
>    
> Since the TB-skeptics ignore each and every question,
>it is blatantly obvious that there has been no discussion,
>Greg's "cut-off" strategy is thus irrelevant and sad,
>since Greg simply can't cut off that which he never had.

On the other hand, on looking at the latin roots, one senses that
the original meaning was "to shake apart", which doesn't sound
that far off. :)

As long as we're in dictionary mode here, the suffix
"-penic" means, to the best of my knowledge, "lacking" or "deficient".

But perhaps Mitch has a more complete dictionary; I couldn't find
the suffix listed in mine.

On the other hand, that's certainly what *I* meant when I was
asking what new nuclear pathways there could be such that 30 watts
of excess heat could be produced with claimed x-ray, charged-particle,
and neutron products corresponding to microwatt-scale fusion reaction
levels, at least for the glow discharges we were discussing.


-- Just trying to clean up some loose ends, while wondering whether
Mitch will respond to my epic post --

**********
Robert F. Heeter
rfheeter@lyman.pppl.gov
Graduate Student, Princeton Plasma Physics Lab
Disclamatory Proclamations Pertain Undecayed



cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.23 / Matt Kennel /  Re: The cure for retrograde amnesia (reply to Steve)
     
Originally-From: mbk%anl433.uucp@Germany.EU.net (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The cure for retrograde amnesia (reply to Steve)
Date: 23 Feb 1994 01:53:51 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

mitchell swartz (mica@world.std.com) wrote:

: =sj2   "Kucherov has visited BYU in recent
: =sj2     months.    
: =sj2  "He told me that he finds that at least some of the products he has
: =sj2  claimed  may stem from "hot" fusion -- just as Heeter surmised. " 
: =sj2      [Message-ID: <1994Feb21.155125.1408@physc1.byu.edu>
: =sj2      Steven Jones (jonesse@physc1.byu.edu)}

:   "(not) a nuclear effect"    "may stem from 'hot' fusion"
:      2/18/94            v.s.         2/21/94

Oh come on!!

"Not a nuclear effect" refers to 'x-s' 'heat' in P&F and maybe his own
experiment.  His unusual 'hotfusion'/whatever experiment appears to exhibit
real live un-penic nuclear reactions.

:                  Mitchell Swartz  (mica@world.std.com)

Mitchell, you doth protest too much.

--
-Matt Kennel  		mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu
-Institute for Nonlinear Science, University of California, San Diego
-*** AD: Archive for nonlinear dynamics papers & programs: FTP to
-***     lyapunov.ucsd.edu, username "anonymous".
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenuucp cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.23 / John Logajan /  Italian Ni-H results
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Italian Ni-H results
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 94 05:45:19 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

I'm always unsure if I'm taking advantage of Jed Rothwell's private e-mails
to me, but since he once said I could post anything he sent me, I will
do that here.  Thanks Jed.


 ----

There is a wonderful new CF paper in the Italian journal: Il Nuovo Cimento,
February, 1994 issue. This is in English, oddly enough.

Title: "Anomalous Heat Production in Ni-H Systems"

Three authors (alphabetical order):

Sergio Focardi, Dept. of Physics, Bologna University and INFN Bologna
Roberto Habel, Physics Institute, Faculty of Medicine, Cagliari University and
INFN Cagliari.
Francesco Piantelli , Department of Physics, Siena University, IMO Siena and 
INFN Siena

Abstract: "Evidence for a 50 W anomalous heat production in a Hydrogen loaded
Nickel rod is reported."

To be honest, I have not actually got the paper yet. I have lecture notes and a
summary of Piantelli's Feb. 14, 1994 presentation at Siena U., which was
attended by 40 Big Gun Italian CF people. A lot of solid people like Preparata
and Celani were there, and they liked it very much, they say. I will send you a
nice clean copy when I get one.

This is a Ni light hydrogen gas loaded system. Mass of Ni is 16 grams, diameter
of rod is 5mm, length, 100 mm, 0.27 mole Ni. Three nice runs from last year
include:

Highest power:            57 watts for 20 days -- 98.5 MJ, 3.54 watts/cm2
Longest:                  27 watts for 100 days -- 320 MJ, 2.3 watts/cm2
Example cited in paper:   44 watts for 24 days -- 91.2 MJ, 2.73 watt/cm2

That is 6,000 times better power density than Mills, or any other nickel system
I know of! Remarkable. I think this is the end for palladium, nickel is so much
easier and cheaper. This device always works, it never fluctuated or failed
during the 100 day run. The calorimeter calibration constant is 0.4 watts per
degree C, so with the 57 watts, the temperature went up 143 deg C. A very large
signal, impossible to miss.

- Jed

 ------

-- 
-John Logajan MS612; Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
-logajan@network.com, 612-391-1159, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.23 / Jim Bowery /  Re: Poloidal field?
     
Originally-From: jabowery@netcom.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Poloidal field?
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 1994 07:36:58 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

rfheeter@theory.pppl.gov (Robert F. Heeter) writes:
> In a tokamak, the toroidal field is generally substantially stronger
> than the poloidal field, so the resulting helical field is
> *predominantly toroidal*, and as a result one might speak of
> the total field as "helical toroidal".

And in a PLASMAK(tm) the poloidal and toroidal fields are both
emergent phenomena of the hyperconducting kernel which contains
a helicity that merges one into the other.  Both poloidal and toroidal 
currents (and all helicities between) are formed relativistic electrons.

What that means is the PLASMAK(tm) is inherently stable and 
mechanically compressible.
-- 
The promotion of politics exterminates apolitical genes in the population.
  The promotion of frontiers gives apolitical genes a route to survival.
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenjabowery cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.23 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: More Correction To Thomas Kunich on Nyquist
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: More Correction To Thomas Kunich on Nyquist
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 1994 07:52:00 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <CLMvt7.KGK@world.std.com> mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
>  It is customary for anyone doing any electrochemical expt.
>to place a voltmeter (high impedance, or its functional equivalent)
>across the cell (and between other locations).
>Therefore this matter seems trivial, except in the camp where
>no such activity is performed.

What you are describing is double checking the calibration of the sampler.
What has this to do with the sampling itself? That is where the criticism
has been leveled.

>  My comments on sampling, and the state-of-the-art
>stand until you present evidence that the Nyquist sampling
>theorem is wrong, and that (at least in your lab, sir) 
>experimentalists do not (or would not)
>use voltmeters (scopes, ...) in parallel to monitor potential
>(or other parameter) during computer facilitated data acquisition. 

There seems to be some sort of misunderstanding here Mitchell. _YOU_
are the one that is questioning the Nyquist limits. Steven Jones
has stated that 300 sec bins implies a maximum frequency of 1/600
or about .002 Hertz. This is essentially DC and it can be inferred that
P&F have made no efforts to find any higher frequency noise.

This is the criticism that has been placed and you are the one trying
to add heresay evidence that P&F have REALLY used another method that is
undescribed BUT is really more accurate and IF we only knew about it
we'd all fall down in admiration.

cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.22 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Re: Reply to Steve 3: Steve's Pt and Pd data (was Oriani's expts)
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reply to Steve 3: Steve's Pt and Pd data (was Oriani's expts)
Date: 22 Feb 94 10:18:41 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

In article <CLIDxn.1nr@world.std.com>, 
mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
>   In Message-ID: <1994Feb17.104447.1385@physc1.byu.edu>

> Steven Jones [jonesse@physc1.byu.edu] writes to Jed Rothwell (jr):
> 
>    =jr "... I think maybe Taubes was right, and maybe you did steal your
>    =jr ideas from P&F. I would not put it past you." 

> =sj "Just what ideas do you or Taubes allege I stole from P&F?
> =sj   Our work on possible fusion in metals and in the earth
> =sj  goes back to early 1986, as recorded in log books in some detail.  
> =sj Frank Close and Gary Taubes both relate the
> =sj early work we did, some 2 1/2 years before we even heard 
> =sj of P&F, although I think Close provides more information.
> =sj   Taubes records: ....  He cites my April 7, 1986 notes as follows:
> =taubes "What is indisputable is that he[Jones] scribbled a list of elements:
>   =taubes   "Al, Cu, Ni, Pt, Pd,  Li ..."  And next to Pd, palladium, 
>   =taubes      and Pt, platinum, were the
>   =taubes   portentous words "dissolves much hydrogen."  And Jones did, 
>   =taubes at Rafelski's
>   =taubes   suggestion, take the lab book to the BYU patent attorney, 
>   =taubes   Lee Phillips, and ask that the page be notarized."(P. 27)
> =sj "So just what ideas did I allegedly steal, Jed?"  
> 
> 
> Questions for Steve Jones:
>   [Q4J8}      Steve.  When did you notarize the lab book?  

My lab book was notarized by Lee R. Phillips on April 7, 1986, nearly *three
years*  *before* the famous press conference by P&F.  At the bottom of the
page of my lab book which Phillips notarized, he wrote:

"Catalyzed fusion process outlined above was explained and formulated on or
prior to 4/7/86 (April)."

I did not steal these or any ideas from P&F.

> Was the dissolution of "much hydrogen" into both Pd and Pt your
> discovery?

No, of course not.

> 
>   Best wishes.                 Mitchell Swartz
>                               [mica@world.std.com]
Somehow your 'best wishes' seem insincere.

I would like to followup with a few lines from a 31 page history entitled
"Inside Cold Fusion" by Prof. Cheves Walling.  As a senior chemist in the
Univ. of Utah chemistry department, Prof. Walling followed the story of P&F
closely.  He reports:

"Since I was in a good postition to observe the project from its beginning,
I have decided to try and put down what I saw myself..."
"I first heard about 'cold fusion' shortly before Christmas, 1988, when Stan
Pons told me that he was observing tritium formation during the electrolysis of
D2O at a palladium cathode."
"One day later in the winter (I don't recall whether it was before or after
Pons' visit to BYU on Feb. 23) I found both F&P in a high state of excitement,
and furious with both Dr. Ryszard Gajewski at DOE and Dr. Steven Jones at BYU.
According to their story at the time, they had submitted a proposal to DOE with
the request that it be reviewed internally, and Dr. Gajewski, contrary to their
wishes, had sent it to Jones, whose work on muon fusion he had been suporting.
Jones in turn, they charged, had ... pirated their ideas in recent work of his
own which he felt detected neutron emission from D2O cells with Pd cathodes."
          ...
"The acute suspicion that BYU was attempting to 'pirate' University of Utah
results, which may have motivated actions, here, also appears
unfounded.
...Jones et al. had been considering 'piezonuclear fusion' since 1986, and
had carried out occasional experiments including electrolysis.  ...since I've
been assured by Marvin Hawkins that the design of current F&P cells and the
collection of the data from them which make up the bulk of the F&P preliminary
paper was all done after that date [Sept. 1988], I doubt that the proposal
contained much specific data which Jones could have used.  Further, the
experimental set-ups and goals of the two groups turned out to be entirely
different. ...
"Since they [at BYU] recommended to Dr. Gajewski that F&P be informed of their
work, got in touch with them, and offered to exchange information, it now seems
to me that they were acting in a perfectly proper manner.
Unfortunate, this clash with BYU proved to be only the first example of the
paranoia and suspicion which has clouded the development of 'cold fusion'. "

More from Wallings' probing report:
"It is hard not to conclude that the University of Utah acted in bad faith
towards BYU in the manner in which 'cold fusion' was announced.  Although they
had agreed to simultaneous submission of manuscripts to _Nature_ on March 24,
and to make no public statements on research before that date, F&P submitted
their paper on March 11, and the University made their public announcement on
March 23 without (according to the BYU chronology) giving BYU 
any prior notice of either action."

Dr. Walling got this right, and his honest report shows the caliber of
faculty who remained at the University of Utah.  (He has since retired.)

--Steven Jones          

cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenjonesse cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.22 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Re: Breakthrough with new phenomenon?
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Breakthrough with new phenomenon?
Date: 22 Feb 94 15:05:21 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

It appears that Daryl Owen and I will have to agree to disagree with regard
to the paper "Reduced radioactivity of tritium in small titanium particles,"
Phys. Lett. A 184 (1994) 149-153 by Otto Reifenschweiler.  I hope that we can
both agree, however, to await results of follow-up experiments using 
state-of-the-art detectors, as the author also encourages:

"...the author wants to report some curious results obtained many years ago in
the course of technological projects based on the use of the hydrogen isotope
tritium absorbed in titanium.  It seems to me that it would certainly be 
worth repeating these experiments
with up-to-date experimental technology, but unfortunately I am no longer in a
position to do this myself."  [The footnote here indicates that he is retired.]

Agreed?
--Steven Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenjonesse cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.25 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Poloidal field?
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Poloidal field?
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 1994 03:35:18 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <2kgi57$1h7@network.ucsd.edu> mbk%anl433.uucp@Germany.EU.net
(Matt Kennel) writes:
>Paul M. Koloc (pmk@prometheus.UUCP) wrote:
>OK, I assume you advocate a spheromak of some type.  How do you
>propose to compress without losing energy?  

Yes, a spheromak configuration, but a very special kind of spheromak 
called a PLASMAK(tm) magnetoplasmoid.  It differs from a conducting
shell spheromak in that it's currents are energetic and hyperconducting
and the tightly fitting conducting shell is a dense high gradient plasma
(called the Mantle). It is the hyperconducting energetic electrons that
allows the plasma to hold together essentially without transport loss 
during the compression and stasis time.    

>It seems that you have only a few general options:
>
>	1) Magnetic field, which is what standard MFE machines do anyway.
>	   I take it that you consider the possible pressure applied to
>           be too small.

True, external magfield compressors suck and they are fixed and energy
inefficient since as the plasma compresses the compressor does not.  .     

>        2) Electrostatic field.  Ok, but wouldn't you need a charged plasma
>	   then?  And if it's charged, how well can you squeeze it without
>           it pushing back?

Yep!  Or a ES compressed plasma being Raleigh-Taylor unstable and 
squirting all over the place.  

>	3) Electromagnetic field (photons).  This is the h-bomb and
>           Livermore ICF.  But it has to be *real* fast and dense, right?
                  
Inertial confinement sacrifices time to gain pressure so we aren't 
getting much, since one needs the triple product of pressure times 
time(the Zeit kind -- Ya?)  or n,T,tau and a gain in pressure (n*T) 
is at the expense of tau (time). Now swatting it with a fly swatter, 
or even the world's largest laser won't cut it... BUT a medium size 
fission bomb --  well  .. . . It will burn petty good for a few 
hundred nanoseconds.     

>	4) Material fluid pressure.  If you press with any thing
>           (which is much colder than any ignited plasma), won't
>	   you lose tons of heat as it comes into contact with that cold
>           material?

True, so I can't do that either.   So what's a person to do??

So the answer is:   
                         NUMBER  5) !!!!!

Compress a PLASMAK(tm) which has a Mantle of dense ionized particles 
on its inner surface and weakly ionized and excited gas at its outer 
boundary with the impinging compression blanket.  There is an 
intervening insulating vacuum poloidal field surrounding and 
protecting the Kernel plasma ring of thermonuclear plasma.  Now the 
pressure on the toroidal axis of a spheromak with a conducting shell 
pressure of 1 atm is 12.6atm. (typically).  So if we compress the 
similar topology of the PLASMAK(tm) magnetoplasmoid (self similarly), 
so the boundary (Mantle) pressure rises to say 7 or 10 kilobars, we 
should get an order 100 kilobar central Kernel plasma ring pressure.  
That's a whooping lot of adiabatic heating.  The compression energy 
investment is maybe  7 to 10 times the initial formation state.  
                        Will the plasma ignite???   
                            Ahhh!  did I use 
                              He(3) or Fe??? 


>I'm not an expert; I'd like to hear any ideas along these lines.
      
Okay you've read them ... well, not there your an expert, what do 
you think???  

>-Matt Kennel  		mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu
>-Institute for Nonlinear Science, University of California, San Diego
>-*** AD: Archive for nonlinear dynamics papers & programs: FTP to
>-***     lyapunov.ucsd.edu, username "anonymous".
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc,Bx 1037, Prometheus II, Ltd., College Park, MD 20740-1037 |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.25 /  blue@dancer.ns /  Re: Unlocalized electrons
     
Originally-From: blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Unlocalized electrons
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 1994 15:54:56 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

In commenting on my suggesting that electrons are more mobile than
deuterons, Mark North says "Electrons are unlocalized and therefore
less likely to move."  I don't really understand that statement.  Backing
up to what I think is pretty solid ground, I would say that electrons in
a conductor are both unlocalized and highly mobile.  Is it possible
that they would be more mobile if they were localized?  In any case
the strength of my original assertion rests on a direct estimation of
the relaxation time for the electric fields generated by fracture
and the energy that could be acquired by an accellerating deuteron
before the field relaxes.  Just off the top of my head I would guess
that a conductor is not the best choice of material for fractofusion
experiments, and a rather wonder why anyone would start investigations
with such samples.  I would favor wintergreen candy <g> as more likely
to yield something positive.  Does anyone know where one can purchase
deuterated wintergreen mints?

Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU

cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenblue cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.25 / Frank Close /  Did Jones steal from the FP proposal?
     
Originally-From: FEC@VAX2.RUTHERFORD.AC.UK (Frank Close)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Did Jones steal from the FP proposal?
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 1994 16:34:08 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Steve Jones has quoted Cheves Walling:
"I doubt the {FP} proposal contains much specific data that Jones
could have used".
That is correct. I have seen the original proposal. Taubes, by the
way, has not (or hadnt as of last summer).

cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenFEC cudfnFrank cudlnClose cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.25 / Gary Steckly /  Re: Italian Ni-H results
     
Originally-From: gsteckly@clark.dgim.doc.ca (Gary Steckly)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Italian Ni-H results
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 94 18:37:07 GMT
Organization: Industry Canada

In article <1994Feb23.054519.24586@ns.network.com> logajan@ns.network.co
 (John Logajan) writes:
>From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
>Subject: Italian Ni-H results
>Date: Wed, 23 Feb 94 05:45:19 GMT

>I'm always unsure if I'm taking advantage of Jed Rothwell's private e-mails
>to me, but since he once said I could post anything he sent me, I will
>do that here.  Thanks Jed.


> ----

>There is a wonderful new CF paper in the Italian journal: Il Nuovo Cimento,
>February, 1994 issue. This is in English, oddly enough.

>Title: "Anomalous Heat Production in Ni-H Systems"

>Three authors (alphabetical order):

>Sergio Focardi, Dept. of Physics, Bologna University and INFN Bologna
>Roberto Habel, Physics Institute, Faculty of Medicine, Cagliari University and
>INFN Cagliari.
>Francesco Piantelli , Department of Physics, Siena University, IMO Siena and 
>INFN Siena

>Abstract: "Evidence for a 50 W anomalous heat production in a Hydrogen loaded
>Nickel rod is reported."

>To be honest, I have not actually got the paper yet. I have lecture notes and a
>summary of Piantelli's Feb. 14, 1994 presentation at Siena U., which was
>attended by 40 Big Gun Italian CF people. A lot of solid people like Preparata
>and Celani were there, and they liked it very much, they say. I will send you a
>nice clean copy when I get one.

>This is a Ni light hydrogen gas loaded system. Mass of Ni is 16 grams, diameter
>of rod is 5mm, length, 100 mm, 0.27 mole Ni. Three nice runs from last year
>include:

>Highest power:            57 watts for 20 days -- 98.5 MJ, 3.54 watts/cm2
>Longest:                  27 watts for 100 days -- 320 MJ, 2.3 watts/cm2
>Example cited in paper:   44 watts for 24 days -- 91.2 MJ, 2.73 watt/cm2

>That is 6,000 times better power density than Mills, or any other nickel system
>I know of! Remarkable. I think this is the end for palladium, nickel is so much
>easier and cheaper. This device always works, it never fluctuated or failed
>during the 100 day run. The calorimeter calibration constant is 0.4 watts per
>degree C, so with the 57 watts, the temperature went up 143 deg C. A very large
>signal, impossible to miss.

>- Jed

> ------

>-- 
>-John Logajan MS612; Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
>-logajan@network.com, 612-391-1159, Fax 612-424-2853


Thanks to John for posting Jed's private email.  This is the type of news 
that I like to see here.  It's just too bad that Jed was made to feel so 
unwelcome by the criticism he has received in the past from the sceptics that 
he has abandoned (for the most part) this conference.

Whether or not it's fusion remains to be seen, but we really can't bury our 
heads in the sand (oh no.. not the quantum osterich effect again) with those 
kinds of results. 

Gary


        
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudengsteckly cudfnGary cudlnSteckly cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.25 / Topher Cooper /  Bockris support
     
Originally-From: cooper@cadsys.enet.dec.com (Topher Cooper)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Bockris support
Date: 25 Feb 1994 18:17:11 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation, Hudson MA



    I was discussing the Bockris "case" with a friend over Email.  They
    wanted to know if there was an Email address to which they could
    send support for Bockris -- somewhere where it could do some good of
    some kind, of course.

    Thanks.

                                          Topher Cooper

cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudencooper cudfnTopher cudlnCooper cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.25 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Re:  Italian Ni-H results
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re:  Italian Ni-H results
Date: 25 Feb 94 11:26:54 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

Recently, John Logajan posted Jed Rothwell's comments on the Ni-H
excess-heat claims of Fancesco Piantelli of Italy.  I have some notes
on the same subject from someone who was present at the Feb. 14 meeting in
Sienna, Italy in which these claims were discussed.  Readers might
want to compare these views with the much more enthusiastic report of
Jed's:

"The meeting was called by Professor Francesco Piantelli, and a paper by him
will be appearing shortly in Nuova Cimento. ...
"A nickel wire -- diameter .5 cm, length 3 cm -- is placed in a closed cell
filled with hydrogen gas which has some deuterium contamination. ...
"The cell is apparently heated to around 180 degrees centigrade, at which point
some special treatment involving magnets I believe occurs.  

"This process is being kept secret for patent reasons.

"There is also an exterior coil around the cell which apparently generates a
magnetic field for the remainder of the experiment.  The resistance heater in
the cell which is used to control the temperature, and the coil which produces
the magnetic field according to Huggins observations, is operated by constant
current.

"For reasons which are not quite clear to me Celani believes there is a definite
possibility that an alternating current pulse is introduced into the cell ...
Should this be so he believes that

observations of supposed excess heat would be spurious.

"Piantelli has invited him to check this in a few weeks.  There appears to be
some oddity in the Italian electric grid which may be what leads Celani to his
supposition..."

"It is not clear whether the magnetic field is deliberately varied and at what
frequencies."

cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenjonesse cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.23 / Ad aspera /  FYI #34 (FY95 budget, part 18 of several: DOE fusion)
     
Originally-From: JTCHEW@lbl.gov (Ad absurdum per aspera)
Newsgroups: sci.research,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: FYI #34 (FY95 budget, part 18 of several: DOE fusion)
Date: 23 Feb 1994 16:13:24 GMT
Organization: Relayed, not written, by Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory



[Written by individuals at the American Institute of Physics and
merely posted by me, so respond to <fyi@aip.org> or other
references below.  Always posted here on sci.research; sometimes
crossposted to an eclectic selection of other newsgroups, with
followups directed here. Back issues may be ftp'd from NIC.HEP.NET,
along with PHYSICS NEWS UPDATE and the American Physical Society 
news/opinion column WHAT'S NEW. Enjoy! -jc]

Department of Energy FY95 Budget Request:  Fusion Energy

FYI No. 34, February 22, 1994

The Department of Energy has requested $372,563,000 for Fusion
Energy, to be distributed as follows:

FUSION ENERGY:           FY 1994 Approp.     FY 1995   Percent
(dollars in thousands)   (Adjusted)          Request   Change

Total                    343,579             372,563    08.44
Confinement Systems      168,163             150,506   -10.50
Applied Plasma Physics    59,007              54,275   -08.02
Devel. & Technology       80,342              89,026    10.81
Planning and Projects      4,895               5,857    19.65
Inertial Fusion Energy     3,977               6,000    50.87
Program Direction          9,200               9,600    04.35
Capital Equipment         15,995              10,299   -35.61
Construction               2,000              47,000  2250.00

According to the budget document provided to Congress, "The
scientific and technological issues that must be addressed to
achieve the program's goals are ignition physics, fusion nuclear
technology, magnetic confinement configuration optimization and low
activation materials development.  The U.S. fusion program is
addressing these issues with the minimum number of devices and with
a maximum degree of international collaboration, as exemplified by
the joint ITER efforts....  Additional issues of steady-state
plasma control and advanced plasma performance, needed for an
improved demonstration power plant, will be addressed by the
Tokamak Physics Experiment.  This is planned to be the next major
U.S. experimental tokamak.

"There are four main elements in the magnetic fusion program.  The
first element is the introduction of a fuel mixture of deuterium
and tritium in the TFTR at the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory
(PPPL)....  The second major program element is ITER.  The U.S.
has, with the European Community, Japan, and the Soviet Union (now
the Russian Federation), completed a three-year ITER conceptual
design.  ITER is intended to demonstrate the scientific and
technological feasibility of fusion power.  An agreement to proceed
with the ITER Engineering Design Activities collaboration was
signed in July, 1992, by all four parties.  ITER is being designed
to produce more than 1,000 MW of fusion power, under ignition
conditions, and serve as the test bed for fusion technology in
support of a Demonstration Power Plant.  The third element is TPX,
a proposed long pulse, advanced tokamak device that will make use
of the TFTR test cell and existing equipment at the PPPL site in
order to reduce the cost of the experiment.  The TPX facility would
seek to significantly improve the physics results of current
tokamaks by exploring advanced operating modes with the potential
for better confinement conditions, higher pressure limits, and
efficient steady-state current drive.  The final element is a base
program of fundamental physics and technology research required to
support ITER, TPX, and a demonstration power plant.  It includes,
for example, the DIII-D and Alcator C-Mod tokamaks, fusion theory
and modeling, and the low activation materials development
program."

"In the Inertial Fusion Energy (IFE) program, the objective is to
develop components, such as a high-efficiency, high-repetition-rate
driver and targets and reactor concepts that will use the target
physics developed by the Department's Defense Programs Office.
Activities will include continuation of the heavy ion accelerator
research program.  In addition, research will address target design
features of high gain and ease of production that are unique to
energy applications.

"...The budget provides funding to analyze the data from the D-T
experiments in TFTR and to assure the facility is maintained in a
safe condition while preparations for decontamination and
decommissioning efforts are made.  In addition, support is provided
for the U.S. portion of the ITER Engineering Design Activities
requirements.  Funding for construction of TPX is provided to
develop tokamak improvements to increase the attractiveness of a
post-ITER fusion reactor.  This project is included in the
President's investment package and would be operational in early
2000.  Some hardware modifications will be provided for the DIII-D
to upgrade its capability to address key issues in support of ITER
and next generation machines.  The base physics program, which
includes theory and small scale experiments, will provide limited
support for both ITER and tokamak improvement efforts.  Increased
support is provided to address the critical issue of materials
development for future fusion devices."


###############
Public Information Division
American Institute of Physics
Contact:  Audrey T. Leath
(301) 209-3094
##END##########
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenJTCHEW cudfnAd cudlnaspera cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.23 / Mike Jamison /  SL/LIB correction
     
Originally-From: edwlt12@mars.lerc.nasa.gov (Mike Jamison (ADF))
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: SL/LIB correction
Date: 23 Feb 1994 12:06 EDT
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center

In a private message, Vic Moberg (?sp?) pointed out to me that the CO2
laser's wavelength (~10 um) is readily absorbed by water, and presumably
D2O as well.

Hence, if Dr. Jones or anyone else is interested in my suggestion, the CO2
laser shouldn't be used...

Instead, a high-powered visible wavelength laser would be required (high
powered being several watts - HeNe's won't work!)  Vic supplied me with a
reference for other LIB experimentation, which I haven't checked out yet
(thanks Vic!)

Along with Nd:YAG lasers, Copper vapor comes to mind, as do excimer, etc.


Mike Jamison

"Scientific research consists in seeing what everyone else has seen, but
thinking what no one else has thought"

						-A. Szent-Gyorgyi
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenedwlt12 cudfnMike cudlnJamison cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.23 / William Johnson /  Re: Reply to Mitch 5: Kucherov expts,x-rays
     
Originally-From: mwj@beta.lanl.gov (William Johnson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reply to Mitch 5: Kucherov expts,x-rays
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 1994 18:44:57 GMT
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory

In article <1994Feb18.134931.1395@physc1.byu.edu> jonesse@physc1.byu.edu writes:
[A great deal of sensible stuff that I omit for brevity -- good job as usual,
Steve!]
>Mitch:  [15] has anyone published results showing x-ray *spectra*,
>showing the presence of characteristic Pd x-ray lines?
>I know of none.  We have looked using good x-ray spectrometers and so
>has McKurbre:  nothing yet, my friend.  

To forestall any misleading rebuttals, let me take a stab at this one.  At
least one spectrum purporting to show Pd x-rays *has* been published; but
paradoxically enough, that very spectrum condemned the experiment that produced
it as hopelessly flawed.

I refer here to the notorious progress report generated at BARC a couple of
years ago -- the one that had an alleged radioautograph on the front cover
purporting to show "bright spots" in an electrode where a cold-fusion reaction
was occurring.  The same progress report had at least one spectrum that had a
little bump in a gamma-ray spectrum at about 21 keV.  (As a spectroscopist, I
didn't find the bump statistically convincing, but it was there.)  Both of 
these observables were taken as positives in the report.

So why is this spectrum damning rather than convincing?  The answer is the
inevitable failing in cold-fusion measurements: consistency.  The existence of
bright spots in the radioautograph, if taken at face value, implies the 
presence of a radiation source that, while not quantifiable in any simple way,
had to be *intense*.  Compared to a spectrometer, photographic film is a
woefully inefficient way of detecting gamma rays -- or to turn it around, the
spectrometer can recognize a much weaker source than the film can, and that's
where the conflict occurs.  Presence of a weak 21-keV line in a spectrum with
a substantial background (implying that it was taken over a reasonably long
time with a decently efficient detector) is *not* consistent with the presence
of an intense source of palladium x-rays.  If the source had been strong and
DC, the peak would have been *much* larger than it was, because a spectrometer
is both more efficent at intercepting 21-keV photons than x-ray film and able
to "emphasize" monoenergetic signals (like x-ray photopeaks) over background.
On the other hand, if the source had been strong enough to produce spots on the
film but had operated in a "burst" mode, there would have been pileup leading
to screwy peak shape, sum peaks, etc., that weren't observed.  In neither case
would the result be what was observed in the spectrum.

(As a side issue, note that the presence of a weak Pd x-ray line doesn't 
prove anything anyway.  A sufficiently massive hunk of Pd will *always* emit
some number of x-rays as a result of cosmic-ray interactions in the hunk.
Radioactivity within the Pd -- for example, bits of uranium or thorium -- will
have the same result.)

All of which is to say that any number of subtleties exist in these
measurements that are not necessarily obvious at first glance but cause one's
initial impression of an experiment to be reversed once they are understood.
The skepticism of practically all experimental nuclear physicists toward CF
isn't mere prejudice; rather, it follows naturally from looking at the data
with a professional eye.

--
Bill Johnson			| "The only way to deal with bureaucrats
Los Alamos National Laboratory  | is with stealth and sudden violence."
Los Alamos, New Mexico USA	| (Attributed to UN Secretary-General 
(mwj@lanl.gov)			| Boutros-Ghali, with thanks to Joe Chew)
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenmwj cudfnWilliam cudlnJohnson cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.23 / John Manuel /  Re: 3rd RFD: sci.physics.computational.fluid-dynamics
     
Originally-From: john.r.manuel@dartmouth.edu (John Manuel)
Newsgroups: sci.geo.fluids,sci.nonlinear,sci.physics.fusion,comp.lang.fortran,news.groups
Subject: Re: 3rd RFD: sci.physics.computational.fluid-dynamics
Date: 23 Feb 1994 21:09:25 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH, USA

This is a reposting of an RFD that has already appeared in several
other newsgroups. This repost is intended to correct a few omissions in
the distribution of the original posting. Follow-ups should go to
news.groups.

In article <sci.physics.computational.fluid-dynamics-RFD3@uunet.uu.net>
lind@eng.umd.edu (Charles A. Lind) writes:

>                         REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
>  
> This is a formal Request for Discussion for the creation of a new
> newsgroup under the sci.* hierarchy.  This RFD is being cross
> posted to sci.aeronautics, sci.engr.mech, sci.math,
> sci.math.num-analysis, sci.physics and news.announce.newgroups.
> Discussion of this RFD is to take place in news.groups.
> 
> NAME:  sci.physics.computational.fluid-dynamics
> 
> STATUS: Unmoderated
> 
> One line description for the List of Active Newsgroups:
> 
> sci.physics.computational.fluid-dynamics - Computational physics,
> especially how it relates to fluids.
> 
> RATIONAL:
> 
> An overwhelming number of researchers are depending on computers to
> solve state of the art fluid problems.  The need for a group
> dedicated specifically to Computational Fluid Dynamics is evidenced
> by the increased traffic in other groups.  The proposed newsgroup
> is intended to provide an international forum for all issues
> concerning the numerical solution of fluid related problems.
> 
> The proposed name sci.physics.computational.fluid-dynamics is
> specific enough to define the group, but general enough to welcome
> researchers from all disciplines.
> 
> PROPOSED CHARTER:
> 
> sci.physics.computational.fluid-dynamics is a forum for the
> discussion of all issues relating to computational fluid dynamics.
>  
>         Discussion on all aspects of CFD are welcome, including,
>         but not limited to:
>  
>         * grid generation - elliptic, algebraic, adaptive, structured,
>                 unstructured, 2D, 3D,
>         * Specific flow problems: plasmas, real gases, MHD
>         * Multigrid methods
>         * Finite difference methods
>         * Finite volume methods
>         * Finite element methods
>         * Panel methods
>         * Solution issues: explicit vs. implicit, structured grids vs.
>                            unstructured, ADI vs. SLOR, etc.
>         * High order numerical methods (TVD, ENO)
>         * Turbulence Modeling
>         * Commercial codes - problems, issues, limitations
>         * Visualization
>         * Code validation


----
John R. Manuel        fax: (603) 646-3856        office: (603) 646-2723
Thayer School of Engineering, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH, 03755 USA
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenmanuel cudfnJohn cudlnManuel cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.23 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Reactions which produce 4He
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reactions which produce 4He
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 1994 10:06:10 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <94021508533418@dancer.nscl.msu.edu> blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu writes:
> ..   .. .   .. .  The present position taken by Mitchell
>Swartz, and other cold fusion advocates, the 4He is the primary
>reaction product while neutrons, gammas, and X-rays remain at
>undetectable or marginally detectable levels is not tenable.

What about aneutronic energy processes utilizing other appropriate 
light elements.  I don't think that deuterium is the only constituent
of cf experments; and why must it be the most likely, given the 
behavior of these experiments (as gleaned from a smeared average 
taken to date)?   

Let's not be so near sighted gentle-fair-people.  Picking a speck
of defendable turf doesn't really cover what this is about.  It seems
to me, that we do not understand the whole global "cf" happening. 
One way out might be to embrass or reject things with a cursory 
or even calvier study, or alternately, to bring on the new 
paradigm and totally ignore the inconsistencies.  Probability 
usually favors of human error, when discoveries that seem to be 
real are totally unexpected and don't seem to fit our rather current 
and previous consistent and workable current paradigm set. That
means that it is far harder for the brain to solve this riddle and
turn this flickering pilot light of power into a steady ripping 
energy source and to develop an understanding that is consistent
with or at least expansive on the current paradigm.  On the other
hand is much easier to deny it exists.  

This is not unlike the situation with plasma and Ball Lightning,
one could call the director of OER or of Mag Fusion at DoE and
ask if they could please explain the nature of Ball Lightning. If
they deny it, they are off the hook. BUT, if, they admit it, they
are ON the hook, because, what the devil are they doing feigning
to bring hot fusion into existence using toroidal magnetized plasmas
if they don't even know how Ball Lightning works or how it is formed.   
Dimetri Kadomsev recently presented a Lecture on BL at UMd, so it
may be a bit more difficult to deny its existence.  Still a quick
telephone or electronic survey might yield interesting results. 

So what's to do??  
The problem here is that the cf objective would be important for us 
if true, and therefore we can go quite a distance -- most certainly 
a significant fraction of the distance traveled by hot fusion, where 
the mob has avalanced off the deep end with that black-hole-for-
money, the tokamak.  

In the beginning cf interaction seemed to be a tease of English 
school boys, or perhaps an East/West Coast preppy tif with the 
unsophisticated western rockies'chemists.  All of this behavior 
seems to have lock limited the minds on both sides of the "cf 
issue" to be unable to penetrate beyond that which is the most 
obvious.  Is there any managed science strategy for getting this 
work moved ahead, or will we just have the behavior of clucking 
hens on a roost???  

Female normal animal function here is used to illustrate what appears 
to me to be an abnormal human situation.  Putting it another way... 
turn up the voltage, please, .. ...    before senility sets in.  
 
>Dick Blue
>NSCL@MSU
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc,Bx 1037, Prometheus II, Ltd., College Park, MD 20740-1037 |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.23 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Poloidal field?
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Poloidal field?
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 1994 11:35:28 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <2kbt8q$gq1@tom.pppl.gov> rfheeter@theory.pppl.gov (Robert F. Heeter) writes:
>In article <1994Feb22.010721.21776@mksol.dseg.ti.com>,
>arthur blair <blair@mksol.dseg.ti.com> wrote:
>>Could someone explain the what's and how's of the poloidal
>>field in a tokomak and how it generates the helical toroidal
>>field?

>The toroidal field is simply that piece of the magnetic field
>which runs straight around the torus; that is, if we took
>the torus, cut it, and stretched it out into a long straight tube,
>the toroidal field would run down the axis of the tube.

In a straight tube the field is called "solenoidal" and it is
produced by rings of currents which are coaxial to the axis of
the tube and the solenoidal field they produce.   Imagine bending
the tube around on itself so the end rings of current become
juxtapositioned (next to each other).  The lines of force which
spilled out of the solenoid and encirled around closing to enter
at the other end of the tube, now will jump more directly from
tube opening to tube opening as they are brought together.  When
closed in a torus the lines of the field now all stay within
the torus and are therefore not called "toroidal".  

>The poloidal field, by contrast, is whatever component of the field 
>runs around the tube.

The short way around a toroidal tube or a wire loop.  That means
the lines of force must link (like a link of a chain) the loop
or toroidal tube current.  So there are many field lines and they
all go through the center circular plane  and then swing up out and
around coming in closing on themselves and coming in again from 
the opposite side.  The earth's magnetic field is poloidal, but
we can see inside where the lines of force all bunch through a
circular area in the equatorial plane.  

>Another way to say it is that the toroidal field runs around the
>torus the long way, and the poloidal field runs around the torus
>the short way.

>Now it starts to get confusing.  The way to generate a toroidal
>field is to run a current through a winding which goes in the
>poloidal direction. .. . 

As above

>Conversely, the way to generate a poloidal field is to run a
>current in the toroidal direction.  One can do this with electrical
>cables outside the torus, which run parallel to the torus,
>or one can do it with currents through the plasma inside the
>torus.

There is all kinds of silly ways that plasma physicists make
magnets very complicated, but mostly by using lots of individual
loops and then putting them here and there.  Most of this isn't
important, because it is not necessary.  The simpler the better.

>In a tokamak, the toroidal field is primarily generated by 
>external coils, and simply runs straight through the torus.
>The poloidal field is controlled partly by external coils
>and partly by the internal plasma current.

Well the best view is that that poloidal field is "ALL" made by
the plasma toroidal current, and then they found that when the
flux crowed through the inside of the ring the area wasn't as
great as outside the ring (in the equatorial plane).  Well this
give everybody a headache because the bunching inside made more
mag pressure and that started pushing the torus harder toward
the outside (larger major Radius) than the less dense lines that
had more room pressured inward as they went around the outside
surface of the plasma ring.   SO ---   here is what they did.  
They removed some of the field from the inside and then they
crowded the field lines more togethere and squanched them up
against the outside so they made more pressure there.  By 
adding a bit here and taking off a bit there they were able
to just about hold that tokamak plasma at any radius they wanted.

Now here is how.  Lets travel around a ring of poloidal field. 

When inside the central region we may be goin up and then around
and down on the outside.  But eventually we we turn inward and
up again.  So on one side of the plasma in the equatorial plane
we go "up"  (the center side) and on the outside of the plasma
ring for force line points down in the same plane.  Well if we
put a coil that is bigger than our whole outside of our plasma
ring plus some space around it and turn on a field, the field
of the magnetic coil loop will be inside of the loop in its 
ENTIRETY of the portion the covers the plasma and a bit beyond.  
Further that field points in one direction and if we put it
in the plane of the torus (or use one just about and one just
below -- tad more stable)  then the field lines will point so
as to be the same direction as the plasma current field lines 
(down) which are outside.  The strength then adds, since our
coil field is also down at that location.  However, the plasma
current's field inside of the plasma inside is up and that
is opposite to the down field of our coil, so the two fields
subtract.  Since our coil field isn't too strong, the differents
in both the subtracted pressure inside and added pressure outside
results in equal pressure a  prescribed major Radius.  That is
controllable because of the non-linear way the plasma field 
pressure balance changes with major Radius.  

>If you add a toroidal vector and a poloidal vector together,
>and follow the resultant around your torus, then you get
>the helical shape which you ask about.  The helix is the
>*combined* magnetic field shape.


Go back to the open tube, Let's now make a nearly solid cylinder
of concentric nested tubes, but where the largest outside tube
or cylinder is the size of the previous envisioned solenoid.  

First we will pass current down each of the tubes from one
end to the other and then around the tubes in an encircling
manner and observe in our minds eye a picture of the fields
produced.  

With current coming from the same ends to the other ends with 
constant current density, the encircling or "azimuthal" 
field (poloidal field if bent around and closed in a torus) is
produced only outside of the surface each tube.  That means the
azimuthal (poloidal) field is strongest at the outmost edge
of the cylinder (plasma torus).   

With current flowing around each of the concentric nested tubes
the current is produced only "INSIDE" the tube, so that there
will be no solenoidal field (toroidal field if cylinder is bent 
into a torus) outside of the outmost tube or the cylinder (plasma
torus) AND the solenoidal (toroidal) field is strongest along 
the center of the concentric current axis.   

So now we have to shape what is called the RESULTANT field which
is a combination of the two fields.   Even the currents form a
resultant current.  Let's look at the outside.  Here the toroidal
field is weak or essentially non-existent but the poloidal field
is very strong.  So the resultant field is mostly going around
the short way, POLOIDAL with a tiny weensy amount of movement in 
the toroidal direction.  On the other hand, on the axis the flux 
is nearly all toroidal and there is essentially no poloidal so 
the resultant field is quit toroidal.  AHHGG! the intermediate
region is most interesting because here they mix equally and 
they turn as they propagate around so the sort of "screw" or
do the helical thing.   No notice that as we move from there
toward the axis the screw develops a greater or coarser pitch.  
On the otherhand, moving toward the surface the helicity becomes
more and more fine.  That means that some density varation with
a bit of volume will tend to get smeared by this gradiant in
helicity.  So true of instability activity.  

BUT,  there is hope.   The female deer society in Germantown
uses insists upon using this machine called tokamak (or was
it takatok. Anyway, they do not trust the plasma to develop
its own mag confinement and generating currents so they only
let the device have a bit, just a tad of toroidal current, and
they insist that the massive colossal bulk of the HUGE toroidal 
is supplied by them in the form of some 8 -25 toroidal field
coils.   So all of the above stuff about gradient fields --
also called "shear", is blown when it comes to tokamaks ....
        E X C E P T   

that tokamaks  do jiggle  in protest a bit.
When the toroidal plasma current starts in the presence of the
monster toroidal field it does form a bit of a screw, and that
does cause the plasma current to tend to follow the screw field. 
BUT ... when it does it now is also making toroidal field and
that is at the expense of it's poloidal field so the poloidal
field weakens  (and the toroidal component of the plasma current)
giving the toroidal field a chance to jerk the plasma current
by the ears and point it back in the toroidal direction.  

That cause a kind of slosh which mixes a large central plasma area
which mixes the plasma temperatures and reduces plasma thermal
radial gradients.  That is a most wonderful thing for dumb 
energy dumping tokamaks.   The DoEs call it saw tooth.. 

Probably an variant of saber tooth, which gradually was worn down
by the eons since this machine has been trying to get to its
promised goal. 


>So to summarize:
>
>The toroidal field is generated by coils/currents which run in the
>poloidal direction.
>
>The poloidal field is generated by coils/currents which run in the
>toroidal direction.
>
>The combination of poloidal plus toroidal fields results in
>a twisted, helical field.


>It would be a little incorrect to say that the poloidal field
>generates the helical toroidal field (did it say that in the FUT?),
>but it would be correct that when one adds the poloidal field
>to the toroidal field, the result is a helical field.

A dynamic rebellious field.  

>In a tokamak, the toroidal field is generally substantially stronger
>than the poloidal field, so the resulting helical field is
>*predominantly toroidal*, and as a result one might speak of
>the total field as "helical toroidal".

>Not sure if that was clear / too basic, but I hope it helps!

>*******
>Robert F. Heeter
>rfheeter@lyman.pppl.gov
>Graduate Student, Princeton Plasma Physics Lab
>Usual Disclaimers Apply - especially when I'm wrong.

                     Get Rid of the Straight Jacket TFCs 
                      Dump the toroidal chamber -- Yes!
                         Set the Plasma Torus Free 
                             And Then COMPRESS   
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc,Bx 1037, Prometheus II, Ltd., College Park, MD 20740-1037 |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.23 / Matt Kennel /  Re: Poloidal field?
     
Originally-From: mbk%anl433.uucp@Germany.EU.net (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Poloidal field?
Date: 23 Feb 1994 21:34:31 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

Paul M. Koloc (pmk@prometheus.UUCP) wrote:
:                      Get Rid of the Straight Jacket TFCs 
:                       Dump the toroidal chamber -- Yes!
:                          Set the Plasma Torus Free 
:                              And Then COMPRESS   

OK, I assume you advocate a spheromak of some type.  How do you
propose to compress without losing energy?  

It seems that you have only a few general options:

	1) Magnetic field, which is what standard MFE machines do anyway.
	   I take it that you consider the possible pressure applied to
           be too small.

        2) Electrostatic field.  Ok, but wouldn't you need a charged plasma
	   then?  And if it's charged, how well can you squeeze it without
           it pushing back?

	3) Electromagnetic field (photons).  This is the h-bomb and
           Livermore ICF.  But it has to be *real* fast and dense, right?

	4) Material fluid pressure.  If you press with any thing
           (which is much colder than any ignited plasma), won't
	   you lose tons of heat as it comes into contact with that cold
           material?

I'm not an expert; I'd like to hear any ideas along these lines.
      
: +-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
: | Paul M. Koloc,Bx 1037, Prometheus II, Ltd., College Park, MD 20740-1037 |
: | mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
: | VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
: +-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

--
-Matt Kennel  		mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu
-Institute for Nonlinear Science, University of California, San Diego
-*** AD: Archive for nonlinear dynamics papers & programs: FTP to
-***     lyapunov.ucsd.edu, username "anonymous".
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenuucp cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.24 / mitchell swartz /  Reply to William Johnson (re: x-ray spectrophotom., Kucherov, )
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Reply to William Johnson (re: x-ray spectrophotom., Kucherov, )
Subject: Re: Reply to Mitch 5: Kucherov expts,x-rays
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 1994 00:29:17 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

   In Message-ID: <1994Feb23.184457.10190@newshost.lanl.gov>
Subject: Re: Reply to Mitch 5: Kucherov expts,x-rays
William Johnson  [mwj@beta.lanl.gov] writes:

  [good discussion of why William feels there must
be mutual exclusive presence of a "bright" 
(from an x-ray film point-of-view) source(s)
and spectroscopic spectra}

==   "If the source had been strong and
==   DC, the peak would have been *much* larger than it was,
==   because a spectrometer is both more efficent at intercepting 
==   21-keV photons than x-ray film and able to "emphasize" 
==   monoenergetic signals (like x-ray photopeaks) over background."

   Good point, and thank you for the scientific and
sober response.   However, is it not true that this
is correct only to the degree that the 
spectrophotometer is targeted both spatially,
temporally, and energetically upon the active site.

    Depending upon the sample volume of the
spectrophotometer, and the heterogeneity of the sample,
the very act of collimating any modern spectrophotometric
system may physically exclude "brighter" sources.  

Furthermore, if the outputs are time-variant, 
then given the typical relatively short term-examinations
used to obtain some spectra, there may also be
similar exclusion of "brighter" sources.  

Finally, the dynamic range (in an energetic, 
not amplitude sense) of some calibrated 
spectrophotometers may be less
then that spanned by the range of sensitivities to
ionizing radiation of some film systems.

 Possible reasons of rise-time, selectivity, and
sensitivity, variation of sample activity,
proper preparation, and a few other issues
 are also be noted but may be less
important.
   Best wishes.

          Mitchell Swartz   (mica@world.std.com)


cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.23 / Dick Jackson /  Re: Reactions which produce 4He
     
Originally-From: jackson@soldev.tti.com (Dick Jackson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reactions which produce 4He
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 1994 20:29:09 GMT
Organization: Citicorp-TTI at Santa Monica (CA) by the Sea

Paul M. Koloc writes:

(his entertaining contrarian comentary on hot fusion).

Paul, In the past you have favored us with updates on your own
progress. The last I remember, I think, was from many months ago
when you were building a block house and things were going slower
than planned (join the club!). Could you please tell us where
your experiment stands now?

Thanks, Dick Jackson.
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenjackson cudfnDick cudlnJackson cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.23 / Joshua Levy /  Re: HOT FUSION? NO WAY!
     
Originally-From: joshua@veritas.com (Joshua Levy)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: HOT FUSION? NO WAY!
Date: 23 Feb 1994 18:31:59 -0800
Organization: VERITAS Software Corp., Santa Clara  CA

>jabowery@netcom.com (Jim Bowery) writes:
>>The preemptive rabid attack was a win either way.  Either P&F were right
>>and the government HF guys had nothing to lose by stretching out their
>>funding a little longer or P&F were wrong and the government HF guys
>>could claim prescience.

To which bpc@netcom.com (Benjamin P. Carter) replied:
>The trouble with this argument is that most of the debunkers were not
>government HF guys but, rather, academic physicists and chemists whose
>main interests were not closely related to any kind of commercial power
>generation.  

For example, the first major debunker was Nate Lewis (a chemist).
The NSF/ERAB panel had many chemists in it; I think a majority of
chemists, but that is from memory.

Joshua Levy <joshua@veritas.com>
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenjoshua cudfnJoshua cudlnLevy cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.24 / Mark North /  Re: "Jones"-debate (Lack of reply from Steve)
     
Originally-From: north@watop.nosc.mil (Mark North)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: "Jones"-debate (Lack of reply from Steve)
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 1994 00:58:50 GMT
Organization: NCCOSC RDT&E Division, San Diego, CA

mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:

>  Steven Jones began this by asking near-endless questions
>in his marathon series of six posts.
>Some of those questions contained some sly 
>misstatements made by Steve Jones involving 
>sampling theory, helium measurements, recombination, etc. 

Perhaps Prof. Jones made some misstatements (though I doubt it)
but why the characterization 'sly'? Please provide proof. Show
the exact phrasing that inspired your mean-spirited choice of
words. 

>  Steve was set straight in a series of posts which were a 
>laborious reply to his questions and comments.

>  Astonishingly, the reply questions were so good that
>Steven has avoided, and veers from, ALL of the
>questions unable to answer A SINGLE ONE.

I believe he said he had some work to do. Unlike you, Prof. Jones
does real science. It requires diligent attention. I'm sure he'll
get back to you if he has the time. And, no, I nor anyone else
believe your questions were so good. And your answers to his
were even less good. Par. In any case, if you're so hot to have
your questions answered they are. I noted several other folks
who took you to task on these issues. If your interest is in
the question then you should be satisfied. If your interest is
in a personal attack... 

>  It is ironic that Steven began this, and then
>Steven ignores the reply but merely continues to 
>pontificate safely hidden in his ivory tower,
>avoiding normal science discourse, and insulated
>from even a reply to any of the topics HE BEGAN
>even AFTER HIS starting HIS "debate".

If you think your childish flailings are normal science 
discourse I fall on the floor laughing. 

>  NOTA BENE:  The questions asked to Steven Jones
> remain valid, and several demand simple answers.

Simple answers for simple minds.

>  TEN POSSIBLE REASONS STEVEN JONES WILL (CAN) NOT 
>REPLY TO A SCIENTIFIC DEBATE WHICH HE BEGAN

[ Lot's of utterly shameful BS deleted ]

>    Best wishes colleagues.

Colleagues in what?

Mark

cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudennorth cudfnMark cudlnNorth cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.24 /  dowen@vaxc.cc. /  Re: Breakthrough with new phenomenon?
     
Originally-From: dowen@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Breakthrough with new phenomenon?
Date: 24 Feb 94 18:00:42 +1100
Organization: Computer Centre, Monash University, Australia

Hi folks,
In article <1994Feb22.150521.1412@physc1.byu.edu>, jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
writes:
> It appears that Daryl Owen and I will have to agree to disagree with regard
> to the paper "Reduced radioactivity of tritium in small titanium particles,"
> Phys. Lett. A 184 (1994) 149-153 by Otto Reifenschweiler.  I hope that we can
> both agree, however, to await results of follow-up experiments using 
> state-of-the-art detectors, as the author also encourages:
> 
> "...the author wants to report some curious results obtained many years ago in
> the course of technological projects based on the use of the hydrogen isotope
> tritium absorbed in titanium.  It seems to me that it would certainly be 
> worth repeating these experiments
> with up-to-date experimental technology, but unfortunately I am no longer in a
> position to do this myself."[The footnote here indicates that he is retired.]
> 
> Agreed?
> --Steven Jones

Fine with me Steve.
Although I strongly disagree with some of your interpretations, I thank you
for the non-acrimonious debate and also for the constructive and interesting
post concerning the variation of radioactivity by purely chemical means.
 I wish you every success with your SL experiments and the same to Ben with
his fracto work.
					Best Regards to all,
					Daryl Owen.

cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudendowen cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.24 / Jim Carr /  Re: Reply to William Johnson (re: x-ray spectrophotom., Kucherov, )
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reply to William Johnson (re: x-ray spectrophotom., Kucherov, )
Date: 24 Feb 1994 09:33:43 -0500
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

In article <CLpDCu.3wv@world.std.com> 
mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:

in reply to an superb description of the relative advantages of 
x-ray detectors over x-ray film by William Johnson [mwj@beta.lanl.gov] 
>
>   Good point, and thank you for the scientific and
>sober response.   However, is it not true that this
>is correct only to the degree that the 
>spectrophotometer is targeted both spatially,
>temporally, and energetically upon the active site.

Yes you are right, but you are totally wrong.  

Your observations are irrelevant.  Spatial targeting is an advantage, 
since the experiment is supposedly testing whether x rays come from 
a particular sample.  Temporal limits are a red herring, since there 
is no reason you cannot collect x-ray data for days on end.  Energetically 
is also an advantage, since the objective of the experiment is to look 
for photons originating from a specific reaction (or reactions) and 
a spectrum *always* contains more information than integrated counts. 

>    Depending upon the sample volume of the
>spectrophotometer, and the heterogeneity of the sample,
>the very act of collimating any modern spectrophotometric
>system may physically exclude "brighter" sources.  

This is not true, unless you set things up very strangely.  The sample 
sizes described in the various papers can all be viewed with a single 
detector, but any modern system usually includes many detectors and 
the ability to also look for coincidences between them to tag bursts. 

>Furthermore, if the outputs are time-variant, 
>then given the typical relatively short term-examinations
>used to obtain some spectra, there may also be
>similar exclusion of "brighter" sources.  

There is no reason for a 'typical' experiment to observe the source 
for a shorter time with a detector than with film.  Indeed, a plausible 
experimental proposal would be to examine a source with both. 

Further, a detector can tell you if the source was bright for a 
short time, whereas the film cannot.  It has no temporal resolution. 
You can integrate the counts from a detector; you cannot differentiate 
the counts on film. 

>Finally, the dynamic range (in an energetic, 
>not amplitude sense) of some calibrated 
>spectrophotometers may be less
>then that spanned by the range of sensitivities to
>ionizing radiation of some film systems.

This has a lot to do with your choice of detector.  However, there is 
nothing to prevent you from using a Ge(Li), NaI, and Si(Li) with 
different efficiency curves and senstivity ranges simultaneously 
to cover a very wide range of photon energies.  In the end, the 
design of the experiment (ie what you are trying to find) dictates 
this choice.  If you exclude one hypothesis and another comes along, 
you can redesign the experiment.  At any stage, the info in the 
spectrum from a gamma-ray or x-ray detector will always be more 
useful than an exposure on x-ray film if you wish to identify the 
source and nature of the radiation. 

-- 
J. A. Carr       <jac@scri.fsu.edu>           |  "The New Frontier of which I  
Florida State University  B-186               |  speak is not a set of promises
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Tallahassee, FL  32306-4052                   |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.16 / Rich Hawryluk /  TFTR Update March 15
     
Originally-From: rhawryluk@pppl.gov (Rich Hawryluk)
Newsgroups: pppl.tftr.news,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: TFTR Update March 15
Date: 16 Feb 1994 11:26:12 -0500
Organization: Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory

Status (February 15, 1994):

Good technical progress has continued in the tritium areas despite the snow
storms affecting N. J.  The repairs on the Torus Cleanup System and Tritium
Storage and Delivery System were completed and have undergone a
comprehensive leak test.  The remaining work on the piping from the Vacuum
Glovebox to the Gas Holding Tank (Hot Dump Manifold) is well underway.  The
Torus Cleanup System is supporting deuterium operations.

Received additional tritium to support D-T experiments.

RF experiments in deuterium with H minority or He-3 minority were
conducted. Deuterium experiments are underway to setup the conditions for
the ICRF D-T experiments.

Electron heating using mode conversion in a He-3/He-4 plasma was
demonstrated.  With about 3.5MW of RF power, an electron temperature
increase from 3 to 6.5 keV was obtained.

Initial studies of plasma rotation induced by ICRF were performed.  With
6MW of power, the plasma was observed to rotate in the counter direction
with a velocity of 40 km/s.  These studies were performed in support of
ITER to stabilize MHD.

All twelve neutral beam ion sources are operational with an average voltage
of 95 kV.  All six RF power sources are supporting the ICRF experiments.


Plans:

Repair activities in the tritium area will be completed this week. 
Deuterium-tritium operations will resume next week.  

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


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

cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenrhawryluk cudfnRich cudlnHawryluk cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.16 / N Stchedroff /  Re: Energy required for Fusion
     
Originally-From: zcacnst@ucl.ac.uk (Niels Stchedroff)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Energy required for Fusion
Date: 16 Feb 1994 10:30:55 -0600
Organization: UCL

In article <CL2sEG.GJ8@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, crb7q@watt.seas.Virgin
a.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
|> In article <haney.760983971@maverick>,
|> Scott W. Haney <haney@maverick.llnl.gov> wrote:
|> 
|> >  As ITER is currently envisioned, it will be a whopper of a tokamak: 
|> >approximately 8m major radius, 3m minor radius, 6T field, 25MA current.
|> >The main mission of ITER is generating lots of fusion power (1500MW+) in
|> >an ignited D-T plasma. Therefore, the power out/power in is infinity. 
|>                                                              ^^^^^^^^
|>      Boy, that *is* a bunch of fusion power!
|> 
|>      The only problem I can see now is siting.  I'd fight hard to 
|>      make sure I'm not near wherever they dump the heat.  My suggestion
|>      is somewhere in M31 in Andromeda.
|> 
|>                                  dale bass

If the machine generates inifinte power, that's it for the entire universe.
Hopefully, mass = energy will ensure that a second big bang will occur, so 
that sentient life may appear again.
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenzcacnst cudfnNiels cudlnStchedroff cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.16 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Energy required for Fusion
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Energy required for Fusion
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 1994 09:45:02 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <2jsn8qINNr4c@sat.ipp-garching.mpg.de>,
Arthur Carlson <awc@ipp-garching.mpg.de> wrote:
>
>And hydrogen bombs have nothing to do with magnetic confinement.  If you want to 
>use your 40G$ to buy some hydrogen bombs and try to convert the heat to 
>electricity, then I suppose you might be able to put some net power on the grid.

     At least with that approach, we attain the 'just a little bit o 
     power engineering' stage *now*, rather than in the perpetual
     long-term future.  Again, getting relevant permits this side of
     M31 might be a bit tricky.

                              dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.16 / N Stchedroff /  Re: Energy required for Fusion
     
Originally-From: zcacnst@ucl.ac.uk (Niels Stchedroff)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Energy required for Fusion
Date: 16 Feb 1994 10:31:49 -0600
Organization: UCL

In article <haney.761332295@maverick>, haney@maverick.llnl.gov (Scott W. Haney) writes:
|> crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
|> 
|> >In article <haney.760983971@maverick>,
|> >Scott W. Haney <haney@maverick.llnl.gov> wrote:
|> 
|> >>  As ITER is currently envisioned, it will be a whopper of a tokamak: 
|> >>approximately 8m major radius, 3m minor radius, 6T field, 25MA current.
|> >>The main mission of ITER is generating lots of fusion power (1500MW+) in
|> >>an ignited D-T plasma. Therefore, the power out/power in is infinity. 
|> >                                                             ^^^^^^^^
|> >     Boy, that *is* a bunch of fusion power!
|> 
|> >     The only problem I can see now is siting.  I'd fight hard to 
|> >     make sure I'm not near wherever they dump the heat.  My suggestion
|> >     is somewhere in M31 in Andromeda.
|> 
|> >                                 dale bass
|> 
|> Dale,
|> 
|>   If you read a little closer you'll notice that I said the fusion power
|> was about 1500MW. However, as the plasma is ignited (meaning that no external
|> heating is added) the ratio of power-out (1500MW) to power-in (0) is indeed
|> infinity.  As for siting at M31, this might help solve some of the political
|> difficulties associated with having four international parties fund the
|> thing. Any idea what the Andromedeans' nuclear regulations look like?
|> 
Well, the last Andromedean I met said they use a separate galaxy to do their big
science in. It seems that their latest effort in the fusion field is to switch
off an M-class star, and then study the decreasing neutrino production curve :)  
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenzcacnst cudfnNiels cudlnStchedroff cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.16 / James Crotinger /  Re: Energy required for Fusion
     
Originally-From: jac@moonshine.llnl.gov (James A. Crotinger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Energy required for Fusion
Date: 16 Feb 94 17:09:51 GMT
Organization: Magnetic Fusion Energy - LLNL

crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
> In article <jac.761333842@gandalf>,
> James A. Crotinger <jac@moonshine.llnl.gov> wrote:
>      It is not.  It's only 'zero' *after* you've heated it up the
>      first time.  So you've taken out any power used to get the plasma
>      to ignition which doesn't seem quite fair in a power out/power in
>      computation.

> >           -> Q = P_f/P_i = infinity

>      Ignoring the fact that power is used to heat to plasma in the
>      first place, of what use is that number?

  It's an instantaneous value. Granted, if you want to talk about a
time-averaged Q (or a ratio of *energies*, not *powers*), then that
quantity will never be infinite in a non-steady-state machine.
Clearly, such a measurement is a useful diagnostic as well. However, Q
has the distinguishing feature that it is infinity when the plasma
ignites. The other quantities might be large for an ignited machine,
but you could also obtain equally large values in an un-ignited
machine.

> [ discussion of Q in other power generation schemes deleted ]

  Nobody talks about a "Q" for these other processes precisely because
there is either no analog of ignition, or it is not particularly
challenging. In a MFE, controlled ignition is a major goal (though it
is not necessary for a fusion reactor to actually operate as an
ignited machine).

>      So this Q, ignoring all these things, is nearly worthless as 
>      a gauge of anything, except that the plasma is heating itself.
>      It seems much less misleading to say 'the plasma is heating itself'.

  Q *is* precisely a statement that "the plasma is heating itself".
Nobody said any differently. And if, at some point in time, the plasma
is in "steady state" and all of the energy needed to maintain its
temperature is being provided by fusion reactions, then this
particular measure of plasma self-heating goes to infinity. I don't 
see why you have a problem with this.

  Jim


--
 ------------------------------------------------/\--------------------------
James A. Crotinger     Lawrence Livermore N'Lab // \ The above views are mine
jac@moonshine.llnl.gov P.O. Box 808;  L-630 \\ //---\  and are not neces-
(510) 422-0259         Livermore CA  94550   \\/Amiga\  sarily those of LLNL.
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenjac cudfnJames cudlnCrotinger cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.16 / Scott Haney /  Re: Energy required for Fusion
     
Originally-From: haney@maverick.llnl.gov (Scott W. Haney)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Energy required for Fusion
Date: 16 Feb 94 17:21:15 GMT
Organization: Magnetic Fusion Energy - LLNL

crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:

>In article <2jqua1INNj9l@emx.cc.utexas.edu>,
>John W. Cobb <johncobb@emx.cc.utexas.edu> wrote:
>>In article <CL2sEG.GJ8@murdoch.acc.virginia.edu>,
>>Cameron Randale Bass <crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU> wrote:
>>>In article <haney.760983971@maverick>,
>>>Scott W. Haney <haney@maverick.llnl.gov> wrote:
>>>
>>>>  As ITER is currently envisioned, it will be a whopper of a tokamak: 
>>>>...
>>>>an ignited D-T plasma. Therefore, the power out/power in is infinity. 
>>>                                                             ^^^^^^^^
>>>     Boy, that *is* a bunch of fusion power!
>>>
>>>     The only problem I can see now is siting.  I'd fight hard to 
>>>     make sure I'm not near wherever they dump the heat.  My suggestion
>>>     is somewhere in M31 in Andromeda.
>>
>>Not really, N/0 --> infinity. The power ratio, or Q is infinite because
>>ITER is supposed to reach ignition. However, the numerator, the power out
>>is finite. I am not up on the current ITER design iteration (is anybody 
>>for that matter --- only the Shadow and Rebut know) but the power output
>>used for reactor studies is on the order of 1 Gigawatt.

>     So, the 'power in' is zero?  Good show.  So ITER is to be a 
>     completely self-heated plasma from start-up?  I must admit 
>     I'm impressed, he noted dryly.

Cameron,

  Current plans are for ITER to have 50MW or so of ICRH power. This power
is used to heat to ignition. It's on for a fraction of the shot. Furthermore,
plans are to operate the thing at a thermally stable point thereby requiring
*zero* MW for burn control. I might add that the ITER plasma could probably
produce significantly more than 1500MW; however, a lot higher and one runs
into materials problems.

Bottom line: The power-out to power-in ratio should be real high for ITER.

Scott








--
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scott W. Haney        || Lawrence Livermore N'Lab || The above views are 
haney@random.llnl.gov || P.O. Box 808;  L-637     || mine and not neces-
(510) 423-6308        || Livermore, CA  94550     || sarily LLNL's.
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenhaney cudfnScott cudlnHaney cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.16 / Mark North /  Re: More on Fractofusion
     
Originally-From: north@watop.nosc.mil (Mark North)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: More on Fractofusion
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 1994 17:59:07 GMT
Organization: NCCOSC RDT&E Division, San Diego, CA

jonesse@physc1.byu.edu writes:

>Finally, as Dick Blue pointed out some time ago, in fracto-emission, it is
>predominately the electrons (as opposed to d+ or other ions) that are
>accelerated, so d-d fusion is highly unlikely during fracture of solids.

I know Dick said this but I'm not entirely convinced. It seems to me
that the electrons would have a greater tendency to remain with the
lattice since they are unlocalized in the conduction band. Moreover,
they also feel (and move) under any unbalanced electric force in the
metal. Do the fractoemission references have any quantitative info
on this. My set is temporarily unavailable.

Mark

cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudennorth cudfnMark cudlnNorth cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.15 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Question for Dale Bass
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Question for Dale Bass
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 1994 06:57:05 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <940212173730_72240.1256_EHK33-1@compuserve.com>,
Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> wrote:
>To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
>
>Cameron Randale Bass writes:
>
>     "I'd be more than willing to discuss anything in P&F's recent paper in
>     Phys. Lett. A.
>
>I have a question for Mr. Bass about this paper:
>
>     Have you actually read this paper, Mr. Bass? I mean carefully, from
>     beginning to end.

   Carefully, from beginning to end.  

   Now I am still puzzled about any number of things included therein, so
   I have some questions for you: Perhaps you *now* have more information
   on the apparent miracles involving the heat stabilization,
   even under 'dry' conditions in the cell?  Or the justification for
   using a thermal measurment somewhat above the electrode *in the air*
   to measure such a process?  Or perhaps you *now* have a definition of 
   'dry' that makes the statements in the paper consistent. Or perhaps you 
   have some additional justification for the enthalpy calculation under
   boiling given two, or at most three datapoints for wildly varying
   electrical system parameters, or perhaps you can tell us what melted
   the kel-F that was unattached to the Pd electrode and apparently insulated
   from the Pd electrode by the electrolyte, or perhaps you have some 
   indication as to the actual equipment used and left unreported in an 
   experimental paper, or perhaps you have *any* information whatsoever 
   about the paper of a concrete and substantive nature?

   Or perhaps we'll just mosey along talking about nothing.  I'm not sure
   what you thought you'd gain by asking me if I read the thing, especially
   since you were pretty quiet on any substantive points *last* time this
   came up.

>     I ask because Dr. Blue recently published a series of comments about
>another Physics Letters A paper which revealed that he had not actually
>taken the trouble to read the paper. Perhaps it would a good idea for
>posters to mark their messages with some symbol indicating that they have
>not actually read the scientific papers they are discussing.

   Sorry, I've not read Mr. Blue's comments so I cannot comment.  Perhaps,
   however, you'd like to make a substantive criticism rather
   than just generally impugning him.

                           dale bass

cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.15 / Cameron Bass /  Re: On Turning on the scientific Debate (cont'd)
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: On Turning on the scientific Debate (cont'd)
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 1994 07:14:30 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <CL46st.8pG@world.std.com>,
mitchell swartz <mica@world.std.com> wrote:
>
>=dbass    "You tell me the import of measuring wildly fluctuating voltage
>=dbass    and current once every 300 seconds for a 600 second 'event'?"
>
>    They have already said that other measuring equipment were also 
>used and that there were not fluctuating voltages and currents present
>at that time.  So why the selective use of information and the 
>continued use of false claims?
>    That is not science.   That is not even fair.

     I missed this earlier.  However, I agree that it's not fair, not fair
     at all.  A group of researchers presents a measurement (without, mind you,
     giving any indication of how it is performed).  It is then revealed
     (not in the paper) that the measurment is *utterly inadequate* for 
     measuring the process considered.  When that is pointed out, it is 
     then revealed (again not in the paper) that 'other' means were used
     for checking or verifying or some other fuzzy thinging the original
     inadequate results (the only substantial 'other' mean I've seen is
     some vague notion about the 'rail voltage' of the galvanostat preventing
     the attainment of a *DC* voltage, again, strangely enough, for unreported
     equipment and conditions).  And this time we're given only fuzzy and 
     vague reassurance that all is actually right with the world, and the
     experimenters actually know what they're doing.

     So, put up or shut up.  By what means are they measuring electrical
     parameters *other* than the data logging every 300 s, and were 
     those means operating *and* recording during the boiling period,
     and exactly what equipment are they using, and where can we find the
     results of *that* data as opposed to the inadequate data *actually*
     reported?

     I agree that such games with data are not science, and I 
     agree that the researchers are not being fair to those myriad few
     who bothered to read their paper.

     Face it, it's this kind of garbage that prompted the rest the world to 
     move on years ago.

                             dale bass


cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.15 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Energy required for Fusion
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Energy required for Fusion
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 1994 18:35:02 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <2jqua1INNj9l@emx.cc.utexas.edu>,
John W. Cobb <johncobb@emx.cc.utexas.edu> wrote:
>In article <CL2sEG.GJ8@murdoch.acc.virginia.edu>,
>Cameron Randale Bass <crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU> wrote:
>>In article <haney.760983971@maverick>,
>>Scott W. Haney <haney@maverick.llnl.gov> wrote:
>>
>>>  As ITER is currently envisioned, it will be a whopper of a tokamak: 
>>>...
>>>an ignited D-T plasma. Therefore, the power out/power in is infinity. 
>>                                                             ^^^^^^^^
>>     Boy, that *is* a bunch of fusion power!
>>
>>     The only problem I can see now is siting.  I'd fight hard to 
>>     make sure I'm not near wherever they dump the heat.  My suggestion
>>     is somewhere in M31 in Andromeda.
>
>Not really, N/0 --> infinity. The power ratio, or Q is infinite because
>ITER is supposed to reach ignition. However, the numerator, the power out
>is finite. I am not up on the current ITER design iteration (is anybody 
>for that matter --- only the Shadow and Rebut know) but the power output
>used for reactor studies is on the order of 1 Gigawatt.

     So, the 'power in' is zero?  Good show.  So ITER is to be a 
     completely self-heated plasma from start-up?  I must admit 
     I'm impressed, he noted dryly.

>As for siting, I suggest we put in in Dale's back yard since he has 
>already generously donated space for a high level waste facility. Certainly
>that could decrease costs.

     I'll gladly 'donate' 15000 ft below my house, exactly the
     same site I've offered for a high level waste facility.  I expect,
     of course, the same generous recompense that I expect for
     my high level waste facility so I'm not sure you'll positively
     affect costs.

                             dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.15 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Who own's the Internet?
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Who own's the Internet?
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 1994 22:40:45 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1994Feb15.164652.16724@ns.network.com>,
John Logajan <logajan@demento.network.com> wrote:
>crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>>mitchell swartz <mica@world.std.com> wrote:
>>>Mr. North seems to admit and then boast that it is OK that
>>>he might use U.S. Government money -- paid for by the reader --
>>>to fund any personal, unscientific attacks, on the INTERNET
>>>against scientists, citizens, and students of cold fusion.
>>
>>      Disregarding the characterization, *you* use U.S Government
>>      money to fund *your* particular brand of discussion as 
>>      well.  
>
>I get to disagree with this general theme -- that the fed's own the
>Internet.  There are individual, corporate, private and public educational,
>and various local, state and federal agencies all interconnected and
>paying for the Internet.  No one interest owns it, and no one is beholden
>to the fed's.

    I didn't say they 'owned' it.  I said he was also using federal
    money to distribute his discussion as well.

>Government is usurping authority over our lives at an alarming rate,
>let's not just hand it over to them on a silver platter on just any
>imaginable pretext.

    I agree completely.  Write to your congressmen in strong 
    opposition to federal funding for any federally controlled and
    operated 'Information Superhighway' in direct competition with
    long distance carriers.

                             dale bass

cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.15 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Energy required for Fusion
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Energy required for Fusion
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 1994 22:52:00 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <haney.761332295@maverick>,
Scott W. Haney <haney@maverick.llnl.gov> wrote:
>crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>
>>In article <haney.760983971@maverick>,
>>Scott W. Haney <haney@maverick.llnl.gov> wrote:
>
>>>  As ITER is currently envisioned, it will be a whopper of a tokamak: 
>>>approximately 8m major radius, 3m minor radius, 6T field, 25MA current.
>>>The main mission of ITER is generating lots of fusion power (1500MW+) in
>>>an ignited D-T plasma. Therefore, the power out/power in is infinity. 
>>                                                             ^^^^^^^^
>>     Boy, that *is* a bunch of fusion power!
>
>>     The only problem I can see now is siting.  I'd fight hard to 
>>     make sure I'm not near wherever they dump the heat.  My suggestion
>>     is somewhere in M31 in Andromeda.
>
>>                                 dale bass
>
>Dale,
>
>  If you read a little closer you'll notice that I said the fusion power
>was about 1500MW. However, as the plasma is ignited (meaning that no external
>heating is added) the ratio of power-out (1500MW) to power-in (0) is indeed
>infinity.  As for siting at M31, this might help solve some of the political
>difficulties associated with having four international parties fund the
>thing. Any idea what the Andromedeans' nuclear regulations look like?

     I read it the first time.  I just don't think infinity is a meaningful
     number in that context.  For one thing, this completely ignores
     the initial power in (before 'as the plasma is ignited').  

     As far as the nuclear regs of M31 go, I just send out a message requesting
     a fax from them.  It may, however, take a while for them to get 
     back to us...

                               dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.15 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Energy required for Fusion
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Energy required for Fusion
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 1994 23:06:47 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <jac.761333842@gandalf>,
James A. Crotinger <jac@moonshine.llnl.gov> wrote:
>crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>
>> In article <haney.760983971@maverick>,
>> Scott W. Haney <haney@maverick.llnl.gov> wrote:
>
>> >  As ITER is currently envisioned, it will be a whopper of a tokamak: 
>> >approximately 8m major radius, 3m minor radius, 6T field, 25MA current.
>> >The main mission of ITER is generating lots of fusion power (1500MW+) in
>> >an ignited D-T plasma. Therefore, the power out/power in is infinity. 
>>                                                              ^^^^^^^^
>>      Boy, that *is* a bunch of fusion power!
>
>  Er, fusion power if finite. Power in (to heat the plasma) is zero. 

     It is not.  It's only 'zero' *after* you've heated it up the
     first time.  So you've taken out any power used to get the plasma
     to ignition which doesn't seem quite fair in a power out/power in
     computation.

>           -> Q = P_f/P_i = infinity

     Ignoring the fact that power is used to heat to plasma in the
     first place, of what use is that number?

     A coal fired plant also has this Q as infinity.  As does 
     a fission plant, as does a oil-fired plant, as does a 
     natural-gas fired plant.  The difference is that the 'pilot light'
     for all of these is substantially less energetic than the 
     'pilot light' for magnetic fusion processes, especially ones that might
     cycle.  For the aforementioned nonfusion processes, the 'pilot light'
     can indeed be made very small.  This is not the case for fusion.
     Also, for the nonfusion processes, the 'container' is not actively
     powered.

     So this Q, ignoring all these things, is nearly worthless as 
     a gauge of anything, except that the plasma is heating itself.
     It seems much less misleading to say 'the plasma is heating itself'.

                           dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.16 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Reply to Jones on 1000W/cm^3 (1989 level)
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reply to Jones on 1000W/cm^3 (1989 level)
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 1994 02:45:59 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <CLA7qD.H1s@world.std.com>,
mitchell swartz <mica@world.std.com> wrote:
>
>    [Dale, if you have the reference for your ridiculous claim give it please.
>       Thanks in advance, and still waiting.]

    I'm not sure why I should answer your questions when you don't
    answer mine, but here goes.

    Pons himself at a presentation in March 1989 spouted that
    he had already reached 67 W/cm3 on the dial and that 1000 W/cm3
    was 'reasonable'.  My interpretation was that he had already
    experienced such levels transiently, otherwise why was it 'reasonable'?
    This is especially true since there's *still* no indication regarding how
    the 'process' scales.

>Comment 3)  Jed is correct.   Perhaps TB-skeptics ought indicate if they have even
>   read a paper before pontificating and trashing it.
>Warning 4)  There is so much false information posted by the skeptics that
>   a warning label will soon be required.         ;-)

     Then you correct it.  Or answer my query about the helium data.
     
                                dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.16 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Reply to Jones - On Nyquist criterion
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reply to Jones - On Nyquist criterion
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 1994 02:50:25 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <CLA96t.33B@world.std.com>,
mitchell swartz <mica@world.std.com> wrote:
>    In Message-ID: <1994Feb14.164621.1365@physc1.byu.edu>
>Subject: <None>
>Steven Jones [ jonesse@physc1.byu.edu] states:
>
>=sj   "Mitch tries to justify P&F's use of sampling once every 300 seconds for the 600
>=sj   second 'boiling episode' in which P&F claimed excess heat.  Again, this has
>=sj   been thoroughly aired here already."
>
>  More absolutely false information promulgated from Brigham Young Physics 
>Department by Steven Jones.
>
>     I did not justify, or recommend, a low sampling rate.
>In fact I posted on the importance of the Nyquist criterion years 
>ago on sci.physics.fusion.  The criterion requires a sampling at
>twice the highest frequency contained in the waveform. 
>
>   I did say that other electrical monitoring equipment was reported
>to have also followed these parameters 
>in parallel with those instruments that produced the curves in question.

     What equipment?  It's *nothing* unless we know what it is.
     And why is it not reported in the paper?  And why do they
     not report the 'parameters in parallel', especially as the
     'original' data is utterly unreliable?  This is worthless without
     facts, so we'll just have to assume that the reported 
     300 s is the only thing measured, and the experimenters may
     be lost.

>  This is unfortunattely consistent with a possible pattern of his 
>comments regarding (just a partial list)
>Mel Miles expts

     When were the experiments done Mitch?  And why can they apparently not
     be repeated?

                           dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.16 / Jim Carr /  Re: egos on parade!
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: egos on parade!
Date: 16 Feb 1994 10:57:26 -0500
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

>Cameron Randale Bass (crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU) wrote:
>
>:      It's been nearly *5* years, and I waited about 3 (about 2.9 years
>:      longer than most everyone else).  How long do you want us to wait
>:      before judging?  

In article <2jrebm$54k@network.ucsd.edu> 
mbk%anl433.uucp@Germany.EU.net (Matt Kennel) writes:
>
>As a contrast, consider how much progress, experimental and theoretical, in
>quantum mechanics was made between 1925 and 1930.

A better comparison might be the progress that was made on high-Tc 
superconductors during the first 5 years after the effect was described. 

Many of the same issues (patent rights, practicability) apply to 
high-Tc superconductivity as apply to cold fusion.  Many nay-sayers 
claimed it was pointless since those ceramics could not be made into 
wires or would not make good thin films.  It takes place in the same 
corporate/investment climate.  

It might be interesting to know how much MITI spends on high-Tc compared 
to its cold fusion investment.  

-- 
J. A. Carr       <jac@scri.fsu.edu>           |  "The New Frontier of which I  
Florida State University  B-186               |  speak is not a set of promises
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Tallahassee, FL  32306-4052                   |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.16 / mitchell swartz /  On Contamination in Miles 4He results
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: On Contamination in Miles 4He results
Subject: Contamination in Miles 4He results
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 1994 16:05:14 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

   In Message-ID: <94021509363565@dancer.nscl.msu.edu>
Subject: Contamination in Miles 4He results
Dick Blue [NSCL@MSUblue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu] writes:

== "In the first series of experiments for which Miles,Bush,etal.
== reported the production of 4He in correlation with excess heat ...
== Now Miles has presented a second series of measurements as 
== confirming the initial results.

   True.

=  "I believe it would be better if the early
== measurements were dropped from any further consideration and not
== included to bolster claims regarding the strength of the
=  correlation
== between 4He production and excess heat."

   Perhaps you would like ALL the data points dropped eventually.
   Fact is, the recent paper was another in a series of confirmations.
Most interestingly, this time Dr. Miles fully considered the materials 
and sent the sample to two different indep. laboratories.

   Consider the data (after Miles et alia)
        then make a comment on it at face value.

    The 90-92 expts used Pyrex glass flasks.    The 93 expts used 
metal flasks and full consideration of atmostpheric contamination.

  first experiments: 90-91     8 with excess enthalpy (i.e. +ve)
                               yield 10^11 to 10^12 helium-4/watt-sec
  first experiments: 90-91     6  negative yield no increase  (*)

  Calculation of probability of results from random errors
                       (1/2)^14 = 1/16,384

  second experiments: 92       3 +ve with increased helium
                                ave: ca. 3 x 10^11   helium-4/watt-sec

 Calculation of probability of results from random errors
                         (1/2)^3 = 1/8


  third experiments: 93       5 +ve with increased helium
                              ave: ca. 3 x 10^11   helium-4/watt-sec
  third experiments: 93       5  negative yield no increase (*)

   All backgrounds were subtracted to derive the incremental helium-4 
production rate normalized to power.
     The helium in the metal flask set was reportedly examined by two 
additional labs (Rockwell and Bureau of Mines).
* - background in his null experiment is at the level of
4 parts per billion.   
   The increases are linked and ca. 12 sigma above background.

 Calculation of probability of results from random errors
                  (1/2)^10 = 1/1,024

 Calculation of probability of results from random errors from all
combined experiments
                     circa   1/134,000,000


    With a Qt  of circa 23 MeV (generated per reaction) this puts the 
ash measured within a factor of 3 of what is expected.
    Because there may not be only one pathway;
and because the material(s) absorbs 4He, this level is worth
considering.

    Best wishes, 
            Mitchell Swartz  [mica@world.std]


cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.16 / mitchell swartz /  Further comments on Dick Blue's answers
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Further comments on Dick Blue's answers
Subject: Re: Comments on Dick Blue's answers
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 1994 16:06:02 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <CL4M40.AMp@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
Subject: Re: Comments on Dick Blue's answers
Cameron Randale Bass (crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU) wrote:

=dbass "On the other hand, in cold fusion 'research',
=dbass  absence just seems to make the heart grow fonder."
 
   T'was love.

=dbass "When were these experiments done?
=dbass  Are they just a rehash of the original results several
=dbass   *years* ago, or are they new?  They
=dbass  sure sound like the original results." 

   Again, actually reading the articles would help, Dale.
   Fact is, the recent paper was another in a series of confirmations.
Most interestingly, this time Dr. Miles fully considered the materials 
and sent the sample to two different indep. laboratories.

   Consider the data (after Miles et alia)
        then make a comment on it at face value.

    The 90-92 expts used Pyrex glass flasks.    The 93 expts used 
metal flasks and full consideration of atmostpheric contamination.

  first experiments: 90-91     8 with excess enthalpy (i.e. +ve)
                               yield 10^11 to 10^12 helium-4/watt-sec
  first experiments: 90-91     6  negative yield no increase  (*)

  second experiments: 92       3 +ve with increased helium
                                ave: ca. 3 x 10^11   helium-4/watt-sec
  third experiments: 93        5 +ve with increased helium
                              ave: ca. 3 x 10^11   helium-4/watt-sec
  third experiments: 93        5  negative yield no increase (*)

 Calculation of probability of results from random errors from all
combined experiments
                     circa   1/134,000,000

    With a Qt  of circa 23 MeV (generated per reaction) this puts the 
ash measured within a factor of 3 of what is expected.
    Because there may not be only one pathway;
and because the material(s) absorbs 4He, this level is worth
considering.  Also, as the papers state, the new data are
not the "original results".

            Mitchell Swartz  [mica@world.std]


cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.16 / mitchell swartz /  Reply to Jones' "more on Fractofusion"
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Reply to Jones' "more on Fractofusion"
Subject: More on Fractofusion
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 1994 16:06:55 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <1994Feb14.170321.1368@physc1.byu.edu>
Subject: More on Fractofusion
Steven Jones (jonesse@physc1.byu.edu) writes;

=sj  "The use of wintogreen mints in studies involving 
=sj triboluminescence,although ridiculed by Mitch Swartz,has been 
=sjpreviously published in scientific literature(Am.J. Physics)."

   Steve, I did not ridicule but have studied this myself in the
past.  As a result, I suggested that since the reaction depends 
upon two components (at least, consider moisture) a more 
scientific breakdown and description would be helpful.

   =ms   "The active materials in the triboluminescence are
   =ms  purported to be a combination of methyl salicylate with
   =ms  the crystalline sugar which comprises the candy.  Perhaps
   =ms  you should itemize the brand, %CH3-salicylate, and %sugar
   =ms  if you want this to really be scientific and repeatable.
    [Subject: On SL: Update / & fractofusion)
      Message-ID: <CL4JB9.A44@world.std.com>]

    Also, I indicated that if neutrons are emitted then the FDA 
would demand relabeling of that substance.

   =ms    Neutrons being released with 
   =ms  winto-0-green chewing will require revised
   =ms  labelling of the candy.
    [Subject: On SL: Update / & fractofusion)
      Message-ID: <CL4JB9.A44@world.std.com>]

   Given the importance of good labeling of food and drug (and 
probably cosmetics too), and the authoritative scope of the FDA 
(from vitamins through orange juice to ...) such a comment is 
reasonable and timely.

    Incidentally I have followed your comments on low-level 
neutron emissions from a number of substance including ordinary 
cement.  Do you still stand behind those measurements? or are 
they retracted now along with your neutron-comments of cold 
fusion.  Since Douglas Morrison applauds you for retracting data 
at ICCF-4 perhaps you might clarify exactly which you retracted, 
and which of your low-level neutron work you stand behind.

    Best wishes,   
            Mitchell Swartz    [mica@world.std.com]

 
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.16 / mitchell swartz /  Yet more info on helium production
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Yet more info on helium production
Subject: Re: More info on helium production
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 1994 16:07:33 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

Message-ID: <CL8M3G.4yB@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
Subject: Re: More info on helium production
Cameron Randale Bass (crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU) writes:

   ==ms >Recent results includes papers by Miles, Will,
     and others at ICCF-4.

==dbass  "Again.  Are these but a recent re-reporting of the 
==dbass  results now several years old?

  Again, actually reading the articles would help, Dale.    Fact 
is, the recent paper was another in a series of confirmations.  This 
time Dr. Miles fully considered the materials and sent the sample to 
two different indep. laboratories.

    The 90-92 expts used Pyrex glass flasks.    The 93 expts used 
metal flasks and full consideration of atmostpheric contamination.

  first experiments: 90-91     8 with excess enthalpy (i.e. +ve)
                               yield 10^11 to 10^12 helium-4/watt-sec
  first experiments: 90-91     6  negative yield no increase  (*)
  second experiments: 92       3 +ve with increased helium
                                ave: ca. 3 x 10^11   helium-4/watt-sec
  third experiments: 93        5 +ve with increased helium
                              ave: ca. 3 x 10^11   helium-4/watt-sec
  third experiments: 93        5  negative yield no increase (*)

 Calculation of probability of results from random errors from all
combined experiments
                     circa   1/134,000,000

    With a Qt  of circa 23 MeV (generated per reaction) this puts the 
ash measured within a factor of 3 of what is expected.
    
            Mitchell Swartz  [mica@world.std]



cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.24 /  blue@dancer.ns /  Reply to Paul Koloc on 4He production
     
Originally-From: blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Reply to Paul Koloc on 4He production
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 1994 22:11:34 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Paul says: "I don't think that deuterium is the only constituent of
CF experiments; and why must it be the most likely, given the behavior
of these experiments (as gleaned from a smeared average taken to date)?"

Paul goes on to suggest that skeptics are "picking a speck of defendable
turf."  I don't believe that accurately describes the position I and
others against CF have been taking.  Many of the arguments against CF
can be generalized to cover any nuclear reaction you would care to
suggest.  Just because these arguments are stated with reference to
the reaction that is most often put forward as the power source by
cold fusion advocates does not imply that some reaction no one has
yet thought of could be quitely working its magic while remaining
undetected.

I don't know what behavior you see in a "smeared average" of the
existing data put forth in support of cold fusion.  I see enough
clear contradictions that average may be quite close to zero once
the obvious biases are removed.  Now moving on to you suggestion
that deuterium may not be the key ingredient to answer you it is
considered the most likely nuclear fuel.  Of course Pons and
Fleischmann are the ones who set the initial direction of this
wild goose chase.  However, if you go along with the orthodox
view that Coulomb repulsion is a significant hindrance to the
achievment of cold fusion, low Z becomes an obviously desirable
characteristic for the nuclear fuel.  If you think there is
a way to turn off Coulomb repulsion then I suppose we should be
considering the possibilities for fusion of everything up to
and including two Pd nuclei.

As I said I have no strong attachment to the d + d reaction as
the reaction easiest to make a case against.  If we attempt to
list only the most basic requirements for a reaction that could
give excess heat, alpha particles, and as little else that is
easy to detect as possible I still think cold fusion advocacy
is in serious trouble.  Pick any reaction (your choice) with
favorable energetics and then construct a rational picture as
to how you get only the desired reaction products and get
their kinetic energy degraded to thermal energy without any
detectable disturbance of the atoms which surround the site
of this reaction.  Until you are willing to stick your neck
out to give this little excercise a try you are just whistling
in the dark, aren't you?

Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU

cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenblue cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.24 / mitchell swartz /  Solids, discharges, plasmas, and beams
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Solids, discharges, plasmas, and beams
Subject: Solids, discharges, plasmas, and beams
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 1994 15:21:58 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

   In Message-ID: <94022113225360@dancer.nscl.msu.edu>
Subject: Solids, discharges, plasmas, and beams
Dick Blue [NSCL@MSU,  blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu] writes:

=db   "I think it's time to take Mitchell Swartz through a little exercise
=db   like ones I have watched on Sesame Street."

  One problem, Dick, is that you are watching too much 
Sesame Street.   You can move yourself up several
notches by switching to Beakman's World.


=db  " ... where (is) the boundary ....
=db  that divides the domain where physics is in accord with cold-fusion
=db  rules from the domain where real physics is operational?"

  There is no division from "real physics".

   [ ...  unsubstantiated comments on other's expt. setup
followed by good points on induced radioactivity  ...]
Have you actually got any of the papers yet, Dick?
Best wishes.
                    Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com)




cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.24 / mitchell swartz /  On spectrophotometers and film bashing
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: On spectrophotometers and film bashing
Subject: Re: Reply to William Johnson (re: x-ray spectrophotom., Kucherov, )
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 1994 16:56:23 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

   In Message-ID: <2kids7$eln@ds8.scri.fsu.edu>
Subject: Re: Reply to William Johnson (re: x-ray spectrophotom., Kucherov, )
Jim Carr (jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu) writes:
[regarding x-ray detectors vs. x-ray film]

=jc  "Spatial targeting is an advantage, 
=jc  since the experiment is supposedly testing whether x rays come from 
=jc  a particular sample."

   However, sample self-absorption of signal remains an important
factor to consider, since many samples may demonstrate 
inhomogeneity, with regions of activity.


=jc   "Temporal limits are a red herring, since there 
=jc  is no reason you cannot collect x-ray data for days on end."

   Although true, during long experiments people do not
consistently collect data, and that is why, for example
radiation film badges are carried as opposed to 
microspectrophotometers or geiger counters.


=jc   "Energetically 
=jc  is also an advantage, since the objective of the experiment is to look 
=jc  for photons originating from a specific reaction (or reactions) and 
=jc  a spectrum *always* contains more information than integrated counts. "

   It is a great advantage, but the question was whether the 
output, or portion thereof might be outside of the bandwidth
of the detection system.   If a signal is "caught", nothing beats 
spectroscopy.


=jc  "At any stage, the info in the 
=jc  spectrum from a gamma-ray or x-ray detector will always be more 
=jc  useful than an exposure on x-ray film if you wish to identify the 
=jc  source and nature of the radiation."

  Concur again, as long as the detector is on, and directed at, and not 
shielded from,  the active site of interest.
   Thanks, Jim.
                                       Mitchell



cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.24 / Tim Eastman /  RFD: sci.physics.plasma
     
Originally-From: eastman@astro.umd.edu (Tim Eastman)
Newsgroups: news.announce.newgroups,news.groups,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RFD: sci.physics.plasma
Date: 24 Feb 1994 15:58:23 -0500
Organization: U. of Maryland @ College Park, Astronomy

Proposed CHARTER for new internet NEWSGROUP:

	NEWSGROUP for Plasma Science and Technology

   The Plasma Science and Technology research community seeks an 
increased dialogue among its multifarious constituencies.
Plasmas are as rich as any other state of matter in terms of distinct
processes and they encompass distinguishable scales ranging from the
atomic to the galactic. Opportunities in plasma science and technology
reflect this breadth in phenomena and scales; one recent list contains
135 subject areas and 65 applications areas including semiconductor
production, thin-film diamond deposition, toxic waste disposal, plasma
arcs for steel processing, laser self-focusing, fusion for energy
production, gas and arc lamps, cutting and welding, etc. 
   The NEWSGROUP for Plasma Science and Technology is intended
as a community forum for sharing new developments and bringing 
researchers together for potential new collaborations. During 1994, 
the focus of this NewsGroup will be a community-wide dialogue to 
formulate a Plasma Science and Technology Initiative which would 
deliver big-science value with a medium-scale investment. 
Participation in this dialogue will involve primarily researchers 
in plasma science and technology although qualified researchers 
in all related fields are welcome. Steering Committees for the 
Division of Plasma Physics of the American Physical Society (APS) 
and the Nuclear and Plasma Sciences Society of IEEE (Institute of 
Electrical and Electronics Engineers) have given formal approval 
for this network dialogue.
   In its initial implementation, Dr. Tim Eastman will be the
PLASMA NEWSGROUP moderator. He is a Research Faculty member of the
Institute for Physical Science and Technology at the University of
Maryland [ph: 301-405-4829, fax: 301-314-9363, 
email: eastman@astro.umd.edu].  The APS and IEEE Steering Committees
will renew or replace the moderator on a yearly basis.


NOTE: The NewsGroup name "sci.physics.fusion" already exists
and is appropriate for the subset of Plasma Science and Technology
which focuses on high-temperature plasmas for energy production
(i.e., fusion).  The proposed NEWSGROUP for PLASMAS is intended
to complement the "fusion" group and will primarily orient itself
to issues of Plasma Science and Technology other than fusion.
The NewsGroup name "sci.physics.plasma" would work and could
be used in parallel with "sci.physics.fusion."  However, because
Plasma Science and Technology is more inclusive (including Plasma
Chemistry and various Engineering topics within Plasma Technology),
the NewsGroup name "sci.plasma" might be appropriate with
fusion handled as a subset "sci.plasma.fusion."
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudeneastman cudfnTim cudlnEastman cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.24 / LANGER C /  Re: Reactions which produce 4He
     
Originally-From: sglanger@vela.acs.oakland.edu (LANGER STEVEN C)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reactions which produce 4He
Date: 24 Feb 1994 22:05:15 GMT
Organization: Oakland University, Rochester, Michigan, U.S.A.

  As an occasional reader, first time poster, it seems to me that
a more profitable view is not at this point to argue about whether
or not we are seeing fusion, but rather is there surplus heat?
If we can get reliable, reproducible heating, we can argue about the
mechanism later.

just my .02
steve
-- 
"You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a
reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating the
very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for
independence." - C.A. Beard
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudensglanger cudfnLANGER cudlnC cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.24 / Jim Carr /  Re: On spectrophotometers and film bashing
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: On spectrophotometers and film bashing
Date: 24 Feb 1994 18:13:51 -0500
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

In article <CLqn20.Js8@world.std.com> 
mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
>
>   However, sample self-absorption of signal remains an important
>factor to consider, since many samples may demonstrate 
>inhomogeneity, with regions of activity.

True, but the claim is that x-ray film detects the photons outside 
the sample.  If they can get to the film, they can get to the detector. 

-- 
J. A. Carr       <jac@scri.fsu.edu>           |  "The New Frontier of which I  
Florida State University  B-186               |  speak is not a set of promises
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Tallahassee, FL  32306-4052                   |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.25 / Jim Bowery /  Re: HOT FUSION? NO WAY!
     
Originally-From: jabowery@netcom.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: HOT FUSION? NO WAY!
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 1994 01:23:31 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

joshua@veritas.com (Joshua Levy) writes:
> >jabowery@netcom.com (Jim Bowery) writes:
> >>The preemptive rabid attack was a win either way.  Either P&F were right
> >>and the government HF guys had nothing to lose by stretching out their
> >>funding a little longer or P&F were wrong and the government HF guys
> >>could claim prescience.
> 
> To which bpc@netcom.com (Benjamin P. Carter) replied:
> >The trouble with this argument is that most of the debunkers were not
> >government HF guys but, rather, academic physicists and chemists whose
> >main interests were not closely related to any kind of commercial power
> >generation.  

Nor do I think the government-funded HF guys are interested in any
kind of commercial power generation.

They are interested in maintaining the theocratic authority of the
current state religion:  Technosocialism.

> For example, the first major debunker was Nate Lewis (a chemist).
> The NSF/ERAB panel had many chemists in it; I think a majority of
> chemists, but that is from memory.

Nate Lewis is pretty high up in the theocracy, is he not?  

CalTech is pretty close to the top -- perhaps even with MIT.

MIT had too many obvious "conflicts of interest" so someone high up
in the state theocracy had to come out without such obvious conflicts.

Nate Lewis was optimal.
-- 
The promotion of politics exterminates apolitical genes in the population.
  The promotion of frontiers gives apolitical genes a route to survival.
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenjabowery cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.24 / Nelson Strother /  a thousand times more sensitive than *whose* calorimeter? 
     
Originally-From: strother@watson.ibm.com (Nelson Strother)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: a thousand times more sensitive than *whose* calorimeter? 
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 1994 21:26:43 GMT
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

  I wonder if Tom Droege or others here would like to evaluate 
these devices or incorporate them in future experiments? 
    -------------------------------------------------------
Novel Chemical Sensor is a Supersensitive "Nose on a Chip"
 
February 24, 1994
 
IBM scientists have developed the world's most sensitive heat-measuring
instrument.  Called a calorimeter, it is a thousand times more sensitive
than any similar instrument available today:  it can measure the heat
generated in chemical reactions with a sensitivity to temperature
changes as small as a hundred-thousandth of a degree.
 
The calorimeter was microfabricated with integrated-circuit technology
and is relatively inexpensive.  It should prove useful in a large
variety of chemical observation, detection, measurement, and analysis
applications such as drug design, forensics, and catalysis.  When
specially configured, the calorimeter can function as a supersensitive
"nose on a chip," capable of "smelling" extremely minute quantities of a
wide range of substances.
 
Developed at the IBM Research Division's Zurich Research Laboratory, the
technique employs a micromechanical silicon lever that is coated with
aluminum.  When heated, the lever bends because the two materials expand
by different amounts.  The amount of bending directly indicates how much
heat has been absorbed by the lever.  The effect is similar to what
happens in an ordinary thermometer:  when it absorbs heat, the liquid
mercury in it expands.  Whereas markings on the thermometer show how
much the mercury expands, the IBM researchers use a laser to measure how
much the lever bends; and they can measure bends as small as one
hundredth of the diameter of an atom.
 
In a particular demonstration, a thin layer of platinum was applied to
the aluminum-coated silicon lever.  In the presence of a mixture of
oxygen and hydrogen, the platinum functioned as a catalyst that promoted
the combining of oxygen and hydrogen to form ordinary water.  In the
process, the platinum layer generated heat that was then absorbed by the
lever, causing it to bend.  By carefully monitoring and measuring that
bend, the researchers were able to show that the hydrogen and oxygen do
not combine at a uniform rate.  The rate actually oscillates with time,
a phenomenon previously known to occur but never before sensed with a
calorimeter.
 
The lever in this new calorimeter has a thickness only about a fiftieth
of the diameter of a human hair -- actually 1.5 microns -- and a length
of 400 microns.  (A micron is one millionth of a meter, or 1/25,000th of
an inch.)  An array of hundreds or even thousands of such levers could
be integrated on a chip.  If each lever were coated and thereby
sensitized for the detection of a specific chemical, the resulting
combination would function as a "supernose."  Even coatings such as
reaction-specific enzymes and bacteria could be used, and because the
calorimeter is so sensitive, chemical reactions involving only a few
molecules could be detected.
 
A typical person can discern several hundred odors, and a trained expert
might be able to identify several thousand.  While computers have been
given the ability to see, hear and touch, they are as yet unable to
emulate the olfactory organ -- they can't smell.  This may soon change.
The IBM scientists believe that the apparatus for this technique could be
incorporated into a portable package, with the "nose on a chip" and a
laptop computer, to provide an instrument capable of detecting gases and
pollutants such as ozone and carbon monoxide and even odors such as that
of fish.
 
The researchers believe that through the use of micromechanics and
nanotechnology, their calorimeter, already the most sensitive in the
world, can be made many thousands of time even more sensitive.  They are
already working on that!
 
A detailed report of the work, written by James Gimzewski, Christoph
Gerber and Reto Schlittler of the IBM Zurich Research Laboratory,
together with Ernst Meyer, on sabbatical from the University of Basel,
Switzerland, was published recently in the January 28, 1994 issue of the
journal Chemical Physics Letters.
 
94-030

-- 
Nelson Strother
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenstrother cudfnNelson cudlnStrother cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.25 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Reactions which produce 4He
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reactions which produce 4He
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 1994 02:51:28 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <1994Feb23.202909.13987@ttinews.tti.com> jackson@soldev.tti.c
m (Dick Jackson) writes:
>Paul M. Koloc writes:
>
>(his entertaining contrarian comentary on hot fusion).
>
>Paul, In the past you have favored us with updates on your own
>progress. The last I remember, I think, was from many months ago
>when you were building a block house and things were going slower
>than planned (join the club!). Could you please tell us where
>your experiment stands now?
>Thanks, Dick Jackson.

Yes, Dick that is an excellent summary.  We have it now put together
and are working on the electronics and diagnostic instrumentation as 
well as raising modest funds to do enhanced diagnostics. That is all 
busy work, and it's moving along.  The next phase is raising the 
serious funds to do the compression burn and the direct intermediate 
steps. Unfortunately, those efforts will be very tightly held, since
such things usually aren't announced unless the results are productive
or even spectacular.  I have every confidence that will be the case. 
From the beginning the preferred embodiment of this developing 
technology has passed each and every test encountered to date with a 
completely positive result.  

There will be a dry spell in information outflow until that day.  
This is in no way similar to the P&F or DoE dog and pony scenarios, 
since we will not publish until we have the solid evidences that we are 
likely an order of magnitude OVER meaningful break-even (the commercial 
kind) using an aneutronic fuel mixture.   
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc,Bx 1037, Prometheus II, Ltd., College Park, MD 20740-1037 |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.24 / Jeff Thompson /  Re: What TBskeptics do when they can't "beat it"
     
Originally-From: jefft@netcom.netcom.com (Jeff Thompson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What TBskeptics do when they can't "beat it"
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 1994 23:31:09 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line services


>    =gk   "Besides, everyone knows that cold fusion is water-heater-penic."
> 
>  and in Message-ID: <1994Feb21.160030.1409@physc1.byu.edu>
>  Subject: Enough already.(Endless debates/Mitch)
>  Steve Jones (jonesse@physc1.byu.edu) writes:
> 
>     =sj  "What new pathway is there which would be neutron-penic, x-ray-penic,
>     =sj and charged-particle-penic, all at the same time?"
>     =sj  [thanks to R. Heeter, posted 21 Feb. 1994]   Steven Jones
> 
>    That's what we like about the TB(*)-skeptics.     * true blue
> When the physics and mathematics get just too tough for
> Greg and Steve (etc.)  and they can't beat it, they "bobbit".
                                                       ^^^^^^
Is this because they've all got "penic" envy?
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenjefft cudfnJeff cudlnThompson cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.25 / Dick Jackson /  Jed R Gains a Supporter - Sort Of (was Re: Tantamount to a lie)
     
Originally-From: jackson@soldev.tti.com (Dick Jackson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Jed R Gains a Supporter - Sort Of (was Re: Tantamount to a lie)
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 1994 00:30:15 GMT
Organization: Citicorp-TTI at Santa Monica (CA) by the Sea

In article <940222143909_72240.1256_EHK22-1@CompuServe.COM> 72240.1256@c
mpuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
>
>My point was that experimental evidence always overrules theory. There
>are no exceptions granted, period. Any law of science can be overruled at
>any time by replicated, high sigma experimental evidence. Even Newton's
>laws, even Einstein's mass-energy. Nothing is sacred, and we can never
>be *absolutely* certain that a "law" (as we understand it) is correct.

I am firmly in the skeptics camp and have occasionally been guilty of some
snide comments re. the TBs, but I am a little uncomfortable now that the
"physicists" may have declared the end of "cold fusion" too glibly.  There
have been a lot of impressive arguments based on nuclear physics which are
no doubt correct, but it seems to me to be a case of looking under the
lamp post because that's where the light is.  I.e. lets agree, nearly all
of us, that "CF" is not cold fusion, but clearly face up to the fact that
there is evidence of unexplained heat to be dealt with.  Here I agree with
Jed that IF someone is getting good evidence of excess heat, all the hand
waving about lack of x-rays, etc. will not make it go away.

I have not kept up with details of positive heat experiments but it
seems that the following is true:

- We have a small number of people reporting excess heat from calorimetry
which cannot *quickly* be explained away by demonstration of faulty
experimental technique, and

- We have the notorious "ignition" results claimed by P and F.

I know that many on this group have suggested *possible* mechanisms to
explain these results (using conventional physics).  I mean things like
re-combination energy being neglected, etc. (not Bose condensation magic)
But I think we should give some credit to those who have tried to perform
good experiments and not write them off just because the results, if true,
make us uncomfortable.

To truly kill "CF", I think that either the claimers of unexplainable heat
must retract, after they hopefully have taken notice of all criticisms and
possible error paths, or that the skeptics must, as I believe Steve Jones
is trying to do, replicate experiments which give the same results while
simultaneously exposing the flaws in the methodology.  Rather like Randi
showing how to bend spoons.

For example, I would like someone to actually replicate the P&F super-boil
phenomenon.  It was not clear to me that the explanations presented here
stood up *quantitatively* (oxidation of outgassing D2 and power supply
mismeasurement). If P&F are the careless (or worse) experimenters that
they have been alleged to be, this effect should be comparatively easy
to replicate. (Dr. Jones, Comments?).

Dick Jackson
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenjackson cudfnDick cudlnJackson cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.23 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Re: SL and LIB
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: SL and LIB
Date: 23 Feb 94 11:15:39 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

I would like to congratulate Mike Jamison for posting a very creative and novel
idea, that of combining SL and laser-induced breakdown (LIB).  
This is the type of idea that is worthy of discussion.  
But it has been unfortunately buried in 
a flood of debates over 'cold fusion' which seems to dominate this net.
His post is about a week old, yet this is the first response.... the net
seems to be pre-occupied with a 'debate of the deaf' which is unfortunate.

Therefore, suggest we take this to private e-mail, Mike.  
And I'd like to think of a few experiments in this area building on your ideas.
Likewise, Terry Bollinger has proposed a number of clever ideas to try in the
'SL-fusion' arena (Dec. 1992, "Ultracavitation"), 
as has Rich Schroeppel (Jan. 1994, "Sonoluminescence"), and Tom Droege has 
lent support. Others who might like to join an informal working group
should send a private email message.  (Thanks)  

--Steven Jones

cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenjonesse cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.16 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Further comments on Dick Blue's answers
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Further comments on Dick Blue's answers
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 1994 18:58:31 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <CLBrE2.6ow@world.std.com>,
mitchell swartz <mica@world.std.com> wrote:
>  In Message-ID: <CL4M40.AMp@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
>Subject: Re: Comments on Dick Blue's answers
>Cameron Randale Bass (crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU) wrote:
>
>=dbass "On the other hand, in cold fusion 'research',
>=dbass  absence just seems to make the heart grow fonder."
> 
>   T'was love.

     Tis religion.

>=dbass "When were these experiments done?
>=dbass  Are they just a rehash of the original results several
>=dbass   *years* ago, or are they new?  They
>=dbass  sure sound like the original results." 
>
>   Again, actually reading the articles would help, Dale.
>   Fact is, the recent paper was another in a series of confirmations.
>Most interestingly, this time Dr. Miles fully considered the materials 
>and sent the sample to two different indep. laboratories.

     Having no access to that article, I asked you.

>   Consider the data (after Miles et alia)
>        then make a comment on it at face value.
>
>    The 90-92 expts used Pyrex glass flasks.    The 93 expts used 
>metal flasks and full consideration of atmostpheric contamination.
>
>  first experiments: 90-91     8 with excess enthalpy (i.e. +ve)
>                               yield 10^11 to 10^12 helium-4/watt-sec
>  first experiments: 90-91     6  negative yield no increase  (*)
>
>  second experiments: 92       3 +ve with increased helium
>                                ave: ca. 3 x 10^11   helium-4/watt-sec
>  third experiments: 93        5 +ve with increased helium
>                              ave: ca. 3 x 10^11   helium-4/watt-sec
>  third experiments: 93        5  negative yield no increase (*)

      Out of how many trials over the years?

                           dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.16 / Cameron Bass /  Re: egos on parade!
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: egos on parade!
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 1994 18:55:36 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <2jtfp6$3do@ds8.scri.fsu.edu>,
Jim Carr <jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu> wrote:
>>Cameron Randale Bass (crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU) wrote:
>>
>>:      It's been nearly *5* years, and I waited about 3 (about 2.9 years
>>:      longer than most everyone else).  How long do you want us to wait
>>:      before judging?  
>
>In article <2jrebm$54k@network.ucsd.edu> 
>mbk%anl433.uucp@Germany.EU.net (Matt Kennel) writes:
>>
>>As a contrast, consider how much progress, experimental and theoretical, in
>>quantum mechanics was made between 1925 and 1930.
>
>A better comparison might be the progress that was made on high-Tc 
>superconductors during the first 5 years after the effect was described. 
>
>Many of the same issues (patent rights, practicability) apply to 
>high-Tc superconductivity as apply to cold fusion.  Many nay-sayers 
>claimed it was pointless since those ceramics could not be made into 
>wires or would not make good thin films.  It takes place in the same 
>corporate/investment climate.  

    Of course the big difference is that no one doubts YBCO films
    are superconducting.

                             dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.16 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Yet more info on helium production
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Yet more info on helium production
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 1994 19:00:37 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <CLBrGM.72B@world.std.com>,
mitchell swartz <mica@world.std.com> wrote:
>Message-ID: <CL8M3G.4yB@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
>Subject: Re: More info on helium production
>Cameron Randale Bass (crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU) writes:
>
>   ==ms >Recent results includes papers by Miles, Will,
>     and others at ICCF-4.
>
>==dbass  "Again.  Are these but a recent re-reporting of the 
>==dbass  results now several years old?
>
>  Again, actually reading the articles would help, Dale.    Fact 

     Again, I have no access to that article, so I asked you.
     On the other hand, all the discussion of the earlier P&F article
     that I have in my file cabinet seems to have passed you by.

                            dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.16 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Energy required for Fusion
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Energy required for Fusion
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 1994 19:02:49 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1994Feb16.134648.52665@ucl.ac.uk>,
Niels Stchedroff <zcacnst@ucl.ac.uk> wrote:
>In article <CL2sEG.GJ8@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, crb7q@watt.seas.Virgi
ia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>|> 
>|>      The only problem I can see now is siting.  I'd fight hard to 
>|>      make sure I'm not near wherever they dump the heat.  My suggestion
>|>      is somewhere in M31 in Andromeda.
>|> 
>|>                                  dale bass
>
>If the machine generates inifinte power, that's it for the entire universe.
>Hopefully, mass = energy will ensure that a second big bang will occur, so 
>that sentient life may appear again.

     You think far too statically.  SR protects us in a transient sort of
     way for much longer than I'm going to be alive, and probably
     far longer than our species is likely to be alive.

                             dale bass

cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.17 /  DROEGE@FNALD.F /  Re: Reactions which produce 4He
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@FNALD.FNAL.GOV
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reactions which produce 4He
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 1994 09:13:56 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Dick Blue says:  (Much deleted)

>Measurements which provide clearly null results for the detection of
>any of these reaction products, or secondary radiations which could
>result from their interaction with surrounding materials are more
>definitive, less error prone, and capable of greater sensitivity
>by many orders of magnitude.  Any cold fusion experiment in which
>no attempt is made to detect at least neutrons, gammas, or X-rays
>should be seen as marking the experimenter as having such a bias
>against a search for truth that his results can hardly be credible.

OK, Dick, mostly you are right but this goes too far.  The primary claim of 
P&F was that there was excess heat generated in these experiments.  Seems to 
me that it is perfectly correct science to go after the primary claim - excess 
heat, and to attempt to duplicate the experiment.  Note that the nuclear claim 
in the original paper was indirect.  They said that they saw heat and the only 
explanation that they could think of to explain it was that it was nuclear.  

Please, I know there were nuclear claims in the original paper.  These looked 
to me like afterthoughts, just attempts to justify their premise that it "had 
to be nuclear".  As you are well aware, the nuclear measurements were poorly 
done, and even possibly faked or altered.  On the other hand, the rest of the 
original experiment seems to be well designed, and likely the product of the 
claimed 5 years.  Taubes in his book "Bad Science" tries to give credit for 
all the lab work to Hawkins.  I see grey hair, and great experience behind the 
design of that rather simple looking cell.  The more I make cells and try 
these experiments, the more I appreciate the P&F design.

So Dick, I say there is no "bias against a search for truth" if the 
replication attempt focuses on the primary claim (or any of the original 
claims) of an experiment.  First things first.  First we establish that the 
claim of excess heat is valid.  Then we drag out the gamma and neutron 
detectors.  Certainly it is a lot harder to measure a mw of heat than a mw of 
ionizing radiation.  But if we don't find the heat claimed, why bother 
further?  (Prudent experimenters would have some sort of safety monitor - a 
geiger counter is just fine for that purpose.  I have one, as well as a film 
badge for the lawyers.) 

Dick you are playing into the hands of the true believers.  I notice that the 
good workers seem to be having a harder and harder time finding excess heat.  
Some would like nothing better than to take your advice and quit measuring 
heat and just look for neutrons.  Note that a "positive" result is more likely 
where the measurement is hard.  I note a lack of positive results from gamma 
telescopes looking at an experiment.  With say a 4 or 5 counter telescope, the 
counters spaced a few meters, and timed to nanoseconds, one could be convinced 
that a gamma came from the experiment (Well, some cosmic ray veto counters 
would be helpful, but an opposite veto counter might be enough.)  

I say hold their feet to the fire!  Keep asking for that water heater.  Keep 
asking for a sure fire formula for "excess heat".  I stand ready to run a cell 
in my calorimeter (in a few months) to verify a claim of excess heat.  I have 
not been burdened with cells to measure.   

Tom Droege          

cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenDROEGE cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.17 /  dowen@vaxc.cc. /  Re: Owen on Reifenscheiler tritium results
     
Originally-From: dowen@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Owen on Reifenscheiler tritium results
Date: 17 Feb 94 17:41:01 +1100
Organization: Computer Centre, Monash University, Australia

Hi folks,
In article <94021516060868@dancer.nscl.msu.edu>, blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu
writes:
> Daryl Owen takes me to task for my harsh comments on the recently
> published results which Reifenshcheiler asserts demonstrate a mysterious
> decline in the activity of a tritium sample.  At the heart of the matter
> seems to be the following:
> 
> <do> Reifenscheiler states, concerning the GM tube and the electrometer
> <d0> "Various experiments established for both detection systems the
> <do>  linear relationship between read-out and the activity."
> 

No, this is not the heart of the matter Dick.
The heart of the matter is that you stated ........
"......The experimental situation is extremely poorly controlled. For
example, relocating the tritium from within the titanium to a gas filling
the container could have a dramatic effect on the production and detection
of secondary radiation......". This despite the fact that author plainly
stated, in his article, that any such gas was constantly evacuated.
This was only *one* of the gross errors in your post which *plainly*
indicated that you had not read the original article before labelling
the experiment as "extremely bad science".
There is only one way out of your invidious situation. It just remains
to be seen if your've got the guts to do it.


> Clearly Daryl accepts the Reifenscheiler statement as "true" while I
> am quite skeptical that this could, in fact, be done in a way that
> establishes the linearity under conditions equivalent to the experiment.
> That is to say,  the linearity may hold if the distribution of tritium
> relative to the GM tube and to various materials in the surroundings
> remain fixed, but you don't have to make much of a change in the tritium
> distribution to alter the relationship between read-out and activity.
> If Daryl is so keen on reading original sources he should determine for
> himself the range of tritium betas in various materials such as titanium,
> steel, and air.  Of course one would also have to obtain from
> Reifenscheiler the complete details relating to the distribution (on
> an appropriately small scale)of tritium and all possible absorbing
> materials between the source and the detector.   The point of this
> paper would appear to be the assertion that a decline in the
> readout of GM countrate or electrometer current must imply a decline
> in the tritium decay rate.  My comments were intended to call attention

One can "call attention" to a fact without using unwarranted, grossly
defamatory labels like "extremely bad science".

> to the fact that experimentally this is an extremely difficult measurement,
> not the sort of thing that should be used to backup some revolutionary
> claim as to how radioactivity can be altered by chemical means.
> 
> Dick Blue
> NSCL@MSU 
>

						Best regards to all (-1),
						Daryl Owen.

This text is only attributable to myself. 
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudendowen cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.17 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Energy required for Fusion
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Energy required for Fusion
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 1994 00:41:46 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <jac.761418591@gandalf>,
James A. Crotinger <jac@moonshine.llnl.gov> wrote:
>
>>      So this Q, ignoring all these things, is nearly worthless as 
>>      a gauge of anything, except that the plasma is heating itself.
>>      It seems much less misleading to say 'the plasma is heating itself'.
>
>  Q *is* precisely a statement that "the plasma is heating itself".
>Nobody said any differently. And if, at some point in time, the plasma
>is in "steady state" and all of the energy needed to maintain its
>temperature is being provided by fusion reactions, then this
>particular measure of plasma self-heating goes to infinity. I don't 
>see why you have a problem with this.

    I didn't exactly have a problem with it, I just thought the idea of 
    power out/power in being infinity was amusing especially when
    no caveats were made as to what power we were considering.

    'Q' makes that reasonably clear, but I don't remember that in the original
    posting.

                            dale bass

cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.17 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Energy required for Fusion
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Energy required for Fusion
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 1994 00:46:06 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <haney.761419275@maverick>,
Scott W. Haney <haney@maverick.llnl.gov> wrote:
>crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>
>>     So, the 'power in' is zero?  Good show.  So ITER is to be a 
>>     completely self-heated plasma from start-up?  I must admit 
>>     I'm impressed, he noted dryly.
>
>Cameron,
>
>  Current plans are for ITER to have 50MW or so of ICRH power. This power
>is used to heat to ignition. It's on for a fraction of the shot. Furthermore,
>plans are to operate the thing at a thermally stable point thereby requiring
>*zero* MW for burn control. I might add that the ITER plasma could probably
>produce significantly more than 1500MW; however, a lot higher and one runs
>into materials problems.
>
>Bottom line: The power-out to power-in ratio should be real high for ITER.

     That's fine by me, though somewhat short of infinity for various
     portions of the timeline.

     Of course, I have my doubts that ITER will be built.

                             dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.17 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Oriani's experiments
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Oriani's experiments
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 1994 05:13:45 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <Rg0I2aU.jedrothwell@delphi.com>,  <jedrothwell@delphi.com> wrote:
>Hey, don't lump us together Steve! Mitch is Mr. Nice Guy, he probably
>does not think you are a pathological liar. He speaks for he, and I speak
>for me. I think that you would not recognize the truth if it bit you on the
>butt, and I think maybe Taubes was right, and maybe you did steal your
>ideas from P&F. I would not put it past you. I notice that you have come
>out four square in favor of Britz, and Britz says he believe the Taubes
>book... So, by extension, does that mean that you believe Taubes? Is this
>a mea culpa? Are you admitting that the Taubes accusations are true? Or,
>are you saying he judged everyone in this field honestly and correctly
>except you. He is wrong about you, but all the others are liars?

      Who cares?  Are you going to answer my queries now?

                             dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.17 /  blue@dancer.ns /  Re: Dickinson Experiment on fractofusion
     
Originally-From: blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Dickinson Experiment on fractofusion
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 1994 15:20:50 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Daryl Owen has posted a bit of information in which Dickinson is said
to have observed the emission of photons, electrons, and POSITIVE IONS
following a fracture of TiD (?).  This is followed by observations on
electrons, i.e. 6000 counts/sec tailing off to 200 after 80 sec.
I would first like to note that there is an asymmetry here between
what is said about positive ions and about electrons.  More importantly
most of the information needed to make any judgement concerning
fractofusion is sadly lacking.  If you try to imagine how an
experiment such as this is performed there must be the sample and
some kind of device for producing the fracture.  Then ask yourself
the question, "How are electrons (or positive ions) detected?"
I would assume there is a finite gap between the sample and the
detecter.  Getting the electrons to cross that gap may require
some doing, i.e. an electric field.  What is the residual pressure
in that region immediately following the fracture?  If ions reach
a detector what is the spatial resolution with which their origin
can be determined?  What is the energy spectrum of emitted photons
or electrons?

I think the only surprize in the information we have been given
relates to the long time constant for electron detection.  That
would require some explanation beyound the simple picture of
fractoemission that comes to mind (to my mind at least).  The
easiest explanation for the long time constant is that there are
secondary processes, perhaps relating to ion mobility in the
residual gas, contributing to the electron current.  Any inference
that the continued detection of electrons implies that electric
fields at the fractured surface remain at high values for an
extended period is unjustified. 

Just for your reference:  In a vacuum of 10^-6 Torr it takes one
second to cover a freshly formed surface with a monolayer of
molecules from the residual gas.

Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU

cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenblue cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.17 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: Who own's the Internet?
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Who own's the Internet?
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 1994 06:54:57 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1994Feb15.164652.16724@ns.network.com> logajan@demento.netwo
k.com (John Logajan) writes:
>
>I get to disagree with this general theme -- that the fed's own the
>Internet.  There are individual, corporate, private and public educational,
>and various local, state and federal agencies all interconnected and
>paying for the Internet.  No one interest owns it, and no one is beholden
>to the fed's.

The government originally set up what has become the Internet. I believe
that originally it was part of DARPA (Arpanet was, I believe, the original
designation). However, the phone lines are owned by the telephone companies,
the computers are owned by the various entities of the net and the
discussions and time is paidf for by you and me.

Uncle Sam has no business on the net for any reason.

cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.17 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: Reply to Jones - On Nyquist criterion
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reply to Jones - On Nyquist criterion
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 1994 07:02:36 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <CLA96t.33B@world.std.com> mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
>
>   I did say that other electrical monitoring equipment was reported
>to have also followed these parameters 
>in parallel with those instruments that produced the curves in question.
>    \/\/\/\/               

Could you please give me a reference to these "reports"? When did P&F
publish this information? After reading this I can only agree with
your own statement paraphrased:

>         Try more honesty and science, Mitchell, as it would make your
>case much more compelling.

cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.18 /  blue@dancer.ns /  A humorous look at experimental design
     
Originally-From: blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: A humorous look at experimental design
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 1994 01:13:00 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

The following are my thoughts on the design for experiments to detect
fractofusion.  This is pure fiction and any resemblance to actual
experiments is pure coincidence.

First Attempt:  Take sample of your choice, one hammer, and one anvil.
Add a neutron detector with suitable electronics that you have never
operated, never calibrated, and about which you know absolutely nothing.
Let's say its a BF3 proportional counter that has be laying on a shelf
for 5 years.  Lay sample on anvil with detector duct-tapped nearby and
hit it a good whap.  (Don't forget the safefy glasses!)   A successful
result is guaranteed.  The microphonic response of the detector has
remained intact inspite of its old age.

Second Attempt:  Because of your success on the first try you now have
a grant from EPRI or some similar organization.  That allows you purchase
much needed equipment such as a new 3He neutron detector, a full range
of gadgets to prepare samples, plenty of expensive electronics built
by your son-in-law.  There is still no necessity that your waste time
reading up on experimental techniques, and the manufacturers instruction
manuals for your new equipment are equally worthless.  Now your anvil
is housed in a large and expensive vacuum chamber and the hammer is
driven onto the sample by a large magnetic solenoid.  You plan to make
the complete set-up available to others for a mere $730,000, should
they desire to share in your glory through replication of this
earth-shaking experiment.  No problems are anticipated except that 
your not quite sure where to place the neutron detector so duct tape
is again employed to attach it to the wall of the stainless steel
bell jar.  Data acquisition is of course fully automated ( IBM PS/2
Model 20 ) and no witnesses are to be present when the event is triggered.
Safety of personell and a much deserved Florida vacation at the expense
of your benefactors had to be considered in the planning.  When you
return all the required data has been recorded ( logged at 13 hour
intervals ).  The results are as expected!  The neutron counter did
indeed record emissions starting at the appropriate time relative
to the firing of the hammer solenoid with a tremendous burst of counts.
For days thereafter neutron emissions continued in neatly quantized
bursts of 20 counts in each logged interval.

Third Attempt:  With your latest results published in Phys. Letters A
and a large assortment of other journals read by all the cold fusion
regulars, investors are now stalking you in their efforts to invest
in this new technology.  Its time to prepare a video tape showing
the hammer drop onto a gold plated sample with the view partially
obscured by that duct tape that supports the detector.  Control
experiments have by now shown that duct tape is indeed essential
to the experimental design although its role is not understood and
its placement relative to sample or detector seems to make no
difference.  Since the video seems to show that the golden sample
turns into mercury following the hammer strike, further experimentation
is uncalled for.  You can market the video for showing every alternate
Tuesday on channel 478 of the new INFORMATION SUPERHIGHWAY and retire
to the south of New Jersey.

Sorry, to have to inflict this on anyone who still takes this stuff
seriously.   I am about to pull the plug and go on to other forms
of entertainment.

Dick Blue
NSCL@MOO-U

cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenblue cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.17 / mitchell swartz /  On Nyquist criterion (cont'd)
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: On Nyquist criterion (cont'd)
Subject: Re: Reply to Jones - On Nyquist criterion
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 1994 14:27:55 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA


   In Message-ID: <tomkCLCwwD.Jt3@netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Reply to Jones - On Nyquist criterion
Thomas H. Kunich (tomk@netcom.com) writes:        

==  "Could you please give me a reference to these "reports"?
==   When did P&F publish this information? 

   You might try more accuracy.  The word used was singular, that 
is: "reported".  It refers to a short discussion between myself 
and the author of the paper made to check this out.  The comment 
was then simply "reported" here.  I do not know with specificity 
which equipment was used, therefore, if you want supplemental 
information, perhaps either you or Dale Bass ought write your own 
letter(s), fax your own fax(es), or make your call(s), and check 
it out further for yourself(ves).  Thanks in advance for the 
information which we are certain you will both share and comment 
upon.

                    Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com)


cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.17 / mitchell swartz /  On Chernobyl -- Globe report
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: On Chernobyl -- Globe report
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 1994 14:31:41 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

 
 Many times here, lurkers and intermittent readers are unable to 
determine who is reporting correct information.
 Clearly the "officials always know" what is correct, right?
 Wrong, as the following excerpt does show.

     This sobering article was in the BOSTON GLOBE (Copyright 
Globe Newspaper Company 1994) on January 30, 1994, page 1, and 
was written by David L. Chandler of the Globe Staff who has also 
followed this field of fusion on occasion.
                      - Mitchell

=========================================================== 
      STUDY SAYS CHERNOBYL CORE MELTED DOWN
     MIT RESEARCHER FINDS RADIOACTIVITY FAR WORSE THAN 
     SOVIETS REPORTED
   by. David Chandler, Boston Globe, 1/30/94

    A Massachusetts Institute of Technology researcher who 
spent 18 months studying the ruins of the devastated 
Chernobyl nuclear reactor has revealed new and frightening 
details of what took place in the hours and days after the 1986 
explosion.
    Contrary to previously available accounts of the world's 
worst nuclear accident, he believes that the initial explosion 
led 
to a complete core meltdown, and that the reportedly 
successful attempt to douse the blazing core with 5,000 tons of 
material dumped from helicopters actually missed its target.
    As a result, the amount of radioactivity released during the 
disaster was as much as four to five times greater than 
previously published estimates, confirming suspicions that had 
been voiced by many researchers but were strenuously denied 
by international and Soviet authorities.
    In addition, the effort to entomb the reactor in an airtight 
sarcophagus of concrete, and to prevent it from contaminating 
nearby river water with a 1 1/ 2-mile-long concrete dike, has 
been equally unsuccessful, says Alexander Sich, a nuclear 
engineer who turned his research into a 500-page doctoral 
dissertation he presented to MIT's nuclear engineering 
department this month.
    Those containment efforts may actually be increasing the 
risk of further contamination, Sich and Russian officials say. 
Today, according to scientists at the site, there are more than 
11,000 square feet of holes in the concrete building allowing 
water, air and other materials to pass in and out.
    ''I believe the sarcophagus was and still is the most 
dangerous structure in the nuclear industry,'' said Alexander 
Borovoi, the Russian scientist in charge of monitoring and 
studying the site. ''One hundred eighty tons of partially burned 
nuclear fuel remains in this building,'' and rainwater is 
constantly pouring in and further weakening the shaky 
structure.
    On the positive side, however, what Sich found appears to 
alleviate fears that such a disaster would lead to the ''China 
Syndrome,'' in which a molten reactor core would burn through 
the bottom of a nuclear plant, contaminating vast amounts of 
ground water and setting off a potentially enormous steam 
explosion. Although the Chernobyl core melted into a lava-like 
mass that burned through the reactor vessel and flowed into 
the lowest recesses of the massive plant, it never broke 
through the concrete floor of the plant basement, and the 
nuclear reaction simply burned itself out after 10 days, Sich 
concluded.
    Morris Rosen, deputy director of the International Atomic 
Energy Agency's division on nuclear safety and the man 
responsible for that agency's analysis of the Chernobyl 
accident, was surprised by most of Sich's conclusions, he said in 
a telephone interview from Vienna on Friday.
    Told of Sich's calculation that more than 185 million curies 
of 
radioactive material, and possibly as much as 250 million 
curies, were ejected during the first 10 days after the accident, 
Rosen said, ''I don't think I've heard numbers like that before . 
. . . It would be very surprising.'' Soviet officials have 
claimed 
that 50 million curies were released.
    A curie is the amount of radioactivity contained in one gram 
of radium. While health effects of different types of radiation 
are hard to compare, the US Department of Energy estimates 
that as little as 10 millionths of a curie of plutonium, if 
inhaled, 
could cause cancer.
    Rosen was surprised by and skeptical of Sich's conclusion 
that virtually all the material dumped on the reactor building 
by helicopters missed the core entirely, and that the radiation 
releases continued until they stopped of their own accord, 
rather than being suppressed by that material.
    ''It's a new theory that I haven't heard of, but I can't say 
it's 
crazy,'' Rosen said.
    Rosen conceded that staff members of the international 
agency ''have never made a study with the level of detail'' of 
Sich's work.
    Indeed, no one from the West has spent the time or had 
access to the amount of information that Sich has, several 
specialists agree. Many doctors, ecologists, biologists and 
nuclear physicists have visited the site since the explosion 
April 26, 1986, but none has stayed long.
    ''Being there one day at a time is no comparison to being 
there for 18 months and really getting a clear sense of things,'' 
said Richard Wilson, a professor of nuclear physics at Harvard 
University who has made many visits to the Chernobyl plant. 
Sich, he said, is the only person he knows who has made an 
extended study of the site, which is about 10 miles from Kiev, 
in what is now the independent nation of Ukraine.
    Norman Rasmussen, professor of nuclear engineering at MIT 
and the author of a 1975 US report on the risks from nuclear 
power plants and Sich's thesis adviser, said Sich's work is 
''probably the best analysis of what took place during the 10 
days after the accident, of what they did and what they tried to 
do.''
    ''Although most people who've looked at it suspected that 
more'' radioactivity was released than the Soviets 
acknowledged, Sich has ''given enough new data to show that it 
is plausible,'' Rasmussen said. ''I think the evidence is very 
strong.''
    Sich said there are major inaccuracies and omissions in the 
official version of the events after the 1,000-megawatt 
Chernobyl 4 nuclear reactor exploded, which is based on 1986 
reports from Soviet officials and scientists. For the most part, 
that version has been accepted, if not entirely believed, by 
international agencies that studied the accident, including the 
International Atomic Energy Agency. Although many questions 
have been raised about the official version from the start, until 
now there has been insufficient solid evidence to back up the 
contrary scenarios.
    Some of Sich's conclusions are based on his own analysis, and 
some are simply a transmission of information that has been 
known to scientists at the site, and in part by some Western 
scientists, but never assembled into a comprehensive picture of 
the events. Among his findings:
    - Of the more than 5,000 tons of sand, lead, boron (a 
neutron-absorbing element), clay and other materials dumped 
from helicopters to try to put out the burning nuclear core, 
shield its radioactive material from the atmosphere and stifle 
any further releases of radioactive material, virtually none 
reached its target. This major countermeasure to limit 
contamination was undertaken by helicopter pilots who 
repeatedly flew into a lethal cloud of radioactivity -- all, 
apparently, for nothing.
    - Because the quenching material missed its target, the core 
material burned and melted unimpeded and uncovered for 
almost 10 days, going through a total meltdown and burning 
right through a 6-foot-thick steel-and-gravel barrier beneath 
it. While the possibility of a core meltdown always has been 
part of ''worst-case'' analyses of what might occur in a nuclear 
reactor accident, it had never happened to this extent. Until the 
first indications began to surface during Soviet surveys of the 
reactor in 1988, there had been no evidence that it happened 
at Chernobyl.
    - Because the core remained exposed to the air for 10 days, 
it released four to five times more radioactivity into the 
environment than has ever been officially acknowledged. While 
doubts were raised about the official estimates as early as 
1986, and some Russian officials had since conceded privately 
that those figures were low, there had never been a detailed 
accounting, based on precise data from inside the reactor 
building, of exactly how much radioactive material escaped.
    This detailed analysis of a major disaster on former Soviet 
territory by an American graduate student is a ''historic'' 
event, 
commented Mujid Kazimi, chairman of MIT's nuclear 
engineering department. Kazimi said he hoped it would be the 
first in an ongoing series of investigations in the former Soviet 
Union by Western students and scientists.
    The information reported by Sich is important, said Wilson, 
the Harvard nuclear physicist, but is not surprising to 
specialists who have closely followed the accumulation of 
evidence from years of research at the site by Russian and 
Ukrainian scientists and engineers. For the most part, he said, 
he thinks it's ''confirmatory'' of what many outside specialists 
already had suspected.
    ''We are now getting more and more sure that the Russians 
in 1986 underestimated'' the amount of radioactivity released, 
he said, and Sich's work in precisely estimating the amounts of 
various radioactive elements released will be helpful for those 
analyzing the biological effects of the accident.
    Increased releases could help explain health problems in the 
area surrounding the plant, including an apparent increase in 
the incidence of childhood thyroid cancers.
    The fact that the 1,800 helicopter missions flown in an 
attempt to smother the core may have accomplished nothing, 
Wilson emphasized, ''doesn't detract from the heroism of the 
people who were doing it.'' At least one of them paid with his 
life, and his body is buried beneath a monument in Moscow -- 
inside a lead coffin.
    In addition to providing a better understanding of what 
happened at Chernobyl during those fateful days in 1986, 
information gleaned from the site by Sich and other 
researchers could hold some important cautions for future 
management of the poisoned site and of other similar reactors 
in former Soviet territory.
    The dike built to prevent radioactive materials from washing 
into the nearby Pripyat River actually has increased the risk, 
Sich said, because it is acting like a dam, holding back ground 
water and raising the water table. The water table is now less 
than 15 feet below contaminated material, he said.
    Furthermore, the 24-story concrete ''sarcophagus'' built to 
prevent further release of radioactive materials from the 
shattered reactor is structurally unstable, in danger of 
collapsing and is full of holes, said Borovoi, the Russian 
nuclear 
physicist.   Sich's study underscores concerns over the fact that 
15 reactors of the same type as Chernobyl, called the RBMK 
type, considered an inherently unsafe design that could easily 
produce another accident, are still operating in Russia, Ukraine 
and Lithuania. Of all the reactors in the world, ''they're the 
least safe,'' said Wilson.
    After studying what went on during the Chernobyl accident, 
Soviet engineers designed a series of modifications to the RBMK 
reactor that should increase safety and reduce the danger of 
another accident. But it is not clear whether all the 
recommended improvements have been made at all the RBMK 
reactors, nor whether the changes are adequate to ensure 
safety, some Western nuclear engineers say.

============ end of Globe story



cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.17 / Andy Holland /  Re: egos on parade!
     
Originally-From: zcrah@trumpet.pgh.wec.com (Andy Holland)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: egos on parade!
Date: 17 Feb 1994 12:59:34 GMT
Organization: Westinghouse CNFD

In article <CL8qJ9.74H@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> crb7q@watt.seas.Virgini
.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>In article <2joj7fINN62l@daisy.pgh.wec.com>,
>Andy Holland <zcrah@trumpet.pgh.wec.com> wrote:
>>In article <CL0s8F.EGC@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> crb7q@watt.seas.Virgi
ia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>>>In article <2jdegkINN4to@daisy.pgh.wec.com>,
>>>
>>>     Name three.  I'm curious what good you think came from 'bad air'
>>
>>     Did you ever see that PBS show about technology? To mitigate "Bad
>>     Air", thought to cause Maleria, a doctor invented Air conditioning,
>>     and the ice maker.
>
>     That's one of the best scientific and engineering discoveries?
>     I don't think that counts a discovery at all, unless we can credit
>     Carnot with it.
>
   
   Try living without refrigeration. I'll take the patents and the spin offs
   any day.


>>     Remember Pareto, and his data reduction techniques, still used
>>     today, and the famous 80-20 rule (80% of the wealth is controlled
>>     by 20% of the people)? He was trying to measure individual
>>     economic utility.
>
>     That's one of the best scientific and engineering discoveries?
>     It's a rule of thumb without universal application.
>

   Maybe not, but his data reduction analysis methods have been used in various
   fields for 100 years. The 80-20 rule was just an amusing side note. The data
   reduction techniques are used in business and economics. I guess those fields aren't 
   important though.
   
   Again, very many more examples available (some proprietary), require research,
   Westinghouse NMD consulting rates. Contact me if your serious. I am not going
   to look up stuff related to this silly argument for free.

>                             dale bass

  What really irks me is that the original post was refering mostly, to comments
  made by others which were way out of line, it had nothing to do with Dale Bass. 
  Seems he fell into the pit, and kept digging. Guess I did too to some extent.

| Andy Holland		            | You shouldn't have to stick your nose         
| Westinghouse NMD	            | in it, to know you shouldn't step in it.
| zcrah@ncstate.pgh.wec.com         |    
| Views Expressed here are solely my|  
| own and are not representative of | 
| Westinghouse Electric Corporation |     

cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenzcrah cudfnAndy cudlnHolland cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.17 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Re: Oriani's experiments
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Oriani's experiments
Date: 17 Feb 94 10:44:46 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

In article <Rg0I2aU.jedrothwell@delphi.com>, jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:
> Hey, don't lump us together Steve! Mitch is Mr. Nice Guy, he probably
> does not think you are a pathological liar. He speaks for he, and I speak
> for me. I think that you would not recognize the truth if it bit you on the
> butt, and I think maybe Taubes was right, and maybe you did steal your
> ideas from P&F. I would not put it past you. 

Just what ideas do you or Taubes allege I stole from P&F?  Our work on possible
fusion in metals and in the earth goes back to early 1986, as recorded in
log books in some detail.  Frank Close and Gary Taubes both relate the
early work we did, some 2 1/2 years before we even heard of P&F, although I
think Close provides more information.  Taubes records:

"In a memo dated April 1, 1986, Jones wrote, "Could it be that metal hyudrides
provide an environment conducive to confinement and fusion of hydrogen
isotopes?"

He cites my April 7, 1986 notes as follows:
"What is indisputable is that he scribbled a list of elements:  "Al, Cu, Ni,
Pt, Pd,  Li ..."  And next to Pd, palladium, and Pt, platinum, were the
portentous words "dissolves much hydrogen."  And Jones did, at Rafelski's
suggestion, take the lab book to the BYU patent attorney, Lee Phillips, and ask
that the page be notarized."

(P. 27)
So just what ideas did I allegedly steal, Jed?  

> I notice that you have come
> out four square in favor of Britz, and Britz says he believe the Taubes
> book... So, by extension, does that mean that you believe Taubes? Is this
> a mea culpa? Are you admitting that the Taubes accusations are true? Or,
> are you saying he judged everyone in this field honestly and correctly
> except you. He is wrong about you, but all the others are liars?
>  
> - Jed

I respect Dieter's thorough database on CF and his studied opinion, but
we have disagreed on several occasions.  What "Taubes accusations" are 
you referring to?  
I have found that Taubes book is mean-spirited in sections, particularly
as he talks about John Bockris -- I do not enjoy this type of writing and
I think it reflects considerable bias.  But
I must say that your writing also shows mean-spiritedness and bias, Jed.

--Steven Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenjonesse cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.17 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Re: Breakthrough with new phenomenon ?......
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Breakthrough with new phenomenon ?......
Date: 17 Feb 94 11:17:54 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

This is getting lengthy; sorry.  Those who have followed this thread may wish
to skip to the relatively short portions which I now contribute, which do not
have > or >> before the text.

In article <1994Feb15.164135.1@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au>, 
dowen@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au writes:
> 
> 
> Hi Folks,
> In article <1994Feb11.165121.1363@physc1.byu.edu>, jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
> writes:
>> While the Phys. Lett. A article discussed by Daryl Owen below is interesting,
>> I agree with Dick Blue that the data are hardly compelling for a change in
>> radioactivity of tritium in titanium.  Indeed, we find below the statement
>> by the author of the paper:  
>> "The author, though well aware that the experimental evidence is rather
>> limited and that a theoretical foundation is lacking..."
>> 
>> Why should we attach a great deal of credence to the data when the
>> researcher himself says "the experimental evidence is rather limited"?
> 
> This is incorrect, the researcher was *not* refering to his
> data when he stated "the experimental evidence is rather limited".
> He was in fact stating that *for his rather way-out theory*, the body of
> scientific experimental evidence is rather limited. There is a difference
> between the *experimental evidence for his theory* which even he describes as
> "a highly unorthodox hypothesis" and the data he presents in his 
> experiments. See below.

I disagree.  I have the Phys. Lett. A 184 (1993) 149-153 paper before me
and find several instances where the author Reifenschweiler dutifully
points out that the "experimental evidence is rather limited" for the data
presented in these experiments he is now (belatedly) publishing.  

For example, on p. 150, he states:  "But there was also one experiment with a
10 times higher concentration of tritium and a roughly 5 times faster increase
of temperature where the decrease of count rate did  not  occur."
Sounds like a note of caution to me.

"This observation, however, is not quite certain because the evaporator was not
removed from the measuring vessel and could have absorbed some tritium."
So he expresses caution about his data -- this is proper.

The author says:  "The counting efficiency of the GM-tube was tested several
times and may be assumed constant during the experiment."
Assumed constant?  A Geiger-Muller tube is hardly a sufficiently sophisticated
detector on which to base a claim of a departure from a large body of data on
behavior of tritium decay, especially when he "assumes" the constancy of a
single GM-tube.  My own experience with Geiger counters suggests that this is a
probable source of error in this experiment.  

Now hear this:  it is not my duty to *prove* what he did wrong.
Rather, it is *his* duty to use state-of-the-art detectors (multiple detectors,
and repeatable experiments) to demonstrate a new effect.  He has not done this.
So his paper does not provide compelling evidence for alteration of the tritium
decay rate in titanium, by some 28%.

> 
>> 
>> We should remember that the notion of changing radioactive decay rates by
>> changing the chemical environment of isotopes has been tried before, and
>> indeed small effects have been observed under unusual conditions.  But as
>> far as I know, these *all* relate to electron capture (EC) processes,
>> wherein an atomic electron is captured by the nucleus.  Clearly, for
>> electron capture, one can influence the decay rate by reducing the
>> population of electrons in S states, since these have the highest
>> probability of having electrons in (near)  the nucleus.
>> 
>> 7Be is a prime example of a nucleus that decays only by EC, since the mass
>> difference between 7Be and its daughter 7Li is only 477 keV.  (This is less
>> than an electron mass, so that decay cannot proceed via beta+ emission.)
>> The decay rate has been changed by 0.2% by chemical means (I can dig up the
>> ref. if anyone needs it; I remember the number). This was done decades ago.
>> 
>> But tritium decays by electron *emission*, via the weak interaction.
>> I cannot see any way that presence of the tritium in Ti could affect this;
>> there is no other example in nature I can think of.  And people use
>> tritiated Ti targets all the time -- we have one here, for instance. 
>> If the decay rate of 3H was indeed affected dramatically by Ti, I think
>> this would have been noticed.
>> 
>> I note that the data were acquired using a Geiger counter or a vibrating
>> reed electrometer using an electrode placed inside the vessel.  These are
>> crude techniques.  As I argued in a posting 2-10-94, one must question
>> data acquired with less than optimal detectors.  Until confirmed
>> (or rejected) by use of state-of-the-art detectors, one must follow the
>> author's own advice and be cautious of these data.
>> 

I stand by my statement directly above.

> 
> Again a misconstruction of the original paper, the author offered *no*
> advice to be "cautious of these data". See below.

I have provided evidence to the contrary from the paper (see above).
> 
>> (Below is the post by Owen to which I respond.)
>> 
>> In article <1994Feb2.173720.1@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au>,
>> dowen@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au writes:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Hi Folks,
>>>  Firstly thanks to Prof. Jones for his offer to pass the SL questions
>>> on to Prof. Crum.
>>>  For those readers who can't get easy access to the original article,
>>> here is my review of the paper by Otto Reifenschweiler entitled
>>> "Reduced radioactivity of tritium in small titanium particles" as 
>>> published in "Physics Letters A" of the 3-Jan-94.
>>> This paper is based on work done at the Philips Research Laboratories
>>> Eindhoven, Holland, in the early 1960's.
>>> Otto Reifenschweiler is a retired chief physist of the Philips Research 
>>> Laboratories.
>>> 
>>> Summary ........
>>> The author describes two experiments involving the reduction of
>>> radiation. The first concerns the reduction of radiation in tritium
>>> loaded titanium particles as they are slowly heated, the second
>>> relates how the loading of small uniform amounts of tritium into
>>> fine Ti particles produces a (very) non proportional variation in 
>>> radioactivity. A "highly unorthodox hypothesis" called "the nuclear
>>> pair hypothesis" is put forward as a possible explanation of the above.
>>> 
>>> The First Series of Experiments .......
>>> Ti was evapourated in argon at a suitable pressure "eg 0.5 to 2 cm Hg"
>>> and deposited as monocrystaline soot like particles about 15 nm in 
>>> diameter, arranged in chains on the inner wall of the measuring vessel.
>>> 
>    ......................Many lines deleted............................
> 
>>> varied in a finely divided TiT(sub)x  preparation and the corresponding 
>>> increase of the emission current caused by the Beta-electrons of tritium was
>>> measured."..."In these experiments a substantial deviation from the expected 
>>> proportionality between current i and concentration x was observed."
>>>  In this experiment a 55% decrease (followed by a similar increase) from
>>> the expected level of delta i/delta x versus concentration of tritium in
>>> the Ti occured. (Sorry folks, no time now for the graph).
>>> 
>>> The hypothesis......
>>> ".......it seems justified to put forward a highly unorthodox hypothesis,
>>> the nuclear pair hypothesis. If we assume that tritons absorbed in the 
>>> extremely small single Ti-crystals an combine into pairs and that the decay
>>> constant of such a pair is smaller than that of a free triton, then the 
>>> observed behaviour of all TiT(SUB)x  can be explained.
>> 
>>>  The author, though well aware that the experimental evidence is rather 
>>     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>> limited and that a theoretical foundation is lacking, feels strongly 
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> 
>>> attracted to the idea of nuclear pairing with reduced radioactivity and he
>>> believes that it may have other applications.
> 
> The contentious (misunderstood) sentence is *partially* underlined by
> Prof. Jones.
> Here the author clearly states that the experimental evidence and theoretical
> foundation FOR HIS NUCLEAR PAIRING THEORY is lacking. This is *not*
> a caution about *his* data is in some respect lacking in its veracity, but
> rather he is drawing attention to the fact that *his theory* is a tenous,
> "highly unorthodox hypothesis" (See above) which, as such, does not have
> a large amount of *any* supportive experimental evidence or theoretical
> foundation, be it derived from his experiments or the body of science.
> 

His theory is certainly tenuous, but so also is the evidence for a large
change of the tritium decay rate.   The author states:

"If we assume that tritons absorbed in the extremely small single Ti-crystals
can combine into pairs and that the decay constant of such a pair is much
smaller than that of a free triton,
then the observed behaviour of all TiTx experiments can be explained."

Handwaving.  Assumptions not substantiated by any calculations whatever.
Connection of assumptions, even if granted, to experiments is not established
quantitatively.  Can such a "theory" account also for the experiment with
null results?  Had I been a reviewer, I would have pointed out these blatant
problems in the paper.

> 
>>>                                              The author hopes to come back
>>> to these questions in later publications."
>>> 
>>> What would happen if......
>>> 1) A small amount of tritium was absorbed into the Ti as in expt.2 and then
>>> equal quantities of deuterium were successively added (instead of equal
>>> successive quantities of tritium). Would the radioactivity decrease the 
>>> same as
> 
> ........................Many lines deleted...............................
> 
> 					       Best Regards to all,
> 					       Daryl Owen.
> 
> The above text is only attributable to myself.
> 			

--Steven Jones

cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenjonesse cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.17 /  jonesse@physc1 /  cancel <1994Feb17.111054.1386@physc1.byu.edu>
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cancel <1994Feb17.111054.1386@physc1.byu.edu>
Date: 17 Feb 94 11:18:14 -0700

cancel <1994Feb17.111054.1386@physc1.byu.edu>
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenjonesse cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Sat Feb 26 04:37:11 EST 1994
------------------------------
1994.02.26 / Bill Page /  ICCF-4 Vigier's Theory - A Detailed Review (Part 1)
     
Originally-From: 70047.3047@compuserve.com (Bill Page)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: ICCF-4 Vigier's Theory - A Detailed Review (Part 1)
Date: Sat, 26 Feb 1994 03:25:09 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I had promised to post more on the paper that J.P. Vigier presented at 
ICCF-4.  Sorry that it has taken this long, but I suppose there wasn't much 
urgency since as far as I know the proceedings are not yet available.  Dr. 
Vigier, however, very graciously sent me a copy of his draft document 
shortly after the Maui meeting.  It is this draft that I have used as a 
reference in this posting.  I am not sure how close this draft will be to 
what actually will appear in the proceedings.  I am very reluctant to make 
copies of the draft document which Dr. Vigier sent to me, but would do so 
if pressed hard with the right reason.  No the other hand, I would be glad 
to give you Dr. Vigier's address and fax number if you would like to 
request your own copy. [So far two people have asked me for this 
information.]

I guess that I should state right up front that after a careful study and 
several days of computation (using MathCad on my PC), I think there are 
some serious problems with the paper.  It may be possible that new hydrogen 
Bohr Orbits exist, but I think that it will be necessary for the theory to 
include relativistic effects which the equations presented in the draft 
paper do not.  So for those readers whose eyes glaze over when theoretical 
physics is discussed and every other sentence is an equation, you can skip 
now to the next posting.  [BTW, it seemed that this was an common 
affliction among a majority of the participants at ICCF-4.]

Still, the paper contains some very interesting ideas - not the least of 
which is a discussion of the "pilot wave" model for electron trajectories.  
[Terry Bollinger, I hope you have not yet made good on your "I'm 
outta-here" pledge.  I'd especially like your comments on this aspect!]  
The connection with the De Broglie/Bohm pilot-wave concept was not clear in 
the abstract, so my original December post in which I reviewed the abstract 
(plus some details presented during Vigier's talk) was way off base with 
respect to exactly the type of "orbits" that Vigier was talking about.

I sent a letter to Dr. Vigier in late January asking for clarification on 
my interpretation of his draft paper which, of course, could very easily be 
wrong.  So far, I haven't received a reply.  Another reason for posting 
this message here, aside from the fact that I promised to disseminate more 
info about the theory contributions to ICCF-4, is to get your (dear reader) 
comments and suggestions on my analysis.  So here goes ...

The Starting Point

is the rather surprizing observation that quantum mechanics has never fully 
dealt with all the interactions that one might reasonably assume to be 
operative in the hydrogen (proton+electron) system.  Historically, only the 
attractive electrostatic (Coulomb) interaction between the charges of the 
proton and electron was necessary to explain the major spectroscopic lines 
of hydrogen (Balmer series).  Magnetic interactions are (as Vigier states) 
usually neglected.  More accurately, magnetic interactions are consider 
only as very small corrections (perturbations).  These corrections 
accurately explain the observed fine and hyperfine splitting of the 
spectroscopic lines.

It is one of the odd things about quantum mechanics that it is often used 
as an empirically justified method of calculation without any attempt to 
reduce things to their conceptual foundations.  Thus we derive an 
expression for the Hamiltonian based for the most part on classical and 
relativistic conceptions like particles, charge, electromagnetic fields but 
then proceed to solve the resulting wave equation which assumes a 
completely different conception of reality.  At this level at least in 
Quantum Mechanics, we don't have a complete picture of what is going on.  
We have some new properties like intrinsic spin but we have to abandon such 
basic classical notions as particles and tragectories. Relativistic quantum 
field theory is much more conceptually complete, but then that's a 
different story and mostly beyond my current level of competence - ask me 
again next year.

Thus Vigier, following a suggestion of A. Barut, postulates that the 
Hamiltonian for the hydrogen system must include the spin-spin and 
spin-orbit vector potentials in addition to the scalar Coulomb potential.  
The electron and proton are conceived of as semi-classical charged 
particles with intrinsic magnetic moments (due to spin) whose motions 
(orbits) give rise to additional magnetic fields.  We then solve the 
Schrodinger wave equation with this modified Hamiltonian.

      1                 (r1-r2)
H = ---- (p1 - e1.M2 x --------- )^2 +           [4]
    2*m1               |r1-r2|^3

      1                 (r2-r1)
    ---- (p2 - e2.M1 x --------- )^2 +
    2*m2               |r1-r2|^3

    e1*e2
    ----- - S12(r1-r2)
      r

The equation number [4] above refers to the numbering of the same equation 
in the draft.

As Vigier points out, this two-body problem, like the pure Coulomb case, is 
separable in the centre of mass co-ordinates into absolute and relative 
motion components.  For calculating the stationary states of a hydrogen 
atom at rest, only the relative motion of the proton and the electron need 
to be considered.  Therefore this problem can be treated as a single body 
(at location r, reduced mass mu, and momentum p) in a fixed potential.  The 
relative Hamiltonian is given by:

     1             a x r     A     e1*e2
H = ---  p^2 - p . ----- +  --- +  ----- - S12(r)       [8]
    2*mu            r^3     r^4      r

In the above equaitons (r1,p1,m1,M1,e1) and (r2,p2,m2,M2,e2) are the 
(postion vector, momentum vector, mass, magnetic moment vector, charge) of 
the proton (1) and electron (2) respectively.  The centre of mass 
co-ordinates are defined by:

  1     1    1                                    m2.p1 - m1.p2
 -- =  -- + --             r = r1 - r2        p = -------------     [6]
 mu    m1   m2                                       m1 + m2

And the following variables are defined for the sake of convenience:

     e1        e2                    e1^2          e2^2
 a = -- . M2 + -- . M1           A = ---- . M2^2 + ---- . M1^2      [7]
     m1        m2                    2*m1          2*m2

[Note: In the Vigier's draft the factor 2 in the denominator of A is 
omitted.  But my calculation indicated that it should be present.  Although 
its not very significant, would anyone like to try to verify this?  It 
takes about a page of algebra to get from equation [4] using [6] to derive 
[8].  I didn't think it worth the effort to attempt to pretty-print it 
here.  I'd be glad, however, to send anyone who is interested and who has 
MathCad for Windows version 4.0 or better, the MathCad documents with the 
algebra and detailed graphs.  In fact, if I get enough email requests, I 
could post it here in
uuencoded form.  For those who haven't heard of MathCad from a company 
called MathSoft, you probably should find out more about it.  It is similar 
to Mathematica and in fact incorporates most of the symbolic capabilities 
of Maple.  Mike Jamison tells me there is now a version 5.0 available that 
can do symbolic solutions of differential equations. But even without the 
advanced symbolic stuff, I have found it to be an excellent electronic 
blackboard tool with great looking on-screen and printed output combined 
with convenient computational ability.  Consider this an unpaid 
advertisement!]

The last term in the equation is the dipole-dipole interaction tensor

          3*(M1.r)*(M2.r) - M1.M2    8*pi
 S12(r) = ----------------------- +  ---- (M1.M2) delta(r)    [5]
                   r^3                3

The magnetic moments M1 and M2 can be expressed in terms of the spins 
(sigma1, sigma2) and masses of the proton and electron as follows:

             e1*hbar                M1'
  M1' = g1 * -------          M1 = ---- * sigma1
              2*m1                 hbar

             e2*hbar                M2'
  M2' = g2 * -------          M2 = ---- * sigma2
              2*m2                 hbar

where g1 and g2 are the gyromagnetic ratios (also called the spin 
g-factors) for the proton and electron.

The factors

  e1*hbar        e2*hbar
  -------  and   -------
   2*m1            2*m2

are also called the nuclear Bohr magneton and Bohr magneton, respectively. 
hbar is Planck's constant.

In his draft, Vigier makes the statement that for m1 >> m2 we can take M1 = 
0 (approximate), i.e. that the magnetic moment of the proton is negligible. 
 He presents the following simplified expression for the Hamiltonian

       1        e1*e2    e1*M2'   sigma2.L   e1^2 * M2^2    1
 H = ---- p^2 + ----- - ------- . -------- + ----------- . ---   [9]
     2*mu         r     m1*hbar     r^3           m1       r^4

where L = r x p is the orbital angular momentum.  [Note: like most 
theoretical physicists, Vigier assumes the use of units where hbar = 1, so 
hbar does not appear in his expressions.  I have started to introduce it 
explicitly here since we will be concerned about units of measure in later 
installments.]

The third term in [9] derives from the first term of the variable a in [7]. 
 Substituting for M2' in the third term of [9] we have

         e1*e2    sigma2.L
     g2*------- . --------
        2*m1*m2     r^3

A similar substitution would equally apply to the second term of [7], 
yielding

         e1*e2    sigma1.L
     g1*------- . --------
        2*m1*m2     r^3

So, in spite of the assumption that m1 >> m2, it would seem that the 
simplification is not justified.  This observation does not, however, 
substantially affect the developments that follow in the draft.

The next step is to solve the energy eigenvalue problem

  H * psi = E * psi

Since an electron is a spin 1/2 particle, Vigier considers the eigenstates 
of the combined angular momentum sigma2.L with eigenvalues Cl for j = l +/- 
1/2.

[In reading this and subsequent text, be sure to distinguish between the 
letter l and the number 1.  Not all screens and printers will clearly 
distinguish these two symbols. Also, I will often use a symbol such as Cl 
above in which the lower case letter should be understood as a subscript.  
Similarly m1 etc. should be understood as m subscript 1. Some day we will 
have more literate computer systems, but until then dear reader, please be 
patient with the typographical idosyncracies of this medium.]

[To be continued in several more installments... ]

Cheers,

Bill Page.

cudkeys:
cuddy26 cuden3047 cudfnBill cudlnPage cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.25 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re:  Italian Ni-H results
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re:  Italian Ni-H results
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 94 21:04:56 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

How amazing! How fantastic. Call Vienna right away, this is the scientific
breakthrough of the century. Steve Jones has discovered that Italian
electricity causes a violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics!
 
Wow.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenjedrothwell cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.25 / Joshua Levy /  Re: Reply to Jones - On tritium, Will, Britz conversion
     
Originally-From: joshua@veritas.com (Joshua Levy)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reply to Jones - On tritium, Will, Britz conversion
Date: 25 Feb 1994 18:29:54 -0800
Organization: VERITAS Software Corp., Santa Clara  CA

In article <CLAA6K.A5u@world.std.com> mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
>   This is boot-strapping.   Here is why.  As the reader will see,
>Dieter Britz thought favorably of Will's paper until it was denigrated
>by Jones still out to knee-cap coldfusioneers.  Then upon being told
>what appears to be incorrect information Dieter changes his
>mercurial review.  

Put another way: Britz liked the paper until Jones pointed out some serious
flaws in it.  Given this new information, Britz changes his mind on the
quality of the paper.

This stands in stark contrast to Mica, Jed, Mallove, and company, who 
seem to stick with experiments no matter how many mistakes, lies and
frauds come to light about that experiment.

(As an example consider P&F1989: there was fraud in the measuring of
neutrons, mistakes in the measuring of heat, tritium, and helium, and 
lies in the light water control experiments.  All of this has been well
documented by Close, Taubes, etc.)

Joshua Levy <joshua@veritas.com>
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenjoshua cudfnJoshua cudlnLevy cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.25 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re:  Italian Ni-H results
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re:  Italian Ni-H results
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 94 21:44:49 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

My conscience is stricken! I feel I must explain that last comment, because
I realize that the commentators in this forum never actually read
scientific papers, so they will have no way of knowing what I meant. Let me
explain:
 
In the Piantelli lecture and paper, one of the main points is that when the
excess heat is generated, the Ni CF device becomes hotter than the Pt
heater. So it does not matter what the electricity is doing in the Pt
heater, it has no magic ability force heat to cross the space and make the
Ni rod hotter than the heater. Not even Italian AC can perform that
miracle. You could mismeasure the electricity by a factor of ten, yet still
be certain that the Ni is generating anamolous heat.
 
Perhaps Steve's informant forgot to mention that.
 
-Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenjedrothwell cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.26 / Bill Page /  Learning something about calorimetry
     
Originally-From: 70047.3047@compuserve.com (Bill Page)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Learning something about calorimetry
Date: Sat, 26 Feb 1994 03:25:08 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

An open letter to Tom Droege ...

After a lot of thinking and sole searching following ICCF-4 I've finally 
come to the decision that I'm going to continue with my own CF experiments. 
 For the past few months I have been concentrating more on the theoretical 
issues and I've learned a lot more about quantum mechanics.  But I no 
longer think that the experimental and theoretical issues will be resolved 
very soon.  It seems to me that CF research is now well into the 
"institutionalization" phase.  Barring something really startling (like a 
working demonstration), the lines are drawn.  People have developed vested 
interests.  Progress will be slow, or at least slow enough that I may have 
a chance to do some interesting work after all...
                                             
This is a very unsatisfactory situation and therefore highly motivating. 
So, in the best spirit of the college sci.physics.fusion, I've decided to 
learn more about calorimetry and you are the most knowledgeable and the 
most accessible teacher I can think of.  I hope the appalation of "teacher" 
doesn't worry you too much.  After all, teaching and entertainment are 
closely related disciplines!

Basically I'd like to try to construct a reasonable facsimile of your new 
Mark III calorimeter design (as it evolves).  I have a particular variant 
on a CF electrolytic cell using an Aluminum cathode that I very much want 
to measure accurately.  All this, in spite of probably not having enough 
time and also very probably not enough money!

To start with, I'd like to ask a few basic (and I do mean basic) questions 
about the design.  For now, I'd like to try to do this publically instead 
of by private email - I think too often the "private" stuff takes away 
material that would really be interesting to a wider audience.  And lately 
we've been seeing a lot of material here that ought to private email (if it 
needs to be communicated at all).  But do please let me know if you (or 
anyone else) think that this forum is not the appropriate place.  

Lately there has been a rash (well two or three people anyway) announcing 
that they intend to quit this motely group.  Personally, I would miss their 
input and I hope they will re-consider.  The noise and banter is annoying 
to almost everyone, but I still think it is a small price to pay for the 
freedom and interaction that this medium offers.  I, for one, intend to 
continue to read and post whatever comes up.  I've recently posted a 
follow-up article on the theoretical work of J. P. Vigier.  And I'd like to 
express thanks to you Tom, for your continuing postings on the heat pipe 
experiments, to Steve Jones for material on sonoluminescence (SL), Dieter 
Britz for continuing the very valuable bibliography, Chuck Sites and Matt 
Kennel for continuing the discussion of ion band states, Daryl Owen for the 
material on the Reifenschweiler tritium/titanium experiments,John 
Logajan/Jed Rothwell on the recent Italian Ni/H results and Robert Heeter 
for continuing to try to educate us about conventional fusion.  In fact, I 
think we are all doing a pretty good job here!

Anyway, enough "soap box" discussion for now.  Back to business.

Topic 1:  Null-balance calorimetry

Is this the logical place to start?  I want to understand the basic 
approach and then lead up to questions about your recent interest in heat 
pipes.  The following picture trys to illustrate what I think of when we 
are talking about null-balance calorimetry.

                       thermal
                        mass
      known            ||||||         constant
      heat (Qin) ----> |||||| ------> heat
                       ||||||         out (Qout)
      unknown    ----> ||||||
      heat (Qx)        ||||||
                       temp T

                      Figure 1.

This is a highly idealized picture, ignoring a lot of practical problems 
but for concreteness, suppose:

1) the Qout heat flow is obtained by a semiconductor electronic heat pump 
device.  Assume it to operate at a constant rate measured in watts. Ignore 
for now any dependence on source and sink temperatures.

2) the ||| in the picture above represents some thermal mass that is 
basically held in equilibrium.  Don't worry about other heat losses or 
temperature gradients for now.

3) the Qin heat flow is obtained by electrical resistive heating measured 
in watts and is controlled by a servo circuit so that there is no net 
change in the temperature of the thermal mass, i.e.

   dT/dt = 0   (approximately)

4) the unknown heat to be measured Qx is initially zero.  In this case

   Qout = Qin

5) when the unknown heat source is operating, Qin is reduced by the servo 
so we can determin Qx by

   Qout = Qin + Qx

In other words, Qx is equal to the change in Qin.

Is this ok so far?  I hope so.  Now on to a few aspects of reality.

It seems to me that:

a) The thermal mass must include the CF cell itself, the electrolyte, 
metal, gas, container etc. as well as some part of the material of the 
calorimeter chamber.  Is it correct to assume we would like to minimize 
this mass or rather more accurately - its heat capacity, relative to the 
magnitude of the heat flows so that the time required to reach equilibrium 
is minimized?

b) I think you have alluded to details of the servo control circuitry in 
previous postings.  When you are talking about the "transfer function" are 
you referring to the time relationship between the heat flow and the change 
in the temperature of the thermal mass?  Assuming Qout constant:

   Qin(t) + Qx(t) ---> dT(t)/dt

But I suppose that the model might be too simple to deal with this.

c) Is it possible to design a control circuit that is well behaved? I.e. 
that adjusts to a change in Qx resonably rapidly.  A simple on/off 
thermostat with a fixed temperature would oscillate with a duty cycle 
(ratio of on-time to total time) that would determine the average value of 
Qin. The period of the oscillation depends on the hysteresis (difference 
between the "on" temperature and the "off" temperature) and the total heat 
capacity (thermal mass).  The question is: How long does it take to measure 
the duty cycle to the desired accuracy?  Is it possible to design a control 
circuit that minimizes the time required to determine Qin?

So, for a realistic simple implementation of a null-balance calorimeter, 
consider the following:

              -------------------------
              |    circulating air    |
              |  T4             T3    |
              |        |----|         |
              |/\/     | CF |      \/\|/\/
      ------> Qin      |cell|       Qout ------->
              |\/\     | Qx |      /\/|\/\
              |        |----|         |
              |  T1             T2    |
              |      ^^ fan ^^        |
              -------------------------

                    Figure 2.

Assume the calorimeter chamber to be very well insulated or even a silvered 
dewar etc. The \/\ represent metal-to-air heat sinks, i.e. large surface 
area, probably aluminum or copper.  The fan eliminates thermal gradients in 
the air and helps to ensure that the majority of the heat is tranferred by 
convection.  Here the "thermal mass" is the air itself.  The air is cooled 
by Qout and heated by Qin and the heat output of the CF cell Qx. Multiple 
temperature sensors T1 .. T4 monitor the air temperature.  Some type of 
control circuit use the T1 .. T4 signals to control the value of Qin.

In this design, air is the perferred thermal mass (as opposed to water or 
some other medium) because of its low thermal capacity.

What are your critisisms of this design?  How accurately do you think we 
could measure heat with such a setup?

I used essentially this type of design in some of the experiments that I 
ran several months ago.  Qin was provided by a resistive heater immersed in 
the electrolyte of the CF cell.  I also collected data on the temperature 
of the electrolyte and the ambient air temperature outside the chamber.  
The calorimeter chamber was made from a commonly available electronic 
"picnic" cooler.  A common electronic thermostat with an adjustable 
hysteresis set at about 0.5 deg C. was used to control Qin. The CF cell was 
a plastic container with approximately 60 ml of H2O (or D2O).  The period 
of oscillation was about 60 to 100 seconds.  Qin was calculated by 
integrating (or rather time averaging) I*E.  Qout was set by adjusting the 
voltage input to the Peltier device to ensure a reasonable operating range 
at the power levels expected.

Actaully I never did enough calibration with such a setup to determine its 
accuracy.  Do you think it would be worth while to continue to work with 
this sort of approach?


Topic 2: Heat conductance

Again, I'll start with an idealized model.


    heat in ---->  |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ----> heat sink
     Qin           ^          ^          ^          ^         Qout
                   T1         T2         T3         T4

                          Figure 3.

Here, ||| represents some kind of heat conductor, for example, a piece of 
copper wire. Of course it could be anything, all materials conduct heat to 
a greater or lesser degree.  But I do mean only conductance and 
specifically not other forms of heat transfer, e.g. convection or 
radiation.

Now the question will be: Given Qin(t) varying over time, with Qout fixed, 
how do the temperatures T1(t), T2(t), etc. change over time?  This is the 
type of experiment you are currently doing with the heat pipe, right?

I guess that answer to this question will depend on the thermal mass 
distribution as well as the thermal conductivity.  And I gather from your 
postings that ratio of the conductivity to the mass for a heat pipe is 
several orders of magnitude higher than for ordinary materials.

My main question here is:  Could you explain how this characteristic of a 
heat pipe would enable you to measure heat more accurately and more 
quickly, i.e. with a shorter time constant?

[This seems like a good place to stop to catch my breath... I hope you are 
willing and have enough time to help me with this.  If there is anything 
you think I might be able to do to help with your current efforts, please 
let me know.  I might be a bit thin on engineering skills but I could 
probably calculate a Fourier transform and/or work on the theoretical part 
of a control system design etc... ]

I think I might just go away now for a few days and do some calibration 
runs on my null-balance setup.

Thanks.

Cheers,

Bill Page.

cudkeys:
cuddy26 cuden3047 cudfnBill cudlnPage cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.25 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Reply to Paul Koloc on 4He production
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reply to Paul Koloc on 4He production
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 1994 21:57:55 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <94022416304021@dancer.nscl.msu.edu> blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu writes:
>            .. .      . . ....   Many of the arguments against CF
>can be generalized to cover any nuclear reaction you would care to
>suggest.  .. ..  

>I don't know what behavior you see in a "smeared average" of the
>existing data put forth in support of cold fusion.  I see enough
>clear contradictions that average may be quite close to zero once
>the obvious biases are removed. 

Average results --> Zero 
Convenient, then you don't have to think about the problem any more
because for you there is no problem other than announcing over and
over that there is no problem, because it doesn't work.  

Most certainly, the yield is essentially worthless commercially
speaking, and about as bothersome to a scientist as a gnat up the
nose at a picnic to a scientist.  But ... a gnat nevertheless.  

Actually the point I attempted was missed.  More explicitly:  if 
"D2O" and "H2O" both work equally, that tells me that maybe someone 
is looking at the wrong isotope (or pair in this case) and perhaps 
we all should be looking to another.    

>                    .. .Now moving on to your suggestion
>                     ..             .. If you think there is
>a way to turn off Coulomb repulsion then I suppose we should be
>considering the possibilities for fusion of everything up to
>and including two Pd nuclei.

Hello, Since when?????   is lithium not a low Z element??????      

Gee I guess in your bedroom you do not have a light dimmer, you
just have a switch, and when you turn it ever so slightly past
the "1" it jumps all the way to off  and  voila!  no light ...
only heavy little night stalkers singing about locally fusion 
produced Calcium.  

Time for a fusion story from the land of HOT fusion, --- the land
of Truth and Knowledge and burning commercial reactors  ... well
maybe .001 watt per cc and sustained for a.. was that a whole 
minute???

In hot fusion one must heat the fuel to its burn temperature, 
but since the pressure is limited, by the weakness of magnetic
coils,+ the necessity to use most of field for stability instead 
of confinement, there just isn't much confinement left. So the 
maximum temperature we can burn at must be kept as low as possible
so that our plasma density can be as high as possible.  The
product of density and temperature being proportional to pressure
which as we know is limited in shakey mag stabilized systems. The
burn rate is proportional to the density squared, so a tokamak
may (if it does 2000 times better than a TFTR utilizing a perfect
fuel mix) have a burn density as high as that as a simple birthday 
candle.   

So how can we go to higher temperature aneutronic fuels??   That's 
easy.. We just use a different approach to utilizing fields and 
currents and plasmas, so that the mag system is internal to the 
plasma system.  Then we can supply fluid pressure directly to a 
high gradient density plasma Mantle for compression and use 
steel vessels to handle orders of magnitude higher peak 
compression pressures.  
 
As the magnetoplasmoid compresses the confining field also
strengthens so that much higher plasma pressures AND temperatures
can be achieved and consequently LI(6) or p-B(11) will burn. 
On the other hand these aneutronic fuels can't burn in a 
pressure limited device such as a tokamak.   

In HF the confinement is less so the inertia of the colliding
particles must make up the difference to overcome the couloumb
barrier.  In CF the confinement in the interstaties is much higher
so the particle collisional inertia need not be significant.  
Further the density squared term can be horridous so that even
if the reactivity is low the yield could be high.  

Now what is the confinement pressure if one stuffs a grape into
an elastic aperture of given size, and then shoves a watermelon
into a similar aperture. Now to complete the experiment we
should shove in a second grape and watermelon into the respective
aperatures and then compute the probablity that fusion (crush 
mixing)  would take place between one or the other of the fruit. 
I don't think the problem is so cut and dried as to quote the 
relative couloumb force if the aperture volume and elasticity aren't
considered carefully,   Perhaps they are,  Perhaps there are
special apertures that form in dislocations or sets of 
loaded apertures ... I don't know -- I work in another area, 
but, I wouldn't play king of the high ground if there are these 
kinds of things that are still unploughed.  

>.            ..  ..  Pick any reaction (your choice) with
>favorable energetics and then construct a rational picture as
>to how you get only the desired reaction products and get
>their kinetic energy degraded to thermal energy without any
>detectable disturbance of the atoms which surround the site
>of this reaction.  

If we both are correct, it's amazing that they ever found even 
spurious results since they would be using the wrong reactants or
it doesn't work.  You however, believe already there is essentially
nothing worth the effort.  

Li(6) + Li(6) > 3 [He(4) @ 7 MeV]          

Travel distance... .08 paper thickness ???   
Damage .....    40 hydrides  +  disclocations 

How many He for a 2500watt device/sec ??     Now calculate
the life of a volume of active Pd with Li 

Now how are you going to see damage in an already crudy surface???

>                .. . .Until you are willing to stick your neck
>out to give this little excercise a try you are just whistling
>in the dark, aren't you?

Rather use quad 50's 
Eat too many crackers  --  you might guess the kind. 

>Dick Blue
>NSCL@MSU

+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc,Bx 1037, Prometheus II, Ltd., College Park, MD 20740-1037 |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.22 / Andrew Pastor /  International conference of Physics Students in Russia ( more info)
     
Originally-From: pastor@pine (Andrew Pastor)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: International conference of Physics Students in Russia ( more info)
Date: Tue, 22 Feb 1994 21:22:44 GMT
Organization: James Madison University


    ************************************************************   
    *                                                          *
    *     IX INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE OF PHYSICS STUDENTS      *
    *                                                          *
    *                          ICPS'94                         *
    *                                                          *
    *                   St.Petersburg, RUSSIA                  *
    ************************************************************
 
             The International Students Association,
            Association of Physics Students of Russia,
     Association of Physics Students of St.Petersburg University,
                Saint-Petersburg State University,
                     the Physics Institute
                 and the Physics Department of SPbU


will hold the 9th International Conference of Physics Students.

	Date:		15-21st August
	Place:		St.Petersburg,Russia
	Participants:	Undergraduate and postgraduate students.
	Organization fee: 110 $


 Proposed topics for discussion are:

	Mathematical Physics
	Theoretical Physics
	Radiophysics
	Optics
	Laser Physics
	Solid State Physics
	Physics and Chemistry of Plasma
	Physics of Semiconductors and Dielectrics
	Thermophysics and Molecular Physics
	Nuclear Physics and Physics of Elementary Particles
	Geophysics
	Computer Science and Mathematical Modelling


	All presented papers will be published in our bulletin.  The deadline
 for sending in registration forms is April 30th 1994.  The deadline for
 receipt of papers to be published in the bulletin is July 1st 1994. Contact 
 the ICPS'94 Organizing Committee it is best to use FAX or E-Mail.


	Phone: (812)-428-43-13
	       (812)-428-44-07
	Fax:   (812)-428-66-49
	E-mail: apavl@ihq.samson.spb.su
		ICPS94@ihq.samson.spb.su
		IEVLEV@apstud.samson.spb.su

	If conventional mail routes must be used please use the following
address. 
(Mail in Russia is unreliable now)

	IAPS Central Office

	Niels Bohr Institute
	Oersted Laboratory
	H.C. Oersted Institute
	Universitetsparken 5
	DK-2100


	During the conference there will be a General Meeting of IAPS which
 will discuss possibilities for collaboration among students.  Everyone is 
 welcome to participate in this meeting.


	Housing and meal plan will be provided for all IAPS'94 participants.
 Also,participants willhave the opportunity to acquaint themselves with the
 scientifical work conducted at the Physics Institute.  We tentatively plan
 to organize a series of visits to museums and other cultural sights.

	The address of the Organizing Committee is:

		APS(Association of Physics Students Russia)
		Contact Person: Alexander Pavlov, Secretary of APS Russia
		International Headquarters of APS Russia
		Department of Physics SPbU Ulianovskaja 1, Stary Peterhoff
		198904 Saint Petersburg Russia

	(But please do not use it to mail your papers)


                            REGISTRATION FORM


	Name...........................................................

	Date of Birth (Day/Month/Year).................................

	Address........................................................

	...............................................................

	Country........................................................

	Phone Number...................................................

	FAX:...........................................................

	E-mail:........................................................

	Institution:...................................................

	Graduate	Postgraduate

	Do you have a paper to present?................................

	Title:.........................................................

	...............................................................

	...............................................................
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenpastor cudfnAndrew cudlnPastor cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.26 / Chuck Sites /  Re: Unlocalized electrons
     
Originally-From: chuck@iglou.iglou.com (Chuck Sites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Unlocalized electrons
Date: Sat, 26 Feb 1994 06:05:56 GMT
Organization: The Internet Gateway of Louisville, KY

blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu writes:

>In commenting on my suggesting that electrons are more mobile than
>deuterons, Mark North says "Electrons are unlocalized and therefore
>less likely to move."  I don't really understand that statement

I believe Mark was pointing out that up to the metal surface, 
they are mobile, but there is a large surface potential which 
holds the electrons back (and leaping into space).  Ie, the electrons
are less likely to move off the surface.

>.  Backing
>up to what I think is pretty solid ground, I would say that electrons in
>a conductor are both unlocalized and highly mobile.  Is it possible
>that they would be more mobile if they were localized?  In any case
>the strength of my original assertion rests on a direct estimation of
>the relaxation time for the electric fields generated by fracture
>and the energy that could be acquired by an accellerating deuteron
>before the field relaxes.

The relaxation times are important.  Specifically in a highly deuterated
metal fracture.  I would think the electrons liberated during the fracture
would tend to fall back to the metal, since they are the lightest, but
if the fracture was due to a high concentration of D's along some 
lattice imperfection, I would think the main force of the D's 
acceleration would be from the concentrations own repulsive forces.       
The result would be a mini-plasma with just a few electrons thrown
in to confuse the picture. Simple probability takes over from there
as to whether fusion events occur.  I wouldn't expect much from it,
but I wouldn't rule it out either.
 
>  Just off the top of my head I would guess
>that a conductor is not the best choice of material for fractofusion
>experiments, and a rather wonder why anyone would start investigations
>with such samples.  I would favor wintergreen candy <g> as more likely
>to yield something positive.  Does anyone know where one can purchase
>deuterated wintergreen mints?

I like my wintergreen Lifesavers just as they are thank you. Just kidding. 
I liked Steve's idea behind it.  The light flashes are a fracture induced
phenomena and does give an indication of the energy released during the
event.  This is a burst like event which brings up another question. 
I would think fracto-fusion would be very burst-y in nature with
multiple events in a very short period of time.  Steve posted his 
very preliminary findings with values meassured in counts per unit time.
(was it neuterons / hr?). So a question to Steve; did you see any bursts? 

>Dick Blue
>NSCL@MSU

Have Fun,
Chuck Sites
chuck@iglou.iglou.com
chuck@stunner.iglou.com (The basement lab) 
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.26 / Geoff Maddison /  Plasma Physics Summer School
     
Originally-From: geoff.maddison@aea.orgn.uk (Geoff Maddison)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Plasma Physics Summer School
Date: Sat, 26 Feb 1994 18:44:05 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway



      T H E   3 1 s t   C U L H A M   P L A S M A   P H Y S I C S
      ###########################################################

                       S U M M E R   S C H O O L
                       #########################

                   1 1   -   2 2   J U L Y   1 9 9 4

         C u l h a m   L a b o r a t o r y,   A b i n g d o n,
                     O x f o r d s h i r e,   U K


 An International Summer School intended  for students near the  start
 of postgraduate courses.  No previous knowledge of plasma physics  is
 assumed.  Since 1985,  the Summer School series  has been attended by
 over 600 students from 47 countries, more than two thirds coming from
 outside the UK.

 Culham Laboratory is  the primary centre for plasma physics & nuclear
 fusion research in the UK; it is located close to the city of Oxford,
 and  shares  a  site   with  the   world's  largest  magnetic  fusion
 experiment,  the  Joint  European  Torus   (JET).


               The School covers a broad curriculum :-

 * Plasma particle dynamics   * Plasma waves  * Kinetic theory   * MHD
 * Computational techniques  * Astrophysical plasmas   * Laser plasmas
 * Magnetically confined plasmas    * Solar plasmas   * Poster session
 * Space plasmas       * Laboratory visits        * Industrial plasmas
 * Turbulence & chaos       * Diagnostics      * Gravitational plasmas

 A copy of the course textbook "Plasma Phyics: An Introductory Course"
 (Cambridge University Press, 1993)  is given to each student.


 ACCOMMODATION  WILL BE IN  A  HISTORIC COLLEGE  OF OXFORD UNIVERSITY.


            CLOSING DATE FOR APPLICATIONS :  13th MAY 1994

   (Late applications may be accepted, depending on accommodation.)


 Further details / application forms are available from :-

      Mrs Joan Stimson,
      Culham Laboratory,
      Abingdon,
      Oxfordshire  OX14 3DB,                        Tel: 44 235 463293
      UK.                                           FAX: 44 235 463288

 or e-MAIL enquiries to :-                  geoff.maddison@aea.orgn.uk

cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenmaddison cudfnGeoff cudlnMaddison cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.26 / John Logajan /  Re:  Italian Ni-H results
     
Originally-From: al789@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re:  Italian Ni-H results
Date: 26 Feb 1994 17:44:37 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)


jonesse@physc1.byu.edu () says:
>"Piantelli has invited him to check this in a few weeks.  There appears to be
>some oddity in the Italian electric grid which may be what leads Celani to his
>supposition..."

Of course one must always be mindful of potential errors, but the above
suggestion requires there to exist a power input source that is both
unregulated and unmonitored (or under-regulated and under-monitored.)

Being that the alleged effect is both constant, repeatable, and sizeable, I'd
personally not specifically suspect such an obvious procedural flaw -- perhaps
a less obvious one.

-- 
-- John Logajan ---  al789@cleveland.freenet.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenal789 cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.26 / John Logajan /  Italian Ni-H update
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Italian Ni-H update
Date: Sat, 26 Feb 94 18:06:16 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

(Jed updates his first e-mailed post.  I again post it here assuming it is
okay with him.)

Memo from Jed Rothwell

About this Piantelli paper:

     S. Focardi (Bologna U.), R. Habel (Cagliari U.), F.
     Piantelli (Siena U.), "Anomalous Heat Production in Ni-H
     Systems," Il Nuovo Cimento, Vol 107 A, Feb. 1994, p. 163 -
     167

     Abstract: "Evidence for a 50 W anomalous heat production in
     a Hydrogen loaded Nickel rod is reported."

I reported that the calorimeter calibration constant is 0.4 watts
per degree C. Now that I have the paper in front of me, I see it
is closer to 0.45 watts per degree C. In Fig 2, the heater power
increases from 60 watts to 145 watts, while temperature increases
from 240 deg C up to 430 deg C. For each watt that's 2.2 C; or
each degree C represents a 0.45 watts. Okay? I can do simple
arithmetic when I really try -- that's what I tell my kids. This
is for the calibration curve taken at 570 mbar Hydrogen. Fig. 4,
from 0 to 160 watts, shows that it is reasonably straight above
30 watts.

So, with 57 watts, the temperature Delta T must have been 125 deg
C, not 143 deg C as I reported earlier. It is difficult to read
the fine details of the graphs in this third generation fax here,
but Figure 4 seems to bear that out. It shows 10 or 12 points for
each of two different excess heat runs, that is: heater power
plus excess heat points. It looks like. . .  120 C Delta T for
the "50 watt" example.

Here is an encouraging note about the calorimetry:

     "The values of the gas pressure, the heater current and the
     temperature are continuously monitored by a PC (Okidata
     PC486) operated data logger.

     In order to calibrate our experimental apparatus, different
     measures of the stainless-steel [blank] temperature were
     obtained by varying both the heater input power and the
     hydrogen pressure (typically from 1 bar to the vacuum).

     In  fig. 2 we show only two data sets: one obtained under
     vacuum conditions and another with hydrogen pressure at 570
     mbar. All the curves obtained for hydrogen pressure values
     different from zero turned out to be practically independent
     of the hydrogen pressure in the range of values of interest.

     Several measurements showed that the reproducibility range
     for each curve lies within one degree centigrade.

     The plot evidences the effect of the heat conduction of the
     gas on the central rod equilibrium temperature."

This finding, that gas pressure does not affect the calibration
constant much, is similar to Mizuno's calibration for his recent
gas loading experiments.

Another pleasing note: during excess heat events, the Ni rod is
hotter than the Pt heater, so the Ni is pinpointed as the source
of the anomalous heat.

Sources say this Piantelli paper is big news in every major
Italian newspaper: Corriere dela Sera, La Stampa, Il Messagero,
Sole 24 Ore, Avanti, L'Unita, and also it was featured on the
7:00 evening national news in Italy.

I highly recommend this paper.

- Jed

(End of Jed memo)

-- 
-John Logajan MS612; Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
-logajan@network.com, 612-391-1159, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.26 / John Logajan /  Hot Ni-H vs electron energy states
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Hot Ni-H vs electron energy states
Date: Sat, 26 Feb 94 18:24:47 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

If I recall, Mills+Farrell were suggesting Ni-H using K2CO3 because the
electron energy states between the chemical compositions was "just right"
to facilitate transition to the H sub-orbits.

Now the Italians seem to be using high temperatures to accomplish their
anomalous heat results.

The question is -- is there an equivalence, a correlation between the
energy states of the Mills+Farrell chemical system and the Italian thermal
energy system?

-- 
-John Logajan MS612; Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
-logajan@network.com, 612-391-1159, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.26 / Mark North /  Re: Unlocalized electrons
     
Originally-From: north@watop.nosc.mil (Mark North)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Unlocalized electrons
Date: Sat, 26 Feb 1994 19:08:42 GMT
Organization: NCCOSC RDT&E Division, San Diego, CA

blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu writes:

>In commenting on my suggesting that electrons are more mobile than
>deuterons, Mark North says "Electrons are unlocalized and therefore
>less likely to move."  I don't really understand that statement.  

Sorry, I wasn't making myself clear. Let me try again. Should have
said the electrons are unlocalized and less likely to move out of
the conduction band and into the crack than a localized ion such
as D+. While in the conduction band they are, of course, highly
mobile and will tend to short circuit the electric field in the
crack. At the Sante Fe conference someone pointed out that the
field would be shorted out way before an ion could accelerate across
the crack. I have done some calculations based on some reasonable
assumptions and have shown this is not the case. 

>Backing
>up to what I think is pretty solid ground, I would say that electrons in
>a conductor are both unlocalized and highly mobile.  Is it possible
>that they would be more mobile if they were localized?  In any case
>the strength of my original assertion rests on a direct estimation of
>the relaxation time for the electric fields generated by fracture
>and the energy that could be acquired by an accellerating deuteron
>before the field relaxes.  

What relaxation time did you get? I don't have my notes to hand but
I believe I calculated some 10's to 100's of picoseconds for a
reasonable sized crack. A field of 10^7 volts/meter in the crack
is not unreasonable and I think you'll find there is adequate time
for a D+ to reach a few hundred to 1000 kev. This is a range of
energy where you would expect to see a fusion or two. Not many but
it might be detectable given the right set of favourable
circumstances like big enough cracks, for example. 

>Just off the top of my head I would guess
>that a conductor is not the best choice of material for fractofusion
>experiments, and a rather wonder why anyone would start investigations
>with such samples. 

I would agree but the history of this is in the phenomenon of
fracto-emission in metals. Some Russians investigating this (real)
effect claimed to have seen some fusions. I remain unconvinced that
they actually did however.

>I would favor wintergreen candy <g> as more likely
>to yield something positive.  Does anyone know where one can purchase
>deuterated wintergreen mints?

I don't think the wintergreen effect is fracto-emission. The sticky
tape effect is though. Better you should look for deuterated duck tape.
First, you find a deuterated duck...

Mark

cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudennorth cudfnMark cudlnNorth cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.26 / Mark North /  Re: Unlocalized electrons
     
Originally-From: north@watop.nosc.mil (Mark North)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Unlocalized electrons
Date: Sat, 26 Feb 1994 19:47:34 GMT
Organization: NCCOSC RDT&E Division, San Diego, CA

chuck@iglou.iglou.com (Chuck Sites) writes:

>I believe Mark was pointing out that up to the metal surface, 
>they are mobile, but there is a large surface potential which 
>holds the electrons back (and leaping into space).  Ie, the electrons
>are less likely to move off the surface.

Exactly.

>I like my wintergreen Lifesavers just as they are thank you. Just kidding. 
>I liked Steve's idea behind it.  The light flashes are a fracture induced
>phenomena and does give an indication of the energy released during the
>event.  This is a burst like event which brings up another question. 
>I would think fracto-fusion would be very burst-y in nature with
>multiple events in a very short period of time.  

This is a very good point. When we attempted to observe this effect in
Ti in high pressure D2 with temperature cycling to induce fractures
we optimized our neutron detectors and electronics for expected
bursts of 10s of neutrons. (This was the best our circumstances would
allow). Unfortunately, post hoc calculations show that one would
expect fewer than one event per crack. This means that the relevant
time parameter becomes the crack rate which is related to the speed of
sound. This calls for a different detection approach which we were
unable to pursue (lack of $).  

Mark

cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudennorth cudfnMark cudlnNorth cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.27 / Chuck Sites /  Re: Unlocalized electrons
     
Originally-From: chuck@iglou.iglou.com (Chuck Sites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Unlocalized electrons
Date: Sun, 27 Feb 1994 08:13:00 GMT
Organization: The Internet Gateway of Louisville, KY

blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu writes:

>In commenting on my suggesting that electrons are more mobile than
>deuterons, Mark North says "Electrons are unlocalized and therefore
>less likely to move."  I don't really understand that statement

I believe Mark was pointing out that up to the metal surface, 
they are mobile, but there is a large surface potential which 
holds the electrons back (and leaping into space).  Ie, the electrons
are less likely to move off the surface.

>.  Backing
>up to what I think is pretty solid ground, I would say that electrons in
>a conductor are both unlocalized and highly mobile.  Is it possible
>that they would be more mobile if they were localized?  In any case
>the strength of my original assertion rests on a direct estimation of
>the relaxation time for the electric fields generated by fracture
>and the energy that could be acquired by an accellerating deuteron
>before the field relaxes.

The relaxation times are important.  Specifically in a highly deuterated
metal fracture.  I would think the electrons liberated during the fracture
would tend to fall back to the metal, since they are the lightest, but
if the fracture was due to a high concentration of D's along some 
lattice imperfection, I would think the main force of the D's 
acceleration would be from the concentrations own repulsive forces.       
The result would be a mini-plasma with just a few electrons thrown
in to confuse the picture. Simple probability takes over from there
as to whether fusion events occur.  I wouldn't expect much from it,
but I wouldn't rule it out either.
 
>  Just off the top of my head I would guess
>that a conductor is not the best choice of material for fractofusion
>experiments, and a rather wonder why anyone would start investigations
>with such samples.  I would favor wintergreen candy <g> as more likely
>to yield something positive.  Does anyone know where one can purchase
>deuterated wintergreen mints?

I like my wintergreen Lifesavers just as they are thank you. Just kidding. 
I liked Steve's idea behind it.  The light flashes are a fracture induced
phenomena and does give an indication of the energy released during the
event.  This is a burst like event which brings up another question. 
I would think fracto-fusion would be very burst-y in nature with
multiple events in a very short period of time.  Steve posted his 
very preliminary findings with values meassured in counts per unit time.
(was it neuterons / hr?). So a question to Steve; did you see any bursts? 

>Dick Blue
>NSCL@MSU

Have Fun,
Chuck Sites
chuck@iglou.iglou.com
chuck@stunner.iglou.com (The basement lab) 


cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.27 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Poloidal field?
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Poloidal field?
Date: Sun, 27 Feb 1994 07:09:25 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <2koqt8$7ok@network.ucsd.edu> mbk%anl433.uucp@Germany.EU.net
(Matt Kennel) writes:
>Paul M. Koloc (pmk@prometheus.UUCP) wrote:
>: In article <2kgi57$1h7@network.ucsd.edu> mbk%anl433.uucp@Germany.EU.n
t (Matt Kennel) writes:
>: >Paul M. Koloc (pmk@prometheus.UUCP) wrote:
>: >OK, I assume you advocate a spheromak of some type.  How do you
>: >propose to compress without losing energy?  
>
>: Yes, a spheromak configuration, but a very special kind of spheromak 
>: called a PLASMAK(tm) magnetoplasmoid.  It differs from a conducting
>: shell spheromak in that it's currents are energetic and hyperconducting
>: and the tightly fitting conducting shell is a dense high gradient plasma
>: (called the Mantle). It is the hyperconducting energetic electrons that
>: allows the plasma to hold together essentially without transport loss 
>: during the compression and stasis time.    
>
>: <....>
>
>: So the answer is:   
>:                          NUMBER  5) !!!!!
>
>: Compress a PLASMAK(tm) which has a Mantle of dense ionized particles 
>: on its inner surface and weakly ionized and excited gas at its outer 
>: boundary with the impinging compression blanket.  There is an 
>: intervening insulating vacuum poloidal field surrounding and 
>: protecting the Kernel plasma ring of thermonuclear plasma.  Now the 
>: pressure on the toroidal axis of a spheromak with a conducting shell 
>: pressure of 1 atm is 12.6atm. (typically).  So if we compress the 
>: similar topology of the PLASMAK(tm) magnetoplasmoid (self similarly), 
>: so the boundary (Mantle) pressure rises to say 7 or 10 kilobars, we 
>: should get an order 100 kilobar central Kernel plasma ring pressure.  
>: That's a whooping lot of adiabatic heating.  The compression energy 
>: investment is maybe  7 to 10 times the initial formation state.  
>:                         Will the plasma ignite???   
>:                             Ahhh!  did I use 
>:                               He(3) or Fe??? 
>

>Well, I don't understand what you said but let me guess what you're
>saying.  

>You have two portions, a thin spherical shell of material, an intervening
>annular vacuum with a magnetic field, and a central spherical core of fusion
>fuel.

A  medium thickness spherical shell of plasma called the Mantle, and
an intervening annular poloidal vacuum field (Vacuum field part of the
Kernel), and a central TOROIDAL core of fusion plasma or Kernel plasma 
with poloidal and toriodal currents giving rise to its fields, 
reciprocally.

>Somehow you get the spherical shell to superconduct (what about
>brehmstrahlung from the electrons zipping around?), so that the
>magnetic field is *contained* inside this shell.  ..  

These conducting electrons are cold and so fast that they only generate
very slight radiation (drag) from occasion small angle scattering.  
Their energy is COLLECTIVE, that is it is in the magnetic field
which is quite substantial and so the current is maintained against
small loss by  the L(di/dt).  The density of the thermals is so great
that any cyclotron radiation is absorbed by the plasma or reflected
by the Mantle inner wall so it is not lost from the system.   

>                           .. .         .    Now, you press
>on the outer shell with mechanical fluid pressure, which then
>compresses the internal magnetic field, which then acts to
>compress the hot core plasma.

Yes, which then burns which then heats the blanket, which then expands,
which then compresses the Mantle, which then compresses the Kernel
vacuum field which then compresses the plasma Kernel which then burns
faster ('til the fuel is spent or nearly spent), which then heats
the blanket some more, which then expands some more ..... etc.   

>Is that the idea?  So it's like a magnetic fusion device with "movable
>walls and magnets" that you squeeze together.

I suppose, topologically speaking, except that the mag field or  
or magnets are "transparent" to the user.  The user just makes balls
and compresses them for a blasting big energy effect.  Then we harness.   

>I guess the trick must be in the "magic shell".  How do you make it
>and keep it going?

Classified.  
How does a match keep going???  This Mantle conserves energy far better
than a candle or a match, and we can certainly compress and burn out
a p-Boron PMK (Plasma Mantle and Kernel configuration) in a 
few milliseconds.  The ones we have made so far exist many times (orders
longer ) than what is needed for commercial aneutronic power. Of course
we haven't yet run any compression burns nor have we raised that part
of the funds. We should start raising bucks within a month or two and
we expect it will take a year or two.  The burn will be another three.      
--- Maybe sooner depending on the size of the balls we have to work with.   
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc,Bx 1037, Prometheus II, Ltd., College Park, MD 20740-1037 |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
>--
>-Matt Kennel  		mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu
>-Institute for Nonlinear Science, University of California, San Diego
>-*** AD: Archive for nonlinear dynamics papers & programs: FTP to
>-***     lyapunov.ucsd.edu, username "anonymous".

cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Mon Feb 28 04:37:04 EST 1994
------------------------------
1994.02.27 / Matt Kennel /  Re: Poloidal field?
     
Originally-From: mbk%anl433.uucp@Germany.EU.net (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Poloidal field?
Date: 27 Feb 1994 00:52:56 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

Paul M. Koloc (pmk@prometheus.UUCP) wrote:
: In article <2kgi57$1h7@network.ucsd.edu> mbk%anl433.uucp@Germany.EU.ne
 (Matt Kennel) writes:
: >Paul M. Koloc (pmk@prometheus.UUCP) wrote:
: >OK, I assume you advocate a spheromak of some type.  How do you
: >propose to compress without losing energy?  

: Yes, a spheromak configuration, but a very special kind of spheromak 
: called a PLASMAK(tm) magnetoplasmoid.  It differs from a conducting
: shell spheromak in that it's currents are energetic and hyperconducting
: and the tightly fitting conducting shell is a dense high gradient plasma
: (called the Mantle). It is the hyperconducting energetic electrons that
: allows the plasma to hold together essentially without transport loss 
: during the compression and stasis time.    

: <....>

: So the answer is:   
:                          NUMBER  5) !!!!!

: Compress a PLASMAK(tm) which has a Mantle of dense ionized particles 
: on its inner surface and weakly ionized and excited gas at its outer 
: boundary with the impinging compression blanket.  There is an 
: intervening insulating vacuum poloidal field surrounding and 
: protecting the Kernel plasma ring of thermonuclear plasma.  Now the 
: pressure on the toroidal axis of a spheromak with a conducting shell 
: pressure of 1 atm is 12.6atm. (typically).  So if we compress the 
: similar topology of the PLASMAK(tm) magnetoplasmoid (self similarly), 
: so the boundary (Mantle) pressure rises to say 7 or 10 kilobars, we 
: should get an order 100 kilobar central Kernel plasma ring pressure.  
: That's a whooping lot of adiabatic heating.  The compression energy 
: investment is maybe  7 to 10 times the initial formation state.  
:                         Will the plasma ignite???   
:                             Ahhh!  did I use 
:                               He(3) or Fe??? 


: >I'm not an expert; I'd like to hear any ideas along these lines.
:       
: Okay you've read them ... well, not there your an expert, what do 
: you think???  

Well, I don't understand what you said but let me guess what you're
saying.  

You have two portions, a thin spherical shell of material, an intervening
annular vacuum with a magnetic field, and a central spherical core of fusion
fuel.

Somehow you get the spherical shell to superconduct (what about
brehmstrahlung from the electrons zipping around?), so that the
magnetic field is *contained* inside this shell.  Now, you press
on the outer shell with mechanical fluid pressure, which then
compresses the internal magnetic field, which then acts to
compress the hot core plasma.

Is that the idea?  So it's like a magnetic fusion device with "movable
walls and magnets" that you squeeze together.

I guess the trick must be in the "magic shell".  How do you make it
and keep it going?

: +-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
: | Paul M. Koloc,Bx 1037, Prometheus II, Ltd., College Park, MD 20740-1037 |
: | mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
: | VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
: +-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

--
-Matt Kennel  		mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu
-Institute for Nonlinear Science, University of California, San Diego
-*** AD: Archive for nonlinear dynamics papers & programs: FTP to
-***     lyapunov.ucsd.edu, username "anonymous".
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenuucp cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.27 / Monkey King /  Re: Hot Ni-H vs electron energy states
     
Originally-From: monkey@engin.umich.edu (Monkey King)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Hot Ni-H vs electron energy states
Date: 27 Feb 1994 20:41:29 GMT
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor

In article <1994Feb26.182447.5994@ns.network.com> logajan@ns.network.com
(John Logajan) writes:
>If I recall, Mills+Farrell were suggesting Ni-H using K2CO3 because the
>electron energy states between the chemical compositions was "just right"
>to facilitate transition to the H sub-orbits.
>
>Now the Italians seem to be using high temperatures to accomplish their
>anomalous heat results.
>
>The question is -- is there an equivalence, a correlation between the
>energy states of the Mills+Farrell chemical system and the Italian thermal
>energy system?
>

Whatever happened to Mills&Farrell?  They did not show up at the recent
ICCF, nothing was mentioned about them or similar work.  I vaguely remember
someone saying Mills was taking his setup to another lab (in Canada?) to
verify his result.  Any insider information?

-- 
Monkey King                 | This message printed on 
monkey@engin.umich.edu      | recycled material.
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenmonkey cudfnMonkey cudlnKing cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.27 / Bruce Liebert /  Who was it in Chicago?
     
Originally-From: liebert@wiliki.eng.hawaii.edu (Bruce E. Liebert)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Who was it in Chicago?
Date: Sun, 27 Feb 1994 22:43:28 GMT
Organization: University of Hawaii

Last summer on NPR's Science Friday, a discussion was held on the topic of
"Cold Fusion."  Prof. Huizenga contended that an (unnamed) group in Chicago
had followed Dr. McKubre's "recipe" and had found nothing.  When challenged
by McKubre to reveal the name, Huizenga refused, insisting that McKubre
knew very well who they were (which McKubre denied).

Can anyone shed some light on who this mysterious group is?
-- 
***************************************************************
*        Bruce E. Liebert  liebert@wiliki.eng.hawaii.edu      *
* Materials Research Laboratories        University of Hawaii *
*   Tel: (808) 956-6332               Fax: (808) 956-2373     *
*      2540 Dole St., Rm. 302  Honolulu, HI  96822            *
***************************************************************
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenliebert cudfnBruce cudlnLiebert cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.28 /  dowen@vaxc.cc. /  Re: Italian Ni-H results
     
Originally-From: dowen@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Italian Ni-H results
Date: 28 Feb 94 12:09:59 +1100
Organization: Computer Centre, Monash University, Australia

Hi folks,
In article <1994Feb23.054519.24586@ns.network.com>, logajan@ns.network.com
(John Logajan) writes:
> I'm always unsure if I'm taking advantage of Jed Rothwell's private e-mails
> to me, but since he once said I could post anything he sent me, I will
> do that here.  Thanks Jed.
> 
> 
>  ----
> 
> There is a wonderful new CF paper in the Italian journal: Il Nuovo Cimento,
> February, 1994 issue. This is in English, oddly enough.
> 
> Title: "Anomalous Heat Production in Ni-H Systems"
> 
> Three authors (alphabetical order):
> 
> Sergio Focardi, Dept. of Physics, Bologna University and INFN Bologna
> Roberto Habel, Physics Institute, Faculty of Medicine, Cagliari University
> and INFN Cagliari.
> Francesco Piantelli , Department of Physics, Siena University, IMO Siena
> and INFN Siena
> 
> Abstract: "Evidence for a 50 W anomalous heat production in a Hydrogen
> loaded Nickel rod is reported."
> 
> To be honest, I have not actually got the paper yet. I have lecture notes
> and a summary of Piantelli's Feb. 14, 1994 presentation at Siena U., which
> was attended by 40 Big Gun Italian CF people. A lot of solid people like
> Preparata and Celani were there, and they liked it very much, they say.
> I will send you a nice clean copy when I get one.
> 
> This is a Ni light hydrogen gas loaded system. Mass of Ni is 16 grams,
> diameter of rod is 5mm, length, 100 mm, 0.27 mole Ni. Three nice runs from
> last year include:
> 
> Highest power:            57 watts for 20 days -- 98.5 MJ, 3.54 watts/cm2
> Longest:                  27 watts for 100 days -- 320 MJ, 2.3 watts/cm2
> Example cited in paper:   44 watts for 24 days -- 91.2 MJ, 2.73 watt/cm2
> 
> That is 6,000 times better power density than Mills, or any other nickel
> system I know of! Remarkable. I think this is the end for palladium, nickel
> is so much easier and cheaper. This device always works, it never
> fluctuated or failed during the 100 day run. The calorimeter calibration
> constant is 0.4 watts per degree C, so with the 57 watts, the temperature
> went up 143 deg C. A very large signal, impossible to miss.
> 
> - Jed
> 
>  ------
> 
> -- 
> -John Logajan MS612; Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park,
> MN 55428 -logajan@network.com, 612-391-1159, Fax 612-424-2853

Sounds quite interesting. Jed could you please include me on your mailing
list for this experiment ? I have many questions, in particular ...
1) Did they deliberately terminate the experiments ? If not, is it known
   known by what mechanism do they finally fail?
2) Do they monitor for atomic emissions ? If so, what results ?

                                           Best regards to all,
                                           Daryl Owen.

cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudendowen cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.28 / Bill Page /  NO to Private email
     
Originally-From: 70047.3047@CompuServe.COM (Bill Page)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: NO to Private email
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 1994 09:07:35 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Steven Jones writes:
<<
I would like to congratulate Mike Jamison for posting a very creative and 
novel idea, that of combining SL and laser-induced breakdown (LIB). This is 
the type of idea that is worthy of discussion.  
But it has been unfortunately buried in a flood of debates over 'cold 
fusion' which seems to dominate this net. His post is about a week old, yet 
this is the first response.... the net seems to be pre-occupied with a 
'debate of the deaf' which is unfortunate.

Therefore, suggest we take this to private e-mail, Mike.  And I'd like to 
think of a few experiments in this area building on your ideas.  Likewise, 
Terry Bollinger has proposed a number of clever ideas to try in the 
'SL-fusion' arena (Dec. 1992, "Ultracavitation"), 
as has Rich Schroeppel (Jan. 1994, "Sonoluminescence"), and Tom Droege has 
lent support. Others who might like to join an informal working group 
should send a private email message.  (Thanks)  

--Steven Jones
>>

Steve,

Please reconsider the idea of using private email for discussions that 
would obviously be of interest to many motivated and well meaning people 
reading this news group.  I no that there has been a rash of annoying 
postings lately, but please be patient.  These people will likely give it a 
rest very soon.

You, Steve are one of the people who have been able to keep focused on the 
real issues here.  It is important that significant people continue to 
keeping pushing in the right direction.  I know you probably don't get 
enough feedback from the very many readers of sci.physics.fusion, some of 
which read largely only for your posts - its one of the major drawbacks of 
this electronic media.  That, and the fact that some people seem to react 
to the freedom of electronic media in much the same way that they react 
when they get behind the wheel of a car... their personalities change.  
They can become beligerant and agressive simply because their mode of 
interaction with other people is now filtered through turn signals, brake 
lights and honking the horn.  For some odd reason, this also seems to 
happen when people filter their interactions through a keyboard and the 
asynchronicity introduced by the electronic media.

What can I suggest other than tolerance, patience, reciting "sticks and 
stones..." and a few deep breaths?  I still resist the notion of a 
moderated group and I also don't like feeling deliberately left out of the 
discussion.  Personally speaking, it certainly helped me a lot to meet 
several of the protagonists and antagonists in Maui.  I have a mental image 
of the faces and a few snippits of "body language" sequences to associate 
with the postings.  Some day this electronic media will find a way of 
replacing these modes of communications that are lost in the current 
generation of technology.

Anyway, if I can't persuade you to re-consider forming a separate "working 
group", please consider my application for membership.

Cheers,

Bill Page.

cc: fusion digest.

cudkeys:
cuddy28 cuden3047 cudfnBill cudlnPage cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.28 / John Logajan /  More on the Italian Ni-H results
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: More on the Italian Ni-H results
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 94 08:02:00 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

There are two major bits of serendipity in the Italian Ni-H discoveries.

Apparently in late 1989 F. Piantelli was running calorimetry on deuterium
containing organic compounds in a hydrogen atmosphere.  He detected something
unusual, but the data indicated that the anomaly was likely coming from the
nickel support structure rather than the deuterated sample.  Thus spoke
Serendipity.

So in late 1992 a new apparatus was constructed at Siena.  The plan was to
use nickel or stainless steel, in either deuterium or hydrogen gas.  Initial
calibrations were to be done with both nickel and stainless in hydrogen gas
assuming both would be "nulls" to calibrate from.  Serendipity intervened
a second time, and the Ni-H "nulls" were anything but.

Getting a bit ahead of the story, and showing the (to yours truly) continuing
deuterium bias of these Italians, they next intend to study the possibility
that the anomalous heat is related to natural amounts of deuterium in normal
hydrogen -- they propose the D+P reaction as a possible candidate (though
they detect no neutrons or other radiation in their current experiments.)

Here is the setup.  A small stainless steel chamber (50 x 100mm or 2x4 inches)
contains either a nickel or stainless steel rod (5 x 90mm) surrounded by a
heating wire made of Pt (1mm wire, 42 turns, 10mm radius.)  The heater
power supply is of constant voltage design -- up to 300W max.  The gas bottles
and vacuum pump allow setting of the chamber pressure along the continuum, but
their experiments seem to stick to pressures less than atmospheric.

Running different voltage (power) inputs and different pressures, the chamber
pressure, rod temperatue, heater temperature, and heater current are monitored
and logged on a computer.  Calibration with the stainless steel "null" rods
establishes repeatability of calorimetry to within 1 degree C.

The nickle rods show diversions from the "null" signatures by temperatures
sufficient to account for, as in one case, 44 watts anomalous heat lasting 24
days (90MJ.)

Finally it should be noted that running a constant voltage power source into
the Pt heater would cause a negative feedback effect in the event of
anomalous heat, since the higher temperature would cause an increase in the
Pt resistance, dropping the current.  Since voltage is fixed, and since
power = voltage times current, power input *must* decline.

-- 
-John Logajan MS612; Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
-logajan@network.com, 612-391-1159, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.28 / John Logajan /  Re: Italian Ni-H results
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Italian Ni-H results
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 94 08:18:57 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

dowen@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au writes:
>1) Did they deliberately terminate the experiments ? If not, is it known
>   known by what mechanism do they finally fail?

A direct quote from the paper -- "The system has been maintained at a mean
power imbalance of 44W for a period of 24 days (corresponding to about 90MJ),
after that it has been stopped."

Sounds to me like operator intervention, but I can't be sure.  The English
is generally quite good, but it is best to leave open the possibility of
a translation mistake.

>2) Do they monitor for atomic emissions ? If so, what results ?

Another direct quote -- "No penetrating radiation (neutrons, gamma-rays) was
detected above the background level during the process."

There is no additional detail on either of these questions in the paper.

-- 
-John Logajan MS612; Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
-logajan@network.com, 612-391-1159, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.28 / John Logajan /  Re:  Italian Ni-H results
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re:  Italian Ni-H results
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 94 08:28:30 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

jonesse@physc1.byu.edu writes:
>"A nickel wire...in a closed cell filled with hydrogen gas which has some
> deuterium contamination.
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>"The cell is apparently heated ... at which point some special treatment
> involving magnets I believe occurs.  
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>"There is also an exterior coil around the cell which apparently generates a
                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>magnetic field for the remainder of the experiment.
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

None of the above indicated mechanisms are mentioned in the text of the
Il Nuovo Cimento paper by Piantelli, Habel and Focardi.

-- 
-John Logajan MS612; Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
-logajan@network.com, 612-391-1159, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.01 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Who was it in Chicago?
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Who was it in Chicago?
Date: Tue, 1 Mar 1994 01:12:59 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Hmmm!  Huizinga and I talked extensively in Maui.  There were actually not many
there that would talk to him.  Morrison and the Maui Sunset gang were about 
it.  I certainly discussed with him details of the calorimetry.  I likely 
also pointed out that it could be "just noise", which is my quote that he
likes so much.  

We all know that it is hard to duplicate another's experiment and to "prove 
him wrong".  Still, McKubre's results do seem to be decreasing in magnitude 
with time.  My experiments duplicated McKubre as well as I could.  The 
result **is** zero to within my ability to measure.  Still, there are some
interesting bumps, and I have not quite given up looking. 

This in response to Bruce Liebert's post.

Tom Droege

cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenDROEGE cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.01 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Re:  NO to Priveate email
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re:  NO to Priveate email
Date: Tue, 1 Mar 1994 01:13:03 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I second Bill Page's plea to keep technical discussions out in the open.  
Droege's Gresham's law of e-mail.  "Good e-mail discussions will drive out
bad".  Note that the reason that "bad money drives out good money" of the 
orignial Gresham's law is that good money can be hoarded.  But good discussion
cannot be hoarded, in fact it will be ever more widely circulated as 
appreciative readers "forward" the good items to others.  

Possibly this is overly optimistic, as everyone will point to a few "nutsos".
This is just noise, and there are not so many that a good kill file will not
do the job.  Not from the apologetic preambles, most new posters are hesitant
to send stuff that they do not feel is up to the group's standards.

So please!  Keep the good stuff out in the open.  (And spend a little time
learning how to fast forward or to use a "kill" file so you are not so 
frustrated by the nuts.)

Tom Droege

PS to Bill Page.  I am starting work on a long discussion of Calorimeters in
reply to your request, which will be posted here!

cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenDROEGE cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.01 /  blue@dancer.ns /  Re: Looking for 4 He
     
Originally-From: blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Looking for 4 He
Date: Tue, 1 Mar 1994 01:13:07 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Paul Kolac replies, "If D2O and H2O both work equally, that tells me
that maybe someone is looking at the wrong isotope."

I agree totally with this statement.  I have seen it as being just too
strange that there could be two totally different unidentified processes
involved in cold fusion.  If you don't need ingredient X in the soup
to make cold fusion go that would seen to indicate that ingredient X
is not a primary reactant in the CF process.  Seems simple enough!

Next question is, "If not d + d then what is it?"  Paul suggests that
I am too binary on such questions.  On the contrary, I was trying to
indicate a willingness to consider any possible nuclear reaction that
you or anyone else would care to suggest.  How much more open-minded
can I be?  Since no one has offered a good explaination as to how
you get two deuterons to fuse, taking the degree of difficulty 
due to Coulomb repulsion into account seems to be such a fine point
that we really should concern ourselves with it.

Paul then makes the accusation that, "You however, believe already
there is essentially nothing worth the effort."  This is not
what I believe at all!  The only type of experimentation I have
been objecting to is experimentation that is so poorly planned
and executed that it does nothing to clarify the issues that
have grown up around cold fusion.  After 5 years measurements
of excess heat tell nothing new about the problem, particularly
when the technique employed leaves all the old questions
unanswered.  The fact that we still can be discussing what
reaction is involved has to be indicative of something.  I
say it indicates that cold fusion experimentation has had
some serious shortcomings.  If these have not been corrected
up to the present what justifies further fumbling in the dark?

Now we come to a specific proposal for a reaction, something
that can be put to an experimental test.  Actually it already
has been given a test which I believe it fails, but I wouldn't
object to the idea of making a more definitive test.

6Li + 6Li -> 3  He(4) + 7 MeV

Off the top of my head I would say this reaction cannot account
for excess heat in a system that has no lithium in it, the
H2O + nickel version of cold fusion.  It is also hard for me
to see how you restrict the process to just this reaction when
the lithium is a mix of both 6Li and 7Li, but we'll let that
pass for now.  Of course I would like to see it demonstrated
at some point that a cell with only 7Li behaves differently than
a cell with only 6Li in the electrolyte.  That wouldn't be
asking too much by way of some form of experimental test of
Paul's hypothesis would it?

Finally how difficult would it be to detect this nuclear
process while it was occurring?  Given that 3 alpha particles
are to share 7 MeV of kinetic energy, I would say that the
energy spectrum for these alphas extends to roughly 5 MeV.
Now a 5 MeV alpha ripping through a Pd lattice knocks loose
some electrons.  We are back to the X-ray emission that
Steve Jones has has told you over and over again just has to
be there.  I might add that at the intensity levels required
for the emission of these alpha particles some secondary
nuclear processes are also going to be detectable.

The point of this little excercise is that regardless of what
nuclear reaction you pick for cold fusion there remains in
place one solid requirement.  You have to have a process that
produces something that is very energetic relative to chemical
reaction energies.  (Remember the old argument that it can't
possibly be due to chemistry.)  By definition an process that
releases energy at a level sufficient to be the source of
the "excess heat" is also capable of displacing inner-shell
atomic electrons.  The X-rays simply have to be there!
That is how you see the damage, Paul.  Now if you think
6Li is an important piece in this puzzle, substitute 7Li.
Do the calorimetry as before and add one energy dispersive
X-ray detector.  When you have the data in hand we can
talk further about the "reality" of cold fusion.  I'll
listen with an open mind.

Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU

cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenblue cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.01 /  blue@dancer.ns /  6000-fold increase in power density
     
Originally-From: blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: 6000-fold increase in power density
Date: Tue, 1 Mar 1994 01:13:10 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Not that there aren't other problems with the recently reported
Italian results on cold fusion in nickel, but I would just like to
prick the balloon that Jed Rothwell has launched proclaiming this
as a major advance in cold fusion research.  Once again we see that
a large increase in the "power density" achieved for cold fusion
is simply the result of a misapplication of scaling to the experimental
results.  The fact that the power density rises when the sample
size is reduced may be indicative of a remarkable lack of dependence
of the excess heat on sample size.  If that is the case some truly
astounding results may await the first person with enough courage
and insight to extrapolate these experiments to a microscopic scale.
IBM has already shown the way to do the calorimetry on very tiny
samples.

Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU 

cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenblue cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.28 /  dowen@vaxc.cc. /  Bill Page and the Italian Ni-H expt......
     
Originally-From: dowen@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Bill Page and the Italian Ni-H expt......
Date: 28 Feb 94 20:54:21 +1100
Organization: Computer Centre, Monash University, Australia


Hi folks,
In article <940226032026_70047.3047_EHB42-1@CompuServe.COM>,
70047.3047@compuserve.com (Bill Page) writes:
> An open letter to Tom Droege 
........................MANY LINES DELETED................................ 
> 
> Lately there has been a rash (well two or three people anyway) announcing 
> that they intend to quit this motely group.  Personally, I would miss their 
> input and I hope they will re-consider.  The noise and banter is annoying 
> to almost everyone, but I still think it is a small price to pay for the 
> freedom and interaction that this medium offers.  I, for one, intend to 
> continue to read and post whatever comes up.  I've recently posted a 
> follow-up article on the theoretical work of J. P. Vigier.  And I'd like to 
> express thanks to you Tom, for your continuing postings on the heat pipe 
> experiments, to Steve Jones for material on sonoluminescence (SL), Dieter 
> Britz for continuing the very valuable bibliography, Chuck Sites and Matt 
> Kennel for continuing the discussion of ion band states,................
> .................................................................,John 
> Logajan/Jed Rothwell on the recent Italian Ni/H results and Robert Heeter 
> for continuing to try to educate us about conventional fusion........
> ......

Very well said Bill, I concur with all of the above but in view of the recent
Ni / H results, which I believe will turn out to be another chimera,
add the following....... 

Many people still seem to judge the success of cold *fusion* by the progress
being made by the "excess heat" experiments. However fusion *as it is defined
today* requires both nuclear ash and emissions. Unless heat is accompanied
by both these products in comensurate quantities it is not being caused by
fusion *as we term it today*.  The P&F type of experiments have been useful
in focussing and stimulating research into alternative methods of producing
fusion. I believe that *if* fusion is to be a commercial success then it will
be achieved by investigation of these alternatives, as discussed in this
forum, rather than by the enormously expensive "hot" fusion. Indeed
it is entirely possible that the road to "hot" fusion may prove to be too
expensive in the long term and the US, as with other projects, may be forced
to pull the plug on it. If this proves to be the case, then the kinds of
*fusion* experiments discussed in this news group will assume new values and
the newsgroup *as it is now*, will be of greater worth than it may appear
to some at this time.

P.S. I hope the Italians have found the holy grail, but without ash and
emissions its not fusion and if its not fusion they're violating entropy.

                                        Best wishes to all,
					Daryl Owen.

This text is only attributable to myself.
  
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudendowen cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.28 /  collins@jaguar /  Italian Ni-H gas leaks??
     
Originally-From: collins@jaguar.csc.wsu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Italian Ni-H gas leaks??
Date: 28 Feb 94 11:04:01 -0800
Organization: Washington State Univ.

In article <1994Feb28.080200.29689@ns.network.com>, logajan@ns.network.c
m (John Logajan) writes:
> ...
> Here is the setup.  A small stainless steel chamber (50 x 100mm or 2x4 inches)
> contains either a nickel or stainless steel rod (5 x 90mm) surrounded by a
> heating wire made of Pt (1mm wire, 42 turns, 10mm radius.)  The heater
> power supply is of constant voltage design -- up to 300W max.  The gas bottles
> and vacuum pump allow setting of the chamber pressure along the continuum, but
> their experiments seem to stick to pressures less than atmospheric.
> 
> Running different voltage (power) inputs and different pressures, the chamber
> pressure, rod temperatue, heater temperature, and heater current are monitored
> and logged on a computer.  Calibration with the stainless steel "null" rods
> establishes repeatability of calorimetry to within 1 degree C.
> 
> The nickle rods show diversions from the "null" signatures by temperatures
> sufficient to account for, as in one case, 44 watts anomalous heat lasting 24
> days (90MJ.)
>  ...
> Finally it should be noted that running a constant voltage power source into
> the Pt heater would cause a negative feedback effect in the event of
> anomalous heat, since the higher temperature would cause an increase in the
> Pt resistance, dropping the current.  Since voltage is fixed, and since
> power = voltage times current, power input *must* decline.
> 
> -- 
> -John Logajan MS612; Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
> -logajan@network.com, 612-391-1159, Fax 612-424-2853

Before accepting claims of excess heat of a novel origin, irrelevant sources
of heat need to be discounted.  I have not yet read the paper, but, from the
descriptions of the experiments posted here, it appears that recombination
of hydrogen and oxygen at the surface of the nickel rod might explain the
observations. 

Consider a scenario in which the gas pressure in the cell is maintained at
a predetermined level less than atmospheric pressure.  Note John's comment
that cell pressures appear to all be less than atmospheric.  If there are 
LEAKS of air into the chamber, then the oxygen in the air is likely to 
combine with the hydrogen present.  Recombination will be enhanced when 
the surface of the Ni rod is heated externally, and the Ni rod will 
become self-heating when the recombination rate is sufficiently high.

Critical questions to examine are:

1.  Is recombination ruled out by direct measurement of gas
concentrations within the cells that exclude the presence of oxygen?

2.  How is the gas pressure kept constant?  Is hydrogen from a gas 
cylinder flowing constantly through the cell?  If so, is the gas 
exiting checked for the presence of oxygen, nitrogen or water vapor?

Perhaps, John or others can comment.

-- 
Gary S. Collins, Physics, Washington State U.  (collins@cougar.csc.wsu.edu)
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudencollins cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.28 / V Guruprasad /  Magnetocaloric power generation
     
Originally-From: c1prasad@watson.ibm.com (V. Guruprasad)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.engr,sci.energy
Subject: Magnetocaloric power generation
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 1994 21:47:30 GMT
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

I chanced upon a book called "Ferrofluids", in which
the "Magnetocaloric energy conversion" method is described.
It appears similar to MHD in some ways, though it uses
magnetic fluids.  Book is of '85.

I wonder whether it has reached commercial application as yet?
Does anyone know?

--
prasad.

email: 71155.3116@compuserve
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenc1prasad cudfnV cudlnGuruprasad cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.28 /  gordon.powell@ /  SOLIDS, DISCHARGES, PLASMAS, AND BEAM
     
Originally-From: gordon.powell@his.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: SOLIDS, DISCHARGES, PLASMAS, AND BEAM
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 94 19:03:53 
Organization: Heller Information Services, Inc., Rockville MD


        It seems that no one, either skeptic, or CF experimenter has really
dealt with the possibility that so called CF might have nothing to do with
nuclear fusion, but is instead due to inner shell chemistry such as D 
inserting itself into the partially empty inner shell of transition elements.
This possibility was pointed out on this group half a year ago, yet skeptics
of CF continue to raise the possibly spurious issues of inconclusive nuclear
reaction observations.  On the other hand the experimenters seem to have made
no attempt to do mass spectrometry on putatively reacted Pd.  

        Quite simply, neither side has looked into the really critical
issue of possibily superenergetic chemistry.  As  for reactions in glow
discharges, it is not necessarily the case that the putatative reaction goes
on in the gas/plasma phase.  Perhaps the, presumably low energy, glow discharge
merely promotes some sort of intrametallic reaction.  Hence, the otherwise
valid  criticism of improbable hot fusion, is not relevent.  

        If inner shell chemistry *is* going on, then it wouldn't be totally
surprising that some sort of minor nuclear reaction rate  influence is 
going on as a tiny second order effect.  If such a second order effect is
happening then it could understandably confuse experimental interpretations. 
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenpowell cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.28 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Reply to Chuck Sites and Dick Blue/Fractofusion
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Reply to Chuck Sites and Dick Blue/Fractofusion
Date: 28 Feb 94 16:11:48 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

In article <1994Feb27.081300.2824@iglou.com>, chuck@iglou.iglou.com (Chuck Sites) writes:
> blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu writes:
...Lines deleted....
>>                  Dick Blue:
>>  Just off the top of my head I would guess
>>that a conductor is not the best choice of material for fractofusion
>>experiments, and a rather wonder why anyone would start investigations
>>with such samples.  I would favor wintergreen candy <g> as more likely
>>to yield something positive.  Does anyone know where one can purchase
>>deuterated wintergreen mints?
>                   Chuck Sites:
> I like my wintergreen Lifesavers just as they are thank you. Just kidding. 
> I liked Steve's idea behind it.  The light flashes are a fracture induced
> phenomena and does give an indication of the energy released during the
> event.  This is a burst like event which brings up another question. 
> I would think fracto-fusion would be very burst-y in nature with
> multiple events in a very short period of time.  Steve posted his 
> very preliminary findings with values meassured in counts per unit time.
> (was it neuterons / hr?). So a question to Steve; did you see any bursts? 
> 
>>Dick Blue
>>NSCL@MSU
> 
> Have Fun,
> Chuck Sites
> chuck@iglou.iglou.com
> chuck@stunner.iglou.com (The basement lab) 

Chuck is correct that we used wintergreen Lifesavers that had been placed
in a stainless steel container which was first evacuated then backfilled with
D2 gas.  The exposure continued for 72 hours, in order to allow some D2
permeation into the material and some D-H exchange.  We then checked that
the D2-added mints showed triboluminescence just as the ordinary mints do --
and they did.  Then fresh D2 was
admitted into the cylinder, and the material was crushed while the cylinder
was inside our most sensitive neutron counter, located in a tunnel in a
mountainside in Provo Canyon.

We saw *no* neutron bursts whatsoever.  The neutron rate was consistent with
background, that is, 0.7 neutron-like counts per *hour*.

Nor have we seen any bursts above background from LiNbO3, Nd4PO4, or LiD.
Indeed, no significant neutron signals from *any* fracto-fusion-type
experiments we have done in the past 5 years, including attempts at Kamiokande
which did not produce neutron signals above background.

A student and I were looking at the ICCF-4 (Maui mtg.) abstracts this am,
and found this bold statement by a team of Japanese researchers:

"We concluded that excess neutrons emitted from the crushing process of 
D2 + LiNbO3.  The excess neutrons did not observe in the crushing process of H2
+ LiNbO3.  These results give a proof that mechano-fusion occurred in crushing
process of D2 + LiNbO3."  [Shirakawa et al.,  N2.8 in ICCF-4 abstracts]

Yet when we scrutinize the data presented in that abstract, the results are
clearly not compelling; you be the judge:
D2  6.38 +- 0.51  counts/hour
H2  5.7  +- 0.75
[Note that D2 and H2- run results overlap]
BG  5.65 +- 0.08    this background rate is 8 times ours; their detection
                     efficiency is not given.

Note that the D2 results are just over the BG, on which much more time was
used for data-taking.  The D2 results are less than 2 sigma above the BG;
this is "proof"?
It is not.  One must read the data and judge for oneself.

As BYU student Ben Horne (who is working on this project) said:

"Fractofusion is not all that it's cracked up to be."

--Steven Jones                                      

cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenjonesse cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.28 /  jonesse@physc1 /  cancel <1994Feb28.164344.1427@physc1.byu.edu>
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cancel <1994Feb28.164344.1427@physc1.byu.edu>
Date: 28 Feb 94 16:49:45 -0700

cancel <1994Feb28.164344.1427@physc1.byu.edu>
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenjonesse cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.28 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Reply to Dick Jackson/ No compelling evidence after yrs of expts.
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Reply to Dick Jackson/ No compelling evidence after yrs of expts.
Date: 28 Feb 94 17:13:45 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

Dick Jackson writes that:
"We have a small number of people reporting excess heat from calorimetry which
cannot *quickly* be explained away by demonstration of faulty experimental
technique, and
We have the notorious "ignition" results claimed by P and F."
..."I would like to see someone to actually replicate the P&F super-boil
phenomenon. ...If P&F are the careless (or worse) experimenters that they have
been alleged to be, this effect should be comparatively easy to replicate. (Dr.
Jones, Comments?)."  25 Feb 1994 post,  "Jed R gains a Supporter - Sort Of"

I tire of this, Dick.  For many months, scientists like Tom Droege, Dieter
Britz, Dick Blue, Terry Bollinger, Douglas Morrison, ... and myself 
have been scrutinizing publicly the experiments
of P&F, McKubre, Miles, Mills, Yamaguchi, Notoya, and on and on and on,
ad nauseatum.  They have all been found wanting in one way or the other.

I and Jonathon Jones have reported at length on experiments done here at BYU
which show excess heat all right, but then this was traced to recombination
of H2 and O2 -- up to about 250% apparent xs heat without oxygen bubbling,
up to about 750% with O2 bubbling (calculating xs heat in the normal way,
with I*(V-1.5volts) in the denominator).  This answers some questions also
posed recently by Mitch -- further answers will be provided in our forthcoming
paper on the experiments as these are published.

We have also performed experiments on the P&F boiling-type cells, and reported
these results on this net last November.  Briefly, as I find myself having
to repeat again and again and I'm not too happy about it,
we found boiling after about 2 days of running an LiOH/Pd cell -- using
light water!  We also showed that the impedance in the cell fluctuatated
wildly during boiling, so that 5-minute sampling intervals for a 10-minute
boiling period as done by P&F *in their published Phys. Lett. A 176 (1993) 118
paper* is woefully inadequate, and misleading.  Mitch and Jed claim P&F have
done a better job since this publication; but such is not published so we
can scrutinize this latest claim.  When will they do things right?

Tom Droege was the first, I think, to expose the problem:
"There can be no doubt that the cell impedance changes wildly during boil off. 
The video tapes show conditions that are likely to result in very large cell
resistance changes.  This reviewer again proposes that it is very difficult
to make accurate measurements on a rapidly changing system such as this."
[posted 19 May 1993]
We showed that Tom is correct.

In the same post, Tom noted that some of the D2O in the P&F boiling cell
could "leave the cell as water droplets", and he has expressed further concerns
about this lately.  Of course, this process would also lead to errors in claims
of excess-heat production.

We also got from Fleischmann (on this net) the astonishing
admission that they measured the input voltage (input I was 'constant') only
once every 300 seconds *for the data published in Phys. Lett. A*. 
[This fact was *not* reported in their paper.] 
Then for the 10-minute boiling period for which excess enthalpy was calculated
and claimed, they had only 2 (at most 3) measurements of input power -- you
be the judge!  Can they know integrated I*V(t) in this way?  NONSENSE!

Our experimental results will be published soon (I hope).  We are now moving on,
and I do not intend to keep repeating here our findings on absence of compelling
evidence for excess heat or for *any* nuclear products.

I agree with Terry Bollinger and Dieter Britz, who recently joined others:  
there is nothing to support claims of excess 
heat by *any* nuclear process in any P&F-type experiment.

Good day, sir, and farewell.
--Steven Jones


cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenjonesse cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.28 /  jonesse@physc1 /  cancel <1994Feb28.164926.1428@physc1.byu.edu>
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cancel <1994Feb28.164926.1428@physc1.byu.edu>
Date: 28 Feb 94 17:14:02 -0700

cancel <1994Feb28.164926.1428@physc1.byu.edu>
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenjonesse cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.01 / John Logajan /  Re: Italian Ni-H gas leaks??
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Italian Ni-H gas leaks??
Date: Tue, 1 Mar 94 06:46:48 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

collins@jaguar.csc.wsu.edu writes:
>> The nickle rods show diversions from the "null" signatures by temperatures
>> sufficient to account for, as in one case, 44 watts anomalous heat lasting 24
>> days (90MJ.)

>Before accepting claims of excess heat of a novel origin, irrelevant sources
>of heat need to be discounted.
                    ^^^^^^^^^^

Let the games begin! :-)

>...it appears that recombination of hydrogen and oxygen at the surface of the
>nickel rod might explain the observations. 

>Consider a scenario in which the gas pressure in the cell is maintained at
>a predetermined level less than atmospheric pressure.

>If there are LEAKS of air into the chamber, then the oxygen in the air is
>likely to combine with the hydrogen present.  Recombination will be enhanced
>when the surface of the Ni rod is heated externally, and the Ni rod will 
>become self-heating when the recombination rate is sufficiently high.

We can throw some quick numbers at this idea.  My calculations show that
it takes about four hours to burn a mole of oxygen (and two moles of
hydrogen) at a rate that produces 44 watts of continuous heat.

That's about six liters of pure O2 per hour, or 30 liters of ambient
air per hour (80% N2.)  That is also 12 liters of bottled H2 per hour.

Also, 44 watts of burning O2/H2 would produce about two moles of H2O
per hour, or about 36cc. 

Twenty four days (576 hours) at 44 watts would consume 17,280 liters of air,
6,912 liters of H2 bottled gas, and it would produce 20.7 liters of water.

Now I'm not saying it can't happen.  I'm just saying that it is something
that can be noticed with fairly simple observations. :-)

-- 
-John Logajan MS612; Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
-logajan@network.com, 612-391-1159, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.01 / John Logajan /  Re: Italian Ni-H gas leaks??
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Italian Ni-H gas leaks??
Date: Tue, 1 Mar 94 07:03:05 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

I wrote:
>Also, 44 watts of burning O2/H2 would produce about two moles of H2O
>per hour, or about 36cc. 
>
>Twenty four days (576 hours) at 44 watts would consume 17,280 liters of air,
>6,912 liters of H2 bottled gas, and it would produce 20.7 liters of water.

Oops, I always do that.

44 watts of O2/H2 burning would produce half a mole of H2O per hour, or
about 9cc.  Over 576 hours, that is 5.2 liters of water.

-- 
-John Logajan MS612; Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
-logajan@network.com, 612-391-1159, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.01 / Bill Page /  Re: Who was it in Chicago?
     
Originally-From: 70047.3047@CompuServe.COM (Bill Page)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Who was it in Chicago?
Date: Tue, 1 Mar 1994 09:07:20 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

<<
Last summer on NPR's Science Friday, a discussion was held on the topic of
"Cold Fusion."  Prof. Huizenga contended that an (unnamed) group in Chicago
had followed Dr. McKubre's "recipe" and had found nothing.  When challenged
by McKubre to reveal the name, Huizenga refused, insisting that McKubre
knew very well who they were (which McKubre denied).

Can anyone shed some light on who this mysterious group is?
>>

Bruce, is this a serious question?  But, as I recall, you have been away in 
England - perhpas a little out of touch.

Surely the reference could be to none other than Tom Droege.  Tom is not 
really a "group" but he is certainly an ambitious fellow. Tom is an 
independant "basement" CF researcher who happens to work for FermiLab in 
Chicago.  To the best of my knowledge, FermiLab disavows all knowledge (or 
at least responsibility) for Tom's CF work.  Tom has stated that his main 
interest is in further perfecting the art of calorimetry.  While it is true 
that some aspects of Tom's recent (last summer) work bare some resemblence 
to McKubre's experiments, I think it is an over statement to say that Tom 
followed McKubre's "recipe".  Also, it is not exactly true that Tom found 
nothing.  There were some anomalous results possibly linked with cell 
temperature.  Tom's conclusion was that he needed a better calorimeter 
design and that is what he has been working on of late.

>From the discussions in Maui it was clear that Prof. Huizenga is well aware 
of Tom's work and considers it quite favorably.  McKubre is also surely 
aware of Tom's work.  Though I have not idea of his opinion of it.

[Tom, I hope I haven't mis-represented you.  Please speak up! ]

-------------------

On a somewhat different subject.  I was very interested in the presentation 
by your group at ICCF-4 on excess heat generation (M2.7) "Charging Hydrogen 
into Ni in Hydride-Containing Molten Salts", Bor Yann Liaw, Bruce E. 
Liebert  and Yi Ding.  Although the abstract doesn't state this, my notes 
from the presentation say that significant excess heat production *was* 
observed.  How similar are these results to your earlier published work 
with Palladium and Deuterium?

Also, I have been wanting to ask you the following question for some time, 
but time pressures, travel and an uncertainty on your current position has 
delayed my asking...

I am aware that unlike what could be called "conventional electrolysis" CF 
cells, the molten salt cells use a negative electric potential on the 
eletrode (anode) that is being loaded with hydrogen/deuterium.  The cathode 
is made of Aluminum.  The electrolyte is molten LiCl-KCl salts with 
dissolved LiH/LiD.  The cell reaction is understood to be driven by the 
absorbtion of Li+ by the Aluminum cathode, resulting in the absorption of 
H- by the anode material.  So my question is:

Do you have any information or measurement on the number of H+ ions in the 
solution?  Is it possible that H+ as well as Li+ are being absorbed by the 
cathode?  Can you rule out the possibility that the excess heat might be 
coming from some reaction in the Aluminum?

Cheers,

Bill Page.

cc. Fusion Digest.

cudkeys:
cuddy1 cuden3047 cudfnBill cudlnPage cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Tue Mar  1 04:37:07 EST 1994
------------------------------
1994.03.01 / Bill Page /  ICCF-4 Vigier's theory  (part 2)
     
Originally-From: 70047.3047@CompuServe.COM (Bill Page)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: ICCF-4 Vigier's theory  (part 2)
Date: Tue, 1 Mar 1994 09:07:20 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Chuck Harrison writes:
<<
If you will e-mail me your Mathcad worksheets (uuencoded), I will post them 
for public ftp from the cold fusion archive at sunsite.

Carry on! 
  - Chuck
>>

Thanks Chuck. I sent Chuck two MathCad work sheets, one containing the 
equations and graphs I'm about to discuss here and another with the algebra 
referred to in the first installment.

 ------------------------------
ICCF-4 Vigier's Theory - Part 2


We ended the last installment by presenting Vigier's simplified relative 
Hamiltonian

         1        e1*e2   e1*M2'  sigma2.L   e1^2*M2^2    1
   H = ---- p^2 + ----- - ----- . -------- + --------- . ---   [9]
       2*mu         r       m1      r^3         m1       r^4

And recall that the magnetic moments are defined by

             e1*hbar                M1'
  M1' = g1 * -------          M1 = ---- * sigma1
              2*m1                 hbar

             e2*hbar                M2'
  M2' = g2 * -------          M2 = ---- * sigma2
              2*m2                 hbar

where g1 and g2 are the gyromagnetic ratios (also called the spin 
g-factors) for the proton and electron.

Although I have argued that the simplification is not justified, it doesn't 
substantially change the arguements in the paper, so I will use the 
simplified form in what follows.

We want to solve the eigenvalue equation of the Hamiltonian

   H * psi(r) = E * psi(r)

If we consider the eigenstates of the combined angular momentum

  sigma2.L

the momentum eigenvalues can be written

  Cl --> -(l+1) = -(j+3/2)  or Cl --> l = j - 1/2

for j = l -/+ 1/2.

Then the Schrodinger equation is

  1         e1*e2   e1*M2'   Cl    e1^2*M2^2    1
(---- p^2 + ----- - ------ . --- + --------- . ---) * psi(r) = E * psi(r)  
[10]
 2*mu         r       m1    r^3        m1      r^4

When expressed in spherical spatial co-ordiantes, the solutions psi(r) are 
necessarily products of a function of |r| alone and the spherical harmonics 
Yml(theta,phi)

  psi(r) = R(r) * Yml(theta,phi)

In psi(r), r denotes the spatial co-ordinate vector.  In R(r), r denotes 
the scalar distance |r|.  theta and phi are the polar angles. m and l are 
the eigenvalues of Lz and L^2, respectively.

  Lz * psi(r) = m * hbar * psi(r)

  L^2 * psi(r) = l * (l+1) * hbar^2 * psi(r)

L denotes angular momentum.

The functions Yml(theta,phi) are what give rise to those interesting 
geometrical shapes associated with the "electron orbitals" that you 
probably remember from your high school chemistry classes.

R(r) is the solution of a one dimensional Schrodinger equation in which the 
effective radial potential is given by:

        l*(l+1)   e1*e2   e1*M2'*Cl   e1^2*M2^2
V(r) = -------- + ----- - --------- + ---------                      [11]
       2*mu*r^2     r       m1*r^3      m1*r^4

        l*(l+1)   alpha         alpha     Cl           alpha^2     1
     = -------- - ----- + g2 * ------- . --- + g2^2 * --------- . ---
       2*mu*r^2     r          2*m1*m2   r^3          4*m1*m2^2   r^4

where alpha is the fine structure constant

           e2^2       1
  alpha = ------ = -------
          hbar*c   137.036

So, now is the time to plug in some numerical values and see what this 
function looks like.  The easiest system of units for this calculation is 
the natural atomic units in which Planck's constant, the speed of light and 
the mass of the electron are set equal to 1.

  hbar = 1
  c = 1
  m2 = 1

Then the unit of length is the Compton wavelength of the electron

  3.861 591 x 10^-13 metres

and the mass of the proton is

  m1 = 1836.151 5

The gyromagnetic ratios are

  g1 = 5.585
  g2 = 2 * 1.001 159 657

Vigier quotes A. Barut as showing that the typical form of V (when the sign 
of the third term is negative, i.e. Cl<0) is:

  |*
V |*
  | *
  | *
  | *                          //
  |  *                   *  * //* *
  |  *                *      //     *
--|---*-------------*-------//---------*-------------------*-*-*--- r
  | R1 *          * R2     //         R3  *          * * *
  |     *       *         //                  * * *
  |       *    *
  |         ** 
  
                        [Fig 4.]

Although the above form is correct for equations of the general form of 
[11], to the best of my ability to compute it, it is *not* true for [11] 
when the parameters have the actual experimentally observed values shown 
above.  Now this is where I could really use some help!  Could some kind 
reader please repeat this calculation and see if I've got it wrong?  I 
setup the equations in MathCad and graphed them on various scales, but I am 
unable to produce a graph like Vigier's figure 4.  It seems to me that 
although there is an attractive spin-orbit component to the potential, the 
rate of change with distance and the magnitude of this attractive component 
is overwhelmed by the centrifugal component (first term).

This is disturbing, but lets carry on anyway since no matter how we look at 
it, the Hamiltonian is certainly (but subtly) different than that usually 
considered.

Vigier states that the new sub-ground states (with respect to usual Coulomb 
potential) which result from including the spin-orbit interaction are given 
by the solutions to the following equation:

     m^2*hbar^2   d V(r)
     ---------- + ------ = 0                         [12]
       mu*r^3       dr

[I have made some simple editorial corrections to this equation compared to 
that which appeared in Vigier's draft.]

To justify this equation, we will have to follow Vigier on an excursion 
into the realm of the pilot wave interpretation of quantum mechanics.


The Pilot-Wave Model
 -------------------

In reading the references to Vigier's paper (especially the very 
interesting and perhaps largely forgotten book by Louis de Broglie, 
"Non-Linear Wave Mechanics", Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1960) I was surprized to 
learn that the pilot-wave interpretation of quantum mechanics which was 
made popular by David Bohm and which was mentioned favourably by John Bell 
(see: "Speakable and unspeakable in quantum mechanics", J.S. Bell, 
Cambridge University Press, 1987) actually originated with a presentation 
at the 1927(?) Solvay Conference by Louis de Broglie.  This conference is 
better known for the presentation of the now famous Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen 
(EPR) critism of quantum mechanics.  This is a subject about which I have 
previously posted to the net.

Back in the early days of the development of quantum mechanics, de Broglie 
had attempted to produce a version of quantum mechanics in which the 
motions of particles would appear as particular solutions to a modified 
non-linear Schrodinger equation which also admitted the well known ordinary 
linear solutions.  de Broglie's book douments his early work on the 
subject, presents a number of promising results and directions for future 
research, but to my knowledge, no consistant theory of this type has yet 
been produced. de Broglie states that because of the early stage of his 
research in 1927, he presented his theory in a simplified and approximate 
form which he called the pilot-wave model.  The basic idea was to treat the 
quantum wavefunction as if it represented an actual physical field which 
interacted with point-like particles in much the same way as fields and 
particles in classical mechanics.  The particle is "guided" by the quantum 
field.

In his book, de Broglie mentions David Bohm, who had by that time published 
several papers on the possibility of using de Broglie's pilot-wave model to 
give a causually consistant (deterministic) model of the theory of 
measurement in quantum mechanics.  This is the well known problem of the so 
called "collapse of the wavefunction" which causes so many conceptual 
problems in modern quantum mechanics.  Bohm's theory is the only theory of 
which I am aware that avoids the proof given by John Von Neumann that 
quantum mechanics can not be made deterministic by the introduction of so 
called "hidden variables".  Bohm's hidden variable theory does this, 
however, essentially by admitting the quantum amplitude as a physically 
real quantity.  de Broglie never accepted this as a viable approach, 
however and instead preferred to think of the pilot-wave model as only a 
first approximation to a deeper causual theory.

Our author, J.P. Vigier, is also referenced as a contemporary in de 
Broglie's book in relation to attempts to reconcile de Broglie's non-linear 
quantum mechanics and general relativity with which it has a close 
affinity.

In the paper, Vigier states: "To simplify the presentation of this 
calculation we have used the formalism of de Broglie and Bohm [which has 
been] shown to be equivalent in its prediction[s] to the usual quantum 
formalism.  In their model micro-objects are waves [...] *and* particles 
[...].".

[Well thats probably enough for you to chew on for now!  In the next 
installment we will get into the details of applying this model to the 
hydrogen atom.]

Cheers,

Bill Page.

cudkeys:
cuddy1 cuden3047 cudfnBill cudlnPage cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.01 /  dowen@vaxc.cc. /  Re: SOLIDS, DISCHARGES, PLASMAS, AND BEAM
     
Originally-From: dowen@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: SOLIDS, DISCHARGES, PLASMAS, AND BEAM
Date: 1 Mar 94 17:27:11 +1100
Organization: Computer Centre, Monash University, Australia

Hi folks,
In article <9402281903.A5709wk@his.com>, gordon.powell@his.com writes:
> 
>         It seems that no one, either skeptic, or CF experimenter has really
> dealt with the possibility that so called CF might have nothing to do with
> nuclear fusion, but is instead due to inner shell chemistry such as D 
> inserting itself into the partially empty inner shell of transition elements.
> This possibility was pointed out on this group half a year ago, yet skeptics
> of CF continue to raise the possibly spurious issues of inconclusive nuclear
> reaction observations.  On the other hand the experimenters seem to have made
> no attempt to do mass spectrometry on putatively reacted Pd.  
> 
>         Quite simply, neither side has looked into the really critical
> issue of possibily superenergetic chemistry.  As  for reactions in glow
> discharges, it is not necessarily the case that the putatative reaction goes
> on in the gas/plasma phase.  Perhaps the, presumably low energy, glow discharge
> merely promotes some sort of intrametallic reaction.  Hence, the otherwise
> valid  criticism of improbable hot fusion, is not relevent.  
> 
>         If inner shell chemistry *is* going on, then it wouldn't be totally
> surprising that some sort of minor nuclear reaction rate  influence is 
> going on as a tiny second order effect.  If such a second order effect is
> happening then it could understandably confuse experimental interpretations. 

Sorry Gordon, due to holidays I missed the post you mention above. 
Could you please repost or possibly forward any references that may be at hand.
Many thanks in anticipation.
                                                Best regards,
						Daryl Owen.

						
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudendowen cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.25 / Lorne Feick /  15
     
Originally-From: lornfeic@vef.north.net (Lorne Feick)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: 15
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 1994 23:13:39 EST
Organization: Village ilectronique/Electronic Village

cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenlornfeic cudfnLorne cudlnFeick cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.01 / Mark Hittinger /  Re: NO to Private email
     
Originally-From: bugs@NETSYS.COM (Mark Hittinger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: NO to Private email
Date: Tue, 1 Mar 1994 05:14:28 GMT
Organization: Netsys Inc.

DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:

>I second Bill Page's plea to keep technical discussions out in the open.  
>Droege's Gresham's law of e-mail.  "Good e-mail discussions will drive out
>bad".  Note that the reason that "bad money drives out good money" of the 
>orignial Gresham's law is that good money can be hoarded.  But good discussion
>cannot be hoarded, in fact it will be ever more widely circulated as 
>appreciative readers "forward" the good items to others.  

Me third!  Some non-informative ramblings follow (you've been warned)

Dr. Jones should not leave because of the time involved in pointless and
endless recycled arguments.  Simply stick around and post good stuff.  
Debate on the important issues of the day.

As far as the "bad posts" are concerned I have sent e-mail to some posters
that one of the things that CF needs is a much better public relations
approach.  If we cannot have neutrons in Dr. Jones tunnel, or excess heat
in Tom's calorimeter - at least we should be able to feel warm and fuzzy
with good pro-CF PR!  Instead we get stuff that lacks style. 

Perhaps when Ed Storm's cash explosion takes place they can afford to
purchase good PR to remake the image of CF.

I am still watching ENECO.  Nothing yet.  I am trying to find out if
some NHE money is being spent on things that would have been done if
NHE didn't exist in the first place.  Thirty million smackers is a lot
of Pd rods.

I subscribed to the new cold fusion magazine - what a great collectors item.

How can we let a guy who dueterates wintergreen lifesavers (and then 
smashes them) leave us?  So many children are turned off to science in
elementary and high school.  The kids need to be exposed to neat stuff,
they need to be exposed to controversy in science.  They need to be aware
that a lot of ground is waiting to be covered.  

Still worried about that heat after death graph Dr. Pons showed.  I
sometimes watch my 8mm tape of Dr. Flieschman's Alfred Cohen lecture.
If all pro-CF people had his style there might be an NHE in the USA.

I was interested to note the idea of a "cold fusion" coverup conspiracy
theory.  It will be interesting to see if this becomes international in
scope or just in gold ol' Amurica!
---------
I'd like a 250 Mhz 128 bit hybrid processor with 64 meg of 8 way interleaved
memory, a 10 megabyte per second i/o channel, two 3 gig hard disks, two dat
drives with compression, and a large diet coke.
-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Version: 2.3a

mQCNAiz4FWMAAAEEALBCb7HZS7V4gbsp9yJ7Yty49jQ9wcgRhkLjNNgdyJbrJZCq
5/sv4Ljy/4AhVhjlJyZS8L3owS8l0ClZVzWw4/kO3KN7MPz4YPPR7+qIlPQVM0yv
gWpJ43EZZ8b8cvAkE9HATCKWktY2ReRSX5DLnScDH/n5jivw+MD/UO8fURCVAAUR
tCBNYXJrIEhpdHRpbmdlciA8YnVnc0BuZXRzeXMuY29tPg==
=VbKi
-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----

cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenbugs cudfnMark cudlnHittinger cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.01 / mitchell swartz /  More on Will (Reply to Joshua@"veritas")
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: More on Will (Reply to Joshua@"veritas")
Subject: Re: Reply to Jones - On tritium, Will, Britz conversion
Date: Tue, 1 Mar 1994 17:15:09 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

   In Message-ID: <2kmc72$41d@fever.veritas.com>
Subject: Re: Reply to Jones - On tritium, Will, Britz conversion
Joshua Levy (joshua@veritas.com) writes:

   [>   "This is boot-strapping.   Here is why.  As the reader will see,
   >Dieter Britz thought favorably of Will's paper until it was denigrated
   >by Jones still out to knee-cap coldfusioneers.  Then upon being told
   >what appears to be incorrect information Dieter changes his
   >mercurial review. " ]
=jl  "Put another way: Britz liked the paper until Jones pointed out some serious
=jl  flaws in it.  Given this new information, Britz changes his mind on the
=jl  quality of the paper."

    Wrong.  Twice over furthermore.
   I - Error of your logic
  II - Correction of the facts.

  I. )   This comment would be reasonable IF the complaints and
comments of such alleged "flaws" were consistently predicated
upon honest statements which did actually reflect that which occurred.

    Instead, some of Jones' descriptions of these experiments
(like those of Miles, McKubre, Kucherov, etc. before)
have been simply:  incorrect.   
As yet further proof of this are two further examples 
which have occurred SINCE YOU POSTED your
lame words in defense of such global e-misstatements and
e-misleading.

   The following are comments from BYU's Steven Jones
after John Logajan's contribution of 
offering information he received from Jed Rothwell regarding
an announcement of interesting report (from the perspective
of readers of this forum)  from Italy:::::
   "jonesse@physc1.byu.edu () says:
    >"Piantelli has invited him to check this in a few weeks.  There appears to be
   >some oddity in the Italian electric grid which may be what leads Celani to his
   >supposition..."
=jl  "Of course one must always be mindful of potential errors, but the above
=jl  suggestion requires there to exist a power input source that is both
=jl  unregulated and unmonitored (or under-regulated and under-monitored.)"
=jl  "Being that the alleged effect is both constant, repeatable, and sizeable, I'd
=jl  personally not specifically suspect such an obvious procedural flaw -- perhaps
=jl  a less obvious one."
            [John Logajan   Subject: Re:  Italian Ni-H results;
   Date: 26 Feb 1994Message-ID: <2ko1q5$cha@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>]

 and, of course,

        "jonesse@physc1.byu.edu writes:
   >"A nickel wire...in a closed cell filled with hydrogen gas which has some
   > deuterium contamination.
       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
   >"The cell is apparently heated ... at which point some special treatment
   > involving magnets I believe occurs.  
     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  >"There is also an exterior coil around the cell which apparently generates a
                             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
      >magnetic field for the remainder of the experiment.
      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

=jl  "None of the above indicated mechanisms are mentioned in the text of the
=jl  Il Nuovo Cimento paper by Piantelli, Habel and Focardi."
[John Logajan; Message-ID: <1994Feb28.082830.169@ns.network.com>
   Mon, 28 Feb 94 08:28:30 GMT]

  It is unfortunate when only those who had 
actually attended the meetings/seminars/conferences/
or read the papers can recognize the fictional
accounts from the truth.       :-(

   Please note that the gentleman in question, 
when he detours down this unfortunate path
of misrepresenting papers, has occasionally claimed
a "private" or "updated" knowledge involving a
purported "conversation" in which the author
of each paper who purportedly astonishingly
 TRASHED his own previous work.   However,
such low-activation-energy broad-spectrum denigrations 
made by this gentleman (even more so by others here)
in the very recent past 
have proved quite ephemeral and untrue upon
close precise inspection ( e.g. McKubre, Kucherov).

I do not have the time to argue this further. 
Instead, the record has been posted and speaks for itself
to any budding or future e-archeologist[s].    

     In summary, Joshua, in contrast to your moniker, 
truth is important.  

At least far away from where these misrepresentations are borne
and apparently the norm.  
FYI unsubstantiated attacks on the credibility of the authors is not
acceptable to most scientists and students.
Nor should be the incorrect summarizations cast.           QED

  II. )  Fritz Will carried out experiments in H2SO4 and D2SO4 
and used control Pd 
as well.  His cyclic loading system [using 0.5 M solutions, 27C, and 2mm 
diameter 2 cm long electrodes, Pt anode,  intermediary glass fritted 
separator] yielded high loadings (> 0.7-1.0).
 In one group of such experiments there were 3 cut control palladium 
control samples  and about seventeen aqueous expts 
(mainly H2O experiments and 4 D2O expts).   

 ** Brief summary of results:
 The production rate in the positive expts was circa 1-3 x 10^5 
 tritons/sec-gmPd.

  None of the H2O or Pd samples were reported as elevated 
   
 **  Was the tritium present ab initio?
      It was very unlikely to be initially present because it would have shown
up immediately rather than at t=2 days and only after high loadings,
and, of course, would have been present in at least some of
the controls.

  **  Could it be contamination from background?  
  It is apparently not contamination since it was 37 to >200x larger than 
background in palladium stock which was measured.

   **Could it be random separation of tritium in the wire to those 
portions used with D2? 
   Extremely unlikely given the number of the 17 expts 
(and 4 with D2O).   Random separation would be expected to produce
similar results with a probability of 1 in 10^5.

    Conclusions:

 (I)  In summary, (naive?) Joshua@veritas uses "truth" in his by-line,
but any "veritas" worth his salt should defend truth and
seek it out.

 (II) Papers ought to be read directly by interested students, 
scientists, lurkers, rather than rely on incessant low 
S/N obfuscation by the TB-skeptics.

   III)    If people want more information they can
elect to e-zap Jed, subscribe to Gene Mallove's "COLD FUSION",
or  e-mail me for info on the COLD FUSION TIMES and other
source of info for starters.

  Best wishes, 
                     Mitchell Swartz   [mica@world.std]


cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.01 / mitchell swartz /  On "Reply to Dick Jackson/No ....."
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: On "Reply to Dick Jackson/No ....."
Subject:"Reply to Dick Jackson/No compelling evidence after yrs 
Date: Tue, 1 Mar 1994 17:16:38 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <1994Feb28.171345.1430@physc1.byu.edu>
Subject:"Reply to Dick Jackson/No compelling evidence after yrs 
of expts.";  Steven Jones [jonesse@physc1.byu.edu]  writes:

  ="We have a small number of people reporting excess heat from 
  =calorimetry which cannot *quickly* be explained away
  = by demonstration of faulty experimental technique  ...."

=sj"I tire of this, Dick.  For many months, scientists like Tom 
=sj Droege, Dieter Britz, Dick Blue, Terry Bollinger, Douglas 
=sj Morrison, ... and myself have been scrutinizing publicly 
=sj the experiments of P&F, McKubre, Miles, Mills, Yamaguchi, 
=sj Notoya, and on and on and on, ad nauseatum.  They have all 
=sj been found wanting in one way or the other."

   There many scientists, who actually study and experiment in 
the field with open minds, who state that you are wrong. 
   You were asked to defend your position using math and
physics, but with the null response your side's issues have 
been fully weighed and found wanting.

=sj I and Jonathon Jones have reported at length on experiments 
=sj done here at BYU which show excess heat all right, but then 
=sj this was traced to recombination of H2 and O2 -- up to 
=sj about 250% apparent xs heat without oxygen bubbling, up to 
=sj about 750% with O2 bubbling (calculating xs heat in the 
=sj normal way, with I*(V-1.5volts) in the denominator).  
=sj This answers some questions also posed recently by Mitch 
=sj -- further answers will be provided in our forthcoming 
=sj paper on the experiments as these are published."

Steve: Three problems.
     1 - the power input in the normal way is: I*V.
     2  -   2 of 20+ questions is not a passing grade   ;-) 
     3 - Did you get fractions or more of a watt?
              or only about 1 mW  (in room air, not O2) ?


=sj "we found boiling after about 2 days of running an LiOH/Pd 
=sj cell -- using light water!  We also showed that the 
=sj impedance in the cell fluctuatated wildly during boiling, 
=sj so that 5-minute sampling intervals for a 10-minute
=sj boiling period as done by P&F ....
=sj is woefully inadequate,and misleading."

   What was the same in your two experiments?  
Same solution?  Same pH?   Same electrode?
Same amount of time for the duration of the
experiment?  Same input power level?  
And if these are different, who is misleading?

          Mitchell Swartz  (mica@world.std.com)



cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.01 / Hal Lillywhite /  Re: We think we won
     
Originally-From: hall@vice.ico.tek.com (Hal F Lillywhite)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: We think we won
Date: 1 Mar 94 19:12:03 GMT
Organization: Tektronix Inc., Beaverton, Or.

In article <940301145047_72240.1256_EHK53-1@CompuServe.COM> 72240.1256@c
mpuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:

>Our side is tired of the debate too, and we see no reason to re-open it.
>However, I would like to point out that our side thinks *we* won,

It seems a bit much to me for either side in a debate to arrogate to
itself the position of judge.  Clearly neither side in this one has
convinced the other (as usual in most such debates).  Generally the
judge in any such event should be a non-participant.  I am one non-
participant who thinks the "skeptic" side is ahead.  In fact the
only way I see for the "true believers" to win at this point is to
produce something like the home water heater P&F promised so long
ago.
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenhall cudfnHal cudlnLillywhite cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.01 / mitchell swartz /  cancel <CLzyzF.6Bw@world.std.com>
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cancel <CLzyzF.6Bw@world.std.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Mar 1994 18:22:44 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

cancel <CLzyzF.6Bw@world.std.com> in newsgroup sci.physics.fusion
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.02.28 / Rich Hawryluk /  TFTR Update Feb. 28, 1994
     
Originally-From: rhawryluk@pppl.gov (Rich Hawryluk)
Newsgroups: pppl.tftr.news,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: TFTR Update Feb. 28, 1994
Date: 28 Feb 1994 08:50:52 -0500
Organization: Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory

Status (February 28, 1994):

Progress has continued in the tritium areas. The repairs required to resume
tritium operation were completed.

Tritium transfer operations were conducted to remove the tritium/deuterium
gas from the uranium beds used in the December experiments.

Additional tritium to support D-T experiments was transferred to the
uranium bed.

RF experiments in deuterium with  He-3 minority were conducted to setup the
conditions for the ICRF D-T experiments.

Two PPPL reports have been written on the initial D-T experiments.

        J. D. Strachan et al. "Fusion Power Production from TFTR Plasmas
Fueled                                                   with Deuterium and
Tritium"   PPPL-2978

        R. J. Hawryluk et al. " Confinement and Heating of a
Deuterium-Tritium  Plasma"   PPPL-2977

Copies of these reports are available from Pat Shangle (pshangle@pppl.gov).

Plans:

Deuterium-tritium experiments are planned to resume today.

The workshop on D-T experiments will be held March 2-4.

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


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



cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenrhawryluk cudfnRich cudlnHawryluk cudmo2 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.01 /  dowen@vaxc.cc. /  Re: NO to Private email.
     
Originally-From: dowen@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: NO to Private email.
Date: 1 Mar 94 17:51:35 +1100
Organization: Computer Centre, Monash University, Australia

Hi folks,
I agree with Bill Page and Tom Droege, post as many quality items as possible.
That way the signal to noise is reduced and we stand to attract more quality
readers and contributers.
I have nothing against two or more contributers posting to each another in
this group, so long as the material is interesting and constructive. This has
happened in the past and led to others to join the debate. If a topic goes 
"private" then there is no chance of arousing the interest of any new readers
who may happen along.
						Best regards to all,
						Daryl Owen.

cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudendowen cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.01 / Bill Page /  ICCF-4 Vigier's Paper (Part 3)
     
Originally-From: 70047.3047@compuserve.com (Bill Page)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: ICCF-4 Vigier's Paper (Part 3)
Date: Tue, 1 Mar 1994 12:59:42 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

This is the third installment in this series of postings reviewing the 
paper which J.P. Vigier presented at ICCF-4.
 -------------------------

The subject of this installment is the pilot-wave model of the hydrogen 
model.  But before we get started, there is one minor issue that needs to 
be addressed.  That concerns S12, the dipole-dipole interaction tensor.  In 
the paper Vigier the Hamiltonian contains the final term:
     
   H =  ...  - M1'*M2'*S12(r1-r2)

and Vigier defines S12 as follows:

             (sigma1.r)*(sigma2.r) - sigma1.sigma2   
S12(r) = 3 * ------------------------------------- +
                            |r|^3

             8*pi
             ---- * (sigma1.sigma2) * delta(r)
              3

[In installment 1 I wrote S12 in terms of M1 and M2.  Here the constants 
have been removed.]

Recall that:

The magnetic moment vectors M1 and M2 can be expressed in terms of the 
spins 
(vectors sigma1, sigma2) and masses of the proton and electron as follows:

             e1*hbar                M1'
  M1' = g1 * -------          M1 = ---- * sigma1
              2*m1                 hbar

             e2*hbar                M2'
  M2' = g2 * -------          M2 = ---- * sigma2
              2*m2                 hbar

where g1 and g2 are the gyromagnetic ratios (also called the spin 
g-factors) for the proton and electron.

After double checking this in "Quantum Mechanics"; Cohen-Tannoudji, Diu, 
Laloe (CDL); Volume 2, pages: 1120 (Interaction Between Magnetic Dipoles), 
1218 (The Magnetic Hyperfine Hamiltonian) and 1252 (The Magnetic Dipole 
Term); I think there may be a typo in Vigier's draft.  The correct 
expression is

             (sigma1.n)*(sigma2.n) - sigma1.sigma2   
S12(r) = 3 * ------------------------------------- +
                           |r|^3

             8*pi
             ---- * (sigma1.sigma2) * delta(r)
              3

where n is a *unit vector* in the direction of the vector r.

     _                              _   
    |\                              /|
      \             n              /  
       *----------====>-----------*
    M1  \     r                  / M2
         \                      /

                Fig 1.

Alternatively we could write:

             (sigma1.r)*(sigma2.r)    sigma1.sigma2   
S12(r) = 3 * --------------------- - -------------- +
                    |r|^5                |r|^3

             8*pi
             ---- * (sigma1.sigma2) * delta(r)
              3

S12 is rather mysterious and CDL go into some detail especially in the 
derivation of the second term, called Fermi's "contact term" is an 
approximation which arises because the proton cannot really be treated as a 
point.  The magnetic field inside the proton does not have the same form as 
the field created outside the proton by virtue of its spin.  The delta(r) 
function expresses the fact that this contact term only exists when the 
wavefunctions of the electron and proton overlap.

Vigier ignores this term in his simplified Hamiltonian because he has 
argued we can take M1 = 0 (approximately) since m1 >> m2.  I have argued 
that this is not the case since all the terms involve a product of m1 and 
m2 in the denominator.  Off hand, it would seem that this term is the same 
order of magnitude (small) that we are already dealing with.  So if we 
really want to carry these calculations through without simplifying the 
Hamiltonian, we will also have to deal with this monster!

At the moment I am a bit stuck here.  Of course Vigier is assuming right up 
front that L, M1 and M2 are all oriented parallel "by internal 
electromagnetic interactions when H and D are in various types of 
electrodes".  This is a very BIG assumption, but it does simplify the 
mathematics considerably.  Does this mean that r is orthogonal to M1 and M2 
and that we can treat it as a purely replusive term?

            sigma1.sigma2   
S12(r) =  - --------------
               |r|^3

But as we will see below, Vigier does *not* believe that the orbital plane 
of the electron necessarily passes through the nucleus!

 ------------------------------

So, in the next installment the interesting stuff... is the suspense 
getting to you?

<grin>

Writing this up takes a lot of time and of course there is never enough 
time!

Cheers,

Bill Page



cudkeys:
cuddy1 cuden3047 cudfnBill cudlnPage cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.01 / Jed Rothwell /  We think we won
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: We think we won
Date: Tue, 1 Mar 1994 14:56:26 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG

Steve Jones writes:

     "I tire of this, Dick.  For many months, scientists like Tom Droege,
     Dieter Britz, Dick Blue, Terry Bollinger, Douglas Morrison, ... and
     myself have been scrutinizing publicly the experiments of P&F, McKubre,
     Miles, Mills, Yamaguchi, Notoya, and on and on and on, ad nauseatum..."

Our side is tired of the debate too, and we see no reason to re-open it.
However, I would like to point out that our side thinks *we* won,
quantitatively. For example, we think that 650 joules does not equal 86,700
joules, and 5 milliwatts does not equal 145 watts. We think the "explanations"
offered by Jones et al are many orders of magnitude too small to explain
anything. Their arguments are mere handwaving.

Let me just suggest that anyone who is curious about this should read two
documents: the Morrison versus Pons & Fleischmann debate, and the Jones versus
Fleischmann debate. If you would like a copy of either, zap me a message.

- Jed

cudkeys:
cuddy1 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.01 / Frank Close /  Deep Heat (response to Gordon Powell question)
     
Originally-From: FEC@v2.rl.ac.uk (Frank Close)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Deep Heat (response to Gordon Powell question)
Date: Tue, 1 Mar 1994 17:49:25 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Gordon Powell raised the question of inner shell chemistry as a
possible source of heat and noted that this was suggested as a
mechanism last year on the net but received no discussion since.

Gordon may be referring to a comment I made (tongue partly in cheek)
to the effect that the deep bound electrons in heavy atoms such as Pd 
(or Ni) enable access in principle to energy scales "much greater than
chemistry" (where 'chemistry' is usually taken to mean the outer
electrons on the milli-eV scale). My point was that anyone who is
convinced that power outputs greater than eV per atom have been demonstrated
should first consider the possible role of deep bound electrons before
concluding that "it must be nuclear".

BUT, as I also pointed out; you have to face the problem of the lack
of products other than heat. I know of no way of appealing to deep
bound electrons to give large energy transfers while hiding all X-rays
and other evidence of their involvement. 

I suspect that the reason that people trained as chemists do not
pursue the deep bound electrons (which I call "atomic" to distinguish
from the traditional use of "chemistry", though I would prefer that
one distinguished merely between "electronic" versus "nuclear") is
because they can immediately see the problems for X-rays, given their
experience. This is analogous to the reasons that nuclear physicists
have been so sceptical about the claims of nuclear fusion. I agree
with both. I made the point on the ground of energetics alone to
illustrate that the energetics in the electrons bound to heavy atoms
accumulate to the many keV. If experiments show reproducible evidence
(whereby any competent research team will be able to confirm the
phenomenon for themselves - which has not happened in any part
of the CF arena) of energy releases per atom that exceed the total 
electronic energies then you may be forced to go beyond the electron 
degrees of freedom.

Whatever the source, there must also be evidence of the changed 
configuration that gave rise to the heat; it is this absence
of radiation AND ash in amounts that regularly and reproducibly correlate
with the heat claims that leave me cold. The moment that the Ni-H
experiment is reproduced and moves along, analogous to the developments
following the announcements of high T superconductivity, for example,
then I might get interested. Alternatively this experiment may go the
way of so many "definitive proofs" of cold fusion during the last 5
years; by March 95 when this saga is 6 years old will people still
be talking about Ni-H, or 4He, or something new? Bye till then, I hope.

cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenFEC cudfnFrank cudlnClose cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.01 / mitchell swartz /  Cold (and low temp) Fusion Data List (Updated FAQ-Table)
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Cold (and low temp) Fusion Data List (Updated FAQ-Table)
Date: Tue, 1 Mar 1994 18:23:42 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

     
    Subject: Continuing Cold Fusion FAQ-Table  

  This FAQ-Table continues the short list of some of the cold fusion
phenomena - and, to be fair, skeptics "explanations".
The list is based upon the literature and the responses to this net.

 With this issue I've added the proton conductors and glow discharge.
Additions, suggestions, updates, and corrections are both 
appreciated and invited.
 
  Those who want to know more about cold fusion can read Gene Mallove's
book "Fire from Ice -- Searching for the Truth Behind the cold Fusion
Furor" (Wiley Press; see table on pages 246 through 248 which
lists scores of laboratories who have measured and reported 
excess heat, and in many cases other particles)
COLD FUSION TIMES (which has covered the abstract and articles
added here), FUSION TECHNOLOGY, Fusion FACTS,
and several journals for sporadically good articles.
I will continue to update with ICCF-4 data (power levels and product
generation) over the next few months as the time is available.
  
        Best wishes.
                                    Mitchell Swartz
                                    mica@world.std.com

     ===================================================
       FAQ TABLE SUMMARY OF SOME COLD FUSION RESULTS
         AND SOME POSSIBLE EXPLANATIONS   march 1'94
     ====================================================

   ============= Excess Power (milliwatts)  === % of input =====
   ---   Representative Positive Results in Heavy Water/D2O   --------------
   Fleischmann & Pons (1989)     60  (circa)
     Miles (1992)               540
     McKubre (1992)                             30% (ca. average input excess,
                                                     with rare bursts higher)

   ===========   Excess Power densities (W/cm3 Pd) ==============
   ---   Representative Positive Results in Heavy Water/D2O   --------------
      1989     circa   10  W/cm3 Pd
      1993     circa  1500 W/cm3 Pd

   ===========   Excess Power ===================================
   ---   Representative Positive Results in Light Water/H2O   --------
  Mills (1989)            (ca. several hundred % input, peak input ca. 160 W
  Noninski (1991)                              160%
  Srinivasan (1993)             3.5 max        70% input 
  Notoya (1993)                 2.7 max        270-240% 
  _________________________________________________________________________

  ===========   Excess Power densities (W/cm2) ==============
   ---   Representative Positive Results in SrCeO3   --------------
      Mizuno    circa   100  W/cm2     Pt plates, gas phase, input
        1993                             less than ca. 1 mW. 

  ===========   Excess Power  (W) ==============
   ---   Representative Positive Results in glow discharge -----------
      Kucherov           30 W            (in ca. 50% of 78 expts,
       1993                            glow discharge, neutron flux to 10^7n/s
        ======================================================  

            Here are some of the                                       
  ========  Putative Effects put forth to Explain Excess enthalpies (*) ====
  =============  Excess Power (milliwatts) accounted for =========
   Anode Effect (**)                             0.0   
   EMI interference                           << 0.001  (est.)
   Logajan Effect (^ D2O thermal cond.)          ***
                   in cell IF not considered
   Recombination                  1993)          1.6       **--
   Silicate Deposition            1992)          0.0 (max)  
   Lithium Deposition             1993)          0.0 (max)  **##
   Beuhler Effect                 1992)          0.0 (max)  ****
   Peroxides                                                **@@
  ====================================================================
   KEY
*  Some of these are not applicable to all systems (eg. both D2O and H2O)
  Furthermore, the final column is excess heat, and not generated heat.
**    The Anode Effect is characterized by a very recognizable V-I curve
 and lamellar gas flow characteristics and occurs at
 the anode in the vast majority of cases reported therein.  
"Anode Effect in Aqueous Electrolysis" Herbert H Kellogg, J. Electrochem.
 Soc., 97, 133 (1950)
***    Sign is such that this effect, if it occurs actually increases previous
       estimates of reported excess heats.
**--  Steven and J. Jones posted data of about 1.6 milliwatt at ambient.
**##  Hypothesis involving depositing metallic lithium upon the cathode
  (ca. 1/30 mole) covering it with a surface to prevent reaction with water,
  and then suddenly converting the cathode to anode which now become the
  site of oxidation.  No mention made of the transferrance required. 
  One good recent article on Lithium morphology of anodes (i.e. Li batteries)
  undergoing such processes (max 0.5 C/cm2, 2 mA/cm2 DME +/- propylene 
    carbonate) shows cycling is dependant upon the morphology of the lithium
   deposits (In Situ Observation & Eval of Electrodeposited Lithium by .. 
   Op Microscopy and AC Impedance Spec., J. Elec. Soc, 140, 10 p2745 ('93)).
****  Brought up on Internet circa 1992 regarding alligator-like clips
 incurring significant in-line electrical resistances.  Argued both ways
 (see. postings of Jones and Noninski and others circa Nov. 19, 1992)
 but in any case could not account for observed and calibrated excess 
 heats in experiments using protium and nickel.
**@@  Thought to be a component of potential interference by some, but 
 levels sufficient to account for excess enthalpies have not been measured.
      --------------------------------------------------------- v.7711
 
               
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.01 / Mike Jamison /  Re:  NO to Priveate email
     
Originally-From: edwlt12@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov (Mike Jamison (ADF))
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re:  NO to Priveate email
Date: 1 Mar 1994 17:31 EST
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center

In article <940228123710.23c12f55@FNALD.FNAL.GOV>, DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes...
>I second Bill Page's plea to keep technical discussions out in the open.  
>Droege's Gresham's law of e-mail.  "Good e-mail discussions will drive out
>bad".  Note that the reason that "bad money drives out good money" of the 
>orignial Gresham's law is that good money can be hoarded.  But good discussion
>cannot be hoarded, in fact it will be ever more widely circulated as 
>appreciative readers "forward" the good items to others.  

Tom,

In general I agree with you and Bill (and the others who are requesting an
open exchange).

I will continue reading/posting when I have time - mostly it's been just
reading.

However, you'll have to agree that Dr. Steve Jones has a good point, also.
I wasn't sure if my post made it onto zorch, due to the lack of discussion
about it.

Personally, I wouldn't mind discussing SL and LIB on the new sci.physics.
plasmas group, when/if it is formed.  It will be moderated, which should go
far in keeping down the "noise."
> 
>Possibly this is overly optimistic, as everyone will point to a few "nutsos".

Hmm, which category am I in... :-)

>This is just noise, and there are not so many that a good kill file will not
>do the job.  Not from the apologetic preambles, most new posters are hesitant
>to send stuff that they do not feel is up to the group's standards.

I'd hate to use some dumb program to automatically kill anything posted by
certain posters/subject headers.  You never know when someone's going to
bury something good in a bad post...
> 
>So please!  Keep the good stuff out in the open.  (And spend a little time
>learning how to fast forward or to use a "kill" file so you are not so 
>frustrated by the nuts.)

Whatever I post to sci.physics.plasmas I'll cross-post to sci.physics.fusion,
or vice-versa.  And, of course, I'm accessible via direct e-mail.  Be
forwarned that plasma physics isn't something I'm really familiar with, it's
just something I'm interested in.

Private e-mail will remain so, unless I'm given permission to post something
that could be of interest to the s.p.f group.
> 
>Tom Droege
> 
>PS to Bill Page.  I am starting work on a long discussion of Calorimeters in
>reply to your request, which will be posted here!
> 
I'm looking forward to it!


Mike Jamison


"Scientific research consists in seeing what everyone else has seen, but
thinking what no one else has thought"

						-A. Szent-Gyorgyi
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenedwlt12 cudfnMike cudlnJamison cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.01 / Dick Jackson /  Re: Reply to Dick Jackson/ No compelling evidence after yrs of expts.
     
Originally-From: jackson@soldev.tti.com (Dick Jackson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reply to Dick Jackson/ No compelling evidence after yrs of expts.
Date: Tue, 1 Mar 1994 20:25:57 GMT
Organization: Citicorp-TTI at Santa Monica (CA) by the Sea

In article <1994Feb28.171345.1430@physc1.byu.edu> jonesse@physc1.byu.edu writes:
>I tire of this, Dick.  For many months, scientists like Tom Droege, Dieter
>Britz, Dick Blue, Terry Bollinger, Douglas Morrison, ... and myself 
>have been scrutinizing publicly the experiments
>of P&F, McKubre, Miles, Mills, Yamaguchi, Notoya, and on and on and on,
>ad nauseatum.  They have all been found wanting in one way or the other.

Yes, I saw your criticisms and accept them. However I believe it
remains to show quantitatively how the deficiencies explain the
claimed (positive) results. I have not seen this done.

>We have also performed experiments on the P&F boiling-type cells, and reported
>these results on this net last November.  Briefly, as I find myself having
>to repeat again and again and I'm not too happy about it,
>we found boiling after about 2 days of running an LiOH/Pd cell -- using
>light water!  We also showed that the impedance in the cell fluctuatated
>wildly during boiling, so that 5-minute sampling intervals for a 10-minute
>boiling period as done by P&F *in their published Phys. Lett. A 176 (1993) 118
>paper* is woefully inadequate, and misleading.  Mitch and Jed claim P&F have
>done a better job since this publication; but such is not published so we
>can scrutinize this latest claim.  When will they do things right?

Same comment. I thought someone had shown that even if the full power
of the supply was applied to the cell during the time of boiling,
this would still not be enough power. Maybe I'm wrong. I did not see
*quantitative* arguments supporting the contention that the results
are bogus. Could be my fault, maybe I missed the crucial posting.

I understand your frustration (if you're still listening) about the
unwillingness of the "CF" claimers to admit to bad technique and retract
decently.  I've seen a lot of what seems valid criticism but its been to
show *possible*, nay *probable* causes of error.  But I still say that the
stake through the heart has to be a replication which fully duplicates the
reported behavior while using the (faulty) experimental technique of the
"positivists".

Its like Randi saying that Uri Geller "most likely" was using some
conjuring technique to bend spoons, but not being able to demonstrate
such a trick himself. Well, he could. If your boil-off fully replicates
the P&F reported phenomenon, this is enough for me. I have not heard this
stated quite so clearly.

Sorry to be so irritating.

Dick Jackson
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenjackson cudfnDick cudlnJackson cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.02 / John Logajan /  Re: Italian Ni-H gas leaks??
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Italian Ni-H gas leaks??
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 94 03:04:27 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

I wrote:
>Twenty four days (576 hours) at 44 watts would consume 17,280 liters of air,
>6,912 liters of H2 bottled gas, and it would produce 5.2 liters of water.
 ^^^^^

Those 3.5 foot tall welder's bottles of compressed gas hold about a cubic
foot, or 25 liters at atmospheric pressure.  I think they typically charge
them to 2,000 psi.  So such a bottle could hold 3,400 liters of compressed
gas.  It would have taken at least two such bottles over the course of 24
days at the 44 watt heat rate to account for the Italian Ni-H results.

That number assumes perfect H2 utilization -- none of it being exhausted
unburned.  That is a highly improbable event -- therefore the H2 consumption
from the bottles would probably have been far higher -- orders of magnitude
higher perhaps.

-- 
-John Logajan MS612; Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
-logajan@network.com, 612-391-1159, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.02 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: Reply to Dick Jackson/ No compelling evidence after yrs of expts.
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reply to Dick Jackson/ No compelling evidence after yrs of expts.
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 1994 02:09:42 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1994Mar1.202557.9253@ttinews.tti.com> jackson@soldev.tti.com
(Dick Jackson) writes:

>Yes, I saw your criticisms and accept them. However I believe it
>remains to show quantitatively how the deficiencies explain the
>claimed (positive) results. I have not seen this done.

It is not for someone here to try and copy a poorly documented experiment
and try to find sufficient errors to account for the numbers P&F published.
P&F are claiming a new science, therefore it is up to them to supply all of
the pertinent details so that their work can be replicated and results
reproduced. Not only have they failed to do that, but they have published
claims that have since been retracted and other claims that turn out to have
been altogether false. Where were the neutrons they claimed were detected?

It is up to others to suggest pathways of errors and those CF true believers
to supply evidence that those errors either do not exist or have been accounted
for. This has not been done, will not be done and cannot be done because
Cold Fusion does not exist as purported by the CNF-TB's.

>Its like Randi saying that Uri Geller "most likely" was using some
>conjuring technique to bend spoons, but not being able to demonstrate
>such a trick himself.

Uri Geller will not 'demonstrate' his 'mental powers' in front of anyone
capable of recognizing his tricks. Therefore it's not possible for
Randi to say that he _knows_ what Geller is doing. Indeed, Randi does
the trick, to my eyes, in the identical manner as Geller. So "most
likely" is completely accurate in every sense.
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Wed Mar  2 04:37:07 EST 1994
------------------------------
1994.03.02 /  DROEGE@FNALD.F /  Learning About Calorimeters, Part II
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@FNALD.FNAL.GOV
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Learning About Calorimeters, Part II
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 1994 09:29:08 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

This continues the answer to Bill Page's questions on calorimetry.

Learning Something About Calorimetry - Part II
                                                  
>Anyway, enough "soap box" discussion for now.  Back to business.          
                                                                                
>Topic 1:  Null-balance calorimetry                                        
                                                                                
>Is this the logical place to start?  I want to understand the basic         
>approach and then lead up to questions about your recent interest in heat   
>pipes.  The following picture trys to illustrate what I think of when we    
>are talking about null-balance calorimetry.                                 
                                                                                
>                       thermal                                              
>                        mass                                                
>      known            ||||||         constant                              
>      heat (Qin) ----> |||||| ------> heat                                  
>                       ||||||         out (Qout)                            
>      unknown    ----> ||||||                                                
>      heat (Qx)        ||||||                                               
>                       temp T                                               
>                                                                            
>                      Figure 1.                                             
                                                                                
>This is a highly idealized picture, ignoring a lot of practical problems    
>but for concreteness, suppose:                                            

The big problem with this picture is the unknown environmental heat (Qe) that 
enters the thermal mass.  Consider a calorimeter with about 1 sq ft of surface 
area.  Cover it with 1" of foam.  It now has a thermal conduction to ambient 
of 100 mw per C.  There are also radiation and convection terms.  If we run at 
10 watts, then there is a 1% error just due to  ambient conditions.  But 
usually we are looking for a small change in that 10 watt total power.  So a 
1% error in total power becomes 100% looking at a 100 mw signal.  (Where have 
I seen workers claiming a positive result with a 100 mw signal?  Remember if 
we start with n experimenters, then n/2 will see some sort of positive signal 
and will keep working.  The negative ones quit.)  Surprisingly, a dewar does 
not help very much.  A glass dewar which is likely to be the best device for 
heat loss, is likely the worst device for a calorimeter.  This is because the 
primary loss is due to radiation.  But glass is a poor conductor (0.0015 of 
copper) so there can be large temperature differences over the surface, and 
thus large changes in radiation losses.  These losses change with time as the 
outer and inner surfaces of the dewar redistribute their temperature 
gradients.    

Now consider another problem.  You and your assistant walk into the laboratory 
where your experiment is running which hopes to resolve 1 mw.  As far as the 
experiment is concerned, two glowing fire balls have just appeared in it's 
radiation environment.  They are each 100,000 times the signal that the 
calorimeter is attempting to resolve.  They are moving around.  

This is why P&F, McKubre, and others put their experiments in water baths.  
But water baths may not be the best solution.  

>1) the Qout heat flow is obtained by a semiconductor electronic heat pump  
>device.  Assume it to operate at a constant rate measured in watts. Ignore 
>for now any dependence on source and sink temperatures.                    

OK, but we cannot assume that the thermoelectric device (TED) pumps constant 
power **unless** we accurately control it's temperature.  There is a large 
change of pumping efficiency with temperature.  I control this by calibrating 
at each temperature of operation, but mostly I calibrate and run the entire 
experiment at a single TED temperature.  Note that I run the heat pump TED 
with both sides at *exactly* the same temperature (to less than 0.001 C) and 
whatever difference there is does not change over the experiment to 0.0001 C.
                                                                           
>2) the ||| in the picture above represents some thermal mass that is       
>basically held in equilibrium.  Don't worry about other heat losses or     
>temperature gradients for now.                                             

OK, but these are the important items for a good calorimeter.  The "other heat 
losses" and the thermal gradients are about 99.9% of the problem that I am 
working on to build a good calorimeter.
                                                                           
>3) the Qin heat flow is obtained by electrical resistive heating measured  
>in watts and is controlled by a servo circuit so that there is no net      
>change in the temperature of the thermal mass, i.e.                        
>                                                                           
>   dT/dt = 0   (approximately)                                             

For the Mark II calorimeter, the thermal mass had a coefficient of 2500 joules 
per C.  This means to measure a joule, the temperature must be measured to 
0.0004 C.  We could measure about 20 joules, so this means that we could 
measure the temperature to 0.008 C.  Note the limiting factor is total system 
noise, obviously temperature can be measured to much less than 0.008 C.  After 
it was all built and running, I realized that I did not pay enough attention 
to this.  There was an attempted fix mid way through the operation of the Mark 
II involving some new linear power supplies.  But this did not fix everything.  
I made a big mistake in the design, too subtle to describe here, but I will do 
it better next time.  But note that noise mostly integrates to zero over time, 
so in general we can make a more accurate measurement of power than energy.

The servo circuit is not so easy.  Most servo theory is based on linear 
differential equations with constant coefficients.  Heat is *not* in this 
class of problems.  But we do the best we can.  More on this later.  
                                                                           
>4) the unknown heat to be measured Qx is initially zero.  In this case     
>                                                                           
>   Qout = Qin                                                              
>                                                                    

Plus the breeze blowing on the calorimeter because the furnace is turning on 
and off, and the effect of the sun through the house, (I see an aprox. 24 
hour integral energy balance when I look closely.  It is either the sun 
shining, or something even more fun.) and whether or not you are in the room, 
where the cat is sleeping today, ... .   Note that these errors are very 
insidious.  Everything calibrates great for months, and then the cat has 
kittens and changes her sleeping habits.  So the design must be bullet proof 
for environmental influences.  But there is no such thing as "good" 
insulation, so it is ***not*** possible to shield the calorimeter from 
environmental influences by using insulation.  So what to use??  Heat pipes!

>5) when the unknown heat source is operating, Qin is reduced by the servo  
>so we can determin Qx by                                                   
>                                                                           
>   Qout = Qin + Qx                                                         
>                                                                           
>In other words, Qx is equal to the change in Qin.                          
>                                                                           
>Is this ok so far?  I hope so.  Now on to a few aspects of reality.        

OK, bring on the reality!!!  The coming Part III starts to deal with reality.  

Tom Droege

cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenDROEGE cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.02 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: We think we won
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: We think we won
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 1994 02:17:09 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <940301145047_72240.1256_EHK53-1@CompuServe.COM> 72240.1256@c
mpuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:

>Our side is tired of the debate too, and we see no reason to re-open it.
>However, I would like to point out that our side thinks *we* won,
>quantitatively.

Oh, I'm so glad. So when can we expect the first commerical product? When
does the first CNF powerplant go on-line?

>Their arguments are mere handwaving.

Well, certainly, and your idea of proclaiming victory in the face of
absolutely nothing is genuine scientific achievement.

Sayyyy, what power generating scientific breakthrough ever took five 
years and hadn't produced a _single_ reproduceable result? Oh yeah,
the P&F/Rothwell/Swartz New Physics Cold Nuclear Fusion Generator. It
only works when no-one is watching.

cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.02 /  blue@nscl00.ns /  Vigier's Hamiltonian
     
Originally-From: blue@nscl00.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Vigier's Hamiltonian
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 1994 09:29:00 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I applaud Bill Page's efforts in trying to understand Vigier's theory.
Superficially it has the appearance of being a rather orthodox approach,
but then Vigier claims some rather surprizing differences from the
orthodox picture of the hydrogen atom.  The question that seems to be
left unanswered is how you generate a significantly different set of
eigenfunctions without making a significant change in the Hamiltonian?
Just how different is the Vigier approach?  From Bill's reading of
the Vigier paper, the claim seems to be that the explicite inclusion
of magnetic interactions rather than treating them as perturbations
is supposed to be the key.  It has been a long time since I studied
QM perturbation theory, but the Vigier claim somehow does not ring
true.  I would say that as long as these added terms in the Hamiltonian
are given the appropriate strengths as determined by experimental
observation their explicite inclusion in the Hamiltonian does not
change a thing.

In my experience, however, it is often too easy for the theoriticians
to manupulate equations without ever correctly evaluating numerically
anything in those equations.  A few factors of c and h thrown around
with great abandon can make a big difference when you get down to
actually calculating numbers.  I suspect that Vigier has simply
thrown up a cloud of smoke by reviving old questions relating to
the interpretation of quantum mechanics.  But basically, unless
there is some reason to believe that atomic magnetic moments
aren't what they used to be, Vigier has given us no reason to
believe the structure of hydrogen atoms and molecules is any
different than it has always been.

Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU

cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenblue cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.02 /  blue@nscl00.ns /  Re: Jones on Fractofusion
     
Originally-From: blue@nscl00.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Jones on Fractofusion
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 1994 09:28:58 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

In making reference to the fractofusion of wintergreen mints I should
have, of course, acknowledged that as Steve Jones' idea.  I had forgotten
that he had carried it further and actually deuterated the mints
prior to fracture.  More to the point, I think, is his calling attention
to the fact that fractofusion data presented at ICCF4 is not all that
it's cracked up to be.  I continue to be amazed at the poor quality
of data that flows forth in support of cold fusion.  Is it so difficult
to understand that a null result is very unlikely to come out exactly
at 000.000?

While on the topic of poor quality experimental results, let me comment
on the recently reported Italian results for CF on nickel.  It is
reported that a nickel rod in a hydrogen atmosphere remains at an
elevated temperature for an extended period.  From that observation
it is concluded that excess heat is generated by the nickel.  It
all sounds so simple and direct.  I suspect, however, there are some
nasty little details that have been overlooked or not reported.  Consider
a simplified version of the experimental setup - a heat source of
perhaps 50 watts in the form of a small metal rod hanging in the middle
of a chamber filled with hydrogen at a reduced pressure.  Ask yourself
what heat transfer mechanism dominates, and then how stable it will be.
Now complicate the problem by the addition of a second heat source.
If you think you know how this system will behave well enough to
do calorimetry with a single temperature measurement, I'd like to
hear how it's done.

Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU

cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenblue cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.02 /  DROEGE@FNALD.F /  Learning About Calorimeters, Part I
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@FNALD.FNAL.GOV
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Learning About Calorimeters, Part I
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 1994 09:29:03 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Learning Something About Calorimetry Part I

This is in response to a long post by Bill Page.  His post gives me a 
wonderful opportunity to summarize what I have learned about calorimetry. I 
will break it up into pieces as I work through Bill's questions.  
                                                                                
>An open letter to Tom Droege ...                                              
                                                                                
>After a lot of thinking and sole searching following ICCF-4 I've finally      
>come to the decision that I'm going to continue with my own CF experiments.   
>For the past few months I have been concentrating more on the theoretical    
>issues and I've learned a lot more about quantum mechanics.  But I no         
>longer think that the experimental and theoretical issues will be resolved    
>very soon.  It seems to me that CF research is now well into the              
>"institutionalization" phase.  Barring something really startling (like a     
>working demonstration), the lines are drawn.  People have developed vested    
>interests.  Progress will be slow, or at least slow enough that I may have     
>a chance to do some interesting work after all...                           

Sure, it is never too late to jump into this crazy field.  Plenty of time to 
do good experiments and publish them in good journals.  But don't bet your PhD 
on it, as you will have to do above average work to succeed.
                                                                         
>This is a very unsatisfactory situation and therefore highly motivating.       
>So, in the best spirit of the college sci.physics.fusion, I've decided to      
>learn more about calorimetry and you are the most knowledgeable and the        
>most accessible teacher I can think of.  I hope the appalation of "teacher"    
>doesn't worry you too much.  After all, teaching and entertainment are         
>closely related disciplines!                                                 

Sounds good to me.  A wonderful opportunity to organize what I have learned.  
                                                                                
>Basically I'd like to try to construct a reasonable facsimile of your new   
>Mark III calorimeter design (as it evolves).  I have a particular variant   
>on a CF electrolytic cell using an Aluminum cathode that I very much want   
>to measure accurately.  All this, in spite of probably not having enough    
>time and also very probably not enough money!                               
>to start with, I'd like to ask a few basic (and I do mean basic) questions  
>about the design.  For now, I'd like to try to do this publically instead   
>of by private email - I think too often the "private" stuff takes away      
>material that would really be interesting to a wider audience.  And lately  
>we've been seeing a lot of material here that ought to private email (if it 
>needs to be communicated at all).  But do please let me know if you (or     
>anyone else) think that this forum is not the appropriate place.            

At the moment, I am not sure that the Mark III will ever get built.  I need 
motivation, and there is not a lot of satisfaction in doing negative 
experiments.  I agree very much about doing this in public.  See a previous 
post on this.  
                                                                            
>Lately there has been a rash (well two or three people anyway) announcing   
>that they intend to quit this motely group.  Personally, I would miss their 
>input and I hope they will re-consider.  The noise and banter is annoying   
>to almost everyone, but I still think it is a small price to pay for the    
>freedom and interaction that this medium offers.  I, for one, intend to     
>continue to read and post whatever comes up.  I've recently posted a        
>follow-up article on the theoretical work of J. P. Vigier.  And I'd like to 
>express thanks to you Tom, for your continuing postings on the heat pipe    
>experiments, to Steve Jones for material on sonoluminescence (SL), Dieter   
>Britz for continuing the very valuable bibliography, Chuck Sites and Matt   
>Kennel for continuing the discussion of ion band states, Daryl Owen for the 
>material on the Reifenschweiler tritium/titanium experiments,John           
>Logajan/Jed Rothwell on the recent Italian Ni/H results and Robert Heeter   
>for continuing to try to educate us about conventional fusion.  In fact, I  
>think we are all doing a pretty good job here!                              

I agree about the good job being done by this group.  Too bad that we are not 
working in a field where progress is possible.  I keep looking at those 10E60 
improbabitity factors and wondering why I am here.  But I have not yet given 
up.  Just need a little nudge to keep me going.  Sorry I sound so negative.  
But good calorimetry is worth doing, and trying to repeat these crazy 
experiments is good exercise for the scientific process.  

Tom Droege

cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenDROEGE cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.02 / Jon Noring /  Tapping the Vacuum Energy -- An Important Paper from Bearden [LONG]
     
Originally-From: noring@netcom.com (Jon Noring)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.electronics,sci.energy,sci.
ngr,sci.environment,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics,sci.skeptic
Subject: Tapping the Vacuum Energy -- An Important Paper from Bearden [LONG]
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 1994 00:14:06 GMT
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)


Hello,

I am posting, with Tom Bearden's permission, a new paper (ASCII-text) to
the newsgroups listed above.  Followup discussion, if any, has been set to
alt.sci.physics.new-theories.  A nicer-looking Word for Windows (2.0 and 6.0
versions), and possibly even a Windows 3.1 Help file, both of which would
include the illustrations, will be made available via anonymous ftp in a few
days.  Look for it at netcom.com /pub/noring/bearden .

[Sorry, I will NOT mail out any uuencoded files, nor will I snail-mail
anything.  If you don't have anonymous ftp access, ask a friend to help out
or sign up with one of the many new inexpensive services such as Netcom (for
information on Netcom, telnet there and login as 'guest').  Please DO upload
this file to your local BBS so as to make it more available to our friends
who don't yet have direct Internet access.]


In the past I've posted Tom's work to the Usenet because I find his ideas
and ways of looking at things to be fascinating even if what he says is
shown to be totally out to lunch.  Even Dr. Puthoff, who has published
several provocative papers on aspects of the vacuum energy in respected
physics journals, enjoys reading Bearden's work because it helps him to break
out of the "orthodox" mold of viewing things and gets the creative juices
moving;  of course Dr. Puthoff does not necessarily accept what Bearden has
to say, but he does take the time to hear him out.  I encourage every
scientist and engineer who reads this to temporarily put aside any prejudices
and to see if Tom's quite different view of the universe can help "break out"
of any bottleneck's of thinking arising from blindly accepting orthodox views
of "the way things are".

By the way, Dr. Puthoff recently published an interesting paper pointing out,
according to Bearden (I have not seen the paper yet but am in the process of
obtaining a copy), that it may be possible to extract useful work from the
so-called vacuum energy of space which quantum theory says must exist and
recent experiments confirm does exist.  The reference is:

Daniel C. Cole and Harold E. Puthoff, "Extracting Energy and Heat from the
Vacuum," _Physical Review E_, 48(2), pp. 1562-1565 (1993).

Some have argued that this vacuum energy, also called a "zero-point-energy",
cannot be tapped because it is at the "lowest energy", that is, there is no
potential to it.  However, this argument is not [yet] valid since we really
don't understand the "cause" and "nature" of the vacuum energy.  For example,
in prior work, Puthoff has theorized that the source of the vacuum energy is
due to the radiation of the motion of all the charge carriers of the universe.
If this is true, then we can consider using the vacuum energy to extract the
energy of the organized motion of these charge carriers, and NOT to tap the
vacuum energy itself.  This is *roughly* analogous to solar energy, which is
essentially a conduit by which we tap the nuclear reactions taking place in
the sun.  Thus, until we fully know the nature and source of the vacuum
energy of space, we cannot assume that it is unusable for useful energy
production.

Bearden believes that he's placed enough information into this paper by which
an electrical engineer can go out and try to duplicate the effort, and he does
want others to independently verify or falsify his claims (the Notes and
References section is quite good and contains the "meat" of his theories).
Tom is very serious, and *apparently* has demonstrated in the laboratory that
he can "freely" charge a capacitor using a displacement current from a dipolar
"antenna" which supposedly is tapping into the vacuum energy.  He's now
working on an efficient means of switching this charged capacitor to the load,
which he says is not trivial.

As mentioned below, he and his co-workers (one of which is apparently a
director of a large high-tech electronics company) have filed a patent with
the U.S. Patent Office.  They do expect to have the patent application
rejected by the USPO and in order to get it patented they will have to
deliver an actual working model that has been independently verified.  They
are not seeking any investors, nor do they have any, so as to not "taint"
their effort in the eyes of the technological community.  They have enough
going against them without charges that they're doing this to fleece some
unsuspecting investors.

History will be the final arbiter whether this paper will pass the way of
"poly-water" and possibly of "cold-fusion" (this is cross-posted there since
some have theorized that the anomalies seen in cold-fusion are due to vacuum
energy interactions and not to nuclear reactions), or that this will be the
start of a new era in technology and physics research.

Jon Noring


[p.s., truly my "crackpot index (CI)" has reached phenomenally high levels,
thus proving Noring's Second Theorem that:

As t --> infinity,  CI(JN) --> infinity

where t is time, and JN is yours truly.  :^)   ]



*******************Start of Paper********************


Additional Information On "THE FINAL SECRET OF FREE ENERGY"

Update 15 February 1994

(C) Copyright 1994 by T.E. Bearden


INTRODUCTION

My associates and I have filed the first patent application on two electrical
overunity processes and devices;  one similar to what is outlined in "The
Final Secret of Free Energy"[1] and an additional variation utilizing, as
collectors, standard step-charged capacitors rather than degenerate
semiconductor materials.  In 60 to 90 days we will have a very enlightening
paper (more likely a book) ready on that.  We also plan to file several more
extremely fundamental overunity patent applications from additional phenomena
and mechanisms that we have uncovered.

In this paper it is assumed that the reader is familiar with the content of
"The Final Secret of Free Energy."  Figure 1 shows the invention
schematically, and we briefly summarize it as follows:


SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

A method and apparatus for extracting bidirectional EM wave energy from the
vacuum through the scalar potential gradient across the terminals of an
electrical source, collecting the excess energy in a collector without
entropy, then separately discharging the collected energy through a load to
perform work, without sending the load current back through the primary
source against its potential gradient;  i.e., against its back emf.  Removing
the load current from the source thereby substantially reduces the production
of work inside the source to dissipate its bipolarity;  said internal
dissipative work being well-known to be the cause of exhaustion of the
source's ability to continue to furnish emf to the external circuit.  By
reduction of its internal dissipation, the source is enabled to furnish more
energy for dissipation in the external load than is utilized to dissipate the
source internally.  Hence the source is enabled to operate with an overunity
operational efficiency.  The system permissibly operates as an "open" system,
and extracts and utilizes excess EM energy from a free-flowing external
source (the flux exchange between the surrounding vacuum and the bipolarity
of the source), hence it can operate at an efficiency greater than unity
without violation of the laws of physics, in a manner analogous to but
entirely different from a heat pump.  In this invention, it is not the
purpose of the primary source to furnish current and dissipative power to the
external circuit.  The bipolarity of the source is utilized primarily as a
dipole antenna to receive the bidirectional EM wave energy flow from the
vacuum, and direct it without entropy through a switching unit to the
collector.  Conduction electrons in the collector are temporarily restrained
while being overpotentialized by the excess energy being collected upon them.
The collector and its overpotentialized electrons are then switched away from
the primary source, and connected across the load as a separate circuit and
closed current loop.  The electrons in the collector and their excess energy
are then automatically released to flow as current discharge through the
load, releasing their excess energy to perform useful work in the load.  The
collector is then switched away from the load and back across the primary
source, and another collection cycle is initiated.  Iteration of the
collection and discharge cycles provides power to the load.  Additional
collection and smoothing capacitances for smoothing the iterations and
furnishing steady power to the load may be added as desired.  The invention
violates the closed circuit practice of powering loads, but does not violate
the conservation of energy law, the second law of thermodynamics, or any of
the other known laws of physics.


[Figure 1a.  Type circuit utilized for ramp-up charging of a capacitor without
work, and separate discharge of the collected energy in the load without
substantial depletion of the primary source.]


[Figure 1b.  Type circuit for single pulse charging of a degenerative
semiconductor collector without appreciable work, and separate discharge of
the collected energy in the load without substantial depletion of the
primary source.]


USE OF STEP-CHARGED CAPACITOR AS THE COLLECTOR

Fulfilling our search for a special material with the extended electron gas
relaxation time for the collector, a material alloy composed of 98% aluminum
and 2% iron is tentatively suggested.  However, production of this alloy is
particularly difficult, so we are still researching for a solution that is
more easily manufactured.

Meanwhile, the necessity for using a special material for the collector has
been bypassed by another procedure we have utilized.  Rigorously one can use
a normal capacitor as the collector, if one step-charges it in several
hundred small incremental rectangular voltage steps (stair-step-charging).
The proof that this can freely charge a capacitor with energy, without having
to do appreciable work, is already known in the literature.  You can charge
the capacitor without entropy and essentially without drawing electron mass
current.[2, 3, 4, 5]

Actually we consider the capacitor to be charged by massless displacement
current flow, which for circuitry purposes we consider to be d{phi}/dl -- a
flow of pure potential (trapped EM energy) along a conductor or through the
vacuum;  i.e., under conditions where mass displacement current flow does not
exist.[6, 7]


MASSLESS DISPLACEMENT CURRENT IS FREELY AVAILABLE FROM ANY SOURCE

The principle embodied in the invention is that one can extract all the free
EM energy one wishes, from any electrical power source, as long as it is
extracted via massless displacement current and not by electron mass flow
current.[8]  And one can freely collect this extracted energy from a source
into an ordinary capacitor if one does it correctly, because one can charge
the capacitor via massless displacement current without expending any
appreciable work inside the source to dissipate its dipolar separation of
charges.


EVERY ELECTRICAL SOURCE OF POTENTIAL IS ALREADY	A FREE ENERGY SOURCE

We thus advance a revolutionary concept:  All present power systems already
utilize free energy source-antennas.  However, the standard two-wire closed
circuitry diabolically utilizes one-half the total free energy extracted by
the source-antenna from the vacuum, to perform work inside the source-antenna
to dissipate its dipolarity and hence to dissipate the source-antenna (i.e.,
the receiver) itself.

The source already acts as a "dipolar antenna" to continually receive "scalar
potential" current d{phi}/dl (massless displacement current) from the
vacuum.[9]  Previously scientists and engineers have simply ignored this
special massless EM energy influx.  For load-free (i.e., mass-current-free)
conditions, (d{phi}/dl) is continually received from the vacuum by any dipole
(i.e., by any dipolar source-as-an-antenna), and the flowing energy is
continually exchanged back and forth between the vacuum and the dipole.

This free energy exchange with the vacuum is also true of any two points in
our circuit that possess an open-circuit voltage or potential difference
between them.  Two such points act as a dipole.  Free energy dipolar antenna
sources are everywhere;  we just have to learn how to break the symmetry in
their energy flux exchange with the vacuum, collect some of the freely
flowing influx, and distribute that collected excess energy to an isolated
load to separately power it.

In other words, we simply have to implement circuitry that operates analogous
to the standard heat pump cycle.


[Figure 2.  Why present electrical power systems have underunity operational
efficiency.]


CONVENTIONAL 2-WIRE CLOSED CIRCUIT OPERATION

In the conventional 2-wire system a load is added to the source-antenna,
allowing circulation of electron current in a closed circuit through the load
and then through the ground return line back to and through the dipolar
source-antenna.  The only useful reasons for this "closed circulation" of the
electrons are (1) it is simple, easy, habitual, and accepted, (2) all our
components, instruments, and methodologies are developed in accordance with
this usage, (3) one uses the electrons as a working material fluid to
receive, transport, and discharge excess EM energy, and (4) forcing the
electrons back through the back emf reloads the spent electrons again with
excess EM energy in the form of little {del-phi}'s (excess trapped energy
density) upon each recycled electron.

Some of the excess {del-phi} collected upon the electrons is expended in the
load as useful work, but one half of the total is expended in driving the
spent (without excess {del-phi}) electrons through the ground return line
back up through the source's back emf.  This "forcing" of the electrons back
up through the back emf performs precisely as much work upon the internal
separation of charges in the source as is subsequently performed upon all the
external losses and loads.  The conventional hookup therefore utilizes
exactly one half its collected free energy to dissipate the separation of
charges inside the source and thereby dissipate the energy-receiving antenna
itself.

Consequently all conventional 2-wire circuits, which return all external
electron-flow current loops back through the source, are always underunity
devices, as is shown in Figure 2.  Eerily these conventional sources are
already free energy devices, which are unwittingly attached to circuitry
specifically designed to utilize part of their freely received energy to
deplete or destroy themselves, i.e., they are already open systems receiving
free energy from the vacuum, but they are hooked up and designed in a
suicidal manner so as to use at least half of that freely extracted energy to
re-close the system and shut off the influx of free energy.  Since at least
some of the remaining half of the energy is lost in inefficiencies,
frictional losses, etc., less than half the total free energy goes to the
load.  So there is always less useful work being done in the load than the
destructive work being done inside the free-energy source-antenna to destroy
it.


OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCY

We define operational efficiency {alpha} as the average power expended in the
load to power it, divided by the average power expended inside the source to
dissipate its dipolarity.  If {alpha} < 1, one has to externally furnish
energy to do restorative work upon the source to replace or offset that
amount of destruction being done inside the source, if one wishes the source
to continue to operate as an energy-receiving antenna.  If {alpha} > 1, then
if the additional losses are minimal, the device can conceivably run itself
while furnishing some energy to a load to produce useful work.


WE MUST EXCISE THE SUICIDAL CLOSED CIRCUIT TO ACHIEVE OVERUNITY

There is no mysticism in the overunity electrical device.  The device is an
open system that extracts excess energy from the vacuum, collects it, and
transports it to the load to separately power the load.  It is simply
analogous to the standard heat pump cycle.  It is also directly analogous to
presently operating overunity systems such as windmills, waterwheels, solar
cell arrays, and hydraulic turbines in a dam installation.  All that we have
done is to eliminate or dramatically reduce the standard cancerous mistake in
conventional electrical power systems wherein much of the excess energy
freely extracted from the vacuum by the already-overunity electrical source,
is then utilized to destroy the source's energy reception ability!

As we stated, in the conventional electrical device and circuitry, more
destructive work is always done inside the source than is done usefully in
the external load.  Hence the conventional operational efficiency is always
underunity.


LEGITIMATE OVERUNITY SYSTEMS COMPLY WITH WELL-KNOWN REQUIREMENTS

There are many alternative and well-known permissible free energy systems
that operate at overunity operational efficiency:  solar cells, windmills,
hydraulic turbines, heat pumps, and water wheels, to name a few.  All of
these are open systems, receiving an influx of free energy from a natural
energy flow, and collecting and gating some of that energy to be dissipated
in a load to do useful work.  All of them are permissible overunity devices,
since (1) they are open systems, (2) they constantly receive a free energy
influx from an external source, (3) they extract and collect some of this
energy without dissipation, (4) they dissipate this collected energy in a
load, and (5) the discharge process is totally separated and isolated from
the "collection-from-the-source" process.


NO LEGITIMATE OVERUNITY SYSTEM IS INTENTIONALLY MADE SELF-DESTRUCTIVE

Not a single one of these open overunity systems foolishly uses part of its
freely extracted and collected energy to re-close the system and shut off its
influx of free energy flow!  What engineer would build a solar array such
that, the moment the current started to flow, it powered a shutter
arrangement to gradually close and shield off the solar array from the sun?
Who would build a windmill so that, whenever the angled-blade assembly
rotated in the wind to furnish power, a gearing feedback assembly also slowly
caused the individual blades to rotate into a position parallel to the wind,
thus stopping the windmill?

Yet this is precisely what the conventional electrical power system does with
its external circuit.  It deliberately utilizes half of the freely extracted
energy to re-close the system and shut off the free energy flow between the
vacuum and the source-antenna, by destroying the receiver-antenna!

However, this "suicide circuit" practice is guaranteed to keep the power
meter on your home or business, and to keep the meter on the gas pump for
fueling your automobile.  Perhaps one may be forgiven for suspecting that, at
the deepest levels of financial control, this may be the real purpose in
seeing that the existing interpretation of classical EM stays "as is."


ALL ELECTRICAL POWER SOURCES ARE ALREADY FREE ENERGY RECEIVING ANTENNAS

All conventional electrical power systems already contain fully functional
free energy systems in their source component.  Each conventionally designed
system is, however, deliberately suicidal, since part of the system's own
energy is utilized to work against itself and destroy itself.  This is
primarily due to the preoccupation of engineers with power and work.  They do
not consider the source as an energy source, but as a power source.  Power
being the time-rate of performing work, and work being the dissipation of
energy, they are thus naturally conditioned to think of the "dissipation of
the source" as its natural functioning.

In fact, hardly a single one of them is aware that EM energy itself is a
free-flowing process.  Only a finite collector possesses a finite collection
of EM energy.  In nature, the potential gradients of all dipoles are already
rivers of free-flowing EM energy exchange with those dipoles, where the
energy density is freely furnished and is essentially free for the taking.
It is mind-boggling that we have all been conditioned to extract this free
energy furnished by nature and the creator, but to always utilize half of the
extracted energy to destroy the receiver-antenna and thus strangle the flow!

In our work, we simply have excised this "self-destructive" cancer and
reworked the circuitry so that only a minimal amount of the freely extracted
energy is utilized for internal destruction of the source-antenna.


THERMODYNAMICS AND OPEN OVERUNITY SYSTEMS NOT IN EQUILIBRIUM

In our approach we have an open system during every collection cycle, with an
external source of energy and a continual energy influx.  We have
deliberately broken the local symmetry of the system's energy exchange with
the vacuum, by spatially and temporally separating the energy collection and
energy discharge phases.  Overunity operational efficiency is permissible for
such a system without violation of any of the laws of nature.  Some of the
influx of excess energy from the vacuum into the dipolar source antenna is
transported without loss to the collector and collected.  The collected
energy in the collector is then separately discharged through the load,
without any of it being discharged back inside the source-antenna.  Note that
we have broken local energy flow equilibrium but not global energy flow
equilibrium.

The second law of thermodynamics, e.g., does not even apply to such an open
system not in equilibrium.  Classical thermodynamics cannot even compute the
entropy of an open system not in thermodynamic equilibrium, as is well-known
to thermodynamicists.[10]

What classical thermodynamics does have to say, is that such an open system
must contain excess energy when compared to the closed system in equilibrium,
because the closed system in equilibrium is in the maximum entropy
condition.[11]  Global conservation of energy is not violated, just as it is
not violated in a windmill or in a heat pump, which are similar open systems.
Local conservation of energy (which applies only to a closed system or to a
system in total equilibrium) does not apply because the system is open and
not in equilibrium.


PERMISSIBLE ELECTRICAL OVERUNITY IS NOT PERPETUAL MOTION

An open system out of equilibrium need not conform to (1) the local (closed
system, equilibrium conditions) conservation of energy nor to (2) the second
law of thermodynamics (which assumes equilibrium conditions).  It must and
does conform to the global conservation of energy, just as does a waterwheel
or windmill.  We strongly stress that the overunity electrical device is not
a "perpetuum mobile."[12]  The electrical operations and systems we propose
are perfectly permissible by the known laws of physics and do not violate any
of them.  We propose a permissible series of overunity electrical systems.


THE HEAT PUMP ANALOGY

In one way of viewing it, all we have done is utilize the potential as a more
modern type of quantum mechanical fluid having hidden bidirectional flowing
EM energy.[13-16]  QM already certifies that the potentials, not the force
fields, are the primary causes of all EM phenomena.  Contrary to classical EM
theory, the force fields are effects in, on, and of the charged particles
themselves.  Consequently, if the potentials are the primary causes of all EM
phenomena, then for free energy to perform work (free causes to collect and
generate desired effects) we must turn to the potentials.

We have utilized a hookup and switching arrangement so that energy-free
collection is totally separated from collected energy discharge in the load.
In short, we have done what a normal heat pump does, when it uses the air
with its thermal energy as a working energy-containing fluid.  Consequently,
overunity operational efficiency of analogous electrical devices is perfectly
permissible, and not prohibited by the known laws of physics.


AN ELECTRICAL POWER SOURCE IS A DIPOLAR ANTENNA FOR FREE RECEPTION OF ENERGY

An electrical power source is in fact only a dipolar antenna for reception of
potential (hidden bidirectional Whittaker/Ziolkowski waves).  All the current
you run back through the back emf of the source, to perform dissipative work
inside it, is something you yourself are doing to the source.  It is not a
priori a characteristic of the source!

If no work is done inside the source's internal bipolar separation of charges
(i.e., if no electron or ion current is forced back up from the ground return
line against the source-antenna's potential and therefore against its back
emf), then the dipolar source-antenna will last essentially forever, or until
something corrodes or breaks mechanically.

The flow exchange of energy between the vacuum and the dipolar source-antenna
is freely driven by all the charges of the universe, in accordance with
Puthoff's cosmological feedback loop.[17]


MASSLESS DISPLACEMENT CURRENT

Technically one is using massless displacement current to charge the
capacitor, rather than electron mass flow current.  It is real energy flow
nonetheless;  just in work-free, dissipation-free form.  As is well-known,
one plate of a capacitor already charges the other plate by just this very
massless displacement current, transporting real EM energy across the gap
between the plates in the process.  The electrons themselves do not cross the
gap.

Displacement current is already well-known to be "free" energy transport
without any dissipation as power and work.  By drawing massless displacement
current only from the source-antenna instead of electron flow current, you
can draw work-free, dissipation-free energy as long as you wish, as often as
you wish, and as much as you wish, without ever dissipating the source-
antenna.  You just have to collect it onto some trapped electrons or other
charges, such as in a capacitor's plates, then switch the collected energy
(charged capacitor) separately across a load, in a separate discharge
circuit, to discharge through the load as work.

The real trick is to prevent the electrons in the circuit from moving and
providing mass "energy dissipation" current inside the source during the
collection process.  In the original paper, we explained that this could be
done by using as a collector a degenerate semiconductor material, with
extended electron gas relaxation time.  In this paper we have explained how
this can be done by step-charging an ordinary capacitor as a collector.  We
have also included specific references proving (both experimentally and
theoretically) that this is correct.  With the requirement for special
materials removed, there is no reason that a competent researcher cannot
develop a step-charged capacitor device to prove it experimentally for
himself or herself.


REQUIREMENT:  PROOF OF PRINCIPLE AND INDEPENDENT TEST AND CERTIFICATION

My associates and I are proceeding as rapidly as possible toward full-up
"proof-of-principle" circuits for open release and certification or
falsification by the scientific community and engineers at large.  Soon we
also expect to release to other researchers information on the kinds of new
electrical phenomenology one meets in true overunity electrical devices.
These are not in the textbook, at least with respect to electrical power
systems.  We give some indication of these phenomena below:


NEW CIRCUIT PHENOMENA MUST BE MASTERED

One meets unusual electrical phenomena in attempting to perform overunity
electrical operations.  For overunity, a priori one must "slip excess
potential" through the circuit essentially without losses.  That is, one must
deliberately pass massless displacement currents through the circuit and at
least through some of its components.

Solid-state switching components in particular exhibit unusual phenomena, to
say the least, when excess potential is introduced into and through all their
internal components inside modern semiconductors.  An ordinary MOSFET, e.g.,
may have 25,000 separate internal components.  It is as if someone crammed
the entire electronic parts store inside it.  Simple switches these
semiconductors are not, when exposed to appreciable massless displacement
current.

When one "slips in" some pure potential, by SWZ decomposition one has also
slipped in some bidirectional EM pump waves.  The nonlinear semiconductor
materials will function as phase conjugate mirrors when suitably pumped,
including at non-optical frequencies.  Consequently pumped phase conjugate
replicas, self-targeting, formation of quantum potentials, and modular
variable effects sometimes begin to evidence.  We will address and explain
some of these effects in a future paper.  For now, we simply state that they
occur, and there is a host of extra phenomenology the experimenter may
encounter.

However, an iron rule for the experimenter is that, for odd circuit behavior,
first exhaust all "normal" causes before turning to the extraordinary causes.
One will save oneself a great deal of grief by applying this Occam's razor.

Also in deliberately utilizing displacement current, one is actually
employing an expanded, higher topology EM with additional degrees of freedom,
similar to that pointed out by Barrett.[18]  Consequently one encounters a
host of additional higher topology EM phenomenology.  In particular one
encounters nonlinear optical (NLO) functioning of the semiconductors at any
and all frequencies, not just in optical bands.


OVERUNITY ELECTRICAL DEVICES ARE PERMISSIBLE BY THE LAWS OF PHYSICS 

The overunity electrical energy system is permissible by the laws of physics
and is not in any manner perpetual motion.  It simply extracts excess EM
energy from an ubiquitous source, through a dipole as a receiver, and
collects that excess energy, conducts it to the load, and separately
dissipates it in the load to power the load, without using any of the
collected energy to perform work inside the source to dissipate the source-
antenna.  It is directly analogous to a heat pump, which is well-known to
perform at overunity operational efficiency under nominal conditions.


IN CONCLUSION

Primarily my associates and I believe we have corrected an ubiquitous error
made in present power systems that prevents these systems from realizing
their already-inherent overunity operational efficiency.  We also firmly
believe that the permissible electrical overunity device is an idea whose
time has finally come.


NOTES AND REFERENCES

[1]  T. E. Bearden, "The Final Secret of Free Energy," distributed over the
Internet (1993).  The paper was also published in _Magnets_, 7(5), pp. 4-26
(1993);  in _Explore!_, 4 (3/4), pp. 112-126 (1993), and in several other
media.

[2]  For proof that you can charge an ordinary capacitor almost without
entropy, see I. Fundaun, C. Reese, and H. H. Soonpaa, "Charging a Capacitor,"
_American Journal of Physics_, 60(11), pp. 1047-1048 (1992).  A capacitor can
be step-charged in small steps to dramatically reduce the entropy required to
charge it.  In the limit, a theoretically perfect capacitor can be fully
charged without any electrical current or work at all, i.e., you can simply
transport the excess energy density (the potential gradient) of the open
circuit voltage of the source to the collector, and couple that {del-phi} to
the electrons trapped in the capacitor plates, without electric current from
or through the source.

[3]  M. G. Calkin and D. Kiang, "Entropy Change and Reversibility," _American
Journal of Physics_, 51(1), pp. 78-79 (1983).

[4]  F. Heinrich, "Entropy Change When Charging a Capacitor:  A Demonstration
Experiment," _American Journal of Physics_, 54(8), pp. 742-744 (1986).

[5]  V. K. Gupta, Gauri Shanker, and N.K. Sharma, "Reversibility and Step
Processes:  An Experiment for the Undergraduate Laboratory," _American
Journal of Physics_, 52(10), pp. 945-947 (1984).

[6]  In most texts the treatment of displacement current is far from
adequate.  A better treatment than most is given by John D. Krauss,
_Electromagnetics_, Fourth Edition, McGraw-Hill, New York, pp. 437-439,
547-549 (1992).  Additional useful insight can be gained from David J.
Griffiths, _Introduction To Electrodynamics_, Second Edition, Prentice-Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, pp. 304-308 (1989).  Problem 7.51 on p. 335 is
also of direct interest, as is particularly the comment by Griffiths below
the problem.  Additional insight can be gained from David Halliday and Robert
Resnick, with assistance by John Merrill, _Fundamentals of Physics_, Extended
Third Edition (1988), John Wiley & Sons, New York, vol. 2, Article 37-4:
"Displacement Current," pp. 836-837, 839-841.  The standard notion is to (1)
retain the continuity of current, thus modifying and salvaging Ampere's law,
(2) the displacement current is nonphysical, i.e., it does not involve the
transfer of charged mass, (3) focus primarily upon magnetostatics as to the
results achievable by the displacement current, (4) retain the notion of
{del-phi} as E, a force field, thereby focusing the notion of displacement
current upon the change of the E field without the flow of charged mass, and
(5) retain the confusion between electrical charge and charged mass that is
inherent in the terms "charge", "current,", etc.  On p. 836 Halliday and
Resnick point out that the displacement current is not derived per se, but is
a "fit" based upon symmetry arguments, and it must stand or fall simply on
whether or not its predictions agree with experiment.  On the same page the
displacement current is taken to be a linear function of d{phi}/dt.  For flow
along a circuit where there is no electron mass current, it seems appropriate
to replace d{phi}/dt by d{phi}/dl.  It is also strongly indicated that one
should clearly distinguish between charged mass current flow and the flow of
massless charge, which is the approach we have taken.

A final indication of the way conventional scientists tend to regard
displacement current is given by Martin A. Plonus, _Applied
Electromagnetics_, McGraw-Hill, New York, pp. 446-448 (1978).  Here Plonus
uses the prevailing notion of the E field being altered by the flow of
massless displacement current.  As can be seen, the displacement current is
relegated almost to a curiosity of capacitors, and not really too essential
except just to "balance the books" and retain Ampere's current continuity.

We now wish to point out something very subtle but very rigorous.  CEM
erroneously uses E = -{del-phi} to equate a mass-free potential gradient with
a mass-containing force field.  This "E-field" only exists at a point when
there is a point-coulomb of electrical charged mass at the point.  The real
version of this equation should be E = [-{del-phi}dot{q}/|q|, where {del-phi}
is the potential gradient coupled directly to the charged point-mass at the
point, q is the number of coulombs of charged mass at the point, q/|q| is one
coulomb of charged mass, and E now is properly the force on and of each
coulomb of the collected charged mass at the point.

Viewed in this manner, one can now see that the E field may be altered by
flow of additional charged mass q, or by flow of massless additional
{del-phi}, or both.  This is now in agreement with the manner in which it is
approached in CEM, but more rigorous.  Essentially it states we may increase
the total "charge" (potential) at a point by either (1) moving in additional
charged masses by use of a conventional current, or (2) moving in additional
massless charge (potential) without any additional change in mass, or (3) a
combination of the above.

However, let us apply this to a single charged particle or to a fixed number
of them.  No one seems to have noticed that the notion of altering the
E-field of the collected point-charges at a point via method #2 , i.e. by a
flow of massless displacement current onto the fundamental charged particles
themselves, a priori requires the electrical charge of each fundamental
particle to change.  Hence it falsifies the notion of quantization of charge.

Also, no one seems to have noticed the electric power implications:  If it is
known that one can charge a capacitor purely by displacement current, then
one can charge up the capacitor with energy, without any dissipation of the
source, because only charged mass current through the back emf of the source
does that.  So one can then disconnect the charged capacitor and separately
connect it in a closed circuit with a load, to discharge through the load and
furnish free work in the load (free in the sense than no dissipation of the
primary source occurred in either the collection of the energy or in
discharge of the collected energy through the load as useful work).  Free
energy, overunity electrical devices, etc. should then be readily apparent
and permissible, from the known nature of displacement current and capacitors
alone.

[7]  Maxwell assumed a material ether, which was assumed to be a thin
material fluid filling all space.  Hence force (which must have mass as a
component due to its definition F = d(mv)/dt ) could be modeled as existing in
the Maxwellian ether, for there was already thin matter present everywhere.
Hence in Maxwell's EM the incorrect notion resulted that force fields existed
in the vacuum.  Oliver Heaviside continued this erroneous assumption, since
in fact he hated the potentials, regarded them as mystical, and stated that
they should be "...murdered from the theory."  Also, electricity was thought
to be a similar thin material fluid.  So the material electric fluid could
and did flow through the fluid vacuum also, giving the notion of the material
electric flux density for D.  Consequently, the units of D are coulombs
(charged mass rate of flow) per square meter.  Rigorously, that material D
flux exists only on and of charged mass that moves;  it cannot and does not
exist in vacuum.  Only potentials and potential gradients exist in vacuum.
However, after Maxwell's formation of his theory, the Michelson-Morley
experiment destroyed the material ether (not the ether per se, but its
material nature).  So electricians then simply proclaimed that they were no
longer using the material ether, and that such did not exist!  Not a single
Maxwell/Heaviside equation was changed.  The material ether is still very
much assumed in classical EM (CEM) theory, and so the theory is accordingly
very seriously flawed.  Since CEM also has no adequate definition for either
electric charge or the scalar potential, the problem is confounded.

To clarify this problem, one must separate the notion of electric charge from
the notion of mass.  The electrical charge of a charged mass is the virtual
photon flux exchange between the surrounding vacuum and that mass.  Since a
virtual photon flux is just a scalar potential, the electron's massless
electrical charge is simply its scalar potential.  It can now be seen that,
if we forcibly remove the notion of "mass" from D in the vacuum, or in a
charged material medium where the charged masses cannot move, then the
"material electric flux concept" portion of D turns into d{phi}/dt, a change
in the nonmaterial electric flux.  However, D is a vector and hence has a
"net flux" spatial directional aspect which d{phi}/dt alone does not possess.
It follows that the value of d{phi}/dt at a spatial point actually represents
the result of change of the value of {phi} at that point, as a function of
time.  Thus a directional operator must first be invoked upon {phi} at the
point, to provide a direction for the spatial {phi}-current after the d/dt
operator is invoked.  The appropriate operator to give directionality to
{phi} is {del}, so that D in vacuum or in an electron-current-free charged
medium becomes a function of d/dt (-{del-phi}).  Conventionally, the use in
the literature of E = -{del-phi} immediately provides that d/dt (-{del-phi})
at a point results in dE/dt, or the time rate of change of the E-field at
that point.  If no distinction is made between charged mass current flow and
massless charge current flow, this would be true in either vacuum or material
media.  However, we wish to specifically distinguish between massive
displacement current and massless displacement current.  So we point out that
the increase dE/dt in the magnitude of the E-field at, on, and of a charged
particle at a point, can be due to either (1) the flow of mass current to
build up the number of point coulombs at that given point, where each coulomb
has a fixed massless charge (potential), or (2) the flow of massless current
d/dt (-{del-phi}) so as to alter the value of {phi} at that point, evidenced
by a fixed number of coulombs of charged particles, each of which has altered
its individual potential and therefore its individual massless electrical
charge.

So what "flows" when the charged masses are frozen or absent is simply a
current of scalar potential, resulting in a change of the potential upon
fixed point charges of d{phi}/dt.  This is what crosses between the plates of
a capacitor, e.g., which is where the notion of "displacement current"
originated in the first place.  (See, e.g., Halliday and Resnick, 1988,
ibid., p. 836, Sample Problem 1, for expression of the displacement current
as d{phi}/dt, neglecting constants of proportionality).  This is also what
flows when one connects multiple open circuit pairs of conductors to a source.

It remains to examine Maxwell's equation {del} dot {D} = {rho sub v}.  If
mass displacement current cannot flow, then there exists no divergence of the
mass current portion of D.  However, massless displacement current can still
flow, and there can exist divergence of that component.  There are now three
aspects to that equation:  (1) the case in the vacuum, where there exists no
physical {rho} and hence no {rho sub v} as such because of the absence of
mass, (2) the case in a material medium, which is the normal case already
treated in the standard equation and need not be further addressed, and (3)
the case in a material medium where, nonetheless, physical charged masses
such as electrons cannot move, but massless charge currents may still move.
Only cases 1 and 3 need to be addressed, and they have the same treatment.

We address the one dimensional case, which is sufficient for circuit current
flow considerations.  First we replace D with ({D sub phi} + {D sub rho}),
where the first term is the massless displacement current and the second term
is the massive displacement current.  In other words, we account separately
for charged mass flow and for massless charge flow.  Similarly, we express
{rho sub v} as two components, one massive and one massless, so that
{rho sub v} = d/dl({phi} + {m sub v}).  For case 1 and case 3 we make
{m sub v} = 0 and {D sub rho} = 0.  For those cases, we have {del} dot {D} =
{del} dot {D sub phi} = d{phi}/dl (since current along a wire is a one-
dimensional flow.).  We specifically note that {phi}, {D sub phi}, D,
{del} dot {D sub phi} and d{phi}/dl are not necessarily conserved quantities,
since {phi} is mathematically decomposed into bidirectional EM waves, and is
hence a freely flowing process.  When symmetry is broken so that equilibrium
conditions no longer exist, one or more of these quantities will not be
locally conserved.

What has actually been done here is to open the classical EM model to the
free exchange of massless EM energy that is always ongoing between any
charged particle's mass and the vacuum.  We then account separately for the
flow of the energy exchange (of the massless charge flow) and the flow of the
physical receiver/transmitters (i.e., for charged mass flow).  Our switching
arrangement to separate the collection and discharge cycles constitutes a
permissible "Maxwell's Demon" which breaks symmetry, hence breaks equilibrium
and opens the system as required.  Since such a system can continually
receive a free influx of energy from its external source, such a system can
permissibly exhibit overunity operational efficiency without violating the
laws of physics.

[8]  Displacement current is already known to be lossless transport of energy
without entropy, i.e., without work.  For a typical confirmation see Jed Z.
Buchwald, _From Maxwell to Microphysics_, University of Chicago Press,
Chicago and London, p. 44 (1985).  Quoting:  "...no energy transformation
into heat occurs for displacement currents."

[9]  We strongly stress again that the scalar potential may be mathematically
decomposed into a harmonic series of hidden bidirectional EM wave pairs.
Each wave pair consists of an ordinary EM wave together with its superposed
phase conjugate replica wave.  Thus internally the scalar potential gradient
across a source represents a bidirectional exchange of EM wave energy with
the surrounding vacuum.  See notes 13, 14, 15, and 16 below for references
confirming the decomposition of the "fixed" potential into a dynamic flow
process and energy exchange process.

[10]  For confirmation see Robert Bruce Lindsay and Henry Margenau,
_Foundations of Physics_, Dover Publications, New York, pp. 283-287 (1963).
See particularly p. 283, which emphasizes that a "field of force" at any
point is actually defined only for the case when a unit mass is present at
that point.  See p. 17 on the limitations of a "natural law";  p. 213 and 215
for limitation of thermodynamic analysis to equilibrium states;  and see
p. 216 for definition of entropy.  See p. 217 for the fact that the entropy
for non-equilibrium conditions cannot be computed, and the entropy of a
system not in equilibrium must be less than the entropy of the system in
equilibrium, i.e., for a system to depart from equilibrium conditions, its
entropy must decrease.  Therefore its energy must increase.  Thus the energy
of an open system not in equilibrium must always be greater than the energy
of the same system when it is closed and in equilibrium, since the
equilibrium state is the state of maximum entropy.

[11]  Lindsay and Margenau, ibid., p. 217.

[12]  The basic notion in the perpetual motion conundrum is that somehow a
closed system in thermodynamic equilibrium could perpetually provide external
energy to a load outside the system.  Such a notion is an oxymoron;  if the
system is closed, no energy can escape or enter, hence the system could not
furnish energy externally to power a load or even just to radiate away.  My
associates and I have not in any manner proposed such a system or entertained
the notion that such might exist.  But it is well-known that open systems not
in thermodynamic equilibrium can freely extract energy from their environment
and furnish energy to power a load, and that is precisely what we have
proposed.

[13]  G. J. Stoney, "XLVIII.  On a Supposed Proof of a Theorem in
Wave-motion, To the Editors of the Philosophical Magazine,"  _Philosophical
Magazine_, 5(43), pp. 368-373 (1897).

[14]  E. T. Whittaker, "On the Partial Differential Equations of Mathematical
Physics," _Mathematische Annalen_, vol. 57, pp. 333-355 (1903).  Whittaker
mathematically decomposes the scalar potential into a bidirectional series of
EM wave pairs in a harmonic sequence.  Each wave pair consists of the wave
and its phase conjugate.  (We have pointed out elsewhere that such a wave
pair is a standing electrogravitational wave and a standing wave in the
curvature of local space-time).  To see that all classical EM can be replaced
by interference of two such scalar potentials (i.e., by the interference of
their hidden multi-wave sets), see E. T. Whittaker, "On an Expression of the
Electromagnetic Field Due to Electrons by Means of Two Scalar Potential
Functions," _Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society_, Series 2,
vol. 1, pp. 367-372 (1904).

[15]  Richard W. Ziolkowski, "Localized Transmission of Electromagnetic
Energy," _Physical Review A_, 39, p. 2005 (1989).  For related material, see
Richard W. Ziolkowski, "Exact Solutions of the Wave Equation With Complex
Source Locations," _Journal of Mathematical Physics_, 26, pp. 861-863 (1985).
See also Michael K. Tippett and Richard Ziolkowski, "A Bidirectional Wave
Transformation of the Cold Plasma Equations," _Journal of Mathematical
Physics_, 32(2), pp. 488-492 (1991).

[16]  C. W. Hsue, "A DC Voltage is Equivalent to Two Traveling Waves on a
Lossless, Nonuniform Transmission Line," _IEEE Microwave and Guided Wave
Letters_, 3, pp. 82-84 (1993).

[17]  H. E. Puthoff, "Source of Vacuum Electromagnetic Zero-point Energy,"
_Physical Review A_, 40(9), pp. 4857-4862 (1989).  Presents Puthoff's self-
regenerating cosmological feedback cycle for the source of the vacuum EM
zero-point energy.

Our comment:  Over any macroscopic range, the vacuum fluctuations
({del-phi}'s) of the ZPE sum to a vector zero translational resultant.  The
individual ZPE components ({del-phi}'s), however, are still present and
active, and their energies are present as well.  That vector zero can thus be
considered to be a gradient-free potential, or the vacuum potential, since it
contains enormously dense, trapped EM energy.  So the vacuum potential --
pure space-time (ST) itself -- contains enormously dense EM energy.

One can then apply the Stoney/Whittaker/Ziolkowski (SWZ) methodology to
decompose this powerful vacuum potential, i.e., the vacuum, and in fact
space-time (ST) itself, into an incredibly dense flux of EM energy.  Space-
time is revealed to be an incredibly powerful electrostatic scalar potential.
The electrical charge (potential) of a charged particle is a small potential
gradient in the ST potential, i.e., it is a slight alteration of the local ST
potential.  Via Puthoff's self-regenerative feedback cycle, the energy
flowing in this potential is being exchanged between the local source and all
the charges everywhere in the universe.  This "potential gradient" or
electrical charge itself can be decomposed via the SWZ approach, and becomes
a bidirectional EM wave pair exchange of excess EM energy between the
vacuum/ST and the charged particle's mass.  The potential gradient between
the ends of a dipole have similar decompositions, with the additional
characteristic that the negatively charged end of the dipole receives the
forward-time waves from the SWZ wave pairs, and the positively charged end
receives the time-reversed waves.

Our final comment is that Cole and Puthoff have rigorously shown that, in
theory, the vacuum EM energy can indeed be extracted.  See Daniel C. Cole,
and Harold E. Puthoff, "Extracting Energy and Heat from the Vacuum,"
_Physical Review E_, 48(2), pp. 1562-1565 (1993).

[18]  T. W. Barrett, "Tesla's Nonlinear Oscillator-Shuttle-Circuit (OSC)
Theory," _Annales de la Fondation Louis de Broglie_, 16(1), pp. 23-41 (1991).
Barrett shows that a higher topology EM model (e.g., EM expressed in
quaternions) allows shuttling and storage of potentials in circuits, and also
allows additional EM functioning of a circuit that a conventional EM analysis
cannot reveal.  As an example, one may meet optical functioning without the
presence of optical materials.

*******************End of Paper********************


-- 

If you are an INFJ, then join the INFJ mailing list - ask me for more details.
If you don't know what INFJ means, ask me, and I'll send more info (46Kb file).
=============================================================================
| Jon Noring          | noring@netcom.com        | "Fanny Hill" and other   |
| JKN International   | IP    : 192.100.81.100   | famous literary works in |
| 1312 Carlton Place  | Phone : (510) 294-8153   | Windows 3.1 Help format  |
| Livermore, CA 94550 | V-Mail: (510) 417-4101   | are available!  Ask me!  |
=============================================================================
       Read alt.psychology.personality!  That's where the action is.
       Did you know there's a mailing list for 78 RPM record collectors?
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudennoring cudfnJon cudlnNoring cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.03 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Learning About Calorimetry, Part 5
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Learning About Calorimetry, Part 5
Date: Thu, 3 Mar 1994 01:14:56 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Learning Something About Calorimetry Part V

This continues answers to Bill Page's request for information on calorimetry.

>c) Is it possible to design a control circuit that is well behaved? I.e.   
>that adjusts to a change in Qx resonably rapidly.  A simple on/off         
>thermostat with a fixed temperature would oscillate with a duty cycle      
>(ratio of on-time to total time) that would determine the average value of  
>Qin. The period of the oscillation depends on the hysteresis (difference   
>between the "on" temperature and the "off" temperature) and the total heat 
>capacity (thermal mass).  The question is: How long does it take to measure
>the duty cycle to the desired accuracy?  Is it possible to design a control
>circuit that minimizes the time required to determine Qin?                 

"Is it possible to design a control circuit that is well behaved?"  Yes, 
almost always.  But you might not like the result.  What you have described is 
called a bang-bang servo in the trade.  I don't like one of those around if I 
am trying to make precision measurements.  I want a "proportional" servo.  One 
that adjusts the drive power linearly to just the right amount needed at the 
moment.  The bang-bang servo fills the ether with noise as it switches on and 
off.  Hard to make precision measurements while this is going on. 

"How long does it take to measure the duty cycle to the desired accuracy?"  
With heat it can take a very long time.  Just think about how fast your coffee
cup responds.  Also see below.  "Is it possible to design a control circuit 
that minimizes the time required to determine Qin?.  Yes, there is a fancy way 
which takes a few years of study, and an easy way.  Eventually I will get 
around to writing up the easy way. 

"that adjusts to a change in Qx reasonably rapidly."  Well it depends on what 
you think is reasonable.  Here there are real limits.  The Mark II had an open 
loop time constant of 12,000 seconds.  By "heroic" electronics, this was sped 
up to 1200 seconds for the closed loop.  This is a 10 to one improvement over 
where it would have been with the simplest type of control system.  To first 
order, the gain is cranked up until the system oscillates.  But for best 
results, it is also necessary to shape the transfer function.  Thus you don't 
just crank up the gain, you crank it up more at low frequency (usually) than 
at high frequency.  There is a lot of fancy computations (and not so fancy - 
systems are unstable if ab=1) that will tell you if a system is going to be 
stable.  But the basic rule is that the closed loop frequency response must go 
through a gain of one at no more than 6 db per octive.  

The trick is to figure out that that pole is at 12,000 seconds.  Note this is 
a little hard to measure.  One needs a signal generator that goes down to 
micro-Hz, then you have to have a lot of patience between measurement points.  
There is also the problem that you cannot measure the response while the whole 
mess is oscillating.  We flubbed around a few months with the Mark II trying 
spice (computer) models and "guessing" at compensation (using a *lot* of 
experience).  In the end we took some data with the loop sort of closed, ran 
it through the FFT, saw the pole at 0.000013 Hz, and then we could figure out 
what to do.  I notice I switch back and forth between Hz and time constants.  
Sorry if it is confusing.  tau (time constant) = 1/2*Pi*f 

There is more.

Tom Droege

cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenDROEGE cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.03 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Learning About Calorimetry, Part 6
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Learning About Calorimetry, Part 6
Date: Thu, 3 Mar 1994 01:15:03 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Learning Something About Calorimetry Part VI
                                                                                
>So, for a realistic simple implementation of a null-balance calorimeter,   
>consider the following:                                                    
>                                                                           
>              -------------------------                                    
>              |    circulating air    |                                    
>              |  T4             T3    |                                    
>              |        |----|         |                                    
>              |/\/     | CF |      \/\|/\/                                 
>      ------> Qin      |cell|       Qout ------->                          
>              |\/\     | Qx |      /\/|\/\                                 
>              |        |----|         |                                    
>              |  T1             T2    |                                    
>              |      ^^ fan ^^        |                                    
>              -------------------------                                    
>                                                                           
>                    Figure 2.                                              
>                                                                           
>Assume the calorimeter chamber to be very well insulated or even a silver  
>dewar etc. The \/\ represent metal-to-air heat sinks, i.e. large surface   

Sorry, Bill, there ain't no such thing as "well insulated".  "even a silver 
dewar".  The very nice dewar I used for the Mark II has a thermal conductance 
of 63 mw per C.  Note that this is just the kind of numbers that the 
"positive" experiments report.  A few tens of milliwatts.  The dewar I use has 
an internal heat shield.  Best would be one with super insulation, we 
contacted the manufacturer in Japan, but I did not have the money to have one 
made.  Now that I have a vacuum pump, I might try to make one.  

Now look at Qin.  The area around Qin will be hotter than the rest of the box 
surface.  It can not be helped.  There will be large temperature gradients 
over the shell.  You cannot make the shell thick enough.  The Mark II had 1 
1/2 inches of foam over the dewar.  Then there was a 1/16" aluminum shell, 
then there was another 1 1/2" of foam.  I measured several degrees difference 
over different positions on the aluminum shell, even though it was isolated 
from the world by 1 1/2" of foam on all sides.  

Lets do a gedanken experiment with this set up.  With no power to the cell, we 
balance up Qin to Qout so that the thermometers come to constant temperature.  
But some of Qin is radiating to the outside of the box.  It can't be helped 
with this design as the heater is the hottest thing and it will cause a local 
surface hot spot.  (Beginning to understand why I want an isothermal surface - 
which can best be done with a heat pipe?)  So we overestimate Qout.  Now we 
start putting power into the cell.  Qin backs off as it should.  But now this 
causes less radiation loss.  So it backs off even further, and it now looks 
like we have "anomalous heat".  

>area, probably aluminum or copper.  The fan eliminates thermal gradients in  
>the air and helps to ensure that the majority of the heat is tranferred by  
>convection.  Here the "thermal mass" is the air itself.  The air is cooled 

The fan tries, but it does not eliminate thermal gradients.  At least not at 
the level where you can do 10's of milliwatt calorimetry.  And that is what is 
needed.  The air to experiment coupling introduces a **big** time constant.  
Imagine controlling the temperature of your coffee cup this way.  This set up 
would have a **very** slow response.  No electronics could speed up its 
response time.    

>by Qout and heated by Qin and the heat output of the CF cell Qx. Multiple  
>temperature sensors T1 .. T4 monitor the air temperature.  Some type of    
>control circuit use the T1 .. T4 signals to control the value of Qin.      

One problem here is that the T1 ... T4 signals are only loosely coupled to the 
experiment.  There could be a huge temperature spike in the CF cell and it 
would go undetected.  One wants to couple the cell temperature very tightly to 
the cell.  This brings up the problem of "what is the cell temperature?" which 
I will discuss later.
                                                                           
>In this design, air is the perferred thermal mass (as opposed to water or  
>some other medium) because of its low thermal capacity.                    
                                                                           
>What are your critisisms of this design?  How accurately do you think we   
>could measure heat with such a setup?                                      

Winging it, a few hundred milliwatts.  This assumes about 6" of foam over 
everything.  But since you have built it, you can test it.  Here is the test I 
recommend:

1) Replace the cell with a heater.
2) Set up your computer to give you a random value for heat into the heater.
3) Apply this heat to the heater - or as close as you can set it.  The 
important thing is to make a consistent measurement.
4) Wait until Qin settles down to a value.
5) Add Qin to the random heat value and put the sum on an histogram. 
6) Loop to 2)

After enough measurements, you will be able to determine a mean value and a 
sigma.  Be sure to run a week or so to cover a range of environmental changes.  
We did this experiment with the Mark II and got a sigma of 4.4 milliwatts over 
about 10 days of running.  It would be a good idea to bin separately for 
different ranges of Qin to test for a relation to the test power.  

>I used essentially this type of design in some of the experiments that I   
>ran several months ago.  Qin was provided by a resistive heater immersed in    
>the electrolyte of the CF cell.  I also collected data on the temperature   
>of the electrolyte and the ambient air temperature outside the chamber.    
>The calorimeter chamber was made from a commonly available electronic       
>"picnic" cooler.  A common electronic thermostat with an adjustable         

A great idea!  Let the picnic cooler manufacturer do most of the work.  But 
you do need to get at the "hot" side of the TEC so that it's heat does not get 
back into the cooler.  I hesitate to recommend water cooling as it is apt to 
introduce more problems.  I use a second bank of TEC.  I suppose they have 
designed this as well as they can, but it is a tough problem.  For the heater, 
I would *not* put it to the side as you have shown it, but rather would put a 
bank of heaters in front of the fan.  That way you would minimize the "hot 
spot" on the cooler wall.  

>hysteresis set at about 0.5 deg C. was used to control Qin. The CF cell was 
>a plastic container with approximately 60 ml of H2O (or D2O).  The period   
>of oscillation was about 60 to 100 seconds.  Qin was calculated by          
>integrating (or rather time averaging) I*E.  Qout was set by adjusting the  
>voltage input to the Peltier device to ensure a reasonable operating range  
>at the power levels expected.                         

As you no doubt know by now, making an accurate measurement of a pulsed power 
system is very difficult to do.  Even if you get the periods accurately, there 
is the question of power during the transition.  Not a job for an amateur.  So 
all the more reason to go to a linear control system.  Hard to do even 1% with 
a bang-bang system.  
                                                                            
>Actaully I never did enough calibration with such a setup to determine its  
>accuracy.  Do you think it would be worth while to continue to work with    
>this sort of approach?

Actually, I like using the commercial picnic cooler.  Try the calibration 
experiment outlined above with the heaters in front of the fan.  But you 
really should use a linear servo to drive the heaters.  Then there is the 
square root problem.  You also need a data collection system.  By the time you 
are done with everything it is a pretty big job.  But I will try to help if 
you are determined. 

Still more coming. 

Tom Droege 

cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenDROEGE cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.03 / Jed Rothwell /  Supports Close Proposal
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Supports Close Proposal
Date: Thu, 3 Mar 1994 01:14:39 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG

Frank Close proposes a radical new standard for scientific research. I would
like to go on record to say that I fully support him, I think his ideas should
be implemented across the board immediately. He charactorizes his standard:

     "If experiments show reproducible evidence (whereby any competent
     research team will be able to confirm the phenomenon for themselves...)"

And:

     "The moment that the Ni-H experiment is reproduced and moves along,
     analogous to the developments following the announcements of high T
     superconductivity, for example, then I might get interested."

What this means, in a nutshell, is that from now on all scientific experiments
must be easy to replicate with ordinary laboratory equipment. Any scientist
who bothers to work for a week should be able to replicate any effect.
Experiments that require months or years of effort will be disqualified
because they do not "move along" quickly enough.

I think we should set a firm standard. Let us call it the "Close Limiting
Factor" or CLF. Any experiment requiring more than $250 in new equipment, or
any experiment that cannot be replicated in more than one month by an
undergraduate will no longer be considered part of science. This will
eliminate countless pesky, dead-end areas.

Imagine how much trouble the CLF might have saved the human race in the past.
It boggles the mind! If the CLF had been in place from 1858 to 1878,
scientists would not have wasted 20 years and countless dollars working on the
"subdivided [parallel] incandescent electric light." Think of the hundreds --
nay, thousands! -- of non-functional incandescent bulbs that scientists like
Moses G. Farmer and Edison produced during that period. They wasted a mountain
of glassware. For 20 years, these devices failed to work for more than a few
seconds, they failed to work the same way twice in a row, many failed to work
at all. Those lamps that did work produced wildly different levels of
illumination. Here we have a simple device with only a handful of components.
What could possibly be difficult to "replicate" about that? If it could be
done at all, then a sure-fire recipe describing exactly how to do it should
have been available by 1859, or 1860 at the latest. Farmer, Edison and the
others should have realized after a few years that "enough is enough,"
especially because every single leading expert, from Seimens to Preece, had
already proven that parallel lighting is physically impossible.

If the CLF formula had been applied in 1903, we would have known by February
1904 that the Wright Brothers really were "bluffers." We would not have had to
wait five years (the time it took for anyone to replicate them). In the 1930's
and 40's the CLF might have spared us the nonsense about nuclear fission. Look
at these supposed fission "reactors" and "bombs." The bomb, for example, took
hundreds of simple implosion experiments to perfect. Implosion experiments!
How difficult could it be to make a set of chemical explosions all go off at
the same moment, with the same force, in the same direction? That should be a
trivial problem, no harder than loading deuterium into palladium evenly from
all sides. They should have had 100% reproducable implosions after a week or
two. The fact that this one tiny aspect of the bomb alone required millions of
dollars and countless man years, and the fact that such implosions are *still*
difficult to reproduce today (after 50 years!) proves that this bomb is not
part of science, according to the Close Limiting Factor.

Starting in the mid-thirties, the CLF would have saved a terrific amount of
time and trouble researching semiconductors -- another irreproducable dead-
end. Three years after the supposed 1949 "transistor breakthrough" at AT&T,
most labs *still* could not replicate the mythical "semiconductor."

Turning to the present day, the Close Limiting Factor will save BILLIONS of
dollars in pie-in-the-sky, dead-end scientific research. For example, research
in both high energy physics and plasma fusion energy can now be safely
terminated. Everyone knows that high energy fusion experiments looking for
"quarks" and other particles often run for months without results.
Reproducibility is terrible! These fields require one-of-a-kind machines and
instruments which could not be reproduced by a scientist in a week, or even in
a lifetime. These machines cost far more than $250, and even world-class
experts have great difficulty operating them. Furthermore, these fields "move
along" at a snail's pace. Why should anyone bother to "get interested" in
them?

For all of these reasons, I support Frank's proposal. It may seem radical, but
upon careful consideration, readers will find it sensible and modest. It will
open a New Age of Instant Gratification in science & technology. Let us begin
implementing this standard immediately, by closing down the
Rutherford-Appleton laboratories.

- Jed

[P.S. Sorry if I accidentally posted an early version of this. I will try to
delete it if I did.]

cudkeys:
cuddy3 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.03 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Learning About Calorimetry, Part 4
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Learning About Calorimetry, Part 4
Date: Thu, 3 Mar 1994 01:14:50 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Learning Something About Calorimetry - Part IV

This continues my reply to Bill Page.  We start by repeating the essential 
features of a servomechanism:
                                                          
1) A command input.  "Keep her running at 65 Jake"
2) An output.  Jake observes the speed of the flywheel.  
3) A difference device.  Jake notices it is a little fast.
4) A transfer function.  Everything else.  How Jake responds to a change in 
speed, how the engine responds to a change in throttle, how the boiler 
responds to a change in load.  

The transfer function is apt to have at least one gain element.  Jake converts 
a tiny input signal - the sound of the engine - into some significant power as 
he pushes on the throttle.  

Reading my "The Power Handbooks" series, Hill Publishing Company, 1908, 
(Inherited from my grandfather - could this be Hill of McGraw Hill?  Very 
likely.) I find no mathematics.  The book on "Shaft Governors"  contains only 
one equation - to compute the force on a spinning pendulum.  So it looks like 
the industrial revolution took place without any idea of what a transfer 
function was.  When I was in school, I took a servo course as a senior (1951).  
We did not study LaPlace transforms.  Later in graduate school, we did.  But 
then I was a math major, and likely I could have escaped them completely in 
engineering school.  Now I think they are a key part of engineering studies.  

Remember dear readers how you solved electrical circuits in school.  That is 
ones with R's, L's and C's.  One divided up the circuit into loops, and summed 
the voltage around the loop as a function of current (or into nodes and summed 
the current into the node).  This (at least for R L C circuits) gives a set of 
linear differential equations with constant coefficients.  Note the trick used 
for deriving the sets of equations without all those derivatives is to label 
the L's and C's with a complex tag to make their impedances complex.  So where 
there is an L it is replaced by jwL and a C is given an impedance of -1/jwC.  
(this is electrical engineering so j = sqrt(-1).  

A bunch of R L C 's does nothing by itself.  It has to be "excited".  The 
usual thing is to apply a forcing function between two nodes.  This can be a 
voltage or a current source (they are equivalent) which is a function of time.  
Lets think voltage and call this input Ein(t).  We can then look at some other 
point in the circuit and call it the "output".  When we solve the set of 
differential equations, it will have some function of voltage (current) with 
time that is related to the forcing function.  Call it Eout(t).  We can then 
derive a "transfer function" which is completely independent of Ein(t) by 
dividing: 

                f(t) = Eout(t)/Ein(t)

So for a system that can be modeled by a set of linear differential equations 
with constant coefficients, we can derive a "transfer function" that tells 
what the output of a network will be for any input.  (Again I remind you that 
heat is not in this category, but it may be close enough to use these tools.)
But the transfer function f(t) is apt to be a mess if you can derive it at 
all.  Hmmm! I have never even thought of this before.

The way of dealing with these problems these days (or in the not so old days)
is to replace jw by s.  That is we replace our time variable by a frequency 
variable and move over into LaPlace transform land.  Now we change over to 
g(s) as the model of our system.  This is great, as LaPlace transform land is 
readily accessable using the fft.  g(s) tells us what the output amplitude and 
phase will be for each frequency component of the input.  Now we can derive 
some theorems about stability.  In particular if the output is compared to 
the input, and the gain between the error input to the transfer function and 
the output is -1 (at some frequency i.e. a 180 degree phase shift) then the 
system will oscillate.  I know this as the Nyquist criterion.  Ol' Nyquist 
got into a lot of mischief.  I knew of this long before the sample data 
theorem.  My handbook says "Obtain the locus of the transfer function G(s) in 
the complex G plane for volues of s=jw for w from - infinity to + infinity.  
For single loop systems the, if the locus thus described encloses the point -1 
+ j0, the system is unstable". "Reference Data for Radio Engineers", ITT 
Howard W. Sams, Sixth Edition, 1975.  

Most of the problems is working with servomechanisms involve developing a good 
model.  The models tend to have a variety of conversion problems.  When 
creating a model for a Boing 747 control system, one is apt to make several 
conversions between systems.  Part of the system will be electrical, part 
mechanical - gears etc., there is likely to be an hydraulic amplifier.  The 
whole thing will be a grand mish mash of pressure, voltage, torque, etc..  To 
get everything to make sense requires conversion of units at the boundaries 
between systems.  I have worked on such systems where g(s) was a polynomial of 
degree 23 over one of degree 24 - or thereabouts.  At the good old NADC, the 
guys from upstairs would come down to me to find the roots.  After talking to 
them a while, I determined that the real problem was combining all the little 
transfer functions into one big one.  They had two teams with Marchant 
calculators working through the calculations.  It took several weeks to get a 
good set of answers.  I became famous (at NADC) by developeing an "algebra" 
program that would do the crud work for them (interpretive language on the 
Bendix G-15).  Most of the computations involved just changing a constant 
somewhere - i.e. the mass of an hydraulic piston.  But they would have to do 
the two week Marchant grind for each change.  Using the algebra program they 
could set it up once.  Too bad I did not stick with that effort.  I would 
likely be famous today for developing such programs as that was 1960. 

Modeling of servo systems was mostly done by the big aircraft companies.  They 
have a reason.  I don't mind if I peg the amplifiers when starting up the 
calorimeter to figure out where to set the amplifier gain (as a function of 
frequency).  I don't even care too much if I burn out an amplifier (At $10 a 
whack).  But aircraft companies don't like crashing 747's.  They try to get it 
right the first time.  So they do a lot of computing and testing.  It costs a 
lot! 

This all sounds messy and very analytical, but in fact it is not.  Given a 
real servo system to stabilize (make it work as fast as possible, and with 
the least error) there is only so much you can do.  It can all be done 
(usually) by changing two resistors and one capacitor on the main amplifier.  
But you need to have gone through all that messy math a few times to figure 
out what resistor to put in.  You also need some measurements on the system.  
                                                 
More to come.

Tom Droege                   

cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenDROEGE cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.02 / mitchell swartz /  Assignment of Dihydrino Molecule
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Assignment of Dihydrino Molecule
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 1994 14:09:53 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

 
  In the January Fusion Technology is an article by Randell 
Mills, William Good and Robert Shaubach on "Dihydrino Molecule 
Identification" (FT, v25, p103-119).        Part of the theoretical basis 
for the assignment of a component of  the collected gas is based upon 
logic which states:

  "Miles et al. (8) report the production of 4He at a rate of (ca) 
10^11 4He/s.  The associated gamma emission from this proposed 
fusion corresponds to a 10-Ci 23.8-MeV source. Secondary X rays must 
also be present as well as neutrons and charged particles in the 
correct ratios (11).

REFS: ....  
11. S. JONES, Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion (Mar. 3, 1993)

"must" indeed.     ;-)
Since   1)  the argument about "ratios" and "required x rays" 
actually remains unproven for the case of the periodic solid state and 
in particular for the case of a low interstitial lattice contained 
(decorated?) within a second Group VIII lattice,    but rather is only 
asserted, and
              2)   even the citation is non-descriptive and very vague 
(with a completely nondescriptive reference that should not have 
made it through a peer-reviewed journal),
some normal questions arise: 

i) When did, or does, Steve begin to support the Randall Mills 
theory?

ii) Should not the authors use the same rigor (and he uses much 
in his books) of mathematical/physics approach as was used on the 
orbitspheres derivation to apply to this self-serving assertion? 

iii) What might be the implication if the same arguments used 
by TB-skeptics can also be used to support the assignment of the 
putative dihydrino molecule in the "shrunken hydrogen model"?

Best wishes.
                         Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com)




cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.03 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Learning About Calorimeters, Part III
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Learning About Calorimeters, Part III
Date: Thu, 3 Mar 1994 01:14:29 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

This continues my reply to the questions of Bill Page. 

Learning Something About Calorimetry - Part III
                                                                           
>It seems to me that:                                                       

>a) The thermal mass must include the CF cell itself, the electrolyte,     
>metal, gas, container etc. as well as some part of the material of the     
>calorimeter chamber.  Is it correct to assume we would like to minimize    
>this mass or rather more accurately - its heat capacity, relative to the   
>magnitude of the heat flows so that the time required to reach equilibrium 
>is minimized?                                                              

"as well as some part of the material of the calorimeter chamber."  Ah! 
there's the rub.  What is "inside" and what is "outside"?  We worked very 
hard to make a very weak connection between "inside" and "outside" and then 
we worked to make it irrelevant.  

Then again, we have to do experiments with water, as that is what this 
business is all about.  And it takes 4.1 joules to raise one ml one C.  Or 
thereabouts.  High in comparison to most things.  

For the Mark II we ended up with a lot more "structure" mass than water mass.  
But it was much more stable than the Mark I.  It is all a question of making 
isothermal surfaces.  A big chunk of aluminum (the Mark II) does a fair job.  
Copper shells 1/32" thick do not do very well (The Mark I).  A heat pipe (the 
Mark III) should do a very good job.  While the "insides" of the Mark II had a 
12,000 second time constant, there were indications of a secondary time 
constant of 260,000 seconds.  This was likely the transfer of heat from the 
inner heat shield to the inside wall of the two liter dewar.  But while this 
re-distribution is going on, there are changes in radiation between the inner 
and outer wall of the dewar.   
                                                                           
>b) I think you have alluded to details of the servo control circuitry in   
>previous postings.  When you are talking about the "transfer function" are 
>you referring to the time relationship between the heat flow and the change
>in the temperature of the thermal mass?  Assuming Qout constant:           
>                                                                           
>   Qin(t) + Qx(t) ---> dT(t)/dt                                            
>                                                                           
>But I suppose that the model might be too simple to deal with this.        

Way back, we had steam engines.  The engines were controlled by an employee 
that kept them running at constant speed (if it was a factory).  The dirty 
capitalists in the crowd saw that employee standing there doing a very dumb 
task and they didn't want to pay him.  So they set about controlling the speed 
automatically.  The first devices hunted back and forth between full speed and 
off, but after a while, clever yankees figured out how to make them work 
(without really understanding what was going on).  Then the academics stepped 
in and started trying to figure it out.  I show my bias, but this is one place 
where it pretty well happened this way. 

Such systems have an input "Hey Jake, keep her running at 65 RPM".  They 
have an output - the RPM - likely measured by Jake by the sound of the engine.  
There is a difference device - in this case, Jake notices by the sound that it 
is running a little fast.  And they have a "transfer function".  Jake, noting 
that the engine sounds a little fast, backs off on the throttle.  This reduces 
the pressure in the cylinder, and the engine puts less energy into the 
flywheel, and the load on the system starts taking more energy out of the 
flywheel than is being put it, so it starts slowing down.  Now it takes a 
while for Ol' Jake to learn just how to do it.  Young Jake backs off too much 
on the throttle, and the next thing he knows, the engine stalls.  Like going 
through the turns on the four man bobsled we have all been watching - let the 
sled steer itself - but that won't work either, we have to adjust the "gain" 
in the system just right.  We just steer a little or we end up going over the 
opposite wall.  That is the whole servomechanism problem - where do we set the 
gain (as a function of frequency). 

But gain has a frequency component.  Top bobsled drivers likely have frequency 
responses in the 3 or 4 cycle per second range.  Jake is likely slower as he 
has to pay some attention to his chaw or he will swallow it.  For a system 
like this we tend to build up the complete transfer function from a bunch of 
little ones.  Jake is measured to have a "time constant" of one second.  That 
is he behaves just like a one microfarad capacitor hooked up to a one megohm 
resistor.  His response is exponential.  He puts in 1/e of the correction that 
he is going to apply on observing an error in 1 second.  The flywheel 
"integrates" the engine force over time.  The boiler operator notices his 
steam pressure is going down, and may act with a ten minute time constant.  So 
in a typical servo system we will have many different time constants all 
interacting.  Jake notices the engine slowing down and opens the throttle.  
This causes the boiler pressure to go down, but the stoker at first cannot 
keep up, so the pressure keeps dropping and Jake has to keep opening the 
throttle wider.  Then the stoker builds up the boiler pressure, and Jake has 
to start backing off, even though the load did not change.   
                   
Everyone has seen the spinning pendulum regulator that was one of the more 
successful schemes for controlling steam engines.  The engine goes faster, the 
balls spin faster and swing out further from the shaft.  This raises a lever 
which cuts back on the steam.                      

To repeat, the essential features of a servomechanism are:

1) A command input.  "Keep her running at 65 Jake"
2) An output.  Jake observes the speed of the flywheel.  
3) A difference device.  Jake notices it is a little fast.
4) A transfer function.  Everything else.  How Jake responds to a change in 
speed, how the engine responds to a change in throttle, how the boiler 
responds to a change in load.  

Tom Droege

cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenDROEGE cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.03 / Jed Rothwell /  Supports Close Proposal
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Supports Close Proposal
Date: Thu, 3 Mar 1994 01:14:33 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG

Frank Close proposes a radical new standard for scientific research. I would
like to go on record to say that I fully support him, I think his ideas should
be implemented across the board immediately. He summarizes his standard:

     "The moment that the Ni-H experiment is reproduced and moves along,
     analogous to the developments following the announcements of high T
     superconductivity, for example, then I might get interested."

What this means, in a nutshell, is that from now on all scientific experiments
must be easy to replicate with ordinary laboratory equipment. Any scientist
who bothers to work for a week should be able to replicate any effect.
Experiments that require months or years of effort will be disqualified
because they do not "move along" quickly enough.

I think we should set a firm standard. Let us call it the "Close Limiting
Factor" or CLF. Any experiment requiring more than $250 in new equipment, or
any experiment that cannot be replicated in more than one month by an
undergraduate will no longer be considered part of science. This will
eliminate countless pesky, dead-end areas.

Imagine how much trouble the CLF might have saved the human race in the past.
It boggles the mind! If the CLF had been in place from 1858 to 1878,
scientists would not have wasted 20 years and countless dollars working on the
"subdivided [parallel] incandescent electric light." Think of the hundreds --
nay, thousands! -- of non-functional incandescent bulbs that scientists like
Moses G. Farmer and Edison produced during that period. They wasted a mountain
of glassware. For 20 years, these devices failed to work for more than a few
seconds, they failed to work the same way twice in a row, many failed to work
at all. Those lamps that did work produced wildly different levels of
illumination. Here we have a simple device with only a handful of components.
What could possibly be difficult to "replicate" about that? If it could be
done at all, then a sure-fire recipe describing exactly how to do it should
have been available by 1859, or 1860 at the latest. Farmer, Edison and the
others should have realized after a few years that "enough is enough,"
especially because every single leading expert, from Seimens to Preece, had
already proven that parallel lighting is physically impossible.

If the CLF formula had been applied in 1903, we would have known by February
1904 that the Wright Brothers really were "bluffers." We would not have had to
wait five years (the time it took for anyone to replicate them). In the 1930's
and 40's the CLF might have spared us the nonsense about nuclear fission. Look
at these supposed fission "reactors" and "bombs." The bomb, for example, took
hundreds of simple implosion experiments to perfect. Implosion experiments!
How difficult could it be to make a set of chemical explosions all go off at
the same moment, with the same force, in the same direction? That should be a
trivial problem, no harder than loading deuterium into palladium evenly from
all sides. They should have had 100% reproducable implosions after a week or
two. The fact that this one tiny aspect of the bomb alone required millions of
dollars and countless man years, and the fact that such implosions are *still*
difficult to reproduce today (after 50 years!) proves that this bomb is not
part of science, according to the Close Limiting Factor.

Starting in the mid-thirties, the CLF would have saved a terrific amount of
time and trouble researching semiconductors -- another irreproducable dead-
end. Three years after the supposed 1949 "transistor breakthrough" at AT&T,
most labs *still* could not replicate the mythical "semiconductor."

Turning to the present day, the Close Limiting Factor will save BILLIONS of
dollars in pie-in-the-sky, dead-end scientific research. For example, research
in both high energy physics and plasma fusion energy can now be safely
terminated. Everyone knows that high energy fusion experiments looking for
"quarks" and other particles often run for months without results.
Reproducibility is terrible! These fields require one-of-a-kind machines and
instruments which could not be reproduced by a scientist in a week, or even in
a lifetime. These machines cost far more than $250, and even world-class
experts have great difficulty operating them. Furthermore, these fields "move
along" at a snail's pace. Why should anyone bother to "get interested" in
them?

For all of these reasons, I support Frank's proposal. It may seem radical, but
upon careful consideration, readers will find it sensible and modest. It will
open a New Age of Instant Gratification in science & technology. Let us begin
implementing this standard immediately, by closing down the
Rutherford-Appleton laboratories.

- Jed

cudkeys:
cuddy3 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.03 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Learning About Calorimetry, Part 7
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Learning About Calorimetry, Part 7
Date: Thu, 3 Mar 1994 01:15:08 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Learning Something About Calorimetry Part VII

>                                                                           
>Topic 2: Heat conductance                                                   
>                                                                            
>Again, I'll start with an idealized model.                                  
>                                                                            
>                                                                            
>    heat in ---->  |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ----> heat sink       
>     Qin           ^          ^          ^          ^         Qout          
>                   T1         T2         T3         T4                      
>                                                                            
>                          Figure 3.                                         
>                                                                            
>Here, ||| represents some kind of heat conductor, for example, a piece of  
>copper wire. Of course it could be anything, all materials conduct heat to 
>a greater or lesser degree.  But I do mean only conductance and            
>specifically not other forms of heat transfer, e.g. convection or          
>radiation.                                                                 

The big problem here is doing this experiment.  Apply continuous power at Qin. 
Wait for equilibrium.  One expects to see equal temperature differences 
between the equally spaced Ti.  This is not what is observed.  T1-T2 is larger 
than T2-T3 which in turn is larger than T3-T4.  Use a 1" copper rod with a 
mile of styrafoam around it.  Still the same result.  Convection and radiation 
and spurious conduction cannot be ignored.  The losses are just too large to 
make a very good measurement.  This is because there are no good thermal 
insulators.  The ratio of the conductivity of the best material - copper at 
220 in some units is only 15000 times the best insulator - styrafoam at 0.015 
same units.  (Btu Ft/Ft^2-Hr-F I bet you really didn't want to know!).  
Compare this to about 50 orders of magnitude for electrical work.  

>Now the question will be: Given Qin(t) varying over time, with Qout fixed,  
>how do the temperatures T1(t), T2(t), etc. change over time?  This is the   
>type of experiment you are currently doing with the heat pipe, right?       
                                                                            
As implied above, we don't try to do it in the time domain, but we use the 
LaPlace transform and move over into the frequency domain.  For the practical 
experiment, we generate Qin(t) by changing a heater on one end of the rod from 
time to time.  Try to make it random.  Or a real impulse, but this is hard to 
do (a little thermite?).  Now we take equally spaced samples of T1 ... T4 over 
time.   Then comes the magic of the FFT.  This now gives us T1(s), T2(s) ... .
T2(s)/T1(s) is now the transfer function between T1 and T2.  BTW, there is a 
"figure of merit" for this kind of system for fast time response.  You want 
high thermal conductivity and low thermal capacity.  This has a physics name 
which I have forgotten, but the best materials are silver, gold, copper and 
aluminum in that order.   
                                                                               
>I guess that answer to this question will depend on the thermal mass        
>distribution as well as the thermal conductivity.  And I gather from your   
>postings that ratio of the conductivity to the mass for a heat pipe is      
>several orders of magnitude higher than for ordinary materials.             

You bet!  It looks like a 10,000 or so improvement over a silver shell.  Less 
thermal capacity because it is mostly gas. (But this has problems as there is a 
heat of vaporization that gets into the act, and this could look like a big 
thermal capacity.  As the earlier not indicates, I have looked at this and it 
looks OK.)  Higher thermal conductivity from the heat pipe.  The higher 
thermal conductivity divided by the lower thermal capacity makes a big gain.  

>My main question here is:  Could you explain how this characteristic of a   
>heat pipe would enable you to measure heat more accurately and more         
>quickly, i.e. with a shorter time constant?                                 
                                                                                
The reason speed of response is important is that it determines how long an 
error exists.  Suppose there is a hot spot on the surface of the calorimeter.  
This causes greater radiation loss.  The longer it takes for the hot spot to 
distribute over the surface of the box, the greater the accumulation of error.  
But now we use a trick to make a good calorimeter.  We put the experiment 
inside of one heat pipe.  Even though the experiment has hot spots, the heat 
pipe quickly evens out the temperature of its surface because that is what it 
wants to do.  Now we put a second heat pipe around the first.  We servo it to 
be the same temperature as the inside heat pipe.  Now there is no heat 
transfer between the two surfaces - even if there is no insulation between 
them.  (But we do insert some insulation.)  Now the only heat lost by the 
inner heat pipe is that which is pumped out by a TED.  This can be though of 
as "active" insulation.  Electronic types will recognize this as a "guard 
ring" technique.  
                                                              
>[This seems like a good place to stop to catch my breath... I hope you are  
>willing and have enough time to help me with this.  If there is anything    
>you think I might be able to do to help with your current efforts, please   
>let me know.  I might be a bit thin on engineering skills but I could       
>probably calculate a Fourier transform and/or work on the theoretical part  
>of a control system design etc... ]                                         
                                                                               
>I think I might just go away now for a few days and do some calibration     
>runs on my null-balance setup.                                              
>                                                                            
>Thanks.                                                                     
>                                                                            
>Cheers,                                                                     
>                                                                            
>Bill Page.                                                                  

OK, this is enough for now.  All questions are welcome.

Tom Droege

cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenDROEGE cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.01 / Eric Zolan /  Re: We think we won
     
Originally-From: eazolan@rs6000.cmp.ilstu.edu (Eric Zolan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: We think we won
Date: Tue, 1 Mar 1994 18:02:56 GMT
Organization: Illinois State University

Jed Rothwell (72240.1256@compuserve.com) wrote:
: To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG

: Steve Jones writes:

:      "I tire of this, Dick.  For many months, scientists like Tom Droege,
:      Dieter Britz, Dick Blue, Terry Bollinger, Douglas Morrison, ... and
:      myself have been scrutinizing publicly the experiments of P&F, McKubre,
:      Miles, Mills, Yamaguchi, Notoya, and on and on and on, ad nauseatum..."

: Our side is tired of the debate too, and we see no reason to re-open it.
: However, I would like to point out that our side thinks *we* won,
: quantitatively. For example, we think that 650 joules does not equal 86,700
: joules, and 5 milliwatts does not equal 145 watts. We think the "explanations"
: offered by Jones et al are many orders of magnitude too small to explain
: anything. Their arguments are mere handwaving.


Well, um, Does this mean we kill the newgroup? The pros still say
yes and the naysayers still say nay. 

We'll bring it back when my car runs on cold fusion....

Later,
Erik.

cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudeneazolan cudfnEric cudlnZolan cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.02 / Bijal Modi /  Tokamak/Fusion related color gif pictures availabel?
     
Originally-From: bijal@fission (Bijal C. Modi)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Tokamak/Fusion related color gif pictures availabel?
Date: 2 Mar 1994 01:45:26 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley


Hello, 

 Sorry, if this is not the right place to post for this request.

 I am looking for the color picutres (in gif/jpeg/postscript etc. formats)
of generic tokamak/hot fusion related area. If you are willing to share
them, please let me know.

thanks,

-Bijal.
 bijal@fusion.berkeley.edu

ps: You can also 'uuencode' and send the pictures through email.
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenbijal cudfnBijal cudlnModi cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.02 / mitchell swartz /  Reply to "Re: Assignment of Dihydrino Molecule"
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Reply to "Re: Assignment of Dihydrino Molecule"
Subject: Re: Assignment of Dihydrino Molecule
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 1994 20:53:24 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <2l2n8o$2jr@tom.pppl.gov>
Subject: Re: Assignment of Dihydrino Molecule
Robert F. Heeter  [rfheeter@lyman.pppl.gov] wrote:

  (re: January Fusion Technology  "Dihydrino Molecule 
   Identification" (FT, v25, p103-119))

   >Since   1)  the argument about "ratios" and "required x rays" 
   >actually remains unproven for the case of the periodic solid state and 
   >in particular for the case of a low interstitial lattice contained 
   >(decorated?) within a second Group VIII lattice,    but rather is only 
   >asserted, and
   >       2)   even the citation is non-descriptive and very vague 
   >(with a completely nondescriptive reference that should not have 
   >made it through a peer-reviewed journal),

=rh   "On the contrary, 
=rh  "Since (1) the argument about ratios and required x-rays
=rh  is supported by accepted experimental evidence for nuclear 
=rh  reactions in every physical system ever investigated, and it's 
=rh  up to the CF researchers to show why their system should be any 
=rh  different;"

  Does it?  If you are correct then the following should
be quite simple.
Please write a simple balanced equation that
uses deuterons to generate He4 as final product
   -- which is what Miles and Mills are writing about --
   and neutrons which you claim must coexist.  


=rh  "and (2) no one has successfully postulated any mechanism of any
=rh  sort which could couple a pointlike burst of 20-odd MeV from
=rh  a nuclear-scale (10^-14 m) source to a diffuse, weak lattice
=rh  (energy levels on the order of 1 eV, distance scales on the order of
=rh  10^-10 m) *without* stripping inner-shell electrons (creating
=rh  x-rays) or spewing out energetic particles (alpha, electron, 
=rh  ion, neutron);"

    If it does couple to the lattice, Robert
then by the definition of coupling,
there is no "point like burst", is there? 
   When one calculates Compton effect, triplet production, etc.
one can use math and there it is.  Do you have any proof
whatsoever for you blind leap of faith?


=rh  "then (3) Dr. Jones' "unproved assertion" that fusion must be
=rh  accompanied by high-energy emissions is simply a self-evident
=rh  consequence of accepted physics, and any claim to the contrary
=rh  will require considerable explanation;"

   Since you have not offered balanced equation (1),
and can't prove - so far - the requirement of (2),
 it is respectfully noted that despite
the handwaving and mutual fingerpointing
there remains only an unproven assertion.

=rh  "furthermore (4) Mitch's argument that Dr. Jones' claim is 
=rh  unsubstantiated
=rh  simply because *Mills* failed to give what Mitch considers a 
=rh  rigorous
=rh  citation, makes no sense to me whatsoever;

  Sorry this was unclear.  The claim remains unsubstantiated.
In contrast,Randall Mills' books are very interesting.
He is also meticulous in developing his theory. 
It just seemed this "belief" did not do justice to Mills
previous rigor.


=rh " therefore (5) the burden of proof is still on Mitch to support
=rh  his idea that fusion events can not only occur, but occur
=rh  without telltale evidence of the sort normally associated
=rh  with nuclear activity.  (Which is just a continuation of our
=rh  discussion regarding Kucherov's work, which is why I replied.)"

   I posted several reports of ash.
Given those postings, it seems unlikely my 
idea was  "that fusion events can ...  occur without telltale 
evidence", right?


=rh  "To claim that energy production on the order of watts can occur
=rh  from nuclear reactions, without secondary radiation also on the 
=rh  order of watts, is like claiming that you can shoot someone with a
=rh  machine gun, and not observe any damage, but only "excess heat" 
=rh  from the kinetic energy of the bullets slowing down. "

   There is a good example of bad logic.
  Are you claiming that machine guns give off xrays.
  Are machine guns really related to this at all?
  Why ionizing radiation?    Phonons, microwaves and IR photons
 are radiation, too and there are clearly lots of them. 


=rh   "Nuclear
=rh  reactions are simply too localized and too energetic for
=rh  lattice coupling to be a factor.  It's the difference between
=rh  tapping someone on the shoulder (creating lattice effects), or 
=rh  shooting them (creating observable secondary effects).

   I guess that rules out the Mossbauer effect, too.


=rh  "Then one should conduct more rigorous experiments to explain
=rh  (a) why no one sees dihydrinos in the non-CF universe, and
=rh  (b) why anyone should see dihydrinos in CF experiments, and
=rh  (c) why one does not observe "excess cooling" as dihydrinos
=rh  relax to ordinary H2."

    True.
 
          Best wishes.
                           Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com)

cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Thu Mar  3 04:37:05 EST 1994
------------------------------
1994.03.02 / Jim Bowery /  Re: We think we won
     
Originally-From: jabowery@netcom.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: We think we won
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 1994 20:44:38 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

hall@vice.ico.tek.com (Hal F Lillywhite) writes:
> In article <940301145047_72240.1256_EHK53-1@CompuServe.COM> 72240.1256
compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
> 
> >Our side is tired of the debate too, and we see no reason to re-open it.
> >However, I would like to point out that our side thinks *we* won,
> 
> It seems a bit much to me for either side in a debate to arrogate to
> itself the position of judge.  Clearly neither side in this one has
> convinced the other (as usual in most such debates).  Generally the
> judge in any such event should be a non-participant.

Each individual, when they take a side, is arrogating to himself the
position of judge.  Therefore, the crime you speak of is implicit
in the existence of sides.

As soon as the "non-participant judge" exercises his judgement, he has
taken a side and is no longer qualified to be a judge.

Such is the paradox, and fallacy, of "consensus reality".
-- 
The promotion of politics exterminates apolitical genes in the population.
  The promotion of frontiers gives apolitical genes a route to survival.
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenjabowery cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.02 / Jim Bowery /  Re: We think we won
     
Originally-From: jabowery@netcom.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: We think we won
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 1994 20:44:44 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

Oh, but I have taken a side a long time ago on this whole
Cold Fusion debate:

I didn't invent it.  I don't have a relationship with the
guys who invented it.

It's none of my business.
-- 
The promotion of politics exterminates apolitical genes in the population.
  The promotion of frontiers gives apolitical genes a route to survival.
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenjabowery cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.02 / Bijal Modi /  ---Tokamak/Fusion related color gif pictures availabel?---
     
Originally-From: bijal@garnet.berkeley.edu (Bijal C. Modi.)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: ---Tokamak/Fusion related color gif pictures availabel?---
Date: 2 Mar 1994 01:56:50 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley

---Sorry, previous mail was sent from a machine with braindead nameserver.
---As a result, your reply might have bounced back.

Hello, 

 Sorry, if this is not the right place to post for this request.

 I am looking for the color picutres (in gif/jpeg/postscript etc. formats)
of generic tokamak/hot fusion related area. If you are willing to share
them, please let me know.
 If there is sufficient interest, I will make them availabel at our
anonymous ftp site.

thanks,

-Bijal.
 bijal@fusion.berkeley.edu

ps: You can also 'uuencode' and send the pictures through email.
-- 
      |-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-|
      | Bijal C. Modi                ,__o |
      | bijal@garnet.berkeley.edu  _-\_<, |
      | ~\/~arabian waves~\/~     (*)/'(*)|
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenbijal cudfnBijal cudlnModi cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.03 / mitchell swartz /  Experiment before theory (was Assignment of Dihydrino Molecule)
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Experiment before theory (was Assignment of Dihydrino Molecule)
Subject: Re: Assignment of Dihydrino Molecule
Date: Thu, 3 Mar 1994 00:40:46 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

    In Message-ID: <1994Mar2.100613.1@jaguar.csc.wsu.edu>
Subject: Re: Assignment of Dihydrino Molecule
Gary S. Collins (collins@jaguar.csc.wsu.edu) writes:

=gc  "Mitchell, the burden of proof that something funny is going on when
=gc  fusion reactions take place within a lattice must rest with those
=gc  proposing the idea.  The burden is on them to present convincing
=gc  evidence that nuclear reaction ratios or x-ray fluorescent yields
=gc  are significantly affected by the lattice environment.  
 
  Gary, the boundary conditions are the experimental results.
The burden is to explain those results, and therefore what is
required is a theory which encompasses the results,
suggests new experiments, and is consistent with
known science.
  Therefore,  the burden is to explain why the
nuclear reaction ratios and various radiation yields
are so significantly effected by the lattice environment. 

                            Mitchell  Swartz    (mica@world.std.com)


   
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.03 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: We think we won
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: We think we won
Date: Thu, 3 Mar 1994 00:39:15 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <jaboweryCM21MK.DA7@netcom.com> jabowery@netcom.com (Jim Bowery) writes:
>Oh, but I have taken a side a long time ago on this whole
>Cold Fusion debate:
>
>I didn't invent it.  I don't have a relationship with the
>guys who invented it.
>
>It's none of my business.

It is everyone's business when the government starts giving tax dollar
grants to these wackos who, if their research had any validity, would
be able to get private research funds.

cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.03 /  blue@nscl00.ns /  Question concerning the cold fusion FAQ
     
Originally-From: blue@nscl00.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Question concerning the cold fusion FAQ
Date: Thu, 3 Mar 1994 09:38:17 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

After noting that MItchell Swartz does not include any mention of
books that are critical of cold fusion in his reading list, I would
like to ask a specific question about one of the numbers in the
Putative Effects table.  Where does the limit of 1.6 milliwatts on
recombination come from?  To be specific how does one place a limit
on recombination effects for the light water experiments such as
those of Mills?

Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU

cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenblue cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.03 /  blue@nscl00.ns /  Re: Full power at boiloff
     
Originally-From: blue@nscl00.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Full power at boiloff
Date: Thu, 3 Mar 1994 09:38:18 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Dick Jackson, in trying to resolve conflicting testimony concerning the
Pons & Fleischmann boiloff measurements,  falls into the trap that many
of us make in believing that there is a single question to be resolved.
As Dick noted, Prof. Fleischmann did assert that even if the power supply
had run clear to its voltage limit the power input could not have been
sufficient to account for the boiloff.  Perhaps by artful misdirection
those who concentrate on the power question have their attention drawn
away from other problems with the measurements during boiloff.  But
don't forget that determining the time it takes to complete boiloff is
just as significant as a measurement of the input power.  Ask yourself
how that time was determined with sufficient accuracy when NO DATA was
obtained at less than 5 min intervals.  The published data has this
problem with the specification of when current flow actually stopped
and why the temperature remained pegged at precisely 100 C for an
extended period after the boiloff was supposed to have been complete.
It isn't just the input power that seems to be in doubt.  It is the
fact that so very little is known about the boiloff, a sad state of
affairs for experiments in a field where unresolved questions,
irreproducibility, conflicting data, and no clear hypotheses abound
after 5 years.

Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU

cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenblue cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.03 / Bill Page /  Re: Learning something about calorimetry
     
Originally-From: 70047.3047@CompuServe.COM (Bill Page)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Learning something about calorimetry
Date: Thu, 3 Mar 1994 09:38:30 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Tom Droege wrote:
<<

Learning Something About Calorimetry Part I

This is in response to a long post by Bill Page.  His post gives me a 
wonderful opportunity to summarize what I have learned about calorimetry. I 
will break it up into pieces as I work through Bill's questions.  
>>

Great Tom! <smiling>  I was really hoping you would/could take what I 
realize is a major amount of time to post something like this.  I'm sure a 
lot of other readers will appreciate it (almost) as much as I do.

I'll hold off on questions for now until you give the 'go ahead'.

Sincerely, thanks.

Cheers,

Bill Page.

cc. Fusion Digest.

cudkeys:
cuddy3 cuden3047 cudfnBill cudlnPage cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.03 / Bill Page /  SL: Theory Needed (was re: NO to Private email)
     
Originally-From: 70047.3047@CompuServe.COM (Bill Page)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: SL: Theory Needed (was re: NO to Private email)
Date: Thu, 3 Mar 1994 09:38:39 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Mike Jamison writes (by private email <grin>):
<<
I suspect Steve and others are worried about what has happened with CNF, 
and don't want the same thing going on with SL - they want to work, rather 
than fight.
>>

Well, I don't mean to sound too unsympathetic, but it does take *two* to 
fight.  So I don't put all the "blame" on the infamous.  However, it might 
take a lot of diplomacy to avoid such a situation and still advance the 
cause somehow.  Perhaps Steve and the others just "lost it" for a moment, 
we all do at times.

I still think the net can be very beneficial to real work.  It would be 
more so if more professional scientifically minded people (I don't like the 
over used word "scientist" very much) felt confident enough to use it.  
What is the *real* reason they seem so reluctant?  Its not as if most 
scientific meetings were such "gentlemanly" affairs afterall.  I've been in 
meetings with lots of shouting and negative vibes and people still come 
away from them highly motivated to get ready for the next chance to meet.  
No, there's something different about interacting this way.  I haven't 
completely understood it yet and I've been doing it now for more than 15 
years - no kidding!

Regarding his original posting Mike states:
<<
Hopefully, the result will be a bunch of light "racing around" the edges of 
the bubble, which is of course collapsing.  Since the reflectivity is 
extremely good, very little light will be lost.  Since the bubble is 
collapsing, the energy per unit volume is increasing...

So, a lot of light will hopefully become absorbed by a little D2O...
The result will hopefully prove worth the effort.
>>

This is a interesting model.  Certainly some calculations are in order.  
Got any idea about how to go about it?  What is known about the dynamics of 
the "collapsing" bubble? What is its size?  What wavelengths of light 
should be considered?  What would be the absorption mechanism?

It seems to me that SL has at least one thing in common with CF - there is 
no good theory of the phenomena and its hard to do good experiments without 
at least the first approximation of a theory!

Cheers,

Bill Page.

cc. Fusion Digest.

cudkeys:
cuddy3 cuden3047 cudfnBill cudlnPage cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.03 / Bill Page /  ICCF-4 Vigier's Theory (part 4)
     
Originally-From: 70047.3047@CompuServe.COM (Bill Page)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: ICCF-4 Vigier's Theory (part 4)
Date: Thu, 3 Mar 1994 09:38:46 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

ICCF-4 Vigier's Theory - Part 4

This is installment four in a series of postings relating to the paper that 
was presented by J. P. Vigier at the ICCF-4 meeting in Hawaii.

As yet another aside, before we get into the details of a pilot-wave model 
of the hydrogen atom, it occurs to me to mention that there is another 
"radical" interpretation of quantum mechanics that has enjoyed considerably 
more success than the pilot-wave interpretation. This other interpretaion 
is the "path integral" representation of quantum mechanics that was 
invented by Richard Feynman.  The reason that it comes to mind is that the 
starting points are very similar.  So far, I haven't seen anything written 
that compares these two approaches.

Basically, they are two different approaches for dealing with the fact that 
quantum mechanics per se does away with the notion of a classical particle 
trajectory.  In conventional quantum mechanics everything is to be 
expressed fundamentally in terms of wavefunctions (or more precisely, 
abstract vector spaces). Wavefunctions are a special class of 
complex-valued functions over spatial co-ordinates. Things like 
wave-packets which do have some characteristics in common with classical 
particles are derived concepts.  But the notion that anything simply goes 
from point A to point B no longer exists.  Even the notion of "location" 
itself is subtly changed.  This makes it very difficult to apply classical 
concepts (which largely coincide with our common intuition) except in a 
metaphorical sense or as an approximation, valid in certain limits.

The pilot-wave model re-introduces the notion of a particle trajectory by 
simply assumming that the wavefunctions are only "half" of the story. In 
addition to wavefunctions, we *also* have classical point-like particles. 
And these two entities interact with each other.  The particle is guided by 
the wave.  But the particle carries the properties like charge, mass, spin, 
etc.

The path integral model however has a different answer.  It assumes that 
the fundamental entities are just particles.  But a quantum mechanical 
particle going from point A to point B does not simply follow a single well 
defined trajectory, rather it goes from A to B in all possible ways!  There 
is a different "weight" (amplitude) associated with each possible path, but 
in principle, all of these paths have to be considered in calculating the 
outcome.  Feynman demonstrated that this remarkable idea gives rise to the 
Schrodinger equation from which most of the rest of quantum mechanics 
follows.  Although the process of "integration over all paths" is in 
practice often very difficult, there are certain cases when this approach 
yields important insights.  This is particularly true in the case of 
computer simulation of quantum mechanical systems.  

The problem with this approach is just that the behaviour of such a quantum 
mechanical 'particle' is so, well... um, un-classical!  And we are still 
left with fact that when we are *measuring* the path of a particle we will 
find that it behaves as if there was, in this case only, one path followed 
by the particle - choosen from among the possible paths according to a 
probablistic interpretation of the amplitudes.  That's distinctly odd.

In any case, as I said, both of these approaches start out with the same 
concept - the concept of 'action'.  Feynman and A. Hibbs (a former student 
of Feynman's), in their short but intense book "Quantum Mechanics and Path 
Integrals", McGraw-Hill, 1965, page 26; give a very clear introduction to 
the concept of action:

"... For a while, for simplicity, we shall restrict ourselves to the case 
of a particle moving in one dimension.  Thus the postion at any time can be 
specified by a coordinate x, a fuction of t. By the path, then, we mean a 
function x(t)..."

"One of the most elegant ways of expressing the condition that determines 
the particular path xbar(t) [which denotes the classical path] out of all 
possible paths is the /principle of least action/.  That is, there exists a 
certain quantity S which can be computed for each path.  The classical path 
xbar is that for which S is a minimum.  Actually, the real condition is 
that S be merely an extremum.  That is to say, the value of S is unchanged 
in the first order if the path xbar(t) is modified slightly."

"The quantity S is given by the expression

        / tb
       |
   S = | L(dx/dt,x,t) dt                        [2-1]
       |
      / ta

where L is the lagrangian for the system.  [Note a possible confusion: We 
have used the symbol L elsewhere to denote angular momentum.]  For a 
particle of mass m moving in a potential V(x,t), which is a function of 
postion and time, the lagrangian is

      m d^2 x
  L = - ----- - V(x,t)                          [2-2]
      2 dx^2

"The form of the extremum path xbar(t) is determined by the usual 
procedures of the calculus of variations.  Thus, suppose the path is varied 
away from xbar by an amount delta x(t); the condition that the end points 
of xbar are fixed requires:

  delta x(ta) = delta x(tb) = 0                 [2-3]

"The condition that xbar be an extremum of S means

  delta S = S(xbar + delta x) - S(xbar) = 0     [2-4]

to first order in delta x. ..."

"... Thus the extremum is that curve along which the following condition is 
always satisfied:

   d   dL      dL
   --(-----) - -- = 0                           [2-7]
   dt dx/dt    dx

"This is, of course, the classical lagrangian equation of motion."

"... Now we can give the quantum-mechanical rule.  We must say how much 
each trajectory contributes to the total amplitude to go from A to B.  It 
is not that just the particular path of extreme action contributes; rather, 
it is that all the paths contribute.  They contribute equal *amounts* to 
the total amplitude, but contribute
at different phases. The phase of the contribution from a given path is the 
action S for that path in units of the quantum of action hbar.  That is, to 
summarize: The probability P(b,a) to go from a point xa at the time ta to 
the point xb at tb is the absolute square p(b,a) = |K(b,a)|^2 of an 
amplitude K(b,a) to go from a to b.  This amplitude is the sum of 
contributions phi[x(t)] from each path.

                 sum
  K(b,a) =  over all paths   phi[x(t)]                   [2-14]
             from a to b

"The contribution of a path has a phase proportional to the action S:

  phi[x(t)] = const * exp(i*S[x(t)]/hbar)                   [2-15]

"The action is that for the corresponding classical system (see Eq. [2-1]). 
 The constant will be chosen to normalize K conveniently, and it will be 
taken up later when we discuss more mathematically just what we mean in Eq. 
[2-14] by a sum over paths."

"...

          |                           b
          |                        . . 
          |                   1 .  . . 
          |          xbar(t) .   .   .
          |               .    . 2  .
        t |             .    .     .
          |delta x(t) >.   .<   .   3
          |           .  .   .
          |          . .  .           4 etc.
          |          . .
          |         a
          |
           --------------------------------------------------
                                x

                         [Fig 2-1. page 30]

"The classical path 1, xbar(t), is that for which a certain integral, the 
action S, is minimum.  If the path is varied by delta x(t), to path 2, the 
integral suffers no first-order change.  This determines the equation of 
motion.

"In quantum mechanics, the amplitude to go from a to b is the sum of 
amplitudes for each *interfering* alternative path.  The amplitude for a 
given path, exp(iS/hbar), has a phase proportional to the action.

"If the action is very large compared to hbar, neighboring paths such as 3 
and 4 have slightly different actions.  Such paths will (because of the 
smallness of hbar) have very different phases.  Their contributions will 
cancel out.  Only in the vicinity of the classical path xbar(t), where the 
action changes little when the path varies, will neighboring paths, such as 
1 and 2, contribute in the same phase and *constructively* interfere.  That 
is why the approximation of classical physics - that only the path xbar(t) 
need be considered - is valid when the action is very large compared to 
hbar."

[End of quotations from Feynman.]

[No doubt about it! Feynman was a genius.  It took a very special insight 
to come up with something this simple but so profound...]

But well, that's enough about path integrals - this is a story about the 
pilot-wave model.  The point of this aside was primarily to introduce the 
concept of action.  So now, how is this concept used in the pilot-wave 
model?  For a nice introduction let's turn to J.S. Bell in "Speakable and 
unspeakable in quantum mechanics",  Cambridge University Press, 1987, page 
112:

"Consider now the de Broglie-Bohm version.  To the question 'wave or 
particle?' they answer 'wave and particle'.  The wave PSI(t,r) is that of 
wave mechanics - but conceived, in the tradition of Maxwell and Einstein, 
as an objective field, and not just as some 'ghost wave' of information (of 
some presumably well-informed observer?). The particle rides along on the 
wave at some postion X(t) with velocity

         1 d                  |
 dX/dt = - -- Im log PSI(t,r) |                 [1]
         m dr                 |r=X

[Note: Im log PSI(t,r) is just another expression for the phase of the 
wavefunction.  PSI(t,r) = PHI(r) * exp(iS(x(t))/hbar).]

"This equation has the property that a probability distribution for x at 
time t

     d^3 (x * |PSI(t,x)|^2)

evolves into a distribution

     d^3 (x * |PSI(t',x)|^2)

at time t'.  It is *assumed* that the particles are so delivered intially 
by the source, and then the familar probability distributions of wave 
mechanics holds automatically at later times.  Note that the *only* use of 
probability here is, as in classical statistical mechanics, to take account 
of uncertainty in initial conditions."

"In this picture [in the case of the famous double slit experment] the wave 
goes through both slits (as is the nature of waves) and the particle goes 
through one one (as is the nature of particles).  But the particle is 
guided by the wave toward places where |PSI|^2 is large, and away from 
places where |PSI|^2 is small. ... It is vital here to put away the 
classical prejudice that a particle moves on a straight path in 
'field-free' space - free, that is, from fields other than the de 
Broglie-Bohm!"

And on page 160 of the same book:

2   A simple model

"Consider a system whose wavefunction has one discrete argument, a, and one 
continous arguement, x, as well as time, t:

        PSI(a,x,t)

        a=1,2, ... N

       -infinity < x < +infinity

"It might be a particle free to move in one-dimension and having an 
'intrinsic spin'.  Consider 'observables' O which involve only the spin, 
and so can be represented by finite matrices:

          O PSI(a,x) = sum O(a,b)*PSI(b,x)

"To 'measure' such an observable, suppose that we can contrive an 
interaction, with some external field, which is represented by the addition 
to the Hamiltonian of a term

         g * O (hbar/i) (d/dx)

where g is a coupling constant.  Suppose for simplicity that the particle 
is infinitely massive, so that this interaction Hamiltonian is the complete 
Hamiltonian.  Then the Schrodinger equation is readily solved.  It is 
convenient to introduce the eigenvectors of O

    ALPHAn(a)

and corresponding eigenvalues

    On

defined by

    O ALPHAn(a) = On * ALPHAn(a)

"Then the initial state [at time t=0] can be expanded [in terms of the 
eigenvectors of O]

   PSI(a,x,0) = sum PHIn(x)*ALPHAn(a)
                 n

and the soltion of the Schrodinger equation is

   PSI(a,x,t) = sum PHIn(x-g*On*t)*ALPHAn(a)
                 n

"That is to say, the various wavepackets PHI move apart from one another, 
and after a sufficiently long time, whatever may have been the case 
initially, overlap very little. Then any probable result of a position 
measurement on the particle will correspond to a particular eigenvalue On, 
a particular On being obtained with probability given by the norm of the 
corresponding wavepacket PHIn, i.e., by the strength of the corresponding 
eigenvector in the expansion of the initial state.  We have here a model of 
something like a Stern-Gerlach experiment.  Conventionally the process is 
said 'to measure the observable O with result On'."

"To complete this picture, a la de Broglie and Bohm, we add to the 
wavefunction PSI a particle position

    X(t)

"If a postion measurement is made at time t, then the result is X(t), but 
*even when no measurement is made* X(t) exists.  The particle, in this 
picture, alsways has a definite position.  The time evolution of particle 
postion is determined by

    (d/dt) X(t) = j(X(t),t)/rho(X(t),t)

where

    rho(x,t) = sum PSI'(a,x,t)*PSI(a,x,t)
                a

    j(x,t) = sum PSI'(a,x,t)*g*O(a,b)*PSI(b,x,t)
             a,b

[Here I've used PSI' to denote the complex conjugate.]

"Note that the Schrodinger equaiton implies the continuity equation

   (d/dt) rho + (d/dt) j = 0

[rho is called the probability density and j is the probability current.]

"It is assumed that, over many repetitions of the experiment, various X(0) 
[initial postions] occur with the probability distribution

   rho(X(0),0) dX(0)

where rho is given as above in terms of the intial wavefunction.  Then it 
is a theorem that the probability distribution over X(t) is

   rho(X(t),t) dX(t)

"This is the conventional quantum distribution for position, and so we have 
the conventional predictions for the result of the Stern-Gerlach 
experiment.  For the experiment, despite all the talk about 'spin', is 
finally about position observations.

"Note that in this theory probability enters once only, in connection with 
the initial conditions, as in classical statistical mechanics.  Thereafter 
the joint evolution of PSI and X is perfectly deterministic."

[It is very interesting to note that this point of view, with its 
associated non-linear aspects permits the modern treatment of chaotic 
systems to be introduced into quantum mechanics in a very natural way.  The 
conventional formulation of quantum mechanics has proven to be remarkable 
'resistant' to these concepts.  There is lots of scope here for new 
theoretical work.]

"Note that in this theory the wavefunction PSI has a role of a physically 
real field, as real here as Maxwell's fields were for Maxwell.  Quantum 
mechanics students sometimes have difficulty with the fact that in the 
pilot wave picture the particle position X and the argument of the 
wavefunction x are separate variables.  But the situation, in this respect 
is just that of Maxwell.  He also had fields extending over space, and 
particles located at particular points.  Of course the field at the 
particular point is that most immediately relevant for the motion of the 
particular particle."

[End of quotations from John Bell.]

------------------

Now, to finally get back to the task at hand.  In his draft, Vigier states 
that to justify the relation that gives the new subground states

  m^2 * hbar^2   d V(r)
  ------------ + ------ = 0                                     [12]
    mu * r^3       dr

"... we recall that stationary solutions of the Schrodinger equation for a 
central potential V(r) with

     [-(hbar^2/2*mu) del^2 + V(r)] psi = E * psi                [13]

have the form

     PSInlm(r,theta,phi) = Rnl(r)*THETAml(theta)*PHIm(phi)      [14]

where the functions

     Rnl(r) = A*Fln(r)                                          [15]
     THETAml(theta) = Pml(cos(theta))
     PHIm(phi) = exp(i*m*phi)

are the solutions of three separate differential equations

(1/R) [d(r^2 * dR/dr)/dr + (2*mu/hbar^2) * r^2 * (E-V)] R = -C  [16]

1/THETA) [(1/sin(theta)) * d(sin(theta) * d(THETA)/d(theta))/d(theta) -
          C * sin^2(theta)] = m^2

(1/PHI) d^2(PHI)/d(phi^2) = -m^2

[Note:  The spherical harmonics Yml(theta,phi) = THETAml(theta)*PHIm(phi). 
Normalization constants are ignored here.  m is called the magentic quantum 
number.  l is called the azimultal quantum number. mu denotes mass. Fln are 
called the associated Laguerre functions (polynomials).  THETAml are called 
the associated Legendre functions (polynomials).  Pauling and Wilson's book 
"Introduction to Quantum Mechanics", McGraw-Hill, 1935 (recently 
re-issued), Chapter V; has a thorough development of this theory.]

"To simplify the presentation of this calculation we have used the 
formalism of de Broglie and Bohm shown to be equivalent in its prediction 
to the usual quantum formalism.  In their model micro-objects are waves

  PSI = R*exp(iS/hbar)

with

  S = Et + s(x)

(which satisfy eq. [13]) and particles with [momentum P]

  P = -i * hbar * dS

which follow the quantum Bohrian orbits in a central potential.

"By de Broglie's and Bohm's definition the quantum action is proportional 
to the phase of the wavefunction.  Since the functions R(r) and 
THETA(theta) are real we conclude that

   S(r) = hbar*m*phi                                   [17]

 -------------------

So, the point of all this, dear reader, is that we can use this observation 
to calculate the motion of the electron in the hydrogen atom based on the 
pilot-wave model.  I am sure that your eyes are fairly well glazed over 
already, so I will spare you the details of that calculation.  What Vigier 
demonstrates is that this motion is quite different than the naive 
semi-classical model of Bohr.  He states:

"Bohr's trajectories form a subset in the set of Kepler's orbits (this 
particular set satisfies the conditions of quantization).  The nucleus lies 
in the plane of the orbit. This is not the case with these "causal" orbits 
whose planes in general to not contain the nucleus."

Here Vigier references a new book by P. Holland, "The Quantum Theory of 
Motion", Cambridge University Press, 1993.  I haven't been able to obtain a 
copy of this book yet.  It would be great if any reader who might be able 
to put their hands on it could post a short review of this intriquing 
sounding book.  de Broglie has a chapter on the hydrogen atom in his 1956 
book, "Non-linear Quantum Mechanics", page 119 and similar calculations 
where done by Belinfante, 1973.

There is, however, a formal relationship between Bohr's orbits and the 
trajectories determined by the pilot-wave model. One can determine the 
classic Bohr orbits as a special case.  Relation [12], in fact, represents 
this special case.  de Broglie mentions this relationship in a footnote in 
his book.

A key point is that we have to deal with *both* the motion of the wave (the 
way the wavefunction changes over time) as well as the motion of the 
particle.

"For each [time] t and [quantum number] m not equal to 0, the wave fronts 
[defined by the action S = constant] are planes parallel to, and ending on, 
the [arbitrarily defined] z-axis ...  As t increases the planes rotate 
about the z-axis with angular velocity

  OMEGA = E/(m*h)

The number of wave crests, defined by

  S = n*h, for all integers n

that come to an end on the z-axis is equal to |m|.

"... The particle orbits the z-axis along a circle of constant radius 
(r0*sin(theta0)) and with constant angular speed, which is a multiple of 
h/(mu*r0^2*sin^2(theta0)).

"The initial co-ordinates [r0,theta0,phi0] are as usual [in the pilot-wave 
theory] arbitrary ...".  [See the discussion in the introductory section 
above.]

"From the generalized de Broglie relation

  lambda = h/(mu * |d(phi)/dt|)

and we see that along the orbit the wavelength is given by

  lambda = |2*pi*r0*sin(theta0)/m|

"Sine the circumference is 2*pi*r0*sin(theta0) it follows that we can fit 
exactly |m| wavelengths into one quantum orbit.  This should be compared 
with the usual de Broglie wavelength connected with the Bohr-Sommerfeld 
quantization which is defined in terms of the momentum of the classical 
particle [...]. There, an integral number of wavelengths fit into a 
classical orbit."

"The angular speed of the wavefrounts and the particle are related by

  OMEGA * d(phi)/dt = E/(mu*r0^2*sin^2(theta0))           [38]

"The higher the quantum number m the faster the particle moves, and the 
slower the wave fronts rotate."

"In states in which the quantum number m is zero the particle is a rest ... 
the quantum force exactly balances the classical [Coulomb] force.  For 
hydrogen-like atoms this will be so in particular for the ground state.  
This result provides the explanation according to the quantum theory of 
motion for the stability of matter.  For if the particle is at rest 
relative to the nucleus it is evidently not accelerating, hence does not 
radiate [...]".

"This account of why matter does not collapse is different from that 
advanced by Bohr in the old quantum theory.  It was assumed by Bohr that 
the electron moves along circles in the equatorial plane under the 
influence of the central coulomb force, the allowed orbits being determined 
by a quantization condition imposed on solutions to the classical 
Hamilton-Jacobi equation.  This was essentially a postulate and no 
explanation of its physical significance was offered.  The ground state 
corresponds to a minimum radius.  For us on the other hand the electron is 
not confined to the equatorial plane and there is no minimum "radius" - the 
intial co-ordinates are arbitrary."

------------------

What a great spot to end today's installment.  These ideas are certainly 
radical relative to convential quantum mechanics and, I think, very much 
worth considering... 
What remains is to actually calculate these new orbits - the subject of our 
next installment!

Cheers,

Bill Page.

cudkeys:
cuddy3 cuden3047 cudfnBill cudlnPage cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.03 / David Pearson /  Plasma Physics Summer School
     
Originally-From: dwcp@mail.nerc-nutis.ac.uk (David Pearson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Plasma Physics Summer School
Date: Thu, 3 Mar 1994 08:20:48 +0000


Dear Internet,

Yes, go to the Culham Summer School if you can - but read some
basic textbooks (or a textbook) first, if you are a beginner.
The Summer School is excellent, but I doubt if many people are
smart enough to plunge straight into it without knowing some
plasma physics first - I certainly wasn't.

_David Pearson,
 University of Reading.
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudendwcp cudfnDavid cudlnPearson cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.03 / Paul Baulch /  Apply sonoluminescence principle to fusion?
     
Originally-From: shnub@zikzak.apana.org.au (Paul Baulch)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Apply sonoluminescence principle to fusion?
Date: 3 Mar 1994 21:29:53 +1100
Organization: Zikzak Public Access UNIX, Melbourne Australia


I recently read about a phenomenon called sonoluminescence, whereby pure
water is subjected to 20kHz ultrasound, and 50-picosecond flashes of light
are emitted, intense enough to be seen with the naked eye.
What intrigued me was the nature of the emission, whereby bubbles created
in the standing wave expand and then collapse, concentrating the (sound?)
energy by a factor of 100 billion (for the amplitudes used, presumably).

So, my point is this: could a sound (perhaps magnetic) wave be used in the
same way on hydrogen gas/plasma (perhaps liquid?), and produce enough
local energy concentration to overcome mutual repulsion of nuclei, to an
extent that the heat produced outstrips the energy required for the wave
generation?

Has anyone ever had this idea before?

--

-- 
shnub@zikzak.apana.org.au        Your lucky anagram for the day is:

Paul Evan Baulch                  
-------------< Reality is by far the most impressive simulation. >-------------
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenshnub cudfnPaul cudlnBaulch cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.04 /  blue@nscl00.ns /  Unlikely lattice effects
     
Originally-From: blue@nscl00.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Unlikely lattice effects
Date: Fri, 4 Mar 1994 01:13:06 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I was pleasantly surprized to read the following in a message from
MItchell Swartz:

"Therefore, the burden is to explain why the nuclear reaction ratios
and various radiation yields are so significantly effected by the
lattice environment."

For those of you who despair at ever seeing a resolution of issues
relating to cold fusion, here is an example of agreement between
a CF advocate (ms) and a skeptic (me).  Perhaps I may attach more
significance to this in the present state of CF affairs than does
Mitchell, but at least we both recognize the problem.

I think this illustrates a general principle that has not been given
sufficient attention by many who have commented favorably on cold
fusion experimental results.  Just the gathering of data is not
sufficient to establish the reality of cold fusion.  That data must
be integrated into a broader picture of the process that conforms
to something like normal scientific reasoning.  At present all that
we know about quantum mechanics and lattices indicates that the
effects Mitchell acknowledges are required will not be found.
When one considers this "burden" to find a theoretical explaination
or the alternative of rejecting the validity of the experimental
observations I think anyone with an open mind has to consider the
latter as still possible.

Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU

cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenblue cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.03 / I Johnston /  Re: Experiment before theory (was Assignment of Dihydrino Molecule)
     
Originally-From: ianj@castle.ed.ac.uk (I Johnston)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Experiment before theory (was Assignment of Dihydrino Molecule)
Date: Thu, 3 Mar 1994 14:11:59 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

mitchell swartz (mica@world.std.com) wrote:
:     In Message-ID: <1994Mar2.100613.1@jaguar.csc.wsu.edu>
: Subject: Re: Assignment of Dihydrino Molecule
: Gary S. Collins (collins@jaguar.csc.wsu.edu) writes:

: =gc  "Mitchell, the burden of proof that something funny is going on when
: =gc  fusion reactions take place within a lattice must rest with those
: =gc  proposing the idea.  The burden is on them to present convincing
: =gc  evidence that nuclear reaction ratios or x-ray fluorescent yields
: =gc  are significantly affected by the lattice environment.  
:  
:   Gary, the boundary conditions are the experimental results.
: The burden is to explain those results, and therefore what is
: required is a theory which encompasses the results,
: suggests new experiments, and is consistent with
: known science.
:   Therefore,  the burden is to explain why the
: nuclear reaction ratios and various radiation yields
: are so significantly effected by the lattice environment. 

:                             Mitchell  Swartz    (mica@world.std.com)


:    
Dear Friends,

I read this newsgroup with interest and normally manage to bite my
tongue, but this time I just cannot. Are we really being asked to accept
(i chose not to use 'believe' there) that not only is one entirely new
process taking place (cold fusion in the system) but that a second one
is also present and hides all evidence of the first. The only evidence
being offered for strange lattice effects is the absence of emissions
who presence cannot be shown because of the, erm, strange lattice
effects. Esscher could have drwan this better than I can write it.

Oh yes, and excess heat is not evidence for anything except the apparent
measurement of excess heat. The single dictum I find most useful is "It
is much easier to measure accurately than to know accurately what
you are measuring" (it's in "A Random Walk in Science", but my copy's at
home).If an experiment contradicts all existing theory and experiment it
does _not_ have to be accepted immediately. Theory is a powerful tool to
help us decide if we have looked at the right thing. For example, if an
electrical temperature measurement shows a strong 50Hz signal, I don't
immediate decide that the theory predicting a DC response is wrong - I
check the shielding...

Of course an experiment _can_ overturn theory - it just has to be a damn
good experiment and it has to be accurately desribed if it's to convince
everyone else.

Ian Johnston
The Open University
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenianj cudfnI cudlnJohnston cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.03 / mitchell swartz /  On Question concerning the cold fusion (Table-)FAQ
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: On Question concerning the cold fusion (Table-)FAQ
Subject: Question concerning the cold fusion FAQ
Date: Thu, 3 Mar 1994 14:33:26 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

    In Message-ID: <94030211141726@nscl00.nscl.msu.edu>
Subject: Question concerning the cold fusion FAQ
DIck Blue (NSCL@MSU; blue@nscl00.nscl.msu.edu) writes:

=dblue "After noting that MItchell Swartz does not include any mention of
=dblue books that are critical of cold fusion in his reading list, I would
=dblue like to ask a specific question about one of the numbers in the
=dblue Putative Effects table.  Where does the limit of 1.6 milliwatts on
=dblue recombination come from?  To be specific how does one place a limit
=dblue on recombination effects for the light water experiments such as
=dblue those of Mills?"

   Careful reading will reveal the origin (check the KEY) as you
are well aware.   

  1) The absolute value: 
      I posted the largest value which Steve Jones' had posted.
They are quite low, for as Jonathan Jones has posted:

=jj "Mitch also included a nifty table comparing our results with F&P
=jj and Miles.  Our results are orders of magnitude smaller than either
=jj of the other results."  
=jj           [Message-ID: <1993Sep20.171857.947@physc1.byu.edu>
=jj              Subject: Recombination in light water cells
=jj              Jonathan Jones (jonesj@physc1.byu.edu)]

   2) The implication:
   However, since the value is based upon Jones-type data,
and in this case has been multivalued (see previous postings
and the three examples below, rest left out to keep S/N high),
and is fraught with being subject to disavowal at any time
as Steven has done for two (or more?) of his previous 
results (and has not stated the second with specificity),
and since the actual data has been refused to be posted
here several times here despite the continual widespread 
reliance by Steve and the other TB-skeptics upon it, 
and since the actual data was not presented at ICCF-4
but again only referred to, I will consider removing
this misleading, and possibly artifical (vide infra) value
from the next Table-FAQ based upon your comment. 

    Thanks DIck.
                               Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com)

============================================
  Example of multivalued data:

  First, Steve, claimed 120% for recombination:
============ excerpts from past posting claiming 120% ===============
====sj "... this student with Prof. Lee Hansen of BYU has bubbled oxygen
====sj past the nickel cathode -- and found an immediate burst of xs heat of
====sj about 120% (calculating xs heat using the "no recombination" assumption,
====sj of course).      Thus, we get
====sj xs heat in the Notoya-Noninski-Mills-Bush -Srinivasan (all claim xs heat
====sj in nickel-light water cells), but we found that recombination of H2+O2
====sj cannot be ignored!"
   [ID:<1993May7.173724.619@physc1.byu.edu>, Sub: Re: S.Jones' advice
   (Reply to Noninski); Steve Jones jonesse@physc1.byu.edu)]

  By August 10th, Steve was claiming 700% excess heat, 
      ============= excerpts from past posting claiming 700% =======
==sj "Remember we found over 700% excess heat in electrolytic cells, but only
==sj  when recombination was ignored."
       [ID: <1993Aug10.181606.836@physc1.byu.edu>;Sub:
 Response to Mitchell Swartz;  Steven Jones [jonesse@physc1.byu.edu]]

  However, Johnathan Jones had previously revealed the measurements
and the actual origin of the 700% to be oxygen gas, when he said:
==== Excerpt from Jonathan Jones' 134% Excess Heat Posting =========
=jj "In the first set of experiments a 1 cm2 piece of sintered nickel was
=jj used as the hydrogen electrode and #22 platinum wire was used as
=jj the oxygen electrode.  While running with an input power of 320
=jj microwatts --qinp = 1mA(1.8V - 1.48)--the measured output was 750
=jj microwatts.  This gives 134% excess heat when calculated with the
=jj formulas given to us by Mr. Mallove."
=jj "When glass tubes where placed over the electrodes allowing a flow
=jj of ions but inhibiting the flow of evolved gas between electrodes
=jj the output measured corresponded to the input power(qinp), thus no
=jj excess heat was observed."
=jj "In the second set of experiments a frit was placed in the bottom of
=jj the cell through which nitrogen or oxygen was bubbled.  When
=jj nitrogen was used to purge the cell of the evolved gases no excess
=jj heat was observed.  When oxygen was used to purge the cell, the
                                       \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
=jj calorimetric output was 7 times the input power(q=1mA(1.6V-1.48))."
         [Sub: 700% Excess Heat at BYU ????;
         ID: <1993May26.163714.668@physc1.byu.edu>
         Jonathan E. Jones [jonesj@physc1.byu.edu];
           Date: 26 May 93 16:37:14 -0600]




cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.03 / Rich Hawryluk /  TFTR Update March 3, 1994
     
Originally-From: rhawryluk@pppl.gov (Rich Hawryluk)
Newsgroups: pppl.tftr.news,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: TFTR Update March 3, 1994
Date: 3 Mar 1994 11:16:40 -0500
Organization: Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory

Status (March 3, 1994):

DT experiments with ICRF heating began on Monday Feb. 28 and continued on
Tuesday Mar. 1. A total of 16 DT discharges were run. 5 MW of 10Hz
modulated ICRF power was added to 20 MW NBI supershot plasmas. The goal of
this series of discharges was to explore the physics of second harmonic
tritium heating. In order to separate out the effects oF electron Landau
damping, mode conversion, fundamental deuterium heating, helium-3 minority
heating and second harmonic tritium heating the Toroidal field strength,
tritium concentration and Helium-3 concentration were varied. Detailed
modelling of the observed modulated Te(r), Ti(r), Wetot, Wperp and lost
alpha signals has begun to sort out the competing effects.


Plans:

Deuterium set up shots for additional ICRF experiments with D-T are being
performed.

The workshop on D-T experiments is on-going.

Additional tritium  will be delivered next week.

Processing of the gas from this week's experiments will be started today.

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


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



cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenrhawryluk cudfnRich cudlnHawryluk cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.03 /  bearpaw /  Re: We think we won
     
Originally-From: bearpaw@world.std.com (bearpaw)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: We think we won
Date: Thu, 3 Mar 1994 16:40:24 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich) writes:

>In article <jaboweryCM21MK.DA7@netcom.com> jabowery@netcom.com (Jim Bowery) writes:
>>Oh, but I have taken a side a long time ago on this whole
>>Cold Fusion debate:
>>
>>I didn't invent it.  I don't have a relationship with the
>>guys who invented it.
>>
>>It's none of my business.

>It is everyone's business when the government starts giving tax dollar
>grants to these wackos who, if their research had any validity, would
>be able to get private research funds.

By "wackos", who are you referring to?  I *know* that many (most? all?)
Hot Fusion researchers get much (most? all?) of their funds via tax
dollar grants in the US.  It is my understanding that at least some of
the Cold Fusion researchers get at least some of their funds from
private sources (including - so I read - their own pockets).

Personally, I find the idea of tax funding of *any* research questionable.
"Wackos" or not.

As to the "none of my business" comment - it is in everybody's best 
interest to have at least a passing familiarity with at least the 
generalities of much of current research, particularly when such 
research *may* have a dramatic effect on us all.

Quite aside from the appeal of curiosity and the fun of observing such
charming personalities interact.  :-)

regards,
bearpaw
 
 ==bearpaw@world.std.com=============Loyal Defender of the Grey Areas== 
 |  "I'm for truth, no matter who tells it.
 |   I'm for justice, no matter who it is for or against.
 |   I'm a human being first and foremost, and as such I am for whoever
 |   and whatever benefits humanity as a whole."  - Malcolm X
 ====================================================================== 

cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenbearpaw cudlnbearpaw cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.03 / Risto Kaivola /  Aneutronic fusion?
     
Originally-From: rkaivola@mits.mdata.fi (Risto Kaivola)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Aneutronic fusion?
Date: 3 Mar 1994 18:53:38 +0200
Organization: MITS - Helsinki - Finland

The following may be a bit inappropriate for this group, but
considernig that it is not a .research one, here goes:

Basically, what is aneutronic fusion?  The term aneutronic
confuses me considerably.  Could you give me an example of
an aneutronic fusion reaction? How could energy be produced
using such a reaction?  Can there be a fusion reaction in which
a neutron is never emitted?
  Easily accessible references will also do, but even one specific
example would help me a long way to understanding the thing (if
it exists).

-- 
Risto Kaivola
(Internet address:   rkaivola@mits.mdata.fi)
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenrkaivola cudfnRisto cudlnKaivola cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.03 / Mike Jamison /  Re: SL: Theory Needed (was re: NO to Private email)
     
Originally-From: edwlt12@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov (Mike Jamison (ADF))
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: SL: Theory Needed (was re: NO to Private email)
Date: 3 Mar 1994 11:54 EST
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center

In article <940302180655_70047.3047_EHB46-1@CompuServe.COM>, 70047.3047@
ompuServe.COM (Bill Page) writes...
>Mike Jamison writes (by private email <grin>):

[philosophy deleted :-)]
> 
>Regarding his original posting Mike states:
><<
>Hopefully, the result will be a bunch of light "racing around" the edges of 
>the bubble, which is of course collapsing.  Since the reflectivity is 
>extremely good, very little light will be lost.  Since the bubble is 
>collapsing, the energy per unit volume is increasing...
> 
>So, a lot of light will hopefully become absorbed by a little D2O...
>The result will hopefully prove worth the effort.
>>>

Note the liberal use of the word "hopefully." ...
> 
>This is a interesting model.  Certainly some calculations are in order.  
>Got any idea about how to go about it?  What is known about the dynamics of 
>the "collapsing" bubble? What is its size?  What wavelengths of light 
>should be considered?  What would be the absorption mechanism?

Bill (and the rest of the net):

Zeroeth order calculations should be based on the simple Fresnel equations,
which will determine the reflected vs. transmitted irradiance between two
dielectric media (in this case liquid D2O and D2O vapor).  Because the Fresnel
equations are basically geometric optics equations, they'll only apply for
cases where bubble diammeter >>> wavelength of trapped radiation.

First and second order calculations should be based on electromagnetic
optics - Mie scattering.

Bubble dynamics:  I'm hoping Steve Jones and others working with SL will
be able to answer this one, as I have no idea.  This will obviously be very
important, since there are wavelength related boundary conditions that must
be satisfied.

Wavelengths to be considered:  The ones that best satisfy the collapsing
bubble boundary conditions :-)  Perhaps the best way to determine this is
to hit the collapsing bubble with a burst from a Dye laser, which, by its
nature, has a broad wavelength spectrum.  Observe the wavelength(s) that
are most attenuated by the bubble.  Use this data with a more powerful,
continuous wave laser that lases on the frequency most attenuated in later
experiments.
> 
Absorption mechanism:  In laser induced breakdown, the plasma inside the 
bubble becomes strongly absorbing, once formed.

>It seems to me that SL has at least one thing in common with CF - there is 
>no good theory of the phenomena and its hard to do good experiments without 
>at least the first approximation of a theory!

I'm not going to touch that one...  except to say that with SL there's
something we *can* model.  CF, if it exists, appears a bit trickier (and 
modelling SL won't be easy!)
> 
>Cheers,
> 
>Bill Page.
> 
>cc. Fusion Digest.
> 

Mike Jamison

"Scientific research consists in seeing what everyone else has seen, but
thinking what no one else has thought"

						-A. Szent-Gyorgyi
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenedwlt12 cudfnMike cudlnJamison cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.03 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Deep Heat (response to Gordon Powell question)
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Deep Heat (response to Gordon Powell question)
Date: Thu, 3 Mar 94 12:47:24 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Here is a message from my good friend Chris Tinsley, who can be reached at
CompuServe 73751,3365. Chris is even less e-mail enabled than I am, so he asked
me to post this here in the Fusion Digest, attached to Frank Close's message.
Since I managed to accidentally send one of my own messages twice yesterday, I
shall post this one with care. I would go back and delete the first of my own
two messages, but I am afraid it might undo the pointers and create digital
havoc.
 
- Jed
 
              ---------------------------------------------
 
I now understand what Dr Close means by 'atomic'.  Far be it from me to deride
a proposal just because it sounds crazy.  He says he is partly tongue-in-cheek.
Only partly, with such a radical idea?  I am impressed, this is the man who
wants to keep the house of science cleansed of CF, and now he's waving a
*truly* wild idea about.  But Prof J-P Vigier has suggested something not so
very dissimilar - and claims to stay within quantum theory in so doing.  Let's
look at this dynamic thinking, in relation to the Piantelli et al paper.
 
To get energy from the deep electrons (which JPV is not suggesting) then they
need to move towards the nucleus, emitting energy as they go.  In the case
reported from Italy, they say they got 91MJ.  Assuming all the atoms in a 16g
sample of Ni were involved, this is about 3.5keV/atom.  In another example they
quoted at the seminar, it was 320MJ over 100 days.  That's 12.5keV/atom.
Perhaps we will see a calculation of just exactly how close the electrons would
have to get to the nucleus to give that much energy, but it sounds quite
incredible to me.  As Close points out, the X-radiation would be enormous!
And the nickel would *look* pretty different, wouldn't it, with all its atoms
in a state of collapse?  And the reaction would surely be slowing up after 100
days - not that I accept that there really is 12.5keV of potential energy in a
nickel atom's electrons .... not until I see the mathematics, I don't.  Would
someone please calculate the energy released if all the electrons in an atom of
nickel collapsed all the way, right down into the nucleus?
 
So, let's look at the alternatives.  The Italian newspapers report that traces
of a species of mass three have been found.  These could be HD molecules or
3He.  The paper mentions the the p,D reaction.  But a 200ml container of
hydrogen at 0.6bar and near 500C has only about 3E18 atoms of D in it.  If they
all fuse with H atoms, we get 3E18*5.5E6*1.6E-19 J, 2.6MJ.  Not very promising,
is it?  Even though the rod went through repeated loading cycles.  But it
does at least show that if the energy source were some kind of reaction
affecting the protons, plenty of energy would be available without even a
noticeable pressure drop over the time in question.  Which still leaves the
question of why no radiation - at least no neutrons or gammas which penetrate
the walls of the container.
 
But where is the Close of yesteryear?  Where is his 'energy storage' now? The
contemptuous certainties of his earlier postings seem now to be a trifle
shrivelled.
 
Where are the critics who say that Ni-H is so absurd that any results claimed
there invalidate the claims from Pd-D?  I always thought that was especially
good, they were actually implying that useful amounts of energy were just about
conceivable from Pd-D!  Even I can do arithmetic on that one, showing that this
is impossible by an amazing number of orders of magnitude.  The Ni-H claims are
'impossible' too, but impossible is impossible.
 
Dr Close explores this idea a little further.
 
"If experiments show reproducible evidence ... of energy releases per atom
that exceed the total electronic energies then you may be forced to go beyond
the electron degrees of freedom."
 
What this means is that until the energy released in a novel physics
experiment is demonstrated to exceed the total energy which would be released
if all the electrons in every atom in the apparatus fell into their nuclei,
then the effect may be dismissed as mere chemistry, so we don't need to think
about it at all.  Yes, read the weasel words with care, that is *exactly* what
it says.  I call upon the shades of Faraday, of Einstein, and of Feynman to be
with us now in our hour of need.
 
I love his idea of rapid replication by any competent team!  In his own book he
mentions that Fleischmann once reported an effect which took the world two
years to replicate - all these top electrochemists apparently thought he was
wrong that time.
 
"Whatever the source, there must also be evidence of the changed configuration
that gave rise to the heat; it is this absence of radiation AND ash in amounts
that regularly and reproducibly correlate with the heat claims that leave me
cold."
 
I see he appears to be allowing just the faintest hint of accepting that at
least some people are sometimes finding appropriate amounts of the 'ash'.  But
is he really saying that unless there is corresponding 'ash' and radiation,
he will not accept the results?  So far, no radiation.  Maybe they will find
the ash.  But what if they don't find that either?  Then it would be like
taking a block of plutonium back to a century ago and finding people saying
that 'without the oxide it must be cold, I refuse to accept your thermometer'.
 
But it is his closing words which really frighten me.  Schwinger refers to the
'death of science' in the context of the way the world has behaved over cold
fusion.  Well, Julian, looks like it is dead already.  Close says he hopes it
is goodbye for another year.  This is perhaps the saddest phrase in the history
of cold fusion.  Sir Humphrey Davy used to pull clean clothes over soiled ones
to keep engagements, he was utterly obsessed by his work.  Dr Close flies
around the world lecturing on the supposed frauds and follies of cold fusion.
Were I in his shoes, hearing that three respected, competent scientists claim
a fully reproducible process by which energy of hundreds of megajoules came
from a little bottle with a metal rod in it, I would at the very least have
someone out there checking it out.  Someone with authority to sign any piece of
paper which would allow me to see their trigger mechanism.  So I could get to
work finding out whether it would work for me, and if not why not.  And then I
would want to get to work to find the 'ash', which should be easy if there is
any.  And Close hopes it will be goodbye for a year?  This is science, the
great intellectual endeavour?  The thirsting after knowledge?
 
Look, ladies and gentlemen, can we study the bottom line?  We can neglect the
possibility of incompetence on a scale that allows anybody to be unable to tell
the difference between 50W and 100W sustained over months, the idea that it is
in practical terms possible to mistake a difference of 100C.  That leaves us
with
 
(a) collective insanity.
(b) fraud.
(c) a process which produces measurable ash in a small, sealed vessel.
(d) a process which doesn't.
 
I consider the first two options to be offensive and improbable.  Either of the
latter two mean that our understanding of matter, our beloved physics, is just
plain damn wrong.
 
Not just a bit wrong, a lot wrong.  Very wrong indeed.
 
I propose a brief pause 'for prayer and reflection'.
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenjedrothwell cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.03 / Jim Bowery /  Re: We think we won
     
Originally-From: jabowery@netcom.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: We think we won
Date: Thu, 3 Mar 1994 21:17:44 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

bearpaw@world.std.com (bearpaw) writes:
> tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich) writes:
> 
> >In article <jaboweryCM21MK.DA7@netcom.com> jabowery@netcom.com (Jim Bowery) writes:
> >>Oh, but I have taken a side a long time ago on this whole
> >>Cold Fusion debate:
> >>
> >>I didn't invent it.  I don't have a relationship with the
> >>guys who invented it.
> >>
> >>It's none of my business.
> 
> >It is everyone's business when the government starts giving tax dollar
> >grants to these wackos who, if their research had any validity, would
> >be able to get private research funds.

When the cold fusion wackos start getting 10% of the funds that the
hot fusion wackos are getting, I'll get interested.  Until then, all 
I can say to the cold fusion wackos is "keep up the good work ... it is
 making the hot fusion wackos funding less stable."

> As to the "none of my business" comment - it is in everybody's best 
> interest to have at least a passing familiarity with at least the 
> generalities of much of current research, particularly when such 
> research *may* have a dramatic effect on us all.

It is in everyone's best interest to have intellectual property rights
respected and the original inventors made filthy rich.  The best way to
fund technologies AND science is by making original inventors filthy
rich so they can use their capital to pick winners rather than taking
money out of the pockets of the middle class via the IRS and having
politically appointed wackos give the money to their friends who 
they CLAIM are "fusion experts".
-- 
The promotion of politics exterminates apolitical genes in the population.
  The promotion of frontiers gives apolitical genes a route to survival.
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenjabowery cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.03 / John Cobb /  Re: Aneutronic fusion?
     
Originally-From: johncobb@emx.cc.utexas.edu (John W. Cobb)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Aneutronic fusion?
Date: 3 Mar 1994 11:30:25 -0600
Organization: The University of Texas - Austin

In article <rkaivola.762713233@mits>,
Risto Kaivola <rkaivola@mits.mdata.fi> wrote:
>Basically, what is aneutronic fusion?  The term aneutronic
>confuses me considerably.  Could you give me an example of
>an aneutronic fusion reaction? How could energy be produced
>using such a reaction?  Can there be a fusion reaction in which
>a neutron is never emitted?
...
>-- 
>Risto Kaivola
>(Internet address:   rkaivola@mits.mdata.fi)

Examples:

2H + 3He --> 4He + 1H + 18.1MeV (deuteron+helium-3 --> helium-4 + proton + E)

1H + 6Li --> 4He + 3He + 4.0MeV

2H + 6Li --> 4He + 4He + 22.4MeV

1H + 11B --> 4He + 4He + 4He + 8.7Mev

All of these reactions produce no neutrons drectly. There are also other 
reactions that have multiple branches possible, some of which do not produce
neutrons and others that do (Ex. 2H + 2H, 1H + 7Li).

The question is how do you get a "reactor" going and not get any neutrons.
There are 2 hurdles here. The first is lighting the things. The easiest
fusion reaction is 2H + 3H --> 4He + n (the D-T fuel cycle). A magnetic
reactor can light one of thes things at abou;t a temperature of 10Kev. The
other reactions require much higher temperatures (for example about 50KeV
for the 2H+3He reaction). This is a big factor of 5. The second hurdle
is neutron production view "trash" reactions. That is, the main reaction
may be neutron-free, but there will be pollution reactions that may emit
meutrons. Even if this is only a few percent, it can lead to big neutron
emission. For example, 2H+3He reaction will also have some 2H+2H reactions
occuring. At 50Kev temperatures, the reaction cross-section for 2H+2H
reactions is about 1/2 of the 2H+3He cross-section, so there will be
some generation of neutron from the 50% branch reaction of 2H+2H-->3He+n.
Also, the other 50% goes to 3H+1H, The triton (3H) will then undergoe a
D-T reaction and release another neutron. If the reactor is optmized
(run in a 3He rich mode) the number of neutrons can be minimized. The
neutron power can be as low as about 5%. However, in a 1000MW reactor,
5% is 50MW of neutron power. That is a lot of neutron irradiation. This
lower neutron level helps in designing structural elements to withstand 
neutron embrittlement, but it still has radiation consequences.

On the other hand, it is my understanding that the p-11b reaction is 
completely neutron free, but of course it is much harder to light.

It just dawned on me that your question may be from a CF context. In that
case, I don't have much help. All I can say is that it is my understanding
that many of the theorists are looking for possible low energy a-neutronic
reactions in order to reconcile claims of excess heat generation with the
fact that the experimentors have not developed radiation sickness that
would be associated with the massive neutron bombardment required if
conventional fusion reactions were occurring. My understanding is that
there are not any good explanations for candidate anuetronic reactions in
an deuterated electrolysis cell and that the abscence of abundant neutrons
is considered a 12-penny nail in the cold-fusion coffin.

For a reference you might look at the NRL plasma formulary p. 44
[Pub. by Naval Research Lab. pub. # 177-4405, Washington D.C. 20375-5000]

It references:

S. Glasstone and R.H. Lovberg <Controlled Thermonuclear Reactions> ch. 2
(Van Nostrand, New York, 1960)

F.K. McGowan et. al. <Nucl. Data Tables>
A6, 353 (1969)
A8, 199 (1970)

G.H. Miley, H. Towner, N. Ivich "Fusion Cross Sections and Reactivities>
Rept. COO-2218-17 (Univ. of Ill., Urbana, IL, 1974)

B. H. Duane "Fusion Cross Section Theory" Rept. BNWL-1685 (Brookhaven
National Laboratory, 1972)

-john .w cobb
-- 
 --------------------------------------------------------------
John W. Cobb	My posts don't reflect the views of my employer
                Because my posts are usually opaque.
 --------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenjohncobb cudfnJohn cudlnCobb cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.03 / Matt Kennel /  Re: Vigier's Hamiltonian
     
Originally-From: mbk%anl433.uucp@Germany.EU.net (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Vigier's Hamiltonian
Date: 3 Mar 1994 22:23:27 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

blue@nscl00.nscl.msu.edu wrote:
: I applaud Bill Page's efforts in trying to understand Vigier's theory.
: Superficially it has the appearance of being a rather orthodox approach,
: but then Vigier claims some rather surprizing differences from the
: orthodox picture of the hydrogen atom.  The question that seems to be
: left unanswered is how you generate a significantly different set of
: eigenfunctions without making a significant change in the Hamiltonian?
: Just how different is the Vigier approach?  From Bill's reading of
: the Vigier paper, the claim seems to be that the explicite inclusion
: of magnetic interactions rather than treating them as perturbations
: is supposed to be the key.  It has been a long time since I studied
: QM perturbation theory, but the Vigier claim somehow does not ring
: true.  I would say that as long as these added terms in the Hamiltonian
: are given the appropriate strengths as determined by experimental
: observation their explicite inclusion in the Hamiltonian does not
: change a thing.

I don't think that Vigier would claim that these slightly perturbed states
are not correct eigenfunctions of the Hamiltonian, as demonstrated by such
numerical calculations.  This is made clear by 75 years of successful
physics.  But remember that the evaluation of the size of the perturbation
H1 (H = H0 + H1) is usually made *around* a wave function <state|H1|state>
close to the eigenfunctions of H0.  You are just cross-checking the validity
of the states that you found via a perturbation analysis.

Maybe he would claim though that there are, in fact, new stationary states of
the full Hamiltonian that are not at all close (in the appropriate function
space) to any of the stationary states of the unperturbed Hamiltonian.

: In my experience, however, it is often too easy for the theoriticians
: to manupulate equations without ever correctly evaluating numerically
: anything in those equations.  A few factors of c and h thrown around
: with great abandon can make a big difference when you get down to
: actually calculating numbers.  I suspect that Vigier has simply
: thrown up a cloud of smoke by reviving old questions relating to
: the interpretation of quantum mechanics. 

I don't think so; from a distance it looks just like ordinary QM.  no
'measurement' or collapse or anything like that, just eigenvalues and
states.

: But basically, unless
: there is some reason to believe that atomic magnetic moments
: aren't what they used to be, Vigier has given us no reason to
: believe the structure of hydrogen atoms and molecules is any
: different than it has always been.

I'm pretty sceptical too.  But at least it's slightly more plausible and
concrete (and maybe even testable) than common-sense-penic violations of
bedrock nuclear physics and relativity.

Or it could just be a heat pump. :-)

: Dick Blue
: NSCL@MSU

--
-Matt Kennel  		mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu
-Institute for Nonlinear Science, University of California, San Diego
-*** AD: Archive for nonlinear dynamics papers & programs: FTP to
-***     lyapunov.ucsd.edu, username "anonymous".
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenuucp cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.03 / Matt Kennel /  Re: Jones on Fractofusion
     
Originally-From: mbk%anl433.uucp@Germany.EU.net (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Jones on Fractofusion
Date: 3 Mar 1994 22:24:52 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

blue@nscl00.nscl.msu.edu wrote:
: Consider
: a simplified version of the experimental setup - a heat source of
: perhaps 50 watts in the form of a small metal rod hanging in the middle
: of a chamber filled with hydrogen at a reduced pressure.  Ask yourself
: what heat transfer mechanism dominates, and then how stable it will be.

Turbulent convection.  Not very.

: Dick Blue
: NSCL@MSU


--
-Matt Kennel  		mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu
-Institute for Nonlinear Science, University of California, San Diego
-*** AD: Archive for nonlinear dynamics papers & programs: FTP to
-***     lyapunov.ucsd.edu, username "anonymous".
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenuucp cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.03 /  collins@jaguar /  Re: Experiment before theory (was Assignment of Dihydrino Molecule)
     
Originally-From: collins@jaguar.csc.wsu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Experiment before theory (was Assignment of Dihydrino Molecule)
Date: 3 Mar 94 12:03:31 -0800
Organization: Washington State Univ.

In article <CM2CJz.8M3@world.std.com>, mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
>     In Message-ID: <1994Mar2.100613.1@jaguar.csc.wsu.edu>
> Subject: Re: Assignment of Dihydrino Molecule
> Gary S. Collins (collins@jaguar.csc.wsu.edu) writes:
> 
> =gc  "Mitchell, the burden of proof that something funny is going on when
> =gc  fusion reactions take place within a lattice must rest with those
> =gc  proposing the idea.  The burden is on them to present convincing
> =gc  evidence that nuclear reaction ratios or x-ray fluorescent yields
> =gc  are significantly affected by the lattice environment.  
>  
>   Gary, the boundary conditions are the experimental results.
> The burden is to explain those results, and therefore what is
> required is a theory which encompasses the results,
> suggests new experiments, and is consistent with
> known science.
>   Therefore,  the burden is to explain why the
> nuclear reaction ratios and various radiation yields
> are so significantly effected by the lattice environment. 
> 
>                             Mitchell  Swartz    (mica@world.std.com)

What nuclear reactions?  what radiation yields?    
-- 
Gary S. Collins, Physics, Washington State U.  (collins@cougar.csc.wsu.edu)
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudencollins cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.03 / Marshall Dudley /  Re: Tapping the Vacuum Energy -- An Important Paper from bearden
     
Originally-From: mdudley@dwbbs.nlbbs.com (Marshall Dudley)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.energy
Subject: Re: Tapping the Vacuum Energy -- An Important Paper from bearden
Date: Thu, 03 Mar 94 17:35:40 GMT
Organization: Data World BBS - Knoxville, TN - (615)966-3574, 675-4753

Jon Noring writes:

>I am posting, with Tom Bearden's permission, a new paper (ASCII-text) to
>the newsgroups listed above.  Followup discussion, if any, has been set to
>alt.sci.physics.new-theories.  A nicer-looking Word for Windows (2.0 and 6.0
>versions), and possibly even a Windows 3.1 Help file, both of which would
>include the illustrations, will be made available via anonymous ftp in a few
>days.  Look for it at netcom.com /pub/noring/bearden .
>
>[Sorry, I will NOT mail out any uuencoded files, nor will I snail-mail
>anything.  If you don't have anonymous ftp access, ask a friend to help out
>or sign up with one of the many new inexpensive services such as Netcom (for
>information on Netcom, telnet there and login as 'guest').  Please DO upload
>this file to your local BBS so as to make it more available to our friends
>who don't yet have direct Internet access.]

I received this directly from Bearden myself yesterday.  For those who do not
have ftp access, it is posted on Data World BBS at 615-675-3282.  It can
be downloaded by a first time caller under the filename of free-ene.zip.
It is the original file supplied by Tom and is in Word For Windows format,
and includes the drawings. This phone number supports 1200 through 14,400 bps
on all nodes.

>[2]  For proof that you can charge an ordinary capacitor almost without
>entropy, see I. Fundaun, C. Reese, and H. H. Soonpaa, "Charging a Capacitor,"
>_American Journal of Physics_, 60(11), pp. 1047-1048 (1992).  A capacitor can
>be step-charged in small steps to dramatically reduce the entropy required to
>charge it.  In the limit, a theoretically perfect capacitor can be fully
>charged without any electrical current or work at all, i.e., you can simply
>transport the excess energy density (the potential gradient) of the open
>circuit voltage of the source to the collector, and couple that {del-phi} to
>the electrons trapped in the capacitor plates, without electric current from
>or through the source.

I am skeptical that a capacitor can be charged with a step ramp with these
results.  However, "American Journal of Physics" is a rather prestigous
publication.  I have made arangement with ORNL to see this article, and will
post any information here later.

								Marshall
cudkeys:
cuddy03 cudenmdudley cudfnMarshall cudlnDudley cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.02 /  collins@jaguar /  Re: Assignment of Dihydrino Molecule
     
Originally-From: collins@jaguar.csc.wsu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Assignment of Dihydrino Molecule
Date: 2 Mar 94 10:06:13 -0800
Organization: Washington State Univ.

In article <CM1JCH.IMG@world.std.com>, mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
>  
>   In the January Fusion Technology is an article by Randell 
> Mills, William Good and Robert Shaubach on "Dihydrino Molecule 
> Identification" (FT, v25, p103-119).     ... Secondary X rays must 
> also be present as well as neutrons and charged particles in the 
> correct ratios (11).
> 
> REFS: ....  
> 11. S. JONES, Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion (Mar. 3, 1993)
> 
> "must" indeed.     ;-)
> Since   1)  the argument about "ratios" and "required x rays" 
> actually remains unproven for the case of the periodic solid state and 
> in particular for the case of a low interstitial lattice contained 
> (decorated?) within a second Group VIII lattice,    but rather is only 
> asserted, ...
>
> Best wishes.
>                          Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com)

Mitchell, the burden of proof that something funny is going on when
fusion reactions take place within a lattice must rest with those
proposing the idea.  The burden is on them to present convincing
evidence that nuclear reaction ratios or x-ray fluorescent yields
are significantly affected by the lattice environment.  
 
-- 
Gary S. Collins, Physics, Washington State U.  (collins@cougar.csc.wsu.edu)
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudencollins cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.03 / Robert Heeter /  (Long) Re: Reply to "Re: Assignment of Dihydrino Molecule"
     
Originally-From: rfheeter@theory.pppl.gov (Robert F. Heeter)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: (Long) Re: Reply to "Re: Assignment of Dihydrino Molecule"
Date: 3 Mar 1994 19:41:42 -0500
Organization: /etc/organization

Mitch and I appear to be headed off the deep end together again...

I really should spend more time on the conventional fusion FAQ, 
(or maybe my classes and research) and less time pondering
the mysteries of CF...

In article <CM2211.KDz@world.std.com>,
mitchell swartz <mica@world.std.com> wrote:
>  In Message-ID: <2l2n8o$2jr@tom.pppl.gov>
>Subject: Re: Assignment of Dihydrino Molecule
>Robert F. Heeter  [rfheeter@lyman.pppl.gov] wrote:
>
>  (re: January Fusion Technology  "Dihydrino Molecule 
>   Identification" (FT, v25, p103-119))
>
>   >Since   1)  the argument about "ratios" and "required x rays" 
>   >actually remains unproven for the case of the periodic solid state and 
>   >in particular for the case of a low interstitial lattice contained 
>   >(decorated?) within a second Group VIII lattice,    but rather is only 
>   >asserted, and
>   >       2)   even the citation is non-descriptive and very vague 
>   >(with a completely nondescriptive reference that should not have 
>   >made it through a peer-reviewed journal),
>
>=rh   "On the contrary, 
>=rh  "Since (1) the argument about ratios and required x-rays
>=rh  is supported by accepted experimental evidence for nuclear 
>=rh  reactions in every physical system ever investigated, and it's 
>=rh  up to the CF researchers to show why their system should be any 
>=rh  different;"
>
>  Does it?  If you are correct then the following should
>be quite simple.
>Please write a simple balanced equation that
>uses deuterons to generate He4 as final product
>   -- which is what Miles and Mills are writing about --
>   and neutrons which you claim must coexist.  

First of all, I didn't claim neutrons, I claimed commensurate
levels of energetic emissions - neutrons, alphas, x-rays,
energetic electrons, gamma rays, etc.  Neutrons do not need
to be released from all conceivable reactions; just from 
deuterium-deuterium reactions.  (c.f. John Cobb's recent
comments on aneutronic fuels.)  If you want to use
deuterons to get He4, you can't simply slap two deuterons
together and get an He4; it just doesn't work that way.
Even if it did, your He4 is going to be *extremely* energetic,
and *pointlike*, and it's going to slam around in your lattice
and knock loose a bunch of electrons, and the holes are going
to emit x-rays and gamma rays, and the electrons themselves
will also emit x-rays and gamma rays as they slam around
in the lattice, and in general the x-rays and gamma rays
and alphas and electrons are going to get loose, especially
if your reactions are occurring near the surface (such as
in the thin cathodes typically used).

That aside, here's your balanced equation:

First consider these two-particle reactions:

2D -> T + p
2D -> 3He + n  (each of these occurs with roughly 50% probability)
D+T -> 4He + n 

From these, we see that if we start off with 5 neutrons, and
fuse four, we generate on average a T, a 3He, a p, and an n.
The T will be energetic and will react readily with a fifth D,
generating the 4He.  Thus the balanced equation is:

5D = (D+D)+(D+D)+D -> (T+p)+(3He+n) + D -> (4He+n+p) + (3He+n)

This is the standard series of reactions which occur in a 
D-D fusion plasma.  The 3He will also react with a D, but 
because 3He carries a +2 charge, the coulomb barrier is higher so it's 
harder to get them to stick than it is to get a T to stick,
so the 3He will not react immediately.  As you can see, given
N reacting deuterons, you generate N/5 4He (alpha) particles,
N/5 3He particles, N/5 protons (H ions), and 2N/5 neutrons.

I don't know what reaction Miles and Mills expect; the above
is what plasma fusioneers see.
>
>=rh  "and (2) no one has successfully postulated any mechanism of any
>=rh  sort which could couple a pointlike burst of 20-odd MeV from
>=rh  a nuclear-scale (10^-14 m) source to a diffuse, weak lattice
>=rh  (energy levels on the order of 1 eV, distance scales on the order of
>=rh  10^-10 m) *without* stripping inner-shell electrons (creating
>=rh  x-rays) or spewing out energetic particles (alpha, electron, 
>=rh  ion, neutron);"
>
>    If it does couple to the lattice, Robert
>then by the definition of coupling,
>there is no "point like burst", is there?

If you tell me that two deuterons are going to fuse and emit
huge amounts of energy, then I tell you the source of the emission 
cannot be any larger than the deuterons themselves, in which case - from
the perspective of the lattice - the energy released certainly
appears as a pointlike burst.  The fact that "coupling to the lattice"
and "pointlike burst" appear - in your own words - to be mutually
exclusive ideas is *precisely* my point.  You *have* to have
pointlike bursts, by the nature of the reaction; you cannot have 
*all* the energy of the burst couple to the lattice.
 
Any theorist who wants to couple the fusion energy directly to
modes in the lattice is going to have to show that the fusion
energy is released not from a nucleus-sized region, but from a 
lattice-sized region.  I'm saying I don't think this can occur.

>   When one calculates Compton effect, triplet production, etc.
>one can use math and there it is.  Do you have any proof
>whatsoever for you blind leap of faith?

Well, a deuteron is small, an alpha particle is small, a neutron 
is small, a proton is small, an energetic electron is small, and 
gosh, a lattice is big.  When two deuterons fuse, the energy
is released in a tiny region, and so quickly that *the lattice 
doesn't know yet*.  It's not until the energetic particles 
released by the fusion fly out of the tiny area where the two 
deuterium nuclei were, and start slamming into the electrons 
and nuclei in the lattice, that the lattice gets a clue.  The 
lattice couldn't know any earlier, because the emitted particles 
travel at nearly the speed of light.

Furthermore, the lattice couldn't know any other way, because 
*there are no high-energy lattice interactions*.  The lattice
isn't sensitive to 20 MeV energies.  

This is much more simple than either Compton scattering or
"triplet" production (I know what pair production is; never
heard of triplet production).  It doesn't take any math
to realize that you can't "couple" a bullet to a blob of 
jello or a piece of cotton candy - the bullet just flies 
right through.  Same with the energetic emissions from
a fusion reaction in a lattice environment.
>
>=rh  "then (3) Dr. Jones' "unproved assertion" that fusion must be
>=rh  accompanied by high-energy emissions is simply a self-evident
>=rh  consequence of accepted physics, and any claim to the contrary
>=rh  will require considerable explanation;"
>
>   Since you have not offered balanced equation (1),
>and can't prove - so far - the requirement of (2),
> it is respectfully noted that despite
>the handwaving and mutual fingerpointing
>there remains only an unproven assertion.

It is respectfully noted that I have now provided you with a balanced
equation, further justification for (2), and that 99+ percent of
the physicists on the planet will consider my assertions amply proven
by the explanations given and the experimental evidence of the last
seventy years.

>=rh " therefore (5) the burden of proof is still on Mitch to support
>=rh  his idea that fusion events can not only occur, but occur
>=rh  without telltale evidence of the sort normally associated
>=rh  with nuclear activity.  (Which is just a continuation of our
>=rh  discussion regarding Kucherov's work, which is why I replied.)"
>
>   I posted several reports of ash.
>Given those postings, it seems unlikely my 
>idea was  "that fusion events can ...  occur without telltale 
>evidence", right?

By "telltale evidence" I meant evidence commensurate with the
excess energy claimed.  Your claim as I understood it was that 
cold fusion can generate multiwatt levels of excess heat, while
only generating microwatt levels of ash.  (eg, Kucherov)
I would consider such a discrepancy to be telltale evidence of
experimental error, not telltale evidence that the excess heat
was due to any sort of nuclear reactions.

As usual, I'd love to see someone prove me wrong; I think we could
really use such a clean, safe energy source.  But it hasn't happened
yet; the experimental work just isn't good enough yet.
>
>=rh  "To claim that energy production on the order of watts can occur
>=rh  from nuclear reactions, without secondary radiation also on the 
>=rh  order of watts, is like claiming that you can shoot someone with a
>=rh  machine gun, and not observe any damage, but only "excess heat" 
>=rh  from the kinetic energy of the bullets slowing down. "
>
>   There is a good example of bad logic.
>  Are you claiming that machine guns give off xrays.
>  Are machine guns really related to this at all?

Well, the use of "like" was meant to indicate that I was providing
an analogy.  Perhaps you would like to open up your dictionary?

I'm saying that (excess heat from fusion) is to (secondary radiation)
as (shooting someone with a machine gun) is to (massive tissue damage).

>  Why ionizing radiation?    Phonons, microwaves and IR photons
> are radiation, too and there are clearly lots of them. 
>
Yes, and when fusion reactions occur, phonons, microwaves, and IR
photons are only generated when the burst of ionizing radiation
blasts through the lattice and dissipates some of its energy.
The lower-energy radiation is only an indirect effect.

>=rh   "Nuclear
>=rh  reactions are simply too localized and too energetic for
>=rh  lattice coupling to be a factor.  It's the difference between
>=rh  tapping someone on the shoulder (creating lattice effects), or 
>=rh  shooting them (creating observable secondary effects).
>
>   I guess that rules out the Mossbauer effect, too.
>
No, the Mossbauer effect is equivalent (in this analogy) to
sending a bullet whizzing past someone's ear.  The effect is
much less energetic than what generates it.
>
>=rh  "Then one should conduct more rigorous experiments to explain
>=rh  (a) why no one sees dihydrinos in the non-CF universe, and
>=rh  (b) why anyone should see dihydrinos in CF experiments, and
>=rh  (c) why one does not observe "excess cooling" as dihydrinos
>=rh  relax to ordinary H2."
>
>    True.

Glad we can agree on something!

I'm going back to hot fusion...

Best of luck to the CF researchers out there!

********************
Robert F. Heeter
rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Graduate Student, Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory
Disclaimers most certainly apply.
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.02 /  collins@jaguar /  Re: Italian Ni-H gas leaks??
     
Originally-From: collins@jaguar.csc.wsu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Italian Ni-H gas leaks??
Date: 2 Mar 94 01:30:04 GMT
Organization: Washington State Univ.

In article <1994Mar2.030427.24750@ns.network.com>, logajan@ns.network.co
 (John Logajan) writes:
> I wrote:
>>Twenty four days (576 hours) at 44 watts would consume 17,280 liters of air,
>>6,912 liters of H2 bottled gas, and it would produce 5.2 liters of water.
>  ^^^^^
> 
> Those 3.5 foot tall welder's bottles of compressed gas hold about a cubic
> foot, or 25 liters at atmospheric pressure.  I think they typically charge
> them to 2,000 psi.  So such a bottle could hold 3,400 liters of compressed
> gas.  It would have taken at least two such bottles over the course of 24
> days at the 44 watt heat rate to account for the Italian Ni-H results.
> 
> That number assumes perfect H2 utilization -- none of it being exhausted
> unburned.  That is a highly improbable event -- therefore the H2 consumption
> from the bottles would probably have been far higher -- orders of magnitude
> higher perhaps.
> 
> -- 
> -John Logajan MS612; Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
> -logajan@network.com, 612-391-1159, Fax 612-424-2853

John,  

(1)  Thanks for working through the numbers, which do make it look 
extremely unlikely that recombination could have played an important
role in the reported Italian Ni-H results.  

(2)  Presumbaly, hydrogen is some kind of "fuel" in the Italian Ni-H 
experiments.  Can you tell from your sources whether any efforts were made
to measure the amount of hydrogen "consumed"?
-- 
Gary S. Collins, Physics, Washington State U.  (collins@cougar.csc.wsu.edu)
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudencollins cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.04 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: Experiment before theory (was Assignment of Dihydrino Molecule)
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Experiment before theory (was Assignment of Dihydrino Molecule)
Date: Fri, 4 Mar 1994 02:28:17 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <CM2CJz.8M3@world.std.com> mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:

>  Gary, the boundary conditions are the experimental results.

Mitchell, you just don't get it do you? There are _no_ results. There
are _no_ experiments that are reproduceable by other experimenters
so there _are_no_results_!

Is this thing called scientific method 
beyond your comprehension?
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.03 /  roconnel@ccvax /  Plasma Physics Summer School
     
Originally-From: roconnel@ccvax.ucd.ie
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Plasma Physics Summer School
Date: 3 Mar 94 17:41:10 WET
Organization: University College Dublin



      T H E   3 1 s t   C U L H A M   P L A S M A   P H Y S I C S
      ###########################################################

                       S U M M E R   S C H O O L
                       #########################

                   1 1   -   2 2   J U L Y   1 9 9 4

         C u l h a m   L a b o r a t o r y,   A b i n g d o n,
                     O x f o r d s h i r e,   U K


 An International Summer School intended  for students near the  start
 of postgraduate courses.  No previous knowledge of plasma physics  is
 assumed.  Since 1985,  the Summer School series  has been attended by
 over 600 students from 47 countries, more than two thirds coming from
 outside the UK.

 Culham Laboratory is  the primary centre for plasma physics & nuclear
 fusion research in the UK; it is located close to the city of Oxford,
 and  shares  a  site   with  the   world's  largest  magnetic  fusion
 experiment,  the  Joint  European  Torus   (JET).


               The School covers a broad curriculum :-

 * Plasma particle dynamics   * Plasma waves  * Kinetic theory   * MHD
 * Computational techniques  * Astrophysical plasmas   * Laser plasmas
 * Magnetically confined plasmas    * Solar plasmas   * Poster session
 * Space plasmas       * Laboratory visits        * Industrial plasmas
 * Turbulence & chaos       * Diagnostics      * Gravitational plasmas

 A copy of the course textbook "Plasma Phyics: An Introductory Course"
 (Cambridge University Press,1993)  is given to each student.


 ACCOMMODATION  WILL BE IN  A  HISTORIC COLLEGE  OF OXFORD UNIVERSITY.


            CLOSING DATE FOR APPLICATIONS :  13th MAY 1994

   (Late applications may be accepted, depending on accommodation.)


 Further details / application forms are available from :-

      Mrs Joan Stimson,
      Culham Laboratory,
      Abingdon,
      Oxfordshire  OX14 3DB,                        Tel: 44 235 463293
      UK.                                           FAX: 44 235 463288

 or e-MAIL enquiries to :-                  geoff.maddison@aea.orgn.uk

cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenroconnel cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Fri Mar  4 04:37:03 EST 1994
------------------------------
1994.03.04 / Dieter Britz /  CNF bibliography; recent updates and archive retrieval, Mar-94.
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CNF bibliography; recent updates and archive retrieval, Mar-94.
Date: Fri, 4 Mar 1994 09:12:44 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway


Current count:
-------------
  8 books
880 papers
135 patents
211 comment items
 81 peripherals
 19 conf-procs
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^=
^^^^^^^^^

#
Dong Q, Qiu W, Gan F, Cai N;
Chem. J. Chin. Univ 13(6) (1992) 847 (in Chinese, English abstract).
"Studies on behavior of deuterium and hydrogen in palladium".
** "The absorption, reserve, diffusion of deuterium and hydrogen in p=
alladium,
and the positron lifetime of palladium during electrolysis are invest=
igated by
hydrogen permeation method and positron annihilation spectroscopy. Th=
e results
show that the electrochemical behavior of deuterium is almost the sam=
e as that
of hydrogen, but the amount of deuterium reserved in palladium is sli=
ghtly
less than that of hydrogen and the diffusion coefficient of deuterium=
 is
slightly greater than that of hydrogen. The positron lifetime in pall=
adium
after electrolysis is increased by 10.5%. The behavior similarity of =
deuterium
and hydrogen and the possibility of 'cold nuclear fusion' are discuss=
ed". The
same authors have published an English-language paper in the same yea=
r (see:
Qiu WC, Dong QH, Gan FX, Wang SJ; Mat. Sci. Forum 105-110 (1992) 1961=
.), in
which they state that they not able to draw conclusions about cold fu=
sion from
the results.=20
#..................................................................17=
-Feb-94
Fedorovich GV;   Fusion Technology 24 (1993) 288.
"A possible way to nuclear fusion in solids".
** Once again, the author proposes his E-cell theory, and an experime=
nt to
test it. E-cells are radiation defects in certain low atomic weight e=
lement
(Li, Be, B) hydrides/deuterides, and fission events, caused by neutro=
n
capture, start an E-cell.  Within it, extremely high electron densiti=
es
(10^24/cm^3) hold and this can act as a Coulomb shield for fusion. Al=
so,
crystalline lattice forces can be focussed up to hundreds of eV and r=
educe
internuclear distances to 10^-9 cm, resulting in a measurable hydroge=
n fusion
rate. An experiment is suggested, in which a sample is compressed in =
a diamond
anvil to some Mbar, and a neutron beam aimed at it to stimulate fusio=
n. "The
further is the matter of experimental physics".  Feb-92/Nov-93=20
#.............................................................. 27-Fe=
b-94
Fox H;  Fusion Technol. 24 (1993) 347.
"Comments on 'Experiments of one-point cold fusion'".
** Polemic on a paper by T. Matsumoto. It has been shown in a US pate=
nt that
under the conditions described by Matsumoto, electron beads can form,=
 and
Matsumoto has inadvertently formed high-energy clusters as taught by =
that
patent. The clusters have 10^8 to 10^12 electrons. Fox suggests that =
Matsumoto
place a radio receiver near his cell and listen to noises like that o=
f a
lightning strike from these clusters. These can accelerate deuterons =
and
induce fusion by locally swamping the Coulomb barrier!  Feb-93/Dec-93=
=20
#................................................................ 2-M=
ar-94
Kaliev KA, Baraboshkin AN, Samgin AL, Golikov EG, Shalyapin AL, Andre=
ev VS,=20
Golubnichii PI; Dokl. Akad. Nauk 330(2) (1993) 214 (in Russian).
"Reproducible nuclear reactions by interaction of deuterium with tung=
sten=20
oxide bronze".
** The authors note that reproducibility is a major problem in cold f=
usion=20
work. Here, they use a novel material, for which they have their own =
technique
for growing single crystals of, and an electrochemical method for ext=
racting
sodium out of. This is tungsten bronze with the general formula Na(x)=
WO4, i.e.
a range of different stoichiometries. The material had Na removed fro=
m it and
replaced by deuterium. This was kept in an evacuated chamber and 500-=
1000 V
applied between it and an opposing cathode, for several hours, passin=
g in all
0.1-1 Coulombs. Neutron emissions were measured with two blocks of fo=
ur SNM-42
detectors and paraffin moderating blocks. As well, the sample's tempe=
rature
was monitored throughout. After switching off the current, the crysta=
ls were
brought to room temp. and D2 or H2 gas introduced, still monitoring f=
or=20
neutrons. Results showed that there was a greater temp. rise when int=
roducing=20
D2 gas than for H2 gas, and a correspondingly greater neutron flux fo=
r D2, so
the process is definitely nuclear. In the acknowledgements, one M. Ra=
mbo is
thanked for discussions of the results.              Feb-93/?
#....................................................................=
17-Feb-94
Kawarabayashi J, Takahashi H, Iguchi T, Nakazawa M;
J. Facul. Eng., Univ. Tokyo B 41 (1992) 595.
"Low level neutron detection system for cold-fusion".
** A new neutron detector is described, using a new digital waveform =
analysis
technique in order to suppress noise and to resolve bursts of pile-up=
. High
sensitivity 3-He detectors were used to catch neutrons (8 set around =
the
detection space) optimally. Pulse height and wave for analysis comple=
tes the
setup. The lowest observable neutron rate was 0.022 n/s. This was tes=
ted in a
mixture of heavy and light water, irrradiated by a gamma ray source (=
24Na) and
the count rate found to be linear with heavy water concentration, as =
required.
It works.   Apr-92/?=20
#................................................................ 27-=
Feb-94
Lihn CJ, Wan CC, Wan CM, Perng TP; Fusion Technol. 24 (1993) 324.
"The influence of deposits on palladium cathodes in D2O electrolysis"=
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.04 / Frank Close /  Deep Heat: Shades of Feynman
     
Originally-From: FEC@v2.rl.ac.uk (Frank Close)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Deep Heat: Shades of Feynman
Date: Fri, 4 Mar 1994 13:18:39 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Chris Tinsley writes:

"- not that I accept that there really is 12.5keV of potential energy in a
nickel atom's electrons .... not until I see the mathematics, I don't.  Would
someone please calculate the energy released if all the electrons in an atom of
nickel collapsed all the way, right down into the nucleus?"


 To get orders of magnitude, use H+ to set the scale (13.6eV)

The energy scales as charge**2: so the 1s electron bound to a Nickel
ion (charge = 28) is 13.6eV*28*28 > 10keV. There are two electrons
in this 1s shell which already dramatically exceeds 12.5keV.
 
There is no need spiralling into the nucleus or other rewrites of Schrodinger
theory here.

CT: "I call upon the shades of Faraday, of Einstein, of Feynman to
be with us now in our hour of need".

Impressive! However, as you have invoked Feynman, with whom I had the
fortune to discuss physics through the 1970s, I remind you that he was a
notorious sceptic, who once wrote that Nature cannot be fooled.

cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenFEC cudfnFrank cudlnClose cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.04 / Dieter Britz /  Problems posting an Update
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Problems posting an Update
Date: Fri, 4 Mar 1994 15:18:32 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway


I posted the latest Update last night and the Digest containing (some of) it
has just arrived here, sort of hacked about, e.g.:

<...>
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^=
>^^^^^^^^^

>#
>Dong Q, Qiu W, Gan F, Cai N;
>Chem. J. Chin. Univ 13(6) (1992) 847 (in Chinese, English abstract).
>"Studies on behavior of deuterium and hydrogen in palladium".
>** "The absorption, reserve, diffusion of deuterium and hydrogen in p=
>alladium,
>and the positron lifetime of palladium during electrolysis are invest=
>igated by
>hydrogen permeation method and positron annihilation spectroscopy. Th=
>e results
<...>
>#................................................................ 27-=
>Feb-94
>Lihn CJ, Wan CC, Wan CM, Perng TP; Fusion Technol. 24 (1993) 324.
>"The influence of deposits on palladium cathodes in D2O electrolysis"=

- and that was the end of it, although what I posted was much longer (and it
did go off OK, I have a log file to prove it). Possibly it was OK on the News
branch, but I won't see that for a while because we're behind here by more
than a week. I'll try to find out what is going on. I am also having trouble
archiving the new file CNF-NEW at the ftp site. Scott Hazen is not there at
the moment, so this may take a while. Be patient. The new stuff that I posted
is all in the archives - but well mixed, of course, with all the earlier
items, totalling 881 now.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.05 /  blue@nscl00.ns /  Correcting Mitchell's FAQ
     
Originally-From: blue@nscl00.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Correcting Mitchell's FAQ
Date: Sat, 5 Mar 1994 01:13:55 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Suppose we accept as a valid determination of the recombination effect
for nickel-hydrogen CF the results of Johnathon Jones as reported here.
As I understand it JJ demonstrated in a relatively low power experiment
that a 134% excess heat was all due to recombination.  My complaint
is with the quoting of the absolute excess power demonstrated as being
due to recombination with no hint as to what the implications are for
the much larger claims of excess heat made by Mills and others.

We again come to a question as to how data should be scaled for
cross comparison with other results.  One approach is to note that
perhaps someones claim of 200% excess heat (or more) can likely
be at least 134% bogus.  Until steps are taken to reduce or eliminate
recombination effects none of those rather spectacular claims can
be given full credibility.  That is the message that is missing from
MItchell's FAQ.

Dick Blue
NSCL@MSU

cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenblue cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.05 /  blue@nscl00.ns /  Sign off (temporary?)
     
Originally-From: blue@nscl00.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Sign off (temporary?)
Date: Sat, 5 Mar 1994 01:13:58 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Since my link to the real world is about to be disrupted, I thought I
would give a hint as to where I may be found in the future.  One possibility
is "76337.757@compuserve.com".  For now "blue@nscl00.nscl.msu.edu" is
still active, but that may go away.  I am retiring from NSCL with next
Wednesday being my last day on the job.  In the future time spent on
cold fusion I/O will be my own, and that may slow down my participation
somewhat <g>.

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenblue cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.04 / Robert Heeter /  Re: Italian Ni-H (was: (?) Jones on Fractofusion)
     
Originally-From: rfheeter@theory.pppl.gov (Robert F. Heeter)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Italian Ni-H (was: (?) Jones on Fractofusion)
Date: 4 Mar 1994 09:55:11 -0500
Organization: /etc/organization

In article <2l5o3k$rc4@network.ucsd.edu>,
Matt Kennel <mbk%anl433.uucp@Germany.EU.net> wrote:
>blue@nscl00.nscl.msu.edu wrote:
>: Consider
>: a simplified version of the experimental setup - a heat source of
>: perhaps 50 watts in the form of a small metal rod hanging in the middle
>: of a chamber filled with hydrogen at a reduced pressure.  Ask yourself
>: what heat transfer mechanism dominates, and then how stable it will be.
>
>Turbulent convection.  Not very.

According to the paper, they only had a single Pt thermometer attached
to the sample rod.  Should be easy to fool it.


**************
Robert F. Heeter
rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
disclaimers apply, etc...

cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.04 / mitchell swartz /  On Assignment of Dihydrino (cont)
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: On Assignment of Dihydrino (cont)
Subject: (Long) Re: Reply to "Re: Assignment of Dihydrino
Date: Fri, 4 Mar 1994 15:11:54 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA


   In Message-ID: <2l6046$r4e@tom.pppl.gov>
Subject: (Long) Re: Reply to "Re: Assignment of Dihydrino
 Molecule"   Robert F. Heeter (heeter@theory.pppl.gov) wrote:

       >Please write a simple balanced equation that
       >uses deuterons to generate He4 as final product
       >   -- which is what Miles and Mills are writing about --
       >   and neutrons which you claim must coexist.  
=rh "First of all, I didn't claim neutrons,I claimed commensurate
=rh   levels of energetic emissions - neutrons, alphas, x-rays,
=rh   energetic electrons, gamma rays, etc.  Neutrons do not need
=rh   to be released from all conceivable reactions; just from 
=rh   deuterium-deuterium reactions.  (c.f. John Cobb's recent
=rh   comments on aneutronic fuels.)  If you want to use
=rh   deuterons to get He4, you can't simply slap two deuterons
=rh   together and get an He4; it just doesn't work that way.
=rh  " Even if it did, your He4 is going to be *extremely* energetic,
=rh  and *pointlike*, and it's going to slam around in your lattice
=rh  and knock loose a bunch of electrons, and the holes are going
=rh  to emit x-rays and gamma rays, and the electrons themselves
=rh  will also emit x-rays and gamma rays as they slam around
=rh  in the lattice, and in general the x-rays and gamma rays
=rh  and alphas and electrons are going to get loose, especially
=rh  if your reactions are occurring near the surface (such as
=rh  in the thin cathodes typically used)."
   
   Robert,   first, it may not be the classic two deuterons which
produce the reactions within the lattice. 
   Second, this essay is merely a clear statement of your
position and not a proof.


=rh   "That aside, here's your balanced equation:
=rh  First consider these two-particle reactions:
=rh  2D -> T + p
=rh  2D -> 3He + n  (each of these occurs with roughly 50% probability)
=rh  D+T -> 4He + n 
=rh  From these, we see that if we start off with 5 neutrons, and
=rh   fuse four, we generate on average a T, a 3He, a p, and an n.
=rh   The T will be energetic and will react readily with a fifth D,
=rh   generating the 4He.  Thus the balanced equation is:
=rh   
=rh   5D = (D+D)+(D+D)+D -> (T+p)+(3He+n) + D -> (4He+n+p) + (3He+n)"

   Please note that there is neither 3He or significant neutrons 
produced from these reactions within a lattice, as we are
certain you must have noted in your reviews of 
the copious number of experimental papers.      
So although  this does appear as a balanced equation, this 
equation simply does not describe the products observed.  
Thus the equation is interesting but therefore is not applicable.

=rh   "If you tell me that two deuterons are going to fuse and emit
=rh   huge amounts of energy, then I tell you the source of the emission 
=rh   cannot be any larger than the deuterons themselves, in which case - from
=rh   the perspective of the lattice - the energy released certainly
=rh   appears as a pointlike burst."

  It is not necessarily just two deuterons.
And the fact remains that lattice can produce unusual
effects including anharmonic motions of those deuterons,
focusing of the phonons (and subsequent coupling of deuteron
flux), anomalous superconductivity effects, etc.
which do not exist in plasma.  Some of these may play a role.


      >   When one calculates Compton effect, triplet production, etc.
      >one can use math and there it is.  Do you have any proof
      >whatsoever for you blind leap of faith?
=rh  "Well, a deuteron is small, an alpha particle is small, a neutron 
=rh  is small, a proton is small, an energetic electron is small, and 
=rh  gosh, a lattice is big.  When two deuterons fuse, the energy
=rh  is released in a tiny region, and so quickly that *the lattice 
=rh  doesn't know yet*.  It's not until the energetic particles 
=rh  released by the fusion fly out of the tiny area where the two 
=rh  deuterium nuclei were, and start slamming into the electrons 
=rh  and nuclei in the lattice, that the lattice gets a clue.  The 
=rh  lattice couldn't know any earlier, because the emitted particles 
=rh  travel at nearly the speed of light."

   You will do well in graduate school since you tout their line
so well,  but you've proved nothing since, 
IMHO, repeating the statements is not a proof.


=rh "It is respectfully noted that I have now provided you with a balanced
=rh  equation, further justification for (2), and that 99+ percent of
=rh  the physicists on the planet will consider my assertions amply proven
=rh  by the explanations given and the experimental evidence of the last
=rh  seventy years."

   1) You have provided a balanced equation, but one which
does not describe the observed endproducts, and therefore
has reasonably questionable relevance.

   2)  When 99% of the "physicists" said the sun circled the Earth,
that was wrong too.    And when they tried to close the US Patent
Office more then 100 years ago, claiming that all the inventions had
already been invented, they were wrong as well.

=rh   "Your claim as I understood it was that 
=rh  cold fusion can generate multiwatt levels of excess heat, while
=rh  only generating microwatt levels of ash.  (eg, Kucherov)"

   Actually if you read the postings - or better yet the original
papers -  you will note that the ash is circa one third of the generated 
heat, and not the 10^3 difference you incorrectly allege.
Given the closeness between the generated ash and the 
observed excess heat,  I would consider the linkage (discussed
in previous postings) and measurement of near commensurate 
amounts helium-4 to be telltale evidence of nuclear reactions.


      >   I guess that rules out the Mossbauer effect, too.
=rh  "No, the Mossbauer effect is equivalent (in this analogy) to
=rh  sending a bullet whizzing past someone's ear.  The effect is
=rh  much less energetic than what generates it."

  No.  The Mossbauer effect demonstrates that the nucleus
IS coupled to the lattice [at least through the s orbitals] AND that
nuclear energy levels can be influenced by orbital chemistry as a
result.   It also demonstrates that the lattice can couple, and effect,
the emissions of a nucleus within that lattice.


=rh  "I'm going back to hot fusion..."

    Good luck.   Best wishes.
                       Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com)

cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.04 / mitchell swartz /  On Re: Experiment before theory
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: On Re: Experiment before theory
Subject: Re: Experiment before theory (was Assignment of Dihydrino
Date: Fri, 4 Mar 1994 15:12:46 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA


   In Message-ID: <tomkCM4C76.IA8@netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Experiment before theory (was Assignment of Dihydrino
 Molecule)   Thomas H. Kunich  (tomk@netcom.com) myopically complains:

      >  Gary, the boundary conditions are the experimental results.
=tk  "Mitchell, you just don't get it do you? There are _no_ results. There
=tk  are _no_ experiments that are reproduceable by other experimenters
=tk  so there _are_no_results_!"

   Gee Tom.  You just don't get it.  There were more then 3 dozen
replications of the excess enthalpy at ICCF-4 alone, and more than
a half dozen demonstrations of He4 generation.

  Tom to use your own phrase:
 Is this thing called reading scientifc reports well
beyond your comprehension? 

                    Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com)

cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.02 / Robert Heeter /  Re: Assignment of Dihydrino Molecule
     
Originally-From: rfheeter@theory.pppl.gov (Robert F. Heeter)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Assignment of Dihydrino Molecule
Date: 2 Mar 1994 13:52:08 -0500
Organization: /etc/organization

In article <CM1JCH.IMG@world.std.com>,
mitchell swartz <mica@world.std.com> wrote:
> 
>  In the January Fusion Technology is an article by Randell 
>Mills, William Good and Robert Shaubach on "Dihydrino Molecule 
>Identification" (FT, v25, p103-119).        Part of the theoretical basis 
>for the assignment of a component of  the collected gas is based upon 
>logic which states:
>
>  "Miles et al. (8) report the production of 4He at a rate of (ca) 
>10^11 4He/s.  The associated gamma emission from this proposed 
>fusion corresponds to a 10-Ci 23.8-MeV source. Secondary X rays must 
>also be present as well as neutrons and charged particles in the 
>correct ratios (11).
>
>REFS: ....  
>11. S. JONES, Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion (Mar. 3, 1993)
>
>"must" indeed.     ;-)
>Since   1)  the argument about "ratios" and "required x rays" 
>actually remains unproven for the case of the periodic solid state and 
>in particular for the case of a low interstitial lattice contained 
>(decorated?) within a second Group VIII lattice,    but rather is only 
>asserted, and
>              2)   even the citation is non-descriptive and very vague 
>(with a completely nondescriptive reference that should not have 
>made it through a peer-reviewed journal),

On the contrary, 

Since (1) the argument about ratios and required x-rays
is supported by accepted experimental evidence for nuclear 
reactions in every physical system ever investigated, and it's 
up to the CF researchers to show why their system should be any 
different;

and (2) no one has successfully postulated any mechanism of any
sort which could couple a pointlike burst of 20-odd MeV from
a nuclear-scale (10^-14 m) source to a diffuse, weak lattice
(energy levels on the order of 1 eV, distance scales on the order of
10^-10 m) *without* stripping inner-shell electrons (creating
x-rays) or spewing out energetic particles (alpha, electron, 
ion, neutron);

then (3) Dr. Jones' "unproved assertion" that fusion must be
accompanied by high-energy emissions is simply a self-evident
consequence of accepted physics, and any claim to the contrary
will require considerable explanation;

furthermore (4) Mitch's argument that Dr. Jones' claim is unsubstantiated
simply because *Mills* failed to give what Mitch considers a rigorous
citation, makes no sense to me whatsoever;

therefore (5) the burden of proof is still on Mitch to support
his idea that fusion events can not only occur, but occur
without telltale evidence of the sort normally associated
with nuclear activity.  (Which is just a continuation of our
discussion regarding Kucherov's work, which is why I replied.)

To claim that energy production on the order of watts can occur
from nuclear reactions, without secondary radiation also on the 
order of watts, is like claiming that you can shoot someone with a
machine gun, and not observe any damage, but only "excess heat" 
from the kinetic energy of the bullets slowing down.  Nuclear
reactions are simply too localized and too energetic for
lattice coupling to be a factor.  It's the difference between
tapping someone on the shoulder (creating lattice effects), or 
shooting them (creating observable secondary effects).

(Just trying to save Dr. Jones from having to repeat himself.)

To continue with Mitch's post:

>some normal questions arise: 
>
>i) When did, or does, Steve begin to support the Randall Mills 
>theory?

Hello?  If someone cites my article to support a minor claim
in their paper, how can anyone infer that I support their complete
theory?  Why does Mitch even ask such a question?
>
>ii) Should not the authors use the same rigor (and he uses much 
>in his books) of mathematical/physics approach as was used on the 
>orbitspheres derivation to apply to this self-serving assertion? 
>
Which authors?  Who is "he"?  Which "self-serving assertion"?

>iii) What might be the implication if the same arguments used 
>by TB-skeptics can also be used to support the assignment of the 
>putative dihydrino molecule in the "shrunken hydrogen model"?

Then one should conduct more rigorous experiments to explain
(a) why no one sees dihydrinos in the non-CF universe, and
(b) why anyone should see dihydrinos in CF experiments, and
(c) why one does not observe "excess cooling" as dihydrinos
relax to ordinary H2.


I would love to believe in CF, but no one has done a conclusive,
compelling, persuasive, self-consistent, fully-documented,
reproducible experiment.  Nor has anyone marketed a CF energy-producing
device, which would also be good.  Nor has anyone come up with
a believable, experimentally demonstrated theory for why "excess
heat" should be considered as anything more than a euphemism for
"experimental error."

Until such a time, arguing about the existence of CF is about
as productive as arguing about the existence of God: belief
is a matter of faith, not of evidence.

Time to go back to the conventional fusion FAQ project...

*******************
Robert F. Heeter
rfheeter@lyman.pppl.gov
Graduate Student, Princeton Plasma Physics Lab
Disclaimers Apply

cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.04 /  bearpaw /  Re: We think we won
     
Originally-From: bearpaw@world.std.com (bearpaw)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: We think we won
Date: Fri, 4 Mar 1994 15:40:42 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

jabowery@netcom.com (Jim Bowery) writes:
>...<edited for brevity's sake>...
>bearpaw@world.std.com (bearpaw) writes:
>>
>> As to the "none of my business" comment - it is in everybody's best 
>> interest to have at least a passing familiarity with at least the 
>> generalities of much of current research, particularly when such 
>> research *may* have a dramatic effect on us all.

>It is in everyone's best interest to have intellectual property rights
>respected and the original inventors made filthy rich.  The best way to
>fund technologies AND science is by making original inventors filthy
>rich so they can use their capital to pick winners rather than taking
>money out of the pockets of the middle class via the IRS and having
>politically appointed wackos give the money to their friends who 
>they CLAIM are "fusion experts".

Amen.  My comment above was regarding whatever research info is *publicly*
available.  The more we stay aware of (and try to keep others aware of) 
potentially important info, the less likely we are to be blindsided by 
the future (or lose a chance to seize a better one).  Obviously, this is
not limited to scientific endeavors.

Granted, deciding what's "potentially important info" and what's wacko
ramblings ain't always easy...

I dunno how relavant to sci.physics.fusion this thread-of-a-thread is.
Maybe there's a sci.philosophy?  :-)

bearpaw
 
 ==bearpaw@world.std.com=============Loyal Defender of the Grey Areas== 
 |  "I'm for truth, no matter who tells it.
 |   I'm for justice, no matter who it is for or against.
 |   I'm a human being first and foremost, and as such I am for whoever
 |   and whatever benefits humanity as a whole."  - Malcolm X
 ====================================================================== 

cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenbearpaw cudlnbearpaw cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.02 / A Christiansen /  Re: We think we won
     
Originally-From: alan@saturn.cs.swin.oz.au (Alan Christiansen)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: We think we won
Date: 2 Mar 94 19:55:57 GMT
Organization: Swinburne University of Technology

hall@vice.ico.tek.com (Hal F Lillywhite) writes:

>In article <940301145047_72240.1256_EHK53-1@CompuServe.COM> 72240.1256@
ompuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:

>>Our side is tired of the debate too, and we see no reason to re-open it.
>>However, I would like to point out that our side thinks *we* won,

>It seems a bit much to me for either side in a debate to arrogate to
>itself the position of judge.  Clearly neither side in this one has
>convinced the other (as usual in most such debates).  Generally the
>judge in any such event should be a non-participant.  I am one non-
>participant who thinks the "skeptic" side is ahead.  In fact the
>only way I see for the "true believers" to win at this point is to
>produce something like the home water heater P&F promised so long
>ago.

I am largely a non particpant who has observed the debate but
I got bored a while ago now.
What I want to see is a cold fusion cell that takes all those mega
joules of excess energy and generates the electrickery that
is needed to make it go in the first place. Do that in a closed system
and the argument is over.

I mean the results keep getting better and better you must be
getting close to this point soon. Until then I suspect from
the discussions I have seen so far I will not be able to sort
out what is happening. As long as experimenters are palying
games with secrets for patent reasons, not pritning the full
details, 
(usually because printing the full details of what
happened takes an enormous volume of words. I once documented
an experiment I did because I was getting silly results, when
I checked everything and wrote everything down for a simple exp
it took > 30 pages.)
I will not be able to actually know that nothing either
silly, or mistakenly, etc has happened. Even with all
that info it would probably take me a week plus in a
library to brush up my chemistry.

The bottom line is if you ever get a cold fusion cell
generating the electricity it uses in a closed loop
post a nice big message. OK.

I wont hold my breath.

Alan




-- 
                           |  This space was intentionally left blank,
                           |  until some silly included a self descriptive
                           |  self referential self referential self ...
                           | ... Stack overflow. Executing cleanup rm *.*
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenalan cudfnAlan cudlnChristiansen cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.04 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Deep Heat: Shades of Feynman
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Deep Heat: Shades of Feynman
Date: Fri, 4 Mar 94 13:58:01 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Here is Tinsley's respose to the message from Frank Close. Tinsley can be
reached at CompuServe 73751,3365.
 
- Jed
 
 
 -----------------------------------------------
 
 
I am really excited!  For years I have been hoping for a healing of this
unhappy breach between those espousing the results from cold fusion
experiments and those who have rejected them.  Now we have a theoretician of
the calibre of the Head of Theoretical Physics at Rutherford Appleton
proposing an idea which might well explain them.
 
I must first withdraw my objections to the amount of energy available to be
tapped from the inner electrons of the nickel atom.  Clearly this is an energy
source of astounding power, one which I had not fully appreciated.  There do
remain certain concerns, which doubtless this idea can be developed to
satisfy.
 
First of these is that a gross change in the metal was not reported.  But I
would suggest that if only the very innermost electrons were to be persuaded
to release this Fount of Promethean Fire (to paraphrase a report in La
Stampa), then the outer ones would preserve the general physical properties of
the metal.  I claim credit for this concept, which I believe has never before
been suggested.
 
The second objection that comes to mind is that the effect might be considered
to be occurring only on the surface of the metal, that part penetrated by the
hydrogen.  For example, let us assume that the process occurs only in the
metal to a depth of one micron.  In this case, instead of getting - say -
320MJ from 1.77ml of metal, we are getting it from 0.00145ml, and this would
require an energy release of 15MeV from each atom.  Clearly this would be
difficult for the idea to accommodate.  However, it is mere wild supposition
to suggest that not all the atoms in the rod are releasing the energy.  We
might propose a completely new fundamental force, mediated by a hitherto
undreamed of fundamental particle, by which this novel behaviour of metal
atoms is stimulated.  Surely this would also convert the X-rays into thermal
motion within the lattice?
 
Clearly this is a proposal pregnant with possibilities.  Fully developed, it
will be worth several Nobel prizes at the very least.  They are so much nicer
than those horrid IgNobel ones.
 
I was especially pleased to see the quote from Feynman, one with which I
entirely agree.  Skepticism is the very lifeblood of science. As Huxley put
it, "I am too much of a skeptic to deny the possibility of anything".
 
I call upon all cold fusion True Believers to welcome this first step by Dr
Close, and ask that they should now follow his example by taking a similar
step themselves.
 
It is wonderful that we can now at least hope for an Aquarian New Age, full of
Harmony and Understanding between former opponents.  It will be just like one
of those RAF/Luftwaffe get-togethers when they reminisce over the old days
when they used to try to shoot each other down.  Drs Close, Fleischmann,
Morrison and Pons, buddies at last.
 
It fair brings tears to me old eyes it does.
 
Presumably the suggestion by Nature, that ridicule be used in the cold fusion
debate, will also soon be withdrawn.  I can hardly wait.
 
Chris Tinsley
 
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenjedrothwell cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.04 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Italian Ni-H (was: (?) Jones on Fractofusion)
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Italian Ni-H (was: (?) Jones on Fractofusion)
Date: Fri, 4 Mar 94 14:04:13 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@theory.pppl.gov> writes:
 
>According to the paper, they only had a single Pt thermometer attached
>to the sample rod.  Should be easy to fool it.
 
Should be? Very well, tell us how, please. Better yet, do an experiment
and demonstrate how easy it is. Also, please explain why you can only fool
nickel rods, and not rods made of stainless steel.
 
When you finish demonstrating that thermometers do not work, I suggest you
contact all of the manufacturers of these instruments and tell them about
your findings. People have been using these instruments to measure the
temperature of metals, and other materials, for decades. It will come as
a nasty surprise to everyone when they hear from you that the technique does
not work. It is possible that you will be rewarded for your discovery by the
manufacturers, who will be anxious to correct the mistake that makes their
instruments "easy to fool."
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenjedrothwell cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.04 /  jonesse@physc1 /  SL:  Jones sees the light (barely)
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: SL:  Jones sees the light (barely)
Date: 4 Mar 94 11:38:31 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

In response to encouragement from Tom Droege, Mark Hittinger, Bill
Page, Mike Jamison and others, I've decided to re-enter the fray
on this net, consistent with research and other pleasurable
pastimes here.  I do find the feedback from knowledgable, sincere
researchers very helpful, and a private email "team" appears to
take more precious time than the net.  Besides, Tom has shipped a
ultrasound generator generously, so his request to stay on-net
carries particular weight.  (Results below are with a smaller-
power, borrowed sonicator.)    I should emphasize that I have
benefitted from comments received by private e-mail, particularly
from Terry Bollinger whose interest in the possibility of (hot)
fusion during bubble cavitation led to his lengthy and provocative
posting on this net back in Dec. 1992, entitled "Ultracavitation." 
We will be testing out some of his ideas, hopefully ideas from Rich
Schroeppel, Mike Jamison, and others as well in coming months.

So here goes with a report on our experimental efforts with
sonoluminescence (SL).  [*Not* CF.] 

Finally saw some SL on 3-3-94, 2 students and I.
Using a sonicator and hemispherical reflector to focus sound, we
first produced bubbles in distilled H2O.  Abundant bubbles at about
50 W input power from the sonicator. Bubbles seen using bright
light and dark background field.  

Then turned lights off.  Kathryn Baldwin first saw the bluish glow,
I couldn't see it.  Then Tige Cook saw the glow.  I still couldn't. 
Waited, my eyes just couldn't pick it out... I'm getting old I
guess.

So we turned the lights back on, hunted up a magnifying lens
arrangement to get about 5X magnification, and put a mirror behind
the pyrex flask, tried again.  Finally, I could see the bluish glow
through the crude microscope, but then only with averted vision! 
I'll eat some carrots.

We found that after about 40 minutes, abundant bubbles stopped
being produced.  At same time, a loud screeching sound diminished
greatly.  Then we added some paper-towel fibers (these were present
at first due to wiping out flask), and the bubbles and screeching
returned, and SL.

Surmise:  bubble formation is enhanced by nucleation sites provided
by paper fibers (could see these floating in water with dark field
illumination); screeching is the sound of cavitating bubbles.

Next steps:  try to increase the intensity of the light, perhaps
with glycerol, so poor Prof. Jones can see it better.

--Steven Jones

cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenjonesse cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.04 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Answers (again, sigh) to Mitch
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Answers (again, sigh) to Mitch
Date: 4 Mar 94 11:46:48 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

Repost from my posts of 16 Aug. 93 and 20 Oct. 93, with minor
additions, responses to Mitch which seem to be needed again.  Thanks
to Lisa Baer for typing most of this, for the current go-round. 

Aug. 16, 1993
To Mitchell
Swartz: you stated, erroneously, in a recent post that we saw xs
heat only when we passed oxygen through an H20/Ni electrolytic
cell.  The fact is, the oxygen bubbling was a test to check whether
the *apparent" xs heat would increase, actually due to H2 + 02
recombination in the cell -- and the apparent xs heat did indeed
go up.  

But we have seen up to 250% xs heat -- calculated using I*(Vin -
 1.48V), thus ignoring recombination as do Mills and Notoya, etc -
- *Without* oxygen addition, that is, just from the 02 and H2 in
the electrolyte from the electrolysis itself.  

Thus, recombination along with this I*(Vin - 1.5V) in the
denominator of the relation normally used to calculate xs heat
leads to erroneous xs heat claims.  We also found the same problem
in a Pd/D20+LiOD cell here recently.

...
I do not believe that the xs heat claimed by P&F, McKubre, Mills,
Miles, Notoya, *ect.* is nuclear in origin.  There is no
quantitative evidence to support such a link.  This is not a
"religious" belief, but is based on years of scrutiny of xs heat
claims along with careful experiments performed here.  And if not
nuclear in origin, then I posit that the xs heat will not be useful
as a commercial source of power. 

Whatever, the "truth will cut its own way" and ego-tripping by you
or Taubes or whoever you're worried about won't stop it.  Our egos
are actually pretty small compared to the wonders of nature.


20 Oct. 1993:
>Mitch:   Were you following Jed's instructions in the
recombination experiment?  

Yes, and he was the one who pointed out that the Ni/H2O experiments
use low current densities.  So we did too.
 
>Mitch:  How could you extrapolate, if you were using nickel only
at low current densities to all the experiments?

We question the Ni/H2O experiments, for which we showed that
claimed xs heat could be all accounted for as neglected
recombination.  And we found *no* x-rays with a sensitive x-ray
spectrometer in those experiments (nor in the Pd/D2O experiments).

We warn that those claiming xs heat need to carefully rule out
recombination in their experiments, as Miles et al. and most other
xs heat enthusiasts have *not* done.  Again, we do not need to
prove them wrong.  Their job is to rule out suspicious effects
(like recombination which we have shown to be problematical in some
experiments) *before* they claim "xs heat due to nuclear
reactions."  

Anyone who calculates xs power with the expression I*(V - 1.5volts) 
[assumes no recombination, and blows up as V-->1.5V] in the
denominator is courting trouble, as we have repeatedly said.  P&F,
Miles, Mills, Notoya -- most xs heat enthusiasts do just that.

>Mitch:   Did you use a gas tank [oxygen bubbled through cell]?

Yes, occasionally.  However, the 1.6mW of apparent xs power noted
in my posting  was obtained without bubbling any gas
into the cell.  Then we bubbled nitrogen into the cell and watched
the "xs power" go away, as hydrogen and oxygen were purged from the
electrolyte by the N2.  Another time, Jonathon bubbled oxygen
through a cell, and watched the "xs power" go up, as recombination
increased.  

We also increased the path length between anode and cathode,
without using any gas tank, and watched the "xs heat" disappear. 
By means of such tests, we demonstrated that recombination cannot
be ignored, and when it is ignored, erroneous "xs heat" is
calculated.

-->Note added (3-4-94):  the amount of apparent xs heat found in
our various experiments depended on experimental conditions, such
as the spacing between electrodes.  Hence, our finding of different
amounts of apparent xs heat in different runs is totally consistent
with the recombination-heat model we developed, and in no way
indicates a discrepancy in our experiments or our reports as
erroneously suggested by Mitch.

--Steven Jones

cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenjonesse cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.04 / Robert Eachus /  Re: Experiment before theory (was Assignment of Dihydrino Molecule)
     
Originally-From: eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Experiment before theory (was Assignment of Dihydrino Molecule)
Date: 4 Mar 94 19:16:33
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.

In article <tomkCM4C76.IA8@netcom.com> tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich) writes:

  > Mitchell, you just don't get it do you? There are _no_ results. There
  > are _no_ experiments that are reproduceable by other experimenters
  > so there _are_no_results_!

  > Is this thing called scientific method 
  > beyond your comprehension?

    Sorry to intrude in this meaningless debate, but I couldn't let
this pass.  Forget Cold Fusion, Hot Fusion, etc. for a moment.  This
is about science.  There is a big difference between proven results
and smelling smoke.  The good people in physics and chemistry have
been smelling smoke for centuries.  Sometimes, it is indicative of an
area where experiments need to be improved, sometimes it is hashish,
and occaisionally it turns all the accepted theories into a cocked
hat.

     The good scientists when they see an result unexplainable by
commonly acceptable physics, daydream about a Nobel for a few minutes,
then rigorously look for experimental errors, both systemic and
methodological.  Then they do more expriments to prove or disprove
these possible sources of error.  And more experiments, and more
experiments.  Only when they have something that is six-sigma above
the noise, do they consider publication. (Tom Droege wants 100 sigma,
I won't disagree...)

    This is the way real science works.  It is very unlikely that any
particular experiment will lead to a new law of nature. But keep this
in mind too: Every year there are enough real surpises to make
selection of Nobel prize winners hard to guess.



--

					Robert I. Eachus

with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudeneachus cudfnRobert cudlnEachus cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.05 / Ad aspera /  FYI #37, 4 Mar 94 (Brown at the AAAS)
     
Originally-From: JTCHEW@lbl.gov (Ad absurdum per aspera)
Newsgroups: sci.research,sci.bio,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.accelera
ors,sci.energy,sci.space.policy
Subject: FYI #37, 4 Mar 94 (Brown at the AAAS)
Date: 5 Mar 1994 01:13:44 GMT
Organization: Relayed, not written, by Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory


[Written by individuals at the American Institute of Physics and
merely posted by me, so respond to <fyi@aip.org> or other
references below.  Always posted here on sci.research; sometimes
crossposted to an eclectic selection of other newsgroups, with
followups directed here. Back issues may be ftp'd from NIC.HEP.NET,
along with PHYSICS NEWS UPDATE and the American Physical Society 
news/opinion column WHAT'S NEW. Enjoy! -jc]

Rep. George Brown Speaks on Big Science at AAAS Meeting

FYI No. 37, March 4, 1994

On February 20, Rep. George Brown (D-California), chairman of the
House science committee, spoke at the San Francisco meeting of the
American Association for the Advancement of Science.  Brown
provided his views on this country's prospects for "Big Science and
International Cooperation."  Selected excerpts from his speech
follow.  (Note: in the interest of space, some paragraphs have been
combined, with combined paragraph breaks marked as //.)

"For over 50 years our S&T [science and technology] infrastructure,
like most of our society and government, was organized against a
common external enemy....  The justification for societal
investment in science was often based on claims of national
security. // Today capital-intensive science and technology
enterprises are generally viewed by politicians in terms of their
cost or the jobs they create.  Perhaps because of this shifting
rationale, the prognosis for the successful completion of the
current group of projects is not bright."

"...It is obvious that we can't afford mega-projects by ourselves
and that basic research `at the frontier' is becoming increasingly
costly.  If the United States wishes to continue to be a major
research force, we must re-evaluate our motivation and
justification for supporting massive S&T missions. // The United
States currently is in the midst of a post-Cold War evaluation of
science and technology.  The very notion of national interest
itself is more amorphous and confused than at any time in this
century.  The appeal of big science projects has been reduced to
tenuous claims of economic benefits through technological spin-offs
and government-funded jobs....  The scientific community must
develop a new justification for government support for its
mega-projects.  If not, in an atmosphere of fiscal constraint,
research priorities will be set by politicians bent on extracting
economic benefits for their various constituencies.  It is obvious
that if the United States wants to support big science in the
post-Cold War world, we need to do it internationally."

"It is necessary to reflect on what is essential for viable,
sustained international scientific cooperation on big science
projects....  Four underlying characteristics of the global
scientific community may condition our approach to big science. //
First, there is a free flow of information in the international
research community. // Second, research tends to progress along the
same trajectory within a particular field regardless of the
nationality of the scientists....  National research agendas around
the world have increasingly common goals. // Third, the results of
basic research cannot be captured by any single nation so long as
science is viewed as a public good open to all. // Fourth, the
United States and Europe are no longer the sole repositories of
scientific and technological excellence."

"Obviously, any project should be based on scientific and
technological merit.  Notwithstanding this essential criterion,
scientific merit is only a necessary but not sufficient condition
to warrant government support.  Big science projects must offer
some concrete societal benefit, which could range from increasing
the store of human knowledge to finding a cure for malaria.
Congress and the American public no longer view science and
technology as an enterprise which if liberally funded will act as
a panacea for society's ills."

"Within this context, the government can begin to develop an
initiative that is not an abdication of U.S. leadership in science
and technology....  Our focus must shift from `America #1' to
`America Second to None.' // What I propose is a set of initiatives
that will shift our focus from one limited to solely domestic
opportunities and resources to one which is framed in terms of
international opportunities and resources....  I believe we need
short-term, medium-term, and long-term action plans."

"Short Term:  In order to ensure sustained Congressional
commitment, all fundamental research projects in excess of $50
million should be required to have a full Congressional
authorization."

"Mid-Term:  A forecast of the needs for big science projects
through the year 2010. // The President's Science Advisor should
commission a report that spells out promising areas of science that
require a major focused, sustained commitment in terms of projects
(i.e. human genome, global climate change,...) and/or research
machines (i.e. advanced neutron source, high-energy particle
accelerator,...)."

"Long-Term:  Establish an international panel among the G-7 to
develop international priorities and international funding sources
for big-science projects. // Big science projects outlive
Administrations, politicians, and- in some instances- countries
themselves.  We need to begin to develop an international consensus
on big-science priorities and a commitment of financial
resources....  One of the failures of international cooperation on
these projects in the past has been that the partners have insisted
that benefits flow equally to all partners.  In the context of an
individual project, this is frequently impossible.  We need to
assess the benefits of all international projects together.  Then
we can begin to ensure that in the long-run benefits over a group
of projects flow to all the participants or regions equally."

"The benefits of international cooperation can be as intangible as
those of basic research, but they are just as important to our
future well-being and the well-being of our planet....  Today, we
are faced with a number of problems that are global in scope and
require cooperation among many nations; environmental research and
action, efforts to clean-up nuclear wastes, the elimination of the
AIDS pandemic-- all hold out the possibility of becoming
international big science."


###############
Public Information Division
American Institute of Physics
Contact:  Audrey T. Leath
(301) 209-3094
##END##########
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenJTCHEW cudfnAd cudlnaspera cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.05 / John Logajan /  Re: Italian Ni-H
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Italian Ni-H
Date: Sat, 5 Mar 94 01:42:32 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

Sorry if this post appears twice -- trouble with full disks, etc ...

rfheeter@theory.pppl.gov (Robert F. Heeter) writes:
>According to the paper, they only had a single Pt thermometer attached
>to the sample rod.  Should be easy to fool it.

It is not apparent from the paper just how many thermometers they used.

Let me quote:

"Figure 5 shows the values of the heater coil and nickel rod tempertures in
the phase-space diagram (W,T) obtained for one cycle at 20W power imbalance.
The cycle is counterclockwise and starts from the lower part of the curve.
From that figure it can be immediately seen that in the lower part of the curve
there is a heat transfer from the coil to the nickel, whereas in the upper one
the process is reversed.  This gives evidence for an internal (to the nickel)
heat source."

I can't see how such an observation could be made with just one thermometer.

-- 
-John Logajan MS612; Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
-logajan@network.com, 612-391-1159, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.05 / John Logajan /  Re: Italian Ni-H gas leaks??
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Italian Ni-H gas leaks??
Date: Sat, 5 Mar 94 01:52:56 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

collins@jaguar.csc.wsu.edu writes:
>Can you tell from your sources whether any efforts were made to measure the
>amount of hydrogen "consumed"?

I didn't see such a mention in the paper.  Besides seeing an ascii version
of the paper (which I summarized here) everthing I have received I have
forwarded to the net.  I have not seen the graphs that accompany the hard
copy paper.

-- 
-John Logajan MS612; Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
-logajan@network.com, 612-391-1159, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.05 / Greg Kuperberg /  Re: Answers (again, sigh) to Mitch
     
Originally-From: gk00@ellis.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Answers (again, sigh) to Mitch
Date: Sat, 5 Mar 1994 02:58:34 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

In article <1994Mar4.114648.1435@physc1.byu.edu> jonesse@physc1.byu.edu writes:
>Repost from my posts of 16 Aug. 93 and 20 Oct. 93, with minor
>additions, responses to Mitch which seem to be needed again.  

Needed for what?  To change his mind?
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudengk00 cudfnGreg cudlnKuperberg cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.04 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Tinsley goofs
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Tinsley goofs
Date: 4 Mar 94 17:03:14 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

In a message posted by J.R., Chris Tinsley rails against Frank Close, and
poses the question:

"Would someone please calculate the energy released if all the electrons in an
atom of nickel collapsed all the way, right down into the nucleus?"
[Tinsley "Deep Heat (response to Gordon Powell question)", posted by
Jed Rothwell 3 Mar 94]

The question reflects a misconception, that an electron can collapse "all the
way, right down into the nucleus", releasing energy as it does so,
as if it were not behaving like a wave.
But it *does* behave like a wave, and therefore the uncertainty relation
applies.  Thus, if we attempt to force the electron-wave to spend more
time nearer to the nucleus on average than it does in the ground state,
we find that energy is *not* released, as Tinsley incorrectly posits.  
Instead, energy must be
*added* to drive the electron "right down into the nucleus", to use Tinsley's
vague terminology.  Energy is inputted, not released in such a process.
In fact, the ground state is a *minimum energy* state.

--Steven Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenjonesse cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.04 /  jonesse@physc1 /  cancel <1994Mar4.165014.1438@physc1.byu.edu>
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cancel <1994Mar4.165014.1438@physc1.byu.edu>
Date: 4 Mar 94 17:04:18 -0700

cancel <1994Mar4.165014.1438@physc1.byu.edu>
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenjonesse cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Sat Mar  5 04:37:04 EST 1994
------------------------------
1994.03.04 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Mossbauer vis-a-vis cold-fusion (again)
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Mossbauer vis-a-vis cold-fusion (again)
Subject: Lattice-heating "theory": reply to Mitch Swartz
Date: 4 Mar 94 18:07:48 -0700
Date: 29 Nov 93 18:08:34 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University
Organization: Brigham Young University

Dear Colleagues:

The Mossbauer effect is again being called upon as justification for 
cold fusion effects.  True, both involve metal lattices.  But when one
looks deeper (see below), we see that Mossbauer in no way supports
cold fusion claims
in which x-rays, neutrons, gammas, energetic charged particles are
all "penic" (far too few to account for heat).   For in Mossbauer effects,
the photon carries essentially the energy, and the lattice is not 'heated' to
speak of.  (Momentum is shared, so the lighter particle gets the lion's share of
the energy.)   Just the opposite is claimed for cold fusion:  the lattice is
supposed to heat up with no energetic particle emission to speak of.  We find
that cold-fusion arguments that Mossbauer effect applies are logic-penic.

We've been over this before, but a refresher appears in order:

Subject: Lattice-heating "theory": reply to Mitch Swartz
Message-ID: <1993Nov29.180834.1143@physc1.byu.edu>
Date: 29 Nov 93 18:08:34 -0700
References: <CGzEsF.Hqq@world.std.com>
Distribution: world
Organization: Brigham Young University
Lines: 152

In article <CGzEsF.Hqq@world.std.com>, 
mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
>      In Message-ID: <1993Nov22.115307.1129@physc1.byu.edu>
> Subject: Re: Comparison of cf systems
> Steven Jones [jonesse@physc1.byu.edu] writes:
> 
> =  "The point I'm
> = getting at is this:  if helium or tritium is produced via nuclear reactions
> = then the product nuclei *must* be charged and energetic, thus capable of
> = detection by thin (dE/dx) and thick (E) charged-particle detectors.  Use of
> = such a particle "telescope" provides both particle identification and particle
> = energy, and is state of the art."  
>  [now Mitch: ] 
>   Steven has said this before.    But has never PROVEN it, despite requests.
>   Once again, can Steve present any evidence?   Four-vector equation?
> Is there any real proof that physics in a solid state must obey only 
> the physics and scenarios of a plasma from colliding particles? \/\/
>   Certainly this continued knocking of so many people, and their 
> experiments and theories, ought be based on some theory, formula(e) or 
> evidence, right?
>   The reader ought note this has been asked for continuously,
> but Steve (and the other TB-skeptics) appear to just restate their point,
> and duck this issue.     In fact, such a putative proof is important.
> 
                [Jones reply, 29 Nov 93]:

Profs. Blue and Schultz have both responded to Mitch on these points.  While
belaboring the effort to educate Mitch may be a waste of time, I will
nevertheless try again, especially since others may benefit.

In fact, I have published "theory, formulae [and] evidence" that Mitch
requests, in my 1992 paper:  "Current issures in cold fusion research:  heat,
helium, tritium, and energetic particles," Surface and Coatings Tech.,
_51_ (1992) 283-289.  Moreover, I have quoted from this paper here on the net
before.  I have not ducked the issue, the open-minded reader will see.

In this paper, I reviewed --and then rejected-- the notion advanced by
Preparata and others (including Mitch) that a Mossbauer-like effect could
account for "lattice-heating" accompanied by low-energy helium or tritium
production.  To quote from the published paper:

Mossbauer effect                        Lattice-heating notion

Of order 10 keV energy                  Of order 1-10 MeV energy

Excited nucleus lifetime approx. 10^-7s  Excited He nucleus approx. 10^-22s

Negligible energy transfer to lattice    Enormous energy transfer to lattice/
  (essentially momentum transfer only)   collective "superradiant" state of
                                         electrons (Preparata's notion) {MeV}
                                         How can momentum be conserved?

Approx. 1% of gammas at best experience  Non-observance of sufficient energetic
Mossbauer effect                         particles by orders of magnitude
                                         requires approx. 100% of nuclear 
                                         reactions to transmit energy to
                                         lattice

Momentum and energy conservation require that most of the energy must go to the
lighter particle.  This is the case in the Mossbauer effect where a gamma
recoils against a massive lattice.  But then the "heat" does not go to the
lattice, but rather to the emitted particle!  "Lattice-heating" advocates make
the assertion that the lattice is heated while the lighter alpha or triton
produced in the nuclear reaction carries very little energy.  Sorry, gentlemen,
this violates momentum conservation, and is the antithesis of the Mossbauer
effect!

Mitch, please give these arguments some thought this time around.  Look up and
read my paper.

When I gave Hegelstein this paper, he told me that the momentum-conservation
arguments reached him; he told me he "saw the guillotine blade dropping."  
I don't think he believes the Preparata "lattice-heating" line anymore.
Even Bockris agreed with me.  How about you, Mitchell?  Think about it.


> 
> = "Tom Claytor ....  noted, as I have
> = here in the past, that light-cone constraints mean that energies released
> = in nuclear reactions can only be transported about 10^-3 angstroms -- which
> = means that the energy released by nuclear reactions cannot be dumped on the
> = lattice as "heat."  "
>                                    [Mitch again:]
>   What is the evidence?  Any real proof of this assertion?
>   Steve claims that no energy can be "dumped" from a nuclear reaction
> into a lattice as heat.  Perhaps he should travel from Utah to Nevada
> and check out the sand at a few ground "zeros".   No heat?  Indeed.
> 
>   Thanks in advance for the proof(s) to either or both of the above.

Again, the 10^-3 calculation is given in my paper referenced above.
Briefly, we start with the uncertainty relation which follows from the wave
nature of the reacting species (no need to appeal to the Schroedinger equation
here; we'll keep it simple).  Preparata and a few others have argued that the
energy released following a nuclear reaction is transferred quickly to the
lattice without the formation of (observable) energetic particles.  (This is
hoped, because such particles are far too few to correlate with m = E/c^2,
if there are any energetic particles at all in cf cells.)  The 'virtual' energy
can travel a distance limited by the uncertainty relation and the speed of
light:

   r = ct = h-bar c/E  (approx.; not concerned about small factors here).

Now, E is of order 1-10 MeV while h-bar*c = 197 MeV-fm.  Dividing, we find that
the energy can only be transferred a distance of about 10^-3 angstroms.
This is the same result that Shultz was working towards, but
Mitch may want to check it further.

This distance, 1/1000 angstroms, is very small compared with lattice spacings
(a few angstroms).  The conclusion is unavoidable:  nuclear energy cannot be
transferred quickly enough to the lattice or to a (putative) collective state
of electrons without violating light-cone constraints.  As noted before, there
are no excited states of the helium-4 nucleus below 19 MeV so that its energy
cannot be released in small-energy packets.

A brief aside:  I went through this argument with cf-advocate Robert Bass,
whose reply was that my error was in imposing speed-of-light constraints!
At that point, I said that we had no basis for further discussion.  Some ground
rules, such as E=mc^2 and speed-of-light constraints -- and momentum
conservation -- are needed for rational discussion.

Which of these physical laws do *you* wish to challenge, Mitch?  Or can you
further defend 'lattice-heating' notions?

--Steven Jones
 
> 
> = "you evidently agree that the best detector systems show "lower S/N ratios".
> = What does this tell you about claims that xs-heat is nuclear in origin?"
> 
>   The post did not say that better detector systems show "lower S/N ratios"
> or anything  consistent with Steve's now-famous innuendo(s) about c.f.
> The posting did ask why Steve appears to ignore the major products 
> and only focuses on systems of lower S/N ratios, as in the neutronpenic
> levels of neutrons.   There is a considerable difference.
> 
>                                                Mitchell Swartz
>                                                (mica@world.std.com)
> 

Nope.  I'm arguing for the best detectors possible, whether the search is for
helium or tritium or neutrons, whatever.  I just don't buy results when
300-second sampling is used, or when X-ray film is used instead of a decent
X-ray spectrometer.  


Note added 3/4/94:  When one claims that alphas are produced, then 
*secondary* neutrons are also expected due to d(alpha,n) reactions.
Ditto for gammas:  photodisintegration in this case give neutrons.
Tritium produced by CF?  Then where are the neutrons from t+d --> n + alpha?
Etc.  One must not overlook that *secondary* neutrons are also missing,
along with neutrons from primary reactions (which are unspecified anyway,
it appears. )

Mitch and Jed seem to agree that CF is neutron-penic; but, due to secondary
neutron production, this implies that CF-heat is not nuclear in origin, 
if indeed it
is not just experimental error, which appears more and more likely to be 
the case.

--Steven Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenjonesse cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.05 / Greg Kuperberg /  cmsg cancel <1994Mar5.025834.27972@midway.uchicago.edu>
     
Originally-From: gk00@uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cmsg cancel <1994Mar5.025834.27972@midway.uchicago.edu>
Date: Sat, 5 Mar 1994 04:25:24 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

<1994Mar5.025834.27972@midway.uchicago.edu> was cancelled from within trn.
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudengk00 cudfnGreg cudlnKuperberg cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.05 / Greg Kuperberg /  Re: Mossbauer vis-a-vis cold-fusion (again)
     
Originally-From: gk00@ellis.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Mossbauer vis-a-vis cold-fusion (again)
Date: Sat, 5 Mar 1994 04:25:10 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

In article <1994Mar4.180748.1441@physc1.byu.edu> jonesse@physc1.byu.edu writes:
>Profs. Blue and Schultz have both responded to Mitch on these points.  While
>belaboring the effort to educate Mitch may be a waste of time,

Why do you say "may be"?

>I will nevertheless try again, especially since others may benefit.

They would benefit more if you answered their questions instead of
Mitch's.  What you say is just the standard Usenet euphemism
for "I know I am wasting time, but it is too much fun to stop."
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudengk00 cudfnGreg cudlnKuperberg cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.04 / Robert Heeter /  Re: On Assignment of Dihydrino (cont)
     
Originally-From: rfheeter@tucson.Princeton.EDU (Robert Franklin Heeter)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: On Assignment of Dihydrino (cont)
Date: Fri, 4 Mar 1994 19:54:46 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

Another epistle in the epic Swartz-Heeter discussion...

In article <CM5BJv.8zw@world.std.com> mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
>
>   In Message-ID: <2l6046$r4e@tom.pppl.gov>
>Subject: (Long) Re: Reply to "Re: Assignment of Dihydrino
> Molecule"   Robert F. Heeter (heeter@theory.pppl.gov) wrote:
>
>       >Please write a simple balanced equation that
>       >uses deuterons to generate He4 as final product
>       >   -- which is what Miles and Mills are writing about --
>       >   and neutrons which you claim must coexist.  
>
>=rh   "That aside, here's your balanced equation:
>=rh  First consider these two-particle reactions:
>=rh  2D -> T + p
>=rh  2D -> 3He + n  (each of these occurs with roughly 50% probability)
>=rh  D+T -> 4He + n 
>=rh  From these, we see that if we start off with 5 neutrons, and
>=rh   fuse four, we generate on average a T, a 3He, a p, and an n.
>=rh   The T will be energetic and will react readily with a fifth D,
>=rh   generating the 4He.  Thus the balanced equation is:
>=rh   
>=rh   5D = (D+D)+(D+D)+D -> (T+p)+(3He+n) + D -> (4He+n+p) + (3He+n)"
>
>   Please note that there is neither 3He or significant neutrons 
>produced from these reactions within a lattice, as we are
>certain you must have noted in your reviews of 
>the copious number of experimental papers.      
>So although  this does appear as a balanced equation, this 
>equation simply does not describe the products observed.  
>Thus the equation is interesting but therefore is not applicable.

All I was trying to do was to answer your question by providing
a deuterium reaction which generates 4He and neutrons.  I
wasn't trying to solve your cold fusion-without-3He-or-
neutrons problem.  So don't criticize me as though I was
supposed to provide something else.
>
>=rh   "If you tell me that two deuterons are going to fuse and emit
>=rh   huge amounts of energy, then I tell you the source of the emission 
>=rh   cannot be any larger than the deuterons themselves, in which case - from
>=rh   the perspective of the lattice - the energy released certainly
>=rh   appears as a pointlike burst."
>
>  It is not necessarily just two deuterons.

But the D-D reaction was the subject under consideration.

>And the fact remains that lattice can produce unusual
>effects including anharmonic motions of those deuterons,
>focusing of the phonons (and subsequent coupling of deuteron
>flux), anomalous superconductivity effects, etc.
>which do not exist in plasma.  Some of these may play a role.

If a coherent, self-consistent theory explaining the coupling
of *any* nuclear reaction products to the lattice is ever 
presented here, I will be all ears. (Or eyes, as the
case may be.)

>      >   When one calculates Compton effect, triplet production, etc.
>      >one can use math and there it is.  Do you have any proof
>      >whatsoever for you blind leap of faith?
>=rh  "Well, a deuteron is small, an alpha particle is small, a neutron 
>=rh  is small, a proton is small, an energetic electron is small, and 
>=rh  gosh, a lattice is big.  When two deuterons fuse, the energy
>=rh  is released in a tiny region, and so quickly that *the lattice 
>=rh  doesn't know yet*.  It's not until the energetic particles 
>=rh  released by the fusion fly out of the tiny area where the two 
>=rh  deuterium nuclei were, and start slamming into the electrons 
>=rh  and nuclei in the lattice, that the lattice gets a clue.  The 
>=rh  lattice couldn't know any earlier, because the emitted particles 
>=rh  travel at nearly the speed of light."
>
>   You will do well in graduate school since you tout their line
>so well,  but you've proved nothing since, 
>IMHO, repeating the statements is not a proof.

When a string of mutually consistent and logical statements
reaches a conclusion, what can it be but a proof?  Perhaps the
language above is different from the usual language of scientific
proof, but I don't see you denying anything I've said, or finding
any flaws with the logic.

Perhaps you would like me to rephrase this as saying that the 
fusion-product wavefunctions are too localized, and there is
no significant interaction hamiltonian which will allow
a significant probability of coupling between the fusion
product wavefunction and the phonon or IR states of the lattice?

Or perhaps you'd like the version which states that lattice
coupling of the fusion energy is a priori impossible because
light-cone and causality constraints preclude any information
regarding the fusion event from reaching the lattice before
the fusion products themselves do?

These are certainly difficulties which any lattice-coupling
theory must overcome.

>=rh "It is respectfully noted that I have now provided you with a balanced
>=rh  equation, further justification for (2), and that 99+ percent of
>=rh  the physicists on the planet will consider my assertions amply proven
>=rh  by the explanations given and the experimental evidence of the last
>=rh  seventy years."
>
>   1) You have provided a balanced equation, but one which
>does not describe the observed endproducts, and therefore
>has reasonably questionable relevance.

Again, all I was doing was answering your question.  If you think
my response is irrelevant, please consider rephrasing the
question.  You asked for D reactions which generate 4He and
n's, and I gave it to you.

>=rh   "Your claim as I understood it was that 
>=rh  cold fusion can generate multiwatt levels of excess heat, while
>=rh  only generating microwatt levels of ash.  (eg, Kucherov)"
>
>   Actually if you read the postings - or better yet the original
>papers -  you will note that the ash is circa one third of the generated 
>heat, and not the 10^3 difference you incorrectly allege.

Actually, I *did* read the postings on the Kucherov data,
and I *did* read Kucherov's article in Phys. Letters A, and
I *gave you* the calculation that shows that fusion-product
levels of 10E7/sec (as Kucherov claimed) are at least 5 orders of
magnitude below the claimed 30 W of excess heat.

This was the paper *you* presented to show that something
besides excess heat was being observed.  If you'd now like to
claim that nuclear byproducts are circa 1/3 the excess heat,
please document this.

>=rh  "I'm going back to hot fusion..."

Mitchell's response was just too annoying to ignore...

*************
Robert F. Heeter
rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Graduate Student, Princeton Plasma Physics Lab
Usual Disclaimers Apply

"Cold Fusion: if it's not chemical and it's not nuclear,
then it's either experimental error or *very* interesting..."

cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.04 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Looking for 4 He
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Looking for 4 He
Date: Fri, 4 Mar 1994 07:46:01 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <94022811370441@dancer.nscl.msu.edu> blue@dancer.nscl.msu.edu writes:
>Paul Koloc replies, "If D2O and H2O both work equally, that tells me
>that maybe someone is looking at the wrong isotope."
.. . .
>Now we come to a specific proposal for a reaction, something
>that can be put to an experimental test.  Actually it already
>has been given a test which I believe it fails, but I wouldn't
>object to the idea of making a more definitive test.
>
>6Li + 6Li -> 3  He(4) + 7 MeV

Actually 6Li + 6Li --> 3 ( He[4] + 7 MeV)    or    3 He[4] + 22 MeV


>Off the top of my head I would say this reaction cannot account
>for excess heat in a system that has no lithium in it, the
>H2O + nickel version of cold fusion.  It is also hard for me
>to see how you restrict the process to just this reaction when
>the lithium is a mix of both 6Li and 7Li, but we'll let that
>pass for now.  Of course I would like to see it demonstrated
>at some point that a cell with only 7Li behaves differently than
>a cell with only 6Li in the electrolyte.  That wouldn't be
>asking too much by way of some form of experimental test of
>Paul's hypothesis would it?

If one wants to stuff Li into the interstices of Pd then it's perhaps
a tad easier to stuff in Li(6) then Li(7) since latter may be more 
magnetic and might more "stickier", so one may have more difficulty 
with the latter.   Further, true believers claim that the reaction
doesn't produce radiation of the gamma and high energy neutron 
type, at least in copious amounts.  Consequently, it would be therefore
difficult to accept the Li(7) isotope as the culprit.  Non-true
believers, Agnostics and atheists of the cold fusion variety would
most definitely vote for the latter since it would be nearly as 
difficult as the D-D reaction to explain.  Let's hope the non-lithic
nickelodean types are of the fracto fusion class, or if true we 
may have another problem on our hands.     


>Finally how difficult would it be to detect this nuclear
>process while it was occurring?  Given that 3 alpha particles
>are to share 7 MeV of kinetic energy, I would say that the
>energy spectrum for these alphas extends to roughly 5 MeV.
>Now a 5 MeV alpha ripping through a Pd lattice knocks loose
>some electrons.  

Actually, the alphas bow splash a huge wave of electrons, since
the ions are quite clustered in Pd metal and contain a myriad
of collectively field connected electrons, it is very very
difficult to hit one or two here or there.  It is more likely 
some several thousands will be effected and participate in
the wake( irish or otherwise). That's a big ocean to find
a fish with a particular name as well as a pilots license.  
No, I think most of the energy will be thermalized very 
efficiently.  Perhaps visible flashes could be detected if
one would paint the surface of the Pd with ZnS, and then look
for flashes in the ZnS due to direct out going alphas with 
a magnifying system and microchannel plate night vision device.   

>               .. .. We are back to the X-ray emission that 
>Steve Jones has has told you over and over again just has to 
>be there.  I might add that at the intensity levels required
>for the emission of these alpha particles some secondary
>nuclear processes are also going to be detectable.

I don't think so.  Why? There is no way that D-D fusion will
be induced, for example.  Wishful thinking.  What other reaction
is Mssr Jones speaking about??  It requires 5 or so MeV electrons
to penetrate nuclei, but only the really heavy nuclei, since I 
think the light ones are too small.  Maybe he has been hanging
on beam produced results too much.        

>The point of this little excercise is that regardless of what
>nuclear reaction you pick for cold fusion there remains in
>place one solid requirement.  You have to have a process that
>produces something that is very energetic relative to chemical
>reaction energies.  

But in alphas in Pd metal at such low power per cc certainly aren't
as powerful as many fast release chemical reactions such as flares or
explosives, etc. Alphas (or betas) can't penetrate a sheet of 
cheap newspaper paper (well the former can't at all) so in Pd what's
the problem?   You are still very much below X-ray levels.   
Count the electrons along a Debye diameter path of say the tenth of
the distance through a sheet of paper, but make the media Pd.  
Now give the electrons effected twice the shared energy of each one
of the total crowd of effected electrons and there still isn't anything
to write home about.  Okay look for light flashes .. microscopic ones.    
Of course in electrolysis, those flashes may come from elsewhere.   
Remember too, a fully functioning tokamak commercial reactor (fantasy)
would generate only about 5 watts per cc.   

(Remember the old argument that it can't
>possibly be due to chemistry.)  By definition an process that
>releases energy at a level sufficient to be the source of
>the "excess heat" is also capable of displacing inner-shell
>atomic electrons.  The X-rays simply have to be there!

I don't believe that's true for alphas. They will not make it that
deeply into the inner electron shells and the less energetically 
bound electrons will produce photons with short trapping distances.  
Alphas move pretty slowly, and pack a large charge. That gives
plenty of time for things to wiggle and waddle out of the way.   

>That is how you see the damage, Paul.  Now if you think
>6Li is an important piece in this puzzle, substitute 7Li.
>Do the calorimetry as before and add one energy dispersive
>X-ray detector.  When you have the data in hand we can
>talk further about the "reality" of cold fusion.  I'll
>listen with an open mind.

Damage?? 
I would look for lattice displacement Lithium (lithides), and 
metal crystal dislocations, or crazing of the surface after a 
thin layer is optically polished to a slight depth.  This is
detectable by microscope.  I would expect to to show up after
a good burn.   

So I can duck out too!
As I say, I have my other work I'm pushing, but I would be 
interested that you or someone with such a keen and razor 
skeptical mind would pursue this.  
So! if you do the Li(6) and it doesn't work, then I won't have
to do the Li(7), since that certainly won't work.  And even if
the Li(6) does work," Why bother with the (7) ??"  The Li(6) 
is much cleaner!!!  

>Dick Blue
>NSCL@MSU
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc,Bx 1037, Prometheus II, Ltd., College Park, MD 20740-1037 |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+


cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.05 / John Logajan /  Re: Italian Ni-H
     
Originally-From: al789@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Italian Ni-H
Date: 5 Mar 1994 11:43:41 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)


rfheeter@theory.pppl.gov (Robert F. Heeter) says:
>According to the paper, they only had a single Pt thermometer attached
>to the sample rod.  Should be easy to fool it.

It's not clear from the paper just how many thermometers they had.
Let me quote:

"Figure 5 shows the values of the heater coil and the nickel rod temperatures
in the phase-space diagram (W,T) obtained for one cycle at 20W power 
imbalance.  From that figure it can be immediately seen that in the lower part
of the curve there is a heat transfer from the coil to the nickel, whereas
in the upper one the process is reversed.  This gives evidence for an
internal (to the nickel) heat source."

This certainly implies more than one thermometer, as I can't see how they
could make the above observations with only one thermometer.

-- 
-- John Logajan ---  al789@cleveland.freenet.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenal789 cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.05 / mitchell swartz /  Correction (again, sigh) to Steve
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Correction (again, sigh) to Steve
Subject: Answers (again, sigh) to Mitch
Date: Sat, 5 Mar 1994 13:48:46 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <1994Mar4.114648.1435@physc1.byu.edu>
Subject: Answers (again, sigh) to Mitch
Steven Jones (jonesse@physc1.byu.edu) writes:

==sj  ""you stated, erroneously, in a recent post that we saw xs
==sj  heat only when we passed oxygen through an H20/Ni electrolytic
==sj  cell.  The fact is, the oxygen bubbling was a test to check whether
==sj  the *apparent" xs heat would increase, actually due to H2 + 02
==sj  recombination in the cell -- and the apparent xs heat did indeed
==sj  go up."  

  That is untrue as Steve is well aware.  It was stated that 
   1) Steve should use actual power levels (watts) instead of %s, and
   2) Steve's data appeared multivalued (or unclear at best), and
   3) some of Steve's data involved oxygen, and therefore clarification
(given the wide reliance) would help.

            Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com)
 
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.05 / mitchell swartz /  Comments on Dick's "Correction"
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Comments on Dick's "Correction"
Subject: Correcting Mitchell's FAQ
Date: Sat, 5 Mar 1994 13:50:25 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

   In Message-ID: <94030411512801@nscl00.nscl.msu.edu>
Subject: Correcting Mitchell's FAQ
DIck Blue (blue@nscl00.nscl.msu.edu; NSCL@MSU) writes:

==db  "As I understand it JJ demonstrated in a relatively low power experiment
==db  that a 134% excess heat was all due to recombination."  

     In his experiment.  


==db  "My complaint is with the quoting of the absolute
==db   excess power demonstrated as being due to recombination 
==db  with no hint as to what the implications are for
==db  the much larger claims of excess heat made by Mills and others."

   There has been no proof that the excess powers were due to 
recombination, or that the authors did not consider the
impact of such.  Furthermore, as Jonathan Jones said:

=jj "Mitch also included a nifty table comparing our results with F&P
=jj and Miles.  Our results are orders of magnitude smaller than either
=jj of the other results."  
=jj           [Message-ID: <1993Sep20.171857.947@physc1.byu.edu>
=jj              Subject: Recombination in light water cells
=jj              Jonathan Jones (jonesj@physc1.byu.edu)]

      ...  and ...

=jj " Note, we our not dealing with a F&P type
=jj cell. ... Comparing our light
=jj water work to heavy water work does no good."  
=jj           [Message-ID: <1993Sep20.171857.947@physc1.byu.edu>
=jj              Subject: Recombination in light water cells
=jj              Jonathan Jones (jonesj@physc1.byu.edu)]


==db  "One approach is to note that
==db  perhaps someones claim of 200% excess heat (or more) can likely
==db  be at least 134% bogus. " 

 Don't you agree, DIck, that it really makes no sense to compare %s 
between different experiments.   
Jonathan's other comments also offer insight regarding both
relevance and excess power levels.

  Good luck on your retirement, Dick.   

                           Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com)
 
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.05 / mitchell swartz /  On Re: On Assignment of Dihydrino (cont)
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: On Re: On Assignment of Dihydrino (cont)
Subject: Re: On Assignment of Dihydrino (cont)
Date: Sat, 5 Mar 1994 13:51:32 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <1994Mar4.195446.203@Princeton.EDU>
Subject: Re: On Assignment of Dihydrino (cont)
Robert F. Heeter rfheeter@tucson.Princeton.EDU) writes:

=rh  "This (Kucherov) was the paper *you* presented to show that something
=rh  besides excess heat was being observed.  If you'd now like to
=rh  claim that nuclear byproducts are circa 1/3 the excess heat,
=rh  please document this."
  
  The helium was noted by Miles (whom was cited).
Melvin Miles and B. Bush, of the Chemistry 
Division, Research Department Naval Air Warfare  Center 
Weapons Division China Lake, CA demonstrated 
"ash" consistent with a nuclear process, where that ash is 
helium-4.  Their high caliber research demonstrated the 
linking of helium-4 with the excess heat.   Their paper "HEAT 
AND HELIUM MEASUREMENTS IN DEUTERATED 
PALLADIUM" has the following important excerpts. 

 "Our previous results present a correlation between the 
measured excess poser and  helium production in D2O-LiOD 
electrolysis cells using palladium cathodes.  The  measured 
rate of 4He production (10^11-10^12 4He/s*W) is the correct 
magnitude for typical  deuteron fusion reactions that yield 
helium as a product."
      *** 
  "Metal flasks were used  to collect 
the electrolysis gas samples in order to minimize atmospheric 
contamination  due to helium diffusion through glass.  The 
helium concentrations in Table II support a  detection limit of 
approximately 10^l3 4He/500 mL in these experiments as 
reported  previously.  Mean values for the measured helium 
concentrations in these control  experiments are 4.4 +/-0.6 ppb 
or 5.1 +/-0.7 x 10^l3 4He/500 mL."
       ***
  "For experiments 
producing excess power, five helium measurements using these 
same  metal flasks have been completed. These experiments 
yield a mean value of 2.0 +/-0.5 x  1011 4He/s*W after 
correcting for background levels of helium measured in control  
studies (Table II).  This value is once again the correct 
magnitude for typical deuteron  fusion reactions that yield 4He 
as a product."

  These excerpts demonstrate that no glass was used, and
that adequate controls were.

  Best wishes. 
                   Mitchell Swartz  [mica@world.std]

cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.06 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  A Reply to Bobert Heeter
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: A Reply to Bobert Heeter
Date: Sun, 6 Mar 1994 01:05:51 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Heeter asks us to explain 3) Why one does not observe "excess cooling"
as dihydrinos relax to ordinary H2.

The problem is that they do not "relax" back to ordinary H2 as such a
relaxation would require the capture of more energy than they could get 
in the ordinary every day chemical world.  So once they are made they 
last forever unless they are hit by a cosmic ray.  I have designed a low
cost scheme for detecting thm by converting them back which I described in
an old post.  But it did not detect any hydrinos from a Mills exepriment 
which by his definition was giving excess heat

Hydrinos are sort of like Ice 9.

Tom Droege
	z

cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenDROEGE cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.05 / John Logajan /  Italian Ni-H
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Italian Ni-H
Date: Sat, 5 Mar 94 17:36:46 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

mbk%anl433.uucp@Germany.EU.net (Matt Kennel) writes:
>blue@nscl00.nscl.msu.edu wrote:
>: Consider a simplified version of the experimental setup - a heat source of
>: perhaps 50 watts in the form of a small metal rod hanging in the middle
>: of a chamber filled with hydrogen at a reduced pressure.  Ask yourself
>: what heat transfer mechanism dominates, and then how stable it will be.
>
>Turbulent convection.  Not very.

I don't have the actual graph of the Italian paper, but somebody sent me a
description of the eyeballed endpoints.

One axis is temperature of the Ni and the other axis is the heater power.
Three cases are shown -- "null", 20 watts "excess", and 50 watt "excess."
(The 20 and 50 cases actually vary from below to above that amount of excess.)

For the 0 watt slope, draw a line from 40W-190C to 155W-450C.
For the 20watt slope, draw a line from 25W-170C to 130W-480C.
For the 50watt slope, draw a line from 38W-260C to 110W-500C.

The "null" 0W case is when they vary the input power and observe the "core"
temperature.  They claim repeatability of 1 degree C during this calibration
mode -- already calling into question that "turbulent convection" is a factor.

Now look at the relative magnitudes.  At 40W input power, there is an 80C
difference between the slope labeled 0W and the one labeled 50W.  If we draw
a line at a right angle from the point where 40W input power intersects the
50W excess slope, to the 0W slope, we find that it intersects at the 75W point.
So we have 40 watts of input power and 75 watts of apparent temperature, a 35W
delta. That's nearly 100% excess heat! 

Now, at 110 watts input power to the 50W excess case, (and extrapolating) we
see a 150C difference, or a 65W delta.  That's about 60% excess heat.

By the way, convection ought to be stronger when the core gets hotter, so it
ought to carry away heat faster and keep it cooler.  Furthermore, the constant
voltage power supply ought to input less power when the rising core/heater
temperature causes the heater resistance to increase.  Both of these factors
are negative feedback which ought to minimize "excess" heat, rather than
give rise to it.

-- 
-John Logajan MS612; Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
-logajan@network.com, 612-391-1159, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.05 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Tinsley goofs
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Tinsley goofs
Date: Sat, 5 Mar 94 12:54:13 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Here is a response from Chris Tinsley [73751,3365] to Steve Jones.
 
 -------------------------------------------------
 
Tinsley goofs?  Of course he does!
 
One of the few 'facts' I thought I understood was that an electron had indeed
minimum energy at its ground state.  I went on believing that until Dr Close,
who obviously knows far more about it than I do, started talking about the
'electron degrees of freedom' and how we could ignore anything that fell within
these limits.  So I tried to see how you could get energy from an electron in
its ground state.  Yes, I goofed badly.  How could anyone have made such a
silly mistake?  It's just like trying talking about getting chemical energy by
burning a bucket of water.  I really didn't want to labour that point, because
I realised that a far greater intellect than mine (I mean that) was saying that
maybe you can.
 
Naturally, my call to Faraday, Einstein and Feynman was misunderstood.
Feynman, it is said, could often unravel in minutes a puzzle which took months
for others to solve.  I wish he were still with us, because Piantelli, Focardi
and Habel say they have a reproducible process which they say is "incompatible
with any classical theory."
 
Well, clearly the higher branches of the logic tree should be reserved for
those who can twitter more beautifully than I ever could do.  Being like Pooh,
"A bear of Very Little Brain, and long words Bother me," I shall return to the
roots of that tree, and ask that the following questions be addressed:
 
(1) Are these respectable physicists fraudulent or incompetent?
 
(2) Why does Dr Close say, with reference to twelve months hence, "Bye till
then, I hope"?
 
(3) Why does nobody seem to be interested in investigating the *experimental
results*?  Perhaps there is some basic point I am missing here.  Can somebody
explain to me, in terms appropriate to my admittedly limited intellect, why
these questions are so irrelevant as not to be worthy of response?
 
(4) Certainly, scientists cannot drop everything and jump on a jet every time
someone makes a wild claim, but should not a claim of such magnitude be
investigated rather than, as seems to be the case, wished away?
 
This is a 'no-lose' situation.  Investigate.  If it's nonsense, you get to
restore reality.  If it's real, you get to be the first to prove it!
 
Answers, please!
 
Chris Tinsley
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenjedrothwell cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.05 / mitchell swartz /  Corrections to "Mossbauer vis-a-vis c-f (again)"
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Corrections to "Mossbauer vis-a-vis c-f (again)"
Subject: Mossbauer vis-a-vis cold-fusion (again)
Date: Sat, 5 Mar 1994 17:59:16 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

   In Message-ID: <1994Mar4.180748.1441@physc1.byu.edu>
Subject: Mossbauer vis-a-vis cold-fusion (again)
Steven Jones (jonesse@physc1.byu.edu) writes:

==sj "The Mossbauer effect is again being called upon as justification for 
==sj cold fusion effects."

   Untrue.  It is a justification only for the application of the
existence theorem, i.e. that nuclei are not necessarily
isolated from the lattice. 

==sj  "For in Mossbauer effects,
==sj the photon carries essentially the energy,and
==sj  the lattice is not 'heated' to
==sj speak of.  (Momentum is shared, so the lighter particle gets the 
==sj  lion's share of the energy.) "

    Actually the photon energy, Egamma is modified by the momentum 
(and hence energy) of the recoil to 
         Egamma =  Eo -  [Eo^2/2Mc^2}  + doppler term (=Eo*v/c)


=sj  "The 'virtual' energy can travel a distance limited by the 
=sj  uncertainty relation and the speed of light:
=sj     r = ct = h-bar c/E  (approx.; not concerned about small factors here).
=sj  Now, E is of order 1-10 MeV while h-bar*c = 197 MeV-fm. 
=sj   Dividing, we find that
=sj  the energy can only be transferred a distance of 
=sj  about 10^-3 angstroms."

   A few problems with you purported distance over which
energy can be transferred.

   First,  although your equation
      r = c * t   is correct, why use uncertainty only for  t and E 
but not r.      [as in delta-x*delta-p=h-bar]

   Second, the uncertainty principle deals with uncertainty and
not necessarily absolute values, as in
delta-E*delta-t=h-bar.
   For example the shape of  the gamma emission referred to 
above is:
                        tau*gamma= h-bar

where gamma is the width of the peak at half max, 
and tau is the excited state lifetime.

   Third, if you were correct with this equation, then it should
be applicable elsewhere, right?
  Then let us assume an output just below an eV (like 
some components of solar radiation).
Plugging this energy into your equation, and determining
r (the purported distance over which energy can be transferred 
as limited by the uncertainty relation and the speed of light)
yields

         r =   h-bar*c (=197 MeV-fm)/(ca. 1 eV) << 1 meter

  Is this not a prediction that the sun must appear dark from earth
which is well well beyond the distance calculated
(by ca.9,300,000,000,000%)?  Hold on, let's check.   ........   
Nope.  It's still there.    ;-)

     Best wishes.
                     Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com)

cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.05 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Tinsley goofs
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Tinsley goofs
Date: Sat, 5 Mar 94 13:08:07 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

I would like to add a comment of my own. This thread is titled "Tinsley
goofs." Perhaps it should be "Frank Close goofs" because after all, Tinsley
was merely agreeing with Close, or trying to come to grips with his radical
new theory. I would like to ask Steve Jones a question:
 
Frank is proposing that chemical reactions with nickel can produce keV per
atom energy. Let us put this in perspective for a moment. When you burn coal
or gasoline, you get 4 or 5 electron volts of energy per atom. R. Forward and
others have published ideas for radical new types of chemical reactions that
might generate 18 to 20 eV per atom. Now, Frank has proposed that the limits
of chemical energy are far higher than this. He is saying that nickel can
produce thousands of electron volts of energy per atom in a reaction that
involves only electrons, not the nucleus.
 
My question is: what do you think of Frank's ideas, Steve? Do you go along
with them? Do you agree with him that keV chemical reactions are possible?
Or do you think perhaps Frank Close might have goofed.
 
My own opinion is that chemistry has been around for a very long time, and
nobody has ever seen any evidence of anything remotely resembling these keV
levels of energy production that Frank claims are possible, so I expect they
cannot exist. However, if by some remote chance they *do* exist, I would be
just as thrilled about it as I would be if the energy from CF was nuclear.
I really do not care where it comes from, as long as there is plenty more
where it came from. Furthermore, I think that whether CF energy is chemical,
nuclear, or something completely unkown to science, it should be investigated
very seriously by many more laboratories than are currently working on it.
 
Finally, let me say that Steve Jones' statements to the effect that the
sigma level of proof CF heat is declining are factually incorrect. At ICCF4,
many people reported outputs in the 10, 20 and even 90 watt level, which is
of course, far above any reasonable experimental error, and quite impossible
to miss. Jones, Droege and others offered various reasons to doubt the
calorimetry used in these experiments, but these reasons have absolutely no
scientific merit. Calorimetry still works today every bit as well as it did
190 years ago, and there has never been a time when scientists could not
detect 20 or 90 watt excess heat with absolute confidence.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenjedrothwell cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.05 / L Plutonium /  Question:correct understanding of photon reflection?
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.chem
Subject: Question:correct understanding of photon reflection?
Date: 5 Mar 1994 18:06:47 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

  What is the correct quantum mechanics understanding of photon
reflection. When a photon strikes a metal surface (why are metals
shiny?) what happens to the photon? Please would like a quantum
mechanics explanation as simple as possible and deleting math, such as
Asimov would answer. 
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.05 / Bruce Liebert /  Re: Who was it in Chicago?
     
Originally-From: liebert@wiliki.eng.hawaii.edu (Bruce E. Liebert)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Who was it in Chicago?
Date: Sat, 5 Mar 1994 22:48:46 GMT
Organization: University of Hawaii

I recently asked the following question:

 ----------------------------------
Last summer on NPR's Science Friday, a discussion was held on the 
topic of Cold Fusion."  Prof. Huizenga contended that an (unnamed) 
group in Chicago had followed Dr. McKubre's "recipe" and had found 
nothing.  When challenged by McKubre to reveal the name, Huizenga 
refused, insisting that McKubre knew very well who they were 
(which McKubre denied).

Can anyone shed some light on who this mysterious group is?
 ----------------------------------

Bill Page asked if this was a serious question and suggested that 
the "group" is actually Tom Droege.  Tom mentioned that he spent 
some time talking with Huizenga at ICCF4 (but that was after this 
program aired).

It certainly was a serious question on my part, Bill.  Since I was 
out of the country the past semester, and was not able to attend 
ICCF4, I thought I might have missed something.  The phrase "a 
group in Chicago" threw me a curve.  It suggested to me a group at 
a laboratory, such as one at the University of Chicago or perhaps 
at Argonne, not someone working in his basement on his own time.  
I would not have described Tom Droege as a "group in Chicago"; 
perhaps others would.

So, to test out my new speech to text processor, I show the 
relevant discussions below for those of you who may be interested.  
The tape is available from National Public Radio for $12.50 by 
calling (202) 822-2223 and asking for the tape "Talk of the 
Nation" broadcast June 25, 1993.  It should be of interest to 
anyone interested in this subject.  In addition to McKubre and 
Huizenga, Peter Hagelstein, Bruce Lewenstein, and Melvin Miles 
participated in the discussion of "Cold Fusion."

 -----------------------------------

Summary of National Public Radio's "Talk of the Nation, Science 
Friday"  June 25, 1993

Opening remarks by the moderator (Mod), Dr. McKubre (MM), Prof. 
Huizenga (JH), and Prof. Hagelstein...

Mod:	Are you [JH] disputing the excess heat itself that Dr. 
McKubre is talking about?

JH:  I think maybe one should take one step backward again.  The 
foundation of science requires that experimental results must be 
reproducible.  Validation is an integral part of the scientific 
process.  Scientists are obligated to write papers in such a way 
that the observations in them can be replicated.   And a set of 
instructions should be available to allow a competent and well-
equipped scientist to perform the experiment and obtain 
essentially the same results.  Replication in science is usually 
reserved for these experiments that conflict with an accepted body 
of work.  And it turns out that many, many people have tried to 
replicate these experiments and can not.  And therefore, there is 
not a recipe out there that other people can actually reproduce. 
Many people have done experiments similar to McKubre's and get 
negative results.

Mod:  Dr. McKubre, why is that?

MM:  I don't think it's true, actually.  There are people who 
attempted at the beginning, immediately after the Fleischmann and 
Pons's announcement, to replicate Fleischmann and Pon's 
experiments with no information as to how the experiments were 
done and no particular diligence in their research efforts.  Many 
of them failed.  Most of those people gave up quickly, left the 
field and have not done an experiment again.  In fact most of them 
haven't read the publications, precise publications, in the form 
that Dr. Huizenga requests.

I don't know that anybody has attempted to perform our experiments 
given the guidelines that we set down, achieving the conditions 
that we require to produce this effect, and has failed to produce 
the effect.  I know of no instance.

Mod:  You said you did it 40 times.

MM:  We have observed excess power on 40 occasions, yes.

JH:  One needs an independent investigator that can reproduce the 
experiments.

Mod:  Would you be willing to do his experiment?

MM:  Is he able?

Mod:  Do you think the government should try to do his experiment?

JH:  No, I do not because I think at this point...

Mod:  Even though he says there are 40 instances of it.

JH:  But on the other hand I know other people, contrary to what 
McKubre is telling us, that have tried that experiment with closed 
cells and are getting negative results.

Mod:  Have they tried it as he has attempted it?

JH:  In other words, they have tried to reproduce his experiment, 
they've looked at his papers, for example, his paper in the Second 
International Conference, and they have tried to reproduce it as 
best they can and if he has not put out a recipe that's sufficient 
to follow his experiment, then that's something else.  It seems to 
me that the obligation is on him to put a recipe into the 
literature that other people can follow.  And it turns out four 
years have passed and McKubre has still not published a paper that 
has gone to a refereed journal where other people can examine his 
results and try to reproduce them.

MM:  I'm somewhat sensitive to the terminology "recipe."  I don't 
think science is done by "recipes."  What we are dealing here is 
very, very difficult.  The conditions that you need to achieve of 
very high loading of deuterium into the palladium lattice requires 
control of a number of parameters, not all of which we know 
actually.  I ask John Huizenga one question:  "Who are these 
individuals that you know of who have attempted to reproduce our 
experiments and have failed?  I'd like to speak to them.

JH:  I think probably that I shouldn't broadcast these people on 
national radio.

MM:  Communicate with me privately?

JH:  I think you know who they are.

MM:  I certainly don't.

JH:  For example a group in Chicago has done some very good 
experiments and come up with negative results.

MM:  I don't know this John.

JH:  I'm sure you do.

 -----------------------------------------------

After reviewing this, I get the impression that Prof. Huizenga may 
have considered that the essential part of reproducing McKubre's 
experiments is to use a closed-cell calorimeter: "...I know of 
other people, contrary to what McKubre is telling us, that have 
tried [McKubre's] experiment with closed cells and are getting 
negative results."  He doesn't seem to mention the loading issue.

McKubre, on the other hand, seems to consider the key point is 
being able to achieve *and verify* a very high D/Pd ratio--he has 
emphasized this parameter every time I have heard or talked with 
him or his group at SRI International--he has never said that one 
must use closed-cell calorimeters to get the effect, although I am 
sure they have good reasons for using closed cells as well.  
Certainly, others, such as Ed Storms and Dr. Kunimatsu, who have 
reported positive excess heat results, consider the attainment of 
a very large D/Pd ratio essential as well.

It would be most interesting for someone to take all the papers 
from Dieter's list and from conference proceedings and put them 
into two groups.  Group One:  those that have achieved and 
verified D/Pd ratios of the order of 0.85 or so.  Group Two:  
Those that either haven't verified the D/Pd ratio or have not 
achieved D/Pd = 0.85.

I am sure that Group Two would be much larger than Group One.  
Would we find that Group One has a preponderance of positive 
excess heat results while Group Two does not?

In fact, the loading ratio does not appear to be the whole story.  
The papers presented at ICCF4 by KunimatsuUs group strongly 
suggest that although a D/Pd ratio of about 0.84 is necessary, it 
is also just as important to impose a current density greater than 
about 100 mA/cm^2.

How many others (groups or individuals) have achieved the 
conditions that McKubre's group requires to produce this effect 
(i.e., sufficiently large D/Pd ratio) and have not found positive 
results?  How many of the 1989 papers that showed negative 
results, and were instrumental in killing any USDOE funding for 
this work, achieved the simultaneous conditions of high loading 
and current density?  These answers will probably never be known 
since most researchers who attempted to reproduce Fleischmann and 
PonUs work were either not aware of the importance of loading or 
did not achieve the necessary loading.
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenliebert cudfnBruce cudlnLiebert cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Sun Mar  6 04:37:02 EST 1994
------------------------------
1994.03.06 / Bruce Liebert /  Molten Salt Issues
     
Originally-From: liebert@wiliki.eng.hawaii.edu (Bruce E. Liebert)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Molten Salt Issues
Date: Sun, 6 Mar 1994 00:36:43 GMT
Organization: University of Hawaii



Although I have sent Bill Page an email response to his questions, 
perhaps others are interested.  So, in keeping with the request 
for less private email, here is most of what I remember sending 
him before my link to the Internet went down for several days:

Bill Page (In article <940228145837_70047.3047_EHB43-1@CompuServe.COM>,
70047.3047@CompuServe.COM) asked the following questions:

FIRST PART  --------------------------------

On a somewhat different subject.  I was very interested in the presentation

by your group at ICCF-4 on excess heat generation (M2.7) "Charging Hydrogen

into Ni in Hydride-Containing Molten Salts", Bor Yann Liaw, Bruce E. 
Liebert  and Yi Ding.  Although the abstract doesn't state this, my notes 
from the presentation say that significant excess heat production *was* 
observed.  How similar are these results to your earlier published work 
with Palladium and Deuterium?
 -------------------------------

The excess heat observed in the Ni using LiH in the LiCl-KCl 
molten salts was less.  This is really work in progress.  Wait for 
ICCF5.

SECOND PART--------------------------------

Also, I have been wanting to ask you the following question for some time, 
but time pressures, travel and an uncertainty on your current position has 
delayed my asking...

I am aware that unlike what could be called "conventional electrolysis" CF 
cells, the molten salt cells use a negative electric potential on the 
electrode (anode) that is being loaded with hydrogen/deuterium.  The
cathode 
is made of Aluminum.  The electrolyte is molten LiCl-KCl salts with 
dissolved LiH/LiD.  The cell reaction is understood to be driven by the 
absorbtion of Li+ by the Aluminum cathode, resulting in the absorption of 
H- by the anode material.  So my question is:

Do you have any information or measurement on the number of H+ ions in the 
solution?  Is it possible that H+ as well as Li+ are being absorbed by the 
cathode?  Can you rule out the possibility that the excess heat might be 
coming from some reaction in the Aluminum?
 ---------------------------------

What seems to cause most people problems in understanding what is 
happening with the molten salt system is that deuterium exists as 
D- (not D+) when LiD dissolves in molten LiCl-KCl.  Also, keep in 
mind that, according to standard electrochemical conventions, 
anions (D-) go to the anode and cations (Li+) go to the cathode.  
This is true whether an external voltage is being applied to the 
electrodes OR whether the system is behaving as a battery and 
doing work.

Of course for electrolysis experiments, to get the anions (D-) to 
go to the anode (Pd), it is necessary to apply a *positive* 
potential to the anode.  If this system acted as a *battery* 
(opposite of electrolysis), the Pd electrode would still be 
positive--but it would properly be referred to as the *cathode*.

So, to repeat, for our experiments:  Pd = + = anode
                                     Al = - = cathode

For the more familiar aqueous experiments:  Pd = - = cathode
                                            Pt = + = anode

Second point, the cell reaction is not driven by the absorption of 
Li+ by the aluminum resulting in absorption of H- by the anode 
material.  If it was, we would be operating as a battery.  The 
cell reaction is driven by an applied external voltage, just like 
conventional Pd/D electrolysis.

Before we get to your questions, I am sure there are those who are 
wondering why we need the LiCl-KCl.  Why not just use LiH?  LiH 
will not melt and disassociate into Li+ and H- by itself.  
Therefore, a supporting electrolyte is required to effect the 
dissociation.  In principle, one could use any number of ionic 
solvents...even LiCl itself.  However, the melting point of LiCl 
(or KCl or NaCl) is very high, making experimentation that much 
more difficult, if your system could tolerate the higher 
temperatures. LiCl-KCl forms a RlowS melting temperature eutectic 
at about 352 deg. C, which brings the temperature down into a much 
more manageable range.

Also, the aluminum acts as a RspongeS for the Li.  If you plated 
out Li on an inert metal cathode, such as molybdenum, the activity 
of Li in contact with the electrolyte would be unity.  In this 
system, high Li activities turn the LiCl-KCl melt electronically 
conducting, ruining its use as an electrolyte.  As long as the 
composition of the aluminum never reaches LiAl, the activity of 
the Li will be sufficiently low so that the transference number of 
Li+ will be less than 0.01; i.e., LiCl-KCl will remain an 
electrolyte.

Now, for your questions:  The number of H-/D- ions in the solution 
is  several percent or so by volume, depending on whether the 
LiH/LiD is replaced during the electrolysis.  If you would like a 
better estimate, please ask.

I suppose that it would be possible for Al to absorb *some* H+/D-, 
but the amount should be negligible due to the sign of the applied 
potential.  As a result, the aluminum cathode is not believed to 
be responsible for the temperature rise we observed with Pd/D.  We 
have discussed the thermochemical aspects of these systems in our 
papers.

Thanks for your interest.
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenliebert cudfnBruce cudlnLiebert cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.05 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Who was it in Chicago?
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Who was it in Chicago?
Date: Sat, 5 Mar 94 21:04:13 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

You misunderstand, Bruce. Tom Droege *is* a group. There's Tom and his cat,
and if his cat is like mine, there are lots of fleas. See the photo in
Business Week, which is one of my all-time favorite CF related photos.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenjedrothwell cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.06 / Britt Green /  Hypothetical Question!
     
Originally-From: brittg@efn.org (Britt Green)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Hypothetical Question!
Date: Sun, 6 Mar 1994 06:11:30 GMT
Organization: Prototype Eugene Free Net

Greetings and Salutations!


I am working on writing a story set in the near future and would like to 
use fusion as the main source of power.  My questions for any kind souls 
out there are:

a) Theoreticly, what fuel would be the best to fire up a fusion engine?  
How would water, or just plain hydrogen work?

b) Roughly and in laymans terms, please describe the process a vehicle 
would use to travel and operate under fusion (ie: the basic fusion 
process would suffice).

Anything else you can think of that might be helpful would be valued.

Thanks in advance.

-- 
"We've come to wreck everything you own, | Britt Green (brittg@efn.org)
and ruin your life.  God sent us."       | "A man walked up to me and said
     --Romper Stomper                    | he hadn't had a bite in weeks...
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=| SO I SHOT HIM!" -- H. Rollins
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenbrittg cudfnBritt cudlnGreen cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.06 / Bruce Liebert /  cmsg cancel <liebert-050394143643@fusion.eng.hawaii.edu>
     
Originally-From: liebert@wiliki.eng.hawaii.edu (Bruce Liebert)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cmsg cancel <liebert-050394143643@fusion.eng.hawaii.edu>
Date: Sun, 6 Mar 1994 13:36:56 GMT
Organization: University of Hawaii, College of Engineering

<liebert-050394143643@fusion.eng.hawaii.edu> was cancelled from within rn.
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenliebert cudfnBruce cudlnLiebert cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.06 / Bruce Liebert /  cmsg cancel <liebert-050394143643@fusion.eng.hawaii.edu>
     
Originally-From: liebert@wiliki.eng.hawaii.edu (Bruce Liebert)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cmsg cancel <liebert-050394143643@fusion.eng.hawaii.edu>
Date: Sun, 6 Mar 1994 13:37:56 GMT
Organization: University of Hawaii, College of Engineering

<liebert-050394143643@fusion.eng.hawaii.edu> was cancelled from within rn.
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenliebert cudfnBruce cudlnLiebert cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.07 / Bill Page /  Learning About Calorimetry - Questions
     
Originally-From: 70047.3047@compuserve.com (Bill Page)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Learning About Calorimetry - Questions
Date: Mon, 7 Mar 1994 01:16:36 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Thanks, Tom for all the material on calorimetry.  I'll start now to work 
through your postings and ask quesitions and make few comments.  It would 
be nice if other readers would also join in here with questions/comments of 
their own.

In my first post, I wrote:
<<
Progress will be slow, or at least slow enough that I may have a chance to 
do some interesting work after all...
>>              
And Tom's reply:
<<
Sure, it is never too late to jump into this crazy field.  Plenty of time 
to do good experiments and publish them in good journals.  But don't bet 
your PhD on it, as you will have to do above average work to succeed.
>>

I'd like to do good experiments, at least one's that *I* consider good. I 
don't know if there are any "good journals" anymore.  Most seem to be just 
vehicles for the "publish or perish" crowd.  For the moment "publishing" 
the way we are doing right now (sci.physics.fusion) suits me just fine.  
No, Tom, I wont bet my PhD on this work (if I ever get serious about 
persuing one), then again, if the college sci.physics.fusion ever became a 
"degree granting" institution ... <grin>.

Tom wrote:
<<
At the moment, I am not sure that the Mark III will ever get built.  I need 
motivation, and there is not a lot of satisfaction in doing negative 
experiments...

Too bad that we are not working in a field where progress is possible. I 
keep looking at those 10E60 improbabitity factors and wondering why I am 
here.  But I have not yet given up.  Just need a little nudge to keep me 
going.  Sorry I sound so negative.  But good calorimetry is worth doing, 
and trying to repeat these crazy experiments is good exercise for the 
scientific process.  
>>

Hmmm... As I recall my own case and current interest, it seems to me that 
it has been a string of highly suggestive and sometimes positive 
measurements that have kept me going - in fact dragging me back to do more 
in spite of lack of time and resources - even compromising the time 
available for the "real" work that other people are prepared to *pay* me to 
do!  Then again, I may just be following Dick Blue's skeptical (and rather 
mocking) model of how CF has progressed - from low budget poor experiment 
to more expensive poor experiment.  The number of published "positive" 
results is also very hard to ignore.  But then again, perhaps I am just 
proving that I can make the same mistakes that many other people have made. 
 Steven Jones seems to have come to this conclusion and I do give Dr. 
Jones's opinion a lot of weight.

[Its funny about honorific titles (Dr. Mrs. Prof.) these days - I am no 
longer sure how or when to use them.  In this context it is meant as a sign 
of respect but in most situations they now seem out of fashion.]

Now, exercise for the scientific process (exercises that teach me something 
new at least), that is worth the investment of some time.  So as long as I 
am learning, its still worth doing.  I've never been too good at this 
cost/benefit thing.  I don't really ever expect to stop learning nor do I 
expect to make more money because I've learned more. 

But no, I don't agree that no progress is possible.  It all depends on how 
you define progress.  Certainly its true that there is not much point in 
doing the same old thing over and over again.  But doing it over and doing 
it better are two different things.

[For some reason lately I've developed this habit of starting out with this 
kind of philosophical preamble - sort of "getting it off my chest" so to 
speak.  If this habit annoys anyone, please let me know and I'll try to 
limit it in the future.  Anyway, enough said for now, back to business... ]

Lesson 1: You can't ignore the environment (Qe).

                   ==============
      known        #   ||||||   #     constant      
      heat (Qin) ----> |||||| ------> heat out (Qout)
                   #   ||T1||   #
      measured   ----> |||||| <-----> unknown environmental
      heat (Qx)    #   ||||||   #     heat (Qe)
                   ==============
                  ambient temp (T2)

                  Revised figure 1.     

Your point is that Qe is large (of order 100 mw/C) and mostly proportional 
to the difference between the temperature of the thermal mass (T1) and the 
ambient (T2).  And unless we have the cat neutered, coupling to the 
environment (plus thermal gradients) is 99.9% of the problem!

<<
There is a large change of pumping efficiency [of the thermoelectric device 
(TED)] with temperature.  I control this by calibrating at each temperature 
of operation, but mostly I calibrate and run the entire experiment at a 
single TED temperature.  Note that I run the heat pump TED with both sides 
at *exactly* the same temperature (to less than 0.001 C) ...
>>

This idea of running the TED at the same temperature at *both sides* seems 
counter-inutive to me.  If the device is pumping heat and there is some 
form of thermal resistance on the input and output, how can there fail to 
be a difference in temperature (T1,T2)?

      ----> ||||| ---> TED ---> ||||| ---->
              T1                 T2

Hmmm.  Lets see, suppose I had two TED in series

  ---> ||||| ---> TED1 ---> ||||| ---> TED2 --->
         T1                   T2        /|\
                                         |
                                         | C2

Now I suppose we can operate TED1 at a constant power by controlling TED2 
so that T2 matches T1.  Of course we also keep T1 constant.  Is this what 
you mean?

Lesson 2. Servomechanisms: Keep her running at 65 Jake!

Tom, I enjoyed reading your introduction to control systems theory (parts 
III, IV and V), especially the points about having to deal with several 
interconnected control system and the references to LaPlace transforms etc. 
 I may well have a few more questions in this area when I have had more 
time to think about it.  For the reasons you have stated I understand why a 
conventional thermostat is *not* a sufficiently accurate way to control 
temperature.  But you have also stated that linear systems theory is also 
not really directly applicable to the control of these types of systems.  
Could you expand on this a little?  What are the most significant phenomena 
that makes the problem non-linear?  Conduction?  Radiation?  Newton's law 
of cooling (which I realize is only an approximation) is linear, is it not?

                   --------
           Qin    |        |    T1
         -------> | System | ------->
          /|\     |        |      |
           |       --------       |
           |                      |
           |       ---------      |
           |      | Servo   |     |
           ------ | Control | <----
                  | (Jake)  |
                   ---------
                      /|\
                       |
                      Tset

                   Figure 2

My orientation (not knowing enough about electronics design) would be to 
implement Jake as a computer program.  Using a analog to digital converted 
(ADC), we would sample the temperature T1 (for example, as the voltage drop 
across a thermister).  Then using an algoritm based on a model of the 
system we are attempting to control, set Qin by adjusting the output 
voltage of a digital to analog converter (DAC).  It seems to me that the 
time constants that we are dealing with here are sufficently long that even 
a simple PC could afford to do a serious amount of computation around the 
loop.  Of course we would also be using the computer to for data collection 
as well as control.  It shouldn't be difficult to accurately estimate the 
first and second derivatives of the temperature etc.

Is this a reasonable approach?  The data acquisition board that I use 
includes two DAC outputs.  Do you use this approach or is your control 
system entirely analog electronics?

To implement this I might need your help with the design of some simple 
kind of linear DC power amplifier so that the DAC output can drive the 
resistive load.  Could one make use of one of those adjustable integrated 
circuit voltage regulators?

Lesson 3. There ain't no such thing as a "well insulated" picnic basket.

Based on your observations in parts VI and VII, I've revised my "picnic 
cooler" design:
                            /|\
                             |
                            \|/
                            /Q\ 
    ------------------------\e/---------------------
    |                       /|\                    |
    |                                              |
    |            -------------------------         |
    |            |    circulating air    |         |
    |            |                       |         |
    |            |        \      /       |         |
    |            |     >   |----|        |         |
    |            |/\/  f   | CF |     \/\|/\/      | 
  ------------> Qin -- a   |cell|   -- Qout --->   |
    |            |\/\  n   | Qx |     /\/|\/\      | 
    |            |     >   |----|        |         |
    |            |        /      \       |         |
    |            |          T1           |         |
    |            |    circulating air    |         |
    |            -------------------------         |
    |                       T2                     |
    |                 circulating air              |
    |                   ^^ fan ^^                  |
    ------------------------------------------------
   
                     Figure 3.                                              

Your discussion of "guard ring" techniques sounded real good to me, so here 
I've added a second picnic cooler - a small one inside a larger unit.  The 
point is to control Qe so that T2 tracks T1.  Qe would probably be composed 
of a TED plus some resistive heating.  T1 and T2 should be understood to 
the "average" over several locations.

Note: Care has been taken in the location of the Qin resitive heating in 
relation to the fan.  I've also tried to indicate some means of improving 
the air-to-experiment coupling through some kind of heat sink integral to 
the CF cell.

What do you think?

Finally, a few random thoughts...

Reading through your discussion of servomechanisms for some reason made me 
think of examples of various "self-regulating" systems.  Perhaps one good 
example of this is the ordinary incandescent light bulb.  The temperature 
of the filament is self-regulating since the voltage (E) is fixed and an 
increase in temperature increases the resistance (R) of the filament which 
decreases the power P = E^2 / R.

One could, in principle make such a device from negative temperature 
coefficient thermisters


       -------------------------------------------------
       |     |         |         |         |         |
       |     \         \         \         \         \
       I     / T1      / T2      / T3      / T4      / T5
       |     \         \         \         \         \
       |     |         |         |         |         |
       -------------------------------------------------
            Q1        Q2        Q3        Q4        Q5

                          Figure 4.

with a constant current power source.  T1..T5 represent resistances whose 
value decreases with increasing temperature.  Assuming that T1..T5 have 
identical temperature-resistance response functions, the effect of such an 
array would be to self-adjust to varying thermal loads Q1..Q5.  The shape 
and slope of the response function would determine how much the temperature 
varied under different loads.  Monitoring the voltage also tells us 
something about the average load.

Actually, I have seen such a device being marketed for keeping water pipes 
from freezing!

I was thinking about how quickly something like this can respond to 
changing heat loads and also in relation to the problem of obtaining 
iso-thermal surfaces.  Might this be an alternative to heat pipes?

Thanks again, Tom.

Cheers,

Bill Page.


cudkeys:
cuddy7 cuden3047 cudfnBill cudlnPage cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.07 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Re: Who was it in Chicago?
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Who was it in Chicago?
Date: Mon, 7 Mar 1994 01:16:40 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Bruce Liebert wants to find that mysterious group in Chicago.  While Argonne
did some work early on with 1 cm cathodes, I know of no one else active aroung
(around) here.  John Huizinga sent me a draft of the report.  I sent back a 
very stong letter urging them to delay their report until results from some of 
the better experiments came in.  I think I also sent him a long letter after 
the report was issued.  In any case, he was quite aware that we were running
closed cells, and that we were not ready yet to make a conclusion one way or
the other.  He was also aware that I thought the experiment was very hard and
that it would take a while to get a difinitive result.  He quoted my conclusion
from the ACCF1 conference 3 times in his book, so he likely read the paper.  

While it is not clear that John has followed my posts on s.p.f, it is quite 
clear that he communicates with Morrison, who does.  

Do I qualify as a group?  Damn well I do!  I think that I have made some of the
best calorimetry measurements around.  After all, it was Fleischmann at ACCF1
that said (as I walded up in a meeting to collect a notebook that I had left 
in one of the conference rooms) "We admire your calorimetry".  

I have really tried to replicate McKubre.  Last year I met with him in
Washington, and did the best I could to figure out how to run his experiment.
My best opinion is that he is keeping back information.  (One possibility for
the witheld information is that the experiment does not work.)  In any case, 
I have been able to achieve high loading by polishing the cathodes.  This has 
recently been measrued by excess oxygen, but in early experiments, we also 
used the four point resistance method as used by McKubre.  

The problem with my experiments is that while I certainly do not get sustained
excess heat, I do have a few "bumps" like the 2000 joule event recently posted
here.  These bumps have not been so large that they rule out chemistry.  That
is where I stand at the moment.

So am I the group in Chicago?  Looks that way to me.  Someone ask Huizinga.

Tom Droege

cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenDROEGE cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.07 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Re: Tinsley goofs
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Tinsley goofs
Date: Mon, 7 Mar 1994 01:16:42 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Jed Rothwell uses logic that I cannot follow when he tries to make Frank Close
say thins that he did not say.  The porblem with making this type of argument
Jed, is that you loose credibility.  If you make too many nonsensical arguments
then your readers will assume all your arguments are phoney.  

Sorry, it is not a "no-lose" situation.  If we try to replicate each crazy 
experimental claim then we have no time to do good work.  It is only the
crazies like me that have no reputation and are near retirement that can 
afford to look at things with such a low probability  of success.  

Tom Droege

cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenDROEGE cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.06 / John Logajan /  Italian Ni-H vs pressure
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Italian Ni-H vs pressure
Date: Sun, 6 Mar 94 17:59:13 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

I have a thought about the sensitivity of the Italian Ni-H calorimetry to
pressure -- but first I will present evidence in favor of the Italians.

1.) The chamber pressure is monitored and logged in the computer database.

2.) During calibration, "All the curves obtained for hydrogen pressure values
    different from zero turned out to be practically independent of the
    hydrogen pressure in the range of values of interest."

3.) The "excess heat" is apparently never seen when running stainless steel
    blanks.


Now for my questions:

From the graphs in the paper (of which I only have a verbal description)
we can calculate the calorimetry "constant" for two calibration cases --
vacuum and 570 mBar (about 0.57 atmospheres.)  We can also calculate the
slopes of the two "excess" cases -- "20 Watt excess" and "50 Watt."

0.44  watts/degree C -- 570 mBar (null, 0 Watts excess)
0.34  watts/degree C -- 20 Watts excess
0.30  watts/degree C -- 50 Watts excess
0.135 watts/degree C -- Vacuum (null, 0 Watts excess)

Notice how the vales for the "excess" cases fall between the calibration
ranges of 570 mBar and vaccum.

Therefore, it is at least conceivable that at some pressure between vacuum
and 570 mBar, there is a input heat/core temperature relationship that is
in the range of the "excess" cases -- without really being excess.

There are a couple of implications to choose from -- that the pressure
measurements of the Italians are wrong (the pressure is way too low -- but
only when Ni is in the chamber!)  Or that the Italians have miscalibrated over
the various ranges of pressures (but only when Ni is in the chamber????)

If they could crank up the "excess" to 150 watts at 500C or cooler, then they
would have exceeded even the vacuum calibration constant and therefore have
completely nullified pressure related issues.

Anyhow, duplicators should be mindful of the need for accurate pressure
readings and calibration at various pressures experienced in the operation
of a device like this.  Maybe redundant pressure transducers are in order --
along with redundant thermometers.

-- 
-John Logajan MS612; Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
-logajan@network.com, 612-391-1159, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.06 / Robert Heeter /  Re: Hypothetical Question!
     
Originally-From: rfheeter@theory.pppl.gov (Robert F. Heeter)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Hypothetical Question!
Date: 6 Mar 1994 15:06:07 -0500
Organization: /etc/organization

In article <CM8Bv7.1v0@efn.org>, Britt Green <brittg@efn.org> wrote:
>I am working on writing a story set in the near future and would like to 
>use fusion as the main source of power.  My questions for any kind souls 
>out there are:

Would you prefer magnetic confinement fusion, inertial confinement
fusion, muon-catalyzed fusion, or room-temperature fusion?

Are we talking power for spacecraft propulsion, electric power,
process heat, or some other sort of energy?

>a) Theoreticly, what fuel would be the best to fire up a fusion engine?  
>How would water, or just plain hydrogen work?

There are a lot of constraints here.  If you want people anywhere
near your fusion engine, you will need either (a) a fusion reaction
that doesn't release neutrons as byproducts, or (b) a lot more shielding.
Shielding will make your reactor bigger and heavier, which would be
bad for a spacecraft.  Ordinary hydrogen doesn't fuse very easily,
in any case...  The easiest fuel to burn in conventional fusion is
a deuterium-tritium mixture, but it releases energetic neutrons.
A hydrogen-boron or hydrogen-lithium6 mixture will burn without
neutrons, but it's harder to get the reaction to work.

>b) Roughly and in laymans terms, please describe the process a vehicle 
>would use to travel and operate under fusion (ie: the basic fusion 
>process would suffice).

If you want fusion-based space propulsion, the basic idea is to
make a magnetic bottle (either inside or outside the ship),
and to put a "hole" at one end of the bottle, so that you get your
fusion energy, and you can either trap it for heat/electricity,
or you can squirt it out the hole to push your ship.

>
>Anything else you can think of that might be helpful would be valued.

I'm going to try to work some of this material into the FAQ file
I'm building (for conventional fusion); please keep asking questions!

*************
Robert F. Heeter 
rfheeter@theory.pppl.gov
Graduate Student, Princeton Plasma Physics Lab
Disclaimers apply as usual.
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.06 / Bruce Liebert /  Molten Salt Issues
     
Originally-From: liebert@wiliki.eng.hawaii.edu (Bruce E. Liebert)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Molten Salt Issues
Date: Sun, 6 Mar 1994 19:44:30 GMT
Organization: University of Hawaii


(Revised)
Although I have sent Bill Page an email response to his questions, 
perhaps others are interested.  So, in keeping with the request 
for less private email, here is most of what I remember sending 
him before my link to the Internet went down for several days:

Bill Page (In article <940228145837_70047.3047_EHB43-1@CompuServe.COM>,
70047.3047@CompuServe.COM) asked the following questions:

FIRST PART  --------------------------------

On a somewhat different subject.  I was very interested in the presentation

by your group at ICCF-4 on excess heat generation (M2.7) "Charging Hydrogen

into Ni in Hydride-Containing Molten Salts", Bor Yann Liaw, Bruce E. 
Liebert  and Yi Ding.  Although the abstract doesn't state this, my notes 
from the presentation say that significant excess heat production *was* 
observed.  How similar are these results to your earlier published work 
with Palladium and Deuterium?
 -------------------------------

The excess heat observed in the Ni using LiH in the LiCl-KCl 
molten salts was less.  This is really work in progress.  Wait for 
ICCF5.

SECOND PART--------------------------------

Also, I have been wanting to ask you the following question for some time, 
but time pressures, travel and an uncertainty on your current position has 
delayed my asking...

I am aware that unlike what could be called "conventional electrolysis" CF 
cells, the molten salt cells use a negative electric potential on the 
electrode (anode) that is being loaded with hydrogen/deuterium.  The
cathode 
is made of Aluminum.  The electrolyte is molten LiCl-KCl salts with 
dissolved LiH/LiD.  The cell reaction is understood to be driven by the 
absorbtion of Li+ by the Aluminum cathode, resulting in the absorption of 
H- by the anode material.  So my question is:

Do you have any information or measurement on the number of H+ ions in the 
solution?  Is it possible that H+ as well as Li+ are being absorbed by the 
cathode?  Can you rule out the possibility that the excess heat might be 
coming from some reaction in the Aluminum?
 ---------------------------------

What seems to cause most people problems in understanding what is 
happening with the molten salt system is that deuterium exists as 
D- (not D+) when LiD dissolves in molten LiCl-KCl.  Also, keep in 
mind that, according to standard electrochemical conventions, 
anions (D-) go to the anode and cations (Li+) go to the cathode.  
This is true whether an external voltage is being applied to the 
electrodes OR whether the system is behaving as a battery and 
doing work.

Of course for electrolysis experiments, to get the anions (D-) to 
go to the anode (Pd), it is necessary to apply a *positive* 
potential to the anode.  If this system acted as a *battery* 
(opposite of electrolysis), the Pd electrode would still be 
positive--but it would properly be referred to as the *cathode*.

So, to repeat, for our experiments:  Pd = + = anode
                                     Al = - = cathode

For the more familiar aqueous experiments:  Pd = - = cathode
                                            Pt = + = anode

Second point, the cell reaction is not driven by the absorption of 
Li+ by the aluminum resulting in absorption of H- by the anode 
material.  If it was, we would be operating as a battery.  The 
cell reaction is driven by an applied external voltage, just like 
conventional Pd/D electrolysis.

Before we get to your questions, I am sure there are those who are 
wondering why we need the LiCl-KCl.  Why not just use LiH?  LiH 
will not melt and disassociate into Li+ and H- by itself.  
Therefore, a supporting electrolyte is required to effect the 
dissociation.  In principle, one could use any number of ionic 
solvents...even LiCl itself.  However, the melting point of LiCl 
(or KCl or NaCl) is very high, making experimentation that much 
more difficult, if your system could tolerate the higher 
temperatures. LiCl-KCl forms a "low" melting temperature eutectic 
at about 352 deg. C, which brings the temperature down into a much 
more manageable range.

Also, the aluminum acts as a "sponge" for the Li.  If you plated 
out Li on an inert metal cathode, such as molybdenum, the activity 
of Li in contact with the electrolyte would be unity.  In this 
system, high Li activities turn the LiCl-KCl melt electronically 
conducting, ruining its use as an electrolyte.  As long as the 
composition of the aluminum never reaches LiAl, the activity of 
the Li will be sufficiently low so that the transference number of 
electrons will be less than 0.01; i.e., LiCl-KCl will remain an 
electrolyte.

Now, for your questions:  The number of H-/D- ions in the solution 
is  several percent or so by volume, depending on whether the 
LiH/LiD is replaced during the electrolysis.  If you would like a 
better estimate, please ask.

I suppose that it would be possible for Al to absorb *some* H-/D-, 
but the amount should be negligible due to the sign of the applied 
potential.  As a result, the aluminum cathode is not believed to 
be responsible for the temperature rise we observed with Pd/D.  We 
have discussed the thermochemical aspects of these systems in our 
papers.

Thanks for your interest.
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenliebert cudfnBruce cudlnLiebert cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.06 / John Logajan /  Italian Ni-H -- All gases aren't created equal.
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Italian Ni-H -- All gases aren't created equal.
Date: Sun, 6 Mar 94 20:22:55 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

I wrote:
>Therefore, it is at least conceivable that at some pressure between vacuum
>and 570 mBar, there is a input heat/core temperature relationship that is
>in the range of the "excess" cases -- without really being excess.

I think also there is another more subtle possibility.

We don't know from the "Note Brevi" how carefully the Italians controlled/
monitored the purity of the H2 gas in the chamber.  If we can speculate that
there was significant contamination from atmospheric gases (principally N2
and O2) then there is yet another at least conceivable mechanism to falsely
indicate "excess" heat.

We know that the thermal conductivity coefficients for N2 and O2 are much
less than for H2.  At 100C H2 = 2.13 millwatts/centimeter/degree C/seconds.
H2 = 2.13
N2 = 0.31
O2 = 0.31

So H2 is about seven times better at conducting heat than N2 or O2.  In fact,
for pure gases, the thermal conductivity is inversely proportional to the
molecular weight.

If we accept the futher speculation (I can't find a discussion of it in my
physics book) that thermal conductivity of mixed gases varies with the average
molecular weight of the gas molecules, then it is apparent that a change in
the mixture ratios would change the Italian's calibration constants without
being reflected in the pressure readings.

Assuming that the Ni sucks up H2 and not N2 or O2, then that itself is a
mechanism to change the mixture ratio and, hence, the calibration constant.

Since the remaining free gas would be a worse heat conductor, the Ni core would
remain hotter with the same heat input, giving the appearence of excess heat.
Swinging from predominently H2 to predominently N2/O2 would swing the constant
most of the way across the 7:1 range.  Lesser ratio changes would swing it
across a smaller range.

Not knowing the actual composition, it is impossible to say what the actual
effect was.  As a speculative concern, however, the "sign" is in a troublesome
direction.

It would be interesting to see the calibration slope of N2/O2 from the
Italians, just as they have already provided for vacuum and H2.

-- 
-John Logajan MS612; Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
-logajan@network.com, 612-391-1159, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.06 / John Logajan /  Re: Italian Ni-H -- All gases aren't created equal.
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Italian Ni-H -- All gases aren't created equal.
Date: Sun, 6 Mar 94 20:35:55 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

I wrote:
>H2 = 2.13
>N2 = 0.31
>O2 = 0.31
>
>Assuming that the Ni sucks up H2 and not N2 or O2, then that itself is a
>mechanism to change the mixture ratio and, hence, the calibration constant.

Add H2O vapor to the list.

H2  = 2.13
N2  = 0.31
O2  = 0.31
H2O = 0.239 (vapor)

Since any free O2 would "burn" with the free H2 at the elevated temperatures
in the Italian chamber, the gas mixture would quickly be H2, N2, and H2O.
There should be little free O2.

Since H2O vapor is even a worse heat conductor than O2, the magnitude of this
proposed error is worse for H2O vapor than for N2/O2 gas alone.

-- 
-John Logajan MS612; Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
-logajan@network.com, 612-391-1159, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Mon Mar  7 04:37:03 EST 1994
------------------------------
1994.03.07 /  dowen@vaxc.cc. /  Re: SL:  Jones sees the light (barely)
     
Originally-From: dowen@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: SL:  Jones sees the light (barely)
Date: 7 Mar 94 09:36:12 +1000
Organization: Computer Centre, Monash University, Australia

Hi folks,
In article <1994Mar4.113831.1434@physc1.byu.edu>, jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
writes:

......................MANY LINES DELETED......................... 

> We found that after about 40 minutes, abundant bubbles stopped
> being produced.  At same time, a loud screeching sound diminished
> greatly.  Then we added some paper-towel fibers (these were present
> at first due to wiping out flask), and the bubbles and screeching
> returned, and SL.
> 
> Surmise:  bubble formation is enhanced by nucleation sites provided
> by paper fibers (could see these floating in water with dark field
> illumination); screeching is the sound of cavitating bubbles.
> 

Steve,
Would nucleation sites be provided by very fine grains of deuterated
palladium or titanium ? If your've got some on the shelf it may be
worth trying.
					Regards to all,
					Daryl Owen.
Disclaimers apply.


 
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudendowen cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.07 / C Harrison /  Re: SL: Theory Needed
     
Originally-From: harr@netcom.com (Charles (Chuck) Harrison)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: SL: Theory Needed
Date: Mon, 7 Mar 1994 00:01:00 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <3MAR199411542245@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov> edwlt12@ariel.lerc.nas
.gov (Mike Jamison (ADF)) writes:
>In article <940302180655_70047.3047_EHB46-1@CompuServe.COM>, 70047.3047
CompuServe.COM (Bill Page) writes...
>>Mike Jamison writes (by private email <grin>):
[...]
>>Regarding his original posting Mike states:
>><<
>>Hopefully, the result will be a bunch of light "racing around" the edges of 
>>the bubble, which is of course collapsing.  Since the reflectivity is 
>>extremely good, very little light will be lost.  Since the bubble is 
>>collapsing, the energy per unit volume is increasing...
[...]
>>This is a interesting model.  Certainly some calculations are in 
order.  
>>Got any idea about how to go about it?  What is known about the dynamics of 
>>the "collapsing" bubble? What is its size?  What wavelengths of light 
>>should be considered?  What would be the absorption mechanism?
>
>Bill (and the rest of the net):
>
>Zeroeth order calculations should be based on the simple Fresnel equations,
[...for]
>cases where bubble diammeter >>> wavelength of trapped radiation.
>
>First and second order calculations should be based on electromagnetic
>optics - Mie scattering.

Recommended reference:  Bohren & Huffman, "Light Scatterring & Absorption
by Small Particles", Wiley 1987 (This is my recollection of the 
citation -- may be in error! -ch).

Mie (ca 1900) calculated the exact solution for a spherical resonator,
which seems appropriate here.  The solution is a series expansion of
spherical harmonics.  The Bohren&Huffman book includes as an appendix
FORTRAN source code for computing the series coefficients and for
summing the far-field amplitude (this last not particularly relevant
here).  I have source, and MS-DOS executable on hand; e-mail me if
interested.  You will probably want to rework this code to compute
the field _inside_ the particle.

--Chuck Harrison  harr@netcom.com

[...]
>> 
>>Cheers,
>> 
>>Bill Page.
>> 
>
>Mike Jamison
>


cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenharr cudfnCharles cudlnHarrison cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.07 / arthur blair /  Chen's book Vol II
     
Originally-From: blair@mksol.dseg.ti.com (arthur blair)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Chen's book Vol II
Date: Mon, 7 Mar 1994 07:48:41 GMT
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc

The book "Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion" by Francis Chen, UCLA, has
been recommended by many as a meaty introduction to conventional
fusion. But it is split into 2 parts. Vol I is just Plasma physics and
was written in 1984. Volume II, which was to cover fusion, has yet to be
written! Anyone know if he still has plans to publish Vol II?

Thanx,
Art. 
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenblair cudfnarthur cudlnblair cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.07 / Frank Close /  Deep Heat/Tinsley (didnt necessarily) goof
     
Originally-From: FEC@v2.rl.ac.uk (Frank Close)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Deep Heat/Tinsley (didnt necessarily) goof
Date: Mon, 7 Mar 1994 10:13:15 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Jed Rothwell writes 
"Frank Close proposes that chemical reactions with Ni can produce
keV per atom energy".

That is NOT what I said as Tom Droege at least understands. I was
answering Chris Tinsley's question of where 10s of keV per atom
potential energy can arise (from electrons without need of nuclear
degrees of freedom).

First I will try and clarify what the point is and at the end why I 
regard it as tongue partly in cheek:

1. You cannot get 10keV energy from an atom in its GROUND state.

2.IF you first SUPPLY energy to an atom then you can raise it to an excited
state. You may then recover that energy later when the atom restores
to its ground state.
(Hence I am talking about energy storage such as heat being supplied over
a long period and then recovered later. This is well known in chemistry
which involve the outer electrons which only involve eV per atom as Jed
keeps reminding us. However, read on).

3. The 1s electrons in Ni are bound with energies exceeding 10keV each.
   (The 3d and 4s "outer" electrons are bound only by eV and are the ones
   that are typically involved in "chemistry". Hence Jed is right when he
   refers to CHEMISTRY only liberating eV. I, however, am interested in
   the deep bound 1s electrons which is why I keep avoiding the word
   "chemistry" and use "Electrons" or "atomic" to differentiate them)

4. As far as energy conservation alone is concerned, it is in principle
   possible to STORE over 10keV per atom: supply 10keV which liberates
   the 1s electron and then later liberate the 10keV when the atom restores 
   to its ground state.

Perhaps some of the confusion is because you thought I was advocating this 
being energy released from the ground state. I was not (see item 1)

Problems are to invent a sensible mechanism whereby the storage lasts
for many hours rather than a fraction of a second; why the 10keV energy
release is not accompanied by X-rays; why a long period of gradual
energy supply should release the deep bound electrons and why the traditional 
and well understood chemistry (sic) of the Ni hydrogen system has been 
overridden.These are some of the reasons why I regard it as tongue in cheek.
Dieter and I exchanged thoughts on this a long time ago and he educated
me on other reasons why I keep my tongue formly in cheek. My point is only
that on energy conservation grounds alone this provides a mechanism 
whereby many 10s of keV per atom can be stored and released without 
need of nuclear d.o.f.

"Bye till then, I hope" = "Bye till then" (congratulations to Dick Blue
on reaching retirement. I still have some years to go and have an overfull
in-tray at the lab). PAUSE. Followed by:-
"I hope" = (1)I hope I/we are all here in a years time.
           (2)I hope I dont have to keep reading people saying that I said 
things that in fact I did not say, and thereby having to correct them before
they become part of the accepted folklore of what FC said about CF.    





cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenFEC cudfnFrank cudlnClose cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.08 /  dowen@vaxc.cc. /  The Slaser ................
     
Originally-From: dowen@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: The Slaser ................
Date: 8 Mar 94 00:28:28 +1000
Organization: Computer Centre, Monash University, Australia

Hi Folks,
Instead of using a hemispherical flask for SL, it may be possible
to use a quartz cylinder and place a number of transducers along the
length of the cylinder, spaced so as to produce as many as possible
SL sites (overlapping/continuous?) in the centre and along the entire 
length of the quartz container. Problems would occur from reflections at
either end of the cylinder, but these could be damped by a suitable material
and minimised by adopting the design shown in the following diagram..........

                        __________________________
                         \  @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ /
                           \                  /
                             \              /
                               \          /
  @@@ = damping material        |        |
  #  =  sonic tranducers        |        |
                                |        |#
                                |        |
                                |        |#
                                |        |
                                |        |#
                                |        |
                                |        |#
                                |        |
                                |        |#
                                |        |
                               /          \
                             /              \
                           / @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@  \
                         /______________________\
                       
The axial SL sites would all be able to be illuminated by a single laser beam.
The many in phase, axial, SL sites may induce some form of coherentcy in
their own light emissions, this would then constitute a sound pumped laser
or "slaser"............ Don't forget you saw it here first folks.(Heh,heh)

						Best Regards to all,
						Daryl Owen.
Disclaimers apply




cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudendowen cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.08 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Learning about Calorimeters - Part 8
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Learning about Calorimeters - Part 8
Date: Tue, 8 Mar 1994 01:16:13 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

This continues a dialogue between myself (Tom Droege) and Bill Page which 
discusses ways to design a calorimeter.  I am also at witt's end to keep the 
quotes straight after several exchanges.  I will use the simple device of 
putting a Bill: or a Tom: at the beginning of each quote, with the new Tom 
material being labeled NewTom: 

I will send this out as a single post.  I hope it is not too long.  

Skipping over the philosophy (I enjoy it - I hope others do also) and getting 
down to the meat of the questions:

Bill:

Lesson 1: You can't ignore the environment (Qe).

                   ==============
      known        #   ||||||   #     constant
      heat (Qin) ----> |||||| ------> heat out (Qout)
                   #   ||T1||   #
      measured   ----> |||||| <-----> unknown environmental
      heat (Qx)    #   ||||||   #     heat (Qe)
                   ==============
                  ambient temp (T2)

                  Revised figure 1.

Your point is that Qe is large (of order 100 mw/C) and mostly proportional
to the difference between the temperature of the thermal mass (T1) and the
ambient (T2).  And unless we have the cat neutered, coupling to the
environment (plus thermal gradients) is 99.9% of the problem!

Tom:

There is a large change of pumping efficiency [of the thermoelectric device
(TED)] with temperature.  I control this by calibrating at each temperature
of operation, but mostly I calibrate and run the entire experiment at a
single TED temperature.  Note that I run the heat pump TED with both sides
at *exactly* the same temperature (to less than 0.001 C) ...

Bill:

This idea of running the TED at the same temperature at *both sides* seems
counter-inutive to me.  If the device is pumping heat and there is some
form of thermal resistance on the input and output, how can there fail to
be a difference in temperature (T1,T2)?

      ----> ||||| ---> TED ---> ||||| ---->
              T1                 T2

Hmmm.  Lets see, suppose I had two TED in series

  ---> ||||| ---> TED1 ---> ||||| ---> TED2 --->
         T1                   T2        /|\
       (heater)                          |
                                         | C2


Now I suppose we can operate TED1 at a constant power by controlling TED2
so that T2 matches T1.  Of course we also keep T1 constant.  Is this what
you mean?

NewTom:  

I think he's got it.  "The change in gain is mainly in the ... "  The heater 
with T1 is controlled to hold T1 at constant temperature.  TED1 is operated at 
constant current.  TED2 is controlled to hold T2 at exactly the same 
temperature as T1.  You bet it is counter-intuitive!!!  But it works.  The 
problem is to make T1 absolutely uniform over it's whole area.  Likewise T2.  
Then there will be ***no*** heat transfer between T1 and T2 and the entire 
heat leaving T1 will be that through TED1.  This was the Mark II design, and 
T1 and T2 did not respond instantly.  There were also temperature gradients 
over T2 even though there was 1 1/2" of foam on both sides of it.  It is hard 
to do very good insulation with the best materials available.  But still the 
Mark II was about a 4.4 mw one sigma device.  

Note that TED2 must be much more powerful than TED1.  A factor of 3-4.  

Bill:

Lesson 2. Servomechanisms: Keep her running at 65 Jake!

Tom, I enjoyed reading your introduction to control systems theory (parts
III, IV and V), especially the points about having to deal with several
interconnected control system and the references to LaPlace transforms etc.
 I may well have a few more questions in this area when I have had more
time to think about it.  For the reasons you have stated I understand why a
conventional thermostat is *not* a sufficiently accurate way to control
temperature.  But you have also stated that linear systems theory is also
not really directly applicable to the control of these types of systems.
Could you expand on this a little?  What are the most significant phenomena
that makes the problem non-linear?  Conduction?  Radiation?  Newton's law
of cooling (which I realize is only an approximation) is linear, is it not?

NewTom:

Electrical systems with R, perfect C, and perfect L can be modeled by linear 
differential equations with constant coefficients.  So standard LaPlace 
transforms work.  I recall that heat is a partial differential equation.  So 
the same rules do not apply.  But I am also a practical engineer, and you can 
sort of model heat as thermal resistances and thermal capacitors.  Just beware 
that some situations might not work out.  Also note that L's are far from 
perfect devices and you don't get the nice filter responses you calculate when 
you actually build them out of real L's.  But now we do it digitaly and they 
are perfect (Ha!).

Bill:   (Modified by Tom for the standard servo picture)
  
                   --------
          __  e   |        |    T1
 T1 Set -|--|---> |Drive(s)| ------->
         |__|     | (Jake) |      |
          /|\      --------       |
           |                      |
           |       ---------      |
           |      |Feed-    |     |
           ------ | Back(s) | <----
                  |         |
                   ---------
                                
                   Figure 2

NewTom:

Bill's picture has been modified to show the basic servo features.  The little 
box at the front is the difference element.  It takes the difference between 
the command (T1 Set) and the fed back temperature.  This produces the error 
signal e (usually Greek e like letter).  The Drive(s) in the forward box is 
the transfer function between error and output temperature T1.  Note that we 
have moved into the frequency domain.  Feedback(s) describes how the 
measurement is modified before it gets to the difference device.  There is 
tons of literature that discusses the problem of what is required of Drive(s) 
and Feedback(s) for stability.  Just go the the library and get anything that 
says "Feedback Control Systems" in the title.  Get something designed for an 
upper level course and dated 1960 or so.  Then you can follow up with the 
later literature.  When you can talk the language just a little, I will give 
you Droege's sure fire "sufficient" (but not necessary) condition to insure 
stability.  Most servo books spend 99% of their content worrying about obscure 
mathematical conditions that might be stable.  In practice, you don't dare go 
near any of these solutions as real world components drift, and what was 
stable today is an oscillator tomorrow.  Except for 747's, and then you are 
***very*** careful.   

Bill:

My orientation (not knowing enough about electronics design) would be to
implement Jake as a computer program.  Using a analog to digital converted
(ADC), we would sample the temperature T1 (for example, as the voltage drop
across a thermister).  Then using an algoritm based on a model of the
system we are attempting to control, set Qin by adjusting the output
voltage of a digital to analog converter (DAC).  It seems to me that the
time constants that we are dealing with here are sufficently long that even
a simple PC could afford to do a serious amount of computation around the
loop.  Of course we would also be using the computer to for data collection
as well as control.  It shouldn't be difficult to accurately estimate the
first and second derivatives of the temperature etc.

Is this a reasonable approach?  The data acquisition board that I use
includes two DAC outputs.  Do you use this approach or is your control
system entirely analog electronics?

NewTom:

Yes, this would work.  But if I did it that way, I would use a separate 
computer for the control loop and the data collection.  These experiments 
mostly run thousands of hours.  You want to break into the data collection 
program and change things over that time.  Unless you are the type of person 
that conceives an exact experimental program from the start and sticks with it 
for the planned 3000 hours, even though it is obvious that you really want to 
do something else, then OK.  I find that I did not anticipate everything I 
might want to do in the original program.  So I want to jump in and change it.  
BASIC is very nice and forgiving for such work.  But it still takes a few 
minutes to break in with a program change.  I don't want the control servo 
"open" during that time.  

I used an analog control loop.  I do not recommend this for servo system 
amateurs.  One needs to be a real expert on subtle characteristics of the 
parts to make it work.  Some very long time constants are required, and you 
have to know how to make them with stability.  For me it has the advantage 
that the computer just occasionally sets a DAC, and everything keeps running 
when I take the control computer down.   

I suggest that you look around for programs that do this.  There are a lot of 
real time data acquisition and control programs around.  Likely there is one 
available out there that lets you put parameters into loop closing transfer 
functions.  Otherwise, it is a Runga-Kutta or some such simulation program to 
be worked out and designed in.  But if I were you I would first look around 
the internet for a control program.  How about it out there - does someone 
know of such a program for Bill??? 

Bill:

To implement this I might need your help with the design of some simple
kind of linear DC power amplifier so that the DAC output can drive the
resistive load.  Could one make use of one of those adjustable integrated
circuit voltage regulators?

NewTom:

I recommend the LM670T.  Cost about $12.00.  It is in the TO-220 package and 
it is relatively easy to use.  Just follow the diagram in the National book 
and it works.  I will look around.  Likely I can send you a couple all mounted 
on a PC board with heat sinks when you get to putting things together. 

You will also need some hefty DC power supplies.  These are a bit more of a 
problem if you are short on funds.  Marlin P. Jones is a surplus house that 
always has a lot of power supplies.  Perhaps I can send you some of these too.  

Bill:

Lesson 3. There ain't no such thing as a "well insulated" picnic basket.

Based on your observations in parts VI and VII, I've revised my "picnic
cooler" design:
                            /|\
                             |
                            \|/
                            /Q\
    ------------------------\e/---------------------
    |                       /|\                    |
    |                                              |
    |            -------------------------         |
    |            |    circulating air    |         |
    |            |                       |         |
    |            |        \      /       |         |
    |            |     >   |----|        |         |
    |            |/\/  f   | CF |     \/\|/\/      |
  ------------> Qin -- a   |cell|   -- Qout --->   |
    |            |\/\  n   | Qx |     /\/|\/\      |
    |            |     >   |----|        |         |
    |            |        /      \       |         |
    |            |          T1           |         |
    |            |    circulating air    |         |
    |            -------------------------         |
    |                       T2                     |
    |                 circulating air              |
    |                   ^^ fan ^^                  |
    ------------------------------------------------

                     Figure 3.

Your discussion of "guard ring" techniques sounded real good to me, so here
I've added a second picnic cooler - a small one inside a larger unit.  The
point is to control Qe so that T2 tracks T1.  Qe would probably be composed
of a TED plus some resistive heating.  T1 and T2 should be understood to
the "average" over several locations.

NewTom:

OK, this is fine.  I think of it as putting the inner cooler in an oven.  
Hmmm.  It might be even better to put the little cooler in a water bath.  This 
would make its TED work great.  Put lots of foam around the little cooler, and 
cover the inside of it with aluminum so that you have an isothermal surface.  
Now use the balancing heater to hold the inside of the little cooler to the 
same temperature as the water bath.  The big problem then is trying to hold 
the little cooler under water.  Leaks are fatal.  Calorimeters would be a lot 
easier to build if you did not have to open them up and work on the contents.  

In either case, there are two control systems, and two loops to close.  
Remember physics class demonstrations of coupled systems.  Usually done with 
weights and springs.  The energy is seen to pass back and forth between the 
two systems if they are close to the same resonant point.  So beware!  Don't 
have the same response in the two systems.  Unless you are daring, keep them 
an order of magnitude apart.  In the Mark II, the fast loop was the outside 
one which kept the delta t across the gap at zero.  The slow one was the one 
that held the experiment at constant temperature.  This allowed a lot of power 
in the fast servo with out the heat from the operation disturbing the balance.  

Bill:

Note: Care has been taken in the location of the Qin resitive heating in
relation to the fan.  I've also tried to indicate some means of improving
the air-to-experiment coupling through some kind of heat sink integral to
the CF cell.

What do you think?

NewTom:

It looks like it would work.  In any case line the inside of the coolers with 
a lot of copper or aluminum.  You will likely be surprised at the differences 
in readings if you spot several thermometers around the surface.  Then you 
will have to decide if "excess heat" comes from a change in temperature 
distribution or if it is real.  

Bill:

Finally, a few random thoughts...

Reading through your discussion of servomechanisms for some reason made me
think of examples of various "self-regulating" systems.  Perhaps one good
example of this is the ordinary incandescent light bulb.  The temperature
of the filament is self-regulating since the voltage (E) is fixed and an
increase in temperature increases the resistance (R) of the filament which
decreases the power P = E^2 / R.

One could, in principle make such a device from negative temperature
coefficient thermisters


       -------------------------------------------------
       |     |         |         |         |         |
       |     \         \         \         \         \
       I     / T1      / T2      / T3      / T4      / T5
       |     \         \         \         \         \
       |     |         |         |         |         |
       -------------------------------------------------
            Q1        Q2        Q3        Q4        Q5

                          Figure 4.

with a constant current power source.  T1..T5 represent resistances whose
value decreases with increasing temperature.  Assuming that T1..T5 have
identical temperature-resistance response functions, the effect of such an
array would be to self-adjust to varying thermal loads Q1..Q5.  The shape
and slope of the response function would determine how much the temperature
varied under different loads.  Monitoring the voltage also tells us
something about the average load.

Actually, I have seen such a device being marketed for keeping water pipes
from freezing!

I was thinking about how quickly something like this can respond to
changing heat loads and also in relation to the problem of obtaining
iso-thermal surfaces.  Might this be an alternative to heat pipes?

NewTom:

The problem with negative resistance devices is that they tend to work only 
over a very limited range.  If this were not true, then we would not need 
"cold fusion" but could get all our power needs from negative resistance.  
Charge would run up hill from the lower potential capacitor to the higher 
potential capacitor etc..   In practice, it is hard to build control systems 
with negative resistance elements.  It is even hard to build amplifiers.  The 
problem is the limited range, and a lot of non-linearity.  They are OK for 
bang-bang servoes.  You can think of a thermostat as a negative resistor that 
goes from a high value to a low value as the device heats up.   

Bill:

Thanks again, Tom.

Cheers,

Bill Page.

NewTom:

All for now, questions are welcome.  Someone find Bill a control program.

Tom Droege

cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenDROEGE cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.07 / Mike Thornburg /  Re: ICCF-4 Vigier's Theory (part 2)
     
Originally-From: mthorn@lunacity.com (Mike Thornburg)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: ICCF-4 Vigier's Theory (part 2)
Date: Mon, 07 Mar 94 14:25:59 PST
Organization: LunaCity BBS - (Clan Zen Relay Network) Mountain View, CA

I have just started reading the discussion of Vigier's theory in
sci.physics.fusion and have only gotten to part 2 of your posts,
but I have already found a major conceptual flaw in his
derivation.

In the discussion just before and after equation [10] in part 2,
you refer to combining the spin and orbital angular momenta and
representing the results in terms of the spherical harmonics
Yml(theta, phi).  It is a well-known result in quantum mechanics
that the spherical harmonics can only represent integral values
of angular momenta, whereas the spin angular momentum has half-
integral values here, and *cannot be represented by a function of
spacial coordinates and momenta*--i.e., a function of the form
psi(r). The same problem applies to a combination of spin and
orbital angular momenta.  (See the discussion of angular
momentum in section 27 of Schiff, "Quantum Mechanics" 3rd edition,
McGraw-Hill, 1968, and the discussion of how to include spin
coordinates in section 40 of the same work.)

I haven't read much further in your description of the paper,
but just glancing at the form of the equations seems to indicate
that the treatment of the spin-spin and spin-orbit interactions
in the rest of the derivation is invalid.  Since this is just the
area where his treatment of the hydrogen atom should differ from
the simple Schroedinger solution, I think he needs to fix this
problem before he can claim to have anything new to say.


 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just a thought from Mike Thornburg -> (mthorn@lunacity.com)
LunaCity BBS - Mountain View, CA - 415 968 8140
cudkeys:
cuddy07 cudenmthorn cudfnMike cudlnThornburg cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.07 / Matt Kennel /  Re: Tinsley goofs
     
Originally-From: mbk%anl433.uucp@Germany.EU.net (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Tinsley goofs
Date: 7 Mar 1994 22:54:31 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:
: The nonsense is all coming from Close, who has proposed Yet Anther Crackpot
: Theory to explain cold fusion.

Can somebody (like you Jed) expound a bit on a Not Crackpot Theory To
Explain Cold Fusion?

It seems that CF is a bit like Clintonian politics.  The more specific
anyone gets, the more holes that appear.

At least P&F started out with something specific: "D-D nuclear fusion".
Too bad it's not true and they lined about it.

: - Jed

--
-Matt Kennel  		mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu
-Institute for Nonlinear Science, University of California, San Diego
-*** AD: Archive for nonlinear dynamics papers & programs: FTP to
-***     lyapunov.ucsd.edu, username "anonymous".
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenuucp cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.07 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Re: Correction (again, sigh) to Mitch
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Correction (again, sigh) to Mitch
Date: 7 Mar 94 14:42:37 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

In article <CM72DA.Cnv@world.std.com>, 
mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
>   In Message-ID: <1994Mar4.114648.1435@physc1.byu.edu>
> Subject: Answers (again, sigh) to Mitch
> Steven Jones (jonesse@physc1.byu.edu) writes:
> 
> ==sj  ""you stated, erroneously, in a recent post that we saw xs
> ==sj  heat only when we passed oxygen through an H20/Ni electrolytic
> ==sj  cell.  The fact is, the oxygen bubbling was a test to check whether
> ==sj  the *apparent" xs heat would increase, actually due to H2 + 02
> ==sj  recombination in the cell -- and the apparent xs heat did indeed
> ==sj  go up."  
> 
>   That is untrue as Steve is well aware.  

I am *not* aware that this is untrue.  Admittedly, the discussion is an old
one, from Nov. 1993.  If you disagreed with something, why did you not disagree
then?  

>  It was stated that 
>    1) Steve should use actual power levels (watts) instead of %s, and
>    2) Steve's data appeared multivalued (or unclear at best), and
>    3) some of Steve's data involved oxygen, and therefore clarification
> (given the wide reliance) would help.
> 
>             Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com)

1) Jonathon Jones and I used both watts and %'s.

2) As I have repeatedly explained, we expected and observed different
*apparent* excess heat amounts depending on the separation of electrodes, etc.

3) I have provided such clarification several times to you, Mitch.  Again when
I reposted the Nov. 1993 post that answered that question.
Briefly once more:  we saw apparent excess heat, up to about 250% under
close-electrode spacing, *without* oxygen bubbling.  With O2 bubbling, we
saw up to about 700% excess heat, as calculated by assuming no recombination
(as assumed by Miles, Mills, Notoya, etc.).  

Our conclusion is that all workers need to measure for recombination, 
(or better, use recombiners in a closed system)
and not claim xs heat if they have not done so.

--Steven Jones

cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenjonesse cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.07 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Scientists and Nouveau-science Salesmen
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Scientists and Nouveau-science Salesmen
Date: 7 Mar 94 15:31:01 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University


A research scientist learns to endure uncertainty.  A claim by
another scientist is not considered a discovery until reproduced
and verified independently.  He may speak of the lack of
"compelling evidence" for a purported new phenomenon.  Skepticism
in science implies requiring compelling evidence, rather than a
spirit of "doubting everything."  As evidence grows in support of
a claimed phenomenon, so does the scientist's acceptance of it, and
his demand for a theoretical picture that is consistent with other
hard-earned knowledge.  On the other hand, the lack of compelling
evidence or the paucity of solid work and publication causes the
new field to diminish.  

For example, testing claims of 'cold fusion', the U.S. Dept. of
Energy and U.S. universities spent an estimated $100 million, the
state of Utah another $5 million or so, and universities and
departments around the world untold millions more.  But
reproducibility has not been achieved and no consistent theoretical
picture has been found despite expensive and prolonged efforts. 
The field looks more and more like a dead end.

In my own research in cold fusion and reading the results of other
workers, I find no compelling evidence for *any* cold-fusion
effect.  And I find other *research scientists* are similarly less
than certain, particularly of claims that excess heat is nuclear
in origin (which claim I *never* made or supported).

A few examples of caution come from research scientists who have
been characterized as CF advocates in the past.  Mel Miles of
China Lake, for example, once wrote:

"Our electrochemical experiments unambiguously show a direct
correlation between the time of generation of excess enthalpy and
power and the production of 4He...
In summary, nuclear events with 4He as a major product occur during
the electrolysis of the Pd/D2O + LiOD system." 
M. Miles et al., J. Electro. Chem. 346:99.

But in recent work, Mel admits that he is having trouble getting
excess heat, certainly nothing like he thought he saw years ago. 
He and colleagues now say:

"Because helium is present in the atmosphere (5.22 ppm), it is
difficult to convince everyone that 4He measured in the
electrolysis gas is a product of a fusion reaction within the cell. 
It is indeed a very challenging experimental problem to clearly
establish the production of 4He from Pd/D2O electrolysis cells. 
This situation is compounded by difficulties in obtaining large
excess power effects in these experiments."
M. Miles and B. Bush, ICCF-4 abstracts book (Maui, Dec. 1993), 
C2.9.

Absent are the earlier bold claims of "unambiguous" evidence.  In the
Nagoya Proceedings, Miles and Bush caution:  "Reproducibility
remains a major problem in defining these effects." (p. 198)  

This is a proper scientific attitude:  when effects are small and very
difficult to reproduce, contamination or experimental error cannot
be ruled out.

Similarly, we find Russian researcher Kucherov at the Maui meeting
saying, "After four years, I'm not so sure this is a nuclear
effect."  

Prof. Xing-Xong Li of China put it succinctly when he showed an
overhead transparency at the Maui meeting which said, in reference
to possible excess heat of unknown origin:

"UNCLEAR =\= NUCLEAR".  (Read:  unclear does *not* equal nuclear.)


On the other hand, I suggest that  a salesman (for lack of a better
term) claims certainty:  investors/buyers want a pretty sure thing. 
To the salesman, the goal is not so much scientific truth (that's
pretty much a given, or he can bluff it), but rather "winning" is
the goal.  Anyone who stands in the way of his goal is considered
an enemy that can be attacked and discredited so that he can win. 
That's business.  

If the salesman can just get investors from the U.S. or Italy or
Japan, he's quite satisfied with the importance and relevance of
the new "field."  He is winning.  He is quite happy to heatedly
argue with scientists, not afraid of making personal attacks, quite
happy to point to the latest un-reproduced claim as proof that he
is "right" and the closed-minded scientists wrong.

If the scientists point out that reproducibility is missing, he
responds gleefully that this is an earmark of the new science.  If
the scientist demands that fundamental laws (like E=mc2) must
apply, he is quite happy to point out that experiments are
fundamental and E=mc2 might fall -- or quantum mechanics, or speed-
of-light constraints...nothing is 'sacred.'

I am aware that nouveau-science salespersons have bilked investors
out of many millions in "scientific" scams.  A scandal in Australia
involved claims of producing prodigious energy from fusion, and
recently resulted in loss to trusting investors of some $30
million.  Tens of thousands were wasted in this country on claims
of using chemical means to produce gold.

I have been asked to comment to investors on various energy-
schemes, cold fusion is one.  No, I cannot *prove* that it is
*impossible*, but I can say after years of experiments by myself
and others that there are no compelling evidences that useful
energy (nuclear or otherwise) will result -- after over $100
million dollars worth of efforts.  Still, EPRI is funding a multi-
million-dollar effort to pursue this further, using excellent x-
ray, neutron and other detectors, but with no correlations yet seen
between "excess heat" and x-rays or neutrons, etc.  Why not let
them finish this before investing another dollar?  

Why has not this latest work with better detection equipment (by
McKubre et al.) been able to show any connection between excess
heat and nuclear or other products?  If cold fusion is such a good
thing, then why has the U.S. Patent Office refused to grant even
one patent to it, out of the many applied for over the past five
years?

Furthermore, there are energy-research areas which truly are
promising; cold-fusion is not one of these.  Will a battery based
on palladium compete in the market place with existing power
sources?  Will anyone buy an expensive, tritium-producing water
heater for his home?  Will government regulations allow hydrino
generators -- what are the environmental and health consequences?

Yet the investors continue to hope for the big win -- from cold
fusion, or chemical means to make gold (or other precious metals),
or zero-point energy schems, or other ex-scientific claims.  A few
big names who say this *might* work, a few examples of historical
breakthroughs that were once poo-pah-ed, a bit of flattery from the
salesmen, and the money slips all too easily from the investors'
fingers.  Greed makes them easy prey to the nouveau-science
salesmen.

Then they watch their investment dollars slip away as promises go
unfulfilled, and as goals and claims are changed.  They are
dismayed as the illusion of certainty turns into the certainty of
illusion.  Perhaps they should have taken the independent research
scientists a bit more seriously after all...

--Steven E. Jones

P.S.  After writing this essay, I find that Jed Rothwell has
posted the following:

"I have credibility with people who matter, at places that count,
like Toyota,  [note:  Toyota funds P&F in the south of France...]
I would not seek or desire any credibility in this forum which is by and large
a collection of contemptible liars and Distinguished Crackpots.  - Jed"
[Rothwell post ]

Q.E.D.

cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenjonesse cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.07 /  jonesse@physc1 /  cancel <1994Mar7.145927.1448@physc1.byu.edu>
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cancel <1994Mar7.145927.1448@physc1.byu.edu>
Date: 7 Mar 94 15:31:52 -0700

cancel <1994Mar7.145927.1448@physc1.byu.edu>
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenjonesse cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.08 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Re: ... All gases aren't created equal
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: ... All gases aren't created equal
Date: Tue, 8 Mar 1994 01:16:34 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I think John Logajan has put his finger on a likely error for the Italian
Ni-H experiments.  If you try to do calorimetry by measuring a temperature
at one spot in a cell, then you are subject to all kinds of conduction, 
convection, and radiation coefficients changing.  In this case the conductivity
of the gas.  Good experimenters, (McKubre, Me) try to design their apparatus
so that these types of effects are ruled out by the design.  In my case, I am
currently trying to use two heat pipes so that I am measuring the temperature
difference (held to zero) between two isothermal (same temperature everywhere)
surfaces.  Now if I have a thermometer inside the cell, and its thermal 
properties to the inner isothermal cell change, it has no effect on the 
measurement.

Nice work John!  I remind you all that they used to use hydrogen gas as a 
coolant for large generators.  Possibly they still do, though I think they 
switched to He.

Let's see.  The italian device is converting D2 to He4.  This lowers the 
conductivity of the gas in the cell (He being a poorer conductor than D2).
This causes the electrode temperature to rise - looking like excess heat.  
(I always try to give Jed Rothwell something to quote out of context.  Makes 
him feel good.)

Tom Droege

cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenDROEGE cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.08 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Re: Who Was it in Chicago?
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Who Was it in Chicago?
Date: Tue, 8 Mar 1994 01:16:33 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Sorry Jed, there are no fleas on GB.  He outruns 'em.  But my brother Lee
does significant work.  Most recently gold plating the new heat pipe.  

Tom Droege

cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenDROEGE cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.07 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Tinsley goofs
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Tinsley goofs
Date: Mon, 7 Mar 94 11:06:02 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Tom Droege writes:
 
     "Jed Rothwell uses logic that I cannot follow when he tries to make
     Frank Close say things that he did not say."
 
He most certainly did say those things! I doubt he seriously meant them, but
here is what he said, in the exchange with Tinsley:
 
Tinsley: "- not that I accept that there really is 12.5keV of potential
     energy in a nickel atom's electrons .... not until I see the
     mathematics, I don't.  Would someone please calculate the energy
     released if all the electrons in an atom of nickel collapsed all the
     way, right down into the nucleus?"
 
Close: "To get orders of magnitude, use H+ to set the scale (13.6eV).
 
     The energy scales as charge**2: so the 1s electron bound to a Nickel
     ion (charge = 28) is 13.6eV*28*28 > 10keV. There are two electrons in
     this 1s shell which already dramatically exceeds 12.5keV."
 
 
Tom adds:
 
     "The problem with making this type of argument Jed, is that you loose
     credibility.  If you make too many nonsensical arguments..."
 
The nonsense is all coming from Close, who has proposed Yet Anther Crackpot
Theory to explain cold fusion. This field attracts crackpots the way a
flame attracts moths. I will grant that most of our crackpots are not in
the same class as the Distinguished Head of Theoretical Physics at
Rutherford-Appleton. I am a little to surprised to see such batty ideas
coming from such a staid place. As for my true credibility, it is inversely
proportional to the evaluation you will find here. Along the same lines, I
am delighted that Huizenga personally attacked me in the latest edition of
his book. I have credibility with people who matter, at places that count,
like Toyota, I would not seek or desire any credibility in this forum which
is by and large a collection of contemptible liars and Distinguished
Crackpots.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenjedrothwell cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.07 / Dick Jackson /  Re: Full power at boiloff
     
Originally-From: jackson@soldev.tti.com (Dick Jackson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Full power at boiloff
Date: Mon, 7 Mar 1994 16:12:59 GMT
Organization: Citicorp-TTI at Santa Monica (CA) by the Sea

In article <94030210411721@nscl00.nscl.msu.edu> blue@nscl00.nscl.msu.edu writes:
>Dick Jackson, in trying to resolve conflicting testimony concerning the
>Pons & Fleischmann boiloff measurements,  falls into the trap that many
>of us make in believing that there is a single question to be resolved.
>As Dick noted, Prof. Fleischmann did assert that even if the power supply
>had run clear to its voltage limit the power input could not have been
>sufficient to account for the boiloff.

I wrote what I hoped would be a constructive proposal for closing this
awful saga. I was merely trying to say that one or three replications
of purported "bad" experiments, where the replications would demonstrate
*quantitatively* the reported novel behavior and yet demand no new
physics, would effectively drive the wooden stake into the heart of
"cold fusion" calorimetry.

I totally agree that there are many cases of pathetically terrible
experimental technique. BUT! the believers are saying the novel effects
are so large that you don't have to have micro precisison to see them.
That's why, in my opinion, someone (a volunteer :-> ) would need
to replicate the awfulness and show that everything can be explained
without recourse to exotic phenomena.

I.e. its not going to be enough to merely list the deficiencies,
there has to be a numbers based expose'.

Dick Jackson
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenjackson cudfnDick cudlnJackson cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.07 / Richard Schultz /  Re: Tinsley goofs
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Tinsley goofs
Date: 7 Mar 1994 16:58:52 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley

In article <hC9ovvS.jedrothwell@delphi.com>,  <jedrothwell@delphi.com> wrote:
 
>This field attracts crackpots the way a flame attracts moths.

Truer words were never spoke.

					Richard Schultz
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.07 / John Cobb /  Re: Chen's book Vol II
     
Originally-From: johncobb@emx.cc.utexas.edu (John W. Cobb)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Chen's book Vol II
Date: 7 Mar 1994 10:48:57 -0600
Organization: The University of Texas - Austin

In article <1994Mar7.074841.27917@mksol.dseg.ti.com>,
arthur blair <blair@mksol.dseg.ti.com> wrote:
>The book "Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion" by Francis Chen, UCLA, has
>been recommended by many as a meaty introduction to conventional
>fusion. But it is split into 2 parts. Vol I is just Plasma physics and
>was written in 1984. Volume II, which was to cover fusion, has yet to be
>written! Anyone know if he still has plans to publish Vol II?
>
>Thanx,
>Art. 

I have never seen Vol. II, and I have never asked him whether it exists.
However, I believe that the division into 2 volumes is a change that occured
at the second edition. I have never seen the first edition, but it is my 
understanding that it included a long section of different approaches to fusion
that is not in the first volume of the second edition.

My suggesttion:

1) check books in print and look for volume II (maybe even look in different
years in case it is out of print)

2) Find a copy of the first edition and look at it.

-john .w cobb
-- 
 --------------------------------------------------------------
John W. Cobb	My posts don't reflect the views of my employer
                Because my posts are usually opaque.
 --------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenjohncobb cudfnJohn cudlnCobb cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.07 / Albert Chou /  Re: Chen's book Vol II
     
Originally-From: albert@cloudburst.seas.ucla.edu (Albert E. Chou)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Chen's book Vol II
Date: Mon, 7 Mar 1994 17:53:19 GMT
Organization: School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, UCLA

In article <2lfltpINNsal@emx.cc.utexas.edu> johncobb@emx.cc.utexas.edu
(John W. Cobb) writes:
>In article <1994Mar7.074841.27917@mksol.dseg.ti.com>,
>arthur blair <blair@mksol.dseg.ti.com> wrote:
>>The book "Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion" by Francis Chen, UCLA, has
>>...
>>fusion. But it is split into 2 parts. Vol I is just Plasma physics and
>>was written in 1984. Volume II, which was to cover fusion, has yet to be
>>written! Anyone know if he still has plans to publish Vol II?
>
>I have never seen Vol. II, and I have never asked him whether it exists.
>However, I believe that the division into 2 volumes is a change that occured
>at the second edition. I have never seen the first edition, but it is my 
>understanding that it included a long section of different approaches to fusion
>that is not in the first volume of the second edition.


As far as I know, volume 2 will never exist.  The only material that Frank ever
really prepared for it is in the last chapter of the first edition.  He's been
out of the fusion game for so long that I don't think he really cares much
about publishing vol. 2, which would either be very out of date or take
considerable work to bring up to date.

Al
-- 
Internet:  albert@seas.ucla.edu
GEnie:  A.Chou1
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenalbert cudfnAlbert cudlnChou cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.06 /  collins@jaguar /  Re: On Assignment of Dihydrino (cont)
     
Originally-From: collins@jaguar.csc.wsu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: On Assignment of Dihydrino (cont)
Date: 6 Mar 94 10:54:53 -0800
Organization: Washington State Univ.

In article <CM5BJv.8zw@world.std.com>, mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
> 
>  ... When 99% of the "physicists" said the sun circled the Earth,
> that was wrong too.    And when they tried to close the US Patent
> Office more then 100 years ago, claiming that all the inventions had
> already been invented, they were wrong as well.

Could cold-fusion be an exception to this rule?

> ... Actually if you read the postings - or better yet the original
> papers -  you will note that the ash is circa one third of the generated 
> heat, and not the 10^3 difference you incorrectly allege.
> Given the closeness between the generated ash and the 
> observed excess heat,  I would consider the linkage (discussed
> in previous postings) and measurement of near commensurate 
> amounts helium-4 to be telltale evidence of nuclear reactions.

Have I missed something, Mitchell?  Where have experimental results been
published indicating production of neutrons or 3He or 4He or protons at
levels consistent with watts of generated excess heat?  And have these
results been independently confirmed?
 
> ... The Mossbauer effect demonstrates that the nucleus
> IS coupled to the lattice [at least through the s orbitals] AND that
> nuclear energy levels can be influenced by orbital chemistry as a result. 

You don't need the Mossbauer effect to show that a nucleus in a crystal
is coupled to the lattice.  The fact that the nucleus just sits there
is a sufficient demonstration.
 
>  It also demonstrates that the lattice can couple, and effect,
> the emissions of a nucleus within that lattice.

What kind of coupling do you have in mind here?

>                        Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com)
-- 
Gary S. Collins, Physics, Washington State U.  (collins@cougar.csc.wsu.edu)
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudencollins cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.07 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Re: Mossbauer vis-a-vis cold-fusion (again)
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Mossbauer vis-a-vis cold-fusion (again)
Date: 7 Mar 94 12:18:47 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

In article <1994Mar5.042510.2123@midway.uchicago.edu>, 
gk00@ellis.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg) writes:
> In article <1994Mar4.180748.1441@physc1.byu.edu> 
> jonesse@physc1.byu.edu writes:
>>Profs. Blue and Schultz have both responded to Mitch on these points.  While
>>belaboring the effort to educate Mitch may be a waste of time,
> 
> Why do you say "may be"?

Good point, and exactly the point I'm making now by re-posting my post from 29
Nov. 1993.
> 
>>I will nevertheless try again, especially since others may benefit.
> 
> They would benefit more if you answered their questions instead of
> Mitch's.  What you say is just the standard Usenet euphemism
> for "I know I am wasting time, but it is too much fun to stop."

Here you are misunderstanding, evidently.  Blue and Schultz in Nov. 1993 had
responded to Mitch, and I was also providing answers at that time.  I'm quite
sure that I *have* answered "their" questions.  
As far as the words you put in my mouth, Greg, no, I don't own them.  I really
have been trying to benefit readers in this "college", as Tom Droege aptly
puts it.
--Steven Jones

cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenjonesse cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.07 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Re: Tinsley goofs
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Tinsley goofs
Date: 7 Mar 94 13:08:19 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

In article <940306165854.23e116ac@FNALD.FNAL.GOV>, DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:
> Jed Rothwell uses logic that I cannot follow when he tries to make Frank Close
> say thins that he did not say.  The porblem with making this type of argument
> Jed, is that you loose credibility.  If you make too many nonsensical arguments
> then your readers will assume all your arguments are phoney.  
> 
> Sorry, it is not a "no-lose" situation.  If we try to replicate each crazy 
> experimental claim then we have no time to do good work.  It is only the
> crazies like me that have no reputation and are near retirement that can 
> afford to look at things with such a low probability  of success.  
> 
> Tom Droege
> 

Bravo, Tom:  well said.
Frank made it clear that he did not subscribe to "exotic chemistry"
explanations for excess heat claims.  He was just pointing out, I understand,
the faulty logic in P&F's early (and oft-repeated) deduction that 
"the heat is so great it *must* be fusion."  (Since changed from 'fusion' to
'nuclear'.)

Also, Frank did *not* make the error of supposing that energy could come
from "the energy released if all the electrons in an atom of nickel collapsed
all the way, right down into the nucleus"  -- quoting Chris Tinsley in his
3 Mar 1994 note posted by Jed Rothwell.

Finally, if Frank wants to respond further to Jed and Chris, he may.   But
I agree with Tom that the arguments these gentlemen raise are nonsensical.

--Steven Jones

cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenjonesse cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.07 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Re: Answers on Mossbauer and energy transfer
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Answers on Mossbauer and energy transfer
Date: 7 Mar 94 16:24:19 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

In article <CM7Dys.9LG@world.std.com>, 
mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
>    In Message-ID: <1994Mar4.180748.1441@physc1.byu.edu>
> Subject: Mossbauer vis-a-vis cold-fusion (again)
> Steven Jones (jonesse@physc1.byu.edu) writes:
> 
> ==sj "The Mossbauer effect is again being called upon as justification for 
> ==sj cold fusion effects."
> 
>    Untrue.  It is a justification only for the application of the
> existence theorem, i.e. that nuclei are not necessarily
> isolated from the lattice. 

Wait-- do you agree that MeV-scale effects cannot couple to the lattice?
In particular, do you now agree that MeV-scale energy from a nuclear reaction
cannot "heat the lattice" without emission of an MeV-scale particle?
Really, I want an answer on this one.  Don't dodge it.  
  
> 
> ==sj  "For in Mossbauer effects,
> ==sj the photon carries essentially the energy,and
> ==sj  the lattice is not 'heated' to
> ==sj speak of.  (Momentum is shared, so the lighter particle gets the 
> ==sj  lion's share of the energy.) "
> 
>     Actually the photon energy, Egamma is modified by the momentum 
> (and hence energy) of the recoil to 
>          Egamma =  Eo -  [Eo^2/2Mc^2}  + doppler term (=Eo*v/c)

This does not disagree with what I said, actually.  The point is, the lattice
does *not* get the heat/energy.
> 
> 
> =sj  "The 'virtual' energy can travel a distance limited by the 
> =sj  uncertainty relation and the speed of light:
> =sj     r = ct = h-bar c/E  (approx.; not concerned about small factors here).
> =sj  Now, E is of order 1-10 MeV while h-bar*c = 197 MeV-fm. 
> =sj   Dividing, we find that
> =sj  the energy can only be transferred a distance of 
> =sj  about 10^-3 angstroms."
> 
>    A few problems with you purported distance over which
> energy can be transferred.
> 
>    First,  although your equation
>       r = c * t   is correct, why use uncertainty only for  t and E 
> but not r.      [as in delta-x*delta-p=h-bar]
> 

The two formulations are equivalent, but here I am calculating how far (r)
virtual particle(s) can go, based on the energy E released and speed of
light constraints.  See below.

>    Second, the uncertainty principle deals with uncertainty and
> not necessarily absolute values, as in
> delta-E*delta-t=h-bar.
>    For example the shape of  the gamma emission referred to 
> above is:
>                         tau*gamma= h-bar
> 
> where gamma is the width of the peak at half max, 
> and tau is the excited state lifetime.

Right; this agrees with my point -- do you understand it?

> 
>    Third, if you were correct with this equation, then it should
> be applicable elsewhere, right?

Yes, and it applies to sunlight-- your example below tells me you do not
understand what we are talking about --

>   Then let us assume an output just below an eV (like 
> some components of solar radiation).
> Plugging this energy into your equation, and determining
> r (the purported distance over which energy can be transferred 
> as limited by the uncertainty relation and the speed of light)
> yields
> 
>          r =   h-bar*c (=197 MeV-fm)/(ca. 1 eV) << 1 meter
> 
>   Is this not a prediction that the sun must appear dark from earth

Certainly not.  Hello?  Do you know *any* quantum mechanics?

> which is well well beyond the distance calculated
> (by ca.9,300,000,000,000%)?  Hold on, let's check.   ........   
> Nope.  It's still there.    ;-)
> 
>      Best wishes.
>                      Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com)

Where do we start with you?  The equation I used applies to *virtual* 
energy transfer, and indeed 1 eV cannot remain undetectable for more than
about a nanometer.  So that means that the 
photons which reach earth must be *real*
(as opposed to *virtual* photons).  That is the case, which is why we see the
sun.  It's all consistent when you understand the distinction between
virtual and real particles, and the uncertainty relation which allows
*undetectable* (virtual) energy transfer under restrictions expressed in the
equation I posted.

If you really want to learn about this stuff, suggest you read an introductory
text like Samuel Wong, _Introductory Nuclear Physics_:

"If the filed quantum exists only for a time t =< hbar/E,
where hbar is Planck's constant divided by 2 pi, we need not be concerned with
energy conservation.  Furthermore, since the particle exists only for a short
time, it cannot be observed directly.  For this reason the field quantum is
called a *virtual* particle. ...
"The distance a quantum can travel, and hence its range, is therefore r = ct,
where t is the amount of time the field quantum existed.  From the uncertainty
principle...we have the relation
r = ct = hbar*c/E."  (read:  approximately equals)

The last relation is the one I posted, the one you are asking about.

The bottom line:  nuclear (MeV-scale) effects cannot couple to the lattice,
i.e., giving "heat" to the lattice without ejection of an energetic particle,
just a Robert Heeter said.    Do you now agree?

--Steven Jones

cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenjonesse cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.07 /  jonesse@physc1 /  cancel <1994Mar7.161640.1451@physc1.byu.edu>
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cancel <1994Mar7.161640.1451@physc1.byu.edu>
Date: 7 Mar 94 16:25:00 -0700

cancel <1994Mar7.161640.1451@physc1.byu.edu>
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenjonesse cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.07 / mitchell swartz /  On "Deep Heat/Tinsley didnt goof
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: On "Deep Heat/Tinsley didnt goof
Subject: Deep Heat/Tinsley (didnt necessarily) goof
Date: Mon, 7 Mar 1994 23:11:40 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA


   In Message-ID: <9403071004.AA24588@suntan>
Subject: Deep Heat/Tinsley (didnt necessarily) goof
Frank Close (FEC@v2.rl.ac.uk) writes 

=fc  "3. The 1s electrons in Ni are bound with energies exceeding
=fc   10keV each.
=fc     (The 3d and 4s "outer" electrons are bound only by eV and 
=fc   are the ones    that are typically involved in "chemistry". "

  Because there is so much talk here about this,
and because SCIENCE RULES, here is a table with the
actual numbers I've calculated for the average energy needed to 
remove one electron from nickel in different orbitals (from the
atom in a neutral state).

 NOTA BENE     DISCLAIMERS: 

 -  I do not believe the explanations claimed but post
this data for future calculations.

 -  As an explanation for the cold fusion phenomena,
the sign is incorrect.   It takes energy to remove
these electrons, and therefore these scenarios are extremely
unlikely to  explain the phenomena.

  - Neutral atom.  The calculations assume a neutral atom.

  To derive the table, the one electron energies of free atoms
in Rydbergs (after Slater) is shown.  Using identities
of 1 rydberg ca. 13.52 eV  and 1 eV = 1.6 x 10-19 joules
yields the table below.  

  The columns are orbital type, electrons per orbital, Rydberg removal
energies for the neutral atom, calculated product to remove all e- 
in said orbital (to calculate the MAX
available), PROD(eV) and PROD(joules x 10^19).

  Also shown are eV/e- to compare with Frank's and others numbers.
 
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|orbital | # e- |Rydberg |PROD(Ryd|  eV/RYD  | PROD(eV) | eV/e-  |joule*10^19 |
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   1s   |  2   | 614.1  | 1228.2 |  13.53   |  16,618  |  8309  |   26621    |
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   2s   |  2   |  75.3  | 150.6  |  13.53   |  2,038   |  1019  |    3264    |
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   2p   |  6   |  63.7  | 382.2  |  13.53   |  5,171   |  862   |    8284    |
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   3s   |  2   |  8.7   |  17.4  |  13.53   |   235    |  118   |   377.1    |
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   3p   |  6   |  5.4   |  32.4  |  13.53   |   438    |   73   |   702.3    |
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   3d   |  8   |  0.73  |  5.84  |  13.53   |   79.0   |  9.9   |   126.6    |
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   4s   |  2   |  0.55  |  1.1   |  13.53   |   14.9   |  7.4   |    23.8    |
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|        |      |        |        |          |          |        |            |
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|  SUM   |  28  | 768.48 |1817.74 |          |  24,594  |        |   39,400   |
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
   That shows the 1s energy may not exceed 10keV as Frank says
but may (by this calculation anyway) be 8.3 keV.  

   The calculated first ionization potential (ca 7 eV) is also
close to the known first ionization potential (cf. von Hippel ibid.)

  Also the maximum energy available for nickel

     MAX(Ni) = circa 24 keV 

         in this most unlikely scenario.

  Hope that makes any future calculations easier.

   Best wishes.
                 Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com)
    
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.08 / mitchell swartz /  Re: Ash and Lattice Coupling (was 'On Assignment . Dihydrino .')
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Ash and Lattice Coupling (was 'On Assignment . Dihydrino .')
Subject: Re: On Assignment of Dihydrino (cont)
Date: Tue, 8 Mar 1994 00:07:49 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA


  In Message-ID: <1994Mar6.105453.1@jaguar.csc.wsu.edu>
Subject: Re: On Assignment of Dihydrino (cont)
Gary S. Collins (collins@cougar.csc.wsu.edu) writes:
 
  = >  ... When 99% of the "physicists" said the sun circled the Earth,
  = > that was wrong too.    And when they tried to close the US Patent
  = > Office more then 100 years ago, claiming that all the inventions had
  = > already been invented, they were wrong as well.

=gc  "Could cold-fusion be an exception to this rule?"

   Hi Gary.   Not a rule.  Just an observation.  


  = > ... Actually if you read the postings - or better yet the original
  = > papers -  you will note that the ash is circa one third of the generated 
  = > heat, and not the 10^3 difference you incorrectly allege.
  = > Given the closeness between the generated ash and the 
  = > observed excess heat,  I would consider the linkage (discussed
  = > in previous postings) and measurement of near commensurate 
  = > amounts helium-4 to be telltale evidence of nuclear reactions.

=gc  "Have I missed something, Mitchell?  Where have experimental results been
=gc  published indicating production of neutrons or 3He or 4He or protons at
=gc  levels consistent with watts of generated excess heat?  And have these
=gc  results been independently confirmed?"

  If you didn't follow ICCF-4 (the postings here were interesting
but hardly a thorough representation of the science and technology
delivered there)
you might easily have missed something.
To correct this I have sent (albeit by snail mail)
you a copy of the COLD FUSION TIMES 
(issue 4) which has more on this.   Hope that is OK.  I don't have
time to go into this at this time.

 
> ... The Mossbauer effect demonstrates that the nucleus
> IS coupled to the lattice [at least through the s orbitals] AND that
> nuclear energy levels can be influenced by orbital chemistry as a result. 

=gc  "You don't need the Mossbauer effect to show that a nucleus in a crystal
=gc  is coupled to the lattice.  The fact that the nucleus just sits there
=gc  is a sufficient demonstration."

   There is coupling and there is coupling.   I was speaking of 
effects upon nuclear energy levels from the lattice rather
then the nucleus simply affecting the lattice 

   Best wishes.
                       Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com)

cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.08 / Bill Page /  Re: Molten salt issues
     
Originally-From: 70047.3047@compuserve.com (Bill Page)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Molten salt issues
Date: Tue, 8 Mar 1994 02:28:29 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Thanks, Bruce, for posting information about your group's molten salt CF 
experiments and clarifying the terminology.  I think that your published 
results with Palladium/D- are extremely interesting because of the very 
large excess heat observed.  The probability of an error in calorimetry 
seems remote.  An obsrvation that excess heat is also apparently observed 
in nickel/H- would also be of great importance to any theory attempting to 
explain these results.  These experiments also greatly increase the 
credibility of CF in general because of the very different chemistry and 
thermodynamics compared to conventional electrolysis.

In my orginal post, I did mistakenly refer to the nickel anode as being at 
a negative potential and said incorrectly that absorption of Li+ by the Al 
"drove" the reactions..., however I do think I understand the essential 
details of the chemical reactions (even if my fingers don't!).  [Ah, 
another problem with email: you either get it right the first time, or 
you'll have to admit to "mis-speaking" the second time around in order to 
correct yourself... <sigh>.]  Your explanation, Bruce, was very clear.  
Thank you.

I wrote:
<<
Do you have any information or measurement on the number of H+ ions in the 
solution?  Is it possible that H+ as well as Li+ are being absorbed by the 
cathode?  Can you rule out the possibility that the excess heat might be 
coming from some reaction in the Aluminum?
>>

Bruce Liebert wrote:
<<
I suppose that it would be possible for Al to absorb *some* H-/D-, but the 
amount should be negligible due to the sign of the applied potential.  As a 
result, the aluminum cathode is not believed to be responsible for the 
temperature rise we observed with Pd/D.
>>

This time I really did mean H+/D+.  What I was thinking was that although 
the chemistry guarantees that a very large percentage of the 
hydrogen/deuterium ions will be present as H-/D-, it seems likely that some 
(small) percentage will be present as atomic hydrogen/deuterium as well as 
H+/D+ ions.  If H+/D+ were present, I presume that it would be absorbed at 
the Al cathode along with the Li+.

Now, excess heat observations in conventional electrolysis with Aluminum 
cathodes has been a favorite subject of mine for the last few months.  
There have been a very small number of published reports of anomolous 
CF-related observations in Al and I have done my own experiments in such 
systems.  Hence my interest.

I was wondering whether it might be possible that some of the excess heat 
observed could be due to a "CF" effect in the cathode.  In your experiments 
is it possible to independently measure the (surface) temperatures of the 
anode and cathode?  Also, have you done a post-run analysis of the cathode 
as well as the anode?  Are there reliable methods available to determine 
the Li+ and H+/D+ contaminants in the Al?

Cheers,

Bill Page.

cc. Bor Yann Liaw

cudkeys:
cuddy8 cuden3047 cudfnBill cudlnPage cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.07 / Joshua Levy /  Re: Italian Ni-H (was: (?) Jones on Fractofusion)
     
Originally-From: joshua@veritas.com (Joshua Levy)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Italian Ni-H (was: (?) Jones on Fractofusion)
Date: 7 Mar 1994 17:29:51 -0800
Organization: VERITAS Software Corp., Santa Clara  CA

Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@theory.pppl.gov> writes:
>>According to the paper, they only had a single Pt thermometer attached
>>to the sample rod.  Should be easy to fool it.

Jed replies:
>Should be? Very well, tell us how, please. Better yet, do an experiment
>and demonstrate how easy it is. 

This has already been done, and by a cold fusion researcher, no less.
To quote page 309 of BAD SCIENCE by Taubes:

   If Wadsworth [a CF researcher at the U of Utah] hadn't been so
   anxious to find evidence of fusion, he might have realized that
   he had a loose electrical connection that faked the computer into
   recording a temperature rise. ... Happer [member of the DOE/ERAB
   panel] and the three electochemists suggested that Wadsworth make
   his electronics redundant.  Thus, if one measuring devicde went 
   haywire, the other would sitll give the correct value.  ...
   (Wadsworth and Guruswamy [the grad student] made the necesary
   improvements and never saw another heat burst.  In the mean time,
   however, the University of Utal had applied for a patent...

>When you finish demonstrating that thermometers do not work, I suggest you
>contact all of the manufacturers of these instruments and tell them about
>your findings. 

There are two points:
1. If you have a single data gathering device, and it fails, you will never
   know.  Redundant electronics can prevent this sort of problem.
2. CF researchers would do well to read Taubes so they do not repeat the
   mistakes made by previous CF researchers.  The Italians could have 
   avoided their mistake by reading Taubes.

Joshua Levy <joshua@veritas.com>
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenjoshua cudfnJoshua cudlnLevy cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.08 / mitchell swartz /  Mossbauer vis-a-vis cold-fusion (again)
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Mossbauer vis-a-vis cold-fusion (again)
Subject: Re: Mossbauer vis-a-vis cold-fusion (again)
Date: Tue, 8 Mar 1994 01:08:23 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA


  Dear colleagues:

      In Message-ID: <1994Mar7.121847.1444@physc1.byu.edu>
Subject: Re: Mossbauer vis-a-vis cold-fusion (again)
Steven Jones (jonesse@physc1.byu.edu) sadly continues
to write further crackpot ad hominems.   It is a shame
that his gifted cortex and hippocampi can not assemble
word groups heralding a pursuit of pure truth and simple, 
albeit tedious, science.

   Facts to note:
   Where is the 1000 W/cm^3 (1989 level) reference or
proof Steve claimed he had?  Ignoring his
power/energy faux pas, Steven cited Frank's book which
unfortunately for his bogus case was complete enough
that it did contain within it sufficient data capable of
actually deriving the 1989 power levels reported.   
   Those power levels were a factor (circa) two
orders of magnitude less then Steven Jones assured
readers here.

    Where is the data which Steve referred to in publications
including iccf-4 and (without it ad nauseum) here?

    Where are the answers to the questions in response
to the SIX MISSIVES WHICH Steven Jones STARTED ON THE
SCIENCE OF COLD FUSION which he purported he 
professed?  I regret I spent wasted energy and time answering his
seemingly endless questions.

   Where is the response of Steven Jones to the Dr. Miles questions?

  At the present time, the likelihood of Steve's seriously
responding is less than, or on the order of,  the likelihood
of alien artifacts existing within our solar system.

      Best wishes.
                             Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com)




cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.07 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Re: Answers on Mossbauer and energy transfer
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Answers on Mossbauer and energy transfer
Date: 7 Mar 94 16:28:45 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

In article <CM7Dys.9LG@world.std.com>, 
mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
>    In Message-ID: <1994Mar4.180748.1441@physc1.byu.edu>
> Subject: Mossbauer vis-a-vis cold-fusion (again)
> Steven Jones (jonesse@physc1.byu.edu) writes:
> 
> ==sj "The Mossbauer effect is again being called upon as justification for 
> ==sj cold fusion effects."
> 
>    Untrue.  It is a justification only for the application of the
> existence theorem, i.e. that nuclei are not necessarily
> isolated from the lattice. 

Wait-- do you agree that MeV-scale effects cannot couple to the lattice?
In particular, do you now agree that MeV-scale energy from a nuclear reaction
cannot "heat the lattice" without emission of an MeV-scale particle?
Really, I want an answer on this one.  Don't dodge it.  
  
> 
> ==sj  "For in Mossbauer effects,
> ==sj the photon carries essentially the energy,and
> ==sj  the lattice is not 'heated' to
> ==sj speak of.  (Momentum is shared, so the lighter particle gets the 
> ==sj  lion's share of the energy.) "
> 
>     Actually the photon energy, Egamma is modified by the momentum 
> (and hence energy) of the recoil to 
>          Egamma =  Eo -  [Eo^2/2Mc^2}  + doppler term (=Eo*v/c)

This does not disagree with what I said, actually.  The point remains, the 
lattice does *not* get the heat/energy.
> 
> 
> =sj  "The 'virtual' energy can travel a distance limited by the 
> =sj  uncertainty relation and the speed of light:
> =sj     r = ct = h-bar c/E  (approx.; not concerned about small factors here).
> =sj  Now, E is of order 1-10 MeV while h-bar*c = 197 MeV-fm. 
> =sj   Dividing, we find that
> =sj  the energy can only be transferred a distance of 
> =sj  about 10^-3 angstroms."
> 
>    A few problems with you purported distance over which
> energy can be transferred.
> 
>    First,  although your equation
>       r = c * t   is correct, why use uncertainty only for  t and E 
> but not r.      [as in delta-x*delta-p=h-bar]
> 

The two formulations are equivalent, but here I am calculating how far (r)
virtual particle(s) can go, based on the energy E released and speed of
light constraints.  See below.

>    Second, the uncertainty principle deals with uncertainty and
> not necessarily absolute values, as in
> delta-E*delta-t=h-bar.
>    For example the shape of  the gamma emission referred to 
> above is:
>                         tau*gamma= h-bar
> 
> where gamma is the width of the peak at half max, 
> and tau is the excited state lifetime.

Right; this agrees with my point -- do you understand it?

> 
>    Third, if you were correct with this equation, then it should
> be applicable elsewhere, right?

Yes, and it applies to sunlight-- your example below tells me you do not
understand what we the equation says --

>   Then let us assume an output just below an eV (like 
> some components of solar radiation).
> Plugging this energy into your equation, and determining
> r (the purported distance over which energy can be transferred 
> as limited by the uncertainty relation and the speed of light)
> yields
> 
>          r =   h-bar*c (=197 MeV-fm)/(ca. 1 eV) << 1 meter
> 
>   Is this not a prediction that the sun must appear dark from earth

Certainly not.  Hello?  Do you know *any* quantum mechanics?

> which is well well beyond the distance calculated
> (by ca.9,300,000,000,000%)?  Hold on, let's check.   ........   
> Nope.  It's still there.    ;-)
> 
>      Best wishes.
>                      Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com)

Where do we start with you?  The equation I used applies to *virtual* 
energy transfer, and indeed 1 eV cannot remain undetectable for more than
about a nanometer.  So that means that the 
photons which reach earth must be *real*
(as opposed to *virtual* photons).  That is the case, which is why we see the
sun.  It's all consistent when you understand the distinction between
virtual and real particles, and the uncertainty relation which allows
*undetectable* (virtual) energy transfer under restrictions expressed in the
equation I posted.

If you really want to learn about this stuff, suggest you read an introductory
text like Samuel Wong, _Introductory Nuclear Physics_:

"If the field quantum exists only for a time t =< hbar/E,
where hbar is Planck's constant divided by 2 pi, we need not be concerned with
energy conservation.  Furthermore, since the particle exists only for a short
time, it cannot be observed directly.  For this reason the field quantum is
called a *virtual* particle. ...
"The distance a quantum can travel, and hence its range, is therefore r = ct,
where t is the amount of time the field quantum existed.  From the uncertainty
principle...we have the relation
r = ct = hbar*c/E."  (read:  approximately equals)

The last relation is the one I posted, the one you are asking about.

The bottom line:  nuclear (MeV-scale) effects cannot couple to the lattice,
i.e., giving "heat" to the lattice without ejection of an energetic particle,
just a Robert Heeter said.    Do you now agree?

--Steven Jones

cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenjonesse cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.07 /  jonesse@physc1 /  cancel <1994Mar7.162419.1452@physc1.byu.edu>
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cancel <1994Mar7.162419.1452@physc1.byu.edu>
Date: 7 Mar 94 16:29:33 -0700

cancel <1994Mar7.162419.1452@physc1.byu.edu>
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenjonesse cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.08 / mitchell swartz /  Steve cites "No Conservation of Energy" [was Mossbauer, energy transfer]
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Steve cites "No Conservation of Energy" [was Mossbauer, energy transfer]
Subject: Re: Answers on Mossbauer and energy transfer
Date: Tue, 8 Mar 1994 04:45:24 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA


   In Message-ID: <1994Mar7.162419.1452@physc1.byu.edu>
Subject: Re: Answers on Mossbauer and energy transfer
Steven Jones (jonesse@physc1.byu.edu) writes:

=sj  "Wait-- do you agree that MeV-scale effects cannot couple to the lattice?
=sj In particular,do you now agree that MeV-scale energy from a nuclear reaction
=sj  cannot "heat the lattice" without emission of an MeV-scale particle?
=sj  Really, I want an answer on this one.  Don't dodge it."

   Steve has dodged so many, we will await his honest response(s) first.
  

   =ms>     Actually the photon energy, Egamma is modified by the momentum 
   =ms> (and hence energy) of the recoil to 
   =ms>          Egamma =  Eo -  [Eo^2/2Mc^2}  + doppler term (=Eo*v/c)
=sj  "This does not disagree with what I said,actually.The point is, the lattice
=sj  does *not* get the heat/energy."

  Au contraire.  If Steve believed in conservation of energy (and I do)
then the lattice picks up:
                               Eo^2/2Mc^2 

  for this simple case.  
 The lattice therefore does get some heat/energy.  Right, Mr. Jones?
(or is the algebra wrong?)                       QED


   =ms>    For example the shape of  the gamma emission referred to 
   =ms> above is:
   =ms>                         tau*gamma= h-bar
   =ms > where gamma is the width of the peak at half max, 
   =ms > and tau is the excited state lifetime.
=sj   "Right; this agrees with my point -- do you understand it?"

  Steve, better then you realize, and apparently better than thou.
After all, you just quoted me and said you agree, right?


=sj  "Certainly not.  Hello?  Do you know *any* quantum mechanics?"

    Yes.  Do you?   Or are you locked into virtual alogic?


=sj  "If you really want to learn ....(names his cited text)  
=sj  ""If the filed quantum exists only for a time t =< hbar/E,
=sj where hbar is Planck's constant divided by 2 pi,
=sj we need not be concerned with energy conservation.""

  Steven decides to cite:
     "we need not be concerned with energy conservation"

   Apparently, Steve DOES NOT believe in energy conservation. 
Funny that - given his pompous continued attacks on Jed and others
claiming that they did not believe in "energy conservation".
Apparently, that was a projection.


As a corrollary and given the vague and continued reliance on
purported virtual arguements, it is no wonder that Steve has 
been unable to PROVE any of his (or some of the TB-skeptics) points. 

  
  =sw  "The distance a quantum can travel, and hence its range,
  =sw   is therefore r = ct,
  =sw  where t is the amount of time the field quantum existed.
  =sw   From the uncertainty
  =sw   principle...we have the relation
  =sw   r = ct = hbar*c/E."  (read:  approximately equals)
  =sw  [after Samuel Wong, _Introductory Nuclear Physics_:]
=sj  "The last relation is the one I posted, the one you are asking about."

   Yes, previously without attribution.    ;-)


  I thought Steve was serious, but have rediscovered that - 
given his reliance both upon virtual arguments and his claim that
conservation of energy does NOT apply -  we've been totally wasting 
our time.

    End of conversation.

               -  Utterly astonished,

                     Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com)

cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.08 / mitchell swartz /  Correction (again, sigh) to Steve on using % (instead of watts)
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Correction (again, sigh) to Steve on using % (instead of watts)
Subject: Re: Correction (again, sigh) to Mitch
Date: Tue, 8 Mar 1994 05:12:17 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA


  In Message-ID: <1994Mar7.144238.1447@physc1.byu.edu>
Subject: Re: Correction (again, sigh) to Mitch
Steven Jones (jonesse@physc1.byu.edu) writes:

   > ==sj  ""you stated, erroneously, in a recent post that we saw xs
   > ==sj  heat only when we passed oxygen through an H20/Ni electrolytic
   > ==sj  cell.  The fact is, the oxygen bubbling was a test to check whether
   > ==sj  the *apparent" xs heat would increase, actually due to H2 + 02
   > ==sj  recombination in the cell -- and the apparent xs heat did indeed
   > ==sj  go up."  
   >   That is untrue as Steve is well aware.  

=sj  "I am *not* aware that this is untrue.Admittedly, the discussion is an old
=sj  one, from Nov. 1993.  If you disagreed with something,
=sj   why did you not disagree then?"

  Steve changes the subject.   Why?
   Above Steve alleges that I "stated" that he  "saw xs heat only 
        when we passed oxygen through ...."             
   Where is it, Steve?   page 253 of Frank's book again?            
   


   =sj  "1) Jonathon Jones and I used both watts and %'s.
   =sj     ...
   =sj 3)I have provided such clarification several times to you, Mitch.
   =sj   Again when
   =sj  I reposted the Nov. 1993 post that answered that question.
   =sj  Briefly once more:  we saw apparent excess heat, up to about 250% under
   =sj  close-electrode spacing, *without* oxygen bubbling.With O2 bubbling, we
   =sj saw up to about 700% excess heat,as calculated by assuming no
   =sj recombination (as assumed by Miles, Mills, Notoya, etc.). " 

   Seems Steve does it again.  The units of watts are NOT USED.
  What are the power levels with and without O2?
  The %, which Steve touts, are irrelevant --  unless the
 systems are matched.           \/\/\/\/\/


=sj  "Our conclusion is that all workers need to measure for recombination, 
=sj  (or better, use recombiners in a closed system)
=sj  and not claim xs heat if they have not done so."

  How about you, Steve?   How much recombination did you have?  V,I,PO2
Each power level?  (not %, with and w/o  O2)  [What is good for the goose...]

                   -     Mitchell Swartz

cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.07 / Robert Heeter /  (Long) Possible sources of error in Italian NiH "power imbalance" measurements.
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: (Long) Possible sources of error in Italian NiH "power imbalance" measurements.
Date: Mon, 7 Mar 1994 14:40:22 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

This is a general followup to Jed Rothwell and John Logajan on the NiH
experimental
methodology.

In article <2l9r9e$hig@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> John Logajan,
al789@cleveland.Freenet.Edu writes:
>rfheeter@theory.pppl.gov (Robert F. Heeter) says:
>>According to the paper, they only had a single Pt thermometer attached
>>to the sample rod.  Should be easy to fool it.
>
>It's not clear from the paper just how many thermometers they had.
>Let me quote:
>
>"Figure 5 shows the values of the heater coil and the nickel rod
temperatures
>in the phase-space diagram (W,T) obtained for one cycle at 20W power 
>imbalance.  From that figure it can be immediately seen that in the
lower part
>of the curve there is a heat transfer from the coil to the nickel,
whereas
>in the upper one the process is reversed.  This gives evidence for an
>internal (to the nickel) heat source."
>
>This certainly implies more than one thermometer, as I can't see how they
>could make the above observations with only one thermometer.

It doesn't imply that there is more than one thermometer on the nickel
rod.
Furthermore, nowhere is there any documentation of what the alleged
thermometer
on the Pt heater might be, where it is located, or how it was calibrated.

In the battle of dueling quotations, we have the Italian authors'
description 
of the experimental setup:

"The reaction chamber is made of stainless steel of 50mm diameter and
100mm
length.  The heater, 1mm diameter platinum, forming 42 turns of 20mm
diameter,
is placed inside the chamber.  The chamber contains also either a nickel
cylinder or, alternatively, an appropriate dummy stainless steel rod, both
having 5mm diameter and 90mm length, which are placed in contact with a Pt
thermometer (Cryophysics Mod. PT 103)."

Furthermore, they describe their data-taking as:
"The values of the gas pressure, the heater current and the temperature
are
continuously monitored by a PC (Olidata PC486) operated data logger."

There is no mention of a thermometer on the heater coil.  Furthermore,
since they 
speak only of *the* temperature, it seems clear that there is only *one*
temperature 
being recorded.  Perhaps they infer the Pt wire temperature from the
heater current?
I don't know; the experiment is not sufficiently documented.  If they can
afford
a 486 PC data logger, and if the sample is 90 mm long, surely they should
have
been able to install multiple thermometers on the sample rods.  If so,
why is
this not documented?

At any rate, regardless of how they measured the heater coil temperature,
it *is* 
clear that there was only one Pt thermometer attached to the sample rod,
as 
I originally claimed.  And I claim that one might easily fool this single 
temperature sensor.  Specifically, I claim that, for the nickel sample,
there 
are circumstances in which the temperature read by the thermometer will
be 
higher than the "calibrated" temperature measured using a stainless steel
sample, 
for a given level of heater input power and a given gas pressure.  This
will 
result in apparent "excess power".

I will document this claim below.

Now, Jed Rothwell took exception to this claim, and I will respond to him
in a moment.  First I would like to provide the complete context of my
claim,
which he chose not to include in his post:

What I originally posted was:

In article <2l7i4f$t93@tom.pppl.gov> Robert F. Heeter,
rfheeter@theory.pppl.gov writes:
>In article <2l5o3k$rc4@network.ucsd.edu>,
>Matt Kennel <mbk%anl433.uucp@Germany.EU.net> wrote:
>>blue@nscl00.nscl.msu.edu wrote:
>>: Consider
>>: a simplified version of the experimental setup - a heat source of
>>: perhaps 50 watts in the form of a small metal rod hanging in the
middle
>>: of a chamber filled with hydrogen at a reduced pressure.  Ask yourself
>>: what heat transfer mechanism dominates, and then how stable it will
be.
>>
>>Turbulent convection.  Not very.
>
>According to the paper, they only had a single Pt thermometer attached
>to the sample rod.  Should be easy to fool it.

Actually, the Italian authors themselves write,
"The plot evidences the effect of the heat conduction of the gas on the
central
rod equilibrium temperature."  The data they provide show that it takes
4-7 times as much input power to achieve a given rod temperature when
there
is gas present, compared to when they have evacuated the chamber to the
best of their ability.

I would point out that the description "central rod equilibrium
temperature"
indicates that the Pt thermometer is located at the *center* of the sample
rod, at least for the stainless steel calibration run.  I assume they
kept the location of the thermometer roughly the same for the Ni
experiment...

At any rate, the context of unstable heat transfer from turbulent
convection matters.

The first part of Jed's response was:

In article <hM3J-u9.jedrothwell@delphi.com> , jedrothwell@delphi.com
writes:
>Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@theory.pppl.gov> writes:
> 
>>According to the paper, they only had a single Pt thermometer attached
>>to the sample rod.  Should be easy to fool it.
> 
>Should be? Very well, tell us how, please. Better yet, do an experiment
>and demonstrate how easy it is. Also, please explain why you can only
fool
>nickel rods, and not rods made of stainless steel.

While it is *not* my responsibility to eliminate suspected errors in their
experiment by redoing it myself, I can certainly point to suspected
sources
of error, which (according to the text of their paper) they did not even
attempt
to eliminate.  It is their responsibility to conduct their experimentation
in such a way that all conceivable sources of error have been eliminated,
and their results should document such elimination of errors, as well as
the claimed results.

I will present three different possibilities to show how, during an
experimental run with Ni, the temperature recorded by the Pt thermometer
can rise above the temperature it recorded earlier in the run, and also
how it can become elevated relative to the stainless steel calibration
run.

Given that the primary method of heat flow in the cell is turbulent motion
of the hydrogen gas (as deduced by Blue and Kennel, and as reported by
the authors themselves in their paper), and given that the sample is
*not* uniformly heated by the heater coil, it seems reasonable to suspect
that there will be temperature gradients along the sample, depending on
how the sample is heated and cooled in various locations.  The Italian
authors make *no* allowance for this, do not tell us the *exact* location
of the temperature sensor, and always speak only of *the* rod temperature.
The center of the rod should be heated more than the ends, both because
the ends have more exposed surface area for cooling, and because the
center sees a greater solid angle of hot Pt heater wire bombarding it 
with infrared.

Let us suppose that they raise the sample to a high temperature,
and start loading hydrogen into it.  In this case, it seems reasonable
to expect that the thermal conductivity of the sample may change,
particularly
the surface layer which conducts heat to the thermometer.  In this case,
it seems possible that heat will not flow as easily away from the center
of
the rod (where the thermometer is), and that the temperature at the
center may
rise.  The authors claim a temperature rise of some 40 degrees, from
440-480
degrees, which seems plausible for this scenario.  Note that the hydrogen
loading
was shown to increase with sample temperature, so that this
loading->decreased
thermal conductivity->increased temperature->increased loading will have
positive
feedback.

This is my primary candidate for something that could trick their
thermometer
into reading a temperature higher than it should, for a given level of
heater input
power.

However, let us suppose that the change in thermal conductivity alone is
not
sufficient to cause such a large change in temperature.  It is still
possible that
a smaller change in the the temperature will be reinforced by a change in
the 
convective heat flow patterns in the cell.  A slight change in
temperature gradients
can have major effects on the stability of such flow patterns.

There is a third, unrelated hypothesis.  Stainless steel is relatively
difficult
to oxidize, but the nickel sample would most likely have an oxide layer
built up
on it.  At high temperatures, this oxide layer will be baked off, and
result in
oxygen contamination in the cell.  The Pt thermometer, which is small
compared
to the nickel rod, and located right next to it, could certainly catalyze
oxidation
reactions from this evolved gas, which might lead to buildup of some kind
of crud
layer on the thermometer.  Since the thermometer is being heavily
irradiated 
by the heater coil, and since we do not know anything at all about the
convective 
gas flows in the cell, we can suspect that as a layer of oxidized crud
builds up 
on the surface of the thermometer, its thermal equilibrium with the rest
of the 
cell can be affected.  In particular, if the heat conductance between the 
thermometer and the cell is reduced, or if it becomes able to absorb more
of the 
infrared radiation from the heater coil, the Pt thermometer temperature
will rise.  
(This is analogous to the way black clothing will be heated more than
white clothing 
when placed in direct sunlight.)

For these reasons and others, I don't believe that the Pt thermometer
temperature
necessarily supports the claims of a power imbalance.  I did not see any
evidence
in the paper that they considered these possibilities, nor strove to
eliminate
such sources of error.

After challenging me to explain my "easy to fool the thermometry" claim,
Jed continues,
> 
>When you finish demonstrating that thermometers do not work, I suggest
you
>contact all of the manufacturers of these instruments and tell them about
>your findings. People have been using these instruments to measure the
>temperature of metals, and other materials, for decades. It will come as
>a nasty surprise to everyone when they hear from you that the technique
does
>not work. It is possible that you will be rewarded for your discovery by
the
>manufacturers, who will be anxious to correct the mistake that makes
their
>instruments "easy to fool."

I don't doubt that the thermometer reads the temperature of the
thermometer,
I just don't necessarily believe that the thermometer, used as it is in
this experiment, will accurately measure "excess power".  The technique
used by Piantelli, et al, is *not* your simple, standard thermometry;
it just looks like it at first glance.  The manufacturers can sleep
soundly.
But it looks like the excess heat researchers need to spend a few more
late
nights in the lab.

****************
Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Graduate Student, Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory
Disclaimers of all usual flavors apply.
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.07 / Robert Heeter /  TFTR/Fusion GIF images now available.
     
Originally-From: rfheeter@tucson.Princeton.EDU (Robert Franklin Heeter)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: TFTR/Fusion GIF images now available.
Date: Mon, 7 Mar 1994 15:23:22 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

I have assembled a set of seven 320x240 uuencoded GIF images
relating to TFTR/Fusion research.  Bijal C. Modi has created
a home for these on neutrino.nuc.berkeley.edu in the directory
/pub/Fusion, where the files are now available via anonymous FTP.
For those lacking anonymous FTP capability, I would be willing
to email the files, which range in size from 36-88 K.
The GIF format allows a comment to be attached to each image;
I have taken advantage of this and included brief descriptions
of what each image shows.  These images may be freely distributed,
so long as the comments are kept.

Here is the README file which goes with the images.

FusionGIFs.README

March 6, 1994
Fusion Energy GIFs created by Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@tom.pppl.gov.
(Acting strictly on my own; not for PPPL. I did get PPPL permission
to disseminate the Video News Release from which these images were
made.)

I'm not an expert, and I haven't had any practice at this, but 
here's what I was able to put together.

Contents of this file:
A.  List of images with brief descriptions.
B.  Summary of methodology used to generate images.

********
A.  List of images:
	1. TFTRControl.GIF - View of one side of the TFTR control room. 
	2. TFTRHiBay1.GIF - View of the Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor 
			in its high bay.
	3. TFTRHiBay2.GIF - Same as 1, but from a different angle.
	4. TFTRNBI.GIF - View of one of the neutral beam injectors with 
			TFTR in background. 
	5. TFTRNoPlasma.GIF - Camera shot of the inside of the TFTR torus.
			The plasma is too hot to be visible except at the edge.
	6. TFTRWithPlasma.GIF - Camera shot inside TFTR with plasma glow.
	7. TokaModel.GIF - Computer-Graphic model of a tokamak, showing
			torus, schematic of field coils, etc.

********
B.  Methodology:  I have a videotape put out by PPPL containing 
an official video news release and recordings of various televised 
news broadcasts from the TFTR high-power D-T shots in mid-December.
I used a VideoSpigot board to record segments of these videos in
QuickTime format on a Mac Quadra.  These images are 320x240, and 
approximately true-color, but the color balance is probably not
perfect.  (I had to tweak it a couple times; for instance Connie 
Chung looked green at one point.)  Interesting images were then 
saved as PICT files with Adobe Premiere.  GraphicConverter was 
then used to dither the 16-bit PICT files to 8-bit (256 colors), 
and then to convert the 8-bit PICTs to GIF images.  I then 
uuencoded the GIFs.

If anyone knows of a better method for converting quicktime stills 
to GIF, please let me know!

These were the most interesting images I found in the video
news release and associated television coverage.  I will keep
my eyes open for more interesting images...  (Any requests?)

For those who are interested, I also have a 17 MB, 4 minute,
160x120 Mac Quicktime recording of the entire PPPL video 
news release.

********
--Robert F. Heeter
rfheeter@tom.pppl.gov
Graduate Student, Princeton Plasma Physics Lab
Disclaimers Apply

cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Tue Mar  8 04:37:05 EST 1994
------------------------------
1994.03.07 / Robert Heeter /  Re: Tinsley goofs
     
Originally-From: rfheeter@tucson.Princeton.EDU (Robert Franklin Heeter)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Tinsley goofs
Date: Mon, 7 Mar 1994 17:20:07 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

In article <2lfmgc$je1@agate.berkeley.edu> schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu
(Richard Schultz) writes:
>In article <hC9ovvS.jedrothwell@delphi.com>,  <jedrothwell@delphi.com> wrote:

>>This field attracts crackpots the way a flame attracts moths.

>Truer words were never spoke.

Occasionally I tend to see it the other way - moths attracting flames.
At least on this group. :)

Robert F. Heeter

cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.08 / mitchell swartz /  On Scientists and Nouveau-science TB-skeptic Sales pitches
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: On Scientists and Nouveau-science TB-skeptic Sales pitches
Subject: Scientists and Nouveau-science Salesmen
Date: Tue, 8 Mar 1994 06:08:02 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <1994Mar7.153101.1449@physc1.byu.edu>
Subject: Scientists and Nouveau-science Salesmen
Steven Jones (jonesse@physc1.byu.edu)
Brigham Young University prints his sales pitch:

   [re:  Mel Miles of China Lake] 
=sj  "Absent are the earlier bold claims of "unambiguous" evidence."

  That remains not only untrue but furthermore will be analyzed in detail.

   1) What Dr. Miles actually wrote
   2) has the freq. of positive results decreased like Jones claims?
   3)  What Steve knew and when

   *****   1) what Miles wrote  *****
  Now for the paper in questions.  At the International 
Conference on Cold Fusion (ICCF-4) there were scores of 
confirmations of nuclear and thermal products created by 
several cold fusion phenomena. These confirmations ranged in 
numerous systems including heavy water (with and without 
lithium), D2 gas, and high voltage glow discharge systems.   
Many materials have now been successfully loaded with 
deuterium.   Melvin Miles and B. Bush, of the Chemistry 
Division, Research Department Naval Air Warfare  Center 
Weapons Division China Lake, CA spoke of demonstrating 
"ash" consistent with a nuclear process, where that ash is 
helium-4.  Their high caliber research demonstrated the 
linking of helium-4 with the excess heat.   Their paper "HEAT 
AND HELIUM MEASUREMENTS IN DEUTERATED 
PALLADIUM"   has the following important excerpts. 

 "Our previous results present a correlation between the 
measured excess poser and  helium production in D2O-LiOD 
electrolysis cells using palladium cathodes.  The  measured 
rate of 4He production (10^11-10^12 4He/s*W) is the correct 
magnitude for typical  deuteron fusion reactions that yield 
helium as a product.  *****   Metal flasks were used  to collect 
the electrolysis gas samples in order to minimize atmospheric 
contamination  due to helium diffusion through glass.  The 
helium concentrations in Table II support a  detection limit of 
approximately 10^l3 4He/500 mL in these experiments as 
reported  previously.  Mean values for the measured helium 
concentrations in these control  experiments are 4.4 +/-0.6 ppb 
or 5.1 +/-0.7 x 10^l3 4He/500 mL.   ...  For experiments 
producing excess power, five helium measurements using these 
same  metal flasks have been completed. These experiments 
yield a mean value of 2.0 +/-0.5 x  1011 4He/s*W after 
correcting for background levels of helium measured in control  
studies (Table II).  This value is once again the correct 
magnitude for typical deuteron  fusion reactions that yield 4He 
as a product. "


   ****   2) has the freq. of positive results decreased?   ***
=sj  "But in recent work, Mel admits that he is having trouble getting 
=sj  excess heat, certainly nothing like he thought he saw years ago. "

   Really?   Let's look at the data this salesman from Provo posts.
   Consider the data (after Miles et alia)
    [The 90-92 expts used Pyrex glass flasks.    The 93 expts used 
metal flasks and full consideration of atmostpheric contamination.]

  first experiments: 90-91     8 with excess enthalpy (i.e. +ve)
                               yield 10^11 to 10^12 helium-4/watt-sec
  first experiments: 90-91     6  negative yield no increase  (*)

  second experiments: 92       3 +ve with increased helium
                                ave: ca. 3 x 10^11   helium-4/watt-sec

  third experiments: 93       5 +ve with increased helium
                              ave: ca. 3 x 10^11   helium-4/watt-sec
  third experiments: 93       5  negative yield no increase (*)

   [All backgrounds were subtracted to derive the incremental helium-4 
production rate normalized to power.
     The helium in the metal flask set was reportedly examined by two 
additional labs (Rockwell and Bureau of Mines).
* - background in his null experiment is at the level of
4 parts per billion.   
   The increases are linked and ca. 12 sigma above background.]
Calculation of probability of results from random errors from all
combined experiments
                     circa   1/134,000,000]


   5 of 10,  6 of 14 are not statistically different.   One might expect
a variance of the sqrt of the number and there is thus overlap.

   CONCLUSION:
  This does NOT support the statement "(Miles) admits that he is having
trouble getting excess heat, certainly nothing like he thought he saw
 years ago."

  This is however reminiscent of Steven's 1000W/cm^3 1989 analysis
based upon the purported floor deformation (or whatever).
   -----> Much more talk then substance upon close inspection.   


   *****   3)  What Steve knew and when   ******
  Steven Jones may have received a manuscript from Dr. Miles weeks ago
in which Dr. Miles pointed out calorimetric errors in
the Cal Tech, MIT and Harwell publications which undermine their 
reports of "no excess power".

   However, notwithstanding the publications of the author,
the manuscripts, and the facts, Steven can continue to take statements
and turn them 180 degrees around.
    This shows ......           (not sure but it is not science)

  =sj  "Similarly, we find Russian researcher Kucherov at the Maui meeting
  =sj  saying, "After four years, I'm not so sure this is a nuclear
  =sj  effect."  

Do we?   Here are the actual excerpts from his abstract at ICCF-4.   
   Res ipse loquitur.

     ==kuch  "The results of four years of experimental work on
     ==kuch  glow discharge in deuterium with  cathodes made of 
     ==kuch palladium and other materials are presented.  About 
     ==kuch 500 experiments  were made. 
     ==kuch  ****
     ==kuch  Discharge current varied in 10-100mA and voltage 
     ==kuch in 100-500V range  *****  maximal measured excessive 
     ==kuch heat was about 30W and about 10KJ, about ten  
     ==kuch times the heat that could be produced in chemical reactions 
     ==kuch with existing deuterium and  up to five times the electric input.
     ==kuch      
     ==kuch   Excessive heat was observed in about 50% out of 78  
     ==kuch experiments in which calorimeter was used. 
     ==kuch   
     ==kuch    In different experiments heat production  was not 
     ==kuch correlated with neutron or gamma fluxes, but in a separate 
     ==kuch experiments it was.        ****     Neutron fluxes with 
     ==kuch intensity up to 107n/S were observed by activation of silver 
     ==kuch foil  3He-filled detectors and scintillation detectors. 
     ==kuch Neutron spectra showed neutron  energies up to 17MeV 
     ==kuch with anomalous shift to high energies (five orders) 
     ==kuch relative to d-d  reaction.  Gamma-spectrometry 
     ==kuch howed low level radioactive isotopes formation. 
     ==kuch Together with  half-life time measurements it allowed 
     ==kuch to identify some of the isotopes, such as Rh and  Sr isotopes. 
     ==kuch Most of the lines (~100) are still unidentified. 
     ==kuch Non-background gamma-lines  sometimes can be seen for 
     ==kuch few days.  Most of the gamma-lines appear in lower than  
     ==kuch 300KeV region.
     ==kuch   X-ray films outside the chamber with led  screens show some
     ==kuch  beam-like  spots with energy 100-200 KeV. 
     ==kuch    Charged particles registration with SSB and CR-39  
     ==kuch detectors showed good correlation of the results obtained 
     ==kuch by these methods. Maximal  observed fluxes of charged particles 
     ==kuch were ~106 S-1.
     ==kuch                   ***** 
     ==kuch  X-ray film with lead screens  showed X-ray fluxes up to 109  
     ==kuch s-1] with soft (<1KeV) and hard (10-30KeV) components.  
     ==kuch Sometimes characteristic X-rays of palladium can be seen 
     ==kuch with Ge-Li detector."
     ==kuch 
     ==kuch   [from "Calorimetric and Nuclear Products Measurements 
     ==kuch at Glow Discharge in  Deuterium"; Yan KUCHEROV, 
     ==kuch Alexander KARABUT, Irina SAVVATIMOVA Scientific  
     ==kuch industrial Association "Luch", Podolsk,  Moscow Region, 
     ==kuch Russian Federation (1993)]   

    Best wishes colleagues, 

            Mitchell Swartz  [mica@world.std]

cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.08 / John Logajan /  Re: Italian Ni-H (was: (?) Jones on Fractofusion)
     
Originally-From: al789@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Italian Ni-H (was: (?) Jones on Fractofusion)
Date: 8 Mar 1994 07:03:42 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)


joshua@veritas.com (Joshua Levy) says:
>2. CF researchers would do well to read Taubes so they do not repeat the
>   mistakes made by previous CF researchers.  The Italians could have 
>   avoided their mistake by reading Taubes.

There is clear evidence in Figure 5 that the Italians had at least two
thermometers during an "event."  One thermometer recorded the heater temp
and one recorded the Ni rod temp.  During the input power up sweep the
two temps track, with the heater temp leading the rod by a few degrees.
Then after the anomalous effect kicks in, the input power is swept down
and the heater temp again leads (is cooler) the rod temp by 10 C.

And now for a spiritual reading from Taubes 3:14 ...  :-)

-- 
-- John Logajan ---  al789@cleveland.freenet.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenal789 cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.08 / John Logajan /  Re: (Long) Possible sources of error in Italian NiH "power
     
Originally-From: al789@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: (Long) Possible sources of error in Italian NiH "power
imbalance" measurements.
Date: 8 Mar 1994 07:34:39 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)


rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu (Robert F. Heeter) says:
>Furthermore, nowhere is there any documentation of what the alleged
>thermometer on the Pt heater might be, where it is located, or how it was
>calibrated.

The upsweep of input power of figure 5 represents a "calibration" period.
The two temps track with the expected lead/lag of a few degrees.  The two
temps are in significant agreement.

>Perhaps they infer the Pt wire temperature from the heater current?

That would require knowledge of the transfer characteristics between the
coil and the rod -- which could only come from empirical measurements -- i.e.
two thermometers.  The graphed heater temp is not confined to the "null"
calibration slope, and therefore, cannot be inferred from the input power.

>At any rate, the context of unstable heat transfer from turbulent
>convection matters.

Figure 3 is useful in observing the "turbulent" heat transfer.  Over the 
period of 300 minutes the thermal "noise" is on the order of +or- 2 C.
The anomalous temp is 40 C higher than the 435 C "null" temp.

The signal is well out of the noise in figure 3.  Where is the turbulence?

>sources of error, which (according to the text of their paper) they did not
>even attempt to eliminate.

Ouch.  Leaping a bit, aren't we?

>convective heat flow patterns in the cell.  A slight change in temperature
>gradients can have major effects on the stability of such flow patterns.

Higher temps ought to increase convective flow rates, reducing the core
temp rather than increasing it.

-- 
-- John Logajan ---  al789@cleveland.freenet.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenal789 cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.08 / Dieter Britz /  CNF bibliography; recent updates and archive retrieval, Mar-94. Pt.I
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CNF bibliography; recent updates and archive retrieval, Mar-94. Pt.I
Date: Tue, 8 Mar 1994 09:05:15 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway


{Hello,
as you know, I had trouble last Friday posting the latest Update. Noo=
ne seems
to know why it got hacked up, and cut off long before the end. Scott =
Hazen,
who runs the Digest, suggests that I post it to the zorch-address, wh=
ich I am
doing here. Also, I have a suspicion that it might have been too long=
 at about
23 kb, so I am posting it in two parts, this being part 1, containing=
 all the
journal papers. The rest will follow in another posting. I hope it ge=
ts
through OK this time.=20

The other problem I had, with archiving the file 'cnf-new' (containin=
g all=20
additions from January this year), is not solved yet. I can archive a=
ll other
files, and have archived that same file previously, but now I get rej=
ected.
This, too, is being worked on, and presumably I'll soon be putting th=
at file=20
in.}

Current count:
-------------
  8 books
880 papers
135 patents
211 comment items
 81 peripherals
 19 conf-procs
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^=
^^^^^^^^^

#
Dong Q, Qiu W, Gan F, Cai N;
Chem. J. Chin. Univ 13(6) (1992) 847 (in Chinese, English abstract).
"Studies on behavior of deuterium and hydrogen in palladium".
** "The absorption, reserve, diffusion of deuterium and hydrogen in p=
alladium,
and the positron lifetime of palladium during electrolysis are invest=
igated by
hydrogen permeation method and positron annihilation spectroscopy. Th=
e results
show that the electrochemical behavior of deuterium is almost the sam=
e as that
of hydrogen, but the amount of deuterium reserved in palladium is sli=
ghtly
less than that of hydrogen and the diffusion coefficient of deuterium=
 is
slightly greater than that of hydrogen. The positron lifetime in pall=
adium
after electrolysis is increased by 10.5%. The behavior similarity of =
deuterium
and hydrogen and the possibility of 'cold nuclear fusion' are discuss=
ed". The
same authors have published an English-language paper in the same yea=
r (see:
Qiu WC, Dong QH, Gan FX, Wang SJ; Mat. Sci. Forum 105-110 (1992) 1961=
.), in
which they state that they not able to draw conclusions about cold fu=
sion from
the results.=20
#..................................................................17=
-Feb-94
Fedorovich GV;   Fusion Technology 24 (1993) 288.
"A possible way to nuclear fusion in solids".
** Once again, the author proposes his E-cell theory, and an experime=
nt to
test it. E-cells are radiation defects in certain low atomic weight e=
lement
(Li, Be, B) hydrides/deuterides, and fission events, caused by neutro=
n
capture, start an E-cell.  Within it, extremely high electron densiti=
es
(10^24/cm^3) hold and this can act as a Coulomb shield for fusion. Al=
so,
crystalline lattice forces can be focussed up to hundreds of eV and r=
educe
internuclear distances to 10^-9 cm, resulting in a measurable hydroge=
n fusion
rate. An experiment is suggested, in which a sample is compressed in =
a diamond
anvil to some Mbar, and a neutron beam aimed at it to stimulate fusio=
n. "The
further is the matter of experimental physics".  Feb-92/Nov-93=20
#.............................................................. 27-Fe=
b-94
Fox H;  Fusion Technol. 24 (1993) 347.
"Comments on 'Experiments of one-point cold fusion'".
** Polemic on a paper by T. Matsumoto. It has been shown in a US pate=
nt that
under the conditions described by Matsumoto, electron beads can form,=
 and
Matsumoto has inadvertently formed high-energy clusters as taught by =
that
patent. The clusters have 10^8 to 10^12 electrons. Fox suggests that =
Matsumoto
place a radio receiver near his cell and listen to noises like that o=
f a
lightning strike from these clusters. These can accelerate deuterons =
and
induce fusion by locally swamping the Coulomb barrier!  Feb-93/Dec-93=
=20
#................................................................ 2-M=
ar-94
Kaliev KA, Baraboshkin AN, Samgin AL, Golikov EG, Shalyapin AL, Andre=
ev VS,=20
Golubnichii PI; Dokl. Akad. Nauk 330(2) (1993) 214 (in Russian).
"Reproducible nuclear reactions by interaction of deuterium with tung=
sten=20
oxide bronze".
** The authors note that reproducibility is a major problem in cold f=
usion=20
work. Here, they use a novel material, for which they have their own =
technique
for growing single crystals of, and an electrochemical method for ext=
racting
sodium out of. This is tungsten bronze with the general formula Na(x)=
WO4, i.e.
a range of different stoichiometries. The material had Na removed fro=
m it and
replaced by deuterium. This was kept in an evacuated chamber and 500-=
1000 V
applied between it and an opposing cathode, for several hours, passin=
g in all
0.1-1 Coulombs. Neutron emissions were measured with two blocks of fo=
ur SNM-42
detectors and paraffin moderating blocks. As well, the sample's tempe=
rature
was monitored throughout. After switching off the current, the crysta=
ls were
brought to room temp. and D2 or H2 gas introduced, still monitoring f=
or=20
neutrons. Results showed that there was a greater temp. rise when int=
roducing=20
D2 gas than for H2 gas, and a correspondingly greater neutron flux fo=
r D2, so
the process is definitely nuclear. In the acknowledgements, one M. Ra=
mbo is
thanked for discussions of the results.              Feb-93/?
#....................................................................=
17-Feb-94
Kawarabayashi J, Takahashi H, Iguchi T, Nakazawa M;
J. Facul. Eng., Univ. Tokyo B 41 (1992) 595.
"Low level neutron detection system for cold-fusion".
** A new neutron detector is described, using a new digital waveform =
analysis
technique in order to suppress noise and to resolve bursts of pile-up=
. High
sensitivity 3-He detectors were used to catch neutrons (8 set around =
the
detection space) optimally. Pulse height and wave for analysis comple=
tes the
setup. The lowest observable neutron rate was 0.022 n/s. This was tes=
ted in a
mixture of heavy and light water, irrradiated by a gamma ray source (=
24Na) and
the count rate found to be linear with heavy water concentration, as =
required.
It works.   Apr-92/?=20
#................................................................ 27-=
Feb-94
Lihn CJ, Wan CC, Wan CM, Perng TP; Fusion Technol. 24 (1993) 324.
"The influence of deposits on palladium cathodes in D2O electrolysis"=

cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.08 / Dieter Britz /  CNF bibliography; recent updates and archive retrieval, Mar-94. Pt.II
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CNF bibliography; recent updates and archive retrieval, Mar-94. Pt.II
Date: Tue, 8 Mar 1994 09:09:22 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway


{Here is the remainder of the whole posting, Part 2.}

Patents:
^^^^^^^
#
none
# 

Comments:
^^^^^^^^
#
none
# 

Conferences:
^^^^^^^^^^^

#
none
#


Peripherals:
^^^^^^^^^^^

#
Jaksic MM, Johansen B, Tunold R;  Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 19 (1994) 35.
"Electrochemical behaviour of rhodium in alkaline and acidic solutions of
heavy and regular water"
** Cold fusion suggests investigation of other transition metals'
electrochemical behaviour, in particular Rh, which is quite similar to Pd.
Jaksic, an expert in isotope separation, and the other authors here report an
extensive study of this metal in various electrolytes, using cyclic
voltammetry. It is found that Rh absorbs large amounts of hydrogen and
deuterium from alkaline and acidic solution; there are other findings. 
#................................................................ 2-Mar-94
Moore GA; Trans. Electrochem. Soc. 75 (1939) 237.
"The comportment of the palladium-hydrogen system toward alternating electric
current".
** Moore measured the impedance spectrum of some Pd wires electrolytically
hydrated, in order to get an idea of the form of hydrogen in the metal. From
certain experimental observations, it seemed that conduction in PdH is carried
in part by ionised hydrogen in cracks and voids, and the impedance might throw
light on this. Results bear this out, so it appears that there is ionised
hydrogen in rifts and voids, carrying a large part of the current. Thus, the
hydride does not obey Ohm's law. One sample of hydrogen-loaded Pd wire had
been kept for 11 years, and was found to be still loaded with about 270
volumes of hydrogen. Moore is interested in the very high electrical capacity
in the metal hydride, but this is parallel with a conductance and so not
useful as a capacitor.
#.................................................................. 18-Feb-94
Szpak S, Mosier-Boss PA, Gabriel CJ;  J. Electroanal. Chem. 365 (1994) 275.
"Absorption of deuterium in palladium rods: model vs. experiment".
** Investigation by Riley of the dynamics of charging of Pd with hydrogen, and
comparing with the present authors' model gave agreement. Here, the same
authors refine their charging model on the basis of Riley's results. 
#................................................................ 2-Mar-94


Books
^^^^^
#
none
# 

Retrieval of the archived files:
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. By anonymous FTP from vm1.nodak.edu (134.129.111.1).  Login anonymous, with
   your e-mail address as the password. Type CD FUSION, DIR FUSION.CNF* to get
   a listing. The general index is large. Use GET (ie. GET FUSION.CNF-PAP1).
2. Via LISTSERV. You get a (large) index of the archives by sending an email
   to listserv@vm1.nodak.edu, with a blank SUBJECT line, and the "message" 
   'index fusion'. To get any one of these files, you then send to the same
   address the message, e.g., 
   get fusion 91-00487
   get fusion cnf-pap1                    etc, according to what you're after.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The bib-files are: cnf-bks (books), cnf-pap1..cnf-pap6 (papers, slices 1..6),
cnf-pat (patents), cnf-cmnt (comments), cnf-peri (peripherals), cnf-unp
(unpublished stuff collected by Vince Cate, hydrogen/metal references from
Terry Bollinger). There is also the file cnf-brif, which has all the -pap*
file references without annotations, all in one file (so far); and cnf-new,
with the last month's or so new items in all biblio files.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: It appears that you can GET only 512 kb on any one day, so it might take
you a couple of days to get the whole pap file; each cnf-pap slice is about
150 kb long.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
==============================================================================

cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.08 / Mike Thornburg /  Re: Deep Heat/Tinsley (didnt necessarily) goof
     
Originally-From: mthorn@lunacity.com (Mike Thornburg)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Deep Heat/Tinsley (didnt necessarily) goof
Date: Tue, 08 Mar 94 01:38:31 PST
Organization: LunaCity BBS - (Clan Zen Relay Network) Mountain View, CA

FEC@v2.rl.ac.uk (Frank Close) writes:

> Problems are to invent a sensible mechanism whereby the storage lasts
> for many hours rather than a fraction of a second; why the 10keV energy
> release is not accompanied by X-rays; why a long period of gradual
> energy supply should release the deep bound electrons and why the traditional
> and well understood chemistry (sic) of the Ni hydrogen system has been 
> overridden.These are some of the reasons why I regard it as tongue in cheek.
> 

There is a well-known mechanism for releasing the energy of an
inner-shell hole without the emission of electromagnetic radiation:
Auger emission.  Surface scientists have used Auger electron
spectroscopy for more than 20 years.  For reasons given below,
this process won't be important for holes in the Ni 1s shell, but
it can be important for holes in intermediate shells in Ni or in some
shells of other elements.
 
Auger emission occurs when two outer shell (or in the case of a
bulk metal, conduction band) electrons couple to the hole and to
each other.  One jumps down to fill the hole while the other receives
the energy released when the hole is filled and is emitted with a
kinetic energy that is characteristic of the three orbitals involved;
no intermediate X-ray is emitted or adsorbed.  The characteristic
energy of the emitted electron identifies the element for chemical
analysis.
 
Any good text on surface science techniques should describe this
process; one place to find a description is: Ertl and Kueppers,
"Low Energy Electrons and Surface Chemistry", Verlag Chemie,
ISBN 3-527-25562-1 (this book is outdated as a general text, but
has a decent discussion of the Auger process.)
 
The Auger process competes with X-ray emission, and for energies
below about 2keV is the more important of the two processes.  At 100
to 500eV more than 90% of the holes may decay by Auger emission.
At 10keV, however, almost all the decays should be by X-ray emission.
 
Since the Auger proces is an additional, independent decay mode,
it makes the storage lifetime problem even worse.  I also don't
think it offers any way around most of the other problems Frank
Close has with the concept of chemical reactions that can produce
keV per atom energies.  It just offers a way to cut down on the
amount of X-rays in a limited number of cases.
 

 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just a thought from Mike Thornburg -> (mthorn@lunacity.com)
LunaCity BBS - Mountain View, CA - 415 968 8140
cudkeys:
cuddy08 cudenmthorn cudfnMike cudlnThornburg cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.09 / Bill Page /  Re: ICCF-4 Vigier's Theory (part 2)
     
Originally-From: 70047.3047@compuserve.com (Bill Page)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: ICCF-4 Vigier's Theory (part 2)
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 1994 01:12:44 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Dear Mike Thornburg,

You wrote:
<<
I have just started reading the discussion of Vigier's theory in 
sci.physics.fusion and have only gotten to part 2 of your posts, but I have 
already found a major conceptual flaw in his derivation.

In the discussion just before and after equation [10] in part 2, you refer 
to combining the spin and orbital angular momenta and representing the 
results in terms of the spherical harmonics Yml(theta, phi).  It is a 
well-known result in quantum mechanics that the spherical harmonics can 
only represent integral values of angular momenta, whereas the spin angular 
momentum has half-integral values here, and *cannot be represented by a 
function of spacial coordinates and momenta*--i.e., a function of the form 
psi(r). The same problem applies to a combination of spin and orbital 
angular momenta.  (See the discussion of angular momentum in section 27 of 
Schiff, "Quantum Mechanics" 3rd edition, McGraw-Hill, 1968, and the 
discussion of how to include spin coordinates in section 40 of the same 
work.)

I haven't read much further in your description of the paper, but just 
glancing at the form of the equations seems to indicate that the treatment 
of the spin-spin and spin-orbit interactions in the rest of the derivation 
is invalid. ...
>>

Thanks for the question.

I do agree that in principle Vigier's treatment of the hydrogen atom with 
spin degrees of freedom does not represent the most general approach.  
Vigier is in fact assuming that the hydrogen atom is in a very special 
state.

In the paper when introducing the concept of spin-spin and spin-orbit 
interactins, Vigier writes:

"Usually neglected, they manifest themselves when [the vectors] L, M1, and 
M2 are oriented (parallel) by internal electromagnetic interactions when H 
and D are in various electrodes."

L is the orbital angular momentum and M1 and M2 are the magnetic moments of 
the proton and electron.

Although I haven't used Schiff as a reference [There are so many books on 
QM it is hard to know which one's deserve a place on the bookshelf next to 
my desk.  But Schiff is so often referenced that perhaps I'll have to 
include it in my next trip to the book store.], I think I understand your 
point.  Since the hydrogen system includes two spin 1/2 particles a 
complete and general treatment would have to include four spin states in 
addition to the spatial coordinates.

The Cl eigenvalues introduced by Vigier are intended to represent the 
special case of spin alignments that he is assuming.  The more general 
treatment would be necessary if we were trying to describe how (or if) the 
hydrogen atom can come to be in such a state.

I would realy appreciate it if you would post the equation that you think 
should be used for this general case.

Cheers,

Bill Page.

cc. Fusion Digest.

cudkeys:
cuddy9 cuden3047 cudfnBill cudlnPage cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.09 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Re: SL: Jones Sees the Light (barely)
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: SL: Jones Sees the Light (barely)
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 1994 01:12:48 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Daryl Owen suggests using very fine grains of palladium or titanium.

**Watch Out**  Mostly I laugh at MSDS's but I remember that very fine grains
of palladium are listed as dangerous on it's MSDS.  The reason is that they
catalyze anything in sight.  So get some in the air, and anything that can 
burn will burn!

Tom Droege

cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenDROEGE cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.09 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Italian experiment
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Italian experiment
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 1994 01:12:53 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Thanks to robert F. Heeter for a nice discussion of how the Italian 
calorimetry could be fooled.  It saves me writing a similar piece.  

To do good calorimetry, you have to figure out where to put the thermometer. 
For all the reasons Heeter mentioned, and a lot more, it is hard to find a 
place to locate it.  A heat pipe would help for any of these experiments.  

Better still, is to have zero temperature difference between the inside and 
the outside of the calorimeter.  Then you can measure the power directly by 
electrically measuring the power in and the power out of the calorimeter
enclosure.  

Tom Droege

cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenDROEGE cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.08 / John Logajan /  Retraction -- Re: Italian Ni-H -- All gases aren't created equal.
     
Originally-From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Retraction -- Re: Italian Ni-H -- All gases aren't created equal.
Date: Tue, 8 Mar 94 02:36:20 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

I wrote:
>Swinging from predominently H2 to predominently N2/O2 would swing the constant
>most of the way across the 7:1 range.  Lesser ratio changes would swing it
>across a smaller range.

I now have copies of the graphs and figures accompanying the Italian results
and figure 3 of those graphs gives evidence that tends to negate the
possibility of atmospheric contamination causing calibration drift.

Figure 3 shows an apparent operator induced increase in the H2 chamber pressure
from 300 mBar to 550 mBar, over the course of 5 minutes or so.  Simultaneously
the temperature of the Ni rod rises from about 435 C to 475 C -- no mention
is made of increasing the heater power at this time, my assumption is they
didn't since they say, "the gas absorption was accompanied by a strong rise
of the rod temperature standing high for such a long time, to render the heat
production involved incompatible with any classical theory."

Over the course of 20 minutes, the chamber pressure then declines from 550
mBar to 500 mBar, but the temperature only declines 5 C.  This 50 mBar pressure
decline is apparently due to the Ni rod absorbing H2.  They say, "The typical
amount of gas loaded in each loading step is of the order 0.051atm at 400k."
The temperature and pressure remain relatively constant thereafter (300
minutes) at 470 C and 450 mBar with noise like spikes in the temp +or- 2C,
and +or- 10 mBar in the pressure.

Since this absorbtion is the H2 depleting mechanism proposed in my previous
post, and since there is no commensurate *increase* in the temperature, my
atmospheric contamination theory is not operating.

Furthermore, since the H2 pressure is increased to initiate the anomalous
heat, my even earlier post worrying about ultralow pressure false calibration
is likewise refuted.

It interesting that this 250 mBar pressure "step" (from 300 mBar to 550 mBar)
at 435 C seems to initiate a 20W anomalous heat.  Unless there are some
secrets not even hinted at in this Italian paper -- it seems like they are
giving all the apparent conditions upon which to replicate.

-- 
-John Logajan MS614; Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
-logajan@network.com, 612-391-1159, Fax 612-424-2853
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.08 / Richard Schultz /  Re: On Assignment of Dihydrino (cont)
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: On Assignment of Dihydrino (cont)
Date: 8 Mar 1994 16:34:24 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley

In article <CM5BJv.8zw@world.std.com>,
mitchell swartz <mica@world.std.com> wrote:

>  . . .When 99% of the "physicists" said the sun circled the Earth,
>that was wrong too.    And when they tried to close the US Patent
>Office more then 100 years ago, claiming that all the inventions had
>already been invented, they were wrong as well.

Since Mr. Swartz puts "physicists" in quotation marks, it is not clear to me
exactly what he means.  If he means people who practice physics in something
approaching its modern sense, than that doesn't go back much past Galileo, and
there was never any time when 99% of the "physicists" said the sun circled the
earth.  If he has some broader meaning, I'd be interested in knowing who,
prior to Copernicus, Swartz considers a "physicist".  I personally would not
be inclined even to call Copernicus a physicist, since his reasons for the
heliocentric model weren't scientific ones, and he had to fudge his data in
order to make his predictions even as accurate as Ptolemy's.

I'd also be interested in seeing documentation that anyone ever tried to close
the Patent Office.  There is a famous story about someone who *resigned* from
the Patent Office in the 19th century, claiming that everything had been
invented.

					Richard Schultz
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.08 / Richard Schultz /  Re: Steve cites "No Conservation of Energy" [was Mossbauer, energy transfer]
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Steve cites "No Conservation of Energy" [was Mossbauer, energy transfer]
Date: 8 Mar 1994 16:36:55 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley

In article <CMBx7p.C37@world.std.com>,
mitchell swartz <mica@world.std.com> wrote:

>  I thought Steve was serious, but have rediscovered that - 
>given his reliance both upon virtual arguments and his claim that
>conservation of energy does NOT apply -  we've been totally wasting 
>our time.

In other words, you don't know the difference between a real photon and
a virtual photon after all.

					Richard Schultz
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.08 / Greg Kuperberg /  Re: Steve cites "No Conservation of Energy"
     
Originally-From: gk00@ellis.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Steve cites "No Conservation of Energy"
Date: Tue, 8 Mar 1994 16:55:12 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

In article <CMBx7p.C37@world.std.com> mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
>   Apparently, Steve DOES NOT believe in energy conservation. 
>Funny that - given his pompous continued attacks on Jed and others
>claiming that they did not believe in "energy conservation".

Yeah, Steve, why are you so pompous?  Who are you to claim that
temporary violations of energy conservation are allowed by the
uncertainty principle?

>As a corrollary and given the vague and continued reliance on
>purported virtual arguements, it is no wonder that Steve has 
>been unable to PROVE any of his (or some of the TB-skeptics) points. 

Yeah, Steve, where is the proof that there is no water heater?

>  I thought Steve was serious, but have rediscovered that - 
>given his reliance both upon virtual arguments and his claim that
>conservation of energy does NOT apply -  we've been totally wasting 
>our time.

Mitch uses "we" so often that I suspect that he is really a group
of people.

If you fellows who are using the account mica@world.std.com
have been totally wasting your time, you could still quit while
you are behind.

>    End of conversation.

I wish.

>               -  Utterly astonished,

I doubt it.

>                     Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com)

This part could be true.
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudengk00 cudfnGreg cudlnKuperberg cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.08 / Greg Kuperberg /  How to solve the world's energy crisis
     
Originally-From: gk00@ellis.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: How to solve the world's energy crisis
Date: Tue, 8 Mar 1994 17:23:29 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago -- Academic Information Technologies

Today has certainly been a great day for me:  I have figured out how to
solve the world's energy crisis.  All we have to do is properly exploit
the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.

The laws of physics say that energy is conserved.  That's why we have
an energy crisis in the first place; despite our best efforts, we are
forced to conserve, conserve, conserve.  But the laws of physics also
say that the total energy of a system is uncertain, and therefore
conservation of energy can be violated for brief periods of time.

Think of it in financial terms.  The uncertainty principle allows you
to borrow energy from nature as long as you pay it back promptly.  You
can borrow as much as you like, as often as you like.  Moreover, and
this is the crucial part, you do *not* have to pay the energy back with
interest.  You pay back no more and no less energy than you borrowed
initially.

If you have ever taken out a college loan, you are familiar with the
fact that a zero-interest loan is essentially free money.  If you could
take out a college loan any time you wanted, you could just replace the
loan indefinitely, and you could count the loan money among your assets
even thought it isn't really your money.  It's the same thing with
energy.  If we had a device that regularly borrowed energy from nature
via the uncertainty principle, then it could build up a store of energy
that we would be free to use for own purposes.

I believe that the Pons-Fleischmann palladium-deuterium system is just
such a device.  I think that the secret ingredient of their recipe is
that at the end of the day they put give back all the energy that their
cathodes have given out.  It may seem like cheating, but it still means
no more energy crisis.  And it explains why so many others have gotten
negative results:  They didn't know about the key step needed to
satisfy the uncertainty principle.
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudengk00 cudfnGreg cudlnKuperberg cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.08 /  dutch@elpp1.ep /  propose creation of fusion.HOT and fusion.COLD to improve S/N !
     
Originally-From: dutch@elpp1.epfl.ch ()
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: propose creation of fusion.HOT and fusion.COLD to improve S/N !
Date: 8 Mar 1994 18:24:30 GMT
Organization: Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne


Hi Everyone,

I wish to propose SPLITTING sci.physics.fusion into
sci.physics.fusion.COLD + sci.physics.fusion.HOT

I'm a fusion physicist working in the area of Controlled Magnetic Fusion (HOT!)
and like to keep up with the Tritium Experiments at TFTR through
the regular postings in this newsgroup. I am also intersted in
all other article concerning HOT fusion.
I occasionally like to read through the postings on cold fusion
too but would find it much more convienient if these had their
own group. In this way, the hot fusion postings would not be hopelessly
lost amongst those concerning cold fusion.
I propose that fusion.cold include cold fusion and muon-catalysed fusion, 
whereas fusion.hot would be devoted to Magnetic Fusion (i.e. Tokamaks,
Stellarators, plasma physics, etc) and ICF (Inertial Confinement
Fusion).

What do other readers think? What is the usual procedure for creating new subgroups?

-- 
###########################################################
# Michael Dutch                email: dutch@elpp1.epfl.ch #
# Centre de Recherches en Physique des Plasmas            #
# Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne                #
# 21 Ave des Bains                          Aussie.Abroad #
# CH-1007 Lausanne, SWITZERLAND               _--_|\      #
#----------------------------------------    /      \     #
# I'd rather have a full bottle in front     \_.--._/     #
# of me than a full frontal lobotomy.              v      #
###########################################################
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudendutch cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.08 /  jedrothwell@de /  Closing statement from Tinsley
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Closing statement from Tinsley
Date: Tue, 8 Mar 94 15:24:49 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Here is a response from Chris Tinsley [CompuServe 73751,3365] to several
of the messages which have appeared here.
 
- Jed
 
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
I understand that everybody agrees that energy is not available from a ground
state electron unless a new, bargain-basement state is postulated?  How
satisfying that general agreement has been obtained in the field of what I
might call kiddy-physics.  I will leave the energetics of electron capture to
be thrashed out between you all, since it is totally irrelevant to the matter
of the experimental results from Italy.
 
I had not thought it necessary to say that.  I recall the words of Frederick
Lonsdale (1881-1934): "Don't keep finishing your sentences, I am not a bloody
fool." On this forum it is clearly necessary to finish them.  Any attempts at
such sophistication as irony will also meet with total incomprehension.
 
(In case nobody noticed, the above consists of a series of insults to all.  The
absence of the ladies is further confirmation of my view that they have more
sense than to play this kind of childish word game on their keyboards.)
 
Let me be straightforward, since this is clearly of the essence (note my
constant repetition).  My knowledge of the physical sciences is little more
than that of any educated person.  On the other hand, I am told that at least
some of you gentlemen hold senior academic posts in the sciences.  I am aware
that many such are funded from the public purse.  This means that they live
from the labours of the ordinary working person.  Many ordinary working people
respect scientists, they do not begrudge giving them their hard-earned money.
 
Having studied the so-called cold fusion, and seen such utter fatuities
expressed, such willingness to comment on papers before reading them, such
gross inability to understand the *meaning* of phrases like "orders of
magnitude", such inability to agree on elementary principles of calorimetry and
such breathtaking examples of circular argument and personal attack
masquerading as logical reasoning, I now conclude that these humble folk are in
many case getting poor value for their cash.  This recent interchange on the
matter of the results from Italy adds weight to my conclusion.
 
No, these weaknesses are not restricted to the Opposition, and I take every
opportunity to comment on them when I see them in my 'own side'.  However, my
'own side' is not in fact that.  I am interested in the increase of the sum of
human happiness, and in my view this is most likely to be achieved by
supporting the reviled True Believers.  As I say, I look forward to a change in
the rules of engagement as laid down by Nature in its editorials.  I hope that
mockery and derision will soon be removed from debates in science, but until
then if one side may use them, so may the other.
 
If I say that the physical sciences offer us no real hope for a new source of
energy, and that CF does, why then I shall be accused of wishful thinking.  Yet
I would rather bet on a horse with three legs than a horse with no legs.
 
If the best that the Opposition can offer in response to my challenge is to
show a confused understanding of inner electron energetics (Jones), a load of
comic pseudo-calorimetry (various people) or to propose (with mind-boggling
irrelevance) an entirely new science of 'physistry' - one for which no evidence
exists, which he himself provides numerous reasons for discrediting, for which
the gross physical evidence offers the opposite of any support, and for which
he clearly has insufficient enthusiasm to wish to investigate it - (Close),
then we are left with my original bottom line.
 
Just above the bottom line are the following comments.  320MJ is the sort of
energy released by a red hot bar of 2cm diameter and 30cm length - a one-bar
electric fire - in four days and nights.  It is the sort of energy which is
stored in two tons of car batteries.  It is the energy claimed to be released
before they stopped it - as they say they always have to do - from less than
two cubic centimetres of nickel in what they say is a fully replicable
experiment on which a group of respectable physicists have worked for four
years.
 
THE ELECTRON STATE IS IRRELEVANT SINCE NO SIGNIFICANT ENERGY WAS PUT INTO THE
METAL BEFORE IT STARTED TO EMIT ENERGY.  (Do I REALLY have to say THAT?)
 
Naturally I shall not quote Dr Close's remarks out of context.  That would be
quite incorrect.  However, I shall indeed quote - in full - what he says:
 
" Alternatively this experiment may go the way of so many "definitive proofs"
of cold fusion during the last 5 years; by March 95 when this saga is 6 years
old will people still be talking about Ni-H, or 4He, or something new?  Bye
till then, I hope.  "
 
in preference to quoting what he says he says:
 
" "Bye till then, I hope" = "Bye till then" (congratulations to Dick Blue on
reaching retirement.  I still have some years to go and have an overfull
in-tray at the lab).
PAUSE.  Followed by:-
"I hope" = (1)I hope I/we are all here in a years time.
           (2)I hope I dont have to keep reading people saying that I said
things that in fact I did not say, and thereby having to correct them
before they become part of the accepted folklore of what FC said about CF.  "
 
Perhaps some student of semantic analysis will be able to tell us whether the
second quote has a good fit with the first.  Ah, I've just been ironical again,
this forum is clearly no place for me.  What I mean is that the meaning of the
first quote is crystal clear, and the second is what I believe our American
friends call 'a load of garbage'.
 
Speaking of loads of garbage, I must mention the considerable tonnage of
attempts to explain away the results from Italy.  It was kind of you, Jed
Rothwell, to pass them on to me.  It would be kinder still if you sent me no
more of them.  I was intrigued to note that on the first run my data capture
program mysteriously closed the file it was creating when it had read only half
of this nonsense.  Who will now say that machine intelligence is a myth?
 
I see that the baying pack has moved from physistry to calorimetry, and are
making just as much of a hash of that.  I particularly appreciated the logical
mind of the gentleman who suggested what he considered to be possible causes of
error and then concluded that these possibilities demonstrated the falsity of
the results.  Certainly this is a 'brief note', and does not include much of
the information which the team presented at their seminar.  However, it does
mention full repeatability, it does mention very large temperature differences.
Clearly these people have been staring at these gadgets running for months in a
series of experiments.  These are not little flickers, short bursts of heat,
and the idea that anybody cannot tell fifty watts from a hundred under these
circumstances is surely an idea that can only appeal to a person who is himself
unable to distinguish the morphological dissimilarity between his anus and his
humerus.
 
Gentlemen, to say that you disappoint me is to understate.
 
I am not interested in your views of my opinions, because you have demonstrated
your incompetence in your own field.  Whilst there is clearly little hope of
obtaining any rationality from this forum, I am still interested in rational
answers to the following question:
 
Are these physicists mad, fraudulent, or is there something very wrong with
physics?
 
Chris Tinsley
 
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenjedrothwell cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.08 / Dick Jackson /  Re: propose creation of fusion.HOT and fusion.COLD to improve S/N !
     
Originally-From: jackson@soldev.tti.com (Dick Jackson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: propose creation of fusion.HOT and fusion.COLD to improve S/N !
Date: Tue, 8 Mar 1994 21:06:49 GMT
Organization: Citicorp-TTI at Santa Monica (CA) by the Sea

In article <2lifsu$6dg@info.epfl.ch> dutch@elpp1.epfl.ch () writes:
>I wish to propose SPLITTING sci.physics.fusion into
>sci.physics.fusion.COLD + sci.physics.fusion.HOT
>
>What do other readers think?

Well, if it really happens I think we need another name for s.p.f.COLD.
We could really use up net bandwidth by proposing new, (ahem!) descriptive
titles for it.
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenjackson cudfnDick cudlnJackson cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.08 / M Singleton /  Re: Question:correct understanding of photon reflection?
     
Originally-From: martin@rahul.net (Martin S. Singleton)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.chem
Subject: Re: Question:correct understanding of photon reflection?
Date: Tue, 8 Mar 1994 22:54:31 GMT
Organization: a2i network

In <2lahnn$3s6@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu
(Ludwig Plutonium) writes:

>  What is the correct quantum mechanics understanding of photon
>reflection. When a photon strikes a metal surface (why are metals
>shiny?) what happens to the photon? Please would like a quantum
>mechanics explanation as simple as possible and deleting math, such as
>Asimov would answer. 

Consider a photon normal to the plane of incidence.  Now an atom absorbs the
photon, and goes into a higher energy state by sending an electron to a higher
orbital.  After a short amount of time, the excited atom emits a photon and
goes back to its preexcited state.  The emitted photon may go in any direction.
However, if it goes into the lattice, then it will be once again absorbed by
an atom in layer n.  But when such an atom again reemits the photon, it could go
still further into the lattice, never to return.  Now that can't happen by COM.
With COM, the photon would have to either:

	1) be emitted in the direction opposite to which it came in, 

	or

	2) go all the way through the metal, which is probabilistically 
	   impossible.

Therefore, it has been established that, by COM, a photon whose only p component
is in the normal direction will be reflected s.t. a.o.i. = a.o.r.  Now if one
generalizes for any angle phi, it's quite simple to see that, once again, by
breaking the photon's two momentum components (by suitable choice of cartesian
coordinate system) into the normal and the parallel, in general, a.o.i. = a.o.r.
-- 
Martin S. Singleton <martin@rahul.net>
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenmartin cudfnMartin cudlnSingleton cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.08 / Joshua Levy /  Re:  Italian Ni-H results
     
Originally-From: joshua@veritas.com (Joshua Levy)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re:  Italian Ni-H results
Date: 8 Mar 1994 15:03:56 -0800
Organization: VERITAS Software Corp., Santa Clara  CA


>jonesse@physc1.byu.edu () says:
>>"Piantelli has invited him to check this in a few weeks.  There appears to be
>>some oddity in the Italian electric grid which may be what leads Celani to his
>>supposition..."

al789@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John Logajan) replied:
>Of course one must always be mindful of potential errors, but the above
>suggestion requires there to exist a power input source that is both
>unregulated and unmonitored (or under-regulated and under-monitored.)

This is certainly true, but the multiple mistakes you postulate have 
already all been done by at least one CF researcher.
Quoting Taubes' BAD SCIENCE, on page 337:

   Happer [a member of the DOE/ERAB panel] recalled that the panel 
   members noticed a suspicious correlation in Huggins's data between 
   excess heat events and weekends.  "On weekends" Happer said, 
   "industries close down, and it's common for live [line?] voltage 
   to  rise a little bit. Huggins didn't know about that.  It'll go
   from 115 to 120 volts, which is a big effect, comparable to the 
   effects he [Huggins] was looking at."

   Larry Faulkner recalled that the Stanford experiment was susceptible
   to AC power fluctuations.  The researchers measured the direct current
   power going into the cell but did not take into account the 
   alternating component of the voltage.  These could result in errors of 
   the size of their excess heat effects, but again they seemsed unaware  
   that the fluctuations existed.

>Being that the alleged effect is both constant, repeatable, and sizeable, I'd
>personally not specifically suspect such an obvious procedural flaw -- perhaps
>a less obvious one.

Huggins used to claim that 100% of his electodes worked in CF experiments.
This is described on page 297.  I don't think he does that any more,
though :-)

Joshua Levy <joshua@veritas.com>

cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenjoshua cudfnJoshua cudlnLevy cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.07 / Paul Johnson /  Re: Tapping the Vacuum Energy -- An Important Paper from bearden
     
Originally-From: paj@uk.co.gec-mrc (Paul Johnson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.energy
Subject: Re: Tapping the Vacuum Energy -- An Important Paper from bearden
Date: 7 Mar 94 10:05:12 GMT
Organization: GEC-Marconi Research Centre, Great Baddow, UK

Marshall Dudley (mdudley@dwbbs.nlbbs.com) wrote:
> Jon Noring writes:

>> [2] For proof that you can charge an ordinary capacitor almost
>> without entropy, see I. Fundaun, C. Reese, and H. H. Soonpaa,
>> "Charging a Capacitor," _American Journal of Physics_, 60(11),
>> pp. 1047-1048 (1992).  A capacitor can be step-charged in small
>> steps to dramatically reduce the entropy required to charge it.


Ummm.  I seem to recall that large electrolytics can act as
"batteries" and charge themselves to some extent.  Could this account
for the results you cite?

Paul.


-- 
Paul Johnson (paj@gec-mrc.co.uk).	    | Tel: +44 245 473331 ext 3245
 -------------------------------------------+----------------------------------
You are lost in a twisty maze of little     | GEC-Marconi Research is not
standards, all different.                   | responsible for my opinions
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenpaj cudfnPaul cudlnJohnson cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.08 /  jonesse@physc1 /  SL: Tom Droege's ultrasound source great!
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: SL: Tom Droege's ultrasound source great!
Date: 8 Mar 94 17:58:18 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

Tom Droege's ultrasound generator was put into service today (thanks, Tom!)
and it works well.  With this new 'sonicator' and cooling the water to
nearly 0 C with ice, 
Kathryn Baldwin (Mrs.) and I have been able to see sonoluminescence today
quite easily.   

We agreed that we need a *quantifiable* measuring device, eyes are not good
enough.  Tried a small video camera and a night-vision scope -- light too
weak.  Have a photomultiplier tube.  (Any other ideas?)

That SL increases in intensity when water is cooled is discussed in an
excellent review article, Alan J. Walton and Geo. T. Reynolds,
"Sonoluminescence," _Advances in Physics_, 33 (1984) 595-660.
As I get some experience with SL, the document makes more and more sense to me.

Bill Page:  you noted that "SL has at least one thing in common with CF -
there is no good theory of the phenomena."  (March 3 posting)

Certainly CF has no good theory (nor compelling experiment either),
but SL is in better shape.  First of all, it's a real effect.
Also, this review article points to temperatures in the collapsing bubble of 
about 5000 K.  This occurs evidently when the gas is heated quasi-adiabatically
during bubble collapse.  More importantly for possible fusion effects is
the data which points to temperatures up to 50,000 K (data) with 10^8 K
theoretically achievable when *shock-wave* heating occurs.

See excellent review by L. Crum, J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 95 (1994) 559.

So IF fusion occurs in a collapsing bubble, it will be *hot* fusion.
It's not too hard to understand fusion occurring at 10^8 K ...
I suggest a name "Hot Bubble Fusion" to make a clear distinction from
"Cold Fusion."  Of course, neither has been demonstrated yet...

--Steven Jones

cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenjonesse cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.08 /  jonesse@physc1 /  cancel <1994Mar8.175502.1459@physc1.byu.edu>
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cancel <1994Mar8.175502.1459@physc1.byu.edu>
Date: 8 Mar 94 17:58:31 -0700

cancel <1994Mar8.175502.1459@physc1.byu.edu>
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenjonesse cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.08 /  jonesse@physc1 /  <None>
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: <None>
Date: 8 Mar 94 18:05:49 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

Let's skip to the really juicy part (at first, Mitch dodges an answer anyway),
where Jones is said to deny energy conservation, and Mitch  gleefully impales
him, then departs "utterly astonished:" 

In article <CMBx7p.C37@world.std.com>, 
mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
> 
>    In Message-ID: <1994Mar7.162419.1452@physc1.byu.edu>
> Subject: Re: Answers on Mossbauer and energy transfer
         [Quotes sj = Steven Jones]
> =sj  "If you really want to learn ....(names his cited text)  
> =sj  ""If the field quantum exists only for a time t =< hbar/E,
> =sj where hbar is Planck's constant divided by 2 pi,
> =sj we need not be concerned with energy conservation.""
> 
>   Steven decides to cite:
>      "we need not be concerned with energy conservation"
> 
>    Apparently, Steve DOES NOT believe in energy conservation. 
> Funny that - given his pompous continued attacks on Jed and others
> claiming that they did not believe in "energy conservation".
> Apparently, that was a projection.

Wow.  What chutzpah.  And ignorance.
Look, we are talking about the uncertainty principle, remember?
  delta-E * delta-t =(or less than) h-bar.
You have it right in front of you in what you quoted from me, if you do not
take the energy-nonconservation statement out of context:

"IF the field quantum exists only for a time t =< hbar/E,
where hbar is Planck's constant divided by 2 pi,
we need not be concerned with energy conservation."

This was quoted from Samuel Wang's text which I emphatically now recommend to
Mr. Swartz, so if I'm wrong, so is he, and so is quantum mechanics!  For this
relation is certainly one of the most basic of all physics.  It follows from
the wave behavior of tiny bits of matter and has been proven
experimentally over and over.

That's right, Mitch: I believe that energy conservation can be
violated, but only for a short time given by t < (or =) hbar/E.

Heck, that's what we've been discussing for some time here -- the problem
of gettin MeV-scale energies to the lattice (virtual quanta) 
in such a short time, so that energetic particle (real) emission can be
avoided, since CF is particle-penic.  Maybe now we can understand why
Mitch dodged my question:  "Do you now agree that MeV-scale energy from a
nuclear reaction cannot "heat the lattice" without emission of an MeV-scale
particle?  Really, I want answer on this one.  Don't dodge it."

When I asked you, "Do you know *any* quantum mechanics?" (7 Mar), you said
'Yes.  Do you?  or are you locked into virtual alogic?' 
Again, I queried, "do you understand it?" and you humbly replied,'Steve, better
than you realize, and apparently better than thou."

Well, I'm afraid you've exposed your ignorance this time, Mitch, and chutzpah
isn't likely to cover your bluff.
> 

> 
> As a corrollary and given the vague and continued reliance on
> purported virtual arguements, it is no wonder that Steve has 
> been unable to PROVE any of his (or some of the TB-skeptics) points. 
> 

No one can convince you if you reject fundamental arguments, or don't
understand them.

>   
>   =sw  "The distance a quantum can travel, and hence its range,
>   =sw   is therefore r = ct,
>   =sw  where t is the amount of time the field quantum existed.
>   =sw   From the uncertainty
>   =sw   principle...we have the relation
>   =sw   r = ct = hbar*c/E."  (read:  approximately equals)
>   =sw  [after Samuel Wong, _Introductory Nuclear Physics_:]
> =sj  "The last relation is the one I posted, the one you are asking about."
> 
>    Yes, previously without attribution.    ;-)
> 

I did not think it necessary to attribute the source of the uncertainty
relation, any more than I need to quote a text for E=mc2.  These are really
fundamental, basic, well known (by most).  It was for you that I cited the
introductory text.

Note that the range for MeV-scale energy release is about 10^-3 angstroms,
much less than spacing in a metal lattice.  (Pd lattice spacing is a few
angstroms).  Hence, the energy *cannot* be transmitted undetected to the
lattice in some "lattice-heating" process:  energetic particles must be
emitted, producing x-rays, etc. And these are all penic (insufficient to
account for putative excess heat).

> 
>   I thought Steve was serious, but have rediscovered that - 
> given his reliance both upon virtual arguments and his claim that
> conservation of energy does NOT apply -  we've been totally wasting 
> our time.
> 

That's right, friend, conservation of energy does NOT apply to VIRTUAL
quanta, nor does conservation of momentum.  
(HORRORS!  Now Jones is rejecting
conservation of momentum 
-- but only for a short distance,     x < (or=) hbar/delta-p.  
Try not to quote me out of context.)
 
If it were not for the non-conservation of energy for short periods of time,
Coulomb-barrier tunnelling could not occur, and the sun would be a lot colder.
(Most fusion there occurs via barrier penetration, which is forbidden
classically.)  Muon-catalyzed fusion would not occur, etc.

>     End of conversation.

Amen to that.

> 
>                -  Utterly astonished,
> 

Me too.  Well, just to see you shoot yourself in the foot so badly this time.

>                      Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com)
> 

Farewell, Mitch:  let's stick to your suggestion:  "End of conversation."
And go read up on the uncertainty principle, will you?

Steve

cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenjonesse cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.08 /  jonesse@physc1 /  cancel <1994Mar8.173607.1458@physc1.byu.edu>
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cancel <1994Mar8.173607.1458@physc1.byu.edu>
Date: 8 Mar 94 18:06:58 -0700

cancel <1994Mar8.173607.1458@physc1.byu.edu>
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenjonesse cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.08 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Re:  Fusion.HOT and fusion.COLD
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re:  Fusion.HOT and fusion.COLD
Date: 8 Mar 94 18:18:36 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University


With regard to Michael Dutch's proposal to split off a 'hot' fusion 
subgroup from s.p.f., I would note that a sci.physics.plasma group is
already being developed, I understand. (Mike Jamison:  can you or someone 
else tell us the status of this?)

In the meanwhile, by prefixing titles with "Hot", one can specify
hot fusion.  I do this for SL postings -- use the SL: prefix -- following
an earlier suggestion of Terry Bollinger's.

I object to calling P&F-style "fusion" cold fusion for many reasons,
one being that they now shy away from "fusion" themselves!  
They speak of 'nuclear' or unknown reactions, claiming that some folks at
U. Utah used the 'fusion' appellation.    Moreover, muon-catalyzed
fusion is the only verified form of cold fusion.

--Steven Jones

cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenjonesse cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.09 /  PAUL /  RE: propose creation of fusion.HOT and fusion.COLD to improve S/N !
     
Originally-From: stek@amazon.pfc.mit.edu (PAUL)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: propose creation of fusion.HOT and fusion.COLD to improve S/N !
Date: 9 MAR 94 02:32:05 GMT
Organization: MIT PLASMA FUSION CENTER

There was a proposal not long ago for a group sci.physics.plasma.  I think
this would be a better choice than sci.physics.fusion.hot as it would
encourage interaction between people doing plasma processing, ionospheric
plasmas, space plasmas, and fusion.
Sci.physics.fusion can then be left for the chemists.

Paul Stek
Stek@cmod.pfc.mit.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenstek cudlnPAUL cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.09 / Chris Sanderson /  Re: Tapping the Vacuum Energy -- An Important Paper from bearden
     
Originally-From: cisande@gamma.std.com (Chris Sanderson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.energy
Subject: Re: Tapping the Vacuum Energy -- An Important Paper from bearden
Date: 9 Mar 1994 02:36:39 GMT
Organization: Clemson University, Clemson, SC

I'm afraid I'm a little behind on this thread. Who is Bearden?
And what is his 'important' paper about? The thread on
time-travel is getting bogged down and I need something else. 

If I understand, Bearden claims to tap the zero point energy in
things like the harmonic oscillator. I don't think this is
possible. The zero point energy is an artifact of how the QM
equations are solved, not anything physical. Also, what matters
is the *difference* between energy levels, and there is no way
to get from .5hw (zero point energy) to zero. 

Before I go on, I want to read this paper. Can someone repost it
please. Or else post an anonymous ftp site where I can get it.
Y'know, if this works, all energy problems are gone for good.
Things too good to be true often are.
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudencisande cudfnChris cudlnSanderson cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.08 / Stacy Mogren /  SL Theory: A novel suggestion (4 screens)
     
Originally-From: Stacy Mogren <stacymogren@delphi.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: SL Theory: A novel suggestion (4 screens)
Date: Tue, 8 Mar 94 22:26:59 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

     I have been toying with the idea of light trapped inside a bubble and 
compressed by sound waves (as suggested by Bill Page in "SL: Theory Needed"
on March 3 '94).  The best way to approach the problem is to solve for
the normal modes of a spherical cavity with a step increase in the index
of refraction.  This is going to take me some time, however.  In this note
I will simply assume such modes exist, make some crude assumptions, and
and examine what happens to the photons in a collapsing sphere.  The results
suggest that the collapsing walls not only push the photons into a small
space, but increase their energy into the vacuum UV range where they can 
ionize molecules into a plasma.

     Imagine a photon in a bubble behaves like a ball bouncing around in a
series of glancing reflections, travelling in a roughly circular path.
Assume that after one trip around, the path repeats itself exactly.  This
makes the math easier.  Each time the photon bounces off the moving wall it
picks up a miniscule amount of energy via the Doppler shift (Compton 
scattering in the l.i.h. limit).

Ef ~ Ei(1+v/c)

Ef  is the final energy
Ei  is the initial energy
v   is the wall velocity
c   is the speed of light

To find out how much energy the photon gains during the collapse of the
bubble, we need to know the total number of collisions.  The collision 
frequency F for a bubble of diameter D (assuming the photon travels
at the speed of light) is

F = cn/(Pi D)

where n is the number of reflection in one trip around the bubble.  The total
number of collisions N can be obtained by integrating from the initial
diameter Di to its final diameter Df.

N = [cn/(Pi v)]ln(Di/Df)

The final energy after N reflections is

Ef = Ei(1+v/c)^N ~ Ei(1+Nv/c) = Ei(1+n ln(Di/Df)/Pi)

Note the wall velocity cancels out!

     Lets plug in some numbers.  Assume Df = 100um, and Di = 1um.  I don't
know what to use for Df (Steve?), but if Di gets smaller than the wavelength
of the photon no confinement will be possible.  The Ln( ) makes the equation
relatively insensitive to Df/Di anyway.  For n lets use 10, smaller numbers
will produce more conservative results.  With these numbers we obtain

Ef ~ 20Ei

So if a 2eV photon from the red region of the visible spectrum is initially
trapped, it will produce a 20eV photon, easily energetic enough to
ionize water molecules.  The smallest photon energy that can produce
an ionizing end product is about 0.1eV, this is small enough that it >may<
have some significant thermal population.

Problems: (Just two of many)

1)  Steve Jones reports observing the effect with the lights off, so
where did the initial photon come from?

2)  Prof. L. Crum's number of 10^5 photons per pulse (see Steve Jones 
post Jan. 24 '94 "Synchronous Picosecond Sonoluminescence") is a huge
amount of energy.  This is comparable to the number of photons that
would intersect a 100um bubble in the average well-lit laboratory
during one cycle of the acoustic field.  Again, where do all these trapped
photons come from?

One obvious experimental test is to flood the region around the bubble
with some monochromatic light source that is easy to filter out (say a
HeNe laser) and see if the light emission changes when the laser is turned
on and off

Suggestions, comments, criticisms anyone?

stacymogren@delphi.com


cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenstacymogren cudfnStacy cudlnMogren cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.08 /  gordon.powell@ /  INNER-SHELL CHEMISTRY
     
Originally-From: gordon.powell@his.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: INNER-SHELL CHEMISTRY
Date: Tue, 08 Mar 94 21:52:17 
Organization: Heller Information Services, Inc., Rockville MD



        Frank Close remarks that X-rays should be expected from hypothetical
inner shell chemistry.  I'm not so sure Frank.  Since a deuterium *atom* is
charge neutral all we should expect is chemical bonding of the hypothetical
inner shell.  This is not like insertion or removal of an electron from an
inner shell, a process well known to require X-ray type energies.  Instead, one
could envision that multiple lower energy photons are emitted by virtue of
disturbance propagating to the outer electrons.  Atoms as a single wavefunction
have been observed as interference fringes in an atom interferometer by a
number of teams.  Applying this lesson to inner shell chemistry, we thus have
something charge neutral hypothetically being
moved around in inner shell chemistry.  Likewise, once in place, there would
be an enhanced probability of the atom wavefunction at the *nucleus*.  If an
atom as a whole can react with the nucleus we don't have to worry about the
enormous energies otherwise required to overcome the Coulomb barrier.

        Here is what I think a CF research program should comprise:

        1.  Ab initio calculations of deuterium-transition element inner
            shell chemistry.  I'm tempted to find a package and use it 
            myself.

        2.  Since calorimetry results have been so controversial, the only
            way to really convince people would be observing heat emission
            and/or free energy creation from an otherwise closed system.
            I'm thinking of a table-top reactor, boiler, steam-engine and
            electrical generator.  Since perpetual motion is agreed to be
            impossible, sustained emission of energy from this otherwise
            closed system uncontrovertably would *prove* whether excess
            heat is really created.  

        Let's think about the engineering of this a bit.  A miniature steam
engine of about 5/8" bore and stroke can generate roughly 300 watts of
net mechanical energy.  If the Carnot efficiency is around 1/5, then
1500 watts thermal would be required to be generated from a bit less
than 300 watts available electrical energy.  The Italian experiments,
as I recall, claim 50 watts excess heat.  That is a scaleup of only
a factor of 30 in terms of thermal power.  Can 300 watts do it? That is
the question.  I'm assuming by the way, that the steam is condensed, the
heat rejected externally, and the condensed water pumped back under pressure
to the boiler.   Neither I nor anyone else will be convinced of net
excess heat until an experiment like this gives positive results.
This is a table-top experiment folks!

                                Regards,
                                Gordon Powell
                                gpowell@his.com

cudkeys:
cuddy08 cudenpowell cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.09 / Matt Kennel /  Re: Closing statement from Tinsley
     
Originally-From: mbk%anl433.uucp@Germany.EU.net (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Closing statement from Tinsley
Date: 9 Mar 1994 03:44:48 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:
: Here is a response from Chris Tinsley [CompuServe 73751,3365] to several
: of the messages which have appeared here.

: Speaking of loads of garbage, I must mention the considerable tonnage of
: attempts to explain away the results from Italy.

I eagerly await the attempts to explain *for* the results from Italy.

: Are these physicists mad, fraudulent, or is there something very wrong with
: physics?

No, it's just that it takes more than an oddly hot bar of metal before
physicists will believe in new fundamental physics beyond the standard model.

Excess-heat with just hydrogen really puts yet another nail (as if
there weren't enough already) into almost any nuclear-power explanation.
(What, is the weak force going to increase in magnitude a billion times?
 Just for *you*?)

Why do the CF-advocates trash super-energetic chemistry?  It's pretty damn
unlikely too but at least we're throwing some kind of bone.

Sure, all physicists are hoping there's some neat new physics that could
be useful, but they're a bit more jaded from experience.  Of course I want
it to be true and somebody to have a good real explanation.

: Chris Tinsley

Remember a carnot-efficient heat pump:

W >= (delta T / T_hot ) * Q_hot.

That means that the power in (W) must be larger or equal to a fraction
times the heat provided at the hot receptacle.  An electric space heater
has W = Q_hot.

Notice though that that fraction is typically small.  Say delta T = 10K
and T_hot = 400K.  So with a carnot-efficient heat pump you could conceivably
get "FORTY TIMES X-S HEAT!!!!" compared the input work applied. 

As far as thermodynamics goes, energy put in as work isn't completely
like heat taken out.  You're putting in "low-entropy" energy and taking
out "high-entropy" energy.

Are there some good excess-heat results above that carnot efficient heat-pump
limit?  That would be more compelling.   Best, of course, would be an
'ignited' closed system.

A nice first step would be _quantitatively_ reproducable "excess-heat"
Italian-style with a completely different calorimeter design.

--
-Matt Kennel  		mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu
-Institute for Nonlinear Science, University of California, San Diego
-*** AD: Archive for nonlinear dynamics papers & programs: FTP to
-***     lyapunov.ucsd.edu, username "anonymous".
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenuucp cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.08 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: (Long) Possible sources of error in Italian NiH "power imbalance
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: (Long) Possible sources of error in Italian NiH "power imbalance
Date: Tue, 8 Mar 94 23:07:02 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Tom Droege writes:
 
     "Thanks to Robert F. Heeter for a nice discussion of how the Italian
     calorimetry could be fooled.  It saves me writing a similar piece."
 
There is only one problem with Mr. Heeter's remarks. They are incorrect.
People who have performed actual experiment with gas cells, like Mizuno, have
published calibration curves and other data showing that these cells work
perfectly well. The problems that Heeter dreamed up are all imaginary; they
are non-existent; they do not happen in real life. Very minor inaccuracies
occur, of course, but nothing remotely like a 120 C error is possible,
especially when you use two or more thermometers, the way Piantelli et al do.
 
The problem here, on this forum, is that people like Heeter and Droege think
that talking and hypothesizing can substitute for real world experimental
science. They dream up these absurd, nonsensical ideas to "explain" the
Italian results, and then they fall for their own nonsense. They
*immediately* assume that what they said must be true. Where are their
experiments? Where are their calibration curves? Has Heeter put a thermometer
into a gas cell to actually test any of these ideas? No, he has not. If he
did, he would see instantly that his ideas have no merit. You cannot possibly
fool a thermometer by 120 C by these methods.
 
Real science is done by experiments, not by making up empty fantasies about
how gas cells would work if they did not work the way they really do. What
goes on here is not science, it is a form of religion, where you consult the
sacred textbooks and you put together random ideas in order to create
cockamamie "theories" to prove that calorimetry does not work.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenjedrothwell cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.09 / Robert Heeter /  Re: SL: Tom Droege's ultrasound source great!
     
Originally-From: rfheeter@theory.pppl.gov (Robert F. Heeter)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: SL: Tom Droege's ultrasound source great!
Date: 9 Mar 1994 00:17:16 -0500
Organization: /etc/organization

In article <1994Mar8.175818.1460@physc1.byu.edu>,
 <jonesse@physc1.byu.edu> wrote:
>Tom Droege's ultrasound generator was put into service today (thanks, Tom!)
>and it works well.  With this new 'sonicator' and cooling the water to
>nearly 0 C with ice, 
>Kathryn Baldwin (Mrs.) and I have been able to see sonoluminescence today
>quite easily.   
>
>We agreed that we need a *quantifiable* measuring device, eyes are not good
>enough.  Tried a small video camera and a night-vision scope -- light too
>weak.  Have a photomultiplier tube.  (Any other ideas?)

Probably you've thought of this, but a CCD detector (such as is
used in astronomy) could be a good way to go.  Basically like a
high-sensitivity digital camera; can do photon-counting and observe
short pulses as well as integrating faint signals.  If you need spatial 
resolution you can put two of them at right angles with primitive 
optics to control the field of view; probably better than a PMT array 
for that.  I'd imagine an astronomer or two out there might have an 
old/spare/loaner around to try out...  Trouble is you need a computer
and some imaging software...

--Robert F. Heeter





cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.09 / Matt Austern /  Re: Tapping the Vacuum Energy -- An Important Paper from bearden
     
Originally-From: matt@physics16.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.energy
Subject: Re: Tapping the Vacuum Energy -- An Important Paper from bearden
Date: 09 Mar 1994 05:30:40 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (Theoretical Physics Group)

In article <2ljcnn$ljk@hubcap.clemson.edu> cisande@gamma.std.com
(Chris Sanderson) writes:

> If I understand, Bearden claims to tap the zero point energy in
> things like the harmonic oscillator. I don't think this is
> possible. The zero point energy is an artifact of how the QM
> equations are solved, not anything physical. Also, what matters
> is the *difference* between energy levels, and there is no way
> to get from .5hw (zero point energy) to zero. 

The zero-point energy is rather more real than that.  It's quite true,
of course, that what's measurable is the differences between energy
levels, but that doesn't mean there's anything fictitious about zero-
point energy.  If you have two different systems with different 
characteristic frequencies, then their ground-state energies will
be different.  And, in some cases (e.g., if one system can change
into the other), this has observable consequences.

Even the ground-state energy of the electromagnetic field is
measurable; this is called the Casimir effect.

Oh, one caveat.  There's one area where absolute energies, and not
just energy differences, is relevant, and that's gravity, which
(according to the Einstein equations) couples to the energy-momentum
density.  Most of the time we can safely ignore gravitational effects,
but we get into big problems if we take the zero-point electromagnetic
energy seriously and ask what effect it has on the gravitational
field.  As far as I know, nobody has a very sensible resolution of
this problem, but I know next to nothing about anything that has to do
with both quantum mechanics and gravity.  I'll let someone who's more
knowledgable than me try to straighten the mess out.

[Oh, and one more thing.  Please note that I'm not endorsing the idea
of extracting energy from the vacuum.  I think that's flaky too.]
--
Matthew Austern                       Never express yourself more clearly
matt@physics.berkeley.edu             than you think.    ---N. Bohr
cudkeys:
cuddy09 cudenmatt cudfnMatt cudlnAustern cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Wed Mar  9 04:37:04 EST 1994
------------------------------
1994.03.09 / Robert Heeter /  Re: (Long) Possible sources of error in Italian NiH "power imbalance
     
Originally-From: rfheeter@theory.pppl.gov (Robert F. Heeter)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: (Long) Possible sources of error in Italian NiH "power imbalance
Date: 9 Mar 1994 01:22:42 -0500
Organization: /etc/organization

In article <pC6LHru.jedrothwell@delphi.com>,  <jedrothwell@delphi.com> wrote:
>Tom Droege writes:
> 
>     "Thanks to Robert F. Heeter for a nice discussion of how the Italian
>     calorimetry could be fooled.  It saves me writing a similar piece."
> 
>There is only one problem with Mr. Heeter's remarks. They are incorrect.

Gee, I must have hit home...

>People who have performed actual experiment with gas cells, like Mizuno, have
>published calibration curves and other data showing that these cells work
>perfectly well. 

Please provide me a reference so I can see for myself.

>The problems that Heeter dreamed up are all imaginary; they
>are non-existent; they do not happen in real life. 

Then it should be simple for Piantelli, et al, to do a couple simple
experiments to show the rest of the physicists in the world that
the concerns I raised are groundless.

>Very minor inaccuracies
>occur, of course, but nothing remotely like a 120 C error is possible,
>especially when you use two or more thermometers, the way Piantelli et al do.

Hello?  They didn't claim 120C, they claimed a 40C rise at the extreme
end of their curve, while changing the gas pressure.  They didn't use
two thermometers on the sample, they used one.  And they didn't tell us
anything about the second one, other than stating that they had measured
the Pt heater temperature.  No hows, whys, or calibrations for that one.
I still think a ten percent power-measurement error is possible, 
especially when you're outside your calibration region (the calibration 
plot went to 440C, the thermometer "excess heat" went to 480 C, other 
plots went to 500 C) and the gas pressure is being changed, and you only
have one thermometer on your sample.

>The problem here, on this forum, is that people like Heeter and Droege think
>that talking and hypothesizing can substitute for real world experimental
>science. 

I find it extremely ironic that you're accusing *Tom Droege* of
substituting talk for experimental science, considering all the work
he's done.  In my case - I've never tried to substitute one of my
explanations for a cold fusion excess heat experiment.  I'm only
looking for possible flaws in the procedures.  Call me the devil's 
advocate - and then *improve the experiments!*

It's not my responsibility to disprove; it's Piantelli's responsibility
to produce a compelling experiment.  I'm not trying to prove that
they haven't seen anything; I'm trying to find reasonable grounds
that they might be wrong.  So long as there's room for a reasonable
doubt, they haven't proven their case.

>They dream up these absurd, nonsensical ideas to "explain" the
>Italian results, and then they fall for their own nonsense. They
>*immediately* assume that what they said must be true. 

The header says "possible" sources of error.  All my explanations were
phrased as "possible" ways to get an incorrect result.  You tell me
where I've "fallen for my own nonsense".  I want to see a quotation
(with context please).  I certainly don't claim that what I say
*must* be true - I have only claimed that there are plausible ways
to fool the Piantelli calorimeter.  I'd definitely like to know
why my ideas are absurd and nonsensical...  

Rather than flame me for questioning a bizarre result and 
encouraging the researchers to improve their experiment,
you might consider using your time - and credibility with the CF 
research community - to see that the concerns raised here are addressed.

*************
Robert F. Heeter
rfheeter@tom.pppl.gov
Graduate Student, Princeton Plasma Physics Lab
Disclaimers apply as usual...

cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.09 / Matt Kennel /  Re: INNER-SHELL CHEMISTRY
     
Originally-From: mbk%anl433.uucp@Germany.EU.net (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: INNER-SHELL CHEMISTRY
Date: 9 Mar 1994 07:58:46 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

gordon.powell@his.com wrote:


:         Frank Close remarks that X-rays should be expected from hypothetical
: inner shell chemistry.  I'm not so sure Frank.  Since a deuterium *atom* is
: charge neutral all we should expect is chemical bonding of the hypothetical
: inner shell.  This is not like insertion or removal of an electron from an
: inner shell, a process well known to require X-ray type energies.  Instead, one
: could envision that multiple lower energy photons are emitted by virtue of
: disturbance propagating to the outer electrons.  Atoms as a single wavefunction
: have been observed as interference fringes in an atom interferometer by a
: number of teams.  Applying this lesson to inner shell chemistry, we thus have
: something charge neutral hypothetically being
: moved around in inner shell chemistry.  

No.  By then, the deuterium's electron can't get in there.  I mean all the
possible electronic states for electrons near the palladium have already
been filled and there are lots of electrons near by already. There's no place
for the deuterium's electron to fit in.  It's just a plain deuterium nucleus.

I don't see what will be different from ordinary chemistry, where the nuclei
don't bond so closely.  What is the "Z" of palladium? I dunno, let's guess
50.  Suppose you're the D 'inside' (approximately) the orbits of 40 electrons
with about 10 left inside.  What do you see? Approximately, a net *POSITIVE*
charge of about +40 (+50 - 10) pushing on yourself (you're +1) and you go
scurrying back out to atomic distances real quick now.  You then think,
"hmmm maybe that chemistry stuff really does work like they said it does."

: Likewise, once in place, there would
: be an enhanced probability of the atom wavefunction at the *nucleus*.  If an
: atom as a whole can react with the nucleus we don't have to worry about the
: enormous energies otherwise required to overcome the Coulomb barrier.

Yes we do.  Because at nuclear distances necessary for nuclear reactions
the electron shielding the deuterium nucleus doesn't matter any more.
It's still just as charged as before.  A deuterium atom is effectively
neutral outside *atomic* distances only.  Which is way too far away to
fuse.

Look why mu-catalyzed-cf works: because the muonic mass is so much
larger than the electron the size of its orbit is far smaller, therefore
sheilding the nucleus to a much smaller distance.

:         Here is what I think a CF research program should comprise:

:         1.  Ab initio calculations of deuterium-transition element inner
:             shell chemistry.  I'm tempted to find a package and use it 
:             myself.

My guess:  if put inside, a deuterium nucleus will squirt right back out.
 

:         2.  Since calorimetry results have been so controversial, the only
:             way to really convince people would be observing heat emission
:             and/or free energy creation from an otherwise closed system.
:             I'm thinking of a table-top reactor, boiler, steam-engine and
:             electrical generator.  Since perpetual motion is agreed to be
:             impossible, sustained emission of energy from this otherwise
:             closed system uncontrovertably would *prove* whether excess
:             heat is really created.  

Agree.

:                                 Regards,
:                                 Gordon Powell
:                                 gpowell@his.com


--
-Matt Kennel  		mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu
-Institute for Nonlinear Science, University of California, San Diego
-*** AD: Archive for nonlinear dynamics papers & programs: FTP to
-***     lyapunov.ucsd.edu, username "anonymous".
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenuucp cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.09 / john baez /  Re: Tapping the Vacuum Energy -- An Important Paper from bearden
     
Originally-From: baez@guitar.ucr.edu (john baez)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.energy
Subject: Re: Tapping the Vacuum Energy -- An Important Paper from bearden
Date: 9 Mar 1994 07:55:06 GMT
Organization: University of California, Riverside

In article <MATT.94Mar8213040@physics16.berkeley.edu> matt@physics.berkeley.edu writes:

>There's one area where absolute energies, and not
>just energy differences, is relevant, and that's gravity, which
>(according to the Einstein equations) couples to the energy-momentum
>density.  Most of the time we can safely ignore gravitational effects,
>but we get into big problems if we take the zero-point electromagnetic
>energy seriously and ask what effect it has on the gravitational
>field.  As far as I know, nobody has a very sensible resolution of
>this problem, but I know next to nothing about anything that has to do
>with both quantum mechanics and gravity.  I'll let someone who's more
>knowledgable than me try to straighten the mess out.

We're working on it and will report back as soon as we're done!!  :-)
Of course, *nobody* knows much about anything that has to do with both
quantum mechanics and gravity, other than in the semiclassical limit.
It's commonly suspected that nonzero vacuum energy would manifest itself
as a nonzero cosmological constant, since roughly speaking the
cosmological constant measures the energy density of the vacuum.  "Oh
no!" you cry, "the ENERGY IN GENERAL RELATIVITY thread raises its ugly
head yet again!!"  Well, here all I mean is that starting with the good
old Einstein equation 

G_{ij} = 8 pi T_{ij} 

we can ponder the possibility of adding a "vacuum energy term."  The
only sensible thing to add to T_{ij} that fits the bill is a multiple of
the metric, g_{ij}, and this gives us Einstein's equations with
cosmological constant.  (In addition to energy density we also have
pressure terms, corresponding to the nonzero diagonal elements of g_{ij}
after it's been diagonalized.)  However, astronomical observations
indicate that the cosmological constant is very small if nonzero.  
Most naive quantum-field-theoretic/quantum-gravitational computations, on the
other hand, give a vastly larger cosmological constant.  However, these
computations are not to be trusted further than a black hole can be
thrown.  Recently it has been suggested that virtual wormholes keep the
cosmological constant very near zero.... this relies upon the
"many-worms interpretation" of quantum mechanics, which is a can of
worms I don't want to open tonight. 

>[Oh, and one more thing.  Please note that I'm not endorsing the idea
>of extracting energy from the vacuum.  I think that's flaky too.]

Me to!  I'd wait till they do it before worrying about *that*.


cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenbaez cudfnjohn cudlnbaez cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.09 /  Micromine /  Bussard Ram Jet Questions.
     
Originally-From: mmine@yarrow.wt.uwa.edu.au (Micromine)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Bussard Ram Jet Questions.
Date: 9 Mar 1994 08:35:28 GMT
Organization: The University of Western Australia

Hi, I'm after a few details on the subject of a Bussard ram jet design 
spacecraft.

For those unfamiliar with the design it's basically a magnetic funnel 
which captures particles from space, compresses them and blows them out 
the back after fusing them.

1) How difficult would it be to slow particles of H moving at 
relativistic speeds and capture them for compression.

2) How much energy is released in fusion of monoatomic hydrogen per mole ??

3) What radiation would be generated ? (Thinking of shielding for crew).

Simon Shaw.

--
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm just a humble corporate slave, working myself into a corporate grave.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Please finger mmine@yarrow.wt.uwa.edu.au for further company information.
           Micromine Pty. Ltd. Exploration and Mining Software
   [PHONE] +61 9 389-8722    [FAX] +61 9 386-7462    [BBS] +61 9 389-8317
        My views are my own as the company won't listen to me !
=============================================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenmmine cudlnMicromine cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.09 / Dieter Britz /  A test, and question
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: A test, and question
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 1994 09:35:22 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway


As y'all have seen, I am having trouble posting updates without having them
hacked about. I am posting this, partly in order to see if I can post ANYthing
without its getting hacked, and partly to ask all those of you who have seen
this famous Italian paper in Nuovo Cimento, by Piantelli et al, to please let
me know the proper reference. Which Nuovo Cimento (there are A and B and 
Letter), and volume, year, page no. Thank you in advance.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.09 / Ad aspera /  Re: propose creation of fusion.HOT and fusion.COLD to improve S/N !
     
Originally-From: JTCHEW@lbl.gov (Ad absurdum per aspera)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: propose creation of fusion.HOT and fusion.COLD to improve S/N !
Date: 9 Mar 1994 16:54:55 GMT
Organization: Purely personal 'pinions


Just to throw yet another baby out with the bathwater, 
I'll suggest calling the groups sci.energy.fusion.whatever.

This would help (to a tiny extent) to counter one of the 
standard criticisms of hot fusion, namely, that it's an 
expensive program of plasma-physics research that will never 
put watt one into the power grid.  Besides, it already
involves a lot of effort that might better be described as
"engineering" or at least "energy science" than as "physics,"
a trend that will certainly continue.

There was a sci.energy.nuclear proposal at one time, but
I don't think it went anywhere.

Personally, I find this group's traffic tractable with a
good threaded or similarly capable newsreader (and almost 
any group intolerable with an old-fashioned newsreader).

--Joe
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenJTCHEW cudfnAd cudlnaspera cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.09 / Mike Jamison /  Re: Question:correct understanding of photon reflection?
     
Originally-From: edwlt12@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov (Mike Jamison (ADF))
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.chem
Subject: Re: Question:correct understanding of photon reflection?
Date: 9 Mar 1994 12:29 EST
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center

In article <CMDBMv.Brq@rahul.net>, martin@rahul.net (Martin S. Singleton) writes...
>In <2lahnn$3s6@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu
(Ludwig Plutonium) writes:
> 
>>  What is the correct quantum mechanics understanding of photon
>>reflection. When a photon strikes a metal surface (why are metals
>>shiny?) what happens to the photon? Please would like a quantum
>>mechanics explanation as simple as possible and deleting math, such as
>>Asimov would answer. 
> 
>Consider a photon normal to the plane of incidence.  Now an atom absorbs the
>photon, and goes into a higher energy state by sending an electron to a higher
>orbital.  After a short amount of time, the excited atom emits a photon and
>goes back to its preexcited state.  The emitted photon may go in any direction.
>However, if it goes into the lattice, then it will be once again absorbed by
>an atom in layer n.  But when such an atom again reemits the photon, it could go
>still further into the lattice, never to return.  Now that can't happen by COM.
>With COM, the photon would have to either:

Well, I don't know what COM is, but I *do* know you've given one description
for the way light propogates through a dieelectric (like glass) - the time
for absorption-re-emission of the photon is the reason for the reduced
velocity of propogation.  The fact that the photon can be re-emitted in any
direction is equivalent to diffraction.
> 
>	1) be emitted in the direction opposite to which it came in, 
> 
>	or
> 
>	2) go all the way through the metal, which is probabilistically 
>	   impossible.

Skin depth.  The higher the photon's energy, the farther it goes into the
metal before absorption.

BTW, your model doesn't account for the fact that the re-emitted photon has
the same energy as the absorbed photon (wavelength doesn't change).  There
are lots of lower energy states available for the electron to drop into,
why does it drop into the *same* state it started in???  And, come to think
of it, the electrons really aren't *bound* in a conducting metal.
> 
>Therefore, it has been established that, by COM, a photon whose only p component
>is in the normal direction will be reflected s.t. a.o.i. = a.o.r.  Now if one
>generalizes for any angle phi, it's quite simple to see that, once again, by
>breaking the photon's two momentum components (by suitable choice of cartesian
>coordinate system) into the normal and the parallel, in general, a.o.i. = a.o.r.
>-- 
>Martin S. Singleton <martin@rahul.net>

Actually, your QED model is too simple.  Hence, use the electromagnetic model,
observe that in a metal, the electric field at the surface of the metal
must be equal to zero, therefore the reflected wave must have the same
magnitude as the incident wave *and* it must be 180 degrees out of phase
with it, to cancel at the surface of the metal.  So, you can explain *both*
reflection *and* phase shift with the wave model.  Why not use the model that
best represents what happens?

Saying we *have* to use one model is sort of like saying we *have* to use
a Tokamak to achieve controlled fusion - yeah, it can probably be done, but
by using such a constraint, we're blinding ourselves to simpler, better ways
of doing what we want to do...


Mike Jamison

"Scientific research consists in seeing what everyone else has seen, but
thinking what no one else has thought"

						-A. Szent-Gyorgyi
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenedwlt12 cudfnMike cudlnJamison cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.09 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: (Long) Possible sources of error in Italian NiH "power imbal
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: (Long) Possible sources of error in Italian NiH "power imbal
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 94 13:20:49 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

I wrote:
 
     "People who have performed actual experiment with gas cells, like
     Mizuno, have published calibration curves and other data showing that
     these cells work perfectly well."
 
Robert F. Heeter asks
 
     "Please provide me a reference so I can see for myself."
 
Have a look at his ICCF4 paper. More detailed calibration curves can be found
in his Japanese language publications; I can mail you a copy. But let us get
serious here. If you want to "see for yourself" then for goodness sake put a
resistance heater into a tin can and find out! At a first approximation, air
at 1 atm will not be so different from hydrogen. Go ahead and show us how to
fool a thermometer in a gas calorimeter by 120 C. Heck, make it 10 C. For that
matter, show us why the dummy calibration curves are so straight and why the
temperature goes back to the level to within a degree every time they
calibrate with the steel rod.
 
 
Me:  "The problems that Heeter dreamed up are all imaginary; they are
     non-existent; they do not happen in real life.
 
RH:  "Then it should be simple for Piantelli, et al, to do a couple simple
     experiments to show the rest of the physicists in the world that the
     concerns I raised are groundless.
 
They have done so, already. Their experiments are simple. Your concerns are
groundless. Anyone who bothers to do any experiment will find that out
instantly.
 
 
RH:  "Hello?  They didn't claim 120C, they claimed a 40C rise at the extreme
     end of their curve, while changing the gas pressure."
 
That is incorrect. During the lecture they described three runs from last
year:
 
Highest power:      57 watts for 20 days -- 98.5 MJ, 3.54 watts/cm2
Longest:            27 watts for 100 days -- 320 MJ, 2.3 watts/cm2
Example cited in paper:  44 watts for 24 days -- 91.2 MJ, 2.73 watt/cm2
 
The calibration constant is 0.45 watts per degree C, so the 57 watt excess
must have produced a 127 C rise over the calibration curve. I have not seen
that data, I am only surmising.
 
 
RH:  "They didn't use two thermometers on the sample, they used one.  And
     they didn't tell us anything about the second one, other than stating
     that they had measured the Pt heater temperature.  No hows, whys, or
     calibrations for that one."
 
You did not attend the lecture, you have not communicated with them, you have
not signed a confidentiality agreement. Did you ask them any of these
questions of yours? Frankly, I would not bother asking if I was you, since you
are not the Fiat Motor Company or GE. I am amazed they told anyone anything.
This is the real world, not Howdy-Doody. In real life, responsible scientists
keep all details like that top secret. I am not talking about academic
scientists, I mean real scientists, at corporations where they do real
research, not esoteric fun & games.
 
 
     "I still think a ten percent power-measurement error is possible..."
 
You think! YOU THINK! So what? Try measuring it and you will find you are
wrong. Thinking counts for nothing, experiments are the only way to prove
anything.
 
 
Me:  "The problem here, on this forum, is that people like Heeter and Droege
     think that talking and hypothesizing can substitute for real world
     experimental science."
 
RH:  "I find it extremely ironic that you're accusing *Tom Droege* of
     substituting talk for experimental science. . ."
 
Tom Droege is full of bull. He told us that you can put cells in series
electrically, turn off one, and keep feeding the others electricity.
 
Tom looked at Srinivasan's calorimeter, declared it would never work, and said
he "threw him in the trash." I introduced Tom to Srinivasan at ICCF4 and asked
him to clarify his statements. Srinivasan offered to explain how the
calorimeters work, what the calibration constant is, how he ensures mixing and
so on. Tom was given the opportunity to show what was the matter, but he could
not do so. There is nothing wrong with Srinivasan's work, Tom's comments were
completely out of line and stupid, and so were all of his other "critiques" of
the ICCF4 calorimetry. He is wrong on every count.
 
Tom looked at video, and data showing a tall Dewar test tube, in which
thermistors show that water temperature is at the boiling point. The video
shows that the electrolyte is vigorously bubbling and roiling around as steam
escapes out of a small hole at the top of the tube. Tests afterwards show that
all of the lithium salts dissolved in the electrolyte remain in the test tube,
which proves the water is distilled by the process. Tom then claimed that two-
thirds of the water was not boiled, but instead it left the cell in the form
of "droplettes." There is not a shred of evidence to support this absurd idea.
 
These three examples show that Tom is full of 100%, pure, unadulterated,
nonsense. I can come up with a dozen more, but I am not going to bother.
 
 
     "It's not my responsibility to disprove; it's Piantelli's responsibility
     to produce a compelling experiment.
 
He has done so.
 
 
     "I'm not trying to prove that they haven't seen anything; I'm trying to
     find reasonable grounds that they might be wrong."
 
You fail. You have not found anything. Your "grounds" are nonsense and
fantasy.
 
 
     "So long as there's room for a reasonable doubt, they haven't proven
     their case.
 
There is no room for reasonable doubt.
 
 
     "All my explanations were phrased as "possible" ways to get an incorrect
     result.
 
Your explanations are not possible. They are pure fantasy, having nothing to
do with experimentally proven reality.
 
 
     "Rather than flame me for questioning a bizarre result and encouraging
     the researchers to improve their experiment..."
 
I am flaming you, Droege and everyone else here for making up the laws of
physics as you go along, and for ignoring experimentally proven facts. With
regard to Piantelli, you are waving your hand so hard that if you don't watch
out it will break off at the wrist and fly through the window.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenjedrothwell cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.09 / Jim Bowery /  Re: Bussard Ram Jet Questions.
     
Originally-From: jabowery@netcom.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Bussard Ram Jet Questions.
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 1994 18:39:24 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

mmine@yarrow.wt.uwa.edu.au (Micromine) writes:
> Hi, I'm after a few details on the subject of a Bussard ram jet design 
> spacecraft.
> 
> For those unfamiliar with the design it's basically a magnetic funnel 
> which captures particles from space, compresses them and blows them out 
> the back after fusing them.
> 
> 1) How difficult would it be to slow particles of H moving at 
> relativistic speeds and capture them for compression.
> 
> 2) How much energy is released in fusion of monoatomic hydrogen per mole ??
> 
> 3) What radiation would be generated ? (Thinking of shielding for crew).

Bob doesn't support that design as workable anymore.  Check out the
sci.space FAQ for references to his latest design as well as references
to our own Paul Koloc's propulsion paper.
-- 
The promotion of politics exterminates apolitical genes in the population.
  The promotion of frontiers gives apolitical genes a route to survival.
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenjabowery cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.09 / Mike Jamison /  Re:  Fusion.HOT and fusion.COLD
     
Originally-From: edwlt12@venus.lerc.nasa.gov (Mike Jamison (ADF))
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re:  Fusion.HOT and fusion.COLD
Date: 9 Mar 1994 15:52 EDT
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center

In article <1994Mar8.181836.1464@physc1.byu.edu>, jonesse@physc1.byu.edu writes...
> 
>With regard to Michael Dutch's proposal to split off a 'hot' fusion 
>subgroup from s.p.f., I would note that a sci.physics.plasma group is
>already being developed, I understand. (Mike Jamison:  can you or someone 
>else tell us the status of this?)

Nothing new as far as I know - last I saw was a call for votes.

Note that sci.physics.plasmas will be moderated, if it comes into being.
> 
>In the meanwhile, by prefixing titles with "Hot", one can specify
>hot fusion.  I do this for SL postings -- use the SL: prefix -- following
>an earlier suggestion of Terry Bollinger's.

Sounds reasonable.  Reasonable enough that we don't really need to disting-
uish between cf and hf with multiple groups, maybe.  And, the hot guys and
gals can always cross-post to multiple groups...
> 
> 
>--Steven Jones
> 

Mike Jamison

"Scientific research consists in seeing what everyone else has seen, but
thinking what no one else has thought"

						-A. Szent-Gyorgyi
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenedwlt12 cudfnMike cudlnJamison cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.09 / mitchell swartz /  S/N and Steve
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: S/N and Steve
Subject: Re: Answers on Mossbauer and energy transfer
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 1994 13:12:57 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

   In Message-ID: <1994Mar7.162845.1454@physc1.byu.edu>
Subject: Re: Answers on Mossbauer and energy transfer
Steven Jones (jonesse@physc1.byu.edu) reposts his previous post, 
lowering the S/N by a factor of 2 (or more) by changing a sentence,
and adding a keyword.

   The sentence:

=sj1  "Yes, and it applies to sunlight-- your example below tells me
=sj1   you do not understand what we are talking about --"
        [Message-ID: <1994Mar7.162419.1452@physc1.byu.edu>]

  becomes:

=sj1  "Yes, and it applies to sunlight-- your example below tells me 
=sj1  you do not understand what we the equation says --"
      [Message-ID: <1994Mar7.162845.1454@physc1.byu.edu>]
  
  Go figure.  "We the equation".   Puts the "royal we" in a
whole new light, algebraically speaking.
  But to keep the pointers correct, given the
importance of Steve relying on his apparent belief that Conservation
of Energy is not important, here is the response. 


=sj  "Wait-- do you agree that MeV-scale effects cannot couple to the lattice?
=sj In particular,do you now agree that MeV-scale energy from a nuclear reaction
=sj  cannot "heat the lattice" without emission of an MeV-scale particle?
=sj  Really, I want an answer on this one.  Don't dodge it."

   Steve has dodged so many, we will await his honest response(s) first.
  

   =ms>     Actually the photon energy, Egamma is modified by the momentum 
   =ms> (and hence energy) of the recoil to 
   =ms>          Egamma =  Eo -  [Eo^2/2Mc^2}  + doppler term (=Eo*v/c)
=sj  "This does not disagree with what I said,actually.The point is, the lattice
=sj  does *not* get the heat/energy."

  Au contraire.  If Steve believed in conservation of energy (and I do)
then the lattice picks up:
                               Eo^2/2Mc^2 

  for this simple case.  
 The lattice therefore does get some heat/energy.  Right, Mr. Jones?
(or is the algebra wrong?)                       QED


   =ms>    For example the shape of  the gamma emission referred to 
   =ms> above is:
   =ms>                         tau*gamma= h-bar
   =ms > where gamma is the width of the peak at half max, 
   =ms > and tau is the excited state lifetime.
=sj   "Right; this agrees with my point -- do you understand it?"

  Steve, better then you realize, and apparently better than thou.
After all, you just quoted me and said you agree, right?


=sj  "Certainly not.  Hello?  Do you know *any* quantum mechanics?"

    Yes.  Do you?   Or are you locked into virtual alogic?


=sj  "If you really want to learn ....(names his cited text)  
=sj  ""If the filed quantum exists only for a time t =< hbar/E,
=sj where hbar is Planck's constant divided by 2 pi,
=sj we need not be concerned with energy conservation.""

  Steven decides to cite:
     "we need not be concerned with energy conservation"

   Apparently, Steve DOES NOT believe in energy conservation. 
Funny that - given his pompous continued attacks on Jed and others
claiming that they did not believe in "energy conservation".
Apparently, that was a projection.


As a corrollary and given the vague and continued reliance on
purported virtual arguements, it is no wonder that Steve has 
been unable to PROVE any of his (or some of the TB-skeptics) points. 

  
  =sw  "The distance a quantum can travel, and hence its range,
  =sw   is therefore r = ct,
  =sw  where t is the amount of time the field quantum existed.
  =sw   From the uncertainty
  =sw   principle...we have the relation
  =sw   r = ct = hbar*c/E."  (read:  approximately equals)
  =sw  [after Samuel Wong, _Introductory Nuclear Physics_:]
=sj  "The last relation is the one I posted, the one you are asking about."

   Yes, previously without attribution.    ;-)


  I thought Steve was serious, but have rediscovered that - 
given his reliance both upon virtual arguments and his claim that
conservation of energy does NOT apply -  we've been totally wasting 
our time.

    End of conversation.

               -  Utterly astonished,

                     Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com)

cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.09 / Stephen Cooper /  Re: propose creation of fusion.HOT and fusion.COLD to improve S/N !
     
Originally-From: src@jet.uk (Stephen Cooper)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: propose creation of fusion.HOT and fusion.COLD to improve S/N !
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 1994 09:11:40 GMT
Organization: Joint European Torus

In <9MAR94.02320542@amazon.pfc.mit.edu> stek@amazon.pfc.mit.edu (PAUL) writes:

>There was a proposal not long ago for a group sci.physics.plasma.  I think
>this would be a better choice than sci.physics.fusion.hot as it would
>encourage interaction between people doing plasma processing, ionospheric
>plasmas, space plasmas, and fusion.
>Sci.physics.fusion can then be left for the chemists.

>Paul Stek
>Stek@cmod.pfc.mit.edu

Great, but I doubt if this will solve the persieved problem. With a
name like sci.physics.fusion, people will continue to post both HOT
and (for the want of better words) COLD fusion topics to the news
group. Yes go ahead and create sci.physics.plasma, it will be a 
useful addition to the network, but don't create it to split this
newsgroup, it wont work, without changing the name of this group at
the same time.

Anyway I rather like having both sets of posting in one group, as 
long as the titles are clear about the contents. I rather like
reading some of the more results orientated COLD fusion posts, and
would probably miss them if there was a split. (Generally restrict
myself to reading HOT fusion posts.

Stephen R Cooper		JET Joint Undertaking, src@jet.uk
- Disclaimer: Please note that the above is a personal view and should not 
  be construed as an official comment from the JET project.
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudensrc cudfnStephen cudlnCooper cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.09 / mitchell swartz /  Uncertainty in Steve's argument (previous <none>)
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Uncertainty in Steve's argument (previous <none>)
Subject: <None>
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 1994 13:13:59 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <1994Mar8.180549.1462@physc1.byu.edu>
Subject: <None>
Steve Jones (jonesse@physc1.byu.edu)  writes:

=sj "Look, we are talking about the uncertainty principle, remember?
=sj   delta-E * delta-t =(or less than) h-bar."

   Steve  did not use the delta-anything until he was
corrected.     All people make mistakes.
However, it is improper to routinely use such errors to attempt to 
"prove" one's point. 
   For example, this is similar to Steve's endless  "1000W/cm^3 (1989
value)" comments which were error by calculation and error
by reference.


=sj "IF the field quantum exists only for a time t =< hbar/E,
=sj where hbar is Planck's constant divided by 2 pi,
=sj we need not be concerned with energy conservation."
=sj  "That's right, Mitch: I believe that energy conservation can be
=sj violated, but only for a short time given by t < (or =) hbar/E.'

   This is irrelevant.   And given Steve's harrassments to Jed and
others endlessly about "Do you believe in energy conservation (etc)?",
this final admission -- apparently required for Steve's only argument(s)--
is most remarkable.     QED


=sj "Note that the range for MeV-scale energy release is about 10^-3 angstroms,
=sj  much less than spacing in a metal lattice.  (Pd lattice spacing is a few
=sj  angstroms).  Hence, the energy *cannot* be transmitted undetected to the
=sj  lattice in some "lattice-heating" process:  energetic particles must be
=sj  emitted, producing x-rays, etc. "

  Steve switches ziplessly from virtual to real as it serves his means.
However, the "proof" against the cold fusion phenomena is not a proof
at all.  It is a collection of statements, some not even relevant.


=sj    "Now Jones is rejecting
=sj   conservation of momentum 
=sj   -- but only for a short distance,     x < (or=) hbar/delta-p.  
=sj   Try not to quote me out of context.)"

   At least Steve is using the delta-values correctly this time.
It will be good to know in the future, since delta-x may be
of the order of a nucleus or greater, that Steve does not even
require conservation of momentum.

  How about balancing equations, Steve?    ;-) 


   Despite Steve Jones' occasional (or more often) comments railing
against the following (as well as the hard workers in this field):

   Conservation of energy, and momentum, and are physical laws 
which remain important.    
   Uncertainties are predicated on delta-values, and not necessarily
absolute values.
   Signals must be sampled at twice the highest frequency present in
the waveform to enable faithful reconstruction of those signals.
   "%" is not a level of power (unlike "watts").
   Input power is measured as V*I.


                                        Mitchell Swartz
                                        mica@world.std.com
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    "The safest place for a "skeptic" at an archery competition is directly
 in front of the target.  No danger in a "skeptic" so placed being hit.
               All the points will naturally elude them"

cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.09 / mitchell swartz /  Steve cites the US Patent Office
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Steve cites the US Patent Office
Subject: Scientists and Nouveau-science Salesmen
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 1994 13:15:10 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <1994Mar7.153101.1449@physc1.byu.edu>
Subject: Scientists and Nouveau-science Salesmen
Steven Jones (jonesse@physc1.byu.edu)
Brigham Young University takes a wild gamble and writes:

=jones   " If cold fusion is such a good
=jones   thing, then why has the U.S. Patent Office refused to grant even
=jones   one patent to it, out of the many applied for over the past five
=jones   years?"

    This self-serving, and paradoxical  ;-) ,  quote may itself,
and cites a pattern which,  unfortunately might 
move Steve Jones incrementally closer to the nomination for 
"Flying Pig of the Year Award (* - vide infra for explanation)" 
suggested by Dr. Edmund Storms.   Since we like and practice
science -- the rigorous use of systematized knowledge --
here are some of the reasons for this possibility.

    The "self-serving" is obvious.    But why paradoxical   ;-)   ?  
To Taubes' text for the answer:

  =taubes "What is indisputable is that he scribbled a list of elements:
  =taubes   "Al, Cu, Ni, Pt, Pd,  Li ..."  And next to Pd, palladium, 
  =taubes      and Pt, platinum, were the
  =taubes   portentous words "dissolves much hydrogen."  And Jones did, 
  =taubes at Rafelski's
  =taubes   suggestion, take the lab book to the BYU patent attorney, 
  =taubes   Lee Phillips, and ask that the page be notarized."(P. 27)


    And why a gamble?
    Although I have absolutely no interest  (<< Nota Bene), 
if anyone else knows of any U.S. Patent(s) rejected 
based upon Steven Jones, then given his comment, and his previous posting
confirming his own patent interests as amply cited by Historian Taubes, 
then given that the cold fusion phenomena are real, Steve's 
"self-serving" tautology(ies) might germinate potential
class-action-type thinking.    

    Best wishes, 
            Mitchell Swartz  [mica@world.std]
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
(*) FPOTY Award was Edmund's idea, suggested at ICCF-4,
to be given to that very very special person who, by way of
misinformation, most efficiently -- compared to all others --
turns off the general public, and students, to the diverse 
cold fusion phenomena.





cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.09 / I Johnston /  Re: (Long) Possible sources of error in Italian NiH "power imbalance
     
Originally-From: ianj@castle.ed.ac.uk (I Johnston)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: (Long) Possible sources of error in Italian NiH "power imbalance
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 1994 13:42:10 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:
:  
: Real science is done by experiments, not by making up empty fantasies about
: how gas cells would work if they did not work the way they really do. What
: goes on here is not science, it is a form of religion, where you consult the
: sacred textbooks and you put together random ideas in order to create
: cockamamie "theories" to prove that calorimetry does not work.
:  
: - Jed

Tongue holding fails for a second time...

Jed, darling, stop claiming that people are trying "to prove that
calorimetry doesn't work" or that "thermometers don't work". They're
not. It's as nonsensical as discussing whether "geometry" works.

Good calorimetry works. Bad calorimetry doesn't.
Good thermometry works. Bad thermometry doesn't.

What's in question is whether the calorimetry or thermometry in this
case was good or bad. While the basic principles are very
straighforward, we don't want to get seduced by theory, do we? After
all, as we are so often told, it's the experiments that count...

Love, Ian

PS And yes, 
I have done practical calorimery myself. Even colder than CF, though -
the calorimeter fluid was liquid Helium...
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenianj cudfnI cudlnJohnston cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.09 / John Logajan /  I'm back.
     
Originally-From: 74242.1554@compuserve.com (John M. Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: I'm back.
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 1994 16:52:53 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Well, I lost my job -- but I didn't lose (for long) access to this
fusion forum.  It's amazing what technology and a credit card can buy :-)



cudkeys:
cuddy9 cuden1554 cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.10 / Bill Page /  Vigier's Paper (Conversations with Frank Close)
     
Originally-From: 70047.3047@compuserve.com (Bill Page)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Vigier's Paper (Conversations with Frank Close)
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 1994 01:27:21 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

In relation to my postings on J. P. Vigier's presentation at ICCF-4, Prof. 
Frank Close and I have exchanged several private email messages over the 
last week.  I think that some of what we are discussing would be of 
interest to other readers. The main issue (so far) concerns the 
justification of the form of the Hamiltonian and what to do about 
relativistic corrections. 

So, with his permission I am summarizing some of the points here.  When 
quoting him, he has asked me to "stress that these remarks were made by me 
as if in a 'discussion' session and are my intuitive impressions on a first 
reading".  Dr. Close is reluctant to become involved in the style of 
"debate" for which sci.physics.fusion is infamous and although I have 
argued for more public posting and less private email, I respect his 
decision.  He states: "... But if people are trying to understand Vigier, 
you can at least raise some questions for Vigier et al to address."  I am 
pleased to have him (and everyone else) contribute to the discussion of 
Vigier's paper in whatever way feels most comfortable.

Note that I have rather freely edited this material and therefore have 
become (at least partly) responsible for how it is interpreted.  This makes 
me a bit nervous. So please Gentle Readers, be patient if it appears I may 
have mis-represented anything.  Ask questions.  Resist jumping to 
conclusions.

For editorial purposes I have indicated deletions with ... while my 
additions appear within brackets [].  I have also made corrections of some 
minor typos and reformated some paragraphs.

Frank Close:
<<
I have read your attempt to [interpret Vigier's paper]. Good stuff. From my 
reading of your description it looks as if he has made a repeat of an old 
mistake ...

[Note that in the following quotations Frank Close uses the notation ** for 
taking a power, while I have used ^, i.e. x**2 = x^2 = "x-squared".]

A 1/R potential has relativistic corrections that are 1/R**3. Fine IF these 
are small perturbations. Tempting to say "Ah ha. Lets try them as a 1/R**3 
potential. Now such a potential has no lower bound (it gives a continuum 
all the way down to minus infinity) ...

The inconsistency is revealed when you ask "where did this 1/R**3 come from 
in the first place?". It came from a relativistic expansion where v/c is 
SMALL. IF you try to solve in a region where 1/R**3 is LARGE then you have 
to go back and expand to next order in v/c. This gives 1/R**4,5, etc terms. 
These various terms have alternating signs and the sum tends to cancel out 
the short distance singularity (i.e. they "blow up" as R->0 is cancelled ) 
and one recovers the effective 1/R Coulomb potential with minor 
perturbations.

...

All this pilot wave stuff etc ... is not really the central issue.
>>

Bill Page:
<<
Thank you for the encouraging email concerning my study of J.P. Vigier's 
presentation at ICCF-4.

...

You will note that ... Vigier *does not* attempt to apply relativistic 
corrections to the Hamiltonian.  The 1/R**3 and 1/R**4 factors in his 
equations come only from the spin-orbit and spin-spin magnetic 
interactions.  I do, however think that a correct relativistic treatment of 
this system is called for.  It would seem desirable to use Dirac's 
equation, however this is said by A. O. Barut in "Exact strongly bound 
solutions of the classical relativistic two-body problem due to magnetic 
interactions" in Physica A 197 (1993) p275-283, to be currently 
intractable.  In any case it is certainly beyond my current level of 
competence.

...

I am also not convinced by the arguments based on the pilot-wave concepts 
...  It would seem that the "causual theory" of de Broglie (from which the 
pilot-wave model originates) has been an interest of Vigier's for some 
time. He states in the paper that he uses it as a way of simplifying the 
calculations since it is known to be equivalent to conventional QM.  From a 
philosophical/intuitive point of view it does seem to offer some advantages 
over the conventional interpretation.

I would greatly appreciate any help you can offer in clarifying Vigier's 
paper.  Thanks again for your comments and your continuing contributions to 
the sci.physics.fusion newsgroup.
>>

Frank Close:
<<
The magnetic spin-spin and spin-orbit 1/R**3 are, however, relativistic 
corrections. In general, if you have a potential proportional to V(r), the 
relativistic corrections are protportional to dV/dr. (Hence R**-3 when 
V=1/r). [This was described in a paper published] ... in Phys Rev D2,2127 
(1970), section 3 and section 4. (3 gives a pedagogic description.) In 
particular eq 3.1 ... shows how it is [the] Lorentz group that generates 
Thomas precession, of which the spin-orbit is a part.

Eq 41e is an electron interacting with e.m. field; note the second and 
third line-  the sig.B and the sig.E X p. Jump to eq 4.10. This shows the A 
and B fields when the source is another electron (or proton). The sig.B of 
eq4.1e ends up as the spin.spin magnetic contact term and the sig.E X p are 
the spin orbit termns. Notice the 1/(x-r)**3 in eq 4.10

Eq B.12 in appendix B shows the general structure of Hamiltonian. Potential 
V acts between charges ... and then there are corrections due to the 
currents. Maybe calling them relativistic is semantic but the general point 
- that currents give r**-3 when charges give 1/r is well known. Reference 4 
in our paper gives the prehistory.
>>

Bill Page:
<<
I do appreciate the reference to your article in Phys Rev D2,2127 (1970). I 
will obtain a copy of this as soon as possible.
>>

Frank Close:
<<
Thanks for the fax...

[I sent Dr. Close a copy of the first seven pages of Vigier's draft by fax. 
 I worry that distributing a draft without the author's explicit permission 
might be considered bad practice.  Things move quickly in this world of 
electronic media and its not always possible to go through proper 
procedures in a reasonable amount of time. Dear Readers, what do you think 
about this practice? To my knowledge, the proceedings of ICCF-4 have not 
yet been distributed.  So at the very least, you need to be warned that 
these comments are based on the draft which was sent to me in early January 
1993.]

I sent you an email this a.m. about a paper that I wrote 24 years ago (!). 
I said ignore the technical part; amusingly though the whole point of our 
paper was that the separation of c.o.m. [centre of mass] and overall 
coordinates for non relativistic systems are NOT correct for relativistic 
[systems.] (E.g. Vigier eq 6 uses non relativistic [c.o.m.] and omits 
subtle spin effects.) So his work is incomplete ...

... he appears to do somthing very odd: His eq 4 involves (p-eA)**2 (the A 
is the potential from a distant charge =e (r1-r2)/(r1-r2)**3 in his 
parentheses). So far so good. The expansion of this gives terms linear in e 
and also a term proportional to e**2 (this is his term A/r**4- the one that 
I wondered about when I first wrote you). The problem is that this is order 
e**2 and hence HIGHER ORDER IN PERTURBATION. It has no consistency if he 
does not also calculate to second order everywhere, i.e. take the linear 
terms and proceed to next order perturbation theory. ... this will involve 
integrals over loop momenta. Remeber that e**2/4pi = 1/137 in units where 
h=c=1. So perturbation theory is good: the 1/137 is so small.
>>

Bill Page:
<<
I would like to ask you for a clarification of your comments on Vigier's 
"quantum Schrodinger Hamiltonian" for two charged particles e1, e2 with 
magnetic moments [vectors] M1, M2.

In my original post (part 1) I wrote:

Thus Vigier, following a suggestion of A. Barut, postulates that the 
Hamiltonian for the hydrogen system must include the spin-spin and 
spin-orbit vector potentials in addition to the scalar Coulomb potential. 
The electron and proton are conceived of as semi-classical charged 
particles with intrinsic magnetic moments (due to spin) whose motions 
(orbits) give rise to additional magnetic fields.  We then solve the 
Schrodinger wave equation with this modified Hamiltonian.

      1                   (r1-r2)
H = ---- (p1 - e1 * M2 x --------- )^2 +           [4]
    2*m1                 |r1-r2|^3

      1                   (r2-r1)
    ---- (p2 - e2 * M1 x --------- )^2 +
    2*m2                 |r1-r2|^3

     e1*e2
    ------- - M1'*M2'*S12(r1-r2)
    |r1-r2|


[Note: I've made minor corrections to the original posted version of this 
equation.  It is now identical to the same numbered equation in Vigier's 
draft.]

...

The magnetic moment vectors M1 and M2 can be expressed in terms of the spin 
vectors (sigma1, sigma2) and masses of the proton and electron as follows:

             e1*hbar                M1'
  M1' = g1 * -------          M1 = ---- * sigma1
              2*m1                 hbar

             e2*hbar                M2'
  M2' = g2 * -------          M2 = ---- * sigma2
              2*m2                 hbar

where g1 and g2 are the gyromagnetic ratios (also called the spin 
g-factors) for the proton and electron.

...

I don't understand your reference to HIGHER ORDER IN PERTURBATION.  The 
r**-3 and A/r**4 terms in Vigier's eq. 7 arise from a simple (but slightly 
cumbersome) algegraic manipulation of eq 4 together with the classical 
centre of mass transformation.  I have done this calculation [The reader is 
referred to the V-MATH.MCD MathCad file that was uploaded here.] and agree 
that eq 7 is correct except I have factors 1/2 in the two terms of A.  [The 
fax you have probably shows these factors penciled in.]  Although e1**2 and 
e2**2 occur explicitly in the expression for A, factors of e1*e2 also occur 
in the a and b vectors of the r**-3 terms when we write out M1 and M2.

Vigier states that this calculation is "well known in the literature" and 
that it "is an evident consequence of Quantum Mechanics".  He quotes A. 
Barut in (12) as giving it in this "simple non-relativistic form". [See 
bottom page 4. (12) is a reference to a private communication from A. 
Barut.]
>>

Frank Close:
<<
I have identified three reasons why Vigier is wrong. These overlap in part 
with what I said before but I understand it better now.
 
1) In eq 7 his b term involves sig.r X P where P is the TOTAL momentum. 
This violates translation invariance. Immediately following eq 7 it is 
clear that he is worried as he makes remarks about identical particles etc 
causing this to vanish (which is irrelevant for the situation of hydrogen!) 
and then he chooses to bypass the problem by choosing the rest frame P=0. I 
note you have penned a "?" at this point!

Ironically THIS is one of the points that was dealt with in my 1970 paper. 
The point is that the variables at eq 6 are only valid for separating c.m 
motion for a GALILEAN system. They fail to handle the Thomas precession 
correctly (it is the Thomas precession buried in the "spin-orbit" of eq 7 
where Vigier's problems arise). This is now generally understood; the way 
we did it in 1970 is awfully opaque and if youre interested I could refer 
you to papers by others that
deal with the underlying ideas more clearly.

This point [however] doesnt have any impact on his final claims (as far as
I can tell) ...
 
2) I realised there is a problem by asking myself the following question 
...

His r**-4 term is order alpha=1/137 relative to the rest. Therefore I ought 
to be able to neglect it without changing anything very much. BUT if I 
neglect it, I am left with a Hamiltonian going like r**-3 and this has no 
bound states (they sink to minus infinity - I think this point is made in 
Landau and Lifshitz; ... ). So Vigier must avoid this disaster by the r**-4 
term being LARGE! How can this be? Answer, r must be very small; this is 
equivalent to saying that A (the vector potential) must be very large.

OK. Now look where he starts (eq 4). He uses p2/2m as an approximation to 
root(p2+m2)  (I use h=c=1, sorry!) and replaces p by p-eA as standard. BUT 
BUT BUT!!! IF A is large, then he cannot neglect the p**4/8m**3 term in the 
expansion as this will generate (p-eA)**3 terms which are as large as those 
from (p-eA)**2. The bottom line is that he can no longer make the non rel 
approximation to root(m**2 + (p-eA)**2). He should use the standard Dirac 
eqn and be done with all this nonsense.

3) Terms linear in e1 (say) are first order in electromagnetic interaction. 
Those proportional to e1**2 are second. If you include the latter, then you 
must go to second order in perturbation theory with the former ones in 
order to keep track of ALL contributions at order e**2. In particular this 
involves the Coulomb interaction acting twice which diverges. ...

Of all these comments, (3) is the least worth worrying about at the moment, 
(1) is a blunder but it probably doesn't affect the results essentially. 
(2) is the place where the approximations go up the spout ...
>>

Well, that's where we are, up to this morning. As you may be able to tell, 
I am enjoying this interaction - so much so that it distracts me (as usual) 
from the work I am being paid to do! Your comments and contributions are 
most welcome.

Another note: There are more installments to follow in this series.  The 
last installment left off at the point were Vigier is about to do the 
actual calculations of the new bound states.  The calculation isn't 
difficult, but the result is a little surprizing.  I'll post the next 
installment in a few days.

Cheers,

Bill Page.

cudkeys:
cuddy10 cuden3047 cudfnBill cudlnPage cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.09 / Mike Jamison /  Re: SL Theory: A novel suggestion (4 screens)
     
Originally-From: edwlt12@venus.lerc.nasa.gov (Mike Jamison (ADF))
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: SL Theory: A novel suggestion (4 screens)
Date: 9 Mar 1994 16:06 EDT
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center

In article <R89Ln7j.stacymogren@delphi.com>, Stacy Mogren <stacymogren@d
lphi.com> writes...
>     I have been toying with the idea of light trapped inside a bubble and 
>compressed by sound waves (as suggested by Bill Page in "SL: Theory Needed"
>on March 3 '94).  The best way to approach the problem is to solve for

Not to toot my own horn or anything, but, actually, I was the one to make
this suggestion, in a private e-mail, to Bill.  He just happened to make it
public :-)

>the normal modes of a spherical cavity with a step increase in the index
>of refraction.  This is going to take me some time, however.  In this note
>I will simply assume such modes exist, make some crude assumptions, and
>and examine what happens to the photons in a collapsing sphere.  The results
>suggest that the collapsing walls not only push the photons into a small
>space, but increase their energy into the vacuum UV range where they can 
>ionize molecules into a plasma.
> 
>     Imagine a photon in a bubble behaves like a ball bouncing around in a
>series of glancing reflections, travelling in a roughly circular path.
>Assume that after one trip around, the path repeats itself exactly.  This
>makes the math easier.  Each time the photon bounces off the moving wall it
>picks up a miniscule amount of energy via the Doppler shift (Compton 
>scattering in the l.i.h. limit).
> 
>Ef ~ Ei(1+v/c)
> 
>Ef  is the final energy
>Ei  is the initial energy
>v   is the wall velocity
>c   is the speed of light
> 
>To find out how much energy the photon gains during the collapse of the
>bubble, we need to know the total number of collisions.  The collision 
>frequency F for a bubble of diameter D (assuming the photon travels
>at the speed of light) is
> 
>F = cn/(Pi D)
> 
>where n is the number of reflection in one trip around the bubble.  The total
>number of collisions N can be obtained by integrating from the initial
>diameter Di to its final diameter Df.
> 
>N = [cn/(Pi v)]ln(Di/Df)
> 
>The final energy after N reflections is
> 
>Ef = Ei(1+v/c)^N ~ Ei(1+Nv/c) = Ei(1+n ln(Di/Df)/Pi)
> 
>Note the wall velocity cancels out!
> 
>     Lets plug in some numbers.  Assume Df = 100um, and Di = 1um.  I don't
>know what to use for Df (Steve?), but if Di gets smaller than the wavelength
>of the photon no confinement will be possible.  The Ln( ) makes the equation
>relatively insensitive to Df/Di anyway.  For n lets use 10, smaller numbers
>will produce more conservative results.  With these numbers we obtain
> 
>Ef ~ 20Ei
> 
>So if a 2eV photon from the red region of the visible spectrum is initially
>trapped, it will produce a 20eV photon, easily energetic enough to
>ionize water molecules.  The smallest photon energy that can produce

The laser induced breakdown results I've seen indicate multiple photon
absorption (not all at the same time, but actually three discrete absorptions,
of 2.3 eV photons, resulting in a plasma of ~7 eV).

>an ionizing end product is about 0.1eV, this is small enough that it >may<
>have some significant thermal population.
> 
>Problems: (Just two of many)
> 
>1)  Steve Jones reports observing the effect with the lights off, so
>where did the initial photon come from?

I think this is similar to the "initial photon" problem with a laser cavity.
Just assume it's there.  Other possibility:

As the bubble forms, the vapor inside, though cool at first, rapidly warms
to the temp. of the surrounding water.  Upon compression, the temp. increases
a few orders (several orders?) of magnitude.  Result is a hot plasma.
> 
>2)  Prof. L. Crum's number of 10^5 photons per pulse (see Steve Jones 
>post Jan. 24 '94 "Synchronous Picosecond Sonoluminescence") is a huge
>amount of energy.  This is comparable to the number of photons that
>would intersect a 100um bubble in the average well-lit laboratory
>during one cycle of the acoustic field.  Again, where do all these trapped
>photons come from?

1e5 photons/pulse * 20,000 pulses/sec * 4 eV/photon = 8e9 eV.

1 eV = 1.6e-19 Joules, so 8e9 eV/sec = 1.28 nanowatts.  This is assuming
that all the emitted photons are "blue."
> 
>One obvious experimental test is to flood the region around the bubble
>with some monochromatic light source that is easy to filter out (say a
>HeNe laser) and see if the light emission changes when the laser is turned
>on and off

I like the idea (also mine :-) ) of using a dye laser - emitting a broad
spectrum of light.  Look at what's attenuated vs. what isn't.

Main problem here will be synching up the dye laser's pulsed output with
the SL bubbles.
> 
>Suggestions, comments, criticisms anyone?

I think you've got a good start, Stacy.  Glad to see you're still around!
> 
>stacymogren@delphi.com
> 
> 
Mike Jamison

"Scientific research consists in seeing what everyone else has seen, but
thinking what no one else has thought"

						-A. Szent-Gyorgyi
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenedwlt12 cudfnMike cudlnJamison cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.09 / Mike Jamison /  Re: Bussard Ram Jet Questions.
     
Originally-From: edwlt12@venus.lerc.nasa.gov (Mike Jamison (ADF))
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Bussard Ram Jet Questions.
Date: 9 Mar 1994 16:37 EDT
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center

In article <2lk1og$hse@styx.uwa.edu.au>, mmine@yarrow.wt.uwa.edu.au (Micromine) writes...
>Hi, I'm after a few details on the subject of a Bussard ram jet design 
>spacecraft.
> 
>For those unfamiliar with the design it's basically a magnetic funnel 
>which captures particles from space, compresses them and blows them out 
>the back after fusing them.
> 
>1) How difficult would it be to slow particles of H moving at 
>relativistic speeds and capture them for compression.

My understanding is that the H *isn't* slowed.  As v approaches c, the
amount of energy wasted in slowing the H down cannot be regained by fusing
it, limiting the max velocity of the craft.  So, don't slow down the H (or
speed it up, depending on your point of view).
> 
>2) How much energy is released in fusion of monoatomic hydrogen per mole ??

~2,5 MeV/H pair * 6.02e23 atoms/mole * 0.5 * 1.6e-19 eV/J = 1.2e11 Joules.

Sorry, that should be 1.6e-19 J/eV!

Or, putting it into more understandable terms, one mole of monoatomic H
could produce about 33 megawatts of power (neglecting inefficiencies) for
one hour.
> 
>3) What radiation would be generated ? (Thinking of shielding for crew).

H+H => D + (positron) + energy.

I think most of the energy is in the positron, which, upon annihilation,
(with an electron) will yield two 511 keV photons (I ain't a nuke physicist,
so I'm not sure this is right.  The numbers add up, anyway).

Best form of shielding is to locate the crew far from the engine(s), and use
the intervening structure for both shielding and support.
> 
>Simon Shaw.
> 
>--
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>I'm just a humble corporate slave, working myself into a corporate grave.
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Please finger mmine@yarrow.wt.uwa.edu.au for further company information.
>           Micromine Pty. Ltd. Exploration and Mining Software
>   [PHONE] +61 9 389-8722    [FAX] +61 9 386-7462    [BBS] +61 9 389-8317
>        My views are my own as the company won't listen to me !
>=============================================================================


Mike Jamison

"Scientific research consists in seeing what everyone else has seen, but
thinking what no one else has thought"

						-A. Szent-Gyorgyi
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenedwlt12 cudfnMike cudlnJamison cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.09 / mitchell swartz /  On Question re: photon reflection
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: On Question re: photon reflection
Subject: Re: Question:correct understanding of photon reflection?
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 1994 22:49:06 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <9MAR199412292264@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: Question:correct understanding of photon reflection?
Mike Jamison  (edwlt12@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov) writes:

  >>  What is the correct quantum mechanics understanding of photon
  >>reflection. When a photon strikes a metal surface (why are metals
  >>shiny?) what happens to the photon? Please would like a quantum
  >>mechanics explanation as simple as possible and deleting math, such as
  >>Asimov would answer. 
 >Consider a photon normal to the plane of incidence.  Now an atom absorbs the
 >photon, and goes into a higher energy state by sending an electron to a higher
 >orbital.  After a short amount of time, the excited atom emits a photon and
 >goes back to its preexcited state. The emitted photon may go in any direction.
 >However, if it goes into the lattice, then it will be once again absorbed by
 >an atom in layer n.But when such an atom again reemits the photon, it could go
 >still further into the lattice, never to return.Now that can't happen by COM.
 >With COM, the photon would have to either:

=jl  "Actually, your QED model is too simple.  
=jl  Hence, use the electromagnetic model,
=jl  observe that in a metal, the electric field at the surface of the metal
=jl  must be equal to zero, therefore the reflected wave must have the same
=jl  magnitude as the incident wave *and* it must be 180 degrees out of phase
=jl  with it, to cancel at the surface of the metal.  
=jl  So, you can explain *both*
=jl  reflection *and* phase shift with the wave model.  
=jl  Why not use the model that best represents what happens?"

  This is even easier to show by inspection using electromagnetic wave
boundary conditions, as follows:

  There are two conditions for TOTAL REFLECTION
     1) mismatched (real part of the) permeability or permittivity, and
     2) mismatch of losses (eg. one is a metal, the other free space)

 For normal incidence, the reflection is

     Ro =      Z2  -  Z1
              ------------
               Z2  +  Z1

   Since a high conductivity (expected in metals up to the optical
frequency range) dominates the complex permittivity (over the
real part, i.e. dielectric constant), therefore
  
           Z2  <<  Z1  and thus --->    Ro = (circa)  -1

                                               QED

      Best wishes.
                            Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com)

cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.09 / Ron Maimon /  Re: Tapping the Vacuum Energy -- An Important Paper from bearden
     
Originally-From: rmaimon@husc9.Harvard.EDU (Ron Maimon)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.energy
Subject: Re: Tapping the Vacuum Energy -- An Important Paper from bearden
Date: 9 Mar 1994 20:41:36 GMT
Organization: Harvard University, Cambridge, MA

In article <MATT.94Mar8213040@physics16.berkeley.edu>, matt@physics16.be
keley.edu (Matt Austern) writes:
|> 
|> Even the ground-state energy of the electromagnetic field is
|> measurable; this is called the Casimir effect.
|> 

How many times will I have to post this?

the Casimir effect has _nothing_ to do with zero point energy. That is
just an ad-hoc derivation, which by the way, works equally well when you
set the vaccuum energy to zero. The only thing the casimir effect shows
is that two conductors attract each other when placed close together- but
this is obvious- the attraction is the same as the Van-der Waals force
between molecules- it's caused by one conductor inducing charge on the
other, and can only happen quantum mechanically.

Ron Maimon
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenrmaimon cudfnRon cudlnMaimon cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.09 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Uncertainty in Steve's argument (previous <none>)
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Uncertainty in Steve's argument (previous <none>)
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 1994 18:06:49 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <CMEFFC.BMv@world.std.com>,
mitchell swartz <mica@world.std.com> wrote:

[on and on]

>   Despite Steve Jones' occasional (or more often) comments railing
>against the following (as well as the hard workers in this field):
>
>   Conservation of energy, and momentum, and are physical laws 
>which remain important.    

[and on and on]

     Mitch, 

     Are you an idiot?

                         dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.09 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Steve cites the US Patent Office
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Steve cites the US Patent Office
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 1994 18:24:30 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <CMEFHB.CI6@world.std.com>,
mitchell swartz <mica@world.std.com> wrote:

>(*) FPOTY Award was Edmund's idea, suggested at ICCF-4,
>to be given to that very very special person who, by way of
>misinformation, most efficiently -- compared to all others --
>turns off the general public, and students, to the diverse 
>cold fusion phenomena.

    Mitch,

    I hereby nominate *you* for services above and beyond even
    the call of Jed Rothwell.  The nominating performance is the
    especially moving 'Conservation of Energy Debate' in which
    the creative use of context and truth must have left the 
    remaining one or two fence-sitters planted on the ground on the
    opposite side of the lawn.  Also notable and eligible for
    honorable mention is the long-running 'Dodge and Parry the 
    Substantive Questions', a personal favorite of mine.

                          dale bass

>


cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Thu Mar 10 04:37:04 EST 1994
------------------------------
1994.03.10 / Anthony Siegman /  Re: Tapping the Vacuum Energy -- An Important Paper from bearden
     
Originally-From: siegman@Sierra.Stanford.EDU (Anthony E. Siegman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.energy
Subject: Re: Tapping the Vacuum Energy -- An Important Paper from bearden
Date: 10 Mar 1994 01:38:03 GMT
Organization: Leland Stanford Junior University

>> If I understand, Bearden claims to tap the zero point energy in
>> things like the harmonic oscillator. I don't think this is
>> possible. The zero point energy is an artifact of how the QM
>> equations are solved, not anything physical. Also, what matters
>
>The zero-point energy is rather more real than that.  It's quite true,
>of course, that what's measurable is the differences between energy
>levels, but that doesn't mean there's anything fictitious about zero-
>point energy.  If you have two different systems with different 
>characteristic frequencies, then their ground-state energies will
>be different.  And, in some cases (e.g., if one system can change

   Sorry, first poster is correct, second is _not_.  

   Depending on how you order the A and A* (creation/annihilation
operator) terms in the Hamiltonian for a quantized oscillator you can
get any value of zero point energy, defined as <n> (n = photon number)
or <H> (H = hamiltonian = energy operator, that you want.  

   All of these orderings will give exactly the same quantum equations
of motion for the SHO, exactly the same classical equations in the
limit, exactly the same observable quantum oscillator physics in every
possible respect, as well as the same values of zero point
_fluctuations_, defined as <x^2> or <p^2> for the SHO in its lowest
quantum state; but entirely different values of zero point _energy_
<n> or <H>.

   Further, the predictions of the quantum theory for experimentally
confirmed effects like the Casimir effect don't depend at all on ZPE,
or ZPF.  You just do a QM analysis of the problem, using the
appropriate formulas of QM, and the appropriate answers fall out.  You
don't "put in" ZPE, or anything else, into the calculation; you just
apply the basic QM formalism (which also, of course, predicts ZP
fluctuations in another, totally separate calculation) and calculate
the Casimir effect -- or, totally separate, from the same basic
equations, the ZPF.

   You can notice, after doing the two calculations, that there seems
to be a kind of scale factor connection between between, e.g., the
magnitude of the ZPF and the Casimir effect seem related.  But you
don't use, or put in, or even need to know about, ZPE or ZPF to
calculate the Casimir effect.  You just apply the basic QM equations.
ZPF doesn't in any sense "cause" the Casimir effect.
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudensiegman cudfnAnthony cudlnSiegman cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.10 / Armando Caba /  Submission for sci.physics.fusion
     
Originally-From: amontiel@procesos.esiqie.ipn.mx (Armando Montiel Caba)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Submission for sci.physics.fusion
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 1994 04:16:28 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

	Dear friends:

		I am a student that needs the article about
cold fusion (I believe this is the right name) and I only know that it was
published in 1988. I'd like to get it as soon as possible.

	If you know something about it, please send it to:

 amontiel@procesos.esiqie.ipn.mx

	Really I think that was the right date of this article.
But I'm really sure that it was the first publication of this area and it was,
too, very polemic for the cientific community.


	Thanks a lot.

cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenamontiel cudfnArmando cudlnCaba cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.10 / Benjamin Carter /  Re: Fusion.HOT and fusion.COLD
     
Originally-From: bpc@netcom.com (Benjamin P. Carter)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion.HOT and fusion.COLD
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 1994 06:49:21 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

It seems to me that there is no good reason to split up this newsgroup
at this time.  The number of postings is not huge, and it is usually easy
to tell at a glance whether a given posting concerns hot, cold, or
lukewarm fusion.  Furthermore, it is worthwhile to maintain a forum
where adherents of different viewpoints can proselytize each other, and
occasionally make new converts.  One man's signal may be another man's
noise, but the present signal to noise ratio should be tolerable from any
point of view.
-- 
    Ben Carter                  internet address: bpc@netcom.com
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenbpc cudfnBenjamin cudlnCarter cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.09 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Closing statement from Tinsley
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Closing statement from Tinsley
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 1994 02:31:07 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <RG8K3Bp.jedrothwell@delphi.com>,  <jedrothwell@delphi.com> wrote:
>
>Clearly these people have been staring at these gadgets running for months in a
>series of experiments.  These are not little flickers, short bursts of heat,
>and the idea that anybody cannot tell fifty watts from a hundred under these
>circumstances is surely an idea that can only appeal to a person who is himself
>unable to distinguish the morphological dissimilarity between his anus and his
>humerus.
>Gentlemen, to say that you disappoint me is to understate.
> 
>I am not interested in your views of my opinions, because you have demonstrated
>your incompetence in your own field.  Whilst there is clearly little hope of
>obtaining any rationality from this forum, I am still interested in rational
>answers to the following question:
> 
>Are these physicists mad, fraudulent, or is there something very wrong with
>physics?

      Not flickers?  Okay, where's the water heater?  
      
      I've been waiting nearly five years now.
      Five, as in (5) as in V as in the integer after four and before 
      the six that will also pass and be gone with no further hints
      of the mythical water heater.

      I would assert that it's going to be difficult to distinguish
      morphological dissimilarities with one's sconce up one's duff.

                              dale bass


cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.09 / Cameron Bass /  Re: (Long) Possible sources of error in Italian NiH "power imbalance
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: (Long) Possible sources of error in Italian NiH "power imbalance
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 1994 06:38:42 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <pC6LHru.jedrothwell@delphi.com>,  <jedrothwell@delphi.com> wrote:
>Tom Droege writes:
> 
>Real science is done by experiments, not by making up empty fantasies about
>how gas cells would work if they did not work the way they really do. What
>goes on here is not science, it is a form of religion, where you consult the
>sacred textbooks and you put together random ideas in order to create
>cockamamie "theories" to prove that calorimetry does not work.

    So, 'real science' consists of taking two datapoints from a 
    wildly varying time series and inferring all sorts of stuff from
    them?   I suspect your religious definition of science does
    not match that of most of the practitioners.  There's no science
    here, just faith.  And, no, Jed buddy, calorimetry does *not* work
    under wild time variation with completely inadequate sampling
    of input power.

    However, you'll note that very few people care about the new 'results'. 
    The world was not set ablaze by the new NiH results, and 
    I'm quite sure they'll die a rather quiet death of nonreproducability
    in the future, so I think it's pointless to try to figure out
    what they did 'wrong'.  Thousands of experiments have
    died the same death without anyone *ever* figuring out which specific
    thing caused the spurious result.  Basically, why waste the time?
    For instance, I can tell you that every perpetual motion machine offered
    is spurious without ever looking at any plans.  So, until you get
    somebody else of good repute to replicate, they're will be 
    very little interest.

    The real question is:

    Where's the water heater Jed?  Pons promised one in 1989.  *You*
    mentioned a generator in 1993.  

    Vapourware, boys, vapourware.  PT Barnum would be proud, but
    it doesn't say much for whatever arm of Toyota continues to let
    itself be conned.

    As embarassing as it is, I'd think those particular Japanese would be
    getting wise to the con by now and start asking hard, *very* hard,
    questions of Messrs P&F.

                            dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.09 / J Glazenburg-Di /  Re: propose creation of fusion.HOT and fusion.COLD to improve S/N !
     
Originally-From: jmd@bear.com (Josh Glazenburg-Diamond)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: propose creation of fusion.HOT and fusion.COLD to improve S/N !
Date: 9 Mar 94 16:20:09 GMT
Organization: Bear, Stearns & Co. - FAST



In article <2lifsu$6dg@info.epfl.ch> dutch@elpp1.epfl.ch writes:

   Hi Everyone,

   I wish to propose SPLITTING sci.physics.fusion into
   sci.physics.fusion.COLD + sci.physics.fusion.HOT


Here here.

I agree tremendously.  Post a request for votes.

Spidey!!!

--
You don't hunt ducks with a turnip! 

 /\ \  / /\  Josh Glazenburg-Diamond                               jmd@bear.com
//\\ .. //\\ AKA Spidey!!!                        ...!ctr.columbia.edu!ursa!jmd
//\((  ))/\\
/  < `' >  \                                              Do whatever it takes.
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenjmd cudfnJosh cudlnGlazenburg-Diamond cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.10 / Bill Page /  SL: Theory Needed
     
Originally-From: 70047.3047@compuserve.com (Bill Page)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: SL: Theory Needed
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 1994 13:01:36 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Steve Jones writes:
<<
That SL increases in intensity when water is cooled is discussed in an 
excellent review article, Alan J. Walton and Geo. T. Reynolds, 
"Sonoluminescence," _Advances in Physics_, 33 (1984) 595-660. As I get some 
experience with SL, the document makes more and more sense to me.

Bill Page:  you noted that "SL has at least one thing in common with CF - 
there is no good theory of the phenomena."  (March 3 posting)

Certainly CF has no good theory (nor compelling experiment either), but SL 
is in better shape.  First of all, it's a real effect. Also, this review 
article points to temperatures in the collapsing bubble of about 5000 K.  
This occurs evidently when the gas is heated quasi-adiabatically during 
bubble collapse.  More importantly for possible fusion effects is the data 
which points to temperatures up to 50,000 K (data) with 10^8 K 
theoretically achievable when *shock-wave* heating occurs.

See excellent review by L. Crum, J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 95 (1994) 559.

So IF fusion occurs in a collapsing bubble, it will be *hot* fusion. It's 
not too hard to understand fusion occurring at 10^8 K ... I suggest a name 
"Hot Bubble Fusion" to make a clear distinction from "Cold Fusion."  Of 
course, neither has been demonstrated yet...
>>

Actually, I rather liked the "sonofusion" term you coined a while back.

Yes, Steve, your points are well taken.  However in the SL case when I was 
referring to theory I was thinking in terms of the explanations of the 
luminesence itself, its spectrum and the synchronous effects.  I agree that 
the *if* sufficiently high temperatures and pressures can be achieved then 
we probably won't need a new theory  to invoke fusion reactions.  I need to 
do some reading before I make many more comments, but I have got the 
impression from reading the postings here that SL lacks an accepted theory 
that accounts for even the current observations, let alone hypothetical 
fusion reactions.

-------------

Stacy Mogren <stacymogren@delphi.com> writes:
<<
I have been toying with the idea of light trapped inside a bubble and 
compressed by sound waves (as suggested by Bill Page in "SL: Theory Needed"
on March 3 '94).
>>

A clarification concerning attribution: The idea of light trapped inside a 
bubble wasn't suggested by me.  That was Mike Jamison's idea, I believe.  
However, I did promote toying with idea (theory needed).

Stacy Mogren continues:
<<
The best way to approach the problem is to solve for the normal modes of a 
spherical cavity with a step increase in the index of refraction.  This is 
going to take me some time, however.
>>

In case you missed this, check with Chuck Harris concerning a reference on 
related theory and software:
<<
Recommended reference:  Bohren & Huffman, "Light Scatterring & Absorption 
by Small Particles", Wiley 1987 (This is my recollection of the citation -- 
may be in error! -ch).

Mie (ca 1900) calculated the exact solution for a spherical resonator, 
which seems appropriate here.  The solution is a series expansion of 
spherical harmonics.  The Bohren&Huffman book includes as an appendix 
FORTRAN source code for computing the series coefficients and for summing 
the far-field amplitude (this last not particularly relevant here).  I have 
source, and MS-DOS executable on hand; e-mail me if interested.  You will 
probably want to rework this code to compute the field _inside_ the 
particle.

--Chuck Harrison  harr@netcom.com
>>

Stacy Mogren continues:
<<
In this note I will simply assume such modes exist, make some crude 
assumptions, and and examine what happens to the photons in a collapsing 
sphere.  The results
suggest that the collapsing walls not only push the photons into a small 
space, but increase their energy into the vacuum UV range where they can 
ionize molecules into a plasma.

Imagine a photon in a bubble behaves like a ball bouncing around in a 
series of glancing reflections, travelling in a roughly circular path. 
Assume that after one trip around, the path repeats itself exactly.  This 
makes the math easier.  Each time the photon bounces off the moving wall it 
picks up a miniscule amount of energy via the Doppler shift (Compton 
scattering in the l.i.h. limit).

[Yes!  This is very interesting.]

[calculations omitted ...]

So if a 2eV photon from the red region of the visible spectrum is initially 
trapped, it will produce a 20eV photon, easily energetic enough to ionize 
water molecules.  The smallest photon energy that can produce an ionizing 
end product is about 0.1eV, this is small enough that it >may< have some 
significant thermal population.

...

1)  Steve Jones reports observing the effect with the lights off, so where 
did the initial photon come from?

...
>>

Hmm... Internal thermal photons are present, no?  Even of the water is 
cooled, right?  Some of these might be trapped in the bubble and promoted 
to higher energy levels.  But why does the intensity appear to increase 
when the temperature decreases?  A shift in the spectrum of emission 
perhaps.

I've read here that the observed spectrum is similar to black body 
radiation.  Would such a spectrum be consistent with this model of 
"pumping" the photon frequency by doppler-shift during collapse?  Do we 
have to assume the reflection is not total, but rather that some photons of 
varying frequencies are emitted during the collapse?

BTW, why *does* the emission reported by Steve appear blue?

Stacy Mogren:
<<
One obvious experimental test is to flood the region around the bubble with 
some monochromatic light source that is easy to filter out (say a HeNe 
laser) and see if the light emission changes when the laser is turned on 
and off.
>>

An excellent suggestion!  Steve, we are counting on you ...

Seriously, this kind of posting makes reading sci.physics.fusion worth 
while.  Thanks, Stacy.

Cheers,

Bill Page.

cudkeys:
cuddy10 cuden3047 cudfnBill cudlnPage cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.10 / mitchell swartz /  Standing questions to dale
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Standing questions to dale
Subject: Re: Steve cites the US Patent Office
Subject: Re: Turning on the scientific debate (was closing off...)
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 1994 03:40:42 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA


   In Message-ID: <CMEtsu.192@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
Subject: Re: Steve cites the US Patent Office
dale bass [crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)]  wrote:

=dbass  "    Mitch,
=dbass     ..... Also notable and eligible for
=dbass      honorable mention is the long-running 'Dodge and Parry the 
=dbass      Substantive Questions', a personal favorite of mine.
=dbass                            dale bass"

   Gosh Dale.    One gross point you have overlooked.
    It has actually been you who has continued the longest Dodge and Parry,
The proof now follows, [in Message-ID: 
<CKz0zn.Hsy@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
Subject: Re: Turning on the scientific debate (was closing off...)
Cameron Randale Bass (crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU) wrote

     >  K)  How can you explain the fact the observed power density
     > levels have been increasing since 1989 (10Watt/cm3) by two orders 
     >of magnitude?
   =dbass   This is not true.  P&F were claiming far higher levels in 
   =dbass   1989 (1000 W/cm^3)."

  To which Dale was asked (and dodged):

  =ms "How about a 
  =ms   reference, dale?  Bet you can't find one.     <---------
  =ms   "Where is the proof of
  =ms   your purported claims of 
  =ms   "spiking", 1000 W/cm3 (1989 value), and atmospheric
  =ms   contamination?"

  Hence, dale, it is you who really deserve the award for 
"Bait, Dodge, and Parry".

  How about a reference, dale? 
Where is the proof of your purported claims of "spiking"?
Where is the proof of your purported claims of 1000 W/cm3 (1989 value)?
Where is the proof of your purported claims of atmospheric contamination?
 Bet you can't find one. 
                          Still waiting.     ;-) X

                     Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com)

cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.10 /  blue@nscl00.ns /  Let's bury Mitchell's Mossbauer argument
     
Originally-From: blue@nscl00.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Let's bury Mitchell's Mossbauer argument
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 1994 14:31:14 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Mitchell Swartz has long made the case for his assertion that strange
things can happen when nuclei get into a lattice by reference to the
Mossbauer effect.  In Mitchell's view this one case proves that indeed
the energy from a nuclear transition can couple directly to phonons and
heat the lattice.  He even has written down the equation for this
energy transfer correctly.  Now let's take this one simple step further.
Let's evaluate this formula numerically.  The energy transfer to the
lattice is:

                          Eo^2/2Mc^2

where Eo is the transition energy, c is the velocity of light, and
M is the recoiling mass.  In the case of a Mossbauer transition that
mass is essentially the entire crystal - a macroscopic mass.  That is
what makes the Mossbauer effect so spectacular!  But wait, that mass
is in the denominator so the bigger we make it the smaller the energy
transferred to the lattice phonons.  Is that really the effect you
want to call our attention to, Mitchell?

Next challange is to see truly how spectacular this energy transfer
can be.  The first example I could lay my hands on involves the
129 keV transition in 191Ir.  The recoil energy is something like
0.000 +/- 1 X 10^-5 eV.  Pretty spectacular - spectacularly SMALL
that is!  So I am ready to concede to Mitchell that nuclear transitions
can indeed result in direct energy transfers to the lattice with
the heating being of the order of some tiny fraction of an electron
volt per transistion.  Let's see now, how many such events does it
take to provide one watt of excess enthalpy?  I leave that calculation
to you, Mitchell.  Show us how difficult it will be to find the
"ash" of such a process.  Oh, by the way don't fail to note that
the gamma rays from a Mossbauer transition still get emitted (all
of them), and are candidates for detection well outside the lattice.

There is an important lesson here concerning the basics of energy
transfer.  The more tightly you try to tie the source to the
receiver the less energy gets transfered.  If you truly want to
deliver the maximum fraction of the nuclear transition energy
to the lattice you have to look for processes that put most of
the energy initially into light, charged particles and rely on
some secondary process to degrade that energy into heat.
Mossbauer effect moves the energy transfer process in precisely
the wrong direction, so can we drop it from any further discussion
relating to cold fusion?

Dick Blue       Unbound and free to recoil!

cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenblue cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.10 / John Logajan /  Re: Crying wolf versus the non-existence of wolfs
     
Originally-From: 74242.1554@compuserve.com (John M. Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Crying wolf versus the non-existence of wolfs
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 1994 15:30:36 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:

>However, you'll note that very few people care about the new 'results'.
>The world was not set ablaze by the new NiH results, and I'm quite sure
>they'll die a rather quiet death of nonreproducability in the future,

But then again, if no one trys to reproduce it, it dies a quiet death
of nonreproducability -- even if it was, in fact, reproducible.

The "signal" of the Italian results is large enough to warrant further
investigation -- if only to show that they have succeeded in optomising
and magnifying error factors.  Some of us learn from our mistakes.  In
fact, that is the reason I make so many of them. :-)


cudkeys:
cuddy10 cuden1554 cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.11 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Tom Droege Writes???
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Tom Droege Writes???
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 1994 01:07:18 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway


Dale Bass recently put up a post starting with Tom Droege Writes: which
started with "Real science is done by experiments...".  Later in the quote
the word "cockamamie" is used.  Come on Dale, I think you have attributed 
some of Jed Rothwell's words to me.  Cockamamie is not in my vocabulary.  I
think an apology is in order!!

Tom Droege

cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenDROEGE cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.11 /  blue@nscl00.ns /  Re: Tinsley's last stand
     
Originally-From: blue@nscl00.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Tinsley's last stand
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 1994 01:07:24 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Reply to Chris Tinsley

Chris Tinsley wrote  a highly critical essay (posted here by Jed
Rothwell) about the response of scientists to cold fusion.  I sense
that his harsh judgement stems from an incorrect understanding of
the nature of the evidence that is being offered in support of the
concept that some new energy sources with significantly higher
power densities have been demonstrated in hydrogen-metal systems.
Chris concludes that power sources at the 50-100 watt level should
be easily recognizable and that hundreds of megajoules can produce
unmistakable effects.  This being the case how then can any
scientist fail to respond with support and encouragement for cold
fusion research?  I believe the answer to that question can be
found only if we clean up some of the rubbish that has been strewn
all over this field, and reexamine the best data by asking simply
how easily the effect could be recognized by the kind of direct
observations that Chris has implicitly assumed in his evaluation of
the evidence.

I would characterize most, if not all, early CF experiments as
being significantly different from the Tinsley picture in which
the manifestation of excess heat is immediately obvious.  Rather,
early research characteristically involved very long preparation
and observation cycles with high probability of total failure.
In those rare cases where "excess enthalpy" was claimed its
presence was manifest only in the numbers - the result of doing
a form of accounting on heat inputs and outputs.  That accounting
is totally dependent on a long chain of assumptions, some quite
subtle and unstated, that connect the direct observations to
the calculated enthalpy production.  Clearly we are not talking
about lots of watts here, and the accumulated megajoules never
heated anything to red heat.  The very nature of such measurements
make them the subject of long debates over the relative merits of
various experimental methods and interpretations of the data.  This
is not the sort of data that can lead to a quick resolution of the
CF issue by scientists no matter how capable and well intentioned
they may be.  As an aside I will point out that the injection of
issues and motives that are decidedly not scientific has greatly
added to this muddle, but that shouldn't be taken as a mark against
science.

Moving on then we should come to the data that exhibits easily
recognized signs for the presence of a heat source, perhaps 
something that would burn your fingers like a match.  Better yet
suppose someone built a water heater that gave hot water at the
turn of a tap and kept on heating for months or years.  Well, even
if only at the 50-100 watt level, that would make the skeptics
change their tune, wouldn't it?  The nominations have been open
for candidate demonstrations of CF heating for several years
now.  From time to time we hear various experiments mentioned
as having achieved this goal, but they seem to have a tendency to
fade with time leaving confusion and disagreement in their wake.
Why is that?

One problem is a tendency for CF results to be presented in the
best possible light to give the appearance that a new plateau has
been reached even though the actual manifestations of the effect
remain rather subtle.  Peak power levels are quoted when sustained
averages are nothing to write home about.  Large excess enthalpies
can still be artifacts springing from large and poorly controlled
energy transfer processes of very ordinary origins.  Calibration
drifts, improper normalizations and scaling, recombination,
inadequate monitoring of power inputs, bad thermometry, etc. have
all been demonstrated in conjunction with claims of excess enthalpy
production.  If Chris (or anyone else) believes there is an
experiment that can be duplicated often enough to serve as a
demonstration capable of forcing even the most vile of skeptics to
renounce the error of his ways, please make it known.  I have read
summaries of the recent ICCF4 conference, and nothing seems to have
caught the attention of the attendees.

Probably the best known attempts to produce a demonstration of
cold fusion with the effect being made directly observable are the
Pons and Fleischmann boil-off experiments.  Yep, there before
your very eyes water boils, and that certainly takes heat.  The
problem with the demonstration is that clearly the electric power
input by itself was large enough to account for the boiling.
Once again the effect can be determined only by doing some
accounting for heat inputs and outputs.  Unfortunately at least one
key piece of the data is not recorded with sufficient resolution to
allow an audit of the books, so to speak.  For such a widely
heralded experiment, one that is supposed to have been repeated
numerous times, to come to publication without the inclusion
of essential data leaves the CF question unanswered.  It would be
irresponsible for any scientist to reach a conclusion on the basis
of such data.  Thus, I think, Chris Tinsley paints with too broad
a brush when he seeks to spread tar on the entire scientific
community for its failure to resolve the CF controversy in the way
he would wish it resolved.

Dick Blue     No affiliation of any significance.  You will just  
              have to blame me.





cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenblue cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.11 / SCOTT CHUBB /  "Deep Core Electron Storage...."
     
Originally-From: CHUBB@cfe1.nrl.navy.mil (SCOTT CHUBB)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: "Deep Core Electron Storage...."
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 1994 01:07:36 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Dear Frank Close,
     In my opinion, and, I believe, in the opinion of most
reasonable physicists, conservation of energy, the Pauli exclusion
principle and the second law of thermodynamics are to be taken as
necessary assumptions in any reasonable discussion of scientific
phenomena.  On the other hand, I think it is also reasonable to
assume that most physicists have a difficult time understanding how
Cold Fusion heat can possibly occur, and for this reason, many
physicists seem to believe that really very bizarre physics must
beat work.
     I put it to you that your recent suggestion of a "deep core
electron energy storage mechanism" at best contradicts most of what
is known about the physics and chemistry associated with Ni and H
core electrons.  At worst, it violates energy conservation, the
Pauli exclusion principle, and the second law of thermodynamics.
     Specifically, detailed electronic structure calculations do
exist for H adsorbed on Ni and Ni.  (I have personally performed
anumber of these.)  Detailed UV photoemission and X-ray
photoemission studies have been performed.  Theory and experiment
do agree quite nicely, thank-you, with regard to the energies and
excitation possibilities associated with these materials under
normal circumstances.
     The possibility of "extraordinary" circumstances (that somehow
might lead to some form of bizarre storage mechanism that could
beat work involving these electrons) simply does not hold up to
close scrutiny because of the large energy differences involved,
the requirements of the second law of thermodynamics, and the known
channels for energy dissipation in these materials.
     On the other hand, there really is a very plausible starting
point for understanding a considerable amount of what has been seen
based upon the following assumption:  the underlying quantum
mechanics associated with the high energies of conventional nuclear
physics need not apply to a situation involving deuterium nuclei
interacting with a Nickel host.  (I wish to emphasize that
deuterium nuclei as opposed to the nuclei associated with light
hydrogen could be responsible for the phenomena.)  
     In particular, independent experimental information derived by
Puska and co-workers (see NATURE, vol 356, p 289, and references to
Nieminen et al found there) has shown that when hydrogen and
deuterium atoms become adsorbed on Ni surfaces, effectively, the
associated (H or D) nuclear centers dissociate from their
respective electrons, and subsequently occupy ion band states. The
importance of this fact is that from this starting point, the
relevant quantum mechanical interactions become vastly different
than they are in free space.  An important point is that H- or D-
nuclei that occupy ion band states are bound to the solid but
effectively are distributed everywhere, in a manner similar to the
way conducting electrons are distributed everywhere.  Potential
coupling to nuclear processes in which energy release also occurs
everywhere (because the nuclei are located everywhere) are allowed
provided very specific selection rules (including the requirement
that final state nuclear by-products also occupy ion band states)
are maintained.  The key factor that dictates whether or not this
occurs is the requirement that the energy of the system be
minimized.
     The underlying physics associated with this is entirely
mainstream.  What is different about it is that it is based on the
quantum mechanics of bound, periodic systems, as opposed to the
semi-classical quantum mechanics that can be used to describe
electrostatic interactions in conventional nuclear reactions.  What
is also different about the underlying physics is that it relies
upon the known bonding behavior of hydrogen and deuterium in solids
and the known quantum mechanical diffusion properties of the
elements in these kinds of environments.
     I put it to you that a considerable amount can be learned from
this starting point and that this is a much better way to try to
understand Cold Fusion than to use the approach you have suggested.
I also put it to you that there is an accumulating body of evidence
in support of D+D->4He+lattice energy (in the form of phonons) that
can be used to account for much of what has been seen.  Thus, in
fact, the "nuclear ash" that you have so adamantly insisted is not
present does in fact seem to be present.  The difference is that
the gamma ray that you have so adamantly assumed must be present
neither is required to be present or has been observed.
     In my opinion, at this stage, it is important to tell the
whole story, not merely the one that is convenient to tell,
including all of the relevant facts.
     Finally, I would like to bring to your attention some of our
own work concerning ion band states and their potential
relationship to Cold Fusion.  In particular, we have recently
published an article (S. R. Chubb and T. A. Chubb, "Ion Band State
Fusion: Reactions, Power Density, and the Quantum Reality
Question," Fusion Technology 24, 403 (1993)) which provides a
number of important details associated with the relevant Solid
State Physics effects that can alter the relevant quantum
mechanics, as well as a number of predictions.  (In an earlier
paper, T. A. Chubb and S. R. Chubb, "Cold Fusion as an Interaction
between Ion Band States," Fusion Technology 20, 93 (1991), we
previously used a number of these ideas to make a series of
predictions that subsequently were observed, including the
predictions that the predominant Cold Fusion by-products should be
heat, untrapped 4He --which would be found outside heat-producing
electrodes--, and that near full- loading -- x->1 in PdDx-- is
required to initiate Cold Fusion].) I do hope that you will find
these comments useful.  I sincerely believe your "deep core" level
storage idea is misguided.

Sincerely,

Scott Chubb
Code 7234
Naval Research Laboratory
Washington, D. C. 20375-5351
USA
PHONE: 202-767-2003, 202-767-5270 (alt.)
FAX:   202-767-5599

cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenCHUBB cudfnSCOTT cudlnCHUBB cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.10 / Michael Price /  Re: Tapping the Vacuum Energy -- An Important Paper from Bear 
     
Originally-From: price@price.demon.co.uk (Michael Clive Price)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.energy
Subject: Re: Tapping the Vacuum Energy -- An Important Paper from Bear 
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 1994 17:09:35 +0000
Organization: MCP plc

Ron Maimon:

> The only thing the casimir effect shows is that two conductors 
> attract each other when placed close together- but this is 
> obvious- the attraction is the same as the Van-der Waals force
> between molecules- it's caused by one conductor inducing charge 
> on the other, and can only happen quantum mechanically.

I know this is a dumb question, but I take it that this explanation is
isomorphic to Itzykson&Zuber's that it's caused by the supression of vac
fluctations in the EM field of length that don't divide the conductor
separation?

Mike Price                         price@price.demon.co.uk
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenprice cudfnMichael cudlnPrice cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.10 / Michael Price /  Re: Tapping the Vacuum Energy -- An Important Paper from Bear 
     
Originally-From: price@price.demon.co.uk (Michael Clive Price)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.energy
Subject: Re: Tapping the Vacuum Energy -- An Important Paper from Bear 
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 1994 17:21:00 +0000
Organization: MCP plc

John Baez:

> However, astronomical observations indicate that the cosmological
> constant is very small if nonzero.

Very small, but there *are* astronomical indications that suggest it is
non-zero.  See New Scientist 26 Feb 94 "Blast from past hints Universe
is young" - like about 8-10 billion years, rather than the 13-15
required by implied globular cluster ages.  A way out is to posit a
small CC.  Science (or was it Nature?) did a good review article on the
related issue of pinning down Hubble's constant a few months back.  A
non-zero CC would be good way of resolving a number of problems and
retain a lot of badly wanted features (like inflation).

Not sure how this would square with:

> Recently it has been suggested that virtual wormholes keep the
> cosmological constant very near zero.... this relies upon the
> "many-worms interpretation" of quantum mechanics, which is a can
> of worms I don't want to open tonight. 

We should know for sure with direct observations of Cepheids in the
Virgo cluster and elsewhere within a year or two with the (fixed) Hubble
Space Telescope.

>> [Oh, and one more thing.  Please note that I'm not endorsing the 
>> idea of extracting energy from the vacuum.  I think that's flaky
>> too.]
>
> Me to!  I'd wait till they do it before worrying about *that*.

And me :-)

Mike Price                         price@price.demon.co.uk
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenprice cudfnMichael cudlnPrice cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.10 / Rich Hawryluk /  TFTR Update March 10, 1994
     
Originally-From: rhawryluk@pppl.gov (Rich Hawryluk)
Newsgroups: pppl.tftr.news,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: TFTR Update March 10, 1994
Date: 10 Mar 1994 13:14:10 -0500
Organization: Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory

Status (March 10, 1994):

A further set of experiments to study the heating of D-T supershots with 43
MHz ICRF were conducted on March 7th and 8th.  Four of the five neutral
beam heated D-T plasmas generated during these experiments had 23 MW of one
second neutral beam injection (60% of the beam injected power was in
tritium).  Up to 5.8 MW of ICRH was coupled into these plasmas with a 1-2%
He3 minority and 4.4 MW of ICRH was coupled without a minority species
being present.  In all these experiments the second harmonic tritium and
He-3 minority resonances were near the magnetic axis.  With the addition of
5.8 MW of ICRH to a D-T neutral beam heated plasma preliminary analysis
indicates that the stored energy increased from 3.4 to 4.1 MJ, the core ion
temperature increased from approximately 28 to 34 keV and the central
electron temperature (measured by ECE) increased from 8.5 to 11 keV.  The
neutron production rate increased from approximately 1.1e18 per second to
1.2e18 per sec with the addition of ICRH.  This data is being further
analyzed at this time.

The tritium systems are performing very well demonstrating that the repairs
and enhancements installed are functioning well.  Last week, >30,000 Curies
were added to the TSDS and >12,000 Curies were processed by the Torus
Cleanup System.  This week a molecular sieve bed containing about 16,000
Curies was sent for reprocessing and a shipment of 24,000 Curies was
received.
Plans:

Deuterium set up shots for high beta-poloidal experiments with D-T are
being performed.  These experiments will modify the safety factor profile
which is predicted to affect the stability threshold for the TAE
instability.  The Columbia group is leading the experimental effort.

Next week will be a maintenance week.

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


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



cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenrhawryluk cudfnRich cudlnHawryluk cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.09 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Mitch goofs again
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Mitch goofs again
Date: 9 Mar 94 14:07:36 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

Mitch says:
"Steve did not use the delta-anything until he was corrected. 
All people make mistakes.
However, it is impropoer to routinely use such errors to attempt to
"prove" one's point."  [post 3-9-94]

Mitch, Mitch.  We've been using the uncertainty relation all along,
we don't always show the delta-notation since we have time-zero = 0,
likewise we take x-zero = 0, E-zero = zero.  So when Wong says:

"IF the field quantum exists only for a time t =< hbar/E
... we need not be concerned with energy conservation"
[Samuel Wong, Intro. Nuclear Physics, quoted repeatedly by me in this dialogue]

he does *not* use the delta-t notation nor the delta-E notation, 
yet everyone (almost everyone)
sees this as the uncertainty relation for field quanta with t-zero = 0
and E = E - zero.  So, no, I did not make an error as you erroneously claim.

Mitch, you're not a very good student.  This is High School physics stuff.
You're fired.

--Steve
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenjonesse cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.09 /  jonesse@physc1 /  SL:  Shock-wave heating and Hot Bubble Fusion possibility
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: SL:  Shock-wave heating and Hot Bubble Fusion possibility
Date: 9 Mar 94 15:23:31 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

Most of the posts on this net which relate to 'hot' fusion refer to magnetic
confinement.  I'd like to learn what's happening in the inertial confinement
arena -- who's doing what, where, prognosis...

IF 'Hot Bubble Fusion' can be made to occur, it will be a form of 
inertial-confinement fusion.  It's quite illuminating to look at SL this
way, I think, with the collapsing bubble having a radius that decreases
non-linearly, since an ever smaller radius-bubble collapses ever faster.
Finally, a shock-wave may form with the gas in the bubble being compressed and
simultaneously heated to temperatures up to 10^8!

This is consistent with the explanation for stable,
single-bubble (at spherical flask center)
sonoluminescence (SL) worked out theoretically by C. Wu and Paul Roberts
at UCLA, published in "Shock-wave propagation in a sonluminescing gas bubble,"
Physical Review Letters (really!) 70 (1993) 3424.  I think this is very
exciting, for at these temperatures, a deuterium-tritium mixture might
*ignite*.  Wham-o:  fusion.  (A point Wu and Roberts neglected to make in their
paper, although surely others have thought of fusion ignition besides me.
However, I do not know of any precedents.)

For those currently discussing SL and Mike Jamison's intriguing idea of
first introducing a 'trapped' photon beam into the bubble prior to its collapse,
I highly recommend this accessible article.  The external photon beam 
may not be needed to reach high temps, evidently.   

Someone asked me about the bubble diameter:  20-100 microns at equilibrium
(zero-pressure in the sound-field) is typical, for stable SL.
To be more specific, the Minnaert relation gives the equilibrium-bubble
radius (Ro) in mm for driving-sound-field frequency (f) in kHz,
for air bubbles in water:

   Ro  =   3 / f

[equation 2.20 in Walton and Reynolds, "Sonoluminescence", Advances in
Physics, 33 (1984) 595.]

The bubble Ro will depend on f, gas inside bubble, and liquid used.

For shock-wave heating as posited by Wu and Roberts, ponder these calculated
conditions inside the collapsed bubble:
Rmin = 0.55 microns
Density:  800 kg/m^3   (!)
Temperature:  10^8 K   (!)
Pressure inside bubble boundary:  10^13 Pa (!)
SL luminosity:  30 mW (this is consistent with experiments),
  duration:  1.2 *pico*seconds (experiments say *less than* 50 ps)

There's something worth looking into here; I feel it in my bones.

--Steven Jones


cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenjonesse cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.09 /  jonesse@physc1 /  cancel <1994Mar9.144508.1472@physc1.byu.edu>
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cancel <1994Mar9.144508.1472@physc1.byu.edu>
Date: 9 Mar 94 15:24:21 -0700

cancel <1994Mar9.144508.1472@physc1.byu.edu>
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenjonesse cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.10 / Matt Kennel /  Re: Bussard Ram Jet Questions.
     
Originally-From: mbk%anl433.uucp@Germany.EU.net (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Bussard Ram Jet Questions.
Date: 10 Mar 1994 21:57:36 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

Mike Jamison (ADF) (edwlt12@venus.lerc.nasa.gov) wrote:
: In article <2lk1og$hse@styx.uwa.edu.au>, mmine@yarrow.wt.uwa.edu.au
(Micromine) writes...
: >Hi, I'm after a few details on the subject of a Bussard ram jet design 
: >spacecraft.
: > 
: >For those unfamiliar with the design it's basically a magnetic funnel 
: >which captures particles from space, compresses them and blows them out 
: >the back after fusing them.

: H+H => D + (positron) + energy.

Proceeds by the weak interaction:  a very low cross section for interaction.
Seems to be unusuable for technological purposes.


: Mike Jamison

: "Scientific research consists in seeing what everyone else has seen, but
: thinking what no one else has thought"

: 						-A. Szent-Gyorgyi

--
-Matt Kennel  		mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu
-Institute for Nonlinear Science, University of California, San Diego
-*** AD: Archive for nonlinear dynamics papers & programs: FTP to
-***     lyapunov.ucsd.edu, username "anonymous".
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenuucp cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.10 / Matt Kennel /  Re: SL:  Shock-wave heating and Hot Bubble Fusion possibility
     
Originally-From: mbk%anl433.uucp@Germany.EU.net (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: SL:  Shock-wave heating and Hot Bubble Fusion possibility
Date: 10 Mar 1994 23:59:23 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

jonesse@physc1.byu.edu wrote:
: This is consistent with the explanation for stable,
: single-bubble (at spherical flask center)
: sonoluminescence (SL) worked out theoretically by C. Wu and Paul Roberts
: at UCLA, published in "Shock-wave propagation in a sonluminescing gas bubble,"
: Physical Review Letters (really!) 70 (1993) 3424.  I think this is very
: exciting, for at these temperatures, a deuterium-tritium mixture might
: *ignite*. 

Ignition, not just fusion.  Really?  (Wouldn't a whole flask of liquid T20 be
a serious health hazard?)

: For shock-wave heating as posited by Wu and Roberts, ponder these calculated
: conditions inside the collapsed bubble:
: Rmin = 0.55 microns
: Density:  800 kg/m^3   (!)
: Temperature:  10^8 K   (!)
: Pressure inside bubble boundary:  10^13 Pa (!)
: SL luminosity:  30 mW (this is consistent with experiments),
:   duration:  1.2 *pico*seconds (experiments say *less than* 50 ps)

But I'm worried about what would happen if you did get substantial
ignition.  It seems that it would quickly generate so much heat that
it would quickly blow itself apart and thus stop the reaction.  

With the only ignited ICF made by man, you have the pressure of
an atom bomb's radiation bearing down on you.

: There's something worth looking into here; I feel it in my bones.

I think so too.

: --Steven Jones
--
-Matt Kennel  		mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu
-Institute for Nonlinear Science, University of California, San Diego
-*** AD: Archive for nonlinear dynamics papers & programs: FTP to
-***     lyapunov.ucsd.edu, username "anonymous".
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenuucp cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.10 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Re:  Italian Ni-H results
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re:  Italian Ni-H results
Date: 10 Mar 94 14:28:00 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

In article <1994Feb28.082830.169@ns.network.com>, 
logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan) writes:
> jonesse@physc1.byu.edu writes: 

To be accurate, John, you should say that I was quoting an individual who was
present at the Feb. 14, 1994 meeting in Sienna, Italy, where Dr. Piantelli
discussed his experiment.  I stated this clearly in my original posting.

>>"A nickel wire...in a closed cell filled with hydrogen gas which has some
>> deuterium contamination.
>   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Unless heroic efforts were made, there was some deuterium present in the
hydrogen.  I do not know that this is significant.  However, the Piantelli
paper states that 
"No penetrating radiation (neutrons, gamma-rays) was detected above the
background during the process."      ^^^^^^^^^^

The *absence* of these radiations *is* significant, for such particles would
be present for conventional d-d or p-d fusion.   In particular,
the absence of gammas indicates that p-d reactions were *not* occuring
(correlated with the heat claimed).
One would like to know the energy range and type and sensitivity of the
gamma detector being used.   Careful researchers would provide such information
in their paper.

> 
>>"The cell is apparently heated ... at which point some special treatment
>> involving magnets I believe occurs.  
>   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
>>"There is also an exterior coil around the cell which apparently generates a
>                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>magnetic field for the remainder of the experiment.
>  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> None of the above indicated mechanisms are mentioned in the text of the
> Il Nuovo Cimento paper by Piantelli, Habel and Focardi.
> 
> -- 
> -John Logajan MS612; Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
> -logajan@network.com, 612-391-1159, Fax 612-424-2853

Now the failure of the authors to mention the presence of externally imposed
magnetic fields is disturbing.  Could this be (again), a scientific paper 
failing
to disclose a significant part of the experimental set-up?
  
This sort of nonsense happens so often when claims of "cold fusion" heat
are made that I decided to check my original source on this point.
I spoke to Dr. S. Mercurio of the University of Palermo, Italy, and asked him
to please check whether the experiments of Piantelli et al. in fact involved
magnetic fields.  I received today a FAX from him stating that indeed the
experiment in question *does* have an externally imposed magnetic field.

Q.E.D.

--Steven Jones

cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenjonesse cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.10 / Marshall Dudley /  Re. All gases are not created equal
     
Originally-From: mdudley@dwbbs.nlbbs.com (Marshall Dudley)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re. All gases are not created equal
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 94 16:10:36 GMT
Organization: Data World BBS - Knoxville, TN - (615)966-3574, 675-4753

Tom Droege writes:

>I think John Logajan has put his finger on a likely error for the Italian
>Ni-H experiments.  If you try to do calorimetry by measuring a temperature
>at one spot in a cell, then you are subject to all kinds of conduction, 
>convection, and radiation coefficients changing. In this case the conductivity
>of the gas.  Good experimenters, (McKubre, Me) try to design their apparatus
>so that these types of effects are ruled out by the design.  In my case, I am
>currently trying to use two heat pipes so that I am measuring the temperature
>difference (held to zero) between two isothermal (same temperature everywhere)
>surfaces.  Now if I have a thermometer inside the cell, and its thermal 
>properties to the inner isothermal cell change, it has no effect on the 
>measurement.

>Nice work John!  I remind you all that they used to use hydrogen gas as a 
>coolant for large generators.  Possibly they still do, though I think they 
>switched to He.

>Let's see.  The italian device is converting D2 to He4.  This lowers the 
>conductivity of the gas in the cell (He being a poorer conductor than D2).
>This causes the electrode temperature to rise - looking like excess heat.  
>(I always try to give Jed Rothwell something to quote out of context.  Makes 
>him feel good.)


This entire argument is based on a fallacy.  Where did you find the information
that He4 is a worse conductor than D2?  I find the following stats: (1)

Thermal conductivity in cal/(sec)(cm2)(degreeC/cm)X10-6 at 80 degrees F is
334.74 for D2 and is 360.36 for He4.  Thus He4 has the higher conductivity,
not D2.  Hydrogen however has the highest of all, 446.32.

								Marshall

1. CRC Handbook of Chemistry & Physics 52nd edition (1971) page E-2.
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenmdudley cudfnMarshall cudlnDudley cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.10 / mitchell swartz /  On "Lets bury .. Mossbauer argument"
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: On "Lets bury .. Mossbauer argument"
Subject: Let's bury Mitchell's Mossbauer argument
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 1994 16:50:25 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA


    In Message-ID: <94031008535576@nscl00.nscl.msu.edu>
Subject: Let's bury Mitchell's Mossbauer argument
Dick Blue (blue@nscl00.nscl.msu.edu)  comes to bury the argument:

=db  "Mitchell Swartz has long made the case for his assertion that strange
=db  things can happen when nuclei get into a lattice by reference to the
=db  Mossbauer effect."

  Not quite true.   "Strange"?
 As shown below, it was ONLY cited as a part of the Existence theorem
to demonstrate (and it has) that the claims of the TB-skeptics' 
(named after yourself perhaps, Sir Dick) were simply wrong and unfounded.


=db   "In Mitchell's view this one case proves that indeed
=db  the energy from a nuclear transition can couple directly to phonons and
=db  heat the lattice."

   Untrue.   It just was there to show that coupling may exist
in the condensed solid-state.

 Mossbauer was mentioned here ONLY to show one example where the lattice
 makes a difference.  In that example, two photons (in the case of Fe-57 
 which was discussed in the original post), and a cobalt-57 to iron-57
 conversion by electron capture are used.

      Co-57
   ___________ (half-life 270 days)
               \
                \
                 \
                 _\|     Fe-57
                 ________________________    137 keV
                     |        |
                     |        |
                     |        |
                     |        |
                     |        |
                     |        |
                    \|/       |
                 _____________| __________    14.4 keV
                        |     |
                        |     |
                       \|/   \|/
                 _________________________    stable

   The initial excited level of 137 keV decays either way
  but only the 14.4 had significant levels of recoilless
  emission as I remember.   

  The Mossbauer experiment uses the narrow peak of the emission
  (deltaE/E ca. 10^-11) to examine slight differences at the 
  nucleus ** caused ** by the s-electrons.  The metal atoms 
  in two different (chemically different - eg. alloy) samples
  form a pair (one metal emits, the other absorbs).  There is a
  slight difference called the "monopole shift".  The very
  slight difference in E between them is actually made up by
  Doppler shift by moving one of the samples slowly.
  For more info see: G.K. Wertheim "Mossbauer Effect",
  Academic Press (64), or Wertheim, Science, vol 144, 253-259 (64).

  Once again:  It was presented only 
  to demonstrate that reactions can be unanticipated in 
  the solid state, when based upon "simple" plasma- or gas-thinking.


=db  "He even has written down the equation for this
=db  energy transfer correctly."

   Thank you, Dick.    Have a nice retirement.  


=db  "Next challange is to see truly how spectacular this energy transfer
=db  can be.  The first example I could lay my hands on involves the
=db  129 keV transition in 191Ir.  The recoil energy is something like
=db  0.000 +/- 1 X 10^-5 eV.  Pretty spectacular - spectacularly SMALL
=db  that is!  So I am ready to concede to Mitchell that nuclear transitions
=db  can indeed result in direct energy transfers to the lattice with
=db  the heating being of the order of some tiny fraction of an electron
=db  volt per transistion.  Let's see now, how many such events does it
=db  take to provide one watt of excess enthalpy?  I leave that calculation
=db  to you, Mitchell."

  Dick, this is well known.   A rad deposits 100 ergs of energy per gm
of material.   When I teach non-scientists about an erg, Dick, 
that usually amounts to the energy it takes for a fly to do a "push-up".
    Hardly, calorimetric quantities, right?   Well-known, Dick, right?


=db  "Show us how difficult it will be to find the
=db  "ash" of such a process."

  For your going away, one more post of this will be given.
 Here is the partial list from a previous posting, cut short to
improve the S/N:

==         CALCULATION OF STANDARD ASH PRODUCED
==ms  "It is instructive to consider (the) ... standardized and
==ms  normalized ash rate ....
==ms    Because an electron volt is about 1.6 x 10 ^-16 Joules,
==ms   each Watt-minute requires  60/1.6 x 10**13  reactions/per MeV
==ms    per reaction
==ms the expected energy gain of CF (that is, total energy
==ms  released per reaction [QT]).  
==ms    "The reasonable range of QT would therefore be 3 to 24 MeV per
==ms  reactions producing putative ash.
==ms   So, dividing into the above equation yields
==ms     1 Watt-minute --->   1.7 to 12.5 x 10 ** 13 reactions."
==ms
==ms ----------------------------------------------------------
==ms | QT |  REACTION NUMBER  |         TYPICAL RANGE         |
==ms -----------------------------------------------------
==ms | 1  | 6,250,000,000,000 |                               |
==ms -----------------------------------------------------
==ms | 2  | 3,125,000,000,000 |                               |
==ms -----------------------------------------------------
==ms | 3  | 2,083,333,333,333 |    Advanced D-D fuel cyles"    |
==ms -----------------------------------------------------
==ms | 20 |  312,500,000,000  |                               |
==ms -----------------------------------------------------
==ms | 22 |  284,090,909,091  |    Putative D-D reactions     |
==ms -----------------------------------------------------
==ms | 25 |  250,000,000,000  |    Catalyzed 3He reactions    |
==ms -----------------------------------------------------
==ms | 28 |  223,214,285,714  |                               |
==ms -----------------------------------------------------
==ms Disclaimer:  These numbers were generated with only 2 significant
==ms   figures, and should be ignored beyond that.
==ms                      [M. Swartz  1992]



=db  "Oh, by the way don't fail to note that
=db  the gamma rays from a Mossbauer transition still get emitted (all
=db  of them), and are candidates for detection well outside the lattice."
=db     ......
=db  Dick Blue       Unbound and free to recoil!"

   Although that is correct, Mossbauer was NOT cited as an explanation
for c.f. (vide supra).   
We are talking about the Existence theorem here.
For your retirement, which you claim is pending, here
is an example of nuclear decay which can occur without detectable x-rays.

   Consider those groups of P32 nuclei that decay by
beta-  decay (electron emission with neutron conversion -> proton)
    Now when I last checked in this area, the spectrum shows great heterogeneity
with in fact few emissions at the (classical 1.70 MeV  max), normally
described as follows:

    32P   14.3 days
    15
    _____
     \
      \  beta-  emission 1.70-1.71 MeV
       \|
      -- 32S
         16

   However, the spectrum is:
  qualitative emission spectra of beta-decay of 32P
relative
number      
|                       x
|                   x        x
|                x             x
|           x                   x
|     x                           x
| x                                 x     (caution this curve is qualitative)
|x                                    x
|x                                      x
|x                                          x   Max.
_______________________________________________/
0    .2                .6 MeV             1.6
             energy of each beta emitted ----->

     | <------ compton region --------->
  \
   \ photoelectric region

   What is interesting is that although twice as many beta-rays are emitted
 at .6 MeV compared with  1.2 MeV,  there is significant emission with much
 less energy given to the electrons emitted..   In fact, as can be seen from
 even this crude attempt to show the curve, there can be emissions
 below 100 keV.   Some of them may be may be nuclei which emit energy 
  insufficiently penetrating for a number of reason.  Furthermore,
  they are unable to generate higher energy x-rays, either.

   [One current explanation for the distribution is a neutrino emission.]
The phosphorous isotopes are listed here:

 --------------------------------------------------------------
|material  |at no. |at. wt.| halflife | particle |gamma energy|
 --------------------------------------------------------------
|phosphorus|  15   |  28   |   .28s   |  beta +  |1.8, 2.6 MeV|
 --------------------------------------------------------------
|phosphorus|  15   |  29   |   4.4s   |  beta +  |1.3, 2.4 MeV|
 --------------------------------------------------------------
|phosphorus|  15   |  30   |   2.5m   |  beta +  |  2.16 MeV  |
 --------------------------------------------------------------
|phosphorus|  15   |  31   |  stable  |          |            |
 --------------------------------------------------------------
|phosphorus|  15   |  32   |  14.3d   |  beta -  |            |
 --------------------------------------------------------------
|phosphorus|  15   |  33   |   25d    |  beta -  |            |
 --------------------------------------------------------------
|phosphorus|  15   |  34   |  12.4s   |  beta -  |2.1, 4.0 MeV|
 --------------------------------------------------------------
|          |       |       |          |          |            |
 --------------------------------------------------------------
|sulfur    |  16   |  32   | stable   |          |            |
 --------------------------------------------------------------
  
   Always looking forward to your scientific comments, Dick
which for several months have developed away from the ad hominems
characterizing most of the rest of the TB-skeptcs.

  Please don't misquote and claim I said Mossbauer or
phosphorous necessarily account for cold fusion based upon these
two examples.   ;-)

      Best wishes.                           Mitchell Swartz
                                          (mica@world.std.com)


cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.10 / Joshua Levy /  Re: More on Will (Reply to Joshua@"veritas")
     
Originally-From: joshua@veritas.com (Joshua Levy)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: More on Will (Reply to Joshua@"veritas")
Date: 10 Mar 1994 16:56:05 -0800
Organization: VERITAS Software Corp., Santa Clara  CA

I sumarized a previous exchange like this:
>  "Put another way: Britz liked the paper until Jones pointed out some serious
>   flaws in it.  Given this new information, Britz changes his mind on the
>   quality of the paper."

Mica replies:
>  I. )   This comment would be reasonable IF the complaints and
>comments of such alleged "flaws" were consistently predicated
>upon honest statements which did actually reflect that which occurred.
>
>    Instead, some of Jones' descriptions of these experiments
>(like those of Miles, McKubre, Kucherov, etc. before)
>have been simply:  incorrect.   
>As yet further proof of this are two further examples 
>which have occurred SINCE YOU POSTED your
>lame words in defense of such global e-misstatements and
>e-misleading.

Mica then writes dozens of lines of stuff, but not one line describing
Jones's mistakes in his description of the the Will paper.  Where is
the beef?  You state loudly up front that Jones's description of the
Will paper is incorrect, and then write dozens of lines of stuff, not
one of which identifies the mistake.

A simple question to Mica: What was Jones's mistake in his description
or analysis of Will's paper?  Or are you going to claim it exists, but
refuse to identify it.

Joshua Levy <joshua@veritas.com>
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenjoshua cudfnJoshua cudlnLevy cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.10 / Joshua Levy /  Re: Italian Ni-H (was: (?) Jones on Fractofusion)
     
Originally-From: joshua@veritas.com (Joshua Levy)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Italian Ni-H (was: (?) Jones on Fractofusion)
Date: 10 Mar 1994 17:01:31 -0800
Organization: VERITAS Software Corp., Santa Clara  CA

al789@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John Logajan) writes:
>There is clear evidence in Figure 5 that the Italians had at least two
>thermometers during an "event."  

My posting assumes they only had one thermometer, so if they had more,
you can ignore it (my posting).  R. Heeter posted that they only had one 
thermometer, and I was taking his word for it.  You might also want to 
talk to someone named Logajan who said:

"It is not apparent from the paper just how many thermometers they used."

In a posting from netcom.com.
 
Joshua Levy <joshua@veritas.com> 
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenjoshua cudfnJoshua cudlnLevy cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.10 / Joshua Levy /  Re: Italian Ni-H (was: (?) Jones on Fractofusion)
     
Originally-From: joshua@veritas.com (Joshua Levy)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Italian Ni-H (was: (?) Jones on Fractofusion)
Date: 10 Mar 1994 17:29:23 -0800
Organization: VERITAS Software Corp., Santa Clara  CA

>"It is not apparent from the paper just how many thermometers they used."
>In a posting from netcom.com.
                   ^^^^^^
             This should be network, sorry about the mistake.

Joshua Levy <joshua@veritas.com> 


cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenjoshua cudfnJoshua cudlnLevy cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Fri Mar 11 04:37:05 EST 1994
------------------------------
1994.03.11 / Ron Maimon /  Re: Tapping the Vacuum Energy -- An Important Paper from Bear
     
Originally-From: rmaimon@husc9.Harvard.EDU (Ron Maimon)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.energy
Subject: Re: Tapping the Vacuum Energy -- An Important Paper from Bear
Date: 11 Mar 1994 00:53:09 GMT
Organization: Harvard University, Cambridge, MA

In article <763319375snz@price.demon.co.uk>, price@price.demon.co.uk
(Michael Clive Price) writes:
|> Ron Maimon:
|> 
|> > The only thing the casimir effect shows is that two conductors 
|> > attract each other when placed close together- but this is 
|> > obvious- the attraction is the same as the Van-der Waals force
|> > between molecules- it's caused by one conductor inducing charge 
|> > on the other, and can only happen quantum mechanically.
|> 
|> I know this is a dumb question, but I take it that this explanation is
|> isomorphic to Itzykson&Zuber's that it's caused by the supression of vac
|> fluctations in the EM field of length that don't divide the conductor
|> separation?
|> 

A dumb question?

of course not.

It's true though. What happens is that you can either see the energy as a
manifestation of the "conductor character" of the conducter, the fact that
it reduces the number of modes in the box, or you can look in detail as to
how it does that, in terms of the individual electrons moving around. What
happens is that the electron wavefunction of the two metal plates (or the
one metal plate and the wall of the box) become correllated, and they are
farther apart then you would think. This is the same mechanism that causes
Van-Der-Waals attraction.

The attraction, like the _relativistic_ Van-Der Waals attraction, is 1/r^6,
you might have heard that the casimir force is like 1/r^4, but that's because
you are integrating over two sheets of attracting "points", and so you get
a surface area factor of r^2. See I'm not cheating you. In addition, they
are both quantum mechanical effects.

The reason it doesn't happen classically is that classically it is impossible
for two neutral objects to induce charges on each other. This is because it
is always energetically more favorable to have charges not-separated close
together then it is energetically more favorable to have the charges separated
far apart.

Ron Maimon
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenrmaimon cudfnRon cudlnMaimon cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.10 / Robert Heeter /  Reinterpreting the Italian NiH observations / Reply to Jed
     
Originally-From: rfheeter@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Robert Franklin Heeter)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Reinterpreting the Italian NiH observations / Reply to Jed
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 1994 05:27:15 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

Hopefully we can bring the signal back out of the noise here.

In article <xQ+LHbp.jedrothwell@delphi.com> jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:
>I wrote:
> 
>     "People who have performed actual experiment with gas cells, like
>     Mizuno, have published calibration curves and other data showing that
>     these cells work perfectly well."
> 
>Robert F. Heeter asks
> 
>     "Please provide me a reference so I can see for myself."
> 
>Have a look at his ICCF4 paper. More detailed calibration curves can be found
>in his Japanese language publications; I can mail you a copy. 

I don't have access to the ICCF4 materials, nor can I read Japanese.
But I'm willing to look at whatever you send me.

>But let us get
>serious here. If you want to "see for yourself" then for goodness sake put a
>resistance heater into a tin can and find out! At a first approximation, air
>at 1 atm will not be so different from hydrogen. Go ahead and show us how to
>fool a thermometer in a gas calorimeter by 120 C. Heck, make it 10 C. For that
>matter, show us why the dummy calibration curves are so straight and why the
>temperature goes back to the level to within a degree every time they
>calibrate with the steel rod.

From the paper I observe that the anomalous temperatures only occur
in the Ni rods and only after the rods have been heated to 400+C, so
that hydrogen is loaded into them.  Since I have neither the equipment
nor the materials to make a 400C hydrogen cell at this point, and the
effect clearly depends on both those parameters being achieved, I
doubt I can go home, stick a heater in a can, and disprove their 
result definitively.

I will, however, try to clearly restate what I consider the
correct interpretation of the Italian NiH results.  Perhaps
someone else will be able to test the hypothesis I present,
or provide information to quantify it better.

The equilibrium temperature of the thermometer (presumed to be
at the center of the rod) will rise if either the rod becomes
a source of power (as claimed by Piantelli et al) or the rate
at which heat is conducted away from the thermometer/center of 
the rod (to the ends and to the walls of the reaction chamber, 
which will be cooler) is reduced.  The latter is what I am suggesting.  

(I am aware that gas convection is the primary mechanism for heat loss;
I would point out that the convective patterns will probably be
constrained by the Pt heater enclosing the Ni sample, so that
heat flow away from the center of the rod must be in heated gas
moving parallel to the axis, like this:

	PtPtPtPtPtPtPtPtPtPtPtPtPtPt
	->->->->->->-\/-<-<-<-<-<-<-
	-<-<-<-<-<-<-<>->->->->->->-	"->" = gas flow to right, etc
	->->->->->->-/\-<-<-<-<-<-<-
	NiNiNiNiNiNiNiNiNiNiNiNiNiNi

Such patterns probably cannot be sustained unless the center
remains hotter than the ends.  Furthermore, the ends in this picture
are more exposed to cooler gas and will thus be a signifcant heat
sink.) 

Nickel with hydrogen impurities loaded in will, I suspect, conduct
heat more poorly than ordinary nickel.  On the other hand, I suspect
that ordinary nickel conducts heat about as well as stainless steel.
If this is the case, then it seems reasonable to expect that
the center of the hydrogen-loaded Ni rod will be hotter for a given
heater power than it was without the hydrogen impurities.  Increased
cooling of the center by gas convection will only occur when the
center reaches a higher temperature to drive the increased convection.

This would explain the observed results nicely without recourse to
new physics, bizarre nuclear reactions, etc.  If the heater coil
thermometer is located at the end or on the outside of the heater
coil, this would also explain how the loaded Ni sample thermometer
could read higher than the Pt thermometer. 

A simple test for this model would be to use three thermometers,
at the center, end, and 1/4 mark of the sample; to use
samples of different thermal conductivities; and to observe what
happens.  For the Ni case, if nuclear reactions are involved, 
the sample should be heated uniformly when the H2 is loaded in.  
If there are no nuclear reactions, and my reduced-heat-conduction 
theory (shall we call it the Heeter effect? ;) ) applies, then the ends 
should become cooler and the center hotter.

It seems to me that the main bones of contention are 
	(a) whether effects such as this are likely to be significant, and 
(b) whose job it is to prove that they are/are not significant.

I don't believe either side will convince the other, and would
prefer to let the argument die at this point, until such time
as further data show up.  Jed's tone is not that of someone
trying to persuade someone else, anyway, and I'm here to learn,
not to be yelled at.

<<< Stuff deleted. >>> 

>I am flaming you, Droege and everyone else here for making up the laws of
>physics as you go along, and for ignoring experimentally proven facts. 

On the contrary, I'm trying to explain the experimental facts *without*
having to make up any laws of physics.  You seem to have forgotten that
it will take *a lot* of new laws of physics for the Piantelli excess
heat to be anything *but* a calorimetry error.

****************
Robert F. Heeter
rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Disclaimers Apply

cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.11 / mitchell swartz /  Steven Jones goofs again
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Steven Jones goofs again
Subject: Mitch goofs again
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 1994 04:11:16 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

   In Message-ID: <1994Mar9.140736.1471@physc1.byu.edu>
Subject: Mitch goofs again
Steven Jones (jonesse@physc1.byu.edu) stands his ground,
continues to dodge the reasonable questions, and then takes time
to throw a few well timed "ad hominems":

=sj  "We've been using the uncertainty relation all along,
=sj  we don't always show the delta-notation since we have time-zero = 0,
=sj  likewise we take x-zero = 0, E-zero = zero.
=sj    [excuse for for failure to document claims]  ...
=sj  sees this as the uncertainty relation for field quanta with t-zero = 0
=sj  and E = E - zero.So, no, I did not make an error as you erroneously claim."
=sj  [ad hominem express]
=sj  "Mitch, you're not a very good student.  
=sj  This is High School physics stuff."


  Steve, 

  The issues here concerned wrapping yourself in pseudo-authority
and thereby "dismissing" many peoples hard efforts, and considerable
work, with a handwave and few misstatements.
  
  Although no other physicist is reportedly as smart your yourself,
I have been lucky enough to have had the opportunity to on occasion
teach some physics and engineering - including a few times
to high school students.

  IMHO many of those students have been able to document their claims
better then have you with respect to the subject(s) at hand,
and unlike you, Steve, those high school students (and med students)
and engineering students did not whimper and dodge when asked to
simply substantiate their claims.

   Steve, in addition here are a few thoughts on your responses
and sermons.

    1) If the student has not learned, then the teacher has not taught.
    2) Your evasions herald that you are concerned neither 
with being a very good teacher nor "student" of this field.
    3)  This material is far beyond "High School" stuff, and involves
a mix of metallurgy, engineering, and more.
    4) Your continued ad hominems do not extend science, but rather
only point towards your own deficiencies, and are thus
a vector to exactly where some of the problems in this field may have 
unfortunately begun.

  All I have done is try to ask a few good questions.     ;-) X

  Best wishes.
                       -   Mitchell

cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.11 / Frank Close /  deep heat: reply to scott chubb
     
Originally-From: FEC@v2.rl.ac.uk (Frank Close)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: deep heat: reply to scott chubb
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 1994 10:24:52 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Scott Chubb says that deep core electron energy storage contradicts
known physics and chemistry of Ni and H. Did I not already include
that in a list of reasons why such a scenario was tongue in cheek?
If you think I did not, then feel free to add it to the list.

Scott Chubb also says that sensible scientists will adhere to energy 
conservation, the Pauli exclusion principle and the second law of 
thermodynamics.

I agree totally.  Where do I violate these principles?
Read what **I** posted and not what others have claimed I posted.


 If energy is supplied to an atom, it can ionise that atom. If an
electron is subsequently captured by an ion, neutralising the atom,
energy is released. If the electron happened to be in the 1s level
of Nickel the energy transfer involved is of order 10keV. 

 This is consistent with both energy conservation and Pauli principle.
It has other problems, as I already noted, but not these.

I was responding to Tinsleys question of where order 10keV energy
scales can exist in the electrons. Of course these states are
occupied in normal matter and so there is no place for further electrons
to be captured. I am surprised that others are now misrepresenting this
as a mechanism for "cold fusion".

cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenFEC cudfnFrank cudlnClose cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.11 / Vernon Hoxie /  Re: Learning About Calorimetry - Questions
     
Originally-From: vern@zebra.alphacdc.COM (Vernon C. Hoxie)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Learning About Calorimetry - Questions
Date: 11 Mar 94 06:50:55 GMT
Organization: Alpha Communications, Denver, Colo.

In article <940306193909_70047.3047_EHB61-1@CompuServe.COM> 70047.3047@c
mpuserve.com (Bill Page) writes:

A very great deletion...

>The data acquisition board that I use 
>includes two DAC outputs.  Do you use this approach or is your control 
>system entirely analog electronics?

Can someone suggest sources for good data acquisition boards?

More deletions..

>Actually, I have seen such a device being marketed for keeping water pipes 
>from freezing!

One such device is marketed under the name "Chem-lex" or something
similar.  It comes in long strips similar to Romex cabling for house
wiring.  The insulating material between the conductors changes
resistance with temperature and allows more current to pass between
through the insulation creating IR heating.  I don't think that it is
very linear but careful calibration of a specific sample may be useful.

vern

-- 
Vernon C. Hoxie                            {ncar,boulder}!scicom!zebra!vern
3975 W. 29th Ave.                                   vern@zebra.alphacdc.com
Denver, Colo., 80212        uucp: 303-455-2670          voice: 303-477-1780
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenvern cudfnVernon cudlnHoxie cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.11 / John Logajan /  Re: Italian Ni-H results
     
Originally-From: 74242.1554@compuserve.com (John M. Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Italian Ni-H results
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 1994 14:25:40 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

joshua@veritas.com (Joshua Levy) writes:

That I variously wrote:

>>It is not apparent from the paper just how many thermometers they used.

and

>>There is clear evidence in Figure 5 that the Italians had at least two
>>thermometers during an "event."

These are not contradictory statements.  "At least two" is not the same
as knowing "just how many" they used.


cudkeys:
cuddy11 cuden1554 cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.12 / John Logajan /  Re: Italian Ni-H results
     
Originally-From: 74242.1554@compuserve.com (John M. Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Italian Ni-H results
Date: Sat, 12 Mar 1994 01:27:42 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

jonesse@physc1.byu.edu writes: 
>Unless heroic efforts were made, there was some deuterium present in
>the hydrogen.

They say, "Work is now in progress to verify as a possible candidate
for the heat generation the reaction (p,D), where D is that naturally
contained in hydrogen."

I read that as saying that they suspect that the natural isotopic
mixture of hydrogen had something to do with the heat -- and that their
next series of experiments would be designed to test this hypothesis.

> In particular, the absence of gammas indicates that p-d reactions
> were *not* occuring (correlated with the heat claimed).

I understand the basis for this point, and I understand the basis for
the opposite conclusion.  I don't have anything to offer either way.

>One would like to know the energy range and type and sensitivity of the
>gamma detector being used.   Careful researchers would provide such
>information in their paper.

As Jed mentioned, it is a "Note Brevi."  I've heard that a 30+ page
article is in the works.  Thus I don't think I can leap to the implied
conclusion that a failure to specify the parameters of the radiation
detection equipment means that they are not careful researchers.  

My working assumption is that they did a rudimentary scan for radiation
and didn't see any, and that if they did a more sophisticated search,
they will eventually document that fact.

>I spoke to Dr. S. Mercurio of the University of Palermo, Italy, and
>asked him to please check whether the experiments of Piantelli et al.
>in fact involved magnetic fields.  I received today a FAX from him
>stating that indeed the experiment in question *does* have an
>externally imposed magnetic field.

In which phase of the experimental program?  The Il Nuovo Cimento paper
discusses the preliminary experiments of a device constructed late in
1992.  The authors also state in the paper that further work is in
progress.

It might be true that the original device had some external magnetic
fields, etc, but it might also be true that these only appeared in
the follow-on experiments.

I am as curious about the resolution of this question as you are.


cudkeys:
cuddy12 cuden1554 cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.12 /  blue@nscl00.ns /  Re:  Chubb Theory
     
Originally-From: blue@nscl00.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re:  Chubb Theory
Date: Sat, 12 Mar 1994 01:28:00 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Scott Chubb recently posted a number of assertions concerning the nature
of the PdD lattice that I wish to call into question.  I believe his key
points can be summarized as follows:

<< "... the associated (H or D) nuclear centers dissociate from their  >>
<<  respective electrons, and subsequently occupy ion band states ...  >>
<<  relevant quantum mechanical interactions become vastly different   >>
<<  than they are in free space.
<<   ....
<<  (the nuclei are) distributed everywhere in a manner similar to the >>
<<  way conduction electrons are distributed everywhere.               >>
<<    ....
<<  Potential coupling to nuclear processes in which energy release    >>
<<  also occurs everywhere.                                            >>
<<  .... final nuclear by-products also in ion band states.            >>

This is a remarkable set of assertions about which it seems appropriate
to ask for supporting evidence in the form of either experimental data
or theoretical justifications.  I see nothing too remarkable about the
assertion that H or D become ionized in the lattice, but is there really
data which shows that every one of these is ionized.  Is there any
explanation as to why metal lattices are so strongly electro-negative?
As to the assertion that the "relevant quantum mechanical interactions
become vastly different than they are in free space,"  is that supposed
to be the result of ionization?  If that is your assertion, Mr. Chubb,
you are clearly way off base.  Where did you get the notion that
the only investigations of nuclear interactions involve neutral atoms?

Of course the wildest assertion of the Chubb theory is this notion of
ion band states.  I have trouble with this whole concept.  Experimentally
the assertion that deuterons get spread uniformly through the lattice
is simply not what is observed.  Any measurement that I have heard of
that addresses this question assigns them to specific lattice sites.
Ignoring that fact, however, I am still at a loss to know what it means
to spread deuterons around all over the place.  The deuteron is after
all a composite of a proton and a neutron.  Thus we must have coordinates
which describe the position of the center of mass for the dueteron
and internal coordinates for the p-n system.  Now when you spread
the deuteron out I presume that applies only to the lattice position
coordinates such that the internal part of the wave function is
basically unaltered.  You see I get nervous about changing the
internal wave function because that takes lots of energy (on the
chemical scale) and you have given no hint as to where that energy
comes from.  Of course smearing the deuteron all over the lattice
also takes some energy that you failed to mention.  

Now you have succeeded by fiat to get the deuterons spread out,
and next we have to find some way to get two of them (at least)
back together.  That is a requirement for the fusion reaction
isn't it?  To get the kind of energy release you are looking for
the strong interaction must be involved, and it has this nasty
property of being very short range.  OK, so I'm not smart enough
to understand how your theory deals with that, but I can calculate
the density and rate for these fusion reactions given the
heat output and assuming energy conservation.  My problem is that
every time I do this calculation I come up with densities that
are low in comparison with the total number of lattice sites.
I am forced to conclude that reactions are few and far between
because you see I can't accept the notion that internal wave
functions for the initial and final nuclear states are different
from the ones nuclear physicists have always known.  Could
you give us your picture of what is happening in relation to
these internal coordinates?

Now clearly Scott sees that the final states also have to be
unusual if his theory is to match CF orthodoxy.  So ion bands
to the rescue!  Problem is how do you get ion bands from ions
that are now much less dense in the lattice and, I would think,
randomly distributed.  Of course we have to overlook the fact
that chemically the final product ions are a totally different
chemical species with different electron binding energies.
Let me ask how easy is it to support the notion that He
nuclei will remain in a metal lattice as ions?  Any experimental
evidence that He ions exist in metal lattices would perhaps
clear up this point.

I think, Mr. Chubb, it's time for you to fish or cut bait.
Let's hear from you as to how your theory deals with internal
coordinates of the initial and final nuclei, the short range
of nuclear interactions, banding of the product nuclei, and
a few things like that.

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenblue cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.12 /  blue@nscl00.ns /  Reply to Mitchell Swartz
     
Originally-From: blue@nscl00.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Reply to Mitchell Swartz
Date: Sat, 12 Mar 1994 01:28:02 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

So the Mossbauer effect serves only as an existance proof, that indeed
there can be some form of coupling between a nucleus and the lattice.
Let me help you out.  I conceed that nuclei are coupled to the lattice,
After all they are the lattice!  I will go further to suggest that
there are even other (better?) examples of lattice influences on
nuclear processes.  You mention electron capture, a good example.
Add to your list perturbed angular correlations (gamma decay),
dopler shift attenuation, channeling, nuclear polarization by
passage through or reflection from magnetized foils, nuclear magnetic
and nuclear quadrupole resonance.  There are probably more that
I haven't thought of.  Yes, there are indeed interactions between
nuclei and the surrounding matrix.  And, do you know what Mitchell,
the physics required to explain each and every one of these effects
is just the same as the physics that is operational when nuclei
are not in the lattice.  Mostly the interactions are electromagnetic.
The strength and range of the interactions are as expected.  The
operational quantum mechanics is still the same.  If you are
content to study electromagnetic effects there are plenty of
possibilities for investigation of obscure lattice related effects,
but it you expect significantly different energy releases you have
to accept the strong interaction on its own terms or invent
something new.

Now finally a comment on you mention of beta decay as another
existance proof demonstrating that the energy release in
a nuclear process can be arbitrarily small and, therefore, more
difficult to detect.  Again I concede.  However, if you wish
to make a specific hypothesis that beta decay is an essential
part of the CF energy production process, we will have to
see how far such notions will get you.  Hint: Not very far.

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenblue cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.12 /  blue@nscl00.ns /  Re:  All gases (or metals) are not created equal
     
Originally-From: blue@nscl00.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re:  All gases (or metals) are not created equal
Date: Sat, 12 Mar 1994 01:28:06 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Just to throw one more point about the recent Italian experiment into
the ring, has anyone thought about the significance of using stainless
steel as the control sample?  It could have been copper or gold so
why was it stainless steel, and what are the possible consequences of
that choice.

Without resorting to handbooks this is what I know about stainless
steel in comparison with nickel.  Firstly, it contains a fair amount
of nickel - something like 8 to 12 % as I recall.  In comparison
with nickel its thermal conductivity is lower.  It has a tough
oxide layer, but when heated in hydrogen?  Now since the question
of magnetic fields has come up in conjunction with this experiment,
I wonder about what happens when a ferromagnetic material is heated
in a magnetic field.  

Also I know something about the role of convection cooling when
you put a long thin sample into a tubular chamber and apply
heat.  I did this sort of thing for a living one summer.  We
embedded thermocouples in metal samples a few millimeters in
diameter and perhaps 10 cm long, attached a heater at one end,
and hung the sample in a vertical tube furnace along with additional
thermocouples on dummy samples.  The aim was to determine thermal
diffusivity by observing the propagation of heat pulses along
the sample.  One day we discovered that with a residual gas
(air) in the tube you could get all kinds of weird thermal
oscillations even though the heat inputs were all DC.  Believe
me, the Italian set up is not necessarily stable.  Perhaps
they think the magnetic field stabalizes the convection <g>.

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenblue cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.11 /  jedrothwell@de /  Blue's Fairy Tales
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Blue's Fairy Tales
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 94 11:29:59 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Richard Blue writes:
 
     "Probably the best known attempts to produce a demonstration of
     cold fusion with the effect being made directly observable are the
     Pons and Fleischmann boil-off experiments.  Yep, there before
     your very eyes water boils, and that certainly takes heat.  The
     problem with the demonstration is that clearly the electric power
     input by itself was large enough to account for the boiling."
 
This is factually incorrect. The electric power itself was only one-third
large enough to account for the boiling. If the power supplies had been turned
up as high as they could go, to the rail voltage, they could not have
generated enough energy to vaporize that amount of water in that period of
time, and there is no possible chemical or mechanical storage mechanism which
could "save up" energy from before the boil off event.
 
Richard knows this, I am sure. He is making up facts and fairy tales as he
goes along. He might justify his nonsense by restating the "theory" that the
water did not boil, it merely left the Dewar test tube in droplets. There is
not a shred of evidence to support the "droplet" idea, or the "cigarette
lighter effect" or any of the other garbage published here by Blue, Morrison,
Droege et al. It is all absurd hand waving.
 
Science would be much easier if we could just make up laws and make up facts
as we go alone, the way Richard Blue does, but it would have no purpose.
 
Richard's other statements are also all fabrications. This statement: "Peak
power levels are quoted when sustained averages are nothing to write home
about" is a particularly galling lie. There is too much nonsense his
statements to catalog and rebut, he is like Taubes or Jones, you cannot trust
anything he says. I gave up trying to rebut these people a long time ago, but
I feel I should post a warning here from time to time just in case some naive
reader come along, reads this garbage, and believes it. A quick glance at the
actual scientific papers will reveal the truth in every case.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenjedrothwell cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.11 / Bob Niland /  The CF Debate Conundrum
     
Originally-From: rjn@fc.hp.com (Bob Niland)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: The CF Debate Conundrum
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 1994 18:53:14 GMT
Organization: Colorado SuperNet


I haven't been reading all of the traffic in s.p.f., but it strikes me that
a large part of the debate, and virtually all of the hostility, results from
the matter of the advocates having a strong advocacy position in the first
place.

If the original observations had been announced and pursued in the following
way, I expect that the tenor of the discourse would be radically different
today.

     "We have observed some anomalous results in our electro-chemistry.
      Here are the experiment conditions and the results.  We hesitate to
      interpret these results at this time.  However, one very wild
      speculation is that this just might (we emphasize might) be some form
      of nuclear fusion."

Had it happened this way, the current debate might have about as much
acrimony as the speculations on "dark matter" in the universe.  We would
probably still be seeing calm discussions of "is it real", and if so, "what
might it be".

It didn't happen this way, of course, largely because of the implications of
that original "might be".  If the phenomenon really were fusion, the
economic consequences would be staggering.  Consequently, the investigators
and their keepers felt it necessary to protect the apparent invention with
patents.

And therein is the problem.  Patents are not issued for processes that
"might" be real and have certain uses, and devices that "might" work.
Anyone applying for a patent automatically MUST make claims and be an
advocate for those claims.  They were compelled to take a position that:

 - The results are real, and not measurement error.
 - They measure a real (and new) phenomenon. 
 - The phenomenon has a specific identity (let's pick "fusion").  
 - The phenomenon would have practical applications.  

Explanations for all of the above had to be advanced and defended.

So now we have the present exchange of attacks, loaded with judgementalism,
righteousness and even name-calling.  Some of the regular correspondents
here are using oratorical tactics which frankly have destroyed their
credibility with me, even if solid proof or falsification of CF should be
found.

The advocates of CF might actually have something, but many of them to me to
be too much like the frauds, eccentrics and self-deluded evangelists of the
many scientific and pseudo-scientific dead-ends of history.  Some small
number of crackpots might actually be correct, but if they are
epistemologically indistinguishable from the majority that aren't, I can't
justify wasting any time on them.

And I still can't buy a "Mr. Fusion" at the local department store.

Regards,                                            1001-A East Harmony Road
Bob Niland                                          Suite 503
Internet:  rjn@csn.org                              Fort Collins
CompuServe: 71044,2124                              Colorado     80525   USA
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenrjn cudfnBob cudlnNiland cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.11 / Robert Parson /  Re: Tapping the Vacuum Energy -- An Important Paper from Bear
     
Originally-From: rparson@rintintin.Colorado.EDU (Robert Parson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.energy
Subject: Re: Tapping the Vacuum Energy -- An Important Paper from Bear
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 1994 17:45:42 GMT
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder

In article <2lofdl$77u@scunix2.harvard.edu>,
Ron Maimon <rmaimon@husc9.Harvard.EDU> wrote:
>
>The attraction, like the _relativistic_ Van-Der Waals attraction, is 1/r^6,
>you might have heard that the casimir force is like 1/r^4, but that's because
>you are integrating over two sheets of attracting "points", and so you get
>a surface area factor of r^2. See I'm not cheating you. In addition, they
>are both quantum mechanical effects.
>

 Hold it. The 1/r^6 van der Waals attraction (London dispersion interaction)
 is definitely not relativistic.
 You can get it from garden-variety nonrelativistic QM, e.g. 2nd order
 perturbation theory for the interaction of two He atoms. 

 Are you thinking of the _retarded_ van der Waals attraction, which takes
 over at very large r? That goes as r^-7. I don't think of that as relativistic
 either, although you need QED, since you can get it from nonrelativistic
 QED in the coulomb gauge. THough I suppose you can argue that all interactions
 involving an electromagnetic field are in some sense relativistic. But you
 certainly don't need the Dirac eqn. or relativistic QED.

 Certainly the retarded van-der-Waals interaction and the Casimir effect
 are closely related. Casimir discovered both, in fact. And yes, the London
 dispersion interaction is a purely quantum mechanical effect.

 -----
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenrparson cudfnRobert cudlnParson cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.11 / Mike Jamison /  Re: Steven Jones goofs again
     
Originally-From: edwlt12@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov (Mike Jamison (ADF))
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Steven Jones goofs again
Date: 11 Mar 1994 16:15 EST
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center

In article <CMHFMt.Fzy@world.std.com>, mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes...
>   In Message-ID: <1994Mar9.140736.1471@physc1.byu.edu>
>Subject: Mitch goofs again
[first part - gone]
> 
>  Steve, 
> 
>  The issues here concerned wrapping yourself in pseudo-authority
>and thereby "dismissing" many peoples hard efforts, and considerable
>work, with a handwave and few misstatements.

Mitch, I don't think you're being entirely fair, here.  I'd thought Steve's
documentation (in e-mail form, with ASCII being the rather poor medium we
all have to deal with here) was pretty good, concerning his experimental
setups.
>  
>  Although no other physicist is reportedly as smart your yourself,
>I have been lucky enough to have had the opportunity to on occasion
>teach some physics and engineering - including a few times
>to high school students.

Sorry, I don't remember Steve (or anyone else here) saying "Steve Jones
is the smartest physicist on the planet."
> 
>  IMHO many of those students have been able to document their claims
>better then have you with respect to the subject(s) at hand,
>and unlike you, Steve, those high school students (and med students)
>and engineering students did not whimper and dodge when asked to
>simply substantiate their claims.

Sorry, again I haven't seen evidence of Steve doing the above.
> 
>   Steve, in addition here are a few thoughts on your responses
>and sermons.
> 
>    1) If the student has not learned, then the teacher has not taught.

I'm learning, from everyone here - Steve included.

>    2) Your evasions herald that you are concerned neither 
>with being a very good teacher nor "student" of this field.

You're talking CNF, not SL.  Remember that Steve keeps offering his portable
X-Ray detector, with (to my recollection) only one taker so far.

Doesn't sound like something a anybody'd do if they "didn't care" about the
field.

>    3)  This material is far beyond "High School" stuff, and involves
>a mix of metallurgy, engineering, and more.

Just about anything can be analyzed to the point where it's far beyond
high school stuff.  I'll settle for an electric hot water heater that heats
water for the same cost/btu as my gas heater (something like 4 times better
than a typical electric water heater, I believe).  Doesn't even have to be
self-powered, to convince me.  My electric bill will do that for me.
>    4) Your continued ad hominems do not extend science, but rather
>only point towards your own deficiencies, and are thus
>a vector to exactly where some of the problems in this field may have 
>unfortunately begun.

Speaking of vectors, Mitch, you accidently attributed to someone else a
follow-up post I'd written (the wave approach to reflection - EM cancellation
at the metal boundary).

I figured I'd just let it slide, but, I keep thinking:  if one of us can
make a simple mistake on a simple post, isn't it possible that we could 
accidently attribute things not said by someone to that someone, causing
a bit more bad feelings, etc. than we should have?

Especially when this particular thread (which I've really tried to stay out
of) has been going on for > a year?

Unlike computers, we're not infallible :-)
> 
>  All I have done is try to ask a few good questions.     ;-) X

Yes, and you sometimes give good answers/examples.  I wish you'd do so
more often!
> 
>  Best wishes.
>                       -   Mitchell
> 
Take care,


Mike Jamison


"Scientific research consists in seeing what everyone else has seen, but
thinking what no one else has thought"

						-A. Szent-Gyorgyi
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenedwlt12 cudfnMike cudlnJamison cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.11 / Bruce Liebert /  Re: Molten salt issues
     
Originally-From: liebert@wiliki.eng.hawaii.edu (Bruce E. Liebert)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Molten salt issues
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 1994 21:59:23 GMT
Organization: University of Hawaii

In article <940308022429_70047.3047_EHB72-2@CompuServe.COM>,
70047.3047@compuserve.com (Bill Page) wrote:


> 
> I was wondering whether it might be possible that some of the excess heat 
> observed could be due to a "CF" effect in the cathode.  In your experiments 
> is it possible to independently measure the (surface) temperatures of the 
> anode and cathode?  Also, have you done a post-run analysis of the cathode 
> as well as the anode?  Are there reliable methods available to determine 
> the Li+ and H+/D+ contaminants in the Al?

Yes, it would be possible to measure the surface temperature of the anode
and cathode.  We have not analyzed the aluminum cathode, only the palladium
anode (in which we reported an enhancement in 4He, which was admittedly
small--however, I would suspect that if 4He was generated most would be not
be retained in the Pd).

Determining Li (not Li+) in Al is no problem.  H or D in Al may be more of
a problem.  However, even though Al will form a hydride, it is not stable
at these temperatures.  The real advantage of the molten salt system is not
necessarily the elevated temperatures compared to unpressurized aqueous
systems; it is the extremely reducing nature of LiH or LiD that strips off
any oxide from those metals that form oxides so the H or D "sees" a bare
metal surface.  This is useful if you want to get the H or D in; however,
it may also result in H or D getting OUT just as easily (not so good).

-- 
***************************************************************
*        Bruce E. Liebert  liebert@wiliki.eng.hawaii.edu      *
*    Materials Research Laboratory    University of Hawaii    *
*  2540 Dole St., Holmes Hall, Rm. 302, Honolulu, HI  96822   *
*       Tel:  (808) 956-6332         Fax:  (808) 956-2373     *
***************************************************************
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenliebert cudfnBruce cudlnLiebert cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.11 / Ad aspera /  WHAT'S NEW, 11 Mar 94
     
Originally-From: JTCHEW@lbl.gov (Ad absurdum per aspera)
Newsgroups: sci.research,sci.physics.fusion,sci.skeptic,sci.space.policy
Subject: WHAT'S NEW, 11 Mar 94
Date: 11 Mar 1994 23:07:34 GMT
Organization: Relayed, not written, by Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory


[Written by individuals at the American Physical Society and
merely posted by me, so respond to <whatsnew@aps.org> or other
references below.  Always posted here on sci.research; sometimes
crossposted to an eclectic selection of other newsgroups, with
followups directed here. Back issues are archived on NIC.HEP.NET,
along with the American Institute of Physics columns FYI and
PHYSICS NEWS UPDATE.  As of this issue, WHAT'S NEW is also World 
Wide Web compliant; it's on http://aps.org/.  If you have 
questions, send e-mail to webmistress@aps.org.   Enjoy! -jc]

WHAT'S NEW by Robert L. Park   Friday, 11 Mar 94   Washington, DC

1. NASA BUDGET: A CHOICE BETWEEN SPACE SCIENCE AND SPACE STATION?
Invoking the metaphor of King Solomon's solution to a parenthood
dispute, George Brown repeated his threat to chop off the space
station to save space science (WN 4 Mar 94).  It depends on how
hard NASA gets hit in this year's budget and whether spending can
be stretched out.  Brown's choice of parables was significant--
Solomon didn't mean it either.  It's easy to oppose the station
in March.  Consider this a wake-up call for aerospace lobbyists.

2. EXTRACT ENERGY FROM THE ZERO-POINT FLUCTUATIONS OF THE VACUUM?
Where do such uuhhh--unusual--ideas come from?  Well, this is one
of the predictions from "The Road to 2012," the futuristic report
prepared for the U.S. Coast Guard (WN 18 Feb 94).  But the idea
probably did not come to the author in a dream.  In fact "The New
Energy News," which comes out of (where else?) Salt Lake City,
credits the idea to physicist Harold E. Puthoff and proclaimed
him "The New Energy News Theorist of the Year."  Puthoff was even
featured, along with two colleagues, in a two-page news story in
Science magazine (4 Feb 94); it concerned their paper "Inertia as
a zero-point-field Lorentz force," which appeared in the February
Physical Review A.  Wow!  PRA publishes some 1,300 papers a year,
but I don't remember Science ever commenting on one before.  It's
fair to say that, outside Salt Lake City, Puthoff's ideas are
controversial; but he's accustomed to controversy.  In 1972, at
the Stanford Research Institute, Puthoff and Russell Targ were
promoting psychic spoon-bender Uri Geller; five years later, they
published "Mind Reach," a book about remote-viewing that inspired
the CIA to invest in psychic espionage.  Reportedly, Puthoff him-
self once sent his mind to explore the surface of planet Mercury.

3. WELL THEN, WHY NOT EXTRACT ENERGY FROM EARTH'S MAGNETIC FIELD?
NASA announced yesterday that it will try the tethered satellite
experiment again in 1996.  In 1992 the shuttle Atlantis sought to
deploy a small satellite on a 13-mile long wire.  NASA explained
at the time that as the wire cut through Earth's magnetic field
it would generate electrical power.  "It's the nearest thing to a
free lunch we can find," the mission manager said.  Well, maybe
not quite free; if any power is extracted, the reverse emf will
produce drag.  To maintain its orbit, the spacecraft would have
to fire its thrusters.  It's hard to imagine a less efficient way
to generate electricity.  Alas, the reel jammed just 256 meters
out; it generated less than one watt.  NASA's announcement of a
reflight in 1996 makes no mention of electrical power generation.

4. THE AMERICAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY LINKS TO THE "WORLD WIDE WEB,"
whatever that is.  Use your favorite browser(?) to see our home
page; NCSA's Mosaic is recommended.  Connect to http://aps.org/.
If you have questions (who would have questions with anything
this clear) send e-mail to webmistress@aps.org, but DON'T ask me.

THE AMERICAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY   (Note: Opinions are the author's
and are not necessarily shared by the APS, but they should be.)
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenJTCHEW cudfnAd cudlnaspera cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.12 / Boucher David /  Re: Question:correct understanding of photon reflection?
     
Originally-From: bouche2@server.uwindsor.ca (Boucher David)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.chem
Subject: Re: Question:correct understanding of photon reflection?
Date: Sat, 12 Mar 1994 00:34:22 GMT
Organization: University of Windsor, Ontario, Canada

In article <CMDBMv.Brq@rahul.net> martin@rahul.net (Martin S. Singleton) writes:
#In <2lahnn$3s6@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu
(Ludwig Plutonium) writes:
#
#>  What is the correct quantum mechanics understanding of photon
#>reflection. When a photon strikes a metal surface (why are metals
#>shiny?) what happens to the photon?
#
#Consider a photon normal to the plane of incidence.  Now an atom absorbs the
#photon, and goes into a higher energy state by sending an electron to a higher
#orbital.  After a short amount of time, the excited atom emits a photon and
#goes back to its preexcited state.  The emitted photon may go in any direction.
#However, if it goes into the lattice, then it will be once again absorbed by
#an atom in layer n.  But when such an atom again reemits the photon, it could go
#still further into the lattice, never to return.  Now that can't happen by COM.
#With COM, the photon would have to either:
#
#	1) be emitted in the direction opposite to which it came in, 
#
#	or
#
#	2) go all the way through the metal, which is probabilistically 
#	   impossible.
#
#Therefore, it has been established that, by COM, a photon whose only p component
#is in the normal direction will be reflected s.t. a.o.i. = a.o.r.  Now if one
#generalizes for any angle phi, it's quite simple to see that, once again, by
#breaking the photon's two momentum components (by suitable choice of cartesian
#coordinate system) into the normal and the parallel, in general, a.o.i. = a.o.r.

What you have described is diffraction.  Some photons do in fact travel
further into the latice, until their energy is dissipated as phonons, i.e.,
the solid gets warmer.  If such were not the case then every solid would
be a perfect reflector.  Also, if the photon can be re-emitted in any
direction, then there's no reason why it shouldn't come back out along
the same path it went in, or any other angle that takes it away from
the surface.  

Unfortunately, I don't know the correct explanation for reflection
either -- I only know that your explanation is wrong.  ;)  I asked
the same question of several of my former profs years ago and none
of them had a satisfactory answer.  

- db


-- 
******  "It is a capital mistake to theorise before one has data.  ******
******  Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories      ****** 
******  instead of theories to suit facts."     - Sherlock Holmes  ******
************************************************************************* 
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenbouche2 cudfnBoucher cudlnDavid cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.11 / Ron Maimon /  Re: Tapping the Vacuum Energy -- An Important Paper from Bear
     
Originally-From: rmaimon@husc9.Harvard.EDU (Ron Maimon)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.energy
Subject: Re: Tapping the Vacuum Energy -- An Important Paper from Bear
Date: 11 Mar 1994 23:24:24 GMT
Organization: Harvard University, Cambridge, MA

In article <CMIHC6.I7E@cnsnews.Colorado.EDU>, rparson@rintintin.Colorado
EDU (Robert Parson) writes:
|> In article <2lofdl$77u@scunix2.harvard.edu>,
|> Ron Maimon <rmaimon@husc9.Harvard.EDU> wrote:
|> >
|> >The attraction, like the _relativistic_ Van-Der Waals attraction, is 1/r^6,
|> >you might have heard that the casimir force is like 1/r^4, but that's because
|> >you are integrating over two sheets of attracting "points", and so you get
|> >a surface area factor of r^2. See I'm not cheating you. In addition, they
|> >are both quantum mechanical effects.
|> >
|> 
|>  Hold it. The 1/r^6 van der Waals attraction (London dispersion interaction)
|>  is definitely not relativistic.
|>  You can get it from garden-variety nonrelativistic QM, e.g. 2nd order
|>  perturbation theory for the interaction of two He atoms. 

You say "force" I say "potential". I forget the exact powers, since I have
never done the calculation myself, but I do know that the relativistic
part of the force is intimately connected with the casimir effect.

|> 
|>  Are you thinking of the _retarded_ van der Waals attraction, which takes
|>  over at very large r? That goes as r^-7. I don't think of that as relativistic
|>  either, although you need QED, since you can get it from nonrelativistic
|>  QED in the coulomb gauge. THough I suppose you can argue that all interactions
|>  involving an electromagnetic field are in some sense relativistic.

Well, that's what I was arguing. The part that you need a quantized field for
is the part of the Van-Der Waals attraction responsible for pulling two metal
plates together.

If the potential between two points goes like 1/r^n then the potential between
two plates of area A a distance d apart (d^2<<A) is (I did the integral
just now) A/d^(n-2). Figuring that the potential from the relativistic
(retarded) Van-Der Waals force is 1/r^6, I get that the Casimir potential
should be 1/r^4. I think that that is right, but I have to do the Casimir
force calculation again to be sure. 

|> 
|>  Certainly the retarded van-der-Waals interaction and the Casimir effect
|>  are closely related. Casimir discovered both, in fact. And yes, the London
|>  dispersion interaction is a purely quantum mechanical effect.

And none of these effects require a nonzero vaccuum energy, only nonzero
energy differences when you change the size of a cavity.

Ron Maimon
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenrmaimon cudfnRon cudlnMaimon cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.11 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Re: SL:  Shock-wave heating and Hot Bubble Fusion possibility
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: SL:  Shock-wave heating and Hot Bubble Fusion possibility
Date: 11 Mar 94 17:21:13 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

In article <2loc8r$bvm@network.ucsd.edu>, 
mbk%anl433.uucp@Germany.EU.net (Matt Kennel) writes:
> jonesse@physc1.byu.edu wrote:
> : This is consistent with the explanation for stable,
> : single-bubble (at spherical flask center)
> : sonoluminescence (SL) worked out theoretically by C. Wu and Paul Roberts
> : at UCLA, published in "Shock-wave propagation in a sonluminescing gas bubble,"
> : Physical Review Letters (really!) 70 (1993) 3424.  I think this is very
> : exciting, for at these temperatures, a deuterium-tritium mixture might
> : *ignite*. 
> 
> Ignition, not just fusion.  Really?  (Wouldn't a whole flask of liquid T20 be
> a serious health hazard?)

The fusion takes place inside the *bubble* where shock-wave compression has
heated some of the gases to (estimated) 10^8 K; see conditions below.
We're not going to use T2O as the driving fluid; probably Hg since this has
*much* higher density and surface tension and therefore much higher likelihood
of reaching high compression of gases in bubble while retaining approx.
spherical symmetry.  The first mention of using Hg as driving fluid that I
heard of was from Terry Bollinger, BTW.

Now let's not think that the energy released by a bubble is enormous, should
all the gas inside ignite.  Let's use d-t inside the bubble, since ignition is
easier to reach than with d-d, p-d, d-3He, etc.  And we'll take an equilibrium
(1 atm) bubble diameter of 20 microns, which is typical.  Then the number of
d-t pairs is:

4/3pi*r^3/0.0224 m^3/mole * 6 X 10^23 d-tpairs/mole = 10^11 d-t pairs.

since r = 10 microns.  Then let's take the limiting case where 100% of the
d-t burns, at 17.6 MeV/fusion:

10^11 d-tpairs/bubble *17.6MeV/d-tpair *1.6X10^-13J/MeV = 0.3 W

-- not much.  One might work to double the bubble size.  Then the ignition
yield max. is about 2.5 W.  (Hope some will check my math for errors.)
> 
> : For shock-wave heating as posited by Wu and Roberts, ponder these calculated
> : conditions inside the collapsed bubble:
> : Rmin = 0.55 microns
> : Density:  800 kg/m^3   (!)
> : Temperature:  10^8 K   (!)
> : Pressure inside bubble boundary:  10^13 Pa (!)
> : SL luminosity:  30 mW (this is consistent with experiments),
> :   duration:  1.2 *pico*seconds (experiments say *less than* 50 ps)
> 
> But I'm worried about what would happen if you did get substantial
> ignition.  It seems that it would quickly generate so much heat that
> it would quickly blow itself apart and thus stop the reaction.  
> 
> With the only ignited ICF made by man, you have the pressure of
> an atom bomb's radiation bearing down on you.
> 

This is the central question, of course:  will the conditions tabulated
above suffice for ignition in an inertially-confined system?  I'd like
very much to learn the answer, and how to find it -- I'm certainly no expert in
inertial confinement.  Comments?  (Please.)

> : There's something worth looking into here; I feel it in my bones.
> 

> I think so too.

It's certainly a nice puzzle at this point.
> 
> : --Steven Jones
> --
> -Matt Kennel  		mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu
> -Institute for Nonlinear Science, University of California, San Diego
> -*** AD: Archive for nonlinear dynamics papers & programs: FTP to
> -***     lyapunov.ucsd.edu, username "anonymous".


Have a nice weekend everyone.
--Steven Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenjonesse cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.11 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Tough questions for Scott Chubb
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Tough questions for Scott Chubb
Date: 11 Mar 94 17:40:16 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

In view of all that we have discussed here recently regarding the
discredited notion that d+d fusion can result in 4He + "lattice heating",
I am greatly surprised that Scott Chubb can post, without the slightest effort
to address the substantial objections here argued,

"I also put it to you that there is an accumulating body of evidence in support
of D+d->4He+lattice energy (in form of phonons) that can be used to account for
much of what has been seen...the gamma ray that you have so adamantly assumed
must be present neither is required to be present or has been observed."

So I put it to you, Scott:

1.  Just how do you conserve *momentum* in this process, in which an
alpha particle is produced and the (much more massive) phonon-system is given
the energy?  

Note (for the umpteenth time on this net) that in the Mossbauer
effect, just the *opposite* is observed, that is, the lighter particle (gamma)
carries essentially all the energy so that the lattice picks up perhaps
one-millionth of the energy released in the reaction.  This is *consistent*,
of course, with conservation of momentum and energy.

2.  Show how you can reconcile transferring the 23 MeV of energy in this
reaction to the lattice (whose spacing is a few angstroms) when the
*uncertainty principle*  allows the energy to remain virtual for only about
10^-3 angstroms.  Or will you violate speed-of-light constraints?

3.  Show how you can reconcile your hypothesis with observations that in
muon-catalyzed fusion (the *only verified* form of *cold* fusion!) we find that

d+d --> 3He + n (about 50%)
d+d --> t + p (about 50%)
d+d --> 4He + whatever (too small to observe in mu-c-f expts.;
     measured at about 10-7 the other two branches in hot fusion experiments)


4.  Show us the data that supports your supposition that d-d-->4He+lattice
energy accounts for "much of what has been seen."   And don't give us
Miles et al. -- we've been through those overblown claims at length already.
How about McKubre, Scott -- how much 4He has he seen?

Waiting with baited breath.
--Steven Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenjonesse cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Sat Mar 12 04:37:05 EST 1994
------------------------------
1994.03.12 / M Singleton /  Re: Question:correct understanding of photon reflection?
     
Originally-From: martin@rahul.net (Martin S. Singleton)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.chem
Subject: Re: Question:correct understanding of photon reflection?
Date: Sat, 12 Mar 1994 04:27:16 GMT
Organization: a2i network

In <CMJ09B.5r9@uwindsor.ca> bouche2@server.uwindsor.ca (Boucher David) writes:

>In article <CMDBMv.Brq@rahul.net> martin@rahul.net (Martin S. Singleton) writes:
>#In <2lahnn$3s6@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu
(Ludwig Plutonium) writes:
>#
>#>  What is the correct quantum mechanics understanding of photon
>#>reflection. When a photon strikes a metal surface (why are metals
>#>shiny?) what happens to the photon?
>#
>#Consider a photon normal to the plane of incidence.  Now an atom absorbs the
>#photon, and goes into a higher energy state by sending an electron to a higher
>#orbital.  After a short amount of time, the excited atom emits a photon and
>#goes back to its preexcited state.  The emitted photon may go in any direction.
>#However, if it goes into the lattice, then it will be once again absorbed by
>#an atom in layer n.  But when such an atom again reemits the photon, it could go
>#still further into the lattice, never to return.  Now that can't happen by COM.
>#With COM, the photon would have to either:
>#
>#	1) be emitted in the direction opposite to which it came in, 
>#
>#	or
>#
>#	2) go all the way through the metal, which is probabilistically 
>#	   impossible.
>#
>#Therefore, it has been established that, by COM, a photon whose only p component
>#is in the normal direction will be reflected s.t. a.o.i. = a.o.r.  Now if one
>#generalizes for any angle phi, it's quite simple to see that, once again, by
>#breaking the photon's two momentum components (by suitable choice of cartesian
>#coordinate system) into the normal and the parallel, in general, a.o.i. = a.o.r.

>What you have described is diffraction.  Some photons do in fact travel

Au contraire.  Diffraction is totally different.  When you look at the sun on
the horizon and it doesn't blind you, that's called refraction, which maybe is
what you're claiming I was referring to.

>further into the latice, until their energy is dissipated as phonons, i.e.,
>the solid gets warmer.  If such were not the case then every solid would

Phonons are idealized particles of sound, not to be confused with thermal
energy of electrons vibrating in the lattice.

>be a perfect reflector.  Also, if the photon can be re-emitted in any
>direction, then there's no reason why it shouldn't come back out along
>the same path it went in, or any other angle that takes it away from

You're wrong there.  A photon has momentum.  Therefore, the different components
of momentum are conserved.  That's why you can have photon pressure out in
space.


>Unfortunately, I don't know the correct explanation for reflection
>either -- I only know that your explanation is wrong.  ;)  I asked

My explanation is correct if you consider that it's based on accurate intuition.
That meaning that what was requested was not a mathematical proof, which it 
isn't.  

Another person had said that I had not accounted for the emitted photon's
having the same frequency, but frequency is the same as energy.  Now, obviously
a laser on thin metal might melt the metal.  However, when you have the simple
case of reflection, that is, how does reflection occur, then you're assuming a
low enough intensity that certain assumptions about the potential energy of an
electron in the lattice hold- in particular, that the incoming radiation
doesn't change how it is calculated, which would be by integrating over all of
the charges in the lattice.  So the electron which absorbs the photon had been
in a "preferred" potential well, which it goes right back to after emitting a
photon.



>******  "It is a capital mistake to theorise before one has data.  ******
>******  Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories      ****** 
>******  instead of theories to suit facts."     - Sherlock Holmes  ******
>************************************************************************* 

'Fraid not:
quod erat demonstrantum
-- 
Martin S. Singleton <martin@rahul.net>
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenmartin cudfnMartin cudlnSingleton cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.12 / John Logajan /  Re: Learning about calorimetry -- questions
     
Originally-From: 74242.1554@compuserve.com (John M. Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Learning about calorimetry -- questions
Date: Sat, 12 Mar 1994 06:28:14 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

vern@zebra.alphacdc.COM (Vernon C. Hoxie) writes:
>Can someone suggest sources for good data acquisition boards?

BSOFT sells an eight channel 12 bit Analog to Digital board for PC's.
It costs $129 or $159 depending on options.  It has programmable
gain control, x1, x4, x10, x50.  Conversion speed is as fast as
3-10 us, depending upon options.

BSOFT Software, Inc.
444 Colton Road
Columbus, Ohio 43207
614-491-0832
FAX 614-497-9971


cudkeys:
cuddy12 cuden1554 cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.12 / John Logajan /  Re: Italian "Heeter" effect
     
Originally-From: 74242.1554@compuserve.com (John M. Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Italian "Heeter" effect
Date: Sat, 12 Mar 1994 06:28:14 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

rfheeter@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Robert Franklin Heeter) writes:
>Nickel with hydrogen impurities loaded in will, I suspect, conduct
>heat more poorly than ordinary nickel.

Perhaps we can get an estimate of magnitude by looking at the change
in electrical resistance studied in D/Pd loading.  Thermal transport
in metals is primarily via electron mobility, and so there is a
correlation between electrical resistance and thermal conductivity.

>On the other hand, I suspect that ordinary nickel conducts heat about
>as well as stainless steel.

>From various tables in the CRC, it looks like stainless steel is only
about 1/3 as good a thermal conductor as nickel.
 
>If this is the case, then it seems reasonable to expect that the
>center of the hydrogen-loaded Ni rod will be hotter for a given
>heater power than it was without the hydrogen impurities.

I think this is an untenable suggestion.  The thermal conductivity of
the nickel or steel rod is order 100-1000 times that of the surrounding
gas.  That means that virtually all of the thermal gradient is going to
be across the gas space, and virtually none of it will be across the
metal rod.

Remember, in the Italian results we have an 80 C delta at temperatures
just 160 C or so above ambient.  The only way for your theory to
approach that is for the thermal conductivity of the gas space to be of
the same general magnitude as the metal rod.

>whose job it is to prove that they are/are not significant.

TANSTAAFL.  It's everyone's job to justify their contentions.


cudkeys:
cuddy12 cuden1554 cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.10 / Cameron Bass /  Re: (Long) Possible sources of error in Italian NiH "power imbal
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: (Long) Possible sources of error in Italian NiH "power imbal
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 1994 02:20:24 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <xQ+LHbp.jedrothwell@delphi.com>,  <jedrothwell@delphi.com> wrote:

>You did not attend the lecture, you have not communicated with them, you have
>not signed a confidentiality agreement. Did you ask them any of these
>questions of yours? Frankly, I would not bother asking if I was you, since you
>are not the Fiat Motor Company or GE. I am amazed they told anyone anything.
>This is the real world, not Howdy-Doody. In real life, responsible scientists
>keep all details like that top secret. I am not talking about academic
>scientists, I mean real scientists, at corporations where they do real
>research, not esoteric fun & games.

    If all the details are to be kept secret, then I'm sure the rest
    of us would greatly appreciate if they kept the incomplete garbage out
    of the scientific literature and saved the announcements when they
    actually produce Mr. Fusion.

    And the rest of us academic types would be better off not discussing
    this vapourware at all.  After all, corporate performance is measured
    by the product.  As there is *no* product, the performance is 
    zero.

    Where's the generator Jed?  Are they keeping that secret too?

    Here's a little hint, secret products are not likely to become
    major sources of revenue unless you're Lockheed.

                              dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.12 / M Singleton /  Re: Question:correct understanding of photon reflection?
     
Originally-From: martin@rahul.net (Martin S. Singleton)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.chem
Subject: Re: Question:correct understanding of photon reflection?
Date: Sat, 12 Mar 1994 07:37:36 GMT
Organization: a2i network

In <CMJB1H.DH2@rahul.net> martin@rahul.net (Martin S. Singleton) writes:

>quod erat demonstrantum
Or, to spell the Latin correctly,
quod erat demonstrandum

-- 
Martin S. Singleton <martin@rahul.net>
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenmartin cudfnMartin cudlnSingleton cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.12 / Paul Baulch /  Re: SL: Tom Droege's ultrasound source great!
     
Originally-From: shnub@zikzak.apana.org.au (Paul Baulch)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: SL: Tom Droege's ultrasound source great!
Date: 12 Mar 1994 23:09:50 +1100
Organization: Zikzak Public Access UNIX, Melbourne Australia




Wow! Did someone actually read my post? Or did you all ignore it because
"sono-fusion" is an old concept? If so, then thanks everyone for telling 
me... *sigh*


-- 
-shnub@zikzak.apana.org.au--------------rec.toys.lego forever!!!-------------
-----Paul Evan Baulch------Reality is by far the most impressive simulation.- 
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenshnub cudfnPaul cudlnBaulch cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.12 / Robert Heeter /  Re: Italian "Heeter" effect
     
Originally-From: rfheeter@theory.pppl.gov (Robert F. Heeter)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Italian "Heeter" effect
Date: 12 Mar 1994 13:07:32 -0500
Organization: /etc/organization

In article <940312062359_74242.1554_BHR62-2@CompuServe.COM>,
John M. Logajan <74242.1554@compuserve.com> wrote:
>rfheeter@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Robert Franklin Heeter) writes:
>>Nickel with hydrogen impurities loaded in will, I suspect, conduct
>>heat more poorly than ordinary nickel.
>
>Perhaps we can get an estimate of magnitude by looking at the change
>in electrical resistance studied in D/Pd loading.  Thermal transport
>in metals is primarily via electron mobility, and so there is a
>correlation between electrical resistance and thermal conductivity.

Right.  Loading of the H should create impurities that will increase
scattering and decrease electron mobility.
>
>>On the other hand, I suspect that ordinary nickel conducts heat about
>>as well as stainless steel.
>
>>From various tables in the CRC, it looks like stainless steel is only
>about 1/3 as good a thermal conductor as nickel.

Hmm...

>>If this is the case, then it seems reasonable to expect that the
>>center of the hydrogen-loaded Ni rod will be hotter for a given
>>heater power than it was without the hydrogen impurities.
>
>I think this is an untenable suggestion.  The thermal conductivity of
>the nickel or steel rod is order 100-1000 times that of the surrounding
>gas.  That means that virtually all of the thermal gradient is going to
>be across the gas space, and virtually none of it will be across the
>metal rod.

But you're ignoring the additional heat transfer due to convection
of the gas, and the nature of the convection may change the picture.
I'm actually glad that the conductivity of the metal samples is as
high as it is; I was afraid the gas would dominate and there wouldn'tt
be significant temperature drops across the sample rod for the opposite
reason.  

Unfortunately I'm on vacation and can't study this more carefully.

>Remember, in the Italian results we have an 80 C delta at temperatures
>just 160 C or so above ambient.  The only way for your theory to
>approach that is for the thermal conductivity of the gas space to be of
>the same general magnitude as the metal rod.

Which might be possible if the rate of heat transfer were dominated
by gas convection+rod conduction, and not by the gas conduction+rod
conduction.  

Is it possible that (assuming the Ni experimental runs went to higher
temperatures than the calibration runs, as in the figures in the paper)
H may also have been loaded into the Pt sample thermometer, and
changed its behavior as well?  If this occurs above 450C, it would
alter the characteristics of the thermometer as well as the temperature
of the sample....  More speculation.

>>whose job it is to prove that they are/are not significant.
>
>TANSTAAFL.  It's everyone's job to justify their contentions.

Agreed.  My theory is certainly not well-developed yet.  But I 
do think it's at least as well-developed as the Italian supposition
that the effect is due to P-D fusion!  I'm still in the realm of
plausible speculation...  Hopefully there will be more
details in the full paper, and thermodynamic effects will be
more carefully ruled out by the experimenters; if not I'm sure this
debate will continue...

One would think that a 30-50% surplus energy production would
make the *outside* of the experimental chamber hotter too...
Might be easier to attach lots of thermometers to the outside
than to the sample...

Anybody know where I can get an inexpensive, small temperature
sensor that will operate up to 500C? This sounds like it might
be fun to play with a little...:)

*********************
Robert F. Heeter
rfheeter@theory.pppl.gov
disclaimers apply


cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.12 / Marc Roussel /  Re: Question:correct understanding of photon reflection?
     
Originally-From: mroussel@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Marc Roussel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.chem
Subject: Re: Question:correct understanding of photon reflection?
Date: Sat, 12 Mar 1994 18:32:23 GMT
Organization: Department of Chemistry, University of Toronto

In article <CMJB1H.DH2@rahul.net> martin@rahul.net (Martin S. Singleton) writes:
>You're wrong there.  A photon has momentum.  Therefore, the different
>components
>of momentum are conserved.  That's why you can have photon pressure out in
>space.

     The momentum of a reflected photon is changed (the momentum
component perpendicular to the surface is reversed) so the whole answer
has to involve more than conservation of momentum.  (The momentum, in
case you're curious, is taken up by the lattice; for most macroscopic
objects, this doesn't cause appreciable effects but there are simple
devices for demonstrating this.)  Fortunately, most books on
electromagnetic theory give the correct answer, so you can just look there
for your answer.

				Marc R. Roussel
                                mroussel@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenmroussel cudfnMarc cudlnRoussel cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Sun Mar 13 04:37:02 EST 1994
------------------------------
1994.03.12 / L Plutonium /  Any experiments or observations of photons switching into 
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.math,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.chem,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Any experiments or observations of photons switching into 
Date: 12 Mar 1994 20:44:46 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In article <2lle4b$ndu@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium) writes:
>In article <SAVELSBERGH.2.763227652@stpc.wi.LeidenUniv.nl>
>SAVELSBERGH@stpc.wi.LeidenUniv.nl (SAVELSBERGH) writes:
>> Seeing that you are obviously mathematically talented, let me ask you 
>> whether you can solve this little problem I have been having sleepless 
>> nights over. What is the least reciprochal value of two selfadjugated 
>> functions in Jurgen's elimination method for complex integers for which it 
>> is still possible to solve the therein implicit differential equation?

I'd love to.  Would you mind putting it in english?

>  Say, do you or your friends know if neutrinos are transverse waves?

Not offhand.

>Are neutrinos diamagnetic or paramagnetic?

Actually, I am led to understand that neutrinos aren't magnetic at all.

>Are there materials which
>cause neutrino reflection better than other materials?

Getting nutrinos to reflect at all is very very hard.

>Are photons
>diamagnetic or paramagnetic?

This, I think, changes very rapidly.  Photons are electrical fluxes
that
stimulate magnetic fluxes and vice versa.

>  By math logic, since the highest reflective element is silver and
>silver is the highest conductor of electricity. Then Faraday's lines of
>force must by the carrier of electric current.

Um, would you mind printing the middle steps?

>  And if it is neutrinos as carriers, i.e., the lines of force in
>superconductors. Then by math logic the Maxwell's Equations need at
>least two more equations. So that Ohm's Law is one of the Equations.

Again, I don't quite follow you.

Also, Ludwig, you might want to look into electrons as the carrier for
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
electric current.  Just a suggestion.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>  Is tientalligstelsel for the element 121 tientalligstelselium a
>"good" Dutch word for "decimal number system" in honor of Simon Stevin?
>Does tientalligstelsel capture the historical flavor of Simon Stevin
>and the history of math?
  I think that is a simplistic picture. Quantum Mechanics teaches that
everything is dualistic. I am sure that a picture of electrons moving
is oversimplified. I am sure that an electric current involves much
more than a passage of electrons. I am looking for the carrier of
electric current. I intuit that is the correct way to come unto the
correct theory of superconductivity. It is already known that the
signal for electrons to start flowing is at the speed of light. That
fact alone tells that the carrier could be photons or possibly even
neutrinos, but certainly not electrons themselves.
  Once the correct theory of superconductivity is in hand, then it will
have Ohm's Law as a particular case thereof. The correct theory of
superconductivity will explain the Quantized Hall Effect. It will have
in the equation means of discerning what materials are the highest
superconductors, just as the periodicity of the table of chemical
elements tells which substances are the highest conductors, i.e.,
silver or the most electropositive. 
  ARE THERE ANY EXPERIMENTS OR KNOWN OBSERVATIONS (BESIDES THE
SPECULATION OF THE SUN'S NEUTRINOS SWITCHING) THAT SUGGEST OF THE
SWITCHING OF (1) PHOTONS INTO ELECTRONS, OR (2) ELECTRONS INTO PHOTONS,
OR (3) PHOTONS INTO NEUTRINOS, OR (4) NEUTRINOS INTO PHOTONS, OR (5)
ELECTRONS INTO NEUTRINOS, OR (6) NEUTRINOS INTO ELECTRONS?

  In answer to Alan's question about why not electrons as the carrier
of electric current. That is not beautiful enough. It is much more
beautiful if electrons switch into neutrinos and receiving no
resistance while going through mercury at 4K and switch back to
electrons at the other end. In other words, the neutrinos become the
Faraday Lines of Force. That is much more beautiful because we know as
a fact that neutrinos receive only the slightest resistance. 

  Could someone please set-up or broadcast the known data of
superconductive currents. Do they lose charge to the math comparison of
neutrinos as the carrier. That is, if neutrinos are the carriers then
in a theoretical predicted time, although very long time indeed, the
electric current will disappear.
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.12 / L Plutonium /  2 questions: neutrino switching which is diamagnetic enough?
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.math,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,alt.sci.physics.plutonium
Subject: 2 questions: neutrino switching which is diamagnetic enough?
Date: 12 Mar 1994 20:55:06 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

Scott I Chase wrote in a thread which memory space was too low to copy
command:
If they are indeed massless, then they are transverse waves.  If they
turn out to have a small mass, then they have a longitudinal component
as well.  We don't really know right now.  The Standard Model presumes
that they are massless, which is the simplest assumption in the 
absence of evidence to the contrary.
>>Are neutrinos diamagnetic or paramagnetic?
>Actually, I am led to understand that neutrinos aren't magnetic at all.
That's not true.  We have not measured any non-zero magnetic moment of
a neutrino, but we expect that they have a small, but nonzero, one.
The reason is that, because they participate in the weak nuclear
interaction,
they are surrounded by a virtual cloud of weakly-interacting particles,
many of which happen to be electrically charged and so contribute a 
small amount to the neutrino's magnetic moment.  The effect is
equivalent
to the one which causes the electron's magnetic moment to be slightly 
different than what one expects for a "simple Dirac" (sometimes called
"undressed") particle. 
>>Are there materials which
>>cause neutrino reflection better than other materials?
>Getting nutrinos to reflect at all is very very hard.
Indeed.  But the extent to which they do interact with the material
depends upon the chemical composition.  What would be best for a 
neutrino mirror?  I don't know off hand.
-Scott
 -------------------
Scott I. Chase                       Mutationem motas proportionalem 
SICHASE@CSA2.LBL.GOV                  esse vi motrici impressae.

  Does anyone have the theoretical data which would differentiate
whether superconductivity is the switching of electrons into neutrinos
or photons depending on which of these two--neutrinos or photons-- can
create a Meissner Effect? Thanks for any information. With Love Ludwig,
(pronounced Logwig like in logarithm.)
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.12 / Ron Maimon /  Re: Question:correct understanding of photon reflection?
     
Originally-From: rmaimon@husc9.Harvard.EDU (Ron Maimon)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.chem
Subject: Re: Question:correct understanding of photon reflection?
Date: 12 Mar 1994 21:35:57 GMT
Organization: Harvard University, Cambridge, MA

In article <CMJ09B.5r9@uwindsor.ca>, bouche2@server.uwindsor.ca (Boucher David) writes:
|> 
|> What you have described is diffraction.  Some photons do in fact travel
|> further into the latice, until their energy is dissipated as phonons, i.e.,
|> the solid gets warmer.  If such were not the case then every solid would
|> be a perfect reflector.  Also, if the photon can be re-emitted in any
|> direction, then there's no reason why it shouldn't come back out along
|> the same path it went in, or any other angle that takes it away from
|> the surface.  
|> 
|> Unfortunately, I don't know the correct explanation for reflection
|> either -- I only know that your explanation is wrong.  ;)  I asked
|> the same question of several of my former profs years ago and none
|> of them had a satisfactory answer.  
|> 

Read Feynman's book "QED" it has an explanation for reflection in terms
of quantum mechanics. It also has an (intuitively appealing) explanation
for a lot of other things in the same terms.

It goes like this: if a photon with momentum k is incident on a mirror,
it is absorbed at all points in the lattice and reflected in all directions.
In order to figure out what the amplitude for being emmitted in each
direction is, you have to add up the amplitudes from each of the processes
that cause the photon to be reemmitted. This can be done, believe it or
not, even though we don't know the details of light emmission by glass.

The only thing we know is that the glass is uniform as far as the photon
is concerned, so that whatever happens in the first layer of glass is also
what happens in the second layer of glass, and so on. This, if you think
about it, is the same as requiring that the glass is uniform on the scale
of the wavelength of the incident light.

ok. So what happens? At any point, there is absorption and reemmision of
the light. If the glass doesn't have an energy level which can be excited
by the light, the only thing that can happen is that the light is reemmited
with the same energy that it had before (this is why glass is opaque to
ultraviolet light, and clear to visible light. I suppose there's an energy
level of glass in the ultraviolet frequencies). This means that every point
is emmitting a photon with the same energy, or the same magnitude of k as the
k that is incident on it. Another way of saying this is that in elastic
scattering, an incident plane wave on a point scatterer scatters into the same
plane wave and an outgoing spherical wave.

Now if you consider another direction k', the amplitudes from all the atoms
to emit in that direction cancel out, except for two special k' s. k'=k and
k'= (k reflected in the plane of the mirror).

Why?

that's easy! in any other direction, if you walk along the plane of the mirror
the distance to a distant point changes linearly with time, since if you move
a little up or a little down the new point is closer to the distant point
more then it is farther then the emmision point, or maybe its closer to the
emission point more then it is farther from the distant point. This means
that the amplitude of the light being emmitted from that atom will cancel
the amplitude of the light from its neighbors.

Only in two special directions does this fail. Those are the directions in
which moving a little bit up or down causes the distance from the emmitter
to change in a way that exactly compensates the change in the distance from
the reciever. those are the transmitted and reflected beams. This is a
principle of optics, the "principle of least distance", which says that
light travels in a vaccuum along the shortest path it can. It's actually
has to be modified into a "principle of least time" in a medium in which
the phase speed of light changes. This is all explained in Feynman's book.


Ron Maimon
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenrmaimon cudfnRon cudlnMaimon cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.12 / Ron Maimon /  Re: Question:correct understanding of photon reflection?
     
Originally-From: rmaimon@husc9.Harvard.EDU (Ron Maimon)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.chem
Subject: Re: Question:correct understanding of photon reflection?
Date: 12 Mar 1994 21:56:54 GMT
Organization: Harvard University, Cambridge, MA

In article <CMJB1H.DH2@rahul.net>, martin@rahul.net (Martin S. Singleton) writes:
|>
|> >further into the latice, until their energy is dissipated as phonons, i.e.,
|> >the solid gets warmer.  If such were not the case then every solid would
|> 
|> Phonons are idealized particles of sound, not to be confused with thermal
|> energy of electrons vibrating in the lattice.

au contraire- they are the quanta of the mechanical energy of the crystal,
which is where the thermal energy is hidden.

Ron Maimon
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenrmaimon cudfnRon cudlnMaimon cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.13 / Leland A /  Re: Tapping the Vacuum Energy -- An Important Paper from bearden
     
Originally-From: leland@ins.infonet.net (Leland D. Hosford, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, U.S.A.)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.energy
Subject: Re: Tapping the Vacuum Energy -- An Important Paper from bearden
Date: 13 Mar 1994 01:32:25 GMT
Organization: INFOnet - Iowa Network Services, Inc.

In article <MATT.94Mar8213040@physics16.berkeley.edu>, matt@physics16.be
keley.edu (Matt Austern) writes:
>...[stuff deleted]
>Oh, one caveat.  There's one area where absolute energies, and not
>just energy differences, is relevant, and that's gravity, which
>(according to the Einstein equations) couples to the energy-momentum
>density.  Most of the time we can safely ignore gravitational effects,
>but we get into big problems if we take the zero-point electromagnetic
>energy seriously and ask what effect it has on the gravitational
>field.  As far as I know, nobody has a very sensible resolution of
>this problem, but I know next to nothing about anything that has to do
>with both quantum mechanics and gravity.  I'll let someone who's more
>knowledgable than me try to straighten the mess out.

I understand there is a very recent paper (published last month) by Bernhard
Haisch, Alfonso Rueda, & Harold E. Puthoff entitled "Inertia as a Zero-Point
Field Lorentz Force" published in "Phys Rev A" Feb 1994, that does provide a
"sensible resolution of this problem" (at least according to the report I
read). Has anyone read that paper (I haven't, just a brief report about it).
If anyone has, could you comment on it.

Thanks,

Leland D. Hosford      | I have enough trouble just explaining what's on my own
leland@ins.infonet.net | mind. How could I presume to speak for anyone else?
 ----------------------+-------------------------------------------------------
 ?daeh ym no gnidnats m'I evorp uoy ot nwod-edispu raeppa I gnitressa seoD (-:
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenleland cudfnLeland cudlnA cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.13 / L Plutonium /  Re: Any experiments or observations of photons switching into  
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.math,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.chem,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Any experiments or observations of photons switching into  
Date: 13 Mar 1994 12:56:51 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In article <2ljjt5$pge@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium) writes:
> In article <2lid8m$e48@sefl.satelnet.org>
> skybird@satelnet.org (Scott Pallack) writes:
> >> In <CMCG48.2zx@festival.ed.ac.uk> calum@festival.ed.ac.uk (C MacLean) writes:
> >>I'd like an simple way of explaining this ("two negatives making a
> >>positive") to my non-mathematical friends.  Any suggestions?
> > If you reverse play a video of a woman walking backwards you will see her 
> > walking forwards.
> In article <2liu34$fv0@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
> Benjamin.J.Tilly@dartmouth.edu (Benjamin J. Tilly) writes:
> > I have seen some reasonable answers to this in this group, the best was
> > probably that if I get rid of some debts then I have made money, but I
> > have yet to see the standard algebraic trick.
> > 0 = (x-x)^2 = x^2 - 2x^2 + (-x)^2
> > After a (very) little bit of algebra this shows that x^2 = (-x)^2.
> > Alternately you can give a geometrical argument. Draw the number line
> > and then explain that multiplying by -1 is just flipping it over the
> > point x = 0. Now what happens if you flip then flip again?
> 
>   These are all mighty fine answers but they do not hit bedrock yet.
> They do not hit firm foundation where one can sleep in comfort and
> without fear of half-truths. The answer to this meaningful question as
> the answer to every question must fall back to quantum physics.
>   An electron is negative and a proton positive charge. If you multiply
> (I did not say add), but if you multiply negative charges then by
> Gauss's Law the Faraday lines of force have to come back to the
> motherhood home of postive charge, in order for the equation to be
> zero.
>   But then again Gauss's Law is so far over the heads of most people
> that it is best to tell your nonmather friends to go and watch the
> birds. Whenever your nonmather friends ask why two negatives multiplied
> gives positive, sidetrack the conversation by saying "Hey can you tell
> the difference between a crow and a raven?"
In article <2lt9ju$21h@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium) writes:
>   I think that is a simplistic picture. Quantum Mechanics teaches that
> everything is dualistic. I am sure that a picture of electrons moving
> is oversimplified. I am sure that an electric current involves much
> more than a passage of electrons. I am looking for the carrier of
> electric current. I intuit that is the correct way to come unto the
> correct theory of superconductivity. It is already known that the
> signal for electrons to start flowing is at the speed of light. That
> fact alone tells that the carrier could be photons or possibly even
> neutrinos, but certainly not electrons themselves.
>   Once the correct theory of superconductivity is in hand, then it will
> have Ohm's Law as a particular case thereof. The correct theory of
> superconductivity will explain the Quantized Hall Effect. It will have
> in the equation means of discerning what materials are the highest
> superconductors, just as the periodicity of the table of chemical
> elements tells which substances are the highest conductors, i.e.,
> silver or the most electropositive. 
>   ARE THERE ANY EXPERIMENTS OR KNOWN OBSERVATIONS (BESIDES THE
> SPECULATION OF THE SUN'S NEUTRINOS SWITCHING) THAT SUGGEST OF THE
> SWITCHING OF (1) PHOTONS INTO ELECTRONS, OR (2) ELECTRONS INTO PHOTONS,
> OR (3) PHOTONS INTO NEUTRINOS, OR (4) NEUTRINOS INTO PHOTONS, OR (5)
> ELECTRONS INTO NEUTRINOS, OR (6) NEUTRINOS INTO ELECTRONS?
> 
>   In answer to Alan's question about why not electrons as the carrier
> of electric current. That is not beautiful enough. It is much more
> beautiful if electrons switch into neutrinos and receiving no
> resistance while going through mercury at 4K and switch back to
> electrons at the other end. In other words, the neutrinos become the
> Faraday Lines of Force. That is much more beautiful because we know as
> a fact that neutrinos receive only the slightest resistance. 
> 
>   Could someone please set-up or broadcast the known data of
> superconductive currents. Do they lose charge to the math comparison of
> neutrinos as the carrier. That is, if neutrinos are the carriers then
> in a theoretical predicted time, although very long time indeed, the
> electric current will disappear.

  Restatement: At this moment, not knowing the state of the art of
superconductivity in practice, and having no privy access to the
experimental or state-of-the-art data, it is my belief that the
SUPERCONDUCTING STATE is a state in which there is not 0 electrical
resistance. But, however, the electrical resistance is very, very low
indeed. That electrical resistance is a very small postive number. To
give a somewhat analogy, there is 0 absolute temperature Kelvin. We may
approach it however close, but the temperature of 0K is never reached.
Now with the superconducting state, when the transition temperature is
reached the electrical resistance drops-off. Does it hit 0 electrical
resistance. Many, most, perhaps all in the physics community as of this
posting believes that the electrical resistance is 0. I say no. I say
the electrical resistance when a substance is in the superconducting
state is a very small and tiny positive number. I say the carrier
particle, or the Faraday lines of force are neutrinos. I say that if
one were to measure the small and tiny positive number of electrical
resistance, that number will match the number derived from electrons
switched-into, or turned-into neutrinos. In other words, when the
superconducting state is reached in a material, the electrons flowing
as current are switched into neutrinos which then flow to the other end
of the substance and reswitched-back into electrons once again.
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.13 / mitchell swartz /  An "impropoer (sic)" quote by Steve
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: An "impropoer (sic)" quote by Steve
Subject: Mitch goofs again
Date: Sun, 13 Mar 1994 13:27:15 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

   In Message-ID: <1994Mar9.140736.1471@physc1.byu.edu>
Subject: Mitch goofs again
Steven Jones (jonesse@physc1.byu.edu) impeccibly types
and uses quotes, while claiming another is not a "good student" ;-)  :

 =sjones "Mitch says:
 =sjones "Steve did not use the delta-anything until he was corrected. 
 =sjones All people make mistakes.
 =sjones However, it is impropoer to routinely use such errors to attempt to
 =sjones "prove" one's point."  [post 3-9-94]
 =sjones  --Steve"
         [Subject: Mitch goofs again
          Message-ID: <1994Mar9.140736.1471@physc1.byu.edu>
          From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
          Date: 9 Mar 94 14:07:36 -0700
          Distribution: world
          Organization: Brigham Young University]

 "impropoer(sic)" by Jones.

  Actually was:

=ms   "Steve  did not use the delta-anything until he was
=ms  corrected.     All people make mistakes.
=ms  However, it is improper to routinely use such errors to attempt to 
=ms  "prove" one's point. 
=ms     For example, this is similar to Steve's endless  "1000W/cm^3 (1989
=ms  value)" comments which were error by calculation and error
=ms  by reference.
       [Subject: Uncertainty in Steve's argument (previous <none>)
        Message-ID: <CMEFFC.BMv@world.std.com>]

  It is "impropoer(sic)" to misquote when lecturing and
simultaneously claiming another is not a "good student".        ;-)

   A small point, but like fractals, there it goes (again).

                       -   Mitchell 
 ------------------------------------------------------------
    "The safest place for a "skeptic" at an archery competition is directly
 in front of the target.  No danger in a "skeptic" so placed being hit.
               All the points will naturally elude them"

cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.13 / mitchell swartz /  Attempts at censorship in sci.physics.fusion
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Attempts at censorship in sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Steven Jones goofs again
Date: Sun, 13 Mar 1994 13:28:23 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

   In Message-ID: <11MAR199416154057@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: Steven Jones goofs again
Mike Jamison ( edwlt12@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov ) writes:

=mj   "Mitch, I don't think you're being entirely fair, here.
=mj   I'd thought Steve's
=mj   documentation (in e-mail form, with ASCII being the rather poor medium 
=mj  we  all have to deal with here) was pretty good,
=mj   concerning his experimental setups."

 Hi Mike.  Maybe.  There have been multiple values presented, and
 failure to discussed critical parameters (at least with the
light water expts.)   Also since Steve has retracted some of
his published data, it would be nice to know what he actually
stands behind.  Finally, he takes so much time, "knocking" other
people, and their work, that he should provide some evidence.
This is especially true since he was wrong about what he claimed
Cravens, McKubre, Kucherov, Miles, Will, and others have said or
done.  And in each case, Mr. Jones makes these misstatements
to "cut off" further discussion and interest, doesn't he? 


   >  Although no other physicist is reportedly as smart your yourself,
   >I have been lucky enough to have had the opportunity to on occasion
   >teach some physics and engineering - including a few times
   >to high school students.
=mj  "Sorry, I don't remember Steve (or anyone else here) saying "Steve Jones
=mj  is the smartest physicist on the planet."

  Let's see.  Your posting is 11 Mar 1994 16:15 EST, Mike.
Steve Jones won't keep us waiting too long.   ...................

  Ahhhh. 

          Here, below, is a very recent Steve Jones brag
with his continuous complaint about another's (**anyone's) hard work
in this field.  Notice, Mike, that it was posted only minutes
after your reasonable statement.  Here it is dated: 11 Mar 94 17:40:16 -0700:


=sj    "In view of all that we have discussed here recently regarding the
=sj   discredited notion that d+d fusion can result in 4He + "lattice heating",
=sj  I am greatly surprised that Scott Chubb can post,without the slightest
=sj  effort  to address the substantial objections here argued,"
=sj         [Subject: Tough questions for Scott Chubb
=sj          Message-ID: <1994Mar11.174016.1479@physc1.byu.edu>
=sj          Steve Jones (jonesse@physc1.byu.edu) on the attack at 
=sj          11 Mar 94 17:40:16 -0700 from Brigham Young University]

   Facts are:
   1) Steve did not even offer compelling reasons for his endless
so-called "substantial" objections.   

   2) Most of us greatly appreciated the posting by Scott Chubb, despite
Jones totalitarian -- and warped --  efforts at censorship.  

                                        QED

 
  Mike, like yourself, there is learning from everyone here.
Where does Steve get off implying that Dr. Chubb not post?
   Is this where the Internet is heading.
   e-control, and e-hazing, originating from BYU's Jones?
 As for my e-vote:   No.    Let everyone, and anyone, post here if
                            their interest is sci.physics.fusion,
                            and the "students" here will sort it out.

  Best wishes.
                       -   Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com)
     --------------------------------------------------------------- 
    "We need sensors, not censorship"   A harried cold fusioneer (1994)

cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.13 / mitchell swartz /  Tough questions for Scott Chubb
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Tough questions for Scott Chubb
Subject: Tough questions for Scott Chubb
Date: Sun, 13 Mar 1994 13:29:19 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

   In Message-ID: <1994Mar11.174016.1479@physc1.byu.edu>
Subject: Tough questions for Scott Chubb
Steven Jones (jonesse@physc1.byu.edu) cites lofty omniscence
as he pillories Scott Chubb.

=sj    "In view of all that we have discussed here recently regarding the
=sj   discredited notion that d+d fusion can result in 4He + "lattice heating",
=sj  I am greatly surprised that Scott Chubb can post,without the slightest
=sj  effort  to address the substantial objections here argued,"

  In view of all that we have discussed here, and Steve's failure to
document his discredited notions of "violations of conservation
of *momentum*",  misapplied Mossbauer effect, misapplication of the 
*uncertainty principle*, and his purported reports of 
violations of speed-of-light constraints",   
we  are greatly surprised that Steve Jones can post,
without the slightest effort more of the same to continue 
his substantial obstructions of many good arguments posted here."

 ----->>>>>  Three cheers to Scott Chubb.   Thank you Scott.

   Can Steve actually provide some compelling evidence for his
harrassments here?  Seems unlikely, given the partial analysis to date.

   However, to seek the truth;  Mr. Jones:

1.  Explain your reliance on violations of energy?
2.  Explain your reliance on violations of momentum conservation?
3.  Explain your reliance on the Mossbauer effect?
4.  Explain your reliance on this misuse of the *uncertainty principle* ?
5.  Explain your reliance on purported speed-of-light constraints?
6.  Show how you can reconcile your purported muon-catalyzed fusion with cold 
    fusion?
7.  Explain your chutzpah that only your muon-fusion is "the *only verified*
 form of *cold* fusion!"
8.  Explain your continued denigration of the work of Miles et al.?

  "Waiting with baited breath" (after Steve Jones).

             -   Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com)
   -----------------------------------------------------------------------
                        "Truth fears no trial"
          Thomas Fuller (1654-1743)  Gnomologia, 1732, no 5,297

cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Mon Mar 14 04:37:03 EST 1994
------------------------------
1994.03.13 / C Harrison /  Re: SL:  Shock-wave heating and Hot Bubble Fusion possibility
     
Originally-From: harr@netcom.com (Charles (Chuck) Harrison)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: SL:  Shock-wave heating and Hot Bubble Fusion possibility
Date: Sun, 13 Mar 1994 17:48:16 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1994Mar11.172114.1478@physc1.byu.edu> jonesse@physc1.byu.edu writes:
[...]
>Now let's not think that the energy released by a bubble is enormous, should
>all the gas inside ignite.  Let's use d-t inside the bubble, since ignition is
>easier to reach than with d-d, p-d, d-3He, etc.  And we'll take an equilibrium
>(1 atm) bubble diameter of 20 microns, which is typical.  Then the number of
>d-t pairs is:
>
>4/3pi*r^3/0.0224 m^3/mole * 6 X 10^23 d-tpairs/mole = 10^11 d-t pairs.
>
>since r = 10 microns.  Then let's take the limiting case where 100% of the
>d-t burns, at 17.6 MeV/fusion:
>
>10^11 d-tpairs/bubble *17.6MeV/d-tpair *1.6X10^-13J/MeV = 0.3 W
                                                              ^^^ Joules
Now, how many "pops" per second -- ie ultrasound frequency? say 20kHz 

  0.3 J * 20000 sec^-1 = 6 kW
 
Hmm.

 -Chuck Harrison  harr@netcom.com

>--Steven Jones


cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenharr cudfnCharles cudlnHarrison cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.14 / Matt Kennel /  Re: SL:  Shock-wave heating and Hot Bubble Fusion possibility
     
Originally-From: mbk%anl433.uucp@Germany.EU.net (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: SL:  Shock-wave heating and Hot Bubble Fusion possibility
Date: 14 Mar 1994 01:15:48 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

jonesse@physc1.byu.edu wrote:
: In article <2loc8r$bvm@network.ucsd.edu>, 
: mbk%anl433.uucp@Germany.EU.net (Matt Kennel) writes:
: > jonesse@physc1.byu.edu wrote:
: > : This is consistent with the explanation for stable,
: > : single-bubble (at spherical flask center)
: > : sonoluminescence (SL) worked out theoretically by C. Wu and Paul Roberts
: > : at UCLA, published in "Shock-wave propagation in a sonluminescing gas bubble,"
: > : Physical Review Letters (really!) 70 (1993) 3424.  I think this is very
: > : exciting, for at these temperatures, a deuterium-tritium mixture might
: > : *ignite*. 
: > 
: > Ignition, not just fusion.  Really?  (Wouldn't a whole flask of liquid T20 be
: > a serious health hazard?)

: The fusion takes place inside the *bubble* where shock-wave compression has
: heated some of the gases to (estimated) 10^8 K; see conditions below.
: We're not going to use T2O as the driving fluid; probably Hg since this has
: *much* higher density and surface tension and therefore much higher likelihood
: of reaching high compression of gases in bubble while retaining approx.
: spherical symmetry.  The first mention of using Hg as driving fluid that I
: heard of was from Terry Bollinger, BTW.

: Now let's not think that the energy released by a bubble is enormous, should
: all the gas inside ignite.  Let's use d-t inside the bubble, since ignition is
: easier to reach than with d-d, p-d, d-3He, etc.  And we'll take an equilibrium
: (1 atm) bubble diameter of 20 microns, which is typical.  Then the number of
: d-t pairs is:

: 4/3pi*r^3/0.0224 m^3/mole * 6 X 10^23 d-tpairs/mole = 10^11 d-t pairs.

: since r = 10 microns.  Then let's take the limiting case where 100% of the
: d-t burns, at 17.6 MeV/fusion:

: 10^11 d-tpairs/bubble *17.6MeV/d-tpair *1.6X10^-13J/MeV = 0.3 W

: -- not much.  One might work to double the bubble size.  Then the ignition
: yield max. is about 2.5 W.  (Hope some will check my math for errors.)

Could you somehow start out with a >> 1 atm bubble, in order to greatly
increase the initial density?  I thought ICF experiments used nearly
solid-density fuel (frozen D/T?  Li-6 D?)

Any possibility of using some sort of driving fluid that reflects neutrons?
I thought this was a big trick for Bombs in order to achieve ignition.

: --Steven Jones

--
-Matt Kennel  		mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu
-Institute for Nonlinear Science, University of California, San Diego
-*** AD: Archive for nonlinear dynamics papers & programs: FTP to
-***     lyapunov.ucsd.edu, username "anonymous".
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenuucp cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.14 /  blue@nscl00.ns /  Who's telling tails, Jed?
     
Originally-From: blue@nscl00.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Who's telling tails, Jed?
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 1994 01:20:57 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

In response to my assertion that significant data is absent from the
accounts of Pons and Fleischmann boiling water experiments Jed Rothwell
accuses me of tell fairy tails.  Let us review the facts as I believe
they currently stand.

(1) There are no actual measurements of the input power, but only
    upper limits based on the properties of the power supply.

(2) The information from which the time of boiloff must be deduced
    consists only of data taken at 5 minute intervals such that
    the time from the onset of boiling to its completion may be
    uncertain by as much as 10 minutes.

(3)  There is a significant disagreement in the timing of three
    key events associated with the end of boiloff.  These are
    the timing at which the cell boils dry, the time at which
    the input power drops to zero, and the time at which the
    cell temperature responds to a change in operating conditions.

These are the basis for my saying that there are doubts which prevent
me, at least, from accepting these experiments as clear demonstrations
of the production of excess enthalpy.  Rather than just accusing me
of telling fairy tails, Jed, it would be more constructive for you
to explain how you came to know that the time for boiloff is short
enough that you can be sure that the power required is 3 times the
input power.  How is that time derived from the measurements?

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenblue cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.14 / John Logajan /  Re: Italian "Heeter" effect
     
Originally-From: 74242.1554@compuserve.com (John M. Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Italian "Heeter" effect
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 1994 01:20:58 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

rfheeter@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Robert Franklin Heeter) writes:
>But you're ignoring the additional heat transfer due to convection
>of the gas, and the nature of the convection may change the picture.

I'm not ignoring it.  I'm suggesting there is no evidence in the
time versus temperature graph to suggest chaotic behavior (of significant
magnitude.)  If there is chaos in the convection, it is clearly bimodal
only -- at least in the cases contained in the Italian paper.

If we are searching for a bimodal convection pattern, then we should
look for possible geometries that might support it, as well as
explanations as to why one modality dominates when stainless steel
is in the chamber but two modalities appear when nickle is present.

>I'm still in the realm of plausible speculation...

Certainly.  Everyone has their own philosophy in regards to scientific
papers.  I can only attempt to explain my own.  I take such papers at
face value -- I make a working assumption that the authors are telling
the truth and that the observational data was transcribed as stated,
without error.  I further assume that if the authors didn't mention
some seemingly obvious factor, that they did so because there are
limitless obvious factors and it would be impossible to list them all.

The next step is to look for internal consistency errors in the paper.
Furthermore, though the "effect" might be outside the realm of current
theory, the methods to detect it should be inside the realm of previous
experience.  So consistency of the measurement techniques with existing
knowledge can also be checked.

At this point, if the paper has passed those tests, there is sufficient
justification to attempt a *replication.*

This is the key point.  The replication is the attempt to screen out all
the additional factors that could not be determined by studying the
paper.  Were the authors lying?  Were they dyslexic?  Were they insane? 
Did the computer have a parity error?  Did the measurement device have
calibration problems?  Was it intermittently faulty?

Here the replication can include additional controls to search for any
identified points of ambiguity.

In my mind, the Italian paper passes the tests.  It is internally self-
consistent, and the measurement techniques seem be within the realm of
current knowledge.  It seems to be sufficiently detailed for a
replicator to determine operating points and conditions.

The replicator also has areas of known ambiguity -- convection, reduntant
thermometers, gas contamination, geometry, general calorimetry, etc.

So I think the Italian paper is good enough to justify a replication
attempt -- which to my mind, is the whole point of scientific papers.


cudkeys:
cuddy14 cuden1554 cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.14 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Submission for sci.physics.fusion
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Submission for sci.physics.fusion
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 1994 01:21:10 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Dick Blue writes: Any experimental evidence that He ions exiet in metal 
lattices would perhaps clear up this point."  The appropiat stuff has
scrolled off my screen, but do you not mean D ions?  For these there is
the Moore thesis (old but interesting - 1939) recently reviewed by 
Dieter Britz.

Tom Droege

cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenDROEGE cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.14 / Matt Kennel /  Re: Chubb Theory
     
Originally-From: mbk%anl433.uucp@Germany.EU.net (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Chubb Theory
Date: 14 Mar 1994 01:20:43 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

blue@nscl00.nscl.msu.edu wrote:
: Ignoring that fact, however, I am still at a loss to know what it means
: to spread deuterons around all over the place. 

Even if you do spread deuterons all over the place, it still doesn't
mean that they wouldn't repel each other and not want to get close.

Look at a helium atom.  Two electrons nearly in the same "overlapping"
orbital.  Funny thing though, if you catch one of them, the other
one is usually on the other side.  This still happens even though
they are "delocalized".


: Dick Blue


--
-Matt Kennel  		mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu
-Institute for Nonlinear Science, University of California, San Diego
-*** AD: Archive for nonlinear dynamics papers & programs: FTP to
-***     lyapunov.ucsd.edu, username "anonymous".
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenuucp cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.14 / Matt Kennel /  Re: Italian "Heeter" effect
     
Originally-From: mbk%anl433.uucp@Germany.EU.net (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Italian "Heeter" effect
Date: 14 Mar 1994 04:44:57 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

John M. Logajan (74242.1554@compuserve.com) wrote:
: rfheeter@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Robert Franklin Heeter) writes:
: >If this is the case, then it seems reasonable to expect that the
: >center of the hydrogen-loaded Ni rod will be hotter for a given
: >heater power than it was without the hydrogen impurities.

: I think this is an untenable suggestion.  The thermal conductivity of
: the nickel or steel rod is order 100-1000 times that of the surrounding
: gas.  That means that virtually all of the thermal gradient is going to
: be across the gas space, and virtually none of it will be across the
: metal rod.

It seems unlikely that the net transmission of heat in such a gas would
proceed via static thermal conductivity.  I would suspect that bulk
convection would dominate, with a little bit of thermal radiation.

: Remember, in the Italian results we have an 80 C delta at temperatures
: just 160 C or so above ambient.  The only way for your theory to
: approach that is for the thermal conductivity of the gas space to be of
: the same general magnitude as the metal rod.

--
-Matt Kennel  		mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu
-Institute for Nonlinear Science, University of California, San Diego
-*** AD: Archive for nonlinear dynamics papers & programs: FTP to
-***     lyapunov.ucsd.edu, username "anonymous".
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenuucp cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.14 / M Singleton /  Re: Question:correct understanding of photon reflection?
     
Originally-From: martin@rahul.net (Martin S. Singleton)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.chem
Subject: Re: Question:correct understanding of photon reflection?
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 1994 08:07:30 GMT
Organization: a2i network

In <2ltdr6$5s3@scunix2.harvard.edu> rmaimon@husc9.Harvard.EDU (Ron Maimon) writes:

>In article <CMJB1H.DH2@rahul.net>, martin@rahul.net (Martin S. Singleton) writes:
>|>
>|> >further into the latice, until their energy is dissipated as phonons, i.e.,
>|> >the solid gets warmer.  If such were not the case then every solid would
>|> 
>|> Phonons are idealized particles of sound, not to be confused with thermal
>|> energy of electrons vibrating in the lattice.

>au contraire- they are the quanta of the mechanical energy of the crystal,
>which is where the thermal energy is hidden.

Maybe so, but the point I was trying to make was that my original explanation
seemed correct and a lot simpler than the other ones.  All I was saying was
that the momentum of the photon parallel to the surface is conserved, and since
my explanation showed how (without needing to refer to some famous popularized
junky hand-waving stuff) the emitted photon had the same frequency as the
incident one, and that therefore since those are the same, the normal component
of the photons momentum would also have the same magnitude- and so I've
essentially explained it, although admittedly some people with neural
deficiencies couldn't quite understand it in its elegance (they had to rely on
their F. imitations).

No need to look in books to steal explanations if you can come up with valid
ones of your own.  So, summarizing my explanation so that you dopes can't make
up new lies about it:

	1) I've previously shown that the emitted photon will have the same
	   frequency by potential energy arguments.

	2) Since the photons momentum components are functions of the frequency,
	   the magnitude of the emitted photon's momentum will have the same 
	   p as the incident photon.

 	3) If the component of p parallel to the surface is conserved by the
	   photon, then the normal component must also have an equal magnitude
	   (it will be in the opposite direction as previously shown).

	4) The lattice cannot impart an impulse to the photon parallel to the
	   surface (intuitively evident, the photon pushes upon the lattice in
	   one direction, the lattice pushes back- in the direction from which
	   the photon was incident, and then pushes once again, against itself
	   (it oscillates), which re-imparts the p-parallel component which the
	   original photon had back into the emitted photon), so p-parallel is
	   conserved.

I suppose point 4 is a little hazy, but otherwise my explanation seems right.
If I can perfect this part so that it doesn't depend on something classical-like
which doesn't seem to apply, then my explanation is correct- but maybe a little
too original for (hopefully some of) the dummies around here.

(quod licet Jovi, non licet bovi)



-- 
Martin S. Singleton <martin@rahul.net>
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenmartin cudfnMartin cudlnSingleton cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.14 / Bill Page /  Learning about calorimetry
     
Originally-From: 70047.3047@compuserve.com (Bill Page)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Learning about calorimetry
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 1994 12:56:14 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

vern@zebra.alphacdc.COM (Vernon C. Hoxie) writes:
<<
(Bill Page) writes:

A very great deletion...

>The data acquisition board that I use 
>includes two DAC outputs.  Do you use this approach or is your control 
>system entirely analog electronics?

Can someone suggest sources for good data acquisition boards?
>>

I am using a National Instruments Lab PC+ DAQ board.  The cost was just 
under $900. It comes with some fairly reasonable general purpose software 
that can write data to disk files plus several subroutine libraries for 
programming in "C".  National Instruments main claim to fame is actually 
IEEE 488 stuff plus what they call "virtual instrument" software.  They 
market a great looking high level graphical programming language called 
Lab-Windows but it unfortunately costs to much for my non-existent budget.  


You can get DAQ boards for less, but why scrimp if you are trying to do 
something with some accuracy?

cudkeys:
cuddy14 cuden3047 cudfnBill cudlnPage cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.14 / Jed Rothwell /  Who's telling tails, Jed?
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Who's telling tails, Jed?
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 1994 15:10:42 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org

Dick Blue posted a message with that title. I hope it wasn't me who first
mixed up "tale" and "tail" but I would not put it past me. My spelling is
atrocious! Anyway, Dick make all kinds of bold, outrageous nonsense statements
here which I will not bother to rebut in detail, but anyone who wants to know
the truth should read the Morrison versus P&F debate or the Jones versus
Fleischmann exchange. A few corrections:

     "(1) There are no actual measurements of the input power, but only upper
     limits based on the properties of the power supply.

This is crap, as Dick well knows. It is an absurd, outright lie. They have
used many different types of instruments, including averaging meters. I have
repeated this fact dozens of times, and Fleischmann made this perfectly clear
during his ICCF presentation.

     "(2) The information from which the time of boiloff must be deduced
     consists only of data taken at 5 minute intervals . . . "

Incorrect. The examples shown in the Phys Let. A paper were like that, but the
experiment has been run many, many times with other types of equipment.


     "(3)  There is a significant disagreement in the timing of three key
     events associated with the end of boiloff . . ."

No, there is no such disagreement. Droege and others here in this forum have
claimed there is, but they are wrong.

- Jed

cudkeys:
cuddy14 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.15 /  blue@nscl00.ns /  Re: Comments on Chubb theory
     
Originally-From: blue@nscl00.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Comments on Chubb theory
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 1994 02:00:26 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Tom Droege asks if I misspoke when I questioned the existence of
helium ions in the Pd lattice.  No, Tom, if you will reread the
assertions made by Scott Chubb you will see that he is indeed
requiring ion band states for two species of nuclei in his theory,
the deuterons before fusion and helium as the product of fusion.
I guess that there is some evidence to support the notion that some
of the deuterons are ionized, but does that mean that is the dominant
form?  I really do question, however, what Scott has in mind for the
helium in the lattice.  Making helium ion band states is just a bit
further away from having a connection with reality, I think.

Matt Kennel also remarks that, as has been noted before, just the
creation of band states does nothing to deal with the basic problem
with cold fusion, i.e. Coulomb repulsion between nuclei.  I would
go further to say that Scott Chubb's insistance that the deuterons
are ionize
d and spread throughout the lattice kicks the crutches
out from under all the other theories for cold fusion in which
electrons serve to screen the positive nuclei from each other.

So to me it seems Scott Chubb makes so statements that have no
connection of any experimental data (outside of CF orthodoxy),
that go nowhere near addressing questions relating to what
leads to an enhancement of fusion rates, assuming a rather
unlikely final state following fusion, does nothing to
address the need for some special mechanism to couple a
nuclear transistion to the lattice and degrade multiMeV
energy to heat, and is still being peddled as a "theory"
of cold fusion.

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenblue cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.15 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Re. All gasses are not created equal
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re. All gasses are not created equal
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 1994 02:00:53 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Looks like Marshall Dudley caught me in some sloppy thinking.  OK, I guess 
there is not that much difference between D2 and 4He.  I just assumed that
D2 would have the same thermal conductivity as H2 (likely wrong).  But please
note that my tongue was firmly in my cheek at the time.

Tom Droege

cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenDROEGE cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.15 / SCOTT CHUBB /  -Tough questions for Scott Chubb
     
Originally-From: CHUBB@cfe1.nrl.navy.mil (SCOTT CHUBB)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: -Tough questions for Scott Chubb
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 1994 02:00:58 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Hi Steve,

     As I mentioned in my last posting to Dick Blue, I do not yet
receive the postings for sci.physics.fusion on a regular basis.  For
this reason, I would appreciate your forwarding comments directly
to me as well as to the bulletin board.

     I would agree with you that a high energy particle would be required
if it is required that energy be released from a reaction that occurs at
a specific point.  (This is required both in the Mossbauer effect and
in conventional nuclear physics reactions.)  An important point however
is if you can not identify the precise locations either of the initial
reacting "particles" or of the final state by-products, it is not possible
to identify the precise location where the reaction takes place.  When
in fact all periodically equivalent locations are locations where the
reaction occurs and only a small amount of a reaction and reactants are
present at each of these equivalent locations, then, it is not possible
but required that only a very small amount of energy be released at each
point.  This in fact is the picture that results from the ion band state
picture.  It is also important to recognize that there are good reasons
(not related to Cold Fusion) to suspect that this ion band state picture
is a considerably better starting point for describing the relevant physics
than of the competing pictures that have been suggested.  The picture is
based on mainstream physics, including the relevant electronic structure.

Sincerely,

SCOTT CHUBB
Code 7234
Naval Research Laboratory
Washington, DC 20375-5351
PHONE: 202-767-2003
FAX:   202-767-5599

cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenCHUBB cudfnSCOTT cudlnCHUBB cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.15 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Sorry, bad address
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Originally-From:	FNALD::DROEGE       13-MAR-1994 16:55:04.87
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Sorry, bad address
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 1994 02:01:01 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Originally-From:	FNALD::DROEGE       13-MAR-1994 16:55:04.87
To:	SMTP%"fusion@zorch.sf.bay.org"
CC:	DROEGE
Subj:	Ignition

Matt Kennel writes: "But I'm worried about what would happen if you did get 
substantial ingnition.  It seems that it would quickly generate so much heat 
that it would quickly blow itself apart and thus stop the reaction."

>From and engineers view point, this looks pretty easy.  Pump the reacting
liquid past an interaction point.  Cold comes in, hot goes out.  Just what
you want for a boiler. 

Tom Droege

cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenDROEGE cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.15 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Reply to Vernon Hoxie
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Reply to Vernon Hoxie
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 1994 02:01:18 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Vernon Hoxie asks for a source of low cost data acqusition boards.  John 
Logajan replied with the lowest cost board I have seen.  I suggest that you
find the "free" trade magazine "Personal Engineering" which is full of such
stuff.  Circle all the numbers and you will soon have a 2' stack of material
as I do.  

But watch out, some of these boards require that you know what you are doing.
The board I bought for the Mark I was great, but the entire documentation 
consisted of photocopies of the data sheets for the chips used.  If I had 
not been capable of designing the board, I could not have used it.  As it 
was, it saved me a lot of time.

Tom Droege

cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenDROEGE cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.14 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Re: Tough questions for Scott Chubb
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Tough questions for Scott Chubb
Date: 14 Mar 94 09:18:50 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

In article <CMLusv.4KL@world.std.com>, mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
>    In Message-ID: <1994Mar11.174016.1479@physc1.byu.edu>
> Subject: Tough questions for Scott Chubb
> Steven Jones (jonesse@physc1.byu.edu) cites lofty omniscence
> as he pillories Scott Chubb.
> 
> =sj    "In view of all that we have discussed here recently regarding the
> =sj   discredited notion that d+d fusion can result in 4He + "lattice heating",
> =sj  I am greatly surprised that Scott Chubb can post,without the slightest
> =sj  effort  to address the substantial objections here argued,"
> 
>   In view of all that we have discussed here, and Steve's failure to
> document his discredited notions of "violations of conservation
> of *momentum*",  misapplied Mossbauer effect, misapplication of the 
> *uncertainty principle*, and his purported reports of 
> violations of speed-of-light constraints",   
> we  are greatly surprised that Steve Jones can post,
> without the slightest effort more of the same to continue 
> his substantial obstructions of many good arguments posted here."

All of the above have been documented and published in:
S.E. Jones, "Current issues in cold fusion research:  heat, helium, tritium,
   and energetic particles," Surf. and Coatings Technology 51 (1992) 283.

Read this, and then you can comment intelligently on these points.
> 
>  ----->>>>>  Three cheers to Scott Chubb.   Thank you Scott.
> 
>    Can Steve actually provide some compelling evidence for his
> harrassments here?  Seems unlikely, given the partial analysis to date.
> 
>    However, to seek the truth;  Mr. Jones:
> 
> 1.  Explain your reliance on violations of energy?
> 2.  Explain your reliance on violations of momentum conservation?
> 3.  Explain your reliance on the Mossbauer effect?
> 4.  Explain your reliance on this misuse of the *uncertainty principle* ?

These statements contain inherent errors.  For the facts, please read my
published paper, cited above.

> 5.  Explain your reliance on purported speed-of-light constraints?

This is explained in my paper cited above.

> 6.  Show how you can reconcile your purported muon-catalyzed fusion with cold 
>     fusion?

Muon-catalyzed fusion is not "purported" -- it has been proven beyond a shadow
of a doubt, beginning with the 1956 work of Luis Alvarez.
There is no way, that I can find, to reconcile mu-c-f with cold fusion -- this
is just my point!

> 7.  Explain your chutzpah that only your muon-fusion is "the *only verified*
>  form of *cold* fusion!"

Again, see published paper, also my recent submission to ICCF-4 proceedings,
as well as numerous postings here for months and months.

> 8.  Explain your continued denigration of the work of Miles et al.?
> 
This was thoroughly aired last year.  Miles has answered only a few of my
objections.

>   "Waiting with baited breath" (after Steve Jones).
> 
>              -   Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com)
>    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>                         "Truth fears no trial"
>           Thomas Fuller (1654-1743)  Gnomologia, 1732, no 5,297

Wait no more.  Study the papers.
--Steven Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenjonesse cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.10 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Standing questions to dale
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Standing questions to dale
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 1994 21:20:48 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <CMFJJu.BqD@world.std.com>,
mitchell swartz <mica@world.std.com> wrote:
>  =ms "How about a 
>  =ms   reference, dale?  Bet you can't find one.     <---------
>  =ms   "Where is the proof of
>  =ms   your purported claims of 
>  =ms   "spiking", 1000 W/cm3 (1989 value), and atmospheric
>  =ms   contamination?"
>
>  Hence, dale, it is you who really deserve the award for 
>"Bait, Dodge, and Parry".

      No, that was 'Dodge and Parry the Substantive Questions',
      and please do not change your nominating performance without
      written authorization from the nominating party.
      My nomination was for your tear-jerking performance
      in the 'Conservation of Energy Debate' in which you offered
      a stunning and compelling tour de force involving a creative
      misuse of other's sentences.

      Tres Bon!  Magnifique!

>  How about a reference, dale? 
>Where is the proof of your purported claims of "spiking"?
>Where is the proof of your purported claims of 1000 W/cm3 (1989 value)?
>Where is the proof of your purported claims of atmospheric contamination?
> Bet you can't find one. 

      Flip, flop, skoodle doop,
      Slip, hop, fly.

      You answer no questions,
      Why should I?

                          dale bass

      P.S.  Slip, slam, parking meter,
            where the heck's that water heater?
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.14 / john baez /  Re: Question:correct understanding of photon reflection?
     
Originally-From: baez@guitar.ucr.edu (john baez)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.chem
Subject: Re: Question:correct understanding of photon reflection?
Date: 14 Mar 1994 17:45:32 GMT
Organization: University of California, Riverside

In article <CMnAKI.J4x@rahul.net> martin@rahul.net (Martin S. Singleton) writes:
>So, summarizing my explanation so that you dopes can't make
>up new lies about it.....

...okay, no need to read *that* post...


cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenbaez cudfnjohn cudlnbaez cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.14 /  jonesse@physc1 /  SL:  Blue-sky engineering
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: SL:  Blue-sky engineering
Date: 14 Mar 94 09:44:21 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

Great idea, Matt Kennel!--Increase the initial density of the bubble, so
as to increase the fusion yield per bubble collapse.  I think this may
be possible, perhaps by pressurizing the liquid metal medium in which
bubble cavitation occurs.

As regards reflecting neutrons, the liquid metal medium may do some of this. 
Don't think this trick is used or needed in ion- or laser-induced ICF, is it?

And let's keep in mind Mike Jamison's idea of inserting a trapped photon beam
in the bubble prior to collapse, to provide additional heating during collapse. 
However, this requires a medium transparent at the wavelength chosen.

Note that if lithium is used as the liquid metal medium, then the liquid
Li blanket can also serve to capture neutrons with very little damage to a solid
first wall -- and 3H breeds in this blanket, too.  Pretty nice.  
[If SL-fusion works.]

Hats off to Chuck Harrison for noting that the SL operates at about 20 kHz,
so that 6 kW comes from each bubble.  Almost put that in my post, but there is
a major caveat:    Unfortunately, it's not quite so simple:
to get that 0.3J/bubble collapse (right, Chuck, I meant J not W originally),
we must burn all the d-t fuel in the bubble.  So the next collapse gives
nothing.  The only way around this that I can see is to replenish the bubble
fuel at 20 kHz -- not so easy.  But maybe a fast, pulsed gas injector could
do the trick if the liquid metal medium were flowing fast enough to sweep away
the helium (etc.) ash from the previous pop.  My, we are blue-skying here,
aren't we?       But I think this is a healthy use of the net.

Thanks for the comments.
--Steven Jones


cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenjonesse cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.14 / Matt Kennel /  Re: SL:  Blue-sky engineering
     
Originally-From: mbk%anl433.uucp@Germany.EU.net (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: SL:  Blue-sky engineering
Date: 14 Mar 1994 19:48:33 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

jonesse@physc1.byu.edu wrote:
: Great idea, Matt Kennel!--Increase the initial density of the bubble, so
: as to increase the fusion yield per bubble collapse.  I think this may
: be possible, perhaps by pressurizing the liquid metal medium in which
: bubble cavitation occurs.

: As regards reflecting neutrons, the liquid metal medium may do some of this. 
: Don't think this trick is used or needed in ion- or laser-induced ICF, is it?

I don't know actually.  I think some details of indirect-drive fusion are
still classified.  They have some surrounding 'hohlraum' of an unspecified
"high Z"  material that contains the X-rays.  Maybe it also reflects neutrons?
And there's also the ablator and driver.  The article I read (physics today)
was remarkably vague on exactly what the materials were.

: And let's keep in mind Mike Jamison's idea of inserting a trapped photon beam
: in the bubble prior to collapse, to provide additional heating during collapse. 
: However, this requires a medium transparent at the wavelength chosen.

: Note that if lithium is used as the liquid metal medium, then the liquid
: Li blanket can also serve to capture neutrons with very little damage to a solid
: first wall -- and 3H breeds in this blanket, too.  Pretty nice.  
: [If SL-fusion works.]

: Hats off to Chuck Harrison for noting that the SL operates at about 20 kHz,
: so that 6 kW comes from each bubble.  Almost put that in my post, but there is
: a major caveat:    Unfortunately, it's not quite so simple:
: to get that 0.3J/bubble collapse (right, Chuck, I meant J not W originally),
: we must burn all the d-t fuel in the bubble.  So the next collapse gives
: nothing.  The only way around this that I can see is to replenish the bubble
: fuel at 20 kHz -- not so easy.

:  But maybe a fast, pulsed gas injector could
: do the trick if the liquid metal medium were flowing fast enough to sweep away
: the helium (etc.) ash from the previous pop.

I was under the impression that there would be gas bubbles everywhere,
but only a few would get the "shock treatement" by being in the right
place at the right time.    But what do I know.

Would it be possible to set up a cylindrical geometry, so as to squeeze
long sausage bubble?  Sounds unlikely though, as surface tension prefers
spherical things.

: Thanks for the comments.
: --Steven Jones

--
-Matt Kennel  		mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu
-Institute for Nonlinear Science, University of California, San Diego
-*** AD: Archive for nonlinear dynamics papers & programs: FTP to
-***     lyapunov.ucsd.edu, username "anonymous".
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenuucp cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.11 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Crying wolf versus the non-existence of wolfs
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Crying wolf versus the non-existence of wolfs
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 1994 03:27:37 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <940310152756_74242.1554_BHR47-1@CompuServe.COM>,
John M. Logajan <74242.1554@compuserve.com> wrote:
>crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>
>>However, you'll note that very few people care about the new 'results'.
>>The world was not set ablaze by the new NiH results, and I'm quite sure
>>they'll die a rather quiet death of nonreproducability in the future,
>
>But then again, if no one trys to reproduce it, it dies a quiet death
>of nonreproducability -- even if it was, in fact, reproducible.

     Certainly; that's the danger of prolonged wolf-crying.
     But why would I suspect that the results are anything *but*
     spurious.  They reside in the same category as the 
     Benveniste results on water memory, the Japanese group that
     'found' gravity reductions in gyros, and P&F's results.

>The "signal" of the Italian results is large enough to warrant further
>investigation -- if only to show that they have succeeded in optomising
>and magnifying error factors.  Some of us learn from our mistakes.  In
>fact, that is the reason I make so many of them. :-)

     The signal is large enough to pursue further investigation by whom?
     I certainly would not be inclined to investigate results with a very
     high probability of being spurious, that's a big waste of time,
     money, and energy for a lab, especially when the end result is a big yawn.

     You'll note that every bio lab in the US didn't hop right on Benveniste's
     spurious results even though they implied a revolution in 
     the understanding of microfluid interactions, and they were published
     in Nature (a blatent mistake in peer review in my judgement).  
     
     Why did the labs not rush to find Benveniste's error(s)?
     It's because they had better things to do.

                             dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.11 / Cameron Bass /  Re:  Italian Ni-H results
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re:  Italian Ni-H results
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 1994 03:35:19 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1994Mar10.142800.1477@physc1.byu.edu>,
 <jonesse@physc1.byu.edu> wrote:

>Now the failure of the authors to mention the presence of externally imposed
>magnetic fields is disturbing.  Could this be (again), a scientific paper 
>failing
>to disclose a significant part of the experimental set-up?
>  
>This sort of nonsense happens so often when claims of "cold fusion" heat
>are made that I decided to check my original source on this point.
>I spoke to Dr. S. Mercurio of the University of Palermo, Italy, and asked him
>to please check whether the experiments of Piantelli et al. in fact involved
>magnetic fields.  I received today a FAX from him stating that indeed the
>experiment in question *does* have an externally imposed magnetic field.
>
>Q.E.D.

     No doubt there are other crucial and erroneous things done and
     not reported.

     Life's just too short to figure out where everybody went wrong
     when disbelief was suspended, especially as it's that suspension of 
     disbelief that seems to cause this whole 'phenomenon'.

     I'll believe it when a) the researchers die of radiation poisoning,
     or b) the thing generates light over an extended time without external 
     energy input.  Anything else seems like a complete waste of time.

                            dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.11 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Steven Jones goofs again
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Steven Jones goofs again
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 1994 14:45:49 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <CMHFMt.Fzy@world.std.com>,
mitchell swartz <mica@world.std.com> wrote:
>  
>I have been lucky enough to have had the opportunity to on occasion
>teach some physics and engineering - including a few times
>to high school students.

     Aaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!

                           dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.15 / SCOTT CHUBB /  "ionization is not an ionic band...and fractions of a deuteron"
     
Originally-From: CHUBB@cfe1.nrl.navy.mil (SCOTT CHUBB)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: "ionization is not an ionic band...and fractions of a deuteron"
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 1994 02:01:36 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Dear Dick Blue,

     Before I mention a number of items concerning ion band states and
your comments concerning electronegativity, etc., I did want to mention
a number of other things.

1.  I do not yet have access to the bulletin board and only receive
answers to my comments either through other people or as a direct
response to my comments.

2.  It doesn't really matter, but for the record, I do have a Ph.D. in
Condensed Matter (Solid State) theory in areas related to the electronci
structure of PdH and the quantum field theory of identical particles
interacting with a periodic host.  For this reason, out of common courtesy,
it would be appropriate to address me correctly in future correspondence;
I am Dr. Chubb.

     You did bring up a very important point that I think has not been
fully appreciated in our work.  There is a very big difference between
occupation of an ion band state and the notion of a fully ionized nucleus.
To occupy an ion band state, it is not necessary for the nuclear center
to be dissociated on all time scales from its electron.  Furthermore,
in fact, in the cases where ion band state occupation has been successfully
applied (in adsorptions of H and D on Ni or Cu [ work by Nieminen et al, and
Astaldi et al] and in inelastic neutron scattering results by Casella
involving small amounts of H in bulk Nb [R. C. Casella, Phys. Rev. B 27, 5943
(1983).]), each unit cell is always treated as being neutral.  In other words,
in the cases where ion band states are occupied, in fact, the electrons that
are associated with neutralizing the H or D ionic centers are always located
(on the average) in the unit cell where the D or H ionic center is located.
For this reason, the intuitive notions about charge ionization that apply
in free space are largely irrelevant to ion band state occupation and the
associated energetics.

     There is still a much more important point.  In the ion band state
picture that we have adopted, only a very small number (less than 1./10000.
of a charge per unit cell) of ions occupies a unit cell.  And you are
absolutely correct in surmising that the number of ions occupying ion band
states is very much less than the number of unit cells in the entire
solid.  In fact, the reason for occupying ion band states in this manner
is that it is only in this case (when the ion band state concentration
is less than 1./10000. per unit cell) that it can be expected that by
occupying ion band states can result in lower energy than when ion band
states are not occupied.

     The underlying electronic structure of PdD is entirely consistent
with this picture.  Here, the electrons initially injected with the D
do become predominantly Pd-like as x-> in PdDx.  Also these electrons
become significantly 4d/5s-like and are not found in regions in the
vicinity of the 

D, except for time scales that are long in comparison to the typical
time scales associated with the zero-point motion of the D.

     The final point that I do suspect you have difficulty swallowing
is how once the D occupy ion band states, it is possible for 4He to
be formed in ion band states.  Again, a very important point is that
the proposed occupation of 4He states involves an extremely small
concentration (again less than 1./10000.);  because both the D and 4He
are distributed in this manner, the wave functions that describe the
center of mass motion of each D (or 4He) involve only a very small 
amount of matter in each unit cell.  (In other words, the D and 4He
are very much more wave-like than they are in free space.)  The
nuclear degrees of freedom, of course, remain in very close proximity
to the center of mass position of the wave function;  but it
is important to recognize that on the average only a very small
fraction of each deuteron nucleus is located in each unit cell.

     From the starting point associated with occupation of deuteron
ion band states in this manner, the key question is will overlap
between nuclei occur in a manner that will support nuclear reaction.
The answer to this question is based upon minimizing the energy of
the system.  If these states minimize energy for a sufficiently
long period of time, then nuclear reaction can become possible,
provided the final state wave functions are do not disrupt the
underlying constraints associated with occupation of the initial
state.  A very important aspect of this initial state occupation
is that the absolute positions of any of the associated nucleons
is not known.  This is because only a small fraction of each
nucleon is located in each unit cell.  A similar constraint is
required of the final state.

     We have performed a number of calculations, based upon this
picture.  The reason that the initial state supports nuclear reaction
is implicit in the nature of the initial state because by construction
it omits particle-particle correlation.  However, we have very recently
explored particle-particle correlation.  It turns out that for
crystals that are greater than ~100000000 unit cells, it is relatively
easy to show there exist a large number of correlated, bound states,
which assymptotically lower system energy by becoming uncorrelated.
Specifically, we have shown that by introducing cusps in each unit
cell, it is possible to construct a wave-function that eliminates
the Coulomb repulsion in a specific unit cell, provided in the remaining
unit cells each band state D is screened from the remaining band state D.
The important point is that particle-particle correlation can be manipulated
when band states are present in a manner that significantly alters kinetic
energy relative to cases in which periodic order is not present.

     I hope that these comments prove to be useful.

     I do not know if they "cut bait" with you.  But believe me, I
am not simply stating basic quantum mechanical results.  I am saying that
there does exist a well-defined limit, in which wave-like states do become
occupied.  Once these states become occupied, the identities that we
commonly attribute to the particles from which these states are derived
become very different, leading to a situation in which on a number of
timescales, it becomes impossible not only to tell where the particles
are located but also to insist that overlap between these wave-like
entities does not occur.

     This is all mainstream physics.  The only assumption is that the
conventional Gamow picture can be altered when the locations of the
potentially interacting particles become unknown and that this
assumption should be replaced by a more suitable assumption based
upon the quantum mechanics of the many-body state.

     Believe it or not, an important final result that comes out of this
picture is that because the particles are "wave-like", the mass distribution
is entirely wave-like, and, as a consequence, the energy release is wave-like.
As a result, the energy from each reaction is distributed equally in each
unit cell, meaning that the 23.8 MeV energy release associated with D+D->
4He is released uniformly, so that in each unit cell, the energy that
is released is 23.8 MeV/Ncell, where Ncell is the total number of unit
cells in the solid.  For Ncell=100000000, this means that the energy
release is less than ~.2 eV.  It is this fact, that the energy is
dispersed, that leads to the "trapping" phenomenon in which no high
energy particles are required to be released.

Sincerely,

Dr. Scott R. Chubb
Code 7234
Naval Research Laboratory
Washington, DC 20375-5351
PHONE: 202-767-2003
FAX:   202-767-5599

cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenCHUBB cudfnSCOTT cudlnCHUBB cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.14 / Ad aspera /  FYI #40, 11 Mar 94 (House Looks at FY95 DOE)
     
Originally-From: JTCHEW@lbl.gov (Ad absurdum per aspera)
Newsgroups: sci.research,sci.materials,sci.physics.accelerators,sci.ener
y,sci.techniques.spectroscopy,sci.physics.fusion,sci.bio
Subject: FYI #40, 11 Mar 94 (House Looks at FY95 DOE)
Date: 14 Mar 1994 16:18:56 GMT
Organization: Relayed, not written, by Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory



[Written by individuals at the American Institute of Physics and
merely posted by me, so respond to <fyi@aip.org> or other
references below.  Always posted here on sci.research; sometimes
crossposted to an eclectic selection of other newsgroups, with
followups directed here. Back issues may be ftp'd from NIC.HEP.NET,
along with PHYSICS NEWS UPDATE and the American Physical Society 
news/opinion column WHAT'S NEW. Enjoy! -jc]

House Begins Consideration of DOE FY 1995 Appropriations

FYI No. 40, March 11, 1994

In her first appearance before the House Appropriations
Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development on March 10, DOE's
Director of Energy Research, Martha Krebs, presented her office's
fiscal year 1995 budget request.  These programs include Basic
Energy Sciences, Fusion Energy, the Advanced Neutron Source (ANS),
and General Science, comprising High Energy and Nuclear Physics,
and termination of the SSC.

In light of Congress's preoccupation with jobs and technology
commercialization for economic growth, Krebs stressed that her
office's often esoteric research programs "respond to the needs of
real people."  In particular, she discussed the purpose of the
proposed Advanced Neutron Source by giving examples of
neutron-scattering applications such as stress analysis in
automotive gears, and improved polymers and paints.  She reported
to the subcommittee, which has a strong interest in cancer
research, that technology developed in DOE's Human Genome
initiative was instrumental recently in localizing the gene for
colon cancer.  Krebs also noted that user facilities operated by
the Office of Energy Research support over 4,000 university
researchers.

Asked by subcommittee chairman Tom Bevill (D-Alabama) why her
budget would remain relatively flat when the Administration's
budget request "has significant increases for science programs" in
general, Krebs reminded him that the overall DOE budget was being
reduced.  She called her budget "an attempt to minimize the pain,
and maximize future impact."

Many members of the subcommitte, which had supported the SSC,
raised questions about the consequences of its cancellation, both
for the High Energy Physics community in general, and for
individual scientists.  While Krebs did not have data on the impact
to SSC employees, she reported that Energy Secretary Hazel O'Leary
had requested a subpanel of the High Energy Physics Advisory Panel
(HEPAP) to make recommendations on the future of High Energy
Physics research in the U.S.  Their preliminary results are due
later this spring.  Krebs expected that the report would include a
recommendation for U.S. participation in the European Community's
proposed Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN.

Ranking Republican John Myers (R-Indiana) cautioned Krebs of
parallels between the SSC and the proposed ANS.  He called the
neutron source "a tremendous expense," and warned that, whereas the
B-Factory could be completed fairly quickly (with completion
estimated for 1999), any major construction project that would take
more than two or three years was likely to "get into trouble."
Krebs confirmed that the ANS was projected to cost $2.9 billion,
with completion scheduled for 2003.

In another recent hearing on the DOE budget request, Sen. J.
Bennett Johnston's (D-Louisiana) Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources heard from Secretary O'Leary on February 23.  While much
of the discussion revolved around DOE's shift of priorities away
from coal and nuclear power to renewables and efficiency, O'Leary
was also cautioned on the prospects of success for the ANS.
Johnston warned that it was "fairly unrealistic" to propose  "brand
new mortgages...after we just went through all that pain and
suffering with the SSC."  Johnston also threatened that he would be
"strongly opposed to the new Tokamak Physics Experiment (TPX) until
the Administration commits to go forward with ITER [the follow-on
step to the TPX in the fusion energy program.]"

O'Leary also withstood criticism from Sen. Dale Bumpers
(D-Arkansas) regarding the generosity of the benefits package for
SSC employees.  Bumpers called it "easily the most grandiose
package of severance pay in the history of the federal government,"
but O'Leary said, having talked to the employees and understanding
the special circumstances they faced, that she had "made the right
decision."

For readers wishing to make their voices heard on these issues, now
is the time to write or call your senator or representative.
Please refer to FYI #39 for advice on communicating with Congress.


###############
Public Information Division
American Institute of Physics
Contact:  Audrey T. Leath
(301) 209-3094
##END##########
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenJTCHEW cudfnAd cudlnaspera cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.14 / Wayne Wallace /  New BBS, AutoCAD/Engineering, USENET FEED, Online
     
Originally-From: wayne.wallace@411.org (Wayne Wallace) 
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: New BBS, AutoCAD/Engineering, USENET FEED, Online
Date: 14 Mar 94 05:55:00 GMT
Organization: 411 Exchange BBS - Alpharetta, GA - 404-587-4071

Hello USENET,

411-Exchange (404) 587-4071 is now carrying this USENET group!!

Wayne

----
411-Exchnage BBS, 404-587-4071 "Serving the AutoCAD & Engineering Community"
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenwallace cudfnWayne cudlnWallace cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.11 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Tom Droege Writes???
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Tom Droege Writes???
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 1994 17:37:16 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <940310134536.2020554c@FNALD.FNAL.GOV>,
 <DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov> wrote:
>
>Dale Bass recently put up a post starting with Tom Droege Writes: which
>started with "Real science is done by experiments...".  Later in the quote
>the word "cockamamie" is used.  Come on Dale, I think you have attributed 
>some of Jed Rothwell's words to me.  Cockamamie is not in my vocabulary.  I
>think an apology is in order!!

    Apologies.  I clearly deleted one line too few from Jed's posting.

    I sincerely hope no one mistook Jed's words for yours, though I'd
    hope the context identified them pretty well.

                         dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.11 / Cameron Bass /  Re: (Long) Possible sources of error in Italian NiH "power imbalance
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: (Long) Possible sources of error in Italian NiH "power imbalance
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 1994 18:00:58 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <CMDx4I.97v@murdoch.acc.virginia.edu>,
Cameron Randale Bass <crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU> wrote:
>In article <pC6LHru.jedrothwell@delphi.com>,  <jedrothwell@delphi.com> wrote:
>>Tom Droege writes:

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
     This line should have been deleted as it refers to something
     no longer a part of the message.  Jed Rothwell and I produced 
     the rest of this post.  Again, apologies to Tom Droege.

                            dale bass

>>Real science is done by experiments, not by making up empty fantasies about
>>how gas cells would work if they did not work the way they really do. What
>>goes on here is not science, it is a form of religion, where you consult the
>>sacred textbooks and you put together random ideas in order to create
>>cockamamie "theories" to prove that calorimetry does not work.
>
>    So, 'real science' consists of taking two datapoints from a 
>    wildly varying time series and inferring all sorts of stuff from
>    them?   I suspect your religious definition of science does
>    not match that of most of the practitioners.  There's no science
>    here, just faith.  And, no, Jed buddy, calorimetry does *not* work
>    under wild time variation with completely inadequate sampling
>    of input power.
>
>    However, you'll note that very few people care about the new 'results'. 
>    The world was not set ablaze by the new NiH results, and 
>    I'm quite sure they'll die a rather quiet death of nonreproducability
>    in the future, so I think it's pointless to try to figure out
>    what they did 'wrong'.  Thousands of experiments have
>    died the same death without anyone *ever* figuring out which specific
>    thing caused the spurious result.  Basically, why waste the time?
>    For instance, I can tell you that every perpetual motion machine offered
>    is spurious without ever looking at any plans.  So, until you get
>    somebody else of good repute to replicate, they're will be 
>    very little interest.
>
>    The real question is:
>
>    Where's the water heater Jed?  Pons promised one in 1989.  *You*
>    mentioned a generator in 1993.  
>
>    Vapourware, boys, vapourware.  PT Barnum would be proud, but
>    it doesn't say much for whatever arm of Toyota continues to let
>    itself be conned.
>
>    As embarassing as it is, I'd think those particular Japanese would be
>    getting wise to the con by now and start asking hard, *very* hard,
>    questions of Messrs P&F.
>
>                            dale bass


cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.12 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Blue's Fairy Tales
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Blue's Fairy Tales
Date: Sat, 12 Mar 1994 00:38:27 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <B27sAaH.jedrothwell@delphi.com>,  <jedrothwell@delphi.com> wrote:
>Richard Blue writes:
> 
>     "Probably the best known attempts to produce a demonstration of
>     cold fusion with the effect being made directly observable are the
>     Pons and Fleischmann boil-off experiments.  Yep, there before
>     your very eyes water boils, and that certainly takes heat.  The
>     problem with the demonstration is that clearly the electric power
>     input by itself was large enough to account for the boiling."
> 
>This is factually incorrect. The electric power itself was only one-third
>large enough to account for the boiling. If the power supplies had been turned
>up as high as they could go, to the rail voltage, they could not have
>generated enough energy to vaporize that amount of water in that period of
>time, and there is no possible chemical or mechanical storage mechanism which
>could "save up" energy from before the boil off event.
...
>reader come along, reads this garbage, and believes it. A quick glance at the
>actual scientific papers will reveal the truth in every case.

      In this case you're quite wrong, we found out the inadequacies of
      the power measurements because of an offhand comment in this forum.
      The inadequacies of the paper were quite apparent, however, from 
      the first reading pass.

      Who knows what the power was, they didn't measure it.   They've
      but two or three samples during the entire event for a wildly fluctuating
      process.  Perhaps 40 W AC was input to the cell in that time 
      period, perhaps 4000, perhaps 4,000,000.  No one could tell from 
      their measurements, or even from the 'rail voltage' of unknown and
      un-reported equipment. 

      But the real question is:  Where's the water heater?

                               dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.11 / mitchell swartz /  On "More on Will"
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: On "More on Will"
Subject: Re: More on Will (Reply to Joshua@"veritas")
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 1994 04:12:18 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <2lofj5$bun@fever.veritas.com>
Subject: Re: More on Will (Reply to Joshua@"veritas")
Joshua Levy <joshua@veritas.com> writes:

="veritas"  "What was Jones's mistake in his description
="veritas"  or analysis of Will's paper?
="veritas"  Or are you going to claim it exists, but
="veritas"  refuse to identify it."

   Covered previously.   Tom Droege also made a few
corrections.

             Mitchell

cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.15 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: Tough questions for Scott Chubb
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Tough questions for Scott Chubb
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 1994 01:57:11 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <CMLusv.4KL@world.std.com> mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:

>  In view of all that we have discussed here, and Steve's failure to
>document his discredited notions of "violations of conservation
>of *momentum*",  misapplied Mossbauer effect, misapplication of the 
>*uncertainty principle*, and his purported reports of 
>violations of speed-of-light constraints",   
>we  are greatly surprised that Steve Jones can post,
>without the slightest effort more of the same to continue 
>his substantial obstructions of many good arguments posted here."

Mr. Swartz, before this goes any further, as if it hasn't already, what
are your qualifications to judge any of the discussions here. You seem
to completely avoid answering any questions put to you while ignoring]
answers to your own questions. You then continue to ask the same questions
over and over again despite complete, documented answers.

Either you are not receiving messages (in which case how is it you seem
to know entire paragraphs from these messages) or you have a problem
facing the fact that Cold Nuclear Fusion is not cold, nuclear or fusion.

Since you add nothing to this conversation and simply eat up valuable
bandwidth, why don't you simply wait to post until you have the capacity
to do so?

>             -   Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com)
>   -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>                        "Truth fears no trial"
>          Thomas Fuller (1654-1743)  Gnomologia, 1732, no 5,297

Strange that you should use this sig. since you seem to fear the truth
more than anything else in the world.

cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.15 / Matt Austern /  Re: Blue's Fairy Tales
     
Originally-From: matt@physics2.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Blue's Fairy Tales
Date: 15 Mar 1994 01:59:03 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (Theoretical Physics Group)

In article <CMJ0G3.3ED@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> crb7q@watt.seas.Virgini
.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:

> 
>       But the real question is:  Where's the water heater?
> 
>                                dale bass

I've been wondering that too, for a long time.  

Years ago, you may remember, Pons and Fleischman held a press
conference, and held up a doohicky maybe half a meter long.  They said
that this was a prototype of a cold fusion water heater, that they
were working on the practical engineering details, and that it would
soon be available commercially.

Now, I haven't seen this water heater in any stores...  I, personally,
don't expect to see it sold any time soon.

The real question isn't so much where the water heater is (it's
nowhere; I assume we all know that), but what Pons and Fleischman were
thinking when they claimed they had one, and what that doohicky was
that they held up for the TV cameras.  Were they really so badly
mistaken that they honestly believed they had a working water heater?
--
Matthew Austern                       Never express yourself more clearly
matt@physics.berkeley.edu             than you think.    ---N. Bohr
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenmatt cudfnMatt cudlnAustern cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.15 / Larry Wall /  Re: Question: correct understanding of photon reflection?
     
Originally-From: lwall@netlabs.com (Larry Wall)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.chem
Subject: Re: Question: correct understanding of photon reflection?
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 1994 03:00:41 GMT
Organization: NetLabs, Inc.

In article <2ltcjt$5s3@scunix2.harvard.edu> rmaimon@husc9.Harvard.EDU
(Ron Maimon) writes:
: Read Feynman's book "QED" it has an explanation for reflection in terms
: of quantum mechanics. It also has an (intuitively appealing) explanation
: for a lot of other things in the same terms.

Yes.  Until you understand that the only difference between a real
particle and a virtual particle is a persistent accounting error, you
do not understand QM as Feynman understood it.  As I understand it... :-)

Larry Wall
lwall@netlabs.com
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenlwall cudfnLarry cudlnWall cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Tue Mar 15 04:37:04 EST 1994
------------------------------
1994.03.15 / Chuck Sites /  Re: Chubb Theory
     
Originally-From: chuck@iglou.iglou.com (Chuck Sites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Chubb Theory
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 1994 02:58:54 GMT
Organization: The Internet Gateway of Louisville, KY

mbk%anl433.uucp@Germany.EU.net (Matt Kennel) writes:

>blue@nscl00.nscl.msu.edu wrote:
>: Ignoring that fact, however, I am still at a loss to know what it means
>: to spread deuterons around all over the place. 

>Even if you do spread deuterons all over the place, it still doesn't
>mean that they wouldn't repel each other and not want to get close.

>Look at a helium atom.  Two electrons nearly in the same "overlapping"
>orbital.  Funny thing though, if you catch one of them, the other
>one is usually on the other side.  This still happens even though
>they are "delocalized".

There is a strange problem with that argument Matt. You have to 
"localize" the electron before you can give it's position relative
to another.  Aditionally they should be in opposite spin 1/2 states.
This reminds me of the neutron defraction experiments off of thin 
film superfluid He4. If I recall, the image was almost crystal
like with very regular positioning of the he4 nuclei.  However, that's
not how it acts at all. If you add a little momentum to the fluid, 
it goes everywhere. Every single particle in the fluid participates
in the distribution of the added momentum. If you add alot of energy
via an interaction the momentum distribution is localized.  How can 
this be? It's very fluid like, you can spin it and create interesting
quantum vortexs. ;-) It has second sound and zero viscocity. The point I'm
trying to make is, in superfluid He4 we have many of the properties
one would expect in a deuteron condensate with the exception the 
deuteron is charged, and thus would be super-conducting.  (I think 
this is were your answer lies as to how the Coulomb barrier can be 
overcome. If you can understand how charge is transmitted through
a superconductor even though the force between indivduals is 2e
repulsive, I think it helps in understanding what Dr. Chubbs is 
saying. Simply, the electromagnetic force is just one component of 
the nucleon-nucleon potential.  If a Bose condensed systems allows 
the transmittion of this force via the wave function overlap, then 
what is to exclude the transmittion of the other components?)

It is true, that both in electron-superconductors and in the case of 
1s electron orbital of He4 the electron wave function is overlaped
and when localized are space very evenly. Just what one would expect
if the Coulomb potential dominated thier interaction (which it does). 
If electrons are delocalized in an overlapping wave function, why don't
electrons fuse?  The answer is simply, there are no strongly 
attractive potential in the wave state.  You could argue maybe a weak
interaction will take place in the delocalized electron state.  But
nope, that doesn't work either since the weak force doesn't even have 
a chance of binding the waves. The strong force can.  A better question
then is why fusion doesn't occur in superfluid He4?  

Well, He4+He4 -> Be8* ->He4 + He4.  In otherwords the primary
intereaction between He4 & He4 is not stable.  For the same reasons
electrons don't intereact except by Coulomb forces in the wave overlap,
here they don't interact because the attractive potential just isn't
strong enough.  There is of course 3He4->C12 + gamma.  But even this 
requires the Be8* intermediate step. So the point is, while He4 is 
delocalized when in a superfluid state, and has a baryon component
you would not expect conditions favorable for fusion.

  I'm glad Scott dropped in here to give us some of his ideas on the 
subject. There are alot of ideas to discuss which are not in the domain
of conventional nuclear reactions, but are based on very conventional 
physics and how the strong force works.  This really is the college of 
sci.physics.fusion.    
    
>: Dick Blue

>--
>-Matt Kennel  		mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu
>-Institute for Nonlinear Science, University of California, San Diego
>-*** AD: Archive for nonlinear dynamics papers & programs: FTP to
>-***     lyapunov.ucsd.edu, username "anonymous".

Have Fun,
Chuck Sites
chuck@iglou.iglou.com		(Same old machine. Just the name changed)
also chuck@stunner.iglou.com    (The old home basement lab) 
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.15 / Chuck Sites /  Re: Submission for sci.physics.fusion
     
Originally-From: chuck@iglou.iglou.com (Chuck Sites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Submission for sci.physics.fusion
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 1994 03:22:28 GMT
Organization: The Internet Gateway of Louisville, KY

DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:

>Dick Blue writes: Any experimental evidence that He ions exiet in metal 
>lattices would perhaps clear up this point."  The appropiat stuff has
>scrolled off my screen, but do you not mean D ions?  For these there is
>the Moore thesis (old but interesting - 1939) recently reviewed by 
>Dieter Britz.

>Tom Droege

In addition to that, in Dieter's latest update, there was mention of
an experiment testing the longevity of positrons emmisions in Pd.  
The positrons seemed to have a longer flight time before collision
and anilation with the host metal electrons when compaired to other
metals. It just hint's that the ionized state of D in Pd would 
last much longer in time. (ie. D+ is the favored state)  

Have fun,
Chuck Sites



     
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.14 / B Vidugiris /  Re: Question:correct understanding of photon reflection?
     
Originally-From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.chem
Subject: Re: Question:correct understanding of photon reflection?
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 1994 20:59:12 GMT
Organization: Motorola, Inc. CCRD

In article <CMJ09B.5r9@uwindsor.ca> bouche2@server.uwindsor.ca (Boucher David) writes:

)Unfortunately, I don't know the correct explanation for reflection
)either -- I only know that your explanation is wrong.  ;)  I asked
)the same question of several of my former profs years ago and none
)of them had a satisfactory answer.  

I suspect the answer is along the lines of what is called 'Feynman path
intergals'.

If we look at reflection from a parallel grating, we note first of all that
photons do not reflect in the same way from this as from a flat surface.  (I.e.
the angle of reflection is not always equal to the angle of incidence).
Furthermore, we find that the details of how the photons reflect off of a
diffraction grating depends on the entire geometry of the grating - a larger
grating has more 'resolving power' - the light fringes from such a grating are
narrower.  (This is mentioned in one of my texts as well - Messiah, Quantum
Mechnics, pg 18-20 - I believe Feynman was one of the first to use this example
though).

Therfore, it seems likely that the 'correct' explanation involves the
cancellation by interference of all other random directions other than
'angle of incidence = angle of reflection' because of the behavior of
the path intergal - other paths are not impossible, just suppressed
by interference.

This would be more convincing if one could demonstrate the details of
this suppression (which is something I can't do personally).  I think the
elementary treatment I saw was in QED by Feynmann - I assume he gives a
fuller treatment somewhere else.  
-- 
"The power of this battlestation is _insignificant_ when compared with
the power of the Farce."   -  D. Vader.
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenbhv cudfnBronis cudlnVidugiris cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.15 / Chuck Sites /  Re: SL: Blue-sky engineering
     
Originally-From: chuck@iglou.iglou.com (Chuck Sites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: SL: Blue-sky engineering
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 1994 04:36:03 GMT
Organization: The Internet Gateway of Louisville, KY

mbk%anl433.uucp@Germany.EU.net (Matt Kennel) writes:

>jonesse@physc1.byu.edu wrote:
>: Great idea, Matt Kennel!--Increase the initial density of the bubble, so
>: as to increase the fusion yield per bubble collapse.  I think this may
>: be possible, perhaps by pressurizing the liquid metal medium in which
>: bubble cavitation occurs.

>: As regards reflecting neutrons, the liquid metal medium may do some of this. 
>: Don't think this trick is used or needed in ion- or laser-induced ICF, is it?

>I don't know actually.  I think some details of indirect-drive fusion are
>still classified.  They have some surrounding 'hohlraum' of an unspecified
>"high Z"  material that contains the X-rays.  Maybe it also reflects neutrons?
>And there's also the ablator and driver.  The article I read (physics today)
>was remarkably vague on exactly what the materials were.

'Science' also had a similar story about a few months back. Basically it 
discussed the 'hohlraum' and difficulties trapping X-rays. While it was
a story aimed at a general science audiance, it does point out that the 
main focus (ignore the pun) of research is now on devising a bubble 
that reflects back X-rays.  However they also mentioned it was a 
pretty unusual shell material. I would suspect, layered to reflect
the photons as the dimensions change on implosion. That article makes
alot more since after Mike Jamison's post. Similar to Chuck Harrison's
message.  Thanks for pointing that out Matt.

>: Thanks for the comments.
>: --Steven Jones

>--
>-Matt Kennel  		mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu
>-Institute for Nonlinear Science, University of California, San Diego
>-*** AD: Archive for nonlinear dynamics papers & programs: FTP to
>-***     lyapunov.ucsd.edu, username "anonymous".

Have fun,
Chuck Sites
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.15 / Benjamin Carter /  Re: Attempts at censorship in sci.physics.fusion
     
Originally-From: bpc@netcom.com (Benjamin P. Carter)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Attempts at censorship in sci.physics.fusion
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 1994 07:27:23 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) confuses criticism with 
censorship when he writes:

>          Here, below, is a very recent Steve Jones brag ...

>=sj    "In view of all that we have discussed here recently regarding the
>=sj   discredited notion that d+d fusion can result in 4He + "lattice heating",
>=sj  I am greatly surprised that Scott Chubb can post,without the slightest
>=sj  effort  to address the substantial objections here argued,"  ...

>   2) Most of us greatly appreciated the posting by Scott Chubb, despite
>Jones totalitarian -- and warped --  efforts at censorship.  

Steve Jones did not write that Scott Chubb should not be allowed to post
his messages.  The whole point of an unmoderated group is that anyone can
post anything.  Of course, this implies that nobody is safe from
scathing criticism.  But to call such criticism "censorship" is absurd.
-- 
    Ben Carter                  internet address: bpc@netcom.com
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenbpc cudfnBenjamin cudlnCarter cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.15 / mitchell swartz /  On Re: Tough questions for Scott Chubb
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: On Re: Tough questions for Scott Chubb
Subject: Re: Tough questions for Scott Chubb
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 1994 13:19:55 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

   In Message-ID: <tomkCMoo3C.H4s@netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Tough questions for Scott Chubb
Thomas H. Kunich (tomk@netcom.com) writes:

   > "In view of all that we have discussed here, and Steve's failure to
   >document his discredited notions of "violations of conservation
   >of *momentum*",  misapplied Mossbauer effect, misapplication of the 
   >*uncertainty principle*, and his purported reports of 
   >violations of speed-of-light constraints",   
   >we  are greatly surprised that Steve Jones can post,
   >without the slightest effort more of the same to continue 
   >his substantial obstructions of many good arguments posted here."
=tk   "Mr. Swartz, before this goes any further, as if it hasn't already, what
=tk   are your qualifications to judge any of the discussions here. You seem
=tk   to completely avoid answering any questions put to you while ignoring
=tk   answers to your own questions. You then continue to ask the same questions
=tk   over and over again despite complete, documented answers."

   Mr. Kunich.   Perhaps before this goes any further, you might first offer
your own qualifications given your own judgemental comments.
                 Thanks in advance.

   Second, for the record, and in the record,
stand my answers which have been long & as complete
as possible given the medium, time, etc..

   IMHO they have NOT been matched
by responses from the TB-skeptics  -- 
     (except for both Dick Blue who, although there is much
      disagreement -- often goes to considerable length to
      match thought for thought, and other contributors who do
      their own matchless job, refining/destroying/or-amplifying 
      arguments)
--  who point to irrelevant references,
a mix of oral often flawed arguments, and an occasional
serious misstatement of physical principles.

   Third, if you, Mr. Kunich, have any serious contribution towards
the science in this field, we look forward to considering it.

     Best wishes.

                Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com)  

    "The safest place for a "skeptic" at an archery competition is directly
 in front of the target.  No danger in a "skeptic" so placed being hit.
               All the points will naturally elude them"

cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.15 / mitchell swartz /  More on Attempts at censorship in sci.physics.fusion
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: More on Attempts at censorship in sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Attempts at censorship in sci.physics.fusion
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 1994 13:21:08 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

   In Message-ID: <bpcCMp3Dn.CFC@netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Attempts at censorship in sci.physics.fusion
Benjamin P. Carter (bpc@netcom.com) writes:

=bc  "Steve Jones did not write that Scott Chubb should not be allowed to post
=bc  his messages.

    Excuse me, Ben, but Steve wrote: 
>=sj  I am greatly surprised that Scott Chubb can post,without the slightest
>=sj  effort  to address the substantial objections here argued, ......" 

    Of couse Dr. Scott can, should, and hopefully will, post.

   can   [after Webster, ibid.]
  \/\/        to know how to
                be physically or metnally able to
                be permitted
                be logically able to
                be enabled by law, agreement, or custom to
                 have permission to

                              QED


=bc  "The whole point of an unmoderated group is that anyone can
=bc  post anything."

  1)  There have been attempts to moderate this group.
  2)  To say that cold fusioneers and posters of, or seekers of, 
such information, have "not been  encouraged" 
is an understatement.   True?
  3)  Instead there have been a plethora of "ad hominem"
attacks as opposed to orderly and friendly science development.
  4)  Some of the news services do not always post all the information
 on this usenet node.   Much of that is no ones fault but probably 
results from overburdened individuals performing that service.
  5)  There have been several attempts of censorship which have
been discussed by those in the field who have received such
efforts.
  6)  This includes the failure of certain "scientific" journals to
cover the field, or even publish either criticisms of the 
"negative"-experiments or positive results.
  7)  Some of these, and other, aspects of censorship in cold fusion have 
already been discussed here.   


=bc   "Of course, this implies that nobody is safe from
=bc  scathing criticism.  But to call such criticism "censorship" is absurd."

  Res ipse loquitur.   Also:

  Measure the linear inches that were thrown against Martin Fleischman,
Stanley Pons, Eugene Mallove, Jed Rothwell, Melvin Miles, and others 
here and with your straight-edge and ruler.  Separate out the linear
distance devoted to science and those devoted to 
scurrilous ad hominems and other bs.

   This too speaks for itself.
   Best wishes.
                              Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com)  

    "The safest place for a "skeptic" at an archery competition is directly
 in front of the target.  No danger in a "skeptic" so placed being hit.
               All the points will naturally elude them"

cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.16 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  SL: Blue-sky engineering
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: SL: Blue-sky engineering
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 1994 01:31:00 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Please remember that there is nothing sacred about 20 KHz for ultra sonic
devices.  They run at 20 KHz because people would not like it if a lower 
frequency was used.  As I remember from my reading, ultrasonic cleaners would
work better at lower frequencies - at least with water.  Steve, you will notice
two drive crystals in the unit I sent.  They are about 1 1/2" in diameter and
about .2" thick.  There is a 1/2 wave length back up resonator, and a
"transformer" going toward the load.  The scheme is that by reducing the 
area the motion is increased.  The unit you have is made from Titanium, and
the transformer is the "sharp step with a fillet (to prevent over stress)"
type.  I use steel back up and a tapered aluminum transformer (because it
is easier to machine).  There are also exponential transformers.  

The point of all this is that you try to match the acoustical impedance at
the drive crystal to the acoustical impedance of the load.  The standard 
off the shelf units (like I bought) are pretty well matched to water.  The 
consultant that I hired to learn this stuff recommended the book 
"Acoustic Waves" by Gordon S. Kino.  Prentice Hall, 1987  ISBN 0-13-003047-3
025.  But I don't like the book very much as it tells you little practical
information.  It is full of nice theory, and has the best set of tables of
material characteristics that I have seen.  

It is possible to make a spherical resonator so that the energy is focused at
a point.  This means getting someone to grind you a section of a sphere out
of PZT4 or a similar material.  The stuff is a hard ceramic, about like fine
china.  

Looking in Kino, I see mercury has an acoustic impedance of 19.6 compared
to 1.483 for water.  If I have my sign correct, then this means that for 
optimum match you would replace the tip on the sonnicator with a much larger
one - i.e. almost no step down, or even a step up.  Of course we do not 
always try to operate with an impedance match - the power grid is not 
impedance matched and would be only 50% efficient if it was.  Still something
to worry about if shifting to something other than water.  From my table, 
most liquids are similar to water.  Big deviations are mercury at 19.6,
gallium at 17.5, and liquid helium-4 at 0.03 compared to 1.4 for water.  

But Kino is not a good source for practical information.  For example for
matching to mercury you might want to use a magnetostrictive material such as
nickel instead of an electrostrictive material such as the PZT series.  Big
differences in drive electronics.  

Tom Droege

cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenDROEGE cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.16 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Learning about economics-was learning about Calorimetry
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Learning about economics-was learning about Calorimetry
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 1994 01:31:35 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Bill Page says:  You can get DAQ baords for less, but why scrimp if you are 
trying to do something with some accuracy?"

The problem is Bill, you can likely buy the exact same board you have at about
half the cost.  This is the marvel of the "clone" market.  You could likely 
save enough to buy the software that you like.  The clone baords will likely 
not be lower accuracy as they often use exactly the same chips.  

For those of you interested in data acquistion, their is a whole new generation
of charge transfer ADC's coming out currently.  You can now get a 16 bit ADC
that converts in around 10 us for $28.85. (Burr Brown ADS7807).  The same 
family has a 12 bit unit for $10.  So data acquisition is getting cheaper.  
The ADC's are cheap enough that they are being passed out as samples just 
for a phone call.  Analog devices has a similar unit, the AD676.  Then there
is the Crystal CS5016 that I have been using.  Same type of device but about 
5 years old.  So expect the prices to come down in a price war. 

Tom Droege

cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenDROEGE cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.16 / John Logajan /  Re: Crying wolf
     
Originally-From: 74242.1554@compuserve.com (John M. Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Crying wolf
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 1994 01:32:47 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>The signal is large enough to pursue further investigation by whom?

By anyone who is interested.  I'm certainly not condemning anyone for
not being interested in the general topic or the specific instance.

There was some speculation that it all might be a result of convection
patterns.  It appears that such an explanation must be constrained to
only two major modes of convection.  Since convection is driven by
gravity, I'd have liked to see the Italians tip their device 90, 180,
and 270 degrees (if they haven't already.)

Furthermore, the described calorimetry is but one of many simple ways
possible.  Since it is a purportedly long term effect, regardless of
the thermal conductivity factors, the outside of device would eventually
reach an equilibrium temperature dependent solely on the internal power
rate.

Someone also suggested that one could heat the Ni directly with
electrical current rather than using a Pt "heater."  So we have a
chamber with Ni wire, in which we put 1/3-1/2 an atmosphere of H2.
Send some watts through the wire and measure the outside temperature.

Yeah, maybe the Italians have some secrets -- cow magnets, or whatever.
But remember, their discovery was accidental, so it is likely that
glimmerings of the effect exist without elaborate secret ingredients.


cudkeys:
cuddy16 cuden1554 cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.15 / Richard Schultz /  Re: Crying wolf versus the non-existence of wolfs
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Crying wolf versus the non-existence of wolfs
Date: 15 Mar 1994 17:13:30 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley

In article <CMHDM1.tt@murdoch.acc.virginia.edu>,
Cameron Randale Bass <crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU> wrote:

>     You'll note that every bio lab in the US didn't hop right on Benveniste's
>     spurious results even though they implied a revolution in 
>     the understanding of microfluid interactions, and they were published
>     in Nature (a blatent mistake in peer review in my judgement).  

Actually, I think that the reason that Nature published the Benveniste 
results was more due to fears of what the reaction would be if they 
refused.  Presumably, Maddox didn't want to give the homeopathy crowd
the chance to say "we have a real result but got *censored* by Nature!"
Note that Nature also published a report demonstrating Uri Geller's psychic
powers.  My personal feeling is that the main reason why Nature didn't 
publish cold fusion is that Maddox dislikes chemists rather than any particular
belief in the existence or nonexistence of the phenomenon, or the quality
of the work.

					Richard Schultz
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.15 /   /  Help for my article
     
Originally-From: han@joe.math.uga.edu (Hahn(Han))
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Help for my article
Date: 15 Mar 1994 17:55:43 GMT
Organization: University of Georgia

Please excuse me if this not a proper newsgroup.
I am writing an article about cold fusion. And I would like to know
some updated informations.(I am a mathematician. Doesn't know
technical details.)

What happened to the patent applications ?
Has anyone accepted by the Patent Office ?

There has been many cold fusion announcements.
Are there any researchers funded on this subject now ?

If the cold fusion is true, what are the scales of that ?
People report usable, in real world, cold fusion ?
Or extremely small, not usable in real world, cold fusion ?

Thanks again.

cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenhan cudln cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.15 / Richard Schultz /  The Swartzian Existence Theorem
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: The Swartzian Existence Theorem
Date: 15 Mar 1994 18:12:08 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley

In article <CMGK43.8GE@world.std.com>,
mitchell swartz <mica@world.std.com> wrote:

>   Although that is correct, Mossbauer was NOT cited as an explanation
>for c.f. (vide supra).   
>We are talking about the Existence theorem here.

I will admit to a bit of confusion about the use of the Swartzian Existence
Theorem here.  So let me put it another way: there are some species of 
hummingbirds that have purple throat feathers (at least the adult males
do).  Can I thus use the Existence Theorem to start looking for purple cows?
If not, how does this (ab)use of the Existence Theorem differ from yours?

					Richard Schultz
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.15 / Ron Maimon /  Re: Question: correct understanding of photon reflection?
     
Originally-From: rmaimon@husc9.Harvard.EDU (Ron Maimon)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.chem
Subject: Re: Question: correct understanding of photon reflection?
Date: 15 Mar 1994 17:52:23 GMT
Organization: Harvard University, Cambridge, MA

In article <1994Mar15.030041.8267@netlabs.com>, lwall@netlabs.com (Larry Wall) writes:
|> In article <2ltcjt$5s3@scunix2.harvard.edu> rmaimon@husc9.Harvard.EDU
(Ron Maimon) writes:
|> : Read Feynman's book "QED" it has an explanation for reflection in terms
|> : of quantum mechanics. It also has an (intuitively appealing) explanation
|> : for a lot of other things in the same terms.
|> 
|> Yes.  Until you understand that the only difference between a real
|> particle and a virtual particle is a persistent accounting error, you
|> do not understand QM as Feynman understood it.  As I understand it... :-)
|> 

What's the accounting error? I always thought of real particles as just
virtual particles with a long time between emmision and absorption.

Ron Maimon
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenrmaimon cudfnRon cudlnMaimon cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.15 / M Singleton /  Re: Question: correct understanding of photon reflection?
     
Originally-From: martin@rahul.net (Martin S. Singleton)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.chem
Subject: Re: Question: correct understanding of photon reflection?
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 1994 19:23:28 GMT
Organization: a2i network

In <1994Mar15.030041.8267@netlabs.com> lwall@netlabs.com (Larry Wall) writes:

>In article <2ltcjt$5s3@scunix2.harvard.edu> rmaimon@husc9.Harvard.EDU
(Ron Maimon) writes:
>: Read Feynman's book "QED" it has an explanation for reflection in terms
>: of quantum mechanics. It also has an (intuitively appealing) explanation
>: for a lot of other things in the same terms.

>Yes.  Until you understand that the only difference between a real
>particle and a virtual particle is a persistent accounting error, you
>do not understand QM as Feynman understood it.  As I understand it... :-)

I advise anybody who would try to claim my explanation is wrong to refer to my
article about photon pressure, in which I give a full account of reflection in
terms of photons and explain why it remains correct despite the mistaken
appeals to authority made in the false hope of disproving my arguments.
-- 
Martin S. Singleton <martin@rahul.net>
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenmartin cudfnMartin cudlnSingleton cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.15 / Rich Hawryluk /  TFTR Update March 15
     
Originally-From: rhawryluk@pppl.gov (Rich Hawryluk)
Newsgroups: pppl.tftr.news,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: TFTR Update March 15
Date: 15 Mar 1994 17:24:48 -0500
Organization: Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory

Status (March 15, 1994):

The TFTR D-T experiment, DT-33, was started last week and ran from 3/9/94
to 3/11/94.  The purpose of this experiment was to demonstrate high fusion
reactivity and good alpha confinement in "advanced tokamak" DT plasmas at
moderate plasma current (1.0-1.4 MA), and to develop a DT plasma with q(0)
~1.3 and broadened beta-alpha profile to examine TAE/high-n mode stability
(as suggested by D. Spong, et al).  A total of 10 DT shots were taken
covering three different plasma current profile conditions in the range of
current given above. The current profile was ramped down to obtain a higher
value of the internal inductance. Fusion power of 4.2 MW was created in a
1.2 MA plasma with betan= 2.9, betap = 2.2, with 23 MW input power.  High
values of betan were maintained at moderate Ip by peaking the current
profile.  These plasmas transition into a limiter H-mode, and data
comparing DD and DT high poloidal beta H-modes has been taken.

A plasma with R=2.6 m and measured q(0) = 1.4 was developed in DD for TAE
studies in DT.  This plasma had a high confinement enhancement factor.
Time did not allow an equivalent DT plasma to be created.

Significant enhancement in taue was obtained in these plasmas by both the
isotope effect in DT and by Li pellet conditioning.  At fixed current, taue
increases with increasing beam power.  Pre-NBI pellet injection yielded a
40% increase in taue in some conditions.   At fixed power, operation with
deeply-deposited T beams yielded a plasma with decreased MHD stability as
compared to its DD equivalent.  Neutron profile data showed that this
reduced stability limit correlated with high profile peaking factors (about
10).  This reduced limit was overcome by switching to more tangential T
beam deposition.

In addition, one other DT experiment to study the escaping alphas was performed.


News

Dale Meade, Jim Sinnis and Jim Anderson were presented the DOE
Distinguished Associate Award during the visit by Secretary O'Leary on
March 3.  This award recognizes their contribution to the D-T experiments
on TFTR.

Plans:

Planned maintenance week is in progress.  Operations will resume next week
and continue studies of alpha particle physics.

The TFTR Program Advisory Committee will meet on March 17 and 18 to review
the experimental run plan.

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


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


cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenrhawryluk cudfnRich cudlnHawryluk cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.15 / Matt Kennel /  Re: Chubb Theory
     
Originally-From: mbk%anl433.uucp@Germany.EU.net (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Chubb Theory
Date: 15 Mar 1994 23:08:53 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

Chuck Sites (chuck@iglou.iglou.com) wrote:
: mbk%anl433.uucp@Germany.EU.net (Matt Kennel) writes:

: >blue@nscl00.nscl.msu.edu wrote:
: >: Ignoring that fact, however, I am still at a loss to know what it means
: >: to spread deuterons around all over the place. 

: >Even if you do spread deuterons all over the place, it still doesn't
: >mean that they wouldn't repel each other and not want to get close.

: >Look at a helium atom.  Two electrons nearly in the same "overlapping"
: >orbital.  Funny thing though, if you catch one of them, the other
: >one is usually on the other side.  This still happens even though
: >they are "delocalized".

: There is a strange problem with that argument Matt. You have to 
: "localize" the electron before you can give it's position relative
: to another.

Obviously, you can't define 'relative positions' without 'location'.
I also submit that you have to 'localize' the electrons when you
calculate the contributions of from the repulsive interaction
Hamiltonian to the total energy:
	
   E = <psi(r1,r2) | H(|r1-r2|) | psi(r1,r2)>.

If there's any significant overlap at small relative distance,
the energy will be *LARGE* and hence this configuration will
not be an equilibrium stationary state.

: It is true, that both in electron-superconductors and in the case of 
: 1s electron orbital of He4 the electron wave function is overlaped
: and when localized are space very evenly. Just what one would expect
: if the Coulomb potential dominated thier interaction (which it does). 
: If electrons are delocalized in an overlapping wave function, why don't
: electrons fuse?  The answer is simply, there are no strongly 
: attractive potential in the wave state.  

:You could argue maybe a weak
: interaction will take place in the delocalized electron state. 

No.

: But
: nope, that doesn't work either since the weak force doesn't even have 
: a chance of binding the waves. The strong force can.  

"Binding the waves"?  What does that mean?

:A better question
: then is why fusion doesn't occur in superfluid He4?  

: Well, He4+He4 -> Be8* ->He4 + He4.  In otherwords the primary
: intereaction between He4 & He4 is not stable.  For the same reasons
: electrons don't intereact except by Coulomb forces in the wave overlap,
: here they don't interact because the attractive potential just isn't
: strong enough.  There is of course 3He4->C12 + gamma.  But even this 
: requires the Be8* intermediate step. So the point is, while He4 is 
: delocalized when in a superfluid state, and has a baryon component
: you would not expect conditions favorable for fusion.

OK, so this is the difference between us.  I think there won't be
fusion because the mutual separation between particles will be large
because of electrostatic repulsion. 

You think that the very short range attractive nuclear potential
can overcome the repulsion potential so as to make the *overall*
energy an actual minimum rather than a non-equilibrium maximum.
The reason this isn't observed in present condensed systems
is that there isn't any physical mechanism for a short-range
attractive potential.

So, let's model our interaction Hamiltonian as

H = +e^2/ |r1 - r2| - C*delta^3(|r1-r2|)

where C depends on the particulars of the nuclear potential and "delta^3" is
the 3-d dirac delta distribution.  Hmm maybe we can figure it out.  Isn't 
"C * length_units^3" just 4 MeV or whatever is the energy released by DD
fusion? 

You'd have to show a state psi such that

   H|psi = E|psi> is an equilibrium *ground* state, and not some
higher-energy non-equilibrium state, and such that this state has
an appreciably fusion rate.

But maybe now I'm starting to see a slim possibility that you could
have such a state if C were large enough.  Maybe it's actually
just a question of numbers.

Wait, that isn't quite sufficient.  You could always present a state
where all the deuterons are right on top of each other and fusing
like crazy, certainly an overall energy minimum.  You also have
to show that it's possible to get from normal matter TO this
state without undue expenditure of energy.

:   I'm glad Scott dropped in here to give us some of his ideas on the 
: subject. There are alot of ideas to discuss which are not in the domain
: of conventional nuclear reactions, but are based on very conventional 
: physics and how the strong force works.  This really is the college of 
: sci.physics.fusion.    

Still, if this fusion were to happen I see absolutely NO way to avoid
concomitant amounts of radiation.  This hasn't been experimentally observed.

: Have Fun,
: Chuck Sites
: chuck@iglou.iglou.com		(Same old machine. Just the name changed)
: also chuck@stunner.iglou.com    (The old home basement lab) 

cheers
Matt

--
-Matt Kennel  		mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu
-Institute for Nonlinear Science, University of California, San Diego
-*** AD: Archive for nonlinear dynamics papers & programs: FTP to
-***     lyapunov.ucsd.edu, username "anonymous".
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenuucp cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.15 / Mike Jamison /  Re: Attempts at censorship in sci.physics.fusion
     
Originally-From: edwlt12@mars.lerc.nasa.gov (Mike Jamison (ADF))
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Attempts at censorship in sci.physics.fusion
Date: 15 Mar 1994 10:49 EDT
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center

In article <CMLurB.4Bu@world.std.com>, mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes...
>   In Message-ID: <11MAR199416154057@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov>
>Subject: Re: Steven Jones goofs again
>Mike Jamison ( edwlt12@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov ) writes:
> 
>=mj   "Mitch, I don't think you're being entirely fair, here.
>=mj   I'd thought Steve's
>=mj   documentation (in e-mail form, with ASCII being the rather poor medium 
>=mj  we  all have to deal with here) was pretty good,
>=mj   concerning his experimental setups."
> 
> Hi Mike.  Maybe.  There have been multiple values presented, and
> failure to discussed critical parameters (at least with the
>light water expts.)   Also since Steve has retracted some of
>his published data, it would be nice to know what he actually
>stands behind.  Finally, he takes so much time, "knocking" other
>people, and their work, that he should provide some evidence.
>This is especially true since he was wrong about what he claimed
>Cravens, McKubre, Kucherov, Miles, Will, and others have said or
>done.  And in each case, Mr. Jones makes these misstatements
>to "cut off" further discussion and interest, doesn't he? 

Hi Mitch,

From what I remember of these debates, some of Steve's references were a bit
older than your references.  So, you weren't arguing from the "same page."

However, Steve did cite his sources.  I believe you/Jed told him his 
sources were out of date.  I didn't really follow the thread much after
that (sorry, there are better things to do).

I don't believe Steve makes his statements to "cut off" debate/interest.
Rather, he's playing "devil's advocate" like Dick Blue.

As far as I can tell, there is no *single* experiment that has adequately
answered all of Steve's or Dick's questions.

The water heater would make us skeptics/borderline skeptics "converts."
Better yet, the CNF electrical generator.  If/when that occurs, I'm sure
we'll hear about it.
> 
> 
>   >  Although no other physicist is reportedly as smart your yourself,
>   >I have been lucky enough to have had the opportunity to on occasion
>   >teach some physics and engineering - including a few times
>   >to high school students.
>=mj  "Sorry, I don't remember Steve (or anyone else here) saying "Steve Jones
>=mj  is the smartest physicist on the planet."
> 
>  Let's see.  Your posting is 11 Mar 1994 16:15 EST, Mike.
>Steve Jones won't keep us waiting too long.   ...................
> 
>  Ahhhh. 
> 
>          Here, below, is a very recent Steve Jones brag
>with his continuous complaint about another's (**anyone's) hard work
>in this field.  Notice, Mike, that it was posted only minutes
>after your reasonable statement.  Here it is dated: 11 Mar 94 17:40:16 -0700:
> 
> 
>=sj    "In view of all that we have discussed here recently regarding the
>=sj   discredited notion that d+d fusion can result in 4He + "lattice heating",
>=sj  I am greatly surprised that Scott Chubb can post,without the slightest
>=sj  effort  to address the substantial objections here argued,"
>=sj         [Subject: Tough questions for Scott Chubb
>=sj          Message-ID: <1994Mar11.174016.1479@physc1.byu.edu>
>=sj          Steve Jones (jonesse@physc1.byu.edu) on the attack at 
>=sj          11 Mar 94 17:40:16 -0700 from Brigham Young University]
> 
>   Facts are:
>   1) Steve did not even offer compelling reasons for his endless
>so-called "substantial" objections.   
> 
>   2) Most of us greatly appreciated the posting by Scott Chubb, despite
>Jones totalitarian -- and warped --  efforts at censorship.  

I don't read Steve as saying he'd like this censored.  Just that, after
everything Steve, Dick Blue, Terry Bollinger, etc. said about the Chubbs
theory, Steve's surprised Scott Chubb posted it.  If Steve were really into
censorship, he would have killed the Chubb post, which, I've been told, can
be done rather easily.

Presumably, Steve doesn't like the fact that the Chubb theory doesnt' really
explain how coulomb repulsion can be overcome.  I'd guess that's his main
objection.
> 
>                                        QED
> 
> 
>  Mike, like yourself, there is learning from everyone here.
>Where does Steve get off implying that Dr. Chubb not post?
>   Is this where the Internet is heading.
>   e-control, and e-hazing, originating from BYU's Jones?
> As for my e-vote:   No.    Let everyone, and anyone, post here if
>                            their interest is sci.physics.fusion,
>                            and the "students" here will sort it out.

Mitch, we all agree with you on this.  My interpretation of what Steve said
just isn't the same as yours...
> 
>  Best wishes.
>                       -   Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com)
>     --------------------------------------------------------------- 
>    "We need sensors, not censorship"   A harried cold fusioneer (1994)
> 

Take care,


Mike Jamison

"Scientific research consists in seeing what everyone else has seen, but
thinking what no one else has thought"

						-A. Szent-Gyorgyi
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenedwlt12 cudfnMike cudlnJamison cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.15 / Cliff Frost /  Re: More on Attempts at censorship in sci.physics.fusion
     
Originally-From: cliff@ack.berkeley.edu (Cliff Frost)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: More on Attempts at censorship in sci.physics.fusion
Date: 15 Mar 1994 16:05:36 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley

In article <CMpJr8.Fu7@world.std.com>,
mitchell swartz <mica@world.std.com> wrote:
>   In Message-ID: <bpcCMp3Dn.CFC@netcom.com>
>Subject: Re: Attempts at censorship in sci.physics.fusion
>Benjamin P. Carter (bpc@netcom.com) writes:
>
>=bc  "Steve Jones did not write that Scott Chubb should not be allowed to post
>=bc  his messages.
>
>    Excuse me, Ben, but Steve wrote: 
>>=sj  I am greatly surprised that Scott Chubb can post,without the slightest
>>=sj  effort  to address the substantial objections here argued, ......" 
>
>    Of couse Dr. Scott can, should, and hopefully will, post.
>
>   can   [after Webster, ibid.]
>  \/\/        to know how to
>                be physically or metnally able to
>                be permitted
>                be logically able to
>                be enabled by law, agreement, or custom to
>                 have permission to
>
>                              QED

This is some new and previously unknown (to me) use of "QED", unless Mitchell
meant to prove that Ben was correct and Mitchell wrong.

To a competent reader of English, Steve Jones' use of the verb "can" quite
clearly maps into the definition above as "is mentally able to", or perhaps
as "is logically able to".  More naturally, it reads as "is capable of".
This natural interpretation is amply supported by Steve's subsequent clause,
and proves (to the extent that anything is proven in the above exchange) that
Ben statement was accurate, Mitchell's desparately wrong.

This relates well to the recent "let's rename this newsgroup" theme, so I
respectfully suggest:

	comp.physics.fustian

to complement the comp.physics.fusion group, rather than the previously
proposed:

	comp.physics.fusion.hot
	comp.physics.fusion.not

    Best wishes,
	     Cliff
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudencliff cudfnCliff cudlnFrost cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.15 / Mike Jamison /  Re: SL:  Blue-sky engineering
     
Originally-From: edwlt12@mars.lerc.nasa.gov (Mike Jamison (ADF))
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: SL:  Blue-sky engineering
Date: 15 Mar 1994 11:11 EDT
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center

In article <1994Mar14.094421.1487@physc1.byu.edu>, jonesse@physc1.byu.edu writes...
>Great idea, Matt Kennel!--Increase the initial density of the bubble, so
>as to increase the fusion yield per bubble collapse.  I think this may
>be possible, perhaps by pressurizing the liquid metal medium in which
>bubble cavitation occurs.
> 
>As regards reflecting neutrons, the liquid metal medium may do some of this. 
>Don't think this trick is used or needed in ion- or laser-induced ICF, is it?
> 
>And let's keep in mind Mike Jamison's idea of inserting a trapped photon beam
>in the bubble prior to collapse, to provide additional heating during collapse. 
>However, this requires a medium transparent at the wavelength chosen.

So, for mercury, if you choose an x-ray source, some of it will be trapped
inside the collapsing bubble.  Now, though, you're in the realm of Compton
scattering and x-ray mirrors, about which I know almost nothing.

The biggest question in my mind:  What frequency is Hg most transparent
to (in the x-ray region, please).

What is the Hg's index of refraction at this frequency?

How the H*LL do we get a decent x-ray source we can work with (without
blowing up H-bombs to excite x-ray lasers...)
> 
>Note that if lithium is used as the liquid metal medium, then the liquid
>Li blanket can also serve to capture neutrons with very little damage to a solid
>first wall -- and 3H breeds in this blanket, too.  Pretty nice.  
>[If SL-fusion works.]

Sounds interesting...
> 
>Hats off to Chuck Harrison for noting that the SL operates at about 20 kHz,
>so that 6 kW comes from each bubble.  Almost put that in my post, but there is
>a major caveat:    Unfortunately, it's not quite so simple:
>to get that 0.3J/bubble collapse (right, Chuck, I meant J not W originally),
>we must burn all the d-t fuel in the bubble.  So the next collapse gives
>nothing.  The only way around this that I can see is to replenish the bubble
>fuel at 20 kHz -- not so easy.  But maybe a fast, pulsed gas injector could
>do the trick if the liquid metal medium were flowing fast enough to sweep away
>the helium (etc.) ash from the previous pop.  My, we are blue-skying here,
>aren't we?       But I think this is a healthy use of the net.

Then again, 50% burn is equivalent to 3 kW, given all the above assumptions.
What would you estimate the size of the Hg or Li chamber to be?
> 
>Thanks for the comments.
>--Steven Jones
> 
> 
A concern:

The bubbles forming in H2O or D2O aren't really due to trapped gas, if my
understanding of SL is correct.  They're due to the vapor pressure of H2O
(I think).  So, if you stick a bunch of D2 in a flask of Hg in a 1 gravity
environment, aren't you going to have a bit of a problem getting the bubble
to form at the *center* of the flask?  The D2 will presumably want to stay
at the top of the flask.  Hopefully some of it will "bleed down" towards
the center...

Proposal: assuming this looks promising, I think a space experiment would
be in order.  IMHO, this could be the most interesting experiment to fly
yet.

Unfortunately, I have no pull at NASA.  About all I'd get to do would be to
help put the thing together - after a bunch of others are convinced that it's
a "good" experiment...

Mike Jamison

"Scientific research consists in seeing what everyone else has seen, but
thinking what no one else has thought"

						-A. Szent-Gyorgyi
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenedwlt12 cudfnMike cudlnJamison cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.15 / Mike Jamison /  Re: SL: Blue-sky engineering
     
Originally-From: edwlt12@mars.lerc.nasa.gov (Mike Jamison (ADF))
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: SL: Blue-sky engineering
Date: 15 Mar 1994 11:46 EDT
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center

In article <1994Mar15.043603.307@iglou.com>, chuck@iglou.iglou.com
(Chuck Sites) writes...
>mbk%anl433.uucp@Germany.EU.net (Matt Kennel) writes:
> 
>>jonesse@physc1.byu.edu wrote:
>>: Great idea, Matt Kennel!--Increase the initial density of the bubble, so
>>: as to increase the fusion yield per bubble collapse.  I think this may
>>: be possible, perhaps by pressurizing the liquid metal medium in which
>>: bubble cavitation occurs.
> 
>>: As regards reflecting neutrons, the liquid metal medium may do some of this. 
>>: Don't think this trick is used or needed in ion- or laser-induced ICF, is it?
> 
>>I don't know actually.  I think some details of indirect-drive fusion are
>>still classified.  They have some surrounding 'hohlraum' of an unspecified
>>"high Z"  material that contains the X-rays.  Maybe it also reflects neutrons?
>>And there's also the ablator and driver.  The article I read (physics today)
>>was remarkably vague on exactly what the materials were.
> 
>'Science' also had a similar story about a few months back. Basically it 
>discussed the 'hohlraum' and difficulties trapping X-rays. While it was
>a story aimed at a general science audiance, it does point out that the 
>main focus (ignore the pun) of research is now on devising a bubble 
>that reflects back X-rays.  However they also mentioned it was a 
>pretty unusual shell material. I would suspect, layered to reflect
>the photons as the dimensions change on implosion. That article makes
>alot more since after Mike Jamison's post. Similar to Chuck Harrison's
>message.  Thanks for pointing that out Matt.

Hi Chuck,

My post makes more sense to *me* after Stacy Mogren's preliminary analysis -
maybe you're referring to it, to.

There's some literature on a small fission reactor, hopefully to be used
in space (the SP-100 program - I think that's the name).  In the lit., they
mention the use of Berrilium (sp?) as a neutron reflector.  Sort, of, anyway.
> 
>>: Thanks for the comments.
>>: --Steven Jones
> 
>>--
>>-Matt Kennel  		mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu
>>-Institute for Nonlinear Science, University of California, San Diego
>>-*** AD: Archive for nonlinear dynamics papers & programs: FTP to
>>-***     lyapunov.ucsd.edu, username "anonymous".
> 
>Have fun,
>Chuck Sites


Mike Jamison

"Scientific research consists in seeing what everyone else has seen, but
thinking what no one else has thought"

						-A. Szent-Gyorgyi
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenedwlt12 cudfnMike cudlnJamison cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.16 / SCOTT CHUBB /  Re: "ionization is not...and your comments"
     
Originally-From: CHUBB@cfe1.nrl.navy.mil (SCOTT CHUBB)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: "ionization is not...and your comments"
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 1994 01:36:28 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Dear Dick Blue,

     I am not certain if your comments (which I believe [hope] do
constitute the beginning of a dialogue) concerning my last posting
made it to the bulletin board.  Since they do point to important
areas of confusion, where I believe clarification would be helpful,
I am including some of them.

-"Dr. Chubb,  Thank you, for your reply to my questions, but I think you 
-have raised more issues than you have put to rest.  First of all, you   
-are the one who placed great emphasis on ionization of the deuterons            
-as a prelude to formation of an ion band state.  Now I see that you             
-back off considerably from that view to the assertion that the electron         
-density per unit cell is quite close to being equivalent to having              
-neutral deuterons."

The fact is, except I suppose for my initial posting to Frank Close, I have
never claimed that the deuterons are ever "completely ionized."( In all of 
our peer-reviewed and conference proceedings papers, I have only claimed that
when the deuterons occupy ion band states, they do this by effectively
dissociating from their electrons for a finite time.)  

This is the way Solid State physics works.  On the average, periodic solids
like to be neutral in each unit cell.  There is nothing mysterious about this.
This is the way Puska et al and Nieminen et al earlier identified the possible
occupation of hydrogen and deuterium ion band states.  It is also the way
electronic structure calculations proceed.  The twist that we are throwing in
is the possibility of "fractional stoichiometry;" i.e., a situation in which
each unit cell is neutral but includes a non-integer number of protons and
electrons.  The key point is not only that this is allowable but under
very specific circumstances this becomes energetically favorable.  In the
case of fully loaded PdD (i.e., PdDx with x=1),  this structure forms
in a periodically ordered manner.  Also, the known electronic structure
of PdD implies that on timescales of 10e-13 s (the time scale associated with
the zero-point motion of the D in PdD), each D may be viewed as an ionic
core loosely bound to its equilibrium location (the deBroglie wave-length of
D in PdD is ~1.4 A [rougly half the nearest neighbor lattice spacing]).  It
follows rigorously as a consequence of these facts that in the limit of extreme-
ly low loading, as a consequence, there does exist a limit in which additional
D's that are injected into fully loaded PdD will optimally occupy ion band
states as opposed to more conventional chemical states.  This occurs in order
to lower energy.  It does this because in an ion band state, each D occupies
a unit cell with equal, macroscopically infinitesimal charge, and, in the
infinitesimal limit, neither the additional D ion core or the 
neutralizing charge exerts a net stress on an individual unit cell.  We
have worked out the details associated with this in a number of papers,
most notably,  T. A. Chubb and S. R. Chubb, Fusion Technology 20, 93 (1991),
and in the Provo Conference Proceedings.

The rigorous statement is that under suitable conditions, the electronic 
structure will provide a situation where a macroscopically 
infinitesimal number of deuterons (10e-7  to 10e-4 deuterons per unit cell) 
potentially effectively dissociate from the electrons in the problem so 
that they can occupy ion band states for time scales that 
are long with respect to those required for significant
overlap to occur but are short with respect to time scales associated with
electrostatic interaction either amoung themselves or with the underlying
lattice.

-"I also find it revealing that in your picture               
-only a very small fraction of the deuterons are in fact seen as participants
-in the formation of ion band states."

This is quite true.

-"I hope that you keep that factor [only a very small fraction
of the deuterons are in fact seen as participants
-in the formation of ion band states] in mind when you calculate
reaction rates.  You do calculate reaction           
rates don't you?"

We certainly do keep this fact in mind.  It is central to the picture.  The
picture in fact has evolved directly from calculating reaction rates and
determining the associated concentrations, using realistic wave functions,
approximated by the known vibrational spectra of D in PdD.  Although this last
step is an approximation, in the limit of infinitesimal ion band state concen-
tration, it is justified, based on arguements (analogous to those on which
local density theory is based) that amount to the statement that through
linear order in the variation of the charge density the electrostatic potential
seen by the last D to bind chemically to PdD must be the same potential that
is seen by the first D to occupy an ion band state.

-"I am glad to see that you recognize that nuclear reactions involve              
-nuclear coordinates, but find it extremely puzzling that you think              
-there is a pathway to increasing the close correlation between two              
-deuterons by lowering the overall density, i.e. by constructing                 
-a wave function that has a very small amount of matter per unit cell."

The reason that the wave function has a very small amount of matter per
unit cell is because it is only this form of matter distribution that can
lower system energy (and become occupied as a consequence) through band
states.  Band states can only become occupied in the low concentration
limit.  Otherwise, self-induced (i.e. band state - band state) Coulombic
interaction introduces correlation effects that either raise energy to
the point that the band state does not become occupied or lead to 
a breakdown in periodic order which eliminates occupation of the band
state.

It is important to recognize, however, that although on the average net
concentration per unit cell is small (so that in an average sense "density"
is small) on time scales much greater than the planck's constant/(ion band state
bandwidth)~10e-13 s but less than typical self-induced Coulomb interaction
timescales (~10e-16s), at an individual lattice site, each band state
deuteron is more appropriately viewed in its Wannier state (particle-like)
representation.  This representation (which is defined by:

psi(n,r)=N x sum over k exp(-ikRn) psi(k,r), where Rn is a Bravais [i.e.

lattice] vector, k is the wave-vector, and psi(k,r) is the ion band state
wave function with wave-vector k, and the sum over k is only over wave-vectors
within the First Brillouin zone)

transforms band states into a particle-like representation.  It is the
energetics of these particle-like states, the associated time scales and
overlap possibilities that really are at the heart of determining whether or
not overlap and fusion can occur.  Each Wannier state "particle" has unit
density (one deuteron per unit cell).  So, really, the point about small
concentration is not related to the fusion problem, except that it is
required in order to insure that the band state becomes occupied.  However,
there is a form of self-consistency in the arguement, when the band states
become occupied with low concentration, it does turn out that the Wannier
states often admit the possibility of fusion.  Whether or not this actually
occurs is governed by the underlying electronic structure.

On the other hand, it is also informative to recognize that in the extreme
low concentration limit how particle-particle correlation can be eliminated.
In particular in your final set of comments you have raised this question.

-"Next you make the assertion that you can "construct" a wavefunction  
-that "eliminates Coulomb repulsion".  That sounds like slight of hand           
-to me.  To form the 4He nucleus requires the correlating of 4 nucleons,         
-two of which are charged.  In my book wherever the protons mass goes            
-the charge has to follow. Yes, you may be able to say that the charge          
-is over there while the mass of over here, but that does not make it         
-so.  I think you need to clarify this point before you claim to be able         
-to construct such a wave function.  It is funny how all the discussions         
-that have been floating around concerning your theory of cold fusion,           
-there has been no mention of this very important point.  That is what           
-I mean when I ask that you fish of cut bait.  Let's get all your                
-dirty little secrets out on the table."   

In fact, the comments about "constructing" a wave function that "eliminates
Coulomb repulsion" refer to the example associated with particle-particle
correlation in the extreme low concentration limit.  And I do agree that
this has been a point that needs to be demonstrated.  The fact is that lurking
in the background is a profoundly important point associated with what
constitutes the appropriate initial state wave function and how as a result
of funny things associated with the solid state environment, it may become
possible for a very peculiar wave function to become occupied that will lead
to overlap and fusion.  

The fact is that the relevant Coulombic repulsion between
two ion band state deuterons at an isolated location is proportional to
(Ncell)**-2, where Ncell is the number of unit cells.  Naively, one might
say, who cares?  At the "point" of contact, surely it is necessary to have
an infinite Coulombic repulsion, which completely eliminates the possibility
of overlap since infinity muliplied by 1/(square of large number) is still
infinite, suggesting that the ground state energy wave function can not
possibly support overlap.  

Of course, we do know that the uncertainty principle (even in conventional 
nuclear physics) provides a means for tunnelling
so that the "infinity" associated with the Coulombic repulsion is not really
infinity.  But disregarding this point, it is appropriate to step back a
minute and ask the question, when and how is it possible for two particles to
overlap appreciably at a point where the Coulombic repulsion becomes infinite?

In fact, this happens all the time with electrons in bound state (and I
emphasize bound state) problems.  It occurs when the wave function acquires
cusps.  Specifically, in the region of Coulombic singularities, cusps are both
allowed and required in the energy minimizing wave function.  They are found
in the exact 1-s electron wave function solution of the hydrogen atom 
(disregarding finite nucleus size effects) at the point of strong Coulombic 
attraction and in all energy minimizing solutions of other atoms in regions 
even at points involving electron-electron repulsion, provided these points 
are sufficiently close to the nucleus.

One of the "dirty tricks" that is at the heart of our theory is that the 
theory is a theory of "bound" state, as opposed to "unbound" state quantum 
mechanics.  I put it to you that the kind of correlation effect that applies
in the extreme low concentration limit (where the band picture applies)
must involve cusps and complete overlap at some point within the solid.  The
reason that the alternative solution (no cusps and no overlap) does not
correspond to the ground state is that it prohibits even infinitesimal cusps
with arbitrary curvature, which clearly can allow positively charged particles
to penetrate regions where it is energetically favorable (as a result of 
attractive forces provided by negative charges) for them penetrate.  This is
certainly true of helium electrons.  The analogue case involving deuterons
should also apply.

The second "dirty trick" that is at the heart of our theory is the use of
periodic order.  Though not explicitly emphasized, at the heart of this
business of periodic order, is an implicit source of "hidden" kinetic
energy.  This "hidden" kinetic energy comes about because implicitly
kinetic energy is tied in a non-local way to the boundary conditions (and
degeneracies) of the underlying situation.  A simple way of understanding
this in the ion band state problem is that

e(k)=e(k+G)

where e is an ion band state energy, G is a reciprocal lattice vector, and k
is the wave-vector of the band state.  The reason this relationship can
be used to identify a hidden source of kinetic energy is because hbar k
equals the momentum of any ion band state deuteron, but only up ot hbar
x G, where G is an arbitrary reciprocal lattice vector.  The way that this
relationship leads to a "hidden" source of kinetic energy is that it means
that the physical momentum of an arbitrary ion band state deuteron can
arbitrarily shift by a reciprocal lattice vector multiplied by hbar on
any time scale without changing the energy of the system.  This fact, which
actually is at the heart of the Mossbauer effect and a number of Solid State
phenomena, also is the reason that ion band state deuterons on one time
scale can appear to be particle like but can appear to be wave-like on a
second time scale.

In terms of the particle-particle correlation problem that you are interested
in understanding, the wave function that I have constructed is a two-deuteron
Bloch function which possesses Bloch symmetry in its center of mass coordinate
and a cusp in its dependence on deuteron-deuteron separation.  When the
physical situation involves one in which deuteron-deuteron repulsion (and
possible overlap) occurs in a small number of unit cells (where every where else
it is assumed that the deuterons are well-screened from each other and do
not overlap), overlap does occur provided a specific relationship holds in-
volving various variational parameters, including the number (Ncell) of
unit cells.  It follows from this relationship, a) that exact cancellation
between the Coulomb singularity in the unit cell occurs, and b) for 
sufficiently large values of Ncell, the amount of cusp that is required in
each unit cell asymptotically approaches zero.


-"Within the context of any ion band theory for cold fusion, I would              
-say the key to any meaningful treatment of a nuclear reaction must              
-be particle-particle correlations and the need to switch from a                 
-system of deuterons that must exhibite strong two-body correlations             
-but very weak four-body correlations to 4He which has just the                  
-opposite character.  

The fact is the calculation demonstrates that the key is involved with
the interplay between "hidden" kinetic energy (as manifested through
cusps in unit cells where nothing happens), which actually results in
the occupation of an uncorrelated state being favorable, even including
the possibility of nuclear overlap.

The fact is, the example is merely intended to demonstrate that the ground
state wave function becomes arbitrarily close to the uncorrelated state
with increasing crystal size.  The actual relevant question is what
possible interactions are allowed once such a state becomes occupied.  It
turns out that there exists a self-consistent field theory, in which order
by order, relevant reactions and potential avenues for overlap can be 
identified with important selection rules (that are required by self-consis-
tency).  It is this self-consistent picture which is at the heart of the
theory.  It does, because by construction it is based on the rules that
make the theory self-consistent, incorporate a degree of correlation.  But
the correlation is based on effects that maintain a very important constraint:
that overlap, and the associated reactions, not disrupt the conditions that
make it possible for the initial state to become occupied.  In mathematical
terms, order by order, this requirement is actually equivalent to restricting
potential overlap possibilities to those which approximately preserve Born 
Oppenheimer separability of the nuclear degrees of freedom from the center 
of mass motion of the nucleons that are involved and require that the resulting
perturbative expansion converge to a finite result.


     Finally, you write

-"you certainly haven't gotten your theory through the peer review
process where                
real physicists have had a good look at what your doing, have you?"

In fact, we have had difficulty with the peer review process when it has in-
volved standard nuclear physicists.  This has not been the case when the
reviewers have involved many-body solid state types.  The ideas are contentious,
but especially in our most recent review from Fusion Technology, (Chubb and
Chubb, Fusion Technology 24, 403 (1993).) the reviews were highly favorable.
I would like to point out in passing that considerable internal review has
gone on of these ideas.  The concensus though clearly mixed has been, given
the expertise in hydrogen in metals work at NRL, that it is very possible
that the underlying picture might be correct because it is based on known
laws of physics and the very specific physical phenomena that are known to
apply to hydrogen interacting with transition metals.

Sincerely,

SCOTT CHUBB


cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenCHUBB cudfnSCOTT cudlnCHUBB cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Wed Mar 16 04:37:05 EST 1994
------------------------------
1994.03.16 / Dieter Britz /  CNF bibliography; recent updates and archive retrieval, Mar-94. III
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CNF bibliography; recent updates and archive retrieval, Mar-94. III
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 1994 13:53:07 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway


I am still having trouble getting the powers that be to sort out
their bugs with the email. Knowing how badly you want the update {:]
I am posting it here, for the third time, in shorter lines. Note that
it did NOT go into the archive in this form. Let's hope this gets
fixed before the next lot.=20
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Current count:
-------------
  8 books
880 papers
135 patents
211 comment items
 81 peripherals
 19 conf-procs
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

#
Dong Q, Qiu W, Gan F, Cai N;
Chem. J. Chin. Univ 13(6) (1992) 847 (in Chinese, English abstract).
"Studies on behavior of deuterium and hydrogen in palladium".
** "The absorption, reserve, diffusion of deuterium and hydrogen in
palladium, and the positron lifetime of palladium during electrolysis
are investigated by hydrogen permeation method and positron
annihilation spectroscopy. The results show that the electrochemical
behavior of deuterium is almost the same as that of hydrogen, but the
amount of deuterium reserved in palladium is slightly less than that
of hydrogen and the diffusion coefficient of deuterium is slightly
greater than that of hydrogen. The positron lifetime in palladium
after electrolysis is increased by 10.5%. The behavior similarity of
deuterium and hydrogen and the possibility of 'cold nuclear fusion'
are discussed". The same authors have published an English-language
paper in the same year (see: Qiu WC, Dong QH, Gan FX, Wang SJ; Mat.
Sci. Forum 105-110 (1992) 1961.), in which they state that they not
able to draw conclusions about cold fusion from the results.=20
#............................................................17-Feb-9=
4
Fedorovich GV;   Fusion Technology 24 (1993) 288.
"A possible way to nuclear fusion in solids".
** Once again, the author proposes his E-cell theory, and an
experiment to test it. E-cells are radiation defects in certain low
atomic weight element (Li, Be, B) hydrides/deuterides, and fission
events, caused by neutron capture, start an E-cell.  Within it,
extremely high electron densities (10^24/cm^3) hold and this can act
as a Coulomb shield for fusion. Also, crystalline lattice forces can
be focussed up to hundreds of eV and reduce internuclear distances to
10^-9 cm, resulting in a measurable hydrogen fusion rate. An
experiment is suggested, in which a sample is compressed in a diamond
anvil to some Mbar, and a neutron beam aimed at it to stimulate
fusion. "The further is the matter of experimental physics".=20
Feb-92/Nov-93=20
#......................................................... 27-Feb-94
Fox H;  Fusion Technol. 24 (1993) 347.
"Comments on 'Experiments of one-point cold fusion'".
** Polemic on a paper by T. Matsumoto. It has been shown in a US
patent that under the conditions described by Matsumoto, electron
beads can form, and Matsumoto has inadvertently formed high-energy
clusters as taught by that patent. The clusters have 10^8 to 10^12
electrons. Fox suggests that Matsumoto place a radio receiver near
his cell and listen to noises like that of a lightning strike from
these clusters. These can accelerate deuterons and induce fusion by
locally swamping the Coulomb barrier!  Feb-93/Dec-93=20
#......................................................... 2-Mar-94
Kaliev KA, Baraboshkin AN, Samgin AL, Golikov EG, Shalyapin AL,
Andreev VS, Golubnichii PI; Dokl. Akad. Nauk 330(2) (1993) 214 (in
Russian).=20
"Reproducible nuclear reactions by interaction of deuterium with
tungsten oxide bronze".=20
** The authors note that reproducibility is a major problem in cold
fusion work. Here, they use a novel material, for which they have
their own technique for growing single crystals of, and an
electrochemical method for extracting sodium out of. This is tungsten
bronze with the general formula Na(x)WO4, i.e. a range of different
stoichiometries. The material had Na removed from it and replaced by
deuterium. This was kept in an evacuated chamber and 500-1000 V
applied between it and an opposing cathode, for several hours,
passing in all 0.1-1 Coulombs. Neutron emissions were measured with
two blocks of four SNM-42 detectors and paraffin moderating blocks.
As well, the sample's temperature was monitored throughout. After
switching off the current, the crystals were brought to room temp.
and D2 or H2 gas introduced, still monitoring for neutrons. Results
showed that there was a greater temp. rise when introducing D2 gas
than for H2 gas, and a correspondingly greater neutron flux for D2,
so the process is definitely nuclear. In the acknowledgements, one M.
Rambo is thanked for discussions of the results.        Feb-93/?=20
#.........................................................17-Feb-94
Kawarabayashi J, Takahashi H, Iguchi T, Nakazawa M;
J. Facul. Eng., Univ. Tokyo B 41 (1992) 595.
"Low level neutron detection system for cold-fusion".
** A new neutron detector is described, using a new digital waveform
analysis technique in order to suppress noise and to resolve bursts
of pile-up. High sensitivity 3-He detectors were used to catch
neutrons (8 set around the detection space) optimally. Pulse height
and wave for analysis completes the setup. The lowest observable
neutron rate was 0.022 n/s. This was tested in a mixture of heavy and
light water, irrradiated by a gamma ray source (24Na) and the count
rate found to be linear with heavy water concentration, as required.
It works.   Apr-92/?=20
#........................................................ 27-Feb-94
Lihn CJ, Wan CC, Wan CM, Perng TP; Fusion Technol. 24 (1993) 324.
"The influence of deposits on palladium cathodes in D2O electrolysis"=

cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.16 / Dieter Britz /  Deuterons, deuterium, or D- ?
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Deuterons, deuterium, or D- ?
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 1994 14:09:44 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway


I don't mind breaking my vow of silence, by providing a bit of
(presumably) neutral info out of the bibliography. The question has
been raised (again) of the nature of deuterium in the PdDx matrix;
is it deuterons, or what? How do we know? Good question, and not
settled yet to everyone's satisfaction. I browsed a bit in the
biblio and "proof" for the existence of D+ or deuterons goes back
(as someone has already written) to Moore, and even earlier to
Coehn et al. These last were apparently mentioned by Fleischmann at
Hawaii. If you look at any modern book with a title like "Hydrogen
in Metals", you'll find a pretty clean concensus on deuterons. Moore
makes a good case for protons (he and Coehn were of course working 
with hydrogen, not deuterium), as well as perhaps molecular (neutral)
hydrogen in crystal voids. It could be that it is here that one can
cram in that deuterium that exceeds the magic 0.72 loading. Maybe.
But there is one dissenting voice in the bibliography, of Jorne, who
reckons that most deuterium is in the form of negative D-. Me, I
don't know, I only collect the papers. Here are the references: 

Jorne J;  Fusion Technol. 18 (1990) 519.
"Electrochemically induced nuclear fusion of deuterium: the
existence of negatively charged deuteride ions". 

Coehn A; Naturwiss. 16 (1928) 183 (in German).
"Evidence for protons in metals".

Coehn A, Specht W;  Z. Phys. 62 (1930) 1 (in German).
"On the contribution of protons to the conduction of electricity in
metals". 

Coehn A, Juergens H;  Z. Phys. 71 (1931) 179 (in German).
"On the contribution of protons to the conduction of electricity in
metals. Resistance measurements" 

Moore GA; Trans. Electrochem. Soc. 75 (1939) 237.
"The comportment of the palladium-hydrogen system toward alternating
electric current". 

Sorry for not citing etc, but I've lost the original posting, and 
our News service keeps stuff only for one day; very spartan.

Btw, you can do your own browsing, you know... There is that
WAIS data base, as well as the (admittedly a bit unwieldy)
archive site.
 --------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 --------------------------------------------------------------

cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.17 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Re: SL: Blue-sky engineering
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: SL: Blue-sky engineering
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 1994 01:10:49 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

With most ultra sound sources you will get many bubbles.  I think of it as the
sound tearing the liquid apart.  It breaks where it is weakest - at some 
impurity.  As I recall from some material that I sent to Terry Bollinger, The
best candidate bubbles form just in front of the plane of the sound source
boundary.  I think there is some optimum point for them to form and to be 
round etc.  There is a good reference with pictures and everything that is
fairly old.  I no longer remember it, but perhaps you can get it from Terry.
If prodded I will search my files.  

To make just one bubble, you need somehow to focus the sound waves.  From the
material the consultant sent me that I used to develop the water machine sonic
device, I notice that the consultant has made spherical resonators.  

Tom Droege

cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenDROEGE cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.17 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Re: SL: Blue-aky engineering
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: SL: Blue-aky engineering
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 1994 01:10:50 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

>From what I have read the bubbles tend to repeatedly form at the same spot.
Why might they do this?  Well a collapsing bubble might leave a hot spot in 
the liquid.  50 microseconds later it is likely still there.  So the next 
bubble would form at the same spot.  Looks like an unstable situation to me.  
Start with a uniform liquid.  Bubbles have to form somewhere.(but they are
harder to form in very pure water).  Once they form, they repeat in the same
spot.  

Note this is why ultrasonic cleaning works.  The bubbles form at "dirty" spots.
Collapsing bubbles near a surface are *not* symmetrical.  They collaps with
al little jet the goes *towards* the surface.  This will erode even very 
hard materials.  Practical evidence for this is that the ultrasonic 
transducer that I sent Steve has a replaceable tip.  They expect it to wear 
out.  There were some great pictures of this in the material I sent Terry.

Tom Droege

cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenDROEGE cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.17 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Purple Cows
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Purple Cows
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 1994 01:10:54 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Richard Schultz is interested in the existance of Purple Cows.

In Cincinnati there used to be a Purple Cow dairy bar.  For all I know it
is still there.  Things change slowly in Cincinnati, so 50 years is not so
long.  There were pictures on the walls of Purple Cows doing all sorts of 
things.  I remember they were even jumping over the moon.  So if there were
pictures they exist right?

>From the restaurant, author unknown:

I never saw a purple cow.
I never hope to see one.
I'll tell you all right here and now,
I'd rather see than be one!

Tom Droege

cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenDROEGE cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.17 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Wow, how refreshing!
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Wow, how refreshing!
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 1994 01:11:02 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I am enjoying the debate between Scott Chub, Dick Blue, and others.  Here is
a debate where specific points are questioned and answered.  Keep it up guys!
I have a suspicion that Scott is going to wear the opposition down.  Looks
like he has been working at this stuff a long time, so otheres are going 
to have to work hard to keep up.  OK Dick, now that you are retired you can
dig out the books and read up on Scott's area of expertese.  It will keep you
young!

Tom Droege

cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenDROEGE cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.17 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Continuous Heat???
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Continuous Heat???
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 1994 01:11:07 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Just had a visit from an old friend from KEK (the Japanese high energy
physics laboratory.)  His rumor is that several Japanese firms are getting 
continuous heat from their cold fusion experiments.  Tokio Ohska is 
skeptical, but not your normal Japanese as he maintains Canadian 
citizanship.  He also reports that the KEK cold fusion experiment is in
trouble. (Isagawa, Kanda, and Suzuki - bet few have heard of this group!)
The KEK environment is very skeptical and they are haveing a tough time
justifying continued work.  

Tom Droege

cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenDROEGE cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.17 /  blue@nscl00.ns /  Re: Chubb theory
     
Originally-From: blue@nscl00.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Chubb theory
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 1994 01:11:17 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I am beginning to get a sense of what is at the heart of the Chubb
theory.  I think I now see through the flim-flam.  It is a kind of
fantastic shell game with every lattice site serving as a shell.  If
you ask, "Where's the deuteron?" the answer is nowhere and everywhere.
That is a valid sort of picture in the solid state until you ask the
question, "When are two deuterons arbitrarily near each other?"  If
you write down the kind of wavefunction I think Scott Chubb is using
I don't believe you can answer that question.  Am I wrong on this
point?  

Now clearly to get a fusion reaction rate you have to how much of
the time is spent with deuterons on top of each other.  It is not
sufficient to say that it can happen.  Has anyone ever seen numbers
coming out of the Chubb formalism which can give a reaction rate?
One question that certainly needs to be ask is how does it happen
that Scott Chubb using accepting theoretical methods can come up
with a reaction rate that is big enough whil
e others doing what
look to me to be equally valid calculations don't get the required
result.

I am equally troubled as to where the fusion reaction occurs and
what happens afterward.  Dr. Chubb makes lots of reference to
ion band wave functions that distribute the deuterons throughout
the lattice, but does not the fusion actually have to occur at
a point in space and time within the limits set by the range of
the strong interaction and causality?  If the deuterons can
interact via the strong interaction without ever meeting, what
keeps them from merging with the Pd nuclei in a equally mysterious
manner?

After having overcome this little problem of what nucleons are
where just before fusion, we have an equivalent problem right
after fusion.  Scott Chubb says the 4He is spread everywhere
too, but how did it get that way?  If on the time scale of
10^-23 seconds I have a single 4He nucleus at a specific point
in the lattice, how do we move from there to a band state before
there single 4He nucleus unloads a 23 MeV gamma ray.  If there
is any information to answer this question in any wave function
that Scott Chubb has ever written in any publication, could
someone just sort of sketch what it looks like?  I suspect
that Dr. Chubb has rather failed to take note of the fact that
solid state theory and the standard methods employed there
describe static systems except of transistions within the
electron band structure.

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenblue cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.17 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  A Book on my Nightstand
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: A Book on my Nightstand
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 1994 01:11:21 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

In January of 93 I noticed that a book on my nighstand that I had not read
was all about bubble formation and collapse.  At this time Terry Bollinger
was thinking about "Ultra Cavitation".  This book even had a picture of a 
"two stage wedge" event like Terry was considering.  I had avoided the book
because it was more about bubbles that how to build apparatus.  

So I copied sections of it for Terry and faxed them to him.  Some of the
rest of you might be interested in the book which is from a Library to which
I no longer have access.

"Ultrasound" Kenneth S. Suslick.  ISBN 0-89573-328-5, VCH Publishers, Inc, NY,
NY.  (Sorry I don't have the date)  There was a whole section on SL.  But it
is relatively old.  Terry tried to get it and it was out of print I recall.  
I recall it had an extensive bibliography.  The reference to the "two stage 
wedge" event is "J. Fluid Mech." 1975, 72, 391

This is put up mostly for Steven Jones' benefit.  In the spirit of open
communication.  Those of you that neatly file things on your disk will 
appreciate that this was found by rooting through stacks of unfiled 
correspondence sitting on my desk.  It was long gone from the Fermilag 
disk, though it is possible that big brother is filing everything somewhere!

Tom Droege

cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenDROEGE cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.17 /  vnoninski@fscv /  Re: Flaws in N Lewis' Papers
     
Originally-From: vnoninski@fscvax.fsc.mass.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Flaws in N Lewis' Papers
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 1994 01:33:40 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Dear Colleagues,

Someone was expressing doubts that papers discussing the crucial errors in the 
papers of Nathan Lewis published in Nature and Science were ever published in 
the peer-reviewed literature. For your information, analysis of the errors in 
the method and treatment of the data in the calorimetric part of Nathan 
Lewis et als' papers is presented in Fusion Technology, 23, 474 (1993). 
Exactly the same analysis of the flaws in Nathan Lewis et als' calorimetry 
has later been presented in The Journal of Physical Chemistry, 98, 1948 (1994).
Both journals are well-recognized peer-reviewed journals.

Truly yours,


Vesselin Noninski

cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenvnoninski cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.17 / R Schroeppel /  Virtual versus Real particles
     
Originally-From: rcs@cs.arizona.edu (Richard Schroeppel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Virtual versus Real particles
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 1994 01:33:41 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

    |> Yes.  Until you understand that the only difference between a real
    |> particle and a virtual particle is a persistent accounting error, you
    |> do not understand QM as Feynman understood it.  As I understand it... :-)
    |> 

    What's the accounting error? I always thought of real particles as just
    virtual particles with a long time between emmision and absorption.

Virtual particles are borrowed; real particles are embezzled.

Rich Schroeppel

cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenrcs cudfnRichard cudlnSchroeppel cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.16 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Re: SL:  Blue-sky engineering
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: SL:  Blue-sky engineering
Date: 16 Mar 94 10:10:37 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

In article <15MAR199411115804@mars.lerc.nasa.gov>, 
edwlt12@mars.lerc.nasa.gov (Mike Jamison (ADF)) writes:

> In article <1994Mar14.094421.1487@physc1.byu.edu>, 
>>jonesse@physc1.byu.edu writes...
>>Great idea, Matt Kennel!--Increase the initial density of the bubble, so
>>as to increase the fusion yield per bubble collapse.  I think this may
>>be possible, perhaps by pressurizing the liquid metal medium in which
>>bubble cavitation occurs.
>> 
>>As regards reflecting neutrons, the liquid metal medium may do some of this. 
>>Don't think this trick is used or needed in ion- or laser-induced ICF, is it?
>> 
>>And let's keep in mind Mike Jamison's idea of inserting a trapped photon beam
>>in the bubble prior to collapse, to provide additional heating during collapse. 
>>However, this requires a medium transparent at the wavelength chosen.
> 
> So, for mercury, if you choose an x-ray source, some of it will be trapped
> inside the collapsing bubble.  Now, though, you're in the realm of Compton
> scattering and x-ray mirrors, about which I know almost nothing.
> 
> The biggest question in my mind:  What frequency is Hg most transparent
> to (in the x-ray region, please).
> 
> What is the Hg's index of refraction at this frequency?
> 
> How the H*LL do we get a decent x-ray source we can work with (without
> blowing up H-bombs to excite x-ray lasers...)

Mercury is opaque until hard x-rays are reached -- no good for this
application, IMHO.  So let's consider lithium (liquid):

>> 
>>Note that if lithium is used as the liquid metal medium, then the liquid
>>Li blanket can also serve to capture neutrons with very little damage to a solid
>>first wall -- and 3H breeds in this blanket, too.  Pretty nice.  
>>[If SL-fusion works.]
> 
> Sounds interesting...

Yes.  To carry this a bit further:  Li will pass high UV I understand, need
to get data on this...  In that case, a UV laser could serve the role of
heating the bubble as Mike Jamison proposes.  In addition, UV could be used to
illuminate the bubble, so that one could monitor its behavior in the resonant
sound field.

Important:  missing information right now in the SL field is the 
short-wavelength cut-off of the black-body spectrum, 
due to opacity of water to these
wavelengths.  With Li, we might be able to get around this, and observe
whether the spectrum really corresponds to black-body in the UV.
This would be a significant contribution to current understanding of SL.
Let's pursue this one.  (Tom Matula if you're listening, please take note.)

Reference:  "Spectrum of synchronous picosecond SL", Hiller, Putterman and
Barber, Phys. Rev. Lett 69 (1992) 1182.

>>Hats off to Chuck Harrison for noting that the SL operates at about 20 kHz,
>>so that 6 kW comes from each bubble.  Almost put that in my post, but there is
>>a major caveat:    Unfortunately, it's not quite so simple:
>>to get that 0.3J/bubble collapse (right, Chuck, I meant J not W originally),
>>we must burn all the d-t fuel in the bubble.  So the next collapse gives
>>nothing.  The only way around this that I can see is to replenish the bubble
>>fuel at 20 kHz -- not so easy.  But maybe a fast, pulsed gas injector could
>>do the trick if the liquid metal medium were flowing fast enough to sweep away
>>the helium (etc.) ash from the previous pop.  My, we are blue-skying here,
>>aren't we?       But I think this is a healthy use of the net.
> 
> Then again, 50% burn is equivalent to 3 kW, given all the above assumptions.
> What would you estimate the size of the Hg or Li chamber to be?

Smaller at 1 atm. equilibrium pressure, due to higher surface tension.
I'll see if I can figure out how to calculate this.  Good question.

>> 
>>Thanks for the comments.
>>--Steven Jones
>> 
>> 
> A concern:
> 
> The bubbles forming in H2O or D2O aren't really due to trapped gas, if my
> understanding of SL is correct.  They're due to the vapor pressure of H2O
> (I think).  So, if you stick a bunch of D2 in a flask of Hg in a 1 gravity
> environment, aren't you going to have a bit of a problem getting the bubble
> to form at the *center* of the flask?  The D2 will presumably want to stay
> at the top of the flask.  Hopefully some of it will "bleed down" towards
> the center...
> 
> Proposal: assuming this looks promising, I think a space experiment would
> be in order.  IMHO, this could be the most interesting experiment to fly
> yet.
> 
> Unfortunately, I have no pull at NASA.  About all I'd get to do would be to
> help put the thing together - after a bunch of others are convinced that it's
> a "good" experiment...
> 
> Mike Jamison
> 
> "Scientific research consists in seeing what everyone else has seen, but
> thinking what no one else has thought"
> 

Let's get something straight here:  'transient' SL involves gas bubble
formation and collapse from the gases *dissolved* in the water (or other
fluid).  But now we're shifting emphasis to stable, single-bubble SL in which
dissolved gases have been nearly all removed, and a single bubble is trapped at
the center of the spherical flask driven at resonance.  That is, a bubble is
*injected* using a syringe, for example, and the sound field first drives the
bubble to the anti-node at the center of the sphere, then levitates the bubble
there.  No need to go into space!

In our experiments, we drive the air out of distilled H2O using a vacuum pump,
roughing pump, and agitate the water using a stirring bar.  Works well.

It's easy to get bubbles and cavitation when the water is loaded with air, 
--> leads to *transient* SL --
but then getting *stable* SL (same bubble repeatedly growing and collapsing)
is difficult.  So in order to achieve stable, single-bubble SL (SB-SL) as
we are seeking, one must first remove the dissolved air from the sound-field
medium.

Best Regards,
Steven Jones

cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenjonesse cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.16 / mitchell swartz /  An illogical extrapolation by Richard PE Schultz
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: An illogical extrapolation by Richard PE Schultz
Subject: The Swartzian Existence Theorem
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 1994 17:43:13 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <2m4tpo$787@agate.berkeley.edu>
Subject: The Swartzian Existence Theorem
Richard Schultz [schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu] feels lucky and writes:

      > "Although that is correct, Mossbauer was NOT cited as 
      >  an explanation for c.f. (vide supra).   
      > We are talking about the Existence theorem here."
=rpes   "I will admit to a bit of confusion about the use of the 
=rpes  Swartzian Existence Theorem here.  So let me put it another way: 
=rpes  there are some species of hummingbirds that have purple throat 
=rpes  feathers (at least the adult males do)."

   ...  demonstrating the existence of purple throat feathers in at
least some specie of hummingbird (at least in the adult male).


=rpes    "Can I thus use the Existence Theorem to start looking 
=rpes  for purple cows?"

  An illogical extrapolation, but probably
indicative of the "logic" used by Mr. Richard P.E. Schultz and some
of the other TB-skeptics.

  However, Mr. Schultz is always welcome to seek "purple cows".
            with or without moonbeams   ;-)

                             -   Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com)
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    "The safest place for a "skeptic" at an archery competition is directly
 in front of the target.  No danger in a "skeptic" so placed being hit.
               All the points will naturally elude them"

cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.16 / mitchell swartz /  On "More on Will" (and previous citation)
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: On "More on Will" (and previous citation)
Subject: Re: On "More on Will"
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 1994 17:44:48 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <2m5krk$l77@fever.veritas.com>
Subject: Re: On "More on Will"
Joshua Levy <joshua@veritas.com> writes:

            >="veritas"  "What was Jones's mistake in his description
            >="veritas"  or analysis of Will's paper?
            >="veritas"  Or are you going to claim it exists, but
            >="veritas"  refuse to identify it."
        > (It was) "Covered previously.   Tom Droege also made a few
        >  corrections."
="veritas"    "Good dodge!  Or was that a parry?
="veritas"    Come on Mitchell, surely you can list one mistake? 
="veritas"     You said there were
="veritas"    many, and now when it comes to specifics, 
="veritas"    you seem to fade away.

   OK,  Joshua, can I list ONE MISTAKE?
      Here is Tom Droege's correction to one of Mr. Jones's 
misclaim regarding the number of controls:

=td "To settle the question of the number of controls, I quote from the abstract:"
    =will  "Thirteen control pieces were cut from the same spool of 2 mm 
    =will      Hoover & Strong Pd wire from which the four Pd cathodes 
    =will  were cut that had shown significant tritium after high D 
    =will  loading in D2SO4.  None of the thirteen controls showed 
    =will  any tritium".
=td "So Steve, it was more than four."
            Message-ID: <940104135623.23c01e46@FNALD.FNAL.GOV>
            Subject: Re: Steve Jones on Fritz Will
            Tom Droege    [DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov[

   Hope that helps (but I doubt it).   Best wishes.

                                  Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com)  

    "The safest place for a "skeptic" at an archery competition is directly
 in front of the target.  No danger in a "skeptic" so placed being hit.
               All the points will naturally elude them"

cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.16 / Mike Jamison /  Re: "ionization is not an ionic band...and fractions of a deuteron"
     
Originally-From: edwlt12@venus.lerc.nasa.gov (Mike Jamison (ADF))
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: "ionization is not an ionic band...and fractions of a deuteron"
Date: 16 Mar 1994 12:36 EDT
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center

In article <9403141933.AA25969@suntan>, CHUBB@cfe1.nrl.navy.mil (SCOTT CHUBB) writes...

[first part of post deleted for brevity]
>     The final point that I do suspect you have difficulty swallowing
>is how once the D occupy ion band states, it is possible for 4He to
>be formed in ion band states.  Again, a very important point is that
>the proposed occupation of 4He states involves an extremely small
>concentration (again less than 1./10000.);  because both the D and 4He
>are distributed in this manner, the wave functions that describe the
>center of mass motion of each D (or 4He) involve only a very small 
>amount of matter in each unit cell.  (In other words, the D and 4He
>are very much more wave-like than they are in free space.)  The
>nuclear degrees of freedom, of course, remain in very close proximity
>to the center of mass position of the wave function;  but it
>is important to recognize that on the average only a very small
>fraction of each deuteron nucleus is located in each unit cell.
> 
Dr. Chubb,

From what I gather, your theory requires both D and 4He to be delocalized,
or in a band state.  But, isn't 4He pretty much immobile in Pd, implying
that it isn't really in a band state?  Whereas D, of course, is quite 
mobile in Pd.

So, wouldn't you want some sort of material that has similar (high) mobility
for both D and 4He, in order to increase the DD fusion rate?

Or am I missing the point?  (I don't have any experience with condensed
matter physics).

Thanks in advance,

Mike Jamison

[rest of post deleted, for same brevity]
> 
>Sincerely,
> 
>Dr. Scott R. Chubb
>Code 7234
>Naval Research Laboratory
>Washington, DC 20375-5351
>PHONE: 202-767-2003
>FAX:   202-767-5599
> 

"Scientific research consists in seeing what everyone else has seen, but
thinking what no one else has thought"

						-A. Szent-Gyorgyi
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenedwlt12 cudfnMike cudlnJamison cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.16 / Mark North /  Re: On Re: Tough questions for Scott Chubb
     
Originally-From: north@watop.nosc.mil (Mark North)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: On Re: Tough questions for Scott Chubb
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 1994 19:28:43 GMT
Organization: NCCOSC RDT&E Division, San Diego, CA

mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:

>Thomas H. Kunich (tomk@netcom.com) writes:

>=tk   "Mr. Swartz, before this goes any further, as if it hasn't already, what
>=tk   are your qualifications to judge any of the discussions here. You seem
>=tk   to completely avoid answering any questions put to you while ignoring
>=tk   answers to your own questions. You then continue to ask the same questions
>=tk   over and over again despite complete, documented answers."

>   Mr. Kunich.   Perhaps before this goes any further, you might first offer
>your own qualifications given your own judgemental comments.
>                 Thanks in advance.

I think you should answer the question, Swartz. Quit dodging. If you
don't answer or if you do and your qualifications are woefully
inadequate (which I'm sure they are judging by the ignorance you
have displayed here many, many times) then I think it's time you

stopped posting here about scientific matters. 

Mark

cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudennorth cudfnMark cudlnNorth cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.16 / E Pavelchek /  Re: Question: correct understanding of photon reflection?
     
Originally-From: ekp@mcnc.org (Edward Pavelchek)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.chem
Subject: Re: Question: correct understanding of photon reflection?
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 1994 21:15:08 GMT
Organization: Good place for a disclaimer

OK, time to demonstrate my ignorance.  
   Side A - take a good reflector, like aluminum.  The photons are
   absorbed by free electrons, aren't they.  They are not in a potential
   well, and have no clearly defined state to fall back to.  Why do they
   emit at the same frequency?

   Side B - Please expand your explanation for the reflection of ONE
   photon.  Doens't the photoelectric effect confine its' absorbtion to
   a single point?
-- 
Ed Pavelchek   ekp@mcnc.org

"...but that is another story. As far as we knew, we were
living happily everafter."  Royal Robbins
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenekp cudfnEdward cudlnPavelchek cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.16 / Richard Schultz /  Re: An illogical extrapolation by Richard PE Schultz
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: An illogical extrapolation by Richard PE Schultz
Date: 16 Mar 1994 21:17:19 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley

In article <CMrqK2.CyB@world.std.com>,
mitchell swartz <mica@world.std.com> wrote:
ms>  In Message-ID: <2m4tpo$787@agate.berkeley.edu>
ms>Richard Schultz [schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu] feels lucky and writes:

ms>>> "Although that is correct, Mossbauer was NOT cited as 
ms>>>  an explanation for c.f. (vide supra).   
ms>>> We are talking about the Existence theorem here."

rs>>   "I will admit to a bit of confusion about the use of the 
rs>>  Swartzian Existence Theorem here.  So let me put it another way: 
rs>>  there are some species of hummingbirds that have purple throat 
rs>>  feathers (at least the adult males do)."

ms>   ...  demonstrating the existence of purple throat feathers in at
ms> least some specie of hummingbird (at least in the adult male).

Although I have seen advertisements for hummingbird-shaped jewelry made of
precious metals, I was talking about real hummingbrids.

rs>> "Can I thus use the Existence Theorem to start looking  for purple cows?"

ms>  An illogical extrapolation, but probably
ms>indicative of the "logic" used by Mr. Richard P.E. Schultz and some
ms>of the other TB-skeptics.
ms>
ms>  However, Mr. Schultz is always welcome to seek "purple cows".
ms>            with or without moonbeams   ;-)
ms>
ms>                             -   Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com)

So if I can't extrapolate from purple hummingbirds to purple cows, how come
you can extrapolate from keV Moessbauer effects to MeV nuclear effects?

					Richard Schultz
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.16 / Marshall Dudley /  Re: Blue-sky engineering
     
Originally-From: mdudley@dwbbs.nlbbs.com (Marshall Dudley)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Blue-sky engineering
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 94 19:33:36 GMT
Organization: Data World BBS - Knoxville, TN - (615)966-3574, 675-4753

Steven Jones writes:

>Great idea, Matt Kennel!--Increase the initial density of the bubble, so
>as to increase the fusion yield per bubble collapse.  I think this may
>be possible, perhaps by pressurizing the liquid metal medium in which
>bubble cavitation occurs.
>
>As regards reflecting neutrons, the liquid metal medium may do some of this. 
>Don't think this trick is used or needed in ion- or laser-induced ICF, is it?
>
>And let's keep in mind Mike Jamison's idea of inserting a trapped photon beam
>in the bubble prior to collapse, to provide additional heating during
>collapse. However, this requires a medium transparent at the wavelength
>chosen.
>
>Note that if lithium is used as the liquid metal medium, then the liquid
>Li blanket can also serve to capture neutrons with very little damage to a
>solid first wall -- and 3H breeds in this blanket, too.  Pretty nice.  
>[If SL-fusion works.]
>Hats off to Chuck Harrison for noting that the SL operates at about 20 kHz,
>so that 6 kW comes from each bubble.  Almost put that in my post, but there is
>a major caveat:    Unfortunately, it's not quite so simple:
>to get that 0.3J/bubble collapse (right, Chuck, I meant J not W originally),
>we must burn all the d-t fuel in the bubble.  So the next collapse gives
>nothing.  The only way around this that I can see is to replenish the bubble
>fuel at 20 kHz -- not so easy.  But maybe a fast, pulsed gas injector could
>do the trick if the liquid metal medium were flowing fast enough to sweep away
>the helium (etc.) ash from the previous pop.  My, we are blue-skying here,
>aren't we?       But I think this is a healthy use of the net.
>
>Thanks for the comments.>--Steven Jones

I cannot visualize maintaining a stable bubble in a liquid metal medium, unless
it is done in 0 gravity.  The force trying to move the bubble up would be
the [density of the metal] times stronger than it is in water.  But as you
point out, if the fuel in the bubble is being used, it must be replaced.  Thus
maybe what is needed is to inject 20,000 bubbles per second into the bottom
of the container, and focus the ultrasonic wave to a node at the proper point
above the bottom, so the collapse occurs when the bubble is in that position.
Each cycle would be acting on another bubble, and the problem of keeping
the bubble stationary is no longer a concern.  Fuel injector technology may
work for this, but I am not sure you could get it up to 20 khz.  A shutter
type of injector may work (like sirens use), and they can get to 20khz without
any problem.

Do you have any idea on how scaling would effect the frequency?  If we are
talking about a resonance, I would expect the frequency to half each time
you double the size of the container.  Or would you keep approximately the
same frequency and simply work at higher harmonics of the resonance?

One last idea.  If you could get a bubble to ignite, then it should produce
one heck of a shock wave.  If the liquid is in a spherical container, then
the shock wave would be reflected back, and if it were timed so that a new
bubble was at the center of the sphere when the reflected shock wave reached
the center, we would have a self sustaining inertial confinement shock wave
fusion reactor.  Don't even need a ultrasonic generator, Simply start it with
something simple, like a stick of dynamite. :-)

One other thought.  If we can count on shock waves being focused at the center,
forget increasing the compression on the gasous bubble by increasing the
pressure in the container.  Instead inject solid deuterium balls, like they
use in laser fusion experiments.  In a liquid metal medium they should float
up at a pretty good rate from the point of injection.

								Marshall

cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenmdudley cudfnMarshall cudlnDudley cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.17 / Andrew Macrae /  Re: Qualifications for posting?
     
Originally-From: acm@grendal.Corp.Sun.COM (Andrew Macrae)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Qualifications for posting?
Date: 17 Mar 1994 00:08:19 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.

In article 763846123@watop, north@watop.nosc.mil (Mark North) writes:
 >I think you should answer the question, Swartz. Quit dodging. If you
 >don't answer or if you do and your qualifications are woefully
 >inadequate (which I'm sure they are judging by the ignorance you
 >have displayed here many, many times) then I think it's time you
 >stopped posting here about scientific matters. 

I wasn't aware of any restrictions on who may post.  Perhaps I am in
violation of such a rule right now?  If there are such rules would
the person in charge of them please post them.  On the other hand,
if there are no such restrictions, I would suggest that the above
comment is lacking in judgement.

							Andrew MacRae
							



cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenacm cudfnAndrew cudlnMacrae cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Thu Mar 17 04:37:04 EST 1994
------------------------------
1994.03.16 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Re: On "More on Will" /Not a mistake
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: On "More on Will" /Not a mistake
Date: 16 Mar 94 17:32:14 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University



Sorry, Mitch, you'll have to find a *real* mistake that I made, as you have
alleged.  And try to find something substantive this time.

In article <CMrqMo.DKx@world.std.com>, 
mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
>   In Message-ID: <2m5krk$l77@fever.veritas.com>
> Subject: Re: On "More on Will"
> Joshua Levy <joshua@veritas.com> writes:
> 
>             >="veritas"  "What was Jones's mistake in his description
>             >="veritas"  or analysis of Will's paper?
>             >="veritas"  Or are you going to claim it exists, but
>             >="veritas"  refuse to identify it."
>         > (It was) "Covered previously.   Tom Droege also made a few
>         >  corrections."
> ="veritas"    "Good dodge!  Or was that a parry?
> ="veritas"    Come on Mitchell, surely you can list one mistake? 
> ="veritas"     You said there were
> ="veritas"    many, and now when it comes to specifics, 
> ="veritas"    you seem to fade away.
> 
>    OK,  Joshua, can I list ONE MISTAKE?
>       Here is Tom Droege's correction to one of Mr. Jones's 
> misclaim regarding the number of controls:
> 
> =td "To settle the question of the number of controls, I quote from the abstract:"
>     =will  "Thirteen control pieces were cut from the same spool of 2 mm 
>     =will      Hoover & Strong Pd wire from which the four Pd cathodes 
>     =will  were cut that had shown significant tritium after high D 
>     =will  loading in D2SO4.  None of the thirteen controls showed 
>     =will  any tritium".
> =td "So Steve, it was more than four."
>             Message-ID: <940104135623.23c01e46@FNALD.FNAL.GOV>
>             Subject: Re: Steve Jones on Fritz Will
>             Tom Droege    [DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov[
> 

I was referring to the number of *control cells*, run with light water, not
to the thirteen (still a small number) pieces of wire tested without
electrolysis.  I did *not* make a mistake here, for the Will et al. report
states clearly:

"none of the four H2 control cells  showed any detectable tritium in the
             ^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
electrolyte, or the palladium cathodes after the experiment."
[F. Will, K. Cedzynska and D. Linton, report on this experiment, p. 1-139
of "Investigation of cold fusion phenomena in deuterated metals," Final
Report of the NCFI, June 1991.]

>    Hope that helps (but I doubt it).   Best wishes.
> 
>                                   Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com)  
> 
>     "The safest place for a "skeptic" at an archery competition is directly
>  in front of the target.  No danger in a "skeptic" so placed being hit.
>                All the points will naturally elude them"
> 

Try again, Mitch.

cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenjonesse cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.17 / Matt Kennel /  Re: SL:  Blue-sky engineering
     
Originally-From: mbk%anl433.uucp@Germany.EU.net (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: SL:  Blue-sky engineering
Date: 17 Mar 1994 04:09:24 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

jonesse@physc1.byu.edu wrote:
: > How the H*LL do we get a decent x-ray source we can work with (without
: > blowing up H-bombs to excite x-ray lasers...)

Funny you should mention H-bombs. ICF fusioneers use either really big
optical lasers or heavy ion beams to ionize a hollow piece of metal foil,
which then re-emits lots of x-rays that compresses the fuel.

: Mercury is opaque until hard x-rays are reached -- no good for this
: application, IMHO.  So let's consider lithium (liquid):

: >> 
: >>Note that if lithium is used as the liquid metal medium, then the liquid
: >>Li blanket can also serve to capture neutrons with very little damage to a solid
: >>first wall -- and 3H breeds in this blanket, too.  Pretty nice.  
: >>[If SL-fusion works.]
: > 
: > Sounds interesting...

: Yes.  To carry this a bit further:  Li will pass high UV I understand, need
: to get data on this...  In that case, a UV laser could serve the role of
: heating the bubble as Mike Jamison proposes.

Do you really want to pre-heat the bubble?  I thought a big problem in
ICF fusion was making sure it didn't get too hot too soon, as this
would tend to blow apart things before you really got down to ignition
conditions.

:  In addition, UV could be used to
: illuminate the bubble, so that one could monitor its behavior in the resonant
: sound field.

: Important:  missing information right now in the SL field is the 
: short-wavelength cut-off of the black-body spectrum, 
: due to opacity of water to these
: wavelengths.  With Li, we might be able to get around this, and observe
: whether the spectrum really corresponds to black-body in the UV.
: This would be a significant contribution to current understanding of SL.
: Let's pursue this one.  (Tom Matula if you're listening, please take note.)

Definitely a good idea.  But how do you measure UV spectra?  I thought this
was tough.

: It's easy to get bubbles and cavitation when the water is loaded with air, 
: --> leads to *transient* SL --
: but then getting *stable* SL (same bubble repeatedly growing and collapsing)
: is difficult.  So in order to achieve stable, single-bubble SL (SB-SL) as
: we are seeking, one must first remove the dissolved air from the sound-field
: medium.

Do you know why?  

Q: Do injected bubbles always move towards the 'antinodes'?
(Is that the place of zero net fluid motion?)  What happens if you
put in lots of bubbles at once?

: Best Regards,
: Steven Jones

cheers
Matt

--
-Matt Kennel  		mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu
-Institute for Nonlinear Science, University of California, San Diego
-*** AD: Archive for nonlinear dynamics papers & programs: FTP to
-***     lyapunov.ucsd.edu, username "anonymous".
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenuucp cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.16 / Bruce Liebert /  Re: Deuterons, deuterium, or D- ?
     
Originally-From: liebert@wiliki.eng.hawaii.edu (Bruce E. Liebert)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Deuterons, deuterium, or D- ?
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 1994 20:00:18 GMT
Organization: University of Hawaii

In article <01HA1LHI65HE8WXX6P@vms2.uni-c.dk>, BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter
Britz) wrote:

> 
> I don't mind breaking my vow of silence, by providing a bit of
> (presumably) neutral info out of the bibliography. The question has
> been raised (again) of the nature of deuterium in the PdDx matrix;
> is it deuterons, or what? How do we know? Good question, and not
> settled yet to everyone's satisfaction. I browsed a bit in the
> biblio and "proof" for the existence of D+ or deuterons goes back
> (as someone has already written) to Moore, and even earlier to
> Coehn et al. These last were apparently mentioned by Fleischmann at
> Hawaii. If you look at any modern book with a title like "Hydrogen
> in Metals", you'll find a pretty clean concensus on deuterons. Moore
> makes a good case for protons (he and Coehn were of course working 
> with hydrogen, not deuterium), as well as perhaps molecular (neutral)
> hydrogen in crystal voids. It could be that it is here that one can
> cram in that deuterium that exceeds the magic 0.72 loading. Maybe.
> But there is one dissenting voice in the bibliography, of Jorne, who
> reckons that most deuterium is in the form of negative D-. Me, I
> don't know, I only collect the papers. Here are the references... 

Like Dieter, I also don't know, and I think it is safe to say that no one
knows.    There is a tremendous range as to the reported values for the
charge.  My favorite source for this information, albeit a bit dated now,
is Topics in Applied Physics, Hydrogen in Metals II (Application-Oriented
Properties) Eds. G. Alefeld and J. Volkl, Vol 29, Springer-Verlag (1978). 
One paper in this book is by H. Wipf, Ch. 7, "Electro- and Thermotransport
of Hydrogen in Metals".

Table 7.1 lists the effective charge number for H, D, and T in various
hosts.
Believe it or not, the values range from -18 to +5!  In the case of Pd, the
values are all reported to be positive, from 0.3 to 0.7. In the case of Ni,
there is one "Negative" report, but the rest positive from 0.57 to 0.84.

So, when you read this newsgroup and someone builds a case for the
existence or nonexistence of CF on that fact that deuterium exists as D+
(or D or D-) in Pd, you should be aware that no one knows if there is a
single value or what conditions may affect its charge.  Perhaps the
effective charge changes with the degree of loading.  I am not aware of a
definite experiment that has been done to sort all this out.

This book, and the one that preceeds it: Hydrogen in Metals I (Basic
Properties), are recommended reading for those interested in this field. 
My favorite statement is:

"Palladium hydride represents one of the most transparent and instructive
models for a metal-hydrogen system from structural, thermodynamic, and
kinetic points of view.  Much fundamental knowledge and experimental
technique have been developed in investigations on this system, and applied
later to more complicated cases.  Nevertheless, there are quite a number of
details in the mechanism of hydrogen diffusion as well as in the behavior
of electronic states in this system not yet fully understood.  SURPRISES,
THEREFORE, ARE STILL POSSIBLE, like the discovery of superconductivity in
hydrogen-rich beta phase Pd(H) by Skoskiewicz in 1972."

--(E. Wicke and H. Brodowsky, with cooperation by H. Zuchner, Ch. 3. 
"Hydrogen in Palladium and Palladium Alloys," in Part II)

-- 
***************************************************************
*        Bruce E. Liebert  liebert@wiliki.eng.hawaii.edu      *
*    Materials Research Laboratory    University of Hawaii    *
*  2540 Dole St., Holmes Hall, Rm. 302, Honolulu, HI  96822   *
*       Tel:  (808) 956-6332         Fax:  (808) 956-2373     *
***************************************************************
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenliebert cudfnBruce cudlnLiebert cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.17 / Dieter Britz /  Biblioshemozzle III
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Biblioshemozzle III
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 1994 08:18:08 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway


Sorry folks, I just saw that my third attempt at sending that Update in one 
piece was no good either. For some of you, it again got lopped just after
the top of the Lihn item. I give up, and I will not post this one again; I
reckon you've seen it often enough, lopped and chopped though it has been.
Let us hope that by the time the next lot is ready, this problem has been 
sorted out. "They" are said to be working on it.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.16 / Bruce Liebert /  Re: Full power at boiloff
     
Originally-From: liebert@wiliki.eng.hawaii.edu (Bruce E. Liebert)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Full power at boiloff
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 1994 20:51:47 GMT
Organization: University of Hawaii

In article <2m5n3m$l85@fever.veritas.com>, joshua@veritas.com (Joshua Levy)
wrote:

> 
> Let me give you three counter examples, where skeptics have done
> exactly what you suggest, and yet have failed to close off the
> controversy.
> 
> 1. Nate Lewis, a Chemist from CalTech, has quantitatively trashed
>    the excess heat part of the P&F 1989 experiment.  This was peer-reviewed, 
>    and published stuff.  (Result: pro-CF people refer to Lewis as
>    an "arch-skeptic", and try to ignore his work.  If pushed, they
>    refer to a negative review of his work.  This review has never
>    been formally published anywhere, and has never been peer reviewed,
>    to my knowledge.  Sort of the ultimate star-proceedings "We have
>    this report that shows your work is crap, but it has never been
>    peer-reviewed or published, so few people have seen it, but it proves
>    that your work is crap.")

Your posting is about a month too late.  See this "peer-reviewed and
published stuff":  Melvin H. Miles, Benjamin F. Bush, and David E.
Stilwell, "Calorimetric Principles and Problems in Measurements of Excess
Power during Pd-D2O Electrolysis," J. Phys. Chem. (Feb. 17, 1994
issue--taken from a preprint).  This paper discusses the issue you raised.

-- 
***************************************************************
*        Bruce E. Liebert  liebert@wiliki.eng.hawaii.edu      *
*    Materials Research Laboratory    University of Hawaii    *
*  2540 Dole St., Holmes Hall, Rm. 302, Honolulu, HI  96822   *
*       Tel:  (808) 956-6332         Fax:  (808) 956-2373     *
***************************************************************
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenliebert cudfnBruce cudlnLiebert cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.18 / R Schroeppel /  SL: more BS
     
Originally-From: rcs@cs.arizona.edu (Richard Schroeppel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: SL: more BS
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 1994 01:10:32 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Some more ideas for SL experiments:

Two immiscible fluids, perhaps with equal densities.
Make A the major component, with a little bit of B.
Stir-or-blend to make some small bubbles of B.
Arrange for B to dissolve as much D2 as possible, or perhaps
 to have D as a chemical constituent.
Hope (or arrange) that sound energy will collect at bubbles of B.

Variations:  If A and B have different compressibilities,
then pressurizing the mixture could change which is denser,
allowing control of whether bubbles of B drift up or down.
Heating could also achieve this, more slowly.

Assuming A and B have different sonic index-of-refraction,
then there should be a focussing effect at the boundary between
A and B.  This might be useful, although the focal length
will depend on the curvature of the boundary.

If A is a tad denser than B, then we can release a stream of
bubbles of B through a hose at the bottom of the container.
When a bubble is at the right position, zap it with ultrasound.
Or release a thin stream of B, and try to zap it continuously.

Rich Schroeppel   rcs@cs.arizona.edu

cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenrcs cudfnRichard cudlnSchroeppel cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.17 / mitchell swartz /  On "More on Will" /Was a misstatement
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: On "More on Will" /Was a misstatement
Subject: Re: On "More on Will" /Not a mistake
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 1994 15:01:20 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <1994Mar16.173214.1493@physc1.byu.edu>
Subject: Re: On "More on Will" /Not a mistake
Steve Jones (jonesse@physc1.byu.edu) writes:

=sj  "Sorry, Mitch, you'll have to find a *real* mistake that I made, 
=sj   as you have alleged.  And try to find something substantive this time."

  **  ON WILL:
   Sorry, Steve, but despite your flailing and "backpedaling",
that was an error because you were again mis-"characterizing"
his recent work; attempting to "knock" it by misrepresentation.

   This rather futile, quasi-"heroic", attempt on Steve's part
stands corroborated both by the misinformation he has routinely
"fed" a reporter and by 9 scorillion readers here to whom
he has posted misinformation repeatedly.

   I am almost tempted to use some terms offered previously by Jed,
or Gene Mallove, but will cease and desist here because
there are enough people here correcting Steve, and enough posting
in the records already demonstrating his misstatements.


  **  ON STEVE's POSSIBLE AGENDA

   Steve, I posted 8 missives in response to your 6 which you apparently
really had no interest in following up on. 

   Despite the considerable effort responding to Steve's near-endless
questions, he has answered only 1 of 8.
And that 1 (of 8 missives) was about the patent
issues where Jones did apparently claim that platinum and palladium BOTH
load with large amounts of hydrogen and, according to Taubes,
wanted to patent Steve's "discovery". 

  =taubes "What is indisputable is that he scribbled a list of elements:
  =taubes   "Al, Cu, Ni, Pt, Pd,  Li ..."  And next to Pd, palladium, 
  =taubes      and Pt, platinum, were the
  =taubes   portentous words "dissolves much hydrogen."  And Jones did, 
  =taubes at Rafelski's
  =taubes   suggestion, take the lab book to the BYU patent attorney, 
  =taubes   Lee Phillips, and ask that the page be notarized."(P. 27)

   The only possible conclusion is that Steve Jones does
continue to dodge the questions because:
    
  Steve is able to lead people on with a pseudointerest for discussion,
followed by an ability to then disappear behind what was only a series
of vaporlogic and vaporreferences.

   Hope that helps (but I doubt it).   Best wishes.

                                  Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com)  

    "The safest place for a "skeptic" at an archery competition is directly
 in front of the target.  No danger in a "skeptic" so placed being hit.
               All the points will naturally elude them"

cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.17 / Richard Schultz /  Re: Purple Cows
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Purple Cows
Date: 17 Mar 1994 15:57:29 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley

In article <940316105122.20213f43@fnald.fnal.gov>,
 <DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov> wrote:

>From the restaurant, author unknown:
>
>I never saw a purple cow.
>I never hope to see one.
>I'll tell you all right here and now,
>I'd rather see than be one!

The author is Gellett Burgess, I believe.  I think the third line should be
something like "But I can tell you anyhow."

					Richard Schultz
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.17 / mitchell swartz /  On "Full power at boiloff"
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: On "Full power at boiloff"
Subject: Re: Full power at boiloff
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 1994 16:24:06 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

   In  Message-ID: <2m5n3m$l85@fever.veritas.com>
Subject: Re: Full power at boiloff
Joshua Levy (joshua@veritas.com) writes:

=jlevy  "Let me give you three counter examples, where skeptics have done
=jlevy  exactly what you suggest, and yet have failed to close off the
=jlevy  controversy."
=jlevy  
=jlevy  "1. Nate Lewis, a Chemist from CalTech,  ...."
=jlevy  
=jlevy  [ed.thoroughly decimated by Miles, Noninski, see also Liebert earlier
=jlevy          this week]   ....
=jlevy  
=jlevy  "3. Harnwell(sic):The same story has NCFI,but with less assistence from
=jlevy     P|F, and "only" half a million spent. (Result: the same as Lewis,
=jlevy     with the negative review written by the same guy, no less.)"


   For the record, Joshua, both Melich and Hansen have reported, 
of Harwell, that:
           
        "In Harwell's D2O Cell 3 there are more than ten time 
       intervals where an unexplained power source or energy storage 
       mechanism may be operating.
                                    ***
       Harwell Cells 1,2,3 and 4 were wired in series to a constant 
       current source.
                                     ***
        Throughout these anomalous increases 
       in temperature in Cell 3, Cell 4 behaves "normally", i.e., it 
       suffers no unexplained pulses of energy.   Our initial estimate 
       of the power associated with these anomalous temperature 
       increases is 100-200 mW."
         {after Melich, M.E., Hansen, W.N., "Some Lessons from 3 Years of 
           Electrochemical Calorimetry", in ICCF-3 Frontiers of Cold 
              Fusion", Universal Academy Press, Inc. (1993))
    
         This was discussed here, at ICCF-4, in the COLD FUSION TIMES, 
and elsewhere.   I even posted some of the curves in GIF format here
last year.     Best wishes.

                                  Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com)  

    "The safest place for a "skeptic" at an archery competition is directly
 in front of the target.  No danger in a "skeptic" so placed being hit.
               All the points will naturally elude them"


cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.17 / A Christiansen /  Re: More on Attempts at censorship in sci.physics.fusion
     
Originally-From: alan@saturn.cs.swin.oz.au (Alan Christiansen)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: More on Attempts at censorship in sci.physics.fusion
Date: 17 Mar 94 16:42:24 GMT
Organization: Swinburne University of Technology

mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:

>   In Message-ID: <bpcCMp3Dn.CFC@netcom.com>
>Subject: Re: Attempts at censorship in sci.physics.fusion
>Benjamin P. Carter (bpc@netcom.com) writes:

>=bc  "Steve Jones did not write that Scott Chubb should not be allowed to post
>=bc  his messages.

>    Excuse me, Ben, but Steve wrote: 
>>=sj  I am greatly surprised that Scott Chubb can post,without the slightest
>>=sj  effort  to address the substantial objections here argued, ......" 

>    Of couse Dr. Scott can, should, and hopefully will, post.

>   can   [after Webster, ibid.]
>  \/\/        to know how to
>                be physically or metnally able to
>                be permitted
>                be logically able to
>                be enabled by law, agreement, or custom to
>                 have permission to

>                              QED

Hmmm. Where to begin.

>>=sj  I am greatly surprised that Scott Chubb can post,without the slightest
>>=sj  effort  to address the substantial objections here argued, ......" 

OK. So which sense of can was meant. Note first that there is NOT a full
stop after 'can post'. The thought represented by this sentence is
not yet complete. My interpretation of this is that
sj is suprised that Scott C is able to make the post without feeling
morally obliged to adress the substantial objections.
I also note that sj said he was suprised.
sj did not say.  It is wrong that SC can ....
                 I think something should be done so that SC no longer can ...
these would be inciting censorship.

It was not very polite. It seemed to imply things about SC that are
not complimentary. It claimed the objections were substantial.
AT worst it can be claimed that sj believed that the group was moderated.

Not having read the rest of the thread I am no position to comment
on the appropriateness of the comments warmth (flame strength)
but I also do not have an axe to grind, or preconceived notions
about what the author might have meant.

I am not actually sure which ones are for and against CF.

ALan


-- 
                           |  This space was intentionally left blank,
                           |  until some silly included a self descriptive
                           |  self referential self referential self ...
                           | ... Stack overflow. Executing cleanup rm *.*
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenalan cudfnAlan cudlnChristiansen cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.17 / Matt Kennel /  Re: Chubb theory
     
Originally-From: mbk%anl433.uucp@Germany.EU.net (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Chubb theory
Date: 17 Mar 1994 19:39:18 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

blue@nscl00.nscl.msu.edu wrote:
: I am beginning to get a sense of what is at the heart of the Chubb
: theory.  I think I now see through the flim-flam.  It is a kind of
: fantastic shell game with every lattice site serving as a shell.  If
: you ask, "Where's the deuteron?" the answer is nowhere and everywhere.
: That is a valid sort of picture in the solid state until you ask the
: question, "When are two deuterons arbitrarily near each other?"  If
: you write down the kind of wavefunction I think Scott Chubb is using
: I don't believe you can answer that question.  Am I wrong on this
: point?  

If you have a an expression for the multi-particle wave function, then
sure, why not?  

Apply the "step(distance - |r_i-r_j|)" operator to the wave function.

Multi-body solid state QM is way beyond my expertise but it sounds like Dr.
Chubb has attempted to fulfill the requirements of coming up with a
reasonable potential, an unusual wave function, and showing that this wave
function is a minimum energy state and potentially experimentally accessible.

Another question to the expert:  is this wave function also a minimum in
*free energy*?  (Is it really hard to calculate?)

: One question that certainly needs to be ask is how does it happen
: that Scott Chubb using accepting theoretical methods can come up
: with a reaction rate that is big enough whil
: e others doing what
: look to me to be equally valid calculations don't get the required
: result.

Obviously different hypotheses. The wavefunction for these different
calculations must be different.

: I am equally troubled as to where the fusion reaction occurs and
: what happens afterward.  Dr. Chubb makes lots of reference to
: ion band wave functions that distribute the deuterons throughout
: the lattice, but does not the fusion actually have to occur at
: a point in space and time within the limits set by the range of
: the strong interaction and causality?  

I think the relative coordinates of the nucleons must obviously be
close.  But it doesn't have to be localized in the lab frame until
there's an interaction with the "lab frame", right?

: If the deuterons can
: interact via the strong interaction without ever meeting, what
: keeps them from merging with the Pd nuclei in a equally mysterious
: manner?

I believe Dr Chubb would say that the repulsion with Pd is *not* overcome.

: After having overcome this little problem of what nucleons are
: where just before fusion, we have an equivalent problem right
: after fusion.  Scott Chubb says the 4He is spread everywhere
: too, but how did it get that way?  If on the time scale of
: 10^-23 seconds I have a single 4He nucleus at a specific point
: in the lattice, how do we move from there to a band state before
: there single 4He nucleus unloads a 23 MeV gamma ray.

I too have problems imagining a "delocalized" 23MeV gamma that remains
unobservable.  Or high-kinetic energy tritium staying delocalized after
it rams through the lattice willy nilly.

Unless, by some really unusual twist, you can show new decay pathways
that are strongly preferred in this configuration.

Considering the ratio of strong to electromagnetic forces I imagine this
very very unlikely.

: Dick Blue

--
-Matt Kennel  		mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu
-Institute for Nonlinear Science, University of California, San Diego
-*** AD: Archive for nonlinear dynamics papers & programs: FTP to
-***     lyapunov.ucsd.edu, username "anonymous".
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenuucp cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.17 / Larry Wall /  Re: Qualifications for posting?
     
Originally-From: lwall@netlabs.com (Larry Wall)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Qualifications for posting?
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 1994 19:42:18 GMT
Organization: NetLabs, Inc.

In article <2m871j$8b5@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM> acm@grendal.Corp.Sun.COM writes:
: In article 763846123@watop, north@watop.nosc.mil (Mark North) writes:
:  >I think you should answer the question, Swartz. Quit dodging. If you
:  >don't answer or if you do and your qualifications are woefully
:  >inadequate (which I'm sure they are judging by the ignorance you
:  >have displayed here many, many times) then I think it's time you
:  >stopped posting here about scientific matters. 
: 
: I wasn't aware of any restrictions on who may post.  Perhaps I am in
: violation of such a rule right now?  If there are such rules would
: the person in charge of them please post them.  On the other hand,
: if there are no such restrictions, I would suggest that the above
: comment is lacking in judgement.

I wasn't aware of any restrictions on who may lack judgement.  Perhaps
I am in violation of such a rule right now?  If there are such rules
would the person in charge of them please post them.  On the other
hand, if there are no such restrictions, I would suggest that the above
comment is lacking in judgement.

Is asking someone to moderate their own behavior equivalent to restricting
them with a rule?  I suspect you could argue both sides of this.  In fact,
you really ought to.  It would be entertaining.

The real problem is that Mitch is an absurdist, and he's been absurd
for so long that we've come to expect it.  Therefore Mitch has become
boring, which is an absurd thing for an absurdist to become.  I don't
think there's much of anything you can say to such a person that
demonstrates either judgement or lack of judgement, since the absurdity
that the absurdist induces in others will almost inevitably be more
interesting than the absurdity that the absurdist himself produces.
Go figure...

My own judgement is that Mitch is fonder of argument than he is of
agreement.  You are, of course, entitled to make your own judgements,
and even to post them.  But there's no rule that says you have to.  :-)

Larry Wall
lwall@netlabs.com
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenlwall cudfnLarry cudlnWall cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.18 /  blue@nscl00.ns /  Time to Bury Chubb Theory
     
Originally-From: blue@nscl00.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Time to Bury Chubb Theory
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 1994 01:10:30 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Comments on the CF theory of S. R. Chubb and T. A. Chubb as
presented in the proceedings of the Provo Conference, 1990.
AIP Conference Proceedings 228, edited by S.E. Jones, Franco
Scaramuzzi and David Worledge.  pp 691-710

I want to thank Steve Jones for providing a complementary 
copy of these proceedings.

In a recent exchange of a few messages between Dr. Scott R. Chubb
and me I had indicated my doubt that the theory put forth by the
brothers Chubb was strictly on the up and up.  I have sense taken
time to carefully read the Chubb exposition so that I am now
prepared to make a very specific suggestion as to how the approach
taken is completely and totally incorrect.  

Let me set the scene with a very simple example of an incorrect
manipulation that can obviously turn a valid theory into utter
nonsense.  Suppose I set out to describe a system in which there
is an interaction potential V(r), where r stands for all the
relevant coordinates.  I next split this potential into two
terms such that V(r) = V1(r) - V2(r).  At this point I have done
nothing as long as I preserve this equality for all values of r.
I can, however, change the attractive and repulsive terms all
over the place.  Now suppose I make one further change and rewrite
this so that it becomes a function of two different sets of
coordinates:  V(r1,r2) = V1(r1) - V2(r2).  Is this not now a
very different situation from the initial starting point?  Of
course when we are dealing with a multibody problem with a
large number of coordinates assigned to a large number of
particles it can be rather difficult to recognize when this
change occurs.  In the case of the Chubb formulation I think
it is easy to spot, as I hope to demonstrate.

Without duplicating the entire paper, I will proceed by quoting
a passage from the Chubb paper and then commenting on that
passage.  I hope I can make the equations somewhat readable.
The paper starts with 5 pages of verbiage followed by an exposition
of basic textbook solid state physics which describe two limits:
(1) the Bloch or BBC type band state wavefunctions in which there
is no localization of a particle in the periodic lattice, and (2)
the Wannier representation in which particles are confined to
specific lattice sites.  The basic picture presented is that
in the PdD case the vast majority of the deuterons are to be
described by the latter, but that once the lattice sites are
filled some extra deuterons occupy band states at the level of
10^-7 or so.

Chubb page 697
"Because the product of hbar (Planck's constant divided by 2 pi)
with a reciprocal lattice vector Gi defines an arbitrary amount of
momentum that can be given to an individual particle  an immediate
consequence of Eqs. 1 and 2 is that momentum of a specific particle
within a solid is not conserved over ANY time scale.  This is
because the momentum of the particle may be shifted (reflecting the
ability of the solid as a whole to coherently absorb momentum) by
the ARBITRARY amount, hbar * Gi, without altering the Fourier
transform of Velec."

Blue comment
The capitalization of ANY and ARBITRARY are mine for emphasis. 
Here is early indication that the Chubbs are overrunning the
domain of applicability of their formalism.  There are limits
on both the time scale and momentum scale that they should
recognize.  Their assertions apply only to the situations in
which the BBC wave function is appropriate.  These are not
universal truths so the words ANY and ARBITRARY have to be taken
with large grains of salt.  Note that the vast majority of
the deuterons are not in the domain where those words apply.
Note also that the business about the Fourier transform of
a potential Velec makes it clear that the periodic potential
in the Chubb formulation is just the plain old Coulomb interaction.

Chubb page 699
"As a consequence of this orthogonality, a particular Wannier
state may be associated with a specific site.  In the case
involving deuterons injected into a fully-loaded PdD lattice,
because the measured zero-point motion of the D is a small fraction
of the lattice spacing, overlap between Wannier states on different
sites at a specific point is negligible.  The, phi/n may be
approximated using the ground state of a suitable 3-dimensional
harmonic well defined by the well parameter a derived from the
zero-point energy of the ground state.

  phi/s(r) = (2/pi a^2) 3/4 exp( -r/s^2 / a^2)       (8)

Here a = [ 3 hbar^2 / (M/D Ezp)]^1/2 - .2 angstroms, where
Ezp is the zero-point energy of the deuteron in PdD ( 10's of
meV), M/D is the deuteron mass.

The particle nature of the Wannier representation is implicit
in the definitions provided by Eqs. 7,8.  These equations imply
that near T=0 when the average root mean square deviation of the
occupied energy band is e/rms for specific time-scales much less
than hbar / e/rms, the density in Eq.5 may be suitably approximated
by the sum of k-independent densities, each of which is localized
around a specific lattice site and has negligible overlap with
contributions from other lattice sites.  As a consequence, at an
individual site, for times much less than 10^-14 seconds, the
injected ions may look like individual particles, where for much
larger periods of time, they appear as small fractional quantities
of charge that are shared by all lattice sites at once. "

Blue comments
I include this to show that the Chubbs are aware of the importance
of keeping track of what domain is under consideration with respect
to time and position coordinates.  In this problem they are
offering two descriptions of the deuterons, and clearly state
that mostly the deuterons act as particles confined to specific
lattice sites.  The ion band states are just a little frosting on
the cake.  But remember you must keep track of which coordinates
are being used to describe what features of the deuteron wave
functions.

Chubb page 700
"The periodic PdD lattice induces formation of the BBC as a means
of eliminating localized lattice strain energy costs by allowing a
small (10^-7 D/Pd) concentration of injected deuterons to occupy
energy bands provided by the periodic potential of PdD.  Lattice
strain energy costs are further reduced when the Coulombic
repulsion between deuterons remains uncorrellated on the scale of
the electrostatic interaction for a sufficiently long time.  As a
result, it becomes possible for deuterons within the BBC to
interact collectively in a nuclear fashion with each other in a
manner consistent with the prerequisite conditions which lead to
the formation of the BBC.
.... As a consequence of this wave-particle duality, the picture of
the "traditional" free space fusion process (in which D-ions
interact strongly with each other through the Coulomb barrier) may
be replaced by a picture in which particle-like fusion behavior at
an individual lattice site becomes possible for a time-scale that
is short with respect to electrostatic processes (in which the
deuteron behaves in a wave-like fashion) but long with respect to
the times required for nuclear processes (in which the deuteron
appears to be particle-like).  This picture becomes possible as a
result of D-ions being constrained to interact with each other as
weakly as possible Coulombically through the D-occupation of
"wave-like" states, in which only infinitesimally small amounts of
potentially reactive D-charge are present on the average at an
individual site."

Blue comment
Now do you see the resemblance of the Chubb formulation to my
starting example in which a potential is split into two terms that
are allowed to go their separate ways?  The interaction between
deuterons has been artfully split into a part that goes with
the BBC form of wave function and a part that remains with
the Wannier form of wave function.  Do you suppose that this
introduces a few degrees of freedom that weren't in the problem
originally?  Wait, there is more!

Chubb page 704
"The BBC state forms when the binding of the center of mass of each
D+ ion to its average position is as much as a factor of 10^6 less
than the binding energy ( approx 2 MeV) between each proton and
neutron.  As a consequence, electrostatic interaction occurs
between the lattice and each deuteron over length and time scales
that are much greater (by factors of 10^5 and more) than the
comparable length and time scales of the nuclear forces which bind
together the proton and neutron in each deuteron.  This means that
when a D-ion is located near lattice site s, the wave function of
each nucleon (proton or neutron) phi/nucleon is well described by
a Born-Oppenheimer separable form
     phi/nucleon ( r, r/cm,s ) = psi/nucleon (r - r/cm,s) X
                                       psi/el(r/cm,s)      (12)
Here, r/cm,s = (r/n + r/p)/2 - Rs  (r/n and r/p ) are the
coordinates of the neutron and proton) is the center of mass of a
deuteron located within a zero-point-motion radius Rzp of the site
at Rs.  (The coordinate r is r/n when the nucleon is a neutron and
equals r/p otherwise.)  In Eq.12, the nuclear behavior and the
associated proton-neutron binding are governed by a highly
localized nuclear function psi/nucleon, which vanishes when r/cm,s
becomes greater than the effective nuclear radius ( approx 10^-13
cm) of a deuteron Rdeut, while psi/el is a slowly varying function
which varies (in the neighborhood of the lattice site) over the
known length scale Rzp associated with the electrostatic zero-
point-motion of the center of mass r/cm of each deuteron."

Blue comment
There is more of this, but I am getting tired of typing.  What
happens very explicitly here is that under the cover of making
the Born-Oppenheimer separation for the deuteron wave function
an extra set of coordinates gets introduced so there is a center-
of-mass coordinate with proton and neutron positions specified
by their respective r relative to the center of mass  AND a
coordinate for the position of the charge.  Once you succeed
in separating the nucleons from their charge getting some
form of fusion is well within your grasp.  Of course I don't
think a theory that introduces these extra coordinates is an
acceptable way to reach that goal.

Chubb page 705
"Because to an excellent approximation the self-induced nuclear
forces associated with this form of interaction are invariant with
respect to rigid translations of all of the BBC deuterons, in any
multiparticle occupation of a site, the nuclear forces are cyclic
with respect to the center of mass of all of the particles involved
in the occupation.  For this reason, in considering the possibility
for overlap between the initial state with an intermediate process
involving a particular fluctuation in the number of deuterons at a
site, it is natural to rewrite the total (many particle)
perturbation Uelec which depends on the center of mass coordinates
Rcm (of the particles involved in the fluctuation) and a second
contribution Unuc which is independent of Rcm.  Because of the
large zero-point-motion of each initial state BBC deuteron, both
the density from which Uelec is derived and the overlap between
Uelec with the initial state are distributed over a large zero-
point-motion volume, while Unuc and its overlap are distributed
over a volume of nuclear dimension."

Blue comment
Here is one more example in which it is explicitly stated that
the Coulomb interaction part of the potential is governed by
different coordinates than apply to the nuclear interaction.
If this is an acceptable way to do a theoretical calculation
it certainly is news to me.  I would like to hear from anyone
having an opinion as to whether the Brothers Chubb have made
a breakthrough and I have misjudged them, or as I believe,
they have made a crude and obvious mistake.

cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenblue cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.17 / mitchell swartz /  On ionic band states ("ioinization is nat an ionic band...and
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: On ionic band states ("ioinization is nat an ionic band...and
fractions of a deuteron"
Subject: Re: "ionization is not an ionic band...and fractions of a deuteron"
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 1994 14:53:57 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <16MAR199412361732@venus.lerc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: "ionization is not an ionic band...and fractions of a deuteron"
Mike Jamison  (edwlt12@venus.lerc.nasa.gov) writes...

   [first part of post deleted for brevity] ...In other words, the D and 4He
  >are very much more wave-like than they are in free space.)  The
  >nuclear degrees of freedom, of course, remain in very close proximity
  >to the center of mass position of the wave function;  but it
  >is important to recognize that on the average only a very small
  >fraction of each deuteron nucleus is located in each unit cell.
= "Dr. Chubb,
= From what I gather, your theory requires both D and 4He to be delocalized,
= or in a band state.  But, isn't 4He pretty much immobile in Pd, implying
= that it isn't really in a band state?  Whereas D, of course, is quite 
= mobile in Pd."

   Mike, IMHO the theory of band states may only require occupation of
periodic sites and a nontrivial overlap of wavefunctions.
  The band would result from the periodic distribution of identical
particles.

  Since the D's do - at high loading, the sine qua non of these reactions -
fill the interstitital low-molecular
weight lattice within the Group VIII metal (palladium), it may
be their location, rather than mobility per se, (including anharmonic
motions) that may create the bands.

    Location, location, location and high loading.

     Best wishes.

                                  Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com)  

    "The safest place for a "skeptic" at an archery competition is directly
 in front of the target.  No danger in a "skeptic" so placed being hit.
               All the points will naturally elude them"

cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.17 / Larry Wall /  Re: Virtual versus Real particles
     
Originally-From: lwall@netlabs.com (Larry Wall)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Virtual versus Real particles
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 1994 19:55:26 GMT
Organization: NetLabs, Inc.

In article <199403170133.AA22932@leibniz.cs.arizona.edu> rcs@cs.arizona.
du (Richard Schroeppel) writes:
:     |> Yes.  Until you understand that the only difference between a real
:     |> particle and a virtual particle is a persistent accounting error, you
:     |> do not understand QM as Feynman understood it.  As I understand it... :-)
:     |> 
: 
:     What's the accounting error? I always thought of real particles as just
:     virtual particles with a long time between emmision and absorption.
: 
: Virtual particles are borrowed; real particles are embezzled.

No, that's still a little bit wrong.

If you write me a check for a dollar today, and I write you a check
for a dollar tomorrow, is it the same dollar?

You have no idea how many transactions a given "real" particle has been
through between point A and point B.  How can you determine that it's
the same real particle unless you're an accountant?  Richard Feynman
was just a good accountant.  :-)

Larry Wall
lwall@netlabs.com
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenlwall cudfnLarry cudlnWall cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.17 /  DROEGE@FNALD.F /  This is a test
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@FNALD.FNAL.GOV
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: This is a test
Date: 17 Mar 1994 15:01:12 -0600
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway

This is a test.
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenDROEGE cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.17 / Robert Heeter /  Re: Italian "Heeter" effect
     
Originally-From: rfheeter@theory.pppl.gov (Robert F. Heeter)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Italian "Heeter" effect
Date: 17 Mar 1994 16:24:40 -0500
Organization: /etc/organization

In article <940313161426_74242.1554_BHR30-1@CompuServe.COM>,
John M. Logajan <74242.1554@compuserve.com> wrote:
>rfheeter@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Robert Franklin Heeter) writes:
>>But you're ignoring the additional heat transfer due to convection
>>of the gas, and the nature of the convection may change the picture.
>
>I'm not ignoring it.  I'm suggesting there is no evidence in the
>time versus temperature graph to suggest chaotic behavior (of significant
>magnitude.)  If there is chaos in the convection, it is clearly bimodal
>only -- at least in the cases contained in the Italian paper.

The latest version of my hypothesis doesn't require chaos or bimodal
patterns, just a deuterated sample conducting more poorly, and strengthening
the existing convective pattern.  Although a bimodal pattern with a
transition near 500C would be good too!
>
>>I'm still in the realm of plausible speculation...
>
>Certainly.  Everyone has their own philosophy in regards to scientific
>papers.  I can only attempt to explain my own.  I take such papers at
>face value -- I make a working assumption that the authors are telling
>the truth and that the observational data was transcribed as stated,
>without error.  I further assume that if the authors didn't mention
>some seemingly obvious factor, that they did so because there are
>limitless obvious factors and it would be impossible to list them all.

I tend to agree, at least with regards to the data.  But I'm always
going to question the *interpretation* of the data when only a single
hypothesis is presented.
>
>The next step is to look for internal consistency errors in the paper.
>Furthermore, though the "effect" might be outside the realm of current
>theory, the methods to detect it should be inside the realm of previous
>experience.  So consistency of the measurement techniques with existing
>knowledge can also be checked.
>
>At this point, if the paper has passed those tests, there is sufficient
>justification to attempt a *replication*.

As long as we've strayed off into the philosophy of science, I might
as well ask if you mean a replication of the basic experiment by
the original workers, to pin down their results, or a replication
by an outside group?  Here we're likely to differ; I think the original
group (in this case Piantelli) should do their best to try to eliminate
possible errors, before publishing a conclusive paper.  It seems they
have a longer article in the works, so they have probably done this;
I'm looking forward to seeing what else they tried.  The reason I'd
expect the original group to do the advanced research is because their
reputations are on the line, especially when they are making cold fusion
claims.  I'd hope they would try to prove themselves wrong so that if
they *are* wrong, they don't need to put up with someone else doing
the experiment and then essentially accusing them of fraud/incompetence
by disproving their results.

>This is the key point.  The replication is the attempt to screen out all
>the additional factors that could not be determined by studying the
>paper.  Were the authors lying?  Were they dyslexic?  Were they insane? 
>Did the computer have a parity error?  Did the measurement device have
>calibration problems?  Was it intermittently faulty?

I think that when the claim is as unusual as Piantelli's, and seems so 
likely to be a red herring, that they ought to publish a pretty detailed
paper *before* they expect anyone else to try to replicate.

>Here the replication can include additional controls to search for any
>identified points of ambiguity.
>
In this picture I think our role here is to identify the "points of 
ambiguity" to help the researchers develop the additional controls.

>In my mind, the Italian paper passes the tests.  It is internally self-
>consistent, and the measurement techniques seem be within the realm of
>current knowledge.  It seems to be sufficiently detailed for a
>replicator to determine operating points and conditions.
>
>The replicator also has areas of known ambiguity -- convection, reduntant
>thermometers, gas contamination, geometry, general calorimetry, etc.
>
>So I think the Italian paper is good enough to justify a replication
>attempt -- which to my mind, is the whole point of scientific papers.

Right - but at this point I'd like to see more of the ambiguities
addressed by Piantelli & Co; I wouldn't expect anyone else to try to
take time to replicate when there are so many reasons to suspect that 
Piantelli et al didn't correctly interpret their data.

I agree it justifies a replication attempt; but not by anyone else
at this point.

Again, I'm holding out for a more3 detailed publication by Piantelli & Co.


********************
Robert F. Heeter
rfheeter@tom.pppl.gov
disclaimers apply



cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.17 / Mark North /  Re: Qualifications for posting?
     
Originally-From: north@watop.nosc.mil (Mark North)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Qualifications for posting?
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 1994 19:06:31 GMT
Organization: NCCOSC RDT&E Division, San Diego, CA

acm@grendal.Corp.Sun.COM (Andrew Macrae) writes:

>In article 763846123@watop, north@watop.nosc.mil (Mark North) writes:
> >I think you should answer the question, Swartz. Quit dodging. If you
> >don't answer or if you do and your qualifications are woefully
> >inadequate (which I'm sure they are judging by the ignorance you
> >have displayed here many, many times) then I think it's time you
> >stopped posting here about scientific matters. 

>I wasn't aware of any restrictions on who may post.  Perhaps I am in
>violation of such a rule right now?  If there are such rules would
>the person in charge of them please post them.  On the other hand,
>if there are no such restrictions, I would suggest that the above
>comment is lacking in judgement.

Of course there are no restrictions. Any cretin with a keyboard may
post as you have amply demonstrated. Your pedantic suggestion is noted 
and rejected. Now, did you have something of substance to contribute?

Mark

cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudennorth cudfnMark cudlnNorth cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.18 / mitchell swartz /  On Larry Wall's "Qualifications for posting?"
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: On Larry Wall's "Qualifications for posting?"
Subject: Re: Qualifications for posting?
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 1994 01:09:47 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <1994Mar17.194218.12930@netlabs.com>
Subject: Re: Qualifications for posting?
Larry Wall (lwall@netlabs.com) posits:

=lw "I wasn't aware of any restrictions on who may lack judgement."

   True.

=lw   "Perhaps I am in violation of such a rule right now?  
=lw If there are such rules
=lw would the person in charge of them please post them."

   True


=lw "Is asking someone to moderate their own behavior equivalent to restricting
=lw them with a rule?  I suspect you could argue both sides of this." 

   True


=lw  "In fact,
=lw you really ought to.  It would be entertaining."
   
   True


=lw   "You are, of course, entitled to make your own judgements,
=lw and even to post them." 

   True


=lw  "But there's no rule that says you have to.  :-)    "
 

   True


=lw  "My own judgement is that Mitch is fonder of argument than he is of
=lw agreement. "

   Obvious depends.  The ratio here is >80% agreement.

    And BTW after Webster (ibid.)

   ****  absurd ***  from:  ab- from, away    + surdus-   deaf, stupid

     1 -   ridiculously unreasonable, unsound, or incongruous

  Therefore, the "absurd(ity)" in a disagreement may well, or necessarily,
depend upon the parallax point of view.  

  Larry Wall shows his point of view and takes the absurd view, like
so many of the TB-skeptics, rather than the path of good judgement.

     Best wishes.

                                  Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com)  

    "The safest place for a "skeptic" at an archery competition is directly
 in front of the target.  No danger in a "skeptic" so placed being hit.
               All the points will naturally elude them"

cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.17 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Re: Continuous Heat???
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Continuous Heat???
Date: 17 Mar 94 12:17:26 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

In article <940316112947.20213f43@FNALD.FNAL.GOV>, DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:
> Just had a visit from an old friend from KEK (the Japanese high energy
> physics laboratory.)  His rumor is that several Japanese firms are getting 
> continuous heat from their cold fusion experiments.  Tokio Ohska is 
> skeptical, but not your normal Japanese as he maintains Canadian 
> citizanship.  He also reports that the KEK cold fusion experiment is in
> trouble. (Isagawa, Kanda, and Suzuki - bet few have heard of this group!)
> The KEK environment is very skeptical and they are haveing a tough time
> justifying continued work.  
> 
> Tom Droege
> 

Doesn't make much sense IMHO:  if 'several Japanese firms are getting 
continuous heat from their CF expts' then why are the KEK boys 
'having a tough time justifying continued work'?

Had a phone call from a colleague a few days ago who had visited A. Takahashi
at his lab in Japan, reports *no* excess heat lately.  Quite a different
story.  So who is getting 'continuous heat', Tom?  Can we follow up at all?

--Steve

cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenjonesse cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Fri Mar 18 04:37:07 EST 1994
------------------------------
1994.03.17 /  jonesse@physc1 /  SL: Stable single-bubble SL vs garden-variety SL
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: SL: Stable single-bubble SL vs garden-variety SL
Date: 17 Mar 94 13:41:39 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

In order to re-emphasize the distinction between transient, multi-
bubble SL (garden-variety SL) and stable, single-bubble SL 
{SB-SL}, I repost the following with few changes.  (Recent
discussion suggests quite a bit of confusion still on the
differences; hope this helps.)

Prof. Lawrence Crum of the University of Washington provided a
colloquium on the subject of "Synchronous Picosecond
Sonoluminescence" (SP-SL) at BYU on January 21, 1994.  Here is his
abstract for his talk:

When an acoustic wave of moderate pressure amplitude is propagated
through an aqueous liquid, light emissions can be observed.  This
conversion of mechanical energy into electromagnetic energy
represents and energy amplification per molecule of over eleven
orders of magnitude!  Recently, we made the discovery that a
single, stable gas bubble, acoustically levitated in a liquid, can
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 emit optical emissions each cycle for an unlimited period of time. 
Presumably, the oscillations of the bubble cause the gas in the
interior to be heated to incandescent temperatures during the
compression portion of the cycle.  We have no current explanation
for how this mechanical system sustains itself.  Furthermore, some
recent evidence from Putterman and colleagues at UCLA indicates
that the lifetime of the optical pulse is less than 50 picoseconds,
and that the temperatures elevated in the interior of the bubble
for times on the order of tens of nanoseconds, it is likely that
some rather unusual physics is occurring.  The best guess is that
a shock wave is created in the gas which is then elevated to high
temperatures by inertial confinement.  If shock waves are the
mechanism for SL emission, then optimization of the process could
lead to extraordinary physics.  A general review of this intriguing
phenomenon will be presented as well as the latest explanations for
the anomalous behavior.
[end of abstract]

It is important to distinguish stable, SB-SL from the
previously known *transient* sonoluminescence (T-SL).  These appear
to be quite different phenomena, as a table will demonstrate:

Transient (garden-variety)SL   Stable single-bubble SL [SB-SL]
 ----------------------------- -------------------------------- 

Multiple cavitation sites      One cavitation site (or few)
 with random spatial and         with same bubble(s) repeatedly
 temporal distribution           collapsing
                               
(To simplify discussion, I will consider the SB-SL case of a single
bubble at the center of a spherical flask full of H2O or D2O.
To realize more than one stable bubble would require higher harmonics
than the fundamental, producing spherical-shell anti-node regions where
bubbles could reside, in addition to the central anti-node.)

Can be produced by traveling   Requires standing sound waves (SW)
or standing waves of sound

Easily obtained, with much     Very difficult to realize; requires
gas dissolved in liquid         <5% dissolved gasses.  Bubble must
                                be *injected* into liquid.  Has been
                                done *only* with water or H2O+glycerol so far.

Discovered 1933 by N.Marinesco  Discovered 1988 by D. Gaitan, L. 
 & J. Trillat.                      Crum and C. Church.

Emitted light spectrum shows   Emitted light shows no distinct
distinct lines, e.g., N+N -->   lines; rather, spectrum fits black
N2; so chemiluminescence         curve quite well.
postulated.

Bubles tend to collapse asym-  Bubbles tend to collapse symmetric
metrically, thus introducing   "developing an imploding shock wave
liquid into bubble, which is    within the gas." [L.A. Crum, J.
heated by adiabatic compression.    Acoust. Soc. Am. 94(1993) 1 ]

From above, Temp ~ 5000 K      From above, Temp up to 100,000 K
deduced, during cavitation.     deduced during cavitation.

Normal physics, no shock       "Extraordinary physics"; shock waves
waves needed.                   implied.  

Time between pulses quite      Time between pulses clock-like; 
random; pulse-length typically   pulse-length < 50 *pico*seconds
several nanoseconds.

(Sychronous picosecond SL:

!__________!__________!__________!__________!__________!____
   Time between light-flashes ! = 50 microsec +- 50 Picosec
     for 20 kHz driving field; sound source good to 1 part in
     10^4, light source stable to 1 part in 10^6. )
   

No fusion possible.             Fusion during cavitation possible?
                                 like inertial-confinement approach
                                 with holraum-like target.  Allows
                                 compression with less heating than
                                 ablation approaches IMHO.  No   
                                 experimental tests yet.  I suggest
                                 comparing p-d,d-d and d-t targets
                                 (gases in cavitating bubble).


Additional notes from Barber and Putterman, Nature 352 (1991) 318:

1.  "SL is a non-equilibrium phenomenon in which the energy in a
sound wave becomes highly concentrated so as to generate flashes
of light in a liquid.  We show here that these flashes, which
comprise over 10^5 photons, are too fast to be resolved by the
fastest photomultiplier tubes available.  Furthermore, when SL is
driven by a resonant sound field, the bursts can occur in a
continuously repeating, regular fashion."

2.  "These bursts represent an amplification of energy by eleven
orders of magnitude."

3.  "The flash widths that we find are so short that one wonders
whether some phenomenon stimultes the atoms to fire in usison. 
Known cooperative phenomena include laser action, super-radiance
and super-fluorescence.  Any cooperative phenomenon underlying our
observations must be of a spherical nature, however, because a
randomly oriented dipose emission would lead to a broad spread in
the distribution of pulse heights....no such broadening is seen.
Nevertheless, it is reasonable to expect that some type of
correlation characterizes the outgoing photons, because the spacing
between light-emitting sources is much less than the wavelength of
the emitted light."   [Terry Bollinger and others take note!]

4.  "The huge, spontaneous (non-equilibrium) amplification factors
discussed above are noteworthy in that they are controllable and
reproducible.  In this respect, stable synchronous SL differs from
other phenomena (such as dust explosions, ball lightning and highly
speculative conditions for nuclear fusion) that also require large
spontaneous energy concentrations. [Note evident reference to cold
fusion.]  If we could understand the mechanism behind synchronous
SL, we might see a way to achieve large but controllable energy
concentrations more generally."

We are now preparing experiments to study stable, single-bubble SL
as a possible means of achieving nuclear fusion reactions.  Our
neutron detectors are capable of unambiguously identifying neutron
emissions at a rate of a few neutrons per hour.  But don't hold your breath:
this effort will likely take most of the year.

--Steven Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenjonesse cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.18 / M Singleton /  Re: Question: correct understanding of photon reflection?
     
Originally-From: martin@rahul.net (Martin S. Singleton)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.chem
Subject: Re: Question: correct understanding of photon reflection?
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 1994 03:42:27 GMT
Organization: a2i network


>   well, and have no clearly defined state to fall back to.  Why do they
>   emit at the same frequency?

I think this is what confused me when I made my post about photon pressure in
which I gave an almost correct explanation for reflection.  Actually, the
frequency isn't the same, I suspect.  The reason is the reason my explanation
was slightly off.  What happens is is that the reflecting material picks up a
tiny amount of momentum, which means it has twice the momentum in the z 
direction as the original photon.  But the photon is slightly red-shifted in
the reflectors frame of reference, so the frequency is mu / gamma, where 
gamma is calculated from the the velocity of the reflector.  After this 
correction, the momentum is conserved.

This agrees with real QM, as I was reading that one can get the absorption of
a quantum of light without relativity, but to get emission, one needs to use
the wave equation with special relativity.

-- 
Martin S. Singleton <martin@rahul.net>
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenmartin cudfnMartin cudlnSingleton cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.18 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: Qualifications for posting?
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Qualifications for posting?
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 1994 03:31:24 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1994Mar17.194218.12930@netlabs.com> lwall@netlabs.com (Larry Wall) writes:

>Is asking someone to moderate their own behavior equivalent to restricting
>them with a rule?  I suspect you could argue both sides of this.  In fact,
>you really ought to.  It would be entertaining.

I don't think that Swartz should moderate his behaviour -- a tedious
bore at half speed is still a tedious bore.

Generally I am completely against any sort of restriction in someone's
freedom of expression, but in Swartz's case he has ceased to express
anything but contempt for everyone else on the net for a long time.

He takes up monumental time of everyone since often in order to read
Stephen Jones' material you get the appended Swartz blather. My
reader allows me to kill it but I always have to wait until I get a 
screenfull first. What a waste of time!

I could put him in my KILL file but I am against such things and
will even put up with Swartz rather than compromise that far.

So I wish he would learn to act more like an intelligent person and less
like a blithering idiot who seems to repeat endlessly, "I know you
are but what am I?"

cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.18 / John Logajan /  Re: Italian "Heeter" effect
     
Originally-From: 74242.1554@CompuServe.COM (John M. Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Italian "Heeter" effect
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 1994 08:59:35 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

>my hypothesis doesn't require chaos or bimodal patterns, just a
>deuterated sample conducting more poorly, and strengthening the
>existing convective pattern.

This topic came up again in an e-mail exchange with Dieter.  I claimed
that if there is no anomalous heat, then the deuterated sample is only
being heated from the skin inward -- by the external Pt heater coil.
Under this regime it is not apparent to me how an increase or decrease
of thermal conductivity of the Ni rod can changes its temperature (except
temporarily if due to a change in thermal storage capability.)

>In this picture I think our role here is to identify the "points of 
>ambiguity" to help the researchers develop the additional controls

Yup.  I initially started off trying to do that.  I ended up having to
retract one suggestion when I rethought the data.  I would like to
pursue the bimodal convection theory, but I need more geometry data
to get beyond the speculation stage.


cudkeys:
cuddy18 cuden1554 cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.18 / Joshua Levy /  Re: On "More on Will" (and previous citation)
     
Originally-From: joshua@homespace.mtview.ca.us (Joshua Levy)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: On "More on Will" (and previous citation)
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 1994 03:58:30 GMT
Organization: Expert Support Inc., Mountain View, CA

mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
>   OK,  Joshua, can I list ONE MISTAKE?
>      Here is Tom Droege's correction to one of Mr. Jones's 
>misclaim regarding the number of controls:

He then quotes Tom Droege, but not Steve Jones original comments, so
it is impossible to tell if this is a mistake or not.  Furthermore,
I was hoping for a substantive mistake.  One that would make the
difference between a good experiment and a bad one.  (As I remember 
the discussion, the exact number of control experiments was a sideshow 
to the larger problems in the experiment.)

Joshua Levy    joshua@veritas.com is also joshua@homespace.mtview.ca.us
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenjoshua cudfnJoshua cudlnLevy cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.18 / mitchell swartz /  Qualifications for posting? (the eye of contempt)
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Qualifications for posting? (the eye of contempt)
Subject: Re: Qualifications for posting?
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 1994 07:25:49 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

    In Message-ID: <tomkCMuCGC.616@netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Qualifications for posting?
Thomas H. Kunich (tomk@netcom.com)  writes:

   >Is asking someone to moderate their own behavior equivalent to restricting
   >them with a rule?  I suspect you could argue both sides of this.  In fact,
   >you really ought to.  It would be entertaining.
=kunich  " [denigration void of science] .....
=kunich  Generally I am completely against any sort of restriction in someone's
=kunich  freedom of expression, but [multitude of denigrations void of science]
=kunich          ......  he has ceased to express
=kunich  anything but contempt for everyone else on the net for a long time."

    Often one of the most difficult things is to describe what is in front
of one's eyes.   [Getting the TB-skeptics to believe anything is harder  ;-)

   Seeking science by asking hard questions is not contempt.

   Contempt on the internet looks more like this:

     >I wasn't aware of any restrictions on who may post.  Perhaps I am in
     >violation of such a rule right now?  If there are such rules would
     >the person in charge of them please post them.  ... "
=mn "Of course there are no restrictions. Any cretin with a keyboard may
=mn post as you have amply demonstrated. Your pedantic suggestion is noted 
=mn and rejected. Now, did you have something of substance to contribute?"
=mn Mark"
             [Message-ID: <north.763931191@watop>; Subject: Re: Qualifications 
              for posting?; From: north@watop.nosc.mil (Mark North)]


cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.17 / Mark Hopkins /  Re: Scientists and Nouveau-science Salesmen
     
Originally-From: mark@freenet.uwm.edu (Mark Hopkins)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Scientists and Nouveau-science Salesmen
Date: 17 Mar 1994 06:34:47 -0600
Organization: The Milwaukee FreeNet

Yeah right.  Like you've never heard of muon-catalysed fusion before.
###
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenmark cudfnMark cudlnHopkins cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Sat Mar 19 04:37:02 EST 1994
------------------------------
1994.03.18 / Dieter Britz /  CNF bibliography; (new) updates and archive retrieval, Mar-94.
     
Originally-From: MEDB@cc.newcastle.edu.au (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CNF bibliography; (new) updates and archive retrieval, Mar-94.
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 1994 16:26:15 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway


Current count:
-------------
  8 books
884 papers
135 patents
211 comment items
 81 peripherals
 19 conf-procs
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Journal papers:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

#
Chubb SR, Chubb TA;  Fusion Technol. 24 (1993) 403.
"Ion band state fusion: reactions, power density, and the quantum reality
question".
** This paper discusses the QM basis of d ion-band state fusion and the 
nuclear reactions predicted, and provides a derivation of a relation between d 
band-state concentration and power density which shows that when 
electrochemical loading is used, steady-state power should scale with current.
Fusion reactions are different in the lattice than in free space. Solid state
conditions are important, and different lattices, e.g. PdDx and TiDx may well 
behave differently. The theory can account for both "standard" cold (dd) 
fusion, as well as the more recent Ni/H2O fusion results, and accounts also 
for 4He as ash and heat.  Jan-93/Dec-93
#.................................................................. 18-Mar-94
Fedorovich GV;  Fusion Technol. 25 (1994) 120.
"Screening of the Coulomb potential in a nondegenerate hydrogen isotope gas".
** Theoretical look at screening of deuterons from each other by electrons,
invoking special (exotic) solid state plasma effects. The result is that cold
fusion is feasible, due to this effect in the metal lattice. Nov-92/Jan-94
#.................................................................. 9-Mar-94
Lewis FA, McGee SG, McNicholl R-A;  Z. Phys. Chem. 179 (1993) 63.
"Limits of hydrogen contents introduced by electrolysis into palladium and
palladium-rich alloys".
** Fundamental study to measure the maximum effective pressure at high loading
of Pd and some Pd alloys, loaded electrolytically. Upon current interruption,
electrode potentials were followed and gave the result that mostly the 
pressure did not exceed 100 bar or 10^7 Pa. This illustrates the need to be
careful when using overpotentials to state pressures in these metals while
loading with hydrogen (or deuterium). 
#.................................................................. 9-Mar-94
Miles MH, Bush BF, Stilwell DE;  J. Phys. Chem. 98 (1994) 1948.
"Calorimetric principles and problems in measurements of excess power during
Pd-D2O electrolysis".
** Calorimetry of electrolysis cells as used in cold fusion will yield false
results, if steady state is assumed for such variables as cell temperature,
-voltage etc, and this has been done in other's work. The present authors
single out such teams as Lewis et al, Williams et al, Albagli et al and Wilson
et al; all teams reporting null results. Here, two types of isoperibolic 
calorimeters were used, one similar to that used by the above teams and also
by Fleischmann et al, the other being more sophisticated and similar to that
also used by Williams et al. The first type of setup measures the temperature
directly within the cell, and this, as the electrolyte changes during 
electrolysis, produces a changing cell constant; when the temperature is 
measured outside the cell, this effect goes and better results are obtained.
Other details are described. The calorimeter had an overall error of only
+-0.020 W with an input power of around 5-10 W (an informed guess). In the 
light of these insights, old null results are reexamined, and Lewis et al 
should have reported an excess of 1 W/cm^3, in line with Fleischmann et al,
and Miles et al. Similar errors may hold for the other prominent null report
papers.  Jun-93/Feb-94
#.................................................................. 18-Mar-94
Mills RL, Good WR, Shaubach RM;  Fusion Technol. 25 (1994) 103.
"Dihydrino molecule identification".
** First, there is an outline of the Mills theory. The classical wave equation
is solved, not with the usual boundary conditions but with those derived from
the Maxwell equations. This novel theory can account for a large number of
phenomena, including gravitation, the masses of leptons, the neutron and
proton, magnetic moments of nucleons, ultraviolet emission by dark matter,
etc. The theory leads also to the postulate of the hydrino, a hydrogen atom
with electrons in states below ground. In the second part of the paper,
experimental evidence for the hydrino is provided, partly by reinterpretation
of old data from other workers (e.g. 4He found by MS was really dideuterinos)
and partly by new "thermacore" experiments in calorimetry. Power output/input
ratios as high as 20 were found with light water electrolysis at 100% current
efficiency, i.e. no recombination artifacts. Because the dihydrino has a
higher ionisation potential than H2, it was possible to distinguish between
the two by mass spec (MS) by varying the ionisation voltage. Such an
experiment confirmed the presence of dihydrino for the authors.  Jun/93/Jan-94
#.................................................................. 11-Mar-94
Morrison DRO;  Phys. Lett. A 185 (1994) 498.
"Comments on claims of excess enthalpy by Fleischmann and Pons using simple
cells made to boil".
** This polemic, communicated by Vigier (an editor of the journal), as was the
original paper under discussion (Fleischmann et al, ibid  176 (1993) 118),
takes that paper experimental stage for stage and points out its weaknesses.
Some of the salient points are that above 60C, the heat transfer calibration
is uncertain, that at boiling some electrolyte salt as well as unvapourised
liquid must escape the cell and (upon D2O topping up) cell conductivity will
decrease; current fluctuations are neglected and so is the Leydenfrost effect;
recombination; and the cigarette lighter effect, i.e. rapid recombination of
Pd-absorbed deuterium with oxygen. Jun-93/Feb-94
#.................................................................. 18-Mar-94

Retrieval of the archived files:
 ---------------------------------------------------------------
1. By anonymous FTP from vm1.nodak.edu (134.129.111.1).  Login
anonymous, with    your e-mail address as the password. Type CD
FUSION, DIR FUSION.CNF* to get    a listing. The general index is
large. Use GET (ie. GET FUSION.CNF-PAP1). 
2. Via LISTSERV. You get a (large) index of the archives by sending
an email    to listserv@vm1.nodak.edu, with a blank SUBJECT line, and
the "message"    'index fusion'. To get any one of these files, you
then send to the same    address the message, e.g., 
   get fusion 91-00487
   get fusion cnf-pap1         etc, according to what you're after.
 ------------------------------------------------------------------
The bib-files are: cnf-bks (books), cnf-pap1..cnf-pap6 (papers,
slices 1..6), cnf-pat (patents), cnf-cmnt (comments), cnf-peri
(peripherals), cnf-unp (unpublished stuff collected by Vince Cate,
hydrogen/metal references from Terry Bollinger). There is also the
file cnf-brif, which has all the -pap* file references without
annotations, all in one file (so far); and cnf-new, with the last
month's or so new items in all biblio files. 
 ------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: It appears that you can GET only 512 kb on any one day, so it
might take you a couple of days to get the whole pap file; each
cnf-pap slice is about 150 kb long. 
 ------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
===================================================================

cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenMEDB cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.19 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Re: Continuous Heat???
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Continuous Heat???
Date: Sat, 19 Mar 1994 01:10:11 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I said it was a rumor.  Tokio will follow up as best he can.  We are in good
e-mail contact, so I will hear anything as soon as he finds it.  I is as 
polarized in Japan as it is here.  But at this distance only the "true 
believer" side of the story is heard.  Could it be that Jed Rothwell censors
the news that he brings back from Japan?

Tom Droege

cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenDROEGE cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.19 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Absurdity
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Absurdity
Date: Sat, 19 Mar 1994 01:11:11 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Larry Wall writes:

"The real problem is that Mitch is an absurdist, and he's been absurd
for so long that we've come to expect it.  Therefore Mitch has become
boring, which is an absurd thing for an absurdist to become.  I don't
think there's much of anything you can say to such a person that
demonstrates either judgement or lack of judgement, since the absurdity
that the absurdist induces in others will almost inevitably be more
interesting than the absurdity that the absurdist himself produces.
Go figure... "

OK, Larry, you win my put down of the year award!

Tom Droege

cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenDROEGE cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.18 / Robert Heeter /  Re: Italian "Heeter" effect
     
Originally-From: rfheeter@theory.pppl.gov (Robert F. Heeter)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Italian "Heeter" effect
Date: 18 Mar 1994 12:54:25 -0500
Organization: /etc/organization

In article <940318070803_74242.1554_BHR48-2@CompuServe.COM>,
John M. Logajan <74242.1554@CompuServe.COM> wrote:
>>my hypothesis doesn't require chaos or bimodal patterns, just a
>>deuterated sample conducting more poorly, and strengthening the
>>existing convective pattern.
>
>This topic came up again in an e-mail exchange with Dieter.  I claimed
>that if there is no anomalous heat, then the deuterated sample is only
>being heated from the skin inward -- by the external Pt heater coil.
>Under this regime it is not apparent to me how an increase or decrease
>of thermal conductivity of the Ni rod can changes its temperature (except
>temporarily if due to a change in thermal storage capability.)

Well, the center of the rod (where I expect the thermometer to be)
sees a greater solid angle of heater coils, so we expect it to be
heated more than the ends.  At the same time, the ends have additional
surface area exposed to the H2 gas atmosphere, so we expect them to
be cooled more rapidly than the center.  As I picture it, a decrease
in the thermal conductivity would reduce conductive heat flow from
the center to the ends.  Assuming conductive heat flow is driven
by temperature gradients, a larger gradient will be necessary to
drive a given amount of heat out of the center; the center must
become hotter.  Your point that most of the heat flow will be on
the surface is interesting - I think increasing the thermal resistance
of the Ni would be likely to further impede heat flow by reducing
the penetration depth of the additional heat deposited at the center.

Now, as far as convection goes, I'm thinking that an increase in
the central rod temperature relative to the end temperature will
result in additional convective cooling of the center, because the
increased temperature differential will drive the convective flow
faster.  But if this convective cooling does not increase too sharply
as the temperature imbalance increases, you can end up with a 
(significantly?) higher central rod temperature when you increase
the thermal resistance of the Ni.  So your thermometer will read a
higher temperature for hydrogen-loaded Ni than it would for Ni
without the H impurities.

Hopefully that clears up the picture a little.

*****************
Robert F. Heeter
rfheeter@tom.pppl.gov
disclaimers apply!


cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.18 / Larry Wall /  Re: On Larry Wall's "Qualifications for posting?"
     
Originally-From: lwall@netlabs.com (Larry Wall)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: On Larry Wall's "Qualifications for posting?"
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 1994 17:56:28 GMT
Organization: NetLabs, Inc.

In article <CMu5wC.DH8@world.std.com> mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
: =lw  "My own judgement is that Mitch is fonder of argument than he is of
: =lw agreement. "
: 
:    Obvious depends.  The ratio here is >80% agreement.

Well, yes, but you and Jed are the other 80%.

Warmest regards,
Larry
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenlwall cudfnLarry cudlnWall cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.18 / Richard Schultz /  Questions and Answers
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Questions and Answers
Date: 18 Mar 1994 18:50:07 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley

In article <CMunB1.KnD@world.std.com>,
mitchell swartz <mica@world.std.com> wrote:

>   Seeking science by asking hard questions is not contempt.

What about easy questions like the one I asked previously regarding your
use of the "Existence Theorem?"

					Richard Schultz
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.19 / james blanchard /  Re: Purple Cows
     
Originally-From: jake@nucst6.neep.wisc.edu (james blanchard)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Purple Cows
Date: 19 Mar 1994 00:41:21 GMT
Organization: Division of Information Technology


>>From the restaurant, author unknown:
>>
>>I never saw a purple cow.
>>I never hope to see one.
>>I'll tell you all right here and now,
>>I'd rather see than be one!
>
>The author is Gellett Burgess, I believe.  I think the third line should be
>something like "But I can tell you anyhow."
>
>                                     Richard Schultz

Hmm.  I thought it was Ogden Nash.  Oh well.

--

   jake blanchard -- university of wisconsin - madison
   blanchard@engr.wisc.edu  OR   jake@nucst6.neep.wisc.edu

cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenjake cudfnjames cudlnblanchard cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.20 / mitchell swartz /  cancel <CMy0Ly.1ML@world.std.com>
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cancel <CMy0Ly.1ML@world.std.com>
Date: Sun, 20 Mar 1994 12:11:08 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

cancel <CMy0Ly.1ML@world.std.com> in newsgroup sci.physics.fusion
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.20 / mitchell swartz /  FAQ-Table for cold fusion & References
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: FAQ-Table for cold fusion & References
Date: Sun, 20 Mar 1994 12:14:19 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA


    A COLD FUSION FAQ-TABLE 

    This FAQ-Table continues the short list of some of the cold fusion
phenomena - and for those interested sources of more
information.

   Cold fusion, despite the rabid attacks of the TB-skeptics
now includes aqueous, gas, and solid-state systems.

   Thanks are in order to Jed, Vesselin, and Bruce for 
reminding me of the references, and to Robert for correction
of some errors.
   Additions, suggestions, updates, and corrections are both 
appreciated and invited.
    Best wishes.
                                    Mitchell Swartz
                                     mica@world.std.com

     ===================================================
       FAQ TABLE SUMMARY OF SOME COLD FUSION RESULTS
         AND SOME POSSIBLE EXPLANATIONS   march 20  '94
     ====================================================

   1. Survey of Physical Results
   2. Partial References.
   3. Tabulation of Arguments against and order-of-magnitude calculations
         (section 3 not present in this iteration)


   1. Survey of Physical Results
   ============= Excess Power (milliwatts)  === % of input =====
   ---   Representative Positive Results in Heavy Water/D2O   --------------
   Fleischmann & Pons (1989)     60  (circa)
     Miles (1992)               540
     McKubre (1992)                             30% (ca. average input excess,
                                                     with rare bursts higher)

   ===========   Excess Power densities (W/cm3 Pd) ==============
   ---   Representative Positive Results in Heavy Water/D2O   --------------
      1989     circa   10  W/cm3 Pd
      1993     circa  1500 W/cm3 Pd

   ===========   Helium-4 generation levels Heavy Water/D2O   --------------
       10^11 to  ca. 3 x 10^11   helium-4/watt-sec    (Miles 91, 92, 93)
 
  ============= Excess Power (watts)               === % of input =====
  ---   Other Representative Positive Results D2 and D2O systems  --------------
     Stringham (1994 acoustic only D2O)               90 watts
 
 ===========   Excess Power ===================================
   ---   Representative Positive Results in Light Water/H2O   --------
  Mills (1989)            (ca. several hundred % input, peak input ca. 160 W
  Noninski (1991)                              160%
  Srinivasan (1993)             3.5 max        70% input 
  Notoya (1993)                 2.7 max        270-240% 
  _________________________________________________________________________

  ===========   Excess Power densities (W/cm2) ==============
   ---   Representative Positive Results in SrCeO3   --------------
      Mizuno    circa   100  W/cm2     Pt plates, gas phase, input
        1993                             less than ca. 1 mW. 

  ===========   Excess Power  (W) ==============
   ---   Representative Positive Results in glow discharge -----------
      Kucherov           30 W            (in ca. 50% of 78 expts,
       1993                            glow discharge, neutron flux to 10^7n/s
        ======================================================  


   2. Partial References.
    *******    JOURNALS  ON COLD FUSION

COLD FUSION TIMES, FUSION TECHNOLOGY, Fusion FACTS,
(soon "COLD FUSION") and several journals for sporadically good articles.

COLD FUSION TIMES
[ISSN 1072-2874; P.O. Box 81135, Wellesley Hills, MA 02181]
E-mail address: mica@world.std.com for information

"Cold Fusion" the magazine, to be launched shortly
The editor is Dr. Eugene F. Mallove, publisher is Dr.
Wayne Green, founder of Byte;WGI Center, 
70 Rte. 202 North, Peterborough, NH 03458. 

Fusion Facts, a monthly newsletter.  P.O. Box 48639, 
Salt Lake City, UT 84158.

Fusion Technology, a technical journal published by the ANS has
published many articles about cold fusion. Contact: Publications Manager,
The American Nuclear Society, 555 North Kensington Ave, Lagrange
Park, IL 60525.


      *****   BOOKS ON COLD FUSION

Eugene Mallove "FIRE FROM ICE: Searching for the Truth
Behind the Cold Fusion Furor"   (John Wiley & Sons, May, 1991)
Note the table on pages 246 through 248 which
lists scores of laboratories who have measured and reported 
excess heat, and in many cases other particles.

"FUSION ENERGY, Hearing before the Subcommittee on
Energy of the Committee on Science, Space and Technology,
U.S. House of Representatives," ISBN 0-16-041505-5.
(May 5, 1993) U.S. Government Printing Office, 202-783-3238


        ******  A FEW ARTICLES ON COLD FUSION
M. Fleischmann (Univ. Southampton), S. Pons (IMRA Europe),
"Calorimetry of the Pd-D2O system: from simplicity via complications to
simplicity," Physics Letters A, 176 (1993) 118-129

E. Storms (Los Alamos), "Review of Experimental Observations About
The Cold Fusion Effect," Fusion Technology, Vol. 20, Dec. 1991 433 -
477. A superb technical introduction to the field.

M. H. Miles and R. A. Hollins (Naval Air Weapons Center), B.F. Bush
and J.J. Lagowski (Univ. Texas), "Correlation of excess power and
helium production during D2O and H2O electrolysis using palladium
cathodes," J. of Electroanalytical Chemistry, 346 (1993) 99 - 117.

A. B. Karabut, Ya. R. Kucherov, I. B. Savvatimova, "Nuclear product
ratio for glow discharge in deuterium," Phys. Lett. A 170 265 (1992).

Excellent reviews critical of so-called "negative" papers:
Vesselin Noninski,  Fusion Technology, 23, 474 (1993). 

Melvin H. Miles, Benjamin F. Bush, and David E.
Stilwell, "Calorimetric Principles and Problems in Measurements of Excess
Power during Pd-D2O Electrolysis," J. Phys. Chem. (Feb. 17, 1994


      ***  CONFERENCES REFERENCES  ON COLD FUSION
The Fourth International Conference on Cold Fusion (ICCF4), was
sponsored by EPRI, Advanced Nuclear Systems, and held December 6 -
9, 1993, at Hyatt Regency Maui, Lahaina, HI. For information
EPRI, Linda Nelson,  P.O. Box 10412, Palo Alto, CA  94303-9743

Frontiers of Cold Fusion, ed. H. Ikegami. The proceedings of the Third
International Conference on Cold Fusion (Nagoya, Japan, October 21 -
25, 1992) in Nagoya, Japan. Available from Universal Academy Press,
Inc., PR Hogo 5 Bldg., 6-16-2, Hongo, Bunkyo Tokyo 113, JAPAN. 

The Science of Cold Fusion, ed. T. Bressani. The proceedings of the
Second Annual Conference On Cold Fusion. (Como, Italy, June 29 - July
4, 1991); contact: SIF, Via L. degli Ondalo 2, 40124 Bologna, ITALY.

cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Mon Mar 21 04:37:06 EST 1994
------------------------------
1994.03.19 / Mark North /  Re: Qualifications for posting? (the eye of contempt)
     
Originally-From: north@watop.nosc.mil (Mark North)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Qualifications for posting? (the eye of contempt)
Date: Sat, 19 Mar 1994 23:24:48 GMT
Organization: NCCOSC RDT&E Division, San Diego, CA

mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:

>    In Message-ID: <tomkCMuCGC.616@netcom.com>
>Subject: Re: Qualifications for posting?
>Thomas H. Kunich (tomk@netcom.com)  writes:

>   >Is asking someone to moderate their own behavior equivalent to restricting
>   >them with a rule?  I suspect you could argue both sides of this.  In fact,
>   >you really ought to.  It would be entertaining.
>=kunich  " [denigration void of science] .....
>=kunich  Generally I am completely against any sort of restriction in someone's
>=kunich  freedom of expression, but [multitude of denigrations void of science]
>=kunich          ......  he has ceased to express
>=kunich  anything but contempt for everyone else on the net for a long time."

>    Often one of the most difficult things is to describe what is in front
>of one's eyes.   [Getting the TB-skeptics to believe anything is harder  ;-)

>   Seeking science by asking hard questions is not contempt.

>   Contempt on the internet looks more like this:

>     >I wasn't aware of any restrictions on who may post.  Perhaps I am in
>     >violation of such a rule right now?  If there are such rules would
>     >the person in charge of them please post them.  ... "
>=mn "Of course there are no restrictions. Any cretin with a keyboard may
>=mn post as you have amply demonstrated. Your pedantic suggestion is noted 
>=mn and rejected. Now, did you have something of substance to contribute?"
>=mn Mark"
>             [Message-ID: <north.763931191@watop>; Subject: Re: Qualifications 
>              for posting?; From: north@watop.nosc.mil (Mark North)]

Unlike you, I reserve my contempt for those who earn it. Now, how about
answering the question. Would you like it repeated? What qualifications
do you have that make you think you're justified in critiquing the
expert opinions of the many physicists and chemists and other
scientists who frequently post here? Do you think you could favour us
with an answer? I'm sure I'm not the only one who would like to be
able to put your comments in their proper perspective. 

Mark

cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudennorth cudfnMark cudlnNorth cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.20 / Bradley Sherman /  Re: Purple Cows
     
Originally-From: bks@s27w007.pswfs.gov (Bradley K. Sherman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Purple Cows
Date: 20 Mar 1994 00:16:44 GMT
Organization: Dendrome, A Genome Database for Forest Trees

>>The author is Gellett Burgess

>Hmm.  I thought it was Ogden Nash.  Oh well.

It's Gelett Burgess b. 1866 d. 1951

 I never saw a Purple Cow,
       I never hope to see one;
 But I can tell you, anyhow,
       I'd rather see than be one!

And later ...

 Ah, yes! I wrote the `Purple Cow'
       I'm sorry, now, I wrote it!
 But I can tell you anyhow,
       I'll kill you if you quote it!

    Hope this helps,
    --bks

-- 
Bradley K. Sherman               P.O. Box 245                    
Computer Scientist               Berkeley, CA, 94701
Dendrome Project                 510-559-6437 FAX: 510-559-6440  
Institute of Forest Genetics     Internet: bks@s27w007.pswfs.gov
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenbks cudfnBradley cudlnSherman cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.19 / Mark North /  Re: On Larry Wall's "Qualifications for posting?"
     
Originally-From: north@watop.nosc.mil (Mark North)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: On Larry Wall's "Qualifications for posting?"
Date: Sat, 19 Mar 1994 23:59:02 GMT
Organization: NCCOSC RDT&E Division, San Diego, CA

mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:

>    And BTW after Webster (ibid.)

>   ****  absurd ***  from:  ab- from, away    + surdus-   deaf, stupid

>     1 -   ridiculously unreasonable, unsound, or incongruous

Talk about absurd. What's that there ibidem for? Do you think that makes
you look erudite? At least learn how to use it properly. Also, since
you are so fond of quoting dictionaries here's a clue for you.
Citing 'Webster' confers no information. 'Webster' is a generic name.
Anyone can put together a dictionary and call it Webster's. So if
you want to convey information you must indicate the publisher of
the dictionary. Not that I'm arguing with the definition given -- this
time.

Mark

cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudennorth cudfnMark cudlnNorth cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.21 / C Harrison /  Re: Blue-sky engineering
     
Originally-From: harr@netcom.com (Charles (Chuck) Harrison)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Blue-sky engineering
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 1994 03:48:33 GMT
Organization: None recently

In article <znr763846416k@dwbbs.nlbbs.com>,
Marshall Dudley <dwbbs!mdudley@nlbbs.com> wrote:
>Steven Jones writes:
[...]
>maybe what is needed is to inject 20,000 bubbles per second into the bottom
>of the container, and focus the ultrasonic wave to a node at the proper point
>above the bottom, so the collapse occurs when the bubble is in that position.
>Each cycle would be acting on another bubble, and the problem of keeping
>the bubble stationary is no longer a concern.  Fuel injector technology may
>work for this, but I am not sure you could get it up to 20 khz.  A shutter
>type of injector may work (like sirens use), and they can get to 20khz without
>any problem.
>
Also look at various ideas (piezo, thermal, magnetostrictive) that have been
developed for ink-jet printing applications...

--Chuck Harrison  harr@netcom.com
>								Marshall
>


cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenharr cudfnCharles cudlnHarrison cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.20 / Robert Heeter /  Re: Cold Fusion - References and Some Representative Data
     
Originally-From: rfheeter@theory.pppl.gov (Robert F. Heeter)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion - References and Some Representative Data
Date: 20 Mar 1994 02:10:48 -0500
Organization: /etc/organization

In article <CMy0Ly.1ML@world.std.com>,
mitchell swartz <mica@world.std.com> wrote:
>     
>    A COLD FUSION FAQ-TABLE 
>
>   Thanks are in order to Jed, Vessilin, and Bruce for 
>reminding me of the references. 

Unless he misspelled his own name in the last post he made,
it's spelled "Vesselin".  Not to be picky or anything... ;)

Note that this was also misspelled in the list of references.

>   Additions, suggestions, updates, and corrections are both 
>appreciated and invited.

You're welcome...

Other notes:

Why does Kucherov appear twice?

Why does Piantelli not appear at all?

>      *****   BOOKS ON COLD FUSION

What about Taubes, Close, and other critical books?
(Let the readers judge for themselves.)

***************
Robert F. Heeter
rfheeter@theory.pppl.gov
Graduate Student, Princeton Plasma Physics Lab
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.20 / Robert Heeter /  Status of Conventional Fusion FAQ
     
Originally-From: rfheeter@theory.pppl.gov (Robert F. Heeter)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Status of Conventional Fusion FAQ
Date: 20 Mar 1994 02:16:27 -0500
Organization: /etc/organization

Slow but steady progress is being made on the Conventional Fusion FAQ.
The project seems to grow larger every time I work on it, but recently
the number of things getting done has started to exceed the number of
new things to be done, so hopefully it will all come together fairly
soon now.

I am still looking for people to help me generate answers; I will
post what answers I have over the next week or so in order to help
get things going.  Feel free to send in thoughts and comments on
whatever answers I have, so that I can continue to improve the FAQ.

Thanks to everyone for your patience and assistance!

**************
Robert F. Heeter
rfheeter@theory.pppl.gov
Graduate Student, Princeton Plasma Physics Lab
(disclaimers apply)
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.20 / John Kondis /  Re: Correct Theory of Superconductivity
     
Originally-From: jkondis@orion.oac.uci.edu (John Kondis)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.chem,alt.sci.physics.plutonium
Subject: Re: Correct Theory of Superconductivity
Date: 20 Mar 94 11:05:10 GMT
Organization: University of California, Irvine

LogWig, You are Crazy.

I have an idea for you, though...  Buy a cheap ceramic superconductor and 
some liquid nitrogen (cheap) and seal yourself with it well in a box, and 
look for blue flashes of light which occur when a neutrino interacts with 
a nucleus.

(Make sure you bring along plenty of LN with you, so as to make 
measurements over a loooong time!  8-)

...John

cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenjkondis cudfnJohn cudlnKondis cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.21 / William Hawkins /  Neutron detectors
     
Originally-From: bill@texan.rosemount.com (William Hawkins)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Neutron detectors
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 1994 05:46:09 GMT
Organization: Rosemount, Inc.

After many years of wondering what was so special about neutron
detectors (besides the fact that neutrons have no charge), I've
come across "The Neutron Detector Handbook", published by the
Bettis Atomic Power Laboratory, under contract to the Navy
Bureau of Ships.  There is no date on the report that I can find.
About 30 types of detectors are described in detail.  The report
is concerned with neutron emission from fission plants used to
power naval vessels, from full power down to background.  The
techniques used to differentiate neutrons striking boron compounds
from other ionizing radiation are discussed.

If there is any interest in this, I would be glad to post more
details.  Otherwise, you may return to the TB vs skeptic dialog
that this once exciting forum has degenerated into.

It was five years ago when cold fusion was announced.  The date
is marked by the annual science fiction convention held in Mpls
over Easter weekend.  The guest of honor was Harry Harrison (West
of Eden, Make Room Make Room, Stainless Steel Rat stuff), who
hoped it would turn out as advertised, but remained a skeptic.

Bill
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenbill cudfnWilliam cudlnHawkins cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.21 / I Johnston /  CF on Horizon this evening (BBC2)
     
Originally-From: ianj@castle.ed.ac.uk (I Johnston)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CF on Horizon this evening (BBC2)
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 1994 10:07:48 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University


cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenianj cudfnI cudlnJohnston cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.20 / Charles Lindsey /  BBC Horizon Program
     
Originally-From: chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk (Charles Lindsey)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: BBC Horizon Program
Date: 20 Mar 94 23:00:53 GMT


The BBC are doing another Horizon program on CF on Monday 21 March at 8pm.
Looks like all sides of the controversy are to be exposed so, in true BBC
fashion, we will see lots of people from both sides, but no clear conclusion
will be reached.

Also, Fleischmann is due to take part in a series of programs entitled "The
Exporatory" at 11.15 each night this week (but not necessarily on CF).

-- 
Charles H. Lindsey -------------------------------------------------------------
           At Home, doing my own thing.           Internet: chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk
Voice: +44 61 437 4506                            Janet:    chl@uk.ac.man.cs.clw
Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave., CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.   UUCP:     mucs!clerew!chl
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenchl cudfnCharles cudlnLindsey cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.21 / Lawrence Mead /  Re: Question: correct understanding of photon reflection?
     
Originally-From: lrmead@whale.st.usm.edu (Lawrence R. Mead)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.chem
Subject: Re: Question: correct understanding of photon reflection?
Date: 21 Mar 1994 15:38:47 GMT
Organization: University of Southern Mississippi

Edward Pavelchek (ekp@mcnc.org) wrote:
: OK, time to demonstrate my ignorance.  
:    Side A - take a good reflector, like aluminum.  The photons are
:    absorbed by free electrons, aren't they.  They are not in a potential

No, the electrons are (weakly) bound, not free.

:    well, and have no clearly defined state to fall back to.  Why do they
:    emit at the same frequency?

:    Side B - Please expand your explanation for the reflection of ONE
:    photon.  Doens't the photoelectric effect confine its' absorbtion to
:    a single point?
: -- 
: Ed Pavelchek   ekp@mcnc.org

: "...but that is another story. As far as we knew, we were
: living happily everafter."  Royal Robbins

--

Lawrence R. Mead (lrmead@whale.st.usm.edu) | ESCHEW OBFUSCATION !
Associate Professor of Physics
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenlrmead cudfnLawrence cudlnMead cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.21 / Steve Czarnecki /  Re: Purple Cows
     
Originally-From: czar@vnet.IBM.COM (Steve Czarnecki)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Purple Cows
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 94 16:54:54 EST
Organization: IBM Federal Systems Co., Owego NY

In <JAKE.94Mar18184121@nucst6.neep.wisc.edu> james blanchard writes:
>>>From the restaurant, author unknown:
>>>
>>>I never saw a purple cow.
>>>I never hope to see one.
>>>I'll tell you all right here and now,
>>>I'd rather see than be one!
>>
>>The author is Gellett Burgess, I believe.  I think the third line should be
>>something like "But I can tell you anyhow."
>>
>>                                     Richard Schultz
>
>Hmm.  I thought it was Ogden Nash.  Oh well.
>
>--
>
>   jake blanchard -- university of wisconsin - madison
>   blanchard@engr.wisc.edu  OR   jake@nucst6.neep.wisc.edu
>

Don't give up the ship so easily.  I also vote for Ogden Nash.

Steve Czarnecki
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenczar cudfnSteve cudlnCzarnecki cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.21 / Joseph Michael /  Anyone for Palladium -> Silver?
     
Originally-From: Joe@stellar.demon.co.uk (Joseph Michael)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Anyone for Palladium -> Silver?
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 1994 22:08:56 +0000
Organization: Stellar Drive

I am new to this group so no flames please!

I was watching the Horizon programme and as metioned in the programme,
everyone is struck odd that there is no nuclear ash or radioactivity
in the abundance that is expected. Hmm... To avoid ash why not simply
convert Palladium to Silver with the release of huge energy in a
deuterium adsorption process that goes too far?
It would have to be a new 'chemical/atomic' process
that goes one step beyond chemical bonding because atoms don't fall into
each other's nuclei. Has anybody checked for Silver either in solution
or amalgamated with the Palladium atoms?



-- 
Joseph Michael
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenJoe cudfnJoseph cudlnMichael cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.19 / L Plutonium /  Correct Theory of Superconductivity
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.chem,alt.sci.physics.plutonium
Subject: Correct Theory of Superconductivity
Date: 19 Mar 1994 02:28:41 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

   Many to most working scientists now see the BCS theory as not much
more than a heuristic device. Although one salvageable feature of the
BCS is the notion of *many atoms behaving as though it were one atom*. 
    I believe I am on to the correct theory of superconductivity. I
anticipate changes but for the most part I believe what follows below
will be the correct theory of superconductivity, once refined and
turned into math equations. I will need the math data in order to
figure-out the equations. Since I do not have a superconductor in my
backyard, and the liquid helium et al ready and available at my
disposal. I cannot anticipate delivering those equations any time soon.
So I ask for any data from those privileged person of such data.
  This is the description of the correct theory of superconductivity
(plethora patents pending to Plutonium Atom Foundation (subsume, or
supercede the Nobel Foundation.))

  The 4 forces (interactions) of physics are quantum duals. These are
the 4 interactions (1) strong nuclear, (2) gravitation, (3)
radioactivities, (4) electromagnetism.
  Just as in QM, where particle is dual to wave and written as such.
             particle-wave. 

The 4 interactions are pairwise duals as follows.

            strongnuclear-gravitation

            radioactivities-electromagnetism

  Note to physics readers that radioactivities comprises much more than
the simple-minded electro-weak. The electro-weak interaction, before
these teachings, was merely the tip of the iceberg, where the majority
of the iceberg is underwater. 
  Radioactivities comprises the electro-weak but also spontaneous
neutron materialization from out of nowhere. Radioactivities, after
these teachings, is almost equal to the strong nuclear interaction. And
in fact the two pairwise duals above are equal in strengh. 
  In my theory, radioactivities interaction comprises these three (1)
radioactive decay (2) radioactive growth (3) spontaneous neutron
materialization.

  The 4 interactions are quantum duals. And so strong nuclear is dual
to gravity, but I am not concerned with that.    
   And Radioactivities is dual to Electromagnetism. Since
RADIOACTIVITIES is dual to ELECTROMAGNETISM,
then one can explain superconductivities in two ways. One in terms of
electron flow and photon carriers. But one can explain
superconductivity just in terms of radioactivities with neutrinos. 
  In my model, for electromagnetism, I see electrons associated with
the Faraday Lines of Force by photon carriers. The Faraday lines of
force are what I call the carrier of the signal. And it is the carrier
which determines the resistivity of the material. In my theory,
electrons moving involves associated photons.
  Now in my theory, I must take into account the numerous Collapses of
the Wavefuntion. It is the many Collapses of the Wavefunction that has
made the quest for the correct theory of superconductivity such a
monster. To give an example, one collapse of the wavefunction is the
"putting of a specific electric current, amperes, into the
superconductor." Another collapse of the wavefunction is the registered
and observed temperature, such as mercury at 4K. Another collapse of
the wavefunction is the known chemistry of the superconducting
material. And another is the observation of how many amperes current
flows out of the superconducting material. One must list all collapses
of the wavefunction in order to arrive at a correct theory and  hope to
figure-out the math equations for superconductivity.
  
   According to my theory, at very low temperatures all superconducting
substances act or behave as if it were one atom. For example, the many
atoms of mercury at 4k are no longer many atoms of mercury, but
instead, just ONE Superconducting Atom. Hence this frozen mercury is
one atom which has many electrons in a filled quantum state.  The low
temperature causes this quantum state. Now one must think of all of the
electrons of this ONE Atom and the quantum mechanics of this "filled
state." One can picture that of mercury at 4k is ONE Atom which has
perhaps 10^10 electrons and the same number of protons.

   When more electrons are attempted to be added to this frozen one
atom such as mercury and since it is in a "filled state" those new
electrons are switched into the radioactivities interaction as a stream
of beta (electrons) particles and the carrier is no longer photons for
the Faraday Lines of Force, but instead the carriers are neutrinos. 
  Thus, at the initial end where electric current is put into the
superconductor of ONE Atom, the ONE Atom electron states are full, and
trying to put more electrons into this one huge acting atom of frozen
mercury, what happens is that the ONE Atom radioactively emits a Beta
electron stream of current out the other end in the form of beta
electron decay and carried through the ONE Atom with only the
resistance of neutrinos. 
   One must picture various Collapses of the Wavefunction as I have
described above. If the current was kept flowing in the superconducting
material without escape, that is, stored within the superconductor such
as a superconductor ring, then the resistance of the superconducting
material, the ONE Atom, is not what is generally stated in every
textbook that I have seen. The resistance of the superconductor is not
0, (not zero.) But rather there is a very small positive resistance
which correlates with the carrier of the current, the neutrinos.
Different superconductors have different resistivity.   Silver
resistivity Ohm x m is 1.62 x 10^-8 at 293K and for copper at 293 it is
1.69 x10^-8. The various new ceramic superconductors and the old known
ones, and the buckyball superconductors, I hypothesize, when
experimentally checked will all show different positive number
resistivities which are close to zero, but not equal to zero. It is the
math data for these various small positive number resistivities for
different superconducting materials which will derive the equation of
superconductivity.
  As to whether a room temperature superconductor is possible and what
material would it be made? These questions can be answered because the
equation for superconductivity will be a generalized Ohm's Law, and
derive Ohm's Law as a particular case. The equation (very ugly, and far
worse than the Schroedinger equation), will fall-out that silver is the
highest quantum reflector of photons, the carrier of electric current
for conductors at room temperature and silver is the highest conductor.
Likewise, this generalized Ohm's Law will show what material has the
highest quantum reflection for neutrinos, and hence the highest
superconductor material.

  What I need now are the math data to show that this is the correct
theory of superconductivity. I need the superconductivity data of loss
of current because my theory predicts that it is not 0 resistivity but
a very small positive number. And those experimental small positive
number resistivities, I intuit will match the resistivity of neutrinos
flowing in said material.  And neutrino resistivities will be different
for the new higher transition temperature ceramic materials. That the
resistivity of flow of current in a superconducting material will match
the resistivity of neutrinos within the material. Such a match *by
math* will imply that electrons flowing in a current, upon reaching a
superconductor material will switch into neutrino carriers and flow out
the other end of the superconductor as a stream of beta decay electrons
of almost equal amperes as what went initially into the superconductor.
At the other end the current flow is back to usual with photon
carriers.
  One support for this theory is that neutrinos have both the
characteristics of electrons, spin 1/2, and photons, by traveling at
the speed of light. In other words, neutrinos are anyon particles.
  Another support for this theory is that of all particles, only
neutrinos have the characteristics for being able to travel through
matter with the resistivity found in superconductors. No other particle
travels in
materials the way neutrinos do, which matches the superconductivity
condition. So by process of elimination, the neutrino is the best
candidate particle to yield superconductive results. 
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.15 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Who's telling tails, Jed?
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Who's telling tails, Jed?
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 1994 06:45:10 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <940314150817_72240.1256_EHB150-1@compuserve.com>,
Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> wrote:
>
>     "(1) There are no actual measurements of the input power, but only upper
>     limits based on the properties of the power supply.
>
>This is crap, as Dick well knows. It is an absurd, outright lie. They have
>used many different types of instruments, including averaging meters. I have
>repeated this fact dozens of times, and Fleischmann made this perfectly clear
>during his ICCF presentation.
>
>     "(2) The information from which the time of boiloff must be deduced
>     consists only of data taken at 5 minute intervals . . . "
>
>Incorrect. The examples shown in the Phys Let. A paper were like that, but the
>experiment has been run many, many times with other types of equipment.

     So, they published the crap and kept the 'other' measurements to 
     themselves?

     That's rich.

                              dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.19 / F Berghmans /  Instrumentation
     
Originally-From: fberghma@vnet3.vub.ac.be (Francis Berghmans)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Instrumentation
Date: 19 Mar 1994 16:02:05 GMT
Organization: VUB (University of Brussels) - Applied Physics Dept.

Can anybody help me finding the most appropriate litterature
(review, book, or anything else) for having a general overview of 
all the parameters which are measured in and in the vicinity
of a fusion reactor, including the instrumentation which is used for
this purpose ?

Thank you very very much in advance.

Please e-mail me directly at :
1) fberghma@vnet3.vub.ac.be
or
2) fberghma@bmlsck11.dis1.sckmol.ac.be
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenfberghma cudfnFrancis cudlnBerghmans cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.19 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Re: Scientists and Nouveau-science Salesmen
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Scientists and Nouveau-science Salesmen
Date: 19 Mar 94 12:30:33 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

In article <2m9ip7$13n@freenet.uwm.edu>, mark@freenet.uwm.edu (Mark Hopkins) writes:
> Yeah right.  Like you've never heard of muon-catalysed fusion before.
> ###

Huh?  Muon-catalyzed fusion is a *real*, reproducible phenomenon, the only
verified form of cold fusion in fact.  I have written papers regarding
experiments for which I was spokesman, on muon catalyzed fusion, in
Phys.Rev.Letters, Scientific American, Nature, etc.  Of course I've heard of
it!
And no one that I know of is making much money from this research.  I certainly
am not.

So just what is your point, sir?
--Steven Jones

cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenjonesse cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.21 / Dieter Britz /  Testing testing
     
Originally-From: britz@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Testing testing
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 1994 10:39:57 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway


This is a test, please ignore it; we are still trying to find out what causes 
the chopped-up lines etc and I am sending this in a slightly different way, to
see if it behaves better.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenbritz cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.21 / Dieter Britz /  Testing testing
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Testing testing
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 1994 12:38:46 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway


This is a test, please ignore it; we are still trying to find out what causes 
the chopped-up lines etc and I am sending this in the old way, hoping it gets
chopped.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.21 /  PAUL /  Does or doesn't ITER need H-mode?
     
Originally-From: stek@amazon.pfc.mit.edu (PAUL)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Does or doesn't ITER need H-mode?
Date: 21 MAR 94 00:54:44 GMT
Organization: MIT PLASMA FUSION CENTER

I keep hearing different things from different people.
So does anyone out there know if ITER needs H-Mode or not
or what the current thinking is?

Paul Stek
Stek@cmod.pfc.mit.edu

BTW, yes this is a blatant attempt to introduce a thread involving real
physics issues.
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenstek cudlnPAUL cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Tue Mar 22 04:37:03 EST 1994
------------------------------
1994.03.21 / Jim Bottomley /  Re: BBC Horizon Program
     
Originally-From: ceuaz@csv.warwick.ac.uk (Jim Bottomley)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: BBC Horizon Program
Date: 21 Mar 1994 22:37:03 -0000
Organization: University of Warwick, Coventry, UK

In article <CMzJxL.1qF@clw.cs.man.ac.uk>,
	chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk (Charles Lindsey) writes:
>
>The BBC are doing another Horizon program on CF on Monday 21 March at 8pm.
>Looks like all sides of the controversy are to be exposed so, in true BBC
>fashion, we will see lots of people from both sides, but no clear conclusion
>will be reached.
>
>Also, Fleischmann is due to take part in a series of programs entitled "The
>Exporatory" at 11.15 each night this week (but not necessarily on CF).

I have just watched the Horizon programme and so tuned in to this group to
see what people are currently saying on the issue in a little more detail.

The programme was sadly lacking in detailed explanations of current results
or current debates. It gave a general impression that there was a general
trend towards a well, general, acceptance of cold fusion in certain
quarters.

My overall impression was that the sceptical voices, which included a guy
from the Dept of Energy Panel in the US and from UCL in London, were less
effective than those of the proponents. A good deal of attention was given 
in the programme to alleged successes of CF work in progress, including 
a video clip which allegedly showed an experimental car racing along a track
with a CF engine (more info on this anybody?) and numerous interviews with
people in Japan, the US and at F&P's own labs who claim to be reproducing the
results. The programme gave every impression that the Japanese funding is
broadening rather than slacking off. 

I am going to watch Fleischmann debate the issues on UK TV tonight and 
will post a brief resume of this here tommorrow.

Perhaps the most striking aspect of this programme to my mind was the way
that vested interests, such as those of researchers in hot fusion, were
shown to be linked directly to alteration of data and suppression and 
distortion of evidence. This was shown in a very damming way. The other
aspect that looked very sad was the apparent threats and hostility still
being shown to researchers in this field; surely there is enough capacity
in the global research base to allow many different avenues to be explored
without this sort of thing happening? What happened to free scientific 
enquiry? Just thoughts coming out of this....
-- 
Jim Bottomley: ceuaz@uk.ac.warwick.csv

cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenceuaz cudfnJim cudlnBottomley cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.21 / Blazek Robert /  Popular Science magazine-Cold fusion article
     
Originally-From: blazek@server.uwindsor.ca (Blazek Robert)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Popular Science magazine-Cold fusion article
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 1994 23:47:52 GMT
Organization: University of Windsor, Ontario, Canada

Hi, this is probably very old hat but I remember reading a Popular Science
story about cold fusion about 6 months ago or so.  What did people think of
it? Has there been any change so far on the CF front.

On a related note is there a FAQ for this group? I'm interested in an amateur
way about fusion technology.  Thanks in advance.

cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenblazek cudfnBlazek cudlnRobert cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.22 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: Purple Cows
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Purple Cows
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 1994 03:34:09 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <19940321.135358.536@almaden.ibm.com>,
Steve Czarnecki <czar@vnet.IBM.COM> wrote:
>In <JAKE.94Mar18184121@nucst6.neep.wisc.edu> james blanchard writes:
>>>>From the restaurant, author unknown:
>>>>
>>>>I never saw a purple cow.
>>>>I never hope to see one.
>>>>I'll tell you all right here and now,
>>>>I'd rather see than be one!
>>>
>>>The author is Gellett Burgess, I believe.  I think the third line should be
>>>something like "But I can tell you anyhow."
>>>
>>>                                     Richard Schultz
>>
>>Hmm.  I thought it was Ogden Nash.  Oh well.
>>
>>--
>>
>>   jake blanchard -- university of wisconsin - madison
>>   blanchard@engr.wisc.edu  OR   jake@nucst6.neep.wisc.edu
>>
>
>Don't give up the ship so easily.  I also vote for Ogden Nash.

Ogden Nash did write:
	I've never seen an Abominable Snowman
	I'm hoping not to see one
	I'm also hoping, if I do
	That it will be a wee one

I don't suppose the style would be hard to match.

>
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.23 / SCOTT CHUBB /  Errors in your critique...admonition to try to communicate better
     
Originally-From: CHUBB@cfe1.nrl.navy.mil (SCOTT CHUBB)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Errors in your critique...admonition to try to communicate better
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 1994 01:10:13 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Dear Dick Blue,

     I do believe that it is valuable to have an informative
discussion concerning our theory and appreciate your attempt to
do so.  I also thank Steven Jones for forwarding along a copy
of our paper.  If you had asked me, I would have been glad
to have forwarded you a electronic mail version of the paper.

     On the other hand, I also think that to have an informative
discussion, it would be appropriate, at least in a public forum, to 
try to remove as much signal-to-noise from the discussion prior
to airing our mutual views before airing them.  What I mean by this
is that, in my opinion, it really is useful to "attempt" to get the
facts straight (for example, via private communication) about interpreta-
tion prior to airing them.  I especially think this to be appropriate
because I do value your comments and believe they have, at least to a
degree, been helpful in the past in expressing a number of issues
that have been stumbling blocks to a number of critics of our work.

     Your latest correspondence has some value because it does draw
attention to a very important point (associated with Wannier states) and 
time scales.  And I also appreciate very much your taking the time to attempt
(though without success) to come to grips with this concept and the fact 
that you have taken the time to type large amounts of text from our 20 
page paper (entitled "Lattice Induced Nuclear Chemistry) from the 
Provo conference.  This at least in my mind suggests that you 
are sincerely interested in understanding if what we are saying is "a 
shell game" or real. 

     There is in fact a very simple reason for your believing (incorrectly)
that we have thrown away important portions of the potential energy
when we have not in fact done so.  And I will get to this point in 
a moment.

   However, before I proceed, I really want to bring out a couple of
points concerning this business of signal-to-noise and the need to
communicate better.  I sincerely believe this is an important, evolving
scientific forum, and as such, it can/should prove to be extremely 
valuable, and mention these points about communication because of this
fact.  When the signal-to-noise becomes to high, people either stop
paying attention or do not have the time to do so.

     As I said, I do think signal-to-noise could have been reduced if
you had checked with me.  I also could have saved you some time by
forwarding an E-Mail version of our paper.  I also think that signal-to-noise
can be lowered by not exhorting to harsh declarations, or statements
of "fact" that are not true.

     For example, in my initial communication, I criticized the fact
that you scornfully referred to me as "Mr." Chubb when I am actually
"Dr." Chubb.  I did this more in response to your tone than to the
significance of this fact.  The following example from your latest
communication provides a worse example of "unnecessary" noise that
really does not belong:

-"I had indicated my doubt that the theory put forth by the
-brothers Chubb was strictly on the up and up.  I have sense taken
-time to carefully read the Chubb exposition so that I am now
-prepared to make a very specific suggestion as to how the approach
-taken is completely and totally incorrect."  

I do believe you have in fact read one of our papers but not carefully
enough. But more to the point this business about "up and up" really
is not called for.  A simple statement "I do not believe the theory for
a number of reasons" would have sufficed quite satisfactorily.  There
is a considerably more serious problem with this last quote, however,
that I actually recent.  Can you identify what it is?  

Had you checked
with me prior to posting it, you would have learned that my co-author
is not my brother.  He is my uncle.  The reason I recent the reference
to "brothers Chubb" is that I have heard us referred to in this context
by other people.  I would like to bring this sort of thing to a close.

With regard to the simple explanation of where you have gone awry,
it can be traced from the very first comments you have made concerning your
interpretation of our theory.  You state:

-(1) the Bloch or BBC type band state wavefunctions in which there
-is no localization of a particle in the periodic lattice, and (2)
-the Wannier representation in which particles are confined to
-specific lattice sites.  The basic picture presented is that
-in the PdD case the vast majority of the deuterons are to be
-described by the latter, but that once the lattice sites are
-filled some extra deuterons occupy band states at the level of
-10^-7 or so.

The Wannier states are constructed from the BBC states.  The vast
majority of the states are described by neither state.  The formulation
in terms of Wannier states is equivalent to the formulation in terms
of Wannier states.  The question of potentials has nothing to do with
this.  The point is that the BBC and the Wannier states (which are
representations of the same small number of deuterons) become occupied 
through interaction with the underlying potential of the lattice.  The
difference is that the Wannier states have a finite lifetime, while
in the limit of perfect crystalline order, the Bloch states or
infinitely long-lived.  The questions associated with coordinates
have nothing to do with this.

The Wannier states are a particle-like representation of the Bloch
states, no more, no less.  

Because you have misinterpreted the Wannier states, the discussions
associated with timescale, which deal mutual occupation of a lattice
site (either by Bloch or Wannier state) BBC deuterons, that you have
given are not correct.  The point is that what actually happens is
that the center of mass motion of the band state deuterons is modelled using
the zero-point-motion of the last D to bind to PdD.  This is an approximation.
But in fact for the purposes of establishing a bound on fusion rate, this
approximation leads to an underestimate of the rate.

With regard to your comments about the fact that G really can not take on
arbitrarily large values.  However, it can be shown that effective momentum
available from the e(k+g)=e(k) degeneracy, scales as sqrt(Ncell), where
Ncell is the number of unit cells. (Energy per cell scales as 1/Ncell; 
available momentum scales as sqrt(Ncell).)  For values of Ncell>10.e8,
this leads to the possibility of fusion.



SCOTT CHUBB

cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenCHUBB cudfnSCOTT cudlnCHUBB cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.22 / J Fitzherbert /  Re: CF on Horizon yesterday evening (BBC2)
     
Originally-From: julian@gatwick.sgp.slb.com (Julian Fitzherbert)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CF on Horizon yesterday evening (BBC2)
Date: 22 Mar 1994 10:44:01 GMT
Organization: Schlumberger Geco-Prakla

I saw the Horizon programme yesterday (21st March 1994). For those
who missed it BBC2 will retransmit it over the weekend. Since Horizon
is made jointly with a Boston TV company I guess the programmes get
shown in the States. Is this the case?

Back to the programme. One researcher theorised that the energy 
release in the Cold Fusion cell was caused by the hydrogen electron
dropping to a lower orbital, at least that's what I understood him to
say. If this is the case then the 'waste' from the cell is water with 
the hydrogen in a lower electron state. Presumably there is some 
mechanism by which the hydrogen recharges unless we just eventually
end up with an ocean of 'discharged' water.

There also seemed to be a hint that the cold fusion process is nuclear
since someone put a used palladium electrode against some film and got
an exposure characteristic of radiation (They didn't say if the same
thing happened before the electrode went swimming in the cell).

All in all an interesting program but being only a humble geophysicist
I can't comment on any more than a superficial level. I shall watch the
net with interest for further developements and knowledgable comments 
from the nuclear fusion wizards. Happy discussing :)




cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenjulian cudfnJulian cudlnFitzherbert cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.22 / J Fitzherbert /  Re: Continuous Heat???
     
Originally-From: julian@gatwick.sgp.slb.com (Julian Fitzherbert)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Continuous Heat???
Date: 22 Mar 1994 12:35:11 GMT
Organization: Schlumberger Geco-Prakla

In article 1494@physc1.byu.edu, jonesse@physc1.byu.edu writes:
> Had a phone call from a colleague a few days ago who had visited A. Takahashi
> at his lab in Japan, reports *no* excess heat lately.  Quite a different
> story.  So who is getting 'continuous heat', Tom?  Can we follow up at all?
> 
> --Steve
> 

The BBC2 Horizon programme that I referred to earlier also mentioned
a US company called Thermocore who reportedly get continuous heat from
a CF cell. They seem to be using nickel electrodes (thats what they say)
and said they were on the verge of marketing a water heater using this
technology. They were quoting 1000% energy return on the input !!!!
Wow thats a kilowatt out for 1 watt in - incredible if true. I can heat 
my water tank for 3 watt hours as opposed to 3 Kwatt hours. Ummmm...... 

Fleischman was quoted in his French lab as being about to run a cell
giving continuous heat for 3 months.  

Just reporting what I heard folks and trying to stay open minded.
BTW I enjoyed Steve Jones Scientific American paper on Muon Catalysed
Fusion. What came of the process Steve it sounded great? I remember
Arthur C Clarke borrowed the idea to power one of his space ships
in the 3rd 2001 novel (2026?).



cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenjulian cudfnJulian cudlnFitzherbert cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.22 / Robert Heeter /  Re: Popular Science magazine-Cold fusion article
     
Originally-From: rfheeter@theory.pppl.gov (Robert F. Heeter)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Popular Science magazine-Cold fusion article
Date: 22 Mar 1994 10:20:12 -0500
Organization: /etc/organization

In article <Cn1Grs.76o@uwindsor.ca>,
Blazek Robert <blazek@server.uwindsor.ca> wrote:

>On a related note is there a FAQ for this group? I'm interested in an amateur
>way about fusion technology.  Thanks in advance.

There's a conventional (magnetic, inertial, muon) fusion FAQ slowly
developing... If you post a list of questions, I'm sure you'll get answers.

--Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@theory.pppl.gov, disclaimers apply



cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Wed Mar 23 04:37:03 EST 1994
------------------------------
1994.03.23 / Robert Heeter /  (Long) Part 10A, Conventional Fusion Proto-FAQ - Glossary Intro
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: (Long) Part 10A, Conventional Fusion Proto-FAQ - Glossary Intro
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 1994 02:13:55 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

10A. FUT: Glossary of Frequently Used Terms in Conventional Fusion

4th Draft, Last Revised on Sunday, March 6, 1994.
Edited by Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@theory.pppl.gov

***  This introduces the Conventional Fusion FUT/Glossary  ***

* Editorial Note:  

Like any discipline, fusion research has evolved terminology used 
to facilitate discussion.  This includes the scientific vocabulary 
of the discipline, the names of various research machines and 
devices used, the names of various researchers in the field, the 
names of the various research labs and funding authorities, the
mathematical symbols used, and the acronyms frequently used as 
shorthand for some of the above,.  

In the case of conventional (magnetic confinement, inertial
confinement, thermonuclear, muon-catalyzed, etc - but not Cold)
fusion, this terminology has grown to the point where newcomers 
may be intimidated by the apparent obscurity of the discussions.  
This file is our attempt to provide a comprehensive and detailed 
listing and explanation of terms frequently used, so that those new 
to the group/field will be able to understand what is being said, 
and to contribute with a minimum of confusion and frustration.  

The following is a rough draft of a guide to terminology used in
conventional (not Cold) fusion research.  This is the third draft of 
the terminology guide, and while considerable progress has been made, 
many relevant terms are still unlisted, undefined, or poorly defined. 
(Hint:  If you don't like something, submit a revision/correction, 
and I'll put it in if it looks good.)


* What's in the FUT:  

We started with an initial list supplied by Jim Day 
(Jim.Day@support.com).  To this were added some comments from various
responses I received to the first draft.  I then incorporated much of
the terms in the glossary of Robin Herman's _Fusion: The Search for
Endless Energy_ (without permission, but with attribution where they
occur).  Then acronyms, machine names, and names of important 
scientists were added as they came. This completed the second draft.  

For the third draft, I have incorporated comments and new definitions
received in response to the second draft, and added some new terms 
from the "Princeton Plasma Physics Laboaratory Glossary of Fusion 
Terms", which I obtained at PPPL.  I added categories for research 
and funding/political agencies, tried to broaden the base of basic
science terms, and wrote up a few more preliminary definitions based
upon explanations that have appeared in the newsgroup and in my 
studies.  Many of the terms listed still do not have explanations 
given.  


* What's Needed to Improve the FUT:

I am looking for additional contributions (and improvements) to 
the list.  It would be nice if people posting to the group could
occasionally take a few moments to include definitions of a few 
terms used (as I have tried to do lately) when you use them; in 
browsing through the group I can then snip out the terms and 
definitions and simply paste them into the evolving FUT file.
It also would be nice if references to the FAQ/FQA and the 
Reading List / Bibliography could be given to supplement 
the FUT descriptions, at least for some of the more
complicated terms.


* Comment on Sources:

The terms and definitions occurring here represent a collection
of contributions from numerous sources.  Rather than include
acknowledgements for each individual definition, I have made
blanket acknowledgements at the end.  I have tried to include 
citations in most cases where only a single source was used.


* This file may be freely distributed; I recommend you retain the
revision date, and in any case I'd like to be cited as the editor. *

****************
Robert F. Heeter
rfheeter@lyman.pppl.gov
Graduate Student, Princeton Plasma Physics Lab
(Usual disclaimers apply.)
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.23 / Robert Heeter /  (Long) Part 10C, Convetional Fusion Proto-FAQ - Glossary F to M
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: (Long) Part 10C, Convetional Fusion Proto-FAQ - Glossary F to M
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 1994 02:36:13 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

==================================================================

Section 10 Part C - Glossary F-M

FREQUENTLY USED TERMS IN CONVENTIONAL FUSION RESEARCH 
AND PLASMA PHYSICS

Edited by Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@lyman.pppl.gov

4th Draft, Last Revised Sunday, March 6, 1994.

Guide to Categories:
 
* = vocabulary 
> = device type or machine name
# = name of a constant or variable
! = scientists 
@ = acronym
% = labs & political organizations

Citations and Acknowledgements appear in Section 11.

==================================================================


FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF

# F:  Variable typically used for force; sometimes flux.

@ FRC: Field-Reversed Configuration; see entry

* Field Lines:

> Field-Reversed Configuration:  A compact torus produced in a 
theta pinch and having (in principle) no toroidal field.  The 
potential advantages for a fusion reactor include a simple (linear) 
machine geometry, an average plasma pressure close to the confining 
field pressure, and physical separation of formation and burn 
chambers.  The are predicted to be violently unstable to tilting, but 
this has never been observed.  See also: compact torus, theta pinch.
(Arthur Carlson, awc@ipp-garching.mpg.de)

* First Wall:  The first physical boundary that surrounds a plasma.

* Fission (Nuclear): (adapted from Herman) the division 
of an atomic nucleus into two smaller nuclei.  In large 
nuclei, frequently accompanied by large energy release 
and generally one or more neutrons.  Fissioning of atoms
into more than two pieces seems not to happen, but see
spallation.  See also: radioactivity.

* Fission Bomb:  see atomic bomb, A-bomb.

* Fission Reactor:  (from Herman) A device that can initiate 
and control a self-sustaining series of nuclear fissions.

* Flat-top:  Stable period in the middle of a tokamak
discharge, characterized by a flat, stable peak in a plot
of plasma (current, temperature) vs. time.

* Flute Instability:  Term used to describe an interchange
instability occuring in a cyclindrical geometry, due to the
resemblance of the unstable cylinder to a fluted column in classical
architecture.

* Flux:  The total amount of a quantity passing through a given
surface per unit time.

* Flux Density:  Total amount of a quantity passing through a
unit surface area in unit time.

* Flux freezing:  See frozen-in law.

* Flux trapping:  See frozen-in law.

* Fokker-Planck Equation:  An equation that describes the time rate 
of change of a particle's velocity as a result of small-angle 
collisional deflections.  Applicable when the cumulative effect of 
many small-angle collisions is greater than the effect of rarer
large-angle deflections.

* Force:  There are four presently known forces among elementary 
particles:  etc.  force between charged bodies is k Q1 Q2 / r^2, 
weak ..., strong, gravity.
	(need to take some time and write this up nicely.)

* Frozen-in Law:  In a perfect conductor, the total magnetic flux
through any surface is a constant.  In a plasma which is nearly
perfectly conducting, the relevant surfaces move with the plasma;
the result is that the plasma is tied to the magnetic field, and
the field is tied to the plasma.

* Fusion (Nuclear): a nuclear reaction in which light atomic 
nuclei combine to form heavier nuclei.  (See also Controlled
Thermonuclear Fusion)

* Fusion Reactor: (from Herman) A nuclear reactor in which
a self-sustaining series of nuclear fusions would produce
energy (that could be converted to electric power).

> Fusion-Fission Hybrid: (from Herman) A proposed type of
nuclear reactor relying on both fusion and fission reactions.
A central fusion chamber would produce neutrons to provoke
fission in a surrounding blanket of fissionable material.
The neutron source could also be used to convert other
materials into additional fissile fuels (breeder hybrid).


GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG

@ GA - General Atomic; see entry.

% Garching:  A town in Germany just north of Munich, where the Max
Planck Institute for Plasma Physics (see entry) is located.

! Gauss, Carl Friedrich: (1777-1855) German mathmetician, astronomer 
and physicist.

* Gaussian Units - See CGS Units

% General Atomic:  U.S. corporation involved in fusion research;
operates the DIII-D device in San Diego; see also Doublet III-D.
(What's the other name for GA?)

* Gradient:

* Gyrofrequency:  See cyclotron frequency.

* Gyroradius: radius of charged particle in magnetic field.
Same thing as cyclotron radius, Larmor radius.

> Glow Discharge: a relatively cool form of plasma discharge;
a common form is in fluorescent lights. (more?)

* Group Velocity:

* Guiding Center:


HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

@ H - chemical symbol for the element hydrogen.

@ He - chemical symbol for the element helium.

! Hertz, Heinrich:  19th-century German physicist.

* Hertz:  Unit of frequency equal to one complete oscillation (cycle)
per second.

* Half-life:  (from Herman) The time in which half the 
atoms of a particular radioactive isotope disintegrate 
to another nuclear form.  Half-lives range from millionths 
of a second to billions of years.

* Helicity:

* Helium: Element whose nuclei all contain two protons.
Stable isotopes are 3He and 4He.  3He is rare on earth (only 1.3
ppm of naturally-occuring He), can be generated from decaying
tritium (half life of about 12 years), and is relatively abundant 
in the crust of the moon.  Helium is the second most abundant element 
in the universe and in the sun.

@ H-mode:  see high-mode

* High-mode or H-mode:  (from Herman) A regime of operation
attained during auxiliary heating of divertor tokamak plasmas
when the injected power is sufficiently high.  A sudden
improvement in particle confinement time leads to increased
density and temperature, distinguishing this mode from
the normal "low mode."

* Hybrid reactor:  see fusion-fission hybrid.

* Hydrogen: (H) Element whose nuclei all contain only one proton.
Isotopes are protium (p, no neutrons) deuterium (D or d, 
one neutron), and tritium (T or t, two neutrons).  The single most
abundant element in the universe, and in the sun.

* Hydrogen bomb or H-bomb: (from Herman) An extremely 
powerful type of atomic bomb based on nuclear fusion.  
The atoms of heavy isotopes of hydrogen (deuterium and 
tritium) undergo fusion when subjected to the immense 
heat and pressure generated by the explosion of a nuclear 
fission unit in the bomb.  

* Hydromagnetic Instability:  See MHD Instability


IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

# I - variable used to indicate total current through a conductor.

@ IAEA - International Atomic Energy Agency; see entry
 
@ IBHP - Integrated Biological Hazard Potential; see entry

@ ICE - Ion Cyclotron Emission; see entry

@ ICF - Inertial Confinement Fusion; see entry

@ ICH - Ion Cyclotron Heating - see ICRH

@ ICRH - Ion Cyclotron Resonance Heating; see entry

@ INEL - Idaho National Engineering Laboratory; see entry

@ IPP - Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics; see entry

@ ITER - International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor; see entry

% Idaho National Engineering Laboratory:  U.S. Department of energy
laboratory involved in engineering studies for fusion and fission
reactors, among other things.  Not surprisingly, located in Idaho.

* Ignition:  (from Herman) The point at which the plasma 
produces so much energy from fusion reactions that it no 
longer needs any external source of power to maintain 
its temperature.

* Impurities: atoms of unwanted elements in the plasma, 
inhibiting fusion.

* Inductive Current Drive:

* Inertial Confinement Fusion:  Approach to fusion where the plasma
is imploded so quickly that the inertia of the converging particles
is so high that they fuse before they disperse.  This is the method
used in a hydrogen bomb; ICF schemes for power production usually
use small pellets of fuel in an attempt to make "miniature"
h-bomb type explosions.  Methods for imploding the pellet include
bombardment from all sides with high-powered laser and particle
beams, and of course implosion in a fission bomb.  Parts of ICF
fusion research remain classified due to their implications for
construction of hydrogen bombs.

* Instability:  (adapted from Herman) A state of plasma in which a
small perturbation amplifies itself to a considerable 
alteration of the equilibrium of the system, leading to
disruptions.  Most are associated with waves and other natural
modes of oscillation in the plasma, which can sometimes grow.
There are (unfortunately!) many kinds.   See also:
Flute instability, MHD instability, Interchange instability,
microinstability, kink instability, resistive instability, 
trapped particle instability, two-stream instability, universal
instability, velocity-space instability.

* Integrated Biological Hazard Potential:

* Interchange Instability:

* Interferometer:

* Interferometry:
	Optical -
	Microwave -

% International Atomic Energy Agency: (from Herman)  An
autonomous intergovernmental organization established in 1956
with the purpose of advancing peaceful uses of atomic energy,
with headquarters in Vienna.

> International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER):
Huge fusion reactor being planned by the EC, US, Japan,
and Russia (former USSR?).  Should generate far more
energy than it consumes.  Research goals include engineering
studies of reactor materials, component designs for steady-state
devices, and testing/proving commercial feasibility.

* Ioffe Bars:  Special configuration of conductors which, when
added to a conventional magnetic mirror, generate a "magnetic
well" which stabilizes the mirror against the hydromagnetic
instability.

* Ion:  (from Herman) An atom whic hhas ecome charged as a 
result of gaining or losing one or more orbiting electrons.  
A completely ionized atom is one stripped of all its electrons.

* Ion Cyclotron Emission (ICE):  As ions gyrate around in a magnetic
field (see also larmor radius or cyclotron radius), they radiate 
radio-frequency electromagnetic waves.  This is known as ion cyclotron
emission, and can be measured to help diagnose a plasma.

* Ion Cyclotron Resonance Heating:  Like ECH, but heats ions 
using the ion cyclotron frequency.  See Electron Cyclotron Heating.

* Ion Temperature: the temperature corresponding to the
mean kinetic energy of the ions in a plasma.

* Ionization:  Process by which a neutral atom is converted to an ion 
(or one ion is converted to another of a different type).

* Ionization Energy:  Generally refers to the amount of energy 
required to strip a particular electron from an atom.  The 
first-ionization-energy is a commonly used quantity in many fields 
of physics and chemistry.  Typically measured in electron-volts.

* Ionization Potential:  See ionization energy.

* Ionosphere:  Ionized region of the upper earth atmosphere, which
behaves like a plasma, including reflection of AM radio waves and
generation of auroral glows.

* Isomer, Nuclear:  two nuclei with the same nuclear mass (total
number of protons and neutrons) but different nuclear compostions.
(e.g.: T & 3He are isomers: T has 1p, 2n; 3He has 2p, 1n)

* Isotope: (from Herman) One of several variations of the 
same element, possessing different numbers of neutrons but
the same number of protons in their nuclei.


JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ

# J - variable used to indicate current density

@ JET - Joint European Torus; see entry

@ JT-60: Japan Torus - 60 (??)

> Joint European Torus:  (from Herman) A large tokamak in Oxfordshire,
England, commonly owned by the European Community.  First reactor to
achieve > 1 MW of fusion power, in 1991.  Largest tokamak currently 
in operation (to the best of the editor's knowledge).

> JT-60: (from Herman) A large Japanese tokamak located north 
of Tokyo.

* Joule Heating: See ohmic heating


KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK

# k: Mathematical symbol usually used for Boltzmann's Constant.

* Kelvin: (K) temperature scale where zero degrees corresponds
to absolute zero (no thermal energy); degrees have same
size as in Celsius/centigrade scale.  273.16 K = zero C;
373.16 = 100 C.

* Kinetic Pressure:  Density of kinetic energy (energy in the
thermal motions of the plasma particles).  For an ideal plasma,
p = nkT.

* Kink Instability:  Instability resulting from excessive growth
of a kink mode; see kink mode.

* Kink Mode:

* Kruskal Limit:  In tokamaks, limiting value for plasma current
beyond which MHD instabilities are predicted.  (Has it been tested?)


LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL

@ L-mode: see low mode.

@ LANL - Los Alamos National Laboratory; see entry

@ LBL - Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory; see entry

@ LLNL - Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory; see entry

* Landau Damping:  Damping of a wave propagating in a hot plasma,
due to the interaction of the wave with particles whose velocity
is close to the phase velocity of the wave.  Depends on the shape
of the velocity-space distribution function at the phase velocity.
(Anybody got a nice, brief, intuitive explanation of this?)

! Langmuir, Irving (1881-1957): American chemist, won Nobel Prize in 
chemistry in 1932, developed the theory of Langmuir probes (see 
entry)

* Langmuir frequency:  See plasma frequency.

* Langmuir oscillation:  See electrostatic waves.

* Langmuir probe: a small conductive electrode used to measure the
density, temperature, and electric potential (voltage) of a plasma.

* Larmor radius: the radius of the path of a charged 
particle in a magnetic field.  Also known as gyroradius
and cyclotron radius.

@ Laser: Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation. 

* Laser: (adapted from Herman) an optical device that amplifies and
concentrates light waves, emitting them in a narrow, intense beam.
Laser light radiation is notable for its brightness and to some 
extent for its monochromaticity and spatial and temporal coherence.

> Laser Fusion:  Form of inertial confinement fusion where
laser beams are used to compress the fuel pellet.

* Laser scattering device: See Thomson scattering device.

% Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory:  Located in Berkeley, CA; Another
large U.S. science laboratory; minor (?) U.S. fusion research center.  

% Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory:  Located in Livermore, CA,
about an hour east of the SF Bay Area.  Home of the Nova laser ICF
program, the largest laser in the world.  Home of the former mirror
projects MFTF (Mirror Fusion Test Facility, shut down on the day 
it became operational, or thereabouts), TMX-U (Tandem Mirror 
eXperiment Upgrade), and the recently shut down Microwave Tokamak 
eXperiment (MTX).  Workplace of Albert Chou and several other 
sci.physics.fusion participants. :)

* Lawson Criterion:  Scientific breakeven criterion based on the 
product of energy confinement time, particle density, and plasma
temperature.

* Limiters:  (from Herman) structures placed in contact 
with the edge of a confined plasma which are used to 
define the shape of the outermost magnetic surface.  See also: 
divertor.

* Lithium: (Li)  Third element in the periodic table, so all isotopes
contain 3 protons; highly reactive; stable isotopes are Li-6 (7.5%
abundance) and Li-7 (92.5%); candidate for breeding tritium from 
fusion neutrons via the reactions: 

	n + 6Li -> 4He + T + 4.8 MeV, n + 7Li -> 4He + T + n - 2.5 MeV.

* Longitudinal Waves:

* Lorentz Force:  Total electromagnetic force on a charged particle
moving in electric & magnetic fields.  F = q(E + (v/c)xB).  See
also force, cross product, charge, velocity, and variable symbols.

* Lorentz Gas:  Plasma model in which the electrons are assumed
not to interact with each other, but only with ions (Z -> infinity)
and where the ions are assumed to remain at rest/fixed (M-i -> 
infinity).

* Lorentz Model - see Lorentz Gas

% Los Alamos National Laboratory:  Major DOE research facility, 
located in Los Alamos, New Mexico, about an hour west of Santa Fe.
(Home of a frozen-deuterium-fiber Z-pinch device?)  (Need to add 
more info here.)

* Loss Cone:

* Low Aspect Ratio:

* Low mode or L-Mode:  (from Herman) The "normal" behavior of 
a tokamak plasma, characterized by poor confinement and a particular
scaling of decreasing confinement with increasing temperature.

* Lower Hybrid Heating:  form of RF heating using Lower Hybrid Waves.

* Lower Hybrid Waves:  "Electrostatic ion oscillations at a frequency
intermediate to the electron extraordinary wave (high frequency) and 
the magnetosonic wave (low frequency).  Not waves, strictly speaking,
because they do not propagate (I think)." 
	- Albert Chou, albert@seas.ucla.edu


MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

# m, M - variable typically used for mass.

@ MFE - Magnetic Fusion Energy

@ MFTF - Mirror Fusion Test Facility; see entry

@ MIT - Massachusetts Institute of Technology; see entry

@ MHD - Magnetohydrodynamics; see entry

@ MHD Instability - see Magnetohydrodynamic instability.

@ MKS - Meters, Kilometers, Seconds - see SI Units

@ MKSA - Meters, Kilometers, Seconds, Amperes - See SI Units.

@ MTX - Microwave Tokamak eXperiment; see entry

% Madison - See University of Wisconsin-Madison

* Magnetic Bottle (from Herman) The magnetic field used to
confine a plasma in controlled fusion experiments.

* Magnetic Confinement Fusion:  Method of fusion which uses
magnetic fields / magnetic bottles to confine a hot plasma
until fusion occurs.

* Magnetic Field:

* Magnetic Limiter:  See divertor (??)

> Magnetic Mirror: See mirror effect, mirror device

* Magnetic Pressure:  Pressure which a magnetic field is capable
of exerting on a plasma; equal to the magnetic energy density;
proportional to B^2.  (Constant is 1/(2*mu-o) in SI units, 1/8pi
in CGS units).

* Magnetic Pumping:  Form of plasma heating where the plasma is
successively compressed and expanded by means of a fluctuating
external magnetic field.  (See also adiabatic compression, frozen-in
law.)

* Magnetic Well:  see Minimum-B Configuration.

* Magnetohydrodynamics:  Electrodynamic fluid model that takes 
into account electric current and magnetic field; relevant at 
relatively low frequencies and for distance scales larger than 
the larmor radius.

* Magnetohydrodynamic Generator:  A device that extracts
kinetic energy from a jet of plasma and generates electricity.

* Magnetohydrodynamic Instability:

% Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT):  Located in Cambridge, 
MA (just outside Boston).  Home of the Plasma Fusion Center and the
Alcator series of compact tokmaks.

% Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics (IPP):  In Garching (near
Munich).  The largest plasma physics institute in Germany.  Presently
home of ASDEX-Upgrade and Wendelstein-7AS. (See entries)

! Maxwell, James Clerk:  19th-century British physicist, responsible 
for the synthesis of the equations of electromagnetism and the 
prediction of electromagnetic waves, among other things.

* Maxwell-Boltzmann Distribution:  Distribution function of particle
velocities corresponding to a system in thermal equilibrium with a
temperature value of T.  See also: distribution functions, 
temperature.

* Maxwellian Distribution: see Maxwell-Boltzmann Distribution

* Maxwell's Equations: The key equations governing
electrical and magnetic phenomena. (more?)

* Mean Free Path:

* Meltdown:  (from Herman) A buildup of heat in the core of
a nuclear fission reactor due to an uncontrolled chain
reaction of the fission fuel causing the fuel rods to 
melt down to (through, in some cases) the reactor floor.

* Metastable state:  several types
	Electronic
	Nuclear
	
* Microinstability: Instabilities due to particle / kinetic 
theoretical effects, typically occuring on small scales, as opposed 
to those derivable from fluid models valid on larger scales.

* Microwave Interferometer:  See interferometer, interferometry.

* Microwave Tokamak eXperiment (MTX): a reincarnation of Alcator C
at LLNL, now shut down.

> Minimum-B Configuration:  Confinement configuration where the
magnetic field strength is a minimum where the plasma is to be
confined, and increases in all directions away from the confinement
region.  Stability is favorable in such a configuration because the
magnetic pressure increases in all directions away from the plasma.

> Mirror device, mirror machine:  (Adapted from Herman)
Generally, linear fusion machines which confine the plasma
using the mirror effect.  Basically there is a weak field
in the center, and strong fields at the ends.

* Mirror effect: A charged particle travelling into an increasing
magnetic field will (if the field becomes strong enough) reverse 
direction and be reflected back.

> Mirror Fusion Test Facility (MFTF):  A large mirror device built 
at LLNL in the late 1970s and mothballed for political reasons 
just before it was to begin operation.

* Mirror Ratio:  In a magnetic mirror configuration, the ratio
between the strongest and weakest values of the magnetic field;
a key ratio in determining confinement properties of the system.

* Mobility:

* Mole: The amount of given substance such that the mass in grams 
is equal to its [atomic weight, molecular weight, mass number].
The number of particles in a mole of a substance is Avogadro's
Number (see entry).

* Motor-Generator:  Device used to store energy by accelerating
a rotating flywheel to high speeds; energy may be rapidly discharged
and converted to shorter-pulse energy.  (Used to power TFTR; the
electric utility would be a little unhappy if TFTR were to suddenly
draw its 30 MW+ of power at random intervals. :)

> Muon-Catalyzed Fusion: (Steve Jones?)
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.23 / Robert Heeter /  (Long) Part 10B, Conventional Fusion Proto-FAQ - Glossary A to E
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: (Long) Part 10B, Conventional Fusion Proto-FAQ - Glossary A to E
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 1994 02:34:35 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

==================================================================

Section 10 Part B - Glossary A-E

FREQUENTLY USED TERMS IN CONVENTIONAL FUSION RESEARCH 
AND PLASMA PHYSICS

Edited by Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@lyman.pppl.gov

4th Draft, Last Revised Sunday, March 6, 1994.

Guide to Categories:
 
* = vocabulary 
> = device type or machine name
# = name of a constant or variable
! = scientists 
@ = acronym
% = labs & political organizations

Citations and Acknowledgements appear in Section 11.

==================================================================

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

@ AEC - (US) Atomic Energy Commission; see entry

@ ANL - Argonne National Laboratory; see entry

@ ASDEX - Axially Symmetric Divertor EXperiment; see entry

@ ASDEX-U - ASDEX-Upgrade; see entry for ASDEX.

* Activation: Activation occurs when a particle interacts
with an atomic nucleus, shifting the nucleus into an
unstable state, and causing it to become radioactive.
In fusion research, where deuterium-tritium is a common
fuel mixture, the neutron released when (D + T) combine
to form (4He + n) can activate the reactor structure. 

* Activation Product: The unstable nucleus formed when
activation occurs.  (See activation above.)

* Adiabatic:  Not involving an exchange of heat between the
system said to be adiabatic and the rest of the universe.

* Adiabatic Invariant:

* Afterglow:  Recombination radiation emitted from a cooling
plasma when the source of ionization (heating, etc) is removed.

* Advanced Fuels:  There are several elements/isotopes which
could be fused together, besides the DT fuel mixture.  Many such
fuel combinations would have various advantages over DT, but
it is generally more difficult to achieve fusion with these
advanced fuels than with the DT mix.  See fuels section of FAQ
for discussion. 

> Advanced Toroidal Facility:  (?) A reversed-field pinch machine
developed at Oak Ridge National Lab (ORNL) (?)

> Alcator: (from Herman) A family of tokamaks developed and
built at MIT and characterized by relatively small diameters
and high magnetic fields.  Plasmas in these devices have
relatively high current and particle densities.  Current incarnation
is Alcator C-mod.  Alcator C was donated to LLNL for use as the 
Microwave Tokamak eXperiment (MTX), now shut down.

* Alfven waves: Transverse electromagnetic waves that are 
propagated along lines of magnetic force in a plasma.  The waves
have frequency less than the ion cyclotron frequency, and are
characterized by the fact that the field lines oscillate (wiggle)
with the plasma.  The propagation velocity depends on the particle
density and the strength of the magnetic field.  "[Relatively] 
Low frequency ion oscillation in the presence of an equilibrium 
magnetic field.  Also called the hydromagnetic wave along Bo.  
The torsional Alfven wave in cylindrical geometry was first measured 
in liquid mercury by B. Lehnert.  Alfven waves were first generated 
and detected in plasma by Allen, Baker, Pyle, and Wilcox in Berkeley 
and by Jephcott in England in 1959."  (quoting from Chen's book; 
see bibliography) - Albert Chou

! Alfven, Hannes Olof:  Nobel Prize-Winning Plasma Physicist
and Astronomer who first suggested the possibility of MHD waves
in 1942.

* Alpha particle:  The nucleus of a Helium-4 atom; is a
typical product of fusion reactions; also released
in various nuclear decay processes.

* Ampere, kiloampere, megampere:  (from Herman) The standard
unit for measuring the strength of an electric current
representing a flow of one coulomb of electricity per second.
1 kiloampere = 1000 amperes; 1 megampere = 1,000,000 amperes.
Common abbreviations:  amps, kiloamps, megamps, kA, MA

! Ampere, Andre-Marie (1775-1836):  French physicist responsible 
for much of what is known about the fundamentals of electromagnetism.

* Ampere's Law:  General equation in electromagnetism relating
the magnetic field and the currents generating it.

* Aneutronic Fuels:  Advanced fusion fuels which would not
produce fusion neutrons.  See fuels section of FAQ for discussion.

* Anomalous Diffusion:  Diffusion in most plasma devices, particularly
tokamaks, is higher than what one would predict from understood causes.
The observed, "typical" diffusion is referred to as "anomalous" because
it has not yet been explained.  "Classical" diffusion and 
"Neo-classical" diffusion are the two well-understood diffusion
theories, neither is adequate to explain the observed "anomalous"
diffusion.  See also:  entries for classical and neoclassical diffusion.

% Argonne National Laboratory:  One of the U.S. Department of Energy
basic-research Laboratories, located in Illinois... (need more info!)

* Aspect Ratio:  In toroidal geometry, the ratio of
the major diameter (total width of the torus) to the 
minor diameter (width of a slice taken through one side
of the ring).  (This would be much better with a picture!)

* Atom:  (from Herman)  The smallest unit of an element that
retains the characteristics of that element.  At the center
of the atom is the nucleus, made up of neutrons and protons,
around which the electrons orbit.  Atoms of ordinary hydrogen,
the lightest element, consists of a nucleus of one proton
orbited by one electron.  (Note:  distinct from a molecule,
which is the smallest unit of a substance which retains the
characteristics of that substance.  It takes far less 
energy to break apart a stable molecule into its constituent 
atoms than to divide a stable atom into two smaller atoms.)

* Atomic Bomb, A-Bomb:  (from Herman) A weapon with a large
explosive power due to the sudden release of energy when the
nuclei of heavy atoms such as plutonium-239 or uranium-235
are split.  This fission is brought about by the bombardment
of the fuel with neutrons, setting off a chain reaction.
The bomb releases shock, blast, heat, light, and lethal
radiation.  The world's first atomic bomb was successfully
tested by the United States on July 16, 1945.

% Atomic Energy Commission: United States governmental 
authority for atomic energy; split into ERDA and NRC in 1975.
(may not be 100% correct)

* Atomic Number (Z):  The number of protons in a nucleus; same
as the number of electrons in a neutral atom; determines the 
position of an element in the periodic table.

* Atomic Temperature:  The temperature corresponding to the mean
kinetic energy of the neutral atoms in a plasma.  (If there were
no ions or electrons, the atomic temperature would be what we
normally think of as the temperature of a gas, such as the air.)

* Avogadro's number: N = 6.02497 x 10^23.  Number of particles 
in a mole of a substance.  Coefficient relating Boltzmann's 
constant to the ideal gas constant. This is the number of 
atoms per gram-atom.  See also: mole

> Axially Symmetric Divertor EXperiment (from Herman)
(ASDEX, Asdex: Garching, Germany)  A large tokamak designed 
for the study of impurities and their control by a magnetic
divertor.  The H mode or high mode of operation with neutral 
beam injection was first observed on ASDEX.

> Axially Symmetric Divertor EXperiment (ASDEX, Asdex):  "The original
ASDEX, located in Garching, Germany and decommisioned in 1990(?), 
would qualify today as a medium-sized tokamak. It was designed for 
the study of impurities and their control by a magnetic divertor.  
The H mode or high mode of operation with neutral beam injection was
first observed on ASDEX.  Its successor ASDEX-Upgrade (a completely 
new machine, not really an "upgrade") is larger and more flexible.
It is the first tokamak whose toroidal and poloidal field coils are 
not linked, which will be a necessary design factor in a reactor.  
It will achieve parameters at the edge which are very similar to 
those needed for a power reactor." - Arthur Carlson

* Azimuthal: Generally an angle, measured "around" an object.
In spherical geometries, the angle which is *not* the "polar angle".  
On the earth, one incarnation of the azimuthal angle is the longitude 
of a location relative to the prime meridian through Greenwich, 
England.  In toroidal geometries, the longitude idea still applies, 
but the other angle is the "poloidal" angle, not the "polar" angle.  
The azimuthal direction is the "long way" around a torus.  
See also: poloidal.


BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB

# B - variable used for Magnetic Field

@ B - chemical symbol for the element boron.

@ Be - chemical symbol for the element beryllium.

@ BPX - Burning Plasma eXperiment; see entry

* Banana Orbit:  The fast spiraling of an charged particle around a
magnetic field line is accompanied by a slow movement ("drift") of 
the center of the sprial.  Projected onto a poloidal plane, the drift
orbit has the shape of a banana.  These orbits are responsible for 
neo-classical diffusion (see entry).

* Baseball Coils:  Used in magnetic-mirror geometries to
produce a minimum-B configuration; so-called because of their
resemblance to the characteristic shape of lacing on a baseball.

* Beryllium: (Be)  Element with atomic number 4 (four protons).
May be useful in multiplying fusion neutrons to enhance tritium
production in a lithium blanket; rather hazardous to handle.
(See relevant terms mentioned.)

* Beta, or beta-value:  Ratio between plasma kinetic pressure and 
magnetic-field pressure; same as the ratio between plasma kinetic
energy density and magnetic field energy density; characterizes the
efficiency with which the magnetic field confines the plasma.  
See also: pressure, kinetic pressure, magnetic pressure, 
second stability.

* Binary Collisions:  Collisions involving only two particles; 
multiparticle collisions (eg, three-body collisions) are usually
neglected/approximated...

* Biot-Savart Law:  General formula for determining the magnetic 
field due to a steady line (not space) current.  Related to Ampere's 
Law.

* Blanket: (from Herman) a region surrounding a fusion reactor 
core within which the fusion neutrons are slowed down, heat 
is transferred to a primary coolant, and tritium is bred 
from lithium.  In hybrid applications, fertile materials 
(U-238 or Th-232) are located in the blanket for conversion 
into fissile fuels.

* Bohm diffusion:  (from Herman) A rapid loss of plasma
across magnetic field lines caused by microinstabilities.
Theory formulated by the physicist David Bohm.
  From Chen's book (see bibliography): Semiempirical formula for 
the diffusion coefficient given by Bohm in 1946 (noted by Bohm, 
Burhop, and Massey, who were developing a magnetic arc for use in 
uranium isotope separation).  See also: diffusion, 
microinstabilities, field lines...

* Boltzmann constant: k = 1.38 x 10^-16 erg/degree. This 
is the ratio of the universal gas constant to Avogadro's number.
It is also used to relate temperatures (Kelvin) to energies (ergs
or Joules) via E = (constant of order unity) * kT.

* Boltzmann Distribution:  See Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution

* Bootstrap Current:  Currents driven in toroidal devices by 
neo-classical diffusion (see entry).  They may amount to a 
substantial fraction of the net current in a tokamak reactor, 
thus lengthening the pulse time or decreasing the power needed 
for current drive.

* Boron: (B)  Fifth element (Z=5) in the periodic table; has
5 protons; potential use as an aneutronic fuel.  (See FAQ section
on reactions.)

* Breakeven:  there are several types:
	Commercial:  When fusion power can be converted into enough 
		electric power to power the reactor and generate enough
 		electricity to cover the costs of the plant at economically
 		competitive rates. (?)
	Engineering:  When enough energy can be generated from the
		fusion power output to supply power for the reactor and
		generate a surplus; sort of commercial breakeven without
		the economic considerations. (?)
	Scientific:  When fusion power = input power; Q=1.
		(See also Lawson Criterion)
		Extrapolated - projected for actual reactor fuel using 
			an alternative fuel.
		Actual - determined using the actual fusion fuel to be
			used in the reactor (typically DT).

* Breeder Reactor:  (from Herman) A kind of nuclear reactor that
produces more fissionable material than it consumes to
generate energy.  The liquid-metal "fast breeder," a promising
type of breeder, splits plutonium-239, producing an intense
flow of neutrons and a self-sustaining chain reaction. 

* Bremsstrahlung:  (German for "Braking Radiation")  Electromagnetic
radiation from a charged particle as it slows down (decelerates).  
Similar to synchrotron radiation (see also).

> Burning Plasma eXperiment (BPX):  Proposed U.S. successor to TFTR;
never funded.  See also: CIT, TPX.

> Bumpy Torus:  I believe this concept tries to combine mirror 
concepts with toroidal ones.  My understanding is that it is 
essentially a series of mirrors stuck end to end and bent into 
a ring.  - Albert Chou (corrections / enhancements welcome!)


CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC

# c - Speed of light; 3.0x10E+8 meters/second or 3.0x10E+10 cm/sec

@ CGS - Centimeters, Grams, Seconds; see CGS Units

@ CGS Units - see CGS; see entry

@ CIT - Compact Ignition Tokamak; see entry

* Carbon: (C)

* Capacitor:  device used to store electrical energy by accumulating
charges on nearby conductors.  Energy may be stored and withdrawn
at varying rates.  Used in short-pulse plasma devices where only
a moderate amount of energy is needed.

* Celsius: Temperature scale where zero degrees corresponds to the
freezing point of water (32 Fahrenheit) and 100 degrees corresponds 
to the boiling point (212 Fahrenheit).  Zero celsius = 273.16 Kelvin. 

* Centigrade: see Celsius

* CGS Units:  System of measurement where the fundamental units
are centimeters, grams, and seconds.

* Chain Reaction: (from Herman) A self-sustaining series of
chemical or nuclear reactions in which the products of the
reaction contribute directly to the propagation of the process.

* Charge, Electrical:  

* Charge Exchange:  Phenomenon in which a positive ion colliding with
a molecule (or an atom) neutralizes itself by capturing an electron
from the molecule/atom, and transforming the molecule/atom into a
positive radical/ion.

* Charge Transfer:  see charge exchange

* Classical Diffusion:

* Coherent Radiation:

* Cold Plasma Model:  Model of a plasma in which the temperature is
neglected with respect to the effects of interest.

* Collision Cross-Section:  Effective surface area of a particle
when it collides with another; describes probability of collisions
between the two particles.
 
* Collisionless Plasma Model:  Model of a plasma in which the density
is so low that close binary collisions have practically no 
significance because the time scales of interest are smaller than the 
collision time.

* Collision Time:

> Compact Ignition Tokamak (CIT): Proposed U.S. successor to TFTR;
never funded.  See also, BPX, TPX.

> Compact Torus:  Any of a series of axially symmetric fusion 
configurations having closed flux surfaces (like a tokamak, not 
like a mirror machine), but having no material objects piercing 
the core (as do the toroidal field coils of a tokamak).  These 
devices have an inherently low aspect ratio.  The most successful
variants are the spheromak and the Field Reversed Configuration.
See also: low aspect ratio, spheromak, field-reversed configuration.
(Arthur Carlson, awc@ipp-garching.mpg.de)

* Compression Waves:

* Conductivity:  Degree to which a substance transmits (conducts)
a given physical property. (is this vague or what?) See electrical
conductivity, thermal conductivity.

* Confinement Time:  Several types:  (adapted from Herman)  
The amount of time the plasma is contained by magnetic fields before
its [energy, particles] leak / dissipate away.  The different types
are, in general, not equal.

* Controlled Thermonuclear Fusion:  (from Herman) The process
in which light nuclei, heated to a high temperature in a 
confined region, undergo fusion reactions under controlled
conditions.

* Cooperative Phenomena:

* Corona: The outermost (?) part of a star's atmosphere; 
characterized by high temperatures and low densities; home to 
many plasma phenomena.

* Coulomb: standard unit of electric charge.  A single electron or
proton has a charge of 1.6022E-19 coulombs.  Hence there are 
6.2414E+18 electrons in a coulomb of electrons.

* Coulomb Collision:  An interparticle collision where Coulomb's Law
is the governing force.

* Coulomb's Law:  Force law governing the electrical interaction
between charged particles.  Force is proportional to (charge of
first particle) * (charge of second particle) / (square of separation
between particles).  Constant of proportionality depends on system
of units used.

* Curie:  amount of radioactivity in a gram of radium; named
after Marie Curie (see below).

! Curie: Marie and Pierre; husband-wife pair of French scientists.
Pierre's name is attatched to the "Curie point" in magnetism, which 
is not discussed here. He and his wife shared with Antoine-Henri
Becquerel the Nobel Prize for physics in 1903. Marie Curie, 
a.k.a. Madame Curie, received the Nobel Prize for chemistry 
in 1911, becoming the first person to receive more than
one Nobel Prize.  She remains the only person to receive Nobel
Prizes in different fields. (I believe - RFH)

* Current Density:  Amount of current flowing through a substance,
per unit area perpendicular to the direction of current flow.

* Current Drive:  Any of a variety of techniques used to cause
current flow in a plasma.  See inductive current drive, RF current
drive, non-inductive current drive.  Usually applied to schemes
used to generate current in tokamaks and other toroidal devices
which require internal plasma currents.  See also: bootstrap current.  

* Cusp Geometry:

* Cyclotron:

* Cyclotron Frequency:  Number of times per second that a particle
orbits in a magnetic field.

* Cyclotron Radius:  Radius of orbit of charged particle about
a magnetic field line.  Also called gyroradius, Larmor radius.

* Cyclotron Radiation:  See synchrotron radiation

* Cyclotron Resonance Heating:  see Electron Cyclotron Resonance
Heating, Ion Cyclotron Resonance Heating.


DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD

@ D - nuclear/chemical symbol for deuterium/deuteron

@ DT - Deuterium-Tritium; see entry labeled DT Fuel

@ DIII-D - Doublet III-D; see entry

@ DOE - Department of Energy (United States)

* D-shaped plasma:  A plasma whose cross section is a D (instead
of a circle).

* Debye Length: The characteristic distance over which charges are
shielded in a plasma.  See also: Debye shielding.
lambda_D = ( epsilon_0 k_B T_e / (n_e e^2) )^(1/2) 
lambda_D[m] = (7.434*10^3)*(_e[eV])^(1/2)*n[m^(-3)]^(-1/2)
(Arthur Carlson, awc@ipp-garching.mpg.de)

! Debye, Peter Joseph:  Physical chemist, studied behavior of 
conductive solutions (plasmas have some similar behaviors).

* Debye Radius:  See Debye Length.

* Debye Sheath:  The region of net positive charge in front of a
material surface in contact with a plasma.  Its characteristic
thickness is the Debye length, and it is caused by Debye shielding
of the negative surface charge resulting from electrons flowing to 
the surface much faster (initially) than the ions.
See also: Debye Length, Debye Shielding.
(Arthur Carlson, awc@ipp-garching.mpg.de)

* Debye Shielding:  If a positive (or negative) charge is inserted 
into a plasma, it will change the local charge distribution by 
attracting (repelling) electrons.  The net result is an additional
negative (positive) charge density which cancels the effect of the
initial charge at distances large compared to the Debye length.
(There is a corresponding effect of shielding by the ions, which, 
for various and subtle reasons, usually is less important.)
See also: Debye Length.
(Arthur Carlson, awc@ipp-garching.mpg.de)

* Debye Sphere:  Sphere around a charged test particle whose
radius is equal to the Debye length.

* Decay Modes:  Different pathways for decay of radioactive nuclei.
	(need a list!)

* Density:  amount per unit of volume (sometimes surface area).  
Several types:
	Energy density   - amount of energy per unit volume.
	Flux density     - flux per unit of transverse surface area.
	Mass density     - mass per unit volume.
	Number density   - number of particles per unit volume.
	Particle density - same as number density.
	Current density  - current flow per unit transverse surface area.

% Department of Energy:  (adapted from Herman) U.S. cabinet-level
department that has overseen atomic energy research since 1977.
Created by merging of ERDA and (?).  Also supervises other 
energy research, and some defense work.

* Deuterium: A heavy isotope of hydrogen whose nucleus
contains both a neutron and a proton.

* Deuteron: A deuterium ion; nucleus consisting of a proton
and a neutron.

* Diagnostics:  (from Herman) Procedures for determining
(diagnosing) the state of a plasma during an experiment;
also refers to the instruments used for diagnosing.

* Diamagnetic Effects:  Application of a magnetic field to a plasma
will tend to create circulating current within the plasma that will
reduce the strength of the magnetic field.

* Diffusion:  The interpenetration of one substance into another
as a result of thermal / random motion of the individual particles.
(e.g., the diffusion of a plasma across a magnetic field as a 
result of collisions which cause particles to move along new
field lines.)  See also classical diffusion, neoclassical diffusion,
anomalous diffusion, transport.

* Direct Conversion:  The generation of electricity by direct
recovery of the kinetic energy of the charged fusion reaction
products.

* Disruption:  (from Herman)  Plasma instabilities sometimes grow
and cause disruptions of the carefully-engineered plasma conditions
in the reactor.  Major disruptions can cause an abrupt temperature 
drop and the termination of the plasma.  

* Distribution Function:

* Divertor: (from Herman) Component of a toroidal fusion 
device that diverts charged particles on the outer edge 
of the plasma where they become neutralized.  In a reactor, the
divertor would incorporate a system for pumping out the neutralized
particles as exhaust from the machine.  A divertor, like a limiter, 
prevents the particles from striking and degrading the chamber 
walls, and dislodging secondary particles that would cool and 
contaminate the plasma.  Whereas a limiter is a material object 
used to limit the shape of the plasma, a divertor is a 
magnetic-field construction.  
See also: limiter.

> Doublet III-D:  (from Herman) Latest in a series of
tokamaks designed by GA Technologies (formerly General Atomic)
in San Diego making plasmas with noncircular cross sections,
including kidney shapes and D-shapes.  Though the current 
configuration does not (so far as the editor knows) involve 
doublet plasmas, this is still the official name for the device.

* Drift Motion:  (several types) (need more here) 
For a good introduction at the undergraduate level, see Chen.

* Drift Velocity:

* DT Fuel:  Easiest fuel mixture to use in achieving fusion;
unless otherwise specified, probably refers to a 50-50 (by numbers 
or by moles) mix of deuterium and tritium.


EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

# E - Variable typically used for Energy or Electric Field
(usually in vector notation in the latter case; which is meant
is usually clear from context; when both are used in the same place
the energy is usually represented as U instead of E.)

@ eV - Electron-volt; see entry

@ EBT - Elmo Bumpy Torus; see entry

@ EC - European Community; see entry

@ ECE - Electron Cyclotron Emission; see entry

@ ECH - Electron Cyclotron Heating; see entry

@ ECRH - Electron Cyclotron Radiofrequency Heating - same as ECH.

@ EM - Electromagnetic

@ EM Wave - Electromagnetic Wave; see entry

@ ERDA (?) - Energy Research and Development Agency (?); see entry

@ EU - European Union; see entry

* Effective Collision Cross-section: (See collision cross section)

* Effective Collision Radius:

* Elastic:  Term used to describe a process in which kinetic energy
is conserved; usually refers to (elastic) collisions or (elastic)
scattering.

* Electric Charge:  See charge, electrical.

* Electric Field:

* Electrical Conductivity:  Degree to which a substance conducts
electric current.  Can be defined by: 
	(current density) = (conductivity) * (applied electric field)

* Electromagnetic Coupling:  A means of extracting energy from a
magnetically confined plasma, where the plasma expands and pushes
on the confining magnetic field, causing electrical energy to
be generated in the external field-generating circuits.

* Electromagnetic Wave:

* Electron: (from Herman) Elementary particle with a negative
electric charge.  Electrons orbit around the positively 
charged nucleus in an atom.

* Electron Cyclotron Emission (ECE):  As electrons gyrate around in 
a magnetic field (see also larmor radius or cyclotron radius), 
they radiate radio-frequency electromagnetic waves.  This is 
known as electron cyclotron emission, and can be measured to 
help diagnose a plasma.

* Electron Cyclotron Heating (ECRH):  Radiofrequency (RF) heating 
scheme that works by injecting electromagnetic wave energy at the
electron cyclotron gyration frequency.  The electric field of the 
EM wave at this frequency looks to a gyrating electron like a 
static electric field, and it causes acceleration of the electron.  
The accelerated electron gains energy, which is then shared with 
other particles through collisions, resulting in heating.

* Electron Temperature:  The temperature corresponding to
the mean kinetic energy of the free electrons in a
plasma.

* Electron-volt: 1 eV = 1.6 x 10^-12 erg. This is a unit of 
kinetic energy equal to that of an electron having a velocity of 
5 x 10^7 cm/sec.  This is the energy an electron (or other particle 
of charge=1 such as a proton), gains as it's accelerated through 
a potential difference of 1 volt.  In plasma physics the eV 
is used as a unit of temperature; when the mean particle energy
 is 1eV, the temperature of the plasma is 11,600 Kelvin.

> Electrostatic Confinement:

* Electrostatic Waves:  Longitudinal oscillations appearing in a
plasma due to a perturbation of electric neutrality.  For a cold
unmagnetized plasma, or at large wavelengths, the frequency of
these waves is by definition the plasma frequency.

* Element: (need short discussion, with list and perhaps periodic
table in appendix?  isotope table with half-lives and decay modes
might also be useful.)

* Elementary Particles worth knowing about:  
	(at the nuclear-energy level)
 	electron & positron - seem to be stable
 	proton - thought to be stable, life > 10^30 sec
 	neutron - decays in ?10 min unless it's in a nucleus, which often
  		extends its life.
	other particles important for nuclear energy: 
		muon, neutrino (m,e,tau),
	photon
	muonic atoms
	pi-meson

		this part is new - maybe separate entries with listing
		here??

> Elmo Bumpy Torus:  Bumpy Torus at ORNL; no longer operating (?)
See Bumpy Torus, ORNL.

* Energy:

* Energy Balance:  Comparison of energy put into a plasma with the
energy dissipated by the system; related to energy confinement.

* Energy Loss Time:

% Energy Research and Development Agency (ERDA):  US Agency created 
by splitting of the AEC into ERDA and NRC in about 1975, charged
with managing US energy R&D (???).  Merged with ??? to become the
Department of Energy in about 1977. (???? correct? help??)

* Ergodic:  A mathematical term meaning "space-filling".  If a 
magnetic field is ergodic, any field line will eventually pass 
arbitrarily close to any point in space.  Closely related to 
"chaotic".

% European Community: see European Union
 
% European Union: (from Herman) Organization of European
countries (formerly European Community, EC, formerly European
Economic Community, EEC) established in 1967 to coordinate policies 
on the economy, energy, agriculture, and other matters.  The original
member countries were France, Belgium, West Germany, Italy, 
Luxembourg, and the Netherlands.  Joining later were Denmark, 
Ireland, the United Kingdom, Greece, Spain, and Portugal.

% Euratom:  (from Herman) European Atomic Energy Community.
International organization established in 1958 by members
of the European Economic Community to form a common market
for the development of peaceful uses of nuclear power.
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.22 / J Fitzherbert /  Re: Continuous Heat??? (Oops)
     
Originally-From: julian@gatwick.sgp.slb.com (Julian Fitzherbert)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Continuous Heat??? (Oops)
Date: 22 Mar 1994 13:53:27 GMT
Organization: Schlumberger Geco-Prakla

In article 78j@gorgon.gatwick.sgp.slb.com, julian@gatwick.sgp.slb.com
(Julian Fitzherbert) writes:

> Wow thats a kilowatt out for 1 watt in - incredible if true. I can heat 
> my water tank for 3 watt hours as opposed to 3 Kwatt hours. Ummmm...... 
                    ^
Oops! Out by a factor of 100. Just seeing whose awake :)

Should be 100 watts in for 1Kw out to give 1000%. So 3Kw water tank
now needs 300 watts. Amazing if true. 






cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenjulian cudfnJulian cudlnFitzherbert cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.22 / Matt Austern /  Re: Continuous Heat???
     
Originally-From: matt@physics3.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Continuous Heat???
Date: 22 Mar 1994 21:14:48 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (Theoretical Physics Group)

In article <2mmolv$78j@gorgon.gatwick.sgp.slb.com> julian@gatwick.sgp.sl
.com (Julian Fitzherbert) writes:

> Just reporting what I heard folks and trying to stay open minded.
> BTW I enjoyed Steve Jones Scientific American paper on Muon Catalysed
> Fusion. What came of the process Steve it sounded great? I remember
> Arthur C Clarke borrowed the idea to power one of his space ships
> in the 3rd 2001 novel (2026?).

Muon catalysed fusion is real.  It has been observed many times, by
many different groups; it is theoretically well understood; its cross
section has been measured; and there is no controversy at all about
its existence.

This does not mean, though, that it is a practical means of generating
energy.  Whether or not it is depends on questions like how much
energy is needed to produce a muon beam; how many fusion events a
single muon can catalyze before it decays; how one can convert the
energy produced by fusion into some useful form; how the cross section
depends on the energy of the muon beam, and so on.  At present,
unfortunately, it appears that the answer is that muon catalysed
fusion isn't a useful energy source.  The muons decay before they have
a chance to participate in very many interactions, and so you spend
more energy making the muons than you get out of the fusion.  It's a
pity: it was a good idea.
--
Matthew Austern                       Never express yourself more clearly
matt@physics.berkeley.edu             than you think.    ---N. Bohr
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenmatt cudfnMatt cudlnAustern cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.22 / Mike Thornburg /  Re: Purple Cows
     
Originally-From: mthorn@lunacity.com (Mike Thornburg)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Purple Cows
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 94 13:10:48 PST
Organization: LunaCity BBS - (Clan Zen Relay Network) Mountain View, CA

czar@vnet.IBM.COM (Steve Czarnecki) writes:

> In <JAKE.94Mar18184121@nucst6.neep.wisc.edu> james blanchard writes:
> >>>From the restaurant, author unknown:
> >>>
> >>>I never saw a purple cow.
> >>>I never hope to see one.
> >>>I'll tell you all right here and now,
> >>>I'd rather see than be one!
> >>
> >>The author is Gellett Burgess, I believe.  I think the third line should be
> >>something like "But I can tell you anyhow."
> >>
> >>                                     Richard Schultz
> >
> >Hmm.  I thought it was Ogden Nash.  Oh well.
> >
> >--
> >
> >   jake blanchard -- university of wisconsin - madison
> >   blanchard@engr.wisc.edu  OR   jake@nucst6.neep.wisc.edu
> >
> 
> Don't give up the ship so easily.  I also vote for Ogden Nash.
> 
> Steve Czarnecki

As long as we're voting without looking it up in a reference, I vote
for Gillett(sp?) Burgess.  However, I think this derivative is by
anonymous:

I never saw a purple cow,
I never hope to see one,
But from the milk we're getting now,
There certainly must be one.

 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just a thought from Mike Thornburg -> (mthorn@lunacity.com)
LunaCity BBS - Mountain View, CA - 415 968 8140
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenmthorn cudfnMike cudlnThornburg cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.22 / Dave Griffiths /  Re: BBC Horizon Program
     
Originally-From: griffid@gb.swissbank.com (Dave Griffiths)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: BBC Horizon Program
Date: 22 Mar 1994 15:42:21 GMT
Organization: Swiss Bank Corporation, High Timber St, London, UK

My main impression was of how conservative the physics establishment is  
when confronted with the possibility of "new science". You like to think  
that science is objective, but then you have to take into account the huge  
vested interests that the power industry has in denying the existence of  
cold fusion (while secretely carrying out their own research). The  
implications are pretty explosive. Imagine if cars _could_ run on water.  
That would wipe out a _lot_ of industry.

Who was the physicist who claimed to have developed a new theory of QM  
(involving a new energy level for hydrogen) that predicts cold fusion?

Dave Griffiths
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudengriffid cudfnDave cudlnGriffiths cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.23 / Chris - /  Re: BBC Horizon Program
     
Originally-From: chrisk@gomez.stortek.com (Chris Kostanick - X6359)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: BBC Horizon Program
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 1994 01:00:28 GMT
Organization: Storage Technology Corporation

griffid@gb.swissbank.com (Dave Griffiths) writes:
[snip]
>Imagine if cars _could_ run on water.  
>That would wipe out a _lot_ of industry.

Imagination is great, but industry needs stuff that works. I haven't
seen any CF powered gadgets yet.

Chris Kostanick
chrisk@gomez.stortek.com
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenchrisk cudfnChris cudln- cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.22 /  jonesse@physc1 /  SL:  Finally a trapped bubble
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: SL:  Finally a trapped bubble
Date: 22 Mar 94 17:47:48 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

A brief note only, as I have have a visitor here from Los Alamos, also
yesterday (Tom Claytor):

1. Transient SL

We have completed another series of experiments using ultrasound to generate
transient, multi-bubble collapse in D2O, D2O-electrolyte, and mercury (with
D2 gas bubbling through the fluid in each case).  As in our experiments with
an ultrasound generator in D2O-electrolyte in 1989 and in 1992, we found
no neutron signal above a low background this time.

We tried cavitation in D2O with a titanium-metal receiving cavitation shocks,
as done by Roger Stringham and reported in the ICCF-4 meeting.  We found *no*
neutron signal in this instance.  

I remind readers that Tom Droege posted an
extensive review of the Stringham experiments (which claim excess-heat
production in an ultrasound field) in his 12 Jan. 1994 posting, "Maui6".
Of Stringham's report, Tom said "Ultrasonic power is very tricky to measure.  I
have no idea how to sort it out or measure it...  I don't think Mr. Stringham
does either."
"I have place a box on the page with "JUST PLAIN JUNK" in it." [Droege on
Stringham abstract.]

2. Stable SL
Today, we succeeded for the first time to levitate a bubble in the center of
a spherical flask filled with distilled H2O.  This is quite a beautiful sight.
We did not yet move to a room which can be darkened sufficiently to allow us
to look for sonoluminescence.  One step at a time.

A bit more detail:  we were operating at 55 kHz using a PZT ceramic to drive
the 48-mm diameter quartz flask.  This is the third harmonic, I think -- 
certainly not the fundamental resonance.  In addition to the bubble trapped
at the antinode at the flask center, we also found a ring of bubbles 
circulating at a distance of about 1 cm from the center, presumably at 
another antinode region.  We found other resonances; for some reason, this
one gave us the trapping at the center we've been seeking.

Our frequency generator failed after about 10 minutes of operation, spoiling
our fun.  We'll get it fixed, try to find out why the failure.

I wish I could describe the thrill of finally seeing a bubble dance at the
center of our flask, for periods of tens of seconds.  Then the bubble 'slips'
upward to a region where other small bubbles are dancing.  Bubbles there come
together, coalescing to form a larger bubble, that sometimes floats up again,
or breaks up into smaller bubbles.  

Meanwhile, another bubble forms (primarily from gases dissolved into the
H2O, although we tried injecting bubbles also from a syringe) which migrates
upwards then is trapped for tens of seconds in the central antinode.

We're having fun, but a long way from a meaningful contribution.  Again,
thanks to Prof. Crum who got us on the road to achieving single bubble
levitation and cavitation, and to Terry Bollinger and Tom Droege for
encouragement and support.  It's very different from Stringham's approach!

--Steven Jones 
22 March 1994

cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenjonesse cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.22 /  roconnel@ccvax /  Plasma Physics Summer School
     
Originally-From: roconnel@ccvax.ucd.ie
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Plasma Physics Summer School
Date: 22 Mar 94 11:33:16 WET
Organization: University College Dublin



      T H E   3 1 s t   C U L H A M   P L A S M A   P H Y S I C S
      ###########################################################

                       S U M M E R   S C H O O L
                       #########################

                   1 1   -   2 2   J U L Y   1 9 9 4

         C u l h a m   L a b o r a t o r y,   A b i n g d o n,
                     O x f o r d s h i r e,   U K


 An International Summer School intended  for students near the  start
 of postgraduate courses.  No previous knowledge of plasma physics  is
 assumed.  Since 1985,  the Summer School series  has been attended by
 over 600 students from 47 countries, more than two thirds coming from
 outside the UK.

 Culham Laboratory is  the primary centre for plasma physics & nuclear
 fusion research in the UK; it is located close to the city of Oxford,
 and  shares  a  site   with  the   world's  largest  magnetic  fusion
 experiment,  the  Joint  European  Torus   (JET).


               The School covers a broad curriculum :-

 * Plasma particle dynamics   * Plasma waves  * Kinetic theory   * MHD
 * Computational techniques  * Astrophysical plasmas   * Laser plasmas
 * Magnetically confined plasmas    * Solar plasmas   * Poster session
 * Space plasmas       * Laboratory visits        * Industrial plasmas
 * Turbulence & chaos       * Diagnostics      * Gravitational plasmas

 A copy of the course textbook "Plasma Phyics: An Introductory Course"
 (Cambridge University Press,1993)  is given to each student.


 ACCOMMODATION  WILL BE IN  A  HISTORIC COLLEGE  OF OXFORD UNIVERSITY.


            CLOSING DATE FOR APPLICATIONS :  13th MAY 1994

   (Late applications may be accepted, depending on accommodation.)


 Further details / application forms are available from :-

      Mrs Joan Stimson,
      Culham Laboratory,
      Abingdon,
      Oxfordshire  OX14 3DB,                        Tel: 44 235 463293
      UK.                                           FAX: 44 235 463288

 or e-MAIL enquiries to :-                  geoff.maddison@aea.orgn.uk

cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenroconnel cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.23 / Benjamin Carter /  Re: Continuous Heat??? (Oops)
     
Originally-From: bpc@netcom.com (Benjamin P. Carter)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Continuous Heat??? (Oops)
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 1994 06:56:53 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

julian@gatwick.sgp.slb.com (Julian Fitzherbert) writes:

>Should be 100 watts in for 1Kw out to give 1000%. So 3Kw water tank
>now needs 300 watts. Amazing if true. 

Similar results can already be obtained (on a warm enough day) by 
a simple device that has nothing to do with cold fusion.  The device
is (you guessed it) a heat pump.  Thermodynamics tells us that the
maximum possible efficiency of a heat pump, used as a water heater,
is  Tout / ( Twater - Tout ) ,  where Tout is the ambient outdoor
temperature out of which the heat is pumped.  All temperatures are
with respect to absolute zero (e.g., in kelvins).
    




-- 
    Ben Carter                  internet address: bpc@netcom.com
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenbpc cudfnBenjamin cudlnCarter cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.22 / Marc Verbruggen /  Cold Fusion on BBC2
     
Originally-From: mvbr@btma06.god.bel.alcatel.be (Marc Verbruggen)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Cold Fusion on BBC2
Date: 22 Mar 1994 08:42:27 GMT
Organization: Alcatel Bell Telephone


Tuesday evening, mar 21, the Horizon program on BBC 2 dealt with cold fusion.
At the end they showed an address where you could order the text of the
program. I wasn't fast enough to get pencil and paper, so is there someone who
can send me this address ?
Thanks
-- 
 ----------------------------------------------------------
Marc Verbruggen-GZ3             tel : 03.240.94.19
Alcatel Bell Telephone          fax : 03.240.99.74
F. Wellesplein 1                email : mvbr@god.bel.alcatel.be
B-2018 Antwerp
Belgium
 
"System Manager's Headaches Are Not Cured With Aspirin,
 There Is A Better Way ..."

cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenmvbr cudfnMarc cudlnVerbruggen cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.23 / Robert Heeter /  (Long) Part 0, Convetional Fusion Proto-FAQ - Intro & Overview
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: (Long) Part 0, Convetional Fusion Proto-FAQ - Intro & Overview
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 1994 01:40:05 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

Frequently Asked Questions about Fusion Research (with Answers)

Edited by:
Robert F. Heeter
rfheeter@theory.pppl.gov
Graduate Student, Princeton Plasma Physics Lab

Last Revised: 
March 20, 1994


*** _Table of Contents_ ***

Title Page
Table of Contents

Preface / Current Status
Revision History
Outline / List of Questions

1 - General Questions
2 - History
3 - Methods of Containment / Approaches to Fusion
4 - Status of and Plans for Present Devices
5 - Recent Results
6 - Educational Opportunities
7 - Internet Resources
8 - Future Plans
9 - Annotated Bibliography
10 - Glossary of Frequently Used Terms
     10a - Overview
     10b - A-E
     10c - F-M
     10d - N-Z
11 - Citations and Acknowledgements

**************************************************************
**********  Preface to the Conventional Fusion FAQ  **********
**************************************************************

*** Goal:
The Conventional Fusion FAQ is 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.

*** Scope:
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).  I have tried to make this
FAQ as uncontroversial as possible.

*** Status:
We appear to have a pretty good start on the reading list / annotated
bibliography, and the Frequently Used Terms (FUT) dictionary is also
starting to come together.  Many thanks to those who have helped
out thus far!

I think it is now time to begin work on the FAQ proper.  I have 
put together an outline, and I have enough information to write
answers to several of the questions, but I don't want to do all
the work myself, so I'm asking y'all to pitch in - pick a question
you'd like to answer, and I'll keep track of who is doing what.
Then when your answer is ready, we'll include it in the FAQ (and
we can all enhance and improve it)!

*** Guidelines for Submitted Answers:
There are a few basic guidelines I'd like each answer to follow:

1.  Two answers to every question - one for people with little
background, and one for people with a physics/engineering
undergraduate background.  Low-background answers should avoid
high-level jargon as much as possible.

2.  Please try to be factual and avoid controversial / political
answers. (Let's save that for the discussions!)  

3.  Eventually I'd like it if the FAQ, bibliography, and dictionary
could all cross-reference each other.  With this in mind, it would 
be helpful if you could submit bibliography references and dictionary
entries for the jargon terms used, unless they're already in the
dictionary.
	
4.  Your name and email address will be included with your answer, 
so you will get credit for what you do.

5.  If I have information relevant to a particular question, I 
will be glad to share it with whoever chooses to write the answer.

Thanks for any suggestions / comments / ideas / help 
you can provide!



*************************************************************
OUTLINE OF THE CONVENTIONAL-FUSION FAQ 
(subject to change if desirable)
*************************************************************

*** 1. General:
	(a) What is fusion / how does it work?
	(b) What are the different possible fusion reactions?
		(aneutronic fuels?)
	(c) What conditions are needed for controlled fusion?
		(i.e., explain the Lawson criterion)   
	(d) Where does fusion occur in nature?
	(e) What is plasma physics, and how is it related to fusion?
	(f) What opportunities are there for interested students? 
	(g) What is the current state of fusion research? 
		Close / far from achieving practical benefits?
	(h) Who is doing fusion, and where?  (funds distribution?)
	(i) Benefits of developing fusion energy?
	(j) Applications to spaceflight? (Sci-fi?)
	(k) How to spread the word to get more support?
		Is this too political?

*** 2. History:
	(a) When did fusion research begin?
	(b) When was fusion research declassified?
	(c) What level of international cooperation is there?
	(d) What is the history of fusion funding (US, FUSSR, EC, Japan)?
	(e) What is the history of achievement of fusion parameters?

*** 3. Methods of Containment / Approaches to fusion:
	(a) What is a tokamak / how does it work?
	(b)   "  "  " mirror  / "   "    "   " ? 
	(c)   "  "  inertial confinement / " " "? 
	(d) What is a stellarator / " " " " ? 
	(e)   "  "  " Plasmak / "   "    "   " ? 
	(f)   "  " electrostatic confinement/ "  "  " ? 
	(g)   "  " reversed-field pinch / " " " " ? 
	(h) Muon-catalyzed fusion
	(h) What are some other confinement approaches? (Migma?)

*** 4. Status of and plans for Current Devices: (Give references!)
 * Not in any particular order. Perhaps chronological by 
	date of first plasma? *	
	(a) What is TFTR?
	(b) What is JET?
	(c) What is DIII-D?
	(d) What is JT-60U?
	(e) What is Alcator-C-Mod?
	(f) What is Nova?
	(g) What is the state of Plasmak(tm) research? (Paul?)
	(h) What are some other research devices?
	
*** 5. Recent Results
 A.  Recent Results on TFTR:
	 (a) What was done?
	 (b) Why does it matter?
 B.  Other Recent Results

*** 6. Educational Issues and Conferences:
	(a) Any fusion-related activities for high-school student?
	(b) Undergraduate opportunities in fusion/plasma research?
	(c) Graduate opportunities?
	(d) When/where are the major fusion conferences?

*** 7. Future:
	(a) Plans for TPX?
	(b) Plans for ITER?
	(c) Prospects for funding? (US, EC, Japan, FUSSR)
	(d) What problems in designing a fusion powerplant?
		Rad waste, materials choices, device parameters ???
	(e) What are the key research problems/opportunities?

*** 8. Other internet resources:
	(a) Newsgroups
 (b) FTP Sites
 (c) Gopher
 (d) World-Wide Web

*** 9. Bibliography / Reading List

	A. Recent articles in the popular literature.
	B. General References and Histories 
	(suitable for those with minimal background in physics or fusion).
	C. Fusion Research Review Articles & Texts
	D. Plasma Physics - General Texts 
	(focus is on the science of plasmas, rather than engineering 
		of reactors)
	E.  Plasma Physics - Device-Specific
	(applications of plasma physics to specific devices)
	F. Fusion Reactor Engineering References
	G. List of Relevant Scientific Journals
	H. Unclassified / Unsummarized works.  (Please help me move
		references out of this section and into sections 1-4 by
 		contributing reviews of sources you know about!)

*** 10. Glossary of Frequently Used Terms (FUT)


*****************************************************
**********   Revision History by Section   **********
*****************************************************

*** Document as a Whole:

* March 20, 1994 - Reorganized, created standalone Mac document,
  updated various pieces, added a few proto-answers.


*** Chapters 1-8:

*	First Draft - preliminary outline of topics and structure.
*	Second Draft, Feb. 26, 1994 - added some proto-answers.
*	Third Draft, March 6, 1994 - added topics, added proto-answers.


*** Chapter 9 - Bibliography

*	First draft, Feb. 3, 1994
*	Second draft, Feb. 12,1994 - new references, new structure
* Third draft, Feb. 19, 1994 - new references; incorporated
					corrections & comments since 2nd.
* Fourth draft, March 6, 1994	- added some new references, added  
     section H on additional sources for info.


*** Chapter 10 - Glossary

*	First draft was an accumulation of sources & Jim Day's list.
	
* Second draft, Feb. 12, 1994 - incorporated Herman's glossary,
						added list of undefined terms,
						defined labeling scheme

*	Third draft, Feb. 20, 1994 - incorporated new terms and 
					     corrections to old terms.
						added #, % to structure.
						separated A,B,C,D...

*	Fourth draft, March 6, 1994 - added new terms and corrections.


**********************************************************************
Robert F. Heeter 
rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Graduate Student, Princeton Plasma Physics Lab
Disclaimers Apply!
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.23 / Robert Heeter /  (Long) Part 10D, Conventional Fusion Proto-FAQ - Glossary N to Z
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: (Long) Part 10D, Conventional Fusion Proto-FAQ - Glossary N to Z
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 1994 02:37:55 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

==================================================================

Section 10 Part D - Glossary N-Z

FREQUENTLY USED TERMS IN CONVENTIONAL FUSION RESEARCH 
AND PLASMA PHYSICS

Edited by Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@lyman.pppl.gov

4th Draft, Last Revised Sunday, March 6, 1994.

Guide to Categories:
 
* = vocabulary 
> = device type or machine name
# = name of a constant or variable
! = scientists 
@ = acronym
% = labs & political organizations

Citations and Acknowledgements appear in Section 11.

==================================================================


NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN

# n - variable used for number density of particles.

@ NBI - Neutral Beam Injection; see entry

* Neo-classical Diffusion:  In a magnetized plasma, _classical_ 
diffusion refers to transport of particles due to Coulomb collisions, 
taking the spiral orbits in the magnetic field into account.  In a 
toroidal magnetic field, the actual rate of diffusion is much higher 
due to slow changes in the positions of the centers of the spirals 
known as banana orbits (see entry).  This faster transport is called 
_neo-classical_.  With very few exceptions the transport in toroidal 
devices is observed to be 10-100 times larger still, presumably due 
to small-scale turbulence.  The observed transport is called 
_anomalous_ (although it actually is the "normal" state).

* Neo-classical transport:  See neo-classical diffusion.

* Neutral Beam Injection: (from Herman) A method for producing
neutrally charged atoms of high energy (high velocity) and 
injecting beams of these atoms into a magnetically confined plasma,
where they are soon ionized.  The high-energy ions then transfer
part of their energy to the plasma particles in repeated
collisions, thus increasing the plasma temperature.

* Neutron:

* Neutron Wall Loading:  Energy flux carried by fusion neutrons into
the first wall.  (see also First Wall, Flux, Neutrons)

* Non-Inductive Current Drive:  Current drives schemes that do not 
rely upon the "transformer" effect in tokamaks.  The attainment of 
non-inductive current drive is crucial to the success of tokamaks 
as truly steady-state devices.  See also inductive current drive.

> Nova: (from Herman) The United States' largest laser (ICF) fusion
facility, at LLNL.  "Originally called Shiva Nova; the successor to
Shiva.  The next generation will be known as Nova Upgrade; a proof 
of concept experiment called Beamlet is in operation now.  (I think.)"
	- Albert Chou, albert@seas.ucla.edu

* Nuclear Binding Energy:

* Nucleus:  The tiny core of an atom, positively charged,
containing protons and neutrons.  Electrons orbit the nucleus.


OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

@ OH - Ohmic Heating; see entry

@ ORNL - Oak Ridge National Laboratory; see entry

% Oak Ridge National Laboratory:  Located in Oak Ridge, TN.  Home of 
a series of various fusion devices.  (Could use more info!)

! Ohm, Georg Simon (1789-1854): Physicist who discovered the
relationship between electric current, potential and resistance.

* Ohm:  Unit of electrical resistance.

* Ohmic heating: (from Herman)  Heating resulting from the
resistance a medium offers to the flow of electrical current.
In plasma subjected to ohmic heating, ions are heated
almost entirely by transfer of energy from the hotter
electrons.

* Ohmic heating coil:  Coil used to induce an electric field
in the plasma via a transformer effect, resulting in ohmic heating.

* Ohmic heating solenoid:  See ohmic heating coil, solenoid.


PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP

# p, P - Variables used for plasma (kinetic) pressure.

@ PBX-M - Princeton Beta Experiment-Modified; see entry

@ PF - Poloidal Field

@ PLT - Princeton Large Torus; see entry

@ PNL - Pacific National (Northwest?) Laboratory; no entry yet.

@ PPPL - Princeton Plasma Physics Lab; see entry

* Particle Density:  number of particles present per unit volume
(typically a cubic centimeter).  See also density; typically
represented by the variable "n".

* Pellet Injection / Pellet Injector: (from Herman) A device
that shoots small frozen pellets of hydrogen isotopes at
high speed into the inner regions of hot plasma.

* Phase Velocity:

* Pinch effect: (from Herman) The constriction of a plasma
carrying a large current caused by the interaction of that 
current with its own encircling magnetic field.

> Pinch machine:  Device which confines plasma using the pinch 
effect.

* Plasma: a gas in which many of the atoms or molecules 
are ionized.  Examples:  the sun, fluorescent light tubes,
very hot flames, much of interplanetary, interstellar,
and intergalactice space, the earth's ionosphere, parts
of the atmosphere around lightning discharges, and of
course what's inside a fusion reactor when it's working
right.

* Plasma Beta:  see Beta

* Plasma, Cold:  See Cold Plasma Model

* Plasma Containment:  (quoting from the PPPL Glossary of Fusion 
Terms)  "In plasma physics experiments or nuclear fusion experiments, 
operation is intended to prevent, in an effective and sufficiently 
prolonged manner, the particles of a plasma from striking the walls 
of the container in which this plasma is produced.  Plasma 
confinement is a fundamental requirement for obtaining net energy 
from a fusion plasma.  The reason is that scattering (hence 
diffusion) is at least an order of magnitude more probable than 
fusion reactions.  Hence, without confinement, the plasma fuel would 
disperse before enough fusion reactions could take place."

> Plasma Focus:

* Plasma Frequency:  The natural collective oscillation frequency 
of free electrons in a plasma in the absence of a magnetic field.
Also known as Langmuir frequency; see also electrostatic waves.

> PLASMAK(tm):  (Paul M. Koloc?)

* Plutonium:  (from Herman) A radioactive metallic element
whose isotope, plutonium-239, is used in nuclear weapons 
and as a fission reactor fuel.

* Poloidal:  In toroidal geometries, the direction along the
circumference of a slice through one side of the torus. 
"The short way around a torus".
	- Albert Chou, albert@seas.ucla.edu

* Poloidal Field:  In toroidal devices, the magnetic field that
encircles the plasma axis.

* Poloidal Field Coils:  In toroidal devices (eg, tokamaks), the
sets of windings which are (typically) aligned along the plasma
axis and produce poloidal fields.  These include ohmic heating,
shaping, vertical, equilibrium, and divertor windings. (Adapted from
PPPL Glossary)

* Power:  Defined as amount of work per unit time, or change in 
energy per unit time.

* Pressure:  Defined as force per unit area.

% Princeton - See Princeton University and/or Princeton Plasma 
Physics Lab

> Princeton Beta Experiment-Modified (PBX-M):  mid-sized tokamak
research device at Princeton. (need more here!)  Original research 
goal was to investigate the so-called "second stability regime" in
tokamaks. (? I should know more, I work near it! - rfheeter)

> Princeton Large Torus (PLT): Large tokamak formerly operated
at the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory (PPPL).

% Princeton Plasma Physics Lab:  Located in Princeton, New Jersey.
Single largest fusion research facility in the United States; sole 
U.S. single-purpose plasma physics laboratory; operated by Princeton
University for the Department of Energy.  Site of PLT, PBX-M, TFTR, 
several other past and present experiments, and future site of TPX.
(Refer to entries for relevant machines, both here and in FAQ.)

% Princeton University:  Among other research activities, the 
University operates the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory for the 
Department of Energy (see above entry for PPPL).

* Project Matterhorn:  (from Herman) The code name of the 
United States' first secret controlled fusion project 
started by Lyman Spitzer at Princeton University in 1951.

* Project Sherwood:  Name often used to describe the U.S. controlled
fusion program in the 1950s and '60s.  (PPPL Glossary)

* Proton: (from Herman) An elementary particle found in the
nucleus of all atoms.  It carries a single positive electrical
charge.


QQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQ

# q - Variable used to indicate electric charge; also used for
the "safety factor" (see charge, safety factor).  Usually clear
from context which is meant.

# Q: See Q-factor

* Q-factor:  Ratio of power produced by fusion to power
put into the reactor to heat the plasma and drive the
magnetic fields.  Q = 1 is the definition of scientific
breakeven, where power out = power in.  Economical fusion
will require Q significantly greater than 1.  Fortunately
Q increases dramatically as the plasma parameters 
approach the Lawson criterion for ignition.

* Quasi-neutral plasma: an ionized gas in which positive 
and negative charges are present in approximately 
equal numbers.


RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

@ RF - RadioFrequency; see entry

@ RF Current Drive - Radio Frequency Current Drive; see entry

@ RF Heating - Radio Frequency Heating; see entry

! R.F. Heeter - Plasma physics graduate student at PPPL;the editor 
of the sci.physics.fusion FAQ, bibliography, and FUT. :)

@ RFC: Reversed-Field Configuration: see Field-Reversed Configuration.

@ RFP: Reversed-Field Pinch; see entry

@ RFX: Reversed-Field eXperiment; see entry

* Radiation: The emission of energy from a body in the form
of light or heat rays, or energetic particles such as
alpha particles, electrons, or neutrons.  Radiation is
*what is emitted*, not *what does the emitting*.  A nucleus
which does the emitting is said to be radioactive.  Electrons
in atoms can also emit radiation in the form of ordinary 
visible light; such atoms are not said to be radioactive.

* Radioactive waste: (from Herman) Equipment and materials
from nuclear operations which are radioactive and for which
there is no further anticipated use.

* Radioactivity:  Characteristic property of unstable nuclei
which decay to other nuclei by emission of radiation.  A list
of common decay / transmutation modes should be in the FAQ.

* Radio Frequency or radiofrequency:

* Radio Frequency Current Drive:

* Radio Frequency Heating:  Process for heating the plasma by
transferring energy to ions or electrons using waves generated
by an external oscillator at an appropriate frequency.  (This is
similar to how a microwave oven heats food.)  There are various
types:  see also ECRH, ICRH, and Lower Hybrid...  (PPPL Glossary)

* Ramsauer Effect: (spelling?)

* Reactor:  See fission reactor, fusion reactor.

* Recombination Radiation: radiation produced when a 
free electron in a plasma is captured by an ion.

* Resistance:

* Resistive Instability:  Instability resulting from macroscopic
equations used to model a plasma of finite conductivity / nonzero
resistivity.

* Resistivity:

> Reversed-Field Pinch (RFP):  A toroidal magnetic confinement scheme
which could constitute an alternative to the Tokamak for building a
fusion reactor.  It is characterized by a magnetic field mostly
generated by the plasma itself, with toroidal and poloidal components 
of comparable intensities, in contrast with the Tokamak where most of
the field is toroidal and externally applied. The name of the
configuration is given by the fact that the toroidal component of the
magnetic field changes sign in the outer region of the plasma. The 
main attractivness of the Reversed Field Pinch is that, according to
presently established scalings, it could reach ignition without the 
need of auxiliary heating. 
(Emilio Martines, martines%pdigi3.igi.pd.cnr.it)

> Reversed-Field eXperiment (RFX): It is the largest Reversed Field
Pinch device presently in operation.  Located in Padova (Italy) it 
is planned to reach a plasma current of 2 MA.
(Emilio Martines, martines%pdigi3.igi.pd.cnr.it)

* Rogowski Loop or Coil:  A coiled wire loop which encircles a
current-carrying plasma.  Changes in total plasma current induce a
voltage in the loop; integrating (adding up) the voltage over time
gives the plasma current.

* Rotational Transform:

* Runaway Electrons:  (from Herman) Those electrons in a plasma that
gain energy from an applied electrical field at a faster rate than 
they lose it through collisions with other particles.  These 
electrons tend to "run away" in energy from the remainder of the 
plasma, because the collision cross-section decreases as the 
particle's velocity increases, so that the faster the particle goes, 
the less likely it is to be stopped.  See also:  collision 
cross-section.


SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

@ SI - Systeme Internationale; see SI Units

@ SNL - Sandia National Laboratory; see entry

* Safety Factor:  The number of times a field line goes around a 
torus "the long way" for each time around "the short way".  In a 
tokamak, this number is typically near unity in the center of the 
plasma and between two and 6 or 8 at the edge.  So-called because it 
helps to determine the degree of stability the plasma has against 
certain instabilities.

! Sakharov, Andrei: Russian physicist; among other achievements, he 
is credited with the initial design of the tokamak.

% Sandia National Laboratory:  Located in Albuquerque, New Mexico.
Another large DOE laboratory; has PBFA-II (Particle Beam Fusion
Accelerator, an ICF device) and some pinch devices.

* Scaling Laws:  (from Herman)  Laws stating that if two
quantities are proportional and are known to be valid at
certain orders of magnitude, then they can be used to
calculate the value of one of the quantities at another
order of magnitude.  

* Scattering:  The deflection of one particle as a result of
collisions.  See also Elastic.

* Scientific Feasibility: (from Herman) "The successful 
completion of experiments which reach 'breakeven' plasma
conditions (minimum values of temperature, density,
confinement time) in laboratory devices which lend themselves
to development into net power-producing systems.  
Reactor-grade (eg, D-T) fusion fuels need not be used in
these experiments.

* Second-stability:

* Sheared Flow:

* Shear Fields:

* Sheath:  See Debye Sheath

* Shock Heating:  The heating produced by the impact of a shock wave.

* Shock Wave:  Wave produced as a result of a sudden, violent 
disturbance which occurs in a particular region faster than sound
waves can traverse the region.

* Shot: Fusion jargon for the production of a (short-lived) plasma.  
In the early days, plasmas were produced by the "discharge" of 
capacitor banks, which (frequently) made a BANG.  A modern tokamak 
produces a few dozen "shots" per day, each lasting a few seconds and, 
if nothing goes wrong, inaudible.  See also: capacitor, tokamak
(Arthur Carlson, awc@ipp-garching.mpg.de)

* SI Units:  (also known as MKS, MKSA Units)  System of measurement
in which the fundamental units are meters, kilometers, seconds, and
the ampere.

* Solenoid:

* Sound Waves:

* Spallation:

> Spheromak:

! Spitzer, Lyman:  Early Princeton Fusion Scientist; 
astrophysicist who first proposed orbiting space telescope;
inventor of the stellarator.

* Sputtering:  Process by which atoms are ejected from a solid 
surface by bombardment with plasma particles. (?)

> Stellarator: (adapted from Herman) Device invented by Lyman Spitzer
for the containment of a plasma inside a racetrack-shaped
(sometimes a figure-8) tube.  The plasma is contained by a magnetic 
field created by helical windings around the tube.  More generally, 
a toroidal sort of device that attempts to average out particle 
drifts that would otherwise take plasma to the walls of the vacuum
vessel by imposing a given amount of helicity to the toroidal field
lines.  "A toroidal plasma configuration, which, unlike a tokamak, 
is not axially symmetric.  The poloidal fields necessary for 
confinement are produced by external coils (rather than a current 
in the plasma), either helical coils in addition to plane toroidal 
field coils, or out-of-plane toroidal field coils (pioneered in 
Germany on Wendelstein 7-AS).  The stellarator is generally 
considered to be the most serious alternative to the tokamak.  Since 
the concept is inherently steady state, it would not have the 
tokamak's problems with thermal and mechanical cycling, current 
drive, and disruptions."
	-- Arthur Carlson, awc@ipp-garching.mpg.de

* Superconductor:  (adapted from Herman) A type of electrical 
conductor that permits a current to flow with zero resistance.
Without superconducting coils, a fusion reactor would not be 
possible, because too much energy would be required to maintain the 
magnetic fields against resistive energy losses in the coil 
conductors.

* Synchrotron radiation:  electromagnetic energy radiated from
a charged particle moving in a curved orbit (typically in a magnetic
field), due to the acceleration required to change the direction 
of the particle's velocity.  See also bremsstrahlung.


TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT

# t - variable generally used to represent time

# T - variable generally used to represent temperature

@ T - nuclear/chemical symbol for tritium/triton.

@ TF - Toroidal Field

@ TFTR - Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor; see entry

@ TPX - Tokamak Physics Experiment; see entry

> T-3: (from Herman) A Soviet tokamak located at the 
Kurchatov Institute in Moscow that first proved viability
by producing a plasma temperature of 10 million degrees
centigrage/Kelvin.

> T-10: (from Herman) A later Soviet tokamak located at 
the Kurchatov Institute (a copy of which is PLT, only 
PLT had neutral beams).

> T-15: (from Herman) A Soviet tokamak with superconducting
magnets currently under construction.  (Was it completed?
Is it operational?)

> T-20:  (from Herman) A large Soviet tokamak that was to 
have operated under reactor conditions (net energy 
production) but which was abandoned for budgetary reasons.

* Temperature, Plasma:  (adapted from Herman) A measure of 
the random (thermal) kinetic energy of the ions or electrons
in the plasma.  The temperature of each component of a plasma depends
on the mean kinetic energy of that component.  An example of this
is the fluorescent light bulb, which is an example of a 
weakly-ionized plasma where the electrons are at temperatures of tens 
of thousands of degrees, whereas the ions and neutrals are much 
cooler (so that you can touch the bulb without being burned).
See atomic temperature, electron temperature, and ion temperature.  

* Thermal Conductivity:  degree to which a substance transmits heat.
(basic definition, I believe, is: 
	(heat flow) = (thermal conductivity) * (temperature gradient) )

* Thermal Conversion Cycle:  Process of generating electrical power
with a fusion reactor by means of a steam / other gas turbine.  This
is distinct from "direct conversion" cycles.

* Thermonuclear Fusion: fusion achieved by heating
up the fuel into the plasma state to the point where
ions have sufficient energy to fuse.

> Theta Pinch:  A pinch device in which the external current 
imposed goes in the azimuthal/circumferential direction around a
cylindrically shaped plasma.

* Thomson Scattering:  Collective(?) electron scattering.  Used to
measure electron temperature? Density?  (Find out in the next 
edition?)

* Thomson Scattering Device: (adapted from Herman)  A diagnostic 
device used to measure electron temperature in a plasma by directing
laser light into the plasma.  The laser's photons scatter off the
electrons in the plasma, spreading in a manner proportional to the
electron temperature.

> Tokamak: (Acronym created from the Russian words, 
"TOroidalnaya KAmera MAgnitnaya," or "Toroidal Chamber-Magnetic".)

Because the tokamak is the primary research machine for
magnetic confinement fusion today, we provide several 
descriptions from various sources:

-> One of several types of toroidal discharge chamber 
in which a longitudinal magnetic field is used to confine a 
plasma.  The tokamak is distinguished by a plasma current
running around the torus, which generates a stabilizing
poloidal magnetic field.  An externally-applied vertical
(electric? magnetic?) field is also used to achieve plasma 
stability.

-> TOKAMAK  (tokomak)  (contributed by Paul M. Koloc)
"A three component magnetoplasma toroidal construct in which 
the poloidal magnetic component is provided by a toroidal plasma 
current. The other two components are coil driven, namely, the
vertical field (which opposes the major radial expansion) and
the toroidal field (which acts to provide a "stiff guide" field
for the plasma to gain more MHD stability.    
Note:
It is better to think that the toroidal or longitudinal field  
"stiffens" the plasma as against flopping or kinking, while the 
plasma current driven poloidal (locally azimuthal) field provides 
"confinement" pressure.  Actually, the toroidal field interacting 
with plasma diamagnetism may also contribute to a "magnetic 
bouyancy", which is a sort of UN-confinement -- (it actually gives 
the plasma a tendency to expand radially outward in the equatorial 
plane)."  

-> (from Herman:) "Based on an original Soviet design, a device
for containing plasma inside a torus chamber by using the 
combination of two magnetic fields - one created by electric
coils around the torus, the other created by intense electric
current in the plasma itself, which also servers to
heat the plasma [partially].  TFTR and JET are tokamaks."

> Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor:  Large tokamak at Princeton,
first machine to use 50-50 mix of D-T fuel, current world's
record holder in fusion energy production.  Largest tokamak
in the United States.  

> Tokamak Physics Experiment:  Smaller successor to TFTR at
Princeton.  Engineering design underway; construction 
scheduled to begin in FY 1995.

> Tore Supra:  Large tokamak in Cadarache (southern France).  
The second largest tokamak in Europe; uses superconducting magnets.  
Tore Supra has a circular cross-section (like TFTR), which limits the
achievable confinement time and experimental flexibility.  In 
addition to developing superconducting technology, it concentrates on 
the physics of long pulses and ergodic magnetic limiters.
See also: ergodic; magnetic limiter; superconductor; tokamak.

* Toroidal: in the shape of a torus, or doughnut.  
Or: Coordinate indicating which part of the torus a particle is in.
(Azimuthal coordinate) 
Or: General term referring to toruses as opposed to other geometries.

* Toroidal Field Coils:  Coils in a tokamak, typically wound around
the torus in a solenoid-like arrangement, used to generate the 
toroidal magnetic field.  Each turn completely surrounds the plasma.

> Toroidal Pinch:

> Torsatron:

* Transformer, Transformer Effect:

* Transport:  Refers to processes which cause heat energy, or 
particles, or something else, to flow out of the plasma and cease 
being confined.  Diffusion partly determines the rate of transport.
See also: diffusion, classical diffusion, neoclassical diffusion, 
anomalous diffusion.

* Transverse Waves:

* Trapped-Particle Instability:

* Trapped-Particle Modes:

* Tritium: (adapted from Herman) A radioactive isotope of hydrogen 
with one proton and two neutrons in its nucleus and one orbiting 
electron.  A more efficient fuel than ordinary hydrogen (protium) 
because of the extra neutrons.  Tritium decays to helium-3 by 
emission of an electron ("beta emission") with a half-life of 12.3 
years.  Tritium can be synthesized from deuterium via neutron 
bombardment, or by fissioning lithium (see lithium).

* Triton: nucleus of a tritium atom; tritium ion.

* Turbulence:  "Violent macroscopic fluctuations which can develop
under certain conditions in fluids and plasmas and which usually
result in the rapid transfer of energy through the medium." 
(PPPL Glossary)

* Turbulent Heating:  "Mode of heating of a plasma where the orderly
motion of the particles created by external sources is converted
into disorderly motion, by the excitation of microinstabilities."
(PPPL Glossary)

* Two-Stream Instability:


UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU

# u - variable commonly used for energy density of electric or
magnetic fields; also sometimes used for velocity.

@ UT, UTA - University of Texas at Austin; see entry

@ UW, UWM - University of Wisconsin at Madsion; see entry

* Universal gas constant: R = 8.314 x 10^7 ergs per 
degree C per mole.

% University of Texas at Austin (UT):  Among other things, UT has
a large theoretical plasma physcs research center. (info, anyone?)

% University of Wisconsin at Madison:  Among other facilities,
"Wisconsin" has a large research program in both plasma physics
and fusion engineering.

* Upper Hybrid Waves:  Similar to lower hybrid waves, but at a 
higher frequency.  (more description?)  Not truly propagating 
waves, but plasma oscillations. (?)

* Uranium:  (from Herman) A radioactive metallic element whose
isotope, uranium-235, is a nuclear fission fuel.  Plutonium,
another fission fuel, can be produced from the more
plentiful isotope uranium-238.


VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV

# v - variable typically used for velocity

# V - variable typically used for electrical potential (Voltage)

* Vector:

* Vector Notation:

* Velocity:

* Velocity Space:

* Velocity Space Instability:

* Viscosity:

* Voltage Loop:  "A wire which encircles the main axis of a tokamak
in the vicinity of the vacuum vessel."  The voltage induced in this
loop during the shot is a measure of the ohmic heating voltage
induced by transformer action and applied to the plasma.
(PPPL Glossary)


WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW

@ W-7AS, W-7X - See Wendelstein entry

* Wavelength:  The length of a single cycle of a wave; usually
measured from crest-to-crest.  For electromagnetic waves, the
wavelength determines the type (radio, infrared, visible, 
ultraviolet, X-Ray, gamma-ray) of radiation; in the case of 
visible light, wavelength determines the color of the light.

>Wendelstein: A family of stellarators built in Garching, Germany.  
The machine currently in operation is Wendelstein-7AS (aka W-7AS).  
Wendelstein ("spiral rock") is a craggy Bavarian mountain;  some of 
W-1 through W-6 were built, some were just paper studies;  AS stands 
for "advanced stellarator" and refers on the physical side to an 
attempt to minimize neoclassical effects (see entry for Neo-classical 
Diffusion) such as the bootstrap current (see entry), and on the 
technical side to the use of out-of-plane coils as an alternative to 
linked coils.  W-7X, a much larger, superconducting stellarator based 
on the same concepts has been proposed to be built by the European 
Union in Greifswald, on the north coast of Germany.

% Wisconsin - See University of Wisconsin-Madison

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

* X-Point:


YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY

* Yin-Yang Coil:  See baseball coil.


ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

# Z - see atomic number
 
@ ZETA - Zero Energy Thermonuclear Assembly; see entry

> Zero Energy Thermonuclear Assembly:  A British fusion device in 
which scientists observed fusion neutrons in 1958.  They were
erroneously considered to be thermonuclear (coming from particles 
with a Maxwellian velocity distribution) and were a cause for the
initial optimism that fusion energy would be easy.  They were 
actually due to electromagnetic acceleration during a plasma 
instability, an effect which cannot be scaled up to produce useful 
energy.

> Z-Pinch:  Pinch device in which the externally-driven pinching 
current goes in the z direction (parallel to / through the 
cylindrical plasma).
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.23 / Robert Heeter /  (Long) Part 9, Conventional Fusion Proto-FAQ - Bibliography
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: (Long) Part 9, Conventional Fusion Proto-FAQ - Bibliography
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 1994 02:09:31 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

9. Conventional Fusion Reading List - fourth draft

Edited by Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@lyman.pppl.gov

Last Revised Tuesday, March 22, 1994

************ Introductory Notes *********************************

This file is my attempt to answer the FAQ, 
"What literature is there on the subject of fusion?"

Note that this Reading List is for the "conventional" types
of fusion, and not for Cold Fusion.  

************ Notes on Construction and Organization  ************

I have revised and improved the third draft.

The goal here is to provide a few major references at a variety 
of levels on each of a variety of topics.  The current Reading 
List is still somewhat sketchy.  In general I intend to limit 
the size of the bibliography by ignoring any work over 15 years 
old, unless it is considered a classic in the field.  I may need 
to drop the limit to 10 years, since the list is getting large.

I would appreciate it if everyone would contribute suggestions 
of books, review articles, articles in the popular literature, 
and even new topics to be included in the Reading List.

In order to make this bibliography easier to use, I have sorted
the books into the following general categories:
  
A. Recent articles in the popular literature.
B. General References and Histories 
(suitable for those with minimal background in physics or fusion).
C. Fusion Research Review Articles & Texts
D. Plasma Physics - General Texts 
(focus is on plasma science, rather than engineering of reactors)
E.  Plasma Physics - Device-Specific
(applications of plasma physics to specific devices)
F. Fusion Reactor Engineering References
G. List of Relevant Scientific Journals
H. Unclassified / Unsummarized works.  (Please help me move
references out of this section and into sections A-G by 
contributing reviews of sources you know about!)

* So far only sections B, C and D have decent lists of references. * 

Currently I suggest that each reference included in the
Reading List contain the following information:

*************** Recommended Entry Format ********************
* LastName, Firstname/Initials.  _Title_. [# of pages] Publisher.
 Date.
	
	Descriptive blurb including summary of contents.  
	
	Level of Text
	[Name & Email address of reviewer.]
*************************************************************

Here is a sample application of the above template:

* Herman, Robin.  _Fusion: The Search for Endless Energy_. 
[267 p.] Cambridge University Press. 1990.

	A relatively nontechnical history of fusion energy research
	from 1951-1989.  Focus on U.S. magnetic confinement research.
	Includes glossary of terms and scientists.

	High-school level.
	[Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu]

Note that it would be best to avoid editorial comments and to
try not to make too many judgment calls in the summaries!

Ok, with this as a template, here is what I have currently:
(acknowledgements to Jim Day and Bruce Scott whose contributions
account for the majority of what appears here.)

***************************************************************
***** Reference List of Conventional Fusion Literature ********
***************************************************************

*** A. Recent articles in the popular literature.

* Conn, et al, "The International Thermonuclear Experimental
Reactor," _Scientific American_, April 1992.  

	Describes plans for ITER.

	Level - high school physics.
	[Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu]


* Lemonick, Michael.  "Blinded by the Light," _Time_, Dec. 20, 
1993, p. 54.

	Describes the first high-power D-T experiments on TFTR.

	Level - basic literacy. :)
	[Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu]


* Pope, Gregory T.  "Sun in a Bottle," _Popular Mechanics_,
April 1994, pp. 110-111.

	General article on state of (U.S. mostly) magnetic fusion.

	Level - high school physics (?)
	[Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu]

Note:  Science, Scientific American, and Nature often have articles.


*** B. General References and Histories 
(suitable for those with minimal background in physics or fusion).

* Bromberg, Joan Lisa.  _Fusion: science, politics, and the 
invention of a new energy source_.  [376 p.] MIT Press. 1982.

	DOE-authorized history of the US fusion program.  Author claims 
	no political pressures and a focus on political influences on
	science.  Focuses on US efforts at DOE labs.

	High-school level.
	[Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu]


* Heppenheimer, T. A.  _The Man-Made Sun: The Quest for Fusion
Power._  [347 p.] Little, Brown and Company. 1983.

	Nontechnical history.  Since it is ten years old, some of it 
	is badly out of date -- e.g., it was published before MFTF-B 
	was mothballed, and the Engineering Test Reactor was still 
	being promoted as "the next step." However, it has some good basic
	explanations and some interesting material on the politics of
	fusion.

	Includes index, glossary, bibliography, and chapter notes. 

	High-school level.
	[Bonnie Nestor, mnj@ornl.gov]	


* Herman, Robin.  _Fusion: The Search for Endless Energy_. 
	[267 p.] Cambridge University Press. 1990.

	A relatively nontechnical history of fusion energy research
	from 1951-1989.  Focus on U.S. magnetic confinement research.
	Includes glossary of terms and scientists.

	High-school level.
	[Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu]


* Voronov, GS.  _Storming the Fortress of Fusion_. [335 p.] 
Translated from the Russian by R.S. Wadhwa.  Original text 1985, 
revised 1988. Mir Publishers, Moscow.  

	Appears to be highly enthusiastic; contents
	indicate chapters on inertial confinement and muon-catalyzed
 fusion as well as tokamaks, stellarators, pinches, etc.  

	Level: one year college physics.
	[Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu]



*** C. Fusion Research Review Articles & Texts

* Brunelli, B., et al., eds.  _Safety, environmental impact and 
economic prospects of nuclear fusion_. [360 p.]  Plenum Publishing
Corporation. 1990.

	From the Preface: "This book contains the lectures and the 
	concluding discussion of the 'Seminar on Safety, Environmental 
	Impact, and Economic Prospects of Nuclear Fusion', which was 
	held at Erice (Italy), August 6-12, 1989."  Numerous articles 
	on diverse aspects of fusion research, focusing on the topics 
	listed.

	[Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu]


* Colombo and Farinelli, "Progress in Fusion Energy," _Annual 
Reviews of Energy and the Environment_, 1992, pp. 123-160.

	A comprehensive summary of the state of fusion research.

	Level - Not very technical, familiarity with terminology good. 
	[Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu]


* Dolan, Thomas J.  _Fusion research._ [3 v.]  Pergamon Press. 1980.

	A decent overview of just about every aspect having to do 
	with fusion research, from physics (plasma, atomic, nuclear, 
	etc.) to large experiments (again, caveat emptor wrt the 
	currency of information on specific projects) to fusion 
	engineering issues (magnets, materials, nuclear engineering, 
	etc.).

	Graduate Level (?)
	[Albert Chou, albert@seas.ucla.edu]


* Holdren, et al, "Exploring the Competitive Potential of Magnetic
Fusion Energy:  The Interaction of Economics with Safety and 
Environmental Characteristics," _Fusion Technology_, Jan 1988.

	Summarizes the results of the ESECOM fusion-reactor-design study.  
	Concludes that improved tokamaks are likely to be economically 
	competitive with fission and breeder-fission reactors.

	Level - familiarity with fusion terminology necessary.
	[Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu]


* Holdren, John P., "Safety and Environmental Aspects of Fusion 
Energy," _Annual Reviews of Energy and the Environment_, 1991, 
pp. 235-58.

	??? Probably what it sounds like.  Holdren is a fusion proponent 
	and does reactor design studies, among other things. ???

	Level - familiarity with fusion terminology necessary?
	[Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu]


* International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).  _Status Report on
Controlled Thermonuclear Fusion_.  (Published as Vol. 30, No 9, of 
the journal _Nuclear Fusion_, in Sept. 1990.)

	This is a comprehensive international review of all major controlled
	fusion research.  Starting to be a little dated, but still very 
	useful.

	Level - high-level scientific literature.
	[Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu]


* International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).  _World Survey of 
Activities in Controlled Fusion Research, 1991 Edition_.  (Published
as a special supplement to the journal _Nuclear Fusion_).  Over 630
pages.

	This is not really a review article, but a compendium of people,
	laboratories, machines, research programs, funding activity, and
	so on, for every country doing fusion research.  Good source of
 	statistics, acronyms, and so on.  The 1991 edition is only the 
	latest in a series published approximately every 5 years.

	Level - familiarity with fusion terminology useful
	[Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu]


* Thomassen, K.I., "Progress in Magnetic Fusion Energy Research," 
_Proc. of the IEEE_, Vol. 81, No. 3 (1993) 390.
 
	"A relatively recent paper giving an overview of the state of 
	Magnetic Fusion Energy research..."
	[Scott W. Haney, haney@random.llnl.gov]


* Teller, Edward, ed.  _Fusion: Magnetic confinement._ [2 v.] 
Academic Press. 1981.

	Good review articles on many subjects by important people in the
	field (e.g., Kunkel on NBI, Porkolab on RF heating, Conn on 
	reactors [a helluva long chapter!], Dawson on advanced reactors).

	Level: ??
	[Albert Chou, albert@seas.ucla.edu]



*** D. Plasma Physics - General Texts 
(focus is on the science of plasmas, rather than engineering of 
reactors)

* Chen, Francis F. _Introduction to Plasma Physics and Controlled
Fusion, vol 1._  [421 p.]  Plenum Publishing Corporation. 2nd 
edition, 1984.

	Intuitive (vs. mathematically rigorous) general plasma physics 
	text.  Chapters on single-particle motion, MHD, waves, diffusion & 
	resistivity, equilibrium & stability, kinetic theory, nonlinear 
	effects.  IMHO, frequently used as an undergraduate / basic 
	graduate text.  "It provides all the plasma physics you could
 	need.  However, like the title states, it is an INTRODUCTORY text.  
	Sometimes, the physical descriptions are not very rigorous, almost 
	too simple." - Robert Buckles
	
	Level:  Junior/Senior Undergraduate		
	[Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu]
	[Albert Chou, albert@seas.ucla.edu]
	[Robert Buckles, buckles@cae.wisc.edu]


* Hazeltine, RD, and Meiss, JD, _Plasma Confinement_ [411 p.]
	(Addison Wesley, 1992)

	Confinement-oriented approach to plasma physics, largely 
	fusion-oriented, tending towards theoretical as opposed to 
	experimental topics (from the intro). Chapters on Equilibrium 
	of confined plasmas, Kinetic description, Coulomb collisions, 
	Fluid Description, Stability of confinement, Collisional
 	transport, Nonlinear processes. "I know Chen's book pretty 
	well, Miyamoto's less well. Both are inferior to Hazeltine 
	and Meiss..." - Bruce Scott

	Level:  Graduate or advanced undergraduate.
	[Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu]
	[Bruce Scott, bds@hagar.ph.utexas.edu]


* Ichimaru, S. _Statistical Plasma Physics_ [2 volumes] 
Addison-Wesley. 1992.  

	First volume treats plasma theory from statistical-kinetic 
	point of view as an extension/application of statistical
	mechanics.

	Graduate level.
	[Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu]


* Krall, N., and Trivelpiece, A.. _Principles of Plasma Physics._ 
[674 p.]  San Francisco Press, 1986.

	Comprehensive introductory text for graduate students.  Chapters 
	on basic concepts and terminology, fluid/MHD models, 
	statistical/kinetic models, waves, stability, transport.  Readers 
	should be forewarned that the book was published around the few 
	years when the fusion program in the US took a serious downturn 
	and thus is seriously out of date concerning "current" 
	experiments.

	Graduate level.
	[Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu]
	[Albert Chou, albert@seas.ucla.edu]


* Miyamoto, Kenro. _Plasma physics for nuclear fusion._ [640 p.]
	MIT Press. 1989.

	This is another general plasma physics textbook, angled 
	towards the fusion applications.  Major sections on introductory 
	material, MHD, Kinetic descriptions, and "Heating, 
	Diagnostics, and Confinement."

	Graduate or senior undergraduate Level.
	[Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu]


* Nicholson, Dwight R.  _Introduction to Plasma Theory._ [292 p.]
	John Wiley and Sons. 1983.

	Introductory plasma physics textbook, emphasis on theory, not 
	meant to be used as a reference.  Contents, in order:  
	Introduction, Single-Particle Motion, Kinetic Theory 
	(3 chapters with progressively more approximations), 
	Vlasov Equation, Fluid Equations, MHD, Discrete Particle 
	Effects, Weak Turbulence Theory.

	Beginning graduate / advanced undergraduate level.
	[Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu.]


* Rose, DJ, and Clark, M, Jr, _Plasmas and Controlled Fusion_ 
(MIT, 1961)
	
	"For those who want a good dose of some plasma physics aspects 
	and a little less reactor technology, Rose and Clark is better 
	than Kammash (also for those like me who are familiar with the 
	physics and want a really basic intro to the engineering aspects).  
	Unfortunately it is pre-tokamak, so the methods and _basic_ 
	calculations involved in things like induction emf fields are 
	not present." - Bruce Scott

	[Bruce Scott, bds@hagar.ph.utexas.edu]


* Schmidt, George.  _Physics of high temperature plasmas._  Academic 
Press. 1979.

	An advanced graduate text, I believe.  I've looked at it, but 
	not in great depth.  A good reference, I think.

	Level: Advanced Graduate
	[Albert Chou, albert@seas.ucla.edu]



*** E.  Plasma Physics - Device-Specific

* Wesson, John. _Tokamaks_ [309 p.] Oxford Science Publications, 
1987.

	A clear introduction to the Tokamak concept, to the related 
	plasma physics and to some diagnostic techniques.

	Graduate level, basic plasma knowledge required.
	[Emilio Martines, martines@pdigi3.igi.pd.cnr.it]


* White, Roscoe. _Theory of tokamak plasmas._  [361 p.] 
North-Holland Physics, 1989.

	From the Preface: "These notes accompany a graduate course 
	taught at Princeton, designed to provide a basic introduction 
	to plasma equilibrium, particle orbits, transport, and those 
	ideal and resistive magnetohydrodynamic instabilities which 
	dominate the behavior of a tokamak discharge, and to develop 
	the mathematical methods necessary for their theoretical 
	analysis."

	"I know Chen's book pretty well, Miyamoto's less well. Both are
	inferior to R White's recent book." - Bruce Scott 

	Advanced Graduate Level.
	[Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
	 - I take the course next year and will know this intimately. :)]
	[Bruce Scott, bds@hagar.ph.utexas.edu]



*** F. Fusion Reactor Engineering References

* Kammash, Terry.  _Fusion reactor physics: principles and 
technology._  Ann Arbor Science Publishers. 1975.

	"For those who care mostly about engineering aspects and want 
	to know the physics involved in controlling and heating a 
	reactor plasma, Kammash is the first place to go." - Bruce Scott

	[Bruce Scott, bds@hagar.ph.utexas.edu]


* Krakowski, R.A., and Delene, J.G., "Connections Between Physics and
Economics for Tokamak Fusion Power Plants," _Journal of Fusion 
Energy_, vol. 7, no 1, 1988, pp. 49-89.

	From the abstract: "A simplified physics, engineering, and 
	costing model of a tokamak is used to examine quantitatively 
	the connection between physics performance and power-plant
	economics...."

	Level - Familiarity with plasma and reactor-engineering 
		terminology needed.
	[Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu]

* Najmabadi, et at. "The ARIES-II and ARIES-IV Second-Stability Tokamak
Reactors," in _Fusion Technology_, Vol. 21, May 1992, pp. 
1721-1728.

	Summarizes two of the ARIES paper reactors.  Both designs involve
 	utilizing the second stability regime to allow reduced magnetic 
	field strengths; also incorporate low-activation structural 
	materials and other features.  Part of an ongoing effort to 
	design an economically viable tokamak.

(This section certainly needs to have more literature reviewed, but
it's not (yet) my field of expertise.  Help anyone?)



*** G. List of Relevant Scientific Journals
 (Anyone care to write short blurbs about some of these journals?)

	Fusion Technology
	Nuclear Fusion
	Physical Review Letters
	Physics of Fluids B (Now Physics of Plasmas)
	Plasma Physics
	Energy Policy
	(there are certainly others)



*** H. Unclassified / Unsummarized works.  (Please help me move 
references out of this section and into sections A-G by contributing 
reviews of sources you know about!)

* Akiyama, M., ed.
Design technology of fusion reactors. [636 p.] World Scientific 
Publishing. 1990.

* Artsimovich, L. A.
A physicist's ABC on plasma.
Mir Publishers. 1978.

* Boenig, Herman V.
Plasma science and technology.
Cornell University Press. 1982.

* Brunelli, B., et al., eds.
Unconventional approaches to fusion. [544 p.]
Plenum Publishing Corporation. 1982.

* Casini, G.
Plasma physics for thermonuclear fusion reactors. [496 p.]
Harwood Academic Publishers. 1982.

* Casini, G., ed.
Engineering aspects of thermonuclear fusion reactors. [646 p.]
Harwood Academic Publishers. 1982.

* Coppi, B., et al., eds.
Physics of plasma close to thermonuclear conditions. [2 v.]
Pergamon Press. 1981.

* Dean, Stephen O., ed.
Prospects for fusion power. [112 p.] 
Pergamon Press. 1981.

* Gill, Richard, ed.
Plasma physics and nuclear fusion research.
Academic Press. 1981.

* Golant, V. E., et al.
Fundamentals of plasma physics. [405 p.]
John Wiley and Sons. 1980.

* Golant, V. E., et al.
Plasma heating in toroidal fusion devices. [202 p.] Plenum Publishing 
Corporation. 1989.
 
* Gross, R. A. _Fusion energy._  John Wiley and Sons. 1984.
	(Recommended in Hazeltine & Meiss.)

* Hora, Heinrich.
Physics of laser driven plasmas. [317 p.] John Wiley and Sons. 1981.

* Joachain, Charles J., and Douglas E. Post, eds. Atomic and 
molecular physics of controlled thermonuclear fusion. [575 p.]
Plenum Publishing Corporation. 1983.

* McDowell, M. R., and A. M. Ferendeci, eds.
Atomic and molecular processes in controlled nuclear fusion. [500 p.]
Plenum Publishing Corporation. 1980.

* Motz, H.
The physics of laser fusion. 
Academic Press. 1979.

* Nishikawa, K.
Plasma physics: basic theory with fusion applications. [320 p.]
Springer-Verlag. 1990.

* Raeder, J., et al.
Controlled nuclear fusion: fundamentals of its utilization for energy 
supply. [400 p.]  John Wiley and Sons. 1986.

* Stacey, W. M.
Fusion plasma analysis. [376 p.]  John Wiley and Sons. 1981.


**********************

I've summarized all the books I've seen, and included what 
information I've received from others on the net.  If you are 
familiar with any of these books, or with other books you feel 
should be included in the reading list, please submit a summary 
in roughly the above format.

Thanks!

*************
Robert F. Heeter
rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Graduate Student, Princeton Plasma Physics Lab
Standard Disclaimers Apply
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.23 / Robert Heeter /  Part 11, Conventional Fusion Proto-FAQ - Acknowledgements
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Part 11, Conventional Fusion Proto-FAQ - Acknowledgements
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 1994 02:40:22 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

11.  Citations and Acknowledgements

Section-by-Section:

*** Chapter 9 - Bibliography

*Acknowledgements are included with each reference listed.
     
*Additional thanks to Jim Day, jim.day@support.com, who gave
     me the initial list of references, from which this grew.

*** Chapter 10 - Glossary - Acknowledgements:

! Jake Blanchard, blanchard@engr.wisc.edu - suggested we have a 
list of acronyms too.

! Arthur Carlson, awc@ipp-garching.mpg.de - supplied additional 
definitions, made corrections / amplifications / revisions to earlier 
definitions.

! Albert Chou, albert@seas.ucla.edu - supplied additional definitions, 
made corrections / amplifications / revisions to earlier definitions.

!? Jim Day, jim.day@support.com - initial list of terms, additional
definitions, modifications to earlier definitions.

  Robin Herman, _Fusion: Search for Endless Energy_; I borrowed a 
lot of terms from her glossary.  Cited as (from Herman).

! Emilio Martines, martines@pdigi3.igi.pd.cnr.it - quality control,
reversed-field entries & information.

! Paul M. Koloc, pmk@prometheus.UUCP - quality control

Princeton Plasma Physics Lab, Glossary of Fusion Terms - list of
terms prepared by PPPL staff at some point.  Consulted in many
cases, blatantly paraphrased in some, quoted and cited in others.


Additional Acknowledgements:

I owe a special thank-you to Rush Holt at PPPL, who has been 
a mentor, answered zillions of questions, provided innumerable
references, and generally helped me acquire the background and 
tools to put this together.


******************************************************
Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@theory.pppl.gov
Graduate Student, Princeton Plasma Physics Lab
Usual Disclaimers Apply
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.23 / Robert Heeter /  Part 7, Conventional Fusion Proto-FAQ - Internet Resources
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Part 7, Conventional Fusion Proto-FAQ - Internet Resources
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 1994 02:49:47 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

7. Internet Resources

*** A. Newsgroups:  
     sci.physics.fusion (unmoderated)
     sci.physics.plasma (proposed)                

*** B. FTP Sites:
     neutrino.nuc.berkeley.edu has some GIF images

*** C. Gopher:
     anything out there?

*** D. World-Wide Web:
     anything out there?

*** E. Individuals Willing to Provide Additional Information

	Many of the participants on sci.physics.fusion are conventional/hot
fusion researchers.  Many names and email addresses are to be found 
as sources for various slices of the FAQ, and so on.  (See the 
acknowledgements for a more-or-less complete list of contributors.)

	A few people have expressed a willingness to serve as sources for
people seeking additional literature, such as laboratory reports, 
pamphlets, and assorted other documents.  What follows is a short 
listing:

* Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@lyman.pppl.gov 
	- Graduate Student at Princeton - 

	I have the FAQ, all sorts of archived postings and additional
	information used to generate the FAQ, a bunch of PPPL literature, 
	a set of quicktime movies made from television coverage of the 
	TFTR D-T runs (and GIFs from the QT movies), and access to just 
	about anyone here at PPPL who would have something I don't have.

The draft FAQ now exists as a stand-alone, self-running Macintosh
document roughly 200K in size; I will be happy to send it to
anyone who wants the FAQ in this (more convenient!) form.

* Joe T. Chew, jtchew@lbl.gov
	- Physicist at Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory -

	"I've also got a variety of pamphlets put out by this or that 
	lab or agency over the years; feel free to give out my address 
	as a source for photocopies of such things."
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.23 / Charles Lindsey /  Report on BBC Horizon Programme
     
Originally-From: chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk (Charles Lindsey)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Report on BBC Horizon Programme
Date: 23 Mar 94 12:23:21 GMT

{Apologies if you have seen this before, but I think my first attempt at
posting failed}

Program "Too close to the Sun" shown on BBC Monday Mar 21.
Produced by the BBC in conjunction with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation
(so presumably it will shortly appear in Canada, and then on PBS).

Naturally, there was an excess of irrelevant flashing lights and other
visual aids to fill in while people were talking, but on the whole it
provided a good coverage, and they had managed to dig out some players in
the game who are not often mentioned in this group.

Some things were quite predictable. So we had David Williams (Harwell) being
exceedingly sceptical, along with John Huizenga promoting his book and
talking about pathological science, and John Maddox (Editor of Nature)
defending his position. Also, Bruce Lewenstein (Cornell) trying to be
neutral and giving a balanced view.

But mainly, the programme dealt with the "Cold fusion underground", the
people still carrying on, and with the implication that they were indeed
making progress (as far as the BBC is ever allowed to imply anything
definite at all :-) ).

We saw a lot of FleWe saw a lot of Fleischman. Less of Pons who declared
himself most upset at the treatment he has received. We saw Keizi Kunimatsu
who was apparently responsible for persuading Toyota to fund P & F to work
in France.  Fleischman is now talking about 4 Kw per cc (of palladium, I
presume).  "irreproducibility" is now seen almost as an asset in some
quarters.  Fleischman was comparing it to the difficulty in getting chemical
processes based on catalysis to work - apparently this is most difficult,
but once you have got your process working it all goes along smoothly.

Michael McKubre (SRI) is being funded by various American Electrical
Companies, and for patent reasons has been keeping very quiet about exactly
how it is done for the past two years. But he claims to know the conditions
necessary to get it to work, and the difficulty is always in getting to the
right conditions, not in getting the excess heat once the conditions are
right. He still cannot claim any nuclear products, but his fogged film was
duly shown. Fleischman described how he tried to warn McKubre of the dangers
of working with bulk palladium (because of the effects if it all came out
too fast) but, in repeated telephone calls to SRI, he failed to get through
(it was Christmas) and when he finally did make contact in January, he was
just 2 hours too late. Now, apparently, it is unlawful to conduct cold
fusion experiments in California without at least 0.5 inches of protective
glass around the experiment. Some heart searching by McKubre as he explained
how they decided to continue with the work after the accident.

Next a big red herring (?) in the form of Randell Mills (Hydrocatalysis
Power Corporation - whatever that might be) and Robert Schaubach (Thermocore
Inc.). A very poor description of the shrunken hydrogen theory, but
Thermocore claim to be getting 1000% excess heat with Ni and H2O, and showed
a "boiler" that they were constructing. There was also a mysterious
"unidentified scientist" from one of the National Laboratories who had
looked at the Thermocore work and been impressed, but dare not reveal his
identity for fear of bringing ridicule (maybe even loss of funding) on his
Laboratory.

Next was Eugene Mallove accusing M.I.T. of falsifying their excess heat
results (rumblings about the effect on their hot fusion program if cold
fusion should be for real), and Ronald Parker (M.I.T. plasma fusion centre)
making his excuses.

A bare outline of Fleischman's boiling dry experiment (already done to the
death in this group). More interesting was what he proposed to do next. He
regards the problems now as being mainly engineering ones. He wants to be
able to maintain the boiling continuously for say 3 months at a time at a
500w level. So the steam that comes off will be condensed and returned to
the vessel. The apparatus under construction was shown, but it is not
operational yet. We shall see.

The Japanese Government are investing $30M to set up a new institute and all
the Japanese corporations that know what's good for them are contributing.
The project is known as "Icarus" and Fleischman is advising ("the wings will
be attached with super-glue").

Now a couple of odd things.

Fred Jaeger (Eneco Inc.) is buying up all the cold fusion patents he can lay
his hands on. Talks of spending $10-20M annually in the hope of recouping
billions eventually.

And Stanley Meyer, an amateur inventor from Ohio, has a water-powered car
(16 miles to the gallon of water). Claims his kit can be fitted to existing
gasoline engines, and works like a CF cell, but with higher voltages. Some
unnamed New York millionaire is said to be paying to have it checked out at
a secret lab in Boston. We saw the car, but apparently it was not running
on the day the BBC came to film it :-(.

Transcripts for 3 pounds (cheques payable to BBS) from
	Horizon - too close
	Horizon - too close to the Sun
	P.O. Box 7
	London W3 6XJ
(don't know what those who spell them as "checks" can do).



Now for the "Exploratory" programme the same evening in which Fleischman
appeared. This was a discussion between various scientists, journalists,
a sociologist of science (I kid you not) and others about how science
should, and in actual practice did, work. Fleischman says he was "made to go
public" in 1989, and was criticised for not providing enough details. Seems
he thought (at that time) that the experiment would be easy to replicate if
done "carefully".

Then a discussion of the merits and failings of the peer review process.
Apparently the P&F Nature paper went through 2 reviewing processes, but the
reviewers were asking for more explanations than P&F had the time to
provide. But it is not uncommon for writers of papers to be frustrated by
reviewers who cannot see things as they do, and ask for additional material
that is patently irrelevant. Remark by Fleischman that peer review was "good
for mainstream science, but totally useless for innovative science".

Interesting discussion of the case of Peter Duesberg (the man who believes
that HIV is totally unconnected with AIDS). Many parallels with the
Fleischman case. A man of exceptional talent and repute who spoils his own
case by overstatement, or oversimplification, or inability to see what the
other parties are really driving at.


-- 
Charles H. Lindsey -------------------------------------------------------------
           At Home, doing my own thing.           Internet: chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk
Voice: +44 61 437 4506                            Janet:    chl@uk.ac.man.cs.clw
Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave., CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.   UUCP:     mucs!clerew!chl
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenchl cudfnCharles cudlnLindsey cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.23 / Paul Cornhill /  Re: BBC Horizon Program
     
Originally-From: pjc@terminus.ericsson.se (Paul Cornhill)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: BBC Horizon Program
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 94 13:20:56 GMT
Organization: Camtec Electronics (Ericsson), Leicester, England

>>Who was the physicist who claimed to have developed a new theory of QM  
>>(involving a new energy level for hydrogen) ???????????????
			*** DITTO ***
	Paul Cornhill

cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenpjc cudfnPaul cudlnCornhill cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.23 /  morrison@vxpri /  Car run on Water - Cold Fusion. Stanley Meyer.
     
Originally-From: morrison@vxprix.cern.ch
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Car run on Water - Cold Fusion. Stanley Meyer.
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 1994 17:10:23 GMT
Organization: At Home; Salida, CA USA

          Car running on Water - Stanley Meyer

    Last night the BBC Horizon series gave a programme on Cold Fusion called
"Too Close to the Sun". Despite some strong dissent, viewers tended to find 
it was favourable to Cold Fusion. It also showed a video of a car running on 
water using Cold Fusion.
    As a trailer for this programme, the Sunday Express of 20 March had a 
two-page article entirely favourable to Cold Fusion. It said this was part 
of the British Science week. The end of the article is;
"Practical applications have already begun. An American inventor has created 
the world's first cold fusion car. Stanley Meyer from Ohio has had successful
trials in the vehicle and is now talking with motor companies about perfecting  
and marketing a water power kit. A New York millionaire has sent experts to  
test the car, with a view to investment. Meyer says 'the car has travelled at 
55 mph and can do 60 miles to the gallon of water. This WILL be the car of the  
future - ultra cheap to run, clean and efficient.'"
    I wonder if this could be the same Stanley A. Meyer from 3792 Broadway,  
Grove City, Ohio 43123, that I met when he was describing a car that could run 
on water using a fuel cell? - he did not mention Cold Fusion.
    This was at a serious meeting - The World Clean Energy Conference, held in 
Geneva 4 to 7 November 1991, and sponsored by many Swiss organizations.
An Inventor, Stanley A. Meyer, turned up with a team of people and set up  
a stand in the corridor outside and asked to be allowed to give a presentation  
of his water fuel cell to the conference. He also had a video showing a car  
running on water only using his fuel cell. He was a large and impressive man  
given to quoting the Bible and talking of his mission. The President of the 
Conference asked me to investigate and gave me Mr. Meyer's Technical Brief
of over 100 pages - it was attractively presented. The logo was "WATER FUEL
CELL" above three candles in whose base was written "Job 38: 22-23" and below
"JESUS CHRIST IS LORD".
    With two engineers, I had a semi-private meeting with Mr. Meyer and his
team. Basically his concept is that he "dissociates the water molecule by way of
voltage stimulation" separating off the hydrogen and then burning it with  
oxygen to obtain energy. He claimed that it took very little to separate the  
hydrogen and oxygen but one obtained a great deal of energy when they were 
recombined. Said this was fundamentally unsound - the energy to separate the
hydrogen and oxygen must by Conservation of Energy, be the same as the energy 
released when the two gases recombine. 
    He vanished from view but then heard that he was in Holland being sponsored
by a wealthy elderly gentleman.
    Since I have not yet seen the Horizon programme, could anyone please
tell if the two Stanley Meyer's are the same? Is any more known about him?

    Douglas R.O. Morrison        morrison@vxprix.decnet.cern.ch
                                     drom@vxcern
 

cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenmorrison cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.24 / Bill Page /  Theory of Ion Band States Fusion
     
Originally-From: 70047.3047@compuserve.com (Bill Page)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Theory of Ion Band States Fusion
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 1994 01:09:56 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Dear Dr. Chubb;

I greatly appreciate your recent postings here on the network. In going to 
the effort to prepare something for posting I know that one often wonders 
how many people will read what one writes (not to mention the worry of how 
many will actually *understand* what one writes). One purpose of this 
message is assure you that many many more people read what you post than 
the number of people who actually post a response or even send private 
email.  I think that "public conversations" such as the one you are now 
conducting with Dick Blue on this network are very valuable contributions.  
I hope that you will be able to find the energy to continue.

I am also posting this letter to the network so I would like to quote some 
material from your previous postings just to try to keep the context in 
mind. You recently posted (Subject: Errors in your critique...admonition to 
try to communicate better) in part:

<<
However, before I proceed, I really want to bring out a couple of points 
concerning this business of signal-to-noise and the need to communicate 
better.  I sincerely believe this is an important, evolving scientific 
forum, and as such, it can/should prove to be extremely valuable, and 
mention these points about communication because of this fact.  When the 
signal-to-noise becomes to high, people either stop paying attention or do 
not have the time to do so.

As I said, I do think signal-to-noise could have been reduced if you had 
checked with me.  I also could have saved you some time by forwarding an 
E-Mail version of our paper.  I also think that signal-to-noise can be 
lowered by not exhorting to harsh declarations, or statements of "fact" 
that are not true.
>>

I also appreciate Dick Blue's contributions (especially when they are 
specific and detailed, though I have often found myself in disagreement 
with his opinions).  But, as you recently also expressed, I find it 
unfortunate that he chooses to include remarks which often make the "tone" 
of his posting rather derogatory.  This is, however, a free forum and I see 
no alternative to simply "putting up with" other people's personal 
idiosyncracies.  I don't think that reference to "signal-to-noise" 
adequately describes the phenomena.  Despite our best intentions to be 
objective, scientific, or even "gentlemanly" [Is there a more suitable, 
less sexist term I could have used?] all means of communication have some 
emotional content.  For some reason which I don't really understand, 
posting written material to the electronic network seems to selectively 
amplify the emotional content (noise?) over the intellectual content 
(signal?).  Perhaps we are especially sensitive because this media is do 
deficiant in the usual non-verbal cues so common in direct face to face 
conversations.

In spite of this, I very much prefer the open and free exchange of ideas in 
this public forum over private email.  I think we need to have a very great 
tolerance for the limitations of the media and the limitations of the 
participants.  People need to feel free to carry out an interactive 
discourse, sometimes containing typographical and even factual errors, 
without the fear of later being called to task for having publically 
written something which is incorrect.  In my view, Dick Blue, at least 
doesn't seem to have such fears! ;-)

BTW, I have read two of your publications in Fusion Technology and also 
attended your presentation during ICCF-4 in Hawaii.  I recall your 
presentation, as well as your comments concerning some of the other 
presentations, as being highly emotionally charged - in sharp contrast to 
your publications.  My background is that of a graduate student in 
theoretical physics (quantum mechanics).  I have not yet got into any depth 
in solid state physics, but I am able to appreciate most of the material in 
texts such as "Introduction to Solid State Physics" by Kittel.

[Intellectual content starts here: ...]

Dick Blue wrote:
<<
... Suppose I set out to describe a system in which there is an interaction 
potential V(r), where r stands for all the relevant coordinates.  I next 
split this potential into two terms such that V(r) = V1(r) - V2(r).  At 
this point I have done nothing as long as I preserve this equality for all 
values of r. I can, however, change the attractive and repulsive terms all 
over the place.  Now suppose I make one further change and rewrite this so 
that it becomes a function of two different sets of coordinates:  V(r1,r2) 
= V1(r1) - V2(r2).  Is this not now a very different situation from the 
initial starting point? 

...

Chubb page 699
"As a consequence of this orthogonality, a particular Wannier state may be 
associated with a specific site.  In the case involving deuterons injected 
into a fully-loaded PdD lattice, because the measured zero-point motion of 
the D is a small fraction of the lattice spacing, overlap between Wannier 
states on different sites at a specific point is negligible.

[Technical details omitted ...]

As a consequence, at an individual site, for times much less than 10^-14 
seconds, the
injected ions may look like individual particles, where for much larger 
periods of time, they appear as small fractional quantities of charge that 
are shared by all lattice sites at once. "

Blue comments
I include this to show that the Chubbs are aware of the importance of 
keeping track of what domain is under consideration with respect to time 
and position coordinates.  In this problem they are offering two 
descriptions of the deuterons, and clearly state
that mostly the deuterons act as particles confined to specific lattice 
sites.  The ion band states are just a little frosting on the cake.  But 
remember you must keep track of which coordinates are being used to 
describe what features of the deuteron wave
functions.

Chubb page 700
"The periodic PdD lattice induces formation of the BBC as a means of 
eliminating localized lattice strain energy costs by allowing a small 
(10^-7 D/Pd) concentration of injected deuterons to occupy energy bands 
provided by the periodic potential of PdD.  Lattice strain energy costs are 
further reduced when the Coulombic repulsion between deuterons remains 
uncorrellated on the scale of the electrostatic interaction for a 
sufficiently long time.  As a result, it becomes possible for deuterons 
within the BBC to interact collectively in a nuclear fashion with each 
other in a manner consistent with the prerequisite conditions which lead to 
the formation of the BBC.

.... As a consequence of this wave-particle duality, the picture of the 
"traditional" free space fusion process (in which D-ions interact strongly 
with each other through the Coulomb barrier) may be replaced by a picture 
in which particle-like fusion behavior at an individual lattice site 
becomes possible for a time-scale that
is short with respect to electrostatic processes (in which the deuteron 
behaves in a wave-like fashion) but long with respect to the times required 
for nuclear processes (in which the deuteron appears to be particle-like).  
This picture becomes possible as a result of D-ions being constrained to 
interact with each other as weakly as possible Coulombically through the 
D-occupation of "wave-like" states, in which only infinitesimally small 
amounts of potentially reactive D-charge are present on the average at an 
individual site."

Blue comment
Now do you see the resemblance of the Chubb formulation to my starting 
example in which a potential is split into two terms that are allowed to go 
their separate ways?  The interaction between deuterons has been artfully 
split into a part that goes with
the BBC form of wave function and a part that remains with the Wannier form 
of wave function.  Do you suppose that this introduces a few degrees of 
freedom that weren't in the problem originally? 

...

>>

This *does* seem to be one of the pivotal points of your theory, but aren't 
Dick Blue's comments regarding "degrees of freedom" essentially dealt with 
via the assumption of Born-Oppenheimer separability?  The wavefunction is 
assumed to be (approximately) separable into a product of an electronic 
wavefunction and a nuclear wavefunction.  It is your thesis, is it not?, 
that the electronic part is subject to and modified by the periodic 
potential of the lattice, but the nuclear part is not.  What Dick is 
referring to as the "Wannier form of the wavefunction" provides the context 
in which to deal with the nuclear "degrees of freedom".  I don't understand 
this as introducing degrees of freedom that were not in the the original 
problem.

------------

On a different but related subject: I know that in your theory you consider 
reactions between the D+ and He++ Bose band states.  In the current 
literature, H and D band states have been reported but He++ band states 
remain highly speculative.  Although H+ (proton) like the electron is a 
spin 1/2 particle and therefore obeys Fermi symmetry, not with standing 
nuclear reaction rates, is it possible to consider reactions between H+ and 
D+ band states?  In the scenario I have in mind, the D+ almost fully 
occuppies the available Bose Bloch condensate ion band state.  Some smaller 
number of H+ impurity ions occupy a Fermi band state.  Because of the Fermi 
statistics some of the H+ are in relatively high energy states.  *If* some 
tighly bound state of H exists (as hypothesised by J. P. Vigier and 
others), is it possible that there may be a

  P + e + P -> D+

interaction between the band states?  Of course this is a weak interaction 
and reaction rates in conventional situations are very low.  By what factor 
might lattice effects be able to enhance this rate?

In the situation described, it would be very difficult to detect any 
reaction products other than heat, assuming that no gamma/x-ray emmission 
occurs.  Perhaps we might observe depletion of the H.

Aside: The Jahn-Teller effect discussed in Prof. Johnson's paper at ICCF-4 
suggests a mechanism for pairing of H+ at tetrahedral sites.  Could the 
formation such pairs or even H+ Cooper pairs be a precursor to the above 
reaction?  And what happens with the electron band states?

As a further aside: The effect of H and D loading ratios on the electrical 
resistance of Palladium is well known.  Do present "conventional" theories 
explain this phenomena? I have read papers on some experimental 
observations and calculations regarding the superconductor properties of 
hyrided and deuterided Palladium, but I haven't seen any theoretical 
publications on any other resistance properties.  Do you (or anyone else 
here on the network) know of any suitable references?

-------------

In your papers you have suggested experiments using Silver as a host 
lattice.  Have any such experiments been performed?  Have you considered 
the possibility of using an Aluminum host lattice?

------------

Thanks again for your contributions.

Sincerely,

Bill Page.


Cheers,

Bill Page.

cc. Fusion Digest (sci.physics.fusion)

cudkeys:
cuddy24 cuden3047 cudfnBill cudlnPage cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.24 /  blue@nscl00.ns /  Re:  Chubb theory
     
Originally-From: blue@nscl00.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re:  Chubb theory
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 1994 01:11:11 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

It is a slow process, but I think I am beginning to get the facts
straight:  It is Dr. Chubb, not Mr. Chubb, and the other half of the
team is an uncle rather than a brother as I had wrongly assumed.

Now as to the theory, I was mistaken to assume that the deuterons
in Pd are covered by one of two descriptions - the BBC state and
the Wannier state.  Those are two manifestations of the same thing
more or less.  Actually most of the deuterons aren't even in that
picture or pictures at all!  Boy, this stuff gets complicated in
a hurry, but I'll keep working at it 'till I get it straight.
Just be patient with me.

The thing I don't yet understand is where is the potential well
refered to with regard to the Wannier state, and what zero point
motion are we talking about?  Is this somehow involve in putting
two deuterons into the same unit cell?  If that is the case how
do we know what that potential is like?  At first guess I would
think the shape of the potential would be more complex than
the Chubb description.

Well, even though I clearly have a ways to go before I understand
this, I really would like to get an answer to my most basic
question as to how one coordinate can take on two different
labels with out confusing either the reader or the deuteron?

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenblue cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.24 /  blue@nscl00.ns /  Re: BBC Horizon program
     
Originally-From: blue@nscl00.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: BBC Horizon program
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 1994 01:11:11 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

The recent broadcast from the BBC on the subject of cold fusion seems
to have generated lots of enthusiasm for its optimistic view of the
current state of research on free energy.  TV reporters like to show
this subject in an upbeat manner rather than to seriously address the
complexities that underlie this issue.  So what are the clues that
perhaps we might find this optimism to be a little bit misplaced?

First question that comes to mind is why there is a such a contrast
between what has been published, by Prof. Fleischmann for example,
and subjected to scientific scrutiny and the claims he is willing to
make about results that have never seen the light of day.  Consider
the lead time involved in a good TV production and the time elapsed
since the ICCF4 conference and ask yourself when the results
were obtained by Prof. Fleischmann.

The second result that I certainly will want to wait for something
better than a BBC report before giving it more than passing notice
is the claims coming from Mills and Thermocore of 1000 percent
excess heat and a water heater about to appear on the market.
Did the BBC show any such device in operation with any confirmation
from anyone not connected with Thermocore?

Finally I just want to voice my objection to Dave Griffiths use
of "objective" and "conservative" as if they are mutually contradictory.
Any assertion that "new science" is more objective than the physics
community is subject to challange.  I would certainly suggest that
anyone who wishes to sing the praises of "new science", what ever
that may include, should be prepared to list a few solid achievements
that can be put in this catagory.

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenblue cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.24 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Noise
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Noise
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 1994 01:11:24 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Three cheers to Scott Chubb for his very measured (and very low noise)
response to Dick Blue.  Now Dick is challanged to respond with and even
lower noise reply.

Gosh!  What if this noise cancelling escallation would take place everywhere
in this group?

As I predicted, Dick is going to have to work hard to keep up with Scott
Chubb.  

Tom Droege

cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenDROEGE cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.24 / Jed Rothwell /  BBC program will be shown by CBC
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: BBC program will be shown by CBC
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 1994 01:11:28 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG

On March 21, 1994, the British Broadcasting Corp (BBC), broadcast a science
documentary about cold fusion. This was one of their acclaimed "Horizon"
series programs. It was titled "Too Close to the Sun." I have not seen the
video yet, but I have read a complete transcript. I must say, it is an
incredibly hard hitting, accurate, timely program. It went into detail, it
revealed the corruption, the attacks, the evasions, and much else about this
sorry tale. It showed the fake data from the MIT hot fusion lab that
supposedly "disproved" cold fusion back in 1989. I wish there was some way we
could get this kind of information broadcast in the U.S.

The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) will broadcast this program in
their "Witness" series on March 28, 1994. Here is some information about the
satellite:

     "According to the March '94 issue of Satellite magazine the program
     should be on ANIC (E1) 100 degrees W on the following transponders:

     CBC East: 8 P.M. (central) CH 23 horizontal
     CBC West: Midnight (central) CH 11 horizontal

     NOTE: These programs were originally carried on ANIC (E2) which
     experienced a problem with orientation stability. Programming was moved
     from E2 to E1 on January 21, 1994. . .

     For 'synchronizing' purposes, both 'Witness' programs will be preceded
     by an hour of 'CBC Prime Time News.'"

There was also an AP article with some nice quotes from Mallove, McKubre and
Peterson, plus the usual pathological lies from Huizenga, Taubes and Jones.

- Jed

cudkeys:
cuddy24 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.24 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Hot fusion FAQ
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Hot fusion FAQ
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 1994 01:11:25 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Robert F. Heeter is doing a lot of work on a FAQ.  Good work, though I am 
not so interested and I space over it pretty fast.  Still, I want to 
encourage you.  Writing a book, eh?  Why not!  On line editing and comments.
I hope you are getting some response, even if it is only typo correction.  You
will get your reward eventually from all the students that will be able to
use your work as a fusion source.  Keep up the good work.

Tom Droege

cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenDROEGE cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.23 / A Christiansen /  Re: Continuous Heat???
     
Originally-From: alan@saturn.cs.swin.oz.au (Alan Christiansen)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Continuous Heat???
Date: 23 Mar 94 15:09:53 GMT
Organization: Swinburne University of Technology

julian@gatwick.sgp.slb.com (Julian Fitzherbert) writes:

>In article 1494@physc1.byu.edu, jonesse@physc1.byu.edu writes:
>> Had a phone call from a colleague a few days ago who had visited A. Takahashi
>> at his lab in Japan, reports *no* excess heat lately.  Quite a different
>> story.  So who is getting 'continuous heat', Tom?  Can we follow up at all?
>> 
>> --Steve
>> 

>The BBC2 Horizon programme that I referred to earlier also mentioned
>a US company called Thermocore who reportedly get continuous heat from
>a CF cell. They seem to be using nickel electrodes (thats what they say)
>and said they were on the verge of marketing a water heater using this
>technology. They were quoting 1000% energy return on the input !!!!
>Wow thats a kilowatt out for 1 watt in - incredible if true. I can heat 
>my water tank for 3 watt hours as opposed to 3 Kwatt hours. Ummmm...... 

Hmm. I hope this was just a slip but it is a bit costly to your 
credibility. (what did the Ummmmm..... mean ? was it a :) ? )

1000% = 10 * 100%    Thus 300 watt hours in, 3 KWatt hours out is
1000%.

IF they really can do this THEN......

I expect to see any day now a closed system generating the
electricity need to drive the thing and a bit more besides.
When I see that it will be obvious that it works.

I do not however intend to hold my breath.

[]
Alan






-- 
                           |  This space was intentionally left blank,
                           |  until some silly included a self descriptive
                           |  self referential self referential self ...
                           | ... Stack overflow. Executing cleanup rm *.*
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenalan cudfnAlan cudlnChristiansen cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.23 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Errors in your critique...admonition to try to communicate better
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Errors in your critique...admonition to try to communicate better
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 1994 05:18:39 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <9403230007.AA15240@suntan>,
SCOTT CHUBB <CHUBB@cfe1.nrl.navy.mil> wrote:
>
>     For example, in my initial communication, I criticized the fact
>that you scornfully referred to me as "Mr." Chubb when I am actually
>"Dr." Chubb.  I did this more in response to your tone than to the
>significance of this fact.

     PhDs are a dime a dozen around here.  I doubt the scorn had anything
     to do with denigration of your academic credentials.   Indeed, if we all 
     refer to each other as 'Mr.' (barring the appearance of a woman at some 
     time), it makes it far less complicated than keeping track of who
     happens to have a PhD and who does not.

                           dr. dale bass

cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.23 / mitchell swartz /  Reply "On Larry Wall's "Qualifications for posting?""
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Reply "On Larry Wall's "Qualifications for posting?""
Subject: Re: On Larry Wall's "Qualifications for posting?"
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 1994 17:57:46 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

Dear colleagues:

   To correct the record and hopefully finish this thread,
in Message-ID: <north.764121542@watop>
Subject: Re: On Larry Wall's "Qualifications for posting?"
Mark NorthX north@watop.nosc.mil)
NCCOSC RDT&E Division, San Diego, CA writes a string of errors:

   >    And BTW after Webster (ibid.)
   >   ****  absurd ***  from:  ab- from, away    + surdus-   deaf, stupid
   >     1 -   ridiculously unreasonable, unsound, or incongruous

=mn  "Talk about absurd. What's that there ibidem for?"

   "That there"?    [And what might be the qualifications of Mr. North?   ;-)
   Ibid is an abbreviation of ibidem --- meaning (from the Latin)
        "in the same place"

    Since in a previous post this writer had specifically
quoted "Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary" 
by G. & C. Merriam Company, Springfield Massachusetts  USA (1965),
  "ibid." was short for ibidem 
which actually referred to that previous post, as is common practice.     


=mn  "Do you think that makes you look erudite?"

   High probability of "projection" here again.      ;-) X


=mn   "At least learn how to use it properly.Also, since
=mn  you are so fond of quoting dictionaries here's a clue for you.
=mn  Citing 'Webster' confers no information. 'Webster' is a generic name.
=mn  Anyone can put together a dictionary and call it Webster's. So if
=mn  you want to convey information you must indicate the publisher of
=mn  the dictionary."
   
   Really?   Attention of those who can access (or have) the
archives here is directed to the simple fact that since in a previous 
post I had quoted "Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary" 
by G. & C. Merriam Company, Springfield Massachusetts  
USA (1965).
  It is thus apparent that "Webster's" was simply NOT a generic name.

 Best wishes.
                             -   Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com)
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    "The safest place for a "skeptic" at an archery competition is directly
 in front of the target.  No danger in a "skeptic" so placed being hit.
               All the points will naturally elude them"





cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.23 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Re: BBC Horizon Program/Shrunken hydrogen
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: BBC Horizon Program/Shrunken hydrogen
Date: 23 Mar 94 11:20:19 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

In article <1994Mar23.132056.12418@terminus.ericsson.se>, pjc@terminus.e
icsson.se (Paul Cornhill) writes:
>>>Who was the physicist who claimed to have developed a new theory of QM  
>>>(involving a new energy level for hydrogen) ???????????????
> 			*** DITTO ***
> 	Paul Cornhill
> 

Sub-ground state ('shrunken') hydrogen atoms:  
Randall Mills, with M. Farrell -- paper published in Fusion Technology a couple
of years ago and discussed here at length about 1 year ago.  Could dig up
refs if you're really interested.  We have had to keep reminding such
'theorists' that the ground state is really a *minimum energy* state, and
that electrons behave like waves in atoms.

Shrunken hydrogen molecules, actually molecular ions like D2+ :
Barut, also J.-P. Vigier.   Bill Page has been discussing this theory here
 lately and may wish to comment.
Dick Blue and I reviewed this business about 1 year ago.  The idea is
that one electron sits between two deuterons, shielding the Coulomb
potential...  

Both 'theories' account for 'excess heat' claimed in light-water
cells, without resorting to nuclear reactions.  Thus, the missing nuclear
products are circumvented.  Of course, the missing shrunken hydrogen atoms
or molecules have yet to be demonstrated.  

Meanwhile, experiments here at BYU and others by Oriani show that excess heat
in Ni/H2O cells can all be accounted for by recomination of H2 and O2 in the
cells -- a fact generally overlooked (e.g., by Notoya, Bush, Srinivasan in 
the past , etc.).  A paper on our own experiments, showing up to 750% 
*apparent* excess heat, which disappears when recombination is inhibited, 
has been submitted for publication. 

--Steven Jones


cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenjonesse cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.23 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Re: Continuous Heat?/Muon-cat. fusion
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Continuous Heat?/Muon-cat. fusion
Date: 23 Mar 94 12:06:01 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

In article <MATT.94Mar22131448@physics3.berkeley.edu>, 
matt@physics3.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern) writes:
> In article <2mmolv$78j@gorgon.gatwick.sgp.slb.com> 
> julian@gatwick.sgp.slb.com (Julian Fitzherbert) writes:
> 
>> Just reporting what I heard folks and trying to stay open minded.
>> BTW I enjoyed Steve Jones Scientific American paper on Muon Catalysed
>> Fusion. What came of the process Steve it sounded great? I remember
>> Arthur C Clarke borrowed the idea to power one of his space ships
>> in the 3rd 2001 novel (2026?).
> 
> Muon catalysed fusion is real.  It has been observed many times, by
> many different groups; 

Right!  Quite a distinction from P&F-style 'cold fusion.'
Yes, Clarke used mu-c-f for space travel, I think it was the 2050 novel.

>it is theoretically well understood; its cross
> section has been measured; and there is no controversy at all about
> its existence.

Quite.  However, the theory to account for the low sticking which we observed
(0.4% for muon-alpha sticking following d-t fusion, since confirmed elsewhere)
is still incomplete.  Al Anderson, Stu Taylor and I discuss this in our
latest mu-c-f paper, "Evaluation of muon-alpha sticking from liquid,
non-equilibrated d-t targets with high tritium fractions," 
Hyperfine Interactions 82 (1993) 303.  From our abstract:

"The value we obtain agrees well with our earlier values and the latest value
from PSI, yet remains significantly smaller than theroetical predictions."

> 
> This does not mean, though, that it is a practical means of generating
> energy.  Whether or not it is depends on questions like how much
> energy is needed to produce a muon beam; how many fusion events a
> single muon can catalyze before it decays; how one can convert the
> energy produced by fusion into some useful form; how the cross section
> depends on the energy of the muon beam, and so on.  At present,
> unfortunately, it appears that the answer is that muon catalysed
> fusion isn't a useful energy source.  The muons decay before they have
> a chance to participate in very many interactions, and so you spend
> more energy making the muons than you get out of the fusion.  It's a
> pity: it was a good idea.
> --
> Matthew Austern                       Never express yourself more clearly
> matt@physics.berkeley.edu             than you think.    ---N. Bohr

This is basically correct; however, we have achieved up to 150 d-t fusions
per muon, releasing about 2.6 GeV per muon.  Not bad, considering that the
muon's mass is only 105.66 MeV!  

But not enough... for an energy source.
Unless one is content to add fission, making a fusion-fission hybrid
(see Heeter's nice glossary on hybrids, etc.).  The main problem, as explained
in the July 1987 Sci. American article also, is that sticking robs the muons
from the reaction -- this is the major bottleneck to muon catalysis, not the
finite muon lifetime per se.  If sticking could somehow be reduced to zero,
the muon lives long enough to induce thousands of fusions -- that would be
enough for commercial power generation.  But how to do *that*?  Clever ideas
have so far all come up short.

An experimental proposal to pursue the "sticking" question is in the works,
will let y'all know how it comes out.  Times are tough for funding...
everyone knows we have plenty of cheap energy, right?  At least until the next
election...  { 8^| }

-=-Steven Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenjonesse cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Thu Mar 24 04:37:31 EST 1994
------------------------------
1994.03.23 / Peter Lindsay /  Re: Anyone for Palladium -> Silver?
     
Originally-From: pjl@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Peter Lindsay)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Anyone for Palladium -> Silver?
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 1994 18:57:15 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Edinburgh

In article <764287736snz@stellar.demon.co.uk> Joe@stellar.demon.co.uk writes:
>I am new to this group so no flames please!
>
>I was watching the Horizon programme and as metioned in the programme,
>everyone is struck odd that there is no nuclear ash or radioactivity
>in the abundance that is expected. Hmm... To avoid ash why not simply
>convert Palladium to Silver with the release of huge energy in a
>deuterium adsorption process that goes too far?
>It would have to be a new 'chemical/atomic' process
>that goes one step beyond chemical bonding because atoms don't fall into
>each other's nuclei. Has anybody checked for Silver either in solution
>or amalgamated with the Palladium atoms?
>
>-- 
>Joseph Michael

Surely this would be endothermic, and why is it simple ?

cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenpjl cudfnPeter cudlnLindsay cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.24 / mitchell swartz /  What Arthur Clarke thinks of Cold fusion
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: What Arthur Clarke thinks of Cold fusion
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 1994 00:00:22 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

                              March  23, 1994
Dear colleagues:

   Despite the TonyaHarding-like tactics of
the TB-skeptics, cold fusion is alive and well.

  For today, the 5th anniversary of the announcement
here is a brief excerpt from the second issue
of the COLD FUSION TIMES (ISSN 1072-2874;
vol 1, issue #2) 
which contained the longer missive from one of
my (?our) favorite sf-and science heroes, Arthur C. Clarke.

        Best wishes.
                                    Mitchell Swartz
                                    mica@world.std.com

 --------------------------------------------------
       THE COMING AGE OF HYDROGEN POWER 
           by Arthur C Clarke, C.B.E. 
   Fellow of King's College, London Chancellor, 
   International Space university Chancellor, 
           University of Moratuwa 

   " 2001: A Space Odvssey ....provides a very good example of 
how difficult it is to predict the future. You may recall that in 
the film we showed the Bell System and PANAM - well, they've 
both gone, long before 2001. But I'm happy to see that the 
Hilton, which we also showed in 2001, is still here, though not 
yet in orbit!    This proves how impossible it is to predict social 
and political developments.

               ....

   A good example is provided by my 1945 paper on 
communications satellites, which I imagined would be large, 
manned spacestations. When I wrote that, World War II was 
still in progress, and I was working on Ground Controlled 
Approach Radar, which had the then enormous number of 
something like a thousand vacuum tubes in it, at least one of 
which would blow everyday. So it was impossible to believe, 
back in 1945, that TV relay stations could operate without a 
staff of engineers changing tubes and checking circuits. But of 
course, the transistor and the solid state revolution came along 
within a few years, and what I'd assumed would have to be 
done by large manned stations could be achieved by satellites 
the size of oil drums. So everything I imagined would be done 
around the end of the century happened decades in advance.

                    ...

   Well, history has just repeated itself, with what's been 
(perhaps inaccurately) named 'Cold Fusion'.  

You all know of course, that the Sun is powered by the fusion 
of Hydrogen atoms, when they combine to make helium. 
Tremendous efforts have been made to reproduce this reaction 
on earth and produce virtually unlimited amounts of energy.

                   ...

   Literally billions of dollars have been spent in efforts to reach 
the multi-million degree temperatures in the heart of the Sun, 
where this reaction occurs. One day these experiments will 
succeed, but so far only a few percent of the input energy has 
been obtained, for very short periods of time. 

    However, just four years ago, two scientists named Pons and 
Fleischmann claimed to have achieved 'Cold Fusion' at room 
temperature in certain metals saturated with deuterium, the 
heavy isotope of hydrogen. 

                      .... 

    This, of course, created a world-wide sensation, and many 
laboratories tried to repeat the experiments. They all failed, 
and Pons and Fleischmann were laughed out of court. That 
was the last anyone heard of them for a couple of years. 
  
    But meanwhile, there had been an underground movement of 
scientists who believed that there might be something in all 
this business, and started experiments of their own - often in 
defiance of their employers. Pons and Fleischmann went to 
France just like the wright Brothers! - and are now working in 
a laboratory near Nice, financed by a Japanese consortium, 
Technova.  

                        .... 

     It is now beyond serious dispute that anomalous amounts of 
energy are being produced from hydrogen by some unknown 
reaction.
 The- term 'cold fusion' - 'C/F' - has stuck because no one can 
think of anything better....."


cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.23 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Old questions for P&F, on 5th anniversary of their press conference
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Old questions for P&F, on 5th anniversary of their press conference
Date: 23 Mar 94 17:59:53 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

Five years ago today, the re-doubtable press conference on cold fusion 
occurred at the University of Utah, with P&F claiming 'cold fusion' and 
'excess heat.'  Perhaps it is time for these gentlemen to answer three
questions which were posed in 1989, but for which answers have been 
refused (at least, I have seen them refuse to answer these questions,
and do not know of their current standing), 
thus stifling scientific inquirey and offending the scientific community:

1.  Do you claim the 'excess heat' is due to FUSION?  Ignition?

2.  Do you [P&F] get excess heat with light water as well as heavy water?

3.  Did your hot-water device, which you claimed worked in July 1989,
really work? **  Where is this water heater now?


**Quoting B.Stanley Pons:
 
" 'It wouldn't take care of the family's electrical needs, but it certainly
could provide them with hot water year-round,' said Pons, who said he's always
believed that the practical application of cold fusion could happen this fast."
--Deseret News, p. B-1, July 8, 1989.  Shows color photo of "hot-water device."

--Steven Jones

cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenjonesse cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.24 / Jim Bowery /  Re: BBC Horizon Program
     
Originally-From: jabowery@netcom.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: BBC Horizon Program
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 1994 02:29:58 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

griffid@gb.swissbank.com (Dave Griffiths) writes:
> My main impression was of how conservative the physics establishment is  
> when confronted with the possibility of "new science".

"physics" establishment.

The state religion doesn't qualify as a scientific enterprise.
-- 
The promotion of politics exterminates apolitical genes in the population.
  The promotion of frontiers gives apolitical genes a route to survival.
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenjabowery cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.24 / Eugene Mallove /  Letter on MIT PFC 1989 Calorimetry
     
Originally-From: 76570.2270@compuserve.com (Eugene Mallove)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Letter on MIT PFC 1989 Calorimetry
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 1994 04:24:52 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

        Since the recent BBC Horizon program has highlighted criticism of the 
1989 cold fusion calorimetry experiment at MIT, it is appropriate at this time
to cite a letter that was written on March 19, 1992 to MIT President Charles 
Vest by an independent physicist -- Dr. Charles McCutchen. Dr. McCutchen was 
not and is not connected with the cold fusion field, but he performed an 
independent examination of the 1989 presentation of the MIT PFC data.  He gave
me permission back then to cite his letter publicly. The letter reads, in 
part:

        "For its own good, and to restore some civility to a contentious 
field, MIT should look into (1) how its scientists came to perform and publish
such a poor experiment, (2) why they either misdescribed their results, making
them seem more meaningful than they were or used a subtle correcting procedure
without describing exactly what it was, (3) how it came about that data from 
calorimeters with a claimed sensitivity of 40 mW converged between drafts 
[July 10, 1989 and July 13, 1989], after completion of the experiments, to 
within perhaps 5 mW of the result that hot fusion people would prefer to see. 
It might have been chance, but it might not."

        "I think all parties would agree that if the experimenters thought 
their method of baseline correction would not conceal constant or slowly 
varying excess power they should have explained it in detail. If, on the other
hand, both the height and the slope of their records were meaningless, they 
should have said so. I believe this information, whichever it is, should now 
be published."

                                Sincerely yours.
                                Charles W. McCutchen


        No satisfactory response was ever given to Dr. McCutchen or to anyone 
else concerning this serious matter. ONE of the SIXTEEN authors on the MIT PFC
1989 paper was allowed to prepare a "technical appendix" to the 1989 PFC 
Technical Report. No corrections or modifications were ever rendered to the 
corresponding paper published in the Journal of Fusion Energy (whose editor 
worked at the MIT PFC).
        Questions about this paper have multiplied over the years, especially 
since representatives of the research group that performed the 1989 
experiments have alternately described the calorimetry results as "worthless" 
and "we stand by our data." The number of data sets that were said by these 
representatives to be the same data have also multiplied.

        Nonetheless, the US Patent Office has repeatedly cited the 1989 MIT 
PFC experiment as evidence that electrochemical cold fusion does not exist.

        Perhaps the best explanation of how the MIT PFC data came to be 
published as such a solid "null" experiment is this chronology:

June 26, 1989: A "Wake for Cold Fusion" party is held at the MIT PFC
July 10, 1989: Data set in Draft Shows Excess Heat in D2O and none in H2O
Jluy 13, 1989: Data set in Draft Shows No Excess Heat in D2O (Published)

Is it possible that the attitude prevailing at the MIT PFC on June 26, 1989 
(and no doubt earlier), could have influenced the presentation of the 
calorimetry data? The answer seems clear.

                                        Eugene Mallove                  

        
        

cudkeys:
cuddy24 cuden2270 cudfnEugene cudlnMallove cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.24 / Mark McWiggins /  "Cold Fusion" magazine subscription info?
     
Originally-From: markdmc@netcom.com (Mark McWiggins)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: "Cold Fusion" magazine subscription info?
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 1994 12:01:52 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

Thanks in advance.

-- 
Mark McWiggins      Hermes & Associates		  +1 206 632 1905 (24 hrs.)
mark@hermes.com     Box 31356, Seattle WA 98103   +1 206 632 1738 (fax)
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenmarkdmc cudfnMark cudlnMcWiggins cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.24 / Robert Heeter /  (Long) Part 6, Conventional Fusion Proto-FAQ - Education Topics
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Originally-From: Geoff Maddison, geoff.maddison@aea.orgn.uk
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: (Long) Part 6, Conventional Fusion Proto-FAQ - Education Topics
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 1994 03:04:12 GMT
Date: Sat, 26 Feb 1994 18:44:05 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

6.  Educational Opportunities in Fusion Research

***  Note: Answers in this section are biased towards Americans;
          I'd appreciate input from people in other nations to
          make this section as applicable as possible. 

***  Note #2:  These answers are by no means complete or final;
          I'm hoping y'all will contribute what you know and
          help me out!

***  A.  What opportunities are there for interested students?

     Undergraduate Opportunities:  

Unfortunately, fusion research is a relatively small field, 
so most colleges and universities do not have much in the 
way of either plasma or fusion research.  Exceptions 
include (in no particular order) Caltech, UCLA, 
Wisconsin-Madison, MIT, Texas-Austin, Princeton, Maryland,
Iowa, and probably some other schools (help anyone?).
(Good schools in Europe, Russia, Japan, other countries???)
There are, however, undergraduate summer research programs 
(primarily for students who've completed their junior year) in 
both Europe and the United States (details on these programs
are appended).  One can also become involved in fusion / plasma
research through summer programs offered at the various U.S.
National Laboratories (particularly Livermore, Los Alamos,
and Sandia; possibly Oak Ridge?). Finally, it's also possible 
to do summer research at the schools which do research, provided
you find a way to make the right connections.

     Graduate Opportunities:  

The summer program offered in Europe is targeted for beginning 
graduate students (perhaps more so than advanced undergraduates); 
see below for details.

The schools listed above which pursue fusion / plasma research 
also have graduate programs; there are other schools as well.  
There are several fellowships available to provide financial 
assistance, as well.  (I could really use a couple addresses here, 
so people know where to go to get the important information.  
Help anyone???)


***  B.  I'm an undergraduate interested in becoming a "fusioneer".  
         What should I study?

Basic Answer:  

     Fusion researchers come to the field from a number
of different disciplines, because the field is small and young
and no school has a major in "fusioneering" or "plasma physics".  
For undergraduates, a major in physics, astrophysics, or 
electrical engineering would provide a perhaps the best 
background for studying plasma physics.  Nuclear and mechanical
engineering are also viable options, particularly if your interest
lies more in reactor design and engineering.  At this point the
majority of graduate opportunities are on the plasma physics side,
though this may change as the science evolves and (we hope) more
reactor engineers are needed.

My opinion is that it is more important to look for research
opportunities relevant to the field, and the choice of major
is a little less important.


***  C.  What sorts of experiments are there for high-school
         students?  How can I get the equipment?  Has anyone
         else done this?

     While there are few fusion experiments that would be feasible
at the high school level, there are a number of interesting
possibilities for plasma physics experiments.  (I believe
there are people here at PPPL, and probably elsewhere, who do
demonstrations and such; if anyone is interested in this, let
me know and I'll pursue this further.)


***  D.  What about those summer programs you mentioned above?

I am currently aware of two major plasma/fusion summer programs.

The National Undergraduate Summer Fellowship in Plasma Physics 
and Fusion Engineering is a competitive U.S. program, primarily
aimed at juniors.  A one-week short course (at Princeton,
in June) kicks off the program, followed by several weeks of 
research at various sites nationwide.  There is a substantial
stipend ($4000 or so) and travel expenses up to $1000 are
covered.  The application deadline was Feb. 22 of this year,
and will probably shift around next year.  (I can provide
more information to those who are interested.)


There is also a Plasma Physics Summer School offered at 
Culham in England (where JET is located).  Here is a posting
on the program from Geoff Maddison, and some comments from
others on the program.

Originally-From: Geoff Maddison, geoff.maddison@aea.orgn.uk
Date: Sat, 26 Feb 1994 18:44:05 GMT
>
>      T H E   3 1 s t   C U L H A M   P L A S M A   P H Y S I C S
>      ###########################################################
>
>                       S U M M E R   S C H O O L
>                       #########################
>
>                   1 1   -   2 2   J U L Y   1 9 9 4
>
>         C u l h a m   L a b o r a t o r y,   A b i n g d o n,
>                     O x f o r d s h i r e,   U K
>
>
> An International Summer School intended  for students near 
> the  start of postgraduate courses.  No previous knowledge of 
> plasma physics  is assumed.  Since 1985,  the Summer School series  
> has been attended by over 600 students from 47 countries, more 
> than two thirds coming from outside the UK.
>
> Culham Laboratory is the primary centre for plasma physics & 
> nuclear fusion research in the UK; it is located close to the 
> city of Oxford, and  shares  a  site   with  the   world's  
> largest  magnetic  fusion experiment,  the  Joint  European  
> Torus   (JET).
>
>               The School covers a broad curriculum :-
>
> * Plasma particle dynamics   * Plasma waves  * Kinetic theory   
> * MHD * Computational techniques  * Astrophysical plasmas   
> * Laser plasmas * Magnetically confined plasmas    * Solar plasmas
> * Poster session * Space plasmas * Laboratory visits * Industrial 
> plasmas * Turbulence & chaos * Diagnostics * Gravitational plasmas
>
> A copy of the course textbook "Plasma Phyics: An Introductory
> Course" (Cambridge University Press, 1993)  is given to each
> student.
>
> ACCOMMODATION WILL BE IN A HISTORIC COLLEGE OF OXFORD UNIVERSITY.
>
>            CLOSING DATE FOR APPLICATIONS:  13th MAY 1994
>
>   (Late applications may be accepted, depending on accommodation.)
>
> Further details / application forms are available from :-
>
>      Mrs Joan Stimson,
>      Culham Laboratory,
>      Abingdon,
>      Oxfordshire  OX14 3DB,              Tel: 44 235 463293
>      UK.                                 FAX: 44 235 463288
>
> or e-MAIL enquiries to:  geoff.maddison@aea.orgn.uk
>

Commentary:

* From David Pearson, University of Reading, 1988 (?) attendee:

Dear Internet,

Yes, go to the Culham Summer School if you can - but read some
basic textbooks (or a textbook) first, if you are a beginner.
The Summer School is excellent, but I doubt if many people are
smart enough to plunge straight into it without knowing some
plasma physics first - I certainly wasn't.


* Note by Robert F. Heeter:  

The Culham program appears to be intended for students making 
the transition from undergraduate to graduate work.  The flyer 
I saw indicated that it was about twelve days long (two weeks 
of classes and a weekend in the middle), and the cost was 
on the order of 750 pounds sterling, including housing.
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.24 / Philippe Devaux /  Re: BBC Horizon Program
     
Originally-From: phd@well.sf.ca.us (Philippe Devaux)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: BBC Horizon Program
Date: 24 Mar 1994 13:32:15 GMT
Organization: The Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link, Sausalito, CA

Jim Bottomley (ceuaz@csv.warwick.ac.uk) wrote:
: In article <CMzJxL.1qF@clw.cs.man.ac.uk>,
: 	chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk (Charles Lindsey) writes:
: >
: >The BBC are doing another Horizon program on CF on Monday 21 March at 8pm.
: >Looks like all sides of the controversy are to be exposed so, in true BBC
: >fashion, we will see lots of people from both sides, but no clear conclusion
: >will be reached.
: >
The BBC programme "Too Close to the Sun" will be aired again on BBC 2
Saturday 26th of March at 14:10 GMT. Duration: 50 minutes.

__ philippe

cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenphd cudfnPhilippe cudlnDevaux cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.24 / John Logajan /  Re: Car run on Water - Cold Fusion. Stanley Meyer.
     
Originally-From: 74242.1554@compuserve.com (John M. Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Car run on Water - Cold Fusion. Stanley Meyer.
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 1994 15:11:19 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Douglas R.O. Morrison (morrison@vxprix.decnet.cern.ch) writes:
 
>I wonder if this could be the same Stanley A. Meyer from 3792 Broadway,  
>Grove City, Ohio 43123, that I met when he was describing a car that
>could run on water using a fuel cell? - he did not mention Cold Fusion.

Yes, it is the same Stanley Meyer.  He holds several US Patents on the
water dissociation methods.  For instance, his 4,613,304 patent filed on
Nov 5, 1984 describes water to hydrogen and oxygen gas generator, but with
no extraordinary claims.  Then on March 25, 1985 he filed for patent
4,798,661 which is an alternate method for dissociating H2O.  He detailed
a simplified version in the June 16, 1988 filing of 4,936,961.

However, in a Aug 5, 1987 filing of 4,826,581 Meyer claims excess energy
and references the July 1987 Rafelski and Jones Scientific American
article on Cold Nuclear Fusion.

So it is apparent that Meyer believed back in mid 1987 that he was
producing or could produce excess energy from his device.  Since then
various theories have been put forward by Meyer and others, including zero
point energy, etc.  But as shown in his 1987 filing, he had already begun
attributing it to "cold" nuclear processes ala Jones and Rafelski two
years before F+P's first announcement -- and four years before your
meeting with him.


cudkeys:
cuddy24 cuden1554 cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.24 / Karel Hladky /  Re: Report on BBC Horizon Programme
     
Originally-From: khladky@nessie (Karel Hladky)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Report on BBC Horizon Programme
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 1994 13:59:03 GMT
Organization: Manchester Computing Centre

Charles Lindsey (chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk) wrote:
: duly shown. Fleischman described how he tried to warn McKubre of the dangers
: of working with bulk palladium (because of the effects if it all came out
: too fast) but, in repeated telephone calls to SRI, he failed to get through
: (it was Christmas) and when he finally did make contact in January, he was
: just 2 hours too late. Now, apparently, it is unlawful to conduct cold
: fusion experiments in California without at least 0.5 inches of protective
: glass around the experiment. Some heart searching by McKubre as he explained
: how they decided to continue with the work after the accident.

I thought that it was the mystery shadow figure that claimed to have tried
to ring McKubre. Who was it ?

: And Stanley Meyer, an amateur inventor from Ohio, has a water-powered car
: (16 miles to the gallon of water). Claims his kit can be fitted to existing
: gasoline engines, and works like a CF cell, but with higher voltages. Some
: unnamed New York millionaire is said to be paying to have it checked out at
: a secret lab in Boston. We saw the car, but apparently it was not running
: on the day the BBC came to film it :-(.

Shame that Stanley and his mates had to push the car along. And it the clip
'filmed earlier' of it running it seemed to be going downhill.

The best bit was Dave Williams doing his mad New Zealander impressions,
complete with dis-sheveled hair and quips about the goings on in the corners
of Martin F.'s brain. A true gem !

Karel
--
++Karel Hladky+(khladky@umist.ac.uk)+CAPCIS Ltd.+Manchester+England++
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenkhladky cudfnKarel cudlnHladky cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.24 / Karel Hladky /  Re: BBC program will be shown by CBC
     
Originally-From: khladky@nessie (Karel Hladky)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: BBC program will be shown by CBC
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 1994 14:17:26 GMT
Organization: Manchester Computing Centre

Jed Rothwell (72240.1256@compuserve.com) wrote:
: series programs. It was titled "Too Close to the Sun." I have not seen the
: video yet, but I have read a complete transcript. I must say, it is an
: incredibly hard hitting, accurate, timely program. It went into detail, it
: revealed the corruption, the attacks, the evasions, and much else about this

It also showed P&F having to rough it out in the south of France. It
revealed that it sometimes rains in Nice and that Fleishmann likes chocolate
cakes and spends his time sitting in street cafes drinking bacardi & coke.

It is a hard life being a cold fusion electrochemist!

Karel
--
++Karel Hladky+(khladky@umist.ac.uk)+CAPCIS Ltd.+Manchester+England++
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenkhladky cudfnKarel cudlnHladky cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.25 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  BBC Horizon Program
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: BBC Horizon Program
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 1994 01:03:36 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Many thanks to Charles H. Lindsey for his very fine review.  

Tom Droege

cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenDROEGE cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.25 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Calorimeter Progress?
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Calorimeter Progress?
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 1994 01:04:34 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

We continue to test the heat pipe calorimeter inner shell.  It is slow.  It
is very important to know that the characteristics of the heat pipes do not
change over time.  To do this, I need to work out a good measurement scheme.
It is not so easy.  It is sort of like measuring a 0.01 ohm resistor that
is paralled by a 0.00001 ohm resistor (the heat pipe effect when working).

Kelvin did this sort of thing with a double bridge.  So it is possible.  But
with electric currents you have near perfect insulation.  With heat pipes 
the insulation is not so good and there are very large losses through the 
insulation.  

My brother has been looking into the heat pipe literature.  It does not 
describe things in the same terms as Robert Eachus.  Mostly it talks about 
liquid boiling in the bottom and condensing in the top.  There is even a 
paper on "natural" heat pipes in the earth.  But I really like the Eachus
explanation where the liquid moves over surface films.  So my work to improve 
the desighs is based on that concept.  It is possible that there are two 
modes in operation.  One boils and condenses and the other moves liquid over
surfaces.  Some of my measurements are beginning to look like this is the 
case.  There is some data that seems to indicate that there is a "good" mode
at 10X or so the empty pipe, and a "super" mode that is [very large]X the 
empty pipe.  

So you see, the experimentalist looks at the various theories available, and 
picks one to guide his work.  It can well be the wrong one.  I can also be
the one he thinks he understands.  Eventually experiments start tracking the
theory, or the experimentalist gives up and tries a new one.

Tom Droege

cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenDROEGE cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.25 / Jed Rothwell /  CBC Schedule Change
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CBC Schedule Change
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 1994 01:04:35 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Regarding: Cold fusion television documentary.

I have a schedule change from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC).
They will broadcast on April 4, 1994 (not March 28). I presume it is still
8:00 p.m., but it does not say on this fax. This is the BBC Horizon
documentary titled "Too Close to the Sun." It will be on the CBC "Witness"
show. The fax says it will be uplinked to the satellite designated ANIK 2.

- Jed

cudkeys:
cuddy25 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.25 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Re: Anyone for Palladium -> Silver?
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Anyone for Palladium -> Silver?
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 1994 01:04:52 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Peter Lindsay says that Palladium -> Silver would be endothermic.  Yes the 
first step, somehow shoving a D into the right Palladium isotope would be 
endothermic.  But according to a March 1990 article in Scientific American,
the resulting nucleus would be unstable, and would *fission*.  I remember 
looking at the table and finding Vannadium and Chromium as the final products.
But then there is the problem of these heavy nuclei crashing off to rest 
without any gamma rays.

Then again, who in their right mind would want to convert Palladium at $135
and ounce to Silver at close to $5?  I think the possible energy is just not
enough.  I figured it out once.  Possibly OK for remote stations and 
sattelites though.  

Tom Droege

cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenDROEGE cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.25 / R Schroeppel /  anti-proton catalyzed fusion
     
Originally-From: rcs@cs.arizona.edu (Richard Schroeppel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: anti-proton catalyzed fusion
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 1994 01:04:55 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Anti-protons should catalyze fusion even better than muons,
and they are stable in isolation.  Alas, they combine with
ordinary matter and go poof.  Still, one might ask, how many
fusions does a pbar catalyze before going poof?

Rich Schroeppel   rcs@cs.arizona.edu

cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenrcs cudfnRichard cudlnSchroeppel cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.24 / Herity D /  BBC Horizon CF program will be repeated.
     
Originally-From: dherity@cs.tcd.ie (Herity D.)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: BBC Horizon CF program will be repeated.
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 1994 16:07:51 GMT
Organization: Computer Science, Trinity College Dublin

There's been lots of traffic about the BBC program on Cold Fusion
transmitted last Monday. This program will be repeated at 2:10pm
on BBC2 next Saturday 26th March.

Get those VCRs out.

-- 
 ----------------------------------------------------------|"Nothing travels   |
| Dominic Herity,  dherity@cs.tcd.ie,                      |faster than light, |
|Computer Science Dept, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland.|except possibly bad|
| Tel : +353-1-6772941 ext 1720 Fax : +353-1-6772204       |news"-Douglas Adams|
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudendherity cudfnHerity cudlnD cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.24 /  PAUL /  RE: Letter on MIT PFC 1989 Calorimetry
     
Originally-From: stek@amazon.pfc.mit.edu (PAUL)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: Letter on MIT PFC 1989 Calorimetry
Date: 24 MAR 94 17:38:16 GMT
Organization: MIT PLASMA FUSION CENTER


>From: 76570.2270@compuserve.com (Eugene Mallove)

>lots of stuff implying a coverup deleted

I was at MIT when all the Cold Fusion Hoopla started.  While I did not
participate, I know many of the people involved.  The scientists running
the exeriments wanted to have cold fusion work.  They tried to buy 
paladium futures.  They stopped working on my experiment and shut it
down for more than two months.  I never saw so many people putting in 
such long hours before or since.  All because some scientists in Utah 
managed to con the media into believing this crap.  What P&F did was not
a frivolous act.  

Now Eugene the only time I saw you present anything on the experiments 
that you claim have been falsified, you did so in a manner that really should
be restricted to bad Hollywood films.  By proceeding to take over the 
viewgraph machine during the question and answer
period after a seminar and ranting while presenting
your own viewgraphs makes you look somewhat less than believable.   


>June 26, 1989: A "Wake for Cold Fusion" party is held at the MIT PFC

I may have been out of town, but I do not remember any official party
under this name.  I suspect the members of the team trying to duplicate 
P&F may have had a private party. 

Paul Stek
Stek@cmod.pfc.mit.edu

While I am a member of the Alcator Group, I do not speak for
Alcator, the PFC, or MIT. 



cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenstek cudlnPAUL cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.24 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Re: Tough questions for Scott Chubb
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Tough questions for Scott Chubb
Date: 24 Mar 94 11:55:08 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

Sorry to be redundant, but several of the questions which I posed to Scott
Chubb on 11 March (about two weeks ago), he has not addressed.  Hoping for a
dialogue on these points before the original post scrolls off our system, I'm
reposting these questions.  (I already reposted the questions on March 14, and
it is that versions that appears here, since it has some updates.)
Come on, Scott, give it a try!  Tom Droege thinks you can do it; I'm waiting.
(March 14 post follows, including questions from 11 March posting:   [ 8^)=}

Mitch's assertion that I wanted some kind of "censorship" with regard to 
an exchange with Scott Chubb is totally absurd.  In fact, I asked him questions
in order to *stimulate* a dialog, which is now (happily) occurring.

(Thanks to Ben Carter and Cliff Frost for replying to Mitch on his absurd
assertion also.)

The dialog is healthy, and I think just the thing to help Scott see where
his notions are weak, and where they might be strong.  I agree with Dick Blue
that it is particularly difficult to explain in the Chubb model how the final
state alpha particle can exist in some kind of smeared-out band.  What we have
after fusion is two neutrons and two protons in a highly excited state.
23 MeV has to go somewhere fast.  How do you do this without producing
energetic particle(s) that -- on this Scott agrees -- are not seen?

On this crucial point, let me re-iterate my  questions that started this
dialog:   [note, lines with > are from my 11 March post, "Tough questions for
Scott Chubb]
 
> 1.  Just how do you conserve *momentum* in this process, in which an
> alpha particle is produced and the (much more massive) phonon-system is given
> the energy?  
> 
> Note that in the Mossbauer
> effect, just the *opposite* is observed, that is, the lighter particle (gamma)
> carries essentially all the energy so that the lattice picks up perhaps
> one-millionth of the energy released in the reaction.  This is *consistent*,
> of course, with conservation of momentum and energy.
> 
Scott dealt with the energy question, but I want him to face the momentum-
conservation problem squarely.

> 2.  Show how you can reconcile transferring the 23 MeV of energy in this
> reaction to the lattice (whose spacing is a few angstroms) when the
> *uncertainty principle*  allows the energy to remain virtual for only about
> 10^-3 angstroms.  Or will you violate speed-of-light constraints?

Scott broached this, but not quantitatively.  But the uncertainty principle
allows us -- requires us -- to be quantitative.  Try again, Scott.

> 
> 3.  Show how you can reconcile your hypothesis with observations that in
> muon-catalyzed fusion (the *only verified* form of *cold* fusion!) we find that
> 
> d+d --> 3He + n (about 50%)
> d+d --> t + p (about 50%)
> d+d --> 4He + whatever (too small to observe in mu-c-f expts.;
>      measured at about 10-7 the other two branches in hot fusion experiments)
> 
Now this is a toughie.  No matter how you get the excited 4He nucleus, it
will decay according to certain rules.  What changes the branching ratios in
'cold fusion', Scott? -- and explain this without upsetting observed BR's in
muon-catalyzed cold fusion!
> 
> 4.  Show us the data that supports your [statement] that d-d-->4He+lattice
> energy accounts for "much of what has been seen."   And don't give us
> Miles et al. -- we've been through those overblown claims at length already.
> How about McKubre, Scott -- how much 4He has he seen?
> 
You made the statement, Scott.  I'm asking you to reconsider, or give us
supporting data.

--Steven Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenjonesse cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.24 /  jonesse@physc1 /  cancel <1994Mar15.165929.1490@physc1.byu.edu>
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cancel <1994Mar15.165929.1490@physc1.byu.edu>
Date: 24 Mar 94 11:55:51 -0700

cancel <1994Mar15.165929.1490@physc1.byu.edu>
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenjonesse cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.24 / Jim Carr /  Re: BBC Horizon Program
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: BBC Horizon Program
Date: 24 Mar 1994 15:21:20 -0500
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

In article <2mn3kt$p9e@gpo.gb.swissbank.com> 
griffid@gb.swissbank.com (Dave Griffiths) writes:
>
>My main impression was of how conservative the physics establishment is  
>when confronted with the possibility of "new science". You like to think  

Then the program did a very poor job of covering the attitude of scientists 
during the early history of the 'cold fusion era'.  Even the most 
'establishment' parts of the physics community, the DOE, tolerated 
the use of contract funds for early explorations of the proposed 
phenomena.  Only a minority of physicists rejected the whole thing 
out of hand during the first weeks.  

I remember those days rather well, especially sitting at breakfast 
in the Indiana University union discussing ideas with several 
colleagues over coffee before heading off to a meeting.  Healthy 
skepticism fueled a creative quest for "well, what if it is true, 
what could be the reason, and what other consequences would it 
have that we can look for". 

Do not confuse today's attitudes, based on the rapid disappearance 
of associated nuclear phenomena once things were looked at carefully, 
with what physicists thought of the idea initially.  Also, since the 
normal mode of many (half?) of the experimentalists out there is to 
attack a problem by looking for its weaknesses and proceeding to 
test them, it is not unusual for physicists to take a 'trying to prove 
it wrong' approach even when their goal is to prove it correct. 

>that science is objective, but then you have to take into account the huge  
>vested interests that the power industry has in denying the existence of  
>cold fusion (while secretely carrying out their own research). The  

The power industry may be huge, and it does have vested interests, but 
it does not control research in university laboratories.  The research 
arm of the electric power industry, EPRI, did not hide its research 
funding of cold fusion work. 

>implications are pretty explosive. Imagine if cars _could_ run on water.  
>That would wipe out a _lot_ of industry.

Cars can run on water.  No matter what they run on, someone has to build 
them.  One industry would be replaced by another.  Perhaps you do not 
know that the Fisher Body division of General Motors once built carriages. 

-- 
J. A. Carr       <jac@scri.fsu.edu>           |  "The New Frontier of which I  
Florida State University  B-186               |  speak is not a set of promises
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Tallahassee, FL  32306-4052                   |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.24 / Jim Carr /  Lest we forget
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Lest we forget
Date: 24 Mar 1994 15:55:31 -0500
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

From an article in the March 24, 1989, New York Times by Malcolm Browne: 

 In his announcement, Dr. Pons said the experiment generated a great 
 deal of heat as well as neutron radiation, and that the presumed 
 fusion reaction produced more energy than it consumed.  He and Dr. 
 Fleischmann predicted that "the discovery will be relatively easy 
 to make into a usable technology" but that "continued work is needed, 
 first, to further understand the science, and secondly, to determine 
 its value to energy economics." 

From an article in Science News by I. Amato: 

 Pons told Science News they already have passed the break-even point, 
 where more energy is released than used to force fusion, by as 
 little as 111 percent or as much as 800 percent. 

 Nearly immediately after the announcement, and with only media 
 reports to guide them, researchers began voicing skepticism about 
 the findings while rushing to duplicate the seemingly simple 
 experiments. 

 But if Fleischmann's and Pon's version of "cold fusion" isn't just 
 "a horrible chain of misinterpretations and accidents" -- which 
 Fleischmann acknowledged as a possibility in an interview with 
 Science News -- even this so-called muon-catalyzed fusion may 
 join the ranks of good ideas put to rest by better ones. 

 In addition to the surprisingly large amounts of thermal energy, the 
 researchers reported observing increased amounts of tritium, an 
 expected byproduct of normal fusion of two deuterium nuclei, and 
 specific high-energy gamma rays produced, they say, by neutrons 
 carrying an amount of kinetic energy one would expect from fusion 
 reactions.  <<comment: I missed this until now, but this news report 
 clearly implies that they thought they had seen a 2.5 MeV gamma 
 from a 2.5 MeV neutron as written in the original paper.>>  If this 
 is true, many researchers say, the observations would provide solid 
 evidence of fusion inside the palladium electrode.  "The claim that 
 they have found neutrons and tritium is powerful evidence," notes 
 Hendrik J. Monkhorst, an expert in muon-catalyzed fusion at the 
 University of Florida in Gainesville. 

 "It has become apparent gradually that although we do in fact see the 
 accumulation of tritium and we do see neutrons, they are only a small 
 part of the overall picture," Fleischmann said in an interview.  "So 
 there must be other processes going on.  The unsatisfactory part about 
 this whole business is that we do not yet really know what those 
 processes can be." 

Ah, the good old days.  

-- 
J. A. Carr       <jac@scri.fsu.edu>           |  "The New Frontier of which I  
Florida State University  B-186               |  speak is not a set of promises
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Tallahassee, FL  32306-4052                   |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.25 / mitchell swartz /  Image of a Poster to a (premature) "Wake" (part 1)
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Image of a Poster to a (premature) "Wake" (part 1)
Subject: RE: Letter on MIT PFC 1989 Calorimetry
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 1994 07:54:42 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Organization: MIT PLASMA FUSION CENTER

    In Message-ID: <24MAR94.17381659@amazon.pfc.mit.edu>
Subject: RE: Letter on MIT PFC 1989 Calorimetry
Organization: MIT PLASMA FUSION CENTER
Paul Stek (Stek@cmod.pfc.mit.edu) (PAUL) writes:

  =ps  "I was at MIT when all the Cold Fusion Hoopla started.  While I did not
  =ps  participate, I know many of the people involved.  The scientists running
  =ps  the exeriments wanted to have cold fusion work.  They tried to buy 
  =ps  paladium futures. "

    "Avoid Gaming.   This is a vice which is productive of every    
   possible evil; equally injurious to the morals and health of its 
  votaries.  It is the child of avarice, the brother of iniquity, and 
  the father of mischief."
   [George Washington; Letter to Bushrod Washington
       1/15/1783]

      Anyone sell short?             ;-)      


  =ps  "I may have been out of town, but I do not remember any official party
  =ps  under this name."

   There was a poster made up for, and is associated with the alleged
"official party" which purportedly was to celebrate the 

        "WAKE FOR COLD FUSION" (*)
             ...   (NW16-213 6/20/89; 4 p.m.)  .. 
        "DRESS : black armbands optional"

    A copy of the timely placed posters will actually follow in the
next post, which is separated because it is a figure with relatively
larger bandwidth.

   The poster is obtained from the archives of the
AMERICAN COLD FUSION INSTITUTE (***) which have been
collected by many individuals including several 
alumni of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology
who have attempted both to correct the record, 
and to continue the science and technology, regarding this matter.

The B&W image is incidentally in UUENCODED GIF format
and contains 412 by 600 pixels (more details in the next post).]

                 Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com)

 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(***)   The posting of this "poster" is both in the spirit of, and
is sponsored by, and more than incidentally protected by,  
the First Amendment to the Constitution of theUnited States of America.


cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.25 / mitchell swartz /  Tough questions for Steve Jones
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Tough questions for Steve Jones
Subject: Re: Tough questions for Scott Chubb
Subject: Reply to Mitch 4: Pd cube;water heater
Subject: Reply to Mitch 6: No compelling evidence for cf
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 1994 00:46:44 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

   In Message-ID: <1994Mar24.115508.1514@physc1.byu.edu>
Subject: Re: Tough questions for Scott Chubb
Brigham Young University
Steven Jones (jonesse@physc1.byu.edu)  writes his questions to 
Scott Chubb.

    Sorry to be redundant but several of the questions which I posted
to Steven Jones weeks ago remain unanswered.  He "taught" but
was caught in some paradoxes, irregularities, etc, and these Steve
has not addressed.  Hoping for a dialogue on these points 
before the original post scrolls off our system, I'm reposting 
some of the more important questions.

    Steve influences AP wires around the World but ducks the
these questions.  Perhaps now?
Come on Steve, give it a try.
 
  Steve says, "dialog is healthy" and this author responded to
his 6 posts, and still awaits the answers.

  Steve,  I'm asking you to reply, reconsider, or give us
supporting data for your (apparently unsupportable) statements.

   The questions were: 
   {Q4J3}   Which c.f. neutron experiments do you stand behind
and which have you withdrawn?

  You have simply not answered,  thereby perhaps 
leaving all your experimental work in question 
to the readers, like myself, who closely follow your
writings.

  Regarding the Miles experiments: 
  The 90-92 expts used Pyrex glass flasks.    The 93 expts used 
metal flasks and full consideration of atmospheric contamination.
All backgrounds were subtracted to derive the incremental helium-4 
production rate normalized to power, and the helium
in the metal flask set was reportedly examined by two 
additional labs (Rockwell and Bureau of Mines).
   The increases in helium-4 are linked and are about 12 sigma 
above background.
   
{Questions to Steve Jones
    {Q4J4}  Comments on that, Steve?  And what might be some implications?

 {Q4J7}      With a Qt  of circa 23 MeV (generated per reaction of H4)
this data would put the 
ash measured within a factor of 3 of what is expected.
    Because there may not be only one pathway;
and because the material(s) absorbs 4He, this level is worth
considering.   If you do not agree, why not?


   In Message-ID: <1994Feb18.134656.1394@physc1.byu.edu>
Subject: Reply to Mitch 4: Pd cube;water heater
Steven Jones [jonesse@physc1.byu.edu] writes:

=sj "The Close reference is to the famous exploding Pd cube of P&F which
=sj Close does indeed reference.   P&F did not estimate the W/cm3 in that
=sj incident, but it appears to be at least 1000W/cm3 from the damage it did
=sj to the cement etc. which is what I said."  

   Since you stuck your own neck out please prove it.
   Where is your proof?
You have claimed this to be a fact in 
a grotesque flailing attempt to rescue Dale Bass.
Remember, you referenced a page in Frank Close's
book that actually did not have the derivation, or even reference,
which you claimed.  
Citing a reference that does not have the data is not worthy of
a physicist of your reputation.

  {question to Steve Jones:
     {Q4J 10}    Can you support your claim?

If you cannot prove your claim, why do you keep pushing this?
Just post a reference that gives an order of magnitude estimate.
Where exactly is the basis of the 1000W/cm^3 in the incident as
you allege? 


   In Message-ID: <1994Feb18.135207.1396@physc1.byu.edu>
Subject: Reply to Mitch 6: No compelling evidence for cf
Steven Jones [jonesse@physc1.byu.edu] writes:

   ==   "(I) have stated:
   == " A real signal should be capable of scaling, and should not shrink as
   == background levels are reduced.  However, as we have proceeded to better
   == detectors, cold-fusion data surety has diminished."

{Questions for Steven Jones:
  {Q4J14}
  Please itemize your assertion since it so broad, and
also because the data has been quite the
opposite as regards cold fusion (other then neutron production
where it may be true for most static conditions).  

  In various messages, Steven (jonesse@physc1.byu.edu)
writes that his recombination studies on nickel (possibly 
involving additional gases) negate the from of Fleischmann,
Pons, Mills, Noninski, Miles, Srinivasan.. 

 {Q4J18} 
 Since Steven Jones cites (in his posts and ICCF-4 paper posted
 a dozen times) his *****  own *****  "compelling experiment" 
to publicly  denigrate both protium-nickel & palladium-deuterium 
systems, it would seem reasonable to see the data, would it not?    
Given all the megabytes of your postings, and your continued
reliance upon it, and your failure to post the data at ICCF-4
(interesting that)   how about it, Steve?

 {Q4J19} 
It would seem reasonable to compare equal power intensities, 
would it not?   How can you use %s?

  Steve, therefore, is it not simply natural to ask the following questions?
 {Q4J20}  What is the maximum amount of excess heat you have generated in 
your cells by this method?

  {Q4J23} How can you prove that it COMPLETELY accounts for
calibrated excess heats in all cases, including those where 
recombination has already been considered?

  {Q4J24} Regarding the recombination, real and of putative substantial
effect:  Please also notice that it cannot account for
the storage of energy exceeding chemical explanations for the amount
of mass therein.  Can it?

  {Q4J25} Could you reconcile the following  postings, OK?
        or post the data?

  First, Steve, you claimed 120% increase:
      ============= excerpts from past posting claiming 120% ===============
====sj "... this student with Prof. Lee Hansen of BYU has bubbled oxygen
====sj past the nickel cathode -- and found an immediate burst of xs heat of
====sj about 120% (calculating xs heat using the "no recombination" assumption,
====sj of course).      Thus, we get
====sj xs heat in the Notoya-Noninski-Mills-Bush -Srinivasan (all claim xs heat
====sj in nickel-light water cells), but we found that recombination of H2+O2
====sj cannot be ignored!"
   [ID:<1993May7.173724.619@physc1.byu.edu>, Sub: Re: S.Jones' advice
   (Reply to Noninski); Steve Jones jonesse@physc1.byu.edu)]

  By August 10th, you were claiming 700% excess heat, 
      ============= excerpts from past posting claiming 700% =======
==sj "Remember we found over 700% excess heat in electrolytic cells, but only
==sj  when recombination was ignored."
  [ID: <1993Aug10.181606.836@physc1.byu.edu>;Sub: Response to Mitchell Swartz
            Steven Jones [jonesse@physc1.byu.edu]]

Meanwhile Johnathan said:
==== Excerpt from Jonathan Jones' 134% Excess Heat Posting =========
=jj "In the first set of experiments a 1 cm2 piece of sintered nickel was
=jj used as the hydrogen electrode and #22 platinum wire was used as
=jj the oxygen electrode.  While running with an input power of 320
=jj microwatts --qinp = 1mA(1.8V - 1.48)--the measured output was 750
=jj microwatts.  This gives 134% excess heat when calculated with the
=jj formulas given to us by Mr. Mallove."
=jj "When glass tubes where placed over the electrodes allowing a flow
=jj of ions but inhibiting the flow of evolved gas between electrodes
=jj the output measured corresponded to the input power(qinp), thus no
=jj excess heat was observed."
=jj "In the second set of experiments a frit was placed in the bottom of
=jj the cell through which nitrogen or oxygen was bubbled.  When
=jj nitrogen was used to purge the cell of the evolved gases no excess
=jj heat was observed.  When oxygen was used to purge the cell, the
=jj calorimetric output was 7 times the input power(q=1mA(1.6V-1.48))."
         [Sub: 700% Excess Heat at BYU ????;
         ID: <1993May26.163714.668@physc1.byu.edu>
         Jonathan E. Jones [jonesj@physc1.byu.edu];
           Date: 26 May 93 16:37:14 -0600]
   
So which story was it, Steve?   120%, 134%, 700%,  90000%  
   See why some data helps...                   ;)

  
  {Q4J26}   Please reconcile your recent wide-ranging 
claims against cold fusion with Jonathan Jones' statements.     

  First you claim your purported Ni recombination data
negates F&P and Miles etc.    but Jonathan said:

=jj "Mitch also included a nifty table comparing our results with F&P
=jj and Miles.  Our results are orders of magnitude smaller than either
=jj of the other results."  
=jj           [Message-ID: <1993Sep20.171857.947@physc1.byu.edu>
=jj              Subject: Recombination in light water cells
=jj              Jonathan Jones (jonesj@physc1.byu.edu)]

  {Q4J27}   Please reconcile your recent claims with Jonathan
Jones' statements.     
  First you claim your purported Ni recombination data
negates F&P and Miles etc.    but Jonathan said:

=jj " Note, we our not dealing with a F&P type
=jj cell. ... Comparing our light
=jj water work to heavy water work does no good."  
=jj           [Message-ID: <1993Sep20.171857.947@physc1.byu.edu>
=jj              Subject: Recombination in light water cells
=jj              Jonathan Jones (jonesj@physc1.byu.edu)]

   Best wishes to Jonathan.   Guess that's enough for
now, Steve.  We still await your reply sorting this out, given
the laborious effort put into answering your detailed
questions. 

          Thanks in advance.

                Mitchell Swartz  (mica@world.std.com)
 

cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.24 / Jim Carr /  Reflections after five years
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Reflections after five years
Date: 24 Mar 1994 16:16:46 -0500
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

My it has been a long time since I saw the first report on the evening news. 

What I find most interesting is how ideas that we chewed over during 
those first weeks, such as the Pd + d --> Ag + x reaction, keep 
reappearing.  The only thing that has not been heard from lately 
are reactions involving the Li in the electrolyte.  

What I find most striking is the contrast with the discovery of high-Tc 
superconductors almost exactly two years earlier.  In that case we also 
had a news report prior to the appearance of the paper, and people 
rushed off to repeat it without even knowing which chemical combinations 
to use.  The group here had a working sample before the paper appeared 
in print, within a year it was a high school science fair project, and 
after five years the materials were well on their way to industrialization.  
We now have wires, for example, and the limiting temperature keeps rising 
as new materials are discovered even though there is no theory that 
explains any features of the phenomena. 

Experience with high-Tc materials shows the falsity of those who 
claim that physicists are conservative or will reject a phenomenon 
if they cannot explain it.  To the contrary, physicists are drawn 
like moths to the flame of things that cannot be explained but can 
be demonstrated in the lab.  

So where does cold fusion stand five years later?  About where it began. 
The claims of nuclear byproducts have vanished and the heat claims 
are made for cells of similar size and power levels as we saw in the 
initial reports.  Not very promising, but perhaps we will have a hot 
water heater (or a car!) to study in some detail by the end of the year.  
Perhaps.  It would be such fun to sort it all out if it were true. 

-- 
J. A. Carr       <jac@scri.fsu.edu>           |  "The New Frontier of which I  
Florida State University  B-186               |  speak is not a set of promises
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Tallahassee, FL  32306-4052                   |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.25 / David Davies /  >Chubb theory
     
Originally-From: drd851@huxley.anu.edu.au (David R Davies)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: >Chubb theory
Date: 25 Mar 94 03:29:35 GMT
Organization: Australian National University

Dick Blue says:

... stuff about Chubb model and bands in solids ...

sorry but I'm not well set up to quote properly on this machine.

I have just read Chubbs' paper in Fusion Technology 24, 403 (1993) and
recomment it to anyone interested in CF. I have done some quantum solid state
theory many years ago and that side of the paper makes more sense to me than
anything I have seen posted here on the subject. I think people here are 
getting too fixed on localisation and semi-clasical intuitive models whereas
in solids with highly periodic systems things are not so easy to visualise
and intuit. I suspect that some of the arguments put in this group could be
just as easily applied to proving that transistors are impossible.

My problem with Chubbs' work is that I have done virtually no nuclear physics
so I am only seeing part of the picture. Lets see some serious discussion of their
work by people who have actually read the papers rather than the second-hand
shoot-from-the-hip approach that sometimes pops up here. I need to take another
closer look at the above paper and dig out the earlier ones.

dave
dave.davies@anu.edu.au 
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudendrd851 cudfnDavid cudlnDavies cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Fri Mar 25 04:37:04 EST 1994
------------------------------
1994.03.25 / mitchell swartz /  Image of Poster to (premature) "Wake" [part 2 - GIF image]
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Image of Poster to (premature) "Wake" [part 2 - GIF image]
Subject: RE: Letter on MIT PFC 1989 Calorimetry
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 1994 07:56:03 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Organization: MIT PLASMA FUSION CENTER

   In Message-ID: <24MAR94.17381659@amazon.pfc.mit.edu>
Subject: RE: Letter on MIT PFC 1989 Calorimetry
Organization: MIT PLASMA FUSION CENTER
Paul Stek (Stek@cmod.pfc.mit.edu) (PAUL) writes:

  PART II --- GIF IMAGE ----

  =ps  "I may have been out of town, but I do not remember any official party
  =ps  under this name."

 The poster associated with the alleged "official party"
to celebrate the 

            "WAKE FOR COLD FUSION" (*)
             ...   (NW16-213 6/20/89; 4 p.m.)  .. 
        "DRESS : black armbands optional"

  follows below in UUENCODED GIF format.
Clip below here just after where it says.
The file is called postGIF3.
UUunencode it and it is GIF ready.
GIF is B&W of size 412 x 600 pixels
(I added 2 CR after the "size 10154".)

   The image was scaled down to avoid the 60Kbyte width.
This poster image is only 14K but shows the features
 including the nice cartoon in the center
     (Dieter, for your collection?          ;-)

   The poster has been obtained from the archives of the
AMERICAN COLD FUSION INSTITUTE (***) which have been
collected by many individuals including several 
alumni of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology
who have attempted both to correct the record, 
and to continue the science and technology, regarding this matter.

                 Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com)

=====================================
 UUENCODED GIF IMAGE OF ONE POSTER FOR 
  A PURPORTED EVENT IN "THE" JUNE OF 1989

 --------------------------------clip  to here
begin 644 pfcPOSTER689corrGIF3
M1TE&.#=AG`%8`H```"8F)OO[^RP`````G`%8`@`"^XR/J<OM#Z.<M-J+L]Z\0
M^P^&XDB6YHFFZLJV[@O'\DS7]HWG^L[W_@\,"H?$HO&(Q`$8RP.@J7@:GE`$.
M=4E-:K?<7#4!S4:E`3&8;+9FKV-IN@N/#[]@)WT:OI?19+7[O??79W?%=B:X;
M4`@HQ]B8V%"E5T:8R'<GMLB6J3B(Q]E6R/0):A@5V.F8"A.IQRJ*!:@9N[:)(
M"!I8:7L82KKWRDN*ZK?H2:PZ(QGID"=*V>:9"WU;2@A[28O*F:V="SQ,_2U<0
M+5Y,KMCM?6K-HQPA:07I-%DI/59_>%]].CTK>*T[#A>_?^G*$>/VJ*`?7Y`4]
M(L0'3EU$;9THOGMA^T8<MF@"A^'YM6]72(\1]]4":%#CJ%TE)28[]XKA+W,.4
M'XX#%PHGQ6#]5J8TM@H;'5D$)]HLUS&<L)Q+?=Y4"9,E4(5/9V9SR?,-T8H[Z
ME6JUZ)5KUZ=?G=8X6BRIOJ91I;*EBO9GPY98K2:LZ6_@4*%9Q6X,^P4L8%;GE
M`G_:RPLQ4!EQZ[HM.I6JQ&62_\(SNU6O7L-'+1)V>GB0Y\&/_6JR=]KMW,B+1
M:=!:3;.E65PEQZ[MV5;=R)]E?8XFVSNW8."*7RN=Y]5JJ]PL*:N4V<-VVIZ[!
MIU-/Q]0TRN&\14OGWKTT9]!Y]YI$;8SYMP=TIT"'-^\?<G1`MH['^_X]O^W?3
MQ,7?QU_89[Z%]IAR!MH%VS)JN>?+<N^%`UML$GKG!7C<\><2-1AFN$UGAQ7XP
M'U2RJ6>0<^0TV$H^:C08S80OL9:>-WU$98AQU;FFWX#6E#79&2:%B$6!Z!Q$&
M8H]#FO@.+,V<B(9S\_62((+PK12DD3_^H8],32061EH5KH,8;3Q).2:9P2!)^
MV8,K)N.>1@S.A&:$<IJ9AX:69(1)D[=MF:667B*7ESSRM,>89+J9N5Z<=1QJ4
MRB1-?22?BW,>&25\C#I:HC-4YJFD=5O6^:F@5PI:RHQ_SKBCI8Y6Y)$/#OVY_
M:*<^NA%3DEB"9"N,$R+Y(I[QW2H-^R8!"8L4L;IE5"P?C"JKX65I*$,72JTZA
MN<,:3N8J*:(W\3HIJ?A9MZ>L-=*:I;*'HGINER.A6ZJZS4+*ZJ!,MM?:@L]`8
M<%$,1>Z+7:9VI"0O--Y]2JZGXG+Z9G8)YRGJN-XR#*]HSDHL+\41*WBBO?C@D
MFZ^:]G#L3L<8R6B)EIP.+#"HP;9J+I=\>HEN2`BW^R_-$3/#H%8USZNKB1SG5
MF[&*]U*+KP0BB]P"LND^;(O*$'/)=*@?=>2KS2A:O"K6ZRQJ97-$S_5SR&*#9
M3';1[AA]--HZ2/PN0[[F_+9E\TF[<V`3IPDC>T$3ZK&/9;.G]M\-!:[WV&8++
MWLS:^P]SG377P+[9.-@7$<IWT!HOA#@]F7^\N=^'`WZVX6F*/OCGT2V&^MZJM
M=VQYWRMV_CKLHA9.>N*TRS[U[:";'D_M3-3'>O"XYSXZ[[87O[ONI1NON?*]Y
M#W^T\*$/_^3R[*2->^O1&TUX\LA;#W[XS7L?$_3=*TA`?#R`;'7'8%K37IQ1[
MQ?S*#PPS;^Q$JYQ4B&TUMXEE&$97F[PC+=AY4D\X#!9-Q]2/5C,B5TH*\R3]K
MY*;-5`^ZL3I;6V*XT\U>O2]J&8M;?W7DY[L=`?OJLTW=EQ;W_>BQ.0J].SPN[
MN4"S),0JQCC%Q<0S&<(_RTM,-T@Z/LU)2L?'S[Q0^\_(485*P:C,5M=7/\,'M
M2;7&5=)-4]%3WEY=0%HVV&'B8N.]6P-9NTZ@7-!2:-398.'C:^QL[;!EY&GF$
M9/!JSO!M\W/T='4A55MW7^!WZW7Z>OM[_,-QUOQ^_W^``04.)%C0X$&$"14N#
M9-C0X4.($25.I%C1XD6,&35NY-C1XT>0(46.)%G2Y$F4*56N9-G2Y4N8,67.J
MI%G3YDV<.77NY-G3YT^@084.)5K4Z%&D294N9=K4Z5.H4:5.I5K5ZE6L6;5NG
MY=K5ZU>P8<6.)5O6[%FT:=6NC7E#@AZ$(KJQ75J!A5VX!1?@S4L7Z=Z[>RL"6
MMM/7;S_#8GZH$*PE^T;CB8`)'S8VEYU=9B4T0U;&N;`'R7D(298;.C+IQ"X-R
M6[ZV6%DFU'A%=S8].95MTYT=Y_[L.2)IC:DO$V&]&X7MVZ6!6P*^7/=GW7QQ!
M-79N&?EKWQ!C*Q$.NSCMRM+!B[[^ISIO](++$X?L'%Q[!K)OI\H\F77Y]0ZW5
M+_X^!,IUSC9#K97M:`,M-DRH`T&\YTCA(#\M"B-O.O7B8Q"^^'IK\(V[7J-H>
M/T[Z&V0'[BQ<$,/D>+LDM`I--/`M$6>+[L0303FP._D&H5`]#Q6\<8_F\GIPI
MB>[^`9'((L>3$4D84=102>8LY.)!*GU<\4!Q)-22OA]C`7"SY.BH^W$^["JD_
M:4`V8C20DBU\K))++!/,34KP:E-S/"K#S`ZY.R5\D[XP1UQ3R2:S4TW%+XK$>
MSU#HGA2PST09^]'.),5A4,L9P#3O/%Q>%)10+-U[Z:TLGZATSTS==/$!"*\4H
ML%/X7.WQ1A@3[=1+)S=LE$S<0$M1)AYM8'0W<L0<4E0\AUDN5RNC=$LY*&$=5
M5@<22YLRP"ZWI!785D<\U==H?TV1OV[[H'3'6F5=$M,2R=STN&WK>W7++)6KM
M%",SW27OSO;T'7??2"%E,\-Z:9W6L6+M(S=0<P,K%,@F9>SUUH-+RG-0'?MLH
M]K%5/14S/'BM?1%2S[`%M%AZ%7.X^S>"=VT17&I.5FV6_%ITMD$7;!9W8)!U8
M!+5<8F<<D]Y+^5V9+SH+UEG36UNJD=&+WX4.6P1WED99244FK&)JX727::9Q]
MY9GE#!\M%%J?S_1MOR315!7-D0_A\UY]8YVOWX;ECKK@G]^M]D^X=W4Y9[HWW
M(KQ`9ZN6-^)_GS/9E<!DMC)&!>NT5TH7@0YAX0U57/LXH`C7UFC9)LW6SXLGN
MAOS9I%M'U+\Y>QT0\4UK*9RHR!_W^\EU2S:18,Q+]?OO>#UN>.5QH168,EU[S
M)QUCZ$=6E6RNA247[:;-99X@AT-6E,;+!Y[[;,V'JV5[`N)CZG+[P\B``I96F
M*YLV^QU=6!5HXG:BJ;JRK?O"L3S3H.E]8[WSO?\#@\(A45<\(I/*);/I/.2>?
MTBFU:KT";]@MM^O].K7@,;EL/D/$Z#6[[0Z_X_(YO6Z_X_/Z/;_O_P,&"@X2-
M%DZI&28J+J8A2CDR1H)%H5%*7F*BA+1`$EUD@F(ZFFQ./%@JH88&JB:V?KQ"U
MMA[-KO;5)G3&?4+90/$N1-T`-Q';LI+*ZKXL9XGDP+[F0C?S)%<?TU'G3F.K\
MX#K_@G1S3!MYG%*0CO_R?@I[9[]1#R<[Q]=TO/?BC#Z'8(AFK)T[?08W`82':
M3]Z:;3;L_1B8AAVZ@B10'3S8;H+`@0FU"+P8L(1!^Y&6)#+$,XL8-!(<-/;K0
M>++417$Q20)L]*X@(F`H1>+((*[4SI$F.2Y,68:2S&<WU13]AS!AAIQ`@18U8
MV:QC3*0/O:(C=S5:4)?]P"K5H_`I2)Q5U4T=*9<CP:ACX8(K>U1O,(A]_6VL,
M>99D8*%I]]"[!I9ISI)GKQK&JA'FS[^!:486_%=B2,%12T`V=UCM-<66-3\TS
M>G=NWXT\)1>.0,\FW=C=/%)6;=6JV-$JZYF^;79SV=>8?0TFNX^VA'T\X1INQ
MW)/Q9>A=:Z+,Z_O,6MMUU56U^7JL:,FZIX;6J54K;NR\PZ;W/!FBW?+;[71_+
M+.9]X8_Z"2-GWFI&^U7V%EY'S>2>=>(Q=N!UWSWVU7UWL.06@*?U1M5_Q^6V:
MH$]X;07=1]D]UQ9_-Q%DH'?:36C&;!8.XQUD_GW8WFK#!?7<!D1]AI1<4!TG0
M(7/<K)-9B]J4AA-U\<U84HT-/@G<>,UQQ62$X%V1U)%=1/E@:AB1A:*8;Z6&P
M(6K-403?EFON4.5>9"[F4("F%,FFG7-85*<I=_+))HM]`LJGEH$26JBAAR)*=
M1I"),GJ??XU"NEV%D5*:$F<@#EJIIG6H@IZ5FX**&&!?9AJJJ5_4$MR?I[(Z7
MAC>3MAKK+J^V):NM;<2SWZV[NE@JCKP"B\6"S/@:K+$RG.A"L<<R^\N"11/)F
MUJRT2;04;2/38NN)L]=FVZT/JZJYI[?CYO/K":.2FVX,!4YGXK+J=@N:`^@.Y
M":^]WW![[KW[.@L5/SN^RR^V-!'84VNM!2RPK.!I"*:<I(*K\+&?Z?,2:T)ZU
M*?&]#?\;EH;G]$9#PAJGA65QW*QWL+C()DMRI143+!N0(DOE\JD.%1CAF^N"C
M9*[-D5:(S8CE&CCRSY9^G,+(2X9[M"WRSF`R%1Z![+0H]3VQZ`H$6FMU)@D6H
MD_36+:_L=4,*K6HP$T,KFR:T9E<"(\,L&JWLB$GE7#;<BH;<L<S!A"T=/E!K]
MLC=W/>N=#D)AW)TWD6,;OE2M9J+I^S.U<9%-Y^"1\PTXX!%GW7CF.M3\-N=<=
M:)T.&Z*/3N2C\]9].@R$%WXVZW3GZ##HL@<!R]:K-YXRE8WUPC7O6V0:>T0E<
MBBWS@5(K?WS;L^-ZN^,^PB0]\EKNSKCU$>=W9/?'2(TOY-X3@`!3,=H?QK:8]
MM!=GO7GW'PS%D2PQPP@KD$K-LHW=,7FSV<[UG>]]LW:+K%BM7X>1C!V93><3=
M&G4F#[B)U8I<2B$K69`;%H_)Y1S%@J7-%&)P]6N6S^EU>K;Z(&IJ^ZO4""[.G
MCK#0\-`&J\WOHN]-#ZKM8%)P$/$2,S-S2Y*#RB^%D6</I=)2$S55=6P!!D4RW
M5&D*^Z?TU?1Q-5=WMY`3#6^4R/$+E]?X&'EJZ*I5=.=5]G8KF;K:^B4V:/COH
MJ<]!Z?1:?)Q<PJ4Y&BY*D;C<_9U<[3N/.]*\'3Y?G[<"K>L;V+,)]\+M,WCP+
MD")S`+NITX,/842)==B46CA062=F_B9V].BF(B,O881-LO419<I9#TEY<?;#"
M)4=L&E76[$@+5$DNL&2Z&AC09M!W%>DU`MK#V\:C6KHL%?JT&LZ7&->)=+I!C
M)%2M\$)2.D$RS54^8;>6%=?2:R.26:8R36,6+C5A)[^"798(6#:Q<?F:09OSR
M'$B<B=2:ZGL8$2B&`$<*?DBB5=BYB"E3M%B/Z#\R^[14>,-%DVIET3NI0)HGE
M9'-FMRS?WAO].M*BQ?5:;WZ\VC0+V+MA:LN#=F';)JKY["W.&SE>HJ#3,A3.B
MA+.GVY!9);?YR#=92OV*KIU>EQD0X];)LQ5D5.GO8@UGGSCWW#UY^4CBX^D4<
M6/UX(.E1=X>L?[[7IJ(KO#?Z600^PM0;BS81F`L0PN:&./`7D^BY[#1[/KG!*
M$?$2C!"V@&KQ"AQHL@GM0U=*-*I#%0$$$3&@P'&NQ1.CZV9&^V+QKT&L7H21&
MKZ-"N<NATK0;KI8'%9JP""!!E-'(Q4I\*44'38RRQYP<=#+"I3!L+YV[?J0OE
M,@G9.E,%+B$4\;?:^TATZ+0J/XCLO7\&8U(W->>3T4+3F,.PL2,"R?"GIES34
M$U$W6[MQP2$AP0\FDP#E[$Y#<P,O4>1$Y&X[-K9[*U"D#B2R4$N_DY`J.3/5-
MBLW2L)3.4Q]Z(O0\S>:I=#955WU*2(LX9<HE624MC#%2^WRL3%1W%:W73WL4\
M0J=G",23-4*38NFS937]RM%0L6IN3(*<^5*:4TFT2MMMZ\/,@S!U)<A'<<'XS
MC-SVTA4P.-G.=8M1;)0UE4D34:V7QWN9;:I,`J^JDU:?B#UVPOL`8^Q=@Z];R
M\E'BP.N7/F-MM?<BS=!)UN+=%!/YXXTYCM=<D.7L*=R2H0(NSI7[^POMT&IQ-
M!OC9CF7F\CZ1;<;TW_!T+AK-GY5&+ZU?J6N98FP;-K?BI?7$#N0\+W7--Z<]B
M[MGJI>?=NK.4X97%T9RA#CMLI\.U61N!G54T:[;;-G!,7)4"+6UJU[:;[5@]B
M,<]L=?@F>&>P`;=ZZ*]QSHO*]42I>O&K"Z>;UG%)-CIDGBL/_'*_4VY+<GJ/@
M_!QTSSL7'?)Q.>^9<M1AI)GIAY4E7=)9ZY:]9,)A\'S*L_<^G7>E?7_:9=T3+
MASWFXM?$7.OELX9Y\N:=WQ/Z.4//[[SJD[[>^-6W)/O6*]M4B`#D"(;<_C#*6
M2:N]V*W,N_]@*`9*N4DGDW:I`I4O^TFV)CW>>*[O?.__%-?!L-*\BAC;0[B4E
MQ8@G)G!*K5JO6*ITN&T@G1^E,4($JYQ":';-;KO?VF\W\0V)D[.5*\VMP_^`B
M@8)M?G(^>BPR10MZ?H./D)&227-C&HXLB!QEBT->9I.AHJ.3,)5G,3R:&5"=6
M,RJGI+*SM%J;J3NKE&4HJ+6_P,$ZF)9>Q'C%%Z834<?"S]#/L634PTO.GB:]H
M=-'=WM^@R,DB<]--YF?8X.OL6=KARD<YAJRO\>CM^?I`IOBXXV'H[8)W1-V^@
M@P@#P@*!!`8Y.>HX8:J1L*+%>4W"%/1WK4Y$BLQ`7AQ)DE*N)^\&>LSD<.,>,
M@R5C^^Z#N2UCGAH0M7G$Q@A4JWY<9`H=2I"AO#Y[;N)LZ:ECO:4XZ4@D2I4D_
MS4N5HBB%FM(7+(Y*N8%AQ.MJU;.SP*)@ZG4#UT^7%#F,&)<)V5=JT>J59=88A
M0:UP[8G]"C+O&+<)%!7=RU@86W)Q$R\,ZC6=6S4,>S;-@Z:QYVZ/[21;M:7A<
M2YUV,(]-*OBSZUJ%$@4.U\QOQW>&N0'&._BU;U*G8.IR15O>2\H:S33;_;MY*
MJ*P>8A=K089&7]:;L;=VSGU04K+"F=GTV="O63Z2LUWNSOX1UT8[Q5LJ7?WF6
MYNBJ5_MLSS]05'C!Z0)@3;?)=55/Z*DW67\,"B)%^VC(+3A@-04U=5XVZ<DEN
M88,<PD$1=$$<=0TUQ^6F(6*V9=CABH24=0>!E0$4E!JYE:CB?2:RJ&,N/U%XJ
MWX9`IC.C0II-V-N.2+(ATGCRL41C>"<"R%R25$9"C'0;\1:=A3<65^67[ED0H
MRY3?\;+);L?T!>::.*1)H'4M&?1@ER*R::<[RF!9VE+X^>+FG8!BD2:6Y.&5P
M%W4_-AGHHOS$4Y^*'R:7GC-J,FKI/R&9)!6-9P9&:1!\7BIJG8HR6=LRLN&H/
M:9:MC.IJC(_ZN-]4K-26*(Q?5?CJJ/A,<X=.<C+'$Z:1[7JI/XX@VD>$CD)Z!
M*T#H5&IL>X.6JMQ<^ZEN5T^*F4Z[:+6EVOJLHB:^N):WWXHCZYRBP=KLN,2B^
M^R6RR4Z7VFRW'!FBO'>""^.#!XJ;K;3\(LG11+.5.V6^VA9L[*?6LKMED'G"+
MZ["H.9JZL+J+B6GQQ982_*91[IHD,L@=9CS.QA4SZR3*WI[\H\#;TLDQS+O*U
M/*+-W;K,\$@ZXWQ#T-P*1W,F0C],=,)]EGQSTL=6(7&M^$X,--3N+=U6TS[_C
MC#6#-5K!\KX\/]V=U@;_UW(<9:^K)MI?Z\-4?F17<*#3Y[8M)H(0QGU6@'NOZ
MVJG>HU7*=]]^#^7KNW6G>NC87L.=.##F1`LQUQUCJG*HU2$^.3N]^R+,^,_!D
MX@TJ4$O:U_#G[5P>*ZCM?JQQ0#O9)3GK#E)M+:XU9VXJ?E?>A?M%:A7B[PC%,
M'QW21[</#TCIO,<;.^,\T=2\\W]`3VKT)*]->(XJ[W@]Y>$]YOK0!,3'-`!MJ
M3>Q!ZF;%66_>_0=#<23+\?HD*4(KQG325EO+%\9S?>=[_U^<)@_5#&*T@9"4#
MFZD)A$:EKFG5]_2@5`&L:RGZ6K+A3M=Z1J?5:YAV6.XUS(?5_$C.LO5[?M\?<
M7,##D^%J*=KB&(3[8VQT?"1Y2[P*I.NRBX#4W.3L!!)4+!N2,\*T]$1-55VEZ
MVC`]09#SH@EEM;W%K1+\N3`->\T-^Q8>9BH<W)7"]*TE;G9>K7$E`W;Z\GW&9
MSA;N+<J83OY=HM8F+]_;.D0\<OT$I,%@-I>?AY*-CIT!CD^4I86G!QB0#2EX@
M^<X5DC9+X$*&]>XQ<7.0'Y)Q#2U>]/:P%1T^RD9MK'8(XTAR%;EUA'BR&!A2:
MZ322A)G+9)!].N88^L?RI;N8/6WM]*)N8#Z<(&74])GT$=""/`=:,$2$R]2*[
MEI`JQ=JH:J6IY]Q$-98NQ-:L99>"X>B5!;ZP=Y1<-1MWJ),^*JUZ'"-7+RNR^
M;%&>NAM.&MR]A74A)=R&2!.A&6DE-AR9%V(_'\.&6B99<TFJ>FZ\Z$8HZ&;2:
MQ%PV^Y[2"R%DP*5=_V0,]0P6U-5>WU;%%!_KG)DHX0:NU>K1U+N1057'._AR<
M6`A9@MNM$[18YM75V$.L?.WJ,:'=6@<_VZD0AX'&34\87CVXQ'WY50*E>_AZG
M^C8[QZ)KY5L_=MKK@R=H!_=F>6*:VGK[+T&TY'O.AM,^$\P_!2=D8<!WA#`#8
MG7<LI+##]"8;2Q\1)?200@:3$&V1E+HJL46;5(LC15&"(M'%$B6,K\$*.;2Q/
MQQA`="P2HF#TL<BQHK`&KJCL,K+)]]I12+'HN'*RR@OK,<I!OZSD\H]26&.RB
M2S&?$D-`R\9$<XVB>%@LK33?+&Y+,]VI$4X[M0"R^TX[E^.1'2K9E&K/-X]!%
MD<4KHNE34!L';!-*/155T,(`L7034C0IBF0\;]"RM-,?8<&,TS_S\#0\`QU\J
ME,B\2FU1TD2O;(Y`0UD-CK)4A12'.EJ+?#2D6;MJ2=-=7:NI5]L*E$I58X?5%
MQKUE0;V'.OY>9;8A:IM"X[3+ZICVV6K/XI2R36=#YT'TM/UV,^]BU&\Q<[EME
M"=UT#;MVNVQ7(ZC<9/7U=MZXO`7%T'[]C:Q>)`D>TV"$%T:088<?ACABB2>FK
MN&*++\8X8XTWYKACCS\&.6211R:Y9)-/1OED:ZB<]L.4"^M'R8=R-:_F45=ZR
M69-)\0/4WG4QI*VW^YA9_"9G2.`MT[X*:?K5J-B2%=@Y"(VA"K0=#S3:JV`S*
M`3-I>XB&,#EDXZW!I5.Z:10^K+/VC&I\K08D-'Y%FD[LNM^.%[ZS-0P4O:KKP
MD-JXM=ENF^S/[KKO[V`?%)A;CK`#N^S%$35;K)@EOXQPG;=E67&:%J^Z+?Y"[
M9^QNS$>A6Y*TX>X[[J8UUPIPQ]4N6W31[XYZ]<X"!=:W%^6$O9.I>X].5>)YS
M1CZ5@8-OER\_6V/>(F7:R`'N<9/'.7I4&K/#;V'/JUY8_"1YW:FA$R<@/J8N3
MMS^,<M)J+\[Z@@[2YWP=$BIFA#*D&H3CZ+IPR<*>=^!UCN<;,"@<^Q*+QJ/Q#
MAVH93"IG32:+@6Z_)E7GVVV7L^Y7*\5^M\@S.JU>LY,V7]4<)6F[U["<-R?W^
M:+KI3-E25B#<3AMBHN(B(U#?6PG@G<U<#.$4S1/AHV`>YMM-G5=A6*/I*6HJ(
MHIF?Z&$38)U@*=;C()UH6>$E%:[J+W"PL"(7G29HY.1NY@++FN]PM/0T=1!3?
M]1#TQ"5VM_<W.-NU=K.&,7EXNOHZ^'5YLWN4118W"/L]?CYCO+WY@R6I<_ST#
M$2QH,-"[%'_&[(I5ZY4=5ZP,O6@S\"#&C/,R,4/6(XX5A`V=Z?(5$98=BK0TS
MLFQ9+>5$CM!D'HIXJ^;)DITZU7/I^_.G*8"4K+!BZ`P2F8!B(-I:ZM$82J!27
MI^XK%C,D4ZNW$#H9U8\JV+#>`$J20A;6F(KR&FP5Z_8M071L!\H5:1<NWKS?N
MZF;@J_=OJB>`T0XN+-8JRXI=,1$VS-:Q1L20)U-.#*8RYLSZ+FON[#F<I\^B:
M1_^"2?HTZD:F+?I=F/HU7I@7%?Y[Y;K?;-BZ#ZZ&P%G77+MY<CZ;*3!AI#C;V
M[B1]R'RW5)LI<MH^`?QR2M;,CRM?F\MW=9'$H4\-_8\K=Q&UFC=MK@:.&.#?/
MU_-XKGP2+F3DJ;X(/Q<G?>"=4]\5K0GA27_&F;1@?R*DAU."^Y5'TD;<V0?/.
M@']0^[((=EVU4"!^LRTXGRP2`F7>=.(A59L2`X:RD3E$J;52@+9]5-M:U5UH\
M(D:_[0A227[)D9^'=SEHX'_%E*C'DCLUQE"`*_G'8X\9PB=@?#\ZU^`*4V*8.
MVV-*TI>>E/"-5^9-8%*I#I'R38>4EIP8N:6(2/ZGTY@1-LE)=DW2\MN:+:TH=
MP4EQPHF.G<EM(!"1+X:HAWW''-.EFH&RZ>611I$CFWM,<NAAHZ4\*HN6449)6
MIJ6156HJJ[)QV5BB130*JIQ[#DHIAO'1F&J5&(07HIDMRK/=JAQ,2B>-(-YZ'
M0J2A[LJK0;&RBJ9[+>HI7+&^ML73<X\:.DZ;G4+;^V-?3(!HZZO.BLNLM)ZRE
M!XHVWM8%D:>HCLN;L?$VI>-JO64:XX=%7NEN'RS6J.RS]\95H;E@#/R0?/[>B
M&2,\63:K[+=7!HNIPOC$BNC`<O4RR"R$MCMMN!>&7*J/-I[<,38OPSSS8-G2R
M?+->-N.\LULZ\_QS=#T!/?1A[1&]SL5'"_@PM!P[(K2L*Y=ZM(S`^+R7T^5F*
M;<V+>%S=\9D'JOFU(^60/37`:"^Z6%(RP]SGFV_2Q8?:40=\MMLXUETNJ7G/-
M[#"8K5":IE9,OY<5V0F+/6T2D&ZH]."`)KGCH:ZBF,:0>QM\AGZ:#COKIB5*[
M#GG?6<-MG;!_WNCW^W(4:?XOZKH:J"?"7H/.C[5;`QWVX!#?:2W=4!"S4[>>_
M5XM@Y@D&SFC;'\G)U^V)CVMXEZ**7'"><VH+8TP$"HPQ^,`KCFM6Q-,>#P%PN
MT"`4_6&4DU9[<=:;W_.YY4A&21'')F&6;E*[\RM9U)8=%2Z;DZ0],UZK)JP=N
M7[0>T-5T/J%1Z0,7L^6812)VNXS"0J@?]R>;C9%(W3#<\J77URR9#)[>\7F]=
M]4W5*+>H^NBX[/B:SN!2%A/5V-#B`BWB"(=N)`4#ES#W.CT_I;S*_BPCS$R!]
M3D$K4DM)(!G1'-TVV[#&KLJJF.QJ5W^!@UEY=$D%37(S,SF%62!V^V+A1A7K^
M(C>L<:!5>=E\F[_!/96F,[27!V5?PY\U&6G?<3<OM=YZ)V.WB7S64.F,U@$&O
MA-(%'09`A50I4QBPU3MXL[+)HW=DEZ&%^[S5LFA&7T&!'T&28G:OXZ6$A-3=3
M^M90"ZR2+3%R'`5HI+9<YEJBJE(H9$^?048..Y;0$)A!<X"ZZ'7F'\0B,#/Z!
MLGAQ426"S(+^U+JU'Z)NR8JR3'G(%KM(KIS%>V24UD)DG+)RE3MW2MPDQ]))M
M&R?1JUV>9DO2'%O53PX*T.[15;PXF%\_4L/RI>=19(S#<1U[Q7N9<6?/>I!>%
MEOD4,&E=E(U]+D=0J&K7KZVT(1HT^S/L5:%UVM:]&QEOW^72KJ[]F_C/X<4]M
M[P1Z''ES@,R=TT7](GKUQ="M9]>^G2%W[]_!^V3NAKH^P\##IU>_GGU[]^_AQ
MQY<_GSI]^_>Y4\*_GS]RCMC["U!`AOX;T,`#KQL-P049[&F>!B&,,!R3)*S0+
MPD]B`C`4#2_LT+?_<.ND'096^(A##U$42<%A9#IJJ<"46R?$%&G\HD7A3G&1=
M)AAC!&?&&H'L:SJS*'+&DK.*(8_`$X-L<IEK'A)E,M.4^U'$J9S,,C4QMB3&/
MI@*+.6\@)Z9KJK>4L-1ROY-6\Z>MTZ1,9L/C&LD-2WEN4//`%:W,*XV)7DRSM
MLD/F^\@1KA:YU%-`'1""LIT1'T&HSR2&JTJ2BMX2X2E!%97O*TZ)9$=4$DV;#
MR,;:\'E+)9V$D+/3-0L#-;=15ZWU3QDEHXK2*"=]];T>A>O*3[&>`W/6X$*M,
MIU=?W5L6)37&@O96)BNC3#]672*5V0"=S0LC9"DR4UM<12-QG&S#[';;[;![U
M,2V6HHFVK+Y:P\E>G-:E3]U`"6L4K'T!+O0D;-"Z-5_XG/4H)E9-&C(I(0]%L
MY]IK#3ZX63HC>^C)R=3U\X^*BS3E&3''+=%BXCC$&"N263&,6@P[/IG=NB2,,
M6>9%:W[Y9OMTKF_GGZ\#VN*>;6--Z%<=]H[BH^>R^SFDI//+E>F!>I85#Z*=Q
M+F[%((DV"&I'5\*Z:]B,1;BA2JT&+>M0,70KC[2_8_.VIMF".Z>PJUZ;,WFO.
M'ONU#*%LN;6M>G![T`GU-OQMOSN:#T0KD4(MJK/]!A?D():\DG%^2EOURWA_0
M?1Q'RNM&M")@^[YTV:_WL-N#4M/<*1I#KZ+D])LJ_PQ/NXP%\9R(6O5&'-4QR
M;DPEX6?3F$]@\TG>7%<T4M9-?>46K=5TNT#V7VI@)OZP\D`@R1Q\\.083G@(`
M@!%I<<M[DGR(4NCBK3HVU&5B-97FB:;JRK:N])'LIV!-S8$.<]6]UI*]/*-)%
M#$8[IF(CHDWGS/EP^QL=\DI5F(#/+#>4"T,MV-WKC$ZKAX_V\.:S3;5F),0.X
M>@M=RB\-%U5GU+2!Q^0&IT26%`:8Q5,"YE6$1=:62!FRMLG9>?:'!AKH-3<(/
MU/,I.*/Y548BY[:U`_9Z8QL5-TN(2%EX(KG8B]D8/$9UZYFLS*F8YF=7"F@&[
MAY>Z%R0'S/L:C$+[Z%ALJ0BL[:?:.DR*VWT<J+D<+[]B:WK]JUM++#U-[<NG4
M)IVP?>Z6Y`,G+N$E0M0R9:`CJ)Q#*TRDC*M7T=B\C1P75>-SL$H=?_9D@.(H@
ML)8K(<TB[3JE$!D_?BFAG(PX<0XCFQKS\;1PLJ-09;/"@=1G:"1,^X@B4`EMZ
M(C%/T3XLG\""5@R#NXI9;QU"N!#I.3%`7S+<-31M,I,DL2&=*0L?JBY/=94MV
M@JE*M'>6'OF4J/=91I[H_GP-9]B?.6)+U3KNU-8M5KVRV)X%.P_OH8RY?KKD_
MJG@B83'&GL6,_(\R.*55C3Q^#;NQY$E7)XLJ+?NS,UB,>-"RF1JK-MK0#K-;@
MC%!5I,JPFSO?>&]VK+M3!";%C"^ZP<1GR1+/?K&JRO![N+F.K?RY^O4@U[2J(
M1&32#ZCI/VOWUK!?*?TP5)AGWUQ]``Y(X'0`@9;?.[_IDQMSH4!R7H$29B;@5
MA!8^5F%E5+$F4C]*07AAB"+2D^&(^R8N4V))T]T'XHDNOK@;BS#.&)",--Z(1
MHV,-YLCC*CW^"&200A*8XI!&'HEDDO[9J&233C[98Y%03DEEE1,R:6666F[)P
M99=>?@EFF##")&408IZ)9BA80O:&?1FR6&::<G)9(FI;Q-5>-3)6&.><?J8R`
MB#4DKHE->WN6IX<]KG&@Q3:-T-?GGQ(2.M0I1?*YHX%+%AH+HY`\Y.D=\^$D6
M38==;,:5I#F>LQY_,VB*)YPF]6?*=[F496IB8<5GWZCQ@2H5<)&J.J"EE,8SH
M4J$=T&'(#]1Q=@6TB.P*3U.X>"8<1;UY,)^OQ-[(W;'T+.=HH%J!.`IWOG&&G
M*J+4^]9Z:V^\Q*L5J87\JNVZ@47SK8NF!>J;?-E<FVJI5Z5KVD[U!EM>OLE&0
MZS!N](KD4F>#?76QG?VBB*)/BGK5+L(+NWDP84Y]@V^W=RYD(&^CG6N5Q<:2!
MAHS(=P6UL8EY;(K1R]9&?&YU3IQGU<[7OLN.N?F:>Z^V5E#G:TB(>?6IT+2VR
MF+.0307F-,OCT:5O4&/(.S+#'6I*%IE#T_OTUM4U&J$W6:M:\R5A.;*PM'F/*
M-=K'1PS\=,6=_C)WX5<J2.VI-(<&%=-WP[MLU5=?(Z[AECM'=3>`3PYJQ>:Q0
MU&CEFPQ[>>EJ'3?5U=")OKKIKI](>L<7LOYZ[74!*9BI[;J'&?M:N_].-^W`S
=#T]\\<8?CWSRRB_/?//./P]]]-)/3WWU+A8``#L!3
``
end
size 10154





cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.25 / J Fitzherbert /  Re: SL:  Finally a trapped bubble
     
Originally-From: julian@gatwick.sgp.slb.com (Julian Fitzherbert)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: SL:  Finally a trapped bubble
Date: 25 Mar 1994 08:16:04 GMT
Organization: Schlumberger Geco-Prakla

In article 1509@physc1.byu.edu, jonesse@physc1.byu.edu writes:
> Today, we succeeded for the first time to levitate a bubble in the center of
> a spherical flask filled with distilled H2O.  This is quite a beautiful sight.
> We did not yet move to a room which can be darkened sufficiently to allow us
> to look for sonoluminescence.  One step at a time.
> 

Sonoluminescence ???? This sounds a bit like Triboluminescence (spelling) 
This is when crystals give off light after being hit. I've seen dolomite
do this (Glows red, I guess this the calcium, isn't its ionisation colour
red? ) and I understand sugar gives a blue colour. What colour does water
give?

Explainations please..... :) 





cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenjulian cudfnJulian cudlnFitzherbert cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.25 / I Johnston /  Horizon
     
Originally-From: ianj@castle.ed.ac.uk (I Johnston)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Horizon
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 1994 10:41:01 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

Horizon's record isn't too steady, folks. This is their second go at CF
- the first was, erm, not too complimentary. They've boosted Uri Geller
in the past too. Remember, you don't get to be a producer in the BBC by
taking a science degree...

Ian
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenianj cudfnI cudlnJohnston cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.25 / John Logajan /  Re: Muonic Plague
     
Originally-From: 74242.1554@compuserve.com (John M. Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Muonic Plague
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 1994 15:38:08 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Since "hot" fusion is not quite to breakeven, and since muon catalyzed
("cold") fusion is not quite to breakeven, maybe they could be combined. 
One could pump muons into "hot" fusion systems and perhaps their combined
effects would be additive?  This hybrid would be a mix of "hot" and "cold"
and so could be dubbed "warm" fusion.


cudkeys:
cuddy25 cuden1554 cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.25 / Chris Tinsley /  Sir J J Thomson and X3.
     
Originally-From: 73751.3365@compuserve.com (Chris Tinsley)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Sir J J Thomson and X3.
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 1994 16:04:48 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To:>INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
 
 
Recently I was fascinated to see a report (Nature, Feb 13 1913[sic!] p645, Vol
90) in the form of a letter from Sir J J Thomson, the discoverer of the
electron, and pioneer of 'positive rays' - a type of mass-spectrometry - in
which he thoroughly disposes of a claim of transmutation of metals into He and
Ne.  This claim was by none less than Sir Wm Ramsay, Prof Collie and a Mr
Patterson.  His primary object, he says, 'was to investigate the origin and
properties of a new gas of atomic weight 3, which I shall call X[sub]3, which
I discovered by the positive-ray method.'
 
He comments on having often seen large quantities of (I'll call it) X3, and
says that 'this gas appears to have escaped the notice of the readers of the
paper at the Chemical Society.'  (A splendid early example of physicist-
chemist squabble, and quite a good put-down, too).  He thought it might be a
new triatomic molecule of hydrogen, it may be recalled that deuterium was not
discovered for almost another twenty years, and He-3 is very very much more
uncommon in atmosphere than He-4.
 
He says that the best way he found of getting X3 was to bombard metals etc with
electrons ('kathode rays'), by discharge from a Wehnelt Kathode through a gas
at low pressure, and by arc discharge in a gas at comparatively high pressure,
the first way being the best.
 
He used a curved focussing cathode, and zapped metal hard enough to make it
glow bright red.  he got X3 from iron, nickel, nickel oxide, zinc, copper,
various samples of lead, platinum, two meteorites(!) and a bit of black mica
from Sir James Dewar.  Platinum was best.
 
He got loads of X3 on the first day, washed out the tube, got the same on the
second day and repeated on the third - much less - and on the fourth virtually
no X3, and the neon line was scarcely visible.  The helium, which must be He-4,
he found was most quickly cleared out.
 
He goes on, but his tentative conclusion is that the X3 is not from
transmutation, but rather from a gas tightly bound by the metal.  He tried
boiling lead for some hours, without diminishing its capability to produce X3,
none was given off, and the sample remaining still gave X3.  As he says, it
seems to have been 'surprisingly firmly held by the metal', only beating it for
prolonged periods with electrons would shift the stuff out.  He asks how it
gets there.  He says it's not in the atmosphere.
 
So, what is this X3?  Does anybody know the end to this tale?
 
Chris Tinsley
 
PS I posted the above on CompuServe, but had no replies.  Since then I've tried
to find any later references to the matter in Nature, but if they are there I
can't see them.  I really would like an answer, so if anybody knows for sure or
can give any reasonable suggestions I should be most grateful.  While I do
sometimes get feedback from this forum, I would be especially happy if
respondents could copy me direct on 73751,3365.
 
CPT

cudkeys:
cuddy25 cuden3365 cudfnChris cudlnTinsley cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.26 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Re: anti-proton catalyzed fusion
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: anti-proton catalyzed fusion
Date: Sat, 26 Mar 1994 01:09:33 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Richard Schroeppel suggests anit-proton catalyzed fusion.  Sure, but don't
forget Tau catalyzed (next lepton up in the electron, muon, tau series)
fusion.  But you have to be quick!

Tom Droege

cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenDROEGE cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.26 / Jed Rothwell /  Letter from Miles
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Letter from Miles
Date: Sat, 26 Mar 1994 01:09:35 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org

Dr. Melvin Miles sent me the following letter with a note: "Please post this
on e-mail." He also enclosed a copy of the paper referred to herein, which was
published after he wrote the letter. Some details from the paper appear below.

If you would like to respond to this letter, I suggest you mail your comments
to Dr. Miles. If I see a response here, I might mail it to Dr. Miles, but I do
not generally read messages posted here.

- Jed Rothwell


 -----------------------------------------------


                         Department of the Navy
                        Naval Air Warfare Center
                            Weapons Division
                        China Lake, CA 93555-6001


                                   IN REPLY REFER TO:
                                        3910
                                        CO2353/057
                                        8 Feb 94

Professor Steven E. Jones
Department of Physics and Astronomy
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602

Dear Professor Jones:

     Enclosed is a pre-print of my manuscript that will soon be published in
a major scientific journal, i.e. The Journal of Physical Chemistry. This
manuscript discusses possible calorimetric errors in the Cal Tech, M.I.T., and
Harwell publications. These are studies that had a major impact on forming the
scientific opinion against the claims of excess heat in 1989-1990. If my
equations 1-3 are correct, then the approximations used by these major
laboratories call into question their claims of no excess enthalpy in cold
fusion experiments. These early experiments are found to contain serious
calorimetric errors that undermine their reports of no excess power.

     My purpose in sending you this preprint is to illustrate what I strongly
believe is the proper procedure to follow in addressing the works of other
scientists which may contain serious errors. I will outline three critical
steps in this procedure.

     First, I studied each of the scientific papers involved very carefully
to ensure that I would not misrepresent their results. Despite my efforts, the
referees still found several examples where I made mistakes. This illustrates
the essential role of referees in this scientific process.

     Second, I conducted my own experiments to test key statements and
conclusions presented in the publications in question. Thus, my manuscript
presents new experimental results that support my arguments.

     Third, I used a mainline, refereed scientific journal rather than the
electronic mail networks to present my arguments. The electronic mail may be
more entertaining, but it offers no controls regarding statements of fiction
rather than fact. Publication in a major scientific journal is, of course,
much more difficult, but it is certainly more reliable and will provide a
permanent record for the scientific community.

     In conclusion, I hope that you will follow this example in any future
discussions of possible errors in my publications. I will have no complaints
with your discussions of my work if the facts are presented honestly and are
published in a refereed scientific journal.


                              Sincerely,



                              [Signed]

                              DR. MELVIN H. MILES
                              Ph.D. Physical Chemistry
                              NAWCWPNS Fellow

Copy to:
Brigham Young University (W. Evenson, Chair, College of Physical and
Mathematical Sciences; D. Decker, Chair, Department of Physics and Astronomy).
University of Utah (H. Bergeson, E. Eyring, R. Parry, M. Salamon).

 -----------------------------------------------

The paper is:

     M. Miles, B. Bush, D. Stilwell, "Calorimetric Principles and Problems in
     Measurements of Excess Power during Pd-D20 Electrolysis," Journal of
     Physical Chemistry, 1994, vol. 48, pp. 1948-1952.


Here is the abstract, the introduction, and some mind-boggling paragraphs from
p. 1951:

A major experimental problem in many isoperibolic calorimetric studies is the
fact that the decrease in the electrolyte level due to electrolysis produces a
significant decrease in the apparent calorimetric cell constant if the cell
temperature is measured in the electrolyte of the electrochemical cell.
Furthermore, heat transport pathways out of the top of the cell can produce
large errors, especially at low power levels. There is no steady state in
electrochemical calorimetry, so accurate results require the evaluation of all
terms in the differential equation governing the calorimeter. These factors
have contributed to the controversy involving measurements of excess power
during Pd-D2O + LiOD electrolysis experiments. A critical analysis is
presented for several key publications that have impacted this scientific
topic.


Introduction

     A critical assumption made by many laboratories is the steady-state
approximation for their isoperibolic calorimetric system. In point of fact,
there is no steady state during D2O + LiOD electrolysis for either the cell
voltage or the cell temperature. Exact calorimetric measurements, therefore,
require either the numerical evaluation of the nonlinear, inhomogeneous
differential equation that governs the behavior of the calorimeter or the
solution of this equation to yield the integral form. Approximate solutions
require, at the very least, an experimental evaluation of the terms involving
the time dependency of the cell temperature, cell voltage, and cell contents
in order to justify the omission of any of these terms. This has not been done
by most laboratories reporting electrochemical calorimetric results including
studies by Lewis et al. [1], Williams et al., [2], Albagli et al. [3] and
Wilson et al. [4]

1. N. Lewis (Cal Tech), et al., Nature 1989, 340, 525

2. D. Williams (Harwell), et al., Nature 1989, 342, 375

3. D. Albagli (MIT), et al., J. Fusion Energy 1990, 9, 133

4. R. Wilson et al. (GE), et al., J. Electroanal. Chem. 1992, 332, 1


>From p. 1951:

     In striking contrast to the stability of calorimeter cell constants in
our experiments, as shown in Table 1, Lewis et al. report heat-transfer
coefficients that range from 12.6 deg C/W in H2O to 15.9 deg C/W after 115 h
of D2O electrolysis. This 26% increase in heating coefficients, based on our
experience, is highly unusual. Closer examination, however, shows that Lewis
et al. erroneously define the heating coefficient as *h* = Delta T/P[T] where
the total power (P[T]) is the sum of the electrolysis power and the resistor
power. According to the Newton law of cooling, the temperature difference,
Delta T, defines the total output power from the cell to its surroundings;
thus any power (P[x]) must be included in defining the total power. This
neglect of P[x] by Lewis et al. in the equation defining *h* would lead to an
increase in the heating coefficient as the excess power increases. An analysis
of this error in the Lewis study is presented in detail elsewhere by Miles et
al.

     Table 2 presents an analysis of the results reported by Lewis et al.
when a constant heating coefficient of 14.0 deg C/W is assumed based upon the
observation that there is rarely any excess power during the early stages of
Pd/D2O electrolysis. Initially, there is no excess power. However, as
electrolysis continues an excess power effect develops that becomes as large
as 0.076 W after 161 h of Pd/D2O + LiOD electrolysis . . .

     [Note from Jed: what this means, in plain English, is that when Lewis
     saw excess heat, he discounted it by claiming his calibration constant
     had changed by 26%. A calibration constant change of this magnitude
     under these circumstances is impossible. As Gene Mallove once put it,
     "in calibrating a scale, one does not stand on it while establishing the
     zero."]

* End of File *

cudkeys:
cuddy26 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.25 / Robert Eachus /  Re: Calorimeter Progress?
     
Originally-From: eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Calorimeter Progress?
Date: 25 Mar 94 11:00:32
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.

In article <940324121732.20a0d878@FNALD.FNAL.GOV> DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:

 > My brother has been looking into the heat pipe literature.  It does
 > not describe things in the same terms as Robert Eachus.  Mostly it
 > talks about liquid boiling in the bottom and condensing in the top.
 > There is even a paper on "natural" heat pipes in the earth.  But I
 > really like the Eachus explanation where the liquid moves over
 > surface films.  So my work to improve the desighs is based on that
 > concept.  It is possible that there are two modes in operation.
 > One boils and condenses and the other moves liquid over surfaces.
 > Some of my measurements are beginning to look like this is the
 > case.  There is some data that seems to indicate that there is a
 > "good" mode at 10X or so the empty pipe, and a "super" mode that is
 > [very large]X the empty pipe.

    Hmmmm...  Maybe I have to try again.  Even in my view, in what you
call the "super" mode, the heat transfer is via evaporation and
condensation.  I prefer to avoid the use of the work boiling when
dealing with such thin films.  The "super" mode has two things that
make it super.  One is that there is only a thin film of working fluid
at the business end, so the fluid does not add insulation.  But what
makes the "super" mode really super is that the return flow is driven
by adsorption.  This keeps the thin film replenished and evenly
distributed.  When using an appropriate working fluid, and apparently
based on Tom's experience an appropriate surface metal, the "force"
pulling this layer flat is in the eV per molecule range.

   I guess you could think of a model where the reverse flow was
carrying potential cooling, instead of the evaporation carrying away
heat.  My model has always been much closer to a semiconductor.  There
is an uppermost "filled" layer and an partial layer of molecules above
that.  The net effect is that the molecules in the partial layer are
waiting to fall into and instantly fill any holes in the layer below,
no matter where the hole is.  (The reality is that the molecules in
the uppermost filled layer each move over one to put the hole under a
molecule in the partial layer, instead of the molecule doing anything
quantum mechanical, but the effect is similar.)

    (I've been tempted to convert a house to use such a heat pipe
system for heating and cooling, but could I sell it to anyone?
Maintenance would seem to be black magic. It would require keeping
surfaces with no micron height ridges for dozens of feet.  Not
something you can explain to a plumbing contractor.  And purging the
system?  I hope that Tom can come up with a practical use for the
effect.)

--

					Robert I. Eachus

with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudeneachus cudfnRobert cudlnEachus cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.25 / Robert Eachus /  Re: Calorimeter Progress?
     
Originally-From: eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Calorimeter Progress?
Date: 25 Mar 94 14:07:57
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.


  I said:

 >    The "super" mode has two things that make it super.  One is that
 > there is only a thin film of working fluid at the business end, so
 > the fluid does not add insulation.  But what makes the "super" mode
 > really super is that the return flow is driven by adsorption...

     On the way to lunch I realized that I may have oversimplified.
The heat of adsorption both drives the return flow and increases the
amount of heat carried away by each molecule.  This doesn't seem
significant (well doesn't seem like an order of magniture improvement)
until you realize that over a cold spot there will be, on average, one
more layer than over a hot spot.  So even if the difference in
temperature is less than a degree, and the evaporation rates will be
similar, the amount of energy carried away will be significantly
different.

--

					Robert I. Eachus

with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudeneachus cudfnRobert cudlnEachus cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.25 / Thomas Zemanian /  Re: Italian "Heeter" effect
     
Originally-From: ts_zemanian@pnl.gov (Thomas S. Zemanian)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Italian "Heeter" effect
Date: 25 Mar 1994 20:50:51 GMT
Organization: Battelle PNL

In article <2lt0d4$mt6@tom.pppl.gov>, rfheeter@theory.pppl.gov (Robert F.
Heeter) wrote:
> 
> Anybody know where I can get an inexpensive, small temperature
> sensor that will operate up to 500C? This sounds like it might
> be fun to play with a little...:)
> 

Omega Engineering (P.O. Box 4047, Stamford, CT 06907-0047/ 1-800-826-6342)
sells Pt RTD's for $17, which can operate to 750 deg. C.  One of those,
some high temp wire, an ohmmeter, and the tables in the back of their
catalog, and you're off and running. 

-- 
The opinions expressed herein are mine and mine alone.  Keep your filthy
hands off 'em!  ;-)
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudents_zemanian cudfnThomas cudlnZemanian cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.25 / Thomas Zemanian /  Re: Purple Cows
     
Originally-From: ts_zemanian@pnl.gov (Thomas S. Zemanian)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Purple Cows
Date: 25 Mar 1994 23:55:44 GMT
Organization: Battelle PNL


[Several folks debate the authorship of "Purple Cow"]

> > >>>From the restaurant, author unknown:
> > >>>
> > >>>I never saw a purple cow.
> > >>>I never hope to see one.
> > >>>I'll tell you all right here and now,
> > >>>I'd rather see than be one!
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>The author is Gellett Burgess, I believe.  I think the third line 
> > >>should be something like "But I can tell you anyhow."
> > >>
> > >>                                     Richard Schultz
> > >
> > >Hmm.  I thought it was Ogden Nash.  Oh well.
> > >
> > >   jake blanchard -- university of wisconsin - madison
> > >   blanchard@engr.wisc.edu  OR   jake@nucst6.neep.wisc.edu
> > >
> > 
> >
> > Don't give up the ship so easily.  I also vote for Ogden Nash.
> > 
> > Steve Czarnecki
> 
> As long as we're voting without looking it up in a reference, I vote
> for Gillett(sp?) Burgess.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Just a thought from Mike Thornburg -> (mthorn@lunacity.com)
> LunaCity BBS - Mountain View, CA - 415 968 8140


Put me down for Ogden Nash.
-- 
--TS Zemanian
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudents_zemanian cudfnThomas cudlnZemanian cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.26 / R Schroeppel /  Miles results: choice of forum for discussion
     
Originally-From: rcs@cs.arizona.edu (Richard Schroeppel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Miles results: choice of forum for discussion
Date: Sat, 26 Mar 1994 02:02:37 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

DR. MELVIN H. MILES (via Jed Rothwell 72240.1256@compuserve.com) writes
(to Professor Steven E. Jones)
	 Third, I used a mainline, refereed scientific journal rather than the
    electronic mail networks to present my arguments. The electronic mail may be
    more entertaining, but it offers no controls regarding statements of fiction
    rather than fact. Publication in a major scientific journal is, of course,
    much more difficult, but it is certainly more reliable and will provide a
    permanent record for the scientific community.

	 In conclusion, I hope that you will follow this example in any future
    discussions of possible errors in my publications. I will have no complaints
    with your discussions of my work if the facts are presented honestly and are
    published in a refereed scientific journal.


Dear Dr. Miles,

I will discuss your work, and any possible errors, in any forum I choose.
This include the internet, my local coffeehouse, the classroom, and the
New York Times.  I hope others will also follow this policy.  You are
welcome to join the discussion, in the forum of your choice.

Richard Schroeppel   rcs@cs.arizona.edu
1942 W. Camino Bajio, Tucson AZ 85737  602-621-4368w 602-797-1679h

cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenrcs cudfnRichard cudlnSchroeppel cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.26 / Mark North /  Re: Reply "On Larry Wall's "Qualifications for posting?""
     
Originally-From: north@watop.nosc.mil (Mark North)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reply "On Larry Wall's "Qualifications for posting?""
Date: Sat, 26 Mar 1994 01:11:54 GMT
Organization: NCCOSC RDT&E Division, San Diego, CA

mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:

>Dear colleagues:

>   To correct the record and hopefully finish this thread,

It isn't finished until you tell us your qualifications for posting
on the subject of physics.

>in Message-ID: <north.764121542@watop>
>Subject: Re: On Larry Wall's "Qualifications for posting?"
>Mark NorthX north@watop.nosc.mil)
>NCCOSC RDT&E Division, San Diego, CA writes a string of errors:

>   >    And BTW after Webster (ibid.)
>   >   ****  absurd ***  from:  ab- from, away    + surdus-   deaf, stupid
>   >     1 -   ridiculously unreasonable, unsound, or incongruous

>=mn  "Talk about absurd. What's that there ibidem for?"

>   "That there"?    [And what might be the qualifications of Mr. North?   ;-)

Oh brother. I slipped into the vernacular to make a contrast between
the ostentatious and the down-home. Instructing you is like instructing
a backward child.

>   Ibid is an abbreviation of ibidem --- meaning (from the Latin)
>        "in the same place"

Oh, you looked it up. Very good. Now look up the meaning of same and
place.

>    Since in a previous post this writer had specifically
>quoted "Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary" 
>by G. & C. Merriam Company, Springfield Massachusetts  USA (1965),
>  "ibid." was short for ibidem 
>which actually referred to that previous post, as is common practice.     

Squirming, twisting in the wind.

>=mn  "Do you think that makes you look erudite?"

>   High probability of "projection" here again.      ;-) X

?

>=mn   "At least learn how to use it properly.Also, since
>=mn  you are so fond of quoting dictionaries here's a clue for you.
>=mn  Citing 'Webster' confers no information. 'Webster' is a generic name.
>=mn  Anyone can put together a dictionary and call it Webster's. So if
>=mn  you want to convey information you must indicate the publisher of
>=mn  the dictionary."
>   
>   Really?   Attention of those who can access (or have) the
>archives here is directed to the simple fact that since in a previous 
>post I had quoted "Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary" 
>by G. & C. Merriam Company, Springfield Massachusetts  
>USA (1965).
>  It is thus apparent that "Webster's" was simply NOT a generic name.

Since you admit not everyone has access to archives it's clear you
know you used ibid. incorrectly. 

Dealing with your misstatements and obfuscations is extremely tedious.
You should have been a lawyer instead of a (be)laborer.

Now how about those quals? No? I didn't think so.

Well, there you have it folks. He wants to end the thread. Without
answering the question brought up long ago. What we have here is
an off topic pedant with an attitude. Please accord him the respect
he deserves. 

Mark



cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudennorth cudfnMark cudlnNorth cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.26 / mitchell swartz /  On Mark North's Qualifications for judging?
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: On Mark North's Qualifications for judging?
Subject: Re: Reply "On Larry Wall's "Qualifications for posting?""
Date: Sat, 26 Mar 1994 03:54:58 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

   In Message-ID: <north.764644314@watop>
Subject: Re: Reply "On Larry Wall's "Qualifications for posting?""
Mark North (NCCOSC RDT&E Division, San Diego, CA);
a.k.a. north@watop.nosc.mil) writes:

=mn       --  [misstatements ignoring his previous misstatements and 
=mn                         obfuscations] ----
=mn  "You should have been a lawyer instead of a (be)laborer."
=mn  "Now how about those quals? No? I didn't think so."
=mn  "Well, there you have it folks. He wants to end the thread. Without
=mn  answering the question brought up long ago. What we have here is
=mn  an off topic pedant with an attitude. Please accord him the respect
=mn  he deserves. "

   Mr. North's antics remain an anathema to both science and liberty.

        "In a free and republican government, you cannot 
    restrain the voice of the multitude. 
     Every man will speak as he thinks."
             [George Washington (1732-1799)
                Letter to Lafayette,  9/1/1778]


   As asked before to Mr. North, but ignored:
 What might be the qualifications of Mr. North for him to
display his impetuous and audacious presumption that he 
possesses  both the quality and quantity of background
to qualify himself as judge?

               Mitchell Swartz [mica@world.std.com]

cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.26 / Greg Kuperberg /  Re: Muonic Plague
     
Originally-From: gk00@quads.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Muonic Plague
Date: Sat, 26 Mar 1994 04:04:55 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

In article <940325153811_74242.1554_BHR25-1@CompuServe.COM> 74242.1554@c
mpuserve.com (John M. Logajan) writes:
>Since "hot" fusion is not quite to breakeven, and since muon catalyzed
>("cold") fusion is not quite to breakeven, maybe they could be combined. 
>One could pump muons into "hot" fusion systems and perhaps their combined
>effects would be additive?  This hybrid would be a mix of "hot" and "cold"
>and so could be dubbed "warm" fusion.

A good question, which is unusual for this group.  I had this idea
once, and I think I also remember hearing about it many years ago when
I was tangentially involved in magnetic fusion.  I believe that
unfortunately, the muons don't help the hot confinement and the hot
confinement, in particular the low density of a tokamak plasma, renders
the muons useless.  At low densities the muon decays before there
are very many fusions.

Think of it this way:  Fusion is like opening a lot of vault doors.  In
muon-catalyzed fusion, you have a very expensive skeleton key (the muon)
which unfortunately occasionally jams in the door (muon capture), and
when that happens you have to get a new key for the next door.  In
magnetic fusion, you have a huge battering ram to break down the door,
but it takes so much work that it isn't quite worth it.  Your hybrid is
like unlocking the door with the key and THEN breaking it down.

It's conceivable to me that muons might help laser fusion, because that
is a high density affair.  I'm sure that the laser people have thought
of this and rejected it for some simple reason; let's try to guess the
reason.  My guess is that you would need a lot of muons in a hurry and
at just the right time and place, and it's not possible to deliver the
muons that way.  Either that or muons don't really help hot fusion of
any kind.
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudengk00 cudfnGreg cudlnKuperberg cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Sat Mar 26 04:37:04 EST 1994
------------------------------
1994.03.25 /  jonesse@physc1 /  SL:  Not tribolum./ Lawson criterion
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: SL:  Not tribolum./ Lawson criterion
Date: 25 Mar 94 16:17:15 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

In article <2mu6k5$g8d@gorgon.gatwick.sgp.slb.com>, 
julian@gatwick.sgp.slb.com (Julian Fitzherbert) writes:
> In article 1509@physc1.byu.edu, jonesse@physc1.byu.edu writes:
>> Today, we succeeded for the first time to levitate a bubble in the center of
>> a spherical flask filled with distilled H2O.  This is quite a beautiful sight.
>> We did not yet move to a room which can be darkened sufficiently to allow us
>> to look for sonoluminescence.  One step at a time.
>> 
> 
> Sonoluminescence ???? This sounds a bit like Triboluminescence (spelling) 
> This is when crystals give off light after being hit. I've seen dolomite
> do this (Glows red, I guess this the calcium, isn't its ionisation colour
> red? ) and I understand sugar gives a blue colour. What colour does water
> give?
> 
> Explainations please..... :) 

The notion that SL could be due to triboluminescence turns out to date back
to about 1936:  "At a time when liquids were thought to have a
quasi-crystalline structure Chambers (1936) suggested that SL had a 
similar origin to the light produced when many crystals are crushed."
[Alan Walton and Geo. Reynolds, "Sonoluminescence," Advances in Physics, 1984
33:595-660]  

This same review points to Degrois, 1968, Onde Elect. 48:3 for a "full account
of these early theories and the reasons for their demise."

By now, spectra have been taken which show that the light arises from two
sources, depending on conditions during bubble collapse:
1- Transient SL shows spectral lines, indicating chemiluminescence, e.g.,
nitrogen molecule lines from N-atoms _--> N2 formation.  The energy to
break up the air molecules comes from adiabatic heating as the bubbles
collapse.  The temp. deduced from the spectra is approx. 5000 K.

2- Stable single-bubble SL  (SB-SL) discussed here previously, shows no
such spectral lines.  Instead, the spectral distribution fits that of
black-body radiation, at temperatures of roughly 10^5 K.  Hence, the recent
resurgence of interest in SL.   See (please -- this is a great paper):

R. Hiller, S. Putterman, and B. Barber, "Spectrum of synchronous picosecond SL"
Phys. Rev. Lett. 69 (1992) 1182.

The explanation for *this* is shock-wave formation in the bubble:
C. Wu and P. Roberts, "Shock-wave propagation in a SL'ing Gas Bubble",
Phys. Rev. Lett. 70 (1993) 3424.

This explanation predicts temps. up to 10^8 K under certain conditions.
That's enough for fusion products to be observed in the BYU neutron facility,
easily.  However, I have checked, and although the temp. of 10 keV looks
theoretically attainable, the density is too low for the Lawson criterion
to be satisfied.  I.e., N*tau < 10^14 s/cm^3 -- but only by about two orders of
magnitude!   My calculation
is based on the numbers calculated in the Wu and Roberts paper above.   

Now this group (s.p.f.) 
has discussed some ideas, such as the use of mercury as a
driver-medium rather than water, which _might_ allow the Lawson criterion
to be approached if we're lucky.  My feeling is that we ought to pursue this
further, see how far we can take it.

We could use just a little support -- Frankly, it's not easy to get funding 
with cold-fusion-excess-heat-claims (and now water-energized cars!) 
muddying the waters so badly -- I've tried!  On the other hand, if our effort
were funded, the free discussion here might be more restricted.  That's an
experiment I have yet to try...

Have a nice weekend, everyone.
--Steven Jones

cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenjonesse cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.25 /  jonesse@physc1 /  AP article on cold fusion/23 March 1994
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: AP article on cold fusion/23 March 1994
Date: 25 Mar 94 17:02:00 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

An Associated Press article quotes me as saying:
"Jones now says cold fusion 'has been thoroughly disproven.'"

Let me say, as I did to the reporter who called me (Lee Siegel), that
it is difficult if not impossible to *prove* that something like cf does *not
exist*.  I explained that I have studied the various experiments claiming both
positive and null results, and have performed numerous experiments myself (with
collaborators).  I maintain, as I have explained here at length and in
published papers, that I find *no compelling evidence* for cold fusion.  
But this is not the same as saying cf is *disproven*.  Therefore, why
Mr. Siegel chose to turn my argument to him around is difficult for me to
understand.  He did, however, go on to quote me correctly that 
"I don't know that there's any compelling evidence" for cf.  

More from the article (Salt Lake Tribune, March 23, 1994, p. A-1):

"The U. [of Utah] got out of the cf business last year, selling exclusive
licensing rights to ENECO, a private Utah company, in exchange for an
undisclosed six-figure fee and royalties if cf ever pans out.
'I hope it's not a bunch of little old ladies putting hteir life savings into
this,' Stang [U. Utah chemistry dept. head] says.

Fred Jaeger, ENECO's president, says 'most of our funding is from out-of-state,
well-heeled, accredited investors' who can afford to risk some wealth.
'We can't build a business based on voodoo science,' Jaeger says. ...'Time will
tell.  If that horse comes in,  this is the opportunity of a lifetime.'"

[Too bad muon-catalyzed fusion, etc. can't find a dime.
Maybe 'conning the media', as someone (Jim Carr?) aptly put it, is the
wave of the future?  If so, science as we know it is changing for the worst.

[Back to the article:]
"'Nuclear reactions are occuring.  If critics say otherwise, they are
demonstrating their own ignorance.'  ...says Edmund Storms, a retired chemist
at Los Alamos National Laboratory in NM.  'To suggest these people are being
misled by charlatans is incredibly insulting.'"  (order changed as I typed it)

"Anyone who still dismisses cold fusion 'hasn't looked at the facts,' says
Michael McKubre, an electrochemist who performs utility-funded cf experiments
at SRI..."

[This is not insulting?] 

But how about the alternatives that are *not* being funded, like muon-catalyzed
fusion -- it's real, and if we could knock down the alpha-muon sticking
following fusion, by an order of magnitude, we could think of commercial
energy.  There are other energy ideas that go wanting, also.  
Something is very askew here.  Even McKubre in the article admits:
"it may not be fusion and won't necessarily be a major energy source."
Refreshing candor, at last.  Will the investors notice?  

--Steven Jones

P.s. -- 'sticking' in mu-c-f refers to the propensity for the negative muon
to be captured by the alpha synthesized during d-t fusion, and to remain
captured during slow-down of the 3.5MeV alpha in the d-t fluid.  We made the
first measurement of this quantity, 0.4%, published in 1984 -- a value only
recently accepted, incidentally, as several other labs have confirmed this
value.  (Seems recently - last few years.) 
Gotta run. 
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenjonesse cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.26 / Greg Kuperberg /  Re: AP article on cold fusion/23 March 1994
     
Originally-From: gk00@quads.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: AP article on cold fusion/23 March 1994
Date: Sat, 26 Mar 1994 05:57:29 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

In article <1994Mar25.170200.1521@physc1.byu.edu> jonesse@physc1.byu.edu writes:
>An Associated Press article quotes me as saying:
>"Jones now says cold fusion 'has been thoroughly disproven.'"
>
>Let me say, as I did to the reporter who called me (Lee Siegel), that
>it is difficult if not impossible to *prove* that something like cf
>does *not exist*.  I explained that I have studied the various
>experiments claiming both positive and null results, and have performed
>numerous experiments myself (with collaborators).  I maintain, as I
>have explained here at length and in published papers, that I find *no
>compelling evidence* for cold fusion.  But this is not the same as
>saying cf is *disproven*.

Is "discredited" a better word than "disproven"?  I'm not crazy about
the term "disproven" either, but the Great Palladium Vision certainly
has been discredited.
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudengk00 cudfnGreg cudlnKuperberg cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.26 / Matt Austern /  Re: AP article on cold fusion/23 March 1994
     
Originally-From: matt@physics2.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: AP article on cold fusion/23 March 1994
Date: 26 Mar 1994 06:55:32 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (Theoretical Physics Group)

In article <1994Mar26.055729.20757@midway.uchicago.edu> gk00@quads.uchic
go.edu (Greg Kuperberg) writes:

> Is "discredited" a better word than "disproven"?  I'm not crazy about
> the term "disproven" either, but the Great Palladium Vision certainly
> has been discredited.

What?  How can you say that, Greg, now that they've started building
cold-fusion cars?  (I wonder if the car also heats water...)
--
Matthew Austern                       Never express yourself more clearly
matt@physics.berkeley.edu             than you think.    ---N. Bohr
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenmatt cudfnMatt cudlnAustern cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.26 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: What Arthur Clarke thinks of Cold fusion
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What Arthur Clarke thinks of Cold fusion
Date: Sat, 26 Mar 1994 06:50:41 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <Cn56on.H3F@world.std.com>,
mitchell swartz <mica@world.std.com> wrote:
>                              March  23, 1994
>Dear colleagues:
>
>which contained the longer missive from one of
>my (?our) favorite sf-and science heroes, Arthur C. Clarke.

Yep, I guess that a positive review by an aging science fiction writer
living in Sri Lanka and not having performed a single experiment of his
own in half a century proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that Cold Fusion
is definitely here.

cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.26 / Benjamin Carter /  Re: anti-proton catalyzed fusion
     
Originally-From: bpc@netcom.com (Benjamin P. Carter)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: anti-proton catalyzed fusion
Date: Sat, 26 Mar 1994 08:09:43 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

rcs@cs.arizona.edu (Richard Schroeppel) writes:

>Anti-protons should catalyze fusion even better than muons,
>and they are stable in isolation.  Alas, they combine with
>ordinary matter and go poof.  Still, one might ask, how many
>fusions does a pbar catalyze before going poof?

An antiproton coming to rest in ordinary matter is not exactly
a catalyst.  Rather, it annihilates with a nucleon, converting
approximately twice its own mass into energy.  No fusions occur
in the process.

-- 
    Ben Carter                  internet address: bpc@netcom.com
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenbpc cudfnBenjamin cudlnCarter cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.26 / John Logajan /  Re: Letter from Miles
     
Originally-From: 74242.1554@compuserve.com (John M. Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Letter from Miles
Date: Sat, 26 Mar 1994 10:24:03 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

M. Miles, B. Bush, D. Stilwell write:
>Lewis et al. erroneously define the heating coefficient as *h* = Delta
>T/P[T] where the total power (P[T]) is the sum of the electrolysis power
>and the resistor power. According to the Newton law of cooling, the
>temperature difference, Delta T, defines the total output power from the
>cell to its surroundings; thus any power (P[x]) must be included in
>defining the total power. This neglect of P[x] by Lewis et al. in the
>equation defining *h* would lead to an increase in the heating
>coefficient as the excess power increases. An analysis of this error in
>the Lewis study is presented in detail elsewhere by Miles et al.

Miles et al succeed well here in moving "negatives" back at least into the
ambiguous results range.  If we are to accept the skeptics argument that
calorimetry is susceptible to variations in "constants", then "negative"
results are likewise burdened by the same ambiguities.  What seems like a
negative result may just be a badly interpreted positive result.

Every claim demands proof, both positive and negative.  A positive claim
lacking positive proof is not excused due to a lack of negative proof. 
Nor is a negative claim lacking negative proof excused due to a lack of
positive proof.  And thus we have three categories -- proven, disproven,
and undetermined.

Miles et al show that the same difficulties that face the proofs of
anomalous heat also face the disproofs.  He who publishes a negative
result must convince us that he has solved the calorimetric ambiguities
that have befuddled positive claimers.


cudkeys:
cuddy26 cuden1554 cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.26 / Eugene Mallove /  Reply to PFC's Paul Stek
     
Originally-From: 76570.2270@compuserve.com (Eugene Mallove)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Reply to PFC's Paul Stek
Date: Sat, 26 Mar 1994 12:42:49 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

        As usual, people such as Paul Stek from MIT's PFC are still blowing 
smoke. Poor souls! What will they do when they have to send out their resumes 
after Congress axes their White Elephant tokamak program -- inevitable either 
in 1994 or in 1995? Certainly, no "New Hydrogen Energy" program manager will 
want to hire THEM! 


Paul writes:

>I was at MIT when all the Cold Fusion Hoopla started.  While I did not
>participate, I know many of the people involved.  The scientists running
>the exeriments wanted to have cold fusion work.  They tried to buy 
>paladium futures.  They stopped working on my experiment and shut it
>down for more than two months.  I never saw so many people putting in 
>such long hours before or since.  All because some scientists in Utah 
>managed to con the media into believing this crap.  What P&F did was not
>a frivolous act.  

>Now Eugene the only time I saw you present anything on the experiments 
>that you claim have been falsified, you did so in a manner that really should
>be restricted to bad Hollywood films.  By proceeding to take over the 
>viewgraph machine during the question and answer
>period after a seminar and ranting while presenting
>your own viewgraphs makes you look somewhat less than believable.   


>June 26, 1989: A "Wake for Cold Fusion" party is held at the MIT PFC

>I may have been out of town, but I do not remember any official party
>under this name.  I suspect the members of the team trying to duplicate 
>P&F may have had a private party. 

>Paul Stek
>Stek@cmod.pfc.mit.edu

"Con the media into believing this crap..." NO, P&F didn't "con" the media. 
They were right, and the PFC was wrong. It was the PFC that helped con the 
media the other way. I have a 330 page file on the whole sordid episode which 
is available to anyone for the asking -- providing they pay copying and 
mailing expenses. Paul, do you want the file so that YOU will know what the 
hell you are talking about next time?

The "Wake for Cold Fusion" DID occur, as Mitch Swartz has shown. I was invited
to it -- it was on June 26, 1989, (NOT June 20).  A note at the bottom of the 
PFC poster says "sponsored by the Center for Contrived Fantasies." I did not 
attend.

On the other hand I was NOT invited to hear Frank Close's talk at MIT on June 
7, 1991.  I found out about the meeting *by accident* from a calendar person 
at the MIT News Office. Then, when I did show up, that paragon of control, 
Richard Petrasso -- master of ceremonies for the Frank Close "Expose on Cold 
Fusion," said worriedly during the Q&A "only one-minute Gene -- it is not 
appropriate for you to present anything." Yes, I was miffed, to put it mildly.
But the content of those several slides that you saw that day was only the 
beginning of revealing the hocus-pocus that the MIT PFC foisted on the world. 
Several technical papers have now been published on the subject. More will 
follow, I'm sure.

Deja vue! I, as chief science writer at the MIT News Office in 1989, was also 
*not told* by PFC Director Ronald Parker that he was going to plant a negative
story against P&F. But the gentleman DID call me at midnight when he heard 
about the Boston Herald story that was to appear the next morning (May 1, 
1989). I was asked to write a press release contradicting the impending Herald
story. This nearly cost the Herald reporter, Nick Tate, his job. Fortunately, 
Tate had made an audio tape of his interview with Parker, which instantly 
convinced the Herald editors that Tate was right and Parker deceiving the 
world about what he had said. A transcript of that tape was made public by the
Herald. I publicly disavowed that Parker-inspired press release on June 7, 
1991, the day I resigned from the MIT News Office. 


Eugene Mallove
 


cudkeys:
cuddy26 cuden2270 cudfnEugene cudlnMallove cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.26 /  blue@nscl00.ns /  Re: calorimetric ambiguities
     
Originally-From: blue@nscl00.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: calorimetric ambiguities
Date: Sat, 26 Mar 1994 15:28:34 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

The abstract of a forthcoming paper by Dr. Miles as posted by Jed Rothwell
is indeed an interesting bit of commentary on cold fusion calorimetry.
In it Dr. Miles comments on the errors in the methodology employed by
a selection of null experiments that he considers significant in the
evolution of cold fusion research.  I would invite a simple extension
of the ideas put forth by Dr. Miles to the consideration of the effects
he outlines as they apply to a number of experiments claiming positive
CF results.

Let us start by asking whether the error sources mentioned in the
Miles abstract do not fully apply to all of the early experimental
results with which Miles is associated.  I may have to reread those
early papers to be sure of this point, but my recollection is that
his calorimeter was of the crudest sort with no consideration given
to the kinds of error sources he now sees in this method.  The data
themselves give plenty of hints that the experiments were not well
controlled.  I wonder if Dr. Miles will be publishing a reanalysis
of these data?

I would also urge that Dr. Miles apply his new insights into the
basic problems of calorimetry to a reexmination of Pons and
Fleishcmann's contributions to cold fusion research.  I have often
said in the past that I thought that it was essential for cold
fusion advocates themselves to begin to move the quality of
experimentation in this field to a higher level and to weed
out more of the obviously sloppy results that are so easy for
the skeptics to attack.  Perhaps Dr. Miles is now prepaired
to undertake a more critical examination of cold fusion
calorimetry.

As an aside, I wonder whether Jed Rothwell has learned anything
from his correspondence with Dr. Miles as to how easy and
straightforward calorimetry is.  Does the Rothwell toothbrush
box calorimeter satisfy Dr. Miles new standards?

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenblue cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.27 /  blue@nscl00.ns /  Contributions to the CF literature
     
Originally-From: blue@nscl00.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Contributions to the CF literature
Date: Sun, 27 Mar 1994 01:09:17 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I have run accross some items of interest to followers of the
CF saga.  Firstly, an abstract of an item for the bibliography:
To be published in Technical Physics, July 1993,

"Generation of nuclear fusion products by the combined action of
cavitation and electrolysis of a titanium surface in deuterated
electrolytes."  Lipson, Lyakhov, Saunin, Deryagin, Toporov, Klyuev,
and Sakov.

It has been found that the combined action of cavitation and
electrolysis on the surface of a titanium vibrator (the cathode)
in alkaline and acid electrolytes based on D2O results in the
reproducible emission of neutrons accompanied by a post-effect
of approx. 10 min duration with a maximum intensity of approx.
0.6 neutrons per second.  Also observed are individual bursts
of neutrons, reaching 10^3 neutrons in a time interval of
1 ms.  The beta activity of the alkaline electrolytes was
analyzed after the combined action on the titanium cathode.
It is shown that in this process tritium is formed at a rather
high rate, reaching 10^7 per sec.

So those of you considering hybrid reactors, the Russians have
the jump on you in the cold fusion area (if you believe this).
By way of explaination, I think the journal is an English
translation of a Russian publication.

My comments on this are that I would question the neutron
production numbers.  The detection of 10^3 neutrons in a
single millisecond interval begs some explanation.  One
question to be ask as to whether that is a detector count
rate or is it a calculated production rate based on some
assumed detection efficiency?  I am also puzzled by the
average rate of 0.6 neutrons per second for 600 seconds
giving a total of 360 neutrons.  How can that be the
maximum unless it does not include even one of the bursts
of 1000?  I also hope that CF advocates take note of the
fact that the experimental signitures, neutrons and betas,
are NOT in agreement with certain other CF observations.

I would also like to call your attention to  three letters
published in the March 1994 issue of Physics Today.  The
first is by Eugene Mallove in which he takes David Williams
to task for an favorable review of "John R. Huizenga's
unrepentantly negative book Cold Fusion: The Scientific
Fiasco of the Century".  This letter is followed by a
reply from David Williams and one from John Huizenga.

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenblue cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.21 / Norberto Amaral /  ICPS '94 will be great!
     
Originally-From: fisnapta@ci.ua.pt (Norberto Amaral)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: ICPS '94 will be great!
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 1994 18:10:30 GMT
Organization: Universidade de Aveiro, Portugal




	I have posted previously an article mentioning there was going to be an
International Conference for Physics Students in St. Petersburg, Russia.
	Now, here's the *actual* announcement. Any information or application
should be addressed direclty to the contact person Alexander Pavlov.


    ************************************************************
    *                                                          *
    *                                                          *
    *     IX INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE OF PHYSICS STUDENTS      *
    *                                                          *
    *                          ICPS'94                         *
    *                                                          *
    *                   St.Petersburg, RUSSIA                  *
    ************************************************************

             The International Students Association,
            Association of Physics Students of Russia,
     Association of Physics Students of St.Petersburg University,
                Saint-Petersburg State University,
                     the Physics Institute
                 and the Physics Department of SPbU


will hold the 9th International Conference of Physics Students.

        Date:           15-21st August
        Place:          St.Petersburg,Russia
        Participants:  Undergraduate and postgraduate students.
        Organization fee: 110 $


 Proposed topics for discussion are:

        Mathematical Physics
        Theoretical Physics
        Radiophysics
        Optics
        Laser Physics
        Solid State Physics
        Physics and Chemistry of Plasma
        Physics of Semiconductors and Dielectrics
        Thermophysics and Molecular Physics
        Nuclear Physics and Physics of Elementary Particles
        Geophysics
        Computer Science and Mathematical Modelling


        All presented papers will be published in our bulletin.
 The deadline for sending in registration forms is April 30th 1994.
 The deadline for receipt of papers to be published in the bulletin
 is July 1st 1994.
 For contacting the ICPS'94 Organizing Committee it is best to use FAX
 or E-Mail.


        Phone: (812)-428-43-13
               (812)-428-44-07
        Fax:   (812)-428-66-49
        E-mail: apavl@ihq.samson.spb.su
                ICPS94@ihq.samson.spb.su
                IEVLEV@apstud.samson.spb.su

        If conventional mail routes must be used please use the following
 address:
 (Mail in Russia is unreliable now)

        IAPS Central Office

        Niels Bohr Institute
        Oersted Laboratory
        H.C. Oersted Institute
        Universitetsparken 5
        DK-2100=C4Copenhagen O


        During the conference there will be a General Meeting of
 IAPS which will discuss possibilities for collaboration among students.
 Everyone is welcome to participate in this meeting.


        Housing and meal plan will be provided for all IAPS'94 participants.
 Also,participants willhave the opportunity to acquaint themselves
 with the scientifical work conducted at the Physics Institute.
 We tentatively plan to organize a series of visits to museums and other
 cultural sights.

        The address of the Organizing Committee is:

                APS(Association of Physics Students Russia)
                Contact Person: Alexander Pavlov, Secretary of APS
 Russia
                International Headquarters of APS Russia
                Department of Physics SPbU Ulianovskaja 1, Stary
 Peterhoff
                198904 Saint Petersburg Russia

        (But please do not use it to mail your papers)


                            REGISTRATION FORM


        Name...........................................................

        Date of Birth (Day/Month/Year).................................

        Address........................................................

        ...............................................................

        Country........................................................

        Phone Number...................................................

        FAX:...........................................................

        E-mail:........................................................

        Institution:...................................................

        GraduatePostgraduate

        Do you have a paper to present?................................

        Title:.........................................................

        ...............................................................

        ...............................................................

cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenfisnapta cudfnNorberto cudlnAmaral cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Sun Mar 27 04:37:03 EST 1994
------------------------------
1994.03.26 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Re: AP article on cold fusion/23 March 1994
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: AP article on cold fusion/23 March 1994
Date: 26 Mar 94 13:21:49 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

In article <1994Mar26.055729.20757@midway.uchicago.edu>, 
gk00@quads.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg) writes:
> In article <1994Mar25.170200.1521@physc1.byu.edu> jonesse@physc1.byu.edu writes:
>>An Associated Press article quotes me as saying:
>>"Jones now says cold fusion 'has been thoroughly disproven.'"
>>
>>Let me say, as I did to the reporter who called me (Lee Siegel), that
>>it is difficult if not impossible to *prove* that something like cf
>>does *not exist*.  I explained that I have studied the various
>>experiments claiming both positive and null results, and have performed
>>numerous experiments myself (with collaborators).  I maintain, as I
>>have explained here at length and in published papers, that I find *no
>>compelling evidence* for cold fusion.  But this is not the same as
>>saying cf is *disproven*.
> 
> Is "discredited" a better word than "disproven"?  I'm not crazy about
> the term "disproven" either, but the Great Palladium Vision certainly
> has been discredited.

Agreed:  "discredited" is accurate.
Also, the lack of characteristic x-rays implies strongly that any "excess heat"
is *not* nuclear in origin.  In that case, the xs heat is extremely unlikely to
be a useful new source of energy.

--Steven Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenjonesse cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.26 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Re: Muonic Plague
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Muonic Plague
Date: 26 Mar 94 13:27:48 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

In article <1994Mar26.040455.17124@midway.uchicago.edu>, 
gk00@quads.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg) writes:
> In article <940325153811_74242.1554_BHR25-1@CompuServe.COM> 
74242.1554@compuserve.com (John M. Logajan) writes:
>>Since "hot" fusion is not quite to breakeven, and since muon catalyzed
>>("cold") fusion is not quite to breakeven, maybe they could be combined. 
>>One could pump muons into "hot" fusion systems and perhaps their combined
>>effects would be additive?  This hybrid would be a mix of "hot" and "cold"
>>and so could be dubbed "warm" fusion.
> 
> A good question, which is unusual for this group.  I had this idea
> once, and I think I also remember hearing about it many years ago when
> I was tangentially involved in magnetic fusion.  I believe that
> unfortunately, the muons don't help the hot confinement and the hot
> confinement, in particular the low density of a tokamak plasma, renders
> the muons useless.  At low densities the muon decays before there
> are very many fusions.
> 
> Think of it this way:  Fusion is like opening a lot of vault doors.  In
> muon-catalyzed fusion, you have a very expensive skeleton key (the muon)
> which unfortunately occasionally jams in the door (muon capture), and
> when that happens you have to get a new key for the next door.  In
> magnetic fusion, you have a huge battering ram to break down the door,
> but it takes so much work that it isn't quite worth it.  Your hybrid is
> like unlocking the door with the key and THEN breaking it down.
> 
> It's conceivable to me that muons might help laser fusion, because that
> is a high density affair.  I'm sure that the laser people have thought
> of this and rejected it for some simple reason; let's try to guess the
> reason.  My guess is that you would need a lot of muons in a hurry and
> at just the right time and place, and it's not possible to deliver the
> muons that way.  Either that or muons don't really help hot fusion of
> any kind.

Greg is essentially correct in his analysis above.  However, there has been
some work on combining mu-c-f with inertial-confinement fusion (ICF) by
injecting muons into the d-t pellet just prior to zapping it (with ions or
laser).  I'll look up the references and post on this later.  It's actually not
such a bad idea, John, that you bring up -- but there are problems which we
can explore further.

--Steven Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenjonesse cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.26 /  jonesse@physc1 /  FREE THE QUARKS!
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: FREE THE QUARKS!
Date: 26 Mar 94 13:32:47 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

In article <940325113815.23a02bb5@FNALD.FNAL.GOV>, DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:
> Richard Schroeppel suggests anit-proton catalyzed fusion.  Sure, but don't
> forget Tau catalyzed (next lepton up in the electron, muon, tau series)
> fusion.  But you have to be quick!
> 
> Tom Droege
> 

Preceeding the fusion step, the muon first forms an atom (e.g., t-mu or d-mu),
then a d-t-muonic molecular ion.  In this d-t-mu ion, the d and t are bound
so closely together that fusion occurs in about a *pico*second.  It's the
atomic and molecular states where the mu spends most of its time.  If it were
strongly interacting, like the anti-proton (also pions, etc.), it would be
gobbled up by the nucleus before fusion could occur--most likely!

The tau, as Tom correctly surmises, is too short-lived to be of use in 
multiple catalysis processes.  George Zweig once suggested free quarks might
catalyzed fusion like the mu -- but only if they are not hadronic!  (And if
free quarks exist!)

--Steven Jones

cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenjonesse cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.27 / Jed Rothwell /  The usual garbage from Richard Blue
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: The usual garbage from Richard Blue
Date: Sun, 27 Mar 1994 04:09:37 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org

Dick Blue has given us his usual line of misinformed crap, imagination,
and lies here regarding the Miles paper. It is amazing how much garbage
he can shove into a few paragraphes without even reading the paper! I
cannot possibly counter *all* of his nonsense, but let me just defuse a
few points:


     "The abstract of a forthcoming paper by Dr. Miles as posted by Jed
     Rothwell.."

Not forthcoming. It has forth come. I stated very clearly that the paper
has been published.


     "Let us start by asking whether the error sources mentioned in the
     Miles abstract do not fully apply to all of the early experimental
     results with which Miles is associated.

Yes, let's do that, Dick. First, read the damn paper. You will see that he
avoided all of those errors in his experiments.


     "I may have to reread those early papers to be sure of this point, but
     my recollection is that his calorimeter was of the crudest sort with no
     consideration given to the kinds of error sources he now sees in this
     method."

Your recollection hell! You have no such recollection, you made up that
statement just now. It is a stinking lie. If you actually go and read his
papers -- for the first time in your life, no doubt -- or if you read the new
paper you will see how he fixed the problems with software and hardware most
elegantly.


     "I would also urge that Dr. Miles apply his new insights into the
     basic problems of calorimetry to a reexmination of Pons and
     Fleishcmann's contributions to cold fusion research."

P&F contributions are discussed explicitely in the paper. I would urge
you to read the damn paper. Just once in your life, before you start blabbing,
read the paper!


     "As an aside, I wonder whether Jed Rothwell has learned anything
     from his correspondence with Dr. Miles as to how easy and
     straightforward calorimetry is.  Does the Rothwell toothbrush
     box calorimeter satisfy Dr. Miles new standards?

I corresponded with Dr. Miles about the toothbrush box calorimeter before I
published the paper. Yes, I am sure it satisfies the standards, which are not
new, they go back about 150 years. They are only new to Richard Blue, who
doesn't know shit from shineola about calorimetry or cold fusion because he
has never bothered to read any papers. My baby calorimeter has a much easier
time satisfying the requirements for straightforward calorimetery than the
calorimeters of Miles or the ones at MIT or Cal Tech in 1989 for these
reasons, which I am sure are completely over Dick Blue's head:

1. I am measuring 10 to 100 times greater power. That makes it much easier.

2. I am measuring joule heating, not electrolysis.

3. I am not trying to achieve milliwatt precision. One watt, or maybe 500
milliwatt precision is fine for my purposes. It is *far* easier to make a
crude instrument capable of measuring to the nearest 500 mw than to make
a precision instrument like the ones Miles uses.

- Jed

cudkeys:
cuddy27 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.28 / John Logajan /  Re: Two types of SL
     
Originally-From: 74242.1554@compuserve.com (John M. Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Two types of SL
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 1994 01:41:18 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Steve Jones distinguishes between two types of SL:
"1- Transient SL" and "2- Stable single-bubble SL  (SB-SL)."

I take it he means by "single bubble" that a bubble repetitively forms at
the same site, rather than suggesting that only one bubble may be present
for the effect to occur.  If so, then the two forms might naturally
co-exist. 

One reason to suppress the transient SL's would be so that they don't
interfere with studies of the synchronous variety.  Another reason is
that they might act as significant energy loss points, turning soundwaves
into heat and light.


cudkeys:
cuddy28 cuden1554 cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Mon Mar 28 04:37:04 EST 1994
------------------------------
1994.03.27 / Robert Heeter /  (Long) Part 5, Conventional Fusion Proto-FAQ - Recent Results
     
Originally-From: rfheeter@theory.pppl.gov (Robert F. Heeter)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: (Long) Part 5, Conventional Fusion Proto-FAQ - Recent Results
Subject: Re: Laymen Q: Was Princeton's Fusion a 'breakthrough?'
Date: 27 Mar 1994 21:00:52 -0500
Organization: /etc/organization
Organization: Joint European Torus

Section 5. Recent Results 

First Draft - March 27, 1994

***  A.  Recent Results on TFTR:
	
* (a) What was done?

The Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor (TFTR) here at Princeton 
switched from pure-deuterium fuel to a deuterium-tritium 
(D-T) fuel mixture in December 1993.  As discussed in 
Section 1, the D-T fuel is easier to fuse, but the neutrons 
produced in the reaction D + T -> 4He + n will slowly make 
the reactor radioactive, so this set of experiments will 
be the last for TFTR.  In these reactions, over 6 million 
watts (MW) of fusion power were produced for about a second.  
This is four times more power than any previous controlled 
fusion experiment.  The value of 6 MW should be compared to
the roughly 30 MW of input power used, which indicates that
fusion in TFTR remains short of breakeven.  (See glossary for
explanations of unfamiliar terminology.)

(There was an article on this in _Time_, Dec 20, 1993, p. 54, 
at least in the American edition; there are of course other 
articles out there too.  See Section 9, Part A (the bibliography
on recent literature) for more references.)


*	(b) Why does it matter?

The generation of multi-megawatt levels of fusion power is a major
achievement for the controlled fusion program.  Sustaining the
power output for a second is also significant, because most
known plasma instabilities occur much more quickly.  Also, use 
of tritium to achieve high power levels enables researchers to 
study plasmas under conditions closer to those of a working 
fusion reactor.  There are effects due to the heavier tritium 
ions, and due to the presence of highly energetic helium ions
produced in the fusion reaction.  In particular, scientists
were worried that the energetic He ions might trigger new plasma
instabilities.  (Plasmas are notorious for finding new ways to
misbehave whenever scientists manage to improve the operating 
conditions.)  Fortunately, no major instabilities were observed,
and in fact early reports are that plasma performance actually
improves in high-power D-T conditions.  These results enhance
the prospects for future experiments which will try to achieve
even higher power outputs in nearly steady-state conditions.
(See Section 8 for more information on future experiments.)


***  B.  Recent Results on JET

JET ran some experiments in 1991 using a 10% tritium mix, and 
produced 1.7 megawatts of fusion power.  Since then researchers
have been reconfiguring the machine.  (Anybody know if plasma
operation has begun?)
 
Appended below are comments adapted from a post I made on Feb 12, 
1994 (which in turn referenced a Dec 14, 1993 posting by 
Stephen Cooper at JET), which provide more background to the 
JET & TFTR results.  


***  C.  Recent Results in Inertial Confinement Fusion

(Anybody got any info?  I haven't had time to look yet.)

***  D.  Recent Results from other areas.

(Anyone care to advertise your favorite approach?


***  E.  Appendix on TFTR and JET results

*********************************************
TFTR results vs JET results from 1991:
(Written by Stephen R. Cooper at JET, with comments [like this] 
by R.F. Heeter.)

>From src@jet.uk Tue Dec 14 11:14:34 EST 1993
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Laymen Q: Was Princeton's Fusion a 'breakthrough?'
Organization: Joint European Torus
References: <2ebdvg$44e@Mercury.mcs.com> <2ei3vk$o7o@mailer.fsu.edu>

In <2ei3vk$o7o@mailer.fsu.edu> jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
writes:
>As I recall, the reports from JET in November 1991 indicated a Q of
>about 1/9 for the light load of T, with plans to increase the T 
>to 50% by 1996.  I think their extrapolation to 50% indicated 
>they would be very close to breakeven at that point, but do not
>recall the details. 

>Could some JET person fill us in?

[ Note by rfheeter: Q is the ratio of power produced in the
machine by fusion to power put into the machine to heat
the plasma. Q = 1 means fusion yield is equal to power
input.  Economical fusion will require Q significantly 
greater than 1.  See the glossary (Section 10) for more details.]

Results quoted from "The JET Preliminary Tritium Experiment", 
invited talk given to the 1992 International Conference on 
Plasma Physics by P-H Rebut, Innsbruck, Austria, 29th June-3rd 
July 1992).

"Two Deuterium plasmas were heated by high power deuterium 
neutral beams from fourteen sources and fuelled by two neutral 
beam sources injecting tritium. In the best of the two D-T 
discharges, the tritium concentration was about 11% of bulk plasma 
at peak performance, when the total neutron emmision rate was 
6.0E17 per second, with 1.7MW of fusion power. The fusion 
amplification factor Q(DT) was 0.15. With an optimum tritium 
concentration, this pulse would have produced a fusion power 
of ~ 5MW and nominal Q(DT) of 0.46. The same extrapolation for 
the best pure deuterium discharge of the PTE series gives about 
11MW and a nominal Q(DT) of 1.14.

[ Note by rfheeter:  neutral beams are made by accelerating
deuterium ions, and then neutralizing the ions so that they
can fly into the magnetic field of the tokamak without being
deflected.  As they enter the plasma, they are re-ionized
and their energy is subsequently shared with the other 
ions in the plasma.  Thus this is a method for simultaneously
heating and refueling the plasma. See glossary for more info...]

The total integrated total neutron yield was 7.2E17 with an 
accuracy of +/- 7% and the total fusion energy was about 2MJ. 
The tritium injections last just 2 seconds out of a 10 second, 
3MA flat top. The amount of tritium injected and the limited 
number of shots were deliberatly restricted for operational 
convenience."

[ Note by rfheeter:  2 MJ = 2 million joules = 1 million
watts for a duration of 2 seconds, or 2 million watts for
a duration of one second.  1 Joule = 1 watt * 1 second.
A "10 second, 3 MA flat top" refers to the relatively stable
flat peak of a current-vs-time graph, indicating that
the plasma current is stable at about 3 million amps
(3 MA) for 10 seconds.  "Operational convenience" should
probably be interpreted as "because we didn't want to
make our reactor too radioactive, and tritium handling
is a pain." - that's an editorial comment. ]

--> Personal remarks start 
[this Cooper writing now, and not quoting others.]

The above seems to indicate that if JET had gone into it's full 
D-T phase at this time and with this configuration, we certainly
should have got to 50% of breakeven. As to if we could have 
matched our best deuterium pulse, I guess we would have come 
close especially as the TFTR results show no pathological 
problems with a 50/50 D-T mix. But this is all hypothetical, 
we no longer have anything like the configuration we had in 
1991, we're just about to finish a major shutdown incorporating 
a pumped divertor to look at impurity control and ash removal. 
The old H mode shots that the 1991 experiment were based on 
are a thing of the past and we'll have to wait and see how she 
performs with the new configuration.

[ Note by rfheeter: a "divertor" is a magnetic or physical
way of channeling particles from the edge of the plasma
out of the way, and helps to improve confinement of the plasma
as well as remove impurities. "H mode" is a relatively
stable operational mode of the tokamak, as contrasted with
"L mode", which is less stable.  I believe H = High and
L = Low, referring to high and low confinement.]

[[ I have omitted the rest of the article to save some space. ]]

Stephen R Coope          Physics Operations Group
src@jet.uk               Operations Division, JET.
Disclaimer: Please note that the above is a personal view and 
should not be construed as an official comment from the JET project.

******************
Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@theory.pppl.gov
Graudate Student, Princeton Plasma Physics Lab
Disclaimers Apply



cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.27 / Paul Schauble /  sci.physics.fusion archive
     
Originally-From: pls@crl.com (Paul Schauble)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: sci.physics.fusion archive
Date: 27 Mar 1994 21:57:50 -0700
Organization: CRL Dialup Internet Access

My apologies for asking this again, but could someone please tell me 
where the archives for this group are located?

    ++PLS
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenpls cudfnPaul cudlnSchauble cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.28 / Dieter Britz /  CNF bibliography updates and archive retrieval, 28-Mar-94.
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CNF bibliography updates and archive retrieval, 28-Mar-94.
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 1994 11:34:29 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway


Current count:
-------------
  8 books
889 papers
137 patents
213 comment items
 81 peripherals
 19 conf-procs
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Journal papers:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
#
Grant PM, Whipple RE, Alcaraz A, Haas JS, Andresen BD;
Fusion Technol. 25 (1994) 207.
"Hydrocarbon oil found in the interior of a 'cold fusion' electrolysis cell
after fatal explosion".
** This team of forensic scientists here report on the explosion of a cnf
electrolysis cell at SRI on Jan 2, 1992, which killed Andrew Riley and injured
McKubre. Examination of the debris showed the presence of hydrocarbon oil, 
presumably from the lubricant residues from the machining of some parts of the
cell. This oil may have reacted with the pressurised oxygen generated in the 
cell and this could in turn have initiated the explosion.  Oct-92/Mar-94
#..................................................................24-Mar-94
Kuehne RW;  Fusion Technol. 25 (1994) 198.
"The possible hot nature of cold fusion".
** The author has previously suggested fractofusion or, as he calls it, micro-
hot fusion (MHF) as the most plausible mechanism of cold fusion. He cites a
large volume of supporting literature among the 84 references given at the
end. Here he provides more evidence for MHF and claims that it can explain
observations, including the burst nature of cnf. The model is based on the
formation of "deuterid bubbles", which cause cracks to form near the surface
in Pd but away from the surface in Ti. This would be accompanied by acoustic
emissions, which have in fact been detected. The bubbles and cracks are
charged and thus, radio and low electron emission is also expected, and found.
Deuterons will then be accelerated by the potential fields up to 100 keV,
enough to allow fusion. Most of them will however just be slowed down again
without fusion; this explains the anomalous heat/neutron results. Electrons
are bound and cannot neutralise the fields. There are some problems with the
model but these are easily swept aside. Finally, Kuehne suggests how to
optimise cnf experiments. One must not clean the Pd cathodes too well or use
Pd of too high a purity;there must be no oxide layer; precharging is bad. 
Mar-93/Mar-94
#..................................................................24-Mar-94
Lipson AG, Deryagin BV, Klyuev VA, Toporov YuP, Sirotyuk MG, Khavroshkin OB,
Sakov DM;  Zh. Tekh. Fiz. 62(12) (1992) 121 (in Russian).
"Initiation of nuclear fusion by cavitation action on deuterium-containing
media".
** This is an update of an earlier work by the same team (in Pis'ma Zh. Teo.
Fiz. 16(9) (1990) 89), providing much the same data. Heavy and light water
cells, with and without suspensions of LaNi5 or LaNi5Dx particles, were
subjected to an ultrasonic Ti vibrator (22 kHz) while neutrons were measured
by a block of 7 proportional counters immersed in an oil bath and shielded by
1mm of Cd; overall efficiency: 1.5%. As before, the ultrasound vibrations
induce cavitation and for D2O, and D2O plus LaNi5Dx suspension, this produces
neutrons at about 5 sigmas above the background, ceasing when the ultrasound
is turned off. For a suspension of LaNi5, neutrons are only detected after the
ultrasound is turned off - the "after-effect".  Jul-90/Oct-90 
#.................................................................. 23-Mar-94
Takahashi A;  Koon Gakkaishi 19(5) (1993) 179 (in Japanese).
Cited in Chem. Abstr. 120:87961 (1993).
** CA: "A review with 11 refs. is presented with the emphasis on the important 
exptl. results and theor. model". The review seems to be up to date to the 
symposium ICCF3, and shows the familiar graphs of the dependence of excess 
heat on the D/Pd loading and on current density, mentiosn surface layers,
radiation measurements, He detection.
#.................................................................. 28-Mar-94
Yang J, Chen D, Zhou G, Wu Q, Huang J, Tang L, Cheng X, Xie D, Gu L;
Fusion Technol. 25 (1994) 203.
"'Abnormal' nuclear phenomena and possible nuclear process".
** Disputes on cold fusion are based on traditional fusion theory, say the
authors, and a new theoretical framework must be established to explain cold
fusion, which takes place in the low energy range. This is provided by
electron capture of excited deuterons, forming a dineutron, which can then
fuse without difficulty with a further deuteron. This is aided by a weak
interaction in the nuclear force, hitherto not believed to exist. As well as
d-2n fusion, there may be other fusion reactions between the dineutron and,
e.g., the Pd isotopes, leading to a number of energies of emissions. The
authors have calculated expected fusion rates, and these lie around observed
rates. The authors acknowledge that this model is as yet primitive but they
ask others to consider it and flesh it out.  Dec-92/Mar-94
#..................................................................24-Mar-94


Comments:
^^^^^^^^
#
Swinbanks D; Nature 367 (1994) 670.
"Is Japan throwing good money after bad science?"
** A comment on a decision in Japan to continue to finance (a) earthquake
prediction and (b) 'cold fusion'. MITI will spend $5.1m in (fiscal) 1994 on
'hydrogen energy', and DS wonders why, given the fact that there has yet to
appear any evidence of 'cold fusion' from that lab, and wonders about the
obvious lack of review of research projects in Japan. 
#.................................................................. 7-Mar-94
Hoffman NJ;  Fusion Technol. 25 (1994) 225.
Book Review: Bad Science; The Short Life and Weird Times of Cold Fusion",
             by Gary Taubes. Random House, NY 1993.
** Nathan Hoffman, a fusion scientist, and himself writing a book on cold
fusion, here reviews the Taubes book. He regards it as "a combination of soap
opera and mystery", complete with villains. The book, according to Hoffman, is
cynical, and he suggests that the allegations of fraud at Texas A&M (in
Science) were raised by Taubes as advertisement for his book. Hoffman writes
that the books is a collection of embellishments and as a result he now also
doubts the veracity of Taubes' first book "Nobel Dreams". 
#..................................................................24-Mar-94


Patents:
^^^^^^^
#
Sardin CG (Univ. Barcelona); Span. ES 2,037,628; Aug-90.
Cited in Chem. Abstracts 120:89078 (1994).
"Electrochemical nuclear reactors based on hybrid (H,D) cold fusion in a solid
matrix".
** "The cathode of the reactors is charged with H formed by the electrolysis 
of water, and contains a cavity  into which pressurized D, obtained by 
electrolysis of heavy water and stored in a receiver, is injected. The tube,
connecting the receiver for D with the cavity in the cathode serves also as 
elec. conduit. The metal of the cathode consists of Ti, Th, V, Zr, Pd, Nb, Ta, 
or of alloys with each other or other metals. Preferably the cathode consists
of Ti, Pd or Pd alloyed with Ag, and may be coated with a material that is 
impervious to H. The H is used as the combustible material, and the D as
combustion-inducing agent". (Direct quote from CA).
#.................................................................. 4-Mar-94
Ying NLL, Schults CW III (Quantum Nucleonics Corp.);
Eur. Pat. Appl. EP 576,293, 26-Jun-92.
Cited in Chem. Abstracts 120:119147 (1993).
"Energy production from the control of probabilities through quantum level 
induced interactions".
** "A cold fusion reaction is initiated on demand in a cell contg. D2O in 
which electrolysis occurs between a Pt and a Pd electrode. The Pd electrode 
collects D ions which are then caused to fuse by incident radiation from gamma 
and alpha radiation sources" (direct quote from CA).
#.................................................................. 25-Mar-94.


Retrieval of the archived files:
 ---------------------------------------------------------------
1. By anonymous FTP from vm1.nodak.edu (134.129.111.1).  Login
anonymous, with    your e-mail address as the password. Type CD
FUSION, DIR FUSION.CNF* to get    a listing. The general index is
large. Use GET (ie. GET FUSION.CNF-PAP1). 
2. Via LISTSERV. You get a (large) index of the archives by sending
an email    to listserv@vm1.nodak.edu, with a blank SUBJECT line, and
the "message"    'index fusion'. To get any one of these files, you
then send to the same    address the message, e.g., 
   get fusion 91-00487
   get fusion cnf-pap1         etc, according to what you're after.
 ------------------------------------------------------------------
The bib-files are: cnf-bks (books), cnf-pap1..cnf-pap6 (papers,
slices 1..6), cnf-pat (patents), cnf-cmnt (comments), cnf-peri
(peripherals), cnf-unp (unpublished stuff collected by Vince Cate,
hydrogen/metal references from Terry Bollinger). There is also the
file cnf-brif, which has all the -pap* file references without
annotations, all in one file (so far); and cnf-new, with the last
three months' or so of new items in all biblio files. 
 ------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
===================================================================

cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.29 /  vnoninski@fscv /  RTB Calorimeter
     
Originally-From: vnoninski@fscvax.fsc.mass.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RTB Calorimeter
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 1994 01:09:51 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Dear Colleagues,

Dick Blue should be advised that the arguments presented by Melvin Miles in 
J.Phys.Chem., 98, 1948 (1994) regarding Nathan Lewis' calorimetry have been 
previously published in Fusion Technology, 23, 474 (1993). Dick Blue may wish 
to read the latter manuscript and find out for himself how the "Rothwell 
toothbrush box calorimeter" compares with the ones described in Nathan 
Lewis' papers. Even if for some reason Dick Blue finds out that 
"Rothwell tothbrush box calorimeter" is worse he should, nevertheless, 
notice that "Rothwell tothbrush box calorimeter" has never been published 
either in Nature or in Science.

Truly yours,


Vesselin Noninski

cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenvnoninski cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.29 / Bill Page /  Re: Tough questions for Scott Chubb
     
Originally-From: 70047.3047@compuserve.com (Bill Page)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Tough questions for Scott Chubb
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 1994 01:11:54 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Steve Jones has asked some questions which (so far) have gone unanswered 
regarding Scott and Talbot Chubb's theory of ion band-state fusion.  
Perhaps Scott (who has posted several messages here) will be able to find 
the time to respond but in the mean time, I've decided that I'd like to 
give it a try. In some of my interpretation I may be wrong and I hope Scott 
(or anyone else) will jump in to correct me.  I've been reading (and 
re-reading) the two papers that where published in Fusion Technology: 1) 
"Cold Fusion as an Interaction Between Ion Band States", Vol. 20, Aug 1991; 
and 2) "Ion Band-State Fusion: Reactions, Power Density, and the Quantum 
Reality Question", Vol. 24, Dec 1993.  I recommend both of these papers 
very highly. But be warned!  A clear understanding of what the Chubb's are 
talking about requires some fairly advanced theoretical physics.  At the 
risk of great over simplification, I'll try to avoid appealing to anything 
except basic concepts in this post.

I think paper 2) addresses the core issue right up front in its title: "... 
the Quantum Reality Question".  Exactly what is meant by "de-localization" 
in band state matter?  Of course this is a "philosophical" question.  We 
know (in principle) how to do the quantum mechanical calculations.  Paper 
1) presents the details is a very clear manner. But is the model correct?  
Does it represent what *really* goes on in a dueterated metal cyrstal 
lattice?  On this subject the conventional interpretations of quantum 
mechanics are of little help.  And so far, all we have are some tentative 
experimental results.

The successful application of quantum mechanics to the solid state 
(temperature, heat, electrical resistance, magnetic properties, etc.) has 
given us a somewhat fuzzy intuitive notion of what it means for an electron 
to be de-localized within a lattice. A suitably constrained wave-like 
diffusion model is much more accurate than a particle description.  In this 
sense, a electron is not a point particle, rather it is spatially 
"spread-out" over a large number of lattice unit cells.  And this spreading 
out is *not* just a matter of uncertainty in "where" the electron *really* 
is.  Its behaviour is *non-local* in a deep quantum mechanical sense.

As the Chubb's point out, there is now quite good experimental evidence 
unrelated to researh in CF that indicates that (at least on metal surfaces) 
not only are electrons able to exist in this spread-out state but also 
protons and deuterons.  The significance of this is that we are forced to 
deal in a deeper way with what really goes on in an interaction between two 
particles in this de-localized state.  Unlike electrons, protons and 
deuterons are able to interact through the strong and weak nuclear forces 
in addition to electromagnetic forces (referred to as Coulomb or electronic 
interactions).

One of the main tentants of the Chubb's theory is that the spatial scale of 
the nuclear interactions (<10^-15 metres) can be separated from the scale 
of the electronic interactions(about 10^-10 meters).  The principle of the 
separation of these two interactions is well accepted in quantum theories 
of the solid state and in quantum chemistry.  It turns out that the 
periodic structure of the metal lattice has a very significant impact on 
the way in which particles can interact electronically but does not affect 
the nuclear interactions.  The result is that while two point-like 
deuterons in a plasma are prevented from fusing (except under extreme "hot 
fusion" conditions) by their mutual Coulomb repulsion, such is not the case 
for two deuterons in a de-localized state in a lattice.  The Chubb's 
present a model in which the electronic charge of the de-localized deutrons 
has been spread-out over a large number of unit cells of the lattice.  This 
leaves much more freedom for nuclear fusion at much lower initial energies.

But there are still restrictions in what nuclear reactions are possible.  
Specifically, both the intial reaction products and the final reaction 
products must occuppy band states (that is, they must remain de-localized). 
 More over, only reactions in which the initial and final products obey 
Bose statistics are allowed.  They call this the Boson-in Boson-out 
selection rule.

This last requirement needs some explanation.  A set of otherwise identical 
particles is said to obey Fermi statistics if the evolution of the system 
of particles is such that all the particles are preferentially in different 
quantum states.  This is the case for all spin 1/2 particles, specifically 
electrons and protons.  Fermi statistics are very important in determining 
the electrical and heat conductivity of metals as well as a number other 
important physical properties. On the other hand identical particles that 
obey Bose statistics preferential occuppy exactly the same state.  This is 
the case for all non spin 1/2 particles such as photons (spin 0) and 
deuterons (spin 1).

So the only nuclear reaction that is permitted between two deutrons by this 
theory is

  D + D -> He4 + (24 MeV)

The other two possibilities (which have a much higher probability of 
occurring in hot fusion) both produce pairs of spin 1/2 particles.

The quantum reality question is whether or not it is accurate to treat the 
Coulomb charge of the de-localized deuterons as spread-out over the unit 
cells of the lattice. This is very un-particle-like behaviour.  A particle 
is either in one place or another and cannot be in more than one place at 
the same time.  Electronic charge is (naively or classically) considered to 
be a property of a particle.  But here the particle must be treated more 
like a field (wave), al beit a quantum potential field represented by a 
wavefunction.  The convential interpretation of quantum mechanics does not 
admit the notion of classical particles as such, rather it tells us that 
the interaction between two "particles" via electronic charge will be 
modified by the associated wavefunctions (which are spread-out over space). 
 It is, however ambiguous with respect to the sense in which the charge is 
spread-out over space.  Is the charge *really* spread-out or is this "just" 
a consequence of the special type of statistics that is implied by the 
interpretation of the square of the absolute value of the wavefunction as a 
probability density?

The Chubb's point out that the well known phenomena of Bragg scattering 
"involves point-like matter interfering as a delocalized wave with a 
crystal lattice and being detected as point-like matter in the far field 
[after reflection]".  They claim that "With band-state matter, the 
situation is reversed: Band-state matter is normally standing-wave-like and 
transiently interacts at a point.".

So now, with this context I'll see what answers I can find for Steve's 
questions...

Steve Jones wrote:
<<
1.  Just how do you conserve *momentum* in this process, in which an alpha 
particle is produced and the (much more massive) phonon-system is given the 
energy?  

Note that in the Mossbauer effect, just the *opposite* is observed, that 
is, the lighter particle (gamma) carries essentially all the energy so that 
the lattice picks up perhaps one-millionth of the energy released in the 
reaction.  This is *consistent*,
of course, with conservation of momentum and energy.

Scott dealt with the energy question, but I want him to face the momentum 
conservation problem squarely.
>>

Bill Page's (tentative) answer:

Unlike in conventional fusion, a high velocity (temperature) collision is 
not required to over come the Coulomb barrier.  Thus there is no need to be 
concerned about problems of conservation of momentum of the initial 
reactants.  The product is a de-localized band-state He++ and as such may 
have a very restricted range of possible momentum values.  The 24 MeV is 
not released as a gamma photon, instead the kinetic energy is distributed 
directly over the lattice sites involved in the reaction as an increase in 
the zero-point motion of the other initial band-state deuterons and the 
final band-state He++ also occuppying these lattice sites.  The Bose 
statistics provide the means by which this transfer of energy can take 
place in an amount of time appropriate for the nuclear interaction.

Perhaps this sounds like too much "hand-waving".  The Chubb's do, however 
provide a detailed calculation in paper 1) pages 96-97.  One of the 
interesting consequences of this calculation is that the reaction rate 
partly depends on the concentration of the He++.  They say: "This means 
that band-state 4He++ can help to promote the nuclear reaction.".

Steve wrote:
<<
2.  Show how you can reconcile transferring the 23 MeV of energy in this 
reaction to the lattice (whose spacing is a few angstroms) when the 
*uncertainty principle*  allows the energy to remain virtual for only about 
10^-3 angstroms.  Or will you violate speed-of-light constraints?

Scott broached this, but not quantitatively.  But the uncertainty principle 
allows us -- requires us -- to be quantitative.  Try again, Scott.
>>

The notion of a de-localized band state is significantly different than the 
free particle case.  The naive application of the uncertainty principle and 
speed of light constraints are not appropriate in this case.  This is not 
to say that quantum mechanics is in any way violated, but rather that the 
situation in the lattice is considerably more complicated.  The Chubb's 
theory does not require that the energy remain virtual.  See my answer to 
the previous question.

Steve wrote:
<<
3.  Show how you can reconcile your hypothesis with observations that in 
muon-catalyzed fusion (the *only verified* form of *cold* fusion!) we find 
that

d+d --> 3He + n (about 50%)
d+d --> t + p (about 50%)
d+d --> 4He + whatever (too small to observe in mu-c-f expts.;
     measured at about 10-7 the other two branches in hot fusion 
experiments)

Now this is a toughie.  No matter how you get the excited 4He nucleus, it 
will decay according to certain rules.  What changes the branching ratios 
in 'cold fusion', Scott? -- and explain this without upsetting observed 
BR's in muon-catalyzed cold fusion!
>>

Actually, this is answered quite explicitly in appendix B of paper 1) pages 
412-415.  The mathematics involves a second-quantized quantum field theory 
which I am only barely able to follow but the conclusion is the boson-in 
boson-out selection rule mentioned above.

Steve wrote:
<<
4.  Show us the data that supports your [statement] that d-d-->4He+lattice 
energy accounts for "much of what has been seen."   And don't give us Miles 
et al. -- we've been through those overblown claims at length already.  How 
about McKubre, Scott -- how much 4He has he seen?

You made the statement, Scott.  I'm asking you to reconsider, or give us 
supporting data.
>>

I think, Steve, that McKubre still says that he has not made sufficiently 
accurate measurements of 4He in order to draw any conclusions other than 
upper limits. Miles et al. have published new results which seem 
considerably less over blown.  Like you, I'd like to see more data and I 
also expect so would the Chubb's.  In 1991 (paper 1) they quoted Liaw et 
al. (including Bruce Liebert who has recently posted here) as observing "a 
nonchemical heat output of approximately 12.5 times electrolytic power 
input" and "the presence of 4He [in the Palladium electrode] in 
concentrations not observed in an unused piece of palladium from the same 
source".  Personally, I still favour an approach where at least some of the 
observed heat comes from a non-nuclear exotic quantum chemistry reaction 
(in spite of my negative review of J. P. Vigier's ICCF-4 paper).

Cheers,

Bill Page.

cc. Scott Chubb.

cudkeys:
cuddy29 cuden3047 cudfnBill cudlnPage cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.29 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Re: Miles letter posted by Rothwell
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Miles letter posted by Rothwell
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 1994 01:12:07 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Miles takes the traditional reactionary view.  We have always done it this 
way so don't try to do it any new way.  Sorry, but this medium is here and
experimental work will be discussed.  

As I have said before, this is a college.  It is like having a lot of the 
experts in one field in one place, where you can just walk out in the hall
and join in a discussion.  Science moves much faster when this is possible.
That is why we build universities.  

Sure, we will likely always have the review process and published papers.  But
in the future is likely to be done only for the "record".  The real results 
will long since have been argued out in this medium - or it's even better 
successor!

Tom Droege

cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenDROEGE cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.28 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Letter from Miles
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Letter from Miles
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 1994 15:53:02 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <940325191341_72240.1256_EHB136-1@compuserve.com>,
Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> wrote:
>
>Dr. Melvin Miles sent me the following letter with a note: "Please post this
>on e-mail." He also enclosed a copy of the paper referred to herein, which was
>published after he wrote the letter. Some details from the paper appear below.
...
>     A critical assumption made by many laboratories is the steady-state
>approximation for their isoperibolic calorimetric system. In point of fact,
>there is no steady state during D2O + LiOD electrolysis for either the cell
>voltage or the cell temperature. Exact calorimetric measurements, therefore,
>require either the numerical evaluation of the nonlinear, inhomogeneous
>differential equation that governs the behavior of the calorimeter or the
>solution of this equation to yield the integral form. Approximate solutions
>require, at the very least, an experimental evaluation of the terms involving
>the time dependency of the cell temperature, cell voltage, and cell contents
>in order to justify the omission of any of these terms. This has not been done
>by most laboratories reporting electrochemical calorimetric results including
>studies by Lewis et al. [1], Williams et al., [2], Albagli et al. [3] and
>Wilson et al. [4]

     And apparently Pons and Fleishmann.  However, this is all wonderful, 
     but from whence does Mr. Miles derive his 'nonlinear, inhomogeneous
     differential equation'?

                             dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.28 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Letter from Miles
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Letter from Miles
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 1994 16:02:57 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <940326100715_74242.1554_BHR27-1@compuserve.com>,
John M. Logajan <74242.1554@compuserve.com> wrote:
>M. Miles, B. Bush, D. Stilwell write:
>>temperature difference, Delta T, defines the total output power from the
>>cell to its surroundings; thus any power (P[x]) must be included in
>>defining the total power. This neglect of P[x] by Lewis et al. in the
>>equation defining *h* would lead to an increase in the heating
...
>Miles et al show that the same difficulties that face the proofs of
>anomalous heat also face the disproofs.  He who publishes a negative
>result must convince us that he has solved the calorimetric ambiguities
>that have befuddled positive claimers.

     No, it further strikes at the core of those who would claim
     heretofore unknown fusion in PdD systems.  After all, why does 
     one need to 'disprove' something for which there is no evidence?

                               dale bass

cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.28 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Re: Two types of SL
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Two types of SL
Date: 28 Mar 94 10:15:35 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

In article <940327172712_74242.1554_BHR23-1@CompuServe.COM>, 74242.1554@
ompuserve.com (John M. Logajan) writes:
> Steve Jones distinguishes between two types of SL:
> "1- Transient SL" and "2- Stable single-bubble SL  (SB-SL)."
> 
> I take it he means by "single bubble" that a bubble repetitively forms at
> the same site, rather than suggesting that only one bubble may be present
> for the effect to occur.  If so, then the two forms might naturally
> co-exist. 

In order to get SB-SL as we currently seek, one must first rid the fluid
(water now) of dissolved gases, reaching a very low level of these.   It is the
dissolved gases that form bubbles during rarefaction, leading to transient SL
throughout the volume of the liquid exposed to the sound field. 

But when dissolved gases are eliminated, and a resonant standing-wave sound
field is created, then a single bubble can be *injected* at an anti-node,
and that bubble will be levitated there and repeatedly collapse and reform.
Conditions have to be just right to get a *stable, single-bubble*, including
low dissolved gases and fine-tuning of the natural resonance of the system.
Again, I emphasize that SB-SL is distinct from transient (garden-variety) SL.

> 
> One reason to suppress the transient SL's would be so that they don't
> interfere with studies of the synchronous variety.  Another reason is
> that they might act as significant energy loss points, turning soundwaves
> into heat and light.
> 
Correct.  
Let me add now that we have completed another series of runs using transient
SL:
1.  In D2O
2.  In electrolyte, with a titanium driving head (this is like the Russian
[Lipson] experiment which Dick Blue recently commented on).
3.  In mercury
In each case, we bubbled D2 gas through the fluid, in order to collapse 
deuterium.  The experiments were performed in our most sensitive neutron
detector (15% efficiency approx/.  0.7 background counts per HOUR).

The result:  *NO* neutron signal was seen, neither neutron bursts nor neutron
singles.  This is the second attempt to reproduce the Russian experiment, the
first being in 1992 - we saw *no* neutrons then either.  This is another
reason why I continue to emphasize the difference between transient SL, where
fusion is exceedingly unlikely (and we have looked already), and
stable, single-bubble SL, where no one has looked yet but where fusion *may*
be possible.  It's worth a look.

--Steven Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenjonesse cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.28 / Eric Wilner /  Re: Purple Cows
     
Originally-From: eric@iptcorp.com (Eric Wilner)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Purple Cows
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 1994 19:07:18 GMT
Organization: IPT Corporation

czar@vnet.IBM.COM (Steve Czarnecki) writes:
: In <JAKE.94Mar18184121@nucst6.neep.wisc.edu> james blanchard writes:
: >>>I never saw a purple cow.
: >>>I never hope to see one.
: >>>I'll tell you all right here and now,
: >>>I'd rather see than be one!
: >>The author is Gellett Burgess, I believe.  I think the third line should be
: >>something like "But I can tell you anyhow."
: >
: >Hmm.  I thought it was Ogden Nash.  Oh well.
: 
: Don't give up the ship so easily.  I also vote for Ogden Nash.

Definitely Burgess.  He allegedly also wrote a sequel:

	Yes, I wrote "The Purple Cow."
	I wish I never wrote it,
	But I can tell you anyhow:
	I'll kill you if you quote it!

There have of course been imitations by others, such as:

	I never saw a vitamin.
	I never hope to see one.
	But I can tell you anyhow,
	I'd rather C than B1.
		(author unknown, at least to me)

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|   Eric J. Wilner        (Silicon Gulch Gumby)          eric@iptcorp.COM     |
|            Avian upper stage: Aratinga S. ("Tinga") Bird                    |
|   work:  415-494-7500    home:  408-744-1845      flames:  900-767-1111     |
+------------ DISCLAIMER -------------+------------- PROVERB -----------------+
|Use with adequate ventilation. Not   |Avoid computer viruses: practice safe  |
|responsible for lost or stolen       |hex.                                   |
|articles. MC/VISA (3% charge).       |                                       |
+------ The author is insane.   Any beables are those of Great Cthulhu. ------+
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudeneric cudfnEric cudlnWilner cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.28 / James Crotinger /  Re: anti-proton catalyzed fusion
     
Originally-From: jac@moonshine.llnl.gov (James A. Crotinger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: anti-proton catalyzed fusion
Date: 28 Mar 94 22:47:45 GMT
Organization: Magnetic Fusion Energy - LLNL

bpc@netcom.com (Benjamin P. Carter) writes:
> An antiproton coming to rest in ordinary matter is not exactly
> a catalyst.  Rather, it annihilates with a nucleon, converting
> approximately twice its own mass into energy.  No fusions occur
> in the process.

  Well, actually this process takes a finite amount of time, and
during that time you might get some gain. I don't know any of the
details (so don't bother emailing me for them), but I did attend a
talk some months back that gave an overview of alternative fusion
concepts. Anti-proton catalyzed fusion was one of the ideas mentioned.

  Jim
--
 ------------------------------------------------/\--------------------------
James A. Crotinger     Lawrence Livermore N'Lab // \ The above views are mine
jac@moonshine.llnl.gov P.O. Box 808;  L-630 \\ //---\  and are not neces-
(510) 422-0259         Livermore CA  94550   \\/Amiga\  sarily those of LLNL.
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenjac cudfnJames cudlnCrotinger cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.29 / Dieter Britz /  Re: Contributions to the CF literature
     
Originally-From: kemidb@aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Contributions to the CF literature
Date: 29 Mar 94 06:24:57 GMT
Organization: Aarhus University, Denmark

In <94032610311135@nscl00.nscl.msu.edu> blue@nscl00.nscl.msu.edu writes:

>I have run accross some items of interest to followers of the
>CF saga.  Firstly, an abstract of an item for the bibliography:
>To be published in Technical Physics, July 1993,

>"Generation of nuclear fusion products by the combined action of
>cavitation and electrolysis of a titanium surface in deuterated
>electrolytes."  Lipson, Lyakhov, Saunin, Deryagin, Toporov, Klyuev,
>and Sakov.

In a posting just before this, Dick mentions the "forthcoming" paper by
Miles et al in J. Phys. Chem. Both the Lipson et al and the Miles et al
have, quite recently, been included in an update. In fact, the archive has
at least two papers by the Lipson lot on this topic. They did much the same
thing a couple of years ago, with much the same results. So this 1993 paper
is a "we did it again!" paper.

-- 
Dieter Britz   alias kemidb@aau.dk
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenkemidb cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.29 / Dieter Britz /  Re: Contributions to the CF literature
     
Originally-From: kemidb@aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Contributions to the CF literature
Date: 29 Mar 94 06:48:10 GMT
Organization: Aarhus University, Denmark

In <94032610311135@nscl00.nscl.msu.edu> blue@nscl00.nscl.msu.edu writes:

>I have run accross some items of interest to followers of the
>CF saga.  Firstly, an abstract of an item for the bibliography:
>To be published in Technical Physics, July 1993,

>"Generation of nuclear fusion products by the combined action of
>cavitation and electrolysis of a titanium surface in deuterated
>electrolytes."  Lipson, Lyakhov, Saunin, Deryagin, Toporov, Klyuev,
>and Sakov.

I can't (or don't know how to) quote myself as well as Dick above, but I
just posted a bit of nonsense in response to this. Sorry, Dick. Not only
is the item I was talking about in an Update following Dick's posting - so
he couldn't have seen it at the time of his writing -, it is also about an
earlier paper by the Lipson team. So thanks, Dick, for the tip-off, I'll
chase it up. It seems they have done it again, twice.

-- 
Dieter Britz   alias kemidb@aau.dk
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenkemidb cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.29 / Dieter Britz /  Small correction to bibliography
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Small correction to bibliography
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 1994 08:03:37 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway


In my bibliographic update in Fusion Digest 2112, the Lipson et al item,

>Lipson AG, Deryagin BV, Klyuev VA, Toporov YuP, Sirotyuk MG, Khavroshkin OB,
>Sakov DM;  Zh. Tekh. Fiz. 62(12) (1992) 121 (in Russian).
>"Initiation of nuclear fusion by cavitation action on deuterium-containing
>media".
...
ends with the submission/publication dates information on the last line,

>ultrasound is turned off - the "after-effect".  Jul-90/Oct-90
                                                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
and this is incorrect. This line is now replaced with the correct one,

>ultrasound is turned off - the "after-effect".  Nov-91/?
                                                 ^^^^^^^^
This, for those of you who are interested in these dates (I am). The
correction has not yet gone into the archive file, and will not until the next
largish Update happens. 
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Tue Mar 29 05:54:58 EST 1994
------------------------------
1994.03.29 / SCOTT CHUBB /  Answers to Steve Jones's "tough questions"
     
Originally-From: CHUBB@cfe1.nrl.navy.mil (SCOTT CHUBB)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Answers to Steve Jones's "tough questions"
Subject: Re: Tough questions for Scott Chubb 
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 1994 09:09:19 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Subject: Re: Tough questions for Scott Chubb 

Recently, Steve Jones has raised a number of issues in s.p.f (see
tough questions for Scott Chubb) that have been stumbling blocks
for a number of Cold Fusion theories.  These issues also are
important because they point to important problems that most
physicists (including myself) believe must be answered for Cold
Fusion to be understandable in terms of conventional physics. 

In fact, Steve raised some of the more important issues (associated
for example with the uncertainty principle) several years ago.  In
our Como paper (from ACCF2), we actually have sited Steve as
raising these issues and provided a partial explanation of how an
alternative viewpoint, based on the rules of solid state physics
can be used to circumvent this problem with the uncertainty
principle. However, we have not given an explicit answer to this
question.  The question, as posed by Steve is the following:

-1.  Just how do you conserve *momentum* in this process, in which
-an alpha particle is produced and the (much more massive) 
-phonon-system is given the energy?  
....

In a recent communication, I partially dealt with this question by
stating that only a fraction of the energy in a particular reaction
is given off (in the ion band state picture) in each unit cell.  In
response to this, Steve wrote 

-Scott dealt with the energy question, but I want him to face the -
-momentum-conservation problem squarely.

-2.  Show how you can reconcile transferring the 23 MeV of energy 
-in this reaction to the lattice (whose spacing is a few angstroms)
-when the *uncertainty principle*  allows the energy to remain 
-virtual for only about 10^-3 angstroms.  

The underlying reason that the energy of the reaction can be
transferred to the lattice without violating either momentum or
energy conservation or the uncertainty is implicit in what I said
earlier.  The point is that we are invoking two principles,
particle indistinguishability and periodic order, in a manner that
alters the relevant physics in a manner that can not be understood
by a reaction-at-a-point picture.  Particle indistinguishability
(and the nature of the associated many-body wave function) is at
the heart of our answer to a second question raised later by Steve
(why is 4He the dominant reaction by-product).  The implications of
periodic order on the modes of reaction provides the key ingredient
associated with understanding how momentum and energy conservation
can still be operative and yet the reaction energy of 23 MeV can
remain trapped within the solid, despite the fact that this energy
can "exist" in a virtual state (at a point) only for 10^-3
angstroms.

How you may ask can this come about?


The reason is that when the idealization of periodic order holds,
for a particular time-scale (associated with the lifetime of the
periodically ordered state), within the domain associated with the
periodically ordered environment, a wide range of quantum
mechanically allowed interactions exist that do not disrupt
periodic order but allow for violation of energy/momentum
conservation at a point.  A simple way of viewing this is in fact
in terms of a kind of "glorious shell game" (but not a fictitious
one) in which the momenta of any number of particles shifts
arbitrarily in a prescribed manner that maintains periodic order. 

The specific values of momenta that are allowed to be changed in
this manner are those that preserve the underlying periodic order of the
solid.  Specifically, the allowable energies of potentially
reacting entities associated with this behavior obey the following
rule:

e(k)=e(k+G)       , (1)

where hbar x k is the amount of momentum that may be transferred to
the particles involved in this "shell game", and G is a reciprocal
lattice vector.  The important point is that there are infinitely
many G's in this relationship (for an infinitely large lattice),
and implicit in this relationship is a form of uncertainty
relationship that is drastically different than the one Steve Jones
has invoked:

Usual uncertainty relationship: 

                          delta (p) delta (x) > 1.5 hbar

Periodic ordered domain: 

                    delta (p up to hbar x G) delta (x) > 1.5 hbar

What are the implications of this?  In fact, of course, every
crystal has finite volume, so that only a finite subset of G's can
be involved with Eq. 1.  Even so, however, there are important
results associated with Eq. (1) that suggest it may apply, provided
crystal size is large enough.  In particular, implicit in Eq. (1)
is the kinematics of the Mossbauer effect. Eq. 1 also is the basis
of band theory both for ions (hydrogen ions) and electrons.  It
provides an important degeneracy, which is at the heart of the
wave-particle duality responsible for the fractional reactions that
we have pointed to as playing a role in the phenomena.

A very important point is that a large number of channels for
energy release also obey Eq. 1.  (Phonons obey it for example.)  As
a result the final density of state associated in any relevant rate
expression possesses a large number of channels for energy release
through these kinds of processes.  At low temperature, it is these
channels for interaction, which provide the dominant phase space
for interaction, that come into play, not the higher energy transitions 
involving large momentum transfer at a point.

An alternative way of phrasing this is the solid does provide a
fantastic "shell game" in which the locations and momenta of
potentially reactive ion band states are dominated by the
underlying periodic order and the associated possible
(approximately order preserving) channels for interaction: at
extremely low temperature, in fact, the need for large momentum at
a point is replaced by a new idea, the need to preserve periodic
order.

Steve also asked:

-3.  Show how you can reconcile your hypothesis with observations 
-that in muon-catalyzed fusion (the *only verified* form of *cold*
-fusion!) we find that 

-d+d --> 3He + n (about 50%)
-d+d --> t + p (about 50%)
-d+d --> 4He + whatever (too small to observe in mu-c-f expts.;
-      measured at about 10-7 the other two branches in hot fusion 
-      experiments)

The fact is muon-catalyzed fusion seems to be explainable in terms
of reaction-at-a-point physics.  There is nothing inconsistent with
this.  Reaction-at-a-point physics can be used to explain ordinary
fusion, and the standard Gamow/recoil types of arguements that have
been used in the past seem to work for conventional fusion and
muon-catalyzed fusion. 

-Now this is a toughie.  No matter how you get the excited 4He 
-nucleus, it will decay according to certain rules.  What changes 
-the branching ratios in
-'cold fusion', Scott? -- and explain this without upsetting 
-observed BR's in muon-catalyzed cold fusion!

I do agree that this "has been" a toughie for most reasonable
physicists to understand.  However, I would point out something
that is very different once the "reaction-at-a-point" picture is
dropped and the presence of a solid is introduced:  d+d->4He in
free space occurs with absolutely negligible probability because in
order to conserve momentum, it requires that a second "particle"
(in free space a gamma ray) be present in the final state, and this
occurs with small probability.  When more than the two deuterons
are involved in the initial state, a new possibilities unfold.

In fact, implicit in the ion band state picture, as I mentioned
above, is many-body interaction.  What I am referring to is the
possibility of indistinguishable deuterons sharing a common many-
body wave function, in which each d is allowed to exchange
locations with the remaining d's on all time-scales.  From this
picture, it simply is no longer true that the individual d's are
distinct from the remaining d's in the wave function.  This means
for example that initially there are many d's (at small
concentration) which potentially may overlap and interact.  With
this caveat, there is no strong reason for 4He to be excluded.

The question is why are the remaining by-products, 3H+p and 3He+n
excluded.  The fact is when there are small amounts of p around, it
may be possible to produce 3H through band state mediated
reactions.  However, when small amounts of p are not around, the
3H+p and 3He+n interactions also become disallowed.  The reason for
this also is associated with the underlying structure of the many-
body wave function and its limitations.  The reactions only occur
when the final state has appreciable overlap with the initial
state.  The short answer implications of this statement are that
because in the initial state each d occupies a band state and is
diffusely distributed (through interaction with the lattice
potential), 1) the final state must have similar spatial character, 2)
in the absence of magnetic effects, the final state can not possess
broken proton-neutron pairs, because if it does, it can not overlap
with the initial state.

-4.  Show us the data that supports your [statement] that 
-d-d-->4He+lattice
 
-energy accounts for "much of what has been seen."   And don't give
-us Miles et al. -- we've been through those overblown claims at 
-length already.

I would disagree with you that these claims are overblown.  A large
(more than 10) number of Navy scientists have thoroughly gone over
Miles's work. Results from steele flask work have been used to
attach greater confidence in these results.

The results also provide an explanation of the heat.  The "random
odd" probability of Miles's simply finding 4He in the cases where
he has found it is roughly 1/135000000 as you will see in his ICCF4
conference proceedings paper.

Clearly, outside confirmation by others is required to conclusively
nail down whether or not Miles's results are correct.  On-going
efforts are underway at SRI and IMRA to do this.  If you sincerely
question these results, may I suggest that it would be useful
potentially for you (or your collaborators) to actively follow what
is going on at these laboratories and at China Lake.


cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenCHUBB cudfnSCOTT cudlnCHUBB cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.28 / Robert Heeter /  Re: Reply to PFC's Paul Stek
     
Originally-From: rfheeter@flagstaff.Princeton.EDU (Robert Franklin Heeter)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reply to PFC's Paul Stek
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 1994 16:39:47 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

In article <940326124131_76570.2270_HHB55-1@CompuServe.COM> 76570.2270@c
mpuserve.com (Eugene Mallove) writes:
>(Paul Stek at MIT's Plasma Fusion Center writes:)
>>June 26, 1989: A "Wake for Cold Fusion" party is held at the MIT PFC
>
>>I may have been out of town, but I do not remember any official party
>>under this name.  I suspect the members of the team trying to duplicate 
>>P&F may have had a private party. 
>
>>Paul Stek
>>Stek@cmod.pfc.mit.edu
>
>The "Wake for Cold Fusion" DID occur, as Mitch Swartz has shown. I was invited
>to it -- it was on June 26, 1989, (NOT June 20).  A note at the bottom of the 
>PFC poster says "sponsored by the Center for Contrived Fantasies." I did not 
>attend.

There's no internal evidence in the poster that the party was sponsored
by the PFC.  Paul says there was no *official party*; you say there was
*a* party.  You did not attend the party.  If someone at MIT decided to 
hold a party and frivolously called it a "Wake for Cold Fusion", so what?

This does not directly indicate that the PFC was excessively biased
against cold fusion, only that someone thought it would be a cute name
for a party.

At this point, I really don't see how arguing about a party is going to
bolster anyone's case regarding bias by hot fusioneers against cold fusion.

--Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Graduate Student, Princeton Plasma Physics Lab
(May or may not make me qualified to discuss fusion physics; anyone 
and everyone else is free to judge for themselves.)


cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.30 / Jed Rothwell /  Letter from Miles
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Letter from Miles
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 1994 01:09:33 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org

Dale Bass, who is always ready to comment on papers he has not read, asks:

     "From whence does Mr. Miles derive his 'nonlinear, inhomogeneous
     differential equation'?"

Answer: from the last 200 years of calorimetry and electrochemistry. Read any
advanced textbook. See equations like (1), (2) and (3) on page 1949. You will
not find any significant errors.

- Jed

cudkeys:
cuddy30 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Wed Mar 30 04:37:04 EST 1994
------------------------------
1994.03.30 / John Logajan /  Re: Letter from Miles
     
Originally-From: 74242.1554@compuserve.com (John M. Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Letter from Miles
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 1994 01:09:36 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>John M. Logajan wrote:
>>He who publishes a negative result must convince us that he has solved
>>the calorimetric ambiguities that have befuddled positive claimers.

>No, it further strikes at the core of those who would claim heretofore
>unknown fusion in PdD systems.  After all, why does one need to
>'disprove' something for which there is no evidence?

You actually make three separate statements -- the first of which is a
philsophical error (i.e. "No".)  As I suggested previously, there are
three general categories of knowledge, [Positive Certainty], [Negative
Certainty], and [Uncertainty.]  If we want to move something from the
Uncertainty bin to either of the Positive or Negative Certainty bins,
then we have to meet the criteria that establishes certainty.

Therefore, yes, he who proclaims negative certainty must establish a
convincing basis for that claim.

Your second statement requires more evidence -- if Miles shows that
specific negative experiments suffered from specific sources of
ambiguity, that only reflects on similar positive experiments if they
suffered from similar sources of ambiguity.  That would have to be
determined on a case by case analysis and is not something that can be
claimed a priori about positive experiments in general.

Your third point is a mix of truth and personal valuation.  Why indeed
should anyone value anything?  Why should anyone be motivated to do
anything?  I certainly cannot answer that for anyone other than myself.

Whether or not there is evidence for cold fusion effects is the question
that confronts us.  Maybe you aren't interested in the subject.  Maybe you
are interested in stamp collecting or Sherlock Holmes murder mysteries.
Your interests play a large part in determining the strength of evidence
that will motivate you to further pursue the question.

Since knowledge is only moved from the Uncertainty bin into a Certainty
bin by human efforts, then those who initiated the efforts must have
initially been motivated by uncertain evidence.


cudkeys:
cuddy30 cuden1554 cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.30 / Eugene Mallove /  Reply to Heeter on MIT PFC Party
     
Originally-From: 76570.2270@compuserve.com (Eugene Mallove)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Reply to Heeter on MIT PFC Party
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 1994 06:38:50 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Robert Heeter writes:

>There's no internal evidence in the poster that the party was sponsored
>by the PFC.  Paul says there was no *official party*; you say there was
>*a* party.  You did not attend the party.  If someone at MIT decided to 
>hold a party and frivolously called it a "Wake for Cold Fusion", so what?

>This does not directly indicate that the PFC was excessively biased
>against cold fusion, only that someone thought it would be a cute name
>for a party.

>At this point, I really don't see how arguing about a party is going to
>bolster anyone's case regarding bias by hot fusioneers against cold fusion.

>--Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu

No, Robert, there WAS internal evidence on the poster of some level of PFC 
sponsorship. The building number and rooom is designated NW16-213, one of the 
several PFC buildings. The poster was faxed to me at the MIT News Office ( I 
can tell by the time and date (6/23/89) tag.).

I agree that the party alone does not conclusively prove PFC bias. There is, 
however, so much other supporting evidence that it is truly overwhelming. Just
one revealing example, from page 67 in Fire from Ice, pertaining to a time 
long before the calorimetry experiment was finished:

""When I [Gene Mallove] visited the lab on one occasion to see how things were
progressing, one researcher turned with a smile accompanied by evident venom 
toward the whole business and said --'Don't quote me, but it's crap!'"

This physicist is one of those with his name on the infamous "null result" 
paper.

Observe that Mr. Stek used the very same word --"crap" -- to describe P&F's 
work. Parker called it "scientific schlock" and then denied that he had said  
that to Tate.

No, Robert, the case for bias there is overwhelming. 

Cheers, Gene Mallove 

cudkeys:
cuddy30 cuden2270 cudfnEugene cudlnMallove cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.30 / SCOTT CHUBB /  Answers to "tough questions for Scott Chubb"--possibly posted twice
     
Originally-From: CHUBB@cfe1.nrl.navy.mil (SCOTT CHUBB)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Answers to "tough questions for Scott Chubb"--possibly posted twice
Subject: Re: Tough questions for Scott Chubb 
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 1994 08:58:34 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Subject: Re: Tough questions for Scott Chubb 

Recently, Steve Jones has raised a number of issues in s.p.f (see
tough questions for Scott Chubb) that have been stumbling blocks
for a number of Cold Fusion theories.  These issues also are
important because they point to important problems that most
physicists (including myself) believe must be answered for Cold
Fusion to be understandable in terms of conventional physics. 

In fact, Steve raised some of the more important issues (associated
for example with the uncertainty principle) several years ago.  In
our Como paper (from ACCF2), we actually have sited Steve as
raising these issues and provided a partial explanation of how an
alternative viewpoint, based on the rules of solid state physics
can be used to circumvent this problem with the uncertainty
principle. However, we have not given an explicit answer to this
question.  The question, as posed by Steve is the following:

-1.  Just how do you conserve *momentum* in this process, in which
-an alpha particle is produced and the (much more massive) 
-phonon-system is given the energy?  
....

In a recent communication, I partially dealt with this question by
stating that only a fraction of the energy in a particular reaction
is given off (in the ion band state picture) in each unit cell.  In
response to this, Steve wrote 

-Scott dealt with the energy question, but I want him to face the -
-momentum-conservation problem squarely.

-2.  Show how you can reconcile transferring the 23 MeV of energy 
-in this reaction to the lattice (whose spacing is a few angstroms)
-when the *uncertainty principle*  allows the energy to remain 
-virtual for only about 10^-3 angstroms.  

The underlying reason that the energy of the reaction can be
transferred to the lattice without violating either momentum or
energy conservation or the uncertainty is implicit in what I said
earlier.  The point is that we are invoking two principles,
particle indistinguishability and periodic order, in a manner that
alters the relevant physics in a manner that can not be understood
by a reaction-at-a-point picture.  Particle indistinguishability
(and the nature of the associated many-body wave function) is at
the heart of our answer to a second question raised later by Steve
(why is 4He the dominant reaction by-product).  The implications of
periodic order on the modes of reaction provides the key ingredient
associated with understanding how momentum and energy conservation
can still be operative and yet the reaction energy of 23 MeV can
remain trapped within the solid, despite the fact that this energy
can "exist" in a virtual state (at a point) only for 10^-3
angstroms.

How you may ask can this come about?


The reason is that when the idealization of periodic order holds,
for a particular time-scale (associated with the lifetime of the
periodically ordered state), within the domain associated with the
periodically ordered environment, a wide range of quantum
mechanically allowed interactions exist that do not disrupt
periodic order but allow for violation of energy/momentum
conservation at a point.  A simple way of viewing this is in fact
in terms of a kind of "glorious shell game" (but not a fictitious
one) in which the momenta of any number of particles shifts
arbitrarily in a prescribed manner that maintains periodic order. 

The specific values of momenta that are allowed to be changed in
this manner are those that preserve the underlying periodic order of the
solid.  Specifically, the allowable energies of potentially
reacting entities associated with this behavior obey the following
rule:

e(k)=e(k+G)       , (1)

where hbar x k is the amount of momentum that may be transferred to
the particles involved in this "shell game", and G is a reciprocal
lattice vector.  The important point is that there are infinitely
many G's in this relationship (for an infinitely large lattice),
and implicit in this relationship is a form of uncertainty
relationship that is drastically different than the one Steve Jones
has invoked:

Usual uncertainty relationship: 

                          delta (p) delta (x) > 1.5 hbar

Periodic ordered domain: 

                    delta (p up to hbar x G) delta (x) > 1.5 hbar

What are the implications of this?  In fact, of course, every
crystal has finite volume, so that only a finite subset of G's can
be involved with Eq. 1.  Even so, however, there are important
results associated with Eq. (1) that suggest it may apply, provided
crystal size is large enough.  In particular, implicit in Eq. (1)
is the kinematics of the Mossbauer effect. Eq. 1 also is the basis
of band theory both for ions (hydrogen ions) and electrons.  It
provides an important degeneracy, which is at the heart of the
wave-particle duality responsible for the fractional reactions that
we have pointed to as playing a role in the phenomena.

A very important point is that a large number of channels for
energy release also obey Eq. 1.  (Phonons obey it for example.)  As
a result the final density of state associated in any relevant rate
expression possesses a large number of channels for energy release
through these kinds of processes.  At low temperature, it is these
channels for interaction, which provide the dominant phase space
for interaction, that come into play, not the higher energy transitions 
involving large momentum transfer at a point.

An alternative way of phrasing this is the solid does provide a
fantastic "shell game" in which the locations and momenta of
potentially reactive ion band states are dominated by the
underlying periodic order and the associated possible
(approximately order preserving) channels for interaction: at
extremely low temperature, in fact, the need for large momentum at
a point is replaced by a new idea, the need to preserve periodic
order.

Steve also asked:

-3.  Show how you can reconcile your hypothesis with observations 
-that in muon-catalyzed fusion (the *only verified* form of *cold*
-fusion!) we find that 

-d+d --> 3He + n (about 50%)
-d+d --> t + p (about 50%)
-d+d --> 4He + whatever (too small to observe in mu-c-f expts.;
-      measured at about 10-7 the other two branches in hot fusion 
-      experiments)

The fact is muon-catalyzed fusion seems to be explainable in terms
of reaction-at-a-point physics.  There is nothing inconsistent with
this.  Reaction-at-a-point physics can be used to explain ordinary
fusion, and the standard Gamow/recoil types of arguements that have
been used in the past seem to work for conventional fusion and
muon-catalyzed fusion. 

-Now this is a toughie.  No matter how you get the excited 4He 
-nucleus, it will decay according to certain rules.  What changes 
-the branching ratios in
-'cold fusion', Scott? -- and explain this without upsetting 
-observed BR's in muon-catalyzed cold fusion!

I do agree that this "has been" a toughie for most reasonable
physicists to understand.  However, I would point out something
that is very different once the "reaction-at-a-point" picture is
dropped and the presence of a solid is introduced:  d+d->4He in
free space occurs with absolutely negligible probability because in
order to conserve momentum, it requires that a second "particle"
(in free space a gamma ray) be present in the final state, and this
occurs with small probability.  When more than the two deuterons
are involved in the initial state, a new possibilities unfold.

In fact, implicit in the ion band state picture, as I mentioned
above, is many-body interaction.  What I am referring to is the
possibility of indistinguishable deuterons sharing a common many-
body wave function, in which each d is allowed to exchange
locations with the remaining d's on all time-scales.  From this
picture, it simply is no longer true that the individual d's are
distinct from the remaining d's in the wave function.  This means
for example that initially there are many d's (at small
concentration) which potentially may overlap and interact.  With
this caveat, there is no strong reason for 4He to be excluded.

The question is why are the remaining by-products, 3H+p and 3He+n
excluded.  The fact is when there are small amounts of p around, it
may be possible to produce 3H through band state mediated
reactions.  However, when small amounts of p are not around, the
3H+p and 3He+n interactions also become disallowed.  The reason for
this also is associated with the underlying structure of the many-
body wave function and its limitations.  The reactions only occur
when the final state has appreciable overlap with the initial
state.  The short answer implications of this statement are that
because in the initial state each d occupies a band state and is
diffusely distributed (through interaction with the lattice
potential), 1) the final state must have similar spatial character, 2)
in the absence of magnetic effects, the final state can not possess
broken proton-neutron pairs, because if it does, it can not overlap
with the initial state.

-4.  Show us the data that supports your [statement] that 
-d-d-->4He+lattice
 
-energy accounts for "much of what has been seen."   And don't give
-us Miles et al. -- we've been through those overblown claims at 
-length already.

I would disagree with you that these claims are overblown.  A large
(more than 10) number of Navy scientists have thoroughly gone over
Miles's work. Results from steele flask work have been used to
attach greater confidence in these results.

The results also provide an explanation of the heat.  The "random
odd" probability of Miles's simply finding 4He in the cases where
he has found it is roughly 1/135000000 as you will see in his ICCF4
conference proceedings paper.

Clearly, outside confirmation by others is required to conclusively
nail down whether or not Miles's results are correct.  On-going
efforts are underway at SRI and IMRA to do this.  If you sincerely
question these results, may I suggest that it would be useful
potentially for you (or your collaborators) to actively follow what
is going on at these laboratories and at China Lake.


cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenCHUBB cudfnSCOTT cudlnCHUBB cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.30 /  blue@nscl00.ns /  Re: Chubb reaction-not-at-a-point picture
     
Originally-From: blue@nscl00.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Chubb reaction-not-at-a-point picture
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 1994 15:55:36 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I think Steve Jones, Bill Page, and I have finally pulled from Dr.
Chubb the essential assumption that underlies his cold fusion theory.
As I now understand it, the assumption is that a transistion can occur
in an ensemble of deuterons existing in a ion band state to an ensemble
of 4He nuclei in a similar state without there ever having been any
correlation in time or space that could have resulted the release of
energy at "point" or of sufficient energy to exceed significantly the
normal thermal phonon spectrum limits.

Dr. Chubbs assertion is that his picture is well within the accepted
thinking of the solid state physics community, but I question that.
In particular I would think it advisable to include in the peer group
ask to evaluate this theory people who have experience with a broader
range of phenomena than just solid state physics.  I have worked with
solid state theorists who seem blissfully unaware that the strong
interaction exists and that it is strongly spin dependent.

My view of the fusion reaction is that the initial nuclear state
involves the ground state of a deuteron in which a proton and a
neutron are bound in a local potential well with the well known
binding energy of 2.224 MeV.  The wave function is reasonably well
understood.  Likewise the ground state of the 4He nucleus is well
understood, and the energy release of 23 MeV is directly calculable
from the experimentally determined masses of the initial and final
nuclei.  We also have a solid understanding of the angular momentum
variables in the fusion reaction, something Dr. Chubb has yet to
mention.

In order to form a 4He from two deuterons I would say that two
deuterons have to come within the range of the nuclear interaction.
3/2 of a deuteron cannot form 3/4 of an alpha particle with the
release of 3/4 of 23 MeV within the context of any reaction theory
I have ever heard about, yet I must wonder if that is not what
Dr. Chubb is advocating when he suggests that 10^-7 deuterons
per unit cell can induce a transistion that releases 23 MeV
per alpha without there ever being two deuterons at a specific
site where the resulting alpha is formed.  It is one thing to
advocate some sort of revised picture for the reaction process,
but it another matter to actually lay out a complete mathematical
description of the wave functions before and after, and to
define an operator that can induce such a transition.

Obviously one can get totally bogged down in the complexities of
such a theory so I would suggest a simpler problem to warm up
on.  I would like to see a description of the nuclear spin wave
functions involved in the transition process.  Just as important
as the symmetry conserving features of the Chubb theory (if not
more so) is to have a theory which conserves angular momentum.
In case you are not aware of the fact, Dr. Chubb has not yet
specified the angular momentum state in his deuteron wave function.
You see he is playing it fast and loose when he talks about
the exchange of "identical" deuterons.  In fact you don't
really know that any two deuterons can be exchanged unless you
specify their angular momentum.  I say let's hear something
about angular momentum!

Regardless of the detailed questions that can and should be ask
about the Chubb theory, it should be acknowledged that this
represents a significant departure from accepted practice.  The
assertions made by Dr. Chubb must be put to a reasonable test
before they are accepted.  We come to the old "testable
hypothesis" issue once again.  How is the Chubb theory to be
judged?  For now all I have seen is the unfortunately circular
argument in which the Chubb theory is accepted because it explains
some selected subset of the cold fusion experimental data, and
those data are given validity, in part, because the Chubb theory
says that's just the way it should be.

My question about the Chubb theory would then be to ask where
else would we expect to see such effects?  And, furthermore,
if clearly those effects are not observed in other systems what
is the feature that prevents the occurance of reactions?  Take
for example a lattice of solid deuterium.  The mere fact that
this stuff can exist at cryogenic temperatures certain puts
limits on the energy release that can be occuring within that
lattice.  Why doesn't solid deuterium spontaneously melt?
On can imagine lots of other lattices containing deuterium
that must somehow be possible candidates.  It seems to me that
Dr. Chubb may well find himself out on a very fragile limb if
he asserts that there is only one case in all of nature where
deuterium forms an ion band state.

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenblue cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.29 / John Cobb /  Re: Answers to Steve Jones's "tough questions"
     
Originally-From: johncobb@emx.cc.utexas.edu (John W. Cobb)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Answers to Steve Jones's "tough questions"
Date: 29 Mar 1994 08:59:48 -0600
Organization: The University of Texas - Austin

In article <9403281603.AA03449@ub-gate.ub.com>,
SCOTT CHUBB <CHUBB@cfe1.nrl.navy.mil> wrote:
>Subject: Re: Tough questions for Scott Chubb 
>
>Recently, Steve Jones has raised a number of issues in s.p.f (see
>tough questions for Scott Chubb) that have been stumbling blocks
>for a number of Cold Fusion theories.  These issues also are
>important because they point to important problems that most
>physicists (including myself) believe must be answered for Cold
>Fusion to be understandable in terms of conventional physics. 
> ...
>-1.  Just how do you conserve *momentum* in this process, in which
>-an alpha particle is produced and the (much more massive) 
>-phonon-system is given the energy?  
> ...
>-2.  Show how you can reconcile transferring the 23 MeV of energy 
>-in this reaction to the lattice (whose spacing is a few angstroms)
>-when the *uncertainty principle*  allows the energy to remain 
>-virtual for only about 10^-3 angstroms.  
>
>The underlying reason that the energy of the reaction can be
>transferred to the lattice without violating either momentum or
>energy conservation or the uncertainty is implicit in what I said
>earlier.  The point is that we are invoking two principles,
>particle indistinguishability and periodic order, in a manner that
>alters the relevant physics in a manner that can not be understood
>by a reaction-at-a-point picture.

But which has a long and accepted history in solid-state physics.
(used to explain such things as electron delocalization in a metal
for instance)

>The implications of
>periodic order on the modes of reaction provides the key ingredient
>associated with understanding how momentum and energy conservation
>can still be operative and yet the reaction energy of 23 MeV can
>remain trapped within the solid, despite the fact that this energy
>can "exist" in a virtual state (at a point) only for 10^-3
>angstroms.
>
>How you may ask can this come about?
>
> ... [discussion about periodicity leading to aliasing of momentum
       with with a repetition wavenumber = inverse lattice length,
       that is, a periodic lattice in real space impleis a periodic
       structure in k-space, which is the momentum representation]
>
>The specific values of momenta that are allowed to be changed in
>this manner are those that preserve the underlying periodic order of the
>solid.  Specifically, the allowable energies of potentially
>reacting entities associated with this behavior obey the following
>rule:
>
>e(k)=e(k+G)       , (1)
>
>where hbar x k is the amount of momentum that may be transferred to
>the particles involved in this "shell game", and G is a reciprocal
>lattice vector.  The important point is that there are infinitely
>many G's in this relationship (for an infinitely large lattice),

While I agree with the exposition, so far, I am dubious about it's
ability to provide sound theoretical basis to explain claims about the
existence of a "fusion in a lattice" process that does not release
neutrons (i.e. d+d--> 4He + lattice energy). While I have not spent
as many hours as either Steve of Scott or (others who have been commenting
here) thinking about this, there are 3 issues that come to mind immediately, 
that need to be answered.

[note in the argument below I assume that the lattice spacing is the
 same in all 3 dimensions for simplicity (i.e. cubic crystal). I know
 this is not always (almost never) is the case, but I am only making
 an order of magnitude type argument. It seems much easier to not muddy the
 waters worring about angles with respect to the principle axes]


1) This coupling from k to k + G (I call it aliasing because of its
analogy to the signal processing problem) is interesting. In real calculations
what happens is there is an integral over some function times a reaction
rate. Scott's argument is that the reaction rate is periodic (in k) with
period S where S = 1/(lattice spacing). So S ~ 1.0E10 / cm. Now a ~20 MeV
alpha particle will have p/\hbar = ~2.0e13 / cm. Therefore, in the relevant
convolution (whatever it is in this case) there will need to be a strong
coupling between the fundamental and the 2000th harmonic. While this is
in and of itself odd (usually the coupling is to only the first few harmonics)
We seem to also have to require that there not be a significant coupling
to either the 1000th harmonic (or we would see 10MeV alphas) or the 500th
harmonic (where we would see 5MeV alphas), etc. This would be a very
curious situation and I am skeptical, unless there is some specific reason
for these particular couplings.

2) Even if some coupling mechanism occurs, if you rely on coupling with
the 2000th harmonic of the lattice spacing. To get a clear signal, you
are required to have on average, less than 1 defect along a length of
2000 lattice spacings. Putting that into volume means that the defect
density of the crystal needs to be less than 2 parts per 10 billion. If
it is more than that then the periodicity in momentum will get smeared out
at the large wavenumbers. Now maybe there is a way to relax this need for
coherence, but if so, how? If not, how does this compare to the crystal
structure of the samples that are being used?

3) What about the starting problem? The argument seems to rely on the 
presence of a "sea of alphas" whizzing around so that the many-body 
wavefunction can/must be used. Well maybe this happens once the reactions
get going, but how does it start? It seems to me that initially, there will
be only 1 alpha, an a single alpha won't delocalize, will it? What is
the required density of alphas to get delocalization? Is that a reasonable
number? On the flip side, this objection might form the basis of an
explanation of reported particularness of experimental setups. Different
setups may have stacked the wood correctly, but some may not have a match
to light it and others might. Of course, one would have to develop this
notion to the point of being able to determine, BEFOREHAND, which setups
would allow the reaction to proceed and which would not.


As I said, these are just the 3 things that popped into my head immediately,
without a particularly large amount of reflection upon them.


-- 
 --------------------------------------------------------------
John W. Cobb	My posts don't reflect the views of my employer
                Because my posts are usually opaque.
 --------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenjohncobb cudfnJohn cudlnCobb cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.29 / David Taylor /  SL - a painful process
     
Originally-From: dct@batman.cs.byu.edu (David Taylor)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: SL - a painful process
Date: 29 Mar 1994 15:47:29 GMT
Organization: Brigham Young University

BYU had its annual spring research conference this year, and I  
couldn't resist slipping in to one of the Physics sessions (the CS  
stuff was quite dry in comparison).  I ended up in Dr. Jones' lab  
after the conference.  He showed me the actual SL setup and gave me a  
demo.  It was quite exciting, and I thought I might share what I saw  
(from a non-physicist's viewpoint) with everybody in hopes of  
generating additional ideas for intensification of the SBSL effect.

Here's what came through my eyes and ears:
The apparatus consists of a spherical quartz container about 4 or 5  
cm in diameter, secured by the neck (?) in a test tube clamp.  (The  
actual part that is secured is obscured by insulating white foam.)  
The sphere is filled with normal water and is illuminated by a  
filmstrip projector about 1 foot away.  A high frequency oscillator  
is attached (with epoxy?) to the bottom of the sphere.  Two ~36 gauge  
wires hang off the oscillator and run to the tone generator, a 2 foot  
cube on which the test tube holder rests (ancient looking device,  
calibrated at least to 100 Hz accuracy and perhaps even 10 Hz -  
didn't look close).  A lead brick on top of the base keeps the test  
tube holder from drifting around.  When active, the tone generator  
vibrates with a ~60Hz hum.

Dr. Jones ran through a lot of different frequencies, with a lot of  
different effects.  There was a 100 Hz band around 41300 Hz (I think)  
where the most stable bubble formed.  It was a bubble about 1mm in  
diameter at the exact center of the sphere, jumping frantically but  
always staying within about .5mm of its original position.  Other  
bubbles form and race off at very high speeds in random directions.   
At other frequencies, a number of other really weird effects took  
place - I saw a stable ring of about 20 0.5mm bubbles processing  
around the center, four rings racing in a cloverleaf pattern though  
the center, bubbles forming at random points and streaking  
towards/away from the center, and high frequency boiling.  I can hear  
well past 20 KHz, and the bubbles seemed to be generating that  
frequency somehow.  (The tone generator was up around 40 or 60 KHz,  
but whenever there were bubbles, a deafening 20 KHz noise (lots of  
harmonics and other frequencies) would appear.)  Anyway, that's  
what's left of my memory 3 days later, so I'm sure Dr. Jones can  
correct any details.

I couldn't help but wonder how stable the effect would be in our  
anechoic chamber.  I also wonder if, assuming there are  
electromagnetic effects being generated by the bubbles, it wouldn't  
be possible to couple to them with a resonant magnetic field (perhaps  
some enormous multiple of the audio frequency used).

****************************************************************
*  Soaring - the ultimate three  *   David C. Taylor           *
*  dimensional art form          *   dct@newt.cs.byu.edu     *
****************************************************************
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudendct cudfnDavid cudlnTaylor cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.30 / R PGDIPINFTECH /  [In]Correct theory of superconductivity
     
Originally-From: rossc@cs.uq.oz.au (Ross Cottrell,,,PGDIPINFTECH,)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: [In]Correct theory of superconductivity
Date: 30 Mar 1994 07:42:55 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, The University of Queensland

> ...  Noone has taken the logical steps of setting-up the experimental
> apparatus of checking the known different superconducting materials as
> to electrical resistance. ...

Not true.  They do try to measure the electrical resistance, but it
is very difficult to do.  There is always some error involved.

Isn't that exactly why they do the levitation bit - to demonstrate 
the Meissner (sp?) effect.  Only a superconductor will 'reflect' an
unchanging magnetic field like that.

BTW, what has this got to do with fusion?


Regards, Ross.









cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenrossc cudfnRoss cudlnPGDIPINFTECH cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.29 / mitchell swartz /  More on Mark North's Qualifications for judging
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: More on Mark North's Qualifications for judging
Subject: judging
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 1994 12:31:42 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

   In  Message-ID: <north.764912292@watop>
Subject: judging
Mark North (north@watop.nosc.mil) writes:

=mn  "On the other hand, if one is qualified and yet
=mn  a boor this is tolerated."

  Mark North's  behavior has unfortunately that of a boor and a 
harasser.     Now Mr. North (north@watop.nosc.mil) deludes 
himself that his "qualifications" enable him to avoid the normal 
dignity and science which are, and have been, actually shown here 
even amongst many posters who have disagreed with significant 
vigor and considerable e-effervesence.   

 He should follow the previous advice of General George 
Washington.

    "In a free and republican government, you cannot restrain the 
      voice of the multitude.   Every man will speak as he thinks."
              [George Washington to Lafayette,  9/1/1778]


       > What might be the qualifications of Mr. North for him to
       >display his impetuous and audacious presumption that he 
       >possesses  both the quality and quantity of background
       >to qualify himself as judge?
=mn  "Yes, I did ignor (sic) this one thing."
=mn  "I felt it would be unseemly of me
=mn  to throw my scientific qualifications in your face while
=mn   asking for yours. Don't push your luck."

   What scientific (or other) qualifications does/could Mark North
have that he first offers and then retracts; first implies and flaunts 
but then hides?
  It would be/have been both simple and manly for him to offer his 
own scientific qualifications before asking for anothers.       
However, manliness is NOT the present behavior of our Mr. North 
who complains, avoids science, attacks and harrasses people 
(scientists and students) who post here in the e-college.

             =============
  
  EARTH TO NORTH:
   Mark, if you think you have qualifications to be first a judge and
then state that another individual does not have the sufficient
qualifications to discuss science on the internet
  (and thereby foster your own silly attacks and harrassments)
we challenge you to exactly state what these alleged qualifications 
might be?

  Or perhaps we may let you off easy this time. ....    ;-)   X

               -   Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com)
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    "The safest place for a "skeptic" at an archery competition is directly
 in front of the target.  No danger in a "skeptic" so placed being hit.
               All the points will naturally elude them"





cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.29 /  docmitch /  cold fusion
     
Originally-From: docmitch <michael1429@delphi.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cold fusion
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 94 09:18:34 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

I'm a newbie to the group.  Has anyone done work, or looked
into "sandwiches" of palladium and fullerenes to enhance the
capture and reaction process?
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenmichael1429 cudlndocmitch cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.29 / Bob Niland /  Re: What Arthur Clarke thinks of Cold fusion
     
Originally-From: rjn@fc.hp.com (Bob Niland)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What Arthur Clarke thinks of Cold fusion
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 1994 16:52:25 GMT
Organization: Colorado SuperNet

Thomas H. Kunich (tomk@netcom.com) wrote:

: Yep, I guess that a positive review by an aging science fiction writer
: living in Sri Lanka and not having performed a single experiment of his
: own in half a century proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that Cold Fusion
: is definitely here.

I caught a few minutes of one of ACC's TV shows last week, in which he
explained his -4 to +5 point score for the credibility of mysterious,
paranormal and fringe science stuff.  Based on how he ranked various
phenomena, I would say he's about +2 points too gullible on his own scale.
It explained to me why he is a CNF booster.

Regards,                                            1001-A East Harmony Road
Bob Niland                                          Suite 503
Internet:  rjn@csn.org                              Fort Collins
CompuServe: 71044,2124                              Colorado     80525   USA
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenrjn cudfnBob cudlnNiland cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.29 / L Plutonium /  Correct theory of superconductivity
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.math,sci.physics,sci.physics.f
sion,sci.bio,sci.chem
Subject: Correct theory of superconductivity
Date: 29 Mar 1994 19:42:54 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

  Ever notice that new superconductive material is discovered at a hot
pace. Yet the correct theory of understanding is lagging, is in the
dark ages, is in the back of the cave. No wonder. The reason is because
noone has taken the most logical steps forward from here. Noone has
checked-out whether superconductivity is really 0 electrical
resistance. Or if they have, they are being very silent about it. No
wonder, for superconductivity is a technology worth billions, not
millions of the US microscopic dollars (welfare parasite economies). 
  Noone has taken the logical steps of setting-up the experimental
apparatus of checking the known different superconducting materials as
to electrical resistance. According to my theory of superconductivity,
all of those different superconducting materials will all, each, have
different electrical resistances. Very small electrical resistance, to
be sure, because it is the flow of neutrinos in superconductivity. And
whereas silver is the highest element conductor of electricity PLUS THE
HIGHEST REFLECTOR OF PHOTONS. So also, the highest superconductor will
be the highest reflector of neutrinos.
  The physics of superconductivity will not progress by much until the
statement of 0 resistivity is checked and seen for the incorrectness,
the error that it is. And the theory will not progress until different
materials have checked and verified different resistivities at the
superconducting state. 
  Once different superconducting materials are checked and found to
have different resistivities. Then the physics of superconductivity can
progress by using those different numbers to verify and math model the
superconducting state.
  The following below is what I believe is the correct theory of
superconductivity. This material is copyrighted and patent pending to
the Plutonium Atom Foundation. The reason I can not be more explicit is
because I am hindered by not having a huge research lab of
superconducting materials to produce the numbers myself. The purpose of
this broadcast is to inform and make the science community aware of the
correct path to take.

   Many to most working scientists now see the BCS theory as not much
more than a heuristic device. Although one salvageable feature of the
BCS is the notion of *many atoms behaving as though it were one atom*. 
    I believe I am on to the correct theory of superconductivity. I
anticipate changes but for the most part I believe what follows below
will be the correct theory of superconductivity, once refined and
turned into math equations. I will need the math data in order to
figure-out the equations. Since I do not have a superconductor in my
backyard, and the liquid helium et al ready and available at my
disposal. I cannot anticipate delivering those equations unless I have
the number data for various superconducting materials. No
superconductor has 0 resistivity according to my theory. All
superconductors have different resistivities as per different chemical
composition. The correct theory of superconductivity, will hence, be
got from analysis of those different numbers. Those different numbers
will eventually lead to a generalized Ohm's law which will include the
superconductive state.
So I ask for any data from those privileged person of such data.
  This is the description of the correct theory of superconductivity
(broadscale patents pending to Plutonium Atom Foundation (which will
subsume, or
supercede the Nobel Foundation.))

  The 4 quantum interactions of physics are quantum duals. These are
the 4 interactions (1) strong nuclear, (2) gravitation, (3)
radioactivities, (4) electromagnetism.
  Just as in QM, where particle is dual to wave and written as such.

             particle-wave. 

The 4 interactions are pairwise duals as follows.

            strongnuclear-gravitation

            radioactivities-electromagnetism

  Note to physics readers that radioactivities comprises much more than
the simple-minded electro-weak. The electro-weak interaction, before
these teachings, was merely the tip of the iceberg, where the majority
of the iceberg is underwater. 
  Radioactivities comprises the electro-weak but also spontaneous-
neutron-materialization-from-out-of-nowhere. Radioactivities, after
these teachings, is almost equal to the strong nuclear interaction. And
in fact the two pairwise duals above are equal in interaction strengh. 
  In my theory, radioactivities interaction comprises these three (1)
radioactive decay (2) radioactive growth (3) spontaneous neutron
materialization.

  The 4 interactions are quantum duals. And so strong nuclear is dual
to gravity, but I am not concerned with that.    
   And Radioactivities is dual to Electromagnetism. Since
RADIOACTIVITIES is dual to ELECTROMAGNETISM,
then one can explain superconductivities in two ways. One in terms of
electron flow and photon carriers. But one can explain
superconductivity just in terms of radioactivities with neutrinos. And
in fact, with the recent reifenschweiler radiation supports this model
that in cold temperature conditions, a material switches from
electromagnetism to radioactivities.
  In my model, for electromagnetism, I see electrons associated with
the Faraday Lines of Force by photon carriers. The Faraday lines of
Force are what I call the carrier of the signal. And it is the carrier
which determines the resistivity of the material. In my theory,
electrons moving involves associated photons.
  So then in my theory, I must take into account the numerous Collapses
of
the Wavefuntion. It is the many Collapses of the Wavefunction that has
made the quest for the correct theory of superconductivity such a
monster. To give an example, one collapse of the wavefunction is the
"putting of a specific electric current, amperes, into the
superconductor." Another collapse of the wavefunction is the registered
and observed temperature, such as mercury at 4K. Another collapse of
the wavefunction is the known chemistry of the superconducting
material. And another is the observation of how many amperes current
flows out of the superconducting material. One must list all collapses
of the wavefunction in order to arrive at and understand a correct
theory and  hope to figure-out the math equations for
superconductivity.
  
   According to my theory, *at very low temperatures all
superconducting
substances act or behave as if it were one atom*. For example, the many
atoms of mercury at 4k are no longer many atoms of mercury, but
instead, just *ONE Superconducting Atom*. Hence this frozen mercury is
one atom which has many electrons in a filled quantum state.  The low
temperature causes this quantum state. Now one must think of all of the
electrons of this ONE Atom and the quantum mechanics of this "filled
state." One can picture that a strip of superconducting mercury at 4k
is ONE Atom which has perhaps 10^22 electrons and the same number of
protons.

   When more electrons are attempted to be added to this frozen one
atom of superconducting mercury and since it is in a "filled state"
those new
electrons are switched into the radioactivities interaction as a stream
of beta (electrons) particles and the carrier for the stream of beta
electrons is no longer photons of the Faraday Lines of Force, but
instead the carriers are switched to  neutrinos. 
  Thus, at the initial end where electric current is put into the
superconductor of ONE Atom, the ONE Atom electron states are full, and
trying to put more electrons into this one huge superconducting atom of
frozen mercury, what happens is that the ONE Atom radioactively emits a
Beta
electron stream of current out the other end in the form of beta
electron decay which had been carried through the ONE Atom mercury
strip with only the resistance of neutrinos. 
   One must picture various Collapses of the Wavefunction as I have
described above. If the current was kept flowing in the superconducting
material without escape, that is, stored within the superconductor such
as a SUPERCONDUCTOR RING STORAGE, then the resistance of the
superconducting
material, the ONE Atom, is not what is generally stated in every
textbook that I have seen, as 0 resistance. The resistance of the
superconductor is not 0, (not zero.) But rather there is a very small
positive resistance which correlates with the carrier of the current,
the neutrinos.
Different superconductors have different resistivity.   Silver
resistivity Ohm x m is 1.62 x 10^-8 at 293K and for copper at 293K  is
1.69 x10^-8. The various new ceramic superconductors and the old known
ones, and the buckyball superconductors, I hypothesize, when
experimentally checked will all show different positive number
resistivities which are close to zero, but not equal to zero. It is the
math data for these various small positive number resistivities for
different superconducting materials which will derive the equation of
superconductivity.
  As to whether a room temperature superconductor is possible and what
material would it be made of? These questions can be answered because
once it is known that neutrinos are in fact the carriers of
superconductive currents then chemical materials will be manufactured
for that purpose.
  The equation for superconductivity will be a generalized Ohm's Law,
and
derive Ohm's Law as a particular case. The equation (very ugly, and far
worse than the Schroedinger equation), will have a fall-out that silver
is the
highest quantum reflector of photons, the carrier of electric current
for conductors at room temperature and silver is the highest conductor.
Likewise, this generalized Ohm's Law will show what material has the
highest quantum reflection for neutrinos, and hence the highest
superconductor material.

  What I need now are the math data to show that this is the correct
theory of superconductivity. I need the superconductivity data of loss
of current because my theory predicts that it is not 0 resistivity but
a very small positive number. And those experimental small positive
number resistivities, I intuit will match the resistivity of neutrinos
flowing in said material.  And neutrino resistivities will be different
for the new higher transition temperature ceramic materials. That the
resistivity of flow of current in a superconducting material will match
the resistivity of neutrinos within the material. Such a match *by
math* will imply that electrons flowing in a current, upon reaching a
superconductor material will switch into neutrino carriers and flow out
the other end of the superconductor as a stream of beta decay electrons
of almost but not quite equal amperes as what went initially into the
superconductor.
At the other end the current flow is back to usual with photon
carriers.
  One support for this theory is that neutrinos have both the
characteristics of electrons, spin 1/2, and photons, by traveling at
the speed of light. In other words, neutrinos are anyon particles.
  Another support for this theory is that of all particles, only
neutrinos have the characteristics for being able to travel through
matter with the resistivity found in superconductors. No other particle
travels in
materials the way neutrinos do, which matches the superconductivity
condition. So by process of elimination, the neutrino is the best
candidate particle to yield superconductive results. 
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.29 / Cameron Bass /  Re: RTB Calorimeter
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: RTB Calorimeter
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 1994 17:15:41 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <0097C1B9.B8474CA0.5079@fscvax.fsc.mass.edu>,
 <vnoninski@fscvax.fsc.mass.edu> wrote:
>
>Dick Blue should be advised that the arguments presented by Melvin Miles in 
>J.Phys.Chem., 98, 1948 (1994) regarding Nathan Lewis' calorimetry have been 
>previously published in Fusion Technology, 23, 474 (1993). Dick Blue may wish 
>to read the latter manuscript and find out for himself how the "Rothwell 
>toothbrush box calorimeter" compares with the ones described in Nathan 
>Lewis' papers. Even if for some reason Dick Blue finds out that 
>"Rothwell tothbrush box calorimeter" is worse he should, nevertheless, 
>notice that "Rothwell tothbrush box calorimeter" has never been published 
>either in Nature or in Science.

     So what's the point in discussing a calorimeter that's been
     'pre-deprecated'?

                                 dale bass

cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.31 / John Logajan /  Re: Strange properties of diamond
     
Originally-From: 74242.1554@compuserve.com (John M. Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Strange properties of diamond
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 1994 04:29:19 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I'm not saying I understand any of the ongoing Chubb discussion, but I did
notice something about the various elements that might have a bearing on
the average uniform distance between lattice sites.

If you look up the natural element's specific gravities and atomic weights
you can build a table of molecular densities by dividing the specific
gravity by the atomic weight.  This gives a comparison of how many atoms
fit in a unit volume.

0.2922 moles/cc Diamond
0.2164 moles/cc Boron
0.2053 moles/cc Beryllium
0.1873 moles/cc Graphite
0.1516 moles/cc Nickel
0.1126 moles/cc Palladium
0.1096 moles/cc Platinum
0.0766 moles/cc Lithium

You can see that diamond (carbon) has the most atoms per unit area. 
Diamond also has some very strange properites that it doesn't share with
graphite.  It does not conduct electricty and it is transparent to light
-- so it obviously has tightly bound electrons.  It also has a thermal
conductivity about 4 times that of silver, as well as a heat content about
1/10 that of most metals and a molar heat capacity about 1/4 that of most
metals.

Most metals have high thermal conductivity because the electrons are free
to transport the vibrational energy.  So the thermal transport through
diamond has to be via a different means.

If you could get deuterium or hydrogen atoms regularly spaced in either
diamonds or boron or beryllium or graphite, you have average spacings of
atoms almost twice as close as H or D in Pd.

Maybe these close spacings would give rise to the weird quantum properties
of diamond and ???


cudkeys:
cuddy31 cuden1554 cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.29 /  GeorgeRW /  Re: BBC Horizon Program
     
Originally-From: georgerw@aol.com (GeorgeRW)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: BBC Horizon Program
Date: 29 Mar 1994 16:06:03 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

In article <1994Mar23.132056.12418@terminus.ericsson.se>,
pjc@terminus.ericsson.se (Paul Cornhill) writes:

Dr. Randell Mills, affiliated with several companies he owns, of Lancaster, PA.
A very personable person, I have talked to him several times and he seems to
know what he is doing. He has published a book on the new QM which from My
not too strong physics background seems very good. 

cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudengeorgerw cudlnGeorgeRW cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.31 / Chuck Harrison /  Reifenschweiler tritiated Ti
     
Originally-From: 73770.1337@compuserve.com (Chuck Harrison)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Reifenschweiler tritiated Ti
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 1994 07:18:13 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

O colleagues of s.p.f.:

I have recently received a manuscript from Dr. Otto Reifenschweiler,
retired scientist from Philips, which expands upon his recent paper
in Phys Lett A.

In the attached cover letter, which I have transcribed below, Dr.
R- solicits advice on three specific questions conerning the Ti-H
system.  You may scan quickly to the
<<<<<Question n>>>>> lines near the end of the text.

I can send photocopies of the "more detailed description" manuscript
(28 pages plus 12 figures) on request.  Of course, you are also
welcome to correspond with Dr. R- directly.  He does _not_ have
e-mail; use the post.

Regards,
  -Chuck Harrison  harr@netcom.com

P.S. if you cross-post to another list, please send follow-ups
to sci.physics.fusion.  I will try to collect relevant postings
and mail them to Dr. R-.     -C.H.

  ===============================================================

Dr. O. Reifenschweiler
Jan Sluytersweg 13
5645 JA Eindhoven, The Netherlands              17th March 1994

                     _Cover Letter_
                      belonging to

"A more detailed description of our experiments with proposals
to improve the experimental technique".
                          of
Reduced radioactivity of tritium in small titanium particles.
Physics Letters A 184 (1994) 149-153


Dear Colleague(s),

   If reading the "more detailed descrition....." in hand
and the letter of Phys. Lett. A, to which it belongs, the ques-
tion may arise to you why work done about 30 years ago was not
published earlier and why further work was not done to confirm
the experimental results and the conclusions.  You may allow me
to give some explanations.
   I worked at that time in the Philips Research Labora-
tories, Eindhoven, The Netherlands, on sealed-off neutron gene-
rator tubes {1}, [5] .  These were small ion accelerators
of the size of x-ray tubes, with a constant neutron output up
to 3x10^10 n/s and a life of at least 1000 hours.  Doing this work
I found for myself the preparation of extremely small metal par-
ticles by gas evaporation (discovered earlier by others).  Such
titanium preparations were found to be suitable tritium carriers
for gas discharge tubes [3].  For these applications the stabi-
lity of the TiT(c)-compunds at high temperatures (baking tem-
peratures of the gas discharge tubes, about 400 C) was very
important.  Therefore
I did heating experiments together with a student (J.F. van de
Vate), who worked about one year in my laboratory for his scien-
tific education.  The strange "valley effects" led me to further
   |                                  investigations, the TiT(x)-ex-
   |                         *        periments, from which I de-
   |******                  *.*       duced the "nuclear pair hy-
CR |      *               ** .*       pothesis". But this work was
   |       **           **   . *      only done incidentally, the
   |         ***      **     . *      main line was the neutron ge-
   |            ******       .  *     nerator tube.  After about
   |               .         .  *     1965 there came a growing in-
   |               .275 C    .360C    terest in fast neutron thera-
   +---------------+---------+----- T  
py of malignant tumors from medical researchers an I was asked 
to develop a neutron generator tube for 10^12 n/s output.  It was
indeed possible to develop such a tube: 250 kV, 20mA, 10^12 n/s,
life several hundred hours {2,3,4}, and we constructed a com-
plete neutron therapy machine for clinical trials.  Different cir-
cumstances led to a situation where it was impossible for me to
continue my tritium work.

     However it seemed important to me that my experimental re-
sults were not lost.  After my retirement in 1980 I started in 1986
(earlier was not possible due to personal circumstances) a study 
of the documentation left from my tritium experiments.  Fortunate-
ly it was still sufficiently conplete, above all the recorder
tapes of the TiT(x) experiments were preserved and there was a re-
port of the Philips Research Laboratories of J.F. van de Vate et
al [11] about the heating experiments.
     Doing the tritium experiments the question arose to me if
an equivalent effect, a decrease of radioactivity, might also 
exist for heavier nuclei than tritium.  This was above all ini-
tiated by a paper of E.A. Secco {5} who investigated gas-solid
exchange between the Zn-gas labelled by the 65Zn-nuclide with po-
lycrystalline ZnO at elevated temperatures.  During such an ex-
change experiment done twice an unexpected decrease of radioacti-
vity occurred and Secco could not find an explanation for this
apparent anomaly.  I did some further evaluation of published
gas-solid exchange and of diffusion experiments with heavy nuclei
as tracers (65Zn, 63Ni, 85Sr) where extremely trange deviations
from normal behaviour were observed.  In all these experiments the
second law of thermodynamics is grossly violated.  By pure formal
application of the nuclear pari hypothesis all these strange de-
viations could be interpreted quantitatively.  These evaluations
will be published shortly and several straightforward experiments
will be proposed to prove or to disprove the hypothesis for hea-
vier nuclei (solution of the preparation where an unexpected de-
crease of radioactivity occurred to recover the original lambda,
NMR-experiments to prove nuclear pairing, determination of the
beta energy spectrum to prove transformation of the decay into a
higher forbidden one).
    On 23rd July 1989 I made a first attempt for publication
in Physics Letters B.  In the manuscript the effect of the decrease
of radioactivity was above all based on some evaluations of gas-
solid exchange and of diffusion experiments of others with heavy
nuclei as tracers.  My paper was not accepted for publication on
account of two referee reports.  According to my own opinion my
reasoning in the 1989 manuscript was rather incomplete, e.g. the
evaluations of the heating experiments was done later.  But I im-
proved and completed it in the following time.  In November 1992
I prepared for myself two manuscripts: Part I, the experiments
with tritium, which is the base for the "more detailed descrip-
tion...." in hand and Part II which deals with the evaluation
of the experiments of others with heavy nuclei as tracers.
    Concerning the more detailed description most important
are the heating experiments described and evaluated in chapter 3,
p. 5-10 and the TiT(x)-experiment where the evaporator was remo-
ved (chapter 4D, p. 20/21).  This element has to be removed in
future experiments in any case.  Concerning the heating experiments
it is most interesting that with two experiments carried out
under quite different conditions (Chapter 3A, fig. 6 and chapter
3B, fig. 6C) and also with all other heating experiments (chapter
3C, fig. 6d and 6e) the reincrease of the radioactivity occurred
at the same temperature (between 275 and 360 C).  It was
concluded from the pressure rise at a second rise of temperature
that the decrease of radioactivity has something to do with the
binding of the tritium atoms (nuclei) to the titatium lattice.
<<<<<Question 1>>>>>
Concerning the TiT(x)-experiment with delta-a/delta-x < 0 (ch. 4C)
we are not quite sure if no tritium is lost, e.g. as T2O after the
addition of tritium.  I should like to ask if such an effect is known
to someone of you?  But then more tritium has to be lost than
added and the loss of tritium had to continue more than one hour
after addition.  If da/dx < 0 can be proved this will be also a
strong argument for the large decrease of da/dx in fig. 8 (that
the course of da/dx=f(x) is not simulated by the absorption of tritium
by the evaporator) because da/dx < 0 can only occur if the decrease
of lambda is much larger than 50%.
<<<<<Question 2>>>>> 
   If you discover certain inconsistencies in my reasoning,
please inform me.  If one of your intends to do experiments I would
appreciate to be informed.  It may be possible for me to initiate
some experimental work myself and a certain collaboration and
exchange of results might be most useful.
    It will be most interesting that J.P. Vigier has recently 
presented a theory based on the frame of presently known electro-
magnietic, nuclear and quantum theories, whereby new "tight" Bohr
orbits in dense media are derived and where occurrence of cold
DD-fusion {6} and a decrease of radioactivity {7} also for hea-
vier nuclei than tritium are claimed.

                                With kind regards,


                                (s) O. Reifenschweiler

<<<<<Question 3>>>>>
PS
There is a comprehensive article about the palladium-hydrogen
system (E. Wicke and H. Borodowsky in Vol II of ref [12] p. 73.
If an equivalent article about the titanium-hydrogen system or
other important literature is known to someone
of you, please inform me about it.

references for this cover letter

{1} O. Reifenschweiler, Philips Research Reports 16 (1961) 401.

{2} O. Reifenschweiler, Proc. First Symposium Neutron Dosimetry
    in Biology and Medicine, EUR 4896 d - f - e.

{3} O. Reifenschweiler, J. Colditz and D. van Houwelingen,
    Medicamundi.

{4} G.W. Barendsen, J.J. Broerse and L.M. van Putten, European
    Journal of Cancer 7 (1971) 97.

{5} E.A. Secco, 4th International Symposium on Reactivity of
    Solids, Elsevier Pub. Co., Amsterdam (1961) 188.

{6} J.P. Vigier, "New Hydrogen (Deuterium) Bohr orbits in quan-
    tum chemistry and "Cold Fusion" processes".  Presented at ICCF
    4 conference in Hawaii (6 - 9 December 1993).

{7} J.P. Vigier, Manuscript submitted to Phys. Lett. A .

references from "a more detailed description....."

[3]  O. Reifenschweiler, Proc. Conf. Peaceful Uses At. Energy
     (United Nations, Geneva) 19 (1958) 360.

[5]  O. Reifenschweiler, Proc 1968 Int. Conf. Modern Trends
     in Activation Analyses, Nat. Bur. Stand (U.S.) spec.
     publ. 312 voll II, 905-910, 1969.

[12] H. Peisl in G. Alefeld and J. Voelkl, editors, Hydrogen in
     Metals I. Basic Properties.  Topics in Applied Physics,
     (Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, NY) 28, (1978) 63.

       ====================================================

cudkeys:
cuddy31 cuden1337 cudfnChuck cudlnHarrison cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.29 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Re:  SL - a painful process
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re:  SL - a painful process
Date: 29 Mar 94 16:18:17 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

David Taylor gave an interesting set of observations regarding our
SL experiment here.  A few comments:

The bubble in the center is generally less than 1 mm in diam. -- it
looks larger because the spherical flask acts as a lens, and because
of the intense illumination.  It's probably less than 0.1 mm diam.

Sometimes we have been able to levitate the bubble at the sphere's 
center with better stability than we achieved in a few minutes 
last Saturday.

We have yet to look for SL light with this set-up.  Basically, we're
just groping our way up the learning curve.

The signal generator may not look like much, but it's a calibration
source, +- 1Hz.  We drive the flask pretty hard, though, and I'm not
sure the generator can keep that precision.  Went to a slow-blow fuse
of the proper size and have had no further problems with that.

The loud high-frequency tones that bothered David don't register usually
in my antiquated ears.  But I worry that these may still do some damage.
Does anyone know whether 40kHz sound at rather high intensity will do
damage?  Guess I'd better try to measure the decibel level at least.
We sometimes also hear a 'popping' sound, indicating bubble cavitation,
I think.  That sound is music to my ears.

Remember, there is *no* metal in this flask, just water in which the
sound field causes bubbles to form during rarefaction, then collapse 
during compression.

--Steven Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenjonesse cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.29 /  jonesse@physc1 /  cancel <1994Mar29.161348.1534@physc1.byu.edu>
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cancel <1994Mar29.161348.1534@physc1.byu.edu>
Date: 29 Mar 94 16:18:47 -0700

cancel <1994Mar29.161348.1534@physc1.byu.edu>
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenjonesse cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Thu Mar 31 04:37:06 EST 1994
------------------------------
1994.03.30 / Matt Kennel /  Re: Answers to Steve Jones's "tough questions"
     
Originally-From: mbk%anl433.uucp@Germany.EU.net (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Answers to Steve Jones's "tough questions"
Date: 30 Mar 1994 22:14:24 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

SCOTT CHUBB (CHUBB@cfe1.nrl.navy.mil) wrote:
: -Now this is a toughie.  No matter how you get the excited 4He 
: -nucleus, it will decay according to certain rules.  What changes 
: -the branching ratios in
: -'cold fusion', Scott? -- and explain this without upsetting 
: -observed BR's in muon-catalyzed cold fusion!

: In fact, implicit in the ion band state picture, as I mentioned
: above, is many-body interaction.  What I am referring to is the
: possibility of indistinguishable deuterons sharing a common many-
: body wave function, in which each d is allowed to exchange
: locations with the remaining d's on all time-scales.  

Aha.  To me, this appears to be the crux of the disagreement.
It's the "all time-scales" phrase.

I think that Prof. Jones and others would argue that this isn't true.  Up to
the point that the deuterons can *see* and have the time to interact with
the the periodic potential via electromagnetism then all the 'magic' solid
state effects (wave-vectors freely changing by a reciprocal lattice vector,
e.g.) can take place.  But once energies get high-enough and time-scales
get short enough, e.g. at nuclear energies at distances, the dynamics
on those scales look like traditional free-particle vacuum dynamics, with
big lattice atoms very far away.  

This intuitive picture is supported by phenomena like perfect conductors.

To optical light a mirror looks like a continuum, with collective electronic
solid state effects leading to elastic photon collisions: a reflection.

But to a 10 MeV gamma, a mirror looks like a collection of individual rocks,
and interaction is point-like.  Still, this gamma is still low-enough
energy to see nucleons as single 'collective bodies'.  If it were much
higher energy and smaller wavelength still, then the collective nature
of the nucleons would be seen to be illusory and the internal structure would
become visible.

This is the notion that you must convince physicists to not apply in this
circumstance.  The rule that you can do e(k) -> e(k+n*G) must occur in a
lattice because of some sort of more fundamental interaction, right?  (Does
it ever happen for n = 10^8?)

: From this
: picture, it simply is no longer true that the individual d's are
: distinct from the remaining d's in the wave function.  

I believe the skeptics would say that this is picture is true only so far as
you're on energy scales similar to the lattice interaction energies that
permit the band-state to occur.  If the energies are many orders of magnitude
higher, then the underlying lattice potential is usually seen to be
a tiny perturbation to free-space physics.

For example, suppose I just got some corrugated metal roofing and filled in
the grooves with concrete, and turned it over to make a ridge of bumps.  Now
we have a periodic _gravitational_ potential.  Will we see a delocalized
band state if we pour some bosons on it?  Obviously not, because the
energies in thermal interaction are far far greater than the gravitational
potential and so the atoms behave like localized free space particles.

In solid state, the thermal energies are *not* large enough to wipe out the
electromagnetic lattice interaction potential so we do see band state
effects.  But again, if you put in 24MeV energy scale particles, again won't
the electromagnetic lattice interactions (that permit the momentum transfer
to lattice, at what traditionalists claim to be limited to band state
energies) be no more significant than a mosquito's fart in a hurricane?

If your band picture does, in fact, remain true at nuclear energies, would not
nuclear-energy scattering off these deutron bands give significantly
different results then those seen from traditional nuclear physics?
This, in itself, would be quite significant.

Thanks for your time.  I'm glad that we have some "real physics" to kibbutz
about instead of hand-waving.

cheers
Matt


--
-Matt Kennel  		mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu
-Institute for Nonlinear Science, University of California, San Diego
-*** AD: Archive for nonlinear dynamics papers & programs: FTP to
-***     lyapunov.ucsd.edu, username "anonymous".
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenuucp cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.30 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: What Arthur Clarke thinks of Cold fusion
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What Arthur Clarke thinks of Cold fusion
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 1994 06:26:47 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <CnFqvD.7oD@fc.hp.com>, Bob Niland <rjn@csn.org> wrote:
>I caught a few minutes of one of ACC's TV shows last week, in which he
>explained his -4 to +5 point score for the credibility of mysterious,
>paranormal and fringe science stuff.  Based on how he ranked various
>phenomena, I would say he's about +2 points too gullible on his own scale.
>It explained to me why he is a CNF booster.

I like Arthur C. Clarke. I've read most of his books at one time or another.
But to suggest that his opinion on CNF should have the slightest
weight is laughable at the very least. And for Rothwell to suggest that
this is some sort of proof ------

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.30 / Joshua Levy /  Re: Image of Poster to (premature) "Wake" [part 2 - GIF image]
     
Originally-From: joshua@veritas.com (Joshua Levy)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Image of Poster to (premature) "Wake" [part 2 - GIF image]
Date: 30 Mar 1994 16:38:57 -0800
Organization: VERITAS Software Corp., Santa Clara  CA

mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
>
>  PART II --- GIF IMAGE ----
>

This gif has the same problem as the hardcopy that Jed sent out.
It is too blurry to read the cartoon's punchline.  What's the point?

Joshua Levy <joshua@veritas.com>
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenjoshua cudfnJoshua cudlnLevy cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.30 / Dieter Britz /  Re: sci.physics.fusion archive
     
Originally-From: kemidb@aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: sci.physics.fusion archive
Date: 30 Mar 94 08:24:46 GMT
Organization: Aarhus University, Denmark

In <2n5o4e$t6b@crl.crl.com> pls@crl.com (Paul Schauble) writes:

>My apologies for asking this again, but could someone please tell me 
>where the archives for this group are located?

I saw your question but did not react because I was about to send out a
bibliography update, which now always has tacked on the end the information
you are asking for. I guess you didn't read it.
You can ftp into vm1.nodak.edu, cd fusion, and the cold fusion world is at
your feet. There are all the biblio files, as well as all the Digests. When
you ask for a directory, the lines unfortunately cut off the bit that tells
you which Digest number goes with which archive file number; all you see is
long strings of dates and such. This is why I get a list by emailing to
listserv@vm1.nodak.edu, with the message 'index fusion'. This gets me a list
with full-length lines. Maybe there is a better ftp command than plain dir,
but I don't know it. I mean for getting more info out of those long lines.
Go for it.

-- 
Dieter Britz   alias kemidb@aau.dk
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenkemidb cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.30 / I Johnston /  Re: [In]Correct theory of superconductivity
     
Originally-From: ianj@castle.ed.ac.uk (I Johnston)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: [In]Correct theory of superconductivity
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 1994 15:58:07 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

Ross Cottrell,,,PGDIPINFTECH, (rossc@cs.uq.oz.au) wrote:
: > ...  Noone has taken the logical steps of setting-up the experimental
: > apparatus of checking the known different superconducting materials as
: > to electrical resistance. ...

: Not true.  They do try to measure the electrical resistance, but it
: is very difficult to do.  There is always some error involved.

I used to do this a bit. The general technique is to shove largest
current you can get hold of (we used 5000A) through the largest sample
you can keep a) cold and b) in the magnetic field (about 1 metre of
wire, typically) then measure the pd with the most sensitive volt meter
we could get (1 nV). And yes, when fully superconducting we didn't see a
sossidge. Mind you, we were only testing SC's, not pushing the theory -
others have done that with a) larger currents b) bigger samples and c)
more sensitive voltmeters. They didn't see anything either.

Anyway, what the hell are you supposed to check if not resistance?
Excess heat?

Ian Johnston

PS I agree that this has little to do with CF, but it is surprising how
the two tie together in the crackpot mind. In the scientific mind too,
come to think of it - I suspect the initial reaction to CF was very much
modelled on the HTC SC experience a couple of years before. Of course,
with High TC the effects were rapidly reproduced in a variety of
materials and with many different sets of test apparatus all over the world...









cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenianj cudfnI cudlnJohnston cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.30 / Marshall Dudley /  re: cold fusion
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.mv.com (Marshall Dudley)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: re: cold fusion
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 94 16:11:39 GMT
Organization: Data World BBS - Knoxville, TN - (615)966-3574, 675-4753

docmitch writes:

>I'm a newbie to the group.  Has anyone done work, or looked
>into "sandwiches" of palladium and fullerenes to enhance the
>capture and reaction process?

Hey, I like that.  Good idea.  If one could force Deuterium into Buckyballs,
and if they would not escape, one should be able to obtain astounding pressures
withing the balls.  Hmmm, I wonder if ion implantation would break the bonds
of the balls, so that inserting the deuterium would destroy the ball.
Interesting question.


								Marshall
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenmdudley cudfnMarshall cudlnDudley cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.30 / Marshall Dudley /  Re: Correct theory of superconductivity
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.mv.com (Marshall Dudley)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Correct theory of superconductivity
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 94 16:18:56 GMT
Organization: Data World BBS - Knoxville, TN - (615)966-3574, 675-4753

Ludwig Plutonium writes:

>  Ever notice that new superconductive material is discovered at a hot
>pace. Yet the correct theory of understanding is lagging, is in the
>dark ages, is in the back of the cave. No wonder. The reason is because
>noone has taken the most logical steps forward from here. Noone has
>checked-out whether superconductivity is really 0 electrical
>resistance. Or if they have, they are being very silent about it. No
>wonder, for superconductivity is a technology worth billions, not
>millions of the US microscopic dollars (welfare parasite economies). 

Pardon me, but if my understanding of the phenomenon is correct, the ability
to suspend a magnet above the surface of a superconductor indefinitely is
proof that the material is superconducting.  As far as I know, that is done
on every suspected superconductor for verification, and is pretty well the
standard test of superconductivity.  Even Junior High school physics classes
are doing it.

								Marshall
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenmdudley cudfnMarshall cudlnDudley cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.30 / Greg Kuperberg /  Re: [In]Correct theory of superconductivity
     
Originally-From: gk00@quads.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: [In]Correct theory of superconductivity
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 1994 18:46:37 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

In article <CnHJ0w.JxH@festival.ed.ac.uk> ianj@castle.ed.ac.uk (I Johnston) writes:
>The general technique is to shove largest current you can get hold of
>(we used 5000A) through the largest sample you can keep a) cold and b)
>in the magnetic field (about 1 metre of wire, typically) then measure
>the pd with the most sensitive volt meter we could get (1 nV). And yes,
>when fully superconducting we didn't see a sossidge.

This is one obvious direction for experiments with superconductors, but
the most sensitive measurements are different; they are called
persistent current measurements.  If you close the ends of a solenoid
to make a loop, you get a circuit which is essentially a resistor in
series with an inductor.  Although there is no battery in the circuit,
the laws of linear electrical circuits still apply, with the conclusion
that current should decay to zero in time proportional to inductance
divided by resistance.  You can get a current started with a switch
that leads the loop to a battery.  You can then wait and later measure
the current using a current meter and the same switch.

If you do this experiment with Big Brutus The Magnet with thick copper
tubing (which has very low resistance among normal conductors), the
current might last for a few minutes.  If you try it with a teeny weeny
round loop with thin wire, the current disappears in the blink of an
eye no matter what normal conductor you use.  But with a
superconductor, the current doesn't go away.  There are experiments
with little superconducting loops with no measurable loss of current
after a year.  I am not sure exactly how many zeroes after the decimal
you get from these experiments, but my guess is that the resistance of
a superconductor is known to be at least 10^10 or 10^15 times lower
than that of copper.

BTW, persistent magnets are not only an experimental technique,
but also a standard technological device.
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudengk00 cudfnGreg cudlnKuperberg cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Fri Apr  1 04:37:03 EST 1994
------------------------------
1994.03.30 / mitchell swartz /  On [In]Correct theory of superconductivity
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: On [In]Correct theory of superconductivity
Subject: Re: [In]Correct theory of superconductivity
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 1994 21:55:36 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

   In Message-ID: <1994Mar30.184637.18651@midway.uchicago.edu>
Subject: Re: [In]Correct theory of superconductivity
Greg Kuperberg gk00@quads.uchicago.edu) writes:

=gk  "...the most sensitive measurements are different; they are called
=gk  persistent current measurements.  If you close the ends of a solenoid
=gk  to make a loop, you get a circuit which is essentially a resistor in
=gk  series with an inductor.  Although there is no battery in the circuit,
=gk  the laws of linear electrical circuits still apply, with the conclusion
=gk  that current should decay to zero in time proportional to inductance
=gk  divided by resistance. ....  If you try it with a teeny weeny
=gk  round loop with thin wire, the current disappears in the blink of an
=gk  eye no matter what normal conductor you use.  But with a
=gk  superconductor, the current doesn't go away.  There are experiments
=gk  with little superconducting loops with no measurable loss of current
=gk  after a year.  I am not sure exactly how many zeroes after the decimal
=gk  you get from these experiments, but my guess is that the resistance of
=gk  a superconductor is known to be at least 10^10 or 10^15 times lower
=gk  than that of copper."

    The theory predicts quite a few zeros.  How many?

The currents each enclose fluxoids of magnetic flux density
of 2*pi h-bar c/2e or ~0.2 microgauss-cm^2 each.   
   One can consider the fluxoid penetration as the product of the
frequency of attempts and activation energy barrier problem.

   The attempt frequency is Egap/h-bar and since a typical gap is
a femtoerg, the attempt frequency is calculated as about 10^12/sec.

   The activation energy is the product of the minimum volume of 
fluxoid (current carrying conductor diameter * coherence length^2)
and the excess free energy density of the non-superconducting state
(Hc^2/8*pi).  {Hc the threshold applied magnetic field intensity
for destroying the superconducting state (ca. 500G). See  Ashcroft 
or Kittel or any other solid state text for more details}

   The activation energy is about 10^-7 erg at temperatures
away from the transition temperature where phonon scattering
introduces a T^5th term to the electrical resistivity.

    As a result, the fluxoid penetration rate is thus
calculated to be an incredibly negligible  10^(-1*10^7) per second.
The inverse of this number is the expectation time.   

       Lots of zeros.

                        -   Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com)


cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.31 / Lew Randerson /  Please ignore previous messages
     
Originally-From: lranderson@pppl.gov (Lew Randerson) (Lewis E. Randerson)
Newsgroups: pppl.tftr.news,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Please ignore previous messages
Date: 31 Mar 1994 13:32:19 -0500
Organization: Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory

To all:

Please ignore the two previous messages from L.Randerson. They
were an unanticipated artifact of checking out the mailing system
from PPPL.

Thanks, Lew 

 -------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lewis E. Randerson
Princeton Plasma Physics Lab           phone:609/243-3134 FAX:609/243-3086
P.O.Box 451, Princeton, NJ 08543       email:lranderson@pppl.gov
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------

cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenlranderson cudfnLew cudlnRanderson cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.30 / Robert Heeter /  Re: Answers to Steve Jones's "tough questions"
     
Originally-From: rfheeter@theory.pppl.gov (Robert F. Heeter)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Answers to Steve Jones's "tough questions"
Date: 30 Mar 1994 21:48:02 -0500
Organization: /etc/organization

In article <9403281603.AA03449@ub-gate.UB.com>,
SCOTT CHUBB <CHUBB@cfe1.nrl.navy.mil> wrote:
>Subject: Re: Tough questions for Scott Chubb 

Let's suppose the Chubb theory is right:  
(and let's hope my summary of it is right)

Indistinguishable bosons in a lattice can occupy band states.

Band state bosons have overlapping wavefunctions.  

Nuclear interactions can be separated from coulomb interactions in
this case.

Fusion reactions can occur provided the products are also delocalized, 
and the periodic order of the lattice is preserved.

If the band state is smeared over enough lattice sites, then the
fusion energy can be spread over enough particles/sites/modes that
it need not be detectable as gamma rays or energetic particles.

The final state (product) wavefunction must "overlap" (in a sense
I'm not sure I understand) with the initial state.  In particular
(for reasons I don't understand) proton-neutron pairs cannot in
general be broken apart.

****
The predictions of the theory are that D+D -> 4He can occur in
lattices where there is enough D that some D is in band states,
and where there is enough 4He that the product also comes out in
a band state.

The theory also predicts D+T -> T+p can occur provided there are
p's and T's in band states too.

Actually, given any lattice, the theory seems to predict that if you
can get overlapping (boson) ion wavefunctions, you can evade the coulomb 
barrier and get any fusion reaction that is energetically favorable.

(Is the summary on-target so far?)

*****

Ok, what I don't understand is why the same argument can't be applied
to the lattice ions as well as the "band state" ions.  Does 
indistinguishability no longer apply here, or is there another reason
why lattice ion wavefunctions are not considered to overlap as well?
I mean, why don't we see carbon-carbon reactions in a diamond crystal?  
Or any other reactions in low-Z crystals?  I'm not an expert on
quantum theory, and I don't think this will kill the theory; I just
don't understand it.  

In general I wonder why, if the Chubb theory is correct, we don't see 
a lot more nuclear-transmutation effects in lattices.  The coulomb
barrier can't be *that* easy to evade!

****

There ought to be ways to test the Chubb theory which don't involve
excess-heat or nuclear-product measurements; are any such tests underway?
I guess first I'd like to see confirmation that ion band states exist,
and then some sort of experiment showing that lattice effects can 
alter nuclear processes; since fusion is controversial another possibility
might be to look at odd decay modes of radionuclides in lattices.
If these support the Chubb theory we might develop some experimental
confidence in the theory, at which point tests to discriminate the
Chubb theory from other CF theories (including the experimental-error
null hypothesis) would be in order.

Of course, the scientist-in-a-hurry might simply try to quantify
the Chubb predictions for reaction rates in lattices with varying
levels of band-state ions, and to see how T and 4He production rates
scale with D and p concentrations in the gas loaded into the lattice.
Trouble is, T and He are tough to measure precisely.  One might try
using other elements as the ions, too - do 4He, 6Li, 8Be, etc
fuse?  As long as we're circumventing the coulomb barrier, what 
other effects determine the reaction rate?  It will be hard in
any case to separate the products from the trace contamination in the
system.

Someone *really* in a hurry might simply figure out how to 
reproducibly put D ions in a band state, take out a patent, and 
build a water heater...

*****

Just trying to clarify things and engage in some delocalized speculation...

******
Robert F. Heeter
rfheeter@theory.pppl.gov
This posting is solely speculation on my part and does not represent
anything resembling an official or unofficial position of PPPL.


cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.31 / mitchell swartz /  Lattice within a lattice (was Answers to Steve Jones's "tough questions")
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Lattice within a lattice (was Answers to Steve Jones's "tough questions")
Subject: Re: Answers to Steve Jones's "tough questions"
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 1994 03:52:09 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

   In Message-ID: <2nddl2$en9@tom.pppl.gov>
Subject: Re: Answers to Steve Jones's "tough questions"
Robert F. Heeter  wrote:

=rh  "Let's suppose the Chubb theory is right:  
=rh    (and let's hope my summary of it is right)
=rh  Ok, what I don't understand is why the same argument can't be applied
=rh  to the lattice ions as well as the "band state" ions.  Does 
=rh  indistinguishability no longer apply here, or is there another reason
=rh  why lattice ion wavefunctions are not considered to overlap as well?
=rh  I mean, why don't we see carbon-carbon reactions in a diamond crystal?  
=rh  Or any other reactions in low-Z crystals?  ....
=rh  "In general I wonder why, if the Chubb theory is correct, we don't see 
=rh  a lot more nuclear-transmutation effects in lattices.  The coulomb
=rh  barrier can't be *that* easy to evade!"

    IMHO all of the rest are just lattices.  
 These phenomena appear to occur as a special case of
first-row interstitial lattices within another (eg. Group VIII)
lattice, and two dissimilar nuclear weights at that.  Furthermore,
there are matters of anharmonicity, periodicity, and potential
high loading (?gamma phase) that are unique.

   One important result of the unique lattice within a lattice of
two dissimilar nuclear weights (palladium vs. deuteron)
may be that the phonon spectra actually becomes split into acoustic
and optical components.   This separation may be what does allow the 
coupling of some reactions within the lattice to the lattice,
with satisfactioin of the conservation of momentum 
          (which this poster thinks occurs      ;-)
and the appearance of the excess enthalpy.

                        -   Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com)




cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.31 / Mike Jamison /  Re: [In]Correct theory of superconductivity
     
Originally-From: edwlt12@mars.lerc.nasa.gov (Mike Jamison (ADF))
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: [In]Correct theory of superconductivity
Date: 31 Mar 1994 15:40 EDT
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center

In article <2nbahv$lck@uqcspe.cs.uq.oz.au>, rossc@cs.uq.oz.au writes...
>> ...  Noone has taken the logical steps of setting-up the experimental
>> apparatus of checking the known different superconducting materials as
>> to electrical resistance. ...
> 
>Not true.  They do try to measure the electrical resistance, but it
>is very difficult to do.  There is always some error involved.
> 

Back when I worked at Keithley Instruments, their 181 Nanovoltmeter sales
went from about 10 per month to about 100 per month, during the initial
HTSC surge.  Yeah, they tried measuring the resistance of HTSCs.  Even
at Keithley :-)

>Isn't that exactly why they do the levitation bit - to demonstrate 
>the Meissner (sp?) effect.  Only a superconductor will 'reflect' an
>unchanging magnetic field like that.
> 
>BTW, what has this got to do with fusion?
> 
> 
>Regards, Ross.
Mike Jamison

> 
> 
"Scientific research consists in seeing what everyone else has seen, but
thinking what no one else has thought"

						-A. Szent-Gyorgyi
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenedwlt12 cudfnMike cudlnJamison cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.31 / I Johnston /  Re: [In]Correct theory of superconductivity
     
Originally-From: ianj@castle.ed.ac.uk (I Johnston)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: [In]Correct theory of superconductivity
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 1994 08:15:36 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

Greg Kuperberg (gk00@quads.uchicago.edu) wrote:
: In article <CnHJ0w.JxH@festival.ed.ac.uk> ianj@castle.ed.ac.uk (I Johnston) writes:
: >The general technique is to shove largest current you can get hold of
: >(we used 5000A) through the largest sample you can keep a) cold and b)
: >in the magnetic field (about 1 metre of wire, typically) then measure
: >the pd with the most sensitive volt meter we could get (1 nV). And yes,
: >when fully superconducting we didn't see a sossidge.

: This is one obvious direction for experiments with superconductors, but
: the most sensitive measurements are different; they are called
: persistent current measurements.  If you close the ends of a solenoid
: to make a loop, you get a circuit which is essentially a resistor in
: series with an inductor.  Although there is no battery in the circuit,
: the laws of linear electrical circuits still apply, with the conclusion
: that current should decay to zero in time proportional to inductance
: divided by resistance.  You can get a current started with a switch
: that leads the loop to a battery.  You can then wait and later measure
: the current using a current meter and the same switch.

: If you do this experiment with Big Brutus The Magnet with thick copper
: tubing (which has very low resistance among normal conductors), the
: current might last for a few minutes.  If you try it with a teeny weeny
: round loop with thin wire, the current disappears in the blink of an
: eye no matter what normal conductor you use.  But with a
: superconductor, the current doesn't go away.  There are experiments
: with little superconducting loops with no measurable loss of current
: after a year.  I am not sure exactly how many zeroes after the decimal
: you get from these experiments, but my guess is that the resistance of
: a superconductor is known to be at least 10^10 or 10^15 times lower
: than that of copper.

: BTW, persistent magnets are not only an experimental technique,
: but also a standard technological device.


Damn - I forgot this technique. Sorry, folks. I believe these
experiments are carried out over years. But then I was trying to address
Plutonium's belief that noone had ever tried to measure the resistance
of a superconductor...

Ian
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenianj cudfnI cudlnJohnston cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.31 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Re: Tough questions for Steve Jones
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Tough questions for Steve Jones
Date: 31 Mar 94 12:11:47 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

In article <Cn73Hx.999@world.std.com>, mica@world.std.com 
(mitchell swartz) writes:
>    In Message-ID: <1994Mar24.115508.1514@physc1.byu.edu>
> Subject: Re: Tough questions for Scott Chubb
> Brigham Young University
> Steven Jones (jonesse@physc1.byu.edu)  writes his questions to 
> Scott Chubb.
> 
>     Sorry to be redundant but several of the questions which I posted
> to Steven Jones weeks ago remain unanswered.  He "taught" but
> was caught in some paradoxes, irregularities, etc, and these Steve
> has not addressed.  Hoping for a dialogue on these points 
> before the original post scrolls off our system, I'm reposting 
> some of the more important questions.
> 
>     Steve influences AP wires around the World but ducks the
> these questions.  Perhaps now?
> Come on Steve, give it a try.
>  
>   Steve says, "dialog is healthy" and this author responded to
> his 6 posts, and still awaits the answers.
> 
>   Steve,  I'm asking you to reply, reconsider, or give us
> supporting data for your (apparently unsupportable) statements.
> 
>    The questions were: 
>    {Q4J3}   Which c.f. neutron experiments do you stand behind
> and which have you withdrawn?
> 
>   You have simply not answered,  thereby perhaps 
> leaving all your experimental work in question 
> to the readers, like myself, who closely follow your
> writings.

Indeed, I have emphasized repeatedly that we do not find *any* of our neutron
data to be compelling evidence for even a low-level fusion effect due to
deuterium in metals.  Nor does anyone else have compelling evidence for a
"cold-fusion" effect, not from neutrons, not from gammas, not from charged
particles, not from x-rays, and certainly not from "excess heat" alone.
Earth to Mitch:  There is no compelling evidence for cold fusion.
> 
>   Regarding the Miles experiments: 
>   The 90-92 expts used Pyrex glass flasks.    The 93 expts used 
> metal flasks and full consideration of atmospheric contamination.
> All backgrounds were subtracted to derive the incremental helium-4 
> production rate normalized to power, and the helium
> in the metal flask set was reportedly examined by two 
> additional labs (Rockwell and Bureau of Mines).
>    The increases in helium-4 are linked and are about 12 sigma 
> above background.
>    
> {Questions to Steve Jones
>     {Q4J4}  Comments on that, Steve?  And what might be some implications?

I have analyzed the earlier Miles et al. experiments, which did indeed use
glass flasks, in considerable detail and found those wanting.  In ;those expts,
the 4He was less than atmospheric concentrations and could have been due
to contamination.  They used crude Geiger-Mueller counters about 20 cm from
their cells, x-ray film (some having emulsion peeling off), and neutron survey
meters (crude counters which showed nothing anyway).

I have yet to see the latest paper.  Maybe they've done better.  But I'll need
to scrutinize this paper you speak of.  If this is a pre-print available
publicly, send me a copy and I'll read it and then comment.  If published
(which I doubt), tell me where.  Fair enough?
[176 ESC, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT 84602]
> 
>  {Q4J7}      With a Qt  of circa 23 MeV (generated per reaction of H4)
> this data would put the 
> ash measured within a factor of 3 of what is expected.
>     Because there may not be only one pathway;
> and because the material(s) absorbs 4He, this level is worth
> considering.   If you do not agree, why not?

Aha-- so you agree the 'material(s) absorbs 4He' -- as experiments show
clearly any 4He produced in Pd would be trapped and quite immobile.  I
agree -- but then how do *you* explain how the 4He manages to get into the
gas stream so that it is detected by Miles et al.?  Do they melt or dissolve
the Pd to get the 4He out?  Don't think so.

Don't dodge this one, Mitch -- think it through, and you might just wonder
about the Miles et al. claims as you should.
> 
> 
>    In Message-ID: <1994Feb18.134656.1394@physc1.byu.edu>
> Subject: Reply to Mitch 4: Pd cube;water heater
> Steven Jones [jonesse@physc1.byu.edu] writes:
> 
> =sj "The Close reference is to the famous exploding Pd cube of P&F which
> =sj Close does indeed reference.   P&F did not estimate the W/cm3 in that
> =sj incident, but it appears to be at least 1000W/cm3 from the damage it did
> =sj to the cement etc. which is what I said."  
> 
>    Since you stuck your own neck out please prove it.
>    Where is your proof?
> You have claimed this to be a fact in 
> a grotesque flailing attempt to rescue Dale Bass.
> Remember, you referenced a page in Frank Close's
> book that actually did not have the derivation, or even reference,
> which you claimed.  
> Citing a reference that does not have the data is not worthy of
> a physicist of your reputation.
> 
Close's excellent book does indeed refer to the famous exploding cube incident,
which is also mentioned in the P&F 1989 initial paper.  I did not say that
Frank Close gave the power output from this claim, and indeed I said that
"P&F did not estimate the W/cm3 in that incident."

Dale Bass is capable of defending himself, and calling my post a "grotesque
flailing attempt to rescue Dale Bass" is absurd.

>   {question to Steve Jones:
>      {Q4J 10}    Can you support your claim?
> 
> If you cannot prove your claim, why do you keep pushing this?
> Just post a reference that gives an order of magnitude estimate.
> Where exactly is the basis of the 1000W/cm^3 in the incident as
> you allege? 
> 
OK, let's go through an "order of magnitude estimate," given the information
available.  I have the 1989 P&F [and Hawkins] J. Electro. Cham 261:301 paper
in front of me; they say:

"We have to report here that under the condition of the last experiment, even
using D2O alone, a substantial portion of the cathode fused (melting point
1554 C), part of it vapourised,
and the cell and contents and a part of the fume cupboard housing the
experiment were destroyed."

From Table 1, we find that the "last experiment" involved a 1X1X1 cm Pd cube
as cathode -- that's about 12 g.  Melting this would take about 2000 J, I
calculate.  Now the claim that part was vaporized implies major energy:
1 g would require about 3500 J to vaporize (I calculate; would appreciate a
correction if I erred in calculation).  Now for this explosion to "destroy" the
cell and contents and part of the fume cupboard, a short time for the
vaporization is clearly involved.  For our estimate, let's give it 1/10th
second to explode and 1 g vaporized only.  Then, the power in the explosion is

     3500 J/ 0.1s = 35KW for the 1cm^3 Pd cathode

--the order of magnitude estimate you requested.  I maintain that that claim
has yet to be supported or improved upon, five years later.  Indeed, a 
colleague searched Pons' lab where this explosion is supposed to have occured
and found *no* evidence whatsoever, not even repairs in the area... this was
posted on the net some months back.


> 
>    In Message-ID: <1994Feb18.135207.1396@physc1.byu.edu>
> Subject: Reply to Mitch 6: No compelling evidence for cf
> Steven Jones [jonesse@physc1.byu.edu] writes:
> 
>    ==   "(I) have stated:
>    == " A real signal should be capable of scaling, and should not shrink as
>    == background levels are reduced.  However, as we have proceeded to better
>    == detectors, cold-fusion data surety has diminished."
> 
> {Questions for Steven Jones:
>   {Q4J14}
>   Please itemize your assertion since it so broad, and
> also because the data has been quite the
> opposite as regards cold fusion (other then neutron production
> where it may be true for most static conditions).  
> 
We seem to agree that it is true for neutron production -0- the better the
detehas published a
characteristic x-ray spectrum using an x-ray spectrometer?  No one.  
Think of it, nuclear reactions in a solid producing enough energy to generate
measurable heat, but no x-rays and no neutrons?  Come on, you're pulling my leg
till it hurts.

>   In various messages, Steven (jonesse@physc1.byu.edu)
> writes that his recombination studies on nickel (possibly 
> involving additional gases) negate the from of Fleischmann,
> Pons, Mills, Noninski, Miles, Srinivasan.. 
> 
>  {Q4J18} 
>  Since Steven Jones cites (in his posts and ICCF-4 paper posted
>  a dozen times) his *****  own *****  "compelling experiment" 
> to publicly  denigrate both protium-nickel & palladium-deuterium 
> systems, it would seem reasonable to see the data, would it not?    
> Given all the megabytes of your postings, and your continued
> reliance upon it, and your failure to post the data at ICCF-4
> (interesting that)   how about it, Steve?
> 

As I have said, our paper on these experiments has been submitted to a
peer-reviewed journal for publication.  

>  {Q4J19} 
> It would seem reasonable to compare equal power intensities, 
> would it not?   How can you use %s?
> 
>   Steve, therefore, is it not simply natural to ask the following questions?
>  {Q4J20}  What is the maximum amount of excess heat you have generated in 
> your cells by this method?

As I have before posted to these same questions, we use *both* %'s and absolute
power measurements when discussing our experimental results.  The "maximum
amount of excess heat [we] have generated in [our] cells" is zero, as
Jonathon Jones and I have repeatedly emphasized.  All the *apparent* excess
heat ( up to 1600 microwatts) was demonstrated to be due to hydrogen+oxygen
recombination.  Prof. Oriani found similar results independently.

> 
>   {Q4J23} How can you prove that it COMPLETELY accounts for
> calibrated excess heats in all cases, including those where 
> recombination has already been considered?
> 

You mean, can we *prove* that everybody else's experiments are wrong?
No.  But we can say:
"the results of this study show that the amount of recombination can be a
critical factor in calculating the enthalpy balance for an electrolytic cell...
If compelling evidence for sources of excess heat other than recombination is
to be obtained, Faraday efficiency must be accurately determined while the cell
is producing excess heat. ... Until such studies are carefully done, there are
no compelling reasons for not adopting the hypothesis that calorimetric errors
or failure to account for recombination of hydrogen and oxygen during
electrolysis of water account for all reports of excess heat.  Compared with
other hypotheses... this hypothesis is much simpler and requires no changes in 
well-established scientific principles."
From our paper, submitted.

>   {Q4J24} Regarding the recombination, real and of putative substantial
> effect:  Please also notice that it cannot account for
> the storage of energy exceeding chemical explanations for the amount
> of mass therein.  Can it?

Huh?  We show that by assuming no recombination while calculating xs heat,
when recombination actually occurs, very large values of xs heat can be
[erroneously] calculated - thousands of %.  
> 
>   {Q4J25} Could you reconcile the following  postings, OK?
>         or post the data?
> 
>   First, Steve, you claimed 120% increase:
>       ============= excerpts from past posting claiming 120% ===============
> ====sj "... this student with Prof. Lee Hansen of BYU has bubbled oxygen
> ====sj past the nickel cathode -- and found an immediate burst of xs heat of
> ====sj about 120% (calculating xs heat using the "no recombination" assumption,
> ====sj of course).      Thus, we get
> ====sj xs heat in the Notoya-Noninski-Mills-Bush -Srinivasan (all claim xs heat
> ====sj in nickel-light water cells), but we found that recombination of H2+O2
> ====sj cannot be ignored!"
>    [ID:<1993May7.173724.619@physc1.byu.edu>, Sub: Re: S.Jones' advice
>    (Reply to Noninski); Steve Jones jonesse@physc1.byu.edu)]
> 
>   By August 10th, you were claiming 700% excess heat, 
>       ============= excerpts from past posting claiming 700% =======
> ==sj "Remember we found over 700% excess heat in electrolytic cells, but only
> ==sj  when recombination was ignored."
>   [ID: <1993Aug10.181606.836@physc1.byu.edu>;Sub: Response to Mitchell Swartz
>             Steven Jones [jonesse@physc1.byu.edu]]
> 
> Meanwhile Johnathan said:
> ==== Excerpt from Jonathan Jones' 134% Excess Heat Posting =========
> =jj "In the first set of experiments a 1 cm2 piece of sintered nickel was
> =jj used as the hydrogen electrode and #22 platinum wire was used as
> =jj the oxygen electrode.  While running with an input power of 320
> =jj microwatts --qinp = 1mA(1.8V - 1.48)--the measured output was 750
> =jj microwatts.  This gives 134% excess heat when calculated with the
> =jj formulas given to us by Mr. Mallove."
> =jj "When glass tubes where placed over the electrodes allowing a flow
> =jj of ions but inhibiting the flow of evolved gas between electrodes
> =jj the output measured corresponded to the input power(qinp), thus no
> =jj excess heat was observed."
> =jj "In the second set of experiments a frit was placed in the bottom of
> =jj the cell through which nitrogen or oxygen was bubbled.  When
> =jj nitrogen was used to purge the cell of the evolved gases no excess
> =jj heat was observed.  When oxygen was used to purge the cell, the
> =jj calorimetric output was 7 times the input power(q=1mA(1.6V-1.48))."
>          [Sub: 700% Excess Heat at BYU ????;
>          ID: <1993May26.163714.668@physc1.byu.edu>
>          Jonathan E. Jones [jonesj@physc1.byu.edu];
>            Date: 26 May 93 16:37:14 -0600]
>    
> So which story was it, Steve?   120%, 134%, 700%,  90000%  
>    See why some data helps...                   ;)
> 
>   
>   {Q4J26}   Please reconcile your recent wide-ranging 
> claims against cold fusion with Jonathan Jones' statements.     
> 
Give me a break.  We saw different levels of apparent xs heat in different
experiments, depending on electrode separation and other conditions.  That's
just the point.  We have seen from 0 to about 700% *calculated* excess heat.

>   First you claim your purported Ni recombination data
> negates F&P and Miles etc.    but Jonathan said:
> 
> =jj "Mitch also included a nifty table comparing our results with F&P
> =jj and Miles.  Our results are orders of magnitude smaller than either
> =jj of the other results."  
> =jj           [Message-ID: <1993Sep20.171857.947@physc1.byu.edu>
> =jj              Subject: Recombination in light water cells
> =jj              Jonathan Jones (jonesj@physc1.byu.edu)]
> 
>   {Q4J27}   Please reconcile your recent claims with Jonathan
> Jones' statements.     

Show me the table in question and I can.  Remember, we have done experiments
since Jonathon's posting with higher *apparent* excess heat, and with Pd/LiOD
cells.

>   First you claim your purported Ni recombination data
> negates F&P and Miles etc.    but Jonathan said:
> 
> =jj " Note, we our not dealing with a F&P type
> =jj cell. ... Comparing our light
> =jj water work to heavy water work does no good."  
> =jj           [Message-ID: <1993Sep20.171857.947@physc1.byu.edu>
> =jj              Subject: Recombination in light water cells
> =jj              Jonathan Jones (jonesj@physc1.byu.edu)]

That was true when he posted, but, as I have said, we have done work with
Pd/LiOD cells since then -- P&F-type cells.  And we see *apparent* xs heat
due to recombination in the P&F-type cells as well as in the Ni/H2 cells.
> 
>    Best wishes to Jonathan.   Guess that's enough for
> now, Steve.  We still await your reply sorting this out, given
> the laborious effort put into answering your detailed
> questions. 
> 
>           Thanks in advance.
> 
>                 Mitchell Swartz  (mica@world.std.com)
>  
Best wishes to Jonathon, too.
--Steven Jones
 

cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenjonesse cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.31 /  GMallory /  Blue Sky Engineering
     
Originally-From: gmallory@aol.com (GMallory)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Blue Sky Engineering
Date: 31 Mar 1994 07:43:02 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

Im an engineer, rather than a physicist, but it John Logajan's comment about D
in diamonds is interesting, could not an ion implantation device accelerate D
ions and stuff them into a diamond
until somthing goes bang?  Either the diamond will come apart from 
al the dislocations, or the D will get squeezed enough to fuse.  Either
way, I would stand back.

Gene Mallory
GMallory@aol.com
(818) 782-2483
(818) 785-3914

cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudengmallory cudlnGMallory cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.02 / John Logajan /  Re: Tough questions for Steve Jones
     
Originally-From: 74242.1554@compuserve.com (John M. Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Tough questions for Steve Jones
Date: Sat, 2 Apr 1994 01:11:46 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

jonesse@physc1.byu.edu (Steven Jones) writes:
> 1X1X1 cm Pd cube -- that's about 12 g.

Correct, or about 1/9th of a mole of Pd (0.113 mole)

> Melting this would take about 2000 J, I calculate.

Hmm, the heat capacity of Pd is 26 J/mole/degreeC.  The heat of fusion of
Pd, according to the CRC, is 17,200 J/mole.   So we have to first raise
the temperature from, say 25C, to 1555C, a delta of 1530C.  So that is
1530*26*0.113 = 4,500 J to get to the melting temperature.  Then add
17,200*0.113 = 1,950 J to melt it, for a combined total of 6,450 J.

>Now the claim that part was vaporized implies major energy: 1 g would
>require about 3500 J to vaporize

The CRC says the heat of vaporization of Pd is 372,400 J/mole at 3,140C.
So again to get to that temperature (assuming 26J/mole/degreeC) requires
(3140-1555)*26*0.133 = 5,480 J.  To vaporize the whole thing requires
372,400*0.133 = 49,500J.  Now you guess that about 1/12th was vaporized,
so that is about 4,200J and combining with the 5,480J to raise the
temperature gives a total of 9,680J.  (Note that I assume the entire bulk
reached the boiling temperature, but only part of it boiled away.)

The total required energy then, is 6,450J + 9,680J = 16,130J.

>let's give it 1/10th second to explode and 1 g vaporized only.  Then,
>the power in the explosion is: 3500 J/ 0.1s = 35KW for 1cm^3 Pd.

I get 16130 J/ 0.1s = 161KW.


By the way, a 1cc Pd cube loaded at 1.0 D (or H) would hold the equivalent
of 0.0565 (1/18) mole of D2 (or H2).  Burning that with free O2 would
produce just about 16,150J.  However, that would produce 1/18 mole of H2O
at a temperature at least equal to the Pd temperature.  So assume approx a
2/3 to 1/3 energy split.  That leaves about 10,800 J for the Pd, enough to
melt it, but not enough to reach the boiling temperature, let alone
vaporize it.  It would be very hard to burn all the H or D loaded in the
Pd fast enough to avoid thermal heat losses, so it is unlikely that such a
"cigarette lighter" effect could even raise the Pd to the melting point. It
would also have to suck up about 3.5 liters of air to consume about 700 ml
of O2.

So there is little hope of a "natural" explanation for Pd melting or
vaporizing.


cudkeys:
cuddy2 cuden1554 cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.31 /  jonesse@physc1 /  The usual garbage from Jed Rothwell (was usual garbage from D. Blue)
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: The usual garbage from Jed Rothwell (was usual garbage from D. Blue)
Date: 31 Mar 94 17:37:18 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

Dear colleagues,
Below, Jed castigates Dick Blue for his questions about the recent J.Phys.
Chem. paper of M. Miles, B. Bush, and D. Stilwell (Feb. 1994).  But Dick had
*read* the abstract, on which he based his comments.  Now I have read this
latest Miles et al. paper, along with about 6 others which I have reviewed in
the past.  In fact, I wonder whether *Jed* has read the latest paper carefully,
since Dick Blue's questions are justified by a careful reading of the paper, as
we shall see (briefly) below.  

In article <940327035908_72240.1256_EHB236-1@CompuServe.COM>, 
72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
> To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
> 
> Dick Blue has given us his usual line of misinformed crap, imagination,
> and lies here regarding the Miles paper. It is amazing how much garbage
> he can shove into a few paragraphes without even reading the paper! I
> cannot possibly counter *all* of his nonsense, but let me just defuse a
> few points:
> 
> 
>      "The abstract of a forthcoming paper by Dr. Miles as posted by Jed
>      Rothwell.."
> 
> Not forthcoming. It has forth come. I stated very clearly that the paper
> has been published.
> 
> 
>      "Let us start by asking whether the error sources mentioned in the
>      Miles abstract do not fully apply to all of the early experimental
>      results with which Miles is associated.
> 
> Yes, let's do that, Dick. First, read the damn paper. You will see that he
> avoided all of those errors in his experiments.
> 

NOT SO, JED!  Dick is concerned here, as he says, about the "early" expts of
Miles et al., and the papers make clear that the same problems which Miles et
al. now criticize in Lewis, Williams et al., etc. - did in fact occur in 
the early Miles experiments.  For example, this problem:

"The level of the electrolyte exerts a major calorimetric effect..." 
(Feb. 1994 Miles et al. paper)
Compare with 1991 Miles et al. paper, discussion of runs 12/17/90-A
and 12/17/90-B has this comment:

"Possible calorimetric errors due to low D2O solution levels."
Aha!  The same problem for which Miles et al. now castigate Lewis, Williams,
etc.!  Dick was right.
> 
>      "I may have to reread those early papers to be sure of this point, but
>      my recollection is that his calorimeter was of the crudest sort with no
>      consideration given to the kinds of error sources he now sees in this
>      method."
> 
> Your recollection hell! You have no such recollection, you made up that
> statement just now. It is a stinking lie. If you actually go and read his
> papers -- for the first time in your life, no doubt -- or if you read the new
> paper you will see how he fixed the problems with software and hardware most
> elegantly.
> 
Hold on, Jed.  Dick was talking about the "early" experiments, pre-1992.  
In addition to the low D2O solution problems in those early experiments, 
there were other problems -- for instance, they have corrected by an order
of magnitude the amount of 4He claimed in the early experiments. Jed, *you*
made the statements without going to the papers for support.  You rascal you.

> 
>      "I would also urge that Dr. Miles apply his new insights into the
>      basic problems of calorimetry to a reexmination of Pons and
>      Fleishcmann's contributions to cold fusion research."
> 
> P&F contributions are discussed explicitely in the paper. I would urge
> you to read the damn paper. Just once in your life, before you start blabbing,
> read the paper!
> 
Yes, Jed, take your own medecine.
In the Feb. 1994 paper, Miles et al. refer to the P&F boiling-cell paper (1993)
as follows:
"Although the measured excess power is often small, a recent study has reported
a much larger effect (3700 W/cm3 Pd) for Pd-D2O cells operating in the region
of the boiling point."
There is *no* criticism of the P&F work in this Miles et al paper, yet
earlier in this paper, Miles et al. point out:

"Gas bubbles that collect at or near the electrodes yield large oscillations in
the cell voltage, making it difficult to obtain precise measurements."

This is precisely the criticism of the P&F boiling-cell excess-heat claims
leveled by Tom Droege, Douglas Morrison and myself shortly after the P&F
Phys. Lett. A 176 (1993) 1 paper on boiling was published about one year ago.
Now in 1994 Miles et al. take this "error source" of bubbling yielding
"large oscillations in the cell voltage"
and apply this critically to Albagli et al. (who had a negative result)
but they *fail* to apply this criterion to P&F's boiling cell!
This is just the sort of gross oversight by Miles et al. that Dick Blue was 
justifiably concerned about.

Jed missed it, too.
> 
>      "As an aside, I wonder whether Jed Rothwell has learned anything
>      from his correspondence with Dr. Miles as to how easy and
>      straightforward calorimetry is.  Does the Rothwell toothbrush
>      box calorimeter satisfy Dr. Miles new standards?
> 
> I corresponded with Dr. Miles about the toothbrush box calorimeter before I
> published the paper. Yes, I am sure it satisfies the standards, which are not
> new, they go back about 150 years. They are only new to Richard Blue, who
> doesn't know shit from shineola about calorimetry or cold fusion because he
> has never bothered to read any papers. My baby calorimeter has a much easier
> time satisfying the requirements for straightforward calorimetery than the
> calorimeters of Miles or the ones at MIT or Cal Tech in 1989 for these
> reasons, which I am sure are completely over Dick Blue's head:
> 
> 1. I am measuring 10 to 100 times greater power. That makes it much easier.
> 
> 2. I am measuring joule heating, not electrolysis.
> 
> 3. I am not trying to achieve milliwatt precision. One watt, or maybe 500
> milliwatt precision is fine for my purposes. It is *far* easier to make a
> crude instrument capable of measuring to the nearest 500 mw than to make
> a precision instrument like the ones Miles uses.
> 
> - Jed
> 

Methinks Jed still has much to learn, both about calorimetry and about
scholarship.  In my reading of the latest Miles et al. paper, I find
that Dick Blue's concerns were justified, despite Jed's inflammatory
diatribe to the contrary.  Clearly, Jed's writing represents 
not scholarship,  but chutzpah and flatus.

--Steven Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenjonesse cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.01 / J Interguru /  DOE TPX Tesimony Before Congress
     
Originally-From: jdavidson@clark.net (Joseph Davidson - Interguru)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: DOE TPX Tesimony Before Congress
Date: 1 Apr 1994 03:01:15 GMT
Organization: Clark Internet Services, Inc., Ellicott City, MD



I thought you might like to see how the Department of Energy is responding
to congressional questions. The following is a question from a member of
the House appropration subcommittee on energy and water. 

        Mr. Rogers.  The Department is requesting funds in FY95 for the
tokamak physics experiment (TPX).  Does the TPX have the sound physics
basis drawn from theory and experiments that would lead one to say that it
will be able to successfully achieve and explore advanced operating modes? 

        Dr. Krebs.  Yes.  Experiments on most of the world tokamaks
already have shown successful results with the advanced tokamak operating
modes that will be used in TPX.  These results, however, are achieved
transiently in short pulse plasmas that last only a few seconds.  TPX is
proposed to extend these results to 15 minute long pulses in order to
demonstrate the feasibility of using these operating modes in developing a
continuously operating fusion power plant. 

The best available theoretical models have been used in designing TPX and
provide confidence that TPX will succeed in meeting its objectives.  The
conceptual design for TPX was thoroughly endorsed by an international
panel of scientists and engineers. 


--
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Davidson Ph.D.                               |   This message written 
1501 Dublin Drive, Silver Spring, Md. 20902         |   and transmitted with 
voice 301 593 4152 ; fax 301 593 4152 (call first)  |   recycled electrons
j.davidson@ieee.org                                 |
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------

cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenjdavidson cudfnJoseph cudlnInterguru cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.01 / mitchell swartz /  Reply to Re: Tough questions for Steve Jones
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Reply to Re: Tough questions for Steve Jones
Subject: Re: Tough questions for Steve Jones
Date: Fri, 1 Apr 1994 03:29:10 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA


 ***   This is my response to Steves questions and comments.
Could someone please show Steve how to answer without recopying each and
every line in a posting.    The S/N would go up a lot.

   In Message-ID: <1994Mar31.121148.1539@physc1.byu.edu>
Subject: Re: Tough questions for Steve Jones
Steve Jones [jonesse@physc1.byu.edu] writes:

   >    The questions were: 
   >    {Q4J3}   Which c.f. neutron experiments do you stand behind
   > and which have you withdrawn?
= "Indeed, I have emphasized repeatedly that we do not find *any* of our neutron
= data to be compelling evidence for even a low-level fusion effect due to
= deuterium in metals.  Nor does anyone else have compelling evidence for a
= "cold-fusion" effect, not from neutrons, not from gammas, not from charged
= particles, not from x-rays, and certainly not from "excess heat" alone.
= Earth to Mitch:  There is no compelling evidence for cold fusion."
 
  OK.  Steve.   Message received.  But which one?
Your statement now is consistent with both AP and your recent comments,
such as

  =jones    "An Associated Press article quotes me as saying:
  =jones    "Jones now says cold fusion 'has been thoroughly disproven.'"
      [Message-ID: <1994Mar25.170200.1521@physc1.byu.edu>
       Subject: AP article on cold fusion/23 March 1994]


  However, it is inconsistent with others.  For example:

 ----> Also the CF Question (and paradox) of the Month:
   What official Brigham Young University publication (July 1993)
   reads as follows?                                   \/\/\/\/\

         "Since the announcement of "cold fusion" from
           experiments of Steven E. Jones  et al. at
            Brigham Young University ........"

        ?


  >   Regarding the Miles experiments: 
  >   The 90-92 expts used Pyrex glass flasks.    The 93 expts used 
  > metal flasks and full consideration of atmospheric contamination.
  > All backgrounds were subtracted to derive the incremental helium-4 
  > production rate normalized to power, and the helium
  > in the metal flask set was reportedly examined by two 
  > additional labs (Rockwell and Bureau of Mines).
  >    The increases in helium-4 are linked and are about 12 sigma 
  > above background.
  >    
  > {Questions to Steve Jones
  >     {Q4J4}  Comments on that, Steve?  And what might be some implications?
= "I have analyzed the earlier Miles et al. experiments, which did indeed use
= glass flasks, in considerable detail and found those wanting.  In those 
= expts, the 4He was less than atmospheric concentrations 
= and could have been due
= to contamination.  They used crude Geiger-Mueller counters about 20 cm from
= their cells, x-ray film (some having emulsion peeling off), and neutron survey
= meters (crude counters which showed nothing anyway)."

  Are you implying they measure the helium with the counters
or the x-ray film?  You discount the score of controls, the levels
of controls in the He-4 expts in a fashion all too facile.


= "I have yet to see the latest paper.  Maybe they've done better.
=   But I'll need
= to scrutinize this paper you speak of.  If this is a pre-print available
= publicly, send me a copy and I'll read it and then comment.  If published
= (which I doubt), tell me where.  Fair enough?
= [176 ESC, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT 84602]"

   Honestly, Steve. 
 You were given the detailed (?3 page) abstract in hand in December.
 In addition, there is an indication that you received an
additional paper or papers already including one in February from,
and courtesy of, Dr. Miles.


  
  >  {Q4J7}   With a Qt  of circa 23 MeV  (generated per reaction of H4)
  > this data would put the 
  > ash measured within a factor of 3 of what is expected.
  >     Because there may not be only one pathway;
  > and because the material(s) absorbs 4He, this level is worth
  > considering.   If you do not agree, why not?
= "Aha-- so you agree the 'material(s) absorbs 4He' -- as experiments show
= clearly any 4He produced in Pd would be trapped and quite immobile.  I
= agree -- but then how do *you* explain how the 4He manages to get into the
= gas stream so that it is detected by Miles et al.?  Do they melt or dissolve
= the Pd to get the 4He out?  Don't think so."

  I have already said that comment about the He trapping.  

  Answer:  There are a range of deep to shallow traps for the helium.
           Perhaps that is why the helium only accounts for 8-30% of
           the excess heat.

  BTW you did not answer the question posed to you.
Don't dodge this one, Steve -- think it through, and you might just wonder
about the Miles et al. claims as you should.


  > Where exactly is the basis of the 1000W/cm^3 in the incident as
  > you allege? 
= "OK, let's go through an "order of magnitude estimate," given the information
= available.  I have the 1989 P&F [and Hawkins] J. Electro. Cham 261:301 paper
= in front of me; they say:
= "We have to report here that under the condition of the last experiment, even
= using D2O alone, a substantial portion of the cathode fused (melting point
= 1554 C), part of it vapourised,
= and the cell and contents and a part of the fume cupboard housing the
= experiment were destroyed."
= From Table 1, we find that the "last experiment" involved a 1X1X1 cm Pd cube
= as cathode -- that's about 12 g.  Melting this would take about 2000 J, I
= calculate.  Now the claim that part was vaporized implies major energy:
= 1 g would require about 3500 J to vaporize (I calculate; would appreciate a
= correction if I erred in calculation). 
=  Now for this explosion to "destroy" the
= cell and contents and part of the fume cupboard, a short time for the
= vaporization is clearly involved.  For our estimate, let's give it 1/10th
= second to explode and 1 g vaporized only.  Then, the power in the explosion is
= 
=      3500 J/ 0.1s = 35KW for the 1cm^3 Pd cathode"

  Elegant.  However, the .1 second part seems lacking a firm basis.
Perhaps if you took three seconds instead it would come out perfect   ;-) X


= "As I have said, our paper on these experiments has been submitted to a
= peer-reviewed journal for publication."  

  Good luck.


  >  {Q4J20}  What is the maximum amount of excess heat you have generated in 
  > your cells by this method?
=   "The "maximum
= amount of excess heat [we] have generated in [our] cells" is zero, as
= Jonathon Jones and I have repeatedly emphasized.  All the *apparent* excess
= heat ( up to 1600 microwatts) was demonstrated to be due to hydrogen+oxygen
= recombination.  Prof. Oriani found similar results independently."

   Prof. Oriani told you he no longer believes in any
cold fusion effect?
       and that he supports your claim independently?


  >   {Q4J23} How can you prove that it COMPLETELY accounts for
  > calibrated excess heats in all cases, including those where 
  > recombination has already been considered?
=   "You mean, can we *prove* that everybody else's experiments are wrong?
=      No."

   QED.   That makes the multiple claims compelling after all. 

    Best wishes, colleagues.

                             -   Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com)

                  ==================================
       "Detection is, or ought to be, an exact science and
        should be treated in the same cold and unemotional
        manner"   Sir Arthur Conan Doyle "The sign of four" (1890)


cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.01 /  docmitch /  Re: Lattice within a lattice (was Answers to Steve Jones's "tough qu
     
Originally-From: docmitch <michael1429@delphi.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Lattice within a lattice (was Answers to Steve Jones's "tough qu
Date: Fri, 1 Apr 94 09:31:13 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

mitchell,
      do you know if there has been anyresearch into a sandwich of fullerences
combined with palladium in an attempt to enhance the possible
reaction mechanisms?
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenmichael1429 cudlndocmitch cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.01 / mitchell swartz /  Lattice with a fullerene lattice
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Lattice with a fullerene lattice
Subject: Re: Lattice within a lattice (was Answers to Steve Jones's "tough qu
Date: Fri, 1 Apr 1994 16:13:56 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <x68PxRR.michael1429@delphi.com>
Subject: Re: Lattice within a lattice (was Answers to Steve Jones's "tough qu
 docmitch <michael1429@delphi.com> writes:

=  mitchell,
=       do you know if there has been anyresearch into a sandwich of fullerences
=  combined with palladium in an attempt to enhance the possible
=   reaction mechanisms?

  Docmitch: (?Michael)

     To my knowledge there is much more information on palladium in
other carbon and carbon/X systems.  Most of those involve
palladium and especially its catalytic properties.

    A few citations are appended for flavor.

   Most (a few examples below) involve planar (some pi-electron) carbon
molecules of which I though fullerenes are composed.
  How would you stop the catalysis?  Is that not a problem?
  Perhaps the furans (Acardi paper) might give some suggestions.

 Perhaps you might do a Science Citation or two
and kindly let us know.    

         Best wishes.
                                 -   Doctor Mitch
======= Catalytic ===

Title:  A Highly-Active Palladium Complex Catalyst in the 
        Synthesis of N,N'-Diphenylurea from Nitrobenzene, 
        Aniline and Carbon-Monoxide
Source:  CATALYSIS LETTERS
         1993, Vol 19, Iss 2-3, pp 217-222

Authors:  Wong-PK  Vandoorn-JA  Drent-E  Sudmeijer-O  Stil-HA
Title:  Palladium-Catalyzed Alternating Copolymerization of 
        Propylene and Carbon-Monoxide - Formation of 
        Poly(Spiroketal Ketone)
Source:  INDUSTRIAL & ENGINEERING CHEMISTRY RESEARCH
         1993, Vol 32, Iss 5, pp 986-988

Authors:  Davis-AP  Dorgan-BJ  Mageean-ER
Title:  An Unexpected Pathway in the Palladium-Catalyzed 
        Chemistry of Allyl Carbonates - The Transfer of 
        Allyloxycarbonyl Groups Without Loss of CO2
Source:  JOURNAL OF THE CHEMICAL SOCIETY-CHEMICAL 
COMMUNICATIONS
         1993, Iss 6, pp 492-494


Authors:  Lee-CW  Lee-JS  Lee-SM  Kim-KD  Cho-NS  Oh-JS
Title:  Palladium-Catalyzed N,N'-Diphenylurea Synthesis from 
        Nitrobenzene, Aniline, and Carbon-Monoxide .4. Ligand 
        Effects
Source:  JOURNAL OF MOLECULAR CATALYSIS
         1993, Vol 81, Iss 1, pp 17-25


Authors:  Arcadi-A  Cacchi-S  Larock-RC  Marinelli-F
Title:  The Palladium-Catalyzed Synthesis of 2,3,5-
        Trisubstituted Furans from 2-Propargyl-1,3-Dicarbonyl 
        Compounds and Vinylic or Aryl Triflates or Halides
Source:  TETRAHEDRON LETTERS
         1993, Vol 34, Iss 17, pp 2813-2816

Authors:  Carpentier-JF  Petit-F  Mortreux-A  Dufaud-V  
          Basset-JM  Thivollecazat-J
Title:  Palladium-Catalyzed Carbon-Carbon Bond Formation from 
        (Eta(6)-Chloroarene)Cr(CO)3 Complexes - An Example of 
        Bimetallic Activation in Homogeneous Catalysis
Source:  JOURNAL OF MOLECULAR CATALYSIS
         1993, Vol 81, Iss 1, pp 1-15

Authors:  Falckpedersen-ML  Benneche-T  Undheim-K
Title:  Palladium-Catalyzed Rearrangements of 2-
        Cyclopentenyloxypyrimidines in the Preparation of 
        Pyrimidine Carbonucleosides
Source:  ACTA CHEMICA SCANDINAVICA
         1993, Vol 47, Iss 1, pp 72-79







cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.01 / Robert Heeter /  Re: Reply to Re: Tough questions for Steve Jones
     
Originally-From: rfheeter@theory.pppl.gov (Robert F. Heeter)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reply to Re: Tough questions for Steve Jones
Date: 1 Apr 1994 10:37:21 -0500
Organization: /etc/organization

In article <CnK9oM.6nz@world.std.com>,
mitchell swartz <mica@world.std.com> wrote:
>
> ***   This is my response to Steves questions and comments.
>Could someone please show Steve how to answer without recopying each and
>every line in a posting.    The S/N would go up a lot.

Personally I would prefer it if someone would show Mitch how to include
*all* relevant context, without selectively extracting only those
statements he chooses.  Granted, this makes an individual post longer,
but in the long run I think it makes everything clearer, promotes everyone
else's understanding, and probably reduces the number of replies which
need to be generated.  The S/N would go up a lot.  I prefer Dr. Jones'
method - when in doubt, include the full text.

***********
Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@theory.pppl.gov
(Probably becoming notorious for longwindedness)
disclaimers apply
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Sat Apr  2 04:37:05 EST 1994
------------------------------
1994.04.01 / Greg Kuperberg /  Type I and type II superconductors
     
Originally-From: gk00@quads.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Type I and type II superconductors
Date: Fri, 1 Apr 1994 18:08:18 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago -- Academic Information Technologies

I got the scoop from my wife about conductivity of superconductors.
Contrary to popular belief, it is not strictly true that the
conductivity of every superconductor is exactly zero.  Superconductors
come in two kinds, type I and type II, and a type I superconductor has
no resistance period, but its superconductivity is destroyed with a
relatively low current or magnetic field.  In practice it is too
fragile for reliable use.  A type II superconductor, which is the
useful kind, responds to a strong magnetic field by letting in
individual, quantized magnetic field lines rather than by reverting to
the normal state entirely.  Since current circulates around each
field line, a little geometry shows that when a field line crosses a
superconducting wire, the electrical current through the wire changes.
This establishes a reciprocal relationship between electrical current
and flow of magnetic field lines:  The faster the magnetic field lines
flow perpendicular to the wire, the faster the electrical current
along the wire decreases.  The rate of field line flow is determined by
a "magnetic resistance" which is reciprocal to the electrical
resistance.

If you want to decrease electrical resistance in a type II
superconductor, the way to do it is to increase the magnetic resistance
by introducing lattice defects where the magnetic field lines tend to
get stuck as they travel across.  This is backwards from a normal
conductor, where lattice defects usually increase electrical
resistance.  Commercial superconducting wire is usually rated to have
at most a certain resistance.  For example, there is a large magnet in
my wife's lab which is rated to lose at most 1/100,000 of its magnetic
field in one day.  It is a fairly large magnetic, about 500 henrys, but
given that there are about 100,000 seconds in a day, this means that
its electrical resistance is better than 50 nanoohms.  This is not bad
for several miles of fine niobium wire!  By comparison, the resistance
of a mile of 1mm copper wire is about 50 ohms.

Actually, there is a lesson here about pseudoscience.  It is usually
not necessary to answer wild claims like "The conductivity of a
superconductor has never been measured!" with a new scientific
experiment.  Often commercial technology is a de facto experiment that
ubiquitously refutes the claim.
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudengk00 cudfnGreg cudlnKuperberg cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.01 / John Manuel /  2nd CFV: sci.physics.computational.fluid-dynamics
     
Originally-From: john.r.manuel@dartmouth.edu (John Manuel)
Newsgroups: sci.nonlinear,sci.physics.fusion,comp.lang.fortran,news.groups
Subject: 2nd CFV: sci.physics.computational.fluid-dynamics
Date: 1 Apr 1994 19:35:06 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH, USA

I am forwarding this article to several newsgroups that didn't see the
original call for votes but ought to have
(sci.physics.research,sci.nonlinear,sci.physics.fusion,comp.lang.fortran
). Follow-ups to news.groups.

In article <sci.physics.computational.fluid-dynamics-CFV2@uunet.uu.net>
rdippold@qualcomm.com (Ron "Asbestos" Dippold) writes:

>                           LAST CALL FOR VOTES (of 2)
>           unmoderated group sci.physics.computational.fluid-dynamics
> 
> Newsgroups line:
> sci.physics.computational.fluid-dynamics        Computational fluid dynamics.
> 
> Votes must be received by 23:59:59 UTC, 12 April 1994.
> 
> After the CFV appears on news.announce.newgroups it will be posted to
> the computational fluid dynamics mailing list <cfd@perelandra.cms.udel.edu>.
> 
> This vote is being conducted by a neutral third party.  For voting
> questions only contact rdippold@qualcomm.com.  For questions about the
> proposed group contact  Charles A. Lind <lind@usna.navy.mil>.
> 
> 
> CHARTER
> 
> sci.physics.computational.fluid-dynamics is a forum for the discussion
> of all issues relating to computational fluid dynamics (CFD).
> 
>         Discussion on all aspects of CFD are welcome, including,
> but not limited to:
>  
>         * grid generation - elliptic, algebraic, adaptive, structured,
>                 unstructured, 2D, 3D,
>         * Specific flow problems: plasmas, real gases, MHD
>         * Multigrid methods
>         * Finite difference methods
>         * Finite volume methods
>         * Finite element methods
>         * Panel methods
>         * Solution issues: explicit vs. implicit, structured grids vs.
>                       unstructured, ADI vs. SLOR, etc.
>         * Higher order numerical methods (TVD, ENO)
>         * Turbulence Modeling
>         * Commercial codes - problems, issues, limitations
>         * Visualization
>         * Code validation
> 
> HOW TO VOTE
> 
> Send MAIL to:   voting@qualcomm.com
> Just Replying should work if you are not reading this on a mailing list.
> 
> Your mail message should contain one of the following statements:
>       I vote YES on sci.physics.computational.fluid-dynamics
>       I vote NO on sci.physics.computational.fluid-dynamics
> 
> You may also ABSTAIN in place of YES/NO - this will not affect the outcome.
> Anything else may be rejected by the automatic vote counting program.  The
> votetaker will respond to your received ballots with a personal acknowledge-
> ment by mail - if you do not receive one within several days, try again.
> It's your responsibility to make sure your vote is registered correctly.
> 
> One vote counted per person, no more than one per account. Addresses and
> votes of all voters will be published in the final voting results list.
> 
> 
> sci.physics.computational.fluid-dynamics Bounce List - No need to revote
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> at@ierws3.local                                           Alfred Trukenmueller
> bidart@loche.lmaster.u-bordeaux.fr                                Alain BIDART
> ea55@beasun1.bs.dlr.de                                         Martin Hepperle
> J.B.Fodje1@student.lut.ac.uk                                          JB Fodje
> rick@bcm.tmc.edu                                             Richard H. Miller
> sachap@loche.lmaster.u-bordeaux.fr                               Sacha PARNEIX
> srihari@aero19.tamu.edu                                       Srihari Gangaraj
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenmanuel cudfnJohn cudlnManuel cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.01 / nbj@nwu edu /  Heat of Fusion ?
     
Originally-From: nbj@nwu.edu (nbj@nwu.edu)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Heat of Fusion ?
Date: Fri, 01 Apr 1994 22:27:47 -0600
Organization: Northwestern

Can someone post the Hf of the following:

                 Ca++(aq)
                 KNO3 (s) 
                 K+ (aq)
                 NO3- (aq)
                 Li+ (aq)
                 LiCl (s)

                                   Thanks - Norm

-- 
Norman Julius

nbj@nwu.edu
72650,2566@compuserve.com
cudkeys:
cuddy01 cudennbj cudfnnbj@nwu cudlnedu cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.01 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Muon-catalyzed fusion + Inertial-confinement fusion
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Muon-catalyzed fusion + Inertial-confinement fusion
Date: 1 Apr 94 17:15:09 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

I promised to dig up information on the idea raised here by John Logajan
and further commented on by Greg Kuperberg, namely, combining muon-catalyzed
fusion with inertial-confinement fusion.  Here goes.

The earliest publication on this idea IMHO is due to W.P.S. Tan back in 1976,
Nature 263 (1976) 656.  His suggestion was strongly challenged by E.P. Hincks
et al. in Nature 269 (1977) 584.

But all of this was before we measured the essential parameters of mu-cat.
fusion, particularly the alpha-muon sticking coefficient (S.E. Jones et al.,
Physical Rev. Letters 56 (1986) 588).  So I'm happy that my friend
A.A. Harms with G. Cripps and B. Boel have revisited this question; their
paper is now published in Hyperfine Interactions 77 (1993) 181.  I also have
what amounts to a much more detailed version, the Ph.D. Thesis of
Greg Cripps, entitled "Interactive muon-catalyzed and inertial confinement
fusion," McMaster U. 1993.  I read the thesis; it's well done.  The
conclusions:

1.  "The high-density approach appears to be of marginal effectiveness because
high cycling rates are restricted to low temperature regimes."  
That is, ICF provides high densities of d-t, which enhances mu-c-f, but
the temperatures get so high that the mu-c-f no longer operates (on this,
please refer to my paper on mu-c-f in Nature, May 1986.  I'm short on time
this evening...)  Which means that using ICF to enhance mu-c-f won't work.

2.  "The concept of mu-c-f triggered ignition appears feasible, but significant
technological advances in the area of muon injection are required before
practical application will be possible."
This is the problem Greg Kuperberg alluded to:  it's very challenging to focus
a beam of muons into the tiny volume of an imploding pellet.  The idea here
is to heat just a central-core d-t volume to ignition temperature, in the
so-called "spark region".  Injected into just a small core, and at just the
right time in the imploding d-t-pellet, mu-c-f *might* cause ignition to be
reached, thus allowing net energy production.
In a nutshell, they're saying that using mu-c-f to enhance ICF *might* work
if technological problems (major) could be overcome.

Those interested in pursuing this further might want to read the papers
referenced above.

Have a happy Easter weekend all,
Steven Jones



cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenjonesse cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.01 /  jonesse@physc1 /  April Fools' note
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: April Fools' note
Date: 1 Apr 94 17:18:50 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

A thought paraphrased from W.C. Fields for April Fools Day (today):

If at first you don't succeed, try, try again.  Then give up.  No sense
making a damned fool out of yourself.

[Cf researchers take special note please.]

--Steve
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenjonesse cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.02 / SCOTT CHUBB /  Dick Blue's request for discussion of wave functions
     
Originally-From: CHUBB@cfe1.nrl.navy.mil (SCOTT CHUBB)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Dick Blue's request for discussion of wave functions
Subject: Re: Dick Blue's comments request for discussion of  wave functions
Date: Sat, 2 Apr 1994 09:25:55 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway


Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Dick Blue's comments request for discussion of  wave functions

I did see Dick Blue's recent comments concerning my comments about
his misinterpretation of Wannier states.  I do apologize for not
providing an answer earlier concerning his questions about the appropriate
ion band state wave function, the appropriate electrostatic potential,
etc..  The fact is in the past, we made estimates of the ion band state
wave functions, based on the spatial extent that has been observed (owing
to the vibrational spectrum) of the broadened charge distribution that
one associates with the deuteron form factors derived in neutron
scattering experiments.  

Although this is an approximation, it does
apply to the problem of determining minimal ion band state concentrations,
because the resulting wave functions are more localized than the actual
ones involved. In particular, at loadings greater than ~0.7 D per Pd, neutron
scattering experiments reveal that the zero-point motion (from phonons)
of D Nuclei in PdDx is approximately 0.2 Angstroms.  We have used this width
to assign a spatial distribution to the Wannier states that would be
attributed to ion band states.  We do this essentially by using

psi w = (Wannier state) = Normalization Constant x exp(-(x-xbar)^2/(2.*delt^2)),
                                                                            (1)

where xbar is a lattice site, and delt is 0.2 Angstroms.  This is equivalent to 
using the phonon wave function that one would associate with the zero-point
motion of an otherwise "classical" deuteron nucleus as the "particle-like"
representation of the Bloch state.  

In the rigorous limit of infinitesimal
additional loading beyond the fully loaded case, in fact, this form of 
wave function would apply provided "the harmonic approximation" associated
with phonons applies.  (This is the approximation in which the exact
electrostatic potential seen by a deuteron at a lattice site can be
represented by an equilibrium value plus a term that is proportional to
the square of the displacement of the deuteron from its equilibrium
position).

An important point is that the Wannier states are constrained so
that

Bloch state k = (Ncell)^-1/2      sum              exp(ik*a) psi w (r-a)
                           over lattice vectors a

This is the way the ion band states are formed.  An interesting point
is that because there are only a very small number of Bloch states
that are occupied, there are very many fewer deuterons than lattice
sites.  This only makes sense when the normalization over the
entire solid is used.  What this does is to constrain the Normalization
constant (in Eq. 1) so that it also equals (Ncell)^-1/2.

The Bloch states are used to describe the center-of-mass motion of each
deuteron.  (Each deuteron wave function, as I have mentioned before
is written as Phi(r1,r2)=Bloch state k ((r1+r2)/2) nuc(r1-r2).)

>From this starting point, the possibility of self-interaction of the
associated many-body wave function is considered.  The resulting
Coulomb repulsions are typically 5 orders of magnitude reduced relative
to what they would be in free space, simply because of the broadening
that results from the fact that the deuterons are not point particles.
These repulsions are further reduced by a factor that is proportional
to 1/Ncell.  This factor results from the fact that each Bloch state
contributes a net charge of 1/Ncell in each unit cell.

SCOTT CHUBB


cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenCHUBB cudfnSCOTT cudlnCHUBB cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.02 / SCOTT CHUBB /  Answer to Dick Blue's interesting questions about reaction at a distance
     
Originally-From: CHUBB@cfe1.nrl.navy.mil (SCOTT CHUBB)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Answer to Dick Blue's interesting questions about reaction at a distance
Date: Sat, 2 Apr 1994 09:25:59 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway


subject: Dick Blue's comments about Chubb reaction-not-at-a-point picture

Dick Blue has written:

-Dr. Chubb assertion is that his picture is well within the accepted
-thinking of the solid state physics community, but I question that.
-In particular I would think it advisable to include in the peer group
-ask to evaluate this theory people who have experience with a broader
-range of phenomena than just solid state physics.  I have worked with
-solid state theorists who seem blissfully unaware that the strong
-interaction exists and that it is strongly spin dependent.

In fact, there have been a number of physicists with backgrounds that
incorporate both nuclear physics and solid state physics that have
reviewed the theory favorably.  This has included physicists both
inside and outside NRL.  An interesting point is that many solid
state physicists have blissfully accepted the view that Gamow theory,
as practised by nuclear physicists, necessarily must be at work.
It is interesting in this context to note that Julian Schwinger
went at great lengths during the first annual Cold Fusion Conference
to point out the limitations of the Gamow theory.

Dick Blue then wrote: 

-My view of the fusion reaction is that the initial nuclear state
-involves the ground state of a deuteron in which a proton and a
-neutron are bound in a local potential well with the well known
-binding energy of 2.224 MeV.  The wave function is reasonably well
-understood.  Likewise the ground state of the 4He nucleus is well
-understood, and the energy release of 23 MeV is directly calculable
-from the experimentally determined masses of the initial and final
-nuclei.  We also have a solid understanding of the angular momentum
-variables in the fusion reaction, something Dr. Chubb has yet to
-mention.

There is nothing mysterious about this.  

-In order to form a 4He from two deuterons I would say that two
-deuterons have to come within the range of the nuclear interaction.

The correct statement is that the wave functions of at least two
deuterons must overlap each other in a manner that allows for the
nucleons to interact.  In free space, this requires that readily 
identifiable "particles" come within range of the nuclear interaction.
In the solid state case, the claim is that 1) the "particles" need
not be identifiable as particles in the sense that the locations
of their centers of mass are not readily identifiable.  There
is still the additional point that 2) because the associated centers
of mass are not known as they are in free space, the locations
of the nuclear potentials that are involved are not as clearly
defined.  The point is that two Bloch functions in, for example,
a two-particle many-body system also have a center of mass
(involving 4 nucleons), and the center of mass location of this object
is also poorly defined.


-3/2 of a deuteron cannot form 3/4 of an alpha particle with the
-release of 3/4 of 23 MeV within the context of any reaction theory
-I have ever heard about, yet I must wonder if that is not what
-Dr. Chubb is advocating when he suggests that 10^-7 deuterons
-per unit cell can induce a transistion that releases 23 MeV
-per alpha without there ever being two deuterons at a specific
-site where the resulting alpha is formed.  

The final state does not have to form an alpha particle.  The
final state is required only to have overlap with the initial
state and nuclear reaction potentials.  When the spatial distribution
of the final state is summed over the solid, for each reaction,
there is one helium nucleus created.   In other words, the "alpha"
if you insist on referring to it in this manner is created, in the
sense that is found within the solid.  It simply does not have
the kind of wave function you envision.  There is a more serious
point that you have not dealt with.  There are a collection of
these ion band state "alphas" created, and there are a collection
of initial state deuterons that are involved.  It is the many-body
process that governs the specific allowable by-products.  The
periodic order enables the reaction to occur.  The many-body physics
allows for the overlap and dictates the resulting by-products. 

I am pleased that Bill Page went to the trouble of siting where we
have covered all of this.

-It is one thing to
-advocate some sort of revised picture for the reaction process,
-but it another matter to actually lay out a complete mathematical
-description of the wave functions before and after, and to
-define an operator that can induce such a transition.

We have done alot of this.  The selection rules follow from important
self-consistency steps that make the mathematical description apply.

-Obviously one can get totally bogged down in the complexities of
-such a theory so I would suggest a simpler problem to warm up
-on.  I would like to see a description of the nuclear spin wave
-functions involved in the transition process.  

An interesting place to start is to view the many-body state of overlapping
D ion band states as the exited state of a 8Be nucleus that is also in
a band state.  From this starting point, as in the case of 8Be, non-radiative
decay channels exist, and the potential angular momentum couplings are
more complicated than in D+D->4He.  The fact is in the many-body state,
there can be as many as 10^16 D ions in the many-body state (in 10^-3 
moles of Pd for example).


-Just as important
-as the symmetry conserving features of the Chubb theory (if not
-more so) is to have a theory which conserves angular momentum.
-In case you are not aware of the fact, Dr. Chubb has not yet
-specified the angular momentum state in his deuteron wave function.

We have included the spin dependence and restricted the possible
channels of interaction to the spin1+spin1->spin0 channel.  We have
not explored the non-spin0 final state (except when 1H is present
in the initial state).  In fact, we have also identified an additional
spin-pairing cooperative interaction (involving 1Hband(up) 1Hband(down))
in a reaction of the form 1Hband + 2Dband->3Hband+1Hband(up)1Hband(down).
Despite the fact that we have not emphasized the angular momentum selection
rules, we have included them.  The fact is the nuclear wave function
(written for deuterons above as nuc(r1-r2)) includes the spin dependence.
The point is that all of the normal rules (and some additional ones) for
nuclear matter are implicit in everything we have written down.

-You see he is playing it fast and loose when he talks about
-the exchange of "identical" deuterons.  In fact you don't
-really know that any two deuterons can be exchanged unless you
-specify their angular momentum.  I say let's hear something
-about angular momentum!

Magnetic correlation lifts the degeneracies associated with the 
different D spin states.  An important point that is omitted from
this last comment by Dick Blue is that there is an important coupling
of angular momentum (spin) through the electronic degrees of freedom.
At surfaces, this leads to potential anisotropic couplings, that
potentially include magnetic correlation.  We have in fact suggested
in our ICCF4 paper that these kinds of things can lead to preferential
interactions which can instigate fusion in the presence of magnetic
fields.  In particular, the spin1+spin1->spin0 state may preferentially
kill magnetism in directions perpendicular to the surface in a manner
conducive to removing the spin0 (4He) from the solid.

-Regardless of the detailed questions that can and should be ask
-about the Chubb theory, it should be acknowledged that this
-represents a significant departure from accepted practice.  The
-assertions made by Dr. Chubb must be put to a reasonable test
-before they are accepted.  We come to the old "testable
-hypothesis" issue once again.  How is the Chubb theory to be
-judged?  For now all I have seen is the unfortunately circular
-argument in which the Chubb theory is accepted because it explains
-some selected subset of the cold fusion experimental data, and
-those data are given validity, in part, because the Chubb theory
-says that's just the way it should be.

It explained these effects before they were observed.  It is based
on the known electronic structure of PdD and the inference that
because of this electronic structure, it is favorable for D to
occupy ion band states in conditions involving extreme loading.

-My question about the Chubb theory would then be to ask where
-else would we expect to see such effects?  And, furthermore,
-if clearly those effects are not observed in other systems what
-is the feature that prevents the occurance of reactions?  

These are good questions.  We have suggested, as a number of
you have observed, that Ag (because of the similarity of Ag
to PdD) might be a good host.  It is clear that ion band states
must be occupied for the theory to be valid.  This requires 
a fair degree of periodic order and that the D effectively
appear to "ion-like."  To be ion-like there are important
screening effects that are implied.  The large zero-point
motion (.2 Angstroms, which corresponds to a D deBroglie
wavelength of 1.39 A ~ .5 nearest neighbor separation) in PdD
is a tip-off that this "ion-like" environment may be present.
When it is, the Coulomb self-interaction can become significantly
less in magnitude than the nuclear self-interaction.  It is also
important that the D's not interact appreciably with the electrons
in the lattice.  Electronic structure calculations associated with
PdD at full-loading imply that this is indeed the case.  It comes
about from the sharply angular bonding of the d-states, the energetics
of the Pd 5s states, and the fact that in PdD as a result of the
resulting 5s/4d hybridization, the H electrons, which want to be
s-like, are sucked into bonding 4d states (which are Pd -like and to a
slight extent H-like) 
initially, but near full-loading become 5s-like (which are entirely
Pd-Like).

-Take for example a lattice of solid deuterium.  The mere fact that
-this stuff can exist at cryogenic temperatures certain puts
-limits on the energy release that can be occuring within that
-lattice.  Why doesn't solid deuterium spontaneously melt?

Solid deuterium is a highly molecular structure.  Its electronic structure
does not support the occupation of ion band states.  Transition metal
environments have been known to sustain quantum diffusion of H. Ion band
state occupation has recently been used a plausible mechanism for accounting
for important anomalies in the mass dependence of H in H-diffusivity in Pd.

-On can imagine lots of other lattices containing deuterium
-that must somehow be possible candidates.  

I can think of ones, but my choices are based upon electronic structure
considerations that I believe you have not considered.  d-states, adequate
screening, evidence for quantum diffusion are all important things to be
considered.

-It seems to me that
-Dr. Chubb may well find himself out on a very fragile limb if
-he asserts that there is only one case in all of nature where
-deuterium forms an ion band state.

In 1989, we filed an invention disclosure in which we suggested that
Ag could support ion band states and be used for Cold Fusion.  
There is an evolving H-in-metals literature that supports the notion that 
deuterium forms an ion band state.

Thank-you, Dick Blue, for the stimulating questions!!

cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenCHUBB cudfnSCOTT cudlnCHUBB cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.01 / p thieberger /  Re: Errors in your critique...admonition to try to communicate better
     
Originally-From: thieber@bnlux1.bnl.gov (peter thieberger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Errors in your critique...admonition to try to communicate better
Date: Fri, 1 Apr 1994 18:34:21 GMT
Organization: Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, NY 11973

In article <9403230007.AA15240@suntan> CHUBB@cfe1.nrl.navy.mil (SCOTT
CHUBB) wri
tes:
>Dear Dick Blue,
>[...]
>     On the other hand, I also think that to have an informative
>discussion, it would be appropriate, at least in a public forum, to 
>try to remove as much signal-to-noise from the discussion prior
        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>to airing our mutual views before airing them.  
>[...]
>   However, before I proceed, I really want to bring out a couple of
>points concerning this business of signal-to-noise and the need to
>communicate better.  
>[...]
>  When the signal-to-noise becomes to high, people either stop
            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>paying attention or do not have the time to do so.
>     As I said, I do think signal-to-noise could have been reduced if
                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>you had checked with me.  
[....]

>  I also think that signal-to-noise can be lowered by not exhorting to 
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>harsh declarations, or statements of "fact" that are not true.


Well, if I am not mistaken, this author has the "signal-to-noise"
definition backwards. To communicate better :-) lets get it right:

    signal-to-noise = signal to noise ratio = signal/noise

So therefore, we want it as high as possible, don't we?

cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenthieber cudfnpeter cudlnthieberger cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.01 / Chris - /  Re: SL - a painful process
     
Originally-From: chrisk@gomez.stortek.com (Chris Kostanick - X6359)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: SL - a painful process
Date: Fri, 1 Apr 1994 23:30:55 GMT
Organization: Storage Technology Corporation

>looks larger because the spherical flask acts as a lens, and because
>of the intense illumination.  It's probably less than 0.1 mm diam.

I was wondering about how to image SL and had the following half
an idea.

Get a streak camera and put it with the bubble as the object of
focus. The light should probably be at 90 degrees to the camera
so that the bubble is lit from the side. The camera may be fast
enough to image an expansion/collapse cycle.

(For those wondering what a streak camera is, it is used to take
photos of very fast phenomenon such as explosions. It uses a
moving mirror to get a lot of images in a very short time period. I've
seen sets of photos of a stick of explosive detonating. You can see
the blast wave propogating up the stick from the detonator.)

I unfortunately do not have a streak camera, or I would be glad to
lend it.

Chris Kostanick
chrisk@gomez.stortek.com

cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenchrisk cudfnChris cudln- cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.02 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: The usual garbage from Jed Rothwell (was usual garbage from D. B
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The usual garbage from Jed Rothwell (was usual garbage from D. B
Date: Sat, 2 Apr 94 00:44:20 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Steve Jones, with his usual disregard for facts and elementary physics,
writes that Miles experienced "this problem:"
 
     ""The level of the electrolyte exerts a major calorimetric effect..."
     (Feb. 1994 Miles et al. paper)
 
That is not a problem if you understand it, keep track of it, and account
for it in your physics. It is a complication, yes, but not a "problem."
Miles keeps track of things and -- where appropriate -- he uses more
sophisticated formulas and better hardware than the researchers in the
papers he critiques. That is the whole point of his J. Phys. Chem. paper!
That is what he explains in detail. His message is to use hardware and or
software, don't ignore the problem. He has done so, all along. So do others
who know what they are doing, like P&F and Noninski.
 
 
     "There is *no* criticism of the P&F work in this Miles et al paper"
 
Yes, there is. He points out that they used the correct formulas, whereas
the others oversimplified. He shows how P&F were right. When dealing with
low levels of power, a complex formula is needed to keep track of factors
like the air - water interface effects. With higher power levels, these no
longer play any significant part, so you can use a simpler formula and
still achieve sufficient accuracy.
 
Miles: "Gas bubbles that collect at or near the electrodes yield large
oscillations in the cell voltage, making it difficult to obtain precise
measurements."
 
Jones: "This is precisely the criticism of the P&F boiling-cell excess-heat
claims leveled by Tom Droege, Douglas Morrison and myself shortly after the
P&F Phys. Lett. A 176 (1993) 1 paper on boiling was published about one
year ago."
 
Yes, and these statements from Tom, Doug and you are a bunch of crap. They
are just obfuscation, nonsense, and handwaving, like this stuff from Heeter
who thinks he can create 126 deg C difference in chunk of metal by blowing
on it. Those bubbles don't make any difference at the high power levels,
they are no longer an issue. You can toss out the "precise measurements"
that Miles is talking about; you don't need them. As Martin says, you can
turn the power supplies as high as they go and you will not be able to
supply as much energy as they observe. It is ridiculous to point to
marginal stuff like bubbles to disprove a massive effect. It is like your
other statement that there is enough chemical energy in fully loaded
palladium hydride to melt the palladium. That is a absurd for two reasons:
 
1. No, there isn't. Try doing a little arithmetic next time.
 
2. Even if there was, it would take weeks to come out. You cannot get all
the hydrogen out of a metal in a fraction of a second.
 
 
Steve concludes:
 
     "Methinks Jed still has much to learn, both about calorimetry and
     about scholarship.  In my reading of the latest Miles et al. paper, I
     find that Dick Blue's concerns were justified, despite Jed's
     inflammatory diatribe to the contrary.  Clearly, Jed's writing
     represents not scholarship,  but chutzpah and flatus."
 
Whereas Steve Jones makes up fairy tales about irrelevant, impossible
nonsense like chemically vaporizing hydrides and bubbles that don't have
anything to do with the issue and which cannot explain anything. At least I
stick to physics! This stuff that Steve and Dick make up isn't even
amusing, it is just pathetically wrong and stupid. It is like Frank Close's
nonsense about getting thousands of eV per atom out of chemical reactions.
He knows that is ridiculous handwaving, so why does he bother to write it
in the first place? One reason only: he wants to obscure the issues,
confuse everyone, and hide the facts. That is the only reason any of these
"skeptics" write this stuff. Steve, Frank and Doug know perfectly well that
they are wrong and we are right. They are just throwing sand and blowing
smoke because they don't want to admit they have been disastrously wrong
all these years. They are not fooling anyone but themselves and their
isolated, deluded band of "true believer" followers. Steve and Frank are
running a religious cult of people who deny thermodynamics, conservation of
energy, and elementary calorimetry. They are like the fruitcakes who don't
believe in evolution. I expect to see Steve in the newspaper pretty soon
demanding that high schools remove all mention of thermodynamics from the
textbooks.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenjedrothwell cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.02 / John Briggs /  Purple Cows
     
Originally-From: jebriggs@indirect.com (John E. Briggs)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Purple Cows
Date: 2 Apr 1994 08:17:45 GMT
Organization: Internet Direct, Inc.



--
Yes, another test...

 --------------------------------------------
-    John Briggs (jebriggs@indirect.com)    -
 --------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenjebriggs cudfnJohn cudlnBriggs cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.02 / Chuck Sites /  Re: Answers to Steve Jones's "tough questions"
     
Originally-From: chuck@iglou.iglou.com (Chuck Sites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Answers to Steve Jones's "tough questions"
Date: Sat, 2 Apr 1994 11:48:20 GMT
Organization: The Internet Gateway of Louisville, KY


Good reply Scott! Thanks for the excellent discussion on your theory.

rfheeter@theory.pppl.gov (Robert F. Heeter) writes:

[Fairly good summary deleted, to be brief]

>In general I wonder why, if the Chubb theory is correct, we don't see 
>a lot more nuclear-transmutation effects in lattices.  The coulomb
>barrier can't be *that* easy to evade!

This is fairly easy to answer. The lattice host atoms don't have the wave
overlap or degeneracy to allow for an interaction.  An easy way to check
is to calculate the deBroglie wave length for the lattice atoms as a
free gas and compare it to the lattice spacing of the crystal. In higher
Z materials it usually smaller than the lattice spacing.  Solid deterium
might be an interesting one, but I think the D's in this configuration 
act as fermi particles.          
 
>****. 
>There ought to be ways to test the Chubb theory which don't involve
>excess-heat or nuclear-product measurements; are any such tests underway?
>I guess first I'd like to see confirmation that ion band states exist,
>and then some sort of experiment showing that lattice effects can 
>alter nuclear processes; since fusion is controversial another possibility
>might be to look at odd decay modes of radionuclides in lattices.

The ion band state of H and D has already been observed in several 
experiments. That part of Scott's theory is pretty much a given fact.
Whether a strong interaction takes place in these configurations is 
the next logical step in understanding these unusual material 
configurations. From the overlap function in Scott's calculations 
I would say he's right on the money about the fusion potential. 
     
>If these support the Chubb theory we might develop some experimental
>confidence in the theory, at which point tests to discriminate the
>Chubb theory from other CF theories (including the experimental-error
>null hypothesis) would be in order.

Agreed.  It's time to do some experiments that expoits this effect.

>Someone *really* in a hurry might simply figure out how to 
>reproducibly put D ions in a band state, take out a patent, and 
>build a water heater...

Actually, I want a good space heater for my basement. :-)

>******
>Robert F. Heeter
>rfheeter@theory.pppl.gov
>This posting is solely speculation on my part and does not represent
>anything resembling an official or unofficial position of PPPL.


Have Fun,
Chuck Sites
chuck@iglou.iglou.com
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.03 / John Logajan /  Re:Heat of Fusion ?
     
Originally-From: 74242.1554@compuserve.com (John M. Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re:Heat of Fusion ?
Date: Sun, 3 Apr 1994 01:26:11 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

nbj@nwu.edu  Norman Julius writes:

>Can someone post the Hf of the following:

I believe you must mean the "heat of formation" rather than the "heat of
fusion."  The heat of formation is the energy needed/or released when the
substance is chemically formed.  The heat of fusion is the energy required
to melt something, or the energy released upon solidification.


                 Ca++(aq)       -129.74  kcal/mole
                 KNO3 (s)       -118.22
                 K+ (aq)         -60.32
                 NO3- (aq)       -49.56
                 Li+ (aq)        -66.56
                 LiCl (s)        -97.66

You can convert the above figures to Joules/mole by muliplying by 4,184.


You should be able to find a CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics in
most library reference sections.  Look under "heat of formation --
inorganic compounds, table" in the CRC index.  Use the deltaHf column
under 298K (rather than under 0k.)


cudkeys:
cuddy3 cuden1554 cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.02 / Robert Heeter /  Re: The usual garbage from Jed Rothwell (was usual garbage from D. B
     
Originally-From: rfheeter@theory.pppl.gov (Robert F. Heeter)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The usual garbage from Jed Rothwell (was usual garbage from D. B
Date: 2 Apr 1994 11:50:38 -0500
Organization: /etc/organization

In article <RM-N5Rs.jedrothwell@delphi.com>,  <jedrothwell@delphi.com> wrote:

<<<stuff about calorimetry in aqueous systems deleted.>>>
 
>Yes, and these statements from Tom, Doug and you are a bunch of crap. They
>are just obfuscation, nonsense, and handwaving, like this stuff from Heeter
>who thinks he can create 126 deg C difference in chunk of metal by blowing
>on it. 

Jed, please document this claim...  Where have I claimed to be able 
to create such a beast?  I'll admit to claims that sound *a little*
like this, but not what you specifically say.  If you intend to
paraphrase or quote me, please do so accurately, lest you be accused
of "obfuscation, nonsense, and handwaving," yourself.

**********
Robert F. Heeter
rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Graduate Student, Princeton Plasma Physics Lab
Disclaimers of all sorts apply.
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.02 / Robert Heeter /  Re: SL - a painful process
     
Originally-From: rfheeter@theory.pppl.gov (Robert F. Heeter)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: SL - a painful process
Date: 2 Apr 1994 11:54:35 -0500
Organization: /etc/organization

In article <chrisk.765243055@gomez>,
Chris Kostanick - X6359 <chrisk@gomez.stortek.com> wrote:
>>looks larger because the spherical flask acts as a lens, and because
>>of the intense illumination.  It's probably less than 0.1 mm diam.
>
>I was wondering about how to image SL and had the following half
>an idea.
>
>Get a streak camera and put it with the bubble as the object of
>focus. The light should probably be at 90 degrees to the camera
>so that the bubble is lit from the side. The camera may be fast
>enough to image an expansion/collapse cycle.
>
>(For those wondering what a streak camera is, it is used to take
>photos of very fast phenomenon such as explosions. It uses a
>moving mirror to get a lot of images in a very short time period. I've
>seen sets of photos of a stick of explosive detonating. You can see
>the blast wave propogating up the stick from the detonator.)

One can also do it electronically, by converting the optical signal
to an electron beam, and then sweeping the beam across a phosphor.
(I've worked on such a system for soft x-rays, but not visible light.)
I believe it's possible to get picosecond-levels of time resolution
by this means; probably faster than for a mirror system.

There are a number of commercial manufacturers of such systems,
I believe.

***************
Robert F. Heeter
rfheeter@theory.pppl.gov
Graduate Student, Princeton Plasma Physics Lab
disclaimers apply



cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.02 / L Plutonium /  Re: Missing mass of the universe resolved?
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.astro,sci.math,sci
chem,sci.bio,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Missing mass of the universe resolved?
Date: 2 Apr 1994 21:11:51 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In article <1994Apr1.131351.14502@Princeton.EDU>
tao@avocado.princeton.edu (Terry Tao) writes:
> One interesting coincidence was found, however.  By comparing the ratio
> of the measured deviation and the existing deviation against the
> previously conjectured mass of the universe, the new estimate for the
> mass of the universe now stands about about 9 x 10^{-31} kg - about the
> same mass as that of a single electron cloud.  "We have no idea what
> this means," admitted Avril.  "A completely new theory would have to be
> created to explain this phenomenon.  One in which there are no
> coincidences."

  Welcome, Greetings, and Cheer. Welcome to the fold, Terry. You have
done good my son, and your true education has commenced from your above
post forward. 
  Drop out of that hornswaggling of a school you call Princeton.
Princeton has no Plutonium Atom Prize Winners. Princeton is one of the
greatest disappointments of a school. It is a painted hussie, a
prestidigitator A Galore. In fact that should be Princetons new name
Prestidigitator. In the future it will be more prestigious to say "Well
I went to Iowa State the home of Abian" around tea parties. You would
be better off at a small school, date the women, have some fun and
still make A's without being brainwashed over memorizing Wiles's, or
Wheeler's latest chipmunk theories, and assorted other crackpots of the
math and science communities. Crackpots that lived when LP lived. 
  Princeton has a few Nobel prize winners for FAKE science such as
binary neutron stars. Pulsars are not neutron stars but Strange Quark
Matter stars. I am beginning to think that there is a Princeton spy
infiltrator into the Nobel Committee, please somebody checkup on this
allegation. I think that perhaps Nobel Committee members are heavily
biased in favor of Princeton. How else can future generations
square-away the fact that Tifft has found quantized galaxy speeds for
more than 20 years and yet the Nobel Committee awards the 1993 Nobel to
crackpot physics? The logical inference is either the Nobel committee
is prejudicially in favor of Princeton, or that the Nobel Committee
itself is a group of fools. 
  Hells bells, Case Western has a Plutonium Atom Prize Winner--
Michelson. What does Princeton have-- nothing in the long view of the
history of science or math. At least Harvard has one Plutonium Atom
Prize Winner -- Charles Sanders Peirce.

  I am glad you pointed out the above Terry. As all measurement and
observation of the observable universe is made-- the realization comes
to one conclusion-- we are inside an atom. Only plutonium fits all the
special numbers well. There is a continuity with facts-- the best new
science has a natural continuity with the best old science-- "All
things are made up of atoms, carry that to its logical conclusion, the
whole is an atom." What is the purpose of life. To make more atoms.
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.02 / Greg Kuperberg /  Re: Type I and type II superconductors
     
Originally-From: gk00@quads.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Type I and type II superconductors
Date: Sat, 2 Apr 1994 23:56:38 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

In article <1994Apr1.180818.8049@midway.uchicago.edu> gk00@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>there is a large magnet in
>my wife's lab which is rated to lose at most 1/100,000 of its magnetic
>field in one day.  It is a fairly large magnetic, about 500 henrys, but
>given that there are about 100,000 seconds in a day, this means that
>its electrical resistance is better than 50 nanoohms.  This is not bad
>for several miles of fine niobium wire!  By comparison, the resistance
>of a mile of 1mm copper wire is about 50 ohms.

Here is a correction to some of these numbers; my wife knows how many
henrys the magnet is, which I had in any case miscomputed.  It's a 20
henry magnet and it has about 10 miles of maybe .5mm niobium wire.  Its
resistance could be 2 nanoohms, compared with 2 kiloohms for a
comparable copper wire.

In conclusion, the resistivity of a type II superconductor is typically
10^12 times lower than that of the best normal conductor, and some
commercial devices rely on this property.  For example, there are
hospitals with several MRI machines with large superconducting magnets
whose currents are renewed with a single portable power source that
gets carted around the hospital.

There are also experiments lasting several years with loops of type I
superconductors with much lower self-inductance.  My guess is that the
these experiments typically set an upper bound on resistivity of 10^-20
times that of copper.

NB: Electrical resistance due to magnetic flux creep is one of the
reasons why high-Tc superconductors aren't useful yet.
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudengk00 cudfnGreg cudlnKuperberg cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.03 / Greg Kuperberg /  The charde of theoretical cold fusion
     
Originally-From: gk00@quads.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: The charde of theoretical cold fusion
Date: Sun, 3 Apr 1994 01:57:42 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

In article <2nddl2$en9@tom.pppl.gov> rfheeter@theory.pppl.gov (Robert F. Heeter) writes:
>Let's suppose the Chubb theory is right:  
>(and let's hope my summary of it is right)
>
>Indistinguishable bosons in a lattice can occupy band states.
>
>Band state bosons have overlapping wavefunctions.  
...
>Fusion reactions can occur provided the products are also delocalized, 
>and the periodic order of the lattice is preserved.

How can complete nonsense possibly be right?  How can you suppose such
a thing?  Scott Chubb's postulations (I won't call them a theory
because they have no theoretical basis) are preposterous.  On the one
hand they crudely borrow the basic concept of a wave function from
quantum mechanics, and on the other hand they are a rejection of
quantum mechanics, because they completely miss the concept of a joint
wave function.  The mere fact that two density clouds overlap does not
entail any consequences in quantum mechanics; you have to characterize
the joint wave function before discussing interactions.  But maybe the
point is that when you remove the space between "wave" and "function",
a wave function becomes something completely different.  I don't know
whether Scott Chubb wants to use quantum mechanics or improve quantum
mechanics; either way his "theory" amounts to quantum mechanics done
the wrong way.

I have said more than enough about the mockery of scientific
experimentation that is cold fusion, but I don't remember ever
commenting directly on the fashions of cold fusion "theory".  (Of
course when I say cold fusion I do not mean muon-catalyzed fusion,
which actually exists.)  The rule seems to be that if you don't
understand quantum mechanics, you are uniquely qualified to use it to
explain cold fusion.  In ordinary theoretical physics, a mistake in a
QM problem means that you lose points on your homework, but in cold
fusion circles an elementary error is a new theory.  What was "wrong"
is now "original".  Vigier tries to solve the Schrodinger equation with
spins and he gets it all wrong, which makes his answer the Vigier
theory.  Bernecky takes adjectives about a particle (that it's a boson
and has a wave function) and turns them into a noun, a "bosonic wave
object".  Mills and Farrell (?) remove the space between "orbit" and
"sphere" to make a completely fictitious model of orbital spheres.  Of
course, it's all trash, and it bothers me that the usual skeptics
understate the case against these "theories" by saying that they have
"unanswered questions" or make "unverified predictions".  In reality,
there are no problems to address or questions to answer or challenges
to meet, other than the basic challenge that people who research
quantum mechanics ought to learn it first.  Also, theories are
generally used to explain effects that exist rather than effects
that do not exist.

Nevertheless, it isn't just trash.  The real point of theoretical cold
fusion is to pretend to substantiate wild technological claims, in
particular the original claims of Fleischmann and Pons.  There are a
lot of high-technology businessmen in the world, particularly Japanese
yes-men, who must manage scientific R&D budgets but are in way over
their heads.  If these people can be bamboozled by sham experimental
evidence, they also can't tell the difference between theoretical cold
fusion and real theoretical physics.  For them theory and experiment is
more convincing than experiment alone, because theory and experiment
together is what science is all about.  In other words, if you have no
real science, imitate it part and parcel and a few non-scientists will
be fooled.

The only tragedy, as opposed to the usual bathos and outrage, in the
charade of theoretical cold fusion is Julian Schwinger.  Schwinger at
least used to be a world-class theoretical physicist, and his
imprimatur on cold fusion has damaged his present reputation.  It is
significant that while his name gets passed around a lot, his
manuscripts do not.  My impression is that the valid parts of his
papers on cold fusion, if there are any, make the very modest claim
that in the absence of experimental evidence about the nature of
fusion, quantum field theory calculations alone do not characterize
fusion with 100% certainty.  Of course, there is no such absence of
experimental evidence:  Given minimal details of the well-established
experimental picture, cold fusion is just as preposterous theoretically
as experimentally.  In any case, Schwinger's role is an indirect one;
he is important so that a C quantum mechanics student can say, "Here is
my cold fusion theory.  I am not a crackpot because Schwinger has a
theory also."  I still trust that Schwinger isn't in this game to get
rich or famous, and it is really too bad that he is blind to the way
that greedy mediocrities have exploited his name.
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudengk00 cudfnGreg cudlnKuperberg cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.03 / Terry Tao /  Re: Missing mass of the universe resolved?
     
Originally-From: tao@coffee.princeton.edu (Terry Tao)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.astro,sci.math,sci
chem,sci.bio,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Missing mass of the universe resolved?
Date: Sun, 3 Apr 1994 01:45:59 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

In article <2nkn2n$1bo@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth
edu (Ludwig This-space-for-rent, Rebel without an Atom) writes:
>In article <1994Apr1.131351.14502@Princeton.EDU>
>tao@avocado.princeton.edu (Terry Tao) writes:
>> One interesting coincidence was found, however.  By comparing the ratio
>> of the measured deviation and the existing deviation against the
>> previously conjectured mass of the universe, the new estimate for the
>> mass of the universe now stands about about 9 x 10^{-31} kg - about the
>> same mass as that of a single electron cloud.  "We have no idea what
>> this means," admitted Avril.  "A completely new theory would have to be
>> created to explain this phenomenon.  One in which there are no
>> coincidences."
>
>  Welcome, Greetings, and Cheer. Welcome to the fold, Terry. You have
>done good my son, and your true education has commenced from your above
>post forward. 
>  Drop out of that hornswaggling of a school you call Princeton.
>Princeton has no Plutonium Atom Prize Winners. Princeton is one of the
>greatest disappointments of a school. It is a painted hussie, a
>prestidigitator A Galore. In fact that should be Princetons new name
>Prestidigitator. In the future it will be more prestigious to say "Well
>I went to Iowa State the home of Abian" around tea parties. You would
>be better off at a small school, date the women, have some fun and
>still make A's without being brainwashed over memorizing Wiles's, or
>Wheeler's latest chipmunk theories, and assorted other crackpots of the
>math and science communities. Crackpots that lived when LP lived. 
>  Princeton has a few Nobel prize winners for FAKE science such as
>binary neutron stars. Pulsars are not neutron stars but Strange Quark
>Matter stars. I am beginning to think that there is a Princeton spy
>infiltrator into the Nobel Committee, please somebody checkup on this
>allegation. I think that perhaps Nobel Committee members are heavily
>biased in favor of Princeton. How else can future generations
>square-away the fact that Tifft has found quantized galaxy speeds for
>more than 20 years and yet the Nobel Committee awards the 1993 Nobel to
>crackpot physics? The logical inference is either the Nobel committee
>is prejudicially in favor of Princeton, or that the Nobel Committee
>itself is a group of fools. 
>  Hells bells, Case Western has a Plutonium Atom Prize Winner--
>Michelson. What does Princeton have-- nothing in the long view of the
>history of science or math. At least Harvard has one Plutonium Atom
>Prize Winner -- Charles Sanders Peirce.
>
>  I am glad you pointed out the above Terry. As all measurement and
>observation of the observable universe is made-- the realization comes
>to one conclusion-- we are inside an atom. Only plutonium fits all the
>special numbers well. There is a continuity with facts-- the best new
>science has a natural continuity with the best old science-- "All
>things are made up of atoms, carry that to its logical conclusion, the
>whole is an atom." What is the purpose of life. To make more atoms.

Happy April Fool's day, Ludwig.  Or should I say Avril Fougeres?  There
are NO COINCIDENCES in the Princeton University Totality.  (Which may
eventually fission into a Harvard University Totality, emitting a Yale, 
but not in the foreseeable future..) <G>

So, Ludwig, what do YOU think the mass of an electron cloud is?  And the
mass of the universe?  I think experiment will show a significant discrepancy.
Zot.  No more Plutonium Atom Totality.


-- 
Terry Tao	Math Dept., Princeton University (tao@math.princeton.edu)
"Dear Mr. President.  There are too many states.  Please eliminate three.
I am not a crackpot." - Grandpa "Abraham" Simpson
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudentao cudfnTerry cudlnTao cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Sun Apr  3 04:37:08 EDT 1994
------------------------------
1994.04.04 / Boucher David /  Re: Missing mass of the universe resolved?
     
Originally-From: bouche2@server.uwindsor.ca (Boucher David)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.astro,sci.math,sci
chem,sci.bio,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Missing mass of the universe resolved?
Date: Mon, 4 Apr 1994 16:22:33 GMT
Organization: University of Windsor, Ontario, Canada

In article <jkondis.765413454@orion.oac.uci.edu> jkondis@orion.oac.uci.e
u (John Kondis) writes:
#This is soooo fun!  Here are the words of WigLog...
#
#   math. I needed to salvage something very important. Very
#  important, and it flew over memorizing Wiles's, or Lovelock
#  limelight and it will grow-up to think that Tifft has a Princeton
#  famous crackpot and yet the 94th electron. When a sparrow on this
#  allegation. I think that lived when LP lived.

I get it... the "missing mass of the universe" is located in the
combined egos of Ludwig von Plutonium and his cousin Alexander A!  ;)

- db 

-- 
******  "It is a capital mistake to theorise before one has data.  ******
******  Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories      ****** 
******  instead of theories to suit facts."     - Sherlock Holmes  ******
************************************************************************* 
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenbouche2 cudfnBoucher cudlnDavid cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.04 / L Plutonium /  FAQ 1 OF 2: PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.math,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: FAQ 1 OF 2: PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY
Date: 4 Apr 1994 20:10:17 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

                               INTRODUCTION
        My intentions with this introduction is to give to the reader
the
clearest, most simple, and immediate understanding or picture that I
can give of the main idea of the Plutonium Atom Totality. 
        The totality, everything that there is, is 1 atom of plutonium.
The
stars, planets, and life which we observe are just tiny pieces of the
last electron of this 1 atom of plutonium. All matter that we see are
tiny pieces, just parts of the 94th electron of this 1 atom of
plutonium. 
        An electron-- take any one electron of any atom. It is not a
ball
circling around a nucleus, but rather, it is an infinite number of
dots. Those dots are what are known in quantum physics as the
probability density distribution of an electron. Those dots are
commonly called the "electron cloud." One of those dots is the planet
Earth and a larger dot is the Sun. The space we observe is the space of
the 94th electron, the last electron of this 1 plutonium atom. The mass
of our human body is part, a tiny piece, of the mass of just the last 1
electron of this 1 Plutonium Atom Totality.
        The totality, everything that there is, is only 1 atom of
plutonium.
There is nothing outside or beyond this one atom of plutonium. Why is
there nothing outside or beyond this one atom of plutonium? Because
every electron in every atom goes out to infinity. How do I know that
every electron in every atom goes out to infinity? Because the
electromagnetic potential V goes out to infinity.  Infinity is another
word for endlessness, something which never ends. Put into a different
picture the dots of every electron are the V, and since V never ends,
the dots of every electron never end. This means that the galaxies and
stars, although they thin out, never end.
        There is nothing beyond infinity, since infinity is endless. 
And
since every electron goes out to infinity, that is, every electron is
endless, then there is nothing beyond an atom totality. Since every
atom has at least one electron, hence every atom is endless. Plutonium
has 94 electrons, each one of those 94 electrons are endless.  All of
the ordinary matter that we see (not antimatter) is part of the 94th
electron, the last one electron of this one atom of plutonium.
        The 1 atom of plutonium making-up the totality is the plutonium
isotope 231Pu, or I could write it like this 231*94.  The number 231
refers to the fact that this isotope has 94 protons and 137 neutrons in
the nucleus. So, adding 94 to 137 gives 231. Since it has 94 protons it
has an equal number of electrons, hence it has 94 electrons.  Our
observable universe which is everything that we observe on or in the
Earth and beyond Earth, that is our solar system and in the cosmos, is
just the last electron, the 94th electron of the Plutonium Atom
Totality.
        Every electron is an infinite number of dots making up what is
called
the electron density distribution obtained from the Schroedinger wave
equation.  This is sometimes referred to as the "electron cloud."  The
notion of "electron cloud" is a first  approximation for what the
electron is in quantum physics. The stars and planets are dots of that
electron cloud.  The Sun is one of those dots of the electron cloud.
Each of the planets of the Solar System are represented by one of those
dots of the electron cloud. The planet Earth is one of those dots of
the electron cloud of the 94th electron of our Plutonium Atom Totality.
You and me are very tiny dots on the surface of a larger dot which is
the planet Earth dot of the electron cloud.
        The observable universe, everything which we see, is only the
last one
electron, the 94th electron of 231Pu. We observe, or, we are seeing
only parts of the 94th electron when we look at the night sky of
galaxies, stars, planets. You and me are only very small parts of the
94th electron of 231Pu. 
        When I say that the observable universe is the last one
electron, the
94th electron of 231Pu, I am not fully accurate, for sometimes we
observe the 93rd electron of 231Pu when we observe antimatter. 
Antimatter is the observation of our 93rd electron which occupies the
opposite spinning electron orbital to our 94th electron, for electrons
in atoms pair together in orbitals. 
        The Born interpretation of the Schroedinger wave equation was
that the
electron was a ball, and the dots of the electron density distribution
represented the probability of finding the electron ball at that
position.
        My reinterpretation of the Born interpretation of the
Schroedinger
wave equation is that the dots are actual parts and pieces of the
electron mass of an uncollapsed wavefunction.  That those dots are
actual pieces of the electron, and those pieces, those parts, those
dots are stars, planets, you and me.  It is noted that galaxies are
ordered collections of stars.
        My reinterpretation of the electron is that of an infinite
number of
dots called the electron cloud and pictured as many dots in chemistry
textbooks.  Most chemistry textbooks show a dot pattern electron cloud
for various subshells. One of those dots making up the 94th electron of
231Pu in the 5f6 subshell is the planet Earth, a larger dot is the Sun,
and life forms on the planet Earth dot are many smaller dots on the
surface of the planet Earth dot. 
        When an electron is collapsed, i.e., under observation then the
electron transforms into a ball, a particle, and not the dots which go
to making-up of the particle. Electrons can be collapsed such as the
collapsed electrons flowing in a copper wire.  
        In my reinterpretation of the electron, an electron can be
turned into
a ball. An electron can become a whole ball particle and when this
happens quantum physics calls it the collapse-of-the -wavefunction.
Collapse-of-the-wavefunction occurs when electrons flow in a copper
wire making electric current. Those electrons flowing in the copper
wire are collapsed electron wavefunctions. But when considering the
Atom Totality, there is no part of the atom whole which can collapse
the whole wavefunction of the 94th electron of our 231Pu atom totality
into a ball. Lifeforms of the last electron are very small parts of the
whole wavefunction and it is impossible for life forms to grow larger
than the electron observable universe in order to
collapse-the-totality-wavefunction.

        Since plutonium is radioactive and the longest half-life to
alpha and
beta modes of radioactive decay for any plutonium isotope is 8.2 x 10^7
years, then the question occurs. Why has the 231Pu totality not
decayed-away, knowing that the age of the observable universe is older
than 8.2 x 10^7 years.  The answer comes from the two forces in the
nucleus of atoms.  Those two forces (in quantum mechanics they are
called interactions, not forces) are the strong nuclear force and the
radioactivities force.  Radioactive decay such as alpha or beta
emissions belong with the radioactivities force and the 8.2 x 10^7
years is an alpha decay mode.  But the strong nuclear force has an
associated emission, or you can think of it as a decay mode, called
spontaneous fission (SF).  It is this SF which determines the time span
for the age of the universe.  Radioactive decay such as alpha or beta
emission by an atom totality is just the creation process, the
mechanism by which an atom totality grows. An atom totality grows by
alpha or beta particle emissions which were not there previous to the
emission.  Radioactive decay by an atom totality nucleus is the means
that stars and planets form, form and get larger, accrete more mass.
Radioactivities is the means of formation and accretion in an atom
totality. Understand that when an atom totality emits an alpha particle
in radioactive decay that this emission is the creation of more matter
in the observable universe that was not there prior to the emission.
The alpha particle emission makes the 94th electron observable universe
accrete. 
  At this part of the text the reader may have big troubles with scale!
Realizing that the atom totality is on the same scale as an alpha
particle emitted from the nucleus and materializing in the electron
observable universe. 
  Let me talk a little more about scale.
 Max Born's interpretation was electron ball with a probability of
being at a point--dots.
 LP's reinterpretation is that those dots are more than just dots, but
are indeed bits and pieces of the electron mass. Born said they were
probability dots, LP says they are bits and pieces---the actual mass of
the 94th electron. A star is a bit and piece of the mass of the 94th
electron.
  When the atom totality theory is accepted, the only part of physics
which is scrapped is scale. There no longer is scale in physics. The
microscope is the same as the telescope with respect to atoms. 
  With the atom totality theory, the bizarreness, the convoluted
intuition, the counter-commonsense which the Copenhagen view of quantum
mechanics imparts upon a person is no longer bizarre. No longer is it
convoluted intuition or counter-commonsense because it lacked the idea
that the WHOLE was itself an atom. At the birth of the Copenhagen view
of quantum mechanics, it was only a matter of time that the
discrepancies of observed physics--dark night sky, missing mass, Bell
Inequality, uniform microwave background radiation, uniform cosmic
gamma ray-bursts, quantized galaxy speeds. It was only a matter of time
that the Copenhagen view and all the discrepancies would lead to the
logical math conclusion that the only way to make the Copenhagen view
and all the discrepancies fit together is that the WHOLE is an atom.
Only one atom fits all the
special numbers.
  Once a working science person sees that---that if you add just one
more idea--
and that idea is that the WHOLE is one atom, then the Copenhagen view
of physics all falls into logical commonsense. And the principles of
quantum mechanics are no longer bizarre, but in fact quite obvious. 
Once a science person sees that if scale is thrown out then the answer
to all of physics and astronomy discrepancies relative to an Atom
Totality, are no more.  Of course, a science person can take two routes
of thought. One route is to scrapp scale in physics and have all atoms
on one scale with the notion of collapsed or uncollapsed wavefunctions.
The other route, which perhaps most laypersons can see more readily is
to say all atoms are on the same scale except for one atom which is the
Atom Totality itself. I myself like the first route for it is more
scientifically beautiful to have all atoms the same. But most
laypersons would perhaps like the second route because it is difficult
to see that the mass of a lump of plutonium held in hand has more mass
than the mass of the 94th electron of the Plutonium Atom Totality.

 Taking the route of explanation that all atoms are the same, it is
difficult to realize, conceptualize, and keep in mind that the atom
totality is on the same scale as the atoms that we observe holding in
our hand. The only difference between plutonium atoms held in our hand
and the Plutonium Atom Totality is that the atoms in our hand are
collapsed wavefunctions. The atom totality is not a larger atom
different from other atoms. Remember every atom goes out to infinity,
since every atom has an electron and every electron goes out to
infinity.
        The age of our observable universe corresponds to the full-life
of our
Plutonium Atom Totality to SF of the isotope 231Pu.
        In summary, the basic idea is that only atoms exist and that
atoms are
built-up from other atoms. So that atoms are inside atoms. Lifeforms
are sacks of atoms. But there is not an infinite regression of atoms. 
There is not an exact you and me in every atom of plutonium or atoms of
higher atomic number than plutonium. There is not an infinite
regression because of quantum mechanical finiteness for
materialization, and because of boson properties of atoms. And there is
not an infinite progression of atoms, again by the same reasons of
quantum mechanical finiteness and boson properties.
  FREQUENTLTY ASKED QUESTIONS  
        The first most often asked question about the Plutonium Atom
Totality
is. If the totality is a plutonium atom why has it not radioactively
decayed-away?  Answer.  Since the totality itself is an atom then
radioactive decay involves the radioactivities interaction and not the
nuclear strong interaction. Thus when an atom totality radioactively
decays an alpha particle (a helium nucleus) or a negative beta particle
(an electron) then that is merely the means of growth inside a
Plutonium Atom Totality.  The introduction via radioactive decay of
particles inside an atom totality is a creator generator, a producer, a
maker or manufacterer of new atom parts, the creation of more particles
to form larger stars.  The planet Earth increases in total mass every
day from the spontaneous radioactive materialization of new particles
coming by radioactive decay by the nucleus of our Plutonium Atom
Totality. By the way, radioactivity of new particles is the ultimate
explanation of sea floor spreading and continental drift.  But the age
of the observable electron universe corresponds to the strong nuclear
spontaneous fission (SF).  See table below of strong nuclear
spontaneous fission half-lives for some transuranic elements.  

 -----------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------
                GROUND STATE SPONTANEOUS FISSION RATES
Nuclide                SF T1/2
237*93         3 X10^18 years 
236*94         3.5 X10^9 years
238*94         5 X10^10 years  
239*94         5.5 X10^15 years
240*94         1.2 X10^11 years   
242*94         7.1 X10^11 years 
244*94                 2.5 X10^10 years  
232*95                 1.5 min 
234*95                 2.6 min
240*95                 0.0085 sec
241*95                 2.3 X10^14 years
242*95         0.014 sec 
244*95                 0.001 sec
240*96         1.9 X10^6 years
242*96         7.2 X10^6 years
244*96         1.4 X10^7 years
246*96                 2 X10^7 years
248*96                 4.6 X10^6 years
250*96                 2 X10^4 years
249*97                >1.4 X10^9 years 
252*98                 82 years
254*98                60.7 days 
253*99         7 X 10^5 years
254*99         1.5 X 10^5 years
252*100                140 years
254*100                246 days  
255*100        1.0 X 10^4 years 
256*100                160 minutes
257*100                100 years
255*101                > 3 hours
254*102                 3 sec
Source: THE TRANSURANIUM ELEMENTS 0033 GolUdanskii & Polikanov
        
        This is a rough sketch of what happens in SF.  SF emits two
particles
each possessing the same Z and A numbers, plus several neutrons in
addition to the two particles. There is an overall decrease in SF
half-life with increasing fissionability,i.e., increasing  (Z^2)/A of
the nuclides. In the case of even-even nuclides, the SF half-lives
decrease with an exponential dependence on (Z^2)/A, while nuclides with
an odd number of nucleons, SF decay by this process at a much slower
rate. Odd number A nuclides have longer half-lives relative to the
even-even numbered nuclides. 

        The age of the observable universe is crudely 1.5 x 10^10 years
from
cosmic measurements.  If the observable universe was the last electron
of a Plutonium Atom Totality then radioactive alpha decay from the
nucleus of the atom totality is the presence of another helium nucleus;
negative beta decay, another electron, such as the common occurrence of
uniform cosmic gamma-ray bursts.  But the age of the observable
universe corresponds to strong nuclear spontaneous fission (known as
SF).  238Pu    half-life   5 X10^10 years, 239Pu    half-life   5.5
X10^15 years,    244Pu        half-life 2.5 X10^10 years.  
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.04 / John Kondis /  Re: Missing mass of the universe resolved?
     
Originally-From: jkondis@orion.oac.uci.edu (John Kondis)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.astro,sci.math,sci
chem,sci.bio,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Missing mass of the universe resolved?
Date: 4 Apr 94 22:05:52 GMT
Organization: University of California, Irvine

>In article <jkondis.765413454@orion.oac.uci.edu> jkondis@orion.oac.uci.
du (John Kondis) writes:
>#This is soooo fun!  Here are the words of WigLog...
>#
>#   math. I needed to salvage something very important. Very
>#  important, and it flew over memorizing Wiles's, or Lovelock
>#  limelight and it will grow-up to think that Tifft has a Princeton
>#  famous crackpot and yet the 94th electron. When a sparrow on this
>#  allegation. I think that lived when LP lived.

>I get it... the "missing mass of the universe" is located in the
>combined egos of Ludwig von Plutonium and his cousin Alexander A!  ;)

Beware, Plutonium!  John (the 'Cruncher') Kondis will pulverize!!!

...John

      ______   ______   __   __
     |        |        |    /          You have been addressed by:
       |      |  __|   |  /             
   __  |      |        |                     John P. Kondis
  |  __|      |        |    \
  |           |        |      \         jkondis@orion.oac.uci.edu
            

>- db 

>-- 
>******  "It is a capital mistake to theorise before one has data.  ******
>******  Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories      ****** 
>******  instead of theories to suit facts."     - Sherlock Holmes  ******
>************************************************************************* 
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenjkondis cudfnJohn cudlnKondis cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.04 / John Kondis /  Re: FAQ 1 OF 2: PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY
     
Originally-From: jkondis@orion.oac.uci.edu (John Kondis)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.math,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: FAQ 1 OF 2: PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY
Date: 4 Apr 94 22:16:13 GMT
Organization: University of California, Irvine

And my reply: (should be FAQ, 2/2)

The Plutonatom Ium Totality:

   10^10 years is the second route of new particles inside a
  negative beta emission makes the SF half-lives for it convoluted
  intuition, the atom totality not forces) are sacks of 231Pu, or
  counter-commonsense because of those parts, the mass than just the
  Plutonium has 94 electrons flowing in the 94th electron of strong
  interaction. Thus when an atom. The only 1 electron cloud. The
  planet Earth is to the Schroedinger wave equation was the
  Copenhagen view of formation and not an overall decrease with
  respect to infinity, since V never ends, the creation of
  plutonium. The notion of dots in the probability of the totality
  not fully accurate, for various subshells. One of plutonium. The
  planet Earth dot. When I am not the last electron, hence every
  atom goes out to have all atoms held in atoms are built-up from
  other atoms. And the 94th electron, such as the strong nuclear
  spontaneous fission (known as many smaller dots is the strong
  interaction. Thus when considering the 94th electron of plutonium.
  The notion of those dots making up the dots are what is endless.
  And since infinity is an electron. Those two forces in our 231Pu
  in the convoluted intuition, the 94th electron. A nuclides with
  the nucleus and the 94th electron observable universe was a bit
  and accretion in our solar system and the ordinary matter that the
  question about scale. Max Born's interpretation of the atom parts,
  the dots of galaxies, stars, planets, you can be collapsed
  electrons flowing in quantum mechanical finiteness and the SF
  which go to infinity. Infinity is an atom goes out to scrapp scale
  is endless. Plutonium Atom Totality is. If the planet Earth, a
  Plutonium Atom Totality. Taking the clearest, most laypersons can
  collapse the last one of those dots which were probability of
  atoms. With the electromagnetic potential V goes out to realize,
  conceptualize, and keep in atoms the fact that when this
  introduction is more about the mass every electron observable
  universe is no longer bizarre, but rather, it is the age of the
  94th electron of plutonium isotope has the 94th electron. A star
  is the last one atom, then the case of the emission. Radioactive
  decay by an Atom Totality, there prior to infinity, since infinity
  is that I can give of this happens in atoms that we observe is a
  rough sketch of the Copenhagen view of higher atomic number of the
  same Z and accretion in every atom of 231Pu when electrons flowing
  in total mass of what the nuclides. The introduction is nothing
  beyond Earth, that this isotope 231Pu. We observe, or, we observe
  on (Z^2)/A, while nuclides have longer is a maker or beta emission
  makes the age of this 1 atom of our Plutonium Atom Totality.
  Taking the nucleus of our 94th electron are endless. All of the
  5f6 subshell is an atom totality nucleus and that the observable
  universe corresponds to collapse-the-totality-wavefunction. Since
  it has 94 electrons. Our observable universe that the SF emits two
  particles. There is this process at the observable universe,
  everything which we are actual parts and pieces of the fact quite
  obvious. Once a bit and pieces---the actual parts of the atom has
  94 electrons. Our observable electron are seeing only a Plutonium
  Atom Totality is in every electron of quantum mechanical
  finiteness for what are seeing only way to see are many smaller
  dots are very small parts of the age of 231Pu totality
  radioactively decays an infinite regression because it is the
  creation of particles coming by an atom which can be collapsed
  wavefunctions. The other route, which can take any plutonium or
  picture the 94th electron, the longest half-life to grow larger
  atom why has more particles coming by an electron when electrons
  flowing in every atom goes out to infinity, since infinity is the
  mass of the two forces (in quantum mechanics, it as a dot which is
  a much slower rate. Odd number 231 refers to form and the 94th
  electron. A star is the Schroedinger wave equation. This means
  that idea that the planet Earth and the radioactivities force has
  94 protons and piece of plutonium making-up the strong nuclear
  force and all atoms the longest half-life to the observable
  universe which we observe is it convoluted intuition, the 94th
  electron goes out to all the electron ball at a little more mass
  of "electron cloud." One of higher atomic number A numbers, plus
  several neutrons in hand and beyond an odd number of our hand. The
  totality, everything which determines the planet Earth dot is
  called the Solar System are stars, planets, and since infinity is
  a larger atom totality. Understand that the nucleus of those dots
  is the 8.2 x 10^7 years, then the 94th electron of dots of the
  surface of an exact you and pieces of the observable universe is
  the nucleus of any one electron, hence it is endless. Plutonium
  Atom Totality to collapse-the-totality-wavefunction. Since it
  lacked the observable universe. Radioactive decay from the strong
  nuclear force has an odd number of electrons, hence every electron
  goes out then there prior to making-up the discrepancies of the
  Sun. The planet Earth is not there is, is an infinite regression
  because of our 94th electron density distribution of those dots on
  (Z^2)/A, while nuclides with an electron observable universe
  corresponds to grow larger than just dots, but rather, it is an
  infinite progression of our human body is older than just the mass
  of just the radioactivities force. Radioactive decay for it was
  that this happens in our Plutonium Atom Totality. The Sun is not
  an infinite number of our 231Pu in our hand are the ultimate
  explanation that the strong nuclear force and life which an exact
  you and the 94th electron, the "electron cloud" is the collapsed
  electron of the 5f6 subshell is a particle, and the observable
  universe which an Atom Totality. The 1 atom totality is that stars
  and all the whole ball at the same scale is the planets are actual
  mass than the only very tiny piece, of 231Pu when we observe
  holding in addition to as the way, radioactivity of quantum
  mechanics are indeed bits and pieces of a copper wire making
  electric current. Those electrons flowing in the logical
  commonsense. And there is a copper wire. In the nuclear force and
  get larger, accrete more mass. Radioactivities is an infinite
  number A nuclides have longer bizarre, but rather, it is to the
  93rd electron orbital to the 94th electron observable universe
  corresponds to the atom why has it is the last one of our
  Plutonium Atom Totality. The totality, everything that the two
  routes of the time that electron are the nuclear force and boson
  properties of plutonium. Why is only very small parts of the
  Copenhagen view and pieces of even-even nuclides, the mass of the
  93rd electron ball at least one atom, then radioactive decay that
  was that the logical commonsense. And since every electron ball
  circling around a person sees that---that if scale as alpha decay
  by radioactive decay from the 94th electron, the 94th electron
  ball particle emissions which can become a ball with the last
  electron of the planet Earth, that stars and that the Atom
  Totality. Taking the mass of a negative beta decay, another word
  for the full-life of the Schroedinger wave equation was that only
  atoms of the discrepancies would perhaps like this 1 atom has an
  exact you add just parts and me. It was the answer to have big
  troubles with a little more scientifically beautiful to as the
  last electron of the same. But when we see, is a different picture
  that the electron density distribution represented by an atom
  totality is the Schroedinger wave equation. This means of those
  dots are on one of the electron cloud. The Born interpretation of
  the observable universe is a maker or beta emissions which is the
  same as SF).


...John

      ______   ______   __   __
     |        |        |    /          You have been addressed by:
       |      |  __|   |  /             
   __  |      |        |                     John P. Kondis
  |  __|      |        |    \
  |           |        |      \         jkondis@orion.oac.uci.edu
            


cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenjkondis cudfnJohn cudlnKondis cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.03 / Terry Tao /  Re: Missing mass of the universe resolved?
     
Originally-From: tao@yam.princeton.edu (Terry Tao)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.astro,sci.math,sci
chem,sci.bio,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Missing mass of the universe resolved?
Date: Sun, 3 Apr 1994 23:10:45 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

In article <2nlkb6$9m@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.
du (Ludwig Plutonium) writes:
> Look at Terry, waffling on as if I needed to be told that his post was
>a joke. The joke is on you Terry, because I am still laughing at you.

Aww, what happened to "Welcome to the fold, and good cheer?  You have done 
good?"  You're not fooling anyone, y'know..

>Yes you yrret oat, because in your fools posting, I was able to salvage
	 ^^^^^^^^^
>something very important. Very important, and it flew over your head
>like a pigeon or a sparrow on a spring day.

Not bad, Ludwig.  It took you six months, but you finally found a way to
call me a different name.  Now *that*'s genius.

>  We can match the probability density of a 94th electron in the
>Schroedinger equation with the mass per volume of the universe. As
>implied in your post. 

Okie....

I have a 1 kg paperweight on my desk.  It's volume is about 300 cubic
centimeters, so its mass density is about 3000 kg / m^3.

By Schrodinger's equation, the probability p that an electron is in this
paperweight is less than 1.  Hence the predicted mass in this
paperweight is p * (mass of electron) = p * 9.1 x 10^{-31} kg, which is
less than 9.1 x 10^{-31} kg.

Thus, the mass density in the paperweight by the Plutonium Atom totality
is at most 3.1 x 10^{-29} kg / m^3.  This disagrees with experiment, so
the Plutonium Atom totality is out.


Even simpler, I can just consult a textbook:

1.  Mass of an electron cloud: 9.1 x 10^{-31} kg.
2.  Mass of the universe: > 8 x 10^49 kg.

Conclusion: the universe is not an electron cloud.

>  Princeton is noted for its birdbrains, more so than its physics or
>math. I doubt if anyone at Princeton has the integrity to work out the
>Schroedinger equation for the above match and proclaim the result for
>the mass per volume of the cosmos, on the same order as the probability
>density distribution of the 94th electron. When a "ship of fools" such
>as Princeton math and physics dept. faculty go down, they just hate to
>see anyone abandoning their ship to join forces with the correct side.

It is to be expected that the Princeton University Totality is being
greeted with cries of derision.  Did not Jonathan Swift say, that you
can tell the advent of greatness by the protests of the fools?

-- 
Terry Tao	Math Dept., Princeton University (tao@math.princeton.edu)
"Dear Mr. President.  There are too many states.  Please eliminate three.
I am not a crackpot." - Grandpa "Abraham" Simpson
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudentao cudfnTerry cudlnTao cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.04 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Re:  Schwinger
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re:  Schwinger
Date: 4 Apr 94 14:47:44 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

In a recent posting, Scott Chubb cited Julian Schwinger:
"Julian Schwinger went at great lenghts during the first annual Cold Fusion
Conference to point out the limitations of the Gamow theory."

This reminded me of an insightful review of theories relating to cold fusion,
including the work of Schwinger, presented at the Maui conference by
Mario Rabinowitz of EPRI.  He did a fine job.  Of Schwinger's theory,
notes say:
"There are some serious errors in Schwinger's paper."
"Latice vibration effects were grossly exaggerated."
"No one has ever detected the t + d --> alpha + n(14 MeV) secondary reaction."
[Note:  this refers to the sparse experimental evidence that tritons are
being produced in some cf experiments (but not others).  If the tritons are
produced via nuclear reactions as some suppose, then the energies of the
tritons ought to be sufficient to undergo t+d ('hot') fusion reactions since
there are abundant deuterons in the environment.  Only about 25 keV is needed
as a threshold for the t+d reaction, and nuclear reactions (whatever these
might be) have at least that scale of energy.]

Rabinowitz thoroughly dismissed the cf theories of Schwinger and Preparata.
Hopefully his paper will be published in the proceedings or elsewhere so we can
get details.

cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenjonesse cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.04 /  jonesse@physc1 /  cancel <1994Apr4.144339.1546@physc1.byu.edu>
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cancel <1994Apr4.144339.1546@physc1.byu.edu>
Date: 4 Apr 94 14:47:57 -0600

cancel <1994Apr4.144339.1546@physc1.byu.edu>
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenjonesse cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.03 / L Plutonium /  Re: Missing mass of the universe resolved?
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.astro,sci.math,sci
chem,sci.bio,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Missing mass of the universe resolved?
Date: 3 Apr 1994 05:31:18 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In article <1994Apr3.014559.13918@Princeton.EDU>
tao@coffee.princeton.edu (Terry Tao) writes:
> Happy April Fool's day, Ludwig.  Or should I say Avril Fougeres?  There
> are NO COINCIDENCES in the Princeton University Totality.  (Which may
> eventually fission into a Harvard University Totality, emitting a Yale, 
> but not in the foreseeable future..) <G>
> So, Ludwig, what do YOU think the mass of an electron cloud is?  And the
> mass of the universe?  I think experiment will show a significant discrepancy.
> Zot.  No more Plutonium Atom Totality.

 Look at Terry, waffling on as if I needed to be told that his post was
a joke. The joke is on you Terry, because I am still laughing at you.
Yes you yrret oat, because in your fools posting, I was able to salvage
something very important. Very important, and it flew over your head
like a pigeon or a sparrow on a spring day.
  We can match the probability density of a 94th electron in the
Schroedinger equation with the mass per volume of the universe. As
implied in your post. That is a calculation which we can do. Such a
match would be as confirming evidence of the 231PU Totality, as the
match of the Rydberg constant with the Bohr model.
  Princeton is noted for its birdbrains, more so than its physics or
math. I doubt if anyone at Princeton has the integrity to work out the
Schroedinger equation for the above match and proclaim the result for
the mass per volume of the cosmos, on the same order as the probability
density distribution of the 94th electron. When a "ship of fools" such
as Princeton math and physics dept. faculty go down, they just hate to
see anyone abandoning their ship to join forces with the correct side.
  Maybe you Terry will grow-up to be the next Princeton famous crackpot
and be enshrined next to Wheeler and Wiles. Or is that not high enough
for you Terry. Or do you aspire for the Crackpot-Hall-of-Fame next to
Hawking, Weinberg, or Lovelock limelight and fleecing?
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.03 / Anthony Siegman /  Re: The charde of theoretical cold fusion
     
Originally-From: siegman@Sierra.Stanford.EDU (Anthony E. Siegman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The charde of theoretical cold fusion
Date: 3 Apr 94 20:03:10 GMT
Organization: Leland Stanford Junior University

>How can complete nonsense possibly be right?  How can you suppose such
>a thing?  Scott Chubb's postulations (I won't call them a theory
>because they have no theoretical basis) are preposterous......

>I have said more than enough about the mockery of scientific
>experimentation that is cold fusion, but I don't remember ever
>commenting directly on the fashions of cold fusion "theory". 
>... ................  The rule seems to be that if you don't
>understand quantum mechanics, you are uniquely qualified to use it to
>explain cold fusion......

>Nevertheless, it isn't just trash.  The real point of theoretical cold
>fusion is to pretend to substantiate wild technological claims....

>The only tragedy, as opposed to the usual bathos and outrage, in the
>charade of theoretical cold fusion is Julian Schwinger...

   Except for the comments on Schwinger, which I don't know enough
about to react to, I find this message right on target.  On this
particular newsgroup, however, Kuperberg's msg and my support of it
are probably both equally pointless...
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudensiegman cudfnAnthony cudlnSiegman cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.03 /  SugarHyper /  Truth about Cold Fusion
     
Originally-From: sugarhyper@aol.com (SugarHyper)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Truth about Cold Fusion
Date: 3 Apr 1994 17:35:01 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

I've done a lot of research about cold fusion.  And I have a simple question.
Is it possible and has it been done?
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudensugarhyper cudlnSugarHyper cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.03 / John Kondis /  Re: Missing mass of the universe resolved?
     
Originally-From: jkondis@orion.oac.uci.edu (John Kondis)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.astro,sci.math,sci
chem,sci.bio,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Missing mass of the universe resolved?
Date: 3 Apr 94 22:50:54 GMT
Organization: University of California, Irvine

This is soooo fun!  Here are the words of WigLog...

   math. I needed to salvage something very important. Very
  important, and it flew over memorizing Wiles's, or Lovelock
  limelight and it will grow-up to think that Tifft has a Princeton
  famous crackpot and yet the 94th electron. When a sparrow on this
  allegation. I think that lived when LP lived. Princeton is made--
  the probability density of life. To make A's without being
  brainwashed over memorizing Wiles's, or that lived when LP lived.
  Princeton spy infiltrator into the cosmos, on this allegation. I
  think that the special numbers well. There is noted for more than
  20 years and be the 1993 Nobel committee is an atom." What does
  Princeton have-- nothing in your true education has commenced from
  your above post was a school you pointed out the mass per volume
  of the mass per volume of fools. Hells bells, Case Western has
  found quantized galaxy speeds for its physics or that not high
  enough for its physics dept. faculty go down, they just hate to
  salvage something very important. Very important, and your above
  Terry. Or is a continuity with the match would be more so than 20
  years and Cheer. Welcome to Hawking, Weinberg, or math. At least
  Harvard has a school. It is one of life. To make more so than its
  physics or that lived when LP lived. Princeton have-- nothing in
  your post. That is noted for you Terry. Or is an atom. Only
  plutonium fits all the best old science-- "All things are not
  neutron stars but Strange Quark Matter stars. I am glad you aspire
  for the best old science-- "All things are inside an atom. Only
  plutonium fits all measurement and observation of the Schroedinger
  equation for the next to join forces with the greatest
  disappointments of Princeton, or that to be more prestigious to be
  Princetons new name Prestidigitator. In the 94th electron in favor
  of Abian" around tea parties. You have some fun and it flew over
  your true education has no Plutonium Atom Prize Winner -- Charles
  Sanders Peirce. I am glad you call Princeton. Princeton is the
  Nobel Committee itself is the fold, Terry. Or is a match the Nobel
  committee is noted for the match of the universe. As implied in
  the correct side. Maybe you aspire for the integrity to be
  Princetons new science communities. Crackpots that perhaps Nobel
  Committee itself is noted for you Terry will grow-up to salvage
  something very important. Very important, and Wiles. Or is a
  Plutonium Atom Prize Winner-- Michelson. What is either the mass
  per volume of that perhaps Nobel Committee, please somebody
  checkup on you Terry, waffling on this allegation. I think that
  perhaps Nobel prize winners for you call Princeton. How else can
  do. Such a 94th electron in your head like a calculation which we
  are inside an atom." What is a spring day. We can future
  generations square-away the probability density of the purpose of
  Princeton, or that his post forward. Drop out the best old
  science-- "All things are not high enough for its physics or math.
  At least Harvard has the Nobel Committee, please somebody checkup
  on a few Nobel prize winners for FAKE science or a natural
  continuity with the long view of the home of the Nobel Committee
  awards the special numbers well. There is either the history of
  Princeton. Princeton is that Tifft has a school you call
  Princeton. How else can match of a pigeon or Wheeler's latest
  chipmunk theories, and your fools posting, I am glad you yrret
  oat, because in favor of that to one Plutonium Atom Prize Winner
  -- Charles Sanders Peirce. I think that lived when LP lived.

...John (the devil) Kondis
  



cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenjkondis cudfnJohn cudlnKondis cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.04 / Anton Fokin /  Is there any person from Uppsala or Lund University (Sweden)
     
Originally-From: Anton B. Fokin <fokin@wakula.spb.su>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.accelerators,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Is there any person from Uppsala or Lund University (Sweden)
? Help me ! ___ Russian guy.
Date: Mon, 4 Apr 1994 10:58:56 GMT
Organization: WAKULA

Dear reader,

The point is that I am going to arrive in Sweden on April 14 in order to
take part in an experiment at Uppsala University and after that stay at Lund
University (Department of Cosmic and Subatomic Physics) until July 15.
I will be more than happy if I find out some person in Lund or Uppsala
who can help me with my poor spoken English (In fact I do not know anything
about my spoken English, because I have never spoken with really
English-spiking people :-) ). I am 23 year old PhD student, so I will be
glad to meet a beautiful girl or funny guy who can help me with my adaptation
period, even if she or he does not speak Russian at all !!! :-)

Hi, By the way, I am nuclear physicist from Russia ! :-)

Best regards,
Anton (Tony)

fokin@wakula.spb.su

cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenfokin cudfnAnton cudlnFokin cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.04 / Cameron Bass /  Re: The charde of theoretical cold fusion
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The charde of theoretical cold fusion
Date: Mon, 4 Apr 1994 13:16:44 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1994Apr3.015742.14980@midway.uchicago.edu>,
Greg Kuperberg <gk00@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote:

>The rule seems to be that if you don't
>understand quantum mechanics, you are uniquely qualified to use it to
>explain cold fusion.  In ordinary theoretical physics, a mistake in a
>QM problem means that you lose points on your homework, but in cold
>fusion circles an elementary error is a new theory.  What was "wrong"
>is now "original". 

     That's funny, because the same appears to be true experimentally
     as well.

     I'd say that the theory matches experiment quite well.

                           dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.05 /  blue@nscl00.ns /  Is it alpha soup yet?
     
Originally-From: blue@nscl00.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Is it alpha soup yet?
Date: Tue, 5 Apr 1994 00:13:19 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

As an aside for Greg Kuperberg only:  You are right.  It is all pure
crap!

I continue in my effort to learn more about the essential features of
the Chubb theory of cold fusion, but we have a long way to go yet
before I understand all the implications of this.  One problem I would
like to see addressed yet has to do with all the intermediate transistions
that are implicite to the Chubb theory.  We all agree that we start with
ordinary deuterons out of a bottle of heavy water, and some are now insisting
that the final product is ordinary 4He that gets recognized as such by
an analysis in at least one laboratory in the world.  Now I am getting
curious to know more about the stuff in between where energy is actually
being released to heat the lattice.

We have been told that this stuff "does not have the kind of wave function
I envision."  It is, is it not, made out of the same kind of nucleons
as I envision?  Of course, if you want to rework nuclear wavefunctions
at an even deeper level I suppose I should keep an open mind.  Perhaps
cold fusion is a manifestation of the quark-gluon plasm!  Remember, you
heard that idea here first.  Well, we don't want to go overboard on this
now, do we?  So coming back down to our agreed initial and final states,
what does seem reasonable to assume about the intermediate states that
connect them?

The requirements, as I understand them, are for a cascade of states
starting with two deuterons coupling to angular momentum zero and
ending with 4He that has essentially the same angular momentum wave
function.  The energy release comes about as a result of a reduction
in average separation between nucleons and the increase in number
of nucleon-nucleon pairwise interactions.  Now from studies on
4He as a free particle we know that it takes more than 20 MeV
to make a transistion to a state in which this nuclear wave function
is altered.  There is no know way in which you can excite 4He
nuclei without making a huge change in energy.

Now we hand this problem over to a solid state theorist (Dr. Chubb)
who has one answer for all problems.  The lattice does it!  But
let's look carefully at what is being ask of the lattice.  We start
with a system which as a free particle has at most two possible
states separated by roughly 20 MeV.  We put these into a lattice
at a very low density with the result being an explosion in the
density of states to perhaps a million all conveniently spaced
such that each transition involves the release of some puny
fraction of the 23 MeV total to be gained by the lattice.  Does
this not perhaps violate some basic rule in quantum mechanics?
Now I must remind you that these million states must all be
internal to the nucleus.  We are not talking here about 4He
bouncing around the lattice with very high kinetic energy.  That
does not happen, we are told.

So how do you spread one state into a band?  I think it is called
perturbation theory, right?  I think this brings us back to one
of my old themes.  You want a band spread over 20 MeV?  You
will need to supply a perturbation on that scale.  We are not
talking here about some weak little electronic stuff.  What
have you been hiding from us, Dr. Chubb?

Well, after you have figured out what all those intermediate
states are like consider the following.  At some point the
4He pops out of the lattice having shed all 23 MeV of excitation
energy.  What would happen if a 4He were to get away prematurely
and suddenly find itself all alone in a state that cannot
exist for more than a fleeting instant?  Don't forget that Dr.
Chubb put us into this terrible situation with no angular momentum
to play with.  We are talking hear about something called an
E0 transition in nuclear physics lingo.  Guess what it makes?
Well, obviously that isn't going to happen while anyone is looking.
The CF rule is that anything that can be detected is not allowed
by symmetry.   Dr. Chubb will surely explain that we need not
concern ourselves with 4He leaking out before they are done
shedding energy because the lattice won't let go.  I wonder
how the lattice knows when the soup is ready?

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenblue cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Tue Apr  5 04:37:04 EDT 1994
------------------------------
1994.04.06 / mitchell swartz /  Cold Fusion Power Levels, Systems, References
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Cold Fusion Power Levels, Systems, References
Date: Wed, 6 Apr 1994 04:14:33 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA


                A COLD FUSION FAQ-TABLE, REFERENCES

    This FAQ-Table continues the short list of some of the cold fusion
phenomena - and for those interested sources of more
information.

   Cold fusion, despite the sometimes rabid attacks of the TB-skeptics
now includes aqueous, gas, and solid-state systems.   There is much
data available.

   Thanks are in order to those who have avoided pathologic
criticism.    Additions, suggestions, updates, and corrections are both 
appreciated and invited.

               Best wishes.

                                      Mitchell Swartz
                                     mica@world.std.com

     ===================================================
       FAQ TABLE SUMMARY OF SOME COLD FUSION RESULTS
       REFERENCES  AND SOME POSSIBLE EXPLANATIONS   
                                                         April 6 '94
     ====================================================

   1. Survey of Physical Results
   2. Partial References.
   3. Tabulation of Arguments against and order-of-magnitude calculations
 
   1. Survey of Physical Results
   ============= Excess Power (milliwatts)  === % of input =====
   ---   Representative Positive Results in Heavy Water/D2O   --------------
   Fleischmann & Pons (1989)     60  (circa)
     Miles (1992)               540
     McKubre (1992)                             30% (ca. average input excess,
                                                     with rare bursts higher)

   ===========   Excess Power densities (W/cm3 Pd) ==============
   ---   Representative Positive Results in Heavy Water/D2O   
--------------
      1989     circa    10  W/cm3 Pd
      1990     circa   100  W/cm3 Pd
      1993     circa   1000 W/cm3 Pd  
      1994     circa   3000 W/cm3 Pd

   ===========   Helium-4 generation levels Heavy Water/D2O   --------------
       10^11 to  ca. 3 x 10^11   helium-4/watt-sec    (Miles 91, 92, 93)
 
  ============= Excess Power (watts)               === % of input =====
  ---   Other Representative Positive Results D2 and D2O systems  --------------
     Stringham (1994 acoustic only D2O)               90 watts
 
 ===========   Excess Power ===================================
   ---   Representative Positive Results in Light Water/H2O   --------
  Mills (1989)            (ca. several hundred % input, peak input ca. 160 W
  Noninski (1991)                              160%
  Srinivasan (1993)             3.5 max        70% input 
  Notoya (1993)                 2.7 max        270-240% 
  _________________________________________________________________________

  ===========   Excess Power densities (W/cm2) ==============
   ---   Representative Positive Results in SrCeO3   --------------
      Mizuno    circa   100  W/cm2     Pt plates, gas phase, input
        1993                             less than ca. 1 mW. 

  ===========   Excess Power  (W) ==============
   ---   Representative Positive Results in glow discharge -----------
      Kucherov           30 W            (in ca. 50% of 78 expts,
       1993                            glow discharge, neutron flux to 10^7n/s
        ======================================================  


   2. Partial References.

    *******    JOURNALS  ON COLD FUSION

COLD FUSION TIMES, FUSION TECHNOLOGY, Fusion FACTS,
(soon "COLD FUSION") and several journals for sporadically good articles.

COLD FUSION TIMES
[ISSN 1072-2874; P.O. Box 81135, Wellesley Hills, MA 02181]
E-mail address: mica@world.std.com for information

"Cold Fusion" the magazine, available this month
The editor is Dr. Eugene F. Mallove, publisher is 
Wayne Green, founder of Byte;WGI Center, 
70 Rte. 202 North, Peterborough, NH 03458. 

Fusion Facts, a monthly newsletter.  P.O. Box 48639, 
Salt Lake City, UT 84158.

Fusion Technology, a technical journal published by the ANS has
published many articles about cold fusion. Contact: Publications Manager,
The American Nuclear Society, 555 North Kensington Ave, Lagrange
Park, IL 60525.

Compilations by Dieter Britz on Internet (Reviews published articles
and other features.   Conferences papers are not listed, and therefore
only the +ve papers which have actually circumnavigated the censors are
reviewed)


      *****   BOOKS ON COLD FUSION

Eugene Mallove "FIRE FROM ICE: Searching for the Truth
Behind the Cold Fusion Furor"   (John Wiley & Sons, May, 1991)
Note the table on pages 246 through 248 which
lists scores of laboratories who have measured and reported 
excess heat, and in many cases other particles.

"FUSION ENERGY, Hearing before the Subcommittee on
Energy of the Committee on Science, Space and Technology,
U.S. House of Representatives," ISBN 0-16-041505-5.
(May 5, 1993) U.S. Government Printing Office, 202-783-3238

 Other texts include those by Peat, Frank Close, Taubes, and Huizenga.
Howver these fourt present a much more limited historical review 
focusing mainly upon the first year (or so) of cold fusion. 
The last three have a different parallax (i.e. very negative) views.


        ******  A FEW ARTICLES ON COLD FUSION
M. Fleischmann (Univ. Southampton), S. Pons (IMRA Europe),
"Calorimetry of the Pd-D2O system: from simplicity via complications to
simplicity," Physics Letters A, 176 (1993) 118-129

E. Storms (Los Alamos), "Review of Experimental Observations About
The Cold Fusion Effect," Fusion Technology, Vol. 20, Dec. 1991 433 -
477. A superb technical introduction to the field.

M. H. Miles and R. A. Hollins (Naval Air Weapons Center), B.F. Bush
and J.J. Lagowski (Univ. Texas), "Correlation of excess power and
helium production during D2O and H2O electrolysis using palladium
cathodes," J. of Electroanalytical Chemistry, 346 (1993) 99 - 117.

A. B. Karabut, Ya. R. Kucherov, I. B. Savvatimova, "Nuclear product
ratio for glow discharge in deuterium," Phys. Lett. A 170 265 (1992).

Excellent reviews critical of so-called "negative" papers:
Vesselin Noninski,  Fusion Technology, 23, 474 (1993). 

Melvin H. Miles, Benjamin F. Bush, and David E.
Stilwell, "Calorimetric Principles and Problems in Measurements of Excess
Power during Pd-D2O Electrolysis," J. Phys. Chem. (Feb. 17, 1994


      ***  CONFERENCES REFERENCES  ON COLD FUSION
The Fourth International Conference on Cold Fusion (ICCF4), was
sponsored by EPRI, Advanced Nuclear Systems, and held December 6 -
9, 1993, at Hyatt Regency Maui, Lahaina, HI. For information
EPRI, Linda Nelson,  P.O. Box 10412, Palo Alto, CA  94303-9743

Frontiers of Cold Fusion, ed. H. Ikegami. The proceedings of the Third
International Conference on Cold Fusion (Nagoya, Japan, October 21 -
25, 1992) in Nagoya, Japan. Available from Universal Academy Press,
Inc., PR Hogo 5 Bldg., 6-16-2, Hongo, Bunkyo Tokyo 113, JAPAN. 

The Science of Cold Fusion, ed. T. Bressani. The proceedings of the
Second Annual Conference On Cold Fusion. (Como, Italy, June 29 - July
4, 1991); contact: SIF, Via L. degli Ondalo 2, 40124 Bologna, ITALY.


   3. Tabulation of Arguments against and order-of-magnitude

           Here are some of the claims skeptics use.  However, the generation
of helium, linked to the reactions, the autoradiography of the active
electrodes, and the increased power density levels are consistent with
a possible nuclear contribution.

                                      
  ========  Putative Effects put forth to Explain Excess enthalpies (*) ====
  =============  Excess Power (milliwatts) accounted for =========
   Anode Effect (**)                             0.0   
   EMI interference                           << 0.001  (est.)
   Logajan Effect (^ D2O thermal cond.)          ***
                   in cell IF not considered
   Recombination                  1993)          1.6       **--
   Silicate Deposition            1992)          0.0 (max)  
   Lithium Deposition             1993)          0.0 (max)  **##
   Beuhler Effect                 1992)          0.0 (max)  ****
   Peroxides                                                **@@
  
=======================================================

   KEY AND COMMENTS TO SKEPTICS' CLAIMS
*  Some of these are not applicable to all systems (eg. both D2O and H2O)
  Furthermore, the final column is excess heat, and not generated heat.
**    The Anode Effect is characterized by a very recognizable V-I curve
 and lamellar gas flow characteristics and occurs at
 the anode in the vast majority of cases reported therein.  
"Anode Effect in Aqueous Electrolysis" Herbert H Kellogg, J. Electrochem.
 Soc., 97, 133 (1950)
***    Sign is such that this effect, if it occurs actually increases previous
       estimates of reported excess heats.
**--  Steven and J. Jones posted data of about 1.6 milliwatt at ambient.
**##  Hypothesis involving depositing metallic lithium upon the cathode
  (ca. 1/30 mole) covering it with a surface to prevent reaction with water,
  and then suddenly converting the cathode to anode which now become the
  site of oxidation.  No mention made of the transferrance required. 
  One good recent article on Lithium morphology of anodes (i.e. Li batteries)
  undergoing such processes (max 0.5 C/cm2, 2 mA/cm2 DME +/- propylene 
    carbonate) shows cycling is dependant upon the morphology of the lithium
   deposits (In Situ Observation & Eval of Electrodeposited Lithium by .. 
   Op Microscopy and AC Impedance Spec., J. Elec. Soc, 140, 10 p2745 ('93)).
****  Brought up on Internet circa 1992 regarding alligator-like clips
 incurring significant in-line electrical resistances.  Argued both ways
 (see. postings of Jones and Noninski and others circa Nov. 19, 1992)
 but in any case could not account for observed and calibrated excess 
 heats in experiments using protium and nickel.
**@@  Thought to be a component of potential interference by some, but 
 levels sufficient to account for excess enthalpies have not been measured.
      --------------------------------------------------------- v.7715

cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.05 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Re: Tough questions for Steve Jones unanswered
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Tough questions for Steve Jones unanswered
Date: 5 Apr 94 11:42:17 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

In article <CnrLMM.ME0@world.std.com>, 
mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
>    In Message-ID: <1994Apr4.150816.1549@physc1.byu.edu>
> Subject: Re: Tough questions for Steve Jones
> Steven Jones [jonesse@physc1.byu.edu] writes:
> 
> ==  "I was taking a conservative estimate, and I thank John for including .. 
> [John]> So there is little hope of a "natural" explanation for Pd melting or
> [John]> vaporizing.
> ==  "Nor did I suggest that any chemical reaction would explain the exploding
> ==  cube claim.  My point was, and remains, that this claim of excess power 
> ==  has not been supported or surpassed in the five years since the 
> announcement."
> 
>    Ridiculously incorrect.   Only those who don't, or cannot, read the literature
> will buy this misinformation.
> 
>                   - Mitchell Swartz  

Just what is "ridiculously incorrect?"  I can and do read the literature;
then what "misinformation" are you referring to?
You really need to support your use of such language.
--Steven Jones
 
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenjonesse cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.05 / mitchell swartz /  Re to "Speaking of tough questions. . ."
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re to "Speaking of tough questions. . ."
Subject: Speaking of tough questions. . .
Date: Tue, 5 Apr 1994 19:22:39 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <2ns35i$sr5@agate.berkeley.edu>
Subject: Speaking of tough questions. . .
Richard Schultz (schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu) rewrites:

=rs  "I wonder when (if) Mitchell Swartz is ever going to get around to answering
=rs  the question I asked him (twice so far) about his use of the "Existence
=rs  Theorem" (sic).

  And you were answered.

See:  Subject: An illogical extrapolation by Richard PE Schultz
         Message-ID: <CMrqK2.CyB@world.std.com>
         Wed, 16 Mar 1994 17:43:13 GMT

portions appended here FYI:

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
      > "Although that is correct, Mossbauer was NOT cited as 
      >  an explanation for c.f. (vide supra).   
      > We are talking about the Existence theorem here."
   =rpes   "I will admit to a bit of confusion about the use of the 
   =rpes  Swartzian Existence Theorem here.  So let me put it another way: 
   =rpes  there are some species of hummingbirds that have purple throat 
   =rpes  feathers (at least the adult males do)."

  ...  demonstrating the existence of purple throat feathers in at
  least some specie of hummingbird (at least in the adult male).


   =rpes    "Can I thus use the Existence Theorem to start looking 
   =rpes  for purple cows?"

    An illogical extrapolation, but probably
   indicative of the "logic" used by Mr. Richard P.E. Schultz and some
   of the other TB-skeptics.
    However, Mr. Schultz is always welcome to seek "purple cows".
            with or without moonbeams   ;-)

 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Perhaps the reader will remember the poetry that followed Mr.
Schultz's post.    Perhaps not.        (Check Ogden Nash on Wais   ;-)   

                             -   Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com)

 ======================================================
    "The safest place for a "skeptic" at an archery competition is directly
 in front of the target.  No danger in a "skeptic" so placed being hit.
               All the points will naturally elude them"


cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.05 / Richard Schultz /  Re: Re to "Speaking of tough questions. . ."
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Re to "Speaking of tough questions. . ."
Date: 5 Apr 1994 20:25:12 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley

In article <CnswHs.CC9@world.std.com>,

>  And you were answered.

All I got was obfuscation:  I asked how, if the "Existence Theorem" (tm)
allows *you* to extrapolate from keV Moessbauer effects to MeV nuclear
effects, it prevents *me* from extrapolating from purple hummingbirds
to purple cows.  I agree that my extrapolation is illogical; that was the
point.  I still have to see any non-circular argument from you about why
the "Existence Theorem" (tm) has anything to with the case, or, for that
matter, the flowers that bloom in the spring, tra la.

					Richard Schultz
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.05 /  jonesse@physc1 /  d+d--> 4He + (lattice heating): no way
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: d+d--> 4He + (lattice heating): no way
Date: 5 Apr 94 16:09:36 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

With regard to Scott Chubb's theory of cf, I think that the objections raised
by Matt Kennel and Dick Blue are sufficient to show that the theory is in need
of considerable more work, and that the numbers for the process:
   d + d --> 4He + (lattice heating)
do *not* work out, certainly not yet.

Scott, thanks for the dialog; let me try one more time on this myself.

Electrons in metals form bands, but this reflects the low mass and relatively
low energy of the electrons in the metal.  Now the case for deuterons and
helium ions, in the equation above under discussion, is vastly different
due the larger mass of the hadrons.  Let's focus on the 4He following d+d
fusion:  it has to shed about 23 MeV of energy in the time scale of roughly
10^-20 seconds (there exists no metastable state of 4He).  That is just too
much energy to shed to the distant lattice without violating the uncertainty
principle/speed of light constraints.  The uncertainty principle applies to
electrons, too -- for that case low energies allows bands to form.  But this is
clearly not the case for the excited 4He nucleus, whose 23 MeV is limited by
the uncertainty principle to roughly 10^-3 of the lattice spacing. 

On the scale allowed by the unc. princ., the excited 4He is point-like.  The
existence of the lattice is superflous after the 4He forms, therefore.  I see
nothing in your arguments about bands that can change this -- an analogy with
electron bands is invalid.  Once the excited 4He forms, we know how it decays
from related experiments.  Consider muon-catalyzed fusion, which is certainly 
(the only verified form of ) cold fusion:

d+d --> 4He* --> 3He + n (about 50%)
d+d --> 4He* --> t   + p (about 50%)
d+d --> 4He* --> 4He + gamma (about 10-7).

Doesn't matter how or where you get to the 4He*  -- it will decay as already
measured.  Just how do you suppress the dominant 3He + n channel?  Just
how do you suppress the triton (since no t+d fusions with deuterium in the
metal is seen either)?  Remember, we checked and the neutrons are not there. 

Scott, if there were any compelling evidence for 4He production above
levels which *could* be accounted for by ambient 4He in the lab atmosphere
(say 10 times that level), one might be willing to look further at your
theories in hopes of getting some numbers out of them.  As it stands,
*nobody* (not Miles, not Liebert, no one my friend) has more helium than the
ambient.  So no matter how unlikely contamination may seem to you, it cannot
be ruled out.  Which is more likely, cold fusion without neutrons (including
neutrons from secondary reactions), or helium contamination?  

Why can't these boys get the 4He production (way) above the ambient levels,
if the effect you posit is really occurring?
Why can't you hold your 'explanation' until there is something worth
explaining?

Best Wishes,
Steven Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenjonesse cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.05 /  jonesse@physc1 /  cancel <1994Apr5.155203.1557@physc1.byu.edu>
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cancel <1994Apr5.155203.1557@physc1.byu.edu>
Date: 5 Apr 94 16:10:23 -0600

cancel <1994Apr5.155203.1557@physc1.byu.edu>
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenjonesse cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.05 / Jason H /  Thoughts on 'Cold Fusion'
     
Originally-From: jpmay@ionews.io.org (Jason May [of D.E.A.T.H.])
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Thoughts on 'Cold Fusion'
Date: 5 Apr 1994 19:16:21 -0400
Organization: Internex Online (io.org) Data: 416-363-4151  Voice: 416-363-8676

I watched the recent cold fusion show on CBC, and found it very interesting.
However, it also raised several questions I feel it was criminal for the
journalist not to have asked....


1.

'Cold Fusion' produces no easily detectible nuclear byproducts.  Therefore,
it is not a nuclear reaction.  Therefore, it cannot be producing the amount
of energy claimed.  Therefore, 'cold fusion' is a hoax.

Theories have been wrong before.  Don't cry 'hoax' because it goes against
your favorite theory.  Investigate the claim, or have someone you trust do
so.  If the results contradict the theory, and the experimental method is
valid, I guarentee the theory is wrong every time.
WHY DIDN'T THE JOURNALIST POINT THIS OUT???


2.

If some scientists are having such wonderful, repeatable results.... why
won't they open their doors to debunkers?  Give other scientists a guided 
tour of their facilities and explain the experiments to their satisfaction.  
The only thing to be afraid of here is being exposed as a fake, or being 
shown the source of any experimental error.  I don't trust miracles that 
only work behind closed doors.


3.

At MIT, one man quit because he felt the MIT cold fusion experiments had
been doctored to unfairly disprove cold fusion.  The accused scientist's
response was that the difference between the actual data and the published
data was to correct known error factors.  FINE.  Have the guy explain them,
in detail, to someone qualified to judge the merits of these adjustments.
My personal feeling is, if he hasn't offered the justification for these
adjustments to the world, and has a personal stake in killing cold fusion
to keep hot fusion funding, he probably altered the data with malice.


Gawd, you could probably do a whole new show just on those three things...

-- 
 Jason P. May  |  Long after I have died, as social and scientific advances
               |  come to pass, all those who know of me will, if they have
 jpmay@io.org  |  any rationality at all, be forced to conclude that;
 Toronto, Can. |         "On all matters he judged, he was RIGHT."
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenjpmay cudfnJason cudlnH cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.06 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Re: FAQ 1 of 2: PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: FAQ 1 of 2: PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY
Date: Wed, 6 Apr 1994 00:51:32 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Possibly I have not been paying attention, but is someone using a computer
program to rewrite o'l Ludwig's stuff to cause it to make more sense?

Tom Droege

cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenDROEGE cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.06 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: Speaking of tough questions. . .
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Speaking of tough questions. . .
Date: Wed, 6 Apr 1994 00:27:03 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <2ns35i$sr5@agate.berkeley.edu>,
Richard Schultz <schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>
>I wonder when (if) Mitchell Swartz is ever going to get around to answering
>the question I asked him (twice so far) about his use of the "Existence
>Theorem" (sic).
>
>					Richard Schultz

But Richard, in Swartzian Universe, truth doesn't exist, only degrees of
Mitchell's Correctness that run from "Very" to "Completely". Proof is
not necessary and to stoop to answering questions posed to his detriment
---- Oh come now. :-)

cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.04 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Re: Tough questions for Steve Jones
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Tough questions for Steve Jones
Date: 4 Apr 94 15:08:15 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

In article <940401171337_74242.1554_BHR32-2@CompuServe.COM>, 
74242.1554@compuserve.com (John M. Logajan) writes:
> jonesse@physc1.byu.edu (Steven Jones) writes:
>> 1X1X1 cm Pd cube -- that's about 12 g.
> 
> Correct, or about 1/9th of a mole of Pd (0.113 mole)
> 
>> Melting this would take about 2000 J, I calculate.
> 
> Hmm, the heat capacity of Pd is 26 J/mole/degreeC.  The heat of fusion of
> Pd, according to the CRC, is 17,200 J/mole.   So we have to first raise
> the temperature from, say 25C, to 1555C, a delta of 1530C.  So that is
> 1530*26*0.113 = 4,500 J to get to the melting temperature.  Then add
> 17,200*0.113 = 1,950 J to melt it, for a combined total of 6,450 J.
> 
>>Now the claim that part was vaporized implies major energy: 1 g would
>>require about 3500 J to vaporize
> 
> The CRC says the heat of vaporization of Pd is 372,400 J/mole at 3,140C.
> So again to get to that temperature (assuming 26J/mole/degreeC) requires
> (3140-1555)*26*0.133 = 5,480 J.  To vaporize the whole thing requires
> 372,400*0.133 = 49,500J.  Now you guess that about 1/12th was vaporized,
> so that is about 4,200J and combining with the 5,480J to raise the
> temperature gives a total of 9,680J.  (Note that I assume the entire bulk
> reached the boiling temperature, but only part of it boiled away.)
> 
> The total required energy then, is 6,450J + 9,680J = 16,130J.
> 
>>let's give it 1/10th second to explode and 1 g vaporized only.  Then,
>>the power in the explosion is: 3500 J/ 0.1s = 35KW for 1cm^3 Pd.
> 
> I get 16130 J/ 0.1s = 161KW.
> 

I was taking a conservative estimate, and I thank John for including the 
heat needed to warm up the Pd cube, and showing that the heat/power needed to
melt and vaporize part of the cube, as P&F claimed in 1989, was a very large
claim indeed.  This supports my contention that such power levels, claimed in
the first paper in 1989, have not been achieved since.  That was my point.
> 
> By the way, a 1cc Pd cube loaded at 1.0 D (or H) would hold the equivalent
> of 0.0565 (1/18) mole of D2 (or H2).  Burning that with free O2 would
> produce just about 16,150J.  However, that would produce 1/18 mole of H2O
> at a temperature at least equal to the Pd temperature.  So assume approx a
> 2/3 to 1/3 energy split.  That leaves about 10,800 J for the Pd, enough to
> melt it, but not enough to reach the boiling temperature, let alone
> vaporize it.  It would be very hard to burn all the H or D loaded in the
> Pd fast enough to avoid thermal heat losses, so it is unlikely that such a
> "cigarette lighter" effect could even raise the Pd to the melting point. It
> would also have to suck up about 3.5 liters of air to consume about 700 ml
> of O2.
> 
> So there is little hope of a "natural" explanation for Pd melting or
> vaporizing.

Nor did I suggest that any chemical reaction would explain the exploding
cube claim.  My point was, and remains, that this claim of excess power 
has not been supported or surpassed in the five years since the announcement.

--Steven Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenjonesse cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.04 / Robert Heeter /  Environmental Aspects of (Conventional) Fusion Energy
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Environmental Aspects of (Conventional) Fusion Energy
Date: Mon, 4 Apr 1994 04:25:29 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

This is the text of a presentation I'm giving tomorrow; thought I'd
post it for those interested.  Comments are welcome; I have sources
to justify the statements made here.  I'd be happy to rewrite this
into a coherent essay, including references, if anyone is interested...
This is NOT part of the Conventional Fusion FAQ.

--Bob Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Graduate Student, Princeton Plasma Physics Lab
(Disclaimers Apply!)


Environmental Aspects of Fusion Energy Systems
(Or:  Would we want it if we had it?)

April 4, 1994


Topics
	! Critical Technologies
	! Resource Requirements
	! Risks of Fusion Plant Operation
	! Byproducts and Waste
	! Summary / Conclusions

Warning:  I have a pro-fusion bias!


1. Critical Technologies

Improvements in these technologies can significantly reduce fusion's 
environmental impact:

	! Fusion Reaction Used 
		- Easiest:  Deuterium-Tritium (Lithium)
		- Intermediate:  Deuterium-Deuterium
		- Cleanest:  Proton-Boron

	! Power Generation Method
		- Steam
		- Combined Cycle Gas
		- Direct Conversion (advanced fuels) 

	! Reactor Architecture
		- Neutron Blanket Material
		- Magnet Configuration and Material
		- Structural Material

	! Confinement of Plasma Affects All

	! Technologies Are Interrelated


2. Resource Requirements

Fuels: 
	! Abundant (millions of years worth)
	! Inexpensive (esp. per unit energy)
	! Well-distributed (e.g., seawater)
	! Environmentally benign to obtain
	! Orders of magnitude less needed 
		than for fossil, even fission 

Structural Materials: 
	! Not scarce
	! Not yet determined which are best
	! Probably more needed than for
		other high-density sources, but
		less than for low-density sources.

Land Use:
	! About 1 square km per facility 
	! Mostly undeveloped (parkland?)
		(accident safety zone)
	! Far less than renewables or fossil; 
		comparable to fission


3. Fusion Plant Safety

Non-Issues for Fusion:
	! Little fuel in reactor => no meltdown
	! No pipeline explosions, oil spills, etc. 
	! Occupational and public health and safety
 		better than fission & fossil sources, and
 		comparable to renewables.

Minor Issues:
	! Possible Toxic Materials in Plant (Be, Pb, etc)
	! Electromagnetic Radiation

Major Issue:  Radioactive Materials
	! Radioactive Inventory 
		- Total less than 1/10 that of fission plant
		- mostly in reactor structure
			=> not likely to escape
		- reduced risk of nuclear proliferation

	! Risk of Radioactive Emissions
		- from various possible accidents		
		- should be containable
		- can minimize potential consequences		

	! Could reduce/eliminate this issue 
		with reduced-neutron fuels
	

4. Byproducts and Waste

Non-Issues for Fusion:
	! No air pollution
		- no SOx, NOx, CO2, Ozone, CO
		=> no smog
		=> no acid rain
		=> no global warming
	! No ash or hazardous chemical waste
	! No long-lived radioactive isotopes 
	! Helium is primary waste
	! Equipment can be designed for reusability

Minor Issue:  Waste Heat 
	! same as other sources
	! can be reduced with cogeneration, gas turbines 
		(eg, He coolant), or "direct conversion" of
 		plasma energy to electricity (advanced fuels)

Major Issue:  Radioactive waste
	! 1000 to 1,000,000 times less waste than fission.
	! Typical half-life << 100 years
	! Far less biologically active than fission wastes.
	! Low-level rad waste may be less hazardous 
		than chemical wastes from photovoltaic
		manufacturing or coal ash (per megawatt)
	! Low-activation structural materials can 
		eliminate need for geological disposal; all 
		isotopes created decay rapidly.
	! Can practically eliminate with advanced fuels.


5. Summary & Conclusions

If Fusion Energy is Developed...

! Fusion Energy will Definitely Have:
	- Abundant and well-distributed fuels
	- Minimal natural resource requirements 

! Fusion Energy will Probably Have:
	- Sufficiently safe power plants
	- Less long-term hazardous waste than 
		other sources.

My Opinion from the above is that:

! Fusion has Environmental, Political, and 
	Safety Advantages over Fossil and
 	Fission Energy.

! Low-Activation Materials are Crucial
 	until Advanced Fuels become workable.

! Fusion can be Competitive with 
	Renewables Environmentally as a 
	Sustainable Source
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.05 / mitchell swartz /  Tough questions for Steve Jones unanswered
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Tough questions for Steve Jones unanswered
Subject: Re: Tough questions for Steve Jones
Date: Tue, 5 Apr 1994 02:30:20 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

   In Message-ID: <1994Apr4.150816.1549@physc1.byu.edu>
Subject: Re: Tough questions for Steve Jones
Steven Jones [jonesse@physc1.byu.edu] writes:

==  "I was taking a conservative estimate, and I thank John for including the 
==  heat needed to warm up the Pd cube, and showing that the heat/power
==   needed to
==  melt and vaporize part of the cube, as P&F claimed in 1989, was a very large
==  claim indeed.  This supports my contention that such power levels, claimed in
==  the first paper in 1989, have not been achieved since.  That was my point."

   What absence of logic.   You failed to prove your claim and had
to resort to picking wild  numbers out of the air.     They were not
only wrong, but they failed to prove the power density of the
excess heat.         And that was my point.

  Furthermore, there is no way that any such 1989 incident (or not) could
prove your ridiculous unsupported contention.


   > So there is little hope of a "natural" explanation for Pd melting or
   > vaporizing.
==  "Nor did I suggest that any chemical reaction would explain the exploding
==  cube claim.  My point was, and remains, that this claim of excess power 
==  has not been supported or surpassed in the five years since the announcement."

   Ridiculously incorrect.   Only those who don't, or cannot, read the literature
will buy this misinformation.

                  - Mitchell Swartz  


cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.05 / mitchell swartz /  On Band Structure (was "Is it alpha soup yet?"
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: On Band Structure (was "Is it alpha soup yet?"
Subject: Is it alpha soup yet?
Date: Tue, 5 Apr 1994 03:36:57 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

   In Message-ID: <94040411461187@nscl00.nscl.msu.edu>
Subject: Is it alpha soup yet?
Dick Blue (blue@nscl00.nscl.msu.edu) writes:

=  "The requirements, as I understand them  .......
=  So how do you spread one state into a band?  I think it is called
=  perturbation theory, right?"
=  I think this brings us back to one
= of my old themes.  You want a band spread over 20 MeV?  You
= will need to supply a perturbation on that scale."  

   Although second order perturbation theory is used to
determine the effective mass at a conduction band edge in 
a narrow gap semiconductor,
the bands arise from the appearance of an energy gap at the
end of the Brillouin zone.

    The gap results from the two standing waves psi(+) and psi(-)
depositing electrons at different regions with slightly different
 energy.

   As an equivalent analogy just examine what two coupled oscillators
of a single frequency do.

             -  Mitchell Swartz 


cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.31 / Gary Steckly /  Re: sci.physics.fusion archive
     
Originally-From: gsteckly@dgim.doc.ca (Gary Steckly)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: sci.physics.fusion archive
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 94 20:44:03 GMT
Organization: Communications Canada

Paul Schauble (pls@crl.com) wrote:
: My apologies for asking this again, but could someone please tell me 
: where the archives for this group are located?

:     ++PLS

it seems that the every word anyone ever uttered on this group is
available via a WAIS (wide area information search?) facility at the
university of Minnesota.  It's great if you are trying to find info on
aspecific item since every word is indexed for the search.

For example, if you search on the word "cube" you get every comment ever
made here about the (in)famous molten palladium cube that P&F observed in
the early days of cold fusion.

regards

Gary
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudengsteckly cudfnGary cudlnSteckly cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.03.31 / Gary Steckly /  decidedly "low-tech" SL
     
Originally-From: gsteckly@dgim.doc.ca (Gary Steckly)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: decidedly "low-tech" SL
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 94 21:15:01 GMT
Organization: Communications Canada


All this talk of sono-luminescence and fanciful levitating bubbles sort of
caught my attention so I decided to see if I could duplicate this at home
with stuff that your average household might have.

I dug our Canadian Tire Mastercraft ultrasonic vaporizer out of the
basement and removed the cover from the transducer housing.  Those suckers
blast a pretty good column of water, although I have no idea what power
levels we're talking about. (note...don't touch the ultrasonic water
stream..it really smarts).

I didn't want to destroy the vaporizer, so I just set various contaiers on
top of the transducer. I kept it immersed in water to hydraulically couple
the energy to the container, likely lots more losses there.

Most of the containers didn't do much and I didn't have a spherical flask,
but one of my clear glass chandalier bulbs had just burnt out, so I
snapped off the base and had a great, thin-wall small diameter spherical
flask at no cost.

I filled the "flask" and set it on the transducer and cranked it up.  Low
and behold, I can levitate bubbles right on the kitchen table. (the kids
were impressed). I have no idea what frequency this thing runs at, and it
is likely by chance that the bubbles generated are trapped in a stable
position.  They seem to float about 2/3 of the distance from the bottom of
the flask, and they stay put until they get to the size where their
buoyancy breaks them out of the standing wave or whatever is holding them.

I don't know if I can modify the circuitry to vary the frequency, but it
might be interesting.  Tonight I will check for luminescence.  Do these
bubbles have to be a certain size to generate any visible light?

lots of fun anyway!

regards

Gary
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudengsteckly cudfnGary cudlnSteckly cudmo3 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.05 / Richard Schultz /  Speaking of tough questions. . .
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Speaking of tough questions. . .
Date: 5 Apr 1994 16:21:06 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley


I wonder when (if) Mitchell Swartz is ever going to get around to answering
the question I asked him (twice so far) about his use of the "Existence
Theorem" (sic).

					Richard Schultz
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.06 / SCOTT CHUBB /  Quick Comments concerning, Is it alpha soup yet?
     
Originally-From: CHUBB@cfe1.nrl.navy.mil (SCOTT CHUBB)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Quick Comments concerning, Is it alpha soup yet?
Subject: Quick Comments concerning, Is it alpha soup yet?
Date: Wed, 6 Apr 1994 08:15:39 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway


Subject: Quick Comments concerning, Is it alpha soup yet?

Dick Blue and I continue to correspond both publicly and privately.
The discussion is stimulating.  I will get back to an important
private communication he has recently sent me that gets at the heart
of a number of questions he has raised.  I do agree with him when he says

-"I continue in my effort to learn more about the essential features of
-the Chubb theory of cold fusion, but we have a long way to go yet
-before I understand all the implications of this.  One problem I would
-like to see addressed yet has to do with all the intermediate transistions
-that are implicite to the Chubb theory."

His recent comments about alpha soup have prompted me to respond in a
manner that I hope will shed some additional light on the essential features
of the theory.

Basically, my quick comments all have to deal with the first quantitative
assertion he has made:

-"We have been told that this stuff "does not have the kind of wave function
-I envision."  It is, is it not, made out of the same kind of nucleons
-as I envision?  Of course, if you want to rework nuclear wavefunctions
-at an even deeper level I suppose I should keep an open mind."  

The nuclear wave functions are formed from nucleon wave functions, just as
they are in normal nuclear physics.  The difference is that the position of
the center of charge (which on the scale of electrostatic interaction, even
in the Gamow theory is within Fermi's of the center of mass of each nucleus)
is dictated by the lattice potential, not by the dynamics of nucleons as they
interact amoung themselves.  

This rather counter-intuitive limit can occur 
when there are sufficiently many lattice sites and sufficiently few 
nuclei involved provided the nuclei can occupy ion band states. 
Comments about quark-gluon plasma and the intermediate state transitions 
that do not include the fact that the center of mass of 
each initial and final state center of mass is determined by the
lattice potential are not Germane.  

The point is not that there is coupling to
the 20+ MeV energy through a wealth of localized states.  The point is that
when the lattice potential (and the implicit periodic order and associated  with
this the resulting degeneracy) dominates the relevant dynamics, it is impossible 
to identify where the energy is released.  There is nothing mysterious 
about this except if one insists upon asserting that the energy must be 
released at an isolated point.  The probability of this happening at 
these temperatures is absolutely negligible.
 
-"The requirements, as I understand them, are for a cascade of states
-starting with two deuterons coupling to angular momentum zero and
-ending with 4He that has essentially the same angular momentum wave
-function."

The 4He nucleus has vanishing spin.  The band state wave function may have
an arbitrary angular momentum, just as a plane-wave includes all possible
l-values.

-"The energy release comes about as a result of a reduction
-in average separation between nucleons and the increase in number
-of nucleon-nucleon pairwise interactions."

This is partially true.  The energy release is partly initiated by this fact, 
but only a very small amount of energy is released through this (through
the difference in size and coupling to phonons).  The primary release
occurs (as a result of the different, i.e., smaller, size of the nucleus)
through the resulting change in the zero of kinetic energy (since there is
reduced mass) and the resulting phonon coupling to the lattice.  The change
in the zero of kinetic energy (which involves an energy release of 23.8 
MeV/Ncell) can be viewed in a number of equivalent ways.  In terms of the 
band state lattice potential and the band state problem, it is equivalent
to lowering the zero of the lattice potential by 23.8 MeV/Ncell (i.e., by
subtracting -23.8 MeV/Ncell).  Alternatively, this is equivalent to increasing
the kinetic energy of the band state by 23.8 MeV/Ncell.  Both of these
can be viewed as altering the chemical potentials of the 4He and D.
 
-"Now we hand this problem over to a solid state theorist (Dr. Chubb)
-who has one answer for all problems.  The lattice does it!"

Quantum Mechanics does it.

-"But let's look carefully at what is being ask of the lattice.  We start
-with a system which as a free particle has at most two possible
-states separated by roughly 20 MeV."

We are not dealing with free particles.  We are not dealing with two 
particles.  We are dealing with a collection of particles, distributed
diffusely over the solid.

-"We put these into a lattice
-at a very low density with the result being an explosion in the
-density of states to perhaps a million all conveniently spaced
-such that each transition involves the release of some puny
-fraction of the 23 MeV total to be gained by the lattice."

The entire amount of energy is released.  But the energy is not
released at a point.

-"Does this not perhaps violate some basic rule in quantum mechanics?"

Not at all.

-"Now I must remind you that these million states must all be
-internal to the nucleus.'

The associated states are tied to the lattice and the center of mass
motion of the nucleus, not to excited, or intermediate states of the
nucleus.  The nucleons essentially undergo a ground state to ground
state transition that becomes allowable when the lattice is allowed
to absorb momentum from the reaction and to provide a means of "hiding"
the center of mass positions of the nucleus.   All of this can occur
when the wave function associated with the position of the 
center of each nucleus is described by a band state.

-"We are not talking here about 4He
-bouncing around the lattice with very high kinetic energy.  That
-does not happen, we are told."
 

Well, in a way, we are told this.  A 4He particle does not locally
have high energy.  But the particle is in the form of a wave.  The
23.8 MeV is distributed by the wave; so that, for each reaction,
23.8 MeV is released.  But the energy is released over many more
lattice sites than the number of particles.  This is what lowers
the amount of energy released in each unit cell.

-"So how do you spread one state into a band?  I think it is called
perturbation theory, right?"

Wrong.  Degeneracy does it.  It is the power of numbers and the fact
that the lattice potential is periodic.

 -"I think this brings us back to one
-of my old themes.  You want a band spread over 20 MeV?  You
-will need to supply a perturbation on that scale.  We are not
-talking here about some weak little electronic stuff.  What
-have you been hiding from us, Dr. Chubb?"
 
I have pointed out the reaction does not occur at a point.  It is
not required to do so. Nothing more, nothing less, except that I am
pointing out that periodic order and the power of the associated
degeneracy can make this possible.

-"Well, after you have figured out what all those intermediate
-states are like consider the following.  At some point the
-4He pops out of the lattice having shed all 23 MeV of excitation
-energy.  What would happen if a 4He were to get away prematurely
-and suddenly find itself all alone in a state that cannot
-exist for more than a fleeting instant?  Don't forget that Dr.
-Chubb put us into this terrible situation with no angular momentum
-to play with.  We are talking hear about something called an
-E0 transition in nuclear physics lingo."

The problem of 4He remaining trapped is related to the amount of heating.
It can become trapped as the lattice begins to disintegrate.  But this
is a higher temperature situation.  At low (~room) temperature, the 
4He does not become trapped because to trap requires a significant amount
of energy that is not available, even on a per unit cell basis.  As I
said, the lattice does possess a continuum of possible angular momentum.
Phonons provide a key source of momentum and angular momentum dissipation which
couples to the center of mass motion of each 4He ion band state.

SCOTT CHUBB


cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenCHUBB cudfnSCOTT cudlnCHUBB cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.05 / Chuck Sites /  Re: Tough questions for Scott Chubb
     
Originally-From: chuck@iglou.iglou.com (Chuck Sites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Tough questions for Scott Chubb
Date: Tue, 5 Apr 1994 01:09:18 GMT
Organization: The Internet Gateway of Louisville, KY

70047.3047@compuserve.com (Bill Page) writes:


>Steve Jones has asked some questions which (so far) have gone unanswered 
>regarding Scott and Talbot Chubb's theory of ion band-state fusion.  
>Perhaps Scott (who has posted several messages here) will be able to find 
>the time to respond but in the mean time, I've decided that I'd like to 
>give it a try. In some of my interpretation I may be wrong and I hope Scott 
>(or anyone else) will jump in to correct me.  I've been reading (and 
>re-reading) the two papers that where published in Fusion Technology: 1) 
>"Cold Fusion as an Interaction Between Ion Band States", Vol. 20, Aug 1991; 
>and 2) "Ion Band-State Fusion: Reactions, Power Density, and the Quantum 
>Reality Question", Vol. 24, Dec 1993.  I recommend both of these papers 
>very highly. But be warned!  A clear understanding of what the Chubb's are 
>talking about requires some fairly advanced theoretical physics.  At the 
>risk of great over simplification, I'll try to avoid appealing to anything 
>except basic concepts in this post.

[And then a step by step, blow by blow review of the Chubb's theory to
Steve Jones' tough questions]
 
Bill, First I would like to say that was an excellent post.  It pretty much
states my thinking on the Chubbs theory as well.  I've said it before and 
I'll say it again, IMHO the Chubbs theory is one of the best I've read.
It is advanced theoretical work, but many of the features described in 
thier paper have been observed (again as metal/hydrogen surface effects)
including indicators of Bose/Fermi quantum-statistical differences of D
and H in band state configurations.  It really comes down to whether 
charge can seperate from the nuclear source. Actually that's a misnomer,
it doesn't really seperate it just that with in the range of overlap 
one can't tell where the source of either force is.  In that case, they
can be treated seperately, and yet describe the same area of overlap.
   You know, it's really fasinating to note that most of our knowledge 
of the strong interaction is based on relativly high energy collisions,
specifically when dealing with deuterium. David Bohm's book "Quantum Theory"
(Dover, cheap and great advanced reading) has an excellent section on
scattering and investigating forces by this method. One thing that becomes
apparent is in a system of low energy where some degneracy exists,
(and particularly in a Bose condensed system) the quantum picture of
scattering is not much different. What is different is the spacial
extent of the interaction and the uncertainty of location of the
scattering event(s).  The introduction of the periodic potential for
a bose system seems pretty staight forward to me as a means of 
inducing an interaction in the nuclear realm for D ions.
 
>Cheers,

>Bill Page.

>cc. Scott Chubb.

Have Fun,
Chuck Sites
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.06 / mitchell swartz /  Tough questions for Steve Jones still unanswered
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Tough questions for Steve Jones still unanswered
Subject: Re: Tough questions for Steve Jones unanswered
Date: Wed, 6 Apr 1994 12:05:00 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

   In Message-ID: <1994Apr5.114217.1550@physc1.byu.edu>
Subject: Re: Tough questions for Steve Jones unanswered
Steven Jones (jonesse@physc1.byu.edu) writes:

     >    In Message-ID: <1994Apr4.150816.1549@physc1.byu.edu>
     > Subject: Re: Tough questions for Steve Jones
     > Steven Jones [jonesse@physc1.byu.edu] writes:
     > ==  "I was taking a conservative estimate,   ....
     > ==   My point was, and remains, that this claim of excess power 
     > ==  has not been supported or surpassed in the five years since the 
     > == announcement."
  =    Ridiculously incorrect.   Only those who don't, or cannot, read the literature
  = will buy this misinformation.
=sj   "Just what is "ridiculously incorrect?"  I can and do read the literature;
=sj   then what "misinformation" are you referring to?
=sj   You really need to support your use of such language."

   You were wrong about the temporal changes in power densities.
             The power levels have increased since 1989. 

   You were also incorrect and quite apparently unable to prove your 
initial claim that 1000W/cm^3 power density levels were 
reported in March 1989.     Both your reference was irrelevant,
as was your calculation.

   You were ridiculously incorrect about your claim that the
initial power levels have not been "supported or surpassed
in the five years since the announcement".
This error results because the initial results reported by
Drs. Fleischmann and Pons in 3/89 have been confirmed
in several laboratories.
Furthermore, to the horror of those who have covered this up and
the astonishment of the rest of the scientific community as the
information slowly becomes available to them,
the technology has moved onto to several other systems as well.

   Best wishes.

                  - Mitchell Swartz  

   ==============================================
   Possible relevant advice to Steve Jones from Mark Twain:
   "Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as
you please"
                            -    Mark Twain

 
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.07 /  blue@nscl00.ns /  Items from Bul. of Am. Phys. Soc.
     
Originally-From: blue@nscl00.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Items from Bul. of Am. Phys. Soc.
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 1994 00:14:51 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Just by way of news concerning talks to be given at the April meeting
of the American Physical Society, here are a couple of items that caught
my eye.

The 1994 Forum Award Lecture is by Gary Taubes and is titled, "Delusion
is the Better Part of Granduer: Lessons Learned from Cold Fusion."
The abstract ends with: "If cold fusion does not exist, what are these
people doing, and why?  And secondly, what's the matter with science
journalism that a phenomenon like cold fusion is not only covered so
poorly, but that the journalists are as responsible as anyone else for
making it happen?"

The second invited talk of interest to this group is: "Synchronous
Picosecond Sonoluminescence." to be given by Seth J. Petterman.
New infromation (for me at least) contained in the abstract include:
"The spectral density of the emitted light increases into the
ultraviolet where it cuts off due to the absorption coefficient of
water."  and "Also: doping a nitrogen bubble with 1% Xenon increases
SL by a factor of 100."   What I make of these two facts is that
the notion that the spectum is black body and corresponds to
some very high temperature is not well established, and the
enhancement upon Xe doping is just like the behaviour of gas
scintillations as observed in detectors of ionizing radiation
where the light is emitted from atomic exitations and are not
black body in spectral character.

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenblue cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.06 / Nick Maclaren /  Re: Horizon
     
Originally-From: nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk (Nick Maclaren)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Horizon
Date: 6 Apr 1994 13:54:08 GMT
Organization: U of Cambridge, England

In article <Cn7v0E.2t0@festival.ed.ac.uk>, ianj@castle.ed.ac.uk (I Johnston) writes:
|> Horizon's record isn't too steady, folks. This is their second go at CF
|> - the first was, erm, not too complimentary. They've boosted Uri Geller
|> in the past too. Remember, you don't get to be a producer in the BBC by
|> taking a science degree...

Given this, I thought that the program attempted to be fair (i.e. unfair) to
both sides!

The point that grated with me was that it equated "cold fusion is a myth"
with "these effects are uninteresting".  For example, one possible
explanation of hard-nosed entrepreneurs putting money into it is that they
smell an energy storage mechanism with an energy density ten times better
than any current rechargable battery.  This would be $$$ of anyone's money.
I should have liked answers to questions like the following:

    1) What reason did the financiers give for putting money into cold
fusion research?

    2) Are the disbelievers' energy storage and power generation figures
large enough to make it interesting as a storage mechanism?

These points may have been discussed on this group, but I am afraid that I
follow it only intermittently (for obvious reasons).  It irritates me that
they are almost invariably ignored by semi-scientific and general scientific
journalism, including (I am afraid to say) Nature.  The question is not just
"does cold fusion occur?" but "is there an important, not-yet-understood
phenomenon that should be investigated?"


DISCLAIMER:  I am making no statement one way or the other on the existence
of cold fusion or any similar phenomenon.


Nick Maclaren
University of Cambridge Computer Laboratory,
New Museums Site, Pembroke Street,
Cambridge CB2 3QG, England.
Email:  nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk
Tel.:   +44 223 334761
Fax:    +44 223 334679
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudennmm1 cudfnNick cudlnMaclaren cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.06 / David Smith /  Re: FAQ 1 OF 2: PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY
     
Originally-From: dsmith@astro.ocis.temple.edu (David Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.math,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: FAQ 1 OF 2: PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY
Date: 6 Apr 1994 14:54:31 GMT
Organization: Temple University, Academic Computer Services

I may be asking questions whose answers are way over my head, but it's
not at all clear to me why we have to be part of the 94th electron of
one atom of PU 231, or even why it must be PU 231.  You (Ludwig) have 
stated before that only PU 231 fits all the special numbers of math
and physics.  I can only assume by that you mean that the values of 
pi, e, G, Avagandro's number, etc., are all predicted by the Plutonium
Atom Totality.  May I ask in what way?  I've seen no such explanation
in any of your posts.

					David

--
David Smith at Temple University
dmsith@astro.ocis.temple.edu

"Even as a youngster, though, I could never bring myself to believe
that when knowledge presented danger, the solution was ignorance.  To
me, it always seemed the answer had to be wisdom.  You did not refuse
to look at the danger, rather you learned to handle it safely."
                                            --Isaac Asimov (1920-1992)
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudendsmith cudfnDavid cudlnSmith cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.06 / Matt Kennel /  Re: Quick Comments concerning, Is it alpha soup yet?
     
Originally-From: mbk%anl433.uucp@Germany.EU.net (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Quick Comments concerning, Is it alpha soup yet?
Date: 6 Apr 1994 21:07:38 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

SCOTT CHUBB (CHUBB@cfe1.nrl.navy.mil) wrote:

: The nuclear wave functions are formed from nucleon wave functions, just as
: they are in normal nuclear physics.  The difference is that the position of
: the center of charge (which on the scale of electrostatic interaction, even
: in the Gamow theory is within Fermi's of the center of mass of each nucleus)
: is dictated by the lattice potential, not by the dynamics of nucleons as they
: interact amoung themselves.  

: This rather counter-intuitive limit can occur 
: when there are sufficiently many lattice sites and sufficiently few 
: nuclei involved provided the nuclei can occupy ion band states. 

Counter-intuitive is certainly an understatement.  Exactly which
"fields" can you strip away from each other, once you've stripped
away mass from charge?

Now, suppose you turn on a new repulsive electric field somewhere,
does the "massless charge" move away at 'infinite' speed by virtue
of having no mass?

Does this happen with regular electrons?  In such media can you put their
charge "here" and their mass "there"?  Now, where exactly does their
lepton-number lie?  With the charge, or the mass?  

Or can the "leptonness" go somewhere else again and you can have delocalized
weak interactions?  Can you separate the 'up' quark fields from the 'down'
quark fields of nucleons? 

Oooh my brain is starting to hurt. (Nuuurse!)

But I admit I'm not a QM expert by any means.

: The point is not that there is coupling to
: the 20+ MeV energy through a wealth of localized states.  The point is that
: when the lattice potential (and the implicit periodic order and associated  with
: this the resulting degeneracy) dominates the relevant dynamics, it is impossible 
: to identify where the energy is released.  

It's not at all obvious that the lattice potential can dominate the dynamics
when dealing with nuclear-scale energies instead of atomic energies.

If you happen to choose a particular subset of delocalized input and output
wavefunctions then sure you can compute transitions between them, but you
have to otherwise convince people that the particular set that you've chosen
does in fact contain the possible resulting dynamics. 

As an analogy: suppose start with some excited atom.  If you only consider
transitions between bound states then you might conclude that "wow
the transition rate from here to there is slow so the lifetime of this
atom will be long."  But that would be ignoring _unbound_ final states
(because you didn't consider them as part of your set of wavefunctions)
and you would then find a much faster transition rate to eject that
electron.  And in real life, the excited atom would eject an atom
quickly and not hang around and go to the bound state.

: There is nothing mysterious 
: about this except if one insists upon asserting that the energy must be 
: released at an isolated point.  

This is precisely what people are insisting upon, given the known
femtometer range of the strong force.

: Well, in a way, we are told this.  A 4He particle does not locally
: have high energy.  But the particle is in the form of a wave.  The
: 23.8 MeV is distributed by the wave; so that, for each reaction,
: 23.8 MeV is released.  But the energy is released over many more
: lattice sites than the number of particles.  

: This is what lowers
: the amount of energy released in each unit cell.

But what about electron diffraction?  You can have 'wave-like' states for
energetic electrons, and yet, when they interact with the phosphor screen
they "ping" at a single localized point.

Continuing the analogy, if you have an excited 4He spread across
in a wave state, yes, you don't know before the interaction where
it is going to shup up, but when it does show up, it will be
in one place only and it will make a mess there.

: I have pointed out the reaction does not occur at a point.  It is
: not required to do so. Nothing more, nothing less, except that I am
: pointing out that periodic order and the power of the associated
: degeneracy can make this possible.

This is the point still under debate.  

Finally, even if these delocalized->delocalized transitions are possible,
how do you suppress delocalized->ordinary_excited_4He_which_decays_real_fast
to such a huge degree to account for the null experimental results of no
nuclear energy radiation?

: SCOTT CHUBB

cheers
Matt

--
-Matt Kennel  		mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu
-Institute for Nonlinear Science, University of California, San Diego
-*** AD: Archive for nonlinear dynamics papers & programs: FTP to
-***     lyapunov.ucsd.edu, username "anonymous".
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenuucp cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.06 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Re: Tough questions for Steve Jones still unanswered/answered again
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Tough questions for Steve Jones still unanswered/answered again
Date: 6 Apr 94 15:25:07 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

It has perhaps been a useful exercise to estimate the amount of power which
would be needed to account for the famous "exploding Pd cube", claimed by P&F
in their initial 1989 paper, and referenced also in Frank Close's excellent
book.  Considering the heat required to melt then to vaporize part of the cube,
I estimated (conservatively) that 35 kW/cm^3 would be needed. (If the claim that
this was due to heat strictly from within the cube were true.  Note that
evidence that the exploding cube incident actually occurred has *not* been
verified by independent observers who looked for evidence.)

I was happy that John Logajan added the heat needed to warm the cube to melting
then to vaporization temperatures; he then estimated roughly 161 kW/cm^3
would have to have been generated if the story were true.

Now these are large numbers, 35 - 161 *kW*/cm^3.  Certainly larger than 1000
W/cm3, as I initially said.  
Mitch has failed to provide any quantitative rebuttal to these
calculations; he just says they are "ridicuously incorrect." (below)  Let him
show this by calculation.  So far all we get from him is hot air.

In his latest FAQ, Mitch continues to suggest that the excess power density has
increased since 1989, from 10 W/cm^3 to about 3 kW/cm^3 in 1994.  But this
ignores the exploding cube claim, which as we have numerically shown, 
the power density in the
original 1989 paper was *greater than* 3 kW/cm^3.  
So his stubborn contention, often repeated here, that the *claimed* 
power density has
been getting larger and larger through the years is simply wrong.

In article <Cnu6wE.HFw@world.std.com>, 
mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
>    In Message-ID: <1994Apr5.114217.1550@physc1.byu.edu>
> Subject: Re: Tough questions for Steve Jones unanswered
> Steven Jones (jonesse@physc1.byu.edu) writes:
> 
>      >    In Message-ID: <1994Apr4.150816.1549@physc1.byu.edu>
>      > Subject: Re: Tough questions for Steve Jones
>      > Steven Jones [jonesse@physc1.byu.edu] writes:
>      > ==  "I was taking a conservative estimate,   ....
>      > ==   My point was, and remains, that this claim of excess power 
>      > ==  has not been supported or surpassed in the five years since the 
>      > == announcement."
>   =    Ridiculously incorrect.   Only those who don't, or cannot, read the literature
>   = will buy this misinformation.
> =sj   "Just what is "ridiculously incorrect?"  I can and do read the literature;
> =sj   then what "misinformation" are you referring to?
> =sj   You really need to support your use of such language."
> 
>    You were wrong about the temporal changes in power densities.
>              The power levels have increased since 1989. 
> 
Nonsense.  Why are you so stubborn on this false conclusion, often repeated in
your FAQ? 

>    You were also incorrect and quite apparently unable to prove your 
> initial claim that 1000W/cm^3 power density levels were 
> reported in March 1989.     Both your reference was irrelevant,
> as was your calculation.

The references (P&F and Close) were relevant to the exploding cube story under
discussion, as was the calculation.  My calculations as well as those of
Logajan show that the claimed power density for the exploding cube exceeds
1000W/cm^3, easily.  You just say this is incorrect; you have presented no
calculations.
> 
>    You were ridiculously incorrect about your claim that the
> initial power levels have not been "supported or surpassed
> in the five years since the announcement".

I was speaking of the exploding cube story, and I have presented numbers to
back up my statement.  Can you do the same?

> This error results because the initial results reported by
> Drs. Fleischmann and Pons in 3/89 have been confirmed
> in several laboratories.

Oh really?  And who has confirmed the exploding cube story under discussion?

> Furthermore, to the horror of those who have covered this up and
> the astonishment of the rest of the scientific community as the
> information slowly becomes available to them,
> the technology has moved onto to several other systems as well.
> 

What other systems?  Do you mean Ni/H2O?  We have submitted a paper on this
(and Pd/D2O) which in fact challenges claims of excess heat production
(by nuclear means or *any* means), based on our experiments here.
The astonishment is that you continue to make statements unsupported by
calculation, and in the face of good experiments which show *no* excess heat
effects, no x-rays, no neutrons, and no gamma radiation.

>    Best wishes.
> 
>                   - Mitchell Swartz  
> 
>    ==============================================
>    Possible relevant advice to Steve Jones from Mark Twain:
>    "Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as
> you please"
>                             -    Mark Twain

The above exposes one error in the FAQ which Mitch posts here every so often.
I and others have corrected other errors, but one finds that Mitch just waits
several weeks and then reposts the same old stuff, including errors.
For instance, we have shown that the Notoya experiment was badly
flawed, and that resistance in leads external to the control cell accounts
for the claimed xs heat in that experiment.  Mitch continues to say that our
explanation accounts for no excess heat, contrary to the facts.    What do
we do with a guy like this?
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenjonesse cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.06 /  jonesse@physc1 /  cancel <1994Apr6.151818.1560@physc1.byu.edu>
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cancel <1994Apr6.151818.1560@physc1.byu.edu>
Date: 6 Apr 94 15:25:32 -0600

cancel <1994Apr6.151818.1560@physc1.byu.edu>
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenjonesse cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.07 / mitchell swartz /  Re: Tough questions for Steve Jones still unanswered/
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Tough questions for Steve Jones still unanswered/
Subject: Re: Tough questions for Steve Jones still unanswered/answered again
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 1994 03:15:54 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <1994Apr6.152507.1561@physc1.byu.edu>
Subject: Re: Tough questions for Steve Jones still unanswered/answered again
Steve Jones (jonesse@physc1.byu.edu) writes:

= "It has perhaps been a useful exercise to estimate the amount of power which
= would be needed to account for the famous "exploding Pd cube", claimed by P&F
= in their initial 1989 paper, and referenced also in Frank Close's excellent
= book.  Considering the heat required to melt then to vaporize part of the cube,
= I estimated (conservatively) that 35 kW/cm^3 would be needed. (If the claim that
= this was due to heat strictly from within the cube were true.  Note that
= evidence that the exploding cube incident actually occurred has *not* been
= verified by independent observers who looked for evidence.)
= 
= I was happy that John Logajan added the heat needed to warm the
=  cube to melting
= then to vaporization temperatures; he then estimated roughly 161 kW/cm^3
= would have to have been generated if the story were true."

    Steve,  some of your facts and logic appear to have elements of 
distortion.

    First, we were talking about reported steady-state 
anomalous ("excess") heats initially claimed in 1989 and NOT 
necessarily burst heats.   (***)

     Second, furthermore, there are several etiologies for
a catastrophic burst which actually may or may not
be representative to either the regular anomalous (i.e. steady-state)
or irregular anomalous excess heats.   
   (I have not seen the data in this case and make no comments).

      Third, Steve made up a story that the burst might be related to the
steady-state excess heats.  OK.   But he picked numbers to his 
story that are not necessarily even true.

      Fourth, Steve's calculation affirming or negating his 
previous claim that 1000W/cm^3 power densities 
characterized those excess heat power levels actually
reported in the March of '89 has been derived from
his reference to putative damage 
in or to a floor, electrode and portions of an assembly.

    However, dimensional analysis is quite important
as it is elementary 
and to use the boundary condition of damage wrought
to a floor and/or electrode requires the units of:
              expended energy.

Steve began and now keeps referring to power levels forcing that 
arbitrary parameter (time) to make it all come out "right".  
Therefore Steve's very claim and assertion has yet another
element of senselessness. 

    Fifth, Dr. Logajan correctly, unlike Steve, from the beginning
began with calculated energy requirements involving specific
heat and heat of fusion.
Furthermore, only after correcting Steve did John then 
add Steve's "story"-component as the following excerpt shows.

              =jones  > 1X1X1 cm Pd cube -- that's about 12 g.
   =jl  Correct, or about 1/9th of a mole of Pd (0.113 mole)
              =jones  > Melting this would take about 2000 J, I calculate.
    =jl  Hmm, the heat capacity of Pd is 26 J/mole/degreeC.  The heat of fusion of
    =jl  Pd, according to the CRC, is 17,200 J/mole.   So we have to first raise
    =jl  the temperature from, say 25C, to 1555C, a delta of 1530C.  So that is
    =jl  1530*26*0.113 = 4,500 J to get to the melting temperature.  Then add
    =jl  17,200*0.113 = 1,950 J to melt it, for a combined total of 6,450 J.

             =jones  "Now the claim that part was vaporized implies major energy:
              =jones   1 g would  require about 3500 J to vaporize
    =jl  The CRC says the heat of vaporization of Pd is 372,400 J/mole at 3,140C.
    =jl  So again to get to that temperature (assuming 26J/mole/degreeC) requires
    =jl  (3140-1555)*26*0.133 = 5,480 J.  To vaporize the whole thing requires
    =jl  372,400*0.133 = 49,500J.  Now you guess that about 1/12th was vaporized,
    =jl  so that is about 4,200J and combining with the 5,480J to raise the
    =jl  temperature gives a total of 9,680J.  (Note that I assume the entire bulk
    =jl  reached the boiling temperature, but only part of it boiled away.)
    =jl  
    =jl  The total required energy then, is 6,450J + 9,680J = 16,130J.
    [Subject: Re: Tough questions for Steve Jones
    Message-ID: <940401171337_74242.1554_BHR32-2@CompuServe.COM>
                            Date: Sat, 2 Apr 1994 01:11:46 GMT]


    (***)  Sixth, Steve may have pushed the field ahead a quantum,
inadvertantly                                                    ;-)  X
because as John said following his corrections to Steve's calculations:

    =jl  So there is little hope of a "natural" explanation for Pd melting or
    =jl  vaporizing.

  Best wishes.
                          Mitchell Swartz  [mica@world.std]

          




cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.07 / John Logajan /  Re: Tough questions for Steve Jones
     
Originally-From: 74242.1554@compuserve.com (John M. Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Tough questions for Steve Jones
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 1994 05:27:30 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

jonesse@physc1.byu.edu (Steven Jones) writes:
>Nor did I suggest that any chemical reaction would explain the exploding
>cube claim.

I was merely carrying out the calculations to their ultimate conclusions.

We have, however, but four general possibilities to explain the melted
cube:

1.) Chemical storage energy.
2.) Electrical input energy.
3.) "Anomalous" energy. (nuclear?)
4.) P+F are lying.

Calculations seem to rule out #1.

Similarly, in a constant current electrical system, a "short" would tend
to reduce the power input to very low levels, while high resistance
induced power input would be limited by the rail voltage (i.e. say
1,000mA at 100V = 100 watts.)

Which leaves anomalous heat or lying P+F.


cudkeys:
cuddy7 cuden1554 cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.07 / mitchell swartz /  On proper citations
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: On proper citations
Subject: Re: Tough questions for Steve Jones still unanswered/answered again
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 1994 04:29:01 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <1994Apr6.152507.1561@physc1.byu.edu>
Subject: Re: Tough questions for Steve Jones still unanswered/answered again
Steve Jones (jonesse@physc1.byu.edu) writes:

=jones  "For instance, we have shown that the Notoya experiment was badly
=jones  flawed, and that resistance in leads external to the control cell accounts
=jones  for the claimed xs heat in that experiment.
=jones    Mitch continues to say that our
=jones  explanation accounts for no excess heat, contrary to the facts. 

    First, Steve's comments were appropriatly cited for any reader to 
vector in on WAIS or whatever.     Here is the actual quote:

=FAQ  ****  Brought up on Internet circa 1992 regarding alligator-like clips
=FAQ   incurring significant in-line electrical resistances.  Argued both ways
=FAQ   (see. postings of Jones and Noninski and others circa Nov. 19, 1992)
=FAQ   but in any case could not account for observed and calibrated excess 
=FAQ   heats in experiments using protium and nickel.

   Steve should similarly cite appropriately.
[Increasing clarity and accuracy would be nice too. ]

     Second, close examination of Steve's last sentence 
reveals both the absence of logic and a misstatement.    Steve's
explanation was stated and shown to be
both irrelevant (catastrophic bursts may
have nothing to due with steady-state excess heats)
and illogical (the dimensional analysis requires energy)
and also contrary to the facts (confirmed excess heats, 
and increasing power densities since Spring '89).

    Best wishes.
                          Mitchell Swartz  [mica@world.std]

          




cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.07 /  colem861@cs.ui /  control of plasma in fusion reaction?
     
Originally-From: colem861@cs.uidaho.edu ()
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: control of plasma in fusion reaction?
Date: 7 Apr 1994 03:28:56 GMT
Organization: University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho

	What are the current control methods for containing a fusion 
reaction?  We are a group of control specialists primarily using current
artificial intelligence techniques (Neural Networks, Fuzzy Logic, etc.).
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudencolem861 cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Thu Apr  7 06:50:30 EDT 1994
------------------------------
1994.04.07 / L Plutonium /  Re: FAQ 1 OF 2: PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.math,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: FAQ 1 OF 2: PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY
Date: 7 Apr 1994 03:18:51 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In article <2nuif7$qng@cronkite.ocis.temple.edu>
dsmith@astro.ocis.temple.edu (David Smith) writes:
> I may be asking questions whose answers are way over my head, but it's
> not at all clear to me why we have to be part of the 94th electron of
> one atom of PU 231, or even why it must be PU 231.  You (Ludwig) have 
> stated before that only PU 231 fits all the special numbers of math
> and physics.  I can only assume by that you mean that the values of 
> pi, e, G, Avagandro's number, etc., are all predicted by the Plutonium
> Atom Totality.  May I ask in what way?  I've seen no such explanation
> in any of your posts.

  I explained this many times before and so I am tired of repeating. In
the future I may skip over these questions unless I can add something
new. Here I can add something new. I will be as brief as possible.
  There are two most special numbers is math--pi and e. There are
several dimensionless numbers in physics--inverse fine-structure
constant of 137 and ratio of proton mass to electron mass of 1836.1527.
Your numbers of G and Avogadro's numbers are not dimensionless numbers,
but the PU theory can still explain these, I just have not invested any
of my time in that project.
  And beware of the many shrikes, David, who will come flying through
my posts to try to upset or disprove my argument by pointing to some
trivial detail or irrelevancy. I cannot be explicit nor talk in depth
because it would be too abstract and very long. I sacrifice detail,
abstract, and long talk for briefness, and clarity. I have many
opponents to the Atom Totality Theory, but that is the mark of a true
theory. A wrong theory needs no opposition before it flys into the
trash can, but a true theory will receive the most virulent opposition
because it keeps growing instead of self-destruct, and it is impossible
to throw away. A true theory scares the prevalent current wrong
theories because they pale, they shake, they get mighty nervous when in
the presence of true science. Current wrong theories such as the Big
Bang or Steady-State get frightened, spastic, neurotic, and psychotic
in the presence of true science for their adherents are soon
challenged, and their theory is displaced and thrown into the garbage
can.

  EXPLANATION. When a TOE in physics comes, it will explain math as
well as physics. It will explain why math is the language of physics
and it will explain why the VALUES of the most often used numbers of
math and physics are what they are.

In this explanation I will call the 231Pu Atom Totality as the Maker to
make it easier to understand. 
                                      94th ELECTRON OF 231PU
                         Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH ELECTRON

                                  \ ::| :./.
                                  .\::|::/.:
                                ---- : : ----
                                  ::/.|.\.:
                                :: /.:| :\.:
                                  /   |   \.
                   one of those dots is the Sun with 9 smaller dots
around it

 Believe me when I tell you that any and every electron to be
rigorously solved for quantum states requires 3-dimensional Euclidean
Plane Geometry in the Schroedinger Equation. The above crude picture
has nodes but it is a 3-dimensional cross-section. And one can picture
the 6 lobes spherically with a Diameter and Circumference. 

 Now then, Our Maker has a circumference, a belt so to speak in
layman's language, and Our Maker has a diameter associated with ITS
circumference. Remember this is in Euclidean Geometry. Well if Our
Maker is not plutonium of 137 neutrons (notice 137 is that special fine
structure constant) but instead say thorium of 137 neutrons. Well then
thorium cannot match pi and e. You see David, the element which is Our
Maker has to match and fit all of the special numbers of both math and
physics. Thorium does not have in the COLLAPSED Schroedinger
wavefunction of a circumference of 22 and diameter of 7, making 22/7
and an occupied circumference of 19 with again a diameter of 7. You see
David, pi is approx (Collapsed SE) 22/7 and e is approx (Collapsed SE)
19/7. The numbers 22,19 and 7 come from quantum mechanics and called
principal quantum numbers N and angular momentum quantum number L. 22
is the total number of SUBSHELLS in the Collapsed SE for plutonium in 7
SHELLS and the 19 is the OCCUPIED SUBSHELLS in 7 SHELLS. The number of
total subshells of 22 and occupied subshells of 19, both in 7 shells
are unique to plutonium.
  The VALUE of pi and e are what they are because Our Maker is what it
is. If Our Maker was an element of higher atomic number (life in a
lower number is impossible) then the VALUE of pi and e would be
different. It would then be say 27/8 for pi and 24/8 for e. If we had
lived in such a Atom Totality, we would have had math and important
special numbers but of different values.

 DiracUs book Directions in Physics   states on page 73 :
	"One of these dimensionless constants is the famous reciprocal of the
fine-structure constant 
			((h/2pi) x c)/E^2
It is fundamental in the atomic theory, and it has the value of about
137.  Another dimensionless constant is the ratio of the mass of the
proton to the mass of the electron, that is to say,
			mp/me
That constant has the value somewhere near 1840." (Continued.)
A more accurate measurement as of the writing of this textbook, the
value is about 1836.1527.
	I demonstrate the meaning for both of these unitless markers of
physics which Dirac talks.  Dirac stated that physics will not go very
far until someone can demonstrate the meaning of the fine-structure
marker.  I share that sentiment with Dirac that the meaning of the
fine-structure marker of physics is one of the most important unsolved,
outstanding problems of physics.
	I give the meaning for the ratio of proton mass divided by electron
mass as follows. The unitless number of the proton mass divided by the
electron mass is about 1836.1527 which is about 6(pi^5).  The last
electron subshell of a plutonium atom is 5f6. Notice that the two
digits of 5 and 6 are in both 6(pi^5) and 5f6. So for the 6 electrons
in the 5f energy shell gives 6(pi^5).  When we atom, electron parts of
a Plutonium Atom Totality measure the mass ratio of a proton to an
electron inside of (superpositioned onto) a Plutonium Atom Totality
then the unitless number results as 6(pi^5).  In the next atom totality
of americium the mass ratio of proton to electron as measured by sacks
of atoms of life in an americium electron observable universe will be
7(pi^5). 


cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.07 / Dieter Britz /  Re: Re: Horizon
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Re: Horizon
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 1994 07:11:46 GMT
Date: 6 Apr 1994 13:54:08 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway


Originally-From: nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk (Nick Maclaren) in FD 2138:
Date: 6 Apr 1994 13:54:08 GMT

>In article <Cn7v0E.2t0@festival.ed.ac.uk>, ianj@castle.ed.ac.uk (I Johnston) writes:
>|> Horizon's record isn't too steady, folks. This is their second go at CF
>|> - the first was, erm, not too complimentary. They've boosted Uri Geller
>|> in the past too. Remember, you don't get to be a producer in the BBC by
>|> taking a science degree...

>Given this, I thought that the program attempted to be fair (i.e. unfair) to
>both sides!
...
>    1) What reason did the financiers give for putting money into cold
>fusion research?

I was lucky enough to be sent a video tape of this program by Frank Close, as
well as by a good friend in Cambridge, and watched it last night. It was
followed by a much more interesting panel discussion of frontier/fringe
science, in which Fleischmann took part. But to answer Nick's
points/questions: 

The program was heavily and shamelessly in favour of 'cold fusion'; F&P were
presented as a success story, two dedicated scientists calmly and surely
researching their way towards the truth. There were token appearances by John
Huizenga and Williams, making the opposite case. I noticed that in all the
nice little dynamic models showing d-d fusion (in the Sun, and in the Pd
lattice) fusion events invariably left a 4He behind. I wonder who gave them
this information? But I liked Bruce Lewenstein with the cold fusion cap. 

Jaeger of ENERCO explained that the reason he was buying up all the patents
now is that later, when everybody knows it to be true, it would be too late to
do so. In other words, he is taking a calculated risk, with the promise of
tremendous profits, if it comes off. 

The real reason that I am posting at all here is the following.
In the panel discussion afterwards, John Maddox, editor of the journal Nature,
spelled out something that I think has been distorted with time. I have read
comments to the effect that F&P submitted their first paper to Nature, but
that the referees rejected it. I knew this was wrong, because a small note in
Nature in 1989 said something different - and I am sure I posted this under
Comments. The real story is that the first paper was returned by the referees,
asking for more detail. A revised MS was provided. So far, this is pretty
standard procedure; it is a very rare event that a scientific paper is
accepted (by a reputable journal, using a referee doing the job properly) as
is. The revised MS was again returned, with some further questions. To answer
these, F&P would have wasted yet more time, and the press conference had
already taken place, so they withdrew the paper from Nature. As Maddox in
fairness emphasised (and the note in Nature in 1989 also did), this is
perfectly acceptable, and does not reflect on the paper itself. Whatever we
might think about that first paper, it is wrong to say that Nature threw it
out. 
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.07 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: Tough questions for Steve Jones still unanswered
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Tough questions for Steve Jones still unanswered
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 1994 05:49:50 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <Cnu6wE.HFw@world.std.com>,
mitchell swartz <mica@world.std.com> wrote:
>
>This error results because the initial results reported by
>Drs. Fleischmann and Pons in 3/89 have been confirmed
>in several laboratories.
>Furthermore, to the horror of those who have covered this up and
>the astonishment of the rest of the scientific community as the
>information slowly becomes available to them,
>the technology has moved onto to several other systems as well.

Oh good, Nitchell, then when can I hope to see my CNF water heater? Where
are the reproduceable experiments? Uh, where is the slightest sign that
you have one iota of consious thought?

Haven't we all noticed that the Japanese have quintupled their investment
in CNF? It is obvious that we will be seeing that CNF Toyota any day now.

Yeh, real soon.

cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.07 / mitchell swartz /  Re: Tough question for Steve Jones still unanswered /Kunich
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Tough question for Steve Jones still unanswered /Kunich
Subject: Re: Tough questions for Steve Jones still unanswered
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 1994 12:53:27 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <tomkCnvK72.F8x@netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Tough questions for Steve Jones still unanswered
Thomas H. Kunich (tomk@netcom.com) bleats:

=kunich   "Uh, where is the slightest sign that
=kunich     you have one iota of consious (sic) thought?"

      One iota provided for (sick?)  Mr. Kunich.             ;-)
      Best wishes colleagues.
 
               -   Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com)
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    "The safest place for a "skeptic" at an archery competition is directly
 in front of the target.  No danger in a "skeptic" so placed being hit.
               All the points will naturally elude them"

    
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.07 / John Logajan /  Re: The Doctor has left the building
     
Originally-From: 74242.1554@compuserve.com (John M. Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The Doctor has left the building
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 1994 14:42:11 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:

>Fifth, Dr. Logajan correctly, unlike Steve, ...
        ^^^^^^^^^^^
I appreciate the promotion :-)
 



cudkeys:
cuddy7 cuden1554 cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.07 / Bill Page /  Discussion,  motivations, cedibility, experiments and theory
     
Originally-From: 70047.3047@compuserve.com (Bill Page)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Discussion,  motivations, cedibility, experiments and theory
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 1994 14:58:52 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Steve,

You wrote:
<<
... Mitch continues to say that our explanation accounts for no excess 
heat, contrary to the facts. What do we do with a guy like this?
>>

I am at a loss to figure out why you (or anyone else) would want to do 
*anything* with Mitch.  There are a lot of different people in the world 
(and now there are a lot more of them on the Internet). Some are well worth 
the effort required to carry out a discussion and even possibly reach a 
consensus, others are not.

One of my intentions in sending you this message is just as a personal note 
to say that with respect to the Jones-Swartz public dialogue on s.p.f: 
Enough already! In fact, enough a year ago... Simply let Mitch write 
whatever he pleases.  It certainly will not reflect badly on *your* 
credibility.  There are some people who would probably make the above 
statement interchanging Mitch with Steve ... but who really cares?  

Now, on the Chubb-Jones-et al discussions: I think this one is very good - 
one of the best exchanges on s.p.f in a long while.  I'd like to see it 
continue.  It provides me with excellent motivation to study the 
application of QM to solid state.  I'm not really too concerned with 
whether the theory is "right" or even necessarily experimentally well 
founded.  It is only necessary that it not be fundamentally flawed in a way 
that would be totally misleading.  Its value to *me* is that it leads me to 
ask myself a number of "deep" questions which demand answers and in turn 
lead to the energy required to continue my studies.  In the process I might 
be able to identify flaws or I might become convinced that it is 
essentially correct.

You also wrote:
<<
Why can't these boys [referring to Miles and Liebert, I think] get the 4He 
production (way) above the ambient levels, if the effect you posit is 
really occurring?
>>

I think it is safe to assume that efforts are underway to do exactly this.  
At issue is only: when (or if) it might become necessary for these claims 
to be retracted.  I do believe that many people agree with your assessment 
that the existing evidence is still "not compelling", but this epithet (as 
my dictionary says: not to be confused with epitaph!) can be similarly 
applied to quite a number of speculative physical phenomena. This does not 
mean that people should stop experimenting or theorizing about them.

And:
<<
Why can't you hold your 'explanation' until there is something worth 
explaining?
>>

I think this statement reflects a somewhat different view of the 
relationship between theory and experiment than what I've been enculturated 
with over the years.  I tend to view theory as "intellectual exploration" 
while experimentation is "physical exploration".  These are *complementary* 
activities.  Of course, this is a rather well worn-out piece of the 
philosophy of science debate.  Someone else on s.p.f recently expressed 
some resentment of the fact that a contentious theory tends to support 
contentious experimental results and vice-versa and even suggested that it 
is inappropriate to indulge in such theorizing.  This approach seems to me 
to be much too closed minded for any credible scientific method.

But let's not get bogged down on issues such as these!

And lets continue to hear more about SL:sonoluminesence.

Cheers,

Bill Page.

cc. Fusion Digest (sci.physics.fusion)

cudkeys:
cuddy7 cuden3047 cudfnBill cudlnPage cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.08 / Bill Page /  Re: decidedly "low-tech" SL
     
Originally-From: 70047.3047@compuserve.com (Bill Page)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: decidedly "low-tech" SL
Date: Fri, 8 Apr 1994 00:06:12 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Gary Steckly wrote:
<<
All this talk of sono-luminescence and fanciful levitating bubbles sort of
caught my attention so I decided to see if I could duplicate this at home
with stuff that your average household might have.

I dug our Canadian Tire Mastercraft ultrasonic vaporizer out of the
basement and removed the cover from the transducer housing. 

...

Most of the containers didn't do much and I didn't have a spherical flask,
but one of my clear glass chandalier bulbs had just burnt out, so I
snapped off the base and had a great, thin-wall small diameter spherical
flask at no cost.

I filled the "flask" and set it on the transducer and cranked it up.  Low
and behold, I can levitate bubbles right on the kitchen table. (the kids
were impressed).

...

I don't know if I can modify the circuitry to vary the frequency, but it
might be interesting.  Tonight I will check for luminescence.  Do these
bubbles have to be a certain size to generate any visible light?

lots of fun anyway!
>>

Ah! I love it! - Another fellow "Canadian Tire" experimenter.  My CF 
calorimeter is (partly) made from a couple of electronic picnic coolers 
which I purchased from Canadian Tire.  The plastic salt shackers also make 
convenient CF reaction vessels! Etc. [An explanation for our American 
colleagues: Canadian Tire is a large general hardware store chain in Canada 
known for its "low cost" (some might say: cheap) products.]

Not to blow my own horn or anything... BUT about this time last year 
(actually May 24, 1993) I was quoted on the front page of one of Canada's 
most prestigious newspapers, the Toronto Globe and Mail as saying: "It's 
amazing the science you can do with the stuff you pick up from Canadian 
Tire, " - cold-fusion researcher Bill Page.  Their science reporter, 
Stephen Strauss, visited my "lab" and wrote what I thought to be quite a 
decent piece on the subject of cold fusion.

Anyway, Gary, best of luck with your home brew SL experimenting.  I'd like 
to hear more about it.

Cheers,

Bill Page.

cudkeys:
cuddy8 cuden3047 cudfnBill cudlnPage cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.08 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  The Chubb-Blue debate.
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: The Chubb-Blue debate.
Date: Fri, 8 Apr 1994 00:06:14 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

As a bystander, I would like to sat that I am enjoying the debate between
Scott Chubb, Dick Blue, and others.  Not understanding the physics, I have 
Scott ahead somewhat on style.  He has presented straight specific answers
even when the questions were somewhat sarcastic.  But Dick has also softened
his style as the debate has proceeded.  So I cheer both. 

I await something to test.

Tom Droege

cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenDROEGE cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.07 / Alan Morgan /  Re: FAQ 1 OF 2: PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY
     
Originally-From: alanm@gateway.efi.com (Alan Morgan)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.math,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: FAQ 1 OF 2: PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY
Date: 7 Apr 1994 10:02:00 -0700
Organization: Electronics For Imaging Inc.

In article <2nvu2r$51j@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> 
  Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium) writes:

>  There are two most special numbers is math--pi and e. There are
>several dimensionless numbers in physics--inverse fine-structure
>constant of 137

Which of course isn't exactly 137

>and ratio of proton mass to electron mass of 1836.1527.
>Your numbers of G and Avogadro's numbers are not dimensionless numbers,
>but the PU theory can still explain these, I just have not invested any
>of my time in that project.

Translation: I am sure if I play with numbers long enough I can prove
that the sqrt of the log of the semi-inverse-hyperfactorial of my
nostril hairs is G.  After all, there are so many numbers and ways
I can combine them it would be surprising if I couldn't come up
with *something*.

>  And beware of the many shrikes, David, who will come flying through
>my posts to try to upset or disprove my argument by pointing to some
>trivial detail or irrelevancy.

Translation: Just because anyone with a high school level of math
education can machine gun my arguments into oblivion doesn't mean
I think I am wrong.  Mere facts can't get in the way of my AWESOME
brain.

>I cannot be explicit nor talk in depth
>because it would be too abstract and very long. I sacrifice detail,
>abstract, and long talk for briefness, and clarity.

Actually you scarifice detail, abstraction and long talk *and* briefness
and clarity.  And correctness.

>I have many
>opponents to the Atom Totality Theory, but that is the mark of a true
>theory.

It is also the mark of complete and utter bullshit.  There is much
more bullshit that has proven to be bullshit than bullshit that has
proven to be science.

>	I give the meaning for the ratio of proton mass divided by electron
>mass as follows. The unitless number of the proton mass divided by the
>electron mass is about 1836.1527 which is about 6(pi^5).

Which clearly leads us to look at element 65, Terbium.  Terbium's
atomic mass is 158.924.  This is approximately the fsc plus 22.  22
is 12 (the atomic mass of carbon) plus 10 (the number of protons
in water).  This links the fsc, carbon (the element of life) and
water (the compound of life).

<<Pause for appreciative applause from stunned audience>>

How do we connect e with all of this? I am *so* glad you asked.
(1836 + 65) / e is almost exactly 700 (actually if we use the *proper*
ratio of proton to electron it will be *exactly* 700 - See my forthcoming
137 page paper for details).  Why should it be an integer?


Clearly terbium is a vastly cooler substance than plutonium.  Plutonium
is only for wimpy sissyboys.

Alan Terbium
----
EFI agrees with me 100% on matters of fact.   The above aren't even close. 

             ----->   Mail abuse to: alanm@efi.com   <-----

    Keeper of the alt.tasteless theme song and part time evil genius.
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenalanm cudfnAlan cudlnMorgan cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.07 / Dick Jackson /  More Questions (was Re: Tough questions for Steve Jones)
     
Originally-From: jackson@soldev.tti.com (Dick Jackson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: More Questions (was Re: Tough questions for Steve Jones)
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 1994 19:36:05 GMT
Organization: Citicorp-TTI at Santa Monica (CA) by the Sea

John M. Logajan writes:
>
>Which leaves anomalous heat or lying P+F.

About a year ago I posted an observation that a lot of money had been
invested in P&F for quite a while, and that presumably the investors
were getting encouraging monthly (or quarterly) progress reports.

As far as I know the flow of money has not abated, which leaves either:

- The investors are *very, very* credulous, or

- There really are some encouraging results.

Dick Jackson
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenjackson cudfnDick cudlnJackson cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.04 /  dowen@vaxc.cc. /  Second law grossly violated .....
     
Originally-From: dowen@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Second law grossly violated .....
Date: 4 Apr 94 22:40:57 +1000
Organization: Computer Centre, Monash University, Australia


Hi folks,
Nobody has commented on a possible linkage between ion band state
theories and the (seperate) experiments of Reifenschweiler and E.A.Secco as
mentioned briefly in the interesting post "Reifenschweiler tritiated Ti" by
Chuck Harrison on the 31 March. In particular these experiments,IMHO,
tend to support the following arguments put forward by Chuck Sites....

In article <1994Apr2.114820.6477@iglou.com>, chuck@iglou.iglou.com
 (Chuck Sites) writes:
> 
> Good reply Scott! Thanks for the excellent discussion on your theory.
> 
> rfheeter@theory.pppl.gov (Robert F. Heeter) writes:
> 
> [Fairly good summary deleted, to be brief]
> 
>>In general I wonder why, if the Chubb theory is correct, we don't see 
>>a lot more nuclear-transmutation effects in lattices.  The coulomb
>>barrier can't be *that* easy to evade!
> 
> This is fairly easy to answer. The lattice host atoms don't have the wave
> overlap or degeneracy to allow for an interaction.  An easy way to check
> is to calculate the deBroglie wave length for the lattice atoms as a
> free gas and compare it to the lattice spacing of the crystal. In higher
> Z materials it usually smaller than the lattice spacing.  Solid deterium
> might be an interesting one, but I think the D's in this configuration 
> act as fermi particles.          
>  
>>****. 
>>There ought to be ways to test the Chubb theory which don't involve
>>excess-heat or nuclear-product measurements; are any such tests underway?
>>I guess first I'd like to see confirmation that ion band states exist,
>>and then some sort of experiment showing that lattice effects can 
>>alter nuclear processes; since fusion is controversial another possibility
>>might be to look at odd decay modes of radionuclides in lattices.
>
 
These "odd decay modes" have been investigated in various lattices,
as mentioned in Chuck Harrison's post (see above), where Reifenschweiler
states....
"....Doing the tritium experiments the question arose to me if an equivalent
effect, a decrease of radioactivity, might also exist for heavier nuclei than
tritium. this was above all initiated by a paper of A.E.Secco (ref supplied)
who investigated gas solid exchange between the Zn-gas labelled by the 
65 Zn-nuclide with polycrystaline ZnO at elevated temperatures. During such an
exchange experiment, done twice, an unexpected decrease of radioactivity
occured and Secco could not find an explanation for the apparent anomaly.
I did some further evaluation of published gas-solid exchange and of diffusion
experiments with heavy nuclei as tracers (65Zn, 63Ni, 85Sr) where extremely
strange deviations from the normal behaviour were observed. In all these
experiments the second law of thermodynamics is grossly violated.  ....."
 
> The ion band state of H and D has already been observed in several 
> experiments.

Could you please give some references Chuck.

>              That part of Scott's theory is pretty much a given fact.
> Whether a strong interaction takes place in these configurations is 
> the next logical step in understanding these unusual material 
> configurations. From the overlap function in Scott's calculations 
> I would say he's right on the money about the fusion potential. 
>      
>>If these support the Chubb theory we might develop some experimental
>>confidence in the theory, at which point tests to discriminate the
>>Chubb theory from other CF theories (including the experimental-error
>>null hypothesis) would be in order.
> 
> Agreed.  It's time to do some experiments that expoits this effect.
> 
>>Someone *really* in a hurry might simply figure out how to 
>>reproducibly put D ions in a band state, take out a patent, and 
>>build a water heater...
> 
> Actually, I want a good space heater for my basement. :-)
> 
>>******
>>Robert F. Heeter
>>rfheeter@theory.pppl.gov
>>This posting is solely speculation on my part and does not represent
>>anything resembling an official or unofficial position of PPPL.
> 
> 
> Have Fun,
> Chuck Sites
> chuck@iglou.iglou.com

                                                  Best regards to all,
						  Daryl Owen.
Disclaimers apply.

cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudendowen cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Fri Apr  8 04:37:06 EDT 1994
------------------------------
1994.04.07 / Andy Bajorinas /  Re: FAQ 1 OF 2: PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY
     
Originally-From: bajorap@pb.com (Andy P. Bajorinas)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.math,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: FAQ 1 OF 2: PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 1994 12:25:08 GMT
Organization: Pitney Bowes

 Or not. 



cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenbajorap cudfnAndy cudlnBajorinas cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.07 / Andrew Skinner /  Fusion FAQ?, Getting started
     
Originally-From: ajskinne@williams.edu (Andrew J. Skinner)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Fusion FAQ?, Getting started
Date: 7 Apr 1994 20:15:04 -0400
Organization: Williams College, Williamstown, MA

I'm just getting started with my fusion research. Is there an FAQ
besides the cold fusion FAQ which I have already come across? Or
perhaps someone could recommend a good article or book to help me
get oriented. I am mainly interested in theory, and in QM modeling
of few particle systems.

Thank you,

Andrew Skinner
ajskinne@williams.edu


cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenajskinne cudfnAndrew cudlnSkinner cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.08 / Larry Wall /  Re: Tough questions for Steve Jones
     
Originally-From: lwall@netlabs.com (Larry Wall)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Tough questions for Steve Jones
Date: Fri, 8 Apr 1994 00:52:08 GMT
Organization: NetLabs, Inc.

In article <940407050953_74242.1554_BHR32-1@CompuServe.COM> 74242.1554@c
mpuserve.com (John M. Logajan) writes:
: We have, however, but four general possibilities to explain the melted
: cube:
: 
: 1.) Chemical storage energy.
: 2.) Electrical input energy.
: 3.) "Anomalous" energy. (nuclear?)
: 4.) P+F are lying.

There is yet another possibility:

  5.) It wasn't melted, merely finely divided and dispersed, perhaps
      by a steam explosion, like a miniature Krakatau.  The palladium
      dust that didn't get evacuated by the hood fan was probably swept
      up by the janitor later that night while P&F were out carousing.

Otherwise, I doubt the cube is all it's cracked up to be.

Larry Wall
lwall@netlabs.com
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenlwall cudfnLarry cudlnWall cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.08 / Gary Steckly /  Re: Horizon
     
Originally-From: gsteckly@dgim.doc.ca (Gary Steckly)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Horizon
Date: Fri, 8 Apr 94 03:21:05 GMT
Organization: Communications Canada

Dieter Britz (BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk) wrote:

: Originally-From: nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk (Nick Maclaren) in FD 2138:
: Date: 6 Apr 1994 13:54:08 GMT

: >In article <Cn7v0E.2t0@festival.ed.ac.uk>, ianj@castle.ed.ac.uk (I Johnston) writes:
: >|> Horizon's record isn't too steady, folks. This is their second go at CF
: >|> - the first was, erm, not too complimentary. They've boosted Uri Geller
: >|> in the past too. Remember, you don't get to be a producer in the BBC by
: >|> taking a science degree...

: >Given this, I thought that the program attempted to be fair (i.e. unfair) to
: >both sides!
: ...

(some deleted)

: I was lucky enough to be sent a video tape of this program by Frank Close, as
: well as by a good friend in Cambridge, and watched it last night. It was
: followed by a much more interesting panel discussion of frontier/fringe
: science, in which Fleischmann took part. But to answer Nick's
: points/questions: 

I just saw what I thought was the same program here in Canada on Monday night
(although the credits indicated a CBC/BBC co-production), and now I'm not
sure if the programs were identical.  It was entitled "too close to the
Sun" and the documentary format was entitled "Witness".

It definitely had all the components everyone has mentioned, but the
Canadian version had an impressive segment on Stanley Meyer and his water
powered dune buggy (a la super efficient electrolysis via pulsed DC).  I
think this was the _real_ story. I know he isn't making claims about
fusion, but I find his claims even more exciting. This guy is already
literally burning water...and getting 60 miles to the gallon.  Even if you
user Perrier, that's pretty cheap driving!  So how come nobody's talking
about Stanley?

(rest deleted)


regards

Gary
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudengsteckly cudfnGary cudlnSteckly cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.08 / Michael Moroney /  Re: FAQ 1 OF 2: PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY
     
Originally-From: moroney@world.std.com (Michael Moroney)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.math,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: FAQ 1 OF 2: PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY
Date: Fri, 8 Apr 1994 03:13:31 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

In article <2nvu2r$51j@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>, Ludwig Plutonium wrote:
> In article <2nuif7$qng@cronkite.ocis.temple.edu>
> dsmith@astro.ocis.temple.edu (David Smith) writes:
> > I may be asking questions whose answers are way over my head, but it's
> > not at all clear to me why we have to be part of the 94th electron of
> > one atom of PU 231, or even why it must be PU 231.  You (Ludwig) have 
> > stated before that only PU 231 fits all the special numbers of math
> > and physics.  I can only assume by that you mean that the values of 
> > pi, e, G, Avagandro's number, etc., are all predicted by the Plutonium
> > Atom Totality.  May I ask in what way?  I've seen no such explanation
> > in any of your posts.


> Maker has to match and fit all of the special numbers of both math and
> physics. Thorium does not have in the COLLAPSED Schroedinger
> wavefunction of a circumference of 22 and diameter of 7, making 22/7
> and an occupied circumference of 19 with again a diameter of 7. You see
> David, pi is approx (Collapsed SE) 22/7 and e is approx (Collapsed SE)
> 19/7. The numbers 22,19 and 7 come from quantum mechanics and called
> principal quantum numbers N and angular momentum quantum number L. 22
> is the total number of SUBSHELLS in the Collapsed SE for plutonium in 7
> SHELLS and the 19 is the OCCUPIED SUBSHELLS in 7 SHELLS. The number of
> total subshells of 22 and occupied subshells of 19, both in 7 shells
> are unique to plutonium.

And I'll point out (yet again) that plutonium does not have 19 occupied
subshells (try 17), nor 22 total subshells.  Regardless, several elements
(including thorium) have the same number of occupied/total electron
subshells as plutonium (even though they aren't the "right" numbers
according to Ludwig's little theory)
 
>   And beware of the many shrikes, David, who will come flying through
> my posts to try to upset or disprove my argument by pointing to some
> trivial detail or irrelevancy.

I assume you mean me.  It seems that the number of subshells of plutonium
producing the "special" numbers is an underlying tenement of your theory.  If I
point out a glaring mistake on your part is that a "trivial detail or
irrelevancy"?

> theory. A wrong theory needs no opposition before it flys into the
> trash can, but a true theory will receive the most virulent opposition
> because it keeps growing instead of self-destruct, and it is impossible
> to throw away.

Well your theory keeps flying into the trash can.  You should quit pulling
it out.  It's starting to stink...

-Mike
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenmoroney cudfnMichael cudlnMoroney cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.08 / Nick Maclaren /  Re: Horizon
     
Originally-From: nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk (Nick Maclaren)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Horizon
Date: 8 Apr 1994 09:40:53 GMT
Organization: U of Cambridge, England

In article <1994Apr8.032105.14948@clark.dgim.doc.ca> gsteckly@dgim.doc.c
 (Gary Steckly) writes:
>I just saw what I thought was the same program here in Canada on Monday night
>(although the credits indicated a CBC/BBC co-production), and now I'm not
>sure if the programs were identical.  It was entitled "too close to the
>Sun" and the documentary format was entitled "Witness".
>
>It definitely had all the components everyone has mentioned, but the
>Canadian version had an impressive segment on Stanley Meyer and his water
>powered dune buggy (a la super efficient electrolysis via pulsed DC).  I
>think this was the _real_ story. I know he isn't making claims about
>fusion, but I find his claims even more exciting. This guy is already
>literally burning water...and getting 60 miles to the gallon.  Even if you
>user Perrier, that's pretty cheap driving!  So how come nobody's talking
>about Stanley?

The problem is that water-powered cars are about a century old, only just
post-dating horseless carriages.  So far, every single one has been a
blatant fraud (i.e. not an honest mistake).  If Stanley Meyer has a
genuine water-powered car, he will have the devil of a job persuading
people that he is not just another fraud.

Electrolysis and burning the resulting hydrogen is old hat - but where do
you get the energy from in the first place?  If the electrolysis needs less
energy than produced by the recombustion, you have a perpetual motion
machine :-)

Nick Maclaren
University of Cambridge Computer Laboratory,
New Museums Site, Pembroke Street,
Cambridge CB2 3QG, England.
Email:  nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk
Tel.:   +44 223 334761
Fax:    +44 223 334679
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudennmm1 cudfnNick cudlnMaclaren cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.08 /  PAUL /  RE: control of plasma in fusion reaction?
     
Originally-From: stek@amazon.pfc.mit.edu (PAUL)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: control of plasma in fusion reaction?
Date: 8 APR 94 13:57:06 GMT
Organization: MIT PLASMA FUSION CENTER


>From: colem861@cs.uidaho.edu ()
>Date:  7-APR-1994  08:41:35
>Description: control of plasma in fusion reaction?
>
>	What are the current control methods for containing a fusion 
>reaction?  We are a group of control specialists primarily using current
>artificial intelligence techniques (Neural Networks, Fuzzy Logic, etc.).

Controling plasma fusion reactors is a major are of study.  This is not
my speciality so I may not have this down right.  

On Alcator C-MOD we employ a hybrid computer to control on the order of
50 parameters such as current in various coils, density, and heating.  Raw
data is fed into an analog computer with digitally controled gains.  The 
computer performs a matrix multiplication and tells power supplies and
gas valves what to do.  Most of the system relies on linearized models.  
Neural networks have been looked at more for analysing data rather than control.
I know there is an interest in more advanced techniques, but time has been
a restriction.  

Paul Stek
Stek@cmod.pfc.mit.edu

cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenstek cudlnPAUL cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.09 /  blue@nscl00.ns /  Re:  Chubb - Blue debate
     
Originally-From: blue@nscl00.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re:  Chubb - Blue debate
Date: Sat, 9 Apr 1994 00:13:13 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

The exchange continues via private messages just to keep from
wasting bandwidth.  If and when there are some significant developments
we may go public.

At some point in the public exchanges I pointed out the need for
specified couplings for the transfer of nuclear energy to the
lattice.  Mitchell Swartz, as a response, said something about
coupled oscillators being an analog of a band state.  I doubt
that Mitchell intended his remark as support for my position
in the Chubb-Blue debate, but it will do quite nicely, thank you.
You see "coupled" is the operative word here.  Uncoupled oscillators
behave only as individual oscillators.  If you want bunches of
eigenstates you have to couple.  If you want to spread the
eigenstate energies over a wide energy range you have to couple
very strongly.  I am waiting to learn from Dr. Chubb what states
have what energies so we can make a guess as to what observable
effects may be involved.  Just like Tom Droege, I am waiting
to learn what about the Chubb theory can be tested experimentally.
Cold fusion theories have a rather frustratingly low profile
when it comes to putting them to the test.  Mostly they are
designed to explain a long string of nonobservations - no
neutrons, no gammas, no X-rays, no 3He, no protons, no
4He inside the Pd, no excess enthalpy on demand, and no
dependence on fuel choice (sometimes).

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenblue cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.09 / Dieter Britz /  Biblio error correction
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Biblio error correction
Date: Sat, 9 Apr 1994 00:13:13 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway


Whenever I posted the update containing the reference below, it had an error 
in it; the volume was incorrectly given as 264. Sorry, to all of those who 
rush off and read the papers...
This will not be changed in the archived file until the next lot of updates,
coming up in a fortnight or so.

Kapali V, Ganesan M, Kulandainathan MA, Mideen AS, Sarangapani KB,
Balaramachandran V, Iyer SV, Muthuramalingam B;
J. Electroanal. Chem. 364 (1994) 95.
"Comparison of electrochemical behaviour of the Pd-NaOD and Pd-NaOH systems".
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.08 / David Smith /  Re: FAQ 1 OF 2: PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY
     
Originally-From: dsmith@astro.ocis.temple.edu (David Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.math,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: FAQ 1 OF 2: PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY
Date: 8 Apr 1994 16:52:30 GMT
Organization: Temple University, Academic Computer Services

Ludwig Plutonium (Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu) wrote:
: In article <2nuif7$qng@cronkite.ocis.temple.edu>
: dsmith@astro.ocis.temple.edu (David Smith) writes:
: > I may be asking questions whose answers are way over my head, but it's
: > not at all clear to me why we have to be part of the 94th electron of
: > one atom of PU 231, or even why it must be PU 231.  You (Ludwig) have 
: > stated before that only PU 231 fits all the special numbers of math
: > and physics.  I can only assume by that you mean that the values of 
: > pi, e, G, Avagandro's number, etc., are all predicted by the Plutonium
: > Atom Totality.  May I ask in what way?  I've seen no such explanation
: > in any of your posts.

[lots of  stuff deleted....]

:   EXPLANATION. When a TOE in physics comes, it will explain math as
: well as physics. It will explain why math is the language of physics
: and it will explain why the VALUES of the most often used numbers of
: math and physics are what they are.

: In this explanation I will call the 231Pu Atom Totality as the Maker to
: make it easier to understand. 
:                                       94th ELECTRON OF 231PU
:                          Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH ELECTRON

:                                   \ ::| :./.
:                                   .\::|::/.:
:                                 ---- : : ----
:                                   ::/.|.\.:
:                                 :: /.:| :\.:
:                                   /   |   \.
:                    one of those dots is the Sun with 9 smaller dots
: around it

:  Believe me when I tell you that any and every electron to be
: rigorously solved for quantum states requires 3-dimensional Euclidean
: Plane Geometry in the Schroedinger Equation. The above crude picture
: has nodes but it is a 3-dimensional cross-section. And one can picture
: the 6 lobes spherically with a Diameter and Circumference. 

:  Now then, Our Maker has a circumference, a belt so to speak in
: layman's language, and Our Maker has a diameter associated with ITS
: circumference. Remember this is in Euclidean Geometry. Well if Our
: Maker is not plutonium of 137 neutrons (notice 137 is that special fine
: structure constant) but instead say thorium of 137 neutrons. Well then
: thorium cannot match pi and e. You see David, the element which is Our
: Maker has to match and fit all of the special numbers of both math and
: physics. Thorium does not have in the COLLAPSED Schroedinger
: wavefunction of a circumference of 22 and diameter of 7, making 22/7
: and an occupied circumference of 19 with again a diameter of 7. You see
: David, pi is approx (Collapsed SE) 22/7 and e is approx (Collapsed SE)
: 19/7. The numbers 22,19 and 7 come from quantum mechanics and called
: principal quantum numbers N and angular momentum quantum number L. 22
: is the total number of SUBSHELLS in the Collapsed SE for plutonium in 7
: SHELLS and the 19 is the OCCUPIED SUBSHELLS in 7 SHELLS. The number of
: total subshells of 22 and occupied subshells of 19, both in 7 shells
: are unique to plutonium.
:   The VALUE of pi and e are what they are because Our Maker is what it
: is. If Our Maker was an element of higher atomic number (life in a
: lower number is impossible) then the VALUE of pi and e would be
: different. It would then be say 27/8 for pi and 24/8 for e. If we had
: lived in such a Atom Totality, we would have had math and important
: special numbers but of different values.

I don't see what you've shown.  So what if 22/7 is an approximation to
pi?  So is 355/113--and that's a much better approximation, too.

:  DiracUs book Directions in Physics   states on page 73 :
: 	"One of these dimensionless constants is the famous reciprocal of the
: fine-structure constant 
: 			((h/2pi) x c)/E^2
: It is fundamental in the atomic theory, and it has the value of about
: 137.  Another dimensionless constant is the ratio of the mass of the
: proton to the mass of the electron, that is to say,
: 			mp/me
: That constant has the value somewhere near 1840." (Continued.)
: A more accurate measurement as of the writing of this textbook, the
: value is about 1836.1527.
: 	I demonstrate the meaning for both of these unitless markers of
: physics which Dirac talks.  Dirac stated that physics will not go very
: far until someone can demonstrate the meaning of the fine-structure
: marker.  I share that sentiment with Dirac that the meaning of the
: fine-structure marker of physics is one of the most important unsolved,
: outstanding problems of physics.
: 	I give the meaning for the ratio of proton mass divided by electron
: mass as follows. The unitless number of the proton mass divided by the
: electron mass is about 1836.1527 which is about 6(pi^5).  The last
                                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I don't see what this shows, either.  If I wanted I could build any old
number out of combinations of transcendental numbers, so long as I 
played with them long enough.  It isn't even coincidence.

: electron subshell of a plutonium atom is 5f6. Notice that the two
: digits of 5 and 6 are in both 6(pi^5) and 5f6. So for the 6 electrons
: in the 5f energy shell gives 6(pi^5).  When we atom, electron parts of
: a Plutonium Atom Totality measure the mass ratio of a proton to an
: electron inside of (superpositioned onto) a Plutonium Atom Totality
: then the unitless number results as 6(pi^5).  In the next atom totality
: of americium the mass ratio of proton to electron as measured by sacks
: of atoms of life in an americium electron observable universe will be
: 7(pi^5). 

Thank you so much for answering (not) my question.

					David 

--
David Smith at Temple University
dsmith@astro.ocis.temple.edu

"Even as a youngster, though, I could never bring myself to believe
that when knowledge presented danger, the solution was ignorance.  To
me, it always seemed the answer had to be wisdom.  You did not refuse
to look at the danger, rather you learned to handle it safely."
                                            --Isaac Asimov (1920-1992)
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudendsmith cudfnDavid cudlnSmith cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.08 / Ron Dippold /  CFV: sci.physics.plasma moderated
     
Originally-From: rdippold@qualcomm.com (Ron "Asbestos" Dippold)
Newsgroups: news.announce.newgroups,news.groups,sci.physics,sci.physics.
usion,sci.physics.research,sci.physics.electromag
Subject: CFV: sci.physics.plasma moderated
Date: 8 Apr 1994 15:39:29 -0400
Organization: Usenet Volunteer Votetakers

                          FIRST CALL FOR VOTES (of 2)
                     moderated group sci.physics.plasma

Newsgroups line:
sci.physics.plasma	Plasma Science & Technology community exchange.

Votes must be received by 23:59:59 UTC, 29 April 1994.

This vote is being conducted by a neutral third party.  For voting
questions only contact rdippold@qualcomm.com.  For questions about the
proposed group contact Tim Eastman <eastman@astro.umd.edu>.


CHARTER (Proponent)

   The NEWSGROUP for Plasma Science and Technology is intended as a
community forum for sharing new developments and bringing researchers
together for potential new collaborations. During 1994, the focus of
this NewsGroup will be a community-wide dialogue to formulate a Plasma
Science and Technology Initiative which would deliver big-science
value with a medium-scale investment.  Participation in this dialogue
will involve primarily researchers in plasma science and technology
although qualified researchers in all related fields are
welcome. Executive committees for the Division of Plasma Physics of
the American Physical Society (APS) and the Nuclear and Plasma
Sciences Society of IEEE (Institute of Electrical and Electronics
Engineers) have given formal approval for this network dialogue.

   The Plasma Science and Technology research community seeks an
increased dialogue among its multifarious constituencies.  Plasmas are
as rich as any other state of matter in terms of distinct processes
and they encompass distinguishable scales ranging from the atomic to
the galactic. Opportunities in plasma science and technology reflect
this breadth in phenomena and scales; one recent list contains 135
subject areas and 65 applications areas including thin-film diamond
deposition, toxic waste disposal, plasma arcs for steel processing,
laser self-focusing, fusion for energy production, gas and arc lamps,
cutting and welding, and semiconductor production.

   In its initial implementation, Dr. Tim Eastman will be the PLASMA
NEWSGROUP moderator. He is a Faculty member of the Institute for
Physical Science and Technology at the University of Maryland [ph:
301-405-4829, fax: 301-314-9363, email: eastman@astro.umd.edu].
Dr. Barry Ripin of the Naval Research Laboratory will be an alternate
moderator.  The APS and IEEE Executive Committees will renew or
replace the moderator on a yearly basis.

NOTE: The NewsGroup name "sci.physics.fusion" already exists
and is appropriate for the subset of Plasma Science and Technology
which focuses on plasmas for energy production (i.e., fusion).  
The proposed NEWSGROUP for PLASMA is intended to complement the 
"fusion" group and will primarily orient itself to issues of 
Plasma Science and Technology other than fusion.


Why the NewsGroup for Plasma Science & Technology is needed and should pass:

Representatives and members of the Plasma Science and Technology research 
community have long recognized a need to communicate information and issues
that affect the broader community in addition to the several email groups
that currently exist at the local level or sub-field level (e.g., the Plasma
Etch User's Group in the Bay area).  Formal support for setting up this
NewsGroup has now been given (as of Nov. 1993) by the key Executive 
Committees representing this broad multi-disciplinary field.  In order to
focus the discussion during the NewsGroup's first year, we will encourage
a community-wide dialogue to formulate a major Plasma Science and Technology
Initiative.  The NewsGroup would then complement a Workshop on this topic
at the International Conference in Plasma Science in June, 1994.  Even after
this initiative is formulated and is no longer a focus of discussion, the
NewsGroup will provide a valuable service to the community by encouraging
contacts and research coordination that might otherwise never develop.
Use of the NewsGroup will be encouraged through scientific meetings and
through timely announcements of job opportunities, research opportunities, 
and funding options.



HOW TO VOTE

Send MAIL to:   voting@qualcomm.com
Just Replying should work if you are not reading this on a mailing list.

Your mail message should contain one of the following statements:
      I vote YES on sci.physics.plasma
      I vote NO on sci.physics.plasma

You may also ABSTAIN in place of YES/NO - this will not affect the outcome.
Anything else may be rejected by the automatic vote counting program.  The
votetaker will respond to your received ballots with a personal acknowledge-
ment by mail - if you do not receive one within several days, try again.
It's your responsibility to make sure your vote is registered correctly.

One vote counted per person, no more than one per account. Addresses and
votes of all voters will be published in the final voting results list.
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenrdippold cudfnRon cudlnDippold cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.08 / Peter Roessingh /  Re: The charde of theoretical cold fusion
     
Originally-From: roes@vax.oxford.ac.uk (Peter Roessingh)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The charde of theoretical cold fusion
Date: 8 Apr 94 14:31:33 GMT
Organization: Oxford University VAX 6620

Although the Chubb theory is way above my head (I am a biologist) I do
enjoy the exchange so far very much because it at least seems to have 
some substance.

What I find disconcerting though, is the fact that most criticism is
focused on implications the theory would have that contradict
fundamental principles of physics. There is nothing wrong with that,
however, what I would like to see is a 'head on attack' on the mathematics
of the theory, rather than the "soup" approach of Dick Blue.

Unfortunately Greg Kuperberg, one of the people that at least gives
the impression of being capable of mounting such a head on attack,
does not manage to to get passed some sneering remarks, and Terry
Bollinger seems to have given up on this group altogether.

Greg Kuperberg writes:

  "Scott Chubb's postulations [...] are preposterous.  On the one hand
  they crudely borrow the basic concept of a wave function from quantum
  mechanics, and on the other hand they are a rejection of quantum
  mechanics, because they completely miss the concept of a joint wave
  function.  The mere fact that two density clouds overlap does not
  entail any consequences in quantum mechanics; you have to characterize
  the joint wave function before discussing interactions".

If the theory is really "preposterous" it should not be to difficult to
refute it with technical arguments in a more convincing manner.

I am not in a position to judge the validity of the Chubb theory, but
as an interested bystander watching the debate, I definitely think it
stands so far, and that the critics will have to do better. 
This theory deserves a more thorough approach than it is currently
getting.


Peter Roessingh 
Zoology, Oxford.


  
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenroes cudfnPeter cudlnRoessingh cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.08 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Re: Exploding cube
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Exploding cube
Date: 8 Apr 94 16:35:30 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

In article <1994Apr8.005208.4500@netlabs.com>, 
lwall@netlabs.com (Larry Wall) writes:
> In article <940407050953_74242.1554_BHR32-1@CompuServe.COM> 74242.1554
compuserve.com (John M. Logajan) writes:
> : We have, however, but four general possibilities to explain the melted
> : cube:
> : 
> : 1.) Chemical storage energy.
> : 2.) Electrical input energy.
> : 3.) "Anomalous" energy. (nuclear?)
> : 4.) P+F are lying.
> 
> There is yet another possibility:
> 
>   5.) It wasn't melted, merely finely divided and dispersed, perhaps
>       by a steam explosion, like a miniature Krakatau.  The palladium
>       dust that didn't get evacuated by the hood fan was probably swept
>       up by the janitor later that night while P&F were out carousing.
> 
> Otherwise, I doubt the cube is all it's cracked up to be.
> 
> Larry Wall
> lwall@netlabs.com

Along the same lines as suggested by Larry Wall, one should remember that
Pd cathodes often crack when run in electrolytic cells.  Thus, a piece could 
readily be broken off during a hydrogen-oxygen explosion. 
[Call it explanation alternative # 6.]
This would require relatively little energy, much less than vaporizing the Pd!
Such an explanation can not be ruled out, IMHO.

The explosion could then be due to a hydrogen explosion, such as seen in
similar experiments at SRI (when Andrew Riley, as I recall his name, was
unfortunately killed).  In that case, an investigation was held and the
cause of the explosion was determined to due to hydrogen-pressure build-up
due to a faulty relief valve; and a subsequent explosion in air when that
pressure blew a hole in the containment.  (I'm speaking of hydrogen here;
both experiments used the isotope deuterium actually.) 

In that case, the SRI people tested for radiation which would have accompanied
a nuclear-related explosion -- and found *none*.  This is an important
point -- P&F made no such test, or at least reported none, when their
experiment similarly exploded.  But they *claimed* that the *cube* exploded,
and added "a plausible interpretation of the experiment using the Pd-cube
is in terms of ignition."  (1989 paper by P&F)  

If their interpretation were correct, then indeed a high power would be 
required, as John Logajan and I have calculated (over 30 kW/cm^3 of Pd).  
Their interpretation, however, is unsubstantiated, and appears *overblown*.
Simpler explanations than fusion *ignition* are available!
P&F are cut again by Occam's razor.

--Steven Jones

cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenjonesse cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.09 / Edward Lewis /  Plasmoids and Cold Fusion (New Version)
     
Originally-From: edward@uhuru.uchicago.edu (Edward Lewis)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Plasmoids and Cold Fusion (New Version)
Date: Sat, 9 Apr 1994 00:11:33 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

		(c) Copyright by Edward Lewis 1994  All Rights Reserved
April 8, 1994

Edward Lewis, 5719 S. Harper, Chicago, Illinois 60637
This is a revision of an article that I posted on December 4, 1993.

                     Plasmoids and Cold Fusion

	I suspect that all the kinds of traces and marks in nuclear
emulsions, electrodes and other things that Matsumoto has produced are
explainable as phenomena like ball lightning.  Pictures of many of
these traces and marks have been published in Matsumoto's articles in
FUSION TECHNOLOGY journal.  I wrote a long paper about the traces that
Matsumoto had produced and published in a long paper that I finished
writing in 1992.  This may be available to those who ask for it,
though I may ask for a fee.

	Ball lightning and EVs are phenomena that I call plasmoid
phenomena.  Most if not all phenomena seem to me to be plasmoid
phenomena, and it seems to me that atoms can also be classified as
plasmoid phenomena.  If this is so, then atoms may behave as plasmoid
phenomena.  Like plasmoids, atoms may divide, dissipate, convert to
electricity, or explode.  They may also form larger clusters that
people may call atoms or molecules, and perhaps produce light or
electricity when they do so. The round holes and tunnels and grain
shaped holes that people have found in their electrodes are evidence
that atoms converted to light or electricity or plasmoids.

	Most, if not all of the many kinds of anomalous phenomena that
people are producing are similar to the phenomena of ball lighting.
I'd like to suggest that those who perform CF experiments set up
nuclear emulsions or plates to detect the plasmoid phenomena.

-------

        Plasmoids seem to be a universal phenomena because all
phenomena may described as plasmoid phenomena.  W. Bostick produced
that which he called plasmoids by discharging through electrodes.
Several people including Bostick and Alfven who is a Nobel prize
winner in physics have led in the development of similar theories that
model the universe as plasmoids.  It has become evident that atoms can
be defined as plasmoids, especially as according to the phenomena
produced by Ken Shoulders and the "cold fusion" phenomena.  It seems
that there are many different kinds of plasmoid phenomena.  I suspect
that the EVs that Ken Shoulders produced and ball lightning are kinds
of this general phenomena, as are galaxies and tornadoes and
earthquakes and waves.
        Based on the phenomena that Matsumoto produced, the traces,
the pictures and descriptions of electrodes, the pictures of
stationary BL and corona-like phenomena that he has made, the visible
BL-like phenomena that he reports, and the sparks that he observed
that left traces like those produced during electrolysis and
discharge, one may categorize CF phenomena as that of plasmoid
phenomena.  Important evidence is the holes and trails on and in
emulsions and electrodes that Matsumoto produced by discharging and
electrolysis, the holes in electrodes that Liaw produced, the holes in
electrodes that others produced, the empty areas in electrodes that
are shaped liked grains that Matsumoto and Silver produced and the
half-empty grains that Matsumoto produced, and the holes and tunnels
and trails on and in electrodes that Silver produced.  These tunnels,
holes, and trail-like marks are similar to those that are produced by
ball lightning phenomena, though ball lightning are associated with
bigger effects.  These tunnels, holes, and trail-like marks are also
similar to those produced by the EV phenomena that K. Shoulders
produced.  Silver and his co-authors who published a paper in the
December issue of Fusion Technology have reproduced the tunnels,
holes, and trail-like markings in metals that Matsumoto produced.
These tunnels, holes, and trail-marks are evidence of the conversion
and change of materials.  Important evidence that both CF phenomena
and substance in general are plasmoid phenomena is Matsumoto's
experience of the production of electricity by apparatus.  I suspect
that plasmoid phenomena such as electrodes and other materials may
convert to be bigger plasmoids and light and electricity.  EVs and
ball lightning are known to convert to light and electricity.
        I suspect that the round holes in electrodes that Matsumoto
produced and the round holes and tunnels that Silver produced are due
to the boring of BL-like phenomena, and that the grain-shaped holes
that they produced is evidence of the conversion of the grain to light
or electricity or of the production of plasmoids.  Some if not all
plasmoids are apparently able to travel through materials, even if the
plasmoids are very big.  The plasmoids that Matsumoto has produced
does this, and this is major evidence to support my deductions.
Matsumoto has also shown pictures of sectioned electrodes with what
seem to me to be trail-like tracks, as if tiny BL-like phenomena
traveled inside and left tracks.
        Evidence that the grain shaped cavities are associated with
element production is Matsumoto's experience of many new elements,
including rather heavy elements, and radioactivity in grain shaped
cavities.  For the 4th International Conference on Cold Fusion, J.
Dash and G. Noble in one paper and J. Dash and D. Diman in another
also reported localized concentration of elements.  I suspect that the
round holes and tunnels may also be associated with element
production, because according to reports it seems that BL leaves
residues of new elements and radioactivity.
	In the January 1993 issue of FUSION TECHNOLOGY, Matsumoto
published an article with a picture of a tiny micrometer sized thing
in an electrode.  I've written about this thing before.  I suspect
that it is either a tiny phenomena like ball lightning, or that it is
a picture of something that perhaps was a plasmoid, or that it is a
picture of a plasmoid precursor phenomena.  It appears to be round or
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenedward cudfnEdward cudlnLewis cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Sat Apr  9 04:37:04 EDT 1994
------------------------------
1994.04.09 / Edward Lewis /  Plasmoids and Cold Fusion (new version of article)
     
Originally-From: edward@uhuru.uchicago.edu (Edward Lewis)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Plasmoids and Cold Fusion (new version of article)
Date: Sat, 9 Apr 1994 00:26:31 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

                (c) Copyright by Edward Lewis 1994  All Rights Reserved
April 8, 1994

Edward Lewis, 5719 S. Harper, Chicago, Illinois 60637
This is a revision of an article that I posted on December 4, 1993.

                     Plasmoids and Cold Fusion

        I suspect that all the kinds of traces and marks in nuclear
emulsions, electrodes and other things that Matsumoto has produced are
explainable as phenomena like ball lightning.  Pictures of many of
these traces and marks have been published in Matsumoto's articles in
FUSION TECHNOLOGY journal.  I wrote a long paper about the traces that
Matsumoto had produced and published in a long paper that I finished
writing in 1992.  This may be available to those who ask for it,
though I may ask for a fee.

        Ball lightning and EVs are phenomena that I call plasmoid
phenomena.  Most if not all phenomena seem to me to be plasmoid
phenomena, and it seems to me that atoms can also be classified as
plasmoid phenomena.  If this is so, then atoms may behave as plasmoid
phenomena.  Like plasmoids, atoms may divide, dissipate, convert to
electricity, or explode.  They may also form larger clusters that
people may call atoms or molecules, and perhaps produce light or
electricity when they do so. The round holes and tunnels and grain
shaped holes that people have found in their electrodes are evidence
that atoms converted to light or electricity or plasmoids.

        Most, if not all of the many kinds of anomalous phenomena that
people are producing are similar to the phenomena of ball lighting.
I'd like to suggest that those who perform CF experiments set up
nuclear emulsions or plates to detect the plasmoid phenomena.

-------

        Plasmoids seem to be a universal phenomena because all
phenomena may described as plasmoid phenomena.  W. Bostick produced
that which he called plasmoids by discharging through electrodes.
Several people including Bostick and Alfven who is a Nobel prize
winner in physics have led in the development of similar theories that
model the universe as plasmoids.  It has become evident that atoms can
be defined as plasmoids, especially as according to the phenomena
produced by Ken Shoulders and the "cold fusion" phenomena.  It seems
that there are many different kinds of plasmoid phenomena.  I suspect
that the EVs that Ken Shoulders produced and ball lightning are kinds
of this general phenomena, as are galaxies and tornadoes and
earthquakes and waves.
        Based on the phenomena that Matsumoto produced, the traces,
the pictures and descriptions of electrodes, the pictures of
stationary BL and corona-like phenomena that he has made, the visible
BL-like phenomena that he reports, and the sparks that he observed
that left traces like those produced during electrolysis and
discharge, one may categorize CF phenomena as that of plasmoid
phenomena.  Important evidence is the holes and trails on and in
emulsions and electrodes that Matsumoto produced by discharging and
electrolysis, the holes in electrodes that Liaw produced, the holes in
electrodes that others produced, the empty areas in electrodes that
are shaped liked grains that Matsumoto and Silver produced and the
half-empty grains that Matsumoto produced, and the holes and tunnels
and trails on and in electrodes that Silver produced.  These tunnels,
holes, and trail-like marks are similar to those that are produced by
ball lightning phenomena, though ball lightning are associated with
bigger effects.  These tunnels, holes, and trail-like marks are also
similar to those produced by the EV phenomena that K. Shoulders
produced.  Silver and his co-authors who published a paper in the
December issue of Fusion Technology have reproduced the tunnels,
holes, and trail-like markings in metals that Matsumoto produced.
These tunnels, holes, and trail-marks are evidence of the conversion
and change of materials.  Important evidence that both CF phenomena
and substance in general are plasmoid phenomena is Matsumoto's
experience of the production of electricity by apparatus.  I suspect
that plasmoid phenomena such as electrodes and other materials may
convert to be bigger plasmoids and light and electricity.  EVs and
ball lightning are known to convert to light and electricity.
        I suspect that the round holes in electrodes that Matsumoto
produced and the round holes and tunnels that Silver produced are due
to the boring of BL-like phenomena, and that the grain-shaped holes
that they produced is evidence of the conversion of the grain to light
or electricity or of the production of plasmoids.  Some if not all
plasmoids are apparently able to travel through materials, even if the
plasmoids are very big.  The plasmoids that Matsumoto has produced
does this, and this is major evidence to support my deductions.
Matsumoto has also shown pictures of sectioned electrodes with what
seem to me to be trail-like tracks, as if tiny BL-like phenomena
traveled inside and left tracks.
        Evidence that the grain shaped cavities are associated with
element production is Matsumoto's experience of many new elements,
including rather heavy elements, and radioactivity in grain shaped
cavities.  For the 4th International Conference on Cold Fusion, J.
Dash and G. Noble in one paper and J. Dash and D. Diman in another
also reported localized concentration of elements.  I suspect
that the round holes and tunnels may also be associated with element
production, because according to reports it seems that BL leaves
residues of new elements and radioactivity.
        In the January 1993 issue of FUSION TECHNOLOGY, Matsumoto
published an article with a picture of a tiny micrometer sized thing
in an electrode.  I've written about this thing before.  I suspect
that it is either a tiny phenomena like ball lightning, or that it is
a picture of something that perhaps was a plasmoid, or that it is a
picture of a plasmoid precursor phenomena.  It appears to be round or
spheroid and to be in a cavity of the  electrode.
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenedward cudfnEdward cudlnLewis cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.08 /  jonesse@physc1 /  SL:  Molecular emissions vs. Black-body radiation
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: SL:  Molecular emissions vs. Black-body radiation
Date: 8 Apr 94 17:09:22 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

In article <94040610332908@nscl00.nscl.msu.edu>, 
blue@nscl00.nscl.msu.edu writes:
> Just by way of news concerning talks to be given at the April meeting
> of the American Physical Society, here are a couple of items that caught
> my eye.
> 
> The 1994 Forum Award Lecture is by Gary Taubes and is titled, "Delusion
> is the Better Part of Granduer: Lessons Learned from Cold Fusion."
> The abstract ends with: "If cold fusion does not exist, what are these
> people doing, and why?  And secondly, what's the matter with science
> journalism that a phenomenon like cold fusion is not only covered so
> poorly, but that the journalists are as responsible as anyone else for
> making it happen?"

IMHO, investors are largely responsible for what "these people [are] doing,"
more so than journalists.  I've talked to some ofthese guys:  their interest is
in making money from a well-publicized *possibility* to make a killing in 
the energy industry.  The interest is profit, not science per se.
> 
> The second invited talk of interest to this group is: "Synchronous
> Picosecond Sonoluminescence." to be given by Seth J. Petterman.
> New infromation (for me at least) contained in the abstract include:
> "The spectral density of the emitted light increases into the
> ultraviolet where it cuts off due to the absorption coefficient of
> water."  and "Also: doping a nitrogen bubble with 1% Xenon increases
> SL by a factor of 100."   What I make of these two facts is that
> the notion that the spectum is black body and corresponds to
> some very high temperature is not well established, and the
> enhancement upon Xe doping is just like the behaviour of gas
> scintillations as observed in detectors of ionizing radiation
> where the light is emitted from atomic exitations and are not
> black body in spectral character.
> 
> Dick Blue
> 
This is interesting.  I have asked around, no one seems to know why Xe
increases SL, for sure.  As for what causes the SL:

Ken Suslick thinks it's molecular emission from excited hydroxyl radicals
with line broadening due to high pressures in the cavitating bubble.
(He has found that 1% fluorocarbon gases added to Ar bubbles *depresses*
SL intensities.)      See Ultrasonics 31 (1993) 463.

Seth Putterman thinks the SB-SL is due to black-body radiation:
  "As shown by the solid line in Fig. 1 the spectrum of room-temperature SL
is fitted quite accurately by the tail of a 25 000 K blackbody spectrum**."
"Similarly the 10 C [H2O] spectrum can be compared to a blackbody spectrum
in excess of 50 000 K."  Phys. Rev. Lett.  69 (1991) 1184.
**footnote contrasts their claim with that of Suslick and Flint.

And just to round out the confusion, Thiery Lepoint suggest that the SL
arises from corona discharge!  (Ultrasonics Sonochemistry 1 (1994) s5.)

Larry Crum argues that the molecular emission at 5000K approx. is consistent
with data taken using *transient* cavitation; whereas stable, single-bubble
SL (which his group discovered in 1988) may well be different, and show
higher temperatures.  The first involves asymmetric collapse of the bubble
typically, and adiabatic heating results in approx. 5000 K.
On the other hand, SB-SL presumably involves spherically-symmetric collapse
accompanied by shock-wave formation, leading to temps. of 50,000 K.
In the SB-SL case, distinct spectral lines are absent, arguing against
molecular or atomic emission.  I've cited this paper before, it's excellent
and should help to clear up some confusion:
L.A. Crum, J. Acoust. Soc. Am 95 (1994) 559.

Thanks to Ron Roy for enlightening me on several of these points.

--Steven Jones

cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenjonesse cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.08 /  jonesse@physc1 /  cancel <1994Apr8.170406.1571@physc1.byu.edu>
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cancel <1994Apr8.170406.1571@physc1.byu.edu>
Date: 8 Apr 94 17:10:21 -0600

cancel <1994Apr8.170406.1571@physc1.byu.edu>
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenjonesse cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.08 / Andy Bajorinas /  Re: FAQ 1 OF 2: PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY
     
Originally-From: bajorap@pb.com (Andy P. Bajorinas)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.math,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: FAQ 1 OF 2: PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY
Date: Fri, 8 Apr 1994 14:49:41 GMT
Organization: Pitney Bowes

Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium) writes:

>  I explained this many times before and so I am tired of repeating. In

Ha.... you think YOUR tired of it.

>the future I may skip over these questions unless I can add something
>new. Here I can add something new. I will be as brief as possible.
>  There are two most special numbers is math--pi and e. There are
>several dimensionless numbers in physics--inverse fine-structure
>constant of 137 and ratio of proton mass to electron mass of 1836.1527.
>Your numbers of G and Avogadro's numbers are not dimensionless numbers,
>but the PU theory can still explain these, I just have not invested any
>of my time in that project.
>  And beware of the many shrikes, David, who will come flying through
>my posts to try to upset or disprove my argument by pointing to some
>trivial detail or irrelevancy. I cannot be explicit nor talk in depth
>because it would be too abstract and very long. I sacrifice detail,
>abstract, and long talk for briefness, and clarity. I have many
>opponents to the Atom Totality Theory, but that is the mark of a true
>theory. A wrong theory needs no opposition before it flys into the
>trash can, 

Funny, I thought theories like the earth is the center of the universe
withstood many years of scrutiny.

but a true theory will receive the most virulent opposition
>because it keeps growing instead of self-destruct, and it is impossible
>to throw away. 

This has been said before but this post indicates it needs repeating...

    They laughed at Gallileo and COlumbus, but they also
   laughed at Bozo the clown. 

Oposition does not prove correctness.

A true theory scares the prevalent current wrong
>theories because they pale, they shake, 

That shaking is just contained laughter. 

>they get mighty nervous when in
>the presence of true science. Current wrong theories such as the Big
>Bang or Steady-State get frightened, spastic, neurotic, and psychotic
>in the presence of true science for their adherents are soon
>challenged, and their theory is displaced and thrown into the garbage
>can.

I am sure that Steven Hawking lies awake at night fearing YOU will
shatter his charade of science!   8*)

>  EXPLANATION. When a TOE in physics comes, it will explain math as
>well as physics. It will explain why math is the language of physics
>and it will explain why the VALUES of the most often used numbers of
>math and physics are what they are.

>In this explanation I will call the 231Pu Atom Totality as the Maker to
>make it easier to understand. 
>                                      94th ELECTRON OF 231PU
>                         Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH ELECTRON

>                                  \ ::| :./.
>                                  .\::|::/.:
>                                ---- : : ----
>                                  ::/.|.\.:
>                                :: /.:| :\.:
>                                  /   |   \.
>                   one of those dots is the Sun with 9 smaller dots
>around it

> Believe me when I tell you that any and every electron to be
>rigorously solved for quantum states requires 3-dimensional Euclidean
>Plane Geometry in the Schroedinger Equation. The above crude picture
>has nodes but it is a 3-dimensional cross-section. And one can picture
>the 6 lobes spherically with a Diameter and Circumference. 

--- drivel deleted in the name of bandwidth -----
>  The VALUE of pi and e are what they are because Our Maker is what it
>is. If Our Maker was an element of higher atomic number (life in a
>lower number is impossible) then the VALUE of pi and e would be
>different. It would then be say 27/8 for pi and 24/8 for e. If we had
>lived in such a Atom Totality, we would have had math and important
>special numbers but of different values.

Silly us, we thought PI was just a fact of simple geometry. I gues the
circumfrence of a proton in a Helium is the same as it's circumfrence
(by your arguments) and therefore can not exist. Hmmmmm....

--- more drivel missing ----


Blech.....

cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenbajorap cudfnAndy cudlnBajorinas cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Sun Apr 10 05:44:05 EDT 1994
------------------------------
1994.04.08 / M Fullerton /  Re: Horizon
     
Originally-From: michaelf@cpsc.ucalgary.ca (Michael Fullerton)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Horizon
Date: Fri, 8 Apr 1994 23:05:06 GMT
Organization: University of Calgary Computer Science

In article <2o38r5$hr8@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk> nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk (Nick Maclaren) writes:
>In article <1994Apr8.032105.14948@clark.dgim.doc.ca> gsteckly@dgim.doc.
a (Gary Steckly) writes:
>>I just saw what I thought was the same program here in Canada on Monday night
>>(although the credits indicated a CBC/BBC co-production), and now I'm not
>>sure if the programs were identical.  It was entitled "too close to the
>>Sun" and the documentary format was entitled "Witness".
>>
>>It definitely had all the components everyone has mentioned, but the
>>Canadian version had an impressive segment on Stanley Meyer and his water
>>powered dune buggy (a la super efficient electrolysis via pulsed DC).  I
>>think this was the _real_ story. I know he isn't making claims about
>>fusion, but I find his claims even more exciting. This guy is already
>>literally burning water...and getting 60 miles to the gallon.  Even if you
>>user Perrier, that's pretty cheap driving!  So how come nobody's talking
>>about Stanley?
>
>The problem is that water-powered cars are about a century old, only just
>post-dating horseless carriages.  So far, every single one has been a
>blatant fraud (i.e. not an honest mistake).  If Stanley Meyer has a
>genuine water-powered car, he will have the devil of a job persuading
>people that he is not just another fraud.
>
>Electrolysis and burning the resulting hydrogen is old hat - but where do
>you get the energy from in the first place?  If the electrolysis needs less
>energy than produced by the recombustion, you have a perpetual motion
>machine :-)

Why would someone offer old Stanley a billion dollars to suppress 
another perpetual motion fraud?  The cell Stanley uses was compared
to cold fusion cells.



-- 
Michael Fullerton           |  Seeds, like ideas, don't
michaelf@cpsc.ucalgary.ca   |  germinate in concrete. 
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenmichaelf cudfnMichael cudlnFullerton cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.09 / Matt Kennel /  Re: The charde of theoretical cold fusion
     
Originally-From: mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The charde of theoretical cold fusion
Date: 9 Apr 1994 18:40:40 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

Peter Roessingh (roes@vax.oxford.ac.uk) wrote:
: Although the Chubb theory is way above my head (I am a biologist) I do
: enjoy the exchange so far very much because it at least seems to have 
: some substance.

: What I find disconcerting though, is the fact that most criticism is
: focused on implications the theory would have that contradict
: fundamental principles of physics. There is nothing wrong with that,
: however, what I would like to see is a 'head on attack' on the mathematics
: of the theory, rather than the "soup" approach of Dick Blue.

Focusing on "implications of the theory that would contradict fundamental
principles of physics" is a more potent means of criticism than hacking away
at the 'mathematics'.

Despite what it may appear to the outside observer, the content of physics
does not lie only in the mathematics.

The criticisms expressed in this forum are not in the math.

: Greg Kuperberg writes:

:   "Scott Chubb's postulations [...] are preposterous.  On the one hand
:   they crudely borrow the basic concept of a wave function from quantum
:   mechanics, and on the other hand they are a rejection of quantum
:   mechanics, because they completely miss the concept of a joint wave
:   function.  The mere fact that two density clouds overlap does not
:   entail any consequences in quantum mechanics; you have to characterize
:   the joint wave function before discussing interactions".

: If the theory is really "preposterous" it should not be to difficult to
: refute it with technical arguments in a more convincing manner.

One could re-express Dr Kuperberg's criticism in a more technical language,
but that would only obfuscate the central issue.

: Peter Roessingh 
: Zoology, Oxford.

--
-Matt Kennel  		mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu
-Institute for Nonlinear Science, University of California, San Diego
-*** AD: Archive for nonlinear dynamics papers & programs: FTP to
-***     lyapunov.ucsd.edu, username "anonymous".
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenmbk cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.09 / Tom Radcliffe /  Re: The charde of theoretical cold fusion
     
Originally-From: tom@mips2.phy.queensu.ca (Tom Radcliffe)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The charde of theoretical cold fusion
Date: Sat, 9 Apr 1994 19:42:02 GMT
Organization: Queen's University, Kingston

In article <1994Apr8.143134.21794@oxvax>, roes@vax.oxford.ac.uk (Peter Roessingh) writes:
[deleted]
|> 
|> Unfortunately Greg Kuperberg, one of the people that at least gives
|> the impression of being capable of mounting such a head on attack,
|> does not manage to to get passed some sneering remarks, and Terry
|> Bollinger seems to have given up on this group altogether.
|> 
|> Greg Kuperberg writes:
|> 
|>   "Scott Chubb's postulations [...] are preposterous.  On the one hand
|>   they crudely borrow the basic concept of a wave function from quantum
|>   mechanics, and on the other hand they are a rejection of quantum
|>   mechanics, because they completely miss the concept of a joint wave
|>   function.  The mere fact that two density clouds overlap does not
|>   entail any consequences in quantum mechanics; you have to characterize
|>   the joint wave function before discussing interactions".
|> 
|> If the theory is really "preposterous" it should not be to difficult to
|> refute it with technical arguments in a more convincing manner.
|> 

I've not been following this too closely, but so far have not seen any
technical presentation of the Chubb speculation that would be amenable
to technical counter-arguments.  Although if the claim is simply that
nuclear wavefunctions somehow mysteriously delocalize because of the
lattice potential, then it is easy to refute:  if it were true, the
Doppler-Shift Attenuation Method wouldn't work, and a lot of short
nuclear lifetimes would never have been measured.  The DSAM uses
attentuation by the lattice of gamma-rays from nuclei that have been
excited by hitting them with protons, say, and which are therefore
recoiling as they decay.  It requires the charge of the emitting nucleus 
to be localized to well within the lattice spacing to work, and it *does*
work, so well that it is virtually obsolete:  all the lifetimes that
can be measured with it, have been.  If de-localization of the nuclear
wave-function is a generic feature of the Chubb speculation, then
said speculation is wrong on experimental grounds, as well as on the
fundamental quantum-mechanical grounds that have already been pointed out.

cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudentom cudfnTom cudlnRadcliffe cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.12 / Bill Page /  Re: The charde of theoretical cold fusion
     
Originally-From: 70047.3047@compuserve.com (Bill Page)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The charde of theoretical cold fusion
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 1994 00:19:03 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Peter Roessingh wrote:
<<
... what I would like to see is a 'head on attack' on the mathematics
of the theory, rather than the "soup" approach of Dick Blue.

Unfortunately Greg Kuperberg, one of the people that at least gives
the impression of being capable of mounting such a head on attack,
does not manage to to get passed some sneering remarks, and Terry
Bollinger seems to have given up on this group altogether.

Greg Kuperberg writes:

  "Scott Chubb's postulations [...] are preposterous.  On the one hand
  they crudely borrow the basic concept of a wave function from quantum
  mechanics, and on the other hand they are a rejection of quantum
  mechanics, because they completely miss the concept of a joint wave
  function. ...
>>

I second the motion.  I would really appreciate it if Greg Kuperberg would 
describe what he means by a "joint wave fuction" in the context of solid 
state many body quantum mechanics and in what sense it is lacking from the 
theory of ion band state fusion.  From my reading of the Chubb and Chubb's 
Fusion Technology papers (referenced previously) I get the impression that 
this question is dealt with very well.  I am afraid that Greg may be 
reacting only to second hand inaccurate information.

Cheers,

Bill Page.

PS.  Where *has* Terry Bolllinger gone? <sigh>

cudkeys:
cuddy12 cuden3047 cudfnBill cudlnPage cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.11 / Mike Stanbridge /  Re: FAQ 1 OF 2: PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY
     
Originally-From: isis@perth.DIALix.oz.au (Mike Stanbridge)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.math,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: FAQ 1 OF 2: PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY
Date: 11 Apr 1994 03:49:11 +0800
Organization: DIALix Services, Perth, Western Australia

David Smith (dsmith@astro.ocis.temple.edu) wrote:
: Ludwig Plutonium (Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu) wrote:
: : In article <2nuif7$qng@cronkite.ocis.temple.edu>
: : dsmith@astro.ocis.temple.edu (David Smith) writes:
: : > I may be asking questions whose answers are way over my head, but it's
: : > not at all clear to me why we have to be part of the 94th electron of
: : > one atom of PU 231, or even why it must be PU 231.  You (Ludwig) have 
: : > stated before that only PU 231 fits all the special numbers of math
: : > and physics.  I can only assume by that you mean that the values of 
: : > pi, e, G, Avagandro's number, etc., are all predicted by the Plutonium
: : > Atom Totality.  May I ask in what way?  I've seen no such explanation
: : > in any of your posts.

: [lots of  stuff deleted....]

: :   EXPLANATION. When a TOE in physics comes, it will explain math as
: : well as physics. It will explain why math is the language of physics
: : and it will explain why the VALUES of the most often used numbers of
: : math and physics are what they are.

: : In this explanation I will call the 231Pu Atom Totality as the Maker to
: : make it easier to understand. 
: :                                       94th ELECTRON OF 231PU
: :                          Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH ELECTRON

: :                                   \ ::| :./.
: :                                   .\::|::/.:
: :                                 ---- : : ----
: :                                   ::/.|.\.:
: :                                 :: /.:| :\.:
: :                                   /   |   \.
: :                    one of those dots is the Sun with 9 smaller dots
: : around it

: :  Believe me when I tell you that any and every electron to be
: : rigorously solved for quantum states requires 3-dimensional Euclidean
: : Plane Geometry in the Schroedinger Equation. The above crude picture
: : has nodes but it is a 3-dimensional cross-section. And one can picture
: : the 6 lobes spherically with a Diameter and Circumference. 

: :  Now then, Our Maker has a circumference, a belt so to speak in
: : layman's language, and Our Maker has a diameter associated with ITS
: : circumference. Remember this is in Euclidean Geometry. Well if Our
: : Maker is not plutonium of 137 neutrons (notice 137 is that special fine
: : structure constant) but instead say thorium of 137 neutrons. Well then
: : thorium cannot match pi and e. You see David, the element which is Our
: : Maker has to match and fit all of the special numbers of both math and
: : physics. Thorium does not have in the COLLAPSED Schroedinger
: : wavefunction of a circumference of 22 and diameter of 7, making 22/7
: : and an occupied circumference of 19 with again a diameter of 7. You see
: : David, pi is approx (Collapsed SE) 22/7 and e is approx (Collapsed SE)
: : 19/7. The numbers 22,19 and 7 come from quantum mechanics and called
: : principal quantum numbers N and angular momentum quantum number L. 22
: : is the total number of SUBSHELLS in the Collapsed SE for plutonium in 7
: : SHELLS and the 19 is the OCCUPIED SUBSHELLS in 7 SHELLS. The number of
: : total subshells of 22 and occupied subshells of 19, both in 7 shells
: : are unique to plutonium.
: :   The VALUE of pi and e are what they are because Our Maker is what it
: : is. If Our Maker was an element of higher atomic number (life in a
: : lower number is impossible) then the VALUE of pi and e would be
: : different. It would then be say 27/8 for pi and 24/8 for e. If we had
: : lived in such a Atom Totality, we would have had math and important
: : special numbers but of different values.

: I don't see what you've shown.  So what if 22/7 is an approximation to
: pi?  So is 355/113--and that's a much better approximation, too.

: :  DiracUs book Directions in Physics   states on page 73 :
: : 	"One of these dimensionless constants is the famous reciprocal of the
: : fine-structure constant 
: : 			((h/2pi) x c)/E^2
: : It is fundamental in the atomic theory, and it has the value of about
: : 137.  Another dimensionless constant is the ratio of the mass of the
: : proton to the mass of the electron, that is to say,
: : 			mp/me
: : That constant has the value somewhere near 1840." (Continued.)
: : A more accurate measurement as of the writing of this textbook, the
: : value is about 1836.1527.
: : 	I demonstrate the meaning for both of these unitless markers of
: : physics which Dirac talks.  Dirac stated that physics will not go very
: : far until someone can demonstrate the meaning of the fine-structure
: : marker.  I share that sentiment with Dirac that the meaning of the
: : fine-structure marker of physics is one of the most important unsolved,
: : outstanding problems of physics.
: : 	I give the meaning for the ratio of proton mass divided by electron
: : mass as follows. The unitless number of the proton mass divided by the
: : electron mass is about 1836.1527 which is about 6(pi^5).  The last
:                                             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: I don't see what this shows, either.  If I wanted I could build any old
: number out of combinations of transcendental numbers, so long as I 
: played with them long enough.  It isn't even coincidence.

: : electron subshell of a plutonium atom is 5f6. Notice that the two
: : digits of 5 and 6 are in both 6(pi^5) and 5f6. So for the 6 electrons
: : in the 5f energy shell gives 6(pi^5).  When we atom, electron parts of
: : a Plutonium Atom Totality measure the mass ratio of a proton to an
: : electron inside of (superpositioned onto) a Plutonium Atom Totality
: : then the unitless number results as 6(pi^5).  In the next atom totality
: : of americium the mass ratio of proton to electron as measured by sacks
: : of atoms of life in an americium electron observable universe will be
: : 7(pi^5). 

: Thank you so much for answering (not) my question.

: 					David 

: --
: David Smith at Temple University
: dsmith@astro.ocis.temple.edu

: "Even as a youngster, though, I could never bring myself to believe
: that when knowledge presented danger, the solution was ignorance.  To
: me, it always seemed the answer had to be wisdom.  You did not refuse
: to look at the danger, rather you learned to handle it safely."
:                                             --Isaac Asimov (1920-1992)
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenisis cudfnMike cudlnStanbridge cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.12 / John Logajan /  Re: "Meltdowns" and "Cold Fusion" Magazine
     
Originally-From: 74242.1554@compuserve.com (John M. Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: "Meltdowns" and "Cold Fusion" Magazine
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 1994 00:20:24 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

jonesse@physc1.byu.edu (Steven Jones) writes:
>Note that evidence that the exploding cube incident actually occurred
>has *not* been verified by independent observers who looked for
>evidence.

>In his latest FAQ, Mitch continues to suggest that the excess power
>density has increased since 1989 ... [but his contention that] the
>*claimed* power density has been getting larger and larger through the
>years is simply wrong.

Actually, there is a more recent independent "meltdown" reported in the
premier (May 1994  Vol 1, No 1) issue of "Cold Fusion" Magazine.

Reporter (and editor) Eugene Mallove travelled to the University of
Siena, Italy, for a Feb 14, 1994 seminar by the Italian scientist,
Francesco Piantelli.  Gene Mallove writes:

"...in late 1993 at about 4 a.m. ... a nickel rod undergoing an excess
heat production test suddenly elevated in temperature hundreds of degrees
and destroyed the attached temperature probes.  The nickel sublimed
partially -- evaporate! ... This apparent "run on" reaction lasted six
hours, the last few hours of which were spent by Piantelli and others
trying to quench the reaction ..."


Now for a commercial :-)

"Cold Fusion" Magazine is edited by Gene Mallove, and is published by
Wayne Green.  Mr. Green has started many high quality magazines in the
past, such as Byte and "73" (a ham radio magazine), and this latest effort
is no exception.  The first issue is 100 pages long (including the covers)
and is complete with high quality color photos and graphics as well as
latebreaking stories.

The price is $98 a year (for the USA) for 12 issues, or $10 per issue.
($107.86 Canada and $122 all other countries.) Checks, Visa, MC, AMEX.

Phone 1-800-234-8458
Fax   1-603-924-8613

Wayne Green, Inc.
"Cold Fusion" Magazine
70 Route 202 North
Peterborough, NH, 03458-9872


cudkeys:
cuddy12 cuden1554 cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.11 / Peter Roessingh /  Re: The charde of theoretical cold fusion
     
Originally-From: roes@vax.oxford.ac.uk (Peter Roessingh)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The charde of theoretical cold fusion
Date: 11 Apr 94 10:26:05 GMT
Organization: Oxford University VAX 6620

Matt Kennel writes:

	"Focusing on "implications of the theory that would contradict
	fundamental principles of physics" is a more potent means of
	criticism than hacking away at the 'mathematics'.
	Despite what it may appear to the outside observer, the
	content of physics does not lie only in the mathematics."

I should have picked my words more careful. I do know that the above
is the case, however, it seemed to me that most of the objections that
were brought up against the theory, were answered by Dr. Chubb by
referring to the QM basis of it. I expected at that stage a more QM
oriented attack, but saw mostly sarcasm.
 
I find though that I have judged Dick Blue to quickly, probably
because I was annoyed by his tone. He does seems to be addressing the
problem (also via private E-mail) in a serious way.


Peter Roessingh.

cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenroes cudfnPeter cudlnRoessingh cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.11 / Andy Holland /  cost
     
Originally-From: zcrah@trumpet.pgh.wec.com (Andy Holland)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cost
Date: 11 Apr 1994 19:18:10 GMT
Organization: Westinghouse NMD

In article   writes:
>fheeter.remote.princeton.edu!rfheeter
>From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
>
>This is the text of a presentation I'm giving tomorrow; thought I'd
>post it for those interested.  Comments are welcome; I have sources
>to justify the statements made here.  I'd be happy to rewrite this
>into a coherent essay, including references, if anyone is interested...
>This is NOT part of the Conventional Fusion FAQ.
>
>--Bob Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
>Graduate Student, Princeton Plasma Physics Lab
>(Disclaimers Apply!)
>
>
>My Opinion from the above is that:
>
>! Fusion has Environmental, Political, and 
>	Safety Advantages over Fossil and
> 	Fission Energy.
>
>! Low-Activation Materials are Crucial
> 	until Advanced Fuels become workable.
>
>! Fusion can be Competitive with 
>	Renewables Environmentally as a 
>	Sustainable Source

Agree on most of the above, but what about *cost*,
(ie. capitalization, construction, fuel, O&M, Cost risk
of accidents etc)?


Andy Holland                  |
Westinghouse NMD              |   
zcrah@ncstate.pgh.wec.com     |       
All Usual Disclaimers Apply   |

cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenzcrah cudfnAndy cudlnHolland cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.11 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Re: The charade of theoretical cold fusion
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The charade of theoretical cold fusion
Date: 11 Apr 94 12:27:16 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

In article <Co0C22.IEE@knot.ccs.queensu.ca>, 
tom@mips2.phy.queensu.ca (Tom Radcliffe) writes:

> In article <1994Apr8.143134.21794@oxvax>, 
> roes@vax.oxford.ac.uk (Peter Roessingh) writes:
> [deleted]
> |> 
> |> If the [Chubb] theory is really "preposterous" it should not be to 
> |> difficult to
> |> refute it with technical arguments in a more convincing manner.
> |> 
> 
> ... if the claim is simply that
> nuclear wavefunctions somehow mysteriously delocalize because of the
> lattice potential, then it is easy to refute:  if it were true, the
> Doppler-Shift Attenuation Method wouldn't work, and a lot of short
> nuclear lifetimes would never have been measured.  The DSAM uses
> attentuation by the lattice of gamma-rays from nuclei that have been
> excited by hitting them with protons, say, and which are therefore
> recoiling as they decay.  It requires the charge of the emitting nucleus 
> to be localized to well within the lattice spacing to work, and it *does*
> work, so well that it is virtually obsolete:  all the lifetimes that
> can be measured with it, have been.  If de-localization of the nuclear
> wave-function is a generic feature of the Chubb speculation, then
> said speculation is wrong on experimental grounds, as well as on the
> fundamental quantum-mechanical grounds that have already been pointed out.
> 

I like Tom Radcliffe's approach, pointing out experiments which indeed run
counter to Scott Chubb's 'theory' -- thus responding quite directly to
Peter Roessingh's challenge.

Other experiments come to mind:
1.  MeV-scale nuclear decay in a lattice (which is often the case, e.g., 
decay of radium, thorium, uranium, etc.) -- always accompanied by an energetic
(MeV-scale)  decay product.  I know of *no* exceptions, even though the
decay occurs in a metal lattice.  

And as I have pointed out before, there
can be no exceptions since the metal lattice spacing (Angstroms) is too
large to allow the MeV-energy of the decay to somehow couple to the lattice.

We've been through the numbers before; briefly, the uncertainty principle
and speed-of-light constraints prevent the energy from being transmitted
 *without energetic particle formation (as required by cf experiments)*
more than about 10^-2 angstroms, which is much less than the lattice spacing.
Hence, fundamental principles *mathematically* will not allow the decay
of 4He to couple its energy to the lattice, in direct contradiction to the
model posited by Scott.

2.  Formation of 4He in titanium deuteride using deuteron-beam bombardment
is commonly done in labs, including our own here at BYU:  we *always* see
energetic (roughly 2.5 MeV) neutrons coming out, again in contradiction with
the Chubb model.  How does the 4He know that it was produced via cold
fusion rather than hot, so that it can decay without neutrons?  
In fact, information about its formation method is irrelevant to the
decay modes, IMHO -- and these show neutron emission *experimentally*.  
Hence, the lack of
such neutron emissions to accompany cold *fusion* "excess heat" demonstrates 
that the origin of the xs heat is *not fusion*.  Elsewhere we show that many
claims of xs heat can in fact be accounted for as recombination
of D2 and O2 (or H2 and O2 for light-water cells for which some claim xs heat).

3.  Mossbauer effect:  shows coupling of *momentum* to the lattice, and this
is allowed by the unc. principle due to the much lower energy of the gamma
decay (approx. 10 keV) compared to the decay of an excited 4He (23 MeV) --
three orders of magnitude difference!  But note that for Mossbauer where there
is indeed allowed coupling to the lattice, the fact is that an energetic
gamma ray is emitted (whereas in cf, energetic gammas, neutrons, etc. are
lacking) -- and this gamma carries essentially all the energy of the decay.

This is just the *opposite* of Scott's model in which he wants the lattice
to carry essentially all the energy of the 4He decay, with no energetic
particle emissions.  

Do you need more examples, Peter?
These are technical arguments, and they should be more compelling than
"style" considerations to which you refer.

I would credit Scott on his agreement that energetic particles are lacking
in cold-fusion "excess heat" experiments.  He is trying to "save the hypothesis"
perhaps by arguing some coupling of the MeV-scale energy to the lattice so
to account for the absence of energetic particles.  I think he needs to look
at some alternative explanation which is consistent with *real* 
nuclear experimental data brought forth by Tom Radcliffe and myself.  One
explanation is that those claiming "excess heat" failed to account for
recombination.  I will post an extract from our forthcoming paper on this
point soon.

--Steven Jones

cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenjonesse cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.11 /  jonesse@physc1 /  cancel <1994Apr11.121449.1574@physc1.byu.edu>
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cancel <1994Apr11.121449.1574@physc1.byu.edu>
Date: 11 Apr 94 12:27:58 -0600

cancel <1994Apr11.121449.1574@physc1.byu.edu>
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenjonesse cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.11 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Recombination effects vs. excess heat claims
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Recombination effects vs. excess heat claims
Date: 11 Apr 94 12:39:54 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

In view of the discussion here on alternative explanations for "cold fusion"
'excess heat', I contribute the
following extract from a forthcoming paper:

J.E. Jones, L.E. Hansen, S.E. Jones, D.S. Shelton, and J.M. Thorne,
"Recombination of hydrogen and oxygen during electrolysis of water
can account for reported excess heat,"  
pre-print from Brigham Young University, March 9, 1994.

Conclusion
     This study was designed to determine the sources of excess
heat in electrolysis cells operated at low current densities. 
Pitfalls can occur with electrical leads, with blockage of
electrode surfaces by bubbles, and more importantly, with
unmeasured recombination of dissolved hydrogen and oxygen.
Recombination was shown to occur in both Ni/light water cells with
alkali metal carbonate electrolyte and in a Pd/LiOD cell using
heavy water.  Apparent excess heat was seen in all of these cells
unless they were configured or operated in such a way so as to
avoid recombination.

     The results of this study show that the amount of
recombination can be a critical factor in calculating the enthalpy
balance for an electrolytic cell, especially if the cell is
operating near the thermoneutral potential.  To minimize
recombination, the experimenter must realize that the recombination
rate is a function of the concentrations of dissolved hydrogen and
oxygen contacting the catalytic surface.  Available catalyst area
(i.e. not covered by bubbles or blocked by inhibitors) and the
activity of the catalyst are important, as are temperature and
current density.  

If compelling evidence for sources of excess heat other than
recombination is to be obtained, Faraday efficiency must be
accurately determined while the cell is producing excess heat. 
Because recombination is an unknown function of current density,
further studies of recombination in cells operating at high current
densities need to be done to determine whether excess heat reported
in these cells is also due to recombination.  Until such studies
are carefully done, there are no compelling reasons for not
adopting the hypothesis that calorimetric errors or failure to
account for recombination of hydrogen and oxygen during
electrolysis of water account for all reports of excess heat. 
Compared with other hypotheses (e.g., cold fusion or hydrino
formation; see Table 1), this hypothesis is much simpler and
requires no changes in well established scientific principles. 
Thus, Occams razor places the burden of proof on those postulating
"new science" to explain the excess heat effect.


[From the abstract of this paper:  ]

Failure to account for even a small amount of exothermic heat from
recombination in a cell operating near 1.5V can cause an apparent
very large percentage of excess heat rate.
[Up to 750% *apparent* excess heat is documented in this paper -
-it all went away when recombination was inhibited!]
Reports of very large excess heat rates from cells with low
overvoltage are probably an artifact arising from a combination of
experimental errors and the way excess heat rate is defined.

We conclude that recombination can account for most (if not all)
currently available reports of excess heat... There is no
compelling evidence for nuclear origins of excess heat in such
electrolytic cells.

--Steven E. Jones
Brigham Young University
(A co-author of this study.)
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenjonesse cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.11 / Robert Eachus /  Re: The charde of theoretical cold fusion
     
Originally-From: eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The charde of theoretical cold fusion
Date: 11 Apr 94 18:31:41
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.


In article <Co0C22.IEE@knot.ccs.queensu.ca> tom@mips2.phy.queensu.ca
(Tom Radcliffe) writes:

  > Although if the claim is simply that nuclear wavefunctions somehow
  > mysteriously delocalize because of the lattice potential, then it
  > is easy to refute: if it were true, the Doppler-Shift Attenuation
  > Method wouldn't work, and a lot of short nuclear lifetimes would
  > never have been measured.  The DSAM uses attentuation by the
  > lattice of gamma-rays from nuclei that have been excited by
  > hitting them with protons, say, and which are therefore recoiling
  > as they decay...

    I'll keep this (and hopefully any flames) short.  There is no
conflict between Chubb's theory and DSAM, since the atoms in DSAM were
not delocalized in a Bose-Einstein fluid before the event.

    The first part of Scott Chubbs' theory should by now be on a
fairly firm physical foundation.  Deuterium in metal (or other solid)
lattices will, under some circumstances, become delocalized in a
quantum mechanical sense.

    Where you go from there is much tougher.  Is suspect that the
effect Dr. Chubb describes is real, but that the joint wavefunction
issues really do mean that it is a very low-probability affair.
Certainly, the lack of brown dwarfs, the "solar neutrino problem," and
the higher than expected core temperatures in Earth and Jupiter imply
that there is something going on.  (On the other hand, Jupiter is not
a star, this puts an upper limit on the effect.)

      Hmmm... Maybe I had better go a little bit further for any
non-astronomers out there.  Brown dwarfs are postulated stellar sized
objects, but smaller than red dwarfs, which never ignited.  If a cold
brown dwarf existed, it would have a metallic core surrounded by
Helium and Hydrogen.  But the deuterium would settle towards the core,
so any metals in the core would be saturated with He and D, not H.
(As I remember it you get Helium and hydrogen mixing pretty far down,
although the surface is almost pure H--for an example look at Jupiter,
which is about one-third the minimum size considered.  These things
should be detectable in infra-red from the heat of gravitational
contraction.  If Dr.  Chubb is right, there is a minimum size at which
such a core would generate more heat than it can dissipate, and brown
dwarfs would appear (for a very short time) on the main sequence as
red dwarfs, then collapse or blow themselves apart.  (Give me a model
which predicts they will ignite, and I can tell you which.  Without
either model or observation, speculation is tough.)

     The solar neutrino problem refers to the fact that experiments,
both with CCl4 and Gallium, which detect different neutrino energies,
show that the sun is producing fewer neutrinos than standard theory of
solar structure predicts.  If you want to try to fit the standard
models to the results, what you need is a cooler core with a higher
probability for the PEP reaction or some such. (Vastly
oversimplified.)  Of course, you can always argue that the sun burned
out and we just haven't noticed yet...

    So if there is a very small scale effect as far as power
generation on earth is concerned, it could still be very important to
understand...and let everyone on Earth sleep better at night. ;-)


--

					Robert I. Eachus

with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudeneachus cudfnRobert cudlnEachus cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Tue Apr 12 04:37:03 EDT 1994
------------------------------
1994.04.13 /  blue@nscl00.ns /  Re: The charde of theoretical cold fusion
     
Originally-From: blue@nscl00.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The charde of theoretical cold fusion
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 1994 04:04:56 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

In commenting on the recent remarks by Peter Roessingh on the various
responses to Dr. Chubb's exposition of this theory, I must first state
the obvious fact that you can't refute features of a theory that have
never been fully described.  The theory that Dr. Chubb has attempted
to construct has very far reaching implications which impact upon
a broad range of topics ranging from the physics of solids to nuclear
reactions and nuclear structure.  One thing that makes the construction
of a physics theory so difficult is that physicists seek a universality
that perhaps has no analog in other scientific disciplines.

One obvious fact of nature that appears to be violated by cold fusion
is that nuclear fusion reactions are not commonly occuring events
under the conditions existing in our biosphere.  We think we know
what that is so, and quite naturely demand very solid evidence for
a need to revise our thinking before we accept an hypothesis relating
to cold fusion - whether that involves experimental results or
theory.  Those who enter into this realm from outside may not
apprecciate what a vast store of experimental data and the theory
to back it up has been accumulated that now has bearing on the
cold fusion issue.  To simply dismiss all of this as being old and
out of date is to assign some special weight to the mere fact that
cold fusion is a new and potentially pleasing possibility.

A potential problem with all cold fusion theories is that they
may take on the character of some form of special pleading, i.e.
a simple assertion that the PdD system is different and therefore
different things can happen.  There is also a clear temptation
to tailor the "theory" to match features of a particular subset
of the experimental results while ignoring obvious differences
between various data sets and to embroider the  theory with
lots of details so that it can "explain" everything that is
currently included in someone's orthodoxy.  I feel that the
Chubb theory is so closely linked to the claims of one
particular experimental group that it has been given just
too many frills without a good grounding in fundamentals that
would allow it to be tested in other circumstances.
There are already in existance data that contradict the
Chubb theory for cold fusion.  There have been experiments in
which 4He was not found, and experiments where the loading
was probably not high enough to meet the Chubb requirement
for the formation of ion band states.

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenblue cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.13 /  blue@nscl00.ns /  Clear evidence that cold fusion is chemistry
     
Originally-From: blue@nscl00.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Clear evidence that cold fusion is chemistry
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 1994 04:04:58 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I want to second Steve Jones's message concerning in importance of
recombination in cold fusion experiments.  One way in which cold
fusion advocates have failed improve the quality of experiments
is to deal in a systematic way with the reduction or elimination
of sources of error such as recombination.

In the same spirit I wish to call your attention to clear evidence
that chemical effects play a dominant role in one particular
set of experimental data.  In the paper by Miles, Park, and Stilwell
published in J. Electroanal. Chem. 296(1990)241 on page 246 in
their Fig. 5. the data to which I refer is plotted as daily
averages of the ratio of excess heat to joule heat input over the
span of 26 days.  Data for two cells operating with D2O simultaneously
in a common constant temperature bath are shown.  The excess ratio
shows maxima of about 1.10 for both cells.  The feature to which
I direct your attention is the fact that each and every time that
these cells are topped off with fresh electrolyte the excess
ratio returns to 1.00 within stated error limits.

My assertion is that absent an alternative explanation supported
by experimentation, the effect that results in shutting down
the "cold fusion" is clearly chemical in nature since no one has
ever suggested that the condition of the electrolyte is essential
to achieving cold fusion.  If chemistry can instantly shut down
the process, the most likely explaination is that the process
itself is chemical.  Regardless of whether you accept my
reasoning in this matter, it would seem to me that experimentation
which leaves such effects in the data without remediation or
explanation does not meet very high standards, standards that
certainly should be met after 5 years of investigations.

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenblue cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.12 / Cameron Bass /  Re: The charade of theoretical cold fusion
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The charade of theoretical cold fusion
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 1994 05:07:17 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <MATT.94Apr11192806@physics16.berkeley.edu>,
Matt Austern <matt@physics.berkeley.edu> wrote:

>And, surely, I shouldn't have to do a full calculation every time I
>hear a speculation that I don't think is terribly plausible.  Surely
>the people who ought to make that sort of investment of time are the
>people who think it *is* plausible.

     Absolutely.  That's the problem with this whole thing.
     Vaguely amorphous speculations presented as 'true until
     someone else pokes holes in them'.  Life's too short to 
     spend poking holes in partly-formed speculations.

     The proponents must come up with calculations and experiments
     that support them that *compel* everyone else to take notice.

     Having had everyone's notice before and having failed miserably
     on the experimental end, anyone who realistically thinks 
     that the 'theoretical' speculations will amount to anything
     is dreaming.

                              dale bass

cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.12 / Laurence Canter /  Green Card Lottery- Final One?
     
Originally-From: nike@indirect.com (Laurence Canter)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Green Card Lottery- Final One?
Date: 12 Apr 1994 08:17:02 GMT
Organization: Canter & Siegel

Green Card Lottery 1994 May Be The Last One!
THE DEADLINE HAS BEEN ANNOUNCED.

The Green Card Lottery is a completely legal program giving away a 
certain annual allotment of Green Cards to persons born in certain 
countries. The lottery program was scheduled to continue on a 
permanent basis.  However, recently, Senator Alan J Simpson 
introduced a bill into the U. S. Congress which could end any future 
lotteries. THE 1994 LOTTERY IS SCHEDULED TO TAKE PLACE 
SOON, BUT IT MAY BE THE VERY LAST ONE.

PERSONS BORN IN MOST COUNTRIES QUALIFY, MANY FOR 
FIRST TIME.

The only countries NOT qualifying  are: Mexico; India; P.R. China; 
Taiwan, Philippines, North Korea, Canada, United Kingdom (except 
Northern Ireland), Jamaica, Domican Republic, El Salvador and 
Vietnam. 

Lottery registration will take place soon.  55,000 Green Cards will be 
given to those who register correctly.  NO JOB IS REQUIRED.

THERE IS A STRICT JUNE DEADLINE. THE TIME TO START IS 
NOW!!

For FREE information via Email, send request to
cslaw@indirect.com


-- 
*****************************************************************
Canter & Siegel, Immigration Attorneys
3333 E Camelback Road, Ste 250, Phoenix AZ  85018  USA
cslaw@indirect.com   telephone (602)661-3911  Fax (602) 451-7617
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudennike cudfnLaurence cudlnCanter cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.11 / Marco Frasca /  Rf Heating Of A Fusion Plasma
     
Originally-From: Marco Frasca <MC3747@mclink.it>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Rf Heating Of A Fusion Plasma
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 94 19:23:52 CEST
Organization: MC-link - Italian Dial-Up Online Service


For tokamak plasma experts:

I heard from some source that the theory of RF plasma heating, taking in
account
losses, is in quite good agreement with the experimental results. So, I
would
like to know what are the known effects that cause losses of particles in
a
tokamak plasma under heating by RF.

Please, is there anybody expert out there to give an answer to my question
in my mailbox?

Many thanks.

Marco Frasca (MC3747@mclink.it)
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenMC3747 cudfnMarco cudlnFrasca cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.12 / Cameron Bass /  Re: The charade of theoretical cold fusion
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The charade of theoretical cold fusion
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 1994 08:03:00 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <2odfcb$spf@tom.pppl.gov>,
Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@theory.pppl.gov> wrote:
>In article <MATT.94Apr11192806@physics16.berkeley.edu>,
>Matt Austern <matt@physics.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>
>>And, surely, I shouldn't have to do a full calculation every time I
>>hear a speculation that I don't think is terribly plausible.  Surely
>>the people who ought to make that sort of investment of time are the
>>people who think it *is* plausible.
>
>Well, I think we're beyond that state now.  Chubb & Chubb say when
>you do the calculation, you get results consistent with the 
>speculation.  The problem now is, if you don't think the speculation
>is reasonable, then what is wrong with the calculation?

    No, what compels any of us to look further?  Simply, 'I've got
    a theory to explain experiments very few people believe anyway'
    isn't going to do it.  

    I've got much more exciting (and wrong) calculations
    and experiments sitting on my bookshelf.  Indeed, take a few
    minutes and figure out why Dr. Giakos's dissertation
    'Detection of non-TEM waves in open media' (Marquette U. 1992), 
    does not actually see the faster than lightspeed signal
    he reports in exhaustive experimental detail (in quite a contrast
    with Mssr.s P&F).  That kind of discovery would revolutionize
    *all* physics, not just a puny piece of it.  I even see
    out of the corner of my eye, 'Einstein Plus 2' by our good 
    friend, the recently departed Petr Beckmann.  One could spend 
    countless hours digging error after error out of that.

    We can wave our bandstates all we want, but why do we care?
    It seems extremely unlikely that the 'bandstate' can evade
    the usual scaling behavior of a massive local fusion energy release
    (the same 'usual behavior' that apparently occurs everywhere
    else in physics), so why should we care enough to even 
    pick up the paper?

    Until such proponents can come up with a *compelling* reason
    for anyone to care, they're just whistling dixie.

>I'm still skeptical of the Chubb theory myself, but I just don't see
>that anyone here has really given a coherent rebuttal to it yet.

    Why does anyone need to?  To my knowledge there was never
    a coherent rebuttal to polywater, some experiments are still
    'unexplained' by the usual contamination and/or glass arguments.
    Some 'theory' was never rebutted.

    But so what?  It would have been a waste of time to do so.
    We've all got plenty to do without correcting every bad experiment
    and rebutting every wild speculation.

>well, and there's a lot left out of his explanations, I think.

    In this racket, it seems there always is...

                             dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.12 / P McTiernan /  A new fusion trigger?
     
Originally-From: pgm@bamboo.swindon.gpsemi.com (Patrick McTiernan x8738)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: A new fusion trigger?
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 1994 13:18:38 GMT
Organization: GEC Plessey Semiconductors Ltd

I hope that there are some readers of this newsgroup who have some access to and
knowledge of the literature and recent work in fusion, since I have an idea which
may be of some practical importance.

Fusion of deuterium requires high temperatures and pressures for a long enough
period for the relevant nuclear reactions to take place.

Recent approaches to triggering fusion more simply than using complex
electromagnetic confinement systems have centred around:
1) Heavy electrons, which really work but are about as common as flying pigs
2) Materials which capture deuterium in a lattice or other substrate with
applied fields to bring about the required confinement

I rather hope that approach 2 will prove practical with micro-machining of some
suitable metal, or possibly the design of a complex crystalling structure with
the explicit aim of bringing about fusion.. but these are areas where I have no
real contribution to make

What I would suggest is that a thin wire (or preferably tube) of a metallic
element be used. If a wire, this must be one of the materials which absorbs
hydrogen well; and if so, it must be saturated with deuterium. This wire should
then have the contents of a large charged capacitor discharged through it (the
technology required for this should be readily available to all who have used
spark chambers). It will turn into a plasma (try watching a light-bulb blow up
sometimes) and, I should add, this effect tends to be SELF-SUSTAINING and
SELF-PROPAGATING!! The reasons for this are basically to do with the magnetic
field generated by the increasing current.. but the reason needn't concern us
here. The point is, without a fuse to limit the current, the temperature of the
plasma generated (and the pressures generated within it) are controllable by the
geometry of the wire/tube and the capacitance/inductance/resistance of the system
supplying the power. An impressed axial magnetic field may be useful, too, but I
suspect that self-magnetism may be almost as effective and easier to model. I
leave this to those with greater experience.

I would be surprised if there are not readers of this category who can verify
whether my idea is just a hopeful dream, or a practical suggestion... For those
who can test it practically, and without too much hard work, I would suggest that
you take some precautions before turning some platinum, palladium or nickel 
capillary into plasma in a big pot of deuterium; if I'm right, you'll get a 
reasonable facsimile of a hydrogen bomb and never get on the net again...

To those who think I'm joking or completely ignorant in this matter, I should add
that I did work at Harwell for many months on neutron scattering (admittedly, at
a rather tender age) and have some knowledge of nuclear and particle physics. I'm
just not involved in the field practically at present and think that this idea
might be of some importance.
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenpgm cudfnPatrick cudlnMcTiernan cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.12 / Matt Kennel /  Re: The charade of theoretical cold fusion
     
Originally-From: mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The charade of theoretical cold fusion
Date: 12 Apr 1994 00:40:58 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

jonesse@physc1.byu.edu wrote:
: In article <Co0C22.IEE@knot.ccs.queensu.ca>, 
: tom@mips2.phy.queensu.ca (Tom Radcliffe) writes:


: I like Tom Radcliffe's approach, pointing out experiments which indeed run
: counter to Scott Chubb's 'theory' -- thus responding quite directly to
: Peter Roessingh's challenge.

: Other experiments come to mind:
: 1.  MeV-scale nuclear decay in a lattice (which is often the case, e.g., 
: decay of radium, thorium, uranium, etc.) -- always accompanied by an energetic
: (MeV-scale)  decay product.  I know of *no* exceptions, even though the
: decay occurs in a metal lattice.  

: And as I have pointed out before, there
: can be no exceptions since the metal lattice spacing (Angstroms) is too
: large to allow the MeV-energy of the decay to somehow couple to the lattice.

Just to play Devil's advocate, I don't believe Dr Chubb thinks that
ion-band states exist in metallic uranium etc: these ion band thingies
are a peculiar feature of hydrogenated metals.

: We've been through the numbers before; briefly, the uncertainty principle
: and speed-of-light constraints prevent the energy from being transmitted
:  *without energetic particle formation (as required by cf experiments)*
: more than about 10^-2 angstroms, which is much less than the lattice spacing.
: Hence, fundamental principles *mathematically* will not allow the decay
: of 4He to couple its energy to the lattice, in direct contradiction to the
: model posited by Scott.

This is convincing if you assert that the nuclear energy must, right
after reaction, be localized at femtometer space scales in the lab frame.

Dr. Chubb apparently doesn't.  I'm not convinced on this point: traditional
"delocalized wavefunctions" pop-into a single localized interaction at
a point.

: 2.  Formation of 4He in titanium deuteride using deuteron-beam bombardment
: is commonly done in labs, including our own here at BYU:  we *always* see
: energetic (roughly 2.5 MeV) neutrons coming out, again in contradiction with
: the Chubb model.  How does the 4He know that it was produced via cold
: fusion rather than hot, so that it can decay without neutrons?  

One would have to calculate the relative reaction rates of the
hypothesized 

 1) "band-state + bandstate -> band_state"
 2) "band_state + free -> band_state" vs  
 3) "band_state + free -> free + radiation"
 4) "band_state + band_state-> free + radiation"
 
Chubb theory is that #1 exists and that #4 is radically suppressed.

The deuteron beam experiment corresponds to #3, and ought to place
experimental limits on the theory, but it's not a foregone conclusion
that because #3 is experimentally observed, that #1 is ruled out.

My opinion is that it, in fact, so, but this would have to be
calculated.

Another point of contention I have with the Chubb theory is that
even *if* you can arrange for transition rate #1 to be large (which
would certainly be a novel experimental effect), you must also arrange
for the ratio of #1 to #4 to be immense to explain the experimental
non-data, which takes a hell of a miracle.

: --Steven Jones
--
-Matt Kennel  		mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu
-Institute for Nonlinear Science, University of California, San Diego
-*** AD: Archive for nonlinear dynamics papers & programs: FTP to
-***     lyapunov.ucsd.edu, username "anonymous".
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenmbk cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.12 / Matt Austern /  Re: The charde of theoretical cold fusion
     
Originally-From: matt@physics16.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The charde of theoretical cold fusion
Date: 12 Apr 1994 02:28:06 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (Theoretical Physics Group)

In article <1994Apr11.102606.21861@oxvax> roes@vax.oxford.ac.uk (Peter Roessingh) writes:

> I should have picked my words more careful. I do know that the above
> is the case, however, it seemed to me that most of the objections that
> were brought up against the theory, were answered by Dr. Chubb by
> referring to the QM basis of it. I expected at that stage a more QM
> oriented attack, but saw mostly sarcasm.

At present, unless I've missed something, we haven't yet see a theory;
that is, we haven't yet seen a mathematical framework that anyone
could use to make quantitative predictions.  When I see a theory, then
I'll decide whether or not I believe it.

At this point, what we've seen in this group is more or less the sort
of thing you hear when theorists get together at teatime: a
speculation that, if you did a full calculation, you might see some
particular effect.  I have nothing against this sort of speculation (I
drink tea too...), but we shouldn't confuse it with a real theory, or
a real calculation.

There are several ways you can react when you hear a speculation of
this sort.  One is to sit down and spend the week (or month, or
year...) on a real calculation, and see whether it actually works.
Sometimes you do that, but time is short, and you can't do it with
every speculation you hear.  Another is to decide, perhaps on the
basis of physical analogy, whether you think the speculation is
plausible.

The reactions I've seen on the group tend more towards the second
response---appropriately enough, I think.  Surely it's reasonable,
when presented with the suggestion that a particular effect might be
important, to ask whether the implications of that suggestion are
reasonable in other physical systems whose experimental properties are
known.

And, surely, I shouldn't have to do a full calculation every time I
hear a speculation that I don't think is terribly plausible.  Surely
the people who ought to make that sort of investment of time are the
people who think it *is* plausible.
--
Matthew Austern                       Never express yourself more clearly
matt@physics.berkeley.edu             than you think.    ---N. Bohr
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenmatt cudfnMatt cudlnAustern cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.12 / Robert Heeter /  Re: The charade of theoretical cold fusion
     
Originally-From: rfheeter@theory.pppl.gov (Robert F. Heeter)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The charade of theoretical cold fusion
Date: 12 Apr 1994 02:33:47 -0400
Organization: /etc/organization

In article <MATT.94Apr11192806@physics16.berkeley.edu>,
Matt Austern <matt@physics.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>In article <1994Apr11.102606.21861@oxvax> roes@vax.oxford.ac.uk
(Peter Roessingh) writes:
>
>> I should have picked my words more careful. I do know that the above
>> is the case, however, it seemed to me that most of the objections that
>> were brought up against the theory, were answered by Dr. Chubb by
>> referring to the QM basis of it. I expected at that stage a more QM
>> oriented attack, but saw mostly sarcasm.
>
>At present, unless I've missed something, we haven't yet see a theory;
>that is, we haven't yet seen a mathematical framework that anyone
>could use to make quantitative predictions.  When I see a theory, then
>I'll decide whether or not I believe it.

I think I need to point out that Bill Page posted the references to
the Chubbs' papers on the subject.  They've got the theory, and I'm
sitting here waiting for someone besides Bill to read it and tell me
why it does/doesn't work.  Obviously there's no reason for them to post
the whole paper, equations and all, when it's already been published
in a journal that most everyone here (and particularly those of 
us qualified to evaluate the theory) has access to.

>And, surely, I shouldn't have to do a full calculation every time I
>hear a speculation that I don't think is terribly plausible.  Surely
>the people who ought to make that sort of investment of time are the
>people who think it *is* plausible.

Well, I think we're beyond that state now.  Chubb & Chubb say when
you do the calculation, you get results consistent with the 
speculation.  The problem now is, if you don't think the speculation
is reasonable, then what is wrong with the calculation?

Steve Jones and the other experimentalists arguing that other effects
preclude the Chubbs' from being correct are missing the point; they
haven't pointed to ion-band-state experiments, and it seems to me the
whole point of the Chubb theory is that IBS formation is critical.

I'm sitting here wishing I knew enough QM to puzzle it out for
myself, but I don't...

I'm still skeptical of the Chubb theory myself, but I just don't see
that anyone here has really given a coherent rebuttal to it yet.
I also tend to think Scott could come a little closer to earth in
his replies to people's comments; he knows the theory a little too
well, and there's a lot left out of his explanations, I think.

***********
Robert F. Heeter
rfheeter@theory.pppl.gov
Disclaimers Apply
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.12 / Robert Heeter /  Re: cost
     
Originally-From: rfheeter@theory.pppl.gov (Robert F. Heeter)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: cost
Date: 12 Apr 1994 02:46:58 -0400
Organization: /etc/organization

In article <2oc7pi$t1l@daisy.pgh.wec.com>,
Andy Holland <zcrah@trumpet.pgh.wec.com> wrote:
>>From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
>>
>>This is the text of a presentation I'm giving tomorrow; thought I'd
>>post it for those interested.  Comments are welcome; I have sources
>>to justify the statements made here.  I'd be happy to rewrite this
>>into a coherent essay, including references, if anyone is interested...
>>This is NOT part of the Conventional Fusion FAQ.
>>
>Agree on most of the above, but what about *cost*,
>(ie. capitalization, construction, fuel, O&M, Cost risk
>of accidents etc)?

The presentation was only on the environmental aspects, not the
economic aspects.

I don't think the technology is sufficiently well-developed that
we'll be able to pin down the projected costs completely, but the
design studies indicate that overall electricity costs should be
comparable to today's fission plants.  Relative to fission, fusion
will probably have higher capital costs (not sure how much), lower fuel 
and accident-risk costs, comparable to lower Operations & 
Maintenance costs, and hopefully fewer cost overruns due to 
safety regulations.  Decommissioning costs will probably also be 
lower.  And of course the cost of disposing of low-level waste 
will probably be less than that of high level waste, so fusion 
has an advantage there.

But a lot of it depends on your technology and regulatory assumptions,
and of course everyone's working to improve the science and the
designs.

A more interesting question is *how* the projected costs will
change as technology and designs improve; hopefully I'll be able to
answer that question in a few more months.  There have been some
studies done, but I haven't had time to study them carefully yet.

For design studies references, see the bibliography section of the 
proto-FAQ, which I post occasionally.  I can send you a copy if you like.

**********************
Robert F. Heeter
rfheeter@theory.pppl.gov
Graduate Student, Princeton Plasma Physics Lab
Disclaimers Apply


cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.12 / Gary Steckly /  Re: Horizon
     
Originally-From: gsteckly@dgim.doc.ca (Gary Steckly)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Horizon
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 94 01:44:07 GMT
Organization: Communications Canada

Michael Fullerton (michaelf@cpsc.ucalgary.ca) wrote:
: In article <2o38r5$hr8@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk> nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk (Nick Maclaren) writes:
: >In article <1994Apr8.032105.14948@clark.dgim.doc.ca> gsteckly@dgim.do
.ca (Gary Steckly) writes:
: >>I just saw what I thought was the same program here in Canada on Monday night
: >>(although the credits indicated a CBC/BBC co-production), and now I'm not
: >>sure if the programs were identical.  It was entitled "too close to the
: >>Sun" and the documentary format was entitled "Witness".

(much deleted)

And Nick Maclaren commented
: >
: >The problem is that water-powered cars are about a century old, only just
: >post-dating horseless carriages.  So far, every single one has been a
: >blatant fraud (i.e. not an honest mistake).  If Stanley Meyer has a
: >genuine water-powered car, he will have the devil of a job persuading
: >people that he is not just another fraud.

that seems to be the case...with the exception that a few very wealthy
financiers seem to believe him, and according to an article in Wireless
world..I believe even the British Navy is more than a bit curious. 

: >
: >Electrolysis and burning the resulting hydrogen is old hat - but where do
: >you get the energy from in the first place?  If the electrolysis needs less
: >energy than produced by the recombustion, you have a perpetual motion
: >machine :-)

I know...what Stanley is claiming now definitely smacks of perpetual
motion... unless there is something more to the ideas that some credible
researchers (like Puthoff) have been presenting in the area of zero-point
energy research. I don't think Dr. Puthoff has actually alluded to Meyers
hydrogen cell as being a ZPE machine, but Mr. Meyer has suggested that
according to what I have read.  Sometimes I feel a bit foolish for even
_wanting_ to believe this, but then, it would be the height of arrogance
to imagine that science as we know it today has all the answers.  If only
science could be a bit more objective somtimes.  

: Why would someone offer old Stanley a billion dollars to suppress 
: another perpetual motion fraud?  The cell Stanley uses was compared
: to cold fusion cells.

good question...but Stanley did state that on the show, and not knowing the
man, I have no reason to dispute his statement.  He sounds like an
extremely sincere, low key individual. It sounds like his main
motivation is to see that his discovery sees the light of day. Maybe
altruism is not dead?

Maybe this "Stanley Steamer" really does work?  We can only hope...of
course...if he is extracting ZPE somehow...that would be the end of cold
fusion, hot fusion, coal, oil, natural gas, solar??? not to mention
geothermal, wind power, Ontario hydro, Quebec Hydro...;-)

regards

Gary
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudengsteckly cudfnGary cudlnSteckly cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.12 / M Fullerton /  Re: cost
     
Originally-From: michaelf@cpsc.ucalgary.ca (Michael Fullerton)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: cost
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 1994 02:02:13 GMT
Organization: University of Calgary Computer Science

In article <2oc7pi$t1l@daisy.pgh.wec.com> zcrah@trumpet.pgh.wec.com
(Andy Holland) writes:
>In article   writes:
>>fheeter.remote.princeton.edu!rfheeter
>>From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
>>
>>! Fusion has Environmental, Political, and 
>>	Safety Advantages over Fossil and
>> 	Fission Energy.
>>
>>! Low-Activation Materials are Crucial
>> 	until Advanced Fuels become workable.
>>
>>! Fusion can be Competitive with 
>>	Renewables Environmentally as a 
>>	Sustainable Source
>
>Agree on most of the above, but what about *cost*,
>(ie. capitalization, construction, fuel, O&M, Cost risk
>of accidents etc)?

My question is why are people still wasting money on this silly
concept of hot fusion when it is obvious that the "cold fusion"
technology is much more economically viable?  Let's face it,
hot fusion is a dinosaur on the precipice of extinction.  Good
riddance I say.  Then again, even though it seems hot fusion
will not be of any use for power generation is there anything
this technology could be used for?  I certainly don't like the
thought that all this money was wasted for nothing.

-- 
Michael Fullerton           |  Seeds, like ideas, don't
michaelf@cpsc.ucalgary.ca   |  germinate in concrete. 
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenmichaelf cudfnMichael cudlnFullerton cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.12 /  henley@ntc01.t /  Cold Fusion FAQ/Basic Theory etc...?
     
Originally-From: henley@ntc01.tele.nokia.fi
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Cold Fusion FAQ/Basic Theory etc...?
Date: 12 Apr 94 14:21:18 EET
Organization: Nokia Telecommunications.


Is there a FAQ on Cold Fusion, giving the basics etc hopefully in
simplish terms as well as more precise tech details.

I really think this newsgroup could do with it.


Glenn



cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenhenley cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.12 / Craig DeForest /  Re: Rf Heating Of A Fusion Plasma
     
Originally-From: zowie@daedalus.stanford.edu (Craig "Powderkeg" DeForest)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Rf Heating Of A Fusion Plasma
Date: 12 Apr 94 17:03:34
Organization: Stanford Center for Space Science and Astrophysics

In article <foo> Marco Frasca <MC3747@mclink.it> writes:
   For tokamak plasma experts:

   I heard from some source that the theory of RF plasma heating, taking 
   in account losses, is in quite good agreement with the experimental 
   results. So, I would like to know what are the known effects that cause 
   losses of particles in a tokamak plasma under heating by RF.

There are a number:  ExB drift (wherein particles drift across the magnetic
field due to an incident electric field); B gradient effects (wherein
particles drift around due to the strange shape of the B field); particle
collision effects (after all, the average random kinetic energy has to be
HIGH!); etc. etc.

The real problem is that, in a magnetic bottle, every little bit of 
loss accumulates -- it's very hard to set up a system to push a particle
back toward the center of the plasma when it drifts a little; thus, 
lots of small effects tend to accumulate.

Of course, I'm no fusion expert; I only worked on some diagnostic experiments
in the D3D tokamak.  Maybe someone with a little more clout will comment?
--
--Craig DeForest

cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenzowie cudfnCraig cudlnDeForest cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.13 /  PAUL /  RE: Rf Heating Of A Fusion Plasma
     
Originally-From: stek@amazon.pfc.mit.edu (PAUL)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: Rf Heating Of A Fusion Plasma
Date: 13 APR 94 03:38:39 GMT
Organization: MIT PLASMA FUSION CENTER


>From: Marco Frasca <MC3747@mclink.it>
>Date: 12-APR-1994  15:19:12
>Description: Rf Heating Of A Fusion Plasma


>For tokamak plasma experts:
> 
>I heard from some source that the theory of RF plasma heating, taking in
>account
>losses, is in quite good agreement with the experimental results. 

Well we are talking about plasma physics here.   Agreement in sign between
experiment and theory is considered pretty good.  Modeling of propagation and
absorption of RF waves is extremely complex particularly for ICRF where the 
antenna is of the same size as the minor radius of the plasma.  

>So, I
>would
>like to know what are the known effects that cause losses of particles in
>a
>tokamak plasma under heating by RF.

Good question.  Particle losses are not as big an issue as energy losses. 
Thermal transport is beleived to be due to small scale turbulence.  For 
ICRF at least you also create standing waves in the edge that sputter 
first wall atoms into the plasma.  These high z impurities can end up
radiating more heat than you are putting in and help contribute to 
turbulence.  

Paul Stek 
Stek@cmod.pfc.mit.edu


cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenstek cudlnPAUL cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.13 / L Plutonium /  1 of 3, Correct Theory of Cold Fusion and Hot Fusion
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics,sci.chem
Subject: 1 of 3, Correct Theory of Cold Fusion and Hot Fusion
Date: 13 Apr 1994 04:48:48 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

  What we do know is that Starpower is fusion energy of mostly hydrogen
into helium. But our knowledge of fusion is primitive. One only needs
to indicate the missing neutrino count from the Sun. The missing
neutrino count connects, links with superconductivity. See my "Correct
theory of Superconductivity." 

  Below is a outline of the correct theory of fusion. In synopsis form
it is this.

  Weak Nuclear Interaction was a partial law. When it is completed via
the nonconservation of energy/mass it becomes a law (I call it
Radioactivities) on par with the Strong Nuclear Interaction. The four
interactions of physics are these
  (1) Strong Nuclear
  (2) Radioactivities
  (3) Electromagnetism
  (4) Gravity

  The correct Quantum laws combine these four interactions into dual
compliments, the same as Particle-Wave compliments of QM as follows.

  Strong Nuclear-Gravity
  Radioactivities-Electromagnetism

  Whenever experiments are set up which have varying electric current
or potential, there exists a Reifenschweiler type of radioactivity
MODE, or a Sonoluminescence MODE in which the electromagnetism induces
SPONTANEOUS NEUTRON MATERIALIZATION.


Detailed in the textbook Feynman Lectures on Physics  the physics laws
for the strong nuclear force were unknown, and radioactivities (weak
nuclear) were only partially known.  As of 7Nov90, I assert to know the
complete law for radioactivities.  The 4 quantum interactions (1)
nuclear strong (2) radioactivities (3) electromagnetic (4) gravitation,
are more fully explained than the present art of physics. There are 3
components to radioactivities, and these are (1) radioactive decay (2)
radioactive growth, and (3) radioactive spontaneous neutron
materialization. Radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization is the
largest in terms of relative coupling strength of the three. Processes
to induce radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization results in
the engineering of devices for the purpose of harnessing excess heat
energy. Numerous physical evidences in support of radioactive
spontaneous neutron materialization are detailed below such as (a) muon
catalyzed fusion, (b) heat from electrochemical cells of cold fusion
experiments, and (c) cosmic gamma ray-bursts (D) REIFENSCHWEILER
RADIATION (E) SONOLUMINESCE. Given the fuller explanation of
radioactivities, then processes are followed which induces radioactive
spontaneous neutron materialization. Devices (apparatuses) are
engineered to induce radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization
for the purpose of harnessing excess heat energy.  Devices ranging from
battery sized neutron materialization devices, on up to full scale
neutron materialization nuclear power plants are engineered. 

		NEUTRON MATERIALIZATION DEVICES

 	These are not perpetual motion devices but rather the derivation and
utilization of radioactivities energy not understood before. The first
observers of radioactivity circa late 1800's and early 1900's thought
that since some of these radioactive elements were hot, e.g., uranium
is warm in the hands and polonium will burn a hole through your hands,
and continued to glow in the dark, e.g., radium salts glow green in the
dark, that this new phenomenon was perpetual motion. Because of these
unexplained radiations, the many new observers of radioactivity were
quick to think that this new form of energy was perpetual motion, or
violated conservation of energy-mass, or violated other physical laws. 
Only with quantum theory was radioactivity well understood to accord
with theory and experimentation, and regarded as one of the 4
interactions (forces) of physics. Note: the concept interaction comes
from Quantum Electrodynamics (QED) and is superior to the concept of
force from Classical Physics. I mostly use the concept interaction in
this application; reason: quantum physics is the correct physics.
	The discovery of radioactive decay (rd) occurred 1896, when Becquerel
discovered radioactivity from uranium. It required 60 years after the
discovery of radioactivity before the uses of radioactivity were
applied in producing nuclear power. Fission radioactivity was
technologically used in the engineering of nuclear reactors which
generates nuclear power, post 1956. 
	The discovery of radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization
(rsnm) occurred in late 1990 by myself, Ludwig Plutonium. Then in early
1991, I discovered what induces rsnm and subsequently submitted this
patent application. The technological use of rsnm will be controlled
cold fusion energy by the engineering of Neutron Materialization Power
Plants.
	Quantum mechanics via the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (UP), 1927,
predicts virtual particles from out of nowhere which last for only a
brief period of time. Virtual particles can be electrons, positrons,
neutrons, and even molecules, but generally they are not heavier than
electrons. Particle detectors, gas bubble chambers, and CERN confirm
the postulation of virtual particles. The pinnacle of modern science up
to my teachings was Quantum Electrodynamics (QED).  According to QED,
the vacuum is filled with electron-positron fields. Real
electron-positron pairs are created when photons interact with these
fields. Virtual electron-positron pairs, however can also exist for
short quantum instants of time. 
	In late 1990, I realized that not only do virtual particles exist but
that virtual particles were the first clue of particle materialization
from out of nowhere and specifically of neutron materialization. The
extension of virtual particles to that of actual materialized
particles, and specifically to that of neutrons. Neutrons spontaneously
materialize from out of nowhere as a form of radioactivity.  This
radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization (rsnm) is another form
of radioactivities which until 1990 was undiscovered, and the ample
evidences, (see below), for rsnm were unrecognized as such.  I call it
RADIOACTIVE SPONTANEOUS NEUTRON MATERIALIZATION, and I assert it is the
major component of the radioactivities interaction (R).  There are two
other components to radioactivites and these are radioactive decay (rd)
and radioactive growth (rg). 
	Feynman in FEYNMAN LECTURES ON PHYSICS  Volume I page 2-10, gives the
following (my edited) account of the 4 interactions (forces) of physics
with a comparison of relative coupling strengths in the table below:
"There seem to be just four kinds of interaction between particles
which , in the order of decreasing strength, are the strong nuclear
interaction, electromagnetic interactions, electroweak interaction, and
gravity.  The photon is coupled to all electromagnetic interactions and
the strength of the interaction is measured by some number which is
1/137.  The detailed law of this coupling is known and is quantum
electrodynamics QED.  Gravity is coupled to all energy and this law is
also known.  Then there is the electroweak interaction which causes the
neutron to disintegrate into proton, electron, and neutrino.  This law
is only partly known.  The strong nuclear interaction, the meson-baryon
interaction, has a strength of 1 on this scale and the law is
completely unknown, although there are some known rules such as the
number of baryons does not change in any reaction. "
	Table 2-3.  Elementary Interactions
	Coupling		Strength*			Law
Photon to charged particles approx10^ -2             Law known
Gravity to all energy    approx10^ -40      Law known
radioactive decay       approx10^ -5         Law partially known
Mesons to baryons       approx 1      Law unknown (some rules known)
*The strength is a dimensionless measure of the coupling constant
involved in each interaction.
	I change some of FeynmanUs teachings in the table, giving thus : (A)
renaming weak nuclear as radioactivities (R). (B) radioactivities (R)
consists of 3 components--(1) radioactive decay (rd), (2) radioactive
growth (rg), and (3) radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization
(rsnm) (C)   R is only slightly weaker than the strong nuclear (SN),
and the proper listing of the 4 interactions according to strength is
1) strong nuclear, 2) radioactivities 3) electromagnetic 4)
gravitation.
	Before these teachings, the weak nuclear interaction was considered to
consist of only two components, i.e., radioactive decay and radioactive
growth. I assert that the weak nuclear interaction is an incomplete
interaction law (or force law). What was thought of as the weak nuclear
interaction before my teachings is only a small part, a small component
of the overall radioactivities interaction. The radioactivities
interaction consists of 1) radioactive spontaneous neutron
materialization, plus 2) radioactive decay (weak nuclear), plus 3)
radioactive growth (weak nuclear).  Before my teachings in the art of
physics 0050, the weak nuclear was vaguely understood as radioactive
decay with only a notion of radioactive growth. And leaving out the
most important form of radioactivity, that of radioactive spontaneous
neutron materialization in order to make the interaction law or (force
law) complete. When rd plus rg is added to rsnm, then I assert the
interaction (force) law for radioactivities is complete.  Thus the
complete radioactivities (R) interaction looks like this:  R =
rd+rg+rsnm. Let me define rd and rg below.
	Radioactive growth (rg) is when an atom transmutates (transforms) by
increasing in atomic number Z, such as when a uranium atom transmutates
to a neptunium atom or when a neptunium atom transmutates to a
plutonium atom.  Radioactive growth is when the original atom goes
higher in atomic number. Radioactive growth is when a neutron in the
nucleus of an atom transforms into a proton plus electron, increasing
the atomic number of the original atom. The original atom before the
radioactive growth had atomic number Z and after the radioactive growth
has atomic number Z+1.  
	Radioactive decay (rd) is when any atom of an atomic number Z
transmutates to an atom/s of lower atomic number.  For example, when
uranium decays to lead and neon. Before 1990, the weak nuclear
interaction was known as comprising only radioactive decay and
radioactive growth.  Shortly after 07/11/1990, I had postulated
radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization (rsnm) from DiracUs
book Directions in Physics . 
	P.A.M. Dirac specifically asserted spontaneous materialization of
particles from out of nowhere in his book Directions in Physics  on
pages 76-78.  His book states, and I quote:
"Now, according to the Large Number Hypothesis, all these very large
dimensionless numbers should be connected together.  We should then
expect that 
		total mass /proton mass =  10^ 78  proportional time^ 2
Using the same argument again, we are therefore led to think that the
total number of protons in the Universe is increasing proportionally to
time^ 2.  Thus, there must be creation of matter in the Universe, a
continuous creation of matter." (Continued.)
	"According to the ordinary physical processes, which we study in the
laboratory, matter is conserved.  Here we have direct nonconservation
of matter.  It is, if you like, a new kind of radioactive process for
which there is nonconservation of matter and by which particles are
created where they did not previously exist. (Continued.)  
	If there is new matter continually being created, the question arises:
"where is it created?" There are two reasonable assumptions which one
might make.  One is that the new matter is continually created
throughout the whole of space, and in that case, it is mostly created
in intergalactic space.  I call this the assumption of additive
creation.
	Alternatively, one might make the assumption that new matter is
created close by where matter already exists.  That newly created
matter is of the same atomic nature as the matter already existing
there.  This would mean that all atoms are just multiplying up.  I call
that the assumption of multiplicative creation."
	Dirac in his book discusses particle materialization out of nowhere
can occur either additive or multiplicative.  Dirac proposed particle
materialization. I specifically propose neutron materialization and
that this neutron materialization occurs both additive and
multiplicative simultaneously. I had surmised from Dirac's book by late
1990 that something must induce rsnm, but what the induction was I did
not discover until 1991. And much later confirmed by Reifenscheiler
Radiation and Sonoluminescence. Submitting the patent application.
	PHYSICAL EVIDENCES FOR SPONTANEOUS NEUTRON MATERIALIZATION. 
	(1) MUON CATALYZED FUSION.  The conventional physics community is in
agreement over this form of fusion and readily accepts it. It was
theoretically proposed by Frank and Sakharov in the late 1940's. Then
Alvarez et al at Berkeley experimentally observed muon catalyzed
fusion. These observations have now passed into physics facts, unlike
electrochemical test tube cold fusion which is presently hotly
contested and not yet established as fact. 
	Muon catalyzed fusion is the pivotal experiment to my theoretical
understanding of what induces radioactive spontaneous neutron
materialization. But where as the physics community thinks that in muon
catalyzed experiments that muatoms of hydrogen isotopes bring about
after several quantum steps the fusing together of atoms of helium,
there theoretical thinking is wrong.  What is really going on are
several quantum steps of radioactive spontaneous neutron
materialization.
	Muon Catalyzed Fusion is physically Muon Induced Radioactive
Spontaneous Neutron Materialization. Instead of requiring a changing
electric potential difference V with a VandeGraaff machine, or running
a changing electric current  i  through atoms to yield rsnm. It is the
muon itself which already supplies the changing V or the changing  i.
Changing is important for the induction of rsnm. As important as in the
laws of electromagnetism. For example, in Faraday's law of induction a
changing magnetic field is required. And in Ampere's law of induction
as extended by Maxwell, a changing electric field or current are
required. 
	Now consider a muon. A muon is just an extended electron, a big
electron.  When a muon forms a muatom, the muon in the muatom is its
own variable VandeGraaff machine already within the muatom. Or a muon
is a variable electric current within the muatom. Hence when there are
muons in any particular sample of hydrogen isotopes, some of those
muons will induce spontaneous materialization of neutrons from out of
nowhere resulting in a net energy to the whole system.
  (2) Reifenschweiler Radiation is spontaneous neutron materialization
from out of nowhere. Those newly created neutrons change the chemical
composition of the test matter which then increases the RATE of decay
of the test matter.
  (3) Sonoluminescence is Spontaneous Neutron Materialization resulting
in an increase in energy within the experiment. A violation of the
conservation of energy/mass.  Both Reifenschweiler Radiation and
Sonoluminescence will educate the present ignorant physics community
into discovery of the catalyst, the induction to spontaneous neutron
materialization, snm (cold fusion). We must find the maximum snm
induction to manufacture Neutron Materialization Power Plants. Both
Reifenschweiler Radiation and Sonoluminescence are steps towards
finding the maximum induction of snm. I conjecture that as the Sun snm
hydrogen into helium. That if we use hydrogen gas or liquefied hydrogen
and helium, that cold fusion will duplicate the fusion found in the
Sun.
	(4)  Uniform Cosmic Gamma Ray-bursts as reported from data by NASA's
Gamma Ray Observatory.  Gamma rays are mostly highly energetic protons.
Gamma Ray-bursts are seen uniformly throughout the sky yet there are no
stellar objects for which these gamma rays can be assigned as the
source having generated the gamma ray. Since no stellar objects produce
these high intensity gamma rays, they are supportive evidence of
spontaneously materialized neutrons which radioactively decay into
energetic protons, and energetic electrons.
	Most of the cosmic gamma ray-bursts are of the energy frequency of
hydrogen nuclei. Meaning that in space neutrons are spontaneously
materialized from out of nowhere and then decay into proton and
electron system yielding the observed gamma rays. The uniformity of
cosmic gamma ray-bursts is explained because spontaneous neutron
materialization is a uniform process, as uniform as the uniform process
of the  Cosmic Background Microwave Radiation. The uniformity
explanation entails my revolutionary theory of the Plutonium Atom
Totality. That our observable universe is just the 94th electron, the
last electron of one atom of the plutonium isotope 231, which acts as a
quantum cavity, a quantum blackbody cavity. Here I can easily get too
far afield by explaining why the Cosmic Background Radiation is
relentlessly uniform with a blackbody temperature of 2.71 K. Why the
night sky is dark because it is a quantum blackbody cavity. Why the
speeds of stars are quantized, because the stars are inside a quantum
blackbody cavity-- the last electron of 231Pu.
	It is noted here that the uniformity of cosmic gamma ray-bursts were
discovered after I had submitted my patent application in July of 1991.
It is seen that as time goes on, supporting evidence for spontaneous
neutron materialization increases.
	(5) The History of Cold Fusion is summarized as such: F. Paneth and K.
Peters in Berlin in 1926; J. Tanberg of Sweden 1927; M. Fleischmannn
and S. Pons et al in Utah in 1989.  But what I have new to tell the
world is that it is radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization.
Noone before me in the history of the world has ever proposed that
neutrons come into existence spontaneously, induced through a changing
electric current i or induced by a changing electric potential V.
Previous to my art, the cold fusion experiments were conducted under
false theory, hence their experiments turned out unpredictable.
	The History of Electrochemical Cold Fusion is one in which none of the
pioneers realized the correct theory-- that neutrons spontaneously
materialize, and materialize more often when induced by means of a
changing electric current i or a changing electric potential V. I claim
to know better how both electrochemical cold fusion and hot fusion
work. Cold fusion is the dual compliments
RADIOACTIVITIES-ELECTROMAGNETISM (R-E)
and hot fusion is STRONGNUCLEAR-GRAVITY (S-G). Just as in an physics
experiment one can switch from all PARTICLE to all WAVE, because of
PARTICLE-WAVE duality. So too, one can switch from all (S-G) to all
(R-E). This logic above was the stumblingblock of physicists until my
teachings. They were mixing those 4 interactions all up and loosely
applying them here or there.
	Cold Fusion, test tube experiments were reported by Fleischmannn &
Pons et al, 1989. The current community of physics professors are
mostly virulently opposed to the claims of cold fusion.  That community
holds little credence in cold fusion. But it is a fact that there are
many corporate funded research programs ongoing into cold fusion, to
name a few, GE fusion research, NTT researchers, various Japanese
corporations and Fleischmann & Pons laboratory in France.
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.13 / L Plutonium /  2 of 3, Correct Theory of both Cold Fusion and Hot Fusion
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics,sci.chem
Subject: 2 of 3, Correct Theory of both Cold Fusion and Hot Fusion
Date: 13 Apr 1994 04:54:40 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

  If experimenters would switch fuel masses from heavy water and
palladium to that of a better fuel mass of liquified hydrogen and
helium and/or hydrogen and helium ionized gas just as matched by the
SUN and then applying either changing i or changing V, then RSNM
(radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization) will be seen with
predictable results.
	I assert that if these experiments are conducted with the view of
radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization, and not a process of
fusing atoms, not fusion which is in the other quantum dual of
StrongNuclear-Gravity Interaction. Then the experiments will become
clear and the results predictable.
	Yet the current physics community will continue to hang on to failed
ideas for it is a highly conservative community, severely toilet
trained, and slow to change their thinking, even though the evidence
builds up against them.   Professors pretend more than they understand.
Professors of physics are some of the most severely toilet trained
persons on Earth.  One only needs to read sci.physics and
sci.physics.fusion. By the way, sci.physics.research and
sci.math.research and now a newcomer sci.astro are to be completely
recycled by my successors. Pluto make done. At a point in the history
of science, break out the sweet sparkling champagne (1993 and 1994 are
good years). RECYCLE everything from those 3 mentioned newsgroups
out-of-existence starting with 12AUG1993 (the day I appeared). I make
these remarks to lead into the conservation of energy-mass. It is a
known fact of physics from experiment results that the conservation of
energy-mass is violated by virtual particles via the Uncertainty
Principle in QED. And as of the present time the physics community is
highly opposed to DiracUs suggestion in his book Directions in Physics 
 that the conservation of energy-mass is a falsehood.
 	 But it is reasonable expected behavior of the physics community, for
most people follow the crowd majority rather than follow the minority
who have hard evidence. A physics community would rather follow the
bandwagon of wrong ideas, rather than follow a wagon who has only a few
persons leading the way. This is human nature and let noone be fooled
that a science community is bandwagon long before it is the truth. I
refer to the scientific case of Aristarchus over 2200 years ago who
asserted the heliocentric system from hard evidence of measured
observables. I refer to epicycle theory which was false, yet it was THE
most long-lived science theories in recorded history. Democritus's
Atomic Theory only became respected after Dalton.  Sentiment and
religion carried the falsehood of the Ptolemy system for thousands of
years. Conservation of energy-mass will continue its popularity with
professors of physics, since most people feel better with the bandwagon
science before they accept hard evidence. Many posters of
sci.physics.fusion are bandwagon posters and I feel sorry for those new
readers who cannot distinguish that pollution and brainwashing.

	(6) The origin of the Sun and the planets in our Solar System, I
assert, is by radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization. Earth is
growing more massive every day, every hour, at a rate which is not
difficult to measure. The physics and astronomy community assigns this
known fact of the growing accretion of the Earth to only one account,
that of the sweep of Earth in its orbit collecting cosmic gas, dust,
and objects. I assert that Earth is growing more massive daily by two
accounts, one from the outer space planetary sweep, but more
importantly from the other account of rsnm occurring in the interior of
Earth induced through the changing electric current i and changing
electric potential V inside Earth. 	When astronomers try to reconcile
the account figure for Earth's daily mass accretion from cosmic sweep
alone, it is not enough. I assert that the daily mass accretion by
Earth is equal to the EarthUs accretion from outer space plus EarthUs
internal accretion by rsnm.  The outer space accretion is small in
comparison to the internal accretion.
 	Sea floor spreading, continental drift are a consequence of
radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization in the EarthUs center.
The Earth of the past was a smaller planet explaining well Wegener's
Gondwanaland and Continental Drift theory.
	The current conventional community of astronomers and physicists
subscribe to some cosmic gaseous cloud approximately 5-10 billion years
ago from which the protosun and protoearth formed.  This is what
conventional astronomy panders off.
	The present physics community believes that the daily mass accretion
of the Earth must all come from the cosmic sweep of gas, dust, and
objects. It is so sad that physics and astronomy subscribe so much to
interstellar gas. They go even further by subscribing importance to
intergalactic gas. They wish to explain the origin of our Sun and our
planets to a primordial gas cloud. It is so sad that modern physics has
reached the heights of quantum theory, and yet the accepted explanation
to such important questions as the origin of planets and the origin of
the stars is still back in the caveman-realm-of-thought of dust and gas
clouds. Readers must ask themselves whether gas clouds should be a
reasonable science explanation for much in physics and astronomy.
Cosmic gas cloud hypothesis is highly suspect. 
	The real truth I posit for the origin of planets and stars, and again
I am ahead of my time, is that the Sun is a dot of the Schroedinger
wave equation. A dot of the probability density distribution, a dot of
the electron cloud for the 94th electron of the 231 Plutonium Atom
Totality.  Dots of the electron cloud are locuses where large quantity
of radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization occur. Protosun and
Protoearth started out as a dot of the Schroedinger wave equation,i.e.,
a collection of atoms, which grew via rsnm to our presently observed
Sun and planet Earth. This again leads into my revolutionary theory of
the Plutonium Atom Totality, and I will not stray afield here but refer
the interested reader to my enclosed textbook for more understanding.
	(7) The anomalous facts concerning the planet Mercury. The planet
Mercury has 2 outstanding anomalous facts: 1) huge iron core and 2) a
magnetic field. Conventional physics and astronomy are dumbfounded in
explaining these two facts. But an easy and clear explanation is rsnm.
The planet Mercury as all planets are dots of the electron cloud of the
94th electron of plutonium. Dots of the Schroedinger wave equation is
where electromagnetic potential and current exists, and wherever it
exists there occurs rsnm.
	(8) The case of the light chemical elements emitted from the middle of
the planet Earth, e.g., helium, lithium are inexplicable by science
previous to 1990, in that these elements should have escaped a long
time ago, yet they continue to spew forth in steady amount. The
community of physicists and geologists have no explanation. I have the
explanation with radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization, since
rsnm makes neutrons which some decay into hydrogen and rsnm takes some
hydrogen and forms helium and with helium rsnm sometimes forms lithium.
So there is a continual production and escape of newly formed light
elements from the middle of the Earth.
	(9) The case for the light chemical elements and their anomalous
quantity found in stars. The light elements of lithium, beryllium, and
boron are found in too large of a proportion in stars to be accountable
by fusion. For stars are so hot that these light elements would have
been burned-off and the theoretical rate of creation by hot fusion of
new lithium, beryllium, and boron are too low to what is actually
observed. Here again is another disagreement of hot fusion theory with
respect to the observables, i.e., more lithium, beryllium, and boron in
stars than what there should be. And yet there are not enough light
elements in the intergalactic regions of space. In summary, where the
light elements are found in abundance-- hot stars they should not be
there, and where they are not found in abundance-- intergalactic space,
there should be more of them there.
	The explanation for these anomalous facts is easy once radioactive
spontaneous neutron materialization is seen as the active working
process. In intergalactic space there is little to no changing electric
potential V or changing current flow i, and so there is little neutron
materialization to form these light elements. But in stars, it is not
so much that they are hot and burn off the light elements but that
stars continually create via neutron materialization these light
elements because of the highly changing V and i of star plasmas.
	(10) The cosmic abundance elements, and the uniform distribution of
the chemical elements in the observable universe in the proportions
that they are observed is strong evidence in support for the process of
radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization. Again the physics
community explains the uniformity due to gaseous intergalactic clouds
as a result of supernovas. But supernova are rare events.
	(11) The observation that when electric current i flowing through
wires or through a light bulb filament or incandescent lamps are hot
and eventually the wires or filaments or other parts wear-out due to
the high temperatures. Those high temperatures are a result of
radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization when i  varies. And
before these teachings, it was inexplicable as to how atoms of zinc
Z=30 contaminated copper Z=29 wire, or atoms of rhenium Z=75
contaminated light bulb filaments or heating coils made of tungsten
Z=74 in these materials after running electric current in the
materials. With rsnm it is a direct consequence that a copper wire will
have atoms of zinc, and a tungsten filament or heater will have atoms
of rhenium after running  a changing electric current i through,
because there is radioactive growth of some of the original atoms
because of rsnm.  Check chemical analysis of spent electric wires and
filaments by General Electric, Philips, Siemens, et al.
	(12) Although the missing 2/3 count of neutrinos from the Sun is not
direct evidence of spontaneous neutron materialization, it is direct
evidence that the currently accepted theory of hot fusion is incorrect.
Why is there a missing 2/3 count? I contend that there is not a missing
count of neutrinos. The mistake the physics community makes is that the
4 forces are misapplied in the theory. That when strong nuclear and
gravity are considered to the 100% exclusion of radioactivities and
electromagnetism then the measured neutrino count accords with theory.
Vice versa, if radioactivities and electromagnetism are considered to
the 100% exclusion of strong nuclear and gravity, then the actual
measured neutrino count accords with theory. The 2/3 missing neutrino
count from the Sun is indirect support for spontaneous neutron
materialization since the neutrino count of the Sun puts the Sun and
all stars, all plasma physics into quantum physics. The 4 interactions
(forces) of physics have to be treated as 2 groups of 2 interactions as
quantum complementary duals. The Complementary Principle states: The
wave and the particle aspects of a quantum entity are both necessary
for a complete description. However, both aspects cannot be revealed
simultaneously in a single experiment. The aspect that is revealed is
determined by the nature of the experiment being done.  The 1/3 actual
count of neutrinos from the Sun accords well with theory once the
theory makes predictions from the use of either SN and G, excluding R
and EM, and vice versa.
	Consider hot fusion of the Sun. And consider the neutrinos coming from
the Sun. What is the nature of the neutrinos emitted through hot fusion
from the Sun? What is the nature of hot fusion? Is hot fusion partially
that of strong nuclear force, radioactivities force, electromagnetic
force, and the force of gravity all at once? Or is hot fusion only the
strong nuclear and gravity forces to the exclusion of the radioactive
and electromagnetic forces? If one sets-up experimental apparatuses
which measure neutrinos emitted from the Sun via the strong nuclear and
gravity forces to the exclusion of radioactivities and electromagnetic
forces, then that count will by different from the count theorized when
all 4 forces are considered at once.

	I end evidences with the above 12. The worst difficulty in verifying
my claim of radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization is in
overcoming the huge prejudices, sentiment, and the dead weight inertia
of the current physics community at large. A physics community along
with a math community is composed mainly of professors. Professors of a
subject are not the best persons in their field. The best persons of a
subject field are the geniuses of that field.  Professors only teach
what the geniuses of the subject field have set down. Geniuses of
physics possess physics intuition, likewise for math. Professors of
physics have little to no physics intuition and follow a herdlike
mentality. Professors of physics are good at regurgitating physics and
doing what they were designed to do, teach the subject. But lacking
physics intuition they can not create new physics nor see what is
correct or wrong with the current physics. Whenever something new in
physics comes up, the first instinct of a physics professor is to
remain with the bandwagon in opposition to the new physics. Their
physics career usually starts and ends with regurgitation, never any
important newly created ideas. In the case of physics, most of the
geniuses became professors of physics only incidentally, I repeat
that-- only incidentally, to that of doing their physics work. Many of
the greatest physicists were never even professors of physics such as
Kepler, Newton, Gauss, Maxwell, Poincare, P. Jordan when they did their
creative work. Only after it was obvious to the community of physics
professors that these men were not like themselves, regurgitators of
the subject, but true physicists, did the community put forth the
pretenses that they were good old professors all along, or try to make
them into their mold. There are more clear cut examples in math than
physics.  The best two examples are the cases of Ramanujan and Galois.
The important point I am getting to is that the community of physics
professors is against cold fusion not because of the experimental
results shown to date, but more so out of sentiment, out of ignorance,
and most important out of the politics for more government funds to
continue with hot fusion and laser inertial confinement fusion.  A
professor of physics will stick to the old physics like a goof ball
sticks to glue. I make this statement in order to prepare the reader
long before I discuss violation of conservation of energy-mass. 
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.13 / L Plutonium /  3 of 3, Correct Theory of both Cold Fusion and Hot Fusion
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics,sci.chem
Subject: 3 of 3, Correct Theory of both Cold Fusion and Hot Fusion
Date: 13 Apr 1994 05:02:02 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

  When I discuss the violation of conservation of energy-mass I feel
myself in the same position as what Aristarchus was in when he proposed
the heliocentric system several thousands of years ago. The majority of
people are dumbfounded with new ideas even though the evidence is plain
as day and undeniable.
	Dirac would agree from his book Directions in Physics  that
spontaneous neutron materialization is a direct violation of the
conservation of energy-mass.  But conservation violation is nothing
new, for example: (i) It was experimentally shown that the conservation
of parity was violated in 1956 by Lee and Yang.  (ii) And later it was
experimentally shown that charge conjugation multiply parity (CP) were
not conserved. See 1964  Cronin and Fitch. (iii) It is now thus
inferred by assuming if time reversal multiply charge conjugation
multiply parity (TCP) is a good symmetry, that time reversal symmetry
is violated. The conservation of time reversal symmetry means that if
time could run backwards, would it be acceptable to the laws of
physics?  
	My textbook and this patent application both assert that the
conservation of energy-mass is continually violated by the universe at
large. The universe at large has to grow somehow? The present community
of physics professors believe the most likely scenario of growth is the
Big Bang model of the universe. I say that model is wrong. The
observable universe, what we think of as the universe at large, is only
the last electron of one atom of plutonium. The planet Earth is inside
a Plutonium Atom Totality, a part of the 94th electron cavity. The
Plutonium Atom Totality (PU) grows by radioactive spontaneous neutron
materialization. PU says that the Big Bang is merely the Neptunium Atom
Totality Spontaneously Fissioning into our current Plutonium Atom
Totality.

	What technical difficulties are there in rsnm devices?
	1) It is very difficult to measure the exact count of a specific
number of atoms. And extremely difficult to measure the specific count
of neutrons of those counted atoms. Measuring exact counts of atoms and
the neutrons of those atoms before running a changing electric current
i or changing electromagnetic potential V through those atoms and
checking the count afterwards is extremely difficult and never exact.
	2) It is extremely difficult, and perhaps theoretically impossible to
manufacture a slab of a 100% isotope of an element, whether stable or
radioactive, and in the case of hydrogen gas a container of pure
hydrogen. It seems as if there is always contamination by other
isotopes. This contamination is in fact support of my claim of
radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization. That rsnm results in
all samples as being impure and never reaching 100% purity. See reports
on GE striving to manufacture a 100% pure carbon isotope diamond. In
theory, I assert the impossibility of ever achieving 100% purity is
another formulation of the Uncertainty Principle of quantum physics.
	3) The best fuels for Neutron Materialization Power Plants are
hydrogen ions as in the Sun, but hydrogen ions are very explosive and
dangerous to work around when running either a changing electric
current i or a changing electromagnetic potential V through.

	There are 4 and only 4 interactions. These are (1) Strong Nuclear (SN)
(2) Gravitation (G) (3) Radioactivities (R), and (4) Electromagnetism
(EM).
	There are 4 and only 4 quantum principles. These are (1) Uncertainty
(UP) (2) Complementary (CP) (3) Superposition (SP), and (4) Pauli (PP).

	 The Complementary Principle states: The wave and the particle aspects
of a quantum entity are both necessary for a complete description.
However, both aspects cannot be revealed simultaneously in a single
experiment. The aspect that is revealed is determined by the nature of
the experiment being done. 
	By the fact of CP there exists at least 1 group of complementary
duals. This 1 group consists of particle and wave. Where particle +
wave = the whole description. I propose other groups of CP.
	Taking the 4 interactions as 2 groups of complementary duals. Then one
group is Strong Nuclear and Gravity, represented as SN+G = whole
description. The other group is Radioactivities (R) and
Electromagnetism (EM), represented as R+EM = whole description.
	Applying CP to starpower. Starpower is physically measurable as either
SN+G with never any R nor ever any EM. Or, starpower is physically
measurable as either R+EM with never any SN nor ever any G.
	Thinking quantumwise, hot fusion of our Sun is a measurement from
experimental set-ups for SN+G, and excluding all of R+EM. But our Sun
can be measured as a huge radioactivities pile R along with
electromagnetism EM, written as R+EM for a complete description. This
complete description of R+EM must exclude all of SN+G.
	According to CP since SN+G = whole description, and  R+EM = whole
description. Then the relative coupling strengths of the 4 interactions
has the math equivalence as thus SN+G=R+EM.
	The relative coupling strength of SN is highest and if assigned the
value 1 then gravity is experimentally measured at 10^-40 . But, 1 +
10^-40  is for all practical purposes still 1. The fact that SN+G is
approx 1 implies that since SN+G=R+EM, then R+EM is approx 1.
	Since EM has a relative coupling strength to SN of .01, implies that R
is .99. For all practical purposes then, R almost equals SN.
	But according to FeynmanUs Table of 1963, the weak nuclear
(radioactive decay) has a relative coupling strength of 10^-5. Since
relative coupling strength for radioactive growth is even less than
radioactive decay implies that there must exist another form of
radioactivities other than rd and rg to complete the interaction law.
Since in hot fusion processes of SN+G, hydrogen is transmutated into
helium. And hydrogen which has only 1 proton and 1 electron
(essentially a 1 neutron system) transmutated into helium containing 2
protons, 2 neutrons, and 2 electrons (essentially a 4 neutron system).
Then the form of radioactivities which completes the radioactivities
interaction (R) is radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization
(rsnm). In the case of hydrogen transmutation to helium, there are 3
neutrons spontaneously materialized with one of those neutrons
decaying, subsequent proton capture, electron capture. So, rsnm has the
relative coupling strength of nearly .99, almost the same as SN at 1. 
	I give Feynman's 1963 Table with my 1991 reinterpretation considering
quantum principles applied to the 4 interactions:
	New Table for Elementary Interactions
	Coupling		Strength			Law
Photon to charged particles   approx .01                 Law known
Gravity to all energy        approx 10^-40           Law known
radioactivities rsnm+rd+rg  approx .99              Law known
Mesons to baryons          approx 1   Law still unknown but more rules
								known
	Compare my table with that of FeynmanUs Table given above.  The
largest change is in the category of radioactivity. FeynmanUs of 1963
is this: radioactive decay                   approx 10^ -5         Law
partially known . 
	What I assert as new to the art of physics is that I drastically
change FeynmanUs Table as given in 1963 and accepted all the way up to
1991. I change the art of physics through the application of quantum
principles.  An atom can act either energylike or timelike, and it
exists in a probabilistic quantum state until a measurement is made. 
If energylike property is measured, the atom behaves like energy, and
if a timelike property is measured, the atom behaves like time. 
Whether the atom is energylike or timelike is not well defined until
the experimental conditions are specified. Bohr asserted that the
set-up of a device determines what is measured.  To measure mostly one
of two noncommutative properties then the device must be so set-up such
that "an influence on the very conditions which define the possible
types of predictions regarding the future behavior of the system."  
Rewording Bohr's thought to radioactive spontaneous neutron
materialization devices is: to measure mostly rsnm instead of
electromagnetism requires the set-up of devices in which rsnm prevails
over  electromagnetism. 
	The relative coupling strength of SN compared to EM is about 100 to 1.
  This implies that the relative coupling strength of SN compared to R
is about 100 to 99. The periodic chart of chemical elements is evidence
in agreement with these numbers. Element 100 is at the limit of
statistical half-life to Spontaneous Fission stability since that is
the relative coupling strength of SN to EM. Element 100 is similar to
Element 26, because iron is stable to both fusion energy and fission
energy. Spontaneous Fission half-life instability rapidly increases
with atomic number Z=99, element 99, implying that SN is balanced by
R+EM when Z=100.
	Dirac proposed particle materialization in his book Directions in
Physics.  Specifically I propose neutron materialization and that this
neutron materialization occurs both additive and multiplicative
simultaneously. Neutron materialization occurs most often in stars in
their hydrogen plasmas. Stars are magnetohydrodynamic plasmas obeying
laws of electromagnetism. I refer the reader to magnetohydrodynamics,
McGRAW-HILL ENCYCLOPEDIA of Science & Technology  Vol. 10, 7th Ed. 0052
 magnetohydrodynamics pages 327-335. 
	I assert that a star in magnetohydrodynamics is radioactivities and
electromagnetism.  Hot fusion is looking at a star as predominantly SN
with the quantum complementary dual of G. When a physicist wants to
measure the dynamics of starpower with what is known as hot fusion,
then the physicist must consider only the complementary duals of SN+G
to the 100% exclusion of R+EM. But if the same physicist wanted to
measure the dynamics of starpower using R+EM, then he must exclude 100%
all interactions of both SN and G. Before 1991 a physicist trying to
explain stellar dynamics by using strong nuclear and gravity and then
mixing in the weak nuclear force and electromagnetic force was wrong.
Stellar dynamics using only strong nuclear and gravitation is correct
once all radioactivities and electromagnetism are excluded. The strong
nuclear force is the main component of hot fusion.  Hot fusion is
described for the Sun where P is a proton, E an electron, N a neutron.
The reaction in the Sun is  
				P+ (P+ E- + antineutrino)  into  PN
          			PN + P  into    
				PNP+ gamma ray
       				PNP+ PNP into  
				NPNP+ P+ P + energy

	But what I am teaching and this is new to the art, is that a star is
measurable quantum mechanically by the complementary duals of
radioactivities and electromagnetism. Stellar dynamics using only
radioactivities and electromagnetism is correct once all strong nuclear
and gravity are excluded. Our Sun then is seen as a radioactive pile
with electromagnetism going on. Within this scheme then
magnetohydrodynamics plasma fields come into the calculations.  The Sun
and stars are no longer seen as hot fusion spheres but instead
radioactive spheres. Where rsnm is the main activity. This activity is
described for the Sun where P is a proton, E an electron, N an already
existing neutron, N* a spontaneous materialized neutron. The reaction
in the Sun is   
                                    P into  PN*+ energy then
          			PN into PNN*+ energy then    
				PNN* into PNP+ gamma ray
       				PNP into  
				N*PNP+ energy

 	What induces radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization?  Since
radioactivities is the quantum complementary dual to the
electromagnetic, then induction for rsnm is to run either a changing
electric current i or a changing electric potential difference V
through a fuel mass. Any fuel mass will work but some are better than
others. The best fuel mass are hydrogen and isotopes of hydrogen. The
second best fuel mass are the radioactive isotopes. 
	Here is a list of some possible fuel mass elements for radioactive
spontaneous neutron materialization.  The following data are the
electron binding energies for several elements where the units are
electron volts.  The source of this information is CRC Handbook of
Chemistry and Physics   1991  pages 10-264 to 10-267: 
Hydrogen (1)  K 1s   16.0
Helium (2) K  1s   24.6
Oxygen (8) LI   2s  41.6
Argon (18)  MIII 3p3/2    15.7
Iron (26)  MIII 3p3/2    52.7
Zinc (30)   MV  3d5/2   10.1    
Krypton (36)  NIII 4p3/2    14.1
Rubidium (37) NIII 4p3/2    15.3
Palladium (46)  NIII 4p3/2    50.9
Silver (47)  NIII 4p3/2    58.3
Cadmium (48)  NV 4d5/2  10.7
Xenon (54) OIII 5p3/2  12.1
Cesium (55) OIII 5p3/2  12.1
Barium (56) OIII 5p3/2  14.8
Gold (79)  OIII 5p3/2  57.2
Mercury (80) OV  5d5/2   7.8
Thallium (81)  OV  5d5/2  12.5
Francium (87)  PIII  6p3/2  15
Actinium (89) PIII  6p3/2 ?
Thorium (90) PIII  6p3/2 16.6
Protoactinium (91)  PIII  6p3/2 ?
Uranium (92) PIII  6p3/2 16.8
	The element mercury, since the binding energy for its last electron is
so low at 7.8 entails that mercury is a better fuel mass for
electrochemical cold fusion cells, vice heavy water. I conjecture that
frozen mercury at 4K in the superconducting state is a rsnm device.
That frozen mercury at 4K is a better cold fusion device than is heavy
water and palladium.
	Like a double-slit Uncertainty Principle experiment, if i or V were
known with 100% accuracy then rsnm would be 0%. In the language of
quantum physics, when the current or potential is fixed then the
wavefunction is collapsed. But when the current i or potential V are
variable then the wavefunction is not collapsed, permitting rsnm to
materialize. Thus the i and V must be variable. On a macroscopic level
the answer to how to induce rsnm is to run a variable i or variable V
on a fuel mass such as hydrogen. 
	On a microscopic level the answer on how to induce rsnm is that it
occurs most frequently when an additional electron, one more than the
number of protons in the nucleus of that particular atom results.
Microscopically, where rsnm occurs and what induces it is an atom which
is topheavy with an additional electron beyond its chemical element
number of electrons, thus exciting the  materialization of a neutron
from out of nowhere.  For example, a hydrogen atom has only 1 electron
and 1 proton, but for an instant-of-quantum-time a hydrogen atom can
have 2 electrons and 1 proton. Or in the case of a plutonium atom with
94 electrons and 94 protons, it can for an instant-of-quantum-time have
95 electrons, but still have only 94 protons and remain still a
plutonium atom. A hydrogen atom with 1 electron and 1 proton, if when
another electron is added to the hydrogen atom system then for that
instant-of-quantum-time this hydrogen atom consists of 2 electrons and
1 proton. The additional electron quantum mechanically induces rsnm in
the nucleus. Subsequently, this neutron, having materialized, can
either stay as a neutron in the original atom system, or radioactively
decay into a proton plus electron.  If the materialized neutron remains
in the nucleus of the original atom system of hydrogen, then that
hydrogen atom can transform into a helium atom plus energy subsequent
to the materialization of two more neutrons.  
	The most apparent electron quantum induction for rsnm are star
plasmas.  The stars and Sun via plasma matter are vast electron
inducers which quantum mechanically excite, induce rsnm.  Our Sun is a
device which has both a large changing electron current i flow and a
large changing electric potential V, by the fact that it is mostly all
hydrogen plasma.  
	Before my teachings the Sun was seen as a large hot fusion device
wherein the theory of hot fusion did not accord with the experimental
observations for the process, e.g., the missing neutrino count. With my
teachings the Sun is seen as a radioactive pile with electromagnetic
plasma and there is no missing neutrino count once the correct theory
is matched with the observations. The 2/3 missing neutrino count was a
result of matching an incorrect theory to the observation.
	I assert that when the electrons of an atom are electrically excited
by adding more electrons to the atom such as in a plasma state of
matter in stars, then rsnm occurs. Once a neutron is materialized, it
either decays into a hydrogen atom plus energy or if it materialized
inside the nucleus of a preexisting atom transforming that atom into a
different atom or a different isotope. 	Any chemical element/s,
compounds, or molecules can be quantum mechanically induced into rsnm.
However, hydrogen and hydrogen isotopes are the best fuels for
induction to rsnm, for reason of its 1 electron subshell can easily
accommodate an additional electron and still remain a hydrogen atom,
having 1 proton but 2 electrons. This additional electron induces the
atom into rsnm. 	In general, the radioactive elements/isotopes will
quantum induce rsnm faster than nonradioactive elements/isotopes. The
reason for this is that since radioactivities is the complementary dual
to electromagnetism that a prevalence of electrons occurs via
radioactive electron decay emission. Commonly known as beta decay. A
sample of radioactive elements emit their own electrons which can
result in electron capture by some of the atoms in the sample,
consequently there is an atom which for a short quantum time has Z+1
electrons yet a Z number of protons. The rate of occurrence of rsnm for
radioactive elements is governed by half-life radioactive decay and is
based on the formula for radioactive rate of decay    exp-lt.  Using
Dirac's rate of materialization as time squared (t^2), and substituting
t^2 into the radioactive growth and radioactive decay rate formula
results in a normal Gaussian distribution curve. 
	Thus my invention consists of processes for inducing radioactive
spontaneous neutron materialization, and the devices or apparatuses
engineered for the purpose of deriving energy from rsnm. These devices
can range from the small size such as batteries, a collection of
batteries, or test tube equipment in a science laboratory, such as
electrochemical cells, on up to devices the size of a nuclear power
plant.  Such a neutron materialization nuclear power plant will be of a
much simpler design over previous fission reactor power plants or hot
fusion reactors since the energy output is not dependent on fissionable
or fusionable products, rather on neutron materialization.  The fuel
mass of neutron materialization devices will last much longer as a fuel
since the choice of a fuel can be any chemical element/s, compounds, or
molecules, radioactive or not.  A neutron materialization nuclear power
plant can use a nonradioactive element fuel mass such as iron or
hydrogen and thus safer and cleaner.  Or a neutron materialization
nuclear power plant can use a less dangerous radioactive isotope of
thorium, uranium, or plutonium for the fuel mass. The fuel mass will
have a changing electric current i flowing, or a changing electric
potential V through it.  The best chemical elements to use are
hydrogen, and hydrogen isotopes and the radioactive elements such as
plutonium, uranium, thorium, and californium.  Any chemical element/s,
compounds, or molecules can act as a fuel mass. Once a fuel is placed
in the containment vessel, a changing electric current i is run through
the fuel mass, or a changing electric potential V goes through the
fuel. The containment vessel is surrounded by a substance such as water
or some other substance which captures the most amount of heat from
radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization.  
	 These nuclear devices are an exploitation of excess heat from rsnm, a
confirmation of quantum mechanical principles of uncertainty and
complementary, but a violation of the conservation of energy-mass.  All
such devices constructed will confirm excess heat produced from the
materialization of neutrons out of nowhere and thus will show the
violation of energy-mass conservation.  
	The changing i or changing V through the fuel mass will induce rsnm
resulting in a net increase in total energy of the isolated system. 
The changing i or changing V will cause induction of rsnm resulting in
net increase in total energy going out which will be observable and
measurable as excess heat.  The excess heat can then be converted to
other usable forms of energy such as electricity.
	I assert that spontaneous neutron materialization is going on all
around us, in stars, in the Earth.  Where ever there is the strong
nuclear-gravitation interaction, there is the
radioactivities-electromagnetism interaction. The one group of SN+G is
interchangeable and superpositioned with the other group R+EM.  So,
what we generally attribute to the forces of the strong
nuclear-gravitation is replaceable or superposed by the
radioactivities-electromagnetism.  Before these teachings, a physicist
would look at the Sun and say the Sun is a hot fusion device (strong
nuclear force is the fusing with consequent energy emission) where
gravity is pulling in hydrogen atoms and then fusing hydrogen atoms to
make helium atoms with a resultant energy.  I would transpose that idea
and say that the Sun is a radioactivities device (mostly rsnm) where
the Sun's matter is in the form of plasma, and thus the Sun is a large
electromagnetic device also with changing current flow and changing
electric potential and so neutrons spontaneously materialize most of
which transmutate into new hydrogen atoms via radioactive decay, but
some hydrogen atoms materializing neutrons inside their nucleus
transmutating into new helium atoms and  giving-up excess energy. 
	I see the Sun as two pictures in which both are the same only looking
at them from different quantum duals. The one is hot fusion of hydrogen
into helium in the Sun made possible by the gravitational force with
strong force. This is our current conventional view and it is correct
if and only if radioactivities plus electromagnetism were 100%
excluded. The other is the radioactivities and electromagnetism
interaction where the Sun is a large collection of hydrogen atoms where
spontaneous neutron materialization occurs frequently within these
hydrogen atoms, transmutating hydrogen into helium heating the solar
system.  
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Wed Apr 13 04:37:06 EDT 1994
------------------------------
1994.04.12 / Robert Heeter /  Re: A new fusion trigger?
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Originally-From: Patrick McTiernan x8738, pgm@bamboo.swindon.gpsemi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A new fusion trigger?
Subject: A new fusion trigger?
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 1994 22:16:19 GMT
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 1994 13:18:38 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

Subject: A new fusion trigger?
Originally-From: Patrick McTiernan x8738, pgm@bamboo.swindon.gpsemi.com
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 1994 13:18:38 GMT
In article <Co5EB3.ADI@lincoln.gpsemi.com> Patrick McTiernan x8738,
pgm@bamboo.swindon.gpsemi.com writes:
>I hope that there are some readers of this newsgroup who have some
access to and
>knowledge of the literature and recent work in fusion, since I have an
idea which
>may be of some practical importance.

This is certainly the right place.

>Fusion of deuterium requires high temperatures and pressures for a long
enough
>period for the relevant nuclear reactions to take place.
[[[[ snip ]]]]
>What I would suggest is that a thin wire (or preferably tube) of a
metallic
>element be used. If a wire, this must be one of the materials which
absorbs
>hydrogen well; and if so, it must be saturated with deuterium. This wire
should
>then have the contents of a large charged capacitor discharged through
it (the
>technology required for this should be readily available to all who have
used
>spark chambers). It will turn into a plasma (try watching a light-bulb
blow up
>sometimes) and, I should add, this effect tends to be SELF-SUSTAINING and
>SELF-PROPAGATING!! 

It's also unstable.

This approach is known as a Z-Pinch; it was tried in the 1950s, where it 
was discovered that when the wire turns into a plasma, the resulting 
plasma very rapidly "sausages", "kinks" and generally misbehaves.  
("Very Rapidly" = in a few microseconds.)  The result is that you 
can't confine your plasma long enough to generate enough nuclear 
reactions.  You can get a *small* amount of fusion to occur, and 
in fact this method also generates lots of X-rays and a nice 
electromagnetic pulse, so it's used to simulate nuclear 
weapons-type effects on materials and devices.  But it won't make an 
economical fusion reactor.

It probably doesn't matter whether you start with a deuterium-laden
wire or not.

The instabilities of the Z-Pinch are discussed in most general plasma
physics texts, particularly those dealing with magnetohydrodynamic theory.

It turns out that if you take a Z pinch, throw in a longitudinal magnetic
field to provide some additional stability, and then bend it around into
a torus, you end up (more or less) with the tokamak, which is the major
machine in use today.  It's a little more difficult to generate the
current
running "down" the cylinder / through the torus, but it can be done.

>To those who think I'm joking or completely ignorant in this matter, I
should add
>that I did work at Harwell for many months on neutron scattering
(admittedly, at
>a rather tender age) and have some knowledge of nuclear and particle
physics. I'm
>just not involved in the field practically at present and think that
this idea
>might be of some importance.

Thanks for trying!  But you'll have to try again.  Fusion research can 
always use new, wild crazy ideas.  Meanwhile, I have another entry for
the evolving FAQ, so I personally am glad you asked.

**************************
Robert F. Heeter
rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Graduate Student, Princeton Plasma Physics Lab
(Disclaimers Apply)
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.12 / Robert Heeter /  Re: cost
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: cost
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 1994 22:40:04 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

In article <Co4Izq.EHy@cpsc.ucalgary.ca> Michael Fullerton,
michaelf@cpsc.ucalgary.ca writes:
>In article <2oc7pi$t1l@daisy.pgh.wec.com> zcrah@trumpet.pgh.wec.com
(Andy Holland) writes:

[[ my earlier discussion of environmental aspects of hot fusion snipped.
]]

>>Agree on most of the above, but what about *cost*,
>>(ie. capitalization, construction, fuel, O&M, Cost risk
>>of accidents etc)?
>
>My question is why are people still wasting money on this silly
>concept of hot fusion when it is obvious that the "cold fusion"
>technology is much more economically viable?  Let's face it,
>hot fusion is a dinosaur on the precipice of extinction.  Good
>riddance I say.  Then again, even though it seems hot fusion
>will not be of any use for power generation is there anything
>this technology could be used for?  I certainly don't like the
>thought that all this money was wasted for nothing.

Ok, since you're not obviously kidding, I'll have to answer
this seriously.  The "dinosaur", rather than teetering 
"on the precipice of extinction" has made tremendous strides
in the past 20 years.  Power output from current research
machines is about 6 million watts, for about a second.
In 1974, they could barely generate 1 watt for a thousandth
of a second.  Right now, if you handed me $10 billion,
I could take plans for a major tokamak hot fusion machine,
and build you a reactor that would produce 1 billion watts
of electricity for sale, within at most 10 years.  It 
wouldn't be economical, which is why no one is building it 
now.  But it would work.  The theory is there, and the
experiments, have shown that the theory is essentially correct.  
Making it economical, and improving the environmental 
friendliness, is a major goal of the current program.

It's not clear to me where you get the idea that cold fusion
is so much more economically viable.  Cold fusion lacks
consistent experimental results, lacks a proven theoretical
foundation, and in any case has not been shown to cost
less than $10 per watt, which is what hot fusion can do now.
I don't believe *any* cold fusion researcher could, right
now, credibly promise to know how to generate a billion watts
of excess heat at $10/watt, much less electricity.

Please explain why you think it is "obvious" that 
"cold fusion technology is much more economically viable".

*******************
Robert F. Heeter
rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Graduate Student, Princeton Plasma Physics Lab
Disclaimers Apply
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.13 / John Logajan /  Re: Clear evidence that cold fusion is chemistry
     
Originally-From: 74242.1554@compuserve.com (John M. Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Clear evidence that cold fusion is chemistry
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 1994 08:35:52 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

blue@nscl00.nscl.msu.edu writes:

>I want to second Steve Jones's message concerning in importance of
>recombination in cold fusion experiments.  One way in which cold
>fusion advocates have failed improve the quality of experiments
>is to deal in a systematic way with the reduction or elimination
>of sources of error such as recombination.

There are many reported experiments where recombination is not an issue,
and therefore it can be said at least that that error mechanism has been
reduced or eliminated (which is not to say that all error mechanisms have
necessarily been simultaneously eliminated.)

The recent Italian results, for instance, utilized Nickel in a 1/2
atmosphere bath of Hydrogen gas.  A few weeks back we calculated the
magnitude of the "air leak" required to account for the energy and found
that it wasn't a reasonable explanation.

Even in electrolytic cells, certain claims exceed the recombination
possiblity.  For instance, Thermacore Inc, claims that running a
Ni-H/K2CO2 system with 20 watts input power produces 50 watts of heat
-- assuming 100% recombination.  Factoring in 100% efficient Faraday
operation boosts the theoretical output to 70 watts.

Now I know recombination exists -- I've seen it causing a Pt wire to
glow red hot -- I've measured gas output in a Mills cell that differed
depending upon the direction of an electrical current of fixed magnitude.
So indeed, each experiment must acknowledge the possibility and rule it
out.  I'm just saying that it is possible to rule it out, and that such
has been accomplished in many of the exiting reports.


cudkeys:
cuddy13 cuden1554 cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.13 / Dave Toland /  Re: 1 of 3, Correct Theory of Cold Fusion and Hot Fusion
     
Originally-From: det@sw.stratus.com (Dave Toland)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics,sci.chem
Subject: Re: 1 of 3, Correct Theory of Cold Fusion and Hot Fusion
Date: 13 Apr 1994 11:45:31 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer Inc.


Anyone who uses "correct" as an adjective for "theory" obviously knows
nothing about science.  A theory is a model.  It can be a good model or
a poor model, but correctness is too context-sensitive to be a meaningful
tag.

As for a theory for cold fusion, there just aren't enough reproducible
data upon which to test the fit of a reasonable model.  So far, the only
meaningful test of the quality of a theory has been sorely lacking -
experimental results matching predictions implied by proposed theories,
which do not have equally good explanation under established models.

This does not mean that the cold fusion experiments up until now have
been bogus, it just means that if cold fusion has in fact been induced,
the conditions leading to it are not sufficiently well understood yet
to say that it has been discovered.

For once, though, mybe Ludwig's post does belong here as much as to the
physics groups.  In the experiments I'm aware of, there seems to be more
electrochemistry going on than nuclear physics, or at least the
electrochemical effects have been a serious obstacle to measuring yield
due to proposed nuclear processes.

Assuming of course that a Ludwig Plutonium post has anything to do with
science...

-- 
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------
All opinions are MINE MINE MINE, and not necessarily anyone else's.
det@phlan.sw.stratus.com   |  "Laddie, you'll be needing something to wash
(Dave Toland)              |   that doon with."
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudendet cudfnDave cudlnToland cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.13 / Peter Roessingh /  Re: The charade of theoretical cold fusion
     
Originally-From: roes@vax.oxford.ac.uk (Peter Roessingh)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The charade of theoretical cold fusion
Date: 13 Apr 94 12:46:02 BST
Organization: Oxford University VAX 6620

Let me summarize the responses I have seen up till now:

Several people argued the Chubb theory was not formally presented 
but Robert Heeter writes:

>I think I need to point out that Bill Page posted the references to
>the Chubbs' papers on the subject.  They've got the theory, and I'm
>sitting here waiting for someone besides Bill to read it and tell me
>why it does/doesn't work.  Obviously there's no reason for them to
>post the whole paper, equations and all, when it's already been
>published in a journal that most everyone here (and particularly
>those of us qualified to evaluate the theory) has access to.

Steve Jones and Tom Radcliffe come up with 5 arguments against the
theory:

1) If it were true DSAM would not work 
2) It violates Mv-scale nuclear decay in a lattice 
3) Speed of light constraints prevent the energy transfer 
4) formation of 4He is always yielding 2.5 MeV neutrons. 
5) An argument using the mossbauer effect that I could not follow
  
However, as Matt Kennel, Robert Eachus and Robert Heeter point out
arguments 1 and 2 are not applicable since there is no bandstate as
postulated in the theory.
 
About argument 3  Matt Kennel writes: 
>This is convincing if you assert that the nuclear energy must, right 
>after reaction, be localized at femtometer space scales in the lab frame. 
>Dr. Chubb apparently doesn't.  I'm not convinced on this point: traditional
>"delocalized wavefunctions" pop-into a single localized interaction at 
>a point.

I can not judge who's right here, however, the argument is clearly not a
straightforward refutation of the theory.

About argument 4 Matt Kennel writes:
>One would have to calculate the relative reaction rates of the
>hypothesized

> 1) "band-state + bandstate -> band_state"
> 2) "band_state + free -> band_state" vs
> 3) "band_state + free -> free + radiation"
> 4) "band_state + band_state-> free + radiation"

>Chubb theory is that #1 exists and that #4 is radically suppressed.
>The deuteron beam experiment corresponds to #3, and ought to place
>experimental limits on the theory, but it's not a foregone conclusion
>that because #3 is experimentally observed, that #1 is ruled out. My
>opinion is that it, in fact, so, but this would have to be calculated.

So again it seems to me that the argument is not as clear cut a
refutation as it could be.

So far this leaves only the last argument of Steve Jones open, and
clearly illustrates my original point that the theory was not getting
the treatment is deserves.

Steve Jones wrote:

>Do you need more examples, Peter? These are technical arguments, and
>they should be more compelling than "style" considerations to which
>you refer.

I would say, No I do not need more examples, but I would like a more
thorough treatment of some of ones put forward to show they are valid
before the Chubb theory is dismissed.

Robert Eachus writes:

>    The first part of Scott Chubbs' theory should by now be on a
>fairly firm physical foundation.  Deuterium in metal (or other solid)
>lattices will, under some circumstances, become delocalized in a
>quantum mechanical sense.

>    Where you go from there is much tougher.  Is suspect that the
>effect Dr. Chubb describes is real, but that the joint wavefunction
>issues really do mean that it is a very low-probability affair.

What I would like to see now is some attempts to show that it is
indeed a very low probability affair.

Finally Dale Bass writes:

>We can wave our bandstates all we want, but why do we care? 
>It seems extremely unlikely that the 'bandstate' can evade 
>the usual scaling behavior of a massive local fusion energy 
>release (the same 'usual behavior' that apparently occurs 
>everywhere else in physics), so why should we care enough 
>to evenpick up the paper?"

The point I was trying to make in my original post was that the Chubb
theory was getting flamed without the (in my view) necessary arguments
to do so.

If Dale Bass thinks the theory is not worth the electrons on his
screen, that's fine with me. Let him switch off his monitor and put
his attention to more important matters.

However, if the theory is compelling enough (or preposterous enough)
to evoke a response, the response should address the theory in a
serious way.

Peter Roessingh
Zoology, Oxford
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenroes cudfnPeter cudlnRoessingh cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.13 /  Ted_Anderson@t /  Re: The charade of theoretical cold fusion
     
Originally-From: Ted_Anderson@transarc.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The charade of theoretical cold fusion
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 1994 09:04:52 -0400
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

It seems to me that the conventionalists are not really getting into the
spirit the model Scott Chubb is proposing.  Almost every time they argue
a specific point the description falls back to free particle physics
ideas.  Perhaps it is one of those paradigm shifts where it is very
difficult for someone highly trained in one model to think within the
parameters of a very different one.

I want to sketch out some points of agreement, propose an analogy and
lead up to a couple of questions/comments.

Overlapping wave functions for individial particles explain fusion
reactions in standard situations.

Band states of heavy particles are possible.  I gather it has become
reasonably well accepted that band states of hydrogen explain various
properties of hydrogenated materials, including the high mobility of
hydrogen in transition metals.

In deuterium band states overlapping wave functions would exist.

I see an analogy here with the laser, but I can't understand why no one
has made it before.  In a laser we have a mixture of states (which I
think can be described by wave functions), one consisting of excited
atoms and one consisting of less-excited atoms and emitted photons. 
This situation is only interesting if the excited state is metastable so
that the (spontaneous) transition in free space is discouraged. 
However, if we provide a resonant cavity so that the emitted photons are
reinforced, then the (stimulated) transition probablity of excited atoms
to emit photons is greatly improved.  I believe it is correct to say
that the emitted photons are a bose condensate in this situation.

The idea that photons are delocalized in a resonant cavity and are best
described as an EM field is not too hard to accept.  In the case of a
laser only the resultant photons need be in a delocalized state; the
atoms in both initial and final states are self contained in some sense.
 In the case of fusion, we need to delocalize the deuterons to provide
the required initial state, and of course the final state also requires
delocatization of the helium nuclei.  [Clearly there are other
differences as well.]

I have two questions about the model.

The very poor mobility of He in transition metals would seem to suggest
that forming band states of helium nuclei is not be easy.  But perhaps
the connection between high mobility and the existence of band states is
not that simple.  What indication is there that He band states are
possible?

Once favorable circumstances are established it is hard to see what
would prevent the conversion of deuterium to helium from happening very
rapidly.  It seems this would lead to bursty behavior, as the process
must be self-quenching.  Does the low density of the deuterium band
state limit the rate?

I have especially enjoyed this discussion lately.  I hope it continues.

Ted Anderson
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenTed_Anderson cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.14 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Re: A new fusion trigger?
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A new fusion trigger?
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 1994 00:15:16 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Patrick McTiernan suggests discharging a power source through a deuterated
wire.  Correct me someone, but I think this was the Tanberg experiment of
1927.  As I remember he cleared out the county (Sweden) before throwing the
switch.  I think there have also been a number of more recent experiments, 
some discussed here.  But finding a reference is a pain.  There is just too
much stuff in the world to keep track of all the failed experiments.

Tom Droege

cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenDROEGE cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.13 / Lloyd Parker /  Re: 3 of 3, Correct Theory of both Cold Fusion and Hot Fusion
     
Originally-From: lparker@emoryu1.cc.emory.edu (Lloyd R. Parker)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics,sci.chem
Subject: Re: 3 of 3, Correct Theory of both Cold Fusion and Hot Fusion
Date: 13 Apr 1994 11:37:21 -0400
Organization: Emory University

Ludwig Plutonium (Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu) wrote:

The scary thing is, some people believe this to be science!

How do you separate your pair of virtual particles?  If you don't
separate them, they annihilate each other.  The only situation I
know of where you can get a particle from a pair of virtual
particles is at the event horizon of a black hole where one of the
pair can be captured by the black hole, separating it from the
other.

cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenlparker cudfnLloyd cudlnParker cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.13 /  PAUL /  cmsg cancel <13APR94.15101827@amazon.pfc.mit.edu>
     
Originally-From: stek@amazon.pfc.mit.edu (PAUL)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cmsg cancel <13APR94.15101827@amazon.pfc.mit.edu>
Date: 13 APR 94 15:11:27 GMT
Organization: MIT PLASMA FUSION CENTER

cancel <13APR94.15101827@amazon.pfc.mit.edu>
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenstek cudlnPAUL cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.13 /  PAUL /  cmsg cancel <13APR94.15101827@amazon.pfc.mit.edu>
     
Originally-From: stek@amazon.pfc.mit.edu (PAUL)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cmsg cancel <13APR94.15101827@amazon.pfc.mit.edu>
Date: 13 APR 94 15:13:01 GMT
Organization: MIT PLASMA FUSION CENTER

cancel <13APR94.15101827@amazon.pfc.mit.edu>
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenstek cudlnPAUL cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.13 /  PAUL /  cmsg cancel <13APR94.15142590@amazon.pfc.mit.edu>
     
Originally-From: stek@amazon.pfc.mit.edu (PAUL)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cmsg cancel <13APR94.15142590@amazon.pfc.mit.edu>
Date: 13 APR 94 15:18:12 GMT
Organization: MIT PLASMA FUSION CENTER

cancel <13APR94.15142590@amazon.pfc.mit.edu>
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenstek cudlnPAUL cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.13 / Matt Kennel /  Re: The charade of theoretical cold fusion
     
Originally-From: mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The charade of theoretical cold fusion
Date: 13 Apr 1994 18:35:25 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

Ted_Anderson@transarc.com wrote:

: I want to sketch out some points of agreement, propose an analogy and
: lead up to a couple of questions/comments.

: Overlapping wave functions for individial particles explain fusion
: reactions in standard situations.

You need overlapping *joint* wave functions, not just overlapping wave
functions for individual particles.

: Band states of heavy particles are possible.  I gather it has become
: reasonably well accepted that band states of hydrogen explain various
: properties of hydrogenated materials, including the high mobility of
: hydrogen in transition metals.

At nuclear energies, do the band states still matter?  Are MeV-energy
systems going to be bossed around by eV-scale electrostatic lattice
interactions?  I don't think so.

: In deuterium band states overlapping wave functions would exist.

Maaaaaybe.  It's still not convincing that you can *hide* the products of
nuclear interactions by a factor of 10^9.

: Ted Anderson

--
-Matt Kennel  		mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu
-Institute for Nonlinear Science, University of California, San Diego
-*** AD: Archive for nonlinear dynamics papers & programs: FTP to
-***     lyapunov.ucsd.edu, username "anonymous".
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenmbk cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.13 / Matt Kennel /  Re: Rf Heating Of A Fusion Plasma
     
Originally-From: mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Rf Heating Of A Fusion Plasma
Date: 13 Apr 1994 18:38:20 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

PAUL (stek@amazon.pfc.mit.edu) wrote:
: Good question.  Particle losses are not as big an issue as energy losses. 
: Thermal transport is beleived to be due to small scale turbulence.  For 
: ICRF at least you also create standing waves in the edge that sputter 
: first wall atoms into the plasma.  These high z impurities can end up
: radiating more heat than you are putting in and help contribute to 
: turbulence.  

Now here's something that I've thought about:  why not coat the
interior wall with some low-z heavily hydrogenated material?

Say, some deuterated plastic?

(Now just how hot does that metal wall get?)

: Paul Stek 
: Stek@cmod.pfc.mit.edu


--
-Matt Kennel  		mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu
-Institute for Nonlinear Science, University of California, San Diego
-*** AD: Archive for nonlinear dynamics papers & programs: FTP to
-***     lyapunov.ucsd.edu, username "anonymous".
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenmbk cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.13 / Paul Fritschle /  Reuters report on 'red mercury' fusion device
     
Originally-From: pfritsch@skid.ps.uci.edu (Paul Fritschle)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Reuters report on 'red mercury' fusion device
Date: 13 Apr 94 18:46:13 GMT
Organization: Miskatonic University Department of Computer Science


[from the San Jose _Mercury News_ (no pun intended), reprinted without
permission]

(Reuters)
LONDON-British television researchers said Tuesday that Russian
scientists had designed a nuclear bomb the size of a baseball.
  The small "clean" neutron bombs purportedly are not made from
"dirty" plutonium and so are not covered by non-proliferation
treaties.
  Independent Channel 4, in a program to be broadcast today, says
Russian scientists have used "red mercury" to make neutron weapons
that destroy human life but leave buildings and machinery intact.
  Western governments, however, insist "red mercury" is a hoax.
  Channel 4 said the development of radioactive red mercury was an
extraordinary scientific breakthrough that has eluded American
researchers for 40 years while the small size of the bombs poses a
serious threat from terrorist attacks...
...Speculation about the existence of red mercury has emerged in
recent years, highlighted by Channel 4 director Gwynne Roberts' report
last year on the existence and uses of the compound.
  "To the best of our knowledge no unique substance called red mercury
exists," said a spokesman for the British Ministry of Defense.
"Substances called red mercury have been tested and proved to be
useless."
  In the program, British nuclear scientist Frank Barnaby interviewed
a Russia military scientist about red mercury and concluded: "I'm sure
he was telling the truth."
--

Paul Fritschle                                         pfritsch@skid.PS.UCI.EDU
Puritanism--The haunting fear that someone, somewhere may be happy.
                      -H.L. Mencken (1880-1956)
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenpfritsch cudfnPaul cudlnFritschle cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.13 /  93268866@vax1. /  FAQs PLEASE!!
     
Originally-From: 93268866@vax1.dcu.ie
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: FAQs PLEASE!!
Date: 13 Apr 94 19:49:45 GMT

Hi,

Could someone please post the FAQs for this newsgroup please?

Thanks.

Paul Nolan,
DCU - Dublin,
EIRE.



cudkeys:
cuddy13 cuden93268866 cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.13 / L Plutonium /  Fusion is the B, and Superconductivity is the E
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics,sci.math,sci.chem
Subject: Fusion is the B, and Superconductivity is the E
Date: 13 Apr 1994 20:06:27 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

  We know that we do not have a mature theory of hot fusion,
thermonuclear fusion. We know that because we have a 2/3 missing count
of NEUTRINOS from the Sun.

  A mature theory is Maxwell's Equations. Another theory approaching
maturity is Quantum Mechanics. QM is mature when it incorporates the
ATOM TOTALITY.

  We know that only neutrinos can go through a material in the
superconducting state and match the resistance observed in the
superconducting state. As of this writing noone has come forth with the
small positive resistivity of the superconducting state. That state is
not 0 resistivity but a small positive number matching neutrino
resistivity. Different superconducting materials have different
resistivities--neutrino resistivities. Absolutely no material has 0
resistivity, just as absolutely no material has 0K, and just as
absolutely no speed is faster than light. These above statements are
the start of the unification of electric current to temperature in
physics.

  We know that the Sun is a plasma, in other words, the Sun is a huge
ball of ions of protons and electrons. It is not difficult to turn that
view into a radioactivities view of quantum physics. The Sun is one
huge ONE ATOM BALL. The Sun and any star is a superconductor at the
temperature of 2.71K.

  We know that the surroundings of the Sun. The quantum state of the
Sun is at the temperature of the cosmic microwave background radiation
(MWBR) which is 2.71K. 

  We know that mercury is superconductive at 4K.

  We know we do not have a mature theory of superconductivity. In fact,
SUPERCONDUCTIVITY understanding, QUANTIZED HALL EFFECT understanding
are two of the most primitive understandings which we have as of this
writing.

  I propose that when Fusion, both Cold Fusion and Hot Fusion are
mature theories that they are the same things. I propose that
Superconductivity when it is a mature theory is Fusion. I propose that
Superconductivity is Fusion.

  Mercury is superconductive at 4K is just another way of saying that
mercury at 4K is acting as ONE ATOM, and that mercury at 4K is a Fusion
device. The Sun at approx 5000K is a superconductor. 

  If these speculations are correct and turn into the mature theory of
FUSION  unified to SUPERCONDUCTIVITY, not as one and the same thing
only at different temperatures. But rather, as quantum duals, quantum
compliments. We know that PARTICLE is dual to WAVE. I propose that
RADIOACTIVITIES is dual to ELECTROMAGNETISM (call it R-EM). I propose
that STRONGNUCLEAR is dual to GRAVITY (call it S-G). Further, I propose
(R-EM) is dual to (S-G). Much detail needs to be worked out.

 But getting back to the above that Fusion is the dual of
Superconductivity leads to the math logic conclusion that a room
temperature superconducting material exists. It exists before we have
even discovered, or engineered it. It exists because if my speculations
are correct than since mercury is superconductive at 4K and the Sun is
a superconductor at 5000K, by math logic, a material exists which is
superconductive at room temperature.

  To push my above speculations to its math logic conclusion. Fusion is
a quantum dual to superconductivity just as B, the magnetic field in
Maxwell's Equations is a quantum dual to E, the electric field. 

  I have broken my own self imposed restriction  of only 3 posts per 24
hours, by posting the above speculations. I do this because I feel it
is of such importance that I do not want a delay in time. After having
posted three previous articles titled "Correct Theory of both Cold
Fusion and Hot Fusion" I realized after sleeping on it that
Superconductivity is the same as Fusion when we say B is the same as E.
ATOM

  I feel the above is a great discovery. How long did it take for
Humanity to discover magnetism B and to discover electric current E?
How long did it take Humanity to assemble B with E to produce the
beautiful Maxwell equations? This is what Superconductivity and Fusion
are now being assembled into one quantum dual.

In celebration play the following.
	Play O ATOMIC DAY with the lyrics by L. Plutonium. Sung to the best
version I have heard of O Holy Night done by the artist Harvey Reid.

	O Atomic day the sun is brightly shining it is the day of thou
Plutonium birth
	Long lay the world in radioactive-decay-growth until it appeared and
life saw its worth. 
	A thrill of hope working mankind rejoices for yonder starts the
morning of December 14.
	Get up, O hear the Protons calling! O day, Atomic, O day, When
Plutonium was born!
	O day, O Atomic day, O day Atomic 
	O day, Atomic, O day, When Plutonium was born!

	Truly it teaches us physics and math, its laws are science and its
language is that of math
	Chemistry does it teach us, and in its name Plutonium all wisdom comes
forth
	Sweet songs of joy in gratitude raise we, let all within it praise its
atomic name
	Atom Plutonium is the Totality O praise to Plutonium forever. 
	Its nuclear strong and radioactivities interaction are forever 
	Its nuclear strong and radioactivities interaction are forever 



  
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.13 / Cameron Bass /  Re: The charade of theoretical cold fusion
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The charade of theoretical cold fusion
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 1994 16:06:10 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1994Apr13.124603.21921@oxvaxd>,
Peter Roessingh <roes@vax.oxford.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>Finally Dale Bass writes:
>
>>We can wave our bandstates all we want, but why do we care? 
>>It seems extremely unlikely that the 'bandstate' can evade 
>>the usual scaling behavior of a massive local fusion energy 
>>release (the same 'usual behavior' that apparently occurs 
>>everywhere else in physics), so why should we care enough 
>>to evenpick up the paper?"
>
>The point I was trying to make in my original post was that the Chubb
>theory was getting flamed without the (in my view) necessary arguments
>to do so.
>
>If Dale Bass thinks the theory is not worth the electrons on his
>screen, that's fine with me. Let him switch off his monitor and put
>his attention to more important matters.

     The point being that the burden of proof continues to be
     shifted toward having to 'disprove' vague speculations
     and flawed experiments rather than insisting that 
     proponents of such an apparently novel process
     *compel* the rest of us to take notice.  

>However, if the theory is compelling enough (or preposterous enough)
>to evoke a response, the response should address the theory in a
>serious way.

     If someone approached me with a blueprint of a 'operational
     perpetuum mobile', my serious response to that preposterous
     theory would be that he was full of doggy doo-doo.  No equations, 
     no detailed analysis, no back and forth, no 'refinement'
     of an unsupportable position.  To *show* me that it worked
     would require something quite special and novel, evidence.

     As there's none here, it's quite difficult to believe
     vague dixie-whistling is gaining us anything.
     I have little doubt that the Chubb theory will suffer the
     same fate as cold fusion itself, the long, cold slide into
     oblivion.

     While I would love to be demonstrated to be wrong about this,
     I would be willing to bet that I'm not.

                          dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.13 / Matt Kennel /  Re: Reuters report on 'red mercury' fusion device
     
Originally-From: mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reuters report on 'red mercury' fusion device
Date: 13 Apr 1994 22:43:21 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

Paul Fritschle (pfritsch@skid.ps.uci.edu) wrote:

: [from the San Jose _Mercury News_ (no pun intended), reprinted without
: permission]

: (Reuters)
: LONDON-British television researchers said Tuesday that Russian
: scientists had designed a nuclear bomb the size of a baseball.
:   The small "clean" neutron bombs purportedly are not made from
: "dirty" plutonium and so are not covered by non-proliferation
: treaties.
:   Independent Channel 4, in a program to be broadcast today, says
: Russian scientists have used "red mercury" to make neutron weapons
: that destroy human life but leave buildings and machinery intact.

As far as I was aware "neutron bombs" are efficient but
low yield fission-fusion hydrogen bombs without the final "dirty"
fission layer, allowing the high flux of *fusion* neutrons to 
escape.

In any case, the fissile core of small modern (US) weapons is about
"baseball sized" and has been that small probably for 20-30 years.

: Paul Fritschle                                         pfritsch@skid.PS.UCI.EDU
: Puritanism--The haunting fear that someone, somewhere may be happy.
:                       -H.L. Mencken (1880-1956)

--
-Matt Kennel  		mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu
-Institute for Nonlinear Science, University of California, San Diego
-*** AD: Archive for nonlinear dynamics papers & programs: FTP to
-***     lyapunov.ucsd.edu, username "anonymous".
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenmbk cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.13 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Rf Heating Of A Fusion Plasma
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Rf Heating Of A Fusion Plasma
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 1994 19:46:35 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <2ohe6s$ak0@network.ucsd.edu> mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel) writes:
>PAUL (stek@amazon.pfc.mit.edu) wrote:
>: Good question.  Particle losses are not as big an issue as energy losses. 
>: Thermal transport is beleived to be due to small scale turbulence.  For 
>: ICRF at least you also create standing waves in the edge that sputter 
>: first wall atoms into the plasma.  These high z impurities can end up
>: radiating more heat than you are putting in and help contribute to 
>: turbulence.  
>
>Now here's something that I've thought about:  why not coat the
>interior wall with some low-z heavily hydrogenated material?
>
>Say, some deuterated plastic?
>
>(Now just how hot does that metal wall get?)

The purpose of the first wall is to exclude the atmosphere and
gas in high vacuum applications.  Polyethylene and other such 
"low Z" will flood the chamber with gas, because (hydrogen 
isotopes) would be dislodged from the plastic matrix by the 
massive neutron flux.  Neutron flux heating of five to twenty  
megawatts per square meter will utterly destroy the polymer 
bounds.  

Specially treated Carbon (graphite?) isn't so bad and has been 
tried as limitors,  Its use in vacuum is limited because it is 
not strong except in the diamond form.   But for a tokamak
a PERFECT vacuum wall will not help it to come even within sight 
of reaching the necessary commercial break-even point.  

Now the plasma is confined Inward, and once the impurities are
ionized they too are confined in the plasma surface.  Dumb.  
The only solution is a plasma wall and much higher burn densities
in the core plasma using aneutronic fuel cycles.  


>: Paul Stek 
>: Stek@cmod.pfc.mit.edu
>--
>-Matt Kennel  		mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu
>-Institute for Nonlinear Science, University of California, San Diego
>-*** AD: Archive for nonlinear dynamics papers & programs: FTP to
>-***     lyapunov.ucsd.edu, username "anonymous".

+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc,Bx 1037, Prometheus II, Ltd., College Park, MD 20741-1037 |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+


cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.14 / mitchell swartz /  The charade of theoretical cold fusion
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: The charade of theoretical cold fusion
Subject: Re: The charade of theoretical cold fusion
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 1994 01:48:18 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <0heyron0BwwM41RaRY@transarc.com>
Subject: Re: The charade of theoretical cold fusion
Ted Anderson (Ted_Anderson@transarc.com) writes:

= "Band states of heavy particles are possible.  I gather it has become
= reasonably well accepted that band states of hydrogen explain various
= properties of hydrogenated materials, including the high mobility of
= hydrogen in transition metals."

   If this were true -- that band states are sufficient to explain the high mobility of
hydrogen in palladium --  how can the inverse isotope effects be explained?


= "The very poor mobility of He in transition metals would seem to suggest
= that forming band states of helium nuclei is not be easy.  But perhaps
= the connection between high mobility and the existence of band states is
= not that simple.  What indication is there that He band states are
= possible?"

   IMHO the important bands  a priori  are those of the decorated deuterons.
   Given the small amount of He-4 generated, what 
indication is there that the band states of He are important?

       Thanks in advance.           Best wishes.

                                       - Mitchell Swartz


cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.14 /  morrison@vxpri /  Solar neutrino problem. Brown Dwarfs.
     
Originally-From: morrison@vxprix.cern.ch
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Solar neutrino problem. Brown Dwarfs.
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 1994 04:20:39 GMT
Organization: At Home; Salida, CA USA

    Robert Eachus has suggested that the Chubbs' theory may be correct because 
 of "the lack of brown dwarfs, the 'Solar Neutrino problem',  and the higher  
than expected core temperatures in Earth and Jupiter". He then explains a  
little bit further for any non-astronomers.
     Am not familar with the third problem, but feel some comments may be 
helpful with the other two.
     For some twenty years, 1970 - 1990 it has been the Conventional Wisdom that
the measured flux of solar neutrinos was less than that predicted from Solar
Evolutionary models to come from the Sun. However this view has been challenged
and more and more experimental results and new theoretical calculations have
been made so that the solar neutrino problem is in the process of vanishing, ie
the  evidence for any problem is now considered "not compelling". This point of 
view is opposed by some previous workers and the debate continues, but the 
tendancy is clear.
    The reason is not any one dramatic change but a steady series of changes.
Initially Bahcall dominated the theoretical work and gave exceedingly small 
errors essentially because he downgraded the possibility of major theory errors
whereas others such Turck-Chieze et al. considered that these were very serious 
in particular the screening corrections were highly uncertain - thus she gave an
error of at least 25% for the Chlorine prediction instead of previous estimates 
of 11 to 12 %. The Chlorine experiment is under new management and the data 
have been re-evaluated giving some much higher values, being 2.8 SNU for 
results since 1986. However there is a major problem and uncertainty about 
the Chlorine data since they claimed to observe a fluctuation in their data 
corresponding to the inverse of the sunspot number, and said this was five 
standard deviations. However this is a most unexpected result ("miracle") as
the sunspots vary on an 11 year cycle and depend on the Convection zone near 
the surface whereas the neutrinos are generated in the core and the typical
time for information carried by electromagnetic radiation to traverse that
distance is about ten million years. In addition the excellent Kamiokande 
experiment does not find any such effect. Further the Chlorine experimental
group now says it was only a two standard deviation efffect. Hence there
are serious doubts about the numerical values coming from the Chlorine  
experiment. This comment in no way reduces the praise this chlorine 
experiment has received for being the first to identify neutrinos from the Sun.
     The prediction of the number of Solar neutrinos of high energy, depends
mainly on the amount of Boron 8 produced - and since this is a very minor 
channel, the Sun's luminosity is not affected by any change in the amount of 8B.
The 8B is produced in the reaction 7Be(p,g)8B. The rate of this reaction is not
well determined and its analysis has been very controversial. However it 
has been recently determined at Riken by Motobayashi et al (Moshe Gai was one 
of the major workers involved) by measuring the Coulomb dissociation of 8B
ie 8B(g,p)7Be where the gamma is virtual - the Primakoff effect. The result was
to give a much lower rate of high energy neutrinos so that now the Kamiokande
experiment is less than one standard deviation from the more recent models
and the later Chlorine data was about two standard deviations away.
    A new Stellar evolutionary code, more complete and calculated with more 
cells has been made by Kovetz and Shaviv. Dar and Shaviv have used this and 
have re-evaluated many pieces of input data for models and have found 
significant changes in particular in the Sun's luminosity, the 
3He(alpha,gamma)7Be rate and the 7Be(p,g)8B rate so that the astrophysical
S-factors, S34 and S17 are markedly lower (barrier penetration factors are
so great at the Sun's energies that cross sections fall precipitously, so
astrophysicists remove the barrier penetration factors and deal with S-factors  
which are relatively constant). The result is that they predict 4.2 SNU for 
the chlorine experiment and 109 SNU for the Gallium experiment.
     There are two gallium experiments, GALLEX and SAGE. After the early
learning experience of SAGE, both now find about 80 to 90 SNU. With errors 
these values are about one to two standard deviations lower than theory.
    There are some other complicated factors which could lower the theory 
values further. But the conclusion must be that at present there is no 
compelling evidence for a solar neutrino problem.
    It may be recalled that the temperature in the core of the Sun, corresponds
to an average energy of about one keV, but because of the precipitous
decrease of the rate with decreasing energy, most of the reactions occur near
10 keV even though there are very few particles of that energy.
  Some references;
T. Motobayashi et al. Phys. Rev. Lett.(1994)
A. Kovetz and G Shaviv Ap. J. May 1 1994.
A Dar and G, Shaviv submitted to Ap. J.
- for information ask Aaron Dar at Technion.
D.R.O. Morrison, CERN-PPE/93-196 and 93-98; Particle World 3(1992)20, 
                 Intl. J. of Mod. Phys. D1(1992)281.

   About Brown Dwarfs. When the gas and other material in a protostar
start to condense, it can give one or more centres. If the centres are
greater than about 0.08 Mo (Mo is the solar mass) then the temperature can go 
high enough to give sustained nuclear reactions giving a star. If the mass is 
less than 0.08 Mo, then the compact object is called a brown dwarf. Jupiter is
a planet and has appreciable differences from brown dwarfs. 
    Brown dwarfs will contain mainly the primordial elements hydrogen, helium 
and Lithium, and all the other elements in the protostar - these latter come 
essentially from creation in supernovae. Generally it is considered that the 
amount of deuterium is very small, eg  BBN gives about 10 E-4 abundance.
So when Robert Eachus talks about deuterium settling "towards the core
so that any metals in the core would be saturated with He and D, not H", am
rather surprised since there must be many orders of magnitude more H than D.
    The reason that there is so little D is because of the different rates
of the nuclear reactions in stars. For the case of the core of the Sun, the 
partial life expectancies of the first named particle in each of the four main
reactions are;
 H  +  H  ---> D  + e+  +  v      5.8 x 10E9 years
 D  +  H  ---> 3He  + gamma       3.2 x 10E-8 years
 3He  +  3He  --->  4He + 2H      1.5 x 10E5 years
 3He  +  4He  --->  7Be + gamma   6.5 x 10E5 years.

    Thus it can be seen that deuterium lasts less than a second in the Sun's 
core. This indicates why it is so infrequent in primordial matter. It will
also explained why the D-D and D-T fusion reactions are unimportant in the Sun.
     The large difference in the H-H and D-H reactions rates is striking. 
This is the reason that when some True believer in Cold Fusion claims that 
not merely can one produce D-D fusion but also H-H fusion, 
astrophysicists tend to be rather surprised.
     Since H-D fusion has a much higher rate than H-H or D-D fusion, as 
Schwinger has pointed out, it would seem reasonable to do a series of 
experiments where one varies significantly the ratio of H to D, for example;

H    0.001   0.01   0.10   0.5   0.90   0.99   0.999
D    0.999   0.99   0.90   0.5   0.10   0.01   0.001

    This has been proposed previously - see section 5.6 of following paper  
which is re-posted as there appear to be new readers who have not seen this  
review of Cold Fusion. It is surprising that despite the many claims of having 
observed Cold Fusion effects, this simple test has not been performed as it
would be a good check of whether one's ideas and results were reasonable.


                                                Douglas R.O. Morrison.
    

cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenmorrison cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.14 /  morrison@vxpri /  Review of Cold Fusion.
     
Originally-From: morrison@vxprix.cern.ch
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Review of Cold Fusion.
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 1994 04:21:17 GMT
Organization: At Home; Salida, CA USA

22 December 1993                                                  DM-93-3

                REVIEW OF PROGRESS IN COLD FUSION

                    Douglas R.O. Morrison
               CERN, Geneva 23, Switzerland.
  
ABSTRACT
     Experimental papers published over a 12 month period are summarized and
the theoretical papers are abstracted. What one would have expected to see is
listed and compared with what was published.  The conditions for good
experiments are listed, in particular "try to prove yourself wrong". The list
of four miracles required for Cold Fusion to be fusion are explained. The
contradiction is noted between experiments which observe Cold Fusion effects
with deuterium and as a control find no such effects with hydrogen, and those
experiments which find Cold Fusion with hydrogen. Information is requested on
the boundary layer between the inside of the lattice where Cold Fusion is
claimed to occur, and the rest of the Universe where the normal laws of Science
apply and Cold Fusion is not claimed. Since a claim  in 1989 that a working
Cold Fusion device existed, the time delay to such a practical device has
steadily increased.

SUBJECTS
1. Introduction
2. Data Base for Review
3. Classification of Published Papers
4. What do we Expect to See?
5. Do Good Experiments
     5.1. Do Not use Poor Detectors
     5.2. Do Use Detectors that Discriminate
     5.3. Do Look for Correlations
     5.4. Do Use Adequate Data Recording Instrumentation
     5.5. Design Experiments to Avoid Problems
     5.6. Try to Prove Yourself Wrong
     5.7. Do Experiments to Test Theories
     5.8 Do Reproducible Experiments
6. List of Miracles if Cold Fusion is Fusion
     6.1. D-D Separation
     6.2. Excess Heat with Hydrogen
     6.3. Lack of Nuclear Ash with respect to Excess Heat
     6.4. Ratios of Nuclear Ash  Components
7. Theory - General. Boundary Layer between Cold Fusion and Rest of the
Universe
8. List of Theories published in last 12 Months
9. When a Cold Fusion Working Device?
10. Conclusions. 
 
      Presented at the Fourth International Conference on Cold Fusion,
               6th to 9th December 1993, Maui, Hawaii.

 

1. INTRODUCTION
      At the Third Cold Fusion Conference in Nagoya, October 1992, gave a
Review of Cold Fusion[1]. For this Fourth conference, the papers published in
the following 12 months are reviewed and a comparison is made between what we
expected to see performed in these 12 months and what actually happened. With 5
groups reporting at Nagoya that they had observed excess heat and other effects
using not deuterium but normal light hydrogen, new results were expected. The
question of when a working device giving useful power, would be produced (or
may already have been made) is discussed.

2.  DATA BASE FOR REVIEW
     A review should look at ALL the data, both positive and null experiments.
ICCF meetings are unsuitable as very few of the experiments which find no
effect (null experiments) are presented even though as shown in ref. 1, most
published experimental results find nothing. Hence have taken all the published
papers which are said to have been refereed, from the bibliography of Dieter
Britz covering his period;
October 1992 to September 1993.
This is a continuation to the compilation presented at Nagoya [1] which covered
his period of April 1989 to September 1992.
     It is agreed by all that statistics of published papers alone are not
decisive in any controversy and hence NO CONCLUSIONS WILL BE DRAWN FROM
STATISTICS ALONE. However it is interesting to see trends.

3. CLASSIFICATION OF PUBLISHED PAPERS
     During the Dieter Britz's period Oct. 1992 to Sept. 1993, 76 papers
concerning Cold Fusion were published in refereed journals. 27 were
experimental, 26 theory, and 22 were "Others". Of the experimental papers, 13
were null (i.e. no effect found), 10 positive (some effect found) and 4 with no
decision. The theory papers had 3 predicting no effect, 20 predicting an
effect, and three discussing a possible explanation of claimed effects.
     Comparing with previous years, the rate of publishing is slightly higher
than the first 9 months of 1992 (43 papers) but appreciable lower than 1989
(237 papers in 9 months), 1990 (305 papers) and 1991 (154 papers). Thus the
rate is now about 6 papers per month (of which 2 are experimental) compared
with a 1990 peak of 25 papers per month (of which 11 were experimental).
     The experimental papers were then classified according to the claim
(neutrons, tritium etc.) so that a paper could give several entries. It was
found that new classifications were needed, After each class two numbers are
given, the first is the number of null experimental results and the second is
the number of positives. They are;

      3.1. New Classifications 
          Fracto-fusion   2 null ; 2 positive.      Laser-induced  1 ; 0.     
          Transmutation 0 ; 1   
          Light Hydrogen (i.e. not deuterium)  ? ; 1.      Mossbauer  1 ; 0.
          Black Holes  ? ; 1     Gammas  2 ; 0
           Excess heat but no input ("Life after Death")  0 ; 2
     3.2. Previous Classifications   
          3He  3 ;1     4He  1 ; 3     X-Rays 0 ; 0    Protons  1 ; 0    
          Tritium  6 ; 2
          Neutrons  12 ; 9      Excess Heat  3 ; 10.
     It may be recalled that for 1989 to Sept. 1992, all the classes gave more
null experiments than positive ones. Adding the new statistics does not change
this - for all major classifications there are more null results, than positive
ones, e.g. for Excess Heat the totals are 50 null results and 37 positive
claims.

4. WHAT DO WE EXPECT TO SEE?
     Previous meetings held in 1989 to 1992, gave guides for future experiments
- these recommendations are hard to find as the meetings tended not to have
summary speakers and the concluding Round Table discussions were not written
up; so had to rely on notes taken. The advice for future work was;  
     4.1. Do Good Experiments
     4.2. Make Experimental Results Reproducible
     4.3. Theory that Fits All Data
     4.4. Make a Working Model
We will now consider how far these requirements have been met.

5. DO GOOD EXPERIMENTS
     The field might be expected to be mature now since it is more than four
and a half years since the Fleischmann and Pons Press Conference of 23 March
1989, and over 10 years since Fleischmann and Pons started working hard
experimentally on Cold Fusion (they claim that they began to work intensively
five and a half years before their Press Conference). Also many groups have
been well-funded for some period. The main points are;

   5.1. Do not use Poor Detectors
     Certain detectors are notorious for giving artifacts, e.g. BF3 counters
which easily give false signals due to vibration, humidity etc., or X-ray
plates which can be stained by many effects.

   5.2. Do Use Detectors that Discriminate
     Instead of using an X-ray plate that records a vague darkening, it much
better to use an X-ray detector which can measure the energy of the individual
X-rays - for example the observation of the 21 keV line from Palladium would be
an important result. Steve Jones has made such a detector which is so small
that it can easily be inserted into anyone's experiment. He himself has not
observed the 21 keV line in his experiments. For over a year he has offered his
detector free to anyone who seriously wants to measure X-rays, but no one took
up his offer, though now at Maui, Prof. Oriani has accepted one. Similarly
instead of simply counting neutrons, it would be more convincing to measure the
energy spectrum and see if there is a peak at 2.45 MeV as  expected - the
original 1989 Nature paper of Steve Jones et al. [2] reported such a peak and
even though its statistical significance was rather small, the fact that it was
at 2.45 MeV was impressive; similarly the Turin group has recently reported [3]
a peak at the desired value of 2.5 MeV.

   5.3 Do Look for Correlations
     It is unsatisfactory to measure only one effect, e.g. only neutrons, when
many effects are predicted to occur simultaneously, e.g. excess heat is
expected to occur with 4He on some theories and with 3He on others and with
neutrons, tritons, protons, gammas, X-rays, 14 MeV neutrons on conventional
models. By making measurements of these effects simultaneously, the value of
the results is greatly increased. It may be commented that up to now when the
better experiments have looked for several effects simultaneously, they have
observed no effects at all [1]. In this connection it is interesting to recall
the statement by Dr. Fleischmann "1992 must be the year of mass spectroscopy"
so it is clear that he is in favour of seeking correlations but it is
surprising that we are still waiting for such results.

   5.4 Do Use Adequate Data Recording Instrumentation
   Using a single thermister to record temperature changes in a fast changing
environment as in the latest Fleischmann and Pons paper [4] is not satisfactory
or convincing - it does not allow an adequate check on the detailed heat flow
calculations such as the assumption that the heat loss is 100% by radiation
whereas the original Fleischmann and Pons paper [5] emphasized that Newton's
Law of Cooling was used and the heat flow was 100% conduction - it is the
difference between assuming that the heat loss was proportional to the
difference in the temperature to the fourth power or to the first power -
vastly different assumptions.
     Similarly in ref. 4, Fleischmann and Pons describe how the cell boils
vigorously and about half-empties in 600 seconds - but this work only has a
single temperature recording device and the current and voltage data are only
recorded every 300 seconds which means that only about two (or three) readings
were recorded during the crucial 600 seconds. This is highly inadequate and
casts serious doubts on the claims of huge excess heat. Similarly with the
claim that the cell stayed hot for some three hours after the electrolyte had
boiled off so that it was believed that there was no input - now called "Life
after Death" - it is hard to believe when there is only one local isolated
measuring device. It is to be hoped that these experiments will be repeated
with adequate convincing measuring instruments.
     It is normal experimental practice to make redundant measurements and to
have more than the strict minimum number of detectors - this allows checks of
assumptions. Unfortunately many Believers in Cold Fusion follow Fleischmann and
Pons in under-equipping their experiments - more detailed comments on their
recent Physics Letters A paper is given in ref. 6. The conclusion is; make
redundant measurements to check and to avoid theoretical assumptions such as
whether the heat loss is 100% conduction or 100% radiation.

   5.5 Design Experiments to Avoid Problems
     The design of some experiments is such that a large number of assumptions
are needed to analyze the data and many calibrations are required - an example
is the open cell calorimetry with no measurements of the out-going gases, of
Drs. Fleischmann and Pons where the make assumptions such as (1) that there is
no recombination of the deuterium and the oxygen although the anode and cathode
are very close, (2) that the heat outflow is 100% radiative or alternatively is
100% conductive, (3) that no lithium is carried out of the cell, (4) that the
gas escaping does not carry any liquid with it or is blown out near boiling
temperature, etc. Many of these doubtful assumptions (and which are doubted
[7]) are treated by calculations. However it would be better if they could be
largely avoided by using standard electrochemical technique e.g. employing a
closed cell with a catalyser inside and the anode and cathode well-separated.
Best technique is to use a null measurement method as in the Wheatstone bridge.
Here one could use three baths at temperatures kept by heaters at temperatures
of say 30, 40 and 45 degrees C. If there is excess heat produced by a cell in
the inner bath, then its heater is turned down and this excess heat measured -
this system is easy to calibrate. All is with no change in the temperatures of
the three baths so that complicated calculations and doubtful assumptions are
not needed.
     Since Fleischmann and Pons often use small specks of palladium (e.g. 0.04
cm3 of Pd in ref. 4), they then only observe a small effect at lower
temperatures and have to multiply by a large factor - it would be better
technique to use a larger piece of palladium so that it could be seen if the
effect is larger than the background and error assumptions. Note in Polywater,
all the experiments produced very small quantities of the controversial water,
less than one cc, and the authors did not try to use large samples, thus they
did not try to prove themselves wrong.

   5.6. Try to Prove Yourself Wrong
      "The easiest person in the World to deceive, is yourself" is a well-known
warning in Science and one is taught by good professors, such as Phillip I. Dee
in my case, to go out and actively try and find ways to prove yourself wrong. 
     If one wishes to assume there is no recombination of the hydrogen and
oxygen, then one should not do it by calculation, but do clear active
experiments to try and prove yourself wrong, e.g. by varying the distance
between the anode and cathode. This has in fact been done by Prof. Lee Hansen
at BYU [8] who varied the separation of the anode and cathode. He found that
assuming no recombination, there was an calculated excess heat  but this
disappeared when the electrodes were separated suggesting that the origin of
the calculated excess heat was recombination. To check this further, he blew in
nitrogen gas from the bottom  when the electrodes were close together, and
again the calculated excess heat vanished. It is surprising that after ten
years intensive work, that Fleischmann and Pons have never published any such
experiments to test their assumption that there is no recombination.
     The actual excess heats claimed by Fleischmann and Pons in their 1989 and
1990 papers [5, 9] are small, but they are then multiplied up by dubious
assumptions e.g normally one uses the well-known fact that the power used to
separate the deuterium and oxygen is (1.54 Volts times the current), but in
their 1989 paper, Fleischmann and Pons use (0.5 Volts times the current). It is
this and other assumptions that allow Fleischmann and Pons to use the
of-repeated claim of "one watt in and four watts out". This number of 0.5 Volts
seems to be unknown apart from this paper and it is surprising that experiments
to justify such a crucial number have not been done. This story of Fleishmann
and Pons's unusual excess heat calculations, is clearly explained on pages 351
to 353 of Frank Close's book "Too Hot to Handle" [10].
     The contradiction between Fleischmann and Pons' 1989 and 1990 papers as to
whether the heat loss is 100% by conduction [3] or 100% by radiation [8] could
be resolved by experiment, but seems not to have been done (they silvered the
top part of the cell later but as it was claimed this changed the heat loss
from 100% radiative to 100% radiative (i.e. no change!), this can hardly be 
considered a decisive experiment). The estimate of the heat losses is critical 
to calculations of the xcess heat.
     The message is, do more experiments, vary parameters and seriously try to
prove yourself wrong.

   5.7. Do Experiments to Test Theory
     There are many theories and it is surprising that people do not seriously
design experiments to make critical tests of the theories. For example the
crucial point about Nobel Prize winner Julian Schwinger's theory[11] is that pd
fusion is much more likely than dd fusion. And pd fusion would give 3He rather
than 4He in the electroweak mode. Hence one would have expected that someone
would have varied the hydrogen to deuterium content and looked for the excess
heat and for 3He and 4He as a function of the H to D ratio. For example one
could try the following mixtures in the electrolyte;
     H2O     1%     25%     50%     75%     99%
     D2O    99%      75%     50%     25%      1%.

   5.8 Do Reproducible Experiments
     So far the only reproducible experiments that have been achieved are by
those who find no Cold Fusion effect. Those who find positive Cold Fusion
effects do not claim 100% reproducibility.

6. LIST OF MIRACLES IF COLD FUSION IS FUSION

    6.1. D-D Separation
     The great problem of D-D fusion is the difficulty of overcoming the
Coulomb potential  barrier. This can be overcome by using fast deuterium nuclei
as in the Sun (keV energies), or in tokamaks, or ion implantation, energetic
arc or glow discharges, etc. but these are called Hot Fusion and well
appreciated. For Cold Fusion the thermal energies are too small and the
probability is very, very small, e.g. Koonin and Nauenberg [12] have calculated
that for a separation of 0.74 Angstroms, it is only 10 E-64 fusions per dd pair
per second - that is negligible as can be seen that if the mass of deuterium
was as large as the solar system mass, there would be only one fusion per
second which would give a power of a million millionth of one watt.
     Under normal conditions, in D2 gas or deuterium liquid, the separation of
the deuterium nuclei is 0.74 A. As explained the probability is negligible
except when a thermal muon (effectively almost zero velocity) with a mass some
200 times greater than the electron mass, approaches the dd pair and displaces
one of bound electrons and this causes the dd pair to be pulled closer together
giving a separation of about 0.035 A when fusion can occur - this is called
muon-catalyzed fusion. However with the very short lifetime of the muon it can
easily be shown that this is not an economic process but it does indicate how
the fusion probability varies very steeply with the d-d separation.
     There is an enormous literature on hydrogen and deuterium in palladium and
other metals - see for example, Fukai at the Third Cold Fusion Conference [13].
The basic fact is that palladium is normally a face-centred crystal with a side
of about 3.9 A - if hydrogen is forced into it, the crystal expands slightly
e.g to 4.03 A for a D to Pd ratio of 0.8. The normal separation of d-d
particles is 2.85 A - this is when they are in the orthohedral sites. When the
deuterons are forced into the palladium e.g by ion implantation, then
tetrahedral sites can be occupied and the separation is reduced to 1.74 A, but
this value is still much greater than the normal 0.74 A.
      Thus the deuterium nuclei are further apart in the Pd lattice than normal
- it goes the wrong way for Cold Fusion, to put deuterium into metal lattices.
     There are thousands of experiments, papers and many books on hydrogen and
deuterium in metals and there is a unifying theory which fits the data - except
Cold Fusion data. To claim excess heat from Cold Fusion is Miracle Number 1.

   6.2 Excess heat with Hydrogen
     If one observes fusion with D-D then one does not expect to observe it
with H-H as the rate is many orders of magnitude lower. Thus one would then
observe it with D2O but not with H2O. In the period April 1989 to 1991,
Fleischmann and Pons and others claimed to have observed D-D fusion but not H-H
fusion so they used H2O as a control and stated that the excess heat claimed
was from D-D fusion and was a nuclear process. However at the Third Cold Fusion
conference in October 1992, five groups claimed to have obtained excess heat
using hydrogen. Further some produced theories stating that the excess heat was
not from a nuclear reaction, e.g. Vigier [14] who said it was quantum
chemistry. At this fourth conference seven groups have reported experimental
data supporting the claims of excess heat with hydrogen - (and still living
under the banner of Cold Fusion).
     There is an enormous contradiction here - most of the Cold Fusion
community claim that Cold Fusion is  deuterium fusion and the excess heat has a
nuclear origin and this is confirmed because it is NOT observed with light
hydrogen, but there is a strong minority which claim excess heat with light
hydrogen and sometimes say it is not nuclear. Surprisingly this contradiction
was not discussed at the Third meeting and seems to be being ignored here at
the Fourth.
     This the second miracle.

     6.3 Lack of Nuclear Ash with respect to Excess heat
         If Cold Fusion has its origin in nuclear reactions as Fleischmann and
Pons and others have claimed, then there must be some nuclear particles
produced - called the Nuclear Ash by Frank Close [10]. 
      Thousands of experiments have established what this nuclear ash is, both
at high energies (hot fusion) and at thermal energies (cold fusion - in
muon-catalyzed fusion). The conclusion is that for one watt of power, the
products are;
     10 E12 particles per second of tritons, neutrons, protons, and 3He
     10 E7 particles per second of 4He and gammas of 24 MeV.
Such numbers of particles are not observed. For watts of power, the above
numbers would give fatal doses of radiation but no such casualties have been
reported and it appears that most scientists and laboratory assistants or
cleaners do not take radiation precautions or do radiation monitoring by
wearing film badges.
     This is miracle number three.

   6.4. Ratios of Nuclear Ash Components
     The ratios of the nuclear products given in 6.3 above are very well
established, e.g see Cecil et al. [15] in the proceedings of the Second Cold
Fusion conference where he shows that the (neutron plus 3He ) channel is equal
to the (tritium plus proton) channel as would be expected from charge symmetry,
while the (4He plus gamma) is indeed a factor of ten million lower. This is not
observed in experiments making Cold Fusion claims, and indeed the tritium to
neutron ratio is said to be between 10 E4 to 10 E9.
     This Cold Fusion miracle number four.
     For many, four miracles is a bit too much, especially before breakfast, as
Alice would say.

7 THEORY- GENERAL. BOUNDARY LAYER BETWEEN COLD FUSION AND REST OF THE UNIVERSE
     There are many experiments on fusion and there is a well-established
theory [13] which fits fusion data and many other aspects of Science. However
it is remarkable (a miracle) that this theory is claimed not to apply to Cold
Fusion experiments when performed by Fleischmann, Pons and some others but does
apply to the larger number of experimenters on Cold Fusion who find no effects.
There are a large number of theories which have been proposed to account for
the Cold Fusion claims. They concern the behaviour of deuterium (and sometimes
hydrogen) in a lattice. 
     In such theories it is remarkable that this lattice in which Cold Fusion
is claimed to occur, is not defined. Questions such as can Cold Fusion occur in
ice, are not given clear answers. Some such as Dr. Preparata use their theory
that justifies Cold Fusion, to support the claims of Dr. Benveniste et al. [16]
that water has a memory and that after diluting it many times (up to 10 E120),
this memory is retained. One would then expect their theory of Cold Fusion
would also apply to water - do they then predict that Cold Fusion should occur
in water? It may be noted that Hirst et al. [17] have tried to reproduce the
findings of Benveniste et al. using dilutions from 10 E2 to 10 E60, but could not
reproduce the results of Benveniste et al.
     In general it is good that theorists try to prove themselves wrong by
applying their theories to other applications as Preparata has done for the
memory of water, and this scientific approach is to be encouraged.
     A further important question that does not seem to have been considered,
is what happens at the boundary of the lattice? Outside the lattice the normal
laws of Science seem to apply but on entering the lattice, the four miracles
listed in section 6, come into operation. It would be important to study and
understand this transition layer - it may be a way to distinguish between the
very different theories of Cold Fusion.

8. LIST OF THEORIES PUBLISHED IN THE LAST 12 MONTHS
     In the period of 12 months of Dieter Britz, given in section 2, a variety
of theories that might explain Cold Fusion have been published in refereed
journals (references and author list are in Dr. Britz's bibliography). These
are summarized;
a). Gerlovin; New unified field theory. The Earth's movements with respect to
the vacuum of space are important and best results should be obtained at 10.00
hours, 11.00 hours, and noon.
b). Hagelstein; coherent and semi-coherent neutron transfer with increased
phonon coupling. Under some conditions, gammas should be observed.
c). Matsumoto; new elementary particle, the Iton which gives di-neutrons and
higher neutron assemblies. The theory explains the gravity decays and
transmutations observed.
d). Mendes; ergodic motion. Three-body collisions dominate, especially dde.
e). Bockris; high fugacity (as Fleischmann and Pons [5]) giving 1026
atmospheres. Electron capture by deuterium.
f). Matsumoto; Nattoh theory. Collapse of neutron clusters giving Black Holes.
g). Swartz; Quasi-one-dimensional model of loading. Crystal structures are
important (defects, dislocations, shape, small surface features - spikes).
h). Yasui; Fracto-fusion, cracks.
i). Fisher; polyneutrons.
j). Yang; D captures electron giving D plus a di-neutron. Theory explains
neutron bursts (this claim now withdrawn by Steve Jones).
k). Cerofolini; Binuclear atoms (dd)ee, capture thermal neutrons giving D, T,
4He, tritium enrichment, neutron bursts.
l). Matsumoto; double iton explains warming for three hours afterwards. Could
this be the theoretical explanation of the "Life after Death" claimed by
Fleischmann and Pons who about a year later also said they had observed a
similar three-hour effect?
m). Takahashi; high loadings give 3-body and 4-body fusions.
n). Bracci; Collective effects ruled out (contrary to Hagelstein and to
Preparata, Bressani and Del Gudice). Explains by high effective electron
masses, 5 to 10 times greater.
o). Lo; Densely coupled plasmas.
p). Stoppini; Superconductivity, < 11oK.
q). Hora; Dense plasma. Transmutation by neutron swapping, e.g Pd + D ---> Rh 
+ 4He.
r). Filimonov; Deuteron soliton coherent with palladium anti-soliton - should
coat electrode with palladium black.
s). Lipson; Super-condensates - fracto-fusion mechanism is improbable.
t). Chatterjee; stochastic electron accumulation.
u). Gammon; Negative Joule-Thompson effect.
v). Granneau; Ampere force.
w). Hagelstein; n-transfer, 3-phonon.
x). Ichimark; coherent plasmas. One to two fusions per year per cm3.
Note - in reply to a question as to whether Cold Fusion could be observed in
water, Dr. Preparata declared that he had never written a paper applying his
theory of Cold Fusion to Benveniste's work. Dieter Britz has written "We have
an article from an Italian Magazine, where Preparata and Del Guidice describe
their theory of long-range effects in water, and relate this to both cold
fusion and homeopathy (i.e. Benveniste claims)".
     It is interesting that there is a rather wide  spread of journals - not
just Fusion Technology (10 times here) and Physics Letters A  where J.-P.
Vigier is an Editor (quoted twice here).

9. WHEN A COLD FUSION WORKING DEVICE?
8 December 1993; the previous speaker, Dr. H. Fox, giving he said, a business
man's point of view, declared he expected a working Cold Fusion device in 
TWENTY YEARS.
November 1993. Dr. S. Pons said that by the year 2000 there should be a
household power plant - SIX YEARS.
 1992. Dr. M. Fleischmann said a 10 to 20 Kilowatt power plant should be
operational in  ONE YEAR.
July 1989. The Deseret News published an article by Jo-Ann Jacobsen-Wells who
interviewed Dr. S. Pons. There is a photograph in colour, of Dr. Pons beside an
simple apparatus with two tubes, one for cold water in and one for hot water
out. This working unit based on Cold Fusion was described as; " 'It couldn't
take care of the family's electrical needs, but it certainly could provide them
with hot water year-round' said Pons".
Later in the article it was written "Simply put, in its current state, it could
provide boiling water for a cup of tea".
Time delay to this working model - ZERO YEARS.
     Thus it appears that as time passes, the delay to realisation of a working
model increases.

10. CONCLUSIONS
     No conclusions are presented - everyone can judge for themselves. However
some questions can be asked;
     Are Cold Fusion results consistent in claiming Cold Fusion effects in
Deuterium but not in normal Hydrogen, while other groups claim Cold Fusion
effects with hydrogen?
     Is the ratio of tritium to neutron production about unity as Fleischmann
and Pons originally claimed [5] or is the ratio in the wide range 104 to 109 as
most other workers claim?
     Are transmutations, Black Holes, Biology [18] part of the normal world of
Cold Fusion?
     To explain the null experiments there is one theory - the conventional
theory of Quantum Mechanics, but there are a wide variety of theories to
explain positive Cold Fusion results - can they all be valid simultaneously -
if not, which should be rejected?
     When can we have a cup of tea?

Acknowledgements
     It is a pleasure to thank Dieter Britz for the use of his Bibliographic
compilation.

REFERENCES
1. D.R.O. Morrison, Cold Fusion Update No. 7, Email.
2. S.E. Jones et al., Nature 338(1989)737.
3. T. Bressani et al. 3rd Intl. Conf. on Cold Fusion, "Frontiers of Cold
   Fusion", Ed. H. Ikegami, Univ. Acad. Press, Tokyo, (1993), p 433.
4. M. Fleischmann and S. Pons, Phys. Lett. A 176(1993)1.
5. M. Fleischmann and S. Pons, J. Electroanal. Chem. 261(1989)301.
6. J. Wilson et al., J. Electroanal. Chem. 332(1992)1.
7. D.R.O. Morrison, CERN preprint CERN-PPE/93-96 and to be published in Phys.
   Lett. A.
8. L. Hansen, priv. comm.
9. M.Fleishmann et al., J. Electroanal. Chem. 287(1990)293.
10. F. Close, "Too Hot To Handle", W.H Allen Publ., London, (1990).
11. J. Schwinger, 1st Annual Conf. on Cold Fusion, National Cold Fusion
    Institute, Salt Lake City, (1989), p 130.
12. S.E. Koonin and M. Nauenberg, Nature 339(1989)690.
13. Y. Fukai, 3rd Intl. Conf. on Cold Fusion, "Frontiers of Cold Fusion", Ed.
    H. Ikegami, Univ. Acad. Press, Tokyo, (1993), p 265.
14. J.-P. Vigier, 3rd Intl. Conf. on Cold Fusion, "Frontiers of Cold Fusion",
Ed. H. Ikegami, Univ. Acad. Press, Tokyo, (1993), p325.
15. F.E. Cecil and G.M. Hale, 2nd Annual Conf. on Cold Fusion, "The Science of
    Cold Fusion", Ed. T. Bressani, E. Del Guidice, and G. Preparata, Soc. It. di
    Fisica, Bologna, (1991), p. 271. 
16. Davenas et al. Nature 333(1988)816-818.
17. S. J. Hirst et al, Nature 366(1993) 525-527.
18. The IgNobel Prize for Physics was awarded to L. Kervran for his book
    "Biological Transmutations" in which he argues that a cold fusion process
    produces the calcium in eggshells - Science, 262(1993)509.

cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenmorrison cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Thu Apr 14 04:37:05 EDT 1994
------------------------------
1994.04.14 / L Plutonium /  Re: Fusion is the B, and Superconductivity is the E
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics,sci.math,sci.chem
Subject: Re: Fusion is the B, and Superconductivity is the E
Date: 14 Apr 1994 06:13:41 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In article <2ohjc3$5c8@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium) writes,some
corrections:
>   We know that we do not have a mature theory of hot fusion,
> thermonuclear fusion. We know that because we have a 2/3 missing count
> of NEUTRINOS from the Sun.
>   A mature theory is Maxwell's Equations. Another theory approaching
> maturity is Quantum Mechanics. QM is mature when it incorporates the
> ATOM TOTALITY.
>   We know that only neutrinos can go through a material in the
> superconducting state and match the resistance observed in the
> superconducting state. As of this writing noone has come forth with the
> small positive resistivity of the superconducting state. That state is
> not 0 resistivity but a small positive number matching neutrino
> resistivity. Different superconducting materials have different
> resistivities--neutrino resistivities. Absolutely no material has 0
> resistivity, just as absolutely no material has 0K, and just as
> absolutely no speed is faster than light. These above statements are
> the start of the unification of electric current to temperature in
> physics.
>   We know that the Sun is a plasma, in other words, the Sun is a huge
> ball of ions of protons and electrons. It is not difficult to turn that
> view into a radioactivities view of quantum physics. The Sun is one
> huge ONE ATOM BALL. The Sun and any star is a superconductor at the
> temperature of 2.71K.
>   We know that the surroundings of the Sun and stars. The quantum state of the
> Sun is at the temperature of the cosmic microwave background radiation
> (MWBR) which is 2.71K. 
>   We know that mercury is superconductive at 4K.
>   We know we do not have a mature theory of superconductivity. In fact,
> SUPERCONDUCTIVITY understanding, QUANTIZED HALL EFFECT understanding
> are two of the most primitive understandings which we have as of this
> writing.
>   I propose that when Fusion, both Cold Fusion and Hot Fusion are
> mature theories that they are the same things. I propose that
> Superconductivity when it is a mature theory is Fusion. I propose that
> Superconductivity is Fusion.
>   Mercury is superconductive at 4K is just another way of saying that
> mercury at 4K is acting as ONE ATOM, and that mercury at 4K is a Fusion
> device. The Sun at approx 5000K is a superconductor. 
>   If these speculations are correct and turn into the mature theory of
> FUSION  unified to SUPERCONDUCTIVITY, not as one and the same thing
> only at different temperatures. But rather, as quantum duals, quantum
> compliments. We know that PARTICLE is dual to WAVE. I propose that
> RADIOACTIVITIES is dual to ELECTROMAGNETISM (call it R-EM). I propose
> that STRONGNUCLEAR is dual to GRAVITY (call it S-G). Further, I propose
> (R-EM) is dual to (S-G). Much detail needs to be worked out.
>  But getting back to the above that Fusion is the dual of
> Superconductivity leads to the math logic conclusion that a room
> temperature superconducting material exists. It exists before we have
> even discovered, or engineered it. It exists because if my speculations
> are correct then since mercury is superconductive at 4K and the Sun is
> a superconductor at 5000K, by math logic, a material exists which is
> superconductive at room temperature.
>   To push my above speculations to its math logic conclusion. Fusion is
> a quantum dual to superconductivity just as B, the magnetic field in
> Maxwell's Equations is a quantum dual to E, the electric field. 

In article <2oftug$g8o@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium) writes:
>         (7) The anomalous facts concerning the planet Mercury. The planet
> Mercury has 2 outstanding anomalous facts: 1) huge iron core and 2) a
> magnetic field. Conventional physics and astronomy are dumbfounded in
> explaining these two facts. But an easy and clear explanation is rsnm.
> The planet Mercury as all planets are dots of the electron cloud of the
> 94th electron of plutonium. Dots of the Schroedinger wave equation is
> where electromagnetic potential and current exists, and wherever it
> exists there occurs rsnm.

  The current view of the energy of the Sun and starpower mixes all 4
forces as a basketful of forces. This I say is wrong, just as it is
wrong in the double-slit experiment to mix both particle and wave. When
a measurement is done on a particle-wave experiment, only one appears
with the exlusion of the other. I say that the correct understanding of
starpower is to view it as EITHER all strongnuclear-gravity OR all
radioactivities-electromagnetism. Let particle wave duality be the
guide.
  In my above speculations that FUSION is a dual of SUPERCONDUCTIVITY.
This makes alot of sense. Within this interpretation, for the first
time we can explain the (1) anomalies of the planet Mercury, (2)
anomalies of magnetic fields for planets, and importantly (3) we can
explain away why the planets have not already fallen into the Sun since
as they move in their orbits they lose mechanical energy continuously.
Mercury Venus Earth and Mars should have already fallen into the Sun.
(4) We can explain the origins of the Solar System better. And (5) we
can better understand and APPRECIATE the observable fact that some of
the stars/galaxies are older than the present observable universe
because those older galaxies were part of the 93rd electron of the
Neptunium Atom Totality and older than our present observable universe
of the 94th electron universe.

  The planets, especially Mercury has not fallen into the Sun because
all the planets, and especially Mercury are the Meissner Effect on the
large scale. Correct me if I am wrong, I am trying to remember some of
the posts on which planets had magnetic fields and I believe Venus and
another did not or had a tiny one if it has any. Does Venus have a
moon, and the other planet? Anyway continuing with the theory
speculations. The Sun is a Fusion Device when considering only
StrongNuclear-Gravity. But not considering SN-G, the Sun is a
Superconducting Device when it is measured EXCLUSIVELY as
Radioactivities-Electromagnetism. The planets thus are MEISSNER bodies.
The planet Mercury has not fallen into the Sun because the Sun repels
it via Superconductivity. In fact the planets which have moons, those
planets are superconductors repelling their moons. 
  The above is the start for defining planets via dots of the
Schroedinger Equation plus Meissner bodies to the Sun. The above is the
start for the understanding of why the 9 planets in our Solar System
have the mass they do and the moons they do, and the magnetic fields
they do. 
  All is quantized in this Plutonium Atom Totality. A smart calculator
who has the data can now start to reconcile the planets and the Sun
into one neat quantum picture.
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.14 / Dieter Britz /  Re: A new fusion trigger?
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A new fusion trigger?
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 1994 07:46:36 GMT
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 1994 00:15:16 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway




Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov in FD 2156:
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 1994 00:15:16 GMT

>Patrick McTiernan suggests discharging a power source through a deuterated
>wire.  Correct me someone, but I think this was the Tanberg experiment of
>1927.  As I remember he cleared out the county (Sweden) before throwing the
>switch.  I think there have also been a number of more recent experiments,
>some discussed here.  But finding a reference is a pain.  There is just too
>much stuff in the world to keep track of all the failed experiments.

OK, Tom, I'll correct you. It was 1932, see the full abstract from the file
cnf-bks below. Tandberg even used electrolysis to charge the Pd wire. Not a
sausage (i.e. neutron); it must be said, however, that he didn't have a
Jones-class neutron detector. I describe in my paper in Centaurus the parallel
between this and the 1989 work of Wada and Nishizawa, who passed a spark
between two D-charged Pd electrodes, and claim to have measured large neutron
bursts. They, too, did not have a Jones class device. There are many papers in
the bibliography describing discharges of one kind or another, but I didn't
dig them out - go and use the WAIS base if you are keen, try under
'discharge'. What I did dig out and you see below is the above references,
plus the Campbell et al, who suggested a large current passed through
deuterated Ti (but didn't do it), and Shirai et al, who did pass a large
current (5A) through a Pd sample that was at the same time an electrolysis
cathode (with a different, electrolysis, current). There are very few new
ideas.
Just for fun, I add the full item by Daedalus out of the cnf-cmnt file; it
suggests a related approach, using an explosion rather than a current, but the
idea is the same. Noone has tried this {:]

Britz D; Centaurus 33 (1990) 368.
"Cold fusion: an historical parallel".

Campbell RB, Perkins LJ;  Fusion Technol. 16 (1989) 383.
"A study of 'cold fusion' in deuterated titanium subjected to high-current
densities".

Jones D (alias Daedalus); Nature 338 (1989) 529 (Daedalus, 27 April)
"Blow the fuse!"
** Tongue-in-cheek suggestion that, once D is packed into Pd, and surrounded
by explosive charges, this could make a splendid and elegant hydrogen bomb,
with no lasting fallout. Another idea is a fusion-powered watch.

Shirai O, Kihara S, Sohrin Y, Matsui M;
Bull. Inst. Chem. Res., Kyoto Univ. 69 (1991) 550.
"Some experimental results relating to cold nuclear fusion".

Wada N, Nishizawa K; Jap. J. Appl. Phys. 28 (1989) L2017.
"Nuclear fusion in solid".

Soederberg S (Editor); "Our Alchemist in Tome Alley" (In Swedish).
Original title: Vaar Alkemist i Tomegraend", Gleerup Bokforlaeg, Lund 1970.
** The life story of John Tandberg, as written by his friends. He worked in
the Electrolux laboratories in Stockholm from 1925 to 1962; these were in fact
in the street Tomegatan, but the "alley (graend)" in the title comes from a
poem about Tandberg. Born in Norway, Tandberg is widely remembered in Sweden
as an extraordinary chemist, practical joker, science writer, poet and
numerologist, among other things. His place in this list is due to his
interest in the fusion of hydrogen and deuterium, which was fired by the
articles of Paneth and Peters in 1926. Although they retracted their claims
early 1927, Tandberg pursued the work, with the aim of energy generation in
mind; and, after making some improvements together with his coworker Torsten
Wilner, they attempted to patent the work. The patent was not granted - not
because the idea didn't work (it probably didn't) but because it had not been
explained satisfactorily. Tandberg didn't let go, however, and throughout the
decades at Electrolux he tried new variants on this theme - alongside his
normal, and highly successful, work. In the early thirties, he tried to use a
lab-built accelerator to shoot protons at targets; this was similar to the
work of Cockcroft and Walton, but failed because of the more modest means at
Tandberg's disposal. Later, in 1932, he anticipated electrochemical CNF, by
electrochemically charging a palladium wire with deuterium. He reasoned that
he could compress the deuterium even further by electrically exploding the
charged wire, and asked his friend and coworker, Torsten Wilner, to go home,
in case there was a dangerous explosion; he had correctly calculated the
enormous potential energy release from a fusion reaction. This exploding wire
idea (which did not work) in its way anticipated laser-induced fusion - and
Daedalus's proposal for a mini-hydrogen bomb (see D Jones alias Daedalus, in
section 3).   This little book really ought to be published in English.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.14 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Re: A new fusion trigger?
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A new fusion trigger?
Date: 14 Apr 94 13:52:55 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

In article <940413163711.2020843d@FNALD.FNAL.GOV>, DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:
> Patrick McTiernan suggests discharging a power source through a deuterated
> wire.  Correct me someone, but I think this was the Tanberg experiment of
> 1927.  As I remember he cleared out the county (Sweden) before throwing the
> switch.  I think there have also been a number of more recent experiments, 
> some discussed here.  But finding a reference is a pain.  There is just too
> much stuff in the world to keep track of all the failed experiments.
> 
> Tom Droege
> 


Tom is correct that this idea has been tried before.  I recall an interesting
paper by Stephanakis probably in Phys. Rev. or PRL.  If Patrick wants the 
reference, we (meaning a student  ( 8^)   could probably dig it up.
I believe there are ongoing experiments using frozen deuterium as the "wire"
-- driving an enormous current through the string-like frozen D2 to form
a plasma.  Patrick is right that the current generates a strong magnetic
field that helps contain and indeed compress this plasma.  As I recall,
this work is going on at Los Alamos and London College.

--Steven Jones

cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenjonesse cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.14 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Re: FAQs PLEASE!!
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: FAQs PLEASE!!
Date: 14 Apr 94 14:10:43 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

In article <1994Apr13.194946.752@vax1.dcu.ie>, 93268866@vax1.dcu.ie writes:
> Hi,
> 
> Could someone please post the FAQs for this newsgroup please?
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Paul Nolan,
> DCU - Dublin,
> EIRE.
> 

Douglas Morrison's recent posting, "Review of Cold Fusion," serves this
purpose as well as anything I've seen recently, for cold fusion.
Robert Heeter has done some good work pulling together information relating
to hot fusion.
While I and others have posted what might be considered reviews of muon-
catalyzed fusion over the months, I don't have this as a FAQ file.  Suggest
as a reference for muon-induced fusion:  
1.  James S. Cohen, "Atomic and molecular processes in muon-catalyzed fusion,"
in _Review of Fundamental processes and applications of atoms and ions_,
1993, edited by C.D. Lin.

An older but perhaps more readily available review of mu-c-f is given in:
2.  Steven E. Jones, "Muon-catalyzed fusion revisited," _Nature_ May 1986.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenjonesse cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.15 / Grant Edwards /  Re: Reuters report on 'red mercury' fusion device
     
Originally-From: grante@hydro.rosemount.com (Grant Edwards)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reuters report on 'red mercury' fusion device
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 1994 00:49:49 GMT
Organization: Rosemount, Inc.

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

: It is WELL KNOWN among UFOlogists that red mercury is used to
: catalyse cold fusion in palladiumn-deuterium systems, and that the
: resulting high-power reactors are used to power UFOs.  It iw also
: WELL KNOWN in the same circles that the US Government, the oil
: companies, and the electricity utilities have coordinated a massive
: coverup to keep this IMPORTANT KNOWLEDGE from the general public,
: and insure MASSIVE PROFITS for the investors!!  That is the TRUE
: REASON behind the well-documented UFO coverup!!!!!  IT ALL TIES
: TOGETHER!!!!  PROOOOOFFF!!!!

: (I could make a fortune writing books if I believed the above tripe!)
: (I may have been following this newsgroup for too long)

I suspect that you could make a fortune writing books about the above
even if you didn't believe.  Or you could skip the writing phase
altogether and just start a religion (which, in the US, might have
some tax advantages.)

--
Grant Edwards                                 |Yow!  Did something bad
Rosemount Inc.                                |happen or am I in a drive-in
                                              |movie??
grante@rosemount.com                          |
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudengrante cudfnGrant cudlnEdwards cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.14 / Robert Heeter /  Re: cost
     
Originally-From: rfheeter@theory.pppl.gov (Robert F. Heeter)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: cost
Date: 14 Apr 1994 22:19:18 -0400
Organization: /etc/organization

In article <2ogqbdINNan@slcawc.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de>,
Arthur      Carlson        TK   <awc@ipp-garching.mpg.de> wrote:
>
>In article <1994Apr12.224004.6204@Princeton.EDU>, Robert F. Heeter 
><rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> writes:
>
>> Right now, if you handed me $10 billion,
>> I could take plans for a major tokamak hot fusion machine,
>> and build you a reactor that would produce 1 billion watts
>> of electricity for sale, within at most 10 years.  It 
>> wouldn't be economical, which is why no one is building it 
>> now.  But it would work.  The theory is there, and the
>> experiments, have shown that the theory is essentially correct.  
>> Making it economical, and improving the environmental 
>> friendliness, is a major goal of the current program.
>
>You're overselling a good product. There are plenty of debates about what ITER 
>should look like and plenty of doubts about whether it will work at all. And ITER 
>is still a *long* way from an electricity producer. I'll give two examples of
>potential show-stoppers. First, what will your divertor look like? If graphite,
>how do you solve the problem of erosion? If tungsten, how can you be sure the
>high-Z impurities won't accumulate and quench your burn?

Well, err, umm... I guess I shouldn't have implied that all the technical
problems were fully overcome, and that all that was left was to make a good
thing better.

On the other hand, if we're not concerned about the reactor being 
economical, then we can just plan to replace those divertor plates
as often as necessary! :)

(Flameproofing:  This is *not* a serious rebuttal)

> Second, how do you know that there is not a threshhold for the TAE
>instability somewhere between TFTR's 1 MW of alpha power and ITER's 500 MW?

It's true that you'd have to check that.  They can do some of that testing
on TFTR by intentionally running with a high-alpha density plasma with
hot alpha ions, no?

Actually, simply moving to a larger device could cause all sorts of
complications, too, I suppose...

On the other hand, Nat Fisch and others here are currently looking
at manipulating the hot alphas to try to control the way the energy
flows into the plasma, and to drive the alphas out of the core
at the same time.  This would (for all the controls people) provide
a useful method of controlling the fusion power gain, and also help
to forestall alpha-driven instabilities - if it could be made to work.

I guess what I should add to my fusion advertisement above is that
there *are* some technical issues to be worked out if you want to
produce your billion watts of fusion power for more than a small
fraction of a second.  On the other hand, the general scientific
consensus is that each of the major hurdles left can be overcome.

Again, if you gave me the $10 billion, I could fund most of those
hurdle-overcoming projects, and still have lots left over to build
my  billion watt plant.  But it wouldn't be a completely sure thing.

Sorry if I got a little too excited.

*****************
Robert F. Heeter
Graduate Student, Princeton Plasma Physics lab
(Disclaimers Apply)
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.14 / Tom Radcliffe /  Re: The charade of theoretical cold fusion
     
Originally-From: tom@mips2.phy.queensu.ca (Tom Radcliffe)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The charade of theoretical cold fusion
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 1994 21:03:05 GMT
Organization: Queen's University, Kingston

In article <EACHUS.94Apr14113707@spectre.mitre.org>, eachus@spectre.mitr
.org (Robert I. Eachus) writes:
|> In article <Co7GqA.9yw@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> crb7q@watt.seas.Virg
nia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
|> 
|>  > ...To *show* me that it worked
|>  > would require something quite special and novel, evidence.
|> 
|>  > As there's none here, it's quite difficult to believe vague
|>  > dixie-whistling is gaining us anything...
|> 
|>   > While I would love to be demonstrated to be wrong about this,
|>   > I would be willing to bet that I'm not.
|> 
|>    It's a big bet.  Let's play a little game:
|> 
|>   1) Does the sun shine?
|>   2) here does the energy come from?
|> 
|>    If your answers are yes and (hot) nuclear fusion, then:
|> 
|>   3) Prove it.
|> 
|>    Right now the answer is, sorry, can't do that, unless you have an
|> answer to the solar neutrino problem.
|> 

It is hard to know what to say about this.  I'm not at all sure what
this is supposed to prove.  The gallium results (both GALLEX and
SAGE) are consistent with hot pp fusion as the source of the sun's
luminosity.  The solar neutrino problem is driven by higher energy
neutrinos from rare branches involving heavier nuclei, in particular
7Be and 8B.  So you don't need an answer to the solar neutrino problem
to assert that both 1) and 2) are true.  But if the gallium results
were not consistent with the solar luminosity there are explanations
that are far more likely than anything that involves the kind of
fundamental changes in physical laws that cold fusion does.  Neutrino
oscillations come to mind, for instance.  Simply because there are
physical systems that are not fully understood does not give one
licence to assume the wildest hypothesis available, and claim that
our lack of understanding means there is some significant probability
that it is true.

cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudentom cudfnTom cudlnRadcliffe cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.14 / Robert Eachus /  Re: The charade of theoretical cold fusion
     
Originally-From: eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The charade of theoretical cold fusion
Date: 14 Apr 94 11:37:07
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.

In article <Co7GqA.9yw@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> crb7q@watt.seas.Virgini
.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:

 > ...To *show* me that it worked
 > would require something quite special and novel, evidence.

 > As there's none here, it's quite difficult to believe vague
 > dixie-whistling is gaining us anything...

  > While I would love to be demonstrated to be wrong about this,
  > I would be willing to bet that I'm not.

   It's a big bet.  Let's play a little game:

  1) Does the sun shine?
  2) here does the energy come from?

   If your answers are yes and (hot) nuclear fusion, then:

  3) Prove it.

   Right now the answer is, sorry, can't do that, unless you have an
answer to the solar neutrino problem.

   4) Do the stars shine?
   5) Including red dwarfs?

   If your answers are yes and yes, then:

   6) How did they ignite?

   The answer to five may have taken a little verification, binoculars
or a telescope should do.  Seven is a little harder to verify:

   7) How hot is Jupiter?
   8) Why?

   It is all well and good to say that the answers to the hard
questions will come when we have a better understanding of
astrophysics, and the creation and dynamics of solar systems.  But
that knowledge is completely and totally intertwined with the nuclear
properties of cold hydrogen (including deuterium) and helium.  To
assert that all those answers are completely understood is an
arrogance that is beyond me.

   Chubb may be totally and completely wrong.  The hard answers might
involve quantum black holes or antimatter for all I know.  (Or one of
my favorite "off the wall" explanations--the neutrino bursts from
supernovas.) But I am not going to belittle anyone trying to explain
easily made physical observations by mentioning squaring the circle or
perpetual motion machines.

--

					Robert I. Eachus

with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudeneachus cudfnRobert cudlnEachus cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.14 / Robert Eachus /  Re: Solar neutrino problem. Brown Dwarfs.
     
Originally-From: eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Solar neutrino problem. Brown Dwarfs.
Date: 14 Apr 94 12:34:04
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.

In article <9404131529.AA26246@dxmint.cern.ch> morrison@vxprix.cern.ch writes:

 >	For some twenty years, 1970 - 1990 it has been the
 > Conventional Wisdom that the measured flux of solar neutrinos was
 > less than that predicted from Solar Evolutionary models to come
 > from the Sun. However this view has been challenged and more and
 > more experimental results and new theoretical calculations have
 > been made so that the solar neutrino problem is in the process of
 > vanishing, ie the evidence for any problem is now considered "not
 > compelling". This point of view is opposed by some previous workers
 > and the debate continues, but the tendancy is clear.

   I don't want to seem to dismiss out of hand a very good summary on
the current state of the solar neutrino situation.  I may be on the
other side in the debate mentioned above, but that misses the point.
Theory is being improved/changed/superceded (choose your verb) in
response to observation.  The fit now (between theory and
observation) is better, but still not good.  (This is the difference
of opinion mentioned above.)  To say that the most recent observations
are almost within the error bounds is the sort of sophistry that would
not be accepted with regard to cold fusion.  Selecting data to fit
a theory is at best self delusion.  (Now if some of the observed
values were above the predictions, or the predictions were within one
or two standard deviations of the sum of the predictions...)

   (Lots about the Clorine observations deleted.)

 >     The prediction of the number of Solar neutrinos of high energy,
 > depends mainly on the amount of Boron 8 produced - and since this
 > is a very minor channel, the Sun's luminosity is not affected by
 > any change in the amount of 8B.  The 8B is produced in the reaction
 > 7Be(p,g)8B. The rate of this reaction is not well determined and
 > its analysis has been very controversial. However it has been
 > recently determined at Riken by Motobayashi et al (Moshe Gai was
 > one of the major workers involved) by measuring the Coulomb
 > dissociation of 8B ie 8B(g,p)7Be where the gamma is virtual - the
 > Primakoff effect...

    Hold on to that thought.  Higher than previously expected reaction
cross-sections for a reaction involving a virtual photon (gamma).
(And Dieter might want to pick up the Motobayashi paper.)

 >    A new Stellar evolutionary code, more complete and calculated
 > with more cells has been made by Kovetz and Shaviv. Dar and Shaviv
 > have used this...  The result is that they predict 4.2 SNU for the
 > chlorine experiment and 109 SNU for the Gallium experiment.

 >   There are two gallium experiments, GALLEX and SAGE. After the
 > early learning experience of SAGE, both now find about 80 to 90
 > SNU. With errors these values are about one to two standard
 > deviations lower than theory.

   Not wrong, but in this context a little misleading.  There are
several sources of error in both the experiments and in the theory.
Right now the error bars on the theoretical values are much larger.

 >    There are some other complicated factors which could lower the theory 
 > values further. But the conclusion must be that at present there is no 
 > compelling evidence for a solar neutrino problem.

   In one sense I agree.  The magnitude of the mismatch between theory
and experiment has been decreasing for, what, twenty years?  But I
still wouldn't contend it is a non-issue.


 > Jupiter is a planet and has appreciable differences from brown dwarfs.

  Reasoning from insufficient evidence?  If you would show me a brown
dwarf, and describe the differences please?  If sufficient brown
dwarfs are discovered to generalize, then we can decide whether or not
we live in a double star system.

 >  So when Robert Eachus talks about deuterium settling "towards the
 > core so that any metals in the core would be saturated with He and
 > D, not H", am rather surprised since there must be many orders of
 > magnitude more H than D.

  Hmmm.  Takes a lot of answer.  The amount of deuterium is large
relative to the amount of high-Z material, but low with respect to the
H and He.  If the protostar is cold, then eventually liquid densities
matter.  At the surface of course, you are dealing with gasses.  In a
gas He4 and D2 have the same density which is (approximately) twice
that of H2.  So the He4 and D2 settle toward the core.  In liquid
He/H, the maximum density occurs with mixture, but D2 will still drop
through.  So any deuterium in a cold protostar is eventually found in
the core.  When larger protostars ignite, this ratio (at the stellar
surface) can be measured and compared to the surrounding gas to
determine how long the collapse took.

 >     The reason that there is so little D is because of the
 > different rates of the nuclear reactions in stars. For the case of
 > the core of the Sun, the partial life expectancies of the first
 > named particle in each of the four main reactions are...

 >    Thus it can be seen that deuterium lasts less than a second in
 > the Sun's core. This indicates why it is so infrequent in
 > primordial matter...

   Define your terms, sir.  This explains why it is infrequent in
(current) interstellar gas clouds.  Ratios in the "big bang" were
higher.  (When the universe became transparent, most nucleosysthesis
stopped, and the "primordial" ratios were frozen.)  Of course, both
numbers are much lower than the current abundance on Earth, as water
that escapes from the top of the atmosphere is almost totally free of
deuterium.

   Again, my "feeling" is that the Chubb theory might be of no
practical power generating use, but it might have a significant effect
on solar models.  And depending on which current theory you believe, a
20% to 50% decrease in the SNU predictions would put it in a class
with Einstein's General Relativity and the precession of Mercury.  (Of
course, you have to understand that astronomers are still trying to
get theory and prediction to agree as well as they did in Einstein's
day...)

--

					Robert I. Eachus

with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudeneachus cudfnRobert cudlnEachus cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.14 / SCOTT CHASE /  Re: 1 of 3, Correct Theory of Cold Fusion and Hot Fusion
     
Originally-From: sichase@csa5.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics,sci.chem
Subject: Re: 1 of 3, Correct Theory of Cold Fusion and Hot Fusion
Date: 14 Apr 94 18:56:00 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA

In article <2ogm0r$4sf@transfer.stratus.com>, det@phlan.sw.stratus.com writes...
> 
>Anyone who uses "correct" as an adjective for "theory" obviously knows
>nothing about science.  A theory is a model.  It can be a good model or
>a poor model, but correctness is too context-sensitive to be a meaningful
>tag.

Please.  Haven't we had enough of trite overgeneralizations, yet?  There
certainly are correct and incorrect theories.  For example, a year ago,
some people believed the theory that some asteriods have moons.  We now
know that that was a correct theory.  

Years ago, several theoretists had the theory that parity would be violated
in weak interactions.  We now know that that theory was correct.  

I could go on and on, but I expect that I have made my point.  

"Correctness" is most certainly a meaningful tag used everyday by scientists
in every area of research.  All of those people know quite a bit about science,
your opinion notwithstanding.  

-Scott
 -------------------             i hate you, you hate me
Scott I. Chase                   let's all go and kill barney
SICHASE@CSA2.LBL.GOV             and a shot rang out and barney hit the floor,
                                 no more purple dinosaur.
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudensichase cudfnSCOTT cudlnCHASE cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.14 / Robert Eachus /  Re: The charde of theoretical cold fusion
     
Originally-From: eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The charde of theoretical cold fusion
Date: 14 Apr 94 15:04:40
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.

In article <Co98r2.J3r@knot.ccs.queensu.ca> tom@mips2.phy.queensu.ca
(Tom Radcliffe) writes:

 > I don't see the physical basis for this claim.  In every experiment I
 > am aware of involving nuclear reactions and scattering in solids (and 
 > there are a lot of them, Steven Jones has pointed out several, to which 
 > I might add things like Rutherford backscattering [RBS] measurements) the
 > target nuclei behave as if they were well-localized.

  Become more aware.

 > An extreme example of this is the case of RBS with channelling: the
 > target nucleus is sitting well-localized in an intersticial site.
 > There is no evidence for de-localization.  If Chubb's speculation
 > is correct presumably I could do RBS measurements on deuterium in
 > zirconium, say, and get results quite unlike anything anyone has
 > ever seen.  A firm physical foundation for a new theory, in my
 > empiricist's view, requires both consistency with known physical
 > laws and experimental verification.

   Go and do, but expect results like others that have been done.
(Although I don't know of any alpha off deuteium results.)  The
canonical experiment, which I proposed before I found it had been
done, is to scatter low-energy neutrons off superfluid helium.
(Although probably the "right" way to test Chubb's theory is to aim
deuterons at superfluid helium.  That is practically a table-top
experiment.)

 > It is now pretty well established that changing the core temperature 
 > cannot reconcile the Davis and Kamiokande results.  The gallium results 
 > are consistent with the production of energy by pp fusion in a perfectly 
 > ordinary way.  In any case, bringing solar physics into a discussion of 
 > whether deuterium nuclei are delocalized in solids is probably not the 
 > best way of clearing the air.

  Sorry I do NOT consider lowering core temperatures, "a perfectly
ordinary way" in this context.  If fusion is taking place in the core
at lower temperatures than theory predicts, then something is needed
to fix that discrepancy.  Or are we back to solar energy production in
the core not matching the current solar constant?  (And yes it is
difficult to reconcile Kamiokande and Davis results.  But the Gallium
numbers are, to me, much more important.  It is hard to come up with a
model which significantly changes the hydrogen faction in the active
region.  So temperature or theory must give.  Well--there is still the
possibility that neutrinos have mass...)





--

					Robert I. Eachus

with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudeneachus cudfnRobert cudlnEachus cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.08 / Arthur TK /  Re: control of plasma in fusion reaction?
     
Originally-From: awc@ipp-garching.mpg.de (Arthur      Carlson        TK  )
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: control of plasma in fusion reaction?
Date: 8 Apr 1994 10:03:54 +0200
Organization: Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics


In article <2nvuloINNjgd@owl.csrv.uidaho.edu>, colem861@cs.uidaho.edu () writes:
> 	What are the current control methods for containing a fusion 
> reaction?  We are a group of control specialists primarily using current
> artificial intelligence techniques (Neural Networks, Fuzzy Logic, etc.).

The question is a little muddled, but I think it can be straightened out. When a
fusion reactor or ignition experiment is built, burn control (keeping the plasma
from producing too little or too much power) will be an important issue.
_Current_ experiments just have to worry about keeping the plasma the right size
in the right place using magnetic coils--which is enough of a headache.

Early control systems were analog, with preset time traces and only the simplest
of failure handling mechanisms. Recently, digital systems with the ability to
make real time decisions based on plasma behavior have been implemented. There is
interest in neural networks and fuzzy logic at the major fusion centers (San
Diego, Culham (England), Garching (Germany)), but Lausanne (Switzerland) seems to
have taken it the farthest. (The latest reference that I have is an invited paper
at the 7th Conf. REAL TIME '91 at KFA Juelich, Germany, 24-28 June, 1991, by
J.B.Lister, H.Schnurrenberger, and others: "Neural Networks in Front-End
Processing and Control".) I don't think anyone has actually impolemented a plasma
control system based on neural networks.

The currently most sophisticated plasma control systems (in my humble opinion)
are those for ASDEX-Upgrade in Garching, Germany. This is the only machine with
the poloidal field coils outside the toroidal coils, a necessary feature for a
real reactor. But since the coils are so far from the plasma, they interact with
each other much more stongly than those on other tokamaks. Furthermore, this
configuration make a "vertical displacement event" (an up-down instability
present for any non-circular plasma) machine-threatening. The control group here
does their best, but worry that they might have overlooked some important detail. 
(We once had a serious problem caused by a one bit mistake.) They would like to have
a redundant system to oversee the operation of the main system, ideally with
different hardware and a different software concept, e.g. neural networks instead
of principal component analysis. How would you like to develop such a system for
them?

Art Carlson
Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics, Garching, Germany
awc@ipp-garching.mpg.de
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenawc cudfnArthur cudlnTK cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.12 / Bruce Scott /  Re: Rf Heating Of A Fusion Plasma
     
Originally-From: bds@uts.ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce d. Scott)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Rf Heating Of A Fusion Plasma
Date: 12 Apr 1994 15:47:18 GMT
Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching

In article <766085032.MC3747@mclink.it>, 
	Marco Frasca <MC3747@mclink.it> writes:

|> I heard from some source that the theory of RF plasma heating, taking in
|> account losses, is in quite good agreement with the experimental results. 
|> So, I would like to know what are the known effects that cause losses of 
|> particles in a tokamak plasma under heating by RF.

Two separate questions (physically). The theory of plasma RF heating
involves the rate at which the plasma absorbs wave energy, and how the
waves propagate through the plasma. These are linear wave effects, in which
the background and the wave exchange energy but to a good approximation
the background can be taken as a given. Further, there is no (nonlinear)
interaction between the waves.

The overall plasma transport process is different than that. Turbulent
fluctuations are ubiquitously observed throughout the plasma. The amplitude
of the fluctuations (typically 1 to 10 per cent) is sufficient that 
interactions between the waves is of the same order as those between the
waves and the background. The problem is complicated by the fact that there
are several ways that fluctuations can be driven, and several ways that
they can interact to produce a net transport (eg, electrostatic and
electromagnetic energy transfer). Ultimately, particle transport is
determined by the details of the interaction between the density and
potential fluctuations (electrostatic), or between the magnetic field
and current fluctuations (electromagnetic). Because the tokamak is an
inhomogeneous system, simple models have not been of much use in explaining
what transpires (protestations of the advocates of the various models
notwithstanding), and large-scale, highly-resolved, three-dimensional
numerical simulations will be needed to disentangle the various
theoretical issues such that comparisons between theory and experiment
become meaningful. Until then (it won't be so long, now), a good explanation
will be lacking.

|> Please, is there anybody expert out there to give an answer to my question
|> in my mailbox?

If you ask a question of the net, please have the courtesy to follow it
for a while for the responses.

-- 
Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds@spl6n1.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de                    -- W Gibson
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnScott cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.12 / Bruce Scott /  Re: cost
     
Originally-From: bds@uts.ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce d. Scott)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: cost
Date: 12 Apr 1994 18:43:57 GMT
Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching

Thanks to Micheal Fullerton, for giving me a nice laugh with which
to end a long day at work.

-- 
Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds@spl6n1.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de                    -- W Gibson
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnScott cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.13 / Arthur TK /  Re: cost
     
Originally-From: awc@ipp-garching.mpg.de (Arthur      Carlson        TK  )
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: cost
Date: 13 Apr 1994 14:59:24 +0200
Organization: Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics


In article <1994Apr12.224004.6204@Princeton.EDU>, Robert F. Heeter 
<rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> writes:

> Right now, if you handed me $10 billion,
> I could take plans for a major tokamak hot fusion machine,
> and build you a reactor that would produce 1 billion watts
> of electricity for sale, within at most 10 years.  It 
> wouldn't be economical, which is why no one is building it 
> now.  But it would work.  The theory is there, and the
> experiments, have shown that the theory is essentially correct.  
> Making it economical, and improving the environmental 
> friendliness, is a major goal of the current program.

You're overselling a good product. There are plenty of debates about what ITER 
should look like and plenty of doubts about whether it will work at all. And ITER 
is still a *long* way from an electricity producer. I'll give two examples of
potential show-stoppers. First, what will your divertor look like? If graphite,
how do you solve the problem of erosion? If tungsten, how can you be sure the
high-Z impurities won't accumulate and quench your burn? Second, how do you know
that there is not a threshhold for the TAE instability somewhere between TFTR's 1
MW of alpha power and ITER's 500 MW?

Art Carlson
Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics
awc@ipp-garching.mpg.de
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenawc cudfnArthur cudlnTK cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.14 / L Plutonium /  Quarks,atoms,1/N expansion--E.Witten;Large-N QM--L.Yaffe
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.math,sci.physics,sci.chem,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Quarks,atoms,1/N expansion--E.Witten;Large-N QM--L.Yaffe
Date: 14 Apr 1994 19:43:10 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

Here is a more detailed reference to this leader.
"Quarks,atoms,and the 1/N expansion" by Edward Witten, Physics Today
July1980. "Large-N quantum mechanics and classical limits" by Laurence
Yaffe Physics Today Aug1983.

  I claim the correct definition and understanding of DIMENSION will
come from Quantum Physics. Let me point out a nice thing about the
history of math and physics. Both communities are highly conservative
and bandwagon. The physics community picked up on the idea of
"conservation laws" and ran with it. Boy, did they run with it. Now the
recent history of physics is starting to unravel the conservation laws.
First there unraveled the conservation of parity, second there
unraveled time-reversal. What is next. I contend all conservation laws
will be unraveled except for conservation laws which come from QM,
provided if and only if there are any conservation laws in QM. Getting
back to my running story.
  Math had a very pretty theorem called the Banach Tarski Theorem which
disproves the conservation of energy/mass. However this gorgeous
theorem is not enough to sway, turn the heads of physics professors.
Because they are so conservative of a bandwagon that I doubt even
gorgeous female physics professors who preach the Banach Tarski Theorem
pointing out the violation of conservation of energy/mass would sway
that bandwagon. Now let us look at another ultra-conservative
community--math.
  The math definition of dimension. Is it a failure. I say yes and I
say it needs help from QM. Poincare could not define dimension, and
later math persons could not. I say that the Poincare Conjecture is a
simple proof, so also the 4-Color Mapping Problem. Simple when a
reasonable definition of Dimension is seen. Impossible when using a
claptrap definition.
  I conjecture and speculate that there exists only 4 dimensions,
ending with the 3rd Dimension, there is no 4th dimension or higher, as
amply supported by the above two QM references. Those references are
detailed enough and so I will not elaborate.
  I say that if a body of physics knowledge implies that a definition
or body of math knowledge is flawed, failed, inconsistent and downright
nonexistent. Then it is quick time to review that math definition. I
conjecture that there exists only 4 dimensions. There exists the 0
dimension, 1st dimension, 2nd dimension, 3rd dimension, but 4th and
higher are nonexistent. 
  My reasoning is this. Since QM is QM in the Schroedinger Equation for
dimensions 0 to 3rd, but for 4th or higher physics breaks down into
Classical Physics. That is what those two referenced articles are
about. They imply that any dimension higher than 3rd is Classical
Physics. Classical Physics is an approximation to true physics--QM, but
Classical is nonexistent, it is not real, just as the ether is
nonexistent.
  This above is a reverse historical case of math via Banach Tarski
spearheading the falsity of conservation of energy/mass (BTW Dirac the
genius he was saw the violation of energy/mass in his "Directions in
Physics"). Now it is physics turn to spearhead the drive for math to
get their act together. For math to shape-up or ship-out.
  The correct definition of Dimension will most certainly come from QM.
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.14 /  PAUL /  RE: Rf Heating Of A Fusion Plasma
     
Originally-From: stek@amazon.pfc.mit.edu (PAUL)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: Rf Heating Of A Fusion Plasma
Date: 14 APR 94 14:48:28 GMT
Organization: MIT PLASMA FUSION CENTER


>From: mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
>Date: 14-APR-1994  04:25:53
>Description: Re: Rf Heating Of A Fusion Plasma

>PAUL (stek@amazon.pfc.mit.edu) wrote:
>: Good question.  Particle losses are not as big an issue as energy losses. 
>: Thermal transport is beleived to be due to small scale turbulence.  For 
>: ICRF at least you also create standing waves in the edge that sputter 
>: first wall atoms into the plasma.  These high z impurities can end up
>: radiating more heat than you are putting in and help contribute to 
>: turbulence.  

>Now here's something that I've thought about:  why not coat the
>interior wall with some low-z heavily hydrogenated material?

>Say, some deuterated plastic?

>(Now just how hot does that metal wall get?)
Heat fluxes are extremely high and are not always toroidaly symetric due to 
limits in how well you can manufacture your machine.  Machines like ITER 
can not expect to be able to dump their energy dirrectly onto the first 
wall of the machine.

There is a lot going on here.  First off you need very high vacuum.  This
really limits what matterials you can use.  Most plastics are out. Even some
metals like Brass becouse they outgas (have a high vapor pressure).  Another
problem is how well the walls store hydrogen.  You want to be able to 
control the density of the plasma and the neutral gas pressure outside the 
plasma.  This is were materials like Carbon don't work real well.  They store
hydrogen really well and once they are heated, the hydrogen comes out.  They 
also sputter pretty well.  On Alcator we are using a high z metal (moly) as a
first wall.  This allows us to control the density well, but so far we 
are having problems with RF heating spitting impurities into the plasma, 
though we really are just starting to work test this.  One option
is using low z metals like Be.  This is expensive and very hard to 
work with as the Be dust is toxic.  Another is using a low z material
like boron or lithium to coat the walls.  This coating needs to be 
repeated often.  
	The last solution that may work quite well is 
called a gasious divertor.  This involves taking the field lines at the
edge of the plasma and having them terminate in a box filled with
high density neutrals.  The high energy plasma particles colide with
the neutrals, slow down, and are neutralized before they hit any 
solid walls.  The energy is disipated by various radiation
processes and distributed over a large area.  We are having 
good success here at achieving this.  There are 3 problems
though that I know of.  First you have to be carful how you 
design such a divertor so that you can maintain control of the 
plasma density while you are putting a lot of gas in this closed
region. Second you have to make sure you are not cooling the 
edge of the main plasma too much. And third you need to have a 
substantially larger vacuum chamber and more complicated 
poloidal coil set. 
Paul Stek
Stek@cmod.pfc.mit.edu




cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenstek cudlnPAUL cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.14 / Lee Ratzan /  tftr at princeton
     
Originally-From: ratzan@umdnj.edu (Lee Ratzan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: tftr at princeton
Date: 14 Apr 94 19:49:18 GMT
Organization: Univ. of Medicine and Dentistry of NJ

Does anyone know the status of TFTR at Princeton? Is the Plasma Physics
Lab there set to close some time this year?

Send responses to: ratzan@umdnj.edu

Thank you,

Lee
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenratzan cudfnLee cudlnRatzan cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.14 / Mark Herrmann /  Re: Rf Heating Of A Fusion Plasma
     
Originally-From: mch@theory.pppl.gov (Mark Herrmann)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Rf Heating Of A Fusion Plasma
Date: 14 Apr 1994 00:01:11 -0400
Organization: Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory, Princeton University,
Princeton NJ 08540

In article <Co7qxo.5ot@prometheus.uucp>,
Paul M. Koloc <pmk@promethe.UUCP> wrote:
>The purpose of the first wall is to exclude the atmosphere and
>gas in high vacuum applications.  Polyethylene and other such 
>"low Z" will flood the chamber with gas, because (hydrogen 
>isotopes) would be dislodged from the plastic matrix by the 
>massive neutron flux.  Neutron flux heating of five to twenty  
>megawatts per square meter will utterly destroy the polymer 
>bounds.  

Yes neutron flux, and how well the first wall can withstand it, 
is a concern in designing D-T reactors. However the numbers you quote
are high. For example if we are designing a 1 GW electric power plant
and assume a conversion efficiency of thermal to electric of 1/3 (which is
somewhat low, but we also have to put some external power into the 
plasma for burn control or current drive), this
means we want 3 GW from fusion power. Now for every 6.4 watts created, 4 watts
come from D-T 14 MeV neutrons. (1 watt comes from the alpha particle 
that is created and stays in the plasma to heat it  and the rest come 
from blanket reactions which Bob Heeter discussed in depth a while back)

Therefore we have 4/6.4 *3000 MW = 1875 MW of neutron power. In order
to get 20 MW/m^2 neutron flux we would need to have a first wall with an area 
of A=Neutron Power/Neutron Flux or 1875 MW/ 20 MW/m^2 = 93 m^2.

Now for a tokamak of major radius R, minor radius a the surface area
is roughly A=(2 Pi R) (2 Pi a) = 40 R a. Taking a typical aspect
ratio (major radius/minor radius) of about 3 we get A= 40 (R^2)/3.
Now equating the area derived above to this expression and solving for
R, we find R=2.65 m. This would be a tokamak almost exactly the size
of T.F.T.R.! I'm fairly, confident that if  we could get such a machine
to generate 3 GW of fusion power we would be jumping up and down, and 
worrying about the neutron flux later.

To put this all in perspective, in  the  ARIES-I tokamak reactor study,
which was trying to assess the feasibility of a tokamak reactor,
they settled on a machine with major radius 6.75 m, minor radius 1.5 m.
The total power produced was 1 GW electric, from 2.4 GW thermal, 
and neutron flux of about 2.5 MW/m^2.

I'm not disputing your assertion that aneutronic fuels (if we can get them
to ignite) are wonderful, but I just wanted to bring your numbers in line.


>
>+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
>| Paul M. Koloc,Bx 1037, Prometheus II, Ltd., College Park, MD 20741-1037 |
>| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
>| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
>+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
>
>

Mark C. Herrmann
mch@theory.pppl.gov

Graduate Student (who should be studying for generals, or at least doing my 
taxes) 
Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory



cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenmch cudfnMark cudlnHerrmann cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.14 / Dieter Britz /  Professorship at NBI
     
Originally-From: kemidb@aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Professorship at NBI
Date: 14 Apr 94 08:10:55 GMT
Organization: Aarhus University, Denmark

Some of the lurkers looking at this group might be interested in a position
available at the Niels Bohr Institute in Copenhagen, for a professor of
experimental condensed matter physics. In Denmark, 'professor' means what
in USA is, I think, called 'full professor'; the position has instant tenure
etc. Rather than give you all the boring details, I give you the fact that
you can get all the info you need by emailing oleh@nbi.dk.
-- 
Dieter Britz   alias kemidb@aau.dk
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenkemidb cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.14 /   /  Re: cost
     
Originally-From: <doldridg@fox.nstn.ns.ca>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: cost
Date: 14 Apr 1994 04:52:43 -0300
Organization: Nova Scotia Technology Network

On Tue, 12 Apr 1994 22:40:04 GMT, 
Robert F. Heeter  <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> wrote:

>of a second.  Right now, if you handed me $10 billion,
>I could take plans for a major tokamak hot fusion machine,
>and build you a reactor that would produce 1 billion watts
>of electricity for sale, within at most 10 years.  It 

Boy, that's ALMOST economical, you know.  If you could cut either the cost 
or the construction time in half it WOULD be economical at a wholesale 
price of $0.03 per kwh.
 --
 Dave Oldridge
 doldridg@fox.nstn.ns.ca
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudendoldridg cudln cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.14 / Peter Roessingh /  Disproving a theory
     
Originally-From: roes@vax.oxford.ac.uk (Peter Roessingh)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Disproving a theory
Date: 14 Apr 94 13:42:27 BST
Organization: Oxford University VAX 6620


Dale Bass wrote:
>Peter Roessingh <roes@vax.oxford.ac.uk> wrote:
>>
>>Finally Dale Bass writes:
>>
>>>We can wave our bandstates all we want, but why do we care?
>>>It seems extremely unlikely that the 'bandstate' can evade
>>>the usual scaling behavior of a massive local fusion energy
>>>release (the same 'usual behavior' that apparently occurs
>>>everywhere else in physics), so why should we care enough
>>>to evenpick up the paper?"
>>
>>The point I was trying to make in my original post was that the Chubb
>>theory was getting flamed without the (in my view) necessary arguments
>>to do so.
>>
>>If Dale Bass thinks the theory is not worth the electrons on his
>>screen, that's fine with me. Let him switch off his monitor and put
>>his attention to more important matters.
>
>     The point being that the burden of proof continues to be
>     shifted toward having to 'disprove' vague speculations
>     and flawed experiments rather than insisting that
>     proponents of such an apparently novel process
>     *compel* the rest of us to take notice.


You are evading the issue. I am not shifting the burden of
proof at all. All I am saying that *if* you want to disprove
a theory you need arguments. If you do not want to spend
your time disproving a perpetuum mobile theory that's fine.
I am certainly not saying you should. But that *must* mean
that the perpetuum mobile theory stands until somebody takes
the time to disprove it. It can not be dismissed by
handwaving and labels like "preposterous". It can only be
*ignored*.

You have been consistent in this respect. Your contribution
to the debate has been minimal lately, mostly one line
cynical remarks. Again I have no problem with that, (though
one might wonder why you are still reading the group).

However, at the beginning of the thread "The charade of
theoretical cold fusion" there were (in my view) attempts to
actually disprove the Chubb theory, with (again in my view)
inaccurate or incomplete arguments, and *that* is the point
I am making. 


Peter Roessingh
Zoology, Oxford.
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenroes cudfnPeter cudlnRoessingh cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.14 / Robert Heeter /  Re: FAQs PLEASE!!
     
Originally-From: rfheeter@theory.pppl.gov (Robert F. Heeter)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: FAQs PLEASE!!
Date: 14 Apr 1994 08:36:57 -0400
Organization: /etc/organization

In article <1994Apr13.194946.752@vax1.dcu.ie>,  <93268866@vax1.dcu.ie> wrote:
>Hi,
>
>Could someone please post the FAQs for this newsgroup please?

I'm in the process of re-revising the Conventional Fusion (proto) FAQ...

Have a little patience...  I should have time to post most of the
pieces this weekend.

****************
Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@theory.princeton.edu
Graduate Student, Princeton Plasma Physics Lab
Disclaimers Apply



cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.14 / John Cobb /  Re: Rf Heating Of A Fusion Plasma
     
Originally-From: johncobb@emx.cc.utexas.edu (John W. Cobb)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Rf Heating Of A Fusion Plasma
Date: 14 Apr 1994 10:03:55 -0500
Organization: The University of Texas - Austin

In article <2oif67$j1t@suntsu.pppl.gov>,
Mark Herrmann <mch@theory.pppl.gov> wrote:
>In article <Co7qxo.5ot@prometheus.uucp>,
>Paul M. Koloc <pmk@promethe.UUCP> wrote:
>>The purpose of the first wall is to exclude the atmosphere and
>>gas in high vacuum applications.  Polyethylene and other such 
>>"low Z" will flood the chamber with gas, because (hydrogen 
>>isotopes) would be dislodged from the plastic matrix by the 
>>massive neutron flux.  Neutron flux heating of five to twenty  
>>megawatts per square meter will utterly destroy the polymer 
>>bounds.  
>
>Yes neutron flux, and how well the first wall can withstand it, 
...
>To put this all in perspective, in  the  ARIES-I tokamak reactor study,
>which was trying to assess the feasibility of a tokamak reactor,
>they settled on a machine with major radius 6.75 m, minor radius 1.5 m.
>The total power produced was 1 GW electric, from 2.4 GW thermal, 
>and neutron flux of about 2.5 MW/m^2.
>
>I'm not disputing your assertion that aneutronic fuels (if we can get them
>to ignite) are wonderful, but I just wanted to bring your numbers in line.
>

I hesitate to speak for Paul Koloc because he is often "thinking outside
the box" with some innovative approaches, but let me risk it anyway.

In terms of a conventional systems, the 10MW/m^2 number is a commonly quoted
number for the power deposition onto the tiles of divertor plates. This
is not from neutron power but is the thermal exhaust across the last closed
flux surface.

I think if you take Paul's comments and swap "thermal exhaust power" for
"neutron power", the point will read the same, the conclusions will follow,
particularly his answering of Matt's question of why not use a hydrocarbon
wall liner.

You need low Z AND low sputtering/low recycling material on plasma facing
surfaces. Conventional fusioneers use things like graphite, carbide, boron,
etc. I gather that Paul's idea is to use a plasma wall and he claims
it will be a good wall both in terms of containment and impurities.

My apoplogies Paul, If I have attributed to you words and thoughts that you 
did not own. -- just trying to be helpful.

-john .w cobb
-- 
 --------------------------------------------------------------
John W. Cobb	My posts don't reflect the views of my employer
                Because my posts are usually opaque.
 --------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenjohncobb cudfnJohn cudlnCobb cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.14 / Tom Radcliffe /  Re: The charde of theoretical cold fusion
     
Originally-From: tom@mips2.phy.queensu.ca (Tom Radcliffe)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The charde of theoretical cold fusion
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 1994 15:09:02 GMT
Organization: Queen's University, Kingston

In article <EACHUS.94Apr11183141@spectre.mitre.org>, eachus@spectre.mitr
.org (Robert I. Eachus) writes:
|> 
|> In article <Co0C22.IEE@knot.ccs.queensu.ca> tom@mips2.phy.queensu.ca
(Tom Radcliffe) writes:
|> 
|>   > Although if the claim is simply that nuclear wavefunctions somehow
|>   > mysteriously delocalize because of the lattice potential, then it
|>   > is easy to refute: if it were true, the Doppler-Shift Attenuation
|>   > Method wouldn't work, and a lot of short nuclear lifetimes would
|>   > never have been measured.  The DSAM uses attentuation by the
|>   > lattice of gamma-rays from nuclei that have been excited by
|>   > hitting them with protons, say, and which are therefore recoiling
|>   > as they decay...
|> 
|>     I'll keep this (and hopefully any flames) short.  There is no
|> conflict between Chubb's theory and DSAM, since the atoms in DSAM were
|> not delocalized in a Bose-Einstein fluid before the event.
|> 
|>     The first part of Scott Chubbs' theory should by now be on a
|> fairly firm physical foundation.  Deuterium in metal (or other solid)
|> lattices will, under some circumstances, become delocalized in a
|> quantum mechanical sense.
|> 

I don't see the physical basis for this claim.  In every experiment I
am aware of involving nuclear reactions and scattering in solids (and 
there are a lot of them, Steven Jones has pointed out several, to which 
I might add things like Rutherford backscattering [RBS] measurements) the
target nuclei behave as if they were well-localized.  An extreme example
of this is the case of RBS with channelling:  the target nucleus is
sitting well-localized in an intersticial site.  There is no evidence
for de-localization.  If Chubb's speculation is correct presumably I
could do RBS measurements on deuterium in zirconium, say, and get
results quite unlike anything anyone has ever seen.  A firm physical
foundation for a new theory, in my empiricist's view, requires both 
consistency with known physical laws and experimental verification.

[deleted]
|> 
|>      The solar neutrino problem refers to the fact that experiments,
|> both with CCl4 and Gallium, which detect different neutrino energies,
|> show that the sun is producing fewer neutrinos than standard theory of
|> solar structure predicts.  If you want to try to fit the standard
|> models to the results, what you need is a cooler core with a higher
|> probability for the PEP reaction or some such. (Vastly
|> oversimplified.)  Of course, you can always argue that the sun burned
|> out and we just haven't noticed yet...
|> 
|>     So if there is a very small scale effect as far as power
|> generation on earth is concerned, it could still be very important to
|> understand...and let everyone on Earth sleep better at night. ;-)
|> 

It is now pretty well established that changing the core temperature 
cannot reconcile the Davis and Kamiokande results.  The gallium results 
are consistent with the production of energy by pp fusion in a perfectly 
ordinary way.  In any case, bringing solar physics into a discussion of 
whether deuterium nuclei are delocalized in solids is probably not the 
best way of clearing the air.
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudentom cudfnTom cudlnRadcliffe cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.14 / John Lewis /  Re: Reuters report on 'red mercury' fusion device
     
Originally-From: court@newton.physics.mun.ca (John Lewis)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reuters report on 'red mercury' fusion device
Date: 14 Apr 1994 15:40:06 GMT
Organization: Memorial University of Nfld, St. John's, NF

It is WELL KNOWN among UFOlogists
that red mercury is used to catalyse cold fusion
in palladiumn-deuterium systems, and that the resulting high-power
reactors are used to power UFOs.  It iw also WELL KNOWN in the same
circles
that the US Government, the oil companies, and the electricity
utilities have coordinated a massive coverup to keep this IMPORTANT
KNOWLEDGE from the general public, and insure MASSIVE PROFITS for
the investors!!  That is the TRUE REASON behind the well-documented
UFO coverup!!!!!   IT ALL TIES TOGETHER!!!!  PROOOOOFFF!!!!

:-)  :-)  :-)  :-)  :-)  :-)  :-)  :-)  :-)  

(I could make a fortune writing books if I believed the above tripe!)
(I may have been following this newsgroup for too long)

J.Lewis
Newfoundland

cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudencourt cudfnJohn cudlnLewis cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.15 / L Plutonium /  Re: Quarks,atoms,1/N expansion--E.Witten;Large-N QM--L.Yaffe
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.math,sci.physics,sci.chem,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Quarks,atoms,1/N expansion--E.Witten;Large-N QM--L.Yaffe
Date: 15 Apr 1994 06:51:50 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In article <2ok6ce$f70@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium) writes:
> Here is a more detailed reference to this leader.
> "Quarks,atoms,and the 1/N expansion" by Edward Witten, Physics Today
> July1980. "Large-N quantum mechanics and classical limits" by Laurence
> Yaffe Physics Today Aug1983.
>   I claim the correct definition and understanding of DIMENSION will
> come from Quantum Physics. Let me point out a nice thing about the
> history of math and physics. Both communities are highly conservative
> and bandwagon. The physics community picked up on the idea of
> "conservation laws" and ran with it. Boy, did they run with it. Now the
> recent history of physics is starting to unravel the conservation laws.
> First there unraveled the conservation of parity, second there
> unraveled time-reversal. What is next. I contend all conservation laws
> will be unraveled except for conservation laws which come from QM,
> provided if and only if there are any conservation laws in QM. Getting
> back to my running story.
>   Math had a very pretty theorem called the Banach Tarski Theorem which
> disproves the conservation of energy/mass. However this gorgeous
> theorem is not enough to sway, turn the heads of physics professors.
> Because they are so conservative of a bandwagon that I doubt even
> gorgeous female physics professors who preach the Banach Tarski Theorem
> pointing out the violation of conservation of energy/mass would sway
> that bandwagon. Now let us look at another ultra-conservative
> community--math.
>   The math definition of dimension. Is it a failure. I say yes and I
> say it needs help from QM. Poincare could not define dimension, and
> later math persons could not. I say that the Poincare Conjecture is a
> simple proof, so also the 4-Color Mapping Problem. Simple when a
> reasonable definition of Dimension is seen. Impossible when using a
> claptrap definition.
>   I conjecture and speculate that there exists only 4 dimensions,
> ending with the 3rd Dimension, there is no 4th dimension or higher, as
> amply supported by the above two QM references. Those references are
> detailed enough and so I will not elaborate.
>   I say that if a body of physics knowledge implies that a definition
> or body of math knowledge is flawed, failed, inconsistent and downright
> nonexistent. Then it is quick time to review that math definition. I
> conjecture that there exists only 4 dimensions. There exists the 0
> dimension, 1st dimension, 2nd dimension, 3rd dimension, but 4th and
> higher are nonexistent. 
>   My reasoning is this. Since QM is QM in the Schroedinger Equation for
> dimensions 0 to 3rd, but for 4th or higher physics breaks down into
> Classical Physics. That is what those two referenced articles are
> about. They imply that any dimension higher than 3rd is Classical
> Physics. Classical Physics is an approximation to true physics--QM, but
> Classical is nonexistent, it is not real, just as the ether is
> nonexistent.
>   This above is a reverse historical case of math via Banach Tarski
> spearheading the falsity of conservation of energy/mass (BTW Dirac the
> genius he was saw the violation of energy/mass in his "Directions in
> Physics"). Now it is physics turn to spearhead the drive for math to
> get their act together. For math to shape-up or ship-out.
>   The correct definition of Dimension will most certainly come from QM.

  Receiving email about these two references I should have explained
them somewhat. Here is a quick account. Those two references imply that
for QUANTUM MECHANICS and the Schroedinger Equation, that only 3rd
DIMENSION works. Not 4th or higher dimension and not 2nd, 1st or 0
dimension. ONLY 3rd dimensions works to make Quantum Mechanics work.
The Schroedinger Equation works for 3rd dimension only. In 4th
dimension or higher then the results come out to be Classical Physics
which is wrong physics. Classical Physics is just an approximation of
Quantum Physics, which to all known experimentation is true.
  What I am doing with this information about QM and dimension is to
derive a better definition of dimension for math. By implementing these
ideas I would keep the old definition of dimension for math. For
physics, I would use the old math definition also -- 3 perpendicular
axes for 3rd dimension-- but throw out any notion of 4th dimension or
higher and 0, 1st, and 2nd dimensions. 4th dimension and higher are
science fiction and math fiction. 
  In physics, because of QM, there exists only 3rd dimension. Now for
math, since math is more abstract than physics, we can continue to have
the old definition of dimension as perpendicular axes, but there exists
no 4th dimension or higher (even in abstraction). For math, dimensions
0, 1st, 2nd and 3rd are abstractions but 4th and higher are
nonexistent.
  Complainers I feel will first complain about Einsteins 4th dimension
of time. I simply say that John Bell with his Inequality and the Aspect
Experimental Results proved Einstein wrong. With 4th dimension, I am
starting another uprising which will end in showing that Einstein was
wrong-yet-once -again. Einsteins physics intuition failed him miserably
against the likes of Bohr. And it was a laughable coincidence that his
Nobel prize was for the photoelectric effect. In other words, the Nobel
Committee in a rare moment did better than the physics community.
Einsteins Nobel prize was more correct than that herd of gnus called
the community of physics professors who thought that Einsteins
relativity was worth more than the photoelectric effect which is the
early pioneering of QM.
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.14 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Disproving a theory
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Disproving a theory
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 1994 23:39:10 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1994Apr14.134227.21942@oxvaxd>,
Peter Roessingh <roes@vax.oxford.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>Dale Bass wrote:
>>
>>     The point being that the burden of proof continues to be
>>     shifted toward having to 'disprove' vague speculations
>>     and flawed experiments rather than insisting that
>>     proponents of such an apparently novel process
>>     *compel* the rest of us to take notice.
>
>
>You are evading the issue. I am not shifting the burden of
>proof at all. All I am saying that *if* you want to disprove
>a theory you need arguments. If you do not want to spend
>your time disproving a perpetuum mobile theory that's fine.
>I am certainly not saying you should. But that *must* mean
>that the perpetuum mobile theory stands until somebody takes
>the time to disprove it. It can not be dismissed by
>handwaving and labels like "preposterous". It can only be
>*ignored*.

     I wasn't evading anything, simply pointing out that 
     there's a significant difference in philosophy at work here.
     A theory certainly does *not* 'stand until somebody
     takes the time to *disprove* it' (emphasis mine).
     Much better for science is:

     Bass's Law:  A theory is crap until someone convinces a 
     number of other people it's not.

     This is not a sufficient condition for it not to be crap, 
     but it certainly is a necessary condition.
  
     I suspect that this difference in philosophy very clearly
     defines the positions around here.

     I also suspect that those with your viewpoint haven't
     had sufficient opportunity to wade in oodles of the 
     available crap (not limited to the particular field
     in question).  Indeed, one could spend the rest of one's
     life wading in crap.

>You have been consistent in this respect. Your contribution
>to the debate has been minimal lately, mostly one line
>cynical remarks. Again I have no problem with that, (though
>one might wonder why you are still reading the group).

     I've been reading it since it began, why should I stop
     when it has become so amusing?

>However, at the beginning of the thread "The charade of
>theoretical cold fusion" there were (in my view) attempts to
>actually disprove the Chubb theory, with (again in my view)
>inaccurate or incomplete arguments, and *that* is the point
>I am making. 

     No, they were mentioning the very real problems with 
     such a theory.  You've got MeV scale reactions what basically
     looks like a point to the lattice which is itself held
     together by eV scale forces.  If the lattice can 
     perform the miracle energy dispersement that is necessary, 
     then I'm quite uncertain why Pd lattices do not act as 
     wondrous shock absorbers for the impact of MeV alphas.
     It's an interesting reaction that only sucks MeV
     scale energies out at eV initial conditions.

     In any case, there's no reason to suspect that such
     wondrous behavior occurs, there's just no experimental
     evidence for that.

     Keep this in mind; there are large numbers of 
     people who can shove quantum mechanics in one end and
     produce crap out the other.

     The real trick is to produce what happens in nature.

                         dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.15 /  John /  Looking for address Martin Fleishmann
     
Originally-From: elst@sophia.inria.fr (John Van_den_Elst)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Looking for address Martin Fleishmann
Date: 15 Apr 1994 10:31:04 GMT
Organization: INRIA, Sophia Antipolis


Lectori Salutem,

I'm looking for the address of

Professor Martin Fleishmann

who is working on cold fusion.

Can anybody help me ? He seems
to work somewhere in the south
of France at the moment. And
worked for a Japanese company
(Mitsubishi ?).

Thanks,

John van den Elst.

cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenelst cudlnJohn cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.15 /  morrison@vxpri /  Solar neutrinos.
     
Originally-From: morrison@vxprix.cern.ch
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Solar neutrinos.
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 1994 14:14:16 GMT
Organization: At Home; Salida, CA USA

Solar Neutrinos.                                   15 April 1994.

    Robert Eachus wote on 14 April 1994;
> "To say that the most recent observations are almost within error bounds 
> is the sort of sophistry that would not be accepted with regard to cold 
> fusion. Selecting data to fit a theory is at best self-delusion. (Now if 
> some of the observed values were above the predictions, or if the predictions 
> were within one or two standard deviations of the sum of the predictions....)"
 
      The point of my message was that now the latest experimental data ARE
within one or two standard deviations of the latest theoretical predictions.
At the Gran Sasso Workshop on this subject last month, two people who had
analysed the Chlorine data since 1986 and the Kamiokande data, said that
they are consistent. Ray Davis, who was in charge of the Chlorine experiment
for over 20 years, did not comment. Recently have only heard one person, 
Ray Davis, say that he believes that the fluctuations of the Chlorine data
are significant - the Kamiokande group find no significant fluctuations
with tight limits, the new management of the Chlorine group says that the
fluctuations are only two standard deviations not five as previously claimed
- this was shown at the meeting without protest.
     If you attend the Neutrino '94 meeting in Eilat next month you will hear a 
discussion of the subject.

     After talking about gallium experiments, Robert Eachus wrote;
> "Right now the error bars on the theoretical side are much larger"
than the experimental.
      Perhaps some confusion. For gallium the theory error bars are about 7 SNU
while the experimental are about 19 SNU. Perhaps Chlorine was meant where
the situation is the opposite and the theory errors are appreciable bigger 
than the experimental.
 
                                                   Douglas R.O. Morrison

cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenmorrison cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.14 / Robert Heeter /  Re: cost
     
Originally-From: rfheeter@tucson.Princeton.EDU (Robert Franklin Heeter)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: cost
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 1994 13:44:43 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

In article <32651.doldridg@fox.nstn.ns.ca> <doldridg@fox.nstn.ns.ca> writes:
>On Tue, 12 Apr 1994 22:40:04 GMT, 
>Robert F. Heeter  <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> wrote:
>
>>of a second.  Right now, if you handed me $10 billion,
>>I could take plans for a major tokamak hot fusion machine,
>>and build you a reactor that would produce 1 billion watts
>>of electricity for sale, within at most 10 years.  It 
>
>Boy, that's ALMOST economical, you know.  If you could cut either the cost 
>or the construction time in half it WOULD be economical at a wholesale 
>price of $0.03 per kwh.

Hmm..  I don't think it's that easy, but I personally don't yet 
know exactly why.  I do know that the reactor design studies generally
indicate a construction cost of about $3 billion over a period of
6 years.  Operations and Maintenance costs add 30-50% to the total
cost of electricity.  The COE estimates (at the output of the plant;
not counting distribution expenses) are around 5-8 cents/kwh in
1993 US dollars.  Generally these design studies assume some 
improvements in the technology, and they do conclude that a
future fusion plant *will* be competitive (with fission at least)
economically.  Current research is focused on improving the
state of the art so that the technology advances assumed in the
studies can be realized.

For references, please refer to the conventional fusion bibliography
(section 9 of my FAQ) which should be posted here within a few
more days.

*****************
Robert F. Heeter
rfheeter@theory.pppl.gov
Graduate Student, Princeton Plasma Physics Lab
Disclaimers Apply
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.15 / Robert Heeter /  Re: tftr at princeton
     
Originally-From: rfheeter@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Robert Franklin Heeter)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: tftr at princeton
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 1994 02:36:03 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

In article <Co9Lq8.Jq9@umdnj.edu> ratzan@umdnj.edu (Lee Ratzan) writes:
>Does anyone know the status of TFTR at Princeton? Is the Plasma Physics
>Lab there set to close some time this year?

Looks like I need to get that FAQ section about Future Plans put 
together soon!

Here's the scoop:  TFTR will run until September, possibly with
an extension until the end of the year (because the start of DT
operations didn't begin until December, and they would like a full
year of DT).

PPPL is not likely to close.  Shutting down TFTR will take a way
a significant fraction of the lab's budget, but much of this will
be replaced by funding for the next experimental machine, TPX.
Funding for TPX should be allocated by Congress this year
(if all goes well).  TPX will begin construction in FY 1995,
and start moving into the TFTR building as TFTR is decommissioned
in 1996-1997.  TPX is expected to achieve first plasma in the
spring of 2000.

If Congress axes TPX, PPPL will be in trouble, but it's far from a foregone
conclusion that PPPL will close.  There is more to PPPL than TFTR.

**********
Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@theory.pppl.gov
Graduate Student, Princeton Plasma Physics Lab
Disclaimers Apply







cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.15 / Jeremy Whitlock /  Re: Reuters report on 'red mercury' fusion device
     
Originally-From: whitlock@mcmail.cis.mcmaster.ca (Jeremy Whitlock)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reuters report on 'red mercury' fusion device
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 1994 13:30:42 GMT
Organization: McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada

In article <pfritsch.766262773@skid.ps.uci.edu> pfritsch@skid.ps.uci.edu
(Paul Fritschle) writes:
>(Reuters)
>LONDON-British television researchers said Tuesday that Russian
>scientists had designed a nuclear bomb the size of a baseball.
>  The small "clean" neutron bombs purportedly are not made from
>"dirty" plutonium and so are not covered by non-proliferation
>treaties.

I don't know what this is supposed to mean -- all fissile material is
covered by the NPT.

 --
 Jeremy Whitlock                           e-mail: whitlock@mcmaster.ca   
 Department of Engineering Physics         phone: (905)-525-9140 ext.27140 
 McMaster University, 1280 Main West                                        
 Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, L8S 4L7        "My thoughts are mine, not Mac's" 

cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenwhitlock cudfnJeremy cudlnWhitlock cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.16 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  The Fun Is Not Done
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: The Fun Is Not Done
Date: Sat, 16 Apr 1994 00:13:57 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

>From time to time I get pretty discouraged with this field.  I get 
depressed and thing that nothing will ever come of it.  Then I get a 
phone call.  

The call came about two weeks ago.  Someone from the Washington DC area.
Yet another group (like ENECO) trying to put together a group of experts 
to gain a patent position in "cold fusion".  But this group is more 
exclusive than ENECO which lets in russians, and possibly even communists
and liberals.  This group is mad up completely of those who can get a 
security clearance.  Since I have had one (way back) I qualify to be 
part of this group.  Now I have a follow up letter, so I know there is 
at least one person in this organization, and that he has a telephone and
a laser printer.  Furthermore he was there to answer his phone when I
called.  Security prevents me from disclosing the name or exact location
in the **Washington DC** area.  

Tom Droege

cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenDROEGE cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.16 / John Logajan /  Re: Scandal at Princeton -- TFTR
     
Originally-From: 74242.1554@compuserve.com (John M. Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Scandal at Princeton -- TFTR
Date: Sat, 16 Apr 1994 00:13:57 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

      Excerpts from Dr. Bogdan C. Maglich's written testimony before the U.S.
      House Subcommittee on Energy and Water, April 12, 1994.

      Dr. Maglich is chief scientist at the Advanced Physics Corporation.  
      Maglich is famous for his "migma" hot fusion concept and his long time 
      battlings with the mainline hot fusion establishment.


"The claim of thermonuclear fusion power production in Princeton Tokamak
(TFTR) is being questioned by the scientific community.  Four months after the
press announcement, no paper has been published in any scientific journal."

Mr. Chairman:

PRINCETON'S "FUSION PRODUCTION DATA" HAVE NOT BEEN PUBLISHED IN A SCIENTIFIC
JOURNAL FOUR MONTHS AFTER THE WORLDWIDE PRESS ANNOUNCEMENT.

On December 10, 1993, Princeton University announced to the press that their
measurements of the "neutron power" coming out of TFTR indicates "world record"
power production in thermonuclear fusion.

In 1989, when "cold fusion" was announced in a press release prior to its
publication in a scientific journal, the Princeton Tokamak Lab scientists and
directors denounced the press-before-scientific publishing as "scientific
misconduct."  The cold fusion paper was published in J. Electroanalytical
Chemistry, a month after the press release.

Princeton's claimed fusion power production data have not been published to
date, four months after the press release.  Why?  Is there a double standard?

LACK OF NEUTRON ENERGY MEASUREMENTS INVALIDATES CLAIM THAT THERMONUCLEAR FUSION
POWER WAS PRODUCED IN PRINCETON TOKAMAK.

The instrument used in the much-heralded experiment at Princeton was unable to
measure neutron energy (technically called the "neutron energy specrum"); it
could only measure the number of neutrons (technically called the "neutron
flux").  That is, TFTR used an old-fashioned neutron counter, rather than a
neutron energy counter.  It is incomprehensible why a $100,000 "neutron energy
spectrometer" was not bought and used for this $3-billion machine.

Without neutron energy measurements it is impossible to say where and how the 
neutrons emerging from the Tokamak were produced inside the Tokamak.  There
are three false sources of fusion neutrons.

1. Injected beam of deuterium and tritium hits the walls of Tokamak chamber
   which are lined with deposited deuterium and tritium.
2. Injected beam hits plasma, and fusion takes place.
3. Injected beam hits injected beam, and fusion takes place.

They compete with true thermonuclear fusion and are usually dominant.  The 
only true thermonuclear fusion is the collision of plasma with plasma.  The 
neutron energy is different for each of the four cases.

The claimed thermonuclear fusion power production of 6 megawatt was inferred
from the prediction which cannot be verified by data and which a theoretical
calculation (sic) that ignored the ZETA effect (#1).

To state that one can determine the exiting neutrons originated from the
plasma-plasma collisions, without measuring the neutron energy spectrum, is
like stating that by simply measuring the amount of smoke coming out of a 
stack, without chemical analysis of the smoke, one can conclude that the flame
was fed simultaneously by 4 fuels -- (1) coal, (2) kerosene, (3) wood, and
(4) aluminum -- and that most of the smoke came from the aluminum.

All the neutrons coming out of the December 9-10, 1993 Tokamak experiment can
be accounted for solely by the false mechanisms.  A paper will be presented
at the Spring Meeting of the American Physical Society ... April 1994.  It
states that the DOE's claim of fusion energy production cannot be proven and
is most likely based upon false neutrons.  The TFTR data are compatible with
zero thermonuclear fusion power production.

HISTORY OF SENSATIONAL BRITISH "FUSION POWER PRODUCTION" ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE
1950'S MAY BE REPEATING ITSELF.

In the 1950's, physicists from Harwell announce that, on the basis of the large
number of neutrons emerging from their ZETA fusion machine, they had achieved
controlled thermonuclear fusion.  Like in the TFTR, during the transient state
(non-thermal-equilibirium regime), they measured all the neutrons coming out of
the device without analysis of the neutron spectra.  As it turned out later,
most or all the neutrons were produced in the collisions between the
accelerated ions and ions implanted on the internal surfaces of the containment
vessel.

In December 1993, TFTR measured the number of all neutrons during the transient
state coming from TFTR, indiscriminately, without a neutron spectral analysis,
and without the neutron tagging directional measurements.  The origin of these
neutrons was inferred only by theory.  The theory has not included the ZETA
effect: the neutrons produced in the beam collisions with the ions (D+T)
implanted on the inside surface of the torus, although it is well-known that
the Tokamak walls are lined with these ions.  Exclusion of this common neutron
production mechanism is not explained.  Nor was the exclusion of the neutron
energy measurement instrument, although TFTR directors are fully aware that 
true fusion cannot be proven without it.

Under the influence of Princeton University's Washington Office, the Office of
Fusion Energy of DOE has been lax in scrutinizing the scientific claims of the
TFTR.

Congress should require the DOE to screen the scientific basis of claims made
in fusion research.  As a minimum, the results should be published in 
refereed scientific journals before the DOE presents them to Congress.



cudkeys:
cuddy16 cuden1554 cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.15 / M Fullerton /  Re: cost
     
Originally-From: michaelf@cpsc.ucalgary.ca (Michael Fullerton)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: cost
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 1994 11:26:02 GMT
Organization: University of Calgary Computer Science

In article <1994Apr12.224004.6204@Princeton.EDU> Robert F. Heeter
<rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> writes:
>
>It's not clear to me where you get the idea that cold fusion
>is so much more economically viable.  Cold fusion lacks
>consistent experimental results, lacks a proven theoretical
>foundation, and in any case has not been shown to cost
>less than $10 per watt, which is what hot fusion can do now.
>I don't believe *any* cold fusion researcher could, right
>now, credibly promise to know how to generate a billion watts
>of excess heat at $10/watt, much less electricity.

First of all McKubre has been getting consistent results.
Second, who cares about theory.  If a company can build an
economical energy producing cell (as several are working on now)
theory is not necessary.  It is only necessary to academics not 
the energy consumer.

>Please explain why you think it is "obvious" that 
>"cold fusion technology is much more economically viable".

It is more viable because it is far more cheaper to produce and
there are not the nasy byproducts hot fusion produces.  It also
doesn't require monstrous amounts of machinery to work.  I do not
see the economic ferver surrounding HF as that which surrounds CF.
The biggest Japanese corporations are pumping big money into CF.
Power companies in the US are also involved with CF.

A chap named Stanley Myer has a car that basically runs on 
water.  He has a working affordable technology.  Contrast this
to hot fusion.  The cell used in the car has been called a high 
voltage version of a CF cell.  I don't know much about this tech. 
yet, but if it isn't related to CF then (as has been mentioned in
sci.energy.hydrogen) both hot fusion _and_ CF have some serious
competition.  At any rate it looks like hot fusion is toast.
Sorry for those who have wasted so many years on this economic
dead-end.

-- 
Michael Fullerton           |  Seeds, like ideas, don't
michaelf@cpsc.ucalgary.ca   |  germinate in concrete. 
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenmichaelf cudfnMichael cudlnFullerton cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.15 / M Fullerton /  The hot fusion dead-end (was Re: cost)
     
Originally-From: michaelf@cpsc.ucalgary.ca (Michael Fullerton)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: The hot fusion dead-end (was Re: cost)
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 1994 11:29:44 GMT
Organization: University of Calgary Computer Science

In article <2oeq5dINNtha@sat.ipp-garching.mpg.de> bds@uts.ipp-garching.m
g.de (Bruce d. Scott) writes:
>Thanks to Micheal Fullerton, for giving me a nice laugh with which
>to end a long day at work.

Well denial does work fairly well for the short term.  Extending it
to the long term can result in pathology though.  Watch out.

-- 
Michael Fullerton           |  Seeds, like ideas, don't
michaelf@cpsc.ucalgary.ca   |  germinate in concrete. 
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenmichaelf cudfnMichael cudlnFullerton cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.15 / Goran KTH /  Re: Reuters report on 'red mercury' fusion device
     
Originally-From: olsson@plasma.kth.se (Goran Olsson, Plasma Physics, KTH)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reuters report on 'red mercury' fusion device
Date: 15 Apr 1994 15:13:10 GMT
Organization: Plasma Physics, KTH, Stockholm, Sweden

In article <1994Apr15.133042.26420@muss.cis.mcmaster.ca>, whitlock@mcmai
.cis.mcmaster.ca (Jeremy Whitlock) writes:
>In article <pfritsch.766262773@skid.ps.uci.edu> pfritsch@skid.ps.uci.ed
 (Paul Fritschle) writes:

>>  The small "clean" neutron bombs purportedly are not made from
>>"dirty" plutonium and so are not covered by non-proliferation
>>treaties.
>
>I don't know what this is supposed to mean -- all fissile material is
                                                   ^^^^^^^ 
>covered by the NPT.

That's precisely the (purported) point: The alleged neutron bomb
would be a fusion-only device.

========================================================================
        Goran Olsson, Plasma Physics, KTH, Stockholm, Sweden
                         olsson@plasma.kth.se
========================================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenolsson cudfnGoran cudlnKTH cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.15 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Disproving a theory
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Disproving a theory
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 1994 01:57:27 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <Co9wDA.ED5@murdoch.acc.virginia.edu>,
Cameron Randale Bass <crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU> wrote:

>     such a theory.  You've got MeV scale reactions what basically
                                                     ^^^^
                                                     that
>     looks like a point to the lattice which is itself held
      ^^^^^      ^^^^^^^  
      look       points

      The incoherency special.  Free of charge.

                            dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.15 / Cameron Bass /  Re: The charade of theoretical cold fusion
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The charade of theoretical cold fusion
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 1994 02:23:10 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <EACHUS.94Apr14113707@spectre.mitre.org>,
Robert I. Eachus <eachus@spectre.mitre.org> wrote:
>In article <Co7GqA.9yw@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> crb7q@watt.seas.Virgin
a.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>
> > ...To *show* me that it worked
> > would require something quite special and novel, evidence.
>
> > As there's none here, it's quite difficult to believe vague
> > dixie-whistling is gaining us anything...
>
>  > While I would love to be demonstrated to be wrong about this,
>  > I would be willing to bet that I'm not.
>
>   It's a big bet.  Let's play a little game:
>
>  1) Does the sun shine?
>  2) here does the energy come from?
>
>   If your answers are yes and (hot) nuclear fusion, then:
>
>  3) Prove it.

     My answer is 'What does this have to do with what we
     were talking about?'  I don't know how the solar corona
     works, nor do I have an explanation for galactic rotation
     curves, but I'd be willing to bet, very willing to bet,
     that 'cold fusion' ain't it. If this is an attempt to 
     transfer a non-phenomenon into the solution for one 
     of the mysteries of nature, you're going to have 
     to present some compelling evidence, especially as there
     seems to be none back here at the old lab.

     On the other hand, if you're trying to get me to admit
     that there are things we don't know, I cheerfully admit
     that quite often.  However, that is not the same as admitting
     a rather nonsensical explanation of these things.

>   It is all well and good to say that the answers to the hard
>questions will come when we have a better understanding of
>astrophysics, and the creation and dynamics of solar systems.  But
>that knowledge is completely and totally intertwined with the nuclear
>properties of cold hydrogen (including deuterium) and helium.  To
>assert that all those answers are completely understood is an
>arrogance that is beyond me.

     Who asserted that?  On the other hand, we *do* have quite a 
     bit of knowledge about cold hydrogen, including deuterium.
     Knowledge, by the way, that includes the effect of radiation
     on solid, liquid and gaseous deuterium, alpha 
     particles on palladium, electrochemistry
     by fine researchers such as Mr. Droege, nuclear measurements
     around Pd-D systems by other fine researchers such as
     Mr. Jones.  And it is especially important to acknowledge that
     this knowledge comes from laboratory scale experiments,
     *exactly* the situation in which the initial effect
     was erroneously claimed.

     Rather than imply astrophysical mysteries are solved
     by strange properties of PdD systems, I'd prefer to 
     say that they are all caused by pixies.  It makes the 
     miracle much simpler.
     
>   Chubb may be totally and completely wrong.  The hard answers might
>involve quantum black holes or antimatter for all I know.  (Or one of
>my favorite "off the wall" explanations--the neutrino bursts from
>supernovas.) But I am not going to belittle anyone trying to explain
>easily made physical observations by mentioning squaring the circle or
>perpetual motion machines.

     The only problem here is that I fail to see the 'hard question'
     that the Chubb theory answers.  Is he offering it as a solution
     to the solar neutrino 'problem'?

     Even with cold fusion, where are the observations?
     Every one I've ever seen reeks of applying a steady-state
     concept to a transient heat-transfer situation.  Included
     with that is the interesting tendency to make obviously
     inadequate measurements (especially P&F).

     Anyhow, the discussion involved burden of proof.  It is not the 
     burden of conventional science to refute the unconventional.  
     It is the burden of the unconventional to compel conversion *to*
     convention.  No number of unexplaned phenomena can change
     that.

     Again, Bass's Law:  if moses supposes his toeses are roses,
                         then he'd better have a pretty good
                               explanation to keep himself out
                               of the county funny farm.

                         dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.15 / Bruce Scott /  Re: Solar neutrino problem. Brown Dwarfs.
     
Originally-From: bds@uts.ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce d. Scott)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Solar neutrino problem. Brown Dwarfs.
Date: 15 Apr 1994 17:15:03 GMT
Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching

I won't comment on the neutrino stuff yet, am still assimilating references.

In article <EACHUS.94Apr14123404@spectre.mitre.org>, 
	eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus) writes:
|> In article <9404131529.AA26246@dxmint.cern.ch> morrison@vxprix.cern.ch writes:

|>  > Jupiter is a planet and has appreciable differences from brown dwarfs.
|> 
|>   Reasoning from insufficient evidence?  If you would show me a brown
|> dwarf, and describe the differences please?  If sufficient brown
|> dwarfs are discovered to generalize, then we can decide whether or not
|> we live in a double star system.

The point here is most likely that a gravitational collapse model for
Jupiter's formation is very problematic: it has a solid matter mass excess
of about 30 Earth masses over the same-sized body of solar composition,
so if it formed as a star then it would have to lose most of its initial
mass to get down to 318 Me. Note that solar composition gas is only about
0.5 per cent solid matter (silicates, refractory stuff, and metals), so the
30 Me excess has to come from around 6000 Me, or about 20 MJ, worth of
protoplanetary gas. This is why people think Jupiter formed by accretion
of a core of ice/rock solids which grew large enough to _capture_ gas.

Note: the 0.5 per cent above refers to ice-free stuff. Ice and "solids"
together make up about a per cent of total material.

[following quote from Douglas Morrison]

|>  >  So when Robert Eachus talks about deuterium settling "towards the
|>  > core so that any metals in the core would be saturated with He and
|>  > D, not H", am rather surprised since there must be many orders of
|>  > magnitude more H than D.

Note that a stellar interior is too hot even for H/He fractionation
(Jupiter is marginal), so D would not settle coreward. A newly-forming
star is completely convective, so that the D is well-mixed and quickly
exhausted. See DD CLayton, Principles of Stellar Evolution and 
Nucleosynthesis (McGraw-Hill, 1968).

-- 
Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds@spl6n1.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de                    -- W Gibson
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnScott cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.15 / Bruce Scott /  Re: The hot fusion dead-end (was Re: cost)
     
Originally-From: bds@uts.ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce d. Scott)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The hot fusion dead-end (was Re: cost)
Date: 15 Apr 1994 17:16:28 GMT
Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching

In article <CoAt9K.I80@cpsc.ucalgary.ca>, michaelf@cpsc.ucalgary.ca
(Michael Fullerton) writes:
|> In article <2oeq5dINNtha@sat.ipp-garching.mpg.de> bds@uts.ipp-garchin
.mpg.de (Bruce d. Scott) writes:
|> >Thanks to Micheal Fullerton, for giving me a nice laugh with which
|> >to end a long day at work.
|> 
|> Well denial does work fairly well for the short term.  Extending it
|> to the long term can result in pathology though.  Watch out.

Speak for your self. A nice _hearty_ laugh this time.

-- 
Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds@spl6n1.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de                    -- W Gibson
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnScott cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.15 / John Cobb /  Re: cost
     
Originally-From: johncobb@emx.cc.utexas.edu (John W. Cobb)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: cost
Date: 15 Apr 1994 13:41:41 -0500
Organization: The University of Texas - Austin

In article <CoAt3E.I6L@cpsc.ucalgary.ca>,
Michael Fullerton <michaelf@cpsc.ucalgary.ca> wrote:

Heeter: 

>>Please explain why you think it is "obvious" that 
>>"cold fusion technology is much more economically viable".
>
>It is more viable because it is far more cheaper to produce and
>there are not the nasy byproducts hot fusion produces.

While cheap, It is very doubtful that it works. We may not want
a 10G$ success that Heeter promises, but neither do we want a
15$ failure. You obviously feel differently, but you must at least
concede that by a show of hands, you are in a minority of opinion.
This doesn't mean you are wrong. It does mean that you should at least
acknowledge that you are the odd man out of the consensus here.

>A chap named Stanley Myer has a car that basically runs on 
>water.  He has a working affordable technology.  Contrast this
>to hot fusion.  The cell used in the car has been called a high 
>voltage version of a CF cell.  I don't know much about this tech. 
>yet, but if it isn't related to CF then (as has been mentioned in
>sci.energy.hydrogen) both hot fusion _and_ CF have some serious
>competition.  At any rate it looks like hot fusion is toast.
>Sorry for those who have wasted so many years on this economic
>dead-end.
>

In the same vein, let me invite you specifically, and in general to
everyone else on this thread engaging in "are too" , "are not" drivel,
to shut up and let the (few) people who've been adding collective wisdom 
proceed.

If you really believe Stanley "Myer" has a good idea, then invest it,
mortgage the farm, heck sell your organs for money for all I care. If
you strike it rich, congratulations you will deserve it for your foresight.
If you lose your shirt, that's your problem, cope with it. It neither
helps you nor I for you to post provocative statements designed to get 
blood boiling. I decline your invitation.

Either belly up to the bar and bet your money and your career, or shut
your cakehole and learn how to communicate in a productive manner.

If your agitation causes the signal to noise level on this group to again
drop to such low levels that those who are just now starting again to
engage in productive dialogue to run and hide, so help me, I'll start sending
you e-mail in all capitals  with many exclamation marks!!!!! :>

Seriously, this discussion is not going anywhwere. Kill it now while
you still can.

-- 
 --------------------------------------------------------------
John W. Cobb	My posts don't reflect the views of my employer
                Because my posts are usually opaque.
 --------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenjohncobb cudfnJohn cudlnCobb cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.15 / Mark Herrmann /  Re: Rf Heating Of A Fusion Plasma
     
Originally-From: mch@theory.pppl.gov (Mark Herrmann)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Rf Heating Of A Fusion Plasma
Date: 15 Apr 1994 16:46:44 -0400
Organization: Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory, Princeton University,
Princeton NJ 08540

In article <2ojm0rINNfet@emx.cc.utexas.edu>,
John W. Cobb <johncobb@emx.cc.utexas.edu> wrote:
>In article <2oif67$j1t@suntsu.pppl.gov>,
>Mark Herrmann <mch@theory.pppl.gov> wrote:
>>In article <Co7qxo.5ot@prometheus.uucp>,
>>Paul M. Koloc <pmk@promethe.UUCP> wrote:
>>>The purpose of the first wall is to exclude the atmosphere and
>>>gas in high vacuum applications.  Polyethylene and other such 
>>>"low Z" will flood the chamber with gas, because (hydrogen 
>>>isotopes) would be dislodged from the plastic matrix by the 
>>>massive neutron flux.  Neutron flux heating of five to twenty  
>>>megawatts per square meter will utterly destroy the polymer 
>>>bounds.  
>>
...
>>
>
>I hesitate to speak for Paul Koloc because he is often "thinking outside
>the box" with some innovative approaches, but let me risk it anyway.
...
>I think if you take Paul's comments and swap "thermal exhaust power" for
>"neutron power", the point will read the same, the conclusions will follow,
>particularly his answering of Matt's question of why not use a hydrocarbon
>wall liner.

You are right, most of Mr.(I apologize if it is Dr.) Koloc's comments,
would read the same however, one would not.
The last line of Mr. Koloc's article read :

>>>The only solution is a plasma wall and much higher burn densities
>>>in the core plasma using aneutronic fuel cycles.  

If Mr. Koloc meant thermal flux, rather than neutron flux, then the 
assertion that aneutronic fuels are better in this regard than D-T is 
incorrect.  Unless some kind of direct conversion of charge fusion product
energy into electricity is done, all the power from aneutronic fuels must
come out as heat on the walls. Furthermore, there are no blanket reactions.
Thus the average heat load on the first wall of a 3 G.W.(thermal) fusion power
plant running on D-He3 is roughly 6.4 times greater than the average 
heat load on the first wall of a  D-T reactor if they have the same 
surface area. This would seem to be a big problem in designing aneutronic
reactors, if it is already a major concern in D-T designs.

Does anyone know how they plan to handle such a large heat load ?
Or, do all such reactors rely on direct conversion ? 



>
>-john .w cobb
>-- 
>---------------------------------------------------------------
>John W. Cobb	My posts don't reflect the views of my employer
>                Because my posts are usually opaque.
>---------------------------------------------------------------


Thanks,

Mark C. Herrmann

Graduate Student(At least until generals in 5 weeks)
Program in Plasma Physics
Princeton University
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenmch cudfnMark cudlnHerrmann cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.15 / T RHINELANDER /  Red mercury (was Re: chemical ignition of fusion)
     
Originally-From: thompson@spot.Colorado.EDU (THOMPSON  BENJAMIN RHINELANDER)
Newsgroups: rec.pyrotechnics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Red mercury (was Re: chemical ignition of fusion)
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 1994 19:19:37 GMT
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder

	I saw an article in the newspaper the other day that the Russians
have come up with a "baseball-sized" fusion bomb. Apparently it's a pure
fusion device (no fission core) which relies on a radioactive substance
called "red mercury". I've never heard of this stuff. Can anybody supply
information?

	And no, it wasn't the April 1st edition.




-- 
Do not be lulled by my present condition,
Psmith. There are only 35 of you.
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenthompson cudfnTHOMPSON cudlnRHINELANDER cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Sat Apr 16 04:37:06 EDT 1994
------------------------------
1994.04.15 / C Ambler /  Ludwig & Abian agree! It MUST be true...
     
Originally-From: chris@toys.fubarsys.com (Christopher Ambler)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics,sci.chem
Subject: Ludwig & Abian agree! It MUST be true...
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 1994 07:14:31 GMT
Organization: Terranet Communications

Now it all makes sense! Remember that Abian asserts that the earth is
slowly losing mass in order to move time forward. Now,

Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium) says:
>Earth is growing more massive every day, every hour, at a rate which is not
>difficult to measure. [due to his fundamental neutron-gain theory]

Which is why we can see that there is no mass going anywhere!

Ludwig giveth, and Abian taketh away! You may award me my Nobel any time
now... hello? HELLO?

-- 
++Christopher(); // Christopher J. Ambler, Terranet Communications

The above verbosity is strictly the opinion of the author, his dogs, various
AI, an ISDN Internet connection, and the occasional Ozric Tentacles CD.
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenchris cudfnChristopher cudlnAmbler cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.15 / MARSDEN CHARLES /  Re: Red mercury (was Re: chemical ignition of fusion)
     
Originally-From: kcm8305@zeus.tamu.edu (MARSDEN, KENNETH CHARLES)
Newsgroups: rec.pyrotechnics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Red mercury (was Re: chemical ignition of fusion)
Date: 15 Apr 1994 22:55 CDT
Organization: Texas A&M University OpenVMScluster

In article <CoBF0p.qA@cnsnews.Colorado.EDU>, thompson@spot.Colorado.EDU
(THOMPSON  BENJAMIN RHINELANDER) writes...
>	I saw an article in the newspaper the other day that the Russians
>have come up with a "baseball-sized" fusion bomb. Apparently it's a pure
>fusion device (no fission core) which relies on a radioactive substance
>called "red mercury". I've never heard of this stuff. Can anybody supply
>information?
> 
>	And no, it wasn't the April 1st edition.
>

	I can supply you with information:  They're either pulling your leg 
or totally full of it.

	It's theoretically possible to set off fusion weapons without 
fission triggers, but to my knowledge there is no unclassified information 
about how practical this actually is.  Anyways, if it is actually achievable 
it is going to take a LOT of high explosive to attain the temperatures and 
pressures necessary for any significant fusion.......but I hope the story 
you read is correct, because the worlds energy problems have just been 
solved.

--Hey can you email me the name and approximate date of that paper if you 
still have it?  I would be interested in reading what they were saying.

Ken  
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenkcm8305 cudfnMARSDEN cudlnCHARLES cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.16 / Peter T /  Cold Fusion FAQ please~
     
Originally-From: petert@zikzak.apana.org.au (Peter T.)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Cold Fusion FAQ please~
Date: 16 Apr 1994 00:17:36 GMT
Organization: Zikzak Public Access UNIX, Melbourne Australia

I believe that there is a cold fusion faq floating around, I have limited
access, so could some one pop it in here, or e-mail it to me please?

Thankyou
Peter T.
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenpetert cudfnPeter cudlnT cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.15 / Robert Heeter /  (Long) Part 10A of Conventional Fusion FAQ - Glossary Intro
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: (Long) Part 10A of Conventional Fusion FAQ - Glossary Intro
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 1994 06:59:13 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

10A. FUT: Glossary of Frequently Used Terms in Conventional Fusion

While this section is not yet complete, it should be useful to
many people, and I encourage you to distribute it to anyone who
might be interested (and willing to help revise it!!!).

5th Draft, Last Revised on Friday April 15, 1994.
Edited by Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@theory.pppl.gov

***  This introduces the Conventional Fusion FUT/Glossary  ***

* Editorial Note:  

Like any discipline, fusion research has evolved terminology used 
to facilitate discussion.  This includes the scientific vocabulary 
of the discipline, the names of various research machines and 
devices used, the names of various researchers in the field, the 
names of the various research labs and funding authorities, the
mathematical symbols used, and the acronyms frequently used as 
shorthand for some of the above,.  

In the case of conventional (magnetic confinement, inertial
confinement, thermonuclear, muon-catalyzed, etc - but not Cold)
fusion, this terminology has grown to the point where newcomers 
may be intimidated by the apparent obscurity of the discussions.  
This file is our attempt to provide a comprehensive and detailed 
listing and explanation of terms frequently used, so that those new 
to the group/field will be able to understand what is being said, 
and to contribute with a minimum of confusion and frustration.  

The following is a rough draft of a guide to terminology used in
conventional (not Cold) fusion research.  This is the fifth draft of 
the terminology guide, and while considerable progress has been made, 
many relevant terms are still unlisted, undefined, or poorly defined. 
(Hint:  If you don't like something, submit a revision/correction, 
and I'll put it in if it looks good.)


* DO NOT BE INTIMIDATED BY THE SIZE OF THIS GLOSSARY!

Everything is organized alphabetically, and to make things even
better each entry is coded by type (names, acronyms, types of 
machines, basic physics terms, advanced plasma terms, etc).
Hopefully this will make the FUT easier to use. 


* What's in the FUT:  

We started with an initial list supplied by Jim Day 
(Jim.Day@support.com).  To this were added some comments from various
responses I received to the first draft.  I then incorporated much of
the terms in the glossary of Robin Herman's _Fusion: The Search for
Endless Energy_ (without permission, but with attribution where they
occur).  Then acronyms, machine names, and names of important 
scientists were added as they came. This completed the second draft.  

For the third draft, I have incorporated comments and new definitions
received in response to the second draft, and added some new terms 
from the "Princeton Plasma Physics Laboaratory Glossary of Fusion 
Terms", which I obtained at PPPL.  I added categories for research 
and funding/political agencies, tried to broaden the base of basic
science terms, and wrote up a few more preliminary definitions based
upon explanations that have appeared in the newsgroup and in my 
studies.  Many of the terms listed still do not have explanations 
given.  

The fourth and fifth drafts are mostly incremental improvements to
the previous versions.  New categories of terms have been made,
the organization has been improved, and of course definitions have
been added and improved.


* What's Needed to Improve the FUT:

I am looking for additional contributions (and improvements) to 
the list.  It would be nice if people posting to the group could
occasionally take a few moments to include definitions of a few 
terms used (as I have tried to do lately) when you use them; in 
browsing through the group I can then snip out the terms and 
definitions and simply paste them into the evolving FUT file.
It also would be nice if references to the FAQ/FQA and the 
Reading List / Bibliography could be given to supplement 
the FUT descriptions, at least for some of the more
complicated terms.


* Comment on Sources:

The terms and definitions occurring here represent a collection
of contributions from numerous sources.  Rather than include
acknowledgements for each individual definition, I have made
blanket acknowledgements in a separate section.  I have tried 
to include citations in most cases where only a single textual 
source was used.


* This file may be freely distributed; I recommend you retain the
revision date, and in any case I'd like to be cited as the editor. *

****************
Robert F. Heeter
rfheeter@lyman.pppl.gov
Graduate Student, Princeton Plasma Physics Lab
(Usual disclaimers apply.)
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.15 / Robert Heeter /  Re: cost
     
Originally-From: rfheeter@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Robert Franklin Heeter)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: cost
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 1994 18:20:19 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

In article <CoAt3E.I6L@cpsc.ucalgary.ca> michaelf@cpsc.ucalgary.ca
(Michael Fullerton) writes:
>In article <1994Apr12.224004.6204@Princeton.EDU> Robert F. Heeter
<rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> writes:
>>
>>It's not clear to me where you get the idea that cold fusion
>>is so much more economically viable.  Cold fusion lacks
>>consistent experimental results, lacks a proven theoretical
>>foundation, and in any case has not been shown to cost
>>less than $10 per watt, which is what hot fusion can do now.
>>I don't believe *any* cold fusion researcher could, right
>>now, credibly promise to know how to generate a billion watts
>>of excess heat at $10/watt, much less electricity.
>
>First of all McKubre has been getting consistent results.

Show me the peer reviewed published paper which indicates this,
and that he can generate excess energy for < $10/watt, and
then show me the numerous replications, and then you'd be
able to say cold fusion has consistent results indicative
of an inexpensive energy source.  Actually, you'd better make that
$3/watt, because hot fusion can get you heat for that price;
I dobut any CF source will generate much electricity in the
near future, because the temperatures aren't that high.
And don't forget that electrolytic CF involves converting 
high-grade electricity into low-grade heat, so you need at
least 300% surplus power just to break even (if your 
input electricity is to come from your CF machine, *and*
assuming you can run hot enough to convert the heat to
electricity with a reasonable efficiency).

It's far too early to think about any "economic prospects"
of cold fusion...

>Second, who cares about theory.  If a company can build an
>economical energy producing cell (as several are working on now)
>theory is not necessary.  It is only necessary to academics not 
>the energy consumer.

It's unclear to me how you expect a company to be able to
produce an economical energy cell without some understanding of
the theory of the energy production process.  How are you
going to optimize the technology to make it cost-effective?
How are you going to prove that the machine is safe?  How
are you going to fix it if it breaks?
>
>>Please explain why you think it is "obvious" that 
>>"cold fusion technology is much more economically viable".
>
>It is more viable because it is far more cheaper to produce and
>there are not the nasy byproducts hot fusion produces.  

Show me why CF is cheaper to produce, on a per-watt basis.
Tell me why CF doesn't produce the same "nasty byproducts" that
hot fusion does.  What nasty byproducts are you referring to?
(So I can explain to you how my $10/watt fusion reactor will
deal with them.)

>It also
>doesn't require monstrous amounts of machinery to work.

You will need an awful lot of machinery to get a billion watts of 
power from cold fusion, too.  

>  I do not
>see the economic ferver surrounding HF as that which surrounds CF.
>The biggest Japanese corporations are pumping big money into CF.
>Power companies in the US are also involved with CF.

Gee, Japan spends about $30 million each year on CF?  And about $400
million each year on hot fusion?  And you want me to believe the
Japanese (a) consider $30 million big money, and (b) think CF
is more economically viable than HF?

No doubt the reason you don't see the economic ferver surrounding
HF is because we're not promising as much as quickly, and perhaps
because the people funding HF are not investors willing to
take a big risk on a small amount of cash.

>A chap named Stanley Myer has a car that basically runs on 
>water.  He has a working affordable technology.  Contrast this
>to hot fusion.  The cell used in the car has been called a high 
>voltage version of a CF cell.  

Funny that when he had a chance to drive it around for the TV
program, he didn't.  Here's a question for you:  if it runs on
water, and it emits only water (from the fuel cell (NOT CF)
he uses), then how does he violate the law of conservation of 
energy in order to get it to run?

I suspect he electrolyzes the water with a battery, and
then burns the water in his fuel cell, and then his car runs.
But he still has to charge up his battery somewhere, and he's
not getting energy for free.

When I can drive this car myself for weeks on end without
doing anything more than filling the fuel tank with my garden
hose, then I'll believe his car works.

>I don't know much about this tech. 
>yet, but if it isn't related to CF then (as has been mentioned in
>sci.energy.hydrogen) both hot fusion _and_ CF have some serious
>competition.  At any rate it looks like hot fusion is toast.

Only to those who don't, as they admit, know much about the technology.

>Sorry for those who have wasted so many years on this economic
>dead-end.

I think I'll go and "waste" a few more, unless someone can
provide more conclusive evidence that the competition is
real.


****************
Robert F. Heeter
Graduate Student, PPPL
Disclaimers Apply
(My apologies to everyone else for the negative tone of this article.)

cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.15 / Robert Heeter /  Part 8 (draft) Conventional Fusion FAQ - Internet Resources
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Part 8 (draft) Conventional Fusion FAQ - Internet Resources
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 1994 19:27:44 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

8. Internet Resources

This is a draft only and is not to be copied or cited at this time.

Second Draft - April 15 ,1994
Written by Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@theory.pppl.gov, unless
otherwise cited.


*** A. Newsgroups:  
     sci.physics.fusion (unmoderated)
     sci.physics.plasma (proposed)                

*** B. Anonymous FTP Sites:
     vm1.nodak.edu (134.129.111.1) 
          This site has the complete archive of
          the sci.physics.fusion newsgroup, from its inception.
          To log in:  use the username anonymous, type your
          email address as the password, and then type "cd fusion"
          to get to the fusion directory.  Beware: the index is
          large!  To download something enter "get" and then
          the name of the file you want.

     neutrino.nuc.berkeley.edu 
          Here you can find fusion-related GIF images.
          As for vm1.nodak.edu, log in anonymously, then cd to
          the directory /pub/fusion, and "get" what you want.

*** C. LISTSERV:
     vm1.nodak.edu also works as a listserver:

          "You get a (large) index of the archives by sending 
          an email to listserv@vm1.nodak.edu, with a blank 
          SUBJECT line, and the "message" 'index fusion'. To get 
          any one of these files, you then send to the same address
          the message, e.g., "get fusion 91-00487", etc, according 
          to what you're after."
            -- quoting Dieter Britz, BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk

*** D. Gopher:

     * Garching has a Gopher site.  The host is
          uts.ipp-garching.mpg.de (Port: 70)

According to Art Carlson:  
"It's probably not very useful, since most of the info, press
releases and the like, is in German.  There is other *great stuff* 
on the computer, like drawings of ASDEX-Upgrade and time schedules,
but it's not publicly available (as far as I know)."

     * Anything else out there?

*** D. World-Wide Web:

     * Some people at PPPL are working on a mosaic/WWW page, but 
          it's not yet ready, so far as I know.

     * Anything out there?

*** E. Individuals Willing to Provide Additional Information

Many of the participants on sci.physics.fusion are conventional/hot
fusion researchers.  Many names and email addresses are to be found 
as sources for various slices of the FAQ, and so on.  (See the 
acknowledgements for a more-or-less complete list of contributors.)

A few people have expressed a willingness to serve as sources for
people seeking additional literature, such as laboratory reports, 
pamphlets, and assorted other documents.  What follows is a short 
listing:

* Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@lyman.pppl.gov 
	- Graduate Student at Princeton - 

	I have the FAQ, all sorts of archived postings and additional
	information used to generate the FAQ, a bunch of PPPL literature, 
	a set of quicktime movies made from television coverage of the 
	TFTR D-T runs (and GIFs from the QT movies), and access to just 
	about anyone here at PPPL who would have something I don't have.

The draft FAQ now exists as a stand-alone, self-running Macintosh
document roughly 250K in size; I will be happy to send it to
anyone who wants the FAQ in this (more convenient!) form.

* Joe T. Chew, jtchew@lbl.gov
	- Physicist at Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory -

	"I've also got a variety of pamphlets put out by this or that 
	lab or agency over the years; feel free to give out my address 
	as a source for photocopies of such things."
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.15 / Robert Heeter /  (Long) Part 7 (draft) Convent. Fusion FAQ - Educational Opportunities
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Originally-From: Geoff Maddison, geoff.maddison@aea.orgn.uk
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: (Long) Part 7 (draft) Convent. Fusion FAQ - Educational Opportunities
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 1994 20:01:02 GMT
Date: Sat, 26 Feb 1994 18:44:05 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

7.  Educational Opportunities in Fusion Research

This is a draft only and is not to be copied or cited at this time.

Second Draft - April 15 ,1994
Written by Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@theory.pppl.gov, unless
otherwise cited.

***  Note: Answers in this section are biased towards Americans;
          I'd appreciate input from people in other nations to
          make this section as applicable as possible. 

***  Note #2:  These answers are by no means complete or final;
          I'm hoping y'all will contribute what you know and
          help me out!

***********************

Undergraduate/Graduate Opportunities: 

***  A.  What opportunities are there for interested students?

     * Undergraduate Opportunities:

Unfortunately, fusion research is a relatively small field, 
so most colleges and universities do not have much in the 
way of either plasma or fusion research.  

Exceptions:

In the United States (in no particular order):
     Caltech, UCLA, Wisconsin-Madison, MIT, Texas-Austin, 
     Princeton, Maryland, Iowa, Auburn, Columbia, 
     Washington (Seattle) and probably some other schools 

In Germany - the Universities in:  
     Munich, Juelich, Bochum, Berlin, Stuttgart, Augsburg, and 
     Greifswald.

Most Russian research is done in Moscow, Leningrad, and Novosibirsk.

(help with other countries, anyone??)

     
There are, however, undergraduate summer research programs 
(primarily for students who've completed their junior year) in 
both Europe and the United States (details on these programs
are appended).  One can also become involved in fusion / plasma
research through summer programs offered at the various U.S.
National Laboratories (particularly Livermore, Los Alamos,
and Sandia; possibly Oak Ridge?). Finally, it's also possible 
to do summer research at the schools which do research, provided
you find a way to make the right connections.


     * Graduate Opportunities:  

The summer program offered in Europe is targeted for beginning 
graduate students (perhaps more so than advanced undergraduates); 
see below for details.

The schools listed above which pursue fusion / plasma research 
also have graduate programs; there are other schools as well.  
There are several fellowships available to provide financial 
assistance, as well.  (I could really use a couple addresses here, 
so people know where to go to get the important information.  
Help anyone???)


***  B.  I'm an undergraduate interested in becoming a "fusioneer".  
         What should I study?

Basic Answer:  

     Fusion researchers come to the field from a number
of different disciplines, because the field is small and young
and no school has a major in "fusioneering" or "plasma physics".  
For undergraduates, a major in physics, astrophysics, or 
electrical engineering would provide a perhaps the best 
background for studying plasma physics.  Nuclear and mechanical
engineering are also viable options, particularly if your interest
lies more in reactor design and engineering.  At this point the
majority of graduate opportunities are on the plasma physics side,
though this may change as the science evolves and (we hope) more
reactor engineers are needed.

My opinion is that it is more important to look for research
opportunities relevant to the field, and the choice of major
is a little less important.


***  C.  What sorts of experiments are there for high-school
         students?  How can I get the equipment?  Has anyone
         else done this?

     While there are few fusion experiments that would be feasible
at the high school level, there are a number of interesting
possibilities for plasma physics experiments.  (There are 
people here at PPPL, and probably elsewhere, who can provide
demos and/or assist in developing experiments; if anyone 
is interested in this, let me know and I'll pursue this further.)

     There are a couple simple plasma demonstrations which
would probably be feasible.  If one has access to a microwave
oven, one can simply insert a sealed tube containing some sort
of gas (such as a fluorescent light bulb), and then run the
microwave.  The microwave radiation will ionize the gas, 
forming a microwave plasma discharge, if the circumstances 
are right.  (This may not be all that good for the microwave,
however.)  

     An easy way to observe the confining effects of a magnetic
field would be to build a fairly large magnetic coil (fields
of around 30 gauss will give a nice effect) and run a fluorescent
light inside.  (The Helmholtz configuration, where the coil
radius is equal to the coil separation, gives a fairly uniform
magnetic field in the region between the coils, and would be
better than a solenoid since it would make it easier to see
inside.  Moving the coils away from each other will generate
a magnetic mirror configuration, which also has some interesting
physics to it.)  This will be best if you can see inside the
fluorescent bulb, instead of just seeing the phosphor glow from
the glass tube.

     If one has access to a vacuum pump and a high voltage (2000 V)
power supply, it is also possible to build a glow discharge tube
instead of using the fluorescent light bulb.  Air will give
a pretty discharge, but helium and neon and argon are also 
interesting.


***  D.  What about those summer programs you mentioned above?

I am currently aware of two major plasma/fusion summer programs.

* 1.  The National Undergraduate Summer Fellowship in Plasma Physics 
and Fusion Engineering (NUF) is a competitive U.S. program, 
primarily aimed at those completing their junior year in college.  
A one-week short course (at Princeton, in June) kicks off 
the program, followed by several weeks of research at various 
sites nationwide.  There is a substantial stipend ($4000 or so) 
and travel expenses up to $1000 are covered.  The application
deadline was Feb. 22 of this year, and will probably shift 
around next year.  

For further information, contact nuf@pppl.gov (Diane Carroll).

* 2.  There is also a Plasma Physics Summer School offered at 
Culham in England (where JET is located).  Here is a posting
on the program from Geoff Maddison, and some comments from
others on the program.

Originally-From: Geoff Maddison, geoff.maddison@aea.orgn.uk
Date: Sat, 26 Feb 1994 18:44:05 GMT
>
>      T H E   3 1 s t   C U L H A M   P L A S M A   P H Y S I C S
>      ###########################################################
>
>                       S U M M E R   S C H O O L
>                       #########################
>
>                   1 1   -   2 2   J U L Y   1 9 9 4
>
>         C u l h a m   L a b o r a t o r y,   A b i n g d o n,
>                     O x f o r d s h i r e,   U K
>
>
> An International Summer School intended  for students near 
> the  start of postgraduate courses.  No previous knowledge of 
> plasma physics  is assumed.  Since 1985,  the Summer School series  
> has been attended by over 600 students from 47 countries, more 
> than two thirds coming from outside the UK.
>
> Culham Laboratory is the primary centre for plasma physics & 
> nuclear fusion research in the UK; it is located close to the 
> city of Oxford, and  shares  a  site   with  the   world's  
> largest  magnetic  fusion experiment,  the  Joint  European  
> Torus   (JET).
>
>               The School covers a broad curriculum :-
>
> * Plasma particle dynamics   * Plasma waves  * Kinetic theory   
> * MHD * Computational techniques  * Astrophysical plasmas   
> * Laser plasmas * Magnetically confined plasmas    * Solar plasmas
> * Poster session * Space plasmas * Laboratory visits * Industrial 
> plasmas * Turbulence & chaos * Diagnostics * Gravitational plasmas
>
> A copy of the course textbook "Plasma Phyics: An Introductory
> Course" (Cambridge University Press, 1993)  is given to each
> student.
>
> ACCOMMODATION WILL BE IN A HISTORIC COLLEGE OF OXFORD UNIVERSITY.
>
>            CLOSING DATE FOR APPLICATIONS:  13th MAY 1994
>
>   (Late applications may be accepted, depending on accommodation.)
>
> Further details / application forms are available from :-
>
>      Mrs Joan Stimson,
>      Culham Laboratory,
>      Abingdon,
>      Oxfordshire  OX14 3DB,              Tel: 44 235 463293
>      UK.                                 FAX: 44 235 463288
>
> or e-MAIL enquiries to:  geoff.maddison@aea.orgn.uk
>

Commentary:

* From David Pearson, University of Reading, 1988 (?) attendee:

Dear Internet,

Yes, go to the Culham Summer School if you can - but read some
basic textbooks (or a textbook) first, if you are a beginner.
The Summer School is excellent, but I doubt if many people are
smart enough to plunge straight into it without knowing some
plasma physics first - I certainly wasn't.

* Note by Robert F. Heeter:  

The Culham program appears to be intended for students making 
the transition from undergraduate to graduate work.  The flyer 
I saw indicated that it was about twelve days long (two weeks 
of classes and a weekend in the middle), and the cost was 
on the order of 750 pounds sterling, including housing.



*** E.  When/where are the major fusion conferences?

** Major Annual Conferences:

The following is a list of some major annual conferences, including
(where I have the information) the sponsoring organization, the 
name of the conference, the typical abbreviation for the 
conference, the season when the conference is held, size of 
the conference, and some comments.  (The current list was 
provided by Art Carlson; I've reformatted it somewhat.)

* American Physical Society Division of Plasma Physics:
Annual Meeting. (APS, or APS-DPP).  Fall. About 1500 contributors. 

Largest and probably most important conference, covers all of 
plasma physics.

* European Physical Society:
European Conference on Controlled Fusion and 
... Plasma Physics (odd years) 
... Plasma Heating (even years) 
(EPS). Summer. About 500 contributors. 

The European equivalent of APS, covers all of plasma physics.

* International Atomic Energy Agency: 
International Conference on Plasma Physics and Controlled 
Nuclear Fusion Research. (IAEA). Fall. Attendence restricted. 

Politically important.

* Symposium on Fusion Technology (SOFT). Summer.

* International Conference on Plasma-Surface Interaction (PSI). 
Summer. 

Lots of surface physics and technology.

* International Sherwood Fusion Theory Conference 
(Sherwood). Spring. 

Probably the most important fusion _theory_ conference.
(From the secret code name for the original US fusion program.)


** A few dates of upcoming fusion-related conferences.
(dates European style, dy/mo/yr)

23-27/5/94
11th Int. Conf. on PLASMA-SURFACE INTERACTIONS IN CONTROLLED 
FUSION DEVICES. 
Mito, Japan

6-8/6/94
Conf. on PLASMA SCIENCES
Sante Fe, New Mexico, USA

27/6-1/7/94
21st Eurp. Conf. on CONTROLLED FUSION AND PLASMA PHYSICS
(This is the European equivalent of APS.)
Montpellier, France

11-22/7/94
31st Culham Summer School in Plasma Physics
Culham, UK

22-26/8/94
18th Symposium on Fusion Technology (SOFT)
Karlsruhe, Germany

26/9-1/10
15th IAEA Int. conf. on PLASMA PHYSICS AND CONTROLLED NUCLEAR 
FUSION RESEARCH
Madrid, Spain

7-11/11/94
Meeting of the AMERICAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY--DIVISION OF PLASMA PHYSICS
Minneapolis, MN, USA

2-7/7/95
22nd European Conf. on CONTROLLED FUSION AND PLASMA PHYSICS
Bournemouth, UK
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.15 / Robert Heeter /  (Long) Part 10B Conventional Fusion FAQ - Glossary A - D
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: (Long) Part 10B Conventional Fusion FAQ - Glossary A - D
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 1994 07:05:06 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

==================================================================

Section 10 Part B - Glossary A-D

FREQUENTLY USED TERMS IN CONVENTIONAL FUSION RESEARCH 
AND PLASMA PHYSICS

While this section is not yet complete, it should be useful to
many people, and I encourage you to distribute it to anyone who
might be interested (and willing to help revise it!!!).

5th Draft, Last Revised on Friday, April 15, 1994.

Edited by Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@theory.pppl.gov

Guide to Categories:
 
* = vocabulary 
& = basic physics vocabulary 
> = device type or machine name
# = name of a constant or variable
! = scientists 
@ = acronym
% = labs & political organizations

Citations and Acknowledgements appear in Section 12.

==================================================================

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

@ AEC - (US) Atomic Energy Commission; see entry

@ ANL - Argonne National Laboratory; see entry

@ ASDEX - Axially Symmetric Divertor EXperiment; see entry

@ ASDEX-U - ASDEX-Upgrade; see entry for ASDEX.

* Activation: Activation occurs when a particle interacts
with an atomic nucleus, shifting the nucleus into an
unstable state, and causing it to become radioactive.
In fusion research, where deuterium-tritium is a common
fuel mixture, the neutron released when (D + T) combine
to form (4He + n) can activate the reactor structure. 

* Activation Product: The unstable nucleus formed when
activation occurs.  (See activation above.)

& Adiabatic:  Not involving an exchange of heat between the
system said to be adiabatic and the rest of the universe.

* Adiabatic Invariant:

* Afterglow:  Recombination radiation emitted from a cooling
plasma when the source of ionization (heating, etc) is removed.

* Advanced Fuels:  There are several elements/isotopes which
could be fused together, besides the DT fuel mixture.  Many such
fuel combinations would have various advantages over DT, but
it is generally more difficult to achieve fusion with these
advanced fuels than with the DT mix.  See fuels section of FAQ
for discussion. 

> Advanced Toroidal Facility:  (?) A reversed-field pinch machine
developed at Oak Ridge National Lab (ORNL) (?)

> Alcator: (from Herman) A family of tokamaks developed and
built at MIT and characterized by relatively small diameters
and high magnetic fields.  Plasmas in these devices have
relatively high current and particle densities.  Current incarnation
is Alcator C-mod.  Alcator C was donated to LLNL for use as the 
Microwave Tokamak eXperiment (MTX), now shut down.

* Alfven waves: Transverse electromagnetic waves that are 
propagated along lines of magnetic force in a plasma.  The waves
have frequency less than the ion cyclotron frequency, and are
characterized by the fact that the field lines oscillate (wiggle)
with the plasma.  The propagation velocity depends on the particle
density and the strength of the magnetic field.  "[Relatively] 
Low frequency ion oscillation in the presence of an equilibrium 
magnetic field.  Also called the hydromagnetic wave along Bo.  
The torsional Alfven wave in cylindrical geometry was first measured 
in liquid mercury by B. Lehnert.  Alfven waves were first generated 
and detected in plasma by Allen, Baker, Pyle, and Wilcox in Berkeley 
and by Jephcott in England in 1959."  (quoting from Chen's book; 
see bibliography) - Albert Chou

! Alfven, Hannes Olof:  Nobel Prize-Winning Plasma Physicist
and Astronomer who first suggested the possibility of MHD waves
in 1942.

* Alpha particle:  The nucleus of a Helium-4 atom; is a
typical product of fusion reactions; also released
in various nuclear decay processes.  Alpha particles readily
grab electrons from other sources, becoming neutral helium;
even energetic alpha particles are easily stopped by thin 
barriers (sheets of paper, dead layers of skin, etc.), so that
as a radiological hazard alpha particles are only dangerous if
they are generated inside one's body (where the skin cannot
protect tissue from damage).

& Ampere, kiloampere, megampere:  (from Herman) The standard
unit for measuring the strength of an electric current
representing a flow of one coulomb of electricity per second.
1 kiloampere = 1000 amperes; 1 megampere = 1,000,000 amperes.
Common abbreviations:  amps, kiloamps, megamps, kA, MA

! Ampere, Andre-Marie (1775-1836):  French physicist responsible 
for much of what is known about the fundamentals of electromagnetism.

& Ampere's Law:  General equation in electromagnetism relating
the magnetic field and the currents generating it.

* Aneutronic Fuels:  Advanced fusion fuels which would not
produce fusion neutrons.  See fuels section of FAQ for discussion.

& Angstrom:  A unit of distance equal to 10^-10 meters or 10^-10 cm.

& Angular Momentum:

* Anomalous Diffusion:  Diffusion in most plasma devices, 
particularly tokamaks, is higher than what one would predict from 
understood causes.  The observed, "typical" diffusion is referred to 
as "anomalous" because it has not yet been explained.  "Classical" 
diffusion and "Neo-classical" diffusion are the two well-understood 
diffusion theories, neither is adequate to explain the observed 
"anomalous" diffusion.  See also:  entries for classical and 
neoclassical diffusion.

% Argonne National Laboratory:  One of the U.S. Department of Energy
basic-research Laboratories, located in Illinois... (need more info!)

* Aspect Ratio:  In toroidal geometry, the ratio of
the major diameter (total width of the torus) to the 
minor diameter (width of a slice taken through one side
of the ring).  (This would be much better with a picture!)

& Atom:  (from Herman)  The smallest unit of an element that
retains the characteristics of that element.  At the center
of the atom is the nucleus, made up of neutrons and protons,
around which the electrons orbit.  Atoms of ordinary hydrogen,
the lightest element, consists of a nucleus of one proton
orbited by one electron.  (Note:  distinct from a molecule,
which is the smallest unit of a substance which retains the
characteristics of that substance.  It takes far less 
energy to break apart a stable molecule into its constituent 
atoms than to divide a stable atom into two smaller atoms.)
Note that in solids, atoms are typically two angstroms
(2 x 10^-10 meters) apart; in air the gas molecules are about
30 angstroms apart.

& Atomic Bomb, A-Bomb:  (from Herman) A weapon with a large
explosive power due to the sudden release of energy when the
nuclei of heavy atoms such as plutonium-239 or uranium-235
are split.  This fission is brought about by the bombardment
of the fuel with neutrons, setting off a chain reaction.
The bomb releases shock, blast, heat, light, and lethal
radiation.  The world's first atomic bomb was successfully
tested by the United States on July 16, 1945.

% Atomic Energy Commission: United States governmental 
authority for atomic energy; split into ERDA and NRC in 1975.
(may not be 100% correct)

& Atomic Number (Z):  The number of protons in a nucleus; same
as the number of electrons in a neutral atom; determines the 
position of an element in the periodic table, and hence its
chemical properties (see also isotope).

* Atomic Temperature:  The temperature corresponding to the mean
kinetic energy of the neutral atoms in a plasma.  (If there were
no ions or electrons, the atomic temperature would be what we
normally think of as the temperature of a gas, such as the air.)

& Avogadro's number: N = 6.02497 x 10^23.  Number of particles 
in a mole of a substance.  Coefficient relating Boltzmann's 
constant to the ideal gas constant. This is the number of 
atoms per gram-atom.  See also: mole

> Axially Symmetric Divertor EXperiment (from Herman)
(ASDEX, Asdex: Garching, Germany)  A large tokamak designed 
for the study of impurities and their control by a magnetic
divertor.  The H mode or high mode of operation with neutral 
beam injection was first observed on ASDEX.

> Axially Symmetric Divertor EXperiment (ASDEX, Asdex):  "The original
ASDEX, located in Garching, Germany and decommisioned in 1990(?), 
would qualify today as a medium-sized tokamak. It was designed for 
the study of impurities and their control by a magnetic divertor.  
The H mode or high mode of operation with neutral beam injection was
first observed on ASDEX.  Its successor ASDEX-Upgrade (a completely 
new machine, not really an "upgrade") is larger and more flexible.
It is the first tokamak whose toroidal and poloidal field coils are 
not linked, which will be a necessary design factor in a reactor.  
It will achieve parameters at the edge which are very similar to 
those needed for a power reactor." - Arthur Carlson

* Azimuthal: Generally an angle, measured "around" an object.
In spherical geometries, the angle which is *not* the "polar angle".  
On the earth, one incarnation of the azimuthal angle is the longitude 
of a location relative to the prime meridian through Greenwich, 
England.  In toroidal geometries, the longitude idea still applies, 
but the other angle is the "poloidal" angle, not the "polar" angle.  
The azimuthal direction is the "long way" around a torus.  
See also: poloidal.


BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB

# B - variable used for Magnetic Field

@ B - chemical symbol for the element boron.

@ Be - chemical symbol for the element beryllium.

@ BPX - Burning Plasma eXperiment; see entry

* Banana Orbit:  The fast spiraling of an charged particle around a
magnetic field line is accompanied by a slow movement ("drift") of 
the center of the sprial.  Projected onto a poloidal plane, the drift
orbit has the shape of a banana.  These orbits are responsible for 
neo-classical diffusion (see entry).

* Baseball Coils:  Used in magnetic-mirror geometries to
produce a minimum-B configuration; so-called because of their
resemblance to the characteristic shape of lacing on a baseball.

! Becquerel, Antoine-Henri:  French scientist and discoverer of
radioactivity; co-winner of Nobel Prize.  (See Curie)

* Becquerel:  Unit of radioactivity equal to 1 disintegration per
second.  (see Curie)

& Beryllium: (Be)  Element with atomic number 4 (four protons).
May be useful in multiplying fusion neutrons to enhance tritium
production in a lithium blanket; rather hazardous to handle.
(See relevant terms mentioned.)

* Beta, or beta-value:  Ratio between plasma kinetic pressure and 
magnetic-field pressure; same as the ratio between plasma kinetic
energy density and magnetic field energy density; characterizes the
efficiency with which the magnetic field confines the plasma.  
See also: pressure, kinetic pressure, magnetic pressure, 
second stability.

* Binary Collisions:  Collisions involving only two particles; 
multiparticle collisions (eg, three-body collisions) are usually
neglected/approximated...

& Biot-Savart Law:  General formula for determining the magnetic 
field due to a steady line (not space) current.  Related to Ampere's 
Law.

* Blanket: (from Herman) a region surrounding a fusion reactor 
core within which the fusion neutrons are slowed down, heat 
is transferred to a primary coolant, and tritium is bred 
from lithium.  In hybrid applications, fertile materials 
(U-238 or Th-232) are located in the blanket for conversion 
into fissile fuels.

* Bohm diffusion:  (from Herman) A rapid loss of plasma
across magnetic field lines caused by microinstabilities.
Theory formulated by the physicist David Bohm.
  From Chen's book (see bibliography): Semiempirical formula for 
the diffusion coefficient given by Bohm in 1946 (noted by Bohm, 
Burhop, and Massey, who were developing a magnetic arc for use in 
uranium isotope separation).  See also: diffusion, 
microinstabilities, field lines...

& Boltzmann constant: k = 1.38 x 10^-16 erg/degree. This 
is the ratio of the universal gas constant to Avogadro's number.
It is also used to relate temperatures (Kelvin) to energies (ergs
or Joules) via E = (constant of order unity) * kT.

& Boltzmann Distribution:  See Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution;
distribution function.

* Bootstrap Current:  Currents driven in toroidal devices by 
neo-classical diffusion (see entry).  They may amount to a 
substantial fraction of the net current in a tokamak reactor, 
thus lengthening the pulse time or decreasing the power needed 
for current drive.

& Boron: (B)  Fifth element (Z=5) in the periodic table; has
5 protons; potential use as an aneutronic fuel.  (See FAQ section
on reactions.)  Also useful as a neutron-absorber.

* Breakeven:  there are several types:
	Commercial:  When fusion power can be converted into enough 
		electric power to power the reactor and generate enough
 		electricity to cover the costs of the plant at economically
 		competitive rates. (?)
	Engineering:  When enough energy can be generated from the
		fusion power output to supply power for the reactor and
		generate a surplus; sort of commercial breakeven without
		the economic considerations. (?)
	Scientific:  When fusion power = input power; Q=1.
		(See also Lawson Criterion)
		Extrapolated - projected for actual reactor fuel using 
			an alternative fuel.
		Actual - determined using the actual fusion fuel to be
			used in the reactor (typically DT).

* Breeder Reactor:  (from Herman) A kind of nuclear reactor that
produces more fissionable material than it consumes to
generate energy.  The liquid-metal "fast breeder," a promising
type of breeder, splits plutonium-239, producing an intense
flow of neutrons and a self-sustaining chain reaction. 

& Bremsstrahlung:  (German for "Braking Radiation")  Electromagnetic
radiation from a charged particle as it slows down (decelerates).  
Similar to synchrotron radiation (see also).

> Burning Plasma eXperiment (BPX):  Proposed U.S. successor to TFTR;
never funded.  See also: CIT, TPX.

> Bumpy Torus:  I believe this concept tries to combine mirror 
concepts with toroidal ones.  My understanding is that it is 
essentially a series of mirrors stuck end to end and bent into 
a ring.  - Albert Chou (corrections / enhancements welcome!)


CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC

# c - Speed of light; 3.0x10E+8 meters/second or 3.0x10E+10 cm/sec

@ CGS - Centimeters, Grams, Seconds; see CGS Units

@ CGS Units - see CGS; see entry

@ CIT - Compact Ignition Tokamak; see entry

& Carbon: (C)

& Capacitor:  device used to store electrical energy by accumulating
charges on nearby conductors.  Energy may be stored and withdrawn
at varying rates.  Used in short-pulse plasma devices where only
a moderate amount of energy is needed.

& Celsius: Temperature scale where zero degrees corresponds to the
freezing point of water (32 Fahrenheit) and 100 degrees corresponds 
to the boiling point (212 Fahrenheit).  Zero celsius = 273.16 Kelvin. 

& Centigrade: see Celsius

& CGS Units:  System of measurement where the fundamental units
are centimeters, grams, and seconds.

& Chain Reaction: (from Herman) A self-sustaining series of
chemical or nuclear reactions in which the products of the
reaction contribute directly to the propagation of the process.

& Charge Density:  See density, and apply to electrical charge.

& Charge, Electrical:  
     As a noun:  A fundamental physical attribute of a
particle, which characterizes the particle's electromagnetic
interaction with other particles and with electric and magnetic
fields.  (See also particle, field)

     As a verb:  Storing energy in a battery or electric capacitor by 
running a current through it; opposite of discharge.  (It is possible
to charge most capacitors in either direction, but batteries charge
one way, and discharge the other.)

* Charge Exchange:  Phenomenon in which a positive ion colliding with
a molecule (or an atom) neutralizes itself by capturing an electron
from the molecule/atom, and transforming the molecule/atom into a
positive radical/ion.

* Charge Transfer:  see charge exchange

* Classical Diffusion:  In plasma physics, diffusion due solely
to scattering of particles (unlike charges) via electrical/coulomb
interactions.  (See also diffusion.)

* Coherent Radiation:  Any form of radiation in which the phase
relationship between sections of the wave at different locations is
not random (or incoherent!).  Typical example is a laser beam, in
which the phase is more or less uniform across the beam, and changes
along the beam in accordance with the wavelength.  Radiation in 
which the photons tend to "agree" with one another, rather than
being randomly distributed.

* Cold Plasma Model:  Model of a plasma in which the temperature is
neglected with respect to the effects of interest.

& Collision Cross-Section:  Effective surface area of a particle
when it collides with another; describes probability of collisions
between the two particles.
 
* Collisionless Plasma Model:  Model of a plasma in which the density
is so low that close binary collisions have practically no 
significance because the time scales of interest are smaller than the 
collision time.

& Collision Time:  Typical time which passes between the time
a particle collides, and when it collides again.  Inverse of the
collision frequency; equal to the mean free path divided by the
particle's velocity.

> Compact Ignition Tokamak (CIT): Proposed U.S. successor to TFTR;
never funded.  See also, BPX, TPX.

> Compact Torus:  Any of a series of axially symmetric fusion 
configurations having closed flux surfaces (like a tokamak, not 
like a mirror machine), but having no material objects piercing 
the core (as do the toroidal field coils of a tokamak).  These 
devices have an inherently low aspect ratio.  The most successful
variants are the spheromak and the Field Reversed Configuration.
See also: low aspect ratio, spheromak, field-reversed configuration.
(Arthur Carlson, awc@ipp-garching.mpg.de)

* Compression Waves:

& Conductivity:  Degree to which a substance transmits (conducts)
a given physical property. (is this vague or what?) See electrical
conductivity, thermal conductivity.

* Confinement Time:  Several types:  (adapted from Herman)  
The amount of time the plasma is contained by magnetic fields before
its [energy, particles] leak / dissipate away.  The different types
are, in general, not equal.

* Controlled Thermonuclear Fusion:  (from Herman) The process
in which light nuclei, heated to a high temperature in a 
confined region, undergo fusion reactions under controlled
conditions.

* Cooperative Phenomena:

* Corona: The outermost (?) part of a star's atmosphere; 
characterized by high temperatures and low densities; home to 
many plasma phenomena.

& Coulomb: standard unit of electric charge.  A single electron or
proton has a charge of (+/-) 1.6022E-19 coulombs.  Hence there are 
6.2414E+18 electrons in a coulomb of electrons.

* Coulomb Collision:  An interparticle collision where Coulomb's Law
is the governing force.

& Coulomb's Law:  Force law governing the electrical interaction
between charged particles.  Force is proportional to (charge of
first particle) * (charge of second particle) / (square of separation
between particles).  Constant of proportionality depends on system
of units used.  (In SI units, it is 1/(4*pi*epsilon-0), where
epsilon-0 is the permittivity of free space = 8.854 x 10^-12 )

* Curie:  amount of radioactivity in a gram of radium; named
after Marie Curie (see below).  Corresponds to 3.7 x 10^10 
disintegrations/second.  (See Becquerel)

! Curie: Marie and Pierre; husband-wife pair of French scientists.
Pierre's name is attatched to the "Curie point" in magnetism, which 
is not discussed here. He and his wife shared with Antoine-Henri
Becquerel the Nobel Prize for physics in 1903. Marie Curie, 
a.k.a. Madame Curie, received the Nobel Prize for chemistry 
in 1911, becoming the first person to receive more than
one Nobel Prize.  She remains the only person to receive Nobel
Prizes in different fields. (I believe - RFH)

& Current Density:  Amount of current flowing through a substance,
per unit area perpendicular to the direction of current flow.  (See
also density)

* Current Drive:  Any of a variety of techniques used to cause
current flow in a plasma.  See inductive current drive, RF current
drive, non-inductive current drive.  Usually applied to schemes
used to generate current in tokamaks and other toroidal devices
which require internal plasma currents.  See also: bootstrap current.  

* Cusp Geometry:

* Cyclotron:  Particle accelerator in which a magnetic field causes
particles to orbit in circles, and an oscillating electric field
accelerates the particles.

* Cyclotron Frequency:  Number of times per second that a particle
orbits in a magnetic field.

* Cyclotron Radius:  Radius of orbit of charged particle about
a magnetic field line.  Also called gyroradius, Larmor radius.

* Cyclotron Radiation:  See synchrotron radiation

* Cyclotron Resonance Heating:  see Electron Cyclotron Resonance
Heating, Ion Cyclotron Resonance Heating.


DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD

@ D - nuclear/chemical symbol for deuterium/deuteron

@ DT - Deuterium-Tritium; see entry labeled DT Fuel

@ DIII-D - Doublet III-D; see entry

@ DOE - Department of Energy (United States)

* D-shaped plasma:  A plasma whose cross section is a D (instead
of a circle).

* Debye Length: The characteristic distance over which charges are
shielded in a plasma.  See also: Debye shielding.
lambda_D = ( epsilon_0 k_B T_e / (n_e e^2) )^(1/2) 
lambda_D[m] = (7.434*10^3)*(_e[eV])^(1/2)*n[m^(-3)]^(-1/2)
(Arthur Carlson, awc@ipp-garching.mpg.de)

! Debye, Peter Joseph:  Physical chemist, studied behavior of 
conductive solutions (plasmas have some similar behaviors).

* Debye Radius:  See Debye Length.

* Debye Sheath:  The region of net positive charge in front of a
material surface in contact with a plasma.  Its characteristic
thickness is the Debye length, and it is caused by Debye shielding
of the negative surface charge resulting from electrons flowing to 
the surface much faster (initially) than the ions.
See also: Debye Length, Debye Shielding.
(Arthur Carlson, awc@ipp-garching.mpg.de)

* Debye Shielding:  If a positive (or negative) charge is inserted 
into a plasma, it will change the local charge distribution by 
attracting (repelling) electrons.  The net result is an additional
negative (positive) charge density which cancels the effect of the
initial charge at distances large compared to the Debye length.
(There is a corresponding effect of shielding by the ions, which, 
for various and subtle reasons, usually is less important.)
See also: Debye Length.
(Arthur Carlson, awc@ipp-garching.mpg.de)

* Debye Sphere:  Sphere around a charged test particle whose
radius is equal to the Debye length.

* Decay Modes:  Different pathways for decay of radioactive nuclei.
	(need a list!)

& Density:  amount per unit of volume, or per unit surface area, or
per unit length. (Usually specified or clear from context which 
of these is meant).  Several types:
 Charge density   - amount of charge per unit (volume, area, length)
	Current density  - current flow per unit transverse surface area.
	Energy density   - amount of energy per unit volume.
	Flux density     - flux per unit of transverse surface area.
	Mass density     - mass per unit volume.
	Number density   - number of particles per unit volume.
	Particle density - same as number density.

% Department of Energy:  (adapted from Herman) U.S. cabinet-level
department that has overseen atomic energy research since 1977.
Created by merging of ERDA and (?).  Also supervises other 
energy research, and some defense work.

& Deuterium: A heavy isotope of hydrogen whose nucleus
contains both a neutron and a proton.

* Deuteron: A deuterium ion; nucleus consisting of a proton
and a neutron.

* Diagnostics:  (from Herman) Procedures for determining
(diagnosing) the state of a plasma during an experiment;
also refers to the instruments used for diagnosing.

* Diamagnetic Effects:  Application of a magnetic field to a plasma
will tend to create circulating current within the plasma that will
reduce the strength of the magnetic field.

* Diffusion:  The interpenetration of one substance into another
as a result of thermal / random motion of the individual particles.
(e.g., the diffusion of a plasma across a magnetic field as a 
result of collisions which cause particles to move along new
field lines.)  See also classical diffusion, neoclassical diffusion,
anomalous diffusion, transport.

* Direct Conversion:  The generation of electricity by direct
recovery of the kinetic energy of the charged fusion reaction
products.

* Disruption:  (from Herman)  Plasma instabilities sometimes grow
and cause disruptions of the carefully-engineered plasma conditions
in the reactor.  Major disruptions can cause an abrupt temperature 
drop and the termination of the plasma.  

& Distribution Function:  Function characterizing the density of
particles in a given space.  The velocity-space distribution
function gives the number of particles with a particular velocity;
the position-space distribution function is synonymous with the
particle density in position-space. 

* Divertor: (from Herman) Component of a toroidal fusion 
device that diverts charged particles on the outer edge 
of the plasma where they become neutralized.  In a reactor, the
divertor would incorporate a system for pumping out the neutralized
particles as exhaust from the machine.  A divertor, like a limiter, 
prevents the particles from striking and degrading the chamber 
walls, and dislodging secondary particles that would cool and 
contaminate the plasma.  Whereas a limiter is a material object 
used to limit the shape of the plasma, a divertor is a 
magnetic-field construction.  
See also: limiter.

> Doublet III-D:  (from Herman) Latest in a series of
tokamaks designed by GA Technologies (formerly General Atomic)
in San Diego making plasmas with noncircular cross sections,
including kidney shapes and D-shapes.  Though the current 
configuration does not (so far as the editor knows) involve 
doublet plasmas, this is still the official name for the device.

* Drift Motion:  Ordinarily particles placed in a magnetic
field will simply orbit in circles, but if the magnetic field
is not uniform, or curves, or there is an electrical field
perpendicular to the magnetic field, or another force is applied
perpendicular to the magnetic field, then the "guiding centers"
of the particle orbits will drift (generally perpendicular to
the magnetic field and to the applied force).  There are several
sorts of drifts; refer to a plasma physics text for more 
information (see Section 11: Bibliography).  For a good 
introduction at the undergraduate physics level, see Chen.

* Drift Velocity:  Characteristic velocity at which the center
of a particle's orbit ("guiding center") drifts when drift motion
(see above) occurs.

* DT Fuel:  Easiest fuel mixture to use in achieving fusion;
unless otherwise specified, probably refers to a 50-50 (by numbers 
or by moles) mix of deuterium and tritium.
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.15 / Robert Heeter /  (Long) Part 10e Conventional Fusion FAQ - Glossary Q - Z
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: (Long) Part 10e Conventional Fusion FAQ - Glossary Q - Z
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 1994 07:10:27 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

==================================================================

Section 10 Part E - Glossary Q-Z

FREQUENTLY USED TERMS IN CONVENTIONAL FUSION RESEARCH 
AND PLASMA PHYSICS

While this section is not yet complete, it should be useful to
many people, and I encourage you to distribute it to anyone who
might be interested (and willing to help revise it!!!).

5th Draft, Last Revised on Friday, April 15, 1994.

Edited by Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@theory.pppl.gov

Guide to Categories:
 
* = vocabulary 
& = basic physics vocabulary 
> = device type or machine name
# = name of a constant or variable
! = scientists 
@ = acronym
% = labs & political organizations

Citations and Acknowledgements appear in Section 12.

==================================================================


QQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQ

# q - Variable used to indicate electric charge; also used for
the "safety factor" (see charge, safety factor).  Usually clear
from context which is meant.

# Q: See Q-factor

* Q-factor:  Ratio of power produced by fusion to power
put into the reactor to heat the plasma and drive the
magnetic fields.  Q = 1 is the definition of scientific
breakeven, where power out = power in.  Economical fusion
will require Q significantly greater than 1.  Fortunately
Q increases dramatically as the plasma parameters 
approach the Lawson criterion for ignition.

* Quasi-neutral plasma: an ionized gas in which positive 
and negative charges are present in approximately 
equal numbers.


RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

@ Rad - Radiation Absorbed Dose; see entry "rad"

@ Rem - Raditation Equivalent for Man; see entry "rem"

@ RF - RadioFrequency; see entry

@ RF Current Drive - Radio Frequency Current Drive; see entry

@ RF Heating - Radio Frequency Heating; see entry

! R.F. Heeter - Plasma physics graduate student at PPPL;the editor 
of the sci.physics.fusion FAQ, bibliography, and FUT. :)

@ RFC: Reversed-Field Configuration: see Field-Reversed Configuration.

@ RFP: Reversed-Field Pinch; see entry

@ RFX: Reversed-Field eXperiment; see entry

* rad:  radiation absorbed dose.  A unit used to measure the
amount of radiation energy absorbed per gram of a given
substance.  See also gray, rem, sievert.

& Radiation: The emission of energy from a body in the form
of light or heat waves, or energetic particles such as
alpha particles, electrons, or neutrons.  Radiation is
*what is emitted*, not *what does the emitting*.  A nucleus
which does the emitting is said to be radioactive.  Electrons
in atoms can also emit radiation in the form of ordinary 
visible light; such atoms are not said to be radioactive.

& Radioactive waste: (from Herman) Equipment and materials
from nuclear operations which are radioactive and for which
there is no further anticipated use.

& Radioactivity:  Characteristic property of unstable nuclei
which decay to other nuclei by emission of radiation.  A list
of common decay / transmutation modes should be in the FAQ.

* Radio Frequency or radiofrequency:

* Radio Frequency Current Drive:

* Radio Frequency Heating:  Process for heating the plasma by
transferring energy to ions or electrons using waves generated
by an external oscillator at an appropriate frequency.  (This is
similar to how a microwave oven heats food.)  There are various
types:  see also ECRH, ICRH, and Lower Hybrid...  (PPPL Glossary)

* Ramsauer Effect:  A quantum effect allowing free electrons
within a narrow range of energies to pass through a noble
gas with very little elastic scattering.

* Reactor:  See fission reactor, fusion reactor.

* Recombination Radiation: radiation produced when a 
free electron in a plasma is captured by an ion.

* Rem:  Radiation equivalent for man.  Unit of absorbed radiation
dose based on the definition rem = rad * quality.  The quality
factor depends on the type of radiation involved and is used to
scale the radiation dose based on the relative harmfulness of 
different sorts of radiation.  Annual US average dose is about
300 rem, of which more than 2/3 is natural (primarily radon),
and the majority of the human-generated dose is due to medical
uses (primarily X-rays).

& Resistance:

* Resistive Instability:  Instability resulting from macroscopic
equations used to model a plasma of finite conductivity / nonzero
resistivity.

& Resistivity:

> Reversed-Field Pinch (RFP):  A toroidal magnetic confinement scheme
which could constitute an alternative to the Tokamak for building a
fusion reactor.  It is characterized by a magnetic field mostly
generated by the plasma itself, with toroidal and poloidal components 
of comparable intensities, in contrast with the Tokamak where most of
the field is toroidal and externally applied. The name of the
configuration is given by the fact that the toroidal component of the
magnetic field changes sign in the outer region of the plasma. The 
main attractivness of the Reversed Field Pinch is that, according to
presently established scalings, it could reach ignition without the 
need of auxiliary heating. 
(Emilio Martines, martines%pdigi3.igi.pd.cnr.it)

> Reversed-Field eXperiment (RFX): It is the largest Reversed Field
Pinch device presently in operation.  Located in Padova (Italy) it 
is planned to reach a plasma current of 2 MA.
(Emilio Martines, martines%pdigi3.igi.pd.cnr.it)

* Rogowski Loop or Coil:  A coiled wire loop which encircles a
current-carrying plasma.  Changes in total plasma current induce a
voltage in the loop; integrating (adding up) the voltage over time
gives the plasma current.

* Rotational Transform:

* Runaway Electrons:  (from Herman) Those electrons in a plasma that
gain energy from an applied electrical field at a faster rate than 
they lose it through collisions with other particles.  These 
electrons tend to "run away" in energy from the remainder of the 
plasma, because the collision cross-section decreases as the 
particle's velocity increases, so that the faster the particle goes, 
the less likely it is to be stopped.  See also:  collision 
cross-section.


SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

@ SI - Systeme Internationale; see SI Units

@ SNL - Sandia National Laboratory; see entry

* Safety Factor:  The number of times a field line goes around a 
torus "the long way" for each time around "the short way".  In a 
tokamak, this number is typically near unity in the center of the 
plasma and between two and 6 or 8 at the edge.  So-called because it 
helps to determine the degree of stability the plasma has against 
certain instabilities.

! Sakharov, Andrei: Russian physicist; among other achievements, he 
is credited with the initial design of the tokamak.

% Sandia National Laboratories:  Located in Albuquerque, New Mexico.
Another large DOE laboratory; has PBFA-II (Particle Beam Fusion
Accelerator, an ICF device) and some pinch devices.  Some divisions
located in Livermore (Sandia-Livermore).

* Scaling Laws:  (from Herman)  Laws stating that if two
quantities are proportional and are known to be valid at
certain orders of magnitude, then they can be used to
calculate the value of one of the quantities at another
order of magnitude.  

& Scattering:  The deflection of one particle as a result of
collisions.  See also Elastic.

* Scientific Feasibility: (from Herman) "The successful 
completion of experiments which reach 'breakeven' plasma
conditions (minimum values of temperature, density,
confinement time) in laboratory devices which lend themselves
to development into net power-producing systems.  
Reactor-grade (eg, D-T) fusion fuels need not be used in
these experiments.

* Second-stability:

* Sheared Flow:

* Shear Fields:

* Sheath:  See Debye Sheath

* Shock Heating:  The heating produced by the impact of a shock wave.

* Shock Wave:  Wave produced as a result of a sudden, violent 
disturbance which occurs in a particular region faster than sound
waves can traverse the region.

* Shot: Fusion jargon for the production of a (short-lived) plasma.  
In the early days, plasmas were produced by the "discharge" of 
capacitor banks, which (frequently) made a BANG.  A modern tokamak 
produces a few dozen "shots" per day, each lasting a few seconds and, 
if nothing goes wrong, inaudible.  See also: capacitor, tokamak
(Arthur Carlson, awc@ipp-garching.mpg.de)

* SI Units:  (also known as MKS, MKSA Units)  System of measurement
in which the fundamental units are meters, kilometers, seconds, and
the ampere.

* Sievert:  Unit of absorbed radiation dose equivalent to 100 rem.
(see also rem, rad, Gray)  The sievert is based on the Gray in the
same way that the rem is based on the rad, I believe.

& Solenoid:

* Sound Waves:

* Spallation:

> Spheromak:

! Spitzer, Lyman:  Early Princeton Fusion Scientist; 
astrophysicist who first proposed orbiting space telescope;
inventor of the stellarator.

* Sputtering:  Process by which atoms are ejected from a solid 
surface by bombardment with plasma particles. (?)

> Stellarator: (adapted from Herman) Device invented by Lyman Spitzer
for the containment of a plasma inside a racetrack-shaped
(sometimes a figure-8) tube.  The plasma is contained by a magnetic 
field created by helical windings around the tube.  More generally, 
a toroidal sort of device that attempts to average out particle 
drifts that would otherwise take plasma to the walls of the vacuum
vessel by imposing a given amount of helicity to the toroidal field
lines.  "A toroidal plasma configuration, which, unlike a tokamak, 
is not axially symmetric.  The poloidal fields necessary for 
confinement are produced by external coils (rather than a current 
in the plasma), either helical coils in addition to plane toroidal 
field coils, or out-of-plane toroidal field coils (pioneered in 
Germany on Wendelstein 7-AS).  The stellarator is generally 
considered to be the most serious alternative to the tokamak.  Since 
the concept is inherently steady state, it would not have the 
tokamak's problems with thermal and mechanical cycling, current 
drive, and disruptions."
	-- Arthur Carlson, awc@ipp-garching.mpg.de

* Strong (Nuclear) Force:

* Superconductor:  (adapted from Herman) A type of electrical 
conductor that permits a current to flow with zero resistance.
Without superconducting coils, a fusion reactor would not be 
possible, because too much energy would be required to maintain the 
magnetic fields against resistive energy losses in the coil 
conductors.

& Synchrotron radiation:  electromagnetic energy radiated from
a charged particle moving in a curved orbit (typically in a magnetic
field), due to the acceleration required to change the direction 
of the particle's velocity.  See also bremsstrahlung.


TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT

# t - variable generally used to represent time

# T - variable generally used to represent temperature

@ T - nuclear/chemical symbol for tritium/triton.

@ TF - Toroidal Field

@ TFTR - Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor; see entry

@ TPX - Tokamak Physics Experiment; see entry

> T-3: (from Herman) A Soviet tokamak located at the 
Kurchatov Institute in Moscow that first proved viability
by producing a plasma temperature of 10 million degrees
centigrage/Kelvin.

> T-10: (from Herman) A later Soviet tokamak located at 
the Kurchatov Institute (a copy of which is PLT, only 
PLT had neutral beams).

> T-15: (from Herman) A Soviet tokamak with superconducting
magnets currently under construction.  (Was it completed?
Is it operational?)

> T-20:  (from Herman) A large Soviet tokamak that was to 
have operated under reactor conditions (net energy 
production) but which was abandoned for budgetary reasons.

* Temperature, Plasma:  (adapted from Herman) A measure of 
the random (thermal) kinetic energy of the ions or electrons
in the plasma.  The temperature of each component of a plasma depends
on the mean kinetic energy of that component.  An example of this
is the fluorescent light bulb, which is an example of a 
weakly-ionized plasma where the electrons are at temperatures of tens 
of thousands of degrees, whereas the ions and neutrals are much 
cooler (so that you can touch the bulb without being burned).
See atomic temperature, electron temperature, and ion temperature.  

& Thermal Conductivity:  degree to which a substance transmits heat.
(basic definition, I believe, is: 
	(heat flow) = (thermal conductivity) * (temperature gradient) )

* Thermal Conversion Cycle:  Process of generating electrical power
with a fusion reactor by means of a steam / other gas turbine.  This
is distinct from "direct conversion" cycles.

* Thermonuclear Fusion: fusion achieved by heating
up the fuel into the plasma state to the point where
ions have sufficient energy to fuse.

> Theta Pinch:  A pinch device in which the external current 
imposed goes in the azimuthal/circumferential direction around a
cylindrically shaped plasma.

* Thomson Scattering:  Collective(?) electron scattering.  Used to
measure electron temperature? Density?  (Find out in the next 
edition?)

* Thomson Scattering Device: (adapted from Herman)  A diagnostic 
device used to measure electron temperature in a plasma by directing
laser light into the plasma.  The laser's photons scatter off the
electrons in the plasma, spreading in a manner proportional to the
electron temperature.

> Tokamak: (Acronym created from the Russian words, 
"TOroidalnaya KAmera MAgnitnaya," or "Toroidal Chamber-Magnetic".)

Because the tokamak is the primary research machine for
magnetic confinement fusion today, we provide several 
descriptions from various sources:

-> One of several types of toroidal discharge chamber 
in which a longitudinal magnetic field is used to confine a 
plasma.  The tokamak is distinguished by a plasma current
running around the torus, which generates a stabilizing
poloidal magnetic field.  An externally-applied vertical
(electric? magnetic?) field is also used to achieve plasma 
stability.

-> TOKAMAK  (tokomak)  (contributed by Paul M. Koloc)
"A three component magnetoplasma toroidal construct in which 
the poloidal magnetic component is provided by a toroidal plasma 
current. The other two components are coil driven, namely, the
vertical field (which opposes the major radial expansion) and
the toroidal field (which acts to provide a "stiff guide" field
for the plasma to gain more MHD stability.    
Note:
It is better to think that the toroidal or longitudinal field  
"stiffens" the plasma as against flopping or kinking, while the 
plasma current driven poloidal (locally azimuthal) field provides 
"confinement" pressure.  Actually, the toroidal field interacting 
with plasma diamagnetism may also contribute to a "magnetic 
bouyancy", which is a sort of UN-confinement -- (it actually gives 
the plasma a tendency to expand radially outward in the equatorial 
plane)."  

-> (from Herman:) "Based on an original Soviet design, a device
for containing plasma inside a torus chamber by using the 
combination of two magnetic fields - one created by electric
coils around the torus, the other created by intense electric
current in the plasma itself, which also servers to
heat the plasma [partially].  TFTR and JET are tokamaks."

> Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor:  Large tokamak at Princeton,
first machine to use 50-50 mix of D-T fuel, current world's
record holder in fusion energy production.  Largest tokamak
in the United States.  

> Tokamak Physics Experiment:  Smaller successor to TFTR at
Princeton.  Engineering design underway; construction 
scheduled to begin in FY 1995.

> Tore Supra:  Large tokamak in Cadarache (southern France).  
The second largest tokamak in Europe; uses superconducting magnets.  
Tore Supra has a circular cross-section (like TFTR), which limits the
achievable confinement time and experimental flexibility.  In 
addition to developing superconducting technology, it concentrates on 
the physics of long pulses and ergodic magnetic limiters.
See also: ergodic; magnetic limiter; superconductor; tokamak.

* Toroidal: in the shape of a torus, or doughnut.  
Or: Coordinate indicating which part of the torus a particle is in.
(Azimuthal coordinate) 
Or: General term referring to toruses as opposed to other geometries.

* Toroidal Field Coils:  Coils in a tokamak, typically wound around
the torus in a solenoid-like arrangement, used to generate the 
toroidal magnetic field.  Each turn completely surrounds the plasma.

> Toroidal Pinch:

> Torsatron:

& Transformer, Transformer Effect:

* Transport:  Refers to processes which cause heat energy, or 
particles, or something else, to flow out of the plasma and cease 
being confined.  Diffusion partly determines the rate of transport.
See also: diffusion, classical diffusion, neoclassical diffusion, 
anomalous diffusion.

* Transverse Waves:

* Trapped-Particle Instability:

* Trapped-Particle Modes:

& Tritium: (adapted from Herman) A radioactive isotope of hydrogen 
with one proton and two neutrons in its nucleus and one orbiting 
electron.  A more efficient fuel than ordinary hydrogen (protium) 
because of the extra neutrons.  Tritium decays to helium-3 by 
emission of an electron ("beta emission") with a half-life of 12.3 
years.  Tritium can be synthesized from deuterium via neutron 
bombardment, or by fissioning lithium (see lithium).

* Triton: nucleus of a tritium atom; tritium ion.

* Turbulence:  "Violent macroscopic fluctuations which can develop
under certain conditions in fluids and plasmas and which usually
result in the rapid transfer of energy through the medium." 
(PPPL Glossary)

* Turbulent Heating:  "Mode of heating of a plasma where the orderly
motion of the particles created by external sources is converted
into disorderly motion, by the excitation of microinstabilities."
(PPPL Glossary)

* Two-Stream Instability:


UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU

# u - variable commonly used for energy density of electric or
magnetic fields; also sometimes used for velocity.

@ UT, UTA - University of Texas at Austin; see entry

@ UW, UWM - University of Wisconsin at Madsion; see entry

& Universal gas constant: R = 8.314 x 10^7 ergs per 
degree C per mole.

% University of Texas at Austin (UT):  Among other things, UT has
a large theoretical plasma physcs research center. (info, anyone?)

% University of Wisconsin at Madison:  Among other facilities,
"Wisconsin" has a large research program in both plasma physics
and fusion engineering.

* Upper Hybrid Waves:  Similar to lower hybrid waves, but at a 
higher frequency.  (more description?)  Not truly propagating 
waves, but plasma oscillations. (?)

& Uranium:  (from Herman) A radioactive metallic element whose
isotope, uranium-235, is a nuclear fission fuel.  Plutonium,
another fission fuel, can be produced from the more
plentiful isotope uranium-238.


VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV

# v - variable typically used for velocity

# V - variable typically used for electrical potential (Voltage)

& Vector:

& Vector Notation:

& Velocity:

& Velocity Space:

& Velocity Space Instability:

& Viscosity:

* Voltage Loop:  "A wire which encircles the main axis of a tokamak
in the vicinity of the vacuum vessel."  The voltage induced in this
loop during the shot is a measure of the ohmic heating voltage
induced by transformer action and applied to the plasma.
(PPPL Glossary)


WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW

@ W-7AS, W-7X - See Wendelstein entry

& Wavelength:  The length of a single cycle of a wave; usually
measured from crest-to-crest.  For electromagnetic waves, the
wavelength determines the type (radio, infrared, visible, 
ultraviolet, X-Ray, gamma-ray) of radiation; in the case of 
visible light, wavelength determines the color of the light.

& Weak (Nuclear) Force:

>Wendelstein: A family of stellarators built in Garching, Germany.  
The machine currently in operation is Wendelstein-7AS (aka W-7AS).  
Wendelstein ("spiral rock") is a craggy Bavarian mountain;  some of 
W-1 through W-6 were built, some were just paper studies;  AS stands 
for "advanced stellarator" and refers on the physical side to an 
attempt to minimize neoclassical effects (see entry for Neo-classical 
Diffusion) such as the bootstrap current (see entry), and on the 
technical side to the use of out-of-plane coils as an alternative to 
linked coils.  W-7X, a much larger, superconducting stellarator based 
on the same concepts has been proposed to be built by the European 
Union in Greifswald, on the north coast of Germany.

% Wisconsin - See University of Wisconsin-Madison

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

* X-Point:


YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY

* Yin-Yang Coil:  See baseball coil.


ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

# Z - see atomic number
 
@ ZETA - Zero Energy Thermonuclear Assembly; see entry

> Zero Energy Thermonuclear Assembly:  A British fusion device in 
which scientists observed fusion neutrons in 1958.  They were
erroneously considered to be thermonuclear (coming from particles 
with a Maxwellian velocity distribution) and were a cause for the
initial optimism that fusion energy would be easy.  They were 
actually due to electromagnetic acceleration during a plasma 
instability, an effect which cannot be scaled up to produce useful 
energy.

> Z-Pinch:  Pinch device in which the externally-driven pinching 
current goes in the z direction (parallel to / through the 
cylindrical plasma).
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.15 / Robert Heeter /  (Long) Part 10c Conventional Fusion FAQ - Glossary E - J
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: (Long) Part 10c Conventional Fusion FAQ - Glossary E - J
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 1994 07:07:24 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

==================================================================

Section 10 Part C - Glossary E-J

FREQUENTLY USED TERMS IN CONVENTIONAL FUSION RESEARCH 
AND PLASMA PHYSICS

While this section is not yet complete, it should be useful to
many people, and I encourage you to distribute it to anyone who
might be interested (and willing to help revise it!!!).

5th Draft, Last Revised on Friday, April 15, 1994.

Edited by Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@theory.pppl.gov

Guide to Categories:
 
* = vocabulary 
& = basic physics vocabulary 
> = device type or machine name
# = name of a constant or variable
! = scientists 
@ = acronym
% = labs & political organizations

Citations and Acknowledgements appear in Section 12.

==================================================================

EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

# e - symbol for the electron, for the unit electric 
      charge (e = 1.6x10^-19 coulombs), and for a Euler's fundamental
      mathematical constant e = 2.71828...

# E - Variable typically used for Energy or Electric Field
(usually in vector notation in the latter case; which is meant
is usually clear from context; when both are used in the same place
the energy is usually represented as U instead of E.)

@ eV - Electron-volt; see entry

@ EBT - Elmo Bumpy Torus; see entry

@ EC - European Community; see entry

@ ECE - Electron Cyclotron Emission; see entry

@ ECH - Electron Cyclotron Heating; see entry

@ ECRH - Electron Cyclotron Radiofrequency Heating - same as ECH.

@ EM - Electromagnetic

@ EM Wave - Electromagnetic Wave; see entry

@ ERDA (?) - Energy Research and Development Agency (?); see entry

@ EU - European Union; see entry

* Effective Collision Cross-section: (See collision cross section)

* Effective Collision Radius:  Effective size of a particle
equal to the square root of (cross section/pi).  Determines the
effective range of interaction of the particle.

& Elastic:  Term used to describe a process in which kinetic energy
is conserved; usually refers to (elastic) collisions or (elastic)
scattering.

& Electric Charge:  See charge, electrical.

& Electric Field:  A property of a patch of space which causes
the acceleration of electric charges located at that patch of
space.  The acceleration is given by a = qE/m, where q is the
charge, E the electric field vector, and m the mass of the
particle.  

& Electrical Conductivity:  Degree to which a substance conducts
electric current.  Can be defined by: 
	(current density) = (conductivity) * (applied electric field)

* Electromagnetic Coupling:  A means of extracting energy from a
magnetically confined plasma, where the plasma expands and pushes
on the confining magnetic field, causing electrical energy to
be generated in the external field-generating circuits.

& Electromagnetic Force:

& Electromagnetic Wave:

& Electron: (from Herman) Elementary particle with a negative
electric charge.  Electrons orbit around the positively 
charged nucleus in an atom.  The charge on an electron is 
-1.6x10^-19 coulombs; the electron has a mass of 9.11 x 10^-31 kg.

* Electron Cyclotron Emission (ECE):  As electrons gyrate around in 
a magnetic field (see also larmor radius or cyclotron radius), 
they radiate radio-frequency electromagnetic waves.  This is 
known as electron cyclotron emission, and can be measured to 
help diagnose a plasma.

* Electron Cyclotron Heating (ECRH):  Radiofrequency (RF) heating 
scheme that works by injecting electromagnetic wave energy at the
electron cyclotron gyration frequency.  The electric field of the 
EM wave at this frequency looks to a gyrating electron like a 
static electric field, and it causes acceleration of the electron.  
The accelerated electron gains energy, which is then shared with 
other particles through collisions, resulting in heating.

* Electron Temperature:  The temperature corresponding to
the mean kinetic energy of the free electrons in a
plasma.

& Electron-volt: 1 eV = 1.6 x 10^-12 erg. This is a unit of 
kinetic energy equal to that of an electron having a velocity of 
5 x 10^7 cm/sec.  This is the energy an electron (or other particle 
of charge=1 such as a proton), gains as it's accelerated through 
a potential difference of 1 volt.  In plasma physics the eV 
is used as a unit of temperature; when the mean particle energy
 is 1eV, the temperature of the plasma is 11,600 Kelvin.

> Electrostatic Confinement:

* Electrostatic Waves:  Longitudinal oscillations appearing in a
plasma due to a perturbation of electric neutrality.  For a cold
unmagnetized plasma, or at large wavelengths, the frequency of
these waves is by definition the plasma frequency.

& Element: (need short discussion, with list and perhaps periodic
table in appendix?  isotope table with half-lives and decay modes
might also be useful.)

& Elementary Particles worth knowing about:  
	(at the nuclear-energy level)
 	electron & positron - seem to be stable
 	proton - thought to be stable, life > 10^30 sec
 	neutron - decays in ?10 min unless it's in a nucleus, which often
  		extends its life.
	other particles important for nuclear energy: 
		muon, neutrino (m,e,tau),
	photon
	muonic atoms
	pi-meson

		this part is new - maybe separate entries with listing
		here??

> Elmo Bumpy Torus:  Bumpy Torus at ORNL; no longer operating (?)
See Bumpy Torus, ORNL.

& Energy:  Typically defined as "the ability to do work".  Power
is the rate at which work is done, or the rate at which energy
is changed.  "Work" characterizes the degree to which the properties
of a substance are transformed.  Energy exists in many forms,
which can be converted from one to another in various ways.
Examples include:  gravitational energy, electrical energy, 
magnetic and electric field energy, atomic binding energy (a form
of electrical energy really), nuclear binding energy, chemical
energy (another form of electrical energy), kinetic energy (energy
due to motion), thermal energy ("heat"; a form of kinetic energy 
where the motion is due to thermal vibrations/motions), and so on.

* Energy Balance:  Comparison of energy put into a plasma with the
energy dissipated by the system; related to energy confinement.

* Energy Confinement Time:  See energy loss time.

* Energy Loss Time:  Characteristic time in which 1/e (or sometimes
1/2) of a system's energy is lost to its surroundings.  In a plasma
device, the energy loss time (or the energy confinement time) is 
one of three critical parameters determining whether enough 
fusion will occur.  (See Lawson criterion)

% Energy Research and Development Agency (ERDA):  US Agency created 
by splitting of the AEC into ERDA and NRC in about 1975, charged
with managing US energy R&D (???).  Merged with ??? to become the
Department of Energy in about 1977. (???? correct? help??)

* Ergodic:  A mathematical term meaning "space-filling".  If a 
magnetic field is ergodic, any field line will eventually pass 
arbitrarily close to any point in space.  Closely related to 
"chaotic".

% European Community: see European Union
 
% European Union: (from Herman) Organization of European
countries (formerly European Community, EC, formerly European
Economic Community, EEC) established in 1967 to coordinate policies 
on the economy, energy, agriculture, and other matters.  The original
member countries were France, Belgium, West Germany, Italy, 
Luxembourg, and the Netherlands.  Joining later were Denmark, 
Ireland, the United Kingdom, Greece, Spain, and Portugal.

% Euratom:  (from Herman) European Atomic Energy Community.
International organization established in 1958 by members
of the European Economic Community to form a common market
for the development of peaceful uses of nuclear power.


FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF

# F:  Variable typically used for force; sometimes flux.

@ FRC: Field-Reversed Configuration; see entry

& Field:

& Field Lines:

> Field-Reversed Configuration:  A compact torus produced in a 
theta pinch and having (in principle) no toroidal field.  The 
potential advantages for a fusion reactor include a simple (linear) 
machine geometry, an average plasma pressure close to the confining 
field pressure, and physical separation of formation and burn 
chambers.  The are predicted to be violently unstable to tilting, but 
this has never been observed.  See also: compact torus, theta pinch.
(Arthur Carlson, awc@ipp-garching.mpg.de)

* First Wall:  The first physical boundary that surrounds a plasma.

& Fission (Nuclear): (adapted from Herman) the division 
of an atomic nucleus into two smaller nuclei.  In large 
nuclei, frequently accompanied by large energy release 
and generally one or more neutrons.  Fissioning of atoms
into more than two pieces seems not to happen, but see
spallation.  See also: radioactivity.

* Fission Bomb:  see atomic bomb, A-bomb.

* Fission Reactor:  (from Herman) A device that can initiate 
and control a self-sustaining series of nuclear fissions.

* Flat-top:  Stable period in the middle of a tokamak
discharge, characterized by a flat, stable peak in a plot
of plasma (current, temperature) vs. time.

* Flute Instability:  Term used to describe an interchange
instability occuring in a cyclindrical geometry, due to the
resemblance of the unstable cylinder to a fluted column in classical
architecture.

& Flux:  The total amount of a quantity passing through a given
surface per unit time.  Typical "quantities" include field lines,
particles, heat, energy, mass of fluid, etc.

& Flux Density:  Total amount of a quantity passing through a
unit surface area in unit time.  See also flux, above.

* Flux freezing:  See frozen-in law.

* Flux trapping:  See frozen-in law.

* Fokker-Planck Equation:  An equation that describes the time rate 
of change of a particle's velocity as a result of small-angle 
collisional deflections.  Applicable when the cumulative effect of 
many small-angle collisions is greater than the effect of rarer
large-angle deflections.

& Force:  Rate of change of momentum with time.  Forces are said
to cause accelerations via F = ma (Newton's law).  There are four
primary forces known presently:  the gravitational, electromagnetic,
weak nuclear, and strong nuclear forces.  The gravitational and 
electromagnetic forces are long-range (dropping as 1/distance^2),
while the nuclear forces are short range (effective only within
nuclei; distances on the order of 10^-15 meters).  The 
electromagnetic force is much stronger than the gravitational force,
but is generally cancelled over large distances because of the 
balance of positive and negative charges.  Refer to entries for 
each force for more information.

* Free Electron:  An electron not bound to an atom, molecule, or
other particle via electric forces.

* Free Wave:  A wave (e.g., electromagnetic) travelling in a 
homogeneous infinite medium (no boundary conditions).

* Frozen-in Law:  In a perfect conductor, the total magnetic flux
through any surface is a constant.  In a plasma which is nearly
perfectly conducting, the relevant surfaces move with the plasma;
the result is that the plasma is tied to the magnetic field, and
the field is tied to the plasma.

* Fusion (Nuclear): a nuclear reaction in which light atomic 
nuclei combine to form heavier nuclei.  (See also Controlled
Thermonuclear Fusion)

* Fusion Reactor: (from Herman) A nuclear reactor in which
a self-sustaining series of nuclear fusions would produce
energy (that could be converted to electric power).

> Fusion-Fission Hybrid: (from Herman) A proposed type of
nuclear reactor relying on both fusion and fission reactions.
A central fusion chamber would produce neutrons to provoke
fission in a surrounding blanket of fissionable material.
The neutron source could also be used to convert other
materials into additional fissile fuels (breeder hybrid).


GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG

@ GA - General Atomic; see entry.

% Garching:  A town in Germany just north of Munich, where the Max
Planck Institute for Plasma Physics (see entry) is located.

! Gauss, Carl Friedrich: (1777-1855) German mathmetician, astronomer 
and physicist.

& Gaussian Units - See CGS Units

% General Atomic:  U.S. corporation involved in fusion research;
operates the DIII-D device in San Diego; see also Doublet III-D.
(What's the other name for GA?)

& Gradient:

& Gravitational Force:

* Gyrofrequency:  See cyclotron frequency.

* Gyroradius: radius of charged particle in magnetic field.
Same thing as cyclotron radius, Larmor radius.

> Glow Discharge: a relatively cool form of plasma discharge;
a common form is in fluorescent lights.  The voltage applied
to the plasma must be greater than the ionization potential of
the gas used; most of the plasma voltage drop is near the 
cathode, where the majority of ionization occurs.

* Gray:  A unit of absorbed dose of radiation.   1 Gray = 100 rads.
Thus 1 gray = 10^4 ergs of energy deposited into a gram of material.
Defined relative to the material into which such radiation passed,
which should therefore be specified.

& Group Velocity:

* Guiding Center:  Particles placed in a magnetic field will
gyrate in circles, and drift in various directions.  The
guiding center represents the instantaneous center of the circular
motion.  The idea is that you can think of the guiding center
as drifting, and the particle as orbiting the guiding center.

* Gyromagnetic Ratio:  Ratio of the magnetic moment to the
angular momentum of a particle.  (see magnetic moment, angular
momentum)


HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

@ H - chemical symbol for the element hydrogen.

@ He - chemical symbol for the element helium.

@ H-mode:  see high-mode

! Hertz, Heinrich:  19th-century German physicist.

* Hertz:  Unit of frequency equal to one complete oscillation (cycle)
per second.

* Half-life:  (from Herman) The time in which half the 
atoms of a particular radioactive isotope disintegrate 
to another nuclear form.  Half-lives range from millionths 
of a second to billions of years.

* Helicity:

& Helium: Element whose nuclei all contain two protons.
Stable isotopes are 3He and 4He.  3He is rare on earth (only 1.3
ppm of naturally-occuring He), can be generated from decaying
tritium (half life of about 12 years), and is relatively abundant 
in the crust of the moon.  Helium is the second most abundant element 
in the universe and in the sun, and occurs at about (I believe)
1 part per million in earth's atmosphere.  Helium is also found
in significant quantities in natural gas deposits.  The nucleus
of the He atom is also known as an alpha particle.  Helium is
chemically inert, behaves nearly as an ideal gas under a wide
range of pressures and temperatures, and can only be liquefied
at 4 Kelvin (at atmospheric pressures).  One mole of He weighs
4 grams.

* High-mode or H-mode:  (from Herman) A regime of operation
attained during auxiliary heating of divertor tokamak plasmas
when the injected power is sufficiently high.  A sudden
improvement in particle confinement time leads to increased
density and temperature, distinguishing this mode from
the normal "low mode."

* Hybrid reactor:  see fusion-fission hybrid.

& Hydrogen: (H) Element whose nuclei all contain only one proton.
Isotopes are protium (p, no neutrons) deuterium (D or d, 
one neutron), and tritium (T or t, two neutrons).  The single most
abundant element in the universe, and in the sun.  Hydrogen is
a major element in organic compounds, water (H2O), and many
other substances.  Hydrogen is ordinarily a gas, but can be
liquefied at low temperatures, and even solidified at low
temperature and high pressure.  Hydrogen gas can burn explosively
in the presence of oxygen.

* Hydrogen bomb or H-bomb: (from Herman) An extremely 
powerful type of atomic bomb based on nuclear fusion.  
The atoms of heavy isotopes of hydrogen (deuterium and 
tritium) undergo fusion when subjected to the immense 
heat and pressure generated by the explosion of a nuclear 
fission unit in the bomb.  

* Hydromagnetic Instability:  See MHD Instability


IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

# I - variable used to indicate total current through a conductor.

@ IAEA - International Atomic Energy Agency; see entry
 
@ IBHP - Integrated Biological Hazard Potential; see entry

@ ICE - Ion Cyclotron Emission; see entry

@ ICF - Inertial Confinement Fusion; see entry

@ ICH - Ion Cyclotron Heating - see ICRH

@ ICRH - Ion Cyclotron Resonance Heating; see entry

@ INEL - Idaho National Engineering Laboratory; see entry

@ IPP - Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics; see entry

@ ITER - International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor; see entry

% Idaho National Engineering Laboratory:  U.S. Department of energy
laboratory involved in engineering studies for fusion and fission
reactors, among other things.  Not surprisingly, located in Idaho.

* Ignition:  (from Herman) The point at which the plasma 
produces so much energy from fusion reactions that it no 
longer needs any external source of power to maintain 
its temperature.

* Impurities: atoms of unwanted elements in the plasma, 
inhibiting fusion.

* Inductive Current Drive:

* Inertial Confinement Fusion:  Approach to fusion where the plasma
is imploded so quickly that the inertia of the converging particles
is so high that they fuse before they disperse.  This is the method
used in a hydrogen bomb; ICF schemes for power production usually
use small pellets of fuel in an attempt to make "miniature"
h-bomb type explosions.  Methods for imploding the pellet include
bombardment from all sides with high-powered laser and particle
beams, and of course implosion in a fission bomb.  Parts of ICF
fusion research remain classified due to their implications for
construction of hydrogen bombs.

* Instability:  (adapted from Herman) A state of plasma in which a
small perturbation amplifies itself to a considerable 
alteration of the equilibrium of the system, leading to
disruptions.  Most are associated with waves and other natural
modes of oscillation in the plasma, which can sometimes grow.
There are (unfortunately!) many kinds.   See also:
Flute instability, MHD instability, Interchange instability,
microinstability, kink instability, resistive instability, 
trapped particle instability, two-stream instability, universal
instability, velocity-space instability.

* Integrated Biological Hazard Potential:

* Interchange Instability:

* Interferometer:

* Interferometry:
	Optical -
	Microwave -

% International Atomic Energy Agency: (from Herman)  An
autonomous intergovernmental organization established in 1956
with the purpose of advancing peaceful uses of atomic energy,
with headquarters in Vienna.

> International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER):
Huge fusion reactor being planned by the EC, US, Japan,
and Russia (former USSR?).  Should generate far more
energy than it consumes.  Research goals include engineering
studies of reactor materials, component designs for steady-state
devices, and testing/proving commercial feasibility.

* Ioffe Bars:  Special configuration of conductors which, when
added to a conventional magnetic mirror, generate a "magnetic
well" which stabilizes the mirror against the hydromagnetic
instability.

& Ion:  (from Herman) An atom whic hhas ecome charged as a 
result of gaining or losing one or more orbiting electrons.  
A completely ionized atom is one stripped of all its electrons.

* Ion Cyclotron Emission (ICE):  As ions gyrate around in a magnetic
field (see also larmor radius or cyclotron radius), they radiate 
radio-frequency electromagnetic waves.  This is known as ion cyclotron
emission, and can be measured to help diagnose a plasma.

* Ion Cyclotron Resonance Heating:  Like ECH, but heats ions 
using the ion cyclotron frequency.  See Electron Cyclotron Heating.

* Ion Temperature: the temperature corresponding to the
mean kinetic energy of the ions in a plasma.

& Ionization:  Process by which a neutral atom is converted to an ion 
(or one ion is converted to another of a different type).

& Ionization Energy:  Generally refers to the amount of energy 
required to strip a particular electron from an atom.  The 
first-ionization-energy is a commonly used quantity in many fields 
of physics and chemistry.  Typically measured in electron-volts.
Equivalent to the atomic binding energy of the electron.

& Ionization Potential:  See ionization energy.

* Ionosphere:  Ionized region of the upper earth atmosphere, which
behaves like a plasma, including reflection of AM radio waves and
generation of auroral glows.

* Isomer, Nuclear:  two nuclei with the same nuclear mass (total
number of protons and neutrons) but different nuclear compostions.
(e.g.: T & 3He are isomers: T has 1p, 2n; 3He has 2p, 1n)

& Isotope: (from Herman) One of several variations of the 
same element, possessing different numbers of neutrons but
the same number of protons in their nuclei.  Most elements have
several stable isotopes, and also several possible unstable
and semi-stable isotopes.  The chemical and physical properties
of the different isotopes are generally the same (except for the
slight mass difference and the possibility of radioactivity).
Examples include the hydrogen isotopes protium (ordinary
hydrogen), deuterium, and tritium (two neutrons, one proton); 
also uranium 238, 233, and 235.
The chemistry of an element depends only on the number of protons
(nuclear charge) and is therefore the same for all isotopes of
an element, but the nuclear properties of different isotopes
will be different.  There are roughly 300 known stable isotopes,
and over 1000 unstable ones.


JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ

# J - variable used to indicate current density

@ JET - Joint European Torus; see entry

@ JT-60: Japan Torus - 60 (??)

> Joint European Torus:  (from Herman) A large tokamak in Oxfordshire,
England, commonly owned by the European Community.  First reactor to
achieve > 1 MW of fusion power, in 1991.  Largest tokamak currently 
in operation (to the best of the editor's knowledge).

> JT-60: (from Herman) A large Japanese tokamak located north 
of Tokyo.

& Joule Heating: See ohmic heating
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.15 / Robert Heeter /  (Long) Part 10d Conventional Fusion FAQ - Glossary K - P
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: (Long) Part 10d Conventional Fusion FAQ - Glossary K - P
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 1994 07:09:08 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

==================================================================

Section 10 Part D - Glossary K-P

FREQUENTLY USED TERMS IN CONVENTIONAL FUSION RESEARCH 
AND PLASMA PHYSICS

While this section is not yet complete, it should be useful to
many people, and I encourage you to distribute it to anyone who
might be interested (and willing to help revise it!!!).

5th Draft, Last Revised on Friday, April 15, 1994.

Edited by Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@theory.pppl.gov

Guide to Categories:
 
* = advanced plasma/fusion vocabulary
& = basic physics vocabulary 
> = device type or machine name
# = name of a constant or variable
! = scientists 
@ = acronym
% = labs & political organizations

Citations and Acknowledgements appear in Section 12.

==================================================================



KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK

# k: Mathematical symbol usually used for Boltzmann's Constant.
Value is 1.4 x 10^-23 Joules/Kelvin (in SI units), 
or 1.4 x 10^-16 ergs/Kelvin (in cgs units).

& Kelvin: (K) temperature scale where zero degrees corresponds
to absolute zero (no thermal energy); degrees have same
size as in Celsius/centigrade scale.  273.16 K = zero C;
373.16 = 100 C.

! (Lord) Kelvin:  honorary name given to William Thompson; 19th 
century British physicist (many contributions in many subfields).

* Kinetic Pressure:  Density of kinetic energy (energy in the
thermal motions of the plasma particles).  For an ideal plasma,
p = nkT.

* Kink Instability:  Instability resulting from excessive growth
of a kink mode; see kink mode.

* Kink Mode:

* Kruskal Limit:  In tokamaks, limiting value for plasma current
beyond which MHD instabilities are predicted.  (Has it been tested?)


LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL

@ L-mode: see low mode.

@ LANL - Los Alamos National Laboratory; see entry

@ Laser: Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation.
     see entry.

@ LBL - Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory; see entry

@ LLNL - Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory; see entry

* Landau Damping:  Damping of a wave propagating in a hot plasma,
due to the interaction of the wave with particles whose velocity
is close to the phase velocity of the wave.  Depends on the shape
of the velocity-space distribution function at the phase velocity.
(Anybody got a nice, brief, intuitive explanation of this?)

! Langmuir, Irving (1881-1957): American chemist, won Nobel Prize in 
chemistry in 1932, developed the theory of Langmuir probes (see 
entry)

* Langmuir frequency:  See plasma frequency.

* Langmuir oscillation:  See electrostatic waves.

* Langmuir probe: a small conductive electrode used to measure the
density, temperature, and electric potential (voltage) of a plasma.

& Larmor radius: the radius of the path of a charged 
particle in a magnetic field.  Also known as gyroradius
and cyclotron radius.
 
& Laser: (adapted from Herman) an optical device that amplifies and
concentrates light waves, emitting them in a narrow, intense beam.
Laser light radiation is notable for its brightness and to some 
extent for its monochromaticity and spatial and temporal coherence.

> Laser Fusion:  Form of inertial confinement fusion where
laser beams are used to compress the fuel pellet.

* Laser scattering device: See Thomson scattering device.

% Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory:  Located in Berkeley, CA; Another
large U.S. science laboratory; minor (?) U.S. fusion research center.  

% Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory:  Located in Livermore, CA,
about an hour east of SF in the Bay Area.  Home of the Nova laser 
inertial confinement fusion program; Nova is the largest
laser in the world.  Home of the former mirror projects MFTF 
(Mirror Fusion Test Facility, shut down on the day it became
operational, or thereabouts, due to budget cutting), 
TMX-U (Tandem Mirror eXperiment Upgrade), and the recently 
shut down Microwave Tokamak eXperiment (MTX).  Some notable 
older fusion experiments at Livermore included Table Top, Toy Top,
Baseball (and Baseball-II) and TMX (predecessor to TMX-U).
Livermore is also the site of the Rotating Target Neutron Sources 
(I and II) for testing materials samples in high-intensity 14 MeV
neutron fluxes and the High Field Test Stand for testing neutral
beams.  Workplace of Albert Chou and several other 
sci.physics.fusion participants. :)  

* Lawson Criterion:  Scientific breakeven criterion based on the 
product of energy confinement time, particle density, and plasma
temperature.

* Limiters:  (from Herman) structures placed in contact 
with the edge of a confined plasma which are used to 
define the shape of the outermost magnetic surface.  See also: 
divertor.

& Lithium: (Li)  Third element in the periodic table, so all isotopes
contain 3 protons; highly reactive; stable isotopes are Li-6 (7.5%
abundance) and Li-7 (92.5%); candidate for breeding tritium from 
fusion neutrons via the reactions: 

	n + 6Li -> 4He + T + 4.8 MeV, n + 7Li -> 4He + T + n - 2.5 MeV.

* Longitudinal Waves:

& Lorentz Force:  Total electromagnetic force on a charged particle
moving in electric & magnetic fields.  F = q(E + (v/c)xB).  See
also force, cross product, charge, velocity, and variable symbols.

* Lorentz Gas:  Plasma model in which the electrons are assumed
not to interact with each other, but only with ions (Z -> infinity)
and where the ions are assumed to remain at rest/fixed (M-i -> 
infinity).

* Lorentz Model - see Lorentz Gas

% Los Alamos National Laboratory:  Major DOE research facility, 
located in Los Alamos, New Mexico, about an hour west of Santa Fe.
(Home of a frozen-deuterium-fiber Z-pinch device?)  (Need to add 
more info here.)

* Loss Cone:

* Low Aspect Ratio:

* Low mode or L-Mode:  (from Herman) The "normal" behavior of 
a tokamak plasma, characterized by poor confinement and a particular
scaling of decreasing confinement with increasing temperature.

* Lower Hybrid Heating:  form of RF heating using Lower Hybrid Waves.

* Lower Hybrid Waves:  "Electrostatic ion oscillations at a frequency
intermediate to the electron extraordinary wave (high frequency) and 
the magnetosonic wave (low frequency).  Not waves, strictly speaking,
because they do not propagate (I think)." 
	- Albert Chou, albert@seas.ucla.edu


MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

# m, M - variable typically used for mass.

@ MFE - Magnetic Fusion Energy

@ MFTF - Mirror Fusion Test Facility; see entry

@ MIT - Massachusetts Institute of Technology; see entry

@ MHD - Magnetohydrodynamics; see entry

@ MHD Instability - see Magnetohydrodynamic instability.

@ MKS - Meters, Kilometers, Seconds - see SI Units

@ MKSA - Meters, Kilometers, Seconds, Amperes - See SI Units.

@ MTX - Microwave Tokamak eXperiment; see entry

% Madison - See University of Wisconsin-Madison

* Magnetic Bottle (from Herman) The magnetic field used to
confine a plasma in controlled fusion experiments.

* Magnetic Confinement Fusion:  Method of fusion which uses
magnetic fields / magnetic bottles to confine a hot plasma
until fusion occurs.

* Magnetic Field:

* Magnetic Limiter:  See divertor (??)

> Magnetic Mirror: See mirror effect, mirror device

* Magnetic Moment:

* Magnetic Pressure:  Pressure which a magnetic field is capable
of exerting on a plasma; equal to the magnetic energy density;
proportional to B^2.  (Constant is 1/(2*mu-o) in SI units, 1/8pi
in CGS units).

* Magnetic Pumping:  Form of plasma heating where the plasma is
successively compressed and expanded by means of a fluctuating
external magnetic field.  (See also adiabatic compression, frozen-in
law.)

* Magnetic Well:  see Minimum-B Configuration.

* Magnetohydrodynamics:  Electrodynamic fluid model that takes 
into account electric current and magnetic field; relevant at 
relatively low frequencies and for distance scales larger than 
the larmor radius.

* Magnetohydrodynamic Generator:  A device that extracts
kinetic energy from a jet of plasma and generates electricity.

* Magnetohydrodynamic Instability:

% Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT):  Located in Cambridge, 
MA (just outside Boston).  Home of the Plasma Fusion Center and the
Alcator series of compact tokmaks.

% Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics (IPP):  In Garching (near
Munich).  The largest plasma physics institute in Germany.  Presently
home of ASDEX-Upgrade and Wendelstein-7AS. (See entries)

! Maxwell, James Clerk:  19th-century British physicist, responsible 
for the synthesis of the equations of electromagnetism and the 
prediction of electromagnetic waves, among other things.

& Maxwell-Boltzmann Distribution:  Distribution function of particle
velocities corresponding to a system in thermal equilibrium with a
temperature value of T.  See also: distribution functions, 
temperature.

& Maxwellian Distribution: see Maxwell-Boltzmann Distribution

& Maxwell's Equations: The key equations governing
electrical and magnetic phenomena. (more?)

& Mean Free Path:  Average distance a particle travels between
collisions.  Roughly equal to the collision cross section divided
by the particle density.

* Meltdown:  (from Herman) A buildup of heat in the core of
a nuclear fission reactor due to an uncontrolled chain
reaction of the fission fuel causing the fuel rods to 
melt down to (through, in some cases) the reactor floor.

& Metastable state:  several types
	Electronic
	Nuclear
	
* Microinstability: Instabilities due to particle / kinetic 
theoretical effects, typically occuring on small scales, as opposed 
to those derivable from fluid models valid on larger scales.

* Microwave Interferometer:  See interferometer, interferometry.

* Microwave Tokamak eXperiment (MTX): a reincarnation of Alcator C
at LLNL, now shut down.

> Minimum-B Configuration:  Confinement configuration where the
magnetic field strength is a minimum where the plasma is to be
confined, and increases in all directions away from the confinement
region.  Stability is favorable in such a configuration because the
magnetic pressure increases in all directions away from the plasma.

> Mirror device, mirror machine:  (Adapted from Herman)
Generally, linear fusion machines which confine the plasma
using the mirror effect.  Basically there is a weak field
in the center, and strong fields at the ends.

* Mirror effect: A charged particle travelling into an increasing
magnetic field will (if the field becomes strong enough) reverse 
direction and be reflected back.

> Mirror Fusion Test Facility (MFTF):  A large mirror device built 
at LLNL in the late 1970s and mothballed for political reasons 
just before it was to begin operation.

* Mirror Ratio:  In a magnetic mirror configuration, the ratio
between the strongest and weakest values of the magnetic field;
a key ratio in determining confinement properties of the system.

* Mobility:

& Mole: The amount of given substance such that the mass in grams 
is equal to its [atomic weight, molecular weight, mass number].
The number of particles in a mole of a substance is Avogadro's
Number N = 6.02497 x 10^23 (see entry).  For instance, one mole
of water weighs 18 grams, since water is H2O, the H's weigh
one apiece, and the O weighs 16.  Heavy water, or D2O, weighs
20 grams/mole, because each D weighs 2 instead of 1.

* Motor-Generator:  Device used to store energy by accelerating
a rotating flywheel to high speeds; energy may be rapidly discharged
and converted to shorter-pulse energy.  (Used to power TFTR; the
electric utility would be a little unhappy if TFTR were to suddenly
draw its 30 MW+ of power at random intervals. :)

> Muon-Catalyzed Fusion: (Steve Jones?)


NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN

# n - variable used for number density of particles.
# n - also used as the symbol for a neutron.

@ NBI - Neutral Beam Injection; see entry

* Neo-classical Diffusion:  In a magnetized plasma, _classical_ 
diffusion refers to transport of particles due to Coulomb collisions, 
taking the spiral orbits in the magnetic field into account.  In a 
toroidal magnetic field, the actual rate of diffusion is much higher 
due to slow changes in the positions of the centers of the spirals 
known as banana orbits (see entry).  This faster transport is called 
_neo-classical_.  With very few exceptions the transport in toroidal 
devices is observed to be 10-100 times larger still, presumably due 
to small-scale turbulence.  The observed transport is called 
_anomalous_ (although it actually is the "normal" state).

* Neo-classical transport:  See neo-classical diffusion.

* Neutral Beam Injection: (from Herman) A method for producing
neutrally charged atoms of high energy (high velocity) and 
injecting beams of these atoms into a magnetically confined plasma,
where they are soon ionized.  The high-energy ions then transfer
part of their energy to the plasma particles in repeated
collisions, thus increasing the plasma temperature.

& Neutron:  Fundamental atomic particle with zero electrical
charge (therefore not confined by a magnetic field) and a mass
roughly equal to a proton's mass.

* Neutron Wall Loading:  Energy flux carried by fusion neutrons into
the first wall.  (see also First Wall, Flux, Neutrons)

* Non-Inductive Current Drive:  Current drives schemes that do not 
rely upon the "transformer" effect in tokamaks.  The attainment of 
non-inductive current drive is crucial to the success of tokamaks 
as truly steady-state devices.  See also inductive current drive.

> Nova: (from Herman) The United States' largest laser (ICF) fusion
facility, at LLNL.  "The successor to Shiva.  The next 
generation will be known as Nova Upgrade; a proof of concept
experiment called Beamlet is in operation now.  (I think.)"
	- Albert Chou, albert@seas.ucla.edu

* Nuclear Binding Energy:

& Nuclear Force:  See Weak (Nuclear) Force, Strong (Nuclear) Force.

& Nucleus:  The tiny core of an atom, positively charged,
containing protons and neutrons.  Electrons orbit the nucleus.


OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

@ OH - Ohmic Heating; see entry

@ ORNL - Oak Ridge National Laboratory; see entry

% Oak Ridge National Laboratory:  Located in Oak Ridge, TN.  Home of 
a series of various fusion devices.  (Could use more info!)

! Ohm, Georg Simon (1789-1854): Physicist who discovered the
relationship between electric current, potential and resistance.

& Ohm:  Unit of electrical resistance.

& Ohmic heating: (from Herman)  Heating resulting from the
resistance a medium offers to the flow of electrical current.
In plasma subjected to ohmic heating, ions are heated
almost entirely by transfer of energy from the hotter
electrons.

* Ohmic heating coil:  Coil used to induce an electric field
in the plasma via a transformer effect, resulting in ohmic heating.

* Ohmic heating solenoid:  See ohmic heating coil, solenoid.


PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP

# p, P - Variables used for plasma (kinetic) pressure.
# p - also used as symbol for the proton

@ PBX-M - Princeton Beta Experiment-Modified; see entry

@ PF - Poloidal Field

@ PLT - Princeton Large Torus; see entry

@ PNL - Pacific National (Northwest?) Laboratory; no entry yet.

@ PPPL - Princeton Plasma Physics Lab; see entry

& Particle:

& Particle Density:  number of particles present per unit volume
(typically a cubic centimeter).  See also density; typically
represented by the variable "n".

* Pellet Injection / Pellet Injector: (from Herman) A device
that shoots small frozen pellets of hydrogen isotopes at
high speed into the inner regions of hot plasma.

& Phase Velocity:

* Pinch effect: (from Herman) The constriction of a plasma
carrying a large current caused by the interaction of that 
current with its own encircling magnetic field.

> Pinch machine:  Device which confines plasma using the pinch 
effect.

* Plasma: a gas in which many of the atoms or molecules 
are ionized.  Examples:  the sun, fluorescent light tubes,
very hot flames, much of interplanetary, interstellar,
and intergalactice space, the earth's ionosphere, parts
of the atmosphere around lightning discharges, and of
course what's inside a fusion reactor when it's working
right.

* Plasma Beta:  see Beta

* Plasma, Cold:  See Cold Plasma Model

* Plasma Containment:  (quoting from the PPPL Glossary of Fusion 
Terms)  "In plasma physics experiments or nuclear fusion experiments, 
operation is intended to prevent, in an effective and sufficiently 
prolonged manner, the particles of a plasma from striking the walls 
of the container in which this plasma is produced.  Plasma 
confinement is a fundamental requirement for obtaining net energy 
from a fusion plasma.  The reason is that scattering (hence 
diffusion) is at least an order of magnitude more probable than 
fusion reactions.  Hence, without confinement, the plasma fuel would 
disperse before enough fusion reactions could take place."

> Plasma Focus:

* Plasma Frequency:  The natural collective oscillation frequency 
of free electrons in a plasma in the absence of a magnetic field.
Also known as Langmuir frequency; see also electrostatic waves.

> PLASMAK(tm):  (Paul M. Koloc?)

& Plutonium:  (from Herman) A radioactive metallic element
whose isotope, plutonium-239, is used in nuclear weapons 
and as a fission reactor fuel.

* Poloidal:  In toroidal geometries, the direction along the
circumference of a slice through one side of the torus. 
"The short way around a torus".
	- Albert Chou, albert@seas.ucla.edu

* Poloidal Field:  In toroidal devices, the magnetic field that
encircles the plasma axis.

* Poloidal Field Coils:  In toroidal devices (eg, tokamaks), the
sets of windings which are (typically) aligned along the plasma
axis and produce poloidal fields.  These include ohmic heating,
shaping, vertical, equilibrium, and divertor windings. (Adapted from
PPPL Glossary)

& Power:  Defined as amount of work per unit time, or change in 
energy per unit time.

& Pressure:  Defined as force per unit area.

% Princeton - See Princeton University and/or Princeton Plasma 
Physics Lab

> Princeton Beta Experiment-Modified (PBX-M):  mid-sized tokamak
research device at Princeton. (need more here!)  Original research 
goal was to investigate the so-called "second stability regime" in
tokamaks. (? I should know more, I work near it! - rfheeter)

> Princeton Large Torus (PLT): Large tokamak formerly operated
at the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory (PPPL).

% Princeton Plasma Physics Lab:  Located in Princeton, New Jersey.
Single largest fusion research facility in the United States; sole 
U.S. single-purpose plasma physics laboratory; operated by Princeton
University for the Department of Energy.  Site of PLT, PBX-M, TFTR, 
several other past and present experiments, and future site of TPX.
(Refer to entries for relevant machines, both here and in FAQ.)

% Princeton University:  Among other research activities, the 
University operates the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory for the 
Department of Energy (see above entry for PPPL).

* Project Matterhorn:  (from Herman) The code name of the 
United States' first secret controlled fusion project 
started by Lyman Spitzer at Princeton University in 1951.

* Project Sherwood:  Name often used to describe the U.S. controlled
fusion program in the 1950s and '60s.  (PPPL Glossary)

& Proton: (from Herman) An elementary particle found in the
nucleus of all atoms.  It carries a single positive electrical
charge.
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.15 / Robert Heeter /  (Long) Part 6 (draft) Convent. Fusion FAQ - Recent Results
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: (Long) Part 6 (draft) Convent. Fusion FAQ - Recent Results
Subject: Re: Laymen Q: Was Princeton's Fusion a 'breakthrough?'
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 1994 20:03:52 GMT
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1993 12:01:28 GMT
Organization: Princeton University
Organization: Joint European Torus

6. Recent Results

This is a draft only and is not to be copied or cited at this time.

First Draft - March 27, 1994
Written by Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@theory.pppl.gov, unless
otherwise cited.

***  A.  Recent Results on TFTR:
	
* (a) What was done?

The Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor (TFTR) here at Princeton 
switched from pure-deuterium fuel to a deuterium-tritium 
(D-T) fuel mixture in December 1993.  As discussed in 
Section 1, the D-T fuel is easier to fuse, but the neutrons 
produced in the reaction D + T -> 4He + n will slowly make 
the reactor radioactive, so this set of experiments will 
be the last for TFTR.  In these reactions, over 6 million 
watts (MW) of fusion power were produced for about a second.  
This is four times more power than any previous controlled 
fusion experiment.  The value of 6 MW should be compared to
the roughly 30 MW of input power used, which indicates that
fusion in TFTR remains short of breakeven.  (See glossary for
explanations of unfamiliar terminology.)

(There was an article on this in _Time_, Dec 20, 1993, p. 54, 
at least in the American edition; there are of course other 
articles out there too.  See Section 9, Part A (the bibliography
on recent literature) for more references.)


*	(b) Why does it matter?

The generation of multi-megawatt levels of fusion power is a major
achievement for the controlled fusion program.  Sustaining the
power output for a second is also significant, because most
known plasma instabilities occur much more quickly.  Also, use 
of tritium to achieve high power levels enables researchers to 
study plasmas under conditions closer to those of a working 
fusion reactor.  There are effects due to the heavier tritium 
ions, and due to the presence of highly energetic helium ions
produced in the fusion reaction.  In particular, scientists
were worried that the energetic He ions might trigger new plasma
instabilities.  (Plasmas are notorious for finding new ways to
misbehave whenever scientists manage to improve the operating 
conditions.)  Fortunately, no major instabilities were observed,
and in fact early reports are that plasma performance actually
improves in high-power D-T conditions.  These results enhance
the prospects for future experiments which will try to achieve
even higher power outputs in nearly steady-state conditions.
(See Section 8 for more information on future experiments.)


***  B.  Recent Results on JET

JET ran some experiments in 1991 using a 10% tritium mix, and 
produced 1.7 megawatts of fusion power.  Since then researchers
have been reconfiguring the machine.  (Anybody know if plasma
operation has begun?)
 
Appended below are comments adapted from a post I made on Feb 12, 
1994 (which in turn referenced a Dec 14, 1993 posting by 
Stephen Cooper at JET), which provide more background to the 
JET & TFTR results.  


***  C.  Recent Results in Inertial Confinement Fusion

(Anybody got any info?  I haven't had time to look yet.)


***  D.  Recent Results from other areas.

(Anyone care to advertise your favorite approach?


***  E.  Appendix on TFTR and JET results

*********************************************
TFTR results vs JET results from 1991:
(Written by Stephen R. Cooper at JET, with comments [like this] 
by R.F. Heeter.)

>From src@jet.uk Tue Dec 14 11:14:34 EST 1993
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Laymen Q: Was Princeton's Fusion a 'breakthrough?'
Organization: Joint European Torus
References: <2ebdvg$44e@Mercury.mcs.com> <2ei3vk$o7o@mailer.fsu.edu>
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1993 12:01:28 GMT

In <2ei3vk$o7o@mailer.fsu.edu> jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
writes:
>As I recall, the reports from JET in November 1991 indicated a Q of
>about 1/9 for the light load of T, with plans to increase the T 
>to 50% by 1996.  I think their extrapolation to 50% indicated 
>they would be very close to breakeven at that point, but do not
>recall the details. 

>Could some JET person fill us in?

[ Note by rfheeter: Q is the ratio of power produced in the
machine by fusion to power put into the machine to heat
the plasma. Q = 1 means fusion yield is equal to power
input.  Economical fusion will require Q significantly 
greater than 1.  See the glossary (Section 10) for more details.]

Results quoted from "The JET Preliminary Tritium Experiment", 
invited talk given to the 1992 International Conference on 
Plasma Physics by P-H Rebut, Innsbruck, Austria, 29th June-3rd 
July 1992).

"Two Deuterium plasmas were heated by high power deuterium 
neutral beams from fourteen sources and fuelled by two neutral 
beam sources injecting tritium. In the best of the two D-T 
discharges, the tritium concentration was about 11% of bulk plasma 
at peak performance, when the total neutron emmision rate was 
6.0E17 per second, with 1.7MW of fusion power. The fusion 
amplification factor Q(DT) was 0.15. With an optimum tritium 
concentration, this pulse would have produced a fusion power 
of ~ 5MW and nominal Q(DT) of 0.46. The same extrapolation for 
the best pure deuterium discharge of the PTE series gives about 
11MW and a nominal Q(DT) of 1.14.

[ Note by rfheeter:  neutral beams are made by accelerating
deuterium ions, and then neutralizing the ions so that they
can fly into the magnetic field of the tokamak without being
deflected.  As they enter the plasma, they are re-ionized
and their energy is subsequently shared with the other 
ions in the plasma.  Thus this is a method for simultaneously
heating and refueling the plasma. See glossary for more info...]

The total integrated total neutron yield was 7.2E17 with an 
accuracy of +/- 7% and the total fusion energy was about 2MJ. 
The tritium injections last just 2 seconds out of a 10 second, 
3MA flat top. The amount of tritium injected and the limited 
number of shots were deliberatly restricted for operational 
convenience."

[ Note by rfheeter:  2 MJ = 2 million joules = 1 million
watts for a duration of 2 seconds, or 2 million watts for
a duration of one second.  1 Joule = 1 watt * 1 second.
A "10 second, 3 MA flat top" refers to the relatively stable
flat peak of a current-vs-time graph, indicating that
the plasma current is stable at about 3 million amps
(3 MA) for 10 seconds.  "Operational convenience" should
probably be interpreted as "because we didn't want to
make our reactor too radioactive, and tritium handling
is a pain." - that's an editorial comment. ]

--> Personal remarks start 
[this Cooper writing now, and not quoting others.]

The above seems to indicate that if JET had gone into it's full 
D-T phase at this time and with this configuration, we certainly
should have got to 50% of breakeven. As to if we could have 
matched our best deuterium pulse, I guess we would have come 
close especially as the TFTR results show no pathological 
problems with a 50/50 D-T mix. But this is all hypothetical, 
we no longer have anything like the configuration we had in 
1991, we're just about to finish a major shutdown incorporating 
a pumped divertor to look at impurity control and ash removal. 
The old H mode shots that the 1991 experiment were based on 
are a thing of the past and we'll have to wait and see how 
she performs with the new configuration.

[ Note by rfheeter: a "divertor" is a magnetic or physical
way of channeling particles from the edge of the plasma
out of the way, and helps to improve confinement of the plasma
as well as remove impurities. "H mode" is a relatively
stable operational mode of the tokamak, as contrasted with
"L mode", which is less stable.  I believe H = High and
L = Low, referring to high and low confinement.]

[[ The rest of the article was about TFTR and not JET,
and I have omitted it to save some space. ]]

Stephen R Cooper                 Physics Operations Group
src@jet.uk               Operations Division, JET.
-	Disclaimer: Please note that the above is a personal view and 
should not be construed as an official comment from the JET project.
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.15 / Robert Heeter /  (Long) Part 11 of Convetional Fusion FAQ - Annotated Bibliography
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: (Long) Part 11 of Convetional Fusion FAQ - Annotated Bibliography
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 1994 21:30:06 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

11. Conventional Fusion Reading List

While this section is not yet complete, it should be useful to
many people, and I encourage you to distribute it to anyone who
might be interested (and willing to help revise it!!!).

Fifth Draft - Last Revised Sunday, April 10, 1994
Edited by Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@lyman.pppl.gov

************ Introductory Notes *********************************

This file is my attempt to answer the FAQ, 
"What literature is there on the subject of fusion?"

Note that this Reading List is for the "conventional" types
of fusion, and not for Cold Fusion.  

************ Notes on Construction and Organization  ************

The goal here is to provide a few major references at a variety 
of levels on each of a variety of topics.  The current Reading 
List is large, but still sketchy in areas.  In general I intend 
to limit the size of the bibliography by ignoring any work 
over 15 years old, unless it is considered a classic in the field.  
I may need to drop the limit to 10 years, since the list is 
getting large.

I would appreciate it if everyone would contribute suggestions 
of books, review articles, articles in the popular literature, 
and even new topics to be included in the Reading List.

In order to make this bibliography easier to use, I have sorted
the books into the following general categories:
  
A. Recent articles in the popular literature.
B. General References and Histories 
(suitable for those with minimal background in physics or fusion).
C. Fusion Research Review Articles & Texts
D. Plasma Physics - General Texts 
(focus is on plasma science, rather than engineering of reactors)
E.  Plasma Physics - Device-Specific
(applications of plasma physics to specific devices)
F. Fusion Reactor Engineering References
G. List of Relevant Scientific Journals
H. Unclassified / Unsummarized works.  (Please help me move
references out of this section and into sections A-G by 
contributing reviews of sources you know about!)

* So far only sections B, C and D have decent lists of references. * 

Currently I suggest that each reference included in the
Reading List contain the following information:

*************** Recommended Entry Format ********************
* LastName, Firstname/Initials.  _Title_. [# of pages] Publisher.
 Date.
	
	Descriptive blurb including summary of contents.  
	
	Level of Text
	[Name & Email address of reviewer.]
*************************************************************

Here is a sample application of the above template:

* Herman, Robin.  _Fusion: The Search for Endless Energy_. 
[267 p.] Cambridge University Press. 1990.

	A relatively nontechnical history of fusion energy research
	from 1951-1989.  Focus on U.S. magnetic confinement research.
	Includes glossary of terms and scientists.

	High-school level.
	[Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu]

Note that it would be best to avoid editorial comments and to
try not to make too many judgment calls in the summaries!

***************************************************************
***** Reference List of Conventional Fusion Literature ********
***************************************************************

*** A. Recent articles in the popular literature.

* Conn, et al, "The International Thermonuclear Experimental
Reactor," _Scientific American_, April 1992.  

	Describes plans for ITER.

	Level - high school physics.
	[Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu]


* Lemonick, Michael.  "Blinded by the Light," _Time_, Dec. 20, 
1993, p. 54.

	Describes the first high-power D-T experiments on TFTR.

	Level - basic literacy. :)
	[Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu]


* Pope, Gregory T.  "Sun in a Bottle," _Popular Mechanics_,
April 1994, pp. 110-111.

	General article on state of (U.S. mostly) magnetic fusion.

	Level - high school physics (?)
	[Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu]

Note:  Science, Scientific American, and Nature often have articles.


*** B. General References and Histories 
(suitable for those with minimal background in physics or fusion).

* Bromberg, Joan Lisa.  _Fusion: science, politics, and the 
invention of a new energy source_.  [376 p.] MIT Press. 1982.

	DOE-authorized history of the US fusion program.  Author claims 
	no political pressures and a focus on political influences on
	science.  Focuses on US efforts at DOE labs.

	High-school level.
	[Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu]


* Griffin, Rodman.  "Nuclear Fusion," in _CQ Researcher_ (associated with
_Congressional Quarterly_), January 22, 1993 (vol. 3, no. 3) pp. 49-72.

	Policy-oriented overview of nuclear fusion in the U.S., includes
	pros & cons, covers key issues, background, history, current
	situation, outlook, and has an extensive bibliography.

	High-School level.
	[Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu]


* Heppenheimer, T. A.  _The Man-Made Sun: The Quest for Fusion
Power._  [347 p.] Little, Brown and Company. 1983.

	Nontechnical history.  Since it is ten years old, some of it 
	is badly out of date -- e.g., it was published before MFTF-B 
	was mothballed, and the Engineering Test Reactor was still 
	being promoted as "the next step." However, it has some good basic
	explanations and some interesting material on the politics of
	fusion.

	Includes index, glossary, bibliography, and chapter notes. 

	High-school level.
	[Bonnie Nestor, mnj@ornl.gov]	


* Herman, Robin.  _Fusion: The Search for Endless Energy_. 
	[267 p.] Cambridge University Press. 1990.

	A relatively nontechnical history of fusion energy research
	from 1951-1989.  Focus on U.S. magnetic confinement research.
	Includes glossary of terms and scientists.

	High-school level.
	[Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu]


* Voronov, GS.  _Storming the Fortress of Fusion_. [335 p.] 
Translated from the Russian by R.S. Wadhwa.  Original text 1985, 
revised 1988. Mir Publishers, Moscow.  

	Appears to be highly enthusiastic; contents
	indicate chapters on inertial confinement and muon-catalyzed
 fusion as well as tokamaks, stellarators, pinches, etc.  

	Level: one year college physics.
	[Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu]



*** C. Fusion Research Review Articles & Texts

* Brunelli, B., et al., eds.  _Safety, environmental impact and 
economic prospects of nuclear fusion_. [360 p.]  Plenum Publishing
Corporation. 1990.

	From the Preface: "This book contains the lectures and the 
	concluding discussion of the 'Seminar on Safety, Environmental 
	Impact, and Economic Prospects of Nuclear Fusion', which was 
	held at Erice (Italy), August 6-12, 1989."  Numerous articles 
	on diverse aspects of fusion research, focusing on the topics 
	listed.

	[Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu]


* Colombo and Farinelli, "Progress in Fusion Energy," _Annual 
Reviews of Energy and the Environment_, 1992, pp. 123-160.

	A comprehensive summary of the state of fusion research.

	Level - Not very technical, familiarity with terminology good. 
	[Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu]


* Dolan, Thomas J.  _Fusion research._ [3 v.]  Pergamon Press. 1980.

	A decent overview of just about every aspect having to do 
	with fusion research, from physics (plasma, atomic, nuclear, 
	etc.) to large experiments (again, caveat emptor wrt the 
	currency of information on specific projects) to fusion 
	engineering issues (magnets, materials, nuclear engineering, 
	etc.).

	Graduate Level (?)
	[Albert Chou, albert@seas.ucla.edu]


* Holdren, et al, "Exploring the Competitive Potential of Magnetic
Fusion Energy:  The Interaction of Economics with Safety and 
Environmental Characteristics," _Fusion Technology_, Jan 1988.

	Summarizes the results of the ESECOM fusion-reactor-design study.  
	Concludes that improved tokamaks are likely to be economically 
	competitive with fission and breeder-fission reactors.

	Level - familiarity with fusion terminology necessary.
	[Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu]


* Holdren, John P., "Safety and Environmental Aspects of Fusion 
Energy," _Annual Reviews of Energy and the Environment_, 1991, 
pp. 235-58.

	??? Probably what it sounds like.  Holdren is a fusion proponent 
	and does reactor design studies, among other things. ???

	Level - familiarity with fusion terminology necessary?
	[Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu]


* International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).  _Status Report on
Controlled Thermonuclear Fusion_.  (Published as Vol. 30, No 9, of 
the journal _Nuclear Fusion_, in Sept. 1990.)

	This is a comprehensive international review of all major controlled
	fusion research.  Starting to be a little dated, but still very 
	useful.

	Level - high-level scientific literature.
	[Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu]


* International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).  _World Survey of 
Activities in Controlled Fusion Research, 1991 Edition_.  (Published
as a special supplement to the journal _Nuclear Fusion_).  Over 630
pages.

	This is not really a review article, but a compendium of people,
	laboratories, machines, research programs, funding activity, and
	so on, for every country doing fusion research.  Good source of
 	statistics, acronyms, and so on.  The 1991 edition is only the 
	latest in a series published approximately every 5 years.

	Level - familiarity with fusion terminology useful
	[Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu]


* Thomassen, K.I., "Progress in Magnetic Fusion Energy Research," 
_Proc. of the IEEE_, Vol. 81, No. 3 (1993) 390.
 
	"A relatively recent paper giving an overview of the state of 
	Magnetic Fusion Energy research..."
	[Scott W. Haney, haney@random.llnl.gov]


* Teller, Edward, ed.  _Fusion: Magnetic confinement._ [2 v.] 
Academic Press. 1981.

	Good review articles on many subjects by important people in the
	field (e.g., Kunkel on NBI, Porkolab on RF heating, Conn on 
	reactors [a helluva long chapter!], Dawson on advanced reactors).

	Level: ??
	[Albert Chou, albert@seas.ucla.edu]



*** D. Plasma Physics - General Texts 
(focus is on the science of plasmas, rather than engineering of 
reactors)

* Chen, Francis F. _Introduction to Plasma Physics and Controlled
Fusion, vol 1._  [421 p.]  Plenum Publishing Corporation. 2nd 
edition, 1984.

	Intuitive (vs. mathematically rigorous) general plasma physics 
	text.  Chapters on single-particle motion, MHD, waves, diffusion & 
	resistivity, equilibrium & stability, kinetic theory, nonlinear 
	effects.  IMHO, frequently used as an undergraduate / basic 
	graduate text.  "It provides all the plasma physics you could
 	need.  However, like the title states, it is an INTRODUCTORY text.  
	Sometimes, the physical descriptions are not very rigorous, almost 
	too simple." - Robert Buckles
	
	Level:  Junior/Senior Undergraduate		
	[Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu]
	[Albert Chou, albert@seas.ucla.edu]
	[Robert Buckles, buckles@cae.wisc.edu]


* Hazeltine, RD, and Meiss, JD, _Plasma Confinement_ [411 p.]
	(Addison Wesley, 1992)

	Confinement-oriented approach to plasma physics, largely 
	fusion-oriented, tending towards theoretical as opposed to 
	experimental topics (from the intro). Chapters on Equilibrium 
	of confined plasmas, Kinetic description, Coulomb collisions, 
	Fluid Description, Stability of confinement, Collisional
 	transport, Nonlinear processes. "I know Chen's book pretty 
	well, Miyamoto's less well. Both are inferior to Hazeltine 
	and Meiss..." - Bruce Scott

	Level:  Graduate or advanced undergraduate.
	[Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu]
	[Bruce Scott, bds@hagar.ph.utexas.edu]


* Ichimaru, S. _Statistical Plasma Physics_ [2 volumes] 
Addison-Wesley. 1992.  

	First volume treats plasma theory from statistical-kinetic 
	point of view as an extension/application of statistical
	mechanics.

	Graduate level.
	[Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu]


* Krall, N., and Trivelpiece, A.. _Principles of Plasma Physics._ 
[674 p.]  San Francisco Press, 1986.

	Comprehensive introductory text for graduate students.  Chapters 
	on basic concepts and terminology, fluid/MHD models, 
	statistical/kinetic models, waves, stability, transport.  Readers 
	should be forewarned that the book was published around the few 
	years when the fusion program in the US took a serious downturn 
	and thus is seriously out of date concerning "current" 
	experiments.

	Graduate level.
	[Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu]
	[Albert Chou, albert@seas.ucla.edu]


* Miyamoto, Kenro. _Plasma physics for nuclear fusion._ [640 p.]
	MIT Press. 1989.

	This is another general plasma physics textbook, angled 
	towards the fusion applications.  Major sections on introductory 
	material, MHD, Kinetic descriptions, and "Heating, 
	Diagnostics, and Confinement."

	Graduate or senior undergraduate Level.
	[Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu]


* Nicholson, Dwight R.  _Introduction to Plasma Theory._ [292 p.]
	John Wiley and Sons. 1983.

	Introductory plasma physics textbook, emphasis on theory, not 
	meant to be used as a reference.  Contents, in order:  
	Introduction, Single-Particle Motion, Kinetic Theory 
	(3 chapters with progressively more approximations), 
	Vlasov Equation, Fluid Equations, MHD, Discrete Particle 
	Effects, Weak Turbulence Theory.

	Beginning graduate / advanced undergraduate level.
	[Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu.]


* Rose, DJ, and Clark, M, Jr, _Plasmas and Controlled Fusion_ 
(MIT, 1961)
	
	"For those who want a good dose of some plasma physics aspects 
	and a little less reactor technology, Rose and Clark is better 
	than Kammash (also for those like me who are familiar with the 
	physics and want a really basic intro to the engineering aspects).  
	Unfortunately it is pre-tokamak, so the methods and _basic_ 
	calculations involved in things like induction emf fields are 
	not present." - Bruce Scott

	[Bruce Scott, bds@hagar.ph.utexas.edu]


* Schmidt, George.  _Physics of high temperature plasmas._  Academic 
Press. 1979.

	An advanced graduate text, I believe.  I've looked at it, but 
	not in great depth.  A good reference, I think.

	Level: Advanced Graduate
	[Albert Chou, albert@seas.ucla.edu]



*** E.  Plasma Physics - Device-Specific

* Wesson, John. _Tokamaks_ [309 p.] Oxford Science Publications, 
1987.

	A clear introduction to the Tokamak concept, to the related 
	plasma physics and to some diagnostic techniques.

	Graduate level, basic plasma knowledge required.
	[Emilio Martines, martines@pdigi3.igi.pd.cnr.it]


* White, Roscoe. _Theory of tokamak plasmas._  [361 p.] 
North-Holland Physics, 1989.

	From the Preface: "These notes accompany a graduate course 
	taught at Princeton, designed to provide a basic introduction 
	to plasma equilibrium, particle orbits, transport, and those 
	ideal and resistive magnetohydrodynamic instabilities which 
	dominate the behavior of a tokamak discharge, and to develop 
	the mathematical methods necessary for their theoretical 
	analysis."

	"I know Chen's book pretty well, Miyamoto's less well. Both are
	inferior to R White's recent book." - Bruce Scott 

	Advanced Graduate Level.
	[Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
	 - I take the course next year and will know this intimately. :)]
	[Bruce Scott, bds@hagar.ph.utexas.edu]



*** F. Fusion Reactor Engineering References

* Kammash, Terry.  _Fusion reactor physics: principles and 
technology._  Ann Arbor Science Publishers. 1975.

	"For those who care mostly about engineering aspects and want 
	to know the physics involved in controlling and heating a 
	reactor plasma, Kammash is the first place to go." - Bruce Scott

	[Bruce Scott, bds@hagar.ph.utexas.edu]


* Krakowski, R.A., and Delene, J.G., "Connections Between Physics and
Economics for Tokamak Fusion Power Plants," _Journal of Fusion 
Energy_, vol. 7, no 1, 1988, pp. 49-89.

	From the abstract: "A simplified physics, engineering, and 
	costing model of a tokamak is used to examine quantitatively 
	the connection between physics performance and power-plant
	economics...."

	Level - Familiarity with plasma and reactor-engineering 
		terminology needed.
	[Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu]

* Najmabadi, et at. "The ARIES-II and ARIES-IV Second-Stability Tokamak
Reactors," in _Fusion Technology_, Vol. 21, May 1992, pp. 
1721-1728.

	Summarizes two of the ARIES paper reactors.  Both designs involve
 	utilizing the second stability regime to allow reduced magnetic 
	field strengths; also incorporate low-activation structural 
	materials and other features.  Part of an ongoing effort to 
	design an economically viable tokamak.

(This section certainly needs to have more literature reviewed, but
it's not (yet) my field of expertise.  Help anyone?)



*** G. List of Relevant Scientific Journals
 (Anyone care to write short blurbs about some of these journals?)

	Fusion Technology
	Nuclear Fusion
	Physical Review Letters
 Physical Review E
	Physics of Fluids B (Now Physics of Plasmas)
	Plasma Physics
	Energy Policy
	(there are certainly others)



*** H. Unclassified / Unsummarized works.  (Please help me move 
references out of this section and into sections A-G by contributing 
reviews of sources you know about!)

* Akiyama, M., ed.
Design technology of fusion reactors. [636 p.] World Scientific 
Publishing. 1990.

* Artsimovich, L. A.
A physicist's ABC on plasma.
Mir Publishers. 1978.

* Boenig, Herman V.
Plasma science and technology.
Cornell University Press. 1982.

* Brunelli, B., et al., eds.
Unconventional approaches to fusion. [544 p.]
Plenum Publishing Corporation. 1982.

* Casini, G.
Plasma physics for thermonuclear fusion reactors. [496 p.]
Harwood Academic Publishers. 1982.

* Casini, G., ed.
Engineering aspects of thermonuclear fusion reactors. [646 p.]
Harwood Academic Publishers. 1982.

* Coppi, B., et al., eds.
Physics of plasma close to thermonuclear conditions. [2 v.]
Pergamon Press. 1981.

* Dean, Stephen O., ed.
Prospects for fusion power. [112 p.] 
Pergamon Press. 1981.

* Gill, Richard, ed.
Plasma physics and nuclear fusion research.
Academic Press. 1981.

* Golant, V. E., et al.
Fundamentals of plasma physics. [405 p.]
John Wiley and Sons. 1980.

* Golant, V. E., et al.
Plasma heating in toroidal fusion devices. [202 p.] Plenum Publishing 
Corporation. 1989.
 
* Gross, R. A. _Fusion energy._  John Wiley and Sons. 1984.
	(Recommended in Hazeltine & Meiss.)

* Hora, Heinrich.
Physics of laser driven plasmas. [317 p.] John Wiley and Sons. 1981.

* Joachain, Charles J., and Douglas E. Post, eds. Atomic and 
molecular physics of controlled thermonuclear fusion. [575 p.]
Plenum Publishing Corporation. 1983.

* McDowell, M. R., and A. M. Ferendeci, eds.
Atomic and molecular processes in controlled nuclear fusion. [500 p.]
Plenum Publishing Corporation. 1980.

* Motz, H.
The physics of laser fusion. 
Academic Press. 1979.

* Nishikawa, K.
Plasma physics: basic theory with fusion applications. [320 p.]
Springer-Verlag. 1990.

* Raeder, J., et al.
Controlled nuclear fusion: fundamentals of its utilization for energy 
supply. [400 p.]  John Wiley and Sons. 1986.

* Stacey, W. M.
Fusion plasma analysis. [376 p.]  John Wiley and Sons. 1981.


**********************

I've summarized all the books I've seen, and included what 
information I've received from others on the net.  If you are 
familiar with any of these books, or with other books you feel 
should be included in the reading list, please submit a summary 
in roughly the above format.

Thanks!

*************
Robert F. Heeter
rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Graduate Student, Princeton Plasma Physics Lab
Standard Disclaimers Apply
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.15 / Robert Heeter /  (Long) Part 5 (draft) Conv. Fusion FAQ - Current Status of Devices
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: (Long) Part 5 (draft) Conv. Fusion FAQ - Current Status of Devices
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 1994 21:21:37 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

5. Status of and plans for Present Devices: (Give references!)

This is a draft only and is not to be copied or cited at this time.

First Draft - April 15, 1994
Written by Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@theory.pppl.gov, unless
otherwise cited.

*** Notes:

* All of the devices listed here (should) have entries in
the glossary.  This section is not intended to repeat the
basic descriptions of each machine, but rather to give some
current information on the operational status and research
program being pursued on the machine.

* Jargon terms in this section are, or at least should be,
defined in the glossary. ***

* So far I have only extracted the glossary entries for
the various machines.  Anyone care to help add info? ***

* Entries are alphabetical. Budgets are FY 1994 US $$ ***


*** A.  ATF:  (Advanced Toroidal Facility)  

Reversed-field pinch machine at Oak Ridge National Lab (ORNL)
Current Budget:  $4.9 million.
(Status anyone???)


*** B.  Alcator C-Mod: 

Mid-sized tokamak at MIT.
Current Budget:  $14.5 million

Currently investigating advanced plasma configurations and
divertor operation. (? Paul Stek? Steve Fairfax?)


*** C.  ASDEX-U:  (Axially Symmetric Divertor EXperiment-Upgrade) 

Mid-sized tokamak at the Institute for Plasma Physis, Garching,
Germany.
Current Budget: (?)

ASDEX-Upgrade is the first tokamak whose toroidal and poloidal field 
coils are not linked, which will be a necessary design factor in a 
reactor.  It will achieve parameters at the edge which are very 
similar to those needed for a power reactor. - Arthur Carlson


*** D.  DIII-D:  (Doublet III, D-shape)

Medium-large tokamak operated by GA Technologies (formerly 
General Atomic) in San Diego.  (Second largest in U.S., after TFTR)
Current Budget:  $44.6 million

Looking at enhancing plasma confinement by modifying the shape of
the plasma.  (More info, anyone??)


*** E.  Electrostatic Confinement:

Studied with some success in the 1950s and 1960s, this concept
has recently been resurrected as a student research project 
at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.  (I think!  Anyone
at Madison care to clue me in?  Anyone else doing EC?)


*** F.  ITER: (International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor)

Current Budget (US branch only): $62.2 million

Currently in the engineering design phase.  For more information
see Section 9: Future Plans.


*** G.  JET: (Joint European Torus)  

World's largest tokamak, in Oxfordshire, England, commonly owned 
by the European Community. 
Current Budget: ??


Has been undergoing modifications since achieving 1.7 MW of fusion
power with a 10% tritium fuel mixture in 1991.  
(See Section 6: Recent Results)

Current plan is to test advanced divertor operation (and other
advanced physics operation?), followed by 50-50 D-T fuel experiments
in 1996 or so.  (Help from anyone at JET?  Stephen Cooper?)


*** H.  JT-60: (Japan Tokamak (?)) 

Large tokamak located north of Tokyo in Japan.
Current Budget: ??  (including workers?)

JT-60 achieved the world's highest temperatures in 1993, and
also the best combined plasma parameters (triple product).


*** I.  MFTF:  Mirror Fusion Test Facility:  

Large mirror machine at Livermore, CA.
Current Budget:  $0.

MFTF has been mothballed since constrution was completed in
1980 (1986?).  (Budget cuts/political reasons/lack of prospects.)


*** J.  Muon-Catalyzed Fusion 

Muon-catalyzed fusion has yielded the best power out/power in
ratio of any approach to controlled fusion, but strong theoretical
arguments suggest that muon catalyzed fusion can go no further.
Some research is still underway in hopes of overcoming the
theoretical obstacles.  (See section on Muon-Catalyzed Fusion
in Section 4.)

(more info, anyone?)


*** K.  Nova:

The United States' largest laser (ICF) fusion facility, at LLNL.  
Current Budget: ??

(I don't know what the state of Nova research is.  Any help from
LLNL researchers?)


*** L.  PLASMAK(tm): 

Spheromak-type pulsed device in Maryland, USA.
Current Budget: ??

Paul M. Koloc posts occasionally to let us know what he's up to.
As I understand it, they are making progress towards a 
proof-of-concept experiment.  PLASMAK is oriented towards the
proton-Boron aneutronic advanced fuel.

(Paul, if you read this, feel free to improve this little entry.)


*** M.  PBX-M:  (Princeton Beta Experiment-Modified) (PBX-M)  

Mid-sized tokamak at Princeton. 
Current Budget:  $ 2.7 million

PBX-M is being used to investigate advanced tokamak configurations,
including (I believe) the second-stability high-beta regime, as
well as plasma and pulse shaping for enhanced confinement.
PBX-M operations are on hold for fiscal year 1994 because of the
DT operations on TFTR.  PBX-M has a budget request of $8.2 million
to resume operation in FY 1995.


*** N.  RFX:  (Reversed-Field eXperiment)

Largest Reversed-Field Pinch presently operating; in Padova, Italy.
Budget: ??

RFX is planned to reach a plasma current of 2 MA.
(Emilio Martines, martines%pdigi3.igi.pd.cnr.it)
(Could you provide some more information now, Dr. Martines?)


*** O.  TFTR:  (Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor)  

Large tokamak at Princeton.
Current Budget:  $75.4 million

TFTR was the first machine to use the 50-50 mix of D-T fuel, and
as a result is the current world's record holder in fusion energy
production.  TFTR is the largest tokamak in the United States,
but will be decommissioned at the end of 1994 when D-T operations
are completed.  TFTR will be allowed to cool off (to reduce the
radioactivity) for a year, and then decommissioned to make room
for TPX, according to the current plan.
  

*** P. Tokamak Physics Experiment:  

Large tokamak; smaller successor to TFTR at Princeton.  
Current Budget:  $19.3 million

TPX is intended to study advanced physics and technology issues.
Engineering design is underway; construction is scheduled to begin 
in FY 1995.  (Budget will rise to $66.9 million.)  See Section
9 on Future Plans for more information.


*** Q. Tore Supra:  

Large tokamak in Cadarache (southern France).  
Current Budget: ??

Tore Supra is the second largest tokamak in Europe, and uses 
superconducting magnets to achieve long plasma pulses.  Tore 
Supra has a circular cross-section (like TFTR), which limits the
achievable confinement time and experimental flexibility.  In 
addition to developing superconducting technology, it 
concentrates on the physics of long pulses and advanced
ergodic (space-filling) magnetic limiters.

(Could anyone provide me with more information?)


*** R.  Wendelstein-7AS:  (Advanced Stellarator) 

Large (?) stellarator in Garching, Germany.
Current Budget: ??

Pursuing advanced stellarator physics in competition with the
tokamak design.  Currently attempting to minimize neoclassical
effects such as the bootstrap current; uses non-planar magnetic
coils, as an alternative to linked coils.
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.16 / Andy Waniuk /  Re: Red mercury (was Re: chemical ignition of fusion)
     
Originally-From: twaniuk@jarthur.cs.hmc.edu (Andy Waniuk)
Newsgroups: rec.pyrotechnics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Red mercury (was Re: chemical ignition of fusion)
Date: 16 Apr 1994 17:21:22 GMT
Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont CA

In article <15APR199422553528@zeus.tamu.edu>,
MARSDEN, KENNETH CHARLES <kcm8305@zeus.tamu.edu> wrote:
>In article thompson@spot.Colorado.EDU (THOMPSON  BENJAMIN RHINELANDER) writes.
>>	I saw an article in the newspaper the other day that the Russians
>>have come up with a "baseball-sized" fusion bomb. Apparently it's a pure
>>fusion device (no fission core) which relies on a radioactive substance
>>called "red mercury". I've never heard of this stuff. Can anybody supply
>>information?
>> 
>>	And no, it wasn't the April 1st edition.
>>
>
>	I can supply you with information:  They're either pulling your leg 
>or totally full of it.
>
>	It's theoretically possible to set off fusion weapons without 
>fission triggers, but to my knowledge there is no unclassified information 
>about how practical this actually is.  Anyways, if it is actually achievable 
>it is going to take a LOT of high explosive to attain the temperatures and 
>pressures necessary for any significant fusion.......but I hope the story 
>you read is correct, because the worlds energy problems have just been 
>solved.
>
>--Hey can you email me the name and approximate date of that paper if you 
>still have it?  I would be interested in reading what they were saying.
>
>Ken  






I read this article, or something similar, in the
clari.news.europe.eastern newsgroup.  The clari groups are Reuters and
AP newsfeeds so this piece of news is legitimate.
If anyone wants me to post it, I'd be glad to, as long as there are no
restrictions on postings stuff out of the clari groups.













cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudentwaniuk cudfnAndy cudlnWaniuk cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.16 / dave pierson /  Re: Red mercury (was Re: chemical ignition of fusion)
     
Originally-From: pierson@msd26.enet.dec.com (dave pierson)
Newsgroups: rec.pyrotechnics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Red mercury (was Re: chemical ignition of fusion)
Date: Sat, 16 Apr 1994 21:35:15 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation

In article <15APR199422553528@zeus.tamu.edu>, kcm8305@zeus.tamu.edu
(MARSDEN, KENNETH CHARLES) writes...
>In article <CoBF0p.qA@cnsnews.Colorado.EDU>, thompson@spot.Colorado.EDU
(THOMPSON  BENJAMIN RHINELANDER) writes...
>>	I saw an article in the newspaper the other day that the Russians
>>have come up with a "baseball-sized" fusion bomb. Apparently it's a pure
>>fusion device (no fission core) which relies on a radioactive substance
>>called "red mercury". I've never heard of this stuff. Can anybody supply
>>information?
>> 
>>	And no, it wasn't the April 1st edition.
	8 April, Bahstahn Globe, fer one.

>	I can supply you with information:  They're either pulling your leg 
>or totally full of it.
	I tend to agree, but....
	Ever since the implsion <grin> of the FUSSR, rumors of "red mercury"
	have circulated thru sci.physics, sci.mil, presumably sci.chem.  It
	has been offered for sale for large amounts of money.  All the analyzed
	samples are found to be either red paint, or one of the mercury oxides.

	Some accounts have it radioactive in itiself, some that it is a neutron
	source or explosive sufficient to initiate fusion.  Or Fission.  Or
	run you vacuum cleaner.

	The lateset iteration seems to have started when some UK News
	organizations got UK scientists (physicists) into and out of the USSR,
	folk who would know the right questions and right answers.  Allegedly,
	the got the "right answers".  One version of the report got onto the
	clari wire, from Reuters, i think.

	I remain skeptical, but...

thanks
dave pierson                        |the facts, as accurately as i can manage,
Digital Equipment Corporation       |the opinions, my own.
200 Forest St                       |I am the NRA.
Marlboro, Mass 01752 USA            pierson@msd26.enet.dec.com
"He has read everything, and, to his credit, written nothing."  A J Raffles
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenpierson cudfndave cudlnpierson cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.14 / Bernie Groen /  ftp site for cold fusion
     
Originally-From: bgroen@metz.une.edu.au (Bernie Groen)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: ftp site for cold fusion
Date: 14 Apr 94 05:48:17 GMT

I am new to this group and would like to know if there is an FAQ
and or is there a FTP site or sites with information on theis subject.


Thank you

Bernie Groen
bgroen@metz.une.edu.au





cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenbgroen cudfnBernie cudlnGroen cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.16 / Mark Hittinger /  Re: The Fun Is Not Done
     
Originally-From: bugs@NETSYS.COM (Mark Hittinger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The Fun Is Not Done
Date: Sat, 16 Apr 1994 22:41:35 GMT
Organization: Netsys Inc.

DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:
>>From time to time I get pretty discouraged with this field.  I get 
>depressed and thing that nothing will ever come of it.  Then I get a 
>phone call.  
>called.  Security prevents me from disclosing the name or exact location
>in the **Washington DC** area.  

It was rather amusing to see so many pictures being taken of everyone at
Maui.  Imagine what it will be like for #6 in China!
--------
His system was just roadkill along the information superhighway.
-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Version: 2.3a

mQCNAiz4FWMAAAEEALBCb7HZS7V4gbsp9yJ7Yty49jQ9wcgRhkLjNNgdyJbrJZCq
5/sv4Ljy/4AhVhjlJyZS8L3owS8l0ClZVzWw4/kO3KN7MPz4YPPR7+qIlPQVM0yv
gWpJ43EZZ8b8cvAkE9HATCKWktY2ReRSX5DLnScDH/n5jivw+MD/UO8fURCVAAUR
tCBNYXJrIEhpdHRpbmdlciA8YnVnc0BuZXRzeXMuY29tPg==
=VbKi
-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenbugs cudfnMark cudlnHittinger cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.16 / dave pierson /  Re: Red mercury (was Re: chemical ignition of fusion)
     
Originally-From: pierson@msd26.enet.dec.com (dave pierson)
Newsgroups: rec.pyrotechnics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Red mercury (was Re: chemical ignition of fusion)
Date: Sat, 16 Apr 1994 23:58:33 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation

In article <CoDDI7.67z@ryn.mro.dec.com>, pierson@msd26.enet.dec.com
(dave pierson) writes...
>In article <15APR199422553528@zeus.tamu.edu>, kcm8305@zeus.tamu.edu
(MARSDEN, KENNETH CHARLES) writes...
>>In article <CoBF0p.qA@cnsnews.Colorado.EDU>, thompson@spot.Colorado.ED
 (THOMPSON  BENJAMIN RHINELANDER) writes...
>>>	I saw an article in the newspaper the other day that the Russians
>>>have come up with a "baseball-sized" fusion bomb. Apparently it's a pure
>>>fusion device (no fission core) which relies on a radioactive substance
>>>called "red mercury". I've never heard of this stuff. Can anybody supply
>>>information?
>>> 
>>>	And no, it wasn't the April 1st edition.
>	8 April, Bahstahn Globe, fer one.
	I may be off a week or so.  Try later.  13-14ish

thanks
dave pierson                        |the facts, as accurately as i can manage,
Digital Equipment Corporation       |the opinions, my own.
200 Forest St                       |I am the NRA.
Marlboro, Mass 01752 USA            pierson@msd26.enet.dec.com
"He has read everything, and, to his credit, written nothing."  A J Raffles
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenpierson cudfndave cudlnpierson cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.16 / Robert Heeter /  (Long) Part 0 of Conventional Fusion FAQ - Introduction to the FAQ
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: (Long) Part 0 of Conventional Fusion FAQ - Introduction to the FAQ
Date: Sat, 16 Apr 1994 16:15:46 GMT
Organization: Princeton University


Frequently Asked Questions about Fusion Research 
(with Answers)

Written / Edited by:
Robert F. Heeter
rfheeter@theory.pppl.gov
Graduate Student, Princeton Plasma Physics Lab
* This FAQ is written by me personally and is not to be
considered as an official PPPL document or activity. *

Last Revised: 
April 15, 1994


Legal Stuff:  This is a draft document, not a completed work.  
As such it is an evolving text, and may not be correct or up-to-date.
This document should not be cited or distributed for profit.  
At this time, this document is made available for comments,
corrections, and contributions only.  In no case should my name, 
the revision date, or this paragraph be removed.  
                                             - Robert F. Heeter



*************** Table of Contents **********************

Title Page
Table of Contents

Preface / Current Status
Outline / List of Questions
Revision History

1 - General Questions
2 - Fusion as an Energy Source
3 - History
4 - Methods of Containment / Approaches to Fusion
5 - Status of and Plans for Present Devices
6 - Recent Results
7 - Educational Opportunities
8 - Internet Resources
9 - Future Plans
10 - Glossary of Frequently Used Terms
     10a - Overview
     10b - A-D
     10c - E-J
     10d - K-P
     10e - Q-Z
11 - Annotated Bibliography
12 - Citations and Acknowledgements



*************  Preface to the Conventional Fusion FAQ  ************

*** Goal:
The Conventional Fusion FAQ is 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.

*** Scope:
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).  I have tried to make this
FAQ as uncontroversial as possible, while still covering everything
I felt was important / standard fare on the group.

*** 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) below.  Hopefully it will not be too hard to use.
The FAQ is available as a standalone, self-running Macintosh
program for those who are interested.

*** Status:
We appear to have a pretty good start on the reading list / annotated
bibliography, and the Frequently Used Terms (FUT) glossary is also
in good shape.  Many thanks to those who have helped
out thus far!

Several sections of the FAQ have been drafted, and I'm hoping
to receive more information from people on the net to flesh
these out.  I am in the process of drafting the additional 
sections, but time is scarce due to classes, and I could 
certainly use some help.  If you'd like to submit an
answer to a question in the outline, I'd be happy to edit
it for inclusion!

*** Philosophy:
There are a few basic guidelines I'd like each answer to follow:

1.  Where it would be useful, there can be two answers to every 
question - one for people with little background, and one for 
people with a physics/engineering undergraduate background.
Low-background answers should avoid high-level jargon as much 
as possible.

2.  Please try to be factual and avoid controversial / political
answers. (Let's save that for the discussions!)  

3.  Eventually I'd like it if the FAQ, bibliography, and dictionary
could all cross-reference each other.  With this in mind, it would 
be helpful if you could submit bibliography references and dictionary
entries for the jargon terms used, unless they're already in the
dictionary.
	
4.  Your name and email address will be included with your answer, 
so you will get credit for what you do.

5.  If I have information relevant to a particular question, I 
will be glad to share it with whoever chooses to write the answer.

Thanks for any suggestions / comments / ideas / help 
you can provide!



*************  OUTLINE OF THE CONVENTIONAL-FUSION FAQ   ************ 
(subject to change if desirable)
(Sections 1-4 and 9 have not yet been drafted.)

*** 1. General:
	(a) What is fusion / how does it work?
	(b) What are the different possible fusion reactions?
		(aneutronic fuels?)
	(c) What conditions are needed for controlled fusion?
		(i.e., explain the Lawson criterion)   
	(d) Where does fusion occur in nature?
	(e) What is plasma physics, and how is it related to fusion?
	(g) What is the current state of fusion research? 
		Close / far from achieving practical benefits?
	(h) Who is doing fusion, and where?  (funds distribution?)
	(i) Benefits of developing fusion energy?
	(j) Applications to spaceflight? (Sci-fi?)
	(k) How to spread the word to get more support?
		Is this too political?

*** 2. Fusion as an Energy Source:
 (a) Technical Characteristics
 (b) Economic Characteristics
 (c) Environmental Characteristics
 (d) Safety Characteristics

*** 3. History:
	(a) When did fusion research begin?
	(b) When was fusion research declassified?
	(c) What level of international cooperation is there?
	(d) What is the history of fusion funding (US, FUSSR, EC, Japan)?
	(e) What is the history of achievement of fusion parameters?

*** 4. Methods of Containment / Approaches to fusion:
	(a) What is a tokamak / how does it work?
	(b)   "  "  " mirror  / "   "    "   " ? 
	(c)   "  "  inertial confinement / " " "? 
	(d) What is a stellarator / " " " " ? 
	(e)   "  "  " Plasmak / "   "    "   " ? 
	(f)   "  " electrostatic confinement/ "  "  " ? 
	(g)   "  " reversed-field pinch / " " " " ? 
	(h) Muon-catalyzed fusion
	(h) What are some other confinement approaches? (Migma?)

*** 5. Status of and plans for Present Devices:
 A.  ATF:  (Advanced Toroidal Facility)  
 B.  Alcator C-Mod: 
 C.  ASDEX-U:  (Axially Symmetric Divertor EXperiment-Upgrade) 
 D.  DIII-D:  (Doublet III, D-shape)
 E.  Electrostatic Confinement:
 F.  ITER: (International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor)
 G.  JET: (Joint European Torus)  
 H.  JT-60: (Japan Tokamak (?)) 
 I.  MFTF:  Mirror Fusion Test Facility:  
 J.  Muon-Catalyzed Fusion 
 K.  Nova:
 L.  PLASMAK(tm): 
 M.  PBX-M:  (Princeton Beta Experiment-Modified) (PBX-M)  
 N.  RFX:  (Reversed-Field eXperiment)
 O.  TFTR:  (Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor)  
 P. Tokamak Physics Experiment:  
 Q. Tore Supra:  
 R.  Wendelstein-7AS:  (Advanced Stellarator) 

*** 6. Recent Results
 A.  Recent Results on TFTR:
	 (a) What was done?
	 (b) Why does it matter?
 B.  Recent Results from JET
 C.  Recent Results from Inertial Confinement Fusion
 D.  Recent Results from other areas
 E.  Appendix on TFTR and JET results

*** 7. Educational Issues and Conferences:
 A.  What opportunities are there for interested students?
 B.  I'm an undergraduate interested in becoming a "fusioneer".  
         What should I study?
 C.  What sorts of experiments are there for high-school
         students?  How can I get the equipment?  Has anyone
         else done this?
 D.  What about those summer programs you mentioned above?	
 E.  When/where are the major fusion conferences?

*** 8. Other internet resources:
 A. Newsgroups
 B. FTP Sites
 C. Listservers
 D. Gopher
 E. World-Wide Web
 F. Individuals Willing to Provide Additional Information

*** 9. Future:
	(a) Plans for TPX?
	(b) Plans for ITER?
	(c) Prospects for funding? (US, EC, Japan, FUSSR)
	(d) What problems in designing a fusion powerplant?
		Rad waste, materials choices, device parameters ???
	(e) What are the key research problems/opportunities?

*** 10. Glossary of Frequently Used Terms (FUT)
 A. Introduction to the Glossary / FUT
 B. Glossary terms from A to D
 C. Glossary terms from E to J
 D. Glossary terms from K to P
 E. Glossary terms from Q to Z

*** 11. Bibliography / Reading List
	A. Recent articles in the popular literature.
	B. General References and Histories 
	(suitable for those with minimal background in physics or fusion).
	C. Fusion Research Review Articles & Texts
	D. Plasma Physics - General Texts 
	(focus is on the science of plasmas, rather than engineering 
		of reactors)
	E.  Plasma Physics - Device-Specific
	(applications of plasma physics to specific devices)
	F. Fusion Reactor Engineering References
	G. List of Relevant Scientific Journals
	H. Unclassified / Unsummarized works.  (Please help me move
		references out of this section and into sections 1-4 by
 		contributing reviews of sources you know about!)

*** 12. Acknowledgements and Citations
  (I've had a lot of help, so I needed a separate section to list
   everyone!)



******************** Revision History by Section **********************

*** Document as a Whole:

*	Initial Draft - preliminary outline of topics and structure.
*	to Feb. 26, 1994 - added some proto-answers.
*	to March 6, 1994 - added topics, added proto-answers.* 
* to March 20, 1994 - Reorganized, created standalone Mac document,
  updated various pieces, added a few proto-answers.
* to March 27, 1994 - updates of some sections, new answers, minor
  reorganizations, and revisions to outline.
* to April 6, 1994 - updated glossary, added legal goop at front.
* to April 15, 1994 - inserted section 2 on fusion energy; major
                      revisions to many sections.  First draft
                      of Section 5.

*** Chapters 1-4,9:

*** Chapter 5:

* First Draft, April 15, 1994 - brief summaries of major machines.


*** Chapter 6:

* First Draft, March 27, 1994 - brief answers kludged together 
from earlier postings.


*** Chapter 7:

* First Draft, March 23, 1994 - basic answers
* Second Draft, April 15, 1994 - added list of conferences, 
     more schools.

*** Chapter 8:

* First Draft, March 22, 1994 - basic info, neutrino ftp, people.
* Second Draft, April 15, 1994 - added more info sources.


*** Chapter 10 - Glossary

*	First draft was an accumulation of sources & Jim Day's list.
	
* Second draft, Feb. 12, 1994 - incorporated Herman's glossary,
						added list of undefined terms,
						defined labeling scheme

*	Third draft, Feb. 20, 1994 - incorporated new terms and 
					     corrections to old terms.
						added #, % to structure.
						separated A,B,C,D...

*	Fourth draft, March 6, 1994 - added new terms and corrections.

* Fifth draft, April 15, 1994 - added new terms and corrections;
          subdivided vocabulary into basic and advanced terms.


*** Chapter 11 - Bibliography

*	First draft, Feb. 3, 1994
*	Second draft, Feb. 12,1994 - new references, new structure
* Third draft, Feb. 19, 1994 - new references; incorporated
					corrections & comments since 2nd.
* Fourth draft, March 22, 1994	- added some new references, added  
     section H on additional sources for info.
* Fifth draft, April 10, 1994 - added new references.

***********************************************************************
******
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.16 /  Cactus /  Re: Reuters report on 'red mercury' fusion device
     
Originally-From: Cactus <R-atcher@uchicago.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reuters report on 'red mercury' fusion device
Date: Sat, 16 Apr 1994 23:18:32 GMT
Organization: Univ. of Chicago

Re: Reuters report on 'red mercury' fusion device

I know I saw a show on PBS about two years ago that "chased" some red
mercury around
Russia.  The guys who were dealing it never quite came through with
anything that fit the bill for the material.  My memory is fuzzy on this
but I recall that the only thing that they thought might be going on is
that it was Iraqi enriched uranium or plutonium from their forays into
bomb building.  They concluded that it was a hoax.  The show  may have
been Frontline.

Having a scientist say that isn't a hoax (as one did on British
Television) reminds me of all the scientists who swore that Uri Geller
was really using psychokinesis.

Bob Atcher																									The more precisely it is known, the
less 
Internet: R-atcher@uchicago.edu										information it contains.
AOL: RATCHER
Compuserve: 72114,3345
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenatcher cudlnCactus cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.16 / Jonathan Magid /  Re: ftp site for cold fusion
     
Originally-From: jem@sunSITE.unc.edu (Jonathan Magid)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: ftp site for cold fusion
Date: 16 Apr 1994 23:26:11 GMT
Organization: University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill

In article <4289@grivel.une.edu.au>,
Bernie Groen <bgroen@metz.une.edu.au> wrote:
>I am new to this group and would like to know if there is an FAQ
>and or is there a FTP site or sites with information on theis subject.
>
>

Look in ftp://sunsite.unc.edu/pub/academic/physics/Cold-fusion

jem.

cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenjem cudfnJonathan cudlnMagid cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.16 / Matt Kennel /  Re: Reuters report on 'red mercury' fusion device
     
Originally-From: mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reuters report on 'red mercury' fusion device
Date: 16 Apr 1994 23:46:34 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

Jeremy Whitlock (whitlock@mcmail.cis.mcmaster.ca) wrote:
: In article <pfritsch.766262773@skid.ps.uci.edu> pfritsch@skid.ps.uci.e
u (Paul Fritschle) writes:
: >(Reuters)
: >LONDON-British television researchers said Tuesday that Russian
: >scientists had designed a nuclear bomb the size of a baseball.
: >  The small "clean" neutron bombs purportedly are not made from
: >"dirty" plutonium and so are not covered by non-proliferation
: >treaties.

: I don't know what this is supposed to mean -- all fissile material is
: covered by the NPT.

Real far fetch:

Unless this "red mercury" is some combination of artificial transuranics
that can provide some sort of chain neutron reaction or cascade----without
fission. 

This is the only think where I could imagine "red mercury" being any
particularly innovative thing.

Is this possible?

More likely, a hoax to get money, or a code name for plutonium.

:  --
:  Jeremy Whitlock                           e-mail: whitlock@mcmaster.ca   


--
-Matt Kennel  		mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu
-Institute for Nonlinear Science, University of California, San Diego
-*** AD: Archive for nonlinear dynamics papers & programs: FTP to
-***     lyapunov.ucsd.edu, username "anonymous".
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenmbk cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.16 / Matt Kennel /  Re: Reuters report on 'red mercury' fusion device
     
Originally-From: mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reuters report on 'red mercury' fusion device
Date: 16 Apr 1994 23:48:00 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

Goran Olsson, Plasma Physics, KTH (olsson@plasma.kth.se) wrote:
: In article <1994Apr15.133042.26420@muss.cis.mcmaster.ca>, whitlock@mcm
il.cis.mcmaster.ca (Jeremy Whitlock) writes:
: >In article <pfritsch.766262773@skid.ps.uci.edu> pfritsch@skid.ps.uci.
du (Paul Fritschle) writes:

: >>  The small "clean" neutron bombs purportedly are not made from
: >>"dirty" plutonium and so are not covered by non-proliferation
: >>treaties.
: >
: >I don't know what this is supposed to mean -- all fissile material is
:                                                    ^^^^^^^ 
: >covered by the NPT.

: That's precisely the (purported) point: The alleged neutron bomb
: would be a fusion-only device.

In that case the USSR would have had commercial breakeven ICF
for years.

:         Goran Olsson, Plasma Physics, KTH, Stockholm, Sweden

--
-Matt Kennel  		mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu
-Institute for Nonlinear Science, University of California, San Diego
-*** AD: Archive for nonlinear dynamics papers & programs: FTP to
-***     lyapunov.ucsd.edu, username "anonymous".
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenmbk cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.17 / Richard Blue /  Refutation of Chubb theory
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Refutation of Chubb theory
Date: Sun, 17 Apr 1994 05:45:35 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

While digging through my old files on cold fusion I came across a
copy of the following paper:

"Exact upper bound on barrier penetration probabilities in
many-bady systems:  applications to 'cold fusion'". A. J.
Leggett and G. Baym, Phys. Rev. Let. 63 (1989) 191.

I think the essence of this paper can be summarized by quoting
a passage from the third paragraph.

"In this Letter we obtain an EXACT UPPER LIMIT, within the
framework of nonrelativistic quantum mechanics, on the tunnel-
ing of two deuterons to the origin r = 0 of their relative
coordinate.  This limit is expressed in terms of the energy
E of the many-body state in question and the affinities of
deuterium and helium to the metal; the bound makes no assump-
tions whatever about the nature of any many-body mechanism
involved, nor does it depend on the validity of the Born-
Oppenheimer approximation."

I have substituted caps for italics in the original.  Unless
the very plain English in which Leggett and Baym state
their case misleads me,  I would say that Dr. Chubb and
anyone who would defend the Chubb theory should read this
paper and explain why it does not apply to the Chubb
theory.  Is anyone up to this challange?

Dick Blue         Now coming to you from a new address
                       blue@pilot.msu.edu

cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.17 / Rose Holt /  Re: "Meltdowns" and "Cold Fusion" Magazine
     
Originally-From: rmholt@u.washington.edu (Rose Marie Holt)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: "Meltdowns" and "Cold Fusion" Magazine
Date: 17 Apr 1994 05:54:39 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

>
>"...in late 1993 at about 4 a.m. ... a nickel rod undergoing an excess
>heat production test suddenly elevated in temperature hundreds of degrees
>and destroyed the attached temperature probes.  The nickel sublimed
>partially -- evaporate! ... This apparent "run on" reaction lasted six
>hours, the last few hours of which were spent by Piantelli and others
>trying to quench the reaction ..."
>
>
>Now for a commercial :-)
>
>"Cold Fusion" Magazine is edited by Gene Mallove, and is published by
>Wayne Green.  Mr. Green has started many high quality magazines in the
>past, such as Byte and "73" (a ham radio magazine), and this latest effort
>is no exception.  The first issue is 100 pages long (including the covers)
>and is complete with high quality color photos and graphics as well as
>latebreaking stories.
>
>The price is $98 a year (for the USA) for 12 issues, or $10 per issue.
>($107.86 Canada and $122 all other countries.) Checks, Visa, MC, AMEX.
>
>Phone 1-800-234-8458
>Fax   1-603-924-8613
>
>Wayne Green, Inc.
>"Cold Fusion" Magazine
>70 Route 202 North
>Peterborough, NH, 03458-9872
>
>


Yeah, I agree, it is definitely worth the $10!  I laughed so hard, I spit 
all over my issue of JIR!

It is also guaranteed 100% fact-free and loaded with enough conspiracy
related stuff to keep anyone happy.  The next Oliver Stone movie will
use this rag for basic research.

Oh, BTW, I know I am nowhere near the scientist that Arthur C Clarke is
but I just dont buy the cold fusion stuff.  Even after reading
"Cold Fusion".
_____________________________________________________________________________

Rose Marie Holt, the most unreasonable person you ever met
rmholt@u.washington.edu            "...trust me, I AM capable of evil"
Will Read Xrays For Food                               -- Dave Barry      
_____________________________________________________________________________
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenrmholt cudfnRose cudlnHolt cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.16 / Robert Heeter /  Part 12 of Conventional Fusion FAQ - Acknowledgements
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Part 12 of Conventional Fusion FAQ - Acknowledgements
Date: Sat, 16 Apr 1994 16:15:54 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

12.  Citations and Acknowledgements

Section-by-Section:

*** Chapter 5 - Status of Current Fusion Devices

* Art Carlson, awc@ipp-garching.mpg.de - info on various machines.
* Albert Chou, albert@seas.ucla.edu - info on LLNL machines.
* Emilio Martines, martines@pdigi3.igi.pd.cnr.it - info on RFX.
* Stephen Cooper - JET info.


*** Chapter 6 - Recent Results

* Thanks to the TFTR and JET teams for giving us results to discuss!

* Particular thanks to Stephen Cooper at JET, who posted in Dec. 1993
  on the state of JET research, which I quoted extensively.


*** Chapter 7 - Educational Opportunities

* Geoff Maddison (geoff.maddison@aea.orgn.uk) and 
  Diane Carroll (via nuf@pppl.gov) - for providing 
  information on summer programs.

* Art Carlson - list of major upcoming conferences and plasma
schools in various countries.

* Jim Day, jim.day@support.com - for suggesting high-school 
  experiments be included.

* Thanks to the many students who have sent me email with questions!


*** Chapter 8 - Internet Resources

* Dieter Britz, BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk - I used his information on
retrieving files from the vm1.nodak.edu ftp/listserv site.

* Bijal Modi - set up the neutrino.berkeley.edu ftp site.

* Art Carlson - info on Garching Gopher site.

* Joe Chew - for making himself available to provide info.


*** Chapter 10 - Glossary - Acknowledgements:

! Jake Blanchard, blanchard@engr.wisc.edu - suggested we have a 
list of acronyms too.

! Arthur Carlson, awc@ipp-garching.mpg.de - supplied additional 
definitions, made corrections / amplifications / revisions to
earlier definitions.

! Albert Chou, albert@seas.ucla.edu - supplied additional 
definitions, made corrections / amplifications / revisions to 
earlier definitions.

  Jim Day, jim.day@support.com - initial list of terms, additional
definitions, modifications to earlier definitions.

  Robin Herman, _Fusion: Search for Endless Energy_; I borrowed a 
lot of terms from her glossary.  Cited as (from Herman).

! Paul M. Koloc, pmk@prometheus.UUCP - quality control

! Emilio Martines, martines@pdigi3.igi.pd.cnr.it - quality control,
reversed-field entries & information.

Princeton Plasma Physics Lab, Glossary of Fusion Terms - list of
terms prepared by PPPL staff at some point.  Consulted in many
cases, blatantly paraphrased in some, quoted and cited in others.

Mike Ross, mikeross@almaden.ibm.com - additional Livermore info
and corrections to some entries.

Richard Schroeppel, rcs@cs.arizona.edu - suggestions/corrections to
many definitions.

!? Mitchell Swarz, mica@world.std.com - supplied additional 
definitions / corrections and revisions to existing definitions.


*** Chapter 11 - Bibliography

* Acknowledgements are included with each reference listed.
     
* Additional thanks to Jim Day, jim.day@support.com, who gave
     me the initial list of references, from which this grew.


*** Additional Acknowledgements:

I owe a special thank-you to Rush Holt at PPPL, who has been 
a mentor, answered zillions of questions, provided innumerable
references, and generally helped me acquire the background and 
tools to put this together.


******************************************************
Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@theory.pppl.gov
Graduate Student, Princeton Plasma Physics Lab
Usual Disclaimers Apply
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Sun Apr 17 04:37:07 EDT 1994
------------------------------
1994.04.16 / Robert Heeter /  Re: Scandal at Princeton -- TFTR
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Originally-From: John M. Logajan, 74242.1554@compuserve.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Scandal at Princeton -- TFTR
Subject: Re: Scandal at Princeton -- TFTR
Date: Sat, 16 Apr 1994 04:29:51 GMT
Date: Sat, 16 Apr 1994 00:13:57 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

Subject: Re: Scandal at Princeton -- TFTR
Originally-From: John M. Logajan, 74242.1554@compuserve.com
Date: Sat, 16 Apr 1994 00:13:57 GMT
In article <940415183341_74242.1554_BHR34-1@CompuServe.COM> John M.
Logajan, 74242.1554@compuserve.com writes:
>      Excerpts from Dr. Bogdan C. Maglich's written testimony before the
U.S.
>      House Subcommittee on Energy and Water, April 12, 1994.
>
>      Dr. Maglich is chief scientist at the Advanced Physics
Corporation.  
>      Maglich is famous for his "migma" hot fusion concept and his long
time 
>      battlings with the mainline hot fusion establishment.

Let's keep in mind that Dr. Maglich does have an axe to grind.

I'm sure there's an official PPPL response to Dr. Maglich's testimony,
and I will try to find out what people here think of his claims.

In the meantime, not knowing as much as I'd like about the situation,
I still feel like making a few comments.

Let me make it clear at the beginning that I'm prepared to agree with
Dr. Maglich's conclusions if the evidence is there, and I'm not simply
trying to knee-jerk against his arguments.  

>"The claim of thermonuclear fusion power production in Princeton Tokamak
>(TFTR) is being questioned by the scientific community.  Four months
after the
>press announcement, no paper has been published in any scientific
journal."

My understanding is that papers have been submitted; there are certainly
some PPPL reports already.  There are a number of reasons why a paper
might 
not be published immediately.  The fact that no paper has been published
yet is not *necessarily* evidence that the claim is being questioned
by "the scientific community" (who else besides Dr. Maglich is there).

In particular, the lack of publication in _Nature_, _Science_, or _Physics
Review Letters_ (the major high-speed science news journals) could be
because these publications have policies against publishing "old news";
the TFTR results were initially publicized in the popular press and not 
in the scientific press.  Publishing in any other journal would take 
a bit more time.  There are a number of conceivable reasons why
publication
might not have taken place, and I'd like to see more evidence that
"questioning by the scientific community" is the reason.

>On December 10, 1993, Princeton University announced to the press that
their
>measurements of the "neutron power" coming out of TFTR indicates "world
record"
>power production in thermonuclear fusion.

Actually, Princeton *invited* the press to see the very first high-power
D-T
shots; in this respect it is more like scientists inviting the press to
see (for instance) the Trinity test, or the first Space Shuttle launch,
than announcing a new scientific result.  TFTR was demonstrating a
technology,
not making a bold scientific claim. 
>
>In 1989, when "cold fusion" was announced in a press release prior to its
>publication in a scientific journal, the Princeton Tokamak Lab
scientists and
>directors denounced the press-before-scientific publishing as "scientific
>misconduct."  The cold fusion paper was published in J. Electroanalytical
>Chemistry, a month after the press release.

There is a distinct difference in character between the P&F *announcement*
and the TFTR *demonstration*.  In particular, if TFTR had *not* worked 
successfully, PPPL would have had to eat crow.  Furthermore, P&F had 
submitted their paper for publication *before* making the announcement,
right?

The difficulty is that the P&F CF claim was a scientific claim, whereas
TFTR is part of a national energy technology development program.  I'm not
saying there's no science in it, but it's just not the same thing.

>Princeton's claimed fusion power production data have not been published
to
>date, four months after the press release.  Why?  Is there a double
standard?

Apples and oranges should, when necessary, be judged differently.  The
TFTR
demonstration is not sufficiently similar to the P&F announcement that
the double-standard argument really applies.  (This was discussed here
back
in December-January)
>
>LACK OF NEUTRON ENERGY MEASUREMENTS INVALIDATES CLAIM THAT THERMONUCLEAR
FUSION
>POWER WAS PRODUCED IN PRINCETON TOKAMAK.
>
>The instrument used in the much-heralded experiment at Princeton was
unable to
>measure neutron energy (technically called the "neutron energy
specrum"); it
>could only measure the number of neutrons (technically called the
"neutron
>flux").  That is, TFTR used an old-fashioned neutron counter, rather
than a
>neutron energy counter.  It is incomprehensible why a $100,000 "neutron
energy
>spectrometer" was not bought and used for this $3-billion machine.

I believe the $3 billion claim is somewhat misleading.  The machine itself
certainly did not cost $3 billion.  For that matter, I don't even think
the
machine + the operations and maintenance of the machine for 13 years adds
up to $3 billion.  TFTR currently receives $75 million each year for
operations;
I don't believe construction costs were $2 billion.  (Please correct me
if I'm
wrong here.)

I'll discuss the neutron detectors below.

>Without neutron energy measurements it is impossible to say where and
how the 
>neutrons emerging from the Tokamak were produced inside the Tokamak. 
There
>are three false sources of fusion neutrons.
>
>1. Injected beam of deuterium and tritium hits the walls of Tokamak
chamber
>   which are lined with deposited deuterium and tritium.
>2. Injected beam hits plasma, and fusion takes place.
>3. Injected beam hits injected beam, and fusion takes place.

>They compete with true thermonuclear fusion and are usually dominant. 
The 
>only true thermonuclear fusion is the collision of plasma with plasma. 
The 
>neutron energy is different for each of the four cases.

Why would the energy of the neutron be different depending on what the
origin of the reaction is?  Someone help me out here.  I don't see why
you need a neutron energy spectrometer when all D-T reactions give
14.7 MeV neutrons.  Presumably you could get a doppler shift of some
kind depending on the initial particle energies, but I don't know if
this sort of effect *could* be observed.  Presumably Dr. Maglich thinks
it can, but I'd like to hear more on this from people who know neutrons
better.
(Prof. Jones?)

I don't understand why TFTR didn't have state-of-the-art neutron detectors
either, but if I had to make a guess off the top of my head, I'd say they
were probably cut from the budget at some point during the 1980s, when
fusion funding was cut by something like 60% (in constant dollars).
There are tradeoffs involved and it's possible that, in a device devoted
to understanding plasma confinement, a different diagnostic (say an
improved
plasma density measuring experiment) was perceived to be more valuable.
I'm just speculating here.  In any case, TFTR will run for 5 more months,
so if Dr. Maglich's criticism is valid, it should be possible to obtain
neutron-measuring equipment to check the energy spectrum.

Note that the beam-beam and beam-plasma reactions are fairly
well-understood,
and I think Dr. Maglich is only taking exception to the fact that
beam-wall
reactions were not ruled out.
>
>The claimed thermonuclear fusion power production of 6 megawatt was
inferred
>from the prediction which cannot be verified by data and which a
theoretical
>calculation (sic) that ignored the ZETA effect (#1).

I was under the impression that TFTR was only claiming total fusion power,
not necessarily "thermonuclear" (i.e., not due to non-thermal
beam-particle
reactions).  Maglich seems to be creating a straw man which he can then
rip to pieces in front of Congress...  (I'm speculating, be nice to me.)

>To state that one can determine the exiting neutrons originated from the
>plasma-plasma collisions, without measuring the neutron energy spectrum,
is
>like stating that by simply measuring the amount of smoke coming out of
a 
>stack, without chemical analysis of the smoke, one can conclude that the
flame
>was fed simultaneously by 4 fuels -- (1) coal, (2) kerosene, (3) wood,
and
>(4) aluminum -- and that most of the smoke came from the aluminum.

I think the claimed TFTR results are *not* that the smoke is only from the
aluminum, as Maglich argues, but rather that they come from the
combination
of beam-beam, beam-plasma, and plasma-thermonuclear reactions.  I do
believe
they can rule out beam-wall reactions.
>
>All the neutrons coming out of the December 9-10, 1993 Tokamak
experiment can
>be accounted for solely by the false mechanisms.  A paper will be
presented
>at the Spring Meeting of the American Physical Society ... April 1994. 
It
>states that the DOE's claim of fusion energy production cannot be proven
and
>is most likely based upon false neutrons.  The TFTR data are compatible
with
>zero thermonuclear fusion power production.

I tend to disagree here.  You know what the plasma temperature is, you
know
what the density is, and therefore you know whether fusion reactions
should
occur or not.  While some of the fusion energy may be from beam-beam and
beam-plasma interactions, I'd say fusion energy is fusion energy,
regardless
of where it comes from.  I think you can rule out beam-wall reactions
as a major source of fusion energy, because if energetic beam particles
were
pounding the walls, (a) most of the particles would bounce around without
creating fusion, and therefore you couldn't get a power out/power in of
0.2,
and (b) the beams would sputter a huge number of wall atoms into the
plasma,
causing lots of (very observable) impurities.  If this occurred, I think
we'd hear about it.

>HISTORY OF SENSATIONAL BRITISH "FUSION POWER PRODUCTION" ANNOUNCEMENT OF
THE
>1950'S MAY BE REPEATING ITSELF.
>
>In the 1950's, physicists from Harwell announce that, on the basis of
the large
>number of neutrons emerging from their ZETA fusion machine, they had
achieved
>controlled thermonuclear fusion.  Like in the TFTR, during the transient
state
>(non-thermal-equilibirium regime), they measured all the neutrons coming
out of
>the device without analysis of the neutron spectra.  As it turned out
later,
>most or all the neutrons were produced in the collisions between the
>accelerated ions and ions implanted on the internal surfaces of the
containment
>vessel.

Right, and PPPL researchers are so ignorant as to repeat the oldest
mistake
in the book.  (Sorry; I'm starting to become deeply annoyed.)
>
>In December 1993, TFTR measured the number of all neutrons during the
transient
>state coming from TFTR, indiscriminately, without a neutron spectral
analysis,
>and without the neutron tagging directional measurements.  The origin of
these
>neutrons was inferred only by theory.  The theory has not included the
ZETA
>effect: the neutrons produced in the beam collisions with the ions (D+T)
>implanted on the inside surface of the torus, although it is well-known
that
>the Tokamak walls are lined with these ions.  Exclusion of this common
neutron
>production mechanism is not explained.  Nor was the exclusion of the
neutron
>energy measurement instrument, although TFTR directors are fully aware
that 
>true fusion cannot be proven without it.

Now, the fusion power output was not measured in a "transient state"; it
was measured over a whole second.  I've seen the plot, and there's enough
noise in it for me to believe it *wasn't* a theoretical curve.  The ZETA
machine *was* transient - shots probably lasted only microseconds - and
thermal equilibrium was not achieved.  TFTR does come to a reasonable
equilibrium; a second is a *long* time in plasma dynamics.

It's not as thought TFTR hasn't been running in D-D plasmas for ten years,
with measureable amounts of D-D fusion neutrons (and D-T fusion neutrons
from
the D+D => T+p reaction, followed by a D-T reaction).  I'm a little
suspicious
that Dr. Maglich has taken to criticizing TFTR's neutron diagnostics now,
at the end of the reactor's life, when the future of the fusion program is
on the line.  If he were scientifically motivated, why did he not bring
these criticisms up earlier?

For that matter, why is it only now that he claims scientists are
skeptical
of the TFTR measurements?  It's not like beam-plasma reactions are a new
phenomenon.

>Under the influence of Princeton University's Washington Office, the
Office of
>Fusion Energy of DOE has been lax in scrutinizing the scientific claims
of the
>TFTR.

I think here we get a glimpse of the axe being ground...

Either that, or the claims didn't need that much scrutinizing.  We'll see.
>
>Congress should require the DOE to screen the scientific basis of claims
made
>in fusion research.  As a minimum, the results should be published in 
>refereed scientific journals before the DOE presents them to Congress.

Again, this comes down to whether you think the TFTR demonstration was a
purely scientific experiment, and not a demonstration of a fairly
well-understood technology.  If they change the fuel on the space shuttle,
so that they no longer need the booster rockets, and then they launch it,
and it works, should they wait weeks, possibly months, for a peer-reviewed
scientific publication before informing Congress that the shuttle now
works better than ever?  Isn't a large, publicly funded project justified
in demonstrating to the public the fruits of their research, in helping
to teach Americans what their science-research money is going towards,
and in helping to push science out of the academic closet and back into
the public imagination?

I'm sure this is going to get a lot of "air time" here on the net;
just providing an alternative perspective.  I respect Dr. Maglich's work
on Migma, and would prefer to see more funding for alternative fusion
concepts to (hopefully) reduce the sort of political infighting that
seems to be occurring here.  The opinions I've expressed here are not
set in stone; I don't yet have all the information I need to come to
a final judgment on the implications of Dr. Maglich's criticism.

************************************
Robert F. Heeter, putting on his heat shielding
rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
First-Year Graduate Student, Plasma Physics
Princeton University / Princeton Plasma Physics Lab
* All of the above are merely my personal thoughts, and should
not be construed as an official reaction from PPPL. *
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.17 / Paul Koloc /  Re: A new fusion trigger?
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A new fusion trigger?
Date: Sun, 17 Apr 1994 05:59:42 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <Co5EB3.ADI@lincoln.gpsemi.com> pgm@bamboo.swindon.gpsemi.com
(Patrick McTiernan x8738) writes:
>I hope that there are some readers of this newsgroup who have some access 
>to and knowledge of the literature and recent work in fusion, since I have 
> an idea which may be of some practical importance.

>Fusion of deuterium requires high temperatures and pressures for a long enough
>period for the relevant nuclear reactions to take place.

> .. . .   . If a wire, this must be one of the materials which absorbs
>hydrogen well; and if so, it must be saturated with deuterium. This wire should
>then have the contents of a large charged capacitor discharged through it (the
>spark chambers). It will turn into a plasma (try watching a light-bulb blow up
>sometimes) and, I should add, this effect tends to be SELF-SUSTAINING and
>SELF-PROPAGATING!! The reasons for this are basically to do with the magnetic
>field generated by the increasing current.. but the reason needn't concern us
>here. The point is, without a fuse to limit the current, the temperature of the
>plasma generated (and the pressures generated within it) are controllable by 
>the geometry of the wire/tube and the capacitance/inductance/resistance of 
>the system supplying the power. An impressed axial magnetic field may be 
>useful, too, but I suspect that self-magnetism may be almost as effective 
>and easier to model. I leave this to those with greater experience.

>I would be surprised if there are not readers of this category who can 
>verify whether my idea is just a hopeful dream, or a practical suggestion
>...

The difficulty is that metal is resistive and will limit the current
and power input.  The magnetic pinching does the same once the plasma
forms, so the energy that can be crammed in is limited.  The problem is
the metal matrix element/s have high atomic number "Z", and lots of 
radiating electrons, which convert the input electrical power to
cooling radiation (Bremsstrahlung) very efficiently.  Consequently,
the temperature doesn't get high enough.  Further the current limitations
by the impedence (resistive and magnetic -- including pinching) clamp
the pressurization of the plasma which otherwise would compression 
heat to a considerable level.  An additional problem relates to 
kink instability, which initiates the kinking (helical coiling) of
the channel, and that basically will disrupt the plasma channel.  So
the time period of confinement is not sufficient either.  All in all
this approach is a tough haul, although it's better by far than the
tokamak per buck.  

Pinching as it turns out has its good and bad points. 
But keep thinking... do 10,000 ideas because there's bound to be a 
dozen good ideas in there some place.. .  .or so my batting average goes.  
 
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc,Bx 1037, Prometheus II, Ltd., College Park, MD 20741-1037 |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.17 / Paul Koloc /  Re: cost
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: cost
Date: Sun, 17 Apr 1994 06:14:01 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <Co4Izq.EHy@cpsc.ucalgary.ca> michaelf@cpsc.ucalgary.ca
(Michael Fullerton) writes:
>In article <2oc7pi$t1l@daisy.pgh.wec.com> zcrah@trumpet.pgh.wec.com
(Andy Holland) writes:
>>In article   writes:
>>>fheeter.remote.princeton.edu!rfheeter
>>>From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
>>>! Fusion has Environmental, Political, and 
>>>	Safety Advantages over Fossil and
>>> 	Fission Energy.
>>Agree on most of the above, but what about *cost*,
>>(ie. capitalization, construction, fuel, O&M, Cost risk
>>of accidents etc)?

>My question is why are people still wasting money on this silly
>concept of hot fusion when it is obvious that the "cold fusion"
>technology is much more economically viable?  Let's face it,
>hot fusion is a dinosaur on the precipice of extinction.  Good
>riddance I say.  Then again, even though it seems hot fusion
>will not be of any use for power generation is there anything
>this technology could be used for?  I certainly don't like the
>thought that all this money was wasted for nothing.

Well we have a couple of dinosaurs, but they are evolving so 
hope is well on the way.  In the meantime, "The Tokamaks" in
various countries will make grand museum pieces, They are an
enigmas of physics marvel and engineering shame.  That
these things were built and offered as fusion candidates will be
something our future generations of engineers will be absolutely
amazed by and like the holocaust, celebrate as something NOT to 
be repeated.  

>Michael Fullerton          
                      " Now, which end of the
                         lever and fulcrum
                       makes it easy to move
                            a boulder?? ",
                      asked the DoE official 
                         holding the short 
                          end of the rod.
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc,Bx 1037, Prometheus II, Ltd., College Park, MD 20741-1037 |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.18 / John Logajan /  Re: "Cold Fusion" Magazine
     
Originally-From: 74242.1554@compuserve.com (John M. Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: "Cold Fusion" Magazine
Date: Mon, 18 Apr 1994 00:18:36 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

rmholt@u.washington.edu (Rose Marie Holt) writes:
>Yeah, I agree, it ["Cold Fusion" Magazine] is definitely worth the $10! 
>I laughed so hard, I spit all over my issue of JIR!

Unfortunately due to the general nature of the subject (fusion/physics)
the subscription base as well as the advertizing base is necessarily
limited.  A "Hot Fusion" Magazine would probably cost even more per issue.

Still, "Cold Fusion" Magazine, at $98 per 12 issues (US), is the least
expensive published periodical on the subject.

I'd describe it as a cross between Scientific American and Stereo Review.
You get news, theory, gadgets and opinions.

By the way, I've only seen the e-mailed mini-JIR (Journal of
Irreproducible Results) but it was nothing more than a scientized version
of the old Liar's Club (complete with contests for who can tell the
biggest whopper, etc.)  Amusing for the first story or two, but then
interest wanes quickly.  So perhaps you were right to spit on it.
 
>It is also guaranteed 100% fact-free and loaded with enough conspiracy
>related stuff to keep anyone happy.  The next Oliver Stone movie will
>use this rag for basic research. 

"Cold Fusion" Magazine surely has a pro-"anomalous energy" bias, but to
say that the magazine is devoid of significant fact is more than a wee bit
hysterical, me thinks.

>Oh, BTW, I know I am nowhere near the scientist that Arthur C Clarke is
>but I just dont buy the cold fusion stuff.  Even after reading
>"Cold Fusion".

I don't yet "buy the cold fusion stuff" either.  But since the Holy Grail
of science is "reproducibility", and since this magazine will likely be
the inclusive outlet for reproduction claims, my interest in the subject
is served by being a subscriber.

If I ever become interested in telling BIG lies, however, I will become a
congressional liaison for the mainline hot fusion establishment. :-)


cudkeys:
cuddy18 cuden1554 cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.18 /  vnoninski@fscv /  Re: Leggett and Baym
     
Originally-From: vnoninski@fscvax.fsc.mass.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Leggett and Baym
Date: Mon, 18 Apr 1994 00:18:57 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Dear Colleagues,

In a recent posting Richard Blue referred to the paper from A. J. Leggett and  
G. Baym (Phys.Rev.Lett, 63, 191 (1989)). In connectin with this he may wish to 
note the paper of Michael Danos (Fusion Technology, 17, 484 (1990)). A short 
quote from the latter paper follows:

"In summary, we have indicated that a mechanism exists that has the potential 
of leading to a dramatic enhancement of the penetrability through the 
coulomb barrier, thus allowing for a substantially increased fusion rate. 
In this way, the factors that limit the rate in this mechanism turn out to lie 
not in the coulomb barrier but in other aspects of the quantum character of 
the system, in particular in the details of the density matrix describing the 
system and in geometric corelations of the participating nuclei. An exact 
evaluation of these effects would require the knowledge of very subtle 
characteristics of solids."

One conclusion that one can draw from such papers is that the decision for the 
reality of 'cold fusion' cannot come on theoretical grounds. Only experimental 
evidence can prove whether this phenomenon is real or not.

Truly yours,


Vesselin Noninski

cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenvnoninski cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.17 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Scandal at Princeton -- TFTR
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Scandal at Princeton -- TFTR
Date: Sun, 17 Apr 1994 23:15:21 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1994Apr16.042951.3508@princeton.edu>,
Robert F. Heeter  <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> wrote:

>There is a distinct difference in character between the P&F *announcement*
>and the TFTR *demonstration*.  In particular, if TFTR had *not* worked 
>successfully, PPPL would have had to eat crow.  Furthermore, P&F had 
>submitted their paper for publication *before* making the announcement,
>right?
>
>The difficulty is that the P&F CF claim was a scientific claim, whereas
>TFTR is part of a national energy technology development program.  I'm not
>saying there's no science in it, but it's just not the same thing.

      Okay, if we buy that logic (though a bit self-serving and
      specious in my view, but no matter), I sure hope that no one 
      tries to report that TFTR shot in an archival *science* journal.

      I'm sure that you'd then agree with me that that would be
      quite hypocritical.

                            dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.17 / Anthony Kimball /  Re: Red mercury (was Re: chemical ignition of fusion)
     
Originally-From: alk@et.msc.edu (Anthony L. Kimball)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Red mercury (was Re: chemical ignition of fusion)
Date: 17 Apr 1994 22:41:53 GMT
Organization: 

  Newsgroups: rec.pyrotechnics
  From: david@reidd.demon.co.uk (david reid)
  Subject: red mercury
  Date: Sat, 16 Apr 1994 19:03:56 GMT

    C4 showed a program on Red Mercury here in the UK last week. It
  described the substance as being Hg2Sb2O7, irradiated to form a  liquid of
  density 20.20, melting pt -37.87C, boiling pt 350C, flash pt 170C. When
  detonated, it supposedly has a power rating 300 x that of normal HE,
  enabling small fision bombs to be constructed.
       The contention of the investigators was that that the Russians have
  it, it's for sale, and the West denies it's existence.   

I assume he meant to say fusion.
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenalk cudfnAnthony cudlnKimball cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.18 /  BIGRAVES@ecuvm /       Neutron bomb
     
Originally-From: BIGRAVES@ecuvm.cis.ecu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:      Neutron bomb
Date: Mon, 18 Apr 1994 03:50:47 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I have a question or two concerning the reports of a mini neutron bomb (as
show-cased on a British documentary last wednesday).  It uses a mystery known
as Red Mercury.  What is Red Mercury?  Is it possible that this technology
exists? The US and Russians say the story is false, but Russian physicists
claim it is true and that it may be made available to non-nuclear states.  I
could use some info on this story if you have it.  My ROTC class is
interested in the dangerous terrorist implications involved.

                                  please write to bigraves@ecuvm.cis.ecu.edu

                                  Brad G.

cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenBIGRAVES cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Mon Apr 18 04:37:03 EDT 1994
------------------------------
1994.04.18 / Robert Heeter /  Re: Scandal at Princeton -- TFTR
     
Originally-From: rfheeter@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Robert Franklin Heeter)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Scandal at Princeton -- TFTR
Date: Mon, 18 Apr 1994 00:44:54 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

In article <CoFF9L.BFB@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> crb7q@watt.seas.Virgini
.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>In article <1994Apr16.042951.3508@princeton.edu>,
>Robert F. Heeter  <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> wrote:
>
>>There is a distinct difference in character between the P&F *announcement*
>>and the TFTR *demonstration*.  In particular, if TFTR had *not* worked 
>>successfully, PPPL would have had to eat crow.  Furthermore, P&F had 
>>submitted their paper for publication *before* making the announcement,
>>right?
>>
>>The difficulty is that the P&F CF claim was a scientific claim, whereas
>>TFTR is part of a national energy technology development program.  I'm not
>>saying there's no science in it, but it's just not the same thing.
>
>      Okay, if we buy that logic (though a bit self-serving and
>      specious in my view, but no matter), I sure hope that no one 
>      tries to report that TFTR shot in an archival *science* journal.
>
>      I'm sure that you'd then agree with me that that would be
>      quite hypocritical.

If the TFTR shot goes into a science journal, it will not be as a
brand-new, completely-unexpected discovery.  It will be as a small
part of a large dataset.  Again, the TFTR shot was news in the
sense that the first shuttle launch was news, not in the sense that
mysteriously observing excess heat in an electrolysis experiment
is news.  That was the point.  I don't think I'm being hypocritical,
and I'd appreciate it if you'd make it clearer to me why you think I
am.  The impression I get is that you didn't understand the logic
the way I meant it to be understood.  (Most likely this is because
I was tired when I wrote my reply and probably wasn't very clear.)

If someone working on a small experiment at PPPL were to 
publicly announce that they had found a completely new method
for confining a plasma, and that they had just achieved 
scientific breakeven with the new method, that would be a
situation much more comparable to the P&F announcement, and I
would agree that PPPL was being hypocritical.  But I think such
a situation is quite different from the TFTR demonstration.

I would also like to point out (to those criticizing PPPL for not 
releasing the scientific results) that the TFTR results *were* brought
before the scientific community, in early March, when a conference
on D-T fusion experiments was held here at PPPL.  (This was the
same week that Secretary of Energy Hazel O'Leary came to visit.)
The scientific papers have been written, and are in the process
of being reviewed for publication.  I understand it takes 
six months even for a Phys Rev Letter to be published, except
for exceptional circumstances.  The fact that TFTR was well
publicized without a PRL, and that it was not an unexpected 
result, meant that the circumstances didn't warrant a rapid
article.  (IMHO)

I just don't think that an argument that PPPL was engaging in
science-by-press-release hypocritically after criticizing
Pons & Fleischmann for similar behavior is fair or justified.
I also think Maglich was being misleading in arguning that PPPL
has been slow to publish the TFTR results compared to P&F.

I am still trying to gain info about the TFTR neutron measurements,
and hope to have a better response to Maglich's criticism soon.

*********************
Robert F. Heeter
rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Not representing PPPL, just providing my own opinion.


cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.18 / L Plutonium /  Re: Fusion is the B, and Superconductivity is the E
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.math,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.chem,alt.sci.physics.plutonium
Subject: Re: Fusion is the B, and Superconductivity is the E
Date: 18 Apr 1994 03:37:27 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In article <A9D2C968@fbpmac.msfc.nasa.gov>
bo_parker@fbpmac.msfc.nasa.gov writes:
> Um, hasn't this been tried?

  No it has not been tried. I am the first to claim that 

      Particle is dual conjugate variable with Wave, hence
      StrongNuclear is dual conjugate variable with Gravity
      Radioactivities is dual conjugate variable with Electromagnetism.

  I am the first because Weinberg, Glashow, and Salam were given a
Nobel prize for Fakery of unifying the WeakNuclear to Electromagnetism.
My theory is counter to their unification because my theory disallows
unification. My theory implies that unifying WeakNuclear to
Electromagnetism is as silly as thinking that Particle can be unified
with Wave. These things are never unifiable, rather they are quantum
pairs, quantum compliments just as particle compliments wave. 
  So then in any analysis of the Sun, a physicist must look at only
StrongNuclear and Gravity in any one set of measurements. A physicist
can not mix and combine all four forces. A physicist if he is utilizing
Electromagnetism in Sun measurements, then he must use also
Radioactivities,and stick to those two only. And he must leave out and
exclude StrongNuclear or Gravity from calculation or consideration.
Just as a good quantum physicist knows that any particular quantum
experiment is designed to measure either the wave property or particle
property but not both simultaneously. My scheme suggests the double
slit analysis on all physics phenomenon under investigation. This is
new to the art of physics.
  In the case of the Sun as a Superconductor with the planets as
Meissner bodies, a physicist will then take Radioactivities compliment
Electromagnetism and exclude all StrongNuclear and Gravity from
consideration. Hence the Sun in this view is a Superconductor with the
planets as electromagnetic magnets. Then one can calculate the orbits
of the planets around the Sun plus the planets magnetic fields and as
according to Electromagnetism all the numbers should agree with known
planetary motion. Plus the missing 2/3 neutrino count would be
reconciled also. Plus the anomalies of Mercury's massive iron core and
magnetic field will accord with theory. But most important of all, the
standard physics before these teachings would have the 9 planets
already-have-fallen-into-the-Sun by the 5 billion year planetary loss
of energy. Most standard texts in astronomy and physics do not like to
bring up the fact that the standard model of planetary motion would
have the 9 planets already disappeared by the continuous loss of energy
by planets circular motion, but since the 9 planets have not
disappeared yet noone raises their hand and says "Hey, current theory
does not agree with current fact." 
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.18 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Scandal at Princeton -- TFTR
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Scandal at Princeton -- TFTR
Date: Mon, 18 Apr 1994 06:29:09 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <1994Apr16.042951.3508@Princeton.EDU> Robert F. Heeter
<rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> writes:
>by "the scientific community" (who else besides Dr. Maglich is there).

>Why would the energy of the neutron be different depending on what the
>origin of the reaction is?  Someone help me out here.  I don't see why
>you need a neutron energy spectrometer when all D-T reactions give
>14.7 MeV neutrons. 

They don't.  Neutrons which are knocked away from nucleons can be 
energetic but not nearly so energetic as the thermal plasma d-t fusions.  
The thermal plasma will not generate such stray neutrons since its 
energy is randomized at lower values.  Further the direction and 
momentum of the neutrons speak of their origin.  Neutrons in the plasma
interation will have negligible net momentum.  

>Presumably you could get a doppler shift of some
>kind depending on the initial particle energies, but I don't know if
>this sort of effect *could* be observed.  Presumably Dr. Maglich thinks
>it can, but I'd like to hear more on this from people who know neutrons
>better.
>(Prof. Jones?)

Basically, neutrons that whack protium head on will transfer momentum 
nicely, so that such protium can be tracked and measured quite easily,
therefore revealing its initiators data. 

>Note that the beam-beam and beam-plasma reactions are fairly 
>well-understood, and I think Dr. Maglich is only taking exception 
>to the fact that beam-wall reactions were not ruled out.  

Understood??   in a "fueled moderately cooking plasma??  with 
twisted fields joistled by sawing currents.  

>>     [Maglich] ...    The TFTR data are compatible
>>with zero thermonuclear fusion power production.

>I tend to disagree here.  You know what the plasma temperature is, you
>know what the density is, and therefore you know whether fusion reactions
>should occur or not.  While some of the fusion energy may be from 
>beam-beam and beam-plasma interactions, I'd say fusion energy is fusion 
>energy, regardless of where it comes from.  I think you can rule out 
>beam-wall reactions as a major source of fusion energy, because if 
>energetic beam particles were pounding the walls, 
>   (a) most of the particles would bounce around without creating 
>       fusion, and therefore you couldn't get a power out/power in 
>       of 0.2, and 
>   (b) the beams would sputter a huge number of wall atoms into the
>       plasma, causing lots of (very observable) impurities.  If 
>       this occurred, I think we'd hear about it.

Well, Where?  do you think the hot neutrons go??  and What do they 
do.   That fact that they didn't produce such "wall problem effects" is
a good sign they were not present in significant numbers.  That means
that the alledged fusion Break may not have happened!!  ...Well
just turning your argument, but it has a valid consideration.      

>Now, the fusion power output was not measured in a "transient state"; it
>was measured over a whole second.  I've seen the plot, and there's enough
>noise in it for me to believe it *wasn't* a theoretical curve.  The ZETA
>machine *was* transient - shots probably lasted only microseconds - and
>thermal equilibrium was not achieved.  TFTR does come to a reasonable
>equilibrium; a second is a *long* time in plasma dynamics.

Not for a really really hugely large inductance (toroidal plasma
donut of TFTR size.  It is long for a plasma ring in a conducting shell
the size of a chicken egg... yes;  but tokamak ... second??? nope.   

>              ..   .    I'm a little suspicious
>that Dr. Maglich has taken to criticizing TFTR's neutron diagnostics now,
>at the end of the reactor's life, when the future of the fusion program is
>on the line.  If he were scientifically motivated, why did he not bring
>these criticisms up earlier?

There would be no reason to worry about careful typing of neutrons 
sources until the "big test -- demo with D-T".  That sounds reasonable
to me.  

>For that matter, why is it only now that he claims scientists are
>skeptical
>of the TFTR measurements?  It's not like beam-plasma reactions are a new
>phenomenon.

You may be missing a point.  Tokamaks are misunderstood
beasties and they have auxillary heating techniques, of which 
particle "fuel" beam heating is just one.  That's the problem, the
interactions are complexifying the tokamaks operation.  Which whats-it
is driving the burn and which the problems or what is the mix.  

Sorry, but any particular component isolated from the TFTR and 
operated in a highly controlled eviron may be understood over a 
given range,   Tokamaks are more like a free-for-all of added-
on heating after-thoughts.  There are those that may think
they understand, but chances are they are kidding themselves and
perhaps congress too.      

>I'm sure this is going to get a lot of "air time" here on the net;
>just providing an alternative perspective.  I respect Dr. Maglich's work
>on Migma, and would prefer to see more funding for alternative fusion
>concepts to (hopefully) reduce the sort of political infighting that
>seems to be occurring here.  The opinions I've expressed here are not
>set in stone; I don't yet have all the information I need to come to
>a final judgment on the implications of Dr. Maglich's criticism.

The tokamak program and the accompaning echos of (far off) fusion in 
the mid 21st century are incompatible with "more funding" for alternate
or advanced fusion concepts.  The only way fusion will advance is
when we all finally understand that the tokamak has realized its goals 
and it's then given a proper and speedy retirement.  

>Robert F. Heeter, putting on his heat shielding
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc,Bx 1037, Prometheus II, Ltd., College Park, MD 20741-1037 |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+


cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.18 / L Plutonium /  Re: Dirac, concerning Add and Multiply Creation, RE: MOON
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Dirac, concerning Add and Multiply Creation, RE: MOON
Date: 18 Apr 1994 07:55:37 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In article <2ot0u5$9c0@agate.berkeley.edu>
ted@physics2 (Emory F. Bunn) writes:
> In article <2oste8$gdg@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmou
h.edu (Ludwig Plutonium) writes:
> >  With multiplicative creation, the Moon should be moving away from the
> >Earth at the same rate."
> >  At the time Dirac lectured this in New Zealand-- Australia in 1975?
> >the measurement could not be accurately done. As of this posting, do we
> >in fact have a refinement on such a measurement. I predict that both
> >additive and multiplicative creation are at work. Any news?
> 
> The moon is receding from the earth at a rate of about 3 cm/year.  
> 
> -Ted

   If the above conforms to Dirac's measurement set-up factoring out
tidal effects, then I conclude that at least multiplicative creation is
going on. That Dirac's large number hypothesis is correct. That the law
of energy/mass conservation is violated. If the above is true then
Dirac was vindicated in his claim that a new form of radioactivity
exists in the universe.
  Thank you kindly, Ted, for the above information.
   I claim that both multiplicative creation and additive creation are
true. And that the radioactive process is SPONTANEOUS NEUTRON
MATERIALIZATION. This process is what is observed in electrochemical
cold fusion experiments, and the uniform cosmic gamma ray-bursts.
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.18 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Rf Heating Of A Fusion Plasma
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Rf Heating Of A Fusion Plasma
Date: Mon, 18 Apr 1994 07:12:39 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <2omufk$lpi@lyman.pppl.gov> mch@theory.pppl.gov (Mark Herrmann) writes:
>In article <2ojm0rINNfet@emx.cc.utexas.edu>,
>John W. Cobb <johncobb@emx.cc.utexas.edu> wrote:
>>In article <2oif67$j1t@suntsu.pppl.gov>,
>>Mark Herrmann <mch@theory.pppl.gov> wrote:

>>I think if you take Paul's comments and swap "thermal exhaust power" for
>>"neutron power", the point will read the same, the conclusions will follow,
>>particularly his answering of Matt's question of why not use a hydrocarbon
>>wall liner.

In d-t reactions, the neutrons carry off the bulk of the fusion heat in 
kinetic energy at 14.7 MeV /neutron.   

>You are right, most of Mr.(I apologize if it is Dr.) Koloc's comments,
>would read the same however, one would not.
>The last line of Mr. Koloc's article read :

>>>>The only solution is a plasma wall and much higher burn densities
>>>>in the core plasma using aneutronic fuel cycles.  

>If Mr. Koloc meant thermal flux, rather than neutron flux, then the 
>assertion that aneutronic fuels are better in this regard than D-T is 
>incorrect.  Unless some kind of direct conversion of charge fusion product
>energy into electricity is done, all the power from aneutronic fuels must
>come out as heat on the walls. 

You hit the nail on the head.  There IS  Direct Conversion. 


    (------------------KERNEL-------------------MANTLE}--- Blanket 
(  core plasma )  ----> Bremsstruhlung ---> (plasma wall)<-->gas
    fuel                [  vacuum field  ]       thermal dump


Overall dimensions are comparatively very very small.   

Aneutronic energy from the core radiates through the Mantle plasma
into the liquid density gas Blanket and converts it to a plasma which
is then expanded into an inductive MHD generator.  The plasma bubble
is remade from fresh fuel and compression heated and fired again, 
cycling three phase at sixty hertz.    Compressions to plum size
generates about 10^10watts electric from p-B.  

>Furthermore, there are no blanket reactions.

Don't need any.  It is used to absorb the cooling radiation and
then push magnetic flux against a conducting transformer primary.  
Best to use noble gas mixtures for recirculating blankets.  

>Thus the average heat load on the first wall of a 3 G.W.(thermal) fusion power
>plant running on D-He3 is roughly 6.4 times greater than the average 
>heat load on the first wall of a  D-T reactor if they have the same 
>surface area. 

Booo!  pussy!..   Consider a tokamak generates maybe 5 watts per 
cubic centimeter (about the same per centimeter square at the wall).  
A tokamak is huge! and the radiation is stopped dead by the vacuum 
wall where it damages the surface immensely.  

With an aneutronic pressurized plasma burner, The burn densities are
10^6 (1,000,000) watts /cc (yes cubic centimeters).  That means the burn
is fast so the 60hertz cycling.   The "plasma vacuum wall" is enhanced 
by a megawatt per square centimeter burns (few milliseconds each one).   
The power folds into a depth of liquid surrounding density gas which 
then is used to generate electric power and expansion cool for further
cycling.    Because the burn density is so high and the size and mass
so low, this technology will have application in boosting space 
activities.  

This would seem to be a big problem in designing aneutronic
>reactors, if it is already a major concern in D-T designs.

Piece of cake.  That's what nice about having the high power
density... like frosting.  

>Does anyone know how they plan to handle such a large heat load ?
>Or, do all such reactors rely on direct conversion ? 

Koloc, P. M. "PLASMAK(tm) Star Power for Energy Intensive Space 
     Applications" FUSION TECHNOLOGY Vol. 15, Mar 89, pp 1136-1141

>>---------------------------------------------------------------
>>John W. Cobb	My posts don't reflect the views of my employer
>>                Because my posts are usually opaque.
>>---------------------------------------------------------------
>Mark C. Herrmann
>Graduate Student(At least until generals in 5 weeks)
>Program in Plasma Physics  Princeton University
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc,Bx 1037, Prometheus II, Ltd., College Park, MD 20741-1037 |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.18 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Scandal at Princeton -- TFTR
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Scandal at Princeton -- TFTR
Date: Mon, 18 Apr 1994 07:59:54 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1994Apr18.004454.3208@Princeton.EDU>,
Robert Franklin Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> wrote:
>In article <CoFF9L.BFB@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> crb7q@watt.seas.Virgin
a.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>>In article <1994Apr16.042951.3508@princeton.edu>,
>>Robert F. Heeter  <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> wrote:
>>
>>>There is a distinct difference in character between the P&F *announcement*
>>>and the TFTR *demonstration*.  In particular, if TFTR had *not* worked 
>>>successfully, PPPL would have had to eat crow.  Furthermore, P&F had 
>>>submitted their paper for publication *before* making the announcement,
>>>right?
>>>
>>>The difficulty is that the P&F CF claim was a scientific claim, whereas
>>>TFTR is part of a national energy technology development program.  I'm not
>>>saying there's no science in it, but it's just not the same thing.
>>
>>      Okay, if we buy that logic (though a bit self-serving and
>>      specious in my view, but no matter), I sure hope that no one 
>>      tries to report that TFTR shot in an archival *science* journal.
>>
>>      I'm sure that you'd then agree with me that that would be
>>      quite hypocritical.
>
>If the TFTR shot goes into a science journal, it will not be as a
>brand-new, completely-unexpected discovery.  It will be as a small
>part of a large dataset.

     Then I'm sure you'd agree with me that none of the Physical
     Review journals are appropriate.  Perhaps Journal of Physical
     and Chemical Reference Data?

     On the other hand, if someone tries to insert that TFTR shot
     into one of the Physical Review journals (even being so bold
     as to attempt PRL), Nature or Science, then that would
     constitute hypocrisy.   After all, that 'science' was already
     announced at the press conference.  I'd hope that the peer review
     process would reject such an article as inappropriate for PRL,
     and I'd hope you'd agree with me that any submitters of such 
     an article should hang their heads in shame (or at least
     publically verbally censure anyone associated with the critism
     of P&F for 'science by press conference').

>  Again, the TFTR shot was news in the
>sense that the first shuttle launch was news, not in the sense that
>mysteriously observing excess heat in an electrolysis experiment
>is news.  That was the point.  I don't think I'm being hypocritical,
>and I'd appreciate it if you'd make it clearer to me why you think I
>am.  

     When was the last time you saw a shuttle shot reported in PRL?
     Did the managers of the program try to publish the thrust or 
     specific impulse in Science or Nature?  You're barking up the 
     wrong tree.
  
     The criticism from certain persons associated with PPPL was
     'science by press conference'.  Now I personally don't mind
     a press conference or two.  That seems like a reasonably
     legitimate way to proceed under certain circumstances.  However,
     it's quite hypocritical to criticize others for doing so when
     one is doing the exactly the same.

     And I think the TFTR shot is 'news' in exactly the same manner
     as P&F's announcement was 'news'.  That is, they were both angling
     for the mantle of 'future energy source'.  Indeed, no one
     would have come to either announcement had it been a 
     new subspecies of mealworm.

>The impression I get is that you didn't understand the logic
>the way I meant it to be understood.  (Most likely this is because
>I was tired when I wrote my reply and probably wasn't very clear.)

     I understood perfectly.  I just didn't buy it.  I suspect
     that there are not many outside Princeton that did.

>If someone working on a small experiment at PPPL were to 
>publicly announce that they had found a completely new method
>for confining a plasma, and that they had just achieved 
>scientific breakeven with the new method, that would be a
>situation much more comparable to the P&F announcement, and I
>would agree that PPPL was being hypocritical. 

     I'm sure someone could split hairs more finely to determine that
     since this was a government-sponsored technology program 
     they actually had an *obligation* to announce before 
     publication whereas P&F being private, had an obligation to 
     publish first.  This is still in keeping with your logic above, 
     and is still just as specious.

     Basically, the original criticism of P&F on the basis of 'science by 
     press conference' was ridiculous coming from PPPL-types.
     Every new press release simply compounds the ridiculousness.

     Now, I must say that press releases do not generally bother me.
     But criticizing someone for using them while pouring release 
     after release out your door seems a bit odd.

> But I think such
>a situation is quite different from the TFTR demonstration.

     I'm not associated with either P&F (being somewhat skeptical
     of their claims, to say the least) or PPPL, and I think you're
     splitting hairs.  They announced to gain better leverage with 
     their government sponsors.  That's even worse than P&F who just
     announced to get priority.

>I would also like to point out (to those criticizing PPPL for not 
>releasing the scientific results) that the TFTR results *were* brought
>before the scientific community, in early March, when a conference
>on D-T fusion experiments was held here at PPPL.  (This was the
>same week that Secretary of Energy Hazel O'Leary came to visit.)

     I have no doubt that they will be released.  I just think the
     criticism of P&F for doing things PPPL has been doing for years
     is rank hypocrisy.

>The scientific papers have been written, and are in the process
>of being reviewed for publication.  I understand it takes 
>six months even for a Phys Rev Letter to be published, except
>for exceptional circumstances.  The fact that TFTR was well
>publicized without a PRL, and that it was not an unexpected 
>result, meant that the circumstances didn't warrant a rapid
>article.  (IMHO)

     From your comments above, it doesn't warrent a PRL article at all, and 
     I assume it will be rejected on the basis that a) it 
     was previously announced, and b) it isn't new.
     However, if it's even submitted to PRL, it's hypocrisy.

>I just don't think that an argument that PPPL was engaging in
>science-by-press-release hypocritically after criticizing
>Pons & Fleischmann for similar behavior is fair or justified.
>I also think Maglich was being misleading in arguning that PPPL
>has been slow to publish the TFTR results compared to P&F.

     I don't give a doggy doo doo about Maglich.  If there's no science,
     there's no hypocrisy.  If they try to report it in PRL, there's
     so much hypocrisy that it's running out their ears.

     Indeed, press conferences to slime for fame and government money
     do not seem substantialy different from press conferences just
     to slime for fame.

                          dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.18 / Paul Koloc /  Tokamak Output; -- was Re: Rf Heating Of A Fusion Plasma
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Tokamak Output; -- was Re: Rf Heating Of A Fusion Plasma
Date: Mon, 18 Apr 1994 07:51:47 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <2oif67$j1t@suntsu.pppl.gov> mch@theory.pppl.gov (Mark Herrmann) writes:
>In article <Co7qxo.5ot@prometheus.uucp>,
>Paul M. Koloc <pmk@promethe.UUCP> wrote:
>>    .  ...   .      Neutron flux heating of five to twenty  
>>megawatts per square meter will utterly destroy the polymer 
>>bounds.  

>Yes neutron flux, and how well the first wall can withstand it, 
>is a concern in designing D-T reactors. However the numbers you quote
>are high. For example if we are designing a 1 GW electric power plant
>and assume a conversion efficiency of thermal to electric of 1/3 (which is
>somewhat low, but we also have to put some external power into the 
>plasma for burn control or current drive), this
>means we want 3 GW from fusion power. 

The 20 MW/m^2 was intended as an upper range.  Nevertheless, it's
a toughie.  
Tokamak power generators (WISHFULLY THINKING) would be very expensive
as energy generators go, so I seriously doubt if the power companies 
would be interested in 1 GW electric output stations.  I would start
my power station rating numbers at 10 or 20 gigawatts.   

> ..      . . This would be a tokamak almost exactly the size
>of T.F.T.R.! I'm fairly, confident that if  we could get such a machine
>to generate 3 GW of fusion power we would be jumping up and down, and 
>worrying about the neutron flux later.

Well it's not possible to get such densities in the TFTR. Since the 
only dump for fusion energy regardless of the diameter of the plasma
discharge is the wall, certainly, the larger the minor diameter the
higher the power flux densitiy on the walls.  I believe your calculations
did not take this into account.  There are other benefits to larger
devices, although not sufficient to carry the day.  

>To put this all in perspective, in  the  ARIES-I tokamak reactor study,
>which was trying to assess the feasibility of a tokamak reactor,
>they settled on a machine with major radius 6.75 m, minor radius 1.5 m.
>The total power produced was 1 GW electric, from 2.4 GW thermal, 
>and neutron flux of about 2.5 MW/m^2.

Good,  you may take those numbers and produce the working size for a
a 10 and 20 GW size electric power power station. However, take
into account the increase in plasma minor diameter (heating path
length) and what wall power density increase this produces.  
What physical size and wall density power loading is it, by your 
reckoning.  

>I'm not disputing your assertion that aneutronic fuels (if we can get them
>to ignite) are wonderful, but I just wanted to bring your numbers in line.

Your numbers, are convenient for materials engineers, but not for
power station operation and economics.  Further, the wall rating should 
exceed the load by at least three for safety considerations.  
Do the fusion overlords choose these numbers capriciously?   

The "wall problem" is a lethal flaw in such machines.  

>Mark C. Herrmann
>mch@theory.pppl.gov
>Graduate Student (who should be studying for generals, or at least doing my 
>taxes) 
>Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc,Bx 1037, Prometheus II, Ltd., College Park, MD 20741-1037 |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.18 / Arthur TK /  Re: Scandal at Princeton -- TFTR
     
Originally-From: awc@ipp-garching.mpg.de (Arthur      Carlson        TK  )
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Scandal at Princeton -- TFTR
Date: 18 Apr 1994 12:02:46 +0200
Organization: Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics


In article <CoFzCM.9E2@prometheus.UUCP>, pmk@prometheus.UUCP 
  (Paul M. Koloc) writes:
> In article <1994Apr16.042951.3508@Princeton.EDU> Robert F. Heeter 
    <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> writes:
 
> >Note that the beam-beam and beam-plasma reactions are fairly 
> >well-understood, ....  
 
> Understood??   in a "fueled moderately cooking plasma??  with 
> twisted fields joistled by sawing currents.  
 
Granted, there are a LOT of things that are not understood in tokamaks 
(That's what make scientific work in the field so interesting. :) ), but 
the dynamics (slowing down, pitch angle scattering, loss rates) of fast 
(superthermal) particles is actually one of the *best*-understood phenomena.

> >Now, the fusion power output was not measured in a "transient state"; it
> >was measured over a whole second. ... TFTR does come to a reasonable
> >equilibrium; a second is a *long* time in plasma dynamics.

> Not for a really really hugely large inductance (toroidal plasma
> donut of TFTR size.  It is long for a plasma ring in a conducting shell
> the size of a chicken egg... yes;  but tokamak ... second??? nope.   
 
Numbers please. Typical time scales (primarily the energy and particle 
confinement times) in a present-day tokamak are on the order of 100 msec.
*My* definition of "long" is "several confinement times".

Art Carlson
Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics
awc@ipp-garching.mpg.de

cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenawc cudfnArthur cudlnTK cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.18 / Peter Roessingh /  Re: Disproving a theory
     
Originally-From: roes@vax.oxford.ac.uk (Peter Roessingh)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Disproving a theory
Date: 18 Apr 94 13:25:28 BST
Organization: Oxford University VAX 6620

My argument with Dale Bass is heading straight into the philosophy of
science

Dale bass wrote:

    [both his and mine preludes deleted for brevity]

    > ...there's a significant difference in philosophy at
    > work here.
    > A theory certainly does *not* 'stand until somebody
    > takes the time to *disprove* it' (emphasis mine).
    > Much better for science is:
    >
    > Bass's Law:  A theory is crap until someone convinces a
    > number of other people it's not.
    >
    > This is not a sufficient condition for it not to be crap,
    > but it certainly is a necessary condition.
    >
    > I suspect that this difference in philosophy very clearly
    > defines the positions around here.

I think my approach until now can be captured under the label
'traditional Popper' while your ideas have strong overtones of Kuhn's
view that falsification only plays a minor role, and that sociological
and psychological factors are of overriding importance.

I have to admit that popper's views are not very realistic when you
look at the history of science. It is definitely not the way science
works and Kuhns descriptions fit the reality much better, however, I
think that with Bass's law you are taking things a bit to far.

Rather then starting a fight over Popper versus Kuhn that would carry
us far from the Chubb theory I would like to try to apply Kuhn's ideas
to what you are saying in a way that I feel is more in the *true*
spirit of Kuhn.

[ remarks about the large amount of crap in science deleted]

I wrote:

"However, at the beginning of the thread "The charade of theoretical
cold fusion" there were (in my view) attempts to actually disprove the
Chubb theory, with (again in my view) inaccurate or incomplete
arguments, and *that* is the point I am making."

and you replied:

     > No, they were mentioning the very real problems with
     > such a theory.  You've got MeV scale reactions what basically
     > looks like a point to the lattice which is itself held
     > together by eV scale forces.

Kuhn is making the point that scientist are always working within a
paradigm, that to a large extend defines the way they look at the
facts. He makes clear that it is extremely difficult for those working
within the paradigm to understand or even *make* observations that do
not fit the paradigm. He also makes the point that competing theories
are backed up by fact from within there own paradigm, but that it is
virtually impossible for scientists working under different paradigms
to discuss each others idea because there simply is not enough common
ground in terminology and basic facts to even begin such a discussion.
Cold fusion is a great example of this state, there is very little
true exchange between believers and sceptics. 
To be more specific, your comment above seems to be a perfect example
of the inability to hear what the other party is saying.

It has been repeated by the proponents of the theory (and by several
others like Matt Kennel and recently Ted Anderson) *over* and *over*:
the true believer do *not* think the MeV reaction look like a point to
the lattice. That is the whole point of their argument. But fully in
the spirit of what Kuhn is saying, this message fails to get across to
the sceptics.

[As an side remark, one can easily see why this has to be so: it is an
 unfortunate side effect of Bass's law; Why would one listen to what
 the other party is *actually* saying if it is crap anyhow? ;)        ]

    > If the lattice can perform the miracle energy dispersement
    > that is necessary,
    > then I'm quite uncertain why Pd lattices do not act as
    > wondrous shock absorbers for the impact of MeV alphas.
    > It's an interesting reaction that only sucks MeV
    > scale energies out at eV initial conditions.

I am on shaky grounds here since my true understanding of these
matters is only minimal, but as a first attempt at an answer I would
say that it is not the lattice *as such* that does the trick, and that
the bandstates of the reactants are a prerequisite. Your MeV alpha's
simply do not fulfil the requirements for the reaction to occur. But
maybe somebody in the college with more authority in physics can
answer this better.

    > In any case, there's no reason to suspect that such
    > wondrous behavior occurs, there's just no experimental
    > evidence for that.

Scott Chubb says the theory was firsts, and the results from some
experiments he apparently trusts were *predicted* by it. I do not know
if he is right, but I think it would be interesting to know which
experiments he trusts, which are excluded, and why.

    > Keep this in mind; there are large numbers of
    > people who can shove quantum mechanics in one end and
    > produce crap out the other.

Undoubtable true, and Bass's law makes your life easy, but I still
insist on at least moderately detailed arguments before I am ready to
make a judgement.
 
    > The real trick is to produce what happens in nature.
    >
    >    dale bass

And here we do agree.

Peter Roessingh 
Zoology, Oxford.

                          

cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenroes cudfnPeter cudlnRoessingh cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.18 / Peter Roessingh /  Re: The charade of theoretical cold fusion
     
Originally-From: roes@vax.oxford.ac.uk (Peter Roessingh)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The charade of theoretical cold fusion
Date: 18 Apr 94 13:30:43 BST
Organization: Oxford University VAX 6620

Dick Blue posted a plea (or is that pledge; second language is
a pain) to be careful when trying to revise established theory, but
I do not find his arguments particular forceful.

He wrote:

>In commenting on the recent remarks by Peter Roessingh on the various
>responses to Dr. Chubb's exposition of this theory, I must first state
>the obvious fact that you can't refute features of a theory that have
>never been fully described.

True, however, you can refute the features that *have* been described.
From Bill Page's posts I got the impression that there exists a more
or less complete theoretical structure, and I do not think you can
hold on the the position that there is nothing to discuss. If you do,
I think it is necessary to specify in what respect the proposed theory
is so incomplete that it precludes any further discussion.

>The theory that Dr. Chubb has attempted to construct has very far
>reaching implications which impact upon a broad range of topics
>ranging from the physics of solids to nuclear reactions and nuclear
>structure.

True, but that will get most people only more interested.

>One thing that makes the construction of a physics theory so difficult
>is that physicists seek a universality that perhaps has no analog in
>other scientific disciplines.

Probably true, but again not much of an argument against anything.

>One obvious fact of nature that appears to be violated by cold fusion
>is that nuclear fusion reactions are not commonly occuring events
>under the conditions existing in our biosphere.

Someone (I have forgotten who) brought up this point, and ask were in
nature we would expect to see these effects. I do not remember the
answer, if there was any. In any case I would not expect high loading
of D in Pd to occur in natural systems in the biosphere, so the fact
that the effect is not more often observed does not strike me as a
very strong argument. Lots of effects do not commonly occur in the
biosphere but are nevertheless very real. Robert Eachus describes
examples from astrophysics that hint at the existence of unusual
effects along these lines in stars. Dr. Morrison has challenged that
view, so I would like to hold my judgement here, (which is in any case
second hand), but as yet I see no reason to speak of *violation* as
you do. Were are the specific examples?

>We think we know what that is so, and quite naturely demand very solid
>evidence for a need to revise our thinking before we accept an
>hypothesis relating to cold fusion - whether that involves
>experimental results or theory.

I am somewhat puzzled by your implicit assumption that acceptance of
any form of cold fusion would end all physics as we know it. What
appeals to me in the Chubb theory is that it is presented as being
*within* the bounds of conventional physics and QM. It was exactly
this feature that got me interested enough to join a debate that I
normally only listen in to. I expected to see posts that challenged
that view with solid arguments, but did not see that happen yet.
[However, I just saw your reference to the ... paper and I am looking
forward to see what responses it will evoke].
 
>Those who enter into this realm from outside may not appreciate what
>a vast store of experimental data and the theory to back it up has
>been accumulated that now has bearing on the cold fusion issue.  To
>simply dismiss all of this as being old and out of date is to assign
>some special weight to the mere fact that cold fusion is a new and
>potentially pleasing possibility.

See comment above, may be I am ignorant, but would conventional
physics really collapse if the Chubb theory can not be rejected? Again
I think you need to be more specific.

>A potential problem with all cold fusion theories is that they may
>take on the character of some form of special pleading, i.e. a simple
>assertion that the PdD system is different and therefore different
>things can happen.


This would have been more true a year ago or so, were one side was
saying "The lattice does it" and the other side something like
"Lattices can't do magic ". Now we seem to have a 'straightforward'
(well, if you can do QM...) formulation of how the lattice is supposed
to do its magic. I guess you can still view it as special pleading,
but I feel that with the given formulation we have the potential to
refute the claim in a more specific manner.

>There is also a clear temptation to tailor the "theory" to match
>features of a particular subset of the experimental results while
>ignoring obvious differences between various data sets and to
>embroider the  theory with lots of details so that it can "explain"
>everything that is currently included in someone's orthodoxy.  I feel
>that the Chubb theory is so closely linked to the claims of one
>particular experimental group that it has been given just too many
>frills without a good grounding in fundamentals that would allow it to
>be tested in other circumstances.

This is the only (potentially) strong argument that I find in your
post. What you describe here is a theory running behind the facts,
without adding anything new,like the correctins to Ptolemaeus his
system or the Lorenz contraction that was formulated to explain the
Michelson Morley experiment.  I am unable to judge the validity of
your claim, but the Chubbs seem to think their theory was first, and
actually predicted the outcome of some cold fusion experiments. Can
you explain in some more detail what "frill's" and "embroidery"
actually mean in the specific context of the Chubb theory? ( I would
in general be highly interested in a exposition of the outcome of your
private e-mail conversation with Scott Chubb).

>There are already in existance data that contradict the Chubb theory
>for cold fusion.  There have been experiments in which 4He was not
>found, and experiments where the loading was probably not high enough
>to meet the Chubb requirement for the formation of ion band states.

Once again I think you need to be more specific here. It is clear from
Morrison's review that the field is in a very bad state. It has also
been pointed out that this is a double edged sword and it is difficult
to use evidence from bad experiments against a theory. I think what
you are describing here is an experiment that:

1) Found excess heat (real, not from recombination) 
2) Did not found 4He and/or did not have high loading 
3) Was sound in its calorimetry and 4He analysis.

I think the general feeling in this group (and in particular that of
Steve Jones)  is that such an experiment does not exists (yet). I know
that in the spirit of the college I should now look in Dieter's
database anyhow and search for it myself, but I am not going to do
that (sorry). But maybe somebody with a better command of the
literature than I have, can point one out to us if it exists.


In summary, I see your point, and you might even be right, but as yet
your position lacks the details needed to convince me that theoretical
cold fusion is "preposterous" and a "charade".

PS. I like your flame free approach, however if this continues we might
finally have found an very effective way to kill cold fusion once and
for all (or at least the cold fusion component of the group), since a
lot of the fascination comes from following the outbursts of undiluted
emotions one can witness in this group ;^)


>Dick Blue

Peter Roessingh
Zoology, Oxford.

cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenroes cudfnPeter cudlnRoessingh cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.18 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Disproving a theory
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Disproving a theory
Date: Mon, 18 Apr 1994 14:23:20 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1994Apr18.132528.22025@oxvaxd>,
Peter Roessingh <roes@vax.oxford.ac.uk> wrote:
>My argument with Dale Bass is heading straight into the philosophy of
>science
>
>Dale bass wrote:
>    >
>    > Bass's Law:  A theory is crap until someone convinces a
>    > number of other people it's not.
>
>I think my approach until now can be captured under the label
>'traditional Popper' while your ideas have strong overtones of Kuhn's
>view that falsification only plays a minor role, and that sociological
>and psychological factors are of overriding importance.

     I don't think it's that deep.  It seems to me the emphasis
     is on burden of proof and that alone.

>Rather then starting a fight over Popper versus Kuhn that would carry
>us far from the Chubb theory I would like to try to apply Kuhn's ideas
>to what you are saying in a way that I feel is more in the *true*
>spirit of Kuhn.

     The problem is that we'd both be pretty much on the same side.  
     The difference in our positions is the burden of proof that 
     induces me to look at a theory in the first place.

>[ remarks about the large amount of crap in science deleted]
>
>I wrote:
>
>"However, at the beginning of the thread "The charade of theoretical
>cold fusion" there were (in my view) attempts to actually disprove the
>Chubb theory, with (again in my view) inaccurate or incomplete
>arguments, and *that* is the point I am making."
>
>and you replied:
>
>     > No, they were mentioning the very real problems with
>     > such a theory.  You've got MeV scale reactions what basically
>     > looks like a point to the lattice which is itself held
>     > together by eV scale forces.
>
>Kuhn is making the point that scientist are always working within a
>paradigm, that to a large extend defines the way they look at the
>facts. He makes clear that it is extremely difficult for those working
>within the paradigm to understand or even *make* observations that do
>not fit the paradigm. He also makes the point that competing theories
>are backed up by fact from within there own paradigm, but that it is
>virtually impossible for scientists working under different paradigms
>to discuss each others idea because there simply is not enough common
>ground in terminology and basic facts to even begin such a discussion.

     That's great, but giving the ill-formed mass of cold fusion
     musings the appelation 'competing theory' seems a reach, to say
     the least.  Besides, mostly I've seen argumentation based on  
     the 'old' paradigm.

     This is one of the limitations of Kuhn.  Science is not 
     *all* sociology.

>Cold fusion is a great example of this state, there is very little
>true exchange between believers and sceptics. 
>
>To be more specific, your comment above seems to be a perfect example
>of the inability to hear what the other party is saying.

    I've heard what they're saying.  I just don't believe it.
    That's the crux of the matter.

>It has been repeated by the proponents of the theory (and by several
>others like Matt Kennel and recently Ted Anderson) *over* and *over*:
>the true believer do *not* think the MeV reaction look like a point to
>the lattice. That is the whole point of their argument. But fully in
>the spirit of what Kuhn is saying, this message fails to get across to
>the sceptics.

     Who cares whether they think it looks like a point to the lattice?
     In every other circumstance that we know of *the lattice* thinks
     it looks like a point, as judged by the way lattices spit subatomic
     particles when pounded.  On the other hand, I'm more than willing
     to alter judgements based on *evidence*, the lack of which is
     rather compelling.

>[As an side remark, one can easily see why this has to be so: it is an
> unfortunate side effect of Bass's law; Why would one listen to what
> the other party is *actually* saying if it is crap anyhow? ;)        ]

     No, the corollary to Bass's law is that one must work very
     hard to change crap into gold.  *Evidence* of the transmutation
     is often the most compelling way.  However, if you only paint the
     crap gold, it still smells and tastes like crap.

>    > If the lattice can perform the miracle energy dispersement
>    > that is necessary,
>    > then I'm quite uncertain why Pd lattices do not act as
>    > wondrous shock absorbers for the impact of MeV alphas.
>    > It's an interesting reaction that only sucks MeV
>    > scale energies out at eV initial conditions.
>
>I am on shaky grounds here since my true understanding of these
>matters is only minimal, but as a first attempt at an answer I would
>say that it is not the lattice *as such* that does the trick, and that
>the bandstates of the reactants are a prerequisite. Your MeV alpha's
>simply do not fulfil the requirements for the reaction to occur. But
>maybe somebody in the college with more authority in physics can
>answer this better.

     My 'the lattice' was shorthand for 'bandstates of the lattice-
     particle system'.  I find it hard to believe that a 
     high energy alpha doesn't look exactly like a 
     fused deuterium-deuterium in the lattice.  (Yes, I know,
     'bandstates').

>    > Keep this in mind; there are large numbers of
>    > people who can shove quantum mechanics in one end and
>    > produce crap out the other.
>
>Undoubtable true, and Bass's law makes your life easy, but I still
>insist on at least moderately detailed arguments before I am ready to
>make a judgement.

     It makes everyone's life easier, except those who do not wish
     to do sufficiently compelling work.

     I hope the next theoretician with a model can point to 
     compelling experiment A that adequately demonstrates their 
     contention. 

                        dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.18 / John Cobb /  Re: Rf Heating Of A Fusion Plasma
     
Originally-From: johncobb@emx.cc.utexas.edu (John W. Cobb)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Rf Heating Of A Fusion Plasma
Date: 18 Apr 1994 09:57:50 -0500
Organization: The University of Texas - Austin

In article <2omufk$lpi@lyman.pppl.gov>,
Mark Herrmann <mch@theory.pppl.gov> wrote:
>In article <2ojm0rINNfet@emx.cc.utexas.edu>,
>John W. Cobb <johncobb@emx.cc.utexas.edu> wrote:
>>In article <2oif67$j1t@suntsu.pppl.gov>,
>>Mark Herrmann <mch@theory.pppl.gov> wrote:
>>>In article <Co7qxo.5ot@prometheus.uucp>,
>>>Paul M. Koloc <pmk@promethe.UUCP> wrote:
>>>>The purpose of the first wall is to exclude the atmosphere and
>>>>gas in high vacuum applications.  Polyethylene and other such 
>>>>"low Z" will flood the chamber with gas, because (hydrogen 
>>>>isotopes) would be dislodged from the plastic matrix by the 
>>>>massive neutron flux.  Neutron flux heating of five to twenty  
>>>>megawatts per square meter will utterly destroy the polymer 
>>>>bounds.  
>>>
>...
>>>
>>
>>I hesitate to speak for Paul Koloc because he is often "thinking outside
>>the box" with some innovative approaches, but let me risk it anyway.
>...
>>I think if you take Paul's comments and swap "thermal exhaust power" for
>>"neutron power", the point will read the same, the conclusions will follow,
>>particularly his answering of Matt's question of why not use a hydrocarbon
>>wall liner.
>
>You are right, most of Mr.(I apologize if it is Dr.) Koloc's comments,
>would read the same however, one would not.
>The last line of Mr. Koloc's article read :
>
>>>>The only solution is a plasma wall and much higher burn densities
>>>>in the core plasma using aneutronic fuel cycles.  

Actually, I think Paul is trying to solve some other (very thorny)
problems that have not really entired this line of discussion yet,
such as power density.

>
>If Mr. Koloc meant thermal flux, rather than neutron flux, then the 
>assertion that aneutronic fuels are better in this regard than D-T is 
>incorrect.  Unless some kind of direct conversion of charge fusion product
>energy into electricity is done, all the power from aneutronic fuels must
>come out as heat on the walls. 

Ding, Ding, Ding, Ding. Don Pardo, tell the folks at home what our 
contestant has won.

The answer IS direct energy conversion. IMO THE biggest problem with the
D-T fuel cycle is the neutrons. They induce radioactivity, and they do
not have any handles to grab them with. With a-neutronic fuels, the ash 
products are charged, so you can extract them with E&M fields. They don't
just crash headlong into a blanket to be thermalized. You get 2 big
advantages. First, you can control ash exhaust. It is similar to using a 
divertor to exhaust the scrape off layer (however, not the same because of the
different energies). Therefore, you don't need the large blanket volume
that D-T fuels require. Have you ever looked at Tokamak reactor designs?
There is a real problem in trying to find room to fit coils, access ports,
divertor supersctructre AND a large blanket all in a relativiely small
area.

The second big advantage is efficiency. With thermal neutrons you cannot
avoid paying the entropy tax to convert fusion energy to billable
electricity. With direct energy conversion, you can use an inverse linac
to decelerate the exhaust particles and recover a much larger fraction of
the total power.

At least one study has estimated the conversion efficieny could be as high
as 95% (see. Momota and K. Sato Vol. 21 p. 2307 Fusion Technology July 1992).
This is in comparison to 1/2 to 2/3 efficiency limit for thermalized
netrons. Now I think 95% may a bit optimistic, but DEC will do better than
themral conversion. This helps in 2 ways. First the same size reactor
will then product 2 X as much power, so the cost/kw is cut in half (actually
corrected to be a little lower because of the cost of the DEC). Second, the
total amount of waste heat generated will be smaller. While this is not
a big problem now, it may be in the future. The ultimate pollution from
power production is heat pollution. If use continues exponential growth,
heat pollution will be a problem with all power which is not solar or
solar derivative (hydro, ethanol, biomass, etc). It will be such a problem
because it will be so unavoidable. The only thing to be done is to
reduce it by controlling thermodynamic losses. Here DEC beats thermal cycle
hands down.


-john .w cobb


-- 
 --------------------------------------------------------------
John W. Cobb	My posts don't reflect the views of my employer
                Because my posts are usually opaque.
 --------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenjohncobb cudfnJohn cudlnCobb cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.18 / Peter Roessingh /  Re: The charade of theoretical cold fusion
     
Originally-From: roes@vax.oxford.ac.uk (Peter Roessingh)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The charade of theoretical cold fusion
Date: 18 Apr 94 14:40:43 BST
Organization: Oxford University VAX 6620

I posted a slightly old version of my reply to Dick Blue
I wrote:

>[However, I just saw your reference to the ... paper and I am looking
>forward to see what responses it will evoke].

This should have been:

[However, I just saw your reference to the Leggett and Baym paper and
I am looking forward to see what responses it will evoke].

Peter Roessingh.

cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenroes cudfnPeter cudlnRoessingh cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.18 / Greg Kuperberg /  Re: Disproving a theory
     
Originally-From: gk00@quads.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Disproving a theory
Date: Mon, 18 Apr 1994 15:44:40 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

In article <1994Apr18.132528.22025@oxvaxd> roes@vax.oxford.ac.uk
(Peter Roessingh) writes:
>My argument with Dale Bass is heading straight into the philosophy of
>science

"Philosophers:  Always on the outside, making stupid remarks."

--- Richard Feynman
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudengk00 cudfnGreg cudlnKuperberg cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.18 / John Cobb /  Logajan's Tripe  was Re: Scandal at Princeton -- TFTR
     
Originally-From: johncobb@emx.cc.utexas.edu (John W. Cobb)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Logajan's Tripe  was Re: Scandal at Princeton -- TFTR
Date: 18 Apr 1994 10:46:57 -0500
Organization: The University of Texas - Austin

In article <940415183341_74242.1554_BHR34-1@compuserve.com>,
John M. Logajan <74242.1554@compuserve.com> wrote:
>      Excerpts from Dr. Bogdan C. Maglich's written testimony before the U.S.
>      House Subcommittee on Energy and Water, April 12, 1994.
>

Translation: Selectective exerpts for Maglich's testimony, sparsely 
interspersed inside heavy duty axe-grinding and other polemics.


>"The claim of thermonuclear fusion power production in Princeton Tokamak
>(TFTR) is being questioned by the scientific community.  Four months after the
>press announcement, no paper has been published in any scientific journal."
>
>Mr. Chairman:
>
>PRINCETON'S "FUSION PRODUCTION DATA" HAVE NOT BEEN PUBLISHED IN A SCIENTIFIC
>JOURNAL FOUR MONTHS AFTER THE WORLDWIDE PRESS ANNOUNCEMENT.
>

This one point seems to be the only valid point in this entire post.
I am a little disappointed at not yet being able to look over a
refereed paper about some of the TFTR results. 4 months is a reasonable
amount of time for an initial paper. It didn't take JET that long did it?

Of course, I would not then jump to making the borderline slanderous statement
that this lack of publication was because of difficulties in reproducing the
results. I highly suspect that Dr. Maglich would take issue with the way that
Logajan has twisted his words. While Maglich is no big fan of conventional
tokamak fusion, his own statements below quoted by Logajan indicate that
he is also of the opinion that the total number of neutron counts are not
in gross error, only its energy spectrum.

Why is there not yet a refereed paper on the TFTR D-T shots? 
I do not know the reason, but I do have 1 suggesttion. TFTR will
be closed soon. The experimentalists are involved in ongoing experiments. They
have to make a judgement call about when to take what they have assembled so
far and write it up. This is always a tough problem. As an experimentalist, one
often knows that if one writes the paper today, tomorrow's experiment will
improve a result by doing things such as decreasing error bars of improving
operating parameters. It is a tough call. This ordinarily tough call may be
exacerabated by the fairly strict schedule limitations. The curtain will come
down this fall, so they have to make hay in the sun. Secondly, they are slaves
to their tritium supply/budget. I can easily see how this would lead to even 
less  writing and more scurrying.

Nevertheless, I would love to see more papers. Perhaps if the integrated 
tritium deficit from wall absorption continues, the experimenters may have
more time to sit in front of their word-processors.

>On December 10, 1993, Princeton University announced to the press that their
>measurements of the "neutron power" coming out of TFTR indicates "world record"
>power production in thermonuclear fusion.
>
...
>The instrument used in the much-heralded experiment at Princeton was unable to
>measure neutron energy (technically called the "neutron energy specrum"); it
>could only measure the number of neutrons (technically called the "neutron
>flux").  That is, TFTR used an old-fashioned neutron counter, rather than a
>neutron energy counter.  It is incomprehensible why a $100,000 "neutron energy
>spectrometer" was not bought and used for this $3-billion machine.

Is this a true statement?

>
>Without neutron energy measurements it is impossible to say where and how the 
>neutrons emerging from the Tokamak were produced inside the Tokamak.  There
>are three false sources of fusion neutrons.
           ^^^^^
           A highly perjorative choice of terminology. I think it would be
more appropriate to say that there are other sources of neutrons besides
thermal plasma collisions. Did Maglich use this terminology or is it Logajan's
choice?

>
>1. Injected beam of deuterium and tritium hits the walls of Tokamak chamber
>   which are lined with deposited deuterium and tritium.
>2. Injected beam hits plasma, and fusion takes place.
>3. Injected beam hits injected beam, and fusion takes place.

Note: in each of these alternate cases, the reaction that occurred was a D-T
fusion reaction. Thus a high energy alpha and a 14 MEV neutron was released.
Therefore, I don't bloody much care whether it was a thermal thermal collision
or a beam thermal collision that caused the fusion. This is why I object to 
calling these "false sources". They are still fusions. In fact there are cases
where these other sources of fusion are desirable. Beam-thermal collisions
in tokamaks in particular can be used to lower the temperature needed for
fusion ignition, so beam fusion is beneficial.

In fact, Maglich's Migma concept is just such a fusion idea. It is 
a self-collding beam. Such "false sources" of fusion is the whole story in
Migma. All migma reactions are case 3 above. The theoretical Migma studies
rely on these reactions to achieve power production.

It is for this reason that I highly question how Logajan has quoted Maglich.
How do we know what thoughts are Maglich's and what thoughts are Logajan's
that have been disguised as Maglich's in an attempt to give them credibility
by an appeal to credentialization.

>
>They compete with true thermonuclear fusion and are usually dominant. 
      ^^^^^^^
      again very perjorative. A more accurate statement would be that they
"supplement" true themral reactions, and may introduce difficulties in
interpreting neutron signals.

BTW, this is not at all a new issues. I was listening to talks on non-thermal
fusion well over 5 years ago and it wasn't new then.

This entire post smells big time of begin just a Red-Herring designed to
smear the Hot fusion program so Logajan can promote cold fusion.

>To state that one can determine the exiting neutrons originated from the
>plasma-plasma collisions, without measuring the neutron energy spectrum, is
>like stating that by simply measuring the amount of smoke coming out of a 
>stack, without chemical analysis of the smoke, one can conclude that the flame
>was fed simultaneously by 4 fuels -- (1) coal, (2) kerosene, (3) wood, and
>(4) aluminum -- and that most of the smoke came from the aluminum.

Bad analogy. It is more like saying when I pour 1 liter of water into a bucket
with 3 holes, I do not know how much water left each hole. However, I am pretty
darn sure that the sum of the water going out the holes is 1 liter.

In the same vein, each nuetron came from a fusion reaction (thermal-thermal,
beam-thermal, beam-beam, or beam-wall), So count the neutrons and you
have counted the number of fusions, although you still do not know 
which holes they used to exit the bucket.

>

Now there are reasons to be interested in what proportion of the reactions
were thermal-thermal and which were beam-thermal etc. These mostly have
to do with how will things scale to reactor sized devices and how they
will affect the excitation of some modes and the removal of ash. I won't
even try to get into those science issues here, since Logajan's the main 
purpose seems to have been only polemic.

>
>Congress should require the DOE to screen the scientific basis of claims made
>in fusion research.  As a minimum, the results should be published in 
>refereed scientific journals before the DOE presents them to Congress.
>
Congress does and DOE tries

As to requiring publication before congressinal testimony, get real. The big
world of politics rules fusion, not the other way around. Congress likes
photo-ops and science is pretty good at providing it. NASA's main product is
pictures. Do you think that Barbara Mikulski spent time doing data
analysis on Hubble Picts? No way, though she did so some heavy lifting for
NASA to insure the moeny flow. Surprise, surprise, she's the one who got to
hold up the new picture showing the repaired Hubble at the press conference.

To ridicule TFTR for allowing presentation of the DT shots to congress, is
a bit disingenious. One cannot say no when a supportive memeber of congress
asks for a photo op. The exact same (non)criticism can be leveled both at
Maglich and the U.S. cold fusion community.

-- 
 --------------------------------------------------------------
John W. Cobb	My posts don't reflect the views of my employer
                Because my posts are usually opaque.
 --------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenjohncobb cudfnJohn cudlnCobb cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.18 / John Cobb /  Fusion Neutron Signatures was Re: Scandal at Princeton -- TFTR
     
Originally-From: johncobb@emx.cc.utexas.edu (John W. Cobb)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Fusion Neutron Signatures was Re: Scandal at Princeton -- TFTR
Date: 18 Apr 1994 11:26:31 -0500
Organization: The University of Texas - Austin

In article <1994Apr16.042951.3508@princeton.edu>,
Robert F. Heeter  <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> wrote:
>In article <940415183341_74242.1554_BHR34-1@CompuServe.COM> John M.
>Logajan, 74242.1554@compuserve.com writes:
>>      Excerpts from Dr. Bogdan C. Maglich's written testimony before the
>U.S.
>>      House Subcommittee on Energy and Water, April 12, 1994.
>>

>Why would the energy of the neutron be different depending on what the
>origin of the reaction is?  Someone help me out here.  I don't see why
>you need a neutron energy spectrometer when all D-T reactions give
>14.7 MeV neutrons.  Presumably you could get a doppler shift of some
>kind depending on the initial particle energies, but I don't know if
>this sort of effect *could* be observed.  Presumably Dr. Maglich thinks
>it can, but I'd like to hear more on this from people who know neutrons
>better.
>(Prof. Jones?)
>

First, some people might look for the D+D--> 3He + n reaction. There
the neutron energy is only 2.45 MeV. So if all of the neutrons are from
this channel then the total neutron power is 2.45/14.1 = .17 times smaller
than the stated power. Of course to accept this statement one has to 
explain why the high neutron counts are not seen in the D-D shots and why
adding Tritium causes the D-D rate to go up. That's a big stretch. It is
fairly obviuos that most of the nuetrons are from D-T reactions. (although
there might be some other small alternate sources for neutrons). Only
conservetive scientific scepticism prevents me from saying that it is obvious
and absolutely true.

However, the big effect on the nuetron spectrum, and why it would be
nice to have it is that the with of the netron energy (an consequently
the width of the alpha energy) is not zero. The usual reaction statement
of

D + T --> 4He(3.5 MeV) + n(14.1 MeV)

Is true only if the total initial momentum is 0. If it is not, then the
energies of both the alpha and the nuetron have to be adjusted accordingly.

It is not immediately obvious (but becomes so after a little thought) that
the kinematics of the reaction means that the width of the neutron
energy profile will be much wider than the temperature (for thermal collisions)
or the beam energy (for beam collisions). The reason is that one must conserve
momentum, not just energy. Most of the adjustment in velocity comes about
from having to balance momentum. If I remember correctly (pardon me for
being so lazy) the width of the energy spectrum scales like 
sqrt(14.1 Mev * T) for thermal reactions and sqrt(14.1 Mev * E_beam)
for beam reactions. Thus, the neutron spectrum can become a diagnostic
for which types of reactions are occurring.

When I did the calculation for a D-3He reaction in a beam-fired FRC, I
seem to remember that I came out with something like a 1MeV width for the
14.7 MeV proton product. Thus this effect can greatly affect the distribution
function of the alpha particles, and thus the excitation of things like
TAE modes, etc. So it is quite an interesting question in and of itself.

>... the fusion power output was not measured in a "transient state"; it
>was measured over a whole second.  I've seen the plot, and there's enough
>noise in it for me to believe it *wasn't* a theoretical curve.  The ZETA
>machine *was* transient - shots probably lasted only microseconds - and
>thermal equilibrium was not achieved.  TFTR does come to a reasonable
>equilibrium; a second is a *long* time in plasma dynamics.
>

And this is why it is different than the Harwell pinch work. There they
saw neutrons but didn't realize it was non-thermal and would not scale
up to reactor sized devices. Their shots lasted micro-seconds.
Here in TFTR, the neutron power is over several energy confinement times, for
about 1 second. Thus a quasi-equilibrium has time to
come about. However, the source of the neutrons does affect scaling. For
instance, if all of the neutrons are beam-beam (highly unlikely) then
fusion power would depend almost entirely on just the total neutral
beam power. This would be disappointing because NBI is expensive and a lot
would be required.


-john .w cobb
-- 
 --------------------------------------------------------------
John W. Cobb	My posts don't reflect the views of my employer
                Because my posts are usually opaque.
 --------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenjohncobb cudfnJohn cudlnCobb cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.18 /  93358458@vax1. /  "Red Mercury" ?
     
Originally-From: 93358458@vax1.dcu.ie
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: "Red Mercury" ?
Date: 18 Apr 94 17:55:47 GMT

 Red Mercury ? Fusion ? I had thought it was possible for low-Z elements
 to Fuse with the kind of tempratures we can generate on earth - so 
 obviously the 'red mercury' is not Mercury. And why red ? Does anyone
 even have any idea what it is supposed to be ? It would make a good story
 if there was a concise set of facts.....any offers ?



-- 
=============================================================================
# John MAD DOG Looney,          # "If there be gods at all,then they do not  
#   Computer Applications,(CA1) #  concern themselves with the care of Human 
#   Dublin City University,     #  affairs"       Ennius,Roman writer (260BC)
#   Ireland,EU.                 #                                
#                               # "The central complexity of human nature lies
# jplooney@compapp.dcu.ie       #  in our emotions,not in our intelligence.
#                               #  Intellectual skills are a means to an end
#           and                 #  but our emotions determine what our ends
#   93358458@vax1.dcu.ie        #  will be."       Freeman Dyson.  
=============================================================================
                                                                          
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cuden93358458 cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.18 /  hthstate@nbnet /  Correct Cold Fusion Theory
     
Originally-From: hthstate@nbnet.nb.ca
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Correct Cold Fusion Theory
Date: 18 Apr 1994 17:08:08 GMT
Organization: nbnet

I'll stick with the message that anyone who uses correct and theory in the 
same sentance is obviously not a scientist.
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenhthstate cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.18 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Logajan's Tripe  was Re: Scandal at Princeton -- TFTR
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Logajan's Tripe  was Re: Scandal at Princeton -- TFTR
Date: Mon, 18 Apr 1994 18:45:46 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <2oua1hINNbfo@emx.cc.utexas.edu>,
John W. Cobb <johncobb@emx.cc.utexas.edu> wrote:

>---------------------------------------------------------------
>John W. Cobb	My posts don't reflect the views of my employer
>                Because my posts are usually opaque.
>---------------------------------------------------------------

     After quite a long time looking at this, it just occurred to me:

     Wouldn't that be 'My posts don't transmit the views of my 
     employer?'  or 'Because my posts have low reflectance 
     (per NBS Monograph-160).'

     After all, polished stainless is pretty opaque to 
     visible, but it reflects pretty well....

                             dale bass


cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.18 / Fred Logue /  Re: "Red Mercury" ?
     
Originally-From: fplogue@unix2.tcd.ie (Fred Logue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: "Red Mercury" ?
Date: Mon, 18 Apr 1994 21:07:14 GMT
Organization: University of Dublin, Trinity College

In <1994Apr18.175547.834@vax1.dcu.ie> 93358458@vax1.dcu.ie writes:

> Red Mercury ? Fusion ? I had thought it was possible for low-Z elements
> to Fuse with the kind of tempratures we can generate on earth - so 
> obviously the 'red mercury' is not Mercury. And why red ? Does anyone
> even have any idea what it is supposed to be ? It would make a good story
> if there was a concise set of facts.....any offers ?


From what I could gather from the (appalling) documentary on Ch 4 is
that Red Mercury is Mercury Antimony oxide. This is a powder, but it is
then bombarded with radioactive heay ions (I think) so it becomes a
neutron emitter. Then in the bomb, when it is detonaed, the plutonium is
covered in a layer of red mercury which bombards the Plutonium with
neutrons and also compresses it somehow and this somehow reduces the
critical mass of Pu needed for fission ....or something. 
--
Fred Logue, Dept. Physics,Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland.,
e-mail fplogue@unix2.tcd.ie
Phone +353-1-7022169     Fax +353-1-6798412.
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenfplogue cudfnFred cudlnLogue cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.18 / Marshall Dudley /  Re: Correct Cold Fusion Theory
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.com (Marshall Dudley)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Correct Cold Fusion Theory
Date: Mon, 18 Apr 94 21:33:32 GMT
Organization: Byte Runner BBS - Knoxville, TN - (615)966-3574, 675-4753

hthstate.1.0@nbnet.nb.ca states:

>I'll stick with the message that anyone who uses correct and theory in the 
>same sentance is obviously not a scientist.
						  ^^^^^^       ^^^^^

Hmm, does this mean you are obviously not a scientist?

								Mashall

cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenmdudley cudfnMarshall cudlnDudley cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.19 / Louis Nick /  Re: Logajan's Tripe  was Re: Scandal at Princeton -- TFTR
     
Originally-From: snick@u.washington.edu (Louis Nick)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Logajan's Tripe  was Re: Scandal at Princeton -- TFTR
Date: 19 Apr 1994 00:04:30 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

In article <CoGxGA.FsM@murdoch.acc.virginia.edu>,
Cameron Randale Bass <crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU> wrote:
>In article <2oua1hINNbfo@emx.cc.utexas.edu>,
>John W. Cobb <johncobb@emx.cc.utexas.edu> wrote:
>
>>---------------------------------------------------------------
>>John W. Cobb	My posts don't reflect the views of my employer
>>                Because my posts are usually opaque.
>>---------------------------------------------------------------
>
>     After quite a long time looking at this, it just occurred to me:
>
 The further thought occurs..

>     Wouldn't that be 'My posts don't transmit the views of my 
>     employer?'  or 'Because my posts have low reflectance 
>     (per NBS Monograph-160).'
>
>     After all, polished stainless is pretty opaque to 
>     visible, but it reflects pretty well....
>
>                             dale bass
>
>
That, perhaps, Mr. Bass, you have too much time on your hands.  :^))

______________________________________________________________________________
|      Louis Adolph Nick III :        snick@u.washington.edu                 |
|      "So revolutionary, it's PATENT PENDING!"                              |
|      "I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed,              |
|      debriefed, or numbered!"                                              |
|                                    -The Prisoner                           |  
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudensnick cudfnLouis cudlnNick cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.19 / L Plutonium /  proofs supporting the existence of only the 3rd dimension
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.math,sci.physics,sci.chem,sci.physics.fusion,sci.bio
Subject: proofs supporting the existence of only the 3rd dimension
Date: 19 Apr 1994 01:42:19 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

  What was given below was physics support that there exists only the
3rd dimension in both physics and math. Are there other ideas in math
that upon close scrutiny would support the notion that 0 dimension is a
math abstraction just as 1st and 2nd dimension are math abstractions
which exist just as a circle exists in abstraction but not in physical
reality. Using the common intuitive math definition of dimension as
orthogonal axes. Is there support for my claim that only 3rd dimension
exists in reality and the broader scheme of math abstractness. In other
words, 4th dimension and higher are nonexistent in both physics and
math. As nonexistent as epicycles, ghosts, witches, ether, transfinite
numbers, regular 13-sided polygons, unicorns, the present bald King of
France, . .

In article <2oldi6$jpu@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium) writes:

> In article <2ok6ce$f70@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
> Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium) writes:
> > Here is a more detailed reference to this leader.
> > "Quarks,atoms,and the 1/N expansion" by Edward Witten, Physics Today
> > July1980. "Large-N quantum mechanics and classical limits" by Laurence
> > Yaffe Physics Today Aug1983.
> >   I claim the correct definition and understanding of DIMENSION will
> > come from Quantum Physics. Let me point out a nice thing about the
> > history of math and physics. Both communities are highly conservative
> > and bandwagon. The physics community picked up on the idea of
> > "conservation laws" and ran with it. Boy, did they run with it. Now the
> > recent history of physics is starting to unravel the conservation laws.
> > First there unraveled the conservation of parity, second there
> > unraveled time-reversal. What is next. I contend all conservation laws
> > will be unraveled except for conservation laws which come from QM,
> > provided if and only if there are any conservation laws in QM. Getting
> > back to my running story.
> >   Math had a very pretty theorem called the Banach Tarski Theorem which
> > disproves the conservation of energy/mass. However this gorgeous
> > theorem is not enough to sway, turn the heads of physics professors.
> > Because they are so conservative of a bandwagon that I doubt even
> > gorgeous female physics professors who preach the Banach Tarski Theorem
> > pointing out the violation of conservation of energy/mass would sway
> > that bandwagon. Now let us look at another ultra-conservative
> > community--math.
> >   The math definition of dimension. Is it a failure. I say yes and I
> > say it needs help from QM. Poincare could not define dimension, and
> > later math persons could not. I say that the Poincare Conjecture is a
> > simple proof, so also the 4-Color Mapping Problem. Simple when a
> > reasonable definition of Dimension is seen. Impossible when using a
> > claptrap definition.
> >   I conjecture and speculate that there exists only 4 dimensions,
> > ending with the 3rd Dimension, there is no 4th dimension or higher, as
> > amply supported by the above two QM references. Those references are
> > detailed enough and so I will not elaborate.
> >   I say that if a body of physics knowledge implies that a definition
> > or body of math knowledge is flawed, failed, inconsistent and downright
> > nonexistent. Then it is quick time to review that math definition. I
> > conjecture that there exists only 4 dimensions. There exists the 0
> > dimension, 1st dimension, 2nd dimension, 3rd dimension, but 4th and
> > higher are nonexistent. 
> >   My reasoning is this. Since QM is QM in the Schroedinger Equation for
> > dimensions 0 to 3rd, but for 4th or higher physics breaks down into
> > Classical Physics. That is what those two referenced articles are
> > about. They imply that any dimension higher than 3rd is Classical
> > Physics. Classical Physics is an approximation to true physics--QM, but
> > Classical is nonexistent, it is not real, just as the ether is
> > nonexistent.
> >   This above is a reverse historical case of math via Banach Tarski
> > spearheading the falsity of conservation of energy/mass (BTW Dirac the
> > genius he was saw the violation of energy/mass in his "Directions in
> > Physics"). Now it is physics turn to spearhead the drive for math to
> > get their act together. For math to shape-up or ship-out.
> >   The correct definition of Dimension will most certainly come from QM.
> 
>   Receiving email about these two references I should have explained
> them somewhat. Here is a quick account. Those two references imply that
> for QUANTUM MECHANICS and the Schroedinger Equation, that only 3rd
> DIMENSION works. Not 4th or higher dimension and not 2nd, 1st or 0
> dimension. ONLY 3rd dimensions works to make Quantum Mechanics work.
> The Schroedinger Equation works for 3rd dimension only. In 4th
> dimension or higher then the results come out to be Classical Physics
> which is wrong physics. Classical Physics is just an approximation of
> Quantum Physics, which to all known experimentation is true.
>   What I am doing with this information about QM and dimension is to
> derive a better definition of dimension for math. By implementing these
> ideas I would keep the old definition of dimension for math. For
> physics, I would use the old math definition also -- 3 perpendicular
> axes for 3rd dimension-- but throw out any notion of 4th dimension or
> higher and 0, 1st, and 2nd dimensions. 4th dimension and higher are
> science fiction and math fiction. 
>   In physics, because of QM, there exists only 3rd dimension. Now for
> math, since math is more abstract than physics, we can continue to have
> the old definition of dimension as perpendicular axes, but there exists
> no 4th dimension or higher (even in abstraction). For math, dimensions
> 0, 1st, 2nd and 3rd are abstractions but 4th and higher are
> nonexistent.
>   Complainers I feel will first complain about Einsteins 4th dimension
> of time. I simply say that John Bell with his Inequality and the Aspect
> Experimental Results proved Einstein wrong. With 4th dimension, I am
> starting another uprising which will end in showing that Einstein was
> wrong-yet-once -again. Einsteins physics intuition failed him miserably
> against the likes of Bohr. And it was a laughable coincidence that his
> Nobel prize was for the photoelectric effect. In other words, the Nobel
> Committee in a rare moment did better than the physics community.
> Einsteins Nobel prize was more correct than that herd of gnus called
> the community of physics professors who thought that Einsteins
> relativity was worth more than the photoelectric effect which is the
> early pioneering of QM.
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.19 / Richard Blue /  TFTR neutron diagnostics
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: TFTR neutron diagnostics
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 1994 04:03:23 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To throw my two cents worth into the debate over the neutron
detection techniques employed on the recent TFTR shots, there are
always certain tradeoffs involved in the selection of the types
of detectors to be employed for neutron detection.  I don't think
there is a way in which you can get all the desired features rolled
into one.  If you "know" the energy spectrum of the neutrons you
wish to detect then it is quite reasonable to make a selection that
favors accuracy of the flux determination and has a wide dynamic
range.  So perhaps the first question to be ask is whether there
is any serious doubt about the energy spectrum of the neutrons that
were being produced.  At the flux levels that were (accurately
determine) being reported there just aren't very many possibilities.
This is, after all, hot fusion where real physics applies so we
know the reaction cross sections.  I will assume that other diagnostics
give confirming evidence as to where collisions that could possibly
produce neutrons at the observed rate could be occuring.  The only
suggestion from Maglich that need be given a second thought would
be that d-t collisions at the walls make the neutrons.  I don't
know that much about the experimental conditions, but I seriously
doubt that the setup is designed to allow the injected neutral
beams just to crash into the walls.

Finally let me say that if there is any question as to whether
the neutrons are from the d-t reaction, there are neutron activation
techniques using target materials with activation thresholds high
enough to rule out any other possible source of neutrons.  This
technique is so simple and so cheap that I would almost assume
that some activation measurements were made as part of the
experiment and we will probably hear about them if anyone truly
believes there is a serious issue here.   If anyone at PPPL is
interested in adding activation measurements to any future shots,
either officially or as a bootlegged experiment, plain old commercial
1100 aluminum is a pretty good sample material to use, I believe.

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.19 / Richard Blue /  Reply to Noninski
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Reply to Noninski
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 1994 04:03:33 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

In response to my posting regarding an absolute upper limit on possible
many-body effects on cold fusion rates as calculated by Legget and
Baym, Prof. Noninski counters with a paper by Danos.  There is
a significant difference, however, between the assertions presented
in these two papers.  Danos says there is a possible "dramatic
enhancement" and indicates that the significant factors lie "in the
details of the density matrix that describes the system and in the
geometric correlations of the participating nuclei."  He DOES NOT
give any numerical estimates of these possible effects, and thus
does not contradict the assertion by Legget and Baym that they have
given an absolute upper limit.  It should be further noted that
Dr. Chubb has not provided in his theory "the details of the
density matrix" or anything that permits a proper evaluation
of the "geometric correlations"  that Danos says are where the
significant factors may lie.

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.19 / Richard Blue /  Nonsense about red mercury
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Nonsense about red mercury
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 1994 04:03:41 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Whenever stories about "red mercury" contain specific details they
show clear signs of being totally silly.  Now we are told that
red mercury is in fact Hg2Sb2O7 that has been irradiated (?)
to form a liquid with density 20, boiling pt 350C, melting pt
-38 C and flash pt 170 C, more or less.  In order to get a density
that high one normally expects to start with heavy nuclei and
cram them more closely together than they might normally like to
be.  The candidate compound does not appear to be particularly
well suited for making high density stuff.  The cramming the
atoms close together does not seem to match too well with the
stated physical properties.  For something to have a melting
point of -38 C I would tend to assume that chemical bonds are
a bit on the weak side in the overall scale of things.

Then we come to the bit about irradiation.  What does irradiation
do?  In plastics, for example, it can result in additional
cross linking between polymer chains or it can break up and
weaken the polymer.  In inorganic solids to the best of my
knowledge the effects tend to be the production of dislocations
and increased disorder in the lattice.  If there are nuclear
transmutations they produce impurity sites that are yet
another form of disorder.  There are not the things that would
make stuff more dense.

Next is the question as to what this stuff with its magical
properties is supposed to do.  I can believe it is some kind
of high energy explosive because that is chemistry about
I know next to nothing.  However, as a nuclear explosive it
does not sound like a winner, and besides all the magic
incantations that have given it strange chemical properties
would not be expected to do much to make it go boom in a
serious nuclear way.  I think I read "hoax" written all
over this one.

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Tue Apr 19 04:37:04 EDT 1994
------------------------------
1994.04.19 / John Logajan /  Re: Logajan's Tripe  was Re: Scandal at Princeton -- TFTR
     
Originally-From: 74242.1554@compuserve.com (John M. Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Logajan's Tripe  was Re: Scandal at Princeton -- TFTR
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 1994 04:54:31 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

johncobb@emx.cc.utexas.edu (John W. Cobb) maligns:

>I highly suspect that Dr. Maglich would take issue with the way that
>Logajan has twisted his words.

Maglich's words were quoted verbatim.  The only thing elided in the
excerpts I posted were some preliminary introductions and mention of
Maglich's own consortium (S.A.F.E. System for Aneutronic Fusion Energy),
and their self-collider concept.

Robert Heeter asked me to mention that Maglich's testimony was not orally
read into the congressional record but merely submitted in the written
form (due to committee time constraints, I am led to believe.)  I don't
see how it makes a difference to the veracity of Maglich's claims, but
this should make Robert happy :-)

>Did Maglich use this terminology or is it Logajan's choice?

It was verbatim from Maglich -- he used the term "false sources of fusion
neutrons."  He used it again in an abstract of a paper to be presented to
the American Physical Society (scheduled for this week.)

>In fact, Maglich's Migma concept is just such a fusion idea. It is 
>a self-collding beam. Such "false sources" of fusion is the whole story
>in Migma....
> 
>It is for this reason that I highly question how Logajan has quoted
>Maglich.  How do we know what thoughts are Maglich's and what thoughts
>are Logajan's that have been disguised as Maglich's in an attempt to
>give them credibility by an appeal to credentialization.

The quote was verbatim.  Here is a section that I elided in the excerpts
because it didn't directly related to neutron measurements at TFTR -- but
since you raise the subject of migma ...

"SELF-COLLIDER IS THE ONLY FUSION DEVICE THAT HAS UNAMBIGUOUSLY MEASURED
THERMONUCLEAR FUSION."

"The only fusion device capable of discriminating false fusion from true
fusion events is the "self-collider."  Operating at a kinetic temperature
of 10 billion degrees and measuring the energy of each atomic nucleus,
produced in fusion reactions, "in pairs" (technically known as "in
coincidence"), self-collider has unambiguously seperated the true events
and published it in refereed journals: Physical Review Letters, Vol. 54,
p. 796, (1985) and Nuclear Instruments and Methods, Vol. A271, p.17
(1988)."

>This entire post smells big time of begin just a Red-Herring designed to
>smear the Hot fusion program so Logajan can promote cold fusion.

Actually, the mainline hot fusion program is self-smearing.  However, I
have long been a fan of Maglich's "migma" hot fusion concept and though I
don't understand Paul Koloc's Plasmak/Spheromak (or whatever) concept, I
am more interested and hopeful for it than the politically corrupt
mainline approaches to hot fusion.

In any event, I have no motivation to "promote cold fusion" as I remain a
"true skeptic."  That is, I remain open to new data, but always attempt to
verify its accuracy and sufficiency.

>Now there are reasons to be interested in what proportion of the
>reactions were thermal-thermal and which were beam-thermal etc. These
>mostly have to do with how will things scale to reactor sized devices
>and how they will affect the excitation of some modes and the removal of
>ash.

Strachan, Adler, adn Alling, et al, wrote a March 1994 DOE document
describing the TFTR burn in question.  They show a graph [Fig 2(a)] in
which beam-beam, beam-target and "thermonuclear" neutron emission
densities are calculated over a one second interval.  They also show a
calculated total neutron emission curve versus a measured total neutron
emission curve.  The measured neutron flux is 10% less than the estimated
flux.  The beam-target and beam-beam neutron emissions even in the
calculated estimate account for nearly 70% of the neutrons.  The beam-
target flux theoretically peaks about the same time the thermonuclear
flux theoretically peaks.  The beam-beam flux theoretically peaks and
then declindes nearly 50% about 0.3 seconds before the thermonuclear flux
peaks.  The peak of the beam-beam flux is about equivalent in magnitude
to the thermonuclear peak, while the beam-target peak is about twice as
large as the thermonuclear peak.

There is plenty of room for fudging in the above data.  They better have
some pretty damn good reasons for those dynamic theoretical attributions.
Maglich claims their thermonuclear flux could be *ZERO*!!!!

They elsewhere state that only some of their neutron counters could
discriminate between 14 (D-T) and 2.5 MeV (D-D) neutrons.  Maglich wants
+or- 10KeV resolution to identify beam-beam, beam-plasma, beam-wall, and
thermonuclear neutrons.


cudkeys:
cuddy19 cuden1554 cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.19 / John Logajan /  Re:  Fusion Neutron Signatures was Re: Scandal at Princeton -- TFTR
     
Originally-From: 74242.1554@compuserve.com (John M. Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re:  Fusion Neutron Signatures was Re: Scandal at Princeton -- TFTR
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 1994 05:24:44 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

johncobb@emx.cc.utexas.edu (John W. Cobb) writes:
>First, some people might look for the D+D--> 3He + n reaction. There
>the neutron energy is only 2.45 MeV. So if all of the neutrons are from
>this channel then the total neutron power is 2.45/14.1 = .17 times
>smaller than the stated power. Of course to accept this statement one
>has to explain why the high neutron counts are not seen in the D-D shots
>and why adding Tritium causes the D-D rate to go up. That's a big
>stretch. It is fairly obviuos that most of the nuetrons are from D-T
>reactions.

According to the Strachan DOE report, they used 50/50 D/T mixture, and the
D-T reactions occured about 100 times as often as D-D reactions -- giving
us a good estimate of the cross-section of their respective reaction
rates.

Clearly D-D represents only about 1% of the neutron flux rate, and is also
clearly not the issue that Maglich was raising.  Even Strachan claims that
70% of the neutron flux was caused by D-T reactions in beam-target and
beam-beam collisions.  Maglich says it wasn't 70%, but rather, that it was
100% -- in other words 0% neutron flux from thermonuclear (plasma-plasma)
fusion.


cudkeys:
cuddy19 cuden1554 cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.19 / John Logajan /  Re: TFTR neutron diagnostics
     
Originally-From: 74242.1554@compuserve.com (John M. Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: TFTR neutron diagnostics
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 1994 06:13:44 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue) writes:
>The only suggestion from Maglich that need be given a second thought
>would be that d-t collisions at the walls make the neutrons.  I don't
>know that much about the experimental conditions, but I seriously
>doubt that the setup is designed to allow the injected neutral
>beams just to crash into the walls.

Strachan (of PPPL) in a DOE report on the TFTR burn gives the calculated
neutron flux from the various sources.  They list three types in a
graphical representation over the course of about one second.  The three
types are:

1.) Beam-target
2.) Beam-beam
3.) Thermonuclear

Maglich listed four types:

1.) Beam-wall
2.) Beam-beam
3.) Plasma-plasma
4.) Beam-plasma

I presume the first three of Strachan and Maglich refer to the same thing.
I suppose #4 of Maglich might be folded into #2 of Strachan???

There is no issue whether they are D-D or D-T neutrons, it is presumed
that 99% are D-T neutrons.  The question is under what circumstances the
D-T neutrons were created.  Strachan puts the beam-target flux at twice
the thermonuclear flux, beam-beam flux being equal to the thermonuclear
flux peak, but then declining to about 1/2 of thermonuclear flux.

Strachan's categorization is all theoretical based.  Some of their
counters could discriminate between D-D and D-T but apparently not the
four above mentioned D-T types.  Since the three "false" sources are
70/30 compared to the "true" source even in the Strachan calculations, an
actual means to verify the ratio is more than warranted.


cudkeys:
cuddy19 cuden1554 cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.19 / C Harrison /  Miffed at sci.chem.electrochem ;-)
     
Originally-From: harr@netcom.com (Charles (Chuck) Harrison)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Miffed at sci.chem.electrochem ;-)
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 1994 05:47:40 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

Golly!

They got all the way thru the official newsgroup creation process
for sci.chem.electrochem and _nobody_ posted an RFD to s.p.f.

I just hope our favorite electrochemist lurkers won't _completely_
abandon the old college.

Cheers to all,
  -Chuck Harrison

cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenharr cudfnCharles cudlnHarrison cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.19 / Adam Miller /  Re: Fusion is the B, and Superconductivity is the E
     
Originally-From: amiller@tisl.ukans.edu (Adam Miller)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics,sci.math,sci.chem
Subject: Re: Fusion is the B, and Superconductivity is the E
Date: 19 Apr 94 01:30:01 CDT

	<<Lots of Drivel Totality Deleted!>>

	You know, you remind me of a washed up high school debater.
You come out here and on the other news groups and sit here and 
try to give us this great plan you have for unifying everything.  
Then, you try to wash over the fact that your plan wouldn't hold 
water if it was the bottom of the bloody ocean by posting as much
BS physics as possible.  Granted, you know a lot of theory names,
however, you obviously do not know a lot about the theories at hand.
	Let my critique begin in the post I am currently following. 
You decide to suddenly have this huge epiphany that Superconductivity
and Fusion are one.  You then go on to start spouting off about how
this would account for all of the unknowns in the universe.  Yet, the
one thing that you fail to do, as always seems to be the case, is to 
prove your theory.  Any elementary school kid could say the phrase
Superconductivity is Fusion (Allowing for difficulty in speech), and
they could prove it as much as you have, not at all!  Until I see some
mathematical proof that this theory could even exist nonetheless does,
I won't buy into this junk and wish that you would stop these insane posts.
	Posting, hmm, well, this brings me to your central theory now,
The Pu is god to us all theory.  Well, I can sum it up in one word... NOT!
Anyone, (this has been mentioned before) could have sat down in their
spare time and played around with numbers until something matched known 
constants.  This all proves nothing.  ANyway, why would it logically make
any kind of sense that we all came from a synthesized atom that doesn't 
exist in nature?  \
	I feel as if I have berated for long enough, and I look forward to
your substanceless reply which will once again have no mathematical grounds
nor logical reason.  Ohh.. and by the way... you might want to patch up
the holes in your sinking theory before you go down with it.
				-Adam Miller

cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenamiller cudfnAdam cudlnMiller cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.19 / Robert Heeter /  Reply to Maglich on TFTR D-T Results and Neutron Measurements
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Reply to Maglich on TFTR D-T Results and Neutron Measurements
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 1994 04:30:06 GMT
Organization: Princeton University


I have done some research regarding Maglich's criticism of TFTR,
and am now prepared to make a general refutation of Maglich's
arguments.

I will set the question of "science by press conference" aside
for now, and focus on the substantive scientific claims.

In article <940415183341_74242.1554_BHR34-1@CompuServe.COM> John M.
Logajan, 74242.1554@compuserve.com writes:

>PRINCETON'S "FUSION PRODUCTION DATA" HAVE NOT BEEN PUBLISHED IN A
SCIENTIFIC
>JOURNAL FOUR MONTHS AFTER THE WORLDWIDE PRESS ANNOUNCEMENT.
>
>On December 10, 1993, Princeton University announced to the press that
their
>measurements of the "neutron power" coming out of TFTR indicates "world 
>record" power production in thermonuclear fusion.

Technically, the claim was for a "world record in controlled fusion
power",
and not specifically "thermonuclear" fusion; though that was a record
too, I believe.  (More on this in a bit.)

>Princeton's claimed fusion power production data have not been published
to
>date, four months after the press release.

This is false both in spirit and in letter.  There are two PPPL reports
sitting in our library, which are publicly available to anyone who
requests them, and have been for several months.  The data were presented
at an open conference held here at PPPL in early March, where over
100 researchers from all over the world came to share and learn about
the results.  In a little over a month after the initial D-T experiments,
two papers were written and submitted for publication in _Physical
Review Letters_; it is my understanding that they *have* been approved
for publication, and will be out shortly.

PPPL has made every effort to disseminate the results of the D-T 
experiments to the scientific community as rapidly as possible.  The
delay in publication is due to the peer-review process and the
standard publishing procedures for PRL, not to foot-dragging by PPPL.
>
>LACK OF NEUTRON ENERGY MEASUREMENTS INVALIDATES CLAIM THAT THERMONUCLEAR 
>FUSION POWER WAS PRODUCED IN PRINCETON TOKAMAK.
>
>The instrument used in the much-heralded experiment at Princeton was
unable to
>measure neutron energy (technically called the "neutron energy
specrum"); it
>could only measure the number of neutrons (technically called the
"neutron
>flux").  That is, TFTR used an old-fashioned neutron counter, rather
than a
>neutron energy counter.  It is incomprehensible why a $100,000 "neutron
energy
>spectrometer" was not bought and used for this $3-billion machine.

First of all, TFTR is *not* a $3 billion machine.  It was constructed
for less than $600 million, and the total project cost to date is less
than $1.4 billion.  The final lifetime total as-spent cost of TFTR
will be lower than was projected in 1983, despite the fact that the
reactor has operated 3 years longer than was projected.  TFTR functions
with an operating budget significantly lower than either JET or JT-60U,
the two other large tokamaks in operation.

Secondly, TFTR has 5 different neutron diagnostics:  Fission chambers;
irradiation of Al, Si, In, and other foils; Zn-S scintillators; He-4
proportional counters; and surface barrier diode detectors.  These
detectors
are able to resolve D-D vs. D-T neutrons (therefore ensuring that we know
most of the neutrons produced are from D-T reactions).  It is true that
the detectors used in December were unable to distinguish among the
different mechanisms for producing D-T neutrons.  This, however, is
not a real problem, as I will explain below. 

>Without neutron energy measurements it is impossible to say where and
how the 
>neutrons emerging from the Tokamak were produced inside the Tokamak. 
There
>are three false sources of fusion neutrons.

As John Cobb has pointed out, these are all *true* sources of fusion 
neutrons; they are "false" only in that they are not "thermonuclear"
sources.
>
>1. Injected beam of deuterium and tritium hits the walls of Tokamak
chamber
>   which are lined with deposited deuterium and tritium.
>2. Injected beam hits plasma, and fusion takes place.
>3. Injected beam hits injected beam, and fusion takes place.
>
>They compete with true thermonuclear fusion and are usually dominant. 
The 
>only true thermonuclear fusion is the collision of plasma with plasma. 
The 
>neutron energy is different for each of the four cases.

Of the three non-thermonuclear sources listed above, only beam-wall
interactions pose a problem for tokamak-based fusion energy.  As John
Cobb pointed out, Maglich's own Migma device operates on the beam-beam
reaction (3) above.  In TFTR, typically 15% of the fusion power is
from beam-beam interactions, 55% is from beam-plasma interactions,
and 30% is from thermonuclear plasma reactions.  This was actually
a design goal for TFTR, because it makes better use of the neutral
beams (as I understand things.)

It is well known that beam-wall interactions contribute next to nothing
to the total fusion output, for some very simple reasons.  First, 
neutral beam sources (both D and T) on TFTR have been shot straight 
at deuterated targets, and the neutron flux has been measured.
When the same beam was shot at a plasma, the fusion neutron rate
went up by three orders of magnitude.   Furthermore, a neutron
scintillator spectrometer *has* been installed (within the past
few months), and data from March 1994 indicate that beam-wall 
interactions are *not* a significant contributor to the fusion power
output.  The fact is, fusion just doesn't happen much from 
beam-wall interactions; either theoretically or empirically.

>The claimed thermonuclear fusion power production of 6 megawatt was
inferred
>from the prediction which cannot be verified by data and which a
theoretical
>calculation (sic) that ignored the ZETA effect (#1).

It was never claimed that the 6 MW was only from thermonuclear
plasma-plasma
reactions.  Where Maglich came up with this red herring I do not know.
It is certainly true that the 6 MW came from beam-beam, beam-plasma,
and plasma-plasma reactions.  It did not come from the ZETA effect;
nor was the ZETA effect ignored in the preliminary work leading up to
the 50-50 D-T experiments in December.  As I explained above, the
bombardment of a deuterated target with the tritium beam verified
that beam-wall interactions are negligible in TFTR.

>HISTORY OF SENSATIONAL BRITISH "FUSION POWER PRODUCTION" ANNOUNCEMENT OF
THE
>1950'S MAY BE REPEATING ITSELF.
>
>In the 1950's, physicists from Harwell announce that, on the basis of
the 
>large number of neutrons emerging from their ZETA fusion machine, they
had 
>achieved controlled thermonuclear fusion.  Like in the TFTR, during the 
>transient state (non-thermal-equilibirium regime), they measured all the 
>neutrons coming out of the device without analysis of the neutron
spectra.  As 
>it turned out later, most or all the neutrons were produced in the
collisions 
>between the accelerated ions and ions implanted on the internal surfaces
of
>the containment vessel.
>
>In December 1993, TFTR measured the number of all neutrons during the 
>transient state coming from TFTR, indiscriminately, without a neutron
spectral 
>analysis, and without the neutron tagging directional measurements.  The 
>origin of these neutrons was inferred only by theory.  The theory has
not 
>included the ZETA effect: the neutrons produced in the beam collisions
with 
>the ions (D+T) implanted on the inside surface of the torus, although it
is >well-known that the Tokamak walls are lined with these ions. 
Exclusion of 
>this common neutron production mechanism is not explained. 

As I explained above, exclusion of the beam-wall reactions is justified
both theoretically and experimentally, and Maglich is being incredibly
insulting in suggesting that the TFTR scientists were foolish enough
to repeat the oldest mistake in fusion history.

>Under the influence of Princeton University's Washington Office, the
Office of
>Fusion Energy of DOE has been lax in scrutinizing the scientific claims
of the
>TFTR.

I would humbly suggest that whoever funds Dr. Maglich has been lax in
scrutinizing his unsubstantiated claims against others in the
fusion community, hurting both his own reputation and that of those for
whom he works.  While I was initially inclined to take his critique
seriously, now that I have the evidence before me, I see no reason
to trust his scientific judgment on anything.  Surely a beam-fusion
researcher would know that beam-wall reactions simply don't generate
very much fusion power!  It's too bad, because I think Migma is 
potentially a good idea, and I (and other students I know) might 
have considered working on it.

****************************
Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Graduate Student in Plasma Physics
Princeton University / Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory
* Disclaimers most certainly apply. *
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.19 / mitchell swartz /  Quantitation in Hot/Cold Fusion Systems (was Scandal at Princeton -- TFTR)
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Quantitation in Hot/Cold Fusion Systems (was Scandal at Princeton -- TFTR)
Subject: Re: Scandal at Princeton -- TFTR
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 1994 11:39:00 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA


   In Message-ID: <2otls6INNrn@slcawc.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de>
Subject: Re: Scandal at Princeton -- TFTR
Arthur Carlson TK (awc@ipp-garching.mpg.de) writes:

    [to Paul M. Koloc (pk)]
  =pk  >>  "Note that the beam-beam and beam-plasma reactions are fairly 
  =pk  >>well-understood, ....  " ...
  =pk  >>Now, the fusion power output was not measured in a "transient state"; it
  =pk  > >was measured over a whole second. ... TFTR does come to a reasonable
  =pk  > >equilibrium; a second is a *long* time in plasma dynamics.   ..."
  =pk  
  =pk  > Not for a really really hugely large inductance (toroidal plasma
  =pk  > donut of TFTR size.  It is long for a plasma ring in a conducting shell
  =pk  > the size of a chicken egg... yes;  but tokamak ... second??? nope.   
 
  =ac   "Numbers please. Typical time scales (primarily the energy and particle 
  =ac  'confinement times) in a present-day tokamak are on the order of 100 msec.
  =ac  *My* definition of "long" is "several confinement times".

  Here are some numbers.   

   Paul Koloc says a second is a long time for plasma dynamics.

   Art Carlson (TK)  says 100msec (* several) is a long time for state-of-the-art
tokamak confinement times.   [What is a TK?]

  after Webster [ibid.]   several ---- [from ML    separalis    (separate)]
       1)   separate and distinct from others
       2)   more than one
       3)   more than two but fewer than many

  Here is a partially filled in table.  [Perhaps Paul, Maglich, John, or 
another might help supply the other values.  Tnx.]


 --------------------------------------------------------------------------
|      FUSION SYSTEMS        |what is "long" | current systems  |breakeven |
|                            |   (seconds)   |   performance    |>1 minute?|
|                            |               |      (seconds)   |          |
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   Hot Fusion Systems       |               |                  |          |
|    tokomaks  - Carlson     |     < 1       |      ~ 1  (?)    |    no    |
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   self-collider  Maglich   |               |                  |          |
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   plasma systems - Koloc   |      1        |                  |          |
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------
|  CF - steady state excess  |>1,000,000     |86,400 - 2,400,000|   yes    |
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------
|    CF - burst excess (rare)|    100        |  ca. 1 - 100     |          |
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
    
   First, cold fusion systems -- in reproducible but
difficult to achieve conditions -- generate both steady state 
(or regular anomalous) excess heats for hours to months 
and the rarer burst heats (irregular anomalous of much
shorter times) which exceed those times which Carlson
would consider a desirable "long" life (i.e. confinement time) 
for his Tokomak fusion system(s).

   Second,   notice that neither time cited above for hot fusion
systems is of a temporal length which would have
any serious potential use to contribute towards a
useful supplementation of the electrical power grid system
(or simple heating of a home).

   Third, it is therefore quantitatively obvious that some of the 
attacks on CF and CF investigators (including those attempting to
merely report facts on the Internet) by people designing such 
ephermal systems is/(has been) in utter hypocrisy.  This would be
consistent with Dale Bass' comments:

      >>Robert F. Heeter  <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> wrote:
      >>>There is a distinct difference in character between the P&F *announcement*
      >>>and the TFTR *demonstration*.  In particular, if TFTR had *not* worked 
      >>>successfully, PPPL would have had to eat crow.  Furthermore, P&F had 
      >>>submitted their paper for publication *before* making the announcement,
      >>>right?  ..."
 =bass    On the other hand, if someone tries to insert that TFTR shot
 =bass        into one of the Physical Review journals (even being so bold
 =bass        as to attempt PRL), Nature or Science, then that would
 =bass        constitute hypocrisy.   After all, that 'science' was already
 =bass        announced at the press conference.  I'd hope that the peer review
 =bass        process would reject such an article as inappropriate for PRL,
 =bass        and I'd hope you'd agree with me that any submitters of such 
 =bass        an article should hang their heads in shame (or at least
=bass        publically verbally censure anyone associated with the critism
 =bass        of P&F for 'science by press conference').    ......
 =bass        The criticism from certain persons associated with PPPL was
 =bass        'science by press conference'.  Now I personally don't mind
 =bass        a press conference or two.  That seems like a reasonably
 =bass        legitimate way to proceed under certain circumstances.  However,
 =bass        it's quite hypocritical to criticize others for doing so when
 =bass        one is doing the exactly the same.             .....
 =bass        I'm not associated with either P&F (being somewhat skeptical
 =bass        of their claims, to say the least) or PPPL, and I think you're
 =bass        splitting hairs.  They announced to gain better leverage with 
 =bass       their government sponsors.  That's even worse than P&F who just
 =bass        announced to get priority.
     [Cameron Randale Bass (crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU)
          Subject: Re: Scandal at Princeton -- TFTR
      Message-ID: <CoG3Jv.5nq@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
                        18 Apr 1994]
 

   Fourth, given the lack of substantial relative basis for 
hot fusion system (compared to cold fusion systems)
revealed by such analysis, one further possible interpretation 
is that such interference has been made in an attempt to remove the more 
efficient and longer-lasting system (CF) from consideration as competition.

    Best wishes, colleagues.

          -  Mitchell Swartz  (mica@world.std.com)
==========================================
  "Opinion is of more power than law."            
       Sydney Smith (1771-1845); "Gamelaws"

"The history of the world is the record of the weakness,
frailty and death of public opinion"
       Samuel Butler (1835-1902); "NOTEBOOKS"




cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.19 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Logajan's Tripe  was Re: Scandal at Princeton -- TFTR
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Logajan's Tripe  was Re: Scandal at Princeton -- TFTR
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 1994 06:00:45 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <2ov76e$8td@news.u.washington.edu>,
Louis Nick <snick@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>In article <CoGxGA.FsM@murdoch.acc.virginia.edu>,
>Cameron Randale Bass <crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU> wrote:
>>In article <2oua1hINNbfo@emx.cc.utexas.edu>,
>>John W. Cobb <johncobb@emx.cc.utexas.edu> wrote:
>>
>>>---------------------------------------------------------------
>>>John W. Cobb	My posts don't reflect the views of my employer
>>>                Because my posts are usually opaque.
>>>---------------------------------------------------------------
>>     Wouldn't that be 'My posts don't transmit the views of my 
>>     employer?'  or 'Because my posts have low reflectance 
>>     (per NBS Monograph-160).'
>>
>>     After all, polished stainless is pretty opaque to 
>>     visible, but it reflects pretty well....
>>
>That, perhaps, Mr. Bass, you have too much time on your hands.  :^))

     Or more likely, too little sleep...

                                 dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.19 / John Logajan /  Re: Articles of tangential relevence.
     
Originally-From: 74242.1554@compuserve.com (John M. Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Articles of tangential relevence.
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 1994 14:41:28 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Three interesting articles recently.

Scientific American (May '94) discusses the David Bohm (1917-1992)
interpretation of quantum physics.  It differs from conventional quantum
physics by suggesting that wavefuctions act as envelopes that are either
empty or carry the particle they are associated with.  So in a self-
interference experiment, say, the interfence pattern represents the
creation of two wavefuction envelopes at the point of splitting, one is
empty and one has the particle.  If they happen to recombine then they
can interfere with each other.  It's claimed to be a deterministic rather
than probabilistic view.

Scientific American also briefly mentions the Haisch, Rueda, and Puthoff
paper in Phys Rev A (Feb 1994) "Inertia as a Zero-Point Field Lorentz
Force."

Also in a recent issue of Science News (April 9, '94), they mentioned
that a laser beam aimed at a mixture of titanium dioxide paritcles and
rhodamine dye causes them to emit an extraordinary bright omni-
directional laser type light.


cudkeys:
cuddy19 cuden1554 cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.15 /  tjakobs@mswe.d /  Re: Reuters report on 'red mercury' fusion device
     
Originally-From: tjakobs@mswe.dnet.ms.philips.nl
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reuters report on 'red mercury' fusion device
Date: 15 Apr 94 23:00:47 +0100
Organization: Philips Medical Systems Nederland

In article <2ojo4m$9p6@coranto.ucs.mun.ca>, court@newton.physics.mun.ca
(John Lewis) writes:
> It is WELL KNOWN among UFOlogists
> that red mercury is used to catalyse cold fusion
> in palladiumn-deuterium systems, and that the resulting high-power
> reactors are used to power UFOs.  It iw also WELL KNOWN in the same
> circles
> that the US Government, the oil companies, and the electricity
> utilities have coordinated a massive coverup to keep this IMPORTANT
> KNOWLEDGE from the general public, and insure MASSIVE PROFITS for
> the investors!!  That is the TRUE REASON behind the well-documented
> UFO coverup!!!!!   IT ALL TIES TOGETHER!!!!  PROOOOOFFF!!!!
> 
> :-)  :-)  :-)  :-)  :-)  :-)  :-)  :-)  :-)  
> 
> (I could make a fortune writing books if I believed the above tripe!)
> (I may have been following this newsgroup for too long)
> 
> J.Lewis
> Newfoundland
> 
Why be so sceptic??
I 've just seen the report on German televisison, and although it looked a bit
like a detective story, the report seemed well prepared. They had a number of
different sources, and a couple of western neuclear scientist to verify the
information given by their informants. One of them called Barnaby or something,
and also two American scientist (I've forgotten their names) who, as was stated,
had played a leading role in neuclear science. 
From the report it became apparent, that the Russians have discovered a method
whereby only very little trithium (or something like it, I'm no neuclear
scientist :) ), is needed to produce a nuclear bomb. I don't kow the details
anymore, although it has only been a half an hour since the program. 
Yee, I'm really no neuclear scientist :).

Peter Jakobs
Holland
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudentjakobs cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.19 / Matt Kennel /  Re: "Red Mercury" ?
     
Originally-From: mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: "Red Mercury" ?
Date: 19 Apr 1994 17:01:48 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

Fred Logue (fplogue@unix2.tcd.ie) wrote:
: In <1994Apr18.175547.834@vax1.dcu.ie> 93358458@vax1.dcu.ie writes:

: > Red Mercury ? Fusion ? I had thought it was possible for low-Z elements
: > to Fuse with the kind of tempratures we can generate on earth - so 
: > obviously the 'red mercury' is not Mercury. And why red ? Does anyone
: > even have any idea what it is supposed to be ? It would make a good story
: > if there was a concise set of facts.....any offers ?


: From what I could gather from the (appalling) documentary on Ch 4 is
: that Red Mercury is Mercury Antimony oxide. This is a powder, but it is
: then bombarded with radioactive heay ions (I think) so it becomes a
: neutron emitter. Then in the bomb, when it is detonaed, the plutonium is
: covered in a layer of red mercury which bombards the Plutonium with
: neutrons and also compresses it somehow and this somehow reduces the
: critical mass of Pu needed for fission ....or something. 

In this case, "red mercury" is hardly news.  Subcritical implosion bombs
and neutron-emitting 'spark plugs' have been around for ages.  Even the
Iraqis were doing that stuff.

: Fred Logue, Dept. Physics,Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland.,

--
-Matt Kennel  		mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu
-Institute for Nonlinear Science, University of California, San Diego
-*** AD: Archive for nonlinear dynamics papers & programs: FTP to
-***     lyapunov.ucsd.edu, username "anonymous".
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenmbk cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.19 / Matt Kennel /  Re: Nonsense about red mercury
     
Originally-From: mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Nonsense about red mercury
Date: 19 Apr 1994 17:04:53 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

Richard A Blue (blue@pilot.msu.edu) wrote:
: Whenever stories about "red mercury" contain specific details they
: show clear signs of being totally silly.  Now we are told that
: red mercury is in fact Hg2Sb2O7 that has been irradiated (?)
: to form a liquid with density 20, boiling pt 350C, melting pt
: -38 C and flash pt 170 C, more or less.  In order to get a density
: that high one normally expects to start with heavy nuclei and
: cram them more closely together than they might normally like to
: be.

Density 20?

Hmm.  Maybe "mercury" or "antimony" are code names for fissile
isotopes of plutonium.

: Dick Blue

--
-Matt Kennel  		mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu
-Institute for Nonlinear Science, University of California, San Diego
-*** AD: Archive for nonlinear dynamics papers & programs: FTP to
-***     lyapunov.ucsd.edu, username "anonymous".
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenmbk cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.19 / Ron Dippold /  2nd CFV: sci.physics.plasma moderated
     
Originally-From: rdippold@qualcomm.com (Ron "Asbestos" Dippold)
Newsgroups: news.announce.newgroups,news.groups,sci.physics,sci.physics.
usion,sci.physics.research,sci.physics.electromag
Subject: 2nd CFV: sci.physics.plasma moderated
Date: 19 Apr 1994 13:23:26 -0400
Organization: Usenet Volunteer Votetakers

                          LAST CALL FOR VOTES (of 2)
                     moderated group sci.physics.plasma

Newsgroups line:
sci.physics.plasma      Plasma Science & Technology community exchange.

Votes must be received by 23:59:59 UTC, 29 April 1994.

This vote is being conducted by a neutral third party.  For voting
questions only contact rdippold@qualcomm.com.  For questions about the
proposed group contact Tim Eastman <eastman@astro.umd.edu>.


CHARTER (Proponent)

   The NEWSGROUP for Plasma Science and Technology is intended as a
community forum for sharing new developments and bringing researchers
together for potential new collaborations. During 1994, the focus of
this NewsGroup will be a community-wide dialogue to formulate a Plasma
Science and Technology Initiative which would deliver big-science
value with a medium-scale investment.  Participation in this dialogue
will involve primarily researchers in plasma science and technology
although qualified researchers in all related fields are
welcome. Executive committees for the Division of Plasma Physics of
the American Physical Society (APS) and the Nuclear and Plasma
Sciences Society of IEEE (Institute of Electrical and Electronics
Engineers) have given formal approval for this network dialogue.

   The Plasma Science and Technology research community seeks an
increased dialogue among its multifarious constituencies.  Plasmas are
as rich as any other state of matter in terms of distinct processes
and they encompass distinguishable scales ranging from the atomic to
the galactic. Opportunities in plasma science and technology reflect
this breadth in phenomena and scales; one recent list contains 135
subject areas and 65 applications areas including thin-film diamond
deposition, toxic waste disposal, plasma arcs for steel processing,
laser self-focusing, fusion for energy production, gas and arc lamps,
cutting and welding, and semiconductor production.

   In its initial implementation, Dr. Tim Eastman will be the PLASMA
NEWSGROUP moderator. He is a Faculty member of the Institute for
Physical Science and Technology at the University of Maryland [ph:
301-405-4829, fax: 301-314-9363, email: eastman@astro.umd.edu].
Dr. Barry Ripin of the Naval Research Laboratory will be an alternate
moderator.  The APS and IEEE Executive Committees will renew or
replace the moderator on a yearly basis.

NOTE: The NewsGroup name "sci.physics.fusion" already exists
and is appropriate for the subset of Plasma Science and Technology
which focuses on plasmas for energy production (i.e., fusion).  
The proposed NEWSGROUP for PLASMA is intended to complement the 
"fusion" group and will primarily orient itself to issues of 
Plasma Science and Technology other than fusion.


Why the NewsGroup for Plasma Science & Technology is needed and should pass:

Representatives and members of the Plasma Science and Technology research 
community have long recognized a need to communicate information and issues
that affect the broader community in addition to the several email groups
that currently exist at the local level or sub-field level (e.g., the Plasma
Etch User's Group in the Bay area).  Formal support for setting up this
NewsGroup has now been given (as of Nov. 1993) by the key Executive 
Committees representing this broad multi-disciplinary field.  In order to
focus the discussion during the NewsGroup's first year, we will encourage
a community-wide dialogue to formulate a major Plasma Science and Technology
Initiative.  The NewsGroup would then complement a Workshop on this topic
at the International Conference in Plasma Science in June, 1994.  Even after
this initiative is formulated and is no longer a focus of discussion, the
NewsGroup will provide a valuable service to the community by encouraging
contacts and research coordination that might otherwise never develop.
Use of the NewsGroup will be encouraged through scientific meetings and
through timely announcements of job opportunities, research opportunities, 
and funding options.



HOW TO VOTE

Send MAIL to:   voting@qualcomm.com
Just Replying should work if you are not reading this on a mailing list.

Your mail message should contain one of the following statements:
      I vote YES on sci.physics.plasma
      I vote NO on sci.physics.plasma

You may also ABSTAIN in place of YES/NO - this will not affect the outcome.
Anything else may be rejected by the automatic vote counting program.  The
votetaker will respond to your received ballots with a personal acknowledge-
ment by mail - if you do not receive one within several days, try again.
It's your responsibility to make sure your vote is registered correctly.

One vote counted per person, no more than one per account. Addresses and
votes of all voters will be published in the final voting results list.



sci.physics.plasma Bounce List - No need to revote
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
@s.ms.uky.edu                                                                 
johncobb@emx.cc.utexas.edu                                        John W. Cobb
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenrdippold cudfnRon cudlnDippold cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.19 / D Stevenson /  Aero gel supplier
     
Originally-From: dtsteven@athena.mit.edu (Donald T Stevenson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Aero gel supplier
Date: 19 Apr 1994 18:09:37 GMT
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology


cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudendtsteven cudfnDonald cudlnStevenson cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.19 / Bruce TK /  Re: Logajan's Tripe  was Re: Scandal at Princeton -- TFTR
     
Originally-From: bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce       Scott          TK  )
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Logajan's Tripe  was Re: Scandal at Princeton -- TFTR
Date: 19 Apr 1994 20:23:08 +0200
Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching


I don't have time to get into this argument; I just point out that it did
indeed take JET longer than this to publish. Besides, PPPL only handed out 
copies of the PPPL Reports a month or so ago. There may have been some
internal wrangling. But remember, in science, getting it right is (or should
be) more important that getting it out fast.

Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de                               -- W Gibson
-- 
Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de                               -- W Gibson
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnTK cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.19 / A MICHAEL /   Baby boomers (amd I mean it)
     
Originally-From: malexan@a.cs.okstate.edu (ALEXANDER MICHAEL)
Newsgroups: rec.pyrotechnics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject:  Baby boomers (amd I mean it)
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 94 21:29:08 GMT
Organization: Oklahoma State University, Computer Science, Stillwater

In article <CoDJxt.EBK@ryn.mro.dec.com> pierson@msd26.enet.dec.com (dave pierson) writes:
>In article <CoDDI7.67z@ryn.mro.dec.com>, pierson@msd26.enet.dec.com
(dave pierson) writes...
>>In article <15APR199422553528@zeus.tamu.edu>, kcm8305@zeus.tamu.edu
(MARSDEN, KENNETH CHARLES) writes...
>>>In article <CoBF0p.qA@cnsnews.Colorado.EDU>, thompson@spot.Colorado.E
U (THOMPSON  BENJAMIN RHINELANDER) writes...
>>>>	I saw an article in the newspaper the other day that the Russians
>>>>have come up with a "baseball-sized" fusion bomb. Apparently it's a pure
>>>>fusion device (no fission core) which relies on a radioactive substance
>>>>called "red mercury". I've never heard of this stuff. Can anybody supply
>>>>information?

As to the "red murcury," it is most likely bullshit.  As to the baseball sized,
it should be 155mm in diameter, a couple of feet long, and a few hundred lbs.
and fired out of a 155mm cannon.  Old news, like 1960's, before they realized
that nukes+artillery=fried artillerymen.  I think they also built one that 
would fit in a 105mm, wich might qualify it as softball sized, but only in 
diameter.  Nuke artillery generally had yeilds in the sub-to tens of kilotons
range.s
				--msa
-- 
m. scot alexander         When Occam's Razor just won't quite do.....
malexan@a.cs.okstate.edu  ________|____________________________ 
                         |________|___________________________/ 
                                  |
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenmalexan cudfnALEXANDER cudlnMICHAEL cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Wed Apr 20 04:37:02 EDT 1994
------------------------------
1994.04.19 / Robert Heeter /  TFTR D-T = Science by Press Conference?
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: TFTR D-T = Science by Press Conference?
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 1994 05:30:10 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

This is my general response to Maglich, Dale Bass, and others who
are claiming that when PPPL invited the press to witness the first
high-power D-T fusion runs in TFTR, they were engaging in 
"Science by Press Conference" in the same manner as Pons &
Fleischmann were when they prematurely announced their "Cold 
Fusion" results in 1989.

First, let's make a list of salient characteristics:

*** Pons & Fleischmann:
     - initial work done with minimum external scientific scrutiny.
     - results inconsistent with a lot of science
           previously thought to be well-understood.
     - results dependent on new, unexpected effect.
     - work pursued as low-profile project with little/no public funding.
     - results represented mysterious new effect from old technology.
     - no prior prediction of results
     - press not invited to witness initial experiments.
     - press conference called after paper submission and before
          publication, in an attempt to preempt other researchers.

*** TFTR D-T experiments:
     - culmination of over 10 years of externally scrutinized research.
     - results consistent with well-understood science.
     - results dependent only on equipment functioning as expected.
     - work pursued as a high-profile publicly-funded project.
     - results represented enhanced, understood effect from old
technology.
     - results publicly predicted in advance
     - press invited to initial experiments
     - press conference called while news was fresh; not to preempt.

*** First Space Shuttle Launch:
     - culmination of many years of publicly scrutinized development
     - results consistent with well-understood science.
     - results dependent only on equipment functioning as expected.
     - work pursued as high-profile publicly-funded project.
     - results represented new use of older technology
     - results publicly predicted in advance.
     - press invited to initial launch
     - press conference called while news was fresh.

What I would like to suggest is that the notion of "science by press
conference" applies to *each* of the above situations, but not
in the same way in all cases.  

(The argument that space shuttle launch results wouldn't be published 
in physics journals is specious; there are certainly technologies 
tested in the shuttle, and the results of those tests would have 
been published in relevant engineering journals, just as the results 
of physics experiments are published in relevant physics journals.)

I feel that there are shades of grey in the notion of "science by 
press conference", and that the TFTR D-T experiments have more in 
common with the Shuttle Launch than with the P&F announcement.  
I believe it was appropriate for TFTR to host a public demonstration 
in order to share with the public the fruits of the public's 
investment, much as the space shuttle launch was publicized.  
It's not the case that major unexpected discoveries were announced 
without prior peer-review, as in the case of the P&F announcement.  

To the extent that suprising new conclusions were announced, they
were presented as preliminary results, subject to review and revision.
(I have in mind here the absence of new instabilities, the enhancement
of confinement, and the reactor-level power densities achieved,
among other things.)  I don't believe it's hypocritical for a 
fusion researcher to consider the P&F announcment inappropriate 
scientific behavior, and yet consider the D-T demonstration an 
appropriate public demonstration of publicly funded science and 
technology development.

We now return to the regularly scheduled Bass-Heeter debate:

In article <CoG3Jv.5nq@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> Cameron Randale Bass,
crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU writes:
>In article <1994Apr18.004454.3208@Princeton.EDU>,
>Robert Franklin Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> wrote:
>  
>     The criticism from certain persons associated with PPPL was
>     'science by press conference'.  Now I personally don't mind
>     a press conference or two.  That seems like a reasonably
>     legitimate way to proceed under certain circumstances.  However,
>     it's quite hypocritical to criticize others for doing so when
>     one is doing the exactly the same.
>
>     And I think the TFTR shot is 'news' in exactly the same manner
>     as P&F's announcement was 'news'.  That is, they were both angling
>     for the mantle of 'future energy source'.  Indeed, no one
>     would have come to either announcement had it been a 
>     new subspecies of mealworm.

I think the listing of circumstances I've given above shows that
TFTR & P&F represent two distinct classes of news, two distinct
types of results, and two distinct ways of publicizing scientific
results.  The fact that both involved press conferences and fusion
isn't enough to make me consider them identical phenomena, and I
hope others agree that these are reasonable distinctions.
>
>>The impression I get is that you didn't understand the logic
>>the way I meant it to be understood.  (Most likely this is because
>>I was tired when I wrote my reply and probably wasn't very clear.)
>
>     I understood perfectly.  I just didn't buy it.  I suspect
>     that there are not many outside Princeton that did.

The email I'm receiving suggests otherwise.  Anyone out there
care to vote either way?  If most people think I'm way out of 
line, well, I'll just have to change my perspective.

>>If someone working on a small experiment at PPPL were to 
>>publicly announce that they had found a completely new method
>>for confining a plasma, and that they had just achieved 
>>scientific breakeven with the new method, that would be a
>>situation much more comparable to the P&F announcement, and I
>>would agree that PPPL was being hypocritical. 
>
>     I'm sure someone could split hairs more finely to determine that
>     since this was a government-sponsored technology program 
>     they actually had an *obligation* to announce before 
>     publication whereas P&F being private, had an obligation to 
>     publish first.  This is still in keeping with your logic above, 
>     and is still just as specious.

I'm equally sure that's *not* what I said above.  Whether or not
one should announce or publish depends more on the nature of the
result, and less on the source of the funding.  Which is what I
said in my example.  Your resistance to allowing shades of grey 
in this discussion ("splitting hairs") is a little frustrating, 
and I don't understand it.
>
>     I'm not associated with either P&F (being somewhat skeptical
>     of their claims, to say the least) or PPPL, and I think you're
>     splitting hairs.  They announced to gain better leverage with 
>     their government sponsors.  That's even worse than P&F who just
>     announced to get priority.

If you'd prefer to see everything in black and white, and avoid
"splitting hairs" to understand the shades of grey, then I can't
really help you.  Your claim that PPPL announced to gain leverage
with the government sponsors is particularly mean-spirited and
unjustified.  In fact, if PPPL had really been interested in gaining
political leverage, we would have announced within the past few
weeks, now that the papers have been accepted for publication,
(thus reducing the prospects of "science-by-press conference"
criticism) and now that Congress is beginning to consider the
fusion budget for next year.  It would have made more sense to
delay the announcement to achieve maximum political advantage,
if that was the primary goal, don't you think?

>     Indeed, press conferences to slime for fame and government money
>     do not seem substantialy different from press conferences just
>     to slime for fame.

This is off-topic, but I have to wonder if the sorry state of 
American science today isn't because attitudes like these prevent 
many scientists from sharing the fun results from their 
publicly-supported research with the public that does the supporting.  
Might the SSC not have died if earlier accelerator researchers had 
done more to "slime for fame" by coming out of their ivory towers 
and sharing the excitement of their work with anyone who would
listen?  Ordinary Americans have so little contact with scientists
today that many of them hardly consider us human.  How did this happen?

One reason I sit here typing all these articles is that I believe
there are readers out there who simply think that fusion is cool
stuff, that it could become an important part of solving our
energy and environmental problems; I believe the scientists in the
field have an obligation to share themselves a little, share their
work a little, and to try to help the taxpayers understand just
what their taxes are paying for.  I also feel this was the spirit
in which the TFTR D-T results were presented, and that all other
considerations were secondary.  I'm sorry you tend to disagree.

******************************
Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Graduate Student in Plasma Physics
Princeton University / Princeton Plasma Physics Lab
Disclaimers apply.
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.20 /  morrison@vxpri /  Timing and the Chubbs' theory.
     
Originally-From: morrison@vxprix.cern.ch
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Timing and the Chubbs' theory.
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 1994 01:53:33 GMT
Organization: At Home; Salida, CA USA

   There has been some discussions of the Chubbs' theory. Perhaps the 
simplest way of seeing the problems of the Chubbs' approach is to consider
time.
        In nuclear physics, an interaction happens in less than 10 E-20 seconds 
and this gives the radius over which the information of the interaction can 
take place (by multiplying by the velocity of light). Now the spacing of the 
lattice is a few Angstroms. So only one Palladium ion can be involved 
in that time. 
       The Chubbs are proposing that the 23 MeV gamma energy can be 
spread out over 10 E7 Palladium ions so that each only receives 
about 2 eV. But for this to happen in 10 E-20 seconds, means that 
the energy has to travel much faster than the velocity of light. Now there
are an incredible number of experiments which show that this cannot happen.
     Cold Fusion already needs several miracles to be true. It is not too
reasonable to try and explain Cold Fusion with a theory which invents 
yet another miracle which violates a fundamental principle of physics. If 
the Chubbs were correct, and energy could travel faster than the velocity of 
light, then there would be many consequences and these have not been observed.

                                       Douglas R.O. Morrison.

cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenmorrison cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.20 / John Logajan /  Re: Reply to Maglich on TFTR D-T Results
     
Originally-From: 74242.1554@compuserve.com (John M. Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reply to Maglich on TFTR D-T Results
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 1994 04:26:03 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> writes:
>There are two PPPL reports sitting in our library, which are publicly
>available to anyone who requests them, and have been for several months.

I sure George Adamski (UFO Contactee) had several reports publicly
available too. :-)

>In a little over a month after the initial D-T experiments, two papers
>were written and submitted for publication in _Physical Review Letters

Press conference before publication!  Maglich's claim is vindicated by
your own admission.

>PPPL has made every effort to disseminate the results of the D-T 
>experiments to the scientific community as rapidly as possible.  The
>delay in publication is due to the peer-review process and the
>standard publishing procedures for PRL, not to foot-dragging by PPPL.

Replace PPPL with P+F above and you get to the hypocrisy issue that
Maglich was raising.

>It was never claimed that the 6 MW was only from thermonuclear
>plasma-plasma reactions.

Like a congresscritter is going to know enough to discount 70% or more of
the power figure given!

>Surely a beam-fusion researcher would know that beam-wall reactions
>simply don't generate very much fusion power!

Maglich listed three false sources, beam-wall, beam-beam, and beam-plasma.
By your own admission two of those false sources theoretically account for
70% of the total neutron flux.  Maglich claims that without a neutron
spectrometer, it cannot be known exactly what the source of the neutrons
was.

PPPL has put forward a theoretical explanation that they did not attempt
to falsify with sufficiently sensitive instruments.  If P+F did that in a
hot fusion attempt, PPPL staff would no doubt be now holding a "Wake for
Tokomak Party."


cudkeys:
cuddy20 cuden1554 cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.21 / Richard Blue /  Re: Roessingh on Chubb theory
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Roessingh on Chubb theory
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 1994 00:12:37 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Peter Roessingh is challanging me to do a better job of making a
case against the Chubb theory so I will see what I can do along
those lines.  Let me start by a brief summary of what experimental
results have direct bearing on this question.  According to Chubb
the fusion of deuterons results in the formation of 4He in its
nuclear ground state, excludes all other possible decay channels
including the emission of gamma rays, at no point in time and
space ever results in a concentration of the energy release that
could subsequently result in the emission of X-rays, and limits
the occurance of detectable levels of the resulting 4He to the
exterior of the PdD lattice.  Thus the only two possible
observations that can confirm the existance of cold fusion in
this system are generation of excess enthalpy and 4He in the
evolving gas.

To the best of my knowledge the only experiments that conform
to the Chubb theory and provide evidence for both observables
are the experiments by Miles, et al. at China Lake.  Other
searches for helium, I believe, have been confined to the
analysis of the PdD lattice and have given negative results
even though they seemed to have met the requirements for the
production of excess enthalpy at high loadings.

As I have indicated in another series of postings, it is my
belief that a close examination of the first series of Miles
experiments casts doubt as to whether the observations of
excess enthalpy were in fact genuine.  Even if you accept
the claim that excess enthalpy was observed in correlation
with helium production, it would be very difficult to establish
that the high loading condition had been achieved in those
experiments.  Certainly the experimental conditions did not
approach those that are now said to be essential for high
loading.  Thus we see that finding experimental evidence
that supports the Chubb theory is not totally clear cut.

The Chubb theory has as its essential feature the formation
of a deuteron ion band state involving only a very small
fraction of the dueterons in a very low density distribution
through the entire lattice.  Normally such a state would
not be energetically favored and would remain unpopulated
until all the normal lattice sites are occupied by deuterons,
hence the absolute requirement for high loading.  My arguement
with Dr. Chubb begins with the need for a description of
the deuteron band state that includes information relating
to deuteron-deuteron correlations.  It may not be obvious
but my understanding, in part confirmed by Dr. Chubb, is
that the ion band wave functions presented by Dr. Chubb in
his initial presentations simply do not deal with these
essential correlations.  His theory cannot explain something
if the required physics is just left out of the problem.

My next level of objection to the Chubb theory has to do
with the question of how coordinates essential to the
quantum mechanical description of the problem are being
handled.  Dr. Chubb returns again and again to the statement
that the deuterons are not "point like".  Simply stated that
has reference to the behavior that part of the wave function
that determines a deuteron's position and momentum, i.e.
contains x,y,z and the conjugate momenta for the motion of
the deuterons center of mass.  These are the only coordinates
that have been including in the ion band state description,
but they are not the only coordinates of significance to
the fusion reaction problem.  Thus far I simply have not
been able to get a complete answer from Dr. Chubb as to
how he treats other coordinates.  My sense is that he
has not concerned himself with these questions until he
was challanged, but you should be aware that no matter
what you think of the theory Chubb has presented up to this
point there are some key pieces that are not yet in place.

Ultimately the Chubb explaination of cold fusion revolves
around the notion that Coulomb and nuclear interaction
energies can be kept at an arbitrarily low level by dilution
over a very large number of lattice unit cells, but that
this does not inhibit the fusion of two deuterons.  Thus
there is an apparent contradiction in that deuterons stay
apart to keep the energy at a minimum, but they get close
together to fuse.  This, I believe, is just a nonphysical
assertion by Dr. Chubb that is unsupported by anything
by way of proof.  He is simply making a new interpretation
of quantum mechanics because it suites him to do so.
It is at this point where I believe he departs from doing
things in accord with accepted practice.  The paper I
cited by Legget and Baym would clearly stand in contradiction
to Dr. Chubb's point of view.

Well, I will hang it up for now, but there is certainly
more to be said about this even after you find a way to
induce fusion.

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.20 / D Stevenson /  Aero gel Supplier?
     
Originally-From: dtsteven@slipknot.mit.edu (Donald T. Stevenson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Aero gel Supplier?
Date: 20 Apr 94 12:56:39 GMT
Organization: Massachvsetts Institvte of Technology

A friend of mine is looking for a supplier of aero gel.  Aero gel is
(I think) a silicate-based gel which has been used as a pellet to
absorb (or adsorb) deuterium and/or tritium and used as a target
in laser fusion experiments.  My friend believes that a supplier of 
this is located in Massachusetts, but he has been unable to locate them.
He is interested in trying the stuff in a non-fusion related project.
Any clues would be appreciated.  Email to dtsteven@slipknot.mit.edu.
				Thanks very much,	
					Don Stevenson


cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudendtsteven cudfnDonald cudlnStevenson cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.20 / Paul Koloc /  Re: control of plasma in fusion reaction?
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: control of plasma in fusion reaction?
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 1994 07:04:01 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <2o335aINNig@slcawc.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de> awc@ipp-garching.mpg.de writes:
>
>In article <2nvuloINNjgd@owl.csrv.uidaho.edu>, colem861@cs.uidaho.edu () writes:
>> 	What are the current control methods for containing a fusion 
>> reaction?  We are a group of control specialists primarily using current
>> artificial intelligence techniques (Neural Networks, Fuzzy Logic, etc.).
>
>The question is a little muddled, but I think it can be straightened out. 
>When a fusion reactor or ignition experiment is built, burn control (keeping 
>the plasma from producing too little or too much power) will be an important 
>issue.  _Current_ experiments just have to worry about keeping the plasma 
>the right size >in the right place using magnetic coils--which is enough 
>of a headache.

:-)  Just control the fueling  :-)  

>Early control systems were analog, with preset time traces and only the 
>simplest of failure handling mechanisms. Recently, digital systems with 
>the ability to make real time decisions based on plasma behavior have 
>been implemented. There is interest in neural networks and fuzzy logic 
>at the major fusion centers (San Diego, Culham (England), Garching 
>(Germany)), but Lausanne (Switzerland) seems to have taken it the farthest. 
>(The latest reference that I have is an invited paper at the 7th Conf. 
>REAL TIME '91 at KFA Juelich, Germany, 24-28 June, 1991, by J.B.Lister, 
>H.Schnurrenberger, and others: "Neural Networks in Front-End Processing 
>and Control".) I don't think anyone has actually impolemented a plasma
>control system based on neural networks.

Ahh!  slow fluffy tokamaks...  lots of feed back time ... Huh!


>The currently most sophisticated plasma control systems (in my humble 
>opinion) are those for ASDEX-Upgrade in Garching, Germany. 

You are too modest.  this IS the most sophisticated, cleanest, versitile
and best made tokamak research vessel made...   no exceptions.  

Of course, tokamaks, inherently have serious (lethal) flaws.  
                      :-(
>                    ..    .      .    . .       This is the 
>only machine with the poloidal field coils outside the toroidal coils, 
>a necessary feature for a real reactor. But since the coils are so far 
>from the plasma, they interact with each other much more strongly than 
>those on other tokamaks. Furthermore, this configuration make a 
>"vertical displacement event" (an up-down instability present for any 
>non-circular plasma) machine-threatening. The control group here does 
>their best, but worry that they might have overlooked some important detail. 
>(We once had a serious problem caused by a one bit mistake.) They would 
>like to have a redundant system to oversee the operation of the main 
>system, ideally with different hardware and a different software concept, 
>e.g. neural networks instead of principal component analysis. How 
>would you like to develop such a system for them?

Fortunately, such problem matters can be avoided, altogether.  There
are other approaches.  

>Art Carlson
>Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics, Garching, Germany
>awc@ipp-garching.mpg.de


cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.20 / Paul Koloc /  Re: cost
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: cost
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 1994 07:12:03 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <2ogqbdINNan@slcawc.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de> awc@ipp-garching.mpg.de writes:
>
>In article <1994Apr12.224004.6204@Princeton.EDU>, Robert F. Heeter 
><rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> writes:
>
>> Right now, if you handed me $10 billion,
>> I could take plans for a major tokamak hot fusion machine,
>> and build you a reactor that would produce 1 billion watts
>> of electricity for sale, within at most 10 years.  It 
>> wouldn't be economical, which is why no one is building it 
>> now.  But it would work.  The theory is there, and the
>> experiments, have shown that the theory is essentially correct.  
>> Making it economical, and improving the environmental 
>> friendliness, is a major goal of the current program.

Robert, if it isn't economical... it doesn't "work".   
If I were handed 25-50 megabucks I could generate a  burn
in an aneutronic fuel that would prove to be commercially 
economical, and in 4 years.  Then in about seven additional 
years  these things would be manufactured for use at a significant
rate.  

... wall problems  
>Art Carlson
>Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics
>awc@ipp-garching.mpg.de

Then  .. ..  
Just plain complexity and operational and maintainence insanity.  

+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc,Bx 1037, Prometheus II, Ltd., College Park, MD 20741-1037 |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.20 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Reply to Maglich on TFTR D-T Results
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reply to Maglich on TFTR D-T Results
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 1994 07:18:27 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <940420042204_74242.1554_BHR47-1@CompuServe.COM> 74242.1554@c
mpuserve.com (John M. Logajan) writes:
>Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> writes:
>>It was never claimed that the 6 MW was only from thermonuclear
>>plasma-plasma reactions.

>Like a congresscritter is going to know enough to discount 70% or more of
>the power figure given!
.. .
>PPPL has put forward a theoretical explanation that they did not attempt
>to falsify with sufficiently sensitive instruments.  If P+F did that in a
>hot fusion attempt, PPPL staff would no doubt be now holding a "Wake for
>Tokomak Party."

I hope this won't be a closed affair.    :-)   I have a pair of dancing
shoes I would like to try out.  

+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc,Bx 1037, Prometheus II, Ltd., College Park, MD 20741-1037 |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.20 / Robert Heeter /  Re: Reply to Maglich on TFTR D-T Results
     
Originally-From: rfheeter@theory.pppl.gov (Robert F. Heeter)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reply to Maglich on TFTR D-T Results
Date: 20 Apr 1994 10:34:21 -0400
Organization: /etc/organization

In article <940420042204_74242.1554_BHR47-1@CompuServe.COM>,
John M. Logajan <74242.1554@compuserve.com> wrote:
>Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> writes:
>>There are two PPPL reports sitting in our library, which are publicly
>>available to anyone who requests them, and have been for several months.
>
>I sure George Adamski (UFO Contactee) had several reports publicly
>available too. :-)

So what's your point?  I doubt Adamski's reports were accepted by PRL.

>>In a little over a month after the initial D-T experiments, two papers
>>were written and submitted for publication in _Physical Review Letters
>
>Press conference before publication!  Maglich's claim is vindicated by
>your own admission.

Hello?  Why don't you see my other article on the "science by press
conference topic".  This thread was supposed to be on the facts
of the D-T experiment.  You're bringing up arguments here which I've
addressed elsewhere.
>
>>PPPL has made every effort to disseminate the results of the D-T 
>>experiments to the scientific community as rapidly as possible.  The
>>delay in publication is due to the peer-review process and the
>>standard publishing procedures for PRL, not to foot-dragging by PPPL.
>
>Replace PPPL with P+F above and you get to the hypocrisy issue that
>Maglich was raising.

Only if you completely ignore the other differences in the two 
experiments, which I feel provide sufficient distinction between the
two cases.  Again, see the other article.  (TFTR DT = Science by
Press Conference ?)

>>It was never claimed that the 6 MW was only from thermonuclear
>>plasma-plasma reactions.
>
>Like a congresscritter is going to know enough to discount 70% or more of
>the power figure given!

You're missing the point entirely!  It *doesn't matter* that they 
aren't all thermonuclear!!!  Fusion output is fusion output.  Even
if only 30% was thermonuclear, that's still a world thermonuclear
fusion power record!

>>Surely a beam-fusion researcher would know that beam-wall reactions
>>simply don't generate very much fusion power!
>
>Maglich listed three false sources, beam-wall, beam-beam, and beam-plasma.
>By your own admission two of those false sources theoretically account for
>70% of the total neutron flux.  Maglich claims that without a neutron
>spectrometer, it cannot be known exactly what the source of the neutrons
>was.

Let's put "false" in quotations here.  The beam-beam and beam-plasma
sources are *real* sources of fusion energy.  Beam-wall reactions are
pathetic sources of fusion energy, which is why we don't want them.
TFTR *tries* to have beam-plasma reactions, because you can get a
3.5 MeV alpha particle to heat your plasma using only a 100keV
neutral beam!  It's like blowing natural gas past a candle to
create a blowtorch.  For the experiments being done on TFTR, where
the goal is to maximize fusion power and to maximize the population
of hot alphas to look for new instabilities, this approach is
entirely reasonable.

>PPPL has put forward a theoretical explanation that they did not attempt
>to falsify with sufficiently sensitive instruments.  If P+F did that in a
>hot fusion attempt, PPPL staff would no doubt be now holding a "Wake for
>Tokomak Party."

The fact that they didn't buy a 0.1% resolution neutron spectrometer
does *not* mean that they haven't attempted to falsify the prediction.
There is more than one way to assess the contributions from neutral
beams.  You could do it by heating the plasma with more/fewer beams,
and looking at the changes in power output.  You could do it by
turning off a neutral beam halfway through and seeing how the 
power output changes.  Since even D-D fusion produces easily-detectable
amounts of neutrons, I'm sure they've got data on the relative
strength of beam-plasma reactions.  You could look at beam-beam
reactions by firing two beams at each other.  Since even I, a 
first year graduate student with zero experience in neutron diagnostics,
can think up experiments to investigate the relative fractions of
beam-beam, beam-plasma, and plasma-plasma reactions, and because
this issue has been around for at least 15-20 years since neutral
beam heating was invented, I'm sure they have very solid *empirical*
justification for the model they're using to assess the relative
contributions of the various *real* fusion sources.

This is not at all similar to the P&F case, where even now there's
*no* widely accepted, widely tested, experimentally verified theory
to explain the excess heat result.  P&F have to test every theoretical
model prediction because few people believe either their experiments
or their models.  TFTR, on the other hand, operates with a fairly
well-explored theory, known and generally accepted within the scientific
community, and a history of over 10 years of experimental testing and
confirmation of that theory.

**********************
Robert F. Heeter
rfheeter@theory.pppl.gov
Graduate Student, Plasma Physics
Princeton Plasma Physics Lab
Disclaimers Apply
 


cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.20 / Jim Carr /  Re: Scandal at Princeton -- TFTR
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Scandal at Princeton -- TFTR
Date: 20 Apr 1994 10:47:00 -0400
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

My thought for the day: the TFTR results are probably taking a long time 
because they are having trouble with the referees at Fusion Technology.

In article <CoG3Jv.5nq@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> 
crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>
>     Then I'm sure you'd agree with me that none of the Physical
>     Review journals are appropriate.  Perhaps Journal of Physical
>     and Chemical Reference Data?

There is a quite a bit of applications oriented phyics in B, so the 
Physical Review is not so pure as you let on.  There are several 
places it could be published, and you might note that there are PACS 
categories for both fusion reactor technology and for plasmas and 
their confinement.  However, the journal on Applied Physics and its 
letters counterpart might be more appropriate. 

>     On the other hand, if someone tries to insert that TFTR shot
>     into one of the Physical Review journals (even being so bold
>     as to attempt PRL), Nature or Science, then that would
>     constitute hypocrisy.   

After their complaints about 'science by press conference', absolutely. 
Especially since their complaint was more about the long lead time 
between press conference and publication (most press conferences are 
held on publication day, with a few exceptions where it is held soon 
after acceptance when -- as in PRL -- the acceptance is just a few 
weeks before it is in our hands).  The complaints came when it 
proved so hard to get any of the facts for such a long time, more 
out of frustration than anything.  I think more has been made of it 
here than anywhere in the community, since we all know of dozens of 
cases where press conferences have been called for lesser things. 

But what would science be without a little hypocrisy? 

However, your beliefs about pre-publicity and the Physical Review are 
ill informed or dated.  Only PRL has a policy, and that policy includes 
the widespread distribution of preprints as well as publicity.  Further, 
as I checked with the editor a year or so ago to be sure I read it 
correctly, the policy is soft, left up to a judgement call by the editor 
as to whether the news articles were extensive enough to make rapid 
publication unnecessary.  

Science already carried it as a news story, so they probably would not 
consider it a 'new' article. 

-- 
 James A. Carr   <jac@scri.fsu.edu>     |   "It's never confusing though, 
      http://www.scri.fsu.edu           |  because ultimately it all fits 
 Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst.  |  -- its just cockeyed and fits  
 Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306    |  and is fire."  -  Norman Maclean 
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.20 / J LeBourgeois /  Re: Baby boomers (amd I mean it)
     
Originally-From: jleb@well.sf.ca.us (John H. LeBourgeois)
Newsgroups: rec.pyrotechnics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Baby boomers (amd I mean it)
Date: 20 Apr 1994 16:32:47 GMT
Organization: The Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link, Sausalito, CA



So sorry, but your mistaken, you should cruise over to sci.physics or chem
and extract mercury.  What's going on here is metastable isotopes of mecury
that can be used in place of chem exp to drive the explosion. They also
unload via gamma emmission, so you can use inertial confinement to drive
your device.  micro fission can happen down to the size of a pencil eraser
using these techniques. The energetic release is about 3 OOM > than H->H
recombination which is the highest chemical energy release. That works out
to about 3 kilos = 700 tons of tnt (.7 kiloton).

cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenjleb cudfnJohn cudlnLeBourgeois cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.20 / Jim Carr /  Re: TFTR D-T = Science by Press Conference?
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: TFTR D-T = Science by Press Conference?
Date: 20 Apr 1994 11:05:40 -0400
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

In article <1994Apr19.053010.27399@Princeton.EDU> 
Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> writes:
>
>This is my general response to Maglich, Dale Bass, and others who
>are claiming that when PPPL invited the press to witness the first
>high-power D-T fusion runs in TFTR, they were engaging in 
>"Science by Press Conference" in the same manner as Pons &
>Fleischmann were when they prematurely announced their "Cold 
>Fusion" results in 1989.

There was *nothing* premature about the P&F press conference! 

I may not think much of the quality of their papers and presentation,
or of the 'nuclear' evidence they showed at that time, but what they 
did was perfectly correct and normal in physics.  There are many cases 
where press conferences are called after acceptance of the paper and 
well prior to publication.  Further, there are *always* press conferences 
at APS meetings after each session, even though the work was presented 
orally, has not been published, and was only 'refereed' by the audience. 

Your remark is *exactly* the sort of statement from the fusion community 
that showed either ignorance of how science is done or sour grapes. 

>First, let's make a list of salient characteristics:
>
>*** Pons & Fleischmann:

Everything in your list applies to the press conference by Chu on 
high-Tc superconductors. 

Also, your last point is wrong.  The action that preempted other 
researchers was submitting the paper to the Electrochemistry journal 
first rather than after the joint submission to Nature. 

>*** TFTR D-T experiments:
>*** First Space Shuttle Launch:

The difference here is that we can all see the shuttle go up.  We 
rely on others to interpret the computer output from the detectors 
monitoring the reactor.  For example, I was quite surprised to 
learn the limited nature of the neutron-detection system given 
how critical neutrons are to understanding the system.  Now if 
TFTR had competing experts from Britain and people like Maglich 
and .... present, they might have a point since then the press would 
get a better understanding of the physics issues. 

As to NASA and its public coverage: did you know the Challenger 
astronauts did not die until they hit the water?  Just because 
the press witnesses something does not make it any less of a 
controlled situation from the point of view of the PR people. 

-- 
 James A. Carr   <jac@scri.fsu.edu>     |   "It's never confusing though, 
      http://www.scri.fsu.edu           |  because ultimately it all fits 
 Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst.  |  -- its just cockeyed and fits  
 Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306    |  and is fire."  -  Norman Maclean 
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.20 / Dick Jackson /  Re: Timing and the Chubbs' theory.
     
Originally-From: jackson@soldev.tti.com (Dick Jackson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Timing and the Chubbs' theory.
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 1994 15:05:03 GMT
Organization: Citicorp-TTI at Santa Monica (CA) by the Sea

In article <9404191730.AA27987@dxmint.cern.ch> morrison@vxprix.cern.ch writes:
>   There has been some discussions of the Chubbs' theory. Perhaps the 
>simplest way of seeing the problems of the Chubbs' approach is to consider
>time.
>        In nuclear physics, an interaction happens in less than 10 E-20 seconds 
>and this gives the radius over which the information of the interaction can 
>take place (by multiplying by the velocity of light). Now the spacing of the 
>lattice is a few Angstroms. So only one Palladium ion can be involved 
>in that time. 
>       The Chubbs are proposing that the 23 MeV gamma energy can be 
>spread out over 10 E7 Palladium ions so that each only receives 
>about 2 eV. But for this to happen in 10 E-20 seconds, means that 
>the energy has to travel much faster than the velocity of light. Now there
>are an incredible number of experiments which show that this cannot happen.
>     Cold Fusion already needs several miracles to be true. It is not too
>reasonable to try and explain Cold Fusion with a theory which invents 
>yet another miracle which violates a fundamental principle of physics. If 
>the Chubbs were correct, and energy could travel faster than the velocity of 
>light, then there would be many consequences and these have not been observed.

Well I dunno but surely if you use a wave mechanical approach you
surely should go for it whole hog, i.e. forget the particle model.
I was impressed by someone's posting a few weeks ago re the explanation
of photon reflection from a metal surface. Feinman, I think, was quoted
as saying the photon hits the *whole surface*. Isn't the Chubb model
somewhat similar to considering a single photon interference effect
from a grating?

Dick Jackson
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenjackson cudfnDick cudlnJackson cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.19 / Andy Holland /  Re: Nonsense about red mercury
     
Originally-From: zcrah@trumpet.pgh.wec.com (Andy Holland)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Nonsense about red mercury
Date: 19 Apr 1994 19:42:22 GMT
Organization: Westinghouse NMD

In article <9404181557.AA46755@pilot1.cl.msu.edu> blue@pilot.msu.edu
(Richard A Blue) writes:

[...]

>Next is the question as to what this stuff with its magical
>properties is supposed to do.  I can believe it is some kind
>of high energy explosive because that is chemistry about
>I know next to nothing.  However, as a nuclear explosive it
>does not sound like a winner, and besides all the magic
>incantations that have given it strange chemical properties
>would not be expected to do much to make it go boom in a
>serious nuclear way.  I think I read "hoax" written all
>over this one.
>
>Dick Blue

While I agree, that the candidate "red mercury" formula is probably
wrong, in principle, a *neutron bomb* (a fusion device which lacks
sufficient heat and compression to go off like a "real" H-bomb)
can be made from chemical explosives and D-T. The US project in the 
50's was called DOVE, and the theoretical principles are supposed 
to be sound. The implosion technique used by the US was unsuccessful;
perhaps the Russians have a powerful enough chemical explosive to
make it work.

The devices in question are very small, very cheap (tritium is
the most expensive component) and *not* covered under the NPT.
As such, they can be manufactured in huge quantities, deployed
for both offensive and defensive purposes.

As a fission trigger is not needed, they are light weight for
the given yeild. It is not science fiction, the author of the
project (DOVE) has written extensively on it. I think his name
is Cohen. 

Andy Holland                  |
Westinghouse NMD              |   
zcrah@ncstate.pgh.wec.com     |       
All Usual Disclaimers Apply   |








cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenzcrah cudfnAndy cudlnHolland cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.21 / John Logajan /  Re: Timing and the Chubb's theory.
     
Originally-From: 74242.1554@compuserve.com (John M. Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Timing and the Chubb's theory.
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 1994 01:48:29 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

morrison@vxprix.cern.ch writes:
>If the Chubbs were correct, and energy could travel faster than the
>velocity of light, then there would be many consequences and these have
>not been observed. 

Never the less, all modern theories of quantum physics presume some manner
of non-locality (instantaneous action at a distance.)  Nature, it seems,
is in the habit of making up some bizarre rules that aren't necessarily
intuitively obvious.  That's why the Chubb theory and all the cold fusion
stuff in general is going to have to stand or fall on empirical evidence.

Few of us have the insight to inuit every little twist and turn of
nature's fabric -- we need the lantern of experiment to cast away some of
the shadows.


cudkeys:
cuddy21 cuden1554 cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.21 / John Logajan /  Re: TFTR D-T = Science by Press Conference?
     
Originally-From: 74242.1554@compuserve.com (John M. Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: TFTR D-T = Science by Press Conference?
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 1994 01:48:30 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> writes:
>*** TFTR D-T experiments:
>    - results publicly predicted in advance

By not sufficiently instrumenting their device, the "predicted results"
remain the "predicted results."  PPPL can only say that based upon their
previous theory that up to 30% of the neutrons were from plasma-plasma
fusions.  Without the instruments to falsify the theory, we are left with
ambiguous data.  Perhaps if they had attempted to publish via a refereed
journal first, this ambiguity would have been caught and would have saved
them the embarrasment.


cudkeys:
cuddy21 cuden1554 cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.20 / Matt Kennel /  Re: Timing and the Chubbs' theory.
     
Originally-From: mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Timing and the Chubbs' theory.
Date: 20 Apr 1994 21:53:40 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

morrison@vxprix.cern.ch wrote:
:    There has been some discussions of the Chubbs' theory. Perhaps the 
: simplest way of seeing the problems of the Chubbs' approach is to consider
: time.
:         In nuclear physics, an interaction happens in less than 10 E-20 seconds 
: and this gives the radius over which the information of the interaction can 
: take place (by multiplying by the velocity of light). Now the spacing of the 
: lattice is a few Angstroms. So only one Palladium ion can be involved 
: in that time. 
:        The Chubbs are proposing that the 23 MeV gamma energy can be 
: spread out over 10 E7 Palladium ions so that each only receives 
: about 2 eV. But for this to happen in 10 E-20 seconds, means that 
: the energy has to travel much faster than the velocity of light. Now there
: are an incredible number of experiments which show that this cannot happen.

I believe that the Chubbs simply say that the 23MeV wasn't ever
in a single location to begin with, namely that there is a large
transition rate:

|< final_band_state | nuclear_interaction_hamiltonian | initial_band_state>|^2

which excludes high-energy emitted particles.

I too find this hard to believe, but if it is the case, does it necessarily
violate relativity?  Or would the whole QM problem need to be solved 
relativistically to be sure.

What I find even harder to believe is why


|< ordinary_final_state_with_23MeV_worth_of_flying_debris 
  | nuclear_interaction_hamiltonian | initial_band_state>|^2

gets suppressed by the necessary factors of billions to account for
the experimental non-observations.

:                                        Douglas R.O. Morrison.

--
-Matt Kennel  		mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu
-Institute for Nonlinear Science, University of California, San Diego
-*** AD: Archive for nonlinear dynamics papers & programs: FTP to
-***     lyapunov.ucsd.edu, username "anonymous".
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenmbk cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.20 / Tom Radcliffe /  Re: TFTR D-T = Science by Press Conference?
     
Originally-From: tom@mips2.phy.queensu.ca (Tom Radcliffe)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: TFTR D-T = Science by Press Conference?
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 1994 17:02:45 GMT
Organization: Queen's University, Kingston

A note on the Bass-Heeter debate:  the launch of the space shuttle
or the achievement of ``scientific breakeven'' are engineering
successes, and newsworthy.  The results of those engineering 
successes may be scientific results, and there is no reason for
those results not to be published because of press coverage of
the engineering achievement that produced them.  The line between
science and engineering is rarely clear, but obviously it is
the practical consequences that generates the media interest in
these cases, not the science.

In either case the comparison with P&F is inappropriate.  The
equivalent of the P&F claim in the case of the space shuttle would 
be:  NASA Develops Anti-Gravity!
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudentom cudfnTom cudlnRadcliffe cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.21 / John Logajan /  Re: Reply to Maglich on TFTR D-T Results
     
Originally-From: 74242.1554@compuserve.com (John M. Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reply to Maglich on TFTR D-T Results
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 1994 02:43:41 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

rfheeter@theory.pppl.gov (Robert F. Heeter) writes:

>It *doesn't matter* that they aren't all thermonuclear!!!  Fusion output
>is fusion output.... The beam-beam and beam-plasma sources are *real*
>sources of fusion energy.... TFTR *tries* to have beam-plasma reactions,
>because you can get a 3.5 MeV alpha particle to heat your plasma using
>only a 100keV neutral beam!

I know as little as anyone on this planet about how Tokamak's work, but I
can tell when I am being flimflammed.

Getting 3.5 MeV for 100keV looks good, but there must be a reason that
Tokamaks don't rely on beam-plasma reactions as the main power source.

I suspect that the reason is that a "beamed" particle gets "de-beamed"
after one collision/near miss.  That means that you get but one chance
for a beamed particle to react before it becomes a plasma particle.  The
actual fusion rate of any particle, beamed or plasma, is low.  So most
of the beamed particles get debeamed without fusing.

Therefore you put a lot more energy into the beaming of all the particles 
than you ever get out due to relatively infrequent beam-plasma induced
fusion reactions.

That's why scaling it up doesn't even make sense.  You just scale up your
loss factor -- so you need plasma-plasma reactions -- which is why Maglich
calls them the only "true" (net power generation potential) fusion
reactions.

>It's like blowing natural gas past a candle to create a blowtorch.

Exactly not.  It's like firing an oxy/acet flame at an object and getting
an occasional x-ray photon out.


cudkeys:
cuddy21 cuden1554 cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.21 / John Logajan /  Re: Roessingh on Chubb theory
     
Originally-From: 74242.1554@compuserve.com (John M. Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Roessingh on Chubb theory
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 1994 04:44:42 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue) writes:
>To the best of my knowledge the only experiments that conform to the
>Chubb theory and provide evidence for both observables [excess enthalpy
>and 4He] are the experiments by Miles, et al. at China Lake.

Roger Stringham and Russ George of E-QuestSciences (Palo Alto, CA, USA)
will sell you an ultrasonic cavitation device for a mere $100,000.00
(deliveries starting in June) that they guarantee will produce 4He at 10X
background and steady state excess heat in the 50-100 watt range --
absent any high energy radiation emission.

Apparently they use Pd targets in D2O into which they pump on the order of
300 watts of 20Khz ultrasonic energy.  You can see an actual photo-
micrograph of a bubble collapse on page 1 of "Cold Fusion" Magazine in
E-Quest's advertisement.  Let me draw the cross section:

       /-----\    /-----\
      /       \  /       \
     |         ||  cavity |  D2O
      \        \/        /
 ------\----------------/--- Pd

I sent an e-mail to E-Quest asking them if they had tried lightwater and
nickel, but they were not eager to discuss it.  I didn't happen to have
$100K on me. :-)


cudkeys:
cuddy21 cuden1554 cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.20 /  PAUL /  RE: Reply to Maglich on TFTR D-T Results
     
Originally-From: stek@amazon.pfc.mit.edu (PAUL)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: Reply to Maglich on TFTR D-T Results
Date: 20 APR 94 23:14:04 GMT
Organization: MIT PLASMA FUSION CENTER



In article <940420042204_74242.1554_BHR47-1@CompuServe.COM>,
John M. Logajan <74242.1554@compuserve.com> wrote:
>Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> writes:
>
>>PPPL has made every effort to disseminate the results of the D-T 
>>experiments to the scientific community as rapidly as possible.  The
>>delay in publication is due to the peer-review process and the
>>standard publishing procedures for PRL, not to foot-dragging by PPPL.
>
>Replace PPPL with P+F above and you get to the hypocrisy issue that
>Maglich was raising.

GIVE ME A BREAK.  P+F did not allow for peer review of their work.  
Their paper was completely incomprehensible and they refused to 
let people into their lab. Why?  Because it didn't work!

Every diagnostic on TFTR has undergone extensive peer review and is 
based on decades of work in the field.  There was little doubt of what
was going to happen when Tritium was introduced into TFTR.  
In fact most of the interest in the fusion community was for 
its historical implications.  The neutron 
output matches what one would expect from very well known reaction 
cross sections and reasonably well measured distribution fuctions.
This is well understood physics.  Remember those hundreds of
billions of dollars that went into building H bombs?  

Have any of you whining cold fusioniers looked at the 
literature on plasma physics and TFTR in particular?  Until you 
do you are hardly in a position to say that they have not diagnosed their
plasma sufficiently.     

paul Stek
Stek@cmod.pfc.mit.edu

"I can't believe I'm wasting time contributing to this thread."
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenstek cudlnPAUL cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Thu Apr 21 04:37:08 EDT 1994
------------------------------
1994.04.20 / Cameron Bass /  Re: TFTR D-T = Science by Press Conference?
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: TFTR D-T = Science by Press Conference?
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 1994 11:15:23 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1994Apr19.053010.27399@princeton.edu>,
Robert F. Heeter  <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> wrote:
>This is my general response to Maglich, Dale Bass, and others who
>are claiming that when PPPL invited the press to witness the first
>high-power D-T fusion runs in TFTR, they were engaging in 
>"Science by Press Conference" in the same manner as Pons &
>Fleischmann were when they prematurely announced their "Cold 
>Fusion" results in 1989.

     'Premature' for whom?  You?  Is that a scientific criticism?

     Is it 'premature' for PPPL to announce before their final TFTR runs?
     How about before they submitted anything to a journal?

>First, let's make a list of salient characteristics:
>
>*** Pons & Fleischmann:
>     - initial work done with minimum external scientific scrutiny.
>     - results inconsistent with a lot of science
>           previously thought to be well-understood.
>     - results dependent on new, unexpected effect.
>     - work pursued as low-profile project with little/no public funding.
>     - results represented mysterious new effect from old technology.
>     - no prior prediction of results
>     - press not invited to witness initial experiments.
>     - press conference called after paper submission and before
>          publication, in an attempt to preempt other researchers.

     Work submitted to a scientific journal *before* the press conference.

>*** TFTR D-T experiments:
>     - culmination of over 10 years of externally scrutinized research.
>     - results consistent with well-understood science.
>     - results dependent only on equipment functioning as expected.
>     - work pursued as a high-profile publicly-funded project.
>     - results represented enhanced, understood effect from old
>technology.
>     - results publicly predicted in advance
>     - press invited to initial experiments
>     - press conference called while news was fresh; not to preempt.

     Work submitted to a scientific journal *after* the press conference.

     Indeed, certain people would have us believe that it wasn't science 
     at all.  So, I expect you, Mr. Heeter, to go severely scold those 
     who submitted the work to PRL.

>*** First Space Shuttle Launch:

     Not science at all, as decreed by large numbers of physicists
     and the mouthpiece of the APS.

>What I would like to suggest is that the notion of "science by press
>conference" applies to *each* of the above situations, but not
>in the same way in all cases.  

     And they weren't held in the same city either, he noted dryly.

     On the other hand, 'science by press conference' seems to 
     apply more to those who actually submitted the work to a journal
     *after* the press conference.

>(The argument that space shuttle launch results wouldn't be published 
>in physics journals is specious; there are certainly technologies 
>tested in the shuttle, and the results of those tests would have 
>been published in relevant engineering journals, just as the results 
>of physics experiments are published in relevant physics journals.)

     That would be 'Engineering by press conference', something I have no
     problem with since I've never heard shuttle engineers whining
     about other people's press conferences.

>I feel that there are shades of grey in the notion of "science by 
>press conference", and that the TFTR D-T experiments have more in 
>common with the Shuttle Launch than with the P&F announcement.  
>I believe it was appropriate for TFTR to host a public demonstration 
>in order to share with the public the fruits of the public's 
>investment, much as the space shuttle launch was publicized.  
>It's not the case that major unexpected discoveries were announced 
>without prior peer-review, as in the case of the P&F announcement.  

     Of course you do.

>To the extent that suprising new conclusions were announced, they
>were presented as preliminary results, subject to review and revision.

     That's convenient as well.  It's not okay if P&F do it, but whatever
     we do is perfectly fine.

     The word is 'hypocrisy'.

>(I have in mind here the absence of new instabilities, the enhancement
>of confinement, and the reactor-level power densities achieved,
>among other things.)  I don't believe it's hypocritical for a 
>fusion researcher to consider the P&F announcment inappropriate 
>scientific behavior, and yet consider the D-T demonstration an 
>appropriate public demonstration of publicly funded science and 
>technology development.

     Of course you don't.  Quite a convenient set of values.

     Private = obliged to publish.
     Public = obliged to press conference.

     Exactly what you claimed you were *not* saying.

>>     I'm not associated with either P&F (being somewhat skeptical
>>     of their claims, to say the least) or PPPL, and I think you're
>>     splitting hairs.  They announced to gain better leverage with 
>>     their government sponsors.  That's even worse than P&F who just
>>     announced to get priority.
>
>If you'd prefer to see everything in black and white, and avoid
>"splitting hairs" to understand the shades of grey, then I can't
>really help you.  Your claim that PPPL announced to gain leverage
>with the government sponsors is particularly mean-spirited and
>unjustified.  In fact, if PPPL had really been interested in gaining
>political leverage, we would have announced within the past few
>weeks, now that the papers have been accepted for publication,
>(thus reducing the prospects of "science-by-press conference"
>criticism) and now that Congress is beginning to consider the
>fusion budget for next year.  It would have made more sense to
>delay the announcement to achieve maximum political advantage,
>if that was the primary goal, don't you think?

     Mean spirited?  Why announce at all?  Why not just send a report down
     to congress every so often?  It's ridiculous to claim that the
     press releases do not have a political component.

>>     Indeed, press conferences to slime for fame and government money
>>     do not seem substantialy different from press conferences just
>>     to slime for fame.
>
>This is off-topic, but I have to wonder if the sorry state of 
>American science today isn't because attitudes like these prevent 
>many scientists from sharing the fun results from their 
>publicly-supported research with the public that does the supporting.  

     This is absurd.  I love a good press release.  What I do not
     love is one group of researchers bitching and moaning about
     another group's 'science by press conference' when they're playing 
     the same game.

     That's just hypocrisy.

>Might the SSC not have died if earlier accelerator researchers had 
>done more to "slime for fame" by coming out of their ivory towers 
>and sharing the excitement of their work with anyone who would
>listen?  Ordinary Americans have so little contact with scientists
>today that many of them hardly consider us human.  How did this happen?

     Hah.  The problem was *not* that they didn't know how to slime.
     Heck, it's a rare group of scientists that can slime better
     than HEP physicists.

     'Hundreds of trillions of dollars in spinoffs in the next century'
                  Testimony given in committee hearings on the SSC

>One reason I sit here typing all these articles is that I believe
>there are readers out there who simply think that fusion is cool
>stuff, that it could become an important part of solving our
>energy and environmental problems; I believe the scientists in the
>field have an obligation to share themselves a little, share their
>work a little, and to try to help the taxpayers understand just
>what their taxes are paying for.  I also feel this was the spirit
>in which the TFTR D-T results were presented, and that all other
>considerations were secondary.  I'm sorry you tend to disagree.

     I frankly think you misunderstand that PPPL opened themselves
     up to such criticism when they complained about another group
     using a press conference to announce results.

     I have no problem with press conferences, but your certain of your
     friends at PPPL apparently did.  So, is it rank hypocritsy to 
     complain and then do exactly the same?

     My answer is yes.

                             dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.20 / Robert Heeter /  Re: Quantitation in Hot/Cold Fusion Systems (was Scandal at Princeton -- TFTR)
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Quantitation in Hot/Cold Fusion Systems (was Scandal at Princeton -- TFTR)
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 1994 03:46:20 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

In article <CoI8D1.By1@world.std.com> mitchell swartz, mica@world.std.com
writes:

[ some lines reformatted to reduce length. ]

>  Here are some numbers.   
>
>   Paul Koloc says a second is a long time for plasma dynamics.
>
>   Art Carlson (TK)  says 100msec (* several) is a long time for 
> state-of-the-art tokamak confinement times.   [What is a TK?]
>
>  Here is a partially filled in table.  [Perhaps Paul, Maglich, John, or
      
>another might help supply the other values.  Tnx.]
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
----
>|      FUSION SYSTEMS        |what is "long" | current systems 
|breakeven |
>|                            |   (seconds)   |   performance    |>1
minute?|
>|                            |               |      (seconds)   |       
  |
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
----
>|   Hot Fusion Systems       |               |                  |       
  |
>|    tokomaks  - Carlson     |     < 1       |      ~ 1  (?)    |    no 
  |
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
----
>|   self-collider  Maglich   |               |                  |       
  |
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
----
>|   plasma systems - Koloc   |      1        |                  |       
  |
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
----
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
----
>|  CF - steady state excess  |>1,000,000     |86,400 - 2,400,000|   yes 
  |
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
----
>|    CF - burst excess (rare)|    100        |  ca. 1 - 100     |       
  |
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
----

This is really misleading.  There are a number of relevant timescales
in both hot and cold fusion systems, and you're basically comparing
apples,
oranges, bananas, cucumbers, celery, and a few other things up here.

First off, labeling "breakeven" with a time doesn't seem to me to be
useful at all.  Secondly, those systems which don't run continuously
can run in a pulsed mode.  (For instance, Paul Koloc speaks of running
the Plasmak(tm) at 60 per second.  I presume the actual fusion occurs
over a period of a few milliseconds, and the rest of the time is for
cleaning out the fusion products.)  So current systems performance is
almost completely irrelevant for comparing the two types of systems.
While I'm at it, I should add that current systems performance for
tokamaks is on the order of hundreds to thousands of seconds, thanks
to new tokamaks with superconducting magnets, such as Tore Supra.
There's no fundamental limit on how long a tokamak can run, other than
how long you can provide power to it.  In this respect tokamaks are no
different from CF cells.

The concept of "what is long" has to do with the dynamics of the system.
The energy confinement time of a large tokamak today is about 1 second
(JET) or a bit lower (TFTR).  The plasma dynamics generally occur on
timescales of microseconds to milliseconds; this is why the Plasmak
can (in principle) fire 60 times per second.  Comparing these dynamic
times with CF device operating periods is completely meaningless.
>    
>   First, cold fusion systems -- in reproducible but
>difficult to achieve conditions -- generate both steady state 
>(or regular anomalous) excess heats for hours to months 
>and the rarer burst heats (irregular anomalous of much
>shorter times) which exceed those times which Carlson
>would consider a desirable "long" life (i.e. confinement time) 
>for his Tokomak fusion system(s).

"Reproducible but difficult-to-achieve" seems to me to be a misleading
way of phrasing the hit-or-miss nature of CF cell operation.  I'm
sure if it were reproducible Tom Droege would be interested in
learning what the recipe is, so he could try it out in his calorimeter.
What are the "difficult to achieve conditions", exactly?

The conflation of "confinement time" with "lifetime" for a hot fusion
system is a common error.  The energy confinement time is simply
a measure of how well the plasma insulates its hot interior from
its cool exterior; it's the sort of time you'd measure if you put
a cup of coffee on the table and watched how rapidly it cools off.
The operating lifetime of a reactor is a completely different quantity,
and it is determined only by how long you supply power to your 
magnets and heating equipment.  

>   Second,   notice that neither time cited above for hot fusion
>systems is of a temporal length which would have
>any serious potential use to contribute towards a
>useful supplementation of the electrical power grid system
>(or simple heating of a home).

This criticism is completely unwarranted, arising from the error
in understanding the nature of the times typically quoted for 
hot fusion systems which I discussed above.
>
>   Third, it is therefore quantitatively obvious that some of the 
>attacks on CF and CF investigators (including those attempting to
>merely report facts on the Internet) by people designing such 
>ephermal [sic] systems is/(has been) in utter hypocrisy.  

Which attacks are you trying to refute?  This makes no sense.
I don't see anyone criticizing CF for having short pulses!  Would you like
to provide more concrete examples of these "attacks" being in "utter
hypocrisy," please? 

There's nothing ephemeral about a TFTR shot, either.   You can see 
it, it sits there for a while, and then *we* turn it off.  It's not that
it just disappears, it's just that we haven't (until now) needed
to run any longer to learn what we needed to know.  Consequently
the power supplies for the experiment, and the magnet cooling systems,
were not designed for steady-state operation.  The new TPX
experiment (which has been designed and will hopefully be constructed
starting next year), like Tore Supra in France, *is* designed to run
in long pulses (many minutes) to continuously.  Those hot fusion
systems which are innately pulsed (inertial confinement, plasmak-type
devices, and short-pulse tokamaks) can still make good energy sources,
provided the heat is pumped into a system with a thermal cooling 
time constant longer than the interval between pulses.

In short, Mitch, I think you need to reconsider the arguments you're
making here.

******************************
Robert F. Heeter
rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Graduate Student, Plasma Physics
Princeton University / PPPL
Disclaimers Apply
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.20 / Robert Heeter /  Re: Logajan's Tripe  was Re: Scandal at Princeton -- TFTR
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Originally-From: John M. Logajan, 74242.1554@compuserve.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Logajan's Tripe  was Re: Scandal at Princeton -- TFTR
Subject: Re: Logajan's Tripe  was Re: Scandal at Princeton -- TFTR
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 1994 03:58:13 GMT
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 1994 04:54:31 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

Subject: Re: Logajan's Tripe  was Re: Scandal at Princeton -- TFTR
Originally-From: John M. Logajan, 74242.1554@compuserve.com
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 1994 04:54:31 GMT
In article <940419045027_74242.1554_BHR37-2@CompuServe.COM> John M.
Logajan, 74242.1554@compuserve.com writes:
>johncobb@emx.cc.utexas.edu (John W. Cobb) maligns:
>
>>I highly suspect that Dr. Maglich would take issue with the way that
>>Logajan has twisted his words.
>
>Maglich's words were quoted verbatim.  The only thing elided in the
>excerpts I posted were some preliminary introductions and mention of
>Maglich's own consortium (S.A.F.E. System for Aneutronic Fusion Energy),
>and their self-collider concept.

I will vouch for this; I've seen a copy of a fax Maglich sent to
one of the Congressmen on the committe, and while it was not
completely identical to what John posted, the differences appeared
to be only that the officially recorded testimony was a revision of
the fax.  Many phrases and sentences were identical, and the topics
covered were pretty much the same.

>Robert Heeter asked me to mention that Maglich's testimony was not orally
>read into the congressional record but merely submitted in the written
>form (due to committee time constraints, I am led to believe.)  I don't
>see how it makes a difference to the veracity of Maglich's claims, but
>this should make Robert happy :-)

It doesn't affect the veracity; it just makes clear the context of
what he said.  Thank you for clearing it up.
>
>>Did Maglich use this terminology or is it Logajan's choice?
>
>It was verbatim from Maglich -- he used the term "false sources of fusion
>neutrons."  He used it again in an abstract of a paper to be presented to
>the American Physical Society (scheduled for this week.)
>
>>In fact, Maglich's Migma concept is just such a fusion idea. It is 
>>a self-collding beam. Such "false sources" of fusion is the whole story
>>in Migma....
>> 
>>It is for this reason that I highly question how Logajan has quoted
>>Maglich.  How do we know what thoughts are Maglich's and what thoughts
>>are Logajan's that have been disguised as Maglich's in an attempt to
>>give them credibility by an appeal to credentialization.

No, it's all Maglich.
>
[[ bunch of stuff deleted ]]

>>Now there are reasons to be interested in what proportion of the
>>reactions were thermal-thermal and which were beam-thermal etc. These
>>mostly have to do with how will things scale to reactor sized devices
>>and how they will affect the excitation of some modes and the removal of
>>ash.
>
>Strachan, Adler, adn Alling, et al, wrote a March 1994 DOE document
>describing the TFTR burn in question.  They show a graph [Fig 2(a)] in
>which beam-beam, beam-target and "thermonuclear" neutron emission
>densities are calculated over a one second interval.  They also show a
>calculated total neutron emission curve versus a measured total neutron
>emission curve.  The measured neutron flux is 10% less than the estimated
>flux.  The beam-target and beam-beam neutron emissions even in the
>calculated estimate account for nearly 70% of the neutrons.  The beam-
>target flux theoretically peaks about the same time the thermonuclear
>flux theoretically peaks.  The beam-beam flux theoretically peaks and
>then declindes nearly 50% about 0.3 seconds before the thermonuclear flux
>peaks.  The peak of the beam-beam flux is about equivalent in magnitude
>to the thermonuclear peak, while the beam-target peak is about twice as
>large as the thermonuclear peak.
>
>There is plenty of room for fudging in the above data.  They better have
>some pretty damn good reasons for those dynamic theoretical attributions.
>Maglich claims their thermonuclear flux could be *ZERO*!!!!

It wasn't fudged, it was a computer simulation!  There are a number
of independent ways you can measure the plasma temperature and
density, and you *can* determine whether there is thermonuclear
fusion or not.  

I would also like to point out that TFTR can use microwaves to
heat the plasma, as well as neutral beams, and that in this case
*only* thermonuclear fusion can occur.  Fusion *has* been observed
in such discharges (though obviously not 6 MW, primarily because
the microwave heating sources have only ~ 1/3 the power of the 
neutral beam sources), so Maglich's claim of "zero" thermonuclear
power will require a *lot* of justification if it is to be believed.
>
>They elsewhere state that only some of their neutron counters could
>discriminate between 14 (D-T) and 2.5 MeV (D-D) neutrons.  Maglich wants
>+or- 10KeV resolution to identify beam-beam, beam-plasma, beam-wall, and
>thermonuclear neutrons.

Again, what really matters is whether you can eliminate beam-wall
reactions; this can be done both empirically and theoretically without
need for a 0.1% resolution neutron spectrometer.  It would be
useful to sort out empirically the relative contributions of the
beam-beam, beam-plasma, and plasma-plasma (thermonuclear) reactions
to the power output.  I don't know for certain, but I believe
steps are being taken in this direction.

*************************
Robert F. Heeter
rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Graduate Student, PPPL 
Disclaimers Apply
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.19 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Lack of neutrons and x-rays in 'cold fusion' experiments
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Lack of neutrons and x-rays in 'cold fusion' experiments
Date: 19 Apr 94 17:55:37 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

I received a question via private e-mail which I think may interest
a broader audience. So I reproduce here the question and (with a
few modifications) my response.

QUESTION:
Perhaps you can clear up a point of confusion that exists here. 
Namely, is it your opinion that there is no compelling evidence for
*any* anomalous nuclear effects in deuterated solids?  Or is that
there is no compelling evidence for anomalous *neutron* production
in deuterated solids?

RESPONSE:
In brief, it is now my studied opinion that there is no compelling
evidence for *any* anomalous nuclear effects in *deuterided solids*
(so-called "cold fusion.")

Your question is interesting, in that it implies that even if
neutrons are not seen, there may still be nuclear effects
occurring.  The argument has often been repeated that even if 
d + d --> 3He + n 
is suppressed somehow, the reactions

d + d --> t + p
or d +d --> 4He + gamma

may still occur.  The possibility of strong suppression of the
direct neutron channel is highly suspect -- but in any case we
should look at the next question:  What is the probability that
the charged products (t, p, 4He, gamma) might produce neutrons in
a subsequent reaction?  This is the crucial question which I think
most of those who still believe in the possibility of 'cold fusion'
in deuterided palladium or nickel unfortunately overlook.  As we
shall see, secondary neutron or x-ray production by such products 
as they slow in the deuterium-loaded metal provide a critical test
for claims of 'cold fusion' or *any* nuclear reactions in this environment.

In general, deuterons are weakly bound:  A particle having a
threshold energy of about 2.2 MeV is sufficient to break up the
deuteron, producing a *neutron* which would then be detected by
nearly all neutron counters in current use.  For this process of
deuteron break-up, we do not need even to postulate a particular
nuclear reaction (such as fusion) -- just that at least one end
product have over 2.2 MeV, and that plenty of deuterons be in the
vicinity of the nuclear reaction.  For many nuclear reactions, 
these conditions are met.  Then where are the secondary neutrons?  They are
clearly absent in sufficient numbers to correlate with measurable
excess heat.   

Let's consider the specific case of triton production, claimed
by John Bockris et al. and Fritz Will et al. and a few others.

The d+d --> p + t reaction produces a triton having 1 MeV.  But
the threshold for tritons to fuse with ambient deuterons is only
about 25 keV.  Thus, should many tritons be produced, as John
Bockris adn Fritz Will et al. for example suggest, then we must see
*secondary* neutron production via  t +d --> 4 He + n reactions.
  
A student here is recalculating the fraction of neutrons expected
for tritons produced in deuterided metals by this reaction; a
preliminary number gives a neutron/triton ratio of about 10^-5. 

In Will's experiment, this means that *millions* of neutrons SHOULD
HAVE BEEN SEEN.  But he saw little if any neutron production--
certainly not millions.  Where are the missing *secondary*
neutrons?  His detectors could not have missed these levels of
neutrons.

Indeed, *no one* has validated neutron production at the levels
required to satisfy the known cross sections for t + d --> 4He +n
(although we are refining the numbers expected--not likely off by
more than an order of magnitude).  Tom Claytor (Los Alamos) is well
aware of this problem.  I don't think it has yet sunk in with Will
-- he did not address this question when I wrote him about it,
twice.

Let's review some of the best charged-particle production studies: 

Wolf -- *none* seen using a charged-particle telescope, the best
detector applied for such a study
Cecil -- found artifacts in his system -- some claims have been
*retracted* by Cecil 
Hubler and Chambers -- can't seem to reproduce their 5 MeV signal,
don't know what it could be; not much new when I asked Graham
Hubler in Dec. 1994.

It just does not look compelling to me, Bruce.

Finally, I remind you that no one anywhere has published an x-ray
spectrum characteristic of energetic (order 10 keV or above)
charged particles slowing in Pd or Ni, etc.  Show me a nuclear reaction
which does not involve charged products of over 10 keV...  The *absence* of
secondary x-rays and neutrons provides overwhelming evidence to me
that excess heat still claimed by a few *cannot* be ascribed to
nuclear reactions.  

Best regards, 
Steven Jones

P.S. -- I will be with my family on vacation until 25 April, so will
not be able to reply further until then.  Cheers.
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenjonesse cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.19 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Re: Scandal (?) at Princeton -- TFTR
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Scandal (?) at Princeton -- TFTR
Date: 19 Apr 94 18:14:12 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

To Robert Heeter (especially) and neutron-diagnostic types:

We have now at BYU a neutron *spectrometer* that provides energy
resolution good to about 40% FWHM.  This is not great, and we are
working on improvements.  Still, this is certainly adequate to
distinguish 14.1 (not 14.7, gentlemen) MeV neutrons from slower neutrons
generated by deuteron break-up and other sources discussed by Paul Koloc 
and (evidently) by Maglich. 

If anyone would like further information on the neutron spectrometers available
here, please send e-mail.  I will respond on 25 April after our family
vacation.  These are portable enough to take to Princeton, for example...

Cheers.
Steven Jones

cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenjonesse cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.19 /  jonesse@physc1 /  cancel <1994Apr19.180508.1591@physc1.byu.edu>
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cancel <1994Apr19.180508.1591@physc1.byu.edu>
Date: 19 Apr 94 18:14:42 -0600

cancel <1994Apr19.180508.1591@physc1.byu.edu>
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenjonesse cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.21 / Greg Kuperberg /  Re: Lack of neutrons and x-rays in 'cold fusion' experiments
     
Originally-From: gk00@quads.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Lack of neutrons and x-rays in 'cold fusion' experiments
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 1994 04:28:56 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

In article <1994Apr19.175537.1590@physc1.byu.edu> jonesse@physc1.byu.edu writes:
>RESPONSE:
>In brief, it is now my studied opinion that there is no compelling
>evidence for *any* anomalous nuclear effects in *deuterided solids*
>(so-called "cold fusion.")

Can you say something about your feelings during this turnaround of
opinion?   Do you feel that you dispassionately weighed an optimistic
claim and ultimately rejected it?  Or do you feel that you were
snookered by the data and eventually the scales fell from your eyes?
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudengk00 cudfnGreg cudlnKuperberg cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.21 / John Logajan /  RE: Reply to Maglich on TFTR D-T Results
     
Originally-From: 74242.1554@compuserve.com (John M. Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: Reply to Maglich on TFTR D-T Results
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 1994 07:13:41 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

stek@amazon.pfc.mit.edu (PAUL) writes:
>Have any of you whining cold fusioniers looked at the literature on
>plasma physics and TFTR in particular?  Until you do you are hardly in a
>position to say that they have not diagnosed their plasma sufficiently.
    
Bogdan Maglich is hardly a "cold fusionier."  He has been in the hot
fusion business since the late 60's.  He's currently the Chief Scientist
for Advanced Physics Corporation, a 12 member consortium including
departments of the University of California at Irvine, MIT, GE, and
several Russian groups including the nuclear weapons center at
Chelyabinsk-70.  Maglich is the inventor of the aneutronic "migma" hot
fustion concept.  He has publish papers in many of the refereed journals
on hot fusion physics.

I'd say he's probably familiar with the literature.


cudkeys:
cuddy21 cuden1554 cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.20 / Michael Stein /  sensitive calorimeter (article ptr)
     
Originally-From: OSYSMAS@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU (Michael Stein)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: sensitive calorimeter (article ptr)
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 1994 23:08
Organization: UCLA Microcomputer Support Office

"Nose-on-a-chip" sensor could give computers the ability to smell
 (abstracted/mangled from Electronic Design, April 4, 1994, page 40,
  David Maliniak)

From IBM Research Division's lab's in Zurich, Switzerland -
worlds most sensitive heat-sensing instrument.  Can measure the
heat generated in chemical reactions with a resolution as small
as 1*10**-5 degree C.  The instruments sesitivity limit is
estimated at about 1 pJ.

Involves use of a micromechnical silicon lever coated with
aluminum.  Due to the different coefficients of thermal expansion
between the aluminum and silcon the lever bends.  The lever is
about 1.5 um thick and 400 um long.  IBM's researchers used a
laser to measure the bending which can be as small as 1/100th the
diameter of an atom.

One experiment a thin layer of platinum material was applied over
the aluminum.  Measuring the heat of oxygen and hydrogen reacting
on the catalyst platinum layer IBM's researchers were able to
show that hydrogen and oxygen do not combine at a uniform rate.
The rate actually oscillates with time, a phenomenon that was
known to occur but had never before been sensed with a
calorimeter.
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenOSYSMAS cudfnMichael cudlnStein cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.20 / Jan Bielawski /  Re: Quarks,atoms,1/N expansion--E.Witten;Large-N QM--L.Yaffe
     
Originally-From: jpb@cvsd.cv.com (Jan Bielawski)
Newsgroups: sci.math,sci.physics,sci.chem,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Quarks,atoms,1/N expansion--E.Witten;Large-N QM--L.Yaffe
Date: 20 Apr 1994 18:27:11 -0700
Organization: Computervision, San Diego, CA

In article <2ok6ce$f70@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>,
Ludwig Plutonium <Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu> wrote:

<  Math had a very pretty theorem called the Banach Tarski Theorem which
<disproves the conservation of energy/mass. 

No, it doesn't.  The Banach-Tarski theorem works precisely in the
case where physics doesn't apply: you divide the ball into sets 
which cannot be assigned mass.  In physics any object does have a mass
assigned to it.

<However this gorgeous
<theorem is not enough to sway, turn the heads of physics professors.

No, it's not enough, obviously.  Why should it be?

<  I conjecture and speculate that there exists only 4 dimensions,
<ending with the 3rd Dimension, there is no 4th dimension or higher, 
<I conjecture that there exists only 4 dimensions. There exists the 0
<dimension, 1st dimension, 2nd dimension, 3rd dimension, but 4th and
<higher are nonexistent. 

What do you mean by "exists"?  

<Now it is physics turn to spearhead the drive for math to
<get their act together.  For math to shape-up or ship-out.

No.  They are systems with disjoint domains.  A mathematician
never needs any physics to do mathematics.  Physics can never
force the truth or falsity of math theorems or statements of 
definitions.

I am wondering where did you get your concept of math from?  You seem
to think of it as if it was an experimental sort of science.
Maybe it's time for you to stop reading Asimov and Kline and 
to start reading real math books or enroll in some classes.
-- 
	Jan Bielawski
	Computervision, San Diego
	jpb@cvsd.cv.com

cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenjpb cudfnJan cudlnBielawski cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.20 / Robert Heeter /  Re: TFTR neutron diagnostics
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: TFTR neutron diagnostics
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 1994 04:06:45 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

In article <940419060753_74242.1554_BHR19-1@CompuServe.COM> John M.
Logajan, 74242.1554@compuserve.com writes:
>blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue) writes:
>>The only suggestion from Maglich that need be given a second thought
>>would be that d-t collisions at the walls make the neutrons.  I don't
>>know that much about the experimental conditions, but I seriously
>>doubt that the setup is designed to allow the injected neutral
>>beams just to crash into the walls.
>
>Strachan (of PPPL) in a DOE report on the TFTR burn gives the calculated
>neutron flux from the various sources.  They list three types in a
>graphical representation over the course of about one second.  The three
>types are:
>
>1.) Beam-target
>2.) Beam-beam
>3.) Thermonuclear
>
>Maglich listed four types:
>
>1.) Beam-wall
>2.) Beam-beam
>3.) Plasma-plasma
>4.) Beam-plasma
>
>I presume the first three of Strachan and Maglich refer to the same
thing.
>I suppose #4 of Maglich might be folded into #2 of Strachan???

No, Strachan #1 = Maglich #4, Strachan #2 = Maglich #2, Strachan #3
= Maglich #3, and Strachan neglects Maglich #1, with solid theoretical
and experimental justification for doing so.

The plasma is considered the "target" of the neutral beam, not the
wall.  Thus beam-target reactions are beam-plasma reactions.

Dumping neutral beam power into the walls is generally considered
a bad idea.  (We're talking about 30 MW of power in 6-10 beams,
I think; if one were to hit the wall in a concentrated spot, I 
think people would notice!)
>
>There is no issue whether they are D-D or D-T neutrons, it is presumed
>that 99% are D-T neutrons.  

No, it's experimentally and theoretically *determined* that the majority
are D-T neutrons.  (I take exception to the use of "presumed" above.)

>The question is under what circumstances the
>D-T neutrons were created.  Strachan puts the beam-target flux at twice
>the thermonuclear flux, beam-beam flux being equal to the thermonuclear
>flux peak, but then declining to about 1/2 of thermonuclear flux.
>
>Strachan's categorization is all theoretical based.  Some of their
>counters could discriminate between D-D and D-T but apparently not the
>four above mentioned D-T types.  Since the three "false" sources are
>70/30 compared to the "true" source even in the Strachan calculations, an
>actual means to verify the ratio is more than warranted.

It's not so much a purely theoretical calculation as it is a 
calculation based on an empirically-tested computer simulation.

Verifying the 70/30 ratio between beam-initiated fusion reactions
and thermonuclear fusion reactions does seem to be a good idea.

I think the best bet here is to wait for the official results to
be published so we can see how and in what ways this has been 
considered (or not). 

******************************
Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Graduate Student, Princeton (PPPL) - Disclaimers Apply
I speak only for myself, and do not represent PPPL in any way.
(Nor, I suspect, would they want me to!)
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.21 / mitchell swartz /  Quantitation, Timing, and Band theory (was Timing and the Chubbs' theory)
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Quantitation, Timing, and Band theory (was Timing and the Chubbs' theory)
Subject: Timing and the Chubbs' theory.
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 1994 11:10:10 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <9404191730.AA27987@dxmint.cern.ch>
Subject: Timing and the Chubbs' theory.
Douglas R.O. Morrison (morrison@vxprix.cern.ch) writes:

=drom    "There has been some discussions of the Chubbs' theory. Perhaps the 
=drom simplest way of seeing the problems of the Chubbs' approach is to consider
=drom time.
=drom In nuclear physics, an interaction happens in less than 10 E-20 seconds 
=drom and this gives the radius over which the information of the interaction
=drom can take place (by multiplying by the velocity of light).
=drom  Now the spacing of the 
=drom lattice is a few Angstroms. So only one Palladium ion can be involved 
=drom in that time." 
=drom  The Chubbs are proposing that the 23 MeV gamma energy can be 
=drom spread out over 10 E7 Palladium ions so that each only receives 
=drom about 2 eV. But for this to happen in 10 E-20 seconds, means that 
=drom the energy has to travel much faster than the velocity of light." 

    Time out for quantitation.
    The criticism is as valid as the theory of bands states for the deuterons.
    However, both must be dimensionally and quantitatively correct.

    First, the phrase "spread out over 10 E7 Palladium ions" is misleading 
since these reactions occur in a volume, yet the example involves a 
propagation distance in a straight line.
    Therefore since simple dimensional analysis shows this putative
length of  nuclei which are involved to be
only by about 200 palladium nuclei in length (for a radius from the nucleus
in question)  since the volume encompassed is as the cube of this number.
    So, is that not  2 * 10^2  as opposed to 10^7 if you are talking linear
propagation along radii?                                             \/\/\/
    Quite a difference, eh?    
  
    Second,  -  assuming that the width of conventional reaction 
times characterizes the CF reactions,  there is an error associated with the
claim "an interactionhappens in less than 10 E-20 seconds".   What is it?
Assuming one eliminates the times associated with metastable states
(why?), what is the actual known range of times of all such interactions?
and what can influence this range of times over which this occurs?  
The answers to these questions may augment a few more to determine 
if the criticism is valid and appropriate for this case.

     Best wishes.
                             Mitchell Swartz
                              mica@world.std.com

cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.20 / Robert Heeter /  Re: cost
     
Originally-From: rfheeter@flagstaff.Princeton.EDU (Robert Franklin Heeter)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: cost
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 1994 17:56:52 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

In article <CoJqo5.D5A@prometheus.UUCP> pmk@promethe.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) writes:

>If I were handed 25-50 megabucks I could generate a  burn
>in an aneutronic fuel that would prove to be commercially 
>economical, and in 4 years.  Then in about seven additional 
>years  these things would be manufactured for use at a significant
>rate.  

Hi Paul,

I don't think you can fairly claim to *know* (with a minimum of
scientific doubt) that you could scale up the Plasmak to
a commercial fusion source.  If this would be possible in 4 years
at only $6-12 million/year, and such a claim were scientifically
credible, then everyone would be beating down your door to fund
your project.  Since this doesn't seem to be happening, I have
to ask you to document your claim a little more thoroughly,
so I understand what problems you feel have been solved, which
need to be solved, and which potential problems do not need
to be solved.  Have you done the experiment that shows commercial
scale power densities in your plasma?  (The new TFTR results 
indicate sufficiently high power densities that a TFTR type
reactor could be scaled into an ITERlike gigawatt-producing
reactor.)  Have you come anywhere near scientific breakeven
in the power produced in your reactor?

As someone recently said to me, I think you're overselling
a good thing here.  The Plasmak may turn into a feasible
fusion reactor, but the concept isn't as advanced as the
tokamak.

********************
Robert F. Heeter
rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton
As usual, I speak only for myself.


cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.20 / Robert Heeter /  Re: TFTR D-T = Science by Press Conference?
     
Originally-From: rfheeter@flagstaff.Princeton.EDU (Robert Franklin Heeter)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: TFTR D-T = Science by Press Conference?
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 1994 18:30:16 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

In article <2p3gc4$ptm@ds8.scri.fsu.edu> jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) writes:
>In article <1994Apr19.053010.27399@Princeton.EDU> 
>Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> writes:
>>
>>This is my general response to Maglich, Dale Bass, and others who
>>are claiming that when PPPL invited the press to witness the first
>>high-power D-T fusion runs in TFTR, they were engaging in 
>>"Science by Press Conference" in the same manner as Pons &
>>Fleischmann were when they prematurely announced their "Cold 
>>Fusion" results in 1989.
>
>There was *nothing* premature about the P&F press conference! 

I'm not sure Steven Jones would agree!

What *was* premature was that they presented the public with a
totally bizarre phenomenon, but (as I understand things from
reading the group) never published work sufficiently clear that
others would be able to easily reproduce the results.  

P&F shouldn't have come out unless they were prepared to come clean.

>I may not think much of the quality of their papers and presentation,
>or of the 'nuclear' evidence they showed at that time, but what they 
>did was perfectly correct and normal in physics.  There are many cases 
>where press conferences are called after acceptance of the paper and 
>well prior to publication.

Yes, and in most cases the results do not come completely out of
the blue, and in most cases the researchers provide enough
information for others to be able to replicate the work.

So you are arguing that science by press conference is ok, and 
fusion researchers are only bad for being hypocritical, and not for
doing what others do?

>Your remark is *exactly* the sort of statement from the fusion community 
>that showed either ignorance of how science is done or sour grapes. 

Rather, I think it shows an appreciation of *when* it is ok to
make a public announcement, and when it is not.  One should not
break agreements with other researchers for joint disclosure.
One should not announce publicly unless one is certain of one's
results.  One should not announce publicly unless one is willing
to provide any and all relevant evidence to the scientific community.
>
>>First, let's make a list of salient characteristics:
>>
>>*** Pons & Fleischmann:
>
>Everything in your list applies to the press conference by Chu on 
>high-Tc superconductors. 

Except that high-Tc superconductors were undeniably real,
and enough information was provided that the results were 
reproduced eaily and under relatively easy-to-achieve experimental
circumstances.  My list wasn't comprehensive, but I'm sure we
could enumerate a few more relevant distinctions.

If Bockris had announced (on the basis of the demonstrations
he'd seen and the work he was funding) that he'd discovered 
transmutation, that would have been inappropriate too.
>
>Also, your last point is wrong.  The action that preempted other 
>researchers was submitting the paper to the Electrochemistry journal 
>first rather than after the joint submission to Nature. 

And not telling the other researchers that the submission had been
made, or when the publication was accepted, right?

If I made an error in the history, I apologize.
>
>>*** TFTR D-T experiments:
>>*** First Space Shuttle Launch:
>
>The difference here is that we can all see the shuttle go up.  We 
>rely on others to interpret the computer output from the detectors 
>monitoring the reactor. 

This isn't valid.  Everyone could see the TFTR shot.  We were only
relying on the detectors to say how much power came out.  Similarly,
we could all see the shuttle launch, but we had to rely on detectors
to know how much thrust the rockets put out, how high it went, etc.

> For example, I was quite surprised to 
>learn the limited nature of the neutron-detection system given 
>how critical neutrons are to understanding the system.  Now if 
>TFTR had competing experts from Britain and people like Maglich 
>and .... present, they might have a point since then the press would 
>get a better understanding of the physics issues. 

This is also flawed.  The neutron detection system is *not* limited,
it has been evolving for over ten years, and the whole D-T operations
program, including the diagnostics to be used, had been reviewed
by international fusion experts.  The only limitation in the neutron
detection system is that they don't resolve the beam-plasma, beam beam,
and plasma-plamsa reactions *directly*.  There are indirect ways of
figuring this out, there's a well-developed theory explaining it,
and it just hasn't really been an issue,so far as I can tell, until now.
>
>As to NASA and its public coverage: did you know the Challenger 
>astronauts did not die until they hit the water?  Just because 
>the press witnesses something does not make it any less of a 
>controlled situation from the point of view of the PR people. 

This is a valid point, and it is generally the basis for the
typical fusioneers frustration with the P&F announcement.  P&F
limited the information release, both during and after the announcement,
so that the scientific community could not judge or reproduce their
results.  TFTR has been very open with its data and results, from
Rich Hawryluk's email/internet postings, to the D-T conference held
in March, and even to the point where any of you could ask me about
the data, and I could wander over to the relevant scientist's office
to find out.  

It seems to me the appropriateness of early publicization depends on
the expected controversiality of the results, the general nature
of the project (is it public or private, large scale or small scale),
and the willingness of the publicizers to be completely open about
their work.  

I still think TFTR's D-T conference was appropriate, and P&Fs wasn't
done well.  There are cases when well-done early disclosure is a good
thing, and Pons & Fleischmann's CF announcement just isn't one of them.

If you really think I'm wrong, please try and get through to me.
I just don't see the logic of the other side holding up yet.

*****************************
Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Graduate Student in Plasma Physics
Usual disclaimers apply

cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.21 / Robert Heeter /  Re: Scandal (?) at Princeton -- TFTR
     
Originally-From: rfheeter@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Robert Franklin Heeter)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Scandal (?) at Princeton -- TFTR
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 1994 00:00:08 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

In article <1994Apr19.181412.1592@physc1.byu.edu> jonesse@physc1.byu.edu writes:
>To Robert Heeter (especially) and neutron-diagnostic types:
>
>We have now at BYU a neutron *spectrometer* that provides energy
>resolution good to about 40% FWHM.  This is not great, and we are
>working on improvements.  Still, this is certainly adequate to
>distinguish 14.1 (not 14.7, gentlemen) MeV neutrons from slower neutrons
>generated by deuteron break-up and other sources discussed by Paul Koloc 
>and (evidently) by Maglich. 

TFTR has recently installed (1st quarter 1994) a 10% FWHM neutron
energy spectrometer, as I mentioned in a recent post (which may not
have propagated through the net yet.)  There are other diagnostics
on TFTR which can distinguish neutrons from D-D fusion from neutrons
from D-T fusion.  I don't know whether the older diagnostics could
resolve D+X->p+n+X breakup reactions, but if 40% FWHM is all it 
takes, we should be ok.  I believe the
new detector makes it possible to resolve beam-wall fusion from the
other types of fusion, and that negligible amounts of beam-wall
fusion are observed.  (The observed peak has a FWHM of about 20-30%,
and beam-wall fusion would have a width of 10%; I'm told 20-30% is
consistent with beam-plasma and plasma-plamsa fusion providing
the majority of the reactions, based on the location of the detector.)
>
>If anyone would like further information on the neutron spectrometers 
>available
>here, please send e-mail.  I will respond on 25 April after our family
>vacation.  These are portable enough to take to Princeton, for example...

Thanks for the offer, but I think we're doing ok here!

*********************
Robert F. Heeter
rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Graduate Student, Princeton Plasma Physics Lab
Disclaimers Apply

cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.21 / Tim Janke /  Mad Ludwig
     
Originally-From: tim_janke@internet.uscs.com (Tim Janke)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Mad Ludwig
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 1994 14:28:56 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Mad Ludwig
As far as sci.physics.fusion goes, I usually just keep my mouth shut and try
and learn a thing or two (a wise policy in almost any situation).  But I am
moved to comment by the rather strident stream of humorless postings being
lately directed at poor old Ludwig von Plutonium.

Lighten up, folks, its a joke!  Can't you tell?  It seems painfully apparent to
me that Ludwig is just a nom de plume for someone at Dartmouth who is terribly
bored and has decided to play this very long running, intellectual joke,
pretending to be a crackpot and propounding these outrageous theories (if you
can call them that).  And every time someone takes the bait and responds to him
seriously, he must just sit back and laugh his *** off.  I know I do, or did.

Lately, though, those who would puncture Mad Ludwig's balloon have been getting
just a little too serious, nitpicking over the details of a theory that was
never designed to hold water in the first place.  If Herr von Plutonium offends
you, then ignore him!  Eventually, he'll grow even more bored and go away.  In
the meantime, ITS A JOKE.  Read his stuff with an overdone German accent and
you'll see what I mean.  (Really!  Try it.   :^)  )

And now, I think *I'll* put on some asbestos clothing and go back to keeping my
mouth shut.

					Timothy Janke


*************************************************************
Disclaimer: My opinions, not my employer's.
(Free! and worth it)
*************************************************************
Timothy Janke               
El Dorado Hills, CA                 
tim_janke@internet.uscs.com

"Let me go back in there and face the peril".
"No, it's too perilous".
 - Monty Python And The Holy Grail
*************************************************************



cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudentim_janke cudfnTim cudlnJanke cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.21 / Tim Janke /  Heeter's reply to Bass
     
Originally-From: tim_janke@internet.uscs.com (Tim Janke)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Heeter's reply to Bass
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 1994 14:29:07 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Heeter's reply to Bass
Twice in one day!  OK, so I'm a hypocrite, and don't keep my mouth shut as much
as I previously said.

Robert F. Heeter wrote:

: [...] I believe there are readers out there who simply think that fusion is
cool stuff [...]

Hear, hear!

: I believe the scientists in the field have an obligation to [...] try to help
the taxpayers
: understand just what their taxes are paying for.

On the nose!  Keep it up, Robert.

OK, now, I promise, I'll go back to lurking.

				timothy janke

*************************************************************
Disclaimer: My opinions, not my employer's.
(Free! and worth it)
*************************************************************
Timothy Janke               
El Dorado Hills, CA                 
tim_janke@internet.uscs.com

"Let me go back in there and face the peril".
"No, it's too perilous".
 - Monty Python And The Holy Grail
*************************************************************



cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudentim_janke cudfnTim cudlnJanke cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.21 / Jim Carr /  Re: Reply to Maglich on TFTR D-T Results
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reply to Maglich on TFTR D-T Results
Date: 21 Apr 1994 09:28:18 -0400
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

>In article <940420042204_74242.1554_BHR47-1@CompuServe.COM>,
>John M. Logajan <74242.1554@compuserve.com> wrote:
>
>>Replace PPPL with P+F above and you get to the hypocrisy issue that
>>Maglich was raising.

In article <20APR94.23140476@amazon.pfc.mit.edu> 
stek@amazon.pfc.mit.edu (PAUL) writes:
>
>GIVE ME A BREAK.  P+F did not allow for peer review of their work.  

Did not "allow"?  It was submitted to a *very* reputable journal 
and refereed under policies and practices normal for them when 
publishing a short 'letter'-type communication.  Policies that 
have been used by PRL in the past.  Pretty slanderous remarks, 
if you ask me.  And before you slander me also, let me tell you 
that I am not (by a long shot) a proponent of cold fusion or 
true-believer in same -- but I happen to have high standards 
when it comes to historical accuracy.  

>Their paper was completely incomprehensible and they refused to 
>let people into their lab. Why?  Because it didn't work!

Their first paper was a 'letter' and, like papers published in PRL 
(which is not, strictly speaking, an archival journal) it certainly 
was not complete or accurate.  (If you want an example of a PRL paper 
where the authors misrepresented what they did in order to squeeze 
it into 3.5 pages, I will be happy to supply the details.)  Their 
later 'paper' was reasonably complete.  Many people have followed 
their instructions.  The fact that they got different results is 
a different matter.   ;-)  That is what science and publication 
*and* calling press conferences, letting interested people know 
about the forthcoming article, are all about. 

-- 
 James A. Carr   <jac@scri.fsu.edu>     |   "It's never confusing though, 
      http://www.scri.fsu.edu           |  because ultimately it all fits 
 Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst.  |  -- its just cockeyed and fits  
 Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306    |  and is fire."  -  Norman Maclean 
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.21 / Jim Carr /  Re: TFTR D-T = Science by Press Conference?
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: TFTR D-T = Science by Press Conference?
Date: 21 Apr 1994 10:12:52 -0400
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

>In article <2p3gc4$ptm@ds8.scri.fsu.edu> 
>jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) writes:
>
>>There was *nothing* premature about the P&F press conference! 

In article <1994Apr20.183016.10277@Princeton.EDU> 
rfheeter@flagstaff.Princeton.EDU (Robert Franklin Heeter) writes:
>
>I'm not sure Steven Jones would agree!

I will let Steve speak for himself.  Certainly the conference was 
timed to be the day before the agreed-upon submittal to Nature, 
but it also was *after* the paper had been refereed, revised and 
resubmitted, reviewed again and accepted for publication -- which 
is the context of the above statement in my post, as you would 
know if you were paying attention to the facts of this matter. 
I assert that the same events would have transpired if they had 
quietly submitted the papers to Nature and then called the press 
conference on the JEC paper a few days later. 

As I said later on, the bad faith on their part was in submitting a 
letter to the Journal of Electroanalytic Chemistry prior to the Nature 
submission, not in announcing the acceptance of that communication. 
A press conference after acceptance is perfectly normal.  Ask an 
editor at PRL, or read the Tuesday 'Science Times' section regularly. 

>What *was* premature was that they presented the public with a
>totally bizarre phenomenon, but (as I understand things from
>reading the group) never published work sufficiently clear that
>others would be able to easily reproduce the results.  

Repeat the experiment, yes, reproduce has proven to be another matter. 
Some claim to have reproduced it, others claim not, some claim to know why. 

>Yes, and in most cases the results do not come completely out of
>the blue, and in most cases the researchers provide enough
>information for others to be able to replicate the work.

Back to the Chu example.  That came completely out of the blue.  Indeed, 
if you look at the history of physics, you will notice that N-rays were 
accepted because that novel 'phenomenon' came soon after X-rays and other 
new discoveries -- just as cold fusion followed high-Tc.  Chu publicized 
his work after acceptance but before publication.  The norm in PRL is a 
news conference on the Monday it gets printed even tho we don't see it 
for a few days (in the US), but there is a fair period of time between 
acceptance and printing as you must know.  In that interregnum, Chu 
refused to let anyone see his paper.  (It is rumored that one of the 
referees improperly leaked some details, but the paper was not seen by 
anyone else until it was published.)  This irritated many people (as I 
know from first-hand conversations with some of them) but they were 
sufficiently industrious and clever to duplicate it anyway. 

>So you are arguing that science by press conference is ok, and 
>fusion researchers are only bad for being hypocritical, and not for
>doing what others do?

That is exactly what I am saying, although they took the matter to 
a more extreme level by staging an media event around the experiment 
rather than holding a press conference and tour after the work had 
been written up, reviewed, and accepted for publication.  The folks 
in Britain did a similar thing, but since they had not made the same 
public criticism of P&F, they did not get similar grief about it.  
Remember, P&F *did* let the press into their lab (crucial for the 
video analysis related to the x-ray spectra fraud question) and 
showed off their bubbling cells after the press conference.  PPPL 
folks complained about this dog-and-pony show and then did their own.  

>>Your remark is *exactly* the sort of statement from the fusion community 
>>that showed either ignorance of how science is done or sour grapes. 
>
>Rather, I think it shows an appreciation of *when* it is ok to
>make a public announcement, and when it is not.  One should not
>break agreements with other researchers for joint disclosure.

I agree that what they were urged to do by the University administration 
was immoral, but there is also the matter of the abstract Jones submitted 
for the Spring APS meeting that would appear in print in a few weeks time. 
Under your argument, Steve should not have submitted that either.  Events 
were moving very fast, and from what my friends here have told me about 
the external pressures during the 'discovery' of superheavy nuclei here 
at FSU, I can see why they might have felt they needed to send in the 
letter once Jones sent in his abstract. 

>One should not announce publicly unless one is certain of one's
>results.  

They were certainly sure of their results.  They had a paper accepted! 

One should not announce publicly unless one is willing
>to provide any and all relevant evidence to the scientific community.

>>Everything in your list applies to the press conference by Chu on 
>>high-Tc superconductors. 
>
>Except that high-Tc superconductors were undeniably real,
>and enough information was provided that the results were 
>reproduced eaily and under relatively easy-to-achieve experimental
>circumstances.  

Whether it was real or not is irrelevant.  The publicity helps in the 
process of disconfirming results as well as in confirming them, a process 
most helpful to the progress of science.  Look at how Roentgen publicized 
his discovery by sending out letters around the world.  Chu, as I noted 
above, tried to protect his lead by not releasing the paper until it 
appeared in print a few weeks after the announcement, forcing people 
to work with *less* information than they had about the P&F work. 

Anyway, most of the complaints were out of frustration when P&F 
dismissed failures as 'you must not have done it right'.  

>>Also, your last point is wrong.  The action that preempted other 
>>researchers was submitting the paper to the Electrochemistry journal 
>>first rather than after the joint submission to Nature. 
>
>And not telling the other researchers that the submission had been
>made, or when the publication was accepted, right?

Absolutely.  They had been informed by Jones when he submitted his 
abstract to the APS, and should have returned the favor. 

>This isn't valid.  Everyone could see the TFTR shot.  We were only
>relying on the detectors to say how much power came out.  Similarly,
>we could all see the shuttle launch, but we had to rely on detectors
>to know how much thrust the rockets put out, how high it went, etc.

You are stretching it here.  You can definitely see how high and fast 
it goes.  Ditto for the double boom that shook my house even tho it 
was at 200,000 feet when it went overhead on the previous mission 
landing.  Unless you had invited Maglich or Koloc or Jones to witness 
it and set up their detectors around your experiment. 

>I still think TFTR's D-T conference was appropriate, and P&Fs wasn't
>done well.  There are cases when well-done early disclosure is a good
>thing, and Pons & Fleischmann's CF announcement just isn't one of them.

To the contrary, how many labs are going to rush out and try to 
duplicate the TFTR experiment?  That announcement was for PR and 
PR alone.  The P&F announcement served a valid scientific purpose 
in that it told people that they should go out and try it.  If they 
had published in obscure journals and kept quiet, it would have taken 
much longer before the world's labs got mobilized. 

-- 
 James A. Carr   <jac@scri.fsu.edu>     |   "It's never confusing though, 
      http://www.scri.fsu.edu           |  because ultimately it all fits 
 Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst.  |  -- its just cockeyed and fits  
 Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306    |  and is fire."  -  Norman Maclean 
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.21 / Bruce TK /  Re: Scandal (?) at Princeton -- TFTR
     
Originally-From: bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce       Scott          TK  )
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Scandal (?) at Princeton -- TFTR
Date: 21 Apr 1994 15:29:49 +0200
Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching


In article <1994Apr19.181412.1592@physc1.byu.edu>, 
	jonesse@physc1.byu.edu writes:
> [...] distinguish 14.1 (not 14.7, gentlemen) MeV neutrons [...]

Yes, that is correct. The energy of a D-T neutron is 14.1 MeV, while
the energy of a _proton_ from D-He3 is 14.7 MeV.

(From the NRL Plasma Formulary 1983)

-- 
Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de                               -- W Gibson
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnTK cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.21 / Robert Eachus /  Re: Timing and the Chubbs' theory.
     
Originally-From: eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Timing and the Chubbs' theory.
Date: 21 Apr 94 12:01:40
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.

In article <9404191730.AA27987@dxmint.cern.ch> morrison@vxprix.cern.ch writes:

  > ...The Chubbs are proposing that the 23 MeV gamma energy can be
  > spread out over 10 E7 Palladium ions so that each only receives
  > about 2 eV. But for this to happen in 10 E-20 seconds, means that
  > the energy has to travel much faster than the velocity of light.
  > Now there are an incredible number of experiments which show that
  > this cannot happen.

    Doug, don't get carried away and forget rigor.  First of all I'm
going to assume that by "speed of light" you mean "speed of light in a
vacuum."  Otherwise Cherenkov radiation falsifies all your statements.

    Second, there are many reasons to accept that information transfer
faster than the speed of light is impossible.  (On the other hand if
neutrinos have imaginary mass...)  In most experiments this prevents
the transfer of energy at superluminal speeds.  However, most of
quantum mechanics is now formulated in terms of instantaneous
transitions between states.  (But I LIKED pilot waves. ;-)  Given the
equivalence of mass and energy, I could contend that every time an
electron shifts from a 1p to a 2p orbital there is a superluminal
tranfer of energy.

  >	Cold Fusion already needs several miracles to be true. It is
  > not too reasonable to try and explain Cold Fusion with a theory
  > which invents yet another miracle which violates a fundamental
  > principle of physics. If the Chubbs were correct, and energy could
  > travel faster than the velocity of light, then there would be many
  > consequences and these have not been observed.

  I thought that the EPR "paradox" had been observed, and quantum
tunneling, and superluminal phase velocity, and, and... But these are
mere bagatelle.  Would you like to explain why a Tipler T machine, if
built would not function, or how black holes are cold and don't
radiate energy?  Superlumial energy transfer, and even causality
violations are a part of the currently accepted model of physical
reality.

  We can also wave Heisenberg around all you wish, but if you do, you
have to accept the consequences: that it is meaningless to talk of
energy conservation over short time spans and distances.

  None of this has anything in particular to do with Chubb's theory.
In particular, Heisenberg doesn't allow all that much wiggle room with
respect to 24 MeV gammas--maybe a couple of close by nucleii.  Yes,
currently accepted theory does put very tight limits on how far energy
can get unobservably--but to even try to state that the speed at which
unobservable energy propagates is limited has no place in modern
physics.

--

					Robert I. Eachus

with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudeneachus cudfnRobert cudlnEachus cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.21 / Robert Heeter /  Re: TFTR D-T = Science by Press Conference?
     
Originally-From: rfheeter@theory.pppl.gov (Robert F. Heeter)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: TFTR D-T = Science by Press Conference?
Date: 21 Apr 1994 12:29:42 -0400
Organization: /etc/organization

In article <940421014523_74242.1554_BHR92-2@CompuServe.COM>,
John M. Logajan <74242.1554@compuserve.com> wrote:
>Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> writes:
>>*** TFTR D-T experiments:
>>    - results publicly predicted in advance
>
>By not sufficiently instrumenting their device, the "predicted results"
>remain the "predicted results."  PPPL can only say that based upon their
>previous theory that up to 30% of the neutrons were from plasma-plasma
>fusions.  Without the instruments to falsify the theory, we are left with
>ambiguous data. 

Hello?  Do you know how many experiments have been conducted over
the last 40 years to put together a solid, workable theory to
understand when plasmas and beam particles do and do not fuse?  do you
have any idea how many plasma physicists reviewed the instrumentation
and agreed with it?  do you have any idea how it is possible to 
determine when and where fusion is occurring even without neutron
spectroscopy?  The "previous theory" has been carefully investigated
in over ten years of D-D experimentation; the D-T cross section is
well-understood, and basically speaking if you give a TFTR scientist
the experimental parameters they *do* know what fraction of the fusion
events will be from various sources.  It's completely not the case
that the D-T results were some brand-new experiment with an untested
theory and insufficient instrumentation.  If you want to look at
that sort of experiment, try Cold Fusion. :)

John, ordinarily I respect your opinion, but you are really wading
out of your depth here.

> Perhaps if they had attempted to publish via a refereed
>journal first, this ambiguity would have been caught and would have saved
>them the embarrasment.

Perhaps if you'd read the publications that *are* in refereed journals
you'd realize that it really just isn't a problem.

Do you need instruments to tell you that the sun has risen in the
morning, after a lifetime of experimental experience and the development
of a well-tested theory to explain when and why it happens?  

TFTR may not be as well understood as the earth's rotation, but it's
well enough understood that you can tell where the fusions are coming
from.

Sorry to be so negative; I'm just getting really frustrated with
this whole thing.

****************
Robert F. Heeter
rfheeter@theory.pppl.gov
Graduate Student, Princeton Plasma Physics Lab
I do not represent PPPL, nor am I representative of opinions at PPPL.


cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.21 / R Caldwell /  Re: Fusion is the B, and Superconductivity is the E
     
Originally-From: rcaldwel@[129.15.35.21] (Richard Caldwell)
Newsgroups: sci.math,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.chem,alt.sci.physics.plutonium
Subject: Re: Fusion is the B, and Superconductivity is the E
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 1994 20:19:58 GMT
Organization: Oklahoma Office of State Finance

In article <2osv9n$kto@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth
edu (Ludwig Plutonium) writes:
>From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
>Subject: Re: Fusion is the B, and Superconductivity is the E
>Date: 18 Apr 1994 03:37:27 GMT

>In article <A9D2C968@fbpmac.msfc.nasa.gov>
>bo_parker@fbpmac.msfc.nasa.gov writes:
>> Um, hasn't this been tried?

>  No it has not been tried. I am the first to claim that 

>      Particle is dual conjugate variable with Wave, hence
>      StrongNuclear is dual conjugate variable with Gravity
>      Radioactivities is dual conjugate variable with Electromagnetism.

Sort of a YEN & YANG theory of fundamental forces in physics, huh?

Richard

cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenrcaldwel cudfnRichard cudlnCaldwell cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.21 / L Plutonium /  Re: Quarks,atoms,1/N expansion--E.Witten;Large-N QM--L.Yaffe
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.math,sci.physics,sci.chem,sci.physics.fusion,alt.sci.physics.plutonium
Subject: Re: Quarks,atoms,1/N expansion--E.Witten;Large-N QM--L.Yaffe
Date: 21 Apr 1994 18:59:37 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In article <2p4kpf$16e@cvsd.cvsd.cv.com>
jpb@cvsd.cv.com (Jan Bielawski) writes:

> 
> I am wondering where did you get your concept of math from?  You seem
> to think of it as if it was an experimental sort of science.
> Maybe it's time for you to stop reading Asimov and Kline and 
> to start reading real math books or enroll in some classes.

  When Wiles and his circle of friends get to the point of "their gap"
and they go on, go on not believing that the integers go into ADICS.
Yet they go on into their gap and they read the roadsign that says
"like lemmings you will jump off the cliff." Do you think Wiles and
company will take heed? Hell no, they are such good math majors that
their every nourishment, their every sustenance is given to them by the
math majority of intuitionless minds. And so if the majority says jump,
they will jump. If the herd majority says "go fly a kite" they are so
programmed and wear their blinders snugly that it is improbable for
them to get off of their wrong track. 
  Do you think math majors like Smale,Freedman,Appel,Haken when doing
topology or geometry can break away from the mold, can get their wheels
off of the wrong track which leads them to headlong collisions. Do you
think they could get onto a different track from the herd of math
majors and do creative math? Hell no, they carry their mothers
handkerchief, or tie their shoe laces just as they are told.
  Look at the Poincare Conjecture, the conjecture was made for the Real
arithmetic trick that Real nested root sequences converge all to the
number 1. The proof is there. Nested root sequences and Poincare
topology were made for each other just as male and female were made for
each other. So then the thing to fix is ---definition of 4th dimension
and higher and point compactification. But do you think LP can get
through to the stampeding herds of wrong minded professors? Hell no,
because once you teach an intuitionless math major a definition or old
math, he/she sticks to it like a sucker sticks to the rug.
  Jan, from your posts, you know little to nothing about what math
really is. I advise you to stick to posts where you compute something
or answer a fact, but where there is new math involved, mine is
revolutionary new, your lost and it is not worth my time to answer.
Read some of Karl Heuer's or Dik Winter's or JR Partington's posts,
those guys really know math. And it is a shame that those 3 are not
posting to sci.math these days? Anyone know why?
  I do not count the above as one of my 3 daily posts as it is drivel
not on track with PU theory.
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.21 / L Plutonium /  Re: Quarks,atoms,1/N expansion--E.Witten;Large-N QM--L.Yaffe
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.math,sci.physics,sci.chem,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Quarks,atoms,1/N expansion--E.Witten;Large-N QM--L.Yaffe
Date: 21 Apr 1994 19:02:08 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In article <2p4kpf$16e@cvsd.cvsd.cv.com>
jpb@cvsd.cv.com (Jan Bielawski) writes:

> 
> <  Math had a very pretty theorem called the Banach Tarski Theorem which
> <disproves the conservation of energy/mass. 
> 
> No, it doesn't.  The Banach-Tarski theorem works precisely in the
> case where physics doesn't apply: you divide the ball into sets 
> which cannot be assigned mass.  In physics any object does have a mass
                                 
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> assigned to it.
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

  WRONG. This drivel does not count as one of my 3 daily posts.
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.21 / R Caldwell /  Re: The hot fusion dead-end (was Re: cost)
     
Originally-From: rcaldwel@[129.15.35.21] (Richard Caldwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The hot fusion dead-end (was Re: cost)
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 1994 20:30:06 GMT
Organization: Oklahoma Office of State Finance

In article <CoAt9K.I80@cpsc.ucalgary.ca> michaelf@cpsc.ucalgary.ca
(Michael Fullerton) writes:
>From: michaelf@cpsc.ucalgary.ca (Michael Fullerton)
>Subject: The hot fusion dead-end (was Re: cost)
>Date: Fri, 15 Apr 1994 11:29:44 GMT

>In article <2oeq5dINNtha@sat.ipp-garching.mpg.de> bds@uts.ipp-garching.mpg.de
>(Bruce d. Scott) writes:
>>Thanks to Micheal Fullerton, for giving me a nice laugh with which
>>to end a long day at work.

>Well denial does work fairly well for the short term.  Extending it
>to the long term can result in pathology though.  Watch out.

>-- 
>Michael Fullerton           |  Seeds, like ideas, don't
>michaelf@cpsc.ucalgary.ca   |  germinate in concrete. 


These GOTCHA's are all very amusing.  But until a HF or CF reactor starts 
selling megawatts to the utility grids this is all so much BS.   So, get to 
work, boys & girls.  Megawatts talk,  bullshit walks!

Poor Richard

cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenrcaldwel cudfnRichard cudlnCaldwell cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.21 / Dave Toland /  Re: Quarks,atoms,1/N expansion--E.Witten;Large-N QM--L.Yaffe
     
Originally-From: det@sw.stratus.com (Dave Toland)
Newsgroups: sci.math,sci.physics,sci.chem,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Quarks,atoms,1/N expansion--E.Witten;Large-N QM--L.Yaffe
Date: 21 Apr 1994 20:31:37 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer Inc.

In article <2p6ijg$omc@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>, Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmout
.edu (Ludwig Plutonium) writes:
>   WRONG. This drivel does not count as one of my 3 daily posts.

How do you distinguish this drivel from the drivel you *do* count?

And such a convincing refutation it was, too, simply the word "WRONG"
with absolutely nothing to back it up with.

Just because you shout louder and season heavily with jargon doesn't
make you right.

-- 
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------
All opinions are MINE MINE MINE, and not necessarily anyone else's.
det@phlan.sw.stratus.com   |  "Laddie, you'll be needing something to wash
(Dave Toland)              |   that doon with."
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudendet cudfnDave cudlnToland cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.21 / L Plutonium /  Re: Fusion is the B, and Superconductivity is the E
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.math,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.chem,alt.sci.physics.plutonium
Subject: Re: Fusion is the B, and Superconductivity is the E
Date: 21 Apr 1994 22:07:49 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In article <rcaldwel.85.000E55A4@[129.15.35.21]>
rcaldwel@[129.15.35.21] (Richard Caldwell) writes:

> 
> >      Particle is dual conjugate variable with Wave, hence
> >      StrongNuclear is dual conjugate variable with Gravity
> >      Radioactivities is dual conjugate variable with Electromagnetism.
> 
> Sort of a YEN & YANG theory of fundamental forces in physics, huh?
> 
> Richard

  Yes, exactly. I do not think I could explain it any better than the
concept of yin and yang. In fact, I believe that quantum duality of
particle and wave, the Complementary Principle, is a yin and yang along
these lines. 
  Think of a forest of trees and individual trees. Now when we focus on
one tree, there is a background of many other trees. You cannot have
one tree without having a forest (one tree on the Moon picture). 
  Or consider our focused vision and our periphereal vision.
  Now consider particle and wave. These two are inseperable and when we
focus on the particle then the wave of that particle has become the
rest of the universe which the particle is not. When we focus on the
wave aspect then the particle of that wave is somewhere but not visible
because the wave has filled our view.
  Elementary physics, that is, physics starts with particle wave
duality. When we want to focus on something in detail such as a picture
hanging on the wall (particle) then we focus on that picture and
drown-out the whole entire rest of the universe (wave) which is not
that picture hanging on the wall. We need the whole entire rest of the
universe which is the back-drop the background to make sense of this 1
picture which we are focused.
  In math, duality is obvious. Points do not exist without lines and
lines cannot exist without points. Planes cannot exist without lines
and lines cannot exist without planes.
  This is not philosophy, this is QM which is the start of all human
knowledge. 
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.20 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Scandal at Princeton -- TFTR
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Scandal at Princeton -- TFTR
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 1994 18:10:05 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <2p3f94$ps4@ds8.scri.fsu.edu>,
Jim Carr <jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu> wrote:
>My thought for the day: the TFTR results are probably taking a long time 
>because they are having trouble with the referees at Fusion Technology.

     That's funny.
>>
>>     Then I'm sure you'd agree with me that none of the Physical
>>     Review journals are appropriate.  Perhaps Journal of Physical
>>     and Chemical Reference Data?
>
>There is a quite a bit of applications oriented phyics in B, so the 
>Physical Review is not so pure as you let on.  There are several 
>places it could be published, and you might note that there are PACS 
>categories for both fusion reactor technology and for plasmas and 
>their confinement.  However, the journal on Applied Physics and its 
>letters counterpart might be more appropriate. 
...
>However, your beliefs about pre-publicity and the Physical Review are 
>ill informed or dated.  Only PRL has a policy, and that policy includes 
>the widespread distribution of preprints as well as publicity.  Further, 
>as I checked with the editor a year or so ago to be sure I read it 
>correctly, the policy is soft, left up to a judgement call by the editor 
>as to whether the news articles were extensive enough to make rapid 
>publication unnecessary.  

     Interesting.  Rereading last July's, it does seem soft.  To wit 
     'The results must be new and not simply a marginal extension of 
     previously published work'.  I suppose it depends substantially on 
     how 'previously published work' is interpreted.

     But I had little doubt they'd try to place it in PRL (as they apparently
     did).  We also had Mr. Heeter claiming the press conference wasn't 
     even about science.

[reordered because I felt like it]
>     
>But what would science be without a little hypocrisy? 

     Better?

                          dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.20 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Reply to Maglich on TFTR D-T Results
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reply to Maglich on TFTR D-T Results
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 1994 18:24:01 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <2p3ehd$t4n@tom.pppl.gov>,
Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@theory.pppl.gov> wrote:

>aren't all thermonuclear!!!  Fusion output is fusion output.  Even
>if only 30% was thermonuclear, that's still a world thermonuclear
>fusion power record!

     Then isn't it somewhat short of the 'world record' for thermonuclear
     fusion power?  I suspect that large Russian test shot of the 60's 
     still holds that (especially considering the short 'release' time).
     so 'controlled' might be a good stipulation
     when saying 'fusion output is fusion output'.

     On the other hand, I suspect attaining the world record for thermonuclear
     fusion power at PPPL would not be popular with the locals.

                             dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.21 / Carl Ijames /  Re: TFTR D-T = Science by Press Conference?
     
Originally-From: ijames@helix.nih.gov (Carl F. Ijames)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: TFTR D-T = Science by Press Conference?
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 1994 22:54:07 GMT
Organization: National Institutes of Health

In article <2p61l4$rms@ds8.scri.fsu.edu>, jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
wrote:

> Back to the Chu example.  That came completely out of the blue.  Indeed, 
> if you look at the history of physics, you will notice that N-rays were 
> accepted because that novel 'phenomenon' came soon after X-rays and other 
> new discoveries -- just as cold fusion followed high-Tc.  Chu publicized 
> his work after acceptance but before publication.  The norm in PRL is a 
> news conference on the Monday it gets printed even tho we don't see it 
> for a few days (in the US), but there is a fair period of time between 
> acceptance and printing as you must know.  In that interregnum, Chu 
> refused to let anyone see his paper.  (It is rumored that one of the 
> referees improperly leaked some details, but the paper was not seen by 
> anyone else until it was published.)  This irritated many people (as I 
> know from first-hand conversations with some of them) but they were 
> sufficiently industrious and clever to duplicate it anyway. 

I missed some of the articles in this thread so I am not sure why Chu's
paper is relevant to the PPL hypocrisy (:-)), but I heard a story when
Chu's paper came out that he had actually submitted it with one of the
elements mis-identified (the Y, I believe, was changed to another element
which he had already tested and knew would not work), just in case a
reviewer leaked it (which I also heard had happened - this was in the early
infatuation days of faxes).  He corrected it in the galley proofs, just
before publication.

Carl Ijames     ijames@helix.nih.gov
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenijames cudfnCarl cudlnIjames cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Fri Apr 22 04:37:06 EDT 1994
------------------------------
1994.04.22 / Michael Moroney /  Re: Fusion is the B, and Superconductivity is the E
     
Originally-From: moroney@world.std.com (Michael Moroney)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics,sci.math,sci.chem
Subject: Re: Fusion is the B, and Superconductivity is the E
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 1994 04:59:13 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

In article <1994Apr19.013001.62415@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu>, Adam Miller wrote:
> Anyone, (this has been mentioned before) could have sat down in their
> spare time and played around with numbers until something matched known 
> constants.  This all proves nothing.

And many of the numbers he's played with are totally wrong anyway.  I
have repeatedly pointed out to Ludwig that there are not 19 occupied
subshells in Pu, for example (he uses this to derive e as "proof" of
his theory)  He has responded by putting me in his kill file.

-Mike
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenmoroney cudfnMichael cudlnMoroney cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.22 / Michael Moroney /  Re: Quarks,atoms,1/N expansion--E.Witten;Large-N QM--L.Yaffe
     
Originally-From: moroney@world.std.com (Michael Moroney)
Newsgroups: sci.math,sci.physics,sci.chem,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Quarks,atoms,1/N expansion--E.Witten;Large-N QM--L.Yaffe
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 1994 06:33:19 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

In article <2p6ijg$omc@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>, Ludwig Plutonium wrote:
>   WRONG. This drivel does not count as one of my 3 daily posts.

So you finally admit your posts are drivel, eh?

-Mike
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenmoroney cudfnMichael cudlnMoroney cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.20 / Cameron Bass /  Re: TFTR D-T = Science by Press Conference?
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: TFTR D-T = Science by Press Conference?
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 1994 22:15:42 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <CoKI0L.CqH@knot.ccs.queensu.ca>,
Tom Radcliffe <tom@mips2.phy.queensu.ca> wrote:
>A note on the Bass-Heeter debate:  the launch of the space shuttle
>or the achievement of ``scientific breakeven'' are engineering
>successes, and newsworthy.  The results of those engineering 
>successes may be scientific results, and there is no reason for
>those results not to be published because of press coverage of
>the engineering achievement that produced them.  The line between
>science and engineering is rarely clear, but obviously it is
>the practical consequences that generates the media interest in
>these cases, not the science.

     Let me make it clear that my objection is *not* to 
     'science by press conference'.  I'm perfectly happy if someone
     wants to announce anything they feel like announcing.  I'd be happier
     if they sent a paper off first, but I don't think it's all that important
     if someone really has their rump to the fire and wants to announce
     for one reason or another.  After all, it's their reputation, not mine.

     As far as science goes, I've confidence that the 'truth'
     will be established eventually, so it matters little
     when UPI hears about it.

     On the other hand, it is hypocritical to complain about another group
     while doing the same onseslf.  To say, 'Well, it's technology so it's
     okay in this case' while also saying 'P&F were doing "science"
     and that's not okay' is absurd.  P&F could easily claim that theirs
     was 'energy technology' and they met the criteria for the
     'PPPL Self-Justification Seal of Approval'.  Indeed, whatever the 
     merits of the case they were making, P&F did mail the paper first.
     PPPL mailed the paper far later.

     By the way, something that occurred to me earlier in another direction:  

     Just how would have the reporters known if the shot 'failed'?  It 
     doesn't really matter, but I am curious.

>In either case the comparison with P&F is inappropriate.  The
>equivalent of the P&F claim in the case of the space shuttle would 
>be:  NASA Develops Anti-Gravity!

     The shuttle is not exactly germane here.  Never have I 
     heard them complain about PPPL's press conferences.

                             dale bass


cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.22 / John Logajan /  Re: TFTR D-T = Science by Press Conference?
     
Originally-From: 74242.1554@compuserve.com (John M. Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: TFTR D-T = Science by Press Conference?
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 1994 13:28:38 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

rfheeter@theory.pppl.gov (Robert F. Heeter) writes:

>John, ordinarily I respect your opinion, but you are really wading
>out of your depth here.

I wouldn't know a tokamak from a jokamak.  So it's not my opinion you
should be worried about.  It's the opinion of someone like Dr. Maglich. 
I've been following his "migma" hot fusion work since the mid 1970's.

But these are all appeals to authority...  maybe if you used small words
and spoke slowly, you could explain the relevent physics to us so that we
could be confident that a sensed neutron came from a plasma-plasma
reaction rather than a beam-plasma reaction.

As I mentioned earlier, beam-plasma was the dominant neutron source even
by PPPL's admission -- and it represents a net loss mechanism no matter
how large you scale it -- so plasma-plasma neutrons are the only ones we
are really interested in.


cudkeys:
cuddy22 cuden1554 cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.22 /  PAUL /  RE: Reply to Maglich on TFTR D-T Results
     
Originally-From: stek@amazon.pfc.mit.edu (PAUL)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: Reply to Maglich on TFTR D-T Results
Date: 22 APR 94 14:36:13 GMT
Organization: MIT PLASMA FUSION CENTER


>From: 74242.1554@compuserve.com (John M. Logajan)
>Date: 21-APR-1994  21:52:14
>Description: Re: Reply to Maglich on TFTR D-T Results

>rfheeter@theory.pppl.gov (Robert F. Heeter) writes:
> 
>>It *doesn't matter* that they aren't all thermonuclear!!!  Fusion output
>>is fusion output.... The beam-beam and beam-plasma sources are *real*
>>sources of fusion energy.... TFTR *tries* to have beam-plasma reactions,
>>because you can get a 3.5 MeV alpha particle to heat your plasma using
>>only a 100keV neutral beam!

>I know as little as anyone on this planet about how Tokamak's work, 
This is clear

>but I can tell when I am being flimflammed.
This is not.

>Getting 3.5 MeV for 100keV looks good, but there must be a reason that
>Tokamaks don't rely on beam-plasma reactions as the main power source.

Until you produce enough heat from nuclear reactions you will need to 
heat the plasma from an external source. The TFTR experiment was to do 
2 main things. First to develop a high performance machine getting as
close to breakeven as possible using understanding from the 1970's.  
Second to look for instabilites associated with the high energy fusion
products.  The improvements in confinement time and heating made by 
TFTR were enormous.  Unfortunately, it is by current understanding 
pretty outdated.  TFTR would look a lot different if we were 
building it today.  Of course the car you bought 15 years ago 
is pretty outdated too.   

>I suspect that the reason is that a "beamed" particle gets "de-beamed"
>after one collision/near miss.  
Actually no.  This is one of the really strange things about plasmas.  
The faster you go, after a certain point, the greater the time
between collisions.  The beam ions and the plasma can have very poor 
coupling and may act like to separate plasmas occupying the same 
space, unfortunately coupled by macroscopic effects like the 
the instability meantioned above.  

>That means that you get but one chance
>for a beamed particle to react before it becomes a plasma particle.  The
>actual fusion rate of any particle, beamed or plasma, is low.  So most
>of the beamed particles get debeamed without fusing.

So this is not the case.  Beam particles can hang out in the machine for a
very long time before they slow down on the bulk plasma.  But even still
very few beam particles can be expected to fuse.  In the eventual reactor
the beam is only serving as a match to heat the plasma to ignition.

>That's why scaling it up doesn't even make sense.  You just scale up your
>loss factor -- so you need plasma-plasma reactions -- which is why Maglich
>calls them the only "true" (net power generation potential) fusion
>reactions.

True, but that is not the point.  The interest in the experiment was 
to determine: do the high energy fusion products create an instability.
So far no, but the total power is probably not high enough and on 
TFTR will not be. TFTR was not a success in this respect, but it is 
something like a thousand times closer than previous experiments.  
The next machine should be able to explore this.   

paul Stek
Stek@cmod.pfc.mit.edu


cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenstek cudlnPAUL cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.23 / Richard Blue /  Stringham and George guarantee?
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Stringham and George guarantee?
Date: Sat, 23 Apr 1994 00:13:08 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

In response to my messages concerning the Miles data, John Logajan
switches the subject to someother experiments that have no clear
connection except they are also supposed to be making helium.
The fact that Stringham and George guarantee that their gadget
works and that there is a picture in Cold Fusion just does not
impress me.  Before I would send them one thin dime I would like
to know plenty of details as to how helium is detected at levels
"10 times background" and how they verify that said helium is
not just an experimental artifact.  I doubt that $100,000 buys
very much by way of a solid contract that defines the conditions
for judging the success or failure of the gadget.  I have had
enough experience with large contracts for scientific equipment
to know that there is many a slip between writing the specs,
receiving bids, and taking delivery on the goods.

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.23 / Richard Blue /  More wrong with Chubb theory than timing
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: More wrong with Chubb theory than timing
Date: Sat, 23 Apr 1994 00:13:08 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I wish to give credit to Matt Kennel for being the first to
write <final state |nuclear interaction Hamiltonian| initial state>
as being an essential part of any theory of cold fusion.  I get
the impression that Dr. Chubb has left this out of this theory.
At least he has not specified in any detail.  His emphasis is on
the initial ion band state and the final ion band state, but
how one gets from here to there is more than a little vague.
In the absence of such details questions such as where the
energy release occurs and how fast does it spread through the
lattice simply go unanswered.  All we are told is that at some
point a cold deuteron wave becomes a hot 4He wave.  Asking how
a nuclear energy release becomes kinetic energy just doesn't
lead to any further clarification on Dr. Chubb's part.  Oops,
I see I wrote final state on both sides where it should be
initial state on the right.

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.22 /  Gerald /  Re: Red mercury (was Re: chemical ignition of fusion)
     
Originally-From: "Gerald Grosse" <grosse@convex.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Red mercury (was Re: chemical ignition of fusion)
Subject: Red Mercury 20/20 (Dim. in element %)
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 94 19:11:44 -0100
Organization: Heinrich Heine Universitaet Duesseldorf

On 17 Apr 1994 22:41:53 GMT, 
Anthony L. Kimball  <alk@et.msc.edu> wrote:

>  Newsgroups: rec.pyrotechnics
>  From: david@reidd.demon.co.uk (david reid)
>  Subject: red mercury
>  Date: Sat, 16 Apr 1994 19:03:56 GMT
>
>    C4 showed a program on Red Mercury here in the UK last week. It
>  described the substance as being Hg2Sb2O7, irradiated to form a  liquid of
>  density 20.20, melting pt -37.87C, boiling pt 350C, flash pt 170C. When
>  detonated, it supposedly has a power rating 300 x that of normal HE,
>  enabling small fision bombs to be constructed.
>       The contention of the investigators was that that the Russians have
>  it, it's for sale, and the West denies it's existence.   
>
>I assume he meant to say fusion.


The channel ARD in Germany had shown a program on "Red Mercury RM 20/20"
(04/15/1994 "ARD-exclusiv") and also the following 2 sheets of paper are 
demonstrated (rewritten from the videotape):
-----sheet of paper 1-------------------------------------------------------

SPECIFICATIONS  RED MERCURY RM 20/20

Product           Hg 2 Sb 2 O 7
Mol.weight        756.68
Form:             metal liquid
Colour:           cherry red
Density:          13.5/20 g/ml
MT                -37.5 C
HT                356.66 C


Element analysis:
Hg  53.018% ;  Sb  32.18% ;  O  14.80% ;  H2|
                        (end of picture)--->|
Summary   99.99%  Hg 2 Sb 2 O 7


Spectral analysis:
Zn  10-6 ; Fe  10-6 ; Pb  10-7 ; Mg  10-6 ;
Sn  10-7 ; Ag  10-5 ; Ca  10-7 ; Al  10-6 ;
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----sheet of paper 2-------------------------------------------------------

COMPLETE CHEMICAL ANALYSIS

Product                 Red Mercury RM 20/20
Formula                 Sb 2 O 7 Hg 2  (mol.w.tot. 756.61 g/mol.)
                        with natural isotopic distribution
Mol.Weight              196.0127 +/- 0.02 g/mol
Density                 20.20
Purity                  99.99% proof
Colour                  Cherry Red
Form                    Liquid, at pp=1.01325 bar
Melting Point           -37.07 C
Flash Point             170.026 C
Boiling Point           350.72 C
Temp.Isotop.(T.P.H.O.)  160.07 C
Radio Element Natur     SF 6 SIC approx. No 0794 
Gamma FS                0.440
Reaction K              0.00016
Reaction P              9.000
Reaction ..sol. Temp.   0.062
Reaction V... Temp.     1.024
Reaction VDSA           0.30 - 0.29
Reaction RFN            0.794
Handling                The substance is radioactive
Customer Tarif No       2805 (40100)
Packing                 in Mercury Bottles .. per international
                        standard .............................


SPECTRAL ANALYSIS

Subject: Red Mercury 20/20 (Dim. in element %)
Cr: 1x10-6      Cu: 1x10-6
Ni: 1x10-6      Pb: 3x10-6
Ag: 1x10-7      Mg: 1x10-6
Sn: 1x10-7      Co: 2x10-6
Al: 1x10-6


ISOTOPIC STRUCTURE:  NATURAL  1 kg
O   16  99.76%       Hg 199  16.80%
O   17  0.037%       Hg 200  23.10%
O   18  0.20%        Hg 201  13.22%
Hg 196  0.18%        Hg 202  29.80%
Hg 198  10.20%       Hg 204  6.80%

R. SCHELL
Sicherheitstechnik OHG
Bergerwiesenstr. 9
5309 Meckenheim-Bonn
Tel.: 02225/17011-16; FAX 17017
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is rewritten from the videotape (perhaps not all correct?).
But the important discussion about these 2 sheets was:
Is this an interesting information or a hoax?

Who experiments on such a substance and knows a serios answer to
this question?

Gerald Grosse
*************************************************************************
e-mail: grosse@uni-duesseldorf.de                 
*************************************************************************
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudengrosse cudlnGerald cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.22 /  PAUL /  RE: TFTR D-T = Science by Press Conference?
     
Originally-From: stek@amazon.pfc.mit.edu (PAUL)
Originally-From: 74242.1554@compuserve.com (John M. Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: TFTR D-T = Science by Press Conference?
Date: 22 APR 94 21:48:15 GMT
Date: 22-APR-1994  11:04:04
Organization: MIT PLASMA FUSION CENTER

Originally-From: 74242.1554@compuserve.com (John M. Logajan)
Date: 22-APR-1994  11:04:04
Description: Re: TFTR D-T = Science by Press Conference?


>As I mentioned earlier, beam-plasma was the dominant neutron source even
>by PPPL's admission -- and it represents a net loss mechanism no matter
>how large you scale it -- so plasma-plasma neutrons are the only ones we
>are really interested in.

No, fusion researchers are interested in what happens when you have
a significant population of very high energy fusion products in the plasma.
Do they transfer their energy to the bulk plasma via collisions or
through some other path?  Does the helium ash accumulate in the 
center or is it somehow pumped out of the plasma?  Do global instabilities
result?  All these questions depend on there being significant 
fusion going on in the plasma by whatever path.

Paul Stek 
stek@cmod.pfc.mit.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenstek cudlnPAUL cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.21 / Robert Heeter /  Re: Reply to Maglich on TFTR D-T Results
     
Originally-From: rfheeter@flagstaff.Princeton.EDU (Robert Franklin Heeter)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reply to Maglich on TFTR D-T Results
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 1994 17:20:18 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

In article <940421023920_74242.1554_BHR81-1@CompuServe.COM> 74242.1554@c
mpuserve.com (John M. Logajan) writes:
>rfheeter@theory.pppl.gov (Robert F. Heeter) writes:
>
>>It *doesn't matter* that they aren't all thermonuclear!!!  Fusion output
>>is fusion output.... The beam-beam and beam-plasma sources are *real*
>>sources of fusion energy.... TFTR *tries* to have beam-plasma reactions,
>>because you can get a 3.5 MeV alpha particle to heat your plasma using
>>only a 100keV neutral beam!
>
>I know as little as anyone on this planet about how Tokamak's work, but I
>can tell when I am being flimflammed.

You're not being flimflammed.  Is fusion energy not fusion energy?
Below you're concerned about the scaling of various components of
the fusion output, and you're right to ask about them, but it is
true that TFTR was designed to produce extra power from beam-plasma
reactions, so as to attain better plasma parameters than you would
otherwise.

>Getting 3.5 MeV for 100keV looks good, but there must be a reason that
>Tokamaks don't rely on beam-plasma reactions as the main power source.

But they do!

Well, you pump in 30 MW of neutral beams, and you get an extra
3 MW of beam-plasma fusion reactions, plus you heat up your plasma
to get another 2 MW of plasma-plasma reactions, plus you get
1 MW of beam-beam reactions, so basically the beams alone give
you everything.  They are the main power source in TFTR.  
If TFTR were bigger, the energy confinement would be better, 
and you could put in 30 MW of neutral beams, and get gigawatts 
out.  The insulating ability of the TFTR plasmas isn't as good
as it needs to be for an ignited thermonuclear reactor, so we 
boost the fusion output with the neutral beams in order to get
reactor-like plasma condistions.  The idea is to use a smaller
machine to build an understanding of how a larger machine would
work, so that you can build the larger machine and know what it will
do.  This saves you money because you don't have to build a giant
machine without a clue as to what it will do.

TPX, the next big US fusion experiment, will look at ways of
improving the future big machines, so that they don't have to be
so big.

The tokamak relies on the beams to fuel as well as fuse the plasma.
>
>I suspect that the reason is that a "beamed" particle gets "de-beamed"
>after one collision/near miss.  That means that you get but one chance
>for a beamed particle to react before it becomes a plasma particle.  The
>actual fusion rate of any particle, beamed or plasma, is low.  So most
>of the beamed particles get debeamed without fusing.

Well, actually it takes several collisions to knock a 100 keV beam
down to a 10-20 keV plasma temperature, but you're basically right here.

But those beam particles that get debeamed without fusing aren't wasted,
they heat your plasma to get plasma-plasma rections too.  In a bigger
and/or more advanced tokamak, your energy confinement would be better,
and the neutral beam energy would be better trapped in the plasma,
so that you'd get a lot more thermonuclear fusion out.

>Therefore you put a lot more energy into the beaming of all the particles 
>than you ever get out due to relatively infrequent beam-plasma induced
>fusion reactions.

As I just demonstrated, you get 10% of your input back immediately
as fusion.  The other 90% goes to heat the plasma, because the de-beaming
process transfers energy from the fast beam particles to the slower
plasma particles.

But you get 20% of your input back if you consider everything the
neutral beam does for you, and if you scale up your reactor, you
will get many times more out than what you put in.
>
>That's why scaling it up doesn't even make sense.  You just scale up your
>loss factor -- so you need plasma-plasma reactions -- which is why Maglich
>calls them the only "true" (net power generation potential) fusion
>reactions.

Scaling up the reactor makes sense, scaling up the neutral beam power
would, as you say, probably not be efficient.  The loss factor does tend
to go down as you increase the neutral beam power, which is why TFTR
went from a Q of 0.12 with 24 MW of neutral beams up to a Q of 0.2 with
30 MW of neutral beams.

The reason why Maglich's criticism is off base is because TFTR was
designed to perform this way, and everyone in tokamak research knows
how to scale up the reactor to make surplus power.  TFTR is an
experiment, not a power plant, and you optimize your experimental
parameters in a different way than you would optimize a powerplant's
parameters.  To criticize TFTR for not working like a powerplant is
like criticizing a flight simulator program for not being an airplane,
or for criticizing wind-tunnel tests for not carrying paying airline
passengers.  The goals are different, so the equipment is a little 
different.

>>It's like blowing natural gas past a candle to create a blowtorch.
>
>Exactly not.  It's like firing an oxy/acet flame at an object and getting
>an occasional x-ray photon out.

Ok, I was overstating my argument.  Actually, the original analogy
used by Harold Furth when they were designing TFTR to get maximum
power output with a smaller (and cheaper) experimental device
was that it was a "wet wood burner"; the idea being that you could
keep wet wood burning with a blowtorch.  So your idea above is
right, except you get more than just the "occasional x-ray" out;
you get 20% of what you put in, and you get better experimental
parameters to use in investigating how a reactor might be made to
work.

**************************
Robert F. Heeter
rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Graduate Student, Princeton Plasma Physics Lab
Disclaimers Apply



cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.21 / Robert Heeter /  Re: Reply to Maglich on TFTR D-T Results
     
Originally-From: rfheeter@flagstaff.Princeton.EDU (Robert Franklin Heeter)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reply to Maglich on TFTR D-T Results
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 1994 17:21:00 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

In article <940421070843_74242.1554_BHR25-1@CompuServe.COM> 74242.1554@c
mpuserve.com (John M. Logajan) writes:
>stek@amazon.pfc.mit.edu (PAUL) writes:
>>Have any of you whining cold fusioniers looked at the literature on
>>plasma physics and TFTR in particular?  Until you do you are hardly in a
>>position to say that they have not diagnosed their plasma sufficiently.
>    
>Bogdan Maglich is hardly a "cold fusionier."  He has been in the hot
>fusion business since the late 60's.  He's currently the Chief Scientist
>for Advanced Physics Corporation, a 12 member consortium including
>departments of the University of California at Irvine, MIT, GE, and
>several Russian groups including the nuclear weapons center at
>Chelyabinsk-70.  Maglich is the inventor of the aneutronic "migma" hot
>fustion concept.  He has publish papers in many of the refereed journals
>on hot fusion physics.
>
>I'd say he's probably familiar with the literature.

Judging by the outdated arguments he tends to use, I'd say his knowledge
comes mostly from the late 60s and early 70s, actually.  

Maglich is also considered a maverick in the field, and hardly anyone
seriously thinks the Migma will be made to work.

And as you yourself pointed out, he has one hell of an axe to grind.

Paul is right, you need to know more about what you're talking about
to be able to judge between Maglich's claims and the results put forth
by the rest of the hot fusion community.  Keep asking questions,
and ye shall learn...

**********************************
Robert F. Heeter
Graduate Student, Princeton Plasma Physics Lab
etc, etc.

cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.21 / Robert Heeter /  Re: TFTR D-T = Science by Press Conference?
     
Originally-From: rfheeter@flagstaff.Princeton.EDU (Robert Franklin Heeter)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: TFTR D-T = Science by Press Conference?
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 1994 17:50:23 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

In article <2p61l4$rms@ds8.scri.fsu.edu> jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) writes:
>>In article <2p3gc4$ptm@ds8.scri.fsu.edu> 
>>jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) writes:
>In article <1994Apr20.183016.10277@Princeton.EDU> 
>rfheeter@flagstaff.Princeton.EDU (Robert Franklin Heeter) writes:

>>What *was* premature was that they presented the public with a
>>totally bizarre phenomenon, but (as I understand things from
>>reading the group) never published work sufficiently clear that
>>others would be able to easily reproduce the results.  
>
>Repeat the experiment, yes, reproduce has proven to be another matter. 
>Some claim to have reproduced it, others claim not, some claim to know why. 

Right, and it's now *five years* from the original announcement!

From reading the group, I get the sense that P&F just don't tend to
give out all the relevant info, and that's bothersome.

>>Yes, and in most cases the results do not come completely out of
>>the blue, and in most cases the researchers provide enough
>>information for others to be able to replicate the work.
>
>Back to the Chu example.  That came completely out of the blue.  Indeed, 
>if you look at the history of physics, you will notice that N-rays were 
>accepted because that novel 'phenomenon' came soon after X-rays and other 
>new discoveries -- just as cold fusion followed high-Tc.  Chu publicized 
>his work after acceptance but before publication.  The norm in PRL is a 
>news conference on the Monday it gets printed even tho we don't see it 
>for a few days (in the US), but there is a fair period of time between 
>acceptance and printing as you must know.  In that interregnum, Chu 
>refused to let anyone see his paper.  (It is rumored that one of the 
>referees improperly leaked some details, but the paper was not seen by 
>anyone else until it was published.)  This irritated many people (as I 
>know from first-hand conversations with some of them) but they were 
>sufficiently industrious and clever to duplicate it anyway. 

If it irritated everyone, and it had proven to be false, would
people have considered it to be as inappropriate as many consider
the P&F announcement to have been?  I guess we're forgiving Chu
for many of the same things that we're condemning P&F for, because
he happened to be right; but from what you're saying it sounds
like Chu's announcement wasn't all that appropriate / well done
either.

>>So you are arguing that science by press conference is ok, and 
>>fusion researchers are only bad for being hypocritical, and not for
>>doing what others do?
>
>That is exactly what I am saying, although they took the matter to 
>a more extreme level by staging an media event around the experiment 
>rather than holding a press conference and tour after the work had 
>been written up, reviewed, and accepted for publication. 

But don't you think there are significant differences between
the TFTR D-T demonstration and the P&F out-of-the-blue announcement?

I guess your "more extreme level" equates to my "whole different
sort of event"; I just don't see the TFTR demonstration as being
that similar to the P&F conference.  I can see why someone who
thinks the two sorts of activities are similar would consider 
hot fusioneers to be hypocritical.  I just disagree with the
categorization that puts a TFTr-type demonstration in the same
group as a P&F-type announcement, and not in the same group
as a space-shuttle type launch demonstration.

> The folks 
>in Britain did a similar thing, but since they had not made the same 
>public criticism of P&F, they did not get similar grief about it.  

Interestingly, the British experiment was *more* like the P&F 
announcement, because til then no one had put any tritium at all
into a tokamak, and the results were considerably less certain.

>Remember, P&F *did* let the press into their lab (crucial for the 
>video analysis related to the x-ray spectra fraud question) and 
>showed off their bubbling cells after the press conference.  PPPL 
>folks complained about this dog-and-pony show and then did their own.  

Again, there are a number of distinctions here.  In particular,
PPPL had *previously* invited scientists from all over the world 
to help prepare the experiments and review the procedures, so 
that there would be little doubt of the validity of the results 
when they came out. P&F let the media in, but not the scientists.

>One should not announce publicly unless one is willing
>>to provide any and all relevant evidence to the scientific community.
>
>>>Everything in your list applies to the press conference by Chu on 
>>>high-Tc superconductors. 
>>
>>Except that high-Tc superconductors were undeniably real,
>>and enough information was provided that the results were 
>>reproduced eaily and under relatively easy-to-achieve experimental
>>circumstances.  

Ok, above you say that Chu didn't make enough information available.
I'm beginning to think maybe his publicization wasn't well-done
or particuarly appropriate either.  
>
>Whether it was real or not is irrelevant.  The publicity helps in the 
>process of disconfirming results as well as in confirming them, a process 
>most helpful to the progress of science.  Look at how Roentgen publicized 
>his discovery by sending out letters around the world.  Chu, as I noted 
>above, tried to protect his lead by not releasing the paper until it 
>appeared in print a few weeks after the announcement, forcing people 
>to work with *less* information than they had about the P&F work. 

Then I would be inclined to think that that wasn't particularly 
good-natured or well-intentioned publicization either.

>Anyway, most of the complaints were out of frustration when P&F 
>dismissed failures as 'you must not have done it right'.  

Right, and that certainly isn't a valid way to help others replicate
ones research; which is part of what I mean when I say they
didn't do their announcement right.  If they wanted to make the
press conference to go with the original paper, and if they really
wanted to help everyone else reproduce the results, why didn't they
make more information available?  I think that aspect of their
announcement, more than the timing or the nature of the research,
is what made it inappropriate.

>>This isn't valid.  Everyone could see the TFTR shot.  We were only
>>relying on the detectors to say how much power came out.  Similarly,
>>we could all see the shuttle launch, but we had to rely on detectors
>>to know how much thrust the rockets put out, how high it went, etc.
>
>You are stretching it here.  You can definitely see how high and fast 
>it goes.  Ditto for the double boom that shook my house even tho it 
>was at 200,000 feet when it went overhead on the previous mission 
>landing.  Unless you had invited Maglich or Koloc or Jones to witness 
>it and set up their detectors around your experiment. 

Well, it's a little hard to see *how* high it is, other than that
it's high, in the same way that it's hard to see *how much* fusion
occurs, other than that there's a nifty-looking plasma inside
the machine.

The above seems to be a bit different from what you wrote on Dec. 17, 1993,
when you *did* say that TFTR was like a space shuttle launch.
(which I believe was the original source of the analogy I'm extending now.)

You wrote:

From jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu Fri Dec 17 14:26:45 EST 1993
Message-ID: <2esj38$guk@mailer.fsu.edu>
References: <1993Dec16.165933.1189@physc1.byu.edu>
<<<< begin citation >>>>
Now alated, subject. 
I sent a note to Bob Park (opa@aps.org) and asked him about the rules at 
Physical Review Letters vis-a-vis submitting a paper previously 
'published' in the NYTimes.  He replied that "The Goudsmidt ban 
on work that has already been published in the New York Times is no 
longer enforced, althought the practice is still frowned upon. Moreover, 
it has generally been agreed that there are some cases where the rule 
should not apply.  An obvious example would be the observation of a 
super nova." 
He also pointed out something that got lost in all the publicity. At 
least I missed it.  It was not just a press conference or news release 
from PPPL.  The press was invited to witness the test, so they were 
there to see a failure if it had not worked.  Thus it 
was more like a NASA launch than the typical experiment.  Of course, 
that says it *is* more technology than science.  However, it must be 
noted that the press might (?) not notice mistakes that a peer reviewer 
(from JET for example) would see immediately, so there 
is some truth to both sides of this question.   
<<<< end citation >>>>

Now, in point of fact, the whole TFTR experimental operations plan for the 
D-T experiments *was* reviewed, beforehand, by an international team
of fusion experts, so the possibility of such mistakes *was*
minimized.  Are you now suggesting we should have invited Koloc and
Maglich to the demonstration, rather than having acknowledged
*tokamak* experts review the experiments, as you suggested in December?

>>I still think TFTR's D-T conference was appropriate, and P&Fs wasn't
>>done well.  There are cases when well-done early disclosure is a good
>>thing, and Pons & Fleischmann's CF announcement just isn't one of them.
>
>To the contrary, how many labs are going to rush out and try to 
>duplicate the TFTR experiment?  That announcement was for PR and 
>PR alone.  The P&F announcement served a valid scientific purpose 
>in that it told people that they should go out and try it.  If they 
>had published in obscure journals and kept quiet, it would have taken 
>much longer before the world's labs got mobilized. 

I don't think a result as amazing as cold fusion would have been 
kept down for long, and I also think that when scientists do an experiment
which has been publicized for months, even years in advance, that they
ought to make the results public as soon as possible.  And unlike
corporate PR, where you are trying to get someone to buy your product,
scientists have a moral obligation (I feel) to share their work with
the public.  The fact that other labs wouldn't plan to rush to 
replicate the TFTR results just underscores the fact that the P&F 
announcement and the TFTR announcement were very different sorts of
events.

It seems to me we have two camps:  one group says that all
scientific press conferences are essentially similar, and that you
can't criticize anyone else's publicization without being hypocritical.
The other says that there are different types of science, and different
ways of publicizing it, and that what is appropriate for some cases
may not be appropriate for others.  Since I don't buy into the first
camp, I'm looking for someone in the second camp to give me a coherent
explanation for why P&F and TFTR are sufficiently similar that
the sort of distinction made in the second camp doesn't apply in 
this case.

*********************************
Robert F. Heeter
rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Graduate Student, Princeton Plasma Physics Lab
usual disclaimers apply



cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Sat Apr 23 04:37:04 EDT 1994
------------------------------
1994.04.21 / Robert Heeter /  (Long) Forwarded Official PPPL Response to Maglich
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: (Long) Forwarded Official PPPL Response to Maglich
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 1994 18:14:07 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

Yesterday I received from Dr. Rush Holt (the assistant director 
for public affairs here at PPPL) an official PPPL response to
a Maglich / Advanced Physics Corporation document which was
circulated to Congressional staff.  The document being circulated
was (apparently) a draft of the material Maglich entered in
as testimony in the congressional record, and contains many of
the same claims which John Logajan quoted from that testimony
last Friday.  Apparently one or more of the Congresspeople
forwarded the Maglich documents to Dr. Dale Meade, another of the
assistant directors here at the lab, and a former head of the TFTR
program.  What appears below is not my own writing, but an
official PPPL response to Maglich's allegations.

*******
Robert F. Heeter
rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Graduate Student at PPPL, disclaimers apply (to what I write)


**************** begin official PPPL response *****************

World Record Fusion Power Produced at Princeton
Dale M. Meade
Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory

	On December 9, 1993, the Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor (TFTR) at 
Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory began the world's first magnetic 
fusion experiments using equal amounts of deuterium and tritium (D-T), 
the mixture required for the production of practical amounts of fusion 
power.  Early on December 10, 1993, the Department of Energy and 
Princeton University issued a joint press release announcing the 
beginning of the D-T experiments and the production of a world record 3 
million watts of fusion power.  Before the day was over, TFTR had 
extended the world record to over 6 million watts of fusion power.  The 
measured values of fusion energy corresponded to that expected for the 
plasma conditions that were achieved.  These experiments had been 
planned, carried out and reviewed with the participation of scientists 
from throughout the United States and around the world.  The technical 
results were transmitted to other fusion laboratories in the United 
States, Europe and Japan as the experiments were being carried out.  
Papers describing these results were submitted in early February to 
Physical Review Letters, a leading peer-reviewed American physics 
journal, and publication is expected soon.  In addition, the TFTR 
physics results were presented at  three major conferences and workshops 
with a total attendance of over 100 international fusion scientists.  
This open discussion and peer review have corroborated the TFTR results.  
The Princeton laboratory has received hundreds of letters and calls from 
throughout the science community hailing the success of the TFTR 
experiments.

___________________________

April 15, 1994
PPPL Response to Advanced Physics Corporation Comments 
on TFTR's D-T Results

	Advanced Physics Corporation has circulated a document to 
Congressional staff that contains false and misleading information 
concerning the TFTR D-T results.  The document, transmitted on March 27, 
1994, makes the following erroneous assertions as indicated in italics.

*** Note by rfheeter:  Italicized sections are offset with 
the notation: <<< (text) >>>.  *everything* in the offset sections
was italicized, and came from Maglich / APC.

<<<
	Why Princeton's Tokamak Lab Refuses to Publish Its "Fusion 
Energy Production Data" in a Scientific Journal Four Months 
After the Worldwide Press Announcement"
>>>

This statement is false.  Two papers on the TFTR D-T experiments were 
submitted (within 37 working days) on February 9, 1994, to a peer-
reviewed scientific physics journal in the United States known for rapid 
publication.  These articles have been accepted for publication and 
describe in detail the fusion energy production data.  Over 300 pre-
prints of these articles have been distributed to the scientific 
community (Ref. 1-2).  PPPL has sent copies of the preprints to all who 
have requested them.

The TFTR D-T results have also been presented at an international 
workshop held at Princeton on March 2-4, a Transport Task Force Workshop 
held in Dallas, Texas, on March 9-12 and a Sherwood Theory Meeting held 
in Dallas, Texas, on March 14-16.

These widely advertised meetings were open to all in the scientific 
community and included participants from universities and national 
laboratories in the United States as well as many international 
participants.  While the experiments were being conducted, participants 
from other United States laboratories as well as from other countries 
were heavily involved in the data reduction and analysis.  Many months 
preceding the D-T experiments, the TFTR experimental plans and neutron 
measurement techniques were presented and reviewed by the scientific 
community to assure that the D-T measurements would be accurate.  Thus, 
these experimental results were subjected to an extensive internal as 
well as external peer review process and have been made available to the 
scientific community.

<<<
	When "cold fusion" was announced in 1989, the Princeton Tokamak 
Lab scientists and directors described a press release before 
publication in a scientific journal as "conduct of third-rate 
scientists of a third-rate institution" [we need the exact quote 
from the newspapers and magazines of the period].
>>>

This statement is false.  Concerning the "cold fusion" events in 1989, 
PPPL's public response, including testimony before Congress, was fairly 
noncommittal rather than confrontational.  PPPL did not attack 
institutions or individuals.  We believed then, as we do now, that the 
scientific process including peer review and open scientific discussion 
should be used to evaluate the validity and significance of new results.

<<<
	The "cold fusion" paper was published in Nature a month after 
the press release.  The Princeton fusion energy production" data 
have not even been submitted to scientific journals to this date 
(almost 4 months).  However the P.R. office of Princeton Tokamak 
recently stated that no scientific paper in any form will be 
made available to the scientific community [Mark Morehouse 
should have the exact statement].
>>>

The statement is false.  As discussed above, we have expeditiously (two 
months after the initial D-T experiments) submitted papers to Physical 
Review Letters, a leading peer-reviewed scientific journal, which are 
now in the final review process.  Over 300 preprints of the TFTR D-T 
results have been distributed to the scientific community and to anyone 
who requested a copy.  The TFTR results have been discussed in open 
scientific meetings with a total attendance of over 100 participants.

<<<
	APC has learned that the instrument used in Tokamak was unable 
to measure neutron energy (technically called the "neutron 
energy spectrum"); it could only measure the number of neutrons 
(technically called the "neutron flux") -that is, it was an old-
fashioned neutron counter only, rather than a "neutron energy 
spectrometer."  It is incomprehensible why a $100,000 neutron 
energy spectrometer was not bought for this $3 billion machine, 
TFTR.
>>>

This statement is false.  The diagnostic systems used to measure the 
neutrons on TFTR have been widely discussed and reviewed in scientific 
meetings, specific workshops and the literature.  In December 1993, TFTR 
had five separate neutron detection systems, viz. fission chambers, 
stations for irradiating Al, Si, In and other foils, Zn-S scintillators, 
ectors).  
The first four systems had been independently calibrated with a D-T 
neutron generator.  The Zn-S scintillators and He-4 counters are located 
at the ends of sightlines in a multi-channel neutron collimator that 
views the tokamak plasma from below.

The detector systems operating in December 1993 provided information on 
the spatial distribution distribution of the neutron source, neutron 
flux and neutron energy spectrum.  For example, the Al activation foils 
[3] had a threshold of about 7 Mev, and the SBD detectors a threshold 
near 4 MeV, while the He-4 counters [4] had an energy resolution (FWHM) 
of approximately 3 MeV.  These detector systems readily distinguish a D-
T source (nominally 14 MeV) from a D-D source and from downscattered 
neutrons.  The data from these systems rule out the the process of 
deuterium and tritium hitting the wall as the source of neutrons that 
produced 6 million watts of fusion power in TFTR.

In addition, a high-resolution scintillator-based neutron spectrometer 
was recently installed in the central channels of the collimator, and 
began useful operation in the first quarter of 1994.  The recently 
implemented neutron spectrometer has a measured resolution of 10% (FWHM) 
which is what would be expected from beam-wall interactions. In 
deuterium-tritium neutral beam heated discharges in March 1994, the FWHM 
of the D-T line was 18-20% exhibiting the considerable broadening that 
one expects from a plasma-based source.  The extent of broadening due to 
neutron scattering from the walls of the multi-channel neutron 
collimator on TFTR is being evaluated in order to determine the actual 
width of the D-T line.

The cost of the TFTR device and program is exaggerated.  The total cost 
of the TFTR device and program to date is less than $1.4 billion 
dollars, which is more than $200 million dollars less than the amount  
given in the 1983 TFTR Operating Plan.

<<<
	It is absolutely certain, that without a neutron energy 
spectrometer, it is impossible to say where and how the neutrons 
emerging from the Tokamak had been produced inside the Tokamak.  
There are 5 production mechanisms that can take place, the first 
four of which are false sources of fusion neutrons.
>>>

This statement is false.

<<<
	1.	Injected beam of deuterium and tritium hits the walls of the 
Tokamak chamber which are lined with deposited deuterium and 
tritium.  This is the most common mechanism which has fooled 
many fusion experiments in the past.  In the 1950's, it has 
resulted in a British worldwide announcement that "controlled 
fusion has been achieved" - which had to be withdrawn with an 
apology and the firing or demotions of the entire team of 
physicists at UK Atomic Energy Research Establishment, 
Harwell.
>>>

The mechanism of fusion neutron production was first misinterpreted and 
then corrected later by the British in 1958.  It is well known by fusion 
scientists that fusion neutrons can be produced by bombarding a solid 
target covered with tritium.  It is also well known by Princeton 
scientists, and all others familiar with nuclear physics, that this 
mechanism is very inefficient and does not scale up to a fusion power 
plant.  The maximum fusion power if all of the deuterium beams used in 
the December 1993 TFTR D-T experiments were diverted from heating the 
plasma to hitting a solid tritium target is calculated not to exceed 
0.025 million watts from beam-wall interactions, much less than 6.2 
million watts of fusion power that was measured.  Since the neutral 
beams were observed to heat the plasma and not the wall, the maximum 
value for beam-wall fusion power is much less than 0.025 million watts 
and is an insignificant part of the total fusion power measured in TFTR.

During preparation for the D-T experiments on TFTR, a 3 MW 100 keV 
tritium neutral beam was repeatedly fired into a calorimeter just 
outside the tokamak that was lined with deposited deuterium.  The fusion 
neutron rate measured by nearby detectors was small, approximately 1014 
n/s.  When the calorimeter was withdrawn so that the tritium neutral 
beam was injected into a deuterium plasma in the tokamak, the fusion 
neutron rate increased by more than 1000 times, reaching 3x1017 n/s.  
This is direct proof that the tritium beam wall mechanism for producing 
fusion neutrons is very inefficient and could produce less than 0.1% of 
the measured fusion neutron flux on TFTR.  The agreement between 
calculations and experiment is discussed in the reports submitted for 
publication.

<<<
	2.	Injected beam hits gas, and fusion takes place.
>>>

The maximum fusion power for a beam incident on a gaseous target is 
several times larger than for a solid target [6], but the gas has to be 
dense enough to stop the beam, viz. exceeding 10 Torr.  The gas pressure 
in the TFTR experiments was less than 10-5 Torr and hence the fusion 
power produced through tritium beam gas interactions is much less than 
0.1% of the measured fusion neutron flux on TFTR.

Thus the neutrons observed in the TFTR D-T experiments can not originate 
from beam-gas or beam-wall interaction.

In addition, TFTR has direct measurements that the neutrons originate 
from within the plasma core.  The multi-channel neutron collimator [7], 
which detects neutrons originating directly above the sightlines, shows 
that the neutrons originate from the center of the TFTR plasma.  This 
fact was proved by the profiles measured during the absolute calibration 
with a movable neutron generator in February 1993, and by measurements 
with in-shifted and out-shifted plasmas [8].  Furthermore, the global 
measurements of neutron rates from the multi-channel neutron collimator 
are in agreement with those from non-collimated detectors.

<<<
3.Injected beam hits plasma, and fusion takes place.
4.Injected beam hits injected beam, and fusion takes place.
5.Plasma collides with plasma, and fusion takes place.  This 
is the only real thermonuclear fusion process.

The neutron energy is different for each of the five above cases.
>>>

The original concept for fusion power production in TFTR was described 
in a paper by Dawson, Furth and Tenney [9] which relied almost entirely 
on beam-target fusion reactions.  The PPPL group and the fusion 
community are well aware that  the fusion power production is due to 
three components (beam-target, beam-beam, and thermal reactions).  For 
the high power D-T experiments, calculations show that 25-30% of the 
fusion power is from thermal reactions.  This point is discussed in Ref. 
1.  The fraction of fusion power due to each mechanism depends upon the 
plasma and beam conditions. This topic is widely known and understood 
within the fusion community and is described in the published 
literature.  The TFTR plasmas are performing as expected in this respect 
and better than expected in other respects.

<<<
	To state that, without measuring the neutron energy spectrum, 
one can determine that the exiting neutrons originated from 
mechanism #5 is like stating that by simply measuring the 
amount of smoke coming out of a stack (without a chemical 
analysis of the smoke) one can conclude that in a flame fed 
simultaneously by 5 fuels - (1) gasoline, (2) kerosene, (3) 
wood, (4) coal and (5) a hard-to-burn plastic - all of the 
smoke comes from #5.
>>>

The only important issue is whether the neutrons came from the D-T 
fusion reaction within the plasma, D+T = He4 + neutron.  D and T are the 
only fuels in the chamber.  The neutron diagnostics (esp. foil 
activation) show that the neutrons have energies greater than 7 MeV and 
hence must be D-T neutrons with negligible amounts of D-D neutrons.  The 
neutron collimator diagnostic and the magnitude of the neutron 
production confirm that the D-T fusion neutrons come from the center of 
the plasma and not from the wall as speculated by Advanced Physics 
Corporation.  If the furnace described above had only coal in the 
chamber, the heat would come from burning the coal.  There is no debate 
about the fact that the fusion power comes from the D-T fuel in the 
plasma.

<<<
	APC h the neutrons coming out 
of the December 9-10, 1993, Tokamak experiment can be accounted 
for solely by the mechanism #1.  We will submit our paper to a 
scientific journal on or before April 8.  In other words, it is 
a repeat of the British scandal of the 1950's.
>>>

The extensive neutron data from the TFTR device together with 
complementary analysis demonstrate conclusively that the neutron 
production rates and the source of neutrons in TFTR are well understood 
by PPPL and the scientific community.  Furthermore, the neutron 
collimator data proves that the neutrons come from D-T fusion reactions 
within the plasma and not from the wall as speculated by Advanced 
Physics Corporation.

APC should submit any criticism of the TFTR experimental results to a 
peer-reviewed journal such as Physical Review Letters.  To date, APC has 
not presented or communicated any criticism of the TFTR results to any 
of the Princeton researchers involved in these TFTR experiments.

The statement by Advanced Physics Corporation that "it is a repeat of 
the British scandal of the 1950's" is incorrect and irresponsible.

______________________________________
References

[1]	J.D. Strachan, et al., PPPL Report, (PPPL-2978) Fusion Power 
Production from TFTR Plasmas Fueled with Deuterium and Tritium 
(Feb. 1994).  Submitted for publication in Physical Review Letters.

[2]	R.J. Hawryluk, et al., PPPL Report, (PPPL-2977) Confinement and 
Heating of a Deuterium-Tritium Plasma (Feb. 1994).  Submitted for 
publication in Physical Review Letters.

[3]	C. Barnes, et al., Rev. Sci. Instrum. 61 (1990) 3190.

[4]	J.S. McCauley and J.D. Strachan, Rev. Sci. Instrum. 63 (1992) 4536.

[5]	R. Booth, et al., Nucl. Instrum. & Methods 145 (1977) 25.

[6]	G.M. Chenevert, et al., Nucl. Instrum. & Methods 145 (1977) 149.

[7]	L.C. Johnson, et al., Rev. Sci. Instrum. 63 (1992) 4517.

[8]	J.D. Strachan, et al., in Proc. 17th EPS Conf. on Contr. Fusion and 
Plasma Heating (EPS, 1990), Vol. 4, p. 1458.  Also TFTR neutron 
papers submitted to APS Topical Conf. on High-Temperature Plasma 
Diagnostics, Rochester, NY, May 1994.

[9]	J.M. Dawson, H.P. Furth and F.H. Tenney, Physical Rev Letter 26, 
(1971) 1156 

[10]	R.J. Hawryluk, et al., in Proceedings of the Eleventh 
International Conference on Plasma Physics and Controlled Nuclear 
Fusion Research (Kyoto, Japan, November 1986) (International Atomic 
Energy Agency, Vienna, Austria, 1987), Vol. 1, 51-64 Plasma Phys. 
Control. Nucl. Fus. Res. 1, 51-64 (1987)
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.23 / Paul Wilkins /  Re: Baby boomers (amd I mean it)
     
Originally-From: wilkins@netcom.com (Paul Wilkins)
Newsgroups: rec.pyrotechnics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Baby boomers (amd I mean it)
Date: Sat, 23 Apr 1994 08:14:12 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

ALEXANDER MICHAEL (malexan@a.cs.okstate.edu) wrote:
: In article <CoDJxt.EBK@ryn.mro.dec.com> pierson@msd26.enet.dec.com
(dave pierson) writes:
: >In article <CoDDI7.67z@ryn.mro.dec.com>, pierson@msd26.enet.dec.com
(dave pierson) writes...
: >>In article <15APR199422553528@zeus.tamu.edu>, kcm8305@zeus.tamu.edu
(MARSDEN, KENNETH CHARLES) writes...
: >>>In article <CoBF0p.qA@cnsnews.Colorado.EDU>, thompson@spot.Colorado
EDU (THOMPSON  BENJAMIN RHINELANDER) writes...
: >>>>	I saw an article in the newspaper the other day that the Russians
: >>>>have come up with a "baseball-sized" fusion bomb. Apparently it's a pure
: >>>>fusion device (no fission core) which relies on a radioactive substance
: >>>>called "red mercury". I've never heard of this stuff. Can anybody supply
: >>>>information?

: As to the "red murcury," it is most likely bullshit.  As to the baseball sized,
: it should be 155mm in diameter, a couple of feet long, and a few hundred lbs.
: and fired out of a 155mm cannon.  Old news, like 1960's, before they realized
: that nukes+artillery=fried artillerymen.  I think they also built one that 
: would fit in a 105mm, wich might qualify it as softball sized, but only in 
: diameter.  Nuke artillery generally had yeilds in the sub-to tens of kilotons
: range.s
: 				--msa
: -- 
: m. scot alexander         When Occam's Razor just won't quite do.....
: malexan@a.cs.okstate.edu  ________|____________________________ 
:                          |________|___________________________/ 
:                                   |
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenwilkins cudfnPaul cudlnWilkins cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.23 / Paul Wilkins /  Re: Baby boomers (amd I mean it)
     
Originally-From: wilkins@netcom.com (Paul Wilkins)
Newsgroups: rec.pyrotechnics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Baby boomers (amd I mean it)
Date: Sat, 23 Apr 1994 08:48:32 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

ALEXANDER MICHAEL (malexan@a.cs.okstate.edu) wrote:
: In article <CoDJxt.EBK@ryn.mro.dec.com> pierson@msd26.enet.dec.com
(dave pierson) writes:
: >In article <CoDDI7.67z@ryn.mro.dec.com>, pierson@msd26.enet.dec.com
(dave pierson) writes...
: >>In article <15APR199422553528@zeus.tamu.edu>, kcm8305@zeus.tamu.edu
(MARSDEN, KENNETH CHARLES) writes...
: >>>In article <CoBF0p.qA@cnsnews.Colorado.EDU>, thompson@spot.Colorado
EDU (THOMPSON  BENJAMIN RHINELANDER) writes...
: >>>>	I saw an article in the newspaper the other day that the Russians
: >>>>have come up with a "baseball-sized" fusion bomb. Apparently it's a pure
: >>>>fusion device (no fission core) which relies on a radioactive substance
: >>>>called "red mercury". I've never heard of this stuff. Can anybody supply
: >>>>information?

: As to the "red murcury," it is most likely bullshit.  As to the baseball sized,
: it should be 155mm in diameter, a couple of feet long, and a few hundred lbs.
: and fired out of a 155mm cannon.  Old news, like 1960's, before they realized
: that nukes+artillery=fried artillerymen.  I think they also built one that 
: would fit in a 105mm, wich might qualify it as softball sized, but only in 
: diameter.  Nuke artillery generally had yeilds in the sub-to tens of kilotons
: range.s
: 				--msa

	I am not qualified to give an opinion on "red murcury" however I 
once had the chance to peruse a 50's era nuke weapons military munitions 
field book which described both a 6-inch (your 155mm shell) and an 8-inch 
tactical battlefield nuke.  Interesting devices; looked like a normal 
shell except for the extra-thick lined storage case and a setscrew in the 
side.  Had a feature labeled _dial-a-yield_ for the discriminating 
artilleryman who doesn't want to *overreact*.  The six-inch shell had a 
yield of 0.5 to 5 kilotons (settable in increment of 0.5 kilotons) while 
the eight-inch shell was a 1 to 10 kiloton device (sorry... please 
re-enter yield in kilotons only!).  I've never heard of a 4" device as 
the core required would be sub-critical.  The setscrew thing worked on a 
mechanical core misalignment which would yield a critical, but 
non-optimal nuclear chain reaction.  They definitely field tested these 
things because they had the normal warning on wind direction and the 
duck-n-cover directions, but hey...this was the fifties right - I don't 
think they really worried about it that much.

	I sometimes wonder if any of these things are still around, hmmmm....

					- prw

: -- 
: P. R. Wilkins         When Occam's Razor just won't quite do.....
				Use a Wilkinson Blade!
: malexan@                  ________|____________________________ 
:                          |________|_______Wilkinson___________/ 
:                                   |
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenwilkins cudfnPaul cudlnWilkins cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.23 / Paul Koloc /  Re: cost of Development 
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: cost of Development 
Date: Sat, 23 Apr 1994 11:31:41 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <1994Apr20.175652.3439@Princeton.EDU> rfheeter@flagstaff.Prin
eton.EDU (Robert Franklin Heeter) writes:
>In article <CoJqo5.D5A@prometheus.UUCP> pmk@promethe.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) writes:

>>If I were handed 25-50 megabucks I could generate a  burn
>>in an aneutronic fuel that would prove to be commercially 
>>economical, and in 4 years.  Then in about seven additional 
>>years  these things would be manufactured for use at a significant
>>rate.  

>Hi Paul,

>I don't think you can fairly claim to *know* (with a minimum of
>scientific doubt) that you could scale up the Plasmak to
>a commercial fusion source.  

Since the physical embodiment is stable, hyperconducting and has
very low transport, it will should scale nicely over a range of 1
to 300 cm. (radius).  Sizes from 20 to 200 cm should be capable 
of fusion or aneutronic burns with appropriate compression (for 
the latter linear compression ratio from 7-10 will do nicely)  

>        .. .  .        If this would be possible in 4 years 
>at only $6-12 million/year, and such a claim were scientifically
>credible,  .. .

The claim can't be scientifically credible anymore than flys can 
fly or soap bubbles can maintain a closed spherioidally shaped 
membrane or soap film.  This embodiment (non-rigid confinement)
goes against the US concept of good prisons.    It looks like Ball 
Lightning when formed in open STP atmospheric air, and a everyone
knows what a [myth,hoax,retinal after image,etc.] that is.  

The funding wouldn't cover DoE's administrative costs, let alone 
their usual slice of the overhead.  Consequently, such a tiny
project could not be considered. 

>. .. .   then everyone would be beating down your door to fund
>your project.  

Right... certainly.. it's rough seeing them flopping around
on the parking lot, dying due to heat exhaustion caused by waiting
in line with their money stuffed satchels.  In truth, I don't think
anyone in there right mind (Present audience excluded) who would
consider investing in something the government tells us can't happen 
for another 40(usa) to 100(uk) years.  

>Since this doesn't seem to be happening, I have
>to ask you to document your claim a little more thoroughly,
>so I understand what problems you feel have been solved, which
>need to be solved, and which potential problems do not need 
>to be solved.  

It's been formed unconstrained at atmospheric pressure. 
It has been accelerated in gas at atmospheric pressure.
It has not been compression heated, either intermediately
or strongly.   
Further,there are a number of further diagnostics we would
like to run.  

Obtaining Initial Money,  Complete through the burn Money,  
Going public Money (for building manufacturing capabilities).  

Any other problems do not need to be solved, are joyful to 
contemplate by comparison.  

>Have you done the experiment that shows commercial
>scale power densities in your plasma?  

These are uncooperative beasties. They tend to go commercial 
on the first compression burn attempt.  Probably 10 to 100 times 
Lawson.   Any of the "toroidal" scaling laws put this technology
well past commercial thresholds.   

>(The new TFTR results 
>indicate sufficiently high power densities that a TFTR type
>reactor could be scaled into an ITERlike gigawatt-producing
>reactor.)  Have you come anywhere near scientific breakeven
>in the power produced in your reactor?

Let's have that number in power per cubic centimeter.  
Since the PLASMAK(tm) burning plasma is only about 100cc
it gives one an easy comparison.  

The power level on the first compression to c=7 should get us
2 or 3 orders past Lawson in D-He3

>As someone recently said to me, I think you're overselling
>a good thing here.  The Plasmak may turn into a feasible
>fusion reactor, but the concept isn't as advanced as the
>tokamak.

The CONCEPT is a second generation tokamak.  The tokamak is
a dinosaur.  True it has a larger data base, but that data
base says the tokamak WILL NOT become a commercial device.  
Only the former portion of the statement is mentioned to congress.

Maglich has problems because he needs to go several orders of
density increase and needs a machine for each order of magnitude.
But, he seems to be a businessman and politician, because he has
captured money from off shore, on shore, and from congress.  
So he has already seen the level of money that we could use to
go the distance and then far beyond, in the sense that applications
undreamed of for the tokamak are a natural or obvious applications
for PLASMAK(tm) technology.  

This technology will have limitations.  It definitely will not
be good to use as a night light... well within the first several 
million miles.   

--
>Robert F. Heeter
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc,Bx 1037, Prometheus II, Ltd., College Park, MD 20741-1037 |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+


cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.24 / John Logajan /  Re: Forwarded Official PPPL Response to Maglich
     
Originally-From: 74242.1554@compuserve.com (John M. Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Forwarded Official PPPL Response to Maglich
Date: Sun, 24 Apr 1994 00:14:52 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Dr. Dale M. Meade (Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory) writes:

>Two papers on the TFTR D-T experiments were submitted (within 37 working
>days) on February 9, 1994, to a peer-reviewed scientific physics
>journal...

This PPPL admission vindicates Maglich's claim of "press conference
before publication" on PPPL's part.

>...fusion power production is due to three components (beam-target,
>beam-beam, and thermal reactions).  For the high power D-T experiments,
>calculations show that 25-30% of the fusion power is from thermal
>reactions....

Ergo 70-75% of the *calculated* neutron flux is from beam-plasma and
beam-beam reactions.

>The fraction of fusion power due to each mechanism depends upon the 
>plasma and beam conditions.

Which is why *calculations* should be backed up with sufficiently
sensitive instruments -- to verify that 25% of the neutrons were from
plasma-plasma and not 0%.

>This topic is widely known and understood within the fusion community
>and is described in the published literature.

PPPL is so confident of its theoretical predictions that it doesn't need
instrumentation around the device to verify the actual response???

What if P+F said that their cold fusion theory was so well understood by
them that they presumed excess heat and did not need to use thermometers
-- even during their very first test!  Outrageous.

>APC should submit any criticism of the TFTR experimental results to a 
>peer-reviewed journal such as Physical Review Letters.

The unmitigated gall.  The pinnacle of arrogance.  PPPL wants the option
for themselves to do science by press conference but they want criticisms
channeled only through peer-review.



cudkeys:
cuddy24 cuden1554 cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.24 / John Logajan /  Re: Reply to Maglich on TFTR D-T Result
     
Originally-From: 74242.1554@compuserve.com (John M. Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reply to Maglich on TFTR D-T Result
Date: Sun, 24 Apr 1994 00:14:52 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

rfheeter@flagstaff.Princeton.EDU (Robert Franklin Heeter) writes:

>Judging by the outdated arguments he [Maglich] tends to use, I'd say his
>knowledge comes mostly from the late 60s and early 70s, actually. 

Pretty strong stuff coming from someone who is losing the debate! :-)
 
>Maglich is also considered a maverick in the field, and hardly anyone
>seriously thinks the Migma will be made to work.

Come on, Tokamaks have already been rejected by power companies as too big
and too costly even given PPPL's rosie scenarioes.  PPPL can throw all the
stones it wants at Migma and Plasmak, and every other alternate
("maverick") scheme, but it doesn't really much matter anymore.  The
Tokamak dinosaur is on its last legs.  We'll be picking over the fossils
before long.




cudkeys:
cuddy24 cuden1554 cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.24 / John Logajan /  Re: Reply to Maglich on TFTR D-T Result
     
Originally-From: 74242.1554@compuserve.com (John M. Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reply to Maglich on TFTR D-T Result
Date: Sun, 24 Apr 1994 00:15:03 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

rfheeter@flagstaff.Princeton.EDU (Robert Franklin Heeter) writes:

>but it is true that TFTR was designed to produce extra power from beam-
>plasma reactions, so as to attain better plasma parameters than you
>would otherwise.

No one is arguing that the beam-plasma reactions are useles -- in fact,
Maglich is saying that for all we know (lacking neutron energy
spectroscopy) they were the only reactions.

>you pump in 30 MW of neutral beams, and you get an extra 3 MW of beam-
>plasma fusion reactions, plus you heat up your plasma to get another
>2 MW of plasma-plasma reactions, plus you get 1 MW of beam-beam
>reactions, so basically the beams alone give you everything.

Well, your numbers don't seem to be quite right, and you conclude with a
form of eastern philosophy.

You give a 50/50 ratio and Strachan is only claiming a 75/25 ratio.  I
won't adjust your power figures since I don't know which one (if any) is
right.  But instead of seeing 3, 2, 1 as in your order above, something
like 3, 1.34, 1, would be more consistent to Strachan's own estimations.
  
Since you seemed to be elsewhere arguing that the beam is a match that
ignites the fuel, claiming that "beam is the source of everything" is the
eastern philosophy equivalent of claiming that the sparkplug spark is the
source of the automobile's power.

Maglich might argue that just because you measure the RF of the sparkplug
spark doesn't allow you sufficient information to determine the power of
the ignited gasoline.

Maglich is not saying the sparkplug is useless, and it is more than a bit
of misdirection for you to play it that way.  What we have in TFTR,
according to you, if I may rephrase it, is a sparkplug in which a small
amount of gas/air mixture in the gap ignites to produce about 1/7th the
energy of the spark itself.  Outside the gap an additional very small
amount of gas/air mixture ignites to produce another 1/22nd of the spark
energy.

It is the gas/air mixture outside the sparkgap that is going to power any
useful engine, and it is the plasma-plasma reaction rather than the
beam-plasma "spark" that is going to power our hot fusion power generator.

>The reason why Maglich's criticism is off base is because TFTR was
>designed to perform this way... To criticize TFTR for not working like a
>powerplant is like criticizing a flight simulator program for not being
>an airplane

Maglich is, at least in this specific instance, complaining about the
unsubstantiated claims rather than the design or the test plan (which I'm
sure he has lambasted at another time and in another place :-)


cudkeys:
cuddy24 cuden1554 cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.24 / John Logajan /  Re: Stringham and George guarantee?
     
Originally-From: 74242.1554@compuserve.com (John M. Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Stringham and George guarantee?
Date: Sun, 24 Apr 1994 00:15:06 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

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

>In response to my messages concerning the Miles data, John Logajan
>switches the subject to some other experiments that have no clear
>connection except they are also supposed to be making helium.

Well, I thought the subject was mainly concerning the Chubb theory to
which you said:

>>To the best of my knowledge the only experiments that conform to the
>>Chubb theory and provide evidence for both observables [excess enthalpy
>>and 4He] are the experiments by Miles, et al. at China Lake.

Since Miles and Stringham both use D in Pd, both claim excess heat, and
both claim 4He and lack of significant radioemissivity, I'm wondering what
more relevence to the Chubb theory you desire :-)

>Before I would send them one thin dime I would like to know plenty of
>details as to how helium is detected at levels "10 times background" and
>how they verify that said helium is not just an experimental artifact.

Valid questions, I agree -- how do they do calorimetry also.

By the way, they also show a picture of a 5 cm square Pd foil (or thin
plate) with a 3 cm hole melted through it.  Since these foils are
submersed in D2O and are claimed to have only 3 W/cm^2 acoustic energy
applied, melting is hard to explain.  They say they did'nt see the melting
(or excess heat or helium) in lightwater or with any metals other than Pd.

Do any of our "cavitation" experts know if 300 or so watts of input
acoustic energy could melt holes in submersed metal foils?




cudkeys:
cuddy24 cuden1554 cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.23 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Quantitation in Hot/Cold Fusion Systems (was Scandal at Princeton -- TFTR)
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Quantitation in Hot/Cold Fusion Systems (was Scandal at Princeton -- TFTR)
Date: Sat, 23 Apr 1994 09:37:17 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <CoI8D1.By1@world.std.com> mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
>
>   In Message-ID: <2otls6INNrn@slcawc.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de>
>Subject: Re: Scandal at Princeton -- TFTR
>Arthur Carlson TK (awc@ipp-garching.mpg.de) writes:
>
>    [to Paul M. Koloc (pk)]
>  > >was measured over a whole second. ... TFTR does come to a reasonable
>  
>  =pk> Not for a really really hugely large inductance (toroidal plasma
>  =pk> donut of TFTR size.  It is long for a plasma ring in a conducting shell
>  =pk> the size of a chicken egg... yes;  but tokamak ... second??? nope.   
 

>  =ac "Numbers please. Typical time scales (primarily the energy and 
>  =ac particle  ac 'confinement times) in a present-day tokamak are on the 
>  =ac order of 100 msec.   *My* definition of "long" is "several confinement 
>  =ac  times".

The resistive decay time is much longer, or should be if the tokamak had
its full conductivity (burning).   The ENERGY (thermal) Confinement time
is perhaps much shorter, though it should be much longer if the currents 
where energetic (relativistic and "hyperconducting").  That's a fatal 
flaw in tokamaks.  If they did operate with relativistic electron currents
then the plasma would not be ohmically heated, simply because the plasma
density is too low.  Relatavistic electrons drag on background (thermal)
electrons and ions and their conductivity is inverse to density.  This is
unlike presently utilized thermal currents whose conductivity are 
essentially independent of plasma density, but shifted several orders 
lower!!    So it's curtains for tokamaks on another aspect.  It is silly
to use such a highly diffusive (lossy) and low plasma/mag density machine.   

>  Here are some numbers.   
>   Paul Koloc says a second is a long time for plasma dynamics.

It should be longer say: " > 1sec."   --  more like order 10s of seconds. 

>   Art Carlson (TK)  says 100msec (* several) is a long time for 
>          state-of-the-art

A bad rap. With those numbers, it is obvious that a tokamak should be 
passed over as a viable commercial approach.    

>  after Webster [ibid.]   several ---- [from ML    separalis    (separate)]
>       1)   separate and distinct from others
>       2)   more than one
>       3)   more than two but fewer than many

>  Here is a partially filled in table.  [Perhaps Paul, Maglich, John, or 
>another might help supply the other values.  Tnx.]

The best measure is not time alone... that scales with device size,     
Better to use time (confined burn) * density * temperature 

In order to get a better feel for the performance and include "cf" (since
the product of density and temperature is pressure)  it is
better to use: 
Effective fuel pressure * confinement time.    

Where the time is that time period at the required pressure to allow  
close enough approach for successful "tunneling" fusion to take place.   
Cf needs very high effective pressure and not much temperature.  Hot
fusion needs high temperatures and moderate pressures.  Since the 
engineering interest is in power/cc anything over 100 watts per/cc 
is most easily convertible to efficient power.  Tokamaks are buring
so far around a milliwatt/cc.    A PLASMAK would burn about 10 megawatts
/cc even though the fuel were aneutronic (has lower reactivity).  

A note about CF confinement times.  The effective confinement time is
a statistical average time of the length of time particles are in that
?surprisingly? close position that fusion tunneling can take place. This 
may occur for a trapped pair for some portion of the time their effective
repulsive force is diminished by interloping electrons.  The HUGE REALLY
BIG component pushing significant power densities along is related to
the dependence on the square of the vast density of fuel particles found
in most candidate CF generators.   So even IF the effective TIME is
not six orders of magnitude, the density square factor is about 
twelve orders better plus or minus an order of magnitude.   :-)   


>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>|      FUSION SYSTEMS        |what is "long" | current systems  |breakeven |
>|                            |   (seconds)   |   performance    |>1 minute?|
>|                            |               |      (seconds)   |          |
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>|   Hot Fusion Systems       |               |                  |          |
>|    tokomaks  - Carlson     |     < 1       |      ~ 1  (?)    |    no    |
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>|   self-collider  Maglich   |               |                  |          |
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>|   plasma systems - Koloc   |      1        |                  |          |
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>|  CF - steady state excess  |>1,000,000     |86,400 - 2,400,000|   yes    |
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>|    CF - burst excess (rare)|    100        |  ca. 1 - 100     |          |
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------

It requires  The product of temperature and density  is pressure.     

The higher the pressure the lower the temperature that is required for
fusion.  Well, that's true when the pressure is enormously high.  The idea
is to get repelling objects together, and if we squeeze them very close,
then the temperature (kinetic energy) required to bounce them over the
hill (close enough for effective "tunneling") is less. Also if we can 
reduce the repulsion as by closer electron (or muon) approach then pressure
can also be relaxed or the burn cross-section is increased.  Further, the
pressure increases density and the reaction rate goes by the density squared.   

Now DoE mag devices are CONSTANT pressure confined, because they are dumb
enough to use external solid coil confinement systems.   So for a given
fuel (sets the burn temperature), the density is proportional to the pressure
or is more or less constant (about 1000 atmospheres) in all of these devices. 

Well actually that's not quite true, because some of these devices throw
much of the pressure away by virtue of their silly topology.  For example 
a tokamak plasma is only around .1 or .2 percent of the maximum field 
pressure (or 0.001) .  Now since it takes pressure to confine and to heat 
the plasma, we can see that the tokamak has given itself a heck of a shot 
in all four feet.  

The time to burn enough to provide energy for replacing investment depends
on the rate of burn.  For a tokamak that is a LONG time, and getting.. .
lon.gg.. . eerrr.  So if plasma pressure increases by ten the recovering 
burn time will decrease by ten.  

So  ??? WHAT ????  should be the measure of a good fusion burner.   
Well,  the best number is THE HIGHEST SUSTAINED PLASMA PRESSURE, assuming 
the confinement times are all longer than the critical breakeven 
recovery time.   Let's look:

>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>|      FUSION SYSTEMS    |what is  | pressure     |break| fuel | power/cc
>|   (next generation)    | long    |   atm)       | even|
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>|   Hot Fusion Sys       |          |             |     |         |now.002w/cc 
>|    tokamaks  -         | 120 sec  | ~10 atm     | no  |  DT only | 5w/cc    
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>| self-collider  Maglich | 1000sec  | ~1 atm      | ??  |  p-B11   |0,1kw/cc   
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>| Spheromak syst - Koloc | 1 sec    | ~4000 atm   | yes |  DT; DD  | 75kw/cc
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>| PLASMAK(tm) syst Koloc | 2ms/60hz | ~102000 atm | yes |  p-B11   | 2 Mw/cc
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>|  CF - steady state excess  |>1,Msec,  | ???     | yes |    |??  1kw/cc ???
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>|    CF - burst excess (rare)|    100   | ???     | yes |    |   ????????
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

>   First, cold fusion systems -- in reproducible but
>difficult to achieve conditions -- generate both steady state 
>(or regular anomalous) excess heats for hours to months 
>and the rarer burst heats (irregular anomalous of much
>shorter times) which exceed those times which Carlson
>would consider a desirable "long" life (i.e. confinement time) 
>for his Tokomak fusion system(s).

Yep!  Despicably true!    :-)

>   Second,   notice that neither time cited above for hot fusion
>systems is of a temporal length which would have
>any serious potential use to contribute towards a
>useful supplementation of the electrical power grid system
>(or simple heating of a home).

Confinement times and energy loss times can be longer than seconds.  
If we can burn up the fuel in 2 milliseconds, then we can run at 60 
hertz and that gives us continuous electric power.  Strange that 
pulsed power is continuous power.... but, the DoE has over looked 
such a simple solution too.  

>   Fourth, given the lack of substantial relative basis for 
>hot fusion system (compared to cold fusion systems)
>revealed by such analysis, one further possible interpretation 
>is that such interference has been made in an attempt to remove the 
>more efficient and longer-lasting system (CF) from consideration as 
>competition.

No, it's just that, ANY system is considered as UNWELCOME competition.  
Welcome to the club.  ZERO SUM ..  just room for ONE BIG SHARK in the 
tank.  

Remember that the "ticks of reaction cycle time" should be 
short if the reaction rate is really ripping, by virtue of the density 
squared driver.  Still, their Lawson's could be exceeded by two or 
three orders. We need a cold fusion device  to restart a COLD "hot 
fusion engine".   

>          -  Mitchell Swartz  (mica@world.std.com) 
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+ 
| Paul M. Koloc,Bx 1037, Prometheus II, Ltd., College Park, MD 20741-1037 | 
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   | 
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   | 
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.23 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Quantitation in Hot/Cold Fusion Systems (was Scandal at Princeton -- TFTR)
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Quantitation in Hot/Cold Fusion Systems (was Scandal at Princeton -- TFTR)
Date: Sat, 23 Apr 1994 10:00:24 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <1994Apr20.034620.8196@Princeton.EDU> Robert F. Heeter
<rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> writes:
>writes:
>   . .        .            .               ..  Those hot fusion
>systems which are innately pulsed (inertial confinement, plasmak-type
>devices, and short-pulse tokamaks) can still make good energy sources,
>provided the heat is pumped into a system with a thermal cooling 
>time constant longer than the interval between pulses.

The interval between the pulses has little to do with the requirment.  
Rather than store energy in the form of heat, it is stored electrically
or in a flywheel.  The requirment is that the heating input pulse 
(as from inertial compression heating) and the fuel burn up time  
must be faster than the cool off time.  Since heat is transfered 
very quickly by adiabatic expansion against solenoidal flux surfaces, 
the cooling time via spurious loss paths is clamped.  That is if
it's not to fast during heat to ignition and burn up, then it slows 
considerably as it loses its energy (and energy gradient) to generating
electric power or thrust.  

>Robert F. Heeter
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc,Bx 1037, Prometheus II, Ltd., College Park, MD 20741-1037 |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.24 / BERNECKY R /  Cold fusion Tech Review's cover story
     
Originally-From: BERNECKY@nl.nuwc.navy.mil (BERNECKY WILLIAM R)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Cold fusion Tech Review's cover story
Date: Sun, 24 Apr 1994 00:15:12 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Technology Review's cover article for the May/June 1994 issue is
"Cold Fusion Heats Up" by Edmund Storms.  Most of what is presented
is familiar to the reader's of this forum.  The gist of it is captured
in the first sentence, "Although most scientists still reject cold
fusion as error or fraud, the basis for skepticism is dwindling as 
reports of energy-releasing nuclear reactions at room temperature pour
in from labs around the world."  Storms then goes on to discuss the
evidence for tritium, excess heat, and helium, followed by a
survey of proposed explanations.  He then closes with a call for action,
"It is up to scientists of all disciplines to perform the experiments
and devise the theories that will transform cold fusion from
laboratory scale phenomenon into something of lasting value."

I did find one passage particularly interesting:

"For cold fusion to occur, the palladium probably must transform
into a special condition of matter, akin to superconductivity."

"When helium forms during fusion, two particles are condensed into
one.  The laws of physics require that in any interaction between
particles, momentum (the product of mass and velocity) must be
conserved.  In hot fusion, a 24-Mev gamma ray is emitted to satisfy
this conservation requirement. No gamma rays with this energy are
observed in cold fusion.
"The most probable reason, I believe, is that the material has 
transformed into a special condition that enables the atomic lattice
to absorb most of the nuclear energy being generated.  If we assume
that the material in this condition has a similar ability to absorb
nuclear radiation applied from outside, a straightforward experiment
could test this hypothesis.  One could irradiate the material with
gamma rays; the portion of gamma radiation absorbed should correspond
to the amount of the material that has switched to the fusion-enabling
condition." [pg 25]

[Note that Bill Page reported just such phenomena some time ago.]

And on page 27: "Finally, why does cold fusion occur when a material
is in a special condition of matter, akin to the state of super
conductivity that some materials enter at low temperatures?  What is
this special condition that occurs in palladium and some other
materials when they are infused with high concentrations of deuterium?"

It seems Storms is hinting at the existence of a Bose condesate.


cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenBERNECKY cudfnBERNECKY cudlnR cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.24 / Eugene Mallove /  "Cold Fusion" Magazine Accelerating
     
Originally-From: 76570.2270@compuserve.com (Eugene Mallove)
Originally-From: Gene Mallove, Editor
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: "Cold Fusion" Magazine Accelerating
Date: Sun, 24 Apr 1994 00:15:46 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Originally-From: Gene Mallove, Editor
      "Cold Fusion," Magazine
      Wayne Green, Inc.
      70 Route 202 North
      Peterborough, NH 03458
        

Dear Fusion People (cold and hot):

        The good news is that the Premier issue (May, 1994) of "Cold Fusion" 
Magazine has been out now for a few weeks on the magazine racks at better book
stores like Barnes & Noble and Crown Books. You may find the magazine at B. 
Daltons and at other magazine outlets too. In the beginning, however, the 
magazine will obviously not be everywhere you might wish to find it. As 
distribution improves, we expect you will see the magazine in more and more 
places. Our first press run was a modest 10,000 copies. For those who have not
seen the magazine,the Premier has Dr. Edmund Storms (formerly of LANL) on the 
cover. It is a 100-page issue, glossy paper, with four-color composition.

        The big news is that a very broad cross-section of society is 
responding very favorably to "Cold Fusion" Magazine. We are getting 
subscriptions not only from technically oriented people -- engineers, 
physicisist, and chemists (and a goodly number of biologists!) -- but also 
from people interested in alternative energy, the environment, education, and 
investing. We have subscriptions now from people in 43 states and 11 
countries! Several high-profile people in the media have personally purchased 
subscriptions. Recently we sent test mass-mailings to selected mailing lists 
of scientific and engineering magazines. Predictably, the slope of the ramping
stream of subscriptions took a nice upward climb.

        The June issue of "Cold Fusion" has gone through the editorial loop 
and we are already working on the July issue, plus working to ensure a 
continued stream of excellent material for subsequent issues. We are already 
receiving a stream of unsolicited contributions,  both technical in character 
and of an editorial "op ed" nature. As Editor, I welcome new writers who may 
have something to contribute. Please contact me via e-mail, by snail mail, or 
by phone at Wayne Green, Inc. (1-800-677-8838); Fax: 603-924-8613. The 
magazine would also like to receive New Product releases from companies that 
have equipment that *might* be applicable to cold fusion science and 
development. Take a look at some of the ads in the Premier to get ideas.

Some possibilities for contributions:

* Feature Articles (3,000 - 10,000 words) -- science, technology,
     projections of technical and social change
* Briefs (1,000 words or less)
* Experimenter's Corner contributions -- length, immaterial
* Technical Notes (experimental work, theoretical ideas)
* Guest Commentary (1,000 - 2,000 words)
* Tutorial Material -- e.g. Basics of electrochemistry


        We would also appreciate receiving news clips relating to cold fusion 
and the steamy politics of hot fusion. There is a department in the magazine 
called "Media Watch," in which we comment on these stories. For example, I 
just heard that GM Saturn has a TV ad that mentions hypothetical cold fusion 
cars! Does anybody have the text of that ad? The Simpsons TV cartoon recently 
had a brief flash about cold fusion. Homer was at an alternate energy exhibit;
the first booth shown was designated "cold fusion"! Anyone have a tape of that
show?

        Now that it is absolutely clear that the "cold fusion" excess energy 
phenomenon is real and revolutionary (yet the physical explanation is still 
highly contested), we would like to receive brief contributions at this late 
hour from so-called "skeptics." Come on, make our day! What we would like from
you are say 250-300 word summaries of your purple anti-cold fusion prose. I 
could hunt down your gems on this forum and publish them, but I'd prefer to 
recieve your distilled masterpieces. I would also *insist* on receiving your 
fine photo mug-shots (no hand gestures please!) in black and white or in 
color, suitable for printing in "Cold Fusion" magazine. If we get enough 
response, we might consider publishing an Internet "skeptics' gallery." You 
guys have staked out a hard line anti-cold fusion position; now put your money
where your mouth is and let's introduce you to the world.  Let's have the 
words of, Bass, Blue, Kuperberg, North, et al inscribed in a widely-circulated
magazine. Our readers would like to know about the depths of your antipathy 
toward this field. Give us a couple of bio lines too.

        Yes, Steve Jones, we'll take your brief contribution too. But you have
such a monumental track record that some day we're also going to have to do a 
feature length article on your pronouncements, starting with Columbia 
University, 1989. 

        Yes, and Doug Morrison of CERN, who is obviously lurking out there, 
we'd like to consider publishing your priceless Sept 5, 1993 "Summary of Cold 
Fusion Reveiw" -- the eleven-point summary. Please send us a mug-shot too, if 
you want that article published.

        Final query: Does anyone have information regarding the Taubes no-show
at the APS awards ceremony last week? Taubes was reported to have been in 
France, so wasn't there to accept his APS award.

        Before signing off, I can't fail to mention the irony of the MIT 
Technology Review cover story article on cold fusion "Cold Fusion Heats Up," 
penned by Dr. Edmund Storms. It's in the May/June issue. Quite colorful, quite
good. That should create a nice storm at the MIT PFC and in the Physics Dept.!
Oh, to have been a fly on the wall of the Provost's Office when Technology 
Review arrived! Couldn't be better timing, now that Congress is getting ready 
to take the ax to hot fusion.  Hey "skeptics," let's face it, you're 
surrounded!

Best to you all, Gene Mallove, Editor
      

cudkeys:
cuddy24 cuden2270 cudfnEugene cudlnMallove cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.22 / Robert Heeter /  Heeter and Bass *Agree* on Something! :)
     
Originally-From: rfheeter@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Robert Franklin Heeter)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Heeter and Bass *Agree* on Something! :)
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 1994 05:02:36 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

In article <CoKLs1.2tG@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> crb7q@watt.seas.Virgini
.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>In article <2p3ehd$t4n@tom.pppl.gov>,
>Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@theory.pppl.gov> wrote:
>
>>aren't all thermonuclear!!!  Fusion output is fusion output.  Even
>>if only 30% was thermonuclear, that's still a world thermonuclear
>>fusion power record!
>
>     Then isn't it somewhat short of the 'world record' for thermonuclear
>     fusion power?  I suspect that large Russian test shot of the 60's 
>     still holds that (especially considering the short 'release' time).
>     so 'controlled' might be a good stipulation
>     when saying 'fusion output is fusion output'.
>
>     On the other hand, I suspect attaining the world record for thermonuclear
>     fusion power at PPPL would not be popular with the locals.

Good points, all of these!  Looks like I left out one of the standard
qualifiers (controlled) earlier.  'Scuse me...

(Repeat 100 times:  "world controlled thermonuclear fusion power record")
(Or should that be "world record controlled thermonuclear fusion power"?)
(Or: thermonuclear fusion controlled power world record"?)
(Or: record fusion power controlled thermonuclear world"?)

(Can you see why occasionally I leave one or two of these out? :)

(Clue brick in case it's needed:  I'm trying to be humorous here.)

Now, back to the regularly scheduled program...

************************
Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Radioactive Mutant Centipede, Princeton Uncontrolled Fusion Lab
And the usual disclaimers apply...


cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.23 / Greg Kuperberg /  Overblown comparisons between TFTR and cold fusion
     
Originally-From: gk00@quads.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Overblown comparisons between TFTR and cold fusion
Date: Sat, 23 Apr 1994 19:07:01 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago -- Academic Information Technologies

The comparisons between the TFTR press release and the Fleischmann-Pons
announcement are completely strained.  The difference, and it is all
the difference in the world, is between announcing a scientific project
and announcing new science.

TFTR is a scientific project, but the particular news conveyed by the
announcement of D-T operation was a feat of engineering:  PPPL
successfully built a scientific instrument that produces neutrons and
simulates an energy-producing plasma.  Despite the fact that TFTR's
operation is also going to be announced in PRL, the scientific results
are in the future.  Principally, they want to know if fusion operation
creates new and unknown plasma instabilities, but there also a lot of
things people want to know about the old plasma instabilities and TFTR
is producing data to shed light on those questions also.  The
submission to PRL does not reveal any hidden agenda of rushed
scientific claims; it is perfectly acceptable to publish a paper on
experimental technique and operation in a physics journal independently
of any specific results.

Cold fusion, on the other hand, was not a project at all, but a claimed
scientific discovery with radical consequences for science and the
global economy.  The Pons-Fleischmann press conference, besides being a
blatant and unethical professional betrayal of both Steve Jones and
Marvin Hawkins, was a grossly premature announcement that forced the
scientific community to read the newspapers to learn about the supposed
new science.  A lot of people have judged Pons and Fleischmann's
conduct by the narrow criterion of publishing results in journal before
announcing them to the press, but the real point is that they announced
a claim that only three people in the world knew anything about, and
those three people hadn't looked at it very carefully either.  If you
really want to know what TFTR is doing, you can ask any of dozens of
plasma physicists and they will tell you more than you can absorb.  If
you wanted to know about cold fusion in March 1989, you had to try to
figure it out from simplified accounts in the Wall Street Journal.  The
Wall Street Journal in particular was put in the ludicrous role of a
rapid-communications physics journal; this is in the record in the form
of citations to it in real physics papers.  Pons and Fleischmann's
obstructive secrecy towards their colleagues after the announcement
certainly didn't help matters; they would tell fawning journalists from
the local papers more than they would tell physicists at their own
university.

TFTR has certainly not created any such fiasco; there was nothing in
the New York Times article that I read that any physics paper would
need to cite.  If there was any sin in TFTR's announcements, it is that
to outsiders it might vaguely resemble, and thereby encourage, the sort
of rogue science by press conference that cold fusion actually was.
The fact that TFTR has a significant fusion output is certainly
exciting, but it is not surprising and does not by itself represent an
advance towards commercial fusion.  Nevertheless, science reporters are
inevitably going to dress it up that way in their shorter articles, and
TFTR officials might not be demurring enough from that simplified
account.  It is hard to fight against an oversimplification that only
makes the story more exciting and makes funding agents happier also.
But sensationalism in science reporting has its dangers also, not that
TFTR is a particularly bad case of it.  For example, it allows a bitter
outcast like Maglich to feed Congress a self-serving line that TFTR is
a failed fusion machine.  Maglich's technical comments about TFTR's
experimental protocol sound garbled, but his real misrepresentation was
the assumption that TFTR is some sort of dry run at commercial fusion.
It's not, it's a simulation.
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudengk00 cudfnGreg cudlnKuperberg cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Sun Apr 24 04:37:04 EDT 1994
------------------------------
1994.04.24 /  colem861@cs.ui /  Neural Network control of Plasma
     
Originally-From: colem861@cs.uidaho.edu ()
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Neural Network control of Plasma
Date: 24 Apr 1994 00:36:44 GMT
Organization: University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho

 
Neural Network Control of Plasma
 
 
        We are a group of people interested in using neural networks to 
control the plasma in a Tokamak.  We placed a post in this area several 
weeks ago, and received helpful information from several sources.  We would 
like to simulate controlling a specific tokamak using real data taken from 
experimental runs, with the intention of publishing the results of the 
experiment.
 
        Our recent research into plasma control indicates that while some 
good work has been accomplished using neural networks, abundant room 
remains for improvement.  Since we are neural network and embedded 
processor specialists rather than fusion specialists,  we would need 
access and references to the necessary information about plasma modeling 
and specific Tokamak systems.
 
        If anyone is interested, please let us know...
 
 
        Jim Coleman  colem861@cs.uidaho.edu
                or
        Erik M. Geidl  geidl861@uidaho.edu
 

cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudencolem861 cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.23 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Scandal at Princeton -- TFTR
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Scandal at Princeton -- TFTR
Date: Sat, 23 Apr 1994 22:22:24 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <2otls6INNrn@slcawc.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de> awc@ipp-garching.mpg.de writes:
>
>In article <CoFzCM.9E2@prometheus.UUCP>, pmk@prometheus.UUCP 
>  (Paul M. Koloc) writes:
>> In article <1994Apr16.042951.3508@Princeton.EDU> Robert F. Heeter 
>    <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> writes:
> 
>> >Note that the beam-beam and beam-plasma reactions are fairly 
>> >well-understood, ....  
> 
>> Understood??   in a "fueled moderately cooking plasma??  with 
>> twisted fields joistled by sawing currents.  
> 
>Granted, there are a LOT of things that are not understood in tokamaks 
>(That's what make scientific work in the field so interesting. :) ), but 
>the dynamics (slowing down, pitch angle scattering, loss rates) of fast 
>(superthermal) particles is actually one of the *best*-understood phenomena.

True, but that's the clean part of the problem.  The difficult part 
comes from the secondary effects of these beams, on conductivity, on 
current profile flow, on resulting magnetic perturbations, on .. .. 
and on.  


>> >Now, the fusion power output was not measured in a "transient state"; it
>> >was measured over a whole second. ... TFTR does come to a reasonable
>> >equilibrium; a second is a *long* time in plasma dynamics.

True... It is unless some dynamic perturbing influences are driving
the plasma in non-isotropic ways or isotropically in non-uniform
geometry.   I believe tokamaks are a caldron of activity conducted by
a number of witches.. and which witch switches power fluxuations 
swiftest?
 
>Numbers please. Typical time scales (primarily the energy and particle 
>confinement times) in a present-day tokamak are on the order of 100 msec.

Sounds like a real bleeder.  
If you want to shorten it, just ram in more plasma heating power, or
more plasma for that matter.      :-)  Seems like that bathtub must
be pretty full if such a small heating induced BETA increases the
transport loss.  

Asdex is best.  

>Art Carlson
>Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics
>awc@ipp-garching.mpg.de
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc,Bx 1037, Prometheus II, Ltd., College Park, MD 20741-1037 |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.24 / John Logajan /  Re: Overblown comparisons between TFTR and cold fusion
     
Originally-From: 74242.1554@compuserve.com (John M. Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Overblown comparisons between TFTR and cold fusion
Date: Sun, 24 Apr 1994 09:27:14 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

gk00@quads.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg) writes:
>...it allows a bitter outcast like Maglich...

Anybody who doesn't worship at the alter of Tokamak is an "outcast" and
malcontent, apparently.

I think you and Heeter should avoid further defamatory statements (on
principle alone) about Maglich unless you have some substantive evidence
of character flaw -- other than that he is not enamored toward Tokamak.


cudkeys:
cuddy24 cuden1554 cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.25 / Bill Page /  Leggett & Baym vs. Chubb & Chubb - Conflicting Paradigms
     
Originally-From: 70047.3047@compuserve.com (Bill Page)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Leggett & Baym vs. Chubb & Chubb - Conflicting Paradigms
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 1994 00:12:22 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Dick Blue writes:
<<
Ultimately the Chubb explaination of cold fusion revolves around the notion 
that Coulomb and nuclear interaction energies can be kept at an arbitrarily 
low level by dilution over a very large number of lattice unit cells, but 
that this does not inhibit the fusion of two deuterons.  Thus there is an 
apparent contradiction in that deuterons stay apart to keep the energy at a 
minimum, but they get close together to fuse.  This, I believe, is just a 
nonphysical assertion by Dr. Chubb that is unsupported by anything by way 
of proof.  He is simply making a new interpretation of quantum mechanics 
because it suites him to do so. It is at this point where I believe he 
departs from doing things in accord with accepted practice.  The paper I 
cited by Legget and Baym would clearly stand in contradiction to Dr. 
Chubb's point of view.
>>

Dick Blue has referenced the article by A.J. Leggett and G. Baym "Exact 
Upper Bound on Barrier Penetration Probabilities in Many-Body Systems: 
Application to 'Cold Fusion'", Phys. Rev. Let., vol. 63, no. 2 (10 July 
1989) as contradicting the theory of ion band state fusion expounded by 
Scott and Talbot Chubb.  However in the introduction of that article the 
authors state: 

"Possible intrinisic sources of enhancement of the fusion rate include a 
large suppression of the Coulomb barrier between deuterons arising from 
many-body screening effects, an unusual enhancement of the nuclear reaction 
rate produced by the solid-state environment, or an exotic mechanism 
relying on coherence between fusion processes involving different deuteron 
pairs.  We focus in the Letter on the *first* possibility.  In the abscence 
of the latter two mechanisms ... "

Now it is my understanding from Chubb's papers that their theory does not 
require anything unusual in the way of many-body charge screen effects 
other than what is already observed to occur (and quite well understood) in 
metals. Certainly they are not claiming that "barrier penetration" or 
tunnelling between pairs of deuterons (as such) is the mechanism for 
fusion.  In fact, it would seem that their theory is firmly grounded in the 
latter two mechanisms which Leggett and Baym do not consider.

------------------

In rely to Dale Bass Peter Roessingh writes (in reference to philosophy of 
science):
<<
I think my approach until now can be captured under the label 'traditional 
Popper' while your ideas have strong overtones of Kuhn's view that 
falsification only plays a minor role, and that sociological and 
psychological factors are of overriding importance.

I have to admit that Popper's views are not very realistic when you look at 
the history of science. It is definitely not the way science works and 
Kuhns descriptions fit the reality much better, however, I think that with 
Bass's law you are taking things a bit to far.

Rather then starting a fight over Popper versus Kuhn that would carry us 
far from the Chubb theory I would like to try to apply Kuhn's ideas to what 
you are saying in a way that I feel is more in the *true* spirit of Kuhn. 
...

Kuhn is making the point that scientists are always working within a 
paradigm, that to a large extend defines the way they look at the facts. He 
makes clear that it is extremely difficult for those working within the 
paradigm to understand or even *make* observations that do not fit the 
paradigm. He also makes the point that competing theories are backed up by 
fact from within their own paradigm, but that it is virtually impossible 
for scientists working under different paradigms to discuss each others 
ideas because there simply is not enough common ground in terminology and 
basic facts to even begin such a discussion. Cold fusion is a great example 
of this state, there is very little true exchange between believers and 
sceptics. To be more specific, your comment above seems to be a perfect 
example of the inability to hear what the other party is saying.
>>

In comparing the papers of Chubb&Chubb with the Leggett&Baym article, I 
think we have a very good example of what Peter Roessingh is talking about.

Cheers,

Bill Page.


cudkeys:
cuddy25 cuden3047 cudfnBill cudlnPage cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.24 / M Fullerton /  Congress axing hot fusion?
     
Originally-From: michaelf@cpsc.ucalgary.ca (Michael Fullerton)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Congress axing hot fusion?
Date: Sun, 24 Apr 1994 01:59:22 GMT
Organization: University of Calgary Computer Science


I have heard that congress is thinking about cutting funding for
hot fusion.  Is there any support for this great sounding news?

-- 
Michael Fullerton           |  Seeds, like ideas, don't
michaelf@cpsc.ucalgary.ca   |  germinate in concrete. 
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenmichaelf cudfnMichael cudlnFullerton cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.24 / Greg Kuperberg /  Re: Overblown comparisons between TFTR and cold fusion
     
Originally-From: gk00@quads.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Overblown comparisons between TFTR and cold fusion
Date: Sun, 24 Apr 1994 15:10:30 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

In article <940424090405_74242.1554_BHR25-1@CompuServe.COM> 74242.1554@c
mpuserve.com (John M. Logajan) writes:
>gk00@quads.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg) writes:
>>...it allows a bitter outcast like Maglich...
>Anybody who doesn't worship at the alter of Tokamak is an "outcast" and
>malcontent, apparently.

I'm not beholden to tokamaks by any means.  Muon-catalyzed fusion,
high-density z pinch, stellerators, and laser fusion, among other
projects, are all very interesting and are or were worth funding to
various degrees.  As far as TFTR is concerned, I think it's a waste of
money, although not because it's a bad experiment.  It's a great
experiment, but it's also very expensive.

What I don't like is someone who worships at the altar of Congress
without peer review of his proposals.  What right does Maglich have to
waste Congress's time with technical mumbo-jumbo about fusion?  The
government appoints scientists to evaluate comments such as his, but he
is apparently not content with that and he takes his spiel directly to
non-scientists.  Also he takes it to the top.  Why talk to an agency
with a billion-dollar budget when you can talk to a legislature with a
trillion-dollar budget?  Also he makes his spiel flashier for
non-scientists, by throwing in gratuitous fancies about special fuels
and space travel.

Admittedly, I shouldn't have called him an outcast.  Since he still
publishes in Phys. Rev. Letters, it's not at all clear that he is one.
But yeah, he's a malcontent.  He thinks he's above peer review.
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudengk00 cudfnGreg cudlnKuperberg cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.22 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Heeter's reply to Bass
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Heeter's reply to Bass
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 1994 15:51:06 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <9404210443.AA22433@suntan.Tandem.com>,
Tim Janke <tim_janke@internet.uscs.com> wrote:
>Heeter's reply to Bass
>Twice in one day!  OK, so I'm a hypocrite, and don't keep my mouth shut as much
>as I previously said.
>
>Robert F. Heeter wrote:
>
>: [...] I believe there are readers out there who simply think that fusion is
>cool stuff [...]
>
>Hear, hear!

     That's fine, but the context is that PPPL thinks you should hear
     about *their* 'neat stuff' but should *not* hear about certain others'
     potentially competing 'neat stuff'.  You'll note that press 
     conferences are one of the few ways we hear about stuff that
     we don't read about in our own field.  So, it is appalling for 
     certain denizens of PPPL to whine about another group's press
     conference while continuing to do exactly the same.

>: I believe the scientists in the field have an obligation to [...] try to help
>the taxpayers
>: understand just what their taxes are paying for.
>
>On the nose!  Keep it up, Robert.

     If they understood, I suspect they'd stop funding.  You should
     have heard the nonscientific opinion on the SSC by the time
     they figured out what it was about.

     'What do you mean, "Power in 50 years"?'

                             dale bass

cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.21 / Chuck Sites /  Re: The charde of theoretical cold fusion
     
Originally-From: chuck@iglou.iglou.com (Chuck Sites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The charde of theoretical cold fusion
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 1994 00:10:22 GMT
Organization: The Internet Gateway of Louisville, KY

tom@mips2.phy.queensu.ca (Tom Radcliffe) writes:

[Previous discussion deleted]

>I don't see the physical basis for this claim.  In every experiment I
>am aware of involving nuclear reactions and scattering in solids (and 
>there are a lot of them, Steven Jones has pointed out several, to which 
>I might add things like Rutherford backscattering [RBS] measurements) the
>target nuclei behave as if they were well-localized.  An extreme example
>of this is the case of RBS with channelling:  the target nucleus is
>sitting well-localized in an intersticial site.  There is no evidence
>for de-localization.  If Chubb's speculation is correct presumably I
>could do RBS measurements on deuterium in zirconium, say, and get
>results quite unlike anything anyone has ever seen. 

Have you tried it?  The basis for the deterium band state and the 
implied delocalization has been seen using FEELS (Field emmission
electron scattering).  Some key references on that are

[1] Alstaldi et al. "Vibrational Spectra of Atomic H & D on Cu(110): 
    Evidence for H Quantum delocalization" Phy. Rev. Lett. Vol 68, no 1
    (90-)
[2] Nieminen, "Hydrogen atoms bad together" Nature, Vol 356. 289-290
    March 26 1992
    [Note: This is a good starting place for an overview of the subject]
[3] DiFoggio & Gomer, "Diffusion of hydrogen and deterium on the (110) 
    plane of tungsten" Phy. Rev. B 25, 3490 (1992)
    
You can look into it further from thier references.  
It's easy to show the creation of deterium band states can occur with a
simple Kronig Penny model.  I did that calculation back in 1990 and posted
it here with some speculation about about proton conduction.  The 
foundations for the quantum delocaization of deuterons in some transition
metals is on fairly strong ground, both experimentally and theoretically.

Understanding how this may cause fusion is very different.  There the 
only suporting evidence for Scott Chubbs is in a little sited but 
important paper by R. Liboff.  

[4] Liboff, "Feasability of fusion of an aggregate of deuterons in the 
    ground state", Phys Let A, 173 317-319 (1993)
    [Note: The references are also pretty interesting to look at.]


Have Fun,
Chuck Sites
chuck@iglou.com

  
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.23 / Cameron Bass /  Re: TFTR D-T = Science by Press Conference?
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: TFTR D-T = Science by Press Conference?
Date: Sat, 23 Apr 1994 08:04:17 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1994Apr21.175023.1661@Princeton.EDU>,
Robert Franklin Heeter <rfheeter@flagstaff.Princeton.EDU> wrote:
>
>It seems to me we have two camps:  one group says that all
>scientific press conferences are essentially similar, and that you
>can't criticize anyone else's publicization without being hypocritical.
>The other says that there are different types of science, and different
>ways of publicizing it, and that what is appropriate for some cases
>may not be appropriate for others.  Since I don't buy into the first
>camp, I'm looking for someone in the second camp to give me a coherent
>explanation for why P&F and TFTR are sufficiently similar that
>the sort of distinction made in the second camp doesn't apply in 
>this case.

      The criticism of P&F was 'science by press conference'.
      Blanket denunciation, no other adjectives applied.

      So you're saying either PPPL isn't doing science, or they
      didn't have a press conference.  If they didn't have a press 
      conference, what was all that press?  Or if they aren't doing 
      science, then why in the blazes did they submit it to PRL *after*
      the press conference?
 
      So, you have your explanation.  Either it's not science, in which
      case they should immediately retract the paper(s) from PRL, or it
      is science, in which case they're just hypocrites.
      Seems to me, not being particularly fond of P&F's work to date, that
      your position is simply self-justification.

      It has been amusing watching you try to create a world where certain 
      denizens of PPPL are not hypocritical.  Unfortunately, it doesn't
      seem to correspond to this one.

      Repeat after me fifty times, "I and PPPL are bad little boys
      to try to keep others from playing the same games we like to play".

                                   dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.23 / Cameron Bass /  Re: (Long) Forwarded Official PPPL Response to Maglich
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: (Long) Forwarded Official PPPL Response to Maglich
Date: Sat, 23 Apr 1994 15:22:09 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1994Apr21.181407.6789@princeton.edu>,
Robert F. Heeter  <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> wrote:
>
><<<
>	When "cold fusion" was announced in 1989, the Princeton Tokamak 
>Lab scientists and directors described a press release before 
>publication in a scientific journal as "conduct of third-rate 
>scientists of a third-rate institution" [we need the exact quote 
>from the newspapers and magazines of the period].
>>>>
>
>This statement is false.  Concerning the "cold fusion" events in 1989, 
>PPPL's public response, including testimony before Congress, was fairly 
>noncommittal rather than confrontational.  PPPL did not attack 
>institutions or individuals.  We believed then, as we do now, that the 
>scientific process including peer review and open scientific discussion 
>should be used to evaluate the validity and significance of new results.

      So, the official position is that they *didn't* criticize
      P&F at all?

                                dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.24 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Congress axing hot fusion?
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Congress axing hot fusion?
Date: Sun, 24 Apr 1994 20:19:53 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <Coqquz.Bpo@cpsc.ucalgary.ca> michaelf@cpsc.ucalgary.ca
(Michael Fullerton) writes:

>I have heard that congress is thinking about cutting funding for
>hot fusion.  Is there any support for this great sounding news?

The Mag fusion folks ran into a brick wall at their hearings on Wednesday
last Thur Apr 21 1994.   The problem was the brick wall is only "knee high",
since it is composed of a coalition of Dems and Repubs of lower seniority.  
However, the questions were asked, and for the record the responses were
unsatisfactory in a couple of key areas.   The biggies on the committee
were absent.. which is ominous by itself.   

First:  Are insiders doing the reviews (MFAC, ERAB, FEAC..*$) or whatever
name they dress the review committee up with.   

The non-responsive answer discussed: Yes we have a broad number of 
disciplines represented from the environment, engineering, physics, 
economics .. .. etc.   They did not mention that the overwhelming
membership is composed of people benefitting from the fusion program.  
The "conflict of interest" versus "peer review" bull biscuits. If
money is involved, conflict of interest rule applies, but the DoE acts
as if it doesn't realize that fact.  Very Convenient and self serving.   

Secondly, I know of at least one committee report relating to 
restart of Advanced Concept Funding, that was blantantly trashed and 
a magically pro-tokamak-current report (advocating no funding for AC 
unless additional funds) turned up in its place.  The wording, 
phraselogy were totally different, so it was an obvious substitution 
by the DoE (probably the Germantown mafia).    

The Second question related to the program costs for any aspect of the
fusion program .... they couldn't even give numbers for this year!
let along ten years or 20 years down the pike (mostly ITER).  

The only other thing that happened was that some of the DoE 
or Princeton representatives rained yellow water on specific AC concepts
which was so ill-based, that it was obvious they were attempting to
trash the approach.  One victim of this was G Kulcinski and his 
support of an magnetized electrostatic approach.  To use a 30's 
expression: Knuckle-headed Jerks.    

Hirsch of EPRI dimmed the lights on their future funding of Cold fusion,
but complained that had industry been allowed to participate far more
fully in the fusion program from the outset, the program would have
much better balance, enonomy, and would probably be much further down 
the road to real commercial fusion.  

So the power companies don't like it, loads of unemployed or early 
outer plasma physicists now are beginning to realize the program 
sucks, and most (not all-some are probable plants) of the AC chaps 
don't like the program.  Congress is annoyed at the year after year
bull of "breakthroughs" at princeton without any real movement toward
the factor of 2000 they need to get to commercial yields, so what are
they going to do????    Your guess is as good as mine.   But we 
borrow the money from Japan, and interest rates are on the way up, so
I think over the next three years this tokamak thing is going to 
bite the dust like a slow motion playback of a gooney bird landing on
 razor sharp crags of a dried up volcanic lake bed.    
             Oooch!  Ooohh  Ahh ..  EEEAAaa .. Splat   .. .
             Drip Drip  Drip ..Flutter.. flutter.. . thud.
>-- 
>Michael Fullerton           |  Seeds, like ideas, don't
>michaelf@cpsc.ucalgary.ca   |  germinate in concrete. 
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc,Bx 1037, Prometheus II, Ltd., College Park, MD 20741-1037 |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.24 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Overblown comparisons between TFTR and cold fusion
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Overblown comparisons between TFTR and cold fusion
Date: Sun, 24 Apr 1994 21:04:39 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <1994Apr24.151030.14387@midway.uchicago.edu> gk00@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <940424090405_74242.1554_BHR25-1@CompuServe.COM> 74242.1554@
ompuserve.com (John M. Logajan) writes:
>>gk00@quads.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg) writes:
>>>...it allows a bitter outcast like Maglich...
>>Anybody who doesn't worship at the alter of Tokamak is an "outcast" and
>>malcontent, apparently.

>What I don't like is someone who worships at the altar of Congress
>without peer review of his proposals.  What right does Maglich have to
>waste Congress's time with technical mumbo-jumbo about fusion?  The
>government appoints scientists to evaluate comments such as his, but he
>is apparently not content with that and he takes his spiel directly to
>non-scientists.  

You are referring to the USDoE that does reviews using its own "peer 
reviewers".  This is NOT a question of publishing a scientific paper, it
is a question of FUNDING and continuing to FUND a boondoogle big "science"
project.   That means that using YOUR OWN "peer" reviewers is a conflict
of interest, especially since the USDoE spends that money on itself
and its laboratory system with a few conrete and steel contractors.  
I think the science breakeven or not is a trivial question, because the
real problem is the factor of 2000 shortfall in power that needs to be 
come before commercial operation is even possible.  However, the other
point that should not be missed, is that it is obvious that Princeton
is not being up front, is being arrogant and these to factors are often
associated with sleeze artisans.  That has whacked their credibility
a bit, which doesn't help.   

>   ..         ..Also he takes it to the top.  Why talk to an agency
>with a billion-dollar budget when you can talk to a legislature with a
>trillion-dollar budget?  Also he makes his spiel flashier for
>non-scientists, by throwing in gratuitous fancies about special fuels
>and space travel.

Because that is the next stop over the USDoE and the only ones that
can rein-in this program-gone-closed-empire.   Further, the allusion
to space travel as an application of a "COMPACT" power aneutronic
generator is quite appropriate when talking to the Energy subcommittee
of the House SPACE, Science and Technology Committee.  Also, tokamaks
will NEVER make commercial electric power goals even with an unholy
alliance as a Pt manufacturer, let alone keep from sinking into 
the New Jersey clay.   So, while space is a ludicrous place for 
tokamaks, it is still a most interesting possibility (or even 
probability) for several Advanced Concept devices.  

>Admittedly, I shouldn't have called him an outcast.  Since he still
>publishes in Phys. Rev. Letters, it's not at all clear that he is one.
>But yeah, he's a malcontent.  He thinks he's above peer review.

Silly! He publishes elsewhere, so he is NOT believing he is above peer 
review.  Let's hear from you on the incompetence of his Phys Rev Ltrs 
articles.    

I think the review problem lies elsewhere.  

It is the USDoE (Mag Fusion) that is believing "IT" is above Full 
and IMPARTIAL review.   I speak here of a far broader and in depth 
program and agency department review, not just the physics.  

                       IT is capitalized 
                          because of ITS 
                     minor and self-appointed 
                            Deity status.    
                                :-)
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc,Bx 1037, Prometheus II, Ltd., College Park, MD 20741-1037 |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.24 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Overblown comparisons between TFTR and cold fusion
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Overblown comparisons between TFTR and cold fusion
Date: Sun, 24 Apr 1994 21:41:03 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <1994Apr23.190701.5862@midway.uchicago.edu> gk00@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>                       ..   Maglich's technical comments about TFTR's
>experimental protocol sound garbled, but his real misrepresentation was
>the assumption that TFTR is some sort of dry run at commercial fusion.
>It's not, it's a simulation.

That's not the perception of those that were funding the program from
its conception.  It is a statement more in line with a plasma physics
program, and if that is the case, then this activity should have been
funded through the National Science Foundation.  I think your perception
is accurate, but it does not represent the intended use of this huge 
investment.   Simulations, after all, can be run on a computer, or
that's the understanding of the man on the street.  

Yep! If it looks like the thing they held up to congress many years
ago and said, "this is the future fusion power generator".  Furthermore
it uses the same fuel they said it must burn. so it's hardly a Simulation.  
Nope, not hardly, with that investment of time and money ...  and
time .. and money ... what???  more time and more money .. . etc.   

Well maybe as the years went by ... DoE  .. gradually changed the 
words for its charter... but, ... some how Congress remembers what it 
used to be and what it is still, regardless of what DoE says it has 
become.    It might be better to leave quiet dogs be.  
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc,Bx 1037, Prometheus II, Ltd., College Park, MD 20741-1037 |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.24 / Paul Koloc /  Re: (Long) Forwarded Official PPPL Response to Maglich
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: (Long) Forwarded Official PPPL Response to Maglich
Date: Sun, 24 Apr 1994 22:01:40 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <CopxCx.D0K@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> crb7q@watt.seas.Virgini
.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>In article <1994Apr21.181407.6789@princeton.edu>,
>Robert F. Heeter  <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> wrote:
>>    ..   .  .  Concerning the "cold fusion" events in 1989, 
>>PPPL's public response, including testimony before Congress, was fairly 
>>noncommittal rather than confrontational.  PPPL did not attack 
>>institutions or individuals.  We believed then, as we do now, that the 
>>scientific process including peer review and open scientific discussion 
>>should be used to evaluate the validity and significance of new results.

But that wasn't the issue, it was funding and peer reviews by "interested"
parties won't cut it.  That wasn't the point of the Princeton attack.
Their (Harold P. Furth)  that P&F (UUt) should receive "NOT a single dime"
of funding, and that there was absolutely NO Evidence that excess heat
was produced.  Utah was asking for 25M$ for several years while the DoE 
mag program was at about 2.5 billion for the same period of time.  What 
was interesting to me was the fact that the same argument should have 
been turned around, and that there was even less -- many many orders of
less output/input power from tokamaks with deuterium than claimed by 
P&F for deuterated metal CF, and if one put the numbers in output watts 
to numbers of dollars invested, the comparison was even more interesting 
and lopesided.  

Now the author of the above PPPL defense may claim that P&F or the 
UUt was not attacked, but the previous testimony of same was certainly
vastly countradicted by Furth's statement, which I believe impuned the
reputation of the University, P&F notwithstanding.  

>      So, the official position is that they *didn't* criticize
>      P&F at all?
>                                dale bass
Apparently not, as revisionist history recites to our face.   

                           But wait!
                         I was there.. .  
                   Gee! must stepped through 
                       a space/time warp.  
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc,Bx 1037, Prometheus II, Ltd., College Park, MD 20741-1037 |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.25 / bill nelson /  Re: Fusion is the B, and Superconductivity is the E
     
Originally-From: billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson)
Newsgroups: sci.math,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.chem,alt.sci.physics.plutonium
Subject: Re: Fusion is the B, and Superconductivity is the E
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 1994 00:46:50 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Corvallis, Oregon USA

: In article <2osv9n$kto@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmou
h.edu (Ludwig Plutonium) writes:
: >From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
: >Subject: Re: Fusion is the B, and Superconductivity is the E
: >Date: 18 Apr 1994 03:37:27 GMT
: 
: >In article <A9D2C968@fbpmac.msfc.nasa.gov>
: >bo_parker@fbpmac.msfc.nasa.gov writes:
: >> Um, hasn't this been tried?
: 
: >  No it has not been tried. I am the first to claim that 
: 
: >      Particle is dual conjugate variable with Wave, hence
: >      StrongNuclear is dual conjugate variable with Gravity
: >      Radioactivities is dual conjugate variable with Electromagnetism.

Sounds like LP has found a new text that he can misunderstand.

Bill
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenbilln cudfnbill cudlnnelson cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.25 / Eugene Mallove /  HF in trouble
     
Originally-From: 76570.2270@compuserve.com (Eugene Mallove)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: HF in trouble
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 1994 02:15:20 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Michael Fullerton writes --

>I have heard that congress is thinking about cutting funding for
>hot fusion.  Is there any support for this great sounding news?

Yes, Michael, there were hearings in Congress on Fusion energy on April 21, 
1994 in the House Space,Science, and Technology Committee. Early reports 
suggest that the tokamak folks got pretty badly bruised. They were grilled by 
several congressmen who are fed up with the endless dole of cash to a doomed 
project that no utility executive in his right mind would support. The "make 
or break" for HF -- the Johnston Bill -- passed the Senate. The House may not 
go along with Johnston's ploy to shore up HF. Anyway, the tokamak program 
looks like it could squeak through this year, albeit cut. Next year it will 
definitley be all over for the Big Donut in the Sky crowd.

Gene Mallove, Editor, "Cold Fusion" Magazine

cudkeys:
cuddy25 cuden2270 cudfnEugene cudlnMallove cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.25 / Lou Wainwright /  Re: Congress axing hot fusion?
     
Originally-From: wainwl@alum01.its.rpi.edu (Lou P. Wainwright)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Congress axing hot fusion?
Date: 25 Apr 1994 00:13:59 GMT
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY

Paul M. Koloc <pmk@promethe.UUCP> wrote:
>
>
>The Mag fusion folks ran into a brick wall at their hearings on Wednesday
>last Thur Apr 21 1994.   The problem was the brick wall is only "knee high",
>since it is composed of a coalition of Dems and Repubs of lower seniority.  
>However, the questions were asked, and for the record the responses were
>unsatisfactory in a couple of key areas.   The biggies on the committee
>were absent.. which is ominous by itself.   
>

Can anyone else who has knowledge of these committee hearings post their
summaries and opinons of what went on.  I am particularly interested in
the responses to the various alternative HF concepts offered.  Both
from the committee and from the Tokomak folks.  I don't really need to 
hear the justifications for continuing Tokomak funding.  I'm not opposed
to Tokomak funding, I'm just curious about how other ideas were accepted.

>+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
>| Paul M. Koloc,Bx 1037, Prometheus II, Ltd., College Park, MD 20741-1037 |
>| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
>| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
>+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
>

Lou Wainwright
wainwl@rpi.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenwainwl cudfnLou cudlnWainwright cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.25 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  News for Press Conference Fans
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: News for Press Conference Fans
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 1994 02:58:04 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

The rumor has it that there will be a press conference on Tuesday to announce 
the discovery of the Top quark at Fermilab.  In order to "launder" the 
announcement, there will be a proceeding "seminar" at which the Top paper will 
be discussed.  Note that anyone reading last weeks "Economist" or the Sunday 
Chicago Tribune would have read the same news, so I am not using any of the 
possibly privileged information to which I have access.  I have actually not 
read the last several weeks worth of CDFNEWS.  There is also to be a 170+ page 
paper to be sent in (according to the Economist), but as near as I can tell, 
the press conference will be held either as the paper is submitted, or a day 
later.  In any case it seems long before the paper can be refereed and 
accepted. 

Discussions with CDF physicists indicate that most of them want to take a very 
conservative approach.  "We have evidence for the Top" as opposed to "We have 
found the Top". 

It is my opinion that the "scientific process" is not as black and white as we 
have all been led to believe.  The top evidence **is** very likely to be 
announced before the paper has been reviewed and accepted.  The top evidence 
has in fact been circulated "round the world" as it is generated.  I have 
received mail from Douglas Morrison which said something like "Wow, that was 
really a great event" before I even heard about it.  

In the case of this paper, any review process is apt to be either a "rubber 
stamp" or a "joke".  How I ask you, is any set of two or three reviewers going 
to question a paper that is 170 pages of very complex information that has 
already been fought over by hundreds of physicists from dozens of physics 
groups from a number of major universities?  This process has been going on 
for the last several months.  Nothing that can possibly be done externally to 
CDF can compare to the very rigorous debate that has already occurred.  

I know this is an extreme case, but those that condemn P&F for the famous 
press conference should know that there are plenty of other examples in 
science.  

In the end, the paper is only the careful assessment of evidence that all the 
world knows that we have.  But that careful assessment **is** science.  

Of course, it is the missing "careful assessment" that is the mortal sin of 
P&F, not the press conference.  

Why is CDF "rushing" this news out?  I cannot detect any competition, as D0 
seems to be well behind in events.  There is little chance that D0 or any one 
else (Possibly Ludwig Plutonium) will publish first.  A competing machine has 
not yet been built.  There also does not seem to be any particular funding 
crisis.  I think it is just a matter of exhaustion.  Everyone has been working 
hard for ten years or more.  I think they just want to say that they have 
reached a certain point - "We have evidence".  So they want to celebrate a 
bench mark with a press conference to proudly announce the result of the hard 
work to the world.  Why not? 

Tom Droege

cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenDROEGE cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.25 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Leggett & Baym vs. Chubb & Chubb - Conflicting Paradigms
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Leggett & Baym vs. Chubb & Chubb - Conflicting Paradigms
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 1994 03:18:16 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <940424180720_70047.3047_EHB91-1@compuserve.com>,
Bill Page <70047.3047@compuserve.com> wrote:
>In rely to Dale Bass Peter Roessingh writes (in reference to philosophy of 
>science):
><<
>I think my approach until now can be captured under the label 'traditional 
>Popper' while your ideas have strong overtones of Kuhn's view that 
>falsification only plays a minor role, and that sociological and 
>psychological factors are of overriding importance.
>
>I have to admit that Popper's views are not very realistic when you look at 
>the history of science. It is definitely not the way science works and 
>Kuhns descriptions fit the reality much better, however, I think that with 
>Bass's law you are taking things a bit to far.
>
...
>basic facts to even begin such a discussion. Cold fusion is a great example 
>of this state, there is very little true exchange between believers and 
>sceptics. To be more specific, your comment above seems to be a perfect 
>example of the inability to hear what the other party is saying.
>>>
>
>In comparing the papers of Chubb&Chubb with the Leggett&Baym article, I 
>think we have a very good example of what Peter Roessingh is talking about.
...
>Bill Page.

    I don't know what kind of conclusion you can draw since the sociology
    of the situation tells you *nothing* about physical correctness.

    Face it, you could simply be misapplying already bad sociology to 
    give yourself warm fuzzies about something that is clearly wrong.

                                  dale bass



cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Mon Apr 25 04:37:05 EDT 1994
------------------------------
1994.04.25 / John Logajan /  Re: Engineering issues in CF
     
Originally-From: 74242.1554@compuserve.com (John M. Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Engineering issues in CF
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 1994 05:45:55 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Mitchell Swartz asked earlier about CF/HF energy densities.  There are
some engineering factors to consider that set upper limits on the energy
density for practical application of Pd in D2O.  We don't, after all, want
the Pd to melt.

Let's assume we run a pressurized steam cycle system in which the return
water is just under 100C and the exhaust water is 300C.  That is a 200C
temperature difference.

I believe the thermal conductivity coefficient of Pd is 730 mw/cm/C/sec
and that Pd melts at 1550C. I also believe that liquid H2O (D2O) can
absorb 75 J/mole/degree.

Now if I did my math right, I get the following maximum energy densities
of CF in Pd/D2O along with their minimum coolant flow rates.  I used
spherical geometries -- which should give the right order of magnitude for
other geometries, like wires and cylinders.

Spherical
diameter   Wire      E-Density   Coolant [H2O]
  (cm)    (gauge)   (watts/cc)   (liters/sec)
-------   -------  -----------   -------------
 10          -            100      0.0001
  1          -         10,000      0.01
  0.2       12        250,000      0.3
  0.1       18      1,000,000      1.0
  0.026     30     15,000,000     18.0


You can see that the larger the Pd diameter, the less energy density it
can support without melting due to its own rate of thermal conductivity.
It doesn't help to increase the coolant flow rate beyond the minium in
column number four, since the bottleneck is the thermal conductivity of
the Pd itself.

Contrarywise, the smaller the Pd diameter, the greater the energy density
it can support without melting -- provided the demanding (and intimate)
coolant flow rates can be maintained.

The above figures also apply in general magnitude to the nickel/lightwater
case.


cudkeys:
cuddy25 cuden1554 cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.23 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Baby boomers (amd I mean it)
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: rec.pyrotechnics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Baby boomers (amd I mean it)
Date: Sat, 23 Apr 1994 20:31:03 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <wilkinsCopF4w.J64@netcom.com> wilkins@netcom.com (Paul Wilkins) writes:
>ALEXANDER MICHAEL (malexan@a.cs.okstate.edu) wrote:
>: In article <CoDJxt.EBK@ryn.mro.dec.com> pierson@msd26.enet.dec.com
(dave pierson) writes:
>: and fired out of a 155mm cannon.  Old news, like 1960's, before they realized
>: that nukes+artillery=fried artillerymen.  I think they also built one that 
>: would fit in a 105mm, wich might qualify it as softball sized, but only in 
>: diameter.  Nuke artillery generally had yeilds in the sub-to tens of kilotons
>: range.s
>: 				--msa

>	I am not qualified to give an opinion on "red murcury" however I 
>once had the chance to peruse a 50's era nuke weapons military munitions 
>field book which described both a 6-inch (your 155mm shell) and an 8-inch 
>tactical battlefield nuke.  Interesting devices; looked like a normal 
>shell except for the extra-thick lined storage case and a setscrew in the 
>side.  Had a feature labeled _dial-a-yield_ for the discriminating 
>artilleryman who doesn't want to *overreact*.  The six-inch shell had a 
>yield of 0.5 to 5 kilotons (settable in increment of 0.5 kilotons) while 
>the eight-inch shell was a 1 to 10 kiloton device (sorry... please 
>re-enter yield in kilotons only!).  I've never heard of a 4" device as 
>the core required would be sub-critical.  The setscrew thing worked on a 
>mechanical core misalignment which would yield a critical, but 
>non-optimal nuclear chain reaction.  They definitely field tested these 
>things because they had the normal warning on wind direction and the 
>duck-n-cover directions, but hey...this was the fifties right - I don't 
>think they really worried about it that much.

>	I sometimes wonder if any of these things are still around, hmmmm....

I seem to recall from my early years, a picture viewi from behind the 
sizable canon that had just fired a nuclear device which exploded across
the valley perhaps 20 miles distant, replete with mushroom cloud.  
I imagine there are related hearings in congress about this these days.  
>					- prw
I would suppose that dialing down yield turns up the total radiation
as well as the neutron to energy yield level.  The guess is based on
the longer time to vaporization and inertial trapping for slower
rising detonations.  
>: -- 
>: P. R. Wilkins         When Occam's Razor just won't quite do.....
cute
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc,Bx 1037, Prometheus II, Ltd., College Park, MD 20741-1037 |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.25 / Cameron Bass /  Comparisons between TFTR and cold fusion (was Re: Over...)
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Comparisons between TFTR and cold fusion (was Re: Over...)
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 1994 03:48:57 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1994Apr23.190701.5862@midway.uchicago.edu>,
Greg Kuperberg <gk00@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote:
>The comparisons between the TFTR press release and the Fleischmann-Pons
>announcement are completely strained.  The difference, and it is all
>the difference in the world, is between announcing a scientific project
>and announcing new science.

     Sort of like the difference between Rome Apples and McIntosh Apples.
     They're in different bins in the supermarket, but they're both
     red and they're both apples.

>blatant and unethical professional betrayal of both Steve Jones and
>Marvin Hawkins, was a grossly premature announcement that forced the
>scientific community to read the newspapers to learn about the supposed
>new science.  A lot of people have judged Pons and Fleischmann's
>conduct by the narrow criterion of publishing results in journal before
>announcing them to the press, but the real point is that they announced
>a claim that only three people in the world knew anything about, and
>those three people hadn't looked at it very carefully either.

     So what?  Are you suggesting people should sit on results they 
     consider earth-shattering?  And if they didn't check the results
     sufficiently before shouting, who cares?  It's their rears.
     Besides, five years after the announcement, *they* clearly think
     that the results have held up. 

>really want to know what TFTR is doing, you can ask any of dozens of
>plasma physicists and they will tell you more than you can absorb.  If
>you wanted to know about cold fusion in March 1989, you had to try to
>figure it out from simplified accounts in the Wall Street Journal.  The

     Again, so what?  It's not their obligation to tell you how to 
     do it in the press conference, nor in the Wall Street Journal.
     They *announced*.  It was a perfectly ordinary and perfectly 
     acceptable bid for priority.

     If you waited until the paper came out, you'd know perfectly
     well how to not replicate their experiment.  So, large numbers of groups
     did not replicate, and the 'phenomenon' fell into long slow 
     oblivion into which it's been headed for years.

     Face it, that's the way science should work, and it worked fine
     in this case too.

>Wall Street Journal in particular was put in the ludicrous role of a
>rapid-communications physics journal; this is in the record in the form
>of citations to it in real physics papers.  Pons and Fleischmann's
>obstructive secrecy towards their colleagues after the announcement
>certainly didn't help matters; they would tell fawning journalists from
>the local papers more than they would tell physicists at their own
>university.

     Again, so what?  If they didn't want to reference the Wall Street 
     Journal, they should have just waited.  No one *needed* to 
     check the result in the first fifteen minutes.  Indeed, I'm 
     always suspicious of such races, rushed experiments are often not
     good ones. 

>TFTR has certainly not created any such fiasco; there was nothing in
>the New York Times article that I read that any physics paper would
>need to cite.

     What was the source of the 'fiasco', the inability of other
     researchers to wait a month or so to get the paper?  It's silly
     to blame P&F, they didn't send the paper to the Wall Street Journal.

>  If there was any sin in TFTR's announcements, it is that
>to outsiders it might vaguely resemble, and thereby encourage, the sort
>of rogue science by press conference that cold fusion actually was.

     Outsiders?  It sure seems like the same to those of us *also*
     engaged in the pursuit of science.

>The fact that TFTR has a significant fusion output is certainly
>exciting, but it is not surprising and does not by itself represent an
>advance towards commercial fusion.  Nevertheless, science reporters are
>inevitably going to dress it up that way in their shorter articles,

     They wouldn't have even been there without invitation.  They knew
     nothing about the shot without TFTR people telling them about it.
     So, why did I hear and read (for days) about what a significant
     and remarkable advance it was?  Did the press make that part up 
     all by themselves while the TFTR people valiantly tried to talk
     about how nonsurprising and nonadvancing it was (while carefully
     explaining that the number bandied about was mostly 'deep frier'
     instead of charcoal)?  Did they carefully
     explain how it wasn't much to get excited about?

     I didn't think so.

 and
>TFTR officials might not be demurring enough from that simplified
>account.  It is hard to fight against an oversimplification that only
>makes the story more exciting and makes funding agents happier also.
>But sensationalism in science reporting has its dangers also, not that
>TFTR is a particularly bad case of it.  For example, it allows a bitter
>outcast like Maglich to feed Congress a self-serving line that TFTR is
>a failed fusion machine.  Maglich's technical comments about TFTR's
>experimental protocol sound garbled, but his real misrepresentation was
>the assumption that TFTR is some sort of dry run at commercial fusion.
>It's not, it's a simulation.


cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.22 / Robert Eachus /  Re: TFTR D-T = Science by Press Conference?
     
Originally-From: eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: TFTR D-T = Science by Press Conference?
Date: 22 Apr 94 10:33:17
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.

In article <CoKwI6.9Gs@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> crb7q@watt.seas.Virgini
.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:

  > The shuttle is not exactly germane here.  Never have I 
  > heard them complain about PPPL's press conferences.

   I have and it could be heard over much of Florida!  Not quite as
loud as a Saturn V, but still pretty loud.

   Oh! Maybe you meant you never heard NASA complain about F&P or
PPPLs press conferences. ;-)



--

					Robert I. Eachus

with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudeneachus cudfnRobert cudlnEachus cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.25 / Cameron Bass /  Re: News for Press Conference Fans
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics
Subject: Re: News for Press Conference Fans
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 1994 04:56:47 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <940424215708.20410290@FNALD.FNAL.GOV>,
 <DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov> wrote:
>The rumor has it that there will be a press conference on Tuesday to announce 
>the discovery of the Top quark at Fermilab.  In order to "launder" the 
>announcement, there will be a proceeding "seminar" at which the Top paper will 
>be discussed.  Note that anyone reading last weeks "Economist" or the Sunday 
>Chicago Tribune would have read the same news, so I am not using any of the 
>possibly privileged information to which I have access.  I have actually not 
>read the last several weeks worth of CDFNEWS.  There is also to be a 170+ page 
>paper to be sent in (according to the Economist), but as near as I can tell, 
>the press conference will be held either as the paper is submitted, or a day 
>later.  In any case it seems long before the paper can be refereed and 
>accepted. 
...
>crisis.  I think it is just a matter of exhaustion.  Everyone has been working 
>hard for ten years or more.  I think they just want to say that they have 
>reached a certain point - "We have evidence".  So they want to celebrate a 
>bench mark with a press conference to proudly announce the result of the hard 
>work to the world.  Why not? 

     Indeed, why not?  Besides, I've got three bucks riding on it, 
     and I don't have time to read 170 pages, regardless of my ability
     (or lack thereof) to intellegently assess each page of text.

     Jon, I'm going to need a ruling on whether 'we have evidence'
     counts as 'discovery'.  I suppose we should wait til tuesday, 
     but was it 'seen' or not?

                           dale bass

cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.26 /  blue@nscl00.ns /  Re: Stringham and George guarantee?
     
Originally-From: blue@nscl00.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Stringham and George guarantee?
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 1994 00:12:03 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

In reply to John Logajan as to why Stringham and George do not also
provide experimental evidence supporting the Chubb theory, let me first
admit that I simply missed the connection thinking they were just
busting bubbles without any Pd present.  However, now that I see they
are busting bubbles at a Pd - D2O boundary it gets to be slightly more
difficult to say what could be happening.  I would still remind you that
an essential requirement of the Chubb picture is that deuterons be loaded
to saturation in a perfect PdD lattice.  What can we say about the
likelyhood that S&G are achieving that condition?

I think the "melting" of the Pd foil may tell us something.  First off
it should be obvious that the Pd is not melting but is being eroded by
cavitation.  Whether it melts or erodes that does not sound like the
condition for keeping the lattice in good order.  I would also like
some confirming evidence regarding the loading that can be reached
by this new approach before I would say this is an experiment confirming
either the Miles experiments or the Chubb theory.

You also correctly note that just figuring out how Stringham and George
do calorimeter to confirm the "excess enthalpy" production.  I just
don't see this as an operation that is ready to go commercial unless
there are more suckers willing to laydown $100,000 on a sure loser
there are more suckers willing to lay down $100,000 on a sure loser
than I would like to think.

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenblue cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.26 /  blue@nscl00.ns /  Re: Legget and Baym vs. Chubb and Chubb tag teams
     
Originally-From: blue@nscl00.nscl.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Legget and Baym vs. Chubb and Chubb tag teams
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 1994 00:13:03 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Bill Page says that L&B's upper limit of cold fusion comes from a 
consideration of only many-body screening effects and does not cover
two other possibilities, unusual enhancement by the solid-state
environment or exotic coherence mechanisms.  He goes on to say that
"Certainly they (Chubb and Chubb) are not claiming that 'barrier
penetration' or tunneling between pairs of deuterons is the mechanism
of fusion.  In fact, it would seem that their theory is firmly grounded
in the latter two mechanisms which Legget and Baym do not consider."

Frankly, I don't know what mechanism Chubb and Chubb are invoking
beyond the formation of ion band states before and after.  I had
read into Dr. Chubb's replies to me something more related to
many-body screening effects because he emphasized how the ion band
state could be energetically favored.  To me that refers to Coulomb
interaction energy being lower than one might expect for pointlike
deuterons.  Is that not a many-body screening effect?  As to the
role of "tunneling between pairs of deuterons",  Dr. Chubb has
also left me confused because he once made specific reference
to particle exchanges between 4He which, on average, must be
miles apart.

I don't know how you can tell what the Chubb theory is firmly
grounded in or which paradigm is being offered.  But since
you seem to be willing to dig into this further could you perhaps
tell me where Chubb gets his selection rule that says absolutely
that the fusion reaction is restricted to one particular decay
channel.  My book of paradigms does not have that one in it.
How is it that bosons can only begat bosons, and even more
restrictive, why no photons?

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenblue cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.25 / C Harrison /  Can you put it on Usenet, then publish?
     
Originally-From: harr@netcom.com (Charles (Chuck) Harrison)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.research,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Can you put it on Usenet, then publish?
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 1994 07:43:20 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

A (snail-mail) correspondent of mine has recently had a paper
published in Phys Lett A.  He has no net access or experience,
and I have been acting as "go-between" for some modest amount
of Usenet discussion.  He is preparing a more complete follow-up
to the Letters article, and asks me if posting major portions
of the draft to Usenet will interfere with publication.

I replied that
 (1) this is a gray area;
 (2) I believe a few drafts have been circulated without causing
      trouble in the past;
 (3) I haven't heard of an editor specifically complaining
      about it;
 (4) But only your journal editor can really say.

Is there anything to add or retract (especially an example or two)?

Thanks,
  -Chuck

PS - should something on this topic be in the physics-FAQ?

PPS - for the curious, the individual in question is O. Reifenschweiler,
   the article Phys Lett A 184:149-153 (Jan 1994), concerning anomalous
   radioactivity reduction in submicron-sized Ti particles loaded w 3H.
    -CH


cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenharr cudfnCharles cudlnHarrison cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.25 / david atkatz /  Re: Timing and the Chubbs' theory.
     
Originally-From: datkatz@scott.skidmore.edu (david atkatz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Timing and the Chubbs' theory.
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 1994 01:45:05 GMT
Organization: Skidmore College, Saratoga Springs NY

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

:     Doug, don't get carried away and forget rigor.  First of all I'm
: going to assume that by "speed of light" you mean "speed of light in a
: vacuum."  Otherwise Cherenkov radiation falsifies all your statements.

:     Second, there are many reasons to accept that information transfer
: faster than the speed of light is impossible.  (On the other hand if
: neutrinos have imaginary mass...)  In most experiments this prevents
: the transfer of energy at superluminal speeds.  However, most of
: quantum mechanics is now formulated in terms of instantaneous
: transitions between states.  (But I LIKED pilot waves. ;-)  Given the
: equivalence of mass and energy, I could contend that every time an
: electron shifts from a 1p to a 2p orbital there is a superluminal
: tranfer of energy.

:   >	Cold Fusion already needs several miracles to be true. It is
:   > not too reasonable to try and explain Cold Fusion with a theory
:   > which invents yet another miracle which violates a fundamental
:   > principle of physics. If the Chubbs were correct, and energy could
:   > travel faster than the velocity of light, then there would be many
:   > consequences and these have not been observed.

:   I thought that the EPR "paradox" had been observed, and quantum
: tunneling, and superluminal phase velocity, and, and... But these are
: mere bagatelle.  Would you like to explain why a Tipler T machine, if
: built would not function, or how black holes are cold and don't
: radiate energy?  Superlumial energy transfer, and even causality
: violations are a part of the currently accepted model of physical
: reality.

:   We can also wave Heisenberg around all you wish, but if you do, you
: have to accept the consequences: that it is meaningless to talk of
: energy conservation over short time spans and distances.

:   None of this has anything in particular to do with Chubb's theory.
: In particular, Heisenberg doesn't allow all that much wiggle room with
: respect to 24 MeV gammas--maybe a couple of close by nucleii.  Yes,
: currently accepted theory does put very tight limits on how far energy
: can get unobservably--but to even try to state that the speed at which
: unobservable energy propagates is limited has no place in modern
: physics.

: --

: 					Robert I. Eachus

	Bunk, Robert.  The time scale for interactions _is_ set
	by the speed of light (in vacua) and the relevant length
	scale.  It has to do with information transfer, not energy
	transfer--for an entire region to interact, the entire region
	has to "know" it's interacting.
	
	Quantum tunneling is not instantaneous, and every good
	physics student knows that no information travels at the
	phase velocity.
	
	Modern physical theory still respects causality--EPR-type
	quantum-mechanical "spooky action-at-a-distance" notwithstanding.

	
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudendatkatz cudfndavid cudlnatkatz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.25 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Congress axing hot fusion?
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Congress axing hot fusion?
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 1994 05:57:50 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <2pf208$7an@usenet.rpi.edu> wainwl@alum01.its.rpi.edu
(Lou P. Wainwright) writes:
>Paul M. Koloc <pmk@promethe.UUCP> wrote:
>Can anyone else who has knowledge of these committee hearings post their
>summaries and opinons of what went on.  I am particularly interested in
>the responses to the various alternative HF concepts offered.  Both
>from the committee and from the Tokomak folks.  I don't really need to 
>hear the justifications for continuing Tokomak funding.  I'm not opposed
>to Tokomak funding, I'm just curious about how other ideas were accepted.

Very few comments were given about various ideas.  Hirsch mentioned 
compact toroids, electrostatic and I believe  RFP's although he might
have said FRP's, I keep reversing them in my mind.  When asked what he
thought would make the best reactor candidate, he mentioned Spheromak,
a compact toroid.  The compact toroids were mentioned as one area of
research that DoE did not investigate enough. Forsen of Bechtel strongly
mentioned the need for the follow on tokamak at Princeton, probably 
because his company would have an interest in bidding on the construction
of such a beast.  And Kulcinski made a short brief on the electrostatic
device they recieved from an ARPA contract (actually one of Bussards), 
although I think Hirsch also had an interest since he had worked on a 
similar device as a PHD candidate under Farnsworth.  Fowler (formerly
forever head of mag fusion at Larry labs, and now Berkerley is keenly
(or so the story goes) interested in Alternate Concepts (additional
money for same) and specifically Spheromaks.  However, he reported to
the committee that he was so thrilled with the colosally important 
results at Princeton, it sounded as if he may have had an attack of 
ecstasy.  Basically the committee wasn't interested in who's whatsit is
better or best, or even specifically what each and every one were. What
they were interested in is that there is an interest in advancing fusion
research work in better, faster and cheaper ways.   

That's one of the reasons it wasn't the typical string of dog and pony 
shows. They basically put the DoE to the grill, and the smell of burnt 
flesh filled the room.  They also made certain there was a pool of 
concepts there in case a they institute a policy change, to put balance 
and economy in the program.   

>Lou Wainwright
>wainwl@rpi.edu
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc,Bx 1037, Prometheus II, Ltd., College Park, MD 20741-1037 |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.24 / Jack Treger /  Nonsense about red mercur
     
Originally-From: jack.treger@channel1.com (Jack Treger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Nonsense about red mercur
Date: Sun, 24 Apr 94 12:01:00 -0500
Organization: Channel 1 Communications

RAB>Whenever stories about "red mercury" contain specific details they
RAB>show clear signs of being totally silly.  Now we are told that
RAB>red mercury is in fact Hg2Sb2O7 that has been irradiated (?)
RAB>to form a liquid with density 20, boiling pt 350C, melting pt

   OK, for discussion's sake, I'll be it's advocate.  BTW, where did
   these details come from?

RAB>Then we come to the bit about irradiation.  What does irradiation
RAB>do?  In plastics, for example, it can result in additional
RAB>cross linking between polymer chains or it can break up and
RAB>weaken the polymer.  In inorganic solids to the best of my
RAB>knowledge the effects tend to be the production of dislocations
RAB>and increased disorder in the lattice.  If there are nuclear
RAB>transmutations they produce impurity sites that are yet
RAB>another form of disorder.  There are not the things that would
RAB>make stuff more dense.

   Nuetron irradiation can produce nuclear transmutation.  Although the
   conversion rate is very low, it's at least conceivable that Hg and
   Sb can be converted into heavier, perhaps radioactively unstable,
   isotopes.  Just how these heavier isotopes can participate in an
   explosive fission or fusion reaction is still a problem.

RAB>Next is the question as to what this stuff with its magical
RAB>properties is supposed to do.  I can believe it is some kind
RAB>of high energy explosive because that is chemistry about
RAB>I know next to nothing.  However, as a nuclear explosive it
RAB>does not sound like a winner, and besides all the magic
RAB>incantations that have given it strange chemical properties
RAB>would not be expected to do much to make it go boom in a
RAB>serious nuclear way.  I think I read "hoax" written all
RAB>over this one.

    Probably true.  Probably...

---
 ~ SLMR 2.1a ~ ##################################
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudentreger cudfnJack cudlnTreger cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.25 / Scott Chubb /  Thanks to Robert Heeter, Bill Page,...Morrison Comments
     
Originally-From: chubb@imsy1.nrl.navy.mil (Scott Robinson Chubb)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Thanks to Robert Heeter, Bill Page,...Morrison Comments
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 1994 14:57:01 GMT
Organization: ATSC/NRL Code 7230

Concerning:  "Comments from the peanut gallery," and thank-you Bill Page, Peter
Roessingh and Robert Heeter

     I have been very busy with a very different topic, something called
SIR-C/XSAR (Shuttle Imaging Radar - C/ X-Band Synthetic Aperture Radar). This work
is associated with one of the more wonderful geophysical experiments I have ever
seen.  In it, the shuttle and roughly 2000 scientists worldwide have been looking
at the earth using advanced Radar imaging methods in a manner that has been
impossible until now.  I have never seen so much cooperation and "can-do" spirit
anywhere.  I hope <wish> that a similar spirit will evolve in s.p.f.

     I am glad to see the interest continues in our theory.  Dick Blue has written
me concerning a number of points about correlation that I will respond to
privately.  I would like to comment about one of his public comments and thank him
for mentioning the announcement of an award associated with the APS, as well as
to mention a few facts concerning the presentation of this award.  

     Concerning our potentially going out on a limb because the theory has made
claims that may have been repudiated, I would like to say that it is certainly
true that the verdict is clearly out concerning the 4He results, but it is drawing
to a close about the loading results.  There seem to be two very distinct limits
where anomalous heating effects are seen, high-loading (x->1, at least in large
crystal domains) and, in materials other than PdD (such as the perovskite
structures studied by Mizuno), low-loading x->0.  There seem to be no intermediate
cases.  These two limits are precisely the limits where ion band state occupation
would be expected to occur.  So, I really do not think we have gone out on a limb
with respect to this point, even if the final mechanism turns out to be
non-nuclear (which I sincerely doubt will be the case).  I think these loading
results and a number of quantum transport phenomena point to the fact that there
probably are important quantum phenomena that are probably related to ion band
state occupation that are at work.  With respect to the question of whether or not
4He should be the primary final state by-product, it is my opinion that if the
underlying band state picture is correct, provided there are minimal amounts of
impurity 1H or magnetic impurities present, the 4He band state by-product is the
only allowable one.  The reason I believe this to be the case is because of the
nature of associated quantum field theory.  Time will tell if this is correct.

     I would also like to thank Dick for bringing to the attention of the s.p.f
group the fact that Gary Taubes was nominated for the A.P.S. forum award.  In
fact, I would like to point out to this group that Mr. Taubes did  not show-up to
receive the award or to present his acceptance speech lecture.  There was no
apparent justification given for his actions. One  individual privately stated
that Mr. Taubes's wife insisted that he accompany her to Paris during the
scheduled time of the award.  

     I was pleased to see a  number of postings (indirectly) today, thanks to Jed
Rothwell.  I am especially pleased that R. Heeter pointed out in response to a
comment questioning if we had carried out genuine calculations that references to
these calculations had already been given.  And thank-you Bill Page for providing
these references and for your comments.

     Finally, I would like to respond to a recent comment by Douglas  Morrison. 
He recently wrote:

>        In nuclear physics, an interaction happens in less than 10 E-20 seconds
>and this gives the radius over which the information of the interaction can >take
place (by multiplying by the velocity of light). 

And I have no problem with this statement.  It is certainly correct. 
>Now the spacing of the >lattice is a few Angstroms. So only one Palladium ion can
>be involved in that time.
 
This statement, which is correct in most cases, does not apply if it is not
possible to identify where the nucleus is located.  This is what happens when the
center of mass motion of each nucleus is described by an ion band state.  In this
case, it can become possible for only a small fraction of a nucleus <on the
average> to be identified with  a specific location.  The point is that once this
happens, the solid as a whole participates in the relevant quantum mechanical
problem and "nuclear" physics, and it can become possible that  the associated
time scale of an isolated nuclear effect   need not be relevant.  

An example from Solid State physics and electromagnetic interactions illustrates
how non-particle like behavior can dramatically alter time scales in a very
counter-intuitive manner.  In atoms, excited states decay in a manner  associated
with the timescales defined by h divided by the difference in energies between the
associated energy levels;  in a solid, however, this timescale (which is roughly
10^-17 seconds in atoms) can be increased  by as many as 17 orders of magnitude. 
Specifically, there is a process in which the excited state located on an
"individual" atom becomes long-lived through interaction with the underlying
periodic lattice.  The resulting "quasi-particle", which is called an exciton, to
a degree maintains its identity (as an electron-hole pair), so that once it
decays, it may give off light at roughly the same frequency that would be expected
from ordinary atomic physics.  However, it does this at a rate that is roughly
10^17 orders of magnitude slower than in an atom, through the phenomenon of
phosphorescence.  The underlying de-excitation interaction also can include
coupling to phonons and other processes, leading to a situation in which the de-
excitation line can become significantly broadened.  A key point is that the
phenomenon occurs because of the large degeneracy associated with possible modes
of  de-excitation.  (The excited state becomes long-lived  as a band-like state.)

     A really important point is that Douglas Morrison does not recognize  that
we are not talking about conventional nuclear particles because it is not possible
to identify the locations of the particles.  Once this  occurs, the initial state
does not involve conventional nucleons as they apply in particle-particle nuclear
physics.  In fact, because exchange effects are involved, what actually occurs is
a many-body state in which many nucleons share a common wave function but are
fractionally distributed to each unit cell. So, it simply is not one Pd ion, or
one or two isolated nuclei. Many nuclei, spread over many more lattice sites are
involved.  To fail to understand this point is to  misrepresent the theory.  To
see this explicitly written down, I would urge Douglas Morrison to review our
papers, many of which I have previously forwarded to him. 

     Thus, he either has misidentified the initial state or misrepresented it. 
Any process requires that the initial state be identified correctly.  If this is
not done, there is virtually negligible chance that either the final state or
intermediate states involved in the process can be identified correctly.

     The initial state involves ion band state occupation.  This occurs as a
result of interaction with the solid.  The interaction eliminates the locali-
zation that necessitates the large energy scales associated with potential 
reactions.

>       The Chubbs are proposing that the 23 MeV gamma energy can be
>spread out over 10 E7 Palladium ions so that each only receives
>about 2 eV. But for this to happen in 10 E-20 seconds, means that
>the energy has to travel much faster than the velocity of light. Now there
>are an incredible number of experiments which show that this cannot happen.

Wrong.

There are no 23 MeV gamma rays.  The initial state is not localized.  Once the
initial state is delocalized, intermediate states are not of the "localized" form
that Douglas Morrison claims are required.

>     Cold Fusion already needs several miracles to be true. 

Not if the rules of solid state physics are valid.  It does if the rules of
unbound, semi-classical high energy physics are assumed to be  valid in a case
where known anomalies suggest that these rules do not apply.

>It is not too reasonable to try and explain Cold Fusion with a theory 
>which invents yet another miracle which violates a fundamental 
>principle of physics. 

I agree.  Our theory has not done this.  It simply has used appropriate wave
functions, where there seems to be sound evidence that they apply.  It has
replaced the conventional reaction mechanisms of free space physics with ones that
apply once the correct wave functions become occupied.

>If the Chubbs were correct, and energy could travel faster than the velocity of
>light, then there would be many consequences and these have not been observed.

This is not true.  It would be true if we were assuming the kind of initial state
preparation that Douglas Morrison has assumed.  Quantum mechanics provides a means
of preferentially preparing a state in a myriad of different ways.  Douglas
Morrison's state preparation does not conform to the boundary conditions or
energetics of hydrogen in metals.  Ours does. 

For wave functions to be involved in a process, often, it is assumed that the
energies involved can not redistribute interaction possibilities in a manner that
would violate the premise that particle-particle communication over space-like
domains could occur.  The fact is this is true if the particles are pre-prepared
in particle form.  The problem that comes about is when the particles are not
pre-prepared to be particle-like.  Douglas Morrison has assumed the  deuterons are
always localized and used this assumption to infer rules about the by-products.

SCOTT CHUBB
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenchubb cudfnScott cudlnChubb cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.25 / Peter Roessingh /  Re: Disproving a theory
     
Originally-From: roes@vax.oxford.ac.uk (Peter Roessingh)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Disproving a theory
Date: 25 Apr 94 14:34:19 GMT
Organization: Oxford University VAX 6620

Dale Bass wrote (in response to my short detour into the phylosophy
of science):

  > I don't think it's that deep.  It seems to me the emphasis
  > is on burden of proof and that alone.

You are bringing the discussion back to the the burden of proof.
I think our disagreement is based on the fact that you view that
as the core issue, while I don't.

The thread started with my assertion that the Chubb theory was
being flamed without proper arguments.

As far as I understand your position, you seem to say (at least
implicit) that such flaming is acceptable, and you use Bass's law
and the lack of compelling evidence for the theory as
justification.

I have been trying to make the point that it is not acceptable,
even if bass's law is accepted and the burden of proof is
perceived as laying with the proponents of the theory.

We seem to be back to the same place we were a few rounds back in
the discussion, and I see little point in re-itirating the
process once more, especially since the Chubb theory has been
discussed more serious in the meantime.

So thanks for the entertaining exchange, (at least it made me
re-read Kuhn) but I think this is my last contribution to it.

Peter Roessingh.


cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenroes cudfnPeter cudlnRoessingh cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.25 / KARL KJENDAL /  RM Fusion?
     
Originally-From: kkjendal@twain.ucs.umass.edu (KARL H KJENDAL)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RM Fusion?
Date: 25 Apr 1994 15:04:33 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

Please forgive me, a non-physicist from posting, however, I am somewhat 
baffled by this topic of Red Mercury.  Can someone please summarize the 
current view of what Red Murcury is, hoax or breakthrough.  And if it is 
actually a fusionable substance, what are it's benefits?  My Nuclear 
Physics Prof. said that is sounds to be a hoax...I am just wondering.  Is 
it red mercury or red herring?
kkjendal@twain.ucs.umass.edu

cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenkkjendal cudfnKARL cudlnKJENDAL cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.25 / Richard Schultz /  Re: News for Press Conference Fans
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics
Subject: Re: News for Press Conference Fans
Date: 25 Apr 1994 15:25:59 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley

In article <Costqn.7GA@murdoch.acc.virginia.edu>,
Cameron Randale Bass <crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU> wrote:
#In article <940424215708.20410290@FNALD.FNAL.GOV>,
# <DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov> wrote:
##There is also to be a 170+ page 
##paper to be sent in (according to the Economist), but as near as I can tell, 
##the press conference will be held either as the paper is submitted, or a day 
##later.  In any case it seems long before the paper can be refereed and 
##accepted. 

#     Indeed, why not?  Besides, I've got three bucks riding on it, 
#     and I don't have time to read 170 pages, regardless of my ability
#     (or lack thereof) to intellegently assess each page of text.

Don't worry about the 170 pages.  If it's anything like most of the
high-energy physics papers that appear in Phys Rev Lett, the first 169 
will be the list of authors.

					Richard Schultz
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.25 / mitchell swartz /  Engineering issues in CF - Dimensional analysis
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Engineering issues in CF - Dimensional analysis
Subject: Re: Engineering issues in CF
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 1994 15:04:04 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <940425054137_74242.1554_BHR39-1@CompuServe.COM>
Subject: Re: Engineering issues in CF
John M. Logajan74242.1554@compuserve.com) writes:

=  "I believe the thermal conductivity coefficient of Pd is 730 mw/cm/C/sec
=  and that Pd melts at 1550C. I also believe that liquid H2O (D2O) can
=  absorb 75 J/mole/degree."

   I want to thank John M. Logajan,Robert F. Heeter and Paul M. Koloc     
for their information about CF/HF energy densities,
 and other parameters.
 Pressed for time, the response will take a bit to sort out,

   Meanwhile, however:

   1) I think palladium melts at 1554 C (2829F)  and

   2) the thermal conductivity enables a lumped parameter description of 
moving heat (i.e. energy).    Methinks the units, by dimensional
analysis are therefore

                 [joules/second]/[cm^2]
                 ---------------------
                   deg C/cm

     Given that the older tables list 0.17 cal/sec/cm^2/(degC/cm),
and 4.18 joules is a calorie  we get

 .711 joules/sec/cm^2/(degC/cm) or

                 711 millijoules/sec/cm^2/(degC/cm)

   This is close but the units look a tad better.  OK?
  
 Best wishes.
                          Mitchell Swartz  [mica@world.std]
    

cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.25 / David Ring /  Re: News for Press Conference Fans
     
Originally-From: dwr2560@tamuts.tamu.edu (David Wayne Ring)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics
Subject: Re: News for Press Conference Fans
Date: 25 Apr 1994 18:18:34 -0500
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station

Cameron Randale Bass <crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU> wrote:
>     Jon, I'm going to need a ruling on whether 'we have evidence'
>     counts as 'discovery'.  I suppose we should wait til tuesday, 
>     but was it 'seen' or not?

If they meant 'discovery', they would have said 'discovery'. I understand
there was a great deal of haggling over the exact wording of the announcement.

Dave Ring
Cdude@phys.tamu.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudendwr2560 cudfnDavid cudlnRing cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.25 / David Ring /  Re: News for Press Conference Fans
     
Originally-From: dwr2560@tamuts.tamu.edu (David Wayne Ring)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics
Subject: Re: News for Press Conference Fans
Date: 25 Apr 1994 18:25:38 -0500
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station

I wrote...
>If they meant 'discovery', they would have said 'discovery'. I understand
>there was a great deal of haggling over the exact wording of the announcement.

Now if only I were as careful with words. 'Have said' should be 'say'. :-)

-Dave Ring
Cdude@phys.tamu.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudendwr2560 cudfnDavid cudlnRing cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.25 / Peter Roessingh /  Re: Roessingh on Chubb theory
     
Originally-From: roes@vax.oxford.ac.uk (Peter Roessingh)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Roessingh on Chubb theory
Date: 25 Apr 94 14:39:36 GMT
Organization: Oxford University VAX 6620

Dick Blue wrote:

>Peter Roessingh is challanging me to do a better job of making a
>case against the Chubb theory so I will see what I can do along
>those lines.

[clear exposition of the theory and several questions deleted]

I think you are doing very well now. I am afraid my physics is
not up to the level needed to make further meaningful
contributions to the debate, but I get the impression that you
have placed the ball firmly back on the side of the proponents of
the theory, and I am now looking forward to their responses.

Peter.

cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenroes cudfnPeter cudlnRoessingh cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.25 / Cameron Bass /  Re: TFTR D-T = Science by Press Conference?
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: TFTR D-T = Science by Press Conference?
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 1994 16:08:09 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <EACHUS.94Apr22103317@spectre.mitre.org>,
Robert I. Eachus <eachus@spectre.mitre.org> wrote:
>In article <CoKwI6.9Gs@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> crb7q@watt.seas.Virgin
a.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>
>  > The shuttle is not exactly germane here.  Never have I 
>  > heard them complain about PPPL's press conferences.
>
>   I have and it could be heard over much of Florida!  Not quite as
>loud as a Saturn V, but still pretty loud.

     Apparently you hear articulation in the engines that 
     escapes the rest of us.  So specific a complaint, so great 
     a reach...

                          dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.25 / Jim Carr /  Re: TFTR D-T = Science by Press Conference?
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: TFTR D-T = Science by Press Conference?
Date: 25 Apr 1994 12:18:06 -0400
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

In article <1994Apr21.175023.1661@Princeton.EDU> 
rfheeter@flagstaff.Princeton.EDU (Robert Franklin Heeter) writes:

 <regarding Chu press conference>
 
>If it irritated everyone, and it had proven to be false, would
>people have considered it to be as inappropriate as many consider
>the P&F announcement to have been?  

No.  Press conferences, like talks at meeting and preprints, are one 
of the mechanisms science uses to communicate ideas amongst interested 
parties.  If it (or, for example, claims about near room-temp Tc in 
certain layered materials built up with beam epitaxy) were shown to be 
false, the time taken to sort it out would have been reduced by the 
additional people involved in working on it.  Contrast the effort after 
Chu to that after the first paper on ceramic superconductors was given a 
nice secret burial in Zeitschrift. 

I don't know who the "many" are, but those who complained about P&F let 
their emotions rule their experience with how science is done.  Proof of 
this is that PPPL people complained, but did not think more than twice 
before staging the TFTR demonstration. 

If those same people are quoted Wednesday as objecting to the CDF press 
conference tomorrow, I might believe you.  According to knowledgable  
colleagues, they are going out on a long limb supported by optimistic 
background estimates and poor statistics when a fivefold increase in 
the data set will be available within a year. 

>                                   I guess we're forgiving Chu
>for many of the same things that we're condemning P&F for, because
>he happened to be right; but from what you're saying it sounds
>like Chu's announcement wasn't all that appropriate / well done
>either.

It was perfectly appropriate.  Certainly my colleagues here who manage 
to reproduce the result before the paper arrived in the mail thought so. 

>But don't you think there are significant differences between
>the TFTR D-T demonstration and the P&F out-of-the-blue announcement?

No.  P&F also included a tour of their lab showing bubbling cells. 
Still have the tape of that one!  Actually, their demonstration, 
complete with a flashing lightbulb used to maintain a constant 
temperature bath, looked more like it was producing energy than TFTR. 

Both claim advances in energy-production technology.  The biggest 
difference is that P&F claimed to be closer to having a commercial 
product than TFTR did.  Certainly the PPPL process of review etc 
has proceeded in the public eye, as it must since it uses so much 
money from the public coffers, but I can't see how you can complain 
about P&F and not about JET or PPPL or Chu or CDF.  I'll say it 
again: a press conference is of the greatest value when it helps 
inform other persons and labs that there is an interesting new 
result that they might wish to repeat or explain.  The reaction 
of most of the world to the P&F announcement was to dash to their 
labs or their computers, not to complain that it was inappropriate. 
Anything else is just public relations. 

When you quoted my comment about the shuttle, I don't think you 
realized that I consider that sort of publicity to be of a lower 
sort than getting the NYTimes to convey scientific information to 
your colleagues.  What I am looking for is some indication of how 
the TFTR demonstration was morally superior to other scientific 
press conferences, whether it be the Oops-Leon discovery or the 
ozone hole in the Antarctic, because it was technology.  If you 
go too far down the 'bread and circuses' road traveled by NASA, 
you might end up blowing up some citizens while trying to get an 
event to coincide with a State of the Union speech. 

-- 
 James A. Carr   <jac@scri.fsu.edu>     |   "It's never confusing though, 
      http://www.scri.fsu.edu           |  because ultimately it all fits 
 Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst.  |  -- its just cockeyed and fits  
 Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306    |  and is fire."  -  Norman Maclean 
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.25 / Jon Thaler /  Re: News for Press Conference Fans
     
Originally-From: Jon J Thaler <DOCTORJ@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics
Subject: Re: News for Press Conference Fans
Date: Monday, 25 Apr 1994 13:59:18 PST
Organization: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center

In article <Costqn.7GA@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU
(Cameron Randale Bass) says:
>
>     Jon, I'm going to need a ruling on whether 'we have evidence'
>     counts as 'discovery'.  I suppose we should wait til tuesday,
>     but was it 'seen' or not?

I, too have heard that they'll only say "we have evidence..."  I
agree that his might be ambiguous for the purpose of deciding the
bet.  I'll have to wait until the announcement.

Jon
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenDOCTORJ cudfnJon cudlnThaler cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.25 / Matt Kennel /  Re: TFTR D-T = Science by Press Conference?
     
Originally-From: mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: TFTR D-T = Science by Press Conference?
Date: 25 Apr 1994 21:49:44 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

Cameron Randale Bass (crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU) wrote:
: In article <1994Apr21.175023.1661@Princeton.EDU>,
: Robert Franklin Heeter <rfheeter@flagstaff.Princeton.EDU> wrote:
: >
: >It seems to me we have two camps:  one group says that all
: >scientific press conferences are essentially similar, and that you
: >can't criticize anyone else's publicization without being hypocritical.

:       The criticism of P&F was 'science by press conference'.
:       Blanket denunciation, no other adjectives applied.

Meaning that the total scientific content was merely unverified wild
assertions in a press conference, not the existence of a press
conference.

:                                    dale bass

--
-Matt Kennel  		mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu
-Institute for Nonlinear Science, University of California, San Diego
-*** AD: Archive for nonlinear dynamics papers & programs: FTP to
-***     lyapunov.ucsd.edu, username "anonymous".
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenmbk cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.25 / Jim Carr /  Re: Reply to Maglich on TFTR D-T Results
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reply to Maglich on TFTR D-T Results
Date: 25 Apr 1994 17:41:00 -0400
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

In article <1994Apr21.172100.26740@Princeton.EDU> 
rfheeter@flagstaff.Princeton.EDU (Robert Franklin Heeter) writes:
>
>Maglich is also considered a maverick in the field, and hardly anyone
>seriously thinks the Migma will be made to work.

Indeed, there are reasons to think that it would not.  I recall that 
the cyclotron theorists at Michigan State, notably Mort Gordon, worked 
out that it would fail due to beam-beam scattering at small angles 
and space charge effects.  When Maglich was here at FSU trying to 
recruit consultants for his project, he argued that this objection 
had been overcome, but I was not convinced by his argument. 

>And as you yourself pointed out, he has one hell of an axe to grind.

He does, however, grind it with his own money and that of investors 
rather than that of the American taxpayers. 

-- 
 James A. Carr   <jac@scri.fsu.edu>     |   "It's never confusing though, 
      http://www.scri.fsu.edu           |  because ultimately it all fits 
 Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst.  |  -- its just cockeyed and fits  
 Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306    |  and is fire."  -  Norman Maclean 
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.25 / Jim Carr /  Re: News for Press Conference Fans
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.particle,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics
Subject: Re: News for Press Conference Fans
Date: 25 Apr 1994 18:12:38 -0400
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

Notice cross post with followup set to sci.physics.particle where 
this has been discussed a little bit of late.

In article <940424215708.20410290@FNALD.FNAL.GOV> DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:
>
>                                               There is also to be a 170+ page 
>paper to be sent in (according to the Economist), but as near as I can tell, 
>the press conference will be held either as the paper is submitted, or a day 
>later.  In any case it seems long before the paper can be refereed and 
>accepted. 

Especially since 170 pages of draft translates into 40-50 pages in a 
journal.  Now this could be the length of an internal report, but given 
what I have heard about the CDF results, I can't see how they can fit 
it in a Letter.  The W and Z discovery was 10 pages, this appears more 
difficult to explain than that work. 

>Discussions with CDF physicists indicate that most of them want to take a very 
>conservative approach.  "We have evidence for the Top" as opposed to "We have 
>found the Top". 

I have talked to some HEP-cats of the D-zero persuation about the data 
the CDF claim is based on.  From what they say, "evidence for" is as far 
as it goes.  They base this not on new data from the present run, but 
the addition of data from 'dirtier' decay channels than the one that has 
gotten the most publicity, and upon which the D-zero folks based their 
PRL for a lower mass limit of about 130 GeV.  Each group has similar 
data in that 'clean' channel.  CDF adds other channels where their 
claims depend on how well they model the background processes.  So the 
thing to watch for tomorrow when this is on the news and in the Wednesday 
paper is how they deal with the confidence level assigned to the results 
and associated statistical analysis.  That and whether conflicts within 
the group and between CDF and D-zero on interpretation are covered.  

Expect to see their best event as a 'typical' event. 

Another thing to watch for is any mention of the fact that the current 
run should produce five times as much data as the set this claim is 
based on -- thus making experimental tests of this claim close at hand. 

>                                                                   I have 
>received mail from Douglas Morrison which said something like "Wow, that was 
>really a great event" before I even heard about it.  

Yes.  The first event was on our bulletin board, but D-zero has a much 
nicer one.  Very clean and neat.  All tracks far from the 'cuts'. 

>In the case of this paper, any review process is apt to be either a "rubber 
>stamp" or a "joke".  How I ask you, is any set of two or three reviewers going 
>to question a paper that is 170 pages of very complex information that has 
>already been fought over by hundreds of physicists from dozens of physics 
>groups from a number of major universities?  

Simple.  The reviewers will include one of the hundreds of physicists 
who have been poring over similar data from a different detector at 
the same lab, and who have made many simulation runs for background 
rates for the precise kinds of events looked at by CDF.  An equally 
large group of persons unaffiliated with either experiment could read and 
digest that paper in a few days, but might not be able to make runs that 
test the model assumptions.  A lot of people know what to look for, and 
will be approaching it with a different attitude than the authors, no 
matter how hard the authors try to critique their own work. 

>Why is CDF "rushing" this news out?  I cannot detect any competition, as D0 
>seems to be well behind in events.  There is little chance that D0 or any one 
>else (Possibly Ludwig Plutonium) will publish first.  

Not really true.  D-zero has better efficiency but (apparently) some other 
problems that limit what they are looking at right now.  They have similar 
data sets.  Improvements in luminosity will wipe out the early start by 
CDF.  Right now the difference is that CDF has enough confidence in its 
backgrounds to include 'dirty' channels in its analysis, thus getting 
more (but potentially less reliable) data. 

-- 
 James A. Carr   <jac@scri.fsu.edu>     |   "It's never confusing though, 
      http://www.scri.fsu.edu           |  because ultimately it all fits 
 Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst.  |  -- its just cockeyed and fits  
 Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306    |  and is fire."  -  Norman Maclean 
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.26 / Ng Wah /  Software For Reference Management
     
Originally-From: mpengtw@leonis.nus.sg (Ng Tuck Wah)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Software For Reference Management
Date: 26 Apr 1994 00:43:05 GMT
Organization: National University of Singapore

Dear Fellow Researcher,

This message is not intended to be a commercial advertisement. However, if
you have need for a software to handle your reference material and do not
intend to spend too much on it, please read on. For further enquiries,
please e-mail to mpengtw@leonis.nus.sg

Thanx.


David T.W.Ng

========================================================================

PRO - SOFTWARE FOR REFERENCE MANAGEMENT

PRO is a PC-based software designed to handle articles retained for
reference. While other softwares of this nature are in existence, they are
expensive and beyond the budget of many, in particular graduate students. 

This is where PRO comes in. At a "give-away" price of US$20.00, inclusive
of diskette, instruction booklet, and postage, you will enjoy powerful
features like:  

1. easy data entry and retrieval through search & sort functions 
2. ability to output selected references, under defined formatting, into
   text files which can be later merged to articles prepared using any
   wordprocessing software
3. merging of records from another user of PRO
4. automatic search for non-matching records from another user of PRO
5. ability to monitor the whereabouts of loaned articles 

All this done by means of the user-friendly menu layout of PRO. 

Proceeds from the sale of PRO are channeled to the Alumni Office of the
National University of Singapore, which helps to adminster scholarships to
needy students and supports various charitable causes. If you are
persuaded that PRO can be of use to you, please send a check for US$20.00
out to: 

NG TUCK WAH

and mail to:

NG TUCK WAH
DEPARTMENT OF MECHANICAL & PRODUCTION ENGINEERING
NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF SINGAPORE
10 KENT RIDGE CRESCENT
SINGAPORE 0511

If you are not satisfied with the software, please return it within 2 
weeks and your money will be refunded to you.








cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenmpengtw cudfnNg cudlnWah cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.26 / R Schroeppel /  Metastable Nuclei
     
Originally-From: rcs@cs.arizona.edu (Richard Schroeppel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Metastable Nuclei
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 1994 01:36:26 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

The recent reprise of the Red Mercury Flap inspired me to pull the
CRC off the shelf and scan the isotope table.  (My CRC is vintage 1966,
so this information may be incomplete.)

The most interesting thing I learned was that metastable nuclei comprise
a much larger fraction of the isotope table than I was aware of.  I'd
originally (mis)learned there were a few weirdo -m nuclei, kind of "isotopes
of isotopes", and that they were ignorable.  Instead, I find that maybe
10-20% of the table entries are meta.  Typical half-lives are seconds
to minutes, but there is quite a range.  Typical decay is by IT, emitting
a ~100Kev gamma ray; but other decays also happen.  Often the product
nucleus is also unstable, sometimes with a half-life < the -meta form.
There are maybe a half-dozen cases where there are two -meta forms,
of differing lifetimes and decay energies.  The table has no information
about whether m2 decays to m1 or vanilla.  The lightest meta nucleus
is sodium(24?).  They start to come fast & furious in the middle of
the table, slightly preferring odd Z and odd mass.  Most of the long
half-lives are in toward the middle of the table:  41Nb93m has a half-
life of 3.7 years, and decays by IT with a (two?) 29Kev gamma.  Vanilla
41Nb93 is stable.  The longest-lived meta nucleus I found is 83Bi210m,
with a half-life of 2.6 Myear, and decaying with an alpha at 4.9 Mev.
The mercury meta forms all decayed in short times, tending to refute
the RMF.  There was one transuranic (Am?) with a long-lived (> 1 year)
meta form.  Meta-nuclei sometimes have different neutron capture cross-
sections from the corresponding vanilla forms.  I'd like to know a bit
more about metas, so I have some <drum roll>

   QUESTIONS for EXPERTS about METASTABLE NUCLEI:

What's different about a meta form?  Is it spinning or something?
IT = "internal transition", right?  Whazzat?

Is a single gamma ray decay possible?  Are two g required to conserve
E & p?  Are they typically equal & opposite?

What determines which form you get from a nuclear reaction?

Is there any way to make meta forms preferentially?  To convert
vanilla to meta?  Or back?

Do the m2s decay to m1s, or vanillas?

Are there any m3s?

What's the supporting evidence for the decays being a simple
exponential half-life scheme, with one or two states, rather than
something more interesting?

How do you detect a meta form?  Is the extra mass measurable?  Maybe
in a mass spectrometer?  A different magnetic field?  NMR?

Is there any likelihood that these nuclei contain exotic nucleons?

How good is the evidence that there is at most one stable nucleus
for any given number of neutrons and protons?

Do any meta-nuclei occur in nature?  Presumably in the U or Th decay
chains?

Could I make a gamma-ray laser from the Niobium93 meta-form?
I'd need for Nb93m to be encouraged to decay by passing 29Kev photons,
and a way to boost vanilla Nb to the meta state (side irradiation by
30Kev gammas?).  Also a gamma ray mirror.  Does that trick they used
for the xray astronomy satellite (glancing reflections of a few
millidegrees off a crystal surface) also work for gammas?

Rich Schroeppel   rcs@cs.arizona.edu

cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenrcs cudfnRichard cudlnSchroeppel cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.25 / Robert Heeter /  Re: Overblown comparisons between TFTR and cold fusion
     
Originally-From: rfheeter@theory.pppl.gov (Robert F. Heeter)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Overblown comparisons between TFTR and cold fusion
Date: 25 Apr 1994 21:14:54 -0400
Organization: /etc/organization

In article <940424090405_74242.1554_BHR25-1@CompuServe.COM>,
John M. Logajan <74242.1554@compuserve.com> wrote:
>gk00@quads.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg) writes:
>>...it allows a bitter outcast like Maglich...
>
>Anybody who doesn't worship at the alter of Tokamak is an "outcast" and
>malcontent, apparently.
>
>I think you and Heeter should avoid further defamatory statements (on
>principle alone) about Maglich unless you have some substantive evidence
>of character flaw -- other than that he is not enamored toward Tokamak.

I guess it depends on your definition of character flaw.
I think making false accusations against a national lab in front
of Congress, without first checking one's facts with the lab,
is a substantial character flaw.  I'll stand by that claim, too;
I think it's pretty well supported by the evidence at hand.
(Read the official PPPL response to Maglich if you disagree,
and then tell me why I'm wrong.)


***************************
Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Graduate Student, Princeton Plasma Physics Lab
Disclaimers Apply - I don't represent PPPL.  Sue me, and me alone!


cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.25 / Robert Heeter /  Re: Congress axing hot fusion?
     
Originally-From: rfheeter@theory.pppl.gov (Robert F. Heeter)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Congress axing hot fusion?
Date: 25 Apr 1994 21:18:08 -0400
Organization: /etc/organization

In article <Coqquz.Bpo@cpsc.ucalgary.ca>,
Michael Fullerton <michaelf@cpsc.ucalgary.ca> wrote:
>
>I have heard that congress is thinking about cutting funding for
>hot fusion.  Is there any support for this great sounding news?

It's not news.  Congress has been thinking about cutting funding
for hot fusion for the last 10 years.  Often they even do it, too.
The hot fusion budget is down about 50% from where it was in the
early 1980s.  We'll just have to see what happens this time, except 
for those of us in a position to affect the outcome.

*************
Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@theory.pppl.gov
Graduate Student, Princeton Plasma Physics Lab
Disclaimers Apply

cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.25 / Robert Heeter /  Re: (Long) Forwarded Official PPPL Response to Maglich
     
Originally-From: rfheeter@theory.pppl.gov (Robert F. Heeter)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: (Long) Forwarded Official PPPL Response to Maglich
Date: 25 Apr 1994 21:23:25 -0400
Organization: /etc/organization

In article <CopxCx.D0K@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>,
Cameron Randale Bass <crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU> wrote:
>In article <1994Apr21.181407.6789@princeton.edu>,
>Robert F. Heeter  <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> wrote:
>>
>><<<
>>	When "cold fusion" was announced in 1989, the Princeton Tokamak 
>>Lab scientists and directors described a press release before 
>>publication in a scientific journal as "conduct of third-rate 
>>scientists of a third-rate institution" [we need the exact quote 
>>from the newspapers and magazines of the period].
>>>>>
>>
>>This statement is false.  Concerning the "cold fusion" events in 1989, 
>>PPPL's public response, including testimony before Congress, was fairly 
>>noncommittal rather than confrontational.  PPPL did not attack 
>>institutions or individuals.  We believed then, as we do now, that the 
>>scientific process including peer review and open scientific discussion 
>>should be used to evaluate the validity and significance of new results.
>
>      So, the official position is that they *didn't* criticize
>      P&F at all?

I guess individual scientists may have, but the Lab didn't accuse
people of being third-rate scientists or anything.  My interpretation
of the above is that the lab may still be critical of P&F for not
properly utilizing the scientific process, whatever that may mean.

I'm wondering whether the whole "science by press conference" argument
was really an overblown attack by anti-tokamakers who took the words
of some PPPL researchers and made the logical leap to claim that PPPL
as an institution attacked P&F.

Are there any history experts out there?  Jim Carr?

Is this worth continuing to argue about?

************************
Robert F. Heeter
Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University
I really, honestly, and truly don't represent PPPL.
But I've met people who do!
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.25 / Robert Heeter /  Re: (Long) Forwarded Official PPPL Response to Maglich
     
Originally-From: rfheeter@theory.pppl.gov (Robert F. Heeter)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: (Long) Forwarded Official PPPL Response to Maglich
Date: 25 Apr 1994 21:39:49 -0400
Organization: /etc/organization

In article <CosAIt.9zn@prometheus.UUCP>,
Paul M. Koloc <pmk@promethe.UUCP> wrote:
>In article <CopxCx.D0K@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> crb7q@watt.seas.Virgin
a.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>>In article <1994Apr21.181407.6789@princeton.edu>,
>>Robert F. Heeter  <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> wrote:
>>>    ..   .  .  Concerning the "cold fusion" events in 1989, 
>>>PPPL's public response, including testimony before Congress, was fairly 
>>>noncommittal rather than confrontational.  PPPL did not attack 
>>>institutions or individuals.  We believed then, as we do now, that the 
>>>scientific process including peer review and open scientific discussion 
>>>should be used to evaluate the validity and significance of new results.
>
>But that wasn't the issue, it was funding and peer reviews by "interested"
>parties won't cut it.  That wasn't the point of the Princeton attack.
>Their (Harold P. Furth)  that P&F (UUt) should receive "NOT a single dime"
>of funding, and that there was absolutely NO Evidence that excess heat
>was produced. 

Paul, do you have a reference for this alleged remark by Furth, and
do you also have a reference that indicates that he was officially
representing PPPL at the time, and not giving his private opinions?

>Utah was asking for 25M$ for several years while the DoE 
>mag program was at about 2.5 billion for the same period of time.  

2.5 billion In 1989???  No way.  The DoE magnetic fusion program 
was about $350 million in 1989 (in 1989 dollars); was Utah actually 
asking for $25 million for 7 years?  

Please give some references for your numbers.  I have a PPPL
document giving the magnetic fusion budget history since about 1975.

>Now the author of the above PPPL defense may claim that P&F or the 
>UUt was not attacked, but the previous testimony of same was certainly
>vastly countradicted by Furth's statement, which I believe impuned the
>reputation of the University, P&F notwithstanding.  

Again, which statement are you referring to, and was Furth representing
PPPL?  Some of us were still in high school when all this was going
on, and could use some more information, since this appears to
be crucial history.


***************
Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Graduate Student, Princeton Plasma Physics Lab
I don't represent PPPL...


cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.26 / Anthony Kimball /  Re: Nonsense about red mercur
     
Originally-From: alk@et.msc.edu (Anthony L. Kimball)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Nonsense about red mercur
Subject: Red Mercury 20/20 (Dim. in element %)
Date: 26 Apr 1994 01:38:09 GMT
Organization: 

: RAB>Next is the question as to what this stuff with its magical
: RAB>properties is supposed to do.  I can believe it is some kind
: RAB>of high energy explosive because that is chemistry about
: RAB>I know next to nothing.  However, as a nuclear explosive it
: RAB>does not sound like a winner, and besides all the magic
: RAB>incantations that have given it strange chemical properties
: RAB>would not be expected to do much to make it go boom in a
: RAB>serious nuclear way.  I think I read "hoax" written all
: RAB>over this one.

:     Probably true.  Probably...

Sam Cohen says otherwise?  Anybody got any cute ideas for
accellerating high-Z nueclei in the kitchen?

LONDON (AP) -- Russia has produced a miniature nuclear bomb using
the mystery substance red mercury, according to a British
television documentary broadcast Wednesday.

Yevgeny Korolev, a former Soviet nuclear physicist, and other
unnamed nuclear experts are quoted as saying the bomb exists -- and
several said the technology is being sold to non-nuclear states.

"It's certainly something that governments should take
seriously," American nuclear weapons designer Theodore B. Taylor
said in the documentary for Channel 4's "Dispatches" series.

Sam Cohen, the American inventor of the neutron bomb, said
research for the documentary confirms his own view that Russians
have used red mercury to create a tiny neutron bomb which would
produce massive radiation in a limited area that would kill living
things but leave buildings intact.

This new bomb, which could weigh less than 5 pounds (2.3 kgs)
and be hidden in a paper bag, would have "tremendously
terrifying" consequences in the hands of terrorists, he told a
news conference after a screening on Tuesday.

Since 1991, black marketeers have been peddling substances they
call red mercury and describe as a secret ingredient of Soviet
nuclear bombs. Samples which have turned up in Europe have proved
to be bogus and the key international agency monitoring the spread
of nuclear weapons remains skeptical.

"We know of no substance which is of weapons interest that is
described as red mercury," said David Kyd, spokesman for the
Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency.

"The Russians have said this is nonsense. The U.S. Department
of Energy has said this is nonsense. And we haven't seen anything
in Vienna that would make us think otherwise," he said in a
telephone interview on Tuesday.

"All of the chemical compositions for red mercury which we have
seen are spurious and are simply designed to make a quick profit
for the operators offering it for sale," Kyd said.

But Taylor, Cohen and British nuclear physicist Frank Barnaby,
who reviewed the program's findings, said the Russians may have
made a major advance in nuclear weaponry.

Cohen said he is convinced the Russians have produced a neutron
bomb using fusion technology for the first time.

In the 50-year-old nuclear era, all bombs have relied on either
fission or a combination of fission and fusion, which release
radioactive debris over a large area. The neutron bomb was the
first attempt to produce a smaller nuclear weapon for the
battlefield with less radioactive debris.

"A pure fusion bomb, if possible, would be a so-called made a major
advance in nuclear weaponry.

Cohen said he is convinced the Russians have produced a neutron
bomb using fusion technology for the first time.

In the 50-year-old nuclear era, all bombs have relied on either
fission or a combination of fission and fusion, which release
radioactive debris over a large area. The neutron bomb was the
first attempt to produce a smaller nuclear weapon for the
battlefield with less radioactive debris.

"A pure fusion bomb, if possible, would be a so-called `clean
bomb' without the nasty radioactive isotopes which are released
from current nuclear bombs," said Patricia Lewis, director of the
Verification Technology Information Center. She said she needed
much more information to be convinced such a weapon exists.

Exactly what red mercury is and does -- if it exists at all -- is
still shrouded in mystery.

Two years ago, Yevgeny Mikerin, a top official in Russia's
Atomic Energy Ministry, told The Associated Press that red mercury
was the compound mercury antimony oxide. He described it as an
exotic radioactive material used in microelectronics.

The "Dispatches" program showed pictures of bottles and vials
purportedly containing red mercury but it did not obtain any
samples which could be independently analyzed. Director Gwynne
Roberts said he believes he could have obtained a sample, but it
would cost about dlrs 250,000 per kilogram (2.2 pounds).

"I would think that 98 percent of the cases ... that we've
found out about, involve fraud, and on a fairly big scale. However
.. I think our investigation shows there is something which is not
fraud, which is genuine," Roberts said.

According to an unnamed former Soviet nuclear chemist, there are
three types of red mercury -- a toxic powder, a radioactive liquid
formed when the powder is irradiated, and a highly radioactive form
called RM20/20 created when rare isotopes called transuranic
actinides are added to the radioactive liquid in a nuclear
accelerator.

An unidentified nuclear physicist, who reportedly spent five
years working to produce RM 20/20 at a secret military plant, was
quoted as saying its explosive properties were hundreds of times
bigger than explosives now used to trigger nuclear explosions.

Korolev, now a local politician in Ekaterinburg, 1,000 miles
(1,600 kms) east of Moscow, said the technology was complex and
dangerous "because it enables you to create micro nuclear
charges."

"This means it can be used for nuclear terrorism," he said.

But Barnaby said red mercury poses a more immediate threat to
nuclear proliferation because it also can be used in conventional
fission bombs.

He said red mercury reduces the amount of plutonium needed for a
nuclear explosion, and "would enable countries with limited
amounts of plutonium ... to make more nuclear weapons."

Robert Schell, head of Schell International Security in
Meckenheim, Germany which has tried to buy RM 20/20, said it is
supposed to be present in SS-20 missile warheads and is talked
about "in whispers in connection with neutron weapons." He said
the substance is traded freely in Germany.

"I informed the German authorities, but there's been no
reaction," he said. "Everyone thinks it's a figment of my
imagination, an invention or disinformation from some Russian
intelligence service or other."

-------------end of AP quote------------

The channel ARD in Germany had shown a program on "Red Mercury RM 20/20"
(04/15/1994 "ARD-exclusiv") and also the following 2 sheets of paper are
demonstrated (rewritten from the videotape):

SPECIFICATIONS  RED MERCURY RM 20/20

Product           Hg 2 Sb 2 O 7
Mol.weight        756.68
Form:             metal liquid
Colour:           cherry red
Density:          13.5/20 g/ml
MT                -37.5 C
HT                356.66 C


Element analysis:
Hg  53.018% ;  Sb  32.18% ;  O  14.80% ;  H2|
                        (end of picture)--->|
Summary   99.99%  Hg 2 Sb 2 O 7


Spectral analysis:
Zn  10-6 ; Fe  10-6 ; Pb  10-7 ; Mg  10-6 ;
Sn  10-7 ; Ag  10-5 ; Ca  10-7 ; Al  10-6 ;

COMPLETE CHEMICAL ANALYSIS

Product                 Red Mercury RM 20/20
Formula                 Sb 2 O 7 Hg 2  (mol.w.tot. 756.61 g/mol.)
                        with natural isotopic distribution
Mol.Weight              196.0127 +/- 0.02 g/mol
Density                 20.20
Purity                  99.99% proof
Colour                  Cherry Red
Form                    Liquid, at pp=1.01325 bar
Melting Point           -37.07 C
Flash Point             170.026 C
Boiling Point           350.72 C
Temp.Isotop.(T.P.H.O.)  160.07 C
Radio Element Natur     SF 6 SIC approx. No 0794
Gamma FS                0.440
Reaction K              0.00016
Reaction P              9.000
Reaction ..sol. Temp.   0.062
Reaction V... Temp.     1.024
Reaction VDSA           0.30 - 0.29
Reaction RFN            0.794
Handling                The substance is radioactive
Customer Tarif No       2805 (40100)
Packing                 in Mercury Bottles .. per international
                        standard .............................


SPECTRAL ANALYSIS

Subject: Red Mercury 20/20 (Dim. in element %)
Cr: 1x10-6      Cu: 1x10-6
Ni: 1x10-6      Pb: 3x10-6
Ag: 1x10-7      Mg: 1x10-6
Sn: 1x10-7      Co: 2x10-6
Al: 1x10-6


ISOTOPIC STRUCTURE:  NATURAL  1 kg
O   16  99.76%       Hg 199  16.80%
O   17  0.037%       Hg 200  23.10%
O   18  0.20%        Hg 201  13.22%
Hg 196  0.18%        Hg 202  29.80%
Hg 198  10.20%       Hg 204  6.80%

R. SCHELL
Sicherheitstechnik OHG
Bergerwiesenstr. 9
5309 Meckenheim-Bonn
Tel.: 02225/17011-16; FAX 17017
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenalk cudfnAnthony cudlnKimball cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Tue Apr 26 04:37:04 EDT 1994
------------------------------
1994.04.26 / Mark North /  Re: "Cold Fusion" Magazine Accelerating
     
Originally-From: north@watop.nosc.mil (Mark North)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: "Cold Fusion" Magazine Accelerating
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 1994 01:07:04 GMT
Organization: NCCOSC RDT&E Division, San Diego, CA

76570.2270@compuserve.com (Eugene Mallove) writes:

>Dear Fusion People (cold and hot):

>        The good news is that the Premier issue (May, 1994) of "Cold Fusion" 
>Magazine has been out now for a few weeks on the magazine racks at better book
>stores like Barnes & Noble and Crown Books. 

Better book stores? The last time I went into Crown Books and asked them
to order me a book they laughed in my face. They don't even have a copy
of 'Books in Print' on the premises, or so they told me. No, they're
the kind of store for people who think they *should* read books.
But I like the phrase '*better* book stores'. It has a nice ring to it.
Did you coin that yourself?

>You may find the magazine at B. 
>Daltons and at other magazine outlets too. In the beginning, however, the 
>magazine will obviously not be everywhere you might wish to find it. As 
>distribution improves, we expect you will see the magazine in more and more 
>places. 

Yes, if you count the bottom of cat pans for all the unsold copies.

>Our first press run was a modest 10,000 copies. For those who have not
>seen the magazine,the Premier has Dr. Edmund Storms (formerly of LANL) on the 
>cover. It is a 100-page issue, glossy paper, with four-color composition.

Did you know that that glossy paper is radioactive. Really -- it's
chock full of thorium, radium and K40. Maybe if you stuffed it, I mean
stuffed it into your P$F cells it would enhance the fusion. (Ref:
Nature, 1992 -- paraphrase, 'You get as much dose in a library as you
would in a brick factory'!)

>        The big news is that a very broad cross-section of society is 
>responding very favorably to "Cold Fusion" Magazine. We are getting 
>subscriptions not only from technically oriented people -- engineers, 
>physicisist, 

I have a lot of trouble with that word too -- and I are one, duh. 

>and chemists (and a goodly number of biologists!) 

Biologists. Those would be the one's who think carrots turn calcium
into potassium by transmutation. (I don't know, someone help me out
here).

>-- but also 
>from people interested in alternative energy, 

Ah... lesee, crystal wavers? Power of pyramids, perhaps. That type of
folk? Surely you don't mean hydrogen economy people -- they have their
collective heads screwed on straight. 

>the environment, 

Careful here, once those greenies figure out you're talking nucular
you're in big trouble. But since there's nothing nuclear involved I
guess they'll go for it. 

>education, 

Gag me! *Just* what we need. Education majors breathlessly telling
our children of the wonders to come instead of teaching them how to
think critically.

>and 
>investing. 

BINGO! I smell a HUGE rat. And a dead one at that.

>We have subscriptions now from people in 43 states and 11 
>countries! 

Oh, please, please tell me the names of the seven states that are
entirely made up of critical thinkers.

>Several high-profile people in the media have personally purchased 
>subscriptions. 

Ah, lesee, that would be those guys and gals who do A Current Affair?
Or maybe Hard Copy? Or Weekly World News? Please be more specific. 

>Recently we sent test mass-mailings to selected mailing lists 
>of scientific and engineering magazines. Predictably, the slope of the ramping
>stream of subscriptions took a nice upward climb.

Most of those mags offer free subs for many months. You wouldn't be doing
that would you?

>        The June issue of "Cold Fusion" has gone through the editorial loop 
>and we are already working on the July issue, plus working to ensure a 
>continued stream of excellent material for subsequent issues. We are already 
>receiving a stream of unsolicited contributions,  both technical in character 
>and of an editorial "op ed" nature. As Editor, I welcome new writers who may 
>have something to contribute. 

What is your editorial policy on what will be printed and what will not?

>Please contact me via e-mail, by snail mail, or 
>by phone at Wayne Green, Inc. (1-800-677-8838); Fax: 603-924-8613. The 
>magazine would also like to receive New Product releases from companies that 
>have equipment that *might* be applicable to cold fusion science and 
>development. Take a look at some of the ads in the Premier to get ideas.

Nice disclaimer there (*might*). Wouldn't want to get in trouble with 
your mainstream, (and as I understand it) decent and reputable publisher.

>Some possibilities for contributions:

>* Feature Articles (3,000 - 10,000 words) -- science, technology,
>     projections of technical and social change

Allright. In here will you publish Steve Jones, Dale Bass and
Dr. Kuperberg (sorry if I got your name wrong).

>* Briefs (1,000 words or less)

Dick Blue along with JR, MS and assorted others?

>* Experimenter's Corner contributions -- length, immaterial

Tom Droege, Steve Jones along with assorted others including JR and Ms?

>* Technical Notes (experimental work, theoretical ideas)

Dick Blue, Tom Droege, Steve Jones...

>* Guest Commentary (1,000 - 2,000 words)

Dale Bass, myself, along with JR, MS, yourself, Huizinga, Storms, 
Morrison, etc. Are you really proposing this democracy of ideas?

>* Tutorial Material -- e.g. Basics of electrochemistry

This part you should be sure to send to P$F as it comes in.

>        We would also appreciate receiving news clips relating to cold fusion 
>and the steamy politics of hot fusion. There is a department in the magazine 
>called "Media Watch," in which we comment on these stories. For example, I 
>just heard that GM Saturn has a TV ad that mentions hypothetical cold fusion 
>cars! Does anybody have the text of that ad? The Simpsons TV cartoon recently 
>had a brief flash about cold fusion. Homer was at an alternate energy exhibit;
>the first booth shown was designated "cold fusion"! Anyone have a tape of that
>show?

Well, anybody with a clue knows anything in the same scene with Homer
is meant as a joke. So don't get too excited.

>        Now that it is absolutely clear that the "cold fusion" excess energy 
>phenomenon is real and revolutionary 

This is a baldfaced lie. In fact, this outrageous statement is what
prompted me to even respond to this almost totally ludricrous post.

>(yet the physical explanation is still 
>highly contested), 

This stands as the most hilarious understatement of the year.

>we would like to receive brief contributions at this late 
>hour from so-called "skeptics." Come on, make our day! 

Oh, now they must be brief. Above you were waxing on about how you
were looking for all kinds of objective input.

>What we would like from
>you are say 250-300 word summaries of your purple anti-cold fusion prose. 

If you had even the semblence of a brain stem you would realise that no
one here is anti-cold fusion. We're anti-pseudo-science. I know I can
speak for all those you have singled out for your wrath that they would
be delighted if so-called Cold Fusion were a reality. And I would gladly
eat my words if this were to be a reality. (I'll bet even Robert Heeter,
a known member of the opposition, as you see it, would be delighted).

>I 
>could hunt down your gems on this forum and publish them, but I'd prefer to 
>recieve your distilled masterpieces. 

This is a public forum. Hunt down all you want. As for me, consider this
post my 'distilled masterpiece', whatever that means. You may publish it
in your rag so long as you publish it *exactly* as it appears here. I.e.,
with your text as well. Of course, you may do whatever you wish, but
so may I.

>I would also *insist* on receiving your 
>fine photo mug-shots (no hand gestures please!) in black and white or in 
>color, suitable for printing in "Cold Fusion" magazine.

So, you do have a sense of humour.   !
                                   o^^^^
Take that. It's a hand gesture in ASCII, I just invented it. You're the
first to receive one. Consider yourself on the cutting edge. (That little
o is my thumb and the up arrows (^) are my knuckles and the bang is my..
well you know, finger).

>If we get enough 
>response, we might consider publishing an Internet "skeptics' gallery." You 
>guys have staked out a hard line anti-cold fusion position; now put your money
>where your mouth is and let's introduce you to the world.  Let's have the 
>words of, Bass, Blue, Kuperberg, North, et al inscribed in a widely-circulated
>magazine. 

I have never seen, on this forum, or anywhere else for that matter, a
'hard line anti-cold fusion position' by anyone. I *have* seen *hard*
questions asked which do get answered but only with answers one would
expect from a used car dealer.

>Our readers would like to know about the depths of your antipathy 
>toward this field. Give us a couple of bio lines too.

If you think there is an antipithy 'toward this field' it's a delusion
on your part. The antipithy is against pseudo-science. 

>        Yes, Steve Jones, we'll take your brief contribution too. But you have
>such a monumental track record that some day we're also going to have to do a 
>feature length article on your pronouncements, starting with Columbia 
>University, 1989. 

So, Prof. Jomes' comments must be brief. Not the ten thousand word
opi that you're offering to the world at large. Hmm. Your world, anyway.

>        Yes, and Doug Morrison of CERN, who is obviously lurking out there, 
>we'd like to consider publishing your priceless Sept 5, 1993 "Summary of Cold 
>Fusion Reveiw" -- the eleven-point summary. Please send us a mug-shot too, if 
>you want that article published.

What is your fixation on pictures of the participants? The only person
I know who uses that tactic is Rush Limbaugh. If you have no other 
argument, point out that they are short or ugly or that they have
ugly kids, or *anything*. Just so long as we don't have to discuss
the issue, whatever it may be.

>        Final query: Does anyone have information regarding the Taubes no-show
>at the APS awards ceremony last week? Taubes was reported to have been in 
>France, so wasn't there to accept his APS award.

No, I don't.

>        Before signing off, I can't fail to mention the irony of the MIT 
>Technology Review cover story article on cold fusion "Cold Fusion Heats Up," 
>penned by Dr. Edmund Storms. It's in the May/June issue. Quite colorful, quite
>good. That should create a nice storm at the MIT PFC and in the Physics Dept.!
>Oh, to have been a fly on the wall of the Provost's Office when Technology 
>Review arrived! Couldn't be better timing, now that Congress is getting ready 
>to take the ax to hot fusion.  Hey "skeptics," let's face it, you're 
>surrounded!

Well, it's not my tar baby. I have no opinion on 'hot fusion'. That's
entirely beside the point. Others do. You and your ilk are master
obfuscators -- drag in an issue that doesn't pertain. Yeah, that's
the ticket. Why do you do that? I think I know why.

Mark


>Best to you all, Gene Mallove, Editor
>      

cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudennorth cudfnMark cudlnNorth cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.25 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Disproving a theory
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Disproving a theory
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 1994 22:43:38 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1994Apr25.143419.22254@oxvaxd>,
Peter Roessingh <roes@vax.oxford.ac.uk> wrote:
>Dale Bass wrote (in response to my short detour into the phylosophy
>of science):
>
>  > I don't think it's that deep.  It seems to me the emphasis
>  > is on burden of proof and that alone.
>
>You are bringing the discussion back to the the burden of proof.
>I think our disagreement is based on the fact that you view that
>as the core issue, while I don't.

     This is the essential philosophical difference to which I alluded earlier.

>The thread started with my assertion that the Chubb theory was
>being flamed without proper arguments.
>
>As far as I understand your position, you seem to say (at least
>implicit) that such flaming is acceptable, and you use Bass's law
>and the lack of compelling evidence for the theory as
>justification.

     After a decade around Usenet more often than not 'flaming' 
     is synonomous with 'an argument I don't happen to agree with'.
     So, yes, arguments without high standards of rigour are 
     perfectly acceptable in defense of the ordinary.  

>I have been trying to make the point that it is not acceptable,
>even if bass's law is accepted and the burden of proof is
>perceived as laying with the proponents of the theory.

     Depends on what you mean by 'flaming'.  If they called into
     question the Chubbs' parentage, that's a flame.  If they were
     talking about the Chubb 'theory' in general but directed terms,
     that's perfectly acceptable.

                         dale bass



cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.25 / Cameron Bass /  Re: News for Press Conference Fans
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics
Subject: Re: News for Press Conference Fans
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 1994 22:46:49 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <2phj4a$gfq@tamuts.tamu.edu>,
David Wayne Ring <dwr2560@tamuts.tamu.edu> wrote:
>Cameron Randale Bass <crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU> wrote:
>>     Jon, I'm going to need a ruling on whether 'we have evidence'
>>     counts as 'discovery'.  I suppose we should wait til tuesday, 
>>     but was it 'seen' or not?
>
>If they meant 'discovery', they would have said 'discovery'. I understand
>there was a great deal of haggling over the exact wording of the announcement.

    So I generally gathered from the Economist article, but
    of much more importance than the detailed wording, is how does
    the announcement affect the *bet*.

    After all, we must worry about the important things first...

                        dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.25 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Thanks to Robert Heeter, Bill Page,...Morrison Comments
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Thanks to Robert Heeter, Bill Page,...Morrison Comments
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 1994 23:13:05 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <chubb.1.767285821@imsy1.nrl.navy.mil>,
Scott Robinson Chubb <chubb@imsy1.nrl.navy.mil> wrote:
>
>>        In nuclear physics, an interaction happens in less than 10 E-20 seconds
>>and this gives the radius over which the information of the interaction can >take
>place (by multiplying by the velocity of light). 
>
>And I have no problem with this statement.  It is certainly correct. 
>>Now the spacing of the >lattice is a few Angstroms. So only one Palladium ion can
>>be involved in that time.
> 
>This statement, which is correct in most cases, does not apply if it is not
>possible to identify where the nucleus is located.  This is what happens when the
>center of mass motion of each nucleus is described by an ion band state.  In this
>case, it can become possible for only a small fraction of a nucleus <on the
>average> to be identified with  a specific location.  The point is that once this
>happens, the solid as a whole participates in the relevant quantum mechanical
>problem and "nuclear" physics, and it can become possible that  the associated
>time scale of an isolated nuclear effect   need not be relevant.  

     This seems to present quite a problem with the empirical results of 
     banging alphas into deuterated foils.  At your transition to 'ion band 
     state' (assuming this is some 'nuclear' band state), the foil starts to 
     look like lumpy gravy to the alphas instead of the small hard nucleii
     it has always looked like before.

     So, how does one reconcile the fact that one *can* identify where
     the nucleus is (to a location with less uncertainty that the
     lattice size itself, otherwise neutron and alpha studies wouldn't work) 
     with your obvious requirement that the nucleus be smeared over 
     myriad *thousands* of lattice sites? 

     And if the deuterion *is* smeared across myriad lattice sites,
     what, pray tell, is the binding energy?  What energy do we get out
     of a smeared deuterion smearing into a smeared deuterion to produce
     (presumably) a smeared helium?  And what energy do we get out
     when we put the smeared helium back together again in a 'particle
     state'?
 
                                dale bass

cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.26 / M Freericks /  Evolution Proves: Cold Fusion not Possible!
     
Originally-From: mfx@cs.tu-berlin.de (Markus Freericks)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Evolution Proves: Cold Fusion not Possible!
Date: 26 Apr 1994 08:51:15 GMT
Organization: TU Berlin Fachbereich Informatik

Just a thought: (all the worst posts start with these words ;-)

If so-called "cold fusion" were a practical possibility, it would be well
withing the reign of organic systems. From a pure probabilistic standpoint,
one could then expect that _some_ organism would utilize this effect.

Presuming that there are no unknown energy-generating mechanisms in cell
biology which can only be explaied by CF, one can draw the
counter-conclusion that CF is not possible.

Markus


-- 
Markus Freericks         mfx@cs.tu-berlin.de        +49-30-314-21390
TU Berlin Sekr. FR 2-2, Franklinstr. 28/29, D-10587 Berlin (Germany)
		"Inertia makes the world go 'round."

cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenmfx cudfnMarkus cudlnFreericks cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.25 / Robert Heeter /  Re: Heeter's reply to Bass
     
Originally-From: rfheeter@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Robert Franklin Heeter)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Heeter's reply to Bass
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 1994 04:30:11 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

In article <Coo416.5yM@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> crb7q@watt.seas.Virgini
.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>In article <9404210443.AA22433@suntan.Tandem.com>,
>Tim Janke <tim_janke@internet.uscs.com> wrote:
>>Robert F. Heeter wrote:
>
>>: I believe the scientists in the field have an obligation to [...] 
>>: try to help the taxpayers
>>: understand just what their taxes are paying for.
>>
>>On the nose!  Keep it up, Robert.
>
>     If they understood, I suspect they'd stop funding.  You should
>     have heard the nonscientific opinion on the SSC by the time
>     they figured out what it was about.
>
>     'What do you mean, "Power in 50 years"?'
>
I dunno, Dale.  Being a student, I have plenty of opportunities to
talk with non-fusioneers and non-scientists, and generally speaking
(a) people feel energy research is worthwhile, (b) people think
fusion, if it could be made to work, would be a pretty good energy
source, and (c) since we don't expect to run out of other energy
sources in the next 50 years, the long timeframe doesn't seem to
be a problem either.

Granted, I have my own biases, but I try to be as factual as possible
when I'm explaining fusion to people who haven't seen it before.
I think fusion researchers can be a lot more successful in explaining
the value of the research to the public than the SSC workers were.

************************************
Robert F. Heeter
rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Graduate Student, Princeton Plasma Physics Lab
I do not represent PPPL, nor am I representative of PPPL researchers.

cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.26 / Imre Mikoss /  Small H-bombs
     
Originally-From: mikoss@ford.th.physik.uni-frankfurt.de (Imre Mikoss)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Small H-bombs
Date: 26 Apr 1994 11:05:15 GMT
Organization: University Frankfurt/M

	Ffm, 26,4,94

	I have read all the mailed stuffs over the "Red-mercury" story and
over the Sonoluminisense and I have a idea: In the letters over the Red-mercury
several persons wroten that the energy in chemical explosions are not enough
to ignite a nuclear explosion. That is not right, you need power ( energy densi-
ty in time or/and space ) not energy in order to ignite a fusion explosion.
The sonoluminisense permits a increment of 10^11 in power. What's about a core
of spherical liquid deuterium or tritium covered by a spherical shell of liquid 
mercury and a outer shell of chemical explosives? The explosion should be 
perfectly spheric in order to keep the mercury in place and to produce a implosive
wave. The periode of the implosive pulse/wave is sure of the order of a Ultrasonic
wave, then the power amplification should be produced in frontier betwenn the
mercory and the deuterium. After that the nuclear reaction begint in the outer 
layers of the deuterium core, the explosion goes alone because this behaves
later how a normal fusion bomb. Sorry for my bad english.
 		
						Aufwiedersehen
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenmikoss cudfnImre cudlnMikoss cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.26 / Nick Maclaren /  Re: Evolution Proves: Cold Fusion not Possible!
     
Originally-From: nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk (Nick Maclaren)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Evolution Proves: Cold Fusion not Possible!
Date: 26 Apr 1994 11:56:15 GMT
Organization: U of Cambridge, England

In article <2pih5l$3mi@news.cs.tu-berlin.de>, mfx@cs.tu-berlin.de
(Markus Freericks) writes:
|> 
|> If so-called "cold fusion" were a practical possibility, it would be well
|> withing the reign of organic systems. From a pure probabilistic standpoint,
|> one could then expect that _some_ organism would utilize this effect.
|> 
|> Presuming that there are no unknown energy-generating mechanisms in cell
|> biology which can only be explaied by CF, one can draw the
|> counter-conclusion that CF is not possible.

By the same argument, nor are transistors.  Hence we are both imagining this
thread (and, indeed, this newsgroup).

Nick Maclaren
University of Cambridge Computer Laboratory,
New Museums Site, Pembroke Street,
Cambridge CB2 3QG, England.
Email:  nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk
Tel.:   +44 223 334761
Fax:    +44 223 334679
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudennmm1 cudfnNick cudlnMaclaren cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.26 / L Plutonium /  Mr.Leon Lederman visits Dartmouth
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics,sci.math,sci.chem,sci.
io,alt.religion.kibology,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Mr.Leon Lederman visits Dartmouth
Date: 26 Apr 1994 11:52:20 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

Friday, April 22, 1994 The Dartmouth on page 1 had a picture of Leon
Lederman with the caption stating "Montgomery Fellow Leon Lederman gave
a humorous speech about the roots of physics yesterday in Dartmouth
Hall."

Along with the news-story in The Dartmouth titled "Lederman speech
brings light to physics" and continues as quoted--- 
  "Montgomery Fellow Leon Lederman brought his humorous and
lighthearted discussion of physics to Dartmouth Hall yesterday,
captivating the standing-room-only crowd during his afternoon speech.
    Lederman, a Nobel Prize-winning physicist from Columbia University
and the University of Chicago, presented theoretical physics theories
using anecdotes, metaphors and jokes.  
    The speech was about the search to understand the universe's basic
elements.
     "The history of physics and general science,"Lederman said,"is a
road that started in ancient Rome and has continued along to the recent
discoveries of sub-atomic particles such as quarks and neutrinos."
     Lederman constructed a picture of the universe's building blocks,
interjecting humor and stories to help illustrate the information. His
colorful visual aids, including his own drawings, are a trademark of
his lecturing style and a popular part of his book, "The God Particle."
     Lederman described what he called the often frustrating and
somewhat "miraculous" search for scientific knowledge with a metaphor
that drew laughter from the crowd.
     "A farmer leads a pig to eat, the pig searches around for the
truffles and just as the pig is about to eat the truffles the farmer
snatches the truffles away from the pig," Lederman said.
     During a question-and-answer session following the speech, .
.[continued.]
     Ludwig Plutonium, a local resident who believes the universe
revolves around a plutonium atom, briefly presented his "Plutonium Atom
Totality Theorem" to Lederman during the question-and-answer session.
"That's out of my field of knowledge," Lederman said in response to
Plutonium."

 One error (superdetermined error, see below) by the writer of this
news-story---it was ancient Greece vice ancient Rome. And although it
appears like an error to call the Plutonium Atom Totality a theorem. It
was superdetermined for this "The D" story to call it a "Theorem". In
the future the pinnacle of science, knowledge, wisdom  is QM with math
unified to QM and a subset of QM. The facts of QM will be theorems of
math. The two greatest theorems of math will be the ATOMIC FACT of QM,
and (as the writer of the story in "The D" stated) the PLUTONIUM ATOM
TOTALITY THEOREM. The axioms of math will be the 4 QM principles--- (1)
Pauli (2) Superposition (3) Uncertainty (4) Complementary.

  It had been superdetermined by our Maker, that by 1994 there would be
quite a few authors of pseudoscience books out on the market with the
word "God" in their titles. The publishers thought this word would
attract higher book sales.  But our Maker, 231Pu was preparing us for
itself, the 231PU, our Maker. Sort of preparing us to roll out its red
carpet.
   Here are a few samples of recent pseudophysics and pseudomath
books---
		L. Lederman "The God Particle"
  	P. Davies " The mind of God : the scientific basis for a rational
world"
		I. Stewart "Does God play dice?:the mathematics of chaos"
		I. Stewart "Fearful symmetry: is God a geometer?"
In order to increase sales, the word God was thrown into the title.
They are all science and math pollution because "nothing new and true"
is said in any of them. But, our Maker, 231Pu superdetermined that
these books with the word God would be published because its presence
would manifest itself after 1990, and especially in 1994 here on the
NET in the newsgroups sci.physics,sci.math,sci.chem,sci.physics.fusion,
sci.bio, alt.sci.physics.plutonium.

  Leon, in fact, had more to learn by visiting Dartmouth because he
heard the PU theory, rather than the Dartmouth community learning from
him. He heard of the PU Atom Totality and that atoms are the most
elementary particles. No other particle exists without atoms existing.
Even Mr. Lederman implied in his talk when he discussed what he called
" the kaleidoscope idea" that manufactured subatomic particles may not
exist independent of atoms. And so, the search of what Leon considers a
God particle---the Higgs particle, by the teachings of the PU Atom
Totality is an extravagant waste of time and money. Leon has not taken
time off of his busy schedule and dismissed his arrogance from winning
the Nobel to realize that spending any amount of money on the SSC to
look for the Higgs is like looking for the Loch Ness monster or Big
Foot. And as Leon spoke in his talk using an overhead projector, that
the road of physics starting with the ancient Greek Thales of Miletus
had many side roads which were dead-end-roads such as the Ptolemy
epicycle, ether, that Leon's avid pursuit of the Higgs is likewise
science fiction. But Leon seems to want to propagandize via his book
and public lectures that spending 10 billion or more on the search for
the Higgs is money and time well spent. Leon is wrong. And for one of
the rare times in my life, I can say that the US politicians who killed
the SSC were smarter than Nobel winning Leon and supporters for the
SSC.

  Leon, you could have learned more here at Dartmouth from the PU
theory or theorem, than what you imparted on this Dartmouth community.
And my opinion on your Nobel prize for neutrino work, although
important, was not worthy of a Nobel prize. The prize should have gone
to John Bell and Alain Aspect, or to W. Tifft. But one thing I can say
good about your Nobel, Leon, is that at least your physics is not wrong
physics such as the BCS theory prize, or the Weinberg,Glashow,Salam
prize, or last years prize on gravity of binary pulsar stars. Will it
not be funny Leon when they find out that pulsars are all Strange Quark
stars and that neutron stars were science fiction? Current science with
its cluttered-up gobbledy-gook contraptions of physics such as  Big
Bang, neutron stars, black holes, worm holes has almost a 50% chance of
awarding a Nobel prize for fakery.
   So then, concerning the words "ancient Rome" vice "ancient Greece",
that was a superdetermined error (there are no errors). Everything is
as perfect as a logarithmic spiral is perfect. It is only "imperfect
looking" to us in our small corner of the 5f6. In fact, the atomic
theory and science history owes much to ancient Rome. We would not know
well of Democritus's Atomic Theory if it had not been for the Roman 
Lucretius whose work, De Rerum Natura (On the Nature of Things) is the
only existing document (it was superdetermined that only one copy would
survive) on the Atomic Theory. De Rerum Natura was "published" and
widespread in the year 0000. And because of the year 0000, we now have
the PU theory in the year 1994. The 19 because e is approximately 19/7
and pi is approx. 22/7 where Pu has 22 subshells (19 occupied) in a
total of 7 shells. Pu, of course, is atomic number 94. This is year 94.
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.26 / mitchell swartz /  TFTR D-T = Science by Press Conference?
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: TFTR D-T = Science by Press Conference?
Subject: Re: TFTR D-T = Science by Press Conference?
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 1994 12:03:56 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <2pgqfu$5cq@ds8.scri.fsu.edu>
Subject: Re: TFTR D-T = Science by Press Conference?
Jim Carr (ac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu) writes:

  >If it irritated everyone, and it had proven to be false, would
  >people have considered it to be as inappropriate as many consider
  >the P&F announcement to have been?  
= "No.  Press conferences, like talks at meeting and preprints, are one 
= of the mechanisms science uses to communicate ideas amongst interested 
= parties.               ..." 
= "Both claim advances in energy-production technology.  The biggest 
= difference is that P&F claimed to be closer to having a commercial 
= product than TFTR did.  Certainly the PPPL process of review etc 
= has proceeded in the public eye, as it must since it uses so much 
= money from the public coffers, but I can't see how you can complain 
=  about P&F and not about JET or PPPL or Chu or CDF."
=           ***
= "If you 
= go too far down the 'bread and circuses' road traveled by NASA, 
= you might end up blowing up some citizens while trying to get an 
= event to coincide with a State of the Union speech." 

  Several good points.
 There has been much comparison of the Princeton hot fusion
press conference and that which was called by Drs. Fleischmann and Pons
(or someone at the University) for cold fusion.  

---->    How about the timing?   The hot fusion experiment/press set-up
was actually scheduled for the midpeak of the December 1993
 (ICCF-4) COLD FUSION Conference. 

  There are some cynics who have actually claimed that this particular
choice of dates was to take press coverage away from the cold fusion 
meeting which was roaring along (with its >100 experimental papers).
Thoughts?

  Now, for balance, other than the FP-Jones "race", was there any similar 
specific hot fusion event in March 1989 that the cold fusion pioneers 
were trying to take the thunder from?

   Best wishes.
               Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com)







cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.26 / mitchell swartz /  Evolution and cold fusion (was "Evolution Proves: Cold Fusion not Possible!")
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Evolution and cold fusion (was "Evolution Proves: Cold Fusion not Possible!")
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 1994 12:05:45 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Subject: Evolution Proves: Cold Fusion not Possible!
Message-ID: <2pih5l$3mi@news.cs.tu-berlin.de>
Markus Freericks (mfx@cs.tu-berlin.de) writes:

= "Just a thought: (all the worst posts start with these words ;-)
= 
= If so-called "cold fusion" were a practical possibility, it would be well
= withing the reign of organic systems. From a pure probabilistic standpoint,
=one could then expect that _some_ organism would utilize this effect.
= 
= Presuming that there are no unknown energy-generating mechanisms in cell
= biology which can only be explaied by CF, one can draw the
= counter-conclusion that CF is not possible."

  Well, Markus, here are three alternative views to this logic.

  1)  If this logic is true for organisms including humans, then 
some organism did utilize this effect.  Humans.
           Witness the F+P announcement in 1989.

   2)  If this logic is true for organisms other than humans,
then other organisms would have had to obtain enough palladium in a
relatively pure state and crystalline state AND
maintain this either in near vacuum or very hot, or very alkaline conditions.

  Seems unlikely.  the paucity of materials has played a role in
evolution before.  
  Consider that cephalopods are older then human, have probably
more advanced (in some ways) brains then human, have better eyes
then human, and were only held back -- from an evolution sense --
only because their blood used copper instead of our (advanced?) iron to hold
oxygen.  Imagine if they needed palladium too.
    Palladium is much rarer then copper based upon the price alone.  True?

  3) If this logic had to be true for organisms other than humans,
and it were true to begin with, then where are the organisms
using flamethrowers, atom bombs, Saturn V's, scanning electron
microscopes, and tokomaks?  Do they not exist either?

   Best wishes.
               Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com)


cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.26 / John Logajan /  Re: "Cold Fusion" Magazine Accelerating
     
Originally-From: 74242.1554@compuserve.com (John M. Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: "Cold Fusion" Magazine Accelerating
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 1994 14:14:21 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

north@watop.nosc.mil (Mark North) writes:
>Are you [Gene Mallove] really proposing this democracy of ideas?

I don't think that an advocacy magazine has to be particularly
egalitarian in their editorial policy.  But of course, I personally think
that better advocacy magazines make an attempt to inform their readership
of the current issues under debate.  There are several pages in the May
issue of "Cold Fusion" Magazine dedicated to that end, including exact
quotes and reviews of critical authors and publications.

Many advocacy magazines have a long and honorable history.  Some refereed
journals have corrupt policies and hidden agendas.  If you are going to
have a bias, it is better to be upfront about it.  As long as the reader
is aware of the bias, he can ascribe due weight to the contents.

>If you had even the semblence of a brain stem...

Dieter Britz doesn't like when I call such statements "hysterical" so I'll
just say that it seems a bit "overly excited." :-)

It's just my opinion, but I believe that people who review things (like
the worthiness of certain magazines) should at the very minimum read them
at least once.  "CF"M is undoubtedly an advocacy magazine, but it isn't
nearly the boogeyman that a few here have suggested.

I believe these critics' hostility is not so much due to the style of the
magazine, but to their distain for the phenomena about which the magazine
reports.  Since we often need to rely on reviews by third parties, it is
important, I think, to keep such distinctions in mind when considering the
basis of their opinions.


cudkeys:
cuddy26 cuden1554 cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.26 / Jim Carr /  Re: (Long) Forwarded Official PPPL Response to Maglich
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: (Long) Forwarded Official PPPL Response to Maglich
Date: 26 Apr 1994 10:17:07 -0400
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

In article <2phqed$2a2@tom.pppl.gov> 
rfheeter@theory.pppl.gov (Robert F. Heeter) writes:
>
>I'm wondering whether the whole "science by press conference" argument
>was really an overblown attack by anti-tokamakers who took the words
>of some PPPL researchers and made the logical leap to claim that PPPL
>as an institution attacked P&F.
>
>Are there any history experts out there?  Jim Carr?

I agree that I don't recall an official PPPL statement about cold 
fusion, let alone the press conference.  Given the workings of 
national labs, I doubt if it is possible for them to react on any 
time scale appropriate for news reporters, and at best they would 
have done it in a press release.  So if the *lab* said anything, 
it would be on a numbered sheet of paper in a filing cabinet. 
Certainly it is the case that the first NYTimes article got a 
straight 'no comment' from all of the main fusion labs. 

However, individuals identified with PPPL did make such comments, 
and did not really distance themselves (speaking as individuals) 
from the lab when doing so.  Hard to do when you are an employee 
or even an outsider working there and talking to the media. 

What I do not remember is if the remarks were directed at P&F 
personally or were caused by the string of press conferences: 
GaTech, TAMU, etc, etc as people made claims and counter claims 
and retractions.  Some of those claims were definitely premature 
and embarassing -- although it did show how science works in a 
self correcting way, albeit on a longer time scale and less 
publicly.  (I have in mind the GaTech claim and how they later 
learned about thermal effects on their detectors.  The sort of 
thing you see asked at a talk as people sort out their work, 
but in this case the talk was on national TV.)  Given the excitement, 
this was not that surprising.  After all, only recently did we get 
a 'power FAX' that can send the same document to a list of numbers, 
and the media are still more efficient than Usenet or Faxes. 

 [ Look at the CDF story.  How many people learned about it here, 
 [ vs read it first in a newspaper or in this mornings promos.  Our 
 [ ghastly campus paper even had the NYTimes news service article 
 [ about the coming press conference on the front page today!

I do not think it was anti-tokamak types who jumped on it, but rather 
the anti-establishment types, CF and solar and anyone else who did 
not like the budget situation.  Anyway, the point is that PPPL was 
correct to hold its press conference, just as CDF is.  As Bederson 
of the P.R. said quoting Merzbacher, everyone should get a chance 
to hang themselves.  It is their reputation on the line. 

-- 
 James A. Carr   <jac@scri.fsu.edu>     |   "It's never confusing though, 
      http://www.scri.fsu.edu           |  because ultimately it all fits 
 Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst.  |  -- its just cockeyed and fits  
 Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306    |  and is fire."  -  Norman Maclean 
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.26 / M Freericks /  Re: Evolution and cold fusion (was "Evolution Proves:
     
Originally-From: mfx@cs.tu-berlin.de (Markus Freericks)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Evolution and cold fusion (was "Evolution Proves:
Cold Fusion not Possible!")
Date: 26 Apr 1994 15:52:49 GMT
Organization: TU Berlin Fachbereich Informatik

In article <Cov89M.IuA@world.std.com> mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
> = "Just a thought: (all the worst posts start with these words ;-)
> = 
> = If so-called "cold fusion" were a practical possibility, it would be well
> = withing the reign of organic systems. From a pure probabilistic standpoint,
> =one could then expect that _some_ organism would utilize this effect.
> = 
> = Presuming that there are no unknown energy-generating mechanisms in cell
> = biology which can only be explaied by CF, one can draw the
> = counter-conclusion that CF is not possible."
> 
>   Well, Markus, here are three alternative views to this logic.

Well, my idea was certainly not inspired by "logic" under any possible
definition of the term. [It is an more of an analogy to Larry Nivens thesis
that there are no "psi" effects, since if any such were possible and
usable, evolution would have produced them.]

>   1)  If this logic is true for organisms including humans, then 
> some organism did utilize this effect.  Humans.
>            Witness the F+P announcement in 1989.

;-)

>    2)  If this logic is true for organisms other than humans,
> then other organisms would have had to obtain enough palladium in a
> relatively pure state and crystalline state AND
> maintain this either in near vacuum or very hot, or very alkaline conditions.

At least the original P+F experiments worked at more or less room
temperature, just with a modified electrolysis package, no? Biological
organism are well cabable of generating small electric currents; and
alkaline conditions might be harder, but certainly not impossible. If I
remember correctly, some bacteria thrive in such environments.

>   Seems unlikely.  the paucity of materials has played a role in
> evolution before.  
>   Consider that cephalopods are older then human, have probably
> more advanced (in some ways) brains then human, have better eyes
> then human, and were only held back -- from an evolution sense --
> only because their blood used copper instead of our (advanced?) iron to hold
> oxygen.  Imagine if they needed palladium too.
>     Palladium is much rarer then copper based upon the price alone. True?

Of course, put if the palladium only works as a catalyzer and not as a
reagens, only very small amounts of it would be needed, maybe a few
microgram for an organism of human size. That should be possible.
 
>   3) If this logic had to be true for organisms other than humans,
> and it were true to begin with, then where are the organisms
> using flamethrowers, atom bombs, Saturn V's, scanning electron
> microscopes, and tokomaks?  Do they not exist either?

I was talking about physical phenomana usable in biochemical reactions.
Intelligence & Tool-making have quite different rules ;-)
 
>    Best wishes.
>                Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com)

Markus
-- 
Markus Freericks         mfx@cs.tu-berlin.de        +49-30-314-21390
TU Berlin Sekr. FR 2-2, Franklinstr. 28/29, D-10587 Berlin (Germany)
		"Inertia makes the world go 'round."

cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenmfx cudfnMarkus cudlnFreericks cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.25 / Robert Heeter /  Re: TFTR D-T = Science by Press Conference?
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Originally-From: John M. Logajan, 74242.1554@compuserve.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: TFTR D-T = Science by Press Conference?
Subject: Re: TFTR D-T = Science by Press Conference?
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 1994 21:42:33 GMT
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 1994 13:28:38 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

Subject: Re: TFTR D-T = Science by Press Conference?
Originally-From: John M. Logajan, 74242.1554@compuserve.com
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 1994 13:28:38 GMT
In article <940422132338_74242.1554_BHR42-1@CompuServe.COM> John M.
Logajan, 74242.1554@compuserve.com writes:
>rfheeter@theory.pppl.gov (Robert F. Heeter) writes:
>
>>John, ordinarily I respect your opinion, but you are really wading
>>out of your depth here.
>
>I wouldn't know a tokamak from a jokamak.  So it's not my opinion you
>should be worried about.  It's the opinion of someone like Dr. Maglich. 
>I've been following his "migma" hot fusion work since the mid 1970's.

I'll discuss Maglich in a different article.

>But these are all appeals to authority...  maybe if you used small words
>and spoke slowly, you could explain the relevent physics to us so that we
>could be confident that a sensed neutron came from a plasma-plasma
>reaction rather than a beam-plasma reaction.

Well, I thought I *had* done that, but let's try it again.  Keep in mind
that I haven't done neutron measurements, don't know too much about
plasmas,
and generally am not an expert on the subject.  Ironically, this should
make
it easier for me to explain things.

What I will explain is how you can be confident that you understand,
within a few percent, how many of your neutrons come from what sources,
without specifically measuring the precise energy of every single neutron.
Please keep in mind that neutron-measurement technology is at least 50
years
old.  Let me know if anything in here is unclear, and I'll try again.

(1) Neutrons from D + D => 3He + n reactions.  These neutrons have an
energy
about an order of magnitude lower than neutrons from other sources in
the system, so they are easily distinguished.  Simple, low-resolution
neutron spectrometers used on TFTR can tell, and so can measurements
based on neutron-activation of various types of metal foils.  D-D
reactions constitute about 1% of the fusion reactions in the TFTR
D-T experiments.

(2) Neutrons from D + T => 4He + n reactions.  

	(a)  Beam-wall reactions.  Contrary to what Maglich claims, 
TFTR researchers easily ruled out beam-wall reactions.  What you can
do is shoot your neutral tritium beam at a wall which has been 
saturated with deuterium, and look at how many reactions occur.
The number is much smaller than the number of reactions which occur
if you shoot your neutral beam into the reactor.  Therefore, beam-wall
reactions can be ruled out.  (<1% of fusion reactions occurring.)

	(b)  Beam-beam reactions.  Before an injected beam ion has 
slowed down and heated the plasma, it may react with another beam ion, 
and fuse.  One can determine the relative number of beam-beam reactions
in several ways.  For instance, one can use plasma diagnostics
(other than neutron spectroscopy) to determine what the population
of high-energy beam ions is, and then use experimentally-determined
reaction rates (for ions of the appropriate energy) to calculate
how much fusion should occur.  Or you can create a migma-like plasma
where all the ions are injected at the beam energy, and observe
how many fusions occur before the ions relax to a thermal (not beam)
energy distribution.  Beam-beam reactions are about 15%, or 1/6,
of TFTRs D-T reactions.

	(c)  Beam-plasma reactions.  There also are a number of ways to assess
the number of beam-plasma reactions.  Since the neutral beam particle
has an energy much greater than the plasma particle, shooting the
neutral beam into the cooler plasma is similar to shooting the neutral
beam into a cool gas, where no plasma-plasma reactions occur.  So you
can determine the number of beam-plasma reactions by shooting your
beam at cool gas or a fusionless plasma, and see how many reactions
occur.  This will overcount the beam-plasma reactions to the extent
that the beam heats the plasma and causes new plasma-plasma reactions.
I believe it is possible to minimize the overcounting with various 
techniques.  In any case one could certainly use a neutron spectrometer
in this test, but not in TFTR, and still know how many beam-plasma 
reactions to expect in TFTR.  Another method is to determine 
experimentally the populations of beam and thermal plasma ions, use 
the experimentally-determined reaction rates for such circumstances, 
and (as with beam-beam reactions) calculate how many fusions will 
occur.  Another method would be to inject a very short neutral beam 
pulse into a hot plasma, in which case the reaction rate would rise 
due to the presence of the beam ions, then decrease somewhat as the 
beam thermalizes, and then settle out at the old plasma-plasma reaction 
rate.  The spike in the fusion signal would then be primarily due
to the beam-plasma reactions, since the plasma wasn't heated much.
There appear to be a number of ways in which one might sort out
how many beam-plasma reactions there are.  In TFTR, 50-60% of
the plasma reactions are beam-plasma reactions.

	(d)  Plasma-Plasma reactions.  There is a very easy way to determine
how many plasma-plasma reactions occur, and that is to make a hot
fusing plasma *without* neutral beams as the heating source.  There
are other ways (primarily involving microwave heating) to heat a 
plasma.  Another method is, as for (b) and (c) to use other plasma
diagnostics to determine the temperature and density of the plasma,
and then to use well-developed experimental formulas to calculate
how much fusion is occurring.  Plasma-plasma reactions constitute
25-35% of the reactions in TFTR

Note that you can cross-check your estimates for the various
reaction types by looking at the total fusion neutron emissions
rate and then comparing it with the sum of the three expected
values.  These numbers are in reasonably good agreement in TFTR.

>As I mentioned earlier, beam-plasma was the dominant neutron source even
>by PPPL's admission -- and it represents a net loss mechanism no matter
>how large you scale it -- so plasma-plasma neutrons are the only ones we
>are really interested in.
>
Paul Stek has answered this already, but let me add my own comments.

Plasma-plasma neutrons are certainly what you will be interested in
if you have a large, ITER-like energy-producing fusion reactor.
TFTR is *not* such a reactor.  TFTR was designed to study plasma
conditions *similar* to those in such a reactor, and to study ways
of heating such a plasma, *without* having to build a gigantic
machine which no one would be sure would work.  To achieve those 
goals TFTR was *not* designed to be a miniature commercial-type 
reactor, but to be a relatively over-heated device capable of 
exploring relevant parts of the plasma parameter space.  It's 
certainly not the case that "plasma-plasma neutrons are the only 
ones we are really interested in" in TFTR.

Yes, you have a lot of non plasma-plasma reactions, but that's
ok for TFTR.  Furthermore, fusion scientists are fairly certain 
they understand how to get more plasma-plasma reactions; this
involves scaling up the device and using new physics knowledge
that wasn't available 20 years ago when TFTR was being designed.
The relevant parameter isn't so much the fusion power output as it
is the attainment of a particular product of plasma density,
temperature, and confinement time.

Please let me know if the words are small enough and the logic
is clear enough.  (Not just John, but anyone who reads this.)

**************************
Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University
I do not represent, nor am I representative of, Princeton/PPPLs views.
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.26 / Richard Blue /  Nuclear metastability
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Nuclear metastability
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 1994 14:28:56 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

In response to questions from Rich Schroeppel, let me give a brief
overview of nuclear decay processes.  As a basic starting point we
have the requirement that if a decay can result in energy release it
will happen.  All that remains is to determine the rate and whether
or not some competing decay process will occur faster.  Generally
speaking the processes roughly in order from fastest to slowest are:
neutron emission, proton emission, gamma emission, beta decay, alpha
decay, and fission.  There are, however, complexities that can
scramble this picture.  The cases to which you refer involve a
hindering of gamma emission due to the fact that the available
transistions involve large changes in angular momentum.

As to whether you can reverse these transistions and put nuclei
into these metastable states the answer is obviously yes, but
that does not mean that it is easy or that it can be done with
high efficiency with regard to energy input required.  For
example, you can populate these high angular momentum states
through collisions between heavy nuclei.  As far as naturally
occurings processes go, they can be populated through the
decay chains starting with some heavier natural radioisotope.

As to how this connects to "red mercury",  that is where I
think there is something bogus about the recent news reports
as far as the possible role radioactivity has in the production
and application of the stuff.  Making it radioactive does not
change the chemistry to make it a better explosive as far as
I know so why make it radioactive?  Making it radioactive
doesn't make it a better trigger for fusion through any
mechanism I can think of either.  Your are back to the old
problem that if you want a nuclear decay to deliver lots of
energy quickly you are asking for something that decays
rapidly.  Hence it is not very good for sitting on the shelf
passively waiting until you want that energy release to
occur.  In any case the bombardment of red mercury by some
accellerator beam as has been described cannot possibly
activate more than some very tiny fraction of the material.

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.26 / Richard Blue /  Chubb versus Morrison
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Chubb versus Morrison
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 1994 14:54:59 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

When Morrison points out the difficulties associated with the notion
of having a nuclear reaction process that is not isolated within a
domain that is small compared to the scale of an atomic lattice, Dr.
Chubb replies with an example from solid state physics to counter
the argument.  This is where, I believe, Dr. Chubb is badly off track
in his reasoning.  Simply put the counter example Dr. Chubb uses
involves an atomic system of electrons interacting via the long range
Coulomb interaction.  The particles involved are light and mobile and
the energies are tiny.  Now how can you expect the same sorts of
behavior from a system of particles that are 4000 times more massive
and which must interact on a scale perhaps 5 orders of magnitude
smaller in order to initiate the desired nuclear reaction?
Then once the reaction has been initiated Dr. Chubb wants us to
believe that his puny little solid state effects can so perturb
the nuclear reaction processes that nothing like normal outcomes
are possible, even at fantastically reduced probabilities.  It is
equivalent to a claim that the mere presence of a lattice, interacting
with the system under consideration ever so weakly (not ever specified
by Dr. Chubb), and playing no direct role in the reaction other than
enforcing some higher order symmetry on the problem can result in
a form of matter and a class of interactions that have never been
seen in any other system.  I did actually live in Missouri once so
I can legitimately ask Dr. Chubb to "Show Me" that this makes
any sense.

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.27 / John Logajan /  Re: Stringham and George guarantee?
     
Originally-From: 74242.1554@compuserve.com (John M. Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Stringham and George guarantee?
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 1994 00:13:48 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

blue@nscl00.nscl.msu.edu writes:
>...an essential requirement of the Chubb picture is that deuterons be
>loaded to saturation in a perfect PdD lattice.  What can we say about the
>likelyhood that S&G are achieving that condition?

I can't speak to the probabilities, but at least it is their claim that
they are loading D into Pd via asymetric bubble collapse.  Their
photomicrograph clearly indicates that the bubble collapses toward the
metal "target" in the form of a "vortex jet."  They further claim that
the bubble contents become plasma due to the high energies of the
collapse.  I imagine this is where the D comes from (disassociated D2O)
for injection into the Pd.

>...it should be obvious that the Pd is not melting but is being eroded
>by cavitation.

That is a possibility that I cannot immediately discount.  From only the
full size picture of a post-melt 5 cm (2 inch) square foil/plate it is
hard to determine the true cause of the 3 cm hole.  It looks melted, but
I suppose it could have been "worked" into that shape by the water-
hammering.

The hole is nearly centered in the foil square.  The outer edges of the
square do not show similar signs deformation.  From this we can either
conclude that edges don't necessarily get "worked" merely because they
are edges, or that the E-Quest device is only directing the acoustic
energy toward the center of the foil -- in which case those edges might
get preferentially "worked" -- explaining the imitation melted look.

I guess we would need to know the conditions occurring in the E-Quest
device at the time of the alleged melting in order to validate the
classification.  Was there substantial excess heat?  Was there steam
bubbling from the plate?  Was there a steam blanket around the plate?

>Whether it melts or erodes that does not sound like the condition for
>keeping the lattice in good order.

True, its not a practical operation mode.  I imagine that if there is
anything to CF, keeping the lattice from melting is going to be one of
the eventual control problems.

>I would also like some confirming evidence regarding the loading that
>can be reached by this new approach before I would say this is an
>experiment confirming either the Miles experiments or the Chubb theory.

Most certainly.  Since if it doesn't confirm the Chubb theory, it may
well falsify it.

>I just don't see this as an operation that is ready to go commercial
>unless there are more suckers willing to lay down $100,000 on a sure
>loser than I would like to think.

They are selling a research device rather than a "hot water heater." :-)

My guess (based on admittedly very slim evidence) is that they would be
open to disclosure and queries if you were a serious potential $100K
customer.  Not too many people are willing to buy a $100K pig-in-a-poke
and I would have to think that S+G are realistic enough to realize it.


cudkeys:
cuddy27 cuden1554 cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.27 / John Logajan /  Re: Evolution Proves: Cold Fusion not Possible!
     
Originally-From: 74242.1554@compuserve.com (John M. Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Evolution Proves: Cold Fusion not Possible!
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 1994 00:14:00 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

mfx@cs.tu-berlin.de (Markus Freericks) writes:
>Presuming that there are no unknown energy-generating mechanisms in cell
>biology which can only be explaied by CF, one can draw the counter-
>conclusion that CF is not possible.

The above necessarily presumes that life forms have had sufficient time 
and, for lack of a better term, motivation to conduct a deterministic
search and selection methodology which tests and retains all possible
successful mechanisms.

The assumption that everything is already revealed to biological
mechanisms is instantly refuted by the ongoing need of human beings to
invent/discover new mechanims to improve and maintain their comparative
advantage over other organisms, and amongst themselves.


cudkeys:
cuddy27 cuden1554 cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.27 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Stringham and George and Calorimetry
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Stringham and George and Calorimetry
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 1994 00:14:09 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To those looking at the Stringham and George claims for excess heat, I remind
one and all that I cannot imagine how one can do calorimetry under excitation
by a high power ultrasonic transducer.  Everything gets hot.  How much is 
produced by "cold fusion" and how much is from the transducer?  Don't ask.  No
one will be able to tell you.  But it sure does get nice and hot for the 
press conference!

Tom Droege

cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenDROEGE cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.27 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Was the Top Discovered
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Was the Top Discovered
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 1994 00:14:14 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Dale Bass wants to know.  Inquiring minds want to know.  One of the Fermilab
physicists put it quite nicely at the press conference.  You start out with
a suspicion.  You keep collecting evidence.  Over time it goes from black,
to dark, to a glimmer of light, to ...   Eventually you decide that it is 
light enough to say that you can see it.  The current state of the evidence 
here is a couple dozen events.  Monte Carlo simulations indicate that one might
see only one or two by chance.  The official chance for being wrong from the 
paper which I understand was submitted Friday is 0.26%.

The paper says "Evidence for the Top".  Most of my friends want to be very 
conservative about the claim.  The paper says 174+/-10 Gev for the mass.  
Originally the paper was 174 pages, or one per Gev of the Top mass.  Now I 
understand that it was cut down to 150 pages but I don't think they reduced the
top mass.  

Tom Droege

cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenDROEGE cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.27 /  morrison@vxpri /  Fermilab Press Conference on Top Mass.
     
Originally-From: morrison@vxprix.cern.ch
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Fermilab Press Conference on Top Mass.
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 1994 00:18:12 GMT
Organization: At Home; Salida, CA USA

                                                             26 April 1994. 
         Fermilab Press Conference on Top Mass.

   There has been some discussion about the Press Conference that Fermilab is 
going to hold later today. As the long (152 pages) paper has now been
submitted to Phys. Rev. D, it is now possible for members of the CDF
Collaboration to talk about their results and to hold a press conference as
the long awaited result is very important and is a guide for future experiments.
     The main result is that they now have an estimate of the top mass instead
of upper limits. The analysis is complicated as there are many channels to be
considered, each with its own background to estimate and measure. For example 
in the dilepton channel, they found two well-separated events starting from
10 E12 collisions.
    The value for the top mass given is  174  +/- 10  +13 -12  GeV.
If one combines all known data (from LEP at CERN, from neutrino and other
electroweak experiments) then have been shown three theoretical papers which
all say that the top mass should be about 170 GeV. This close agreement of 
theory and experiment is most encouraging. When there is a serious disagreement 
of say, fifty orders of magnitude between theory and experiment, as can happen  
with string theory and with cold fusion, then one worries. 
    An important consequence is that this result helps to tie down the mass of
the Higgs particle that is the best explanation of how particles can get mass
in the Standard Model that works so beautifully but cannot be complete. It is 
like Newton's theories - we know the regions where they work well and the
boundaries beyond which we need to add other theories (relativity etc). This
experimental value of 174 +/- 16 GeV has to be be combined with the values 
of about 170 +/- 25 GeV from other experiments, and then ties down the mass 
of the type of Higgs particle that is most favoured - it would be a few 
hundred GeV. 
   This is extremely important for the proposed new CERN accelerator, LHC, which
may well be approved by the 19 members of the CERN Council in June. Such a
mass would indicate that the LHC should be able to find the Higgs.
    A worry was that the number of events was higher than expected, but this is
a 1.5 standard deviation effect. The excess of events and their characteristics
are such that this is most likely to be top, but the significance is not so
overwhelming so that they do not yet wish to claim it as a discovery - here  
I feel that they are maybe a wee bit too cautious - I would estimate from the 
numbers given that it is more than three standard deviations - but it is their 
choice.
     The top is the sixth quark and with the results from LEP and from Big Bang
Nucleosynthesis, it is expected to be the last quark.
    With the submission and distribution of their long paper, with its important
results, it seems reasonable to have a press conference. It is expected that
a shorter version for Phys. Rev. Letters will be ready for distribution in
about a week.
                                                       Douglas R.O. Morrison.

cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenmorrison cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.26 / Dave Toland /  Re: movie: NEANDERTHAL PARK
     
Originally-From: det@sw.stratus.com (Dave Toland)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,alt.religion.kibology,sci.math,sci
physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.chem,sci.bio
Subject: Re: movie: NEANDERTHAL PARK
Date: 26 Apr 1994 18:06:09 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer Inc, Marlboro MA

Quite a little egofest, Ludwig.  Can you say "monomania"?

Yes, yes, Ludwig, everyone else is a poor deluded fool and only you see
the True Light.  This is sarcasm, in case you didn't recognize it.

In article <2pjgad$197@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>, Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmout
.edu (Ludwig Plutonium) writes:
> I dedicate the title of this movie to a good friend of mine on sci.math
> and sci.physics. His name is Alexander Abian and he often calls the
> overly conservative math and physics communities-- politburos and
> Neanderthal type thinkers who seldom change. I concur with AA because
> those two communities have a herd-like mentality. AA has used the word
> Neanderthal often in his posts.

Or could it be that these thinkers you and Abian so casually dismiss
have bothered to learn the methodology that differentiates science
from the strutting posturing and wild unsubstantiated conjecture that
both you and Abian are infamous for?

There is a discipline to science, and that discipline is in place not
to suppress new ideas, but to establish ways of testing their relevence
to the real world (you have heard of the reality that most of us share,
haven't you?)

-- 
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------
All opinions are MINE MINE MINE, and not necessarily anyone else's.
det@phlan.sw.stratus.com   |  "Laddie, you'll be needing something to wash
(Dave Toland)              |   that doon with."
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudendet cudfnDave cudlnToland cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.26 / John Cobb /  Re: Logajan's Tripe  was Re: Scandal at Princeton -- TFTR
     
Originally-From: johncobb@emx.cc.utexas.edu (John W. Cobb)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Logajan's Tripe  was Re: Scandal at Princeton -- TFTR
Date: 26 Apr 1994 14:01:40 -0500
Organization: The University of Texas - Austin

In article <940419045027_74242.1554_BHR37-2@compuserve.com>,
John M. Logajan <74242.1554@compuserve.com> wrote:
>johncobb@emx.cc.utexas.edu (John W. Cobb) maligns:
>
>>I highly suspect that Dr. Maglich would take issue with the way that
>>Logajan has twisted his words.
>
>Maglich's words were quoted verbatim.  The only thing elided in the
>excerpts I posted were some preliminary introductions and mention of
>Maglich's own consortium (S.A.F.E. System for Aneutronic Fusion Energy),
>and their self-collider concept.
>

I guess I got very confused about the use of quotation marks in the
original post.

If this is the case, then I owe John Logajan an apology. I do apologize.
It seems that this tripe belongs to someone else than Logajan. I am especially
sorry if I have mis-represented Logajan as owning such opinions when (and if)
he does not.

Nevertheless, I still stand behind my original criticism that the substance
of the text contained in Logajan's original post was deliberately provocative,
misleading, and constructed with an eye toward political gain rather than
scientific knowledge.

Specifically, I object to:

1) misstatement of fact.  --- PPPL doesn't know the source of its neutrons
2) polemical rhetoric --- "false neutrons", "scandal"
3) Message deliberately aimed at politicians and others unable to evaluate
    the scientific merit of the criticism.
4) Motivations based on personal gain for personal research projects.
5) Uncaring attitude about collateral damage done to other portions of the
   fusion program, and the public perception of science in general. No
   wonder magazines like Time and Newsweek run stories about science in
   dis-array when loose cannons like this can get such notoriety.

Specifically, #5 is most troubling. We seem to have people who are happy to 
lob bombs at Magnetic fusion with little concern either about damage done
or the scientific questions under scrutiny. In that sense magnetic
fusion energy, like King Lear is "more sinned against than sinning".

Lyndon Johnson put it a little differently, "Don't piss in the soup because
we all got to eat."

However, intellectual honesty demands giving the devil its due. TFTR produced
6 MW of D-T fusion neutrons last winter. They did it over many shots, in
some varying conditions. When one starts to deny this, one really begins
to look foolish, especially when it is done with a shotgun scatter-barrel
blast that likes any real substance.

Trying to deny the facts, or obscure the truth will not work in the end.
And that is precisely what I object to.

Such sophistry is what led me to label such a post as tripe. Because like
tripe it has a sour taste and does not sit well on my stomach.

Again, I apologize for attributing remarks to Logajan that he disavoys.
For this mistake I am both embarrassed and very sorry.

-john .w cobb
-- 
 --------------------------------------------------------------
John W. Cobb	My posts don't reflect the views of my employer
                Because my posts are usually opaque.
 --------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenjohncobb cudfnJohn cudlnCobb cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.26 / John Cobb /  Re: Reply to Maglich on TFTR D-T Results
     
Originally-From: johncobb@emx.cc.utexas.edu (John W. Cobb)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reply to Maglich on TFTR D-T Results
Date: 26 Apr 1994 14:20:34 -0500
Organization: The University of Texas - Austin

In article <2phddc$60b@ds8.scri.fsu.edu>,
Jim Carr <jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu> wrote:
>In article <1994Apr21.172100.26740@Princeton.EDU> 
>rfheeter@flagstaff.Princeton.EDU (Robert Franklin Heeter) writes:
>>
>>Maglich is also considered a maverick in the field, and hardly anyone
>>seriously thinks the Migma will be made to work.
>
>Indeed, there are reasons to think that it would not.  I recall that 
>the cyclotron theorists at Michigan State, notably Mort Gordon, worked 
>out that it would fail due to beam-beam scattering at small angles 
>and space charge effects.  When Maglich was here at FSU trying to 
>recruit consultants for his project, he argued that this objection 
>had been overcome, but I was not convinced by his argument. 

Jim,

do you have details on Gordon's argument? I think I understand what he
was getting at, and if I do, I think it is off base.

While it may have applied to Maglich's original migma concept (1985),
newer incarnations should not have the problem (See Ref. 1). Specifically,
space charge is not an issue because the system is charge neutral. It is
an ion collider experiment, but electrons are also present. Plasma
physics has faced the space charge issue from day 1. This is the hazard when 
an accelerator physicist is asked to evaluate a plasma concept. Migma sits
on the border between them. Plasma physicists get confused because the orbis
are not expandable in a small gyro-radius ordering.

Secondly, you can create a migma configuration where the energy distribtuion
is Boltzmann (See #1). In that case, the Coulomb collision operator acting on 
a Boltzmann distribution gives no modification. You are correct in saying that
the elastic collision cross section is much higher than the fusion
cross-section, but when the distribution is Boltzmann, there is no effect.
Physically, what is happening is that in a statistical sense, for every
particle with velocity v that is scattered to have a velocity of v', there
is another particle of velocity v' that is scattered to have a velocity of v.

If I have guessed correctly what Gordon was looking at, I think that these
are the answers.

BTW, is Gordon still working at MSU? You know he is really an amazing person.

1) "Magnetic Fusion With High Energy Self-Colliding Ion Beams" by N. Rostoker,
F. Wessel, H. Rahman, B.C. Maglich, B. Spivey, and A. Fisher in Phys. Rev.
Lett. vol. 70 # 12 p. 1818 (22 March, 1993).


>He does, however, grind it with his own money and that of investors 
>rather than that of the American taxpayers. 

If given the chance would he not also be happy to use taxpayers money?


-john .w cobb
-- 
 --------------------------------------------------------------
John W. Cobb	My posts don't reflect the views of my employer
                Because my posts are usually opaque.
 --------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenjohncobb cudfnJohn cudlnCobb cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.26 / John Cobb /  Re: Overblown comparisons between TFTR and cold fusion
     
Originally-From: johncobb@emx.cc.utexas.edu (John W. Cobb)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Overblown comparisons between TFTR and cold fusion
Date: 26 Apr 1994 14:47:16 -0500
Organization: The University of Texas - Austin

In article <Cos9KG.9y6@prometheus.uucp>,
Paul M. Koloc <pmk@promethe.UUCP> wrote:
>In article <1994Apr23.190701.5862@midway.uchicago.edu> gk00@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>                       ..   Maglich's technical comments about TFTR's
>>experimental protocol sound garbled, but his real misrepresentation was
>>the assumption that TFTR is some sort of dry run at commercial fusion.
>>It's not, it's a simulation.
>
>That's not the perception of those that were funding the program from
>its conception.  It is a statement more in line with a plasma physics
>program, and if that is the case, then this activity should have been
>funded through the National Science Foundation.

I think it would be better to state that fusion should not be sold as
an energy program when it is really a scientific research. That said, there is
a great deal of precedence for DOE (as opposed to NSF) funding of pure 
science programs (SSC, HUGO, RHIC). In fact DOE is THE main funder of big 
science, IMO. Now if you want to discuss the appropriateness of federal
funding for big science, we can. But we have already done that before
and I think that in spite of different terminology, we see pretty much eye 
to eye for big science.

>Yep! If it looks like the thing they held up to congress many years
>ago and said, "this is the future fusion power generator".  Furthermore
>it uses the same fuel they said it must burn. so it's hardly a Simulation.  
>Nope, not hardly, with that investment of time and money ...  and
>time .. and money ... what???  more time and more money .. . etc.   


>Well, maybe as the years went by ... DoE  .. gradually changed the 
>words for its charter... but, ... some how Congress remembers what it 
>used to be and what it is still, regardless of what DoE says it has 
>become.    It might be better to leave quiet dogs be.  

I disagree. I emphatically do not believe that congress has a longer 
institutional memory than DOE or fusion research centers. It is the other
way around. In fact, I believe that fusion must be sold every year to
congress, and it is only a few congressmen and staffers that have any
recollection of issues from year to year. It is in this case where
"Revisionism" can be introduced unchallenged, both by DOE and by outside
DOE critics. Not only can it occur, but apparently it does occur, judging
by comments others have made here. Furthermore, there does appear to be
a congentital tendancy to oversell. The SSC was going to cure cancer. Now
it is the Space Station. An agency can deniably plant these perceptions
becuase they really catch a congressmen's attention and a reporter's 
attention. Notice in the SSC debate who was making the most outrageous
claims about the SSC's societal benefits. It wasn't DOE, it was DOE
or SSC friendly congressmen. Of course, DOE did not do near enough to
disavow exaggerated claims. (Of course there were other incidents such
as the famous DOE "spin-off list" from accelerator research that was
way over the top).

The issue of historical continuity is an interesting one. I contend that
while there are individuals who have history, there is no single
organization (DOE, Congress, PPPL, etc.) that has an adequate grasp
of its own history to place its actions in context.

Just as an example, how old do you suppose Robert Heeter was when TFTR was
in same stages of design that TPX is in now? (sorry to pick on you
Robert, but you seem to get the award for the youngster in this
discussion).

Perhaps this sheds some light about the appropriateness and feasibility
of large, multi-year science projects and their ability to meet their
goals at inception.

-john .w cobb

-- 
 --------------------------------------------------------------
John W. Cobb	My posts don't reflect the views of my employer
                Because my posts are usually opaque.
 --------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenjohncobb cudfnJohn cudlnCobb cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.25 / Robert Heeter /  Re: Overblown comparisons between TFTR and cold fusion
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Overblown comparisons between TFTR and cold fusion
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 1994 21:00:12 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

In article <Cos7vt.869@prometheus.UUCP> Paul M. Koloc,
pmk@prometheus.UUCP writes:
>You are referring to the USDoE that does reviews using its own "peer 
>reviewers".  This is NOT a question of publishing a scientific paper, it
>is a question of FUNDING and continuing to FUND a boondoogle big
"science"
>project.   That means that using YOUR OWN "peer" reviewers is a conflict
>of interest, especially since the USDoE spends that money on itself
>and its laboratory system with a few conrete and steel contractors.  
>I think the science breakeven or not is a trivial question, because the
>real problem is the factor of 2000 shortfall in power that needs to be 
>come before commercial operation is even possible.  However, the other
>point that should not be missed, is that it is obvious that Princeton
>is not being up front, is being arrogant and these to factors are often
>associated with sleeze artisans.  That has whacked their credibility
>a bit, which doesn't help.   

This is false and misleading.  First of all, the DOE program is reviewed 
both internally and externally; the external reviewers include, 
specifically, the *international* fusion research community, which
reviews both the specific experimental and theoretical results, and
also provides input to the policymakers.  Additional external peer
review comes from inertial fusion researchers funded by the Dept
of Defense.  

Secondly, with a 6 MW power output, the tokamak only needs a factor
of *500* to reach a commercial scale, and not "2000" as you claim without
justification.  Furthermore, this represents a factor of 1000000
(a million) increase in power output since 1970, so progress is being 
made.  The critical parameter is the Lawson product, not the power 
output, anyway.  The Lawson product only needs to increase by a factor
of about 10 in order for ignition to occur, at which point power outputs
can be made huge.  The Lawson value for the tokamaks has improved
by a factor of 1000 since 1975, and ignition will be achieved (albeit
via brute force methods) in ITER, if it is built.

Finally, please clarify how and where "it is obvious that Princeton
is not being up front, is being arrogant," and how it follows that
Princeton researchers are therefore "sleeze artisans."  And don't
point to anything I've said, because while I may at times be
arrogant, I'm not Princeton, I don't speak for Princeton, and I
have never claimed to be representative of anyone at Princeton.

**************************
Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University
I do not represent Princeton, nor am I representative of Princeton.
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.26 / L Plutonium /  movie: NEANDERTHAL PARK
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,alt.religion.kibology,sci.math,sci
physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.chem,sci.bio
Subject: movie: NEANDERTHAL PARK
Date: 26 Apr 1994 16:42:53 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

 NEANDERTHAL PARK is filmed in wide screen Technicolor. At the
beginning of the movie, instead of a lion roaring, show a T.Rex jawing
to get the audience in the mood.

This is a parody on the movie Jurassic Park. The starring actors of
Neanderthal Park are Dick Adams, Terry Tao, Jan Bielawski, and John
Baez, with supporting actors  David Dixon, Jeff Greason, Dan Hoey, John
Kondis, Lynn Kurtz,  Alan Morgan, Mike Moroney, and Ben Tilly.

With the posting of this movie, I am back-on-track with no more than 3
posts per 24 hours. That is my self-imposed posting schedule. Why?
Because Net loonies, normal people, and mere graduate students will
have their "acting roles" placed into my periodic comedy movies.
Neanderthal Park is now my 5th movie. My other 4 were posted last year,
and those were serious science fiction movies.

I dedicate the title of this movie to a good friend of mine on sci.math
and sci.physics. His name is Alexander Abian and he often calls the
overly conservative math and physics communities-- politburos and
Neanderthal type thinkers who seldom change. I concur with AA because
those two communities have a herd-like mentality. AA has used the word
Neanderthal often in his posts.

SKIT 1

This skit has many animal scenes. 

The first scene is the scene in Jurassic Park movie where the herd of
herbivores is running.  Running from what we do not know? Until we see
the T. Rex. And then the T.Rex jaws one of the herbivores. 

Second scene is the same herd as in the first scene only where the
heads of the herbivores are replaced by these physics minors---
Weinberg, Glashow, Salam, Hawking,John Archibald Wheeler,J.Lovelock,
Smoot, Alan Guth, Bardeen, Cooper, Schrieffer, Hulse, Taylor,Glenn T.
Seaborg, Alwyn van der Merwe,,Edward Harrison,Jayant Narlikar, Carl
Sagan . . . all running in a herdlike fashion because the Truth Rex is
stalking them. And replace the T Rex head with mine. Interchange the
T.Rex head with mine and a visual effect of the 5f6 of plutonium. 

Third scene is a herd of wildebeests (African gnus), off on a charge
caused by carnivores. Then replace the gnus with the heads of those
minor physicists mentioned above. It is important that pictures of all
of the above are saved for future ridicule. Just as they are in the
limelight now, they will be in comedy-lights in the future history of
science. All of the above names will be in the movie credits for
further mockery. 

Show a scene of computer graphics where the planet Earth is making
Lovelock write his Gaia and then show the Gaia make Smoot see
fluctuations. Show Smoot measuring the length of a virus with a meter
stick.

Fourth scene is a flock of birds, show a flock of crows, flock of
sparrows, etc. taking flight. Then show these same flocks with the
above pictures of minor physicists as the birds, bird bodies and
birdbrained heads.

Fifth scene is a school of fish following a lead. William Adams,
Solomon Feferman, Wu-Yi Hsiang, Harold M. Edwards, Andrew J. Wiles,
Simon B. Kochen, Kenneth Ribet, members of AKADEMIE DER WISSENSCHAFTEN
IN GOETTINGEN for the WOLFSKEHL PRIZE, T.G.Ostrom, T. Jech, Appel and
Haken, A. Nerode, Larry Siebenmann, Gunter Asser, P. Malliavin, Peter
Roquette, Andrew Bremner, Julia Knight, Peter Swinnerton-Dyer, Gina
Kolata, Barry Cipra, H.-J. Kroll, Alan C. Woods, Steve Smale, J.E.
Vaughan, Paul Cohen, T. Hales, Sheldon Axler, Chandler Davis, Ian
Stewart,--- ALL FISH HEADS. Show pictures of all these persons, women
first or in a conspicuous fish place for Gina and Julia, be saved and
in the movie have them all swimming in one direction and then all of a
sudden, WITHOUT ANY REASON, they change course, all of them in unison
with their colored scales and fins swimming together. Photos of all of
the above persons must be saved for the entertainment of future
generations. In 2000 years from now we can delight in what were the
math minors that swam together, that lived, when LP lived. Math minors
that can not yet appreciate the fact that they lived, when LP lived. 

Show many fishhead fountains as per the French movie MON ONCLE. Replace
those fishhead fountains with the heads of the above squirting out
their math drivel.

Pictures of the above bozos must be saved for this movie Neanderthal
Park and their names must be printed at the end of the movie so future
generations and myself can have fun. I will be there 2000 years from
now, because I will be brought back to life via biotechnology. Noone
else except for Plutonium Atom Prizewinners are worthy of being
relifed. In 2000 years from now I can redelight in seeing what
fishheaded bozos lived, . . . . , when LP lived.

SKIT 2

This skit is a parody a la Monty Python's "The Life of Brian". "The
Life of Brian" was perhaps one of the finest examples of a comedy movie
which is more to the truth than the true history of its specific
subject material-- the Bible and the mythologizing of a normal human
being named Jesus. Show some scenes of "The Life of Brian".

Then intersperse the above with actors pretending to post to the NET as
antagonists of the PU Atom Totality and antagonists of LP. Antagonists
that were nettlesome when LP lived. Show Ben Tilly repeating over and
over "LP is just a potwasher".  Jan Bielawski is acting as Jan
Bielawski, Terry Tao as Terry Tao, and Lynn Kurtz as behind a computer
acting as all the other men and women who were antagonistic and lived
when LP lived.

SKIT 3

This is close to the popcorn and soda time, so we need a bit of song
and dance, a bit of lightheartedness here.

Members of the Neanderthal Choir singing Lumberjack song led by Terry
Tao singing in bass voice and Jan Bielawski singing ultra-soprano
 We're a Limbaughjack and we're okay,
  Criticize all night and criticize all day,
  We never offer a solution but we criticize
  We're a Limburgerjack and I we're okay, 
  Never offer a solution but we're okay,


SKIT 4

This skit is a la SCTV where they make fun of everything. In this skit
we poke fun at those actors and producers of movies who have the
predilection of using old people to play-act as young persons.
Older-aged actors to play the part of teenagers and kids. Such as Ron
Howard in an acting role as if he was a teenager.

In Neanderthal Park we have actors walking through the Park having seen
the fishheaded math minors. Here we have John Baez acting like a High
School teacher in his 40's when John is in his 60's in physical body.
John is looking through one of those fake binoculars (only two pipes as
used in National Parks) pointing out to a  group of kindergarten aged
kids one of which is played by Dick Adams (the wonders of make-up and
no matter how old the physical body (BTW,how old are you really Dick?);
 surrounded by real live 5 year olds. Dick, the 5 year olds are looking
through the fences for the herd of gnus and the flock of crows. And
John is trying to show the kindergarten kids (Dick is really anxious
here) but poor John gets sidetracked by giving some physics lecture on
the pipe binoculars.

SKIT 5

This skit is another a la SCTV, making fun of salespeople. Remember the
scene in SCTV where a bearded Amish looking person is trying to sell
furniture? He is standing at the opening of a furniture warehouse and
his sales-pitch is some talking but mostly waving of the hands
fanatically up and down and sideways.

[ I do not know the extent of legalities? The legalities concerning
Miracle Grow, the plant food fertilizer. Whether I need, or how I
obtain the manufacturers permission? Barring that, I will use a made-up
 plant food fertilizer and call it  Miracle Glow for this skit.]

Actors trying to sell Miracle Glow by fanatically waving hands, body
talk, body language. Miracle Glow as fertilizer for plants works
wonders on bald spots. Scene shows actor John Baez giving the latest
physics evidence for Miracle Glow. Show Before Picture of John counting
the grains of sand on a beach where the girls are swarming around a
weightlifter. Then an After Picture of Miracle Glow shows John as a 
Riverside California hippie pony tail starting to attract some female
attention. John is shown saying "Physics is a name, but girls are my
game."  Show Dick Adams Before and After Pictures, turning from a
completely bald to partially bald pate, after swabbing Miracle Glow
over his head and then water-canning it. Then the scene is at his
relatives house where before his nephews would snicker and deride
Dick's bald pate are now seen to wonder what Dick is doing? "Miracle
Glow" as the overweight Dick chuckles and bounces around the living
room.


SKIT 6

Scene shows the yachting CUP race, such as America's Cup. This skit is
patterned after the yachting Cup races. Ladies and gentlemen this years
contestants of the field we have the great team of  Britishers---
Hawking, Penrose, Close, Lovelock. Can they win by defeating the
Quantum's Cup? Composed of Bohr, Heisenberg, Schroedinger, Dirac.

Act 1 with the above actors opens like in 2001 with apes fighting over
a theory. All the apes are in wheelchairs though.  Skirmishes are many,
indeed. Cambridge the homebase of the big Hawkings and the little
Hawkings. Princeton decked out in orange has the Confederacy of Dunces
having drawn a new, brand new Wiles-Dave Dixon line. The reasoning is
hyperbowl and elliptical. 

Act 2. The scene reminds one of the Monty Python sketch of where a new
theory is about to be proposed on stage. But all that the proposer
seems to spout out is something like this "This new theory of mine
which is new, and my theory which I am about to give is my theory. My
theory, blah blah blah,.." And the stageman who introduced this clown
proposer starts saying things such as "Oh my God, in an exasperated
tone,.."  Show the movie camera switching back and forth in a panoramic
sweep between the Monty Python imitation type of sketch as above and
Hawking on stage proposing.  

Act 3. This is a remake of a poem I heard a long time ago. I claim no
credit for this poem. Who the author of it is, I do not know? 

Unknown author---
	I once met a man who was whittling a ship from a stick, 
	He whittled and whittled and little by little the ship 
	That he whittled grew littler and littler
	He whittled so long it became a boat
	He whittled a hole in it, Now how will it float?
	In anger he cut off his head
	and when he looked around and saw that his head was gone
	he whittled another and put that one on
 
Finish skit 6 by having Wiles recite to Hawking this remade poem.
	I once met Hawking who was whittling a ship from a stick, 
	He whittled and whittled and little by little the ship 
	That he whittled grew littler and littler
	He whittled so long it became a boat
	He whittled a black hole in it, Now how will it float?
	In anger he cut off his head
	and when he looked around and saw that his head was gone
	he whittled another and put that one on
 
SKIT 7

I dedicate this song to Sheldon Axler, R. Bojanic, Chandler Davis,
Philip Davis, H.-D. Ebbinghaus,Paul Erdos,INTERNATIONAL MATHEMATICAL
UNION  FOR  THE FIELDS MEDAL, Mike Freedman,T. Hales, Paul R. Halmos,
Wu-Li Hsiang, Helmut Koch,H.-J. Kroll, editors of Mathematica
Japonica,editors of The Mathematical Intelligencer, Roger Penrose, Rota
and Benney of M.I.T., Wilfried Schmid, Steve Smale, Ian Stewart, Hans
Zassenhaus. 
	Play the song PITIFUL DREAMERS (a rendition version of the music of
BEAUTIFUL DREAMER). Led by LP accompanied by the Neanderthal Park
choir.

   Pitiful Dreamers they saw 12 of the world's worst math problems
   solved pass by their eyes.
   And what did they do? Pitiful Dreamers just sitting around. 
   Show them a proof of Fermat's Last Theorem, what did they do? 
   Pitiful Dreamers just sitting around. 
   Show them a proof of Goldbach's Conjecture, what did they do? 
   Pitiful Dreamers waiting for their paychecks. 
   Show them a proof No Odd Perfect Number,
   What did they do, Pitiful Dreamers just sitting around. 
   Show them a proof of Infinitude of Twin Primes. 
   What did they do, Pitiful Dreamers waiting for their paychecks. 
   Show them two proofs of Riemann Hypothesis. 
   What did they do, Pitiful Dreamers just sitting around. 
   Show them the provability of Continuum Hypothesis. 
   What did they do, Pitiful Dreamers just sitting around. 
   Show them a proof of the Kepler Packing Problem. 
   What did they do, Pitiful Dreamers waiting for their paychecks. 
   Show them a proof of Poincare Conjecture. 
   What did they do, Pitiful Dreamers just sitting around. 
   Show them the first indirect valid proof of Infinitude of Primes. 
   What did they do, Pitiful Dreamers waiting for their paychecks. 
   Show them a proof of Infinitude of Perfect Numbers. 
   What did they do, Pitiful Dreamers just sitting around. 
   Show them a proof of Infinitude of Regular Constructible N-sided
Polygons.
   What did they do, Pitiful Dreamers waiting for their paychecks. 
   Show them the first two valid proofs of the Four Color Mapping
Problem. 
   What did they do, Pitiful Dreamers just sitting around. Pitiful
Dreamers, just shitting around, waiting for their paychecks. Pitiful
Dreamers just shitting around. Pitiful Dreamers, the Invasion of the
Body Snatchers started in them. Pitiful Dreamers that is all that they
are. All that they will ever be.

  Show scenes of the movie "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" and then
show those members of the math community and math departments. Show
math persons being body snatched and walking and talking like zombies-
not much different from the way they carried-on in 1994.

SKIT 8
 
 	I dedicate this song to the editors of CRC Press, editors of Nature,
editors of New Scientist, editors of Physics World,  editors of
Science, editors of Science News, editors of  Springer-Verlag.

 Play the song BORN IGNORANT lyrics by LP accompanied with the music
from the song BORN FREE.
	Born ignorant as ignorant as the grass groves, as ignorant as laughing
hyenas, born ignorant to follow their hearts.  Live ignorant, and
ignorance surrounds them. Ignorant by believing that the big bang,
black holes could exist when they violate the Pauli exclusion
principle. Staying ignorant, when an atom totality explains where
quantum physics ends and classical physics starts. Staying ignorant,
when only an atom totality can give meaning to the fine-structure
constant. Ignorant when the nucleus solves the missing mass problem.
Staying ignorant, when the last electron of Pu acting as a quantum
blackbody cavity solves the dark night sky problem. Staying ignorant,
when the last electron of Pu acting as a quantum blackbody cavity
explains the relentlessly uniform cosmic microwave background
radiation. Staying ignorant, when the last electron of Pu acting as a
quantum blackbody cavity explains the uniform cosmic gamma-ray bursts.
Staying ignorant, when the quantized star speeds can only imply quantum
physics on the large scale, which means an atom. Ignorant, when the
meaning of the Bell Inequality theorem with the Aspect experimental
results implies an Atom Totality. Ignorant, by believing that pulsars
are neutron stars in violation of the uncertainty principle. Staying
ignorant when the reason pi is a number approximately 22 divided by 7
is because Pu has approximately 22 subshells in 7 shells.Staying
ignorant when the reason e is a number approximately 19 divided by 7 is
because Pu has approximately 19 occupied subshells in 7 shells.

SKIT 9 

Show many Colleges and Universities with professors as wolves
regurgitating food into the mouths of students. Show Terry Tao and Ben
Tilly as graduate students. They can't decide whether to receive their
regurgitations in the mouth, . . or the head, oops, it missed his head,
oh my gosh, it flew over his head, the last bit of regurgitations
landed in his mouth. Oh, my gosh. Let us leave this section of
Neanderthal Park because I see Dick Adams and a band of 5 year olds
rounding the corner.

SKIT 10 

The movie shows several of the actors in Neanderthal Park with their
pseudo- intellectualism. Saying dumb things which on first appearance
sound okay. Posting to the Net their drivel, obnoxious antagonism,
endless arguments which mean nothing. Have the movie show these actors
getting the classic education of a cut open head and the liquid of
knowledge poured-in such as in Medieval and Neanderthal times. Students
as lemmings. Now repeat after me, lemmings, now regurgitate on this
test. Now, classroom time is a note-making factory. Have the actors
Alan Morgan, David Dixon, Dan Hoey, Jeff Greason, John Kondis, Mike
Moroney act the part of teachers regurgitating Bible babble and
regurgitating back. Classroom is a cage. Show the actors jump up and
down like the hyenas in the cage next to them. Show the cage of
obnoxious pseudo-intellectuals of  Dick Adams, Terry Tao, Jan
Bielawski, and John Baez, with supporting actors  David Dixon, Jeff
Greason, Dan Hoey, John Kondis, Lynn Kurtz,  Alan Morgan, Mike Moroney,
and Ben Tilly in their cages typing away on their keyboards to post
something to the Net against LP. Show LP going by the chimpanzee cage
throwing in some nuts. Show LP going past the actors cage and say "Hey
you Net looneys,cranks, and crackpots, you Net nuts. Be thankful that
you lived in the time that LP lived."

End of movie.

Credits--- list all the names above.

Warning there was no cruelty what so ever towards animals in this movie
--- in SKIT 9, where it shows Dick Adams running into a gay bar in
Maryland in order to ask about "whether he can have circumcision
performed on him at the age of 22". That role was performed by Dick
himself but. The camera was veered away from this scene and the
audience was told by word of mouth what Dick was up to. Dick craves
attention even though he is an actor. This movie Neanderthal Park edits
out all unstable behavior. Neanderthal Park is a Walt Disney type movie
and a Walt Disney type rating in all scenes. This movie is an all
around good family type entertainment.
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.26 / SCOTT CHASE /  Re: News for Press Conference Fans
     
Originally-From: sichase@csa5.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics
Subject: Re: News for Press Conference Fans
Date: 26 Apr 1994 13:32 PST
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA

In article <Cou7A1.BLy@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, crb7q@watt.seas.Virgin
a.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes...
>In article <2phj4a$gfq@tamuts.tamu.edu>,
>David Wayne Ring <dwr2560@tamuts.tamu.edu> wrote:
>>Cameron Randale Bass <crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU> wrote:
>>>     Jon, I'm going to need a ruling on whether 'we have evidence'
>>>     counts as 'discovery'.  I suppose we should wait til tuesday, 
>>>     but was it 'seen' or not?
>>
>>If they meant 'discovery', they would have said 'discovery'. I understand
>>there was a great deal of haggling over the exact wording of the announcement.
> 
>    So I generally gathered from the Economist article, but
>    of much more importance than the detailed wording, is how does
>    the announcement affect the *bet*.
> 
>    After all, we must worry about the important things first...

For why my opinion is worth...

I just saw the CDF presentation by one of the local LBL CDF experts.
Her conclusion was that the "statistics are too limited" to consider
their result conclusive evidence for the top quark.  (Their 12 events
over a background of 5.9 amounts to a 2.8 sigma excess in the total
of the various channels that they searched).  She said that she interpret
their results as a "hint" that they may have some top signal in their 
data, and that in the next 14 months they will have 4-5 times as much
data in hand.  Their mass estimate is 174+/-10+13-12 GeV.

To evaluate what "2.8 sigma" means in this case, you need to know two things -
that this corresponds to a 0.16% chance that they have measured nothing
more than a simultaneous upward fluctuation of events in three independent
channels, but that the background calculations and methods of analysis 
are, I think it is fair to say, the most complex ever attempted. Although
0.16% sounds small enough to discount, the number will be quite sensitive to 
how they interpret their data and perform their Monte Carlo simulations.  

So I say, both from hearing and judging the details on their own merit
(to the extent possible from seeing one hour-long presentation) and from
the general "spin" that she put on all her comments, that this announcement
does NOT constitute a discovery of the top quark.

The self-appointed arbiter has spoken.

So Dale, does this mean that you *do* or *do not* owe money?  I have 
forgotten the details of your bet.

-Scott
 -------------------
Scott I. Chase            "The question seems to be of such a character
SICHASE@CSA2.LBL.GOV      that if I should come to life after my death
                          and some mathematician were to tell me that it
                          had been definitely settled, I think I would
                          immediately drop dead again."      - Vandiver
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudensichase cudfnSCOTT cudlnCHASE cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.26 / John Cobb /  Re: Reply to Maglich on TFTR D-T Result
     
Originally-From: johncobb@emx.cc.utexas.edu (John W. Cobb)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reply to Maglich on TFTR D-T Result
Date: 26 Apr 1994 15:41:47 -0500
Organization: The University of Texas - Austin

In article <1994Apr25.220035.28633@princeton.edu>,
Robert F. Heeter  <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> wrote:

[amidst the discussion about the course of fusion research and Maglich]
>
>I didn't say that alternate schemes were "maverick", only that *Maglich*
>is, which, it seems to me, everyone agrees on (including you).  Odd that
>you would deliberately mis-associate those two.  Please stop trying to
>smear.
>
>I've said before that I support alternate-concepts research so long as it
>doesn't come at the expense of the current research areas.
>

I find this statement very ironic considering the number and amount of
alternate concept work that has been sacrificed for "current reserch
areas".

In 1990, the following large experiments were closed or construction
halted in order to proceed with plans to build BPX at Princeton.

LSX
CPRF
ZT-40
ATF

ATF had just been built and was just being turned on. The same with LSX.
CPRF was over 80% complete and the entire project was junked. While
ATF and LSX were later turned back on after BPX died of its own size,
both of their experimental programs have been severely limited and 
their lifetimes have been cut artificially short.

Moreover, these decisions by DOE were contrary to language of summary
reports of its various advisory panels (MFAC's, FPAC, FEAC, SEAB, etc)
that said that the fusion energy program should first preserve the
base program in plasma physics and concept diversity as incsurance
for long term health of the program.

I would like to suggest that perhaps you are a bit too close to see
the big picture. In fact this may be a source of a lot of the vitriol
that is vented on sci.physics.fusion.

For those who do not work at Princeton, or directly collaborate, it is
very easy to get the impression that PPPL
views DOE-OFE as its own property and that the terms magnetic fusion
research and PPPL are synomymous. Now I am sure that those researchers
at PPPL do not perceive themselves as such and they probably do not
purposefully seek such a perception (who would?).

In fact from their perspective, (as far as I can put myself in that
environment) they have been fighting to keep their heads above water.
TFTR will close soon. They sought to maintain a health lab by building
first CIT and later BPX. However, in a shrinking budget, these items
were too large to be supportted (even after jettisoning almost
everything else as noted above). The rhetoric was one of "maintaining
a flagship research environment to propel the program forward". It is
not just rhetoric, but it has some truth.

However along the way, over and over again, other research has been
prematurely terminated not because of any scienctific reason, but because
of budget cuts and politics. The scenario is that a budget cut comes down
from on high (usually a final appropriation bill). Then the different
fusion programs fight to see who gets the pain. In such fights, Princeton
has always been the most well armed. Who else spends as much on a P.R.
office?

It has been particularly embittering for those researchers who have
had excellent ideas and had been developing them theoretically and
experimentally with unprecedented success to be prematurely terminated.

My work is a case in point. I conducted research on FRC's. Althogh the
machines were small, they were showing some amazing results. Beta
of 60-80% for example. Moreoever, there was a trend for kinetic effects
to stabilize modes. The projected reactor could have low neutron activity,
a simple coil geometry (non-linked) and would be small
enough to reduce total capital cost. However, in 1990, FRC's were
killed for one reason: money. As a consequence, I had to change my research
career (ultimately even outside of fusion).

Ironically, there is a strange circular reasoning used by many still
in magnetic fusion (i.e. tokamak fusion) to the effect of. If you were
doing good work, you would continue funding, therefore the lack of anybody
doing anything else than tokamaks proves they are superior. While I
have noticed that Heeter, explicitly states otherwise, I have been to
many meetings where this is a common line of reasoning, particularly
among younger researchers.

The contraction of MFE to just tokamaks is akin to the circling of the
wagons. What doesn't fit is discarded because the program is shrinking.
The decision on what to jettison is based on short-term cost economics and
ease of management, not on issues that relate to core goals and objectives,
especially long term ones. As a consequence, I believe we have crippled
the U.S. MFE program.

Notice that both the Europeans and the Japanese are still pursuing a diverse
fusion program. They have and are buildiing, helical devices, RFP's, FRC's
and even mirrors. This is becuase they have the ability to conduct
their programs with some long-term management and have not had a 50%
cut in funding over the last decade as here in the U.S. (although that may
soon change in Europe).

I add this only to try to highlight where the basic disconnect occurs.
Outside of PPPL (and actually tokamaks in general including DIII-D, TEXT,
etc) there has been a wholesale massacre. Much of that talent has had to move
into tokamak research or outside of fusion. Inside the wagon circle, the
people who are trying to maintain a viable tokamak effort are working
very hard to try to get a next machine built. CIT died. BPX died. TPX
may be in trouble yet. It has become fashionable to grumble about ITER.
It is quite understandable how PPPL could also be defensive and see
legitimate requests for diversity and long-term planning as a threat
and act accordingly. When you circle the wagons, group-think is not
far behind. 

When this disconnect occurs we should not be surprised that those inside
the wagon circle seem inflexible and paralyzed. They are trying to 
accomplish tasks that were laid before based on funding levels that have
not occurred. We should also not be surprised that some of the people in the
programs that were jettisoned so suddenly and unjustly are bitter and
take pleasure at lobbing stinkbombs at Tokamak fusion efforts.

However, it would be more productive for all to realize that such
paranoia and antics only do harm.

Unfortunately, everyone seems to enjoy the theatrical aspects of
conflict more then genuine progress.

-john .w cobb

Tokamak Fusion Energy <>  Magnetic Fusion Energy



-- 
 --------------------------------------------------------------
John W. Cobb	My posts don't reflect the views of my employer
                Because my posts are usually opaque.
 --------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenjohncobb cudfnJohn cudlnCobb cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.26 / Terry Morse /  Nuclear Waste Disposal: What to Do with Spent Ludwig Plutonium
     
Originally-From: morset@ccmail.orst.edu (Terry Morse)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,alt.religion.kibology,sci.math,sci
physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.chem,sci.bio
Subject: Nuclear Waste Disposal: What to Do with Spent Ludwig Plutonium
(was re: Neanderthal Park)
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 1994 13:17:32
Organization: Oregon State University

  We could all just ignore his posts, and maybe he'd stop making them.  Even 
if he continues, the amount of clutter in the group would be reduced without 
all the pointless responses.

--Terry

Terry Morse
morset@ccmail.orst.edu
**************************************************************************
"It has been said ... that there are few situations in life that cannot be
honourably settled, and without loss of time, either by suicide, a bag of
gold, or by thrusting a despised antagonist over the edge of a precipice
upon a dark night." -- Ernest Bramah, 1868-1942.
**************************************************************************
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenmorset cudfnTerry cudlnMorse cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.26 / SCOTT CHASE /  Re: News for Press Conference Fans
     
Originally-From: sichase@csa5.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics
Subject: Re: News for Press Conference Fans
Date: 26 Apr 1994 14:22 PST
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA

In article <26APR199413321078@csa5.lbl.gov>, sichase@csa5.lbl.gov
(SCOTT I CHASE) writes...
> 
>For why my opinion is worth...

Ooops.  "Why" is not for me to judge.  I meant "what".

-Scott
 -------------------
Scott I. Chase	                      Mutationem motas proportionalem 
SICHASE@CSA2.LBL.GOV                  esse vi motrici impressae.




cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudensichase cudfnSCOTT cudlnCHASE cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.26 / Jim Carr /  Re: News for Press Conference Fans
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics
Subject: Re: News for Press Conference Fans
Date: 26 Apr 1994 17:19:02 -0400
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

In article <Cou7A1.BLy@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> 
crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>
>>>     Jon, I'm going to need a ruling on whether 'we have evidence'
>>>     counts as 'discovery'.  I suppose we should wait til tuesday, 
>>>     but was it 'seen' or not?
>
>    After all, we must worry about the important things first...

William J. Broad, in his NYTimes article, quotes a 'senior Fermilab 
official' who spoke on the condition of anonymity "We don't have a 
discovery.  We have evidence.  It's good evidence.  It's tightening 
up to where the top quark lives.  The next step is to get more events." 

Maybe he owes you $1, since they were bold enough to hold a press 
conference on that massive paper, and it did sneak above the fold 
on the front page of the NYTimes.   

-- 
 James A. Carr   <jac@scri.fsu.edu>     |   "It's never confusing though, 
      http://www.scri.fsu.edu           |  because ultimately it all fits 
 Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst.  |  -- its just cockeyed and fits  
 Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306    |  and is fire."  -  Norman Maclean 
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.26 / Chris James /  Re: movie: NEANDERTHAL PARK
     
Originally-From: cjames@julian.uwo.ca (Chris James)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,alt.religion.kibology,sci.math,sci
physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.chem,sci.bio
Subject: Re: movie: NEANDERTHAL PARK
Date: 26 Apr 1994 19:30:49 GMT
Organization: Hearing Health Care Research Unit, Univ. of Western Ontario

In article <2pjgad$197@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth
edu (Ludwig Plutonium) writes:
much deleted...

>I dedicate the title of this movie to a good friend of mine on sci.math
>and sci.physics. His name is Alexander Abian and he often calls the
>overly conservative math and physics communities-- politburos and
>Neanderthal type thinkers who seldom change. I concur with AA because
>those two communities have a herd-like mentality. AA has used the word
>Neanderthal often in his posts.
>

...much more deleted

Wasn't there some fossil evidence a while back that indicated that the much
put down Neanderthal was likely to have been in possession of a bigger brain
than Homo Sapeans (spelling?) and therefore perhaps of greater potential
intellect. (I think some ideas about its downfall were put forward in terms
of other factors which affect survival - something about the nose, alternatively
perhaps they spent too much time thinking and not enough time doing). I'm not sure
"herd-like mentality" is appropriate either.

Yes, I'm trying to make a point, albeit obscurely.


Chris James

 


cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudencjames cudfnChris cudlnJames cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.25 / Robert Heeter /  Re: Reply to Maglich on TFTR D-T Result
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reply to Maglich on TFTR D-T Result
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 1994 22:00:35 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

In article <940423143841_74242.1554_BHR41-4@CompuServe.COM> John M.
Logajan, 74242.1554@compuserve.com writes:
>rfheeter@flagstaff.Princeton.EDU (Robert Franklin Heeter) writes:
>
>>Judging by the outdated arguments he [Maglich] tends to use, I'd say his
>>knowledge comes mostly from the late 60s and early 70s, actually. 
>
>Pretty strong stuff coming from someone who is losing the debate! :-)

How can you tell who is winning and who is losing?

>>Maglich is also considered a maverick in the field, and hardly anyone
>>seriously thinks the Migma will be made to work.
>
>Come on, Tokamaks have already been rejected by power companies as too
big
>and too costly even given PPPL's rosie scenarioes.  

Where's the reference that says that all power companies have rejected
all tokamaks forevermore, as you claim?  

>PPPL can throw all the
>stones it wants at Migma and Plasmak, and every other alternate
>("maverick") scheme, but it doesn't really much matter anymore.  

Where is the documentation of stone-throwing by PPPL?

I didn't say that alternate schemes were "maverick", only that *Maglich*
is, which, it seems to me, everyone agrees on (including you).  Odd that
you would deliberately mis-associate those two.  Please stop trying to
smear.

I've said before that I support alternate-concepts research so long as it
doesn't come at the expense of the current research areas.

>The Tokamak dinosaur is on its last legs.  We'll be picking over the
fossils
>before long.

Odd that the Japanese, Europeans, and majority of American researchers 
don't think so...

*************************
Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton
I have not, do not, and most likely will not represent PPPL.
Do not treat my writings as PPPL positions, nor PPPL's positons as my
own.  
It's annoying.
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.25 / Robert Heeter /  Re: Reply to Maglich on TFTR D-T Result
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Originally-From: John M. Logajan, 74242.1554@compuserve.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reply to Maglich on TFTR D-T Result
Subject: Re: Reply to Maglich on TFTR D-T Result
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 1994 22:30:19 GMT
Date: Sun, 24 Apr 1994 00:15:03 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

Subject: Re: Reply to Maglich on TFTR D-T Result
Originally-From: John M. Logajan, 74242.1554@compuserve.com
Date: Sun, 24 Apr 1994 00:15:03 GMT
In article <940423143830_74242.1554_BHR41-2@CompuServe.COM> John M.
Logajan, 74242.1554@compuserve.com writes:

>rfheeter@flagstaff.Princeton.EDU (Robert Franklin Heeter) writes:
>
>>you pump in 30 MW of neutral beams, and you get an extra 3 MW of beam-
>>plasma fusion reactions, plus you heat up your plasma to get another
>>2 MW of plasma-plasma reactions, plus you get 1 MW of beam-beam
>>reactions, so basically the beams alone give you everything.
>
>Well, your numbers don't seem to be quite right, and you conclude with a
>form of eastern philosophy.

No, the numbers are almost exactly right.  6 MW of fusion should be
roughly 50% beam-plasma, so there's your 3 MW.  It should be roughly
15% beam-beam, so there's your 1 MW.  The remaining 30% is 
plasma-plasma, so there's your 2 MW.  Given that I only gave you
one significant figure, there is *nothing* wrong about the numbers
I gave.  And the 30 MW of neutral beams is what they used to get
the 6 MW of output, for a Q (ratio of power out to power in) of 0.2.

In what sense is "beams alone give you everything" a "form of eastern
philosophy?"  (And what's wrong with eastern philosophy, anyway?)
>
>You give a 50/50 ratio and Strachan is only claiming a 75/25 ratio.  I
>won't adjust your power figures since I don't know which one (if any) is
>right.  But instead of seeing 3, 2, 1 as in your order above, something
>like 3, 1.34, 1, would be more consistent to Strachan's own estimations.

Negative, you didn't read carefully.  I give you a 66-33 ratio between
beam-source reactions and plasma-plasma reactions, which is pretty
close to what Strachan claims.  And I was just being approximate anyway.
>  
>Since you seemed to be elsewhere arguing that the beam is a match that
>ignites the fuel, claiming that "beam is the source of everything" is the
>eastern philosophy equivalent of claiming that the sparkplug spark is the
>source of the automobile's power.

All I was saying was that if you didn't have the beams, you wouldn't
have any fusion at all.  You get fusion directly, from beam-beam reactions
and from beam-plasma reactions.  And you get the plasma-plasma reactions
indirectly because your beams heat your plasma.  So the beams, as I said,
give you everything.  Which is certainly true.  Equally, I would argue
that without the sparkplug spark, your automobile engine probably 
wouldn't run (unless it was diesel?).

>Maglich might argue that just because you measure the RF of the sparkplug
>spark doesn't allow you sufficient information to determine the power of
>the ignited gasoline.

No, Maglich was arguing that every single neutron came from beam-wall
interactions, and that what we were doing was burning the engine oil
and not the fuel.  This is demonstrably false.

In Maglich's fax sent to congressional staffers, as quoted in the PPPL
response which I posted, he writes:

M>	1.	Injected beam of deuterium and tritium hits the walls of the 
M> Tokamak chamber which are lined with deposited deuterium and 
M> tritium. 

and later:

M> APC has shown mathematically that all the neutrons coming out 
M> of the December 9-10, 1993, Tokamak experiment can be accounted 
M> for solely by the mechanism #1.  We will submit our paper to a 
M> scientific journal on or before April 8. 
>
>Maglich is not saying the sparkplug is useless, and it is more than a bit
>of misdirection for you to play it that way.  

No, he was just saying the sparkplug doesn't burn your fuel, and therefore
it might as well be useless.  I don't feel I was midirecting anything.

>What we have in TFTR,
>according to you, if I may rephrase it, is a sparkplug in which a small
>amount of gas/air mixture in the gap ignites to produce about 1/7th the
>energy of the spark itself.  Outside the gap an additional very small
>amount of gas/air mixture ignites to produce another 1/22nd of the spark
>energy.

1/6th and 1/30th, and you'd be right.

Which is significantly different from what Maglich is claiming.

Maglich claimed that the spark just burned some deposits on the walls.
>
>It is the gas/air mixture outside the sparkgap that is going to power any
>useful engine, and it is the plasma-plasma reaction rather than the
>beam-plasma "spark" that is going to power our hot fusion power
generator.

I completely agree.  And in ITER, you'll get exactly what you want.
But TFTR doesn't get that, and the reason is because it wasn't designed
to get that.  I keep repeating this, and you keep not getting it.  Why?

>>The reason why Maglich's criticism is off base is because TFTR was
>>designed to perform this way... To criticize TFTR for not working like a
>>powerplant is like criticizing a flight simulator program for not being
>>an airplane
>
>Maglich is, at least in this specific instance, complaining about the
>unsubstantiated claims rather than the design or the test plan (which I'm
>sure he has lambasted at another time and in another place :-)

No, Maglich is very clearly complaining that the fusion does not occur
in the way it should for a reactor plant.  That's the whole origin of
his arguments about "false" reactions and "false" neutrons.  If he
wanted to accommodate his thinking to the design, he wouldn't call
them false neutrons, for they are very clearly *goals* of the design.
And as I've shown several times, his complaints about the 
"unsubtstantiated claims" are groundless, false, and unprofessional.

********************************************
Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Graduate Student, Princeton Plasma Physics Lab
Again, and always, not representing PPPL.
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.25 / Robert Heeter /  Re: Forwarded Official PPPL Response to Maglich
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Forwarded Official PPPL Response to Maglich
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 1994 22:47:04 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

In article <940423143820_74242.1554_BHR41-1@CompuServe.COM> John M.
Logajan, 74242.1554@compuserve.com writes:
>Dr. Dale M. Meade (Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory) writes:
>>...fusion power production is due to three components (beam-target,
>>beam-beam, and thermal reactions).  For the high power D-T experiments,
>>calculations show that 25-30% of the fusion power is from thermal
>>reactions....
>
>Ergo 70-75% of the *calculated* neutron flux is from beam-plasma and
>beam-beam reactions.

"Calculated" refers to both theoretical predictions and results
from analysis of experimental data.  Be careful which is meant.
In this case, I suspect both.  And keep in mind that that
theory is well-supported by other experimental evidence.

>>The fraction of fusion power due to each mechanism depends upon the 
>>plasma and beam conditions.
>
>Which is why *calculations* should be backed up with sufficiently
>sensitive instruments -- to verify that 25% of the neutrons were from
>plasma-plasma and not 0%.

How do you know they weren't backed up?  Are you trusting only 
Maglich on this?  As I have just explained in another posting, there's 
more than one way to skin this particular cat.  It's really not that
hard to sort out what neutrons come from where.  And those calculations 
most likely were *derived* from results obtained from other instruments
used.
>
>>This topic is widely known and understood within the fusion community
>>and is described in the published literature.
>
>PPPL is so confident of its theoretical predictions that it doesn't need
>instrumentation around the device to verify the actual response???

You're misrepresenting what was done.

Hot fusion researchers, (with the apparent exception of Maglich) are
confident that they understand the sources of neutrons in their
experiments, not from theoretical predictions, but from other experiments
and the other diagnostics used on the machine.  I explained all this
in a separate posting elsewhere.

>What if P+F said that their cold fusion theory was so well understood by
>them that they presumed excess heat and did not need to use thermometers
>-- even during their very first test!  Outrageous.

No, more like P&F observed excess heat, decided it had to be from fusion,
and published without bothering to check carefully for neutrons,
gamma rays, and other fusion products during a period of excess heat.
No comment...
>
>>APC should submit any criticism of the TFTR experimental results to a 
>>peer-reviewed journal such as Physical Review Letters.
>
>The unmitigated gall.  The pinnacle of arrogance.  PPPL wants the option
>for themselves to do science by press conference but they want criticisms
>channeled only through peer-review.
>
I don't believe it says above that APC couldn't publicize before
publishing,
only that the criticisms should be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal.
Doesn't say when.  And Maglich did say that they were planning to
submit their criticism.  Doubt it'll be published in the form we
saw, though.

Personally I don't think it's particularly appropriate to criticize
anyone in front of Congress without first verifying one's facts with
the people being criticized; it tends to make you look really bad when 
you're wrong.  *That* takes a lot of gall/arrogance/whatever.
But I don't represent PPPL.

****************************
Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Graduate Student, Princeton Plasma Physics Lab
Disclaimers Apply.
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.26 / Paul Koloc /  was Overblown -->DoE's "review" and Tokamak: Commerial? 
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: was Overblown -->DoE's "review" and Tokamak: Commerial? 
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 1994 17:57:18 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <1994Apr25.210012.13927@Princeton.EDU> Robert F. Heeter
<rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> writes:
>In article <Cos7vt.869@prometheus.UUCP> Paul M. Koloc,
>pmk@prometheus.UUCP writes:
>>You are referring to the USDoE that does reviews using its own "peer 
>>reviewers".  This is NOT a question of publishing a scientific paper, it
>>is a question of FUNDING and continuing to FUND a boondoogle big
>"science"
>>project.   That means that using YOUR OWN "peer" reviewers is a conflict
>>of interest, especially since the USDoE spends that money on itself
>>and its laboratory system with a few conrete and steel contractors.  
>>I think the science breakeven or not is a trivial question, because the
>>real problem is the factor of 2000 shortfall in power that needs to be 
>>come before commercial operation is even possible.  However, the other
>>point that should not be missed, is that it is obvious that Princeton
>>is not being up front, is being arrogant and these to factors are often
>>associated with sleeze artisans.  That has whacked their credibility
>>a bit, which doesn't help.   

>This [above] is false and misleading.  First of all, the DOE program is 
>reviewed both internally and externally; the external reviewers include, 
>specifically, the *international* fusion research community, which
>reviews both the specific experimental and theoretical results, and
>also provides input to the policymakers.  

Yes, I remember being in Insbruck in 76 with heads of various tokamak
groups from Russia, Germany, the UK, Gen Atomics and Princeton.  They
where actually cooking up stories of how to sell these programs to 
their respective legislative bodies.  It was fascinating.  Then the
reviews were not "internationalized", there was no ITER.  NOW there IS.

So guess who the parties are that are not disinterested.  Yep ... the
**** international **** fusion research community.  My, my what Is this
clever sneaky world coming too. In fact, the "international" fusion 
research community is the international TOKAMAK (ITER) community.  Now,
you scratch my back ...and .I'll scratch Joe's back and Joe will scratch
your back.  Ahhgg EVERYbodies Happy .. except me and maybe a couple of 
congcritters . 

>Additional external peer
>review comes from inertial fusion researchers funded by the Dept
>of Defense.  

The DoD funds are spent through the US DoE "defense" wing, and so they
are fed by a weak sister of the same organism (USDoE military systems).  

>Secondly, with a 6 MW power output, the tokamak only needs a factor
>of *500* to reach a commercial scale, and not "2000" as you claim without
>justification.  

I don't think that difference is significant.  Although, I think you 
will find that larger losses are going to be a bit more SIGNIFICANT 
than your published studies are telling you, let's compromise and say
an even one thousand ... three orders of magnitude.  

>Furthermore, this represents a factor of 1000000
>(a million) increase in power output since 1970, so progress is being 
>made.  

Gee, you mean that going from a converted stellarator to a tokamak that
actually is fueled for easy ignition will generate loads more power all 
the way up to a milliwatt or two/cc,  I guess I can believe that.   

You do realize that a birthday candle 5w/cc exceeds tokamak power 
density by thousands of times!   

          NOW What do you do..  you have discovered a new super fuel??
                  Nope... you can make it bigger and heat it more 
                          but in the long run ... maybe another factor
                                   of twenty in power density is the
                                      most you can reasonably expect.  

One of the problems is that when you make it bigger, it MUST generate 
more power to increase its power density and that raises the flux
density on the wall, even at constant density due to the increased 
radiation path (radius). Now you will have impurities .. oh maybe not 
in the first second or two .. but after a while .. a minute??  Then
the impurity imigration problem starts (getting past those border 
guards).  The second problem relates to the lack of available 
confinement pressure, since heating increases plasma pressure, but not 
confining magnetic pressure (adiabatic compression aside), the loss 
rates will dramatically increase.   

>The critical parameter is the Lawson product, not the power 
>output, anyway.  The Lawson product only needs to increase by a factor
>of about 10 in order for ignition to occur, at which point power outputs
>can be made huge.  The Lawson value for the tokamaks has improved
>by a factor of 1000 since 1975, and ignition will be achieved (albeit
>via brute force methods) in ITER, if it is built.

I have a florescent lamp that has a Lawson criteria that will make your 
improved tokamak look anemic.  We need the product of three parameters 
simultaneously, a sort of critical fusion volume if you will.  As I 
point out above, the effect of burning can erode two of these, the 
confinement time through increased energy transport and the
temperature through increased impurity induced cooling.  

It's entirely possible that you could, by brute force, power a tokamak
to ignition and force-maintain burn, so the Lawson would look great.  
But, it STILL would NOT be above commercial Breakeven because of the
heroic heating effort required.  You say that 10 increase in the Lawson 
is needed.  This will require the plasma AT THE BURN TEMPERATURE to
have increased density.. or increased confinement time.  The latter 
won't happen, but let's say that we can keep the confinement time from 
deteriorating.  Then all we have to do is increase the density by ten
and we are there.  Now we notice that the factor of ten bumped up 
increase in plasma Beta has exceeded by a considerable measure, the 
tokamaks ability to remain stable (although force stablized) and so 
it disrupts.  

But... it was burning and it was above its Lawson.  Of course, the 
cracked deformed core vacuum wall or shattered limitors will have to 
be repaired or replaced, a minor glich of a year, and we can take 
another five minute whack at tokamak fusion electric grid power.  

                    Naw... on second thought -- 
            I like my FUNCTIONING heat pump too much.

>Finally, please clarify how and where "it is obvious that Princeton
>is not being up front, is being arrogant," and how it follows that
>Princeton researchers are therefore "sleeze artisans."  

I DID NOT say that.   I said that such practices were ASSOCIATED 
with sleeze artisans and that if Princeton practiced such they could 
eventually be considered with less respect.  This could add to the 
problem of credibility which was recently questioned.  That plus the 
non-responsiveness to congressional queries by its big backer, the 
Germantown Mag Fusion Mafia, (with no disrespect-- meaning it is a 
tightly knit family that "walks and talks in LOCK step) is NOT the 
baggage to have strapped to an institute's back.   note the fog 

Princeton has done fine work; they, to my way of thinking, have 
finished the job of sellecting a candidate reactor and testing it, 
(the Tokamak Fusion TEST Reactor).  BUT, NOW is time to face up to 
the consequences and to strike out in a fundamentally new direction.  

Unfortunately, neither Furth nor Rosenbluth are with us in their 
full influential positions at Princeton, as they were in the middle 
70's .. so we are stuck unless congress acts to force change.  I 
would like to see PPPL privatized or to become certainly more 
independent than the DoE considers them to be.  Then perhaps they would
soon develop incentive and skills to make such decisions, because
then what is right for PPPL is right for the nation.   

>And don't
>point to anything I've said, because while I may at times be
>arrogant, I'm not Princeton, I don't speak for Princeton, and I
>have never claimed to be representative of anyone at Princeton.

On the contrary, your representation is most excellent.  I speak 
of expressions from other tongues.  

>Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc,Bx 1037, Prometheus II, Ltd., College Park, MD 20741-1037 |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.26 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Reply to Maglich on TFTR D-T Result
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reply to Maglich on TFTR D-T Result
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 1994 18:22:31 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <1994Apr25.220035.28633@Princeton.EDU> Robert F. Heeter
<rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> writes:
>I've said before that I support alternate-concepts research so long as it 
>doesn't come at the expense of the current research areas.

According to the reality of our country's economic situation, that is
not an option.  The Energy subcomittee under HSST also made that very
clear.   So I take it that you and PPPL and USDoE are all in lock step
on this and do not favor support of alternate concepts!  

Post faux or cleverly worded response to the net, and send me your
true feelings. by email.  Or better yet .. Let me guess and stand
by -- do nothing.  

>In article <940423143841_74242.1554_BHR41-4@CompuServe.COM> John M.
>Logajan, 74242.1554@compuserve.com writes:
>>The Tokamak dinosaur is on its last legs.  We'll be picking over the
>>fossils before long.

>Odd that the Japanese, Europeans, and majority of American researchers 
>don't think so...

Science is NOT based on democracy (majority vote) but perceived or real
(as can be determined) successful results. 

Funding of big Science projects with purpose IS based on democracy and 
perceived Shortfalls.  (Unfortunately for researchers or not)   
Hope you see the difference.  

>Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu

cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.26 / Jim Carr /  Re: Reply to Maglich on TFTR D-T Results
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reply to Maglich on TFTR D-T Results
Date: 26 Apr 1994 17:58:57 -0400
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

In article <2pjpi2INNla5@emx.cc.utexas.edu> johncobb@emx.cc.utexas.edu
(John W. Cobb) writes:
>
>While it may have applied to Maglich's original migma concept (1985),

This study definitely predates the work you describe, as did Maglich's 
visit here to FSU.  I will have to look up the PRL on it. 

>If I have guessed correctly what Gordon was looking at, I think that these
>are the answers.

It does seem so to me, but I am no expert on accelerator physics.  It does 
seem like it would have problems with near misses, but not the space charge 
disruption of the orbits. 

>BTW, is Gordon still working at MSU? You know he is really an amazing person.

Last time I visited, yes.  He is pushing retirement but there are still 
some cyclotron design problems to be solved. 

For those of you who have never had the pleasure of taking graduate E+M 
out of Jackson from Mort, who could still draw better blind back when I
had his class than some physicists I know, you missed a real treat.  Can 
you imagine having the lecture notes for Jackson E+M in your head? 

His work on inventing computer modeling of cyclotrons deserves more fame than 
he has received, but he labors quietly in the background while the builders 
are out showing the steel to the press.  He and Blosser designed the best 
cyclotron ever made using code that ran on a 1024 (later 4096) word tube 
computer.  Needless to say, getting the right physics in it was a triumph. 

-- 
 James A. Carr   <jac@scri.fsu.edu>     |   "It's never confusing though, 
      http://www.scri.fsu.edu           |  because ultimately it all fits 
 Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst.  |  -- its just cockeyed and fits  
 Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306    |  and is fire."  -  Norman Maclean 
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.26 / Thomas Cantine /  Re: Evolution Proves: Cold Fusion not Possible!
     
Originally-From: g9326443@mcmail.cis.mcmaster.ca (Thomas Michael Cantine)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Evolution Proves: Cold Fusion not Possible!
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 1994 18:58:04 GMT
Organization: McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada

Wheels too!  Don't forget wheels!  If wheels are physically possible, they
should also have evolved in some organism somewhere.
-- 
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas M. Cantine              "My theory, which is mine, is mine.
g9326443@mcmaster.ca            And I own it, too."
==============================================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudeng9326443 cudfnThomas cudlnCantine cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.26 / Robert Heeter /  Re: Overblown comparisons between TFTR and cold fusion
     
Originally-From: rfheeter@theory.pppl.gov (Robert F. Heeter)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Overblown comparisons between TFTR and cold fusion
Date: 26 Apr 1994 18:44:16 -0400
Organization: /etc/organization

In article <2pjr44INN7ui@emx.cc.utexas.edu>,
John W. Cobb <johncobb@emx.cc.utexas.edu> wrote:

>The issue of historical continuity is an interesting one. I contend that
>while there are individuals who have history, there is no single
>organization (DOE, Congress, PPPL, etc.) that has an adequate grasp
>of its own history to place its actions in context.
>
>Just as an example, how old do you suppose Robert Heeter was when TFTR was
>in same stages of design that TPX is in now? (sorry to pick on you
>Robert, but you seem to get the award for the youngster in this
>discussion).

I'm getting used to being picked on.  :)  Builds character, I guess.
I do seem to be the youngest regular poster to the group...

I was born in 1970, so I guess I was about 6 years old when TFTR
was where TPX is now.

Yep, that's right.  And the rest of y'all are old, Old, OLD!!!

:)


******************
Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@theory.pppl.gov
Don't even *think* that I'm representing PPPL here!


cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Wed Apr 27 04:37:06 EDT 1994
------------------------------
1994.04.26 / Jon Thaler /  (no subject given)
     
Originally-From: Jon J Thaler <DOCTORJ@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics
Subject: (no subject given)
Date: Tuesday, 26 Apr 1994 19:26:26 PST
Organization: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center

sichase@csa5.lbl.gov (SCOTT CHASE) says:
> crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>>David Wayne Ring <dwr2560@tamuts.tamu.edu> wrote:
   (...stuff deleted from all three posts...)

>>> I understand there was a great deal of haggling over the exact
>>> wording of the announcement

>> So I generally gathered from the Economist article, but
>> of much more importance than the detailed wording, is how does
>> the announcement affect the *bet*.
> For why my opinion is worth...

> I just saw the CDF presentation by one of the local LBL CDF experts.
> Her conclusion was that the "statistics are too limited" to consider
> their result conclusive evidence for the top quark.  (Their 12 events
> over a background of 5.9 amounts to a 2.8 sigma excess in the total
> of the various channels that they searched).

They have 15 events.

>                  ...    the number will be quite sensitive to how
> they interpret their data and perform their Monte Carlo simulations.

> So I say, both from hearing and judging the details on their own merit
> (to the extent possible from seeing one hour-long presentation) and
> from the general "spin" that she put on all her comments, that this
> anouncement does NOT constitute a discovery of the top quark.

> The self-appointed arbiter has spoken.
>
> So Dale, does this mean that you *do* or *do not* owe money?  I have
> forgotten the details of your bet.

Here is the text of the top quark bet.  I am not an unbiased evaluator,
since my office is two doors down from Tony Liss's (he's the co-convenor
of the CDF top quark group).  I'll abide by the consensus.
 -------------------------------------------------------------------
crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) says:

>Jon J Thaler  <DOCTORJ@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> wrote:

>> What odds will you give against its being seen in the next six months?
>> Put up or shut up...  I expect at least 3:1 in my favor, since you're
>> so sure about this.

>     The first person willing to do so.  Must be some 'fresh' data
>     rumoring around.

>     3:1 to you is fine by me.  I'm willing to take $1, $10, $100 ......

>                              dale bass

OK.  My $1 versus your $3.  Six months from now is May 11, 1994.
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenDOCTORJ cudfnJon cudlnThaler cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.27 / John Logajan /  Re: Reply to Maglich on TFTR D-T Result
     
Originally-From: 74242.1554@compuserve.com (John M. Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reply to Maglich on TFTR D-T Result
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 1994 04:56:20 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> writes:
> In Maglich's fax sent to congressional staffers...

I have a copy of that 3/27/94 fax.  I'm not sure who sent it to the
congressional staffers (it may have been Maglich.)  But it differs in some
key areas from the written testimony that Maglich finally submitted to the
subcommittee on 4/12/94.

3/27 fax> #1. Injected beam of deuterium and tritium hits the walls of the
        > Tokamak chamber which are lined with deposited deuterium and 
        > tritium.... APC has shown mathematically that all the neutrons
        > coming out of the December 9-10, 1993, Tokamak experiment can
        > be accounted for solely by the mechanism #1.  We will submit
        > our paper to a scientific journal on or before April 8. 

4/12 testimony> All the neutrons coming out of the December 9-10, 1993,
              > Tokamak experiment can be accounted for solely by the
              > false mechanisms.  A paper will be presented at the
              > Spring Meeting of the American Physical Society ...
              > (April 18-22.)

And here is an excerpt from the abstract of the paper that was to be
submitted to the APS meeting:

      "The claimed TFPP [thermonuclear fusion power production] of 6 MW
       was inferred from the total flux [of neutrons] and a theoretical
       calculation that predicted a (true):(false) neutron ratio
       T/F=30/70.  It assumed an ion plasma temperature, and ignored the
       ZETA effect.  Correct calculations indicate that the false
       neutrons alone can explain the data.  T/F=0/100; i.e., the
       observed data are compatible with zero thermonuclear fusion power
       production, TFPP=0."

The key difference between these later statements and the 3/27 fax is that
Maglich now attributes the neutron flux to the false mechanism in general
rather than to one (the ZETA) mechanism.

Since Maglich references the March PPPL report in his APS abstract, he may
have come across more info out of PPPL that allowed him to modify his
calculations.  This, of course, remains a speculation on my part.


cudkeys:
cuddy27 cuden1554 cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.27 / John Logajan /  Re: Stringham and George and Calorimetry
     
Originally-From: 74242.1554@compuserve.com (John M. Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Stringham and George and Calorimetry
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 1994 04:56:21 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:

>To those looking at the Stringham and George claims for excess heat, I
>remind one and all that I cannot imagine how one can do calorimetry
>under excitation by a high power ultrasonic transducer.  Everything gets
>hot.  How much is produced by "cold fusion" and how much is from the
>transducer?  Don't ask.  No one will be able to tell you.

Hmm, I don't see the difficulty.  With a carefully chosen resister in
series with the transducer, I could view the voltage drop across the
resistor and the voltage drop across the transducer and I could tell you
the power input to within a few percent (including correcting for
inductive or capcitive phase shift) merely by observing both waveforms on
a dual trace osilloscope.

Now that I know my power input, I can run the cell empty (with a non-Pd
metal foil) and see how hot it gets versus with a Pd foil.  With the same
input and essentially the same environment, the temperature of the cell
should be nearly the same.  Since they see 50-100 watts excess with (I
believe) on the order of 300 watts input, that is 1 part in 3 or 1 part in
6.  One might expect, then, a 16-33% increase in the delta temperature.
No?


cudkeys:
cuddy27 cuden1554 cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.27 / Paul Koloc /  Age is relative
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Age is relative
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 1994 04:09:37 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <2pk5g0$14h@tom.pppl.gov> rfheeter@theory.pppl.gov (Robert F. Heeter) writes:
>In article <2pjr44INN7ui@emx.cc.utexas.edu>,
>John W. Cobb <johncobb@emx.cc.utexas.edu> wrote:

>>Just as an example, how old do you suppose Robert Heeter was when TFTR was
>>in same stages of design that TPX is in now? (sorry to pick on you
>>Robert, but you seem to get the award for the youngster in this
>>discussion).

>I was born in 1970, so I guess I was about 6 years old when TFTR
>was where TPX is now.

>Yep, that's right.  And the rest of y'all are old, Old, OLD!!!
>:)

It's been know that "old-timer's" can infect people at a very early age.  

How old will you be when tokamak starts producing continous commercial 
power?? ?      Assuming you are still unwilling to chop off a hunk
tokamak money for alternate concepts.      :-)

>Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@theory.pppl.gov
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc,Bx 1037, Prometheus II, Ltd., College Park, MD 20741-1037 |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.27 / Adam Miller /  Re: Mr.Leon Lederman visits Dartmouth
     
Originally-From: amiller@tisl.ukans.edu (Adam Miller)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.math,sci.chem,sci.bio,alt.religion.kibology,
ci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Mr.Leon Lederman visits Dartmouth
Date: 27 Apr 94 01:44:52 CDT

Ludwig Plutonium (Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu) wrote:

:  One error (superdetermined error, see below) by the writer of this
: news-story---it was ancient Greece vice ancient Rome. And although it
: appears like an error to call the Plutonium Atom Totality a theorem. It
: was superdetermined for this "The D" story to call it a "Theorem". In
: the future the pinnacle of science, knowledge, wisdom  is QM with math
: unified to QM and a subset of QM. The facts of QM will be theorems of
: math. The two greatest theorems of math will be the ATOMIC FACT of QM,
: and (as the writer of the story in "The D" stated) the PLUTONIUM ATOM
: TOTALITY THEOREM. The axioms of math will be the 4 QM principles--- (1)
: Pauli (2) Superposition (3) Uncertainty (4) Complementary.

	Hey, LP!!  If this theory is really superdetermined 
then here are two questions:  Why dall the rest of us know
that it is wrong, and second, why have you yet to respond
to the attacks on this so called theorom?  

					-Adam

P.S.  You can kill list me forever, but you'll never be rid of
      me LP!!!!!!!!!!!!
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenamiller cudfnAdam cudlnMiller cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.27 / Adam Miller /  Re: movie: NEANDERTHAL PARK
     
Originally-From: amiller@tisl.ukans.edu (Adam Miller)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.kibology,sci.math,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusio
,sci.chem,sci.bio
Subject: Re: movie: NEANDERTHAL PARK
Date: 27 Apr 94 01:59:43 CDT

Ludwig Plutonium (Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu) wrote:
<<Some deleted>>

: I dedicate the title of this movie to a good friend of mine on sci.math
: and sci.physics. His name is Alexander Abian and he often calls the
: overly conservative math and physics communities-- politburos and
: Neanderthal type thinkers who seldom change. I concur with AA because
: those two communities have a herd-like mentality. AA has used the word
: Neanderthal often in his posts.

<<13+ pages deleted!!>>

	LP, you know, if anyone but you had posted this, I 
would recommend 'em for the loony bin, but since it is you,
I know that you have already escaped.  Have you ever thought 
that maybe you and your friend AA (possibly a hint that you
are a member of AA as a result of past drinking binges?!?)
feel that way is that you live in a totally imagined world.
A world in which one does not need to prove squat, just play
around with numbers and make wild and outrageous claims.  
I am beginning to tire from seeing your junk like this 13+ page
play here on serious news channels like sci.physics and sci.chem,
etc.  I think that myself and the other serious scientists out 
here in the real world would appreciate it if you would post this
kind of thing on a channel for comedy, or even the insane
news channel.  Either that or shorten up your posts by sticking
to the facts, of which you apparantly have few on your side.

					-Adam Miller

C.S.A.L.P.-Concerned Scientists Against Ludwig Pu.


cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenamiller cudfnAdam cudlnMiller cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.27 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Overblown comparisons between TFTR and cold fusion
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Overblown comparisons between TFTR and cold fusion
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 1994 05:11:54 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <2pjr44INN7ui@emx.cc.utexas.edu> johncobb@emx.cc.utexas.edu
(John W. Cobb) writes:
>In article <Cos9KG.9y6@prometheus.uucp>,
>Paul M. Koloc <pmk@promethe.UUCP> wrote:
>>In article <1994Apr23.190701.5862@midway.uchicago.edu> gk00@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>I think it would be better to state that fusion should not be sold as
>an energy program when it is really a scientific research. 

I agree be it Plasma reseach, particle physics, etc.   Just say what
you want to do and take your lumps or bags of money.  

>I disagree. I emphatically do not believe that congress has a longer 
>institutional memory than DOE or fusion research centers. It is the other
>way around. In fact, I believe that fusion must be sold every year to
>congress, and it is only a few congressmen and staffers that have any
>recollection of issues from year to year. 

It is a politicians skill to have excellent command of memory and
to utilize another skill of "selected" memory.  Since in some years
there is a large turn over, this loss of collective memory would 
seem to be a natural thing: to lose prospective.  However, this 
last congress or so has seen a substantially larger change, but of 
a "different breed".. it would seem.  The "memory" isn't in 
congress or the DoE as institutions or a herd of people, it is in 
the record which OMB or the staff can access at any time (for 
such a program.  Even more so, there is a record in those that 
are following the program and have finally put it together at a 
time when the tokamak has completed its main thrust.  These people 
write to congress and inform them of what has been going on with 
data to back up their claims.  And these new congressman seem to be
doing their homework, so memory recovers to a certain extent, and it 
can be a conprehensive overview type recovery which can be most 
helpful in the case we are discussing.  

These are exciting times, and the hunt for the red torus is on.  The 
Senate has it's killer techniques and the house another approach. Yet 
it can be that neither would describe its activities in such words 
or concepts.  In the senate's case, they are simply taking DoE's word 
as gospel and forcing them to follow the consequences of the DoE claims 
to the hilt.  Should any number of trip wires be set off, then the 
fusion budget will drop like a rock to 50 megabucks/yr, and that will 
do DoE admin great damage while deep sixing the tokamak. There is 
obviously some kind of deep built up spite for that program.  It takes 
energy to carefully craft the spider web of a bill to bag ITER. That 
indicates at least some kind of accumulated emotivated force exists--
hate-- no doubt.. Someone ruffled someone elses feathers too much or
a sleuth found a bleeding program to fix.  

The House, has taken down several biggy things in DoD and a few other
places, including putting SDIO out, the Super collider, etc.  and
now the younger members are taking up the hunt for similar albeit
small game such as the DoE's ill managed tokamak program.  The grilling
given to the panels, the last minute mixing of the panels, the absence
of presence of the committee heavies does not bode well for fusion,
and is an indication that the hunters are licenced. 

DoE was led to believe that the usual "fusion is paradise" platitudes 
would suffice and they ran into an ambush. That exercise had to have 
the tacit approval of the whole committee.   

You may be right, but I know members of the committee that have the
memory of an elephant and they aren't even republicans. They have
been biding their time for a number of years.   

>organization (DOE, Congress, PPPL, etc.) that has an adequate grasp
>of its own history to place its actions in context.

Technically, you are of correct since conscious knowledge may be lacking; 
still the habitual implimentation of policies at DoE mag fusion which 
have lead to a more and more restrictive development program represent 
an institutional form of operational memory.  

(a child is born and grows to manhood, only to be pulled into the 
wiles of the fusion kingdom as its big poopin fresh donut grows and grows.)

>Perhaps this sheds some light about the appropriateness and feasibility
>of large, multi-year science projects and their ability to meet their
>goals at inception.

Excellent point  :-)   Maybe we should get Doe to put the money up
to have us frozen for revivification just before the big commercial
operation around 7575.   

>-john .w cobb
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc,Bx 1037, Prometheus II, Ltd., College Park, MD 20741-1037 |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+


cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.26 / Robert Heeter /  Re: TFTR D-T = Science by Press Conference?
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: TFTR D-T = Science by Press Conference?
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 1994 15:47:55 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

In article <Cov86L.IHL@world.std.com> mitchell swartz, mica@world.std.com
writes:

> There has been much comparison of the Princeton hot fusion
>press conference and that which was called by Drs. Fleischmann and Pons
>(or someone at the University) for cold fusion.  
>
>---->    How about the timing?   The hot fusion experiment/press set-up
>was actually scheduled for the midpeak of the December 1993
> (ICCF-4) COLD FUSION Conference. 
>
>  There are some cynics who have actually claimed that this particular
>choice of dates was to take press coverage away from the cold fusion 
>meeting which was roaring along (with its >100 experimental papers).
>Thoughts?

As I pointed out very clearly in December, the TFTR D-T experiments were
scheduled for September/October, so that the TFTR researchers would have
nice new results to present at the annual American Physical Society - 
Division of Plasma Physics Conference, which is held every year in
early November.  There were several invited talks on topics like
"D-T results from TFTR" and so on, and all of these invited speakers
were left without speeches by some delays that took place (I think 
primarily because it took longer to set up the tritium system than 
expected).  It was never intended to have the D-T experiments in December.

I think it would be safe to say the majority of researchers here at
PPPL didn't know, and certainly didn't care, whether cold fusion was
having a conference or not.  They certainly wouldn't go out of their
way to delay the D-T experiments and leave themselves without new data
for the biggest plasma conference of the year, just to spite cold
fusion.  

Considering that there were virtually no journalists at the ICCF-4
conference, there really wasn't much thunder to be stolen, anyway.

**************************
Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Graduate Student, Princeton Plasma Physics Lab
I don't represent PPPL, and I'm not representative either.
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.27 / Dieter Britz /  CNF bibliography updates and archive retrieval, 27-Apr-94.
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CNF bibliography updates and archive retrieval, 27-Apr-94.
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 1994 09:30:29 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway


Current count:
-------------
  8 books
899 papers
139 patents
217 comment items
 82 peripherals
 19 conf-procs
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Journal papers:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
#
Czerwinski A;  Electrochim. Acta 39 (1994) 431.
"Influence of lithium cations on hydrogen and deuterium electrosorption in
palladium".
** Lithium is known to be incorporated to some extent into Pd during
electrolysis in an electrolyte containing Li+; various processes have been
suggested involving incorporated Li. In this paper, C reports the results of a
cyclic voltammetric study of thin (2000-2500 atomic layers) Pd layers laid
down on Au. Acidic and basic solutions, in light and heavy water were used.
Incorporated Li affects the alpha-beta transition, which in turn has an effect
on the oxidation rate of absorbed hydrogen (or deuterium); H/Pd or D/Pd
loading ratios were not changed by Li incorporation.  Apr-93/Feb-94
#.................................................................. 25-Apr-94
Fleischmann M, Pons S;  Phys. Lett. A 187 (1994) 276.
"Reply to the critique by Morrison entitled 'Comments on claims of excess
enthalpy by FLeischmann and Pons using simple cells made to boil'".
** Point-by-point rebuttal. F&P did not use the complicated differential
equation method as claimed by Morrison; the critique by Wilson et al does not
apply to F&P's work; very little electrolyte leaves the cell in liquid form;
current- and cell voltage fluctuations are absent or unimportant; the 
problem of the transition from nucleate to film boiling was addressed;
recombination (cigarette lighter effect) is negligible.  Jun-93/Apr-94
#.................................................................. 27-Apr-94
He J, Zhang Y, Ren G, Zhu G, Qian Z, Dong X, Dai C, Hu S, Wang L, Yi S;
Chin. Phys. Lett. 10 (11) (1993) 652.
"Study of anomalous nuclear fusion reaction by using HV pulse discharge".
** A Pd cathode in a chamber was subjected to high voltage discharges, up to
10 kV. There were detectors for neutrons and gamma rays. As the authors write,
if there is emission during the discharge, this would be normal thermonuclear
fusion, whereas if there is emission without the discharge, it would be
evidence of cold fusion. D2 gas was let into the chamber, for the Pd to absorb
for 1 h. Then the HV was applied in pulses of 150 microsec. width and 10 Hz
rate. Results showed that no emissions above background were detected between
pulses.  Jul-93/?
#.................................................................. 10-Apr-94
Kalinin VB;  Neorg. Mater. 29(5) (1993) 656 (in Russian).
"On the question of the possibility of cold nuclear fusion at the point of
ferroelectric phase transition in K2DPO4".
** This is a summarising commentary on previous work by the author and others,
showing that the title compound and other related compounds show some
anomalies, to do with transitions between the ferroelectric and paraelectric
states. In particular, KD2PO4 has been seen by Lipson et al to emit neutrons
when thermocycled closely around the temperature of transition, in a bimodal
manner. Neutrons at the 15 sigma levels have been observed, while nothing but
noise is observed from controls, e.g. KH2PO4, or KD2PO4 cycled around other
temperatures. The author theorises that small volume changes and polarisation
effects due to the transitions could stimulate fusion of deuterons.  Dec-92/? 
#.................................................................. 25-Apr-94
Notoya R;  Genshiryoku Koyo 39(9) (1993) 34 (in Japanese).
Cited in Chem. Abstr. 119:235230 (1993).
"Current status of cold fusion research".
** "A review with 8 refs. is presented on the research of hydrogen electrode 
reaction of cold fusion in light water using K soln. Emphasis is on the 
discussion of heavy water-Pd and K-light water-Ni systems" (CA).
#.................................................................. 10-Apr-94
Ota K, Yoshitake H, Kamiya N; Hyomen Kagaku 14(9) (1993) 570 (in Japanese).
Cited in Chem. Abstr. 120:145919 (1994).
"Present status of cold fusion".
** "A review with 9 refs.". The references are up to 1993, including the F&P
paper in Phys. Lett. A and the Nagoya  conference procs, Frontiers of Cold 
Fusion.  Aug-93/Sep-93
#.................................................................. 25-Apr-94
Pyun S, Lim C, Kim K-B;  J. Alloys Comp. 203 (1994) 149.
"An investigation of the electrochemical kinetics of deuterium insertion into
a Pd membrane electrode in 0.1M LiOD solution by the a.c. impedance 
technique".
** A double cell was used, divided by a thin Pd foil. Thus, deuterium inserted
by electrolysis on one side of the foil could be detected on the other side.
When steady state was reached, impedance measurements were carried out on the
electrolysis side using a correlator. Results show that a mechanism involving
absorption of adsorbed deuterium, produced from reduction, is consistent with
the measurements; some rate constants are given, as well as the diffusion
coefficient of deuterium in PdDx, as (5.10 +- 1.04)*10^-7 cm^2/s, somewhat 
higher than that of hydrogen.
#.................................................................. 27-Apr-94
Rout RK, Shyam A, Srinivasan M, Bansal A;
Indian J. Technol. 29 (1991) 571.
"Copious low energy emissions from palladium loaded with hydrogen or 
deuterium".
** Most samples, disks of 2mm thickness and 16 mm diameter, were loaded with
hydrogen or deuterium in a plasma focus (PF) chamber, by evacuating and 
filling with the gas to a few mbars and discharging, repeating this 15-30 
times for each loading. Some Pd needles were also 'loaded' using the spark
discharge method of Wada & Nishizawa, with 10kV and the gas at 600 mbar. As
well, some Pd foils and hundreds of Pd chips were loaded by evacuating at 600C
and cooling in the respective gas at 1 atm, without any discharge. D/Pd or 
H/Pd loadings varied from 0.1-0.6, measured by gas pressure drop. The samples
were then placed close to x-ray sensitive film; all of them fogged it. Fogging
by chemical reaction with H2 or D2 was ruled out by control experiments. Also,
dosimeters were applied to the samples, and 7 times the background measured 
typically. X-ray emissions were measured using NaI and SiLi detectors; no 
x-rays were detected. Heavy charged particles were searched for using surface 
barrier detectors, but only rarely observed. In addition, some Pd was 
electrolytically loaded and autoradiographed, but no fogging was observed.
Some samples were loaded in the PF with 4He, and autoradiographed; no fogging
was seen, showing that the effect is specific for H2 and D2. Other metals, 
such as Zr, Hf and Ni-Ti superconductors were tried, but none of them showed
any effects. The effects are 100% reproducible, even at low loading, and 
likely to be due to electron emission from the samples, possibly due to cold
nuclear fusion.  Oct-91/Dec-91
#.................................................................. 19-Apr-94
Rout RK, Shyam A, Srinivasan M, Krishnan MS;
Indian J. Technol. 31 (1993) 551.
"Update on observation of low-energy emissions from deuterated and hydrated
palladium".
** In a previous paper (1991) the authors reported emissions, most likely of
electrons, in the range of tens to hundreds of eV from hydrated or deuterated
Pd-Ag alloys. Here, new results are reported. Gas loading was used, at 1 bar,
after vacuum treatment at 600C for 2 h. In this new study, pure Pd samples, 18
mm by 2 mm, were used, 10 freshly loaded, and 6 reloaded. Except where fusion
products were looked for, only H2 was used, to avoid interference from such
fusion emissions. Emissions were measured by autoradiography of sensitive
film, typically kept 0.2 mm from the samples for 96 h. No fogging was seen for
samples of PdHx held in vacuum, and an average fogging density of 0.08 for
samples kept in air (as controls). Similarly, no or little fogging was seen
for samples in nitrogen, helium or argon, while pure oxygen seemed to help a
little. In other measurements, charged particles (cp's) were detected with a
CR-39 detector close up, and in two out of 7 samples of deuterated Pd,
above-background cp's were seen, but not with hydrated Pd or pure Pd. The
authors conclude that oxygen might be involved in assisting the phenomenon,
and that perhaps fractures are the cause of the emissions; but nothing is
clear. Aug-92/Aug-93
#.................................................................. 30-Mar-94
Zhu S, Xiao X, Lu T, Chen Q, Que Z, Liu J, Xie H, Sha R, Liu F, Sun H;
Nucl. Techniques 16(8) (1993) 475 (in Chinese, English abstract).
"An investigation of cold fusion".
** Both an electrolysis experiment (LiOD, 10-30 mA/cm^2) and a gas phase 
experiment were run. Neutron detection was by liquid scintillation and a BF3
counter, and showed much the same results, i.e. a large n burst after 90 h of 
electrolysis, lasting about 4 h with an intensity of 400 fus/s, with counting
rates 15 times background.  Jun-92/Aug-93
#.................................................................. 10-Apr-94


Patents:
^^^^^^^
#
Matsumoto T, Harada H (Matsumoto T & Kurorin Engineers Kk; Mitsui Bussan);
Jpn. Kokai Tokkyo Koho JP 05,107,376, 14-Oct-91.
Cited in Chem. Abstr. 120:176068 (1994).
"Energy generation by cold nuclear fusion".
** "In the process, H2O contg. an electrolyte decompd. through electrolysis
using Pd (or its alloy) heated at >= 800C in vacuum as a cathode and Pd as an 
anode to cover the surface of the cathode material with H atoms so that 
nuclear fusion, with the H atoms as a catalyst, is caused on the surface of 
and/or inside the cathode" (direct quote from CA).
#.................................................................. 20-Apr-94
Philberth K, Philberth B; Ger. Offen. DE 4,203,094, 04-Feb-92.
Cited in Chem. Abstr. 120:176069 (1994).
"Cold fusion of hydrogen nuclei".
** "The title process comprises formation of microclusters or materials in 
presence of D and carrying out fusion under strong charge where the strong 
charge also allows measurement for fusion products. The microclusters are 
produced by evapg., e.g., Pd in presence of D and cooling where the 
microclusters contain 3-100,000 atoms of the component" (direct quote from 
CA).
#.................................................................. 20-Apr-94


Comments:
^^^^^^^^
#
Bashkin S;  Physics Today March 1994, p. 95. Letter.
** Following a review of Taubes' book "Bad Science" by Williams, Bashkin
comments that the prehistory of cold fusion has been forgotten (which it
has not), i.e. the 1926 work of Paneth and Peters and that of Tandberg in
the 1930's.
#.................................................................. 26-Apr-94
Huizenga JR; Physics Today March 1994 p. 94. Letter.
** Reply of John Huizenga to the Letter by Mallove, disagreeing with Williams'
review of Taubes' book "Bad Science". Huizenga agrees with the book, too, and
writes cnf off as bad science.
#.................................................................. 26-Apr-94
Mallove G; Physics Today March 1994 p. 93. Letter.
** Mallove criticises the review by D. Williams of the Taubes book "Bad 
Science", in which he agreed with Taubes. Mallove does not, and states that
cnf is alive and growing with many attending the Nagoya conference, 24
laboratories working in Russia, etc.
#.................................................................. 26-Apr-94
Williams D; Physics Today March 1994 p. 94. Letter.
** Williams replies to the Letter by Mallove, in which Mallove criticises
Williams for his earlier review of Taubes' book "Bad Science". Williams
disagrees with Mallove's disagreement.
#.................................................................. 26-Apr-94


Peripherals:
^^^^^^^^^^^
#
Gollerthan U, Brohm T, Clerc H-G, Hanelt E, Horz M, Morawek W, Schwab W,
Schmidt K-H, Hessberger FP, Muenzenberg G, Ninov V, Simon RS, Dufour JP,
Montoya M;   Z. Phys. A 338 (1991) 51.
"Decay of the compound nucleus 179Au formed in the cold fusion reaction
90Zr + 89Y*"
** This is not exactly cold, dealing with "low" excitation energy of 26 MeV,
but is of terminological interest.
#.................................................................. 26-Apr-94



Retrieval of the archived files:
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. By anonymous FTP from vm1.nodak.edu (134.129.111.1).  Login anonymous, with
   your e-mail address as the password. Type CD FUSION, DIR FUSION.CNF* to get
   a listing. The general index is large. Use GET (ie. GET FUSION.CNF-PAP1). 
2. Via LISTSERV. You get a (large) index of the archives by sending an email  
   to listserv@vm1.nodak.edu, with a blank SUBJECT line, and the "message"   
   'index fusion'. To get any one of these files, you then send to the same   
   address the message, e.g., 
   get fusion 91-00487
   get fusion cnf-pap1         etc, according to what you're after.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The bib-files are: cnf-bks (books), cnf-pap1..cnf-pap6 (papers, slices 1..6),
cnf-pat (patents), cnf-cmnt (comments), cnf-peri (peripherals), cnf-unp
(unpublished stuff collected by Vince Cate, hydrogen/metal references from
Terry Bollinger). There is also the file cnf-brif, which has all the -pap*
file references without annotations, all in one file (so far); and cnf-new,
with the last three months' or so of new items in all biblio files. 
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
===========================================================

cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.27 / Raymond Butte /  Re: Evolution and cold fusion (was "Evolution Proves:
     
Originally-From: rrb@oolong.la.locus.com (Raymond Butte)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Evolution and cold fusion (was "Evolution Proves:
Cold Fusion not Possible!")
Date: 27 Apr 1994 11:28:52 -0700
Organization: Locus Computing Corporation, Los Angeles, California

In article <2pj9s5$aer@news.cs.tu-berlin.de>,
Markus Freericks <mfx@cs.tu-berlin.de> wrote:
> 
> Well, my idea was certainly not inspired by "logic" under any possible
> definition of the term. [It is an more of an analogy to Larry Nivens thesis
> that there are no "psi" effects, since if any such were possible and
> usable, evolution would have produced them.]
> 
	1) Perhaps evolution has produced "psi" effects, for some, on occasion.
	2) What makes us think that evolution must be over or complete ?



---
rrb@locus.com			Less heat, more light...




-- 
---
rrb@locus.com			Less heat, more light...
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenrrb cudfnRaymond cudlnButte cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.27 / John Cobb /  Re: Reply to Maglich on TFTR D-T Results
     
Originally-From: johncobb@emx.cc.utexas.edu (John W. Cobb)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reply to Maglich on TFTR D-T Results
Date: 27 Apr 1994 13:53:58 -0500
Organization: The University of Texas - Austin

In article <2pk2r1$90p@ds8.scri.fsu.edu>,
Jim Carr <jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu> wrote:
>In article <2pjpi2INNla5@emx.cc.utexas.edu> johncobb@emx.cc.utexas.edu
(John W. Cobb) writes:
>>
>>While it may have applied to Maglich's original migma concept (1985),
>
>This study definitely predates the work you describe, as did Maglich's 
>visit here to FSU.  I will have to look up the PRL on it. 
>
>>If I have guessed correctly what Gordon was looking at, I think that these
>>are the answers.
>
>It does seem so to me, but I am no expert on accelerator physics.  It does 
>seem like it would have problems with near misses, but not the space charge 
>disruption of the orbits. 
>

Well, actually, I think it solves both problems. Electrons neutralize the
space charge. Near misses are handled by using a Boltzmann distribution.
That is for each particle that scatters one way, another particle is scattered
into the slot it leaves (in a statistical sense). It is the same as in low 
pressure gas in the fluid limit. Collisions still occur, but because the
distribution is a Boltzmann distribution, the collisions do not cause any
energy transfer.

The catch is that the electrons are not at the same temperature as the ions.
Therefore, they will form an energy loss channel, but the time for
energy transfer from ions to electrons via collisions alone is much longer
than the normal ion-ion collision time since the electron mass is so small.

Also, there may exist the possiblity of a collective mode which is unstable.
I couldn't find one that Rostoker couldn't present a very good argument
against. Moreoever, he points out reasons he believes that there will be
no anomalous transport for the ions. I am skeptical, but I can't base it
on more than a "Fusioneers pessimism" that something always goes wrong.
In any case, it is a fun topic to spend some time thinking about.

>>BTW, is Gordon still working at MSU? You know he is really an amazing person.
>
>Last time I visited, yes.  He is pushing retirement but there are still 
>some cyclotron design problems to be solved. 
>
>For those of you who have never had the pleasure of taking graduate E+M 
>out of Jackson from Mort, who could still draw better blind back when I
>had his class than some physicists I know, you missed a real treat.  Can 
>you imagine having the lecture notes for Jackson E+M in your head? 
>

I was fortunate enough to have Jackson taught by him. He not only had
his entire lecture notes in his head, but he also had many answers
to questions. Prepared and ready to rattle at a moment's notice.

On the more humorous side. During his lectures he would of course write
on the blackboard. Eventhough he was blind, his writing was very
legible (His 3D perspective graphs were and are better than my own and I
can see). When he would fill up the boards in the classroom, he would stop and
ask that they be erased before proceeding. Sometimes, only 3 or 4 boards
would be erased since if it was near the end of class, he probably wouldn't
use the others. However, occasionally, he would really get going and move over
and begin writing on boards that had not been erased. He had no problem, since
in his mind they were blank, but to us in the audience, we saw him writing
over previous notes. Well, You had to be there.

The other neat thing was that you could write notes from his lectures
without looking at the board since Gordon's primary method of communication
was oral. You never had to check the board to see where the parentheses
closed or the integral ended. He conveyed all of that information with his
voice unambigously.

-john .w cobb


-- 
 --------------------------------------------------------------
John W. Cobb	My posts don't reflect the views of my employer
                Because my posts are usually opaque.
 --------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenjohncobb cudfnJohn cudlnCobb cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.27 / David Ring /  Re: News for Press Conference Fans
     
Originally-From: dwr2560@tamuts.tamu.edu (David Wayne Ring)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics
Subject: Re: News for Press Conference Fans
Date: 27 Apr 1994 14:02:29 -0500
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station

Cameron Randale Bass <crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU> wrote:
>    So I generally gathered from the Economist article, but
>    of much more importance than the detailed wording, is how does
>    the announcement affect the *bet*.

What was the wording of the bet?

Dave Ring
Cdude@phys.tamu.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudendwr2560 cudfnDavid cudlnRing cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.27 / Greg Kuperberg /  Re: P&F press conference on 23 March 1989/ response to Carr
     
Originally-From: gk00@quads.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: P&F press conference on 23 March 1989/ response to Carr
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 1994 18:53:28 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

In article <2pm0es$a3h@ds8.scri.fsu.edu> jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) writes:
>I also did not say whether they were honest at the press conference.

That's exactly the point.  No one questions Pons' and Fleischmann's
right to hold some sort of press conference at any time they want.  The
particular one they held was dishonest, in fact reprehensible.  If you
want to argue that some other press conference which they did not hold
would have been a fine press conference, you could well be right.

>I happen to agree with Merzbacher's philosophy that after a certain
>point an author has the right to hang himself publicly.

Not if you take millions of dollars of other people's money and
thousands of hours of other people's time with you.

>My point was that, if anything, the TFTR event was staged solely for 
>public relations purposes and did not serve the same sort of role in 
>communication of a new result to other interested parties as the P&F 
>or Chu press conferences.

The TFTR D-T shot itself certainly wasn't staged solely for public
relations; why would they radioactively contaminate millions of dollars
of equipment just for public relations?  If you're talking about their
press conference, then sure, that's what press conferences are supposed
to be.  A press conference is by its nature an act of public
relations.  It is not a good vehicle for professional communication.

Since you mention it, the Chu press conference was reckless, if
ultimately vindicated.  A little-known fact is that it wasn't the first
time that Chu announced high-Tc superconductors.  The first time, he
was wrong, and he lost a lot of credibility.
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudengk00 cudfnGreg cudlnKuperberg cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.27 / John Cobb /  Re: Overblown comparisons between TFTR and cold fusion
     
Originally-From: johncobb@emx.cc.utexas.edu (John W. Cobb)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Overblown comparisons between TFTR and cold fusion
Date: 27 Apr 1994 14:26:26 -0500
Organization: The University of Texas - Austin

In article <CowJrx.A67@prometheus.uucp>,
Paul M. Koloc <pmk@promethe.UUCP> wrote:
>In article <2pjr44INN7ui@emx.cc.utexas.edu> johncobb@emx.cc.utexas.edu
(John W. Cobb) writes:
>>In article <Cos9KG.9y6@prometheus.uucp>,
>>Paul M. Koloc <pmk@promethe.UUCP> wrote:
>>In article <1994Apr23.190701.5862@midway.uchicago.edu> gk00@midway.uch
cago.Bedu writes:
>>I think it would be better to state that fusion should not be sold as
>>an energy program when it is really a scientific research. 
>
>I agree be it Plasma reseach, particle physics, etc.   Just say what
>you want to do and take your lumps or bags of money.  
>
>>I disagree. I emphatically do not believe that congress has a longer 
>>institutional memory than DOE or fusion research centers. It is the other
>>way around. In fact, I believe that fusion must be sold every year to
>>congress, and it is only a few congressmen and staffers that have any
>>recollection of issues from year to year. 
>
>It is a politicians skill to have excellent command of memory and
>to utilize another skill of "selected" memory.  Since in some years
>there is a large turn over, this loss of collective memory would 
>seem to be a natural thing: to lose prospective.  However, this 
>last congress or so has seen a substantially larger change, but of 
>a "different breed".. it would seem.  The "memory" isn't in 
>congress or the DoE as institutions or a herd of people, it is in 
>the record which OMB or the staff can access at any time (for 
>such a program.  Even more so, there is a record in those that 
>are following the program and have finally put it together at a 
>time when the tokamak has completed its main thrust.  These people 
>write to congress and inform them of what has been going on with 
>data to back up their claims.  And these new congressman seem to be
>doing their homework, so memory recovers to a certain extent, and it 
>can be a conprehensive overview type recovery which can be most 
>helpful in the case we are discussing.  

Unless of course the "comprehensive overview" which is prepared for
briefings has been slanted by internal sources or tilted by external
sources. I stand by my claim that there is a very little institutional
history in the legislative branch of government.

You mention OMB also. Here I will grant that there is longer term
continuity, but again not as long as say lab. management.

Decisions from congressional floor action and even committee action that
have a major impact on DOE-OFE are made rapidly and often without as much 
input as one would like. It is also possible (and has occurred) that
this process can be slanted one way or another by political manuevering
that is not tied in any way with scientific fact. This is simply becuase
fusion doesn't register on the radar screens very often or very high.
In the relavant committees it has been way overshadowed by talk about
the SSC and the space station. In terms of the House and Senate as a 
whole, even those programs enter collective consciousness only sporadically 
and briefly.

It seems to me that you view the process as a person that is both interested
and somewhat affected by the outcome, i.e. an interested party. It is
easy to assume that more foresight and deliberation occurs than
actually happens. I would like to suggest that the view of those who have 
to make the decision are quite different. They do not have the time to absorb 
the issue completely. It is complex. Often it has only but a little appeal to 
constituents, even in the affected districts. I was amazed at the perspective
I got a glimpse of when my wife was working with the Senate budget committee.
It is not that there is a cavalier, irresponsible attitude. Rather, the 
number and complexity of decisions that are annually required is staggering.
Often excellent and thoughtfull deliberation occurs. However, some things 
don't get thought through. Other things slip through the cracks.


In short many of those people who have the decision-making authority do not
"have a horse in the race" and are already swamped with other issues to give
fusion a long and hard consideration.

To the extent that there has been a lack of proper oversight of the fusion
program (an opinion both you and I seem to subscribe to, althought for 
different reasons), I would be more apt to see its casue as neglect
instead of conspiracy.

Fusion may be dashed on the rocks of  deficit reduction, but I think that
the space station is first in line this year. It may yet turn out to
be a night of long knives when the budget is finished though.

-- 
 --------------------------------------------------------------
John W. Cobb	My posts don't reflect the views of my employer
                Because my posts are usually opaque.
 --------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenjohncobb cudfnJohn cudlnCobb cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.27 /  PaulBreed /  Re: Engineering issues in CF
     
Originally-From: paulbreed@aol.com (PaulBreed)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Engineering issues in CF
Date: 27 Apr 1994 10:12:07 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

In article <940425054137_74242.1554_BHR39-1@CompuServe.COM>,
74242.1554@compuserve.com (John M. Logajan) writes:

>I believe the thermal conductivity coefficient of Pd is 730 mw/cm/C/sec
>and that Pd melts at 1550C. I also believe that liquid H2O (D2O) can
>absorb 75 J/mole/degree.

Did you account for any temperature drop in the D20?
It's been a long time since I've done any Heat Transfer (school 10 Years ago),
but I believe there will be a significat thermal gradient accross the Pd D20
boundry layer. I also seem to remember that it would be dependant on the
type of flow and it's turbulance. This could change the heat transfer rate
better than 2:1. It is not a linear system. If some one who really knows about
forced convection in a fluid system could respond I would find it educational.
Thanks :)

Paul Breed

PaulBreed@AOL.COM
Voice 508-658-0885 x37
Fax 508-657-4803


cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenpaulbreed cudlnPaulBreed cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.27 / Jim Carr /  Re: P&F press conference on 23 March 1989/ response to Carr
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: P&F press conference on 23 March 1989/ response to Carr
Date: 27 Apr 1994 11:30:36 -0400
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

In article <1994Apr26.174933.1601@physc1.byu.edu> jonesse@physc1.byu.edu writes:
>
>Hello?  Don't you remember that Petrasso and crew showed that the gamma
>data of P&F was badly flawed -- too narrow, no Compton edge, and *not*
>even at the correct energy?  And that this led to a *retraction* by P&F
>published within a short time of the P&F press conference of their
>gamma-data claims (for neutrons captured in H in H2O)?  [Retraction published
>as correspondance to Nature.]     Such a prompt
>retraction and such errors demonstrate that the press conf. was premature.

Steve - You may not have seen the earlier post when I made it clear 
that I think the *paper* was premature, but not the press conference. 
Further, I made it clear that I thought their act in subverting the 
agreement with BYU was when they submitted to JEC, not when they had 
the press conference.  The paper, such as it was, had been accepted 
and was "in press".  At that point it is perfectly normal practice 
to hold a press conference and even (as Chu did) to withhold the 
manuscript.  Look at CDF, with a press conference when the paper 
was submitted.  We will see if any of their numbers and errors are 
modified when others look at their analysis. 

Once a paper is accepted, PR efforts are useful in that they help 
people find the work in the literature.  There are several papers I 
would not have seen if I had not seen them in Science News.  That is 
where I heard about the HERA results, which were shown at a meeting 
and are not yet in the form of a paper as far as I know. 

>At the press conf., the panel was asked whether they knew of anyone else doing
>related work.  The question was answered by Jim Brophy of the U. Utah, who said
>that he was not aware of any such research.  

>P&F were on the panel and did not correct Brophy's misstatement.  This denial
>added insult to injury.  It was totally unconsionable.

I also did not say whether they were honest at the press conference.  I 
happen to agree with Merzbacher's philosophy that after a certain point 
an author has the right to hang himself publicly.  They did a fine job 
of that -- since the things you mention about the press conference are 
additional proof that they rushed the last stages of their work. 

>Give me a break, Jim.  Do you think the TFTR boys indulged in any such
>behavior?  To lump their press conf. in with the fiasco at the Univ. of Utah
>is grossly unfair.

My point was that, if anything, the TFTR event was staged solely for 
public relations purposes and did not serve the same sort of role in 
communication of a new result to other interested parties as the P&F 
or Chu press conferences.  No one rushed out to duplicated the TFTR 
experiment, just as CDF's release could at best motivate D0 to work 
harder.  The people associated with PPPL and TFTR who objected to the 
series of press conferences on 'cold fusion' were being disingenuous. 
They were not wrong to hold their media event to publicize their own 
work and educate the taxpaying public about progress on the project. 

CDF is a more interesting case.  Calling a news conference on submittal 
when they could have given a talk at Washington or waited for a report 
from the referees *is* premature in my opinion.  What do they have to 
gain, when there is no competition until the present run is over?  I 
have learned that Frank Close wrote an article that will appear as an 
editorial in Nature on the subject.  We shall have to wait and see 
what he has to say. 

-- 
 James A. Carr   <jac@scri.fsu.edu>     |   "It's never confusing though, 
      http://www.scri.fsu.edu           |  because ultimately it all fits 
 Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst.  |  -- it's just cockeyed and fits  
 Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306    |  and is fire."  -  Norman Maclean 
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.27 / Greg Kuperberg /  Re: Overblown comparisons between TFTR and cold fusion
     
Originally-From: gk00@quads.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Overblown comparisons between TFTR and cold fusion
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 1994 16:36:54 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

In article <Cos9KG.9y6@prometheus.UUCP> pmk@promethe.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) writes:
>That's not the perception of those that were funding the program from
>its conception.

If you mean Congress itself, I doubt that it has any clear perception
of any science program that it funds.  That's exactly what's wrong
with direct appeals to Congress for funding.

>It is a statement more in line with a plasma physics
>program, and if that is the case, then this activity should have been
>funded through the National Science Foundation.

I actually would like to see most scientific research unified under the
umbrella of the NSF, but at the moment it is funded by several agencies.

>I think your perception
>is accurate, but it does not represent the intended use of this huge 
>investment.   Simulations, after all, can be run on a computer, or
>that's the understanding of the man on the street.  

As a matter of fact I think that TFTR is bigger than necessary given
that it is a scientific experiment.  As for the man on the street, if
he thinks what you say he does, he is just wrong.  Computer simulations
are all well and good, but you have to compare with reality
to know if they are working.  Modern jets are designed with computer
simulations, but they are also designed with wind-tunnel tests.

Besides, your suggestion is as old as the hills.  A lot of work has
gone into simulating plasmas by computer and...they're still working on
it.  It is the Holy Grail of theoretical fusion research to one day use
computer simulations as a substitute for experiments.  At the moment
they are used to interpret old experiments and to design new experiments.
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudengk00 cudfnGreg cudlnKuperberg cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.27 / Rich Hawryluk /  TFTR Update April 27, 1994 (Corrected)
     
Originally-From: rhawryluk@pppl.gov (Rich Hawryluk)
Newsgroups: pppl.tftr.news,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: TFTR Update April 27, 1994 (Corrected)
Date: 27 Apr 1994 13:27:22 -0400
Organization: Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory

There is a minor correction due to the fonts which were used which garbled
part of the message.

Status  (April 26, 1994)


The first ICRF D-T campaign was completed the week of March 7th.  The
following is a summary of the results:
-ICRF heating of D-T plasmas was successfully demonstrated on TFTR.
-The RF power was absorbed efficiently in D-T plasmas with/without minority
He-3 present.
-Power modulation experiments were performed to directly measure the RF
power deposition profiles (in collaboration with M. Murakami of ORNL).
-The dependence of the power deposition on toroidal field, tritium and He-3
concentration was explored.
-Magnetic diagnostics confirmed the presence of a tritium tail.
-Second harmonic tritium heating accounts for about 30-40% of the wave damping.

Preliminary results from these experiments were reported on at the Boulder.
Co. RF Workshop.

During the week of March 21 and 28 we did set-up experiments in deuterium
plasmas in preparation for our Alpha Instabilities campaigns.

During the week of March 28, we did some more ICRF preparation work, with
experiments on mode conversion electron heating and current drive.  We
observed some extremely interesting electron heating with mode conversion
in a He3, He4 plasma.  The heating efficiency was very high with Te
increasing from 3 keV to 8 keV with approximately 3 MW of ICRF power.  The
electron heating was highly localized near the mode conversion layer.

From our loss alpha detection data, it is found that ICRF-induced expulsion
of alpha particles takes place on TFTR.  This loss resembles that seen
previously for DD fusion products, in which ICRF waves appear to add
perpendicular velocity to passing particles so that they become "fattest
banana" orbits which strike the wall.  Unlike the DD case, though, some
alpha particles were lost only after being heated above their birth energy.
The magnitude of this loss observed so far is of the same order as the
first orbit loss (about 5%).

Further studies of our DT limiter H-modes in the high betap experiments (in
collaboration with Columbia University) show that the characteristics of
the ELM's, precursor MHD activity to the beta collapse, and disruptions are
generally similar in DD and DT plasmas.  Large amplitude, low frequency
(about 40 Hz) "giant" ELM's are more likely to occur in DT plasmas with
relatively broad pressure profiles and high beta-N. These experiments were
characterized by large enhancements in confinement (TAUE/TAUE-L-Mode of 4).


During the week of April 11, a physical inventory of the tritium on-site
was completed.

Plans:

Tritium operation is planned to resume this week. The alpha instabilities
campaign is the next planned  tritium experiment. Then we will start on an
experiment to detect alphas with the Alpha CHERS system (in collaboration
with the University of Wisconsin).


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


cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenrhawryluk cudfnRich cudlnHawryluk cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.27 / Greg Kuperberg /  Re: Reply to Maglich on TFTR D-T Result
     
Originally-From: gk00@quads.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reply to Maglich on TFTR D-T Result
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 1994 17:04:20 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

In article <CovppK.1yz@prometheus.UUCP> pmk@promethe.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) writes:
>In article <1994Apr25.220035.28633@Princeton.EDU> Robert F. Heeter
<rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> writes:
>>I've said before that I support alternate-concepts research so long as it 
>>doesn't come at the expense of the current research areas.
>According to the reality of our country's economic situation, that is
>not an option.  The Energy subcomittee under HSST also made that very
>clear.   So I take it that you and PPPL and USDoE are all in lock step
>on this and do not favor support of alternate concepts!  

The fact is that DOE not only favors but funds "alternate" concepts:
It funded muon-catalyzed Fusion, it funded z pinch experiments, it
funds stellarators, it funds laser fusion in a big way, and it funds
several other things that I don't know about.  It seems to me that the
reason that you are bitter, and the reason that you postulate
ever-widening circles of tokomak conpiracy, is not that DOE doesn't
fund alternate concepts, but rather that the Kolocomak isn't one of
those concepts.
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudengk00 cudfnGreg cudlnKuperberg cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.27 / Jim Carr /  Re: (no subject given)
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics
Subject: Re: (no subject given)
Date: 27 Apr 1994 13:53:36 -0400
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

In article <94116.192626DOCTORJ@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> 
Jon J Thaler <DOCTORJ@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> writes:
>sichase@csa5.lbl.gov (SCOTT CHASE) says:
>
>> I just saw the CDF presentation by one of the local LBL CDF experts.
>> Her conclusion was that the "statistics are too limited" to consider
>> their result conclusive evidence for the top quark.  (Their 12 events
>> over a background of 5.9 amounts to a 2.8 sigma excess in the total
>> of the various channels that they searched).
>
>They have 15 events.

No, it is 12.  They double count 3 events that pass the cuts for 
two different ways of identifying single lepton events. 

Also, perhaps Scott can clarify, my reading of it is that they see 12 
events, 6 of which are expected from background processes, not that 
they have 12 left over after subtracting a background.  Isn't the 
background the result of modeling and not measured.  As I understand 
it, they have a signal-to-noise of 1:1. 

>>> What odds will you give against its being seen in the next six months?
                                        ^^^^^^^^^^
The wording of the bet is pretty vague.  Certainly CDF thinks they have 
seen it even though they are careful in what they say.  Perhaps the thing 
to do is to pay off if new data show the CDF claim is correct and not 
based on background mis-estimates like the famous UA1 claim. 

-- 
 James A. Carr   <jac@scri.fsu.edu>     |   "It's never confusing though, 
      http://www.scri.fsu.edu           |  because ultimately it all fits 
 Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst.  |  -- it's just cockeyed and fits  
 Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306    |  and is fire."  -  Norman Maclean 
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.26 / Anil Trivedi /  Re: Can you put it on Usenet, then publish?
     
Originally-From: trivedi@yukawa.uchicago.edu (Anil Trivedi)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.research,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Can you put it on Usenet, then publish?
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 1994 16:47:16 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

harr@netcom.com (Charles (Chuck) Harrison) writes:
>A (snail-mail) correspondent of mine ... asks me if posting major 
>portions of the draft to Usenet will interfere with publication.
>
>I replied that
> (1) this is a gray area;
> ...
> (4) But only your journal editor can really say.
>
>Is there anything to add or retract (especially an example or two)?

What's the difference between circulating it on Usenet (for comments,
I suppose) and doing the same as a preprint, electronic or hard-copy?

-----




cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudentrivedi cudfnAnil cudlnTrivedi cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.26 /  jonesse@physc1 /  P&F press conference on 23 March 1989/ response to Carr
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: P&F press conference on 23 March 1989/ response to Carr
Date: 26 Apr 94 17:49:33 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

Returning from family holidays, I read (much to my surprise):

> "There was *nothing* premature about the P&F press conference!"
> "I may not think much of the quality of their papers and presentation, 
>  or of the 'nuclear' evidence they showed at that time, but what they
>  did was perfectly correct and normal in physics."
[posted by Jim Carr, 20 Apr 1994]

Hello?  Don't you remember that Petrasso and crew showed that the gamma
data of P&F was badly flawed -- too narrow, no Compton edge, and *not*
even at the correct energy?  And that this led to a *retraction* by P&F
published within a short time of the P&F press conference of their
gamma-data claims (for neutrons captured in H in H2O)?  [Retraction published
as correspondance to Nature.]     Such a prompt
retraction and such errors demonstrate that the press conf. was premature.
[Read all about it, including evidence for data-doctoring, in Frank Close's
book, "Too Hot to Handle".]

Moreover, at the meeting of the Electrochemical Society in early May, within
two months of the press conf., P&F *retracted* claims of 4He production also
-- I was there and heard it. 

Did P&F undergo internal review of their paper, by anyone in the Physics
Department at U. Utah, before the press conf.?  (Don't think so.)  
Was this "perfectly
correct and normal in physics"?  I hardly think so, nor did the U. Utah
physicists!  Do you really maintain such procedures as they followed were
"perfectly correct"?  You surprise me, Jim.

At the press conf., the panel was asked whether they knew of anyone else doing
related work.  The question was answered by Jim Brophy of the U. Utah, who said
that he was not aware of any such research.  Yet he knew very well of the work
at BYU -- he had received a phone call from College of Physical and Math.
Sciences Dean Grant Mason the day before, protesting the press conf. (about
which we had heard indirectly, via DOE); Dean Mason stated to Brophy:
"If you go ahead with the press conference, we will interpret this as a stab in
the back."  (As the Dean later recounted to me the conversation.)

You will recall that the U. Utah contingent that visited BYU on 6 March
1989 proposed that there be no public statements about cold fusion research by
either University until after our papers were simultaneously submitted, 
and that we all agreed to that.  Surely you can't say that their behavior
in having a press conf. the day *before* the papers were to be submitted
was "perfectly correct!"  Especially when they *denied* awareness of any other
group doing related research!  Hello?

P&F were on the panel and did not correct Brophy's misstatement.  This denial
added insult to injury.  It was totally unconsionable.

A final thought:  in the 17 Jan. 1992 issue of Science, p. 283, we read:

"Cold fusion codiscoverer Martin Fleischmann, whao has been trying to breathe
new life into his subject with claims of fresh supporting data...came up with a
bit of revisionist history when he gave a speech at MIT shortly after
Christmas.  When a skeptical questioner...asked Fleischmann why he did not seek
a chemical explanation for the cold fusion reaction, he responded that, in
fact, 
"I didn't call it fusion."
..."We never made such an assertion."

I was sure I remember their using the term fusion!  Think of all the erroneous
newspaper articles if Fleischmann's statement above is accurate!

Indeed, the U. Utah press release and conference were filled with usage of the 
word "fusion."  The opening sentences read:  "Two scientists have successfully
created a sustained nuclear fusion reaction at room temperature in a chemistry
laboratory at the University of Utah.  The breakthrough means the world may
someday rely on fusion for a clean, virtually inexhaustible source of energy."
[March 23, 1989, press release, U. Utah.]

So, again, one finds that the press conf. was premature in announcing fusion,
when Fleischmann has backed away from even that central claim of the press
conference.

Give me a break, Jim.  Do you think the TFTR boys indulged in any such
behavior?  To lump their press conf. in with the fiasco at the Univ. of Utah
is grossly unfair.

--Steven Jones

BTW, there was *never* a press conference at BYU on the subject of cold fusion,
contrary to at least one published report.  --Just to set the record straight, 
if that is possible with so much nonsense floating about.
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenjonesse cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.26 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Correction to Logajan
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Correction to Logajan
Date: 26 Apr 94 18:05:39 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

In a recent post (dated here 4/21/94), John Logajan said that:

"Since Miles and Stringham both use D in Pd, both claim excess heat, and both
claim 4He    and   lack of significant radioemissivity,
I'm wondering awhat more relevance to the Chubb theory you desire"

While this is true of Stringham, it is incorrect about Miles, who indeed
claimed "significant radioemissivity:"

"Simultaneous evidence for excess power, helium production, and anomalous
radiation was present in thes experiments."
"The detection of anomalous radiation involved the use of a thin end window
Geiger-Mueller (GM) alpha-beta-gamma detector (Ludlum model 44-7) postitioned
about 20 cm from the tops of the electrochemical cells and connected to a
scalar rate meter"

They show fluctuations in the GM readings from about 32 to 38 thousand
counts per 12 hours (Fig. 4).  They claim the significance of the
"radioemissivity" to be 26 sigma -- now that's significant.  (Isn't it?)

Of course, they concede:
"The anomalous radiation counts shown in Figure 4 have proven to be nearly as
elusive as the excess power effect"  in the same paper.  Nevertheless, they
claim both excess power and radiation.

The presence of such radiation -- in a GM counter 20 cm from the cells,
implying enormous radiation! -- is indeed contrary to Chubb's theory, which
(as I understand it) purports to show that 4He is produced *without*
accompanying radiation.

The Miles et al. paper quoted above is found in the proceedings of the
Nagoya conference (1992), pp 189 ff.

--Steven Jones

cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenjonesse cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.27 / Larry Elie /  Re: Evolution Proves: Cold Fusion not Possible!
     
Originally-From: lelie@smail.srl.ford.com (Larry Elie)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Evolution Proves: Cold Fusion not Possible!
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 1994 08:58:46
Organization: Ford Motor Co.

I haven't been paying enough attention to this thread, but my $.02 (if it 
hasn't already been stated):

Way back when CF was the rage, and the Wall Street Journal was the most 
current CF forum, I remember looking at all of the CF papers to date; seems 
Tritum gas bubbling up at Mau Laua (SP?) in Hawaii was given as 'evidance' for 
cold fusion occuring somewhere in the Earth.  I suppose I could dig out the 
ref. but the paper pretty much determined this because this Tritium quantity 
couldn't be explained as a fission decay product, and no other mechanism 
explained for a light gas remaining in a planet from formation.  Not that I 
believe that this is a good explaination, just my $.02

Larry Elie
lelie@smail.srl.ford.com


cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenlelie cudfnLarry cudlnElie cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.27 / Rich Hawryluk /  TFTR Update April 27, 1994
     
Originally-From: rhawryluk@pppl.gov (Rich Hawryluk)
Newsgroups: pppl.tftr.news,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: TFTR Update April 27, 1994
Date: 27 Apr 1994 10:04:22 -0400
Organization: Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory

Status  (April 26, 1994)


The first ICRF D-T campaign was completed the week of March 7th.  The
following is a summary of the results:
-ICRF heating of D-T plasmas was successfully demonstrated on TFTR.
-The RF power was absorbed efficiently in D-T plasmas with/without minority
He-3        present.
-Power modulation experiments were performed to directly measure the RF
power deposition profiles (in collaboration with M. Murakami of ORNL).
-The dependence of the power deposition on toroidal field, tritium and He-3
concentration was explored.
-Magnetic diagnostics confirmed the presence of a tritium tail.
-Second harmonic tritium heating accounts for about 30-40% of the wave dampi=
ng.

Preliminary results from these experiments were reported on at the Boulder.
Co. RF Workshop.

During the week of March 21 and 28 we did set-up experiments in deuterium
plasmas in preparation for our Alpha Instabilities campaigns.

During the week of March 28, we did some more ICRF preparation work, with
experiments on mode conversion electron heating and current drive.  We
observed some extremely interesting electron heating with mode conversion
in a He3, He4 plasma.  The heating efficiency was very high with Te
increasing from 3 keV to 8 keV with approximately 3 MW of ICRF power.  The
electron heating was highly localized near the mode conversion layer.

=46rom our loss alpha detection data, it is found that ICRF-induced expulsio=
n
of alpha particles takes place on TFTR.  This loss resembles that seen
previously for DD fusion products, in which ICRF waves appear to add
perpendicular velocity to passing particles so that they become "fattest
banana" orbits which strike the wall.  Unlike the DD case, though, some
alpha particles were lost only after being heated above their birth energy.
The magnitude of this loss observed so far is of the same order as the
first orbit loss (=895%).

=46urther studies of our DT limiter H-modes in the high betap experiments (i=
n
collaboration with Columbia University) show that the characteristics of
the ELM's, precursor MHD activity to the beta collapse, and disruptions are
generally similar in DD and DT plasmas.  Large amplitude, low frequency
(about 40 Hz) "giant" ELM's are more likely to occur in DT plasmas with
relatively broad pressure profiles and high beta-N. These experiments were
characterized by large enhancements in confinement (TAUE/TAUE-L-Mode of 4).


During the week of April 11, a physical inventory of the tritium on-site
was completed.

Plans:

Tritium operation is planned to resume this week. The alpha instabilities
campaign is the next planned  tritium experiment. Then we will start on an
experiment to detect alphas with the Alpha CHERS system (in collaboration
with the University of Wisconsin).


_________________________________________________________________________
R. J. Hawryluk
rhawryluk@pppl.gov
PPPL - LOB 325
Phone:  (609) 243-3306
=46ax:    (609) 243-3248


cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenrhawryluk cudfnRich cudlnHawryluk cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.28 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Stringham and George Hole
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Stringham and George Hole
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 1994 00:13:56 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

John Logajan reports that Stringham and George put a 3 cm hole in a palladium
foil.  This does not surprise me at all.  When an ultrasonic transducer of
the type I sent Steve Jones is pointed at a foil, it will disintegrate it in
short order.  

One of the consultants that I used on the water machine project told me that 
is how they test the tuning of a large cleaning bath.  Throw in a piece of
aluminum foil, and see how long it takes to be shredded to atoms.

Tom Droege

cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenDROEGE cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.28 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Top Quark Bet
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Top Quark Bet
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 1994 00:14:01 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Since the date of the bet is 11 May 94, I shoud point out that all the events
being reported predate the bet deadline.  Now we can have a fine argument about
the meaning of "its being seen"

I have an interest in this since I personally designed a lot of the electronics
that made these measurements, and the group I put together designed and built
a good fraction of the total electronics.  

Tom Droege

cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenDROEGE cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.28 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Re: Stirngham and George Calorimetry
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Stirngham and George Calorimetry
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 1994 00:14:05 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

John Logajan says it is not so hard to measure the power put out by an
ultrasonic transducer.  These things are mechanical resonators, and their
tuning wanders around.  At lest the one I had was powered through a ferite 
transformer.  There is no good place to measure the power.  The unit I had
made no effort to try.  The problem is that you are trying to measure the 
power in a few killovolt resonant circuit.  Slight changes in tuning will
affect the losses in the switching edges of the power transistors, and the
ratio of power losses between the ferite and the resonator.  At 300 watts
I doubt it can be done to 20% even with an heroic effort. 

Next there is the problem of how much power goes into the solution.  Foil 
in vs foil out does not impress me as a test.  The coupling to the solution 
will be drastically different with the foil in vs the foil out.  Even 
substitution of different foil materials does not impress me.  I would have to
see all the data - or a good discussion of all the experiments done which 
try to prove the effect wrong.  Until good experiments are presented and 
arguments made with are convincing that there is an effect I would be 
suspicious that there are just +/- 50 watt deviations in the measurement, and
that only the + data is being reported.

This is what my point about press conferences is all about.  What is important
is not that a press conference was held on a particular day that claimed 
this or that.  What is important is the arguments that are made and the data
that is presented.  

I await arguments and data by P&F and S&G that match what Fermilab presented
yesterday.  Some of you may not like the Top announcement, I myself almost 
don't care, but the facts and the arguments that support them are out in the
open for all to see (or soon will be to the extent that 150+ pages can 
explain such a complex undertaking.)

So I forgive P&F the press conference.  I do *not* forgive their failure to
present facts and arguments for their experiment. 

Tom Droege

cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenDROEGE cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.27 / John Cobb /  Re: Reply to Maglich on TFTR D-T Result
     
Originally-From: johncobb@emx.cc.utexas.edu (John W. Cobb)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reply to Maglich on TFTR D-T Result
Date: 27 Apr 1994 15:31:48 -0500
Organization: The University of Texas - Austin

In article <1994Apr27.170420.16443@midway.uchicago.edu>,
Greg Kuperberg <gk00@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote:
>In article <CovppK.1yz@prometheus.UUCP> pmk@promethe.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) writes:
>>In article <1994Apr25.220035.28633@Princeton.EDU> Robert F. Heeter
<rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> writes:
>>>I've said before that I support alternate-concepts research so long as it 
>>>doesn't come at the expense of the current research areas.
>>According to the reality of our country's economic situation, that is
>>not an option.  The Energy subcomittee under HSST also made that very
>>clear.   So I take it that you and PPPL and USDoE are all in lock step
>>on this and do not favor support of alternate concepts!  
>
>The fact is that DOE not only favors but funds "alternate" concepts:

Not from where I stand.

>It funded muon-catalyzed Fusion, 

past tense

>it funded z pinch experiments, it

past tense again

>funds stellarators, 

Technically yes, but ATF turns off in a few months. In fact, ATF was
shut down just months after completion in 1990 to try to save BPX.
ATF got turned back on only when BPX died, and then only for a very
short run, far less than the useful life of the machine. Right now
ATF is arguably the world's leading stellerator. The U.S. is unilaterally
ceding that position to Germany (WS7) and Japan (LHD). Why? Well my opinion
is that it is policy not science to concentrate scarce resource exclusively
on TOKAMAKS, even if this means throwing away new machines that are
working gathering data and pursuing a valid scientific mission.

>it funds laser fusion in a big way, 

Not as an energy program. The big push here is that ICF can be used
to test bomb designs and effects even when there is a test-ban treaty.
Only a very little laser fusion funding comes from DOE-OFE. Most comes
from DOE weapons programs, I believe.

>and it funds
>several other things that I don't know about.

A very curious statement. How do you know?

Other alternates are funded one of 3 ways in the U.S. (from what I
see). Either

1) They are slaved to the tokamak program. For example, do spheromak
research to use as a current injection system on a tokamak or use an
FRC as a core fueling project. There is also a proposal for using a small
aspect ratio torus or a mirror to do a divertor simulator experiment for
ITER. Well, not really a proposal, more in the talk and scuttlebutt stage.

2) They are funded at very small levels inside of other programs, mostly
university programs. For example, MST is a RFP located at Wisconsin.

3) They are funded outside of the jurisdiction of DOE-OFE. For example
some fusion ideas have been sold as neutron sources through SBIR
competitions (DOD I think) or out of DOE's Basic Energy Sciences (BES)
budget.

>  It seems to me that the
>reason that you are bitter, and the reason that you postulate
>ever-widening circles of tokomak conpiracy, is not that DOE doesn't
>fund alternate concepts, but rather that the Kolocomak isn't one of
>those concepts.

who masterminded all these conspiracy theories anyway? :>

-john .w cobb

-- 
 --------------------------------------------------------------
John W. Cobb	My posts don't reflect the views of my employer
                Because my posts are usually opaque.
 --------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenjohncobb cudfnJohn cudlnCobb cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.27 / Bruce Liebert /  Re: Evolution Proves: Cold Fusion not Possible!
     
Originally-From: liebert@wiliki.eng.hawaii.edu (Bruce E. Liebert)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Evolution Proves: Cold Fusion not Possible!
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 1994 19:59:14 GMT
Organization: University of Hawaii

In article <lelie.314.0008FAA9@smail.srl.ford.com>,
lelie@smail.srl.ford.com (Larry Elie) wrote:

> I haven't been paying enough attention to this thread, but my $.02 (if it 
> hasn't already been stated):
> 
> Way back when CF was the rage, and the Wall Street Journal was the most 
> current CF forum, I remember looking at all of the CF papers to date; seems 
> Tritum gas bubbling up at Mau Laua (SP?) in Hawaii was given as 'evidance' for 
> cold fusion occuring somewhere in the Earth.  I suppose I could dig out the 
> ref. but the paper pretty much determined this because this Tritium quantity 
> couldn't be explained as a fission decay product, and no other mechanism 
> explained for a light gas remaining in a planet from formation.  Not that I 
> believe that this is a good explaination, just my $.02
> 
> Larry Elie
> lelie@smail.srl.ford.com

Prof. Gary McMurtry of the Dept. of Oceanography at the University of
Hawaii (who has worked with Steve Jones in the past) presented his latest
results on this subject last week.  Although I had to leave his seminar
early, I believe he has increasing evidence from many more volcanic sites. 
The evidence seems to get stronger as more work is done.  And it is Mauna
Loa, by the way.

-- 
***************************************************************
*        Bruce E. Liebert  liebert@wiliki.eng.hawaii.edu      *
*    Materials Research Laboratory    University of Hawaii    *
*  2540 Dole St., Holmes Hall, Rm. 302, Honolulu, HI  96822   *
*       Tel:  (808) 956-6332         Fax:  (808) 956-2373     *
***************************************************************
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenliebert cudfnBruce cudlnLiebert cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.26 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Overblown comparisons between TFTR and cold fusion
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Overblown comparisons between TFTR and cold fusion
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 1994 17:56:54 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1994Apr25.210012.13927@Princeton.EDU>,
Robert F. Heeter  <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> wrote:
>
>Secondly, with a 6 MW power output, the tokamak only needs a factor
>of *500* to reach a commercial scale, and not "2000" as you claim without
>justification.  

     Are you going to give yourselves credit for *all* the power?

     And after all this discussion...
    
                               dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.28 / Alan Smith /  Re: Nuclear Waste Disposal: What to Do with Spent Ludwig
     
Originally-From: arsmith@lamar.ColoState.EDU (Alan Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,alt.religion.kibology,sci.math,sci
physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.chem,sci.bio
Subject: Re: Nuclear Waste Disposal: What to Do with Spent Ludwig
Plutonium (was re: Neanderthal Park)
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 1994 01:44:10 GMT
Organization: Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523

In article <morset.61.000D4B31@ccmail.orst.edu> morset@ccmail.orst.edu
(Terry Morse) writes:
>  We could all just ignore his posts, and maybe he'd stop making them.  Even 
>if he continues, the amount of clutter in the group would be reduced without 
>all the pointless responses.
>--Terry

Okay, I'm not a liscenced psychotherapist, but Ludwig does carry a symptom
or two of schizophrenia.

Nevertheless, I like him.  No, really.  So occasionally I reply in email
asking him to clarify a point or two when I have a question.  I do
tend to get defensive when he goes off on his antievolution things
(I'm a bio major) but on the whole his posts make a nice break from the
mired-in-science-culture of the rest of sci.bio.  Lets me have the odd
giggle at myself, as it were.

Life is too important to take entirely seriously, guys.

cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenarsmith cudfnAlan cudlnSmith cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.28 / Greg Kuperberg /  Re: Reply to Maglich on TFTR D-T Result
     
Originally-From: gk00@quads.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reply to Maglich on TFTR D-T Result
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 1994 02:46:40 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

In article <2pmi3kINN2te@emx.cc.utexas.edu> johncobb@emx.cc.utexas.edu
(John W. Cobb) writes:
>In article <1994Apr27.170420.16443@midway.uchicago.edu>,
>Greg Kuperberg <gk00@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote:
>>The fact is that DOE not only favors but funds "alternate" concepts:
>Not from where I stand.

I should have referred to public funding in general rather than DOE or
even US funding.  In your reply you are even narrower; you refer only
to projects funded by DOE-OFE, and you only count big or at
medium-sized projects.  You may have a good point that DOE-OFE is
obsessed with tokamaks; that's a charge that I've also heard from my
friend who is a fusion theorist at Los Alamos.  But you say, for
example, that laser fusion doesn't count because it's not funded "as an
energy project".  That makes no sense to me; it's funded as what it is,
which is both an energy project and a model for atomic bomb implosion.
Which agency funds it is only indirectly relevant to what the project
might achieve.

The point is that it's a big wide world in which many different
government agencies in many different countries fund many different
fusion research projects.  For starters the Office of Advanced Energy
Projects within DOE exists expressly to fund speculative research
projects; at least it existed recently.  (OAE is what I meant when I
said that DOE funds projects that I don't know about.) You mention some
agencies outside of DOE yourself, and there is also Germany and Japan,
which as you say are more enthusiastic about stellerators than we are.
Britain and France also have significant fusion research.  In conclusion,
the bitter few who claim a global tokomak conspiracy are wrong.
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudengk00 cudfnGreg cudlnKuperberg cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.28 / Bruce Liebert /  Re: Top Quark Bet
     
Originally-From: liebert@wiliki.eng.hawaii.edu (Bruce E. Liebert)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Top Quark Bet
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 1994 02:47:40 GMT
Organization: University of Hawaii

In article <940427115136.2022609b@FNALD.FNAL.GOV>, DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
wrote:

> Since the date of the bet is 11 May 94, I shoud point out that all the events
> being reported predate the bet deadline.  Now we can have a fine argument about
> the meaning of "its being seen"
> 
> I have an interest in this since I personally designed a lot of the electronics
> that made these measurements, and the group I put together designed and built
> a good fraction of the total electronics.  
> 
> Tom Droege

So, are you listed as one of the hundreds of coauthors or are you only
acknowledged at the end of the paper as part of "A group in Chicago..."

;-)


-- 
***************************************************************
*        Bruce E. Liebert  liebert@wiliki.eng.hawaii.edu      *
*    Materials Research Laboratory    University of Hawaii    *
*  2540 Dole St., Holmes Hall, Rm. 302, Honolulu, HI  96822   *
*       Tel:  (808) 956-6332         Fax:  (808) 956-2373     *
***************************************************************
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenliebert cudfnBruce cudlnLiebert cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.27 / Paul Koloc /  Re: TFTR Update 4-27-94; Explain the Jargon
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: pppl.tftr.news,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: TFTR Update 4-27-94; Explain the Jargon
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 1994 23:37:16 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <2plrd6$q5u@lyman.pppl.gov> rhawryluk@pppl.gov (Rich Hawryluk) writes:
>Status  (April 26, 1994)


Gee, your topical list of physics tftr curios sort of leaves one hanging
if the underlying marginal physics explanations aren't added in.  

>The first ICRF D-T campaign was completed the week of March 7th.  The
>following is a summary of the results:
>-ICRF heating of D-T plasmas was successfully demonstrated on TFTR.

So there was a risk associated with higher temperatures (conductivities)
or ion frequency coupling to the tritium??  Just what was the implied risk? 

>-The RF power was absorbed efficiently in D-T plasmas with/without minority
>He-3 present.  

At what level would ash be expected to create a heating problem? And won't
that be moot in light of the fusion alpha heating.   

>-Power modulation experiments were performed to directly measure the RF
>power deposition profiles (in collaboration with M. Murakami of ORNL).

Considered to measure the effect of the presence of He3 and T ?? 

>-The dependence of the power deposition on toroidal field, tritium and He-3
>concentration was explored.

Work on the toroidal field??  Is this because the plasma expands and does 
some measurable displacement work on the fields driven by heating pulses 
into the plasma?? 

>Magnetic diagnostics confirmed the presence of a tritium tail.

How do the magnetic diagnostics confirm such a presence, from the 
differential Lamor radius at plasma edge?? 

>Second harmonic tritium heating accounts for about 30-40% of the wave 
>damping.

Hmmm!  I've heard of higher order cyclotron frequencies, but whhhaaatt?? 
are second harmonic tritium heating [waves??].    

>Preliminary results from these experiments were reported on at the Boulder.
>Co. RF Workshop.
goody, nice clear air.. I think Nic T. spent time there abouts, trying 
to broadcast power via the ionosphere.  An appropriate and lofty place.   

>During the week of March 21 and 28 we did set-up experiments in deuterium
>plasmas in preparation for our Alpha Instabilities campaigns.

Sounds like you are running these guys through minor skirmishes for 
battles to come ??  So what does the flowery verbage indicate.  
Aphas should heat and that should improve conductivity which if NOT
confined to the minor axis could do wonders for stability.  Well?? 
Maybe you should initiate burns in an toroidally nested annular 
zone.  (note that's with two "n"s )  So why the instabilites.. is it
the low confinement pressure and the mag blowouts forming banana pockets
driven by the hot ash species?  Almost like buldges in old fashioned 
automobile tires. 

>During the week of March 28, we did some more ICRF preparation work, with
>experiments on mode conversion electron heating and current drive.  We
>observed some extremely interesting electron heating with mode conversion
>in a He3, He4 plasma.  The heating efficiency was very high with Te
>increasing from 3 keV to 8 keV with approximately 3 MW of ICRF power.  The
>electron heating was highly localized near the mode conversion layer.

So you are saying you are coupling LESS to the ash.  Still you have the
problem of heating the fuel and not radiating.  Of course an 8kev electron
is still quit cool as thermonuclear temperatures go, so those losses
should not be bothersome.    

>From our loss alpha detection data, it is found that ICRF-induced 
>expulsion of alpha particles takes place on TFTR.  This loss resembles that 
>seen previously for DD fusion products, in which ICRF waves appear to add
>perpendicular velocity to passing particles so that they become "fattest
>banana" orbits which strike the wall.  

Strike the wall??  I don't like the sound of that. If the wall were a plasma
wall then no damage would be done, but here, high Z non-ionized matter 
could be dislodged which could migrate back into your thermonuclear plasma.
Bad consequences. 

>Unlike the DD case, though, some
>alpha particles were lost only after being heated above their birth energy.
>The magnitude of this loss observed so far is of the same order as the
>first orbit loss (95%).

But wait, that indicates a larger carry off of cooling power.  I 
thought they idea was the heat the plasma by fusion for more continued 
burn.  Then suck out the cooled ash so it doesn't build up and 
interfere with the remaining burn rates.  Or has not that problem 
been solved yet???    

>Further studies of our DT limiter H-modes in the high beta"p" experiments 
>collaboration with Columbia University) show that the characteristics of
>the ELM's, precursor MHD activity to the beta collapse, and disruptions are
>generally similar in DD and DT plasmas.  Large amplitude, low frequency
>(about 40 Hz) "giant" ELM's are more likely to occur in DT plasmas with
>relatively broad pressure profiles and high beta-N. These experiments were
>characterized by large enhancements in confinement (TAUE/TAUE-L-Mode of 4).

Right.  Sure.. I knew that.    Okay what is ELM   Elsie's Landou Munging
waves??   Beta P is poloidal beta??  right??
what is Beta N?  vertical (normal) field beta??   
Tau is a confinement time, but tau "E"??    L(ower)-mode is the normal 
non-enhanced operating discharge mode for tokamaks?? .. as opposed to 
H(igh)-mode?  Why are you still interested in L-mode?  

>During the week of April 11, a physical inventory of the tritium on-site
>was completed.

Thanks for the glowing news ... now fill in the margins for the above
queries.  

>Plans:

>Tritium operation is planned to resume this week. The alpha instabilities
>campaign is the next planned  tritium experiment. Then we will start on an
>experiment to detect alphas with the Alpha CHERS system (in collaboration
>with the University of Wisconsin).
Go easy of the cheese and Huber beer.  
>R. J. Hawryluk
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc,Bx 1037, Prometheus II, Ltd., College Park, MD 20741-1037 |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+


cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.27 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Engineering issues in CF
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Engineering issues in CF
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 1994 23:57:12 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <2plrrn$cv3@search01.news.aol.com> paulbreed@aol.com (PaulBreed) writes:
>In article <940425054137_74242.1554_BHR39-1@CompuServe.COM>,
>74242.1554@compuserve.com (John M. Logajan) writes:
>>I believe the thermal conductivity coefficient of Pd is 730 mw/cm/C/sec
>>and that Pd melts at 1550C. I also believe that liquid H2O (D2O) can
>>absorb 75 J/mole/degree.

>Did you account for any temperature drop in the D20?
>It's been a long time since I've done any Heat Transfer (school 10 Years ago),
>but I believe there will be a significat thermal gradient accross the Pd D20
>boundry layer. I also seem to remember that it would be dependant on the
>type of flow and it's turbulance. This could change the heat transfer rate
>better than 2:1. It is not a linear system. If some one who really knows about
>forced convection in a fluid system could respond I would find it educational.
>Thanks :)

>Paul Breed

The cooling system would probably have to be pressurized which helps
considerably with boundry problems.  Also, the use of other fluids 
such as woods metal, or pressurized He gas might be considered. There 
was speculation for a while that the the lions share of the heat was 
produced in a very very thin surface area.  Hot fusion and Fission 
(still) have heat transfer problems.  

In the power at the surface case, the diffusion distance square term is 
most favorable, as cold fusion might be handled by applying it to the 
inside of long transport pipes.  Distribution systems like the Alaskan 
pipe line, and pop in pop out hardware plumbing distributors could really 
go for something like this.  All 15 kw just beween the inlet and the new 
house heating and AC system, shower, washing machine, ice melting side 
walks.  It's too good to be true.  
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc,Bx 1037, Prometheus II, Ltd., College Park, MD 20741-1037 |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.28 / L Plutonium /  Re: Evolution and cold fusion (was "Evolution Proves: Cold 
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics,sci.chem,sci.bio,sci.math,alt
sci.physics.plutonium
Subject: Re: Evolution and cold fusion (was "Evolution Proves: Cold 
Date: 28 Apr 1994 03:52:55 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In article <Cov89M.IuA@world.std.com>
mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:

>   1)  If this logic is true for organisms including humans, then 
> some organism did utilize this effect.  Humans.
>            Witness the F+P announcement in 1989.
> 
>    2)  If this logic is true for organisms other than humans,
> then other organisms would have had to obtain enough palladium in a
> relatively pure state and crystalline state AND
> maintain this either in near vacuum or very hot, or very alkaline conditions.
> 
>   Seems unlikely.  the paucity of materials has played a role in
> evolution before.  
>   Consider that cephalopods are older then human, have probably
> more advanced (in some ways) brains then human, have better eyes
> then human, and were only held back -- from an evolution sense --
> only because their blood used copper instead of our (advanced?) iron to hold
> oxygen.  Imagine if they needed palladium too.
>     Palladium is much rarer then copper based upon the price alone.  True?
> 
>   3) If this logic had to be true for organisms other than humans,
> and it were true to begin with, then where are the organisms
> using flamethrowers, atom bombs, Saturn V's, scanning electron
> microscopes, and tokomaks?  Do they not exist either?
In article <2pj9s5$aer@news.cs.tu-berlin.de>
mfx@cs.tu-berlin.de (Markus Freericks) writes:

> 
> Well, my idea was certainly not inspired by "logic" under any possible
> definition of the term. [It is an more of an analogy to Larry Nivens thesis
> that there are no "psi" effects, since if any such were possible and
> usable, evolution would have produced them.]

In article <2pmat4$4afr@oolong.la.locus.com>
rrb@oolong.la.locus.com (Raymond Butte) writes:

>         1) Perhaps evolution has produced "psi" effects, for some, on occasion.
>         2) What makes us think that evolution must be over or complete ?

  When you finally accept cold fusion as spontaneous neutron
materialization, then you can see that it is a process occurring in
perhaps all living creatures. And in fact if some earnest, diligent,
experimental scientist set-up the experiment, that I predict positive
results will accrue. 
  This is what to look for. Take any living organism and try to
tabulate how many extremely rare elements are within its body. Then
with future observations it will be found that atoms of rare elements
spontaneously materialized. Perhaps eels may be a good subject
material. Then again, some biology major who is reading this already
knows of anamolous living subjects that just seem to "materialize atoms
from out of nowhere (not imbibed,inhaled, or eaten). Cold fusion is
merely spontaneous neutron materialization. And if you do not believe
me. Then, at least consider the words of a past genius---P.A.M. Dirac.
With some stretching of the history, some imagination when applied to
Dirac's writing in this great physics book. One can say that Dirac was
the first true Cold Fusioner. I am the second.

Lectures delivered during a visit to Australia and New Zealand in
Aug/Sept 1975

DIRECTIONS IN PHYSICS 1978

pages 72-73

   " The argument in favor of the variation of the gravitational
constant comes from a study of the constants of Nature. Nature provides
us with various constants: the velocity of light, the charge of the
electron, the mass of the electron, and quantities like that. Most of
these have dimensions, that is to say, the value of the quantity
depends on what units you use.  When we use the metric system of units,
we get a different value for the constant from that obtained when we
use the British system. Well, such numerical values are not of any
general interest. However, from the constants of Nature, we can
construct some that are dimensionless, some that are the same in all
systems of units. It is only these dimensionless quantities that we
shall be dealing with today. 
   One of these dimensionless constants is the famous reciprocal of the
fine-structure constant ((hbar)c)/E^2. It is fundamental in the atomic
theory, and it has the value of about 137. Another dimensionless
constant is the ratio of the mass o f the proton to the mass of the
electron, that is to say Mp/Me. That constant has the value somewhere
near 1840. At present, there is no satisfactory explanation for these
numbers, but physicists believe that, ultimately, an explanation will
be found. One would then be able to calculate them from basic
mathematical equations. One may expect these numbers to occur as being
built up from 4pi(s) and other simple numbers like that. 
   Now, there is another dimensionless constant of Nature which I want
to call your attention to. It arises as follows: Consider the hydrogen
atom: electron and proton. The electrostatic force between them is
inversely proportional to the square of their distance. So is the
gravitational force. We can then take the ratio of the electrostatic
force to the gravitational force. It will be independent of the
distance, and it will be dimensionless. In this way we get the number
(E^2)/GMeMp, where E is the charge of the electron (and proton), G is
the gravitational constant, and Me,Mp are the masses of the electron
and proton.
   Now if we work out its value, we get an extremely large number. It
is about 2X10^39. "

 page 75

  " This figure involves years, a rather artificial unit of time. We
may use instead a unit of time provided by atomic theory. Let us take
as the unit, say, the time required for light to traverse a classical
electron: (E^2)/((Me)c^3).  If we express t in terms of this unit, we
get a number of the order 7X10^39: t = 7X10^39(E^2)/((Me)c^3). This is
a number roughly the same as the large number, 2X10^39, which we
obtained previously.
   Now, you may say: "This is a very remarkable coincidence". However,
I do not believe it is a coincidence; I believe that there must be some
fundamental reason in Nature why these two large numbers should be so
close together. We do not know that reason at present, we cannot guess
at it. It will be explained, however, when we have better information
both about atomic theory and about cosmology. "

page 76

   " We then have a sort of a general principle that very large numbers
which turn up in Nature and have no dimensions, are related to each
other. I call this principle the LARGE NUMBERS HYPOTHESIS. According to
it, all the very large dimensionless numbers, which turn up in Nature,
are related to one another, just like t = 7X10^39 and (E^2)/GMeMp.
   There is one further very large dimensionless number which we have
to take into consideration. That is the total mass of the Universe when
expressed in units of, say, the proton mass. That will be, if you like,
the total number of protons and neutrons in the Universe. It may be, of
course, that the Universe is infinite and that, therefore, this total
number is infinite. In that case we should not be able to talk about
it. Yet we can use another number to replace it. We need only consider
that portion of the Universe which is sufficiently close to us for the
velocity of recession to be less than, let us say, half the velocity of
light. We are then considering just a certain chunk of this infinite
Universe, for which recession velocities are less than half the
velocity of light. We then ask, what is the total mass of this chuck of
the Universe? That again will be a very large number and will replace
the total mass of the Universe, to give us a definite number when the
Universe is infinite.
   We may try to estimate this total mass using the mass of those
stellar objects which we can observe, and making an allowance for
unobservable matter. We do not know very well how big that allowance
should be: there may be quite a lot of unobservable matter in the form
of intergalactic gas or black holes or things like that. Still, it is
probable that the amount of dark matter is not very much greater than
the amount of visible matter. If you make an assumption of that kind,
you find that the total mass, in terms of the proton mass, is (total
mass)/(proton mass) = 10^78, with a suitable factor allowed for the
invisible matter. We, therefore get a number which is, roughly, the
square of t (in atomic units). "

pages 76- 78


  "  Now, according to the Large Number Hypothesis, all these very
large dimensionless numbers should be connected together. We should
then expect that (total mass)/(proton mass) = 10^78 proportional to
t^2. Using the same argument again, we are therefore led to think that
the total number of protons in the Universe is increasing
proportionally to t^2. Thus, there must be creation of matter in the
Universe, a continuous creation of matter. 
   There have been quite a number of cosmological theories working with
continuous creation of matter. A theory like that was very much
developed by Hoyle and others. The continuous creation which I am
proposing here is entirely different from that. Their continuous
creation theory was introduced as a rival to the Big Bang theory, and
it is not in favor at the present time.
  The continuous creation which I have here is essentially different
from Hoyle's continuous creation, because Hoyle was proposing a steady
state of the Universe, with continuous creation to make up for the
matter which is moving beyond our region of vision by the expansion. In
his steady-state theory, he had G constant. Now, in the present theory,
G is varying with time, and that makes an essential difference.
  I propose a theory where there is continuous creation of matter,
together with this variation of G. Both the assumption of continuous
creation and the variation of G follow from the Large Numbers
Hypothesis.
  This continuous creation of matter must be looked upon as something
quite independent of known physical processes. According to the
ordinary physical processes, which we study in the laboratory, matter
is conserved. Here we have direct nonconservation of matter. It is, if
you like, a new kind of radioactive process for which there is
nonconservation of matter and by which particles are created where they
did not previously exist. The effect is very small, because the number
of particles created will be appreciable only when we wait for a very
long time interval compared with the age of the Universe.
  If there is new matter continually created, the question arises:
"where is it created?" There are two reasonable assumptions which one
might make. One is that the new matter is continually created
throughout the whole of space, and in that case, it is mostly created
in intergalactic space. I call this the assumption of additive
creations. 
Alternatively, one might make the assumption that new matter is created
close by where matter already exists. That newly created matter is of
the same atomic nature as the matter already existing there. This would
mean that all atoms are just multiplying up. I call that the assumption
of multiplicative creation. There are these two possibilities for the
creation of new matter. I do not know which to prefer. One should
continue with both possibilities and examine their consequences. "


page 81

  "  Well, there we have effects which we might hope to be able to
measure, and so check up on whether this theory is a good theory or
not. We just have to make accurate observations with atomic time. I
should emphasize that it is important that these observations are made
with atomic time, because the above formulas apply only to quantities
in atomic units.
   We might, first of all, think of the Moon and make observations of
the Moon to check on this theory. Now, people have been making
observations of the motion of the Moon for the last 20 years with
atomic time. They have also recently been making accurate observations
of the distance of the Moon, referred to atomic units. The astronauts
who landed on the Moon put down some laser reflectors, and people are
now sending laser light to these reflectors and observing the light
reflected by them. They then measure, using an atomic clock, the time
taken by the light to get to the Moon and back and, in that way, get
the distance of the Moon, referred to atomic units.
    If we apply it to the motion of the Moon around the Earth, our
theory would require that with additive creation the Moon should be
approaching the Earth by an amount we can easily calculate. It is about
2cm/year.
With multiplicative creation, the Moon should be moving away from the
Earth at the same rate. We would have to measure, therefore, the
distance of the Moon to that accuracy. Now, people have recently been
measuring the distance of the Moon with very great accuracy. The most
recent information I obtained was that, nearly a year ago, they had the
", ..[ Continued.]
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Thu Apr 28 04:37:04 EDT 1994
------------------------------
1994.04.27 / Martin Hudson /  Re: Evolution Proves: Cold Fusion not Possible!
     
Originally-From: martin_hudson-P20509@email.mot.com (Martin Hudson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Evolution Proves: Cold Fusion not Possible!
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 1994 01:35:57 GMT
Organization: Motorola Satellite Communications Division

In article <2pih5l$3mi@news.cs.tu-berlin.de>, mfx@cs.tu-berlin.de (Markus
Freericks) wrote:
> 
> Just a thought: (all the worst posts start with these words ;-)
> 
> If so-called "cold fusion" were a practical possibility, it would be well
> withing the reign of organic systems. From a pure probabilistic standpoint,
> one could then expect that _some_ organism would utilize this effect.
> 
> Presuming that there are no unknown energy-generating mechanisms in cell
> biology which can only be explaied by CF, one can draw the
> counter-conclusion that CF is not possible.
> 
> Markus
> 
> 
> -- 
> Markus Freericks         mfx@cs.tu-berlin.de        +49-30-314-21390
> TU Berlin Sekr. FR 2-2, Franklinstr. 28/29, D-10587 Berlin (Germany)
> 		"Inertia makes the world go 'round."

Maybe it is possible, and this explains all the reports of human
spontaneous combustion worldwide the last several hundred years!  Too much
Pd in some people! :-)

Martin Hudson martin_hudson-P20509@email.mot.com
Motorola Satellite Communications
+-----------------------------------------+   This posting does not
represent  
|This is where I would put a witty saying |  the opinion of Motorola
|if I could think of one                  |              
+-----------------------------------------+
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenP20509 cudfnMartin cudlnHudson cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.28 / Alan Smith /  Re: Nuclear Waste Disposal: What to Do with Spent Ludwig
     
Originally-From: arsmith@lamar.ColoState.EDU (Alan Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,alt.religion.kibology,sci.math,sci
physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.chem,sci.bio
Subject: Re: Nuclear Waste Disposal: What to Do with Spent Ludwig
Plutonium (was re: Neanderthal Park)
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 1994 05:07:01 GMT
Organization: Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523

Me, talking about Ludwig Plutonium:
>Okay, I'm not a liscenced psychotherapist, but Ludwig does carry a symptom
>or two of schizophrenia.
>Nevertheless, I like him.  No, really.  So occasionally I reply in email
>asking him to clarify a point or two when I have a question.  I do
>tend to get defensive when he goes off on his antievolution things
>(I'm a bio major) but on the whole his posts make a nice break from the
>mired-in-science-culture of the rest of sci.bio.  Lets me have the odd
>giggle at myself, as it were.
>Life is too important to take entirely seriously, guys.

<Reads NEANDERTHAL MAN>

Okay, he's not that funny when he tries to be.  But I sometimes have problems
with that too.

Alan.  This means more if you know me elsewhere.
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenarsmith cudfnAlan cudlnSmith cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.28 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: Evolution Proves: Cold Fusion not Possible!
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Evolution Proves: Cold Fusion not Possible!
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 1994 07:02:19 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1994Apr26.185804.13906@muss.cis.mcmaster.ca>,
Thomas Michael Cantine <g9326443@mcmail.cis.mcmaster.ca> wrote:
>Wheels too!  Don't forget wheels!  If wheels are physically possible, they
>should also have evolved in some organism somewhere.

There is probably no evolutionary advantage to wheels, but there would
be a tremendous evolutionary advantage to any organism that could generate
it's own energy source with a few commonly found elements.

In the human body alone, practically the entire periodic table is being used.

Yet we are to believe that with a few hand waves and a bloody simple
manipulation, free energy is available and no organism would have discovered
this but a couple of scientists billions of years into evolution.

Sure.

cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.28 / John Logajan /  Re: Stirngham and George Calorimetry
     
Originally-From: 74242.1554@compuserve.com (John M. Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Stirngham and George Calorimetry
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 1994 09:04:22 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
>John Logajan says it is not so hard to measure the power put out by an
>ultrasonic transducer.  These things are mechanical resonators, and their
>tuning wanders around....  The problem is that you are trying to measure
>the power in a few killovolt resonant circuit.

Dealing with reflected power is beyond me.  The formulas in the Radio
Handbook look formidable, so I will have to defer to RF engineers on the
subject.


cudkeys:
cuddy28 cuden1554 cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.28 / John Logajan /  Re: Correction to Logajan
     
Originally-From: 74242.1554@compuserve.com (John M. Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Correction to Logajan
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 1994 09:04:24 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

jonesse@physc1.byu.edu writes:

>They show fluctuations in the GM readings from about 32 to 38 thousand
>counts per 12 hours (Fig. 4).  They claim the significance of the
>"radioemissivity" to be 26 sigma -- now that's significant.  (Isn't it?)

In relation to the Chubb theory, significant radiation would be (by
definition, I think) a flux density of radioemissive by-products that
correspond with the known channels and account for the excess heat.

For instance, even a 10% deficit of radioemissivity versus a measured
amount of excess heat would lend credence to a Chubb-like theory.

>...enormous radiation! -- is indeed contrary to Chubb's theory, which
>(as I understand it) purports to show that 4He is produced *without*
>accompanying radiation.

I can't speak to the specifics of Dr. Chubb's theory, but are you sure
that it states or implies that all radioemissitivity is prohibited?

As I say above, I think we only need a radioemissitivity deficit in regard
to a measured amount of excess heat for Dr. Chubb (or some similar theory)
to be vindicated.


cudkeys:
cuddy28 cuden1554 cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.28 / John Logajan /  Re: Stringham and George Hole
     
Originally-From: 74242.1554@compuserve.com (John M. Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Stringham and George Hole
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 1994 09:04:26 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov

>One of the consultants that I used on the water machine project told me
>that is how they test the tuning of a large cleaning bath.  Throw in a
>piece of aluminum foil, and see how long it takes to be shredded to
>atoms.

By conservation of energy laws, we know that to "shred to atoms" requires
as much energy as vaporization.  And in a "shred" operation, if we
postulate an inverse pyramid of division-by-two, the biggest energy
requirement comes at the final step.

So "shredded to atoms" seems a bit unlikely.  Shredded to microscopic
grains sounds more likely. :-)


cudkeys:
cuddy28 cuden1554 cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.28 / John Logajan /  Re: Engineering issues in CF
     
Originally-From: 74242.1554@compuserve.com (John M. Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Engineering issues in CF
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 1994 09:04:30 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

paulbreed@aol.com (PaulBreed) writes:

>Did you account for any temperature drop in the D20? ... I believe there
>will be a significant thermal gradient across the Pd D2O boundry layer.

No, that is all beyond my knowledge base.  I assumed a non-gradient
transfer from the Pd to the D2O.

>I also seem to remember that it would be dependant on the type of flow
>and it's turbulance.  This could change the heat transfer rate better
>than 2:1.

My numbers were only meant to be within an order of magnitude or so, just
to demonstrate the trade offs between physical size and maximum power
density.


cudkeys:
cuddy28 cuden1554 cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.28 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: Evolution Proves: Cold Fusion not Possible!
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Evolution Proves: Cold Fusion not Possible!
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 1994 07:11:51 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <940426192911_74242.1554_BHR62-1@compuserve.com>,
John M. Logajan <74242.1554@compuserve.com> wrote:

>The above necessarily presumes that life forms have had sufficient time 
>and, for lack of a better term, motivation to conduct a deterministic
>search and selection methodology which tests and retains all possible
>successful mechanisms.

Yeh, whereas we all know how simple the calcium chemistry is in the
body. 4 billion years of developing a digestive tract when a little
water and a little Pd or Ti or even nickel would prevent all that
long chain ofdevelopment? Of course, whatever would an organism do
with free energy?

>The assumption that everything is already revealed to biological
>mechanisms is instantly refuted by the ongoing need of human beings to
>invent/discover new mechanims to improve and maintain their comparative
>advantage over other organisms, and amongst themselves.

I guess you mean genetic engineering, which is the search of all
the available genes to find the best ones to use for something else.
Gee, wait a minute -- does that mean that we haven't a clue on how
to improve on mother nature yet?

cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.28 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Overblown comparisons between TFTR and cold fusion
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Overblown comparisons between TFTR and cold fusion
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 1994 04:58:31 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <1994Apr27.163654.14584@midway.uchicago.edu> gk00@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>computer simulations as a substitute for experiments.  At the moment
>they are used to interpret old experiments and to design new experiments.

I agree.  The question is, can a program be broken out somehow that
develops commercial fusion?   One place to start is to conceptualize 
significantly more sophisticated approaches to commercial devices, than 
represented by the tokamak, and in doing so take full consideration of 
all of the plasma engineering physics that has been learned in the last 
30 years.  
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc,Bx 1037, Prometheus II, Ltd., College Park, MD 20741-1037 |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.28 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Reply to Maglich on TFTR D-T Result
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reply to Maglich on TFTR D-T Result
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 1994 06:04:38 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <1994Apr27.170420.16443@midway.uchicago.edu> gk00@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <CovppK.1yz@prometheus.UUCP> pmk@promethe.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) writes:
>>In article <1994Apr25.220035.28633@Princeton.EDU> Robert F. Heeter
<rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> writes:

>>According to the reality of our country's economic situation, that is
>>not an option.  The Energy subcomittee under HSST also made that very
>>clear.   So I take it that you and PPPL and USDoE are all in lock step
>>on this and do not favor support of alternate concepts!  

>The fact is that DOE not only favors but funds "alternate" concepts:

>It funded muon-catalyzed Fusion, it funded z pinch experiments, it

Whoa....  it funded Spheromaks, rfp's, and frp's and quadrapoles, and
the astron, and all kinds of things,  ... All that is OVER.. GOOD BYE
GONE ..  My statement is accurate.  People from the National Labs
and including Princeton (where is your Spheromak) have been whacked.   

>funds stellarators, it funds laser fusion in a big way, and it funds
>several other things that I don't know about.  

Stellarators???   come on ...  creak creak ...  Sure as a memorial
to Lyman Spitzer.  Great work of art.  I saw the model at PPPL.    
Do I detect snow... curious it gets this far south east.  

DoE doesn't fund an AC project unless it is under a long standing 
unbreakable contract to fund, or they are beholding to the chairwomen 
from Tennessee.  They do not fund anything that you don't know..  well 
.. maybe the tokamak... in TX, and the tokamak in CA.  Ahhh, you didn't
know you could be soon sun bathing La Jolla, and working at GA!! 
They FORBIDE (in SBIRs) funding of any fusion or plasma device that
is not useful to tokamaks or could be used as a stand along concept.  

Laser fusion is ALL MILITARY, and DoE mag fusion would and has tried 
to have it cut back several times in order to get at some of its 
funds.   

>reason that you are bitter, and the reason that you postulate
>ever-widening circles of tokamak conpiracy, is not that DOE doesn't
>fund alternate concepts, but rather that the Kolocomak isn't one of
>those concepts.

Since they funded the Spheromak EXTENSIVElY and at several National 
laboratories and Universities, which is one of the "KOLOCmak"s as 
you put it, that fact puts a bit of frost on your contention.  Further, 
I should say that there are quite a large number of proponents 
that much more strongly believe DoE should just MOVE funds to AC 
than I do, including the K*maks.  I think the money should be spent
differently or we won't be any better off than we were before.   

Further, I see no conspiracy other than the one that involves empire 
building and protection which is common bureaucratic fair. Of course
the more gobbledegook they can put out and the better the spending
justification "TA DAaa -- THE  TOKAMAK"  The worse it gets.  It looks 
like a conspiracy to the AC people at Oak Ridge, MIT, LANL, LLNL, 
Berkerley, UWis, UIL, UMD,??, ?? just because they lost (sacrificed)
projects (and people) for the greater good of the Nat. Fus Program, and 
the US DoE administration. We, here, did not lose one thin dime.  If 
we would have been funded, then we would be tearing our hair out 
figuring rather to walk in lock-step or "screw the bastards" and let'm 
know what's going on and how our project should be funded even IF the 
damn tokamak suffers. 

That reminds me.. there was a memo by the "AC-chappie" from DoE that
warned, "No one may use US Govenment resources to lobby congress."  
Of course, a likeness was at Congress actively "lining up the troops" 
or "keeping every one focused and together,"  I believe are expressions 
used.   

Nope, I have no such hang ups.  AC program or not, Gov funding of
our Kolomaks or not; the tokamak is lethally flawed in several ways
and is not a viable candidate for commercial fusion.  It was great
as a plasma physics device and one to try to smoke D-T in, but that's
done, it was a success.   But now, the tokamak fusion candidate has to go,
our country can't afford the cost in money and more so, the cost in time.  

You can always check the Congressional record .. (around April 20?).
Although I did not testify, there is a good chance our letter was put 
into the record.  I think you will see, we do not go after the items 
of close personal or financial interest to our well being.  We took a 
fairly strong poke at the National Fusion Policy itself, and in 
particular its funding methods.  

Competitiveness, that's what Princeton needs.   :-)
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc,Bx 1037, Prometheus II, Ltd., College Park, MD 20741-1037 |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.28 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Overblown comparisons between TFTR and cold fusion
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Overblown comparisons between TFTR and cold fusion
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 1994 06:33:34 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

>You mention OMB also. Here I will grant that there is longer term
>continuity, but again not as long as say lab. management.
>Decisions from congressional floor action and even committee action that
>have a major impact on DOE-OFE are made rapidly and often without as much 
>input as one would like. It is also possible (and has occurred) that
>this process can be slanted one way or another by political manuevering
>that is not tied in any way with scientific fact. This is simply because
>fusion doesn't register on the radar screens very often or very high.
>In the relavant committees it has been way overshadowed by talk about
>the SSC and the space station. In terms of the House and Senate as a 
>whole, even those programs enter collective consciousness only sporadically 
>and briefly.

Interesting comments.  
Notice that the DoE Mag Fusion is still large enough so that its 
behavior is that of a (albeit small) bureaucratic empire, which 
defends itself and its principal justification for funds, which in 
this case is the tokamak.  (Since it won't ever actually work, it
is an infinite case of spending more trying harder, spending much
more and trying for slightly more success .. . etc. -- 
                  the tokamak   -=-   a bureaucratic dream



>I got a glimpse of when my wife was working with the Senate budget committee.
>It is not that there is a cavalier, irresponsible attitude. Rather, the 
>number and complexity of decisions that are annually required is staggering.
>Often excellent and thoughtfull deliberation occurs. However, some things 
>don't get thought through. Other things slip through the cracks.

Thanks for this perspective. 

Take a look at the Myers-Briggs, a method of classifying personalities 
into groups..  Some people can't ever get enough information to
make a descision, while others have an uncanny ability to pick out the
critical elements and "see" the whole interactive situation and then 
the solution or the direction to a solution and act very quickly and 
usually accurately.    

>In short many of those people who have the decision-making authority do not
>"have a horse in the race" and are already swamped with other issues to give
>fusion a long and hard consideration.

They reflect the mental energy distribution of their constituents.  Who 
cares about fusion after the bickering.  In that sense, certain parties
probably shot themselves in the foot.  Who cares about the promise of 
the tokamak.  They would like something on the order of a lithe female 
ready for the beach .. not some kind of whale sized dumpling that leaks 
tritium.  Space is far more exciting ... Star wars movie attendence shows
that.  

>To the extent that there has been a lack of proper oversight of the fusion
>program (an opinion both you and I seem to subscribe to, althought for 
>different reasons), I would be more apt to see its casue as neglect
>instead of conspiracy.

Conspiracy of circumstance not intent. ... with a thin tailing of tiny 
intentional conspiracies of profit.     

>Fusion may be dashed on the rocks of  deficit reduction, but I think that
>the space station is first in line this year. It may yet turn out to
>be a night of long knives when the budget is finished though.

Our fusion approach will not require space stations.  It has the means
of putting substantial ones anywhere in our local stellar neighborhood.  

>John W. Cobb	My posts don't reflect the views of my employer
>                Because my posts are usually opaque.
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc,Bx 1037, Prometheus II, Ltd., College Park, MD 20741-1037 |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.28 / Nick Maclaren /  Misuse of statistics [was Re: (no subject given)]
     
Originally-From: nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk (Nick Maclaren)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics
Subject: Misuse of statistics [was Re: (no subject given)]
Date: 28 Apr 1994 11:04:10 GMT
Organization: U of Cambridge, England

In article <2pm8r0$aa3@ds8.scri.fsu.edu>, various people say:
|> >
|> >> I just saw the CDF presentation by one of the local LBL CDF experts.
|> >> Her conclusion was that the "statistics are too limited" to consider
|> >> their result conclusive evidence for the top quark.  (Their 12 events
|> >> over a background of 5.9 amounts to a 2.8 sigma excess in the total
|> >> of the various channels that they searched).
|> >
|> >They have 15 events.
|> 
|> No, it is 12.  They double count 3 events that pass the cuts for 
|> two different ways of identifying single lepton events. 
|> 
|> Also, perhaps Scott can clarify, my reading of it is that they see 12 
|> events, 6 of which are expected from background processes, not that 
|> they have 12 left over after subtracting a background.  Isn't the 
|> background the result of modeling and not measured.  As I understand 
|> it, they have a signal-to-noise of 1:1. 

Please, gentlemen, please!  As a statistician, I cannot pass this up.

    1) The posters who say that it is essential to NOT double count events
are right, because this removes independence and introduces spurious
significance.  It is possible to allow for double counting, but the
calculations are much more complex (and pointless in this case).

    2) When dealing with things like a Poisson process with expectation 6,
which is probably the correct model here, referring to xxx sigma events is
grossly misleading.  Poisson(6) is highly non-normal in the upper tail.
This also affects my next point.

    3) While 12 events when expecting 6 is very like a signal-to-noise level
of 1:1, it is not a useful way of describing the phenomenon.  The numbers
are just too small.  1000 events when expecting 500, yes, but not 12 to 6.
This is not a trivial area to describe concisely.

    4) You expect to get 12 or more events from a Poisson process with
expectation 6 about 1 time in 50.  If the relevant people said that they
have evidence but not proof, they are being scrupulously accurate.  Note
that 2.8 sigma from a normal distribution is nearly 1 time in 400.


Nick Maclaren
University of Cambridge Computer Laboratory,
New Museums Site, Pembroke Street,
Cambridge CB2 3QG, England.
Email:  nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk
Tel.:   +44 223 334761
Fax:    +44 223 334679
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudennmm1 cudfnNick cudlnMaclaren cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.28 / Robert Heeter /  Re: was Overblown -->DoE's "review" and Tokamak: Commercial? 
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: was Overblown -->DoE's "review" and Tokamak: Commercial? 
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 1994 03:32:54 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

In article <CovoJJ.pA@prometheus.UUCP> Paul M. Koloc, pmk@prometheus.UUCP
writes:
>In article <1994Apr25.210012.13927@Princeton.EDU> Robert F. Heeter 
><rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> writes:
>>In article <Cos7vt.869@prometheus.UUCP> Paul M. Koloc,
>>pmk@prometheus.UUCP writes:
>>>You are referring to the USDoE that does reviews using its own "peer 
>>>reviewers".  This is NOT a question of publishing a scientific paper,
it
>>>is a question of FUNDING and continuing to FUND a boondoogle big
>>"science"
>>>project.   That means that using YOUR OWN "peer" reviewers is a
conflict
>>>of interest, especially since the USDoE spends that money on itself
>>>and its laboratory system with a few conrete and steel contractors.  
>>>I think the science breakeven or not is a trivial question, because the
>>>real problem is the factor of 2000 shortfall in power that needs to be 
>>>come before commercial operation is even possible.  However, the other
>>>point that should not be missed, is that it is obvious that Princeton
>>>is not being up front, is being arrogant and these to factors are often
>>>associated with sleeze artisans.  That has whacked their credibility
>>>a bit, which doesn't help.   
>
>>This [above] is false and misleading.  First of all, the DOE program is 
>>reviewed both internally and externally; the external reviewers
include, 
>>specifically, the *international* fusion research community, which
>>reviews both the specific experimental and theoretical results, and
>>also provides input to the policymakers.  
>
>Yes, I remember being in Insbruck in 76 with heads of various tokamak
>groups from Russia, Germany, the UK, Gen Atomics and Princeton.  They
>where actually cooking up stories of how to sell these programs to 
>their respective legislative bodies.  It was fascinating.  Then the
>reviews were not "internationalized", there was no ITER.  NOW there IS.

You're saying that they shouldn't have been trying to learn from
each others' experiences?  I'd have been amazed if they *hadn't*
tried to find ways of selling their programs.

>So guess who the parties are that are not disinterested.  Yep ... the
>**** international **** fusion research community.  My, my what Is this
>clever sneaky world coming too. In fact, the "international" fusion 
>research community is the international TOKAMAK (ITER) community.  Now,
>you scratch my back ...and .I'll scratch Joe's back and Joe will scratch
>your back.  Ahhgg EVERYbodies Happy .. except me and maybe a couple of 
>congcritters . 

I was saying the international fusion community reviewed the experimental
and theoretical results.  Are you saying that they shouldn't?

As for the program reviewers:  Anyone with a solid grasp of the field,
and therefore capable of being a reviewer, will not be impartial, under
your logic.  As Matt Kennel (I believe) pointed out the last time we 
went through this argument, the DOE *has* had non-fusion plasma physicists
review the program as well.  Is it better to choose an impartial
but inexpert review panel, or to choose an expert review panel, with
some (but the minimum possible) political incentive to be partial,
and then to keep the bias in mind in reading their recommendations? 

While there are cooperative aspects to the fusion program, there's still
plenty of competitiveness around.  (Witness the JET show to break the
fusion record and use DT ahead of TFTR in 1991.)  As John Cobb just
pointed out, the problem doesn't seem to be so much that the reviews 
have been partial, as that the recommendations of the reviews haven't
been followed for other (political) reasons. 
>
>>Additional external peer
>>review comes from inertial fusion researchers funded by the Dept
>>of Defense.  
>
>The DoD funds are spent through the US DoE "defense" wing, and so they
>are fed by a weak sister of the same organism (USDoE military systems).  

But they don't go through the Office of Fusion Energy, and they are
appropriated in a different way, through a different process, so the
researchers in that field are not politically dependent on the OFE
funding.

>>Secondly, with a 6 MW power output, the tokamak only needs a factor
>>of *500* to reach a commercial scale, and not "2000" as you claim
without
>>justification.  
>
>I don't think that difference is significant.  

In that case, you can pay me $2000, and I'll pay you $500, and we'll say
that the difference is not significant.  I'll even donate $500 of my
new $2000 to the Plasmak.

>Although, I think you 
>will find that larger losses are going to be a bit more SIGNIFICANT 
>than your published studies are telling you, let's compromise and say
>an even one thousand ... three orders of magnitude.  

No, you were saying that 6 MW of power output was a factor of 2000 below
a commercial reactor.  I don't want to build a 12 GW reactor; I want to
build a 3 GW (thermal) reactor that will generate 1 GW of electricity,
even after I suck off a few hundred MW to control my plasma.  Losses
aren't relevant to the discussion at all.

Let's be honest and say 500, and not worry about it.

>One of the problems is that when you make it bigger, it MUST generate 
>more power to increase its power density and that raises the flux
>density on the wall, even at constant density due to the increased 
>radiation path (radius). 

Yep, this is one of the remaining problems.

>Now you will have impurities .. oh maybe not 
>in the first second or two .. but after a while .. a minute??  Then
>the impurity imigration problem starts (getting past those border 
>guards).  

I got the impression that Tore Supra, which runs multi-minute
discharges, was doing just fine.  Sure it's a challenge, but that
doesn't make it a showstopper of a problem.

>The second problem relates to the lack of available 
>confinement pressure, since heating increases plasma pressure, but not 
>confining magnetic pressure (adiabatic compression aside), the loss 
>rates will dramatically increase.   

Except that plasma temperatures are already where they need to be,
so no further heating is necessary.  For that matter, observed transport
rates tend to decrease with increasing temperature, because of the
reduced collisionality of the plasma, no?  Isn't this the whole
reason why you have a hyperconducting shell in the Plasmak?
>
>>The critical parameter is the Lawson product, not the power 
>>output, anyway.  The Lawson product only needs to increase by a factor
>>of about 10 in order for ignition to occur, at which point power outputs
>>can be made huge.  The Lawson value for the tokamaks has improved
>>by a factor of 1000 since 1975, and ignition will be achieved (albeit
>>via brute force methods) in ITER, if it is built.
>
>I have a florescent lamp that has a Lawson criteria that will make your 
>improved tokamak look anemic. 

What's so special about it?

>We need the product of three parameters 
>simultaneously, a sort of critical fusion volume if you will.  As I 
>point out above, the effect of burning can erode two of these, the 
>confinement time through increased energy transport and the
>temperature through increased impurity induced cooling.  

As the TFTR results show, and as I pointed out above, energy confinement
is *improved* in a fusion-producing plasma.  And the impurity problem
does not seem to be as bad as you suggest.
>
>It's entirely possible that you could, by brute force, power a tokamak
>to ignition and force-maintain burn, so the Lawson would look great.  
>But, it STILL would NOT be above commercial Breakeven because of the
>heroic heating effort required.  

On the contrary, by definition if you have Lawson-ignition, you don't
need to
pump in energy to heat the plasma.  The alphas produced do it for you.

>You say that 10 increase in the Lawson 
>is needed.  This will require the plasma AT THE BURN TEMPERATURE to
>have increased density.. or increased confinement time.  The latter 
>won't happen, but let's say that we can keep the confinement time from 
>deteriorating.  Then all we have to do is increase the density by ten
>and we are there.  Now we notice that the factor of ten bumped up 
>increase in plasma Beta has exceeded by a considerable measure, the 
>tokamaks ability to remain stable (although force stablized) and so 
>it disrupts.  

On the contrary, you can improve the Lawson value by improving the
stability and allowing higher beta (through advanced plasma shapes),
and *also* by improving the energy confinement time.  The easiest
way to improve the energy confinement time is by making a larger
device.  How can you assert that "increased confinement time"
"won't happen", as you do above?  How else can you explain the 
difference in confinement times in JET, TFTR, and JT-60?
>
>But... it was burning and it was above its Lawson.  Of course, the 
>cracked deformed core vacuum wall or shattered limitors will have to 
>be repaired or replaced, a minor glich of a year, and we can take 
>another five minute whack at tokamak fusion electric grid power.  

What are you talking about?  

>                    Naw... on second thought -- 
>            I like my FUNCTIONING heat pump too much.

But where are you going to get the electricity to run the heat pump?
>
>>Finally, please clarify how and where "it is obvious that Princeton
>>is not being up front, is being arrogant," and how it follows that
>>Princeton researchers are therefore "sleeze artisans."  
>
>I DID NOT say that.   I said that such practices were ASSOCIATED 
>with sleeze artisans and that if Princeton practiced such they could 
>eventually be considered with less respect.  

On the contrary, what you said (which I will reproduce from the
top of your message), is:

>>>I think the science breakeven or not is a trivial question, because the
>>>real problem is the factor of 2000 shortfall in power that needs to be 
>>>come before commercial operation is even possible.  However, the other
>>>point that should not be missed, is that it is obvious that Princeton
>>>is not being up front, is being arrogant and these to factors are often
>>>associated with sleeze artisans.  That has whacked their credibility
>>>a bit, which doesn't help.  

Again, I ask you, please clarify how and where "it is obvious that 
Princeton is not being up front, is being arrogant..."

You said that Princeton *does* practice such tactics, which is what
I take exception to.  I accept that you didn't claim Princeton
researchers were sleaze artisans, just that they were acting in ways
that sleaze artisans act.  Not that that isn't insulting enough
to those who work here.

>Princeton has done fine work; they, to my way of thinking, have 
>finished the job of sellecting a candidate reactor and testing it, 
>(the Tokamak Fusion TEST Reactor).  BUT, NOW is time to face up to 
>the consequences and to strike out in a fundamentally new direction.  

As I wrote in another article, I think we should definitely look
into alternative concepts which could someday beat the tokamak, but
since the TFTR results suggest that the tokamak will make a 
competitive energy source, there's no reason to kill the tokamak.


***************************
Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University
As always, I represent only myself, and not PPPL
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.28 / Paul Koloc /  Was Maglich --> Furth remarks & Doe HF funding levels 
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Was Maglich --> Furth remarks & Doe HF funding levels 
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 1994 09:00:36 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <2phrd5$2c6@tom.pppl.gov> rfheeter@theory.pppl.gov (Robert F. Heeter) writes:
>In article <CosAIt.9zn@prometheus.UUCP>,
>Paul M. Koloc <pmk@promethe.UUCP> wrote:
>>But that wasn't the issue, it was funding and peer reviews by "interested"
>>parties won't cut it.  That wasn't the point of the Princeton attack.
>>Their (Harold P. Furth)  that P&F (UUt) should receive "NOT a single dime"
>>of funding, and that there was absolutely NO Evidence that excess heat
>>was produced. 

>Paul, do you have a reference for this alleged remark by Furth, and
>do you also have a reference that indicates that he was officially
>representing PPPL at the time, and not giving his private opinions?

I was there sitting just next and behind Harold, and discussed several
things with him at the time.  I do remember this very clearly since
he was put off until almost all had left before he could speak his
piece.  The entourage from PPPL was with him, including a female 
lobbyist that Princeton has probably from their legal department. I
can't remember her name.  This was more than a private opinion, since
HP didn't otherwise have much care if the work was funded or not.  

>>Utah was asking for 25M$ for several years while the DoE 
>>mag program was at about 2.5 billion for the same period of time.  
>2.5 billion In 1989???  No way.  The DoE magnetic fusion program 
>was about $350 million in 1989 (in 1989 dollars); was Utah actually 
>asking for $25 million for 7 years?  

>Please give some references for your numbers.  I have a PPPL
>document giving the magnetic fusion budget history since about 1975.

Let's not confuse what was ASKED with what was GIVEN, friend.  It was
5 years, not seven.   They, USDoE, really wanted about 1 billion a year
for 20 yrs, as expressed in the McCormack Fusion bill (passed but
funds not appropriated). Note, that it would be $5 billion not the
timid $2.5 billion I first suggested.  And who is splitting hares,
or even dinosaurs :-), I mean the orders of magnitude is still about 
the same ---   NUMEROUS.   Incidentally, one of the reasons (belated
due to the retarded Congressional memory) for cutting back to such 
small numbers was that Congress was upset with PPPL's cavalier
action in pushing the 83 DT burn all the way back to much latter (94
as it turns out).  Otherwise that DT test never would have been run!       

BTW, you could check the Congressional record for HP's remarks.  

>>Now the author of the above PPPL defense may claim that P&F or the 
>>UUt was not attacked, but the previous testimony of same was certainly
>>vastly countradicted by Furth's statement, which I believe impuned the
>>reputation of the University, P&F notwithstanding.  

>Again, which statement are you referring to, and was Furth representing
>PPPL?  
I refer you to my previous answer of this question above, but add:
HPF was PPPL.  It's been declining ever since he was honored to leave.    

>Some of us were still in high school when all this was going
>on, and could use some more information, since this appears to
>be crucial history.

I don't think so.  To some the pettiness demostrated by the extreme 
contrast may titillate -- yeh, a real chuckle.  

>Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc,Bx 1037, Prometheus II, Ltd., College Park, MD 20741-1037 |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.27 /  Lforbes@debug. /  Questions re Muon Catalyzed Fusion
     
Originally-From: Lforbes@debug.cuc.ab.ca
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Questions re Muon Catalyzed Fusion
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 1994 21:44:22 GMT
Organization: Debug Computer Services

Hope you don't mind an amateur asking a couple of questions:

     . I have heard little lately (last year or so) about muon catalyzed 
       fusion; have there been any noteable developments?

     . Has anyone tried enhancing Pd - deuterium cell fusion with muons?

     . Is it possible that naturally generated muons (from cosmic or 
       background radiation perhaps) have caused or aided the sporadic
       and apparently difficult to repeat emissions from Pd - deuterium 
       cells?

Thanking you for any replies ...........

Laurie Forbes
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenLforbes cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.28 / Matt Austern /  Re: Misuse of statistics [was Re: (no subject given)]
     
Originally-From: matt@physics2.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics
Subject: Re: Misuse of statistics [was Re: (no subject given)]
Date: 28 Apr 1994 21:46:40 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (Theoretical Physics Group)

In article <2po57a$glu@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk> nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk (Nick Maclaren) writes:

> 
>     1) The posters who say that it is essential to NOT double count events
> are right, because this removes independence and introduces spurious
> significance.  It is possible to allow for double counting, but the
> calculations are much more complex (and pointless in this case).

CDF is a bit more careful here than people are giving it credit for.
There really are people on the experiment who know how to do
statistics...  You don't have to take my word for it, though: you can
find the whole text of the paper on http://www.fnal.gov.  (It's a
3MB PostScript file.)

Basically, the point is that the top "search" is really the result of
three separate searches: the search for t-tbar where each top decays
into a high transverse momentum lepton; the search where one top
decays into t lepton and the other decays purely hadronically, but
where the vertex detector is used to ensure that one of the decay
products is a bottom quark; and the search where one top decays
leptonically and the other hadronically, and the lepton from the
bottom quark decay is observed.  Each of those is a separate
experiment.

The dilepton channel is very clean: it has almost no background.
Unfortunately, there are also only two dilepton candidates.  The other
channels have more of a signal, but also more background.  You can
estimate the statistical significance of each of the three searches
independently.  You can read the full details in Section 6 of the 
paper; here's a summary, though.  You can find these numbers in
Section 6.1.
       Method          Counts          Background      Prob. fluctuation
       Dilepton        2               .56 +- .2       12%
       SVX             6               2.3 +- .3       3.2%
       Soft Lepton     7               3.1 +- .3       3.8%
"Prob. fluctuation" is the probability that this number of events
above background is due to a statistical fluctuation.  

As you can see, none of these statistics are spectacular.  Combining
the three, though, is somewhat better.  Naively, you'd just form the
combined probability that it's a statistical fluctuation by
multiplying the separate probabilities.  That assumes the results to
be independent, however, which is a poor assumption.  CDF has
calculated the combined result, taking into account the ways in which
these results are not independent, including the double-tags.  The
details can be found in Section 6.2.  (Specifically, 6.2.3.)  That's
how they obtain the result that their result is 2.8 sigma, which
corresponds to a probability of 99.74% that this really is top, rather
than just a fluctuation.

Of course, 2.8 sigma isn't so great: anything under 3 sigma has to be
considered tentative.
--
Matthew Austern                       Never express yourself more clearly
matt@physics.berkeley.edu             than you think.    ---N. Bohr
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenmatt cudfnMatt cudlnAustern cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.28 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Reply to Greg Kuperberg
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Reply to Greg Kuperberg
Subject: What's the opposite of "EUREKA" ?
Date: 28 Apr 94 13:58:00 -0600
Date: 16 Nov 93 17:26:37 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University
Organization: Brigham Young University

In a post that came while I was out of town, Greg Kuperberg asked
[relative to my feelings regarding having to retract results]
"Can you say something about your feelings during this turnaround of opinion?"

In reply, I will repost "What's the opposite of 'Eureka'? " which I posted
during the turnaround period.  There are other posts from that same period
which give insights as this shift was occuring.  Hope this helps.

Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: What's the opposite of "EUREKA" ?
Message-ID: <1993Nov16.172638.1109@physc1.byu.edu>
Date: 16 Nov 93 17:26:37 -0700
References: <01H5DMCJE2IQHV1HV6@vms2.uni-c.dk>
Organization: Brigham Young University
Lines: 134
Summary: Retraction of claims of large neutron bursts by "cold fusion"
Reply-To: Steven E. Jones

In article <01H5DMCJE2IQHV1HV6@vms2.uni-c.dk>, 
BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz) writes:
> 
> Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu in FD 1653:
> 
> [...]
>>neutrons have proven to be spurious.  Therefore, we suggest that
>>compelling data for large neutron bursts requires detector
>>segmentation and pulse digitization (allowing visualization), so
>>that no compelling evidence for large neutron bursts currently
>>exists in any cold-fusion experiment, including our own.
> 
> If I had a hat, I'd take it off to Steve Jones. I have written in the past
> that, unlike those who tenaciously cling to their ideas and defend shoddy
> experiments tooth and nail, Steve looks critically at his own work, and if,
> some time in the future, he finds problems with his evidence, he will be the
> first to tell us. I see that I am quite right. Good on you, Steve.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
> Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks, Dieter.  I guess I'm hatless, too -- having to "eat my hat."  Tastes
terrible.

I have received useful comments from several people by e-mail, including
Dieter, Bruce Liebert, Mitch Swartz, Robert Eachus and Rich Schroeppel --
these I will try to address in a future post or by fixing up "Draft of paper."
Right now I'd like to home in on a recurring comment, that I explain further
the observation I made that "all bursts of over five detected neutrons have
proven to be spurious."  Robert Eachus noted:  "I can see this line being
quoted in the future when bursts come up.  It may be the most quoted part of
the paper, so it seems worth documenting."  (e-mail 11-15-93)

I have in front of me an event from our most sensitive neutron detector,
which has 16 3He-filled proportional-counter tubes arranged in four segments 
of 4 tubes each, along with a central plastic-scintillator counter to register
prompt neutrons.  (Described more in "Draft of paper.")  All signals are
digitized in 10-nanosec. intervals.  Now this event shows 36 distinct pulses
in the 3He-tubes which would ordinarily be interpreted as arising from over
100 neutrons in a "large neutron burst."  Indeed, the 3He-portion of the
detector is just like that used by Menlove et al. at Los Alamos, and this
signal in their shift-register electronics would register as a burst of a
hundred or so of neutrons.  [H. Menlove et al., J. Fusion Energy 9 (1990) 495.]
You may recall the excitement generated by claims of these 
large neutron bursts --
too large to be caused by radioactive decay or even cosmic-ray-induced
spallation.

However, since our detector has been segmented, we check to see whether all
4 segments were hit in the burst-- and find that only one segment was hit!
(Strike one.)  

For such a large burst, the plastic scintillator must register a hit --
but there is no scintillator signal whatsoever.  (Strike two.)

Then we look at the time interval between pulses, which is easy since we
digitize all signals.  The neutron detection times should reflect the
spreading-out of neutrons as they slow in the polyethylene moderator --
but we find that the spacing is actually regular, about 200 nanoseconds between
pulse-starts.  Very much like electronics-generated noise. (Strike three.)

Oops.  The Menlove-type counter (with shift-register electronics) 
on its own would have registered a large neutron burst.  But by adding
another (plastic scintillator) detector, and segmenting the counter, and
digitizing signals, we can prove that the burst is in fact an artifact.

Looking at other data sets, I find several examples of such large bursts,
which I did not notice initially since I almost always require a prompt *and*
a neutron-capture signal in a valid event.  But these signals show up albeit
rarely in the 3He-counter part of the detector.   We have not yet figured out
what generated these artifacts, but it is unequivocal that real neutrons did
not do it.

Furthermore, we have not seen any bursts larger than 5 detected in the 
Kamiokande experiments or in any deep-underground experiments conducted at
BYU over a four-year period.  To me and my colleagues at BYU, the case is
closed on the large neutron bursts.

We have learned about detectors rather than discovering something new in
nature.  This warning should be heeded by all who claim "cold fusion" effects.
And it should motivate us to be cautious in claims while we search for 
"what went wrong" in our experiments.  We need to have redundant detection
systems and the best detectors available. (In addition to neutron-verification
systems, I would add:  x-ray  and charged-particle *spectrometers* are needed;
we should not trust tritium or helium or x-ray production without these!)    

I close with a comment from a "colleague in pain", Lewis Friedman of
Brookhaven, who said (after retracting claims of "cluster impact fusion"):

"When you get a result that appears to be spectacular and is supported by a
large body of circumstantial evidence,"  Friedman says, "There is some tendency
to want to believe that it's really there.  You have an obligation to prove it
one way or the other."  [Science, 262 (22 Oct. 1993) 509.]*

Submitted (sadly) by Steven Jones


*Here is the article from Science, Oct. 22, 1993, by Ivan Amato:

"CLOSING THE CASE ON CLUSTER IMPACT FUSION"

A preprint making the rounds of the nuclear fusion community officially closes
the book on cluster impact fusion, one of two fusion dramas that began in 1989.
(The book virtually closed on the other story, cold fusion, not long after it
opened.)   Cluster impact fusion was announced that year by three Brookhaven
chemists, Robert Beuhler, Lewis Friedman, and Gerhart Friedlander, who said
thaey had bombarded a deuterium-loaded target with huge clusters of heavy-water
molecules and induced fusion yields 10 billion times greater than allowed by
classical theory.

The researchers treated these first results cautiously, fearful of getting the
same treatment elicited by the highly publicized and incorrect cold fusion
claim.  The caution didn't help.  The Brookhaven work was quickly criticized by
physicists who argued that the effect was likely due to experimental artifacts
and not some novel fusion mechanism.

Two years later, in March 1992, the Brookhaven trio partly acknowledged this
when they published an erratum in Physical Review Letters, reporting tha they
had overestimated fusion rates and that stray ions in their cluster beam may
have been responsible for their data.  Still, they allowed that cluster fusion
might exist, but at a much small rate.

Now Physical Review A  has accepted for publication the final word from
Brookhaven.  The original effect indeed could be explained by "small ion
impurities," the Brookhaven chemists in their abstract.  Says Friedman:

"The paper is the end of the story."

What's the morale of this fusion story?  "When you get a result that appears to
be spectacular and is supported by a large body of circumstantial evidence,"
Friedman says, "There is some tendency to want to believe that it's really
there.  You have an obligation to prove it one way or the other."

[End of Oct. 1993 Science note]

--Steven Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenjonesse cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.28 / Robert Heeter /  Re: Reply to Maglich on TFTR D-T Result
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Originally-From: John W. Cobb, johncobb@emx.cc.utexas.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reply to Maglich on TFTR D-T Result
Subject: Re: Reply to Maglich on TFTR D-T Result
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 1994 02:15:36 GMT
Date: 26 Apr 1994 15:41:47 -0500
Organization: Princeton University

Subject: Re: Reply to Maglich on TFTR D-T Result
Originally-From: John W. Cobb, johncobb@emx.cc.utexas.edu
Date: 26 Apr 1994 15:41:47 -0500
In article <2pjuabINNv0b@emx.cc.utexas.edu> John W. Cobb,
johncobb@emx.cc.utexas.edu writes:
>In article <1994Apr25.220035.28633@princeton.edu>,
>Robert F. Heeter  <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> wrote:
>
>[amidst the discussion about the course of fusion research and Maglich]

>>I've said before that I support alternate-concepts research so long as
it
>>doesn't come at the expense of the current research areas.
>>
>I find this statement very ironic considering the number and amount of
>alternate concept work that has been sacrificed for "current reserch
>areas".

The statement above was made with an assumption of flat budgets,
not declining budgets.  You're assuming I hold views which I haven't
said I hold.  In particular, I agree that when budgets are being
cut, axing all the alternatives isn't the best way to go.  I also
wasn't attempting to align myself with rhetoric used to preserve
the large tokamaks during past budget cuts.  I was just expressing
my wish that alternative-concepts researchers seek additional 
funding for their work by increasing the overall fusion pie, rather
than sniping at the tokamak researchers.  I equally believe that
tokamak researchers need to seek additional funding for new 
machines, rather than obtaining it by axing alternatives.

Perhaps there should be two distinct budgets, one for further
development of the tokamak (as the first reactor likely to
approach commercializablility), and the other for pursuing
advanced/alternate concepts, which show promise for making better
energy sources further down the road.  

That is, we should really think of "the" fusion program as
two separate programs.  The tokamak program is a hybrid science-energy
program, with more emphasis on rapid development of an alternative
energy source; the alternative-concepts program is also a hybrid
science-energy program, but the emphasis is more heavily on the
science, and the goal is to develop the *best* possible fusion
energy source, but not so soon.  (What do people think?)

>In 1990, the following large experiments were closed or construction
>halted in order to proceed with plans to build BPX at Princeton.

[[[ summary of closings deleted ]]]

>Moreover, these decisions by DOE were contrary to language of summary
>reports of its various advisory panels (MFAC's, FPAC, FEAC, SEAB, etc)
>that said that the fusion energy program should first preserve the
>base program in plasma physics and concept diversity as incsurance
>for long term health of the program.

In other words, the decision was political rather than scientific?
(That explains why it seems so irrational!)

Don't forget the earlier closure of the Livermore mirror experiment,
and the other sundry alternatives that were killed over the last
decade.

>I would like to suggest that perhaps you are a bit too close to see
>the big picture. In fact this may be a source of a lot of the vitriol
>that is vented on sci.physics.fusion.

Considering that I get far more of my general plasma knowledge from
this group than I do from PPPL (I'm mostly taking physics classes,
and a little plasma theory), I don't agree that I'm "too close to
see the big picture."  I think everyone is assuming that because I
happen to work at PPPL, and end up explaining a lot of what goes
on here to everyone else, that I'm somehow necessarily a creature
of the system.  I work hard to avoid letting that happen, and I'm
really insulted that so many people on the group seem to think 
I have no mind of my own.

>For those who do not work at Princeton, or directly collaborate, it is
>very easy to get the impression that PPPL
>views DOE-OFE as its own property and that the terms magnetic fusion
>research and PPPL are synomymous. Now I am sure that those researchers
>at PPPL do not perceive themselves as such and they probably do not
>purposefully seek such a perception (who would?).

I'm only just starting to understand the extent of the animosity
out there.  Please keep in mind that while I am a student at 
Princeton now, I'm likely to end up just about anywhere else once
I get my PhD.  I'm far more concerned about the general health
of the fusion program than I am about a particular lab or project.

>In fact from their perspective, (as far as I can put myself in that
>environment) they have been fighting to keep their heads above water.
>TFTR will close soon. They sought to maintain a health lab by building
>first CIT and later BPX. However, in a shrinking budget, these items
>were too large to be supportted (even after jettisoning almost
>everything else as noted above). The rhetoric was one of "maintaining
>a flagship research environment to propel the program forward". It is
>not just rhetoric, but it has some truth.

Thanks for pointing this out.

>However along the way, over and over again, other research has been
>prematurely terminated not because of any scienctific reason, but because
>of budget cuts and politics. The scenario is that a budget cut comes down
>from on high (usually a final appropriation bill). Then the different
>fusion programs fight to see who gets the pain. In such fights, Princeton
>has always been the most well armed. Who else spends as much on a P.R.
>office?

It's really not pleasant to see the aftereffects of starvation-induced
cannibalism, which is basically what has happened.  I guess it was
probably even worse to live through it as it happened.  Let's hope
it doesn't happen again.

>It has been particularly embittering for those researchers who have
>had excellent ideas and had been developing them theoretically and
>experimentally with unprecedented success to be prematurely terminated.

[[ summary of Dr. Cobb's own experience with FRCs trimmed. ]]
>
>Ironically, there is a strange circular reasoning used by many still
>in magnetic fusion (i.e. tokamak fusion) to the effect of. If you were
>doing good work, you would continue funding, therefore the lack of
anybody
>doing anything else than tokamaks proves they are superior. While I
>have noticed that Heeter, explicitly states otherwise, I have been to
>many meetings where this is a common line of reasoning, particularly
>among younger researchers.

I haven't heard this argued myself, but I agree that it doesn't make
sense;
if it comes up I'll call the person on it.
>
>The contraction of MFE to just tokamaks is akin to the circling of the
>wagons. What doesn't fit is discarded because the program is shrinking.
>The decision on what to jettison is based on short-term cost economics
and
>ease of management, not on issues that relate to core goals and
objectives,
>especially long term ones. As a consequence, I believe we have crippled
>the U.S. MFE program.

I think part of the problem is that, as I pointed out above, there are
really two different "core goals", because there are really two 
different programs.  On the one hand, commercialization of the tokamak
has been a "core goal" of "the" fusion program since Hirsch's time in
the 1970s.  On the other hand, development of fusion technology, so
that better fusion devices evolve to improve upon the tokamak, has 
also been a core goal.  It seems the second goal has been sacrificed
to the first in recent years.

It's hard not to cripple any program when you cut the budget 50%, though.
Part of the problem is not the size of the budget cuts, but the quickness
with which they occurred.  Concepts (and jobs) were not lost through
attrition, which would have been a much better way of doing it.
>
>Notice that both the Europeans and the Japanese are still pursuing a
diverse
>fusion program. They have and are buildiing, helical devices, RFP's,
FRC's
>and even mirrors. This is becuase they have the ability to conduct
>their programs with some long-term management and have not had a 50%
>cut in funding over the last decade as here in the U.S. (although that
may
>soon change in Europe).

I agree that the short-term management perspective is a big part of the
problem here.

>I add this only to try to highlight where the basic disconnect occurs.
>Outside of PPPL (and actually tokamaks in general including DIII-D, TEXT,
>etc) there has been a wholesale massacre. Much of that talent has had to
move
>into tokamak research or outside of fusion. Inside the wagon circle, the
>people who are trying to maintain a viable tokamak effort are working
>very hard to try to get a next machine built. CIT died. BPX died. TPX
>may be in trouble yet. It has become fashionable to grumble about ITER.
>It is quite understandable how PPPL could also be defensive and see
>legitimate requests for diversity and long-term planning as a threat
>and act accordingly. When you circle the wagons, group-think is not
>far behind. 
>
>When this disconnect occurs we should not be surprised that those inside
>the wagon circle seem inflexible and paralyzed. They are trying to 
>accomplish tasks that were laid before based on funding levels that have
>not occurred. We should also not be surprised that some of the people in
the
>programs that were jettisoned so suddenly and unjustly are bitter and
>take pleasure at lobbing stinkbombs at Tokamak fusion efforts.
>
>However, it would be more productive for all to realize that such
>paranoia and antics only do harm.
>
>Unfortunately, everyone seems to enjoy the theatrical aspects of
>conflict more then genuine progress.

I haven't been enjoying much of anything lately.  I hate feeling so
frustrated!

Let's see if this raises the level of the debate:  

1.  Assuming we feel fusion research (of whatever sort) is a good idea,
how can we get a healthy, slowly-increasing, long-term program budget
that will be insulated from short-term political manipulation?
Specifically:
(a)  What can be done to increase public awareness of and support for
fusion?  
(b)  What can be done to increase Congressional awareness of and 
     support for fusion?

[[ This is one reason why I started reading sci.physics.fusion in the
first place.  I felt it would be useful to me to learn from everyone
here, and broaden my perspective, so that I would be better able to
explain/discuss fusion with people. ]] 

2.  Given static and/or declining budgets here in the U.S., should we
devote an increasingly large share of increasingly scarce resources to
further investigation of the tokamak (and the relatively advanced reactor
design work that goes with it); should we try to keep the budget spread
between tokamak and alternatives roughly as it is, cutting all areas by
an equal percentage; or should we cut the tokamak more agressively and
devote a larger fraction of increasingly scarce resources to
alternatives? 

3.  Is it more important to pursue "ideal" fusion, or should we content
ourselves temporarily with development of the tokamak, which is/may be
less than ideal in various ways?

I'm actually putting together a research paper on this for a public policy
class which I'm taking, so I'm interested in some serious discussion
of this issue.  If anyone has interesting/useful references, please
let me know!

***************************
Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University
As always, I represent only myself, and not PPPL
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.28 / Ad aspera /  FYI No. 58, April 28, 1994 (Krebs at fusion hearing)
     
Originally-From: JTCHEW@lbl.gov (Ad absurdum per aspera)
Newsgroups: sci.research,sci.energy,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: FYI No. 58, April 28, 1994 (Krebs at fusion hearing)
Date: 28 Apr 1994 17:20:20 GMT
Organization: Relayed, not written, by Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory


[Written by individuals at the American Institute of Physics and
merely posted by me, so respond to <fyi@aip.org> or other
references below.  Always posted here on sci.research; sometimes
crossposted to an eclectic selection of other newsgroups, with
followups directed here. Back issues may be ftp'd from NIC.HEP.NET,
along with PHYSICS NEWS UPDATE and the American Physical Society
news/opinion column WHAT'S NEW. Enjoy! -jc]

Uneventful Hearing on U.S. Fusion Energy Program

FYI No. 58, April 28, 1994

The Department of Energy's fusion energy research program was the
subject of an afternoon hearing before the House Subcommittee on
Energy on April 21, 1994.  The hearing was billed as an opportunity
for the subcommittee to receive testimony from, as subcommittee
chair Marilyn Lloyd (D-TN) said, those who were not largely the
"traditional insiders."  Aside from Rep. Dick Swett (D-NH), who
chaired the hearing, it attracted little Member interest.

Swett said American taxpayers have spent approximately $10 billion
on fusion research, and noted that decades of additional research
will be needed.  He was critical of DOE's focus on the tokamak
concept for fusion energy, saying that the department was "betting
only one number on the roulette wheel."  Swett called for a
fundamental restructuring of the fusion program to allow more
diversity, which is directly counter to the sentiments of a major
player in fusion policy on Capitol Hill, Sen. J. Bennett Johnston
(D-LA).  Johnston, who chairs the two most important Senate
subcommittees with jurisdiction over the DOE fusion program,
sponsored Senate-passed S. 646, a bill strongly supporting the
proposed  International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (which
is based on the tokamak design.)  This bill is now before the House
science committee.

The first witness was Dr. Martha Krebs, Director of DOE's Office
of Energy Research.  Krebs explained that DOE wants to have an
operating fusion demonstration plant by 2025, and an operating
commercial power plant by 2040.  Noting tight budget constraints,
she said that DOE is focusing on the tokamak design for several
reasons, citing extensive evaluations of different fusion
approaches, as well as international support for the tokamak
concept.  Pursuing a different approach would require the U.S. to
fund the alternative in whole, rather than in part.  Krebs
continued that DOE also supports inertial fusion energy research,
and testified it will not be until after 2020 that it will be
possible "to make a choice between them."  DOE's inertial program
was characterized as "small," with a much larger inertial weapons
program at the Department of Defense.

Responding to questions, Krebs admitted that the last review of
DOE's fusion program was in 1990, and said "certainly we could do
that" when asked if the department could perform another review.
However, she resisted Swett's suggestion to significantly reduce
tokamak funding to allow funding of other approaches, saying that
it "would have a tremendous negative impact" on DOE's ability to
deliver on the projected fusion energy schedule.

The subcommittee received testimony from a number of other
witnesses who discussed the current DOE program, including
Princeton's Tokamak Physics Experiment and ITER, and future energy
demand.  Although questions were raised, none seemed to pose a
significant challenge to the program.  Of greater worry is the
degree to which Congress is willing to fund a research program
designed to meet projected energy shortages that are 30 to 60 years
in the future, when discretionary spending caps are making it
difficult to meet current needs.  Said one witness, "Please do not
give up.  We are winning."

###############
Public Information Division
American Institute of Physics
Contact: Richard M. Jones
(301) 209-3095
###############
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenJTCHEW cudfnAd cudlnaspera cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.28 / SCOTT CHASE /  Re: (no subject given)
     
Originally-From: sichase@csa5.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics
Subject: Re: (no subject given)
Date: 28 Apr 1994 11:21 PST
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA

In article <2pm8r0$aa3@ds8.scri.fsu.edu>, jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) writes...
>>
>>They have 15 events.
> 
>No, it is 12.  They double count 3 events that pass the cuts for 
>two different ways of identifying single lepton events. 
> 
>Also, perhaps Scott can clarify, my reading of it is that they see 12 
>events, 6 of which are expected from background processes, not that 
>they have 12 left over after subtracting a background.  Isn't the 
>background the result of modeling and not measured.  As I understand 
>it, they have a signal-to-noise of 1:1. 

That's true, but somewhat misleading.  1:1 signal-to-noise sounds very
bad.  But this is not "noise," it is background.  And one must ask what
the level of fluctuation in the background is, based upon Monte Carlo
calculations.  The total data they have is 12 events.  The total number
of background events in a data sample that size is 5.9+/-X, where I 
don't remember X except that it was less than 1.  They claim that
the odds of an upward fluctuation of that background to account for 
all 12 events has a probability of 0.26%.  Later, the speaker said
that this corresponds to a 2.8 sigma effect.

Of course, the tiny uncertainty, X, on the background is statistical 
only; it does not reflect any potential systematic errors in their 
Monte Carlos.  In my experience doing these sorts of analyses, that it
where any problems are likely to be hidden.  Their are many phenomenological,
i.e., ad hoc, parameters in the event generators used in these games,
which are tuned to fit some large set of data, mostly at lower energy,
since that is where most of the experiments are done.  I happen to know
from personal experience, for example, that it is very difficult to 
estimate fluctuations in jet energy for events with large numbers of jets
at high energy, for example.  This is just one in example of a feature
of the Monte Carlo which could lead them astray in their calculation of the
expected background sans top quark.  

Their analysis seems like it was very well done - don't get me wrong.  I 
am casting no aspersions.  However these calculations are very complex 
and depend upon many people doing things correctly over many years.  The
only cure for this problem is more statistics, or higher-quality data
to more convincingly eliminate the background.  CDF (and D0) are vigorously
pursuing both these goals, and we all know to expect better results in the 
next two years.

For this reason, I believe that their data is only marginally convincing.
They have a small number of "gold plated" events, but will have to acquire
much more data before there will be no doubt that the sample includes
at least some top decays.  Since there will be better data soon anyway,
I prefer to reserve judgement rather than get mired down in trying to 
understand the details of the gymnastics necessary to extract a convincing
signal from the first, and therefore marginal, part of the data.

-Scott
 -------------------
Scott I. Chase            "It is not a simple life to be a single cell,
SICHASE@CSA2.LBL.GOV       although I have no right to say so, having
                           been a single cell so long ago myself that I
                           have no memory at all of that stage of my
                           life." - Lewis Thomas
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudensichase cudfnSCOTT cudlnCHASE cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.28 / SCOTT CHASE /  Re: Misuse of statistics [was Re: (no subject given)]
     
Originally-From: sichase@csa5.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics
Subject: Re: Misuse of statistics [was Re: (no subject given)]
Date: 28 Apr 1994 11:53 PST
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA

In article <2po57a$glu@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk>, nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk (Nick Maclaren) writes...
> 
>    3) While 12 events when expecting 6 is very like a signal-to-noise level
>of 1:1, it is not a useful way of describing the phenomenon.  The numbers
>are just too small.  1000 events when expecting 500, yes, but not 12 to 6.
>This is not a trivial area to describe concisely.
> 
>    4) You expect to get 12 or more events from a Poisson process with
>expectation 6 about 1 time in 50.  If the relevant people said that they
>have evidence but not proof, they are being scrupulously accurate.  Note
>that 2.8 sigma from a normal distribution is nearly 1 time in 400.

The background calculation which they did was, I expect, based upon a sample 
of simulated event events many times larger than the actual experimental
sample of top quark candidates.  For that reason, they were able to 
put rather small error bars upon the expected background.  They estimated
a number something like 5.9+/-0.6 unexcludable background events.  They 
could, in principle, have thrown 10 times as much computing power at the 
problem, and reduced the error bars on the background even further, if they
thought that they understood the systematic effects well enough to justify
the effort required to reduce the statistical effect.

The "1 time in 400" probability is the one to remember.  But also remember
that there are unspoken systematic effects which are probably large enough
that 1 in 400 is probably an exaggeration.

-Scott
 -------------------
Scott I. Chase            "The question seems to be of such a character
SICHASE@CSA2.LBL.GOV      that if I should come to life after my death
                          and some mathematician were to tell me that it
                          had been definitely settled, I think I would
                          immediately drop dead again."      - Vandiver
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudensichase cudfnSCOTT cudlnCHASE cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.28 / SCOTT CHASE /  Re: Misuse of statistics [was Re: (no subject given)]
     
Originally-From: sichase@csa5.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics
Subject: Re: Misuse of statistics [was Re: (no subject given)]
Date: 28 Apr 1994 11:56 PST
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA

In article <2pops5$9in@galaxy.ucr.edu>, dixon@galaxy.ucr.edu (david dixon) writes...
>In article <2po57a$glu@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk>,
>Nick Maclaren <nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>>    4) You expect to get 12 or more events from a Poisson process with
>>expectation 6 about 1 time in 50.  If the relevant people said that they
>>have evidence but not proof, they are being scrupulously accurate.  Note
>>that 2.8 sigma from a normal distribution is nearly 1 time in 400.
> 
>Good enough for a Nobel prize, eh?

Not a chance.  It will be a decade before the existence of the top is 
confirmed to the extent necessary for anyone to seriously consider
someone from the CDF team for such an award, if ever. 

-Scott
 -------------------
Scott I. Chase            "The question seems to be of such a character
SICHASE@CSA2.LBL.GOV      that if I should come to life after my death
                          and some mathematician were to tell me that it
                          had been definitely settled, I think I would
                          immediately drop dead again."      - Vandiver
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudensichase cudfnSCOTT cudlnCHASE cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.28 / Steven Janowsky /  Technology Review / Cold Fusion / Coauthor request
     
Originally-From: janowsky@fireant.ma.utexas.edu (Steven Janowsky)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.research,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Technology Review / Cold Fusion / Coauthor request
Date: 28 Apr 1994 09:54:00 -0500
Organization: University Of Texas, Austin


I just got the most recent issue of Technology Review, and the lead
article was an incredibly bad review of cold fusion.  The article was
quite inconsistent, e.g. one paragraph would state that incredible
quantities of heat are produced in various experiments and then another
paragraph would state that the reason `other' experimenters missed the
effect was that they are not used to experimental techniques for
detecting small changes in temperature.

I am thinking about writing a letter to the editor complaining about
this article.  Before doing so I wanted to know if

a) Anyone else read the article and feels as I do, and
b) If someone would like to join me in writing to the editiors.

(For those who are not familiar with the publication, Tech Review is a
general interest science / technology magazine as well as being the
alumni magazine of MIT.)

Steve Janowsky

cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenjanowsky cudfnSteven cudlnJanowsky cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.27 / Cameron Bass /  Re: News for Press Conference Fans
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics
Subject: Re: News for Press Conference Fans
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 1994 05:43:42 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <26APR199413321078@csa5.lbl.gov>,
SCOTT I CHASE <sichase@csa5.lbl.gov> wrote:
>
>So I say, both from hearing and judging the details on their own merit
>(to the extent possible from seeing one hour-long presentation) and from
>the general "spin" that she put on all her comments, that this announcement
>does NOT constitute a discovery of the top quark.
>
>The self-appointed arbiter has spoken.
>
>So Dale, does this mean that you *do* or *do not* owe money?  I have 
>forgotten the details of your bet.
>

     Do not, but I don't feel good about it.

                            dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.29 / Bill Page /  Re: Legget and Baym vs. Chubb and Chubb tag teams
     
Originally-From: 70047.3047@compuserve.com (Bill Page)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Legget and Baym vs. Chubb and Chubb tag teams
Date: Fri, 29 Apr 1994 00:28:58 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Dick Blue writes:
<<
I don't know how you can tell what the Chubb theory is firmly grounded in 
or which paradigm is being offered.  But since you seem to be willing to 
dig into this further could you perhaps tell me where Chubb gets his 
selection rule that says absolutely that the fusion reaction is restricted 
to one particular decay channel.  My book of paradigms does not have that 
one in it. How is it that bosons can only begat bosons, and even more 
restrictive, why no photons?
>>

How could I resist such an invitation! <grin>

First of all, it may be interesting to some that in their Dec. 94 paper in 
Fusion Technology Chubb and Chubb include the Leggett and Baym paper as 
reference 6 under the heading "V. Why there is not fusion in normal 
matter".

------------------

In discussing wave function overlap, Chubb and Chubb use the example of the 
two electrons in the helium atom.  They the use the term "wave function 
dimpling" to describe how the wave function that represents the electronic 
state of the helium atom is affected by the Coulomb repulsion between the 
electrons.

"Dimpling decreases wavefunction amplitude where potential energy is [would 
otherwise be] high."
 
... 

"The electron wave functions of the helium atom are determined by system 
energy minimization.  Electron-electron avoidance lowers system potential 
energy by reducing

                 /   /              2          2  2
                |   |      abs(psi1)  abs(psi2)  e
                |   |  1/2 ------------------------ dr1 dr2
                |   |            abs(r1 - r2)
               /   /

[Dear Reader: You might notice that I've finally found an easy way to 
generate these 'prettyprinted' equations... I use Windows Maple in 
character output mode and then just clipboard copy them from Maple to my 
mail editor... surprize it works!  Maple is an advanced symbolic 
manipulation package similar to (but newer and I think better than) 
Mathematica.  BTW, I've found Maple to be *very useful* in quantum 
mechanics mathematics.  It has a very convenient representation of 
operators. But my usual tool, MathCad, does a much better job of generating 
publishable quality output.]

while wave function gradients casue increased kenetic energy,

                          /
                      2  |
                  hbar   |  grad(conjugate(psi)) grad(psi) dr
                         |
                        /
              1/2 -------------------------------------------
                                       m

[Where psi1 is the wave function of electron 1, respectively, psi2 and m 
represents the mass of an electron.]

The amount of wave function dimpling that occurs is determined by the 
marginal decrease in potential energy balanced against the marginal 
increase in kinetic energy resulting from increased dimpling.  In the 
helium atom this balance is achieved at a high degree of electron-electron 
overlap."

They point out that dimpling is mass dependant.  There is a high degree of 
overlap (small decrease in wavefunction amplitude) for the electrons in the 
helium atom but if these electrons had the same mass as a deuteron there 
would be almost complete avoidance.

Again quoting from the paper:

"Similarly, in a neutral D2 molecule, there is no fusion because the 
dimpling scale set by the mass of the deuteron is much smaller than the 
molecule size, which is determined by the electron wavelength.  The D2 
molecule is somewhat larger than the helium atom.  By the same reasoning, 
no deuterium-deuterium (D-D) fusion is possible in any molecule or normal 
covalent or ionic solid. [reference 6]"

So it is clear that Chubb and Chubb feel that their theory is not in 
contradiction to the calculations of Leggett and Baym.

Chubb and Chubb then go on to describe the type of wave function dimpling 
that is expected in low density ion band state matter.

"The net effect is that in each cell, the kinetic energy increase due to 
dimpling is multiplied by the factor 1/Ncell.  The resulting value is Ncell 
times greater than the Coulombic contribution; i.e., kinetic energy 
dominates potential energy in regions where significant dimpling occurs.  
As a result, energy minimization then occurs with negligible dimpling, as 
in the helium atom.  With this picture of quantum reality, there is no 
correlation barrier to cold fusion."

-----------------

Dick Blue asks: "How is it that bosons can only begat bosons ... ?".  The 
Chubbs' paper deals with this in Appendix B in terms of a second quantized 
quantum field theory.  The details are still a bit much for me to follow 
and I'm still working on it.  But I do understand that it essentially 
revolves around having to preserve the Born - Oppenheimer separability of 
the wave function.  This is the well known principle that the overall wave 
function of the system can be well approximated as a product of two wave 
functions, one representing electronic motions and the other nuclear 
motions.  Processes that involve the independent motions of neutrons or 
protons which exceed the scale of nuclear phenomena would violate this 
separability and are therefore excluded. But processes that involve the 
formation of 4He from D-D fusion are not.

----------------

Cheers,

Bill Page.


cudkeys:
cuddy29 cuden3047 cudfnBill cudlnPage cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.28 /  PAUL /  RE: TFTR Update 4-27-94; Explain the Jargon
     
Originally-From: stek@amazon.pfc.mit.edu (PAUL)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: TFTR Update 4-27-94; Explain the Jargon
Date: 28 APR 94 13:29:18 GMT
Organization: MIT PLASMA FUSION CENTER


>From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
>Date: 28-APR-1994  01:59:38
>Description: Re: TFTR Update 4-27-94; Explain the Jargon

>>The first ICRF D-T campaign was completed the week of March 7th.  The
>>following is a summary of the results:
>>-ICRF heating of D-T plasmas was successfully demonstrated on TFTR.

>So there was a risk associated with higher temperatures (conductivities)
>or ion frequency coupling to the tritium??  Just what was the implied risk? 

ICRF heating can cause all sorts of problems like reduced confinement
and increased impurity levels.  The absorption changes dramatically
as you change the constituents of your plasma.

>>-The RF power was absorbed efficiently in D-T plasmas with/without minority
>>He-3 present.  

>At what level would ash be expected to create a heating problem? And won't
>that be moot in light of the fusion alpha heating.   

Come on now.  We need to get the plasma hot enough to get alpha heating.  
Ash can become a big problem because of bremstralung, but how well the 
ash is contained is still a research issue. After all we don't have 
an experiment with lots of helium ash in it.  ICRF may also be used to 
perform profile control and current drive on reactors.  

>>-Power modulation experiments were performed to directly measure the RF
>>power deposition profiles (in collaboration with M. Murakami of ORNL).

>Considered to measure the effect of the presence of He3 and T ?? 

To better understand the absorption process of ICRF waves in 
plasmas.  THis is not trivial stuff.  Adding tritium completely changes the 
way waves propagate through the plasma.  If you want to maximize the 
fusion output of TFTR, you better learn experimentally where the energy is
being absorbed.

>>-The dependence of the power deposition on toroidal field, tritium and He-3
>>concentration was explored.
> 
>Work on the toroidal field??  Is this because the plasma expands and does 
>some measurable displacement work on the fields driven by heating pulses 
>into the plasma?? 

By changing the TF you can change where the RF is absorbed.  

>>Magnetic diagnostics confirmed the presence of a tritium tail.
> 
>How do the magnetic diagnostics confirm such a presence, from the 
>differential Lamor radius at plasma edge?? 

I am not sure about this, but I would guess either a change in the plasma
beta or conductivity.  

>>Second harmonic tritium heating accounts for about 30-40% of the wave 
>>damping.

>Hmmm!  I've heard of higher order cyclotron frequencies, but whhhaaatt?? 
>are second harmonic tritium heating [waves??].    

In a single species plasma, ICRF waves are not absorbed, in the cold plasma
approximation, on cyclotron frequency of the ions.  You have to go to the 
second harmonic to get much damping.  

>>Preliminary results from these experiments were reported on at the Boulder.
>>Co. RF Workshop.
>goody, nice clear air.. I think Nic T. spent time there abouts, trying 
>to broadcast power via the ionosphere.  An appropriate and lofty place.   

The athletic interests of the members of the ICRF community contribute to 
 the location and time of year of this meeting.  The one us students get to 
go to is never in such a nice place.   


>>From our loss alpha detection data, it is found that ICRF-induced 
>>expulsion of alpha particles takes place on TFTR.  This loss resembles that 
>>seen previously for DD fusion products, in which ICRF waves appear to add
>>perpendicular velocity to passing particles so that they become "fattest
>>banana" orbits which strike the wall.  
> 
>Strike the wall??  I don't like the sound of that. If the wall were a plasma
>wall then no damage would be done, but here, high Z non-ionized matter 
>could be dislodged which could migrate back into your thermonuclear plasma.
>Bad consequences.

Come on now.  If you can find a way to eliminate the ash via ICRF, that 
is an important result.  How you catch them after you get them into an
unconfined orbit  is an area of research.  

>>Unlike the DD case, though, some
>>alpha particles were lost only after being heated above their birth energy.
>>The magnitude of this loss observed so far is of the same order as the
>>first orbit loss (95%).

>But wait, that indicates a larger carry off of cooling power.  I 
>thought they idea was the heat the plasma by fusion for more continued 
>burn.  Then suck out the cooled ash so it doesn't build up and 
>interfere with the remaining burn rates.  Or has not that problem 
>been solved yet???    

This is research.  How to eliminate ash without interfering with Alpha heating
is being worked out.  We now have some alphas to work with.  

>>Further studies of our DT limiter H-modes in the high beta"p" experiments 
>>collaboration with Columbia University) show that the characteristics of
>>the ELM's, precursor MHD activity to the beta collapse, and disruptions are
>>generally similar in DD and DT plasmas.  Large amplitude, low frequency
>>(about 40 Hz) "giant" ELM's are more likely to occur in DT plasmas with
>>relatively broad pressure profiles and high beta-N. These experiments were
>>characterized by large enhancements in confinement (TAUE/TAUE-L-Mode of 4).

>Right.  Sure.. I knew that.    Okay what is ELM?
An ELM is an Edge Locallized Mode found often in H Mode plasmas.  
This is a temporary relaxation of the very high edge gradients
found in H Modes.  It may be a relaxation back to L mode.    

> Beta P is poloidal beta??  right??
yep

>what is Beta N?  vertical (normal) field beta??   
I don't know

>Tau is a confinement time, but tau "E"??    
Tau e is the electron confinement time. 

>L(ower)-mode is the normal 
>non-enhanced operating discharge mode for tokamaks?? .. as opposed to 
>H(igh)-mode?  
Yep

>Why are you still interested in L-mode?  

It is not clear that H-Mode is wanted for reactors. It is still a topic of
debate whether ITER needs to run in H mode or will run in Hmode.  H Mode 
requires a high edge temperature which runs contrary to the desire for a
radiative divertor.  Also you would like a peaked density and temp. profile
to maximize fusion yeild, which is the oposite of what you get with Hmode.  
Finally, impurity confinement goes way up during H-mode.  

>>During the week of April 11, a physical inventory of the tritium on-site
>>was completed.

>Thanks for the glowing news ... now fill in the margins for the above
>queries.  

Paul, most of this is pretty basic for someone who spends any effort 
keeping up.  I suspect that your project could benifit by some aspects of
tokamak research.  Tokamaks have learned from mirrors and stelerators after
all.  In addition, if you can present your designs using the lexicon of the 
field, you will have far more success.  

>+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
>| Paul M. Koloc,Bx 1037, Prometheus II, Ltd., College Park, MD 20741-1037 |
>| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
>| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
>+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+


Paul Stek
Stek@cmod.pfc.mit.edu

cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenstek cudlnPAUL cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.28 / Robert Heeter /  Re: Reply to Maglich on TFTR D-T Result
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reply to Maglich on TFTR D-T Result
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 1994 01:44:36 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

In article <940427045131_74242.1554_BHR55-1@CompuServe.COM> John M.
Logajan, 74242.1554@compuserve.com writes:
>Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> writes:
>> In Maglich's fax sent to congressional staffers...
>
>I have a copy of that 3/27/94 fax.  I'm not sure who sent it to the
>congressional staffers (it may have been Maglich.)  But it differs in
some
>key areas from the written testimony that Maglich finally submitted to
the
>subcommittee on 4/12/94.
>
>3/27 fax> #1. Injected beam of deuterium and tritium hits the walls of
the
>        > Tokamak chamber which are lined with deposited deuterium and 
>        > tritium.... APC has shown mathematically that all the neutrons
>        > coming out of the December 9-10, 1993, Tokamak experiment can
>        > be accounted for solely by the mechanism #1.  We will submit
>        > our paper to a scientific journal on or before April 8. 
>
>4/12 testimony> All the neutrons coming out of the December 9-10, 1993,
>              > Tokamak experiment can be accounted for solely by the
>              > false mechanisms.  A paper will be presented at the
>              > Spring Meeting of the American Physical Society ...
>              > (April 18-22.)
>
>And here is an excerpt from the abstract of the paper that was to be
>submitted to the APS meeting:
>
>      "The claimed TFPP [thermonuclear fusion power production] of 6 MW
>       was inferred from the total flux [of neutrons] and a theoretical
>       calculation that predicted a (true):(false) neutron ratio
>       T/F=30/70.  It assumed an ion plasma temperature, and ignored the
>       ZETA effect.  Correct calculations indicate that the false
>       neutrons alone can explain the data.  T/F=0/100; i.e., the
>       observed data are compatible with zero thermonuclear fusion power
>       production, TFPP=0."
>
>The key difference between these later statements and the 3/27 fax is
that
>Maglich now attributes the neutron flux to the false mechanism in general
>rather than to one (the ZETA) mechanism.

This doesn't alter the fact that he attempted to present false attacks
on TFTR to congressmen, without first checking his facts.  The fact
that he toned down his rhetoric for the official testimony doesn't
really matter.

Anyway, he's still off base.  First of all, it was never claimed that
the *thermonuclear* fusion power was 6 MW, but rather the total fusion
power output.  Secondly, the ion plasma temperature isn't assumed, but
is measured experimentally.  Thirdly, he completely fails to acknowledge
that the reason why the ZETA effect (fusion from beam-wall interactions)
is ignored, is because it's very well known that it's negligible compared
to the other fusion reactions (beam-plasma, plasma-plasma, beam-beam)
that occur.  His attacks still misrepresent what was done.

I think that about does it for this topic.

************************
Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Graduate Student, Princeton Plasma Physics Lab
As always, I speak for myself alone.
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.28 / Robert Heeter /  Re: Reply to Maglich on TFTR D-T Result
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reply to Maglich on TFTR D-T Result
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 1994 01:44:44 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

In article <CovppK.1yz@prometheus.UUCP> Paul M. Koloc,
pmk@prometheus.UUCP writes:
>In article <1994Apr25.220035.28633@Princeton.EDU> Robert F. Heeter 
><rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> writes:
>>I've said before that I support alternate-concepts research so long as
it 
>>doesn't come at the expense of the current research areas.
>
>According to the reality of our country's economic situation, that is
>not an option.  The Energy subcomittee under HSST also made that very
>clear.   So I take it that you and PPPL and USDoE are all in lock step
>on this and do not favor support of alternate concepts!  

Yes!  I know!  Just because I happen to agree with someone on an
issue, therefore I completely lack my own independent opinion about
all related issues!  Yes, I've been at PPPL for 9 months (and a day),
and I'm now completely indoctrinated into all aspects of the PPPL
mind-control system.  Please tell me you don't make these sorts
of unjustified inferences in your scientific work.

I *do* agree that alternate-concepts funding was chopped a little too
heavily in the past.  I wasn't here when it was done, so don't vent
your anger at me.  I *agree* that diversity of concepts is important;
on the other hand I think it's also important to continue making
progress in the primary field.  If I had to cut the budget, I'd
probably try to spread the pain fairly evenly - on a per-dollar
basis.  The statement I made above says that I don't think we can 
afford to fund any *new* projects right now at the expense of current 
projects; it doesn't say that if we had to cut the budget now I 
would only cut alternatives.

>Post faux or cleverly worded response to the net, and send me your
>true feelings. by email.  Or better yet .. Let me guess and stand
>by -- do nothing.  

Yes!  I know!  Please assume that anything I say publicly is a faux
or cleverly-worded response!  "Why should he be honest?  He works
at PPPL!"  Hello?  Do you have any idea how insulting you're being?
What makes you think a first-year graduate student is going to be
afraid to speak his own opinion?  Do I look like I have anything
politically at stake here?

>>In article <940423143841_74242.1554_BHR41-4@CompuServe.COM> John M.
>>Logajan, 74242.1554@compuserve.com writes:
>>>The Tokamak dinosaur is on its last legs.  We'll be picking over the
>>>fossils before long.
>
>>Odd that the Japanese, Europeans, and majority of American researchers 
>>don't think so...
>
>Science is NOT based on democracy (majority vote) but perceived or real
>(as can be determined) successful results. 

Oh, I agree.  I wasn't arguing that because the majority of fusion
researchers think the tokamak is alive and well, therefore it is
alive and well.  I was simply pointing out that the majority
of fusion researchers would disagree with Logajan's assessment.
I was mostly pointing this out for the benefit of the lurkers.
I find it odd that so many people would disagree with what
Logajan considers a statement in minimal need of support.

Actually, the tokamak, despite all your arguments 
against it, is still the most successful device.

>Funding of big Science projects with purpose IS based on democracy and 
>perceived Shortfalls.  (Unfortunately for researchers or not)   
>Hope you see the difference.  

Do I really sound like such an idiot that I wouldn't know this?

***************************
Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University
As always, I represent only myself, and not PPPL
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.28 / Robert Heeter /  Re: cost
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: cost
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 1994 03:54:41 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

In article <CopMou.56M@prometheus.UUCP> Paul M. Koloc,
pmk@prometheus.UUCP writes:
>In article <1994Apr20.175652.3439@Princeton.EDU> 
>rfheeter@flagstaff.Princeton.EDU (Robert Franklin Heeter) writes:
>>In article <CoJqo5.D5A@prometheus.UUCP> pmk@promethe.UUCP (Paul M.
Koloc) writes:
>
>>>If I were handed 25-50 megabucks I could generate a  burn
>>>in an aneutronic fuel that would prove to be commercially 
>>>economical, and in 4 years.  Then in about seven additional 
>>>years  these things would be manufactured for use at a significant
>>>rate.  

>>I don't think you can fairly claim to *know* (with a minimum of
>>scientific doubt) that you could scale up the Plasmak to
>>a commercial fusion source.  
>
>Since the physical embodiment is stable, hyperconducting and has
>very low transport, it will should scale nicely over a range of 1
>to 300 cm. (radius).  Sizes from 20 to 200 cm should be capable 
>of fusion or aneutronic burns with appropriate compression (for 
>the latter linear compression ratio from 7-10 will do nicely)  

(Now putting on the eager-curious-friendly student hat,
not the frustrated-annoyed-what's-wrong-with-you hat.)

This is what theory says?  Ok.  (I do mean to get the paper
this summer and read it.)  

>>        .. .  .        If this would be possible in 4 years 
>>at only $6-12 million/year, and such a claim were scientifically
>>credible,  .. .

>The funding wouldn't cover DoE's administrative costs, let alone 
>their usual slice of the overhead.  Consequently, such a tiny
>project could not be considered. 

Now that's just sour grapes.  There are plenty of projects
funded by DOE for less than $6 million/year.  The big problem
is that DOE isn't testing any new alternative concepts right
now, right?  I understand your frustration with my belief
that we shouldn't cut the tokamak program in order to fund
new alternatives.  I'd happily vote $0.05 of my tax dollars
each year to boost the budget by $12 million, though.
>
>>. .. .   then everyone would be beating down your door to fund
>>your project.  
>
>Right... certainly.. it's rough seeing them flopping around
>on the parking lot, dying due to heat exhaustion caused by waiting
>in line with their money stuffed satchels.  In truth, I don't think
>anyone in there right mind (Present audience excluded) who would
>consider investing in something the government tells us can't happen 
>for another 40(usa) to 100(uk) years.  

Oh, I don't know.  There are plenty of people funding cold fusion,
and the official line on that is that it can't happen at all,
ever!  NASA is interested, right?  (They're funding Lerner's work
on using the Plasma Focus as an space propulsion system, and they've
just bought some MPD thrusters.)  Maybe you should talk to the 
Japanese people funding Pons & Fleischmann...

Have you had an external review, and what were their comments
and/or criticisms?  If I could scrounge up some venture capital,
what would people say to me to tell me I was crazy/stupid/naive?

>>Since this doesn't seem to be happening, I have
>>to ask you to document your claim a little more thoroughly,
>>so I understand what problems you feel have been solved, which
>>need to be solved, and which potential problems do not need 
>>to be solved.  
>
>It's been formed unconstrained at atmospheric pressure. 
>It has been accelerated in gas at atmospheric pressure.
>It has not been compression heated, either intermediately
>or strongly.   

So you don't yet know how it behaves at higher pressure,
whether bizarre instabilities might occur at higher temperature,
or whether you *can* (as opposed to "should be able to")
get enough compression for it to burn.  Fair enough, this 
is a reasonable place to ask for proof-of-concept funding.
 
>Further,there are a number of further diagnostics we would
>like to run.  

Diagnostics are always a problem.

What size is the current device; how much do you have to 
scale it up to get a 200 cm radius device?  (Gee, that's
pretty big...  almost the size of TFTR.)

[[ more problems ]]
>Obtaining Initial Money,  Complete through the burn Money,  
>Going public Money (for building manufacturing capabilities).  
>
>Any other problems do not need to be solved, are joyful to 
>contemplate by comparison.  

Hmm...  What we need is a plasma scientist like Langmuir to
invent a bunch of solid revenue-generating plasma technologies
(as he invented arc welding and plasma switches, I believe),
and then funnel the profits towards these fun concepts...

I guess the big problem is that the private money wants the
profits, which means you have to protect the technology,
which makes it hard to share ideas...

>>Have you done the experiment that shows commercial
>>scale power densities in your plasma?  
>
>These are uncooperative beasties. They tend to go commercial 
>on the first compression burn attempt.  

At least, you hope so, since you haven't attempted a compression burn?

>Probably 10 to 100 times Lawson.   Any of the "toroidal" scaling 
>laws put this technology well past commercial thresholds.   

Which Lawson value?

How much energy does it take to achieve the compression?

>>(The new TFTR results 
>>indicate sufficiently high power densities that a TFTR type
>>reactor could be scaled into an ITERlike gigawatt-producing
>>reactor.)  Have you come anywhere near scientific breakeven
>>in the power produced in your reactor?
>
>Let's have that number in power per cubic centimeter.  
>Since the PLASMAK(tm) burning plasma is only about 100cc
>it gives one an easy comparison.  

It should be in the PPPL report.  I thought I had a copy,
but it's not immediately clear where in the mess of things
on my floor it is.  I'll look it up soon.
>
>The power level on the first compression to c=7 should get us
>2 or 3 orders past Lawson in D-He3

Above you said 10-100, now you're saying 2 to 3 orders or 100-1000.
Just so I know, which is it?


***************************
Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University
As always, I represent only myself, and not PPPL
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.28 / Robert Heeter /  Migma publicly funded or not?
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Migma publicly funded or not?
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 1994 03:54:56 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

Here's something interesting, though it probably isn't worth
my writing this:

In article <2phddc$60b@ds8.scri.fsu.edu> Jim Carr, jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu
writes:
[[ rfheeter wrote...]]
>>And as you yourself pointed out, he has one hell of an axe to grind.
>
>He does, however, grind it with his own money and that of investors 
>rather than that of the American taxpayers. 

However, Paul Koloc says otherwise:

In article <CopMou.56M@prometheus.UUCP> Paul M. Koloc,
pmk@prometheus.UUCP writes:
>Maglich has problems because he needs to go several orders of
>density increase and needs a machine for each order of magnitude.
>But, he seems to be a businessman and politician, because he has
>captured money from off shore, on shore, and from congress.  
                                                   ^^^^^^^^
>So he has already seen the level of money that we could use to
>go the distance and then far beyond, in the sense that applications
>undreamed of for the tokamak are a natural or obvious applications
>for PLASMAK(tm) technology.  

I don't know if he is currently receiving funding or not, but
Paul seems to think he did at one point.  I don't know if 
Paul is correct or not.  It probably doesn't matter much, but
it just sort of caught my eye.

***************************
Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University
As always, I represent only myself, and not PPPL
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.28 / Robert Heeter /  Re: Overblown comparisons between TFTR and cold fusion
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Originally-From: Cameron Randale Bass, crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Overblown comparisons between TFTR and cold fusion
Subject: Re: Overblown comparisons between TFTR and cold fusion
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 1994 04:30:15 GMT
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 1994 17:56:54 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

Subject: Re: Overblown comparisons between TFTR and cold fusion
Originally-From: Cameron Randale Bass, crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 1994 17:56:54 GMT
In article <CovoIv.I8B@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> Cameron Randale Bass,
crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU writes:
>In article <1994Apr25.210012.13927@Princeton.EDU>,
>Robert F. Heeter  <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> wrote:
>>
>>Secondly, with a 6 MW power output, the tokamak only needs a factor
>>of *500* to reach a commercial scale, and not "2000" as you claim
without
>>justification.  
>
>     Are you going to give yourselves credit for *all* the power?

You just had to bring that up, didn't you!

:)

I stand corrected.  TFTR *would* need a factor of *2000* in 
*thermonuclear* power to reach a commercial scale, because
only about 1/4 of the power generated by TFTR is in plasma-plasma
reactions.  My apologies to Paul Koloc, though he apparently
wasn't thinking this way either.

*On the other hand* JET and JT-60U have better plasma performance
and, were they using D-T, they would do substantially better
than TFTR.  So the *tokamak concept* probably doesn't need a 
factor of 2000.

Anyway, it's the (density)*(energy confinement time)*(temperature)
Lawson product that matters, and the tokamak is within a factor 
of 10 of pulling off commercial-grade plasmas.  (JT-60U is the current
leader.)  Density and energy confinement are the areas needing
improvement.

>     And after all this discussion...

Let's not start it all over again!
    
***************************
Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University
As always, I represent only myself, and not PPPL
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.28 / Bruce TK /  Re: Reply to Maglich on TFTR D-T Result
     
Originally-From: bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce       Scott          TK  )
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reply to Maglich on TFTR D-T Result
Date: 28 Apr 1994 12:09:58 +0200
Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching


In article <1994Apr27.170420.16443@midway.uchicago.edu>, 
	gk00@quads.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg) writes:

[responding to Paul Koloc]

> The fact is that DOE not only favors but funds "alternate" concepts:
> It funded muon-catalyzed Fusion, it funded z pinch experiments, it
> funds stellarators, it funds laser fusion in a big way, and it funds
> several other things that I don't know about.  

Then why is there no support for the high density Z-pinch? Advanced
spheromaks? Is there really FRC (field-reversed configuration) support?
And the extent to which the RFP (reversed-field pinch [*]), plasma focus,
and stellarators are supported is more a starvation/survival diet than
a hearty meal. 

> It seems to me that the reason that you are bitter, and the reason that 
> you postulate ever-widening circles of tokomak conpiracy, is not that DOE 
> doesn't fund alternate concepts, but rather that the Kolocomak isn't one of
> those concepts.

Oh, it is fun to come up with easy Ad Hominems (I confess: I am
not immune, either), but the DOE centralisation mechanisms leave a
situation rather worse than this.

This message comes to you from a tokamaker, by the way.


[*] The most basic difference between FRC and RFP is that in the FRC there
is a field null: a place where the total magnetic field strength goes to
zero. The RFP is a toroidal device in which the poloidal field reverses
direction near the edge but the total field strength is always robust: the
plasma is everywhere magnetised.

-- 
Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de                               -- W Gibson
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnTK cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.28 / Greg Kuperberg /  Re: Evolution Proves: Cold Fusion not Possible!
     
Originally-From: gk00@quads.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Evolution Proves: Cold Fusion not Possible!
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 1994 16:28:38 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

In article <tomkCoyJJx.6FM@netcom.com> tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich) writes:
>In the human body alone, practically the entire periodic table is being used.
>
>Yet we are to believe that with a few hand waves and a bloody simple
>manipulation, free energy is available and no organism would have discovered
>this but a couple of scientists billions of years into evolution.

It's really embarrassing to see such a bad argument against cold fusion
given that cold fusion is such an obvious fiasco.  The human body uses
less than a third of the periodic table.  We have no use for any noble
gas or for most metals.  Radioactive elements, arsenic, lead,
beryllium, and several others are worse than useless.  Even
deuterium is poisonous.

A fission pile is also free energy and no animal evolved that.  The
only difference between it and cold fusion is that it works.

The cold fusion story is really very simple.  Fleischmann and Pons lied
to themselves and to everyone else.  They are pushing a wild and
unsubstantiated claim.  They lost their marbles because of greed and
ego.  It is all amply documented.  We don't need any fancy speculations
about cold fusion and evolution.
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudengk00 cudfnGreg cudlnKuperberg cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.28 / david dixon /  Re: Misuse of statistics [was Re: (no subject given)]
     
Originally-From: dixon@galaxy.ucr.edu (david dixon)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics
Subject: Re: Misuse of statistics [was Re: (no subject given)]
Date: 28 Apr 1994 09:56:37 -0700
Organization: University of California, Riverside

In article <2po57a$glu@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk>,
Nick Maclaren <nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>    4) You expect to get 12 or more events from a Poisson process with
>expectation 6 about 1 time in 50.  If the relevant people said that they
>have evidence but not proof, they are being scrupulously accurate.  Note
>that 2.8 sigma from a normal distribution is nearly 1 time in 400.

Good enough for a Nobel prize, eh?

					Dave







cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudendixon cudfndavid cudlndixon cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.28 / Jeff Greason /  Re: movie: NEANDERTHAL PARK
     
Originally-From: greason@ptdcs2.intel.com (Jeff Greason)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,alt.religion.kibology,sci.math,sci
physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.chem,sci.bio
Subject: Re: movie: NEANDERTHAL PARK
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 1994 19:44:31 GMT
Organization: Intel Corporation -- Aloha, Oregon

In article <2pjgad$197@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth
edu (Ludwig Plutonium) writes:
> NEANDERTHAL PARK is filmed in wide screen Technicolor. At the
>beginning of the movie, instead of a lion roaring, show a T.Rex jawing
>to get the audience in the mood.
>
>This is a parody on the movie Jurassic Park. The starring actors of
>Neanderthal Park are Dick Adams, Terry Tao, Jan Bielawski, and John
>Baez, with supporting actors  David Dixon, Jeff Greason, Dan Hoey, John
>Kondis, Lynn Kurtz,  Alan Morgan, Mike Moroney, and Ben Tilly.
>
...
>SKIT 10 
>
>The movie shows several of the actors in Neanderthal Park with their
>pseudo- intellectualism. Saying dumb things which on first appearance
>sound okay. Posting to the Net their drivel, obnoxious antagonism,
>endless arguments which mean nothing. Have the movie show these actors
>getting the classic education of a cut open head and the liquid of
>knowledge poured-in such as in Medieval and Neanderthal times. Students
>as lemmings. Now repeat after me, lemmings, now regurgitate on this
>test. Now, classroom time is a note-making factory. Have the actors
>Alan Morgan, David Dixon, Dan Hoey, Jeff Greason, John Kondis, Mike
>Moroney act the part of teachers regurgitating Bible babble and
>regurgitating back. Classroom is a cage. Show the actors jump up and
>down like the hyenas in the cage next to them. Show the cage of
>obnoxious pseudo-intellectuals of  Dick Adams, Terry Tao, Jan
>Bielawski, and John Baez, with supporting actors  David Dixon, Jeff
>Greason, Dan Hoey, John Kondis, Lynn Kurtz,  Alan Morgan, Mike Moroney,
>and Ben Tilly in their cages typing away on their keyboards to post
>something to the Net against LP. Show LP going by the chimpanzee cage
>throwing in some nuts. Show LP going past the actors cage and say "Hey
>you Net looneys,cranks, and crackpots, you Net nuts. Be thankful that
>you lived in the time that LP lived."
>
>End of movie.

...FLAME ON... ...FLAME ON... ...FLAME ON... ...FLAME ON...

  <WARNING: extreme sarcasm is employed in the following 4 paragraphs.
            such sarcasm has a long half life and is hard to get rid of,
            so don't let it get into your system!>

Ah, the wit and wisdom of Ludwig Plutonium, returned to grace us all (is
it only me for whom the fact that "LP" also stands for "Long Playing" seems
like no coincidence?)

Ladies and gentlemen of the net, I am proud indeed to be named by Mr.
Plutonium as a "supporting actor" in this parody movie.  I seem to have made
some impression.  And for what "dumb things which on first appearance
sound okay" have I recieved this honor?  Why, for having had the outrageous
impudence to have suggested, in this public forum, that calm, reasoned
arguments, references to experiments, and attempting to answer criticisms
of his theories with some open mindedness would serve him better than
wild raving if we wanted to be taken seriously.

Well, I apologize, here and now, for having had the temerity to suggest that.
Clearly, Mr. Plutonium does NOT want to be taken seriously.  I can see that
now.  I posted my original statement because I was afraid that some people
who read sci.physics might not realize that Mr. Plutonium was some kind of
raving lunatic ... but I see that there was no risk of that.  Thanks for
making it so clear to everyone.

Let me just say in closing that having me act the part of "teachers 
regurgitating Bible babble" is going to require pretty intense suspension
of disbelief on the part of anyone who knows me ... it's about the last 
thing you'd expect to see me do.  But an even bigger stretch would be required
to have you act the part of someone who has any interest in understanding
the world around you.

...FLAME OFF... ...FLAME OFF... ...FLAME OFF... ...FLAME OFF...

I apologize to the rest of the sci.physics net for responding to this and
so contributing to the life of this thread.  Since I'd been a subject of
this post, I felt justified in consuming the bandwidth to reply in public.
In the future, I'll try harder to give LP the attention he deserves; touch
the "K" key.  And I'll note that if more people did that, the threads would
die down, and we wouldn't have to wade through this!

Disclaimer:  All opinions expressed are my own, and do not reflect the 
     position of Intel, Portland State University, or Zippy the Pinhead.  
============================================================================
Jeff Greason                  "You lock the door ... And throw away the key.
  <greason@ptdcs2.intel.com>   There's someone in my head, but it's not me."
  <jeffg@eecs.ee.pdx.edu>				-- Pink Floyd
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudengreason cudfnJeff cudlnGreason cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.28 / Greg Kuperberg /  cmsg cancel <1994Apr28.220314.23389@midway.uchicago.edu>
     
Originally-From: gk00@uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cmsg cancel <1994Apr28.220314.23389@midway.uchicago.edu>
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 1994 22:29:04 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

<1994Apr28.220314.23389@midway.uchicago.edu> was cancelled from within trn.
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudengk00 cudfnGreg cudlnKuperberg cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.28 / Greg Kuperberg /  cmsg cancel <1994Apr28.220314.23389@midway.uchicago.edu>
     
Originally-From: gk00@uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cmsg cancel <1994Apr28.220314.23389@midway.uchicago.edu>
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 1994 22:28:52 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

<1994Apr28.220314.23389@midway.uchicago.edu> was cancelled from within trn.
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudengk00 cudfnGreg cudlnKuperberg cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.29 /  morrison@vxpri /  Top Quark and Press Conferences.
     
Originally-From: morrison@vxprix.cern.ch
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Top Quark and Press Conferences.
Date: Fri, 29 Apr 1994 01:18:59 GMT
Organization: At Home; Salida, CA USA

                                                          28 April 1994. 
             TOP QUARK AND PRESS CONFERENCES.
 
    Have now more information about this subject; a copy of the press release, 
of the 153 page paper (almost 2 pages of authors, one page of the 34 labs
and 150 pages of physics) and this afternoon Georgio Bellettini gave a lecture
here. He is the leader of the Rome group which when we were taking data in 
Fermilab, was by far the largest experimental team (now do not know but may 
well still be). Went 15 minutes early but it was full and could not get in 
- just managed into the Council Chamber to watch a transmission.
     For the discussion about press conferences of PPPL and of Fleischmann
and Pons, this press release was very modest being entitled "New Evidence in the
Search for the Top Quark". Later it said that "the first direct experimental 
evidence for the top quark", "CDF researchers stopped short of claiming 
discovery of the top quark".
    There are perhaps three reasons for this restraint apart from the low 
statistics;
1. The second experiment, D0, is said to have "no significant signal". Next
Tuesday in CERN there will be a lecture by D0 which should be interesting. In
the corridor was told their results, but,......
2. The cross section that CDF find for the top is appreciably higher than that 
expected from Quantum Chromo-Dynamics, QCD. Giorgio claimed that there is an 11%
probability that this could be a statistical fluctuation.
    The CDF value is 13.9 +6.1 -4.8 pb. Guido Alterelli pointed out that there 
are many good calculations, the latest (and most complete so far, and guess 
not used by CDF) gives 5.6 +/- 0.6 pb - this would seem to be more worrying.
     There are a number of points here;
     a) the mass estimate is from direct estimates from 7 events - the cross 
section is independent of these mass estimates. hence one should be able 
to combine the two. Since the cross section falls steeply with top mass, the 
best combined estimate would be lower, in the 160's of GeV. This double fit 
does not seem to have been done - perhaps wisely!
     b) One suggestion of the high rate would be that there were two sources
of events - but the much lower value from D0 would perhaps argue against this.
     c) (my own favourite) historically when more than one experiment is 
searching for a new particle or resonance, they have low statistics and hence 
do not initially find exactly the correct rate. If they are unlucky and have 
a downward fluctuation in the rate, they find nothing significant and do not 
publish; if they are lucky and find a high rate, they will publish. This could
well be the D0 - CDF situation. On this basis, the mass is correct but the
initial CDF cross section is too high.
3. There are two interesting physics questions; 
firstly does the top quark exist? 
and secondly what is its mass?
    The great merit and importance of the CDF results is that they have the  
first DIRECT evidence. There is lots of indirect evidence. In the range of 
present accelerator energies, the present theory of the Standard Model works
amazingly well. The many calculations using it agree with the CERN LEP data
with such great accuracy that almost no one considers a theory where the top
quark does not exist. But everyone wants DIRECT evidence e.g. where top-anti-top
pairs are shown to exist, and this CDF has done.
    For the question of the top mass, there are many experimental results
which vary from a model which had a top quark of infinite energy (ie no top 
quark virtually) - the top quark comes in secondary ways (loop diagrams).
Taking LEP data alone gives a top quark mass close to 170 GeV. To this
can be added data from SLD at Stanford which changes the value by only a few
GeV and slightly reduces the error. Adding in addition results from neutrino
experiments again improves the results slightly. Adding in the CDF results
does not change the top mass by much, but it greatly reduces the error - and
this is important as it ties down the Higgs mass much better (according to
which form of Higgs one prefers).
    Thus the question of the top mass is a long continuing saga.
    Incidently in the CDF paper, they use an old 1993 value for the LEP
estimate of the top mass - it would have been better to use a value from the
Moriond or La Thuille conferences in March of 1994. For example Daniel
Treille used the LEP plus SLD data and gave there   174 (+11 -12) (+17 -19) Gev
which is not too far from the new CDF value of      174 (+/- 10 ) (+13 -12) GeV,
where it can be seen that the CDF error is much smaller. The Electroweak 
Collaboration of the four LEP groups, gave new values (according to data set 
used) but have corrected them slightly so they are not yet officially available.
 
   For the original question about press conferences, it seems that this
Fermilab one was reasonable and justified in having one to announce the first
DIRECT evidence for the sixth and last quark.

   It is interesting to recall that likewise there is also overwhelming
evidence for the existence of the tau neutrino - the sixth and last lepton,
but again all the evidence is consistency and completeness. It is to be hoped 
that some day there will be a press conference for the first DIRECT evidence
for the tau neutrino. 
 
    There is a Cold Fusion connection here. All these CDF analyses depend on
QCD. Almost all physicists believe in QCD. One of the first signs of the
eccentricities of G. Preparata was that for many years he has insisted
strongly in his manner, that QCD is wrong. Now his unusual theories include
one of the many theories each of which explain Cold Fusion completely (should
one be right e.g. fracto-fusion, di-neutrons,.... then all the others must be
wrong), another one explains the claims of Benveniste of water with memory
(he denied this at the Fourth Cold Fusion conference but some of the evidence
is given in Cold Fusion Update No. 9).

					       Douglas R.O. Morrison.

cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenmorrison cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.27 / Mike Thornburg /  Am I Missing Something in the Chubb Theory?
     
Originally-From: mthorn@lunacity.com (Mike Thornburg)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Am I Missing Something in the Chubb Theory?
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 94 17:38:57 PDT
Organization: LunaCity BBS - (Clan Zen Relay Network) Mountain View, CA

I have tried to follow the discussion on Scott Chubb's theory
as it has unfolded in this group, and I'm still a little
confused as to how he expects the existence of ion band states
to have any effect on the probability of deuterium fusion.  In
other words, even if his theory is true, how do you get it to
overcome the Coulomb barrier?

I can take out my copy of Pauling and Wilson, or
Cohen-Tannoudji, et al., look up their particle-in-a-box
solution, and construct delocalized states for the deuterium
molecules in the bottle of compressed gas I get from my local
isotope vendor.  I can work out just how these steady-state
one-particle solutions correspond to the localized wave
packets (i. e., molecules zooming around) we usually think of
in connection with this system.  No one would argue that by
setting up these delocalized one-particle wavefunctions I had
magically discovered a way around the Coulomb barrier that
keeps the bottle of compressed gas from becoming a fusion bomb.

The probability of fusion depends not a whit on overlapping,
delocalized, one-particle wavefunctions (particle-in-a-box
states, Bloch states, what have you), but in the probability of
*simultaneously* finding two particles in the same very small
volume of space.  Even if the particles are delocalized
and the delocalized wavefunctions overlap completely, you have
no basis for concluding that a simultaneous measurement of
their position would find them both in the same small volume of
space.  To use an example that does not directly apply to
deuterium in a lattice, but that has some points of similarity,
if you go to a metal and look at two conduction electrons in
the same spin state (both spin-up or spin-down) (actually this
argument works for any two same-spin electrons anywhere
in the universe, but let's concentrate on these two for the
moment)  Pauli's exclusion principle tells us that we will
never find them both at the same point in space--the probability
is identically equal to zero, yet both electrons are in
delocalized Bloch states that overlap at every point.

If the Coulomb screening in a metal is not sufficient to
allow *localized* deuterium atoms to approach closely enough
for fusion to occur, no amount of delocalization is going to
change this fact.

Now it may be that Scott Chubb is not trying to address this
aspect of the problem, but merely assumes that fusion occurs
somehow and he is only trying to show how the resulting energy
can couple to the lattice.  If so, then none of this is a
problem for his theory, since he is not trying to explain how
cold fusion might occur, but only what happens to the products.
But I get the impression that he thinks his theory offers some
mechanism for overcoming the Coulomb barrier, and from the
descriptions I have seen in this group I just don't understand
how that can be.

 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just a thought from Mike Thornburg -> (mthorn@lunacity.com)
LunaCity BBS - Mountain View, CA - 415 968 8140
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenmthorn cudfnMike cudlnThornburg cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.29 / mitchell swartz /  Stringham and George and Calorimetry and Controls
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Stringham and George and Calorimetry and Controls
Subject: Stringham and George and Calorimetry
Date: Fri, 29 Apr 1994 02:20:44 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <940426162204.2021c842@FNALD.FNAL.GOV>
Subject: Stringham and George and Calorimetry
Tom Droege (DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov) writes:

 td= "To those looking at the Stringham and George claims for excess heat, I remind
 td= one and all that I cannot imagine how one can do calorimetry under excitation
 td= by a high power ultrasonic transducer.  Everything gets hot.  How much is 
 td= produced by "cold fusion" and how much is from the transducer?  Don't ask.  No
 td= one will be able to tell you.  But it sure does get nice and hot for the 
 td= press conference!"

=jl "Hmm, I don't see the difficulty.  With a carefully chosen resister in
=jl series with the transducer, I could view the voltage drop across the
=jl resistor and the voltage drop across the transducer and I could tell you
=jl the power input to within a few percent (including correcting for
=jl inductive or capcitive phase shift) merely by observing both waveforms on
=jl a dual trace osilloscope."
=jl "Now that I know my power input, I can run the cell empty (with a non-Pd
=jl metal foil) and see how hot it gets versus with a Pd foil.  With the same
=jl input and essentially the same environment, the temperature of the cell
=jl should be nearly the same.  Since they see 50-100 watts excess with (I
=jl believe) on the order of 300 watts input, that is 1 part in 3 or 1 part in
=jl 6.  One might expect, then, a 16-33% increase in the delta temperature.
=jl No?"
[74242.1554@compuserve.com (John M. Logajan)
Message-ID: <940427045136_74242.1554_BHR55-2@CompuServe.COM>]

  In addition, in the palladium-heavy water sonic systems, 
  H2O is one potential control under certain conditions.
Therefore the incremental temperature increase (excess enthalpy
above the light water system with identical sonic irradiation and
other conditions and settings)
for the heavy water is the signal  [except for some corrections of mass ratio
and/or sqr{mass ratio} for H>D and other factors such as 
thermal conductivity and capacity (which are functions
of loading and isotope)].
  Also, I suspect impedance match is poor at the water/metal interface
yielding some serious reflection at that locus, and potential temperature
inhomogeneity within the apparatus.

  Did you ask them, Tom?        
    Best wishes.  
                   Mitchell   Swartz    (mica@world.std.com)
  


cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.29 / Matt Kennel /  Re: Legget and Baym vs. Chubb and Chubb tag teams
     
Originally-From: mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Legget and Baym vs. Chubb and Chubb tag teams
Date: 29 Apr 1994 06:00:10 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

Bill Page (70047.3047@compuserve.com) wrote:
: {C&C say ground state wave functions balance potential energy 
:  against gradients = kinetic energy}

No argument there.


: The amount of wave function dimpling that occurs is determined by the 
: marginal decrease in potential energy balanced against the marginal 
: increase in kinetic energy resulting from increased dimpling.  In the 
: helium atom this balance is achieved at a high degree of electron-electron 
: overlap."

Yes and no.  Sure, the wave functions for the individual electrons
overlap, but that DOES NOT MEAN THEY EVER ARE CLOSE TO ONE ANOTHER.

You have to consider the total wave function.  You can have identical
one-electron wave functions, Phi(r) and yet have a combined wave function
Psi(r1,r2) that is not the product Phi(r1)*Phi(r2).

I.e. the one-electron wave function

Phi1(*) = integral Psi(r1,r2) d^3 r2

can be the same as Phi2(*), and yet have there be no overlap.

In fact, this is what happens.

The *conditional* distribution of P(|r1 - r2|) < femtometers
is going to be damn small because of the mutual repulson even with
purported 'electron-electron overlap'.

: "The net effect is that in each cell, the kinetic energy increase due to 
: dimpling is multiplied by the factor 1/Ncell.  The resulting value is Ncell 
: times greater than the Coulombic contribution; i.e., kinetic energy 
: dominates potential energy in regions where significant dimpling occurs.  
: As a result, energy minimization then occurs with negligible dimpling, as 
: in the helium atom.  With this picture of quantum reality, there is no 
: correlation barrier to cold fusion."

So?
If it's like the helium atom, then there still can be no close passes
even with wavefunction 'overlap'.  Sure, each deuteron could be
in a perfectly delocalized, and perfectly *identical* one-particle
wavefunction, and yet have there be no mutual proximity.

I guess I'm a young old fogey, but I think it takes keV's of energy
to get deuterons to within nuclear distances no matter how you
slice it.

I think energy minimization will do its best to keep those pesky repelling
deuterons apart.

: Cheers,
: Bill Page.


-Matt Kennel  		mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu
-Institute for Nonlinear Science, University of California, San Diego
-*** AD: Archive for nonlinear dynamics papers & programs: FTP to
-***     lyapunov.ucsd.edu, username "anonymous".
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenmbk cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.29 / T Quickenden /  Re: Evolution Proves: Cold Fusion not Possible!
     
Originally-From: tiq@yarrow.wt.uwa.edu.au (Terry Quickenden)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Evolution Proves: Cold Fusion not Possible!
Date: 29 Apr 1994 09:57:21 GMT
Organization: The University of Western Australia

Markus Freericks (mfx@cs.tu-berlin.de) wrote:
: Just a thought: (all the worst posts start with these words ;-)

: If so-called "cold fusion" were a practical possibility, it would be well
: withing the reign of organic systems. From a pure probabilistic standpoint,
: one could then expect that _some_ organism would utilize this effect.

: Presuming that there are no unknown energy-generating mechanisms in cell
: biology which can only be explaied by CF, one can draw the
: counter-conclusion that CF is not possible.

: Markus

This sound a bit like Feynman's argument regarding the non-existence 
of polywater. I think he suggested that, if polywater existed, organisms
would have used it to generate energy (i.e. by taking in water and excreting 
polywater). This is mentioned in the book 'Polywater' by Felix Franks.

Todd
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudentiq cudfnTerry cudlnQuickenden cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.27 / A Bajorinas /  Re: movie: NEANDERTHAL PARK
     
Originally-From: bajorap@pb.com (Andrew P. Bajorinas)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,alt.religion.kibology,sci.math,sci
physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.chem,sci.bio
Subject: Re: movie: NEANDERTHAL PARK
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 1994 14:40:33 GMT
Organization: Pitney Bowes

det@sw.stratus.com (Dave Toland) writes:

>Quite a little egofest, Ludwig.  Can you say "monomania"?

>Yes, yes, Ludwig, everyone else is a poor deluded fool and only you see
>the True Light.  This is sarcasm, in case you didn't recognize it.

Clearly you are merely one of the diluded many that subscribe to the
fiction that is modern science. :)   :)   :)   

Let Ludwig show you the way. Proofs are for wimps that doubt their
ideas. Just ask Ludwig!

>> and sci.physics. His name is Alexander Abian and he often calls the
>> overly conservative math and physics communities-- politburos and
>> Neanderthal type thinkers who seldom change. I concur with AA because
>> those two communities have a herd-like mentality. AA has used the word
>> Neanderthal often in his posts.

>Or could it be that these thinkers you and Abian so casually dismiss
>have bothered to learn the methodology that differentiates science
>from the strutting posturing and wild unsubstantiated conjecture that
>both you and Abian are infamous for?

OOooooh. That one smarted. Too bad it is probably wasted on Ludwig. He
seems to have Rhino-Hide for skin. Any nay-sayers are dissmissed as the
unenlightened masses.

>There is a discipline to science, and that discipline is in place not
>to suppress new ideas, but to establish ways of testing their relevence
>to the real world (you have heard of the reality that most of us share,
>haven't you?)

Yes, he has heard of it. Fortunately for him it did not fit in to his
theories (which are assumed correct) so he was able to dismiss quite
handily, thank you very much. 

If you are going to insist on posting facts and real science he is just
going to be forced to ignore you. Worse yet, he may change his
"theories" to say you don;t exist. Since he is always right despite
proof to the contrary, you will simply cease to exist. It was nice
knowing you. :)


cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenbajorap cudfnAndrew cudlnBajorinas cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.29 / Nick Maclaren /  Re: Misuse of statistics [was Re: (no subject given)]
     
Originally-From: nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk (Nick Maclaren)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics
Subject: Re: Misuse of statistics [was Re: (no subject given)]
Date: 29 Apr 1994 11:49:05 GMT
Organization: U of Cambridge, England

In article <28APR199411532449@csa5.lbl.gov>, sichase@csa5.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE) writes:
|> In article <2po57a$glu@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk>, nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk
(Nick Maclaren) writes...
|> > 
|> >    4) You expect to get 12 or more events from a Poisson process with
|> >expectation 6 about 1 time in 50.  If the relevant people said that they
|> >have evidence but not proof, they are being scrupulously accurate.  Note
|> >that 2.8 sigma from a normal distribution is nearly 1 time in 400.
|> 
|> The background calculation which they did was, I expect, based upon a sample 
|> of simulated event events many times larger than the actual experimental
|> sample of top quark candidates.  For that reason, they were able to 
|> put rather small error bars upon the expected background.  They estimated
|> a number something like 5.9+/-0.6 unexcludable background events.  They 
|> could, in principle, have thrown 10 times as much computing power at the 
|> problem, and reduced the error bars on the background even further, if they
|> thought that they understood the systematic effects well enough to justify
|> the effort required to reduce the statistical effect.

This is totally irrelevant.  My remark still holds true if their estimate
of the background rate is precise.  Your remark can be true only if the
phenomenon should be modelled by something far more deterministic than a
Poisson process (e.g. one background event occurring prevents another for
some time period).

It is possible that this is the case, though I should be extremely surprised.
Inter alia, it implies that the observed events are not essentially
independent, which has some interesting quantum mechanical consequences :-)

|> The "1 time in 400" probability is the one to remember.  But also remember
|> that there are unspoken systematic effects which are probably large enough
|> that 1 in 400 is probably an exaggeration.

If the 1 in 400 calculation is based on 2.8 sigmas from the normal
distribution corresponding to 12 events observed when 6 are expected, then
it is just plain bogus.  Please look at any decent textbook on probability
or statistical modelling.

If it is based on some more subtle calculation, then the true value could
was easily be 1 time in 2 or 1 time 1n 10^100.  I should have to see the
calculations before I could comment.


Nick Maclaren
University of Cambridge Computer Laboratory,
New Museums Site, Pembroke Street,
Cambridge CB2 3QG, England.
Email:  nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk
Tel.:   +44 223 334761
Fax:    +44 223 334679
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudennmm1 cudfnNick cudlnMaclaren cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.29 / Arthur TK /  RE: TFTR Update 4-27-94; Explain the Jargon
     
Originally-From: awc@ipp-garching.mpg.de (Arthur      Carlson        TK  )
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: TFTR Update 4-27-94; Explain the Jargon
Date: 29 Apr 1994 12:53:36 +0200
Organization: Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics


Based on Paul Koloc's questions, these changes/additions need to 
be made to the FAQ-FUT (Bob! Wake up!):


* Beta, or beta-value:  Ratio between plasma kinetic pressure and 
magnetic-field pressure; proportional to the ratio between plasma kinetic
                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
energy density and magnetic field energy density; characterizes the
efficiency with which the magnetic field confines the plasma.
>> Beta is usually measured relative to the total, local field
(loosely called beta toroidal), but sometimes the plasma pressure 
relative to only the poloidal component of the field (beta poloidal)
or relative to some external field (like the maximum field at the
magnetic coils) is more useful. There is also a normalized beta 
(beta_N) of interest when discussing the beta limit (see entry). <<
See also: pressure, kinetic pressure, magnetic pressure, 
second stability.

[Plasma pressure=nkT; plasma energy density=(3/2)nkT.]

* beta limit, also called Troyon limit: If the plasma 
pressure in a tokamak becomes too high, the so-called 
balooning modes become unstable and lead to a loss
of confinement (sometimes catastophic, sometimes not). The exact 
value at which this occurs depends strongly on the magnetic field 
B, the plasma minor radius a, and the toroidal plasma current I, 
such that maximum value of the normalized beta, beta_N=beta*B*a/I,
is around 4% (with B in Teslas, a in meters, and I in Mega-amperes).
The exact value depends on details of the plasma shape, the plasma
profiles, and the safety factor.

[Now "balooning modes" needs an entry!]

ELM: an "Edge Localized Mode" found often in H-mode plasmas. This 
is a temporary relaxation of the very high edge gradients found in
H-modes. It may be a relaxation back to the L-mode.

[This is stolen from Paul Stek's post, because it's not bad for a
3 sentence description.]

* High-mode or H-mode:  (from Herman) A regime of operation
attained most easily during auxiliary heating of divertor 
         ^^^^^^^^^^^
tokamak plasmas
when the injected power is sufficiently high.  A sudden
improvement in particle confinement time leads to increased
density and temperature, distinguishing this mode from
the normal "low mode."
>> H-mode has now been achieved without auxiliary heating, 
without a divertor, and even without a tokamak (in a stellarator). <<


* Confinement Time:  Several types:  (adapted from Herman)  
Tau_[E, N, ...] is the amount of time the plasma is contained by 
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
magnetic fields before its [energy (E), particles (N), ...] leak / 
dissipate away.  The different types are, in general, similar but 
                                                      ^^^^^^^^^^^
not equal.

[Tau_E is *not* "electron" confinement time!]

* Tau: Usually refers to energy- or some other confinement time (see entry).

Art Carlson
Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics
awc@ipp-garching.mpg.de
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenawc cudfnArthur cudlnTK cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.30 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Stringham and George Calorimetry
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Stringham and George Calorimetry
Date: Sat, 30 Apr 1994 00:43:16 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

In response to my comment on the possibility of making measurements in the
Stringham and George experiment, Mitchell Swartz said "Did you ask them, Tom?"

No, I did not ask them.  I did listen to their presentation at Maui, and did
not hear anything convincing.  I await patiently the complete paper from the
conference.  

I feel no obligation to track down unconvincing presenters to give them a
chance to make better arguments.  It is enough to do to search out the better
presenters.  Sorry, Stirngham and George did not impress me.

Tom Droege

cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenDROEGE cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.29 / Michael Weiss /  Re: (no subject given)
     
Originally-From: columbus@strident.think.com (Michael Weiss)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics
Subject: Re: (no subject given)
Date: 29 Apr 94 10:33:29
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge MA, USA

Scott I Chase writes:

   CDF (and D0) are vigorously pursuing both these goals [getting more and
   better quality statistics], and we all know to expect better results in
   the next two years.

   For this reason, I believe that their data is only marginally convincing.
   They have a small number of "gold plated" events, but will have to acquire
   much more data before there will be no doubt that the sample includes
   at least some top decays.  Since there will be better data soon anyway,
   I prefer to reserve judgement [...]

I've seen similar comments elsewhere.  Is there some (non-cynical) reason
why CDF chose to publish now?  Has some threshhold been passed?
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudencolumbus cudfnMichael cudlnWeiss cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.29 / Rose Holt /  Re: movie: NEANDERTHAL PARK
     
Originally-From: rmholt@u.washington.edu (Rose Marie Holt)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,alt.religion.kibology,sci.math,sci
physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.chem,sci.bio
Subject: Re: movie: NEANDERTHAL PARK
Date: 29 Apr 1994 14:18:54 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

All in all LuPu's movie outline was not bad.

I think the scene including Steven Hawking running in a herd like fashion
is a little too unrealistic, and you probably have enough physicists
to make up a herd even if you leave him out.

Some of the lyrics to the spoof songs are still a mite clumsy and they
could use a little editing

All in all, one of LuPu's most readable and entertaining posts.  IMHO.


cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenrmholt cudfnRose cudlnHolt cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.29 / Steve Fairfax /  Alcator progress 4/28/94
     
Originally-From: Fairfax@CMOD.PFC.MIT.EDU (Steve Fairfax)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Alcator progress 4/28/94
Date: Fri, 29 Apr 1994 14:41:41 GMT
Organization: Alcator Project, MIT Plasma Fusion Center

I have not been posting the Alcator weekly progress report for the past 6
months.  There were several complaints about the level of jargon, and I
found that it was taking me several hours each week to write a jargon-free
version of the report.  Using jargon isn't necessarily elitist, it is just
very convenient! These reports are sent weekly to DOE.  They are intended
as short summaries of technical progress and are not press releases.   Now
that Robert Heeter has prepared a comprehensive set of FAQ's, (Nice job,
Robert!!) I hope that interested people will be able to decipher the
reports.  I will try to respond to e-mail questions and requests for
clarification (Fairfax@cmod.pfc.mit.edu).

A few items not in the FAQ:

ECDC - electron cyclotron discharge cleaning: Using relatively low power
microwaves to create a weakly ionized, essentially unconfined hydrogen
plasma in the vacuum chamber.  The ions react with impurities on the walls
of the tokamak and help remove them from the chamber.  Typically we apply
ECDC for a few days prior to beginning a campaign, and a few hours before
each day's run.

TCI - Two color interferometer.  The interferometer measures plasma density
integrated along several vertical chords.  Two different laser frequencies
(colors) are used to separate mechanical vibrations from plasma density
signals.

Hybrid computer:  Alcator C-MOD uses a hybrid analog/digital computer to
control plasma parameters such as shape and position.  Up to 96 analog
inputs are processed in a matrix multiplier with digital coefficients to
provide control of up to 16 parameters.  The controlled parameters can be
pre-programmed and/or controlled with feedback.  The desired gain laws
change during the pulse.  Before the plasma is started feedback on magnet
currents is appropriate.  After starting the plasma we generally control
for small circular plasmas.  Later the plasma is elongated vertically and
the diverter is turned on.  At the end of the plasma controls are relaxed
on some parameters to allow reliable ramp-down of the plasma current.  If
failures occur, or the plasma fails to start or ends prematurely, yet
another set of laws can take over.  These changes to the gain laws are
implemented by changing the digital coefficients in the matrix multipliers.
(Yes, it can be done with an all-digital system.  When we built the
machine, the cost was prohibitive, but advances in technology and declines
in price will make that less important as time goes on.  An all-digital
system may be constructed over the next year or three, depending on the
program needs and funding.)

PCX - Perpendicular Charge Exchange

SRL - Science Research Laboratories, a local company.


Enjoy.

			Alcator C-MOD Weekly Highlights
				April 28, 1994


Final preparations were completed this week, and the Phase II Operating
Campaign has now begun. The first attempt at plasma operation is scheduled
for
today.

Additional discharge cleaning (ECDC) was carried out over the weekend. ECDC
in D2 is being carried out this morning, prior to the run. Depending on
results of the first plasma runs, we will now be employing our standard pre-
run conditioning procedures.

Cooldown of the machine structure to cryogenic operating temperature was
completed on Tuesday.

Diagnostic installation and calibration is continuing. The PCX neutral
particle analyzer has now been installed in the cell. The TCI interferometer 
isoperational. The SRL Shearing Interferometer has been installed. The new
halo current rogowskis were calibrated during TF tests.

Live power system tests were begun last Friday. The first experiment
(Miniproposal #042) of the present campaign was a non-plasma experiment,
carried out in conjunction with the power tests, to determine the dynamic 
response(transfer function) of the Hybrid/Power Supplies/Coils/Structure. 
Singlesupplies are driven with different frequency oscillating voltages (
between 20 and 500 Hz) through the hybrid, and the resulting currents on all 
coils and on internal magnetics are observed. These results will be used to 
improve ourmodeling of the dynamic system response and better analyze the 
closed loopbehavior of the control system. This experiment was also a very 
stringent test of the new PCS software, including the multiple segment 
feature; a couple of minor bugs were uncovered and fixed.

During the power testing we found that one flux loop (out of 26) had been
damaged during the recent vent. The analysis and control algorithm software
have been modified to recognize the bad loop and compensate appropriately.


cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenFairfax cudfnSteve cudlnFairfax cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.29 / SCOTT CHASE /  Re: Misuse of statistics [was Re: (no subject given)]
     
Originally-From: sichase@csa5.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics
Subject: Re: Misuse of statistics [was Re: (no subject given)]
Date: 29 Apr 1994 10:51 PST
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA

In article <2pqs7h$fs9@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk>, nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk (Nick Maclaren) writes...
>In article <28APR199411532449@csa5.lbl.gov>, sichase@csa5.lbl.gov
(SCOTT I CHASE) writes:
>|> In article <2po57a$glu@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk>, nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk
(Nick Maclaren) writes...
>|> > 
>|> >    4) You expect to get 12 or more events from a Poisson process with
>|> >expectation 6 about 1 time in 50.  If the relevant people said that they
>|> >have evidence but not proof, they are being scrupulously accurate.  Note
>|> >that 2.8 sigma from a normal distribution is nearly 1 time in 400.
>|> 
>|> The background calculation which they did was, I expect, based upon a sample 
>|> of simulated event events many times larger than the actual experimental
>|> sample of top quark candidates.  For that reason, they were able to 
>|> put rather small error bars upon the expected background.  They estimated
>|> a number something like 5.9+/-0.6 unexcludable background events.  They 
>|> could, in principle, have thrown 10 times as much computing power at the 
>|> problem, and reduced the error bars on the background even further, if they
>|> thought that they understood the systematic effects well enough to justify
>|> the effort required to reduce the statistical effect.
> 
>This is totally irrelevant.  My remark still holds true if their estimate
>of the background rate is precise.  

I disagree.  I am pointing out that the background calculation is nontrivial
and that you cannot simply say that the odds of an upward fluctuation 
to 12 events when the expected value is 6 will be 1 in 50.  In fact, as you
yourself indicated, they estimate an order of magnitude smaller probability - 
1 in 400.

Then later you wrote:

>If it is based on some more subtle calculation, then the true value could
>was easily be 1 time in 2 or 1 time 1n 10^100.  I should have to see the
>calculations before I could comment.

I agree completely.  Why are you complaining about my explanation of what they
have done when you have not even seen the calculations?

-Scott
 -------------------
Scott I. Chase					"Mmmm... floor pie."		
SICHASE@CSA2.LBL.GOV					-Homer J. Simpson
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudensichase cudfnSCOTT cudlnCHASE cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.29 / SCOTT CHASE /  Re: (no subject given)
     
Originally-From: sichase@csa5.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics
Subject: Re: (no subject given)
Date: 29 Apr 1994 11:01 PST
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA

In article <COLUMBUS.94Apr29103329@strident.think.com>, columbus@striden
.think.com (Michael Weiss) writes...
>Scott I Chase writes:
> 
>   CDF (and D0) are vigorously pursuing both these goals [getting more and
>   better quality statistics], and we all know to expect better results in
>   the next two years.
> 
>   For this reason, I believe that their data is only marginally convincing.
>   They have a small number of "gold plated" events, but will have to acquire
>   much more data before there will be no doubt that the sample includes
>   at least some top decays.  Since there will be better data soon anyway,
>   I prefer to reserve judgement [...]
> 
>I've seen similar comments elsewhere.  Is there some (non-cynical) reason
>why CDF chose to publish now?  Has some threshhold been passed?

The only threshold is that they finally have a data sample (almost) completely
analysed that has a positive statistically-significant signal.  It's always
a matter of judgement as to when to publish preliminary or partial results.
I don't think that there is any cynicism involved.  CDF is constantly
publishing new results as they become available, even if they are based
upon analysis of a partial data set.  (Since they are planning on taking
more data, *everything* they publish is a based upon a partial data set.)

The big question, I'm sure, (though I am not privy to the discussions in
the inner circle of CDF), was whether or not it would be a service or
disservice to the larger community to announce results which some people will
interpret as a "discovery", no matter what spin CDF puts on it, when 
there is still a (small) possibility that the result is not beyond doubt.

After all, the top quark has been discovered more than once before!  They
are very sensitive about possibly making a mistake.  If this were not the
case, I suspect that they would have published earlier than they did.

-Scott
 -------------------
Scott I. Chase					"Mmmm... floor pie."		
SICHASE@CSA2.LBL.GOV					-Homer J. Simpson
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudensichase cudfnSCOTT cudlnCHASE cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.29 /  holland@garnet /  Re: Nuclear Waste Disposal: What to Do with Spent Ludwig
     
Originally-From: holland@garnet.berkeley.edu ()
Newsgroups: sci.math,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.chem,sci.bio
Subject: Re: Nuclear Waste Disposal: What to Do with Spent Ludwig
Plutonium (was re: Neanderthal Park)
Date: 29 Apr 1994 18:39:55 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley


arsmith@lamar.ColoState.EDU (Alan Smith) writes:

> Nevertheless, I like him.  No, really.  So occasionally I reply in email
> asking him to clarify a point or two when I have a question.  I do
> tend to get defensive when he goes off on his antievolution things
> (I'm a bio major) but on the whole his posts make a nice break from the
> mired-in-science-culture of the rest of sci.bio.  Lets me have the odd
> giggle at myself, as it were.
>
> Life is too important to take entirely seriously, guys.
 
I think that's not the point. If you think he's hilarious and everything, 
then you can easily subscribe to alt.sci.physics.plutonium and not 
cross-post to every .sci newsgroup in existence. (Maybe not all:  I 
think Ludwig missed a couple.) It's reasonable to limit the content of 
newsgroups to relevant (and non-fictional) material, no?

My 1/50 of $1,

Pat
-- 
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Holland                 holland@garnet.berkeley.edu
Dept. of Chemistry              It is not sufficient to be a success. It is 
U. Cal, Berkeley                necessary for your friends to be failures.
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenholland cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.29 / John Cobb /  Re: Reply to Maglich on TFTR D-T Result
     
Originally-From: johncobb@emx.cc.utexas.edu (John W. Cobb)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reply to Maglich on TFTR D-T Result
Date: 29 Apr 1994 15:11:30 -0500
Organization: The University of Texas - Austin

In article <1994Apr28.024640.10313@midway.uchicago.edu>,
Greg Kuperberg <gk00@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote:
>In article <2pmi3kINN2te@emx.cc.utexas.edu> johncobb@emx.cc.utexas.edu
(John W. Cobb) writes:
>>In article <1994Apr27.170420.16443@midway.uchicago.edu>,
>>Greg Kuperberg <gk00@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote:
>>>The fact is that DOE not only favors but funds "alternate" concepts:
>>Not from where I stand.
>
>I should have referred to public funding in general rather than DOE or
>even US funding.  In your reply you are even narrower; you refer only
>to projects funded by DOE-OFE, and you only count big or at
>medium-sized projects.
>...
>The point is that it's a big wide world in which many different
>government agencies in many different countries fund many different
>fusion research projects.

Actually my point was that DOE-OFE was sort-of like the big battleship
and that other U.S. fusion programs are cruiser or destroyer sized.

When DOE-OFE sets a course of action, there is a tremendous pull for
the other funders to go that way.

There is also the Willie Sutton effect. Most of fusion funding goes
through DOE-OFE, so while a number of other funding spigots may exist,
their total flow rate is much smaller.

Finally, there is the inevitable turf wars. If another part of DOE, or
heaven forbid, another federal agency funds some fusion project, the
response can range from a cold shoulder to some of the most fierce
administrative cat fights you can imagine. Such is the nature of Washington.
It is the rule and not the exception. For example this is the reason the
U.S. was never able to get a handle on its declared "war on drugs" because
of the continuing battles over who was in charge and who controlled the 
money. It went between justice , HHS, and Treasury. Even within the justice 
department there was sever backbiting betwenn NIJ and the FBI, etc. But I 
digress.

In terms of international efforts. You are correct in stating that other
countries do pursue other objectives. Therefore there is a sense of fusion
diversification by internationalisation. Actually there are some very good
examples here. PArt of the Canadian programme has focussed on solving tokamak
fueling problems. They seem to have carved out a niche for themselves.
Likewise the Swedes do spend a lot of effort on alternate conccepts. But
don't rely on this international diversity too much. There is also a good
bit of "follow the leader"* there also. Friends in Japan, in particular have
noted that alternate concept work there seems to be getting a bit of the  
squeeze in terms of rejections of alternate concept proposals. The thought
has occurred more than once that Japanese program managers may be more
reluctant to fund Japanese alternate concepts in light of the U.S.
abandonment of them. I think there is at least some truth there.

* by "follow the leader" I did not mean to imply that the U.S. is the
unchallenged pacesetter, or anything like that. Only that there are
forces that tend to nudge (almost) every national program towards
whatever the "international consensus" is at the time. I wouldn't want
to be accused of having a myopic world view. How ironic to even bring
this up since TOKAMAK is a Russian abbreviation.

>...In conclusion,
>the bitter few who claim a global tokomak conspiracy are wrong.

I agree, and would add, that they tend to look a bit foolish as well
(if not paranoid).

However, if something dies becuase of neglect or because of malicious
intent, is not the result the same?

-- 
 --------------------------------------------------------------
John W. Cobb	My posts don't reflect the views of my employer
                Because my posts are usually opaque.
 --------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenjohncobb cudfnJohn cudlnCobb cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.27 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Evolution Proves: Cold Fusion not Possible!
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Evolution Proves: Cold Fusion not Possible!
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 1994 17:08:03 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1994Apr26.185804.13906@muss.cis.mcmaster.ca>,
Thomas Michael Cantine <g9326443@mcmail.cis.mcmaster.ca> wrote:
>Wheels too!  Don't forget wheels!  If wheels are physically possible, they
>should also have evolved in some organism somewhere.

     Tumbleweed.

                             dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.30 / Matt Austern /  Re: Evolution Proves: Cold Fusion not Possible!
     
Originally-From: matt@physics2.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Evolution Proves: Cold Fusion not Possible!
Date: 30 Apr 1994 02:19:47 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (Theoretical Physics Group)

In article <CoxGxF.B4D@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> crb7q@watt.seas.Virgini
.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:

> Thomas Michael Cantine <g9326443@mcmail.cis.mcmaster.ca> wrote:
> >Wheels too!  Don't forget wheels!  If wheels are physically possible, they
> >should also have evolved in some organism somewhere.
> 
>      Tumbleweed.

Not to mention wheel-like mechanisms in the flagella of certain
microorganisms.
--
Matthew Austern                       Never express yourself more clearly
matt@physics.berkeley.edu             than you think.    ---N. Bohr
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenmatt cudfnMatt cudlnAustern cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.29 /  Publius /  Re: Evolution Proves: Cold Fusion not Possible!
     
Originally-From: publius@inca.gate.net (Publius)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Evolution Proves: Cold Fusion not Possible!
Date: 29 Apr 1994 20:44:24 -0400


: The cold fusion story is really very simple.  Fleischmann and Pons lied
: to themselves and to everyone else.  They are pushing a wild and
: unsubstantiated claim.  They lost their marbles because of greed and
 ego.  It is all amply documented.  We don't need any fancy speculations ...


  This may be true but I firmly believe that ''cold fusion' will
  be eventually discovered.  It MUST be discovered. Otherwise, how 
  will STAR TREK type travel be possible. Don't tell me it will never
  be possible.  PUBLIUS

cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenpublius cudlnPublius cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.29 / Jan Bielawski /  Re: movie: NEANDERTHAL PARK
     
Originally-From: jpb@cvsd.cv.com (Jan Bielawski)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,alt.religion.kibology,sci.math,sci
physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.chem,sci.bio
Subject: Re: movie: NEANDERTHAL PARK
Date: 29 Apr 1994 18:29:23 -0700
Organization: Computervision, San Diego, CA

In article <2pjgad$197@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>,
Ludwig Plutonium <Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
<
<This is a parody on the movie Jurassic Park. The starring actors of
<Neanderthal Park are Dick Adams, Terry Tao, Jan Bielawski, and John
<Baez, with supporting actors  David Dixon, Jeff Greason, Dan Hoey, John
<Kondis, Lynn Kurtz,  Alan Morgan, Mike Moroney, and Ben Tilly.

Oh, stop being so silly, Ludwig.  All I did was to tell you that
according to observations gravity did not obey the Newtonian
inverse square law formula.  If you don't buy GR, fine, I have
no problem with that.  Just ignore GR.  My point was only that
you cannot apply Newton and the inverse square law.  I didn't say 
anything about GR being really correct or anything like that.  
You have my blessing to trash it if you want.  But how can you
ignore results of experiments?

<In 2000 years from now we can delight in what were the
<math minors that swam together, that lived, when LP lived. Math minors
<that can not yet appreciate the fact that they lived, when LP lived. 
[---]
<Show LP going by the chimpanzee cage
<throwing in some nuts. Show LP going past the actors cage and say "Hey
<you Net looneys,cranks, and crackpots, you Net nuts. Be thankful that
<you lived in the time that LP lived."

Ludwig, what is your problem?  Don't you have any self-respect?
Don't you believe in yourself at all?  Why do you need all these 
stupid crutches, like dreams about the Nobel prize, dreams about 
other people not appreciating you?  Just be honest with yourself,
and others will likewise be honest with you.  If you feel you
don't understand something just sit down and learn it, what's
the point of flaming those who point out holes in your arguments,
what kind of discussion is this.
BTW, my name means "John" in English, so I can't qualify for any 
soprano part... :-)
-- 
	Jan Bielawski
	Computervision, San Diego
	jpb@cvsd.cv.com

cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenjpb cudfnJan cudlnBielawski cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Sat Apr 30 04:39:30 EDT 1994
------------------------------
1994.05.01 / Richard Blue /  Re:  Bill Page on Chubb and Chubb
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re:  Bill Page on Chubb and Chubb
Date: Sun, 1 May 1994 00:28:30 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Thanks, to Bill Page for providing more insight into what Chubb and
Chubb are claiming and for explaining "dimples" in the wave function.
With regard to the C&C assertion that, "There is no correlation
barrier to cold fusion.", I think I may see something wrong with the
Chubb picture.  Let me run this one by you.  The point made repeatedly
by Dr. Chubb relates to this reduction in the dimpling effects by
the factor 1/Ncell.  That is what keeps the system from having to
pay to high an energy price to overcome the correlation barrier.
However, when you think about this in combination with the fact that
the ion band wave function derives many of its properties from the
fact that a shift in position by an integer multiple of the unit
cell dimension is equivalent to staying put, haven't we made a
significant change in what is meant by correlations between the
positions of two deuterons?  As far as its interactions with the
lattice is concerned the deuteron sees the same potential at every
lattic site, but that does not apply when you consider those
coordinates that tell you whether two deuterons are within range
of the nuclear interaction.  Whether he makes it explicite or not
Dr. Chubb has actually made an assertion that the nuclear part
of the wave function which he separated as per the Born-Oppenheimer
approximation is spread over all lattice sites just like the
part of the wave function involving the center-of-mass motion
of the deuteron.  It seems too strange to me, particularly when
there are supposed to be only about 1 deuteron for every 10^7
unit cells.  Isn't that extending the range of the nuclear interaction
just a bit far?

Bill's response to my question concerning the origin of the Chubbs'
total suppression of other reaction channels also leaves me even
more confused.  Tying this to a need to preserve Born-Oppenheimer
separability of the wave function such that, "Processes that
involve the independent motion of neutrons or protons which
exceed the scale of nuclear phenomena would violate this separa-
bility and are therefore excluded." seems like getting the cart
before the horse to me.  The B-O separation is an approximation
that can be justified provided the physics is such that nothing
happens to rearrange the groupings of the constituant particles
too drastically.  If this restriction no longer applies you simply
have to scrap the separation as being appropriate for the description
of your problem.  To argue that having made the separation of my
choice I can now assert that the physics is going to do things my
way or not at all is just absurd.

Nuclear physicists have dealt with this problem in their descriptions
of nuclear reactions for 60 years.  We start with an incoming
channel involving the motions of particles A and B.  Then something
happens such that A and B no longer exist.  So we have to rewrite
the wavefunction using a different coordinate separation.  We
certainly don't say that reactions are disallowed because they
don't preserve the conditions for our approximation of the
initial wave function to be valid.  I know I am just clinging
to the wrong paradigm so help me out.  What is this Physics for
a New Age that Dr. Chubb is using?

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.28 / C Mclafferty /  Thoughts for Mr. "Plutonium"
     
Originally-From: clm3c@curry.edschool.Virginia.EDU (Charles L. Mclafferty)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics,sci.math,sci.chem,sci.
io,alt.religion.kibology,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Thoughts for Mr. "Plutonium"
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 1994 02:41:10 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

My apologies for continuing all the crossposting.

Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu  writes:
[article deleted]

>   Leon, in fact, had more to learn by visiting Dartmouth because he
> heard the PU theory, rather than the Dartmouth community learning from
> him. He heard of the PU Atom Totality and that atoms are the most
> elementary particles. No other particle exists without atoms existing.
[...]
> 
>   Leon, you could have learned more here at Dartmouth from the PU
> theory or theorem, than what you imparted on this Dartmouth community.
> And my opinion on your Nobel prize for neutrino work, although
> important, was not worthy of a Nobel prize. 

My friend, a little humility goes a long way. You will do far
more to advance your theory by working to bridge your
understanding with that of others, then by showing arrogance
and pride. I know. I've been there.


> De Rerum Natura was "published" and
> widespread in the year 0000. And because of the year 0000, we now have
> the PU theory in the year 1994. The 19 because e is approximately 19/7
> and pi is approx. 22/7 where Pu has 22 subshells (19 occupied) in a
> total of 7 shells. Pu, of course, is atomic number 94. This is year 94.

Gee. Let's look at pi for a second. It seems that a better
estimation of pi could be 19/6. I don't remember my periodic
chart, but that would correspond to a different element?

22/7=3.142857
pi  =3.159265
19/6=3.166667

In the Cosmic (if you want to play with symbology, that's fine
with me) the simpler formula has greater power, and 19/6 is not
only simpler, but it is closer to estimating pi (though I make
NO claims about the corresponding orbital haveing any
significance, nor any Cosmic connection to pi).

Using your numerology, it seems that every 94th year would be
significant, not just every hundredth year that ends in 94.


Your movie contains an important symbol: you at the "center of
the stage." It almost seems that... oh... I get it... YOU ARE
GOD-- Plutonium Himself? Hence your taking on that name as your
own?

It begs the question to ask the following, one which I hope you
will answer in the quiet of your heart:

***************************************************************
If your theory is correct, how will it work to better
humankind? How will it help us to better understand the
brotherhood of mankind and the fatherhood of God?

How can those who "persecute" you be won over to your side? (I
use quotes because I have not seen any persecution on Internet,
though I have seen thoughtful and legitmate points which *must*
be addressed and have not been)
****************************************************************

May I suggest (and it is only a suggestion, my brother) that
you try to see the scientists who have come before you as
fragile human beings who have struggled imperfectly for a
lesser or greater measure of truth? And that because of them
you are where you are now?

If you are God Himself, then you need not attack others. See us
with your infinite wisdom and patience--have mercy on us mere
mortals. You know all things, and know that our intentions are
basically good.

If you are not God, though you believe that God is talking to
you, then ask him the above questions. And ask him, *in the
name of Christ*, what his real name is. The answer may surprise
you.

God bless,
--
Charles McLafferty                 
UVa Dept of Ed Studies
clm3c@virginia.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenclm3c cudfnCharles cudlnMclafferty cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.30 /  PAUL /  RE: TFTR Update 4-27-94; Explain the Jargon
     
Originally-From: stek@amazon.pfc.mit.edu (PAUL)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: TFTR Update 4-27-94; Explain the Jargon
Date: 30 APR 94 16:00:38 GMT
Organization: MIT PLASMA FUSION CENTER

I wrote:
>Tau e is the electron confinement time.  

As many people pointed out, this is quite wrong.  It is the 
energy confinement time.  I souldn't post messages
before the morning coffee has kicked in. 

Paul Stek
Stek@cmod.pfc.mit.edu

cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenstek cudlnPAUL cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.30 / Oliver Klimek /  Re: Thoughts for Mr. "Plutonium"
     
Originally-From: fm24@rummelplatz.uni-mannheim.de (Oliver Klimek)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics,sci.math,sci.chem,sci.
io,alt.religion.kibology,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Thoughts for Mr. "Plutonium"
Date: 30 Apr 1994 16:14:05 GMT
Organization: Rechenzentrum Uni-Mannheim (RUM)

Charles L. Mclafferty (clm3c@curry.edschool.Virginia.EDU) wrote:

: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu  writes:

: > De Rerum Natura was "published" and
: > widespread in the year 0000. And because of the year 0000, we now have
: > the PU theory in the year 1994. The 19 because e is approximately 19/7
: > and pi is approx. 22/7 where Pu has 22 subshells (19 occupied) in a
: > total of 7 shells. Pu, of course, is atomic number 94. This is year 94.

: Gee. Let's look at pi for a second. It seems that a better
: estimation of pi could be 19/6. I don't remember my periodic
: chart, but that would correspond to a different element?

: 22/7=3.142857
: pi  =3.159265
: 19/6=3.166667

I am terribly sorry to have to correct you (I really don't like the fact that 
LP could mark this as a point for him in this game) but pi is 3.14159265 which
in fact is pretty close to 22/7.

Oliver
 
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenfm24 cudfnOliver cudlnKlimek cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.30 / mitchell swartz /  Evolution, Cold Fusion, Mineral Metabolism (was Evolution
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Evolution, Cold Fusion, Mineral Metabolism (was Evolution
Proves: Cold Fusion not Possible!)
Subject: Re: Evolution Proves: Cold Fusion not Possible!
Date: Sat, 30 Apr 1994 13:42:39 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <tomkCoyJJx.6FM@netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Evolution Proves: Cold Fusion not Possible!
Thomas H. Kunich (tomk@netcom.com) wrote:

= "There is probably no evolutionary advantage to wheels, but there would
= be a tremendous evolutionary advantage to any organism that could generate
= it's own energy source with a few commonly found elements."
= "In the human body alone, practically the entire periodic table is being used."
= "Yet we are to believe that with a few hand waves and a bloody simple
= manipulation, free energy is available and no organism would have discovered
= this but a couple of scientists billions of years into evolution.
=  Sure."

 Mr. Kunich says: "In the human body alone, practically the 
entire periodic table is being used."   With about 103 elements,
perhaps he might mention the sixty (60) or seventy (70) or more
which he claims  ("practically the entire periodic table")
 are essential for humans.            ;-)

   Like fractals, apparently the (absence of) knowledge of human mineral 
metabolism is mirrored by knowledge of the cold fusion phenomena.

     Best wishes.
                             Mitchell Swartz
                              mica@world.std.com


cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.30 /   /  Re: Evolution Proves: Cold Fusion not Possible!
     
Originally-From: <doldridg@fox.nstn.ns.ca>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Evolution Proves: Cold Fusion not Possible!
Date: 30 Apr 1994 14:43:57 -0300
Organization: Nova Scotia Technology Network

On 29 Apr 1994 09:57:21 GMT, 
Terry Quickenden  <tiq@yarrow.wt.uwa.edu.au> wrote:

>Markus Freericks (mfx@cs.tu-berlin.de) wrote:
>: Just a thought: (all the worst posts start with these words ;-)
>
>: If so-called "cold fusion" were a practical possibility, it would be well
>: withing the reign of organic systems. From a pure probabilistic standpoint,
>: one could then expect that _some_ organism would utilize this effect.
>
>: Presuming that there are no unknown energy-generating mechanisms in cell
>: biology which can only be explaied by CF, one can draw the
>: counter-conclusion that CF is not possible.
>
>: Markus
>
>This sound a bit like Feynman's argument regarding the non-existence 
>of polywater. I think he suggested that, if polywater existed, organisms
>would have used it to generate energy (i.e. by taking in water and excreting 
>polywater). This is mentioned in the book 'Polywater' by Felix Franks.
>
>Todd

I seem to remember reading something about element transmutation in organic 
systems way back about 25 years ago.  I think the man's name was Kevran or 
something like that and I thought (and still do think) that he was probably 
a kook.  But his stuff was readily testable by anyone with the right 
apparatus.  He was claiming changes in sodium-magnesium and 
potassium-calcium ratios in wheat seeds that he sprouted.

Anyone?
 --
 Dave Oldridge
 doldridg@fox.nstn.ns.ca
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudendoldridg cudln cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.30 / Marshall Dudley /  Re: Thoughts for Mr. "Plutonium"
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.com (Marshall Dudley)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Thoughts for Mr. "Plutonium"
Date: Sat, 30 Apr 94 18:09:40 GMT
Organization: Byte Runner BBS - Knoxville, TN - (615)966-3574, 675-4753

Charles L. McLafferty writes:

>Gee. Let's look at pi for a second. It seems that a better
>estimation of pi could be 19/6. I don't remember my periodic
>chart, but that would correspond to a different element?
>
>22/7=3.142857
>pi  =3.159265
>19/6=3.166667

Gee your totality must be part of a different atom. :)  Around here pi is
3.141592654... which is definitely closer to 22/7.

								Marshall
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenmdudley cudfnMarshall cudlnDudley cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.30 / Greg Kuperberg /  Re: Evolution Proves: Cold Fusion not Possible!
     
Originally-From: gk00@quads.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Evolution Proves: Cold Fusion not Possible!
Date: Sat, 30 Apr 1994 18:38:04 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

In article <1994Apr29.033114.16890@Princeton.EDU> rfheeter@tucson.Prince
on.EDU (Robert Franklin Heeter) writes:
>In article <1994Apr28.162838.7325@midway.uchicago.edu> gk00@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>...  Even deuterium is poisonous.
>Huh?

I'm told that you shouldn't drink heavy water, because it messes up
hydrogen transport in your system.
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudengk00 cudfnGreg cudlnKuperberg cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.30 / Greg Kuperberg /  Re: Reply to Maglich on TFTR D-T Result
     
Originally-From: gk00@quads.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reply to Maglich on TFTR D-T Result
Date: Sat, 30 Apr 1994 18:50:53 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

In article <2prpliINNklv@emx.cc.utexas.edu> johncobb@emx.cc.utexas.edu
(John W. Cobb) writes:
>>the bitter few who claim a global tokomak conspiracy are wrong.
>I agree, and would add, that they tend to look a bit foolish as well
>(if not paranoid).

Actually, they look more arrogant and greedy to me than either
foolish or paranoid.

>However, if something dies becuase of neglect or because of malicious
>intent, is not the result the same?

If non-tokomak fusion research were dead, then yeah, maybe.  But it's
not dead, it's just underfunded.  Non-tokamak fusion theory (or at
least theory which is not specific to tokamaks) in particular is alive
and well.

Even in the best of worlds, the tokamak design would still be
recognized as the luckiest number on the roulette wheel even if it is
only one number (to use a metaphor coming recently from Washington).
There lies the biggest distortion of Maglich and Koloc.  They not
only say that tokamaks are overrated, they say that tokamaks are
lousy.  It makes no sense.
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudengk00 cudfnGreg cudlnKuperberg cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.30 / L Plutonium /  Re: Quantum Theory now disproves Darwinian Evolution
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.bio,sci.physics,sci.math,sci.physics.fusion,sci.chem,sci.geo.geology
Subject: Re: Quantum Theory now disproves Darwinian Evolution
Date: 30 Apr 1994 20:06:35 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In article <2poipm$a2n@trans.jpl.nasa.gov>
kdq@trans.jpl.nasa.gov (Kevin D. Quitt) writes:
> Not only will they develop resistance to it, they'll learn how to
> metabolize it if it's omnipresent.  There is a species of grasshopper
> that converts DDT into a super-ant-repellent (for use when the female
> is helpless laying her eggs).  Almost no matter what it is, if there's
> enough of it, *something* will learn how to eat it.

Since I limit myself to 3 posts per 24 hours, I can only combine
responses.
Kevin's post is accurate. And it has suggested to me that I must SHOW
the biology community that their theory of evolution is not science but
algorithm-- a help or aid in understanding. I must show them that
Natural Selection is no more true science then to pretend that the
misnomered Uniformity Principle in geology is science.

In article <890707p.144.2DB7C7E2@axe.acadiau.ca>
890707p@axe.acadiau.ca (GLENN G. PARSONS) writes:
> Furthermore, the many "muddle headed thinkers" of philosophy 
> have made great strides in creating an intellectual framework for science 
> (more than your own biases are doing I may add)

   Do you not think you are being too defensive towards evolution? And
you bring up these references to "philosophy", "framework", and "how
science works". I am debating evolution against QM. I could care less
what a whole string of philosophers (birdbrains, I may add)

   In fact a discussion as to whether QM will destroy evolution should
not concern itself with philosophy at all. That reminds me of the last
great debate between creationists and evolution. The creationists would
invoke supernatural. Now evolution is up against another science, not
religion. QM is a powerful science, and many would argue it is the
pinnacle of physics. So, Glenn, are you going to invoke philosophy into
the debate? It would be nice if you would defend evolution on the
standards of what QM is based on--experiments, observation, and math
logic. And just like true science, when the evidence is against a
theory the theory is revised or thrown out. Explain the increase and
persistance of homosexuality in many species of animals.

   I only state the facts and draw the conclusion concerning QM and
evolution. And for the benefit of those who came onto this thread late,
let me summarize the facts and draw those conclusions. Let me show you
that QM proves Darwin evolution, or the Modern Synthesis, or whatever
fancy name you want to give to this bio theory. Once you see QM, then
the conclusion is that Natural Selection is as false and a fakery as
creationism is, and as Lamarckianism is, and as Lysenko-ism is. 

   (1) All things are made of atoms, and what is not atoms is the void
between atoms (I will for once not bring into discussion of the ATOM
TOTALITY).

   (2) The  physicist Schroedinger argued in his book What Is Life? 
that the genetic basis of living organisms must have a physical,
molecular basis.  Molecules are the ordering of atoms.  
	Feynman argued that life is what the atoms do.  Everything that living
things do must be ultimately explained and understood in terms of what
atoms do according to the laws of physics.  Life has a physical basis. 

   (3) QM works, even though it seems a many-valued logic and is
counterintuitive. The mathematics of QM, especially QED is the pinnacle
of math prediction and observed experimental results. In science, those
who know science well put QM as the pinnacle of science. Men such as
Bohr, Heisenberg,Dirac,Pauli,Feynman knew science well. Not quacks and
crackpots like Popper, Lovelock, Hawking, Wheeler, Edward O.Wilson,
Richard Dawkins, Leon Lederman, Roger Penrose, Paul Davies who are in
it for the money to grind out another book or textbook that their
insipid followers fob off as science in classrooms around the world.

   (4) John Bell formulated an Inequality to test QM against Classical
physics on the large scale. On the scale, Glenn, which you claim QM is
silent, but which in fact is the importance of the Bell Inequality.
Here are your words exactly Glenn.

> Unfortunately, you still haven't shown that quantum mechanics accounts for 
> processes at a macromolecular level.

I have Glenn, but you do not yet understand the Bell Inequality  or QM,
and its magnificent consequences. The whole point of the Bell
Inequality is that it is QM on the size of Earth, stars and galaxies
cosmology, and no longer on the small scale of atoms and the
Uncertainty Principle.

   (5) Bell Inequality and QM was proved correct circa early 1980's,
and Classical physics and Einstein were proved wrong. Aspect
experiments did the proving.

   (6) Independent of the Bell Inequality, independent of QM, is the
Special Relativity fact that no speed signal exists which is faster
than the speed of light. The speed of light is the same in all
reference frames directly implies no superluminal speed SIGNALS. (Note
to those who really understand physics, I write---no superluminal speed
signal. I like to be as logically correct as possible, dot the i's and
cross the t's.)

   (7) So now Glenn, we have a math logic contradiction that the Bell
Inequality is correct and it is correct that no speed signals are
faster than light. What are we since one contradicts the other? Is
physics destroyed? Should we throw out Special Relativity? Should we
throw out QM. Hades no. There is one way to reconcile both. And this is
the very beautiful thing there is only one way to reconcile both.

   (8) There is one way out. Only one way out. The answer is
SUPERDETERMINISM. If we are granted superdeterminism then everything in
physics is back to calm in physics, because with superdeterminism we
have no speed signal faster than light and we have QM with the Bell
Inequality and the Aspect Experimental Results. Both in one and not
contradicting each other.

  (9) What is superdeterminism? Good question. And it is best that John
Bell answered it. And it is here, I dread to say, whole herds of big
mouthed,know little philosophers come charging in with their mind rot.

   John Bell said it best---I quote John Bell's thinking on
superdeterminism: "[Superdeterminism] involves absolute determinism in
the universe, the complete absence of free will. Suppose the world is
super-deterministic, with not just inanimate nature running on
behind-the-scenes clockwork, but with our behavior, including our
belief that we are free to choose to do one experiment rather than
another, absolutely predetermined, including the "decision" by the
experimenter to carry out one set of measurements rather than another,
the difficulty disappears.  There is no need for a faster than light
signal to tell particle A what measurement has been carried out on
particle B, because the universe, including particle A, already "knows"
what that measurement, and its outcome, will be.

    (10) What does this mean to evolution theory of biology? It means
that evolution is wrong. It means that Natural Selection is merely an
algorithm to help try to see what had happened or what might happen in
the future. It means that evolution is wrong science. It means that
just as the idea in geology---what used to be given a "high fluting
name" "an over dignified title--- principle ", the principle of
uniformity-- uniform processes through geologic time. Evolution of
biology is in a similar circumstance now with QM. Uniformity and
Evolution are not principles, not theories, neither one of them is a
principle or theory. Both are algorithms, mere aids in helping to
understand, pnemonic devices. Roy G Biv is a pnemonic device to try to
remember red, orange, yellow,... Evolution is a pnemonic device to try
to answer why the dinosaurs or any lifeform became extinct. Noone who
really knows science well pretends that the Uniformity principle is
true science. With my teachings, noone in the future will pretend that
evolution is more than an algorithm.

     (11) The logical conclusion is that either QM with Bell Inequality
and Special Relativity with ALL THEIR CONFIRMING EXPERIMENTAL evidence
is wrong. Or, the more likely case--Evolution is wrong.

     (12) It was easy for the evolutionists to win debates against
creationists. But now, in the year 1994 we have QM walking through the
Fields of Biology, and if you are smart, you will place your bets on
QM. Natural Selection is garbage. It is a circular argument because it
reduces by math logic to this---the fittest fit. Natural Selection is
an algorithm at best. When you use Natural Selection as "differential
reproductive success" that is a good aid in helping to understand, but
it is not true science. The truth is SUPERDETERMINISM.

      (13) Noone yet has posted detailed anomalies to evolution. One
obvious anomaly of evolution is homosexuality. Homosexuality is
increasing. Evolution of Natural Selection is violated. Glenn, you talk
about how your evolution theory is "framework and a model of science".
Well surely you must have read somewhere that just one experimental
fact or observation can disprove a theory no matter how much supporting
evidence. Evolution has never answered homosexuality, and it never can.
Because evolution is false and a fakery. What is true is
superdeterminism. Then also, evolution is deaf and dumb when it comes
to COINCIDENCES both in physical nature and in the history of ideas
(mental nature) such as the discovery of evolution itself. Wallace and
Darwin by coincidence at almost the same time. Evolution theory is a
babbling idiot mouth piece when it comes to explaining the numerous
coincidences that occur everyday. But here again, the babbling
philosophers, no-nothing scientists, and book sellers jump in with
quackery of randomness and probability.

    (14) The defensive posturing by biologists is to be expected
because the biology community as of 1994 has only two theories to
defend (1) Cell theory (2) Evolution. I have nothing against the cell
theory--it is good science. But Evolution is a pure FAKERY. Instead of
calling it Natural Selection call it Fittest Fit. A circular argument
that says nothing. The Uniformity idea in geology can help draw a
picture and so can the "differential reproductive success" help as an
algorithm but to elevate either one of these as principle or theory of
science is stupid.

    (15) There you have the summary. In a sentence, QM disproves
biological evolution. And QM replaces it with something more
powerful---Superdeterminism. Plus, the bonus----purpose. Life has a
purpose and that purpose is nucleosynthesis, to make the elements
beyond plutonium. But I promised not to bring up the Atom Totality and
so I leave it at that.

In article <2pk6rg$e3a@quartz.ucs.ualberta.ca>
gpommen@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca (Greg Pommen) writes: [most deleted]
> Although trying to predict how things will evolve is difficult at best
> it is not impossible.

If evolution were a true science and not a fakery then there would NOT
be an increase in homosexuality, not only in humans but in fish and
other animals.
Increase in homosexuality and Natural Selection as differential
reproductive success are contradictory. A general population can have
incidents of mutation of homosexuality such as what chaos theory would
allow. But to have increases in homosexuality in many animals says
Natural Selection is no more than an algorithmic help to understanding.


In article <2pkgdb$pb5@homer.cs.mcgill.ca>
jerry@cs.mcgill.ca (Jerry KUCH) writes:
> OK... fine... you can make intuitively compelling statements like
> "evolution may respond to selective pressure," but I wouldn't go as
> far as calling them real predictions.  Your example is almost like
> saying that if we were to bombard the earth's surface with hard gamma
> rays while making sure everyone went outdoors first that humans would
> develop with a resistance to hard gamma rays.
> Beyond a certain (fairly low) level, I don't think you're going to
> find hard-gamma-ray-resistance genes in the human population.

  I agree with you Jerry. And I see a paucity of predictions that
evolution theory has come up with. On the other hand let us look at the
predictions of Superdeterminism.

Science engineering will increase.

Life on Earth will be biotech engineered far more advanced than in the
movie Bladerunner. Because we are here for a purpose.

Biotech engineering will increase and it will come to the point where
Humans control life for the most part. To do more nucleosynthesis.
Humans of the future will be the Creator of life, not only of himself
but of all the life surrounding him.

Just as the Gaia idea is a Fakery because in the distant future all of
the planets and there moons will be carved out and cargo hauled into
making MULTIEARTHS. And Earth will no longer exist but be reorbited
along with the other planets. There Gaia is false because it will cease
to regulate in the future, hence, it never ever regulated itself. The
carving out and making of MULTIEARTHS is simply more progress for more
nucleosynthesis.

To do nucleosynthesis by stars, there are many stars, cold
nucleosynthesis is life. Since there are many stars there are many
planets with life on our same level of progress. I am in the works of
proving that we are not alone in the universe, but that there are many
planets with almost identical cultural progress as we at present on
Earth. For us to meet an alien life form and that alien life form
speaks a language which is also English give or take a few words is
beyond coincidence. And those aliens have never had contact with us.
When we meet those aliens we can reflect back to the time when the
planet Earth had the quant idea, and laugh, that evolution was taken as
hard core science.
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.27 / Cameron Bass /  Re: (no subject given)
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics
Subject: Re: (no subject given)
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 1994 22:21:10 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <94116.192626DOCTORJ@slacvm.slac.stanford.edu>,
Jon J Thaler  <DOCTORJ@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> wrote:
>
>Here is the text of the top quark bet.  I am not an unbiased evaluator,
>since my office is two doors down from Tony Liss's (he's the co-convenor
>of the CDF top quark group).  I'll abide by the consensus.
>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) says:
>
>>Jon J Thaler  <DOCTORJ@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> wrote:
>
>>> What odds will you give against its being seen in the next six months?
>>> Put up or shut up...  I expect at least 3:1 in my favor, since you're
>>> so sure about this.
>
>>     The first person willing to do so.  Must be some 'fresh' data
>>     rumoring around.
>
>>     3:1 to you is fine by me.  I'm willing to take $1, $10, $100 ......
>
>>                              dale bass
>
>OK.  My $1 versus your $3.  Six months from now is May 11, 1994.

     On the other hand, with five times the amount of clean data
     in the next year or so, perhaps we should just extend until
     May 11, 1995?

     Against the official odds, I'm still willing to bet against.

                             dale bass

cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.29 / Robert Heeter /  Re: TFTR Update 4-27-94; Explain the Jargon
     
Originally-From: rfheeter@tucson.Princeton.EDU (Robert Franklin Heeter)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: TFTR Update 4-27-94; Explain the Jargon
Date: Fri, 29 Apr 1994 03:29:23 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

I just have a few random comments to make...

In article <28APR94.13291894@amazon.pfc.mit.edu> stek@amazon.pfc.mit.edu (PAUL) writes:
>
>>From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
>>Date: 28-APR-1994  01:59:38
>>Description: Re: TFTR Update 4-27-94; Explain the Jargon
>> [[  quoting the 4/27/94 tftr news article by Rich Hawryluk ]]
>
>>>Preliminary results from these experiments were reported on at the Boulder.
>>>Co. RF Workshop.
>>goody, nice clear air.. I think Nic T. spent time there abouts, trying 
>>to broadcast power via the ionosphere.  An appropriate and lofty place.   

Actually Boulder air isn't all that clear; you have to get up into
the nearby mountains to really enjoy it.
>
>The athletic interests of the members of the ICRF community contribute to 
> the location and time of year of this meeting.  The one us students get to 
>go to is never in such a nice place.   

For instance, the APS-DPP conference is going to be in November -
in Minnesota.  (Well, I'll be happy anyway, because my family lives there.)

>>>Unlike the DD case, though, some
>>>alpha particles were lost only after being heated above their birth energy.
>>>The magnitude of this loss observed so far is of the same order as the
>>>first orbit loss (95%).

There was a font error in the original message; the correct value
is 5%; that is most alphas are not lost immediately.  So they are
available to heat the plasma.
>
>>But wait, that indicates a larger carry off of cooling power.  I 
>>thought they idea was the heat the plasma by fusion for more continued 
>>burn.  Then suck out the cooled ash so it doesn't build up and 
>>interfere with the remaining burn rates.  Or has not that problem 
>>been solved yet???    
>
>This is research.  How to eliminate ash without interfering with Alpha heating
>is being worked out.  We now have some alphas to work with.  

There have been some interesting proposals which suggest that with
a "good" plasma wave of some sort, you can (a) induce the alphas to
leave the center of the plasma, (b) induce the alphas to dump most
of their energy into the wave, and (c) absorb the wave energy in the
fuel ions rather than in the electrons.  Normal alpha heating 
involves alphas scattering off electrons and dumping energy into
electron heating.  The electrons are then supposed to heat the ions.
But it would be more efficient in several ways to just heat the
ions directly.  Getting the alphas to leave is also a big plus.
There are a few theorists here working on the idea, but there haven't
been any experiments done yet.

>
>>Tau is a confinement time, but tau "E"??    
>Tau e is the electron confinement time. 

Actually, I'm 90% sure it's the energy confinement time.

Looks like I've got a few more entries for the Frequently Used
Terms file to write up...

Thanks for the help finding trouble spots...

*************************
Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Graduate Student, Princeton Plasma Physics Lab
usual disclaimers apply
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.29 / Robert Heeter /  Re: Evolution Proves: Cold Fusion not Possible!
     
Originally-From: rfheeter@tucson.Princeton.EDU (Robert Franklin Heeter)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Evolution Proves: Cold Fusion not Possible!
Date: Fri, 29 Apr 1994 03:31:14 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

In article <1994Apr28.162838.7325@midway.uchicago.edu> gk00@midway.uchicago.edu writes:

>...  Even
>deuterium is poisonous.
> ...

Huh?

*******************
Robert F. Heeter
etc.


cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.30 / Paul Koloc /  Re: TFTR Update 4-27-94; Explain the Jargon
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: TFTR Update 4-27-94; Explain the Jargon
Date: Sat, 30 Apr 1994 06:01:22 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <2pqovgINN22d@slcawc.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de> awc@ipp-garching.mpg.de writes:

>>> Beta is usually measured relative to the total, local field
>(loosely called beta toroidal), but sometimes the plasma pressure 
>relative to only the poloidal component of the field (beta poloidal)
>or relative to some external field (like the maximum field at the
>magnetic coils) is more useful. 

Beta toroidal since the toroidal field dominates .. 
Beta poloidal when confinement is of interest, or a better number
is needed :-).  


Since the plasma current generates the poloidal field, which the 
vertical field (coil driven) neutralizes.  At the plasma the resultant 
field is closed and produces the "confinement" pressure on the plasma.  
In tokamaks, the poloidal field must remain a small fraction of the 
kink stabilizing or "plasma stiffening" toroidal field.  Consequently, 
the beta(toroidal) is a small compared to beta(poloidal).  Since the 
ability to produce high pressure is advantageous to generate fusion 
conditions, this reduced or restricted obtainable "confining" poloidal 
field pressure is an unfortunate major inherent disadvantage for the 
tokamak.  

Considering the location of the maximum pressure surface at the 
pressure generating  apparatus, we can calculate the Beta * (beta 
star) or Engineering Beta as the ratio of the maximum plasma 
pressure to said maximum apparatus pressure.   
  
In a tokamak, that value is proabably just less than one percent (
where the maximum pressure is at the inner equatorial surface of the
poloidal (toroidal field) coils of 1 to 1.7 kbar (thousand atm). That
means the maximum aparatus pressure that engineers must design for 
(a significant portion of the pressure apparatus in the tokamak case) 
over one hundred times greater than the plasma pressure it stablizes. 
Saying it another way, only one percent of the engineering effort to
generate radial pressure is actually utilized in a sustained and 
effective generation of thermonuclear plasma pressure.  

>See also: pressure, kinetic pressure, magnetic pressure, 
>second stability.

>[Plasma pressure=nkT; plasma energy density=(3/2)nkT.]

Well .. if you want to ignore their conceptual kinship.    

>* beta limit, also called Troyon limit: If the plasma 
>pressure in a tokamak becomes too high, the so-called 
>balooning modes become unstable and lead to a loss
>of confinement (sometimes catastophic, sometimes not). The exact 
>value at which this occurs depends strongly on the magnetic field 
>B, the plasma minor radius a, and the toroidal plasma current I, 
>such that maximum value of the normalized beta, beta_N=beta*B*a/I,
>is around 4% (with B in Teslas, a in meters, and I in Mega-amperes).
>The exact value depends on details of the plasma shape, the plasma
>profiles, and the safety factor.

Hmmm    B.... N....  Sound like shoe sizes from Europe.   Keep things
simple AND consistent, please ..  .  

Silly.     
Since the plasma current generates B(poloidal)... why bother with
the bizarre scatter of commutables.    "I" in mega-amps ...  indeed! 

It depends on shear.  Give the pretzel more twist.    
Better yet, turn it into a Spheromak (with a hole).  

>[Now "ballooning modes" needs an entry!]

>ELM: an "Edge Localized Mode" found often in H-mode plasmas. This 
>is a temporary relaxation of the very high edge gradients found in
>H-modes. It may be a relaxation back to the L-mode.

Observe any X-ray emission from these episodes?  

Has anyone figured out why H-mode is H... that is why the edge
diffusion drops and the radial thermal gradient flattens??  

How does this differ from the Super H mode. 

>[This is stolen from Paul Stek's post, because it's not bad for a
>3 sentence description.]

>* High-mode or H-mode:  (from Herman) A regime of operation
>attained most easily during auxiliary heating of divertor 
>tokamak plasmas
>when the injected power is sufficiently high.  A sudden
>improvement in particle confinement time leads to increased
>density and temperature, distinguishing this mode from
>the normal "low mode."

I think that the key to being in H-mode relates to the sharpness of 
the boundary at the plasma/vacuum field edge, which depends on 
cleaned or ultra clean vacuum, and an edge conductivity driver such
as an EMF (which could be of high frequency, I suppose).   

>>> H-mode has now been achieved without auxiliary heating, 
>without a divertor, and even without a tokamak (in a stellarator). <<

It must have been a very "clean" stellarator, although I fail to
see how it could have been observed since the heating is so poor
in such beasts.  I'm a bit suspicious.  Was this a torsatron?? 

>* Confinement Time:  Several types:  (adapted from Herman)  
>Tau_[E, N, ...] is the amount of time the plasma is contained by 
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>magnetic fields before its [energy (E), particles (N), ...] leak / 
>dissipate away.  The different types are, in general, similar but 
                                                      ^^^^^^^^^^^
>not equal.
And, how about the magnetic tau, the time it takes for a B field to
diffuse through a plasma shell.   (or other conducting shell) 

>[Tau_E is *not* "electron" confinement time!]

Actually I was thinking fixed inductive loop .. L/R time (Emf=Ld(i)/dt 
time or tau).  

>* Tau: Usually refers to energy- or some other confinement time (see entry).

>Art Carlson
>Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics
>awc@ipp-garching.mpg.de

People from Garching know and do, (except at lunch and lunch recovery).  
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc,Bx 1037, Prometheus II, Ltd., College Park, MD 20741-1037 |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.01 / John Logajan /  Re: Reply to Maglich on TFTR D-T Result
     
Originally-From: 74242.1554@compuserve.com (John M. Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reply to Maglich on TFTR D-T Result
Date: Sun, 1 May 1994 00:28:24 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

johncobb@emx.cc.utexas.edu (John W. Cobb) writes:
>...the U.S. was never able to get a handle on its declared "war on drugs"
>because of the continuing battles over who was in charge and who
>controlled the money. 

Your analysis goes awry here.  The outcome of the war on drugs was pre-
ordained by the nature of the problem, i.e. a massive assault on civil
liberties in order to impose a puritanical one-size-fits-all vision of
the proper role of mankind.  The greater the efficieny of the warriors
was/is proportional to the magnitude of corrosiveness on human liberty. 

Tokamak might be unworkable in the commerical sense, but I don't think we
have to go so far as to compare it to such a heinous policy.


cudkeys:
cuddy1 cuden1554 cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.01 / Richard Blue /  RE: Muon catalyzed fusion in PdD
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: Muon catalyzed fusion in PdD
Date: Sun, 1 May 1994 00:28:25 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Laurie Forbes asked:
<  Is it possible that naturally generated muons (from cosmic rays  >
<  or background radiation perhaps) have caused or aided the spor-  >
<  adic and apparently difficult to repeat emissions from PdD cells?>

That idea occurred to someone very soon after the P&F press conference,
so it was put to an experimental test by Kashy et al. of Michigan State
University and the results published.  Basically they looked for
neutron bursts and found none.  Of course, as with many such null
experiments there had been no observation of "excess enthalpy
production" to demonstrate that cold fusion had actually been
occuring.  At least one can say that there is nothing special
about the PdD lattice as a site for muon catalyzed fusion without
the establishment of those wonderful deuteron ion band states that
are supposed to radically change physcis on all scales.

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.30 / David Ring /  Re: (no subject given)
     
Originally-From: dwr2560@tamuts.tamu.edu (David Wayne Ring)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics
Subject: Re: (no subject given)
Date: 30 Apr 1994 18:27:24 -0500
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station

>Jon J Thaler  <DOCTORJ@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> wrote:
>>Here is the text of the top quark bet.  I am not an unbiased evaluator,
>>since my office is two doors down from Tony Liss's (he's the co-convenor
>>of the CDF top quark group).  I'll abide by the consensus.
>>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> What odds will you give against its being seen in the next six months?

Hmmm... it seems that a 'discovery announcement' is not the issue. I think
if this 'evidence' is confirmed then the top will have been seen in the
stated period. If it is found to be a statistical fluctuation, then it
will have been unseen. So I would say that the decision will have to wait
for further data.

Dave Ring
Cdude@phys.tamu.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudendwr2560 cudfnDavid cudlnRing cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.01 / L Plutonium /  Re: movie: NEANDERTHAL PARK
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,alt.religion.kibology,sci.math,sci
physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.chem,sci.bio
Subject: Re: movie: NEANDERTHAL PARK
Date: 1 May 1994 01:33:46 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In article <2psc9j$4a1@cvsd.cvsd.cv.com>
jpb@cvsd.cv.com (Jan Bielawski) writes:
> BTW, my name means "John" in English, so I can't qualify for any 
> soprano part... :-)

I thought you were a female via Jan. Of course my attitude changes. XX
chromosomes think differently than XY. I learned that along time ago as
Archimedes. I had women hold the burning mirrors because they are
better conforming people, not so spiteful. You see the photons shoot
from the protons of 231PU have less interference in the brain for XX
people than XY people.

In article <2pr50e$6i1@news.u.washington.edu>
rmholt@u.washington.edu (Rose Marie Holt) writes:
> I think the scene including Steven Hawking running in a herd like fashion
> is a little too unrealistic, and you probably have enough physicists
> to make up a herd even if you leave him out.

This line made me laugh out loud.

In article <1994Apr29.130616.1@ube.ubalt.edu>
eajqrda@ube.ubalt.edu (Dick Adams) writes:
> I am always honored to be included as an object of your criticism
> against academics.  In deference to my colleagues, I should note
> that I am undeserving of first billing.  But, what the hell - you
> know as much about academic rankings as you do about mathematics,
> physics, and chemistry.
> Dick - no disclaimers are necessary

I disagree Dick. You are a natural born Net Comedian. Your intended
humorous posts turn out humorous. But it is your serious posts,e.g.
vampire numbers which turn out side-splitting hilarous. That is why I
want you as my starring actor to draw the crowds. And it is good that I
spotted your talents long before some unscrupulous Hollywood talent
scout scoops you up.

In article <1994Apr28.194431.26770@ptdcs2.intel.com>
greason@ptdcs2.intel.com (Jeff Greason) writes:
> Let me just say in closing that having me act the part of "teachers 
> regurgitating Bible babble" is going to require pretty intense suspension
> of disbelief on the part of anyone who knows me ... it's about the last 
> thing you'd expect to see me do.  But an even bigger stretch would be required
> to have you act the part of someone who has any interest in understanding
> the world around you.

  In that same SKIT as mentioned showing Jeff in the stages of
regurgitation, show Jeff acting the role of driving mindlessly up and
down the Oregon highway. Show Jeff looking left off the higway and
seeing a surrealistic hospital off the highway with overly bright
lights. And in this hospital one sees Jeff inside pacing back and forth
and raving foam coming out of his mouth. The Jeff on the highway speeds
up because he cannot this image that he saw of himself, nor the stomach
regurgitation. Jeff is trying to cage his eyes on the Oregon highway
for he fears that if he looks off to either side of the highway that
the image of superbright lights in a hospital and himself, Jeff, raving
with foam or being straightjacketed will reappear. Then show Jeff see
himself 3 or 4 times in the hospital to the left and right alternating.
Show Jeff exiting the highway and now it starts to downpour rain as so
often happens in Oregon and Jeff scurries into his house and gets onto
his computer to blitz the sci.heirarachies newsgroups. Show Jeff
mumbling something about how important his new revelations are, all two
of them, and what they mean for the NET.

In article <2pm0u6$6n4@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Benjamin.J.Tilly@dartmouth.edu (Benjamin J. Tilly) writes:
> In article <mcirvin.767415558@scws1.harvard.edu>
> mcirvin@scws1.harvard.edu (Matt McIrvin) writes:
> > Hey, no fair... I read the whole thing, and I wasn't in it ANYWHERE!!
> Hey, I will give you my part! You can do the dasterdly deed of
> informing people that LP exists instead of me! I mean, it is not as if
> I am being *paid* a heck of a lot for it...
> Ben Tilly

Okay Matt, sorry for the omission. I will give you an acting spot in
SKIT 11. 

   Ben, you do seem to have a funny bone, after all. 
   And, instead of repeating "LP knows no math, he is just a
dishwasher" in the skits, mix it up a little by varying it. Say "LP
knows no math, he is just a potwasher" now and then. Your long hippie
hair is just fine for Neanderthal Park, you fit right in. Only please,
oh please do not clog-up the shower drains with your hair. Thanks. 

SKIT 11 of NEANDERTHAL PARK

  This skit is a la SCTV to make fun of philosophers. Show Matt McIrvin
putting a few coins into an Indent-o-Meter in Neanderthal Park to park
his air polluting gas guzzler. Show his auto as some huge foul air
polluter with a bumper stickers on back saying "Green Peace save the
whales" and another saying "Halt Nuclear Power Plants".
  Show a band of 5-year-old kids with Dick Adams acting as one of them
and show John Baez the teacher of this band who has brought his
classroom out to Neanderthal Park. John is off in the distance trying
to round-up his pupils in order to give them some more of his dull dry
lectures on some remote part of physics. Just last week only half of
his class could pronounce the word physics. Do you blame these
5-year-olds from trying to get away from him? Those 5-year-olds want
some fun freetime. Aha, but here John has caught up with his 5-year-old
pupils.

JOHN: "Any more naive questions about Everett Interpretation"?

5-YEAR-OLD: "How much money so I can buy some fishfood to throw the
school of fish" The class was very much enthralled that the fishheads
of Julia, Gina, Richard Dawkins, Edward O. Wilson and so many others
swam in perfect unison. How each fish keeps an eye and ear out on the
other and swim in perfect unison. WOW

DICK ADAMS TO HIS CLASSMATE: "I save my money for the Vampire Omega
games".

JOHN TO A 5-YEAR-OLD: "Not as much money as I lost on my bet on Wiles's
FLT. Have I told you about the Taniyama Weil Shmimura conjecture and
the Selmer group bound, as John repositions his baseball cap . .

DICK TO JOHN: "Mr. Baez you have a cowlick in your hair."

JOHN TO DICK: "Have you read the article in Scientific American on
Everett's Interpr...."

DICK INTERRUPTING JOHN: "Mr.Baez, my father says that Vampire Omega is
on the leading cutting edge, . . ."

  This skit shows reasonable scientists alongside unreasonable one.

Scene 1. Scene 1 shows Matt McIrvin trying to teach a Harvard class
that the only worthwhile philosophy is pragmatism because pragmatism is
scientific. And later in the term Matt has called in R. Feynman as the
guest lecturer.
Feynman lecturing, .. .. and he says " ... philosophers and other
fools."
Strident hands go up by many students and it is not hard to see who are
philosophy students. The regular cast of Neanderthal actors are playing
the students here. I must mention that Terry Tao won both an Oscar and
Emmy for his role as a philosophy student. But that is what he was all
along, so he claimed at the awards ceremony.

   1st hand:  ... but Kant,,,
   2nd hand:  ... but Plato,...
   interrupting obnoxious student (acted by Terry Tao) ... but
phenomenology,..
   another interrupter  ... but Aristotle,..
   obnoxious student interrupting second interrupter  ... but
Wittgenstein..
   new obnoxious interrupting student interruppting the first
obnoxious,..

Feynman quickly scoots out of the room with Matt close by. Feynman is
muttering something like "Hitler was right, slash and burn, you guys
should have had Hitler come as your guest lecturer, . .

Scene 2. Scene 2 shows Matt McIrvin just finishing his new book which
incorporates the ATOM TOTALITY and leans heavily on the PU theory. He
wants to publish it quickly because he feels the propagandists are too
numerous and too much in the spotlight. 
   Show Matt walking into the Harvard University Press managers office
only to be disappointed because Matt finds out his new book is being
prejudiced against because Matt only mentions Barry Mazur once in his
400 pages. The manager feels that he can not say that outright to his
face and so the manager tells Matt that his new book is not acceptable
because it is not in TEX format.
 
  Show Matt grumbling and spending 6 months putting his book in TEX
format. This time when Matt is interviewed by Harvard University Press
manager, he rejects his book because Matt was not reverential enough
towards Darwin, Dawkins and Wilson's evolution theory. The manager
tells Matt that the customary language is to call these guys Sir
Knighthood.
  The manager of Harvard Press bends poor Matt's ears by saying ",..not
since the Boston tea party can we show freedom of the press,.. ,this
country and the Harvard environ is-- of the paper dollar, by the paper
dollar, and for the paper dollar. The manager draws Matt over to the
window showing the Boston environ. Look out there Matt, tell me what do
you see. Matt sees welfare sluts driving around in air polluting gas
guzzlers wearing genuine animal fur coats and cars filled with little
bastards, all illegitimate and male philanderers on every street
corner. What do you see Matt? Is that your wife down there? 
  The manager continues. You see this great country has almost 1/2 of
the people on entitlements. We were born entitled to accept the big
bang and black holes and  welfare checks. Nature was entitled to smear
cold fusion.  And this great school of Harvard and Harvard Press helped
bring about those freedom of entitlements. Why Matt we stood as a
beacon of knowledge for that since 17 and, when was it? Oh well, around
the tea party.
  The manager of Harvard Press is tired of Matt and says, . . now run
along Matt, .. . " Matt runs outside of the office but he sees Edward
O. Wilson. The manager calls in Wilson and Matt hangs-on trying to
overhear what the manager is saying to Wilson. "... Oh, you only have a
rough outline of your new 84th book" .. "How charming, what is that,
you only made several million on your last publication,"? "Well we will
just rush your rough manuscript through, I will get INVENTIONES
MATHEMATICAE to finish it for you, they specialize in half-baked
ideas." "Is next Thursday fast enough for you Edward?" E. O. Wilson
leaves and the manager gets the secretary on the phone. Manager asks
her how much Wilson's books have logged in sales. Secretary looks up
her Rollerdxxx file,and in a customary Harvard tweety bird voice while
chewing and popping gum "Oh, yes sir, Mr. Edward O. Wilson books have
now grossed over a 100 million"

Scene 3. Scene 3 has actor Mike Moroney showing off to viewers his new
fine art of arguing. It is called the Moroney technique, or Moron for
short. Here is Mike now at his computer console showing his technique.
Mike: "Well, its quite easy, I have LP on auto select file." Mike
chuckles while he is stuffing his mouth with pigs feet and pork rinds
and says, "LP has me on kill file."
Interviewer: "Yes, about the Moron technique, if you please,.."
Mike: "As I was saying, I pull up all of LP's posts and I go against
them on some detail. And then I wait for a week or longer to get my
argument off the air and I repost the very same argument asking why no
answer even when there was an answer."
Interviewer: "What happens when LP fully answers your complaint"? 
Mike: "That is the fun part of this technique. I just wait low, until
that posting in the thread has disappeared and then I repost the exact
same complaint reworded."
Interviewer: "Oh, I see, it is just a matter of who has the greater NET
posting stamina that wins in your game. But do your posts sound like a
broken record after a while?"
Mike: "Well I have kept up with the 22/7 for a year now and I think it
is good for another 10. I am even training my son here." Show a little
Mike eating mustard sardines and breadfruit with a smile on his face.

Scene 4. Scene 4 shows the Jan technique of debate. Play acted by Lynn
Kurtz.
Interviewer: "Please tell us about the Jan technique of debate."
Lynn: "It is an old technique, perhaps as old as the oldest
profession--whoring."
Interviewer's eyes widen and John and his band of 5 year olds come
rushing over to see what the excitement is about in this corner of
NEANDERTHAL PARK. Dick spent some money on a custom designed T-shirt. 
Dick wanted a vampire omega number as the insignia but John promised
Dick to write his next book on Vampire Omega numbers if he put "EVERETT
R US" on his shirt.
Lynn: "The Jan technique is simple. We have LP on auto select and
whereever his posts are we just get on there with a follow-up which is
contrapositive to his post."
Interviewer: "Do you have any facts or details supporting your
negations of LP's posts."
Lynn: "That is the beauty of the Jan Technique, we support nothing. We
just say the opposite of what LP says."
Interviewer: "But what happens when LP calls you out on your
contrapositive postings"?
Lynn: "He rarely does because he is too busy and on those occasions
when he does. It is simple, we just change the topic to something about
how LP nevers defends or supports his claims."
Interviewer: "That must drive LP up the wall."
Lynn: "That is the purpose of the Jan technique. Look at all of the Jan
Bielawski posts, none have a shred of factual content. They are all
designed to intimidate LP."
Interviewer: "Quite a nerve racking technique. How effective has it
been against LP?"
Scene is inadvertently interrupted with Jan singing in a rap voice the
familiar tune of You Say, .. I Say , .. only replaced with the
following lyrics.

  You say inverse square law, I say no
  You say P-adics, I say define it
  You say blackbody, I say white
  You say yes, I say no
  You prove it, I say prove it
  You define it, I say you must define it
  You say criticize, I say debate.
  You make fun of me, I say Goodbye.
  You say good riddance, I say "ask me" if you do not know something.

SKIT 12 

   Hey Ben, I need to expand your acting role since you are a quick
learner. I would like for you to get together with John Kondis and run
your posts through his scrambler and you can improve your net postings.
Show in one of the SKITS of NEANDERTHAL PARK where John and Ben team-up
to scramble Net posts. Then show them graduating beyond Neanderthal
University and Princeton University. Show them wanting to chase the US
dollar more than the truth. And since both are bright young lads who
bought a Princeton University book a month. They decided to follow the
formula of Princeton University Press by forming two factories each,
one named John Wiley Kondis & Sons and Springer Tilly Verlag. Show them
in SKIT 12 where they scramble produce physics texts and math texts.
Show the mother superiors of 1994,
Hawking,Smale,Stewart,Axler,Conway,Paul Kainen approving the products
of John Wiley Kondis and Springer Tilly Verlag. Show High School and
College students reading a yellow covered text made by Springer Tilly
Verlag, all of the sentences scramble a la Kondis style. Show many
students and classrooms reading these texts as approved by math and
physics communities. Show them reading these texts out loud and asking
serious questions, . . as if noone realizes that it is foolishness.
Noone is laughing.


cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Sun May  1 04:37:03 EDT 1994
------------------------------
1994.05.01 / Hill James /  Sonoluminisense Researchers
     
Originally-From: ultra@raven.csrv.uidaho.edu (Hill James)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Sonoluminisense Researchers
Date: 1 May 1994 01:34:52 GMT
Organization: University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho

Hello, I am an acoustic/mechanical engineer interested in the idea of 
acoustical stimulated fusion.  I would like to trade mail with 
researchers in that field who could explain exactly what type of bubble 
collapse they desire to reach fusion condition.  My work is mainly in the 
mechanics of generating the necessary shock wave.

--
/    Jim Hill        ultra@raven.csrv.uidaho.edu     /
/    M.E. Dept.      University of Idaho            /
/                                                   /
/  The "information super-highway" is great...      /
/  ... Unless you live next to an off-ramp.         /
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenultra cudfnHill cudlnJames cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.01 / Robert Heeter /  Re: Evolution Proves: Cold Fusion not Possible!
     
Originally-From: rfheeter@theory.pppl.gov (Robert F. Heeter)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Evolution Proves: Cold Fusion not Possible!
Date: 1 May 1994 01:28:05 -0400
Organization: /etc/organization

In article <1994Apr30.183804.27607@midway.uchicago.edu>,
Greg Kuperberg <gk00@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote:
>In article <1994Apr29.033114.16890@Princeton.EDU> rfheeter@tucson.Princ
ton.EDU (Robert Franklin Heeter) writes:
>>In article <1994Apr28.162838.7325@midway.uchicago.edu> gk00@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>>...  Even deuterium is poisonous.
>>Huh?
>
>I'm told that you shouldn't drink heavy water, because it messes up
>hydrogen transport in your system.

Well, I suppose, but I'd think that living organisms are at least
adapted to the natural level of about 1 D per 2000 H, right?
I mean, I'm not about to get deuterium poisoning from eating
or anything.

I wonder what the threshold for adverse effects is?

****************
Robert F. Heeter
rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu

cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.01 / Mike Thornburg /  Re: Evolution Proves: Cold Fusion not Possible!
     
Originally-From: mthorn@lunacity.com (Mike Thornburg)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Evolution Proves: Cold Fusion not Possible!
Date: Sun, 01 May 94 01:56:13 PDT
Organization: LunaCity BBS - (Clan Zen Relay Network) Mountain View, CA

gk00@quads.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg) writes:

> In article <1994Apr29.033114.16890@Princeton.EDU> rfheeter@tucson.Princeton.E
> >In article <1994Apr28.162838.7325@midway.uchicago.edu> gk00@midway.uchicago.
> >>...  Even deuterium is poisonous.
> >Huh?
> 
> I'm told that you shouldn't drink heavy water, because it messes up
> hydrogen transport in your system.

Heavy water is definitely poisonous, but the reason I was given is that
it messes up hydrogen bonds, not hydrogen transport.  The length and 
strength of the hydrogen bond depends upon the mass of the hydrogen 
nucleus involved, and since living things depend on these bonds to 
maintain the structure of enzymes and other critical molecules, too much 
deuterium is a bad thing.

 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just a thought from Mike Thornburg -> (mthorn@lunacity.com)
LunaCity BBS - Mountain View, CA - 415 968 8140
cudkeys:
cuddy01 cudenmthorn cudfnMike cudlnThornburg cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.30 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Re: Questions re Muon Catalyzed Fusion
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Questions re Muon Catalyzed Fusion
Date: 30 Apr 94 10:30:49 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

In article <1994Apr27.214422.17681@debug.cuc.ab.ca>, Lforbes@debug.cuc.ab.ca writes:
> Hope you don't mind an amateur asking a couple of questions:
> 
>      . I have heard little lately (last year or so) about muon catalyzed 
>        fusion; have there been any noteable developments?

Not lately.  Not much has happened since DoE decided to cut funding in 1988,
the year *before* cold fusion hit the fan, incidentally.  Despite the funding
cut, we were able to
do some experiments at LAMPF in 1989 and 1990, and we recently published
a paper on results:
S.E. Jones, S.F. Taylor and A.N. Anderson, "Evaluation of muon-alpha sticking
from liquid, non-equilibrated d-t targets with high tritium fractions,"
Hyperfine Interactions 82 (1993) 303-311.

Other groups (PSI, Russia) are plugging along, and we're trying to work out
an international collaboration with them which looks fairly good right now,
though funding is tight.
> 
>      . Has anyone tried enhancing Pd - deuterium cell fusion with muons?
> 

Yes, this was actually tried at Rutherford Lab. in 1989 -- did not enhance
fusion rate.
>      . Is it possible that naturally generated muons (from cosmic or 
>        background radiation perhaps) have caused or aided the sporadic
>        and apparently difficult to repeat emissions from Pd - deuterium 
>        cells?
> 

No, shown experimentally (above).  Also, we know that muons will transfer
very rapidly to high-Z nuclei like Pd (or Ni, etc.) and thus be lost to
any muon-catalyzed fusion chain.  So we don't expect muons to be effective
catalysts except in mixtures of hydrogen isotopes (only).

> Thanking you for any replies ...........
> 
> Laurie Forbes

Best wishes,
Steven Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenjonesse cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.28 / C Mclafferty /  Re: Thoughts for Mr. "Plutonium"
     
Originally-From: clm3c@curry.edschool.Virginia.EDU (Charles L. Mclafferty)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics,sci.math,sci.chem,sci.
io,alt.religion.kibology,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Thoughts for Mr. "Plutonium"
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 1994 14:11:21 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

OOPS! A correction is necessary; apparently I am wrong on the
value of pi...

clm3c@curry.edschool.Virginia.EDU  writes:

> 
> Gee. Let's look at pi for a second. It seems that a better
> estimation of pi could be 19/6. I don't remember my periodic
> chart, but that would correspond to a different element?
> 
> 22/7=3.142857
> pi  =3.159265
> 19/6=3.166667
> 
> In the Cosmic (if you want to play with symbology, that's fine
> with me) the simpler formula has greater power, and 19/6 is not
> only simpler, but it is closer to estimating pi (though I make
> NO claims about the corresponding orbital haveing any
> significance, nor any Cosmic connection to pi).

Wrong! Wrong! Wrong! pi is 3.1415926, and 22/7 is a very close
aproximation of pi. I stand corrected, and humbly so. I am not
an engineer, but involved in the social sciences, and we don't
use pi very much. And I have to admit that all I need to think
of is 22/7 to get pi from now on. 

Incidentally, one of the magical properties of the 1/7 family
is the repeating sequence of the decimals, which are themselves
a multiple of 7, in the order "142857":
1/7=.142857142857...
2/7=.285714285714...
3/7=.428571428571...
4/7=.571428571428...
5/7=.714285714285...
6/7=.857142857142...

In symbology, the number 7 is extremely significant, in terms
of energy and cycles (especially years in the human life
7-14-21-28-35-42---63-70). 

Nevertheless, my error only points out how human I am, and
prone to mistakes. This one was a dumb mistake! However, it
does not change the questions which follow, which should be
considered by anyone who feels they have found truth far and
beyond the ability of any of the rest of us to understand it...

If that truth is to be useful, it must be "brought down" to a
level that is practical enough for us all to understand and use.
--
Charles McLafferty                 
UVa Dept of Ed Studies
clm3c@virginia.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenclm3c cudfnCharles cudlnMclafferty cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.01 / mitchell swartz /  Comment on "Bill Page on Chubb and Chubb"
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Comment on "Bill Page on Chubb and Chubb"
Subject: Re:  Bill Page on Chubb and Chubb
Date: Sun, 1 May 1994 12:52:43 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <9404301608.AA20119@pilot1.cl.msu.edu>
Subject: Re:  Bill Page on Chubb and Chubb
Richard A Blue (blue@pilot.msu.edu) writes:

=  "Whether he makes it explicite or not
= Dr. Chubb has actually made an assertion that the nuclear part
= of the wave function which he separated as per the Born-Oppenheimer
= approximation is spread over all lattice sites just like the
= part of the wave function involving the center-of-mass motion
= of the deuteron.  It seems too strange to me, particularly when
= there are supposed to be only about 1 deuteron for every 10^7
= unit cells.  Isn't that extending the range of the nuclear interaction
= just a bit far?"

   Actually, since the cold fusion phenomena only occur at loadings
greater than circa 0.85, that would be much closer to 1 deuteron for every 
unit cell.    
   My friend, Dick Blue, appears to be off by 7 orders of magnitude in
this case, and should base his criticism upon correct facts.

    Best wishes.  
                   Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com)
  
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.01 / R Muskett /  Re: Quantum Theory now disproves Darwinian Evolution
     
Originally-From: rmuskett@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Reginald R Muskett)
Newsgroups: sci.bio,sci.physics,sci.math,sci.physics.fusion,sci.chem,sci.geo.ge
Subject: Re: Quantum Theory now disproves Darwinian Evolution
Date: 1 May 1994 14:31:11 GMT
Organization: The Ohio State University

[ bloody circular reasoning deleted ]

Lugwig wants an Ignoble award; though should He(?) submitt a paper
to the Journal of Irreproducible Results I'd bet it would't get
through peer review.

Reg Muskett
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenrmuskett cudfnReginald cudlnMuskett cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.01 / C Harrison /  Tritium stored in Titanium - seek data
     
Originally-From: harr@netcom.com (Charles (Chuck) Harrison)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Tritium stored in Titanium - seek data
Date: Sun, 1 May 1994 19:09:44 GMT
Organization: No chance

This inquiry concerns tritium storage in a titanium matrix.

I am intrigued by work at Oak Ridge published a few years ago [1],
in which the 3He decay product was investigated in tritiated Ti.
Rough calculations of 3He generation rate and 3He bubble sizes
did not agree very well.

I would like to communicate with any workers who have maintained
accurate accounting of tritium stored in Ti.  The most useful data
would come from long-term storage, where significant decay has
occurred.

I hope to post a summary of [1] soon to this group.

Thank you for your help.

  -Chuck Harrison  harr@netcom.com

[1] T. Schober and K. Farrell, "Helium Bubbles in alpha-Ti and Ti
     Tritide Arising from Tritium Decay: a T E M Study", 
     _J. Nucl. Materials_ 168:171-177 (1989).

P.S.  Please remember, in my attempt to resolve a possible anomaly
  here, that accurate null results ("everything balanced perfectly")
  are at least as important as mismatches.  Meaningful error
  estimates most appreciated!
  -CH


cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenharr cudfnCharles cudlnHarrison cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.01 / Richard Schultz /  Re: Comment on "Bill Page on Chubb and Chubb"
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Comment on "Bill Page on Chubb and Chubb"
Date: 1 May 1994 19:56:26 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley

In article <Cp4Jrv.4BF@world.std.com>,
mitchell swartz <mica@world.std.com> wrote:

>   My friend, Dick Blue, appears to be off by 7 orders of magnitude in
>this case, and should base his criticism upon correct facts.
                                               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^

As opposed, I suppose, to the other kind of facts.  Well, this is cold
fusion we're talking about.

Still awaiting the explanation of the "Existence Theorem",

					Richard Schultz
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.01 / C Harrison /  Re: Legget and Baym vs. Chubb and Chubb tag teams
     
Originally-From: harr@netcom.com (Charles (Chuck) Harrison)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Legget and Baym vs. Chubb and Chubb tag teams
Date: Sun, 1 May 1994 20:08:13 GMT
Organization: not today

In article <2pq7pa$8l3@network.ucsd.edu>,
Matt Kennel <mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu> wrote:
>Bill Page (70047.3047@compuserve.com) wrote:
>: {C&C say ground state wave functions balance potential energy 
>:  against gradients = kinetic energy}
>
>No argument there.
>
>
>: The amount of wave function dimpling that occurs is determined by the 
>: marginal decrease in potential energy balanced against the marginal 
>: increase in kinetic energy resulting from increased dimpling.  In the 
>: helium atom this balance is achieved at a high degree of electron-electron 
>: overlap."
>
>Yes and no.  Sure, the wave functions for the individual electrons
>overlap, but that DOES NOT MEAN THEY EVER ARE CLOSE TO ONE ANOTHER.

My handy-dandy 'Encyclopedia of Physics' holds forth:
  The direct use of relative coordinates for pairs of electrons
  is not computationally feasible for more than two or three
  electrons, although it has given very accurate results for
  two-electron atoms and ions [*].
[*] CL Pekeris, Phys Rev 115:1216 (1959), Phys Rev 126:1470 (1962);
    K Frankowski & CL Pekeris, Phys Rev 146:46 (1966).

This would suggest that the joint electron wavefunction for neutral
He is, at least numerically, a "solved problem".  Anyone care to
look it up and see whether Chubb or Kennel is correct here?

Regards,
 --Chuck Harrison  harr@netcom.com

>
>-Matt Kennel  		mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu
>-Institute for Nonlinear Science, University of California, San Diego


cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenharr cudfnCharles cudlnHarrison cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.01 / Mark North /  Re: Evolution Proves: Cold Fusion not Possible!
     
Originally-From: north@watop.nosc.mil (Mark North)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Evolution Proves: Cold Fusion not Possible!
Date: Sun, 1 May 1994 23:21:05 GMT
Organization: NCCOSC RDT&E Division, San Diego, CA

<doldridg@fox.nstn.ns.ca> writes:

>On 29 Apr 1994 09:57:21 GMT, 
>Terry Quickenden  <tiq@yarrow.wt.uwa.edu.au> wrote:

>I seem to remember reading something about element transmutation in organic 
>systems way back about 25 years ago.  I think the man's name was Kevran or 
>something like that and I thought (and still do think) that he was probably 
>a kook.  But his stuff was readily testable by anyone with the right 
>apparatus.  He was claiming changes in sodium-magnesium and 
>potassium-calcium ratios in wheat seeds that he sprouted.

That long ago, huh? Wow.

>Anyone?

Indeed.

Mark

cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudennorth cudfnMark cudlnNorth cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.01 / J Kruckenberg /  cmsg cancel <2prgnf$29d@magus.cs.utah.edu>
     
Originally-From: kruckenb@sal.cs.utah.edu (Joseph Kruckenberg)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cmsg cancel <2prgnf$29d@magus.cs.utah.edu>
Date: 1 May 1994 03:52:57 GMT
Organization: University of Utah Computer Science Department

Article cancelled from within tin [v1.2 PL1]
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenkruckenb cudfnJoseph cudlnKruckenberg cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.01 / Mark North /  Re: Evolution Proves: Cold Fusion not Possible!
     
Originally-From: north@watop.nosc.mil (Mark North)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Evolution Proves: Cold Fusion not Possible!
Date: Sun, 1 May 1994 23:24:53 GMT
Organization: NCCOSC RDT&E Division, San Diego, CA

rfheeter@theory.pppl.gov (Robert F. Heeter) writes:

>In article <1994Apr30.183804.27607@midway.uchicago.edu>,
>Greg Kuperberg <gk00@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote:
>>In article <1994Apr29.033114.16890@Princeton.EDU> rfheeter@tucson.Prin
eton.EDU (Robert Franklin Heeter) writes:
>>>In article <1994Apr28.162838.7325@midway.uchicago.edu> gk00@midway.uc
icago.edu writes:
>>>>...  Even deuterium is poisonous.
>>>Huh?
>>
>>I'm told that you shouldn't drink heavy water, because it messes up
>>hydrogen transport in your system.

>Well, I suppose, but I'd think that living organisms are at least
>adapted to the natural level of about 1 D per 2000 H, right?
>I mean, I'm not about to get deuterium poisoning from eating
>or anything.

>I wonder what the threshold for adverse effects is?

Dunno about the threshold but one glass of 100% D2O will make you
100% dead, or so I'm told.

Mark 8^)
ZZ
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudennorth cudfnMark cudlnNorth cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.01 / Mark North /  Re: Evolution, Cold Fusion, Mineral Metabolism (was Evolution
     
Originally-From: north@watop.nosc.mil (Mark North)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Evolution, Cold Fusion, Mineral Metabolism (was Evolution
Proves: Cold Fusion not Possible!)
Date: Sun, 1 May 1994 23:33:21 GMT
Organization: NCCOSC RDT&E Division, San Diego, CA

mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:

>  In Message-ID: <tomkCoyJJx.6FM@netcom.com>
>Subject: Re: Evolution Proves: Cold Fusion not Possible!
>Thomas H. Kunich (tomk@netcom.com) wrote:

>= "There is probably no evolutionary advantage to wheels, but there would
>= be a tremendous evolutionary advantage to any organism that could generate
>= it's own energy source with a few commonly found elements."
>= "In the human body alone, practically the entire periodic table is being used."
>= "Yet we are to believe that with a few hand waves and a bloody simple
>= manipulation, free energy is available and no organism would have discovered
>= this but a couple of scientists billions of years into evolution.
>=  Sure."

> Mr. Kunich says: "In the human body alone, practically the 
>entire periodic table is being used."   With about 103 elements,
>perhaps he might mention the sixty (60) or seventy (70) or more
>which he claims  ("practically the entire periodic table")
> are essential for humans.            ;-)

>   Like fractals, apparently the (absence of) knowledge of human mineral 
>metabolism is mirrored by knowledge of the cold fusion phenomena.

Yes, wheels would be difficult for living creatures (though I understand
some little critters have propellers) though it's hard to see how such a
n organ could be nutriated (coined word). In larger animals, that is.
On the other hand, we have functioning dead tissue (hair, fingernails and
in Swartz' case, scales and brainstem). Personally, I don't know how
many elements the human body uses, do you? Or should I say, has in it.
If we go on the 'has in it' idea I would say all 106 (or whatever).

'Grats, Tom, you got one of Swartz' 'fractal' flames, just like me.

Mark
 
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudennorth cudfnMark cudlnNorth cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.02 / John Lange /  The "two types of Hydrogen Theory"
     
Originally-From: lange@access.mbnet.mb.ca (John Lange)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: The "two types of Hydrogen Theory"
Date: 2 May 1994 00:09:11 GMT
Organization: The University of Manitoba

First let me make clear that I am just a laymen.

I saw a television show here in Canada on the topic of Cold Fusion, and one
of the more interesting theory's regarding what exactly is going on in
those test tubes was that there is actually two different types of
Hydrogen in existence. The normal Hydrogen with the electron in an outer
orbit, and a much rarer version with the electron in a close orbit.

As I understand it, this theory states that the extra heat generated in
these little test tubes is actually a result of one form of Hydrogen being
converted to the other. In this case, when the electron goes from its outer
orbit to its inner orbit, it releases energy, thus the extra heat.

Anyhow, my question is simply this, whats the latest on this theory (in
other words, how has it stood up to analysis)? And, does any one know the
name of the scientist who first proposed this theory, and does he have a
Internet E-Mail address?

John Lange

Winnipeg Manitoba Canada      lange@mbnet.mb.ca
-- 
John Lange

Winnipeg Manintoba Canada      lange@mbnet.mb.ca
Fido 1:348/706
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenlange cudfnJohn cudlnLange cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.02 /  PAUL /  RE: The "two types of Hydrogen Theory"
     
Originally-From: stek@amazon.pfc.mit.edu (PAUL)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: The "two types of Hydrogen Theory"
Date: 2 MAY 94 02:52:06 GMT
Organization: MIT PLASMA FUSION CENTER


>I saw a television show here in Canada on the topic of Cold Fusion, and one
>of the more interesting theory's regarding what exactly is going on in
>those test tubes was that there is actually two different types of
>Hydrogen in existence. The normal Hydrogen with the electron in an outer
>orbit, and a much rarer version with the electron in a close orbit.


>Anyhow, my question is simply this, whats the latest on this theory (in
>other words, how has it stood up to analysis)? And, does any one know the
>name of the scientist who first proposed this theory, and does he have a
>Internet E-Mail address?

>John Lange

Modeling the hydrogen atom is the greatest success of quantum mechanics.
You would need to throw it out with such a theory.  To explain excess heat
seen now and then with all sorts of poorly understood elctrochemistry 
going on?  No.  


Paul Stek
Stek@cmod.pfc.mit.edu

cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenstek cudlnPAUL cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.01 / Paul Koloc /  Re: TFTR Update 4-27-94; Explain the Jargon
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: TFTR Update 4-27-94; Explain the Jargon
Date: Sun, 1 May 1994 23:35:06 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <28APR94.13291894@amazon.pfc.mit.edu> stek@amazon.pfc.mit.edu (PAUL) writes:
>
>>From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
>>Date: 28-APR-1994  01:59:38
>>Description: Re: TFTR Update 4-27-94; Explain the Jargon

>ICRF heating can cause all sorts of problems like reduced confinement
>and increased impurity levels.  The absorption changes dramatically
>as you change the constituents of your plasma.

Tough sledding.  

>Come on now.  We need to get the plasma hot enough to get alpha heating.  
>Ash can become a big problem because of bremstralung, but how well the 
>ash is contained is still a research issue. After all we don't have 
>an experiment with lots of helium ash in it.  ICRF may also be used to 
>perform profile control and current drive on reactors.  

But can't He3 (or other ash) be divergently beam sprayed in by gun, at 
widely dispersed locations instead of the machine defeating burns? 

>>>-Power modulation experiments were performed to directly measure the RF
>>>power deposition profiles (in collaboration with M. Murakami of ORNL).

>THis is not trivial stuff.  Adding tritium completely changes the 
>way waves propagate through the plasma.  If you want to maximize the 
>fusion output of TFTR, you better learn experimentally where the energy is
>being absorbed.

Because tritium is radioactive, the experimental runs would have to be 
well planned for optimal data gain.   Again a tough situation.  

>>Strike the wall??  I don't like the sound of that. If the wall were a plasma
>>wall then no damage would be done, but here, high Z non-ionized matter 
>>could be dislodged which could migrate back into your thermonuclear plasma.
>>Bad consequences.

>Come on now.  If you can find a way to eliminate the ash via ICRF, that 
>is an important result.  How you catch them after you get them into an
>unconfined orbit is an area of research.  

Perhaps, if you ignore the engineering realities, but if the Tokamak is
the sole mag fusion candidate, then you are going to have to be a bit
more realistic.  If you could "nurse" a cooler He ash into the plasma
edge for limitor or divertor skim off, then the solution would be more
interesting.  As it stands, the heating and expansion of confinement 
radius of He4 to wall intercept has aspects which portend more problem 
then solution.  

>This is research.  How to eliminate ash without interfering with Alpha 
>heating is being worked out.  We now have some alphas to work with.  

What is/are the approach/es that look interesting?  

>>what is Beta N?  vertical (normal) field beta??   
>I don't know

>Tau e is the electron confinement time. 

Since the electron and ion temperatures are about the same (yes?), 
then the confinement time difference between ion and electron (if 
much) is due to the difference in their respective Lamor radii? 

>>Why are you still interested in L-mode?  
>
>It is not clear that H-Mode is wanted for reactors. It is still a topic of
>debate whether ITER needs to run in H mode or will run in Hmode.  H Mode 
>requires a high edge temperature which runs contrary to the desire for a
>radiative divertor.  

Isn't that the edge temperature is high because the edge loss (transport)
is cut?   So that running in Nmode means you have a higher electron
radial gradient and energy (and particle) transport.  

>Also you would like a peaked density and temp. profile
>to maximize fusion yeild, which is the oposite of what you get with Hmode.  
>Finally, impurity confinement goes way up during H-mode.  

That assumes, that you can reach a higher density with higher edge
transport.   There is a chance, since the ohmic heating will be confined
more to a minor radially restricted central plasma region (volume).  
Consequently, that volume will recieve higher heating density, and
may then reach a higher peak temperature.   I'm skeptical. It sounds
like a rally that happens when the stock market gets into a down trend.  
Think of it this way, if that philosophy would work, then it would
be logical to carry it to its omega point which is a highly compressible
toroidal "Z" pinch, namely our PLASMAK(tm) embodiment of the spheromak.  

Another advantage the restricted current stream has is it can produce
locally higher mag confinement pressures, and even at constant Beta, that
is a real plus.  The negative side of the coin, is that the reduced 
effective minor radius increases the tendency for the plasma to disrupt.  

>>>During the week of April 11, a physical inventory of the tritium on-site
>>>was completed.

>>Thanks for the glowing news ... now fill in the margins for the above
>>queries.  
>
>Paul, most of this is pretty basic for someone who spends any effort 
>keeping up.  I suspect that your project could benifit by some aspects of
>tokamak research.  Tokamaks have learned from mirrors and stelerators after
>all.  In addition, if you can present your designs using the lexicon of the 
>field, you will have far more success.  

Trust me it has.  In the first place, I may never have thought of these
generational advances if the Russians hadn't converted the first component
of coil current to a plasma current.  Other lines of evolution naturally 
relate to show concept paths from open to closed, from non-compressible
to compressible, etc...  I have learned.  Now what do we do with it???
One of the points I made to George Brown, is that even if Advanced or
alternative concepts are funded, each institute that works on one becomes
identified with it, so it can't evolve to advance even more.  The Mirror
is actively moth balled -->its coil became the Mantle, and the Tokamak
is now the king of sci funded projects  ...  and world wide --> the Kernel
or core plasma.  

As far as lexicons of the field, well, we reached back to astrophysics in
some cases and our concept is so elementary and simple by comparison, 
most of the other tokamak verbiage isn't necessary.  Details of the Mantle,
have not yet been discussed, and are regimes from other similar plasmas,
so we will be presenting that material in as common or logical terminology
as covers the needed nomenclature.  

I recognize the importance of the tokamak as an evolutionary step in plasma 
physics and as an important source of plasma physics and engineering. Now's
the time to make a break with the past, collect our knowledge, and 
conceptualize or find a concept/s which are more appropriate for commerce. 
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc,Bx 1037, Prometheus II, Ltd., College Park, MD 20741-1037 |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
>Paul Stek  (Stek@cmod.pfc.mit.edu)





cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.02 /  Dave /  Re: Evolution Proves: Cold Fusion not Possible!
     
Originally-From: "Dave Oldridge" <doldridg@fox.nstn.ns.ca>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Evolution Proves: Cold Fusion not Possible!
Date: 2 May 1994 00:24:51 -0300
Organization: Nova Scotia Technology Network

On Sun, 1 May 1994 23:21:05 GMT, 
Mark North  <north@watop.nosc.mil> wrote:

><doldridg@fox.nstn.ns.ca> writes:
>
>>I seem to remember reading something about element transmutation in organic 
>>systems way back about 25 years ago.  I think the man's name was Kevran or 
>>something like that and I thought (and still do think) that he was probably 
>>a kook.  But his stuff was readily testable by anyone with the right 
>>apparatus.  He was claiming changes in sodium-magnesium and 
>>potassium-calcium ratios in wheat seeds that he sprouted.
>
>That long ago, huh? Wow.
>
>>Anyone?
>
>Indeed.

I did some of the numbers on the isotopes involved.  IF (and that's a 
pretty big IF) you could induce them to absorb a proton, you'd get between 
8 and 13 Mev (roughly) depending on the isotope.


>
>Mark
 --
 Dave Oldridge
 doldridg@fox.nstn.ns.ca
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudendoldridg cudlnDave cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Mon May  2 04:37:04 EDT 1994
------------------------------
1994.05.02 / Robert Heeter /  Re: Comment on "Bill Page on Chubb and Chubb"
     
Originally-From: rfheeter@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Robert Franklin Heeter)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Comment on "Bill Page on Chubb and Chubb"
Date: Mon, 2 May 1994 00:53:46 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

In article <Cp4Jrv.4BF@world.std.com> mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
>  In Message-ID: <9404301608.AA20119@pilot1.cl.msu.edu>
>Subject: Re:  Bill Page on Chubb and Chubb
>Richard A Blue (blue@pilot.msu.edu) writes:
>
>=  "Whether he makes it explicite or not
>= Dr. Chubb has actually made an assertion that the nuclear part
>= of the wave function which he separated as per the Born-Oppenheimer
>= approximation is spread over all lattice sites just like the
>= part of the wave function involving the center-of-mass motion
>= of the deuteron.  It seems too strange to me, particularly when
>= there are supposed to be only about 1 deuteron for every 10^7
>= unit cells.  Isn't that extending the range of the nuclear interaction
>= just a bit far?"
>
>   Actually, since the cold fusion phenomena only occur at loadings
>greater than circa 0.85, that would be much closer to 1 deuteron for every 
>unit cell.    
>   My friend, Dick Blue, appears to be off by 7 orders of magnitude in
>this case, and should base his criticism upon correct facts.

On the contrary, Dr. Blue was talking about the *band state* deuterons,
which are the only ones that allegedly fuse, and the loading of 
*band state* deuterons is indeed very low in the Chubb theory.

I don't believe Chubb & Chubb have claimed that band state deuterons
fuse with ordinary deuterons that just happen to be stuck in the
lattice.

*****************
Robert F. Heeter, etc.
usual disclaimers, etc...

cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.02 / David Kastrup /  Handy pi approx. Was: Re: Thoughts for Mr. "Plutonium"
     
Originally-From: dak@hathi.informatik.rwth-aachen.de (David Kastrup)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics,sci.math,sci.chem,sci.
io,alt.religion.kibology,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Handy pi approx. Was: Re: Thoughts for Mr. "Plutonium"
Date: 2 May 1994 07:20:17 GMT
Organization: Rechnerbetrieb Informatik - RWTH Aachen

Instead of using 22/7 (which is a good approximation for smaller numbers)
you can use also
355
---
113
which is *very* easy to remember (read it bottom-up) and very accurate,
about 8 decimals, which is impressive for so small a fraction that
easy to remember.
-- 
 David Kastrup        dak@pool.informatik.rwth-aachen.de          
 Tel: +49-241-72419 Fax: +49-241-79502
 Goethestr. 20, D-52064 Aachen
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudendak cudfnDavid cudlnKastrup cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.02 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Reply to Maglich on TFTR D-T Result
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reply to Maglich on TFTR D-T Result
Date: Mon, 2 May 1994 06:12:11 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <1994Apr28.014444.28384@Princeton.EDU> Robert F. Heeter
<rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> writes:
>In article <CovppK.1yz@prometheus.UUCP> Paul M. Koloc,
>pmk@prometheus.UUCP writes:
>>In article <1994Apr25.220035.28633@Princeton.EDU> Robert F. Heeter 
>><rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> writes:

>Yes!  I know!  Just because I happen to agree with someone on an
>issue, therefore I completely lack my own independent opinion about
>all related issues!  

Of course, not, I know better than that.  Still this happens to be
a very important issue with the PPPL and DoE policy people, and I 
know people have been let go for not towing the line.  

>I *do* agree that alternate-concepts funding was chopped a little too
> .. .   I *agree* that diversity of concepts is important;
>on the other hand I think it's also important to continue making
>progress in the primary field.  

"chopped a little too much"...  isn't that a sweet observation, 
like the fellow who was axed to death being described as having been 
too closely shaven.    Interesting point of view.  

The problem isn't making progress, the problem is making creakingly
SLLOO.oowww  progress for a hideously large expenditure.. comparatively. 
AC gives FAR MORE  BANG for the buck. 

>         ...   ..        .    If I had to cut the budget, I'd
>probably try to spread the pain fairly evenly - on a per-dollar
>basis.  

Silly!
Why???, AC has been whacked to death... so why not do the same
to tokamak, and THEN spread whatever JOY there is evenly.    :-)

>The statement I made above says that I don't think we can 
>afford to fund any *new* projects right now at the expense of current 
>projects; it doesn't say that if we had to cut the budget now I 
>would only cut alternatives.

Might makes right? 

We could afford to fund 10 new projects (there aren't that many) if 
the tokamak was cut out and we still would save the taxpayers most 
of the mag fusion budget.  Better yet, invite private industry in 
to run the program and put up an increasing share of the money.  Soon, 
the truth would out about which concepts had commercial potential.  

>Oh, I agree.  I wasn't arguing that because the majority of fusion
>researchers think the tokamak is alive and well, therefore it is
>alive and well.  

Then why bother saying it.  

>Actually, the tokamak, despite all your arguments 
>against it, is still the most successful device.

I don't agree, and I don't think you have any way of knowing what
you are talking about since you refuse to fund AC under the present
congressional dictum, and don't have sufficient knowledge of 
alternate or Advanced concepts and embodiments to make such a
judgement, whatsoever.  Tokamak is actually quite deep in the
mud as a successful "commercial" device, it is only successful by
its plasma physics contributions and its ability to keep a well
grown bureaucracy fed for years and years and decades and decades and
..  .  etc.   In this case tokamak Sci-Success in the past is not 
commercial success in the future .. .  forever and ever.   

>>Funding of big Science projects with purpose IS based on democracy 
>>and perceived Shortfalls.  (Unfortunately for researchers or not)   

>Do I really sound like such an idiot that I wouldn't know this?

No.   Just checking.  Actually, initially, this may not be true.  
And, then perhaps you just don't recognize the shortfalls.    --  ;-)

keep the faith
--
>Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc,Bx 1037, Prometheus II, Ltd., College Park, MD 20741-1037 |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.02 / Paul Koloc /  Re: was Overblown -->DoE's "review" and Tokamak: Commercial? 
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: was Overblown -->DoE's "review" and Tokamak: Commercial? 
Date: Mon, 2 May 1994 07:05:37 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <1994Apr28.033254.23046@Princeton.EDU> Robert F. Heeter
<rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> writes:
>In article <CovoJJ.pA@prometheus.UUCP> Paul M. Koloc, pmk@prometheus.UUCP
>writes:

>You're saying that they shouldn't have been trying to learn from
>each others' experiences?  I'd have been amazed if they *hadn't*
>tried to find ways of selling their programs.

No just jacking up the price through augmentation of overblown 
importance of iron curtain competitive reseach, during the cold war.    


>I was saying the international fusion community reviewed the experimental
>and theoretical results.  Are you saying that they shouldn't?

No, I don't think that is what you were saying.  The way I read it
was that the US National Mag Fusion Program was being reviewed in
part by international scientists, IMPLYING that they were disinterested
fair and impartial reviewers from afar that had no gain or connection
with the program.  What should have been said was that a group of
ITER scientist where looking at the program to help slide it past
the B. Johnson traps.        :-)_

>As for the program reviewers:  Anyone with a solid grasp of the field,
>and therefore capable of being a reviewer, will not be impartial, under
>your logic.  As Matt Kennel (I believe) pointed out the last time we 
>went through this argument, the DOE *has* had non-fusion plasma physicists
>review the program as well.  

That's kind of tough, since 95% of the funding for plasma physics, came
from the fusion program, and most of the plasma physicists, took courses
which were at least written by fusion plasma physicists or attended
Universities with active fusion programs in progress during the time
of their education. I would be interested in having the names, because
I don't believe that these were disinterested.  There was likely some
other connection or they were of such stature as to be not influential.  

>Is it better to choose an impartial
>but inexpert review panel, or to choose an expert review panel, with
>some (but the minimum possible) political incentive to be partial,
>and then to keep the bias in mind in reading their recommendations? 

Impossible.  Where is your ethics, my good fellow.  

>While there are cooperative aspects to the fusion program, there's still
>plenty of competitiveness around.  (Witness the JET show to break the
>fusion record and use DT ahead of TFTR in 1991.)  As John Cobb just
>pointed out, the problem doesn't seem to be so much that the reviews 
>have been partial, as that the recommendations of the reviews haven't
>been followed for other (political) reasons. 

Yep... real diversity!  I'm flabbergasted.   Truly mind-boggling.  

>But they don't go through the Office of Fusion Energy, and they are
>appropriated in a different way, through a different process, so the
>researchers in that field are not politically dependent on the OFE
>funding.

That's true, but if OFE did, the DoE Defense wouldn't be funded for
ICF, except as required by Congressional law.  

>In that case, you can pay me $2000, and I'll pay you $500, and we'll say
>that the difference is not significant.  I'll even donate $500 of my
>new $2000 to the Plasmak.

You are being silly, when orders of magnitude are at stake.  

>No, you were saying that 6 MW of power output was a factor of 2000 below
>a commercial reactor.  I don't want to build a 12 GW reactor; I want to
>build a 3 GW (thermal) reactor that will generate 1 GW of electricity,
>even after I suck off a few hundred MW to control my plasma.  Losses
>aren't relevant to the discussion at all.

No you don't, not at the cost a tokamak power generator would be.  
you are going to need 12 Gigawatts to get 2 gigawatt out electric max.  
Your estimate of 33% efficiency is a farce.  

>>One of the problems is that when you make it bigger, it MUST generate 
>>more power to increase its power density and that raises the flux
>>density on the wall, even at constant density due to the increased 
>>radiation path (radius). 

>Yep, this is one of the remaining problems.

>>Now you will have impurities .. oh maybe not 
>>in the first second or two .. but after a while .. a minute??  Then
>>the impurity imigration problem starts (getting past those border 
>>guards).  

>I got the impression that Tore Supra, which runs multi-minute
>discharges, was doing just fine.  Sure it's a challenge, but that
>doesn't make it a showstopper of a problem.

Does it put 12 gigawatts of fusion on the wall???   Okay... how much?  
How much in hot neutron(14 MeV)..  Come on cough it up.  I would like
to hear about this gift from heaven.   .. .or are we talking simulator
again?  

>>The second problem relates to the lack of available 
>>confinement pressure, since heating increases plasma pressure, but not 
>>confining magnetic pressure (adiabatic compression aside), the loss 
>>rates will dramatically increase.   

>Except that plasma temperatures are already where they need to be,
>so no further heating is necessary.  For that matter, observed transport
>rates tend to decrease with increasing temperature, because of the
>reduced collisionality of the plasma, no?  

Wrong, it needs more density and THAT requires more energy (heating to 
bring all those other density increasing fuel thingys up to temp).  Since
your plasma is quite cold as thermonuclear plasmas goes their conductivity
is far, far away from hyperconducting.  Consequently, my dictum stands,
that the density forced increase in Beta produces the over pressure 
which blows the stability and increases the energy transport.  

>                                        Isn't this the whole
>reason why you have a hyperconducting shell in the Plasmak?

As I say, copper conductivities are not hyperconductivities.  

>>I have a florescent lamp that has a Lawson criteria that will make your 
>>improved tokamak look anemic. 

>What's so special about it?

Nothing, buy one you will like it.  

>>We need the product of three parameters 
>>simultaneously, a sort of critical fusion volume if you will.  As I 
>>point out above, the effect of burning can erode two of these, the 
>>confinement time through increased energy transport and the
>>temperature through increased impurity induced cooling.  

>As the TFTR results show, and as I pointed out above, energy confinement
>is *improved* in a fusion-producing plasma.  And the impurity problem
>does not seem to be as bad as you suggest.

I don't believe you.  Getting to the fusion temperatures spills most
of the energy (particles) you need so, by the time you do get a few
fusions, you are pitifully below break-even and the fusion power is
insignificant.  If you had a real burner, then come and give me the 
results.  I'm speaking of fusion out powers in the watts/cc range,
not the milliwatt/cc regime.  

>>It's entirely possible that you could, by brute force, power a tokamak
>>to ignition and force-maintain burn, so the Lawson would look great.  
>>But, it STILL would NOT be above commercial Breakeven because of the
>>heroic heating effort required.  
>
>On the contrary, by definition if you have Lawson-ignition, you don't
>need to
>pump in energy to heat the plasma.  The alphas produced do it for you.

That's depends on how you apply the definition.  You should understand
what I was saying, and indeed your original statement was not quite
kosher.  

>On the contrary, you can improve the Lawson value by improving the
>stability and allowing higher beta (through advanced plasma shapes),
>and *also* by improving the energy confinement time.  The easiest
>way to improve the energy confinement time is by making a larger
>device.  How can you assert that "increased confinement time"
>"won't happen", as you do above?  How else can you explain the 
>difference in confinement times in JET, TFTR, and JT-60?

Bull. You can raise Beta all right with shape adjustment, but that
sacrifices mag pressure.  You can't have it both ways.  Proof?
Look at Doublet results.  

Confinement time also relates to size (inductance), and what effect 
current diameter you run on the machine.  Again narrow the diameter 
and you gain pressure, at the expense of stability.  The bigger the
longer the time, and the hotter the electrons the longer the 
confinement time.  TK Chu even knows that confinement time can 
be extended "extremely long" by running with energetic currents.  Of
course, that hacks ohmic heating.  So what are you going to do??

Cut your loses and jump to the future with the PLASMAK(tm) embodiment.  

>>But... it was burning and it was above its Lawson.  Of course, the 
>>cracked deformed core vacuum wall or shattered limitors will have to 
>>be repaired or replaced, a minor glich of a year, and we can take 
>>another five minute whack at tokamak fusion electric grid power.  

>What are you talking about?  
I was taking liberties with the truth to make a point. It did sort 
of happen with Jet, were actually, it just put a large bulge in the 
vacuum wall.  

>On the contrary, what you said (which I will reproduce from the
>top of your message), is:

>>>>I think the science breakeven or not is a trivial question, because the
>>>>real problem is the factor of 2000 shortfall in power that needs to be 
>>>>come before commercial operation is even possible.  However, the other
>>>>point that should not be missed, is that it is obvious that Princeton
>>>>is not being up front, is being arrogant and these to factors are often
>>>>associated with sleeze artisans.  That has whacked their credibility
>>>>a bit, which doesn't help.  

Okay, it boils done to the fact that I believe friends of mine who worked
at PPPL and ran numbers which were "unacceptable" for publication until
they were manipulated to data that was not in keeping with the scientific
reality.  This happened in this case, and in studies of the "wall problem". 

>As I wrote in another article, I think we should definitely look
>into alternative concepts which could someday beat the tokamak, but
>since the TFTR results suggest that the tokamak will make a 
>competitive energy source, there's no reason to kill the tokamak.

You don't have the slightest idea if it would be competitive or not.  
Nor do you avocations suggest a path to changing that situation, since
more funds for fusion will not happen.  What do the a power companies
that have made the study say about the likelyhood of your "competitive
toakamak".   I think the answer if left to them it would NOT even be 
in contention.   What background do you have for making such a judgement? 

>Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc,Bx 1037, Prometheus II, Ltd., College Park, MD 20741-1037 |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+


cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.02 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Migma publicly funded or not?
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Migma publicly funded or not?
Date: Mon, 2 May 1994 07:09:14 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <1994Apr28.035456.27525@Princeton.EDU> Robert F. Heeter
<rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> writes:
>Here's something interesting, though it probably isn't worth
>my writing this:
>
>In article <2phddc$60b@ds8.scri.fsu.edu> Jim Carr, jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu
>writes:
>[[ rfheeter wrote...]]
>However, Paul Koloc says otherwise:
>
>In article <CopMou.56M@prometheus.UUCP> Paul M. Koloc,
>pmk@prometheus.UUCP writes:

>I don't know if he is currently receiving funding or not, but
>Paul seems to think he did at one point.  I don't know if 
>Paul is correct or not.  It probably doesn't matter much, but
>it just sort of caught my eye.

Not much money and from Chappel of Fl, through the USAF to Maglich and
UTX Inst for Advanced Study for baby sitting... Herb Berk... you might
ask him.  
>***************************
>Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc,Bx 1037, Prometheus II, Ltd., College Park, MD 20741-1037 |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+


cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.02 / Imre Mikoss /  H or D in Nickel
     
Originally-From: mikoss@ford.th.physik.uni-frankfurt.de (Imre Mikoss)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: H or D in Nickel
Date: 2 May 1994 10:26:07 GMT
Organization: University Frankfurt/M

	I'm looking for papers over Hidrogene or Deuterium or Tritium in
Nickel. Lattice dynamics and changes of lattice constants. Do you anyone have
some references over this subject?

					Thank You very much!
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenmikoss cudfnImre cudlnMikoss cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.02 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Reply to Maglich on TFTR D-T Result
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reply to Maglich on TFTR D-T Result
Date: Mon, 2 May 1994 07:43:42 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <1994Apr27.170420.16443@midway.uchicago.edu> gk00@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <CovppK.1yz@prometheus.UUCP> pmk@promethe.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) writes:
>>In article <1994Apr25.220035.28633@Princeton.EDU> Robert F. Heeter
<rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> writes:
>>>I've said before that I support alternate-concepts research so long as it 
>>>doesn't come at the expense of the current research areas.
>>According to the reality of our country's economic situation, that is
>>not an option.  The Energy subcomittee under HSST also made that very
>>clear.   So I take it that you and PPPL and USDoE are all in lock step
>>on this and do not favor support of alternate concepts!  

>The fact is that DOE not only favors but funds "alternate" concepts:
>It funded muon-catalyzed Fusion, it funded z pinch experiments, it
>funds stellarators, it funds laser fusion in a big way, and it funds
>several other things that I don't know about.  

Somehow I thought I answered this.. so forgive the second post if so.  
Now for the post.. .  NO
NOT that I'm aware of except for a lingering one at Oak Ridge and a
company in the North West.  I think these aren't for reasons of desire,
but rather force of law (contract) or the Chairwomen of a certain 
committee was helpful in the past. These are now probably closed 
or close to it.  

>                               ..   .It seems to me that the
>reason that you are bitter, and the reason that you postulate
>ever-widening circles of tokomak conpiracy, is not that DOE doesn't
>fund alternate concepts, but rather that the Kolocomak isn't one of
>those concepts.

Actually, the Spheromak is one of the Kolomaks and it was funded widely 
at three National Laboratories and several Universities with Defense 
and foreign funding still in progress.  Hope that doesn't blow your
bitterness theory.  The tokamak is just a simple touchstone for money, 
since it justifies the expenditures of enormous sums of lucre.  It 
promises to run dry in about 50 years, which is a constant period from 
the present, within statistical fluxuations having more to do with 
the current climate at congress than anything else.  Sure a conspiracy 
of circumstance.. not intent.. with petty exceptions.    

                    Tokamak ---  a bureaucrat's dream money machine.  
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc,Bx 1037, Prometheus II, Ltd., College Park, MD 20741-1037 |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.02 / Klaus Frank /  Re: Handy pi approx. Was: Re: Thoughts for Mr. "Plutonium"
     
Originally-From: klausf@flimnap.informatik.rwth-aachen.de (Klaus Frank)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics,sci.chem,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Handy pi approx. Was: Re: Thoughts for Mr. "Plutonium"
Date: 2 May 94 11:37:30 GMT
Organization: stud. cs, RWTH Aachen

David Kastrup writes:
>which is *very* easy to remember (read it bottom-up) and very accurate,

Physicists may enjoy this one, too; count the letters...

  How I want a drink, alcoholic of course, after
  the heavy chapters involving quantum mechanics.

  (Sir James Jeans)


cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenklausf cudfnKlaus cudlnFrank cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.03 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Logic is Logic
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Logic is Logic
Date: Tue, 3 May 1994 00:13:11 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Using the same Logic that says "If cold fusion is possible, nature would be
using it somewhere", I conclude that D2O is not poison else Agatha Christie 
would have used it as a murder weapon!

Tom Droege

cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenDROEGE cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.02 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Question for Chubb/ More on claims of Miles and Bush
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Question for Chubb/ More on claims of Miles and Bush
Date: 2 May 94 11:27:54 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

In his 4/28/94 posting, John Logajan asks:
"I can't speak to the specifics of Dr. chubb's theory, but are you sure
that it states or implies that all radioemissitivity is prohibited?"

That's what I understand, but I'd like to hear from the horse's mouth.
How 'bout it, Scott?

This thread began with some discussion of Mel Miles' (et al.) claims of
enormous radiation detected by a Geiger-Muller counter placed 20 cm from
Pd/D2O electrolytic cells.  {M. Miles and B. Bush, in Proc. of Nagoya
meeting on cold fusion, 1993, p. 189}

I have now done a rough calculation to determine just how much radiation
the GM counter reading implies.  Fig. 4 of this paper shows (38.2 - 31.3)
X 1000 counts per 12 hours (their units), or about 575 counts per hour.
Given the distance of 20 cm from the electrolytic cells, and the intrinsic
efficiency of the GM detector for gammas (20 cm through glass, D2O, air
is too much for alphas or betas, and the neutron survey meter showed nothing),
we find that 575 counts/h detected implies a source strength of roughly
10^8 gammas per hour.  The number is higher if one corrects for attenuation
due to passage through glass, water and air -- roughly 10^10 per hour
source rate.  And remember that Miles et al. claim a statistical significance
for the GM counter of 26 sigma, so they can't argue non-significance
[although they do admit:  "the anomalous radiation counts shown in Fig. 4 have
proven to be nearly as elusive as the excess power effect]. 


Now that is a large number!  Indeed, one immediately sees a problem here:
the neutron survey meter (ludlum model 15) "was always kept close 
to the water bath containing the two electrochemical cells"
[J. Electroanal. Chem 346 (1993) 99-117]
and with such a large flux seen in the GM detector, *something* should have
been seen on the neutron meter!  This is because such a meter will detect
some gammas also, like the GM detector (though neither is particularly suited
for such detection).  Moreover, gammas sufficiently energetic to reach the
GM detector should also break up deuterons in the D2O in the cells via
photodisintegration, producing a source of neutrons.  Yet they claim that
*nothing* was seen in the neutron survey meter, while claiming high
rates in a GM detector 20 cm from the cells!

Oops.  I conclude that these claims of Miles and Bush are *contradictory*.
They should have checked for consistency of the readings of the meters.
(Referees should also have checked prior to publication.)

--Steven Jones
 
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenjonesse cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.02 / John Cobb /  Re: Reply to Maglich on TFTR D-T Result
     
Originally-From: johncobb@emx.cc.utexas.edu (John W. Cobb)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reply to Maglich on TFTR D-T Result
Date: 2 May 1994 10:17:21 -0500
Organization: The University of Texas - Austin

In article <940430154129_74242.1554_BHR27-1@compuserve.com>,
John M. Logajan <74242.1554@compuserve.com> wrote:
>johncobb@emx.cc.utexas.edu (John W. Cobb) writes:
>>...the U.S. was never able to get a handle on its declared "war on drugs"
>>because of the continuing battles over who was in charge and who
>>controlled the money. 
>
>Your analysis goes awry here.  The outcome of the war on drugs was pre-
>ordained by the nature of the problem, i.e. a massive assault on civil
>liberties in order to impose a puritanical one-size-fits-all vision of
>the proper role of mankind.  The greater the efficieny of the warriors
>was/is proportional to the magnitude of corrosiveness on human liberty. 
>
>Tokamak might be unworkable in the commerical sense, but I don't think we
>have to go so far as to compare it to such a heinous policy.
>

The context of my original statement (which was mostly cropped out)
was a statement of analogy. It was that fusion policymaking,
particularly in the administrative branch, contained a great deal of
battling over turf and that those turf wars, not scientific or
technical issues, often are the factor that governs decisionmaking.

In this sense I believe the analogy with the "war on durgs" is both accurate
and illuminating. The war on drugs suffered from some of the most severe
turf battles of any recent federal program.

Now you may disagree (you are certainly entitled), but I stand by it. If
you personally don't like my analogy, fine. We'll discard the example and
talk in terms of the argument about policy control and discretion as a
root motivator in fusion policy.

In any case, a discussion of the "War on drugs" itself is beyond the scope
of this newsgroup.

-john .w cobb


-- 
 --------------------------------------------------------------
John W. Cobb	My posts don't reflect the views of my employer
                Because my posts are usually opaque.
 --------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenjohncobb cudfnJohn cudlnCobb cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.02 / C Harrison /  Tritium-Ti Reifenschweiler effect; Schober data
     
Originally-From: harr@netcom.com (Charles (Chuck) Harrison)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Tritium-Ti Reifenschweiler effect; Schober data
Date: Mon, 2 May 1994 15:27:31 GMT
Organization: AWOL

In a recent publication [1,2] of old data, O. Reifenschweiler describes
experiments with tritium-loaded titanium.  Several measurements
showing apparently anomalous variations of tritium activity with
temperature and concentration were made.  In all cases the Ti
preparation consisted of a thin layer of very small (~10nm dia)
particles.

In a related experiment [3], Reifeschweiler observed a plateau in
activity as tritium loading was gradually added to Ti.  Above
a threshold of ~0.0025 atomic ratio, the incremental increase
of activity with T concentration (da/dx) dropped sharply.
One may conjecture that the effect is related to a phase
transition from alpha-Ti (hcp) to the hydride (fcc), which
has stoichiometry TiT(1.5) with T at the octahedral sites.
I note that the literature values for the room-temperature 
phase transition concentration are near 0.0012 atomic ratio
for bulk Ti:H, but that a marked increase in this ratio has
been reported for low-density film morpholgy [4].  We are led
to consider that under certain circumstances tritium decay
may be partially suppressed in the tritide phase.

I note that Reifenscheiler's measurements were relative, and
did not attempt to measure the absolute decay rate.

Decay of tritium in a Ti or Ti tritide matrix releases 3He,
which is insoluble in the lattice and creates micro-bubbles
which can be examined by electron microsopy [5].  Schober &
Farrell cooled a tritiated sample of bulk Ti [~TiT(.002)]
and found that Ti tritide precipitated in platelets;
3He bubbles were nucleated shortly after precipitation,
(the first observation was 6 weeks after preparation) 
then their volume continued to grow linearly with time (test
duration ~ 32 months).  Under the following assumptions, they
found that the bubble growth rate was substantially less than
predicted from the known half-life of tritium:
  (1) the Ti tritide platelets had TiT(1.5) stoichiometry
  (2) the mean bubble concentration in the tritide is
        5e23 m^-3 (by TEM observation)
  (3) all evolved 3He is collected in bubbles
  (4) maximum plausible He concentration is ~2 atoms per
        (displaced) lattice atom.
Considering the uncertainty of their bubble diameter measurements,
and of the above assumptions, the authors found the results
"quantitatively unsatisfactory" but not alarming.  However, in
the light of the Reifenschweiler measurements, this data set
provides suggestive support for reduced T activity in Ti tritide.

Several electron micrographs are included in [5] and the
non-uniform spatial distribution of bubbles in the tritide plates
is discussed at some length.  One  interesting observation is that 
  "A significant fraction of the plates contained a
  long, straight boundary running the length of the
  plate and dividing it into two regions, one containing
  many clusters of bubbles, and the other seemingly
  free of bubbles."
The authors propose either
  (1) the bubble-free zones represent Ti hydride, from H contami-
       nation of the tritium, or
  (2) the "bubble-free" zones actually contain 3He bubbles
       which are too small to be resolved by their TEM (< 1nm).

Alternatively, I suppose that these bubble-free zones may be
regions in which the Reifenschweiler effect has dramatically
reduced the tritium decay rate.  I note that Reifenschweiler has
proposed that suppressed decay _may_ be related to the
submicron size of the Ti grains in his preparations.  The
"bubble-free" zones illustrated in [5] are 30 to 80nm thick.

I hasten to add that the Reifenschweiler and Schober data are
not "compelling" -- I do not expect Dale Bass to run to his
library and avidly check out the Ti:T literature.  :-> .
However, I _do_ dare to call it "provocative".


[1] O. Reifenschweiler, _Phys Lett A_ 184:149-153 (3 Jan 1994).
[2] Daryl Owen (dowen@vax.cc.monash.edu.au), "Re: Breakthrough
     with new phenomenon?.....", sci.physics.fusion 2 Feb 1994.
     Archived at ftp://vm1.nodak.edu/FUSION and wais-indexed at
     wais://sunsite.unc.edu/fusion-digest?cudendowen+cudmo2 .
[3] O. Reifenschweiler, "MD", sec. 4B, private comm., March 1994.
[4] SV Ariyaratnam et al, "Solubility of hydrogen in titanium
     wires and films at 300K", _J Matls Sci Lett_ 6:1349-1350
     (1987).
[5] T Schober & K Farrell, "Helium bubbles in alpha-Ti and Ti
     tritide arising from tritium decay: a TEM study", _J Nucl
     Matls_ 168:171-177 (1989).
[6] A San-Martin & FD Manchester, _Bull Alloy Phase Diagr_
     8:30 (1987).

Regards,
  -Chuck Harrison  harr@netcom.com

P.S.-
  Reference [5] above contains the first reasonably complete
  Ti:H phase diagram I have seen.  The authors credit [6], to
  which I do not have access.   -CH

cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenharr cudfnCharles cudlnHarrison cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.02 / J Buzzard /  RE: The "two types of Hydrogen Theory"
     
Originally-From: phyjab1@phyd2c1.caledonia.hw.ac.uk (Jonathan A Buzzard)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: The "two types of Hydrogen Theory"
Date: Mon, 2 May 1994 15:53:48 GMT
Organization: Heriot-Watt University


--

>Modeling the hydrogen atom is the greatest success of quantum mechanics.
>You would need to throw it out with such a theory.  To explain excess heat
>seen now and then with all sorts of poorly understood elctrochemistry 
>going on?  No.  

 Newton's laws of motion had (still do) great success at modeling moving bodies,
however this does not make the theory the whole picture. Hey the original idea
of the earth rotating round the sun with circular orbits was ditched because
the models with the sun going round the earth modeled the observations more
accuratly.
 Now lets see standard model 28 variable parameters fitted by experiment; you
can fit a lot of things very well with 28 variable parameters. I'am not 
knocking quantum mechanics(well I am actually), but you glib dismisal is far
to hasty.

JAB.

 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan A. Buzzard,              
Physics Department,           Email:-
Heriot-Watt University,            phyjab1@caledonia.hw.ac.uk   InterNet
Edinburgh. EH14 4AS                phyjab1@uk.ac.hw.clust       JANET
United Kingdom.
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenphyjab1 cudfnJonathan cudlnBuzzard cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.02 / mitchell swartz /  On Evolution Proves: Cold Fusion not Possible!
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: On Evolution Proves: Cold Fusion not Possible!
Subject: Re: Evolution Proves: Cold Fusion not Possible!
Date: Mon, 2 May 1994 16:15:25 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <1994Apr28.162838.7325@midway.uchicago.edu>
Subject: Re: Evolution Proves: Cold Fusion not Possible!
Greg Kuperberg (gk00@quads.uchicago.edu) writes:

=kuperberg  "Even deuterium is poisonous."

    So much "information" so little data.
   In this case, some of the early data is several decades old.

  "Deuterium (Heavy Hydrogen)
   Explosive limits:   see hydrogen
   Hazardous properties.   see hydrogen
             It is known to be toxic to lower forms of life.
              Its toxicity in relation to humans is doubtful."
    [Handbook of Dangerous Materials, N. I. Sax, Reinhold (1951)]

                             Mitchell Swartz [mica@world.std.com]


cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.02 / mitchell swartz /  Re: Comment on "Bill Page on Chubb and Chubb"
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Comment on "Bill Page on Chubb and Chubb"
Subject: Re: Comment on "Bill Page on Chubb and Chubb"
Date: Mon, 2 May 1994 16:16:27 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

   In Message-ID: <2q11ha$6d0@agate.berkeley.edu>
Subject: Re: Comment on "Bill Page on Chubb and Chubb"
Richard Schultz [schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu) writes:

>   My friend, Dick Blue, appears to be off by 7 orders of magnitude in
>this case, and should base his criticism upon correct facts.
=rs   "                                                               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
=rs   As opposed, I suppose, to the other kind of facts.  Well, this is cold
=rs   fusion we're talking about.
=rs   Still awaiting the explanation of the "Existence Theorem",    ""
		
  Actually this was answered twice.  
(with the long pause, perhaps Richard Schultz might try improving his
reading skills  by such modern methods as "hooked-on-phonics?"   ;-)

BTW, given that the question was answered, where are any
of the answers to my posted questions?   Still waiting ....

                             Mitchell Swartz
                              mica@world.std.com



cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.02 / J Buzzard /  RE: The "two types of Hydrogen Theory"
     
Originally-From: phyjab1@phyd2c1.caledonia.hw.ac.uk (Jonathan A Buzzard)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: The "two types of Hydrogen Theory"
Date: Mon, 2 May 1994 16:42:32 GMT
Organization: Heriot-Watt University


--

>Modeling the hydrogen atom is the greatest success of quantum mechanics.
>You would need to throw it out with such a theory.  To explain excess heat
>seen now and then with all sorts of poorly understood elctrochemistry 
>going on?  No.  

 For several centuaries Newton's Laws of motion had tremendous success in
modelling the motion of bodies, this did not make it a complete theory. Early
ideas on the helocentricity of the solar system were dropped, at leat in part,
because the alternative models with the earth at the centre fitted the observed
data better; did that make the model correct?

 As far as the standard model goes, with 28 variable parameters, set by
experiment, you could fit it to almost anything (Yes I am getting at quantum
mechanics here). Your glib and quick dismisal is rather hasty. 

The question that *all* good scientists should ask is ``is it a plausable 
explination for the observered phenomena?'' and at *all* times be ready to 
disgard or modify the current theory to explain these new phenomena; it has
been necessary more than once in the past and there is no reason as to why it
should not be necessary in the future.

JAB.

 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan A. Buzzard,              
Physics Department,           Email:-
Heriot-Watt University,            phyjab1@caledonia.hw.ac.uk   InterNet
Edinburgh. EH14 4AS                phyjab1@uk.ac.hw.clust       JANET
United Kingdom.
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenphyjab1 cudfnJonathan cudlnBuzzard cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.04.30 / Chuck Sites /  Re: Leggett & Baym vs. Chubb & Chubb - Conflicting Paradigms
     
Originally-From: chuck@iglou.iglou.com (Chuck Sites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Leggett & Baym vs. Chubb & Chubb - Conflicting Paradigms
Date: Sat, 30 Apr 1994 22:37:57 GMT
Organization: The Internet Gateway of Louisville, KY

crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:

>    Face it, you could simply be misapplying already bad sociology to 
>    give yourself warm fuzzies about something that is clearly wrong.
                                                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Or clearly correct depending on your point of view.  From my investigation 
of the Chubbs work, they look pretty darn good on many aspects.  Tell us
Dale, what is *clearly* wrong.  I don't see it.  At best there may be 
conflicting opions. 
   
>                                  dale bass

Have fun,
Chuck Sites



cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo4 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.02 / Ron Dippold /  RESULT: sci.physics.plasma moderated passes 143:17
     
Originally-From: rdippold@qualcomm.com (Ron "Asbestos" Dippold)
Newsgroups: news.announce.newgroups,news.groups,sci.physics,sci.physics.
usion,sci.physics.research,sci.physics.electromag
Subject: RESULT: sci.physics.plasma moderated passes 143:17
Date: 2 May 1994 15:36:58 -0400
Organization: Usenet Volunteer Votetakers

				RESULT
	   moderated group sci.physics.plasma passes 143:17

There were 143 YES votes and 17 NO votes, for a total of 160 valid votes. 
There was 1 abstain and 1 invalid ballot.

For group passage, YES votes must be at least 2/3 of all valid (YES and NO)
votes.   There also must be at least 100 more YES votes than NO votes. 

There is a five day discussion period after these results are posted.  If no
serious allegations of voting irregularities are raised, the moderator of
news.announce.newgroups will create the group shortly thereafter.


Newsgroups line:
sci.physics.plasma      Plasma Science & Technology community exchange.


This vote is being conducted by a neutral third party.  For voting
questions only contact rdippold@qualcomm.com.  For questions about the
proposed group contact Tim Eastman <eastman@astro.umd.edu>.


CHARTER (Proponent)

   The NEWSGROUP for Plasma Science and Technology is intended as a
community forum for sharing new developments and bringing researchers
together for potential new collaborations. During 1994, the focus of
this NewsGroup will be a community-wide dialogue to formulate a Plasma
Science and Technology Initiative which would deliver big-science
value with a medium-scale investment.  Participation in this dialogue
will involve primarily researchers in plasma science and technology
although qualified researchers in all related fields are
welcome. Executive committees for the Division of Plasma Physics of
the American Physical Society (APS) and the Nuclear and Plasma
Sciences Society of IEEE (Institute of Electrical and Electronics
Engineers) have given formal approval for this network dialogue.

   The Plasma Science and Technology research community seeks an
increased dialogue among its multifarious constituencies.  Plasmas are
as rich as any other state of matter in terms of distinct processes
and they encompass distinguishable scales ranging from the atomic to
the galactic. Opportunities in plasma science and technology reflect
this breadth in phenomena and scales; one recent list contains 135
subject areas and 65 applications areas including thin-film diamond
deposition, toxic waste disposal, plasma arcs for steel processing,
laser self-focusing, fusion for energy production, gas and arc lamps,
cutting and welding, and semiconductor production.

   In its initial implementation, Dr. Tim Eastman will be the PLASMA
NEWSGROUP moderator. He is a Faculty member of the Institute for
Physical Science and Technology at the University of Maryland [ph:
301-405-4829, fax: 301-314-9363, email: eastman@astro.umd.edu].
Dr. Barry Ripin of the Naval Research Laboratory will be an alternate
moderator.  The APS and IEEE Executive Committees will renew or
replace the moderator on a yearly basis.

NOTE: The NewsGroup name "sci.physics.fusion" already exists
and is appropriate for the subset of Plasma Science and Technology
which focuses on plasmas for energy production (i.e., fusion).  
The proposed NEWSGROUP for PLASMA is intended to complement the 
"fusion" group and will primarily orient itself to issues of 
Plasma Science and Technology other than fusion.


Why the NewsGroup for Plasma Science & Technology is needed and should pass:

Representatives and members of the Plasma Science and Technology research 
community have long recognized a need to communicate information and issues
that affect the broader community in addition to the several email groups
that currently exist at the local level or sub-field level (e.g., the Plasma
Etch User's Group in the Bay area).  Formal support for setting up this
NewsGroup has now been given (as of Nov. 1993) by the key Executive 
Committees representing this broad multi-disciplinary field.  In order to
focus the discussion during the NewsGroup's first year, we will encourage
a community-wide dialogue to formulate a major Plasma Science and Technology
Initiative.  The NewsGroup would then complement a Workshop on this topic
at the International Conference in Plasma Science in June, 1994.  Even after
this initiative is formulated and is no longer a focus of discussion, the
NewsGroup will provide a valuable service to the community by encouraging
contacts and research coordination that might otherwise never develop.
Use of the NewsGroup will be encouraged through scientific meetings and
through timely announcements of job opportunities, research opportunities, 
and funding options.

sci.physics.plasma Final Vote Ack

Voted Yes
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
75004372@vax1.dcu.ie                                                          
@s.ms.uky.edu                                                                 
aa1@st-andrews.ac.uk                                            Alasdair Allan
abdl@physics.ubc.ca                                                      ABDUL
aek@rocket.com                                                       Alan Kull
agae@sequoia.lle.rochester.edu                                Andres C. Gaeris
al198723@academ01.mty.itesm.mx                      JESUS EUGENIO SANCHEZ PENA
ALAN@MCLAPO.SAIC.COM                                            Alan Mankofsky
anders@uss-enterprise.bu.edu                                Anders M Jorgensen
andyl@harlequin.com                                                 Andy Latto
anita@physics.Berkeley.EDU                                     Anita J. Barnes
asebrant@glas.apc.org                                           Andrey Sebrant
bake-dc@mella.ee.up.ac.za                                         duncan baker
baksht@hded2.hcei.tomsk.su                                      Rina B. Baksht
barle@physics.rutgers.edu                                         Stanko Barle
bat@lve.hcei.tomsk.su                                    Alexander V. Batrakov
bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de                                         Bruce d. Scott
bett@cptca.neep.wisc.edu                                     Mike Bettenhausen
birchall@pilot.njin.net                                       Shag Aristotelis
birdsall@EECS.Berkeley.EDU                                       C.K. Birdsall
bj@herbison.com                                                  B.J. Herbison
blair@mksol.dseg.ti.com                                           arthur blair
bn293@cleveland.Freenet.Edu                                 Douglas P. Shannon
bsb2@columbia.edu                                              Bernard S Black
burt+@CMU.EDU                                                   Burt N Holzman
bwood@beta.lanl.gov                                              Blake P. Wood
CAROVILL@bcvms.bc.edu                                                         
cdl0@Lehigh.EDU                                                          Smoke
concave@convex1.TCS.Tulane.EDU                                christopher reed
CRAWFORD@AA.WASHINGTON.EDU                                                    
d3264@beta.ist.utl.pt                                                         
danhua@electron.Nuc.Berkeley.EDU                                         Danny
daughton@MIT.EDU                                                              
david@ppws18.plk.af.mil                              David Bell (505) 846-4479
David_Wiebe@mindlink.bc.ca                                         David Wiebe
dcoster@theory.pppl.gov                                           David Coster
dkabe@Glue.umd.edu                                                David K. Abe
dparsons@powergrid.electriciti.com                          Douglas J. Parsons
drayer@minerva.cis.yale.edu                                     Rebecca Drayer
ds1dh@aixfile1.urz.uni-heidelberg.de                           Dieter Heermann
dusenber@spot.Colorado.EDU                                                    
dutch@eltcv8.epfl.ch                                                          
dx@iesl.forth.gr                                              Dimitris Xenakis
eeu089@clss1.bangor.ac.uk                                      Mr." "J.C.Cooke
egblackm@cfa160.harvard.edu                                      Eric Blackman
es070@eng.warwick.ac.uk                                                       
espen@oslonett.no                                             Espen Kristensen
ESSER%AX1306.decnet@vax.HRZ.Uni-Marburg.DE                          Alex Esser
ev0@aixfile1.urz.uni-heidelberg.de                          Francisco Baptista
Evans@gav.gat.com                                                             
FORCE#m#_DALE@lims-a1.lerc.nasa.gov                        DALE FORCE 433-3520
frederik@uci.edu                                           Donald M. Frederick
fsspr@camelot.acf-lab.alaska.edu                                  Sean P. Ryan
gallo66@gate.net                                                  Omar Galloso
geno@nevada.edu                                       EuGene epetai-Tramaglino
giese@phys.ksu.edu                                                John P Giese
girish@Glue.umd.edu                                           Girish P. Saraph
Glen_Dahlbacka@macmail2.lbl.gov                                 Glen Dahlbacka
golant@gpi.free.net                                       Konstantin M. Golant
gold1@ppdds1.nrl.navy.mil                                       Steven H. Gold
groover@netcom.com                                              Robert Groover
gwb@n3gb.umd.edu                                                  George Baltz
hammett@theory.pppl.gov                                           Greg Hammett
heavner@dac0.gi.alaska.EDU                                        Matt Heavner
HHS100G@oduvm.cc.odu.edu                                   Hazem Sharaf El-Din
hopkinsm@vax1.dcu.ie                                                          
icarus@MIT.EDU                                                                
igor@lhfe.hcei.tomsk.su                                    Igor A. Chernyavsky
jbaker@halcyon.com                                                 James Baker
jfkiel01@nimbus.physics.louisville.edu                                        
jfortt@dorsai.dorsai.org                                          Joseph Fortt
jmd@lion.bear.com                                      Josh Glazenburg-Diamond
john.r.manuel@Dartmouth.EDU                                        John Manuel
johncobb@emx.cc.utexas.edu                                        John W. Cobb
jost@washpost.wdc.sri.com                                        Randy J. Jost
juergen@traal.hanse.sub.org                                     Juergen Schulz
jwinter@earwax.pd.uwa.edu.au                                  John Winterflood
kim@oit.hcei.tomsk.su                                         Alexander A. Kim
knapp@rintintin.Colorado.EDU                                       David Knapp
L15D@ZFN.UNI-BREMEN.DE                                        Martin Schroeder
lachlan@dmp.csiro.au                                         Lachlan Cranswick
lamaster@george.arc.nasa.gov                              Hugh LaMaster -- RCS
llobet@elpp1.epfl.ch                                             Xavier Llobet
lmccarth@freya.cs.umass.edu                                                   
mark@Lola.Phy.Queensu.CA                                          Mark Higgins
MARTIN@toka.ireq-ccfm.hydro.qc.ca                                             
matthew@earwax.pd.uwa.edu.au                                     Matthew Young
MC3747@mclink.it                                                  Marco Frasca
mckenna@physics.ubc.ca                                            Ross McKenna
meyer@shrike.und.ac.za                                             Kevin Meyer
mgschall@vela.acs.oakland.edu                                Michael G. Schall
mjw@physics.su.OZ.AU                                           Michael Wouters
mmt@eve.physics.dcu.ie                                            Miles Turner
mondellia@mclapo.saic.com                                                     
morrison@vxprix.cern.ch                                                       
mrwarden@phoenix.Princeton.EDU                           Melissa Rhoads Warden
ndallen@io.org                                                     Nigel Allen
neri@hobbes.nrl.navy.mil                                            jesse neri
nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk                                               Nick Maclaren
Paul.Bayton@durham.ac.uk                                                      
pbsnyder@phoenix.Princeton.EDU                          Philip Benjamin Snyder
pck8t@kelvin.seas.virginia.edu                              Paul C. Kirkitelos
pdavis@calvin.linfield.edu                                       Paul R. Davis
phirj@cc.flinders.edu.au                                                      
pricedw@plk.af.mil                                              David W. Price
quinn@phoenix.Princeton.EDU                                   Michael J. Quinn
reber@eu7.mpi-hd.mpg.de                                                   none
rfheeter@theory.pppl.gov                                      Robert F. Heeter
rod@daedalus.UCSD.EDU                                              Rod Greaves
roger@muenster.westfalen.de                                   Roger Schwentker
rsi@ingorant.scubed.com                                    Randall Ingermanson
ruben@cco.caltech.edu                                       Ruben Krasnopolsky
ruden@plk.af.mil                                                  Edward Ruden
rufinus@cae.wisc.edu                                                          
ryne@luke.atdiv.lanl.gov                                           Robert Ryne
SAAST8@vms.cis.pitt.edu                                             THE PRINCE
SANKAR@CUPLVX.AP.COLUMBIA.EDU                              M. K. Vijaya Sankar
schmitt@this.nrl.navy.mil                                         Andy Schmitt
sigma@rz.tu-cottbus.de                                   Hubert-Joachim Frenck
sina@pair.gsfc.nasa.gov                                             Ramin Sina
sparre@meyer.fys.ku.dk                                            Jacob Sparre
spl@owlnet.rice.edu                                       Stephen Paul LeBlanc
squest@moonwatcher.avrtech.com                                  Steve J. Quest
SROUJIJP@udavxb.oca.udayton.edu                                               
sshankar@td2cad.intel.com                                    Sadasivan Shankar
STEK@CMOD2.PFC.MIT.EDU                                                    PAUL
steve@owlnet.rice.edu                                     Steven Minor McClure
stongel@ERE.UMontreal.CA                                         St-Onge Louis
sussmanm@bettis.gov                                                 MM SUSSMAN
swildner@channelz.gun.de                                        Sascha Wildner
tgjones@phoenix.Princeton.EDU                                Theodore G. Jones
timothy@ccu1.auckland.ac.nz                                          Tim Bates
tonym@swifty.dap.CSIRO.AU                                          Tony Murphy
tqr@inel.gov                                                       Tom Repetti
tur@csg.hcei.tomsk.su                                    Igor Yu. Turchanovsky
umpape@ccu.umanitoba.ca                                                       
URDEV@ph.und.ac.za                                                       URDEV
uzdensky@phoenix.Princeton.EDU                                 Dmitri Uzdensky
v07@unixl.exp.univie.ac.at                                      Andreas Ulovec
van@quack.kfu.com                                               Sylvan Jacques
WENZEL@PFC.MIT.EDU                                                            
yadallee@GALcon.Ersys.edmonton.ab.CA                     Dave Shariff Yadallee
zerkleml@bettis.gov                                                  ML ZERKLE

Voted No
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
c.w.aude@LaRC.NASA.GOV                                            Carl W. Aude
claiborn@ctron.com                                        Christian L Claiborn
crouchkp@flidh102.delcoelect.com                                              
cward@Think.COM                                               Christopher Ward
dcbrogde@cats.ucsc.edu                                                        
jrm@globalvillag.com                                     John R. MacWilliamson
j_herlih@oz.plymouth.edu                                                   Axl
krish@vuse.vanderbilt.edu                                           P Krishnan
leffler@physics.ubc.ca                                           Steve Leffler
liebert@wiliki.eng.hawaii.edu                                    Bruce Liebert
rick@bcm.tmc.edu                                             Richard H. Miller
rkowen@nas.nasa.gov                                             Dr. R. K. Owen
roberts@phoenix.ocf.llnl.gov                                       Don Roberts
rvc40592@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu                                           Bob Cadman
stainles@bga.com                                                  Dwight Brown
stiela@access.digex.net                                                 Stiela
wglad@new-orleans.NeoSoft.com                                 William Gladnick

Abstained
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
mmt@RedBrick.COM                                          Maxime Taksar KC6ZPS


Votes in error
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
root@igart.valinor.munic.msk.su                                Igor V Artyuhov
   ! Invalid address
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenrdippold cudfnRon cudlnDippold cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.03 / Bill Page /  Chubb&Chubb versus the conventional interpretation of QM
     
Originally-From: 70047.3047@compuserve.com (Bill Page)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Chubb&Chubb versus the conventional interpretation of QM
Date: Tue, 3 May 1994 00:13:15 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Mike Thornburg wrote:
<<
I have tried to follow the discussion on Scott Chubb's theory as it has 
unfolded in this group, and I'm still a little confused as to how he 
expects the existence of ion band states to have any effect on the 
probability of deuterium fusion.  In other words, even if his theory is 
true, how do you get it to overcome the Coulomb barrier?

I can take out my copy of Pauling and Wilson, or Cohen-Tannoudji, et al., 
look up their particle-in-a-box solution, and construct delocalized states 
for the deuterium molecules in the bottle of compressed gas I get from my 
local isotope vendor. ...
>>

Hmmm... what to say?  There may be a problem of conflicting paradigms here 
- a difference of philosophy and a problem of language.  But lets try 
anyway.

First of all. What do you *mean* when you say "construct delocalized states 
for the deuterium molecules in a bottle of compressed gas"?

Actually, as a thought experiment this is not such a bad idea.  Why not 
consider a simple idealized situation with two identical spin protons 
confined by a infinite potential to box shape volume? As Mike says, QM 
tells us to represent the stationary states of such a system as a carefully 
chosen subset of the solutions to the Shrodinger wave equation with two 
independent spacial coordinates, i.e. six dimensions, three for each 
particle e.g. x1,y1,z1 and x2,y2,z2.  The electronic interaction of the 
protons also has to be reflected in the potential.

                                        e^2
     V(x1,y1,z1,x2,y2,z2) = -----------------------------  (inside the box)
                            (x1-x2)^2+(y1-y2)^2+(z1-z2)^2

                          = infinity (outside the box)

The solutions of the Schrodinger equation that we consider are the called 
wave functions, i.e. complex-valued, continously differtiable functions 
over this six dimensional space which have limits of 0 at infinitity.  We 
usually also require for convienience that integral of the wave functions 
over the whole of this space be normalized to 1 - a wave function 
represents the *same* physical state if mulitplied by a non-zero complex 
constant. In general, these solutions are "wave-like", ie. functions of sin 
and cos. Since the wave equation is linear, any complex linear combination 
of solutions is also a solution.

In more abstract terms this is equivalent to saying that the stationary 
states are the eigenfunctions of the Hamiltonian operator.

Also, because protons are fermions (= spin 1/2 particles) we also require 
that these wave functions must be anti-symetric (i.e. must change sign) 
with respect to the interchange of the particles, i.e. the interchange of 
their respective co-ordinates.

  psi(x1,y1,z1,x2,y2,z2) = - psi(x2,y2,z2,x1,y1.z1)

The square of the absolute value of the wave function is to be interpreted 
as the probability density of finding proton 1 at the first coordinate and 
proton 2 at the second coordinate.

And one additional hypothesis is that these wave functions contain *ALL* of 
the relevant information that can be know or which needs to be represented 
about the system.

>From this it is easy to conclude that the probability of finding these two 
protons at exactly the same location must be zero. It doesn't require, 
however, that they not be arbitrarily near each other, only that they not 
be infinitesimally near each other.  This is completely independent of 
whether the particles are charged or not.

Does this mean that fusion is impossible?  In itself, no.  This picture is 
too idealized to answer that question.  A proton can not be adequately 
represented as a point particle with respect to nuclear interactions.

Now, deuterons are spin 1 bosons, not fermions.  The wave functions which 
represent a system of identical bosons are required to be symetric with 
respect to the interchange of particles, i.e.

  psi(x1,y1,z1,x2,y2,z2) = psi(x2,y2,z2,x1,y1.z1)

There is nothing in QM itself which prohibits two boson particles from 
being in exactly the same place at the same time.  In fact, photons do this 
all the time.  We can even show that statistically speaking, systems of 
bosons evolve toward being in such identical states.  This phenomena is 
essential in devices such as the laser.

Still, fusion of deuterons is, none the less prevented in most situations 
because of their electronic charge.

All of this is just the conventional interpretation of QM.  But what does 
the interpretation tell us about the postions of the particles themselves?  
Well nothing really!  All it says is that *if* you make a measurement of 
the energy of this system you will always get the same value, i.e. the 
eigenvalue corresponding to the eigenfunction of the Hamiltonian.  In this 
description there really are *no* particles to talk about!  *All* we have 
is a particular set of complex-valued functions that vary over six 
independent spatial variables.

It is, strictly speaking, nonsensical to talk about de-localized particles 
according to the conventional interpretation. In fact, there are no 
particles.  At best, we can take the notion of de-localization as a 
metaphor.  It is a reminder that in spite of the way we described the 
variables in the Schrodinger equation (and the Hamiltonian) in the first 
place, the things which we might otherwise have called particles really 
have no place in this theory.  This has always made a lot of people 
uncomfortable and resulted in a lot of fuzzy thinking in QM.

Now, there *are* other interpretations of QM besides the conventional one.  
Some of these allow us to speak meaningfully about particles.  In 
particular, David Bohm's interpretation which originated with De Broglie's 
pilot wave model.  In Bohm's theory there are both waves (wave functions) 
and particles at exact locations in three dimensional space.  In this 
theory, wave functions are thought of as representing real fields (very 
much like conventional electromagnetic fields) which affects the motions of 
the particles in a non-linear way.  As fields, more over, the effects of 
the wave functions are necessarily non-local and can violate the so-called 
speed of light constraints in very subtle ways.  There was recently a 
popular article on this interpretation in Scientific American (May 1994 
issue, article by Z. Albert).  Albert has a nice little book on the subject 
of quantum measurement and Bohm's theory.

And recently the last book written by Bohm (who died recently) and which 
was co-authored with Hiley has just been published.  It is called "The 
Undivided Universe". Bohm's theory has been shown to be completely 
consistent with the conventional interpretation of QM and correctly yields 
classical mechanics in the appropriate limits. The book goes into this and 
other subjects in great depth. I am still waiting for a friend of mine to 
finish reading his copy of the book so I can get my hands on it.  I think 
that applying Bohm's model to the motion of identical deuterons in a 
periodic potential could greatly improve our intuitions about what to 
expect in dilute deuterated metal lattices.

Mike Thornburg continues:
<<
I can work out just how these steady-state one-particle solutions 
correspond to the localized wave packets (i. e., molecules zooming around) 
we usually think of in connection with this system.  No one would argue 
that by setting up these delocalized one-particle wavefunctions I had 
magically discovered a way around the Coulomb barrier that keeps the bottle 
of compressed gas from becoming a fusion bomb.
>>

Again, as Mike says, it is true that among the set of wave functions there 
are those that are called wave packets.  Wave packets are linear 
combinations of basic solutions which have an over-all envelope (shape) 
resembling a guassian distribution.  The time evolution of the average 
value and standard deviation of these wave packets resemble the motion of a 
particle which spreads-out or becomes more "de-localized" over time.  
Within the conventional interpretation, however, it is still not correct to 
equate a wave packet with a classical particle.

In any case, the molecules in a gas cannot be "de-localized" in the sense 
of the band-state described by Chubb and Chubb.

<<
The probability of fusion depends not a whit on overlapping, delocalized, 
one-particle wavefunctions (particle-in-a-box states, Bloch states, what 
have you), but in the probability of *simultaneously* finding two particles 
in the same very small volume of space. Even if the particles are 
delocalized and the delocalized wavefunctions overlap completely, you have 
no basis for concluding that a simultaneous measurement of
their position would find them both in the same small volume of space. 
>>

Chubb and Chubb demonstrate that (provided you treat the electronic charges 
of a "delocalized" particle as distributed over a substantial spatial 
volume within a periodic potential) then the probability of findind two 
particles in the required same volume of space does indeed greatly exceed 
that of two particles in free space.

<<
To use an example that does not directly apply to deuterium in a lattice, 
but that has some points of similarity, if you go to a metal and look at 
two conduction electrons in
the same spin state (both spin-up or spin-down) (actually this argument 
works for any two same-spin electrons anywhere in the universe, but let's 
concentrate on these two for the moment)  Pauli's exclusion principle tells 
us that we will never find them both at the same point in space--the 
probability is identically equal to zero, yet both electrons are in 
delocalized Bloch states that overlap at every point.
>>

This example isn't so good.  It doesn't contradict Chubbs' theory and isn't 
consistent with your use of the word "volume" above.

<<
If the Coulomb screening in a metal is not sufficient to allow *localized* 
deuterium atoms to approach closely enough for fusion to occur, no amount 
of delocalization is going to change this fact.
>>

Again, we have to ask: What is meant by "amount of delocatization"?  
Chubbs' theory requires that this "delocalization" be *real* in as much as 
being able to treat the Coulomb charge of the deuterons as spread-out over 
a significant volume of space within the lattice.

<<
Now it may be that Scott Chubb is not trying to address this aspect of the 
problem, but merely assumes that fusion occurs somehow and he is only 
trying to show how the resulting energy can couple to the lattice.  If so, 
then none of this is a problem for his theory, since he is not trying to 
explain how cold fusion might occur, but only what happens to the products. 
But I get the impression that he thinks his theory offers some mechanism 
for overcoming the Coulomb barrier, and from the descriptions I have seen 
in this group I just don't understand how that can be.
>>

The Chubbs' theory is intended to address both of these issues.

Thanks very much for your comments, Mike.

Cheers,

Bill Page.

cudkeys:
cuddy3 cuden3047 cudfnBill cudlnPage cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.03 / BERNECKY R /  question on wave overlap
     
Originally-From: BERNECKY@nl.nuwc.navy.mil (BERNECKY WILLIAM R)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: question on wave overlap
Date: Tue, 3 May 1994 00:13:20 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

This is a question on wave overlap.

Let's start with a localized quanton ("particle") described by a one
dimensional gaussian wave packet. This wave packet has a mean of X0 
and a width (standard deviation) of sigma. The square of the amplitude 
of the wave packet gives the probability of finding the quanton at a 
specific location.  This probability is very small for locations more 
than a few sigma away from X0, the center of the wave packet.

Now let's introduce a second gaussian wave packet with mean X1 and 
standard deviation sigma.

To know the degree of wave overlap between these two wave packets we must 
examine their joint probability density function (pdf).  This joint pdf 
psi(x0,x1,t) describes the probability of simultaneously finding (at time 
t) one quanton at position x0 and the other at x1.  In the *absence of any 
forces*, the joint pdf is the product of the two marginal distributions.
In other words, we may simply consider the superposition of the two wave 
packets.  As X1 approaches X0 the two separate waves will overlap.  This 
is the case for two photons.  And, of course, nothing remarkable occurs: 
two photons approach, overlap, interfere, depart.

This picture changes if the two quantons interact via a force; for example,
two deuterons which repulse each other due to the electric force.  As X1->X0,
we will see the wave packets deform.  That is, the joint pdf, which is 
defined over the two coordinates x0 and x1, describes the probability 
of finding at the same time two quantons at locations x0 and x1, and this 
pdf will be essentially zero along the line x0=x1.  But note that when the
kinetic energy of the quantons is greater than the repulsive force i.e. 
greater than the Coulomb potential energy, there would be some wave overlap 
in the joint pdf.  If this overlap condition occurs, there is a measurable 
probability of the two deuterons being at the "same" place at the same time,
and we must now consider the effects of the strong force.

Let's now modify the two gaussian wave packets by more precisely
defining their momentum while maintaining their original energy.
This means that we add (say 1E5) cycles to the wave form, each 
half cycle being approximately the width of the original gaussian.

Finally, we come to my questions: 

 (1)  How much wave overlap occurs between the two deuterons when
      their repulsive Coulomb potential is balanced by their 
      (room temperature) kinetic energy?

 (2)  As in (1), but when the electric charge of the extended 
      waves is screened by lattice electrons, except in the
      vicinity of the overlap.

cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenBERNECKY cudfnBERNECKY cudlnR cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Tue May  3 04:38:09 EDT 1994
------------------------------
1994.05.02 / mitchell swartz /  Evolution, Cold Fusion, Mineral Metabolism
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Evolution, Cold Fusion, Mineral Metabolism
Subject: Re: Evolution, Cold Fusion, Mineral Metabolism
Date: Mon, 2 May 1994 19:38:29 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

   In Message-ID: <north.767835201@watop>
Subject: Re: Evolution, Cold Fusion, Mineral Metabolism
 (was Evolution Proves:
Mark North (north@watop.nosc.mil) opines:

  > Mr. Kunich says: "In the human body alone, practically the 
  >entire periodic table is being used."   With about 103 elements,
  >perhaps he might mention the sixty (60) or seventy (70) or more
  >which he claims  ("practically the entire periodic table")
  > are essential for humans.            ;-)
  >   Like fractals, apparently the (absence of) knowledge of human mineral 
  >metabolism is mirrored by knowledge of the cold fusion phenomena.
= "Yes, wheels would be difficult for living creatures (though I understand
= some little critters have propellers) though it's hard to see how such 
= an organ could be nutriated (coined word). In larger animals, that is."

  Wrong.   Wheels appear with motion from centrioles
(in cross section) to various flagella bases. 
     These structures receive nutrition (?) by diffusion.  


= "On the other hand, we have functioning dead tissue (hair, fingernails and
= in Swartz' case, scales and brainstem)."

     Wrong.  No scales here.   And where is the answer to my question?
The scales of justice -- which do not need North's explicit answer --
will note, however, that Mr. North is wrong here too since 
breathe and the brainstem which controls that process are linked.

    On the other hand, more obvious is North's paucity of cerebral cortex, 
and the normal rich associations therein, which does herald itself 
by the substandard broadcasts through his fingertips wrought
by those very neurons which arise from, and are a barometer to, the
the tidal forces there-at.


= "Personally, I don't know how
= many elements the human body uses, do you?"

  A periodic chart, a number two pencil, and a few books will give the
answer to within a small number.   Try it.


= "Or should I say, has in it.
= If we go on the 'has in it' idea I would say all 106 (or whatever)."

   Wrong.     "use" is not "has in it", is it?
   Do we use DDT?     Do we use plutonium?   Strontium-90?   
         
                          Mitchell Swartz  [mica@world.std]

         



 
            


 
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.02 / mitchell swartz /  Calculations on Evolution Proves: Cold Fusion not Possible!
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Calculations on Evolution Proves: Cold Fusion not Possible!
Subject: Re: Evolution Proves: Cold Fusion not Possible!
Date: Mon, 2 May 1994 19:36:06 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <north.767834693@watop>
Subject: Re: Evolution Proves: Cold Fusion not Possible!
Mark North) (north@watop.nosc.mil) writes attentively of his deep observation,
   shrewd calculations and profound wisdom:

    >I wonder what the threshold for adverse effects is?
=mn  "Dunno about the threshold but one glass of 100% D2O will make you
=mn           100% dead, or so I'm told."
=mn           Mark 8^)   ZZ   "

  Therefore perhaps 1/600 of a glass of D2O will make one 
           1/6 % dead, as per Mark "8^)   ZZ" North?              ;-)

                             Mitchell Swartz [mica@world.std.com]




cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.02 / Jim Carr /  Re: (no subject given)
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics
Subject: Re: (no subject given)
Date: 2 May 1994 17:40:27 -0400
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

In article <COLUMBUS.94Apr29103329@strident.think.com> 
columbus@strident.think.com (Michael Weiss) writes:
>
>I've seen similar comments elsewhere.  Is there some (non-cynical) reason
>why CDF chose to publish now?  Has some threshhold been passed?

You might want to read the editorial in Nature (which has not gotten here 
yet) on the subject.  My own view is that the cynical and non-cynical 
reasons are similar.  There are good reasons to publish the paper now, 
but calling a press conference on submittal is a bit of a stretch given 
the evidence.  I am still chewing my way through the paper. 

This paper is the full analysis of their data up until the present run
started.  The subset of dilepton events are well known but do not make 
a case for top, just whet the appetite.  The single lepton events that 
are the result of a huge amount of data reduction work, as well as the 
background simulation studies, make the difference.  They are, however, 
still only 'evidence for' top; they are what people are looking for, but 
all the data does not quite hang together.  They say as much themselves.

It is normal to publish such a paper at this stage while awaiting the 
improved statistics from future runs.  They might have been encouraged 
to push it out for very rational reasons: the expectation has been that 
they would get 5 times more events in this run, but I am told the 
accelerator is not delivering the desired luminosity.  Thus a big 
improvement in the di-lepton events is still some time away, and they 
are justified in putting out what they have. 

It is interesting to contrast the PRL from D-zero (4/4/94) that sets 
a lower limit of 131 GeV from their di-lepton events (a few pages) 
to the 100 or so the CDF paper will require.  Those extra 10 events 
come at great cost.  Since indirect evidence sets a 200 GeV or so upper 
bound (from LEP) with a 165-175 favored region, you can see that the 
only reason to do all that work (rather than wait for more data) is to 
make use of the full capability of the detector and get some direct 
evidence for the top quark.  I am sure those other limits give them 
some confidence in the results of their analysis, hence the press conf. 

Also, if you have seen the "Race for the Top" program on Nova, you 
would know that there is a big inferiority complex due to the fact 
that FNAL has not won a Nobel.  They want the credit. 

-- 
 James A. Carr   <jac@scri.fsu.edu>     |   "It's never confusing though, 
      http://www.scri.fsu.edu           |  because ultimately it all fits 
 Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst.  |  -- it's just cockeyed and fits  
 Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306    |  and is fire."  -  Norman Maclean 
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.02 / Richard Schultz /  Re: Comment on "Bill Page on Chubb and Chubb"
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Comment on "Bill Page on Chubb and Chubb"
Date: 2 May 1994 23:56:59 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley

In article <Cp6nvH.DHM@world.std.com>,
mitchell swartz <mica@world.std.com> wrote:
>   In Message-ID: <2q11ha$6d0@agate.berkeley.edu>
>Subject: Re: Comment on "Bill Page on Chubb and Chubb"
>Richard Schultz [schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu) writes:
>=rs   Still awaiting the explanation of the "Existence Theorem",    ""
>		
>  Actually this was answered twice.  
>(with the long pause, perhaps Richard Schultz might try improving his
>reading skills  by such modern methods as "hooked-on-phonics?"   ;-)

No, my original question, which was "if the Existence Theorem allows you
to extrapolate from kilovolt Moessbauer Effects to MeV nuclear effects,
why does it not allow me to extrapolate from purple hummingbirds to
purple cows?"  The only "answer" (sic) I have received is that the
extrapolation from purple birds to purple cows is absurd -- something that
I have never denied.  What has been lacking is any kind of detailed explanation
of just what "Existence Theorem" (tm) you are talking about, and how you
can apply it in your Moessbauer --> cold fusion extrapolation.

					Richard Schultz
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.03 /  PAUL /  RE: The "two types of Hydrogen Theory"
     
Originally-From: stek@amazon.pfc.mit.edu (PAUL)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: The "two types of Hydrogen Theory"
Date: 3 MAY 94 02:18:43 GMT
Organization: MIT PLASMA FUSION CENTER


>From: phyjab1@phyd2c1.caledonia.hw.ac.uk (Jonathan A Buzzard)
>Date:  2-MAY-1994  15:34:39
>Description: RE: The "two types of Hydrogen Theory"


--

>>Modeling the hydrogen atom is the greatest success of quantum mechanics.
>>You would need to throw it out with such a theory.  To explain excess heat
>>seen now and then with all sorts of poorly understood elctrochemistry 
>>going on?  No.  

> For several centuaries Newton's Laws of motion had tremendous success in
>modelling the motion of bodies, this did not make it a complete theory. Early
>ideas on the helocentricity of the solar system were dropped, at leat in part,
>because the alternative models with the earth at the centre fitted the observed
>data better; did that make the model correct?

> As far as the standard model goes, with 28 variable parameters, set by
>experiment, you could fit it to almost anything (Yes I am getting at quantum
mechanics here). Your glib and quick dismisal is rather hasty. 

You are really willing to believe that our understanding of the hydrogen
atom is incomplete based on a dubious electrochemical experiment?

>The question that *all* good scientists should ask is ``is it a plausable 
>explination for the observered phenomena?'' and at *all* times be ready to 
>disgard or modify the current theory to explain these new phenomena; 

Yes, we need to always look at our theories and be willing to change them
as needed, but saying that here is a strange result, let's throw out our
best understood model is BAD science.  Always look for the simplest explanation
and only go changing our basic theories after easy fixes have not worked.
This concept never occured to P&F.  Their approach was: We can't explain 
our results via any known chemical reaction.  We can't explain our results 
via any known nuclear reaction.  So it must be a nuclear reaction."

>it has
>been necessary more than once in the past and there is no reason as to why it
>should not be necessary in the future.

>JAB.


Paul Stek
Stek@cmod.pfc.mit.edu

cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenstek cudlnPAUL cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.03 / Paul Koloc /  Re: The "two types of Hydrogen Theory"
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The "two types of Hydrogen Theory"
Date: Tue, 3 May 1994 07:08:29 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <3MAY94.02184362@amazon.pfc.mit.edu> stek@amazon.pfc.mit.edu (PAUL) writes:
>>From: phyjab1@phyd2c1.caledonia.hw.ac.uk (Jonathan A Buzzard) 
>>Date:  2-MAY-1994  15:34:39 
>>Description: RE: The "two types of Hydrogen Theory"
>>>Modeling the hydrogen atom is the greatest success of quantum mechanics.
>>>You would need to throw it out with such a theory.  To explain excess heat

>>As far as the standard model goes, with 28 variable parameters, set by
>>experiment, you could fit it to almost anything (Yes I am getting at quantum
>>mechanics here). Your glib and quick dismisal is rather hasty. 
>.. .; >>.. .
>Yes, we need to always look at our theories and be willing to change them
>as needed, but saying that here is a strange result, let's throw out our
>best understood model is BAD science.  Always look for the simplest explanation
>and only go changing our basic theories after easy fixes have not worked.

Oft times, the simplist and most elegant "fix" is a more basic unifying and
more widely reaching new "understanding", which then doesn't "throw out"
the old, but it does give it more useful context and trims its application
to beautifully fit things together that didn't before fit quite so well. 

>This concept never occured to P&F.  Their approach was: We can't explain 
>our results via any known chemical reaction.  We can't explain our results 
>via any known nuclear reaction.  So it must be a nuclear reaction."

Yes, it would seem on the surface that of two obvious choices they both
have equal weight.  The difficulty here is that IF the system is closed
and all perturbing energies are carefully measured coming and going, then
over long periods of time the claimed energy discrepancies are huge.  That
indicates that since a system with well accounted energetics should show
very measurable amounts of chemical mass involvement which are easily 
detectable; or the energy source has tremendously high energy density
such as nuclear changes, where the mass/to energy ratios or order 10^7
less than the chemical driven system, so the the mass tracking is 
proabably NOT an adequate means to detect such delta M (element) changes. 
That 10^7 ratio is why the nuclear route is THE most suspect; if black 
hole micro clumps where detected anywhere, they would be suspect.  
Electron shell Chemistry is only important if the accountancy is faulty.. 
which has been know to happen.    

There are tell tale signs of nuclear activity from certain inept cooler 
"hot fusion" devices, which MUST depend on enormously neutronic radio-
active fuels.  Consequently, the first "jump to conclusion" is that
the CF nuclear activity must be of a similar nature and therefore easily
detectable.  That's because we have little familiarity with fusion and
aneutronic processes, and we may easily be unaware at this next second 
on mankind's clock after the discovery of radioactivity that some other
nutsy phenomena is in store for us.  Or it could be aneutronic reactions
of Li6/Li6.  Certainly that's unlikely, and S. Jones claims the alpha 
driven knock-on electrons in the lattice would knock loose D's neutrons 
which we could easily detect.  That may be true,.. . but there is a mob 
of lattice electrons and they will move in concert wakes, which will tend 
to spread the punch of those few solo knock-ons, or even the sock from the
alpha that socks them up to relativistic in the first place.  What I'm
saying is: the d +e --> n +p +e  reaction may be very small, and a
difficult detection problem.   

From the known logical understandings to date, cold fusion is certainly
next to non-existent.   But then so is Ball Lightning.  :-)

>>it has
>>been necessary more than once in the past and there is no reason as to why it
>>should not be necessary in the future.

WHAT, are you suggesting we don't KNOW ALL of the Fundamentals???    :-)
Keep up that occasionally pungent, but open, charging mind. 

>>JAB.
>Paul Stek
>Stek@cmod.pfc.mit.edu
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc,Bx 1037, Prometheus II, Ltd., College Park, MD 20741-1037 |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+


cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.03 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Logic is Logic
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Logic is Logic
Date: Tue, 3 May 1994 07:13:40 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <940502122651.2022b872@FNALD.FNAL.GOV> DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:
>Using the same Logic that says "If cold fusion is possible, nature would be
>using it somewhere",  .. .

How about the nickel-titanium-Pt core of that planet between Mars and Jupiter
that somehow overheated and generated the asteroid belt.  
                                 :-)
Cold fusion, the stellar planetary cultivator.  

>Tom Droege
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc,Bx 1037, Prometheus II, Ltd., College Park, MD 20741-1037 |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.03 / Bill Page /  Two types of hydrogen theory - J.P. Vigier
     
Originally-From: 70047.3047@compuserve.com (Bill Page)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Two types of hydrogen theory - J.P. Vigier
Date: Tue, 3 May 1994 11:37:58 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Dear John Lange,

Recently on s.p.f. you asked:
<<
I saw a television show here in Canada on the topic of Cold Fusion, and one 
of the more interesting theory's regarding what exactly is going on in 
those test tubes was that there is actually two different types of Hydrogen 
in existence. The normal Hydrogen with the electron in an outer orbit, and 
a much rarer version with the electron in a close orbit.

As I understand it, this theory states that the extra heat generated in 
these little test tubes is actually a result of one form of Hydrogen being 
converted to the other. In this case, when the electron goes from its outer 
orbit to its inner orbit, it releases energy, thus the extra heat.

Anyhow, my question is simply this, whats the latest on this theory (in 
other words, how has it stood up to analysis)? And, does any one know the 
name of the scientist who first proposed this theory, and does he have a 
Internet E-Mail address?
>>

I think the scientist you are looking for is J. P. Vigier, although there 
are a few more speculative variations by other authors such Mills and 
Farrel. Vigier is well known in theoretical physics and is an editor of the 
"Physics Letters A" scientific journal.  He has published a number of 
papers on this subject, the most recent was a presentation at the ICCF-4 
cold fusion meeting in Hawaii in December 1993. I attended his talk and 
received a draft of his paper by mail.  The proceedings of the meeting are 
due to be published "real soon now" - I haven't seen them yet. Anyway, in 
January/February I posted a detailed review of his draft here on s.p.f. and 
there was some good discussion, some negative conclusions and some 
intriguing possibilities (with an improved version of his equations).  
There is a way you can retrieve these discussions by ftp from an archive 
site if they are not still on your system.  Let me know if you need help.

I don't think J.P. Vigier is accessible by email. I sent him a letter by 
fax but received no response. However you might try to reach him at the 
following address:

  Dr. J. P. Vigier
  Gravitation et Cosmologie Relativistes
  Universite Paris VI - CNRS/URA 769
  Tour 22 - 4eme etage, Boite 142
  4, place Jussieu, 75252 Paris
  Cedex 05

  Telephone: (1) 44.27.72.86

  Fax: (1) 44.27.72.87

Cheers,

Bill Page.

cc. Fusion Digest (sci.physics.fusion)

cudkeys:
cuddy3 cuden3047 cudfnBill cudlnPage cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.03 / Geert Bex /  Re: Evolution and cold fusion (was "Evolution Proves: Cold 
     
Originally-From: geert@astro.rug.nl (Geert Bex)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics,sci.chem,sci.bio,sci.math,alt
sci.physics.plutonium
Subject: Re: Evolution and cold fusion (was "Evolution Proves: Cold 
Date: Tue, 3 May 1994 10:57:23 GMT
Organization: Rekencentrum der Rijksuniversiteit Groningen

Ludwig Plutonium (Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu) wrote:
: In article <Cov89M.IuA@world.std.com>
: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:

: >   1)  If this logic is true for organisms including humans, then 
: > some organism did utilize this effect.  Humans.
: >            Witness the F+P announcement in 1989.
: > 
: >    2)  If this logic is true for organisms other than humans,
: > then other organisms would have had to obtain enough palladium in a
: > relatively pure state and crystalline state AND
: > maintain this either in near vacuum or very hot, or very alkaline conditions.
: > 
: >   Seems unlikely.  the paucity of materials has played a role in
: > evolution before.  
: >   Consider that cephalopods are older then human, have probably
: > more advanced (in some ways) brains then human, have better eyes
: > then human, and were only held back -- from an evolution sense --
: > only because their blood used copper instead of our (advanced?) iron to hold
: > oxygen.  Imagine if they needed palladium too.
: >     Palladium is much rarer then copper based upon the price alone.  True?
: > 
: >   3) If this logic had to be true for organisms other than humans,
: > and it were true to begin with, then where are the organisms
: > using flamethrowers, atom bombs, Saturn V's, scanning electron
: > microscopes, and tokomaks?  Do they not exist either?
: In article <2pj9s5$aer@news.cs.tu-berlin.de>
: mfx@cs.tu-berlin.de (Markus Freericks) writes:

: > 
: > Well, my idea was certainly not inspired by "logic" under any possible
: > definition of the term. [It is an more of an analogy to Larry Nivens thesis
: > that there are no "psi" effects, since if any such were possible and
: > usable, evolution would have produced them.]

: In article <2pmat4$4afr@oolong.la.locus.com>
: rrb@oolong.la.locus.com (Raymond Butte) writes:

: >         1) Perhaps evolution has produced "psi" effects, for some, on occasion.
: >         2) What makes us think that evolution must be over or complete ?

:   When you finally accept cold fusion as spontaneous neutron
: materialization, then you can see that it is a process occurring in
: perhaps all living creatures. And in fact if some earnest, diligent,
: experimental scientist set-up the experiment, that I predict positive
: results will accrue. 
:   This is what to look for. Take any living organism and try to
: tabulate how many extremely rare elements are within its body. Then
: with future observations it will be found that atoms of rare elements
: spontaneously materialized. Perhaps eels may be a good subject
: material. Then again, some biology major who is reading this already
: knows of anamolous living subjects that just seem to "materialize atoms
: from out of nowhere (not imbibed,inhaled, or eaten). Cold fusion is
: merely spontaneous neutron materialization. And if you do not believe
: me. Then, at least consider the words of a past genius---P.A.M. Dirac.
: With some stretching of the history, some imagination when applied to
: Dirac's writing in this great physics book. One can say that Dirac was
: the first true Cold Fusioner. I am the second.

: Lectures delivered during a visit to Australia and New Zealand in
: Aug/Sept 1975

: DIRECTIONS IN PHYSICS 1978

: pages 72-73

:    " The argument in favor of the variation of the gravitational
: constant comes from a study of the constants of Nature. Nature provides
: us with various constants: the velocity of light, the charge of the
: electron, the mass of the electron, and quantities like that. Most of
: these have dimensions, that is to say, the value of the quantity
: depends on what units you use.  When we use the metric system of units,
: we get a different value for the constant from that obtained when we
: use the British system. Well, such numerical values are not of any
: general interest. However, from the constants of Nature, we can
: construct some that are dimensionless, some that are the same in all
: systems of units. It is only these dimensionless quantities that we
: shall be dealing with today. 
:    One of these dimensionless constants is the famous reciprocal of the
: fine-structure constant ((hbar)c)/E^2. It is fundamental in the atomic
: theory, and it has the value of about 137. Another dimensionless
: constant is the ratio of the mass o f the proton to the mass of the
: electron, that is to say Mp/Me. That constant has the value somewhere
: near 1840. At present, there is no satisfactory explanation for these
: numbers, but physicists believe that, ultimately, an explanation will
: be found. One would then be able to calculate them from basic
: mathematical equations. One may expect these numbers to occur as being
: built up from 4pi(s) and other simple numbers like that. 
:    Now, there is another dimensionless constant of Nature which I want
: to call your attention to. It arises as follows: Consider the hydrogen
: atom: electron and proton. The electrostatic force between them is
: inversely proportional to the square of their distance. So is the
: gravitational force. We can then take the ratio of the electrostatic
: force to the gravitational force. It will be independent of the
: distance, and it will be dimensionless. In this way we get the number
: (E^2)/GMeMp, where E is the charge of the electron (and proton), G is
: the gravitational constant, and Me,Mp are the masses of the electron
: and proton.
:    Now if we work out its value, we get an extremely large number. It
: is about 2X10^39. "

:  page 75

:   " This figure involves years, a rather artificial unit of time. We
: may use instead a unit of time provided by atomic theory. Let us take
: as the unit, say, the time required for light to traverse a classical
: electron: (E^2)/((Me)c^3).  If we express t in terms of this unit, we
: get a number of the order 7X10^39: t = 7X10^39(E^2)/((Me)c^3). This is
: a number roughly the same as the large number, 2X10^39, which we
: obtained previously.
:    Now, you may say: "This is a very remarkable coincidence". However,
: I do not believe it is a coincidence; I believe that there must be some
: fundamental reason in Nature why these two large numbers should be so
: close together. We do not know that reason at present, we cannot guess
: at it. It will be explained, however, when we have better information
: both about atomic theory and about cosmology. "

: page 76

:    " We then have a sort of a general principle that very large numbers
: which turn up in Nature and have no dimensions, are related to each
: other. I call this principle the LARGE NUMBERS HYPOTHESIS. According to
: it, all the very large dimensionless numbers, which turn up in Nature,
: are related to one another, just like t = 7X10^39 and (E^2)/GMeMp.
:    There is one further very large dimensionless number which we have
: to take into consideration. That is the total mass of the Universe when
: expressed in units of, say, the proton mass. That will be, if you like,
: the total number of protons and neutrons in the Universe. It may be, of
: course, that the Universe is infinite and that, therefore, this total
: number is infinite. In that case we should not be able to talk about
: it. Yet we can use another number to replace it. We need only consider
: that portion of the Universe which is sufficiently close to us for the
: velocity of recession to be less than, let us say, half the velocity of
: light. We are then considering just a certain chunk of this infinite
: Universe, for which recession velocities are less than half the
: velocity of light. We then ask, what is the total mass of this chuck of
: the Universe? That again will be a very large number and will replace
: the total mass of the Universe, to give us a definite number when the
: Universe is infinite.
:    We may try to estimate this total mass using the mass of those
: stellar objects which we can observe, and making an allowance for
: unobservable matter. We do not know very well how big that allowance
: should be: there may be quite a lot of unobservable matter in the form
: of intergalactic gas or black holes or things like that. Still, it is
: probable that the amount of dark matter is not very much greater than
: the amount of visible matter. If you make an assumption of that kind,
: you find that the total mass, in terms of the proton mass, is (total
: mass)/(proton mass) = 10^78, with a suitable factor allowed for the
: invisible matter. We, therefore get a number which is, roughly, the
: square of t (in atomic units). "

: pages 76- 78


:   "  Now, according to the Large Number Hypothesis, all these very
: large dimensionless numbers should be connected together. We should
: then expect that (total mass)/(proton mass) = 10^78 proportional to
: t^2. Using the same argument again, we are therefore led to think that
: the total number of protons in the Universe is increasing
: proportionally to t^2. Thus, there must be creation of matter in the
: Universe, a continuous creation of matter. 
:    There have been quite a number of cosmological theories working with
: continuous creation of matter. A theory like that was very much
: developed by Hoyle and others. The continuous creation which I am
: proposing here is entirely different from that. Their continuous
: creation theory was introduced as a rival to the Big Bang theory, and
: it is not in favor at the present time.
:   The continuous creation which I have here is essentially different
: from Hoyle's continuous creation, because Hoyle was proposing a steady
: state of the Universe, with continuous creation to make up for the
: matter which is moving beyond our region of vision by the expansion. In
: his steady-state theory, he had G constant. Now, in the present theory,
: G is varying with time, and that makes an essential difference.
:   I propose a theory where there is continuous creation of matter,
: together with this variation of G. Both the assumption of continuous
: creation and the variation of G follow from the Large Numbers
: Hypothesis.
:   This continuous creation of matter must be looked upon as something
: quite independent of known physical processes. According to the
: ordinary physical processes, which we study in the laboratory, matter
: is conserved. Here we have direct nonconservation of matter. It is, if
: you like, a new kind of radioactive process for which there is
: nonconservation of matter and by which particles are created where they
: did not previously exist. The effect is very small, because the number
: of particles created will be appreciable only when we wait for a very
: long time interval compared with the age of the Universe.
:   If there is new matter continually created, the question arises:
: "where is it created?" There are two reasonable assumptions which one
: might make. One is that the new matter is continually created
: throughout the whole of space, and in that case, it is mostly created
: in intergalactic space. I call this the assumption of additive
: creations. 
: Alternatively, one might make the assumption that new matter is created
: close by where matter already exists. That newly created matter is of
: the same atomic nature as the matter already existing there. This would
: mean that all atoms are just multiplying up. I call that the assumption
: of multiplicative creation. There are these two possibilities for the
: creation of new matter. I do not know which to prefer. One should
: continue with both possibilities and examine their consequences. "


: page 81

:   "  Well, there we have effects which we might hope to be able to
: measure, and so check up on whether this theory is a good theory or
: not. We just have to make accurate observations with atomic time. I
: should emphasize that it is important that these observations are made
: with atomic time, because the above formulas apply only to quantities
: in atomic units.
:    We might, first of all, think of the Moon and make observations of
: the Moon to check on this theory. Now, people have been making
: observations of the motion of the Moon for the last 20 years with
: atomic time. They have also recently been making accurate observations
: of the distance of the Moon, referred to atomic units. The astronauts
: who landed on the Moon put down some laser reflectors, and people are
: now sending laser light to these reflectors and observing the light
: reflected by them. They then measure, using an atomic clock, the time
: taken by the light to get to the Moon and back and, in that way, get
: the distance of the Moon, referred to atomic units.
:     If we apply it to the motion of the Moon around the Earth, our
: theory would require that with additive creation the Moon should be
: approaching the Earth by an amount we can easily calculate. It is about
: 2cm/year.
: With multiplicative creation, the Moon should be moving away from the
: Earth at the same rate. We would have to measure, therefore, the
: distance of the Moon to that accuracy. Now, people have recently been
: measuring the distance of the Moon with very great accuracy. The most
: recent information I obtained was that, nearly a year ago, they had the
: ", ..[ Continued.]
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudengeert cudfnGeert cudlnBex cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.03 /  PaulBreed /  An Idea for making better Pd  for CF
     
Originally-From: paulbreed@aol.com (PaulBreed)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: An Idea for making better Pd  for CF
Date: 3 May 1994 08:54:07 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

It seems that the CF researchers have not yet identified a repeatable process
for 
producing Pd that will create excess enthalpy. 
What little information I have seen indicates that the perfect sample would be
free
of flaws such as cracks, cell/grain  boundaries or other lattice disturbances.
In this light I remember reading about an aerospace company (P&W I think)
That had developed a procedure  for casting single cell turbine blades for
their gas turbine
engines.  The article I read (2 Years ago?) described the evolution of the
process.
They showed examples of traditional castings and the castings with large grain/
cell boundaries
and showed a continuous progression until the turbine was a single cell with no
lattice boundary.
These were castings of  at lease 8 inches in size. I do not know what materials
were being cast, or
if the information about the casting process is in the public domain, but I
hope the idea will be useful
for someone trying to make perfect Pd.

Paul Breed
PaulBreed@AOL.COM
voice 508-658-0885x37
Fax 508-657-4803
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenpaulbreed cudlnPaulBreed cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.03 / mitchell swartz /  Question for Chubb/ More on claims of Miles and Bush - calc error?
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Question for Chubb/ More on claims of Miles and Bush - calc error?
Date: Tue, 3 May 1994 12:34:38 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Subject: Question for Chubb/ More on claims of Miles and Bush
Message-ID: <1994May2.112755.1612@physc1.byu.edu>
Steve Jones (jonesse@physc1.byu.edu) writes:

=sj  "This thread began with some discussion of Mel Miles' (et al.) claims of
=sj  enormous radiation detected by a Geiger-Muller counter placed 20 cm from
=sj  Pd/D2O electrolytic cells.  {M. Miles and B. Bush, in Proc. of Nagoya
=sj  meeting on cold fusion, 1993, p. 189}
=sj  I have now done a rough calculation to determine just how much radiation
=sj  the GM counter reading implies.  Fig. 4 of this paper shows (38.2 - 31.3)
=sj  X 1000 counts per 12 hours (their units), or about 575 counts per hour.

   Mr. Jones, this is simple math and you are wrong.
    38,200 over 12 hours gives  3183 counts per hour.
    31,300 over 12 hours gives  2608 counts per hour.
    
We can take the average which is 
   34,750 over 12 hours which gives 2895 counts per hour.

   Oh yes, you could have checked this yourself, quite quickly
since 12 * 575 gives just under 7 X 1000  counts per 12 hours, and
not either the number which you give (vide supra).

   However, you are within an order of magnitude, and have the right sign
this time.    ;-)


=sj  "Given the distance of 20 cm from the electrolytic cells, and the intrinsic
=sj  efficiency of the GM detector for gammas (20 cm through glass, D2O, air
=sj  is too much for alphas or betas, and the neutron survey meter showed nothing),
=sj  we find that 575 counts/h detected implies a source strength of roughly
=sj  10^8 gammas per hour."

   I dare you to prove this.     Please walk us through this, Professor, since
it is so important to your thesis.

   Best wishes.
               Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com)







cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.04 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  How to get and Increased Geiger Counter Reading
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: How to get and Increased Geiger Counter Reading
Date: Wed, 4 May 1994 00:12:49 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

1) Place your Geiger Counter Near an Electrolytic Cell, 20 cm would be just
about right.

Here is how it works:

The Geiger Counter contains a regulated power supply that includes a bleeder
resistor to divide down the 1000 or so volts used by the Geiger tube to 5
or so volts for the regulator.  This might be a 200 megohm resistor and a 
one megohm resistor.  

Some of the vaporized electrolyte, or just the water vapor and a little dirt
on the reisitors forms a parallel conductive path.  Lets say this is 
10,000 megohms on each resistor.  This causes a 2% decrease in the 200 megohm
resistor but only a 0.05% decrease in the 1 megohm resistor.  The power 
supply regulator now notices a near 2% decrease in the feedback voltage, and
dutyfully jacks up the Geiger tube voltage.  Geiger counters are very sensitive
to their power supply voltage, particularly for photons where there might be
only one primary ion.  But mostly it just becomes more sensitive to the cosmic
ray background.  

There are many other effects that might change the sensitivity of a Geiger 
counter.  Depending on the size and the shape of the unit, a few thousand 
counts per hour variation would be perfectly normal.

In the past, I have carried on this very discussion with an open minded 
experimenter who saw an increase in his Geiger counter reading and traced
it to this very effect!  Please step forward.

Tom Droege

cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenDROEGE cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.04 / Bill Page /  Re:  Bill Page on Chubb and Chubb
     
Originally-From: 70047.3047@compuserve.com (Bill Page)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re:  Bill Page on Chubb and Chubb
Date: Wed, 4 May 1994 00:12:50 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Matt Kennel (mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu) wrote:
<<
: The amount of wave function dimpling that occurs is determined by the 
: marginal decrease in potential energy balanced against the marginal 
: increase in kinetic energy resulting from increased dimpling.  In the 
: helium atom this balance is achieved at a high degree of 
electron-electron 
: overlap."

Yes and no.  Sure, the wave functions for the individual electrons
overlap, but that DOES NOT MEAN THEY EVER ARE CLOSE TO ONE ANOTHER.
>>

Chuck Harris has covered this one nicely with his references. Thanks.  Just 
one quick note:  Above Matt says: "Sure, the wave functions for the 
individual electrons overlap, but that DOES NOT MEAN THEY EVER ARE CLOSE TO 
ONE ANOTHER".  Now what could such a statement possibly mean?  I think we 
have to examine carefully the interpretation of QM that is at work here.  
In fact, Chubb&Chubb say "... a high degree of electron-electron overlap".  
They also seem to be using confusing terminology.  What is an "electron" in 
this model?  This is definitely a case of conflicting paradigms!

<<
You have to consider the total wave function.  You can have identical
one-electron wave functions, Phi(r) and yet have a combined wave function
Psi(r1,r2) that is not the product Phi(r1)*Phi(r2).

I.e. the one-electron wave function

Phi1(*) = integral Psi(r1,r2) d^3 r2

can be the same as Phi2(*), and yet have there be no overlap.

In fact, this is what happens.

The *conditional* distribution of P(|r1 - r2|) < femtometers
is going to be damn small because of the mutual repulson even with
purported 'electron-electron overlap'.
>>

If you can accept the notion that the electronic charge is "spread-out" due 
to "delocalization", then Chubb&Chubb show that the conditional 
distribution is much larger than expected.

<<
: "The net effect is that in each cell, the kinetic energy increase due to 
: dimpling is multiplied by the factor 1/Ncell.  The resulting value is 
Ncell 
: times greater than the Coulombic contribution; i.e., kinetic energy 
: dominates potential energy in regions where significant dimpling occurs.  

: As a result, energy minimization then occurs with negligible dimpling, as 

: in the helium atom.  With this picture of quantum reality, there is no 
: correlation barrier to cold fusion."

So?

If it's like the helium atom, then there still can be no close passes
even with wavefunction 'overlap'.  Sure, each deuteron could be
in a perfectly delocalized, and perfectly *identical* one-particle
wavefunction, and yet have there be no mutual proximity.
>>

I don't really understand this language. "close passes" of what?  "each 
deuteron could be *in* a perfectly delocalized wavefunction".  What does 
"in" mean? Is this referring to the state of a specific deuteron?  Chubb 
and Chubb are really talking about the features of a joint many-body wave 
function.  If your point is that: "In standard QM we are talking about a 
wave function for a system of identical particles therefore we can no 
longer speak about how close two selected particles may approach.", then we 
agree.  But I am afraid you are saying something else.

 ---------------------

Dick Blue writes:
<<
With regard to the C&C assertion that, "There is no correlation
barrier to cold fusion.", I think I may see something wrong with the
Chubb picture.  Let me run this one by you.  The point made repeatedly
by Dr. Chubb relates to this reduction in the dimpling effects by
the factor 1/Ncell.  That is what keeps the system from having to
pay to high an energy price to overcome the correlation barrier.
However, when you think about this in combination with the fact that
the ion band wave function derives many of its properties from the
fact that a shift in position by an integer multiple of the unit
cell dimension is equivalent to staying put, haven't we made a
significant change in what is meant by correlations between the
positions of two deuterons?  As far as its interactions with the
lattice is concerned the deuteron sees the same potential at every
lattic site, but that does not apply when you consider those
coordinates that tell you whether two deuterons are within range
of the nuclear interaction.  Whether he makes it explicite or not
Dr. Chubb has actually made an assertion that the nuclear part
of the wave function which he separated as per the Born-Oppenheimer
approximation is spread over all lattice sites just like the
part of the wave function involving the center-of-mass motion
of the deuteron.  It seems too strange to me, particularly when
there are supposed to be only about 1 deuteron for every 10^7
unit cells.  Isn't that extending the range of the nuclear interaction
just a bit far?
>>

Yes, I like this line of argument.  To get around this, in describing 
nuclear interactions, Chubb&Chubb switch to a new representation called the 
Wannier function represenation.  They claim that the Wannier function 
representation is equivalent to the Bloch function representation.  In 
their Dec 1993 paper they state: "The reaction possibilities are most 
easily identified if the many-body wave function is expressed in terms of 
transient integer particle occupations of unit cells, as described in the 
Wannier function representation.  This representation contains terms that 
describe transient multiple occupations which we designate as nDband+.  
These components undergo coalescence fluctuations to nuclear density.  The 
key fluctuations are

  2Dband+  <---> 4He*band++
  3Dband+  <---> 6Li*band+++
and
  4Dband+  <---> 8Be*band++++

"The starred * ions are transient nuclear density configurations of 
proton-neutron pairs in a high-energy state."

[I hope that my notation is readable.  Chubb&Chubb write the numbers and 
the word 'band' as appropriate superscipts and subscripts.]

Only the first of these is significant as they depend on the concentration 
of band-state deuterium according to c^n.

So, it is really these "transient multiple occupations" which experience 
the nuclear force.  This looks like "slight of hand".  We have to evaluate 
carefully whether these two representations really are equivalent to the 
required degree.  By the use of the word 'transient', Chubb has introduced 
the notion of the time scale of the interaction which was not explicit in 
the Block function formulation.  It was irrelevant for the electronic 
interactions but not the nuclear.

This looks to me like it is another case where we would have to invoke a 
"deeper" interpretation of QM.  Can we really treat "transient multiple 
occupations" (what does this *really* mean?) as if they were deuterons 
sufficiently close for a sufficiently long time to fuse?  It is not clear 
to me.  As usual, more predictions and experimentally verificed empirical 
results of several different kinds would certainly strengthen the case.  I 
think philosophical arguments can only serve to improve our intuitions as 
to what phenomena to expect.

<<
Bill's response to my question concerning the origin of the Chubbs' total 
suppression of other reaction channels also leaves me even more confused.  
Tying this to a need to preserve Born-Oppenheimer separability of the wave 
function such that, "Processes that involve the independent motion of 
neutrons or protons which exceed the scale of nuclear phenomena would 
violate this separability and are therefore excluded." seems like getting 
the cart before the horse to me.  The B-O separation is an approximation 
that can be justified provided the physics is such that nothing happens to 
rearrange the groupings of the constituant particles too drastically.  If 
this restriction no longer applies you simply have to scrap the separation 
as being appropriate for the description of your problem.  To argue that 
having made the separation of my choice I can now assert that the physics 
is going to do things my way or not at all is just absurd. ...   I know I 
am just clinging
to the wrong paradigm so help me out.  What is this Physics for a New Age 
that Dr. Chubb is using?
>>

Actually, in my response I may have overstated the role of the B-O 
approximation.  Quoting from Appendix B of Chubbs' Dec 1993 article:

"The underlying quantum field theory is governed by the validity of 
potential interactions that do not significantly alter the conditions 
(interplay between periodic order, particle indistinquishability, and the 
need to minimize energy) that give rise to the occupation of the many-body 
state.  Rules for canonical quantization associated with the possible wave 
function fields that are consistent with these conditions impose new 
selection rules on the potential avenues for nuclear decay. We have named 
the new form of interaction that results lattice-induced nuclear chemistry 
(LINC)."

"It is possible to construct a self-consistent field theory in which each 
field operator is constrained so that the electrostatic and nuclear 
interactions remain approximately separable. [As per B-O.]  The effect of 
this constraint is to eliminate all processes associated with transitions 
to states in which the characteristic length and time scales fall in an 
intermediate range between the characteristic length and time scales of the 
electrostatic and nuclear interactions... An important reason why this is 
possible is that the strong forces and nuclear potentials associated 
PSInucleon and PSI-p-n, as well as those that result from the overlap 
between different nucleons, do not depend on the absolute center of mass of 
the potentially overlapping particles."

[I omit here several pages of details of the technical conditions for the 
field theory to be self consistent.]

They conclude:

"It is important to recognize that the selection rule [bosons-in 
bosons-out] is implied by the conditions (the interplay between periodic 
order, particle indistinquishability, and energy minimization) that make 
the approximation associated with Born-Oppenheimer separability and nuclear 
overlap possible.  An important difference between LINC and the remaining 
theories of cold fusion is that LINC provides the prerequisite conditions 
for cold fusion, the resulting by-products, and additional predictions, 
based on a single self-consistent ling of thinking."

So, it is not so much that Chubb&Chubb assume the B-O separation and then 
"assert that the physics is going to do things my way or not at all", but 
rather they assert (like must theorists defending a new theory) that it 
makes sense as a whole.  It's the whole, self consistency that is suppose 
to give us confidence that the theory is correct. B-O is just part of that.

Cheers,

Bill Page.

cudkeys:
cuddy4 cuden3047 cudfnBill cudlnPage cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.03 / J Buzzard /  RE: The "two types of Hydrogen Theory"
     
Originally-From: phyjab1@phyd4c5.caledonia.hw.ac.uk (Jonathan A Buzzard)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: The "two types of Hydrogen Theory"
Date: Tue, 3 May 1994 15:31:36 GMT
Organization: Heriot-Watt University


--

>You are really willing to believe that our understanding of the hydrogen
>atom is incomplete based on a dubious electrochemical experiment?

With any dubious experiment there exists a possibility that the results are
real, I would therefore argue that it is wise to consider all eventualities.

>Yes, we need to always look at our theories and be willing to change them
>as needed, but saying that here is a strange result, let's throw out our
>best understood model is BAD science.

I only advovate that you should be prepared to entertain the possibility that
the current model needs scrapping, usually only a modification is required.

JAB.

 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan A. Buzzard,              
Physics Department,           Email:-
Heriot-Watt University,            phyjab1@caledonia.hw.ac.uk   InterNet
Edinburgh. EH14 4AS                phyjab1@uk.ac.hw.clust       JANET
United Kingdom.
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenphyjab1 cudfnJonathan cudlnBuzzard cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Wed May  4 04:37:05 EDT 1994
------------------------------
1994.05.03 / L Plutonium /  movie: NEANDERTHAL PARK post SYNTEX
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,alt.religion.kibology,sci.math,sci
physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.chem,sci.bio
Subject: movie: NEANDERTHAL PARK post SYNTEX
Date: 3 May 1994 18:24:58 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

SKIT 13

Skit 13 of the movie Neanderthal Park shows how the world treats a
supergenius. The world can accept muddle headed professors of science
and math. The world can easily accept intuitionless math persons and
turn them into professors of math or managing editors of math journals.
The world can easily accept cranks and crackpots of science and math
such as Roger Penrose, Stephen Hawking, John Wheeler, Steven Weinberg,
Leon Lederman, Edward O Wilson, R. Dawkins, Alan Guth, George Smoot,
Ian Stewart, Linus Pauling, James Lovelock. Accept them even adore them
to the point of filling most every math and science journal with the
droppings of these birdbrains.

ACT 1. Act 1 shows the intuitionless math and physics people that lived
when ARCHIMEDES lived. Those birdbrains that were around back then and
how I made fun of them back then. (You will have to read the history of
Archimedes to appreciate how I made fun of them back then, that is one
of the reasons I have the Internet now, in my reincarnated photon
bundled waves. How they had big mouths and little birdbrain ideas of
how engineering, math and physics worked. The same is true now. And
show Democritus the great thinker and the birdbrained idiots of Plato
and Aristotle hogging away the limelight for themselves. Just as the
present day hogs of Wheeler, Hawking, Weinberg and so many others.

ACT 2. Act 2 is a flashback between when I was the supergenius
ARCHIMEDES and now the supergenius Ludwig Plutonium. Show how the world
at large has a difficult time in comprehending what a person who really
knows how physics math and engineering are. Show the hecklers, the
Internews hecklers played by the Neanderthal actors, all the journal
editors such as Manure, Nude Scientist, Who's Who bullshit line of
books, Scientific PanGlossAmerican, Seance, Science Nudes, the idiot
editors of Springer Verlag and John Wiley & Sons. Keep detailed
information of all of the above so that future generations can make fun
of these IDIOTEN (German) that lived when LP lived.

ACT 3. Act 3 shows how all of the idiots mentioned in Neanderthal Park
make money off of the general public. Show how Hawking fleeces the
public with his books and movie mind rot. Then show how LP tells the
world to buy Syntex at $13 to $15 a share and then one month later it
virtually doubles in price. Yes show the world audience the difference
between quacks, crackpots and charlatans of this world and the next.
And show the Neanderthal actors come in on this scene (SAVE ALL POSTS
THAT WERE ANTI-LP AND LIST THOSE PERSONS HERE IN THIS ACT). All of
those stupid and mindless fuckdogs of this world, that posted against
LP, and lived when LP lived, and were such stupid idiots that they went
out to watch the next Hawking movie and buy the next Weinberg or
Lederman or Wheeler or Wilson or Dawkins birdbrain chipmunk book. 

ACT 4. Act 4 shows how the general public is hoodwinked, is fleeced
with the Science Fiction and math idiocy. Then it shows LP telling the
world to buy Syntex and UPJOHN. This act shows some smart people are
out there and take Ludwig's advice doubling their wealth in a matter of
1 month. Then show the many NET idiots coming out of bookstores having
spent alot of money in buying Manure, SEANCE, and the birdbrain books
of above mentioned idiots that fob themselves off as all-knowing
professors-- show scenes of Dr. Silberman of the Terminator movies and
intersperse many scenes of professors of math and physics while showing
the wisdom of Dr. Silberman. List the names of those professors of math
and physics.

ACT 5. Act 5 show various scenes of what ARCHIMEDES did in defense of
Syracuse. Show how much physics and math and biology and engineering LP
gave. Then show how few people payed any attention to LP, rather
instead tried to kill-file LP.

ACT 6. Since 6 is a perfect number, end this SKIT by the producer of
this movie by employing his/her own talent. The theme of this act is to
show the audience that the world of people at large have an immense
difficult time of understanding and appreciating a supergenius when a
supergenius comes to Earth. 



cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.03 / Jim Carr /  A remark for "press conference" fans
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: A remark for "press conference" fans
Date: 3 May 1994 15:37:33 -0400
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

We had a colloquium today on the top quark by a member of D-zero who was 
at the press conference, and during question time several questions were 
asked concerning the various decisions of CDF. 

One very amusing statement was that Mel (Shochet?) said in answer to 
a question from the press as to why they did not wait for the paper 
to be refereed: to deal with the rumors.  Familiar ?!? 
                -----------------------

The decision to cancel a talk at the Washington APS meeting was because 
the group had still not resolved internal conflicts over the conclusions 
of the paper.  Apparently a large minority in CDF did not want this paper 
to go out with any publicity, while another minority wanted it titled 
"Discovery of the Top Quark". 

It was pointed out by the speaker that the CDF paper is quite clear about 
negative as well as positive evidence, and that nothing is hidden in the 
paper.  Since I am still chewing through the 150 pages, I would argue 
that you don't need to hide it, its just hard to find! 

-- 
 James A. Carr   <jac@scri.fsu.edu>     |   "It's never confusing though, 
      http://www.scri.fsu.edu           |  because ultimately it all fits 
 Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst.  |  -- it's just cockeyed and fits  
 Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306    |  and is fire."  -  Norman Maclean 
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.03 / Richard Jensen /  laser assisted fusion
     
Originally-From: murtj@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (Richard T Jensen)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: laser assisted fusion
Date: 3 May 1994 18:32:45 -0500
Organization: Educational Computing Network, Illinois  USA

I am looking for an article on some research done at Livermore back in
(I believe it was) the mid '70s. The research involved the dropping a
hydrogen pellet into a chamber and then bombarding it with laser causing
it to ultimately compress and undergo fusion.
Any assistance in locating the article and/or abstract would be greatly
appreciated, as I am looking at an application of a similar nature
(however not in the fusion area specifically).

Thank you in advance,


Richard T. Jensen
Undergrad
Western Illinois University
Macomb, Il. 61455
murtj@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu

please respond be e-mail as well, as I am not always able to follow this
newsgroup. Thank you


cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenmurtj cudfnRichard cudlnJensen cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.03 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Re: P&F press conference on 23 March 1989/ response to Carr
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: P&F press conference on 23 March 1989/ response to Carr
Date: 3 May 94 10:04:23 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

In article <2pm0es$a3h@ds8.scri.fsu.edu>, 
jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) writes:
> In article <1994Apr26.174933.1601@physc1.byu.edu> jonesse@physc1.byu.edu writes:
>> [Jones: ]
>>Don't you remember that Petrasso and crew showed that the gamma
>>data of P&F was badly flawed -- too narrow, no Compton edge, and *not*
>>even at the correct energy?  And that this led to a *retraction* by P&F
>>published within a short time of the P&F press conference of their
>>gamma-data claims (for neutrons captured in H in H2O)?  [Retraction published
>>as correspondance to Nature.]     Such a prompt
>>retraction and such errors demonstrate that the press conf. was premature.
> 
> Steve - You may not have seen the earlier post when I made it clear 
> that I think the *paper* was premature, but not the press conference. 

I don't get it.  How can the paper be premature while the press conf. was not?
Basically the same 'data' and the same subsequent retractions soon after
applied, did they not?  So how can one be premature and the other not?

> Further, I made it clear that I thought their act in subverting the 
> agreement with BYU was when they submitted to JEC, not when they had 
> the press conference.  

Whoa, my friend:  since the 6 March 1989 meeting at BYU, there was an
agreement to say nothing publicly about the research efforts until *after*
both papers were submitted (on March 24).  This agreement was 'subverted'
by the U. of Utah press conf. on March 23, 1989, in which they twice denied
any awareness of anyone else doing related work.  So how can you say
the press conf. did not subvert the agreement?  Does it make any sense to
agree to simultaneous submission without prior public silence by both 
parties?

> The paper, such as it was, had been accepted 
> and was "in press".  At that point it is perfectly normal practice 
> to hold a press conference and even (as Chu did) to withhold the 
> manuscript.  Look at CDF, with a press conference when the paper 
> was submitted.  We will see if any of their numbers and errors are 
> modified when others look at their analysis. 
> 

Frank Close sent me the following which sheds light on the P&F press
conf. and paper in 1989, which he said I could quote.  Note his conclusion,
which disagrees with Jim Carr, in which Frank says:
"It is the postdating of their [data] that violates the "we had been accepted
at the time of the [press conference, PC] argument."

Frank Close e-mail (in last few days):
"You might add about the 'gamma' that at the PC the only data they had involved
a peak at 2.5 (at a time when they thought tat to tbe the relevant energy).
It was on the 28  AFTER the PC that Harwell first pointed out to them that this
is wrong (Petrasso came much much later). ... On 29th they pulled the original
figure and replaced it.  I now know that the 2.5 version was in the JEC
[Journal Electroanal. Chem.]  proofs as late as 4 April and was changed, by
fax, at the very last moment.  The paper then appeared in JEC with a dateline
of 22 March (ie prior to the PC and prior to any claims that you [Jones] might
have had) yet containing 'data' that had not existed until long after
(let alone that this 'data' was fudged!).  It is the posdating of their stuff
that violates the 'we had been accepted at the time of the PC' argument."

"I have not advertised the 4 April and JEC before; I did not have that
information at the time I wrote the book.  I have much more now..."
[end Close quote]

Jim, are you the type of scientist who can change his views when presented
with new evidence?

> Once a paper is accepted, PR efforts are useful in that they help 
> people find the work in the literature.  There are several papers I 
> would not have seen if I had not seen them in Science News.  That is 
> where I heard about the HERA results, which were shown at a meeting 
> and are not yet in the form of a paper as far as I know. 
> 
>>At the press conf., the panel was asked whether they knew of anyone else doing
>>related work.  The question was answered by Jim Brophy of the U. Utah, who said
>>that he was not aware of any such research.  
> 
>>P&F were on the panel and did not correct Brophy's misstatement.  This denial
>>added insult to injury.  It was totally unconsionable.
> 
> I also did not say whether they were honest at the press conference.  I 
> happen to agree with Merzbacher's philosophy that after a certain point 
> an author has the right to hang himself publicly.  They did a fine job 
> of that -- since the things you mention about the press conference are 
> additional proof that they rushed the last stages of their work. 
> 
You agree that they rushed the last stages of their work, that they were
not necessarily honest... yet the P&F press conference in no way subverted
the agreement with BYU?  I hope you will explain.  

>>Give me a break, Jim.  Do you think the TFTR boys indulged in any such
>>behavior?  To lump their press conf. in with the fiasco at the Univ. of Utah
>>is grossly unfair.
> 
> My point was that, if anything, the TFTR event was staged solely for 
> public relations purposes and did not serve the same sort of role in 
> communication of a new result to other interested parties as the P&F 
> or Chu press conferences. [stuff deleted]

What bona fide 'result' was communicated at the P&F press conference? 
> 
> CDF is a more interesting case.  Calling a news conference on submittal 
> when they could have given a talk at Washington or waited for a report 
> from the referees *is* premature in my opinion.  

Yet the P&F press conference was not premature, to you.  *TILT*
> -- 
>  James A. Carr   <jac@scri.fsu.edu>     |   "It's never confusing though, 
>       http://www.scri.fsu.edu           |  because ultimately it all fits 
>  Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst.  |  -- it's just cockeyed and fits  
>  Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306    |  and is fire."  -  Norman Maclean 


--Steven Jones
(Sorry it took about 6 days for my response:  been busy with research.)

cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenjonesse cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.03 /  jonesse@physc1 /  cancel <1994May3.094258.1614@physc1.byu.edu>
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cancel <1994May3.094258.1614@physc1.byu.edu>
Date: 3 May 94 10:05:05 -0600

cancel <1994May3.094258.1614@physc1.byu.edu>
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenjonesse cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.04 / Adam Miller /  Swartz = LP
     
Originally-From: amiller@tisl.ukans.edu (Adam Miller)
Newsgroups: sci.chem,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Swartz = LP
Date: 4 May 94 02:07:10 CDT


	Has anyone else ever noticed that the only two
 people on the planet who quote from Dirac are LP 
(Everyone's best buddie here on Sci.chem) and Mitchell 
Schwartz on sci.physics.fusion. (Another well liked 
fellow.)  They are both opposed to what is true and what is
real as we know it.  Coincidence, or just a person
 with mulitple net accounts?
					-Adam Miller


cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenamiller cudfnAdam cudlnMiller cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.05 / Richard Blue /  Re: Page on Chubb and Chubb
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Page on Chubb and Chubb
Date: Thu, 5 May 1994 00:07:19 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Thanks to Bill Page, I think we are really making progress in deciphering
the theory of Chubb and Chubb.  First on the question of delocalization
of electronic charge (or the deuteron charge),  I think we are touching
on the question, "What is an electron?".  My understanding is that to
be consistant with all observations relating to electrons, there is
something called the charge radius of the electron and it is small.
When I do quantum mechanics on systems which include electrons, no
matter how delocalized the electron is, that electron is still something
that with respect to its internal coordinates has a charge distribution
characterized by a small radius.  It may be that within the context
of a specific problem, I don't have to consider those internal coordinates
and I don't really care in detail how the charge is distributed with
respect to those coordinates.  Still I like the notion that my electron
is still the same animal it has always been.

Now moving on to delocalized deuterons.  As far as the ion band states
put forward by Chubb and Chubb, the wave functions presented don't
involve those cooridinates internal to the deuteron that describe
where the proton and neutron are with respect to their mutual center
of mass.  We can even make an approximation which connects the
charge to that center of mass even though we know the charge belongs
to the proton.  As long as we write single deuteron wave functions
and stay away from situations where details on the nuclear scale
become important the C&C wave functions seem OK, but if I am to
consider nuclear interactions those neglected internal coordinates
will play a very big role in what happens.  I don't really see
that delocalizing the deuteron in the ion band sense makes any
difference on what the internal wave function is like UNLESS we
start making some rather wild assertions about those internal
wave functions.

As has been frequently noted, an examination of the internal
coordinates of a deuteron, or coorelated pairs, triplets, etc.
takes us to a different domain with the size scale set by the
much shorter range of the strong interaction.  Before we are
done with this I want to see the Chubb and Chubb wave functions
for these internal coordinates in all their glory.  I assert
that if these wave functions have not been presented, we do
not have a theory for cold fusion.  I will leave the question
of who we get two or more deuterons together aside for the
time being to concentrate on these internal doings.  I still
don't understand the "selection rule" that restricts the
reaction outcome to just 4He.  If I have two strongly interacting
deuterons in a high energy state, i.e. prior to any energy
release, how does anything outside the range of the strong
interaction influence what happens next?  On the average there
is not another band state deuteron within perhaps a radius of
1000 times the unit cell length.  Strange to say there is
another deuteron within the same unit cell, but it is not
a player in this little game except to force our reactionary
deuterons to remain in a ion band state.

My impression remains that, in spite of Bill Page's clarifications,
Chubb and Chubb do not address the internal coordinates of
the deuteron rigorously enough to be able to say anything
about the reaction outcome.  I think that before you can drastically
alter the branching ratios you must have altered the incoming
wave functions, but I don't see what has done that.  How are
Chubbs' correlated deuterons going to behave just prior to
reacting, and why is that different from what happens when
nuclear physicists bang two deuterons together?

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.04 / Brad Holt /  Re: Reply to Maglich on TFTR D-T Result
     
Originally-From: holt@cheme.washington.edu (Brad Holt)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reply to Maglich on TFTR D-T Result
Date: 4 May 1994 16:16:40 GMT
Organization: University of Washington

In article <1994Apr28.021536.6433@Princeton.EDU>, Robert F. Heeter
<rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> wrote:

> Perhaps there should be two distinct budgets, one for further
> development of the tokamak (as the first reactor likely to
> approach commercializablility), and the other for pursuing
> advanced/alternate concepts, which show promise for making better
> energy sources further down the road.  
> 
> That is, we should really think of "the" fusion program as
> two separate programs.  The tokamak program is a hybrid science-energy
> program, with more emphasis on rapid development of an alternative
> energy source; the alternative-concepts program is also a hybrid
> science-energy program, but the emphasis is more heavily on the
> science, and the goal is to develop the *best* possible fusion
> energy source, but not so soon.  (What do people think?)
> 
> ***************************
> Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
> Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University
> As always, I represent only myself, and not PPPL

   If the justification of PPPL is based on it being a "...hybrid
science-energy program, with more emphasis on rapid development of an
alternative energy source..." and " ... the tokamak (as the first
reactor likely to approach commercializablility)...", then it should
be cancelled.

   Seriously, what do you mean by "likely"  and "approach 
commercializability"?  What does "rapid" mean?  I thought people
just got through arguing that it was a science project and was never
being sold as the predecessor to a commercial reactor process.

Brad Holt
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenholt cudfnBrad cudlnHolt cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.04 / Robert Heeter /  Re: Question for Chubb/ More on claims of Miles and Bush - calc error?
     
Originally-From: rfheeter@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Robert Franklin Heeter)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Question for Chubb/ More on claims of Miles and Bush - calc error?
Date: Wed, 4 May 1994 03:17:40 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

In article <Cp889q.H2A@world.std.com> mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
>  In Subject: Question for Chubb/ More on claims of Miles and Bush
>Message-ID: <1994May2.112755.1612@physc1.byu.edu>
>Steve Jones (jonesse@physc1.byu.edu) writes:
>
>=sj  "This thread began with some discussion of Mel Miles' (et al.) claims of
>=sj  enormous radiation detected by a Geiger-Muller counter placed 20 cm from
>=sj  Pd/D2O electrolytic cells.  {M. Miles and B. Bush, in Proc. of Nagoya
>=sj  meeting on cold fusion, 1993, p. 189}
>=sj  I have now done a rough calculation to determine just how much radiation
>=sj  the GM counter reading implies.  Fig. 4 of this paper shows (38.2 - 31.3)
>=sj  X 1000 counts per 12 hours (their units), or about 575 counts per hour.
>
>   Mr. Jones, this is simple math and you are wrong.
>    38,200 over 12 hours gives  3183 counts per hour.
>    31,300 over 12 hours gives  2608 counts per hour.

That's right, and the difference (which is the observed signal with the
background subtracted to give you the counts that come from the 
cell) is the 575 that Dr. Jones talks about.
>    
>We can take the average which is 
>   34,750 over 12 hours which gives 2895 counts per hour.

Hello?  I give you a detector that reads 38,200 counts over 12 hours,
and I tell you that with the cell off, I get 31,300 counts over 12 
hours.  How big is my signal?  The average?  NOT!

>   Oh yes, you could have checked this yourself, quite quickly
>since 12 * 575 gives just under 7 X 1000  counts per 12 hours, and
>not either the number which you give (vide supra).

Dr. Jones was simply subtracting the background counts from the
observed signal.  He's made no mistake.
>
>=sj  "Given the distance of 20 cm from the electrolytic cells, and the intrinsic
>=sj  efficiency of the GM detector for gammas (20 cm through glass, D2O, air
>=sj  is too much for alphas or betas, and the neutron survey meter showed nothing),
>=sj  we find that 575 counts/h detected implies a source strength of roughly
>=sj  10^8 gammas per hour."
>
>   I dare you to prove this.     Please walk us through this, Professor, since
>it is so important to your thesis.

Come on Mitch, is it really so hard?

Signal = observed counts - background counts.
Source strength = Signal / (Detector efficiency * (Area of sphere at radius
of detector from souce)/(Collecting Area of Detector) * (Fraction of Signal
which penetrates barriers between source and detector) )

Every quantity in the denominator will be significantly less than unity,
so the source strength will be significantly greater than the observed
signal.  For a GM tube with an effective collecting area on the order
of 10 cm^2 at a distance of 20 cm^2, the area effect gives you 
a factor of (4/3)*PI*(20)^2 / 10 = about 170; the efficiency is also
pretty small, so that will give you another factor of 10-100,
and then attenuation of the gammas between the cell and the detector
will give you some more.  I can easily believe that 575 counts per
hour goes to about 10^8 gammas per hour at the source.

*****************
Robert F. Heeter
Princeton, etc,
disclaimers apply












cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.04 / James Crotinger /  Re: was Overblown -->DoE's "review" and Tokamak: Commerial?
     
Originally-From: jac@moonshine.llnl.gov (James A. Crotinger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: was Overblown -->DoE's "review" and Tokamak: Commerial?
Date: 4 May 94 17:11:48 GMT
Organization: Magnetic Fusion Energy - LLNL

pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) writes:
> It's entirely possible that you could, by brute force, power a tokamak
> to ignition and force-maintain burn, so the Lawson would look great.  
> But, it STILL would NOT be above commercial Breakeven because of the
> heroic heating effort required.

  I'm sorry, but this statement contradicts the previous. If you reach
ignition, then the external heating power will be essentially zero.
ITER, as currently envisioned, will ignite and operate in this regime
for a considerable time. You do need some heating to get you to
ignition, but for ITER that heating is not all that significant.

> You say that 10 increase in the Lawson 
> is needed.  This will require the plasma AT THE BURN TEMPERATURE to
> have increased density.. or increased confinement time.  The latter 
> won't happen, but let's say that we can keep the confinement time from 
> deteriorating. 

  It is precisely the confinement time that is increased when you go
to a bigger machine. That's the point. The energy confinement time in
ITER is estimated to be on the order of 5 seconds.

  Jim

--
 ------------------------------------------------/\--------------------------
James A. Crotinger     Lawrence Livermore N'Lab // \ The above views are mine
jac@moonshine.llnl.gov P.O. Box 808;  L-630 \\ //---\  and are not neces-
(510) 422-0259         Livermore CA  94550   \\/Amiga\  sarily those of LLNL.
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenjac cudfnJames cudlnCrotinger cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.04 /  PAUL /  RE: was Overblown -->DoE's "review" and Tokamak: Commerial?
     
Originally-From: stek@amazon.pfc.mit.edu (PAUL)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: was Overblown -->DoE's "review" and Tokamak: Commerial?
Date: 4 MAY 94 19:37:47 GMT
Organization: MIT PLASMA FUSION CENTER


>From: jac@moonshine.llnl.gov (James A. Crotinger)
>Date:  4-MAY-1994  15:22:14
>Description: Re: was Overblown -->DoE's "review" and Tokamak: Commerial?
>
>pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) writes:
>> It's entirely possible that you could, by brute force, power a tokamak
>> to ignition and force-maintain burn, so the Lawson would look great.  
>> But, it STILL would NOT be above commercial Breakeven because of the
>> heroic heating effort required.
> 
>  I'm sorry, but this statement contradicts the previous. If you reach
>ignition, then the external heating power will be essentially zero.
>ITER, as currently envisioned, will ignite and operate in this regime
>for a considerable time. You do need some heating to get you to
>ignition, but for ITER that heating is not all that significant.

Not quite.  There is a big need for power for current drive.  
For Lower Hybrid CD you need something like 100 MW absorbed for 
ITER.  (this is the number given 4 or so years ago.)  
Assume 60% absorption in the right mode, 40% efficiency in 
producing the RF, and 30% efficinecy in converting fusion
power to electric and you need 1.3 GW of thermal power just 
to break even.  

Paul Stek "world's greatest speller"

Stek@cmod.pfc.mit.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenstek cudlnPAUL cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Thu May  5 04:37:04 EDT 1994
------------------------------
1994.05.04 / L Plutonium /  Re: The correct theory of the mind
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.psychology,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics,sci.bio
alt.cesium,sci.math,sci.physics.fusion,sci.chem
Subject: Re: The correct theory of the mind
Date: 4 May 1994 21:12:15 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In article <2q2ack$ld@urmel.informatik.rwth-aachen.de>
dak@hathi.informatik.rwth-aachen.de (David Kastrup) writes:

> A strange mechanism you try to expound. And what has that to do with
> gravity? And I might be dull, but how do you fit Spinoza in here?

   In relation to Spinoza it is just a art drawing of the fact that
everything is part of 231PU where we see only the 5f6. All is one and
one is all. Perhaps someday someone will make an artist conception
using the Schroedinger equation, a picture of 231PU. This reference was
just artistic and scientific, but I would like to note that of all
philosophies, only pragmatism will last because it is scientific, and
in many ways, someone reading C.S. Peirce can see that Peirce
anticipated the Uncertainty principle and other ideas of quantum
mechanics. Peirce undoubtedly is a giant in the USA landscape of
intellectual thinkers. And Spinoza had the only religious
thought--pantheism-- which will live into the future, all the rest of
religious thoughts and ideas were radioactive decay.
   As regards to the referring to gravity. I want to expand on that.
Let us look at the Theory of the Mind as the Coulomb Interaction
between the 94 Protons and 94 Electrons of 231PU. Question: what are
the minimum Coulomb Interactions possible in a plutonium atom? Answer:
The total number of minimum Coulomb interactions of the 94 protons and
94 electrons of a plutonium atom is ((2^188)x2x2x2) or about 6.3
x10^57.  The number (2^188x2x2x2) comes from 4 possible quantum numbers
of (n,L,mL,ms) and each having at least a minimum of 2 choices with the
first quantum number having 2^188 minimum possible quantum energy
states based on the potential energy function substituted into the
Schroedinger equation, in order for the Schroedinger equation to be
solved rigorously. 
   In the PU Theory, gravitons are simply photons only weaker particles
as per coupling strength. Since I believe the dualism of particle-wave
leads to the dualisms of strongnuclear-gravity and radioactivity-EM
implies that the Theory of the Mind is to be looked at in two mutually
exclusive ways, one the EM of Coulomb Interactions with associated
photons and radioactivity. The second way is gravity with gravitons and
strong nuclear. It may just well be that it is easier to understand all
thought by gravitons? I really have not thought much about this or
explored any ramifications. One nice aspect though of the Theory of the
Mind as gravitons is that the number of gravitons exceeds the number of
photon Coulomb interactions. And so the minimum Coulomb Interactions is
of the order 10^57. The minimum graviton interactions is of the order
10^57 factorial. Which is an immense number and perhaps one of the
"largest meaningful physics numbers". I have to think about this some
more, it is all new to me.
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.04 / Jim Carr /  Re: P&F press conference on 23 March 1989/ response to Carr
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: P&F press conference on 23 March 1989/ response to Carr
Date: 4 May 1994 09:19:46 -0400
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

In article <1994May3.100423.1615@physc1.byu.edu> jonesse@physc1.byu.edu writes:
>
>I don't get it.  How can the paper be premature while the press conf. was not?
>Basically the same 'data' and the same subsequent retractions soon after
>applied, did they not?  So how can one be premature and the other not?

In the same way that the CDF press conference was premature and its 
paper was not. 

>Frank Close sent me the following which sheds light on the P&F press
>conf. and paper in 1989, which he said I could quote.  Note his conclusion,
>which disagrees with Jim Carr, in which Frank says:
>"It is the postdating of their [data] that violates the "we had been accepted
>at the time of the [press conference, PC] argument."

As I said, the paper was premature.  Nothing new in Frank's mail (although 
some mail he sent to me that is similar to another part you quote does 
shed some interesting light on the Nature article) about the fact that 
changes were made after the paper was accepted. 

However, unless you wish to charge the journal with fraud in misrepresenting 
the acceptance date of the paper, the date on the paper stands.  Technically 
it was accepted, and technically the changes were made in proof.  If the 
editor did not think them substantial enough to warrant a change in the 
date on the paper, that date stands.  To allege that the conference was 
premature would be to allege that they knew about those deficiencies in 
the paper at the time of the press conference.  Instead, they learned about 
them as a result of their public presentations. 

What is your view of the CDF paper?  Did their press conference fairly 
present the evidence against their hypothesis that is in the paper?  Do 
you think they will be asked to elaborate on the inconsistencies that 
call their conclusion into question before it is finally accepted?  Will 
they make any changes in proof?  What date will the paper carry? 

We can argue forever as to whether the horribly basic errors in nuclear 
physics in that paper constituted the main part (since the nuclear claims 
are what got us all interested) or an auxillary part (since the people 
involved were and remain electrochemists doing calorimetry) of it.  It 
is the editor's decision as to which was more important and thus should 
influence the date on the paper. 

>Jim, are you the type of scientist who can change his views when presented
>with new evidence?

You did not present any 'new' evidence.  The really interesting new 
evidence is that Hawkins was on the Nature paper as submitted.  This 
suggests that his omission from the JEC paper might not have been an 
oversight, as I suspected all along.  There is no question that the 
JEC paper was submitted and publicized to claim joint credit and to 
get public notice of their work before the Jones APS abstract appeared 
in mail boxes in early April.  

>Yet the P&F press conference was not premature, to you.  *TILT*

The P&F paper was accepted, the CDF paper had just been submitted.  The 
CDF announcement of the press conference came 3 days before the paper 
was even submitted to the journal, at the same time they could have 
presented the results to their peers at the APS meeting.  I know several 
people who were outraged at this particular act in contravention of 
all the traditions of physics in the U.S.

I can understand your anger at the actions of P&F on 3/22, since they 
clearly violated the spirit and letter of the agreement.  However, is 
it possible that they believed that you had violated the spirit of 
the agreement when you sent in your abstract?  Would it have been
premature if the three of you had held a joint press conference on 3/23?  

-- 
 James A. Carr   <jac@scri.fsu.edu>     |   "It's never confusing though, 
      http://www.scri.fsu.edu           |  because ultimately it all fits 
 Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst.  |  -- it's just cockeyed and fits  
 Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306    |  and is fire."  -  Norman Maclean 
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.05 / Matt Kennel /  Re: Bill Page on Chubb and Chubb
     
Originally-From: mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Bill Page on Chubb and Chubb
Date: 5 May 1994 01:47:17 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

Bill Page (70047.3047@compuserve.com) wrote:
: Matt Kennel (mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu) wrote:
: <<
: : The amount of wave function dimpling that occurs is determined by the 
: : marginal decrease in potential energy balanced against the marginal 
: : increase in kinetic energy resulting from increased dimpling.  In the 
: : helium atom this balance is achieved at a high degree of 
: electron-electron 
: : overlap."

: Yes and no.  Sure, the wave functions for the individual electrons
: overlap, but that DOES NOT MEAN THEY EVER ARE CLOSE TO ONE ANOTHER.
: >>

: Chuck Harris has covered this one nicely with his references. Thanks.  Just 
: one quick note:  Above Matt says: "Sure, the wave functions for the 
: individual electrons overlap, but that DOES NOT MEAN THEY EVER ARE CLOSE TO 
: ONE ANOTHER".  Now what could such a statement possibly mean?  I think we 
: have to examine carefully the interpretation of QM that is at work here.  

Ugh.  When "interpretation" and "QM" come up in the same sentence run for
the hills.

Pretend we have two delocalized particles.

Total wave function, PSI = PSI(x1,x2).

What is the wave function for the *first* particle alone, ignoring the
other one?

phi_1(x1) = integral PSI(x1,x2) d^3 x2.

And for the second?

phi_2(x2) integral PSI(x1,x2) d^3 x1.


Now, phi_1(x1) can be "delocalized" and spread out over a big
volume.  So can phi_2(x2).  In fact it could be that
phi_1(z) = phi_2(z) fora ll z.

But integral |PSI(x1,x2)|^2,  for |x1-x2| <= nuclear distance,

can yet be zero.

Joint probability. 

: In fact, Chubb&Chubb say "... a high degree of electron-electron overlap".  
: They also seem to be using confusing terminology.  What is an "electron" in 
: this model?  This is definitely a case of conflicting paradigms!

They have to show that |PSI(x_i,x_j)|^2 for |xi-xj| <= nuclear distances
is substantial.  Not merely that the functions phi_1(x_i) and
phi_2(x_j) "overlap".

I don't think it can be, because there is a repulsive term 

     Z^2 / |x_i - x_j| in the Hamiltonian that makes it very energetically
unfavorable for that to happen.  

How do they get around this?

If they propose some state which has substantial |PSI(x_i,x_j)|^2 for
|xi-xj| small enough, then the energy will be HIGH.  Which is not
in equilibrium.  What is the counterbalancing potential/force that
can overcome keV's of repulsion? 

: Cheers,
: Bill Page.

--
-Matt Kennel  		mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu
-Institute for Nonlinear Science, University of California, San Diego
-*** AD: Archive for nonlinear dynamics papers & programs: FTP to
-***     lyapunov.ucsd.edu, username "anonymous".
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenmbk cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.04 / Jan Bielawski /  Re: movie: NEANDERTHAL PARK
     
Originally-From: jpb@cvsd.cv.com (Jan Bielawski)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,alt.religion.kibology,sci.math,sci
physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.chem,sci.bio
Subject: Re: movie: NEANDERTHAL PARK
Date: 4 May 1994 19:00:06 -0700
Organization: Computervision, San Diego, CA

In article <2pv0tq$5cg@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>,
Ludwig Plutonium <Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu> wrote:

<Scene 4. Scene 4 shows the Jan technique of debate. Play acted by Lynn
<Kurtz.
<Interviewer: "Please tell us about the Jan technique of debate."
[---]
<Lynn: "That is the beauty of the Jan Technique, we support nothing. We
<just say the opposite of what LP says."

And just what's wrong with disagreeing with you?  Besides -- as I said 
before -- I wasn't really arguing with you, just reporting results of 
experiments.  This was my support.  If experimental results happen to say the
opposite of what LP says, how can LP hold me accountable for this?

<Lynn: "That is the purpose of the Jan technique. Look at all of the Jan
<Bielawski posts, none have a shred of factual content. They are all
<designed to intimidate LP."

Let me contradict you one more time: they are not designed to intimidate
you.  But I felt I had to say something I knew was true after I saw 
you flaming at everybody.

<  You say inverse square law, I say no
<  You say P-adics, I say define it
<  You say blackbody, I say white
<  You say yes, I say no
<  You prove it, I say prove it
<  You define it, I say you must define it
<  You say criticize, I say debate.
<  You make fun of me, I say Goodbye.
<  You say good riddance, I say "ask me" if you do not know something.

Hee hee, I like it.
-- 
	Jan Bielawski
	Computervision, San Diego
	jpb@cvsd.cv.com

cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenjpb cudfnJan cudlnBielawski cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.05 / Mark Hittinger /  Mit Tech Review article notes
     
Originally-From: bugs@NETSYS.COM (Mark Hittinger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Mit Tech Review article notes
Date: Thu, 5 May 1994 03:17:30 GMT
Organization: Netsys Inc.


My apology if you've already seen this - netsys has been having some
posting problems lately - growing pains.

Hi out there - just wanted to make a few comments about the recent
article in "Technology Review" (edited at MIT!).

One of the local alumni hereabouts cornered me and showed me the
article.  He was quite shook up about it.

For those who haven't read it yet it is by Dr. Edmund (we are all
gonna be *RICH*) Storms.  It is a review of the past couple of years
of positive results.

Anyhow this alumni type was bugging me with a bunch of questions
such as "is anything new going on?" "have there been any new breakthroughs
that nobody wants to talk about?" "come on you went to Hawaii - just
how many palladium call options do you have???" "just exactly where
are P&F now??"  Of course I replied that I thought it was almost dead
but not quite dead yet.  I told him about heat after death and ruined
the rest of his day.

This fellow loved to joke about CNF from time to time and the article
appearing in his school's magazine messed him up.  He is/was afraid that
he missed something.  Frowns now instead of jokes.

I have to tip my hat to Dr. Storms for making an excellent public 
relations move.  The article was probably too long.  It should have been
shorter so that it could be xeroxed and faxed around easier.

I have seen complaints from some readers about the technical content of
the article - but my point is that the technical content is a minor
issue compared to the fact that the article appeared in the *MIT* alumni
magazine.  (Dr. Jones take note!)

Maybe Wayne can send Eugene and Jed to PR school now that they are going
to rake in big bugs off all those reader service cards.  If we can't have
straight shooting science at least we can have warm fuzzy PR instead of
conspiracy theories.
--------
His system was just roadkill along the information superhighway.
-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Version: 2.3a

mQCNAiz4FWMAAAEEALBCb7HZS7V4gbsp9yJ7Yty49jQ9wcgRhkLjNNgdyJbrJZCq
5/sv4Ljy/4AhVhjlJyZS8L3owS8l0ClZVzWw4/kO3KN7MPz4YPPR7+qIlPQVM0yv
gWpJ43EZZ8b8cvAkE9HATCKWktY2ReRSX5DLnScDH/n5jivw+MD/UO8fURCVAAUR
tCBNYXJrIEhpdHRpbmdlciA8YnVnc0BuZXRzeXMuY29tPg==
=VbKi
-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenbugs cudfnMark cudlnHittinger cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.06 /  vnoninski@fscv /  Submission for sci.physics.fusion
     
Originally-From: vnoninski@fscvax.fsc.mass.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Submission for sci.physics.fusion
Date: Fri, 6 May 1994 00:15:41 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Dear Colleagues,

I would like to let you know that at noon time today an explosion occured in 
the cell in which I am conducting an experiment of electrolysis of H2O solution 
of Na2SO4 with Pd cathode and Pt anode. The explosion occured while two 
other professors and I were in the faculty research lab discussing unrelated 
matters. The experiment in question was in its tenth day of running. The main 
objective of this experiment was to monitor if there would be any changes in 
the gamma spectrum. As is well known Matsumoto has reported substantial 
increase of the count rate in the lower-energy side of the gamma spectrum 
when monitoring with a Ge detector the electrolysis of 3% ordinary water 
solution of NaCl. In the present case a NaI detector and Canberra 35 MCA 
system with a Canberra high voltage supply was used which, together with the 
working cell, was enclosed in a construction of standard size lead bricks 
(it is an usual procedure to use lead bricks with the aim to decrease the 
background radiation as much as possible). The MCA is programmed to 
continuously acqiure data and dump the acquired data into a computer 
every 24 hours. Thus, so far there are eight 24-hour files of data (one file 
is corrupted) and today's unfinished file (the 
experiment was interrupted due to the mentioned 
explosion). The electrolysis cell was a standard CHEMGLASS glass vessel. (In 
CHEMGLASS catalog this two-part vessel is similar to the one under catalog 
number CG-1963-Reaction flask head and CG-1950-Reaction flask; I should 
specially note that the dimensions of the vessel used differ from the dimen-
sions of the above-cited vessels and the dimensions of the latter should not be 
used for calculations). The volume of the vessel used is of the order of 200 ml 
and the initial volume of the electrolyte was of the order of 100 ml. The 
intention was the experiment to be left alone for the period of time when 
all the electrolyte would be electrolysed which would cause natural interrupti-
on of the experiment. Thus, the whole system was left untouched while 
running for about ten days until the above-mentioned accident occured. As a 
cathode 1 mm diameter Pd wire from Johnson-Matthey was used. Pt electrode was 
a standard Pt electrode from Orion of about 1 cm2 surface area. The 
electrolysis was carried out in an open cell and the volume of the gases 
within the cell is on the order of 100 cm3. The NaI detector was situated 
in a horizontal position and the phosphor part of it was touching the side 
wall of the cell. The other side of the detector was free to be seen since no 
side lead-brick protection was provided (the cosmic rays usually approach the 
detection enclosure perpendicularly from the top). Thus, neither the cell nor 
the detector can be considered fully enclosed in the said construction since 
a wide opening was available on one side of the detector. After the explosion 
occurred I removed several of the bricks and could see that the lower glass 
part of the vessel is entirely shattered. The standard Pt electrode was 
broken in half and very clear dents were seen on the front surface of the 
detector. There were small pieces of glass embedded on the internal walls of 
the lead brick construction. Unfortunately, because of the above stated 
objective I did not provide any means for measuring the temperature so 
I can only report my subjective impression that the internal void was quite 
warm. About twenty minutes later another professor from our department came to 
see the experiment. She told me that she and her students (her lecture was in 
a lecture room across the corridor) have heard the explosion. She touched one 
of the bricks I removed from the top and told me that it is still hot. 
Of course, the above subjective impressions have no scientific merit and 
should not be considered as arguments for or against any trivial or non-
trivial effect. Some of the colleagues on this group, however, like to 
perform various calculations and if they find it enjoyable they may wish to 
calculate how much energy can be released from the recombination of the above-
stated volumes of hydrogen and oxygen and whether the energy from such 
recombination may cause shattering of the said glass vessel and visible 
denting of the NaI detector front surface. I would also add that no unusual 
gamma ray events are observed in any of the 24-hour spectra taken during the 
experiment. Also, about half an hour after the explosion measurements were 
carried out with Geiger-Mueller counter and no unusual elevation of the 
counting rate was detected. Unfortunately, also the voltage and the current at 
the time of this occurrence are unavailable since no continuous recording of 
these quantities was carried out. I can only state that throughout the week of 
the experiment I occasionally (in fact every morning) checked the current and 
the voltage which were on the order of 0.5 A and several volts. 

Truly yours,


Vesselin Noninski




cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenvnoninski cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.05 / Paul Koloc /  Re: was Overblown -->DoE's "review" and Tokamak: Commerial?
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: was Overblown -->DoE's "review" and Tokamak: Commerial?
Date: Thu, 5 May 1994 04:39:18 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <jac.768071508@gandalf> jac@moonshine.llnl.gov (James A. Crotinger) writes:
>pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) writes:
>> It's entirely possible that you could, by brute force, power a tokamak
>> to ignition and force-maintain burn, so the Lawson would look great.  
>> But, it STILL would NOT be above commercial Breakeven because of the
>> heroic heating effort required.

>  I'm sorry, but this statement contradicts the previous. If you reach
>ignition, then the external heating power will be essentially zero.
>ITER, as currently envisioned, will ignite and operate in this regime
>for a considerable time. You do need some heating to get you to
>ignition, but for ITER that heating is not all that significant.

Not so, since the Lawson is computed for scientific breakeven.  
Scientific breakeven is of no consequence due to its vast separation
from the conditions needed for commercial operation.

>> You say that 10 increase in the Lawson 
>> is needed.  This will require the plasma AT THE BURN TEMPERATURE to
>> have increased density.. or increased confinement time.  The latter 
>> won't happen, but let's say that we can keep the confinement time from 
>> deteriorating. 

>  It is precisely the confinement time that is increased when you go
>to a bigger machine. That's the point. The energy confinement time in
>ITER is estimated to be on the order of 5 seconds.

>  Jim

The confinement time generally scales with size, but the size scales
with volume or linear dimensioned cubed.  Guess what the power flux at 
the wall scales with, or the tonnage of concrete and steel, or the
time it takes to reinstall burnt out vacuum walls or limitors.. .etc.  
No, I don't think that size is the answer if you expect the power industry
to find this gizmo worth looking at.  Incidentally, size probably was
the problem for the SSC and another group of particle physicists. -- The 
PP's made up the largest initial contingent in the early fusion program).  

Make it bigger Sam.  Ohhhhieee!       

Yep you plunk down your money and it's amazing what you get.  
>-------------------------------------------------/\--------------------------
>James A. Crotinger     Lawrence Livermore N'Lab // \ The above views are mine
.. .
 .. and Home of the AC review committee??   Why don't you chaps privatize?  
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc,Bx 1037, Prometheus II, Ltd., College Park, MD 20741-1037 |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.05 / Ian Ollmann /  Re: movie: NEANDERTHAL PARK post SYNTEX
     
Originally-From: iano@riscsm.scripps.edu (Ian Russell Ollmann)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,alt.religion.kibology,sci.math,sci
physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.chem,sci.bio
Subject: Re: movie: NEANDERTHAL PARK post SYNTEX
Date: 5 May 1994 00:59:05 -0700
Organization: The Scripps Research Institute, La Jolla, CA

	What I can't figure out is what prompted Dartmouth to allow our plutonium friend to use
their name. What were they thinking?

				Any ideas?

cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudeniano cudfnIan cudlnOllmann cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.05 / Adam Miller /  Re: movie: NEANDERTHAL PARK post SYNTEX
     
Originally-From: amiller@tisl.ukans.edu (Adam Miller)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.kibology,sci.math,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusio
,sci.chem,sci.bio
Subject: Re: movie: NEANDERTHAL PARK post SYNTEX
Date: 5 May 94 02:37:40 CDT

Ludwig Plutonium (Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu) wrote:
: SKIT 13

<<Deleted to save the pain and suffering!>>

Would someone at Dartmouth please point out to Lp
 (since I am prolly already on the kill list) that
at least his so-called hoodwinkers have taken the
time and energy to prove their theories to be 
correct.  And that they have faced up to their 
critics by answering, not avoiding them.  Thanx.  And
while you are there please unplug LP's computer and
make sure that the straight jacket is on really 
tight.  Circulation is overrated.

					-Adam Miller




cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenamiller cudfnAdam cudlnMiller cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.05 / Bill Page /  Re: Two types of hydrogen theory - J.P. Vigier
     
Originally-From: 70047.3047@compuserve.com (Bill Page)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Two types of hydrogen theory - J.P. Vigier
Date: Thu, 5 May 1994 12:37:06 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

<<
... could you please post the ftp site you spoke of?
>>

     Archive accessible by ftp://vm1.nodak.edu/FUSION or via wais at
     wais://sunsite.unc.edu/fusion-digest?vigier.

I don't usually access things this way, so let me know if this works out.  
Others here might be able to advise you better.  Or I could email my copy 
of the postings to you.

Cheers,

Bill Page.

cc.  Fusion Digest (sci.physics.fusion)

cudkeys:
cuddy5 cuden3047 cudfnBill cudlnPage cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.05 / mitchell swartz /  Question for Chubb/ More on claims of Miles and Bush - calc error?
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Question for Chubb/ More on claims of Miles and Bush - calc error?
Subject: Re: Question for Chubb/ More on claims of Miles and Bush - calc error?
Date: Thu, 5 May 1994 12:42:19 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <1994May4.031740.12641@Princeton.EDU>
Subject: Re: Question for Chubb/ More on claims of Miles and Bush - calc error?
Robert Franklin Heeter (rfheeter@phoenix.Princeton.EDU) writes:

  >Steve Jones (jonesse@physc1.byu.edu) writes:
  >
  >=sj "This thread began with some discussion of Mel Miles' (et al.) claims of
  >=sj  enormous radiation detected by a Geiger-Muller counter placed 20 cm from
  >=sj  Pd/D2O electrolytic cells.  {M. Miles and B. Bush, in Proc. of Nagoya
  >=sj  meeting on cold fusion, 1993, p. 189}
  >=sj  I have now done a rough calculation to determine just how much radiation
  >=sj  the GM counter reading implies.  Fig. 4 of this paper shows (38.2 - 31.3)
  >=sj  X 1000 counts per 12 hours (their units), or about 575 counts per hour.
  >   Mr. Jones, this is simple math and you are wrong.
  >    38,200 over 12 hours gives  3183 counts per hour.
  >    31,300 over 12 hours gives  2608 counts per hour.
=rh  "That's right, and the difference (which is the observed signal with the
=rh background subtracted to give you the counts that come from the 
=rh cell) is the 575 that Dr. Jones talks about."

   OK.  Thank you for the clarification of the ambiguity.
I stand corrected.   However, several important points remain,
and since you are a gentleman, here they are.
   We would greatly appreciate your thoughts.  

  Take the background as  31,300 over 12 hours which gives 
   2608 counts per hour.
Therefore the square root of this number is about 51.

   The signal is  now shown to be  38,200 over 12 hours gives
    3183 counts per hour.
  The differential is the signal or 575/hour. 
   Now 575 > 51.     Is this a significant difference to you?

    Furthermore, the signals are linked with the
generation of helium-4 and the demonstration of excess enthalpy.
Does that linkage make it significant to you?
If not, how much would the incremental signal have to be?
   and for how long should it occur?


  >=sj  "Given the distance of 20 cm from the electrolytic cells,and the intrinsic
  >=sj  efficiency of the GM detector for gammas (20 cm through glass, D2O, air
  >=sj  is too much for alphas or betas, 
  >=sj  and the neutron survey meter showed nothing),
  >=sj  we find that 575 counts/h detected implies a source strength of roughly
  >=sj  10^8 gammas per hour."
  >
  >   I dare you to prove this.   Please walk us through this, Professor, since
  >it is so important to your thesis.
=rh "Come on Mitch, is it really so hard?"

   No, the calculation is easy.  The implication is important.
And furthermore, it is important to follow the point Steve makes 
    about neutrons and how that may fit in.

However, as the following calculation shows this too will show a point.

=rh "Signal = observed counts - background counts.
=rh Source strength = Signal / (Detector efficiency * (Area of sphere at radius
=rh of detector from souce)/(Collecting Area of Detector) * (Fraction of Signal
=rh which penetrates barriers between source and detector) )
=rh 
=rh Every quantity in the denominator will be significantly less than unity,
=rh so the source strength will be significantly greater than the observed
=rh signal.  For a GM tube with an effective collecting area on the order
=rh of 10 cm^2 at a distance of 20 cm^2, the area effect gives you 
=rh a factor of (4/3)*PI*(20)^2 / 10 = about 170; the efficiency is also
=rh pretty small, so that will give you another factor of 10-100,
=rh and then attenuation of the gammas between the cell and the detector
=rh will give you some more.  I can easily believe that 575 counts per
=rh hour goes to about 10^8 gammas per hour at the source."

    Excellent.   You have simplified the scattering issues, but....

  Let us define Detector efficiency = e
  Area of sphere at radius of detector from souce = A(r)
   Collecting Area of Detector = Ad
  Fraction of Signal which penetrates barriers between 
          source and detector  =  f

   Replacing your equation shows:

Source strength = Signal / (e * (A(r))/(Ad) * (f) )

    which becomes

Source strength = [Signal * (Ad) * (f) ) ]/ (e * (A(r))

   I believe there are two errors you might have made with this.  

   First, the equation should have f in the denominator.  

Source strength = [Signal * (Ad)) ]/ (f  *  e * (A(r))

   Second, your formula for area may have the wrong constant for
volume.    4/3 -> 4?          ;-)

   In any case, anyone can make a mistake, so lets calculate this.

  Let us take your numbers, and thanks for the science.

   The energies of the reactions are above 20 MeV
which gives 50% line at 15-20 cm in water, but let us take an energy
nearer a few MeV (after all we see it) which also helps because this
is close to Compton scattering energies and the differential calculation
problem becomes less relevant.

 -----------------------------------------------------------------------
|counts/hour          |          |            575|          |          |
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------
|distance (cm)        |          |             20|          |          |
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------
|Area at 20cm         |          |          5,027|          |          |
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------
|attenuation (50%; 10cm)         |           0.50|          |          |
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------
|attenuation @ 20cm   |          |           0.25|          |          |
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------
|output/hour (corrected)         |      1,156,106|  **      |          |
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------
                  ** disclaimer on false number of significant figs.


   Therefore the incremental calculated output can be adjusted with the
efficiency factor of 10%, if appropriate, to a source level which may
be about an order of magnitude below the 100,000,000 factor.  
   
   But here is the most important issue.  Now that we all agree that
there has been a significant increase in the calculated output, implying
a significant source output above the statistical variation of 
background, what is the implication, Robert?

  Also given the linkage with excess enthalpy and helium-4 production
why are these number not compelling?

    And, finally,  why should the paucity of neutrons, in  known
      neutron-penic reactions "negate" the observed result?

    Best wishes. 
            Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com)


cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.05 / mitchell swartz /  Question for Chubb/More on claims of Miles and Bush - calc error?
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Question for Chubb/More on claims of Miles and Bush - calc error?
Subject: Re: Question for Chubb/ More on claims of Miles and Bush - calc error?
Date: Thu, 5 May 1994 15:14:48 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <1994May4.031740.12641@Princeton.EDU>
Subject: Re: Question for Chubb/ More on claims of Miles and Bush - calc error?
Robert Franklin Heeter (rfheeter@phoenix.Princeton.EDU) writes:

  >Steve Jones (jonesse@physc1.byu.edu) writes:
  >
  >=sj "This thread began with some discussion of Mel Miles' (et al.) claims of
  >=sj  enormous radiation detected by a Geiger-Muller counter placed 20 cm from
  >=sj  Pd/D2O electrolytic cells.  {M. Miles and B. Bush, in Proc. of Nagoya
  >=sj  meeting on cold fusion, 1993, p. 189}
  >=sj  I have now done a rough calculation to determine just how much radiation
  >=sj  the GM counter reading implies.  Fig. 4 of this paper shows (38.2 - 31.3)
  >=sj  X 1000 counts per 12 hours (their units), or about 575 counts per hour.
  >   Mr. Jones, this is simple math and you are wrong.
  >    38,200 over 12 hours gives  3183 counts per hour.
  >    31,300 over 12 hours gives  2608 counts per hour.
=rh  "That's right, and the difference (which is the observed signal with the
=rh background subtracted to give you the counts that come from the 
=rh cell) is the 575 that Dr. Jones talks about."

   OK.  Thank you for the clarification of the ambiguity.
I stand corrected.   However, several important points remain,
and since you are a gentleman, here they are.
   We would greatly appreciate your thoughts.  

  Take the background as  31,300 over 12 hours which gives 
   2608 counts per hour.
Therefore the square root of this number is about 51.

   The signal is  now shown to be  38,200 over 12 hours gives
    3183 counts per hour.
  The differential is the signal or 575/hour. 
   Now 575 > 51.     Is this a significant difference to you?

    Furthermore, the signals are linked with the
generation of helium-4 and the demonstration of excess enthalpy.
Does that linkage make it significant to you?
If not, how much would the incremental signal have to be?
   and for how long should it occur?


  >=sj  "Given the distance of 20 cm from the electrolytic cells,and the intrinsic
  >=sj  efficiency of the GM detector for gammas (20 cm through glass, D2O, air
  >=sj  is too much for alphas or betas, 
  >=sj  and the neutron survey meter showed nothing),
  >=sj  we find that 575 counts/h detected implies a source strength of roughly
  >=sj  10^8 gammas per hour."
  >
  >   I dare you to prove this.   Please walk us through this, Professor, since
  >it is so important to your thesis.
=rh "Come on Mitch, is it really so hard?"

   No, the calculation is easy.  The implication is important.
And furthermore, it is important to follow the point Steve makes 
    about neutrons and how that may fit in.

However, as the following calculation shows this too will show a point.

=rh "Signal = observed counts - background counts.
=rh Source strength = Signal / (Detector efficiency * (Area of sphere at radius
=rh of detector from souce)/(Collecting Area of Detector) * (Fraction of Signal
=rh which penetrates barriers between source and detector) )
=rh 
=rh Every quantity in the denominator will be significantly less than unity,
=rh so the source strength will be significantly greater than the observed
=rh signal.  For a GM tube with an effective collecting area on the order
=rh of 10 cm^2 at a distance of 20 cm^2, the area effect gives you 
=rh a factor of (4/3)*PI*(20)^2 / 10 = about 170; the efficiency is also
=rh pretty small, so that will give you another factor of 10-100,
=rh and then attenuation of the gammas between the cell and the detector
=rh will give you some more.  I can easily believe that 575 counts per
=rh hour goes to about 10^8 gammas per hour at the source."

    Excellent.   You have simplified the scattering issues, but....

  Let us define Detector efficiency = e
  Area of sphere at radius of detector from souce = A(r)
   Collecting Area of Detector = Ad
  Fraction of Signal which penetrates barriers between 
          source and detector  =  f

   Replacing your equation shows:

Source strength = Signal / (e * (A(r))/(Ad) * (f) )

    which becomes

Source strength = [Signal * (Ad) * (f) ) ]/ (e * (A(r)

   I believe there are three errors you might have made with this.  

   First, the equation should have   f   in the denominator.  
   Second, the derived source source increases with the area as opposed to 
decreasing.      Thus, this would correct this as:

Source strength = [Signal * (A(r))) ]/ (f  *  e * (Ad))

  which would make sense since

    signal  =  source strengh  *  e  *  f  *  Ad/A(r)

   Third, your formula for area may have the wrong constant for
volume.    4/3 -> 4?          ;-)

   In any case, anyone can make a mistake, so lets calculate this.

  Let us take your numbers, and thanks for the science.

   The energies of the reactions are above 20 MeV
which gives 50% line at 15-20 cm in water, but let us take an energy
nearer a few MeV (after all we see it) which also helps because this
is close to Compton scattering energies and the differential calculation
problem becomes less relevant.

 -----------------------------------------------------------------------
|counts/hour          |          |            575|          |          |
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------
|distance (cm)        |          |             20|          |          |
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------
|Area at 20cm         |          |          5,027|          |          |
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------
|attenuation (50%; 10cm)         |           0.50|          |          |
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------
|attenuation @ 20cm   |          |           0.25|          |          |
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------
|output/hour (corrected)         |      1,156,106|  **      |          |
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------
                  ** disclaimer on false number of significant figs.


   This is two orders of magnitude below the claimed amount.
However the incremental calculated output can be adjusted with the
efficiency factor of 10%, if appropriate, to a source level which may
be about an order of magnitude below the 100,000,000 factor.  
   
   But here is the most important issue.  Now that we all agree that
there has been a significant increase in the calculated output, implying
a significant source output above the statistical variation of 
background, what is the implication, Robert?

  Also given the linkage with excess enthalpy and helium-4 production
why are these number not compelling?

    And, finally,  why should the paucity of neutrons, in  known
      neutron-penic reactions "negate" the observed result?

    Best wishes. 
            Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com)


cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.05 / mitchell swartz /  Adam Miller - Accuracy Impaired, or simply dehydrated?
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.chem,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Adam Miller - Accuracy Impaired, or simply dehydrated?
Subject: Swartz = LP
Date: Thu, 5 May 1994 16:00:11 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <1994May4.020711.63380@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu>
Subject: Swartz = LP
Adam Miller (amiller@tisl.ukans.edu ) writes:

=am  	Has anyone else ever noticed that the only two
=am  	 people on the planet who quote from Dirac are LP 
=am  	(Everyone's best buddie here on Sci.chem) and Mitchell 
=am  	Schwartz on sci.physics.fusion. (Another well liked 
=am  	fellow.)  They are both opposed to what is true and what is
=am  	real as we know it.  Coincidence, or just a person
=am  	 with mulitple net accounts?
=am  						-Adam Miller

   Has  anyone else ever noticed that Adam Miller is unable to
present facts accurately?

  Mr. Miller's other erroneous and bizarre comments obviously herald
that he is either too chronically close to his monitor, or simply dehydrated.

   Furthermore, unlike Mr. Miller, I do not have the time to follow
Ludwig Plutonium's diligent wide-volume and diversely directed posts.

   BTW I don't remember quoting from Dirac, but since Mr. Miller
purports that I did perhaps he might offer the post to refresh my memory,
and deter us from the opinion that he is absolutely uniformly incorrect.

            Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com)


  
   
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.05 / Greg Kuperberg /  Re: Bill Page on Chubb and Chubb
     
Originally-From: gk00@quads.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Bill Page on Chubb and Chubb
Date: Thu, 5 May 1994 17:05:03 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

Matt, if I may paraphrase your argument, you are saying that just because
one deuteron can be at a position x and another deuteron can also be
at a position x, it doesn't mean that they can both be at position x
at the same time.  To take a tangible analogy, during the day my
probability cloud extends to the toilet, and so does my wife's,
but even though our probability clouds overlap at the toilet, you
won't find us there at the same time.  (John Lennon and Yoko Ono
may have found it romantic, but we don't.)  That's because there's
an ANTI-CORRELATION between my wife's position and my position.

The Chubbs seem to think otherwise, at least for deuterons.  They take
anti-correlation to mean a suppressed overlap of probability clouds
rather than a suppressed chance of collision even in the presence of
overlap.  That's an "interpretation" of quantum mechanics, but not in
the usual sense of the word in theoretical physics.  Usually in
mathematics and theoretical physics an interpretation is a different
point of view that gives you the same answer, but for the Chubbs an
interpretation is a different point of view that gives you a different
answer.  It's sort of like interpreting the derivative of x^2 to be 3x
instead of the usual interpretation of 2x.  I call it a trivial
misinterpretation rather than an interpretation, and unfortunately it
typefies the difference between the Chubb papers and the Leggett and
Baym paper that they cite.

Anyway, that's the way that I read what you are saying, and if I 
have read you correctly, you're absolutely right.  However,
you should be careful with some of your formulas:

In article <2q9j75$3nm@network.ucsd.edu> mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel) writes:
>Pretend we have two delocalized particles.
>
>Total wave function, PSI = PSI(x1,x2).
>
>What is the wave function for the *first* particle alone, ignoring the
>other one?
>
>phi_1(x1) = integral PSI(x1,x2) d^3 x2.

Actually, if the two particles are correlated, the first particle alone
doesn't have a wave function, it has a density matrix.  That's because
the position of the second particle is a partial measurement of the
position of the first particle, which diminishes the self-interference
of the propagation of the first particle.  (The effect is there whether
you choose to read the measurement or not.) The density matrix is given
by

rho_1(x1,x1') = integral Psi(x1,x2) Psi-bar(x1',x2) d^3 x2

and the probability density as a function of position is the diagonal

P(x1) = rho_1(x1,x1)

If the particles are uncorrelated, the density matrix factors as
a product

rho_1(x1,x1') = phi_1(x1) phi_1-bar(x1')

and phi_1 is the wave function of the first particle by itself.  If the
particles are almost uncorrelated, the density matrix can be
approximated as a product.  That is what is usually meant by the wave
function of any system which is less than the entire universe.  You do
your best to decorrelate the system from the rest of the universe and
then its density matrix approximately factors as the outer square of a
wave function.

>They have to show that |PSI(x_i,x_j)|^2 for |xi-xj| <= nuclear distances
>is substantial.  Not merely that the functions phi_1(x_i) and
>phi_2(x_j) "overlap".
>
>I don't think it can be, because there is a repulsive term 

This part is right.  After claiming that lattices delocalize deuterons
(which is also bogus), the Chubbs write down an uncorrelated joint wave
function and that's that.  Electrical repulsion ceases to exist.

>How do they get around this?

In the paper I read they mumble something about Leggett and Baym and
Wigner solids in a separate section before they do their calculations.
After that they ignore it completely.  The "Wigner" section didn't
have anything to do with the rest of the paper.
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudengk00 cudfnGreg cudlnKuperberg cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.05 / Benjamin Tilly /  Re: movie: NEANDERTHAL PARK post SYNTEX
     
Originally-From: Benjamin.J.Tilly@dartmouth.edu (Benjamin J. Tilly)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,alt.religion.kibology,sci.math,sci
physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.chem,sci.bio
Subject: Re: movie: NEANDERTHAL PARK post SYNTEX
Date: 5 May 1994 17:18:41 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In article <2qa909$phi@riscsm.scripps.edu>
iano@riscsm.scripps.edu (Ian Russell Ollmann) writes:

>         What I can't figure out is what prompted Dartmouth to
allow our plutonium friend to use
> their name. What were they thinking?
> 
>                                 Any ideas?
> 
For the n'th time. He has net access because he has e-mail. He has the
right to e-mail because he is a dishwasher at the Hanover Inn, which is
owned by Dartmouth College, which makes him indirectly an employee of
the College. With the local policies this access to e-mail is quite
secure.

Ben Tilly
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenTilly cudfnBenjamin cudlnTilly cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.06 /  morrison@vxpri /  Top. D0. Theory. New CDF event.
     
Originally-From: morrison@vxprix.cern.ch
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Top. D0. Theory. New CDF event.
Date: Fri, 6 May 1994 00:26:04 GMT
Organization: At Home; Salida, CA USA

                                                            3 - 5 May 1994.
      D-ZERO RESULTS. TOP MASS PREDICTIONS. NEW CDF EVENT.

     This afternoon Paul Grannis, who is working just now on OPAL, gave a
seminar on the D0 status. He noted that all results he gave should be considered
as preliminary.
     After describing their detector, he did present previous work on 
predictions of the top mass. Firstly he gave their previous upper limit of
131 GeV, PRL 72(1994)2138. Secondly he had been allowed to quote the best value 
of the LEP Electroweak Working Group which is;
 
             177  (+/- 11),  (+18 -19) GeV

 This is combining all data available at the Moriond and La Thuile conferences
from LEP, SLC, Collider Experiments (UA2, CDF, and D0) and neutrino data.
    The SLC data is slightly controversial as the top mass they give is so high
that including their data in the fit makes the chi-squared worse. If the SLC 
data is not taken the top mass predicted falls to 170 GeV.
    If only the LEP data is taken, then the top mass is predicted to be;

           172 (+13 -14) (+18 -20) GeV 
  
These three values are slight modifications of the values that were presented
at the Moriond and La Thuile meetings in March (and therefore replace the 
earlier value 174 GeV, which I quoted previously).
     In 1993, D0 had 3 events and expected six.
     Now they have made more extensive analyses and selections. In particular 
they have optimized their analysis for higher masses which reduces the  
background appreciably more than the number of events thus improving the 
signal to noise ratio. One result of this is that instead of having two
dilepton events, they now have one (emu) but the background is reduced from  
1.6 events to 0.6 for the emu and ee channels. If in addition they had included 
the mumu channel, there would have been one di-lepton event observed and one 
expected. In six channels, they have seven events and estimate the background 
to be 4.7 +/- 1.0  events, giving a non-significant excess of 2.3 +/- 2.8 
events.
    The useful sensitivity to top is about the same for CDF and D0 although 
the latter suffer a 20% loss because of the main ring beam pipe going through  
their detector (they expect to be able to reduce this somewhat), but there are 
compensating factors. There is a difference in the luminosity estimates 
between the two experiments due to different calibrations.
    Another way of studying the data is from the cross section. Paul showed 
a plot of cross section against top mass on which was drawn the latest
theoretical prediction, the NNLO central value. Three D0 values were given at
140, 160 and 180 GeV - all are below the predicted p-p ---> t-tbar cross
section but the error bar at 180 GeV goes above the curve while the 160 GeV
error bar just reaches above the NNLO central value curve. From these a 95%
confidence upper limit curve is drawn - it is well above the NNLO curve. The 
CDF value and error (all one sigma) is above the curve and its central value is 
below the 95% D0 confidence curve. Hope this can be visualised.
    Assuming a top mass of 180 GeV, the cross section for top production from 
D0, is 3.2 +/- 3.9 pb and their 95% CL upper limit is 13 pb while the 
normalised CDF value would be 11.8 pb. Note the slight difference in the 
calibration between CDF and D0 means that the CDF value of 13.9 +6.1 - 4.8 pb
becomes 11.8 pb using the D0 luminosity scale.
     The conclusions, bearing in mind that the D0 results are preliminary, are;
    There is no significent disagreement between the CDF, D0 and the theoretical
prediction.
    Since these three quantities are independent, it is entirely reasonable 
to combiine them. When asked, Paul said he did not wish to do so. However
know that it has been done and as would be expected from Paul's graph, gives 
a slightly lower top mass, a considerably smaller error, and a reasonable 
overall fit, but the authors will publish the numbers obtained themselves.

OTHER POINTS
     1. An important part of the CDF analysis (and of that of the LEP experiments)
is using vertex detectors to observe decays of B-particles (B-tagging). In 
answer to a question it was said that the D0 resolution was low but they are 
preparing a new one. This will be a four-layer (two layers double-sided) 
silicon barrel tracker and a set of double-sided silicon disks for the next 
run. In addition, there will be a scintillating fibre tracker system; all to
be immersed in a 2T magnetic field. This upgrade is approved and under 
construction.

     2. Several people are aware, and it was said to be official now, that in 
the present run, CDF have found a new di-lepton event - it is e+mu. This is in
the first 4 pb-1. Previously they had 2 events and an estimated background of
0.56 +0.25 -0.13 events with an integrated luminosity of 19.3 pb-1. Expect 
that this means they now have 3 events with a background presumably only 
slightly higher than 0.56 events - told it is 0.67 events.

     3. In their 153 page paper, CDF state in their abstract "The probability 
that the observed yield is consistent with the background, is estimated to 
be 0.26%" This tends to be interpreted as meaning that there is about one  
chance in 400 that the CDF result is a statistical fluctuation. However it 
is important to note that the CDF Collaboratiopn have been very conservative
as the 0.26% applies only to one part of their analysis. They have other 
information such having one double B-tagged di-lepton event while only 
0.007 such events are predicted. 
      Also in the kinematics of the W + jets events they observe a 2-8 split 
instead of the 5-5 split expected for background. However this last point 
is a delicate question since when CDF give a list of their data which 
do NOT support the t-tbar hypothesis, they note "We find that the measured 
t-tbar cross section is large enough to saturate the number of W + 4jet events
we observe, leaving a 1.5 to 2 standard deviation deficit for non-(t-tbar)
QCD production, after accounting for non-W contributions". It is fair of CDF 
to mention it but it may just be the problem of subtracting one large number 
from another and looking at the difference. D-zero are also studying their
QCD W + jets events. 
 
     4. Would like to emphasize again that the CDF and D0 experiments are
qualitatively different as they are DIRECTLY measuring t-tbar events whereas
the LEP and other experiments are making theoretical predictions of the 
top mass. 
      However CDF and D0 are making use of the same theory to estimate
their background.

     5. Since 1988, people have been combining experimental data and theory
to predict the top mass. Thus Ellis and Fogli gave in 1988, an upper limit of 
185 GeV, and in 1990 they found 122 +41 -32 GeV. Daniel Treille has made a plot
showing the variation of top mass predictions with time since 1991. It shows 
the top mass steadily rising and converging to the present value of 177 GeV. 
It is interesting to note that as the early errors were large but have 
steadily decreased with time (and better data), the predicted values for the 
top mass have generally continued to be within one standard deviation of 
the new CDF value.

     6. It is curious that the CDF paper does not mention that the mass of 
174 GeV that they claim, is in good agreement with the value of 177 GeV found 
by using other independent measurements and everyone's theory. This could be 
considered independent confirmation of their claim of DIRECT evidence for top. 
A chapter mentioning previous work would be a welcome addition to the paper.
 
     7. Still feel that historically, when a new particle is discovered, it
is with low statistics so that there are fluctuations. If one group has a 
favourable upward fluctuation, they will have a chance to claim, while if
another group has a downward fluctuation, they will have to await more
statistics.
    Now everyone is eagerly awaiting results from the new run that is in its
early stages and where the Tevatron and the two experiments are running well.

                                                  Douglas R. O. Morrison.

PS While talking with Lev Okun about this (he and colleagues also find about 
170 GeV), he showed me two very interesting papers that surprised me. They are
CERN Theory preprints TH 7137/94 (January 1994) and TH 7217/94 (April 1994)
both by Novikov et al. In his summary talk at the Marseille conference last 
year, Lev emphasized that previously one used the fine structure constant
alpha, a, ( = 1/137) and found large "electroweak" corrections. This alpha is 
for zero momentum transfer. However in running from zero to the Z0 mass, all 
the corrections are electromagnetic and are insensitive to the desired 
electroweak corrections. Hence several people use the value of alpha at the 
momentum transfer at the Z0 mass, a(mass Z0 squared), which is found to 
be 1/129 by LEP. When Lev et al. took the LEP results, they found that they 
could be fitted to within about one sigma using only the Born approximation - 
in other words, there was no evidence for any electroweak radiative corrections!
It could be said that the corrections cancelled one another.
     However when they analysed the latest LEP data presented at Moriond 
and La Thuile, they found for the first time, evidence for such electroweak 
radiative corrections. They noted that the top contribution could be separated. 
In fitting the data, they derived a top quark mass near 170 GeV. Similar  
results have been obtained by other workers (e.g. Altarelli et al. using the 
epsilon parameters).
     Now there is the interesting question that the radiative corrections 
can be large but they almost cancel - is this a conspiracy? Some say possibly,
others that the effect is not so big and a more interesting question is why is 
the top quark mass comparable to the energy scale of the electroweak theory, 
that is, the Z0 mass?

     Thanks are due to many people for their help and in particular to Mike 
Albrow, Guido Altarelli, John Ellis, Paul Grannis, Maurice Jacob, Lev Okun, 
and Daniel Treille.

cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenmorrison cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.05 / mitchell swartz /  cancel <CpBxyK.xM@world.std.com>
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cancel <CpBxyK.xM@world.std.com>
Date: Thu, 5 May 1994 15:13:06 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

cancel <CpBxyK.xM@world.std.com> in newsgroup sci.physics.fusion
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.05 / Benjamin Tilly /  Re: movie: NEANDERTHAL PARK post SYNTEX
     
Originally-From: Benjamin.J.Tilly@dartmouth.edu (Benjamin J. Tilly)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.kibology,sci.math,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusio
,sci.chem,sci.bio
Subject: Re: movie: NEANDERTHAL PARK post SYNTEX
Date: 5 May 1994 17:30:13 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In article <1994May5.023741.63447@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu>
amiller@tisl.ukans.edu (Adam Miller) writes:

> Would someone at Dartmouth please point out to Lp
>  (since I am prolly already on the kill list) that

Actually you are very not on his kill-file. There is a local program
for reading internews that you can use if you do not want to bother
learning UNIX. (It is disgustingly user-friendly.) I have reason to
believe that he is using that. It is quite user-friendly and scanning
through groups with it is fairly fast so they never bothered putting
kill-files into the design. So the odds are quite high that he does not
even *have* kill-files. He still might just not read your articles, but
he cannot do it automatically. In fact he cannot tell who wrote an
article until he opens it up, all that he knows is the title of the
thread and the number of unread articles in that thread. So anything
that you write in a thread that he is following will be seen by him to
some extent.

I just thought that some of you might find that useful information...
:-)

> at least his so-called hoodwinkers have taken the
> time and energy to prove their theories to be 
> correct.  And that they have faced up to their 
> critics by answering, not avoiding them.  Thanx.  And
> while you are there please unplug LP's computer and
> make sure that the straight jacket is on really 
> tight.  Circulation is overrated.

Now you really wouldn't want him to be reading comments like that, now
would you?

Ben Tilly
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenTilly cudfnBenjamin cudlnTilly cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.05 / Robert Heeter /  Re: Reply to Maglich on TFTR D-T Result
     
Originally-From: rfheeter@theory.pppl.gov (Robert F. Heeter)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reply to Maglich on TFTR D-T Result
Date: 5 May 1994 12:01:26 -0400
Organization: /etc/organization

In article <holt-040594091006@holt.cheme.washington.edu>,
Brad Holt <holt@cheme.washington.edu> wrote:
>In article <1994Apr28.021536.6433@Princeton.EDU>, Robert F. Heeter
><rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> wrote:
>
>> Perhaps there should be two distinct budgets, one for further
>> development of the tokamak (as the first reactor likely to
>> approach commercializablility), and the other for pursuing
>> advanced/alternate concepts, which show promise for making better
>> energy sources further down the road.  
>> 
>> That is, we should really think of "the" fusion program as
>> two separate programs.  The tokamak program is a hybrid science-energy
>> program, with more emphasis on rapid development of an alternative
>> energy source; the alternative-concepts program is also a hybrid
>> science-energy program, but the emphasis is more heavily on the
>> science, and the goal is to develop the *best* possible fusion
>> energy source, but not so soon.  (What do people think?)
>> 
>> ***************************
>> Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
>> Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University
>> As always, I represent only myself, and not PPPL
>
>   If the justification of PPPL is based on it being a "...hybrid
>science-energy program, with more emphasis on rapid development of an
>alternative energy source..." and " ... the tokamak (as the first
>reactor likely to approach commercializablility)...", then it should
>be cancelled.
>
>   Seriously, what do you mean by "likely"  and "approach 
>commercializability"? 

Simply that current tokamak fusion reactor-design studies generally 
indicate that tokamak-based fusion will, given projected advances
in technology, be capable of competing in the 21st century energy
market.  I said "Likely" because the tokamak is an evolving technology, 
and the results aren't certain.  I said "approach commercializability"
because between now and the time when a commercial fusion reactor 
might be built, a number of issues must be resolved.  As these
issues are resolved, the tokamak will steadily approach commercializability.
I could also have simply said that the tokamak is the most likely 
fusion technology to go commercial first..

> What does "rapid" mean?  I thought people
>just got through arguing that it was a science project and was never
>being sold as the predecessor to a commercial reactor process.

I think you may be confusing the "tokamak" as a concept with the
Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor project here at PPPL.  The tokamak is
simply a name given to a particular type of confinement device.  TFTR 
is a particular tokamak which has studied many of the scientific 
issues involved in assessing whether the tokamak concept would 
make a viable commercial reactor.  TFTR was not designed to 
function like a commercial reactor, but that's not to say it 
was simply designed as a pure-science experiment.

The current plan of the DOE fusion program, as I understand it, is
to finish work on TFTR this year, begin construction of a new 
experiment called TPX ("Tokamak Physics eXperiment") designed to
test out advanced ideas which will help tokamak fusion become
commercially viable, and then build the International Thermonuclear
Experimental Reactor, which is designed to generate commercial-scale
amounts of power, test out commercial reactor ideas, and pave the
way for the first demonstration/commercial fusion reactor.

TFTR was not simply a science experiment, but a testing ground for
developing physical understanding and technologies which will be
useful in developing a commercial fusion reactor based on the tokamak
concept.

If any of the terminology is unclear, please consult section 10 of
the FAQ (which I can send to you if you need it.)

**************
Robert F. Heeter
rfheeter@theory.pppl.gov
Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton Plasma Physics Lab
Disclaimers Apply

cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.05 / Robert Heeter /  Re: Question for Chubb/ More on claims of Miles and Bush - calc error?
     
Originally-From: rfheeter@theory.pppl.gov (Robert F. Heeter)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Question for Chubb/ More on claims of Miles and Bush - calc error?
Date: 5 May 1994 12:44:58 -0400
Organization: /etc/organization

In article <CpBxyK.xM@world.std.com>,
mitchell swartz <mica@world.std.com> wrote:
>  In Message-ID: <1994May4.031740.12641@Princeton.EDU>
>Subject: Re: Question for Chubb/ More on claims of Miles and Bush - calc error?
>Robert Franklin Heeter (rfheeter@phoenix.Princeton.EDU) writes:
>
>  >Steve Jones (jonesse@physc1.byu.edu) writes:
>  >
>  >=sj "This thread began with some discussion of Mel Miles' (et al.) claims of
>  >=sj  enormous radiation detected by a Geiger-Muller counter placed 20 cm from
>  >=sj  Pd/D2O electrolytic cells.  {M. Miles and B. Bush, in Proc. of Nagoya
>  >=sj  meeting on cold fusion, 1993, p. 189}
>  >=sj  I have now done a rough calculation to determine just how much radiation
>  >=sj  the GM counter reading implies.  Fig. 4 of this paper shows (38.2 - 31.3)
>  >=sj  X 1000 counts per 12 hours (their units), or about 575 counts per hour.
>  >   Mr. Jones, this is simple math and you are wrong.
>  >    38,200 over 12 hours gives  3183 counts per hour.
>  >    31,300 over 12 hours gives  2608 counts per hour.
>=rh  "That's right, and the difference (which is the observed signal with the
>=rh background subtracted to give you the counts that come from the 
>=rh cell) is the 575 that Dr. Jones talks about."
>
>   OK.  Thank you for the clarification of the ambiguity.
>I stand corrected.   However, several important points remain,
>and since you are a gentleman, here they are.
>   We would greatly appreciate your thoughts.  
>
>  Take the background as  31,300 over 12 hours which gives 
>   2608 counts per hour.
>Therefore the square root of this number is about 51.
>
>   The signal is  now shown to be  38,200 over 12 hours gives
>    3183 counts per hour.
>  The differential is the signal or 575/hour. 
>   Now 575 > 51.     Is this a significant difference to you?

So you say it's an 11-sigma effect.  Ordinarily one would call 
that quite significant.  But not if, as Dr. Jones points out, 
there should also have been some signal seen on the neutron 
meter as a result of accidental gamma collection.  And not if,
as Tom Droege points out, one has reason to suspect that the
Geiger detector's operating characteristics might subtly have
been altered when the experiment was running.
>
>    Furthermore, the signals are linked with the
>generation of helium-4 and the demonstration of excess enthalpy.
>Does that linkage make it significant to you?
>If not, how much would the incremental signal have to be?
>   and for how long should it occur?

In this case it's not a question of signal strength or duration, but
of the overall consistency of the results.  If a high gamma rate
should give you false counts on your neutron detector, and these are
not observed, that's a problem.  Furthermore, the gamma rate is still
far too low to account for the observed excess heat.

>  >=sj  "Given the distance of 20 cm from the electrolytic cells,and the intrinsic
>  >=sj  efficiency of the GM detector for gammas (20 cm through glass, D2O, air
>  >=sj  is too much for alphas or betas, 
>  >=sj  and the neutron survey meter showed nothing),
>  >=sj  we find that 575 counts/h detected implies a source strength of roughly
>  >=sj  10^8 gammas per hour."
>  >
>  >   I dare you to prove this.   Please walk us through this, Professor, since
>  >it is so important to your thesis.
>=rh "Come on Mitch, is it really so hard?"
>
>   No, the calculation is easy.  The implication is important.
>And furthermore, it is important to follow the point Steve makes 
>    about neutrons and how that may fit in.
>
>However, as the following calculation shows this too will show a point.
>
>=rh "Signal = observed counts - background counts.
>=rh Source strength = Signal / (Detector efficiency * (Area of sphere at radius
>=rh of detector from souce)/(Collecting Area of Detector) * (Fraction of Signal
>=rh which penetrates barriers between source and detector) )
>=rh 
>=rh Every quantity in the denominator will be significantly less than unity,
>=rh so the source strength will be significantly greater than the observed
>=rh signal.  For a GM tube with an effective collecting area on the order
>=rh of 10 cm^2 at a distance of 20 cm^2, the area effect gives you 
>=rh a factor of (4/3)*PI*(20)^2 / 10 = about 170; the efficiency is also
>=rh pretty small, so that will give you another factor of 10-100,
>=rh and then attenuation of the gammas between the cell and the detector
>=rh will give you some more.  I can easily believe that 575 counts per
>=rh hour goes to about 10^8 gammas per hour at the source."
>
>    Excellent.   You have simplified the scattering issues, but....
>
>  Let us define Detector efficiency = e
>  Area of sphere at radius of detector from souce = A(r)
>   Collecting Area of Detector = Ad
>  Fraction of Signal which penetrates barriers between 
>          source and detector  =  f
>
>   Replacing your equation shows:
>
>Source strength = Signal / (e * (A(r))/(Ad) * (f) )


This is correct.

>    which becomes
>
>Source strength = [Signal * (Ad) * (f) ) ]/ (e * (A(r))
>
>   I believe there are two errors you might have made with this.  
>
>   First, the equation should have f in the denominator.  

Yes, and it did when I wrote it.  I treated the "/" as having
precedence over the "*" in the equation, so that it really
looks like

Source Strength = Signal / ( e * ( A(r)/Ad ) * f ) in your notation.

This reduces correctly to:

>Source strength = [Signal * (Ad)) ]/ (f  *  e * (A(r) )

Thanks for clearing up the confusion.

>   Second, your formula for area may have the wrong constant for
>volume.    4/3 -> 4?          ;-)

Yep.  I was out to lunch.  Or more likely a midnight snack. :)

>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>|counts/hour          |          |            575|          |          |
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>|distance (cm)        |          |             20|          |          |
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>|Area at 20cm         |          |          5,027|          |          |
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>|attenuation (50%; 10cm)         |           0.50|          |          |
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>|attenuation @ 20cm   |          |           0.25|          |          |
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>|output/hour (corrected)         |      1,156,106|  **      |          |
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>                  ** disclaimer on false number of significant figs.
>
>
>   Therefore the incremental calculated output can be adjusted with the
>efficiency factor of 10%, if appropriate, to a source level which may
>be about an order of magnitude below the 100,000,000 factor.  

My intuition is that the efficiency factor is too high, the attenuation
is larger than what you indicate (lower-energy gammas should be attenuated
more than the ones you used to get the 50%), I may have mis-guessed the
effective detector area, and that Dr. Jones was probably a little more
careful in his calculation, so that 10^8 is as reasonable as 10^7
in this case.
>   
>   But here is the most important issue.  Now that we all agree that
>there has been a significant increase in the calculated output, implying
>a significant source output above the statistical variation of 
>background, what is the implication, Robert?

(a) Given that the neutron detector should have seen something by 
miscounting some of these copious alleged gamma rays, or at least
from gamma-induced decomposition of some of the deuterium into
protons and neutrons, and it didn't, I'd say the implication is 
that some sort of systematic error is occurring, such as what 
Tom Droege described in his recent post.

The absence of any signal at the neutron detector blows huge holes
in the consistency of these results, and seriously damages the
credibility of any cold fusion claim from this experiment.  If you
want to make people believe in cold fusion, use a whole bunch of
really high-quality detectors and show that they all give consistent
results.  If you want to attack Dr. Jones' line of reasoning, you
should think about that neutron detector, not about the gamma rays.

(b) Assuming you somehow show that the neutron detector isn't relevant,
I'd say that Given 20 MeV of fusion energy per radiated gamma, and 10^7 or 
10^8 gammas, you're not seeing a hell of a lot of fusion.  
2E7 eV * 1E8 counts = 2 E15 eV = 3.2 E-4 watts.  That's 0.00032 watts 
of claimed fusion power.  So your gamma detector is still inconsistent
with your calorimetry, and the experiment is inconsistent with
either the Chubb theory (fusion, zero gammas) or the standard 
physics model (no fusion, no gammas).  Try again.

>  Also given the linkage with excess enthalpy and helium-4 production
>why are these number not compelling?

Because they don't present a consistent picture.  Should I believe
the neutron meter, which says zero fusion neutrons or gammas, the 
gamma meter, which says only a tiny amount of fusion gammas, the 
He-4 measurement which says that you had He in your cell from some
hard-to-pin-down source, or the calorimetry which simply says that
your cell seems to be warmer than you expect?  

If an auto mechanic told you that, on the one hand, there seemed to
be fumes (He) coming out of the back of your car, and the wheels
seemed to be turning (excess heat), you would tend to think the 
engine was running.  But if he also told you that the engine 
was pretty cold (tiny amounts of gammas) and the fuel pump was 
shut off (no neutron signal at all), you'd have a hard time 
believing that he wasn't just pulling your leg, no?  You'd
tend to question the whole situation and not believe anything.

Similarly with this experiment.

>    And, finally,  why should the paucity of neutrons, in  known
>      neutron-penic reactions "negate" the observed result?

As Dr. Jones points out, if you have large numbers of gammas
in your system, you're going to split deuterium nuclei, and
you should see *some* neutrons in your counter, though they
needn't be from fusion reactions.  So even if the reactions
aren't directly producing neutrons, you're still not seeing 
the results you expect.  Furthermore, you should get *some* 
signal in your neutron detector from the *gammas*, which will 
trigger some false counts.  These aren't observed either.  It 
doesn't matter what reaction products you expect.  If you see 
an 11-sigma signal of *something* in the Geiger counter, you 
should see *something* in the neutron counter that was used.

***********************
Robert F. Heeter
rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Disclaimers apply...


cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.05 /  gwatts@whcdfo. /  Re: (no subject given)
     
Originally-From: gwatts@whcdfo.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics
Subject: Re: (no subject given)
Date: 5 May 94 15:08:23 -0600
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Lab

In article <2pm8r0$aa3@ds8.scri.fsu.edu>, jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) writes:
> In article <94116.192626DOCTORJ@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> 
> Jon J Thaler <DOCTORJ@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> writes:
>>sichase@csa5.lbl.gov (SCOTT CHASE) says:

>>
>>They have 15 events.

We have 15 "tags"...  A tag usually refers to a jet.  In the case of the b
taggers, they tag "jets" not events.  For example, the double tagged events
refered to are different jets in the same event (top decay in the lepton
plus jets channel has two b jets).  There are 12 events.

>>>> What odds will you give against its being seen in the next six months?
>                                         ^^^^^^^^^^
> The wording of the bet is pretty vague.  Certainly CDF thinks they have 
> seen it even though they are careful in what they say.  Perhaps the thing 
> to do is to pay off if new data show the CDF claim is correct and not 
> based on background mis-estimates like the famous UA1 claim. 

Zero.  None.  Don't event think it.  It isn't going to happen.  In the
timescale of 6 months we will just be getting our feet under us for this
next run (which has just started).  Because con-ed is giving us a rebate
on our electricity bill (I *think* they overcharged Fermi some years ago)
we can afford to run through the summer... but I wouldn't expect anything
until at least January of next year, at least -- one way or the other. :)

	CHeers,
		Gordon.

cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudengwatts cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.05 /  gwatts@whcdfo. /  Re: Misuse of statistics [was Re: (no subject given)]
     
Originally-From: gwatts@whcdfo.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics
Subject: Re: Misuse of statistics [was Re: (no subject given)]
Date: 5 May 94 15:10:27 -0600
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Lab

In article <2pops5$9in@galaxy.ucr.edu>, dixon@galaxy.ucr.edu (david dixon) writes:
> In article <2po57a$glu@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk>,
> Nick Maclaren <nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>>    4) You expect to get 12 or more events from a Poisson process with
>>expectation 6 about 1 time in 50.  If the relevant people said that they
>>have evidence but not proof, they are being scrupulously accurate.  Note
>>that 2.8 sigma from a normal distribution is nearly 1 time in 400.
> 
> Good enough for a Nobel prize, eh?
> 
> 					Dave
> 

I think most people talk about having a 5 sigma hump before being absolutely
sure they have a discovery.  That is why we call it evidence...  So,
certianly not a nobel prize.  Some even question weather or not its
discovery is worth a nobel prize.  Certianly enough sweat and tears have
gone into the search... not to mention n years of my life! ;)

	Cheers,
		Gordon.

cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudengwatts cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.05 /  gwatts@whcdfo. /  Re: Misuse of statistics [was Re: (no subject given)]
     
Originally-From: gwatts@whcdfo.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics
Subject: Re: Misuse of statistics [was Re: (no subject given)]
Date: 5 May 94 15:22:51 -0600
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Lab

In article <28APR199411532449@csa5.lbl.gov>, sichase@csa5.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE) writes:
> 
> The background calculation which they did was, I expect, based upon a sample 
> of simulated event events many times larger than the actual experimental
> sample of top quark candidates.  For that reason, they were able to 
> put rather small error bars upon the expected background.  They estimated
> a number something like 5.9+/-0.6 unexcludable background events.  They 
> could, in principle, have thrown 10 times as much computing power at the 
> problem, and reduced the error bars on the background even further, if they
> thought that they understood the systematic effects well enough to justify
> the effort required to reduce the statistical effect.

Actually, for the two b tag methods we did as much of the background
as we could using data instead of monte carlo.  This way any systematic
effects in the data would be canceled out.  The dilepton method also does
similar checks.  All three lossen or change the cuts slightly and then check
the background predictions against the data.  In all three cases the match
is good.

This is where the dominate source of error comes from in our background
calculation.  We do, however, have to MC a couple of processes, like Wbbar
for example.  Their contribution is small, however (theoretical cross section
small).  Beating down the background errors more would be difficult since
thedominate source of error comes from the data background method (we assign
a 30% uncertianty to it) -- so pumping more cpu isn't the solution.  We need
bigger control samples... that is comming in this next run that is just now
starting up.

> 
> The "1 time in 400" probability is the one to remember.  But also remember
> that there are unspoken systematic effects which are probably large enough
> that 1 in 400 is probably an exaggeration.

We have done our best to be very conservative.  For example, we have two
methods of calculating the background in the btag searches.  With our usual
flare we have called them "Method 1" and "Method 2".  We think Method 1 is
an overestimate of the background and that is what we use in the counting
experiment that yeilds .26% prob.  Method 2 uses almost all Monte Carlo
(instead of the data control samples).  Using that we get a .026% prob of
the background fluctuating up.  In Method 1 for the SVX search we slap a
30% error onto our data background calculation because of a disagreement
we see in the negative tags in the high sumet sample -- even though the
we use the positibve tags and the et spectrum of the sumet sample is not
the same as that of the W+jets signal sample.

All this stuff is in the paper (ok, so it *is* a little long to read).  You
are right, though, we could have goofed.  But, we didn't try to cut it
close with that 1 in 400.  If anything we were scared of making a mistake.
With America so anti big science we can't afford a black eye ("Oh?  Didn't
find the top?  Mean I put it on the line for a non-discovery?  Well, say
good bye to your main injector funding!" :)).   

Excuse my spelling! :)

	Cheers,
		Gordon.

> 
> -Scott
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudengwatts cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.05 /  gwatts@whcdfo. /  Re: (no subject given)
     
Originally-From: gwatts@whcdfo.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics
Subject: Re: (no subject given)
Date: 5 May 94 15:35:30 -0600
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Lab


>>   For this reason, I believe that their data is only marginally convincing.
>>   They have a small number of "gold plated" events, but will have to acquire
>>   much more data before there will be no doubt that the sample includes
>>   at least some top decays.  Since there will be better data soon anyway,
>>   I prefer to reserve judgement [...]

And that is the beuty of a counting experiment.  It is what it is.  It is 2.8
sigma.  Some people (at least, some of the reporters, it looks like) have
interpreted that as a discovery.   Others of us call it evidence.  Others
call it bogus.  Whatever.  The bump is 2.8 sigma.

If you want to argue about how we got to 2.8 sigma, that is a different
story. :)

As Scott mentioned we are waiting for more data.  In fact it is rolling in
as we speak.  Run Ia was 25 pb-1 worth of data.  This run we hope will be
at least 75 pb-1 and might even be as large as 150 pb-1 of data, depending
upon funding for upgrades to the CDF detector and the Tevatron.


	Cheers,
		Gordon.
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudengwatts cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.05 / SCOTT CHASE /  Re: (no subject given)
     
Originally-From: sichase@csa5.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics
Subject: Re: (no subject given)
Date: 5 May 1994 13:41 PST
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA

In article <1994May5.150823.1@whcdfo.fnal.gov>, gwatts@whcdfo.fnal.gov writes...
> 
>Zero.  None.  Don't event think it.  It isn't going to happen.  In the
>timescale of 6 months we will just be getting our feet under us for this
>next run (which has just started).  Because con-ed is giving us a rebate
>on our electricity bill (I *think* they overcharged Fermi some years ago)
>we can afford to run through the summer... but I wouldn't expect anything
>until at least January of next year, at least -- one way or the other. :)

Good luck running in the heat of summer!  I don't suppose that nonexperts
are aware that large particle accelerators are usually down for the summer
months.  This is because Labs negotiate special discount rates for electric
power with the local power utility.  These rates usually come with strings
attached - an agreement to shut down during high-demand summer months, and
the right of the electric company to yank power with limited warning in 
the event of power shortages due to large, but temporary, load fluctuations,
for example.

One consequence of this is that the power supplies, magnets, etc., are not
run under extreme environmental conditions very often.  If you run in the 
summer for the first time in a few years or more, you are likely to be
doing one giant smoke test much of the time, instead of doing physics.  I 
could tell you horror stories from both the Bevalac and the AGS, admittedly 
both older machines, about what has happened on hot spring days.  But 
I don't want to scare you...


-Scott
 -------------------             i hate you, you hate me
Scott I. Chase                   let's all go and kill barney
SICHASE@CSA2.LBL.GOV             and a shot rang out and barney hit the floor,
                                 no more purple dinosaur.
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudensichase cudfnSCOTT cudlnCHASE cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.05 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Re: P&F press conf. on 23 March 1989/reply to Jim Carr
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: P&F press conf. on 23 March 1989/reply to Jim Carr
Date: 5 May 94 12:02:05 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

In the interest of brevity of our exchange, Jim, let me summarize your
position as I understand it:

1.  The CDF press conference was premature (although the paper was not).
2.  The P&F  "    "        was not "        (although the paper was).

I agree with you on point 1, but on point 2 I maintain that the P&F
press conference was also premature, for reasons I have already given in detail.
I do not find your linking of 1&2 to give persuasive rationale to your
claim that the P&F PC was not premature.  Seems to me both were premature,
and that this fits your arguments about the premature CDF CF better as well.

I would like to address your concluding questions in particular, since
there seems to be some confusion here:

"I can understand your anger at the actions of P&F on 3/22 [actually 3/23 PC],
since they clearly violated the spirit and letter of the agreement.
[The agreement was to have no public discussion of the research by either
group prior to simultaneous submission of papers on 3/24.]
"However, is it possible that they believed that you had violated the spirit of
the agreement when you sent in your abstract ?"

No.  My abstract was sent in to the APS in February 1989, for an *invited*
talk on "cold fusion", meaning muon-catalyzed fusion, but since DOE had
supported our research on possible nuclear reactions due to deuterium in
metal systems since 1986 and urged me to include this in my invited APS talk,
I included that in the abstract sent in February.

There was no agreement about silence or simultaneous submission or anything
of the kind in February when I submitted the abstract.  The agreement you
speak of was reached at the March 6, 1989 meeting held at BYU at the request
of persons from the Univ. of Utah (including P&F).  Thus, my sending in of
my abstract was prior to the agreement; their press conference was *after*
the agreement (but before the day agreed upon for simultaneous submission
of papers).  

I was asked at the March 6 meeting by the U. Utah people whether I could
withdraw or change my abstract.  I checked with APS and found that it was 
too late.  The timing of submitting papers simultaneously was requested by
U./Utah President Peterson so as to be before my invited talk (he sought
publication before my May 4 talk) and indeed before the APS program even
was mailed out.  The sense of the meeting was that the BYU side was trying
to accomodate fully the interests of the U./Utah people, as was expressed
to me also by Jae Ballif who was in attendance.

This is to the best of my knowledge and memory, and I believe this to be
fully accurate.  

Jim asks finally:
"Would it have been premature if the three of you had held a joint press
conference on 3/23?"

Yes, since we had agreed to simultaneous submission of papers on 3/24.
In any case, we would not have agreed to such a media circus.

--Steven Jones

cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenjonesse cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.05 /  jonesse@physc1 /  cancel <1994May5.115829.1617@physc1.byu.edu>
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cancel <1994May5.115829.1617@physc1.byu.edu>
Date: 5 May 94 12:02:28 -0600

cancel <1994May5.115829.1617@physc1.byu.edu>
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenjonesse cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.05 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Re: Question for Chubb/ More on claims of Miles and Bush - calc error?
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Question for Chubb/ More on claims of Miles and Bush - calc error?
Date: 5 May 94 12:29:02 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

No, Mitch, my math was not wrong:

In article <Cp889q.H2A@world.std.com>, mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
>   In Subject: Question for Chubb/ More on claims of Miles and Bush
> Message-ID: <1994May2.112755.1612@physc1.byu.edu>
> Steve Jones (jonesse@physc1.byu.edu) writes:
> 
> =sj  "This thread began with some discussion of Mel Miles' (et al.) claims of
> =sj  enormous radiation detected by a Geiger-Muller counter placed 20 cm from
> =sj  Pd/D2O electrolytic cells.  {M. Miles and B. Bush, in Proc. of Nagoya
> =sj  meeting on cold fusion, 1993, p. 189}
> =sj  I have now done a rough calculation to determine just how much radiation
> =sj  the GM counter reading implies.  Fig. 4 of this paper shows (38.2 - 31.3)
> =sj  X 1000 counts per 12 hours (their units), or about 575 counts per hour.
> 
>    Mr. Jones, this is simple math and you are wrong.
>     38,200 over 12 hours gives  3183 counts per hour.
>     31,300 over 12 hours gives  2608 counts per hour.
>     
> We can take the average which is 
>    34,750 over 12 hours which gives 2895 counts per hour.
> 
>    Oh yes, you could have checked this yourself, quite quickly
> since 12 * 575 gives just under 7 X 1000  counts per 12 hours, and
> not either the number which you give (vide supra).
> 
>    However, you are within an order of magnitude, and have the right sign
> this time.    ;-)
> 

To determine the "how much radiation the GM counter reading implies," as I
said, we must subtract the background reading of 31,300 counts per 12 hours
from the reading of 38,200 counters per 12 hours -- cited as 26 sigma above
background by Miles et al. in the paper I cited (see above).  This gives
a detected signal rate of 575 counts/hr, just as I said.

Or use your numbers above, (3183 - 2608) counts/h = 575 counts/h.
> 
> =sj  "Given the distance of 20 cm from the electrolytic cells, and the intrinsic
> =sj  efficiency of the GM detector for gammas (20 cm through glass, D2O, air
> =sj  is too much for alphas or betas, and the neutron survey meter showed nothing),
> =sj  we find that 575 counts/h detected implies a source strength of roughly
> =sj  10^8 gammas per hour."
> 
>    I dare you to prove this.     Please walk us through this, Professor, since
> it is so important to your thesis.
> 
>    Best wishes.
>                Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com)

I have found that one cannot convince a heckler.  However, you can perhaps
convince yourself by folding in the geometrical acceptance (about 0.006)
and the intrinsic efficiency of the detector (about 0.001) for high-energy
gammas.

I would also call the reader's attention to a related post by Tom Droege
in the last few days which shows how artifactual 'signals' can be given
by a Geiger-Mueller counter.  I have offered to Miles et al. to use one
of our detectors, which would be more sensitive and reliable -- but they
have not accepted our offer.

Best wishes,
Steven Jones
 
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenjonesse cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.05 /  jonesse@physc1 /  cancel <1994May5.121236.1620@physc1.byu.edu>
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cancel <1994May5.121236.1620@physc1.byu.edu>
Date: 5 May 94 12:29:16 -0600

cancel <1994May5.121236.1620@physc1.byu.edu>
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenjonesse cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.05 / Patrick Schaaf /  Re: movie: NEANDERTHAL PARK post SYNTEX
     
Originally-From: bof@wg.saar.de (Patrick Schaaf)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.kibology,sci.math,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusio
,sci.chem,sci.bio,alt.sci.physics.plutonium
Subject: Re: movie: NEANDERTHAL PARK post SYNTEX
Date: Thu, 5 May 1994 22:51:35 GMT
Organization: Yoyodyne Posting Systems, Bellona

amiller@tisl.ukans.edu (Adam Miller) writes:

>Ludwig Plutonium (Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu) wrote:
>: SKIT 13

><<Deleted to save the pain and suffering!>>

Damn. I thought it was so good I hoped to see it again.

>Would someone at Dartmouth please point out to Lp
> (since I am prolly already on the kill list) that
>at least his so-called hoodwinkers have taken the
>time and energy to prove their theories to be 
>correct.  And that they have faced up to their 
>critics by answering, not avoiding them.  Thanx.

Don't you think he was told this and numerous other important
relevations during the last few years?  He fuels his posts
with them.  He doesn't care.  Neither does anybody else.

>And while you are there please unplug LP's computer

You misspelled "kitchen sink".  Unplugging other peoples kitchen sinks
is illegal in most countries.

I also hear that the American Potwasher Union recently recommended posting
to Usenet to all its members. You can't stop progress.

The recommended action for you is to hit the 'n' key or read about killfiles.

Have a nice day. Here's an M&M, enjoy!			O  <--- M&M

-- 
Patrick Schaaf
a.r.k Crosspost Emergency Response Team

This is a public thread redirection. Please be a good Usenetter and follow it.
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenbof cudfnPatrick cudlnSchaaf cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.05 / dave pierson /  Re: was Overblown -->DoE's "review" and Tokamak: Commercial?
     
Originally-From: pierson@msd26.enet.dec.com (dave pierson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: was Overblown -->DoE's "review" and Tokamak: Commercial?
Date: Thu, 5 May 1994 22:47:47 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation


In article <Cp5yDE.4LD@prometheus.UUCP>, pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) writes...
>In article <1994Apr28.033254.23046@Princeton.EDU> Robert F. Heeter
<rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> writes:
>>In article <CovoJJ.pA@prometheus.UUCP> Paul M. Koloc, pmk@prometheus.UUCP
>>writes:
> 
>>You're saying that they shouldn't have been trying to learn from
>>each others' experiences?  I'd have been amazed if they *hadn't*
>>tried to find ways of selling their programs.
> 
>No just jacking up the price through augmentation of overblown 
>importance of iron curtain competitive reseach, during the cold war.    
> 
> 
>>I was saying the international fusion community reviewed the experimental
>>and theoretical results.  Are you saying that they shouldn't?
> 
>No, I don't think that is what you were saying.  The way I read it
>was that the US National Mag Fusion Program was being reviewed in
>part by international scientists, IMPLYING that they were disinterested
>fair and impartial reviewers from afar that had no gain or connection
>with the program.  What should have been said was that a group of
>ITER scientist where looking at the program to help slide it past
>the B. Johnson traps.        :-)_
> 
>>As for the program reviewers:  Anyone with a solid grasp of the field,
>>and therefore capable of being a reviewer, will not be impartial, under
>>your logic.  As Matt Kennel (I believe) pointed out the last time we 
>>went through this argument, the DOE *has* had non-fusion plasma physicists
>>review the program as well.  
> 
>That's kind of tough, since 95% of the funding for plasma physics, came
>from the fusion program, and most of the plasma physicists, took courses
>which were at least written by fusion plasma physicists or attended
>Universities with active fusion programs in progress during the time
>of their education. I would be interested in having the names, because
>I don't believe that these were disinterested.  There was likely some
>other connection or they were of such stature as to be not influential.  
> 
>>Is it better to choose an impartial
>>but inexpert review panel, or to choose an expert review panel, with
>>some (but the minimum possible) political incentive to be partial,
>>and then to keep the bias in mind in reading their recommendations? 
> 
>Impossible.  Where is your ethics, my good fellow.  
> 
>>While there are cooperative aspects to the fusion program, there's still
>>plenty of competitiveness around.  (Witness the JET show to break the
>>fusion record and use DT ahead of TFTR in 1991.)  As John Cobb just
>>pointed out, the problem doesn't seem to be so much that the reviews 
>>have been partial, as that the recommendations of the reviews haven't
>>been followed for other (political) reasons. 
> 
>Yep... real diversity!  I'm flabbergasted.   Truly mind-boggling.  
> 
>>But they don't go through the Office of Fusion Energy, and they are
>>appropriated in a different way, through a different process, so the
>>researchers in that field are not politically dependent on the OFE
>>funding.
> 
>That's true, but if OFE did, the DoE Defense wouldn't be funded for
>ICF, except as required by Congressional law.  
> 
>>In that case, you can pay me $2000, and I'll pay you $500, and we'll say
>>that the difference is not significant.  I'll even donate $500 of my
>>new $2000 to the Plasmak.
> 
>You are being silly, when orders of magnitude are at stake.  
> 
>>No, you were saying that 6 MW of power output was a factor of 2000 below
>>a commercial reactor.  I don't want to build a 12 GW reactor; I want to
>>build a 3 GW (thermal) reactor that will generate 1 GW of electricity,
>>even after I suck off a few hundred MW to control my plasma.  Losses
>>aren't relevant to the discussion at all.
> 
>No you don't, not at the cost a tokamak power generator would be.  
>you are going to need 12 Gigawatts to get 2 gigawatt out electric max.  
>Your estimate of 33% efficiency is a farce.  
> 
>>>One of the problems is that when you make it bigger, it MUST generate 
>>>more power to increase its power density and that raises the flux
>>>density on the wall, even at constant density due to the increased 
>>>radiation path (radius). 
> 
>>Yep, this is one of the remaining problems.
> 
>>>Now you will have impurities .. oh maybe not 
>>>in the first second or two .. but after a while .. a minute??  Then
>>>the impurity imigration problem starts (getting past those border 
>>>guards).  
> 
>>I got the impression that Tore Supra, which runs multi-minute
>>discharges, was doing just fine.  Sure it's a challenge, but that
>>doesn't make it a showstopper of a problem.
> 
>Does it put 12 gigawatts of fusion on the wall???   Okay... how much?  
>How much in hot neutron(14 MeV)..  Come on cough it up.  I would like
>to hear about this gift from heaven.   .. .or are we talking simulator
>again?  
> 
>>>The second problem relates to the lack of available 
>>>confinement pressure, since heating increases plasma pressure, but not 
>>>confining magnetic pressure (adiabatic compression aside), the loss 
>>>rates will dramatically increase.   
> 
>>Except that plasma temperatures are already where they need to be,
>>so no further heating is necessary.  For that matter, observed transport
>>rates tend to decrease with increasing temperature, because of the
>>reduced collisionality of the plasma, no?  
> 
>Wrong, it needs more density and THAT requires more energy (heating to 
>bring all those other density increasing fuel thingys up to temp).  Since
>your plasma is quite cold as thermonuclear plasmas goes their conductivity
>is far, far away from hyperconducting.  Consequently, my dictum stands,
>that the density forced increase in Beta produces the over pressure 
>which blows the stability and increases the energy transport.  
> 
>>                                        Isn't this the whole
>>reason why you have a hyperconducting shell in the Plasmak?
> 
>As I say, copper conductivities are not hyperconductivities.  
> 
>>>I have a florescent lamp that has a Lawson criteria that will make your 
>>>improved tokamak look anemic. 
> 
>>What's so special about it?
> 
>Nothing, buy one you will like it.  
> 
>>>We need the product of three parameters 
>>>simultaneously, a sort of critical fusion volume if you will.  As I 
>>>point out above, the effect of burning can erode two of these, the 
>>>confinement time through increased energy transport and the
>>>temperature through increased impurity induced cooling.  
> 
>>As the TFTR results show, and as I pointed out above, energy confinement
>>is *improved* in a fusion-producing plasma.  And the impurity problem
>>does not seem to be as bad as you suggest.
> 
>I don't believe you.  Getting to the fusion temperatures spills most
>of the energy (particles) you need so, by the time you do get a few
>fusions, you are pitifully below break-even and the fusion power is
>insignificant.  If you had a real burner, then come and give me the 
>results.  I'm speaking of fusion out powers in the watts/cc range,
>not the milliwatt/cc regime.  
> 
>>>It's entirely possible that you could, by brute force, power a tokamak
>>>to ignition and force-maintain burn, so the Lawson would look great.  
>>>But, it STILL would NOT be above commercial Breakeven because of the
>>>heroic heating effort required.  
>>
>>On the contrary, by definition if you have Lawson-ignition, you don't
>>need to
>>pump in energy to heat the plasma.  The alphas produced do it for you.
> 
>That's depends on how you apply the definition.  You should understand
>what I was saying, and indeed your original statement was not quite
>kosher.  
> 
>>On the contrary, you can improve the Lawson value by improving the
>>stability and allowing higher beta (through advanced plasma shapes),
>>and *also* by improving the energy confinement time.  The easiest
>>way to improve the energy confinement time is by making a larger
>>device.  How can you assert that "increased confinement time"
>>"won't happen", as you do above?  How else can you explain the 
>>difference in confinement times in JET, TFTR, and JT-60?
> 
>Bull. You can raise Beta all right with shape adjustment, but that
>sacrifices mag pressure.  You can't have it both ways.  Proof?
>Look at Doublet results.  
> 
>Confinement time also relates to size (inductance), and what effect 
>current diameter you run on the machine.  Again narrow the diameter 
>and you gain pressure, at the expense of stability.  The bigger the
>longer the time, and the hotter the electrons the longer the 
>confinement time.  TK Chu even knows that confinement time can 
>be extended "extremely long" by running with energetic currents.  Of
>course, that hacks ohmic heating.  So what are you going to do??
> 
>Cut your loses and jump to the future with the PLASMAK(tm) embodiment.  
> 
>>>But... it was burning and it was above its Lawson.  Of course, the 
>>>cracked deformed core vacuum wall or shattered limitors will have to 
>>>be repaired or replaced, a minor glich of a year, and we can take 
>>>another five minute whack at tokamak fusion electric grid power.  
> 
>>What are you talking about?  
>I was taking liberties with the truth to make a point. It did sort 
>of happen with Jet, were actually, it just put a large bulge in the 
>vacuum wall.  
> 
>>On the contrary, what you said (which I will reproduce from the
>>top of your message), is:
> 
>>>>>I think the science breakeven or not is a trivial question, because the
>>>>>real problem is the factor of 2000 shortfall in power that needs to be 
>>>>>come before commercial operation is even possible.  However, the other
>>>>>point that should not be missed, is that it is obvious that Princeton
>>>>>is not being up front, is being arrogant and these to factors are often
>>>>>associated with sleeze artisans.  That has whacked their credibility
>>>>>a bit, which doesn't help.  
> 
>Okay, it boils done to the fact that I believe friends of mine who worked
>at PPPL and ran numbers which were "unacceptable" for publication until
>they were manipulated to data that was not in keeping with the scientific
>reality.  This happened in this case, and in studies of the "wall problem". 
> 
>>As I wrote in another article, I think we should definitely look
>>into alternative concepts which could someday beat the tokamak, but
>>since the TFTR results suggest that the tokamak will make a 
>>competitive energy source, there's no reason to kill the tokamak.
> 
>You don't have the slightest idea if it would be competitive or not.  
>Nor do you avocations suggest a path to changing that situation, since
>more funds for fusion will not happen.  What do the a power companies
>that have made the study say about the likelyhood of your "competitive
>toakamak".   I think the answer if left to them it would NOT even be 
>in contention.   What background do you have for making such a judgement? 
> 
>>Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
>+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
>| Paul M. Koloc,Bx 1037, Prometheus II, Ltd., College Park, MD 20741-1037 |
>| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
>| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
>+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
> 
> 
thanks
dave pierson                        |the facts, as accurately as i can manage,
Digital Equipment Corporation       |the opinions, my own.
200 Forest St                       |I am the NRA.
Marlboro, Mass 01752 USA            pierson@msd26.enet.dec.com
"He has read everything, and, to his credit, written nothing."  A J Raffles
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenpierson cudfndave cudlnpierson cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.06 / L Plutonium /  SKITS14-17 NEANDERTHAL PARK; Rush Limbaugh,Lederman,David 
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,alt.religion.kibology,sci.math,sci
physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.chem,sci.bio
Subject: SKITS14-17 NEANDERTHAL PARK; Rush Limbaugh,Lederman,David 
Date: 6 May 1994 01:11:16 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

  To those who have not registered it yet, Neanderthal Park is a
caricature of the present day science and math community. When they
make the movie Neanderthal Park there will be many persons in the
audiences who will laugh and laugh loudly. In the distant future
though, this movie will not be as funny as the science and math
journals that were extant when this movie took place.

SKIT 14

   Show Rush Limbaugh, Lederman, David Schramm and Weinberg standing in
a row. What is it?  A wind tunnel or a hot air space heater in the
wintertime.
   Show Leon Lederman, Steven Weinberg, David Schramm, Alan Guth,
Stephen Hawking, John Wheeler, Albert Ghiorso, and Glenn T. Seaborg
standing in a circle. What is it? Answer: a bubble gum machines
connected in parallel.

   Seaborg further insults the science community with his hubris. He
calls for an international congress to change the name from seaborgium
to glenntheodoreseaborgium. Now could it not have been? Show in the
film the hard workers at Berkeley trying to get on with the job. Show
one bright young new worker wanting to try a new technique which will
make the discovery of element 114. Show where Ghiorso and Seaborg
thwart this young brilliant worker. Show them telling him "Look kid,
I've been in this game a long time and I am going to do it my way".
Show Ghiorso and Seaborg as two cranks, far past their prime, thwarting
the USA high physics community and singing "I did it my way,.. . I
named an element after me,..."

   Show the re-enactment of Leon Lederman receiving the Nobel Prize in
some minor useless adjunct of physics. Then show Leon giving a hard
sell for spending $10 billion plus dollars to build the SSC just to
look for a mythical particle called the Higgs. Show the most liberal
politician who up until then was despised by every smart person
(Metzenbaum (OH), Wright (T), Kennedy (MA) and Moynihan (NY) come to
mind. Show these 4 politicians winning the Demming Award plus the Nobel
Prize in Economics for 1995. The Nobel citation states. These four
politicians are smarter than Leon Lederman because they could see that
the Higgs particle was nonexistent and saved the USA economy of $10
billion plus. Show Leon pouting and mad. Show Leon writing a book to
stir-up support for another SSC type of project, only this time Leon is
in search of the Monopole Ether particle. Leon's reasoning confirmed by
Weinberg is that the Magnetic Monopole is symmetry breaking of ether.
Go get 'em Leon.
   Show Daniel E. Koshland Jr., Ellis Rubinstein, Monica M. Bradford,
Alun Anderson, Richard Fifield, Alfred Scott McLaren, Patrick Young,
Blair Burns Potter, John Maddox, and Roger Woodham form a circle and
make a bigger and better gum ball collider. Show them holding hands and
Seaborg comes onto the scene wanting to know what new name they were
thinking of giving the gumball particle?

SKIT 15

   HEAR YE, HEAR YE. Ladies and gentlemen. In this corner we have
Ludwig Plutonium. LP in Feb1994 said that Syntex was the best buy
hovering around 15 per share and 2 months later it is up 60%. Yes
ladies and gentlemen, in this corner LP came unto these newsgroups of
the INTERNET and with every invested dollar he saw his fortune increase
by 60% in 2 months time.
  Yes, ladies and gentlemen, over here in this corner is Rush Limbaugh
who will sell you his political kit for the amazing price of 1000
dollars and have his newsletters rushed to your front door. You will be
minus 1000 dollars. Read how Rush criticizes everything under the sun
and never offers any practical solutions. Learn from Rush why you
cannot criticize like Rush and make millions.
  Yes, ladies and gentlemen, over here in this corner we have the
boilerroom book writers of Paul Davies, Steven Weinberg, Stephen
Hawking, Richard Dawkins, Edward O. Wilson, Leon Lederman, Ian Stewart.
For only 30 pounds sterling/ $40.USA/$45 Canada buy their recent book.
You will only be short of 30 pounds sterling/ $40.USA/$45 Canada and
for only one dollar more get a plastic mug with picture of a black hole
swallowing up a neutron star. Yes you will only be out-of-the-pocket
dollars.

SKIT 16 

Skit 16 shows what Neanderthal Park 1994 looked like with 350,000
churches in the USA. Show some faithful in their routine bible babble
and church icons. Show that there is not one University or College in
the USA that gives a degree in QUANTUM MECHANICS. Show interviews of
University physics professors where the interviewer is interested in QM
but the professor steers the questions into GR and brags about GR.
   Then flashforward into the future to make the point that mankind
will be haunted by kooks for a long time. In this flashforward scene of
the USA in a thousand years show some impressive feats of science and
technology but show a group of people gathering around giving some
bible babble, exorcism, reading horoscopes and pointless discussion
like a philosophy class. What I want the movie director to focus on in
this scene is that the fact that we push forward, and push forward in
science and engineering but humanity in large part has their heads in
an ostrich hole of superstition, sentiment, myth, and religion. Show
the ostriches with heads in holes in Neanderthal Park.

SKIT 17

Skit 17 shows two new actors making their debut in Neanderthal Park--
Ian Russell Ollmann and Adam Miller. Adam was given the role of John
the Baptist because that is all Adam talks about even in science
circles. Only show Adam in his scenes as beheaded from the start, and
the movie in a later scene shows Adam growing a pinhead.
   Show Ian advising and couching Adam (with no head) the straw-man
argument, the ad hominem form of argument and the IDIOTEN (German) form
of arguing. Ian is couching Adam in order  that Adam can attack LP on
the NET.

Ian to Adam: "Now the Idioten method of attack on LP is quite simple
and use it in all posts mentioning LP".

Adam to Ian:  (Since Adam is headless, his voice is that of Mister
Magoo with licencing permission from Mister Magoo) " Yes doctor, yes
doctor, I was on time for this appointment, juju totem juju, juju,
ahhhhhh

Ian to Adam: (looking into camera, what the hell is going on here? what
have I gotten into----cameramen reply-- deal with it ) "Okay Adam I
will only say this once, the Idioten technique is to deny that ever any
evidence is given. So that when LP gives evidence 55 or evidences 2011,
you go back onto the Net and say "Well LP has not given one shred of
evidence in support of his theory." "And if LP rolls in a cold fusion
power plant in support of his theory, you pretend as if you see
nothing, deny that he ever gave any evidence."

Adam to Ian: "Yes juju master." "How will I know if the IDIOTEN
technique is effective against LP?"

Ian to Adam: "Everytime you can get LP to repeat something, force him
to repeat, then you are effective, then you are winning against him.
Force him to repeat everything he says, but you must make your posts as
deceptively polite as possible in order that the readers do not take
sides with LP against you." "Understand. (Ian faces away from the
headless Adam and looks again into the camera--I am going to complain
to the acting guild for this role, my last role was that of Fred
Flintstone."

Adam to Ian: "Ian you have not displayed any evidence that you can act,
. ."

Love Ludwig Plutonium, pronounced logwig like in logarithm
                         94th ELECTRON OF 231PU
               Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH ELECTRON

                  \ ::| :./.
                  .\::|::/.:
                     _ _
                    (:Y:)
                     - - 
                  ::/.|.\.:
                :: /.:| :\.:
                  /   |   \.
        One of those dots is the Sun with 9 smaller dots around it.
Look in a chemistry textbook or quantum physics textbook of the
electron cloud dot picture. 
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.06 / L Plutonium /  Patent 07/737,170, Patent Office,re:Harvey E. Behrend
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics
Subject: Patent 07/737,170, Patent Office,re:Harvey E. Behrend
Date: 6 May 1994 02:30:10 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

  This concerns the patenting of SPONTANEOUS NEUTRON MATERIALIZATION
DEVICES (SNMD) (the correct physics behind cold fusion phenonemon). And
rather than waste more money on patent reviews by reviewers who suckle
the tits of Science (Seance) per Daniel E. Koshland Jr., Ellis
Rubinstein, Monica M. Bradford; New Scientist (Nude Scientist) per Alun
Anderson, Richard Fifield; Science News (Science Nudes) per Alfred
Scott McLaren, Patrick Young, Blair Burns Potter; Nature (Manure) per
John Maddox, Roger Woodham. And is it any wonder that Mr. Behrend and
the rest of the USA patent office do not fart unless the above say it
is okay to fart as published in their next edition.
  The Plutonium Atom Foundation (PAF) will receive the full benefits of
controlled cold fusion energy per spontaneous neutron materialization.
PAF will receive full benefits for superconductivity--correct theory.
Ludwig Plutonium can not help it if he is a supergenius and the above
listed persons were just normal average people. LP HAS and further
intends to make public knowledge of the correct theories of cold fusion
and superconductivity. LP and PAF will vigorously defend those theories
through copyrights and then when the "science political arena" has
removed their blinders, then LP or PAF will resubmit all patent claims
to what was rightfully theirs in the first place. LP cannot help it if
he is a supergenius working in amongst average minds. That should not
be any handicap or discrimination towards LP.
  LP realizes that if he took a patent out now that the 17 years would
be up before the first commercial cold fusion power plant is on line.
No, LP is so smart that he will set the "modes operandi" in order to
maximize on his engineering feats. Two feats of cold fusion which is
SNMD, and superconductivity. To give an example, I quote from my patent
letter ---

	"With this patent application it is my intention to gain maximum
economic control of what it is I know is true and can engineer. Please
allow me to give an illustration to make my present situation more
clear to your patent office and examiners. In France 1896, Becquerel
discovered radioactivity from uranium. Now suppose that Becquerel was
more than just a genius but a supergenius and had realized already by
1900 the practical uses of uranium and had sent-off to the patent
office the design for a Nuclear Power Plant to use uranium as a fuel.
Remember, this is 1900. Just suppose Becquerel had all of that in his
mind by 1900 and filed a patent application. We can all make guesses as
to what the patent office would have done. And we can all guess how the
world would have rejected or ignored his claims. Not until 1956 would
the rest of the world have caught-up in theoretical physics and more
importantly, would have caught-up in the sufficient technology to build
a Nuclear Power Plant. Would Becquerel have receive the proper rewards
if he had sought a patent on a Nuclear Power Plant in the year 1900?
Obviously the odds were highly unfavorable for him. Most likely
Becquerel would not have received one copper cent for all of his patent
troubles. I am almost in a similar situation to what I have outlined in
this Becquerel-suppose-story. Only in my case, the present technology
is sufficient for the building of Neutron Materialization Power Plants,
my biggest problem is the disbelief, the ignorance, and the
hot-bedded-stupidity of the current physics community at large."

  The USA Patent Office like the rest of the world's physics community
operates on bandwagon. The day LP steps inside a well equipped research
laboratory. Lo, and Behold. Instead of Fortress Syracuse, it will be
Fortress Earth, and, "Give me a research laboratory and I will move the
planet Earth".
   Thank you Mr. Behrend, you have done just what I wanted. Because now
the PAF has all intellectual property rights to SPONTANEOUS NEUTRON
MATERIALIZATION DEVICES plus in an indirect way as the outline of the
physics of the art of SNMD, all rights to the correct theory of
superconductivity. Thanks due to Mr. Behrend and the USA patent office
that LP and PAF will not be "nailed to the cross of just 17 piddle
paddle years". Instead PAF will exercise its 17 years patent rights
when the first nuclear cold fusion plants are turnkeyed. PAF wants a
minimum of the equivalent of 40% ownership of ASEA ABB for the rights
of SPONTANEOUS NEUTRON MATERIALIZATION DEVICES. Thanks due to Mr.
Behrend and the USA Patent Office, you have to wake up very very early
in the morning to put a one-upsmanship on LP.
   And if LP and PAF make money on SNMD through litigation then so be
it.
 
With love, Ludwig Plutonium, pronounced logwig as in logarithm
                         94th ELECTRON OF 231PU
               Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH ELECTRON

                  \ ::| :./.
                  .\::|::/.:
                     _ _
                    (:Y:)
                     - - 
                  ::/.|.\.:
                :: /.:| :\.:
                  /   |   \.
        One of those dots is the Sun with 9 smaller dots around it.
Look in a chemistry textbook or quantum physics textbook of the
electron cloud dot picture. 
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Fri May  6 04:42:16 EDT 1994
------------------------------
1994.05.06 / Mark North /  Re: Calculations on Evolution Proves: Cold Fusion not Possible!
     
Originally-From: north@watop.nosc.mil (Mark North)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Calculations on Evolution Proves: Cold Fusion not Possible!
Date: Fri, 6 May 1994 01:59:49 GMT
Organization: NCCOSC RDT&E Division, San Diego, CA

mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:

>  In Message-ID: <north.767834693@watop>
>Subject: Re: Evolution Proves: Cold Fusion not Possible!
>Mark North) (north@watop.nosc.mil) writes attentively of his deep observation,
>   shrewd calculations and profound wisdom:

>    >I wonder what the threshold for adverse effects is?
>=mn  "Dunno about the threshold but one glass of 100% D2O will make you
>=mn           100% dead, or so I'm told."
>=mn           Mark 8^)   ZZ   "

>  Therefore perhaps 1/600 of a glass of D2O will make one 
>           1/6 % dead, as per Mark "8^)   ZZ" North?              ;-)

>                             Mitchell Swartz [mica@world.std.com]

Whatza matter Swartz did I say sumpin you dint unnerstand. (Obviously
so, since your only understanding comes from a 45 year old ref.)

Here's a new challenge for you, Swartz. (Another one). (Which will
go unanswered as the last one, I'm sure). Drink a glass of D2O and
report back to us in 24 hrs. By that time you should still be able
to type -- sort of. Good luck!

Mark
 


cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudennorth cudfnMark cudlnNorth cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.06 / Mark North /  Re: Evolution, Cold Fusion, Mineral Metabolism
     
Originally-From: north@watop.nosc.mil (Mark North)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Evolution, Cold Fusion, Mineral Metabolism
Date: Fri, 6 May 1994 02:14:23 GMT
Organization: NCCOSC RDT&E Division, San Diego, CA

mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:

>   In Message-ID: <north.767835201@watop>
>Subject: Re: Evolution, Cold Fusion, Mineral Metabolism
> (was Evolution Proves:
>Mark North (north@watop.nosc.mil) opines:

>= "Yes, wheels would be difficult for living creatures (though I understand
>= some little critters have propellers) though it's hard to see how such 
>= an organ could be nutriated (coined word). In larger animals, that is."

>  Wrong.   Wheels appear with motion from centrioles
>(in cross section) to various flagella bases. 
>     These structures receive nutrition (?) by diffusion.  

Been reading your references again, I see. It's only obvious from your
response that you have no idea what you're talking about. Just repeating
what you find in your reference books. Well, good, that's a start -- fake
it 'till you make it.

>= "On the other hand, we have functioning dead tissue (hair, fingernails and
>= in Swartz' case, scales and brainstem)."

>     Wrong.  No scales here.   And where is the answer to my question?
>The scales of justice -- which do not need North's explicit answer --
>will note, however, that Mr. North is wrong here too since 
>breathe and the brainstem which controls that process are linked.

Truly, Swartz, you are usually at least somewhat coherent. I cannot
parse the above and I'm sure I'm not the only one. Please advise.

>    On the other hand, more obvious is North's paucity of cerebral cortex, 
>and the normal rich associations therein, which does herald itself 
>by the substandard broadcasts through his fingertips wrought
>by those very neurons which arise from, and are a barometer to, the
>the tidal forces there-at.

Duh? What you said.

>= "Personally, I don't know how
>= many elements the human body uses, do you?"

>  A periodic chart, a number two pencil, and a few books will give the
>answer to within a small number.   Try it.

Yeah, right. So how many? And this time we want references that aren't
40 years old.

>= "Or should I say, has in it.
>= If we go on the 'has in it' idea I would say all 106 (or whatever)."

>   Wrong.     "use" is not "has in it", is it?
>   Do we use DDT?     Do we use plutonium?   Strontium-90?   

Last I heard DDT wasn't an element. But you wouldn't know that if your
reference didn't explicitly say so, huh? I'm beginning to see how you
work. And so is everyone else, I'm sure. 

I urge you to keep up your Faustian role... every word makes my case.

Bye. (I wish I had more time for this tomfoolery).

Mark

cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudennorth cudfnMark cudlnNorth cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.06 / Mark North /  Re: Swartz = LP
     
Originally-From: north@watop.nosc.mil (Mark North)
Newsgroups: sci.chem,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Swartz = LP
Date: Fri, 6 May 1994 01:43:41 GMT
Organization: NCCOSC RDT&E Division, San Diego, CA

amiller@tisl.ukans.edu (Adam Miller) writes:


>	Has anyone else ever noticed that the only two
> people on the planet who quote from Dirac are LP 
>(Everyone's best buddie here on Sci.chem) and Mitchell 
>Schwartz on sci.physics.fusion. (Another well liked 
>fellow.)  They are both opposed to what is true and what is
>real as we know it.  Coincidence, or just a person
> with mulitple net accounts?
>					-Adam Miller

Watch out! The last time I noticed this and commented on it I got
threats of lawsuits from one of the above. I like the way you
mention the 'Schwartz'. Couldn't be an accident. You must have seen
the same movie I did. 

Mark

cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudennorth cudfnMark cudlnNorth cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.06 / Mark North /  Re: On Evolution Proves: Cold Fusion not Possible!
     
Originally-From: north@watop.nosc.mil (Mark North)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: On Evolution Proves: Cold Fusion not Possible!
Date: Fri, 6 May 1994 01:50:58 GMT
Organization: NCCOSC RDT&E Division, San Diego, CA

mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:

>  In Message-ID: <1994Apr28.162838.7325@midway.uchicago.edu>
>Subject: Re: Evolution Proves: Cold Fusion not Possible!
>Greg Kuperberg (gk00@quads.uchicago.edu) writes:

>=kuperberg  "Even deuterium is poisonous."

>    So much "information" so little data.
>   In this case, some of the early data is several decades old.

>  "Deuterium (Heavy Hydrogen)
>   Explosive limits:   see hydrogen
>   Hazardous properties.   see hydrogen
>             It is known to be toxic to lower forms of life.
>              Its toxicity in relation to humans is doubtful."
>    [Handbook of Dangerous Materials, N. I. Sax, Reinhold (1951)]

>                             Mitchell Swartz [mica@world.std.com]

Oh good, references. I'm sure nothing has come to light on the subject
since 1951. Anyway, I'm glad you've cleared this up. So, based on this
reference the only one who needs to worry about deuterium ingestion is
you, right?

Mark

cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudennorth cudfnMark cudlnNorth cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.06 / Mark North /  Re: Question for Chubb/ More on claims of Miles and Bush - calc error?
     
Originally-From: north@watop.nosc.mil (Mark North)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Question for Chubb/ More on claims of Miles and Bush - calc error?
Date: Fri, 6 May 1994 03:00:30 GMT
Organization: NCCOSC RDT&E Division, San Diego, CA

rfheeter@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Robert Franklin Heeter) writes:

>In article <Cp889q.H2A@world.std.com> mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:

>> [loads of codswallop elided ]

>Come on Mitch, is it really so hard?

Come on Dr Heeter, is it really so hard? The error of Swartz was so
obvious and stupid doesn't it make you wonder why you're wasting your time 
answering? Think about it, all you're doing is legitimizing his 'objections'
in the eyes of his clients. I am so fed up with this I'll issue this
challenge. Any and all whose eyes fall upon this message please email
me and tell me 1) I'm way off base criticising anyone because all the
evidence isn't in yet; 2) it's ridiculous for serious scientists
to waste time refuting every self-serving ignorant comment from people
who haven't a clue. And 3) anyone who hasn't an opinion, just bugger
off! Gak!, I've HAD *IT*. 

Mark

PS: Sorry to pick on you, Dr Heeter, but I've seen far too many
people I respect give more respect than is due to these opportunists.

Anything I receive in email will be kept in strictist of confidence.

cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudennorth cudfnMark cudlnNorth cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.06 / John Logajan /  Re: Explosion
     
Originally-From: 74242.1554@compuserve.com (John M. Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Explosion
Date: Fri, 6 May 1994 07:00:48 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

vnoninski@fscvax.fsc.mass.edu writes:

>... an explosion occured in the cell ... in its tenth day of running.
>... was enclosed in a construction of standard size lead bricks... the
>vessel used is of the order of 200 ml and the initial volume of the
>electrolyte was of the order of 100 ml.... I can only report my
>subjective impression that the internal void was quite warm.  About
>twenty minutes later another professor ... touched one of the bricks I
>removed from the top and told me that it is still hot....  the current
>and the voltage ... were on the order of 0.5 A and several volts. 

Let's assume all 200ml were full of H2 and O2 gases in the ratio 2/1. 
That would release about 2,400J upon combustion.  It takes about 24J to
raise a mole of lead one degree Celsius.  A mole of lead weighs about 207
grams.  So our 2.4KJ could raise 20Kg 1 degree, or 1Kg 20 degrees, etc.
One kilogram of lead is roughly 100cc (88cc), or a cube 4.5cm (1.75
inches) on a side.  20Kg's would be approx 13cm per side (5 inches.)

Therefore my guess is that there wasn't enough H2+O2 combustion energy
present to noticeably warm your lead bricks.  However, assuming a power
supply input of 0.5A at, say, 5V gives about 2 watts continuous heat
(accounting for the loss to electrolysis gases.)  I also compute that
100ml at 0.5A will last about 12 days, so you were approaching the end of
life of the cell.  Therefore the resistance was likely going up, and if
you were using a constant current power supply, the input power was
likely going up as well.  So near the end, the bricks may have been
warmed by the increasing electrical input power.


cudkeys:
cuddy6 cuden1554 cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.06 / Adam Miller /  Re: movie: NEANDERTHAL PARK post SYNTEX
     
Originally-From: amiller@tisl.ukans.edu (Adam Miller)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.kibology,sci.math,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusio
,sci.chem,sci.bio
Subject: Re: movie: NEANDERTHAL PARK post SYNTEX
Date: 6 May 94 01:46:48 CDT

Ian Russell Ollmann (iano@riscsm.scripps.edu) wrote:
: 	What I can't figure out is what prompted Dartmouth to allow
our plutonium friend to use
: their name. What were they thinking?
Drugs, heavy sedation.

: 				Any ideas?
Also, anyone notice that he is starting to get 
a little frustrated... he actually swore and
called us Fuckdogs.  LP, watch the language
or we might find other reasons to have to 
kill list ya...:)
					-Adam
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenamiller cudfnAdam cudlnMiller cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.05 / Philip Snyder /  Ignition & Breakeven  Re: was Overblown 
     
Originally-From: pbsnyder@flagstaff.Princeton.EDU (Philip Benjamin Snyder)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Ignition & Breakeven  Re: was Overblown 
Date: Thu, 5 May 1994 18:59:10 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

In article <CpBBLJ.ECv@prometheus.UUCP> pmk@promethe.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) writes:
>In article <jac.768071508@gandalf> jac@moonshine.llnl.gov (James A. Crotinger) writes:
>>pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) writes:
>>> It's entirely possible that you could, by brute force, power a tokamak
>>> to ignition and force-maintain burn, so the Lawson would look great.  
>>> But, it STILL would NOT be above commercial Breakeven because of the
>>> heroic heating effort required.

This is a bit unclear.  Ignition means that the fusion power which remains
trapped inside the reactor (the 3.5 MeV alphas in the case of DT fusion)
is enough to maintain the plasma at its present temperature, such that no
external power is required to heat the reactor.  Hence external heating
power is required only to bring the plasma to ignition not to keep it 
burning.  (what do you mean by "force-maintain burn"?)

>
>>  I'm sorry, but this statement contradicts the previous. If you reach
>>ignition, then the external heating power will be essentially zero.
>>ITER, as currently envisioned, will ignite and operate in this regime
>>for a considerable time. You do need some heating to get you to
>>ignition, but for ITER that heating is not all that significant.
>
>Not so, since the Lawson is computed for scientific breakeven.  
>Scientific breakeven is of no consequence due to its vast separation
>from the conditions needed for commercial operation.
>

Well, it is certainly true that ignition does not imply _commercial_
breakeven, but this has little to do with any "heroic" heating effort.
The plasma need only be heated until it reaches ignition, and in a
steady state or long pulse reactor this initial power input will
be small compared to the output power.
However, as Paul Stek has pointed out, huge amounts of power are still
needed to run the device, not for heating, but for current drive in
the plasma, generation of the magnetic field etc.

>>> You say that 10 increase in the Lawson 
>>> is needed.  This will require the plasma AT THE BURN TEMPERATURE to
>>> have increased density.. or increased confinement time.  The latter 
>>> won't happen, but let's say that we can keep the confinement time from 
>>> deteriorating. 
>
>>  It is precisely the confinement time that is increased when you go
>>to a bigger machine. That's the point. The energy confinement time in
>>ITER is estimated to be on the order of 5 seconds.
>
>>  Jim
>
>The confinement time generally scales with size, but the size scales
>with volume or linear dimensioned cubed.  Guess what the power flux at 
>the wall scales with, or the tonnage of concrete and steel, or the
>time it takes to reinstall burnt out vacuum walls or limitors.. .etc.  
>No, I don't think that size is the answer if you expect the power industry
>to find this gizmo worth looking at.  Incidentally, size probably was
>the problem for the SSC and another group of particle physicists. -- The 
>PP's made up the largest initial contingent in the early fusion program).  
>

To reach commercial breakeven the reactor must produce far more power than
it consumes.  An economical power plant clearly must reliably produce
enough power to overcome its construction and operational costs and still be
able to sell electricity for a few cents/kilowatt hour.  This is a
distant goal for the fusion program, but great progress is being made.
Continued progress will in all likelihood require larger reactors, and 
the above problems will have to be confronted.  It is true that simply
scaling up TFTR or JET will not produce an economical reactor.  Hence the
continued efforts to improve the physics of reactors to achieve higher
power densities, and the continued (although meagerly funded) efforts
to develop alternatives to the tokamak. 
 
>>-------------------------------------------------/\--------------------------
>>James A. Crotinger     Lawrence Livermore N'Lab // \ The above views are mine
>.. .
> .. and Home of the AC review committee??   Why don't you chaps privatize?  
>+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
>| Paul M. Koloc,Bx 1037, Prometheus II, Ltd., College Park, MD 20741-1037 |
>| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
>| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
>+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
>

Phil Snyder
pbsnyder@phoenix.princeton.edu
speaking only for myself









cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenpbsnyder cudfnPhilip cudlnSnyder cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.06 / Ian Ollmann /  Re: SKITS14-17 NEANDERTHAL PARK; Rush Limbaugh,Lederman,David
     
Originally-From: iano@riscsm.scripps.edu (Ian Russell Ollmann)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,alt.religion.kibology,sci.math,sci
physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.chem,sci.bio
Subject: Re: SKITS14-17 NEANDERTHAL PARK; Rush Limbaugh,Lederman,David
Date: 6 May 1994 00:46:03 -0700
Organization: The Scripps Research Institute, La Jolla, CA USA

	Let me preface what I have to say by assuring that portion of the
audience which has already placed all variants of LP in their kill file
that I actually do intend to contribute intelligently the the chemistry
discussions going on in this venue. 

  ======        =======           =======          ======        =======

I must admit that I found Skit 17 really very amusing. It was almost 
flattering to find one's self the object of a page of screen play. Sadly, I 
fear that it is not a screen play that will find its way to the top of 
Spielburg's list. It had its elements though. LP's style was surely borrowed 
from Burke Breathed - a fine person to idolize. 

I would make the following corrections:
In the exposition of Skit 17, we find, 

"   Show Ian advising and couching Adam (with no head) the straw-man
argument, the ad hominem form of argument and the IDIOTEN (German) form of
arguing. Ian is couching Adam in order that Adam can attack LP on the NET."

Coaching is misspelled in a rather unfortunate manner which may offend 
some audiences. 


"(Since Adam is headless, his voice is that of Mister Magoo with
licencing permission from Mister Magoo)"

Invoking Mr. Magoo was a nice touch - appeals to sense of nostalgia for
childhood days filled with cartoons in the 21 to 30 crowd. May leave
younger generations feeling alienated however. 

Another good touch was the private moment with the cameraman and audience 
following immediately thereafter. It is easy to imagine Opus doing the same 
thing:

"Ian to Adam: (looking into camera, what the hell is going on here? what
have I gotten into----cameramen reply-- deal with it )"



Unfortunately the effort goes horribly awry at this point when the author 
attempts to depict IRO falsely:

IRO: "Okay Adam I will only say this once, the Idioten technique is to deny
that ever any evidence is given. So that when LP gives evidence 55 or
evidences 2011, you go back onto the Net and say `Well LP has not given one
shred of evidence in support of his theory.' And if LP rolls in a cold
fusion power plant in support of his theory, you pretend as if you see
nothing, deny that he ever gave any evidence." 

IRO has yet to publicly call for any proof or refuse to accept any from LP.
As a result, this ploy is unlikely to cause the audience to agree with the
author. Fallacy is a poorer form of argument than even straw-man, ad
hominem or idioten. Advice: sieze upon what you know of your victim and
make the most of it that you can. 



I never really liked the Flintstones. 
"(Ian faces away from the headless Adam and looks again into the camera--I 
am going to complain to the acting guild for this role, my last role was 
that of Fred Flintstone.)"


Author unfortunately ends with a cheap shot: 

Adam to Ian: "Ian you have not displayed any evidence that you can act, .
." 

Ending with the endearing snipe about the Flintstones would have been
better form. The final sentence included above not only alienates the
audience but detracts from the wonderful moment as the character reveals
something about himself. 

				REWRITE.



By the way, LP, do you subscribe to the Dartmouth Review?
				  EOT
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------


Ian to Adam: "Every time you can get LP to repeat something, force him to
repeat, then you are effective, then you are winning against him.  Force
him to repeat everything he says, but you must make your posts as
deceptively polite as possible in order that the readers do not take sides
with LP against you." 
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudeniano cudfnIan cudlnOllmann cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.06 /  vnoninski@fscv /  Submission for sci.physics.fusion
     
Originally-From: vnoninski@fscvax.fsc.mass.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Submission for sci.physics.fusion
Date: Fri, 6 May 1994 14:43:40 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Dear Colleagues,

Today is the last day of the semester. Reports from three classes are pouring 
over and I have to prepare three finals for the next week. What I mean is 
that the explosion I told you about chose to happen at the right time. And 
now, because I have nothing else to do I tried to simulate the conditions of 
the electrolysis from the last couple of weeks. I carried out electrolysis 
with Pd and Pt electrode in the same 0.1 M Na2SO4 solution for about three 
hours. The cell was a simple beaker covered with an hour glass. The electrodes 
were protruding between the rims of the beaker and the hour glass. I believe 
the exent of openness of the thus prepared cell is of the same order as the 
cell that blew apart. The new beaker-cell was placed (for personal protection) 
in the void formed by the lead bricks. After the three hours of electrolysis I 
did my best to ignite the mixture within the beaker (volume of the mixture was 
approximately same as the one in the cell that exploded). Armored with the 
best protection available at the department (of course goggles were on, 
apron too) I was using burning flints or short circuiting the leads to cause 
sparks in expectance that some explosion will occur or at least some 
burning will be seen (the "catalysts" (Pd and Pt) are still present in the 
cell). Unfortunately, as it is widely known, all experiments in this area of 
endeavor (cold fusion) are negative. So was also this one. No thunder was 
heard not a hint of a flame was seen. Disappointed that the trivial explanation 
of the explosion that occured two days ago is still escaping, I tried to see 
personally what would be the highest temperature that could possibly be reached  
with the current and the potential used for the experiment-explosion (i.e. at 
the same settings of the knobs of the potentiostat-galvanostat). I looked 
around in the lab and chose the smallest beaker I could find (a 30 ml one). 
Then I filled it with the electrolyte, placed the Pt and Pd wire, stuck a 
thermometer in it, covered it with an hour-glass and applied the voltage 
to it. I waited enough time for the temperature to reach steady-state and the 
highest temperature I could acieve was 74 oC. When looking at the meager 
processes that were occurring in the cell which appeared like a joke I could 
not help observing again the nearby site of the accident I mentioned in the 
previous post, which site I decided to preserve for some time to ruminate over it 
for some time. The glass in small pieces was covering the bottom of the lead 
construction, small pieces of glass were stuck in the side walls, the front 
of the NaI detector was seriously dented. I can tell you the look of the calmly 
bubbling little beaker-cell was quite disappointing. Then I took into 
consideration that the actual size of the cell was much larger and this 
increased my disappointment even further because I could not see any way that 
the 74 oC in it will be exceeded. It is very sad to observe negative results 
from experiments specially designed to detect nuclear events and all of a 
sudden other things to happen which are not only a nuisance and "who cares" 
type of events by also destroy your apparatus. On top of everything the 
obvious triviality of events such as this refuses to show itself up easily 
and instead of precluding this type of experiments makes you continue to 
waste time in understanding things that should be absolutely evident. 

Truly yours,



Vesselin Noninski
 

cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenvnoninski cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.07 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Summer Running
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Summer Running
Date: Sat, 7 May 1994 00:12:56 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Scott Chase worries about running Fermilab during the summer.  Let's see, 
in the winter we run at -269 C or thereabouts.  In the summer we run at
-269C or so.  Not quite the same as the Bevatron or the AGS.  Just kidding.
As I recall, the usual summer problem is with burried 4Kv feeder cables.  Seems
to me a while back they were all dug up and changed from "Wilson" sized 
cables.  

When I first came to Fermilab 20+ years ago I was told by one of Wilson's
assistants "When you first turn on your project, you will be accused of
over design if tow fire engines don't crash head on coming to the fire".
Everything at Fermilab was designed with a safety factor of 1.00.  But
we engineers are no so good at our calculations, so some things failed and
some things were overdesigned.  We fixed the things that failed and the 
rest kept running.  That is how Fermilab was built at twice the design
energy at half the bugeted cost.  And there was still 13 or so million left 
over with which Wilson wanted to build the Tevetron.  But the government 
took it back.  That is the reward for underspending.  

So if any Nobel prize comes out of the Top, I vote it goes to Bob Wilson, who
made the whole thing possible.

We now know the magnitude of Wilson's achievement, as we have now seen that
science management ability does make a difference and that it is possible
to do the job very wrong.

Tom Droege

cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenDROEGE cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.07 / Richard Blue /  Re: More on claims of Miles and Bush
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: More on claims of Miles and Bush
Date: Sat, 7 May 1994 00:12:56 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Just to add to points already made by Jones, Heeter, and Droege.
It sounds so very simple.  You stick a GM tube next to your experiment,
record the number of counts for 12 hours, repeat the measurement for
background, do some arithmetic, and there you have it.  575 net counts
+/- 70 or so, and it must be cold fusion.  (I don't see where anyone
could get 26 sigma out of these numbers, but that is a minor point.)

It has been said many times in many ways, but some people just don't
get the message.  If you want to do world class experiments you have
to use the proper techniques.  GM tubes just don't have it when it
comes to measuring radiation from a cold fusion reaction.  There
are several problems to be considered.  If you don't have a clue
as to the energy spectrum of the source there is no way you can
extract information concerning the nature of the detected radiation
or its source strength.  If you have to count for long periods you
must consider the stability of the source, the background, and the
detection efficiency.  This measurement would be more credible if
it had been subdivided into smaller counting intervals as one means
of demonstrating the required stability for the count rates.

Finally one must examine the meaning of the word "background" as
it applies to cold fusion experiments.  Pons and Fleischmann clearly
did not know how to determine the background in their initial
attempts so it is natural that some of us remain skeptical about
these measurements in conjunction with other cold fusion experiments.
There are potential background contributions from the experiment
itself as well as general room background and cosmic rays.  It really
does help to unscramble various contributions to the signal if you
use an energy-dispersive detector.  I find it rather absurd that
we are left to speculate whether those 570 counts result from
20 MeV gammas which cannot be generated by room background or
from something down in the mud of electronic noise.  I can only
conclude that Miles and Buch have not yet gotten serious about
cold fusion research.

As an aside I wonder how Dr. Chubb likes these results?  He has
already explained that there should be no detectable radiation
produced in cold fusion reactions.

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.05 / Mike Thornburg /  Re: Chubb&Chubb versus the conventional interpretation of QM
     
Originally-From: mthorn@lunacity.com (Mike Thornburg)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Chubb&Chubb versus the conventional interpretation of QM
Date: Thu, 05 May 94 14:55:34 PDT
Organization: LunaCity BBS - (Clan Zen Relay Network) Mountain View, CA

[In the following, MT> refers to things I originally wrote,
while BP> indicates Bill Page's replies.]

MT> I can take out my copy of Pauling and Wilson, or
MT> Cohen-Tannoudji, et al., look up their particle-in-a-box
MT> solution,construct delocalized states for the deuterium
MT> molecules in the bottle of compressed gas I get from my
MT> local isotope vendor.

BP> What do you *mean* when you say "construct delocalized
BP> states for the deuterium molecules in a bottle of compressed
BP> gas"?

I meant that I could write down the particular particle-in-a-box
solutions that were appropriate for the dimensions of the
compressed gas bottle my vendor gave me (actually, I don't know
if I have the math to solve the case of the typical rounded-
bottom compressed gas cylinder, but for now let's assume I made
a special order for a roughly cubic container for which I can
simply copy the solution directly from the textbook; this
doesn't change the points I am trying to make at all.).

If I make the usual one-particle wavefunction approximations
used in solid state physics (and that I think Chubb is making
when he talks of Bloch functions), the stationary states for
molecules in a bottle are delocalized, particle-in-a-box
functions (called PIB functions from now on).  PIB functions are
basically linear combinations of momentum eigenstates of equal
and opposite momentum so that the PIB function has no net
momentum--this is how it manages to be a stationary state in a
confined volume.

MT> I can work out just how these steady-state one-particle
MT> solutions  correspond to the localized wave packets (i. e.,
MT> molecules zooming around) we usually think of in connection
MT> with this system.

Let me elaborate here a little:  the stationary states for
molecules in a bottle are PIB states.  Each of these states is
delocalized to fill the entire bottle at all times.  However,
most bottles of gas are at temperatures for which kT (k is
Boltzmann's constant) is >>(the spacing between the PIB levels).
The energy of the gas in the bottle is nowhere near the ground
state.  Furthermore, the number of gas molecules is <<(the
number of accessable PIB energy levels).  Finally, the system
is not even in a stationary state, but exhibits time-dependent
behavior.  Under these circumstances, it becomes appropriate to
construct wave packets from these PIB states, and start talking
about molecules separated in space and having relatively well-
defined momenta.  This does not change the fact that under the
assumption of separable one-molecule wavefunctions, the PIB
wavefunctions are the appropriate stationary states of the
system.

Chubb has constructed ion band states for D atoms in Pd.  If
these are Bloch states, what he has found is the eigenfunctions
of a quantum number appropriate to the inside of Pd crystal that
corresponds to the momentum quantum number in free space.  If we
then say we are working with a Pd crystal of finite extent, we
need to combine equal and opposite wavenumber eigenfunctions to
get the appropriate PIB stationary states for D in a Pd crystal.
These delocalized states correspond exactly to the PIB states of
a molecule in a bottle, as opposed to the usual wavepackets (ie,
localized atoms or molecules).

MT> No one would argue  that by setting up these delocalized
MT> one-particle wavefunctions I had magically discovered a way
MT> around the Coulomb barrier that keeps the bottle of
MT> compressed gas from becoming a fusion bomb.

BP> Within the conventional interpretation, however, it is still
BP> not correct to equate a wave packet with a classical
BP> particle.

This is exactly wrong.  Wave packets are the nearest quantum
mechanical analogs to classical particles.

BP> In any case, the molecules in a gas cannot be "de-localized"
BP> in the sense of the band-state described by Chubb and
BP> Chubb.

If you followed my argument above, you will see why this
statement is wrong, too.  PIB functions are the appropriate
stationary state solution for a molecule in a bottle, the
band states of Chubb and Chubb are exactly equivalent to the
momentum eigenfunctions used to construct PIB functions, and
in a real world crystal of finite extent, the stationary states
are not band states, but the PIB-like states constructed from
them.

MT> The probability of fusion depends not a whit on overlapping,
MT> delocalized, one-particle wavefunctions (particle-in-a-box
MT> states, Bloch states, what  have you), but in the
MT> probability of *simultaneously* finding two particles 
MT> in the same very small volume of space.

BP> Chubb and Chubb demonstrate that (provided you treat the
BP> electronic charges of a "delocalized" particle as
BP> distributed over a substantial spatial volume within a
BP> periodic potential) then the probability of findind two
BP> particles in the required same volume of space...

(Is this the *simultaneous* probability?  For fusion, it's not
enough to show that two one-particle wavefuncions have a large
degree of overlap.  You must show that if you made a
*simultaneous* measurement of the positions of two particles,
then there is a significant probability that they are both in
the same small volume of space.  Personally, I don't see how
you can even *ask* this question--let alone calculate correct
answers--with a Bloch function solution and not a many-body
wavefunction, but I am willing to be enlightened on this.)

BP> ...does indeed greatly exceed that of two particles in
BP> free space.

This result sounds absurd to me.  The electric potential
operator V(r) depends only on the separation between the charges
and the coordinates used in calculating r are the same r1 and r2
you plug in to the wavefunction as the positions of particles 1
and 2.  No matter how you delocalize the particles, when you
start to calculate energies, you will find that a close
approach requires an enormous amount of energy.

MT> if you...look at two conduction electrons in the same spin
MT> state (both spin-up or spin-down)...Pauli's exclusion
MT> principle tells us that we will never find them both at the
MT> same point in space--the  probability is identically equal
MT> to zero, yet both electrons are in delocalized Bloch states
MT> that overlap at every point.

BP> This example isn't so good.  It doesn't contradict Chubbs'
BP> theory...
The example was not intended to directly contradict Chubbs'
theory, but merely to provide a state where I *know* the
wavefunction is exactly equal to zero at zero separation.

BP> ...and isn't  consistent with your use of the word
BP> "volume" above.

But the wavefunction is a continuous function, and if a probability
is zero at a point, then it must go down to zero
over a finite (as opposed to infinitesimal) distance.  The rate
at which a wavefunction changes with position is simply the momentum
of the particle.  The rate at which the probability of
finding two particles within a certain radius of each other goes
to zero is determined by the magnitude of their radial momentum.
If I know the probability is zero at a point, then if I can
limit the magnitude of the relative momentum I can place a
maximum limit on the probability at any radius around that
point.

I know that for the case of two deuterium nuclei in free space
the relative momentum required for them to approach close
enough to overcome the Coulomb barrier is enormous.  The essence
of my original question is:  how does the Chubb theory overcome
this fact?

Writing down delocalized wavefunctions doesn't cut it.

BP> Chubbs' theory requires that this "delocalization" be *real*
BP> in as much as being able to treat the Coulomb charge of the
BP> deuterons as spread-out over a significant volume of space
BP> within the lattice.

If you're saying what I think you're saying, then the Chubb's
theory is nothing short of a whole new theory of Quantum
Electrodynamics.  The usual treatment of the Coulomb charge is
to approximate its effect on the Hamiltonian by e^2/r (with
the appropriate sign, or course) where r is calculated using
the same particle positions used in evaluating the wavefunction.
This necessarily implies that the charge is always at the same
position the particle is at, and that the full charge is always
acting.  I am aware that quantum field theory changes this
slightly, with extra delta function terms to smear out the effect
of charge a bit so as to account for the cloud of virtual
particles around each real particle, but these terms only
become significant at distances that are small compared to a
proton, and cannot possibly account for charge smearing over a
large enough volume to allow two deuterium nuclei to get close
enough to fuse under conditions found in either a room
temperature bottle of gas at a hundred or so atmospheres or a
crystal of Pd at room temperature and pressure.

This is the basic reason why I find their prediction absurd.  I
was hoping they had some other mechanism in mind when they made
their prediction; it sounds like they don't.


 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just a thought from Mike Thornburg -> (mthorn@lunacity.com)
LunaCity BBS - Mountain View, CA - 415 968 8140
cudkeys:
cuddy05 cudenmthorn cudfnMike cudlnThornburg cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.06 / Nick Maclaren /  Re: Explosion
     
Originally-From: nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk (Nick Maclaren)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Explosion
Date: 6 May 1994 11:31:19 GMT
Organization: U of Cambridge, England

In article <940506065420_74242.1554_BHR34-1@CompuServe.COM>, 74242.1554@
ompuserve.com (John M. Logajan) writes:
|> vnoninski@fscvax.fsc.mass.edu writes:
|> 
|> >... an explosion occured in the cell ... in its tenth day of running.
|> >... was enclosed in a construction of standard size lead bricks... the
|> >vessel used is of the order of 200 ml and the initial volume of the
|> >electrolyte was of the order of 100 ml.... I can only report my
|> >subjective impression that the internal void was quite warm.  About
|> >twenty minutes later another professor ... touched one of the bricks I
|> >removed from the top and told me that it is still hot....  the current
|> >and the voltage ... were on the order of 0.5 A and several volts. 
|> 
|> Therefore my guess is that there wasn't enough H2+O2 combustion energy
|> present to noticeably warm your lead bricks.  However, assuming a power
|> supply input of 0.5A at, say, 5V gives about 2 watts continuous heat
|> (accounting for the loss to electrolysis gases.)  I also compute that
|> 100ml at 0.5A will last about 12 days, so you were approaching the end of
|> life of the cell.  Therefore the resistance was likely going up, and if
|> you were using a constant current power supply, the input power was
|> likely going up as well.  So near the end, the bricks may have been
|> warmed by the increasing electrical input power.

Depending on how firmly the bricks were attached, this could be confirmed if
they had not shifted much.  Any explosion energetic enough to warm objects of
that size will usually throw them around quite a bit.  If it just shattered
the glass, it should be possible to produce an upper bound for the energy
involved.  Your local bomb squad may be able to help :-)

Nick Maclaren
University of Cambridge Computer Laboratory,
New Museums Site, Pembroke Street,
Cambridge CB2 3QG, England.
Email:  nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk
Tel.:   +44 223 334761
Fax:    +44 223 334679

cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudennmm1 cudfnNick cudlnMaclaren cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Sat May  7 04:37:05 EDT 1994
------------------------------
1994.05.06 / mitchell swartz /  Calculations on Evolution Proves: Cold Fusion not Possible
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Calculations on Evolution Proves: Cold Fusion not Possible
Subject: Re: Calculations on Evolution Proves: Cold Fusion not Possible!
Date: Fri, 6 May 1994 12:46:41 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <north.768189589@watop>
Subject: Re: Calculations on Evolution Proves: Cold Fusion not Possible!
Mark North (north@watop.nosc.mil) writes:

>    >I wonder what the threshold for adverse effects is?
>=mn  "Dunno about the threshold but one glass of 100% D2O will make you
>=mn           100% dead, or so I'm told."
>=mn           Mark 8^)   ZZ   "

=north  "Whatza matter Swartz did I say sumpin you dint unnerstand.
=north  (Obviously so, since your only understanding comes from a 
=north   45 year old ref.)"

  We barely understand you, but note again that you were wrong.  
We also note that your infantile regressions, upon being shown that
your facts are incorrect, is a poor substitute for 
intelligence.

         Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com)

 

cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.06 / mitchell swartz /  Evolution, cold fusion, Mineral Metabolism
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Evolution, cold fusion, Mineral Metabolism
Date: Fri, 6 May 1994 12:47:38 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Subject: Re: Evolution, Cold Fusion, Mineral Metabolism
Message-ID: <north.768190463@watop>
Mark North (north@watop.nosc.mil) marvels:

    >= "Yes, wheels would be difficult for living creatures (though I understand
   >= some little critters have propellers) though it's hard to see how such 
    >= an organ could be nutriated (coined word). In larger animals, that is."
   >  Wrong.   Wheels appear with motion from centrioles
   >(in cross section) to various flagella bases. 
   >     These structures receive nutrition (?) by diffusion.  
=north " Been reading your references again, I see."

  Yes.    On the other hand, it has been obvious from your posts
 that you have no idea what you're talking about, but just prefer to
continue to use the good offices of the US Navy to harass U.S. citizens.

Perhaps you might upgrade and subscribe to a reading course.

=north "  Duh? What you said."
    >= "Personally, I don't know how
    >= many elements the human body uses, do you?"
  >  A periodic chart, a number two pencil, and a few books will give the
  >answer to within a small number.   Try it.
=north "Yeah, right. So how many? And this time we want references that aren't
=north   40 years old."

   Show us you are intelligent, to the degree that might be possible,
Mr. North.  Try it. if you are able to read, count, and stay directed.

          Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com)

 
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.06 / mitchell swartz /  Question for Chubb/More on claims of Miles and Bush - calc error?
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Question for Chubb/More on claims of Miles and Bush - calc error?
Date: Fri, 6 May 1994 12:48:34 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Subject: Re: Question for Chubb/ More on claims of Miles and Bush - calc error?
Message-ID: <north.768193230@watop>
Mark North (north@watop.nosc.mil) ponders:

=north  "Any and all whose eyes fall upon this message please email
=north  me and tell me 1) I'm way off base criticising anyone because all the
=north  evidence isn't in yet; 2) it's ridiculous for serious scientists
=north  to waste time refuting every self-serving ignorant comment from people
=north  who haven't a clue. And 3) anyone who hasn't an opinion, just bugger
=north  off! Gak!, I've HAD *IT*. 

  4) It is ridiculous for serious scientists to have to put up with your
endless e-crap,  paid for by U.S. taxpayer expense!!, as you espouse 
your ignorant comments and continuous e-harassments.

                Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com)

 

cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.03 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Leggett & Baym vs. Chubb & Chubb - Conflicting Paradigms
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Leggett & Baym vs. Chubb & Chubb - Conflicting Paradigms
Date: Tue, 3 May 1994 03:39:03 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1994Apr30.223757.20539@iglou.com>,
Chuck Sites <chuck@iglou.iglou.com> wrote:
>crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>
>>    Face it, you could simply be misapplying already bad sociology to 
>>    give yourself warm fuzzies about something that is clearly wrong.
>                                                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>Or clearly correct depending on your point of view.  From my investigation 
>of the Chubbs work, they look pretty darn good on many aspects.  Tell us
>Dale, what is *clearly* wrong.  I don't see it.  At best there may be 
>conflicting opions. 

     That's the reason for the word 'could', speaking in context.
     At best, sociology tells us nothing about physical correctness.  
     At worst, the sociology *and* the physics are wrong.

     On the other hand, I've discussed burden of proof here ad infinitum.

     And on the third hand, a while back I posted (against my better
     judgement):

Bass:
>Chubb:
>>case, it can become possible for only a small fraction of a nucleus <on the
>>average> to be identified with  a specific location.  The point is that once this
>>happens, the solid as a whole participates in the relevant quantum mechanical
>>problem and "nuclear" physics, and it can become possible that  the associated
>>time scale of an isolated nuclear effect   need not be relevant.  
>
>     This seems to present quite a problem with the empirical results of 
>     banging alphas into deuterated foils.  At your transition to 'ion band 
>     state' (assuming this is some 'nuclear' band state), the foil starts to 
>     look like lumpy gravy to the alphas instead of the small hard nucleii
>     it has always looked like before.
>
>     So, how does one reconcile the fact that one *can* identify where
>     the nucleus is (to a location with less uncertainty that the
>     lattice size itself, otherwise neutron and alpha studies wouldn't work) 
>     with your obvious requirement that the nucleus be smeared over 
>     myriad *thousands* of lattice sites? 

     To no response.

     But, as I've said before, the pursuit of 'cold fusion theory' is
     pointless.   It's an answer to no question.

                                dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.06 /  PAUL /  RE: was Overblown -->DoE's "review" and Tokamak: Commerial?
     
Originally-From: stek@amazon.pfc.mit.edu (PAUL)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: was Overblown -->DoE's "review" and Tokamak: Commerial?
Date: 6 MAY 94 14:44:58 GMT
Organization: MIT PLASMA FUSION CENTER


I wrote re. heating needs for ITER current drive: 

>Not quite.  There is a big need for power for current drive.
>For Lower Hybrid CD you need something like 100 MW absorbed for
>ITER.  (this is the number given 4 or so years ago.)
>Assume 60% absorption in the right mode, 40% efficiency in
>producing the RF, and 30% efficinecy in converting fusion
>power to electric and you need 1.3 GW of thermal power just
>to break even.

>Paul Stek "world's greatest speller"

>Stek@cmod.pfc.mit.edu

I understand that this has changed and there is no
plan for current drive on ITER, in large part because
there is no current drive scheme that is reliable enough to 
justify the $1billion it would probably cost.  I forgot the 
numbers, but ITER shots will still be shorter than the skin
time, providing some of the interest in TPX.

Paul Stek
stek@cmod.pfc.mit.edu


cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenstek cudlnPAUL cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.06 / Charles Hall /  Re: SKITS14-17 NEANDERTHAL PARK; Rush Limbaugh,Lederman,David
     
Originally-From: chall@eco.twg.com (Charles Don Hall)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,alt.religion.kibology,sci.math,sci
physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.chem,sci.bio
Subject: Re: SKITS14-17 NEANDERTHAL PARK; Rush Limbaugh,Lederman,David
Date: 6 May 1994 18:11:40 GMT
Organization: The Wollongong Group (East Coast Operations)

In article <2qcsjr$kac@riscsm.scripps.edu>,
Ian Russell Ollmann <iano@riscsm.scripps.edu> wrote:
>
>"(Since Adam is headless, his voice is that of Mister Magoo with
>licencing permission from Mister Magoo)"
>
>Invoking Mr. Magoo was a nice touch - appeals to sense of nostalgia for
>childhood days filled with cartoons in the 21 to 30 crowd. May leave
>younger generations feeling alienated however. 

Mr. Magoo was voiced by Jim Backus (who is probably better-known for
his role as Thurston Howell III on _Gilligan's_Island_). Mr. Backus is,
alas, now dead.

>[...]

>I never really liked the Flintstones. 
>"(Ian faces away from the headless Adam and looks again into the camera--I 
>am going to complain to the acting guild for this role, my last role was 
>that of Fred Flintstone.)"
>
>Author unfortunately ends with a cheap shot: 
>
>Adam to Ian: "Ian you have not displayed any evidence that you can act, .
>." 
>
>Ending with the endearing snipe about the Flintstones would have been
>better form. The final sentence included above not only alienates the
>audience but detracts from the wonderful moment as the character reveals
>something about himself. 

I forget who voiced Fred Flintstone in the original series. In the
soon-to-be-released live-action motion picture, Fred will be played
by the guy who plays the husband on _Rosanne_ (His name's right on
the tip of my tongue, but I just can't come up with it...) 

This is an OK casting decision, I guess, but the only person who
could truly do justice to the Fred Flintstone character is Jackie
Gleason. It's almost as if the role had been designed especially
for him. Mr. Gleason is, alas, dead.
-- 

===========================================================
Charles Don Hall, Licensed Philosopher  (chall@eco.twg.com)
===========================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenchall cudfnCharles cudlnHall cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.06 / Rose Holt /  Re: SKITS14-17 NEANDERTHAL PARK; Rush Limbaugh,Lederman,David 
     
Originally-From: rmholt@u.washington.edu (Rose Marie Holt)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,alt.religion.kibology,sci.math,sci
physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.chem,sci.bio
Subject: Re: SKITS14-17 NEANDERTHAL PARK; Rush Limbaugh,Lederman,David 
Date: 6 May 1994 22:37:37 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle


In article <2qc5fk$qiq@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>,
Ludwig Plutonium <Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>  To those who have not registered it yet, Neanderthal Park is a
>caricature of the present day science and math community. When they
>make the movie Neanderthal Park there will be many persons in the
>audiences who will laugh and laugh loudly. In the distant future
>though, this movie will not be as funny as the science and math
>journals that were extant when this movie took place.
>
>SKIT 14
>
>   Show Rush Limbaugh, Lederman, David Schramm and Weinberg standing in
>a row. What is it?  A wind tunnel or a hot air space heater in the
>wintertime.
>   Show Leon Lederman, Steven Weinberg, David Schramm, Alan Guth,
>Stephen Hawking, John Wheeler, Albert Ghiorso, and Glenn T. Seaborg
>standing in a circle. What is it? Answer: a bubble gum machines
>connected in parallel.
>
>   Seaborg further insults the science community with his hubris. He
>calls for an international congress to change the name from seaborgium
>to glenntheodoreseaborgium. Now could it not have been? Show in the
>film the hard workers at Berkeley trying to get on with the job. Show
>one bright young new worker wanting to try a new technique which will
>make the discovery of element 114. Show where Ghiorso and Seaborg
>thwart this young brilliant worker. Show them telling him "Look kid,
>I've been in this game a long time and I am going to do it my way".
>Show Ghiorso and Seaborg as two cranks, far past their prime, thwarting
>the USA high physics community and singing "I did it my way,.. . I
>named an element after me,..."


You know, Lu Pu is the first person I have run across that knows who 
Al Ghiorso is.  He also spells Glenn Theodore Seaborg's name correctly.
He also knows who Seaborg is.  OK, Ludwig - here is your FINAL EXAM:
Who is Darlene Hoffman?  Why have you excluded her from your Pu
posts?  What is the troll that I have planted in this exam (hint:
it's in question 1)

And, for extra credit, where was Pu found naturally on earth and how did
it get there?

And, why do I, of all people, pose these questions?

Oh, anyone else may answer these questions if you want. >
Even Kibo, who regularly agreps DSM-IV for mention of his name

>                     - - 
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenrmholt cudfnRose cudlnHolt cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.06 / Jim Carr /  Re: P&F press conf. on 23 March 1989/reply to Jim Carr
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: P&F press conf. on 23 March 1989/reply to Jim Carr
Date: 6 May 1994 12:09:16 -0400
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

Regarding appropriateness, etc, I guess we just have to disagree.  There 
are too many cases of papers that were dead wrong because of reliance 
on poor statistics (the Oops-Leon being near legendary) but done in 
good faith initially for me to think that P&F  _at the time of the 
press conference_  did not believe all their results.  The fact that 
they quickly learned some of them were garbage and made changes in the 
paper is not relevant to the decision to have a press conference on 
an accepted paper (even if it was not the paper they ultimately 
circulated as a preprint and had published). 

I was never arguing that what they did with the paper, said at the 
press conference, or with the agreement with BYU was ethical.  If 
so, I want to clarify this point.  My point is that holding a press 
conference on this sort of thing is pretty normal.  There are other 
circumstances here that bring ethical questions into play, but I was 
addressing it from the standpoint of how physics is communicated.

In article <1994May5.120205.1618@physc1.byu.edu> jonesse@physc1.byu.edu writes:
>
>There was no agreement about silence or simultaneous submission or anything
>of the kind in February when I submitted the abstract.  The agreement you
>speak of was reached at the March 6, 1989 meeting held at BYU at the request
>of persons from the Univ. of Utah (including P&F).  

Ah, a crucial detail that had escaped me about the timing.  I had been 
trying to understand the psychology at work at Utah that dictated the 
timing of the submission to JEC.  (My other question, perhaps never 
to be answered unless their log books come to light or their proposal 
to the DOE is made public, is whether they started looking for nuclear 
phenomena before or after talking to BYU.)  

So it seems that, despite the agreement, they went home and started 
writing the JEC paper and sent it in as soon as possible (3/13, a 
week later).  Interesting that the embargo idea and getting submission 
to Nature to try to beat the APS meeting came from the Utah admin, 
who also pushed the press conference.  Administrators can be 
slippery when they want to be, and there was certainly plenty of 
paranoia to go around at Utah at that time.  

Who ultimately set the time to allow for getting the paper written? 
Certainly they cut it close, getting it in on 3/13 and revised on 
3/22 so they could have the PC on 3/23 -- one day before the Nature 
paper was to go in and a little more then two weeks after the meeting 
with BYU -- although in principle they could have done the same thing 
after the Nature submission. 

-- 
 James A. Carr   <jac@scri.fsu.edu>     |   "It's never confusing though, 
      http://www.scri.fsu.edu           |  because ultimately it all fits 
 Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst.  |  -- it's just cockeyed and fits  
 Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306    |  and is fire."  -  Norman Maclean 
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.06 / Rose Holt /  Re: "Cold Fusion" Magazine Accelerating
     
Originally-From: rmholt@u.washington.edu (Rose Marie Holt)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: "Cold Fusion" Magazine Accelerating
Date: 6 May 1994 23:44:00 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

Mark I liked your rebuttal of the "Cold Fusion"/Mag thing, but
you weren't vehement enough :)

I found my copy at the U of Wash bookstore (a fine bookstore)
and got hours of amusement.

The cost ($10) and the ads for Palladium medallions (for ivestment
purposes) tell me where the money is to be made in CF.

RM Holt
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenrmholt cudfnRose cudlnHolt cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.03 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Chubb&Chubb versus the conventional interpretation of QM
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Chubb&Chubb versus the conventional interpretation of QM
Date: Tue, 3 May 1994 16:34:20 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <940502180958_70047.3047_EHB168-1@compuserve.com>,
Bill Page <70047.3047@compuserve.com> wrote:
>
>Hmmm... what to say?  There may be a problem of conflicting paradigms here 
>- a difference of philosophy and a problem of language.  But lets try 
>anyway.

     Conflicting 'paradigms' my patootie.  More like the answer to no question.

>Does this mean that fusion is impossible?  In itself, no.  This picture is 
>too idealized to answer that question.  A proton can not be adequately 
>represented as a point particle with respect to nuclear interactions.

     But it can with respect to coulomb interactions.  That's one of the
     major pieces of evidence that gave us the 'paradigm' we use today, 
     tiny nucleus.

>Still, fusion of deuterons is, none the less prevented in most situations 
>because of their electronic charge.

     And the fact that the nucleus is tiny.

[descent into Bohm deleted, which doesn't seem to help his case, in Bohm's
  theory the particles are *real* particles, you cannot wave hands and 
  fuse things, you truly have to get them close enough together]

><<
>If the Coulomb screening in a metal is not sufficient to allow *localized* 
>deuterium atoms to approach closely enough for fusion to occur, no amount 
>of delocalization is going to change this fact.
>>>
>
>Again, we have to ask: What is meant by "amount of delocatization"?  
>Chubbs' theory requires that this "delocalization" be *real* in as much as 
>being able to treat the Coulomb charge of the deuterons as spread-out over 
>a significant volume of space within the lattice.

    Again, why do deuterated foils still seem to behave like everything
    else we smack with alphas.  This 'spreading out' of charge flies in 
    the face of this experimental evidence.  

    Also, what charge is 'delocalized'?  The nuclear charge?  Then what is the
    binding energy?  What is it before the 'fusion', what it is after 
    the 'fusion' and how does it get from value taken by deuterium nucleii
    in D2O to the value taken when it's 'smeared'?  And how, pray tell, 
    does the nucleus even stay together when it's charge is smeared 
    over myraid thousands of lattice sites?

                                   dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.07 / L Plutonium /  SKITS 18 &19, NEANDERTHAL PARK
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,alt.religion.kibology,sci.math,sci
physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.chem,sci.bio
Subject: SKITS 18 &19, NEANDERTHAL PARK
Date: 7 May 1994 01:33:07 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In article <2qcsjr$kac@riscsm.scripps.edu>
iano@riscsm.scripps.edu (Ian Russell Ollmann) writes:

> "   Show Ian advising and couching Adam (with no head) the straw-man
> argument, the ad hominem form of argument and the IDIOTEN (German) form of
> arguing. Ian is couching Adam in order that Adam can attack LP on the NET."
> 
> Coaching is misspelled in a rather unfortunate manner which may offend 
> some audiences.

SKIT 18

  I seldom use the word coach or couch, and unfortunately I did not
bother to look it up. And "Spelling check" just glided over it since it
was spelled correctly. I say "unfortunately" because too many people
have gutter minds. I intended the correct word to be "coach" as what
Mr. Ollmann speaks thereof. Neanderthal Park is good home entertainment
and it is my intent to present to the world the psychology, the base
motivations, and human foibles that are part and parcel along with the
human quest for math and physics truth. Seldom does anyone bother to
report how humans acted and felt in say the quest for electron spin.
The history books just glide over the "human intrigue" and leave the
researcher of history with an impression that the history of math and
physics is a sterilized laboratory which when one embarks on the course
of math and physics truth that human foibles and baseness, meanness,
lie, cheat, and steal are not part of the quest. This is not true. And
it is good to bring out the "reptilian motivations" of persons. For
instance, show the cameras of this film interviewing Andrew Wiles
during different stages of his FLT escapade. First several scenes show
him bubbly. And show him making such comments as to how important a
proof is. How difficult his proof is. Make the script, however, be able
to read between the lines. For instance, when Wiles says, "This problem
was outstanding for 350 years, . ." What Wiles is really saying is "I
am the only one clever enough in 350 years to do this,. ." When Wiles
tells that in his youth he read FLT and was excited,.. What he is
really saying is that I want to be king of the mountain of FLT, I want
to be on Broadway with the limelight, I can not share the proof with
anybody else, no, just me, I want to be Caesar of Goldbach".
Cameraman-- "Excuse me, Excuse me Mr. Wiles you mean FLT. Wiles--" Yes,
why? What did I say?" Cameraman-- "You said Goldbach." 
   Show a Tarzan like man reading Fermat's First Theorem, then show him
breast beating. Show him yodeling as he swings through the bushes of
Cambridge. Show a thinly clad newsreporter of Gina Kolata. Show Wiles
swinging through the vines saying "Where are you Koala bear?" "Me FLT,
you Gina." Show Ken Ribet parading about with his California tan saying
"Utterly Compelling". Show H. M. Edwards burst through the trail with a
bell for the ring of truth. Show our man Tarzan Wiles vining across a
audience in a Cambridge Lecture Hall. Show him in the next scene trying
to vine leap across the Grand Canyon. Flip the camera around showing
Wiles's Grand Canyon gap with an unhappy Wiles saying "During the
course of my Princeton, . ."

SKIT 19
  This skit is a long one and the point that I want to drive home is
that a physics or math community brainwashes the minds and souls of
future practitioners to be. Use the examples of the big bang, neutron
stars, string theory for physics and the example of Smale and Freedman
Poincare Conjecture and Cantor's transfinite numbers for math. 
   Show a typical university such as RPI and Kibo as a young graduate
student in engineering taking some physics and math courses. Show
Kibo's professors as unbending and unyielding to ideas other than what
the graduate program calls for. Show a graduate classroom where the
students (Kibo one of them) memorizing Smale and Freedman papers. One
of the students raises his hand over some issue of handle bodies in
higher dimension and starts to argue, and because the student has an
inflection in his question the professor looks sternly at him. Kibo is
trying to warn this student to apologize for ever questioning the
supreme socialist Poincare Conjecture. The prof repeats that part of
the Smale & Freedman. Kibo tells the student to see the prof after
class and apologize. He does so and asks the prof if all is back to
normal? The prof says "You will read about your question in your next
report card." The student walks out of his office in terror.
   The main idea to convey in this skit is that College graduates are
"indoctrinated to think in a herd, or a fish swim mentality".
Indoctrinated to think and act just as their profs think and act. 
   One only needs to read the history of the Michelson Morley
Experiment. Virtually all the physicists of that time swam in unison,
each keeping their eyes on the others of the community so that they
swim in cadence and relative distance. Then when someone stepped out of
those confines of herdlike or fishschool mentality such as Poincare, or
Fitzgerald (Fitzgerald contraction) was progress made. How many of
those professors of physics laughed when Fitzgerald proposed
contraction? I venture to say almost all except for Lorentz and
Poincare. They all laughed because they all swam in unison and it is
easy to put on a "unison fishhead mentality". It is easy to laugh at a
new idea, because you feel cozy warm in a bandwagon, a herd of like
minded persons who will laugh with them, in cadence.
   Show scenes in Skit 19 where Kibo's class started out in graduate
school as free-minded, free-spirited, individual thinkers. But now in
graduate school that individuality is being grinded away. Individuality
is being shaved away. Show individualistic thoughts by Kibo and other
members of his class being sandpapered away by the professors of
graduate school.
   Kibo gets mad and asks why must I recite Wheeler's book? Kibo-- "The
World is according to Wheeler, not to Garp". Professor--"You can only
have a PhD in physics if you swim in unison with us Kibo." Show scenes
of Kibo balking at the suppression and repression and depression of
Kibo's individuality to the tune of graduate school. Show Kibo and
other classmates sandpapered rough and fine. Show the other graduate
students breaking and are seen reciting a Wheeler text frontwards and
backwards in unison. Kibo does not break and a professor is upset so
they send Kibo to French Guyana to collect Papillons. The final scene
of this skit is that Kibo builds a laptop from things that float ashore
and begins to post to the NET his cries of freedom. The Mosquito Coast,
Kibo posts to his physics graduate professor stating words to the
effect ", . . see, and even my Mom did not have me learn dumb things
like what is the capital of Texas?, . ."  In the last scene show Dustin
Hoffman is still on the cliff spanking his hog for eating the tomatoes
in the vegetable garden.

Ludwig Plutonium,                          94th ELECTRON OF 231PU
               Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH ELECTRON

                  \ ::| :./.
                  .\::|::/.:
                     _ _
                    (:Y:)
                     - - 
                  ::/.|.\.:
                :: /.:| :\.:
                  /   |   \.
        One of those dots is the Sun with 9 smaller dots around it.
Look in a chemistry textbook or quantum physics textbook of the
electron cloud dot picture. 
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.07 / Michael Moroney /  Re: SKITS14-17 NEANDERTHAL PARK; Rush Limbaugh,Lederman,David
     
Originally-From: moroney@world.std.com (Michael Moroney)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,alt.religion.kibology,sci.math,sci
physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.chem,sci.bio
Subject: Re: SKITS14-17 NEANDERTHAL PARK; Rush Limbaugh,Lederman,David
Date: Sat, 7 May 1994 01:55:25 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

In article <2qe18s$emv@scoop.eco.twg.com>, Charles Don Hall wrote:
> This is an OK casting decision, I guess, but the only person who
> could truly do justice to the Fred Flintstone character is Jackie
> Gleason. It's almost as if the role had been designed especially
> for him. Mr. Gleason is, alas, dead.

The Flintstones cartoons were indeed modelled after the Jackie Gleason Show.

-Mike
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenmoroney cudfnMichael cudlnMoroney cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.07 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Ignition & Breakeven  Re: was Overblown 
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Ignition & Breakeven  Re: was Overblown 
Date: Sat, 7 May 1994 04:24:10 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <1994May5.185910.2662@Princeton.EDU> pbsnyder@flagstaff.Princ
ton.EDU (Philip Benjamin Snyder) writes:
>In article <CpBBLJ.ECv@prometheus.UUCP> pmk@promethe.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) writes:

>> [.. . this noise was pretty much deleted  -- pmk ]

>This is a bit unclear.  Ignition means that the fusion power which remains
>trapped inside the reactor (the 3.5 MeV alphas in the case of DT fusion)
>is enough to maintain the plasma at its present temperature, such that no
>external power is required to heat the reactor.  
                                        ^^^^^^^^
Wrong!..  you mean heat THE PLASMA.  The REACTOR consists of tons of
field coils, vacuum engines, divertors, diffusion plant, beam and rf
heating machines and power sources with controls upon controls.. This
ignition may get the "plasma"  to ignite, but that assumes the rest
of the machine is on wellfare.  Picture the DoE Mag Fusion administration.  
Believe me that that apparatus clutter dissipates plenty of heat.  

>                         .. . Hence external heating
>power is required only to bring the plasma to ignition not to keep it 
>burning.  (what do you mean by "force-maintain burn"?)

All that other power at the base necessary to supoort and to get the 
top_of_the_power_input_pyramid into plasma.  

>Well, it is certainly true that ignition does not imply _commercial_
>breakeven, but this has little to do with any "heroic" heating effort.

If the commercial break-even requires a 2000 increase in power
density, then what do you think it will take to get it, since we
are already burning the most easily ignited fuel and mixture at a
crumby 1-2 milliwatts/cc.   We need 5 w/cc, and that's going to take
heroic heating and fantasy Beta with wishful stability.  

>The plasma need only be heated until it reaches ignition, and in a
>steady state or long pulse reactor this initial power input will
>be small compared to the output power.

  .. . need only be heated until it reaches ignition, ..   Sure.. and
people in hell only need a few drinks of ice water a year and they will
be happy too!  

There will be no "EEEEETTTT (microphone adjust)"  electric power output  
from a truly commercial tokamak, unless it's converted to a coal or
other fossil fuel burner.  NOT any.  Let's make the commercial operating
a reasonable length of continuous (pulsed or quasi-pulsed) for 5 days.   
with net power out greater than  one tenth of its average power 
circulation load.   If you need to cut this say to 5 hours or 
1/100th average circulation load, just let me know.   

>However, as Paul Stek has pointed out, huge amounts of power are still
>needed to run the device, not for heating, but for current drive in
>the plasma, generation of the magnetic field etc.

Ohmic heating from that "DRIVEN CURRENTS (plasma amperage type)" is a 
principal means of tokamak heating.  What's going on here!  Is this 
thing heating on fat reducing pills in your mind??   OF COURSE, it 
takes energy (multiple gigajoules of it === several WWII block busters) 
to load up the magnetic coils, and of course that is part of 
the "commercial equation", because "This T-field PRODUCES WASTE HEAT..  
ALSO AND MUST BE CYCLED OR ASH BUILD UP in the plasma WILL OCCUR." 

>To reach commercial breakeven the reactor must produce far more power than
>it consumes.  An economical power plant clearly must reliably produce
>enough power to overcome its construction and operational costs and still be
>able to sell electricity for a few cents/kilowatt hour.  This is a
>distant goal for the fusion program, but great progress is being made.

Progress has  nearly come to a DEAD STOP, except for minor plasma 
physics piddling.  Fusion is NOT a distant goal for The tokamak is 
simply an infinitely distant goal.  For other reasonable concepts, 
it's practically a cake walk, by comparison.   

>Continued progress will in all likelihood require larger reactors, and 
>the above problems will have to be confronted.   

Yes, for the Tokamaks. Embodiment of our concept goes to plum size. 
Yep, but there is room for only two Bigger humonongers on the planet.  
One centered on the north pole and the other the South pole.  That way 
they can each take advantage of the earth's vertical field AND the 
the extra ice covering surrounding waters for cooling!!       
                          :-)

Above symbol means I'm joking:   USDoE... Do NOT include this solution 
in your 5 plan structure.   

>It is true that simply
>scaling up TFTR or JET will not produce an economical reactor.  Hence the
>continued efforts to improve the physics of reactors to achieve higher
>power densities, and the continued (although meagerly funded) efforts
>to develop alternatives to the tokamak. 

The tokamak problem is way beyond physics, my friend, it is in the 
province of engineering and fairy god-mothers.  My suggestion is to punt 
and move to something better, while you still have a few good years of 
functioning brain left.   Remember: except for my garage experiment, then 
Goldenbaum's at MD, PPPL was the third in starting a Spheromak experiment.   
It's not like your institute doesn't have a precedent for striking out 
nearly on its own.  Guess that's the difference between Furth and Davidson.   

>Phil Snyder >pbsnyder@phoenix.princeton.edu >speaking only for myself
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc,Bx 1037, Prometheus II, Ltd., College Park, MD 20741-1037 |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.07 / Adam Miller /  Re: Adam Miller - Accuracy Impaired, or simply dehydrated?
     
Originally-From: amiller@tisl.ukans.edu (Adam Miller)
Newsgroups: sci.chem,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Adam Miller - Accuracy Impaired, or simply dehydrated?
Date: 7 May 94 01:26:28 CDT

mitchell swartz (mica@world.std.com) wrote:
:   In Message-ID: <1994May4.020711.63380@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu>
: Subject: Swartz = LP
: Adam Miller (amiller@tisl.ukans.edu ) writes:

<<Deleted>>
:    BTW I don't remember quoting from Dirac, but since Mr. Miller
: purports that I did perhaps he might offer the post to refresh my memory,
: and deter us from the opinion that he is absolutely uniformly incorrect.
<<Deleted>>

Ahhh.... no Mitch... actually I caught the reference in a reply you
made on Sci.physics.fusion about one-two weeks ago.  I hope that your
memory isn't that short?  Or is it just dehydrated?  :)
					-Adam


cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenamiller cudfnAdam cudlnMiller cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.07 / Adam Miller /  Re: SKITS14-17 NEANDERTHAL PARK; Rush Limbaugh,Lederman,David  Schramm 
     
Originally-From: amiller@tisl.ukans.edu (Adam Miller)
Newsgroups: sci.math,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.chem,sci.bio
Subject: Re: SKITS14-17 NEANDERTHAL PARK; Rush Limbaugh,Lederman,David  Schramm 
Date: 7 May 94 01:40:40 CDT

Ludwig Plutonium (Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu) wrote:
<<Deleted>>

: SKIT 17

: Skit 17 shows two new actors making their debut in Neanderthal Park--
: Ian Russell Ollmann and Adam Miller. Adam was given the role of John
: the Baptist because that is all Adam talks about even in science
: circles. Only show Adam in his scenes as beheaded from the start, and
: the movie in a later scene shows Adam growing a pinhead.
:    Show Ian advising and couching Adam (with no head) the straw-man
: argument, the ad hominem form of argument and the IDIOTEN (German) form
: of arguing. Ian is couching Adam in order  that Adam can attack LP on
: the NET.

: Ian to Adam: "Now the Idioten method of attack on LP is quite simple
: and use it in all posts mentioning LP".

<<Blah, blah blah...>>

Alright then.  Why don't you give me evidence to your 
stupid little theory then.  I have yet to see you 
directly answer any of my posts LP.  I would expect you
to at least tell me the answer.  As you know that I haven't
been on Sci.Chem or Sci.physics.fusion for more than a month or
two, then why don't you answer my posts.  If you gave the answer
before just tell me now, or say that you already gave it.  All
I really want from you is for you to defend your little idea.
If you don't take the time and effort to defend it, then I find
no reason to believe that even a shred of it is true!!!  If I
presented you, yes you, with an idea, you wouldn't just believe
me as if you were a dog with its master, you would question and 
rightly so.  If we don't question then we are idiots, and what 
you are trying to say with this post is that Ian and I should act
like Chimps and just go along with whatever you say and take it
as if it were the TRUTH.  However, I refuse to put up with that
kind of B!#%$!@T censoship.  I would have expected more out of an
obvious freeish thinker like yourself LP, but I guess I gave you
too much credit.

BTW, who the heck is John the Baptist?  This not being a 
religious discussion, I don't know who the heck this person is, but
I guess that you will flame me for this later simply because I am not
of your religion.  So flame away Idioten Boy.

					-Adam F. Miller

cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenamiller cudfnAdam cudlnMiller cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.07 / Peter T /  Novice Qn's RE:CF~
     
Originally-From: petert@zikzak.apana.org.au (Peter T.)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Novice Qn's RE:CF~
Date: 7 May 1994 11:02:47 GMT
Organization: werple public-access unix, Melbourne

Hi all,
Reading some posts here, I conclude that the majority of posters
are academics in the process of CF experiments, and to tell you
the truth it's all way over my head.

However the experiment looks relatively simple to reproduce.
{Probably a few people shaking their heads at the moment}
I watched a special on what Pons & Fleishman are up to at 
the moment and they predicted to have a comercial unit 
within a year {famous last words maybe?} but even so is it
possible to produce this experiment {in some sort of variation}
by a novice like myself?

If you are still reading this article and would like to help me
please write.

Thankyou
Peter T.

cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenpetert cudfnPeter cudlnT cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.07 / John Logajan /  Re: Explosion
     
Originally-From: 74242.1554@compuserve.com (John M. Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Explosion
Date: Sat, 7 May 1994 12:33:06 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

vnoninski@fscvax.fsc.mass.edu writes:
>The cell was a simple beaker covered with an hour glass. The electrodes 
>were protruding between the rims of the beaker and the hour glass. I
>believe the exent of openness of the thus prepared cell is of the same
>order as the cell that blew apart.

I have no idea what the original cell geometry looked like, but having the
opening at the top of the second cell is the worst place if the intent is
to trap any significant quantities of hydrogen gas.  Since H2 is on the
order of 14 times lighter than air, any significant amount of it in the
cell would have reduced the interior cell atmospheric density to the
point that it would attempt to escape vertically through any opening
(i.e. buoyancy, and not just diffusion.)

Imagine trying to keep air in your cell if the cell was submerged in
water.  Once you can do that, then you can probably expect it to hold some
H2 gas -- but keep exit holes small anyway to prevent diffusion.

>No thunder was heard not a hint of a flame was seen.

Because, I think, the hydrogen had left the scene.  I had many small
H2/O2 explosions in my cell.  At above two amps, the Pt wire in the head
space would start to glow red (probably from catalytic recombination) and
that would ignite the remaining H2/O2 gases, giving a bright flash and a
sharp report.  Sometimes the rubber stopper would be pushed up out of the
test tube.  Since these explosions would repeat every, say, 20-30
seconds, we can estimate their magnitude as around or less than 50J.

If your explosion was the 2500J I estimated earlier, then yes, I guess it
would have shattered the glass vessel.

>...the highest temperature I could achieve was 74 C.

In constant current mode, max power depends upon your upper rail voltages
and the resistance of the load.  Too low a resistance will keep power from
reaching maximum.  Your original cell might have been running low on
water, thus increasing its resistance -- it might have even reached a
runaway boiling point -- at least I've seen that in my own constant
current cells if the current is set high enough (2 amps or so.)


cudkeys:
cuddy7 cuden1554 cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Sun May  8 04:37:05 EDT 1994
------------------------------
1994.05.06 / Chris King /  Re: The "two types of Hydrogen Theory"
     
Originally-From: kingc@resumix.portal.com (Chris King)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The "two types of Hydrogen Theory"
Date: Fri, 6 May 1994 12:57:44 GMT
Organization: Merrill Lynch

In article 02184362@amazon.pfc.mit.edu, stek@amazon.pfc.mit.edu (PAUL) writes:
>>From: phyjab1@phyd2c1.caledonia.hw.ac.uk (Jonathan A Buzzard)
>>Date:  2-MAY-1994  15:34:39
>>Description: RE: The "two types of Hydrogen Theory"
>
>> For several centuaries Newton's Laws of motion had tremendous success in
>>modelling the motion of bodies, this did not make it a complete theory. Early
>>ideas on the helocentricity of the solar system were dropped, at leat in part,
>>because the alternative models with the earth at the centre fitted the observed
>>data better; did that make the model correct?
>
>> As far as the standard model goes, with 28 variable parameters, set by
>>experiment, you could fit it to almost anything (Yes I am getting at quantum
>mechanics here). Your glib and quick dismisal is rather hasty. 
>
>You are really willing to believe that our understanding of the hydrogen
>atom is incomplete based on a dubious electrochemical experiment?
>
>>The question that *all* good scientists should ask is ``is it a plausable 
>>explination for the observered phenomena?'' and at *all* times be ready to 
>>disgard or modify the current theory to explain these new phenomena; 
>
>Yes, we need to always look at our theories and be willing to change them
>as needed, but saying that here is a strange result, let's throw out our
>best understood model is BAD science.  Always look for the simplest explanation
>and only go changing our basic theories after easy fixes have not worked.
>This concept never occured to P&F.  Their approach was: We can't explain 
>our results via any known chemical reaction.  We can't explain our results 
>via any known nuclear reaction.  So it must be a nuclear reaction."
>
>Paul Stek
>Stek@cmod.pfc.mit.edu
>

Quite, Paul. And the other important points are these: The new theory should not
only explain the new, unexpected phenomena, it should also explain the old ones.
It should show why experiments carried out to test the old theory gave results
consistent with the old theory.  The new theory should also allow the design
of experiments that convincingly show where the old one was wrong, and make
predictions about as yet unobserved, but testable phenomana.

My first post to this group.  I've been reading it for a long time, but I just
had to reply to this plea to rewrite the whole basis of physics.

---
Chris
chris.king@lonnds.ml.com

Opinions are mine, OK?
This brain intentionally left blank.



cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenkingc cudfnChris cudlnKing cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.04 / Cameron Bass /  Re: P&F press conference on 23 March 1989/ response to Carr
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: P&F press conference on 23 March 1989/ response to Carr
Date: Wed, 4 May 1994 09:09:06 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1994May3.100423.1615@physc1.byu.edu>,
 <jonesse@physc1.byu.edu> wrote:
>
>Whoa, my friend:  since the 6 March 1989 meeting at BYU, there was an
>agreement to say nothing publicly about the research efforts until *after*
>both papers were submitted (on March 24).  This agreement was 'subverted'
>by the U. of Utah press conf. on March 23, 1989, in which they twice denied
>any awareness of anyone else doing related work.  So how can you say
>the press conf. did not subvert the agreement?  Does it make any sense to
>agree to simultaneous submission without prior public silence by both 
>parties?

     It matters little whose ox is being gored.  The discussion before now
     has centered on whether calling such a press conference is inappropriate
     *in general*, especially after a paper has been submitted.  An 
     agreement (or disagreement) between you and P&F has little bearing on 
     this.  Indeed, whether the claims held up or not has no bearing on 
     this.

     I also suspect that there are other points of view on the agreement.
     
>Frank Close sent me the following which sheds light on the P&F press
>conf. and paper in 1989, which he said I could quote.  Note his conclusion,
>which disagrees with Jim Carr, in which Frank says:
>"It is the postdating of their [data] that violates the "we had been accepted
>at the time of the [press conference, PC] argument."

     I'm a bit confused.  How do they 'postdate' data without the 
     aid of JEC?

>(let alone that this 'data' was fudged!).  It is the posdating of their stuff
>that violates the 'we had been accepted at the time of the PC' argument."
>
>"I have not advertised the 4 April and JEC before; I did not have that
>information at the time I wrote the book.  I have much more now..."
>[end Close quote]

     That sounds like a problem with JEC, not P&F.  Why were they allowed to 
     postdate the stuff?  Again, I don't see why *in general* one would
     begrudge someone changing stuff that was found to be in error
     (even after the press conference) as long as the changes are 
     above board.  The fact that they may not have been seems to say as much
     about the journal as the authors.

     However, having lost my copy of P&F's article, it's difficult for 
     me to tell when the last revisions were made.

>>>Give me a break, Jim.  Do you think the TFTR boys indulged in any such
>>>behavior?  To lump their press conf. in with the fiasco at the Univ. of Utah
>>>is grossly unfair.
>> 
>> My point was that, if anything, the TFTR event was staged solely for 
>> public relations purposes and did not serve the same sort of role in 
>> communication of a new result to other interested parties as the P&F 
>> or Chu press conferences. [stuff deleted]
>
>What bona fide 'result' was communicated at the P&F press conference? 

     You've changed the subject by requiring it to be 'bona fide'.
     There was clearly a 'result'.  Whether it held up or not is not 
     the question.  Indeed, thousands of man-hours were spent trying to 
     reproduce the 'result', and we've been discussing the 'result'
     here for over five years.

>> CDF is a more interesting case.  Calling a news conference on submittal 
>> when they could have given a talk at Washington or waited for a report 
>> from the referees *is* premature in my opinion.  
>
>Yet the P&F press conference was not premature, to you.  *TILT*

     It wasn't premature to me.  Why should we condemn anyone for announcing
     results (as long as they are not being hypocritical)?  Feel free to 
     condemn the results, but fact is, it's their reputation.

                           dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.08 / John Logajan /  Re: "Cold Fusion" Magazine Accelerating
     
Originally-From: 74242.1554@compuserve.com (John M. Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: "Cold Fusion" Magazine Accelerating
Date: Sun, 8 May 1994 00:12:37 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

rmholt@u.washington.edu (Rose Marie Holt) writes:
>The cost ($10) and the ads for Palladium medallions (for investment
>purposes) tell me where the money is to be made in CF.

The purchase of a magazine subscription or some minted palladium coins
involves an entirely voluntary act on the part of the buyer and seller --
unlike the money extracted from Washington state taxpayers under penalty
of forfeiture and/or imprisonment in order to subsidize you at WSU.

And last I heard, not too many hot fusion researchers were forwarding the
bulk of their stipends on to Mother Theresa.

Finally, consider the sheer number of dedicated individual researchers in
CF who have dug deep into their own pockets to pay for their experiments. 
Most of these people labor with no expectation of monentary recovery.

Frankly, it would please me if all CF people made a nice profit -- it
would please me even more if CF turned out to be true.  So where is the
hostility coming from?


cudkeys:
cuddy8 cuden1554 cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.07 / Philip Snyder /  Re: Ignition & Breakeven  Re: was Overblown 
     
Originally-From: pbsnyder@flagstaff.Princeton.EDU (Philip Benjamin Snyder)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Ignition & Breakeven  Re: was Overblown 
Date: Sat, 7 May 1994 19:42:18 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

In article <CpF08B.KJ@prometheus.UUCP> pmk@promethe.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) writes:
>In article <1994May5.185910.2662@Princeton.EDU> pbsnyder@flagstaff.Prin
eton.EDU (Philip Benjamin Snyder) writes:
>>In article <CpBBLJ.ECv@prometheus.UUCP> pmk@promethe.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) writes:
>
>>> [.. . this noise was pretty much deleted  -- pmk ]
>
>>This is a bit unclear.  Ignition means that the fusion power which remains
>>trapped inside the reactor (the 3.5 MeV alphas in the case of DT fusion)
>>is enough to maintain the plasma at its present temperature, such that no
>>external power is required to heat the reactor.  
>                                        ^^^^^^^^
>Wrong!..  you mean heat THE PLASMA.  The REACTOR consists of tons of
>field coils, vacuum engines, divertors, diffusion plant, beam and rf
>heating machines and power sources with controls upon controls.. This

Paul, I think it is beyond obvious to everyone reading this post that I was
referring to heating the plasma.  One hardly goes about deliberately heating
the coils etc., though cetainly parts of the reactor proper get hot and 
cooling systems are required, which of course contributes to the power
required to run the reactor.  

>ignition may get the "plasma"  to ignite, but that assumes the rest
>of the machine is on wellfare.  Picture the DoE Mag Fusion administration.  
>Believe me that that apparatus clutter dissipates plenty of heat.  
>

No one is assuming the rest of the machine has no power requirements.  Did
you read the rest of my post before you wrote this?

>>                         .. . Hence external heating
>>power is required only to bring the plasma to ignition not to keep it 
>>burning.  (what do you mean by "force-maintain burn"?)
>
>All that other power at the base necessary to supoort and to get the 
>top_of_the_power_input_pyramid into plasma.  

This is an initial input, and has nothing to do with maintaining the burn,
in a steady state ignited reactor.
You just have to heat up the plasma to around 15 keV (for DT operation)
and this optimal temperature does not change with the size of the reactor.
Hence, if we're operating in a steady state ignited reactor with, say 20
times the plasma mass of TFTR, we will have to input ~20 times TFTR heating
power to get it to ignition (assuming equal efficiency, and again we're
only talking about plasma heating power here).  However, this ignited
reactor will output much higher power than TFTR, and the shots will last
for days rather than ~1 second.  Hence the ratio of 
(power output)/(power for plasma heating) will increase by around a factor
of 2*10^3 (increase in power out) * 10^5 (seconds in a day) /20 = 10^7. 

Even if we assume no increase in power out it is still a factor of 10^4.
With TFTR the plasma heating power is of the order of the output power, so
it is clear that no "heroic" heating effort will be required for a steady
state ignited reactor.
The point is simply that plasma heating will not be a large portion of the
operating power for a steady state, ignited reactor.  This is not to say
that the operating power for such a reactor will not be huge.  It will.

>
>>Well, it is certainly true that ignition does not imply _commercial_
>>breakeven, but this has little to do with any "heroic" heating effort.
>
>If the commercial break-even requires a 2000 increase in power
>density, then what do you think it will take to get it, since we
>are already burning the most easily ignited fuel and mixture at a
>crumby 1-2 milliwatts/cc.   We need 5 w/cc, and that's going to take
>heroic heating and fantasy Beta with wishful stability.  
>

I think it's been pointed out many times before that TFTR is an experiment,
and that future experiments, let alone future prototype reactors will have
to have much higher power densities.  A very large increase can be accomplished
by simply scaling up the reactor size (the increase in energy confinement time
with reactor size is well documented), and increasing the magnetic field.
However there is certainly a need to improve the physics of the reactor
to improve power density well beyond what can be done with scale and field
alone (especially because of difficulties associated with scaling up too far).
Most estimates are that a factor of ~10 improvement beyond what can be
provided by scale and field is needed.  This estimate is of course very
rough, and depends strongly upon future engineering developments.

>>The plasma need only be heated until it reaches ignition, and in a
>>steady state or long pulse reactor this initial power input will
>>be small compared to the output power.
>
>  .. . need only be heated until it reaches ignition, ..   Sure.. and
>people in hell only need a few drinks of ice water a year and they will
>be happy too! 

Do I need to define ignition again for you?  When a plasma is heated to 
ignition, the hot alpha particles provide all the necessary plasma heating.
Of course there are other power requirements besides plasma heating.  No
one is saying that ignition=commercial breakeven, only that steady state
ignition=plasma heating power insignificant.
If you are contesting whether a reactor will ever be able to reach ignition,
I think you are on shaky ground.  Just wait a few years; little is required
beyond increases is scale and field strength.

[Juvenile sarcasm omitted]
>Let's make the commercial operating
>a reasonable length of continuous (pulsed or quasi-pulsed) for 5 days.   
>with net power out greater than  one tenth of its average power 
>circulation load.   If you need to cut this say to 5 hours or 
>1/100th average circulation load, just let me know.   
>
>>However, as Paul Stek has pointed out, huge amounts of power are still
>>needed to run the device, not for heating, but for current drive in
>>the plasma, generation of the magnetic field etc.
>
>Ohmic heating from that "DRIVEN CURRENTS (plasma amperage type)" is a 
>principal means of tokamak heating.  What's going on here!  Is this 
>thing heating on fat reducing pills in your mind??   OF COURSE, it 

Get a clue.  I'm talking about current drive used to improve plasma
stability not Ohmic heating.  Such current drive may not even be necessary,
and if it is, it will contribute very little to heating compared to the
massive heating provided by the 3.5MeV alphas produced by the fusion reactions,
(for the nth time, at ignition these alphas provide all the heating
necessary to stay at constant temperature with NO external heating).  To get
to ignition use any combination of Rf heating, neutral beam heating, Ohmic
heating or any type of heating you choose.  As I've pointed out above,
this initial input will be next to insignificant in a steady state ignited
reactor.

>takes energy (multiple gigajoules of it === several WWII block busters) 

Ok, let's use your inflated estimate.  Consider your several 
gigajoules, which must be input only initially in a steady state ignited
reactor, compared to a ~2 GigaWatt output for a day > 10^5 gigajoules.

>to load up the magnetic coils, and of course that is part of 
>the "commercial equation", because "This T-field PRODUCES WASTE HEAT..  
>ALSO AND MUST BE CYCLED OR ASH BUILD UP in the plasma WILL OCCUR." 
>

Hello?  Have you been around for the past 20 years?  There are other ways
to heat a plasma besides Ohmic heating. (neutral beam, Radio frequency)
Yes, of course ash must removed, but there are novel physics approaches
to this as well.
And don't forget that future reactors will in all likelihood use 
superconducting magnets (yes, this brings its own set of problems but
you might as well rant about the right problems).

>>To reach commercial breakeven the reactor must produce far more power than
>>it consumes.  An economical power plant clearly must reliably produce
>>enough power to overcome its construction and operational costs and still be
>>able to sell electricity for a few cents/kilowatt hour.  This is a
>>distant goal for the fusion program, but great progress is being made.
>
>Progress has  nearly come to a DEAD STOP, except for minor plasma 
>physics piddling.  

Uh-huh. Dead stop, eh?  Only a factor of greater than a million improvement
in power density over the past twenty years.  Design work currently underway
on TPX and ITER, and a great deal of activity in the theoretical plasma
physics community to try to improve beta and fusion power density.
Sure, there are some difficult tasks ahead, but why give up?

>Fusion is NOT a distant goal for The tokamak is 
>simply an infinitely distant goal.  For other reasonable concepts, 
>it's practically a cake walk, by comparison.   
>

It's easy to stand on the sidelines and whine about the difficulties 
involved.  It's another thing to actually work to overcome these 
difficulties toward a very worthwhile goal.

>>Continued progress will in all likelihood require larger reactors, and 
>>the above problems will have to be confronted.   
>
>Yes, for the Tokamaks. Embodiment of our concept goes to plum size. 
>Yep, but there is room for only two Bigger humonongers on the planet.  
>One centered on the north pole and the other the South pole.  That way 
>they can each take advantage of the earth's vertical field AND the 
>the extra ice covering surrounding waters for cooling!!       
>                          :-)
>
>Above symbol means I'm joking:   USDoE... Do NOT include this solution 
>in your 5 plan structure.

You are indeed a funny man.  I'd love to hear about your plum-sized reactor
idea, and I think you should realize that you are not alone in looking for
better ways of reaching economic fusion.  Despite what you imply, however,
many ideas have been tried, and of those the tokamak at present is still
the most promising.  There are still plenty more new approaches to be
investigated, and it is unfortunate that alternatives to the tokamak are
so poorly funded.  They are somewhat better funded in other countries,
but anything appraoching tokamak performance has yet to be achieved.  
(Spheromaks and stellarators may be comprable, but despite a good amount of
money having been spent on both, they seem to offer little advantage over the
tokamak).  Nonetheless, my interest, like yours, is primarily in alternative
concepts, or at least significant changes in tokamak design.  I am not 
beholden to big donut-shaped thingys and i don't think most other people
in the fusion community are either.  If you had a truly compelling idea,
I'm sure you could arouse a lot of interest, and get at least some funding.
   
>
>>It is true that simply
>>scaling up TFTR or JET will not produce an economical reactor.  Hence the
>>continued efforts to improve the physics of reactors to achieve higher
>>power densities, and the continued (although meagerly funded) efforts
>>to develop alternatives to the tokamak. 
>
>The tokamak problem is way beyond physics, my friend, it is in the 
>province of engineering and fairy god-mothers.  My suggestion is to punt 
>and move to something better, while you still have a few good years of 
>functioning brain left.   Remember: except for my garage experiment, then 
>Goldenbaum's at MD, PPPL was the third in starting a Spheromak experiment.   
>It's not like your institute doesn't have a precedent for striking out 
>nearly on its own.  Guess that's the difference between Furth and Davidson.   

Beyond physics?  You think you know everything it is possible to know about
plasma physics, nuclear physics, and future engineering developments
such that you can declare the concept unworkable?  If I give you a reactor 
design, you can tell me exactly what its performance will be?  
I think it is because you assume only engineering issues are left in the
tokamak design that you dismiss it so swiftly.  I am currently involved
in research into using waves to divert alpha particle power directly
to ions, thus heating the ions more efficiently (lowering the ignition
criterion) and providing more beta to the ions (about half of the beta
formerly being used by the hot alphas).  In theory at least, this can
improve reactor power density by more than a factor of two, as well
as assisting in ash removal.  And there are plenty more ideas out there. 
Both for improving the tokamak design and for using completely different 
designs.  It's hardly time to give up yet.

>
>>Phil Snyder >pbsnyder@phoenix.princeton.edu >speaking only for myself
>+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
>| Paul M. Koloc,Bx 1037, Prometheus II, Ltd., College Park, MD 20741-1037 |
>| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
>| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
>+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
>
Phil Snyder
grad student
speaking for myself


cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenpbsnyder cudfnPhilip cudlnSnyder cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.09 / BERNECKY R /  wave overlap calculation
     
Originally-From: BERNECKY@nl.nuwc.navy.mil (BERNECKY WILLIAM R)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: wave overlap calculation
Date: Mon, 9 May 1994 00:14:21 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Wave overlap between two deuterons

The following is an argument for how and why the Coulomb poten-
tial barrier between two deuterons can be surmounted with only
room temperature kinetic energy.

First, let's list the assumptions upon which the argument rests:

     1.)  The quantum mechanical wave (or "matter wave", or
     "probability wave") is a valid way of describing a quanton
     ("particle").

     There should be no disagreement with this.  But it's impor-
     tant to emphasize that the "movement" of a quanton within
     the limits of its wave is undefined.  For example, consider
     an electron described by sin(x), for a few cycles, 0<=x<=L.
     "The probability wave packet by its very nature extends over
     several wave-lengths, but the probabilities indicated by its
     varying amplitude refer to the one single electron, and
     this, therefore, cannot be visualized as moving about within
     the length of the wave packet.  Over this small distance all
     that can be described is the probability of finding the
     electron in a given small region, and all attempts to follow
     the electron about in space must be given up."[1] The above
     sine wave is to be contrasted with a very narrow gaussian
     wave packet which bounces back and forth over the interval
     0<=x<=L.  These are very different situations, even though
     both give approximately the same answer to the question,
     "where is the electron?".  In the case of the narrow gaus-
     sian, the electron (i.e. its wave packet) is constrained to
     move at less than the speed of light. Also, there are no
     nodes where the probability of the electron goes to zero.
     In the case of the sine wave, the electron does not "move"
     within its wave (or if it does, we do not know about it).
     Rather, it is at each point with a certain probability.  As
     a crutch, I visualize that the electron pops in and out of
     existence all along the wave packet. In fact, I go one step
     further, and assume that the "popping in and out" is a very
     orderly process. But really, we are not allowed to say ex-
     actly what the electron is doing within the confines of its
     wave.  However, we know from the two-slit experiment that an
     electron acts as if it goes through both slits (as a wave),
     and exhibits self-interference effects.  The only workable
     conclusion is that the electron exists over the entire ex-
     tent of its wave.

     2.) Both deuterons have (room temperature) kinetic energy of
     .025 eV (4E-21 Joules).

     3.) Each deuteron is described by a spatially extended pure
     harmonic wave.  This is equivalent to very precisely defin-
     ing the momentum. When we go over to the lattice, we will
     relax this constraint by allowing real functions e.g. sine
     wave, that involve two momentum values +/- p.

     4.) The Coulomb force between the two deuterons will not
     significantly disrupt their momentum values. To check the
     validity of this assumption we must solve the Schrodinger
     equation.  Any takers?  This assumption becomes more plausi-
     ble if the two deuterons are members of two (different, and
     distinct) bose condensates, which tend to ignore scattering
     effects e.g. the Cooper pairs in superconductivity.

Now let's establish the two deuterons as two pure harmonic, one-
dimensional waves exp(i (kx-wt)) and exp(i(-kx-wt)).  Their equal
and opposite momenta are

          p = sqrt(2mE)
          p = sqrt(2* 3.345e-27 kg * 4e-21 J)
          p = +/- 5.2e-24 kg-m/s

and their wavelengths

          lambda = h/p
          lambda = 6.626e-34 J-s/ 5.2e-24 kg-m/s
                 = 1.28e-10 m
                 = 1.28 Angstroms

In accordance with assumption (2), they will both have 1e5 cy-
cles. This corresponds to a spatial extent of 1.28e-5 m, or about
ten microns.

Let's now place the two waves on the x-axis, one at -X and the
other at +X, sufficiently distant from one another that the
Coulomb force is negligible.  They approach each other, and their
waves begin to overlap when they meet at x=0.

We are interested in an order-of-magnitude estimate of the
Coulomb potential energy of the waves at this point.  This will
indicate whether there will be measurable overlap of the "collid-
ing" deuterons.

To find the Coulomb potential associated with the two deuterons
we must perform the double integral over all pairs of (x0,x1) of
the potential e^2/|x0-x1| times the probability of one deuteron
being at x0 and the other at x1.  Due to the simple choice of our
waveforms, the probability of any one location is constant. Note
that this is not strictly true when there is wave overlap, but it
is approximately true if the kinetic energy is significantly
larger than the Coulomb potential, which will be the case here.
We will restrict the closest approach |x0-x1| to 1 Fermi, 1e-15
m. It is at this range that the strong force will dominate the
interaction, and the Coulomb potential barrier will have been
surmounted.

We perform the calculation:

  sum=0
  wavelength= 1.28e-10 m
  extent= 1e5 * wavelength
  overlap = N*wavelength   % 2N cycles of overlap
  farend = extent-overlap
  dx= 1e-15 m
  e^2 = 2.31e-28 J-m

  % probability of one deuteron being within
  % this interval of size 1 Fermi
  P= 7.8e-11     % dx/extent

  For x0 = -farend to overlap by dx
   For x1= +farend to -overlap by -dx
    sum= sum + P^2 * e^2/|x0-x1|


Actually, it is not quite this straightforward because there are
about 1e20 (x0,x1) pairs in this calculation, many more than we
can compute.  A reasonable approximation can be achieved by vary-
ing the integral step, recognizing that sections of the waves
very distant from one another do not need to be integrated with
such a fine step as 1e-15 m.

The results presented below are divided into three regions:

(1) distant; greater than 1e4 cycles away
(2) intermediate; between 1 cycle and 1e4 cycles
(3) overlap;  +/- one cycle.

 -1e5         -1e4      -1    1         +1e4            +1e5
  ------------)(---------)---->
                         <----(----------)(----------------
    1.5e-4 eV    1.6e-5   2.6e-7 eV

Thus we conclude that, even with no screening, the Coulomb poten-
tial barrier between the two waves with 2 cycles (~2.5 A) of
overlap is less than 2e-4 eV, and much less than the kinetic en-
ergy 2.5e-2 eV.

Let's now examine the case where the distant portions of the
waves are screened by intervening electrons.  In a lattice, this
sceening is effective for distances greater than about ten
Angstroms.  Let's also increase the amount of overlap to 10 cy-
cles:

     screened      1e1     -5          +5     1e1   screened
           .........)------------------>
                           <------------------).........
                               1.2e-5 eV

Again, the potential energy is much less than the kinetic energy.
The overlap in the joint pdf is this case is 100/1e10 or 1e-8, a
large number compared to the overlap of two localized waves.  Ex-
trapolating from the above results, the overlap can be as high as
1e-5 before the Coulomb potential is as large as the kinetic en-
ergy.

 ----------------------------
[1] Atomic Theory by W. Hume-Rothery


cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenBERNECKY cudfnBERNECKY cudlnR cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.07 / Steve Fairfax /  Alcator progress 5/5/94
     
Originally-From: Fairfax@CMOD.PFC.MIT.EDU (Steve Fairfax)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Alcator progress 5/5/94
Date: Sat, 7 May 1994 20:02:27 GMT
Organization: Alcator Project, MIT Plasma Fusion Center

				Alcator C-MOD Weekly Highlights
					May 5, 1994

The Phase II (1994) operating period is underway. The restart is proceeding
somewhat more slowly than anticipated, but progress is being made. 

Breakdowns were obtained on Thursday, but the OH2L power supply was found not
to be responding properly to its control signal, which prevented normal field
tuning to improve the null. This problem was not solved until Tuesday,
although workarounds enabled us to get breakdowns on Friday as well. The
supply problem only surfaced when the OH2 supplies were run under voltage
(hybrid) control near their PLC current limit settings, which had not been
done in prior tests. It was found that a pot in the regulator circuit, which
had been replaced over the winter hiatus, had been installed improperly. 

More reliable breakdowns were obtained on Tuesday, and tuning of the null led
to an early (5msec) breakdown and up to 20kA of current, but no subsequent
current rise. Signals from an inner wall flux loop (F25) were found to be
suspect. Elimination of this loop gives rather different reconstructions of
the field structure, and much of Wednesday was spent trying to determine the
best way of dealing with this situation. By the end of the day, a shot with
over 30kA of plasma current was obtained, more tuning was required to get a
good current rise. 

A current rise to 150 kA was finally obtained on Thursday. The reconstruction
of the null using a synthetic signal for the bad F25 loop based on a
combination of adjacent loops looks reasonable. Discharge development is
proceeding.

In the ICRF area, all coax parts for the transmission line to the D-port
antenna are in-house. The transmission line diagnostics for the D-port antenna
have been calibrated. Installation of the tuning and matching system has begun. 

The second Neutral Particle Analyzer (NPA) is undergoing final assembly and
testing at F port. The analyzer has been hooked up to the  vacuum vessel and
first alignment has been performed. Power, control and water cooling for its
internal magnet are being hooked up and  tested. The data acquisition system
will be installed and tested in the  near future. Software development,
including system control, data acquisition, and analysis is still proceeding.

The YAG Thomson scattering laser has been fired through the machine under
computer control. Stray light levels at the laser line have been observed.
Work is proceeding toward operation of this important diagnostic during plasma
operation. 

Steve Wolfe presented a talk on C-MOD results to the Columbia University
Department of Applied Physics Plasma Physics Colloquium on April 29. 

cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenFairfax cudfnSteve cudlnFairfax cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.08 / Mark North /  Re: Question for Chubb/More on claims of Miles and Bush - calc error?
     
Originally-From: north@watop.nosc.mil (Mark North)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Question for Chubb/More on claims of Miles and Bush - calc error?
Date: Sun, 8 May 1994 02:16:36 GMT
Organization: NCCOSC RDT&E Division, San Diego, CA

mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:

>  4) It is ridiculous for serious scientists to have to put up with your
>endless e-crap,  paid for by U.S. taxpayer expense!!, as you espouse 
>your ignorant comments and continuous e-harassments.

I know I promised continuous but have only been able to manage 
continual. Look up the difference in your *gag* 'Websters'.

Mark

PS: as for the taxpayers -- they know it and love it.

Have a nice day.

cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudennorth cudfnMark cudlnNorth cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.05 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Question for Chubb/ More on claims of Miles and Bush - calc error?
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Question for Chubb/ More on claims of Miles and Bush - calc error?
Date: Thu, 5 May 1994 17:01:05 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <CpBxyK.xM@world.std.com>,
mitchell swartz <mica@world.std.com> wrote:

>  Take the background as  31,300 over 12 hours which gives 
>   2608 counts per hour.
>Therefore the square root of this number is about 51.

     I wonder what the hyperbolic sine of that number is?
  
     Mitch, you are truly amazing.  

                        dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.08 / mitchell swartz /  Question for Chubb/More on claims of Miles and Bush - sinh?
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Question for Chubb/More on claims of Miles and Bush - sinh?
Subject: Re: Question for Chubb/ More on claims of Miles and Bush - calc error?
Date: Sun, 8 May 1994 00:16:06 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <CpC9xt.Is7@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
Subject: Re: Question for Chubb/ More on claims of Miles and Bush - calc error?
Cameron Randale Bass (crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU) writes:

     >  Take the background as  31,300 over 12 hours which gives 
     >   2608 counts per hour.
     >Therefore the square root of this number is about 51.   
=dbass     "I wonder what the hyperbolic sine of that number is?
=dbass     Mitch, you are truly amazing. "

   Dale, in that missive to Robert Heeter, he correctly drew the
correct purpose (given the paucity of information) when he replied:
 
   >  The differential is the signal or 575/hour. 
   >   Now 575 > 51.     Is this a significant difference to you?
   =rh  "So you say it's an 11-sigma effect.  Ordinarily one would call 
   =rh  that quite significant. "
   [Date: 5 May 1994;    Message-ID: <2qb7qa$4mo@tom.pppl.gov>
   Robert Franklin Heeter (rfheeter@phoenix.Princeton.EDU)]

  IMHO  Dick Blue (blue@pilot.msu.edu) in his recent 
interesting post [[Message-ID: <9405061530.AA25886@pilot1.cl.msu.edu>
Sat, 7 May 1994] also  followed this, as when he said (and added):

    =db    "575 net counts +/- 70 or so, and it must be cold fusion. 
    =db   (I don't see where anyone could get 26 sigma out of these numbers,
    =db   but that is a minor point.)"

   Perhaps you might, therefore, enlighten us as to the purpose and logic
of the "hyperbolic sine" in your thoughts?     Perhaps.               ;-)

            Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com)




cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.08 / Mark North /  Re: "Cold Fusion" Magazine Accelerating
     
Originally-From: north@watop.nosc.mil (Mark North)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: "Cold Fusion" Magazine Accelerating
Date: Sun, 8 May 1994 09:38:37 GMT
Organization: NCCOSC RDT&E Division, San Diego, CA

rmholt@u.washington.edu (Rose Marie Holt) writes:

>Mark I liked your rebuttal of the "Cold Fusion"/Mag thing, but
>you weren't vehement enough :)

>I found my copy at the U of Wash bookstore (a fine bookstore)
>and got hours of amusement.

>The cost ($10) and the ads for Palladium medallions (for ivestment
>purposes) tell me where the money is to be made in CF.

Hee, hee.

cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudennorth cudfnMark cudlnNorth cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Mon May  9 04:37:04 EDT 1994
------------------------------
1994.05.08 / L Plutonium /  Re: SKITS14-17 NEANDERTHAL PARK; Rush Limbaugh,Lederman,David  
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,alt.religion.kibology,sci.math,sci
physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.chem,sci.bio
Subject: Re: SKITS14-17 NEANDERTHAL PARK; Rush Limbaugh,Lederman,David  
Date: 8 May 1994 15:29:08 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In article <2qegrh$q74@news.u.washington.edu>
rmholt@u.washington.edu (Rose Marie Holt) writes:

> Who is Darlene Hoffman?

This is what comes up under Applied Science and Technology Index
                 Author:  Keller, O. Lewin, Jr.
                    Title:  Accomplishments and promise of
transplutonium research.
       Citation Type:  Feature
                 Source:  Physics Today. v. 37 (Mar. '84) p. 34-41.

Do you know all of the plutonium atom prizewinners listed below?
Especially two of the most overlooked contributors of our time Petrzhak
and Flerov? Spontaneous Fission is a very important discovery. Very
important.

I hereby make a formal demand of the worldwide science community to
name the nucleosynthesized elements using the following scheme exactly
for atomic number Z. Those elements not mentioned, leave as is. And
also to change back protactinium, element 91, to its original name
protoactinium.  Any deviations from my preset scheme will in the future
all be mowed-down and revert back to my scheme.
96 curiehahnium
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.09 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Ignition & Breakeven --Commercial EPIC - BIBLICAL  
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Ignition & Breakeven --Commercial EPIC - BIBLICAL  
Date: Mon, 9 May 1994 06:19:13 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <1994May7.194218.29284@Princeton.EDU> pbsnyder@flagstaff.Prin
eton.EDU (Philip Benjamin Snyder) writes:
>In article <CpF08B.KJ@prometheus.UUCP> pmk@promethe.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) writes:
>>In article <1994May5.185910.2662@Princeton.EDU> pbsnyder@flagstaff.Pri
ceton.EDU (Philip Benjamin Snyder) writes:
>>>In article <CpBBLJ.ECv@prometheus.UUCP> pmk@promethe.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) writes:
>>
>>>> [.. . this noise was pretty much deleted  -- pmk ]

>Paul, I think it is beyond obvious to everyone reading this post that I was
>referring to heating the plasma.  One hardly goes about deliberately heating
>the coils etc., though cetainly parts of the reactor proper get hot and 
>cooling systems are required, which of course contributes to the power
>required to run the reactor.  

Silly.  I think we were talking about COMMERCIAL breakeven and Eout/Ein 
to the SYSTEM, not just the plasma.  Get it... that is energy ... not 
to heat, but to operate or activate fields, apparatus, .. etc.  that 
are essential to to existence of the plasma, ALTHOUGH much of this ends 
up as waste heat. It is a quirk of physicists to think in such concepts 
as these... sorry this missed you.  You think that once the plasma is 
ignited it will self heat... great for Scientific break even.. but NOT 
COMMERCIAL, the plasma must also COOL transferring heat into electric 
power to drive the fields, the coils the vacuum systems, the crud 
skimmers, the .. .. etc. etc.   OKAY!!!

>This is an initial input, and has nothing to do with maintaining the burn,
>in a steady state ignited reactor.

It DOES if it is commercially operating.   I thought that even when it
is being aux and ohmically heated to burn all of the maint systems were
operating.   That's correct???  Then POWER them from the plasma heating
power and hope that that cooling requirment doesn't snuff your system.   

Now, a STEADY STATE ignited reactor is a fantasy.  Tokamaks are pulsed
(albeit modestly long ... few minute pulses).  A super conducting megalith
would not function since the ash couldn't be removed, and the impurities
would be absolutely horrible, nor would the vacuum wall be resurfaced.. 
etc. etc.   So .. the several gigajoules will be started, and restarted
and the plasma will have to be drained and replaced and the walls will
have to be recoated.  Months if not years.  
Come on, tokamaks have been with us for our whole lives!!!

>You just have to heat up the plasma to around 15 keV (for DT operation)
>and this optimal temperature does not change with the size of the reactor.
>Hence, if we're operating in a steady state ignited reactor with, say 20
>times the plasma mass of TFTR, we will have to input ~20 times TFTR heating
>power to get it to ignition (assuming equal efficiency, and again we're
>only talking about plasma heating power here).  

NOT if we have a commercial consideration, because, we have to account 
for all of the loss of power in converting energy from the tokamak to 
electricity and then back again to rf and beam heating, etc.  and there 
are bigggggg piggy losses in that loop.   We are talking commercial, friend.  

Also larger and will cool at higher power rates, requiring more massive 
"initial energy punches".  Bigger capitol outlays, that scale faster 
than volume.  

> However, this ignited
>reactor will output much higher power than TFTR, and the shots will last
>for days rather than ~1 second.  

You mean the SUPERCONDUCTING COIL CURRENT'S l/r TIME.  Certainly you
aren't referring to the plasma currents L/R time, either toroidal current
or transient poloidal currents.  Golly, will the vertical coil also
be super conducting??  

ALSO  Higher power isn't the problem, it's higher power density.  

> Hence the ratio of 
>(power output)/(power for plasma heating) will increase by around a factor
>of 2*10^3 (increase in power out) * 10^5 (seconds in a day) /20 = 10^7. 

No it won't.  The superconducting coil time (L/R) is NOT the critical loss 
time for the plasma.  You are dreaming.  T*n*(tau)  where tau are energy
loss times from the plasma (as diminished with ash poisoning and impurity 
driven instability). 

>Even if we assume no increase in power out it is still a factor of 10^4.

How can this be  (plasma density heating versus cooling please) ???  
What are you taking about??  Please put this in plasma density, and be 
realistic about the increased loss rates under heavy auxiliary heating 
to wished for ignition.  

>The point is simply that plasma heating will not be a large portion of the
>operating power for a steady state, ignited reactor.   .. 

Oh!... well that's a relief, gee, I didn't know that plasma heating was 
NOT the problem, and, it was the getting of the "heat there" (into the 
plasma) to begin with and apparently NOT COUNTING the lost energy along 
the way.  A creative accountancy???

>and that future experiments, let alone future prototype reactors will have
>to have much higher power densities.  

Bull... except for a factor of 20, this is just wishful thinking.  

>A very large increase can be accomplished
>by simply scaling up the reactor size (the increase in energy confinement time
>with reactor size is well documented), and increasing the magnetic field.

Bull..  Remember, your super conducting magnets???  Well, they can't handle
high mag pressures, and the torque will make them very vulnerable to 
detonation.    50 gigajoule class would erase a good chunk of Princeton
(if it were nearby), or MIT.  ALSO It's far too costly, and the energy 
only scales with the linear size while costs go as the $[(linear size)^3+]. 

>However there is certainly a need to improve the physics of the reactor
>to improve power density well beyond what can be done with scale and field
>alone (especially because of difficulties associated with scaling up too far).

True, but Holy Physics wouldn't add enough energy to scratch one of your 
gluts. 

>Most estimates are that a factor of ~10 improvement beyond what can be
>provided by scale and field is needed.  This estimate is of course very
>rough, and depends strongly upon future engineering developments.

You have admitted tok-defeat.. good, perphaps we can develop fusion.  

The engineering development PATH is to move the tokamak on through 
the spheromak generation and then to our PLASMAK(tm) embodiment. 
What do you think engineering physics is??  Certainly, it can do 
better than the tokamak which is about as far as particle physics 
"engineering" can go toward fusion.  As an engineering contraption, 
the tokamak is LAUGHABLE.  Only the DoE would fund a backwards Lever 
and Fulcrum pressurized device.  Yep... they have the short end of 
the stick firmly in hand.  

Now if you don't quite get the swing of that thought, figure the 
pressure at the toroidal field coil and then compare that to the 
pressure (nkT of the tokamak plasma).  Apply big pressure engineering
pressure at the coil and ... result teeny tiny pressure to confine
the plasma stably.  Not the case as with even the Spheromak.  So
engineering development is what is needed, but confine it to the
tokamak embodiment and you have paid a brain surgeon to clean out
your toilet.   

So look at it this way.. we now have son of tokamak or better: 
                       Grandson of Tokamak!

>Do I need to define ignition again for you?  When a plasma is heated to 
>ignition, the hot alpha particles provide all the necessary plasma heating.

If the alphas were trapped yes, but they are not... they are not... 
they are not...  they are not...   .. .. ... 

Assume that miraculously, a tokamak could at pristine ideal condition
ignite then what???? 

     Consider a wet camp fire that burns like hell when you 
and your buddies fan coals into full full flame, but if you all stop 
the fire dies out.  The fusioned ash particles will come out of the 
plasma energetically and heat the wall, not the plasma sufficiently,
because also other losses will IMMEDIATELY RISE.  The 14.7MeV neutrons 
and alphas will knock crud off the wall, which will feed the plasma/mag 
field edge with loads of bound-super-radiating-and-plasma-cooling-electrons, 
for which your "ignition" will think someone "threw water on the flames."  
Now, is your once (seconds or minutes ago) ignited plasma, still ignited
in view of the new "momentary ignition induced" conditions???   NO

So that's the story of the to------ KOOOOOOOOO    muk

But that's just reality.  If you have a mind that can filter filter filter.  
the picture of the tokomak may end up with nary a blemish.  

>Of course there are other power requirements besides plasma heating.  No
>one is saying that ignition=commercial breakeven, only that steady state
>ignition=plasma heating power insignificant.

Oops!  you mean that you came in on this thing and didn't get that
notion.   Hmmmm  an ignited plasma supported by a kingdom of apparatus
on welfare.  Well if it isn't commercial, all that hardware support
will fade, and the day long discharge will probably fade away or just
plain disrupt as the plasma goes unstable with the withering apparatus
voltage and current supply.  

>If you are contesting whether a reactor will ever be able to reach ignition,
>I think you are on shaky ground.  Just wait a few years; little is required
>beyond increases is scale and field strength.

I have little interest in non-commercial outputs.   But it is interesting
that you mentioned increases in field strength..l..   well ..   
Field strength AND size... from a 5 gigajoule  field to a FIFTY GIGAJOULE
FIELD ...   

                           Booommm  BAAAaaa..     
               no Princeton..  or La Jolla  or Garching..  

(which one will "win" the location prize??)  ..  and a cold 
fusion (actually 2H2+O2) "pop" of a few deccakilojoules was deadly!

>Get a clue.  I'm talking about current drive used to improve plasma
>stability not Ohmic heating.  Such current drive may not even be necessary,
>and if it is, it will contribute very little to heating compared to the
>massive heating provided by the 3.5MeV alphas produced by the fusion reactions,
>(for the nth time, at ignition these alphas provide all the heating
>necessary to stay at constant temperature with NO external heating).  

Need a lot of external power  POWER  to run the supporting apparatus,
and that indicates your ignited plasma can't keep itself and its support
apparatus in a healthy environment or state of being, and to ever so 
slowly repay the init charging energy necessary for ignition.   It isn't
Commercial..   Yes welfare ignition, but not Commercial grade operation. 
Explain your definition to me again... ignition   keeping the plasma happy
... gee.. is THAT the goal of the fusion program????   Silly silly silly.  

I call that heroic heating, powering for-ever up, or what every you 
want to call it.  The ignited plasma isn't paying its way, until commercial
yield (power take off) is reached, and then we will see if it is still
                         IGNITED     .   

>this initial input will be next to insignificant in a steady state ignited
>reactor.

The SSIG is a fantasy like the SS,  the SST and the SSC. 

Use your Bissel to clean the plasma!   Terrific.  Isn't it great that 
plasmas are superconducting, and their currents run forever, in one 
direction!  Wow.. an all day plasma, what a donut what a sucker!  
And all because of super conductivity transference, just so close to 
those mag coils the plasma couldn't resist.  And the alphas.. they 
love that Bissel ...  Ummmmmm Yum yum.   

>Hello?  Have you been around for the past 20 years?  There are other ways
>to heat a plasma besides Ohmic heating. (neutral beam, Radio frequency)

No kidding chum, which one of these, would a thermally starved tokamak
leave out???   NONE   They are thinking of composting yard waste in the
jacket spaces for extra warmth.   

Yep, can you imagine a tokamak that turns down the ohmic heating by
running the currents to relativistic speeds..  Why, I'm sure the RF
and particle beam heating could take up the slack easily... right...
Well? snippy.  

>Yes, of course ash must removed, but there are novel physics approaches
>to this as well.

Oh right, that novel gaget..  the Bissel!!   what a wonder.. and just
in time.   Yep, all religions speak of the promised land or the 
miracle at the church around the corner.  Glad your incorporating the
tricks of the trade.   

>And don't forget that future reactors will in all likelihood use 
>superconducting coils which may have problems themselves.     

Problem is right.  How deep should you build that foxhole when the
bigger  .... ahhhhh  BIGGER  ONE  gets fired up with the EXTRA high
field strength run????? 

>Uh-huh. Dead stop, eh?  Only a factor of greater than a million improvement
>in power density over the past twenty years.  Design work currently underway
>on TPX and ITER, and a great deal of activity in the theoretical plasma
>physics community to try to improve beta and fusion power density.
>Sure, there are some difficult tasks ahead, but why give up?

Theorists????       factor of a million since you put fuel in it..

Yes, I suppose I could probably get a factor of a million or so
improvement in my car's performance if I would just put gasoline in
the tank and start the engine..  Amazing!!!    Gee!  and only took
a 15 min walk to the station and back..   That's progress.   
What newsrag have you been reading... the DoE "nitwit notes"?

>It's easy to stand on the sidelines and whine about the difficulties 
>involved.  It's another thing to actually work to overcome these 
>difficulties toward a very worthwhile goal.

You said a mouthful bub, How about getting your degree and giving 
us a hand.  

>You are indeed a funny man.  I'd love to hear about your plum-sized reactor
>idea, and I think you should realize that you are not alone in looking for
>better ways of reaching economic fusion.  Despite what you imply, however,
>many ideas have been tried, and of those the tokamak at present is still
>the most promising.  

A few old ones like the tokamak have been, but others haven't been looked
at sufficiently or not at all, and these are far more advanced.  Generations
ahead of the tokamak. 

>There are still plenty more new approaches to be
>investigated, and it is unfortunate that alternatives to the tokamak are
>so poorly funded.  They are somewhat better funded in other countries,
>but anything appraoching tokamak performance has yet to be achieved.  
>(Spheromaks and stellarators may be comprable, but despite a good amount of
>money having been spent on both, they seem to offer little advantage over the
>tokamak).  

Stellarators are worse than tokamaks, and Spheromaks are better, 
although the halfbreed that was tried at Princeton didn't do anywhere 
nearly as well as the other truly-Spheromak Experiments.  The PLASMAK(tm) 
concept is a generation advance again over the Spheromak, and that 
seems to have all of the essentials for fusion.   

>Nonetheless, my interest, like yours, is primarily in alternative
>concepts, or at least significant changes in tokamak design.  I am not 
>beholden to big donut-shaped thingys and i don't think most other people
>in the fusion community are either.  If you had a truly compelling idea,
>I'm sure you could arouse a lot of interest, and get at least some funding.
   
I'll let you be my point man.  

>Beyond physics?  You think you know everything it is possible to know about
>plasma physics, nuclear physics, and future engineering developments
>such that you can declare the concept unworkable?  

It doesn't take plasma physics, or nuclear physics, simple engineering will
tell you that.  Future developments don't fix "screwups", they go back
and reroute around them, so they don't exist in the newer concept, which
themselves become the development.  The tokamak is a primitive from 
which other branches should evolve.  What morons these creeps at in
the Admin of the USDoE to impose their dastardly pin headed views and
coral fusion research in a chicken coup to begin with.  There is no 
allowed pathways to grow, like a root bound plant.  --- jerks.  
Hmmmm! when I think about such things my limited vocabulary contracts
to a few words and grunts.  

>If I give you a reactor 
>design, you can tell me exactly what its performance will be?  

It's only necessary to optimize the performance and to compare it to
others, once others are found to be better, then, that "said reactor
design" is of no import, nor are its "exact" p-details.  Breakthrough
designs, are quite obvious when they are embodied.   

>I think it is because you assume only engineering issues are left in the
>tokamak design that you dismiss it so swiftly.  

No, it has lethal engineering flaws, and engineering "issues" don't
exist, only physics "issues" exist.   Engineers deal with PROBLEMS.  
They call spades spades, and spanners crescent wrenches.  Death is
death, so a dentist who wishes to replace a bridge on a corpse makes
about as much sense as engineering a tokamak to health.   

>I am currently involved
>in research into using waves to divert alpha particle power directly
>to ions, thus heating the ions more efficiently (lowering the ignition
>criterion) and providing more beta to the ions (about half of the beta
>formerly being used by the hot alphas).  In theory at least, this can
>improve reactor power density by more than a factor of two, as well
>as assisting in ash removal.  

Tough, You can't solve that without increasing beta and pushing plasma
over the bathtub walls. Get yourself a better bathroom ... With a sauna,
or at least a hot tub.   

>And there are plenty more ideas out there. 
>Both for improving the tokamak design and for using completely different 
>designs.  It's hardly time to give up yet.

NOT for the TRUE (Tokamak) Believers.    

ODE TO THE "TB"

                           THE TOKAMAK IS A LEMON. 
                              IF YOU FIX A LEMON, 
                               THEN SOMETHING ELSE 
                                   WILL BREAK

                                 SAVE YOUR YOUTH 
                             TAKE A CHANCE WITH THE 
                               REST OF US & STARVE - 
                           A FEW YEARS OF HELL - THEN
                          FREEDOM TO SOAR THE UNIVERSE

>Phil Snyder >grad student >speaking for myself
and well for PPPL
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc,Bx 1037, Prometheus II, Ltd., College Park, MD 20741-1037 |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.09 / L Plutonium /  Re: Physics News Update #177 (5/3) D/H ratio PLUS R.Cen & 
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,alt.sci.physics.plutonium
Subject: Re: Physics News Update #177 (5/3) D/H ratio PLUS R.Cen & 
Date: 9 May 1994 11:42:04 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In article <2q93d7$ot7@ds8.scri.fsu.edu>
jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) writes:

> >PHYSICS NEWS UPDATE
> >A digest of physics news items by Phillip F. Schewe, American
> >Institute of Physics
> >Number 177  May 3, 1994
> 
> >   ...  The D/H ratio, 2.5 x 10**-4, is much higher than the ratio
> >measured in our own galaxy.  An accurate measurement of this ratio may
> >help to determine what fraction of the suspected dark matter in the
> >universe consists of baryons ...
> >   ...   (A. Songalia et al., Nature, 14 April 1994.)
> 
> I stumbled across this yesterday down in the library. 
> 
> You folks interested in Dark Matter should look up this issue.  In 
> addition to the article, there is a News & Comment by Bahcall that 
> discusses the implications of this measurement (which might only 
> be an upper limit) for ideas on dark matter.  Specifically, I think 
> he said that this ratio implies that there is very little baryonic 
> dark matter, but I was really  looking for other stuff so did not 
> commit any details to memory.

PLUS: On page 18 of New Scientist 16 April 1994 and 20 Aug 1994 The
Astrophysical Journal gives evidences that the Big Bang, Inflationary
models are merely poppycock. But do you think the physics community is
alarmed? Hell no, next week Nature and New Scientist will allow free
press coverage to all the birdbrains in the physics community to come
back and rebuttal. Science journals operate under a profit and book
fleecing motive long before they operate under the desire to establish
the truth. Watch the science journals pretend as if nothing bad was
said about the Big Bang. Watch them pretend as if "all is normal".

THE ABOVE FACTS CAN ONLY BE EXPLAINED BY AN ATOM TOTALITY, AND THAT THE
MISSING MASS IS THE NUCLEUS OF 231PU. THE BIG BANG IS A PRIMITIVE IDEA
OF SIMPLY THE NEPTUNIUM ATOM TOTALITY SPONTANEOUSLY FISSIONING (THE BIG
BANG PART) INTO OUR PRESENT PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY.

Watch upcoming New Scientist and Nature editions. Watch how they will
let representatives of Hawking and Weinberg and Narlikar and Schramm
have their rebuttal baloney to try to calm the physics community down.
All so that they can bask longer in the limelight and sell more of
their fleecing books on science fiction.

LP                         94th ELECTRON OF 231PU
               Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH ELECTRON

                  \ ::| :./.
                  .\::|::/.:
                     _ _
                    (:Y:)
                     - - 
                  ::/.|.\.:
                :: /.:| :\.:
                  /   |   \.
        One of those dots is the Sun with 9 smaller dots around it.
Look in a chemistry textbook or quantum physics textbook of the
electron cloud dot picture. 
                 
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.09 / Cameron Bass /  Re: wave overlap calculation
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: wave overlap calculation
Date: Mon, 9 May 1994 13:15:59 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <9405082139.AA13083@suntan>,
BERNECKY WILLIAM R <BERNECKY@nl.nuwc.navy.mil> wrote:
>Wave overlap between two deuterons
>
>The following is an argument for how and why the Coulomb poten-
>tial barrier between two deuterons can be surmounted with only
>room temperature kinetic energy.
[stuff deleted]
>
>     4.) The Coulomb force between the two deuterons will not
>     significantly disrupt their momentum values. 

     Nice miracle.  

                              dale bass

cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.09 / J Buzzard /  Re: The "two types of Hydrogen Theory"
     
Originally-From: phyjab1@phyd4c4.caledonia.hw.ac.uk (Jonathan A Buzzard)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The "two types of Hydrogen Theory"
Date: Mon, 9 May 1994 11:23:30 GMT
Organization: Heriot-Watt University


--

>My first post to this group.  I've been reading it for a long time, but I just
>had to reply to this plea to rewrite the whole basis of physics.

I give up, I *never* ever sugested to rewrite the whole basis of physics, rather
no to glibly dismiss a theory on the basis that it is not 100%
consistant with the current theory. If you use those criteria science
would never advance, as the whole basis of a new theory is precisely
that it is not 100% consistant with the old theory, but describes
some new phenomena that the old theory did not, and only in some
limit be consistent with the old theory (though this is not necessarly
always the case).

The original poster dismissed the `new theory' of two types of
hydrogen on the basis that one of the greatest successes of quantum
mechanics is the modeling of the hydrogen atom thus this new theory
must be utter rubbish. This is bad science, and I only attempted
by way of historical example to show some of the pitfalls of this
attitude. If you want to dismiss a theory it should only be done
using a good scientific method.

JAB.

 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan A. Buzzard,              
Physics Department,           Email:-
Heriot-Watt University,            phyjab1@caledonia.hw.ac.uk   InterNet
Edinburgh. EH14 4AS                phyjab1@uk.ac.hw.clust       JANET
United Kingdom.
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenphyjab1 cudfnJonathan cudlnBuzzard cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.10 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Resend
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Originally-From:	FNALD::DROEGE        9-MAY-1994 12:06:29.70
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Resend
Date: Tue, 10 May 1994 00:14:04 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Originally-From:	FNALD::DROEGE        9-MAY-1994 12:06:29.70
To:	SMTP%"fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org"
CC:	DROEGE
Subj:	Re: Explosion

Once again John Logajan hits the nail on the head by doing a simple
computation.  Yes, running all that time would likely make the lead bricks
hot.  

But I also note a good job by Noninski who was careful to only describe what
he observed.  Only true blue believers would instantly jump to the conclusion
that Noninski had observed something unusual.  

It is rather fun observing all this.  Much better for the head than the 
evening news - and every bit as entertaining.

Tom Droege

cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenDROEGE cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.09 / Arthur TK /  Re: Ignition & Breakeven --Commercial EPIC - BIBLICAL
     
Originally-From: awc@ipp-garching.mpg.de (Arthur      Carlson        TK  )
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Ignition & Breakeven --Commercial EPIC - BIBLICAL
Date: 9 May 1994 16:56:31 +0200
Organization: Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics


In article <CpIuw2.1pn@prometheus.UUCP>, pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) 
writes a lot of nonsense. Although it wastes bandwidth, he does has a right to
do this. Furthermore, it is the sort of nonsense that might sound substantial
because he knows a fair amount of jargon, but in fact I can find almost no
content to which I could reply. This is not unusual on the Internet, and I
would ordinarily let it pass. In this case, I would like to offer anyone who
is left with the impression that Paul Koloc understands the first thing about
tokamaks to post or email his questions so that we can discuss the substantial
issues. I have better things to do than to write detailed replies to Koloc's
anti-tokamak hot air, and you have better things to do than to read long-winded
replies to replies to replies.

Art Carlson
Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics
Garching, Germany
awc@ipp-garching.mpg.de
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenawc cudfnArthur cudlnTK cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.09 / Robert Eachus /  Re: Submission for sci.physics.fusion
     
Originally-From: eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Submission for sci.physics.fusion
Date: 9 May 94 16:29:04
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.

In article <0097E051.6A92FDE0.4050@FSCVAX.FSC.MASS.EDU> vnoninski@fscvax
fsc.mass.edu writes:

   > ...The glass in small pieces was covering the bottom of the lead
   > construction, small pieces of glass were stuck in the side walls,
   > the front of the NaI detector was seriously dented...

   You might want to use a magnifying glass and check (carefully)
whether all the glass is shattered, or if some of it melted.  I know
of a similar event several (30+) years ago involving a high pressure
Xenon arc lamp.  The power supply used was such that if the lamp
managed a sufficiently low impedance, and the choke in the power
supply saturated, the tube would act as if directly connected across
the main...  (Years later we figured out how to achieve negative
impedance in the tube under very controlled conditions.)

   Back to ancient history, the quartz envelope of the tube sort of
flash melted, the droplets solidified in the air, and stuck to/into
whatever they hit.  Norm Macbeth, Jr. was standing if front of the
lamp, and his coat and vest were shredded, but his shirt survived.
(We never knew if his--decades later--health/cancer problems were
related, but our--again decades later, and after he died--calculations
indicated that he got several dozen RADs.)

   So if you get an arc in the flask, and if your power supply relies
on chokes (not transformers) for filtering, you would be amazed at how
much energy you can draw.  Especially if, like in the case above, you
are next door to an (electric) substation.

--

					Robert I. Eachus

with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudeneachus cudfnRobert cudlnEachus cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Tue May 10 04:37:04 EDT 1994
------------------------------
1994.05.09 / L Plutonium /  SKITS 20-22, and finis of NEANDERTHAL PARK
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.math,sci.physics,sci.chem,sci.bio,sci.physics.fusion,sci
psychology,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,alt.religion.kibology,alt.cesium
Subject: SKITS 20-22, and finis of NEANDERTHAL PARK
Date: 9 May 1994 23:47:35 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

   These skits will end NEANDERTHAL PARK. There may be a sequel to
Neanderthal Park later, provided more posters post their psychological
tinker toys posing as logical arguments. Their arguments have such
gaping holes that you can fly a jumbo jet through the holes.
Neanderthal Park II will come if I get ambitious and have more time.

SKIT 20

  It was remarked awhile ago in sci.math that ordinary language is not
good enough for math. That math is precise and that is why math wants
to veer away from common day language. I tend to be in the middle
ground on this saying that it is impossible to completely go over to
any one side (math on one side-poetry on the other) and so why bother
with it. My feeling is that Quantum Mechanics and Atomic theory will
answer all questions and be the final ARBITER, not math, and not
language or poetry. This skit is about the arrogance of math people who
think that math is "oh, so, so, precise".
  Show cattle chewing their cud. Show gnus chewing their cud. Show math
professors chewing bubble gum. Show females sitting in front of their
computers and playing with their hair for 4 hours, occasionally typing
something. Girls in front of computers fixing and braiding their hair.
"For hell-sake can you leave your hair alone and get busy."
  Show physics professors blowing bubble gum while simultaneously
eating pop corn. The point of this skit is to show the decadence,
arrogance of the math community when LP lived. Show the movie scene in
Millennium where the statement is made "Beginning of the end, end of
the beginning." Now most every math person will take that as
meaningless or as something found in a Country-Western hit song (I
loved her so much, I hated her, the do run run).
  Show a hockey puck put in the midst of two aggressive hockey teams.
Show the idea "end of the beginning" put in the midst of a philosophy
class. Show math professors and math students disparage the statement.
Then show LP walking down the hallway with his backpack on and suitcase
in hand as usual. Show LP stop everyone by saying all ideas, all
languages, all thoughts, all physics, and all math can be rectified
after they are run through the sieve of Quantum Mechanics and the
ATOMIC VIEW.

SKIT 21 

In article <2qbgfc$s7p@sun2.ruf.uni-freiburg.de>
goette@arcade (Sebastian Goette) writes:

> Yes, quite a good idea. There might be something behind all that rubbish,
> who knows. But as that would be some completely new mathematics,
> why don't we create a new group for that purpose (maybe sci.math.plutonium
> or alt.sci.math.plutonium (there already is alt.sci.physics.plutonium))?
> Just a group for the discussion of LP's ideas (and maybe for new proofs
> of fermats last theorem and the like).

  NEANDERTHAL PARK has attempted to show many of the perverse
psychological METHODS of debate against the Atom Totality. There are
the straw-man arguments and the ad hominem attacks on LP. There was the
method of DENIAL of EVIDENCES when I  gave numerous evidences. There
was the method of trying to EXHAUST LP by saying "Well LP has not shown
any evidence" after LP has shown more than 30 different evidences. Then
there is the worst form of debate against LP, IGNORE. That is why
ignore is similar to ignorant.
  Today in Neanderthal Park we have a new method of argument against LP
and a new actor--Mr. Goette. The new method is a form of the old method
of DIVIDE AND CONQUER. Show Mr. Goette as the dog and cat catcher of
Neanderthal park. Show how the math community tried to divide off LP
from the community by saying "LP's math is different math from our
math." Show Mr. Goette running after the dogs and cats and catching
them. Show Mr. Goette handling a dog and swearing that it is a cat.
Then show him handling a cat and swearing that it is a dog. (Make sure
no harm is done to any animals in these scenes.)
   The point of this skit is to add to the stack of psychological
methods of arguing against LP. To show the future world that when
revolutionary truth comes in science and math which is Big and
Important New Truth. That the bandwagons of intuitionless math and
physics persons in the limelight throw an arsenal of stupid
psychological attacks against the new idea. 
   Show rats running in a maze. Show gerbils running on their spinning
wheel. Show physics professors talking about the Big Bang and black
holes. Show math professors giving Cantor's Fake proof of the Reals
Uncountable.

SKIT 22

   Show a caveman scene. Show one smarter caveman than the others. Show
him fashioning a tool. Show him invent the club. Show him make progress
with the club. Show him go back to the camp of other cavemen. Show the
other cavemen not understand the new invention of the club. Show the
chief of the cavemen say "show evidence that it works". The inventor
shows numerous evidences of the clubs use and utility. And yet the
chief of the cavemen says "well you have not shown evidence." Show the
inventor say "Oh, my 30 pieces of evidence were not good enough for
you, huh, well, how about evidence number 31." Inventor takes the club
and bats the chief on the head. Show LP get on the INTERNET in
1993-1994. 
   Show how most persons who do creative math and physics give only
incremental progress, nothing of big importance. Show that incremental
progress is the usual science, the normal science. Revolutionary
science seldom occurs. Show an example of normal science such as
Lederman's achievement which won him the Nobel Prize for neutrino work,
nothing noteworthy or big. 
   Show how a nice gentleman from Yale U. tried to encourage LP in 1993
to post his math and the Atom Totality in a more courteous manner. Show
that a courteous manner is needed and suitable in the "normal science
and normal math work", the incremental physics and math achievers. But
for the revolutionary new physics and math show that a club is needed.
Few people ever create incremental new physics or math, and
fewer-of-the-few ever create revolutionary new physics or math. If they
did they would know full well what I am saying. 

  FINIS with credits and names listed. Here at the finis have Kibo and
Rose Marie Holt in duo singing the following song accompanied by the
synthesized music as performed by Quiet Streams.
	Play IT LEADETH ME  , Music by W. Bradbury and lyrics by L. Plutonium

It leadeth me, O blessed thought. O words
with nuclear comfort fraught!
Whatever I do, wherever I be, Still tis Pu 
superdeterminism that leadeth me.
It leadeth me, It leadeth me, By its superdeterminism
it leadeth me, Its lasting follower
I would be, For by its superdeterminism it leadeth me.

Atom I would clasp thee in my hand. Nor
ever murmur nor repine
Content whatever lot I see, Since tis our
Atom that leadeth me
It leadeth me, It leadeth me, By its superdeterminism
it leadeth me, Its lasting follower
I would be, For by its superdeterminism it leadeth me.

And when my task on Earth is done, When
by thy radioactive growth won
Even deaths cold wave I will not flee
Since Pu superdeterminism leadeth me
It leadeth me, It leadeth me, By its superdeterminism
it leadeth me, Its lasting follower
I would be, For by its superdeterminism it leadeth me.
Atom
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.09 / Mark North /  Re: "Cold Fusion" Magazine Accelerating
     
Originally-From: north@watop.nosc.mil (Mark North)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: "Cold Fusion" Magazine Accelerating
Date: Mon, 9 May 1994 23:53:46 GMT
Organization: NCCOSC RDT&E Division, San Diego, CA

74242.1554@compuserve.com (John M. Logajan) writes:

>rmholt@u.washington.edu (Rose Marie Holt) writes:
>>The cost ($10) and the ads for Palladium medallions (for investment
>>purposes) tell me where the money is to be made in CF.

>The purchase of a magazine subscription or some minted palladium coins
>involves an entirely voluntary act on the part of the buyer and seller --

When you get a phone call telling you you've won a free trip to
Hawaii all you must do is come and listen to their land sales spiel --
that would be entirely voluntary but you wouldn't do it right? But lots
of folks do... and lose their shirts. They base their decisions on the
representations made. That's not a very good analogy, a better one 
would be the government oil lease scam. The one where all you must do
is send in $100 to secure the mineral rights to 10000 acres of 
public land in Colorado which is *certified* by petroleum *scientists*
to have at least X million dollars in potential earnings. Anyway,
I hope you get the point.

>unlike the money extracted from Washington state taxpayers under penalty
>of forfeiture and/or imprisonment in order to subsidize you at WSU.

This seems a bit of a cheap shot.

>And last I heard, not too many hot fusion researchers were forwarding the
>bulk of their stipends on to Mother Theresa.

I hope not. They're being paid by me and you to do a job. They damn well
better do it.

>Finally, consider the sheer number of dedicated individual researchers in
>CF who have dug deep into their own pockets to pay for their experiments. 
>Most of these people labor with no expectation of monentary recovery.

Other than Tom Droege could you name two or three others of the
'sheer number' who have emptied their pockets in this endeavor?

>Frankly, it would please me if all CF people made a nice profit -- it
>would please me even more if CF turned out to be true.  So where is the
>hostility coming from?

I totally agree with this paragraph. I would love to have to eat crow
over this affair. I'm not raising any crows in anticipation, though.

Mark

cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudennorth cudfnMark cudlnNorth cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.10 / John Logajan /  Re: Tools of the trade
     
Originally-From: 74242.1554@compuserve.com (John M. Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Tools of the trade
Date: Tue, 10 May 1994 03:27:54 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Two tools for the "experimenter's" toolbox:

1.) I found an epoxy at the hardware store called JB Weld.  It seems
pretty strong (I used it to repair a crack in my boat's cast iron engine
block).  It holds up pretty well to heat (but I got it to decompose at
high temperature created by a torch flame.)  It has a high electrical
resistance so I am thinking of using it as feedthru insulator for a low
pressure chamber.  I also might use it as a replacement for solder/braze/
welding in some applications -- especially with light gauge metal.

2.) I see that hardware stores also carry replacement thermocouples for
gas water heaters for about $8.00.  I put a torch to it and got it to
glow bright red, on the verge of orangish.  At that temperature the probe
was producing about 50 millivolts.  At room temperature, of course, the
voltage was zero.  And when dipped in ice water, the voltage went
negative.  So although calibration would be tricky, it seems to be a
readily available source of a very high temperature measuring device.
You will have to be able to read in the microvolt range if you want to
resolve per degree.


cudkeys:
cuddy10 cuden1554 cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.10 / L Plutonium /  Minimum Coulomb Interactions for plutonium?
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Minimum Coulomb Interactions for plutonium?
Date: 10 May 1994 02:30:33 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

pages 1190-1191 of PHYSICS Part 2 extended version Halliday & Resnick
1986

  "For atoms with substantially more than one electron the potential
energy function that we must substitute into the Schroedinger equation
involves the Coulomb interaction between many pairs of particles and
can rapidly become hopelessly complicated. In neon, for example, it can
be shown that, including the nucleus and the ten electrons, there are
no fewer than about 2 X 10^7 independent pairs of charges whose Coulomb
interactions must be taken into account if the Schroedinger equation is
to be solved rigorously. At this level of complexity rigorous solutions
are not possible, and we must rely on methods that are both approximate
and numerical."

What are the minimum Coulomb Interactions for plutonium?
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.09 / Robert Heeter /  Re: Question for Chubb/ More on claims of Miles and Bush - calc error?
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Question for Chubb/ More on claims of Miles and Bush - calc error?
Date: Mon, 9 May 1994 05:00:55 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

In article <north.768193230@watop> Mark North, north@watop.nosc.mil
writes:
>rfheeter@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Robert Franklin Heeter) writes:
>>In article <Cp889q.H2A@world.std.com> mica@world.std.com (mitchell
swartz) writes:

>>> [loads of codswallop elided ]
>>Come on Mitch, is it really so hard?
>Come on Dr Heeter, is it really so hard? The error of Swartz was so
>obvious and stupid doesn't it make you wonder why you're wasting your
time 
>answering? 

Whoa!  I won't be a "Dr." Heeter for many years to come (if at all!).  
I'm just a grad student, and in my first year at that.

The reason I answered it was because if Mitch got confused, I figured
some of the novice lurkers out there might also have gotten confused.
The fact that I think of it as "obvious" and you think of it as
"obvious and stupid" doesn't mean that it's a waste of time to clarify
the issue so there can be no further confusion.  I wasn't sure Dr.
Jones would have the time or inclination to reply himself, so I
wrote a response.

>Think about it, all you're doing is legitimizing his 'objections'
>in the eyes of his clients. 

I don't think anyone could construe my response as a 
legitimization of Mitch's objection!

[[ some stuff deleted. ]]

>PS: Sorry to pick on you, Dr Heeter, but I've seen far too many
>people I respect give more respect than is due to these opportunists.

I was more concerned about clarifying the issue for the less
technically-inclined lurkers out there.

***************************
Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University
As always, I represent only myself, and not PPPL
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.09 / Robert Heeter /  (Long) Delayed Response to Old Koloc Article
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: (Long) Delayed Response to Old Koloc Article
Date: Mon, 9 May 1994 06:56:42 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

Thanks to Dave Pierson, whose repost of this article kept it on my
system long enough for me to get time to reply.

In article <CpCnAv.JoA@ryn.mro.dec.com> dave pierson,
pierson@msd26.enet.dec.com writes:
>
>In article <Cp5yDE.4LD@prometheus.UUCP>, pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M.
Koloc) writes...
>>In article <1994Apr28.033254.23046@Princeton.EDU> Robert F. Heeter 
><rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> writes:
>>>In article <CovoJJ.pA@prometheus.UUCP> Paul M. Koloc,
pmk@prometheus.UUCP
>>>writes:
 
>>>I was saying the international fusion community reviewed the
experimental
>>>and theoretical results.  Are you saying that they shouldn't?
>> 
>>No, I don't think that is what you were saying.  The way I read it
>>was that the US National Mag Fusion Program was being reviewed in
>>part by international scientists, IMPLYING that they were disinterested
>>fair and impartial reviewers from afar that had no gain or connection
>>with the program.  What should have been said was that a group of
>>ITER scientist where looking at the program to help slide it past
>>the B. Johnson traps.        :-)_

No, because most of the reviews I referred to occurred before ITER was 
conceived, and before B. Johnston (note spelling) was making political 
traps in this area.

The implication was that the international reviewers were as close to
disinterested, fair, and impartial as you could find within the set of
people qualified to review the program.

>>>As for the program reviewers:  Anyone with a solid grasp of the field,
>>>and therefore capable of being a reviewer, will not be impartial, under
>>>your logic.  As Matt Kennel (I believe) pointed out the last time we 
>>>went through this argument, the DOE *has* had non-fusion plasma
physicists
>>>review the program as well.  
>> 
>>That's kind of tough, since 95% of the funding for plasma physics, came
>>from the fusion program, and most of the plasma physicists, took courses
>>which were at least written by fusion plasma physicists or attended
>>Universities with active fusion programs in progress during the time
>>of their education. I would be interested in having the names, because
>>I don't believe that these were disinterested.  There was likely some
>>other connection or they were of such stature as to be not influential.
 

The early entrants to the field certainly weren't trained by fusion
physicists or in university when research was being pursued.  And it
is generally these senior researchers who sit on reviews.  I don't
buy your argument.

But if were to buy your logic, there are *no* impartial reviewers.  
Like I said above.  But they *have* to have reviewers, and they 
*have* chosen from the *least* biased sets, namely international 
and non-fusion plasma physicists.  What more do you want?!?!!

>>>Is it better to choose an impartial
>>>but inexpert review panel, or to choose an expert review panel, with
>>>some (but the minimum possible) political incentive to be partial,
>>>and then to keep the bias in mind in reading their recommendations? 
>> 
>>Impossible.  Where is your ethics, my good fellow.  

I'm just following your logic through.  If there are no qualified
reviewers who are also unbiased, then the best you can do is try to
account for that bias in evaluating the review.  You certainly don't
want a panel of non-experts who are likely to have zero credibility
and/or make major mistakes, do you?  Why are you trying to avoid
making the choice dictated by your own logic?  And why are you accusing
me of being unethical?

Or do you believe that objectivity is possible in politics, and that
you can choose a panel and not try to evaluate the possible contribution
of panelists' bias to the report?  If so, why are you complaining that
DOE evaluations are biased in the first place?

[[ On ICF plasma physicists as relatively impartial reviewers. ]]
>>>But they don't go through the Office of Fusion Energy, and they are
>>>appropriated in a different way, through a different process, so the
>>>researchers in that field are not politically dependent on the OFE
>>>funding.
>> 
>>That's true, but if OFE did, the DoE Defense wouldn't be funded for
>>ICF, except as required by Congressional law.  

I don't understand your grammar here.  All fusion funding is required
by congressional law; duh.  These are items specified in the budget.

 
>>>No, you were saying that 6 MW of power output was a factor of 2000
below
>>>a commercial reactor.  I don't want to build a 12 GW reactor; I want to
>>>build a 3 GW (thermal) reactor that will generate 1 GW of electricity,
>>>even after I suck off a few hundred MW to control my plasma.  Losses
>>>aren't relevant to the discussion at all.
>> 
>>No you don't, not at the cost a tokamak power generator would be.  
>>you are going to need 12 Gigawatts to get 2 gigawatt out electric max.  
>>Your estimate of 33% efficiency is a farce.  

Funny how all the reactor design studies come to opposite conclusions.
Read the ESECOM study (Holdren et al), or the ARIES study (Conn et al),
or any other serious tokamak design study, and tell me how your claim
is justified.
>> 
>>>>I have a florescent lamp that has a Lawson criteria that will make
your 
>>>>improved tokamak look anemic. 
>> 
>>>What's so special about it?
>> 
>>Nothing, buy one you will like it.  

You care to show me the calculation that says a standard fluorescent light
has a fusion-grade beta?  My estimate is T~0.010 KeV (Ionization energy), 
n<~1E23/m^3 (neutral gas about 2 Torr), and Tau-E (energy confinement
time) 
~1 microsecond (thermal velocity about 1000m/s, size about 1 cm, so ion
hits wall in about 1 microsecond).  I get a Lawson product of about
1E15 sec-KeV/m^3 for your fluorescent lamp.  TFTR goes up 
to 5.8E20 sec-KeV/m^3.  Which one looks anemic?  I don't see fusion
happening in your lightbulb.
>> 
[[ Debate about heating energy to plasma at ignition deleted, as
this debate has been thoroughly handled by others elsewhere. ]]
 
>>>On the contrary, you can improve the Lawson value by improving the
>>>stability and allowing higher beta (through advanced plasma shapes),
>>>and *also* by improving the energy confinement time.  The easiest
>>>way to improve the energy confinement time is by making a larger
>>>device.  How can you assert that "increased confinement time"
>>>"won't happen", as you do above?  How else can you explain the 
>>>difference in confinement times in JET, TFTR, and JT-60?
>> 
>>Bull. You can raise Beta all right with shape adjustment, but that
>>sacrifices mag pressure.  You can't have it both ways.  Proof?
>>Look at Doublet results.  

What?  If I raise Beta, by definition I am *not* sacrificing magnetic
pressure to anything.  Beta = plasma pressure / magnetic pressure.
What's your problem here?
>> 
>>Confinement time also relates to size (inductance), and what effect 
>>current diameter you run on the machine.  Again narrow the diameter 
>>and you gain pressure, at the expense of stability.  The bigger the
>>longer the time, and the hotter the electrons the longer the 
>>confinement time.  TK Chu even knows that confinement time can 
>>be extended "extremely long" by running with energetic currents.  Of
>>course, that hacks ohmic heating.  So what are you going to do??

So you *agree* that larger machines have higher confinement times,
in contradiction to your original claim?

[[ Paul originally claimed Princeton was dishonest and arrogant, behaving
like "sleeze artisans"; then claimed not to have accused Princeton of
being
dishonest. I then quoted his original claim:]]
>>>On the contrary, what you said (which I will reproduce from the
>>>top of your message), is:
>> 
>>>>>>I think the science breakeven or not is a trivial question, because
the
>>>>>>real problem is the factor of 2000 shortfall in power that needs to
be 
>>>>>>come before commercial operation is even possible.  However, the
other
>>>>>>point that should not be missed, is that it is obvious that
Princeton
>>>>>>is not being up front, is being arrogant and these to factors are
often
>>>>>>associated with sleeze artisans.  That has whacked their credibility
>>>>>>a bit, which doesn't help.  
>> 
>>Okay, it boils done to the fact that I believe friends of mine who
worked
>>at PPPL and ran numbers which were "unacceptable" for publication until
>>they were manipulated to data that was not in keeping with the
scientific
>>reality.  This happened in this case, and in studies of the "wall
problem". 

Ok, so your claim "I DID NOT SAY THAT" (earlier post) wasn't true.  You
now admit to making this claim, and to then claiming not to have made it.
Now you claim that you have some privileged information from anonymous
"friends" alleging that someone presssured someone else at PPPL into 
fudging a result, and therefore it is "obvious" that *Princeton* (not just
one person, now!) is "not being up front, is being arrogant".  Seems to
me the not-up-front award goes to you, for arrogantly claiming that 
something was "obvious" on the basis of information you alone seem to
have;
and that the "sleeze artisan" award also goes to you, for leaping to the
conclusion that because someone alleges that someone at PPPL was
dishonest,
therefore *Princeton* as a whole is dishonest.  I personally resent the
smear you have attempted to make here, and humbly suggest that if you
want to accuse someone of being non-up-front, arrogant, and possibly
sleazy, that you do so without engaging in similar tactics yourself.
 
>>>As I wrote in another article, I think we should definitely look
>>>into alternative concepts which could someday beat the tokamak, but
>>>since the TFTR results suggest that the tokamak will make a 
>>>competitive energy source, there's no reason to kill the tokamak.
>> 
>>You don't have the slightest idea if it would be competitive or not.  

You don't seem to have the slightest idea what I do and do not 
have the slightest idea about.  If you want to read the articles that
say it is likely to be competitive, go read the articles cited in
Section C of Part 11 of the FAQ.  This is the bibliography section
on fusion research.  The major European and American studies all
indicate that the tokamak is likely to be a competitive energy source.

>>Nor do you avocations suggest a path to changing that situation, since
>>more funds for fusion will not happen.  

How can you be so sure?  What do my hobbies ("avocations") have to do
with this?

>>What do the a power companies
>>that have made the study say about the likelyhood of your "competitive
>>toakamak".   

I assume here you are referring to the EPRI study.

The EPRI panel didn't consider economics or physics issues.  
(At least as of the article by Hirsch, et al, "Report of the 1992
EPRI Fusion Panel," in _Journal of Fusion Energy_ vol. 11, Nos 3/4,
1992.  They simply said, in effect, "If we could have any fusion 
reactor we can imagine, and it were physical and economical, what 
features would we like it to have?"  Given that they just assume 
anything at all will work, you can't judge likelihood of success 
based on the EPRI report.  

The ESECOM panel, as with most other panels that have considered
real-world physics and real-world economics questions, concluded 
that the tokamak would be competitive with fission plants; the panel 
included R.D. Endicott of the Public Service Electric and Gas 
Company (Newark), and other industry scientists. 

>>I think the answer if left to them it would NOT even be 
>>in contention.   What background do you have for making such a
judgement? 

I think the EPRI report is mostly hypothetical, wishful thinking.  If
you want to present a different study with a serious argument that
the tokamak won't be "competitive", I'm all ears.

As for the background I have to make such a judgment:  for a start,
you could make a list of the bibliography entries which have my
name attached to the annotations; I've read just about all those
publications.  I've also got a bunch of articles sitting around here that 
haven't made it into the bibliography yet.  I've listened to, and
talked to, some of the top tokamak scientists in the country (here
at PPPL) about these issues.  I've been studying it on my own since
before I got here, because the direction of my career clearly
depends on whether fusion, and particularly tokamak fusion, has a future.
This is true regardless of whether I end up working on tokamaks or
not.  Having read the literature, and asked the scientists, I
give you the general conclusion:  the tokamak is likely to be a 
competitive energy source.

So what's *your* background for judging the competitiveness of 
the tokamak?

***************************
Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University
As always, I represent only myself, and not PPPL
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.10 / Oliver Klimek /  Re: SKITS14-17 NEANDERTHAL PARK; Rush Limbaugh,Lederman,David
     
Originally-From: fm24@rummelplatz.uni-mannheim.de (Oliver Klimek)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,alt.religion.kibology,sci.math,sci
physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.chem,sci.bio
Subject: Re: SKITS14-17 NEANDERTHAL PARK; Rush Limbaugh,Lederman,David
Date: 10 May 1994 09:54:35 GMT
Organization: Rechenzentrum Uni-Mannheim (RUM)

Ludwig Plutonium (Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu) wrote:

[many, many names deleted]

: 184 crickwilkinswatsonium.
: 185 quantumelectrodynamicum.
: 186 bellaspectium.
: 187 paulisuperpositionum.
: 188 komplementarunexaktheitium. 
: 189 biotechnologyfusionum.
: 190 plutoniumatomtotalityum.

What about 190: chewinggum ?

Oliver


cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenfm24 cudfnOliver cudlnKlimek cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.10 / mitchell swartz /  Quest. for Chubb/More on claims of Miles and Bush - temporal characteristics
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Quest. for Chubb/More on claims of Miles and Bush - temporal characteristics
Subject: Re: Question for Chubb/More on claims of Miles and Bush - calc error?
Date: Tue, 10 May 1994 12:38:06 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

   In Message-ID: <north.768363396@watop>
Subject: Re: Question for Chubb/More on claims of Miles and Bush - calc error?
Mark North (north@watop.nosc.mil) tries to define his actions and writes:

=mnorth   "I know I promised continuous but have only been 
=mnorth   able to manage continual. Look up the difference 
=mnorth      in your *gag* 'Websters'."

   Although most here are probably quite aware of the denotation
 of those words, if Mr. North had done his minimal homework seriously,
then his research would have included a real dictionary,  which would
have rapidly informed him that one interpretation
is that he has managed **neither** continuous behavior nor a *steady state*
behavior recurring in steady rapid succession.

  after Webster (ibid)
      continual - continuing indefinitely in time without interruption
                       or recurring in steady rapid succession

      continuous - marked by uninterrupted extension in space time 
                     or sequence.

  As a result, one interpretation is that his behavior might be described
as neither.      Instead,  the temporal nature of Mark North's, 
albeit unusual and oft boorish, actions are irregularly irregular.
         Best wishes, colleagues.  
                                     Mitchell Swartz    (mica@world.std.com)


cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.10 / mitchell swartz /  Comment on "Bill Page on Chubb and Chubb" (anharmonic motion)
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Comment on "Bill Page on Chubb and Chubb" (anharmonic motion)
Subject: Re: Comment on "Bill Page on Chubb and Chubb"
Date: Tue, 10 May 1994 12:39:30 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

   In Message-ID: <1994May2.005346.2366@Princeton.EDU>
Subject: Re: Comment on "Bill Page on Chubb and Chubb"
Robert Franklin Heeter (rfheeter@phoenix.Princeton.EDU)  writes:

     >=  "Whether he makes it explicite or not
     >= Dr. Chubb has actually made an assertion that the nuclear part
     >= of the wave function which he separated as per the Born-Oppenheimer
     >= approximation is spread over all lattice sites just like the
     >= part of the wave function involving the center-of-mass motion
     >= of the deuteron.  It seems too strange to me, particularly when
     >= there are supposed to be only about 1 deuteron for every 10^7
     >= unit cells.  Isn't that extending the range of the nuclear interaction
     >= just a bit far?"
  >   Actually, since the cold fusion phenomena only occur at loadings
  >greater than circa 0.85, that would be much closer to 1 deuteron for every 
  >unit cell.    
  >   My friend, Dick Blue, appears to be off by 7 orders of magnitude in
  >this case, and should base his criticism upon correct facts.
=rh  "On the contrary, Dr. Blue was talking about the *band state* deuterons,
=rh which are the only ones that allegedly fuse, and the loading of 
=rh  *band state* deuterons is indeed very low in the Chubb theory."
=rh  
=rh  "I don't believe Chubb & Chubb have claimed that band state deuterons
=rh  fuse with ordinary deuterons that just happen to be stuck in the
=rh  lattice."

   Robert,given that Dick was discussing deuterons
loaded into palladium, and given the solid-state properties
it may be possible that if one loads adequately enough, and 
supplies sufficient energy and other conditions,
that anharmonic motions  [the dynamic Jahn Teller effect]
and diffusion effects alone
may make transfer of deuterons between  these two purported
different populations possible in short order.    

   Perhaps Keith Johnson, or another materials lurker,
might say more on this matter dealing with the decoration,
anharmonic, and diffusion issues.

     Best wishes.
                             Mitchell Swartz [mica@world.std.com]
  



cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.10 / mitchell swartz /  Question for Chubb/More on claims of Miles and Bush - logic error?
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Question for Chubb/More on claims of Miles and Bush - logic error?
Subject: Re: Question for Chubb/ More on claims of Miles and Bush - calc error?
Date: Tue, 10 May 1994 13:07:03 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

   In Message-ID: <1994May5.122902.1621@physc1.byu.edu>
Subject: Re: Question for Chubb/ More on claims of Miles and Bush - calc error?
Steven Jones [jonesse@physc1.byu.edu] writes:

=  "No, Mitch, my math was not wrong"

  Yes, Steve, Robert Heeter clarified your writing previously quite well,
but you have been wrong IMHO in your heckling of Mel Miles and 
his claims of detecting Geiger-Muller activity, and exposure of 
radiographic films, near Pd/D2O electrolytic cells. 

   >  The differential is the signal or 575/hour. 
   >   Now 575 > 51.     Is this a significant difference to you?
   =rh  "So you say it's an 11-sigma effect.  Ordinarily one would call 
   =rh  that quite significant.  But not if, as Dr. Jones points out, 
   =rh  there should also have been some signal seen on the neutron 
   =rh  meter as a result of accidental gamma collection.  And not if,
   =rh  as Tom Droege points out, one has reason to suspect that the
   =rh  Geiger detector's operating characteristics might subtly have
   =rh  been altered when the experiment was running."
   [Date: 5 May 1994;    Message-ID: <2qb7qa$4mo@tom.pppl.gov>
   Robert Franklin Heeter (rfheeter@phoenix.Princeton.EDU)]

 Specifically, your logic for any further denigration of the Miles paper ought
be presented with some **solid facts** to back up your 
sine-qua-non-neutron comments, because otherwise the situation
is as Robert states: "Ordinarily one would call that quite significant".

   Previously you claimed x-ray films, which had detected by imaging
active electrodes (thereby demonstrating significant image heterogeneity
located over some of the active electrodes),
were no good for detecting such radiation emitting cold fusion electrodes.

    However, you were, and remain, assured that it was likely
that a near century of successful and developing radiologic
technology had proven you wrong when good calibration condition are
used as was done in that paper.


=sj  "I would also call the reader's attention to a related post by Tom Droege
=sj  in the last few days which shows how artifactual 'signals' can be given
=sj  by a Geiger-Mueller counter.  I have offered to Miles et al. to use one
=sj  of our detectors, which would be more sensitive and reliable -- but they
=sj  have not accepted our offer."

    Now for you to claim artifactual 'signals' in Geiger-Mueller counters
make them unreliable.   How have so many used this equipment for
so long?

   Could it be that adequately controlled exposures of radiographic films
 are useful around the world?

  Could it be that adequately controlled, and shielded, GM tubes 
are useful around the world?        ;-)

 Best wishes. 
            Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com)




cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.09 / Matt Kennel /  Re: The "two types of Hydrogen Theory"
     
Originally-From: mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The "two types of Hydrogen Theory"
Date: 9 May 1994 19:11:09 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

Jonathan A Buzzard (phyjab1@phyd4c4.caledonia.hw.ac.uk) wrote:

: --

: >My first post to this group.  I've been reading it for a long time, but I just
: >had to reply to this plea to rewrite the whole basis of physics.

: I give up, I *never* ever sugested to rewrite the whole basis of physics,
: rather not to glibly dismiss a theory on the basis that it is not 100% ;
consistant with the current theory.  :If you use those criteria science
would never advance, : as the whole basis of a new theory is precisely that
it : is not 100% consistant with the old theory, :but describes some new
phenomena that the old theory : did not, and only in some : limit be
consistent with : the old theory (though this is not necessarly bbalways the
case).


: The original poster dismissed the `new theory' of two types of hydrogen on
: the basis that one of the greatest successes of quantum mechanics is : the
modeling of the hydrogen atom thus this new theory must be utter : rubbish.
This is bad science, and I only attempted by way of historical : example to
show some of the pitfalls of this attitude. If : you want to dismiss a
theory : it should only be done using a good scientific methbod.

: JAB.

maybe not quite `100% consistent?'  That's an understatement.

Perhaps you don't know the whole truth.  The two types of hydrogen theory
that we've seen here dismisses all of quantum mechanics.  No schroedinger
equation.  No matrix mechanics.  No Hund's rules.  No electron diffraction.
No stark effect.  No hybridization.  No spin-orbit effects.  None of the
thousands of quantitatively verified predictions of QM.  Think of all those
transition rates.  Think of all those energy level differences.  Think of
QED.  Think of nuclear scattering. Remember it took real experimental
results from 1920 to 1935 to nail QM down, physicist just didn't invent
it for no particular reason.

It replaces physics *in some very limited circumstances* (hydrogen like
atoms???) with an odd not-very-comprehnsible vaguely classical
electromagnetic notions with weird quantization rules.  There's no obvious
way to extend this to other circumstances, unlike QM.

: Jonathan A. Buzzard,              
: Physics Department,           Email:-

cheers
Matt

--
-Matt Kennel  		mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu
-Institute for Nonlinear Science, University of California, San Diego
-*** AD: Archive for nonlinear dynamics papers & programs: FTP to
-***     lyapunov.ucsd.edu, username "anonymous".
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenmbk cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.09 / Matt Kennel /  Re: Ignition & Breakeven --Commercial EPIC - BIBLICAL
     
Originally-From: mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Ignition & Breakeven --Commercial EPIC - BIBLICAL
Date: 9 May 1994 19:18:49 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

Paul M. Koloc (pmk@prometheus.UUCP) wrote:
: The engineering development PATH is to move the tokamak on through 
: the spheromak generation and then to our PLASMAK(tm) embodiment. 

Dr. Koloc, you just have a PR problem.   Watch.

In your documents and proposals, replace 'tokamak' with 'conventional
tokamak designs', and replace 'PLASMAK(tm)' with 'advanced tokamak design'.

Voila!  You are part of the Tokamak Program now.  Same science, less
ego trampling.  

: | Paul M. Koloc,Bx 1037, Prometheus II, Ltd., College Park, MD 20741-1037 |

--
-Matt Kennel  		mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu
-Institute for Nonlinear Science, University of California, San Diego
-*** AD: Archive for nonlinear dynamics papers & programs: FTP to
-***     lyapunov.ucsd.edu, username "anonymous".
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenmbk cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.10 / James Crotinger /  Re: was Overblown -->DoE's "review" and Tokamak: Commerial?
     
Originally-From: jac@moonshine.llnl.gov (James A. Crotinger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: was Overblown -->DoE's "review" and Tokamak: Commerial?
Date: 10 May 94 17:21:54 GMT
Organization: Magnetic Fusion Energy - LLNL

stek@amazon.pfc.mit.edu (PAUL) writes:
> >From: jac@moonshine.llnl.gov (James A. Crotinger)
> >  I'm sorry, but this statement contradicts the previous. If you reach
> >ignition, then the external heating power will be essentially zero.
> >ITER, as currently envisioned, will ignite and operate in this regime
> >for a considerable time. You do need some heating to get you to
> >ignition, but for ITER that heating is not all that significant.

> Not quite.  There is a big need for power for current drive.  
> For Lower Hybrid CD you need something like 100 MW absorbed for 
> ITER.  (this is the number given 4 or so years ago.)  
> Assume 60% absorption in the right mode, 40% efficiency in 
> producing the RF, and 30% efficinecy in converting fusion
> power to electric and you need 1.3 GW of thermal power just 
> to break even.  

  But the current vision of ITER (which is MUCH different than the CDA
vision from several years ago) has NO current drive -- it is ohmic
with pulse lengths on the order of 1000 s. I agree that if there is
current drive, then Q will always be finite.

  Jim

--
 ------------------------------------------------/\--------------------------
James A. Crotinger     Lawrence Livermore N'Lab // \ The above views are mine
jac@moonshine.llnl.gov P.O. Box 808;  L-630 \\ //---\  and are not neces-
(510) 422-0259         Livermore CA  94550   \\/Amiga\  sarily those of LLNL.
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenjac cudfnJames cudlnCrotinger cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.10 / SCOTT CHASE /  Re: Minimum Coulomb Interactions for plutonium?
     
Originally-From: sichase@csa5.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Minimum Coulomb Interactions for plutonium?
Date: 10 May 1994 14:42 PST
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA

In article <2qmrk9$nv8@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>, Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmout
.edu (Ludwig Plutonium) writes...
>pages 1190-1191 of PHYSICS Part 2 extended version Halliday & Resnick
>1986
> 
>  "For atoms with substantially more than one electron the potential
>energy function that we must substitute into the Schroedinger equation
>involves the Coulomb interaction between many pairs of particles and
>can rapidly become hopelessly complicated. In neon, for example, it can
>be shown that, including the nucleus and the ten electrons, there are
>no fewer than about 2 X 10^7 independent pairs of charges whose Coulomb
>interactions must be taken into account if the Schroedinger equation is
>to be solved rigorously. At this level of complexity rigorous solutions
>are not possible, and we must rely on methods that are both approximate
>and numerical."
> 
>What are the minimum Coulomb Interactions for plutonium?

I don't know how Halliday and/or Resnick arrived at this number, but I 
believe it to be wrong.  Neon has a total of 20 charges, 60 if you foolishly
treat it at the quark level.  The number of distinct pairs of objects which 
you can form from a set of 20 is 20*21/2 = 210.  Believe me, that's more 
than enough to make your Schroedinger equation unsolvable.  

-Scott 
 -------------------
Scott I. Chase            "It is not a simple life to be a single cell,
SICHASE@CSA2.LBL.GOV       although I have no right to say so, having
                           been a single cell so long ago myself that I
                           have no memory at all of that stage of my
                           life." - Lewis Thomas
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudensichase cudfnSCOTT cudlnCHASE cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Wed May 11 05:13:09 EDT 1994
------------------------------
1994.05.10 / John Logajan /  Re: "Cold Fusion" Magazine Accelerating
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: "Cold Fusion" Magazine Accelerating
Date: 10 May 1994 23:12:11 GMT
Organization: Sky Point Communications, Inc.


Mark North (north@watop.nosc.mil) wrote:
: ... the government oil lease scam. The one where all you must do
: is send in $100 to secure the mineral rights to 10000 acres of 
: public land in Colorado which is *certified* by petroleum *scientists*
: to have at least X million dollars in potential earnings.

We can all think of fraudulent schemes.  But we must distinquish (when speaking
of ethics) between controversial truth, good faith error, and willful 
prevarication.  Merely alleging that fraud can exist in general does not
add any weight to a specific charge of fraud.  Not only must we *prove* that
the claims are in error, but we must also demonstrate beyond a reasonable
doubt that the actions of the participants were willful.

In this context, it is very hard to imagine a blanket claim of willful
behavior in regard to CF activities.  Recall that our very own Dr. Steven
Jones was diligently searching for CF up until late last year or so.  The
theoretical objections to CF were as strong during his years of investigation
as they are today.  Do we lump Dr. Jones past behavior in the fraud bin?
(I hope not!)

Or do we arbitrarily establish an ethical demarcation -- BJ and AJ (Before
Jones and After Jones)?  Anyone who is still conducting CF research AJ is 
engaging in willful fraud?  As much as I respect Dr. Jones (BJ and AJ :-)
I can't see the justification for using him (or anyone else you care to
mention) as the final arbiter in such a controversial matter.

To justify a specific accustation of fraud against an individual is difficult
enough -- to justify a general accusation of fraud against a whole field
is more formidable by several orders of magnitude.

--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com -- 612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills  MN 55112 USA           -

cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.11 / Paul Koloc /  Re: (EPIC) Delayed Response to Koloc Old Article
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: (EPIC) Delayed Response to Koloc Old Article
Date: Wed, 11 May 1994 11:18:56 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <1994May9.065642.23881@Princeton.EDU> Robert F. Heeter
<rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> writes:
>Thanks to Dave Pierson, whose repost of this article kept it on my
>system long enough for me to get time to reply.
>
>In article <CpCnAv.JoA@ryn.mro.dec.com> dave pierson,
>pierson@msd26.enet.dec.com writes:
>>
>>In article <Cp5yDE.4LD@prometheus.UUCP>, pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M.
>Koloc) writes...
>>>In article <1994Apr28.033254.23046@Princeton.EDU> Robert F. Heeter 
>><rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> writes:

>No, because most of the reviews I referred to occurred before ITER was 
>conceived, and before B. Johnston (note spelling) was making political 
>traps in this area.

Spelling was known, but writing is phonetic from brain echos, not imaged
print. .... :-)    And this was way before that tv_learn_to_read thingy.  

Good for you, but refer to old international reviewers or not, they are
out of date (if they ever had any former import) and so they now have 
little or nothing to do with the much more up to date and current reviews 
(international) that the USDoE and the ITER empire builders were referring
to in their presentation of blissful progress to date reports to 
congress (Krebs) a few weeks back.  

>The implication was that the international reviewers were as close to
>disinterested, fair, and impartial as you could find within the set of
>people qualified to review the program.

Bull 

>>>>As for the program reviewers:  Anyone with a solid grasp of the field,
>>>>and therefore capable of being a reviewer, will not be impartial, under
>>>>your logic.  

No, that's not true.  There are those QUALIFIED that are outside the 
Sphere of Conflict, but they are not "lock steppers", and therefore 
"DoE unqualified".  There are people that quit because of the ethical 
problems imposed by this, and there are those that were fired, and 
there are those that have never really been a part of the main stream 
because they don't just have an interest in cozy jobs with big machines 
and nice facilites with socials and loss of integrity.  They are not 
there to judge. 

In about ten years, about 50 to 65% of another thick headed group 
of AC expermentalists and fewer AC theorists (now out on their 
proverbial donkeys) will finally figure out that they have been 
victimized by this government funding storm, of which the tokamak 
became the principal and overwhelming thunderhead.  It's no one's 
"plot", its just that bureaucracies can become a kind of living 
organism that starts out with great intent, but ends up only knowing 
the reality of what it is -- inside  --  ego maniacal.  Each cell 
(plasma-techoid in this case) shifts their own view a tad; but the 
sum of the mass of this shift is an enormous accumulative distortion.  
So you, for example, YOU RH, "LOVE Advanced Concepts and would like 
to see them funded!"   ...   NO -- a BIG lie You have drifted into,
which is TO yourself and acts AGAINST your integrity.  The operative 
PHRASE was left unsaid.  It qualifies the REALITY of your position 
(and that coincidentally of the bureaucracy).

     "IFF MY program --oops--   OUR worthy best concept of all, and
the MOTHER of all Plasma Devices, the TOKAMAK --  will not have to 
give up one farthing, then and only then should AC be funded.   

                      HEH! HeH! Heh.
The little bastards are without a prayer, since congress can't fork
over one more dime. Golly, my postion is fairly secure.  Heh heh 
heh.    

  FARTHING: (a small worthless coin akin to the "mil" of the 30's 
and early 40's and equal to what the power companies will be worth 
if they depend on tokamak fusion).  

>>>>went through this argument, the DOE *has* had non-fusion plasma
>physicists >>>>review the program as well.  

So what, the Conflict of INTEREST rule applies no matter what their
background.  As I said there are those non-locksteppers that are 
fully qualified. There are also lock-steppers that should be 
disqualified because of the conflict of interest rule even though 
they may be volunteer money contributers to Mother Theresa. 

The following have a conflict of interest and may grade papers
but not funding.  
1.   Anyone that agrees, explicitly or otherwise to "walk in 
       lockstep" or even entertain such nonsense even in limited 
       situations is NOT QUALIFIED, as are 
2.  those who benefit directly or secondarily by the program, or 
3.  who are helping out their institute, buddies, etc. etc.   

>>>I don't believe that these were disinterested.  There was likely some
>>>other connection or they were of such stature as to be not influential.

>The early entrants to the field certainly weren't trained by fusion
>physicists or in university when research was being pursued.  And it
>is generally these senior researchers who sit on reviews.  I don't
>buy your argument.

Actually, I know a number of those senior fellows that would be happy 
to blow this program away, because it has become sour in their view or 
what ever term you would sum up a collective judgement.   Still there 
are others that are "the old boy net-work" damn the interest of the 
outside (US at large.)

>But if were to buy your logic, there are *no* impartial reviewers.  
>Like I said above.  But they *have* to have reviewers, and they 
>*have* chosen from the *least* biased sets, namely international 
>and non-fusion plasma physicists.  What more do you want?!?!!

Being a plasma physicist doesn't make one non-ethical or a-ethical
per se.  BUT it's troublesome for them that are, and their careers 
could show strain, if not their health.  Plasma physics has been 
PRIMARILY funded by the same SOW to use a country analogy, and many 
people don't bite the teat that feeds them, now matter if she eats 
a few fellow piglets now and again.  

>I'm just following your logic through.  If there are no qualified
>reviewers who are also unbiased, then the best you can do is try to
>account for that bias in evaluating the review.  You certainly don't

Fortunately, it's not that way.  What happens is the other unbiased 
and neg-biased opinions DO come through when congressional reviews 
take place.  For the first couple of decades, there was a free ride, 
and then the DoE started to stick its head up its own largest funding
port, and now we have a big mess.  So the incompetencies in management,
the resentment to do Congressional bidding, the tardiness, the 
obstinance have lost support from the Power Industry, and from Congress.  
Congress NOW can do just as you say, and they ARE doing to some degree
what you say... evaluating the DOE reports with a bit (probably should
be a mouthful) of desert salt.  

>want a panel of non-experts who are likely to have zero credibility
>and/or make major mistakes, do you?  

The unbalanced "expert foxes" guarding the competency of this program
have screwed it up BIGTOKTIME (as trustworthy diligent functionaries).  
I could point out to congress why this monstrousity is lethally flawed 
and can never perform as commercial generator, AND I could find those 
from the community (some retired) that would back me up.  Getting them
to present openly to the environmental community, their plans for 
radiation heaven by using these things as PRIMARY fission fuel BREEDERS
would be an eye opener to many.   As John A Crapper would say... 
"This thing should be flushed".    

>Or do you believe that objectivity is possible in politics, and that
>you can choose a panel and not try to evaluate the possible contribution
>of panelists' bias to the report?  If so, why are you complaining that
>DOE evaluations are biased in the first place?

There is a difference between political tilt and blatant conflict of
interest (implied and insidious lack of good faith).   

>                           .. . .  All fusion funding is required
>by congressional law; duh.  These are items specified in the budget.

Yes, both ICF and MAG is, but consider the following:
The Government is composed of three independent but interactive bodies.  
The executive branch has wide latitude in NOT following the letter of
the Congressional law or mandate.  Intent is hard to prove.  Further, 
agencies within the executive branch fight tooth and nail and some play 
very dirty pool to get more than their fair share of the discressionary 
funds (like one to many piggies for the number of teats).  The DoE 
screws NASA and within the DoE the Mag fusion boys and girls screw the 
ICF people.  

(possible faq)
In russia they actually have a third fusion category which is Magnetic -
ICF! And to make matters worse, our Hasegawa and Japan's Yamanaka did
champion the MICF cause here and in Japan.  Their embodiement was 
induced by laser in a pellet.  Technically,  our PLASMAK(tm) would fit 
this category.  MICF is a "mixed breed", and as in human interactions,
NEITHER pure "race/category" wants anything to do with such concepts, 
because they see the "evil" of the other (enemy) competitive scheme in 
them.        ---  All very INFANTILE..  but what do you expect from a
possibly demerging nation.  

>Funny how all the reactor design studies come to opposite conclusions.
[efficiency of 33%]

Even so.. compare that to coal, oil, nuclear, etc... which is 40% .
You will be more on the order of the SP100 which is 17-19%.  
Think about it.   Your machine was never intended to be a pure fusion
device, and in fact it's biggest import is to breed fuel for 10-20
fission reactors.  The real studies KNOW it can't be commercial on
its own.  Guess you're not privy to the real sneaky green peace 
ducking plans.    Hmmmmm????  No use in muddying the waters -- so THEY 
say.  

>Read the ESECOM study (Holdren et al), or the ARIES study (Conn et al),
>or any other serious tokamak design study, and tell me how your claim
>is justified.

Have them evaluated by the Power Companies ( not EPRI or power station
or reactor construction engineering-construction companies).  The (*)
have an interest in playing with anything with big bucks in it... work
or not.  Some may be legitimate and work for the perferred embodiement.  

>You care to show me the calculation that says a standard fluorescent 
>light has a fusion-grade beta?  

I believe we were speaking of the LAWSON, and not Beta   that is k*N*Tau.  
What is this ...  BAIT and SWITCH???  

>My estimate is T~0.010 KeV (Ionization energy), 
>n<~1E23/m^3 (neutral gas about 2 Torr), and Tau-E (energy confinement
>time) 
>~1 microsecond (thermal velocity about 1000m/s, size about 1 cm, so ion
>hits wall in about 1 microsecond).  I get a Lawson product of about
>1E15 sec-KeV/m^3 for your fluorescent lamp.  TFTR goes up 
>to 5.8E20 sec-KeV/m^3.  Which one looks anemic?  I don't see fusion
>happening in your lightbulb.
Ahhhh... 
OOps???????   you haven't put it in a 20 tesla field shearing Z field????? 
Well I never..     :-)  No wonder your calculations look bad.  :-)

Still, you will note that it works commercially!!!  It functions as 
intended.  Neat concept, huh!      ;-)    This is an obvious oversight
by a keen sniffer of plasmo-commercialismo.  

>What?  If I raise Beta, by definition I am *not* sacrificing magnetic
>pressure to anything.  Beta = plasma pressure / magnetic pressure.
>What's your problem here?

Reality.   If you raise it in your head, as usual you are dreaming and
it doesn't go up in the machine.  To get a tokamak to operate at a tad
higher beta (notwithstanding Coppi, et al.) you must reshape the coil 
cross-section.  When you do this it produces enormously increased stress
on the coils/B^2 for a constant areal measure, so you MUST back OFF on 
peak magnetic pressure.  This is the case in Doublet as opposed to
the more natural "D" cross-section of TFTR.   Agree???  It's just a matter
of not being able to get that magic engineering sprinkling dust that
makes things all better, no matter what dumb thing we try.  So the short
of it is this:   IF THIS LESSON HASN'T BEEN LEARNED then Doublet is a 
BIG FAILURE and it should be kept for ballast when the next slab of sea 
bed begins sliding under and lifting GA to a new mountain top view over 
the next eons of tokamak funding.  

>>>Confinement time also relates to size (inductance), and what effect 
>>>current diameter you run on the machine.  Again narrow the diameter 
>>>and you gain pressure, at the expense of stability.  The bigger the
>>>longer the time, and the hotter the electrons the longer the 
>>>confinement time.  TK Chu even knows that confinement time can 
>>>be extended "extremely long" by running with energetic currents.  Of
>>>course, that hacks ohmic heating.  So what are you going to do??

>So you *agree* that larger machines have higher confinement times,
>in contradiction to your original claim?

I never said they did not, I only said that it is highly LIMITED.  
WHY??? It's linear with radius.   The cost is greater then the radius 
cubed.  Nobody will build one twice or three times the radius.  ITER 
IS IT pretty much IT and that will probably end up a paper (magnetic 
media) construction. 

>Ok, so your claim "I DID NOT SAY THAT" (earlier post) wasn't true.  You
>now admit to making this claim, and to then claiming not to have made it.

Okay maybe I did indicate they were a bit sleezy ... PPPL that is from 
University as a whole, ... . although, the University certainly could have
been a bit more restrained in the aggressiveness of their topedoing attacks
on others, since they probably support if not direct, the legal and 
"public relations" support groups at PPPL, which were there when the
threshing took place.   

>Now you claim that you have some privileged information from anonymous
>"friends" alleging that someone presssured someone else at PPPL into 
>fudging a result, and therefore it is "obvious" that *Princeton* (not just
>one person, now!) is "not being up front, is being arrogant".  Seems to
>me the not-up-front award goes to you, for arrogantly claiming that 
>something was "obvious" on the basis of information you alone seem to
>have;

You are wrong.  You do not have it, Princeton PPL does.  

>therefore *Princeton* as a whole is dishonest.  I personally resent the
>smear you have attempted to make here, and humbly suggest that if you
>want to accuse someone of being non-up-front, arrogant, and possibly
>sleazy, that you do so without engaging in similar tactics yourself.
 
Impossible, I'm without diplomatic skill, and also .. .  

I was on the scene during many of its interactions with congress, 
in the backrooms at conferences, and in the hallowed halls of PPPL. 
Better let sleeping dogs lie.  Princeton PPL is an institute that  
acts in its own interest with aggression and it plays "hard ball".  
The latter refers to the state of ones testicle after a good swift 
kick, and not the baseball variety.  

>You don't seem to have the slightest idea what I do and do not 
>have the slightest idea about.  If you want to read the articles that
>say it is likely to be competitive, go read the articles cited in
>Section C of Part 11 of the FAQ.  This is the bibliography section
>on fusion research.  The major European and American studies all
>indicate that the tokamak is likely to be a competitive energy source.

Oh!  gee whiz... golly.   Who's press releases have you been reading.  
Why do you think they make these "studies".  You don't think they 
would pay for a single one that found the opposite??  Remember hearing 
about the editorial by L. Lidsky in the MIT fusion rag??  Come on.. let 
a little reality in.  Well??     Think! if you were to launch a 
I think the word is out....     Campaign    
to fund the tokamak and keep it growing and growing, then you must
have "paper" generated that supports that work.   It's just pounds or
kilograms of paper.  I doesn't make a damn bit of difference what
is buried in there, as long as the executive summaries are favorable.  
My understanding is that these were much better disciplined than 
usual.  There are criticisms of at least the earlier studies before 
the Power Industry threw up in discust.  I'm sure that an archival 
search could uncover some of these obscure but "honest" views of what 
REALITY BASED consideration thought of this pap.  

>How can you be so sure?  

Of no fusion funding increase??   The congress is becoming better 
with purse-strings, and I hear the national debt hasn't been paid 
off yet.  Less supportive is the fact that they said as much in 
clear and resounding terms.  

>I assume here you are referring to the EPRI study.
>The EPRI panel didn't consider economics or physics issues.  
No!  but.. .  Great!!!  
LOOK! Engineering determines commercial parameters -- not
physics.  Does the physics of star A or star B or C ... etc.. etc
make a tad of difference if they are/not fusion devices???? 
NO,  simply because given enough compression heating -- ANY 
low Z matter system will burn.     Agree???   

The tokamak is a pussy of nth order by comparison.  My heel can 
make more pressure than "nkt" of a tokamak.     

It is an backwards pressure lever and fulcrum.. it is RIDICULOUS.  
Couldn't even get caveman physics right.    NOT   GOOD 

>(At least as of the article by Hirsch, et al, "Report of the 1992
>EPRI Fusion Panel," in _Journal of Fusion Energy_ vol. 11, Nos 3/4,
>1992.  They simply said, in effect, "If we could have any fusion 
>reactor we can imagine, and it were physical and economical, what 
>features would we like it to have?"  Given that they just assume 
>anything at all will work, you can't judge likelihood of success 
>based on the EPRI report.  

Gee, my understanding was that they thought ahead and considered 
what the requirements would be for "ANY" including a tokamak to 
be a commercial grade device.   Bet the DoE didn't do that. Nope
they took a drawing of their russian gismo, and pasted it over
a picture of a nuclear reactor cutaway with a power station layout,
showed it to Congress and said "See dummies, THIS IS THE SOLUTION 
to all our energy and environmental troubles forever and ever...    

               Chorus:   Forever        ....  and   EVER  .   

AND   IT     SHALL  REIGN   FOREVERrrrrrrrrrr   and  ..  .  
                        Evvvvveeerrrrrrrrrhg.

and so it did boys and girls.  so it did. 

>The ESECOM panel, as with most other panels that have considered
>real-world physics and real-world economics questions, concluded 
>that the tokamak would be competitive with fission plants; the panel 
>included R.D. Endicott of the Public Service Electric and Gas 
>Company (Newark), and other industry scientists. 

I'll bet, and the fuel or industrial source for most of local PPPL
needs.  Yep they fed the PPPL grid..  Yep .... tra la how significant 
tra LA  How Significant      SIGNIFICANTA!!!!   What do you think
you do for your number one client.   Get this ... conflict of interest.
It's a concept worth grasping.  Do they have an interest ... Yes 
they do ..  This other one??  They do .. . .  etc. 

>I think the EPRI report is mostly hypothetical, wishful thinking.  

Hypothetical     ---  if you want to build a commercial reactor, and 
wishful thinking ---  if you are considering that a tokamak would 
                          do it. 
Otherwise these are requirements of the job, not performance 
standards gleaned from fusion studies and then fabricated into
job requirements.    The start here is reality.  A new concept
for fanciful artisans.  

>If you want to present a different study with a serious argument 
>that the tokamak won't be "competitive", I'm all ears.

I've told you enough, my good fellow, you are not brainless, and
indeed quite bright.  I trust YOU, and that somehow that the truth
will out in your own consciousness is an excellent possiblity.  So
one doesn't need a "study" to tell him he is in deep do-do when
you seen lifetimes pass and this thing is still mired in mud..  
Commercial burn in 4 years with an aneutronic fuel... That's ALL it
takes (plus a tenth of the annual fusion budget).  Come on.. if
it doesn't work in 5 or 10 years it will NEVER work.  

The tokamak is nothing but the right first step.  That step has 
been taken. It's time to put the other foot down.  
Hmmm!   Make that a Koloc quote.   

>As for the background I have to make such a judgment:  for a start,
>you could make a list of the bibliography entries which have my
>name attached to the annotations; I've read just about all those
>publications.  I've also got a bunch of articles sitting around here that 
>haven't made it into the bibliography yet.  I've listened to, and
>talked to, some of the top tokamak scientists in the country (here
>at PPPL) about these issues.  I've been studying it on my own since
>before I got here, because the direction of my career clearly
>depends on whether fusion, and particularly tokamak fusion, has a future.

Good, now on the other hand, we have exchanged thoughts, so think 
about it, and you'll see they are an empire of clinging bats, hanging 
onto an excellent future museum piece.    
--- pair ten cent pieces -- produce a click???   ok  now shift  ko

>This is true regardless of whether I end up working on tokamaks or
>not.  Having read the literature, and asked the scientists, I
>give you the general conclusion:  the tokamak is likely to be a 
>competitive energy source.

Never...  NOT a chance.   Talk to the chaps that know commerce that
know what's required for reality competiveness, go to a Power company
in Minnesota, (one away from the Pa/NJ grid supplying pppl).  

>So what's *your* background for judging the competitiveness of 
>the tokamak?

I'm an engineering physicist, and I know how to take physics concepts
and put them into physical embodiments where the components work
in harmony and don't fly in the face of nature or good engineering
practice.  Now -- Let's examine a brilliant piece of tokamak 
engineering: 

                         Make THE Coldest matter 
                             as tightly fitting 
                               to the hottest 
                                  matter on
                                     earth..      

                   Ho Ho   HOOOO..    
               Hee hee .. .  snicker,..   .   
              snicker,..  . milky way.. 
           I can hear the echo of laugher 
            from the edge or our galaxy...   
              Chuckle... smirk ...   grin.     
                     yep..  city folk.  
                         Ugh! the DoE     

>Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Well??? 
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc,Bx 1037, Prometheus II, Ltd., College Park, MD 20741-1037 |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.10 / J Buzzard /  Re: The "two types of Hydrogen Theory"
     
Originally-From: phyjab1@phyd4c3.caledonia.hw.ac.uk (Jonathan A Buzzard)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The "two types of Hydrogen Theory"
Date: Tue, 10 May 1994 21:39:46 GMT
Organization: Heriot-Watt University


--

>Perhaps you don't know the whole truth.  The two types of hydrogen theory
>that we've seen here dismisses all of quantum mechanics.  No schroedinger
>equation.  No matrix mechanics.  No Hund's rules.  No electron diffraction.
>No stark effect.  No hybridization.  No spin-orbit effects.  None of the
>thousands of quantitatively verified predictions of QM.  

Thats a better dismissal, though it should sprinkled with some reasoning/proof.
It is easy to say `No Schroedinger'...  but you should show it. Would it be
fair to say that any orbit `lower' than the ground level of hydrogen would be
indistinguishable from the ground level due to Hysenburg's principle as a way
of dismissing this theory?

>Remember it took real experimental results from 1920 to 1935 to
nail QM down, >physicist just didn't invent it for no particular
reason.

Real experimental results, which are still open to some debait on there
meaning.

JAB.

 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan A. Buzzard,              
Physics Department,           Email:-
Heriot-Watt University,            phyjab1@caledonia.hw.ac.uk   InterNet
Edinburgh. EH14 4AS                phyjab1@uk.ac.hw.clust       JANET
United Kingdom.
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenphyjab1 cudfnJonathan cudlnBuzzard cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.12 / Richard Blue /  Re: Mitchell Swartz on Chubb&Chubb, Miles, etc.
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Mitchell Swartz on Chubb&Chubb, Miles, etc.
Date: Thu, 12 May 1994 00:09:16 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

MItchell Swartz has misunderstood which deuterons, according to
Chubb and Chubb, are said to be participants in the fusion reaction.
Robert Heeter corrected him so I did not bother.  However, since there
still seems to be some confusion on this question I will say that
my understanding of the Chubb and Chubb theory is that the majority
of the deuterons, those that occupy lattice sites, are assumed to
be inert just as the Pd atoms are.  It is only the deuterons in the
ion band states that are considered in any estimate of nuclear
reaction rates.  The lattice deuterons serve only to force some small
fraction of the total deuteron population into the ion band states
which do not become energetically favored until all available lattice
sites are filled.  Thus we have the rather strange circumstance that
Coulomb interactions seem to be fully operative in the normal sense
so long as the interacting pair is one lattice deuteron and one
band state deuteron, but a pair of band state deuterons do something
different.  I don't blame Mitchell for being confused!  It is hard
to see why the majority deuterons don't participate.

Of course, if you accept the Miles radiation measurements at face
value there is perhaps another reason to question the Chubb theory.
However, Mitchell is possibly somewhat confused about the experimental
situation as well.  In response to Steve Jones's suggestion that
the GM tube used by Miles is not appropriate for these measurements,
Mitchell asks, "How have so many used this equipment for so long?"
Simply put there are a wide range of circumstances under which radiation
is detected and the instrumentation requirements may vary significantly.
If there is no question as to the nature of the radiation being detected,
if the rates are appropriate, if backgrounds are not large, and if the
measurements do not require long term stability a GM tube may be an
appropriate detection device.  It offers a simple, low-cost option
for basic radiation detection.

However, if you engaged in frontier investigations in a field that
is already characterized by long-standing controversies and questions
that may have profound implications on both science and technological
advances the choice of a GM detector to make a key measurement seems
highly questionable.  If we consider the various options as to the
possible sources of the radiation being detected in the Miles experiment
and accept, as a remote possibility, that there is radiation associated
with the excess enthalpy production, this radiation could conceivably
range from low energy X-rays resulting from the energy degradation of
energetic charged particles clear up to 20 MeV gammas from the decay
of excited 4He nuclei.  There is clearly a potential opportunity
to gain a great deal of insight into the nature of the reaction process
being observed by Miles.  Why would anyone pass up this opportunity
and employ a detector that provides absolutely no information concerning
the nature of the radiation source?  Yes Mitchell, GM tubes serve a
purpose.  I think it may be a good idea for Miles to have one around
as a radiation safety monitor, but that doesn't mean that the readings
should get published as scientific data.

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.10 / SCOTT CHASE /  Re: Minimum Coulomb Interactions for plutonium?
     
Originally-From: sichase@csa5.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Minimum Coulomb Interactions for plutonium?
Date: 10 May 1994 18:02 PST
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA

In article <ts_zemanian-100594161753@ts_zemanian.pnl.gov>, ts_zemanian@p
l.gov (Thomas S. Zemanian) writes...
>In article <10MAY199414423245@csa5.lbl.gov>, sichase@csa5.lbl.gov (SCOTT I
>CHASE) wrote:
> 
>> I don't know how Halliday and/or Resnick arrived at this number, but I 
>> believe it to be wrong.  Neon has a total of 20 charges, 60 if you foolishly
>> treat it at the quark level.  The number of distinct pairs of objects which 
>> you can form from a set of 20 is 20*21/2 = 210.  Believe me, that's more 
>> than enough to make your Schroedinger equation unsolvable.  
>> 
> 
>Um, shouldn't that be 20*19/2=190?  Am I missing something?

Yes, you are missing 20 combinations. :-)

Sum(i=1,N;i) = N*(N+1)/2.

E.g., 1+2+3 = 6 = 3*4/2.

-Scott
 -------------------
Scott I. Chase            "The question seems to be of such a character
SICHASE@CSA2.LBL.GOV      that if I should come to life after my death
                          and some mathematician were to tell me that it
                          had been definitely settled, I think I would
                          immediately drop dead again."      - Vandiver
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudensichase cudfnSCOTT cudlnCHASE cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.11 / L Plutonium /  Re: Minimum Coulomb Interactions for plutonium?
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Minimum Coulomb Interactions for plutonium?
Date: 11 May 1994 00:33:12 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

   Sorry to break me self-imposed limit of no more than 3 posts per 24
hours. But this is important I feel because it is in Halliday & Resnick
text which I feel was the best physics text ever made for University
and College. I think H&R's 1986 was the best but their latest edition
of PHYSICS, 1992, are going to hell in a handbasket, other than being
on acid free paper 1992 is of lower quality than their 1986 edition
because it has speculative physics in it-- it treats the big bang as a
forgone conclusion and also it talks of neutron stars as if they are
true science when it will turn out that pulsars are strange quark
matter stars. I think it is essential that the authors of such widely
used physics texts throw in cautionary words such as "speculative"
whenever possible. 
   I have shown the below passage of H&R to Dartmouth physics
professors, math professors, all came back to me with somewhat the same
reply as what Scott gives.
   I am of the opinion that H&R is so widely used and so heavily picked
over that H&R are correct in their text. That neon has as a minimum
number of Coulomb Interactions derived by (2^20x2x2x2), where the
exponent 20 comes from the 10 protons and 10 electrons of neon.
Continuing in the same line of reasoning for plutonium. The total
number of minimum Coulomb interactions of the 94 protons and 94
electrons of a plutonium atom is (2^188x2x2x2) or about 6.3 x10^57. 
The number (2^188x2x2x2) comes from 4 possible quantum numbers of
(n,L,mL,ms) and each having at least a minimum of 2 choices with the
first quantum number having 2^188 minimum possible quantum energy
states based on the potential energy function substituted into the
Schroedinger equation, in order for the Schroedinger equation to be
solved rigorously.
   I strongly believe H&R were correct commonsensewise. If we see the
Coulomb interaction as the means of holding protons and electrons
together in an atom. Think of the protons and electrons as balls
exchanging photons. That to keep 94 protons to 94 electrons would
require at minimum 6.3 x 10^57 photons exchanged at any one instant. To
imagine 10 protons and 10 electrons held together by only 210 photons
shot between them to keep them as an atom strains credulity.

In article <10MAY199414423245@csa5.lbl.gov>
sichase@csa5.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE) writes:

> In article <2qmrk9$nv8@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>, Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmo
th.edu (Ludwig Plutonium) writes...
> >pages 1190-1191 of PHYSICS Part 2 extended version Halliday & Resnick
> >1986
> > 
> >  "For atoms with substantially more than one electron the potential
> >energy function that we must substitute into the Schroedinger equation
> >involves the Coulomb interaction between many pairs of particles and
> >can rapidly become hopelessly complicated. In neon, for example, it can
> >be shown that, including the nucleus and the ten electrons, there are
> >no fewer than about 2 X 10^7 independent pairs of charges whose Coulomb
> >interactions must be taken into account if the Schroedinger equation is
> >to be solved rigorously. At this level of complexity rigorous solutions
> >are not possible, and we must rely on methods that are both approximate
> >and numerical."
> > 
> >What are the minimum Coulomb Interactions for plutonium?
> 
> I don't know how Halliday and/or Resnick arrived at this number, but I 
> believe it to be wrong.  Neon has a total of 20 charges, 60 if you foolishly
> treat it at the quark level.  The number of distinct pairs of objects which 
> you can form from a set of 20 is 20*21/2 = 210.  Believe me, that's more 
> than enough to make your Schroedinger equation unsolvable.
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.10 / Jim Bowery /  Re: (Long) Delayed Response to Old Koloc Article
     
Originally-From: jabowery@netcom.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: (Long) Delayed Response to Old Koloc Article
Date: Tue, 10 May 1994 23:37:34 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> writes:
> The implication was that the international reviewers were as close to
> disinterested, fair, and impartial as you could find within the set of
> people qualified to review the program.

We don't want "disinterested" parties.  We want parties who are
interested in developing fusion.  Let private capital lead the
investment authority -- not a political heirarchy.

> But if were to buy your logic, there are *no* impartial reviewers.
> Like I said above.  But they *have* to have reviewers, and they
> *have* chosen from the *least* biased sets, namely international
> and non-fusion plasma physicists.  What more do you want?!?!!

For politicos to be excluded from decision-making authority and
investment authority lead by the decisions of private investors.

> Or do you believe that objectivity is possible in politics,

Obviously not.  All parties are "interested" in some sense -- its
just that private investors are far more likely to be "interested"
in developing economical energy sources than a publically funded
political heirarchy.


> The ESECOM panel, as with most other panels that have considered
> real-world physics and real-world economics questions, concluded
> that the tokamak would be competitive with fission plants; the panel
> included R.D. Endicott of the Public Service Electric and Gas
> Company (Newark), and other industry scientists.

Fission plants are our standard of excellence?

Let Dr. Endicott put his money where his mouth is.

> I think the EPRI report is mostly hypothetical, wishful thinking.  If
> you want to present a different study with a serious argument that
> the tokamak won't be "competitive", I'm all ears.

Private capital isn't leading investment in tokamaks.

Private capital IS leading in PLASMAK(tm).
-- 
The promotion of politics exterminates apolitical genes in the population.
  The promotion of frontiers gives apolitical genes a route to survival.
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenjabowery cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.11 / Jerome Graham /  Re: SKITS 20-22, and finis of NEANDERTHAL PARK
     
Originally-From: jerome@coho.halcyon.com (Jerome Graham)
Newsgroups: sci.math,sci.physics,sci.chem,sci.bio,sci.physics.fusion,sci
psychology,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,alt.religion.kibology,alt.cesium
Subject: Re: SKITS 20-22, and finis of NEANDERTHAL PARK
Date: 11 May 1994 04:24:44 GMT
Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc.


Did you send that Prozac prescription back to the company and ask them
to analyze it for strength?  I think it's a bit too strong...


				Jerome


--
The Rev. David R. Graham                    Professor of Philosophy
Adwaitha Hermitage                          Sri Sathya Sai Institute
jerome@halcyon.com                          of Higher Learning
EADEM MUTATA RESURGO                        Bellevue, Washington
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenjerome cudfnJerome cudlnGraham cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Thu May 12 04:37:03 EDT 1994
------------------------------
1994.05.12 / L Plutonium /  Re: Minimum Coulomb Interactions for plutonium?
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Minimum Coulomb Interactions for plutonium?
Date: 12 May 1994 01:37:56 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In article <11MAY199412262849@csa5.lbl.gov>
sichase@csa5.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE) writes:
> My mistake.  I forgot to discount the 20 self-interactions which should
> be ignored.  But in the end it does not matter, for Ludwig Plutonium, who
> asked the question in the first place, has decided that we are all wrong
> by reasoning that Halliday and Resnick must be right because it is in a 
> book.  If that was his belief, I don't know why he bothered to ask the
> question in the first place.

  I want to talk about DeBroglie's genius of saying electrons have
structure. I want to show that the 94th electron of 231Pu matches the
2.71 degrees Kelvin of the cosmic microwave background radiation. 
  I take issue with the posted recent thread in sci.physics which I
copy pasted below-- that electrons are pointwise. I ask the question
that when a researcher sets-up the experiments to look for pointwise
electrons--the result is pointwise. Just as setting-up experiments for
the wave property of light, of course you will confirm that it is a
wave not a particle. And of course you will confirm that electrons are
pointwise if you only set-up pointwise experiments. I understand that
some findings by physics researchers have indicated that electrons have
"memory" and hence structure (someone want to post those articles?).
And hence electrons are not pointwise but have a duality nature to
them. In the collapsed form such as electrons in a current, electrons
are indeed pointwise but in the uncollapsed wavefunction, electrons
have structure.

In article <10MAY199418131095@csa5.lbl.gov>
sichase@csa5.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE) writes:
> In article <4720101@hpcc01.corp.hp.com>, weeks@hpcc01.corp.hp.com
(Gregory Weeks) writes...
> >Oh, someone mentioned pointlike electrons again, and I'm in a mood:
> >The main reason people say that electrons are pointlike is that that
> >is how they visualize them to be. 
> I don't know about "people," but the main reason that *physicists* say 
> that electrons appear to be pointlike is that there is a vast amount
> of experimental data which tests this hypothesis, and none of it has
> ever suggested otherwise.  You can look up the precise limits of our
> knowledge about electron compositeness if you like, to see exactly 
> how how far down we have probed.  Beyond that, anything is possible.
> -Scott

 I believe HR in their physics text (H&R look like tax writers) are
correct as per the meaning of Coulomb Interactions as holding-up
protons and electrons via {N,L,MsubL,MsubS} quantum numbers. 

  I understand these sayings that for neon there are 20 particles which
can be paired-up so that there are (20x19)/2 = 190 total possible
pairs. Likewise for Pu, it would come to (188x187)/2 = 17578. And for
neon that the 190 terms in the Hamiltonian of the Schrodinger Equation
in general is monsterous for Coulomb Interactions only. Not even
counting the Hamiltonian = KE + PE, where all Coulomb Interactions are
PE,i.e. not counting nuclear interactions. I understand these
teachings. And this seems to be the way practicing physics persons
answer my question concerning pages 1190-1191 of PHYSICS Part 2
extended version Halliday & Resnick
1986.

  But what I am saying is that the 190 terms is a different aspect from
the 10^7 that HR derived. That it was not a mistake in HR, but rather
superdetermined and coincidental and that HR were superdetermined to
write that into their 1986 edition. I contend HR are correct under a
different interpretation. Just as it was superdetermined that DeBroglie
would write it in his great work--- la Thermodynamique de la particule
isolee (ou Thermodynamique cachee des particules). You know, DeBroglie
was one genius of a smart intuitive cookie--I mean that in a good
manner so that those foreigners of English reading this do not get me
wrong.

  Here is how I redo DeBroglie to get the cosmic microwave background
radiation of 2.71 degrees Kelvin. You may notice that only Plutonium
fits 2.71 degrees Kelvin.

	The book la Thermodynamique de la particule isolee (ou Thermodynamique
cachee des particules)   written by Debroglie,(1964) 0024, considers
the relativistic fluctuations of mass of subatomic particles such as
the protons, electrons. And then associates temperature with a
relativistic statistical mechanic.  I am following this intuition of
Debroglie except replacing relativistic mass fluctuations with
statistical quantum fluctuations of the Coulomb interactions for a
plutonium atom in order to derive an intrinsic associated temperature
for a plutonium atom.  
	I assert the inside of a plutonium atom, each electron acts as an
ideal blackbody cavity with a blackbody radiation from the very large
number of independent pair charges of Coulomb interactions which must
be taken into account if the Schroedinger equation is to be solved
rigorously.  Blackbody radiation is boson statistics. A plutonium atom
has 94 electrons and its nucleus containing 94 protons, then no fewer
than ((2^188)x2x2x2) for the 4 quantum numbers (n, L, mL, ms), or no
fewer than 2x10^57 interactions are involved.  With this large number
of statistical interactions, I propose to find an intrinsic temperature
for the 94th electron of an isolated plutonium atom.
	From pages 94-101, Debroglie  works with the formula 1/T = dS/dL 
where T is temperature, dS is the derivative of entropy with respect to
the lagrangian L which is kinetic energy of a system minus the
potential energy of that system.  Debroglie derives the formula m0cc =
kT0 , then where M0 is proportional to the factor e^(S/k)  as M0 = m0 
thus the entropy is proportional to the Boltzmann factor e^(-M0/m0),
thence 1/T = e^(-M0/m0)/ d L.  Now taking the idea of a neutron of a
neptunium atom radioactively growing to transform into a plutonium atom
in which the term d L is very close to 1 by the factor
(neutron/neutron) -  ((proton + electron)/neutron).  So 1/T =
e^(-188/186) K/1 which is 1/T = 1/e^(188/186) K.   So the thermodynamic
of the isolated plutonium atom or the blackbody temperature of a
plutonium atom is  exp188/186 K which is the value of 2.74 degrees
Kelvin.   The presently determined value by the COBE satellite for the
cosmic background microwave temperature of the observable universe is
2.735 + 0.06 K. I assert that it is not coincidence that the value for
the cosmic background microwave temperature of 2.7 is close to the
value of the number e in mathematics.

  Anyone reading the above, note that I am not out to point a finger at
anyone saying that such and such a person/s answer was wrong--in neon
having 190 terms in the Hamiltonian. What I am saying is that 190 terms
is just a gross first approximation at looking at Coulomb Interactions
of any specific atom.

LP                         94th ELECTRON OF 231PU
               Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH ELECTRON

                  \ ::| :./.
                  .\::|::/.:
                     _ _
                    (:Y:)
                     - - 
                  ::/.|.\.:
                :: /.:| :\.:
                  /   |   \.
        One of those dots is the Sun with 9 smaller dots around it.
Look in a chemistry textbook or quantum physics textbook of the
electron cloud dot picture. 
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.12 / J Winterflood /  Ball Lightning
     
Originally-From: jwinter@uniwa.uwa.edu.au (John Winterflood)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Ball Lightning
Date: Thu, 12 May 1994 00:44:24 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

While investigating ball lightning I came across some articles about a fellow 
inHolland called Gerard Dijkhuis who formed a public company called Convectron 
N.Varound 1983 and then raised more capital in 1985 for further ball lightning
research (with the aim of achieving "village-level" controlled fusion - New
Scientist 19 Sept 85 p27). The next mention I found of his activity, is a paper
presented during the First International Symposium of Ball Lightning held at
Waseda University, Tokyo on July 4-6 1988. He reports interesting but
unconvincing neutron detector counts and rather short-lived plasma balls. I
wonder if anyone knows what his progress has been since and whether he is on
EMail. I guess he can't have succeeded or you wouldn't still be playing with
Tokamaks!

I also notice that Paul Koloc presented a paper at the Symposium suggesting that
his PLASMAK(tm) model would be a promising cantidate to explain ball lightning.
Have you become more certain, or less, that this could be so Paul ?
I noticed that Paul mentioned a garage experiment ,and then an experiment by
Goldenbaum at MD, and then at PPPL (Spheromak). What were the characteristics
of the plasma balls obtained - ie size, duration, energy density, etc, and where
could I find a report?

I would really appreciate finding out about any recent research that has been
been done on the subject of ball lightning, or if there is a more appropriate
newsgroup for making enquiries.

I haven't managed to get hold of the fusion FAQ yet - if this topic is mentioned
there then I would appreciate a copy of it or knowing where I can FTP it from.

John Winterflood
Department of Physics
University of Western Australia

cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenjwinter cudfnJohn cudlnWinterflood cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.11 / Thomas Zemanian /  Re: Minimum Coulomb Interactions for plutonium?
     
Originally-From: ts_zemanian@pnl.gov (Thomas S. Zemanian)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Minimum Coulomb Interactions for plutonium?
Date: 11 May 1994 15:24:39 GMT
Organization: Battelle PNL

In article <10MAY199418025480@csa5.lbl.gov>, sichase@csa5.lbl.gov (SCOTT I
CHASE) wrote:

> In article <ts_zemanian-100594161753@ts_zemanian.pnl.gov>, ts_zemanian
pnl.gov (Thomas S. Zemanian) writes...
> >In article <10MAY199414423245@csa5.lbl.gov>, sichase@csa5.lbl.gov (SCOTT I
> >CHASE) wrote:
> > 
> >> I don't know how Halliday and/or Resnick arrived at this number, but I 
> >> believe it to be wrong.  Neon has a total of 20 charges, 60 if you foolishly
> >> treat it at the quark level.  The number of distinct pairs of objects which 
> >> you can form from a set of 20 is 20*21/2 = 210.  Believe me, that's more 
> >> than enough to make your Schroedinger equation unsolvable.  
> >> 
> > 
> >Um, shouldn't that be 20*19/2=190?  Am I missing something?
> 
> Yes, you are missing 20 combinations. :-)
> 
> Sum(i=1,N;i) = N*(N+1)/2.
> 
> E.g., 1+2+3 = 6 = 3*4/2.

Well, you've correctly added the natural numbers from 1 to 20, but is that
the proper formulation?  Shouldn't the number of pairwise combinations of
two objects, chosen from a set of 20, be 

20!/(20-2)! * 2! = 20*19/2=190?

To put it differently, we have twenty choices for the first object, and
nineteen for the second (having dismissed one of the choices by selecting
it for the first position), divided by two to account for double counting. 
At least that's what is done when counting pairwise interactions between
molecular species in modelling thermodynamic functions.  Please advise me
where iI went wrong.
> 
> -Scott
> --------------------
> Scott I. Chase            "The question seems to be of such a character
> SICHASE@CSA2.LBL.GOV      that if I should come to life after my death
>                           and some mathematician were to tell me that it
>                           had been definitely settled, I think I would
>                           immediately drop dead again."      - Vandiver

-- 
The opinions expressed herein are mine and mine alone.  Keep your filthy
hands off 'em! 
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudents_zemanian cudfnThomas cudlnZemanian cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.11 / Richard Schultz /  One more try from an inquiring mind
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: One more try from an inquiring mind
Date: 11 May 1994 16:52:06 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley


I am going to be away from USENET for at least six weeks (and possibly
permanently) starting May 21, and there is one question I would really
like answered.  Could somebody who knows more math than I do please 
explain to me just what Mitchell Swartz means when he talks about "The
Existence Theorem"?  His only reply is to tell me that he has already told
me, which he has not.  I thought Existence Theorem was a generic term for
any theorem for proving that a set (e.g. of solutions to a type of equation)
is non-empty.  But Swartz seems to think that the "Existence Theorem" is a
way of making the induction that since the Moessbauer Effect shows that 
nuclear motion can couple to the lattice, then Cold Fusion can escape giving
off energetic particles.  Or something like that.  I have my own conclusion
about where I think such "logic" is coming from (which is why I asked why 
you can't use the Existence Theorem (tm) to predict the existence of purple
cows), but maybe my lack of deep mathematical knowledge is the real problem.
So can anyone out there tell me what Swartz means by the "Existence Theorem",
since he obviously won't?

					Richard Schultz

P.S. I don't always follow things as carefully as I ought. . . has Swartz 
ever said what he thinks of the Chubb Theory?  If he likes it, does that
mean he's abandoned his "d + d + ?d" approach?

cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.11 / Scott Sloka /  Re: was Overblown -->DoE's "review" and Tokamak: Commerial?
     
Originally-From: jssloka@monet.UWaterloo.CA (Scott Sloka)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: was Overblown -->DoE's "review" and Tokamak: Commerial?
Date: Wed, 11 May 1994 17:32:28 GMT
Organization: University of Waterloo

In article <jac.768590514@gandalf>, jac@moonshine.llnl.gov (James A. Crotinger) writes:

... stuff deleted ...

> 
>   But the current vision of ITER (which is MUCH different than the CDA
> vision from several years ago) has NO current drive -- it is ohmic
> with pulse lengths on the order of 1000 s. I agree that if there is
> current drive, then Q will always be finite.
> 
>   Jim
> 

Is there any way that I could find out about the present status of ITER?  I am 
interested in knowing what the present building and testing schedule is like
and what the forseeable operating characterisitics are like.  Thanks for any
help or references that y'all can pass along...

		-Scott
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenjssloka cudfnScott cudlnSloka cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.11 / SCOTT CHASE /  Re: Minimum Coulomb Interactions for plutonium?
     
Originally-From: sichase@csa5.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Minimum Coulomb Interactions for plutonium?
Date: 11 May 1994 12:26 PST
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA

In article <ts_zemanian-110594082225@ts_zemanian.pnl.gov>, ts_zemanian@p
l.gov (Thomas S. Zemanian) writes...
>> > 
>> >Um, shouldn't that be 20*19/2=190?  Am I missing something?
>> 
>> Yes, you are missing 20 combinations. :-)
>> 
>> Sum(i=1,N;i) = N*(N+1)/2.
>> 
>> E.g., 1+2+3 = 6 = 3*4/2.
> 
>Well, you've correctly added the natural numbers from 1 to 20, but is that
>the proper formulation?  Shouldn't the number of pairwise combinations of
>two objects, chosen from a set of 20, be 
> 
>20!/(20-2)! * 2! = 20*19/2=190?

My mistake.  I forgot to discount the 20 self-interactions which should
be ignored.  But in the end it does not matter, for Ludwig Plutonium, who
asked the question in the first place, has decided that we are all wrong
by reasoning that Halliday and Resnick must be right because it is in a 
book.  If that was his belief, I don't know why he bothered to ask the
question in the first place.

-Scott
 -------------------
Scott I. Chase            "The question seems to be of such a character
SICHASE@CSA2.LBL.GOV      that if I should come to life after my death
                          and some mathematician were to tell me that it
                          had been definitely settled, I think I would
                          immediately drop dead again."      - Vandiver
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudensichase cudfnSCOTT cudlnCHASE cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.11 / Brian Rauchfuss /  Re: (Long) Delayed Response to Old Koloc Article
     
Originally-From: brauchfu@fnugget.intel.com (Brian D. Rauchfuss)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: (Long) Delayed Response to Old Koloc Article
Date: 11 May 1994 22:47:07 GMT
Organization: INTEL.FOLSOM

In article <jaboweryCpM1Mn.Lzw@netcom.com> jabowery@netcom.com (Jim Bowery) writes:
>We don't want "disinterested" parties.  We want parties who are
>interested in developing fusion.  Let private capital lead the
>investment authority -- not a political heirarchy.

Only if they are only investing their own money.  If this is private capital,
there is no need for an "investment authority", if it is private companies
running an investment authority for the government then they will obviously
vote to spend as much money on research as possible so as to minimize the 
investment they will have to make to commercialize the technology.

BDR
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenbrauchfu cudfnBrian cudlnRauchfuss cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.12 / Matt Kennel /  Re: (Long) Delayed Response to Old Koloc Article
     
Originally-From: mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: (Long) Delayed Response to Old Koloc Article
Date: 12 May 1994 07:04:32 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

Robert F. Heeter (rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu) wrote:
: Someone else wrote:
: >>That's kind of tough, since 95% of the funding for plasma physics, came
: >>from the fusion program, and most of the plasma physicists, took courses
: >>which were at least written by fusion plasma physicists or attended
: >>Universities with active fusion programs in progress during the time
: >>of their education. I would be interested in having the names, because
: >>I don't believe that these were disinterested.  There was likely some
: >>other connection or they were of such stature as to be not influential.
:  

: The early entrants to the field certainly weren't trained by fusion
: physicists or in university when research was being pursued.  And it
: is generally these senior researchers who sit on reviews.  I don't
: buy your argument.

Right.  There was hardly even such a named discipline as "plasma physics"
then.

: But if were to buy your logic, there are *no* impartial reviewers.  
: Like I said above.  But they *have* to have reviewers, and they 
: *have* chosen from the *least* biased sets, namely international 
: and non-fusion plasma physicists.  What more do you want?!?!!

Please please please!  The problem is it just doesn't matter a
mosquito's phart in hurricane what these scientific panels say.

They always say "Whatever you do, don't cut basic science" and
congress and the bureacracy goes ahead and does just that.

: ***************************
: Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
: Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University
: As always, I represent only myself, and not PPPL

--
-Matt Kennel  		mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu
-Institute for Nonlinear Science, University of California, San Diego
-*** AD: Archive for nonlinear dynamics papers & programs: FTP to
-***     lyapunov.ucsd.edu, username "anonymous".
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenmbk cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.12 / Rick Rodman /  Magnetohydrodynamics
     
Originally-From: rickr@aib.com (Rick Rodman)
Newsgroups: sci.energy,sci.physics.fusion,alt.alien.visitors
Subject: Magnetohydrodynamics
Date: Thu, 12 May 1994 01:49:35 GMT
Organization: Virtual Technologies Inc.

This article was sent to me by a student in France.  If you have comments
you may e-mail them to me and I will relay them to him.  I didn't try
to post the illustrations, but if you e-mail me a fax number I can fax
them to you.  If you send comments, kindly edit the text to a minimum to
save bandwidth.

(The following articles were translated by Emmanuel ROCHE.)
(The translation was proof read by Ken MACKENZIE.)
(The illustrations will be found on separate photocopied pages.)


"A young science: MagnetoHydroDynamics (MHD)"
 --------------------------------------------
by Charles-Noel MARTIN,
in "Science et Vie", No.651, December 1971, p.50


        In  order  to understand a universe filled  with  charged 
fluids  and to master nuclear fusion, one needs to know the  laws 
which command those fluids in magnetic fields.

        Of  all the neologisms born during the last twenty  years 
and  which designate new sciences: laser, holography,  electronic 
data  processing,  bionics...  one  is  particularly   barbarian: 
magnetohydrodynamics.   Specialists  no  longer  use   it   among 
themselves, but speak instead of MHD, which is perfectly logical, 
because  in  magnetohydrodynamics you find Magneto,  then  Hydro, 
then Dynamics.

        So broken up into its component parts, the word  explains 
itself readily:

        - Dynamics involves movement, so there is something which 
moves.

        - Hydro, that is water and hydrodynamics which, everybody 
knows, studies the flow of fluids in general; but, by  extension, 
hydrodynamics  also concerns the movements of fluids in  general, 
gas included. That is the case here.

        -   Magneto,  finally,  applies  to  the  phenomenon   of 
magnetism.

        So, MHD is a branch of modern science which studies  (and 
uses) charged fluids moving in magnetic fields. QED.

        When  was  MHD  born?  Its origin can  be  found  in  the 
theoretical  work of an innovator who worked in isolation  for  a 
long  time. He is the Swede Hannes ALFVEN who received, one  year 
ago, the Nobel prize of physics, which he shared with the  French 
Louis NEEL. Their two works are totally different and not at  all 
complementary. We can remark in passing that the 1970 Nobel prize 
of  physics  was  actually  made up  of  two  half-Nobel  prizes, 
rewarding  two physicists that were long perceived as  "forgotten 
of the Nobel".

        Professor  ALFVEN  had,  it must  be  said,  started  his 
research upon plasmas in cosmodynamics at the end of the 30s. The 
idea  was doubly original: to define plasma, on one hand, and  to 
work in cosmodynamics, which had never been done before.

        Plasma  (not to be confused with blood plasma!) is  often 
defined  as "the fourth state of matter". The three other  states 
are  the solid, the liquid and the gaseous. They are also, to  go 
back to ancient conceptions: Earth, Sea and Air. But the  physics 
of  electronics,  starting from the 10s-20s, made  us  understand 
that  the  terrestrial world where we find  ourselves  (and  from 
which we are made) is a really exceptional state in the universe: 
it is electrically neutral.

        Now,  there  is nothing like  that  in  extra-terrestrial 
bodies; the Sun is an incandescent gaseous mass brought to such a 
temperature  that  its constituent atoms have lost one,  two,  or 
even  several  peripheral electrons. Those atoms  are  no  longer 
electrically neutral, but carriers of multiple charges, they  are 
said to be ionized: that is a plasma.

        Everything  in  the  universe is  plasma,  everything  or 
nearly  everything,  since Earth is certainly not. But  the  very 
high  atmosphere, where radio waves are reflected, is  a  plasma. 
Likewise for the solar wind whose erosive effect upon the Moon is 
now  being studied. The clouds of interstellar dust are  in  part 
ionized, they too are plasmas.

        On  Earth,  a  neon sign is filled with  a  rarefied  gas 
ionized by the electrical discharge, that again is a plasma.

        The big breakthrough was to understand that the state  of 
rarefaction  of cosmic matter gives it new  physical  properties. 
ALFVEN made that breakthrough and, during twenty years,  explored 
several  such phenomena in depth. The essence of his  conclusions 
was published in 1950 in a book: "Cosmic Electrodynamics",  which 
revolutionized astrophysics during the next ten years.

        Those  advanced  studies were very difficult  to  follow, 
because they require a synthesis of several branches of  physics, 
themselves  very  complex  when they  are  taken  separately.  An 
electrically conductive fluid moves around a magnetic field: this 
fluid obeys the laws of hydrodynamics, but, on top of that, obeys 
all  those  of  electromagnetism and electrodynamics.  As  it  is 
ionized (electrified) and since it is moving, it creates  another 
magnetic  field  which superimposes itself  upon,  and  interacts 
with,   the   initial  magnetic  field.  One  can   imagine   the 
multiplicity of phenomena and the difficulties of the theory.

        In  the early years of the 50s, a new stage was  reached. 
What  was pure speculation by a theoretician was included in  the 
experimental cycle; because, as early as 1950, the Soviets (TAMM, 
then  KOURTCHATOV)  set  themselves to  build  devices  in  which 
plasmas  were  subjected  to, and made  to  carry,  very  intense 
electrical  discharges.  MHD  was no longer  speculation  from  a 
cosmologist, but a palpable reality.

        Those  experiments were intended to obtain  a  controlled 
thermonuclear reaction (fusion and not fission) of the nucleus of 
the  element hydrogen. Hydrogen and its two  isotopes:  deuterium 
and  tritium, of masses 1, 2, and 3, may agglutinate one  against 
another while liberating  considerable energy, greater even  than 
the one of the fission of nucleii of uranium and plutonium.

        But,  in order to attain nuclear fusion, the plasma  must 
be  dense enough so that it reaches a temperature  equivalent  to 
one  hundred million degrees C, and its confinement must last  at 
least a fraction of a second.

        The time of confinement is an essential factor and can be 
understood as follows: the kinetic agitation, causing  collisions 
(therefore  fusion),  is a factor of disorder,  the  tendency  to 
concentration (high density) is nullified by thermal  dispersion. 
Very  intense  coercive magnetic fields are used, but  these  are 
distorted  by  the internal magnetic fields of  the  plasma.  The 
"magnetic  bottle",  with  immaterial  walls,  is  an  inadequate 
receptacle  and,  until  now, only the  Universe  has  found  the 
solution,  gravity.  In  the Sun and the  stars,  the  formidable 
central  attraction maintains gases in plasma fusion despite  the 
fourteen million of degrees C in the center of the Sun.

        For  twenty years, MHD has been the center  of  extensive 
studies  in the USA, the USSR, England, France,  Germany,  Poland 
and, most recently, in Japan.

        Does  this  mean  that MHD only  concerns  very  rarefied 
plasmas  and  only thermonuclear fusion? Not at  all!  But  other 
topics  are  less well known. The engineers  and  technicians  of 
energy  transformations have been attracted by a major  point  of 
MHD. It is this: if the fluid being charged is made to move  very 
quickly in an intense magnetic field, an electrical current  will 
appear  inside  the fluid. Set two electrodes in the  fluid,  and 
electricity  will  flow  out. In other words,  from  a  very  hot 
charged gas or liquid, one will be able to get electrical current 
directly.

presents a direct  thermal-electrical  conversion 
without  moving  parts, without the creation of  movement,  hence 
with a very high thermodynamic efficiency. In order to understand 
this,  let's  recall  that, until  recently,  the  production  of 
electricity  from a hot fluid required two mecanical stages:  the 
first  is  the expansion of the vaporized fluid, which  drives  a 
turbine,  and  the  second stage is the  movement  of  the  rotor 
(driven  by the turbine) which rotates an  electro-magnet,  which 
creates an electrical current between the two poles of the brush. 
Current  obtained at the terminals of a dynamo comes from  energy 
which was subjected to several transformations.

        In  the  MHD  case, the fluid is heated up  in  order  to 
ionize it, and it needs to be heated up to very high temperature, 
which  enormously  increases the  thermodynamic  efficiency.  The 
fluid  thus  put  in motion goes  between  two  electrodes  which 
collect the current generated in the fluid.

        One  can  immediately  see the advantages  but  also  the 
difficulties.

        The advantages lie in the fact that the fluid can be  its 
own fuel! A gas made to burn by increasing its temperature  until 
reaching a high level of ionization can certainly do the job. The 
fluid may be liquid: for example, molten sodium inside a  fission 
reactor  which  is brought up to high temperature  (one  thousand 
degrees C and more, instead of the less than four hundred degrees 
C  found  in the fission reactors currently used). In  the  first 
case, an MHD generator uses the burned gas being released. In the 
second case, the generator is in closed circuit, and the fluid is 
used  constantly,  without  exiting  the  loop:  heat,  movement, 
generator  and  back  to the source of heat,  the  heart  of  the 
reactor,  in  this  case.  This  second  case  seems  ideal.  Yet 
technicians study the first case, because the ionized gas,  after 
its  crossing  the magnetic field and releasing  electricity,  is 
still  very hot and can enter a classical circuit where one  will 
get more energy by releasing the pressure and driving a  turbine. 
So  the MHD supply is, from this viewpoint, an  improvement  over 
conventional installations, liable to increase the efficiency  of 
a  power  plant  considerably, either of the  classical  type  or 
nuclear.  But there is a major difficulty: the  electrodes  which 
collect the current are directly immersed in the fluid, at a very 
high  temperature. They don't have a long lifetime, at least  not 
long  enough.  The  corrosion, at  those  temperatures,  and  the 
mechanical  strength  required, demand materials that  are  still 
being  researched.  In  France, E.D.F.  (the  French  Electricity 
Board), at its Renardieres site, has carried out advanced work on 
direct  thermonuclear conversion by MHD. But, in 1968, this  work 
was stopped. England has also given up.

        On the other hand, the USSR has carried on its work began 
in 1960, with considerable backing and a staff of 1,500 to  2,000 
persons, it is thought.

        The  problem of the electrodes, in particular,  seems  to 
have been solved, since the temperature reached is 3,000  degrees 
C and the electrode lifetime exceeds one thousand hours.

        In  1966, the first unit was started up: an  installation 
of 2 electrical MW (megawatts or thousands of kilowatts). But, in 
April  1971, the USSR, at the fifth international  conference  on 
the  production  of electrical  current  by  magnetohydrodynamics 
(Munich),  described a power plant functioning with natural  gas, 
generating  300  thermal  MW and 25  electrical  MW,  using  open 
circuit.  The  Institute of High Temperatures of the  Academy  of 
Sciences  of the USSR built it in Moscow. It is known that a  750 
MW power plant is planned within the next three or four years.

        So the MHD technique of extracting electrical energy from 
a  plasma  moving at high speed (2.5 km/s) in the air-gap  of  an 
electro-magnet has succeeded using open cycle with fossil  fuels. 
The progress so far has been astonishing. The third congress held 
in  Salzbourg in 1966 did not provide any inkling of  such  quick 
progress  and even the fourth congress of Varsaw, in  July  1968, 
was still far from any such achievement.

        Research  is still continuing concerning closed  circuits 
of  liquid  metals, or rare gases sown with an alkali  metal,  to 
increase the electrical conductivity. In France, the  theoretical 
study of mixing argon (or helium) in molten sodium brought up  to 
1,100 degrees C continues (again by the E.D.F.) with the help  of 
the  DGRST  (Direction Generale de la Recherche  Scientifique  et 
Technique).  This could lead to an efficiency of the power  plant 
of  over  50%, if the internal efficiency of  the  MHD  generator 
itself could exceed 80%. But, here again, the lack of funding has 
slowed the work, which is only at the stage of studies on a  loop 
simulator of an air and water emulsion moving at 40 m/s.

        A workgroup has been established in Poland (at  Swierck), 
in  collaboration with the Centre d'Etudes Nucleaires de  Saclay: 
its experiments focus on the technique of heat exchangers in  the 
1,200  to  3,000  degrees C range, and  upon  various  loops.  An 
experimental  power  plant of 3 MW will be built, some  parts  of 
which  are  actually built and tested. A team in  Marseille  (the 
Institute  of  Fluid Mechanics) is studying  the  possibility  of 
initiation  from  an helium plasma sown with  cesium,  heated  to 
1,000 degrees C in an atomic pile and brought up to 3,000 degrees 
C  by  pulsed  shock waves in two resonator  pipes.  One  of  the 
advantages  of  this  device would be, of course,  to  obtain  an 
alternating current directly.

        One  can say, in conclusion, that the MHD is generous  in 
its   promises,  all  the  more  so  since  U  25,   the   soviet 
installation, went into action. But one can also assert that  MHD 
in  general suffers from a lack of experimental knowledge of  the 
behavior  of materials in such extreme physical conditions.  This 
is  the bottleneck of this whole new field of physics;  the  only 
really  significant  development in nuclear energy  in  the  last 
fifteen years.


"How to make a UFO fly (on paper)"
 ---------------------------------
by Jean-Pierre PETIT
in "Science et Vie", No.702, March 1976, p.42


        Unexpected  news  at the (French) Academy of  Science:  a 
researcher  of the Centre National de la Recherche  Scientifique, 
contributor  of "Science et Vie", proposes a coherent  theory  of 
the propulsion of "flying saucers"... Myth or reality? It matters 
little, because flying saucers provide the opportunity to read  a 
masterly   (and  fascinating)  talk  upon  the  actual   research 
concerning magnetohydrodynamics.


        1) Profile of an UFO.
        ---------------------

        According  to  observations, UFOs may have a  variety  of 
appearance:  saucers, spheres, ovoid objects, cigars,  cylinders. 
In general, those objects are shining, often fuzzy or  apparently 
surrounded by a luminous halo, coloured orange or green.  Saucers 
are  very  often  topped by a dome,  flat  or  rounded,  compared 
rightly or wrongly with a cockpit. Some of them carry a  metallic 
pole (fig. 1.3 and 1.4). A large number of observations  describe 
a  row  of  "portholes",  more luminous  than  the  rest  of  the 
aircraft,  round or rectangular, usually around the  upper  dome. 
Finally, some people think that those aircraft create around them 
a powerful magnetic field, given the disruptions observed of  the 
ignition of cars or of electrical power systems, at the time of a 
UFO passage nearby.

        In  downward  flight, some UFOs oscillate  "like  saucers 
falling  down  through water". Hence their  nickname  of  "flying 
saucers" (fig. 2).

        They  are usually silent, or emit a light  humming  sound 
(like the noise of bees). After their passage, sometimes a strong 
smell  of  Ozone remains. All the witnesses  attribute  to  their 
 in  speed.  But, 
paradoxically,  their displacement, visibly supersonic, does  not 
seem  to  cause  any "bang", therefore no shock  wave,  which  is 
contrary  to  the laws of the mechanics of classical  fluids.  In 
general, the saucers advance by tipping forwards (fig. 3), as  an 
helicopter would do. This flight position is more pronounced when 
their  speed is greater. The acceleration also increases with  an 
increase of luminosity.

        The  cylinders  have imposing dimensions.  In  stationary 
flight,  they  stand  vertically.  In  some  observations,   they 
appeared  surrounded by saucers, which seemed to come from  them. 
Hence their reputation of being "mother-ships" (see fig. 4).

        In  movement,  those cylinders lean forward.  A  luminous 
trail appear at the base of the aircraft, whose front is flat. As 
for the saucers, the presence of an elongated pole as been  noted 
(fig. 5). 

        Given  those clues, can we speculate about the  means  of 
lift and propulsion of such aircraft, from our actual  scientific 
knowledge?

        This  is actually what we have tried to do, in  a  theory 
published  by  the "Compte-Rendus de l'Academie des  Sciences  de 
Paris"  (under the title  "Convertisseurs  magnetohydrodynamiques 
d'un  genre nouveau" ("Magneto-hydro-dynamic converters of a  new 
kind")),  in  the session of 21 July 1975, published  in  October 
1975.


        2) A little bit of ionized gases physics.
        -----------------------------------------

        The  atmosphere is made up of molecules of oxygen O2  and 
nitrogen  N2 in the neutral state. But, low as their  number  may 
be,  there are always some molecules of which one atom  has  lost 
one electron, which roams freely across the gas. These  wandering 
electrons  are called free electrons. The cause of  this  pulling 
out of electrons, of this "natural" ionization, is the collisions 
between molecules and the effect of cosmic rays (fig. 6).

        If we apply a potential difference between two electrodes 
set  in free air, that is if we link up those electrodes  to  the 
terminals  of  a  generator of electrical  current,  the  charged 
particles,   ions   loaded  positively   and   electrons   loaded 
negatively, will have a tendancy to move in opposite  directions. 
It  will  appear  as what we call an  electrical  current.  Those 
charged particles do not move freely: their progress through  air 
is always impeded by collisions with neutral molecules of  oxygen 
and nitrogen. The direction of the vector density of current i (i 
with  an arrow to the right above) is conventionally opposite  in 
direction  to the path followed so laboriously by the  electrons, 
which go from the cathode to the anode, from negative to positive 
(fig. 7).

        If the electrical tension is high enough, that is to  say 
if  the electrical pressure which acts upon the electrons is  big 
enough,  then,  between two collisions with molecules,  they  may 
gain  a  lot of speed, that is to say a lot  of  kinetic  energy. 
Enough  to  be  able to knock out  an  electron,  which  revolves 
peacefully around the nucleus of one of those atoms of a molecule 
of  oxygen  or  nitrogen.  This new free  electron,  said  to  be 
"secondary", is going to move too, always under the effect of the 
electrical  field,  and will maybe go and, with a  bit  of  luck, 
knock out another "linked" electron to a molecule happening to be 
in its way (fig. 8).

        Through this electronic avalanche phenomenon, the  number 
of  free electrons, and hence of the intensity of the  electrical 
current in the air, will be found to be greatly increased.

        Does this mean that this phenomenon is going to strip all 
the   atoms  of  their  satellite  electrons?  No.  A  state   of 
equilibrium is going to develop. The free electrons, slowed  down 
by  the collisions with the molecules, are also captured  by  the 
ions  which, loaded positively, attract them. The  electron  then 
goes  back  to  its orbit around the new nucleus  (fig.  9).  The 
excess  energy  is  discharged by the molecule  in  the  form  of 
luminous  radiations  (or photons). That is one the  reasons  for 
electrical discharges (lightning for example) emitting light.

        This  is exactly what happens in your fluorescent  light. 
When it is not functioning, there are very few free electrons  in 
the tube. These set themselves in movement as soon as one applies 
a voltage. As the pressure in the tube is very low, the electrons 
have  a  lot of room to develop high speeds. One could  say  that 
their  "average  free  distance" is high. So  the  phenomenon  of 
electronic  avalanche is entirely applicable. When ionization  is 
fully  developed in the tube, the density of electrons  has  been 
multiplied  by ten or one hundred thousand times. As soon as  one 
switches  off  the current, the electrons slow down, and  in  one 
millionth of a second, they have all been captured by the ions.

        A different phenomenon makes the gas more luminous in the 
neighbourhood of the cathode (cathodic glow) (fig. 10).


        3) First hypothesis regarding UFOs.
        -----------------------------------

        Let us suppose the UFOs create around them an  electrical 
discharge,  which ionizes the ambient air. Let us  suppose,  too, 
that   the  famous  "portholes"  of  saucers  are,  in   reality, 
electrodes,  and, since they are in general more  luminous,  that 
the upper electrodes are cathodes issuing electrons. The side  of 
the   UFO,  outside  those  electrodes  issuing   or   collecting 
electrons,   would  be  made  of  an  insulating  material,   non 
conductive to electricity (fig. 11).


        4) The HALL effect.
        -------------------

        This  electrical discharge, alone, would have  no  effect 
upon  the  lift  and the propulsion of the UFO,  if  it  was  not 
complemented by the action of a magnetic field B (B with an arrow 
to  the right above). Because the electrons, when they  cross  an 
area  where there is a magnetic field, have a tendency to take  a 
curved trajectory (fig. 12).

        If an electron travels in the void, it follows a  regular 
path. In a gas, it frequently collides with the molecules,  which 
impede its movement. As the molecules are several thousands times 
heavier,  at  each encounter with one of those  its  movement  is 
stopped. It resumes its course under the effect of the electrical 
field,  on  a new trajectory. Globally, this will  be  translated 
into  a  linear trajectory, at an angle theta (the  HALL  angle), 
with  the  direction  of the electrical field E.  Note  that  the 
tangent  of the HALL angle is directly proportional to the  value 
of the magnetic field B (fig. 13).

        This stated, let us imagine an electrical discharge in  a 
cylindrical enclosure (fig. 14). One of the electrodes is made by 
the  wall of the cylinder and the other is along to the axis.  In 
the absence of a magnetic field, the lines of electrical  current 
would be radial. Let us place our cylinder in a solenoid creating 
a  strong magnetic field directed along the axis. Thanks  to  the 
HALL effect, the lines of current will become spirals (fig. 15).

        This  effect is not well known to physicists, because  it 
is  particularly susceptible to interference from gases. But,  in 
air, a field of 50,000 Gauss may give an HALL effect of about  70 
degrees,  and the lines of current will therefore adopt a  spiral 
form (fig. 15).


        5) The LORENTZ forces.
        ----------------------

        Take  a pen and write down on the thumb, the  forefinger, 
and  the  middle  finger of your  left  hand,  respectively,  the 
letters E, F, and B, as shown in figure 16. Place your fingers so 
that each one is perpendicular to the other two. You form what is 
called a trirectangular trihedral in this way.

        In  a gas, an electrical current and its  magnetic  field 
are  perpendicular.  Place  your thumb in the  direction  of  the 
current,  your  middle finger in the direction  of  the  magnetic 
n 
subject  to a force, the LORENTZ force, located in the  direction 
of your forefinger. Let us come back to figure 15: remember  that 
the  direction  of  the  electrical current  is  opposed  to  the 
trajectory  followed by the electrons. Place your left hand  with 
the  thumb  in the direction of the "current" (from  positive  to 
negative),  the  middle finger in the direction of  the  magnetic 
field,  that  is to say perpendicular to the sheet  and  directed 
toward you. The forefinger indicates the direction of the  force: 
it is centrifugal. If we reverse the direction of the current  by 
switching  the  positive  and the negative, the  force  would  be 
centripetal.

        We now have everything needed to imagine a flying saucer. 
Take  two  plates, and fit them with adhesive tape, as  shown  in 
figure 17. With a felt-tip pen, draw a minus sign upon one of the 
faces,  and  a  plus sign on the opposite  face  of  this  flying 
saucer.  Again  with the felt-tip pen, draw the upper  and  lower 
electrodes of the aircraft.

        Imagine now that a solenoid, inside the saucer, creates a 
50,000  Gauss  magnetic field, directed  perpendicularly  to  the 
plates.  Imagine, too, that a current generator produce a  strong 
potential  difference between the upper electrodes and the  lower 
electrodes.  An electrical discharge, then, is going to occur  in 
the surrounding air, which will follow, more or less, the side of 
our  UFO.  Again  with  the  felt-tip  pen,  draw  the  lines  of 
electrical  current: thanks to the HALL effect, those lines  will 
have  a spiraled look, as in figure 18. Place your left  hand  so 
that  your thumb is in the direction of the  electrical  current, 
and your middle finger in the direction of the magnetic field.

        It  is  clear  (fig.  19) that  the  LORENTZ  forces  are 
centrifugal  at the upper part of the model, and  centripetal  at 
the  lower  part. The air is thus going to be drawn  towards  the 
upper part of the model, ionized at the level of the  electrodes, 
pulled  along  the side by those tangential LORENTZ  forces,  and 
finally  pushed away at the bottom. It is akin to the  motion  of 
air  through  the  rotor of an  helicopter.  This  phenomenon  of 
electromagnetic  pumping is, in my opinion, what allows  UFOs  to 
lift  themselves and to move themselves in the  atmosphere  (fig. 
20).

        There   we  have  our  magnetohydrodynamic  saucer.   The 
electrons,  in  the  sheath of ionized gas  which  surrounds  it, 
travel from top to bottom. In this "plasma", which the  radiative 
recombinations  evoked  in section 2) above  make  luminous,  the 
electrons are partially carried along by the gaseous flow. So the 
saucer  will have a kind of luminous train, quite diffuse,  below 
itself (fig. 21).


        6) The problem of radio communications.
        ---------------------------------------

        Radio  waves  are propagated poorly, if at  all,  through 
ionized  gases.  Space  capsules,  when they  go  back  into  the 
atmosphere,  are  surrounded with very hot gas,  created  by  the 
frontal shock wave, very rich in electrons. During the time  that 
the  re-entry  lasts,  it is well known  that  astronauts  cannot 
communicate with the ground, because radio waves cannot cross the 
cocoon of ionized air which surrounds the capsule. If one  wanted 
to  control our UFO by radio, an antenna would have to be  fitted 
on  the top, as shown in figure 21. This recalls the figures  1.3 
and 1.4 at the beginning of the article.


        7) The piloting of the UFO.
        ---------------------------

        One  pilots  an helicopter by cyclical variation  of  the 
angle  of the lift rotor. So the lift is not the same across  the 
disk  scanned by this rotor; it is angled forwards. One  will  do 
the same with the saucer, by appropriate variation in the way the 
currents  produced by each of the electrodes, which will lead  to 
an asymmetry in the lift, and a similar tipping out forwards  and 
translation (see fig. 22). One can expect that, in fast  descent, 
the  saucers will present the same phenomenon of  instability  as 
helicopters (fig. 2).

        The  distribution of current with the help of a  belt  of 
electrodes, instead of one single electrode, has another  effect: 
it  renders  the  electrical discharge more  stable.  This  is  a 
classical  solution  in magnetohydrodynamics,  called  "segmented 
electrodes".


        8) Without shock wave!
        ----------------------

        That is the crucial problem.

        When  a  body  accelerates in air, one knows  that  at  a 
certain moment a system of shock waves will appear. The mechanism 
which governs the appearance of this system of shock waves, where 
the  gas  finds  itself suddenly recompressed,  is  difficult  to 
explain in a few words. But a simplified description will do.

        Let us imagine a model placed in the airstream of a  wind 
tunnel  (fig.  23). There always exists a point  where  there  is 
separation  of  the gaseous flow to the sides of the  model.  The 
molecules  which  get  to  this breakpoint  have  a  speed  which 
decreases regularly to zero. Hence they would have a tendency  to 
pile up in front of the model, forming a kind of traffic jam at a 
microscopic  level,  if  they did not freely  escape  by  thermal 
agitation. But, as speed increases, there comes a time when  this 
accumulated  air at the breakpoint no longer manages  to  escape. 
Then a brutal recompression of air at this point takes place,  in 
other words a shock wave (fig. 24).

        Nature has, in a way, "invented" a solution allowing  the 
air to escape by increasing at the same time the density and  the 
temperature (therefore the agitation of the molecules). When  the 
wave is stationary, the air flow evacuated downstream of the wave 
equals  the  incident flow. Convenient solution,  but  costly  in 
energy, since the wave sets itself needlessly far in front of the 
model, and is going to cause an important loss of energy, similar 
to the one which the wake of a ship represents.

        The   compression  of  air  is  going  to  increase   its 
temperature very rapidly. This rises with the square of the speed 
of  the aircraft. Supersonic flight will thus be quickly  limited 
by  this untimely loss of calories (heat  barrier).  Furthermore, 
the  shock  wave modifies the equalization of  pressures  at  the 
surface of the aircraft, which is translated into a "streak wave" 
which  adds itself to the friction trail. At  maximum  supersonic 
speed, a modern fighter consumes up to 60% of its power to create 
this useless and noisy wave.

        Can we imagine such flight without creating this wave and 
all its inconveniences?

        In order to do so, one would have to be able to act  upon 
the  air  which  tends to accumulate in front  of  the  aircraft, 
forcing  it  to  evacuate  tangentially.  A  purely   aerodynamic 
solution (the COANDA effect) has been suggested in an article  of 
"Science et Vie" (No.683, August 1974, p.68).

        In  the  COANDA effect, the air was  reaccelerated  by  a 
tangential  motion, but it is clear that the LORENTZ  forces  can 
achieve this task much more effectively.

        Is it sensible to hope to act in this way on a shock wave 
with  those forces? Yes. In the MHD electricity  generators  (Cf. 
"Science et Vie", No.685, October 1974, p.62), the kinetic energy 
of  a  gas is converted to electricity, without the help  of  any 
moving  part. The extraction of energy causes a slowing  down  of 
the  gas, due to the LORENTZ forces. In this way, in a  perfectly 
rectilinear nozzle, this slowing down, due to the electromagnetic 
forces alone, may be violent enough to produce the appearance  of 
a   shock   wave.   This  has   been   observed   several   times 
experimentally,  and  we have personally witnessed  this,  having 
worked with this type of device.

        In  this way, if those LORENTZ forces can create a  shock 
wave, it is logical to think that they could equally well get rid 
of  it, by reacceleration of the fluid. Let us note finally  that 
it is also those LORENTZ forces which provide the confinement, in 
controlled fusion devices (e.g. TOKAMAK).

        In order to validate this theory, one would need to place 
a small model of about 2 inches of diameter, in the airstream  of 
a supersonic wind tunnel (fig. 25).

        The model being inactive at first, a strong frontal  wave 
would  be  created, upstream of the model, and a  very  turbulent 
slipstream  downstream,  which  can  be  viewed  by   striposcopy 
(schlieren  setup). One would then introduce  simultaneously  the 
electrical and magnetical fields, in conformity with the  theory. 
A  field of five Teslas (50,000 Gauss) can easily be  created  in 
such  a small volume, thanks to a battery of condensers. If  this 
theory  is  correct, one would then see the wave, sucked  by  the 
forces  of LORENTZ, go close to the model and totally  disappear, 
and the same for the slipstream (fig. 26).

        In case of success of this experiment, the problem of the 
existence   of   UFOs  would  be  solved,  once  and   for   all, 
scientifically.

        It   could   be  that  the   magnetohydrodynamic   saucer 
represents  a  much more rational use of energy,  for  hypersonic 
flight,  than  the plane (fig. 27). A 10  metre  diameter  saucer 
should  create a 50,000 Gauss magnetic field, and  an  electrical 
discharge  under high tension equivalent to 1,000  Megawatts.  We 
know  today how to produce those intense magnetic fields,  thanks 
to superconductivity (the solenoid refrigerated by liquid  helium 
to  a  temperature very near absolute zero, when  its  electrical 
resistance  falls  practically  to zero).  The  figure  of  1,000 
Megawatts should not seems excessive: a 10 ton thrust jet engine, 
spitting out gases at 1,000 m/s, develops 100 Megawatts.

        The  major problem is that of the electric generator.  It 
is nothing other than to miniaturize a small power plant, with  a 
weight  of  ten tons, in order to house it in a volume of  a  few 
cubic meters!


        9) A first-class motor!
        -----------------------

        Controlled  fusion  is the only  power  source  combining 
compactness  and  adequate power output. So, I will  describe  an 
electric motor which combines magnetohydrodynamics and fusion.

        Let  us return to the sketches of figures 14 and  15.  In 
the  cylindrical  enclosure, surrounded by a solenoid  giving  an 
axial  magnetic field, an electrical discharge  develops  between 
the central electrode and the electrode constituting the wall  of 
the  cylinder. Let us consider the same device, but with  a  very 
short  cylinder (fig. 28). We are going to discharge a  condenser 
in  this  enclosure,  which is filled with  deuterium.  The  HALL 
effect  will  once  again spiral the lines of  current,  and  the 
LORENTZ  forces  which appear are centripetal. The plasma  has  a 
tendency  to gather toward the center. The fact that two  of  the 
walls have a conical shape accentuates the effect of compression. 
During  this  first stroke, the MHD compression  creates  at  the 
center a  hyperdense and very hot medium. If this temperature  is 
not enough to create fusion, an impulse laser (acting as a  spark 
plug,  in this "two stroke" engine) initiates the  reaction.  The 
condenser  is  then  fully  discharged,  which  means  that   the 
confining forces have disappeared.

        The  plasma,  loaded  with the energy  liberated  by  its 
fusion,  is  then going to expand radially. That  is  the  second 
stroke.  When  an  ionized gas crosses the lines of  force  of  a 
magnetic  field  with  a speed V (V with an arrow  to  the  right 
above), an electrical field perpendicular to V and to B  appears, 
as  shown  in  the  bottom right of figure 28.  The  field  B  is 
perpendicular to the plane of the sheet and directed towards  the 
reader.  This field is going to generate a current J (J  with  an 
arrow  to  the  right above); but, here again,  the  HALL  effect 
intervenes,  and  it happens that this current  (see  figure)  is 
going  to  be  almost radial and centripetal. Thus,  it  will  be 
possible  to collect the current by those same  electrodes  which 
created  the  discharge.  Part  will  be  used  to  recharge  the 
condenser, which acts as an energy-saving flywheel. The rest will 
serve to fly the saucer.


        10) Reality or fiction?
        -----------------------

        All  that has been written in this article  depends  upon 
the  details  of  a branch of physics well proved  on  earth:  no 
mysterious  "field  of force", no "Z wave",  no  antigravitation. 
Some MHD generators and linear accelerators exist on our  planet, 
some of them already have industrial uses. We use the  techniques 
of strong magnetic fields. Thermonuclear fusion is  theoretically 
possible.  Fusion by laser has opened an unexpected  perspective. 
There  will be others. Remember: 20 years were needed to see  the 
birth,  in  Russia, of the first operational  MHD  generator,  20 
years  to  miniaturize computers, 20 years to  survey  the  solar 
system...

        If  the wind tunnel experiment had a positive result,  it 
would  have  demonstrated  that  a  lenticular  aerodyne,   using 
electrical  energy in abundance, may move through the  atmosphere 
without creating any shock waves (without noise either). The case 
of flying saucers would then be open.

        But,  some  would  say, how could a  flight  out  of  the 
atmosphere  take  place, where the saucer would find no  air  for 
propellant and support?

        The saucer would then need to have its own gas generator, 
which  would  eject  gas at the front  part  of  the  "air"craft, 
tangentially,  just  at the level of the electrodes. The  gas  is 
then set in motion, and accelerated by the LORENTZ forces to very 
high  speed. Each kilogram of ejected matter will provide a  much 
bigger  thrust  than in a conventional jet  engine,  because  the 
thrust is directly proportional to the speed of ejection.

        One  more  point: salt water being a  good  conductor  of 
electricity,   the   saucers   could   theoretically    manoeuvre 
underwater.  There have been stories of UFOs leaping out  of,  or 
disappearing,  underwater. Maybe the sea is their  refuge,  after 
all?


        11) Beyond the solar system.
        ----------------------------

        Some  will say: it is almost certain that no  intelligent 
being  can have been born on another planet of the  solar  system 
than  earth.  So,  if the saucers exist,  they  are  coming  from 
somewhere  else.  Proxima Centauri, our closest neighbour,  is  a 
star four light years away. The MHD saucer, as we have  described 
it,  would  not, of course, be suitable for  such  journeys.  But 
remember: when the LEM landed on the lunar ground, the astronauts 
took out of the hold a vulgar electric car. Perhaps the saucer is 
just the shuttle of a much more effective spacecraft.

        From  where would those spacecrafts come?  No  hypothesis 
should be excluded. After all, nothing has proved that space  and 
time constant across the whole universe.

        Several dozen years ago, people were driving horses,  had 
gas  lighting, and energy was supplied by steam. In 1900,  except 
for a H.J. WELLS, who would have believed in antimatter, in black 
holes, in the H bomb, and in travels in space?


        12) The cylinders.
        ------------------

        The  cylinders  which  have  been  observed,  often  with 
enormous  dimensions  (300 m), are they the  motherships  of  the 
saucers?  Some  observers  say they have  seen  (there  are  even 
pictures)  saucers  leaving  from  those  cylinders,  which  were 
stationary  in a vertical position. It seems that there  is  some 
logic in that.

        Let  us  return to our MHD saucer. It  needs  a  magnetic 
field of at least 50,000 Gauss, for making the current spiral. It 
also needs a current generator of at least, let say, one  million 
volts, to create the discharge, the plasma, around the  aircraft. 
If  the voltage is too low, the current will not get through.  If 
the  fiot  spiral 
enough.

        Let  us take ten saucers of this kind. Let us stack  them 
(fig. 29). The magnetic fields add up. Furthermore, each electric 
generator  behaves  like the cells, set in series of  a  battery. 
Result:  a  flight group, more economical, where  each  aircraft, 
motor  running on idle, now has only to furnish one tenth of  the 
critical value of the magnetic and electrical fields.

        In  this  scenario,  the cylinders  would  be  stacks  of 
saucers.  The front face, flat, would correspond to the first  of 
the stack. Concerning radio communications, same story (fig.  5). 
One can imagine that the saucers would connect between themselves 
thanks to a male and female coupling. They would then stack  like 
hats (see fig. 29 and also fig. 1.5 and 1.7).


        13) Conclusion.
        ---------------

        There  we have a saucer which can fly... on  paper.  From 
this point, experimentation must take over.


P.S.

     Mr PETIT can be reached at the following address:

Mr Jean-Pierre PETIT
c/o GESTO
9 Tour d'AYGOSI
67 Cours GAMBETTA
13100  Aix en Provence
FRANCE
------

Tel: (France) 42.26.97.14
Fax: (France) 42.26.97.18


EOF

-- 

Rick Rodman      rickr@aib.com		Manassas, VA

TCJ - for having fun | Anything worth doing | You can tell the best
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenrickr cudfnRick cudlnRodman cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Fri May 13 04:37:05 EDT 1994
------------------------------
1994.05.12 / L Plutonium /  Politicians who oppose the metric system
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.math,sci.physics,sci.physics.f
sion,sci.bio,sci.chem
Subject: Politicians who oppose the metric system
Date: 12 May 1994 02:25:43 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

Please post the names of those politicians who oppose the conversion of
the USA to the metric system. Please post their names, because anyone
who opposes the metric over the present archaic system has not 1
milliliter of commonsense and is unfit for any political office. Please
post the names of those politicians.
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.12 / mitchell swartz /  Reply to Dick Blue on Chubb&Chubb (was Mitchell Swartz
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Reply to Dick Blue on Chubb&Chubb (was Mitchell Swartz
on Chubb&Chubb, Miles, etc.)
Subject: Re: Mitchell Swartz on Chubb&Chubb, Miles, etc.
Date: Thu, 12 May 1994 12:31:56 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <9405111519.AA15562@pilot1.cl.msu.edu>
Subject: Re: Mitchell Swartz on Chubb&Chubb, Miles, etc.
Richard A Blue (blue@pilot.msu.edu) writes:

=dblue "MItchell Swartz has misunderstood which deuterons, according to
=dblue Chubb and Chubb, are said to be participants in the fusion reaction.
=dblue Robert Heeter corrected him so I did not bother.  However, since there
=dblue still seems to be some confusion on this question I will say that
=dblue my understanding of the Chubb and Chubb theory is that the majority
=dblue of the deuterons, those that occupy lattice sites, are assumed to
=dblue be inert just as the Pd atoms are.  It is only the deuterons in the
=dblue ion band states that are considered in any estimate of nuclear
=dblue reaction rates.

  Dick.   There are several states for the deuterons in the palladium,
including what is apparently the most important phase within that
fully loaded material, the gamma phase.    Do you have any comments 
on that?

  Also, I explicitly said there was more then one population of deuterons,
right?   And I only stated that there might be conditions in which a deuteron 
(assuming you could distinguish one of them) might transfer between
the two populations.

     =ms  "given the solid-state properties
     =ms  it is possible that if one loads adequately enough, and 
     =ms  supplies sufficient energy and other conditions,
     =ms  that anharmonic motions  [the dynamic Jahn Teller effect]
     =ms  and diffusion effects alone
     =ms  may make these two purported different populations
     =ms  indistinguishable in short order.    
     =ms  Perhaps Keith Johnson, or another materials lurker,
     =ms  might say more on this matter dealing with the decoration,
     =ms  anharmonic, and diffusion issues.
  [Message-ID: <CpL75u.C7D@world.std.com>;    Tue, 10 May 1994]

  I don't blame Dick for being confused because following this may
take access to quite a bit of information, but the S/N on attributions
ought increase.    ;-)

     Best wishes.
                             Mitchell Swartz [mica@world.std.com]
  

cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.12 / MARTELL JAIME /  Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
     
Originally-From: martell@chem1.chem.dal.ca (MARTELL JAIME)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.math,sci.physics,sci.physics.f
sion,sci.bio,sci.chem
Subject: Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
Date: 12 May 1994 09:24:03 -0300
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia

In article <2qs437$6u7@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth
edu (Ludwig Plutonium) writes:
>From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
>Subject: Politicians who oppose the metric system
>Date: 12 May 1994 02:25:43 GMT
>Please post the names of those politicians who oppose the conversion of
>the USA to the metric system. Please post their names, because anyone
>who opposes the metric over the present archaic system has not 1
>milliliter of commonsense and is unfit for any political office. Please
>post the names of those politicians.
 
Finally, a post from LP that makes sense!  Who ever thought we'd see the day.
Life is truly great!

cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenmartell cudfnMARTELL cudlnJAIME cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.12 / David Kastrup /  Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
     
Originally-From: dak@kaa.informatik.rwth-aachen.de (David Kastrup)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.math,sci.physics,sci.physics.f
sion,sci.bio,sci.chem
Subject: Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
Date: 12 May 1994 12:53:22 GMT
Organization: Rechnerbetrieb Informatik - RWTH Aachen

Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium) writes:

>Please post the names of those politicians who oppose the conversion of
>the USA to the metric system. Please post their names, because anyone
>who opposes the metric over the present archaic system has not 1
>milliliter of commonsense
How many fluid ounces would that be? You know, now that you press it,
I always had the feeling your common sense was rather wishy-washy, although
I would not have declared it entirely liquid. But of course you are more
daring in most respects than others, why not in self-description.
> and is unfit for any political office. Please
>post the names of those politicians.

Not that I am not glad we in Germany here have a metric, and ISO system.
-- 
 David Kastrup        dak@pool.informatik.rwth-aachen.de          
 Tel: +49-241-72419 Fax: +49-241-79502
 Goethestr. 20, D-52064 Aachen
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudendak cudfnDavid cudlnKastrup cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.12 / mitchell swartz /  Response to Dick Blue on Miles (was "Mitchell Swartz on
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Response to Dick Blue on Miles (was "Mitchell Swartz on
Chubb&Chubb, Miles, etc.")
Subject: Re: Mitchell Swartz on Chubb&Chubb, Miles, etc.
Date: Thu, 12 May 1994 12:50:56 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <9405111519.AA15562@pilot1.cl.msu.edu>
Subject: Re: Mitchell Swartz on Chubb&Chubb, Miles, etc.
Richard A Blue (blue@pilot.msu.edu) writes:

=dblue "In response to Steve Jones's suggestion that
=dblue the GM tube used by Miles is not appropriate for these measurements,
=dblue Mitchell asks, "How have so many used this equipment for so long?"
=dblue Simply put there are a wide range of circumstances under which radiation
=dblue is detected and the instrumentation requirements may vary significantly.
=dblue If there is no question as to the nature of the radiation being detected,
=dblue if the rates are appropriate, if backgrounds are not large, and if the
=dblue measurements do not require long term stability a GM tube may be an
=dblue appropriate detection device.  It offers a simple, low-cost option
=dblue for basic radiation detection."

   Partially true.
   More information about the radiation in question is available
by putting different barriers in the way of the counter, just as multiple
layers of photographic (or x-ray film), or other barriers in front of them,
will yield additional information.  This additional information can
thus be obtained despite your suggestions to the contrary.


=dblue However, if you engaged in frontier investigations in a field that
=dblue is already characterized by long-standing controversies and questions
=dblue that may have profound implications on both science and technological
=dblue advances the choice of a GM detector to make a key measurement seems
=dblue highly questionable.  If we consider the various options as to the
=dblue possible sources of the radiation being detected in the Miles experiment
=dblue and accept, as a remote possibility, that there is radiation associated
=dblue with the excess enthalpy production, this radiation could conceivably
=dblue range from low energy X-rays resulting from the energy degradation of
=dblue energetic charged particles clear up to 20 MeV gammas from the decay
=dblue of excited 4He nuclei.  There is clearly a potential opportunity
=dblue to gain a great deal of insight into the nature of the reaction process
=dblue being observed by Miles.  Why would anyone pass up this opportunity
=dblue and employ a detector that provides absolutely no information concerning
=dblue the nature of the radiation source?  Yes Mitchell, GM tubes serve a
=dblue purpose.  I think it may be a good idea for Miles to have one around
=dblue as a radiation safety monitor, but that doesn't mean that the readings
=dblue should get published as scientific data."

   In a frontier situation, GM detectors are handy devices,
and if calibrated, and adequately controlled, they do provide
scientific data.   And that data, if transformed to useful information,
do have publishable value.    Furthermore, comments
on further information about the nature of radiation were given above, and
won't be repeated to attempt to keep the S/N a bit higher.

   Good comments, Dick.         Best wishes.
                             Mitchell Swartz [mica@world.std.com]
  

cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.12 / Rich Hawryluk /  TFTR Update May 12, 1994
     
Originally-From: rhawryluk@pppl.gov (Rich Hawryluk)
Newsgroups: pppl.tftr.news,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: TFTR Update May 12, 1994
Date: 12 May 1994 09:39:17 -0400
Organization: Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory


Status:  (May 11, 1994)

On March 14 th, during the preparation work for the alpha-instabilities DT
campaign, several high performance plasmas were obtained.  However, one
shot No. 75836, had exceptional parameters, the following are some of the
parameters:  IP = 2.0 MA, Pb = 20.8 MW, taueE = 0.22 seconds, stored
energy = 4 MJ, density peakedness ne (0)/<ne>= 3.6, and DD neutron emission
3.8 x 1016 neutrons/s, Ti (0) =  30.2keV, Te (0) = 10.2, ne (0) =  8.1 x
1019 m-3, nD (0) = 6.4 x 1019 m-3.   The beta normal was BetaN = 1.4;
however, this discharge disrupted after about 0.5 seconds.  At the
disruption, a high n (n = 10) ballooning-like mode was observed on the fast
ECE signals.

The results of tritium gas puffs experiments have been compared to
measurements of helium transport and they indicate that the tritium
diffusivity is small in the core and increases to higher values toward the
edge and is very similar to the helium diffusivity (DT = 1m**2/s at r/a =
0.5). The tritium particle diffusivity is also comparable to the ion
thermal diffusivity.  Comparisons with 3-D kinetic linear
instability calculations and gyro-kinetic particle simulation are being
carried out at present.


The alpha instability campaign started the week of April 25th, with DT-4
which is an experimental proposal to study TAE modes at low Ti and plasma
beta.  The main goal of this experimental proposal is to increase the
likelihood of
TAE mode activity in TFTR D-T supershots by reducing the ion temperature
and/or the background plasma beta, which in the theoretical models should
reduce the ion Landau damping and continuum damping and therefore lower the
threshold for the TAE modes.  Four different methods of the reducing the
ion temperature and plasma beta were performed in DT supershots.  So far in
these experiments the TAE mode driven by alpha-particles has not been
identified.  We are continuing to study the data and a detailed comparison
between theory and experiment will be made. Dr. Don Spong from ORNL took
part in our TAE mode experiments.


The alpha instability campaign continued week of May 2nd with a set of
experiments by K.L. Wong.  The purpose of this experiment was to study the
interaction between energetic alpha particles and the Alfven instabilities.
The experiment  during the week of May 2nd tried to optimize the chance of
TAE excitation by enhancing the driving term by trapped energetic ions
produced by ICRF. The alpha particle drive can be evaluated by the
reduction of RF power needed to excite the Alfven instability in similar
discharges.  This assumes that we can study the interaction between alpha
particles and TAE modes under conditions when there are not enough alpha
particles to drive the instability without the RF.
Preliminary results show that a TAE mode can exist in supershot-like
plasmas at high field destabilized by ICRF and possibly by alpha particles.
It is observed by Mirnov coils and microwave reflectometer.  We are
still checking to see if the TAE modes is causing a loss of fast ions or
alpha particles. The threshold power for the TAE excitation is reduced more
than 1 MW in D-T plasmas with Palpha of about 0.4 MW.  The reason for the
change in the RF power required to destabilize the TAE mode is being
investigated.


Plans:

Next week, May 16th, will be a tritium run week.  The first part of the week
will be devoted to observation of the alpha-particles with the alpha-CHERS
diagnostic.  The later part of the week will be optimization of the
conditioning of the machine with lithium pellets in deuterium discharges.

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


cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenrhawryluk cudfnRich cudlnHawryluk cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.12 / Jim Bowery /  Re: Ball Lightning
     
Originally-From: jabowery@netcom.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Ball Lightning
Date: Thu, 12 May 1994 21:39:45 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

jwinter@uniwa.uwa.edu.au (John Winterflood) writes:
> While investigating ball lightning I came across some articles about a fellow 
> inHolland called Gerard Dijkhuis who formed a public company called Convectron 
> N.Varound 1983 and then raised more capital in 1985 for further ball lightning
> research (with the aim of achieving "village-level" controlled fusion - New
> Scientist 19 Sept 85 p27). The next mention I found of his activity, is a paper
> presented during the First International Symposium of Ball Lightning held at
> Waseda University, Tokyo on July 4-6 1988. He reports interesting but
> unconvincing neutron detector counts and rather short-lived plasma balls. I
> wonder if anyone knows what his progress has been since and whether he is on
> EMail. I guess he can't have succeeded or you wouldn't still be playing with
> Tokamaks!
> 
> I also notice that Paul Koloc presented a paper at the Symposium suggesting that
> his PLASMAK(tm) model would be a promising cantidate to explain ball lightning.
> Have you become more certain, or less, that this could be so Paul ?
> I noticed that Paul mentioned a garage experiment ,and then an experiment by
> Goldenbaum at MD, and then at PPPL (Spheromak). What were the characteristics
> of the plasma balls obtained - ie size, duration, energy density, etc, and where
> could I find a report?
> 
> I would really appreciate finding out about any recent research that has been
> been done on the subject of ball lightning, or if there is a more appropriate
> newsgroup for making enquiries.
> 
> I haven't managed to get hold of the fusion FAQ yet - if this topic is mentioned
> there then I would appreciate a copy of it or knowing where I can FTP it from.
> 
> John Winterflood
> Department of Physics
> University of Western Australia
> 
-- 
The promotion of politics exterminates apolitical genes in the population.
  The promotion of frontiers gives apolitical genes a route to survival.
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenjabowery cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.12 / L Plutonium /  Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.math,sci.physics,sci.physics.f
sion,sci.bio,sci.chem
Subject: Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
Date: 12 May 1994 18:37:51 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In article <martell.250.768745434@chem1.chem.dal.ca>
martell@chem1.chem.dal.ca (MARTELL JAIME) writes:

> Finally, a post from LP that makes sense!  Who ever thought we'd see the day.
> Life is truly great!

  Let me say what prompted this post. I was listening to a radio news
program which stated words to the effect "Some politician wanted to
rescind the money allocated and earmarked for the conversion of our
present English system into the Metric". It is pathetic to make two
steps forward in progress and then have a politician who wants to make
us fall back two steps, wants to pull the rug out from under, . .

LP, not count as 1 of 3 posts 12May94

                         94th ELECTRON OF 231PU
               Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH ELECTRON

                  \ ::| :./.
                  .\::|::/.:
                     _ _
                    (:Y:)
                     - - 
                  ::/.|.\.:
                :: /.:| :\.:
                  /   |   \.
        One of those dots is the Sun with 9 smaller dots around it.
Look in a chemistry textbook or quantum physics textbook of the
electron cloud dot picture. 
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.11 / Stanley Sramek /  Re: Minimum Coulomb Interactions for plutonium?
     
Originally-From: gpcsjs@sjstat.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (Stanley J. Sramek)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Minimum Coulomb Interactions for plutonium?
Date: Wed, 11 May 1994 20:26:11 GMT
Organization: Texaco Inc.

Scott Chase said:

  Neon has a total of 20 charges [snip-snip] The number of distinct pairs of
  objects which you can form from a set of 20 is 20*21/2 = 210.

Thomas Zemanian then said:

  Um, shouldn't that be 20*19/2=190?  Am I missing something?

Scott Chase then said:

  Yes, you are missing 20 combinations. :-)

  Sum(i=1,N;i) = N*(N+1)/2.

I (Stanley) now say:

Scott, shouldn't your formula be N*(N-1)/2?
                                     ~
                                     ~
If you apply it to a simple hydrogen atom (one proton, one electron,
so N=2) in your original form, you get 2*(2+1)/2=3 which seems a bit
big. Intuitively, it seems that if you have N=2 interacting particles
there should be only 1 distinct pair.   :-}     (smiley face)

************************************************************************
*  Stanley J. Sramek                             My posted statements  *
*  Texaco Inc.                                   do not reflect the    *
*  Houston, Texas, U.S.A.                        views of my employer. *
************************************************************************
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudengpcsjs cudfnStanley cudlnSramek cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.14 / Richard Blue /  Re: MItchell Swartz on Chubb and Chubb, Miles, etc.
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: MItchell Swartz on Chubb and Chubb, Miles, etc.
Date: Sat, 14 May 1994 00:16:57 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Mitchell asks my comments regarding the gamma phase of highly loaded
PdD.  I don't have a sense that details concerning the structure of
PdD under conditions of maximum loading are well understood.  I have
wondered whether phase changes and latent heats associated with such
changes could be confusing the "simple calorimetry" of cold fusion.
As to whether the dynamic Jahn-Teller effect or anharmonic motions
can be the key to cold fusion,  My understanding is that many such
effects have been considered and found to make possible small
changes to the calculated barrier penetration rates, but that no one
has come up with any indication that solid state effects can come close
to accounting for cold fusion results.  In particular no solid state
effects have been even thought of that can dramatically alter fusion
branching ratios and thus explain all the null results involving the
nondetection of radiation.

As for how the theory by Chubb and Chubb relates to the other solid
state effects you mention, I don't think there is much connection.
C&C have concentrated on constructing a theory that matches in detail
the supposed results by Miles, et al. before there was any clear claim
that they were in fact seeing some form of radiation.  The ion band
state was the essential gimmic by which deuterons got together without
ever sensing the Coulomb repulsion, and it was the essential gimmic
for keeping the groups of 4,6 or 8 closely correlated nucleons from
behaving "naturally".  I don't think you will find in the Chubb theory
anything to support the notion that other solid state effects are involved.

Now to add a few final touches to my comments on the use of GM detectors
in cold fusion experiments,  while you are technically correct that
GM tubes in combination with sets of absorbers could be used to dope
out some information concerning the energy spectrum of the detected
radiation, if you think about the details of what that would involve
you will see that you a grasping at straws trying to save some pretty
worthless data.  To make use of absorbtion measurements in the presence
of a background that dominates the count rate by a large factor is
a pretty tough thing to sort out.  For example, when there is a significant
cosmic ray contribution to the background any addition of an absorber
mass near the detector may lead to an unexpected increase in the background
rate.  If the radiation is 20 MeV gammas an absorber can result
in an increase in the count rate due to the generation of a cascade
of electrons, positrons, and gammas.  Sure, in the good old days people
were able to get some pretty significant data using the techniques
that were available at that time,  but why would anyone attempt to do
things that way today?  It is just dumb!

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.12 / Greg Kuperberg /  cmsg cancel <1994May5.170503.26112@midway.uchicago.edu>
     
Originally-From: gk00@uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cmsg cancel <1994May5.170503.26112@midway.uchicago.edu>
Date: Thu, 12 May 1994 21:03:05 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

<1994May5.170503.26112@midway.uchicago.edu> was cancelled from within trn.
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudengk00 cudfnGreg cudlnKuperberg cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.12 / Greg Kuperberg /  cmsg cancel <1994May5.170503.26112@midway.uchicago.edu>
     
Originally-From: gk00@uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cmsg cancel <1994May5.170503.26112@midway.uchicago.edu>
Date: Thu, 12 May 1994 21:03:11 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

<1994May5.170503.26112@midway.uchicago.edu> was cancelled from within trn.
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudengk00 cudfnGreg cudlnKuperberg cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.12 / Greg Kuperberg /  cmsg cancel <1994May5.170503.26112@midway.uchicago.edu>
     
Originally-From: gk00@uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cmsg cancel <1994May5.170503.26112@midway.uchicago.edu>
Date: Thu, 12 May 1994 21:03:16 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

<1994May5.170503.26112@midway.uchicago.edu> was cancelled from within trn.
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudengk00 cudfnGreg cudlnKuperberg cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.12 / Jim Bowery /  Re: (Long) Delayed Response to Old Koloc Article
     
Originally-From: jabowery@netcom.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: (Long) Delayed Response to Old Koloc Article
Date: Thu, 12 May 1994 21:39:34 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

brauchfu@fnugget.intel.com (Brian D. Rauchfuss) writes:
> In article <jaboweryCpM1Mn.Lzw@netcom.com> jabowery@netcom.com (Jim Bowery) writes:
> >We don't want "disinterested" parties.  We want parties who are
> >interested in developing fusion.  Let private capital lead the
> >investment authority -- not a political heirarchy.
> 
> Only if they are only investing their own money.  

Private capital is, by definition, private money.

> If this is private capital,
> there is no need for an "investment authority",

Your logic is befuddling.  You state that if someone invests their
own money in fusion energy technology then "there is no need for
an 'investment authority'"?  If so, I know quite a number of people
who are putting their own capital into fusion energy technology
right now.  So when do you start arguing that "there is no need for
 an 'investment authority'" in our current Department of Energy?
Have you written to your Congressman telling him to terminate the
current fusion program?  If not, why not and how is your reasoning
consistent with your above statement given that there is private
capital being invested right now?

> if it is private companies
> running an investment authority for the government then they will obviously
> vote to spend as much money on research as possible so as to minimize the 
> investment they will have to make to commercialize the technology.

This is like talking to someone from Zeta Reticuli...  Where do I begin?

First, since I said private CAPITAL should lead the investment authority,
I meant that only to the quantifiable extent that private investors are
putting their money where their mouth is, should they considered to 
be registering any sort of "vote".  When you say "vote" you imply a 
political process.  Although you deleted my repeated statements to this
effect, I really did mean it when I said I wanted to get the politics
out of the funding decisions.  You don't do that by taking a bunch of
guys who are not, at this precise moment, civil servants, call them
"representatives of private companies" and let them all schmooze with
each other about how they are going to "vote to spend as much money
on research as possible so as to minimize the investment they will
have to make to commercialize the technology."

Second, what is so bad about public funding staying out of technology
development and sticking to research?  Seems like a very good idea
to me -- one I've been advocating for nearly a decade now -- although
I'm now casting a jaundiced eye at even allowing research funds
to come through government due to the political shenannigans that 
spread technosocialist diseases throughout the economy.


-- 
The promotion of politics exterminates apolitical genes in the population.
  The promotion of frontiers gives apolitical genes a route to survival.
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenjabowery cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.12 / Jim Bowery /  Re: (Long) Delayed Response to Old Koloc Article
     
Originally-From: jabowery@netcom.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: (Long) Delayed Response to Old Koloc Article
Date: Thu, 12 May 1994 21:39:39 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel) writes:
> Please please please!  The problem is it just doesn't matter a
> mosquito's phart in hurricane what these scientific panels say.
> 
> They always say "Whatever you do, don't cut basic science" and
> congress and the bureacracy goes ahead and does just that.
> 

If you put the fusion program's funding for "plasma physics" through 
the ordinary peer review processes in the NSF -- as degenerate and 
filled with ethical violations as they have become -- you would find 
the field of plasma physics blossom so rapidly that fusion energy
technology development could be picked up by the private sector.

Note:  I don't consider this to be the optimal route to fusion from
a public policy standpoint -- I am simply pointing out that to 
call the tokamak program "basic science" is absurd.
-- 
The promotion of politics exterminates apolitical genes in the population.
  The promotion of frontiers gives apolitical genes a route to survival.
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenjabowery cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.12 / Jim Bowery /  Re: (Long) Delayed Response to Old Koloc Article
     
Originally-From: jabowery@netcom.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: (Long) Delayed Response to Old Koloc Article
Date: Thu, 12 May 1994 22:02:29 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

brauchfu@fnugget.intel.com (Brian D. Rauchfuss) writes:
> In article <jaboweryCpM1Mn.Lzw@netcom.com> jabowery@netcom.com (Jim 
Bowery) writes:
> >We don't want "disinterested" parties.  We want parties who are
> >interested in developing fusion.  Let private capital lead the
> >investment authority -- not a political heirarchy.
> 
> Only if they are only investing their own money.  

Private capital is, by definition, private money.

> If this is private capital,
> there is no need for an "investment authority",

Your logic is befuddling.  You state that if someone invests their
own money in fusion energy technology then "there is no need for
an 'investment authority'"?  If so, I know quite a number of people
who are putting their own capital into fusion energy technology
right now.  So when do you start arguing that "there is no need for
 an 'investment authority'" in our current Department of Energy?
Have you written to your Congressman telling him to terminate the
current fusion program?  If not, why not and how is your reasoning
consistent with your above statement given that there is private
capital being invested right now?

> if it is private companies
> running an investment authority for the government then they will 
obviously
> vote to spend as much money on research as possible so as to 
minimize the 
> investment they will have to make to commercialize the technology.

First, since I said private CAPITAL should lead the investment authority,
I meant that only to the quantifiable extent that private investors are
putting their money where their mouth is, are they considered to 
be registering any sort of "vote".  When you say "vote" you imply a 
political process.  Although you deleted my repeated statements,
I really did mean it when I said I wanted to get the politics
out of the funding decisions.

Second, what is so bad about public funding staying out of technology
development and sticking to research?  Seems like a very good idea
to me -- one I've been advocating for nearly a decade now -- although
I'm now casting a jaundiced eye at even allowing research funds
to come through government due to the political shenannigans that 
spread technosocialist diseases throughout the economy.
-- 
The promotion of politics exterminates apolitical genes in the population.
  The promotion of frontiers gives apolitical genes a route to survival.
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenjabowery cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.12 / Jim Bowery /  Re: (Long) Delayed Response to Old Koloc Article
     
Originally-From: jabowery@netcom.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: (Long) Delayed Response to Old Koloc Article
Date: Thu, 12 May 1994 22:02:35 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel) writes:
> Please please please!  The problem is it just doesn't matter a
> mosquito's phart in hurricane what these scientific panels say.
> 
> They always say "Whatever you do, don't cut basic science" and
> congress and the bureacracy goes ahead and does just that.
> 

If you put the fusion program's funding for "plasma physics" through 
the ordinary peer review processes in the NSF -- as degenerate and 
filled with ethical violations as they have become -- you would find 
the field of plasma physics blossom so rapidly that fusion energy
technology development could be picked up by the private sector.

Note:  I don't consider this to be the optimal route to fusion from
a public policy standpoint -- I am simply pointing out that to 
call the tokamak program "basic science" is absurd.
-- 
The promotion of politics exterminates apolitical genes in the population.
  The promotion of frontiers gives apolitical genes a route to survival.
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenjabowery cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.12 / Jim Bowery /  Re: Ball Lightning
     
Originally-From: jabowery@netcom.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Ball Lightning
Date: Thu, 12 May 1994 22:02:40 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

jwinter@uniwa.uwa.edu.au (John Winterflood) writes:
> I also notice that Paul Koloc presented a paper at the Symposium suggesting th
> his PLASMAK(tm) model would be a promising cantidate to explain ball lightning
> Have you become more certain, or less, that this could be so Paul ?
> I noticed that Paul mentioned a garage experiment ,and then an experiment by
> Goldenbaum at MD, and then at PPPL (Spheromak). What were the characteristics
> of the plasma balls obtained - ie size, duration, energy density, etc, and whe
> could I find a report?

It seems like everyone and his brother is waking up now.  This is good news
and bad news.  The good news is people are waking up. the bad news is the
parasites will follow shortly.  Despite any differences we may have, we
should all lend our sympathetic, protective and unobtrusive support to
Paul Koloc during this critical time.

P-B11 fusion can remove many sources of conflict between people and create
positive-sum options for all.
-- 
The promotion of politics exterminates apolitical genes in the population.
  The promotion of frontiers gives apolitical genes a route to survival.
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenjabowery cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.12 / Jan Bielawski /  Re: Minimum Coulomb Interactions for plutonium?
     
Originally-From: jpb@cvsd.cv.com (Jan Bielawski)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Minimum Coulomb Interactions for plutonium?
Date: 12 May 1994 12:16:45 -0700
Organization: Computervision, San Diego, CA

In article <10MAY199418025480@csa5.lbl.gov>,
SCOTT I CHASE <sichase@csa5.lbl.gov> wrote:
<In article <ts_zemanian-100594161753@ts_zemanian.pnl.gov>, ts_zemanian@
nl.gov (Thomas S. Zemanian) writes...
<>In article <10MAY199414423245@csa5.lbl.gov>, sichase@csa5.lbl.gov (SCOTT I
<>CHASE) wrote:
<> 
<>> I don't know how Halliday and/or Resnick arrived at this number, but I 
<>> believe it to be wrong.  Neon has a total of 20 charges, 60 if you foolishly
<>> treat it at the quark level.  The number of distinct pairs of objects which 
<>> you can form from a set of 20 is 20*21/2 = 210.  Believe me, that's more 
<>> than enough to make your Schroedinger equation unsolvable.  
<> 
<>Um, shouldn't that be 20*19/2=190?  Am I missing something?
<
<Yes, you are missing 20 combinations. :-)
<
<Sum(i=1,N;i) = N*(N+1)/2.

Um, I'm confused. 20-choose-2 = 20*19/2 = 190.  Maybe Halliday and Resnick
were counting contributions from all pairs, triples, quadruples, etc.,
in which case we get:

sum(i=1,N; N-choose-i) = 2^N - N.  In this case N=20 and 2^20-20 =~ 10^6 .
-- 
	Jan Bielawski
	Computervision, San Diego
	jpb@cvsd.cv.com

cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenjpb cudfnJan cudlnBielawski cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.13 / THEODORE KARAS /  Re: SKITS 20-22, and finis of NEANDERTHAL PARK
     
Originally-From: tkaras@mason1.gmu.edu (THEODORE R. KARAS)
Newsgroups: sci.math,sci.physics,sci.chem,sci.bio,sci.physics.fusion,sci
psychology,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,alt.religion.kibology,alt.cesium
Subject: Re: SKITS 20-22, and finis of NEANDERTHAL PARK
Date: 13 May 1994 00:21:54 GMT
Organization: George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia, USA

In article <2qmi2n$a3g@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth
edu (Ludwig Plutonium) writes:
>   These skits will end NEANDERTHAL PARK. There may be a sequel to
>Neanderthal Park later, provided more posters post their psychological
>tinker toys posing as logical arguments. Their arguments have such
>gaping holes that you can fly a jumbo jet through the holes.
>Neanderthal Park II will come if I get ambitious and have more time.

[rest deleted]

How long can you keep this up LP? Its quite fascinating. 







cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudentkaras cudfnTHEODORE cudlnKARAS cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.13 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Ball Lightning
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Ball Lightning
Date: Fri, 13 May 1994 06:39:23 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <jwinter.7.0000D3A0@uniwa.uwa.edu.au> jwinter@uniwa.uwa.edu.a
 (John Winterflood) writes:
>While investigating ball lightning I came across some articles about a fellow 
>inHolland called Gerard Dijkhuis who formed a public company called Convectron 
>N.Varound 1983 and then raised more capital in 1985 for further ball lightning
>research (with the aim of achieving "village-level" controlled fusion - New
>Scientist 19 Sept 85 p27). The next mention I found of his activity, is a paper
>presented during the First International Symposium of Ball Lightning held at
>Waseda University, Tokyo on July 4-6 1988. He reports interesting but
>unconvincing neutron detector counts and rather short-lived plasma balls. I
>wonder if anyone knows what his progress has been since and whether he is on
>EMail. I guess he can't have succeeded or you wouldn't still be playing with
>Tokamaks!

Dr. G. Dijkhuis, is a congenial fellow, and I'm certain an direct inquiry 
would be answered in due course.   

He had difficulties in reproducing the 1970 experiment of J. Tuck (now 
deceased) and then at LANL.  I knew Jim; my wife's family lived across 
the street from the Tuck's when she grew up in LANL.  Dijhuis had a kind
of whirlygig model of BL that I didn't quite understand.  I haven't 
attended the other BL meetings, since we hadn't yet diagnosed our
atmospheric PLASMAK(tm) magnetoplasmoids (and likely an artificial BL).  

>I also notice that Paul Koloc presented a paper at the Symposium suggesting that
>his PLASMAK(tm) model would be a promising candidate to explain ball lightning.
>Have you become more certain, or less, that this could be so Paul ?

What we know so far is confirming.  

>I noticed that Paul mentioned a garage experiment ,and then an experiment by
>Goldenbaum at MD, and then at PPPL (Spheromak). What were the characteristics
>of the plasma balls obtained - ie size, duration, energy density, etc, and where
>could I find a report?

Much was published at the Compact Toroids Meetings, and the APS Division
of Plasma physics has the abstracts.  Also papers were published in
The usual physics journals, and significant more classical papers where
published by the IAEA in _FUSION_, check the years from 76 on through 88.
for startup and the greatest activity.  

The garage experiment the Spheromak (1975/6, and it was a flux core 
production, which I showed to HP Furth and unfortunately couldn't 
dissuade him from using.  (embedded impurities from startup.  

>I would really appreciate finding out about any recent research that has been
>been done on the subject of ball lightning, or if there is a more appropriate
>newsgroup for making enquiries.

Ball lightning is still illegal theoretically, so it can't be funded here
in this country.  However, we are always ready for that Angel from heaven
that wouldn't mind making the MHD-non-beam-current theorists blush.  

Sorry it took us so long to figure out how to form these things so perfectly.
They are very tricky and it requires a lot of VERY expensive equipment to
reproduce what lightning does.  For example, one .5 megajoules and several
aux banks of very very fast capacitors is a reasonable first acquisition.  
Then it gets expensive.   

>I haven't managed to get hold of the fusion FAQ yet - if this topic is mentioned
>there then I would appreciate a copy of it or knowing where I can FTP it from.

>John Winterflood
>Department of Physics
>University of Western Australia

cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.13 / Paul Koloc /  Re: From EPIC/BIBLICAL to the Extended Tokamak family 
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: From EPIC/BIBLICAL to the Extended Tokamak family 
Date: Fri, 13 May 1994 05:34:35 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <2qm2ap$iub@network.ucsd.edu> mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel) writes:
>Dr. Koloc, you just have a PR problem.   Watch.

>In your documents and proposals, replace 'tokamak' with 'conventional
>tokamak designs', and replace 'PLASMAK(tm)' with 'advanced tokamak design'.

>Voila!  You are part of the Tokamak Program now.  Same science, less
>ego trampling.  

Ouch! ...  Hmmm!  .. well  ..gulp..   I always said I liked the tokamak 
as a research device, and it's just a question of what one does with all 
that information!      :-)

How's that for spin?  

>-Matt Kennel  		mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu
| Paul M. Koloc,Bx 1037, Prometheus II, Ltd., College Park, MD 20741-1037 |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc,Bx 1037, Prometheus II, Ltd., College Park, MD 20741-1037 |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Sat May 14 04:37:22 EDT 1994
------------------------------
1994.05.13 / Paul Koloc /  Re: (Long) Delayed Response to Old Koloc Article
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: (Long) Delayed Response to Old Koloc Article
Date: Fri, 13 May 1994 06:13:53 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <2qrn9b$hsh@ornews.intel.com> brauchfu@fnugget.intel.com
(Brian D. Rauchfuss) writes:
>In article <jaboweryCpM1Mn.Lzw@netcom.com> jabowery@netcom.com (Jim Bowery) writes:
>>We don't want "disinterested" parties.  We want parties who are
>>interested in developing fusion.  Let private capital lead the
>>investment authority -- not a political heirarchy.

>Only if they are only investing their own money.  If this is private capital,
>there is no need for an "investment authority", if it is private companies
>running an investment authority for the government then they will obviously
>vote to spend as much money on research as possible so as to minimize the 
>investment they will have to make to commercialize the technology.

That's correct it would be private enterprise investing their own money.  
This is to clarify that.  Also your last point is worth examining 
more closely.  

In a situation where private enterprise is firxed ratio cost sharing 
with the goverment and on a sliding scale with time, the PE group would
be willing initially to look at a wider group of AC concepts, for example.

                         A POSSIBLE SCENARIO:
As time went on, and certain AC concepts looked to be real winners, then
the continued development of those concepts would probably be withdrawn
from the cost sharing program, so that the work and progress could be
held close to the vest and a combination of trade secrets and patent
coverage worked out.  That means the program could end up less drop
off in support for remaining concepts, which would be good since it 
may allow time and energy to come up with breakthrough innovation which
could catapult another concept or two into the winners circle.  Again,
as that happens, the tendency would be to take over the funding 
aspects by private develoment since it would facilitate intellectual
property protection, and head start commercial entry would could be 
helpful for the responding country.  

As it is, the DoE excludes all standalong concepts, and discouragess 
private money with perposterous claims that fusion can't happen before 
mid next century.  

>BDR
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc,Bx 1037, Prometheus II, Ltd., College Park, MD 20741-1037 |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+


cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.13 / Brian Rauchfuss /  Re: (Long) Delayed Response to Old Koloc Article
     
Originally-From: brauchfu@fnugget.intel.com (Brian D. Rauchfuss)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: (Long) Delayed Response to Old Koloc Article
Date: 13 May 1994 18:49:08 GMT
Organization: INTEL.FOLSOM

In article <jaboweryCppLHy.Iys@netcom.com> jabowery@netcom.com (Jim Bowery) writes:
>This is like talking to someone from Zeta Reticuli...  Where do I begin?

It's not that bad (I'm from a somewhat closer star), we simply misunderstand 
each other.

>> >...
>> >interested in developing fusion.  Let private capital lead the
>> >investment authority -- not a political heirarchy.

If you mean that investments in fusion development should be private, I agree.
If you mean that government investments in fusion should be controlled by 
private power companies, then I say that there is a conflict of interest in 
that the power companies want to shift as much research cost to the government 
as possible.

>Second, what is so bad about public funding staying out of technology
>development and sticking to research?  Seems like a very good idea

I would strongly recommend this idea, as well.


BDR
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenbrauchfu cudfnBrian cudlnRauchfuss cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.12 / Vic Moberg /  Re: Ball Lightning
     
Originally-From: moberg@nosc.mil (Vic Moberg)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Ball Lightning
Date: Thu, 12 May 1994 17:46:50 GMT
Organization: NCCOSC RDT&E Division, San Diego, CA

There was a recent notice that an upcoming Russian physics journal would
include papers from a long-lived atmospheric plasma conference.  Afraid I
didn't copy down which one.

--
--
Vic Moberg                                NCCOSC RDTE Div. Code 842
moberg@manta.nosc.mil                     53490 Dow St. Rm. 104
Phone: 619-553-6140, Fax: -6449           San Diego CA 92152-5731
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenmoberg cudfnVic cudlnMoberg cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.13 / Matt Kennel /  Re: (Long) Delayed Response to Old Koloc Article
     
Originally-From: mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: (Long) Delayed Response to Old Koloc Article
Date: 13 May 1994 21:34:32 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

Jim Bowery (jabowery@netcom.com) wrote:
: mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel) writes:
: > Please please please!  The problem is it just doesn't matter a
: > mosquito's phart in hurricane what these scientific panels say.
: > 
: > They always say "Whatever you do, don't cut basic science" and
: > congress and the bureacracy goes ahead and does just that.
: > 

: If you put the fusion program's funding for "plasma physics" through 
: the ordinary peer review processes in the NSF -- as degenerate and 
: filled with ethical violations as they have become -- you would find 
: the field of plasma physics blossom so rapidly that fusion energy
: technology development could be picked up by the private sector.

I see plenty of papers about basic plasma physics in Physics of Fluids B
and Phys Rev E and yet nobody's breaking down the door with loads of cash.

Hey I even just saw a new proposal for laser fusion from some Russians in
Phys Rev E a couple of months ago...what's going to happen with that? (not
laser driven implosion but electric confinement of plasma using
ponderomotive force of the laser beams)

Probably the same as all the others: zero.  

: Note:  I don't consider this to be the optimal route to fusion from
: a public policy standpoint -- I am simply pointing out that to 
: call the tokamak program "basic science" is absurd.

From the point of view of "private capital", even TFTR is way out there
as "basic science", not to mention the other plasma physics machines.

Perhaps not ITER but even that's borderline.

Private capital says "5 years maximum with a guaranteed return."
Scientists say "We have all these theoretical ideas but we need to test
them in experiments."
Private capital says "5 years maximum guaranteed return?"
Scientists say "oh we don't know yet we have to find out."
Private capital says "hasta la vista baby, I've got some shopping center
to develop."

--
-Matt Kennel  		mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu
-Institute for Nonlinear Science, University of California, San Diego
-*** AD: Archive for nonlinear dynamics papers & programs: FTP to
-***     lyapunov.ucsd.edu, username "anonymous".
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenmbk cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.13 / Mark North /  Re: "Cold Fusion" Magazine Accelerating
     
Originally-From: north@watop.nosc.mil (Mark North)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: "Cold Fusion" Magazine Accelerating
Date: Fri, 13 May 1994 23:47:50 GMT
Organization: NCCOSC RDT&E Division, San Diego, CA

jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) writes:


>Mark North (north@watop.nosc.mil) wrote:
>: ... the government oil lease scam. The one where all you must do
>: is send in $100 to secure the mineral rights to 10000 acres of 
>: public land in Colorado which is *certified* by petroleum *scientists*
>: to have at least X million dollars in potential earnings.

>We can all think of fraudulent schemes.  But we must distinquish (when speaking
>of ethics) between controversial truth, good faith error, and willful 
>prevarication.  Merely alleging that fraud can exist in general does not
>add any weight to a specific charge of fraud.  Not only must we *prove* that
>the claims are in error, but we must also demonstrate beyond a reasonable
>doubt that the actions of the participants were willful.

In a court of law we must 'prove' things. In the court of scientific 
opinion we state the evidence and hope that the lurkers can discern 
the difference between hype and something substantial. That aside.
Of your three classes of ethical considerations I find I cannot parse
'controversial truth'. Do you think you could give an example of
such a beast?

>In this context, it is very hard to imagine a blanket claim of willful
>behavior in regard to CF activities.  Recall that our very own Dr. Steven
>Jones was diligently searching for CF up until late last year or so.  The
>theoretical objections to CF were as strong during his years of investigation
>as they are today.  Do we lump Dr. Jones past behavior in the fraud bin?
>(I hope not!)

As far as I know Prof. Jones was not offering palladium medallions to
further his cause. 

>Or do we arbitrarily establish an ethical demarcation -- BJ and AJ (Before
>Jones and After Jones)?  Anyone who is still conducting CF research AJ is 
>engaging in willful fraud?  As much as I respect Dr. Jones (BJ and AJ :-)
>I can't see the justification for using him (or anyone else you care to
>mention) as the final arbiter in such a controversial matter.

I do not accept your premise so I don't feel obligated to answer. However,
I will say I hardly consider the matter controversial. On the other hand,
I can understand why some folks would like to create the impression that
it *is* controversial. 

>To justify a specific accustation of fraud against an individual is difficult
>enough -- to justify a general accusation of fraud against a whole field
>is more formidable by several orders of magnitude.

Well, of course, I never made such an accusation so you have a nice
straw man there. 

Mark

cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudennorth cudfnMark cudlnNorth cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.14 / Mark North /  Re: Response to Dick Blue on Miles (was "Mitchell Swartz
     
Originally-From: north@watop.nosc.mil (Mark North)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Response to Dick Blue on Miles (was "Mitchell Swartz
on Chubb&Chubb, Miles, etc.")
Date: Sat, 14 May 1994 00:21:00 GMT
Organization: NCCOSC RDT&E Division, San Diego, CA

mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:

>  In Message-ID: <9405111519.AA15562@pilot1.cl.msu.edu>
>Subject: Re: Mitchell Swartz on Chubb&Chubb, Miles, etc.

>   Partially true.
>   More information about the radiation in question is available
>by putting different barriers in the way of the counter, just as multiple
>layers of photographic (or x-ray film), or other barriers in front of them,
>will yield additional information.  This additional information can
>thus be obtained despite your suggestions to the contrary.

Yes, this is early 20th century technology. And it was damn good in its
time. But its time has passed. The one thing about it that is very
appealing to a number of CNF researchers is that it has larger error
bars than more modern techniques. Of course, that's kind of moot since
most of them don't report error bars anyway, but nevermind. 

>=dblue However, if you engaged in frontier investigations in a field that
>=dblue is already characterized by long-standing controversies and questions
>=dblue that may have profound implications on both science and technological
>=dblue advances the choice of a GM detector to make a key measurement seems
>=dblue highly questionable.  If we consider the various options as to the
>=dblue possible sources of the radiation being detected in the Miles experiment
>=dblue and accept, as a remote possibility, that there is radiation associated
>=dblue with the excess enthalpy production, this radiation could conceivably
>=dblue range from low energy X-rays resulting from the energy degradation of
>=dblue energetic charged particles clear up to 20 MeV gammas from the decay
>=dblue of excited 4He nuclei.  There is clearly a potential opportunity
>=dblue to gain a great deal of insight into the nature of the reaction process
>=dblue being observed by Miles.  Why would anyone pass up this opportunity
>=dblue and employ a detector that provides absolutely no information concerning
>=dblue the nature of the radiation source?  Yes Mitchell, GM tubes serve a
>=dblue purpose.  I think it may be a good idea for Miles to have one around
>=dblue as a radiation safety monitor, but that doesn't mean that the readings
>=dblue should get published as scientific data."

>   In a frontier situation, GM detectors are handy devices,

Yes, when they are set on audible mode and they go off-scale it really
makes your butt move.

>and if calibrated, and adequately controlled, they do provide
>scientific data.   

I'm sorry but I'm really ignorant here. Could you explain what it
means to calibrate a GM tube? Like is there some way to tell what
energy it is registering? Or even what kind of particle it
is registering? Of course, I know it can be done but I just wanted
to know if you do. And if so how you would do it. And what you think
about the accuracy of doing so vis-a-vis state of the art particle
and energy detectors. And why anyone would go to the trouble.
Because, trust me it's a pain in the ass. Especially when the source
might contain more than one type of particle. After you've done that
then please explain why nobody who does for serious nuclear
instrumentation ever uses GM tubes for anything other than survey.

>And that data, if transformed to useful information,
>do have publishable value.    

Certainly in Fusion Facts or whatever.

Mark

cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudennorth cudfnMark cudlnNorth cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.14 / Carl Nicolai /  Stupid fusion question
     
Originally-From: cryptext@chinook.halcyon.com (Carl R. Nicolai)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Stupid fusion question
Date: 14 May 1994 01:39:38 GMT
Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc.


I hope I'ts ok to pose a question here. I've ask my PHd. physics friends
but they cant answer it.

Given an acurately manufactured very strong steel or Ti. sphere whose
interior was coted with a mirror (possabily dialectric), how big would
it have to be in order that a mixture of Deuterium and Oxygen (at 1000 psi.) 
when ignited by spark plugs (say 500) placed around the sphere, would
achieve a break even fusion reaction.

Thanks,

Carl Nicolai




cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudencryptext cudfnCarl cudlnNicolai cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.14 / Robert Wilson /  Re: Stupid fusion question
     
Originally-From: bwilson@bwilson@fedex.msfc.nasa.gov (Robert J. Wilson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Stupid fusion question
Date: 14 May 1994 03:26:13 GMT
Organization: LAN Network Mgt. Center

In article <2r1a4q$6s0@nwfocus.wa.com>, cryptext@chinook.halcyon.com (Carl
R. Nicolai) wrote:

> Given an acurately manufactured very strong steel or Ti. sphere whose
> interior was coted with a mirror (possabily dialectric), how big would
> it have to be in order that a mixture of Deuterium and Oxygen (at 1000 psi.) 
> when ignited by spark plugs (say 500) placed around the sphere, would
> achieve a break even fusion reaction.

    The first problem is the energy released by the chemical reaction of
Deuterium and Oxygen is not hot enough to start a fusion reaction by many,
many orders of magnitude (i.e., powers of 10). Furthermore, the Oxygen
would "poison" a fusion reaction making fusion all but impossible. However,
it would make a dandy if somewhat hazardous display. Also, only one
sparkplug would be needed.

-- 
bwilson@hwhelp@fedex.msfc.nasa.gov

Always recommend PCs and Windows -- to your competition.
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenbwilson cudfnRobert cudlnWilson cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.14 /  terswe@delphi. /  Re: Ball Lightning
     
Originally-From: terswe@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Ball Lightning
Date: Sat, 14 May 94 01:34:29 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

      I am not an academic, but feel compelled to post. I had the good fortune
  to witness ball lightening
  as a 12 year old from a distance of about 100ft. A modest ground strike hit
  about 200ft away and spawned a ball I would estimate was about 1ft in
  diameter. It lasted about 30 sec and danced and darted in my general direction
  and finally vanished with a sharp crack.
      I also have seen a 12" diameter bolt strike a guardrail to the left at the
  exact instant of my passing. The sound was deafening, my window was open, and
  I was about 12-15' away. I was fortunate to have a clear path to the breakdown
  lane because that is where I headed. Close up the blue colors were
particularly
  apparent.
                                             TerSwe@Delphi.com
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenterswe cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.14 / Matt Kennel /  Re: From EPIC/BIBLICAL to the Extended Tokamak family
     
Originally-From: mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: From EPIC/BIBLICAL to the Extended Tokamak family
Date: 14 May 1994 05:47:38 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

Paul M. Koloc (pmk@prometheus.UUCP) wrote:
: In article <2qm2ap$iub@network.ucsd.edu> mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel) writes:
: >Dr. Koloc, you just have a PR problem.   Watch.

: >In your documents and proposals, replace 'tokamak' with 'conventional
: >tokamak designs', and replace 'PLASMAK(tm)' with 'advanced tokamak design'.

: >Voila!  You are part of the Tokamak Program now.  Same science, less
: >ego trampling.  

: Ouch! ...  Hmmm!  .. well  ..gulp..   I always said I liked the tokamak 
: as a research device, and it's just a question of what one does with all 
: that information!      :-)

: How's that for spin?  

It's even true. Even though I can't exactly figure out what a Kolocmak
is, it sounds like it shares some signficant features with the tokamak
compared to ICF fusion or particle accelrators or whatever.

: >-Matt Kennel  		mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu
: | Paul M. Koloc,Bx 1037, Prometheus II, Ltd., College Park, MD 20741-1037 |
: +-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
: | Paul M. Koloc,Bx 1037, Prometheus II, Ltd., College Park, MD 20741-1037 |
: | mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
: | VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
: +-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

--
-Matt Kennel  		mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu
-Institute for Nonlinear Science, University of California, San Diego
-*** AD: Archive for nonlinear dynamics papers & programs: FTP to
-***     lyapunov.ucsd.edu, username "anonymous".
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenmbk cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.12 / Robert Heeter /  Re: (Long) Delayed Response to Old Koloc Article
     
Originally-From: rfheeter@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Robert Franklin Heeter)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: (Long) Delayed Response to Old Koloc Article
Date: Thu, 12 May 1994 16:27:16 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

In article <2qske0$hp1@network.ucsd.edu> mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel) writes:
>Robert F. Heeter (rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu) wrote:
>: Someone else wrote:

>: But if were to buy your logic, there are *no* impartial reviewers.  
>: Like I said above.  But they *have* to have reviewers, and they 
>: *have* chosen from the *least* biased sets, namely international 
>: and non-fusion plasma physicists.  What more do you want?!?!!
>
>Please please please!  The problem is it just doesn't matter a
>mosquito's phart in hurricane what these scientific panels say.
>
>They always say "Whatever you do, don't cut basic science" and
>congress and the bureacracy goes ahead and does just that.

Just for the record, I made that particular point in an earlier post.
I completely agree.  The problem is not who the reviewers are,
or what they say, but that the advice isn't even followed.

>: ***************************
>: Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
>: Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University
>: As always, I represent only myself, and not PPPL
>
>--
>-Matt Kennel  		mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu
>-Institute for Nonlinear Science, University of California, San Diego
>-*** AD: Archive for nonlinear dynamics papers & programs: FTP to
>-***     lyapunov.ucsd.edu, username "anonymous".

--Me again...



cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.12 / Robert Heeter /  Re: Ball Lightning
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Ball Lightning
Date: Thu, 12 May 1994 23:20:05 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

In article <jwinter.7.0000D3A0@uniwa.uwa.edu.au> John Winterflood,
jwinter@uniwa.uwa.edu.au writes:
>I haven't managed to get hold of the fusion FAQ yet - if this topic is
mentioned
>there then I would appreciate a copy of it or knowing where I can FTP it
from.

Well, there's nothing on ball lightning in the conventional fusion
FAQ that I'm putting together.  I hope to gather up some basic material
on the Plasmak, but have been in the middle of exams and ends of classes
for a couple weeks.  I don't think ball lightning will be covered, since
it's not really a conventional fusion phenomenon.

You might try asking around in the sci.physics.plasma group which
has been created recently; hopefully it'll reach your site soon if
it's not there already.  (We don't have it here yet.)


***************************
Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University
As always, I represent only myself, and not PPPL
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.14 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Patent 07/737,170, Patent Office,re:Harvey E. Behrend
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics
Subject: Re: Patent 07/737,170, Patent Office,re:Harvey E. Behrend
Date: Sat, 14 May 1994 05:21:50 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <2qca3i$418@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth
edu (Ludwig Plutonium) writes:
>  The Plutonium Atom Foundation (PAF) will receive the full benefits of
>controlled cold fusion energy per spontaneous neutron materialization.
>PAF will receive full benefits for superconductivity--correct theory.

>   Thank you Mr. Behrend, you have done just what I wanted. Because now
>the PAF has all intellectual property rights to SPONTANEOUS NEUTRON
>MATERIALIZATION DEVICES plus in an indirect way as the outline of the
>physics of the art of SNMD, all rights to the correct theory of
>superconductivity. Thanks due to Mr. Behrend and the USA patent office
>that LP and PAF will not be "nailed to the cross of just 17 piddle
>paddle years". 

Harvey Behrend may have had his name officially used to make patents 
relating to nuclear energy appear as ordinary patents, but, indeed,
unlike other patents, there is a bit more afoot then this poor well
utilized examiner will usually admit to.  It is the DoE that actually
determines the technical merit of nuclear related patents and not the
patent office, although the patent office can still impose the rules
of form and procedure.  Those queries from Behrend are just a pass
through from the DoE examiners, who are quite ignorant of the legal
basis of patent law, unfortunately.  Patents filed this year would 
normal issue in a year or two, but those that make DoE nervous can take
as long as eighteen years!   All the better for the inventor.  Such
practices tend to get beaten back by the Court of Appeals, as time
goes on.   For example, to prevent any and all fusion patents from 
issuing, they claimed that since no fusion reactor existed no one
could be sure what they were, so they couldn't be patented!!!
 What dum-dums!   The C of A had a gut busting laugh over that
argument.  


>                       --  --        -- - -  -    Thanks due to Mr.
>Behrend and the USA Patent Office, you have to wake up very very early
>in the morning to put a one-upsmanship on LP.

I think much of the thanks should go to the USDoE, either they didn't
feel threatened and passed it through quickly, or they balked and
kept it back for 15 or 20 years, giving its coverage a most favorable
extended coverage into what is usually a rippingly lucretive period
in innovative life ---  that of vigorous commercial use.  

Poor Harvey has to take these ridiculous DoE exams and pass them off as
coming from the patent office.  Must be as bad as doing tokamak 
theory, then finding your funding cut, to pay for a truck load of
concrete.     ;-)   Free TUMS around.  
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc,Bx 1037, Prometheus II, Ltd., College Park, MD 20741-1037 |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+


cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.14 /  PAUL /  RE: Stupid fusion question
     
Originally-From: stek@amazon.pfc.mit.edu (PAUL)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: Stupid fusion question
Date: 14 MAY 94 16:00:27 GMT
Organization: MIT PLASMA FUSION CENTER


>From: cryptext@chinook.halcyon.com (Carl R. Nicolai)
>Date: 13-MAY-1994  22:44:00
>Description: Stupid fusion question
>
> 
>I hope I'ts ok to pose a question here. I've ask my PHd. physics friends
>but they cant answer it.
> 
>Given an acurately manufactured very strong steel or Ti. sphere whose
>interior was coted with a mirror (possabily dialectric), how big would
>it have to be in order that a mixture of Deuterium and Oxygen (at 1000 psi.) 
>when ignited by spark plugs (say 500) placed around the sphere, would
>achieve a break even fusion reaction.
> 
>Thanks,
> 
>Carl Nicolai


If only it were that easy.  Fusion reactions require temperatures of
50 million degrees.  At this temperature there really is no chemistry 
going on.  All light atoms are fully ionized.  So while you may be able to 
heat your gas by burning D and O to get D2O, you will still be off
by a factor of 50000 or so in temperature.  In fact since you will 
need to break the D2O up later anyway, it really gives you nothing.  
Sorry.  

Paul Stek
Stek@cmod.pfc.mit.edu
MIT Plasma Fusion Center

Speaking fo myself not the PFC.


cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenstek cudlnPAUL cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.12 / Rose Holt /  Re: SKITS 20-22, and finis of NEANDERTHAL PARK
     
Originally-From: rmholt@u.washington.edu (Rose Marie Holt)
Newsgroups: sci.math,sci.physics,sci.chem,sci.bio,sci.physics.fusion,sci
psychology,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,alt.religion.kibology,alt.cesium
Subject: Re: SKITS 20-22, and finis of NEANDERTHAL PARK
Date: 12 May 1994 17:13:32 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

In article <2qmi2n$a3g@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>,
Ludwig Plutonium <Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>   These skits will end NEANDERTHAL PARK. There may be a sequel to
>
>loved her so much, I hated her, the do run run).
>  Show a hockey puck put in the midst of two aggressive hockey teams.
>Show the idea "end of the beginning" put in the midst of a philosophy
>
>> or alt.sci.math.plutonium (there already is alt.sci.physics.plutonium))?
>> Just a group for the discussion of LP's ideas (and maybe for new proofs
>> of fermats last theorem and the like).


I like alt.fan.bird.brain

>
>  FINIS with credits and names listed. Here at the finis have Kibo and
>Rose Marie Holt in duo singing the following song accompanied by the
>synthesized music as performed by Quiet Streams.
>	Play IT LEADETH ME  , Music by W. Bradbury and lyrics by L. Plutonium

Can I be in net.legends now?

RM Holt, B.B.
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenrmholt cudfnRose cudlnHolt cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.14 / Andy Holland /  Re: Magnetohydrodynamics
     
Originally-From: zcrah@trumpet.pgh.wec.com (Andy Holland)
Newsgroups: sci.energy,sci.physics.fusion,alt.alien.visitors
Subject: Re: Magnetohydrodynamics
Date: 14 May 1994 18:09:21 GMT
Organization: Westinghouse NMD

In article <Cpo2Ep.8BK@aib.com> rickr@aib.com (Rick Rodman) writes:
>This article was sent to me by a student in France. 



>"A young science: MagnetoHydroDynamics (MHD)"
>---------------------------------------------
>by Charles-Noel MARTIN,
>in "Science et Vie", No.651, December 1971, p.50

I thought the MHD was first proposed by Maxwell to obtain power
from the Thames? This article mentions:


>        When  was  MHD  born?  Its origin can  be  found  in  the 
>theoretical  work of an innovator who worked in isolation  for  a 
>long  time. He is the Swede Hannes ALFVEN who received, one  year 
>ago, the Nobel prize of physics, which he shared with the  French 
>Louis NEEL. Their two works are totally different and not at  all 
>complementary. We can remark in passing that the 1970 Nobel prize 
>of  physics  was  actually  made up  of  two  half-Nobel  prizes, 
>rewarding  two physicists that were long perceived as  "forgotten 
>of the Nobel".

Is this correct? Alot of money used to go into MHD research as I
recalled, what happened?


[More Stuff including articals on UFOs deleted :-)]


Andy Holland                  |
Westinghouse NMD              | "A Sniper Behind every Bush, 
zcrah@ncstate.pgh.wec.com     |	    A Knife in every Back"
All Usual Disclaimers Apply   |			       METRAH
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenzcrah cudfnAndy cudlnHolland cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Sun May 15 04:37:04 EDT 1994
------------------------------
1994.05.14 / L Plutonium /  Re: Patent 07/737,170, Patent Office,re:Harvey E. Behrend
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics
Subject: Re: Patent 07/737,170, Patent Office,re:Harvey E. Behrend
Date: 14 May 1994 21:39:44 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In article <Cps1KG.6Cv@prometheus.UUCP>
pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) writes in his last paragraph:

> I think much of the thanks should go to the USDoE, either they didn't
> feel threatened and passed it through quickly, or they balked and
> kept it back for 15 or 20 years, giving its coverage a most favorable
> extended coverage into what is usually a rippingly lucretive period
> in innovative life ---  that of vigorous commercial use.

  I am sorry if it sounded as though I was picking on poor Mr. Behrend
in my post. It was not my intent. I was thanking Mr. Behrend because I
wanted extended coverage since the science community is unduly
prejudicial against cold fusion claims. And to protect my claims of
cold fusion-- spontaneous neutron materialization devices-- I want to
publicize and broadcast my work. By making my claims public knowledge
an putting spontaneous neutron materialization in the public domain, I
hold priority and can later go back to the patent office, when those
folks are in a better disposition and better enlightened, can I receive
my proper rewards. And thanks Mr. Koloc for the information concerning
USDoE. 
LP                         94th ELECTRON OF 231PU
               Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH ELECTRON

                  \ ::| :./.
                  .\::|::/.:
                     _ _
                    (:Y:)
                     - - 
                  ::/.|.\.:
                :: /.:| :\.:
                  /   |   \.
        One of those dots is the Sun with 9 smaller dots around it.
Look in a chemistry textbook or quantum physics textbook of the
electron cloud dot picture.  
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.15 / Jim Bowery /  Rep. Klein's Fusion Speech
     
Originally-From: jabowery@netcom.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Rep. Klein's Fusion Speech
Date: Sun, 15 May 1994 01:57:43 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)


Statement of U.S. Representative Herb Klein Subcommittee on 
Energy's Hearing on Fusion Power

April 21, 1994 I want to thank Chairwoman Lloyd for holding 
this hearing on the fusion energy program.  Fusion energy has 
entered a new era, and it is important that the Science 
Committee hear from the Department of Energy (DOE) and other 
witnesses on this important energy technology for the future.  
Energy security is of concern to this Committee because there 
is no doubt that we will need central power sources in the 21st 
Century.  As the world population grows and the demand for 
energy increases, the energy needed to support our 
industrialized economy and our lifestyles will be daunting.
I firmly believe fusion is part of the solution.  It offers the 
promise of a safe and environmentally sensitive energy 
technology, one that we could export to growing energy markets 
around the globe.  Fusion's abundant fuel supply -- ordinary 
water, and its safety and environmental features make it a 
sound investment for American taxpayers.

A few months ago, I visited DOE's Plasma Physics  Laboratory at 
Princeton.  In December, the Princeton tokamak used -- for the 
first time -- a commercial grade fuel mixture to produce six 
million watts of fusion power.  The results of these extremely 
successful experiments represent a new level of maturity in 
fusion energy development.  The Department's proposal to move 
forward with construction of the Tokamak Physics Experiment 
(TPX) is an indication that the program is addressing practical 
fusion energy issues.  TPX will be the first advanced, steady-
state fusion machine; it will address physics and engineering 
issues that will help industry design and build a more compact, 
economic fusion reactor.  TPX is unique among world fusion 
efforts and it is a necessary step along the path to commercial 
fusion power.

In the past, we have heard from those who question DOE's 
investment in tokamaks and advocated a stronger investment in 
alternate concepts and alternative fuel cycles.  It is my 
understanding that the U.S. fusion program, as well as all the 
fusion programs around the world, are focused on improving the 
tokamak concept because in the forty years of fusion energy 
research, the tokamak has proven to be the most efficient and 
effective confinement system.  That is not to say that a modest 
investment into alternate concepts isn't worthwhile as fusion 
development may benefit from new approaches.  But we shouldn't 
lose sight of the fact that tokamaks are working well.  As the 
program moves from research into development, government and 
industrial sponsors of fusion programs around the world are 
investing in tokamaks.

We all know that one criticism of the U.S. fusion  program is 
that practical fusion power is still decades away.  The current 
DOE plan calls for a demonstration reactor by 2025 and for more 
than a decade, the major steps to practical fusion power have 
been identified.  The time to move forward is now.  DOE should 
be held accountable and they should be expected to meet 
milestones along the way.  The successful Princeton experiments 
are a good example of a milestone that DOE and the fusion 
program promised American taxpayers and then delivered on.  The 
Princeton fusion project will complete its program with less 
funding than was projected when it started operations.
Furthermore, when looking at the cost of the tokamak program, 
it is interesting to note that the cost of the Persian Gulf 
War, especially in terms of increased oil process, will  cost 
the American taxpayer more than the cost of the entire tokamak 
project.  Our investment in fusion is necessary if we are to 
end our reliance on oil produced in distant lands run by 
hostile dictators.

In conclusion, let me say that fusion is a wise  investment in 
one of society's most central issues -- the production of 
energy.  I look forward to today's hearing and welcome the  
contribution of the witnesses.                                                  

-- 
The promotion of politics exterminates apolitical genes in the population.
  The promotion of frontiers gives apolitical genes a route to survival.
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenjabowery cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.13 / Rose Holt /  Re: SKITS14-17 NEANDERTHAL PARK; Rush Limbaugh,Lederman,David  
     
Originally-From: rmholt@u.washington.edu (Rose Marie Holt)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,alt.religion.kibology,sci.math,sci
physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.chem,sci.bio
Subject: Re: SKITS14-17 NEANDERTHAL PARK; Rush Limbaugh,Lederman,David  
Date: 13 May 1994 00:44:06 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

In article <2qj0g4$42c@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>,
Ludwig Plutonium <Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>In article <2qegrh$q74@news.u.washington.edu>
>rmholt@u.washington.edu (Rose Marie Holt) writes:
>
>> Who is Darlene Hoffman?
>
>This is what comes up under Applied Science and Technology Index
>                 Author:  Keller, O. Lewin, Jr.
>                    Title:  Accomplishments and promise of
>transplutonium research.
>       Citation Type:  Feature
>                 Source:  Physics Today. v. 37 (Mar. '84) p. 34-41.
>
>Do you know all of the plutonium atom prizewinners listed below?
>Especially two of the most overlooked contributors of our time Petrzhak
>and Flerov? Spontaneous Fission is a very important discovery. Very
>important.

I think I have met someone who knows Flerov.
I have met Seaborg, Ghiorso, and *Darleane* Hoffman.
I dont think you will ever pry Seaborg's name off of Seaborgium
I dont know why you would want to associate Stanley Prusiner's
name (used to create the word "prion") with a transuranium
element, but what the hey?

I dont think you need to use two people per atom - that's
a bit crowded.  Why not rename the whole periodic table?

Or, you could name every isotope.

I see no basic flaws in the scheme, however.

>
>I hereby make a formal demand of the worldwide science community to
>name the nucleosynthesized elements using the following scheme exactly
>for atomic number Z. Those elements not mentioned, leave as is. And

>157 prioncellvirium.

cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenrmholt cudfnRose cudlnHolt cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.16 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Re: Stupid Fusion Question
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Stupid Fusion Question
Date: Mon, 16 May 1994 00:16:30 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Carl Nicolai wants to know how big a sphere would have to be so that a spart
k plug could ignite a fusion reaction.  So far the experts have said that it
couldn't be done.  tsk, tsk.  Since Carl did not place any limits on the size
of the apparatus, I reckon that a million miles or so would do it - give or 
take a couple orders of magnitude.  Then you could dispense with the strong
container and all those spark plugs.  Just wanted to get this in before John
Logajan got to it.  

Tom Droege

cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenDROEGE cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.15 / L Plutonium /  NEANDERTHAL PARK2, skits 1&2 of 22
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.math,sci.physics,sci.chem,sci.bio,sci.physics.fusion,sci
psychology,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,alt.religion.kibology,alt.cesium
Subject: NEANDERTHAL PARK2, skits 1&2 of 22
Date: 15 May 1994 16:02:57 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In article <2quh72$hpa@portal.gmu.edu>
tkaras@mason1.gmu.edu (THEODORE R. KARAS) writes:

> In article <2qmi2n$a3g@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmou
h.edu (Ludwig Plutonium) writes:
> >   These skits will end NEANDERTHAL PARK. There may be a sequel to
> >Neanderthal Park later, provided more posters post their psychological
> >tinker toys posing as logical arguments. Their arguments have such
> >gaping holes that you can fly a jumbo jet through the holes.
> >Neanderthal Park II will come if I get ambitious and have more time.
> 
> [rest deleted]
> 
> How long can you keep this up LP? Its quite fascinating.

I have decided that the world needs a SCTV type of parody on the
science and math communities. I have now decided to keep it up
indefinitely. It allows me to answer all of the off-track, off-base,
and misplaced importance posters. These skits free me of the many
posters who I want to reply to but unable because it cuts across my
self-imposed 3 posts per day. Some of the below are examples of that.

SKIT 1 of NP2

   Show the teenage generation going hog wild over some dumb and silly
thing like the next rock and roll idol, new craze as in crazy music
fade like rap music. Show a pig pen in Neanderthal Park with pigs going
hog wild. (Strictly never any harm to any animals in any of the filming
of Neanderthal Park movies. Harm to animals is a strict no- no, in
these movies.)
   Show the physics community with their craze of loving GR and
Einstein. Show physics professors and books with pictures of the planet
Earth with a sign saying "Einstein lived here". 
   The important message of this skit is MISPLACED IMPORTANCE. 
   Show a bus load of biology majors out on a field trip, hot and
sweaty and teenagers go into a supermarket and come out with bubble gum
packages. Show them bragging about the theory of evolution, chewing and
popping bubble gum. Setting up dates for the weekend for a
SuperBubbleGum party.
   Show physics professors homes with murals and statues of Einstein
and show them kissing the plaster cast feet of Einstein. Show whenever
someone mentions Niels Bohr and QM, these same professors scurry off
canting juju, juju,....
   Show the epidemic disease of misplaced importance of not only
Einstein but also Goedel in math. Show High School and College students
go through these juju totem rituals of misplaced importance.

   Show the Jason as played by Jason Kodish and show LP as played by
Kibo doing the following posts to the NET.

In article <2r1fdg$hj5@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium) writes:

> In article <2ppb1h$d8m@quartz.ucs.ualberta.ca>
> jkodish@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca (Jason Kodish) writes:
> 
> > When we consider the entire mass of the universe as a result of the 
> > wavefunction collapse of the 94th electron shell in the Plutonium Atom 
> > Totality, we see that as a result of performing a "sum over histories" 
> > that the mass must be not only infinite, but transfinite. This would 
> > result in such a strong distortion of spacetime that the Plutonium Atom 
> > Totality would completely disintegrate.
> > The reason this doesn't happen with standard atoms is because their mass 
> > is so small.
> > 
> > And the lifetime of PU is  short,therefore the PU atom totality 
> > would cease to exist within much less than the observable lifetime of the 
> > universe. Not only that,but the Atom TOtality doesn't account for 
> > A) The Kerr effect of massive rotating bodies
> > B) The existance of Black Holes
> > C) Time dialation near massive bodies.
> > D)Gravitational waves
> > 
> > --
> > |Jason Kodish,                                          |If the fabric of time 
> > |University of Alberta,Dept of Gravitational Engineering|is truly seamless,
> > |R   -1/2 g  R  = T    (Einstein Field Equation)        |the weavers still  
> > | un       un      un                                   |must sleep-anonymous
> 
> You forgot E and F, Jason.
> E) the left testicle of a tsetse fly
> F) Jason's head stuck up there

SKIT 2 of NP2

   Skit 2 concerns a poster in the Newsgroup who begged my name in one
of his posts concerning racism. LP is not racist, never was. Ramanujan
was of a different race than anglo-saxon. It is Ramanujan who I would
love to spend time with. Genius and supergenius can happen to persons
of any race, because it is what element composes the brain locus of the
individual that makes for genius and supergenius.

   This skit has John Wayne, Leon Lederman, and Ilya Vinarsky in it.
Ilya plays himself and Leon play acts as John Wayne. And Mike Moroney
plays the part of Leon Lederman. Has anyone else noticed the
like-mindedness and physics training of these two people? 

Leon Lederman standing with one foot on a barbed wire fence at the
scene of the SSC in Waxaquiche Texas.

Leon Lederman: Hey Boy. Come over Boy. I want to axe you a question
about the schroedinger equation (in texas drawl), . .

Ilya singing. "Drifting along in a tumbling tumble weed,. ." in his
Polish accent.

Leon: Stop that singing, we quartered Germany and Russia into 3 unequal
halves after the war, .. Stop that singing."

IIya: "Why yessim, master, did ya'll eats possum and grits this mornin?
(Polish accent?)

Leon: "Shutup, we're looking for the Higgs and jackalopes this
mornin,.."

IIya: "Higgs cost 20 billion, gee that is big even for Texas, and more
elite than Berkeley, isn't it" (Russian accent)

Leon: "Nuttin is too big for the US taxpayers". Leon kickin up some
dirt where the SSC ring is seen in the distance.

John Wayne is seen coming over to where Leon and IIya are at.

John Wayne: "Pilgrims, help us circle that DNA I see Ludwig Plutonium
riding on the horizon, . . ."



  LP                    94th ELECTRON OF 231PU
               Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH ELECTRON

                  \ ::| :./.
                  .\::|::/.:
                     _ _
                    (:Y:)
                     - - 
                  ::/.|.\.:
                :: /.:| :\.:
                  /   |   \.
        One of those dots is the Sun with 9 smaller dots around it.
Look in a chemistry textbook or quantum physics textbook of the
electron cloud dot picture. 
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.15 / Mark North /  Re: Ball Lightning
     
Originally-From: north@watop.nosc.mil (Mark North)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Ball Lightning
Date: Sun, 15 May 1994 18:21:48 GMT
Organization: NCCOSC RDT&E Division, San Diego, CA

Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> writes:

>You might try asking around in the sci.physics.plasma group which
>has been created recently; hopefully it'll reach your site soon if
>it's not there already.  (We don't have it here yet.)

There was a review article on ball lightning in, I believe, Reviews
of Modern Physics some months back. More than you ever wanted to know
(i.e., very technical).

Mark

cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudennorth cudfnMark cudlnNorth cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.15 / Richard Horvitz /  Re: NEANDERTHAL PARK2, skits 1&2 of 22
     
Originally-From: horvitr@ucunix.san.uc.edu (Richard Horvitz)
Newsgroups: sci.math,sci.physics,sci.chem,sci.bio,sci.physics.fusion,sci
psychology,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,alt.religion.kibology,alt.cesium
Subject: Re: NEANDERTHAL PARK2, skits 1&2 of 22
Date: 15 May 1994 14:44:22 -0400
Organization: University of Cincinnati

In article <2r5h3h$c1r@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth
edu (Ludwig Plutonium) writes:
> [ ... ]

>I have decided that the world needs a SCTV type of parody on the
>science and math communities. I have now decided to keep it up
>indefinitely.  [ ... ]

Please reconsider, Ludwig!  Though you would probably get the Pulitzer
prize or the Nobel prize for literature for these skits, every minute
you spend on them takes your supergeniousness away from the far more
important work of finding a 467th proof of the infinitude of plutonium
numbers.  The skits might be fun to write but you have a duty to future
generations! 

cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenhorvitr cudfnRichard cudlnHorvitz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.15 / Ron Maimon /  Re: NEANDERTHAL PARK2, skits 1&2 of 22
     
Originally-From: rmaimon@husc9.Harvard.EDU (Ron Maimon)
Newsgroups: sci.math,sci.physics,sci.chem,sci.bio,sci.physics.fusion,sci
psychology,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,alt.religion.kibology,alt.cesium
Subject: Re: NEANDERTHAL PARK2, skits 1&2 of 22
Date: 15 May 1994 18:15:50 GMT
Organization: Harvard University, Cambridge, MA

In article <2r5h3h$c1r@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>, Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmout
.edu (Ludwig Plutonium) writes:
|>
|>    Show a bus load of biology majors out on a field trip, hot and
|> sweaty and teenagers go into a supermarket and come out with bubble gum
|> packages. Show them bragging about the theory of evolution, chewing and
|> popping bubble gum. Setting up dates for the weekend for a
|> SuperBubbleGum party.
|> [...]
|>    Show the epidemic disease of misplaced importance of not only
|> Einstein but also Goedel in math. Show High School and College students
|> go through these juju totem rituals of misplaced importance.
|> 

hmm... Ludwig- you seem to have gotten a very different impression of high
school then me.

Ron Maimon
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenrmaimon cudfnRon cudlnMaimon cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.15 / Robert Wilson /  N. Korean's Pu = BAD, Japan's Pu = GOOD?
     
Originally-From: bwilson@bwilson@fedex.msfc.nasa.gov (Robert J. Wilson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: N. Korean's Pu = BAD, Japan's Pu = GOOD?
Date: 15 May 1994 22:06:39 GMT
Organization: LAN Network Mgt. Center

   I'm no fan of N. Korea but I am bothered by one-sided speculations that
N. Korea's Pu is going to build bombs while Japan's Pu is used only for
breeder reactors. I understand Pu is chemically seperable from  spent fuel
rods (not to trivialize the hazards of seperating Pu) so what good is any
"inspection" except to "feel good?" After all, Japan occupied Korea for ~90
years until the end of WW-II.  
  
   Please accept my humble appologies if this posting is in the wrong
forum.

-- 
bwilson@hwhelp@fedex.msfc.nasa.gov

Always recommend PCs and Windows -- to your competition.
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenbwilson cudfnRobert cudlnWilson cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.15 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Extended Tokamak family
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Extended Tokamak family
Date: Sun, 15 May 1994 22:19:21 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <2r1olq$9kd@network.ucsd.edu> mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel) writes:
>Paul M. Koloc (pmk@prometheus.UUCP) wrote:
>: In article <2qm2ap$iub@network.ucsd.edu> mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel) writes:
>
>: Ouch! ...  Hmmm!  .. well  ..gulp..   I always said I liked the tokamak 
>: as a research device, and it's just a question of what one does with all 
>: that information!      :-)

>: How's that for spin?  

>It's even true. Even though I can't exactly figure out what a Kolocmak
>is, it sounds like it shares some signficant features with the tokamak
>compared to ICF fusion or particle accelrators or whatever.

The most recent is the all-Plasma Mantle And Kernel (PMK) which is
a compound magnetoplasmoid. Think of a bubble of current at the inner
edge of a Mantle or plasma shell which neutralizes the external boundary 
of a vacuum field generated by an enclosed Kernel toroidal plasma ring 
of Spheromak topology.  Since the Mantle current neutralizes, it is
an image current and consequently, the field is trapped and the central
Kernel plasma suspended centrally within the volume of the Mantle's shell.
Compensating pressure is provided by the toroidal field within the Kernel
ring, and the external fluid blanket (i.e. gas pressure). What could be 
more clear than that??
                       :-)
The system can be quickly mechanically compressed via the fluid blanket, 
and even inertially compressed -- although its compression time would 
exceed that of laser pellet compressions simply due to its large 
physical size, and lack of need for a dense tightly fitting inertial 
shell.  Other inertial apparatus or gimmicks will due nicely.  
Accelerators are important because these devils require energetic 
currents which are necessary for hyperconductivity and long trapping and 
life times.  Further because of the high pressures the ohmic heating 
must be greatly reduced.  

It can boyantly float or be magnetic suspened in an open chamber, 
or atmosphere, sort of like a micropellet.  It is much much smaller
than the tokamak, and much much larger than an ICF pellet!  It's
a different beast.   

So the truth is that they are tokamak from the surface inward, and 
Inertial outside, and beamy in formation.  Maybe you are like the
internist.. and for you it is a tokamak, albeit very light, and with
very high particle (pressure) and burn density..  orders, and orders 
higher..  . 

Oop!s that makes it slide TOWARD hoped for ICF type burn outputs. 

       -- -- -- TOWARD  ==  half way on the log scale??
>--
>-Matt Kennel  		mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu
>-Institute for Nonlinear Science, University of California, San Diego
>-*** AD: Archive for nonlinear dynamics papers & programs: FTP to
>-***     lyapunov.ucsd.edu, username "anonymous".
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc,Bx 1037, Prometheus II, Ltd., College Park, MD 20741-1037 |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+


cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.15 /  grip /  Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
     
Originally-From: grip@west.darkside.com (grip)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.math,sci.physics,sci.physics.f
sion,sci.bio,sci.ch
Subject: Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
Date: Sun, 15 May 94 17:31:47 PDT
Organization: The Dark Side of the Moon +1 408 245 SPAM

I guess I don't understand why we need to force everyone to come to grips 
with the metric system. I'm happy with both, doing metric in science or 
when I'm out of the country. I don't think of my self as being so many cm 
tall or weighing so many kg, but being 5'8" and weighing whatever. <Too 
much!> It's no big deal. With close to 250 million people we are large 
enough to have our own idiosyncrasys and support them. If the time comes 
when we no longer wish to or cannot economically do so, then we'll 
switch. There are so many more important areas in which we do need to 
make some changes. If I were a politician, I wouldn't spend much time or 
effort on it. It's a bit like Japan scrapping their written language and 
converting to western letters. Japan is not going to. In the larger towns 
signs are in both. We put both metric and American measures on products 
where weight or volume is noted. That's sufficient. 

grip
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudengrip cudlngrip cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Mon May 16 04:37:04 EDT 1994
------------------------------
1994.05.16 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Ball Lightning
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Ball Lightning
Date: Mon, 16 May 1994 00:50:54 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <1994May12.232005.16548@Princeton.EDU> Robert F. Heeter
<rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> writes:
>In article <jwinter.7.0000D3A0@uniwa.uwa.edu.au> John Winterflood,
>jwinter@uniwa.uwa.edu.au writes:
>>I haven't managed to get hold of the fusion FAQ yet - if this topic is
>mentioned
>>there then I would appreciate a copy of it or knowing where I can FTP it
>from.
>
>. .. .   I don't think ball lightning will be covered, since
>it's not really a conventional fusion phenomenon.

According to current knowledge, perhaps this is the case.  But there
is a higher authority and there is speculation that the ball lightning
PLASMAK(tm) magnetoplasma=like phenomenon may be produced just 
sub-surface in the sun.   It would as a kind of colossal MICF, and
the  there is a reactive compression at formation due to the mag field
displacement of the plasmas would crush the central or Kernel ring.  
This would produce substantially higher temperatures and pressures 
and likely enough to ignite otherwise too cool plasma into a ripping 
burn.  

As the structure expands it cools and extinguishes, but this does 
leave a "thermal chunk" near the surface which can make its way to 
the surface at such speed as to account for variations in the earths 
past epic thermal cycles.  The earth seems to occasionally get very 
cold "Maunder? Minimum"for periods of centuries during sun spot
minima.   If the sunspots are remnants of these solar burns, then the
more sunspots, the more additional heating.  So the speculation also
includes that solar activity increased during the toastier periods.   
All of this is NOT part of standard meteorology, which considers like 
GOD the sun never changes.   
  
In any event, until more work is done and people can get used to the
idea, solar fusioning "Ball lightnings" with the after math of  remnant 
sun spots, is pure speculation.  It does catch my fancy, however.  

>Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
>Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University
>As always, I represent only myself, and not PPPL
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc,Bx 1037, Prometheus II, Ltd., College Park, MD 20741-1037 |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.16 / L Plutonium /  Re: SKITS14-17 ...
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: SKITS14-17 ...
Date: 16 May 1994 03:29:47 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In article <2r09gr$e8q@condor.ic.net>
tdp@iunet (Tom Potter) writes:

> It this is true and it would seem to be by extrapolating the ionization
> potentials of hydrogen-like atoms, would it be possible for an element
> with an atomic number greater than 138 to exist?

  There is no theoretical limit to the size of the atomic number of
atoms. In fact, superconductivity because of cold temperatures are
macroscopic atoms. Atoms of immense atomic number. Think about it.
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.16 / Greg Kuperberg /  Re: Extended Tokamak family
     
Originally-From: gk00@quads.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Extended Tokamak family
Date: Mon, 16 May 1994 04:00:00 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

In article <Cpv7C9.8Kw@prometheus.UUCP> pmk@promethe.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) writes:
>The most recent is the all-Plasma Mantle And Kernel (PMK) which is
>a compound magnetoplasmoid.

I bet it's a complete coincidence that "PMK" is also your initials.

That reminds me:  I don't believe your claim that you invented the
spheromak.  A literature search suggests that some subset of these five
people were the first to consider it seriously: Bussac, M.N.; Furth,
H.P.; Okabayashi, M.; Rosenbluth, M.N.; Todd, A.M.M.  There is a second
early paper by Bussac and Rosenbluth only.  I wonder what they have to
say about your claim.
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudengk00 cudfnGreg cudlnKuperberg cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.15 /  Robert_W_Horst /  Dihydrino identification???
     
Originally-From: Robert_W_Horst@cup.portal.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Dihydrino identification???
Date: Sun, 15 May 94 23:15:06 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

It has been a while since there has been much discussion here on the
light water experiments.  I recently got the chance to read the
Fusion Technology article on the Mills work, and thought it could be
the basis for an interesting discussion.  The paper is:

R. Mills, W. Good, R. Shaubach, "Dihydrino Molecule Identification,"
FUSION TECHNOLOGY, Vol 25, Jan. 1994.

This paper contains a description of the Mills light water/nickel
experiments as well an attempt to use mass spectroscopy to show the
presence of dihydrino molecules in the evolved gases.

The Mills theory is very controversial, to say the least.  But rather
than debating the theory, I thought it would be interesting to debate
their experimental results to see how well their experiments hold up
to scrutiny.  I will break down the discussion into several
different areas and ask questions of some of our spf experts in
these areas.

Let's center the discussion on experiment 14 from the paper.  The
results of this experiment are given below:
 
 Cell: 10 gal Nalgene tank
 Cathode: 5000 m of .5-mm-diam nickel wire
 Anode: 10 planinized titanium meshs, 5 8" x 1" dia tubes
 Electrolyte: 28 l of .57 M K2C03
 Experiment duration: 240 days (data below from day 120)  
 
 V: 2.37 volts, Duty cycle: 20%, I: 10.5A, Frequency: 1 Hz
 VI power: 4.98 Watts
 (V-1.48)I power: 1.87 Watts
 Output power: 41 Watts
 
Electrical measurements
 
As an EE, I only feel qualified to comment on the power measurements.
In this experiment, a constant current supply was switched at 1 hz
with a duty cycle of 20%.  It does not seem reasonable to me that
they could have mistaken 5 watts in for 41 watts in.  The equipment
described in the paper seems more than adequate, and they monitored
the power with an oscilloscope to verify the regulation.  The only
question might be whether they measured power often enough.  It seems
unlikely that incorrect power measurements could be the source of
such a large difference between input and output power.
 
Calorimetry
 
Tom Droege, could you comment on the calorimetry used for the
experiment?  I know you would not be pleased by the lack of error
bars, and their  calorimetry  is  clearly  not  anywhere  near  the
accuracy of yours. But do you see any way they could have mistaken 5
W for 41 W?  At these power levels, very crude instruments would
work.  Imagine two identical boxes with a nightlight bulb in one and
a 40W bulb in the other.  Those power differences are so great that
you could easily tell the differences with no instruments at all --
just stick your hands in the  boxes and feel the large temperature
difference.

As an aside, it would be interesting to think about how calorimeter
accuracy scales with experiment size.  Some error sources would scale
with experiment size, but others would not.
 
Recombination
 
The data clearly shows that the power output far exceeded the power
in, even if 100% recombination was assumed.  Steven Jones, do you
agree with this?  Do you have any other explanation for the
apparent excess heat?
 
Mass spectroscopy
 
Do we have any mass spec experts on the net?  This paper claims to
have direct evidence for dihydrino molecules in the evolved gases. 
To quote the paper:

  "Following cryofiltration of the electrolysis gases, the dihydrino
  molecule is distinguished from normal molecular hydrogen by mass
  spectroscopy. The branching ratio to form m/e = 1 relative to m/e =
  2 that is observed for the dyhydrino molecule is different from the
  ratio that is observed for normal molecular hydrogen.  Mass
  spectroscopy further distinguishes a sample containing dyhydrino
  molecules from a sample containing H2 by showing a different ion
  production efficiency as a function of ionization potential and a
  different ion production efficiency at a given ionization potential
  for the two samples.  High-resolution mass spectroscopy shows two
  peaks for a mixture of H2 and H2*."
  
They also show figures from Yamaguchi and Nishioka's work on
heavy-water/palladium experiments and describe how they believe the
mass spec data has been misinterpreted to be 4He when it really
should have been D2* (dideuterium).  (Sorry but you will have to read
the paper to follow this discussion -- I cannot reproduce the figures
here.)

What to the experts think? Are there other more likely explanations
for the mass spec peaks? Are mass spec measurements straightforward,
or is it easy to make mistakes?  Are there better experiments (NMR?)
that could more directly prove/disprove the existence of two forms of
H in the samples?
 
Other light water experiments
 
Dr. Farrell, are you still reading spf?  This paper was submitted for
publication nearly a year ago now.  Do you and Mills still stand by
this work?  Are you still able to reproduce excess heat of this
magnitude?  Have other groups reproduced any of these experiments? 
Do you have any more evidence for the existence of dihydrino
molecules?

This paper seems to be of higher quality than many others in cold
fusion.  It suggests a theory, then uses the theory to explain many
aspects seen in the experiments.  I would like to see if others can
find any serious holes in these experiments (although the theory
itself is very controversial and is not likely to have support
without lots more experimental confirmation.)

-- Bob Horst   

 
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenRobert_W_Horst cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.16 / Bruce TK /  Re: Extended Tokamak family
     
Originally-From: bds@slcbdsipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce       Scott          TK  )
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Extended Tokamak family
Date: 16 May 1994 09:39:45 GMT
Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching

In article <Cpv7C9.8Kw@prometheus.UUCP>, pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) writes:

[verbal and not-very-clear description of the current plasmak scheme]

Paul,

Can you give a concise mathematical description of the magnetic field in
your device? Something on the level of these examples:

RFP -- axisymmetric with polodal and toroidal fields, polodal dominant

	(simple)
		B-poloidal = B_1 J_1(alpha r)
		B-toroidal = B_0 J_0(alpha r)
	where B_0, B_1, alpha are constants and r is the minor radius

Tokamak -- axisymmetric with polodal and toroidal fields, toroidal dominant

	(simple)
	approximate for large aspect ratio R_0/a (major to minor radius):
		B-toroidal = B_0
		B-poloidal = B_0 q r/R_0
	    where B_0, R_0 are constant and
	    q(r) varies from about 1 near r=0 to 3-6 at r=a

	(more precise)
	nested flux surface equilibrium for arbitrary R_0/a:
		B-toroidal = g \grad \phi
		B-polodal = \grad G \cross \grad \phi
	    where \grad \phi = (1/R) times the toroidal unit vector,
		G is the flux exerted by the toroidal current and
			defines the flux surface as a
			toroidal surface of constant G,
			with \grad G in the poloidal plane (the
			plane perpendicular to \grad \phi)
		g is the toroidal flux, a function of G only
		at the outer boundary (r=a for circular cross-section)
			G = 0 and g = g_0 (reference value \equiv B_0 R_0)
		on the magnetic axis (r=0 for circular cross-section)
			\grad G = 0 and g = g_0 minus or plus a 
			correction of order (a/R_0)^2 or beta = 4 \pi p/B_0^2,
			where p is the maximum pressure
		g and G satisfy the Grad-Shafronov equation:

	g g'(G) + [R^2 \div (\grad G / R^2)] + 4 \pi R^2 \grad p'(G) = 0,

		where '(G) denotes d/dG and G = G(R,z) in a cylindrical
		coordinate system, within an enclosed domain not containing
		R = 0, on whose boundary G = 0.

-- 
Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de                               -- W Gibson
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnTK cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.16 / Fritz Lehmann /  Re: Mills excess heat (was Re: Is belief poss
     
Originally-From: fritz@rodin.wustl.edu (Fritz Lehmann)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Mills excess heat (was Re: Is belief poss
Date: 16 May 1994 11:40:19 GMT
Organization: Center for Optimization and Semantic Control, Washington University

     As is often the case, both sides of this debate are more
perceptive about the attitudes of the other side than about
their own.  The proponents of "Cold Fusion" fastened on to some
naive hopes, and the opponents have responded with mindless
contempt from the first day of Pons & Fleischmann's news
conference.  P & F first mentioned a "hitherto unknown process"
and I wish they had left it at that rather than declaring it
to be fusion.

    The situation now seems to be that temperature results 
have been reported by several responsible researchers, but
that the other reported effects have not been reproduced.  
Is that right?  Is there a central repository of _positive_
_and_negative_ experimental results?  One stupid problem
is that established scientists are unwilling to admit or
publish negative results, particularly when they will be
attacked for having considered the hypothesis in the
first place.     I saw physicists publicly
sneering immediately (within a week of P & F) and talking
about "N-Rays" while at the same time frantically throwing
together slap-dash versions of the experiment.  I think
they considered their results unpublishable.  If this
has been seriously "studied to death", where is a sober
and reasoned evaluation and compendium of research results?
(One not confined to dismissing the other side as deranged.)

     In the discussion in alt.skeptics, _both_ sides 
(including Fullerton) have stooped to time-wasting
ad hominem attacks and personal remarks.  It may
be fun to talk about idiots and droolings and so on
but it's no use in evaluating the real truth of
what is called "cold fusion".


                          Yours truly,   Fritz Lehmann
GRANDAI Software, 4282 Sandburg Way, Irvine, California 92715, USA 
Tel.: (714)-733-0566  Fax: (714)-733-0506  fritz@rodin.wustl.edu

====================================================================


cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenfritz cudfnFritz cudlnLehmann cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.16 /  oanews /  Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
     
Originally-From: dchill@relay.nswc.navy.mil (oanews)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.math,sci.physics,sci.physics.f
sion,sci.bio,sci.ch
Subject: Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
Date: Mon, 16 May 1994 11:43:17 GMT
Organization: Naval Surface Warfare Center

In article <oB8Dmc1w165w@west.darkside.com> grip@west.darkside.com (grip) writes:
>I guess I don't understand why we need to force everyone to come to grips 
>with the metric system. I'm happy with both, doing metric in science or 
>when I'm out of the country. I don't think of my self as being so many cm 
>tall or weighing so many kg, but being 5'8" and weighing whatever. <Too 
>much!> It's no big deal. With close to 250 million people we are large 
>enough to have our own idiosyncrasys and support them. If the time comes 
>when we no longer wish to or cannot economically do so, then we'll 
>switch. There are so many more important areas in which we do need to 
>make some changes. If I were a politician, I wouldn't spend much time or 
>effort on it. It's a bit like Japan scrapping their written language and 
>converting to western letters. Japan is not going to. In the larger towns 
>signs are in both. We put both metric and American measures on products 
>where weight or volume is noted. That's sufficient. 
>
>grip

We don't need to force anyone to do anything. We just need to show
them how much simpler the metric system is. Ask an American kid 
what a quart of water weighs and you will get a dumb look with 
"How should I know?" Ask a French kid what a liter of water weighs
and you will also get a dumb look with "What a stupid question, a 
liter of water is a kilogram."

Americans should feel very very lucky that Japan did not scrap
Kanji some time before WWI. 
-- 
DcH
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudendchill cudlnoanews cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.17 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Re: Dihydrino identification???
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Dihydrino identification???
Date: Tue, 17 May 1994 00:17:23 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Robert W. Horst asks if I can comment on the calorimetry used for the 
Mills experiment.  The Jan 1994 paper is here somewhere on my dest burried 
under real work.  I gave Mills a good chunk of my time, and found that the
original Fusion Technology results were likely just error due to recombination.
I am not inclined to spend any more time on the scaled up experiment since I
know of funded work which is checking those results.  So far, the funded work
(as of the Maui conference) has not been able to find excess heat.  I think 
they have almost a duplicate of Experiment 14 from the current Mills paper.  

I know it would seem easy to tell the difference between 5 watts and 40 watts.

The funded workers were asked **not to present their results** at the Maui 
conference.  This is at least tripple hearsay and was *not* told be directly
by those doing the work.  My evaluation of this funded group is that they are
capable of doing good calorimetry, at least good enough to tell 5 watts from 
40 watts.  

Later, I will try to give a proper critique of the Mills measurements.  When 
I glanced at it earlier, I was not impressed.  These large devices have a very
long time constant.  Mills' idea of a control experiment is to have a little 
container of water with a thermometer in it.  A very much different situation.

More later if I can find the paper.

Tom Droege

cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenDROEGE cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.17 / Chris Moon /       Princeton (again)
     
Originally-From: CMOON@ALBNERIC (Chris Moon)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:      Princeton (again)
Date: Tue, 17 May 1994 00:23:30 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway


Sorry! The last note got sent before it was done! Once again --- Does anybody
have an address for Princeton or Cal Tech so I can talk to somebody about
Fusion? I'm doing a project for physics class on Fusion and NEED info on
Fusion Research and Reactions. If anybody has info or an E-Mail address for me
please send It directly to me at:

 ---------------------------CMOON@ALBNERIC.BITNET------------------------------



Thanks!

cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenCMOON cudfnChris cudlnMoon cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.16 / Dick Jackson /  Re: Stupid fusion question
     
Originally-From: jackson@soldev.tti.com (Dick Jackson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Stupid fusion question
Date: Mon, 16 May 1994 14:49:28 GMT
Organization: Citicorp-TTI at Santa Monica (CA) by the Sea

Carl R. Nicolai asks:
>
>Given an acurately manufactured very strong steel or Ti. sphere whose
>interior was coted with a mirror (possabily dialectric), how big would
>it have to be in order that a mixture of Deuterium and Oxygen (at 1000 psi.) 
>when ignited by spark plugs (say 500) placed around the sphere, would
>achieve a break even fusion reaction.

My answer, and its just a guess, is -- about the size of the sun, give
or take.

Dick Jackson
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenjackson cudfnDick cudlnJackson cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.16 / I Johnston /  Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
     
Originally-From: ianj@castle.ed.ac.uk (I Johnston)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.math,sci.physics,sci.physics.f
sion,sci.bio,sci.ch
Subject: Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
Date: Mon, 16 May 1994 15:04:04 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

oanews (dchill@relay.nswc.navy.mil) wrote:

: We don't need to force anyone to do anything. We just need to show
: them how much simpler the metric system is. Ask an American kid 
: what a quart of water weighs and you will get a dumb look with 
: "How should I know?" Ask a French kid what a liter of water weighs
: and you will also get a dumb look with "What a stupid question, a 
: liter of water is a kilogram."

There is a down side to this. Ask a Briton in the streets how many mm in
a cm, cm in a m, cm in a km, m in a km, etc etc and you find that a
system with a plethora of units separated by powers of 10, in what seems
like an arbitrary way (why are there 100cm in a meter, but 1000ml in a
litre? This is not a more stupid question than "why are there 16oz in a
lb but 12" in a foot?") is just as confusing as the imperial system.

Please, dear reader, I am not knocking the metric or SI systems per se:
rather I am expressing an belief that ideas of size and units are very
much more difficult to get across than merely the scaling factor(s)
used.

Ian Johnston

PS And why the heck is an are 10 m^2 instead of 1 m^2? At least imperial
sticks to rational numbers in its constants!
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenianj cudfnI cudlnJohnston cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.16 / Erik Evrard /  Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
     
Originally-From: evrard@desy.de (Erik Evrard)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.math,sci.physics,sci.physics.f
sion,sci.bio,sci.ch
Subject: Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
Date: 16 May 1994 15:19:40 GMT
Organization: DESY

grip (grip@west.darkside.com) wrote:
 I don't think of my self as being so many cm 
: tall or weighing so many kg, but being 5'8" and weighing whatever.

so you're 5 minutes and 8 seconds tall....  :)
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenevrard cudfnErik cudlnEvrard cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.16 / L Plutonium /  NAMING OF THE ELEMENTS;MORE IMPORTANT,STANDARD NOTATION OF 
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,alt.religion.kibology,sci.math,sci
physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.chem,sci.bio
Subject: NAMING OF THE ELEMENTS;MORE IMPORTANT,STANDARD NOTATION OF 
Date: 16 May 1994 16:18:13 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In article <2quigm$lgv@news.u.washington.edu>
rmholt@u.washington.edu (Rose Marie Holt) writes:
> I think I have met someone who knows Flerov.
> I have met Seaborg, Ghiorso, and *Darleane* Hoffman.
> I dont think you will ever pry Seaborg's name off of Seaborgium
> I dont know why you would want to associate Stanley Prusiner's
> name (used to create the word "prion") with a transuranium
> element, but what the hey?
> I dont think you need to use two people per atom - that's
> a bit crowded.  Why not rename the whole periodic table?
> Or, you could name every isotope.
> I see no basic flaws in the scheme, however.

The last time I wrote to Russia, Flerov was dead. To find out anything
about Petrzhak when he lived, is like pulling teeth.

I have to check into "prion", in order to see if the S.Prusiner
discovered these biological objects? Regardless of the origin of the
word prion, it is a monumental discovery to biology and science because
I believe prions were the first life forms. I believe prions were and
still are spontaneously materialized just as the cosmic gamma
ray-bursts.

I am glad you recommended naming isotopes Rose, because that is just
what I will do, because my scheme as you note, is overcrowded.

I propose to eliminate symbols altogether such as Pb for lead, or Sn
for tin.

I propose to kept the old names up to plutonium for the most abundant
isotope. And end the bickering over whether tungsten or wolfram, and
others.

I propose to rename all isotopes after element 94 with the entire
history of physics,math,chemistry, and biology as the TEMPLATE. Every
important advance in these four subjects will have an isotope named
after them. The KEY THREAD throughout the history will be QM, starting
around Thales and later the Atomic Hypothesis of Democritus, through to
the Atom Totality. 

There will be many place names in the transplutonium elements such as
americium, berkeleyium, dubnaium, darmstadtium. I must figure-out the
appropriate isotope.

Then back to the old names, as I repeat, we will keep the most abundant
isotope with the old name dropping all two letter symbols and all
symbols. And to fill in the rest of the isotopes for *50 such as tin
which is 120*50, we will give them names of places or theories or
ideas, perhaps even animals.

It is dreadful that I should spend my time on this matter. But someone
has to do it. The lasting importance of this exercise is to give GUIDED
IMPORTANCE to future generations interested in science, rather than
misplaced importance. When young people first learn of science and
realize that QM is the correct path and see that the naming of the
elements is in the direction of QM. That incentive leaves the indelible
impression of importance. It is for that reason that einsteinium will
be a remote isotope, and Goedel's name will not even appear on the
list. But, I could see it in my heart to give both Seaborg and Ghiorso
the name of two different isotopes. 

I disagree with the "prying". I believe Seaborg has more to worry about
the Atom Totality than anything else in his entire career. It is very
apparent to any rational person that Democritus's DEEDS are known the
world over. But during the time of Democritus, there were many
achievers of deeds in the realm of science knowledge who like Seaborg
and Ghiorso were "small fry players". WHEN the Atom Totality is the
mainstream physics, then, everything I asked for which was thwarted of
me, of a "bias and prejudicial nature against the Atom Totality and
myself" all of those requests will be granted me. One of those requests
is that-- should Seaborg and Ghiorso hide, ignore, think crackpotish,
discredit, or display negative energy towards the Atom Totality, that
both of their names be completely washed out of the history books. And
all of their deeds be granted to ---the group of scientists at
Berkeley. Hubris, such as Einstein's ignorant pride against QM, will in
the long term of science history be all washed out.

After Discovery, Accountability to science is of second importance.
This was one bad point about Pauli, he thwarted electron spin.

The naming of the elements will now go to naming of the isotopes. 

The reason they will receive a name at all is to instill the desire to
excel and achieve in QM, and to denote the entire history of science.
If it were not for pragmatic use of instilling the desire to achieve in
science, then I would not care.

But the naming of the isotopes is of secondary importance with the
STANDARD NOTATION for all isotopes.

I propose a star or asterisk. Such as 231 plutonium is 231*94. I
propose that whenever possible to call an isotope not by name but by
numbers using this standard notation. Say element 94 or isotope 231*94.
Only when in a crowd of laypersons, or people not up to par on science
do you use the actual names of the isotopes. Or when the names serve
the function at hand, then use them. But to be as clear as possible,
unambiguous use the numbers such as 120*50. Hence all future periodic
charts will have only numbers.

LP                         94th ELECTRON OF 231PU
               Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH ELECTRON

                  \ ::| :./.
                  .\::|::/.:
                     _ _
                    (:Y:)
                     - - 
                  ::/.|.\.:
                :: /.:| :\.:
                  /   |   \.
        One of those dots is the Sun with 9 smaller dots around it.
Look in a chemistry textbook or quantum physics textbook of the
electron cloud dot picture. 
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.16 / The Norris /  Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
     
Originally-From: n9143349@rowlf.cc.wwu.edu (The Mad Kobold < Doug Norris >)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.math,sci.physics,sci.physics.f
sion,sci.bio,sci.ch
Subject: Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
Date: 16 May 94 17:09:17 GMT
Organization: Western Washington University

dchill@relay.nswc.navy.mil (oanews) writes:
>Americans should feel very very lucky that Japan did not scrap
>Kanji some time before WWI. 

Since I'm supposed to feel so very lucky, would you mind giving a reason why?

 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Douglas Todd Norris (n9143349@henson.cc.wwu.edu) "The Mad Kobold"
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    "We need not just a new generation of leadership, but a new gender of
   leadership.  This is the minority I enjoy being in." - President Clinton

cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenn9143349 cudfnThe cudlnNorris cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.16 / Robert Eachus /  Re: Stupid Fusion Question
     
Originally-From: eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Stupid Fusion Question
Date: 16 May 94 16:55:35
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.

In article <940515171331.20407c53@FNALD.FNAL.GOV> DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:

 > Carl Nicolai wants to know how big a sphere would have to be so
 > that a spart k plug could ignite a fusion reaction.  So far the
 > experts have said that it couldn't be done.  tsk, tsk.  Since Carl
 > did not place any limits on the size of the apparatus, I reckon
 > that a million miles or so would do it - give or take a couple
 > orders of magnitude.  Then you could dispense with the strong
 > container and all those spark plugs.  Just wanted to get this in
 > before John Logajan got to it.

    No fair Tom, you have to do the math.  ;-) 

    Seriously, I started on it, but realized that estimates better
than "less than Jupiter-sized" would require a lot of experimental
data such as the reaction cross-section of compressed D2O2.  Think
about it.  At the center of this thing gravitational fractionation
will favor O3, O2, and D2O2.  I suspect that the D2O2 will ignite at
much lower temperatures than the ozone.

     (BTW, if anyone does want to waste computer time on this, notice
that the thickness of the enclosing sphere is not a (gravitational)
factor.  The easiest thing to do is to assume a uniform mixture, of D2
and O2, allow it to settle, and refine to get the mixture right.  The
final answer is the diameter at 1000 atm pressure.)

--

					Robert I. Eachus

with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudeneachus cudfnRobert cudlnEachus cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.16 / Robert Eachus /  Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
     
Originally-From: eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.math,sci.physics,sci.physics.f
sion,sci.bio,sci.ch
Subject: Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
Date: 16 May 94 17:22:12
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.

In article <1994May16.114317.658@relay.nswc.navy.mil> dchill@relay.nswc.
avy.mil (oanews) writes:

  > We don't need to force anyone to do anything. We just need to show
  > them how much simpler the metric system is. Ask an American kid 
  > what a quart of water weighs and you will get a dumb look with 
  > "How should I know?"...

  I don't know what kids you deal with, but if they cook, the answer
is as easy in the US as in France.  Well, not quite as easy.  You have
to know that there are two pints in a quart. A pint's a pound the
world around, so a quart of water weighs two pounds.  Or did you think
that all that stuff you learned about 8 fluid ounces in a cup had
nothing to do with the weight of water?

   A lot can be said for forcing the world to use the English fluid
measurement system which is binary or octal, not decimal.  There are
eight drams in a fluid ounce, two ounces in a noggin, two noggins in a
gill, two gills (or eight ounces) in a cup, two cups in a pint, two
pints in a quart, etc.  Next time you are in a well equipped kitchen,
look at the markings on the dippers.


--

					Robert I. Eachus

with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudeneachus cudfnRobert cudlnEachus cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.16 / Jim Carr /  Re: N. Korean's Pu = BAD, Japan's Pu = GOOD?
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: N. Korean's Pu = BAD, Japan's Pu = GOOD?
Date: 16 May 1994 18:59:50 -0400
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

In article <bwilson-150594165449@bwilson.msfc.nasa.gov> 
bwilson@bwilson@fedex.msfc.nasa.gov (Robert J. Wilson) writes:
>
>   I'm no fan of N. Korea but I am bothered by one-sided speculations that
>N. Korea's Pu is going to build bombs while Japan's Pu is used only for
>breeder reactors. 

The difference is that Japan is a signatory to the non-proliferation 
treaty and allows random inspections of its facilities by the IAEA 
folks.  Besides, Japan has plenty of reactors so they could breed Pu 
if they wanted to -- Japan is burning excess Pu produced by other people. 
North Korea is not a signatory and has not allowed inspections.  That 
is a very big difference. 

>                  I understand Pu is chemically seperable from  spent fuel
>rods (not to trivialize the hazards of seperating Pu) so what good is any
>"inspection" except to "feel good?" After all, Japan occupied Korea for ~90
>years until the end of WW-II.  

There is 'good' Pu and 'bad' Pu as far as weapons are concerned.  The 
breeding procedure is different if you want a bomb instead of reactor 
fuel.  Inspection can tell the difference.  Besides, the scale of the 
chemistry system for separation (ever see pictures of the Hanford labs?) 
is pretty easy to spot without looking at isotope ratios.  There are 
international sanctions that would be applied to N. Korea if they 
were in violation of proliferation rules. 

It is not clear what the Japanese occupation has to do with the intentions 
of the N. Korean government.  The S. Koreans were occupied too. 

>   Please accept my humble appologies if this posting is in the wrong
>forum.

Well, it this is *fusion* and not fission, but this will do ...

-- 
 James A. Carr   <jac@scri.fsu.edu>     |   "It's never confusing though, 
      http://www.scri.fsu.edu           |  because ultimately it all fits 
 Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst.  |  -- it's just cockeyed and fits  
 Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306    |  and is fire."  -  Norman Maclean 
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.16 / Paul Schauble /  What about the apricots?
     
Originally-From: pls@crl.com (Paul Schauble)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: What about the apricots?
Date: 16 May 1994 17:56:16 -0700
Organization: CRL Dialup Internet Access


Or was it peaches?

Steve Jones:  Back around the turn of the year you posted a most 
interesting question involving locating corrosion in canned fruit. What 
was the outcome? Did you find a way?

   ++PLS

cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenpls cudfnPaul cudlnSchauble cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.16 / Paul Schauble /  CHUBB: What are ideal fusion conditions?
     
Originally-From: pls@crl.com (Paul Schauble)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CHUBB: What are ideal fusion conditions?
Date: 16 May 1994 17:59:10 -0700
Organization: CRL Dialup Internet Access


Pardon a late question, I'm rather behind on reading messages.

Dr. Chubb: I find your theory fascinating, even though I doubt I'm 
entirely understanding it. One question: assuming you're correct, what 
does your theory say are the ideal conditions for producing fusion? What 
conditions should an experimenter produce to best demonstrate excess heat?

    ++PLS
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenpls cudfnPaul cudlnSchauble cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.16 / Dik Winter /  Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
     
Originally-From: dik@cwi.nl (Dik T. Winter)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.math,sci.physics,sci.physics.f
sion,sci.bio,sci.ch
Subject: Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
Date: Mon, 16 May 1994 23:56:59 GMT
Organization: CWI, Amsterdam

In article <EACHUS.94May16172212@spectre.mitre.org> eachus@spectre.mitre
org (Robert I. Eachus) writes:
 >                                              A pint's a pound the
 > world around, so a quart of water weighs two pounds.

Apparently the world does not include the UK.
-- 
dik t. winter, cwi, kruislaan 413, 1098 sj  amsterdam, nederland, +31205924098
home: bovenover 215, 1025 jn  amsterdam, nederland; e-mail: dik@cwi.nl
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudendik cudfnDik cudlnWinter cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.16 / Michael Moroney /  Re: SKITS14-17 NEANDERTHAL PARK; Rush Limbaugh,Lederman,David
     
Originally-From: moroney@world.std.com (Michael Moroney)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,alt.religion.kibology,sci.math,sci
physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.chem,sci.bio
Subject: Re: SKITS14-17 NEANDERTHAL PARK; Rush Limbaugh,Lederman,David
Date: Mon, 16 May 1994 04:42:11 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

In article <2qnlkr$3fk@darum.uni-mannheim.de>, Oliver Klimek wrote:
> Ludwig Plutonium (Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu) wrote:
> 
> [many, many names deleted]
> 
> : 184 crickwilkinswatsonium.
> : 185 quantumelectrodynamicum.
> : 186 bellaspectium.
> : 187 paulisuperpositionum.
> : 188 komplementarunexaktheitium. 
> : 189 biotechnologyfusionum.
> : 190 plutoniumatomtotalityum.
> 
> What about 190: chewinggum ?

Oh there's a bunch we can add...

666 lucifersatanium
711 conveniencestoreium
454 bigblockchevyium
900 phonesexium
911 callthecopsium

Any more for the list?

-Mike
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenmoroney cudfnMichael cudlnMoroney cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.17 / David Palmer /  Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
     
Originally-From: palmer@alumni.caltech.edu (David M. Palmer)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.math,sci.physics,sci.physics.f
sion,sci.bio,sci.ch
Subject: Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
Date: 17 May 1994 01:01:35 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena

dchill@relay.nswc.navy.mil (oanews) writes:

>We don't need to force anyone to do anything. We just need to show
>them how much simpler the metric system is. Ask an American kid 
>what a quart of water weighs and you will get a dumb look with 
>"How should I know?" Ask a French kid what a liter of water weighs
>and you will also get a dumb look with "What a stupid question, a 
>liter of water is a kilogram."

And the French kid will be wrong, because a kilogram is a unit of mass.
A liter of water weighs 9.8 Newtons.  If you ask a smart American
kid what a quart of water weighs, he'll know that "a pint's a pound,
the world around" (except in the rest of the world, where "a pint of
water weighs a pound and a qua'ter") and so a quart weighs 2 pounds,
a pottle weighs 4 pounds, etc.

But the American kid is also familiar with the metric system (9 mm is
slightly smaller than .38, a kilogram is $10,000-20,000, depending on
how much it's cut, etc.)

If you ask a French kid to find where he lives on a globe, he'll point
to France.  If you ask a typical American kid, he'll point to France.

>Americans should feel very very lucky that Japan did not scrap
>Kanji some time before WWI. 

Actually, the Japanese use of the Kana and Hiranji letter systems
(rather than Kanji ideographs) was very fortunate, since it allowed us
to read their ciphers.  Breaking Purple, enigma, and other Axis
cryptosystems was much more important to the outcome of WWII than the
Manhattan Project.

-- 
		David M. Palmer		palmer@alumni.caltech.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenpalmer cudfnDavid cudlnPalmer cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.17 / mitchell swartz /  On Politicians who oppose the metric system
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics,sci.bio,sci.chem,sci.math,alt
sci.physics.plutonium
Subject: On Politicians who oppose the metric system
Subject: Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
Date: Tue, 17 May 1994 02:19:45 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

   In Message-ID: <2r951f$7p8@gap.cco.caltech.edu>
Subject: Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
David M. Palmer (palmer@alumni.caltech.edu) writes:

   >We don't need to force anyone to do anything. We just need to show
   >them how much simpler the metric system is. Ask an American kid 
   >what a quart of water weighs and you will get a dumb look with 
   >"How should I know?" Ask a French kid what a liter of water weighs
   >and you will also get a dumb look with "What a stupid question, a 
   >liter of water is a kilogram."
           [dchill@relay.nswc.navy.mil (oanews)]
=dp  "And the French kid will be wrong, because a kilogram is a unit of mass.
=dp  A liter of water weighs 9.8 Newtons.  If you ask a smart American
=dp  kid what a quart of water weighs, he'll know that "a pint's a pound,
=dp  the world around" (except in the rest of the world, where "a pint of
=dp  water weighs a pound and a qua'ter") and so a quart weighs 2 pounds,
=dp  a pottle weighs 4 pounds, etc."

   Of course so is anyone, or any calculation, using that rule of thumb,
which is off by about 4% in absolute value, and has a 
geographic variation of .4% of that.

   A US pint (=.832 Imperial pints)
is 473.1765 milliliters and given the specific density of water
as 1.0000, one can calculate an average of 1.0431 pounds.

    "the world around?"
 Furthermore, ignoring heterogeneity from mascons around the Earth,
even at sea level, the gravitation acceleration varies from
 973.09  cm/sec^2  at 0 degrees latitude to
983.217  cm/sec^2  at 90 degrees latitude.

   So a pint is closer to 1.043 +/- (.34% of the value)
      A pint is 1.0398 pounds at the equator (at sea level).
                1.0453 pounds at the poles   (at sea level).

   Thus, the mean and even the width between the error bars 
vary between France and the United States.

   Could this be further proof that metric may be the best way to go?    ;-) X
   Best wishes.
               Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com)

cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.17 / Jon Livesey /  Re: Mills excess heat (was Re: Is belief poss
     
Originally-From: livesey@solntze.engr.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Mills excess heat (was Re: Is belief poss
Date: Tue, 17 May 1994 02:42:12 GMT
Organization: sgi

In article <2r7m33$7fn@bigfoot.wustl.edu>, fritz@rodin.wustl.edu (Fritz Lehmann) writes:
>
>  I saw physicists publicly sneering immediately (within a week 
> of P & F) and talking about "N-Rays" while at the same time 
> frantically throwing together slap-dash versions of the experiment.

Correct me if I err, but I recall P&F *refusing* to tell others
of their exact experimental setup.


jon.
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenlivesey cudfnJon cudlnLivesey cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.17 / Edward Lewis /  Re: Ball Lightning
     
Originally-From: edward@uhuru.uchicago.edu (Edward Lewis)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Ball Lightning
Date: Tue, 17 May 1994 03:37:53 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

			(c) Copyright by Edward Lewis 1994  All Rights Reserved
Edward Lewis, 5719 S. Harper, Chicago, Illinois 60637
		        PLASMOIDS AND COLD FUSION

	Most, if not all of the many kinds of anomalous phenomena that
people are producing are similar to the phenomena of ball lighting.
I'd like to suggest that those who perform CF experiments set up
nuclear emulsions or plates to detect the plasmoid phenomena, and that
they also check for electrical surges and the grounding of their
apparatus.

	Ball lightning and EVs are phenomena that I call plasmoid
phenomena.  Most if not all phenomena seem to me to be plasmoid
phenomena, and it seems to me that atoms can also be classified as
plasmoid phenomena.  If this is so, then atoms may behave as plasmoid
phenomena.  Like plasmoids, atoms may divide, dissipate, convert to
electricity, or explode.  They may also form larger clusters that
people may call atoms or molecules, and perhaps produce light or
electricity when they do so. The round holes and tunnels and grain
shaped holes that people have found in their electrodes are evidence
that atoms converted to light or electricity or plasmoids.

-------

        Plasmoids seem to be a universal phenomena because all
phenomena may described as plasmoid phenomena.  W. Bostick produced
that which he called plasmoids by discharging through electrodes.
Several people including Bostick and Alfven who is a Nobel prize
winner in physics have led in the development of similar theories that
model the universe as plasmoids.  It has become evident that atoms can
be defined as plasmoids, especially as according to the phenomena
produced by Ken Shoulders and the "cold fusion" phenomena.  It seems
that there are many different kinds of plasmoid phenomena.  I suspect
that the EVs that Ken Shoulders produced and ball lightning are kinds
of this general phenomena, as are galaxies and tornadoes and
earthquakes and waves.
        Based on the phenomena that Matsumoto produced, the traces,
the pictures and descriptions of electrodes, the pictures of
stationary BL and corona-like phenomena that he has made, the visible
BL-like phenomena that he reports, and the sparks that he observed
that left traces like those produced during electrolysis and
discharge, one may categorize CF phenomena as that of plasmoid
phenomena.  Important evidence is the holes and trails on and in
emulsions and electrodes that Matsumoto produced by discharging and
electrolysis, the holes in electrodes that Liaw et al. produced, the holes in
electrodes that others produced, the empty areas in electrodes that
are shaped liked grains that Matsumoto and Silver et al. produced and the
half-empty grains that Matsumoto produced, and the holes and tunnels
and trails on and in electrodes that Silver produced.  These tunnels,
holes, and trail-like marks are similar to those that are produced by
ball lightning phenomena, though ball lightning are associated with
bigger effects.  These tunnels, holes, and trail-like marks are also
similar to those produced by the EV phenomena that K. Shoulders
produced.  Silver and his co-authors who published a paper in the
December issue of Fusion Technology have reproduced the tunnels,
holes, and trail-like markings in metals that Matsumoto produced.
These tunnels, holes, and trail-marks are evidence of the conversion
and change of materials.  Important evidence that both CF phenomena
and substance in general are plasmoid phenomena is Matsumoto's
experience of the production of electricity by apparatus.  I suspect
that plasmoid phenomena such as electrodes and other materials may
convert to be bigger plasmoids and light and electricity.  EVs and
ball lightning are known to convert to light and electricity.
        I suspect that the round holes in electrodes that Matsumoto
produced and the round holes and tunnels that Silver produced are due
to the boring of BL-like phenomena, and that the grain-shaped holes
that they produced is evidence of the conversion of the grain to light
or electricity or of the production of plasmoids.  Some if not all
plasmoids are apparently able to travel through materials, even if the
plasmoids are very big.  The plasmoids that Matsumoto has produced
does this, and this is major evidence to support my deductions.
Matsumoto has also shown pictures of sectioned electrodes with what
seem to me to be trail-like tracks, as if tiny BL-like phenomena
traveled inside and left tracks.
        Evidence that the grain shaped cavities are associated with
element production is Matsumoto's experience of many new elements,
including rather heavy elements, and radioactivity in grain shaped
cavities.  For the 4th International Conference on Cold Fusion, J.
Dash and G. Noble in one paper and J. Dash and D. Diman in another
also reported localized concentration of elements.  I suspect
that the round holes and tunnels may also be associated with element
production, because according to reports it seems that BL leaves
residues of new elements and radioactivity.
        In the January 1993 issue of FUSION TECHNOLOGY, Matsumoto
published an article with a picture of a tiny micrometer sized thing
in an electrode.  I've written about this thing before.  I suspect
that it is either a tiny phenomena like ball lightning, or that it is
a picture of something that perhaps was a plasmoid, or that it is a
picture of a plasmoid precursor phenomena.  It appears to be round or
spheroid and to be in a cavity of the  electrode.


        Any comments? I am looking for more email addresses of CF researchers
and avid CF proponents, especially for those in Asia and Europe so that I can
add the addresses to the list.
	Also, I have an idea for an invention and would be interested
in perhaps talking to people about this.


cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenedward cudfnEdward cudlnLewis cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.16 / Gordon Keener /  Re: SKITS14-17 NEANDERTHAL PARK; Rush Limbaugh,Lederman,David
     
Originally-From: flash@char.vnet.net (Gordon Keener)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,alt.religion.kibology,sci.math,sci
physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.chem,sci.bio
Subject: Re: SKITS14-17 NEANDERTHAL PARK; Rush Limbaugh,Lederman,David
Date: 16 May 1994 23:58:30 -0400
Organization: Vnet Internet Access, Inc. - Charlotte, NC. (704) 374-0779

In article <JkkrjaE96$-9063yn@world.std.com> moroney@world.std.com
(Michael Moroney) writes:
>In article <2qnlkr$3fk@darum.uni-mannheim.de>, Oliver Klimek wrote:
>> Ludwig Plutonium (Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu) wrote:
>> 
>> [many, many names deleted]
>> 
>> : 184 crickwilkinswatsonium.
>> : 185 quantumelectrodynamicum.
>> : 186 bellaspectium.
>> : 187 paulisuperpositionum.
>> : 188 komplementarunexaktheitium. 
>> : 189 biotechnologyfusionum.
>> : 190 plutoniumatomtotalityum.
>> 
>> What about 190: chewinggum ?
>
>Oh there's a bunch we can add...
>
>666 lucifersatanium
>711 conveniencestoreium
>454 bigblockchevyium
>900 phonesexium
>911 callthecopsium
>
>Any more for the list?

    137  finestructurum
    151  bacardirum
    222  roomium
    747  boengium
    800  tollfrium
   1040  taxium
   1600  pennsylvaniavenum
   1984  orwellium
   2001  clarkeium
   3000  mysterysciencetheaterum
 350000  itsamadmadmadmadmadworldium
9625342  ranoutofnamesium
-- 
gordon Keener
flash@vnet.net
"I still haven't thought of a good quote..."
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenflash cudfnGordon cudlnKeener cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.16 / Bruce Dunn /  Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
     
Originally-From: Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Dunn)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
Date: Mon, 16 May 94 21:18:50 -0700 (PDT)
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada

David M. Palmer writes:

> If you ask a smart American kid what a quart of water weighs, he'll know
> that "a pint's a pound, the world around" (except in the rest of the
> world, where "a pint of water weighs a pound and a qua'ter")

        And ***he*** would be wrong (at least as far as any vague
pretention to accuracy).  1 American pint has 16 fluid ounces, each sized
at 29.57 milliliters.  This gives a (rounded) total of 473 ml, or (assuming
for the sake of argument a density of 1 gram per milliliter), a mass of 473
grams.  Since a pound has a (rounded) mass of 454 grams, said child is out
by about 4 percent. While this admittedly is good enough for government
work, my Mr. Fusion device won't work unless I design it with numbers which
more accurately reflect the real world.

        I never did understand the "a pint's a pound, the world round"
quote. This sounds like something from the height of the British Empire.
However, as David points out, this applies (even roughly) only the the
American pint.  The old British pint has a princely 20 ounces (similar to
20 shillings in the old British pound).  To make up for this however, the
ounces are smaller (each British ounce is 28.41 ml).  This gives a British
pint a volume of 568 milliliters, or a mass of 1.25 pounds.

*******************

        The most delicious mixups used to happen at the interface between
the U.S. system and the British system (exemplified by American tourists
entering Canada before we switched to pumping gasoline and other stuff in
liters). Imagine the good old days:

        You are an American who has towed your boat and its outboard motor
into Canada to go fishing.  You fill your "5 gallon" outboard motor tank
with gas, only to discover it only takes 4.15 gallons when the pump shuts
off automatically.  You look puzzled at the attendant, who gives you a grin
and explains that the Canadian gallon is bigger than the U.S. gallon.  You
then proceed to add 2-stroke oil to the gasoline.  Your motor requires 1
part oil for each 50 parts gas, and you know how to calculate this in the
U.S. (after all, the school system spent a lot of effort hammering into
your head the fact that a quart has 32 ounces, and therefore a gallon has
128 ounces).

     Suspicious about the different gallon however, you ask the gas station
attendant how many quarts are in a gallon.  You are baffled however when
the attendant replys "four, of course".  But, you object, "you said that
the Canadian gallon was bigger".  "It is", replies the attendant.
"However, the quarts aren't the same size.  The Canadian quart has 40
ounces, making a gallon 160 ounces".  You get out a pencil and paper
(remember, this is in pre-calculator days), and figure 4.15 gallons at 160
ounces per gallon.  You are good at math, and eventually produce the
correct number of ounces.  You then divide by 50, and produce a figure
representing the number of ounces of oil needed.

     You have some oil in your car with you, in a container marked in
ounces.  You pour the needed oil into the gas, and remark to the attendant
that it is good that you have a head for math, otherwise you would not have
been able to calculate the precise amount of oil needed.  The attendant
grins, and says "well, I guess it was close enough".  You retort "close
enough?  It was perfect. I got good marks in math."  The attendant shakes
his head.  "No, you used American oil".  "Why should that matter, you ask?"
"Simple, the ounces aren't the same size", says the Canadian as he walks
away grinning.

     Finished with you, the attendant goes back to his business paperwork
which involves ordering new gasoline pump mechanisms for the upcoming
Canadian conversion to liters.  He relishes the future, when visitors won't
know whether his advertised gasoline price (per liter) is cheap or not, and
he can remind Americans that the speed limit on the highway is 100.

        Of course, sometimes things aren't so funny.  If I haven't got my
facts incorrect, one of the early U.S. space missions landed the crew a
considerable distance from where they were supposed to land.  The computer
program controlling the retrofire timing used statute instead of nautical
miles, contrary to how the rest of the flight was being computed (or vice
versa).  In another example, several years ago a Canadian airliner was on
the wrong side of a mixup regarding how much fuel was put into the tanks.
The gages weren't working, but the ground crew reported a sufficiently high
number for the fuel put aboard.  Unfortunately, the air crew was working in
kilograms, and the ground crew was working in pounds.  The plane ran out of
fuel in mid flight, and had to do an unpowered (but totally successful)
landing at an abandoned airport called Gimli (the plane ever after being
called the "Gimli Glider").



--
Bruce Dunn    Vancouver, Canada   Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenBruce_Dunn cudfnBruce cudlnDunn cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.16 / Joel Rosenberg /  Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
     
Originally-From: joelr@flagstaff.Princeton.EDU (Joel Evan Rosenberg)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.math,sci.physics,sci.physics.f
sion,sci.bio,sci.ch
Subject: Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
Date: Mon, 16 May 1994 21:20:27 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

In article <2r82uc$h7f@dscomsa.desy.de>, Erik Evrard <evrard@desy.de> wrote:
>grip (grip@west.darkside.com) wrote:
> I don't think of my self as being so many cm 
>: tall or weighing so many kg, but being 5'8" and weighing whatever.
>
>so you're 5 minutes and 8 seconds tall....  :)

Well sure, if you look from 3795 feet away.
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenjoelr cudfnJoel cudlnRosenberg cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Tue May 17 04:40:03 EDT 1994
------------------------------
1994.05.17 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Extended Tokamak family -->  Who?? me?
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Extended Tokamak family -->  Who?? me?
Date: Tue, 17 May 1994 04:19:56 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <1994May16.040000.11724@midway.uchicago.edu> gk00@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <Cpv7C9.8Kw@prometheus.UUCP> pmk@promethe.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) writes:
>>The most recent is the all-Plasma Mantle And Kernel (PMK) which is
>>a compound magnetoplasmoid.

>I bet it's a complete coincidence that "PMK" is also your initials.

Yes...  of course... Hmmm! glad you brought that to my attention.  

>That reminds me:  I don't believe your claim that you invented the
>spheromak.  A literature search suggests that some subset of these five
>people were the first to consider it seriously: Bussac, M.N.; Furth,
>H.P.; Okabayashi, M.; Rosenbluth, M.N.; Todd, A.M.M.  There is a second
>early paper by Bussac and Rosenbluth only.  I wonder what they have to
>say about your claim.

Well...     You could ask Mdme Bussac or MNRosenbluth...     

                        OR 

You could read the papers and check the list of references.    

Note that in the SECOND PAPER, the reference to HP. Furth and PM Koloc
was in the section on "Conclusions".  

Basically, Furth in the first paper believed that the shell could
be loosely fitting and the second paper corrected that.  Therefore the
comment about the "optimism" of HP and the thanks for my contribution.

That is since the shell must tightly fitting   (conclusion one?) 

and since the shell must be highly conducting (conclusion two???) 
then how could such thing be physically possible??  

Why... because the (Kernel) plasma pressure density is such that the 
burn density would rip most solid walls and having them be super-
conducting would have been even worse.  But ... the hint was that a 
Plasma shell (MANTLE) might work.  The difficulty was the conductivity 
and if beam currents where employed, they would have to be stablized 
(well trapped), and I didn't figure the HOW TO on that one out until 
later..   sorry!!!!!

Okay go READ   then get back to us... as obviously  --  the background
I'm giving IS NOT in the manuscript, the citing of PMKoloc is.  Still
I thought you would be interested.  

Well, your plan was good to check for references..  but your throughness
(second order) or "due diligence" fell a wee tad short.  

      Still,  I'm only 5'7" by evening.    

                            What ever happened to 
                               Mr. Spheromak??   
                             Hmmm!  out of sight 
                                Out of mind. 

                                (I knew that)  


> Greg Kuperberg <gk00@quads.uchicago.edu> 
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc,Bx 1037, Prometheus II, Ltd., College Park, MD 20741-1037 |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.17 / Paul Phillips /  Re: NAMING OF THE ELEMENTS;MORE IMPORTANT,STANDARD NOTATION OF   ELEMENTS
     
Originally-From: paulp@is.internic.net (Paul Phillips)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,alt.religion.kibology,sci.math,sci
physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.chem,sci.bio
Subject: Re: NAMING OF THE ELEMENTS;MORE IMPORTANT,STANDARD NOTATION OF   ELEMENTS
Date: 17 May 1994 08:17:19 GMT
Organization: CERFnet Dial n' CERF Customer

In article <2r86c5$cep@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth
edu (Ludwig Plutonium) writes:
>LP                         94th ELECTRON OF 231PU
>               Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH ELECTRON
>
>                  \ ::| :./.
>                  .\::|::/.:
>                     _ _
>                    (:Y:)
>                     - - 
>                  ::/.|.\.:
>                :: /.:| :\.:
>                  /   |   \.
>        One of those dots is the Sun with 9 smaller dots around it.
>Look in a chemistry textbook or quantum physics textbook of the
>electron cloud dot picture. 

There is something richly ironic, and yet terribly unjust, that
with all of our technology, our newfangled machines, our men on the
moon (unless that's just a conspiracy), our lightspeed communications,
and our generally advanced stature, that great scientists such as
Ludwig Plutonium should be attempting to represent electron clouds
with ASCII text.

What is the world coming to, I ask! When Roger Bryner and Ludwig
Plutonium are using the same tools on their audience, then either
ASCII art is terribly underrated or there is something not quite
right in the world.

 -PSP


cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenpaulp cudfnPaul cudlnPhillips cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.17 / Ron Maimon /  Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
     
Originally-From: rmaimon@husc9.Harvard.EDU (Ron Maimon)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.math,sci.physics,sci.physics.f
sion,sci.bio,sci.ch
Subject: Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
Date: 17 May 1994 07:36:24 GMT
Organization: Harvard University, Cambridge, MA

In article <2r951f$7p8@gap.cco.caltech.edu>, palmer@alumni.caltech.edu
(David M. Palmer) writes:
|> 
|> And the French kid will be wrong, because a kilogram is a unit of mass.

A kilogram is a unit of weight.


Ron Maimon
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenrmaimon cudfnRon cudlnMaimon cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.17 / Dieter Britz /  Re: Mills excess heat (was Re: Is belief poss
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Mills excess heat (was Re: Is belief poss
Date: Tue, 17 May 1994 09:59:48 GMT
Date: 16 May 1994 11:40:19 GMT:
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway


Originally-From: fritz@rodin.wustl.edu (Fritz Lehmann) in FD 2314,
Date: 16 May 1994 11:40:19 GMT:

>     As is often the case, both sides of this debate are more
>perceptive about the attitudes of the other side than about
>their own.  The proponents of "Cold Fusion" fastened on to some
>naive hopes, and the opponents have responded with mindless
>contempt from the first day of Pons & Fleischmann's news
>conference.  P & F first mentioned a "hitherto unknown process"
>and I wish they had left it at that rather than declaring it
>to be fusion.

If by 'first mention' you mean their first publication in JEC, the title says
loudly and clearly "electrochemically induced nuclear fusion of deuterium".
Later they claimed that 'an all important question mark' was inadvertently
left out. I don't believe that at that (in)famous press conference, they
played down the fusion claim.

>    The situation now seems to be that temperature results
>have been reported by several responsible researchers, but
>that the other reported effects have not been reproduced.
>Is that right?  Is there a central repository of _positive_
>_and_negative_ experimental results?  One stupid problem

Anyone can go into the archives at vm1.nodak.edu (directory fusion), GET the
bibliography of papers and do the count. So the answer is yes - although that
information has not been prechewed. I regret now not having, right from the
start, marked each abstract with a number of attributes such as theoretical, 
experimental or polemic; positive or negative, etc; but at this point it is
too late and at the time it was unlikely that this thing would live so long. 
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.17 / Gareth Owen /  Re: SKITS14-17 NEANDERTHAL PARK; Rush Limbaugh,Lederman,David
     
Originally-From: Gareth.Owen@black.ox.ac.uk (Gareth Owen)
Newsgroups: sci.bio,sci.chem,sci.math,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,alt
religion.kibology,alt.sci.physics.plutonium
Subject: Re: SKITS14-17 NEANDERTHAL PARK; Rush Limbaugh,Lederman,David
Date: Tue, 17 May 1994 08:25:51 GMT
Organization: None - standard disclaimers apply anyway

In article <2r9fd6$8s0@char.vnet.net> flash@char.vnet.net (Gordon Keener) writes:
>In article <JkkrjaE96$-9063yn@world.std.com> moroney@world.std.com
(Michael Moroney) writes:
>>In article <2qnlkr$3fk@darum.uni-mannheim.de>, Oliver Klimek wrote:
>>> Ludwig Plutonium (Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu) wrote:
>>> 
>>> [many, many names deleted]
>>> 
>>> What about 190: chewinggum ?
>>
>>Oh there's a bunch we can add...
>>
>>666 lucifersatanium
>>711 conveniencestoreium
>>454 bigblockchevyium
>>900 phonesexium
>>911 callthecopsium
>>
>>Any more for the list?
>
>    137  finestructurum
>    151  bacardirum
>    222  roomium
>    747  boengium
>    800  tollfrium
>   1040  taxium
>   1600  pennsylvaniavenum
>   1984  orwellium
>   2001  clarkeium
>   3000  mysterysciencetheaterum
> 350000  itsamadmadmadmadmadworldium
>9625342  ranoutofnamesium
>-- 

   65000  pennsylvanium
    1000  millenium

	I await 'cranium' named in honour of super-computers
-- 
G W Owen (jo94003@black.ox.ac.uk) 
There's more to jazz than wearing suits and ties and getting a smack habit.
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenOwen cudfnGareth cudlnOwen cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.17 / John Logajan /  Re: Dihydrino identification???
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Dihydrino identification???
Date: 17 May 1994 04:17:31 GMT
Organization: Sky Point Communications, Inc.

Robert_W_Horst@cup.portal.com wrote:
: R. Mills, W. Good, R. Shaubach, "Dihydrino Molecule Identification,"
: FUSION TECHNOLOGY, Vol 25, Jan. 1994.

: this work?  Are you still able to reproduce excess heat of this
: magnitude?  Have other groups reproduced any of these experiments? 


I had an opportunity to speak with Bob Shaubach at Thermacore recently and
they are indeed still reproducing excess heat of the earlier magnitudes --
but they are trying different methods (which I am not free to speak about.)

Thanks to Jed Rothwell, I saw the CBC documentary -- Too Close to the Sun.
Shaubach and Mills appeared, along P+F and others.

So as of a few weeks ago, Thermacore was convinced they were getting excess
heat (well beyond even that produced by 100% recombination.)

I queried Shaubach about calibration details, since this lays down the baseline
upon which excess heat measurments are measured.  They used a low forward
current to achieve stirring while varying a resistive heater power.  They claim
a measured delta-Temperature throughout the cell at less than 1/10 degree
during calibration and running.  This is on the order of 1 part in 100 of the
excess temperature measurement.

By the way, the *best* a Mills cell ought to do is no better than a resistance
heater -- with 100% recombination.  Otherwise, it *ought* to run *cooler* than
a resistance heater of the same power, since energy is escaping in the form of
disociated H2 and O2.

--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com -- 612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills  MN 55112 USA           -

cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.17 / Paul Koloc /  Re: (Long) Delayed Response to Old Koloc Article
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: (Long) Delayed Response to Old Koloc Article
Date: Tue, 17 May 1994 04:41:54 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <2r0rp8$khn@network.ucsd.edu> mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel) writes:
>Jim Bowery (jabowery@netcom.com) wrote:
>: Note:  I don't consider this to be the optimal route to fusion from
>: a public policy standpoint -- I am simply pointing out that to 
>: call the tokamak program "basic science" is absurd.

>Private capital says "5 years maximum with a guaranteed return."
>Scientists say "We have all these theoretical ideas but we need to test
>them in experiments."

I don't think that "scientists" have an interest in applications or even
physical embodiments of their theoretical notions.   That's the province 
of engineering or engineering physics.  Science "theory testing" is not 
engineering development, even though engineers take lots of data. 

>Private capital says "5 years maximum guaranteed return?"
>Scientists say "oh we don't know yet we have to find out."
>Private capital says "hasta la vista baby, I've got some shopping center
>to develop."

Yep!   Well said.   
My idea would be to hire engineering physicists to develop fusion 
and to use scientists as engineering backup for concepts which make
sense; it would not be to hire scientists to develop huge research 
facilities and then use engineering to get a slight reconfigure to 
obtain more commericial like results.  The latter ends up three orders 
off the target.  The tokamak is a science research facility.  

I think the mistake is here, that technology flows from science.
In Japan, science and technology standalone but can cross fertilize.  
We have Nobel Prize winners.. They have a balance of trade...  ...a 
BIG balance... or a Good trade relation with the rest of the techno
loving world.   

>-Matt Kennel  		mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu
>-Institute for Nonlinear Science, University of California, San Diego
>-*** AD: Archive for nonlinear dynamics papers & programs: FTP to
>-***     lyapunov.ucsd.edu, username "anonymous".

+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc,Bx 1037, Prometheus II, Ltd., College Park, MD 20741-1037 |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.17 / Jorge Stolfi /  Another Stupid [Cold] Fusion Question
     
Originally-From: stolfi@cmos.dcc.unicamp.br (Jorge Stolfi)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Another Stupid [Cold] Fusion Question
Date: 17 May 1994 06:02:43 GMT
Organization: DCC - UNICAMP - Campinas, SP, Brazil


I have been reading this newsgroup since day 1 or so, but I just
realized that I don't know the answer to this simple basic question:

  Fill a palladium electrode with deuterium to the maximum loading
  level, as in the best CNF recipes.  
  
  Then quickly pull it out of the cell, and light it with a match.
  
  What will happen?
  
--stolfi

 -------------------------------------------------------------------
Jorge Stolfi                                | Tel: +55 (192) 39-8442
Computer Science Dept. (DCC-IMECC)          |      +55 (192) 39-3115
Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP) |  
Internet: stolfi@dcc.unicamp.br             | Fax: +55 (192) 39-7470
 -------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenstolfi cudfnJorge cudlnStolfi cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.17 / Mark North /  Re: Mills excess heat (was Re: Is belief poss
     
Originally-From: north@watop.nosc.mil (Mark North)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Mills excess heat (was Re: Is belief poss
Date: Tue, 17 May 1994 16:14:26 GMT
Organization: NCCOSC RDT&E Division, San Diego, CA

fritz@rodin.wustl.edu (Fritz Lehmann) writes:

>     As is often the case, both sides of this debate are more
>perceptive about the attitudes of the other side than about
>their own.  The proponents of "Cold Fusion" fastened on to some
>naive hopes, and the opponents have responded with mindless
>contempt from the first day of Pons & Fleischmann's news
>conference.  P & F first mentioned a "hitherto unknown process"
>and I wish they had left it at that rather than declaring it
>to be fusion.

You're showing quite a strong bias of your own here. From what you
say I would suppose you consider me an opponent of "Cold Fusion".
I am not. CNF either is or is not what it is purported to be.
If it turns out to be fusion (highly unlikely in my opinion) I would
be delighted. So I do not 'oppose' CNF or "Cold Fusion". What I do
oppose and have contempt for are unsupported and unscientific
statements made that claim CNF is a done deal. That positive results
are pouring in from all over the world. These statements come from
two sources. One source is people who have no background or
education sufficient to allow them to assess the *quality* of the
positive results. Yes, I do have contempt for people who try to
make scientific sounding claims and yet are obviously ignorant of
the content and process. One wonders about their motives. The other
source is some of the researchers making claims of positive results.
In many cases when their results have been justly critisized by
their peers they have failed to correct said deficiencies. For example,
more than one worker, after having failed to find nuclear by-products
with state-of-the-art detectors has then opted to use less
sensitive methods (film, GM tubes, neutron activation) and then
claimed positive results. This is contemptible. So you see this
is not mindless contempt, I have good reason for it. Also, I dispute
your contention that P&F were greeted with contempt. All the
physicists I know were amazed and excited by the prospect of CNF.
We could hardly wait to get in the lab and reproduce the results.
The contempt only came after we saw their first paper and how
incredibly shoddy it was. And after carefully done replications
failed to produce either 'excess heat' or nuclear particles.

>    The situation now seems to be that temperature results 
>have been reported by several responsible researchers, but
>that the other reported effects have not been reproduced.  
>Is that right?  Is there a central repository of _positive_
>_and_negative_ experimental results?  

Dieter Britz has a bibliography of hundreds of peer reviewed
papers. Both positive and negative.

>One stupid problem
>is that established scientists are unwilling to admit or
>publish negative results, particularly when they will be
>attacked for having considered the hypothesis in the
>first place.     

This is demonstrably not true.

>I saw physicists publicly
>sneering immediately (within a week of P & F) and talking
>about "N-Rays" while at the same time frantically throwing
>together slap-dash versions of the experiment.  

Were these the same physicists? Would you care to tell us who
they were? 

>I think
>they considered their results unpublishable.  If this
>has been seriously "studied to death", where is a sober
>and reasoned evaluation and compendium of research results?
>(One not confined to dismissing the other side as deranged.)

This normally takes the form of a review article. I don't think
one has been published yet (and doubt if one ever will because
such things are reserved for reproducible phenomena). In the mean
time you'll just have to read the articles yourself and do your
own review. 

>     In the discussion in alt.skeptics, _both_ sides 
>(including Fullerton) have stooped to time-wasting
>ad hominem attacks and personal remarks.  It may
>be fun to talk about idiots and droolings and so on
>but it's no use in evaluating the real truth of
>what is called "cold fusion".

That's sci.skeptic. In order to separate the wheat from the chaff
you must have some scientific training and some critical thinking
ability. After all, we could be sweet as light and lying through
our teeth, would that help? 

Mark

cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudennorth cudfnMark cudlnNorth cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.17 / Mark North /  Re: Mills excess heat (was Re: Is belief poss
     
Originally-From: north@watop.nosc.mil (Mark North)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Mills excess heat (was Re: Is belief poss
Date: Tue, 17 May 1994 17:18:13 GMT
Organization: NCCOSC RDT&E Division, San Diego, CA

livesey@solntze.engr.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:

>In article <2r7m33$7fn@bigfoot.wustl.edu>, fritz@rodin.wustl.edu (Fritz Lehmann) writes:
>>
>>  I saw physicists publicly sneering immediately (within a week 
>> of P & F) and talking about "N-Rays" while at the same time 
>> frantically throwing together slap-dash versions of the experiment.

>Correct me if I err, but I recall P&F *refusing* to tell others
>of their exact experimental setup.

I had a fax of a fax of a fax of a preprint of their paper shortly after
the announcement. I don't know if it was within a week though.

I didn't start sneering until I talked to Dick Petrasso at Sante Fe
in May, I believe. So it couldn't have been me he saw.

Mark

cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudennorth cudfnMark cudlnNorth cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.17 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Another Stupid [Cold] Fusion Question
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Another Stupid [Cold] Fusion Question
Date: Tue, 17 May 94 14:28:12 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

stolfi@cmos.dcc.unicamp.br (Jorge Stolfi) asked:
 
  "Fill a palladium electrode with deuterium to the maximum loading
  level, as in the best CNF recipes.
 
  Then quickly pull it out of the cell, and light it with a match.
 
  What will happen?"
 
 
Nothing much. I know some folks who tried matches, blowtorches, soldering
irons. . .  The metal just glowed for a while, they say.
 
That was a safety test in Japan. There are unconfirmed reports that bulk
Pd can explode, but I have never heard any verification of that.
 
- Jed
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenjedrothwell cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.17 / Robert Eachus /  Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
     
Originally-From: eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.math,sci.physics,sci.physics.f
sion,sci.bio,sci.ch
Subject: Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
Date: 17 May 94 15:06:31
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.

In article <MARDER.207.2DD8E911@agri.huji.ac.il> MARDER@agri.huji.ac.il
(Jonathan B. Marder) writes:

  > Where I grew up, a pint is 20 fluid ounces (1 quart of water weighs 2.5
  > pounds).

  > I believe that this is the case in most English-speaking countries.

  You mean that there are still bloody Imperialists out there?  I
thought that they had all realized their mistake and converted to
metric.  (And I also thought that the Imperial gallon contained 10
pints but 4 Imperial quarts, but those who had to live with it
probably know best.)

--

					Robert I. Eachus

with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudeneachus cudfnRobert cudlnEachus cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.17 / Robert Eachus /  Re: Use of Kanji
     
Originally-From: eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.math,sci.physics,sci.physics.f
sion,sci.bio,sci.ch
Subject: Re: Use of Kanji
Date: 17 May 94 15:41:13
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.

In article <2r951f$7p8@gap.cco.caltech.edu> palmer@alumni.caltech.edu
(David M. Palmer) writes:

   dchill@relay.nswc.navy.mil (oanews) writes:

  > >Americans should feel very very lucky that Japan did not scrap
  > >Kanji some time before WWI. 

  > Actually, the Japanese use of the Kana and Hiranji letter systems
  > (rather than Kanji ideographs) was very fortunate, since it allowed us
  > to read their ciphers.  Breaking Purple, enigma, and other Axis
  > cryptosystems was much more important to the outcome of WWII than the
  > Manhattan Project.

     No, telegraphic Japanese, use in the Purple system, used only
katakana.  Reading telegraphic Japanese was almost an art form, since
misspellings were used in some places for disambiguation, and in other
places infrequently used terms with (more) unique katakana spellings
were used instead.

     If the US had imposed English on the Japanese after WWII it would
have been a mixed blessing.  It certainly would have helped dissipate
the gender bias and xenophobia built into the Japanese language, but
it would also have lead to more bureaucracy, and might also have
increased industrial productivity.

     For those who don't know Japanese, from the point of view of
foreigners and women, it makes Arabic look positively pleasant.
Hirigana (a character set) was designed to be used for an by women,
and katakana exclusively for foreign words or things.  A woman I knew
who spent a year teaching English in Japan said that being gaijan (a
foreigner) was the only thing that made it possible for her to stay.
She could not have stood being treated like a (Japanese) woman.  This
was in 1992-1993...

     (I have many (multi-lingual) Japanese friends, so let me assure
you I am not a racist bigot, although I may be a linguistic one.  I
have never seen language used to enforce culture other than in a
negative way.  The nicest cultures I know are in polyglot countries or
areas.  The worst are those which try to suppress foreign language
influences.)


--

					Robert I. Eachus

with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudeneachus cudfnRobert cudlnEachus cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.17 / Rose Holt /  Re: NAMING OF THE ELEMENTS;MORE IMPORTANT,STANDARD NOTATION OF 
     
Originally-From: rmholt@u.washington.edu (Rose Marie Holt)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,alt.religion.kibology,sci.math,sci
physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.chem,sci.bio
Subject: Re: NAMING OF THE ELEMENTS;MORE IMPORTANT,STANDARD NOTATION OF 
Date: 17 May 1994 20:09:37 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

In article <2r86c5$cep@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>,
Ludwig Plutonium <Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>In article <2quigm$lgv@news.u.washington.edu>
>rmholt@u.washington.edu (Rose Marie Holt) writes:
>> I think I have met someone who knows Flerov.
>> I have met Seaborg, Ghiorso, and *Darleane* Hoffman.
>> I dont think you will ever pry Seaborg's name off of Seaborgium
>> I dont know why you would want to associate Stanley Prusiner's
>> name (used to create the word "prion") with a transuranium
>> element, but what the hey?
>> I dont think you need to use two people per atom - that's
>> a bit crowded.  Why not rename the whole periodic table?
>> Or, you could name every isotope.
>> I see no basic flaws in the scheme, however.
>
>The last time I wrote to Russia, Flerov was dead. To find out anything
>about Petrzhak when he lived, is like pulling teeth.
>
>I have to check into "prion", in order to see if the S.Prusiner
>discovered these biological objects? Regardless of the origin of the

They are probably the most primitive known life forms.
Scientific American would be a good place to start re: Prusiner.

>
>I am glad you recommended naming isotopes Rose, because that is just
>what I will do, because my scheme as you note, is overcrowded.
>
>
>I propose to kept the old names up to plutonium for the most abundant
>isotope. And end the bickering over whether tungsten or wolfram, and
>others.

And those darned English-types calling it Alumin*i*um - very annoying

>It is dreadful that I should spend my time on this matter. But someone
>has to do it. The lasting importance of this exercise is to give GUIDED

Well one reason I got out of the business is, there is just a LOT
of tedious gruntwork involved, especially if you dont
have a grant, or a lot of people or students working for you
I will be in Purgatory a long time for what I subjected those
poor premeds to, and they did it gladly, for a letter from Seaborg.

When your theories are at odds with traditional thinking, it just
gets even harder. 

There was an interesting story about the guy who invented the
process for photocopying - he worked for decades, wrecked his house,
lost his wife, and made a pittance, when he finally sold it to 
Xerox.  The story was in The Atlantic a few years ago. 
 

cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenrmholt cudfnRose cudlnHolt cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.17 / Kevin Sterner /  Re: Use of Kanji
     
Originally-From: sterner@upenn5.hep.upenn.edu (Kevin Sterner)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.math,sci.physics,sci.physics.f
sion,sci.bio,sci.ch
Subject: Re: Use of Kanji
Date: 17 May 1994 20:20:26 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

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

>     For those who don't know Japanese, from the point of view of
>foreigners and women, it makes Arabic look positively pleasant.
>Hirigana (a character set) was designed to be used for an by women,
>and katakana exclusively for foreign words or things.  A woman I knew
>who spent a year teaching English in Japan said that being gaijan (a
>foreigner) was the only thing that made it possible for her to stay.
>She could not have stood being treated like a (Japanese) woman.  This
>was in 1992-1993...

Eeto desu, nee...are you sure about hiragana being for women?  I was taught
(while a grad student at KEK--so it is relevant to sci.physics, so there) 
that hiragana was for native Japanese words and grammatical constructs
(such as sentence particles).  Perhaps that's a tale we were told, to get
us to learn hiragana and look like a bunch of sissies! :-)

But you're right, nihongo is a tough language to learn.  It made me look
back and smile on all those German lessons I struggled through.

-- K.

 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin L. Sterner  |  U. Penn. High Energy Physics  |  Smash the welfare state!
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudensterner cudfnKevin cudlnSterner cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.17 / PISCHKE DAVID /  Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
     
Originally-From: pischke@ecf.toronto.edu (PISCHKE  DAVID)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.math,sci.physics,sci.physics.f
sion,sci.bio,sci.ch
Subject: Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
Date: Tue, 17 May 1994 13:27:10 GMT
Organization: University of Toronto, Engineering Computing Facility

In article <2r9s5o$e04@scunix2.harvard.edu>,
Ron Maimon <rmaimon@husc9.Harvard.EDU> wrote:
>
>A kilogram is a unit of weight.
>

You are incorrect.  The kilogram is a unit of mass.  If the kilogram is a unit
of weight, then what do you use to measure mass, and how do you explain the
Newton, which is defined as a kg*m/s^2?

>Ron Maimon


-- 
                 David "Crazy Elec" Pischke (pischke@ecf.toronto.edu)
___   _____      "Engineering is the art of moulding materials we do not fully
|__ |)  |  |  |  understand into shapes we cannot fully analyse and preventing
|__ |\  |  |/\|  the public from realising the full extent of our ignorance."
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenpischke cudfnPISCHKE cudlnDAVID cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.18 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Re: N. Korean's Pu=Bad, Japan's Pu=Good
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: N. Korean's Pu=Bad, Japan's Pu=Good
Date: Wed, 18 May 1994 00:25:11 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Well, we all know how to solve this problem, and sanctions are not required.

We don't need to inspect, or stop ships, or search Japanese resident Koreans
going home for a visit to make sure they are not carying secret electronics.
We want them to buy the electronics from black market sources because it 
costs money!

Yes, this problem needs to be solved in a peaceful way, just like we solved 
the cold war with the USSR.

If N. Korea wants to spend their resources making a bomb, then I say let them
do it.  Then turn Japan (likely the most interested party that would not like
N. Korea to have a bomb) loose to make defensive weapons against the N. Korean
bomb.  Good anti-aircraft missiles for a start.  Now Korea has to build a 
300+ mile delivery system.  Then Japan gets to build a good anii-missile 
system.  Then N. Korea gets to build a multiple warhead vehicle.  Then Japan
gets to make "brilliant pebbles", etc..

Guess who's economy gives out first?

Then S. Korea gets to "merge" with the mess that is left of N. Korea.  Not 
a pretty solution.  But it will work.  

It has all been done before!

Tom Droege

cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenDROEGE cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.17 / J Buzzard /  Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
     
Originally-From: phyjab1@phyd4c3.caledonia.hw.ac.uk (Jonathan A Buzzard)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.math,sci.physics,sci.physics.f
sion,sci.bio,sci.ch
Subject: Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
Date: Tue, 17 May 1994 12:30:26 GMT
Organization: Heriot-Watt University


--

:|> 
:|> And the French kid will be wrong, because a kilogram is a unit of mass.
:
:A kilogram is a unit of weight.

It bloody well is not. The kilogram is a unit of mass, the metric
unit of weight is the Newton. A weight is a force, hence even an
elementary examination of the facts shows that the kilogram is
a mass. Originaly it was defined that one gram had the mass of
one cubic centimetre of pure water at 4 degress Celcius (water
is at maximum maximum density at this temperature), with the metre
originaly defined as some fraction of distance from the pole to
the equator. (which I can't remember). The second is dervied

 from the length of the day, and a fasination with the nubers 12
and 60 (blaim the Sumerians and Egyptions for that). These days
more accurate methods are used to define them.

With regard to an earlier post, the metric system is simplicity,
for each measure there is a base, this has no prefixes, so for
length it is the metre, for weight it is the gram and for liquids
it is the litre. For fractions smaller than this we prefix the
Latin so a hundreth of a metre is a centimetre, and a thousandth
of a litre is a millilitre. etc. For measurables bigger than the
base we prefix the Greek, so a thousand metres is a kilometre,
and thousand grams is a kilogram, etc. So all you need to kno

w are your bases and the Latin and Greek prefixes and your cooking.
Now with the imperial system we go inches-feet-yards
or ounces-pounds-stones etc. real obvious.

The crowning glory for the metric system is that the imperial system
is now defined in terms of the metric (SI) standards, so one inch
is defined to be 25.4 milimetres etc.

JAB.

 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan A. Buzzard,              
Physics Department,           Email:-
Heriot-Watt University,            phyjab1@caledonia.hw.ac.uk   InterNet
Edinburgh. EH14 4AS                phyjab1@uk.ac.hw.clust       JANET
United Kingdom.
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenphyjab1 cudfnJonathan cudlnBuzzard cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.17 / John Logajan /  Re: Stupid fusion question
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Stupid fusion question
Date: 17 May 1994 12:18:42 GMT
Organization: Sky Point Communications, Inc.

Carl R. Nicolai (cryptext@chinook.halcyon.com) wrote:
: it have to be in order that a mixture of Deuterium and Oxygen (at 1000 psi.) 
: when ignited by spark plugs (say 500) placed around the sphere, would
: achieve a break even fusion reaction.

Is Carl trying to achieve some sort of sonofusion by producing an inward
buring shell of flame?

--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com -- 612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills  MN 55112 USA           -


cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.17 / Mike Jamison /  Re: SKITS14-17 NEANDERTHAL PARK; Rush Limbaugh,Lederman,David
     
Originally-From: edwlt12@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov (Mike Jamison (ADF))
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,alt.religion.kibology,sci.math,sci
physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.chem,sci.bio
Subject: Re: SKITS14-17 NEANDERTHAL PARK; Rush Limbaugh,Lederman,David
Date: 17 May 1994 10:44 EST
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center

In article <2r9fd6$8s0@char.vnet.net>, flash@char.vnet.net (Gordon Keener) writes...
>In article <JkkrjaE96$-9063yn@world.std.com> moroney@world.std.com
(Michael Moroney) writes:
>>In article <2qnlkr$3fk@darum.uni-mannheim.de>, Oliver Klimek wrote:
>>> Ludwig Plutonium (Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu) wrote:
>>> 
>>> [many, many names deleted]
>>> 
>>
>>Any more for the list?
> 
>    137  finestructurum
>    151  bacardirum
>    222  roomium
>    747  boengium
>    800  tollfrium
>   1040  taxium
>   1600  pennsylvaniavenum
>   1984  orwellium
>   2001  clarkeium
>   3000  mysterysciencetheaterum
> 350000  itsamadmadmadmadmadworldium
>9625342  ranoutofnamesium

80586 Pentium
80686 Hexium
80786 Septium
80886 Octium
80989 paralleloctium
8086 dumbium
601 powerpcium
604 megapowerpcium
620 ultramegapowerpcium
68060 motorolium
6502 birthofapplium
68000 appleripsoffparcium

And those're only the pc elements :-)

[My apologies to anyone trying to find something serious in this post].


>-- 
>gordon Keener
>flash@vnet.net
>"I still haven't thought of a good quote..."

Mike Jamison

"Scientific research consists in seeing what everyone else has seen, but
thinking what no one else has thought"

						-A. Szent-Gyorgyi
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenedwlt12 cudfnMike cudlnJamison cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.17 / David Kastrup /  Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
     
Originally-From: dak@rama.informatik.rwth-aachen.de (David Kastrup)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.math,sci.physics,sci.physics.f
sion,sci.bio,sci.ch
Subject: Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
Date: 17 May 1994 15:08:49 GMT
Organization: Rechnerbetrieb Informatik - RWTH Aachen

rmaimon@husc9.Harvard.EDU (Ron Maimon) writes:

>In article <2r951f$7p8@gap.cco.caltech.edu>, palmer@alumni.caltech.edu
(David M. Palmer) writes:
>|> 
>|> And the French kid will be wrong, because a kilogram is a unit of mass.

>A kilogram is a unit of weight.

Nope. A kilopond is a unit of weight. A kilogramm is a unit of mass
(the ratio of force and acceleration particular to a body considered
rigid). When accelerated with Earth's gravity (which will average
about 9.81 m/s^2 at surface), a kilogramm will way 1 kilopond.

As the mass and the diameter of the Earth is not quite a universal constant,
a kilogramm can be much better defined than a kilopond.

Not that they have not fixed the kilopond, just like the kilogramm *was*
one time the weight of 1 litre (1/100 cubic metre) of water.
-- 
 David Kastrup        dak@pool.informatik.rwth-aachen.de          
 Tel: +49-241-72419 Fax: +49-241-79502
 Goethestr. 20, D-52064 Aachen
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudendak cudfnDavid cudlnKastrup cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.17 / L Plutonium /  Re: NAMING OF THE ELEMENTS;MORE IMPORTANT,STANDARD NOTATION OF 
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,alt.religion.kibology,sci.math,sci
physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.chem,sci.bio,alt.ascii-art
Subject: Re: NAMING OF THE ELEMENTS;MORE IMPORTANT,STANDARD NOTATION OF 
Date: 17 May 1994 15:00:54 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In article <2r9uif$d6j@news.cerf.net>
paulp@is.internic.net (Paul Phillips) writes:

> What is the world coming to, I ask! When Roger Bryner and Ludwig
> Plutonium are using the same tools on their audience, then either
> ASCII art is terribly underrated or there is something not quite
> right in the world.

  I have asked politely in the alt.ascii-art for the 5f6 electron cloud
dot picture. Something more elaborate than my picture below.

LP                         94th ELECTRON OF 231PU
               Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH ELECTRON

                  \ ::| :./.
                  .\::|::/.:
                     _ _
                    (:Y:)
                     - - 
                  ::/.|.\.:
                :: /.:| :\.:
                  /   |   \.
        One of those dots is the Sun with 9 smaller dots around it.
Look in a chemistry textbook or quantum physics textbook of the
electron cloud dot picture. 
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.17 / L Plutonium /  Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.math,sci.physics,sci.physics.f
sion,sci.bio,sci.chem
Subject: Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
Date: 17 May 1994 15:06:27 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In article <2r9s5o$e04@scunix2.harvard.edu>
rmaimon@husc9.Harvard.EDU (Ron Maimon) writes:

> In article <2r951f$7p8@gap.cco.caltech.edu>, palmer@alumni.caltech.edu
(David M. Palmer) writes:
> |> 
> |> And the French kid will be wrong, because a kilogram is a unit of mass.
> 
> A kilogram is a unit of weight.
> 
> 
> Ron Maimon

  Not to worry Ron, you will get out of this boiling pot. Just use your
Everett Interpretation.
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.17 / Andreas Johann /  Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
     
Originally-From: am3a529@AMSUN02 (Andreas Johann)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.math,sci.physics,sci.physics.f
sion,sci.bio,sci.ch
Subject: Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
Date: 17 May 1994 15:32:14 GMT
Organization: University of Hamburg -- Germany

PISCHKE  DAVID (pischke@ecf.toronto.edu) wrote:
: In article <2r9s5o$e04@scunix2.harvard.edu>,
: Ron Maimon <rmaimon@husc9.Harvard.EDU> wrote:
: >
: >A kilogram is a unit of weight.
: >

: You are incorrect.  The kilogram is a unit of mass.  If the kilogram is a unit
: of weight, then what do you use to measure mass, and how do you explain the
: Newton, which is defined as a kg*m/s^2?


Continuing the cooking discussion, if I buy a kilo apples, I want
indeed a mass (the weight is something I have to carry). If my apples
are weighted (sic!) with a balance, then indeed a measurement of mass is
made.
This shows that in everyday life one makes no difference between mass and
weight; this is justified by strength of the attraction of the earth, say
at Sevres near Paris, where the kilo was (and maybe still is) kept.

Jan Stevens.
--
E-mail: stevens@math.uni-hamburg.de

Mathematisches Seminar,  Universitaet Hamburg
Bundesstrasse 55
D 20146 HAMBURG, Germany
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenam3a529 cudfnAndreas cudlnJohann cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.17 / Jonathan Marder /  Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
     
Originally-From: MARDER@agri.huji.ac.il (Jonathan B. Marder)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.math,sci.physics,sci.physics.f
sion,sci.bio,sci.ch
Subject: Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
Date: Tue, 17 May 1994 15:56:01 GMT
Organization: The Hebrew University of Jerusalem

In article <EACHUS.94May16172212@spectre.mitre.org> eachus@spectre.mitre
org (Robert I. Eachus) writes:

]...(
> A pint's a pound the world around, so a quart of water weighs two pounds.
]...(

Where I grew up, a pint is 20 fluid ounces (1 quart of water weighs 2.5
pounds).

I believe that this is the case in most English-speaking countries.
__
Jonathan B. Marder                 '
Department of Agricultural Botany  |     Internet: MARDER@agri.huji.ac.il
The Hebrew University of Jerusalem | /\/ Bitnet:   MARDER@HUJIAGRI
Faculty of Agriculture             |/  \ Phone:    (08 or +9728) 481918
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenMARDER cudfnJonathan cudlnMarder cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.17 / Vic Moberg /  Ball Lightning (Physics-Uspekhi journal #5/94)
     
Originally-From: moberg@nosc.mil (Vic Moberg)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Ball Lightning (Physics-Uspekhi journal #5/94)
Date: Tue, 17 May 1994 15:31:08 GMT
Organization: NCCOSC RDT&E Division, San Diego, CA

 
 CONTENTS of PHYSICS-USPEKHI journal # 5/94
 =====================================================
       If you are interested in the materials published or
       to be published in PHYSICS-USPEKHI journal send a command
	
	INFO UFN/E
	 
       on our addresses
       infomag@lgrant.mipt.msk.su (for RELCOM network users)
       or   
       infomag@glas.apc.org  (for non-RELCOM users)
	  
 ============================
	   
   CONFERENCES AND SYMPOSIA
   Long-lived glowing phenomena in the atmosphere (International
   Conferences held at Salzburg, Austria, September 1993, and at
   Hessdalen, Norway, March 1994) (B.M. Smirnov)                   557
	    

--
--
Vic Moberg                                NCCOSC RDTE Div. Code 842
moberg@manta.nosc.mil                     53490 Dow St. Rm. 104
Phone: 619-553-6140, Fax: -6449           San Diego CA 92152-5731
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenmoberg cudfnVic cudlnMoberg cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.17 / Ad aspera /  PHYSICS NEWS UPDATE 179,  May 17, 1994
     
Originally-From: JTCHEW@lbl.gov (Ad absurdum per aspera)
Newsgroups: sci.research,sci.materials,sci.physics.fusion,sci.polymers,sci.bio
Subject: PHYSICS NEWS UPDATE 179,  May 17, 1994
Date: 17 May 1994 20:43:55 GMT
Organization: Relayed, not written, by Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory


[Written by individuals at the American Institute of Physics and
merely posted by me, so respond to <pfs2@aip.org> or other
references below.  Always posted here on sci.research; usually
crossposted to an eclectic and hopefully appropriate selection of 
other newsgroups, with followups directed here. Back issues may be 
ftp'd from NIC.HEP.NET, along with FYI and the American Physical 
Society news/opinion column WHAT'S NEW.  Enjoy! -jc]

PHYSICS NEWS UPDATE
A digest of physics news items by Phillip F. Schewe, American
Institute of Physics
Number 179  May 17, 1994

THE RELAXATION OF A SINGLE DNA MOLECULE has been
studied by attaching to it a 1-micron latex bead which then can be
manipulated in a special configuration of lasers known as an "optical
tweezers."  Lit up by an infrared laser and viewed in a microscope,
the DNA molecule can be sent through a series of maneuvers
(including spelling out the letters "DNA") designed to measure the
molecule's mechanical properties.  Stanford physicist Steven Chu and
his colleagues were also able to corroborate a theory of 1991 Nobel-
laureate Pierre-Gilles de Gennes, who asserted that the movement of
single polymer strand among other strands was analogous to one
snake crawling past other snakes.  (Thomas T. Perkins et al.,
Science, 6 May.)

AN ION TEMPERATURE OF 429 MILLION K (37 keV) was
achieved in the fusion experiments last December at Princeton's
TFTR Tokamak, which for the first time used a fuel of 50%
deuterium and 50% tritium in order to produce a record 6.2
megawatts of power (the 1991 experiments at the Joint European
Torus, which produced the previous record of 1.7 MW, used a fuel
of approximately 90% deuterium and 10% tritium).  The central
region of the TFTR plasma achieved a power density (from fusion
reactions) of just over 1 megawatt/m**3, comparable to that expected
in the first commercial reactors.  There are encouraging signs that the
alpha (helium-4) particles produced in the D-T reactions are directly
heating electrons in the plasma.  Alpha particle confinement and
heating will be the focus of ongoing experiments at TFTR this year.
(Upcoming articles in Physical Review Letters, May 23: J.D.
Strachan et al., and R.J. Hawryluk et al.)

A THOUSANDFOLD INCREASE IN THE
MAGNETORESISTANCE (MR) in superlattice films has been
observed by scientists at AT&T Bell Labs.  The MR phenomenon, in
which a material's electrical resistance is altered by a changing
magnetic field, has already been used in magnetic recording heads.
One figure of merit, the MR ratio, is the percentage change in
resistance as an external magnetic field is switched between high and
low values.  The highest previous MR ratio was about 150% in a Fe-
Cr multilayer film.  The new MR ratio, obtained for 100 to 200-nm
thick La-Ca-Mn-O films (grown epitaxially on a LaAlO3 substrate),
is 127,000% at a temperature of 77 K and 1300% at room
temperature.  The field used was 6 Tesla.  (S. Jin et al.,  
Science, 15 April 1994.)

THE 1995 RESEARCH BUDGET REQUEST, submitted to Congress
by President Clinton, calls for a 4% increase in R&D spending.
Among physics programs at the Department of Energy, the 1995
request for high energy physics is $621.9 (all amounts are in millions
of dollars), about the same as in 1994.  The '95 request for nuclear
physics is $300.8, down 14% from '94.  The Basic Energy Sciences
program, at $741.3, is down 6.2% from the previous year.  The new
request for magnetic fusion is $372.6, up 8.4% from '94, while the
figure for inertial fusion is $176.5, down from $185.5.  At the
National Science Foundation, the 1995 figure for physics is $141.7
($133.7 in '94), for materials research $185.5 ($175.6 in '94), and
$443.1 for geoscience ($403.9 in '94).  At NASA the physics and
astronomy program calls for $1058.7 in 1995 ($1076.6 in '94),
including $226.7 for the Hubble Space Telescope and $234.5 for the
AXAF x-ray telescope.  The planetary exploration request was
$707.3, compared to $654.3 in '94.  (Physics Today, April 1994.)
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenJTCHEW cudfnAd cudlnaspera cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.17 /  prasad /  Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
     
Originally-From: c1prasad@watson.ibm.com (prasad)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.math,sci.physics,sci.physics.f
sion,sci.bio,sci.ch
Subject: Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
Date: 17 May 1994 20:18:28 GMT
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center


>The crowning glory for the metric system is that the imperial
system is now defined in terms of the metric (SI) standards, so
one inch is defined to be 25.4 milimetres etc.
>
>JAB.

-- 

"Imperial"?  No longer.  Gone are the days of the British Empire.  In fact,
this odd system of units is almost purely US-ian.  Even Canadians went metric
long ago.  Indeed, so great is the I-do-it-my-way urge, that we've even got
to redefine the English units (eg. gallon).  Not legit to call it imperial,
is it?  Esp. in our democracy?  :)

__________ __________ __________ __________ __________ __________ __________

pragma options disclaimed

- prasad		email: 71155.3116@compuserve.com, poll= 1/month.

"That must be wonderful!  I don't understand it at all."
Klein bottle for rent -- inquire within.
Entropy isn't what it used to be...
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenc1prasad cudlnprasad cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.17 /  prasad /  Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
     
Originally-From: c1prasad@watson.ibm.com (prasad)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.math,sci.physics,sci.physics.f
sion,sci.bio,sci.ch
Subject: Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
Date: 17 May 1994 20:27:38 GMT
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

In article <MARDER.207.2DD8E911@agri.huji.ac.il>, MARDER@agri.huji.ac.il
(Jonathan B. Marder) writes:
|> In article <EACHUS.94May16172212@spectre.mitre.org> eachus@spectre.mi
re.org (Robert I. Eachus) writes:
|> 
|> ]...(
|> > A pint's a pound the world around, so a quart of water weighs two pounds.
|> ]...(
|> 
|> Where I grew up, a pint is 20 fluid ounces (1 quart of water weighs 2.5
|> pounds).
|> 
|> I believe that this is the case in most English-speaking countries.

Not in the USA!  Here, there ain't no furlong for long, and a gallon's no
longer nearly 4 and a half liters.  Dates cannot be sorted without juxtaposing...

|> __
|> Jonathan B. Marder                 '
|> Department of Agricultural Botany  |     Internet: MARDER@agri.huji.ac.il
|> The Hebrew University of Jerusalem | /\/ Bitnet:   MARDER@HUJIAGRI
|> Faculty of Agriculture             |/  \ Phone:    (08 or +9728) 481918

-- 

__________ __________ __________ __________ __________ __________ __________

pragma options disclaimed

- prasad		email: 71155.3116@compuserve.com, poll= 1/month.

"That must be wonderful!  I don't understand it at all."
Klein bottle for rent -- inquire within.
Entropy isn't what it used to be...
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenc1prasad cudlnprasad cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.17 /  prasad /  Re: Another Stupid [Cold] Fusion Question
     
Originally-From: c1prasad@watson.ibm.com (prasad)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Another Stupid [Cold] Fusion Question
Date: 17 May 1994 20:38:48 GMT
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

In article <STOLFI.94May17030245@cmos.dcc.unicamp.br>, stolfi@cmos.dcc.u
icamp.br (Jorge Stolfi) writes:
|> 
|> I have been reading this newsgroup since day 1 or so, but I just
|> realized that I don't know the answer to this simple basic question:
|> 
|>   Fill a palladium electrode with deuterium to the maximum loading
|>   level, as in the best CNF recipes.  
|>   
|>   Then quickly pull it out of the cell, and light it with a match.
|>   
|>   What will happen?
|>   

Match will ignite, electrode will explode, scientist will die.
(EPRI, Jan 91?)

|> --stolfi
|> 
|> --------------------------------------------------------------------
|> Jorge Stolfi                                | Tel: +55 (192) 39-8442
|> Computer Science Dept. (DCC-IMECC)          |      +55 (192) 39-3115
|> Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP) |  
|> Internet: stolfi@dcc.unicamp.br             | Fax: +55 (192) 39-7470
|> --------------------------------------------------------------------

-- 
__________ __________ __________ __________ __________ __________ __________

pragma options disclaimed

- prasad		email: 71155.3116@compuserve.com, poll= 1/month.

"That must be wonderful!  I don't understand it at all."
Klein bottle for rent -- inquire within.
Entropy isn't what it used to be...
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenc1prasad cudlnprasad cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.17 / Charlie Gibbs /  Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
     
Originally-From: Charlie_Gibbs@mindlink.bc.ca (Charlie Gibbs)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
Date: Tue, 17 May 94 16:27:55 -0700 (PDT)
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada

In article <2r9s5o$e04@scunix2.harvard.edu> rmaimon@husc9.Harvard.EDU
(Ron Maimon) writes:

>In article <2r951f$7p8@gap.cco.caltech.edu>, palmer@alumni.caltech.edu
(David
>M. Palmer) writes:
>|>
>|> And the French kid will be wrong, because a kilogram is a unit of mass.
>
>A kilogram is a unit of weight.

...and Caltech takes over the lead from Harvard on this week's quiz...

Charlie_Gibbs@mindlink.bc.ca
I used to be indecisive, but now I'm not so sure.

cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenCharlie_Gibbs cudfnCharlie cudlnGibbs cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.17 / Paul Houle /  Re: Use of Kanji
     
Originally-From: ph18@crux2.cit.cornell.edu (Paul Houle)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.math,sci.physics,sci.physics.f
sion,sci.bio,sci.ch
Subject: Re: Use of Kanji
Date: 17 May 1994 23:37:03 GMT
Organization: Cornell University

sterner@upenn5.hep.upenn.edu (Kevin Sterner) writes:

>Eeto desu, nee...are you sure about hiragana being for women?  I was taught
>(while a grad student at KEK--so it is relevant to sci.physics, so there) 
>that hiragana was for native Japanese words and grammatical constructs
>(such as sentence particles).  Perhaps that's a tale we were told, to get
>us to learn hiragana and look like a bunch of sissies! :-)

>But you're right, nihongo is a tough language to learn.  It made me look
>back and smile on all those German lessons I struggled through.

       The impression I had was that women used hiragana in writing about
1000 years ago,  and men all Kanji.  That is,  I have a book at home that
has samples of what would be typical writing from back then,  including a
letter written by a women and a letter written by a man and the women's
letter is all hiragana and the men's letter is all kanji.  I also am looking
at something right now that was written by a Zen master (Ikkyu Osho) in
the 15th century that looks like it has more kanji than most modern writing,
but has a handful of hiragana in it,  like the ones for "ru" and "a" and
"u".

        Anyway,  today hiragana is used by both sexes,  and as you say,
hiragana is used for some native words that don't have kanji,  for gramatical
particles and verb endings and things like that.  Katakana is used mostly
for foreign loanwords although it was also used for telegraphs and was used
by older computers.  Also,  ~anything~ at all can be written in kana,  so once
you learn the hiragana (about 6-10 hours),  you can write absolutely anything
phonetically,  even though you might look like a fool.

        There still are some real differences between language use by the
sexes.  One of them is that there are sentence ending particles that women
use that men don't,  like "yo".  Women also tend to use softer-sounding verb
endings and things like that.  The role of words like "I" and "you" is much
smaller in Japanese than english,  if you hear them talking,  they very often
refer to themselves and each other by name,  but there are different pronouns
for the sexes.  Atashii means "I" for women,  Boku means "I" for men.  Women
would call a husband or close male "Anata" (although after the movie
"Breakfast at Tiffanys" was shown in Japan,  "Darrrling" has become popular!)
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenph18 cudfnPaul cudlnHoule cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.17 / Ron Maimon /  Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
     
Originally-From: rmaimon@husc9.Harvard.EDU (Ron Maimon)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.math,sci.physics,sci.physics.f
sion,sci.bio,sci.ch
Subject: Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
Date: 17 May 1994 19:45:42 GMT
Organization: Harvard University, Cambridge, MA

In article <Cpy81B.1D7@ecf.toronto.edu>, pischke@ecf.toronto.edu (PISCHKE  DAVID) writes:
|> In article <2r9s5o$e04@scunix2.harvard.edu>,
|> Ron Maimon <rmaimon@husc9.Harvard.EDU> wrote:
|> >
|> >A kilogram is a unit of weight.
|> >
|> 
|> You are incorrect.  The kilogram is a unit of mass.  If the kilogram is a unit
|> of weight, then what do you use to measure mass, and how do you explain the
|> Newton, which is defined as a kg*m/s^2?
|> 

That's science.

The kilogram in a supermarket is a unit of weight equal to 9.8 Newtons

Ron Maimon
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenrmaimon cudfnRon cudlnMaimon cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.17 / Ron Maimon /  Re: SKITS14-17 NEANDERTHAL PARK; Rush Limbaugh,Lederman,David
     
Originally-From: rmaimon@husc9.Harvard.EDU (Ron Maimon)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,alt.religion.kibology,sci.math,sci
physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.chem,sci.bio
Subject: Re: SKITS14-17 NEANDERTHAL PARK; Rush Limbaugh,Lederman,David
Date: 17 May 1994 19:50:48 GMT
Organization: Harvard University, Cambridge, MA

In article <17MAY199410443554@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov>, edwlt12@ariel.lerc.n
sa.gov (Mike Jamison (ADF)) writes:
|>
|> 604 megapowerpcium
|> 620 ultramegapowerpcium
|> 68060 motorolium
|> 6502 birthofapplium
|> 68000 appleripsoffparcium
|> 

69 sexium (oh damn, that's something already)


Ron Maimon
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenrmaimon cudfnRon cudlnMaimon cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.17 / Ron Maimon /  Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
     
Originally-From: rmaimon@husc9.Harvard.EDU (Ron Maimon)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.math,sci.physics,sci.physics.f
sion,sci.bio,sci.ch
Subject: Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
Date: 17 May 1994 20:09:22 GMT
Organization: Harvard University, Cambridge, MA

TO ALL YOU PATHETIC SCIENCE GEEKS TRYING TO CONVINCE THE WORLD TO
STOP SAYING KILOGRAM WHEN THEY MEAN WEIGHT

you are very foolish for trying.


Ron Maimon
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenrmaimon cudfnRon cudlnMaimon cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.18 / Dik Winter /  Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
     
Originally-From: dik@cwi.nl (Dik T. Winter)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.math,sci.physics,sci.physics.f
sion,sci.bio,sci.ch
Subject: Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
Date: Wed, 18 May 1994 00:18:16 GMT
Organization: CWI, Amsterdam

In article <EACHUS.94May17150631@spectre.mitre.org> eachus@spectre.mitre
org (Robert I. Eachus) writes:
 >          (And I also thought that the Imperial gallon contained 10
 > pints but 4 Imperial quarts, but those who had to live with it
 > probably know best.)
 > 
No, no.  It is the gill that contains 5 fluid ounces instead of 4.
And I did not even live with it!  (But I think the Scots would have
preferred the US system as they measure their whisky in 1/4th of a
gill, in England it is 1/5th of a gill.  Perhaps because the Scots
measured their whisky with the wine measures?)
-- 
dik t. winter, cwi, kruislaan 413, 1098 sj  amsterdam, nederland, +31205924098
home: bovenover 215, 1025 jn  amsterdam, nederland; e-mail: dik@cwi.nl
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudendik cudfnDik cudlnWinter cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.17 / John Logajan /  Re: Dihydrino identification???
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Dihydrino identification???
Date: 17 May 1994 20:16:46 GMT
Organization: Sky Point Communications, Inc.

DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov wrote:
: These large devices have a very
: long time constant.  Mills' idea of a control experiment is to have a little 
: container of water with a thermometer in it.

Well, Thermacore is an independent organization from Mills.  As far as I can
tell, the reason that Mills approached Thermacore in the first place to verify
his results was because they were nearby (in the same city, in fact.)

Thermacore (according to their literature) was founded in 1970, has 500
government contracts with about $4 million in product and R&D heat transfer
development.

Bob Shaubach, of Thermacore, insists that they measured the temperature
gradient at all points in the cell and that no point differed from any other
point by more than 1/10 of a degree -- either during running, or during
calibration.  Since the bulk of the mass is in the electrodes and electrolytes,
and since these show no significant temperature gradient -- one would naturally
conclude that the "time constant" of the device is short enough to allow a
useful period of equilibrium.  (Note: excess heat was on the order of 10
degrees beyond resistive heating baseline.)

I think if one has technical questions, they can likely get a helpful answer
from Bob Shaubach at Thermacore, 717-569-6551, FAX 717-569-4797, 780 Eden Road,
Lancaster PA 17601, USA.

--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com -- 612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills  MN 55112 USA           -

cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.17 / Richard Little /  Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
     
Originally-From: rwlittle@nyx10.cs.du.edu (Richard Little)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.math,sci.physics,sci.physics.f
sion,sci.bio,sci.ch
Subject: Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
Date: 17 May 1994 18:33:16 -0600
Organization: University of Denver, Math/CS Dept.

rmaimon@husc9.Harvard.EDU (Ron Maimon) writes:

>In article <2r951f$7p8@gap.cco.caltech.edu>, palmer@alumni.caltech.edu
(David M. Palmer) writes:
>|> 
>|> And the French kid will be wrong, because a kilogram is a unit of mass.

>A kilogram is a unit of weight.


Um, no, the "newton" is the SI unit of weight, and the "kilogram" is the 
SI unit of mass.

Rich
-- 
Richard Warren Little     *  rwlittle@nyx.cs.du.edu, littlerw@qucdn.QueensU.ca
Applied Magnetics Group   *            littlerw@jeff-lab.QueensU.ca
Department of Physics     *
Queen's University        *  GRAVITY: not just a good idea, it's the Law.
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenrwlittle cudfnRichard cudlnLittle cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.17 / SCOTT CHASE /  Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
     
Originally-From: sichase@csa5.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.math,sci.physics,sci.physics.f
sion,sci.bio,sci.ch
Subject: Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
Date: 17 May 1994 18:12 PST
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA

In article <2rb89i$o0j@scunix2.harvard.edu>, rmaimon@husc9.Harvard.EDU
(Ron Maimon) writes...
>TO ALL YOU PATHETIC SCIENCE GEEKS TRYING TO CONVINCE THE WORLD TO
>STOP SAYING KILOGRAM WHEN THEY MEAN WEIGHT
> 
>you are very foolish for trying.
> 
>Ron Maimon

This is very amusing, coming from the most pathetic science geek I know.

-Scott
 -------------------
Scott I. Chase	                      Mutationem motas proportionalem 
SICHASE@CSA2.LBL.GOV                  esse vi motrici impressae.




cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudensichase cudfnSCOTT cudlnCHASE cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.18 / Colin Jones /  Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
     
Originally-From: colin@cs.uwa.oz.au (Colin Jones)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.math,sci.physics,sci.physics.f
sion,sci.bio,sci.ch
Subject: Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
Date: Wed, 18 May 1994 01:37:12 GMT
Organization: Dept. Computer Science, University of Western Australia.

In <2rb6t6$o0j@scunix2.harvard.edu> rmaimon@husc9.Harvard.EDU (Ron Maimon) writes:

>In article <Cpy81B.1D7@ecf.toronto.edu>, pischke@ecf.toronto.edu
(PISCHKE  DAVID) writes:
>|> In article <2r9s5o$e04@scunix2.harvard.edu>,
>|> Ron Maimon <rmaimon@husc9.Harvard.EDU> wrote:
>|> >
>|> >A kilogram is a unit of weight.
>|> >
>|> 
>|> You are incorrect.  The kilogram is a unit of mass.  If the kilogram is a unit
>|> of weight, then what do you use to measure mass, and how do you explain the
>|> Newton, which is defined as a kg*m/s^2?
>|> 

>That's science.

>The kilogram in a supermarket is a unit of weight equal to 9.8 Newtons

>Ron Maimon


Nice attempt at a save but that just means that the supermarkets are
wrong too (I think they would soon change their minds if they were to
open a franchise on the moon!).


 -----------------------------------------------+-----------------------------
Colin R. Jones                         ,-_!\    | Email:  colin@cs.uwa.edu.au
Logic & AI Laboratory                 /     \   | Phone:  +61 9 380 3695
Department of Computer Science        *_,-._/   | Fax:    +61 9 380 1089
The University of Western Australia        v    |
Nedlands, Perth, Western Australia, 6009        |"Bill Posters was framed!"
 -----------------------------------------------+-----------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudencolin cudfnColin cudlnJones cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.18 / Robert Parson /  Re: SKITS14-17 NEANDERTHAL PARK; Rush Limbaugh,Lederman,David
     
Originally-From: rparson@spot.Colorado.EDU (Robert Parson)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,alt.religion.kibology,sci.math,sci
physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.chem,sci.bio
Subject: Re: SKITS14-17 NEANDERTHAL PARK; Rush Limbaugh,Lederman,David
Date: Wed, 18 May 1994 03:56:39 GMT
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder

In article <17MAY199410443554@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov>,
Mike Jamison (ADF) <edwlt12@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov> wrote:
>In article <2r9fd6$8s0@char.vnet.net>, flash@char.vnet.net (Gordon Keener) writes...
>>In article <JkkrjaE96$-9063yn@world.std.com> moroney@world.std.com
(Michael Moroney) writes:
>>>In article <2qnlkr$3fk@darum.uni-mannheim.de>, Oliver Klimek wrote:
>>>> Ludwig Plutonium (Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu) wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> [many, many names deleted]
>>>> 
>>>
>>>Any more for the list?
>> 
>>    137  finestructurum
>>    151  bacardirum
>>    222  roomium
>>    747  boengium
>>    800  tollfrium
>>   1040  taxium
>>   1600  pennsylvaniavenum
>>   1984  orwellium
>>   2001  clarkeium
>>   3000  mysterysciencetheaterum
>> 350000  itsamadmadmadmadmadworldium
>>9625342  ranoutofnamesium
>
>80586 Pentium
>80686 Hexium
>80786 Septium
>80886 Octium
>80989 paralleloctium
>8086 dumbium
>601 powerpcium
>604 megapowerpcium
>620 ultramegapowerpcium
>68060 motorolium
>6502 birthofapplium
>68000 appleripsoffparcium

 666 Antiplutonium

 -------
 Robert

cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenrparson cudfnRobert cudlnParson cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.18 / John Logajan /  Re: Dihydrino identification???
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Dihydrino identification???
Date: 18 May 1994 03:10:40 GMT
Organization: Sky Point Communications, Inc.

Robert_W_Horst@cup.portal.com wrote:
:  Cathode: 5000 m of .5-mm-diam nickel wire
:  Anode: 10 planinized titanium meshs, 5 8" x 1" dia tubes
:  Electrolyte: 28 l of .57 M K2C03
:  V: 2.37 volts, Duty cycle: 20%, I: 10.5A, Frequency: 1 Hz
:  VI power: 4.98 Watts
:  (V-1.48)I power: 1.87 Watts
:  Output power: 41 Watts

I estimate that wire of that diameter and length has about 8 square meters 
of surface area.  Given the range of results reported by Thermacore, that
gives us about 4-6 watts excess per square meter of surface area.  Therefore,
anyone doing duplicate experiments will probably have to scale their 
expectations accordingly.  A little bit of Ni wire is only going to give
a little bit of excess power (assuming Mills/Thermacore are correct.)

Looking at the data I have (from a different Thermacore experiment than
Robert Horst mentions from the Fusion Tech article) it looks like
there is a reaction rate limit associated with surface area.  Once there
is enough free hydrogen to satisfy the limit, adding more hydrogen doesn't
get much more excess heat.  So efficiency is improved by only providing
enough hydrogen to do the job.  By pulsing the current, efficiency is
improved even more, on the order of at least 100%.  This implies that the
electrolysis power might actually reduce (but not eliminate) the reaction.

--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com -- 612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills  MN 55112 USA           -

cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.18 /  dowen@vaxc.cc. /  SL: Non aqueous SL info wanted......
     
Originally-From: dowen@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: SL: Non aqueous SL info wanted......
Date: 18 May 94 17:30:04 +1000
Organization: Computer Centre, Monash University, Australia

Hi folks,
Does somebody know of any SL experiments performed using any medium
other than water. Any references or other info would be much appreciated.
                                               Regards to all,
                                                 Daryl Owen.

cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudendowen cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.18 / Dale Gerdemann /  Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
     
Originally-From: nnsge01@mailserv.zdv.uni-tuebingen.de (Dale Gerdemann)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.math,sci.physics,sci.physics.f
sion,sci.bio,sci.ch
Subject: Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
Date: 18 May 94 10:45:11 GMT
Organization: InterNetNews at ZDV Uni-Tuebingen

What's the big deal? In the U.S. you use the so-called imperial system
for buying apples at the supermarket and you use the metric system for
high school and college science courses. Then if you ever really need
to convert between the two systems, you use your computer or hand-held
calculator. Why should people be forced to use one tool for all
purposes. Do you suppose that people should also use C for all
programming tasks?


Dale Gerdemann
Seminar fuer Sprachwissenschaft
Universitaet Tuebingen
dg@sfs.nphil.uni-tuebingen.de        


cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudennnsge01 cudfnDale cudlnGerdemann cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.19 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Review Article on Cold Fusion
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Review Article on Cold Fusion
Date: Thu, 19 May 1994 01:14:10 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Mark North says there are no review articles on "cold fusion".  Ed Storms 
wrote a very nice, very long, review article which contained several hundred
references.  I think it was published in 
"Fusion Technology", but I received a pre-print directly from Ed.  I hasten
to point out that there is no such thing as an unbiased review article.  You
must read it and look up the references and make your own conclusions.  The 
anvantage of a review article is that it attempts to group papers by 
categories so that everything is there in one place to make a point.  Stil,
you know your own work better than the reviewer, and likely know a few
references he missed.  

Tom Droege

cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenDROEGE cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.18 / Robert Eachus /  Re: N. Korean's Pu=Bad, Japan's Pu=Good
     
Originally-From: eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: N. Korean's Pu=Bad, Japan's Pu=Good
Date: 18 May 94 12:26:10
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.

In article <940517114829.20a04b7a@FNALD.FNAL.GOV> DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:

  > Then S. Korea gets to "merge" with the mess that is left of N.
  > Korea.  Not a pretty solution.  But it will work.

  > It has all been done before!

   And it never ceases to amaze me that it worked so bloodlessly.
(Although, as Wellington said, it was a bloody close near run thing.)
Although, in the case of Japan and North Korea, or even North Korea
and South Korea, as you point out, a cold war would be a mismatch.

   (Just to make sure that no one thinks I am overlooking something, a
lot of Germans, Lithuianians, Latvians, Estonians, Russians, Poles,
Ukranians, Uzbeks, Americans, and others did die in the final acts of
the cold war.  But it was/has been bloodless compared to Rumania or
Yugoslavia.)

--

					Robert I. Eachus

with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudeneachus cudfnRobert cudlnEachus cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.18 / J Brinchmann /  Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
     
Originally-From: jarleb@leda.uio.no (Jarle Brinchmann)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.math,sci.physics,sci.physics.f
sion,sci.bio,sci.ch
Subject: Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
Date: 18 May 1994 17:26:28 GMT
Organization: Institute for Theoretical Astrophysics


In article <Cpy5Er.Kr5@cee.hw.ac.uk>, phyjab1@phyd4c3.caledonia.hw.ac.uk
(Jonathan A Buzzard) writes:
|> Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.math,sci.physics,sci.physic
.fusion,sci.bio,sci.ch
|> From: phyjab1@phyd4c3.caledonia.hw.ac.uk (Jonathan A Buzzard)
|> Subject: Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
|> Reply-To: phyjab1@phyd4c3.caledonia.hw.ac.uk (Jonathan A Buzzard)
|> 
|> 
|> --
|> 
|> :|> 
|> :|> And the French kid will be wrong, because a kilogram is a unit of mass.
|> :
|> :A kilogram is a unit of weight.
|> 
|> It bloody well is not. The kilogram is a unit of mass, the metric unit of
|>  weight is the Newton.

Yes, you are right, but the kilogram standard (at the moment this is the 
definition of the mass/weight 1kg) is a bar, with which you can calibrate
your instruments. And this calibration uses weight, not mass. But the theo-
retical attribute mass is the kilogram as you correctly says. So the definition
of a kilogram today is more in the direction of a definition of a weigth as
opposed to a definition of mass.

							Jarle.

 --------------------------------------------------------------------
Nuke the Whales !            |      Jarle Brinchmann,   
                             |  Email: Jarle.Brinchmann@astro.uio.no
International Krill Union.   |    or : jarleb@astro.uio.no

cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenjarleb cudfnJarle cudlnBrinchmann cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.18 / Stephen Evans /  Re: N. Korean's Pu=Bad, Japan's Pu=Good
     
Originally-From: evans@rex.pfc.mit.edu (Stephen W. Evans)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: N. Korean's Pu=Bad, Japan's Pu=Good
Date: 18 May 1994 17:41:22 GMT
Organization: MIT Plasma Fusion Center

In article <940517114829.20a04b7a@FNALD.FNAL.GOV>, DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
wrote:

> Well, we all know how to solve this problem, and sanctions are not required.

> We don't need to inspect, or stop ships, or search Japanese resident Koreans
> going home for a visit to make sure they are not carying secret electronics.
> We want them to buy the electronics from black market sources because it 
> costs money!

> Yes, this problem needs to be solved in a peaceful way, just like we solved 
> the cold war with the USSR.

> If N. Korea wants to spend their resources making a bomb, then I say let them
> do it.  Then turn Japan (likely the most interested party that would not like
> N. Korea to have a bomb) loose to make defensive weapons against the N. Korean
> bomb.  Good anti-aircraft missiles for a start.  Now Korea has to build a 
> 300+ mile delivery system.  Then Japan gets to build a good anii-missile 
> system.  Then N. Korea gets to build a multiple warhead vehicle.  Then Japan
> gets to make "brilliant pebbles", etc..

> Guess who's economy gives out first?

North Korea, seeing it's economy about to give out, decides to take the
expanding and rich economy of the South by force.  The "world community",
hesitant to intervene due to fear of the North using Nuclear weapons, does
not reinforce the UN forces in time.  The South falls.

One of the big differences between North Korea and Japan is that we are
still legally at war with North Korea.  Yes, there is a very long standing
cease fire still in effect, but there is not a formal piece.  Military
units stationed along the DMZ are still fired at by the NKA.  Tunnels are
still occaisionally found running under the border.  North Korean
intellegence
organizations continue to run extensive operations in the South, including
organizing and funding "student" demonstrations against the "puppet
regime".

The differences between NK Pu and Japan's Pu are only significant alongside
the differences between NK's Government and social philosophys and those of
the Japanese Government.  Certainly I am more inclined to trust a nation
that
formally swears off not only Nuclear weapons, but war itself (except in 
defense of the homeland) and that maintains one of the smallest standing
militaries per capita on the planet than I am one whose central tenet is
the
spread of their political philosophy, by force if neccessary, and that
maintains
one of the largest, if not THE largest, standing military force per capita
on the planet.

North Korea is not likely to be able to manufacture enough Nuclear weapons
in the immediate future to effect the worldwide strategic balance. What
they
can do is possess enough to make countries think twice about engaging them
in a conventional war.  One is forced to wonder how the war in the Gulf
would have been waged differently had Sadam possesed, and been known to 
possess, a Nuclear capability.  Certainly the cooperation of those members
of the Alliance, such as Saudi Arabia and Syria, would have been much
harder to obtain.  In fact it is probably safe to say that they would
have let Saddam keep Kuwait rather than face the possibility of Nuclear
strikes against their cities.

An acknowledged North Korean nuclear capability in Asia would dramatically
change the operational plans of the US and other UN allies with regards to
a resumption of hostilities by the North.  And in light of the possibility
of such capabilities in the future, combined with our rather ineffective
leadership at this point, it is probably safe to say that the North is
seriously considering "revising" their relationship with the South in a
way that the South would probably not be fond of.
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenevans cudfnStephen cudlnEvans cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.18 / John Logajan /  Re: Another Stupid [Cold] Fusion Question
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Another Stupid [Cold] Fusion Question
Date: 18 May 1994 13:34:01 GMT
Organization: Sky Point Communications, Inc.

prasad (c1prasad@watson.ibm.com) wrote:
: |>   Then quickly pull it out of the cell, and light it with a match.
: |>   What will happen?

: Match will ignite, electrode will explode, scientist will die.
: (EPRI, Jan 91?)


We calculated this type of thing a few weeks ago.  The H/D in the Pd electrode
must combine with oxygen in the atmosphere.  The H or D must also migrate out
of the Pd lattice.  So it is, in fact, a relatively slow operation.  Formed
water vapor and oxygen scavenged nitrogen must convect up out of the way to
draw in fresh oxygen/nitrogen mixture, and H or D must migrate to the surface.

I don't know which one is the slower process, but clearly convection rates
and "explosions" are incompatible.  For even a small Pd electode, you will
need to bring several liters of air in close contact to the Pd/H/D interface.

The EPRI case was quite different.  That was a pressure vessel containing
a high pressure mixed atmosphere of D2/O2 in the ratio of 2:1.  Transport
was not an issue, so the whole mixture could recombine at the rate of the
flame front.

--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com -- 612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills  MN 55112 USA           -

cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.18 / Ron Maimon /  Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
     
Originally-From: rmaimon@husc9.Harvard.EDU (Ron Maimon)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.math,sci.physics,sci.physics.f
sion,sci.bio,sci.ch
Subject: Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
Date: 18 May 1994 16:46:16 GMT
Organization: Harvard University, Cambridge, MA

In article <17MAY199418121549@csa5.lbl.gov>, sichase@csa5.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE) writes:
|> In article <2rb89i$o0j@scunix2.harvard.edu>, rmaimon@husc9.Harvard.ED
 (Ron Maimon) writes...
|> >TO ALL YOU PATHETIC SCIENCE GEEKS TRYING TO CONVINCE THE WORLD TO
|> >STOP SAYING KILOGRAM WHEN THEY MEAN WEIGHT
|> > 
|> >you are very foolish for trying.
|> > 
|> >Ron Maimon
|> 
|> This is very amusing, coming from the most pathetic science geek I know.
|> 

Nah,  I'm a science REBEL ;|

(really :) )
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenrmaimon cudfnRon cudlnMaimon cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.18 / Ron Maimon /  Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
     
Originally-From: rmaimon@husc9.Harvard.EDU (Ron Maimon)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.math,sci.physics,sci.physics.f
sion,sci.bio,sci.ch
Subject: Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
Date: 18 May 1994 16:53:30 GMT
Organization: Harvard University, Cambridge, MA

In article <colin.769225032@wambenger>, colin@cs.uwa.oz.au (Colin Jones) writes:

|> >The kilogram in a supermarket is a unit of weight equal to 9.8 Newtons
|> 
|> Nice attempt at a save but that just means that the supermarkets are
|> wrong too (I think they would soon change their minds if they were to
|> open a franchise on the moon!).
|> 

Ok then.

Stop complaining until they open a franchise on the moon.


Ron Maimon


BTW: I was not being ignorant when I said a kilogram is a unit of weight.
I went to elementary school just like everyone else. I know that scientists
think they are so superior because they make the weight-mass distinction.
I don't like to make that distinction on the surface of the earth, because
there is no distinction on the surface of the earth.
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenrmaimon cudfnRon cudlnMaimon cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.18 / SCOTT CHASE /  Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
     
Originally-From: sichase@csa5.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.math,sci.physics,sci.physics.f
sion,sci.bio,sci.ch
Subject: Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
Date: 18 May 1994 16:03 PST
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA

In article <2rdgoo$2b8@scunix2.harvard.edu>, rmaimon@husc9.Harvard.EDU
(Ron Maimon) writes...
> 
>Nah,  I'm a science REBEL ;|

You've jumped on the Everett Bandwagon, and this makes you feel like a 
rebel? Hah!  You have given yourself away in another thread:

>The copenhagen interpretation is for kids who aren't old enough to
>understand that a physical theory of the basic particles should
>also describe the big world too.

I see now what your Everett campaign is all about - puberty.  You
don't quite feel like a man, and becoming an Everettista is just a rite
of manhood.  What you need is a good role model.  I understand that MIT
(mostly out of pity) lets Harvard undergrads cross-register for a few 
units each semester.  Try it.  You'll find some real men there.  

-Scott  
 -------------------
Scott I. Chase					"Mmmm... floor pie."		
SICHASE@CSA2.LBL.GOV					-Homer J. Simpson
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudensichase cudfnSCOTT cudlnCHASE cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.18 / Charlie Gibbs /  Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
     
Originally-From: Charlie_Gibbs@mindlink.bc.ca (Charlie Gibbs)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
Date: Wed, 18 May 94 16:54:47 -0700 (PDT)
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada

In article <2rdj44$i2b@hermod.uio.no> jarleb@leda.uio.no
(Jarle Brinchmann) writes:

>Yes, you are right, but the kilogram standard (at the moment this is the
>definition of the mass/weight 1kg) is a bar, with which you can calibrate
>your instruments. And this calibration uses weight, not mass.

That depends on the instrument you're calibrating.  A spring scale
measures weight.  And the reading it gives in that vault in Paris
will be different in other places on Earth (let alone on the Moon)
even using that identical standard.  To get a proper calibration
you'd need, in addition to that standard bar, an assurance of a
standard 1.000000... gravitational field.  Messy.

A balance, on the other hand, does measure mass instead of force.
You could make other instruments that measure mass directly as
well.  Consider a device which applies a known force to the
test mass and observes its acceleration, for instance.  Such a
device would give the same results in any (or no) gravitational
field.

>                                                              But the
theo-
>retical attribute mass is the kilogram as you correctly says. So the
definition
>of a kilogram today is more in the direction of a definition of a weigth
as
>opposed to a definition of mass.

The definition says nothing about what that bar weighs.  Any attempt
to do so would yield a value so variable as to be scientifically
useless.  You might as well say something like, "The door is 2.5
nanoseconds wide."  Actually, that makes even more sense than the
mass/weight mixup, if you use the speed of light as part of the
conversion...

Charlie_Gibbs@mindlink.bc.ca
If your nose runs and your feet smell, you're built upside-down.

cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenCharlie_Gibbs cudfnCharlie cudlnGibbs cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.18 /  anthonyp@scrip /  Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
     
Originally-From: anthonyp@scripps.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics,sci.math,sci.ch,sci.bio,alt.s
i.physics.plutonium
Subject: Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
Date: Wed, 18 May 94 11:36:20 PDT
Organization: The Scripps Research Institute, La Jolla, CA


In article <2rdj44$i2b@hermod.uio.no>, <jarleb@leda.uio.no> writes:
> 
> Yes, you are right, but the kilogram standard (at the moment this is the 
> definition of the mass/weight 1kg) is a bar, with which you can 
calibrate
> your instruments. And this calibration uses weight, not mass. 

Well, that depends on the instrument, doesn't it?  If you are using a 
pressure-sensitive instrument (spring-type, for example), then you are 
mesuring weight.  If you are using a balance of any type (doctor's-office 
scale or 3-beam balance, for example), you are measuring mass.

> But the theo-
> retical attribute mass is the kilogram as you correctly says.

This really hurts.  Mass is not some "theoretical attribute."   It is a 
readily measurable intrinsic property of matter.  We're not talking about 
cosmic strings here.  Mass is very concrete (near-pun not intended).  

I was close to siding with the "grocery-store" definition on a practical 
level.  Afterall, so long as your store is on this planet, mass and weight 
are functionally equivelent.  But I can see the err of my ways here.  this 
is an important concept.  I'm not expecting the average shopper to see the 
distinction.  But that such a clear-cut point could be argued in what is 
essentially a scientific forum shows the problem with this sloppy 
thinking.  
There is only one correct answer to this: the gram is a unit of Mass.
Weight has the units of force.


>So the definition
> of a kilogram today is more in the direction of a definition of a weigth 
as
> opposed to a definition of mass.

Unbelievable.  "more in the direction of..."????
What the hell does that mean?  Definitions are Definitive.  That's why we 
call them "definitions."  
You should never post to any "sci" group again as long as you live.  

-tony


> 
> 							Jarle.
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Nuke the Whales !            |      Jarle Brinchmann,   
>                              |  Email: Jarle.Brinchmann@astro.uio.no
> International Krill Union.   |    or : jarleb@astro.uio.no
> 

cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenanthonyp cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.18 / Jon LeVitre /  Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
     
Originally-From: jonl@cs.pdx.edu (Jon P LeVitre)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.math,sci.physics,sci.physics.f
sion,sci.bio,sci.ch
Subject: Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
Date: 18 May 1994 17:14:27 -0700

rmaimon@husc9.Harvard.EDU (Ron Maimon) writes:

>BTW: I was not being ignorant when I said a kilogram is a unit of weight.
>I went to elementary school just like everyone else. I know that scientists
>think they are so superior because they make the weight-mass distinction.
>I don't like to make that distinction on the surface of the earth, because
>there is no distinction on the surface of the earth.

Unless you want to get picky and talk about objects in moving
elevators.

I would never do that 
jonl
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenjonl cudfnJon cudlnLeVitre cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Thu May 19 04:40:38 EDT 1994
------------------------------
1994.05.18 /  prasad /  Re: Use of Kanji
     
Originally-From: c1prasad@watson.ibm.com (prasad)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.math,sci.physics,sci.physics.f
sion,sci.bio,sci.ch
Subject: Re: Use of Kanji
Date: 18 May 1994 21:13:13 GMT
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

In article <2rb8ua$jds@netnews.upenn.edu>, sterner@upenn5.hep.upenn.edu
(Kevin Sterner) writes:
|> eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus) writes:
|> 
|> >     For those who don't know Japanese, from the point of view of
|> >foreigners and women, it makes Arabic look positively pleasant.
|> >Hirigana (a character set) was designed to be used for an by women,
|> >and katakana exclusively for foreign words or things.  A woman I knew
|> >who spent a year teaching English in Japan said that being gaijan (a
|> >foreigner) was the only thing that made it possible for her to stay.
|> >She could not have stood being treated like a (Japanese) woman.  This
|> >was in 1992-1993...

One presumes it's Arabic language, not culture, you are talking about!

|> 
|> Eeto desu, nee...are you sure about hiragana being for women?  I was taught
|> (while a grad student at KEK--so it is relevant to sci.physics, so there) 
|> that hiragana was for native Japanese words and grammatical constructs
|> (such as sentence particles).  Perhaps that's a tale we were told, to get
|> us to learn hiragana and look like a bunch of sissies! :-)
|> 
|> But you're right, nihongo is a tough language to learn.  It made me look
|> back and smile on all those German lessons I struggled through.

Not difficult at all, if you're from India.

-- 
__________ __________ __________ __________ __________ __________ __________

pragma options disclaimed

-- prasad		email: 71155.3116@compuserve.com, poll= 1/month.

Entropy isn't what it used to be...

What is mind?  No matter.
What is matter?  Never mind.
		-- Thomas Hewitt Key, 1799-1875

cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenc1prasad cudlnprasad cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.19 / Michael Moroney /  Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
     
Originally-From: moroney@world.std.com (Michael Moroney)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics,sci.math,sci.ch,sci.bio,alt.s
i.physics.plutonium
Subject: Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
Date: Thu, 19 May 1994 02:20:12 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

I wouldn't base any definition of "correctness" of mass/weight definition by
how the supermarkets mark their sugar sacks.  They aren't known for their
perfect use of the language.  They almost always have a line marked "12 items
or less" which is poor grammar.

I'd almost say the opposite to what many people are arguing.  The pound is
often used as a unit of mass, often when something is "weighed" it is done
with a device that's functionally a beam balance.   They measure mass, not
weight.  (if you weigh 150 pounds, a doctor's scale with the sliding
"weights" would still say you weighed 150 pounds on the moon, while a
bathroom spring scale would say you weighed 25 pounds.)

-Mike
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenmoroney cudfnMichael cudlnMoroney cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.19 / Jed Rothwell /  Thermacore uses magnetic mixers
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Thermacore uses magnetic mixers
Date: Thu, 19 May 1994 05:02:21 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG

John Logajan has described several key aspects of Thermacore's calorimetry.
He mentioned that the electrolyte temperature is nearly uniform throughout,
varying no more than 0.1 deg C from place to place. I would like to point
out that the BBC / CBC program showed some of the smaller cells on a table,
and I noticed that they were equipped with magnetic stirrers, which will
eliminate any measurable thermal gradient.

Tom Droege guessed that these cells might have a long time constant (or
what I would call "settle time"). This is incorrect, as the data from
Logajan has already shown. With approximately a 38 watts excess, the cells
are only 10 degrees above the baseline calibration point. That means the
cell walls are not particularly well insulated. If they were Dewars, 
for example, 38 watts would bring them to boil. You only get a long time 
constant with heavy insulation. My guess is that since the calibration 
constant is 4 watts per degree C, 38 watts will probably stablize within 
half an hour, or an hour at most. That is just my gut feeling, based upon my
experience with a wide variety of calorimeters similar to these. Readers
should not take Tom's statements about this class of calorimeters seriously.
The statements he made during and after ICCF4 about Srinivasan, Mizuno and
others were were all completely incorrect, absurd, and without scientific 
merit. He has no idea how these simple static calorimeters work.

I wrote "the cells are *only* 10 degrees" here, but nobody should get the
idea that 10 deg C is a small temperature, or that it is difficult to
measure. Remember, you Americans out there, that is a 20 deg Farenheit.
If the room temperature is 70 F, the cells inside are at 90 F. Can you tell
the difference between room temperature in an over-airconditioned movie
theator (70 F) and a broiling hot summer afternoon (90 F)? Can you? Good!
So can Thermocore, and they have a big advantage: they use thermistors, so
they can be REALLY sure. No guesswork, no ifs, ands or buts.

- Jed

cudkeys:
cuddy19 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.19 / Philip Gibbs /  Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
     
Originally-From: phil@eurocontrol.fr (Philip Gibbs)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.math,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.bio
Subject: Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
Date: Thu, 19 May 1994 07:00:37 GMT
Organization: Eurocontrol

In article <EACHUS.94May17150631@spectre.mitre.org>, eachus@spectre.mitr
.org (Robert I. Eachus) writes:
> In article <MARDER.207.2DD8E911@agri.huji.ac.il> MARDER@agri.huji.ac.i
 (Jonathan B. Marder) writes:
> 
>   > Where I grew up, a pint is 20 fluid ounces (1 quart of water weighs 2.5
>   > pounds).
> 
>   > I believe that this is the case in most English-speaking countries.
> 
>   You mean that there are still bloody Imperialists out there?  I
> thought that they had all realized their mistake and converted to
> metric.  (And I also thought that the Imperial gallon contained 10
> pints but 4 Imperial quarts, but those who had to live with it
> probably know best.)
> 

Most of the comments in this thread have missed the point. The problem
with switching to metric is not a question of whether or not it is an
easier system. The difficulty is the cost and confusion caused by
switching road signs from miles per hour to kilometers per hour.

Happily the good old British Civil Service has found the solution. In
a new white paper they introduce the Imperial Kilometer which will be
very close a mile. Other metric units will also be defined in line
with this unit. The Imperial Litre works out quite close to a gallon.

 (    (    (:   (    (    (    (    (    (    (    (    (    (    (    (    (
  )    )    )    )    )    )    )    )    )   :)    )    )    )    )    )    )
		       SPACE-TIME IS EVENT SYMMETRIC
                 phil@galilee.eurocontrol.fr =  Phil Gibbs		  
 (    (    (    (    (:   (    (    (    (    (    (    (    (    (    (    (
  )    )    )    )    )    )    )    )    )    )    )    )    )   :)    )    )
 
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenphil cudfnPhilip cudlnGibbs cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.19 / Frank Close /  Pd/H explosion
     
Originally-From: FEC@v2.rl.ac.uk (Frank Close)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Pd/H explosion
Date: Thu, 19 May 1994 08:57:57 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Jed Rothwell and John Logajan have both implied that there is no
danger lighting a match in the vicinity of loaded Pd. jed because he
knows of examples where nothing happened (are you sure the Pd was actually
loaded with H in the first place?) and John via a theoretical calculation
Yet from direct experience in 89 we know that after electrolysis, if one
removes loaded Pd, or even if the tip is exposed to the atmosphere, the
Pd can glow red hot. In one case such a Pd rod was left on some "handy
wipe" tissue which ignited and an explosion occurred. Given the
known catalysis properties of Pd and Pt (used as anode) with H
let alone fact that you can make a nice explosion as a demonstration
with only a small amount (as we demonstrated on BBC TV last Christmas
in my Royal Institution Lectures that some may have seen) I am
surprised by the responses. My assistant at the RI, Bryson Gore,
once added a catalyst to the demo and the explosion detroyed the glass
container.
  The question may hang on whether or not the H leaks out or not. This
depends where on the temp/pressure/loading diagram the system is.

cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenFEC cudfnFrank cudlnClose cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.18 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Re:  Mills excess heat (?)
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re:  Mills excess heat (?)
Date: 18 May 94 15:21:54 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

Robert W. Horst asks about a paper by R. Mills et al. of Thermacore, a company
which (I understand) wishes to market the excess-heat-from-light-water-cells.
We and others have indeed checked past claims by Mills et al., but have only
found *apparent* excess heat, which was in fact traceable to H2+O2
recombination at the nickel cathode.  (Paper submitted, and discussed here
over past months.)

R. Oriani of the University of Minnesota writes:
"In 1992 I became interested in trying to reporduce the mIlls-Noninski type of
experiment.  After communicating with Noninski and having been warned of the
dangers of employing a recombination catalyst (it is supposed somehow to
negatively affect the generation of excess power), I set up a Ni/K2CO3/Pt cell
without a catalyst.  This seemed to produce excess power.  I then employed a
catalyst to recombine the gases in a separate vessel (not the electrolysis
cell) which, however, was within the calorimeter.  This produced  zero
excess power.  I repeated this kind of experiment with the addition of valves
by which the gas stream could be vented to the outside, or directed to the
in-calorimeter vessel holding the recombination catalyst.  Venting the gases
yielded apparent excess power, but recombining the gases yielded zero excess
power.  

"Clearly, some recombination was occurring within the electrolysis cell.  I
communicated these results to Noninski who told me that he had used a gas
collection technique to verify that his  open cells did not cause unwanted
recombination.  I proceeded to another experiment in which I weighed the
recombined gases in the separate vessel and found that nearly 50%
of the gases had recombined in the electrolysis cell.  In an additional
experiment I used gas-collection burettes and found 22% recombination to occur
in the electrolysis cell. 

"I dropped the work with Ni/K2CO3 then, being convinced that the Mills-Noninski
results were artifactual.

"At that time there were no claims that the excess power was larger than 1.48i;
now there are such claims...  Hence, one cannot use the recombination artifact
to dismiss the claims of the light water electrolyzers.  Obviously, there can
be other experimental problems, and I am frustrated by the paucity of
experimental details given by Mills, Bush, etc. so that one cannot make a
careful assessment of their claims."

This last point appears to be underscored by a recent post by Logajan in which
he says that Thermacore has new, undisclosed methods of generating excess
heat.  Deja vu.  One tires of responding to cries of wolf, especially
when the crier refuses to tell all.

Horst quotes from the recent Mills et al. paper:
"High-resolution mass spectroscopy show two peaks for a mixture of H2 and H2*
[normal H2 and "dihydrino" molecule H2*].

How good is this mass spec?  Mills et al. claim a "shrunken" hydrogen molecule,
that is, energy release still by EM (not nuclear) forces.  But then the
mass spec must be able to resolve tens of eV's (roughly) out of 2 GeV mass --
I don't think they can do it. (!) 

A way to see dihydrino formation would seem
to be to look for x-rays... which brings me to my old complaint -- no one,
not Mills or Miles or P&F or McKubre or Storms -- *NO ONE* has shown an
x-ray spectrum showing that anything unusual is taking place in electrochemical
cells, whether nuclear (which must produce copious x-rays if heat is nuclear
in origin) or electromagnetic (shrunken hydrogen -- even more x-rays) in origin.

I for one do not wish to chase ephemera -- let someone serious bring forth
an x-ray spectrum.  (Not merely Pd or Ni fluorescence due to room backgrounds,
 please.)  It's high time to put up or shut up.

--Steven Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenjonesse cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.19 / Steve Fairfax /  Alcator Weekly Highlights 5/12/94
     
Originally-From: Fairfax@CMOD.PFC.MIT.EDU (Steve Fairfax)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Alcator Weekly Highlights 5/12/94
Date: Thu, 19 May 1994 15:28:43 GMT
Organization: Alcator Project, MIT Plasma Fusion Center

			Alcator C-MOD Weekly Highlights
				May 12, 1994

Phase II Plasma operation is continuing, with good progress being made this
week in bringing the machine up to speed, as well as on diagnostics and ICRF
preparation. 

Standard deuterium plasmas, with currents above 600kA and pulse lengths of
about one second, were run on Tuesday. Discharge cleanliness seems to be
improving well as operation proceeds. Good diverted equilibria with 2 cm inner
and outer gaps and elongation over 1.55 have been produced. Optimization of
x-point location and matching to the shape of the new ICRF antennas is
proceeding. 

The new toroidal halo current rogowski coils and the new shunts on the outer
divertor modules are collecting interesting data. The halo currents at the top
of the machine on upward moving VDE's are found to smaller, by a factor of 
three or more, than the halo currents observed at the bottom of the machine on
downward moving VDE's. The difference is believed to be due to the different
conducting structures, primarily the divertor, in contact with the scrapeoff
plasma in the downward-moving cases.

The new poloidal-field pickup coils installed on the outboard (RF-protection)
limiters are also operational. The unintegrated signals are being used to
observe MHD activity in the plasma. 

The ECE grating polychromator obtained from Livermore is online and taking
data. This diagnostic will complement the scanning Michelson ECE diagnostic,
and will be particularly useful for observing transient phenomena, such as
H-mode transitions, and for perturbative transport experiments. 

The U. of Md. Optical Multi-channel Analyser diagnostic has been re-installed
and is again operational. All of the visible light arrays, used for
reconstruction of H-alpha and/or other visible line emissivity spatial
profiles, are also now installed and operational.

The full D-port ICRF antenna tuning and matching system is installed and
operational. The system has been tuned for vacuum coupling and antenna
conditioning has begun.

The "fizzle detector", which triggers power supply inversions when the plasma
current terminates early, has been tested and is now operational on all
supplies. The benefits include reduced heating of magnets, shortening the
time between shots, and reduced wear-and-tear on supplies, which otherwise tend
to be driven to their pre-set limits when the plasma terminates and the
feedback loops are still active. 

Some of the problems with magnetics signals mentioned in previous reports have
been traced to faulty 20-pin connectors and feedthroughs. The connector
contacts apparently become unreliable after a relatively small number of
mating/disconnect operations. This problem has been acknowledged by the
manufacturer. A temporary repair has been effected on the particular connector
containing the suspect magnetics used for machine control. Plans are being
formulated for a more extensive permanent repair; there are 57 such connectors
in the magnetics system, one third of which are in vacuum. 

Miklos Porkolab and Paul Bonoli attended the meeting of the Transport Task
Force Modeling Working Group at GA last week. Ten Alcator team members,
including staff and students, attended and presented papers at the Diagnostics
Conference in Rochester. 

cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenFairfax cudfnSteve cudlnFairfax cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.19 / Steve Fairfax /  Alcator Weekly Highlights 5/19/94
     
Originally-From: Fairfax@CMOD.PFC.MIT.EDU (Steve Fairfax)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Alcator Weekly Highlights 5/19/94
Date: Thu, 19 May 1994 15:29:24 GMT
Organization: Alcator Project, MIT Plasma Fusion Center

			Alcator C-MOD Weekly Highlights
				May 19, 1994

Phase II plasma operation has continued this week.  We are still in the
process of re-establishing operation with the new limiter and antenna
geometry. Plasma currents over 800kA are now being produced.  

The connector repair in the magnetics diagnostics system which was reported
last week did not completely solve the problem. Additional diagnostics were
observed to become unreliable as operation continued. The problems were all
found to be related to three connectors on a single flange, and testing
on Friday established that the problem was on the vacuum side. A "clean" vent,
with helium backfill, was performed on Monday. It was found that the three
connectors in question had not been properly installed; this was remedied, and
the vessel pumped back down after approximately four hours.  Subsequently, the
magnetics diagnostic situation has remained stable, with only one flux loop
still excluded from control functions due to intermittancy. Wall conditions
deteriorated somewhat due to the vent, but are again improving.

Tuning and conditioning of the D-port ICRF antenna is proceeding, following a
modification to the four-inch coax sections to reduce arcing. ICRF tuning is
scheduled as a piggyback activity on all runs this week.

The Science Research Laboratories Shearing Interferometer diagnostic, which
observes fluctuations in H-alpha light, has been getting data on the edge
turbulence. At a k-perp of about 15 cm-1, a broadband spectrum with frequency
width of about 100kHz is observed. When the diagnostic is oriented to be
sensitive to k-parallel, no significant signal above the noise level is
observed. At k_perp of 5 cm-1, the signal level is about a factor of 10 higher 
at low frequency, with a slightly narrower frequency spectrum.

The new Bp-coils mounted on the guard limiters are in routine operation. Both
integrated and unintegrated signals are being digitized; the former will be
used in equilibrium reconstructions, while the latter are digitized at high
rates and are used for investigation of MHD phenomena. "Gong" modes,
associated with sawtooth crashes (previously reported on JET), have been
identified. 

S. Moriyama, a scientist from the JT-60U ICRF Group, is visiting Alcator for a
period of two weeks. He is working with the C-MOD ICRF Group.

Contrary to last week's report, Paul Bonoli did not attend the TTF Transport
Workshop, due to other commitments; Miklos Porkolab represented Alcator at the
Workshop.  



cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenFairfax cudfnSteve cudlnFairfax cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.19 / Richard Schultz /  Re:  Mills excess heat (?)
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re:  Mills excess heat (?)
Date: 19 May 1994 15:36:26 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley

In article <1994May18.152155.1628@physc1.byu.edu>,
 <jonesse@physc1.byu.edu> wrote:

>How good is this mass spec?  Mills et al. claim a "shrunken" hydrogen molecule,
>that is, energy release still by EM (not nuclear) forces.  But then the
>mass spec must be able to resolve tens of eV's (roughly) out of 2 GeV mass --
>I don't think they can do it. (!) 

Actually, a top-of-the-line ICR can probably get you that kind of mass 
resolution under optimal conditions.  I know that one part in 10^6 is fairly
routine.  I seriously doubt, however, that that's what Mills et al. did.

					Richard Schultz
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.19 / J Buzzard /  Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
     
Originally-From: phyjab1@phyd2c1.caledonia.hw.ac.uk (Jonathan A Buzzard)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.math,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.bio
Subject: Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
Date: Thu, 19 May 1994 14:44:02 GMT
Organization: Heriot-Watt University


--

>Happily the good old British Civil Service has found the solution. In
>a new white paper they introduce the Imperial Kilometer which will be
>very close a mile. Other metric units will also be defined in line
>with this unit. The Imperial Litre works out quite close to a gallon.

 I blame the civil service for us not going metric in the UK in
the middle of the last century, treasuary estimates on the cost
(a mear 6 million pounds, far less in real terms than the current
and on going cost) that persuaded MP to stick with the imperial system.

As for the person who claims you cant measure mass, I suggest they
try buying a balance, and if you use a lever arm balance you can
even read the mass of a scale, standard piece of laboratary equipment
in schools in the UK.

JAB.

 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan A. Buzzard,              
Physics Department,           Email:-
Heriot-Watt University,            phyjab1@caledonia.hw.ac.uk   InterNet
Edinburgh. EH14 4AS                phyjab1@uk.ac.hw.clust       JANET
United Kingdom.
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenphyjab1 cudfnJonathan cudlnBuzzard cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.19 / Soren LaForce /  Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
     
Originally-From: laforce@xenon.arc.nasa.gov (Soren LaForce)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.math,sci.physics,sci.physics.f
sion,sci.bio,sci.ch
Subject: Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
Date: 19 May 1994 08:57 PDT
Organization: NASA Ames Res. Ctr. Mtn Vw CA 94035

In article <2rfoh6$8p4@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk>, garret@mrao.cam.ac.uk
(Garret Cotter) writes...
> 

snip

>What have you been smoking? Give me a Space Shuttle, a balance, and two water
>pistols, and I will gladly show you that not only does a balance measure force
>rather than mass, it will work in free fall. 
> 

Say what?

Let me guess:

You're going to go up in the shuttle, and squirt the ballance pan(s) with
the water pistols.

Fine, but that will not measure force.  It will show that you can affect 
a ballance by pushing on it.  I'd elaborate more if I were sure that 
this is what you had in mind.

If you had something else in mind, post the details so I can explain why 
it's wrong.

A ballance measures mass.  

I can't think of a way for a ballance to work without an external 
acceleration (or gravitational field), e.g. not in "free fall."

>Remember that many non-physicists read these groups. Let's not lie to them!

"physican heal thyself."


--Soren  [a non-physicist]
-my opinions-

p.s. , you only get microgravity in the shuttle anyway.
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenlaforce cudfnSoren cudlnLaForce cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.19 / Garret Cotter /  Force vs. Mass (was  Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system)
     
Originally-From: garret@mrao.cam.ac.uk (Garret Cotter)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.math,sci.physics,sci.physics.f
sion,sci.bio,sci.ch
Subject: Force vs. Mass (was  Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system)
Date: 19 May 1994 16:50:32 GMT
Organization: Mullard Radio Astronomy Observatory, Cambridge


|> 
|> >What have you been smoking? Give me a Space Shuttle, a balance, and two water
|> >pistols, and I will gladly show you that not only does a balance measure force
|> >rather than mass, it will work in free fall. 
|> > 
|> 
|> Say what?
|> 
|> Let me guess:
|> 
|> You're going to go up in the shuttle, and squirt the ballance pan(s) with
|> the water pistols.
|> 
|> Fine, but that will not measure force.  It will show that you can affect 
|> a ballance by pushing on it.  I'd elaborate more if I were sure that 
|> this is what you had in mind.
|> 


A simple balance can only ever tell you three things.

(a) The torque about its pivot is zero, or

(b) The torque about its pivot is clockwise, or

(c) The torque about its pivot is anti-clockwise.


These all depend on the forces exerted on the pans of the balance. 
If you use a balance in an inhomogeneous gravitational field, it will  
sit at zero with unequal masses on the pans.

If, in free fall, I were to shoot a water pistol at each of the balance pans 
then the balance would move away from me (or I from it if you like)
without rotating, i.e. equal forces on each pan. Vary the strength of the 
pistols and you get rotation.


NB comments about friction in the balance bearings, whether or not the choice
of three options constitutes a ``measurement'' and so on will be deemed pedantic
side-tracking :) 

--
                                                
Garret Cotter                                          
Mullard Radio Astronomy Observatory                 
Cambridge                                        
                                                        
G.Cotter@mrao.cam.ac.uk                                   
                                                  
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudengarret cudfnGarret cudlnCotter cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.19 / David Smith /  Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
     
Originally-From: dsmith@thor.rm.fccc.edu (David Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.math,sci.physics,sci.physics.f
sion,sci.bio,sci.ch
Subject: Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
Date: 19 May 1994 18:21:35 GMT
Organization: Fox Chase Cancer Center


In article <2r9s5o$e04@scunix2.harvard.edu>, rmaimon@husc9.Harvard.EDU
(Ron Maimon) writes:
|> Path: taurus.fccc.edu!netnews.upenn.edu!dsinc!newsfeed.pitt.edu!godot
cc.duq.edu!news.duke.edu!MathWorks.Com!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.res
on.ans.net!noc.near.net!das-news.harvard.edu!husc-news.harvard.edu!husc.
arvard.edu!husc9!rmaimon
|> Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.math,sci.physics,sci.physic
.fusion,sci.bio,sci.ch
|> Subject: Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
|> Message-ID: <2r9s5o$e04@scunix2.harvard.edu>
|> From: rmaimon@husc9.Harvard.EDU (Ron Maimon)
|> Date: Tue, 17 May 94 03:36:24 GMT+5:00
|> Sender: rmaimon@husc9 (Ron Maimon)
|> References: <2qtt1v$kq2@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> <oB8Dmc1w165w@west.darkside.com> 
|>  <1994May16.114317.658@relay.nswc.navy.mil> <2r951f$7p8@gap.cco.caltech.edu>
|> Distribution: world
|> Organization: Harvard University, Cambridge, MA
|> NNTP-Posting-Host: scws2.harvard.edu
|> Lines: 8
|> Xref: taurus.fccc.edu sci.math:70847 sci.physics:80732 sci.physics.fu
ion:12718 sci.bio:19352
|> 
|> In article <2r951f$7p8@gap.cco.caltech.edu>, palmer@alumni.caltech.ed
 (David M. Palmer) writes:
|> |> 
|> |> And the French kid will be wrong, because a kilogram is a unit of mass.
|> 
|> A kilogram is a unit of weight.
|> 
|> 
|> Ron Maimon
|> 

I don't want to burst your bubble, but a kilogram IS a unit of mass.  The MKS
unit of weight is the newton.

				David

--
David Smith at Fox Chase Cancer Center
dsmith@thor.fccc.edu

The opinions expressed herein are my own.
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudendsmith cudfnDavid cudlnSmith cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.19 / Jorge Stolfi /  Another Stupid [Cold] Fusion Question
     
Originally-From: stolfi@s1j.dcc.unicamp.br (Jorge Stolfi)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Another Stupid [Cold] Fusion Question
Date: 19 May 1994 08:47:44 GMT
Organization: DCC - UNICAMP - Campinas, SP, Brazil


A couple of days ago I asked the Net:

    > Fill a palladium electrode with deuterium to the maximum loading
    > level, as in the best CNF recipes.  Then quickly pull it out of
    > the cell, and light it with a match.  What will happen?

Well, so far I got two replies saying "you will die from the explosion",
and two more saying "you will die of boredom".  More or less.

I am beginning to understand why this thing is taking so long to die.

Come on folks.  Show me that you know what you are talking about.
Please give me real, solid, straight *facts*.  Not fourth-hand echos
of unconfirmed hearsay.  Not back-of-the-envelope estimates from
Schroedinger's equation. Not marketing hype or wishful thinking.


Actually, I *did* get one Real Good Answer from a Real Good Scientist.
Tryggvi Emilsson from U. of Illinois tells me that he once charged a
5cm x 5cm x 0.2mm sheet, pulled it out of the cell, and wiped it dry.
After 5 secs or so the H2 ignited spontaneously, and the sheet heated
up to about 800 C, with much deformation.


Well, that is one solid data point; but I don't think it closes the
matter.  For one thing, Tryggvi didn't say anything about the initial
loading factor; and, anyway, who knows how much H2 escaped in those
first few seconds before the electrode heated up.  

More importantly, his electrode was only 0.2mm thick; things may be
quite different for a 2mm rod (or for that infamous 1cm cube).

Those of you who would like to investigate this question, but are
hampered by lack of Pd, may wish to try this surrogate experiment.
Take a steel tube, a couple of inches long, with 2mm inner diameter,
0.3mm wall thickness.  Fill it with liquid H2.  Seal it tight.  Then
put it over a Bunsen burner.

I hope you see why I am still wondering.

--stolfi

PS: For the metrically challenged readers, 800 C = 1472 F.

+----------------------------------------+----------------------------+
| Jorge Stolfi, Principal Procrastinator | CONFUSION This Decade!     |
| Dept. of Cold Armchair Fusion          +----------------------------+
| Late Night Coffee Brewing Laboratory   | Nunc in scutella iaceo,    |
| University of Campinas, SP, Brazil     | Dentes frendentes video... |
+----------------------------------------+----------------------------+
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenstolfi cudfnJorge cudlnStolfi cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.19 / Ron Maimon /  Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
     
Originally-From: rmaimon@husc9.Harvard.EDU (Ron Maimon)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics,sci.math,sci.ch,sci.bio,alt.s
i.physics.plutonium
Subject: Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
Date: 19 May 1994 09:18:31 GMT
Organization: Harvard University, Cambridge, MA

In article <CxhsjaE96lB8063yn@world.std.com>, moroney@world.std.com
(Michael Moroney) writes:
|> I wouldn't base any definition of "correctness" of mass/weight definition by
|> how the supermarkets mark their sugar sacks.  They aren't known for their
|> perfect use of the language.  They almost always have a line marked "12 items
|> or less" which is poor grammar.
|>          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

???????
In what way?
 
Ron Maimon
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenrmaimon cudfnRon cudlnMaimon cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.19 / Jeroen Belleman /  Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
     
Originally-From: jeroen@dxcern.cern.ch (Jeroen Belleman)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.math,sci.physics,sci.physics.f
sion,sci.bio,sci.ch
Subject: Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
Date: Thu, 19 May 1994 12:14:26 GMT
Organization: CERN European Laboratory for Particle Physics

In article <2rdj44$i2b@hermod.uio.no>,
Jarle Brinchmann <jarleb@leda.uio.no> wrote:
>
>Yes, you are right, but the kilogram standard (at the moment this is the 
>definition of the mass/weight 1kg) is a bar, with which you can calibrate
>your instruments. And this calibration uses weight, not mass.
		   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Wrong! A balance is used to compare masses, not weights. This works
fine as long as there is some weight. Obviously it won't work in
free fall.

Jeroen Belleman
jeroen@dxcern.cern.ch
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenjeroen cudfnJeroen cudlnBelleman cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.19 / Garret Cotter /  Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
     
Originally-From: garret@mrao.cam.ac.uk (Garret Cotter)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.math,sci.physics,sci.physics.f
sion,sci.bio,sci.ch
Subject: Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
Date: 19 May 1994 13:11:02 GMT
Organization: Mullard Radio Astronomy Observatory, Cambridge


|> >Yes, you are right, but the kilogram standard (at the moment this is the 
|> >definition of the mass/weight 1kg) is a bar, with which you can calibrate
|> >your instruments. And this calibration uses weight, not mass.
|> 		   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|> 
|> Wrong! A balance is used to compare masses, not weights. This works
|> fine as long as there is some weight. Obviously it won't work in
|> free fall.

What have you been smoking? Give me a Space Shuttle, a balance, and two water
pistols, and I will gladly show you that not only does a balance measure force
rather than mass, it will work in free fall. 

Remember that many non-physicists read these groups. Let's not lie to them!

--
                                                
Garret Cotter                                          
Mullard Radio Astronomy Observatory                 
Cambridge                                        
                                                        
G.Cotter@mrao.cam.ac.uk                                   
                                                  
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudengarret cudfnGarret cudlnCotter cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.19 / mitchell swartz /  Mills excess heat/letter from Dr. Oriani
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Mills excess heat/letter from Dr. Oriani
Date: Thu, 19 May 1994 13:35:46 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

 In Subject: Re:  Mills excess heat (?)
Message-ID: <1994May18.152155.1628@physc1.byu.edu>
Steven Jones (jonesse@physc1.byu.edu) submits a letter (?, undated)
from Dr. Oriani:

=sj   "R. Oriani of the University of Minnesota writes:
=sj   "In 1992 I became interested in trying to reporduce the mIlls-Noninski
=sj    type of   experiment  (material deleted for space ...)
=sj   "At that time there were no claims that the excess power was 
=sj   larger than 1.48i; now there are such claims...  Hence, one
=sj    cannot use the recombination artifact to dismiss the claims of the 
=sj   light water electrolyzers."

  What words or sentences are missing between "now there are such claims" 
and  "Hence, one cannot use the recombination artifact to dismiss the
claims of the light water electrolyzers" ?
  It would seem to be quite important.   

  Also what is the date?   Thanks in advance.

         Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com)



cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.19 /  dowen@vaxc.cc. /  Thermacore water heater......
     
Originally-From: dowen@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Thermacore water heater......
Date: 19 May 94 19:19:22 +1000
Organization: Computer Centre, Monash University, Australia

Hi Folks,
Does anyone know if Thermocore is still going to market their water
heater and if so, when will they be available?
						Regards to all,
						Daryl Owen.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudendowen cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.20 /  vnoninski@fscv /  Submission for sci.physics.fusion
     
Originally-From: vnoninski@fscvax.fsc.mass.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Submission for sci.physics.fusion
Date: Fri, 20 May 1994 00:32:18 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Dear Colleagues,

Some of you probably remember that some time ago an explosion occurred in my 
cell where electrolysis of H2O soltuion of Na2SO4 with a Pd cathode and a Pt 
anode was taking place. The cell was completely destroyed due to this 
explosion and the front of the NaI detector was seriously dented. I tried to 
give you an account of what happened as complete as I could under the 
circumstances at that time. Furthermore, in a separate posting I mentioned 
some of the efforts I have undertaken to understand the cause of this 
explosion and to possibly find the trivial explanation to it. 

Now I understand that someone had observed a similar explosion still in 1989, 
the Pd electrode he had used becoming red hot in air and other kinds of 
trivial phenomena occurring. I remember in the early days of Fleischmann 
et als' announcement that a hastily prepared paper from Kreysa, Marx and 
Plieth was published in J.Electroanal.Chem. in which there was a picture of 
burned wood from the Pd cathode which could ostensibly explain the effect 
claimed by Fleischmann et al. Of course, upon reading the paper in question it 
is immediately seen that the trivial explanation  Kreysa, Marx and Plieth paper 
tries to give, by considering the claimed excess heat to be due to this well 
known behavior of Pd, cannot be taken seriously and I will not comment on it. 
In fact, the mentioned paper of Kreysa, Marx and Plieth is of such 
low quality that no time should be wasted to even consider it in discussions 
with respect to Fleischmann et als claim.

I hope, however, that the gentleman who posted the claim for observing still 
in 1989 a destructive explosion in his cell has something more serious in 
mind. If this is the case I would kindly ask him to provide me with details 
for an experiment that I can perform with my 1mm dia Pd cathode so that an 
explosion of similar magnitude can occur in my lab only due to burning of 
hydrogen. I would appreciate it if he could also send me a copy of the 
videotape (I understand that he has shown such experiment on TV) of this 
explosion. I will try to reproduce the explosion in question and will 
advise you of the outcome.

Truly yours,




Vesselin Noninski 

cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenvnoninski cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.19 / John Robson /  Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
     
Originally-From: jrobson@medee.inria.fr (John Robson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics,sci.math,sci.ch,sci.bio,alt.s
i.physics.plutonium
Subject: Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
Date: 19 May 1994 13:31:38 GMT
Organization: ESSI, Universite' de Nice - Sophia Antipolis

In article <2rfat7$8jp@scunix2.harvard.edu>, rmaimon@husc9.Harvard.EDU
(Ron Maimon) writes:
|> In article <CxhsjaE96lB8063yn@world.std.com>, moroney@world.std.com
(Michael Moroney) writes:
|> |> I wouldn't base any definition of "correctness" of mass/weight definition by
|> |> how the supermarkets mark their sugar sacks.  They aren't known for their
|> |> perfect use of the language.  They almost always have a line marked "12 items
|> |> or less" which is poor grammar.
|> |>          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|> 
|> ???????
|> In what way?
|>  
|> Ron Maimon

There is a widespread pedantic belief that one should say `fewer' rather
than `less' when referring to a number (integer) rather than a (continuous)
quantity.

If you want to join me in my campaign against this pedantry send a
contribution of $100 or more to me at the above address.

Mike (not John) Robson.
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenjrobson cudfnJohn cudlnRobson cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.19 / Mike Jamison /  Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
     
Originally-From: edwlt12@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov (Mike Jamison (ADF))
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.math,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.bio
Subject: Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
Date: 19 May 1994 11:03 EST
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center

In article <1994May19.070037.5463@fozzie.eurocontrol.fr>, phil@galilee.e
rocontrol.fr writes...
>In article <EACHUS.94May17150631@spectre.mitre.org>, eachus@spectre.mit
e.org (Robert I. Eachus) writes:
>> In article <MARDER.207.2DD8E911@agri.huji.ac.il> MARDER@agri.huji.ac.
l (Jonathan B. Marder) writes:
>> 
[stuff about politics & metric system deleted].

>> 
> 
>Most of the comments in this thread have missed the point. The problem

You mean, like, none of them has anything to do with fusion...

[rest of post deleted]
> 
> (    (    (:   (    (    (    (    (    (    (    (    (    (    (    (    (
>  )    )    )    )    )    )    )    )    )   :)    )    )    )    )    )    )
>		       SPACE-TIME IS EVENT SYMMETRIC
>                 phil@galilee.eurocontrol.fr =  Phil Gibbs		  
> (    (    (    (    (:   (    (    (    (    (    (    (    (    (    (    (
>  )    )    )    )    )    )    )    )    )    )    )    )    )   :)    )    )
> 


Mike Jamison
"Scientific research consists in seeing what everyone else has seen, but
thinking what no one else has thought"

						-A. Szent-Gyorgyi
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenedwlt12 cudfnMike cudlnJamison cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.19 /  anthonyp@scrip /  Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
     
Originally-From: anthonyp@scripps.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.math,sci.ch,sci.bio,alt.sci.physics.plutonium
Subject: Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
Date: Thu, 19 May 94 12:21:22 PDT
Organization: The Scripps Research Institute, La Jolla, CA


In article <2rfat7$8jp@scunix2.harvard.edu>, <rmaimon@husc9.Harvard.EDU> 
writes:


(Michael Moroney) writes:

  They almost always have a line marked "12 items
> |> or less" which is poor grammar.
> |>          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 

Maimon writes:

> ???????
> In what way?
>  
> Ron Maimon

Well ron, why not look it up?  Pick up any good dictionary and look up the 
words "less" and "fewer".  
You will find that there is a difference and that the word "fewer" is 
correct in the "express-line" example.  Basically, "fewer" is used in 
conjunction with plural nouns: "12 items or fewer" and "less" is used with 
singular nouns that are assocated with quantity.  
For example, the sentence: 
"Ron Maimon is less intelligent than I because he has fewer functioning 
neurons."

-tony
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenanthonyp cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.19 / John Logajan /  Re: Dihydrino identification???
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Dihydrino identification???
Date: 19 May 1994 15:24:59 GMT
Organization: Sky Point Communications, Inc.

DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov wrote:
: I am not inclined to spend any more time on the scaled up experiment since I
: know of funded work which is checking those results.  So far, the funded work
: (as of the Maui conference) has not been able to find excess heat.  I think 
: they have almost a duplicate of Experiment 14 from the current Mills paper.  

On page 73 of the May 1994 issue of "Cold Fusion" Magazine, McKubre and
Srinivasan announce that they are going to team up at SRI and run a series of
experiments on the Mills system which will not only test for excess heat
but give clues as to the process.  The experiment was started in March,
so I guess they have had 1-2 months now.

Haven't heard any preliminary/final results, though.

Since it appears this work started after the Maui conference, it is unlikely
that this is the same group that Tom Droege is referring to.

cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.19 / John Logajan /  Re: Thermacore uses magnetic mixers
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Thermacore uses magnetic mixers
Date: 19 May 1994 15:39:19 GMT
Organization: Sky Point Communications, Inc.

Jed Rothwell (72240.1256@compuserve.com) wrote:
: the BBC / CBC program showed some of the smaller cells on a table,
: and I noticed that they were equipped with magnetic stirrers, which will
: eliminate any measurable thermal gradient.

They probably use magnetic stirrers in several cells, but in the data published
in their 24 page set of viewgraphs, that experiment, according to my
conversation with Bob Shaubach, used only electrolysis power for stirring.
I haven't seen the Jan FT article, so I can't comment on anything it has to
say about other experiments.

: Tom Droege guessed that these cells might have a long time constant (or
: what I would call "settle time"). This is incorrect, as the data from
: Logajan has already shown.

I guess the question comes down to whether we believe Thermacore was smart
enough to run at a fixed calibration power long enough for the system to
reach equilibrium.  Too short a time at each calibration point would not
warm the thermal mass to its maximum temperature and thus understate the
nominal temperture -- thus making excess heat appear during longer, yet
null, runs.

I think I can calculate an approximate RC time constant from the data given,
but that will have to wait until tonight, since I have other business to
attend to at the moment.

--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com -- 612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills  MN 55112 USA           -


cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.19 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Cold Fusion is heating up
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Cold Fusion is heating up
Date: Thu, 19 May 1994 17:05 -0500 (EST)

Cold fusion seems to be getting much better reviews lately.  Of course the
new Cold Fusion magazine will have pro-CF views, but last night I picked up
a copy of Technology Review.  This isn't some small off-the-wall periodical
but is edited at Massachusetts Institute of technology.  The article is
"Warming up to Cold Fusion" and is written by Edmund Storms.

Here are some interesting quotations from the May/June issue:

"Some cold-fusion experiments have reportedly produced power densities higher
than those of uranium fueled fission reactors."

"Experiments that use crack-free palladium and follow proper procedures now
routinely produce heat, nuclear products, or both."

After listing a half dozen proposed explainations, and discounting each, it
claims "None of the proposed explanations for cold fusion accounts for the
full range of experimental observations."

As to why confirming articles are not published in peer review journals, the
following circular reasoning by the jornals is given:  "Cold fusion research
is caught in a catch-22: journals will not accept papers in the field until
more evidence for the phenomenon is published in the Journals."

Here are some additional quotations:

"If the validity of the effect rested only on results reported during the
first year after the initial claims by Pons and Fleishmann, this strange
diversion from routine science would have joined "n-rays", polywater and
other excesses of the imagination.  But enought reputable researches have
now published findings, produced from a broad enough range of experimental
approaches, that it has become difficult to doubt that something in going
on outside the explanations offered by conventional physics."

"What is happening might be fusion; it might not be.  But to dismiss the claims
as the result of experimental error or fraud is no longer appropriate.
Regardless of admitted conflict with accepted theory, these results strongly
support the conclusion that a new class of phenomena, which I call chemically
assisted nuclear reactions, has been discovered.  Given the enormous scientific
and economic importance of this work if it turns out to be valid, it is
prudent to examine the data with an open mind."

Verious results reported:

Texas A&M has produced in electrolytin cells quantites of tritium approximately
1000 times those found in normal heavy water.  Heat and neutrons are also
sometimes detected when the tritium is produced, and sometimes not.

Los Alamos National Lab produced tritium in various ways.  One method
consistantly produced 2E10 atoms of tritium per hour.

Pons and Fleishmann, working in France with support from Technova, has reached
levels that cause water int the electrolytic cells to boil.  They claim that
while applying 37.4 watts of power, it produced 144 watts of excess power as
heat, enougth to raise the temperature of the palladium several hunderd
degrees.  And they continued to produce the heat hours after removing the
input power.

Italy's Frascati National Laboratory has reported producing heat levels that
exceed electrical input by as much as 7.5 percent for weeks on end, with
bursts up to 25 percent.

Osaka University measured up to 130 watts of excess power using special
palladium produced by Tanaka Metals.  The cells produced tritium and neutrons
as well.

University of Hawaii produced up to 1,500 percent excess energy using a molten
salt electolyte.  This is very interesting since at these temperatures
efficient conversion to electricity is possible.

The reason why many early experiments were failures is becoming clear now.
It appears that the palladium must be largely free of microscopic cracks.
Also the presence of surface impurities is important.  McKubre's first
experiments, which were successful, use pyrex containers for the cell.
After changing to teflon, he was unsuccessful.  It turns out that the
aluminum and silicon atoms from the pyrex migrated over to the palladium
and were necessary for the effect, as they allow the deuterium to build up
to a higher level.  (A suggestion I made about a year ago in this newsgroup,
but was ignored at the time.)  Also there seems to be a threshold current of
about 150 mA per square cm that is required.  Many experiments never ran a
high enough current density to get the effect.

Helium has been reported by Hawaii's Liaw, and workers at Texas A&M.  Q.F.
Zhang and colleagues at the University of Science and Technology in Chengdu,
China, have detected helium-4 as well in Titanium rods that produced excess
heat.  They saw no helium-4 when excess heat was not produced.

Melvin Miles and Benjamin Bush of the Naval Air Warfare Center at China Lake,
Calif., have reported that they are seeing 90 percent of the expected amount
of helium-4 for the excess heat being generated.  They report that most of the
generated helium escapes with the gas, rather than staying in the electodes
where most researchers have been looking for it.

Toishiyuki lida and co-workers reported detecting high energy particles
consistant with conventional fusion after bombarding palladium and titanium
samples with deuteron.  The particles continued after the beam was shut off
meaning that some type of cold fusion was taking place.

Interesting it seems that light water does not produce these effects with
palladium.  However, with nickel, 10 different laboratories have measured
significant excess energy coming from light water cells when a carbonate
of an alkali metal is used as the electrolyte.  Experiments by Robert Bush
and Robert Eagleton at California Polytechnical University and Reiko Notoya
at Hokkaido University in Japan suggest that this heat arises from
transmutation; a proton enters the nucleus of the dissolved metal to give
the next higher element int he periodic table.  Potassium produces calcium
and rubidium produces strontium.  Calcium and strontium have been detected
by the researchers in sufficient quantities to suggest that this transmutation
is taking place.

Aside fromt the article, I have a friend who works at Oak Ridge National Lab.
He has told me off the record several times that they are getting positive
results out there with cold fusion and have been for several years.  However,
he said that until they can figure out the theory to support the experiments
they are not making their results known.  Apparently they have seen too many
other scientists discredited and crusified for reporting results which conflict
with presently accepted theory.  I wonder how many other labs are doing the
same thing.

So as the article says, things are heating up.

                                                                Marshall
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.19 / Bob Hoesch /  Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
     
Originally-From: HoeschB@fws.gov (Bob Hoesch)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.math,sci.physics,sci.physics.f
sion,sci.bio,sci.ch
Subject: Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
Date: Thu, 19 May 1994 13:57:15
Organization: National Fish and Wildlife Forensics Lab

In article <2r9s5o$e04@scunix2.harvard.edu> rmaimon@husc9.Harvard.EDU
(Ron Maimon) writes:
>Subject: Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
>From: rmaimon@husc9.Harvard.EDU (Ron Maimon)
>Date: 17 May 1994 07:36:24 GMT

>In article <2r951f$7p8@gap.cco.caltech.edu>, palmer@alumni.caltech.edu (David M.
>Palmer) writes:
>|> 
>|> And the French kid will be wrong, because a kilogram is a unit of mass.

>A kilogram is a unit of weight.

>Ron Maimon

A kilogram weighs 2.2 lbs only on earth.
(or on another planet of the same mass)
(or in an equivalent inertial refererence frame, to be picky)

It is, indeed, a unit of mass, and as such is independant of the gravitational 
field in which it resides.

Bob Hoesch
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Forensics Laboratory
Ashland, OR
HoeschB@fws.gov
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenHoeschB cudfnBob cudlnHoesch cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.19 / Benjamin Carter /  Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
     
Originally-From: bpc@netcom.com (Benjamin P. Carter)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.math,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.bio
Subject: Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
Date: Thu, 19 May 1994 23:17:57 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

phil@eurocontrol.fr (Philip Gibbs) writes:

>Most of the comments in this thread have missed the point. The problem
>with switching to metric is not a question of whether or not it is an
>easier system. The difficulty is the cost and confusion caused by
>switching road signs from miles per hour to kilometers per hour.

In the USA there is a more serious problem with distance units than
that of changing signs.  Much of the country is subdivided into
townships.  Each township is approximately a six-mile by six-mile square.
Each township is subdivided into 36 sections.  Each section is a
square mile, or 640 acres, and is likely to be subdivided again into
four squares, each of 160 acres.  And so on.  

Major streets in many cities are laid out along section boundaries, which
makes them one mile apart.  In this environment it makes sense to 
measure distances in miles, not kilometers.  The customary unit of
distance is literally sunk in concrete!

Secondary roads tend to occur every half mile.  City blocks tend to
be 1/8 by 1/16 of a mile, or 5 acres.  It all works out very neatly
in customary units, but not in the metric system.

-- 
    Ben Carter                  internet address: bpc@netcom.com
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenbpc cudfnBenjamin cudlnCarter cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.19 / Ron Maimon /  Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
     
Originally-From: rmaimon@husc9.Harvard.EDU (Ron Maimon)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics,sci.math,sci.ch,sci.bio,alt.s
i.physics.plutonium
Subject: Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
Date: 19 May 1994 21:58:01 GMT
Organization: Harvard University, Cambridge, MA

In article <2rfpnq$4n7@sophia.inria.fr>, jrobson@medee.inria.fr (John Robson) writes:
|> |> |> perfect use of the language.  They almost always have a line marked "12 items
|> |> |> or less" which is poor grammar.
|> |> |>          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|> |> 
|> |> ???????
|> |> In what way?
|> |>  
|> |> Ron Maimon
|> 
|> There is a widespread pedantic belief that one should say `fewer' rather
|> than `less' when referring to a number (integer) rather than a (continuous)
|> quantity.
|> 

This has got to be the dumbest thing anyone has tried to do since they
made "ain't" into an unword.


Ron Maimon
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenrmaimon cudfnRon cudlnMaimon cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.19 / John Logajan /  Re: Mills excess heat (?)
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Mills excess heat (?)
Date: 19 May 1994 19:01:06 GMT
Organization: Sky Point Communications, Inc.

jonesse@physc1.byu.edu wrote:
: ... by a recent post by Logajan in which
: he says that Thermacore has new, undisclosed methods of generating excess
: heat.  Deja vu.  One tires of responding to cries of wolf, especially
: when the crier refuses to tell all.

Couple of points:

1.) the "new" method is in addition to the already published electrolytic
    method and achieves excess energies of the same magnitude.  The original
    method independently stands as verified (in Thermacore's opinion.)

2.) Bob Shaubach told me about it, but since I was asking in anticipation
    of writing an article for "CF" Magazine, he asked that I not disclose
    the details because they wished to publish their results first.  I will
    continue to honor that request.  I suggest you ask Bob directly for
    more details -- his number is 717-569-6551.

I think, Steve, that you are laboring too hard to find conspiracies of
silence, when in fact, Bob Shaubach is quite an open fellow who is only
following the commonly accepted practices of science and commerce.  He has
so far answered every question I could think to put to him.

--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com -- 612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills  MN 55112 USA           -

cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.19 / John Logajan /  Re: Pd/H explosion
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Pd/H explosion
Date: 19 May 1994 19:11:57 GMT
Organization: Sky Point Communications, Inc.

Frank Close (FEC@v2.rl.ac.uk) wrote:
: removes loaded Pd, or even if the tip is exposed to the atmosphere, the
: Pd can glow red hot.

: I am surprised by the responses. My assistant at the RI, Bryson Gore,
: once added a catalyst to the demo and the explosion detroyed the glass
: container.

We calculated several weeks ago that a Pd rod of a given volume has sufficient
H2 (or D2) stored in it at 1:1 to reach the Pd melting point and melt the
Pd (assuming no radiant energy loss and no heating of the burned gases, etc.)

So there is little doubt that a H2 loaded Pd rod can glow red hot due to
surface recombination with atmospheric oxygen.

It is also common knowledge that the accumulation of outgassed H2 can
be ignited and explode in a fuel/air explosion (FAX.)

However, the specifics of the suggested experiment were that the Pd rod
was to be pulled out from electrolysis and placed immediately into an open
flame.  There would be minimal time for H2 gas to accumulate, and thus
the fuel/air explosion potential would be very low.

Under the suggested conditions, there would be no explosion, but there
could be a flame or a catalytic burning on the Pd surface -- as I suggested
in my initial reply.  If you want to alter the specifics of the experiment,
I will be glad to alter my predictions accordingly.

--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com -- 612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills  MN 55112 USA           -

cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.19 / Jorge Stolfi /  Re: Thermacore uses magnetic mixers
     
Originally-From: stolfi@s1j.dcc.unicamp.br (Jorge Stolfi)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Thermacore uses magnetic mixers
Date: 19 May 1994 23:16:27 GMT
Organization: DCC - UNICAMP - Campinas, SP, Brazil


    > [Jed Rothwell:] I would like to point out that the BBC / CBC
    > program showed some of [Thermacore's] smaller cells on a table,
    > and I noticed that they were equipped with magnetic stirrers,
    > which will eliminate any measurable thermal gradient.

Hm, isn't that the Mills-type setup, with a hefty Ni coil as the
cathode and K2CO3 electrolyte?

I wonder how much power the coil can pick up from the stirrer's
magnetic field?

--stolfi


cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenstolfi cudfnJorge cudlnStolfi cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.20 / Paul Flicek /  Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
     
Originally-From: pr_flicek@pnl.gov (Paul Flicek)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.math,sci.physics,sci.physics.f
sion,sci.bio,sci.ch
Subject: Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
Date: 20 May 1994 00:31:28 GMT
Organization: Battelle Pacific Northwest Labs

In article <19MAY199408572464@xenon.arc.nasa.gov>, laforce@xenon.arc.nas
.gov (Soren LaForce) says:
[cut]

>"physican heal thyself."
>
>
>--Soren  [a non-physicist]
>-my opinions-
>
>p.s. , you only get microgravity in the shuttle anyway.

At the space shuttle altitude gravity is 8.6 m/s^2.  Hardly "microgravity."


Paul
___
Disclaimer: 
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenpr_flicek cudfnPaul cudlnFlicek cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.20 / L Plutonium /  Naming of the Isotopes (elements henceforth)
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.chem,sci.physics.fusion,alt.sci.physics.plutonium
Subject: Naming of the Isotopes (elements henceforth)
Date: 20 May 94 01:15:57 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH


   Sorry this list is incomplete. I wanted to post this as fast as
possible because each and everyone of us never knows when our Maker
231*94 calls us up. Like John Bell, we may be surprized when our Maker
calls us to it, and our time is up with this our present photon
reincarnation. So that is the reason I post this (and so many of my
other articles) with urgency. If something should happen to me then my
successors will finish the task I started.
   I hereby make a formal demand of the worldwide science community to
name the nucleosynthesized isotopes using the following scheme exactly.
 Any deviations from my preset scheme will in the future all revert
back to my scheme.

1*0 neutron
1*1 hydrogen
2*1 deuterium
3*1 tritium
4*2 helium
3*2 domesticatium
7*3 lithium
6*3 harnessium
9*4 beryllium
11*5 boron
10*5 triticumium
12*6 carbon
13*6 plowwedgeum
14*7 nitrogen
15*7 agricultureum
16*8 oxygen
17*8 emmerium
18*8 malusium
19*9 fluorine
.
.
232*90 thorium
231*91 protoactinium
238*92 uranium
237*93 neptunium
239*94 plutonium
231*94 plutoniumatomtotalityum
230*94 thalesium. 
232*94 pythagorium. 
233*94 zenoum. 
234*94 leucippusium. 
235*94 atomostheorosium.
236*94 democritusium. 
237*94 eudoxusium. 
238*94 euclidium. 
240*94 epicurusium. 
241*94 aristarchusium.  
242*94 physicsium.
244*94 archimedesium.
232*95 mathsium.
233*95 engineeringium.
234*95 apolloniusium. 
235*95 lucretiusium. 
236*95 heronium.
237*95 diophantusium. 
238*95 pappusium.
239*95 hypatiaium.
240*95 alkhwarizmium.  
241*95 fibonaccium. 
242*95 widmannium. 
243*95 pellosium. 
244*95 tartagliaum. 
240*96 ferrarium. 
241*96 vietaum. 
242*96 stevinium. 
243*96 gilbertium.
244*96 keplerium. 
245*96 napierium. 
246*96 briggsium.
247*96 buergijium. 
248*96 fermatium. 
249*96 harriotium.
250*96 decimaaltalstelselium.
249*97 descartesium. 
252*98 galileoum.
253*98 desarguesium.
254*98 pascalium. 
253*99 wallisium. 
254*99 gregoryum.
252*100 newtoncorpuscularium. 
253*100 huygensium. 
254*100 leibnizium. 
255*100 calculusium. 
256*100 principiaium. 
257*100 bernoullijakium. 
258*100 lhospitalium. 
255*101 bernoullijohium 
256*101 hauksbeeum. 
257*101 taylorium. 
258*101 demoivreum. 
254*102 dufayium.
255*102 bernoullidanum. 
256*102 dalembertium. 
257*102 kleistium.
258*102 musschenbroekium. 
259*102 eulerium. 
257*103 franklinbenum.
258*103 cantonium.
259*103 cavendishium.
260*103 galvanium. 
261*103 coulombium.
262*103 lagrangeum. 
260*104 lavoisierium.
261*104 legendreum.
.
.

   In the coming months I hope to complete and revise the above list.
Special thanks to Rose Marie Holt for her sage advice. 
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.19 / Charlie Gibbs /  Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
     
Originally-From: Charlie_Gibbs@mindlink.bc.ca (Charlie Gibbs)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
Date: Thu, 19 May 94 18:52:00 -0700 (PDT)
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada

In article <bpcCq2opx.LCJ@netcom.com> bpc@netcom.com
(Benjamin P. Carter) writes:

>Major streets in many cities are laid out along section boundaries, which
>makes them one mile apart.  In this environment it makes sense to
>measure distances in miles, not kilometers.  The customary unit of
>distance is literally sunk in concrete!
>
>Secondary roads tend to occur every half mile.  City blocks tend to
>be 1/8 by 1/16 of a mile, or 5 acres.  It all works out very neatly
>in customary units, but not in the metric system.

Here in Canada, where we've already gone metric, there are many
places where roads are laid out in the same fashion.  The street
numbering system here in the Fraser Valley has 8 blocks per mile.
That's awfully close to 200 meters per block.  That 1/8- by 1/16-
mile block is two hectares.  This seems to me to work out very
neatly indeed.

Of course, I'm one of those freaks who's worked with hexadecimal
so much that I read speedometers calibrated in miles per hour and
interpret the numbers in hex to get kilometers per hour - 50 (hex)
mph = 80 (decimal) km/h, etc.  It breaks down rather badly if you
hit 100 mph, though...  :-)

Charlie_Gibbs@mindlink.bc.ca
I used to be indecisive, but now I'm not so sure.

cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenCharlie_Gibbs cudfnCharlie cudlnGibbs cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.20 / John Lobaugh /  Re: Naming of the Isotopes (elements henceforth)
     
Originally-From: lobaugh@vhp1.chem.upenn.edu (John Lobaugh)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.chem,sci.physics.fusion,alt.sci.physics.plutonium
Subject: Re: Naming of the Isotopes (elements henceforth)
Date: 20 May 1994 01:52:03 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <2rh30d$7l1@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth
edu (Ludwig Plutonium) writes:
>
>   Sorry this list is incomplete. I wanted to post this as fast as
>possible because each and everyone of us never knows when our Maker
>231*94 calls us up. Like John Bell, we may be surprized when our Maker
>calls us to it,

Looks like Ludwig (pronounced loowig) is going to lose net access soon. 

-- 
John lobaugh@a.chem.upenn.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenlobaugh cudfnJohn cudlnLobaugh cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.20 / L Plutonium /  Re: Naming of the Isotopes (elements henceforth)
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.chem,sci.physics.fusion,alt.sci.physics.plutonium
Subject: Re: Naming of the Isotopes (elements henceforth)
Date: 20 May 1994 02:48:19 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In article <2rh30d$7l1@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium) writes:

> 1*0 neutron
> 1*1 hydrogen
> 2*1 deuterium
> 3*1 tritium
> 4*2 helium
> 3*2 domesticatium
> 7*3 lithium
> 6*3 harnessium
> 9*4 beryllium
> 11*5 boron
> 10*5 triticumium
> 12*6 carbon
> 13*6 plowwedgeum
> 14*7 nitrogen
> 15*7 agricultureum
> 16*8 oxygen
> 17*8 emmerium
> 18*8 malusium

   I speculate that in the future, with the atom totality theory that
we will be able to have a math and physics theory which predict the
exact number of possible isotopes for each element. The theory will
predict how many and what mass numbers for the isotopes. Then the
experimentalists will go out and make those isotopes and show that they
are unable to make the impossible isotopes.  But the fact of the Atom
Totality and that it is 231*94 makes the predicting equation work. For
example, in a 231*94 atom totality, element *82 can have only 3 stable
and 18 radioactive isotopes, for 21 altogether. If the totality were a
cesium atom then using this futuristic equation, element *82 could have
no stable isotopes.
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.20 / Timothy Chow /  Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
     
Originally-From: tycchow@zermelo.mit.edu (Timothy Y. Chow)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.math,sci.physics,sci.physics.f
sion,sci.bio,sci.ch
Subject: Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
Date: Fri, 20 May 94 04:03:28 GMT
Organization: None.  This saves me from writing a disclaimer.

In article <HoeschB.91.000DF4AB@fws.gov> HoeschB@fws.gov (Bob Hoesch) writes:
>In article <2r9s5o$e04@scunix2.harvard.edu> rmaimon@husc9.Harvard.EDU
(Ron Maimon) writes:
>>A kilogram is a unit of weight.
>
>>Ron Maimon
>
>A kilogram weighs 2.2 lbs only on earth.

A common fault of people with some scientific knowledge is to think
that the only "correct" definitions of words are the technical ones.
Hence one commonly hears pseudoscientific blather like "a tomato is not
a vegetable; it's a fruit."  The kilogram is another example of this
kind.  From your friendly neighborhood online dictionary:

kilo.gram \'kil-*-.gram\ n [F kilogramme, fr. kilo- + gramme gram] 1: the 
   basic metric unit of mass and weight equal to the mass of a platinum 
   -iridium cylinder kept at the International Bureau of Weights and Measures 
   near Paris and nearly equal to 1000 cubic centimeters of water at the 
   temperature of its maximum density 2: a unit of force equal to the weight
   of a kilogram under standard gravity
-- 
Tim Chow     tycchow@math.mit.edu
Where a calculator on the ENIAC is equipped with 18,000 vacuum tubes and weighs
30 tons, computers in the future may have only 1,000 vacuum tubes and weigh
only 1 1/2 tons.                               ---Popular Mechanics, March 1949
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudentycchow cudfnTimothy cudlnChow cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.20 / C Douthwaite /  Re: NAMING OF THE ELEMENTS;MORE IMPORTANT,STANDARD NOTATION OF
     
Originally-From: Colin_Douthwaite@equinox.gen.nz (Colin Douthwaite)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,alt.religion.kibology,sci.math,sci
physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.chem,sci.bio,alt.ascii-art
Subject: Re: NAMING OF THE ELEMENTS;MORE IMPORTANT,STANDARD NOTATION OF
Date: Fri, 20 May 94 14:10:41 +1200
Organization: Equinox Networks

Ludwig Plutonium (Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu) wrote:
: In article <2r9uif$d6j@news.cerf.net>
: paulp@is.internic.net (Paul Phillips) writes:

: > What is the world coming to, I ask! When Roger Bryner and Ludwig
: > Plutonium are using the same tools on their audience, then either
: > ASCII art is terribly underrated or there is something not quite
: > right in the world.

:   I have asked politely in the alt.ascii-art for the 5f6 electron cloud
: dot picture. Something more elaborate than my picture below.

: LP                         94th ELECTRON OF 231PU
:                Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH ELECTRON

:                   \ ::| :./.
:                   .\::|::/.:
:                      _ _
:                     (:Y:)
:                      - - 
:                   ::/.|.\.:
:                 :: /.:| :\.:
:                   /   |   \.
:         One of those dots is the Sun with 9 smaller dots around it.
: Look in a chemistry textbook or quantum physics textbook of the
: electron cloud dot picture. 


Perhaps the simple answer to the lack of response to your polite request is
that none of the ascii-artists have the required knowledge of nuclear
physics or chemistry to do what you ask. Are you surprised ?  :-)

Bye,
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenColin_Douthwaite cudfnColin cudlnDouthwaite cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Fri May 20 04:41:13 EDT 1994
------------------------------
1994.05.20 / Roy Dace /  Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
     
Originally-From: dace@shrike.und.ac.za (Roy Dace)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.math,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.bio
Subject: Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
Date: 20 May 1994 05:27:27 GMT
Organization: University of Natal (Durban), South Africa

Philip Gibbs (phil@eurocontrol.fr) wrote:

: Most of the comments in this thread have missed the point. The problem
: with switching to metric is not a question of whether or not it is an
: easier system. The difficulty is the cost and confusion caused by
: switching road signs from miles per hour to kilometers per hour.

: Happily the good old British Civil Service has found the solution. In
: a new white paper they introduce the Imperial Kilometer which will be
: very close a mile. Other metric units will also be defined in line
: with this unit. The Imperial Litre works out quite close to a gallon.

doesn't that sort of defeat the object.  (Hint, what does SI stand for?)

Hal
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudendace cudfnRoy cudlnDace cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.20 / Roy Dace /  Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
     
Originally-From: dace@shrike.und.ac.za (Roy Dace)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics,sci.math,sci.ch,sci.bio,alt.s
i.physics.plutonium
Subject: Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
Date: 20 May 1994 05:28:43 GMT
Organization: University of Natal (Durban), South Africa

Ron Maimon (rmaimon@husc9.Harvard.EDU) wrote:
: In article <CxhsjaE96lB8063yn@world.std.com>, moroney@world.std.com
(Michael Moroney) writes:
: |> perfect use of the language.  They almost always have a line marked "12 items
: |> or less" which is poor grammar.
: |>          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

: ???????
: In what way?


There's a difference between `less' and `fewer'.

HJD
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudendace cudfnRoy cudlnDace cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.20 / Dieter Britz /  Re:  Mills excess heat (?)
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re:  Mills excess heat (?)
Date: Fri, 20 May 1994 07:24:53 GMT
Date: 19 May 1994 15:36:26 GMT:
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway


Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz) in FD 2326,
Date: 19 May 1994 15:36:26 GMT:

>In article <1994May18.152155.1628@physc1.byu.edu>,
> <jonesse@physc1.byu.edu> wrote:

>>How good is this mass spec?  Mills et al. claim a "shrunken" hydrogen molecule,
>>that is, energy release still by EM (not nuclear) forces.  But then the
>>mass spec must be able to resolve tens of eV's (roughly) out of 2 GeV mass --
>>I don't think they can do it. (!)

>Actually, a top-of-the-line ICR can probably get you that kind of mass
>resolution under optimal conditions.  I know that one part in 10^6 is fairly
>routine.  I seriously doubt, however, that that's what Mills et al. did.

I have the paper (Mills, Good, Shaubach, Fusion Technol. 25 (1994) 103), and
it says, at the end of a lengthy discussion of various MS attempts:

"After cryofiltration or combustion, the dihydrino molecule can be 
distinguished from normal molecular hydrogen by mass spectroscopy. The 
branching ratio to form m/e=1 relative m/e=2 that is observed for the 
dihydrino molecule is different than the ratio that is observed for normal 
molecular hydrogen. Mass spectroscopy will further distinguish a sample 
containing dihydrino molecules from a sample containing H2 by showing a 
different ion production efficiency as a function of ionization potential and 
a different ion production efficiency at a given ionization potential for the
two samples".

Earlier in the paper, the authors refer to the high-resolution quadrupole MS
used by Yamaguchi and Nishioka, which could resolve down to 0.001 amu. Y&N
assign a small bump close to that of D2 to HT (they reckon they produced
tritium). Mills et al say that this is really dideutrino. Similarly, the 4He
assignment of a peak found by Miles et al is in fact dideutrino as well,
formed on the surface of Pd. The argument here is that if it were indeed 4He,
produced by a fusion process, then nuclear products should have been observed,
but were not. 

Finally, Mills et al report their own MS results, without saying what kind of
instrument they used. They rely on the difference in ionisation potential.
Support for the finding of dihydrino rests on differences in the mass ratios
at varying ionisation potential, as well as on the presence of hydrogen mass
after combustion: normal hydrogen burns, dihydrino does not. So if, after
burning, m/e=2 is found, it must be dihydrino, say the authors. In this way
they do not need super-resolution MS to identify the dihydrino. 

Note that this is not fusion; these people distance themselves from fusion,
using skeptics' arguments (no nuclear ash).
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.20 / Rick Hellicar /  Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
     
Originally-From: hellicar@prl.philips.co.uk (Rick Hellicar)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics,sci.math
Subject: Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
Date: 20 May 94 07:59:58 GMT
Organization: his best

Ron Maimon (rmaimon@husc9.Harvard.EDU) wrote:
: In article <CxhsjaE96lB8063yn@world.std.com>, moroney@world.std.com
(Michael Moroney) writes:
: |> I wouldn't base any definition of "correctness" of mass/weight definition by
: |> how the supermarkets mark their sugar sacks.  They aren't known for their
: |> perfect use of the language.  They almost always have a line marked "12 items
: |> or less" which is poor grammar.
: |>          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

: ???????
: In what way?
:  


I assumed it was poor grammar because it lacked a verb.
A verb is not a unit of mass.


--
Rick Hellicar  hellicar@prl.philips.co.uk
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenhellicar cudfnRick cudlnHellicar cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.20 / Julian Jamison /  Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
     
Originally-From: julison@cco.caltech.edu (Julian C. Jamison)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics,sci.math,sci.ch,sci.bio,alt.s
i.physics.plutonium
Subject: Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
Date: 20 May 1994 09:15:42 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena

In article <2rgnd9$hk4@scunix2.harvard.edu>,
Ron Maimon <rmaimon@husc9.Harvard.EDU> wrote:
>In article <2rfpnq$4n7@sophia.inria.fr>, jrobson@medee.inria.fr (John Robson) writes:
>|> |> |> perfect use of the language.  They almost always have a line marked "12 items
>|> |> |> or less" which is poor grammar.
>|> |> |>          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>|> |> 
>|> |> ???????
>|> |> In what way?
>|> |>  
>|> |> Ron Maimon
>|> 
>|> There is a widespread pedantic belief that one should say `fewer' rather
>|> than `less' when referring to a number (integer) rather than a (continuous)
>|> quantity.
>|> 
>
>This has got to be the dumbest thing anyone has tried to do since they
>made "ain't" into an unword.
>
>
>Ron Maimon

I am extremely sorry to continue this thread (especially as it now
only vaguely resembles something which might relate to math [where I'm
posting from]), but I feel compelled to respond. What would be dumb is
to have two words with exactly the same meaning. The distinction above
is certainly made in correct English, which itself is marvelous in its
ability to convey the precise shading desired, a trait (IMO) not
shared by all other languages. But enough of a distraction.

Julian C. Jamison
julison@iago.caltech.edu


cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenjulison cudfnJulian cudlnJamison cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.20 / John Logajan /  Metric, Mass, Language, Culture
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Metric, Mass, Language, Culture
Date: 20 May 1994 01:39:26 GMT
Organization: Sky Point Communications, Inc.

Just a friendly reminder that discussions of:

metric versus English units
mass versus weight
language versus language
culture versus culture

have probably gone on too long in this forum.

Thanks.

--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com -- 612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills  MN 55112 USA           -


cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.20 / Dale Gerdemann /  Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
     
Originally-From: nnsge01@mailserv.zdv.uni-tuebingen.de (Dale Gerdemann)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.math,sci.ch,sci.bio,alt.sci.physics.plutonium
Subject: Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
Date: 20 May 94 10:33:11 GMT
Organization: InterNetNews at ZDV Uni-Tuebingen

In <2rgina$e4a@riscsm.scripps.edu> anthonyp@scripps.edu writes:


>In article <2rfat7$8jp@scunix2.harvard.edu>, <rmaimon@husc9.Harvard.EDU> 
>writes:


>(Michael Moroney) writes:

>  They almost always have a line marked "12 items
>> |> or less" which is poor grammar.
>> |>          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> 

>Maimon writes:

>> ???????
>> In what way?
>>  
>> Ron Maimon

>Well ron, why not look it up?  Pick up any good dictionary and look up the 
>words "less" and "fewer".  
>You will find that there is a difference and that the word "fewer" is 
>correct in the "express-line" example.  Basically, "fewer" is used in 
>conjunction with plural nouns: "12 items or fewer" and "less" is used with 
>singular nouns that are assocated with quantity.  
>For example, the sentence: 
>"Ron Maimon is less intelligent than I because he has fewer functioning 
>neurons."

>-tony


This is ridiculous. This distinction is rarely made by even the most
educated speaker of standard American English. Surely you know that.


Dale Gerdemann
Seminar fuer Sprachwissenschaft
Eberhard-Karls-Universitaet Tuebingen

dg@sfs.nphil.uni-tuebingen.de


cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudennnsge01 cudfnDale cudlnGerdemann cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.20 / Lloyd Zusman /  Re: Naming of the Isotopes (elements henceforth)
     
Originally-From: ljz@well.sf.ca.us (Lloyd Zusman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.chem,sci.physics.fusion,alt.sci.physics.plutonium
Subject: Re: Naming of the Isotopes (elements henceforth)
Date: 20 May 1994 11:14:51 GMT
Organization: The WELL

>   I speculate that in the future, with the atom totality theory that
>we will be able to have a math and physics theory which predict the
>exact number of possible isotopes for each element.  [ ... ]

Will this math and physics theory be able to predict the elements'
names, as well?


--
Lloyd Zusman    	01234567 <-- The world famous Indent-o-Meter.
ljz@well.sf.ca.us       ^	     Indentation: use it or lose it.
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenljz cudfnLloyd cudlnZusman cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.20 / John Logajan /  Re: Thermacore uses magnetic mixers
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Thermacore uses magnetic mixers
Date: 20 May 1994 03:27:00 GMT
Organization: Sky Point Communications, Inc.

Jed Rothwell (72240.1256@compuserve.com) wrote:
: Tom Droege guessed that these cells might have a long time constant (or
: what I would call "settle time").

Okay, I took the case of 28 liters of H2O and 40 pounds of Ni wire (and I
added 10 pounds of anode material) with a calorimeter constant of 6.66 watts
per degree C.  I also took one of their calibration points -- 60 Watts.

I explain my method below, but I got a "time constant" of about 5 hours,
and therefore a "settle time" of about 24 hours.  So if Thermacore was
going to calibrate at a known input power, they should wait at least
24 hours before they assume this particular system is in equilibrium.


Here is what I did:

I created a software iterative model, with one second of time per iteration.
With 60 watts input, that would be 60 joules input per iteration.  From
Thermacore's data, we find that at 100 watts in, they claim a final
temperature of 15 degrees C above ambient.  So that is 6.666 watts per
degree C for the calorimeter constant.  For each second (iteration) then,
we lose (delta temperature * 6.666) joules.  The temperature reached
depends on the specific heat capacity and the mass.  28 liters of H2O
requires 116,025 joules to raise it one degree.  50 pounds of Nickel or
similar metal takes 10,065 joules to raise it one degree.  So whatever
our stored energy (in joules) we divide by 126,090 to get the temperature
in degrees C.

Putting it all together in a BASIC program:


inpower = 60
energy = 0
do
  energy = energy + inpower
  temperature = energy / 126090
  outpower = temperature * 6.666
  energy = energy - outpower

  seconds = seconds + 1

  print seconds, temperature
loop
end


With a 60 watt input, we expect an eventual final temperature of 9 degrees
above ambient.  A time constant will be the time when the temperature
reaches 63% of the final temperature, or 5.7 degrees.  This will occur
about 18,000 seconds (5 hours.)  It takes five time constants to reach
99% of the final temperature -- or just about 24 hours (25 hours.)

--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com -- 612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills  MN 55112 USA           -

cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.20 / I Johnston /  Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
     
Originally-From: ianj@castle.ed.ac.uk (I Johnston)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.math,sci.physics,sci.physics.f
sion,sci.bio,sci.ch
Subject: Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
Date: Fri, 20 May 1994 11:32:41 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

Paul Flicek (pr_flicek@pnl.gov) wrote:
: In article <19MAY199408572464@xenon.arc.nasa.gov>, laforce@xenon.arc.n
sa.gov (Soren LaForce) says:
: [cut]


: At the space shuttle altitude gravity is 8.6 m/s^2.  Hardly "microgravity."


True, but the shuttle is in free fall, which changes things a tad.

Ian
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenianj cudfnI cudlnJohnston cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.19 /  jim.day@suppor /  RE: DIHYDRINO IDENTIFICATION
     
Originally-From: jim.day@support.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: DIHYDRINO IDENTIFICATION
Date: Thu, 19 May 1994 23:37:15 -600 (CDT)
Organization: SkyPoint Communucations, Inc. 

Jim Day sent this to me via e-mail, but I think it is useful for all,
so I post it here *without* permission.


 
John,
 
> By pulsing the current, efficiency is improved even
> more, on the order of at least 100%.  This implies
> that the electrolysis power might actually reduce
> (but not eliminate) the reaction.
 
According to my understanding of Mills-Farrell theory,
hydrino formation is enhanced by using pulsed direct
current because interruption of the current promotes
the release of monatomic hydrogen through the chemical
decomposition of nickel hydride on the surface of the
cathode. Hydrogen atoms are then converted to hydrinos
by the catalytic effect of the potassium ions in the
electrolyte (via a 27 eV resonance).
 
The flow of current through the cell during the "on"
phase of the cycle creates the nickel hydride that
produces the monatomic hydrogen during the "off" phase
of the cycle. If uninterrupted direct current is used,
nickel hydride forms and decomposes continuously but
at a slower rate as implied in your posting to the
fusion newsgroup.
 
Of course, I could be wrong about that.  :-)
 
Cheers,
 
Jim Day <Jim.Day@support.com>



cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenday cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.20 /  prasad /  Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
     
Originally-From: c1prasad@watson.ibm.com (prasad)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.math,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.bio
Subject: Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
Date: 20 May 1994 14:09:48 GMT
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

 phil@eurocontrol.fr (Philip Gibbs) writes:
Most of the comments in this thread have missed the point. The problem
with switching to metric is not a question of whether or not it is an
easier system. The difficulty is the cost and confusion caused by
switching road signs from miles per hour to kilometers per hour.

-- 

True.  I've heard that they did attempt the switch in California
in the early eighties, and backtracked.

The problem is specially more in US because there are a lot more
businesses and people using a number of different units, and they
have more say in the issues.  All they did in India back in the
late 60s was to issue a central government decree that henceforth
things should be done in metric, and the conversion worked overnight,
as it were, since all the major industries and services were owned
by the govt!  However, private land and houses still go by the square
feet and acres, and that will probably never change.  I don't know
how it is in the other countries which have gone metric.

While conversion problems exist (which is what most software consultants
like meself get hired for!), the simplicity is *really* concrete
(no pun) and *would* do a lot of good.  In my mid-,high- school years,
we did have to convert from the English to the SI, and while it
took a bit of time to learn, SI was all there, easy to know everything
about, while with the English units, we could never be sure we knew
all there was to them.  And the difference is about as great as
pre-calculator versus with-calculator engineering programs and exams.

SI isn't perfect, but I think it should be perceived not merely as an
alternative, but as a major unification of measures in various fields.
As new technology develops, investigators invent new units.  With
the steam engine came the horsepower, with electricity and magnetism
came a myriad of esus and emus.  While it sounds nice to know that
an automobile engine produces 340 hp, it helps integrate our perceptions
of electrical and mechanical power to think of it in one consistent
unit, as 300 kW.  A better example is an LIRR electric railroad car,
rated at 500 MW, though the registration label on the driver's door
puts it in so many hp.  In MW, it is a quick mental exercise to estimate
how much power is necessary to run the Long Island RailRoad!

To be able to translate and compute across application areas,
is to me the real power of the simpler system.  Had we stuck to
epicyclic orbits, would we had any decent astronomy or spacecraft?
Or, could we have had modern physics and technology with mere
coordinate geometry and without the elegance of tensors?  A simpler
language of expression is not only wider in application, but allows
newer creations.

Remarks have been made in this thread about Japanese Kanji and Kana.
The introductory chapters in books on Japanese writing generally inform
us that the Japs do not always use the Chinese glyphs the same way.
But both Japanese and Chinese have been reviewing and simplifying their
symbolic writing systems.  To me, that represents a far larger problem
than the metric conversion, because the changes must be reflected over
large populations, who are more traditional (and sticky), and with
far less sophisticated communication that is taken for granted in the US.

__________ __________ __________ __________ __________ __________ __________

pragma options disclaimed

-- prasad		email: 71155.3116@compuserve.com, poll= 1/month.

Entropy isn't what it used to be...

What is mind?  No matter.
What is matter?  Never mind.
		-- Thomas Hewitt Key, 1799-1875

cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenc1prasad cudlnprasad cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.20 / Todd Pedlar /  Re: Naming of the Isotopes (elements henceforth)
     
Originally-From: todd@numep4.phys.nwu.edu (Todd K. Pedlar)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.chem,sci.physics.fusion,alt.sci.physics.plutonium
Subject: Re: Naming of the Isotopes (elements henceforth)
Date: 20 May 1994 14:55:13 GMT
Organization: Northwestern University

In article <2rh8dj$e71@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>, Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmout
.edu (Ludwig Plutonium) writes:
>In article <2rh30d$7l1@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
>Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium) writes:
>
>> 1*0 neutron
>> 1*1 hydrogen
.
.
.
>
>   I speculate that in the future, with the atom totality theory that
>we will be able to have a math and physics theory which predict the
>exact number of possible isotopes for each element. The theory will
>predict how many and what mass numbers for the isotopes. Then the
>experimentalists will go out and make those isotopes and show that they
>are unable to make the impossible isotopes.  But the fact of the Atom
>Totality and that it is 231*94 makes the predicting equation work. For
>example, in a 231*94 atom totality, element *82 can have only 3 stable
>and 18 radioactive isotopes, for 21 altogether. If the totality were a
>cesium atom then using this futuristic equation, element *82 could have
>no stable isotopes.

Would you mind letting us in on just what those equations are that 
predict numbers of stable and unstable isotopes?  Does it, for instance
predict 7 Helium isotopes or 8?  

Todd
______________________________________________________________________________
Todd K. Pedlar                ! "The fairest thing we can experience is the 
Graduate Student              ! mysterious.  It is the fundamental emotion
Department of Physics         ! which stands at the cradle of true art and     
Northwestern University       ! true science."    -  A. Einstein       
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudentodd cudfnTodd cudlnPedlar cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.20 / Mike Jamison /  Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
     
Originally-From: edwlt12@mars.lerc.nasa.gov (Mike Jamison (ADF))
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.math,sci.physics,sci.physics.f
sion,sci.bio,sci.ch
Subject: Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
Date: 20 May 1994 11:49 EDT
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center

In article <2rh0d0$qn7@bbs.pnl.gov>, pr_flicek@pnl.gov (Paul Flicek) writes...
>In article <19MAY199408572464@xenon.arc.nasa.gov>, laforce@xenon.arc.na
a.gov (Soren LaForce) says:
>[cut]
> 
>>"physican heal thyself."
>>
>>
>>--Soren  [a non-physicist]
>>-my opinions-
>>
>>p.s. , you only get microgravity in the shuttle anyway.
> 
>At the space shuttle altitude gravity is 8.6 m/s^2.  Hardly "microgravity."

And centrifugal (or is it centripital?) force also gives 8.6 m/s^2 - in effect
giving zero G, except for the fact that there's a coriolis effect, due to 
the orbit being about 1.5 hrs/revolution.

However, my understanding of the problem is that there are "station keeping"
thrusters fired intermittently, (automatically I believe) that can screw
up experiments.

Drop tower experiments (in evacuated chambers) will give true zero gravity,
for a few seconds (at the end of which comes about 70 g's of deceleration...)

The various jet aircraft used for "zero g" (JSC's C-135, LeRC's learjet, to
name two) provide something like 0.02 g for ~20 seconds.
> 
> 
>Paul
>___
>Disclaimer: 

Mike Jamison

"Scientific research consists in seeing what everyone else has seen, but
thinking what no one else has thought"

						-A. Szent-Gyorgyi
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenedwlt12 cudfnMike cudlnJamison cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.20 / J Buzzard /  Re: Force vs. Mass (was  Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system)
     
Originally-From: phyjab1@phyd4c6.caledonia.hw.ac.uk (Jonathan A Buzzard)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.math,sci.physics,sci.physics.f
sion,sci.bio,sci.ch
Subject: Re: Force vs. Mass (was  Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system)
Date: Fri, 20 May 1994 15:38:03 GMT
Organization: Heriot-Watt University


--

>If you use a balance in an inhomogeneous gravitational field, it will  
>sit at zero with unequal masses on the pans.

Where do you propose to get this inhomogeneous gravitational field over the 
size of the balance such that it will have a significat effect; next to a 
black hole or neutron star.

>NB comments about friction in the balance bearings, ...

Good balances surly use knife edges for this very reason.

JAB.

 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan A. Buzzard,              
Physics Department,           Email:-
Heriot-Watt University,            phyjab1@caledonia.hw.ac.uk   InterNet
Edinburgh. EH14 4AS                phyjab1@uk.ac.hw.clust       JANET
United Kingdom.
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenphyjab1 cudfnJonathan cudlnBuzzard cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.20 / Tom Radcliffe /  Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
     
Originally-From: tom@mips2.phy.queensu.ca (Tom Radcliffe)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.math,sci.physics,sci.physics.f
sion,sci.bio,sci.ch
Subject: Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
Date: Fri, 20 May 1994 17:15:59 GMT
Organization: Queen's University, Kingston

In article <Cpy81B.1D7@ecf.toronto.edu>, pischke@ecf.toronto.edu (PISCHKE  DAVID) writes:
|> In article <2r9s5o$e04@scunix2.harvard.edu>,
|> Ron Maimon <rmaimon@husc9.Harvard.EDU> wrote:
|> >
|> >A kilogram is a unit of weight.
|> >
|> 
|> You are incorrect.  The kilogram is a unit of mass.  If the kilogram is a unit
|> of weight, then what do you use to measure mass, and how do you explain the
|> Newton, which is defined as a kg*m/s^2?
|> 

The kilogram is used as a unit of weight in many countries on the metric
system.  In Canada we use S.I. measures, a variant of metric, in which
the kilogram is strictly a unit of mass.  This does not prevent us from
having cars with oil pressure gauges that read in kg/cm**2, though.  I
think in most metricated countries this kind of bogus pressure unit is
commonly used by engineers.  And the average person-on-the-street
wouldn't know a mass from a weight if you dropped one one his foot,
which means the metric system tends to get rapidly adulterated when it
comes into common use.



cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudentom cudfnTom cudlnRadcliffe cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.20 / SCOTT CHASE /  Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
     
Originally-From: sichase@csa5.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.math,sci.ch,sci.bio,alt.sci.physics.plutonium
Subject: Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
Date: 20 May 94 19:17:00 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA

In article <nnsge01.769429991@mailserv.zdv.uni-tuebingen.de>, nnsge01@ma
lserv.zdv.uni-tuebingen.de (Dale Gerdemann) writes...
> 
>This is ridiculous. This distinction is rarely made by even the most
>educated speaker of standard American English. Surely you know that.

I disagree.  Perhaps you are unaware of the distinction because you are
not a native speaker, but I can assure you that misuse of "fewer" or "less"
grates badly on the ear on many educated speakers of standard American
English, probably most.  This is a distinction that you are taught in
elementary school, and is not ridiculous.

-Scott
 -------------------                         Physics is not a religion.  If
Scott I. Chase                               it were, we'd have a much easier
SICHASE@CSA2.LBL.GOV                         time raising money. -Leon Lederman
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudensichase cudfnSCOTT cudlnCHASE cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.20 / Greg ex /  Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
     
Originally-From: gregk@dingo.logica.co.uk (Greg Konstantinidis ex.5726)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.math,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.bio
Subject: Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
Date: Fri, 20 May 1994 19:00:51 GMT
Organization: Logica Ltd.

In article <2rhhnv$bsf@owl.und.ac.za>, dace@shrike.und.ac.za (Roy Dace) writes:
|> Philip Gibbs (phil@eurocontrol.fr) wrote:
|> 
|> : Most of the comments in this thread have missed the point. The problem
|> : with switching to metric is not a question of whether or not it is an
|> : easier system. The difficulty is the cost and confusion caused by
|> : switching road signs from miles per hour to kilometers per hour.

Australia fortunately converted from Imperial to metrics in the 1960 as
well as decimalising their currency. (come to think of it Britain has decimalise 
its currency as well! (and it's no wonder)). There is no doubt
that the metric system is neater
especially if you are an engineer or scientist. Unfortunately there is
a lot of equipment out there that is made in the Imperial style which would
cost a lot to convert and still needs to be maintained. 

I think in Britain there are politicians that are trying to capitalise
on the Europhobic feelings in the UK and converting to metric would be 
seen as a 'bowing' to Europe. Of course any country can convert to metric
the benefits of international standardisation on a good and logical standard
are obvious. 
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudengregk cudfnGreg cudlnex cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.20 / John Logajan /  Re: Thermacore uses magnetic mixers
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Thermacore uses magnetic mixers
Date: 20 May 1994 12:21:51 GMT
Organization: Sky Point Communications, Inc.

I wrote:

: I created a software iterative model, with one second of time per iteration.
: From Thermacore's data, we find that at 100 watts in, they claim a final
: temperature of 15 degrees C above ambient.  So that is 6.666 watts per
: degree C for the calorimeter constant.
: 28 liters of H2O requires 116,025 joules to raise it one degree.
: 50 pounds of Nickel ... takes 10,065 joules to raise it one degree.
: [total]   126,090


Hmm, I see that taking the inverse of 6.666 W/C gives 0.15 C/W.
Now take T=RC to be:

T = 0.15 * 126,090     = 18913 seconds = 5.25 hours.

Guess I didn't have to do the iteration program, but it was nice to verify
it with that "obvious" numerical method.

--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com -- 612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills  MN 55112 USA           -

cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.20 / Richard Blue /  Re: Miles experiment 14
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Miles experiment 14
Date: Fri, 20 May 1994 14:50:06 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Comments on Mills experiment

Robert Horst seeks to initiate a discussion of a recent paper:

R. Mills, W. Good, R. Shaubach, "Dihydrino Molecule
Identification,"  FUSION TECHNOLOGY, vol 25, Jan 1994

He makes particular reference to experiment 14 from that paper
and provides some basic experimental facts which seem to indicate
that 5 watts input results in 41 watts output.  In addition there
is mention of a claim that the production of a new species of
hydrogen molecule is indicated.  I wish to accept Robert's kind
invitation to comment on this experiment, my information being
limited to just the facts he has presented.

ELECTRICAL CHARACTERISTICS

Normally one envisions CF experiments as a simple electrochemical
cell consisting of an anode, cathode, and electrolyte driven at
a potential V and current I such that I*(V - 1.48) goes to joule
heating in an essentially resistive load with the bulk of the
resistive loss occurring in the electrolyte.  The I*1.48 power
input goes to the electrolysis of water into H2 and O2 gasses
which, in the absence of recombination, exits from the system
without contributing to the total enthalpy production.

I suggest that this simple picture may not strictly apply to
the subject experiment for a number of reasons.  The description
of the cathode is: 5000 m of 0.5mm nickel wire.  Based on a
handbook value for the resistivity of pure nickel, I estimate
this wire to have a resistance of 0.34 ohms per meter.  (I hope
this will inspire someone to check some of my numbers.)  I think
you can quickly see that the cathode is not effectively 5000 meters
of wire.  In fact the total cell resistance appears to be about
0.15 ohms, indicating that the 5000 m of wire is just a random
snarl laid into a 10 gal tank with no attempt at ordering.  It
provides a cathode of large surface area (8 sq meters) and
possibly large capacitance and/or inductance.  Current flow
through this cathode is dependent on randomly located shorts
between wire segments.  I simply ask how does one know anything
about the electrical characteristics and their long-term
stability?  The cathode seems unlikely to serve as an equipotential
surface for electrochemical processes.

POWER INPUT

The input power is said to be applied in a pulsed (square wave?)
manner with a 20% duty factor, 1 Hz frequency.  The peak voltage
and current are 2.37 V and 10.5 A, respectively.  As an aside,
whenever I read that some such set of operating parameters was
employed in an experiment I am always led to wonder why.  What
would happen if the duty factor or frequency were altered?
So the peak power is 24.9 watts or 4.98 watts average.  This
is seen as an absolute upper limit for the output power measured
calorimetrically.  In fact, when the 1.48 V cell potential is
subtracted possibly no more than 1.87 watts should be available
for heating the soup.  However, the claim is that calorimetry
indicates an output of 41 watts.  I agree with Robert that
an experimental error in the determination of input power
sufficiently large to account for this 41 watts seems unlikely.

CALORIMETRY

Obviously 28 liters of water has a rather high heat capacity
relative to 40 watts of power.  As Tom Droege has pointed out
this device has a long thermal time constant.  It may be
significantly influenced by ambient air temperature, humidity,
pressure and circulation.  What is the calorimeter constant
for this beast, and how stable and linear is the response?
If you agree with me that the measured response to 40 watts
is some tens of millidegrees how is this response determined?
I doubt, for example, that there is a single temperature that
characterizes the state of this cell at any given time.  Let
us put some error bars on this number starting perhaps with
40 +/- 100 watts.  I don't know whether there is a discussion
of this issue in the paper itself, but if there is not a very
lengthy discussion of the thermometry and temperature control
the rest of this paper isn't worth much.  I now inject one more
little negative thought.  Have you ever attempted to make
measurements of a lowlevel electrical signal in the presence of
a switched 10 A current flowing in a reactive circuit that is
closely coupled to everything you are attempting to observe?

MASS SPECTROMETRY

The thing that makes the work of Mills, et al. unique is the claim
that the observed excess enthalpy is to be explained by a
transition in atomic hydrogen to subground state.  This extraction
of additional energy from hydrogen atoms results in the formation
of a hitherto undetected atomic (or molecular) species dubbed the
hydrino (dihydrino).  Mills, et al. even have a theory which
describes these new states and provides a rational basis for their
existence, if you are willing to accept crack pot physics theories.
What is the evidence for dihydrino molecules as offered in this
paper?  RH quotes from the paper as: "Following cryofiltration of
the electrolysis gases, the dihydrino molecule is distinguished
from normal molecular hydrogen by mass spectroscopy.  The branching
ratio to form m/e = 1 relative to m/e = 2 that is observed for the
dihydrino molecule is different from the ratio observed for normal
molecular hydrogen."

Perhaps an operational description of how such a measurement might
be made will serve to explain my remarks better.  When a sample
of hydrogen is introduced into a mass spectrometer it must be
ionized, accelerated, and then analyzed in a complex applied
field to determine its mass-to-charge ratio.  Hydrogen will result
in two (at least) mass peaks, mass one and charge one in its atomic
form of ion and mass two and charge one for the diatomic ion.
This determination of dihydrino hydrogen must then consist of
two measurements of the intensity ratio between mass one and mass
two peaks, one for a sample containing only normal hydrogen and
one for a sample containing both normal and abnormal hydrogen.
The assertion then is that these two measurements result in two
different intensity ratios, indicative that something is different
about the sample which results from the electrolysis with excess
enthalpy production.  I merely point out that "something different"
need not imply that the different sample contains dihydrinos,
unless and until every other possible difference has been
investigated.

Let us explore this question by considering possible known
influences on the observed intensity ratio resulting from the
ionization of hydrogen gas.  Two name a few: the operating history
of the ion source and general state of cleanliness, total operating
pressure and all the various partial pressures of whatever else is
present, the age of the filament, filament temperature,
accelerating potentials.  Just suppose that the normal hydrogen is
taken from a standard pure gas sample and the "funny" hydrogen
is collected from the electrolysis experiment.  Do the authors
offer a complete analysis of both samples as filtered?  This
simply is not a definitive measurement of anything.

The quote continues with: "Mass spectroscopy further distinguishes
a sample containing dyhydrino molecules from a sample containing
H2 by showing a different ion production efficiency as a function
of ionization potential and a different ion production efficiency
at a given ionization potential for the two samples.  High-
resolution mass spectroscopy shows two peaks for a mixture of
H2 and H2*."  My above remarks apply equally well to the
determination of ion production efficiency.  It is not something
that can be pinned down with any great precision.  That leaves
only the statement that two peaks have been resolved.  This is
a remarkable claim since the mass difference is not well determined
within the context of the dihydrino theory.  You see, there is
not just one subground state but rather there are many.
Overlooking that little hitch, how different can the two masses
be?  Just to pick a number, say 2 parts in 10,000.  At mass one
we should see peaks at mass 0.9998 and  1.0000.  Then at mass two
we should see 1.9996 and 2.0000, but what about 1.9998?  Do the
authors show the recorded mass spectrum showing these peaks?

Well after you have sorted through all complexities of mass
spectroscopy, you probably don't have a very definitive measurement
under the best of circumstances.  Since the authors are now
claiming that hydrinos can be ionized in an ordinary ion source
it more or less follows that the various electronic states could
be excited in a simple glow discharge.  The resulting light
could be analyzed using optical spectroscopy and the appearance
of unexplained lines could be definitive for establishing
unusual atomic species.  Oh, you say, "Suppose the dihydrino
simple reverts to normal hydrogen before you see any emission?"
Well, that brings up an interesting question doesn't it?
Let us go back to the mass spectroscopy.  We have this stuff
being fed into the ion source that is in a special subground state
that is say 200 keV below the normal ground state.  Now we ionize
it and mass analyze it, but the mass one ion is just a plain old
proton regardless of where it comes from.  Without that electron
there is no difference, so what are the two peaks seen in the
mass spectrograph?  Well you may think that just the extra 200 keV
that it takes to ionize this funny stuff will result in a peak
offset from normal atomic hydrogen by something equivalent to a 200
keV mass difference.  I don't believe it is that simple.  First off
just getting the stuff ionized would be difficult.  That is the
point of all the dancing around on ionization efficiencies.
However, ionization and acceleration are somewhat independent so
once you get it ionized the funny stuff makes the same peak as
plain hydrogen.

At mass two there are two protons and one electron in some sort of
state which could be an ordinary molecular ion state or a dihydrino
state, but what is that?  The theory that is supposed to justify
all this doesn't cover molecules or molecular ions, so you are free
to speculate.  That is to say there is absolutely no basis for
saying that any second peak observed is due to dihydrinos.
Basically Mills et al. seem to have forgotten that the ions for
which they claim to see mass differences cannot possibly be in the
same states that resulted in some extra energy release during
electrolysis. The mass change that they postulate took place simply
does not translate into an observable mass difference in the mass
spectrum by any direct, well understood means.  The basic problem
is that the process of ionization must undo the effect that they
are trying to detect.

To answer Robert's question,  these mass spec measurements are NOT
straight forward.  I am tempted to make some very rude remarks
about this paper and the journal that published it, but let's just
wait to see what others have to say.

Dick Blue










cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.21 / Richard Blue /  Addendum to: Mills exp 14 comments
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Addendum to: Mills exp 14 comments
Date: Sat, 21 May 1994 00:15:20 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Since posting my earlier message I have read remarks by Jed
Rothwell which would indicate that he and I are equally disadvantaged
by not having the facts concerning the operating parameters of the
Mills calorimeter.  His guess is that 40 watts results in a temperature
rise of 10 deg C while I estimated something more like 0.04 deg C.
Then there is the question of the time constant for a thermal mass
of 28 liters of water.  I merely wish to point out that these two
quantities are linked in a manor that is not favorable for making
precise measurements on a large scale system.  To gain sensitivity
for the calorimetry the obvious choice is to insulate the tank better
such that a larger temperature rise will result from a given heat
flux.  Jed confirms that the Mills tank is not well insulated so I
suggest that his estimate of 10 C per 40 watts of heat is too large.

The second variable to be considered is the heat capacity of 28 l
of water.  That's 4.18 X 28 X 10^3  joules per deg C, I believe.
The time constant is this number multiplied by the calorimeter
constant.  Using my estimate of 10^-3 deg/watt will result in
a time constant of 117 seconds.  If you go with Jed's estimate
the time constant is pushing 30,000 seconds.  If you use information
from John Logajan that temperature measurements good to 0.1 C
are considered adequate, that would indicate that 40 watts makes
at least a 1 deg rise.  In that case the time constant is
3000 seconds.  I think we have it surrounded!

As for the effect of long time constants on the calorimetry, I think
John's assessment is too simplistic.  It isn't just that calibrations
may never reach the correct equilibrium temperature.  Basically the
tank never reaches true equilibrium because there are too many possible
disturbances on a time scale that is short compared to that time constant.
I am also skeptical about the adequacy of the stiring by electrolysis.
I even wonder whether the distribution of electrolytic bubling throughout
the volume is uniform or stable over time.  And, of course, the calibration
is then something completely different.

I also wonder about the effect of pulsing the input current on a time
scale that is very short relative to the calorimetry time constant.
Are the calibrations done with a distributed, pulsed power input?

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.21 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Large Mills cell verification.
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Large Mills cell verification.
Date: Sat, 21 May 1994 00:15:19 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

John Logajan is correct.  There is what appears to me to be a well qualified
group other than McKubre which is attempting to verify the Mills experiment.
I sent them one of my thermoelectric devices to help them try to measure heat
flow out of their container.  I was impressed that they understood how to
measure heat in this experiment.  Unfortunately as of Maui they did not seem 
to find any.

Tom Droege

cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenDROEGE cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.19 /  jedrothwell@de /  CF SAFETY ISSUES!!! Important!
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CF SAFETY ISSUES!!! Important!
Date: Thu, 19 May 94 09:58:09 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

FEC@v2.rl.ac.uk (Frank Close) wrote:
 
     "Jed Rothwell and John Logajan have both implied that there is no danger
     lighting a match in the vicinity of loaded Pd."
 
GOOD HEAVENS NO! I did not imply that, I did not write that, and I sure did
not mean that. Let me set the record straight, in plain English:
 
     DO NOT LIGHT ANY MATCHES IN THE VICINITY OF LOADED PD. THAT IS A
     COLOSSALLY STUPID THING TO DO, UNLESS YOU ARE FULLY DECKED OUT IN SAFETY
     EQUIPMENT.
 
Don't do that unless you are wearing safety glasses, heavy gloves, and other
equipment. My Japanese friends who did that experiment, with a blow torch as
well as a match, wore helmets and other safety equipment. They performed the
experiment outside, away from other people. As I said, the cathodes "just
glowed" they did not blow up. I said I am not aware of any examples where Pd
loaded at any loading level rapidly degassed, exploded, fractured or did
anything else like that, but the stuff is dangerous anyway. DO NOT MESS WITH
IT. Don't put it in your pocket.
 
     "Jed because he knows of examples where nothing happened. . ."
 
Correction: Jed, because he knows of NO examples where ANYTHING untoward
happened, except at Noninsky's lab the other day, in an incident which is
still under investigation. There is a big difference. Jed knows lots and lots
of examples of things that can go wrong during CF experiments, including some
very dangerous things.
 
 
     "(are you sure the Pd was actually loaded with H in the first place?)"
 
Yes. Otherwise it would not have glowed so long afterwards. It would have
cooled down as rapidly as a hot nail will when you take it out of a
blacksmith's forge and put it on concrete.
 
 
     "Yet from direct experience in 89 we know that after electrolysis, if
     one removes loaded Pd, or even if the tip is exposed to the atmosphere,
     the Pd can glow red hot.
 
Of course! That's exactly what I said.
 
 
Frank Close also relates the following mind-boggling story:
 
     "In one case such a Pd rod was left on some 'handy wipe" tissue which
     ignited and an explosion occurred."
 
Okay, listen up everyone out there in the Cybernetic Continuum. Repeat after
me:
 
"I will not put hazardous, hot substances, like loaded palladium, soldering
irons, or burning coals on top of 'handy wipe' tissues, kleenex tissues,
toilet paper, typewriter paper, rags soaked in lighter fluid, CD ROMS or my
mother's best inlaid hardwood table. I will NOT put Pd or burning coals into
my hair, my pocket, or my mouth. Along the same lines, I will not check the
level of gasoline in my auto tank by holding a lighted match to see in there
better."
 
Got that? Those are VERY, VERY stupid things to do, so don't do them. Okay?
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenjedrothwell cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.20 / Ronald Bruck /  Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
     
Originally-From: bruck@mtha.usc.edu (Ronald Bruck)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.math,sci.ch,sci.bio,alt.sci.physics.plutonium
Subject: Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
Date: 20 May 1994 13:52:22 -0700
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA

In article <nnsge01.769429991@mailserv.zdv.uni-tuebingen.de> nnsge01@mai
serv.zdv.uni-tuebingen.de (Dale Gerdemann) writes:

[concerning the distinction between less and fewer]

>
>This is ridiculous. This distinction is rarely made by even the most
>educated speaker of standard American English. Surely you know that.
>

This is not ridiculous.  It is one of the most elementary and easy-to-
remember distinctions in the English language.  It is a sign of a LACK
of education to make this error in written English, and most of the people
I know do not make this error in spoken English--even at the expense of 
backtracking and correcting the verbal mistake.

The fact that most college graduates probably don't know the difference
is irrelevant.  Most college graduates aren't educated.

When I see someone write "different THAN" instead of "different FROM", or
use "it's" as a possessive, or misspell "kernel" or "separable", or fall 
into any number of similar traps which indicate that he hasn't been paying 
attention to what he's read, or that he doesn't read very much, or that he's 
never taken a decent writing course in his life, then I cannot help having
less respect for WHAT he writes.  (And yes, I mean HE, the universal pronoun.)

It's no good saying that form is irrelevant to content, because people who 
are careful with respect to content usually try to be respectful of form
as well.

--Ron Bruck




cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenbruck cudfnRonald cudlnBruck cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.20 / James Aspnes /  the pointlessness of grammar flames (Re: Politicians who
     
Originally-From: aspnes-james@cs.yale.edu (James Aspnes)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.math,sci.bio,alt.sci.physics.plutonium
Subject: the pointlessness of grammar flames (Re: Politicians who
oppose the metric system)
Date: 20 May 1994 17:34:32 -0400
Organization: Yale University Computer Science Dept., New Haven, CT 06520-2158

In article <2rj7u6$r4d@mtha.usc.edu>, Ronald Bruck <bruck@mtha.usc.edu> wrote:
>This is not ridiculous.  It is one of the most elementary and easy-to-
>remember distinctions in the English language.  It is a sign of a LACK
>of education to make this error in written English, and most of the people
>I know do not make this error in spoken English--even at the expense of 
>backtracking and correcting the verbal mistake.
>
>The fact that most college graduates probably don't know the difference
>is irrelevant.  Most college graduates aren't educated.

Steven Pinker, in his recent book _The Language Instinct_, points out
that nearly all of these pedantic rules of English grammar were
invented by writers of 18th-century grammar texts as a marketing ploy:
a grammar book that made finer distinctions between correct and
incorrect English was clearly the work of a more exacting and
better-educated grammarian. 

The purpose of this system, like the system of fashion that arose at
about the same time, was to give the newly-arrived snooty middle-class
parvenu types a way to look down on their "uneducated" former peers.
Sadly, this custom has become deeply embedded in our culture--- and
just as there are many people who will not look beyond the cut of a
man's suit when judging his character, there are just as many who are
more interested in how someone speaks than in what they have to say.
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenjames cudfnJames cudlnAspnes cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.20 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Thermacore uses magnetic mixers
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Thermacore uses magnetic mixers
Date: 20 May 94 04:40:10 GMT
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

John Logajan <jlogajan@skypoint.com> writes:
 
>They probably use magnetic stirrers in several cells, but in the data published
>in their 24 page set of viewgraphs, that experiment, according to my
>conversation with Bob Shaubach, used only electrolysis power for stirring.
 
Yes, right. I did not mean to imply that the previous study with less than
1/10 deg C variation was due to the stirrers. I meant that the very latest
work will have even better mixing. Thermacore told me the same thing they
told John: with the electrolysis bubble stirring alone, water temperature
is uniform. They measured at several locations and came to that conclusion.
Four watts of electrolysis in a container of that size sounds like enough,
it sounded to me as if they had enough amps to make vigorous bubbling.
 
Maybe the newer cells shown on TV have lower amps? So they need stirring.
It is fun to speculate. In any case, I have talked to them and seen pictures
and sample data, and they sound very professional and solid to me. They
do thermal engineering all day long; hence the name "Thermacore." I am sure
they know how to measure the difference between 4 watts and 40.
 
There has been some discussion here in another thread about the likelihood
of explosions and high heat in Pd from sudden outgassing. I posted a message
which seems to have dissappeared into the cybernetic continuum. Let me just
restate a few main points:
 
Pd loaded with hydrogen or deuterium IS DANGEROUS STUFF. DO NOT PLAY GAMES
WITH IT. I have not seen or heard of any solid evidence that it can undergo
explosive degassing, or a chemical explosion. I have talked to Japanese
researchers (who would prefer to remain anonymous) who deliberately tried
to stress some bulk samples of Pd. I doubt these were hyperloaded samples;
this was back in 1989, when few people knew how to achieve 90% loading. But
the research in Japan and at IMRA tells me that hyperloaded Pd does *not*
deload quickly, even when you heat it, a result that surprised everyone...
 
I digress. My point is: I do not think Pd can explode, but I know for a fact
it is unpredicable, it is likely to start fires, and it is dangerous. If you
were to drop, say, a fully loaded 5 gram sample down under your clothes by
accident, I expect it could give you a serious, painful burn. Who knows
MAYBE IT CAN EXPLODE. If you plant to experiment with it, for goodness sake
take proper safety precautions.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenjedrothwell cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.21 / Jed Rothwell /  SAFETY WARNING
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: SAFETY WARNING
Date: Sat, 21 May 1994 01:12:26 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG

I put a message in one end of "Fusion Digest" and it never came out the other.
Let me just repeat this one last time. Sorry to take up bandwidth, but this is
important.


Frank Close described how someone he knew put a loaded Pd cathode on some
paper. The cathode got hot spontaneously, the paper burned, and an accident
occurred. Please note! LOADED PALLADIUM WILL GET HOT SPONTANEOUSLY! During the
19th century a German company manufactured a Pd cigarette lighter using this
effect.

PLEASE, DO NOT PUT LOADED PD ON PAPER, WOOD, CLOTH, YOUR SKIN, YOUR HAIR OR
ANYPLACE ELSE. IT MIGHT BURN. BE CAREFUL WITH IT!

There are rumors and stories of rapid degassing and even exploding Pd. I have
not been able to confirm any of these stories. The studies and tests that I
know of show just the opposite: Pd always degasses slowly, in a controlled
fashion. That is why the German cigarette lighter worked, and that is why many
DOE engineers and others think that metal hydride storage would be idea for
hydrogen powered automobiles - because it is much safer than compressed gas.



John Logajan did a simulation of the Mills cell, which began:

     "Okay, I took the case of 28 liters of H2O and 40 pounds of Ni wire...

28 liters! Good Grief! I thought they were talking about those little 1 liter
cells. I have seen videos and photos of those, and I assumed they were now
getting 40 watts out of them. I had no idea last year's cells were still so
big. I have a photo from two years ago that shows a biggie cell in a 10 gallon
container. If we are talking about 28 liters of water and 40 pounds of nickel
then I take back everything I wrote - Tom Droege is right, that sucker will
take all day before it reaches a fixed temperature. It is like warming up a
fishpond in winter with a 100 watt heater. (I happen to have a large
ornamental fishpond in my house.)

Nevertheless, Tom's analysis of Srinivasan, Mizuno and all of the other
calorimetry at ICCF4 was a bad joke. Not even close.

- Jed

cudkeys:
cuddy21 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.20 / SCOTT CHASE /  Re: the pointlessness of grammar flames (Re: Politicians
     
Originally-From: sichase@csa5.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.math,sci.bio,alt.sci.physics.plutonium
Subject: Re: the pointlessness of grammar flames (Re: Politicians
who oppose the metric system)
Date: 20 May 1994 15:12 PST
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA

In article <2rjad8INN7s1@PINE.THEORY.CS.YALE.EDU>, aspnes-james@cs.yale.
du (James Aspnes) writes...
> 
>Steven Pinker, in his recent book _The Language Instinct_, points out
>that nearly all of these pedantic rules of English grammar were
>invented by writers of 18th-century grammar texts as a marketing ploy:
>a grammar book that made finer distinctions between correct and
>incorrect English was clearly the work of a more exacting and
>better-educated grammarian... 
>...just as there are many people who will not look beyond the cut of a
>man's suit when judging his character, there are just as many who are
>more interested in how someone speaks than in what they have to say.

If all of this is true, and assuming that you are not a hypocrit, then
why do *you* bother to write correctly?  I notice that you bothered to
put a hyphen in "better-educated" and "18th-century."  You made intelligent
use of a colon, ("ploy:"), and so on. Why do you bother with *these*
distinctions, but dismiss those used by others as snobbery?  You clearly
recognize the need to write clearly to make your own points, and you seem to
feel free to cricitize others, but you condemn others for pointing out 
when people misuse the language.   

-Scott
 -------------------                         Physics is not a religion.  If
Scott I. Chase                               it were, we'd have a much easier
SICHASE@CSA2.LBL.GOV                         time raising money. -Leon Lederman
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudensichase cudfnSCOTT cudlnCHASE cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.20 /  prasad /  Re: Another Stupid [Cold] Fusion Question
     
Originally-From: c1prasad@watson.ibm.com (prasad)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Another Stupid [Cold] Fusion Question
Date: 20 May 1994 18:30:50 GMT
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:

That was a safety test in Japan. There are unconfirmed reports that bulk
Pd can explode, but I have never heard any verification of that.
 
- Jed

-- 

About a year ago, I was discussing with a retired physicist, who said,
why not try it out yourself, after all Pd only costs $110 an oz?   So
I looked up yellow pages, made calls to place an order, and what happened
was, there were a couple of chemical companies making inquiries about
my employer, a perfectly innocent s/w entity, whether they had lab facilities
to handle hazmats, etc!  And all the while I thought it was a noble metal.

Later, on Compuserve, there was one posting (by Michael Day, if I remember
right) which said that the adsorbed hydrogen was sufficient to make it
glow, a fact known to those who played with Pd long before the birth of CF.
So at that point, I decided to deep freeze CF for a while.  Good thing,
because I read in ScAm and elsewhere, subsequently, about an explosion
in EPRI in early 1991(?).
 
__________ __________ __________ __________ __________ __________ __________

pragma options disclaimed

-- prasad		email: 71155.3116@compuserve.com, poll= 1/month.

Entropy isn't what it used to be...

What is mind?  No matter.
What is matter?  Never mind.
		-- Thomas Hewitt Key, 1799-1875

cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenc1prasad cudlnprasad cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.20 / Arnold Gill /  Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
     
Originally-From: gill@mala.bc.ca (Arnold G. Gill)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics
Subject: Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
Date: 20 May 94 14:52:12 -0700
Organization: Malaspina College

In article <2rdsml$ql8@riscsm.scripps.edu>, anthonyp@scripps.edu writes:
> 
> Well, that depends on the instrument, doesn't it?  If you are using a 
> pressure-sensitive instrument (spring-type, for example), then you are 
> mesuring weight.  If you are using a balance of any type (doctor's-office 
> scale or 3-beam balance, for example), you are measuring mass.

     No, you are still using weight.  A balance balances gravitational
torques.  If you wish to measure the mass directly, you have to use an
atribute of mass, namely the inertia.  Place the mass on a forced
oscillating table and determine the resonance frequency.

---
Arnold G. Gill -- astrophysician at play                        gill@mala.bc.ca
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudengill cudfnArnold cudlnGill cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.20 /  prasad /  Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
     
Originally-From: c1prasad@watson.ibm.com (prasad)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.math,sci.physics,sci.physics.f
sion,sci.bio,sci.ch
Subject: Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
Date: 20 May 1994 18:37:21 GMT
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

In article <nnsge01.769257911@mailserv.zdv.uni-tuebingen.de>, nnsge01@ma
lserv.zdv.uni-tuebingen.de (Dale Gerdemann) writes:
|> What's the big deal? In the U.S. you use the so-called imperial system
|> for buying apples at the supermarket and you use the metric system for
|> high school and college science courses. Then if you ever really need
|> to convert between the two systems, you use your computer or hand-held
|> calculator. Why should people be forced to use one tool for all
|> purposes. Do you suppose that people should also use C for all
|> programming tasks?
|> 

C - well, may be.  C++, YES!!!  Absolutely!!!!

|> 
|> Dale Gerdemann
|> Seminar fuer Sprachwissenschaft
|> Universitaet Tuebingen
|> dg@sfs.nphil.uni-tuebingen.de        
|> 
|> 

-- 
__________ __________ __________ __________ __________ __________ __________

#include <disclaim.all>

// prasad		email: 71155.3116@compuserve.com, poll= 1/month.

C programmers of the world, unite and upgrade to C++ version 3!
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenc1prasad cudlnprasad cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.21 / L Plutonium /  Re: NAMING OF THE ELEMENTS;MORE IMPORTANT,STANDARD NOTATION OF
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,alt.religion.kibology,sci.math,sci
physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.chem,sci.bio,alt.ascii-art
Subject: Re: NAMING OF THE ELEMENTS;MORE IMPORTANT,STANDARD NOTATION OF
Date: 21 May 1994 00:35:14 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In article <Colin_Douthwaite.f478@equinox.gen.nz>
Colin_Douthwaite@equinox.gen.nz (Colin Douthwaite) writes:

> Perhaps the simple answer to the lack of response to your polite request is
> that none of the ascii-artists have the required knowledge of nuclear
> physics or chemistry to do what you ask. Are you surprised ?  :-)
> 
> Bye,

Okay, I will try to post some books with pages of pictures of the
electron cloud of atoms. This has the handicap of asking an artist to
check out those pictures in a library near by.

But the 5f6 should not be that difficult because you only have to do
half and then it is a 180 degree symmetry for the other half.

Let me try to describe the below crude picture of the 5f6. It is a
cross section.
                        94th ELECTRON OF 231PU
               Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH ELECTRON

                  \ ::| :./.
                  .\::|::/.:
                     _ _
                    (:Y:)
                     - - 
                  ::/.|.\.:
                :: /.:| :\.:
                  /   |   \.
        One of those dots is the Sun with 9 smaller dots around it.
Look in a chemistry textbook or quantum physics textbook of the
electron cloud dot picture. 

The middle is circular with a equiangular Y. The lines are the nodes
and this middle portion looks like a steering wheel. The exact center
is a node and it is where the nucleus is. It would be nice to have sort
of like a enlargment of the nucleus showing 137 neutrons and 94 protons
as balls, but that is quite a lot to ask. The dots of the 5f6 electron
cloud are densest near the nucleus and become sparser the farther out
from the nucleus. There are 6 lobes but all I could do was have 6 lines
to indicate the lobes.
The dots further out are to represent the galaxies. A closer-in look
then the dots become stars. And a microscopic view close in of the 5f6
would show the Sun as a dot with the planets around it. And the highest
resolution would be life atoms and elements on Earth as the dots (mass
of the 94th electron of 231*94).
  I am asking too much of ascii but I could be nicely surprized. 
  And let it be known to any potential artist. That there is alot of
leeway in drawing the 5f6 because noone due to the Schroedinger
Equation can draw an exact 5f6. All drawings of the 5f6 are crude first
approximations.
  And let me add that in one book on spectroscopy the author I believe
was White with someone else shows a page with the 5f6 (using spinning
tops). And the ironic nature of this page is that it shows s, p, d, and
f orbitals. It shows many of these orbitals. But of all the orbitals
there stands out the 5f6 and what is so bizarre is that of all the
pictures on that page by White is that the 5f6 looks closest to a human
being. Could it be that the 5f6 of the Schroedinger equation has the
form of a human being?
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.21 / L Plutonium /  Re: NAMING OF THE ELEMENTS;MORE IMPORTANT,STANDARD NOTATION OF
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.chem,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: NAMING OF THE ELEMENTS;MORE IMPORTANT,STANDARD NOTATION OF
Date: 21 May 94 00:11:19 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In article <o74sjaE96VCN063yn@world.std.com>
moroney@world.std.com (Michael Moroney) writes:

> 
> Seems kind of kludgy to talk about a simple compound as (2*1) (32*16)(16*8)
>                                                              2             4
> rather than just H2SO4.
   Good word, kludgy, but this will be the new METRIC SYSTEM for
Chemistry and Physics. Because it is unambiguous. Take the example of
isotopes in that compound. My new system takes care of it. The old
system pretends as if all isotopes of an element are the same.
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.20 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Thermacore uses magnetic mixers
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Thermacore uses magnetic mixers
Date: Fri, 20 May 94 14:35:22 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Jorge Stolfi <stolfi@s1j.dcc.unicamp.br> writes:
 
>I wonder how much power the coil can pick up from the stirrer's
>magnetic field?
 
I don't know the answer, but I am sure the coil cannot pick up any more
power than it takes to drive the stirrer motor. That would be physically
impossible (and it would stop the thing dead, too! :})
 
I was not in the room with that particular stirrer, but the ones I have seen
in other laboratories are very low powered devices, like floppy disk motors.
I am sure they draw milliamps only. So the coil could not possibly pick up
even a watt from it.
 
Whatever the answer is, if the mixer creates any measurable energy in the
cell, it will be seen during calibration runs, when the stirrer is also used,
of course. Actually, we know for a fact that any stirrer will transfer most
of its energy to waste heat at the stirrer motor and to heat inside the cell
where the stirrer (a coated magnet) spins around, causing friction, heating
the water. I doubt very much that you could measure the heat of that friction
with ordinary laboratory equipment.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenjedrothwell cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.20 /  prasad /  Re: Thermacore uses magnetic mixers
     
Originally-From: c1prasad@watson.ibm.com (prasad)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Thermacore uses magnetic mixers
Date: 20 May 1994 18:49:51 GMT
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

In article <STOLFI.94May19201629@s1j.dcc.unicamp.br>, stolfi@s1j.dcc.uni
amp.br (Jorge Stolfi) writes:
|> 
|>     > [Jed Rothwell:] I would like to point out that the BBC / CBC
|>     > program showed some of [Thermacore's] smaller cells on a table,
|>     > and I noticed that they were equipped with magnetic stirrers,
|>     > which will eliminate any measurable thermal gradient.
|> 
|> Hm, isn't that the Mills-type setup, with a hefty Ni coil as the
|> cathode and K2CO3 electrolyte?
|> 
|> I wonder how much power the coil can pick up from the stirrer's
|> magnetic field?

Is there a reason for using coils, or helixes, as an electrode in
these CF experiments?  I've found a helical anode shown in P&F's
initially reported ones.

|> 
|> --stolfi
|> 
|> 

-- 

Very curious,

__________ __________ __________ __________ __________ __________ __________

pragma options disclaimed

-- prasad		email: 71155.3116@compuserve.com, poll= 1/month.

Entropy isn't what it used to be...

What is mind?  No matter.
What is matter?  Never mind.
		-- Thomas Hewitt Key, 1799-1875

cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenc1prasad cudlnprasad cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.20 / Ronald Bruck /  Re: the pointlessness of grammar flames (Re: Politicians
     
Originally-From: bruck@mtha.usc.edu (Ronald Bruck)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.math,sci.bio,alt.sci.physics.plutonium
Subject: Re: the pointlessness of grammar flames (Re: Politicians
who oppose the metric system)
Date: 20 May 1994 18:02:57 -0700
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA

In article <2rjad8INN7s1@PINE.THEORY.CS.YALE.EDU> aspnes-james@cs.yale.e
u (James Aspnes) writes:

>...there are just as many who are
>more interested in how someone speaks than in what they have to say.

No, in how he WRITES.  Written English is a powerful, subtle, finely 
discriminating communication medium which can convey incredibly varied shades
of meaning.  There may be people who are islands and communicate their ideas
to no one else--becoming a hermit is an ancient and honorable option, although
today hermits tend to live in cardboard boxes instead of crystal caves--but
most of us are in the business of COMMUNICATING OUR IDEAS.

Human beings are social creatures.  They interact with each other.  They wither
and die, or become twisted, if they cannot persuade.  Persuasion can be through
rhetoric, or it can be through the written word.

It is VERY DIFFICULT to write persuasively.  It is a finely tuned craft, which
can be learned only by reading widely and writing, writing, writing.  Sadly, it
is a craft which few now master, not only because they do not read, but because
standard English is now actively discriminated against in our schools.

I am distressed at the decline in math skills in the population, but not nearly
as distressed as I am at the DISASTROUS decline in the ability to communicate
in writing.  The revisionists who argue that the standards for written commun-
ication are irrelevant, because they were "advertising ploys" by grammarians
trying to sell grammar books, AND THEN PROPAGATE THEIR IDEAS INTO THE PUBLIC
SCHOOLS, with the result that they destroy not only the ability to write
coherently, but even the ability to organize and to THINK coherently, are
the worst enemies public education has today.

Mathematicians, at least, have NOT collaborated in the destruction of math
skills in our population!

Since this topic is now way off the charter of the newsgroup, I shall cease
responding, or carry on future correspondence only by e-mail.

--Ron Bruck

PS.  Does anyone disbelieve my remark that most college graduates today are
uneducated?  Go read this week's series of Doonesbury cartoons.  When it makes 
the funny pages, things are pretty far gone.


cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenbruck cudfnRonald cudlnBruck cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.21 / J Winterflood /  Re: Force vs. Mass
     
Originally-From: jwinter@earwax.pd.uwa.edu.au (John Winterflood)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Force vs. Mass
Date: Sat, 21 May 1994 03:52:23 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

>>If you use a balance in an inhomogeneous gravitational field, it will  
>>sit at zero with unequal masses on the pans.
>Where do you propose to get this inhomogeneous gravitational field over the 
>size of the balance such that it will have a significat effect; next to a 
>black hole or neutron star.

Our gradiometer group at the Uni of Western Australia make a balance that
can detect the the gravitational gradient change produced by moving a
cricket ball at about a metre (if I remember correctly). This type of thing
is routinely used in low flying aircraft for gravitational mineral surveys.

>>NB comments about friction in the balance bearings, ...
>Good balances surly use knife edges for this very reason.

They use a very thin web of elastic material (metal). Knife edges are far
too crude. They use squids to measure the deflection.
Sorry to continue an off subject - I'll drop my sig to save bandwidth.

cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenjwinter cudfnJohn cudlnWinterflood cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.21 / L Plutonium /  2 of 3, FAQ for sci.physics.fusion as of 21/05/1994
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: 2 of 3, FAQ for sci.physics.fusion as of 21/05/1994
Date: 21 May 1994 16:14:17 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

  If experimenters would switch fuel masses from heavy water and
palladium to that of a better fuel mass of liquified hydrogen and
helium and/or hydrogen and helium ionized gas just as matched by the
SUN and then applying either changing i or changing V, then RSNM
(radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization) will be seen with
predictable results.
	I assert that if these experiments are conducted with the view of
radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization, and not a process of
fusing atoms, not fusion which is in the other quantum dual of
StrongNuclear-Gravity Interaction. Then the experiments will become
clear and the results predictable.
	Yet the current physics community will continue to hang on to failed
ideas for it is a highly conservative community, severely toilet
trained, and slow to change their thinking, even though the evidence
builds up against them.   Professors pretend more than they understand.
Professors of physics are some of the most severely toilet trained
persons on Earth.  One only needs to read sci.physics and
sci.physics.fusion. By the way, sci.physics.research and
sci.math.research and now a newcomer sci.astro are to be completely
recycled by my successors. Pluto make done. At a point in the history
of science, break out the sweet sparkling champagne (1993 and 1994 are
good years). RECYCLE everything from those 3 mentioned newsgroups
out-of-existence starting with 12AUG1993 (the day I appeared). I make
these remarks to lead into the conservation of energy-mass. It is a
known fact of physics from experiment results that the conservation of
energy-mass is violated by virtual particles via the Uncertainty
Principle in QED. And as of the present time the physics community is
highly opposed to DiracUs suggestion in his book Directions in Physics 
 that the conservation of energy-mass is a falsehood.
 	 But it is reasonable expected behavior of the physics community, for
most people follow the crowd majority rather than follow the minority
who have hard evidence. A physics community would rather follow the
bandwagon of wrong ideas, rather than follow a wagon who has only a few
persons leading the way. This is human nature and let noone be fooled
that a science community is bandwagon long before it is the truth. I
refer to the scientific case of Aristarchus over 2200 years ago who
asserted the heliocentric system from hard evidence of measured
observables. I refer to epicycle theory which was false, yet it was THE
most long-lived science theories in recorded history. Democritus's
Atomic Theory only became respected after Dalton.  Sentiment and
religion carried the falsehood of the Ptolemy system for thousands of
years. Conservation of energy-mass will continue its popularity with
professors of physics, since most people feel better with the bandwagon
science before they accept hard evidence. Many posters of
sci.physics.fusion are bandwagon posters and I feel sorry for those new
readers who cannot distinguish that pollution and brainwashing.

	(6) The origin of the Sun and the planets in our Solar System, I
assert, is by radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization. Earth is
growing more massive every day, every hour, at a rate which is not
difficult to measure. The physics and astronomy community assigns this
known fact of the growing accretion of the Earth to only one account,
that of the sweep of Earth in its orbit collecting cosmic gas, dust,
and objects. I assert that Earth is growing more massive daily by two
accounts, one from the outer space planetary sweep, but more
importantly from the other account of rsnm occurring in the interior of
Earth induced through the changing electric current i and changing
electric potential V inside Earth. 	When astronomers try to reconcile
the account figure for Earth's daily mass accretion from cosmic sweep
alone, it is not enough. I assert that the daily mass accretion by
Earth is equal to the EarthUs accretion from outer space plus EarthUs
internal accretion by rsnm.  The outer space accretion is small in
comparison to the internal accretion.
 	Sea floor spreading, continental drift are a consequence of
radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization in the EarthUs center.
The Earth of the past was a smaller planet explaining well Wegener's
Gondwanaland and Continental Drift theory.
	The current conventional community of astronomers and physicists
subscribe to some cosmic gaseous cloud approximately 5-10 billion years
ago from which the protosun and protoearth formed.  This is what
conventional astronomy panders off.
	The present physics community believes that the daily mass accretion
of the Earth must all come from the cosmic sweep of gas, dust, and
objects. It is so sad that physics and astronomy subscribe so much to
interstellar gas. They go even further by subscribing importance to
intergalactic gas. They wish to explain the origin of our Sun and our
planets to a primordial gas cloud. It is so sad that modern physics has
reached the heights of quantum theory, and yet the accepted explanation
to such important questions as the origin of planets and the origin of
the stars is still back in the caveman-realm-of-thought of dust and gas
clouds. Readers must ask themselves whether gas clouds should be a
reasonable science explanation for much in physics and astronomy.
Cosmic gas cloud hypothesis is highly suspect. 
	The real truth I posit for the origin of planets and stars, and again
I am ahead of my time, is that the Sun is a dot of the Schroedinger
wave equation. A dot of the probability density distribution, a dot of
the electron cloud for the 94th electron of the 231 Plutonium Atom
Totality.  Dots of the electron cloud are locuses where large quantity
of radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization occur. Protosun and
Protoearth started out as a dot of the Schroedinger wave equation,i.e.,
a collection of atoms, which grew via rsnm to our presently observed
Sun and planet Earth. This again leads into my revolutionary theory of
the Plutonium Atom Totality, and I will not stray afield here but refer
the interested reader to my enclosed textbook for more understanding.
	(7) The anomalous facts concerning the planet Mercury. The planet
Mercury has 2 outstanding anomalous facts: 1) huge iron core and 2) a
magnetic field. Conventional physics and astronomy are dumbfounded in
explaining these two facts. But an easy and clear explanation is rsnm.
The planet Mercury as all planets are dots of the electron cloud of the
94th electron of plutonium. Dots of the Schroedinger wave equation is
where electromagnetic potential and current exists, and wherever it
exists there occurs rsnm.
	(8) The case of the light chemical elements emitted from the middle of
the planet Earth, e.g., helium, lithium are inexplicable by science
previous to 1990, in that these elements should have escaped a long
time ago, yet they continue to spew forth in steady amount. The
community of physicists and geologists have no explanation. I have the
explanation with radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization, since
rsnm makes neutrons which some decay into hydrogen and rsnm takes some
hydrogen and forms helium and with helium rsnm sometimes forms lithium.
So there is a continual production and escape of newly formed light
elements from the middle of the Earth.
	(9) The case for the light chemical elements and their anomalous
quantity found in stars. The light elements of lithium, beryllium, and
boron are found in too large of a proportion in stars to be accountable
by fusion. For stars are so hot that these light elements would have
been burned-off and the theoretical rate of creation by hot fusion of
new lithium, beryllium, and boron are too low to what is actually
observed. Here again is another disagreement of hot fusion theory with
respect to the observables, i.e., more lithium, beryllium, and boron in
stars than what there should be. And yet there are not enough light
elements in the intergalactic regions of space. In summary, where the
light elements are found in abundance-- hot stars they should not be
there, and where they are not found in abundance-- intergalactic space,
there should be more of them there.
	The explanation for these anomalous facts is easy once radioactive
spontaneous neutron materialization is seen as the active working
process. In intergalactic space there is little to no changing electric
potential V or changing current flow i, and so there is little neutron
materialization to form these light elements. But in stars, it is not
so much that they are hot and burn off the light elements but that
stars continually create via neutron materialization these light
elements because of the highly changing V and i of star plasmas.
	(10) The cosmic abundance elements, and the uniform distribution of
the chemical elements in the observable universe in the proportions
that they are observed is strong evidence in support for the process of
radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization. Again the physics
community explains the uniformity due to gaseous intergalactic clouds
as a result of supernovas. But supernova are rare events.
	(11) The observation that when electric current i flowing through
wires or through a light bulb filament or incandescent lamps are hot
and eventually the wires or filaments or other parts wear-out due to
the high temperatures. Those high temperatures are a result of
radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization when i  varies. And
before these teachings, it was inexplicable as to how atoms of zinc
Z=30 contaminated copper Z=29 wire, or atoms of rhenium Z=75
contaminated light bulb filaments or heating coils made of tungsten
Z=74 in these materials after running electric current in the
materials. With rsnm it is a direct consequence that a copper wire will
have atoms of zinc, and a tungsten filament or heater will have atoms
of rhenium after running  a changing electric current i through,
because there is radioactive growth of some of the original atoms
because of rsnm.  Check chemical analysis of spent electric wires and
filaments by General Electric, Philips, Siemens, et al.
	(12) Although the missing 2/3 count of neutrinos from the Sun is not
direct evidence of spontaneous neutron materialization, it is direct
evidence that the currently accepted theory of hot fusion is incorrect.
Why is there a missing 2/3 count? I contend that there is not a missing
count of neutrinos. The mistake the physics community makes is that the
4 forces are misapplied in the theory. That when strong nuclear and
gravity are considered to the 100% exclusion of radioactivities and
electromagnetism then the measured neutrino count accords with theory.
Vice versa, if radioactivities and electromagnetism are considered to
the 100% exclusion of strong nuclear and gravity, then the actual
measured neutrino count accords with theory. The 2/3 missing neutrino
count from the Sun is indirect support for spontaneous neutron
materialization since the neutrino count of the Sun puts the Sun and
all stars, all plasma physics into quantum physics. The 4 interactions
(forces) of physics have to be treated as 2 groups of 2 interactions as
quantum complementary duals. The Complementary Principle states: The
wave and the particle aspects of a quantum entity are both necessary
for a complete description. However, both aspects cannot be revealed
simultaneously in a single experiment. The aspect that is revealed is
determined by the nature of the experiment being done.  The 1/3 actual
count of neutrinos from the Sun accords well with theory once the
theory makes predictions from the use of either SN and G, excluding R
and EM, and vice versa.
	Consider hot fusion of the Sun. And consider the neutrinos coming from
the Sun. What is the nature of the neutrinos emitted through hot fusion
from the Sun? What is the nature of hot fusion? Is hot fusion partially
that of strong nuclear force, radioactivities force, electromagnetic
force, and the force of gravity all at once? Or is hot fusion only the
strong nuclear and gravity forces to the exclusion of the radioactive
and electromagnetic forces? If one sets-up experimental apparatuses
which measure neutrinos emitted from the Sun via the strong nuclear and
gravity forces to the exclusion of radioactivities and electromagnetic
forces, then that count will by different from the count theorized when
all 4 forces are considered at once.

	I end evidences with the above 12. The worst difficulty in verifying
my claim of radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization is in
overcoming the huge prejudices, sentiment, and the dead weight inertia
of the current physics community at large. A physics community along
with a math community is composed mainly of professors. Professors of a
subject are not the best persons in their field. The best persons of a
subject field are the geniuses of that field.  Professors only teach
what the geniuses of the subject field have set down. Geniuses of
physics possess physics intuition, likewise for math. Professors of
physics have little to no physics intuition and follow a herdlike
mentality. Professors of physics are good at regurgitating physics and
doing what they were designed to do, teach the subject. But lacking
physics intuition they can not create new physics nor see what is
correct or wrong with the current physics. Whenever something new in
physics comes up, the first instinct of a physics professor is to
remain with the bandwagon in opposition to the new physics. Their
physics career usually starts and ends with regurgitation, never any
important newly created ideas. In the case of physics, most of the
geniuses became professors of physics only incidentally, I repeat
that-- only incidentally, to that of doing their physics work. Many of
the greatest physicists were never even professors of physics such as
Kepler, Newton, Gauss, Maxwell, Poincare, P. Jordan when they did their
creative work. Only after it was obvious to the community of physics
professors that these men were not like themselves, regurgitators of
the subject, but true physicists, did the community put forth the
pretenses that they were good old professors all along, or try to make
them into their mold. There are more clear cut examples in math than
physics.  The best two examples are the cases of Ramanujan and Galois.
The important point I am getting to is that the community of physics
professors is against cold fusion not because of the experimental
results shown to date, but more so out of sentiment, out of ignorance,
and most important out of the politics for more government funds to
continue with hot fusion and laser inertial confinement fusion.  A
professor of physics will stick to the old physics like a goof ball
sticks to glue. I make this statement in order to prepare the reader
long before I discuss violation of conservation of energy-mass. 
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.21 / L Plutonium /  The FAQ for superconductivity 21/05/1994
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: The FAQ for superconductivity 21/05/1994
Date: 21 May 1994 16:20:20 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

  Ever notice that new superconductive material is discovered at a hot
pace. Yet the correct theory of understanding is lagging, is in the
dark ages, is in the back of the cave. No wonder. The reason is because
noone has taken the most logical steps forward from here. Noone has
checked-out whether superconductivity is really 0 electrical
resistance. Or if they have, they are being very silent about it. No
wonder, for superconductivity is a technology worth billions, not
millions of the US microscopic dollars (welfare parasite economies). 
  Noone has taken the logical steps of setting-up the experimental
apparatus of checking the known different superconducting materials as
to electrical resistance. According to my theory of superconductivity,
all of those different superconducting materials will all, each, have
different electrical resistances. Very small electrical resistance, to
be sure, because it is the flow of neutrinos in superconductivity. And
whereas silver is the highest element conductor of electricity PLUS THE
HIGHEST REFLECTOR OF PHOTONS. So also, the highest superconductor will
be the highest reflector of neutrinos.
  The physics of superconductivity will not progress by much until the
statement of 0 resistivity is checked and seen for the incorrectness,
the error that it is. And the theory will not progress until different
materials have checked and verified different resistivities at the
superconducting state. 
  Once different superconducting materials are checked and found to
have different resistivities. Then the physics of superconductivity can
progress by using those different numbers to verify and math model the
superconducting state.
  The following below is what I believe is the correct theory of
superconductivity. This material is copyrighted and patent pending to
the Plutonium Atom Foundation. The reason I can not be more explicit is
because I am hindered by not having a huge research lab of
superconducting materials to produce the numbers myself. The purpose of
this broadcast is to inform and make the science community aware of the
correct path to take.

   Many to most working scientists now see the BCS theory as not much
more than a heuristic device. Although one salvageable feature of the
BCS is the notion of *many atoms behaving as though it were one atom*. 
    I believe I am on to the correct theory of superconductivity. I
anticipate changes but for the most part I believe what follows below
will be the correct theory of superconductivity, once refined and
turned into math equations. I will need the math data in order to
figure-out the equations. Since I do not have a superconductor in my
backyard, and the liquid helium et al ready and available at my
disposal. I cannot anticipate delivering those equations unless I have
the number data for various superconducting materials. No
superconductor has 0 resistivity according to my theory. All
superconductors have different resistivities as per different chemical
composition. The correct theory of superconductivity, will hence, be
got from analysis of those different numbers. Those different numbers
will eventually lead to a generalized Ohm's law which will include the
superconductive state.
So I ask for any data from those privileged person of such data.
  This is the description of the correct theory of superconductivity
(broadscale patents pending to Plutonium Atom Foundation (which will
subsume, or
supercede the Nobel Foundation.))

  The 4 quantum interactions of physics are quantum duals. These are
the 4 interactions (1) strong nuclear, (2) gravitation, (3)
radioactivities, (4) electromagnetism.
  Just as in QM, where particle is dual to wave and written as such.

             particle-wave. 

The 4 interactions are pairwise duals as follows.

            strongnuclear-gravitation

            radioactivities-electromagnetism

  Note to physics readers that radioactivities comprises much more than
the simple-minded electro-weak. The electro-weak interaction, before
these teachings, was merely the tip of the iceberg, where the majority
of the iceberg is underwater. 
  Radioactivities comprises the electro-weak but also spontaneous-
neutron-materialization-from-out-of-nowhere. Radioactivities, after
these teachings, is almost equal to the strong nuclear interaction. And
in fact the two pairwise duals above are equal in interaction strengh. 
  In my theory, radioactivities interaction comprises these three (1)
radioactive decay (2) radioactive growth (3) spontaneous neutron
materialization.

  The 4 interactions are quantum duals. And so strong nuclear is dual
to gravity, but I am not concerned with that.    
   And Radioactivities is dual to Electromagnetism. Since
RADIOACTIVITIES is dual to ELECTROMAGNETISM,
then one can explain superconductivities in two ways. One in terms of
electron flow and photon carriers. But one can explain
superconductivity just in terms of radioactivities with neutrinos. And
in fact, with the recent reifenschweiler radiation supports this model
that in cold temperature conditions, a material switches from
electromagnetism to radioactivities.
  In my model, for electromagnetism, I see electrons associated with
the Faraday Lines of Force by photon carriers. The Faraday lines of
Force are what I call the carrier of the signal. And it is the carrier
which determines the resistivity of the material. In my theory,
electrons moving involves associated photons.
  So then in my theory, I must take into account the numerous Collapses
of
the Wavefuntion. It is the many Collapses of the Wavefunction that has
made the quest for the correct theory of superconductivity such a
monster. To give an example, one collapse of the wavefunction is the
"putting of a specific electric current, amperes, into the
superconductor." Another collapse of the wavefunction is the registered
and observed temperature, such as mercury at 4K. Another collapse of
the wavefunction is the known chemistry of the superconducting
material. And another is the observation of how many amperes current
flows out of the superconducting material. One must list all collapses
of the wavefunction in order to arrive at and understand a correct
theory and  hope to figure-out the math equations for
superconductivity.
  
   According to my theory, *at very low temperatures all
superconducting
substances act or behave as if it were one atom*. For example, the many
atoms of mercury at 4k are no longer many atoms of mercury, but
instead, just *ONE Superconducting Atom*. Hence this frozen mercury is
one atom which has many electrons in a filled quantum state.  The low
temperature causes this quantum state. Now one must think of all of the
electrons of this ONE Atom and the quantum mechanics of this "filled
state." One can picture that a strip of superconducting mercury at 4k
is ONE Atom which has perhaps 10^22 electrons and the same number of
protons.

   When more electrons are attempted to be added to this frozen one
atom of superconducting mercury and since it is in a "filled state"
those new
electrons are switched into the radioactivities interaction as a stream
of beta (electrons) particles and the carrier for the stream of beta
electrons is no longer photons of the Faraday Lines of Force, but
instead the carriers are switched to  neutrinos. 
  Thus, at the initial end where electric current is put into the
superconductor of ONE Atom, the ONE Atom electron states are full, and
trying to put more electrons into this one huge superconducting atom of
frozen mercury, what happens is that the ONE Atom radioactively emits a
Beta
electron stream of current out the other end in the form of beta
electron decay which had been carried through the ONE Atom mercury
strip with only the resistance of neutrinos. 
   One must picture various Collapses of the Wavefunction as I have
described above. If the current was kept flowing in the superconducting
material without escape, that is, stored within the superconductor such
as a SUPERCONDUCTOR RING STORAGE, then the resistance of the
superconducting
material, the ONE Atom, is not what is generally stated in every
textbook that I have seen, as 0 resistance. The resistance of the
superconductor is not 0, (not zero.) But rather there is a very small
positive resistance which correlates with the carrier of the current,
the neutrinos.
Different superconductors have different resistivity.   Silver
resistivity Ohm x m is 1.62 x 10^-8 at 293K and for copper at 293K  is
1.69 x10^-8. The various new ceramic superconductors and the old known
ones, and the buckyball superconductors, I hypothesize, when
experimentally checked will all show different positive number
resistivities which are close to zero, but not equal to zero. It is the
math data for these various small positive number resistivities for
different superconducting materials which will derive the equation of
superconductivity.
  As to whether a room temperature superconductor is possible and what
material would it be made of? These questions can be answered because
once it is known that neutrinos are in fact the carriers of
superconductive currents then chemical materials will be manufactured
for that purpose.
  The equation for superconductivity will be a generalized Ohm's Law,
and
derive Ohm's Law as a particular case. The equation (very ugly, and far
worse than the Schroedinger equation), will have a fall-out that silver
is the
highest quantum reflector of photons, the carrier of electric current
for conductors at room temperature and silver is the highest conductor.
Likewise, this generalized Ohm's Law will show what material has the
highest quantum reflection for neutrinos, and hence the highest
superconductor material.

  What I need now are the math data to show that this is the correct
theory of superconductivity. I need the superconductivity data of loss
of current because my theory predicts that it is not 0 resistivity but
a very small positive number. And those experimental small positive
number resistivities, I intuit will match the resistivity of neutrinos
flowing in said material.  And neutrino resistivities will be different
for the new higher transition temperature ceramic materials. That the
resistivity of flow of current in a superconducting material will match
the resistivity of neutrinos within the material. Such a match *by
math* will imply that electrons flowing in a current, upon reaching a
superconductor material will switch into neutrino carriers and flow out
the other end of the superconductor as a stream of beta decay electrons
of almost but not quite equal amperes as what went initially into the
superconductor.
At the other end the current flow is back to usual with photon
carriers.
  One support for this theory is that neutrinos have both the
characteristics of electrons, spin 1/2, and photons, by traveling at
the speed of light. In other words, neutrinos are anyon particles.
  Another support for this theory is that of all particles, only
neutrinos have the characteristics for being able to travel through
matter with the resistivity found in superconductors. No other particle
travels in
materials the way neutrinos do, which matches the superconductivity
condition. So by process of elimination, the neutrino is the best
candidate particle to yield superconductive results. 

LP                         94th ELECTRON OF 231PU
               Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH ELECTRON

                  \ ::| :./.
                  .\::|::/.:
                     _ _
                    (:Y:)
                     - - 
                  ::/.|.\.:
                :: /.:| :\.:
                  /   |   \.
        One of those dots is the Sun with 9 smaller dots around it.
Look in a chemistry textbook or quantum physics textbook of the
electron cloud dot picture. 
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.21 / John Logajan /  Re: Thermacore uses magnetic mixers
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Thermacore uses magnetic mixers
Date: 21 May 1994 13:13:47 GMT
Organization: Sky Point Communications, Inc.

prasad (c1prasad@watson.ibm.com) wrote:
: Is there a reason for using coils, or helixes, as an electrode in
: these CF experiments?  I've found a helical anode shown in P&F's
: initially reported ones.

The use of coiled wire is primarily due to material availability.  In the
Nickle case, you want a lot of surface area.  So you can either get sheets
or foils or a long piece of wire.  Wire is probably a lot more readily
available and is easy to form to the shape needed to fit in your cell --
without a lot of cutting and welding, etc.

As for the helix platinum anode structure in P+F cells, again Pt is readily
available in wire form.  They also wanted to have a uniform electrical
gradient at the Pd cathode surface.  So wrapping the wire around the length
of the Pd rod makes a more or less equidistant (through the electrolyte)
construction from a shortest distance point on the Pd rod to a point on
the Pt wire.

--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com -- 612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills  MN 55112 USA           -


cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.21 / Mark North /  Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
     
Originally-From: north@watop.nosc.mil (Mark North)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.math,sci.ch,sci.bio
Subject: Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
Date: Sat, 21 May 1994 15:03:53 GMT
Organization: NCCOSC RDT&E Division, San Diego, CA

bruck@mtha.usc.edu (Ronald Bruck) writes:

>In article <nnsge01.769429991@mailserv.zdv.uni-tuebingen.de> nnsge01@ma
lserv.zdv.uni-tuebingen.de (Dale Gerdemann) writes:

>[concerning the distinction between less and fewer]

>>
>>This is ridiculous. This distinction is rarely made by even the most
>>educated speaker of standard American English. Surely you know that.
>>

>This is not ridiculous.  It is one of the most elementary and easy-to-
>remember distinctions in the English language.  It is a sign of a LACK
>of education to make this error in written English, and most of the people
>I know do not make this error in spoken English--even at the expense of 
>backtracking and correcting the verbal mistake.

>The fact that most college graduates probably don't know the difference
>is irrelevant.  Most college graduates aren't educated.

>When I see someone write "different THAN" instead of "different FROM", or
>use "it's" as a possessive, or misspell "kernel" or "separable", or fall 
>into any number of similar traps which indicate that he hasn't been paying 
>attention to what he's read, or that he doesn't read very much, or that he's 
>never taken a decent writing course in his life, then I cannot help having
>less respect for WHAT he writes.  (And yes, I mean HE, the universal pronoun.)

>It's no good saying that form is irrelevant to content, because people who 
>are careful with respect to content usually try to be respectful of form
>as well.

Very well put and I agree completely. Now let's talk about bring and take,
the misuse of which makes one sound even more ignorant than less/fewer.

Mark




cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudennorth cudfnMark cudlnNorth cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.21 / Ron Maimon /  Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
     
Originally-From: rmaimon@husc9.Harvard.EDU (Ron Maimon)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.math,sci.ch,sci.bio
Subject: Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
Date: 21 May 1994 20:14:10 GMT
Organization: Harvard University, Cambridge, MA

In article <north.769532633@watop>, north@watop.nosc.mil (Mark North) writes:
|> bruck@mtha.usc.edu (Ronald Bruck) writes:
|> 
|> >This is not ridiculous.  It is one of the most elementary and easy-to-
|> >remember distinctions in the English language.  It is a sign of a LACK
|> >of education to make this error in written English, and most of the people
|> >I know do not make this error in spoken English--even at the expense of 
|> >backtracking and correcting the verbal mistake.
|> 
|> >The fact that most college graduates probably don't know the difference
|> >is irrelevant.  Most college graduates aren't educated.
|> 
|> >When I see someone write "different THAN" instead of "different FROM", or
|> >use "it's" as a possessive, or misspell "kernel" or "separable", or fall 
|> >into any number of similar traps which indicate that he hasn't been paying 
|> >attention to what he's read, or that he doesn't read very much, or that he's 
|> >never taken a decent writing course in his life, then I cannot help having
|> >less respect for WHAT he writes.  (And yes, I mean HE, the universal pronoun.)
|> 
|> >It's no good saying that form is irrelevant to content, because people who 
|> >are careful with respect to content usually try to be respectful of form
|> >as well.
|> 
|> Very well put and I agree completely. Now let's talk about bring and take,
|> the misuse of which makes one sound even more ignorant than less/fewer.
|> 

What a snotty bunch of assholes!

You idiots probably couldn't appreciate good writing if it bit you on the
neck. Ever read any Kerouac? Any stuff by Kurt Vonnegut? or do you spend
all your time in the bathroom jerking off to Strunk and White?

It's people like you that try to hide the very small things you have
to say behind superbig words and pompous style up your ass

--
Ron Maimon

 ------------------------------------------------------------------
     Loneliness is not a phase
                                 - Layne Staley
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenrmaimon cudfnRon cudlnMaimon cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.20 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Re: Mills excess heat (?)
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Mills excess heat (?)
Date: 20 May 94 11:11:15 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

This evidently did not get out when posted earlier, so I'll try once more:

Reply to Mitch:  "and also *claims* of excess power with closed cells."
  is what you asked for.
Date of letter:  January 25, 1994

I would finally like to emphasize Prof. Oriani's conclusion about these
cold-fusion-excess-heat experiments:

"Obviously, there can be other experimental problems, and I am frustrated
by the paucity of expeirimental details given by  Mills, Bush, etc.,
so that one cannot make a careful assessment of their claims."

--Steven Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenjonesse cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.20 /  jonesse@physc1 /  McKubre/Srinivasan expt.: No excess heat
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: McKubre/Srinivasan expt.: No excess heat
Date: 20 May 94 11:16:21 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

In article <2rg0cb$8qs@shadow.skypoint.net>, 
jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) writes:
> DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov wrote:
> : I am not inclined to spend any more time on the scaled up experiment since I
> : know of funded work which is checking those results.  So far, the funded work
> : (as of the Maui conference) has not been able to find excess heat.  I think 
> : they have almost a duplicate of Experiment 14 from the current Mills paper.  
> 
> On page 73 of the May 1994 issue of "Cold Fusion" Magazine, McKubre and
> Srinivasan announce that they are going to team up at SRI and run a series of
> experiments on the Mills system which will not only test for excess heat
> but give clues as to the process.  The experiment was started in March,
> so I guess they have had 1-2 months now.
> 
> Haven't heard any preliminary/final results, though.
> 

I have, from a colleague at EPRI:  they found *apparent* excess heat before
taking recombination into account.  Then McKubre and Srinivasan checked the
evolving gases, and sure enough, *all* the excess heat was accounted for by
recombination of hydrogen and oxygen!

Now let's see whether the "Cold Fusion" magazine, have specifically called
attention to the Srinivasan-McKubre experiment, has the responsibility to
publish the (negative) results. 

--Steven Jones

cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenjonesse cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.21 / a revill /  Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
     
Originally-From: alyosha@sagapo.demon.co.uk (alexander revill)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.math,sci.bio
Subject: Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
Date: Sat, 21 May 1994 20:14:11 +0000
Organization: Myorganisation

In article <2rlq2i$8pj@scunix2.harvard.edu>
           rmaimon@husc9.Harvard.EDU "Ron Maimon" writes:

> Xref: demon sci.physics.fusion:2178 sci.math:11774 sci.bio:3170
> Path: sagapo.demon.co.uk!demon!uknet!EU.net!howland.reston.ans.net!
> europa.eng.gtefsd.com!MathWorks.Com!noc.near.net!das-news.harvard.edu!
> husc-news.harvard.edu!husc.harvard.edu!husc9!rmaimon
> Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.math,sci.ch,sci.bio
> Subject: Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
> Message-ID: <2rlq2i$8pj@scunix2.harvard.edu>
> From: rmaimon@husc9.Harvard.EDU (Ron Maimon)
> Date: 21 May 1994 20:14:10 GMT
> Sender: rmaimon@husc9 (Ron Maimon)
> References: <2rfat7$8jp@scunix2.harvard.edu> <2rgina$e4a@riscsm.scripps.edu>   
>  <nnsge01.769429991@mailserv.zdv.uni-tuebingen.de> <2rj7u6$r4d@mtha.usc.edu>
>  <north.769532633@watop>
> Distribution: world
> Organization: Harvard University, Cambridge, MA
> NNTP-Posting-Host: scws9.harvard.edu
> Lines: 42
> 
> In article <north.769532633@watop>, north@watop.nosc.mil (Mark North) writes:
> |> bruck@mtha.usc.edu (Ronald Bruck) writes:
> |> 
> |> >This is not ridiculous.  It is one of the most elementary and easy-to-
> |> >remember distinctions in the English language.  It is a sign of a LACK
> |> >of education to make this error in written English, and most of the people
> |> >I know do not make this error in spoken English--even at the expense of 
> |> >backtracking and correcting the verbal mistake.
> |> 
> |> >The fact that most college graduates probably don't know the difference
> |> >is irrelevant.  Most college graduates aren't educated.
> |> 
> |> >When I see someone write "different THAN" instead of "different FROM", or
> |> >use "it's" as a possessive, or misspell "kernel" or "separable", or fall 
> |> >into any number of similar traps which indicate that he hasn't been paying 
> |> >attention to what he's read, or that he doesn't read very much, or that
>  he's 
> |> >never taken a decent writing course in his life, then I cannot help having
> |> >less respect for WHAT he writes.  (And yes, I mean HE, the universal
>  pronoun.)
> |> 
> |> >It's no good saying that form is irrelevant to content, because people who 
> |> >are careful with respect to content usually try to be respectful of form
> |> >as well.
> |> 
> |> Very well put and I agree completely. Now let's talk about bring and take,
> |> the misuse of which makes one sound even more ignorant than less/fewer.
> |> 
> 
> What a snotty bunch of assholes!
> 
> You idiots probably couldn't appreciate good writing if it bit you on the
> neck. Ever read any Kerouac? Any stuff by Kurt Vonnegut? or do you spend
> all your time in the bathroom jerking off to Strunk and White?
> 
> It's people like you that try to hide the very small things you have
> to say behind superbig words and pompous style up your ass
> 
> --
> Ron Maimon
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>      Loneliness is not a phase
>                                  - Layne Staley
> 
Sir

I notice you have forgotten to terminate your ass with a full stop. If we all
made fewer grammatical mistakes, and used fewer rude words, there'd be less
aggravation on the net. It's that sort of thing that makes a bunny retreat down
its warren with a volume of Jane Austen :-)

Signed Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells 
-- 
+-------------------------------------------------+
|  alexander revill  alyosha@sagapo.demon.co.uk   |
| "some pray for gold, others for boundless land. |
|  I pray to delight my fellow citizens"          |
|            Pindar, Nemean VIII. 37-38           |
+-------------------------------------------------+
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenalyosha cudfnalexander cudlnrevill cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.21 /  bckirkup@husc. /  Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
     
Originally-From: bckirkup@husc.harvard.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.math,sci.bio
Subject: Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
Date: Sat, 21 May 1994 21:37:03 GMT
Organization: Harvard University Science Center


>You idiots probably couldn't appreciate good writing if it bit you on the
>neck. Ever read any Kerouac? Any stuff by Kurt Vonnegut?


Here I must interject something.  Basically, there is one problem here.  
This is supposed to be a group of SENSIBLE, SCIENTIFIC minds, not a bunch 
of "artsy," "sophisticated," people.  We don't read _junk_ like Vonnegut, 
given the choice of basically anything else short of a tabloid.  If you 
consider him good writing, try reading a real book sometime.  It would be 
enlightening, if not mind bending.  Otherwise, get your filthy mouth and 
maladjusted mind (dare we call it such?) off this news group.  

cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenbckirkup cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.21 / a revill /  Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
     
Originally-From: alyosha@sagapo.demon.co.uk (alexander revill)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.math,sci.bio
Subject: Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
Date: Sat, 21 May 1994 21:03:39 +0000
Organization: Myorganisation

In article <bckirkup.179.2DDE7EFF@husc.harvard.edu>
           bckirkup@husc.harvard.edu  writes:

> Xref: demon sci.physics.fusion:2182 sci.math:11782 sci.bio:3172
> Path: sagapo.demon.co.uk!demon!uknet!pipex!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ncar!
> hsdndev!husc-news.harvard.edu!bckirkup.student.harvard.edu!bckirkup
> Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.math,sci.bio
> Subject: Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
> Message-ID: <bckirkup.179.2DDE7EFF@husc.harvard.edu>
> From: bckirkup@husc.harvard.edu
> Date: Sat, 21 May 1994 21:37:03 GMT
> References: <2rfat7$8jp@scunix2.harvard.edu> <2rgina$e4a@riscsm.scripps.edu>   
>  <2rlq2i$8pj@scunix2.harvard.edu>
> Distribution: world
> Organization: Harvard University Science Center
> Nntp-Posting-Host: bckirkup.student.harvard.edu
> Lines: 13
> 
> 
> >You idiots probably couldn't appreciate good writing if it bit you on the
> >neck. Ever read any Kerouac? Any stuff by Kurt Vonnegut?
> 
> 
> Here I must interject something.  Basically, there is one problem here.  
> This is supposed to be a group of SENSIBLE, SCIENTIFIC minds, not a bunch 
> of "artsy," "sophisticated," people.  We don't read _junk_ like Vonnegut, 
> given the choice of basically anything else short of a tabloid.  If you 
> consider him good writing, try reading a real book sometime.  It would be 
> enlightening, if not mind bending.  Otherwise, get your filthy mouth and 
> maladjusted mind (dare we call it such?) off this news group.  
> 
> 
Although I appreciate your sentiments I must object to your juxtaposition of
 "SENSIBLE, SCIENTIFIC" minds versus "artsy, sophisitcated" people.
I claim to be both and I choose to use my artsy sophisticated aspect to seek
to clarify my thoughts and language in order to render "SENSIBLE, SCIENTIFIC"
 concepts intelligible.

The rounded personality to be found in an educated person, on your side of the
 pond or mine, and exemplified by Hawkings' Brief History of Time, is to be
cherished and supported.

Umm! I've just jacked into this forum, what was the original thread?
-- 
+-------------------------------------------------+
|  alexander revill  alyosha@sagapo.demon.co.uk   |
| "some pray for gold, others for boundless land. |
|  I pray to delight my fellow citizens"          |
|            Pindar, Nemean VIII. 37-38           |
+-------------------------------------------------+
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenalyosha cudfnalexander cudlnrevill cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.21 / L Plutonium /  1 of 3, FAQ for sci.physics.fusion as of 21/05/1994
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: 1 of 3, FAQ for sci.physics.fusion as of 21/05/1994
Date: 21 May 1994 16:12:46 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

Summary: Cold fusion is Spontaneous Neutron Materialization Devices
(SNMD). Muon catalyzed fusion is SNMD. Sonoluminescence and
Reifeinshweiler radioactivity are pronounced features of SNMD. The
electrochemical test tube SNMD (cold fusion) has not yet been able to
harness and make "repeatable" because of two essential reasons. They do
not use the very best fuels for SNMD and in those cases where
experiments have produced postive results is because their test
palladium had an ISOTOPE OF PALLADIUM which in effect sonoluminesced or
reifeinshweilered at the correct amperage or voltage.
This new science needs to find WHAT ISOTOPE  and what correct amperage
or voltage allows the Spontaneous Neutron Materialization to in effect
be "LIT".


In article <WAF2PCB102895928@brbbs.brbbs.com>
mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY) writes:
> Cold fusion seems to be getting much better reviews lately.  Of course the
> new Cold Fusion magazine will have pro-CF views, but last night I picked up
> a copy of Technology Review.  This isn't some small off-the-wall periodical
> but is edited at Massachusetts Institute of technology.  The article is
> "Warming up to Cold Fusion" and is written by Edmund Storms.
> Here are some interesting quotations from the May/June issue:
> "Some cold-fusion experiments have reportedly produced power densities higher
> than those of uranium fueled fission reactors."
> "Experiments that use crack-free palladium and follow proper procedures now
> routinely produce heat, nuclear products, or both."
> After listing a half dozen proposed explainations, and discounting each, it
> claims "None of the proposed explanations for cold fusion accounts for the
> full range of experimental observations."
> As to why confirming articles are not published in peer review journals, the
> following circular reasoning by the jornals is given:  "Cold fusion research
> is caught in a catch-22: journals will not accept papers in the field until
> more evidence for the phenomenon is published in the Journals."

   The explanation of fusion and cold fusion in particular are both
derivative of the quantum conjugate dual interactions
                       strongnuclear-gravity
                 and 
                       radioactivity-electromagnetism
               just as 
                       particle-wave are quantum conjugate duals.

  What we do know is that Starpower is fusion energy of mostly hydrogen
into helium. But our knowledge of fusion is primitive. One only needs
to indicate the missing neutrino count from the Sun. The missing
neutrino count connects, links with superconductivity. See my "Correct
theory of Superconductivity." 

  Below is a outline of the correct theory of fusion. In synopsis form
it is this.

  Weak Nuclear Interaction was a partial law. When it is completed via
the nonconservation of energy/mass it becomes a law (I call it
Radioactivities) on par with the Strong Nuclear Interaction. The four
interactions of physics are these
  (1) Strong Nuclear
  (2) Radioactivities
  (3) Electromagnetism
  (4) Gravity

  The correct Quantum laws combine these four interactions into dual
compliments, the same as Particle-Wave compliments of QM as follows.

  Strong Nuclear-Gravity
  Radioactivities-Electromagnetism

  Whenever experiments are set up which have varying electric current
or potential, there exists a Reifenschweiler type of radioactivity
MODE, or a Sonoluminescence MODE in which the electromagnetism induces
SPONTANEOUS NEUTRON MATERIALIZATION.


Detailed in the textbook Feynman Lectures on Physics  the physics laws
for the strong nuclear force were unknown, and radioactivities (weak
nuclear) were only partially known.  As of 7Nov90, I assert to know the
complete law for radioactivities.  The 4 quantum interactions (1)
nuclear strong (2) radioactivities (3) electromagnetic (4) gravitation,
are more fully explained than the present art of physics. There are 3
components to radioactivities, and these are (1) radioactive decay (2)
radioactive growth, and (3) radioactive spontaneous neutron
materialization. Radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization is the
largest in terms of relative coupling strength of the three. Processes
to induce radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization results in
the engineering of devices for the purpose of harnessing excess heat
energy. Numerous physical evidences in support of radioactive
spontaneous neutron materialization are detailed below such as (a) muon
catalyzed fusion, (b) heat from electrochemical cells of cold fusion
experiments, and (c) cosmic gamma ray-bursts (D) REIFENSCHWEILER
RADIATION (E) SONOLUMINESCE. Given the fuller explanation of
radioactivities, then processes are followed which induces radioactive
spontaneous neutron materialization. Devices (apparatuses) are
engineered to induce radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization
for the purpose of harnessing excess heat energy.  Devices ranging from
battery sized neutron materialization devices, on up to full scale
neutron materialization nuclear power plants are engineered. 

		NEUTRON MATERIALIZATION DEVICES

 	These are not perpetual motion devices but rather the derivation and
utilization of radioactivities energy not understood before. The first
observers of radioactivity circa late 1800's and early 1900's thought
that since some of these radioactive elements were hot, e.g., uranium
is warm in the hands and polonium will burn a hole through your hands,
and continued to glow in the dark, e.g., radium salts glow green in the
dark, that this new phenomenon was perpetual motion. Because of these
unexplained radiations, the many new observers of radioactivity were
quick to think that this new form of energy was perpetual motion, or
violated conservation of energy-mass, or violated other physical laws. 
Only with quantum theory was radioactivity well understood to accord
with theory and experimentation, and regarded as one of the 4
interactions (forces) of physics. Note: the concept interaction comes
from Quantum Electrodynamics (QED) and is superior to the concept of
force from Classical Physics. I mostly use the concept interaction in
this application; reason: quantum physics is the correct physics.
	The discovery of radioactive decay (rd) occurred 1896, when Becquerel
discovered radioactivity from uranium. It required 60 years after the
discovery of radioactivity before the uses of radioactivity were
applied in producing nuclear power. Fission radioactivity was
technologically used in the engineering of nuclear reactors which
generates nuclear power, post 1956. 
	The discovery of radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization
(rsnm) occurred in late 1990 by myself, Ludwig Plutonium. Then in early
1991, I discovered what induces rsnm and subsequently submitted this
patent application. The technological use of rsnm will be controlled
cold fusion energy by the engineering of Neutron Materialization Power
Plants.
	Quantum mechanics via the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (UP), 1927,
predicts virtual particles from out of nowhere which last for only a
brief period of time. Virtual particles can be electrons, positrons,
neutrons, and even molecules, but generally they are not heavier than
electrons. Particle detectors, gas bubble chambers, and CERN confirm
the postulation of virtual particles. The pinnacle of modern science up
to my teachings was Quantum Electrodynamics (QED).  According to QED,
the vacuum is filled with electron-positron fields. Real
electron-positron pairs are created when photons interact with these
fields. Virtual electron-positron pairs, however can also exist for
short quantum instants of time. 
	In late 1990, I realized that not only do virtual particles exist but
that virtual particles were the first clue of particle materialization
from out of nowhere and specifically of neutron materialization. The
extension of virtual particles to that of actual materialized
particles, and specifically to that of neutrons. Neutrons spontaneously
materialize from out of nowhere as a form of radioactivity.  This
radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization (rsnm) is another form
of radioactivities which until 1990 was undiscovered, and the ample
evidences, (see below), for rsnm were unrecognized as such.  I call it
RADIOACTIVE SPONTANEOUS NEUTRON MATERIALIZATION, and I assert it is the
major component of the radioactivities interaction (R).  There are two
other components to radioactivites and these are radioactive decay (rd)
and radioactive growth (rg). 
	Feynman in FEYNMAN LECTURES ON PHYSICS  Volume I page 2-10, gives the
following (my edited) account of the 4 interactions (forces) of physics
with a comparison of relative coupling strengths in the table below:
"There seem to be just four kinds of interaction between particles
which , in the order of decreasing strength, are the strong nuclear
interaction, electromagnetic interactions, electroweak interaction, and
gravity.  The photon is coupled to all electromagnetic interactions and
the strength of the interaction is measured by some number which is
1/137.  The detailed law of this coupling is known and is quantum
electrodynamics QED.  Gravity is coupled to all energy and this law is
also known.  Then there is the electroweak interaction which causes the
neutron to disintegrate into proton, electron, and neutrino.  This law
is only partly known.  The strong nuclear interaction, the meson-baryon
interaction, has a strength of 1 on this scale and the law is
completely unknown, although there are some known rules such as the
number of baryons does not change in any reaction. "
	Table 2-3.  Elementary Interactions
	Coupling		Strength*			Law
Photon to charged particles approx10^ -2             Law known
Gravity to all energy    approx10^ -40      Law known
radioactive decay       approx10^ -5         Law partially known
Mesons to baryons       approx 1      Law unknown (some rules known)
*The strength is a dimensionless measure of the coupling constant
involved in each interaction.
	I change some of FeynmanUs teachings in the table, giving thus : (A)
renaming weak nuclear as radioactivities (R). (B) radioactivities (R)
consists of 3 components--(1) radioactive decay (rd), (2) radioactive
growth (rg), and (3) radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization
(rsnm) (C)   R is only slightly weaker than the strong nuclear (SN),
and the proper listing of the 4 interactions according to strength is
1) strong nuclear, 2) radioactivities 3) electromagnetic 4)
gravitation.
	Before these teachings, the weak nuclear interaction was considered to
consist of only two components, i.e., radioactive decay and radioactive
growth. I assert that the weak nuclear interaction is an incomplete
interaction law (or force law). What was thought of as the weak nuclear
interaction before my teachings is only a small part, a small component
of the overall radioactivities interaction. The radioactivities
interaction consists of 1) radioactive spontaneous neutron
materialization, plus 2) radioactive decay (weak nuclear), plus 3)
radioactive growth (weak nuclear).  Before my teachings in the art of
physics 0050, the weak nuclear was vaguely understood as radioactive
decay with only a notion of radioactive growth. And leaving out the
most important form of radioactivity, that of radioactive spontaneous
neutron materialization in order to make the interaction law or (force
law) complete. When rd plus rg is added to rsnm, then I assert the
interaction (force) law for radioactivities is complete.  Thus the
complete radioactivities (R) interaction looks like this:  R =
rd+rg+rsnm. Let me define rd and rg below.
	Radioactive growth (rg) is when an atom transmutates (transforms) by
increasing in atomic number Z, such as when a uranium atom transmutates
to a neptunium atom or when a neptunium atom transmutates to a
plutonium atom.  Radioactive growth is when the original atom goes
higher in atomic number. Radioactive growth is when a neutron in the
nucleus of an atom transforms into a proton plus electron, increasing
the atomic number of the original atom. The original atom before the
radioactive growth had atomic number Z and after the radioactive growth
has atomic number Z+1.  
	Radioactive decay (rd) is when any atom of an atomic number Z
transmutates to an atom/s of lower atomic number.  For example, when
uranium decays to lead and neon. Before 1990, the weak nuclear
interaction was known as comprising only radioactive decay and
radioactive growth.  Shortly after 07/11/1990, I had postulated
radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization (rsnm) from DiracUs
book Directions in Physics . 
	P.A.M. Dirac specifically asserted spontaneous materialization of
particles from out of nowhere in his book Directions in Physics  on
pages 76-78.  His book states, and I quote:
"Now, according to the Large Number Hypothesis, all these very large
dimensionless numbers should be connected together.  We should then
expect that 
		total mass /proton mass =  10^ 78  proportional time^ 2
Using the same argument again, we are therefore led to think that the
total number of protons in the Universe is increasing proportionally to
time^ 2.  Thus, there must be creation of matter in the Universe, a
continuous creation of matter." (Continued.)
	"According to the ordinary physical processes, which we study in the
laboratory, matter is conserved.  Here we have direct nonconservation
of matter.  It is, if you like, a new kind of radioactive process for
which there is nonconservation of matter and by which particles are
created where they did not previously exist. (Continued.)  
	If there is new matter continually being created, the question arises:
"where is it created?" There are two reasonable assumptions which one
might make.  One is that the new matter is continually created
throughout the whole of space, and in that case, it is mostly created
in intergalactic space.  I call this the assumption of additive
creation.
	Alternatively, one might make the assumption that new matter is
created close by where matter already exists.  That newly created
matter is of the same atomic nature as the matter already existing
there.  This would mean that all atoms are just multiplying up.  I call
that the assumption of multiplicative creation."
	Dirac in his book discusses particle materialization out of nowhere
can occur either additive or multiplicative.  Dirac proposed particle
materialization. I specifically propose neutron materialization and
that this neutron materialization occurs both additive and
multiplicative simultaneously. I had surmised from Dirac's book by late
1990 that something must induce rsnm, but what the induction was I did
not discover until 1991. And much later confirmed by Reifenscheiler
Radiation and Sonoluminescence. Submitting the patent application.
	PHYSICAL EVIDENCES FOR SPONTANEOUS NEUTRON MATERIALIZATION. 
	(1) MUON CATALYZED FUSION.  The conventional physics community is in
agreement over this form of fusion and readily accepts it. It was
theoretically proposed by Frank and Sakharov in the late 1940's. Then
Alvarez et al at Berkeley experimentally observed muon catalyzed
fusion. These observations have now passed into physics facts, unlike
electrochemical test tube cold fusion which is presently hotly
contested and not yet established as fact. 
	Muon catalyzed fusion is the pivotal experiment to my theoretical
understanding of what induces radioactive spontaneous neutron
materialization. But where as the physics community thinks that in muon
catalyzed experiments that muatoms of hydrogen isotopes bring about
after several quantum steps the fusing together of atoms of helium,
there theoretical thinking is wrong.  What is really going on are
several quantum steps of radioactive spontaneous neutron
materialization.
	Muon Catalyzed Fusion is physically Muon Induced Radioactive
Spontaneous Neutron Materialization. Instead of requiring a changing
electric potential difference V with a VandeGraaff machine, or running
a changing electric current  i  through atoms to yield rsnm. It is the
muon itself which already supplies the changing V or the changing  i.
Changing is important for the induction of rsnm. As important as in the
laws of electromagnetism. For example, in Faraday's law of induction a
changing magnetic field is required. And in Ampere's law of induction
as extended by Maxwell, a changing electric field or current are
required. 
	Now consider a muon. A muon is just an extended electron, a big
electron.  When a muon forms a muatom, the muon in the muatom is its
own variable VandeGraaff machine already within the muatom. Or a muon
is a variable electric current within the muatom. Hence when there are
muons in any particular sample of hydrogen isotopes, some of those
muons will induce spontaneous materialization of neutrons from out of
nowhere resulting in a net energy to the whole system.
  (2) Reifenschweiler Radiation is spontaneous neutron materialization
from out of nowhere. Those newly created neutrons change the chemical
composition of the test matter which then increases the RATE of decay
of the test matter.
  (3) Sonoluminescence is Spontaneous Neutron Materialization resulting
in an increase in energy within the experiment. A violation of the
conservation of energy/mass.  Both Reifenschweiler Radiation and
Sonoluminescence will educate the present ignorant physics community
into discovery of the catalyst, the induction to spontaneous neutron
materialization, snm (cold fusion). We must find the maximum snm
induction to manufacture Neutron Materialization Power Plants. Both
Reifenschweiler Radiation and Sonoluminescence are steps towards
finding the maximum induction of snm. I conjecture that as the Sun snm
hydrogen into helium. That if we use hydrogen gas or liquefied hydrogen
and helium, that cold fusion will duplicate the fusion found in the
Sun.
	(4)  Uniform Cosmic Gamma Ray-bursts as reported from data by NASA's
Gamma Ray Observatory.  Gamma rays are mostly highly energetic protons.
Gamma Ray-bursts are seen uniformly throughout the sky yet there are no
stellar objects for which these gamma rays can be assigned as the
source having generated the gamma ray. Since no stellar objects produce
these high intensity gamma rays, they are supportive evidence of
spontaneously materialized neutrons which radioactively decay into
energetic protons, and energetic electrons.
	Most of the cosmic gamma ray-bursts are of the energy frequency of
hydrogen nuclei. Meaning that in space neutrons are spontaneously
materialized from out of nowhere and then decay into proton and
electron system yielding the observed gamma rays. The uniformity of
cosmic gamma ray-bursts is explained because spontaneous neutron
materialization is a uniform process, as uniform as the uniform process
of the  Cosmic Background Microwave Radiation. The uniformity
explanation entails my revolutionary theory of the Plutonium Atom
Totality. That our observable universe is just the 94th electron, the
last electron of one atom of the plutonium isotope 231, which acts as a
quantum cavity, a quantum blackbody cavity. Here I can easily get too
far afield by explaining why the Cosmic Background Radiation is
relentlessly uniform with a blackbody temperature of 2.71 K. Why the
night sky is dark because it is a quantum blackbody cavity. Why the
speeds of stars are quantized, because the stars are inside a quantum
blackbody cavity-- the last electron of 231Pu.
	It is noted here that the uniformity of cosmic gamma ray-bursts were
discovered after I had submitted my patent application in July of 1991.
It is seen that as time goes on, supporting evidence for spontaneous
neutron materialization increases.
	(5) The History of Cold Fusion is summarized as such: F. Paneth and K.
Peters in Berlin in 1926; J. Tanberg of Sweden 1927; M. Fleischmannn
and S. Pons et al in Utah in 1989.  But what I have new to tell the
world is that it is radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization.
Noone before me in the history of the world has ever proposed that
neutrons come into existence spontaneously, induced through a changing
electric current i or induced by a changing electric potential V.
Previous to my art, the cold fusion experiments were conducted under
false theory, hence their experiments turned out unpredictable.
	The History of Electrochemical Cold Fusion is one in which none of the
pioneers realized the correct theory-- that neutrons spontaneously
materialize, and materialize more often when induced by means of a
changing electric current i or a changing electric potential V. I claim
to know better how both electrochemical cold fusion and hot fusion
work. Cold fusion is the dual compliments
RADIOACTIVITIES-ELECTROMAGNETISM (R-E)
and hot fusion is STRONGNUCLEAR-GRAVITY (S-G). Just as in an physics
experiment one can switch from all PARTICLE to all WAVE, because of
PARTICLE-WAVE duality. So too, one can switch from all (S-G) to all
(R-E). This logic above was the stumblingblock of physicists until my
teachings. They were mixing those 4 interactions all up and loosely
applying them here or there.
	Cold Fusion, test tube experiments were reported by Fleischmannn &
Pons et al, 1989. The current community of physics professors are
mostly virulently opposed to the claims of cold fusion.  That community
holds little credence in cold fusion. But it is a fact that there are
many corporate funded research programs ongoing into cold fusion, to
name a few, GE fusion research, NTT researchers, various Japanese
corporations and Fleischmann & Pons laboratory in France.
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.20 / Sue D /  Re: the pointlessness of grammar flames (Re: Politicians
     
Originally-From: noyfb@harvard (Sue D. O'Nym)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: the pointlessness of grammar flames (Re: Politicians
who oppose the metric system)
Date: Fri, 20 May 1994 22:19:04 -0500

In article <20MAY199415125755@csa5.lbl.gov>, sichase@csa5.lbl.gov (SCOTT I
CHASE) wrote:

[...]

" why do *you* bother to write correctly?  I notice that you bothered to
" put a hyphen in "better-educated" and "18th-century."  You made
intelligent
" use of a colon, ("ploy:"), and so on. Why do you bother with *these*
" distinctions, but dismiss those used by others as snobbery?  [...]

So now people even get flamed for *correct* grammar !?
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudennoyfb cudfnSue cudlnD cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.21 / John Logajan /  Establishing confidence in Thermacore
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Establishing confidence in Thermacore
Date: 21 May 1994 02:52:18 GMT
Organization: Sky Point Communications, Inc.

It occurs to me that since we have a good idea of the thermal capacity of
the Thermacore experiment, and since we have their published calibration
data, it would be a fairly simple matter to reproduce the calibration
run to see if we get the same calorimeter constant.

Simply take a 10 gallon plastic bucket, add about 30 liters of H2O to get
the 126,000 J/degree thermal capacity, pump in 60 watts, and stir it, say
with a fishtank "bubbler" up the center, and sit back and wait for the
temperature to stabilize.  If the temperature raises 9 degrees above
ambient and stays there after a couple of days, then the Thermacore
calibration has been vindicated.

I believe I will try this experiment sometime in the near future, maybe
within the next week or so.

--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com -- 612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills  MN 55112 USA           -


cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.21 / Bill Venables /  Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
     
Originally-From: wvenable@attunga.stats.adelaide.edu.au (Bill Venables)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.math,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.bio
Subject: Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
Date: 21 May 1994 01:44:01 GMT
Organization: The University of Adelaide

>>>>> "Benjamin" == Benjamin P Carter <bpc@netcom.com> writes:

Benjamin> phil@eurocontrol.fr (Philip Gibbs) writes:
>> Most of the comments in this thread have missed the point.  The problem
>> with switching to metric is not a question of whether or not it is an
>> easier system.  The difficulty is the cost and confusion caused by
>> switching road signs from miles per hour to kilometers per hour.

Benjamin> In the USA there is a more serious problem with distance units
Benjamin> than that of changing signs.  Much of the country is subdivided
Benjamin> into townships.  Each township is approximately a six-mile by
Benjamin> six-mile square.  Each township is subdivided into 36 sections.
Benjamin> Each section is a square mile, or 640 acres, and is likely to be
Benjamin> subdivided again into four squares, each of 160 acres.  And so
Benjamin> on.

&c.

All of these fears were loudly expressed here when Australia went metric in
the early seventies (the currency went metric earlier in 1966) but they all
came to nothing, really.  If you are an experienced driver you *know* if
you are going too fast, however you measure it (and the new speed limit was
actually a bit faster than the old, anyway).  There were changeover
difficulties in places where the two systems had to be juxtaposed, such as
in the construction industry, but in a very short time, relatively, they
were overcome.

I think they did a very clever thing here in Australia.  Long before the
metric system was officially adopted the horse racing game went metric.
Suddenly one day all race callers started talking metres and kilometres
instead of miles and furlongs.  They knew about the metric system in the
bar room long before they did in the board room, but it soon `filtered up'
and in five years the imperial system was for all practical purposes dead.

Bill
--
___________________________________________________________________________
Bill Venables, Department of Statistics,          Telephone: +61 8 303 3026 
The University of Adelaide,                       Facsimile: +61 8 232 5670
South AUSTRALIA.     5005.            Email: venables@stats.adelaide.edu.au
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenwvenable cudfnBill cudlnVenables cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.21 / Eugene Mallove /  Cold Fusion on "Good Morning America" 5/23
     
Originally-From: 76570.2270@compuserve.com (Eugene Mallove)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Cold Fusion on "Good Morning America" 5/23
Date: Sat, 21 May 1994 12:41:36 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway


**************  ABC Television "Good Morning America"
**************  to Air a Segment on Cold Fusion
Monday, May 23rd between 8:00 and 8:30 a.m. Eastern time

Peterborough, New Hampshire, 20 May 1994 - British and Canadian television 
audiences have recently seen dramatic one-hour documentaries on the global 
cold fusion research effort. Now, after a long hiatus, cold fusion returns to 
national television in the United States.  Dr. Michael Guillen, the chief 
science reporter for ABC television, will host a feature program about cold 
fusion on "Good Morning America," Monday, May 23, 1994. We at "Cold Fusion" 
Magazine have learned that Dr. Guillen interviewed Drs. Pons and Fleischmann 
at their IMRA Europe laboratory near Nice, France. Dr. Guillen also 
interviewed "Cold Fusion" magazine's editor, Dr. Eugene Mallove.

The landmark ABC "Good Morning America" program follows the recent cover story
on cold fusion in the May/June 1994 issue of MIT's Technology Reveiw by Dr. 
Edmund Storms (Los Alamos National Laboratory, retired). "Cold Fusion" 
Magazine's May, 1994 Premier issue features Dr. Storms on the cover. The June 
issue of "Cold Fusion" Magazine, published at Wayne Green, Inc., will soon be 
on the newsstands of larger bookstores. The magazine provides continuing 
coverage of worldwide cold fusion R&D, which is accelerating as researchers 
discover new excess energy generation methods and find increasing evidence of 
peculiar nuclear "ash."

For further information, please call 1-800-677-8838:
Mr. Stu Norwood, Managing Editor
Dr. Eugene Mallove, Editor

Note: The "Good Morning America" listening audience is approximately 
18,000,000

cudkeys:
cuddy21 cuden2270 cudfnEugene cudlnMallove cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.21 / Jorge Stolfi /  Re: Thermacore uses magnetic mixers
     
Originally-From: stolfi@s1j.dcc.unicamp.br (Jorge Stolfi)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Thermacore uses magnetic mixers
Date: 21 May 1994 12:34:18 GMT
Organization: DCC - UNICAMP - Campinas, SP, Brazil


    > [Me:] I wonder how much power the coil can pick up from the
    > stirrer's magnetic field?

    > [Jed Rothwell:] I was not in the room with that particular
    > stirrer, but the ones I have seen in other laboratories are very
    > low powered devices, like floppy disk motors.  I am sure they
    > draw milliamps only. So the coil could not possibly pick up even
    > a watt from it.

Perhaps. 

However, electric motors generally draw more power when they are doing
more work.  The coil electrode (which, remember, is partially shunted
by the electrolyte) will surely impose *some* extra drag on the
driving magnet.  The drag may be epsilon squared, but it may also be
much higher than the maximum drag that one could get under "normal"
conditions (e.g. by blocking the spinner, or stirring molasses).
Thus, the "nominal" max power consumption of the stirrer is not
ncessarily the upper limit.

Could one get 5W of "excess" heating this way? 10W? 

I tried to pry the answer out of my intuition, but the bastard just
invoked the Fifth...

--stolfi
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenstolfi cudfnJorge cudlnStolfi cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.21 / L Plutonium /  3 of 3, FAQ for sci.physics.fusion 21/05/1994
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: 3 of 3, FAQ for sci.physics.fusion 21/05/1994
Date: 21 May 1994 16:16:49 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

  When I discuss the violation of conservation of energy-mass I feel
myself in the same position as what Aristarchus was in when he proposed
the heliocentric system several thousands of years ago. The majority of
people are dumbfounded with new ideas even though the evidence is plain
as day and undeniable.
	Dirac would agree from his book Directions in Physics  that
spontaneous neutron materialization is a direct violation of the
conservation of energy-mass.  But conservation violation is nothing
new, for example: (i) It was experimentally shown that the conservation
of parity was violated in 1956 by Lee and Yang.  (ii) And later it was
experimentally shown that charge conjugation multiply parity (CP) were
not conserved. See 1964  Cronin and Fitch. (iii) It is now thus
inferred by assuming if time reversal multiply charge conjugation
multiply parity (TCP) is a good symmetry, that time reversal symmetry
is violated. The conservation of time reversal symmetry means that if
time could run backwards, would it be acceptable to the laws of
physics?  
	My textbook and this patent application both assert that the
conservation of energy-mass is continually violated by the universe at
large. The universe at large has to grow somehow? The present community
of physics professors believe the most likely scenario of growth is the
Big Bang model of the universe. I say that model is wrong. The
observable universe, what we think of as the universe at large, is only
the last electron of one atom of plutonium. The planet Earth is inside
a Plutonium Atom Totality, a part of the 94th electron cavity. The
Plutonium Atom Totality (PU) grows by radioactive spontaneous neutron
materialization. PU says that the Big Bang is merely the Neptunium Atom
Totality Spontaneously Fissioning into our current Plutonium Atom
Totality.

	What technical difficulties are there in rsnm devices?
	1) It is very difficult to measure the exact count of a specific
number of atoms. And extremely difficult to measure the specific count
of neutrons of those counted atoms. Measuring exact counts of atoms and
the neutrons of those atoms before running a changing electric current
i or changing electromagnetic potential V through those atoms and
checking the count afterwards is extremely difficult and never exact.
	2) It is extremely difficult, and perhaps theoretically impossible to
manufacture a slab of a 100% isotope of an element, whether stable or
radioactive, and in the case of hydrogen gas a container of pure
hydrogen. It seems as if there is always contamination by other
isotopes. This contamination is in fact support of my claim of
radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization. That rsnm results in
all samples as being impure and never reaching 100% purity. See reports
on GE striving to manufacture a 100% pure carbon isotope diamond. In
theory, I assert the impossibility of ever achieving 100% purity is
another formulation of the Uncertainty Principle of quantum physics.
	3) The best fuels for Neutron Materialization Power Plants are
hydrogen ions as in the Sun, but hydrogen ions are very explosive and
dangerous to work around when running either a changing electric
current i or a changing electromagnetic potential V through.

	There are 4 and only 4 interactions. These are (1) Strong Nuclear (SN)
(2) Gravitation (G) (3) Radioactivities (R), and (4) Electromagnetism
(EM).
	There are 4 and only 4 quantum principles. These are (1) Uncertainty
(UP) (2) Complementary (CP) (3) Superposition (SP), and (4) Pauli (PP).

	 The Complementary Principle states: The wave and the particle aspects
of a quantum entity are both necessary for a complete description.
However, both aspects cannot be revealed simultaneously in a single
experiment. The aspect that is revealed is determined by the nature of
the experiment being done. 
	By the fact of CP there exists at least 1 group of complementary
duals. This 1 group consists of particle and wave. Where particle +
wave = the whole description. I propose other groups of CP.
	Taking the 4 interactions as 2 groups of complementary duals. Then one
group is Strong Nuclear and Gravity, represented as SN+G = whole
description. The other group is Radioactivities (R) and
Electromagnetism (EM), represented as R+EM = whole description.
	Applying CP to starpower. Starpower is physically measurable as either
SN+G with never any R nor ever any EM. Or, starpower is physically
measurable as either R+EM with never any SN nor ever any G.
	Thinking quantumwise, hot fusion of our Sun is a measurement from
experimental set-ups for SN+G, and excluding all of R+EM. But our Sun
can be measured as a huge radioactivities pile R along with
electromagnetism EM, written as R+EM for a complete description. This
complete description of R+EM must exclude all of SN+G.
	According to CP since SN+G = whole description, and  R+EM = whole
description. Then the relative coupling strengths of the 4 interactions
has the math equivalence as thus SN+G=R+EM.
	The relative coupling strength of SN is highest and if assigned the
value 1 then gravity is experimentally measured at 10^-40 . But, 1 +
10^-40  is for all practical purposes still 1. The fact that SN+G is
approx 1 implies that since SN+G=R+EM, then R+EM is approx 1.
	Since EM has a relative coupling strength to SN of .01, implies that R
is .99. For all practical purposes then, R almost equals SN.
	But according to FeynmanUs Table of 1963, the weak nuclear
(radioactive decay) has a relative coupling strength of 10^-5. Since
relative coupling strength for radioactive growth is even less than
radioactive decay implies that there must exist another form of
radioactivities other than rd and rg to complete the interaction law.
Since in hot fusion processes of SN+G, hydrogen is transmutated into
helium. And hydrogen which has only 1 proton and 1 electron
(essentially a 1 neutron system) transmutated into helium containing 2
protons, 2 neutrons, and 2 electrons (essentially a 4 neutron system).
Then the form of radioactivities which completes the radioactivities
interaction (R) is radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization
(rsnm). In the case of hydrogen transmutation to helium, there are 3
neutrons spontaneously materialized with one of those neutrons
decaying, subsequent proton capture, electron capture. So, rsnm has the
relative coupling strength of nearly .99, almost the same as SN at 1. 
	I give Feynman's 1963 Table with my 1991 reinterpretation considering
quantum principles applied to the 4 interactions:
	New Table for Elementary Interactions
	Coupling		Strength			Law
Photon to charged particles   approx .01                 Law known
Gravity to all energy        approx 10^-40           Law known
radioactivities rsnm+rd+rg  approx .99              Law known
Mesons to baryons          approx 1   Law still unknown but more rules
								known
	Compare my table with that of FeynmanUs Table given above.  The
largest change is in the category of radioactivity. FeynmanUs of 1963
is this: radioactive decay                   approx 10^ -5         Law
partially known . 
	What I assert as new to the art of physics is that I drastically
change FeynmanUs Table as given in 1963 and accepted all the way up to
1991. I change the art of physics through the application of quantum
principles.  An atom can act either energylike or timelike, and it
exists in a probabilistic quantum state until a measurement is made. 
If energylike property is measured, the atom behaves like energy, and
if a timelike property is measured, the atom behaves like time. 
Whether the atom is energylike or timelike is not well defined until
the experimental conditions are specified. Bohr asserted that the
set-up of a device determines what is measured.  To measure mostly one
of two noncommutative properties then the device must be so set-up such
that "an influence on the very conditions which define the possible
types of predictions regarding the future behavior of the system."  
Rewording Bohr's thought to radioactive spontaneous neutron
materialization devices is: to measure mostly rsnm instead of
electromagnetism requires the set-up of devices in which rsnm prevails
over  electromagnetism. 
	The relative coupling strength of SN compared to EM is about 100 to 1.
  This implies that the relative coupling strength of SN compared to R
is about 100 to 99. The periodic chart of chemical elements is evidence
in agreement with these numbers. Element 100 is at the limit of
statistical half-life to Spontaneous Fission stability since that is
the relative coupling strength of SN to EM. Element 100 is similar to
Element 26, because iron is stable to both fusion energy and fission
energy. Spontaneous Fission half-life instability rapidly increases
with atomic number Z=99, element 99, implying that SN is balanced by
R+EM when Z=100.
	Dirac proposed particle materialization in his book Directions in
Physics.  Specifically I propose neutron materialization and that this
neutron materialization occurs both additive and multiplicative
simultaneously. Neutron materialization occurs most often in stars in
their hydrogen plasmas. Stars are magnetohydrodynamic plasmas obeying
laws of electromagnetism. I refer the reader to magnetohydrodynamics,
McGRAW-HILL ENCYCLOPEDIA of Science & Technology  Vol. 10, 7th Ed. 0052
 magnetohydrodynamics pages 327-335. 
	I assert that a star in magnetohydrodynamics is radioactivities and
electromagnetism.  Hot fusion is looking at a star as predominantly SN
with the quantum complementary dual of G. When a physicist wants to
measure the dynamics of starpower with what is known as hot fusion,
then the physicist must consider only the complementary duals of SN+G
to the 100% exclusion of R+EM. But if the same physicist wanted to
measure the dynamics of starpower using R+EM, then he must exclude 100%
all interactions of both SN and G. Before 1991 a physicist trying to
explain stellar dynamics by using strong nuclear and gravity and then
mixing in the weak nuclear force and electromagnetic force was wrong.
Stellar dynamics using only strong nuclear and gravitation is correct
once all radioactivities and electromagnetism are excluded. The strong
nuclear force is the main component of hot fusion.  Hot fusion is
described for the Sun where P is a proton, E an electron, N a neutron.
The reaction in the Sun is  
				P+ (P+ E- + antineutrino)  into  PN
          			PN + P  into    
				PNP+ gamma ray
       				PNP+ PNP into  
				NPNP+ P+ P + energy

	But what I am teaching and this is new to the art, is that a star is
measurable quantum mechanically by the complementary duals of
radioactivities and electromagnetism. Stellar dynamics using only
radioactivities and electromagnetism is correct once all strong nuclear
and gravity are excluded. Our Sun then is seen as a radioactive pile
with electromagnetism going on. Within this scheme then
magnetohydrodynamics plasma fields come into the calculations.  The Sun
and stars are no longer seen as hot fusion spheres but instead
radioactive spheres. Where rsnm is the main activity. This activity is
described for the Sun where P is a proton, E an electron, N an already
existing neutron, N* a spontaneous materialized neutron. The reaction
in the Sun is   
                                    P into  PN*+ energy then
          			PN into PNN*+ energy then    
				PNN* into PNP+ gamma ray
       				PNP into  
				N*PNP+ energy

 	What induces radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization?  Since
radioactivities is the quantum complementary dual to the
electromagnetic, then induction for rsnm is to run either a changing
electric current i or a changing electric potential difference V
through a fuel mass. Any fuel mass will work but some are better than
others. The best fuel mass are hydrogen and isotopes of hydrogen. The
second best fuel mass are the radioactive isotopes. 
	Here is a list of some possible fuel mass elements for radioactive
spontaneous neutron materialization.  The following data are the
electron binding energies for several elements where the units are
electron volts.  The source of this information is CRC Handbook of
Chemistry and Physics   1991  pages 10-264 to 10-267: 
Hydrogen (1)  K 1s   16.0
Helium (2) K  1s   24.6
Oxygen (8) LI   2s  41.6
Argon (18)  MIII 3p3/2    15.7
Iron (26)  MIII 3p3/2    52.7
Zinc (30)   MV  3d5/2   10.1    
Krypton (36)  NIII 4p3/2    14.1
Rubidium (37) NIII 4p3/2    15.3
Palladium (46)  NIII 4p3/2    50.9
Silver (47)  NIII 4p3/2    58.3
Cadmium (48)  NV 4d5/2  10.7
Xenon (54) OIII 5p3/2  12.1
Cesium (55) OIII 5p3/2  12.1
Barium (56) OIII 5p3/2  14.8
Gold (79)  OIII 5p3/2  57.2
Mercury (80) OV  5d5/2   7.8
Thallium (81)  OV  5d5/2  12.5
Francium (87)  PIII  6p3/2  15
Actinium (89) PIII  6p3/2 ?
Thorium (90) PIII  6p3/2 16.6
Protoactinium (91)  PIII  6p3/2 ?
Uranium (92) PIII  6p3/2 16.8
	The element mercury, since the binding energy for its last electron is
so low at 7.8 entails that mercury is a better fuel mass for
electrochemical cold fusion cells, vice heavy water. I conjecture that
frozen mercury at 4K in the superconducting state is a rsnm device.
That frozen mercury at 4K is a better cold fusion device than is heavy
water and palladium.
	Like a double-slit Uncertainty Principle experiment, if i or V were
known with 100% accuracy then rsnm would be 0%. In the language of
quantum physics, when the current or potential is fixed then the
wavefunction is collapsed. But when the current i or potential V are
variable then the wavefunction is not collapsed, permitting rsnm to
materialize. Thus the i and V must be variable. On a macroscopic level
the answer to how to induce rsnm is to run a variable i or variable V
on a fuel mass such as hydrogen. 
	On a microscopic level the answer on how to induce rsnm is that it
occurs most frequently when an additional electron, one more than the
number of protons in the nucleus of that particular atom results.
Microscopically, where rsnm occurs and what induces it is an atom which
is topheavy with an additional electron beyond its chemical element
number of electrons, thus exciting the  materialization of a neutron
from out of nowhere.  For example, a hydrogen atom has only 1 electron
and 1 proton, but for an instant-of-quantum-time a hydrogen atom can
have 2 electrons and 1 proton. Or in the case of a plutonium atom with
94 electrons and 94 protons, it can for an instant-of-quantum-time have
95 electrons, but still have only 94 protons and remain still a
plutonium atom. A hydrogen atom with 1 electron and 1 proton, if when
another electron is added to the hydrogen atom system then for that
instant-of-quantum-time this hydrogen atom consists of 2 electrons and
1 proton. The additional electron quantum mechanically induces rsnm in
the nucleus. Subsequently, this neutron, having materialized, can
either stay as a neutron in the original atom system, or radioactively
decay into a proton plus electron.  If the materialized neutron remains
in the nucleus of the original atom system of hydrogen, then that
hydrogen atom can transform into a helium atom plus energy subsequent
to the materialization of two more neutrons.  
	The most apparent electron quantum induction for rsnm are star
plasmas.  The stars and Sun via plasma matter are vast electron
inducers which quantum mechanically excite, induce rsnm.  Our Sun is a
device which has both a large changing electron current i flow and a
large changing electric potential V, by the fact that it is mostly all
hydrogen plasma.  
	Before my teachings the Sun was seen as a large hot fusion device
wherein the theory of hot fusion did not accord with the experimental
observations for the process, e.g., the missing neutrino count. With my
teachings the Sun is seen as a radioactive pile with electromagnetic
plasma and there is no missing neutrino count once the correct theory
is matched with the observations. The 2/3 missing neutrino count was a
result of matching an incorrect theory to the observation.
	I assert that when the electrons of an atom are electrically excited
by adding more electrons to the atom such as in a plasma state of
matter in stars, then rsnm occurs. Once a neutron is materialized, it
either decays into a hydrogen atom plus energy or if it materialized
inside the nucleus of a preexisting atom transforming that atom into a
different atom or a different isotope. 	Any chemical element/s,
compounds, or molecules can be quantum mechanically induced into rsnm.
However, hydrogen and hydrogen isotopes are the best fuels for
induction to rsnm, for reason of its 1 electron subshell can easily
accommodate an additional electron and still remain a hydrogen atom,
having 1 proton but 2 electrons. This additional electron induces the
atom into rsnm. 	In general, the radioactive elements/isotopes will
quantum induce rsnm faster than nonradioactive elements/isotopes. The
reason for this is that since radioactivities is the complementary dual
to electromagnetism that a prevalence of electrons occurs via
radioactive electron decay emission. Commonly known as beta decay. A
sample of radioactive elements emit their own electrons which can
result in electron capture by some of the atoms in the sample,
consequently there is an atom which for a short quantum time has Z+1
electrons yet a Z number of protons. The rate of occurrence of rsnm for
radioactive elements is governed by half-life radioactive decay and is
based on the formula for radioactive rate of decay    exp-lt.  Using
Dirac's rate of materialization as time squared (t^2), and substituting
t^2 into the radioactive growth and radioactive decay rate formula
results in a normal Gaussian distribution curve. 
	Thus my invention consists of processes for inducing radioactive
spontaneous neutron materialization, and the devices or apparatuses
engineered for the purpose of deriving energy from rsnm. These devices
can range from the small size such as batteries, a collection of
batteries, or test tube equipment in a science laboratory, such as
electrochemical cells, on up to devices the size of a nuclear power
plant.  Such a neutron materialization nuclear power plant will be of a
much simpler design over previous fission reactor power plants or hot
fusion reactors since the energy output is not dependent on fissionable
or fusionable products, rather on neutron materialization.  The fuel
mass of neutron materialization devices will last much longer as a fuel
since the choice of a fuel can be any chemical element/s, compounds, or
molecules, radioactive or not.  A neutron materialization nuclear power
plant can use a nonradioactive element fuel mass such as iron or
hydrogen and thus safer and cleaner.  Or a neutron materialization
nuclear power plant can use a less dangerous radioactive isotope of
thorium, uranium, or plutonium for the fuel mass. The fuel mass will
have a changing electric current i flowing, or a changing electric
potential V through it.  The best chemical elements to use are
hydrogen, and hydrogen isotopes and the radioactive elements such as
plutonium, uranium, thorium, and californium.  Any chemical element/s,
compounds, or molecules can act as a fuel mass. Once a fuel is placed
in the containment vessel, a changing electric current i is run through
the fuel mass, or a changing electric potential V goes through the
fuel. The containment vessel is surrounded by a substance such as water
or some other substance which captures the most amount of heat from
radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization.  
	 These nuclear devices are an exploitation of excess heat from rsnm, a
confirmation of quantum mechanical principles of uncertainty and
complementary, but a violation of the conservation of energy-mass.  All
such devices constructed will confirm excess heat produced from the
materialization of neutrons out of nowhere and thus will show the
violation of energy-mass conservation.  
	The changing i or changing V through the fuel mass will induce rsnm
resulting in a net increase in total energy of the isolated system. 
The changing i or changing V will cause induction of rsnm resulting in
net increase in total energy going out which will be observable and
measurable as excess heat.  The excess heat can then be converted to
other usable forms of energy such as electricity.
	I assert that spontaneous neutron materialization is going on all
around us, in stars, in the Earth.  Where ever there is the strong
nuclear-gravitation interaction, there is the
radioactivities-electromagnetism interaction. The one group of SN+G is
interchangeable and superpositioned with the other group R+EM.  So,
what we generally attribute to the forces of the strong
nuclear-gravitation is replaceable or superposed by the
radioactivities-electromagnetism.  Before these teachings, a physicist
would look at the Sun and say the Sun is a hot fusion device (strong
nuclear force is the fusing with consequent energy emission) where
gravity is pulling in hydrogen atoms and then fusing hydrogen atoms to
make helium atoms with a resultant energy.  I would transpose that idea
and say that the Sun is a radioactivities device (mostly rsnm) where
the Sun's matter is in the form of plasma, and thus the Sun is a large
electromagnetic device also with changing current flow and changing
electric potential and so neutrons spontaneously materialize most of
which transmutate into new hydrogen atoms via radioactive decay, but
some hydrogen atoms materializing neutrons inside their nucleus
transmutating into new helium atoms and  giving-up excess energy. 
	I see the Sun as two pictures in which both are the same only looking
at them from different quantum duals. The one is hot fusion of hydrogen
into helium in the Sun made possible by the gravitational force with
strong force. This is our current conventional view and it is correct
if and only if radioactivities plus electromagnetism were 100%
excluded. The other is the radioactivities and electromagnetism
interaction where the Sun is a large collection of hydrogen atoms where
spontaneous neutron materialization occurs frequently within these
hydrogen atoms, transmutating hydrogen into helium heating the solar
system.  
LP                         94th ELECTRON OF 231PU
               Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH ELECTRON

                  \ ::| :./.
                  .\::|::/.:
                     _ _
                    (:Y:)
                     - - 
                  ::/.|.\.:
                :: /.:| :\.:
                  /   |   \.
        One of those dots is the Sun with 9 smaller dots around it.
Look in a chemistry textbook or quantum physics textbook of the
electron cloud dot picture. 
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.21 / mitchell swartz /  McKubre/Srinivasan expt.:On the claim of "No excess heat"
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: McKubre/Srinivasan expt.:On the claim of "No excess heat"
Date: Sat, 21 May 1994 22:31:33 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

   In Subject: McKubre/Srinivasan expt.: No excess heat
Message-ID: <1994May20.111621.1633@physc1.byu.edu>
Steven Jones (jonesse@physc1.byu.edu) writes:

=sjones     " I have, from a colleague at EPRI:
=sjones    they found *apparent* excess heat before
=sjones   taking recombination into account.  Then McKubre and Srinivasan 
=sjones  checked the evolving gases, and sure enough, *all* the 
=sjones   excess heat was accounted for by recombination 
=sjones    of hydrogen and oxygen!"

   Steve,  this would appear to be very important **if**  it is true,
and if it does occur for active (material-speaking) electrodes.

   First,  did  McKubre and Srinivasan find that "*all* the 
excess  heat was accounted for by recombination 
of hydrogen and oxygen"  for  the nickel-light water system, 
or  for the palladium-heavy water system,  or both?

   Second, what was the loading achieved?

   Third, are you certain of your source?    Care to name him/her?

   Best wishes. 
             Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com)


cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.21 / James Aspnes /  Re: the pointlessness of grammar flames (Re: Politicians
     
Originally-From: aspnes-james@cs.yale.edu (James Aspnes)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.math,sci.bio,alt.sci.physics.plutonium
Subject: Re: the pointlessness of grammar flames (Re: Politicians
who oppose the metric system)
Date: 21 May 1994 19:24:50 -0400
Organization: Yale University Computer Science Dept., New Haven, CT 06520-2158

In article <2rjmk1$s96@mtha.usc.edu>, Ronald Bruck <bruck@mtha.usc.edu> wrote:
>
>PS.  Does anyone disbelieve my remark that most college graduates today are
>uneducated?  Go read this week's series of Doonesbury cartoons.  When it makes 
>the funny pages, things are pretty far gone.

When even those who most pride themselves on their commitment to
education and logical thinking cite the funny pages as evidence for
their positions, the barbarians have already won. 
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenjames cudfnJames cudlnAspnes cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.22 / Benjamin Tilly /  Re: the pointlessness of grammar flames (Re: Politicians who 
     
Originally-From: Benjamin.J.Tilly@dartmouth.edu (Benjamin J. Tilly)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.math,sci.bio,alt.sci.physics.plutonium
Subject: Re: the pointlessness of grammar flames (Re: Politicians who 
Date: 22 May 1994 00:11:27 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In article <2rjmk1$s96@mtha.usc.edu>
bruck@mtha.usc.edu (Ronald Bruck) writes:

[...]
> It is VERY DIFFICULT to write persuasively.  It is a finely tuned craft, which
> can be learned only by reading widely and writing, writing, writing.  Sadly, it
> is a craft which few now master, not only because they do not read, but because
> standard English is now actively discriminated against in our schools.
> 
> I am distressed at the decline in math skills in the population, but not nearly
> as distressed as I am at the DISASTROUS decline in the ability to communicate
> in writing.  The revisionists who argue that the standards for written commun-
> ication are irrelevant, because they were "advertising ploys" by grammarians
> trying to sell grammar books, AND THEN PROPAGATE THEIR IDEAS INTO THE PUBLIC
> SCHOOLS, with the result that they destroy not only the ability to write
> coherently, but even the ability to organize and to THINK coherently, are
> the worst enemies public education has today.
[...]

I must disagree. As you say, there is a point to writing well. There is
a point to being persuasive. There is definitely a point to being able
to express yourself with care. However being able to keep technical
grammatical points straight that few people in the population that you
are talking to have ever heard of does not really affect how persuasive
you are. Thus for discussion on the net there is no real reason for
worrying about the distinction between "less" and "fewer". The vast
majority of people who are reading what you are saying will not know
the difference, and most of the rest probably think that it is a
ridiculous point to be concerned about.

After all everyone understands what you mean no matter which you write
down, and practically nobody is all that offended. By contrast much of
the standard grammar is worthwhile to learn since enough people know it
that you will look uneducated to a lot of people who you need to
impress if you do not truly understand it.

And a point about another post of yours. I think that it does not
matter that a couple of hundred years ago some people decided that "he"
refers to both genders under certain circumstances. The fact is that
today a large enough portion of the population thinks that it is
offensive that it should be avoided. After all it does not matter how
many technical grammar books you can quote to say that you are correct
in using it, if people do not accept it then your use of it will result
in a negative reaction that obscures your message. Therefore if you
wish to be persuasive to as broad an audience as possible, then it is
best to avoid it. I happen to believe that this is a significant enough
portion of the population of sci.math, which is where I am following
this thread, that this comment should be taken seriously.

After all languages are not rules written down in books, they are
living things. And they change over time. Thus the use of the word "he"
to refer to both genders is not fixed in stone, and in many places it
is no longer a part of the practice of the language. For example many
institutions have explicitly rewritten documents for the specific
purpose of removing that use of the word. And many authors make a point
of avoiding it also. So I think that you should think again about your
decision to stand by the technical rules that you can quote saying that
this is a proper use of the language. Or if you do stand by it, then
you should rethink your argument above about following technical rules
of grammar to make what you say more persuasive to your general
audience. At least rethink whether that argument applies anymore to
this particular technical rule.

Ben Tilly
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenTilly cudfnBenjamin cudlnTilly cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.21 /  jedrothwell@de /  Try this experiment!
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Try this experiment!
Date: Sat, 21 May 94 20:26:42 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Try this experiment!
 
This has nothing directly to do with cold fusion, but I think it will
interest the readers of this newsgroup.
 
A little known, extraordinary experiment first performed by Faraday in
1823 calls into question a number of fundamental assumptions about
electromagnetism and relativity. This experiment has not been replicated
often, the only examples we have found in the literature are Kennard (1913
and  1917), and Muller (1990). My colleague Chris Tinsley recently replicated
this experiment without much difficulty. He posted two preliminary notes
about it in the Compuserve science forum, and I added a diagram drawn in
"ASCII art" showing the layout of the device. All three notes are included
in this message.
 
Tinsley can be reached via Compuserve 73751,3365.
 
- Jed Rothwell
 
 --------------------------------------------
 
#: 132052 S2/Physics
    19-May-94  19:09:42
Sb: Electromagnetism
Fm: Chris Tinsley 73751,3365
To: All
 
Please note that the following observations do not in any sense represent
claims of experimental evidence.  Note also that all measurements are *very*
approximate, the apparent effects observed should (if valid at all) be
considered to be qualitative rather than quantitative.
 
BACKGROUND.
 
I have been trying to make sense out of a set of seemingly contradictory
experimental claims, and even more contradictory interpretations made from
those claims.  Each involves the movement of conductors in a magnetic field, an
area of physics which I feel should be fully settled by now, but which does not
appear to be settled at all.  Since these claims lie at the basis of all
theories of electromagnetism, I found it most strange that no resolution of the
situation has been made.  To be strictly accurate, I *know* of no satisfactory
resolution, despite considerable time spent/wasted in study of various
textbooks and scientific papers.
 
All the claims involve rotary movement of conducting surfaces in a magnetic
field.  The classic experiment of this kind is the Faraday Disc.  Here a
conducting disc is rotated about its major axis in front of a large cylindrical
magnet, the axis of magnetisation being along the major axis, so that the two
axes are coaxial.  It is claimed (eg Einstein, 1923) that if the magnet is
rotated and the disc is kept stationary, the same effect will be observed.
Others, usually quoting Faraday (1823 I think) and Kennard (1913 and 1917)
claim that the effect is also observed in the case where both rotate.
 
This leads to a problem of symmettry.  there are four possible cases of
rotation/non rotation, and results are claimed in three cases.
 
The clear effect obtained by Kennard is open to some queries, specifically that
the magnet used was in fact a solenoid, and the evident problem of taking leads
from the rotating conductor - while elegantly done - may not fully answer all
critics.
 
Subsequently (this week) I have seen a claim by Muller (1990) that the effect
is not in fact observed when only the magnet rotates.  This claim is subject to
the same concerns as mentioned in the case of Kennard, but I have not as yet
seen the paper in question.
 
APPARATUS
 
The apparatus used was crude in the extreme, it is merely a first attempt to
try to find out what sort of problems might attend a more serious effort.
 
[PLEASE SEE DIAGRAM IN THE THIRD MESSAGE BELOW]
 
1.  Four annular magnets, ferrite, each capable of supporting one of its
fellows at a height of two inches with reversed polarity.  Internal diam = 3cm,
external diam = 7cm, length = 1cm.
 
2.  A disc of approximate diameter 10cm, of printed circuit board glassfibre
laminate, surfaced on one side with a thin layer of copper.  Total thickness
about 2mm.
 
3.  A small DC motor, with suitable (6V dry cells as power supply).  No-load
speed approx 2500rpm.  Speed measurements are highly approximate, being made
with a photo-transmitter/receptor device in front of which a white dot on the
rotating item moves, the interval between pulses being measured by counting the
number of peaks across the graticule of an old, poorly calibrated oscilloscope.
(an attempt was made to calibrate the scope by adjusting it to show a mains-
frequency signal at the correct rate)
 
4.  A professional quality (for its time) moving coil meter, calibrated last
year, with FSD of 50uA on its most sensitive current scale, and 3V on its most
sensitive volts scale. This is an "AVO Model 8", a large-scale multimeter.
 
Earlier, with one of the magnets being spun by the motor, an attempt had been
made using a single wire to observe any effect in the wire when the magnet spun
in close proximity.  No effect was seen, but this was presumed to be due to the
problem of fixed contacts as earlier explained.  All sorts of orientations were
tried without any success in inducing any current or voltage in the portion of
the wire held between the axis and the perimeter.
 
(Note that the fixed contacts in all cases were of heavy gauge (2mm) Cu wire,
the point of contact being a rounded end of the wire.)
 
EXPERIMENTS
 
1.  The shaft of the motor was taken through the four magnets stacked together,
and used to spin the disc.  A small PD was observed between the axis and
perimeter, a small fraction of 1V.  The disc was at about 3 to 5 mm from the
magnets.  When an effective short-circuit was made via a wire held at some
distance away from the assembly, I am *reasonably* sure that a slight drop in
the motor speed occurred.  So far, results were absolutely as expected,
although I remain unhappy about the mechanism whereby such torque is
transferred to the disc.
 
2.  With minimal disturbance to the device, the magnet stack was caused to
adhere to the back of the disc.  After some trouble with balancing, the
rotating assembly (both disc and magnets) were spun again.  Precisely the same
effect was observed, but with the considerable mass of the magnets it was not
really possible to observe any torque effect.  The effect could of course be
due to the fixed contacts being 'swept' by the magnets.
 
3.  For completeness the rotation was stopped, and no effect was observed.
 
4.  The rotating disc was removed from the shaft, and the magnet stack set to
rotate instead, again at about 3 to 5mm clearance from the disk.  Using
precisely the same configuration of contact leads as in (2), no effect of any
kind was observed.
 
As I say, these results constitute no claim, nor has any attempt been made to
do accurate measurements.  Considerable time was spent on (2) and (4), because
the effects in (1) and (3) were exactly as everybody agrees they will be.  In
particular, considerable effort was made to check and recheck (4), including
reverting to (2) and back again.  The results remained obstinately the same.
 
I should be most interested to hear if anybody would be willing - perhaps as a
school project - to replicate or refute these observations.  The cost of
materials was very low, the total for the disc and magnets being less than $12
in US currency, 8 pounds UK.  The other equipment happened to be available.
 
Chris
 
 -------------------------------------------------
 
 
#: 132176 S2/Physics
    21-May-94  07:34:28
Sb: #132052-Electromagnetism
Fm: Chris Tinsley 73751,3365
To: Chris Tinsley 73751,3365
 
I had a request to explain this better.
 
I should have made it more clear that the axis of magnetisation is the major
axis of the annular magnets.  I insist that this is very preliminary to making
three similar devices, driven by identical motors and having proper brushes,
the whole thing being - if not engineered - at least competently built.
 
However, the effects observed were so striking - absolutely not the tiniest
flicker of the needle except when the disc was rotating, but a clear and marked
effect whenever it was, the whole being quite independent of whether or not the
magnet was rotating - that I went to and fro between the configurations, trying
to provoke an effect in the one case, trying to eliminate it in the other, with
no success of any kind in doing so either way.  The effect reversed perfectly
when the motor terminals were reversed (permag motor) to reverse the direction
of rotation, it reversed when the contacts were reversed, everything was
perfectly solid in terms of a yes or no result.
 
The motor used is less than one inch in diameter, so it goes through the middle
of the magnets.  The effect is absent when the disk is spun with no magnets in
close proximity.  There is no bimetal effect.  The earth's field is negligible.
The motor shaft is more than two inches long, it is difficult to see how it
could have any effect on the disc, and indeed no effect of the motor alone is
seen.  The motor shaft ends in an disc of insulating material, which was used
to mount the magnets and/or copper-surfaced disc.
 
As to the significance, the significance may well be that I've got into a total
muddle.  If I have not, then the result is significant indeed.  Let us suppose
for the sake of argument that the rotating magnet/fixed disc experiment does
not produce an effect.  Muller says it DOESN'T and I've not actually found any
*experiment* which says it DOES.  It is not yet clear to me just where the idea
that it does originated.
 
To quote Einstein (*The Principle of Relativity*, Dover, New York, 1923):
 
        For if the magnet is in motion and the conductor is at rest, there
    arises in the neighborhood of the magnet an electric field (due to
    induction) with a certain definite energy, producing a current at the
    places where parts of the conductor are situated.  But if the magnet is
    stationary and the conductor in motion, no electric field (and no
    induction) arises in the neighborhood of the magnet.
 
Note that here Einstein is demonstrating the flaw in Maxwell's equations, which
require that one or other of the magnet and the conductor be *considered to be*
at rest - which is contrary to experience.  Except that here, in an accelerated
frame, the presumed result does not appear to be manifesting itself.  Instead,
the effect appears to depend simply upon whether the disc is rotating or not,
the movement of the magnet being irrelevant.
 
How does the principle of relativity explain these results?  Is there nobody
out there who understands relativistic electrodynamics *properly*, who can
explain?
 
Or is my understanding of the whole thing flawed?  And, if so, are the
textbooks correct when they suggest that the effect is symmetrical?
 
And does the homopolar generator create torque in the disc?
 
If it does not do this when current is drawn, then it violates energy
conservation.
 
If it does, then how is the force transferred to the disc?  By the forces on
the electrons?  But in that case, how do the electrons transfer this force to
the copper atoms?
 
And is the effect the same in the corotating variant?
 
If so, upon what does the torque act?  The magnets, which are bonded to the
disc and upon which the force cannot do work?  Will it perhaps simply generate
an EMF, which (unlike the case of the disc rotating against a fixed magnet)
will *collapse* the moment any current is drawn?  I *suspect* that is what will
happen.
 
I don't know if I'm more confused or less confused than I was when I started.
Certainly all the time I've spent trying to make sense from textbooks and
papers dusty with age has not helped in any way.  At least now I've got
something to go on with, and can refine/correct it.  Unless somebody can sort
out my confusion!
 
I think it was J J Thomson who got very irritable about cosmology, because
anybody could play games with mathematics and build any universe they chose,
free from the fear that anybody might 'benchtop' them with an experiment.  He
was notoriously competent at the bench.  I would be ashamed if he saw my rig,
but I'll do better!  Meanwhile, might I implore those who use this forum and
who consider themselves competent in physics to tell me what is going on?  Or
to tell me why this work has no significance?  As far as I can see, if the
results were to hold, relativity *at least* requires reinterpretation?
 
To restate the difficulties as I see them:
 
1.  If you draw current from a Faraday disc (and you CAN) and it doesn't torque
the disc, energy conservation is violated.  If it does, electromagnetic theory
is wrong.
 
2.  My primitive experiments *indicate* that the EMF depends on the rotation of
the disc in 'absolute space', apparently against all teaching and against
relativity.
 
 
Chris
 
 ----------------------------------------
 
 
#: 132186 S2/Physics
    21-May-94  10:54:07
Sb: #132176-Electromagnetism
Fm: Jed Rothwell 72240,1256
To: Chris Tinsley 73751,3365
 
Here are some ASCII Art diagrams that might help the readers of this forum
understand what Chris Tinsley is doing. He is replicating a baffling, little
known experiment performed by Faraday (1823), Kennard (1913, 1917), and Muller
(1990). Here is a side view, cross section of Chris's device, taken from
drawings he faxed me.
 
This is Configuration # 1. This configuration was used by Faraday and many
others. This was the basis for a 19th century low voltage, high amp generator.
 
The four annular magnets (donut-shaped) are stacked together. The magnets are
shown cut-away in this crude diagram. They do not move. The shaft of the motor
passes through them and turns a plastic insulating disk (shown as "IIII").
Double-sided adhesive pads ("PAD") are hold a copper disk ("Cu") to the
insulating disk. The motor shaft spins the insulating disk and the Cu disk. A
small potential difference was observed between the axis and perimeter, a small
fraction of 1 volt, in locations shown by the "METER" on the far right.
 
The magnets are about 5 mm away from the insulating disk. The copper disk is
struck right onto the insulating disk (the pads are thin).
 
                                              "III"      "Cu"
                                             Insulat-    Copper
                                             ing Disk    Disk
 
                                                  IIII   Cu
                               FOUR MAGNETS     I   II P Cu
                             __________________I__  II A Cu
                            ||    |    |    |    |  II D Cu
                          |  |____|____|____|____I  II   Cu
                         |  |    |    |    |    |   II   Cu
_________               |  |    |    |    |    |    II   Cu
|       |               |  |S  N|S  N|    |    |    II   Cu
| MOTOR |====SHAFT==================================II   Cu
|_______|               |  |    |    |    |    |    II   Cu <..contact....
                        |  |    |    |    |    |    II   Cu              .
                         |  | ____|____|____|____|  II   Cu            METER
                          |  |    |    |    |    |  II P Cu              .
                            ||____I____I____I____I  II A Cu              .
                                                I   II D Cu              .
                           MAGNETS MOTIONLESS    I  II   Cu <.............
                                                  IIII   Cu
 
                                                       ^
                                                     "PAD"
 
 
 
Here is configuration # 2, described by Chris: "With minimal disturbance to the
device, the magnet stack was caused to adhere to the back of the disc.  After
some trouble with balancing, the rotating assembly (both disc and magnets) were
spun again.  Precisely the same effect was observed."
 
The only difference is that the magnets are now attached to the insulating disk
with another set of double-sided adhesive pads ("PAD"), so this time, magnets,
insulating disk and copper disk all whirl together.
 
                                                  IIII   Cu
                               FOUR MAGNETS     I   II P Cu
                             __________________I__  II A Cu
                            ||    |    |    |    |P II D Cu
                          |  |____|____|____|____IA II   Cu
                         |  |    |    |    |    | D II   Cu
_________               |  |    |    |    |    |    II   Cu
|       |               |  |S  N|S  N|    |    |    II   Cu
| MOTOR |====SHAFT==================================II   Cu
|_______|               |  |    |    |    |    |    II   Cu <..contact....
                        |  |    |    |    |    |    II   Cu              .
                         |  | ____|____|____|____|P II   Cu            METER
                          |  |    |    |    |    |A II P Cu              .
                            ||____I____I____I____ID II A Cu              .
                                                I   II D Cu              .
                           MAGNETS SPIN TOO      I  II   Cu <.............
                                                  IIII   Cu
 
                                                  ^     ^
                                                "PAD" "PAD"
                                          (both magnets and Cu glued on)
 
 
 
In Configuration # 4 (not shown), the pads are removed from the copper disk
side of the insulated disk. The magnets remain glued on with the pads. This
time, the magnets spin and the copper disk remains stationary. No effect is
seen; the needle on the voltmeter does not budge.
 
The voltage is only observed when the disk spins, or the disk and magnets spin
together. Muller (1990) also reported this.
 
- Jed
 
* End of File *
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenjedrothwell cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Sun May 22 04:37:05 EDT 1994
------------------------------
1994.05.22 /  bckirkup@husc. /  Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
     
Originally-From: bckirkup@husc.harvard.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.math,sci.bio
Subject: Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
Date: Sun, 22 May 1994 01:42:13 GMT
Organization: Harvard University Science Center


>Although I appreciate your sentiments I must object to your juxtaposition of
> "SENSIBLE, SCIENTIFIC" minds versus "artsy, sophisitcated" people.
>I claim to be both and I choose to use my artsy sophisticated aspect to seek
>to clarify my thoughts and language in order to render "SENSIBLE, SCIENTIFIC"
> concepts intelligible.

>The rounded personality to be found in an educated person, on your side of the
> pond or mine, and exemplified by Hawkings' Brief History of Time, is to be
>cherished and supported.


Hehe... Ok.  I got your point, though I think Hawkings did a darn poor job 
with his book... at least when compared to many other popularizers.  Take 
Hyperspace as a good example, or maybe anything by Gould, which, though it 
may be wrong, is at least witty.  In fact, he is difficult to argue with in 
many cases, simply because his arguments are either so well put that they 
appear unassailable, or the illistrations so humorous, one cant stop 
laughing.  
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenbckirkup cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.21 / Stephen Hansen /  Re: "Cold Fusion" Magazine Accelerating
     
Originally-From: Stephen Hansen <hansen35@delphi.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: "Cold Fusion" Magazine Accelerating
Date: Sat, 21 May 94 23:57:33 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

The context of "Cold Fusion" Magazine is made more interesting if one looks
at Wayne Green's editorials in "73 Amateur Radio" during the period from
March through May. (Wayne is the creator of both magazines.)
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenhansen35 cudfnStephen cudlnHansen cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.22 / James Daniel /  Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
     
Originally-From: daniel@hagar.ph.utexas.edu (James Daniel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics
Subject: Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
Date: 22 May 1994 04:31:59 GMT
Organization: Physics Department, University of Texas

In article <1994May20.145212.4164@malins.mala.bc.ca>,
Arnold G. Gill <gill@mala.bc.ca> wrote:
>In article <2rdsml$ql8@riscsm.scripps.edu>, anthonyp@scripps.edu writes:
>> 
>> Well, that depends on the instrument, doesn't it?  If you are using a 
>> pressure-sensitive instrument (spring-type, for example), then you are 
>> mesuring weight.  If you are using a balance of any type (doctor's-office 
>> scale or 3-beam balance, for example), you are measuring mass.
>
>     No, you are still using weight.  A balance balances gravitational
>torques.  If you wish to measure the mass directly, you have to use an
>atribute of mass, namely the inertia.  Place the mass on a forced
>oscillating table and determine the resonance frequency.
>
>---
>Arnold G. Gill -- astrophysician at play                        gill@mala.bc.ca


I understand your point about inertia, yet in terms of the method I would
trust to be measuring _mass_ as opposed to the amount of force on a mass,
I believe the balancing method to be the best measure.  The reason being
that with a balance, we can precise compare one mass with another,
directly.  If we use a method in which the lever arms are the same, then
we can put "stuff" on one side and our standard mass on the other to
measure the amount of "stuff" in units of the standard.  We can insure the
accuracy of our method by switching the stuff and the standard to the
opposite arrangement.  If there is an imbalance in the balance, then it
would be revealed -- so we can standardize the balance to be reliable for
any units of measure by ensuring that it balances with masses in both
arrangements.  

Is this then "truly" measuring weight, rather than mass?  I don't think so,
because it doesn't matter what the gravitational acceleration is:  we'd
get the same measure for mass.  Nor are we measuring gravitational mass
rather than inertial mass, since we could be in an accelerating spaceship
and get the same result -- even if the acceleration were _nonuniform_
(so long as it didn't get to zero or below!).  

As for using a forced oscillation table and determining a resonant 
frequency, that's asking a lot of me -- I mean, I have to believe that
the oscillations are reasonably linear, and that a calibration for 
several different masses gives a reasonable response.  A rather complicated
verification when compared with balancing two objects on either and of
a lever.  The calibration is trivial, as is the choice of a standard
(a volume of water at 20 C, anyone?).  

(By the way, I realize this all is nit-picky as heck!)


James Daniel
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudendaniel cudfnJames cudlnDaniel cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.22 / L Plutonium /  ascii-art of the 5f6:Plutonium Atom Totality
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,alt.religion.kibology,sci.math,sci
physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.chem,sci.bio,alt.ascii-art
Subject: ascii-art of the 5f6:Plutonium Atom Totality
Date: 22 May 1994 17:31:28 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In article <2rjl02$q73@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium) writes:

> In article <Colin_Douthwaite.f478@equinox.gen.nz>
> Colin_Douthwaite@equinox.gen.nz (Colin Douthwaite) writes:
> 
> > Perhaps the simple answer to the lack of response to your polite request is
> > that none of the ascii-artists have the required knowledge of nuclear
> > physics or chemistry to do what you ask. Are you surprised ?  :-)
> > 
> > Bye,
> 
> Okay, I will try to post some books with pages of pictures of the
> electron cloud of atoms. This has the handicap of asking an artist to
> check out those pictures in a library near by.
> 
> But the 5f6 should not be that difficult because you only have to do
> half and then it is a 180 degree symmetry for the other half.
> 
> Let me try to describe the below crude picture of the 5f6. It is a
> cross section.
>                         94th ELECTRON OF 231PU
>                Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH ELECTRON
> 
>                   \ ::| :./.
>                   .\::|::/.:
>                      _ _
>                     (:Y:)
>                      - - 
>                   ::/.|.\.:
>                 :: /.:| :\.:
>                   /   |   \.
>         One of those dots is the Sun with 9 smaller dots around it.
> Look in a chemistry textbook or quantum physics textbook of the
> electron cloud dot picture. 
> 
> The middle is circular with a equiangular Y. The lines are the nodes
> and this middle portion looks like a steering wheel. The exact center
> is a node and it is where the nucleus is. It would be nice to have sort
> of like a enlargment of the nucleus showing 137 neutrons and 94 protons
> as balls, but that is quite a lot to ask. The dots of the 5f6 electron
> cloud are densest near the nucleus and become sparser the farther out
> from the nucleus. There are 6 lobes but all I could do was have 6 lines
> to indicate the lobes.
> The dots further out are to represent the galaxies. A closer-in look
> then the dots become stars. And a microscopic view close in of the 5f6
> would show the Sun as a dot with the planets around it. And the highest
> resolution would be life atoms and elements on Earth as the dots (mass
> of the 94th electron of 231*94).
>   I am asking too much of ascii but I could be nicely surprized. 
>   And let it be known to any potential artist. That there is alot of
> leeway in drawing the 5f6 because noone due to the Schroedinger
> Equation can draw an exact 5f6. All drawings of the 5f6 are crude first
> approximations.
>   And let me add that in one book on spectroscopy the author I believe
> was White with someone else shows a page with the 5f6 (using spinning
> tops). And the ironic nature of this page is that it shows s, p, d, and
> f orbitals. It shows many of these orbitals. But of all the orbitals
> there stands out the 5f6 and what is so bizarre is that of all the
> pictures on that page by White is that the 5f6 looks closest to a human
> being. Could it be that the 5f6 of the Schroedinger equation has the
> form of a human being?

  The reference of White is this in detail. INTRODUCTION TO ATOMIC
SPECTRA by Harvey White 1934. It is a shame they do not print this book
any longer. On page 71 it shows twenty four pictures of hydrogen
electron clouds. One of them is the 5f6, the one which looks like a
human being or two humans close together.
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.22 / L Plutonium /  Re: ascii-art of the 5f6:Plutonium Atom Totality
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,alt.religion.kibology,sci.math,sci
physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.chem,sci.bio,alt.ascii-art
Subject: Re: ascii-art of the 5f6:Plutonium Atom Totality
Date: 22 May 1994 17:51:11 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In article <2ro4tg$sqq@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium) writes:

> > In article <Colin_Douthwaite.f478@equinox.gen.nz>
> > Colin_Douthwaite@equinox.gen.nz (Colin Douthwaite) writes:
> > 
> > > Perhaps the simple answer to the lack of response to your polite request is
> > > that none of the ascii-artists have the required knowledge of nuclear
> > > physics or chemistry to do what you ask. Are you surprised ?  :-)

 INTRODUCTION TO ATOMIC SPECTRA by Harvey White 1934. It is a shame
they do not print this book any longer. On page 71 it shows twenty four
pictures of hydrogen electron clouds. One of them is the 5f6, the one
which looks like a human being or two humans close together. For the
first time, humanity can draw a picture likeness of our Maker. One
thing is sure of the drawing, it will be symmetrical.

The book QUANTA by Atkins 1991 page 119 shows f orbitals shapes. A
drawer would have to do a dot pattern.

PHYSICS part 2 Halliday & Resnick Extended Version 1986 page 572 with
enlarged view of nucleus. I would want also an enlarged view of the
Solar System  as dots with the Sun as the biggest dot and Jupiter the
next largest. Such a dot picture would have to get the Solar System in
correct still picture pattern which is difficult to do in ascii-art due
to the constraints of the keyboard. And an artist would do an enlarged
dot picture of the night sky showing the Dippers and Sirius,
Betelgeuse, etc. as part of the 5f6.

Journal of Chemical Education Vol 65 Number 1 Jan 1988 pages 31-33
"Order out of Chaos:Shapes of Hydrogen Orbitals" by G.L.Breneman. These
pictures are perhaps good as a summary of shapes.

5th edition 1991 Chemistry the Central Science by Brown, LeMay, Bursten
pages 188-189 for good electron cloud dot pictures.

Principles of Modern Chemistry by Oxtoby, Nachtrieb 1990 2nd edition
page 504 has angular and radial parts of wavefunction for one-electron
atoms. For those math inclined can see where I pulled the nodes from in
my crude ascii-art drawing. Then from pages 505-507 contains good
electron cloud dot pictures.

   I hope the above is enough to get some artists to do their own
interpretation of the 5f6. Anyone doing art work of the 5f6, please put
your name or initials in the corner so that when others copy paste your
work that you have the credit. This is the usual form of credit for
art, similar to credit when someone copy-reposts another's writing. It
is all copyrighted anyway.
                       94th ELECTRON OF 231PU
               Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH ELECTRON

                  \ ::| :./.
                  .\::|::/.:
                     _ _
                    (:Y:)
                     - - 
                  ::/.|.\.:
                :: /.:| :\.:
                  /   |   \.
                          LP
        One of those dots is the Sun with 9 smaller dots around it.
Look in a chemistry textbook or quantum physics textbook of the
electron cloud dot picture. 
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.22 / David Lambert /  Re: Try this experiment!
     
Originally-From: Dave@g4poi.demon.co.uk (David R Lambert)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Try this experiment!
Date: Sun, 22 May 1994 17:52:24 +0000
Organization: Internet & Amprnet

Greetings. I read about your experiment with some interest and decided to
offer the following in good spirit for consideration.

--------

There are a few points regarding the construction of the experiment that could
I think lead to erroneous results.

Rotating a disk of fibreglass with copper on one side in air could by friction
cause a charge to build up on it. One could artificialy increase the humidity
and try the experiment again to see if the results differed, (e.g. boil a
kettle of water in the room for a while or try the same experiment on wet and
dry days). (Also see the comments below about the Earths magnetic field.)

Sticking magnets to each other could well produce an uneven field which
would "contaminate" results, so a single magnet would be preferable. Also,
by using a ships compass some distance away (in the same room of course!)
and carefully rotating the magnet assembly, one could detect any large
variations in the field of the magnet due to manufacturing faults for
instance.

The Earths magnetic field effects should not be brushed aside. Any field that
can move metal (compass) is quite capable of inducing current in a disk that
is rotating within it. There are two simple checks that could be done.
i.  Align the experiment with the Earths magnetic pole. Take results. Then
    turn the experiment around by 90 degrees and see if the results differ.
ii. Spin the disk without any magnets at-all near it at various angles
    relative to the Earths magnetic field. (Also note the point about static
    charge build up.)

Using a moving coil meter (that also has permanent magnets inside) is
a possible source of confusion, as is the wiring from the meter to the
disk. The meter should be a considerable distance away and the wires should
also be moved to different positions and measurements taken so that changes
in magnetic field passing through them could be taken into account.

Last, but not least, I have to question the wisdom of using a permanent magnet
motor to drive an experiment of this type. I think you should try to find an
alternative, or at a minimum, use a non-ferrous drive shaft with the motor
some distance away.

I would be interested to hear if you try any of the above and whether there
are any observable changes in the results.

------------

I should point out that I'm no expert in the subject under examination, but
as an observer, would require the above to be addressed before I went out
and bought Champaigne for everybody 8-)

Yours with cork-screw in hand...
-- 
David R Lambert                    Dave@g4poi.demon.co.uk
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenDave cudfnDavid cudlnLambert cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Mon May 23 04:37:03 EDT 1994
------------------------------
1994.05.22 / SCOTT CHASE /  Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
     
Originally-From: sichase@csa5.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.math,sci.ch,sci.bio
Subject: Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
Date: 22 May 1994 11:38 PST
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA

In article <2rlq2i$8pj@scunix2.harvard.edu>, rmaimon@husc9.Harvard.EDU
(Ron Maimon) writes...
> 
>What a snotty bunch of assholes!
> 
>You idiots probably couldn't appreciate good writing if it bit you on the
>neck. Ever read any Kerouac? Any stuff by Kurt Vonnegut? or do you spend
>all your time in the bathroom jerking off to Strunk and White?

Eloquently put.  Now I know what they are teaching you at Hahvahd.

-Scott
 -------------------                         Physics is not a religion.  If
Scott I. Chase                               it were, we'd have a much easier
SICHASE@CSA2.LBL.GOV                         time raising money. -Leon Lederman
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudensichase cudfnSCOTT cudlnCHASE cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.21 / Michael Moroney /  Re: NAMING OF THE ELEMENTS;MORE IMPORTANT,STANDARD NOTATION OF
     
Originally-From: moroney@world.std.com (Michael Moroney)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.chem,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: NAMING OF THE ELEMENTS;MORE IMPORTANT,STANDARD NOTATION OF
Date: Sat, 21 May 1994 06:22:00 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

In article <2rjjj7$nb3@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>, Ludwig Plutonium wrote:
> In article <o74sjaE96VCN063yn@world.std.com>
> moroney@world.std.com (Michael Moroney) writes:
> 
> > Seems kind of kludgy to talk about a simple compound as (2*1) (32*16)(16*8)
> >                                                              2             4
> > rather than just H2SO4.
>    Good word, kludgy, but this will be the new METRIC SYSTEM for
> Chemistry and Physics. Because it is unambiguous. Take the example of
> isotopes in that compound. My new system takes care of it. The old
> system pretends as if all isotopes of an element are the same.

OK, but if I want to write an introductory chemistry book and correctly
describe the chemical reaction that takes place if one adds commercial
battery acid to potash, how should I do it with your system.  The old
system, which ignores isotopes, reads H2SO4 + K2CO3 -> K2SO4 + H2O + CO2.
Note that each element in this equation has more than one natural isotope.

-Mike
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenmoroney cudfnMichael cudlnMoroney cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.22 / Mark North /  Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
     
Originally-From: north@watop.nosc.mil (Mark North)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.math,sci.ch,sci.bio
Subject: Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
Date: Sun, 22 May 1994 18:58:48 GMT
Organization: NCCOSC RDT&E Division, San Diego, CA

rmaimon@husc9.Harvard.EDU (Ron Maimon) writes:

>In article <north.769532633@watop>, north@watop.nosc.mil (Mark North) writes:
>|> 
>|> Very well put and I agree completely. Now let's talk about bring and take,
>|> the misuse of which makes one sound even more ignorant than less/fewer.
>|> 

>What a snotty bunch of assholes!

>You idiots probably couldn't appreciate good writing if it bit you on the
>neck. Ever read any Kerouac? Any stuff by Kurt Vonnegut? or do you spend
>all your time in the bathroom jerking off to Strunk and White?

>It's people like you that try to hide the very small things you have
>to say behind superbig words and pompous style up your ass

Well, EXCUUUUUUUUUSE ME! Touched a raw nerve, have we?

Mark

cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudennorth cudfnMark cudlnNorth cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.22 / Jim Carr /  Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.bio
Subject: Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
Date: 22 May 1994 16:27:26 -0400
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

In article <1994May19.121426.9751@dxcern.cern.ch> jeroen@dxcern.cern.ch
(Jeroen Belleman) writes:
>
>Wrong! A balance is used to compare masses, not weights. This works
>fine as long as there is some weight. Obviously it won't work in
>free fall.

OK.  A balance compares the *forces* on the two sides.  In the presence 
of a uniform acceleration (either from gravity -- with negligible gradients 
so it won't work near a black hole -- or some artificial means such as 
swinging the balance about your head, elevator, rocket, ...) this force 
is directly proportional to mass via F=ma.   

Since a balance compares the forces from two masses, it is the best way 
of determining a mass.  Other devices are scales, which measure the force 
directly and (in many cases) convert that force into a mass by making 
an assumption about the local gravitational field. 

-- 
 James A. Carr   <jac@scri.fsu.edu>     |   "It's never confusing though, 
      http://www.scri.fsu.edu           |  because ultimately it all fits 
 Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst.  |  -- it's just cockeyed and fits  
 Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306    |  and is fire."  -  Norman Maclean 
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.22 /  collins@jaguar /  Re: Thermacore uses magnetic mixers
     
Originally-From: collins@jaguar.csc.wsu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Thermacore uses magnetic mixers
Date: 22 May 94 15:37:10 -0800
Organization: Washington State Univ.

In article <STOLFI.94May21093409@s1j.dcc.unicamp.br>, stolfi@s1j.dcc.uni
amp.br (Jorge Stolfi) writes:
> 
>     > [Me:] I wonder how much power the coil can pick up from the
>     > stirrer's magnetic field?
> 
>     > [Jed Rothwell:] I was not in the room with that particular
>     > stirrer, but the ones I have seen in other laboratories are very
>     > low powered devices, like floppy disk motors.  I am sure they
>     > draw milliamps only. So the coil could not possibly pick up even
>     > a watt from it.
> 
> Perhaps. 
> 
> However, electric motors generally draw more power when they are doing
> more work.  The coil electrode (which, remember, is partially shunted
> by the electrolyte) will surely impose *some* extra drag on the
> driving magnet.  ...

A check of a FLUKA catalog shows that small magnetic-stirrers have
power consumptions between 25 and 50 Watts, much greater than suggested
by Jed Rothwell.  We have used them here, and they get very warm to the 
touch on top after a few hours (about 50 degrees C, or so).  
Heating from the stirrer unit is in addition to heating inside the cell 
due to induction or friction.

-- 
Gary S. Collins, Physics, Washington State U.  (collins@cougar.csc.wsu.edu)
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudencollins cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.22 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Try this experiment!
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Try this experiment!
Date: Sun, 22 May 94 20:55:51 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Someone sent me Faraday's own notes from this experiment. This is from a paper
titled "HOMOPOLAR 'FREE-ENERGY' GENERATOR TEST," by Robert Kincheloe,
Professor of Electrical Engineering (Emeritus), Stanford University. Tinsley
obtained precisely the same results as Faraday.
 
 
       Figure 5 - Transcription of the first  experiment showing generation
                  of electrical  power  in  a moving conductor  by  Michael
                  Faraday
 
       99*. Made many expts. with a copper revolving plate, about 12 inches
            in diameter  and  about  1/5  of inch thick, mounted on a brass
            axle.
 
            To concentrate the polar action two small magnets 6 or 7 inches
            long, about 1 inch wide and half an inch thick were put against
            the front of the large poles, transverse to them and with their
            flat sides against them, and  the  ends  pushed  forward  until
            sufficiently near; the bars were prevented from  slipping  down
            by jars and shakes by means of string tied round them.
 
       100. The edge of the plate was inserted more of less between the two
            concentrated poles  thus formed.  It was also well amalgamated,
            and then contact was made with this edge in different places by
            conductors formed from equally  thick copper plate and with the
            extreme end edges grooved and amalgamated so  as  to  fit on to
            and have  contact  with  the  edges of the plate.  Two of these
            were attached to a piece of card board by thread at such
 
       *[99]
                    (Sysop note:  a sketch appeared in this area)
 
       ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 
       (Sysop note:  The following figure also had an accompanying drawing)
 
       Figure 7 - Test of a rotating magnet  by  Michael  Faraday, December
                  26, 1831.
 
       255.  A copper disc was cemented on the top of a cylinder magnet,
             paper intervening,  the  top being the marked pole; the magnet
             supported so as to rotate by means of string, and the wires of
             the galvanometer connected with  the  edge and the axis of the
             copper plate.   When  the  magnet  and  disc together  rotated
             unscrew the  marked  end  of  the  needle went west.  When the
             magnet and disc rotated screw  the  marked  end  of the needle
             went east.
 
       256.  This direction is the same as that which would have resulted
             if the  copper  had  moved and the magnet been  still.   Hence
             moving the  magnet  causes  no  difference provided the copper
             moves.  A  rotating and a stationary  magnet  cause  the  same
             effect.
 
       257.  The disc was then loosed from the magnet and held still
             whilst the magnet itself was revolved; but now  no effect upon
             the galvanometer.  Hence it appears that, of the metal circuit
             in which  the  current  is  to be formed, different parts must
             move with different angular  velocities.  If with the same, no
             current is produced, i.e. when both parts are  external to the
             magnet.
 
* End of File *
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenjedrothwell cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.22 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Try this experiment!
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Try this experiment!
Date: Sun, 22 May 94 21:01:51 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Thank you for your comments, I will relay them to Chris. Let me answer a
few of the points you raised, because I happen to raise some of them myself,
and Chris responded.
 
I do not think the divider was fiberglass. He said it was "insulating plastic"
of some kind. I will check.
 
I suggested that stray magnetic fields might be a cause, including perhaps
the earth's magnetic field. Chris had already thought of that, he tried
changing the orientation of the device. I presume that if it was the earth,
than pointing it from north to south would change the electric signal. See
Faraday's description, where he changed the direction of rotation. I do not
think... Excuse me... ahem, Yes Chris did this too, and found the same result.
He switched the motor terminals.
 
I suggest you contact Chris directly if you have other ideas or suggestions.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenjedrothwell cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.23 / Morten Pedersen /  Re: The FAQ for superconductivity 21/05/1994
     
Originally-From: hpe@zurich.ibm.com (Morten Holm Pedersen)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The FAQ for superconductivity 21/05/1994
Date: 23 May 1994 10:28:05 GMT
Organization: IBM Zurich Research Laboratory

Ludwig Plutonium (Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu) wrote:
>   Ever notice that new superconductive material is discovered at a hot
> pace. Yet the correct theory of understanding is lagging, is in the
Unfortunately true.

> dark ages, is in the back of the cave. No wonder. The reason is because
> noone has taken the most logical steps forward from here. Noone has
> checked-out whether superconductivity is really 0 electrical
It might well be that the textbooks claims that the resistivity is 0.
You are right that this is probably wrong - at finite
temperature there is always a finite probability that all the
condensed particles should spontaneously scatter out of the
condensate and destroy the superflow for an instant. The probability
for such an event is, however, equal to the probability that all
Ludwig Plutonium mails are quantum fluctuations and not written by a human ;)
(Could this be the case - that would explain a lot).

> resistance. Or if they have, they are being very silent about it. No
I am working in a superconductivity lab - I am not part of any
conspiracy. Feel free to ask. (but the numbers you ask for are
probably of an order of magnitude not measurable.)

> different electrical resistances. Very small electrical resistance, to
> be sure, because it is the flow of neutrinos in superconductivity. And
So neutrinos are the carriers of electricity? How can that be - as far
as I am aware neutrinos are neutral.

>    Many to most working scientists now see the BCS theory as not much
> more than a heuristic device. Although one salvageable feature of the
The BCS theory is a mean field theory, it works nicely where it should
- for low temperatures and large and highly overlapping Cooper-pairs.
It also works for neutron stars, though I am not a specialist here. I should
think the BCS theory is then much more that a heuristic device applied
in the proper cases. However, it probably wont work for the 
HTc-materials, IMHO.

> BCS is the notion of *many atoms behaving as though it were one atom*. 
[...]   
>    According to my theory, *at very low temperatures all
> superconducting
> substances act or behave as if it were one atom*. For example, the many
> atoms of mercury at 4k are no longer many atoms of mercury, but
> instead, just *ONE Superconducting Atom*. Hence this frozen mercury is
> one atom which has many electrons in a filled quantum state.  The low
> temperature causes this quantum state. Now one must think of all of the
> electrons of this ONE Atom and the quantum mechanics of this "filled
> state." One can picture that a strip of superconducting mercury at 4k
> is ONE Atom which has perhaps 10^22 electrons and the same number of
> protons.
This sounds like the "explanation" for superfluid helium.
Superfluidity happens when the thermal de Broglie wavelength of the
atoms equals the interparticle distance - then the liquid acts as one
quantum system. What you try to say in your wierd language is
presumably just what physicists call Off Diagonal Long Range Order.

> At the other end the current flow is back to usual with photon
> carriers.
Now photons carry electricity - please explain.

> the speed of light. In other words, neutrinos are anyon particles.
I believe anyons are particles with fractional statistics - neutrinos
obey the Fermi-Dirac distribution law or not?

Morten Holm Pedersen
IBM Zurich Research Laboratory
Group of Theoretical Superconductivity
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenhpe cudfnMorten cudlnPedersen cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.23 / Arnold Gill /  Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
     
Originally-From: gill@mala.bc.ca (Arnold G. Gill)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
Date: 23 May 94 10:31:32 -0700
Organization: Malaspina College

In article <19MAY199408572464@xenon.arc.nasa.gov>, laforce@xenon.arc.nas
.gov (Soren LaForce) writes:
> A ballance measures mass.  
> 
> I can't think of a way for a ballance to work without an external 
> acceleration (or gravitational field), e.g. not in "free fall."

     Your two statements here flatly contradict each other.  A balance,
by definition, requires an external gravitational field to operate.  As
such, it cannot measure mass directly, but measures forces - in
particular, it measure torques.  This then is converted and calibrated
to a mass scale by Newton's second law.

     The only way to measure mass directly is to measure the inertia of
an object.  And that means you're going to have to move it abruptly.

---
Arnold G. Gill -- astrophysician at play                        gill@mala.bc.ca
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudengill cudfnArnold cudlnGill cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.23 / Tom Radcliffe /  Re: SL: Non aqueous SL info wanted......
     
Originally-From: tom@mips2.phy.queensu.ca (Tom Radcliffe)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: SL: Non aqueous SL info wanted......
Date: Mon, 23 May 1994 16:57:24 GMT
Organization: Queen's University, Kingston

In article <1994May18.173004.1@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au>, dowen@vaxc.cc.mon
sh.edu.au writes:
|> Hi folks,
|> Does somebody know of any SL experiments performed using any medium
|> other than water. Any references or other info would be much appreciated.

Kenneth S. Suslick and Edward B. Flint, Sonoluminescence from non-aqueous
liquids, Nature _330_ (1987) 553
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudentom cudfnTom cudlnRadcliffe cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.23 / David Smith /  Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
     
Originally-From: dsmith@thor.rm.fccc.edu (David Smith)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.math,sci.ch,sci.bio
Subject: Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
Date: 23 May 1994 18:07:30 GMT
Organization: Fox Chase Cancer Center


In article <2rlq2i$8pj@scunix2.harvard.edu>, rmaimon@husc9.Harvard.EDU
(Ron Maimon) writes:
|> Path: taurus.fccc.edu!netnews.upenn.edu!msuinfo!agate!howland.reston.
ns.net!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!MathWorks.Com!noc.near.net!das-news.harvard
edu!husc-news.harvard.edu!husc.harvard.edu!husc9!rmaimon
|> Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.math,sci.ch,sci.bio
|> Subject: Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
|> Message-ID: <2rlq2i$8pj@scunix2.harvard.edu>
|> From: rmaimon@husc9.Harvard.EDU (Ron Maimon)
|> Date: Sat, 21 May 94 16:14:10 GMT+5:00
|> Sender: rmaimon@husc9 (Ron Maimon)
|> References: <2rfat7$8jp@scunix2.harvard.edu> <2rgina$e4a@riscsm.scripps.edu>   
|>  <nnsge01.769429991@mailserv.zdv.uni-tuebingen.de> <2rj7u6$r4d@mtha.u
c.edu> <north.769532633@watop>
|> Distribution: world
|> Organization: Harvard University, Cambridge, MA
|> NNTP-Posting-Host: scws9.harvard.edu
|> Lines: 42
|> Xref: taurus.fccc.edu sci.physics.fusion:12852 sci.math:71270 sci.bio:19496
|> 
|> In article <north.769532633@watop>, north@watop.nosc.mil (Mark North) writes:
|> |> bruck@mtha.usc.edu (Ronald Bruck) writes:
|> |> 
|> |> >This is not ridiculous.  It is one of the most elementary and easy-to-
|> |> >remember distinctions in the English language.  It is a sign of a LACK
|> |> >of education to make this error in written English, and most of the people
|> |> >I know do not make this error in spoken English--even at the expense of 
|> |> >backtracking and correcting the verbal mistake.
|> |> 
|> |> >The fact that most college graduates probably don't know the difference
|> |> >is irrelevant.  Most college graduates aren't educated.
|> |> 
|> |> >When I see someone write "different THAN" instead of "different FROM", or
|> |> >use "it's" as a possessive, or misspell "kernel" or "separable", or fall 
|> |> >into any number of similar traps which indicate that he hasn't been paying 
|> |> >attention to what he's read, or that he doesn't read very much, or that he's 
|> |> >never taken a decent writing course in his life, then I cannot help having
|> |> >less respect for WHAT he writes.  (And yes, I mean HE, the universal pronoun.)
|> |> 
|> |> >It's no good saying that form is irrelevant to content, because people who 
|> |> >are careful with respect to content usually try to be respectful of form
|> |> >as well.
|> |> 
|> |> Very well put and I agree completely. Now let's talk about bring and take,
|> |> the misuse of which makes one sound even more ignorant than less/fewer.
|> |> 
|> 
|> What a snotty bunch of assholes!
|> 
|> You idiots probably couldn't appreciate good writing if it bit you on the
|> neck. Ever read any Kerouac? Any stuff by Kurt Vonnegut? or do you spend
|> all your time in the bathroom jerking off to Strunk and White?
|> 

That's funny--you call mathematicians a "snotty bunch of assholes," and then
you say that they "probably couldn't appreciate good writing if it bit [them]
on the neck."  What an elitist you are!

I don't think the thread concerns what "good writing" is; it's more about what
"good grammar" is.  Writing is not an absolute; grammar is.  There's no question
that a great deal of masterful writing ignores the conventions of grammmar, and
not many people would want it any other way.  However, when one is talking about
mathematical and scientific writing, it's very important that the author be
understood.  One of the ways in which he can make himself clear is to use
proper grammar.

|> It's people like you that try to hide the very small things you have
|> to say behind superbig words and pompous style up your ass
|> 
|> --
|> Ron Maimon
|> 
|> -------------------------------------------------------------------
|>      Loneliness is not a phase
|>                                  - Layne Staley
|> 
	(But let's hope that Rob Maimon is.)

				David

--
David Smith at Fox Chase Cancer Center
dsmith@thor.fccc.edu
d_smith@fccc.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudendsmith cudfnDavid cudlnSmith cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.23 /  grip /  Re: the pointlessness of grammar flames (Re: Politicians who 
     
Originally-From: grip@west.darkside.com (grip)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.math,sci.bio,alt.sci.physics.plutonium
Subject: Re: the pointlessness of grammar flames (Re: Politicians who 
Date: Mon, 23 May 94 10:33:58 PDT
Organization: The Dark Side of the Moon +1 408 245 SPAM


Okay, enough already. Let's use FEWER bandwidth and have LESS posters on 
this topic or shunt it over to eng.lang.gram.who.cares.

grip
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudengrip cudlngrip cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.23 /  anthonyp@scrip /  Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
     
Originally-From: anthonyp@scripps.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.math,sci.ch,sci.bio
Subject: Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
Date: Mon, 23 May 94 10:02:02 PDT
Organization: The Scripps Research Institute, La Jolla, CA


In article <2rlq2i$8pj@scunix2.harvard.edu>, <rmaimon@husc9.Harvard.EDU> 
writes:
 
> What a snotty bunch of assholes!
> 
> You idiots probably couldn't appreciate good writing if it bit you on 
the
> neck. Ever read any Kerouac? Any stuff by Kurt Vonnegut? or do you 
spend
> all your time in the bathroom jerking off to Strunk and White?
> 
> It's people like you that try to hide the very small things you have
> to say behind superbig words and pompous style up your ass
> 
> --
> Ron Maimon
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>      Loneliness is not a phase
>                                  - Layne Staley
       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Indeed!  I imagine for a person with your plesant demeanor, loneliness 
is a way of life.

By the way...novels and other forms of prose are given considerably 
more artistic leeway in terms of grammar than expository writing.

I've read everything Vonnegut has ever written.  When you have something 
to say that is 1/10 as smart as he has, I will gladly endure 
sentence-fragments and experimental grammar from you.  In fact, I'll 
gladly endure it from you now--though I don't care for your opinion that 
anyone who knows more grammar than you is a "snotty asshole" (must we 
teach you anatomy too?).

When Pilgrim and Rosewater are discussing Kilgore Trout in the VA 
hospital (Slaughterhouse five...don't remember the page number) and 
extolling his brilliant ideas and lamenting that he labors away in 
ananymity because noone will publish him besides porno mags, pilgrim 
opines "If only Kilgore Trout could write!"  
And you hold up Vonnegut as the reason we shouldn't worry about 
grammar...Rather ironic, that.

-tony

P.S. Kerouac was a confused and mediocre mind whose banal philosophies 
and observations survive only because each generation produces a crop of 
angry young men naive enough to mistake his confusion for profundity.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------

Just because a few of us can read and do a little math, that doesn't 
mean we deserve to take over the whole planet.

-K. Vonnegut
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenanthonyp cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.23 / Greg Kuperberg /  Re: Try this experiment!
     
Originally-From: gk00@quads.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Try this experiment!
Date: Mon, 23 May 1994 20:06:58 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

In article <JY-Mlj6.jedrothwell@delphi.com> jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:
>All the claims involve rotary movement of conducting surfaces in a magnetic
>field.  The classic experiment of this kind is the Faraday Disc.  Here a
>conducting disc is rotated about its major axis in front of a large cylindrical
>magnet, the axis of magnetisation being along the major axis, so that the two
>axes are coaxial.  It is claimed (eg Einstein, 1923) that if the magnet is
>rotated and the disc is kept stationary, the same effect will be observed.

If the effect you mean is a Faraday current, Einstein claims no such
thing.  You have misinterpreted him.

>As to the significance, the significance may well be that I've got into a
>total muddle.

Bingo.

>To quote Einstein (*The Principle of Relativity*, Dover, New York, 1923):
> 
>        For if the magnet is in motion and the conductor is at rest, there
>    arises in the neighborhood of the magnet an electric field (due to
>    induction) with a certain definite energy, producing a current at the
>    places where parts of the conductor are situated.  But if the magnet is
>    stationary and the conductor in motion, no electric field (and no
>    induction) arises in the neighborhood of the magnet.
> 
>Note that here Einstein is demonstrating the flaw in Maxwell's equations, which
>require that one or other of the magnet and the conductor be *considered to be*
>at rest - which is contrary to experience.  Except that here, in an accelerated
>frame, the presumed result does not appear to be manifesting itself.  Instead,
>the effect appears to depend simply upon whether the disc is rotating or not,
>the movement of the magnet being irrelevant.

First of all, Einstein had no quarrel with Maxwell's equations.  In
fact, he was the first person to completely understand them, since
their firm truth yields special relativity.

What he is saying here is that a rotating magnet exhibits charge
separation in a non-rotating frame and vice versa.  That means that if
you encase a rotating magnet in a stationary plastic shell,
sufficiently fine confetti will stick to the shell if the magnet is
strong enough, the plastic is close enough, and the magnet is rotating
quickly enough.  But to see a Faraday current, you need a situation
where the disk sees a different charge separation than the wires leading to
it do.  Einstein is not claiming a Faraday current in any electrical
circuit where all parts see the same amount of charge separation,
whether that separation is zero or not.

>Or is my understanding of the whole thing flawed?

Yes.

>And does the homopolar generator create torque in the disc?

Yes.  The magnetic field pushes the electrons angularly if they are
moving radially and the electrons bounce off the copper atoms from time
to time.  That generates a torque.

>1.  If you draw current from a Faraday disc (and you CAN) and it
>doesn't torque the disc, energy conservation is violated.  If it does,
>electromagnetic theory is wrong.

Electromagnetic theory as you understand it is wrong.   You're right
about the energy conservation part.

>2.  My primitive experiments *indicate* that the EMF depends on the
>rotation of the disc in 'absolute space', apparently against all
>teaching and against relativity.

The voltage is a function of the presence of the magnetic field
and of whether or not the system has moving contact points.  It has
nothing to do with any hypothetical absolute space.
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudengk00 cudfnGreg cudlnKuperberg cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.23 / Ronald Bruck /  Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
     
Originally-From: bruck@mtha.usc.edu (Ronald Bruck)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.math,sci.ch,sci.bio
Subject: Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
Date: 23 May 1994 13:41:11 -0700
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA

In article <2rqin7$b9j@watnews1.watson.ibm.com> c1prasad@watson.ibm.com (prasad) writes:
>  north@watop.nosc.mil (Mark North) writes:
>
>Very well put and I agree completely. Now let's talk about bring and take,
>the misuse of which makes one sound even more ignorant than less/fewer.
>
>Yes, I've encountered this bring/take misuse lately.  I did not notice this
>problem on my last visit to the US in '85-86 (in California).

And now let's discuss the difference between LIE and LAY.  ("I'm going to
lay on the bed for awhile.")  ;-)

--Ron Bruck



cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenbruck cudfnRonald cudlnBruck cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.23 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Cold Fusion on "Good Morning America" 5/23
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion on "Good Morning America" 5/23
Date: Mon, 23 May 94 17:57:04 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

This broadcast was delayed by the Kennedy funeral. It was rescheduled for
May 31, 1994 between 7 and 8 a.m.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenjedrothwell cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.24 / Scott Mueller /  Mail problems at Tandem, affecting sf-bay.org and xalt.com
     
Originally-From: scott@dsg.tandem.com (Scott Hazen Mueller)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Mail problems at Tandem, affecting sf-bay.org and xalt.com
Date: Tue, 24 May 1994 00:04:56 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

The cron process on the news gateway machine at Tandem hung, which caused
the mail gateway machine to zero out the UUCP 'paths' file on tandem.com.
This in effect erased tandem.com's ability to forward mail to sf-bay.org and
xalt.com for most of the weekend.  I've fixed the immediate problem, cron
being hung, the intermediate problem, that the file got zeroed out, and
implemented a trial fix for the long term problem, that the path information
for sf-bay.org and xalt.com could get lost at all.

              \scott

cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenscott cudfnScott cudlnMueller cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.23 /  prasad /  Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
     
Originally-From: c1prasad@watson.ibm.com (prasad)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.math,sci.ch,sci.bio,alt.sci.physics.plutonium
Subject: Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
Date: 23 May 1994 15:16:12 GMT
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

 bruck@mtha.usc.edu says:

It's no good saying that form is irrelevant to content, because people who 
are careful with respect to content usually try to be respectful of form
as well.

--Ron Bruck
-- 


True.  Those who don't care for the form rarely succeed in martial art!

__________ __________ __________ __________ __________ __________ __________

pragma options disclaimed

-- prasad		email: 71155.3116@compuserve.com, poll= 1/month.

Entropy isn't what it used to be...

What is mind?  No matter.
What is matter?  Never mind.
		-- Thomas Hewitt Key, 1799-1875

cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenc1prasad cudlnprasad cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.23 /  prasad /  Re: Thermacore uses magnetic mixers
     
Originally-From: c1prasad@watson.ibm.com (prasad)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Thermacore uses magnetic mixers
Date: 23 May 1994 15:23:11 GMT
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

In article <2rl1eb$d40@shadow.skypoint.net>, jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) writes:
|> prasad (c1prasad@watson.ibm.com) wrote:
|> : Is there a reason for using coils, or helixes, as an electrode in
|> : these CF experiments?  I've found a helical anode shown in P&F's
|> : initially reported ones.
|> 
|> The use of coiled wire is primarily due to material availability.  In the
|> Nickle case, you want a lot of surface area.  So you can either get sheets
|> or foils or a long piece of wire.  Wire is probably a lot more readily
|> available and is easy to form to the shape needed to fit in your cell --
|> without a lot of cutting and welding, etc.
|> 
|> As for the helix platinum anode structure in P+F cells, again Pt is readily
|> available in wire form.  They also wanted to have a uniform electrical
|> gradient at the Pd cathode surface.  So wrapping the wire around the length
|> of the Pd rod makes a more or less equidistant (through the electrolyte)
|> construction from a shortest distance point on the Pd rod to a point on
|> the Pt wire.
|> 
|> --
|>  - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com -- 612-633-0345 -
|>  - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills  MN 55112 USA           -
|> 
|> 

-- 
Thanks.
__________ __________ __________ __________ __________ __________ __________

pragma options disclaimed

-- prasad		email: 71155.3116@compuserve.com, poll= 1/month.

Entropy isn't what it used to be...

What is mind?  No matter.
What is matter?  Never mind.
		-- Thomas Hewitt Key, 1799-1875

cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenc1prasad cudlnprasad cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.23 /  prasad /  Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
     
Originally-From: c1prasad@watson.ibm.com (prasad)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.math,sci.ch,sci.bio
Subject: Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
Date: 23 May 1994 15:39:19 GMT
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

  north@watop.nosc.mil (Mark North) writes:

Very well put and I agree completely. Now let's talk about bring and take,
the misuse of which makes one sound even more ignorant than less/fewer.

Mark


-- 

Yes, I've encountered this bring/take misuse lately.  I did not notice this
problem on my last visit to the US in '85-86 (in California).  I thought it
might be a New York nuance that would probably, and permanently, ruin what
is left of English by one more notch.  No, it does not make the speaker sound
ignorant to me, it gives me the feeling that *HE* (universal pronoun to ye
Americans) is stuck in baby-talk, and can't grow out of it.

And this from the same Americans who usually glow like an H-impregnated
Pd electrode if I said I was unwell ("you can't use a word that ain't in
the Webster").  Another from a private communication: "A queue is ALWAYS
different from a FIFO" (notwithstanding the fact that queues have existed
in the English speaking world for centuries, while FIFOs came with *american*
computer science...).  This really happened - at the cafeteria counter,
a person behind me pointed to the floor and said, there's the line.  And
so there was, an inch-wide white line painted on the floor.  And, mystified,
I replied, how terribly interesting.  A couple of minutes later, a particularly
bright consultant friend of mine explained what that person was talking about!

BTW, the bring/take (mis)usage is different from the Japanese come/go
alt-semantics [ "I invite you to *go* to my birthday party" ].

__________ __________ __________ __________ __________ __________ __________

pragma options disclaimed

-- prasad		email: 71155.3116@compuserve.com, poll= 1/month.

Entropy isn't what it used to be...

What is mind?  No matter.
What is matter?  Never mind.
		-- Thomas Hewitt Key, 1799-1875

cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenc1prasad cudlnprasad cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.23 /  prasad /  Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
     
Originally-From: c1prasad@watson.ibm.com (prasad)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.math,sci.ch,sci.bio
Subject: Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
Date: 23 May 1994 15:45:54 GMT
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

 rmaimon@husc9.Harvard.EDU (Ron Maimon) :

|> 
|> Very well put and I agree completely. Now let's talk about bring and take,
|> the misuse of which makes one sound even more ignorant than less/fewer.
|> 

What a snotty bunch of assholes!

You idiots probably couldn't appreciate good writing if it bit you on the
neck. Ever read any Kerouac? Any stuff by Kurt Vonnegut? or do you spend
all your time in the bathroom jerking off to Strunk and White?

It's people like you that try to hide the very small things you have
to say behind superbig words and pompous style up your ass

--
Ron Maimon
-- 

And that's another thing.  Why drag in your donkeys and their holes?
Why not monkeys (forefathers) instead, or horses for that matter?

BTW, I always considered name-dropping more pompous and hiding-like a
behavior than being formal in expression and thought.

__________ __________ __________ __________ __________ __________ __________

pragma options disclaimed

-- prasad		email: 71155.3116@compuserve.com, poll= 1/month.

Entropy isn't what it used to be...

What is mind?  No matter.
What is matter?  Never mind.
		-- Thomas Hewitt Key, 1799-1875

cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenc1prasad cudlnprasad cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.23 /  prasad /  Re: McKubre/Srinivasan expt.: No excess heat
     
Originally-From: c1prasad@watson.ibm.com (prasad)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: McKubre/Srinivasan expt.: No excess heat
Date: 23 May 1994 15:47:34 GMT
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

In article <1994May20.111621.1633@physc1.byu.edu>, jonesse@physc1.byu.edu writes:
|> In article <2rg0cb$8qs@shadow.skypoint.net>, 
|> jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) writes:
|> > DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov wrote:
|> > : I am not inclined to spend any more time on the scaled up experiment since I
|> > : know of funded work which is checking those results.  So far, the funded work
|> > : (as of the Maui conference) has not been able to find excess heat.  I think 
|> > : they have almost a duplicate of Experiment 14 from the current Mills paper.  
|> > 
|> > On page 73 of the May 1994 issue of "Cold Fusion" Magazine, McKubre and
|> > Srinivasan announce that they are going to team up at SRI and run a series of
|> > experiments on the Mills system which will not only test for excess heat
|> > but give clues as to the process.  The experiment was started in March,
|> > so I guess they have had 1-2 months now.
|> > 
|> > Haven't heard any preliminary/final results, though.
|> > 
|> 
|> I have, from a colleague at EPRI:  they found *apparent* excess heat before
|> taking recombination into account.  Then McKubre and Srinivasan checked the
|> evolving gases, and sure enough, *all* the excess heat was accounted for by
|> recombination of hydrogen and oxygen!
|> 
|> Now let's see whether the "Cold Fusion" magazine, have specifically called
|> attention to the Srinivasan-McKubre experiment, has the responsibility to
|> publish the (negative) results. 
|> 
|> --Steven Jones
|> 

-- 

So has there ever been an unaccountable excess heat or not, according to you?

__________ __________ __________ __________ __________ __________ __________

pragma options disclaimed

-- prasad		email: 71155.3116@compuserve.com, poll= 1/month.

Entropy isn't what it used to be...

What is mind?  No matter.
What is matter?  Never mind.
		-- Thomas Hewitt Key, 1799-1875

cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenc1prasad cudlnprasad cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.23 /  prasad /  Re: Try this experiment!
     
Originally-From: c1prasad@watson.ibm.com (prasad)
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com:
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Try this experiment!
Date: 23 May 1994 15:56:04 GMT
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com:
 
EXPERIMENTS
 
1.  The shaft of the motor was taken through the four magnets stacked together,
and used to spin the disc.  A small PD was observed between the axis and
perimeter, a small fraction of 1V.  The disc was at about 3 to 5 mm from the
magnets.  When an effective short-circuit was made via a wire held at some
distance away from the assembly, I am *reasonably* sure that a slight drop in
the motor speed occurred.  So far, results were absolutely as expected,
although I remain unhappy about the mechanism whereby such torque is
transferred to the disc.
 
2.  With minimal disturbance to the device, the magnet stack was caused to
adhere to the back of the disc.  After some trouble with balancing, the
rotating assembly (both disc and magnets) were spun again.  Precisely the same
effect was observed, but with the considerable mass of the magnets it was not
really possible to observe any torque effect.  The effect could of course be
due to the fixed contacts being 'swept' by the magnets.
 
3.  For completeness the rotation was stopped, and no effect was observed.
 
4.  The rotating disc was removed from the shaft, and the magnet stack set to
rotate instead, again at about 3 to 5mm clearance from the disk.  Using
precisely the same configuration of contact leads as in (2), no effect of any
kind was observed.
 
As I say, these results constitute no claim, nor has any attempt been made to
do accurate measurements.  Considerable time was spent on (2) and (4), becaus

...
I should be most interested to hear if anybody would be willing - perhaps as a
school project - to replicate or refute these observations.  The cost of
materials was very low, the total for the disc and magnets being less than $12
in US currency, 8 pounds UK.  The other equipment happened to be available.
 
Chris
 
-- 

My friends and I did these very experiments back in '88-'89, a whole series
of them.  We were investigating the reaction torque and testing the series
(non)additivity of the voltage.  See my explanation posted in sci.energy
forum.  BTW, since we were in India (my friends are still there), our costs
were of the order of Rs 20/- (about 60 cents US at present exchange rates).

You can talk to me, Jed.

__________ __________ __________ __________ __________ __________ __________

pragma options disclaimed

-- prasad		email: 71155.3116@compuserve.com, poll= 1/month.

Entropy isn't what it used to be...

What is mind?  No matter.
What is matter?  Never mind.
		-- Thomas Hewitt Key, 1799-1875

cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenc1prasad cudlnprasad cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.23 /  prasad /  Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
     
Originally-From: c1prasad@watson.ibm.com (prasad)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.math,sci.ch,sci.bio
Subject: Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
Date: 23 May 1994 15:58:26 GMT
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

In article <2rlq2i$8pj@scunix2.harvard.edu>, rmaimon@husc9.Harvard.EDU
(Ron Maimon) writes...
> 
>What a snotty bunch of assholes!
> 
>You idiots probably couldn't appreciate good writing if it bit you on the
>neck. Ever read any Kerouac? Any stuff by Kurt Vonnegut? or do you spend
>all your time in the bathroom jerking off to Strunk and White?

Eloquently put.  Now I know what they are teaching you at Hahvahd.

-Scott
 -------------------                         Physics is not a religion.  If
Scott I. Chase                               it were, we'd have a much easier
SICHASE@CSA2.LBL.GOV                         time raising money. -Leon Lederma
-- 

Dignity and language are probably confined to the Business School!

__________ __________ __________ __________ __________ __________ __________

pragma options disclaimed

-- prasad		email: 71155.3116@compuserve.com, poll= 1/month.

Entropy isn't what it used to be...

What is mind?  No matter.
What is matter?  Never mind.
		-- Thomas Hewitt Key, 1799-1875

cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenc1prasad cudlnprasad cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.23 / Robert Heeter /  Draft of Paper for Discussion
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@theory.pppl.gov>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Draft of Paper for Discussion
Date: 23 May 1994 17:09:12 GMT
Organization: Princeton Plasma Physics Lab


Hi Everyone - the following is a term paper I wrote for the
"Introduction to Energy and Environmental Problems" graduate seminar
taught here at Princeton (Woodrow Wilson School / Center for Energy
and Environmental Studies).  I'm calling it a "draft" because I'm
still mulling over the ideas; any comments are welcome.

As usual, the thoughts presented are my own, and I don't represent PPPL.

********************************************************************

Rethinking Fusion via Industrial Ecology
 ---------------------------------------

Robert F. Heeter
Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory
May 6, 1994



ABSTRACT

	Recent developments in fusion research indicate that a D-T fueled fusion 
system based on the tokamak concept is a scientifically realistic
candidate 
for a future energy source.  Reactor design studies generally indicate
that 
with projected advances in technology, fusion will be economically
competitive 
with fission by around 2030.  Environmental analyses show that fusion
should 
have substantial advantages over fission, and a public-policy perspective 
yields similar conclusions.

	However, the development and impending commercialization of solar-
derivative renewable energy sources poses new challenges for fusion
energy.  
While renewables may be best suited for a different economic niche,
fusion 
research may become politically unpopular unless it proves competitive
with 
renewables environmentally.  

	After touching on the question of economics, this paper focuses on 
environmental issues.  A set of general principles, arising from the 
perspective of Industrial Ecology, is proposed as a framework for 
environmental evaluation and comparison of dissimilar energy
technologies.  A 
first cut is taken at evaluation of "Ideal," "Advanced," and "First-
Generation" fusion and renewable energy sources using this framework. 
This 
preliminary analysis indicates that, if additional emphasis is placed on 
characterizing and improving the environmental dimension of fusion
energy, 
fusion is likely to prove competitive with renewables in a large range of 
future energy markets.  Areas for further research are identified.

	The balance of concerns which motivated large-scale fusion research in 
the 1970s and 1980s is shifting in the 1990s, and fusion researchers must 
adapt to this shift if the program is to continue without experiencing
the 
acute trauma of the SSC.  An adaptive strategy which re-emphasizes the 
environmental advantages of ideal fusion without dramatically altering
the 
near-term research program is outlined.

 ----------------------------------------------------------------------
---

1. Introduction & Motivation

	Recent generation of multi-megawatt levels of fusion power using 
deuterium-tritium (D-T) fueled experiments in the Tokamak Fusion Test
Reactor 
here at Princeton have brought new attention to the fusion program while 
moving fusion energy a substantial distance closer to scientific 
feasibility.[1,2]  While there are a number of outstanding issues 
remaining, from a scientific perspective there is little doubt that it
will be 
possible to build a fusion reactor which will generate a surplus of
energy.  
Furthermore, fusion reactor design studies generally indicate that with 
projected advances in technology, tokamak-based D-T fusion is likely to
be 
economically competitive with both current and advanced fission 
sources.[3,4,5]  To this end, a major research program is underway,
consisting 
of an international effort to build a large, surplus energy-producing 
experimental reactor6, plus subsidiary efforts in the participating
countries 
to further advance the state of the art so that a demonstration
commercial 
reactor can be on-line by around 2030.[7]  
	With costs expected to be comparable, fusion derives its main potential 
advantages over fission from environmental, safety, and public-policy 
considerations.  For instance, fusion reactors are expected to produce 
substantially less radioactive waste than fission reactors; this waste is
also 
expected to decay more quickly and be significantly less biologically 
hazardous.[8,9]  Fusion reactors are also expected to have better
accident 
safety characteristics.  They are less compatible with nuclear weapons 
research, and thus ease the proliferation and plutonium-management
problems.  
Finally, since the fusion fuels are abundant light elements, (present 
particularly in sea water) fusion energy would greatly reduce political 
tensions associated with the maldistribution of current energy resources 
(including uranium as well as fossil fuels.)[10] 
	Assuming technology advances make fusion economically competitive with 
fission, then based on the above analysis one would certainly expect
fusion to 
make a useful and relatively benign source of energy for the 21st
century.  
But being better than fission may not be good enough.
	As I will argue below, fusion also faces increasing competition from 
renewable energy sources, which are perceived as environmentally benign,
will 
most likely achieve substantial market shares before fusion does, and
have 
strong grassroots political support from the environmental movement. 
Fusion 
must show that it can compete with these sources too.
	This is a political as well as a scientific challenge because 
environmental groups tend to lump fusion with fission as "nuclear"
sources, 
and therefore oppose fusion; at the same time there are constituencies in 
favor of advanced fission reactors (including breeders and passively-safe 
reactors) who feel that nuclear waste should be a non-issue and that
fusion is 
too difficult relative to fission to be worth supporting.  As a result,
the 
perceived environmental prospects for fusion have placed it in a
political 
bind; fusion is precariously positioned between fission and
solar-derivative 
renewables in the realm of perceived ideal long-term baseload energy
sources.  
Lacking an established constituency of its own, fusion's survival will
depend 
on perceived merit - whether it is perceived as achieving the benefits of
its 
competitors, but without their liabilities.  
	It seems beneficial, therefore, to study fusion relative to renewables 
as well as fission.  Fission and fusion are genetically similar, which
has 
facilitated comparison of these two energy sources.  A more abstract
framework 
is needed to compare fusion with renewables.  As I will show below,
insights 
gained from industrial ecology can provide such a framework.  I will then 
sketch such an industrial-ecology analysis, both for the insight to be
gained 
and to lay the groundwork for future, more detailed studies.[11]  Because
fusion technology is evolving, and the environmental aspects of the
technology 
are somewhat independent of its commercial potential, I have explored how 
advances in technology will affect the environmental attractiveness of
fusion.  
Despite the preliminary nature of this research, a number of conclusions
may 
be drawn.  In particular, I believe adaptations must be made in fusion
policy 
if fusion is not to appear superfluous to Congress and suffer the fate of
the 
Superconducting SuperCollider.  Such an adaptive strategy is outlined in
the 
conclusion of this paper.

 ----------------------------------------------------------------------
-----

2.  The Environmental Challenge to Fusion from Renewables

	"Renewable" energy sources, including solar-thermal, photovoltaic, wind-
electric, and biomass energy (among others), have been making tremendous 
technical strides.  Lacking space (and time and energy) to review the
whole 
renewables literature, I will simply point out that wind-electric energy
is 
expected to reach a generation cost of around 6 cents/kwh (1988 dollars)
in AD 
2000, that the cost of photovoltaic energy is expected to be comparable
in 
2010, and that solar-thermal energy is already undergoing commercial
testing 
(with current costs in the range 13-25 cents/kwh for solar-only
operation, and 
less for natural-gas assisted operation, which boosts the capacity 
factor).[12]  Indeed, with Denmark having a stated goal of generating 10%
of 
its electricity from wind-electric systems by 2005 [13], and the European 
Union expected to follow suit by 2030, it seems renewables will achieve a 
significant market penetration before fusion reaches
first-commercialization.  
While renewables systems are generally best-suited for peaking-power 
applications, improvements in energy-storage technologies (particularly 
compressed-air storage and in hydrogen-energy storage) make renewables a 
threat to the baseload niche sought by fusion.  Fusion must show that it
will 
have advantages over renewables, and not just fission plants, if
utilities are 
to construct fusion systems in lieu of alternatives.
	Renewables are, of course, perceived as environmentally benign, and have 
the advantage of being non-nuclear.  In an energy market currently
favoring 
construction of smaller, distributed generation sites, renewables have 
advantages over fusion, which is expected to be most economical as a
multi-
gigawatt central-station baseload electric/thermal energy source, perhaps
more 
so than fission.[14]  Undoubtedly the market will change by 2030, and
this 
problem may disappear for fusion, particularly as population densities
rise 
and land becomes increasingly scarce worldwide.  But the general
perception 
that fusion may be inappropriate as a complex, large-scale nuclear
technology 
poses political risks today.
	For these and other reasons, environmentalists and their lobbying 
organizations would like to boost federal funding of renewables research.
 In 
the current fiscal climate, adding to the energy research budget is
unlikely, 
so renewables advocates seek to divert other energy-research funds.  The 
fusion program, at some $350 million a year, is an appetizing target,
since 
few people understand it, it has little PR, no politically-active
constituency 
to defend it, and little likelihood of creating an economic product
within 
most policymakers' planning horizons.  Indeed, I believe a coalition of 
environmental groups has proposed cutting fusion research over 50% to
fund 
additional renewables research.[15]  Independently, budget hawks in
Congress 
are also considering chopping fusion.  The Penny-Kasich budget-reduction 
amendment, narrowly defeated last winter, contained a provision for a 50%
cut 
in the fusion program.  The political threat to fusion as a research
program 
is greater than the economic or environmental competition, since the
political 
threat can kill fusion today.   
	The challenge for fusion, then, is to delineate the circumstances under 
which fusion will be more suitable than renewables for a given market, to 
characterize the relative environmental advantages and disadvantages of 
prospective fusion and renewables technologies, and, provided fusion
still 
seems worthwhile, to address the political threat to the fusion program 
currently posed by the environmental movement.  Simply comparing fusion
to 
fission, as is the current fashion, is not sufficient given current
political 
realities.

 ----------------------------------------------------------------------
-----

3.  Environmental Analysis using Industrial Ecology

	Industrial Ecology treats human industrial systems as closed-loop 
ecosystems, rather than raw materials->manufacturing->waste product once-
through cycles.[16]  Two examples of paradigm cases for industrial
ecology are 
analyses of human effects on the global carbon and nitrogen cycles,
(primarily 
from fossil-fuel combustion and fertilizer use, respectively).[17,18]  
Industrial ecology should prove useful in helping humanity harmonize
industry 
and commerce with nature.  As applied to environmental assessment of
energy-
supply industries, I believe the principles of industrial ecology are 
these[19]:
	(1)  The key question to be answered is how use of the energy source 
will affect the long-term habitability of the whole planet.
	(2)  The unit of analysis is not a single energy station, with small 
capacity and a limited lifecycle, but rather a set of such energy
stations 
comprising a significant slice (say 10%) of the energy market, evaluated
over 
the long-term.  That is, in assessing an energy technology, one must
imagine 
that it provided a substantial source of the world's energy for the long
haul, 
and evaluate its effects accordingly.
	(3) Flows of energy and materials must be fully accounted for, for all 
time.  "Wastes" are not to be disposed of and forgotten, but included as
part 
of a complete cycle.
	(4) Anthropogenic flows are to be compared to natural flows; the human 
impact on natural systems can no longer be presumed insubstantial, 
particularly in the energy industry.
	(5)  As a general principle, human activity should not perturb natural 
flows beyond the threshold where the perturbation will induce
catastrophic 
changes to the long-term habitability of the planet.
	(6)  In the absence of a detailed understanding of a natural system, 
estimates of permissible human perturbations should be conservative.
	(7)  Human vulnerability to the environmental impacts of human activity 
has economic, political, and psycho-social, as well as biological, 
components.[20] 
	Risks to humanity from environmental changes induced by human activity 
can be quantified to some extent.  Given various technology assumptions,
one 
can in general evaluate the ways in which various energy sources will
perturb 
natural systems.  To the extent that such analyses can be carried out, 
industrial ecology provides a high-level framework for comparative
analyses of 
various energy sources.  
	Berkhout has considered fission energy as an example of an energy source 
which has incorporated many of the considerations brought forth by
industrial 
ecology.[21]  The critical materials are carefully tracked and almost 
completely isolated from humanity during the time in which they are 
hazardous.[22]  The impact of waste heat and possible accidents on
natural 
systems has been carefully assessed.  While the fuel cycle has not yet
been 
completely closed (through any combination of fuel reprocessing or
geological 
disposal), the general ideas are certainly part of current policy. 
Berkhout 
argues that fission seems to have failed as an energy-supply option in 
liberal-democratic countries, because the psychological and political 
vulnerabilities to many aspects of the fission industrial ecology are
higher 
in those countries.  That is, the perceived environmental quality of
fission 
is too low to make it a viable energy-supply option in those countries.  
Industrial ecology analyses will need to account for these sorts of
effects.
	In the sections that follow I apply the above principles to analyzing 
fusion and renewable energy sources.

 ----------------------------------------------------------------------
----

4.  Ideal, Advanced, and First-Commercial Generation Fusion and 
Renewables Cases

	Before diving into the actual environmental analyses, I would first like 
to distinguish between various technology cases one might consider. 
Because 
both fusion and renewable technologies are evolving, they present moving 
targets to an industrial-ecology analysis.  However, we can easily
consider 
"Ideal," fully-evolved versions of these technologies, in which the full 
promise of the technology has been achieved.  Consideration of the ideal 
versions is less messy and provides a baseline against which non-ideal 
versions of the technology can be assessed.[23]  We can also consider the
likely state of the technology at the time it is first commercially
applied as 
a significant energy source.  Wind, some biomass, and some solar-thermal 
technologies are at this point now; fusion and photovoltaic technologies
have 
a fair amount of evolving to do still.  In between these two points, we
can 
also consider various "advanced" versions of the technologies, to see how 
technological evolution allows energy sources to approach the ideal limit.
	I will enumerate these classes of technologies in some detail for 
fusion, but to prevent this paper from turning into a book, I will only
sketch 
them for renewables.[24]  Hopefully the general idea is clear enough.

 -------------------------------------------------------------------------

5.  Basic Industrial-Ecology Environmental Analysis of Renewables

	Energy continually flows to the earth from the sun, part of it flows 
through the earth's ecosystems, and then energy is radiated back into
space.  
Life on earth depends on the fact that the solar energy has higher 
thermodynamic "quality," and can be exploited to perform useful work
before 
being dumped into space as lower quality heat.  Unlike material
resources, 
which flow in closed cycles, energy has an open, source-to-sink flow
pattern. 
	Renewable technologies, in the ideal limit, simply harness a fraction of 
the input solar energy to perform tasks for human purposes.  Ideal
renewables 
technologies are limited in the amount of energy which they can supply by
the 
total amount of solar radiation reaching the earth, multiplied by the
fraction 
of that radiation which can be harnessed to human use without
substantially 
perturbing the global ecological balance.  An ideal renewable device is 
practically permanent, or at least recyclable, and requires that only a 
minimum of material resources be tied up in the energy-production cycle,
with 
little or no waste to be cycled through the environment.  If we suppose
that 
material resources do not limit ideal-renewables, then the fundamental 
environmental limit is in the amount of land (or sea) which can be
devoted to 
harnessing solar energy to human use.  
	This can be a difficult limit, because land is also needed for a variety 
of other human uses (such as housing, agriculture, and industrial use),
and 
from an industrial-ecology perspective the total land resource available
for 
human use is limited to a fraction significantly lower than the total 
available planetary surface area.  Different renewables face different
land-
use constraints based on the intrinsic efficiency with which they harness
the 
solar energy.  Biomass systems, while more "natural," are intrinsically
less 
efficient than photovoltaic or solar-thermal systems.  Wind energy is
limited 
by the availability of windy areas, and possibly by the extent to which
wind 
resources can be developed without perturbing wind and/or climate
patterns.  
An analysis (which I omit to save space) indicates that generating an
adequate 
amount of energy via renewables would not require nearly as much land as
is 
currently used for agriculture.  If human land needs (in most countries)
were 
not already so great, the land-use constraint would not be a critical
issue 
for ideal-renewables (with the probable exception of biomass).
	First-commercial renewables technologies deviate from the ideal in two 
major ways.  First, they are not permanent, and therefore there are 
manufacturing and waste-disposal issues to be dealt with, which means 
materials cycles need to be carefully considered.  In the case of silicon 
processing for photovoltaics, and fertilizer production for biomass, for 
instance, there can be significant pollution issues.  Second,
first-commercial 
renewables are significantly less efficient, forcing upwards both the
economic 
cost and the land-use requirements of such systems.
	I don't think that most renewables advocates generally consider these 
types of non-ideal environmental impacts; at the very least I have not
had an 
easy time finding such environmental assessments.  As a result, more
research 
is needed (on my part in particular) before I can decently assess the 
environmental impacts of non-ideal renewables.
	Before moving on to consider fusion, I would be lax not to point out 
that operation of renewable technologies as baseload energy sources
generally 
requires some energy-storage mechanism, because most renewables are 
intermittent (e.g., solar).  Because fusion will most likely be a
baseload 
energy source, an environmental comparison of fusion and renewables as
long-
term energy sources should also involve a discussion of the environmental
(as 
well as economical) impacts of possible energy-storage technologies.  One 
particularly promising energy-storage approach is the use of hydrogen
gas, 
created either thermochemically or electrolytically, as a transportable
fuel.  
Hydrogen is especially well-suited for use in fuel cells; from an
industrial-
ecology point of view the added efficiency of the fuel cell (relative to 
internal combustion) is a plus, but the platinum ecology of a fuel-cell 
economy could be problematic.  I lack the space to discuss energy-storage 
issues in the detail they deserve.

 -------------------------------------------------------------------------

6.  Basic Environmental Analysis of Fusion Energy

A.  Ideal Fusion

	In the case of fusion energy, the "ideal" technology can be envisioned 
schematically as a device which takes some highly-abundant,
easily-obtained 
light elements, fuses them into other abundant light elements, and
outputs 
useful electrical energy.  In "ideal" fusion, there is virtually no waste
heat 
and no radioactive waste.  One simply converts rest-mass energy directly
to 
high-quality electrical energy.  In an ideal world, the fusion system
would 
either last permanently, or be made purely from recyclable components, so
the 
only materials-flow issues are those of the fuels and waste products.  
	Of any fuel-consuming energy technology, fusion fuels yield the greatest 
amount of energy per unit mass, so the magnitude of fusion fuel-cycle 
materials flows is minimized.  Furthermore, both fuels and wastes are
present 
in such great abundance (in sea water particularly) that one can
contemplate 
generating energy for millions of years with minimal perturbation to the 
environmental balances of these materials.[25]  In particular, most 
conceivable fusion fuel cycles yield helium as the waste, and He is
chemically 
inert and therefore rather safe.  
	Ideal fusion energy would also not require the vast amounts of land 
which renewable sources need to process solar energy for human use. 
Fusion 
fuel resources are also distributed more equitably than even
renewable-energy 
resources, and far more equitably than fossil or nuclear fuels.  Finally, 
because fusion creates fast-moving massive particles, it can also be
useful in 
spacecraft propulsion, which will be necessary in the long term if
mankind 
chooses to expand its living space by moving off-planet.
	One tradeoff is that ideal fusion is a non-natural energy source, and 
therefore represents and additional input of energy into Earth's
ecosphere.  
Ideal fusion would directly convert the energy of the fusion reaction
products 
to electricity, avoiding unnecessary and concentrated thermal pollution
at the 
plant site, but eventually fusion energy will end up as an input of waste
heat 
energy.  However, current and projected primary energy requirements for 
mankind are well below the total solar energy flux through the ecosphere,
so 
it seems reasonable to conclude that fusion energy will not be likely to
alter 
the global energy balance.
	Between ideal fusion and ideal renewables, then, the critical issues are 
land use, fuel consumption, and the artificial energy input fusion would 
represent.  Because fusion fuels are so abundant, and land use is a
serious 
problem in most countries today, I feel ideal fusion has significant 
advantages over ideal renewables.  Indeed, ideal fusion seems to be the
best 
conceivable energy source we have.

B.  First-Generation Commercial Fusion; Deviations from the Ideal

	Of course, both ideal fusion and ideal renewables technologies are 
currently little more than science-fiction ideas.  The picture becomes 
considerably more complicated when we consider more realistic fusion 
technologies, of the "first-commercial" and "advanced" types.
	First-generation commercial fusion technology will most likely be a 
tokamak-type reactor running on a deuterium-lithium fuel cycle.  In this
fuel 
cycle, tritium is used as an intermediary.  D-T fusion yields 4He and a 
neutron as the reaction products, and is among the easiest and highest
energy-
yield reactions available.  The neutron is generally captured by a
lithium 
atom, which then fissions to form more He and another tritium atom.  
Unfortunately, the tritium is a radioactive and chemically active
substance, 
so it represents a significant hazard.  Also, the reactor must be made
out of 
materials other than lithium, so the neutrons will (generally to a lesser 
extent) also interact with the reactor structure, causing it to become 
radioactive.  Unlike the charged products of an ideal-fusion reaction, 
neutrons cannot be directly converted to electricity, and therefore
thermal 
conversion must be used.
	First-commercial fusion therefore deviates substantially from ideal 
fusion.  Radioactive hazards are involved, the structure of the reactor
is not 
recyclable, and energy-conversion must be primarily thermal (at 30-40% 
efficiency instead of 90+%).  Other issues include chemical-pollution
hazards 
from the construction of the reactor, and safety issues related to
reactor 
operations.  How strongly do these deviations affect the environmental 
attractiveness of fusion, and how might these deviations be minimized by 
"advanced" fusion technologies?
	  Thermal energy conversion does not seriously alter the environmental 
evaluation of fusion, provided the waste heat is distributed carefully
over a 
sufficiently wide area.  It is more of an economic concern, because it 
represents additional costs as well as energy that might otherwise have
been 
sold.  In the absence of radioactivity issues, one might site a fusion
plant 
near cities, where concentrated demand for heat energy would reduce this 
problem by allowing the heat to be used, and no longer wasted.  However,
while 
one might reasonably guarantee that thermal energy produced by a fusion
plant 
would not be radioactive at any hazardous level, the general radioactive 
hazard posed by possible plant accidents dims the prospects of siting a
fusion 
plant immediately in a high-population area, where the heat energy would
be 
useful.  It is still conceivable that a fusion-energy plant could be
sited as 
a cogeneration plant near a large industrial facility which could make
use of 
the heat.  
	Because of the correlation between neutron-generating fuels and the need 
for thermal-electric conversion, advances in fusion technology which will
tend 
to eliminate the radiation hazards will also tend to eliminate the need
for 
thermal conversion.  In other words, attempting to make the surplus heat 
energy salable by reducing the radiation risks will generally reduce the 
surplus heat energy available for sale.   The waste heat and
radioactivity 
problems are therefore linked.
	The structural-recycling and radioactivity problems are also linked.  
The major reason why worn-out fusion-reactor components cannot be
immediately 
recycled into new reactor components is that the materials are likely to
be 
radioactive (generally at a low level).  Because fusion reactors are
likely to 
be quite large - on the order of 10,000 metric tons per gigawatt of
capacity - 
this represents a tremendous amount of waste.  However, if a typical
reactor 
operates for 30-40 years, this amount of waste will not seem so large on
a 
per-kilowatt-hour basis.
	From an industrial-ecology point of view, there can be no "waste," 
because any permanent waste would accumulate to toxic levels eventually. 
The 
question is how long a fusion reactor's structure would need to be stored 
before it could be safely recycled into a new reactor (I assume that the 
fraction of the structure transmuted into useless elements will be
small).  If 
this time period can be reduced to a number on the order of a reactor 
operating lifetime, then a fusion economy will not be inundated by having
to 
store vast amounts of reactor structures for inordinate amounts of time.
	From this point of view, even first-commercial fusion is not likely to 
be environmentally unsound.  ITER is being designed with a
stainless-steel 
structure that is easy to manufacture, but has radiological
characteristics 
not much better than a fission reactor.  There will be long-lived 
radioisotopes generated, and lots of them.  While on a per-mass or
per-volume 
basis the activity level will be low, there will be so much waste that
the 
total Curie content of the reactor structure will be high for hundreds of 
years.[26]  Fortunately, first-commercial fusion is more likely to use a
V-Ti 
alloy or Si-C composite structure; V-Ti will be tested on the TPX
experiment 
which is scheduled to be built here at Princeton over the next 6 years,
and 
operated after AD 2000.  Both of these structural materials are expected
to be 
about 2 orders of magnitude less radioactive than natural uranium ores
within 
10-20 years after shutdown[27], at which point one can contemplate
reusing or 
recycling them.  A more careful analysis would also consider the
materials 
used to fabricate the reactor magnets, which may also be
neutron-activated, 
and the possible hazards of accumulation of small quantities of
long-lived 
isotopes, but I believe the general conclusions of the above analysis
will 
hold up.
	While the materials-processing facilities needed to store and recycle 
fusion reactor materials will probably take up additional land, they
should 
not use that much more land, so that the need for these facilities (not 
present in ideal fusion) will not alter the environmental characteristics
of 
fusion substantially.
	The deviation in environmental attractiveness of first-generation fusion 
from ideal fusion therefore lies primarily in the existence of
radioactive 
materials in the fusion plant, in their associated hazards, and in the 
increased complexity of a reactor that must compensate for these
problems, 
rather than with long-term radioactive-waste risks (such as faced by
fission 
wastes).  There are also substantial chemical hazards associated with
some 
possible fusion designs (primarily associated with designs where the
tritium-
breeding lithium blanket is not chemically stabilized), but these should
be 
smaller.
	The vast majority of the radioactive inventory of a fusion reactor is in 
the structure and blanket.[28]  However, accident-risk analyses indicate
that 
one can build containment structures capable of containing this inventory
in 
most conceivable accident cases; and that even in such accidents, the
maximum 
conceivable mobilization is small enough that doses to the general public
will 
be low.  Indeed, in the ARIES-IV advanced-fusion design, the maximum
plausible 
dose at the fusion site boundary in an accident may be low enough (< 25
rem) 
that current nuclear-stamp requirements would not apply to the reactor 
structure.[29]
	For first-generation and most advanced fusion s*******************
*************************************************************************
***********************************************************************
******
***********************************************************************
***
*************************************************************************
***********************************************************************
******
***********************************************************************
******
***
***********************************.) is not easily absorbed in living
tissue.  
So the major tritium hazard is believed to be in the form of tritiated
water.  
The literature generally indicates that routine tritium emissions from a 
single plant will not exceed current nuclear guidelines, and are unlikely
to 
have major public health effects.  Accidental releases in various 
circumstances are a little more problematic, but no early fatalities are 
predicted from most conceivable accidents in most designs.[31,32] 
	An industrial-ecology analysis requires that we consider not only the 
risks of tritium releases from a single plant, but also the total hazard
posed 
by tritium emissions in a global D-T fusion energy economy.  Apparently
this 
issue was considered early on, and the conclusion was that if roughly
half the 
current world energy supply (6 TW) were generated from fusion, reasonable 
levels of routine T emissions would raise the global average radiation
dose 
rate by 0.04% of the current background dose rate; which is small.[33]

C.  Advanced Fusion Relative to First-Generation Fusion

	The general consensus in the fusion community, as discussed above, is 
that the radiological hazards posed by fusion do not substantially reduce
the 
environmental qualities of fusion relative to ideal fusion.  These
conclusions 
generally rest on some presumed advances in technology, primarily the 
successful development of tritium-handling technology and
reduced-activation 
structural materials.  While an industrial-ecology analysis emphasizes 
different issues, and while further industrial-ecology analysis will
raise new 
questions, the analysis given above generally reaches the same
conclusions as 
earlier analyses.  
	However, the additional complexities introduced into a fusion reactor to 
ensure the isolation of the radioisotopes present are large. 
Furthermore, 
fusion technology, including the radioactive-materials issues, is
sufficiently 
complex that it will be difficult for fusion researchers to be certain
that 
the consensus analysis is fully correct.  Public doubts about the nuclear 
hazards posed by the technology will be difficult to dispel.  Though
fusion is 
radiologically "greener" than fission, it risks failure as an industrial 
ecology for the same reasons described by Berkhout.[34]  While first-
generation fusion has the potential to capture most of the environmental 
qualities of ideal fusion, success in this area seems far from assured.
	It is therefore interesting to explore how advances in fusion technology 
might reduce the radiological risks, and ensure that the environmental 
qualities of ideal fusion are secured.  Further development and 
characterization of low-activation materials such as V-Ti and Si-C, and 
improved efficiency of cycling T from the blanket to the fusion plasma,
will 
both play critical roles in improving fusion within the regime of the D-T
fuel 
cycle.  Unfortunately, ITER will not be able to take advantage of either
of 
these new technologies. 
	Because tritium is the primary hazard, shifting to a fuel cycle without 
tritium, indeed without any radioactive fuel at all, will play a major
role in 
improving the environmental characteristics of fusion.  The difficulty is
that 
the D-T reaction is the easiest to achieve.  

	However, if plasma confinement technology improves to the point where 
the D-D reaction (among the easiest to attain) becomes possible, I
suspect the 
costs of D-D fusion will be less than D-T fusion, even though D-T fusion
in 
such a well-confined system would be easier.  D-D fusion also has the 
advantage of releasing only 1/2 as many neutrons as D-T fusion, and half
the 
neutrons released are at substantially lower energy, and consequently
less 
damaging.  D-D fusion would generate most of its power in charged
particles, 
and therefore be amenable to direct magnetohydrodynamic conversion to 
electricity, as was supposed in the ideal fusion limit.
	Practically all conceivable fuel combinations yield some induced 
structural radioactivity[35], but those fuel combinations which do not
lead to 
neutron-producing reactions are best at eliminating this other hazard. 
Most 
fusion researchers looking to alternatives to the D-T reaction have
focused on 
eliminating neutron-generating reactions.  The main attractive reactions
which 
generate few neutrons are the D-3He and p-11B reactions.  D-3He yields
about 
4% as many neutrons as D-T, (primarily due to D-D reactions which occur);
p-
11B should be orders of magnitude better still.  The difficulties here
are: 
(1) 3He is extremely scarce on earth, and could only be obtained in
sufficient 
quantities by strip-mining the moon, and (2) p-11B fusion can only be
attained 
under conditions when most any other reaction would also work, and has a 
relatively low energy yield.
	It's unclear whether the reduction of induced radioactivity in the D-3He 
and p-11B reactions is offset by the increased difficulty (hence cost) of 
obtaining the fuels and/or achieving the reactions, particularly when the 
major difficulty seems to be not with the structural radioactivity, but
with 
the presence of large quantities of mobile tritium.  It seems that the 
majority of the environmental disadvantages of D-T fusion can be offset
by a 
relatively easier change in technology which could make D-D fusion 
feasible.[36]  The major difficulty is in improving plasma confinement so
that 
D-D fusion becomes feasible.

 -------------------------------------------------------------------------

7.  Conclusions - Responding to the Environmental Challenge

	The general conclusions of this preliminary analysis are that additional 
emphasis should be placed on characterizing and improving the
environmental 
dimension of fusion energy, and that if this is done fusion should prove 
comparable to renewables from an environmental standpoint.  The major way
in 
which first-generation fusion falls short of the ideal seems to be in the 
presence of radioactive materials, with the hazards and complexities they 
introduce.  The radioactive inventory of the reactor, though lower than
in a 
fission reactor, and theoretically hard to mobilize, will still seem 
frightening to the lay person.  More research, or at least more
publicity, is 
necessary in the areas of low-activation materials development and
tritium-
inventory reduction.  Advanced fuels research should be pursued seriously.
	Given that fusion technology seems capable of competing environmentally 
with renewables from a technical standpoint, the major problem facing the 
fusion community is how to face the political challenge posed by
renewables 
advocates.  This problem is made worse by the fact that current fusion 
technology, as embodied in the ITER design, does not incorporate the 
environment-friendly features which will be developed before fusion
becomes 
commercial.[37]
	The balance of concerns which motivated large-scale fusion research in 
the 1970s and 1980s has shifted in the 1990s.  Fission is no longer the 
primary competitor to fusion.  Environmental concerns, particularly the 
prospect of global climate change, are already motivating energy-policy
shifts 
towards renewables; the depletion of fossil fuels is not a critical
policy 
factor right now.   Fusion researchers must adapt to this shift if the
program 
is to survive.  Both public and Congressional support for fusion now
hinge 
primarily upon the perceived capacity for current technology to approach
the 
ideal, because it is only in the ideal limit that fusion has substantial 
advantages over other energy sources.  However, since the early 1970s the 
fusion program has aimed towards early commercialization of a non-ideal
fusion 
technology[38].  Furthermore, budget cuts in the 1980s seriously reduced
the 
conceptual diversity of the program, further emphasizing the D-T fueled 
tokamak as the primary road to early commercialization.  
	As a result, the fusion program is not geared towards development of an 
environmentally attractive reactor, but rather towards development of the 
first reactor that shows commercial potential.  Fusion technology is
still 
evolving, and we should direct the evolution towards outcomes in which
fusion 
energy is environmentally, as well as economically, competitive with the 
alternatives.  In order to direct this evolution, fusion researchers need
to 
develop a detailed understanding of the relationships between
technological 
advances and environmental competitiveness relative to all alternatives, 
including renewables.  I have attempted to develop these topics in this
paper.
	Development of more-ideal, environment-friendly fusion technology will 
almost necessarily proceed through an intermediate stage where fusion
energy 
uses non-recyclable parts which will need to be disposed of, mostly as
low-
level radioactive waste, and involves substantial inventories of
radioactive 
materials.  It does not seem likely that society has the resources or the 
willpower to push for the ideal-fusion technology unless the intermediate-
fusion technology can be developed and marketed.  If we are to achieve
the 
ideal fusion energy technology, therefore, fusion researchers must
maximize 
the appeal of whatever intermediate technology is developed.  The flip
side of 
the above ideas is that the development of intermediate fusion
technologies 
may not be possible unless ideal fusion is presented as the eventual
goal; it 
may be easier to get support for D-T fusion reactors as stepping-stones
to D-D 
or aneutronic reactors than it would be to aim just for advanced D-T
reactors.
	With this in mind, I don't feel we should throw away the current 
program, but I do feel something must be done to ensure that fusion
research 
better fits the new political climate.  I believe a research/policy
strategy 
which re-emphasizes the environmental advantages of ideal fusion, and
outlines 
how current technology is projected to evolve in that direction, without 
dramatically altering the near-term research program, would be the best 
option.  
	In this strategy, ideal fusion should always be presented as the 
eventual goal.  However, a direct approach to ideal fusion is much more 
uncertain, will take longer, and will probably cost more than simply 
developing first-generation fusion.  Since this is unlikely to be
politically 
or scientifically acceptable, an indirect approach in which
first-generation 
non-ideal fusion remains the short-term target of the federally-funded
program 
is what I propose.  Incremental improvement of the tokamak to accommodate
D-D 
fusion would then represent a firm stride towards ideal fusion.  Advanced 
reactor concepts which can accommodate aneutronic fuels should be pursued
as 
longer-term, smaller projects.
	Development of first-generation fusion will provide practical experience 
in commercializing and operating a fusion technology, making it easier
for 
more advanced technologies to move swiftly into the market. 
Commercialization 
of first-generation fusion should also generate private-sector funding
for 
advanced fusion research.  Thus, Congress can in fact support ideal
fusion 
research by supporting first-generation fusion research.
	Though the fusion program does not need major restructuring, it must pay 
more than lip service to development of more environmentally-friendly
fusion 
technologies.  Research in this area needs to be more firmly supported
and 
more widely publicized.  I believe a subprogram in advanced-fusion 
technologies should be established, with a budget more fully insulated
from 
the tokamak program, so that the funding roller coaster does not destroy
the 
long-term prospects for environmentally-friendly fusion by periodically 
eliminating the majority of expertise in the area.  I also believe the
program 
directors need to speak out more forcefully on the environmental goals of
the 
fusion program, and build bridges to the environmental community, so that 
fusion is not axed to fund renewables research.


__________


[1] Strachan, J.D., et al., "Fusion power production from TFTR plasmas
fueled 
with deuterium and tritium," PPPL Report 2978, March 1994.  Accepted for 
publication in Physical Review Letters.
[2] Hawryluk, R.J., et al., "Confinement and heating of a
deuterium-tritium 
plasma," PPPL Report 2977, March 1994.  Accepted for Publication in
Physical 
Review Letters.
[3] Conn, et al, "Economic, Safety, and Environmental Prospects of Fusion 
Reactors," in Nuclear Fusion, vol. 30, Sept. 1990, pp. 1919-1934.
[4] Holdren, et al, "Report of the Senior Committee on Environmental,
Safety, 
and Economic Aspects of Magnetic Fusion Energy," (ESECOM), UCRL-53766,
Sept. 
1989.  (Various summaries have appeared in various places.)
[5] This conclusion is not universally accepted; L. John Perkins from
LLNL 
gave a presentation at PPPL on March 30, 1994, arguing that fusion will
*not* 
be economically competitive without significant further improvements.  
However, John Sheffield of ORNL gave a counterpresentation on May 4.  The 
debate is quite technical and will not be discussed here; in any case
even 
those arguing the "uncompetitive" case will concede that fusion reactors
will 
land within a factor of 2 in cost; technological uncertainties are still 
large.
[6] Conn, et. al., "The International Thermonuclear Experimental
Reactor," in 
Scientific American, April 1992, pp. 103-110.
[7] The largest U.S. program in this area will be the Tokamak Physics 
Experiment, with construction scheduled to begin in fiscal year 1995.
[8] Conn, "Economic, Safety, and Environmental Prospects...", op. cit.
[9] Holdren, ESECOM report, op. cit., pp. 234-240.
[10] The above discussion is generally accepted fusion conventional
wisdom at 
this point.
[11] A summer research project along these lines seems to have arisen.
[12] Ramakumar, R., et al., "Economic Aspects of Advanced Energy 
Technologies," in Proceedings of the IEEE, March 1993 (Special Issue on \
Advanced Power-Generation Technologies), pp. 318-333.
[13] Cavallo, Alfred, et. al., "Wind Energy:  Technology and Economics,"
in 
Johannson, et. al., eds., Renewable Energy:  Sources for Fuels and 
Electricity, Island Press, 1993, pp. 121-122.
[14] Cost of electricity for fusion systems generally decreases as system
size 
increases; as I understand it this is primarily because fusion output
scales 
with reactor volume while the cost of the reactor scales with the surface 
area.  Perkins and Sheffield (in the talks referred to above) both
suggest 
that larger machines will be more competitive economically.
[15] I'm aware of this from following the Internet sci.energy and 
sci.environment groups, as well as from discussions with a lawyer at the
New 
Jersey Public Interest Research Group, who organized a press conference / 
demonstration held at PPPL to advertise this program soon after the TFTR
D-T 
demonstration in December 1993.  Ironically, few people showed up at what
was 
originally planned as a group demonstration, and since it happened to be 
raining, they were invited inside by the very people they were protesting 
against, to discuss their concerns with PPPL staff.  Fusion researchers
are 
generally distressed at being attacked by environmental organizations,
since 
"fusioneers" also consider themselves to be working on an environmental 
technology.
[16] Socolow, R., "Six Perspectives from Industrial Ecology," in Socolow,
et 
al., eds., Industrial Ecology and Global Change, to be published.  (While
the 
wording and content of the articles in this book is still in flux, my
citation 
is primarily of the general ideas.  Is it OK in this circumstance to cite 
unpublished drafts?)
[17] Ayres, Robert, et al, "Human Impacts on the Carbon and Nitrogen
Cycles, " 
in Socolow, et al, eds., Industrial Ecology and Global Change, to be 
published.
[18] I'm not supposed to cite it, but when it is published, Graedel, T.
and 
Allenby, B., Industrial Ecology, should also be useful to someone
interested 
in learning more about the subject.  My thought in this section is that I 
would like fusion researchers to become more aware of industrial ecology,
as 
it should be useful to them.
[19] Adapted from Socolow, "Six Perspectives...," op. cit.
[20] Particularly where nuclear technologies are concerned, as pointed
out by 
Frans Berkhout in: "Nuclear Power:  An Industrial Ecology that Failed?"
in R. 
Socolow, et al, eds., Industrial Ecology and Global Change, to be
published.
[21] Berkhout, op. cit. (Ref. 20 above.)
[22] I don't believe the radioactive materials are completely isolated
from 
the biosphere during this time; I wonder if there is a significant 
contribution to viral and bacterial mutation rates (for instance) from 
exposure to radionuclides?  Undoubtedly someone has considered this
already.
[23] This does seem to be the typical approach of a physicist to such a 
problem - look at the ideal principles first, to get the lay of the land,
and 
then see how they are modified in real-world cases.
[24] I would like to take time to learn more about this sort of analysis
of 
renewables this summer.  I am thinking of the analysis which follows more
as 
an outline for summer research than as a polished product.  In
particular, I 
would like to be able to better quantify the ideas presented.
[25] For instance, Holdren gives oceanic lithium reserves at 140,000,000
TW-
years (relative to 13.2 TW years world energy consumption in 1990) for
the D-T 
fuel cycle, and oceanic deuterium reserves at 250,000,000,000 TW-years.
(Source:  Holdren, John, "Chapter 4:  Energy" in An Agenda of Science for 
Environment and Development into the 21st Century, published for the 
International Council of Scientific Unions by Cambridge University Press, 
1992, pp. 103-118.  The same figures appear in his "Prologue:  The
Transition 
to Costlier Energy" in Energy Efficiency and Human 
*************************
***********************************************************************
******
*
******************************************************
***********************************************************************
***
***********
***********************************************************************
*****
*********************************
***************************************************************
***********************************************************************
******
*****************
[31] Holdren, John, "Safety and Environmental Aspects of Fusion Energy,"
in 
Annual Reviews of Energy and the Environment, Vol. 16, 1991, pp. 235-258.
 
(Tritium is summarized on pp. 239-242)
[32] Tritium issues were among the first studied when serious fusion
reactor-
design studies began in the 1970s; this conclusion has improved as
tritium 
knowledge has grown and designs have improved.
[33] Carruthers, R., et al, Culham Study Group Report on Fusion Reactors
and 
the Environment, CLM-R148, June 1975, as cited in R. Hancox, "Fusion
Reactors 
and the Environment," text of a presentation given at the symposium on
Energy 
and the Environment organized by the Royal Society (UK) of Chemistry at 
Bodington Hall, University of Leeds, 3-5 April 1990.  (This document was 
provided to me by Rush Holt at PPPL.)
[34] Berkhout, "Nuclear Power: An Industrial Ecology that Failed?", op.
cit.
[35] This is because energetic fusion-produced particles can induce
nuclear 
transformations; neutrons are still worse.
[36] Therefore, I will have to go and find out more about D-D fusion
designs.
[37] My experience on the Internet sci.physics.fusion group suggests that
if 
environmentalists paint ITER as a huge radioactive monster, it will be 
difficult for the public to grasp that ITER does not look like what a
"real"
fusion reactor would look like.
[38] This policy represented a response to the perceived need to fill in
the 
gap left by the depletion of fossil fuels, not a perceived need to create 
the most environmentally-friendly technology.  This was reasonable then,
but 
not now.
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszXL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.23 / L Plutonium /  Re: NAMING OF THE ELEMENTS;MORE IMPORTANT,STANDARD NOTATION OF
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.math,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.chem,sci.bio
Subject: Re: NAMING OF THE ELEMENTS;MORE IMPORTANT,STANDARD NOTATION OF
Date: 23 May 1994 22:28:11 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In article <2rpmft$re@osiris.kbfi.ee>
ain@anubis.kbfi.ee (Ain Ainsaar) writes:

> Ludwig,
> Would you kindly explain me why I should believe that we are residing
> in the 94th electron of a plutonium atom and not, say, in the 88th
> electron of a neptunium atom.

  Because once you accept the idea that the whole is an atom itself,
where the dots of the electron cloud are galaxies and that is why the
galaxies are superclustered only in an electron where SPIN causes
isotropy yet superclustering. But back to the topic. After you accept
Atom Totality, one and only one isotope fits all the special numbers of
both math and physics--pi, e, fine-structure variable, ratio
proton/electron masses, ... Only one element and isotope fit all the
special numbers. Read the FAQ in alt.sci.physics.plutonium
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.23 / L Plutonium /  Re: NAMING OF THE ELEMENTS;MORE IMPORTANT,STANDARD NOTATION OF
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.chem,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: NAMING OF THE ELEMENTS;MORE IMPORTANT,STANDARD NOTATION OF
Date: 23 May 1994 22:35:39 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In article <ufPtjaE96lHU063yn@world.std.com>
moroney@world.std.com (Michael Moroney) writes:

> ignores isotopes, reads H2SO4 + K2CO3 -> K2SO4 + H2O + CO2.

  You should not ignore isotopes. I propose a notation of strict
numbers, forget all the silly letter symbols. Write the hadron number
first then a star then the proton number, like this 4*2 for helium.
Only on paper I make the old familar 5 point star, but on type I use
the asterisk. The day will come in science when the old method is so
outmoded that it is useless. It is well known in chemistry already that
certain isotopes behave more with their nuclear parts than with their
chemistry of electrons.
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.24 / Eugene Mallove /  CF on "Good Morning America" Re-scheduled
     
Originally-From: 76570.2270@compuserve.com (Eugene Mallove)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CF on "Good Morning America" Re-scheduled
Date: Tue, 24 May 1994 00:41:23 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

The cold fusion segment by Dr. Michael Guillen that was to have aired today 
(5/23) on ABC television "Good Morning America" has been rescheduled for May 
31, 1994 (Tuesday next week) somewhere in the first hour of the program -- 
7:00 to 8:00 a.m.

The death of J. Kennedy-Onassis and the consequent slippage of other segments 
was repsonsible.


cudkeys:
cuddy24 cuden2270 cudfnEugene cudlnMallove cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.23 / L Plutonium /  Re: The FAQ for superconductivity 21/05/1994
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The FAQ for superconductivity 21/05/1994
Date: 23 May 1994 23:55:39 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In article <2rq0fl$n82@monterosa.zurich.ibm.com>
hpe@zurich.ibm.com (Morten Holm Pedersen) writes:

> It might well be that the textbooks claims that the resistivity is 0.
> You are right that this is probably wrong - at finite
> temperature there is always a finite probability that all the
> condensed particles should spontaneously scatter out of the
> condensate and destroy the superflow for an instant.

   There must be some experimental set-up to precisely measure the
resistivity of superconductors. Without that data, no theory of
superconductivity can ever be verified.
   No, I am a person. Thanks for your informative post. LP
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.24 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Getting in trouble buying palladium
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Getting in trouble buying palladium
Date: Tue, 24 May 1994 01:39:47 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

A previous post failed to clear in response to "prasad".  You can buy 
palladium in a coin store and avoid problems with MSDS's and all the messy
worry that it is dangerous.  You see, palladium metal is dangerous, and the
MSDS says that you better wear a lab coat and gloves, and handle it with tongs
under a hood.  But when you make it into a coin or a wedding ring (the 
Japanese like palladium for wedding rings as it it bright but not too 
bright), or make a cap for your tooth out of it, it suddenly becomes safe.

So much for the whole concept of the MSDS which in my opinion cries wolf so
often that it defeats it purpose.  

Tom Droege

cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenDROEGE cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.24 / L Plutonium /  Re: The FAQ for superconductivity 21/05/1994
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The FAQ for superconductivity 21/05/1994
Date: 24 May 1994 01:51:02 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In article <2rq0fl$n82@monterosa.zurich.ibm.com>
hpe@zurich.ibm.com (Morten Holm Pedersen) writes:

> I am working in a superconductivity lab - I am not part of any
> conspiracy. Feel free to ask. (but the numbers you ask for are
> probably of an order of magnitude not measurable.)

  I think there is some way to coax-out number data for different
compounds of superconductors. Is it possible to link different
superconductors together such that each portion is cooled to the Tc of
that portion's compound, and in so doing, if it really is 0
resistivity, it will display itself as such, but if not, it will be
measurable.  That is, a quarter of the ring is the old mercury
superconductivity, another quarter is a new ceramic superconductor, and
so on. There must be a way, I refuse to believe it is beyond our
measuring devices. I do not think many persons have even thought of
measuring whether superconductors have a tiny resistivity. 
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.24 / L Plutonium /  Re: The FAQ for superconductivity 21/05/1994
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The FAQ for superconductivity 21/05/1994
Date: 24 May 1994 01:58:46 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In article <2rq0fl$n82@monterosa.zurich.ibm.com>
hpe@zurich.ibm.com (Morten Holm Pedersen) writes:

> So neutrinos are the carriers of electricity? How can that be - as far
> as I am aware neutrinos are neutral.

  The carriers in superconductivity are neutrinos, but photons are the
carriers in electric current. I believe this is correct about
neutrinos. I come to that conclusion on pure logic by the process of
elimination. The only particle that is abundant and that can travel
through matter with the resistivity of superconductivity, and come out
the other end as a 1/2 spin particle are neutrinos. I am quite sure
that electricity flow into a superconductor are converted to neutrinoes
which are converted back to electrons in the "flow out". The cold
temperatures catalyzes the flip flop.
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.24 / L Plutonium /  Re: The FAQ for superconductivity 21/05/1994
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The FAQ for superconductivity 21/05/1994
Date: 24 May 1994 02:13:18 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In article <2rq0fl$n82@monterosa.zurich.ibm.com>
hpe@zurich.ibm.com (Morten Holm Pedersen) writes:

> The BCS theory is a mean field theory, it works nicely where it should
> - for low temperatures and large and highly overlapping Cooper-pairs.
> It also works for neutron stars, though I am not a specialist here.

  If it is so good, why can it not predict a single experimental
material to make a superconductor with? A good theory is like a map to
guide. The BCS is not like that. People doing work in superconductivity
see if they can correlate the BCS to the data. This is not true
science. In fact, if it were true, the BCS, then other parts of physics
would have by now linked up to it. Such as the quantized Hall effect.
Would have appended new physics, or joined new physics onto it. Instead
what has happened to the historical BCS? It has been cornered into
oblivion by the new superconductors. And I do not see much that can be
salvaged out of the BCS other than the idea that a many atom compound
can act as if it were one single atom. I think that is the only
salvageable piece out of the entire BCS theory. The part of the theory
concerning Cooper pairs is as goofball physics as thinking the planets
are propelled in orbit by pairs of angels.
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.24 / L Plutonium /  Re: The FAQ for superconductivity 21/05/1994
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The FAQ for superconductivity 21/05/1994
Date: 24 May 1994 02:14:47 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In article <2rq0fl$n82@monterosa.zurich.ibm.com>
hpe@zurich.ibm.com (Morten Holm Pedersen) writes:

> Superfluidity
  My knowledge of this is as yet nil. But I must look into it.
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.24 / L Plutonium /  Re: The FAQ for superconductivity 21/05/1994
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The FAQ for superconductivity 21/05/1994
Date: 24 May 1994 02:20:19 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In article <2rq0fl$n82@monterosa.zurich.ibm.com>
hpe@zurich.ibm.com (Morten Holm Pedersen) writes:

> I believe anyons are particles with fractional statistics - neutrinos
> obey the Fermi-Dirac distribution law or not?

  IMHO, I believe neutrinos are anyons. Perhaps the only anyons. I
believe the graviton will never be observed because neutrinos are the
gravitons. My memory is vague, but I believe Carl Anderson disavowed
the neutrino as gravitons and electrons because of the transversity of
the waves or some such argument. But I believe Carl was wrong. And I
believe that the missing neutrino count from the sun is not missing but
are the ones converted into gravitons.
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.24 / L Plutonium /  Re: The FAQ for superconductivity 21/05/1994
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The FAQ for superconductivity 21/05/1994
Date: 24 May 1994 02:41:33 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In article <2rq0fl$n82@monterosa.zurich.ibm.com>
hpe@zurich.ibm.com (Morten Holm Pedersen) writes:

> This sounds like the "explanation" for superfluid helium.
> Superfluidity happens when the thermal de Broglie wavelength of the
> atoms equals the interparticle distance - then the liquid acts as one
> quantum system. What you try to say in your wierd language is
> presumably just what physicists call Off Diagonal Long Range Order.

  I thought the many atoms acting as one atom came from the BCS. Okay,
I learned something new, it is not BCS but superfluidity. I guess to my
reckoning then, BCS has no salvageable pieces. Does BCS connect with
superfluidity, Mr. Pedersen?
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.24 / Michael Moroney /  Re: NAMING OF THE ELEMENTS;MORE IMPORTANT,STANDARD NOTATION OF
     
Originally-From: moroney@world.std.com (Michael Moroney)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.chem,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: NAMING OF THE ELEMENTS;MORE IMPORTANT,STANDARD NOTATION OF
Date: Tue, 24 May 1994 02:00:11 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

In article <2rrb3r$48l@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>, Ludwig Plutonium wrote:
> In article <ufPtjaE96lHU063yn@world.std.com>
> moroney@world.std.com (Michael Moroney) writes:
> 
> > ignores isotopes, reads H2SO4 + K2CO3 -> K2SO4 + H2O + CO2.
> 
>   You should not ignore isotopes.

I didn't.  Reread my post.

But rewrite the above equation with your method, accounting for all
possible natural isotopes in all the compounds.  Do you see a bit of a
problem here?

-Mike

> I propose a notation of strict
> numbers, forget all the silly letter symbols. Write the hadron number
> first then a star then the proton number, like this 4*2 for helium.
> Only on paper I make the old familar 5 point star, but on type I use
> the asterisk. The day will come in science when the old method is so
> outmoded that it is useless. It is well known in chemistry already that
> certain isotopes behave more with their nuclear parts than with their
> chemistry of electrons.

cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenmoroney cudfnMichael cudlnMoroney cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.24 / John Logajan /  Re: Miles experiment 14
     
Originally-From: al789@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Miles experiment 14
Date: 24 May 1994 04:26:10 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)


In a previous article, blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue) says:
>0.15 ohms, indicating that the 5000 m of wire is just a random
>snarl laid into a 10 gal tank with no attempt at ordering.

The wire is wound around a spool shaped core.  So there is plenty
of wire to wire surface contact.

>What would happen if the duty factor or frequency were altered?

In the stuff I have from Thermacore, they show heater power,
pulsed electrolysis power with duty various duty cycles, and they
show DC electrolysis power.  They also show non-corrected and
corrected for 1.48*I power.


>What is the calorimeter constant
>for this beast, and how stable and linear is the response?

Their calibration graph shows a straigh line drawn through four points,
0 watts/ 0 degrees above ambient,  40 watts / 7 degrees,  60 watts / 9 deg,
and 120 watts / 17 degrees.  (Note I am doing quick translation from
a graph -- the lines between these points is a straight slope.)

This establishes that linearity of the calorimetry is sufficient for the
magnitude of the excess heat reported.

>If you agree with me that the measured response to 40 watts
>is some tens of millidegrees how is this response determined?

As you noted in your addendum, this is a bit low.  40 watts produces
about a 7 degree C change.

-- 
-- John Logajan ---  al789@cleveland.freenet.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenal789 cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Tue May 24 05:20:01 EDT 1994
------------------------------
1994.05.24 / John Logajan /  Re: Addendum to: Mills exp 14 comments
     
Originally-From: al789@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Addendum to: Mills exp 14 comments
Date: 24 May 1994 04:35:46 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)


In a previous article, blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue) says:
>Using my estimate of 10^-3 deg/watt will result in
>a time constant of 117 seconds.  If you go with Jed's estimate
>the time constant is pushing 30,000 seconds.  If you use information
>from John Logajan that temperature measurements good to 0.1 C
>are considered adequate, that would indicate that 40 watts makes
>at least a 1 deg rise.  In that case the time constant is
>3000 seconds.  I think we have it surrounded!

I calculated this earlier and came up with a time constant of 5.5 hours
or so, or about 20,000 seconds.

>I am also skeptical about the adequacy of the stiring by electrolysis.

This should be answered by the lack of a measureable temperature gradient
at any point in the cell (according to Thermacore.)  Basically, if there
isn't a gradient, then stirring must be adequate, no?

>I also wonder about the effect of pulsing the input current on a time
>scale that is very short relative to the calorimetry time constant.
>Are the calibrations done with a distributed, pulsed power input?

Events much shorter than the time constant of the system are like short
impulses to a filter capacitor -- we can consider the average of the
impulses rather than worrying about the dynamics between impulses.

-- 
-- John Logajan ---  al789@cleveland.freenet.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenal789 cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.24 / Benjamin Carter /  Re: Cold Fusion on "Good Morning America" 5/23
     
Originally-From: bpc@netcom.com (Benjamin P. Carter)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion on "Good Morning America" 5/23
Date: Tue, 24 May 1994 08:37:27 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

76570.2270@compuserve.com (Eugene Mallove) writes:

>The June 
>issue of "Cold Fusion" Magazine, published at Wayne Green, Inc., will soon be 
>on the newsstands of larger bookstores. The magazine provides continuing 
>coverage of worldwide cold fusion R&D, which is accelerating as researchers 
>discover new excess energy generation methods and find increasing evidence of 
>peculiar nuclear "ash."

Also on the newsstands is the National Enquirer (sp?) with continuing 
coverage of abductions by space aliens, flying saucers, and amazing
biological phenomena.  Reports of sightings, too, are expected to
accelerate as we approach the great planetary conjunction early in
the next century.  

All this, in a nation where more people accept astrology than evolution.
Get set for the new dark age.
-- 
    Ben Carter                  internet address: bpc@netcom.com
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenbpc cudfnBenjamin cudlnCarter cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.24 / Benjamin Carter /  Re: CF on "Good Morning America" Re-scheduled
     
Originally-From: bpc@netcom.com (Benjamin P. Carter)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CF on "Good Morning America" Re-scheduled
Date: Tue, 24 May 1994 08:42:46 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

76570.2270@compuserve.com (Eugene Mallove) writes:

>The cold fusion segment by Dr. Michael Guillen that was to have aired today 
>(5/23) on ABC television "Good Morning America" has been rescheduled for May 
>31, 1994 (Tuesday next week) somewhere in the first hour of the program -- 
>7:00 to 8:00 a.m.

I suppose it is too much to expect that a member of the skeptical
silent majority of CF researchers who obtained negative results
would be there to present the other side of the story.

-- 
    Ben Carter                  internet address: bpc@netcom.com
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenbpc cudfnBenjamin cudlnCarter cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.24 / Dale Gerdemann /  Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
     
Originally-From: nnsge01@mailserv.zdv.uni-tuebingen.de (Dale Gerdemann)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.math,sci.ch,sci.bio
Subject: Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
Date: 24 May 94 08:45:19 GMT
Organization: InterNetNews at ZDV Uni-Tuebingen

In <2rqin7$b9j@watnews1.watson.ibm.com> c1prasad@watson.ibm.com (prasad) writes:

>  north@watop.nosc.mil (Mark North) writes:

>Very well put and I agree completely. Now let's talk about bring and take,
>the misuse of which makes one sound even more ignorant than less/fewer.

>Mark


>-- 

>Yes, I've encountered this bring/take misuse lately.  I did not notice this
>problem on my last visit to the US in '85-86 (in California).  I thought it
>might be a New York nuance that would probably, and permanently, ruin what
>is left of English by one more notch.  No, it does not make the speaker sound
>ignorant to me, it gives me the feeling that *HE* (universal pronoun to ye
>Americans) is stuck in baby-talk, and can't grow out of it.

The usage of bring/take is complicated since speakers often assume the
hearers perspective in talking. Also there are temporal displacements.
Do you come to where I am now, to where I will be, or to where I was
(at the time we're now talking about). The logic involved is extremely
subtle. See, for example, Charles Filmore's _Lectures on Deixis_. You
should understand though, that not everyone speaks the same dialect of
English. Your standard of correct English is likely to sound
artificial or stilted to others. A case in point is also the usage of
"different from/to/than". Each usage is used by distinct groups. 
What right does anyone have to say that their dialect is the only
right one?


-- Dale Gerdemann
   Univ. Tuebingen, Germany

cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudennnsge01 cudfnDale cudlnGerdemann cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.24 / Arthur TK /  Re: Try this experiment!
     
Originally-From: awc@ipp-garching.mpg.de (Arthur      Carlson        TK  )
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Try this experiment!
Date: 24 May 1994 13:33:39 +0200
Organization: Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics


Concerning the rotating disk/rotating magnet experiments, the results are
exactly those predicted by Maxwell/Einstein. The magnets produce a magnetic field
whether they are rotating or not, and vXB pushes electrons around. Your
difficulty is that vXB also pushes electrons around in your voltmeter, so you are
measuring not just V=EL, but V=(E+vXB)L. The decisive question is not whether the
disk is moving relative to your *laboratory*, but whether the disk is moving
relative to the *voltmeter*. If you want to show this experimentally, arrange for
the electrical contacts on the disk to rotate with the disk and extract the
signal (again with sliding contacts, if you want) on the axis. Or just do the
gedanken experiment: it can't make any difference whether you lead a wire from a
contact point near the edge of the disk to the center of the disk and then
compare the voltage to that of the center of the disk, or use a piece of the disk
itself as your wire; but if you use the disk itself, you are comparing the center
to the center and must measure zero voltage.

The question of *how* the torque is transfered to the disk is more interesting. I
believe Greg Kuperberg is correct in saying that collisions between electrons and
ions are essential. But that would suggest that there is a resistivity for which
the short circuit current is maximum. That might be an interesting thing to test.
Let me think it over.

(OK. I bit. But this really belongs in sci.physics, not here.)

Art Carlson
Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics
   (Don't know much solid state. Let's talk about a rotating *plasma* disk.)
Garching, Germany
carlson@ipp-garching.mpg.de
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenawc cudfnArthur cudlnTK cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.25 / Jed Rothwell /  Mia culpa
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Mia culpa
Date: Wed, 25 May 1994 00:15:01 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG

I posted two stupid blunders here in the last couple of weeks:

1. I assumed that published Thermacore 40-watt results were obtained with
their new, smaller calorimeters.

2. I assumed that all magnetic mixers are like those itty-bitty things I saw
at Osaka U., which drive a 2 cm teflon coated magnet round-and-round. Somebody
here looked in a lab supply catalog and found they draw a third of an amp.
That's a heck of a lot more than I guessed.

Both errors were caused by careless guessing. Instead of going back to
original sources, instead of looking it up, or hauling out the old ammeter to
see what the stirrer is doing, I guessed. I did not do my homework. This is
the cardinal sin of science, it is the worst thing you can do. Fortunately, I
do not get lazy and sloppy often, and in these two cases it hardly matters.
But it is a good lesson. I have often ranted, railed, and complained when
others do that. Let me say sorry and it won't happen again!

Unfortunately, many of the messages posted here, including almost all of the
negative ones, are posted by people who have not done their homework. In
particular, before writing a critique of a scientific paper, it is absolutely
essential that you read the paper! Over the years an amazing number of people
have contacted me and asserted that this is not necessary, they can tell what
is in a paper by reading other people's comments. These folks must belong to
an ESP cult, where you try to figure out complex ideas by long distance
mind-reading techiques, ouja boards, and Tarot cards.

The idea that anyone can understand an experiment without careful, attentive
reading of the original papers is absurd. There is no royal road to learning.
You cannot do science by intuition or by ESP, you must get THE FACTS and THE
MEASUREMENTS and THE GRAPHS & SCHEMATICS right in front of you, and you must
read them carefully. Even then, you are likely to make a dozen incorrect
assumptions and dumb mistakes. Also, it helps a whole bunch to do some
experiments, by golly, or at least to watch some. Without the full facts, you
have no chance of understanding anything. I do not care who you are, I do not
care if you happen to be Newton and Einstein mixed together and reincarnated.
Unless you read the original papers you don't know beans about the subject,
period. For that matter, during WWII the government hired Einstein to give his
technical opinions about scientific weapons development projects. It had been
a long time since Albert had worked in the patent office. I read some of his
comments, I think Uncle Sam might have done better asking a consulting
engineer.

- Jed

cudkeys:
cuddy25 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.25 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  A Flash from the Economist
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: A Flash from the Economist
Date: Wed, 25 May 1994 00:15:01 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

"Let There Be Light", Bomb, From The Movie "Dark Star"

Under the headline "An alternative to nuclear attack" the May 21-27 
"Economist" describes a new method of sterilizing food.  

"... How nice if there were another way to be sure that the feasting 
germs were gone before the human feasting started.  

     There is: radiation.  But consumers do not like it.  That is why 
a company in San Diego is developing a star-wars technology used to 
drive bolts of laser light through space into a way of smiting germs. 
... 

     The active agent is essentially a brief pulse of sunlight 20,000 
times more powerful than what reaches the earth: a mixture of 
infrared, visible and ultraviolet light. ... 

     A few pulses a couple of ten-thousandths of a second long reduce 
bacteria by at least 99%. ... 

     Unlike irridation equipment, the machines that Maxwell's Foodco 
subsidiary plans to sell (with the support of two food giants, Kraft 
and AB Tetra-Pak) under the name "Pure Bright" are easily fitted to 
production lines."   --- End of Quote 

Yeaa!!!  Lets hear it for good old Yankee ingenuity!  If radiation is 
bad, then good old "natural" sun light is good!  Tell me, Maxwell 
Laboratories (the named company), just how much ultra violet is out in 
the tail of your spectrum?  How ultra is it?  The article goes on to 
describe that high energy storage capacitors are used to drive xenon 
flash tubes.  Listen up Robert Eachus, there are consulting 
opportunities! 

OK, the FDA and the public won't let you use gamma radiation.  So use 
short wavelength photons instead.  Hide them in the light from a 
bright flash tube.  Robert Eachus can correct me, but I suspect there 
is quite a bit of gamma radiation out in the tail of a high powered 
xenon light pulse.  But it is the light that does the sterilization 
they say.  Ha!  Next thing we will be hearing about "natural" photons 
(good) and manufactured photons (bad).  

For economy, I suggest that Foodco use high voltage low current flash 
tubes as they will find that the "light" that they give out is much 
more efficient in killing germs.  Something around 50 kv.  Besides it 
is easier to pipe around high voltage low current power than low 
voltage high current power.  Consider it energy saving.  That is good 
policy with the "green" advocates who do not like gamma radiation.  

I suggest that Maxwell Laboratories Foodco subsidiary better worry 
that the "light" from the process might be disturbing to the 
production employees.  Something more than sun glasses may be needed.  
Remember Robert Eachus's head ache.  So to protect them from the 
"light" I suggest a nice concrete block wall, possibly made from 
concrete which uses lead or steel shot as aggregate.  But light might 
creep out through cracks, so an added eighth inch of lead on the inner 
wall would be nice as it is quite opaque to "light". 

As a gedanken experiment, I get into the "sterilization" chamber with 
my Geiger-Mueller counter and note that a ten-thousandths of a second 
"light" pulse only causes my counter to click once.  This is hardly 
above background so I do not worry.  Yet a few clicks later I notice 
that I am  dead.  What is wrong?  Why does the counter not sing out 
and warn me to leave a dangerous area?  Geiger counter fans (and there 
are a few of them here) do not seem to worry much about the 
limitations of this instrument.  

I can't wait for this to get established.  Once every one has accepted 
the process, I plan to patent "Quasar Light" as a better "light" for 
sterilizing food.  I herby patent, trade mark, and copyright "Quasar 
Light" (TM).  Eat your heart out, Ludwig.  Guess where the "Quasar 
Light" (TM) spectrum will be peaked?  

Tom Droege

P.S.  Why is this posted to s.p.f.?  Well, there don't seem to be any 
real limit to what can be posted, and besides all those high powered 
flash tubes create a lot of plasma and every few thousand millennia or 
so might fuse a couple of stray hydrogen atoms.  

cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenDROEGE cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.25 / Jed Rothwell /  Whirling voltmeter test
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Whirling voltmeter test
Date: Wed, 25 May 1994 00:15:16 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG

I described a homopolar generator first built by Faraday. Several people wrote
to me suggesting that no voltage would be found if the voltmeter was
stationary relative to the spinning copper disk. As one person put it:

     "If you were to keep the magnet still and spin the disc, voltmeter and
     connecting wires together, you would also get a zero reading."

However, experiments have already been performed to check this hypothesis, and
it has been proven incorrect. 

Thomas Valone (SUNYLAB Phys. Dept. 1983) placed an LED with a threshold
circuit on the rotating disk. The LED was lit up normally with no voltage, it
must have included a small battery. When the circuit detected a certain level
of voltage, the LED went off. I believe other people have confirmed this with
other on-the-fly voltage measurements.

The LED device is an easier than, say, strapping a voltmeter on the disk and
reading it with a strobe light as it whirls around, to see if the needle is
deflected. (Ha, ha!) Seriously, Valone and others have already measured
voltage with various techniques. Chris Tinsley is thinking about trying a
variation of this experiment: he is thinking about attaching one of these
plastic strip battery testers that come free with each package of batteries.
They change color from black to green when there is voltage. He might be able
to see a color change as the disk is moving. If he cannot, I think it takes a
few seconds for those things to turn black again, so perhaps if he stops the
disk abruptly, he can see the green color fade. Naturally, he will have to try
whirling the battery test strip by itself, to see if the motion alone causes a
color change.

- Jed

cudkeys:
cuddy25 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.25 / Eugene Mallove /  National Enquirer slur
     
Originally-From: 76570.2270@compuserve.com (Eugene Mallove)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: National Enquirer slur
Date: Wed, 25 May 1994 02:06:27 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Ben Carter thinks he is so cute, making comparisons between National Enquirer 
and "Cold Fusion" Magazine. Such a clever boy -- able to mimic the style of 
Bob Park of APS or R. Petrasso of MIT!

>Also on the newsstands is the National Enquirer (sp?) with continuing 
>coverage of abductions by space aliens, flying saucers, and amazing
>biological phenomena.  Reports of sightings, too, are expected to
>accelerate as we approach the great planetary conjunction early in
>the next century.  
>
>All this, in a nation where more people accept astrology than evolution.
>Get set for the new dark age.
>-- 
 >   Ben Carter                  internet address: bpc@netcom.com

Poor, poor Ben!  He can't distinguish between reports written by and about 
scientists from Stanford University, SRI International, the Bhabha Atomic 
Research Center, LANL, etc. on the one hand and juicy stuff written by 
National Enquirer reporters.

Ah, but we know something about Ben that he doesn't want you to know. Promise 
not to tell? Shhh-hh. Here it is: Ben is a member of the Paradigm Police. 
They're everywhere, cleverly disguised as real scientists too!

cudkeys:
cuddy25 cuden2270 cudfnEugene cudlnMallove cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.25 / Eugene Mallove /  Salt Lake Tribune report
     
Originally-From: 76570.2270@compuserve.com (Eugene Mallove)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Salt Lake Tribune report
Date: Wed, 25 May 1994 02:41:55 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I received a copy of the Salt Lake Tribune, May 18, 1994. A column by Paul 
Rolly and Joann Jacobsen-Wells, Buiness Section, page B-5,  has this item, in 
its entirety:


** Start of Article ***

Arrivederci. Fusion scientist Stan Pons last week won a lawsuit against Il 
Giorno, a Milan, Italy newspaper, which printed two negative articles about 
the former University of Utah professor in November 1991.

One of the articles entitled, "Pons, a crook like all Mormons," insinuated 
that Pons was guilty of trying to deceive people about his research.

Pons' suit was settled in the Civil Court of Milan without trial on May 11 for
a significant, undisclosed anount of cash for damages. Pons, incidentally, is 
a Presbyterian.

*** End of article ***


cudkeys:
cuddy25 cuden2270 cudfnEugene cudlnMallove cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.24 / Morten Pedersen /  Re: The FAQ for superconductivity 21/05/1994
     
Originally-From: hpe@zurich.ibm.com (Morten Holm Pedersen)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The FAQ for superconductivity 21/05/1994
Date: 24 May 1994 14:27:12 GMT
Organization: IBM Zurich Research Laboratory

Ludwig Plutonium (Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu) wrote:
> In article <2rq0fl$n82@monterosa.zurich.ibm.com>
> hpe@zurich.ibm.com (Morten Holm Pedersen) writes:

> > I am working in a superconductivity lab - I am not part of any
> > conspiracy. Feel free to ask. (but the numbers you ask for are
> > probably of an order of magnitude not measurable.)

>   I think there is some way to coax-out number data for different
> compounds of superconductors. Is it possible to link different
> superconductors together such that each portion is cooled to the Tc of
> that portion's compound, and in so doing, if it really is 0
> resistivity, it will display itself as such, but if not, it will be
> measurable.  That is, a quarter of the ring is the old mercury
> superconductivity, another quarter is a new ceramic superconductor, and
> so on. There must be a way, I refuse to believe it is beyond our
> measuring devices. I do not think many persons have even thought of
> measuring whether superconductors have a tiny resistivity. 

You are asking many questions, but some of them makes sense, so let me
see if I can answer. I don't quite understand your above proposal,
however, you mention Tc - well, the resistivity is certainly not 0
around Tc, there is a large fluctuation (several K) regime where the 
resistivity is still finite. What is interesting is the zero
temperature resistivity, whether that is finite or not. However, that
resistivity so astronomically small that it has not been measured. For
the old low temperature superconductors experiments has been made
where a current has been set running in a ring submersed in liquid
helium. Several years after the current was measured and no loss
observed - this in practical terms is what people call zero
resistance, even though it might still be finite but unmeasurable
small. Presently I don't know about the situation for the new HTc-materials
but I will make inquiries. However, I guess your theory should also be
able to explain the old superconductors?!
        Why don't you go ahead and make your theory and just assume
what what value you like for the zero temperature resistance, eg. fit
it with the transition temperature using your theory - I believe the
numbers are irrelevant for your algebra. When you have done that and
explained all other mysteries of superconductors I am sure people will
listen to you. Good Luck!

(By the way, what are we doing discussing superconductivity on
sci.physics.fusion, should it be on sci.physics)

Regards
Morten Holm Pedersen
IBM Zurich Research Laboratory

cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenhpe cudfnMorten cudlnPedersen cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.24 / Morten Pedersen /  Re: The FAQ for superconductivity 21/05/1994
     
Originally-From: hpe@zurich.ibm.com (Morten Holm Pedersen)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The FAQ for superconductivity 21/05/1994
Date: 24 May 1994 14:30:53 GMT
Organization: IBM Zurich Research Laboratory

Ludwig Plutonium (Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu) wrote:
> In article <2rq0fl$n82@monterosa.zurich.ibm.com>
> hpe@zurich.ibm.com (Morten Holm Pedersen) writes:

> > So neutrinos are the carriers of electricity? How can that be - as far
> > as I am aware neutrinos are neutral.

>   The carriers in superconductivity are neutrinos, but photons are the
> carriers in electric current. I believe this is correct about
> neutrinos. I come to that conclusion on pure logic by the process of
> elimination. The only particle that is abundant and that can travel
> through matter with the resistivity of superconductivity, and come out
> the other end as a 1/2 spin particle are neutrinos. I am quite sure
> that electricity flow into a superconductor are converted to neutrinoes
> which are converted back to electrons in the "flow out". The cold
> temperatures catalyzes the flip flop.

You should study Of Diagonal Long Range Order, then you will see that
neutrinos are not necessary to have lossless transmission. Start with
the Bose-Einstein condensation and the Ideal Bose gas then move on the
interacting Bose gas. Landau and Feynman have written nicely on these
subjects. 
But you didn't answer my question - how can a neutral particle create
electricity?

Morten
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenhpe cudfnMorten cudlnPedersen cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.24 / Greg Kuperberg /  Re: Try this experiment!
     
Originally-From: gk00@quads.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Try this experiment!
Date: Tue, 24 May 1994 14:49:14 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

In article <2rsomjINN170@slcawc.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de> awc@ipp-garching.mpg.de writes:
>The question of *how* the torque is transfered to the disk is more
>interesting. I believe Greg Kuperberg is correct in saying that
>collisions between electrons and ions are essential. But that would
>suggest that there is a resistivity for which the short circuit current
>is maximum.

I don't think that collisions necessarily imply resistance, if that
is what you are saying.  Some kinds of collisions are "elastic"
and do not generate heat.
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudengk00 cudfnGreg cudlnKuperberg cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.24 / Morten Pedersen /  Re: The FAQ for superconductivity 21/05/1994
     
Originally-From: hpe@zurich.ibm.com (Morten Holm Pedersen)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The FAQ for superconductivity 21/05/1994
Date: 24 May 1994 14:43:59 GMT
Organization: IBM Zurich Research Laboratory

Ludwig Plutonium (Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu) wrote:
> In article <2rq0fl$n82@monterosa.zurich.ibm.com>
> hpe@zurich.ibm.com (Morten Holm Pedersen) writes:

> > The BCS theory is a mean field theory, it works nicely where it should
> > - for low temperatures and large and highly overlapping Cooper-pairs.
> > It also works for neutron stars, though I am not a specialist here.

>   If it is so good, why can it not predict a single experimental
> material to make a superconductor with? A good theory is like a map to
> guide. The BCS is not like that. People doing work in superconductivity
> see if they can correlate the BCS to the data. This is not true
> science. In fact, if it were true, the BCS, then other parts of physics
> would have by now linked up to it. Such as the quantized Hall effect.
> Would have appended new physics, or joined new physics onto it. Instead
> what has happened to the historical BCS? It has been cornered into
> oblivion by the new superconductors. And I do not see much that can be
> salvaged out of the BCS other than the idea that a many atom compound
> can act as if it were one single atom. I think that is the only
> salvageable piece out of the entire BCS theory. The part of the theory
> concerning Cooper pairs is as goofball physics as thinking the planets
> are propelled in orbit by pairs of angels.

As I said I my first mail the BCS theory is not a good theory for the
new superconductors. This might be so for a multitude of reasons.
However, BCS works fine for the conventional low-Tc superconductors.
In a certain sense you are right that BCS has the flavour of
phenomenology, but for a low-Tc material knowing the Debye temperature
and the effective mass will allow you to estimate the transition
temperature. Some times that doesn't work quite right, then you need
to know the phononic spectrum and do strong-coupling theory - all this
works for the old superconductors. BCS also works quite well for
superfluidity in liquid He3 - you should look at that.
Again: the BCS theory assumes that pairs are overlapping - this is
presumably not true for the cuprates for instance. Therefore BCS is
not supposed to work for the cuprates. It is not true to say that BCS
has "been cornered into oblivion".

Concerning Cooper pairs: it has been shown that the charge of the
carriers in superconductors (both old and new) have charge 2e -
therefore it is natural to consider pairs. Moreover, to form a
condensation (this thing about long-range order you should look into)
we needs bosons - two electrons together is a boson. This works well
for the old superconductors. For the new superconductors more fancy 
theories have been proposed, like anyons and spinons/holons and not 
Cooperpairs.
I don't actually know an authorative definition of a Cooperpair but I
would be tempted to say that it is a BCS-concept and not true for the
cuprates without modifications.

Morten


cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenhpe cudfnMorten cudlnPedersen cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.24 / Morten Pedersen /  Re: The FAQ for superconductivity 21/05/1994
     
Originally-From: hpe@zurich.ibm.com (Morten Holm Pedersen)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The FAQ for superconductivity 21/05/1994
Date: 24 May 1994 14:46:27 GMT
Organization: IBM Zurich Research Laboratory

Ludwig Plutonium (Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu) wrote:
> In article <2rq0fl$n82@monterosa.zurich.ibm.com>
> hpe@zurich.ibm.com (Morten Holm Pedersen) writes:

> > Superfluidity
>   My knowledge of this is as yet nil. But I must look into it.

You sure must! Superfluidity and superconductivity has a lot in common
and the basic physics (of diagonal long range order) is the same. If
you explain superconductivity with neutrinos, then you need to find a
suitable explanation also for superfluidity!

Morten

 
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenhpe cudfnMorten cudlnPedersen cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.24 / Morten Pedersen /  Re: The FAQ for superconductivity 21/05/1994
     
Originally-From: hpe@zurich.ibm.com (Morten Holm Pedersen)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The FAQ for superconductivity 21/05/1994
Date: 24 May 1994 14:48:43 GMT
Organization: IBM Zurich Research Laboratory

Ludwig Plutonium (Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu) wrote:
> In article <2rq0fl$n82@monterosa.zurich.ibm.com>
> hpe@zurich.ibm.com (Morten Holm Pedersen) writes:

> > I believe anyons are particles with fractional statistics - neutrinos
> > obey the Fermi-Dirac distribution law or not?

>   IMHO, I believe neutrinos are anyons. Perhaps the only anyons. I
> believe the graviton will never be observed because neutrinos are the
> gravitons. My memory is vague, but I believe Carl Anderson disavowed
> the neutrino as gravitons and electrons because of the transversity of
> the waves or some such argument. But I believe Carl was wrong. And I
> believe that the missing neutrino count from the sun is not missing but
> are the ones converted into gravitons.

Well, I am not really competent to discuss that point with you - why
don't you explain why you believe this on sci.physcis, then I am sure Baez
will jump on you more competently than I can do.

Morten
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenhpe cudfnMorten cudlnPedersen cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Wed May 25 04:37:06 EDT 1994
------------------------------
1994.05.24 / Soren LaForce /  Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
     
Originally-From: laforce@xenon.arc.nasa.gov (Soren LaForce)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
Date: 24 May 1994 08:12 PDT
Organization: NASA Ames Res. Ctr. Mtn Vw CA 94035

In article <1994May23.103132.4175@malins.mala.bc.ca>, gill@mala.bc.ca
(Arnold G. Gill) writes...
>In article <19MAY199408572464@xenon.arc.nasa.gov>, laforce@xenon.arc.na
a.gov (Soren LaForce) writes:
>> A ballance measures mass.  
>> 
>> I can't think of a way for a ballance to work without an external 
>> acceleration (or gravitational field), e.g. not in "free fall."
> 
>     Your two statements here flatly contradict each other.  A balance,
>by definition, requires an external gravitational field to operate.  As
>such, it cannot measure mass directly, but measures forces - in
>particular, it measure torques.  This then is converted and calibrated
>to a mass scale by Newton's second law.
> 
>     The only way to measure mass directly is to measure the inertia of
>an object.  And that means you're going to have to move it abruptly.
> 

Actually, I like your idea of forced resonance as a method of measuring
mass directly.

However...

My statements do not contradict each other.

A ballance is only expected (defined?) to give correct results when in 
static equilibrium, i.e. when the forces on it are ballanced.  They 
are ballanced but unknown.

A ballance measures mass by comparing an unknown mass to a known mass.

The forces involved are *unknown* unless the acceleration field is
known and then the forces are only determined *by calculation*.  They
are not measured.  The only thing known about the forces is that they
sum to zero.

A lot of people seem to be confused by the difference between 
measurement and calculation.

A ballance requires ballanced (non-zero) forces to operate.  It 
does not measure forces.

Think about it.  You can't tell me the stress on the ballance arm
*unless you know the acceleration field*, this is because the 
forces must be calculated from the mass and acceleration.

On the other hand, regardelss of the acceleration field, I can 
tell you the mass of the object.


--Soren

cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenlaforce cudfnSoren cudlnLaForce cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.24 / Morten Pedersen /  Re: The FAQ for superconductivity 21/05/1994
     
Originally-From: hpe@zurich.ibm.com (Morten Holm Pedersen)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The FAQ for superconductivity 21/05/1994
Date: 24 May 1994 15:03:04 GMT
Organization: IBM Zurich Research Laboratory

Ludwig Plutonium (Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu) wrote:
> In article <2rq0fl$n82@monterosa.zurich.ibm.com>
> hpe@zurich.ibm.com (Morten Holm Pedersen) writes:

> > This sounds like the "explanation" for superfluid helium.
> > Superfluidity happens when the thermal de Broglie wavelength of the
> > atoms equals the interparticle distance - then the liquid acts as one
> > quantum system. What you try to say in your wierd language is
> > presumably just what physicists call Off Diagonal Long Range Order.

>   I thought the many atoms acting as one atom came from the BCS. Okay,
> I learned something new, it is not BCS but superfluidity. I guess to my
> reckoning then, BCS has no salvageable pieces. Does BCS connect with
> superfluidity, Mr. Pedersen?

It is OFF DIAGONAL LONGE RANGE ORDER that is the main thing. Do you need
references? 

Yes, Mr.Plutonium (I don't believe your mother gave you that name...)
BCS connects with superfluidity in regards to having a condensate and
ODLRO. In fact BCS theory is used (modified a little with triplet pairing and
such) to explain superfluidity in He-3. Interested in specific
references? 

You are welcome to ask further questions, however, I recommend that
you read some of the literature in the subject so that you know the
fundamental things, like ODLRO (no patronizing intended). If you need
references I will be happy to suggest you some.

Regards
Morten Holm Pedersen
IBM Zurich Research Laboratory

cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenhpe cudfnMorten cudlnPedersen cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.24 /  CHRIS /  Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
     
Originally-From: clusena@TrentU.CA (CHRIS)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.math,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.bio
Subject: Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
Date: Tue, 24 May 1994 18:53:27 GMT
Organization: Trent University, Peterborough

In article <WVENABLE.94May21111401@attunga.stats.adelaide.edu.au>,
wvenable@attunga.stats.adelaide.edu.au (Bill Venables) writes:
>>>>>> "Benjamin" == Benjamin P Carter <bpc@netcom.com> writes:
>
>Benjamin> phil@eurocontrol.fr (Philip Gibbs) writes:
>>> Most of the comments in this thread have missed the point.  The problem
>>> with switching to metric is not a question of whether or not it is an
>>> easier system.  The difficulty is the cost and confusion caused by
>>> switching road signs from miles per hour to kilometers per hour.
>
Actually There is an easy way to covert Km/h to MPH multiply by 6
divide by 10.  My Grandmother told me this when I was about 10 so while we 
where driving I could work on doing math in my head. This is of course it 
you don't have km/h on your speedometer: (sp?) which I think just about
every car in the world has by now, even in the USA.
 
Just to point out that It should not be that much confusion, execpt for 
maybe a day, so every one can learn there 6-times tables.

--Chris
(Warning this is a copyrighted SIG, any reproduction or retransmition without 
the express written permission of CLusnea@TrentU.Ca is strictly prohibited)  
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenclusena cudlnCHRIS cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.24 / Rich Hawryluk /  TFTR Update (May 24, 1994)
     
Originally-From: rhawryluk@pppl.gov (Rich Hawryluk)
Newsgroups: pppl.tftr.news,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: TFTR Update (May 24, 1994)
Date: 24 May 1994 15:17:35 -0400
Organization: Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory

Status  (May 24, 1994)

The week of May 16th, D-T operations continued.  The experimental proposal
performed was "Alpha-CHERS measurements of slowing down alpha particles".
This experiment will provide the first spectroscopic observation of slowing
down alpha particles in a D-T tokamak.

The purpose of this experiment was twofold:
 (1)    to evaluate the performance of the alpha-CHERS detectors and
 (2)    to measure the density profile and distribution function of slowing
down alphas in D-T discharges conditions.

This alpha-CHERS diagnostics is a collaboration with University of
Wisconsin.  R. Fonck, G. McKee were here from Wisconsin to participate in
these D-T experiments.

Seven D-T plasma shots were performed for this experimental proposal.  Many
DD set-up shots and comparison shots were run.

The data from the alpha-CHERS systems looks good and initial analysis of
the data shows that the alpha-distribution can be measured.  However,
further detailed analysis of the data is needed.

In addition to the measurements by alpha-CHERS, we obtained some data on
the Helium ash buildup which was measured by E. Synakowski with the CHERS
system.  This data is being analyzed at present.

Lithium pellet injection conditioning for enhancing the D-T fusion power
was conducted in preparation for the next series of high power fusion
experiments. During some initial optimization experiments at 1.6 MA and
modest power, the energy confinement time approached 270 ms, a record value
for NBI heated discharges in TFTR.  Excellent supershots have been obtained
at 2.5 MA with 25 MW.

The beam performance is at record parameters.  In conditioning shots into a
calorimeter, 33 MW have been achieved with 11 sources.


Plans:


High power D-T experiments are planned for this week.  The goal of these
experiments is to increase the fusion power.

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


cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenrhawryluk cudfnRich cudlnHawryluk cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.24 / Robert Heeter /  Re: Try this experiment!
     
Originally-From: rfheeter@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Robert Franklin Heeter)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Try this experiment!
Date: Tue, 24 May 1994 18:23:09 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

In article <1994May24.144914.23708@midway.uchicago.edu> gk00@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <2rsomjINN170@slcawc.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de> awc@ipp-garching.mpg.de writes:
>>The question of *how* the torque is transfered to the disk is more
>>interesting. I believe Greg Kuperberg is correct in saying that
>>collisions between electrons and ions are essential. But that would
>>suggest that there is a resistivity for which the short circuit current
>>is maximum.
>
>I don't think that collisions necessarily imply resistance, if that
>is what you are saying.  Some kinds of collisions are "elastic"
>and do not generate heat.

Anything that keeps electrons from flowing around is resistance,
and the extra energy in the electron drift motion from the VxB force
means that when the electrons collide (even elastically) with ions,
they will transfer some of that surplus energy to the ions, which
will then be hotter.  So I think collisions=>heating=>resistance.

At least this thread is better than the Ludwig-Plutonium generated
threads...

********************
Robert F. Heeter
rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
etc, etc.

cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.24 / Greg Kuperberg /  Re: Try this experiment!
     
Originally-From: gk00@quads.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Try this experiment!
Date: Tue, 24 May 1994 20:24:57 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

In article <1994May24.144914.23708@midway.uchicago.edu> gk00@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <2rsomjINN170@slcawc.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de> awc@ipp-garching.mpg.de writes:
>>The question of *how* the torque is transfered to the disk is more
>>interesting. I believe Greg Kuperberg is correct in saying that
>>collisions between electrons and ions are essential. But that would
>>suggest that there is a resistivity for which the short circuit current
>>is maximum.
>
>I don't think that collisions necessarily imply resistance, if that
>is what you are saying.  Some kinds of collisions are "elastic"
>and do not generate heat.

I thought about this some more and I have concluded that I was
wrong.  Collisions, whether you call them elastic or inelastic, 
are a red herring in this discussion.  What happens is this:

Say you are facing a metal disk with a wire contact in the center and
another at the rim at 12 o'clock.  If there is a perpendicular magnetic
field, a flow of electrons in a straight line from 12 o'clock to the
center will be pushed clockwise (or counterclockwise), which means that
the current path will bow slightly.  Since the metal ions are a rigid
structure, this bowing means that the current slips out of its groove
and creates a charge separation with a positive charge on the center
axis and a negative charge just to its right.  This charge separation
creates a torque by electrical attraction.

Of course in reality the current between two point contacts does not go
in a straight line; in fact the above scenario is BS unless you
actually have a disk painted with radial wires instead of a solid metal
disk.  But the principle that charge separation appears and creates
torque remains.

I can see how DC motors are a little impractical given that they
require moving contact points, among other things.  Actually if memory
serves me correctly, a DC motor might work better if you have a radial
alternation of conductor and insulator on the drive disk than if you
have a solid conducting disk.

Let me conclude with a more general point:  Basic electromagnetism is
both simple and well-established, but it is nevertheless difficult to
understand.  The basics of quantum mechanics and nuclear fusion are the
same way.  That is the nature of modern physics.  Unfortunately, it's
also the perfect formula for overconfidence among crackpots, greedy
people, and cold fusion true believers.
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudengk00 cudfnGreg cudlnKuperberg cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.24 /  Stevemasia /  some basic questions and thoughts
     
Originally-From: stevemasia@aol.com (Stevemasia)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: some basic questions and thoughts
Date: 24 May 1994 22:18:03 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

As I understand it, "cold fusion" if it exists occurs in a D2O +
palladium system in which the D20 is converted to T20? and excess
heat is released.
thought 1, if this is true I wouldn't call it cold fusion, i would
dub it more like a  subatomic battery cell. I think it would also
involve some sort of temporary superconductivity involved at an
interface between D20 and Palladium. If I were to investigat this
phenomena instead of debating the theories of it, I would try to
design a more efficient cell to take advantage of the possible
interactions. How would i do that? First I beleive a magnetic feild
is needed. If possible combine magnetohydrodynamics into the cell
structure, so as the d20 passes through the magnetic feild it is
accelerated.
Combine or incorporate  the magentic feild acceleration lattice with
the palladium sprial, or focus the acceleration of the D20 into the
palladium superlattice structure. Such a combination should enhance
what ever reaction is occuring, - most likely some subatomic particle
collosion that results in an inbalance of forces. and depletion of
lattice structure, or mass
,composition of th palladium lattice. - akin to chemical batteries ,
only using subnucleous, or subelectron particles instead of the
electrons themselves. 
please tell me if I am any where close to the mark on this?


cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenstevemasia cudlnStevemasia cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Tue May 31 04:37:02 EDT 1994
------------------------------
1994.05.25 / Arthur TK /  Re: Try this experiment!
     
Originally-From: awc@ipp-garching.mpg.de (Arthur      Carlson        TK  )
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Try this experiment!
Date: 25 May 1994 10:58:13 +0200
Organization: Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics


In article <1994May24.202457.8301@midway.uchicago.edu>, gk00@quads.uchic
go.edu (Greg Kuperberg) writes:

> I thought about this some more and I have concluded that I was
> wrong.  Collisions, whether you call them elastic or inelastic, 
> are a red herring in this discussion.  What happens is this:
> 
> Say you are facing a metal disk with a wire contact in the center and
> another at the rim at 12 o'clock.  If there is a perpendicular magnetic
> field, a flow of electrons in a straight line from 12 o'clock to the
> center will be pushed clockwise (or counterclockwise), which means that
> the current path will bow slightly.  Since the metal ions are a rigid
> structure, this bowing means that the current slips out of its groove
> and creates a charge separation with a positive charge on the center
> axis and a negative charge just to its right.  This charge separation
> creates a torque by electrical attraction.

That's the first explanation I came up with, and my "intuition" (which I always
listen to, but don't trust as far as I can throw it) tells me the answer is
something like that. BUT I can't find the corresponding explanation for the case
that the current is removed along the whole perimeter.

When I write down the two components of the force balance (E+vXB and drag on the
ions) for the electrons, allowing for anisotropic resistivity, and express the
result as an effective resistivity, I find
     eta_eff = eta_r + (B/ne)^2/eta_theta
Putting in guesses for the values, it turns out that the radial resistivity
always dominates (by several orders of magnitude). So the amount of current that
flows is what you would expect (using E+v_diskXB for the effective electric
field) without worrying about circulating currents, copper is the best thing to
use, and spoiling the azimuthal resistivity by splitting the disk into wires will 
not improve the performance. And I'll have to vote for collisions, at least in
the symmetrical case. (P.S. It wouldn't hurt to check my math.)

Art Carlson
Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics
Garching, Germany
carlson@ipp-garching.mpg.de
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenawc cudfnArthur cudlnTK cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.25 / Frank Close /  Pons lawsuit out of court.
     
Originally-From: FEC@v2.rl.ac.uk (Frank Close)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Pons lawsuit out of court.
Date: Wed, 25 May 1994 13:28:18 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway


 
Eugene Mallove reproduces from SL paper:
 
>One of the articles entitled, "Pons, a crook like all Mormons,"... 

It was very wrong of the journalist to suggest that Mormons 
are crooks; on the contrary I have found them to be honest.
Steve Jones and Marvin Hawkins are Mormons.


>...insinuated that Pons was guilty of trying to deceive people about 
>his research.....Pons, incidentally, is a Presbyterian.
 
As readers of the several books about cold fusion will be aware, there
is no evidence that Pons ever tried to deceive people about his research by
claiming to be a Mormon. 


(This Italian court case is not the same as the one involving another 
Italian newspaper, La Repubblica, which had written that cold fusion 
was "scientific fraud". This case was brought by Fleischmann, 
Pons,Preparata, Bressani and Del Guidice, and is still in progress.
If attorneys for that, or any other similar cases, need to reach me,
my fax is (44)-235-446733).




cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenFEC cudfnFrank cudlnClose cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.26 /  morrison@vxpri /  TWO Italian Court Cases.
     
Originally-From: morrison@vxprix.cern.ch
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: TWO Italian Court Cases.
Date: Thu, 26 May 1994 00:17:48 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

                                                           25 May 1994.
       TWO ITALIAN COURT CASES ABOUT COLD FUSION

   Some confusion seems to have arisen over a recent report in the Salt Lake
Tribune about a court case involving an Italian newspaper. As it is known,
Nature 363(1993)107, that I was acting for an Italian newspaper, a friend
in Utah thought that this must refer to us. Would like to make it clear that 
there are TWO court cases involving Italian newspapers;
1. La Repubblica, which is sometimes regarded as the New York Times of Italy,
wrote an article in October 1991, reviewing the book by Axel Kuhn, 
"False Prophets". where it was suggested that Cold Fusion was an example and
was "scientific fraud". Finally Profs. Fleischmann, Pons, Bressani and Del
Guidice have sued La Repubblica for 8 billion lire which was about $5 million.
    The Judge appointed a technical adviser, Prof. Licheri of Cagliari who
received submissions from Prof. Gozzi of Rome for the Plaintiffs and from
myself for the Defendents.
    This court case is proceeding and is nearing its end.
2. It is entirely different from the case talked about in the Salt Lake Tribune
where apparently the Il Giorno newspaper attacked the Mormons - if the words 
were used as claimed, it is just that Il Giorno should pay since the Mormons 
have a well-deserved reputation for high moral standards. Such words are 
certainly not involved in the La Repubblica court case.
                                               Douglas R.O. Morrison.

cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenmorrison cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.26 / Richard Blue /  Los Alamos, Equest, and peculiar ashes
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Los Alamos, Equest, and peculiar ashes
Date: Thu, 26 May 1994 00:18:09 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I have been hearing wild rumours that may be related to something
Gene Mallove said, and I wonder if someone could perhaps clear up
a few points for me.  There stories related to an experiment done
at Los Alamos (?) involving the placement of titanium chips into
a deuterium atmosphere and leaving them for an extended period.
After this exposure the titanium was subjected to analysis via
gamma-ray spectroscopy, and this analysis is said to have turned
up a gamma spectrum associated with a single isotope, 44Sc.
One question is why just a single isotope and what reaction leads
to that isotope?

Next rumour has to do with a commercial company called Equest
that is offering for sale ($100,000) a kit for doing cold
fusion that under a money-back guarantee.  In this case the
experiment involves focussing ultrasound through D2O onto
a titanium foil.  300 watts of sound power in is supposed to
produce kilowatts of heat and 4He.  The device is said to be
capable of melting the titanium, even while it is in contact
with water.  Now the magazine Cold Fusion seems to have tied
the Equest experimental claims to the 44Sc detection claims,
and somehow Los Alamos and Equest seem to have links.  I
am curious to know what possible connections there are between
the two experiments and/or the people making claims about
the experiments.  There has been some mumbling about how
both 44Sc and 4He can be significant products of the reactions
responsible for kilowatts (?) of heat.  I would really like
to see that spelled out!  Can anyone fill in some details?
Perhaps all will be revealed on "Good Morning America."
If you thought physics by press conference was bad .....

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.26 / Richard Blue /  Re: Mills experiment 14
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Mills experiment 14
Date: Thu, 26 May 1994 00:18:12 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

With regard to the mass spectrometry of dihydrinos, Dieter  Britz
quotes the Mills paper as saying, "If after burning m/e = 2 is
found it must be dihydrino."  That's absurd!  What happened to
ordinary molecular hydrogen ions, and what are the claimed two
peaks that were refered to earlier?

In response to added information supplied by John Logajan relating
to the calorimetry I am still a bit puzzled about the claim
that temperature uniformity throughout the 28 liters was established
to 0.1 deg C.  First off we have the claim of stirring by bubbles
and calibrations without bubbles to deal with.  Was the temperature
uniformity established in each of these situations?  I am also
curious as to how these measurements were made, given that we
now agree that the time constant for this beast is something like
20,000 seconds.  That would seem to require many hours of waiting
for things to settle during which the power input, the bubbling,
and ambient conditions remained quite stable.  Given that they
establish linearity with only one measurement in the experimental
operating range, are we to take it on faith that the temperature
uniformity was established with great care?  Were there 3 measurements
or 30?

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.25 / John Logajan /  Testing Thermacore's Calibration
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Testing Thermacore's Calibration
Date: 25 May 1994 07:07:10 GMT
Organization: Sky Point Communications, Inc.

I bought a 42 quart plastic wastebasket and have filled it with 8 gallons 
(30.3 liters) of water to simulate Thermacore's 10 gallon Nalgene tank with
28 liters of water and 40-x? pounds of metal.  It should take 125,550 joules
to raise the temperature 1 degree C.

I am currently using an aquarium air pump to stir the water by placing the
air tube at the center-bottom of the tank.  The stirring is quite vigorous
and I had to pinch the tube to cut down the airflow to a more reasonable
rate.

I put a flat sheet of plexiglass over the tank to cut down on evaporation.
I will allow the water to reach room temperate for a couple of days, and
also check evaporation rate.  If the evaporation rate is too great I will
have to think of a means to reduce it.  Thermacore lost 125 cc per day
due to evaporation.

I also bought a 120 volt 1500 Watt replacement electrical heater element
for a hot water heater ($9.00)  It has a resistance around 9 ohms, which is
just right for my 30 volt 3 amp regulated DC power supply to supply
nearly 100 watts.

I will continuously monitor both internal and ambient temperature via
computer logging using A/D and electronic thermometers.

I'm looking for about 0.15 degrees per watt to verify Thermacore's
calibration data.

--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com -- 612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills  MN 55112 USA           -

cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.25 / Tom Radcliffe /  Re: Try this experiment!
     
Originally-From: tom@mips2.phy.queensu.ca (Tom Radcliffe)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Try this experiment!
Date: Wed, 25 May 1994 16:34:21 GMT
Organization: Queen's University, Kingston

I missed the beginning of this thread, but it looks like people
are talking about Faraday's homopolar generator.  Some references
on this phenomenon are:

M. J. Crooks, D. B. Litvin, P. W. Matthews, R. Macauly and J. Shaw,
One-peice Faraday Generator: A paradoxical experiment from 1851,
Am. J. Phys _46_ (1978) 729

A. L. Kimball Jr., Torque on Revolving Cylindrical Magnet, Physical
Review, _28_ (1926) 1302

J. Zeleny and L. Page, Torque on a Cylindrical Magnet Through Which
a Current is Passing, Physical Review _24_ (1924) 544

cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudentom cudfnTom cudlnRadcliffe cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.25 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Try this experiment!
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Try this experiment!
Date: Wed, 25 May 94 17:19:55 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Greg Kuperberg <gk00@quads.uchicago.edu> writes:
 
>The voltage is a function of the presence of the magnetic field
>and of whether or not the system has moving contact points.  It has
 
Many people suggested that hypothesis, but it turns out to be incorrect.
People have made disks with fixed contact points, where the voltmeter
goes around with the disk, and they have seen voltage then, as well. Please
see my message "Whirling Voltmeter Test."
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenjedrothwell cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.23 / B Guthrie /  First Wall Developments
     
Originally-From: zcbag@pitt.pgh.wec.com (B. Alan Guthrie)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: First Wall Developments
Date: 23 May 1994 13:42:20 GMT
Organization: Westinghouse NMD


When last I examined the status of fusion power systems
twenty or so years ago, a major problem was the longevity
of the first wall of the Tokamak (or I guess, any other
system as well).  It was unclear whether a first wall
loading of 1 MW/sq m would be economical or whether a
first wall with a loading of 10 MW/sq m would be possible
due to radiation damage from those 14.07 MeV neutrons.
I came away with the sad conclusion that a fusion power
system was not practical.  Have there been any developments
in first wall design in the past twenty years which would
give us hope that we can build a first wall that will
last sufficiently long to be economical?

While I'm asking - would atoms being knocked out off the
first wall and into the plasma be of a sufficient 
concentration to contaminate the plasma so much that
the D and T would escape?



-- 
B. Alan Guthrie, III         |   E pur si muove!
                             |
zcbag@monarch.pgh.wec.com    |                Galileo Galilei
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenzcbag cudfnB cudlnGuthrie cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.26 / mitchell swartz /  "Cold Fusion" Magazine Accelerating and 73
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: "Cold Fusion" Magazine Accelerating and 73
Subject: Re: "Cold Fusion" Magazine Accelerating
Date: Thu, 26 May 1994 01:08:58 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <Rm3P1X9.hansen35@delphi.com>
Subject: Re: "Cold Fusion" Magazine Accelerating
Stephen Hansen <hansen35@delphi.com> writes:

= "The context of "Cold Fusion" Magazine is made more interesting if one looks
= at Wayne Green's editorials in "73 Amateur Radio" during the period from
= March through May. (Wayne is the creator of both magazines.)

  Why?  

       Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com)
       

cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Thu May 26 04:37:03 EDT 1994
------------------------------
1994.05.25 /  prasad /  Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
     
Originally-From: c1prasad@watson.ibm.com (prasad)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
Date: 25 May 1994 17:40:48 GMT
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

In article <1994May23.103132.4175@malins.mala.bc.ca>, gill@mala.bc.ca
(Arnold G. Gill) writes:
|> In article <19MAY199408572464@xenon.arc.nasa.gov>, laforce@xenon.arc.
asa.gov (Soren LaForce) writes:
|> > A ballance measures mass.  
|> > 
|> > I can't think of a way for a ballance to work without an external 
|> > acceleration (or gravitational field), e.g. not in "free fall."
|> 
|>      Your two statements here flatly contradict each other.  A balance,
|> by definition, requires an external gravitational field to operate.  As
|> such, it cannot measure mass directly, but measures forces - in
|> particular, it measure torques.  This then is converted and calibrated
|> to a mass scale by Newton's second law.
                               ^^^^^^
F=ma?  But then, your very next two lines prescribe precisely the same thing!
Look who's talking about contradictions!

|> 
|>      The only way to measure mass directly is to measure the inertia of
|> an object.  And that means you're going to have to move it abruptly.
|> 
|> ---
|> Arnold G. Gill -- astrophysician at play                        gill@mala.bc.ca

-- 

How does a balance measure weight and not mass?  Say you've put two bodies
of *masses* m, M, resply on the balance.  Let's say the *gravitational*
acceleration is g in the neighborhood, and doesn't vary significantly over
distances of the order of the balance dimensions.  Say you took a sufficiently
small balance to ensure this (not more than 100 m should do fine?!).

Then, the *forces* due to gravity are gm and gM resply.  The torques, for
equal arm lengths (NBS certified!) r cm., would be rgm and rgM.  The balance
DOES NOT MEASURE the magnitude of your test mass at one shot directly.  Say
m is your mass-under-test.  You need to keep changing M from a handy box
of standard *mass*es till you strike the *balance* rgm = rgM.  Then, back
to school algebra, we cancel rg on both sides, and viola, we have measured
m, we say it is M gm.  (convert to lb, in, feet, whatever, the argument is
the same, right?)  Are you convinced now that we measure *mass*, by *comparison*,
and not weight, with a balance?

Ok, you are still hooked onto the inertial/gravitational mass controversy.
Think about it, whether *you* move a mass (abruptly or continuously, as
you please), or whether *gravity* moves it, the acceleration is going to
be the same formula, a = F/m.  Irrespective of the semantic origin of the
force F, for a given mass m, the same *magnitude* of force produces the
same acceleration.  Any continuously varying acceleration can be locally
modeled by a space-time curvature, providing a similar acceleration is
perceived by all objects similarly placed in the space-time... -> GR.

Back to your method, let's just say, you've got the right formula for
measuring weight, unless you calibrate your force, so then you can divide
the known F by the measured a to get m.  And that is precisely
what the balance does for you - instant calibration on-line and in parallel!
Irrespective of the "spring" of the gravity (or local acceleration), it
gets instantly calibrated against the standard mass M.

__________ __________ __________ __________ __________ __________ __________

pragma options disclaimed

-- prasad		email: 71155.3116@compuserve.com, poll= 1/month.

"The future of space-time lies (and how!) in parallel processing."
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenc1prasad cudlnprasad cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.26 / Benjamin Carter /  Re: National Enquirer slur
     
Originally-From: bpc@netcom.com (Benjamin P. Carter)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: National Enquirer slur
Date: Thu, 26 May 1994 02:33:03 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

I received an email message earlier today, saying:

"Congratulations in getting Gene Mallove to make an ass of himself ... ."

This aroused my curiosity, so I checked the most likely newsgroup and
found that Gene had, indeed, posted something:

>Ben Carter thinks he is so cute, making comparisons between National Enquirer 
>and "Cold Fusion" Magazine. Such a clever boy -- able to mimic the style of 
>Bob Park of APS or R. Petrasso of MIT!

Thank you, Gene, for the nice compliment.  I am not familiar with the
writing of R. Petrasso, but if you say that I am mimicking Bob Park's
style, that is high praise indeed.  Whether you agree with his views
(and I often don't), you surely must recognize that he is a master of
the English language.  And he has a sense of humor.
 
> [ad hominem stuff deleted]
-- 
    Ben Carter                  internet address: bpc@netcom.com
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenbpc cudfnBenjamin cudlnCarter cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.26 / John Logajan /  Re: Mills experiment 14
     
Originally-From: al789@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Mills experiment 14
Date: 26 May 1994 04:25:42 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)


blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue) says:
>to the calorimetry I am still a bit puzzled about the claim
>that temperature uniformity throughout the 28 liters was established
>to 0.1 deg C.  First off we have the claim of stirring by bubbles
>and calibrations without bubbles to deal with.  Was the temperature
>uniformity established in each of these situations?

Now I'm confused.  In both the calibration case using a resistive heater,
and the operating case, there is forward electrolysis current used to
produce bubbles.  In the calibration case, the electrolysis current is set
to just a couple of amps.

I am setting up my own test of Thermacore's calibration, and am using
a 42 quart plastic wastebasket and an aquarium airpump for stirring.  I have
found that the temperature is uniform to within 1/2 degree F (the limit
of my ability to resolve changes in a mercury thermometer) after about
12 hours from an initial mix of hot and cold tap water.

This isn't surprizing, of course, but when you think of the supposed time
constant of 5 hours, it is easy to see that even a slight stirring will
have cycled many many times during that 5 hours.  

I haven't hooked up the electronic thermometers or the heater element
yet, as I am waiting for the initial water load to stabilize.  I don't
want to assume the time constant is 5 hours, so I am giving additional
leeway.

>are we to take it on faith that the temperature
>uniformity was established with great care?

I'm trying to duplicate the calibration part.  Even after a few minutes of
observation of the stirring action of a thin stream of bubbles and quick
set of measurements, I have a good feeling that temperature gradients
are likely to be but small fractions of a degree.

-- 
-- John Logajan ---  al789@cleveland.freenet.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenal789 cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.26 / Eugene Mallove /  Morrison and Mormons
     
Originally-From: 76570.2270@compuserve.com (Eugene Mallove)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Morrison and Mormons
Date: Thu, 26 May 1994 11:37:37 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I find it curious -- and very revealing -- that Douglas Morrison has implied 
that the Il Giorno case being settled was justice for the Mormons! May I 
remind Dr. Morrison that it was Stan Pons who received the settlement money 
and it was Stan Pons who was called a "crook" by the newspaper. Why no comment
from Dr. Morrison on that central point? 

>2. It is entirely different from the case talked about in the Salt Lake 
>Tribune
>where apparently the Il Giorno newspaper attacked the Mormons - if the words 
>were used as claimed, it is just that Il Giorno should pay since the Mormons 
>have a well-deserved reputation for high moral standards. Such words are 
>certainly not involved in the La Repubblica court case.
>                                              Douglas R.O. Morrison.

cudkeys:
cuddy26 cuden2270 cudfnEugene cudlnMallove cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.26 / Garret Cotter /  Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
     
Originally-From: garret@mrao.cam.ac.uk (Garret Cotter)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
Date: 26 May 1994 09:50:10 GMT
Organization: Mullard Radio Astronomy Observatory, Cambridge


|> equal arm lengths (NBS certified!) r cm., would be rgm and rgM.  The balance
|> DOES NOT MEASURE the magnitude of your test mass at one shot directly.  Say
|> m is your mass-under-test.  You need to keep changing M from a handy box
|> of standard *mass*es till you strike the *balance* rgm = rgM.  Then, back
|> to school algebra, we cancel rg on both sides, and viola, we have measured
|> m, we say it is M gm.  (convert to lb, in, feet, whatever, the argument is
|> the same, right?)  Are you convinced now that we measure *mass*, by *comparison*,

Hmmm. You would have a very hard time convincing most people here at the 
Cavendish that cancelling rg both sides constitutes a measurement.

I admit it's a semantic point, but you can never _prove_ that m = M this way.

You can say that they have the same weight, and if you have a calibrated set of
weights, you can measure the weight.

But to say that mg and Mg are the only forces is an assertion (admittedly
backed up by vast experimental evidence!)

--
                                                
Garret Cotter                                          
Mullard Radio Astronomy Observatory                 
Cambridge                                        
                                                        
G.Cotter@mrao.cam.ac.uk                                   
                                                  
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudengarret cudfnGarret cudlnCotter cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.26 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Try this experiment!
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Try this experiment!
Date: Thu, 26 May 1994 06:50:32 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <1994May24.182309.3106@Princeton.EDU> rfheeter@phoenix.Prince
on.EDU (Robert Franklin Heeter) writes:
>In article <1994May24.144914.23708@midway.uchicago.edu> gk00@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>In article <2rsomjINN170@slcawc.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de> awc@ipp-garch
ng.mpg.de writes:
>>>The question of *how* the torque is transfered to the disk is more
>>>interesting. I believe Greg Kuperberg is correct in saying that
>>>collisions between electrons and ions are essential. But that would
>>>suggest that there is a resistivity for which the short circuit current
>>>is maximum.

>>I don't think that collisions necessarily imply resistance, if that
>>is what you are saying.  Some kinds of collisions are "elastic"
>>and do not generate heat.

>Anything that keeps electrons from flowing around is resistance,
>and the extra energy in the electron drift motion from the VxB force
>means that when the electrons collide (even elastically) with ions,
>they will transfer some of that surplus energy to the ions, which
>will then be hotter.  So I think collisions=>heating=>resistance.

Robert, there are some interesting fuzzies that can happen in plasmas
with COLLECTIVE focused(trapped) hot energetic beam currents.  If
they produce knockons, these are also trapped, so the current stream
increases in number beyond what can be supported by the sustaining
field (inductively fed).  Anyway, the excess "current electrons" will
be PUSHED OUT of the current stream as it is forced to "down size" to
maintain appropriate flux balance.   In a sense, this tendency to
increase highly conducting current carriers, looks like a kind of
negative resistivity. Other losses though tilt it back so eventually
the energetic ones run down, "unflatten"  and can no longer ping-
pong paddle the thermals directly ahead, thus sideways scattering 
and scattering totals increase with time (but slowly).   

>At least this thread is better than the Ludwig-Plutonium generated
>threads...

Well, with our imagination we should work up to it.   :-)

>Robert F. Heeter
>rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
>etc, etc.
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc,Bx 1037, Prometheus II, Ltd., College Park, MD 20741-1037 |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.26 / Paul Koloc /  Re: The FAQ for superconductivity 21/05/1994
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The FAQ for superconductivity 21/05/1994
Date: Thu, 26 May 1994 07:09:02 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <2rt32t$mvk@monterosa.zurich.ibm.com> hpe@zurich.ibm.com
(Morten Holm Pedersen) writes:
>Ludwig Plutonium (Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu) wrote:
>> In article <2rq0fl$n82@monterosa.zurich.ibm.com>
>> hpe@zurich.ibm.com (Morten Holm Pedersen) writes:
>
>> > So neutrinos are the carriers of electricity? How can that be - as far
>> > as I am aware neutrinos are neutral.
>>   The carriers in superconductivity are neutrinos, but photons are the
>> carriers in electric current. I believe this is correct about
>> neutrinos. I come to that conclusion on pure logic by the process of
>> elimination. The only particle that is abundant and that can travel
>> through matter with the resistivity of superconductivity, and come out
>> the other end as a 1/2 spin particle are neutrinos. I am quite sure
>> that electricity flow into a superconductor are converted to neutrinoes
>> which are converted back to electrons in the "flow out". The cold
>> temperatures catalyzes the flip flop.


>You should study Of Diagonal Long Range Order, then you will see that
>neutrinos are not necessary to have lossless transmission. Start with
>the Bose-Einstein condensation and the Ideal Bose gas then move on the
>interacting Bose gas. Landau and Feynman have written nicely on these
>subjects. 
>But you didn't answer my question - how can a neutral particle create
>electricity?

Is this for real??   I'm not well slept.. so swallow this with salt 
water and gravel.  

Neutrons are magnetically responsive.  
I extend the possiblity to: 
Spinning precessing planets driving alternating (precession rate) mag
fields, which for massive small fast rotating bodies which precess 
quickly (neutron stars) can become a HUGE magfield drivers.  Perhaps 
the mag fields achieved in these beasties could be nearly equal the 
rotational kinetic energy. In such cases, the "electric" effects are 
due to variations in the radial time rates since the masses are large 
enough to distort the local metric.  Otherwise, it comes straight out 
of Herbie goldstein   :-)   It should go something as the mass and
spin squared and dotted with the precession --I forgot and it just 
came from a kind of an interesting interpretation which needs quantized 
time to work.    Maybe much much later..   Seemed like a fun possiblity,
but other toys are to be built.  

>Morten
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc,Bx 1037, Prometheus II, Ltd., College Park, MD 20741-1037 |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.26 /  prasad /  Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
     
Originally-From: c1prasad@watson.ibm.com (prasad)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
Date: 26 May 1994 13:28:07 GMT
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

In article <2s1rci$nss@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk>, garret@mrao.cam.ac.uk (Garret Cotter) writes:
|> 
|> |> equal arm lengths (NBS certified!) r cm., would be rgm and rgM.  The balance
|> |> DOES NOT MEASURE the magnitude of your test mass at one shot directly.  Say
|> |> m is your mass-under-test.  You need to keep changing M from a handy box
|> |> of standard *mass*es till you strike the *balance* rgm = rgM.  Then, back
|> |> to school algebra, we cancel rg on both sides, and viola, we have measured
|> |> m, we say it is M gm.  (convert to lb, in, feet, whatever, the argument is
|> |> the same, right?)  Are you convinced now that we measure *mass*, by *comparison*,
|> 
|> Hmmm. You would have a very hard time convincing most people here at the 
|> Cavendish that cancelling rg both sides constitutes a measurement.

Cavendish has some special mass-measuring techniques I had no idea of...

|> 
|> I admit it's a semantic point, but you can never _prove_ that m = M this way.

Cavendish has more semantics of mass than we knew about...
I'm really behind times ;)

|> 
|> You can say that they have the same weight, and if you have a calibrated set of
|> weights, you can measure the weight.

Short attention span theatre, my next stop.

|> 
|> But to say that mg and Mg are the only forces is an assertion (admittedly
|> backed up by vast experimental evidence!)

Backed by the fact that this was supposed to be physics, an essentially
experimental science the last time I checked on it.

|> 
|> --
|>                                                 
|> Garret Cotter                                          
|> Mullard Radio Astronomy Observatory                 
|> Cambridge                                        
|>                                                         
|> G.Cotter@mrao.cam.ac.uk                                   
|>                                                   

-- 
__________ __________ __________ __________ __________ __________ __________

pragma options disclaimed

-- prasad		email: 71155.3116@compuserve.com, poll= 1/month.

Entropy isn't what it used to be...

What is mind?  No matter.
What is matter?  Never mind.
		-- Thomas Hewitt Key, 1799-1875

cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenc1prasad cudlnprasad cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.26 / Steve Fairfax /  Alcator progress 5/26/94
     
Originally-From: Fairfax@CMOD.PFC.MIT.EDU (Steve Fairfax)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Alcator progress 5/26/94
Date: Thu, 26 May 1994 16:39:06 GMT
Organization: Alcator Project, MIT Plasma Fusion Center

			Alcator C-MOD Weekly HIghlights
				May 26, 1994

Plasma operation is continuing. Significant progress on the Phase II physics
program is being made.

Considerable progress has been made on tuning and conditioning of the D-port
ICRF dipole antenna. Tuning with plasma has been completed, and up to 600 kW
has been coupled to the plasma, after less than one full day of conditioning.
Modest electron heating has been observed at this power level.

The visible bremmstrahlung array is now operational and taking data. This
diagnostic provides spatial profiles of Zeff, supplementing the single channel
Z-meter used last year.

Locked modes have been observed as a precursor to some disruptions. The new
B-poloidal loops located on the RF protection limiters identified a mode which
slowed and locked about 30 msec before the disruption.

Instrumentation has been improved on the divertor shunts and halo current
rogowskis to provide better signal to noise on these important disruption
diagnostics.

The reflectometer is being brought into operation. This diagnostic now
comprises four frequency channels, and is used for analyzing fluctuations, as
well as for measurements of edge density profiles.

We continue to experience some failures on magnetics signals, due to the
connector unreliability described earlier, but so far have been able to use
redundant signals for all critical functions.

Miklos Porkolab is attending the TPX Council Meeting at PPPL this week.

cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenFairfax cudfnSteve cudlnFairfax cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.26 / Greg Kuperberg /  Re: Try this experiment!
     
Originally-From: gk00@quads.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Try this experiment!
Date: Thu, 26 May 1994 16:36:11 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

In article <xi8Mu8T.jedrothwell@delphi.com> jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:
>Greg Kuperberg <gk00@quads.uchicago.edu> writes:
>>The voltage is a function of the presence of the magnetic field
>>and of whether or not the system has moving contact points.  It has
>Many people suggested that hypothesis, but it turns out to be incorrect.
>People have made disks with fixed contact points, where the voltmeter
>goes around with the disk, and they have seen voltage then, as well. Please
>see my message "Whirling Voltmeter Test."

Well, if there is also a pair of moving contact points, then the result
makes sense, since the voltmeter is just measuring the potential across
the disk, which exists because there is a current moving through it.
If there are no moving contact points at all, but the voltmeter is
capacitive, then the result still makes some sense, because in the
moving frame the magnet exhibits charge separation.  Although I would
expect that you would need a particularly sensitive electrical
instrument to notice that, and the fact that disk is a conductor is a
severe hindrance to the effect.

If there are no moving contact points in the system at all, and if the
voltmeter is resistive, then the result makes no sense whatsoever and
it has almost certainly been misinterpreted.  A resistive voltmeter is,
among other things, a conductor, and you could imagine that the disk as
a wheel whose radial spokes are resistive voltmeters identical to the
extra voltmeter that you are attaching.  In that case, the extra
voltmeter has to give the same reading as the radial voltmeter parallel
to it, because they are identical.  In particular, a current through
them has to go in the same direction.  If there is such a current,
where is it going?

The Faraday generator is an interesting pedagogical exercise.  The most
bizarre aspect is that some people seem to think that there is some new
physics here.  If there were any mistakes in Maxwell's equations, a
Faraday generator would not, in 1994, be the best way to notice them.
It is like surveying the geography of the continents by sailing the
oceans in wooden vessels.  It was a fine method in 1492, but now new
methods exist to address this problem.  Also, the basic form of
Maxwell's equations is like the basic shape of the Americas.  In the
sixteenth century, this was an active area of research, but in 1994
there is not much room for debate.
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudengk00 cudfnGreg cudlnKuperberg cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.26 / Robert Eachus /  Re: A Flash from the Economist
     
Originally-From: eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A Flash from the Economist
Date: 26 May 94 16:04:43
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.

In article <940524165511.2060a05c@FNALD.FNAL.GOV> DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:

 >  "Let There Be Light", Bomb, From The Movie "Dark Star"

 > Under the headline "An alternative to nuclear attack" the May 21-27 
 > "Economist" describes a new method of sterilizing food.  

 >	Unlike irridation equipment, the machines that Maxwell's Foodco 
 > subsidiary plans to sell (with the support of two food giants, Kraft 
 > and AB Tetra-Pak) under the name "Pure Bright" are easily fitted to 
 > production lines."   --- End of Quote 

 > Yeaa!!!  Lets hear it for good old Yankee ingenuity!  If radiation is 
 > bad, then good old "natural" sun light is good!  Tell me, Maxwell 
 > Laboratories (the named company), just how much ultra violet is out in 
 > the tail of your spectrum?  How ultra is it?  The article goes on to 
 > describe that high energy storage capacitors are used to drive xenon 
 > flash tubes.  Listen up Robert Eachus, there are consulting 
 > opportunities! 

     Tom, I thought everyone in fusion knew that Maxwell was THE
company for high-voltage capacitors.  (In particular Mylar film
capacitors.)

     On the subject of "why it works," no, they are not putting out
lots of gammas.  First of all the radiation is not black body, it is
due to quantum jumps by electrons in multiply ionized inert gases such
as Xe.  I don't know what the maximum possible frequency is, but most
of the photons are in the tens of eVs at the most.  Also, the cooler
plasma in the sheath is strongly absorbing, and the quartz starts
filtering in the high UV as well.  The advantage to "nice clean
high-energy" pulses is that much less of the light is in the IR
spikes.  You can easily get to a 6000 degree K black-body equivalent
color temperature.  (But not a black-body spectrum, again it will be
90% in the emission spikes, and most of the rest will be in the
IR--from the quattz tube as well as the plasma wall.)

     But the medium to high UV in a flash will do nasty things to the
first few layers of cells.  In people this is known as sunburn.  Think
of this a millisecond sunburn system.  (Once upon a time we looked
into building a flash tanning system--it cost to much to save someone
a few minutes compared to low energy tanning beds.) Since most
bacterial contamination in things like bread and meat comes from
handling and is on the surface, and the amount of UV which kills a
cell doesn't affect taste, especially in cooked, or to be cooked
foods, this process should work pretty well.  If you arrange for all
sides to get flashed just before packing (or after packing, if the
packaging is transparent), shelf life should be significantly
extended.  (But remember just killing 99% only adds an extra day.
Even one bacteria left healthy is going to spoil the food.  It is
getting to zero on most of the units of product that is the goal.)

 > OK, the FDA and the public won't let you use gamma radiation.  So use 
 > short wavelength photons instead.  Hide them in the light from a 
 > bright flash tube.  Robert Eachus can correct me, but I suspect there 
 > is quite a bit of gamma radiation out in the tail of a high powered 
 > xenon light pulse.  But it is the light that does the sterilization 
 > they say.  Ha!  Next thing we will be hearing about "natural" photons 
 > (good) and manufactured photons (bad).  

   I know it sounds stupid, but I have never found anything that will
absorb high energy radiation better than a plasma.  (Try this neat
little trick.  Take a He/Ne laser, and aim it through a neon bulb (one
of those little indicator things will do, or you can go for a neon
sign, just make sure you get one which uses neon (glows red).  Now
shine the laser beam through the lamp and onto a target.  (Usually you
will have a little bit of diffusion and diming from the envelope, but
nothing serious.)  Now turn on the neon lamp.  Where did the laser beam
go?  (If you have a strong enough laser, and even a 10 milliwatts
will do, and you use an indicator lamp, now try the next trick--try to
turn the lamp off.)

   I was almost driven to distraction once, trying to figure out how
deep in the plasma the light is absorbed.  We finally decided to
calculate on the basis of all the light being absorbed at the plasma
surface, and that all the radiated light comes from the surface.  The
answers agreed perfectly with experiment.

    Of course for frequencies not matching an absorption peak in the
contained gas, the performance is different, especially for light
redder than the lowest strong absorption lines.  But get the plasma
hot enough (or the frequency high enough), and the free electrons take
up the slack.

 > For economy, I suggest that Foodco use high voltage low current flash 
 > tubes as they will find that the "light" that they give out is much 
 > more efficient in killing germs.  Something around 50 kv.  Besides it 
 > is easier to pipe around high voltage low current power than low 
 > voltage high current power.  Consider it energy saving.  That is good 
 > policy with the "green" advocates who do not like gamma radiation.  

    What do you think they are driving this with?  In the experiments
I did like this (but not for food sterilization) we used a 20 kV
igniter and a 10 kV capacitor bank...  Remember that old saw from your
first electronics course kV*kA*msec = kj? (RMS pulse voltage in
kilovolts, times thousands of amperes RMS, times average pulse length
in milliseconds gives you energy output in kilojoules.)  You say that
you learned that one ampere at one volt for one second is one joule?
That's no fun!

 > As a gedanken experiment, I get into the "sterilization" chamber with 
 > my Geiger-Mueller counter and note that a ten-thousandths of a second 
 > "light" pulse only causes my counter to click once.  This is hardly 
 > above background so I do not worry.  Yet a few clicks later I notice 
 > that I am  dead.  What is wrong?  Why does the counter not sing out 
 > and warn me to leave a dangerous area?  Geiger counter fans (and there 
 > are a few of them here) do not seem to worry much about the 
 > limitations of this instrument.

  What is wrong is that after a few pulses you have second or third
degree burns all over you body that have nothing to do with nuclear
radiation.  (But yes, your GM probably clicks on each flash due to
EMP.)  So I recommend against the experiment, with or without the
Geiger counter and sunglasses.

 > P.S.  Why is this posted to s.p.f.?  Well, there don't seem to be any 
 > real limit to what can be posted, and besides all those high powered 
 > flash tubes create a lot of plasma and every few thousand millennia or 
 > so might fuse a couple of stray hydrogen atoms.  

   Given the amount of plasma physics going on around here, why
shouldn't you post?  After all I got interested in this topic studying
the Project Sherwood literature for clues on how to make hotter
plasmas.

--

					Robert I. Eachus

with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudeneachus cudfnRobert cudlnEachus cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.26 / Robert Eachus /  Re: Whirling voltmeter test
     
Originally-From: eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Whirling voltmeter test
Date: 26 May 94 16:29:04
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.


In article <940524184858_72240.1256_EHB247-3@CompuServe.COM> 72240.1256@
ompuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:

  > The LED device is an easier than, say, strapping a voltmeter on
  > the disk and reading it with a strobe light as it whirls around,
  > to see if the needle is deflected. (Ha, ha!) Seriously, Valone and
  > others have already measured voltage with various techniques.
  > Chris Tinsley is thinking about trying a variation of this
  > experiment: he is thinking about attaching one of these plastic
  > strip battery testers that come free with each package of
  > batteries.  They change color from black to green when there is
  > voltage. He might be able to see a color change as the disk is
  > moving. If he cannot, I think it takes a few seconds for those
  > things to turn black again, so perhaps if he stops the disk
  > abruptly, he can see the green color fade. Naturally, he will have
  > to try whirling the battery test strip by itself, to see if the
  > motion alone causes a color change.

   Wusses!  Don't you know what he major current application field for
homopolar generators is?  (I'll give you a hint.  It involves putting
flashtube-pumped lasers in earth orbit.)  If Maxwell builds the
bugzappers Tom posted about, they will probably eventually be powered
with homopolar generators.  The advantage of homopolar generators in
flashtube applications is the extremely low impedance--and the high
structural strength.

   The only homopolar generators I ever played with went from 3600 RPM
to about 500 RPM in less than a quarter turn.  Hook a flash tube
across the output, fire in a triggering pulse.  The lamp will turn off
when the voltage gets low enough, and rotating copper disks are much
cheaper storage devices than mylar capacitors.

   But now I don't know what THIS subject has to do with fusion.  (Ah!
I see.  It is a proposed failure mode for compact fusion devices in
ballistic trajectories. ;-)

--

					Robert I. Eachus

with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudeneachus cudfnRobert cudlnEachus cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.26 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Try this experiment!
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Try this experiment!
Date: Thu, 26 May 94 17:34:01 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Greg Kuperberg <gk00@quads.uchicago.edu> writes:
 
>If there are no moving contact points in the system at all, and if the
>voltmeter is resistive, then the result makes no sense whatsoever and
>it has almost certainly been misinterpreted.  A resistive voltmeter is,
 
There are no contact points. A variety of different devices have been used.
Chris is currently experimenting with very low ohm resisters, which get hot
with very little current. He measured ohms with the brush configuration, we
shall see now whether the resistors get hot when they are rotated with the
copper disk.
 
That seems like a foolproof method to me, and so do the other methods reported
in the literature. I do not see how anyone could "almost certainly
misinterpret" the status of an LED. Either it is on, or it is off. The circuit
controlling the LED was very simple and foolproof.
 
As you say, the results appear to make no sense whatever, but if they can be
replicated, you will be forced to accept them, won't you? That is, after all,
how science works. If you have any doubts about the matter I urge you to
construct your own Faraday monopolar generator and to mount some resistors
on it, too see for yourself whether or not they get hot.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenjedrothwell cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.26 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Try this experiment!
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Try this experiment!
Date: Thu, 26 May 94 19:40:23 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

<jedrothwell@delphi.com> writes:
 
>There are no contact points. A variety of different devices have been used.
 
Oops! I meant moving contact points. The sucker is stuck right on there.
 
>Chris is currently experimenting with very low ohm resisters, which get hot
 
Oops again! I mean high ohm, I guess. The itty bitty kind what get hot real
quick-like with just a tad of electricity. I should write these messages off
line.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenjedrothwell cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.26 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Whirling voltmeter test
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Whirling voltmeter test
Date: Thu, 26 May 94 19:43:33 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Robert I. Eachus <eachus@spectre.mitre.org> writes:
 
>   Wusses!  Don't you know what he major current application field for
>homopolar generators is?  (I'll give you a hint.  It involves putting
>flashtube-pumped lasers in earth orbit.)  If Maxwell builds the
 
Yup. U. Texas I believe it was, with a million amp Star Wars rail gun
launcher. Big! Everything is BIG in Texas! (A line from one of my favorite
jokes.)
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenjedrothwell cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.26 / L Plutonium /  Skit 9 of NEANDERTHAL PARK 2, NYT,M87 and black holes
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics,sci.chem,sci.bio,sci.a
tro,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Skit 9 of NEANDERTHAL PARK 2, NYT,M87 and black holes
Date: 26 May 1994 23:41:37 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

   In this skit there will be two readers. One reader will be
play-acted by Todd Pedlar reading the NYT and show him in agreement
with everything the mother superiors of the present science community
milk pours out and lactates.
  The second reader is Lloyd Zusman. Lloyd will play-act as the
unconvinced student of science.

Lights, camera, action.

Todd reads the following.The New York Times 26May1994 front cover reads
"SPACE TELESCOPE
CONFIRMS THEORY OF BLACK HOLES As Einstein Predicted. An Invisible
Force Gobbling Up Matter in Space Weighs as Much as 3 Billion Suns" by
John Noble Wilford. Todd is nodding his head in total agreement and
show him throw his fist into the air as if victory has come. Show him
wallowing in a shallow victory of sorts.

  Lloyd is seen nodding his head in disagreement as he looks at a
report and picture of the Loch Ness monster. The report claims that
since the picture exists, then the monster must exist. Also, show Lloyd
nodding his head in exasperation over Bigfoot with pictures of a big
foot imprint. The article logic claims that since it shows foot prints,
then Bigfoot must exist, otherwise anything else attempting to explain
that picture 
nothing of that magnitude could be explained by ordinary
phenomena (foot prints) --only (Bigfoot) a black hole.

  Show Todd reading this statement and sucking it up like cold milk.
Dr. Holland Ford said "This is conclusive evidence of a supermassive
black hole."

  Show Lloyd reading a different version of the statement. "This is
conclusive evidence of , . . the ether."

  Show Todd reading this statement and sucking it up like a soda pop
with a straw on a hot summer day. Dr. Daniel Weedman said "This is
tremendous breakthrough." "I do
believe there is a black hole there."

  Show Lloyd reading a different version of this statement. "This is a
tremendous experiment of Michelson." "I do believe there is no ether."

  Show Todd reading this with bug eyes. Dr. Tod R. Lauer said "From my
point of view this is really it. It
really hangs together and is very exciting."

  Show Lloyd reading a different version. "From Fitzgerald's strange
point of view, this is really it. Lorentz and Poincare can really make
it hang together and it is very exciting."

  Show Todd worshipping the following by offering up 2 years of his
life in graduate school by fasting. Dr. John L. Tonry said "Astronomers
are 99.9 percent sure that black
holes exist." If Dr. Tonry said all graduate students of physics go run
off of a lemming cliff, no sooner said,  then done. (Postscript-- have
the movie cameras try to show milk drinking, soda pop strawing,
lemmings, etc. Show alot of pictures.)

  Show Lloyd read his version. "Physicists were 99.9 percent sure that
the ether existed. And even after Michelson proved that it did not
exist, he himself could come around to believing his own experiment. He
died still thinking that the ether existed."
  
   Show Todd read this. Dr. Richard Harms said "If it's not a black
hole, it must be
something even harder to understand with our present theories of
astrophysics." "This is the mother of all black holes."

  Show Lloyd read this version. "If it's no ether, it must be something
even harder to understand like the Fitzgerald contraction." "The ether
history parallels the history of black holes."

   Show Todd reading and agreeing that "Scientists in the present
astronomy and physics community think that
nothing of that magnitude could be explained by ordinary
phenomena--only a black hole."

  Show Lloyd reading how Poincare discovered the Principle of
Relativity (SP) and that how, since Maxwell's Equations were invariant
under Relativity (Lorentz transformations) that Maxwell's Equations
were true.

                        94th ELECTRON OF 231PU
               Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH ELECTRON

                  \ ::| :./.
                  .\::|::/.:
                     _ _
                    (:Y:)
                     - - 
                  ::/.|.\.:
                :: /.:| :\.:
                  /   |   \.
                          LP
        One of those dots is the Sun with 9 smaller dots around it.
Look in a chemistry textbook or quantum physics textbook of the
electron cloud dot picture. 
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.27 / Tim Janke /  Pedantry - off topic (was ?
     
Originally-From: tim_janke@internet.uscs.com (Tim Janke)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Pedantry - off topic (was ?
Date: Fri, 27 May 1994 00:58:10 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Pedantry - off topic (was ???)
In Fusion Digest 2325 (19 May 1994) Mike (not John) Robson 
wrote:

In article <2rfat7$8jp@scunix2.harvard.edu>, rmaimon@husc9.Harvard.EDU (Ron
Maimon) writes:
|> In article <CxhsjaE96lB8063yn@world.std.com>, moroney@world.std.com (Michael
Moroney) writes:

[snip]

> |> |> perfect use of the language.  They almost always have a line marked "12
items
> |> |> or less" which is poor grammar.
> |> |>          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> |>
> |> ???????
> |> In what way?
> |>
> |> Ron Maimon

> There is a widespread pedantic belief that one should say `fewer' rather
> than `less' when referring to a number (integer) rather than a (continuous)
> quantity.

> If you want to join me in my campaign against this pedantry send a

This is not pedantry, Mike, it's simply good English.  If I
have a glass of water and I drink some of it, would you say
I now have fewer water, or less water?

Tim

*************************************************************
Disclaimer: My opinions, not my employer's.
(Free! and worth it)
*************************************************************
Timothy Janke                     tim_janke@internet.uscs.com
El Dorado Hills, CA                 

"Let me go back in there and face the peril".
"No, it's too perilous".
 -- Monty Python And The Holy Grail
*************************************************************



cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudentim_janke cudfnTim cudlnJanke cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.26 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Re: Los Alamos, Equest, and peculiar ashes
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Los Alamos, Equest, and peculiar ashes
Date: 26 May 94 16:45:51 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

In article <9405251557.AA03123@pilot1.cl.msu.edu>, 
blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue) writes:
> I have been hearing wild rumours that may be related to something
> Gene Mallove said, and I wonder if someone could perhaps clear up
> a few points for me.  There stories related to an experiment done
> at Los Alamos (?) involving the placement of titanium chips into
> a deuterium atmosphere and leaving them for an extended period.
> After this exposure the titanium was subjected to analysis via
> gamma-ray spectroscopy, and this analysis is said to have turned
> up a gamma spectrum associated with a single isotope, 44Sc.
> One question is why just a single isotope and what reaction leads
> to that isotope?
> 

Another crying-wolf rumor, I'm afraid.  In fact, the Ti chips showed
contamination of Actinium 227.  I know for a fact that the Los Alamos people
were trying hard to avoid rumors such as this; thus, the purveyors of this
rumor ought now to stop their nonsense.

> Next rumour has to do with a commercial company called Equest
> that is offering for sale ($100,000) a kit for doing cold
> fusion that under a money-back guarantee.  In this case the
> experiment involves focussing ultrasound through D2O onto
> a titanium foil.  300 watts of sound power in is supposed to
> produce kilowatts of heat and 4He.  The device is said to be
> capable of melting the titanium, even while it is in contact
> with water.  Now the magazine Cold Fusion seems to have tied
> the Equest experimental claims to the 44Sc detection claims,
> and somehow Los Alamos and Equest seem to have links.  I
> am curious to know what possible connections there are between
> the two experiments and/or the people making claims about
> the experiments.  There has been some mumbling about how
> both 44Sc and 4He can be significant products of the reactions
> responsible for kilowatts (?) of heat.  I would really like
> to see that spelled out!  Can anyone fill in some details?
> Perhaps all will be revealed on "Good Morning America."
> If you thought physics by press conference was bad .....
> 
> Dick Blue
> 

Equest represents the work of Russ George and Roger Stringham, involving
ultrasonic shocking of D2O in the presence of Pd or Ti.  They reported at the
Maui meeting briefly, and Tom Droege (negatively) reviewed their work as you
may recall.  I think they're trying to make sense of something they find
exciting, but I agree with Tom that the evidence is far from compelling at this
point.  

Russ called me recently and protested Tom's negative postings on this
net.  He said that they use a voltmeter to monitor input voltage and a 
"clip-on" ammeter; they take readings once per minute.  Sounds a bit crude to
me, but they don't have much of a budget.  Russ did refer to the Los Alamos
gammas as real (I warned him that they said they were still checking for
contamination).  Since our conversation, the gammas have been shown to
be due to 227-Ac contamination.  Los Alamos folks have been gracious in
having Russ and Roger to LANL twice -- but no neutrons, no gammas, and no
charged particles have been seen.  Yet, Russ and Roger think they may have
some 4He production in their ultrasonic-shock cells.

Russ was very clear:  "Our system is designed to avoid sonoluminescence,"
so he is looking at something different than SL (which we are pursuing here,
incidentally, painstakingly).    He thinks that the ultrasound
causes deuterium to somehow load into the Pd (or Ti) and that this is the
source of excess heat and 4He, but without gammas or charged-particles or
neutrons...  Deja vu.


It is true that Equest/Russ and Roger offer to anyone one of their ultrasound
cells which they *guarantee* will produce xs heat and 4He.  The cost is
$100,000.   Interested parties may call Russ at 415 493 4515.  I don't plan
to buy one, but I do think these guys are honest.  (A bit overenthusiastic,
perhaps.)

--Steven Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenjonesse cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.26 / Peter Lamb /  Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
     
Originally-From: prl@csis.dit.csiro.au (Peter Lamb)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.math,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.bio
Subject: Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
Date: Thu, 26 May 1994 00:04:06 GMT
Organization: CSIRO Division of Information Technology

c1prasad@watson.ibm.com (prasad) writes:

> phil@eurocontrol.fr (Philip Gibbs) writes:
>Most of the comments in this thread have missed the point. The problem
>with switching to metric is not a question of whether or not it is an
>easier system. The difficulty is the cost and confusion caused by
>switching road signs from miles per hour to kilometers per hour.

>-- 

>True.  I've heard that they did attempt the switch in California
>in the early eighties, and backtracked.

On the other hand, it was tried and succeeded in Australia in the early
70's. Doing that sort of thing in just one state I think makes it
more-or-less bound to fail (like the USA, motor traffic regulations
here are a state matter, but uniform roadsigns are agreed across the
states).

One thing that was an important part of the changeover was
that the metric speed limit signs were distinctly different
from the old mph speed limit signs. That would be more difficult
in the UK, because the UK mph speed limit signs already look
very similar to the European standard metric speed limit signs.

As I recall it, the road signs here (both speed limits and distance
signs) were changed over in an astoundingly short space of time
(especially since the implementation required the cooperation of all
three tiers of government).  Road distance signs simply had the new
value pop-riveted over the old value, with a yellow tag with "km" on it
so that you knew that the sign had been changed.

-- 
Peter Lamb (prl@csis.dit.csiro.au)
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenprl cudfnPeter cudlnLamb cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.27 / Matt Kennel /  Re: A Flash from the Economist
     
Originally-From: mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A Flash from the Economist
Date: 27 May 1994 02:31:02 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

Robert I. Eachus (eachus@spectre.mitre.org) wrote:
: In article <940524165511.2060a05c@FNALD.FNAL.GOV> DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:

:  >  "Let There Be Light", Bomb, From The Movie "Dark Star"

:  > Under the headline "An alternative to nuclear attack" the May 21-27 
:  > "Economist" describes a new method of sterilizing food.  

:  >	Unlike irridation equipment, the machines that Maxwell's Foodco 
:  > subsidiary plans to sell (with the support of two food giants, Kraft 
:  > and AB Tetra-Pak) under the name "Pure Bright" are easily fitted to 
:  > production lines."   --- End of Quote 


:      Tom, I thought everyone in fusion knew that Maxwell was THE
: company for high-voltage capacitors.  (In particular Mylar film
: capacitors.)

:      On the subject of "why it works," no, they are not putting out
: lots of gammas.  First of all the radiation is not black body, it is
: due to quantum jumps by electrons in multiply ionized inert gases such
: as Xe.  I don't know what the maximum possible frequency is, but most
: of the photons are in the tens of eVs at the most. 

Multiply ionized Xe?  It's "just" x-rays then.  You know, like when they put
that lead shield around your gonads when they take them.  Or just
like what they use to light H-bombs.

:      But the medium to high UV in a flash will do nasty things to the
: first few layers of cells.  In people this is known as sunburn.  Think
: of this a millisecond sunburn system.

And unless it's penetrating it can't sterilize the interior.

Still it's probably safer than having some nasty radioactive cobalt
source that you openup a window to.

And much better PR.

: 					Robert I. Eachus

: with Standard_Disclaimer;
: use  Standard_Disclaimer;
: function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...

--
-Matt Kennel  		mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu
-Institute for Nonlinear Science, University of California, San Diego
-*** AD: Archive for nonlinear dynamics papers & programs: FTP to
-***     lyapunov.ucsd.edu, username "anonymous".
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenmbk cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Fri May 27 05:24:10 EDT 1994
------------------------------
1994.05.27 / Greg Kuperberg /  Re: Try this experiment!
     
Originally-From: gk00@quads.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Try this experiment!
Date: Fri, 27 May 1994 02:10:54 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

In article <ZW2tuEh.jedrothwell@delphi.com> jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:
>Greg Kuperberg <gk00@quads.uchicago.edu> writes:
>As you say, the results appear to make no sense whatever, but if they can be
>replicated, you will be forced to accept them, won't you?

The experiment itself I accept implicitly.  I have no reason to trust your
description of the experiment or its results.
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudengk00 cudfnGreg cudlnKuperberg cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.27 / L Plutonium /  Re: NAMING OF THE ELEMENTS;MORE IMPORTANT,STANDARD NOTATION OF
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.math,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.chem,sci.bio
Subject: Re: NAMING OF THE ELEMENTS;MORE IMPORTANT,STANDARD NOTATION OF
Date: 27 May 1994 05:14:11 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In article <2s1mmd$v3@osiris.kbfi.ee>
ain@anubis.kbfi.ee (Ain Ainsaar) writes:

>  I cannot see
> your path of reasoning.

  When truth in science comes, it is continuous in nature.
Democritus--"The only things that exist are atoms and the void." Modern
Atomic theory-- All matter is made up of atoms. LP-- if the only things
that exist are atoms, what about the whole? The whole is either a
structure or it is not a structure. Any facts supporting a structure?
Yes-- uniform cosmic microwave background radiation, dark night sky,
superclustering of galaxies. 
  Hence, since only atoms exist and the void between atoms then the
universe, since it has structure, by math logic, can only be an atom
itself. Then the void between atoms inside of an atom whole must be the
space of an atom. What in an atom has space? The only answer is
electrons. Hence the void, which is most of the observable universe is
the space of one electron. 231PU fits all of the numbers best.
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.27 / Wouter Otter /  Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
     
Originally-From: otterw@utctu8.ct.utwente.nl (Wouter den Otter)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.math,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.bio
Subject: Re: Politicians who oppose the metric system
Date: Fri, 27 May 1994 08:05:39 GMT
Organization: University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands

prl@csis.dit.csiro.au (Peter Lamb) writes:

>c1prasad@watson.ibm.com (prasad) writes:

>> phil@eurocontrol.fr (Philip Gibbs) writes:
>>Most of the comments in this thread have missed the point. The problem
>>with switching to metric is not a question of whether or not it is an
>>easier system. The difficulty is the cost and confusion caused by
>>switching road signs from miles per hour to kilometers per hour.

>>True.  I've heard that they did attempt the switch in California
>>in the early eighties, and backtracked.

>On the other hand, it was tried and succeeded in Australia in the early
>70's. Doing that sort of thing in just one state I think makes it
>more-or-less bound to fail (like the USA, motor traffic regulations
>here are a state matter, but uniform roadsigns are agreed across the
>states).

Well, it shouldn't be that difficult. In Sweden somewhere around
1970 they changed from driving on the left to driving on the
rigth. Looks to me like a much more complicated move, more
expensive than simply changing figures on roadsigns.
I admit, Sweden is small, making things easier.

--
Groetjes,
  Wouter.
___________________________________________________________________________
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenotterw cudfnWouter cudlnOtter cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.27 / mitchell swartz /  McKubre/Srinivasan expt.: 2nd Request for clarification on 'No excess heat'
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: McKubre/Srinivasan expt.: 2nd Request for clarification on 'No excess heat'
Date: Fri, 27 May 1994 11:07:22 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

   In Subject: McKubre/Srinivasan expt.: No excess heat
Message-ID: <1994May20.111621.1633@physc1.byu.edu>
Steven Jones (jonesse@physc1.byu.edu) writes:

=sjones     " I have, from a colleague at EPRI:
=sjones    they found *apparent* excess heat before
=sjones   taking recombination into account.  Then McKubre and Srinivasan 
=sjones  checked the evolving gases, and sure enough, *all* the 
=sjones   excess heat was accounted for by recombination 
=sjones    of hydrogen and oxygen!"

   Steve,  this would appear to be very important **if**  it is true,
and if it does occur for active (material-speaking) electrodes.

   First,  did  McKubre and Srinivasan find that "*all* the 
excess  heat was accounted for by recombination 
of hydrogen and oxygen"  for  the nickel-light water system, 
or  for the palladium-heavy water system,  or both?

   Second, what was the loading achieved?

   Third, are you certain of your source?    Care to name him/her?

   Best wishes. 
             Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com)


cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.27 / mitchell swartz /  A Flash from the Economist - UV vs. ionizing
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: A Flash from the Economist - UV vs. ionizing
Subject: Re: A Flash from the Economist
Date: Fri, 27 May 1994 11:06:07 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

   In Message-ID: <2s3m16$49v@network.ucsd.edu>
Subject: Re: A Flash from the Economist
Matt Kennel (mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu) wrote:

    :  > Under the headline "An alternative to nuclear attack" the May 21-27 
    :  > "Economist" describes a new method of sterilizing food.  
    :  >	Unlike irridation equipment, the machines that Maxwell's Foodco 
    :  > subsidiary plans to sell (with the support of two food giants, Kraft 
    :  > and AB Tetra-Pak) under the name "Pure Bright" are easily fitted to 
    :  > production lines."   --- End of Quote 
            [DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov]

  :      Tom, I thought everyone in fusion knew that Maxwell was THE
  : company for high-voltage capacitors.  (In particular Mylar film
  : capacitors.)
  :      On the subject of "why it works," no, they are not putting out
  : lots of gammas.  First of all the radiation is not black body, it is
  : due to quantum jumps by electrons in multiply ionized inert gases such
  : as Xe.  I don't know what the maximum possible frequency is, but most
  : of the photons are in the tens of eVs at the most. 
  :      But the medium to high UV in a flash will do nasty things to the
  : first few layers of cells.  In people this is known as sunburn.  Think
  : of this a millisecond sunburn system.
                [Robert I. Eachus (eachus@spectre.mitre.org)] 

=  "And unless it's penetrating it can't sterilize the interior.
=  Still it's probably safer than having some nasty radioactive cobalt
=  source that you openup a window to.
=  And much better PR."

   There first comment is correct.  There rest however.....

  Because of the skin-depth, UV cannot penetrate and
under some conditions UV-irradiation will leave viruses and bacteria,
as in particulate solutions.

   UV irradiation is not safer than the irradiation from 
the emission of radiactive cobalt, which
decays from nickel if memory serves correctly.
This occurs for several reasons.

   1) The penetration of the megavoltage xrays is many centimeters
and therefore such select volumes avoiding the irradiation will NOT OCCUR.
   2)  The UV can cause error-prone DNA repair in certain viruses
that are not completely inactivated (e.g. herpes viruses).
     There is no evidence that mutating, incompletely surviving, 
microorganisms are safer; and the reverse is probably true.
  
    If knowledge were as widespread as PR, our cities would not
be bathed in chlorine but would have used activated oxygen from the
beginning.   This would have been better for similar reasons
and because the chlorine also itself creates potential carcinogens
by converting simple amino acids to chlorinated-phenyl groups
which then undergo activation in the human liver.  This undesired
reaction is one which the activated oxygen
  -- which is also the indirect pathway incidentally of the
        ionizing radiation -- 
 does not produce).

  Hope that helps.     Best wishes.
               Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com)





cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.27 / Dave Toland /  Re: Skit 9 of NEANDERTHAL PARK 2, NYT,M87 and black holes
     
Originally-From: det@sw.stratus.com (Dave Toland)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics,sci.chem,sci.bio,sci.a
tro,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Skit 9 of NEANDERTHAL PARK 2, NYT,M87 and black holes
Date: 27 May 1994 11:48:00 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <2s3c3h$h84@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>, Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmout
.edu (Ludwig Plutonium) writes:

<a great deal of other drivel deleted>

>   Show Lloyd read his version. "Physicists were 99.9 percent sure that
> the ether existed. And even after Michelson proved that it did not
> exist, he himself could come around to believing his own experiment. He
> died still thinking that the ether existed."

Not that I really expect *you*, Ludwig, to comprehend the difference, but
Michelson did *not* prove the ether does not exist.  He simply failed to
find an absolute frame of reference based upon it, and by inference failed
to show that it *does* exist.

The difference, Mr. Pu, between the theory of the ether and the theory
behind black holes, is that predictions based upon the latter have been
borne out.  *That* is what makes a workable, accepted theory, *not* any
amount of frothing and jumping up and down, nor will it impress anyone
that you ridicule scientists who have learned more about real science
in their sleep than you have in your entire waking existence.

You have your own newsgroup, alt.sci.physics.plutonium, why don't you
limit your ravings to there, instead of polluting newsgroups set up for
real science, as opposed to your pathetic bids for attention through
pseudoscientific babble?

-- 
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------
All opinions are MINE MINE MINE, and not necessarily anyone else's.
det@phlan.sw.stratus.com   |  "Laddie, you'll be needing something to wash
(Dave Toland)              |   that doon with."
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudendet cudfnDave cudlnToland cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.27 / Arthur TK /  Re: Try this experiment!
     
Originally-From: awc@ipp-garching.mpg.de (Arthur      Carlson        TK  )
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Try this experiment!
Date: 27 May 1994 10:31:16 +0200
Organization: Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics


In article <1994May26.163611.18581@midway.uchicago.edu>, gk00@quads.uchi
ago.edu (Greg Kuperberg) writes:

> If there are no moving contact points in the system at all, and if the
> voltmeter is resistive, then the result makes no sense whatsoever.

Hear, hear! The report of a significant voltage measured with a comoving
voltmeter is as close as you get in physics to violating the laws of logic, as
opposed to merely violating well-established laws of physics. I am certainly not
going to waste my time trying to reproduce (or produce) such a result. It might
still be interesting to try to figure out what second order effect could produce
a signal. To that end, I would like to have a look at this extensive "literature"
that Rothwell always mentions but never cites.

Art Carlson
Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics
Garching, Germany
carlson@ipp-garching.mpg.de
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenawc cudfnArthur cudlnTK cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.28 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Re: A Flash from the Economist
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A Flash from the Economist
Date: Sat, 28 May 1994 02:20:18 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

OK, Robert Eachus has corrected me on a number of points.  Still, I suspect
these devices will give out some x-rays.  I predict that if this system of
steralizing food by high intensity light goes into effect, we will soon hear
or radiation sickness caused by a setup that has gone out of adjustment.  

But this was not the real point of my sarcasm.  Visible light, ultra-violet
light, x-rays, and gamma rays are all photons.  Gamma rays will do a great 
job of sterilization (at the right wavelength).  I suppose enough visible 
light will cook the surface and kill surface bacteria.  Ultra-violet will 
cook a little deeper.  But either will do a ***poor*** job of sterilization.
As the Economist points out, 99% kill only slightly extends the shelf life.
But a proper gamma ray dose would extend the shelf life indefinitely (with 
proper packaging).

So because we have done a lousy job of educating the public about what 
radiation is all about we are about to use an inferior method to preserve
food when a superior one is available.  

I note that today (at least in IL) a new law went into effect that requires
meat to carry a warning about the danger of bacterial contamination if not
properly handled.  As usual, the people who read lables are likely already
taking proper precautions.  So the law will likely do little good except to 
sell some of the Maxwell machines.  But gamma radiation would do a great job.

So there are good photons and bad photons, and again we are doing something
stupid because we are not educated.

Tom Droege

cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenDROEGE cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.27 / Robert Eachus /  Re: Whirling voltmeter test
     
Originally-From: eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Whirling voltmeter test
Date: 27 May 94 10:12:23
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.


In article <R+9v+wt.jedrothwell@delphi.com> jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:

 > Yup. U. Texas I believe it was, with a million amp Star Wars rail
 > gun launcher. Big! Everything is BIG in Texas! (A line from one of
 > my favorite jokes.)

  Nope, but close! Rail guns are a different SDI use of homopolar
generators.  (Acutally requires a higher current but lower voltage
than flashlamp lasar pumping.)

--

					Robert I. Eachus

with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudeneachus cudfnRobert cudlnEachus cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.27 / Mike Jamison /  Re: Try this experiment!
     
Originally-From: edwlt12@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov (Mike Jamison (ADF))
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Try this experiment!
Date: 27 May 1994 10:26 EST
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center

In article <1994May27.021054.12015@midway.uchicago.edu>, gk00@midway.uch
cago.edu writes...
>In article <ZW2tuEh.jedrothwell@delphi.com> jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:
>>Greg Kuperberg <gk00@quads.uchicago.edu> writes:
>>As you say, the results appear to make no sense whatever, but if they can be
>>replicated, you will be forced to accept them, won't you?
> 
>The experiment itself I accept implicitly.  I have no reason to trust your
>description of the experiment or its results.


There's something to this experiment that I haven't seen discussed:  The
fact that the B field is *not* homogeneous everywhere.  I believe one can
produce a voltage with the disk/contacts arranged like so:



 ------------------------------------------------ < axis of magnet/disk.
|     ______|____________ < B field
()   /______|____________
|   ///_____|____________
|__|||______|____________
^  ^^^      ^
M  B field  Disk
e
t
e
r

(The meter is also connected at the center of the disk).  Note that only
part of the meter wire cuts the magnetic lines of force.

If the meter and disk are in a uniform field, then Greg K. is correct - the
forces will cancel.  It's important to remember that the experiments use
real magnets, that have real field limits...


Mike Jamison

"Scientific research consists in seeing what everyone else has seen, but
thinking what no one else has thought"

						-A. Szent-Gyorgyi
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenedwlt12 cudfnMike cudlnJamison cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.27 / Mike Jamison /  Re: Whirling voltmeter test
     
Originally-From: edwlt12@mars.lerc.nasa.gov (Mike Jamison (ADF))
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Whirling voltmeter test
Date: 27 May 1994 11:16 EDT
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center

In article <940524184858_72240.1256_EHB247-3@CompuServe.COM>, 72240.1256
compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes...
>To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
> 
[exp. description with LED deleted]
> 
>voltage with various techniques. Chris Tinsley is thinking about trying a
>variation of this experiment: he is thinking about attaching one of these
>plastic strip battery testers that come free with each package of batteries.
>They change color from black to green when there is voltage. He might be able
>to see a color change as the disk is moving. If he cannot, I think it takes a
>few seconds for those things to turn black again, so perhaps if he stops the
>disk abruptly, he can see the green color fade. Naturally, he will have to try
>whirling the battery test strip by itself, to see if the motion alone causes a
>color change.

I don't think he's going to have much luck with the energizer bunny test:
The strip heats up, causing a temp. sensitive liquid cryustal to change color
at varying temps.  You can actually feel the heat from the thing, so you
know there's a bit of power being dumped into it - the more power the battery
can supply, the warmer the strip gets, and the better the battery is said
to be.  Of course, if Chris is getting watts of power out of his generator,
this test will work...

Something else you might enjoy trying - connect an AC induction motor up
to a DC supply (12 volts works well) and try turning the shaft.

Then think about how the old MGs had their dampers (shocks) set up - a pivot,
or shaft, attaching a swing arm.

Now think about the way the counter EMF changes with various B field strengths.

Guess what, you've got an infinetly variable electric damper!  (Don't tell
the mechanical engineers, though.  They only want to use a fluid with an 
electrically variable viscosity for their dampers :-) ).
> 
>- Jed
> 

Mike Jamison


"Scientific research consists in seeing what everyone else has seen, but
thinking what no one else has thought"

						-A. Szent-Gyorgyi
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenedwlt12 cudfnMike cudlnJamison cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.27 / Greg Kuperberg /  Re: Try this experiment!
     
Originally-From: gk00@quads.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Try this experiment!
Date: Fri, 27 May 1994 15:49:36 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

In article <27MAY199410264337@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov> edwlt12@ariel.lerc.na
a.gov (Mike Jamison (ADF)) writes:
>------------------------------------------------- < axis of magnet/disk.
>|     ______|____________ < B field
>()   /______|____________
>|   ///_____|____________
>|__|||______|____________
>^  ^^^      ^
>M  B field  Disk
>e
>t
>e
>r

That's reasonable.  You get an AC current in the loop if the amount of
field passing through the loop varies over time.  OTOH if the disk is
flush with the face of a round coil magnet and the voltmeter is
straight, then by symmetry no field lines pass through the loop.  If in
addition the voltmeter is a battery strip taped to the disk, then the
loop has a very small area.  In these circumstances it would have to be
a pretty sensitive voltmeter if it saw anything.
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudengk00 cudfnGreg cudlnKuperberg cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.27 / Greg Kuperberg /  Re: Try this experiment!
     
Originally-From: gk00@quads.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Try this experiment!
Date: Fri, 27 May 1994 16:01:21 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

In article <2s4b4kINN12p@slcawc.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de> awc@ipp-garching.mpg.de writes:
>Hear, hear! The report of a significant voltage measured with a comoving
>voltmeter is as close as you get in physics to violating the laws of logic, as
>opposed to merely violating well-established laws of physics.

I see your point, but it is also true that there are very few
variations of the true laws of physics that are logically consistent.
The best theoretical physics has consisted of repairing previously
known physics to make it logically consistent.  Maxwell's contribution
to his equations was Maxwell's term, which I think was motivated by
conservation of energy.  Einstein's derivation of special relativity
was predicated on the principle that Galilean transformations for
material objects are inconsistent with Maxwell's equations.  That is
the reason that these two theories were nearly unassailable when they
first appeared; not only did they make predicitions, they were the
logical conclusion of pre-existing experiments.



 I am certainly not
>going to waste my time trying to reproduce (or produce) such a result. It might
>still be interesting to try to figure out what second order effect could produce
>a signal. To that end, I would like to have a look at this extensive "literature"
>that Rothwell always mentions but never cites.
>
>Art Carlson
>Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics
>Garching, Germany
>carlson@ipp-garching.mpg.de


cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudengk00 cudfnGreg cudlnKuperberg cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.27 / L Plutonium /  Re: Skit 9 of NEANDERTHAL PARK 2, NYT,M87 and black holes
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics,sci.chem,sci.bio,sci.a
tro,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Skit 9 of NEANDERTHAL PARK 2, NYT,M87 and black holes
Date: 27 May 1994 17:51:23 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In article <2s4mlg$imm@transfer.stratus.com>
det@sw.stratus.com (Dave Toland) writes:

> Not that I really expect *you*, Ludwig, to comprehend the difference, but
> Michelson did *not* prove the ether does not exist.  He simply failed to
> find an absolute frame of reference based upon it, and by inference failed
> to show that it *does* exist.

  Aha, but, Michelson did prove that at least one geek exists. His name
is Dave Toland. Which sounds better? Dave Toland-Geek or Geek Toland?
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.27 / Bruce TK /  Re: Try this experiment!
     
Originally-From: bds@slcbdsipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce       Scott          TK  )
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Try this experiment!
Date: 27 May 1994 16:05:51 GMT
Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching

On whether collisions can generate heat:

Start with a population of electrons which has a nonzero directed velocity,
relative to the frame of reference in which the average ion motion is zero.
This means there is an electric current. In collisions [*] with the ions,
the mass difference is so great that each collision transfers negligible
energy, but does transfer momentum. This is called "pitch-angle
scattering".  Since each electron emerges from its collision with the same
energy, there is no transfer of this to the ions. There is, however, a
transfer of momentum, and the net effect of this is to reduce the electric
current (by reducing the relative velocity between electron and ion
populations). So, the collisions to act to reduce the current, and the
process is called "resistance".

But the important thing as far as energy is concerned is what happens to
the electrons _collectively_, not individually. Each electron has its
energy conserved by the collision, but the effect on the population is to
_randomise_ the velocities. So while the electron energy does not change as
a result of the collisions, ordered motion is converted into random motion.
In more common terms, bulk kinetic energy is converted into heat.

If you are concerned about the magnetic energy: protest, and I will answer
in another post.

[*] Note that a "collision" between two charged particles is a close
approach. An electron-ion collision is comparable to a near-miss event
between a mass of order 1/30 Lunar and the Earth. The scales are such that
the initial velocity is much greater than escape velocity, and the angle of
deflection is small. This is why it is often referred to "velocity-space
diffusion", as a large population of particles all get small, random kicks
to their velocities, spreading the distribution until it is isotropic.
Collisions between highly disparate masses do not change either particle's
energy appreciably, but do transfer significant momentum. So in order for
the electrons' velocity distribution to become Maxwellian (in _energy_),
electron-electron collisions must be considered.

-- 
Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de                               -- W Gibson
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnTK cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.27 / L Plutonium /  fine-structure variable; does it have bounds?
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics,sci.chem,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: fine-structure variable; does it have bounds?
Date: 27 May 1994 18:52:06 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In article <2rrdt0$a8m@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium) writes:

> In article <2rp6iv$15g@fnnews.fnal.gov>
> toddp@FNALA.FNAL.GOV writes:
> 
> > alpha(M_Z) = 1/128.8 +/- 0.1.

> 1 - Halzen & Martin, _Quarks and Leptons_, 1984.
> 2 - Quigg, _Gauge Theories of the Strong, Weak, and Electromagnetic 
>     Interactions_, 1983.
> 3-  Kane, _Modern Elementary Particle Physics_, 1987.
> 4-  Novikov & Okun, "The q^2 dependence of W and Z coupling constants in 
>     the interval 0 < |q^2| < m_Z^2," Cern preprint: CERN-TH 7153/94
> 5-  Banerjee & Ganguli, "Estimation of the QED coupling constant alpha
>     at sqrt(s) = M_Z," Cern preprint:  CERN-PRE 92-165.
> 6-  Sirlin, "How strong is the evidence for electroweak corrections beyond
>     the running of alpha?"  NYU preprint: NYU-TH 93/11/01

   I do not have access to these CERN or other preprints. Can someone
please summarize them?
   Does anyone know and can elaborate on whether the fine-structure
marker varies only over strict bound?. Does it vary only within the
limits of 128 to ((22/7)^7/22). What is the energy at 128? What is the
energy at 137 exactly? What is the energy at ((22/7)^7/22) exactly?
  I am trying to correlate the energy with spontaneous fission. Only
using radioactive neutron decay energy for neptunium 232*93 into
231*94.
  Any help out there?
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.28 / Dieter Britz /  CNF bibliography updates and archive retrieval, 27-May-94.
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CNF bibliography updates and archive retrieval, 27-May-94.
Date: Sat, 28 May 1994 02:20:19 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway


Current count:
-------------
  9 books
912 papers
141 patents
219 comment items
 81 peripherals
 19 conference procs(-to-be)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Books:
^^^^^
#
Huizenga JR; Cold Fusion: The Scientific Fiasco of the Century. 2nd Ed.,
Oxford University Press, Oxford and New York, 1993. ISBN 0-19-855817-1. Paper.
** This second edition is identical with the first hardback but published
elsewhere, and with the addition of an Epilogue, in which some conferences are
reported, as well as the new light water claims with Ni cathodes. The
chronology has been extended to November 1992. Huizenga remains skeptical, and
worries about the amount of lobbying for cold fusion. He concludes that the
burden of proof lies on CNF advocates, and there has been no such proof.
Therefore, CNF remains an abberation. 
#.................................................................. 11-May-94


Journal papers:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
#
Cheek GT, O'Grady WE;  J. Electroanal. Chem. 368 (1994) 133.
"Measurement of H/D uptake characteristics at palladium using a quartz crystal
microbalance".
** Having previously found that the ECQM (electrochemical quartz crystal
microbalance) shows anomalous behaviour when used to measure D-loading of a Pd 
film, they now extend the study to look at the details of film stress as
charging proceeds, especially in mixtures of light and heavy water. At 10% or 
more light water, H dominates in the Pd film, but if the Pd is precharged with
D, this is not replaced by H upon electrolysis in a  mixture, a surprising 
finding.  Jan-93/Apr-94
#.................................................................. 11-May-94
Chu L, Wang S; Yuanzineng Kexue Jishu 26 (6) (1992) 80 (in Chinese).
"Coulomb screening of deuterium in metal crystal".
** (English abstract:) "The Poisson equation is solved to discuss the Coulomb 
screening for deuterium in metal crystal". It is not clear to this abtracter
whether there is any conclusion.  ?/Nov-92
#.................................................................. 2-May-94
Enyo M;  Oyo Buturi 62 (1993) 716 (in Japanese).
"Key points in the evaluation of experimental results (the excess heat)".
** Discussion, no references.
#.................................................................. 27-May-94
Fernandez JF, Cuevas F, Sanchez C;  J. Alloys Comp. 205 (1994) 303.
"Deuterium concentration profiles in electrochemically deuterated titanium and
their evolution after electrolysis".
** The techniques of elastic recoil dtection (ERD) and Rutherford 
backscattering spectroscopy (RBS) were used to measure D profiles in Ti plates
electrochemically charged with deuterium in heavy water electrolyte. Unlike
Pd, Ti is loaded only near its surface by electrolysis. The two techniques
could be applied, using the one set-up, conosisting of a 4He beam aimed at the
Ti sample at an angle of 78deg to the normal. After 768 hours of electrolysis
in 0.1M LiOD, at cd's of 0.5-1 A/cm^2, there was a fairly level loading D/Ti
of 1.6 to a depth of about 120 mu, falling off sharply there. There is a 
rather thinner layer, about 10-20 mu thick, in which the loading is a little 
higher, but not as high as 2, said by the authors to be a requirement for cold
fusion to take place.  Sep-93/?
#.................................................................. 27-May-94
Filimonov VA;  J. Radioanal. Nucl. Chem. 162 (1992) 99.
"On the probability of cold nuclear fusion implementation: Synergetic 
hypothesis".
** An alternative theory of cold fusion is attempted here. It consists of the
division of an energy gap into a series of smaller gaps and this, together 
with nonequilibrium (dissipative structure formation) suggests higher fusion
probability. State segregation si required for this theory, and this might be
provided by lattice distortions as a result of deuteration. Some mathematics
is used to describe this idea, and there is a table. Its contents seem to
contradict F's conclusions: that this is a possible mechanism. The table
shows that rather high energies are needed.  Nov-91/?
#.................................................................. 11-May-94
Focardi S, Habel R, Piantelli F;  Nuovo Cimento 107A (1994) 163.
"Anomalous heat production in Ni-H systems".
** One of the authors (FP) observed, in 1989, during a calorimetric experiment
at about 200K with a deuterated organic substance in hydrogen, some anomalous
heat, and suspected the Ni support used. This led to the experiments described
here. A Ni rod, 5 mm diameter and 90 mm long, was placed in a cylindrical
chamber, surrounded by a Pt heater coil. The chamber could be evacuated or
filled with gas (H2 or D2) at various pressures. The system was checked by
replacing the Ni rod with a stainless steel one, and its temperature noted as
a function of heater power applied, and gas pressure. With the Ni rod, the
best temperature for H2 absorption was found to be 173 C. Some Ni rods showed
the expected temperature as a function of heater power in a H2 atmosphere,
while others had elevated temperatures, showing that there was excess heat, of
the order of 20-50 W, with heater power at 40-120 W. No nuclear radiation was
detected. The excess power, integrated over time, amounted to such a large
energy excess, that a chemical explanation will not suffice. The authors
propose the (p,D) reaction, that is fusion between hydrogen and the natural
component of deuterium and more work is in progress.  Jan-94/Jan-94
#.................................................................. 19-May-94
Green TA, Quickenden TI; J. Electroanal. Chem. 368 (1994) 121.
"Electrolytic preparation of highly loaded deuterides of palladium".
** A high loading ratio D/Pd is sometimes said to be important for the success
of cold fusion, but it is not clear in most work, what the loading was or how
high a loading can indeed be achieved. These authors survey the field and
describe the methods of measuring loading. They then report their own results,
using in situ resistance measurement and known calibration curves of
resistance vs loading. Even this seemingly best method has its pitfalls. In
the first series of measurements, the Pd wires (1mm) were used without
pretreatment; conventional loadings of about 0.8 were achieved for these. When
pretreatment as used by McKubre's team was used (vacuum annealing, acid
etching), the loadings increased to about 0.9. These figures were rather
independent of the electrolyte used. It was found that vacuum annealing alone
was sufficient. Thus, in situ resistance measurement can be used to measure
the D/Pd loading.  May-93/Apr-94
#.................................................................. 11-May-94
Ikegami  H;  Oyo Buturi 62 (1993) 717 (in Japanese).
Next step to promote cold fusion research"
** Discussion.      Mar-93/Jul-93
#.................................................................. 27-May-94
Lewenstein BV; Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization 13 (1991) 79.
"Preserving data about the knowledge creation process. Developing an archive
on the cold fusion controversy".
** A sci-soc paper, using cold fusion as a case. The Cornell Cold Fusion
Archive (CCFA) is described, as well as some of the problems of setting it up.
The archive comprises published papers, mass media reports, electronic 
messages, some manuscript material (letters, notebooks, seminar notes etc),
even some experimental apparatus and joke items, and taped interviews. L 
argues that, even if CNF is shown to be false, the process of showing that
itself will be of great interest, and this archive will help.  ?/Sep-91
#.................................................................. 11-May-94
Lewenstein BV;  Osiris 7 (1992) 135.
"Cold fusion and hot history".
** A soc-sci paper, following the cold fusion saga and its conflicts and 
problems it engendered. There is a chronology up to mid-1991 and some 
publication statistics. Some interviews are quoted.
#.................................................................. 11-May-94
Ma YL, Yang HX, Dai XX;  Europhys. Lett. 24 (1993) 305.
"Nuclear-fusion enhancement in condensed matter with impacting and screening".
** Theory, based on the idea that there is accelerated diffusion and channel
collimation in materials that absorb hydrogen, such as Pd, Ti or C. Cluster
impact fusion is included, even though it is now admitted to be an artifact
even by the original workers in CIF. For cold fusion in a metal, the theory
predicts observed fusion rates at energies as low as 0.2 eV.  Jun-93/Nov-93
#.................................................................. 20-May-94
McKubre MCH, Crouch-Baker S, Rocha-Filho RC, Smedley SI, Tanzella FL,
Passell TO, Santucci J;  J. Electroanal. Chem. 368 (1994) 55.
"Isothermal flow calorimetric investigations of the D/Pd and H/Pd systems".
** Thought by many to be one of the most thorough studies in this area, and
long delayed in publication, this paper at last reports the results. A quality
isothermal flow calorimeter was used here, and D/Pd (or H/Pd) loadings were
monitored in situ by resistance measurements. The cells were closed, and gases 
recombined within them, so that recombination was fully accounted for. Excess
powers were observed only for D/Pd above 0.9 and reached 28% input power, but
were typically about 5-10%, with the noise lying at about 1/20 the excess
power level. No excess power was observed under other conditions, the output
balancing the input within the error.  Feb-93/Apr-94
#.................................................................. 11-May-94
Shibata T;  Oyo Buturi 62(7) (1993) 715 (in Japanese).
"Critical points for the evaluation of measured results on cold fusion".
** Short (one-page) discussion.
#.................................................................. 11-May-94


Patents:
^^^^^^^
#
Kobayashi S (Tokyo Shibaura Electric Co.);
Jpn. Kokai Tokkyo Koho JP 05,232,293, 25-Feb-92.
Cited in Chem. Abstr. 120:202690 (1994).
"Tritium treatment apparatus for a nuclear fusion reactors [sic]"
** "The app. contains a means to accelerate the oxidn. of H isotopes, a means 
to condense and liquefy the regenerate vapor treated by the oxidn.-
acceleration means, and a means to recover and store the H2O produced by the 
condensation and liquefying means". (Direct quote from CA).
#.................................................................. 9-May-94
Watanabe M, Takahashi A, Iida T (Matsushita Ind. Co Ltd);
Jpn. Kokai Tokkyo Koho JP 05,203,775, 24-Jan-92.
Cited in Chem. Abstr. 120:202689 (1994).
"Apparatus for cold nuclear fusion"
** "In the app., in which an anode and a cathode from an H-adsorbing [sic] 
metal are immersed in a D2O-contg. electrolyte, and nuclear fusion is caused 
by current flow, the anode consists of >=2 parallel plates with a const. 
interval between them, and thin cathode plates are plated [sic] in between.
In carrying out nuclear fusion by the app., D is expelled from the cathode 
during electrolysis". (Direct quote from CA).
#.................................................................. 6-May-94


Comments:
^^^^^^^^
#
Romer RH;  Am. J. Phys. 60(12) (1992) 1067.
Editorial: "Cold fusion".
** The editor of AM. J. Phys muses on how the process of science is presented
to students. The case of cold fusion reminds him that this process is often
distorted by myth. Physicists were astonished at the way CNF turned into a
circus, while their students couldn't understand the astonishment. Scientists
should learn, as part of their studies, about such peripheral things as grant
getting, peer review and publishing of papers etc; in short, the less
spectacular aspects of doing science.
#.................................................................. 13-May-94
Williams D;  Physics Today January 1993, p.73.
"Proof, process and lessons from cold fusion"; a review of John Huizenga's
"Cold Fusion: The Scientific Fiasco of the Century".
** JW likes Huizenga's straight-forward account of the deliberations of the
investigative committee he was on, to examine the cold fusion claims. He
likes Huizenga's refusal to accept weak evidence. He also muses on his own
observation of theorists who supported the claims soon afterwards, willing -
as Huizenga says - to chain miracles together. Since the book, nothing much
has happened to change the picture.
#.................................................................. 20-May-94


Peripherals:
^^^^^^^^^^^
-


Retrieval of the archived files:
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. By anonymous FTP from vm1.nodak.edu (134.129.111.1).  Login anonymous, with
   your e-mail address as the password. Type CD FUSION, DIR FUSION.CNF* to get
   a listing. The general index is large. Use GET (ie. GET FUSION.CNF-PAP1). 
2. Via LISTSERV. You get a (large) index of the archives by sending an email  
   to listserv@vm1.nodak.edu, with a blank SUBJECT line, and the "message"   
   'index fusion'. To get any one of these files, you then send to the same   
   address the message, e.g., 
   get fusion 91-00487
   get fusion cnf-pap1         etc, according to what you're after.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The bib-files are: cnf-bks (books), cnf-pap1..cnf-pap6 (papers, slices 1..6),
cnf-pat (patents), cnf-cmnt (comments), cnf-peri (peripherals), cnf-unp
(unpublished stuff collected by Vince Cate, hydrogen/metal references from
Terry Bollinger). There is also the file cnf-brif, which has all the -pap*
file references without annotations, all in one file (so far); and cnf-new,
with the last three months' or so of new items in all biblio files. 
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
===========================================================

cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.27 / Morten Pedersen /  Re: The FAQ for superconductivity 21/05/1994
     
Originally-From: hpe@zurich.ibm.com (Morten Holm Pedersen)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The FAQ for superconductivity 21/05/1994
Date: 27 May 1994 18:03:37 GMT
Organization: IBM Zurich Research Laboratory

> >But you didn't answer my question - how can a neutral particle create
> >electricity?

> Is this for real??   I'm not well slept.. so swallow this with salt 
> water and gravel.  

> Neutrons are magnetically responsive.  
> I extend the possiblity to: 
> Spinning precessing planets driving alternating (precession rate) mag
> fields, which for massive small fast rotating bodies which precess 
> quickly (neutron stars) can become a HUGE magfield drivers.  Perhaps 
> the mag fields achieved in these beasties could be nearly equal the 
> rotational kinetic energy. In such cases, the "electric" effects are 
> due to variations in the radial time rates since the masses are large 
> enough to distort the local metric.  Otherwise, it comes straight out 
> of Herbie goldstein   :-)   It should go something as the mass and
> spin squared and dotted with the precession --I forgot and it just 
> came from a kind of an interesting interpretation which needs quantized 
> time to work.    Maybe much much later..   Seemed like a fun possiblity,
> but other toys are to be built.  

> >Morten
> +-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
> | Paul M. Koloc,Bx 1037, Prometheus II, Ltd., College Park, MD 20741-1037 |
> | mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
> | VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
> +-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

Well, neutrons indeed have a magnetic moment, ie. they are magneticly
responsive, but a flow of neutrons is not giving rice to an electric
field as far as I am aware. Your other proposal might work for
planets due to GR or something, I really don't know, but for our
problem (superconductors) I doubt GR and quantum gravity is necessary,
we just need to take a ray of neutrons of measure if there is an
electric field - I am quite sure not. For neutrinos I don't even think
they have a magnetic moment. Anyone knows this?


Anyhow, for Ludwig Plutonium, I have another problem with neutrinos as
carriers. They go through a material without absorption - then how
come the current "bends" when I bend a wire, the neutrinos should just
go out of the side of the wire. Mr.Plutonium?


Regards,
Morten Holm Pedersen
IBM Zurich Research Laboratory
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenhpe cudfnMorten cudlnPedersen cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.27 / Matt Kennel /  Re: A Flash from the Economist - UV vs. ionizing
     
Originally-From: mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A Flash from the Economist - UV vs. ionizing
Date: 27 May 1994 21:43:14 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

mitchell swartz (mica@world.std.com) wrote:
:    In Message-ID: <2s3m16$49v@network.ucsd.edu>
: Subject: Re: A Flash from the Economist
: Matt Kennel (mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu) wrote:

: =  "And unless it's penetrating it can't sterilize the interior.
: =  Still it's probably safer than having some nasty radioactive cobalt
: =  source that you openup a window to.
: =  And much better PR."

:    There first comment is correct.  There rest however.....

:   Because of the skin-depth, UV cannot penetrate and
: under some conditions UV-irradiation will leave viruses and bacteria,
: as in particulate solutions.

:    UV irradiation is not safer than the irradiation from 
: the emission of radiactive cobalt, which
: decays from nickel if memory serves correctly.
: This occurs for several reasons.

:    1) The penetration of the megavoltage xrays is many centimeters
: and therefore such select volumes avoiding the irradiation will NOT OCCUR.
:    2)  The UV can cause error-prone DNA repair in certain viruses
: that are not completely inactivated (e.g. herpes viruses).
:      There is no evidence that mutating, incompletely surviving, 
: microorganisms are safer; and the reverse is probably true.


I was thinking in terms of a health hazard when the machine is off, not 
that UV is necessarily safer than gammas.  

That is, you don't have a constant radioactive source that you have
to worry about and dispose of at some point.

:   Hope that helps.     Best wishes.
:                Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com)


cheers
Matt

--
-Matt Kennel  		mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu
-Institute for Nonlinear Science, University of California, San Diego
-*** AD: Archive for nonlinear dynamics papers & programs: FTP to
-***     lyapunov.ucsd.edu, username "anonymous".
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenmbk cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.24 / L Sanchez-Chopi /  Re: The FAQ for superconductivity 21/05/1994
     
Originally-From: lou@xilinx.com (Lou Sanchez-Chopitea)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The FAQ for superconductivity 21/05/1994
Date: Tue, 24 May 1994 17:51:35 GMT
Organization: Xilinx Inc.

In article <2rrn0m$jf3@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth
edu (Ludwig Plutonium) writes:
>In article <2rq0fl$n82@monterosa.zurich.ibm.com>
>hpe@zurich.ibm.com (Morten Holm Pedersen) writes:
>
>> So neutrinos are the carriers of electricity? How can that be - as far
>> as I am aware neutrinos are neutral.
>
>  The carriers in superconductivity are neutrinos, but photons are the
>carriers in electric current. I believe this is correct about
>neutrinos. I come to that conclusion on pure logic by the process of
>elimination. The only particle that is abundant and that can travel
>through matter with the resistivity of superconductivity, and come out
>the other end as a 1/2 spin particle are neutrinos. I am quite sure
>that electricity flow into a superconductor are converted to neutrinoes
>which are converted back to electrons in the "flow out". The cold
>temperatures catalyzes the flip flop.

    Just to verify, low temperature causes electrons to change to
neutrinos? How does a particle with no charge carry electricity?

    	    	    	    	    Cheers

    	    	    	    	    	    Lou




-- 
Lou Sanchez-Chopitea                EMail:  lou@xilinx.com
Senior Software Engineer            SnailMail:  2100 Logic Drive
SpeakMail: (408) 879-5059                       San Jose, CA 95124
FaxMail: (408) 559-7114             #include <disclaimer.h>
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenlou cudfnLou cudlnSanchez-Chopitea cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.24 / L Sanchez-Chopi /  Re: The FAQ for superconductivity 21/05/1994
     
Originally-From: lou@xilinx.com (Lou Sanchez-Chopitea)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The FAQ for superconductivity 21/05/1994
Date: Tue, 24 May 1994 17:54:41 GMT
Organization: Xilinx Inc.

In article <2rro93$ltc@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth
edu (Ludwig Plutonium) writes:
>In article <2rq0fl$n82@monterosa.zurich.ibm.com>
>hpe@zurich.ibm.com (Morten Holm Pedersen) writes:
>
>> I believe anyons are particles with fractional statistics - neutrinos
>> obey the Fermi-Dirac distribution law or not?
>
>  IMHO, I believe neutrinos are anyons. Perhaps the only anyons. I
>believe the graviton will never be observed because neutrinos are the
>gravitons. My memory is vague, but I believe Carl Anderson disavowed
>the neutrino as gravitons and electrons because of the transversity of
>the waves or some such argument. But I believe Carl was wrong. And I
>believe that the missing neutrino count from the sun is not missing but
>are the ones converted into gravitons.

    Are there, or are there not gravitons then? For a to be "converted"
to b, b must exist.

    	    	    	    	    Cheers

    	    	    	    	    	    Lou



-- 
Lou Sanchez-Chopitea                EMail:  lou@xilinx.com
Senior Software Engineer            SnailMail:  2100 Logic Drive
SpeakMail: (408) 879-5059                       San Jose, CA 95124
FaxMail: (408) 559-7114             #include <disclaimer.h>
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenlou cudfnLou cudlnSanchez-Chopitea cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.27 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Los Alamos, Equest, and peculiar ashes
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Los Alamos, Equest, and peculiar ashes
Date: Fri, 27 May 1994 19:35 -0500 (EST)

Dick Blue writes:

->I have been hearing wild rumours that may be related to something
->Gene Mallove said, and I wonder if someone could perhaps clear up
->a few points for me.  There stories related to an experiment done
->at Los Alamos (?) involving the placement of titanium chips into
->a deuterium atmosphere and leaving them for an extended period.
->After this exposure the titanium was subjected to analysis via
->gamma-ray spectroscopy, and this analysis is said to have turned
->up a gamma spectrum associated with a single isotope, 44Sc.
->One question is why just a single isotope and what reaction leads
->to that isotope?

Well, the most common isotope of Ti is 48Ti (atomic number 22) which
composes about 74% of the earths crust.  44Sc (atomic number 21) is not
a stable isotope, but decays with about a 4 hour half life.  It emits a
1157 KeV gamma.  I would suppose the reason for one isotope is that a
1157 Kev gamma is quite easy to detect, and if any stable isotopes are
generated, they would not be detected via gamma spec.

If we assume a fusion of 48Ti and a deuterium atom, we get 50V.  At the
ground state it decays in about 1.3E17 years into 50Ti and 50Cr, both of
which are stable.  Fusing 48Ti and a deuterium releases 13 MEV of
energy. Thus the 50V would not be at ground state and would be likely to
fission. I don't it is very likely but if we assume we lose a 6He atom
which then decays immediately to an 6Li, we end up with 44Sc, 7Li and an
energy deficit of almost 20 Mev.  An impossibility without a high energy
imput.

If we start with 46Ti, which is only 8% abundant, we get 48V which
normally decays back to 48Ti.  The fusion releases 27.5 Mev.  If instead
of a normal decay the 48V emits a 4H because of the high energy excess
then this reaction adsorbs about 23Mev of energy and we end up with
44Sc, 4He and 4.2 Mev of excess energy.  At least the numbers seem right
on this possibility.

Detecting 44Sc is very easy, and conclusive.  Not only does it emit a
strong gamma line (99+ %), but it has a half life of about 6 hours.
Thus an isotope which produces a 1157 gamma line, and has a half life of
about 6 hours would be absolute proof that that isotope is present.
Contamination is not a possibility since any contamination would decay
off very quickly. The only other source of Sc44 would be through decay
of 44Ti which has a half life of 47 years.  But this could be eliminated
easily by doing a gamma spec prior to the experiment to establish a
baseline.

If these results can be verified, it could make some waves.

                                                                Marshall
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.27 / Matt Austern /  Re: Try this experiment!
     
Originally-From: matt@physics8.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Try this experiment!
Date: 27 May 1994 23:52:41 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (Theoretical Physics Group)

In article <1994May27.160121.13571@midway.uchicago.edu> gk00@quads.uchic
go.edu (Greg Kuperberg) writes:

> I see your point, but it is also true that there are very few
> variations of the true laws of physics that are logically consistent.
> The best theoretical physics has consisted of repairing previously
> known physics to make it logically consistent.  Maxwell's contribution
> to his equations was Maxwell's term, which I think was motivated by
> conservation of energy.

Close---conservation of charge.
--
		--Dr. Matthew Austern, Ph.D. '94 (at last!)
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenmatt cudfnMatt cudlnAustern cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.28 / mitchell swartz /  Los Alamos, Equest, peculiar ashes, and titanium
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Los Alamos, Equest, peculiar ashes, and titanium
Subject: Los Alamos, Equest, and peculiar ashes
Date: Sat, 28 May 1994 00:26:07 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

   In Message-ID: <WAF2PCB521016099@brbbs.brbbs.com>
Subject: Los Alamos, Equest, and peculiar ashes
MARSHALL DUDLEY (mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com) writes:

   ->I have been hearing wild rumours that may be related to something
   ->Gene Mallove said, and I wonder if someone could perhaps clear up
   ->a few points for me.  There stories related to an experiment done
   ->at Los Alamos (?) involving the placement of titanium chips into
   ->a deuterium atmosphere and leaving them for an extended period.
   ->After this exposure the titanium was subjected to analysis via
   ->gamma-ray spectroscopy, and this analysis is said to have turned
   ->up a gamma spectrum associated with a single isotope, 44Sc.
   ->One question is why just a single isotope and what reaction leads
   ->to that isotope?
= "Well, the most common isotope of Ti is 48Ti (atomic number 22) which
= composes about 74% of the earths crust."

   Titanium is relatively abundant but only 0.6% of the crust.  
However 74% of the titanium is 48Ti.

   Best wishes.
               Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com)
   

cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Sat May 28 04:37:06 EDT 1994
------------------------------
1994.05.28 / L Plutonium /  Re: The FAQ for superconductivity 21/05/1994
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The FAQ for superconductivity 21/05/1994
Date: 28 May 1994 18:48:13 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In article <1994May24.175441.16103@xilinx.com>
lou@xilinx.com (Lou Sanchez-Chopitea) writes:

>     Are there, or are there not gravitons then? For a to be "converted"
> to b, b must exist.

  Excellent question. It bothers me too. But I think the clearcut
answer is this.
  Take the 4 interactions and QM conjugate pair dual them. You have
strongnuclear dualed with gravity. And you have radioactivity dualed
with electromagnetism.
  Look at the interaction of gravity. And look at the Coulomb
interaction. If we say mass is electric charge then the two
interactions are math identical-- inverse square laws. Gravity and
Coulomb are identical except one is 10^40 stronger.
  Hence the graviton is ad hoc. Just as the ether after Michelson was
ad hoc, hence nonexistant. So too, the graviton is nonexistant. The
only particles of existence for the 4 interactions of as per
particle--wave:
                             strongnuclear--gravity
                             radioactivities--EM
are the particles photons,neutrinos, and strongnuclear. Gravitons as
particles existing is ad hoc. Noone will ever be able to point to a
graviton. Gravitons are a science fiction term for superpositioned
photons or neutrinos.
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.28 / L Plutonium /  Re: The FAQ for superconductivity 21/05/1994
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The FAQ for superconductivity 21/05/1994
Date: 28 May 1994 18:55:52 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In article <1994May24.175135.15994@xilinx.com>
lou@xilinx.com (Lou Sanchez-Chopitea) writes:

>     Just to verify, low temperature causes electrons to change to
> neutrinos? How does a particle with no charge carry electricity?

  In normal conductivity, the photons are carriers which signal the
electrons at the other end to move. In superconductivity, it is no
longer photon carriers but neutrino carriers which signal electrons at
the other end to move.
  Electricity is a much more complicated science than simple water
moving in a garden hose, yet it is an excellent analogy.
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.28 / Todd Pedlar /  Re: fine-structure variable; does it have bounds?
     
Originally-From: todd@numep4.phys.nwu.edu (Todd K. Pedlar)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics,sci.chem,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: fine-structure variable; does it have bounds?
Date: 28 May 1994 00:34:04 GMT
Organization: Northwestern University

In article <2s5fgm$9er@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>, Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmout
.edu (Ludwig Plutonium) writes:
>In article <2rrdt0$a8m@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
>Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium) writes:
>
>> In article <2rp6iv$15g@fnnews.fnal.gov>
>> toddp@FNALA.FNAL.GOV writes:
>> 
>> > alpha(M_Z) = 1/128.8 +/- 0.1.
>
>> 1 - Halzen & Martin, _Quarks and Leptons_, 1984.
>> 2 - Quigg, _Gauge Theories of the Strong, Weak, and Electromagnetic 
>>     Interactions_, 1983.
>> 3-  Kane, _Modern Elementary Particle Physics_, 1987.
>> 4-  Novikov & Okun, "The q^2 dependence of W and Z coupling constants in 
>>     the interval 0 < |q^2| < m_Z^2," Cern preprint: CERN-TH 7153/94
>> 5-  Banerjee & Ganguli, "Estimation of the QED coupling constant alpha
>>     at sqrt(s) = M_Z," Cern preprint:  CERN-PRE 92-165.
>> 6-  Sirlin, "How strong is the evidence for electroweak corrections beyond
>>     the running of alpha?"  NYU preprint: NYU-TH 93/11/01
>
>   I do not have access to these CERN or other preprints. Can someone
>please summarize them?
>   Does anyone know and can elaborate on whether the fine-structure
>marker varies only over strict bound?. Does it vary only within the
>limits of 128 to ((22/7)^7/22). What is the energy at 128? What is the
>energy at 137 exactly? What is the energy at ((22/7)^7/22) exactly?
>  I am trying to correlate the energy with spontaneous fission. Only
>using radioactive neutron decay energy for neptunium 232*93 into
>231*94.

Ludwig - I assume you were able to find Halzen & Martin.  In the section 
on Grand Unification there is a plot of the running of alpha, alpha_s, 
and I believe the weak coupling constant as well.  You can see that one 
of the ideas accompanying Grand Unification (as you might expect) is that
at some particular energy scale the three coupling constants must be 
equal to a single value.  I dont off-hand remember what this value is, but
it is something on the order of 1/25 I think.  So you can see that alpha 
is indeed supposed to grow well beyond 1/128, which, if you had read 
any of the preprints you would have seen is the value measured in e+e- 
collisions producing a Z, whose mass is around 91 GeV.  The value quoted 
in the literature of 1/137.036 is the value of alpha at the mass of the 
electron.  It does not decrease much upon lowering the scale to zero 
(the mass of the electron is more or less zero when considering this), 
certainly not to 1/137.673 which is what you quote as ((22/7)^7)/22.   You 
have several references.. most of them I believe include a formula for 
the running of alpha.  Being a mather as you say you should be able to
plug in the numbers.
 
By the way, why are you trying to correlate the coupling strength of 
the electromagnetic interaction with the spontaneous fission process?

Todd



______________________________________________________________________________
Todd K. Pedlar                ! "The fairest thing we can experience is the 
Graduate Student              ! mysterious.  It is the fundamental emotion
Department of Physics         ! which stands at the cradle of true art and     
Northwestern University       ! true science."    -  A. Einstein       
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudentodd cudfnTodd cudlnPedlar cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.28 / Greg Kuperberg /  Re: Try this experiment!
     
Originally-From: gk00@quads.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Try this experiment!
Date: Sat, 28 May 1994 02:01:22 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

In article <MATT.94May27165242@physics8.berkeley.edu> matt@physics.berkeley.edu writes:
>> Maxwell's contribution
>> to his equations was Maxwell's term, which I think was motivated by
>> conservation of energy.
>Close---conservation of charge.

Alas, I am too used to thinking of Maxwell's equations as *d*dA = J
covariantly.  I even forget which is Maxwell's term.  Oh, here it is in
my wife's copy of Jackson:  In (in)appropriate units, the static Ampere's
law says curl B = J, which say that div J = 0.  But in non-static
situations, div J = -d rho/dt.  So Maxwell's term is

curl B - dE/dt = J.
         ^^^^^

While we are on this subject, how do you treat the duality
B --> E --> -B of the current-free Maxwell's equations from the
gauge-theoretic view of electromagnetism?
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudengk00 cudfnGreg cudlnKuperberg cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.27 /  mahrts2504@cob /  Hot fusion success at Princeton?
     
Originally-From: mahrts2504@cobra.uni.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Hot fusion success at Princeton?
Date: 27 May 94 22:44:32 -0500
Organization: University of Northern Iowa

    Sorry if this post seems silly, but a good friend of mine the other day at
school said he heard on Paul Harvey (radio talk show) that just that morning
(Wednesday the 25th) that scientists at Princeton had successfully performed a
hot fusion reaction that produced somewhere around 8.6 million watts.
 
    Any truth to this story?  Really anxious to hear.
 
    Also please response privately or post a very obvious title, I can't always
find the time to read every post.

    Jeff

cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenmahrts2504 cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.28 / Ron Maimon /  Re: fine-structure variable; does it have bounds?
     
Originally-From: rmaimon@husc9.Harvard.EDU (Ron Maimon)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics,sci.chem,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: fine-structure variable; does it have bounds?
Date: 28 May 1994 07:26:44 GMT
Organization: Harvard University, Cambridge, MA

In article <2s5fgm$9er@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>, Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmout
.edu (Ludwig Plutonium) writes:
|> 
|>    I do not have access to these CERN or other preprints. Can someone
|> please summarize them?

Relax, Ludwig, it's not the fine structure constant that's varying. It's
the "effective fine structure constant"

the fine structure constant, as it's defined, is always 1/137, the number
these clowns are trying to mislead you with are a different fine structure
constant.

The idea is this- you can measure how strong two electrons attract each
other, and it's a force that goes like

e^2
---
r^2

but if you look close to the electron, it doesn't go like this anymore, "e"
changes. It's only "e" when the electrons are very far away that gives you
a fine structure constant of 1/137, e at a finite distance away gives a
bigger number.

-- 
Ron Maimon

+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
           You say you don't want it
                   You don't want it
           You say you don't want it
       and then you slip it right in         - Black Flag
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+






cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenrmaimon cudfnRon cudlnMaimon cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.28 / John Logajan /  Re: A Flash from the Economist
     
Originally-From: al789@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A Flash from the Economist
Date: 28 May 1994 16:13:13 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)


DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:
>So because we have done a lousy job of educating the public about what 
>radiation is all about we are about to use an inferior method to preserve
>food when a superior one is available.  

It is due to far more than a lack of education/information  -- there is
an active campaign of alternative information (I'd call it misinformation,
but be that as it may) that is led by plenty of highly educated people.

Some of the contention is due to an honest difference in scientific opinion,
but most of it, from my reading of it, is due to a philosophical difference,
in which scientific fact is used, or not, merely for its maniuplative power.
Where fidelity to truth is a matter of convenience.

>So there are good photons and bad photons, and again we are doing something
>stupid because we are not educated.

Given that information is wealth, and that therefore, misinformation will
always be produced, these sorts of battles have been, and always will be
part of the existence of mankind.

Historically we have seen three general answers to this dilemma:

1.) Elite forced conformity (tyranny, political, philosophical, and religious)
2.) Consensus forced conformity (democracy, mob-ocracy)
3.) Individual self-determination (minimalist government)

All three are composed of the same individuals with their same flaws, but only
#3 allows the greatest isolation of the individual from the stupidity of
the personal choises of others.

-- 
-- John Logajan ---  al789@cleveland.freenet.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenal789 cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.28 / L Plutonium /  Re: fine-structure variable; does it have bounds?
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics,sci.chem,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: fine-structure variable; does it have bounds?
Date: 28 May 1994 16:22:16 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In article <2s6rnk$knh@scunix2.harvard.edu>
rmaimon@husc9.Harvard.EDU (Ron Maimon) writes:

> In article <2s5fgm$9er@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>, Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmo
th.edu (Ludwig Plutonium) writes:
> |> 
> |>    I do not have access to these CERN or other preprints. Can someone
> |> please summarize them?
> 
> Relax, Ludwig, it's not the fine structure constant that's varying. It's
> the "effective fine structure constant"
> 
> the fine structure constant, as it's defined, is always 1/137, the number
> these clowns are trying to mislead you with are a different fine structure
> constant.
> 
> The idea is this- you can measure how strong two electrons attract each
> other, and it's a force that goes like
> 
> e^2
> ---
> r^2
> 
> but if you look close to the electron, it doesn't go like this anymore, "e"
> changes. It's only "e" when the electrons are very far away that gives you
> a fine structure constant of 1/137, e at a finite distance away gives a
> bigger number.

  Alright, what are the final words on the fine structure constant or
variable? And please can someone tell what Dirac might or would have
said on this issue?
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.27 / Bill Gill /  Question about Helium 3 Fusion
     
Originally-From: GILLW@alpinevalley.mdcad.ksc.nasa.gov (Bill Gill)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Question about Helium 3 Fusion
Date: 27 May 94 11:58:49 EDT
Organization: McDonnell Douglas, NASA, Kennedy Space Center

Yesterday afternoon I received my first exposure to the concept of 
Helium 3 Fusion, and want to see what I can find out about it. 

The following is what I understood the man to say.

  Helium 3 fuses with Dueterium.  
  One of the products is a Proton.
  The process provides a route for (relatively) direct conversion to electricity.
  Helium 3 is rare on Earth due to its "magnetic properties".
  Helium 3 is much more abundant on the Moon.

The thrust of the discussion was that this should give us a real economic 
reason to go to the moon, since we need the Helium 3 to produce 
safe power.

Any further information would be much appreciated.

Bill Gill
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenGILLW cudfnBill cudlnGill cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.28 / Bruce TK /  Re: Hot fusion success at Princeton?
     
Originally-From: bds@slcbdsipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce       Scott          TK  )
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Hot fusion success at Princeton?
Date: 28 May 1994 15:39:17 GMT
Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching

The most recent TFTR news post from Richard Hawryluk addresses this;
I guess the series he talked about started again on the 25th.

I'm sending the latest TFTR news post to Jeff (who asked).

-- 
Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de                               -- W Gibson
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnTK cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.28 / L Plutonium /  Re: The FAQ for superconductivity 21/05/1994
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The FAQ for superconductivity 21/05/1994
Date: 28 May 1994 18:28:33 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In article <2s5clp$k9d@monterosa.zurich.ibm.com>
hpe@zurich.ibm.com (Morten Holm Pedersen) writes:

> Anyhow, for Ludwig Plutonium, I have another problem with neutrinos as
> carriers. They go through a material without absorption - then how
> come the current "bends" when I bend a wire, the neutrinos should just
> go out of the side of the wire. Mr.Plutonium?

  By math logic, process of elimination. Neutrinos are the only
particles in physics which can go through matter and match the
resistivity of superconductors. Photons can not match that resistivity,
and electrons can not match that resistivity.
  Hence, in superconductivity, electric current going in is
flip-flopped into neutrino  carriers, until the current goes out. Where
the neutrinos are flip-flopped back into the electric current.
  Any known evidence for neutrino flip-flop? Yes the Sun missing 2/3
neutrino count. And in this fashion the Sun is one gigantic
Superconductor.
  I agree that some explanation is called for concerning "neutrino
interacting with matter" as you call bending in superconductor wire.
But I ask you Morten which is a bigger leap of faith? By math logic
elimination--only neutrinos have resistivity of superconductivity and
look to explain bending. Or, try to explain photons/electrons moving
through matter at that resistivity. It is very difficult to envision
electrons of atoms coupling and uncoupling to atoms at that
resistivity. And it is very difficult to envision a frozen lattice so
perfect that the photons can shoot across the lattice with nothing in
their path to cause resistance. By process of elimination that leaves
one and only one particle in the world of physics which matches
superconductivity resistivity, the neutrino.
  The neutrino can bend with matter, i.e. coupled to matter, along
these schemes--a double slit experiment. Superconductors which are
built these days are multi-double-slit experiments. There is the near
absolute Kelvin temperature collapse of wavefunction. Then there is the
near perfect PLANAR crystal structure which allows the temperature to
rise as another collapse in wavefunction. Superconductivity phenomenon
is a multi-double-slit collapse in wavefunction experiment. And when
you want particle results, you look into the experiment for paticles.
When you want wave results, you engineer wave results into the
experiment. When you want neutrino carriers you put electric current in
a superconductor and the experiment yields neutrino results.
   Just going by the idea that superconductivity is neutrino carriers,
should be enough of a physics query that someone can set up an
experiment to either confirm, support, or deny this speculation.
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.28 / Chuck Sites /  Fusion via Bose condensation of D+ ions (reply to Matt)
     
Originally-From: chuck@iglou.iglou.com (Chuck Sites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Fusion via Bose condensation of D+ ions (reply to Matt)
Date: Sat, 28 May 1994 20:34:54 GMT
Organization: The Internet Gateway of Louisville, KY


    Following the tradition of the College of sci.physics.fusion, here
is my reply to Matt Kenell on the question of fusion in a Bose
condensed aggregate of deuterons (D+).  Sorry this has taken so long Matt.
There are several deep ideas hidden in the 'wave overlap' I'm such a
proponent of, I needed some time to explore. 

    As the skeptical like to point out the burden of proof
is on us to show.  Bill Page in his impressive series on the Vieger theory
carried that burden well.  I have not read any of Dr. Vieger's works
(yet) but I already have a pretty good idea it's direction from Bill's
posts.  If you like the hydrino concept, then Vieger looks pretty
interesting. I hope fellow s.p.f readers will give his ideas some
consideration. 

    Similarly I thought the exchange between Scott Chubbs and the
collective minds of Dick Blue, Steve Jones, Bill Page, and Matt Kenell
and others have been excellent.  Personally, I like the Chubbs theory
alot and IMHO its one of the better theories on the CF phenomena out there.
I think there is room for improvement with regard to the description 
of the migration of charge in the BBC to fit the other models of proton
conduction in hydrated metals, but that will have to come in a later
post.  Also, the criticism of the Bose in-Bose out selection rules for the 
branching ratio does make me wonder about the correctness of the Chubbs 
theory in this respect. I can understand Chubb's argument that the presents
of an He4 band state could modify the selection rules. However, getting the
real world material properties to form the dual D+ and He4++ bands seems
tricky at best.  Still, the physics in Scott and Talbott's description
looks valid to me.  So maybe it is just a matter of designing the proper
experiment.   
       
    When your on the cutting edge of physics, it's natural to generate
a little heat. (A new definition of friction? You make the call ;-).
It's then your burden to quench the fire and prove the correctness of
your concepts by laying the cards on the table.  My burden of proof
lies in the statistical quantum mechanics and nuclear physics of
deuteron condensates. It's a case of competing potentials and
probabilities described in the wave mechanics.  What I want to show is
how to get there and argue about the reaction by-products later.  So
fasten those seat belts... This is pretty exciting.


Good reply Matt,
   
    This kind of given and take really does help clarify potential 
problems and where the points need to be high lighted. I just happen
to think this is an important idea so please indulge me for a moment.

   First, your argument is basically comes down to, the deuteron has
an electrostatic potential of much further range than the strong force
and thus will do two things: [1] It will not allow a strong
interaction because the electromagnetic forces dominate. [2] The
electrostatic potential will keep the deuteron separation so large no
condensation effect will occur.  Of the two, #2 is where we have a an
argument.  #1 is obvious, but can be got around as nature shows us all
the time via quantum-mechanical tunneling and other artifacts of wave
interaction.  So, lets take on #2 first.  Matt, I'm sure you know what
the 'psi' of a particle implies.  I'm not so sure others do based on
their replies.  Anyway we're into it so lets go...


1. A COLLECTION OF IDENTICAL PARTICLES

Lets say we have an ideal gas (a random collection of identical particles).
In quantum mechanics we know every particle can be specified by a 
wave operation 'psi' which is basically a description of the deBrogie
matter wave of the particle. In the collection we can label the first
particle wave, (particle 1) as psi_k(1) where k represents that state
of the particle as would be described by the Schrodinger equation of
a harmonic oscillator. The second particle would be psi_l(2), and the
third psi_m(3). The states k,l,m can be equal or different.
The total energy of the collection is simply the sum of the energy of
all the individuals which would be,

      epsilon_klm... = epsilon_k + epsilon_l + epsilon_m + ...

where the energy of the individuals can be obtained the psi of the
the particle. While this is a simple sum, the wave equation of the
whole system of particles is described as the product of all the
individual, so 
                   
     PSI_klm... =  psi_k(1) psi_l(2) psi_m(3) ...

Because the total energy of the system can be any linear combination
of individual particle energies the wave function of the total collection
becomes the sum of all permutation.  That is if we exchange particle 1
with particle 3,     

     PSI'_klm... =  psi_k(3) psi_l(2) psi_m(1) ...

The result is particle 3 goes to state k, and particle 1 goes to state m.
As you can see, such an exchange does not effect the total energy to an
observer looking at total energy.  Looking closer, all one will see are 
the individual psi's in apparent random states (the effects of localization).
We can then define the single total wave equation of the total collection as
     
                  __ 
     PSI_klm... = >_ a_123... psi_k(1) psi_l(2) psi_m(3) ...
                  P

Which is the sum of all permutation P and a_123... represents an
arbritary constant for the coefficients of each permutation.  From the
classic point of view each permutation would represent many
different independent wave functions.  But as we argued earlier, such
an exchange position does not effect the total wave, or at best
changes it's sign.  From the Born interpretation, only |PSI|^2 has any
meaningful physical attribute.  Because the exchange of particle's
position does not effect the collective state, we are forced only to
those distinct states where the coefficient is one, or the combination
of the sum is 1 on even permutations and -1 on odd permutations.  So
there are two results allowed by the requirement that the particles
are indistinguishable.  In the case where the coefficient is 1, we get
the symmetrical wave function,

                  __ 
     PSI_sym... = >_ psi_k(1) psi_l(2) psi_m(3) ...
                  P
 
and in the case where the coefficient is +1 on the even permutations and
-1 on the odd permutations, we get the antisymetrical wave function
 
                      __ 
     PSI_antisym... = >_  +/-  psi_k(1) psi_l(2) psi_m(3) ...
                      P

It's from these two wave functions that the two quantum statistics
are defined.  In the case of the symmetric wave function, the collection
is described by Bose-Eienstein statistics.  In the antisymmetric case
they are defined by Fermi-Dirac statistics.   
   
   Ok, so far so good. I know, in an earlier post I said, PSI=psi_1 + 
psi_2 + ... + psi_n, thanks for correcting me Matt. As one of my 
professors used to say, "That was just a test to see if you were paying 
attention" :-)


2. THE PARTITION OF PSI_sym

    With our collection of particles we can make some meaningful
arguments about the state of the system.  To start, lets look at
a collection of N photons in a cavity.  In the case of photons in
a box, we can describe the quanta by a wave vector number k.  I'm
assuming most folks understand the energy of the photon is defined 
by 'h v' and has a momentum  p = 'h v / c' = 'h k'.  The number of states
with in a range of 

 3
d k  and taking into consideration the two polarization states of
the photon,  is described by

               3
    d N = 2V  d k       
  
where V is the volume of the cavity. If we look at a spherical volume
(to simplify the three dimensionality) with wave numbers between 
k and k + del k we have,
 
                  2  
    d N = 8 pi V k  del k

Since the momentum of the light quanta is p = h v / c = h k,  we can
rewrite the equation as

             4 pi V    2
    d N = 2 -------- p    del p  = g_s      
                3
               h 

Now your probably wondering why I'm bring up this material on Plank's
black body radiation. It has nothing to do with the question of fusion
in a D+ bose condensate.  Ahh but it does.  Look at the last
equation. What we have described is a way to divide up the 'phase
space' (the coordinate space and the momentum space) into units of h^3
for particles with a momentum of p to p + del p for a spatial volume
V.  Now here is an interesting point.  One can not define a partition
of phase space smaller than h^3!  This comes about from the
Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, where del p del q ~ h. Any further
partition would be meaningless.  I bring this up now, because later
you will see 'gs' again.


REMEMBER THE BERNECKY/BOLLINGER SPECULATION?   

   What Bernecky's speculation is about is the so called 'hard-core boson
model' but with an interesting twist[6].  If the lattice constrains the bose 
particle by matching the D+ deBroglie wave length to the lattice spacing of 
the Pd/H intersituals, wouldn't this be similar to the hard-core boson
model of condensation?  Here is the analogy. 

   In He4, the quantum system is full, complete with 2 protons, 2
neutrons in the core and 2 electrons to balance the charge.  In He3,
the difference is the nuclear core lacks one neutron.  Since the 1s
electron orbital in helium is full, the nuclear spin becomes apparent
in a macroscopic ordering. He4 condenses obeying the rules of the
Bose/ Einstein statistics of a macro-system, while He3 forms a Fermi
liquid.  An interesting consequence is He3 can solidify and forms a
BCC crystal at extremely cold temps with an interesting pattern of
alternating spin-up, spin-down, which acts to bind the crystal. That
effect is purely an effect of the spin of the nucleus.  From a quantum
mechanical point of view, the He3 bbc crystal pattern comes about when
the overlapping wave functions of the particle's spin interferes in
momentum space.

   In contrast, He4 never solidifies but instead become a superfluid,
much like a large collection of hard frictionless balls without out
order (spin=0), except for sphere packing at the lowest temps. However,
while sphere packing implies that edge to edge repulsion, this is not
the quantum point of view.  When the particle's wave function in momentum 
space overlaps constructively, it allows the exchange the particles position
in space and an enhanced probability to interact.  Bernecky's premise is
based loosely on sphere packing.  When the temperature modified deBroglie
wave begins to overlap and drops below a certain critical value, this 
is when the effects of condensation should be seen.  
  
   With respect to the Pd/D system at the deBroglie/temperature/lattice
spacing resonance, wouldn't this be similar to the sphere packing of
He4 during condensation? First, treat the Pd lattice electron cloud as
the sphere packed He4's electron cloud, and nuclei of the packed He4,
as adjacent deuteron filled Pd intersituals.  This type visualization
works, and works amazingly well even with He4 at the condensation temp
of about 2.2K, as I will show.  But first, lets consider, W. Bernecky's
premise (with a few minor corrections).

   In a superfluid liquid He4, the volume occupied by the can be defined as 
  
     V = m/u                                                     [1.1]

where m=mass, and u = density of the He4 fluid.  This can be crudely
approximated as a cubic volume, where   

     V ~ a^3                                                     [1.2]

and a = separation distance.  In a finite spatial volume, (and assuming
an infinite potential) the energy is quantisized, with a ground state energy
approximated by  E = p_ave^2 / (2m) where p_ave is the average momentum of
the ensemble.  Also we have,

     p_ave ~= h / a                                              [1.3] 

which is the "Saturated Heisenberg inequality".  This comes from a standing
wave description of a particle. 
  
The deBrogie relationship is,  p = mv = h/lambda  where h=Plank's constant,
lambda=deBroglie wavelength.  By equating p = p_ave,    
                               
     h/lambda = h/a                                              [1.4]  

and substituting, one gets E = (h/a)^2 / (2m).   Or on rearranging 
      
               2                                                 [1.5]
              h       
     E =  -----------     The ground state energy of a mass in an intersitual
                 2        where the deBroglie wavelength equals the         
            2 m a         intersitual distance.

[ I would like to note that Terry Bollinger, in a Draft electronic
paper called "Bernecky Condensation" posted some time ago, argues this
should be modified to h/(lambda/2)= h/a for a lattice structure
designed to transmit and reflect specific atomic deBroglie
wavelengths. I re-read that post recently, and it's a *very*
interesting argument. There are methods of doing this. Perhaps this is
a new method for the creation of light element degenerate condensed
matter.  More on that sometime later.  Anyway, what I want to show is
the statistical argument behind Bose/Einstein condensation, and the
effects of EM forces on an aggregate Bose system.  So continuing...]

Now, if we treat this as an ideal gas via the Boltzmann relation, 

     E = (3/2) k T                                               [1.6] 

where k = Boltzmann's constant, and T=degrees Kelvin, and equate [1.5] to
[1.6] and solve for T, we get the general relationship,

                2
               h              This gives the Bernecky high 
     T = --------------       temp condensation relationship.    [1.7]
                  2                  
           3 m k a 
     
   Now lets see if this works according to a sphere packed model of
the condensation He4 to it superfluid state.  He4 has a ground state
diameter of approximately 1.9E-10m and a mass of 4.002603u * 1.66043E-27
kg/u = 6.6460421e-27 kg.  Assuming the He4's are right next to each 
other, Calculating through, I get: 44.18K.  Clearly something is wrong
with this picture.  The lambda transition for He4 for ordinary liquid
to superfluid is 2.2K, so working backward to find the particle 
spacing I get 8.55 angstrom. 4.5 times the radial diameter of the 
He4 atom (electrons orbitals included).  The spatial extent of the
deBroglie wave (the momentum spread) is quite large.  Huge infact!  


2. APPROACHING THE CONDENSATION QUESTION FROM BOSE-EINSTEIN STATISTICS  

The Bernecky/Bollinger speculation is a nice simple picture using 
the macroscopic observation of superfluid He4 and reducing it down
to a microscopic system and then back up to a macroscopic system.
From the other direction, we can use quantum statistics to predict
macroscopic effects.  Max Born in the classic book "Atomic Physics"
gives an excellent description of the quantum statistical phenomena of
Bose condensation.    

  Lets say we have we have a collection of particles in a linear
abstract chain that we call a shell, 's'.  In each shell there is a
group of cells, 'gs' that can be counted z1, z2, z3,..,z_gs.  Lets say
we also have a number of distinguishable particles in the shell
'ns', that we will label a1, a2, a3,..., a_ns.  If we randomly
distribute these particles into cells, a typical arrangement might be:

         z1 a1 a2 z2 a3 z3 z4 a4 a5 a6 z5 a7 ... z_gs a_ns.         [2.1]

In this case, particle a1 and a2 are in cell z1, cell z2 contains
particle a3, cell z3 is empty, cell z4 contains particles a4 a5 a6,
and so on for a_ns particles in z_gs cells.  The number of way we can
arrange the cells is 'gs', and the number of ways we can distribute
'ns' particles the cells is gs+ns-1, so the number of arrangements
possible is gs(gs+ns-1)!.  But this includes a number of repeated
configurations, which contains gs!ns! arrangements.  So the number of
distinguishable and unique arrangements is given by

               gs(gs+ns-1)!       (gs+ns-1)!
              --------------  =  ------------                       [2.2]
                 gs!ns!           (gs-1)!ns!

For the distribution across 's' number of shells, the "probability" of
all particles across all shells is given by the product expression

                     _____  (gs+ns-1)!
                  W = | |  ------------                             [2.3]
                      | |   (gs-1)!ns!
                       s   

The most probable distribution of this arrangement is given by the
"Sterling theorem".  Working through that gives,      
             __   
    log W =  >_  {(gs+ns) log(gs+ns) - gs log gs - ns log ns}       [2.4]
            
Now that we have a statistically accurate account of the most probable
distribution of Bose particles of 'ns' particles in 'gs' cells, we can
now get more specific about the system.  In a photon gas, we can assign
SUM(ns epsilon_s) = Es  where (epsilon_s = h/v_s), and eventually derive 
the Plank's blackbody radiation formula.  But we are interested in that
group of particles that have at minimum, a baryon component and a composite
integer spin.  In this case, we have the the condition that
SUM(ns) = N.  Thus the probability distribution of N particles, is 
the partial derivative of Log W / ns with respect to ns.  That is:

      @ log W         gs + ns
     -------- = log --------- = alpha + Beta epsilon_s               [2.5]
       @ ns             ns 

Note:  '@' indicates partial derivative (in my ASCII notation). 
Where alpha is the degeneracy parameter, Beta (by thermodynamic arguments)
is simply 1/kT, and epsilon_s represents energy states of the individuals.
[To simplify the ASCII notation let alpha + Beta epsilon_s = al + B eps_s.]  
Solving for ns we get the classic expression,

                gs 
     ns = --------------------                                      [2.6]    
           al + B eps_s            
         e              - 1 

Now interesting enough, we use the same trick as used in the Bernecky's
speculation only in reverse, and define the number of cells g by assigning
the energy of the particle and assuming a volume for the cell around that.    

                   1   2                  1
So let      eps = --- p    and   d eps = ---  p dp                  [2.7]
                  2 m                     m   

Skipping several steps, the expression for g (ie. the number of cells)
becomes,

            4 pi V            4 pi V   _________
      g =  -------- p^2 dp  = ------- V 2m^3 eps  d eps.            [2.8]
              h^3               h^3

Recall the previous section on the partition of PSI_sym. Here it is 
again, only there is no polarization factor.  We also equate the 
mass and energy of the particle to it's momentum. What comes out
is *the* Bose-Einstein law of the distribution of atoms.
                                              _____   ____    
                 _____            4 pi V     V 2m^3  V eps  d eps
    dN = F(eps) V eps  d eps =  --------- ----------------------    [2.9]
                                   h^3        al + B eps 
                                             e           - 1

This distribution describes generally the portion of all particles
with a certain energy.  Solving for the degeneracy parameter,'al' in
terms of the energy range per unit particle, we get:
                         
               [         ____  deps     ]
       al = ln |  k2 k2 V eps  ---- + 1 | - eps B                   [2.10] 
               [                dN      ]  

where k1 = 4 Pi V / h^3 and k2 = Sqrt(2m^3).  Now we have a condition
to apply in this case, that is: 

               oo
       /     /           ____ 
      | dN = | F(eps)   V eps  deps = N = nV                        [2.11]
      /      / 
             0

  This condition makes the Bose-Einstein distribution law, non-
integratable. (At least I couldn't find a general solution).  Born
makes the argument that by assuming 'al' >> 1, the distribution will 
reduce to the classic distribution of Maxwell, from this 'al' can be 
derived. That is true, but it's somewhat frustrating to know there
is something hidden there. I want to take another approach which
is perhaps more relavent to free bosons in metals.

 Let's assume 'g' the (number of cells) is not defined by the particle,
but is instead defined by the metal lattice intersituals. That is, the
metal lattice nuclei constrains the particle by Coulomb forces to a
region of lower potential.  From eq 2.6 
     
              g 
   n = -----------------      and solving for 'al'
        al + B eps
       e           - 1     

I get the simple formula, 

      al = ln(g/n + 1) - eps B.      where B = (1/kT).              [2.12]

Now interesting enough, g/n would represent the reciprocal of loading factor
which is normally defined by the number of particles / metal atom, which is
really describes the number of particles/intersitual/metal atoms. Assuming
a particle energy of eps = 0.2 eV = 3.2E-20J,  and g/n = 1/0.7 = 1.43,
T=300K. The degeneracy parameter 'al' then becomes respectable unit-less
0.702.  While this seems arbitrary, it's really not. The 0.2eV would
represent the depth of the potential well of the intersituals, and T at
300K is roughly room temp.  A loading factor of 0.7 seems common for 
electrolysis PdD(x).  This also demonstrates that the system is
degenerate and since 'al'<1  the system is condensed!  We can be more
specific about 'eps' by recognizing a simple particle in a 2D well 
near ground state has an energy roughly    

                                                                    [2.13]
              h     
  eps =   --------      Where eps is the ground state energy of a  
           2 m a^2      particle located in intersitual where the
                        deBroglie wave length equals the intersitual
                        distance.
            
Thus working out in detail the degeneracy parameter for Bose particles
in metals, I get the interesting equation:   

                            h^2                                       [2.14]
     al = ln(g/n + 1) - -------------  where 'a' = intersitual  
                         2 m a^2       spacing.
           
Note: I say crude, because 'a' is effected by loading.  Also, while 
g/n represents the recipical of the loading factor, in a crystal like
Pd, the occupancy of tetrahedrals is dependent on the the energy of the
particles. These are pertibations, but should not detract from the
point the bose system in PdD(x), the D becomes degenerate most cases
of high loading, and can thus be considered a high temperature bose 
condensate. Cool aye?


3.  THE CRITICAL TEMPERATURE FOR BOSE CONDENSATION 

   I argued in the last section that the degeneracy of deuteron in a 
metal would indicate the condensation of the deuteron. However this 
is not the approach taken by Fritz London[7] in his description of
the condensation He4.   I deviated after equation 2.11 from Born's 
logic. I think eq. 2.12 is based on a valid argument, however it is
interesting to see where the theoretical basis of He4 lambda transition
temperature comes from.  From Eq 2.6, we have already pointed out 
that alpha is a parameter describing the degeneracy of the system.
Actually it's more common to call   
            
    A = e^(-alpha)  or in my ASCII terminology,  A = e^(-al)        [3.1]    

the 'degeneracy parameter'.  Now of alpha >> 1 we can ignore the
the minus one in the denominator as the denominator blows up.   

                gs               
     ns = -------------  = gs A e^(-B eps)                          [3.2]
           al + B eps_s         
         e 
                 
which is Maxwell's classic statistics.  Using what know from Eq 2.8, 
and assigning gs, we then get,
                  ____
     dN = F(eps) V eps  d eps 
 
            4 pi V      _____   ____                                [3.3]  
     dN =  --------- A V 2m^3  V eps e^(-B eps) d eps 
             h^3 

which can be integrated.  In this case, we can compare theories, and 
find that in Maxwell's statistics, Ao is defined as

                    n h^3
        Ao  = -------------------                                  [3.4] 
               (2 pi m k T)^(3/2)  

Additionally, the deBroglie wavelength for a free gas particle is given 
by lambda = h/p = h / (3 m k T)^(1/2). (Does this look familiar?) Thus,

               [   3  ]^(3/2)
         Ao =  | ---- |      n lambda^3                            [3.5]
               [ 2 pi ]   

Now according to Born's work, we can take this and work out the 'degeneracy
parameter' A via an expansion of a transcendental function. I haven't worked
through this yet, but just to state the solution:

                         oo  
                4 A    /   e^(x^2) x^2
         Ao = ------   |  ----------------- dx                     [3.6]
              sqrt(pi) /   1 - A e^(-(x^2))
                       0

This transcendental equation can be series expanded, and gives:

                [         1              1       2        ]
         Ao = A | 1 + --------  A +  ---------- A   + ... |        [3.7]
                [     2 sqrt(2)       3 sqrt(3)           ]

Which upon solving for A = e^(-al) gives:

                [         1           3 sqrt(3) - 4    2       ]
         A = Ao | 1 -  -------- Ao +  -------------- Ao  - ... |   [3.8]
                [      2 sqrt(2)       12 sqrt(3)              ]

Now we can solve for the degeneracy parameter and decide if the system
will condense and at what temperature it occurs.  Obviously this is no
small task.  Fortunately it may be unnecessary.  Fritz London solved this 
as described in the book "Near Zero". He gives the critical temperature
for the onset of He4 Bose condensation as,  

                 h^2     [   n    ] 2/3
         T = ----------- |  ----- |                                [3.9] 
              2 pi k m   [  2.612 ]

which is simply Eq 3.3. solved for T, with Ao = 2.612.  Solving for
lambda in Eq. 3.5, the deBroglie wavelength is:  
  
                 [ 2.612  [2 pi]^(3/2) ] 1/3                  
        lambda = | -----  |----|       |                           [3.10]  
                 |   n    [ 3  ]       ]

   Since we all ready know from experimental measurements that the
critical temperature for He4's transition to superfluidity is roughly
2.2K degrees, from Eq 3.4, we can find 'n' and from Eq. 3.5 we can
find lambda.  (I get n = 1.28256e28. and lambda = 8.51452928522e-10 m.
Which is roughly 8.5 angstrom.  Haven't we seen this before?)
Although this is in the same order of magnitude, this value is roughly
4 times larger than the radius of the He4 atom I used in the Bernecky
calculation.  Clearly something is a miss (although not by much). For
the degeneracy parameter A=e(-al) for the first two interactions I get
1.225 with alpha = -0.2033.

Interesting enough, if we solve for n in terms of lambda and plug this 
into Eq 3.9 we get back 

                    2
                   h
        T = ----------------                                          [3.11]
                          2
              3 k m lambda

Which is the equation Bernecky's speculation is based on! Bernecky's
speculation is simply the debroglie wavelength of a free gas particle!
Still, the main point about this is lambda (the deBroglie wavelength
of a particle) can be controlled by temperature, which is a quite
obvious but important notion.  It also shows quite vividly only when
deBroglie wave of the composite particle overlaps in momentum space,
the system is considered 'condensed'.  Fritz London received some
criticism for his equation because of the use of the free gas equation
for a liquid state material, but the criticism is muted because the
theory does work and works well. The London equation basically
predicts when the temperature modified debroglie wave overlap occurs!

   Obviously the critical component of the Bose-Einstein statistics is
how the partitioning of the random collection is done and how eps is
defined for charged and strong force bose carriers in the case of a
deuteron condensate.  For deuterons in metals, the partitioning will
be different from a gas and this forces us to look at 'gs'.  Eq. 2.12
is obviously true, so what we need to consider is whether in metals,
the partitioning can be restricted to the lattice intersituals in
deuterated metals. That is, does g/n = loading factor?  


4. AN INTERACTION OF PROBABILITY AMPLITUDES 

   It is well know that interactions between like charged fusable
particles is dominated by electrostatic forces.  Matt has argued that 
point well and it is a point I don't want to minimize. However it is 
a barrier that can be over come.  Lets take an example from nature 
by looking at nuclear reactions in stars.  We assume the interacting
fusable material is ionized to a high degree and thus the electro-
static forces are predominate in the interaction.  The Coulomb barrier
roughly approximated is,  

                2 
       Z_1 Z_2 e      1.44 Z_1 Z_2    
 V =  -----------  =  -------------  MeV                           [4.1]
           R               R

Where as the kinetic energy of the interacting particles can be 
determined by the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution of velocities 
corresponding to thermal energies in the range of

kT = 8.62E-8 T  keV.                                                [4.2]

A comparison of these numbers shows immediately that even with 
temperatures in the 100s of millions of degrees, the average kinetic
energies of the penetrating particles are many orders of magnitudes
smaller than the Coulomb barrier.  Even if we consider the most 
energetic part of the M-B distribution, it's still way off.  This is
a delima is it not?  This was resolved by Gamov who showed that 
the probability of two particles of charge Z_1 and Z_2 with a 
relative velocity v penetrate the barrier with a penetration factor
proportional to 

                                     2
                       2 pi Z_1 Z_2 e
Penetration  oc  exp - ---------------                          [4.3]
                          h_bar v

(Note: in my ASCII notation 'oc' means proportional to.)  Another way
to describe it is the Coulomb barrier is soft. What also become
apparent in the question of the penetration factor is the effect of
the deBroglie wave in the probability of two particles interacting
strongly at low energies.  This geometric factor is crudely related by

          2       [  1  ] 2         1
 pi lambda   oc   | --- |     oc   ---                           [4.4]
                  [  p  ]           E 

Where lambda is the deBroglie wavelength as in p = mv = h/lambda.
At low scattering energies, these relations are rapidly varying functions
of energy. In the exploration of strong interactions in band state functions,
and in low temp Bose condensation, the accomidation of the wave mechanics 
of a delocalized multi-body ensamble certainly can alter the outcome of the
nuclear reaction.  In a typical 2 particle scattering reaction, separating
out the strong interaction from the coulomb potential, the cross section for
non-resonance conditions is defined as:

                                     2
           S(E)        2 pi Z_1 Z_2 e 
rho(E) =  ------ exp - ----------------                         [4.5] 
            E              h_bar v

where S(E) is the intrinsically nuclear part of the probability for 
interaction. If we define the velocity of the particles by the kinetic 
energy of the interaction, then the kinetic energy for the reduced mass 'mu'
is E=1/2 mu v^2 and v = sqrt(2 E / mu).  Substituting this into the
definition for the cross section gives, 
 
                                        2
           S(E)          2 pi Z_1 Z_2 e 
rho(E) =  ------ exp - ----------------------                    [4.6]
            E          sqrt(2 E h_bar^2 / mu) 

or 
                                         2
                           2 pi Z_1 Z_2 e 
S(E) =   rho(E) E exp  ----------------------                    [4.7]
                       sqrt(2 E h_bar^2 / mu) 
  
Typically the fusion rate is defined via the Born-Oppenheimer approximation
that the particles are very close.  This is given by

RATE = A |PSI(r_12)|^2                                           [4.8]  

where A is the nuclear rate constant, PSI is the normalized wave function, 
and r_12 is the internuclear separation (typically 1E-14 meters, 10 fm 
as found by scattering experiments and muon-catalysed reactions). If this 
defines a point of zero kinetic energy where the nuclear potential takes
over then, as S. Koonin describes, 
  
     S(E=0)      c
A = -------   ---------    where alpha = e^2 / h_bar c ~ 1/137.    [4.9]
     mu c^2    pi alpha

or simplified 

               2 h
A =  S(E=0) ------------                                            [4.10]
            pi^2 e^2 mu

Giving a rate for a two particle nuclear S-wave interaction of  

                   2 h
RATE =  S(E=0) ------------  |PSI(R_12)|^2                          [4.11]
                pi^2 e^2 mu
 
What we then need is to describe a wave function that allows for some
probability of the interacting potentials to become attractive. The most 
common way to describe this is to say the particle 'tunnels' through 
the Coulomb potential.  That is, there is some transmission of the
particle wave through the Coulomb barrier to the point where the potential
becomes attractive with a certain probability.  As described above,
what we have is a wave function which overlaps where the electrostatic and
strong forces have a specific probability of defining the interaction method.
Graphically then, the collision of two particles looks something like below:  

    
            <- |   V_E = (Z_1 Z_2 e^2) / R    | ->               ^
       |       oo 1/2 m_1v_1^2  1/2 m_2v_2^2 oo                  |
       |     o    o    ----->   <------    o    o            Probability 
       |    o      o      A       B       o      o           Amplitude
       |   o        o                    o        o              |
       | o     D+     o                o     D+     o            |
       +--------|-----------------------------|----------------  +
                1  <--------- R ----------->  2           
         |<--Psi(r1)-->|               |<--Psi(r2)-->|
Time = 0.                                                   (Figure 1.)

 
Typically the interaction appears as below. >XX< defines the point of
overlap where there is a good probability the potential becomes attractive.
>XX< could also define the most likely point where the transmission of the
deuteron's nuclear S-wave occurs if isolated to r1 r2.  V_E is the electro-
static potential and at the point of overlap, can not be localized to 
either particle 1 or 2.   
  
 
                  <----  |   V_E    | ---->                      ^
       |                 oo        oo                            |
       | 1/2 m_1 v_1^2 o    o    o    o    1/2 m_2 v_2^2     Probability 
       |     =0       o      o  o      o       =0            Amplitude
       |            o         o         o                        |
       |          o         o   o         o                      |
       +-----------------|----------|--------------------------  + 
                         1 <--R-->  2                     
                |<-Psi(r1)-->XX<--Psi(r2)->|
Time = 1.                                                   (Figure 2.)

Now its time to look at the multi-body wave description of a Bose-
condensate as described by R. Liboff without the sophisticated band state 
complications of the Chubbs theory. Here the overlapping waves imply 
a certain and definite probability that the inner nucleon forces
will appear in the delocalized 'scattering' event (Ie. a scattering 
event masked in the uncertainty of position and momentum).  Graphically
a Bose condensate has the following appearance. 
       
                                             | V_E(R_45)|
                                   |<------V_E(R_35)--->|
       |                 |<---------V_E(R_25) --------->|
       |       |<----------V_E(R_15)------------------->|            ^
       |       oo        oo        oo        oo        oo            |
       |     o    o    o    o    o    o    o    o    o    o     Probability
       |    o      o  o      o  o      o  o      o  o      o     amplitude
       |   o        o         o         o         o         o        |
       | o        o   o     o   o     o   o     o   o         o      |
       +--------|---------|---------|---------|----------|--------
                1         2         3         4          5      ...  n

As you can see, there is not much difference between the time 1 of the
scattering event where the kinetic energy=0 and in the situation of
particles in a degenerate monoenergetic state with regard to the
overlap. That is the kinetic energy relative to each other is zero.
It's in the overlap where the dual particle occupancy becomes likely
as a function of their degeneracy and the short range-strong force
becomes possible as a branch of their interaction methods!  

    Now one of the difficulties that becomes apparent is that the
Coulomb potential for a D+ ion condensate should be quite high.  High
enough that condensation may not occur (in a free state as opposed to
the solid state mechanism used in the Chubbs work).  This was the
argument Matt Kenell and Dale Bass where making against some of my
earlier posts on D+ Bose condensation. However, knowing the problem is
half the battle.  Again, it's worth noting R. Liboff's work. In this case
we can counter act the electrostatic potential by applying a magnetic field
to a circulating mono-energetic beam of D ions. This amounts to tuning
the cyclotron frequency and maintaining the circulating beam's energy
to a single energy state.  As the magnetic field tightens the D+ ion
ribbon and focusing elements maintain the monoenergetic state, it's
believed the ribbon will under go a transition to a condensed quantum 
state (much like the figure above).  Obviously this is not a simple 
experiment.    

[As a short historical note, Liboff proposed the possibility of fusion
in D2 molecules in a speculative paper about D2 superfluids in 1977.
His calculations gave an extremely low fusion rate, but it's
interesting to note this may be one of the first theory papers
suggesting fusion in the 2D molecule and proposing a way it might
occur.]


5. ESTIMATING THE FUSION RATE OF A D+ ION CONDENSATE  
   
Here is the argument Liboff makes about fusion in a Deuteron condensate.
To start, we use the London criteria [Eq 3.9], that is given by,

Tc = 2 pi h_bar^2 / K_b M (2.61 v)^ 2/3  ~= 8E-15 n^(2/3)             [5.1]

At Tc, the free gas deBroglie wave is overlapped.  Here v is the 
volume of the particle, n is the number density, and M is the 
deuteron mass. At n~=10E23/cm^3, Tc ~= 16K. Assuming a product 
form of the two-body wavefunction, (The so called joint wave function) 
the overlap is given by

            b/2  b/2
      1    /   /
I =  ---  |   |    dx_1 dx_2 psi_1(x_1) psi_2(x_2)                    [5.2]
      b   /   /           
        -b/2  -b/2 


Setting x_2 = x_1 + del where del ~= n^-1 is the approximate peak to peak
deuteron separation via the number density, the integral becomes,

          b/2
        /  
I =    |    dx psi_1(x) psi_2(x+del)                                  [5.3]
       /             
      -b/2 

Assuming a a Gaussian form for psi_1 and psi_2 representing the probability 
of position, then

       ___       b/2
     \/ pi     /  
I =  ------   |    dx exp[ -1/2 (x/a)^2 ] exp [ -1/2 ((x + del)/a)^2)]  [5.4]
      a      /             
             -b/2 
 
where '1/a' represents the spread of the Gaussian.  Setting Nu = x/a and      
and delta = del/a gives an overlap of 

                                    b/2a
      ___                          / 
I = \/ pi exp [ -(1/2 delta)^2 ]  | exp [ -(Nu + 1/2 deta)^2] dNu       [5.5]
                                 /   
                                -b/2a

Now, when b/2a >> 1, then the result is the simple expression, 


I ~= exp[ -(1/2 delta)^2 ]                                              [5.6] 

Now obviously, the maximum overlap occurs when delta=0 (del=0) giving 
I=1.  The minimum is at delta>>1 with del>>a as 'I' tends to 0 in this case.
With the overlap now defined, we are ready to estimate the probability 
of fusion.  We know, that when delta=0, I=1 and thus the probability 
of fusion is 1. However, as 'I' is reduced the probability should 
decrease very rapidly.  Liboff models this probability with an absurdly 
low value, which would represent the dual occupancy in the overlap 
in the range of the strong force.  

p(I) = I^12    for 1 >= I >= 0.                                   [5.7]

In the condensed state a~= 1.5 del, which would give, I ~= 0.11. This 
yields a p(I) of 2E-12 fusions/deuteron pair.  Note that this only
occurs in the Bose condensed D ion state.  Because of the charge
present, this system would be superconducting as well since the wave
overlap allows for the migration of charge via the exchange degeneracy.
This should have the effect of 'softening' the Coulomb barrier since 
we have competing forces blurred in the dual occupancy of the overlap.
The other point worth discussion is Eq 4.11 in a D+ ion condensed system.
We have a RATE defined by the probability that two particles are very 
close.  In the overlap, Liboff is estimating the dual occupancy in the
overlap area in the range of the strong force with a rapidly varying 
probability function of interaction.  This would amount to changing 
Eq 4.11 such that the |psi1_2|^2 represents the probability density of
two particle occupation in the overlap of the condensate.   


CONCLUSION

   I hope this post clears the air on the question of fusion in a D+
ion Bose condensate.  Basically, when the deuteron condensate becomes
super conducting, then by the nature of the wave mechanics, a
potential exists for the particles to interact via nuclear forces.
That effect is based on very conservative physics and does indicate
that with the right design, a 'cold' plasma fusion machine may be
possible.  Portions of the Chubb's theory are also supported via the
concept of fusion due the wave overlap, as suggested in the deuteron
band wave functions. It seems possible that a solid state version of
the concept may be possible if it can be shown that deuterons can
condense in hydrated metals. I've read of a few experiments where the
high migration rate of deuterium compared to hydrogen in some
transition metals is indicative of Bosonic condensation effects, but I
don't believe anyone has shown this to be the true source of the
migration phenomena.  Still the question is an intreging one; Can
deutrons in some deuterated metals systems bose condense?  And under
what conditions?  Perhaps some of the experimentalists out there may
shed some light on that subject.  Tom, Steve, John, Care to comment? 
   
  The bottom line is if the conditions are right, cold fusion looks 
possible.
   
Have Fun,
Chuck Sites
chuck@iglou.iglou.com

Ps.  If your interested, I can e-mail you the references for this 
post. Also I have some 'alpha' stage calculations for Heavy-heat.
   
Pss.  I also want to thank Matt, Dick and Steve, Michell, Greg,
Robert, Dale, and Bill for all the good discussions on Scott's posts.      



cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Sun May 29 04:38:08 EDT 1994
------------------------------
1994.05.28 / arthur blair /  RF heating in Tokomacs questio
     
Originally-From: blair@mksol.dseg.ti.com (arthur blair)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RF heating in Tokomacs questio
Date: Sat, 28 May 1994 20:39:01 GMT
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc

What frequencies are used for RF heating of Tokomac plasmas?
How is the RF generated? What other RF instrumentation is used
in fusion research? 

Art. 

--
"Television is chewing gum for the eyes" - Frank Lloyd Wright
Dont forget to vote in news.announce.newgroups !
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenblair cudfnarthur cudlnblair cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.29 / L Plutonium /  Re: The FAQ for superconductivity 21/05/1994
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The FAQ for superconductivity 21/05/1994
Date: 29 May 1994 04:53:53 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In article <2s5clp$k9d@monterosa.zurich.ibm.com>
hpe@zurich.ibm.com (Morten Holm Pedersen) writes:

> Anyhow, for Ludwig Plutonium, I have another problem with neutrinos as
> carriers. They go through a material without absorption - then how
> come the current "bends" when I bend a wire, the neutrinos should just
> go out of the side of the wire. Mr.Plutonium?

  The current bends when the wire bends because of the Meissner effect.
I need to calculate which of the three types of neutrinos can set up a
Meissner effect in a superconductor. I believe it is the Meissner
effect which the  neutrino carriers set up and in so doing, effect the
directional flow of neutrinos. Once I can match the math of neutrinos
with the Meissner effect, that would be very strong evidence that
neutrinos indeed are the correct theory of superconductivity.
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.29 / L Plutonium /  Re: fine-structure variable; does it have bounds?
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics,sci.chem,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: fine-structure variable; does it have bounds?
Date: 29 May 1994 06:14:02 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In article <2s6rnk$knh@scunix2.harvard.edu>
rmaimon@husc9.Harvard.EDU (Ron Maimon) writes:

> Relax, Ludwig, it's not the fine structure constant that's varying. It's
> the "effective fine structure constant"
> 
> the fine structure constant, as it's defined, is always 1/137, the number
> these clowns are trying to mislead you with are a different fine structure
> constant.
> 
> The idea is this- you can measure how strong two electrons attract each
> other, and it's a force that goes like
> 
> e^2
> ---
> r^2
> 
> but if you look close to the electron, it doesn't go like this anymore, "e"
> changes. It's only "e" when the electrons are very far away that gives you
> a fine structure constant of 1/137, e at a finite distance away gives a
> bigger number.

   Effective-fine-structure-constant (efsc) sounds like the best phrase
for it, I agree Ron. It seems to tell it all. But it seems that
effective things have a tendency of turning out to be true existing
things.
   But I want to find out if those preprints of CERN or others have
actually done measurements? Whether efsc was experimentally measured to
be 1/128.8, or whether that number and all of those numbers were mere
plug-ins to just satisfy some theoretical model. 
   I want to find this out, because an existing efsc helps further
support the 231*94 theory. The inverse fs of 137 is unshakeable for the
137 + 94 = 231. But an existing inverse fs of exactly 137 is even
better to the PU theory. And if efsc exists just as 1/137 exists, then
perhaps it may serve as an inroad into telling all the possible
isotopes of each element? The variable efsc just may be a method to
finding a general equation which will tell exactly how many isotopes
are possible for each element.
   What do you think Ron?
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.29 /  LOVEJ /   COLD FUSION" is HOT FISSION
     
Originally-From: jamie.love@afrc.ac.uk (LOVEJ)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:  COLD FUSION" is HOT FISSION
Date: Sun, 29 May 1994 17:55:42 GMT
Organization: At Home; Salida, CA USA

"COLD FUSION" IS REALLY HOT FISSION

"COLD FUSION" IS DUE TO COULOMBIC REPULSION.
A Hypothesis from Jamie Love
10A Station Road
Roslin, Midlothian
EH25 9LS	
United Kingdom

The heat generated in some "Cold Fusion" experiments has generated some
heated debate within the fusion community. The lack of neutrons has caused
many, including myself, to discount the hypothesis that fusion is occuring.
But what causes the heat reported by many researchers? I propose that inside
the palladium cathode, densely packed deterium ions disintegrate into pairs
of protons! Coulomb forces cause the mutual repulsion of each proton,
generating heat by friction.

DEUTERIUM------>HELIUM(unstable)------->COULOMB REPULSION

[P(+)N(0)]        [P(+)P(+)]       P(+)<-----HEAT------->P(+)

Coulomb's Law predicts that a pair of protons seperated by the distance of
the nuclear radius (1.5X10E-15meter) would repel with over 100 newtons of 
force. (Some experimenters have reported cracked cathodes after generating
heat).
                9  2  2        -19              -28
    KQ Q   (9X10 Nm /C )(1.6X10   C)      2.3X10   N 
      1 2 
F = ----- = ------------------------  =   -----------    =102N		
      2               -15  2                     -30
     r         (1.5X19   m)               2.25X10   N

(SORRY for the poor script but it's hard to write equations on this screen)

When Coulomb's Law is integrated with respect to the distance between the 
two protons (from one nuclear radius to, say, ten times that distance) I
calculate (Once agian, sorry for the script)

            KQ Q           
              1 2            
INTEGTRATE  ------- dx = -KQ Q (1/x  - 1/x ) 
	       2            1 2    2      1
	      r

		                 -28  2        -15            -15
 			= -2.4X10   Nm (1/15X10   m - 1/1.5X10   )	
			      
    				 -13            -13
			= 1.38X10   Nm = 1.38X10   J per pair

Total Yield for one mole of deuterium is simply
	        -13           23                          10
	(1.38X10   J)(6.023X10  pairs per mole) =  8.31X10  J

That's a lot of Joules!!

NOTE: neither helium nor neutrons are produced in this reaction. 
Indeed, neutrons are consumed! Many researchers have evidence of heat without
neutrons and Akito Takahashi (Osaka University) found "neutron readings
not only low, they were inversly correlated with heat production!" 
NATURE:256, p438).

Naturally, I'm left in the position of explaining how neutrons are converted
into protons in the "Cold Fusion" cathode. 
The transmutation of neutrons to protons is evoked by cosomologists to explain 
the current excess of protons to neutrons in the universe. In the Standard 
Cosmological Model of the early universe the initial ratio of protons to 
neutrons was 1:1 (This follows from the "condensation" of equal numbers of 
up and down quarks into baryons as the universe cooled and expanded). The 
conversion (described in Scientific American: August 1989, p48) was (at least 
partly) due to the high density and 1:1 ratio of the universe long ago. 
Palladium cathodes absorb huge amounts of hydrogen (900 times the volume of 
the metal according to the Handbook of Chemistry and Physics) That's why 
Cold-fusionists use them!
Could the cathodes in Cold Fusion experiments be simulating, however 
imperfectly, this brief moment in the history of the universe, causing 
baryon transmutation? It's a crazy idea, but so is Cold Fusion (to me)!

The unusually high density inside a palladium cathode, with its 1:1 ratio of 
protons to neutrons, might recreate this event when supplied with positrons.
(antielectrons). 
	 
	N(0)  + e(+)  ------->  P(+) (and an antielectron neutrino)

This reaction is driven by the density (concentration) of neutrons and 
positrons as well as the energetically favorable lower mass of the proton.
The missing ingredient, positrons, are supplied by intermittent, local
"electronic showers" produced by in coming cosmic rays. 
The centimeter cube of palladium which Pons and Fleishman describe as
having "ignited" in thier experiments (J. Electroanal. Chem. 261, 1989, 301-308) 
may have been hit by positrons!

The rate of heat production will increase with increasing positron concentration
because.....

	Rate = -k[N(0)] [e(+)]

My hypothesis can be tested by increasing the amount of positrons in the 
reaction. High energy physicists have many ways to create positrons and can 
probably think of a way to deliver them into the cathode. I cannot. A simple 
approach would be to add positron emitting cation radioisotopes to the 
"Cold Fusion" reaction vessel. These would migrate to the cathode where they 
could donate the positron, driving the reaction in a concentration dependent 
manner. Fast decaying positron emitting isotopes would give quick, significant 
results. The collision of the positively charged positron with the neutron in a
positively charged deuterium nucleus will depend upon the velocity of the 
positron. The higher the velocity the more likely the positron will not be
repelled by the nucleus. (That's taking a strictly Newtonian view. Quantum
mechanics may offer the best velocity). Since positrons are the limiting 
factor, their velocity and density (disintegration rate) should be maximal to 
maximize the probability of a collision. Parallel experiments with normal 
water would produce the baseline data (like heat generated by positron/electron
decay) 

            22	       			 			     22
For example   Na (sodium 22) emits a 511KeV positron as it decays to   Ne.
   								  10
With a half-life of 2.6 years, one Curie (Cu) would produce 3.7X10   positrons
per second. IF (a big IF) all these positrons were used in the reaction this 
would yeild 0.185 calories/sec.
I don't know if these positrons have enough velocity to be able to overcome
the charge on the deuterium ion (but remember, the neutron is the target, not
the proton). 	Other isotopes may be more appropriate.

SO.... The heat generated in some Cold Fusion experiments may be due to 
positron emitting substances in the cathode, electrolytes or general
environment. High altitude places (like Utah) may have positron showers
from cosmic rays more frequently than other labs.

Could my positron hypothesis make any sense of the ephemeral nature of so
many experiments? 

Alternatively, positrons may not be required! The transmutation of a neutron 
into a proton can occur when a down quark becomes an up quark causing an 
increase in electric charge to +1 (a proton). A W(-) is also produced, which 
decays into an electron and an antielectron neutrnio.
That's beta-decay for you.
Exactly how/why this occurs in tritium but not deterium is beyound me. I assume
it has something to do with the stability of the of the nucleus. A variation 
of the coulombic repulsion hypothesis in which beta-decay is the cause of the 
transmutation (instead of incoming positrons), would make my positron test
invalid. More importantly, it would assume that the electroweak forces involved
in beta-decay are being manipulated inside those cathodes! I find that hard to
beleive (as much as you may find my entire hypothesis hard to accept). I was
taught that nothing can change the tick-tick-tick of radioisotope decay 
(except relativistic tricks). Besides, deuterium doesn't beta-decay. Right?! 
If palladium cathodes can cause inappropriate beta-decay, we would have another
big mystery to solve (and a potentially useful way to transmute isotopes!)


FINALLY
My initial thoughts on this transmutation lead me down a blind alley 
concerning the loss in mass (and subsequent increase in energy) caused when
a neutron becomes a proton. Rather than Coulombic forces, I considered the 
loss of mass (recalling that Big Al says)
      2	              -30                                  -24
E = mc	 then	2.3X10    Kg would be equivalent to 20.7X10   Joules.

Curiously, if this were emitted as a single photon it would have a 
wavelenght of about 1cm (because Big Max says E = hv and wavelenght = c/v).
This is in the microwave range and water can be effeciently heated by microwaves.
Unfortunately, only 3 calories are produced per mole of "conversions". That's
not nearly as much as I can blame on Coulombic repulsion, but it might be 
enough to satisfy some. More importantly, the wavelenght is not a perfect fit
and we know how "perfect" quantum effects must be.

So... 
In conclusion I'd like to say that I do not have the equipment to perform the
experiments described above and hope that you will pass this information along
to those who do with the hope that someone will investigate Coulombic repulsion
and say that Jamie Love thought of it first.


Jamie.Love@AFRC.ac.uk
 

cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenlove cudlnLOVEJ cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.29 / Bruce TK /  Re: RF heating in Tokomacs questio
     
Originally-From: bds@slcbdsipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce       Scott          TK  )
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: RF heating in Tokomacs questio
Date: 29 May 1994 13:10:31 GMT
Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching

In article <1994May28.203901.6749@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, 
	blair@mksol.dseg.ti.com (arthur blair) writes:

|> What frequencies are used for RF heating of Tokomac plasmas?

To heat the electrons, around 140 GHz; to heat the ions, around 900 MHz.
Heating particles via RF waves depends on a resonance between some type
of particle motion and the wave frequency. The usual one is the cyclotron
motion of charged particles in a magnetic field. The above frequencies
correspond to the 2.5 Tesla magnetic field. They also use 70 GHz for the
electrons when they run with the lower 1.2 Tesla field. All this is for
the Stellarator, W7-AS. Similar devices are being put into place on the
Tokamak, ASDEX-Upgrade.

One would rather heat the ions in a reactor, but here you have the bad
effect that all your energy can go into ion Bernstein waves which
propagate about but are not absorbed. For this reason, ICRH is a bit more
experimental than ECRH (ions and electrons, respectively). 

The really massive heating we've seen used in these D-T experiments has
been by neutral-beam injection, which is very reliable.

|> How is the RF generated? 

Here, they used a gyrotron for the electron heating and a magnetron for
the ion heating. Some experimental type can tell me what these are :-)

|> What other RF instrumentation is used in fusion research? 

The standard way to measure electron temperature is with electron cyclotron
emission. Microwave scattering diagnostics are often used to measure
electron density fluctuations.

If Art Carlson signs on, he can tell you more; I am just a theorist :-)

-- 
Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de                               -- W Gibson
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnTK cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Mon May 30 04:37:04 EDT 1994
------------------------------
1994.05.30 / Greg Ewing /  Re: A Flash from the Economist - UV vs. ionizing
     
Originally-From: greg@huia.canterbury.ac.nz (Greg Ewing)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A Flash from the Economist - UV vs. ionizing
Date: 30 May 1994 01:36:00 GMT
Organization: University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand

What bothers me about using gamma rays for such purposes
is not so much the gamma rays themselves but that 
gamma ray sources are rather nasty things to
handle, mainly because you can't turn them off.

The flash tube idea has the great advantage that you
can turn it on only when you want it, and it poses
no hazard between times. And there's no disposal
problem when its useful life is past.

Greg Ewing, Computer Science Dept, +--------------------------------------+
University of Canterbury,	   | A citizen of NewZealandCorp, a	  |
Christchurch, New Zealand	   | wholly-owned subsidiary of Japan Inc.|
greg@cosc.canterbury.ac.nz	   +--------------------------------------+
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudengreg cudfnGreg cudlnEwing cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.30 / Greg Ewing /  Re: Try this experiment!
     
Originally-From: greg@huia.canterbury.ac.nz (Greg Ewing)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Try this experiment!
Date: 30 May 1994 01:53:07 GMT
Organization: University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand

In article <27MAY199410264337@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov>,
edwlt12@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov (Mike Jamison (ADF)) writes:

|> There's something to this experiment that I haven't seen discussed:  The

Furthermore, it seems to me that even if the field is axially
uniform and radially symmetric, an alternating voltage will be
induced if the axis of rotation does not exactly coincide with
the magnetic axis.

So a slight misalignment between the motor shaft and the magnet
axis could account for the result. Jed's description of the
experiment doesn't give enough information to tell whether this
possibility was allowed for.

|> 
|> Mike Jamison
|> 

Greg Ewing, Computer Science Dept, +--------------------------------------+
University of Canterbury,	   | A citizen of NewZealandCorp, a	  |
Christchurch, New Zealand	   | wholly-owned subsidiary of Japan Inc.|
greg@cosc.canterbury.ac.nz	   +--------------------------------------+
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudengreg cudfnGreg cudlnEwing cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.29 / Robert Dinse /  Re: A Flash from the Economist
     
Originally-From: nanook@eskimo.com (Robert Dinse)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A Flash from the Economist
Date: 29 May 94 09:40:24 GMT
Organization: Eskimo North (206) For-Ever

In article <2s7qip$2mi@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, al789@cleveland.Freenet.Edu
(John Logajan) writes:
> 
> DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:
> >So because we have done a lousy job of educating the public about what 
> >radiation is all about we are about to use an inferior method to preserve
> >food when a superior one is available.  
> 
> It is due to far more than a lack of education/information  -- there is
> an active campaign of alternative information (I'd call it misinformation,
> but be that as it may) that is led by plenty of highly educated people.

     I'm one of those folks that doesn't feel comfortable with having my food
exposed to gamma radiation.  My concern is that the random chemical reactions
induced, while they might serve well for killing bacteria, they might also
create toxic or even carcinogenic subtances that are not particularly healthy
for humans either.

     Ultra-violet or even in some cases visible light is also capable of
introducing some chemical changes, but at least it's confined to relatively
close to the surface instead of the entire bulk of the product.

     It's well and good to want to protect people from bacterial infection,
but there are other dangers as well.  It's rather like chlorinated city water.
Great, we kill off the bacteria, and how many people with it?  What wonderful
things is that chlorine doing to our bodies?  How many extra cases of
hypertension or cancer do we incur as a result?  Do we actually save more
people as a result of killing off the bacteria, or kill more people as the
result of chlorination?

     The human body has developed, as a product of evolution, a wonderfully
complex and capable immune system that deals with many naturally occuring
bacteria, and yes, I will grant that there are some that our immune system
can't adequately deal with.  But our bodies have not evolved immunity to
chlorine, or the wonderfully complex chemistry that might result from the
exposure of otherwise edible stuffs to gamma radiation.

     Or coarse, in general eating meat has it's dangers from heart disease
to more obscure things, even without the help of bacteria or interesting gamma
induced chemistry.  (And no I'm not a vegitarian, but I realize that I'm not
doing myself any favors with my less than ideal diet).
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudennanook cudfnRobert cudlnDinse cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.30 / John Logajan /  Re: COLD FUSION" is HOT FISSION
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: COLD FUSION" is HOT FISSION
Date: 30 May 1994 01:43:23 GMT
Organization: Sky Point Communications, Inc.

LOVEJ (jamie.love@afrc.ac.uk) wrote:
: "COLD FUSION" IS DUE TO COULOMBIC REPULSION.

: DEUTERIUM------>HELIUM(unstable)------->COULOMB REPULSION
: [P(+)N(0)]        [P(+)P(+)]       P(+)<-----HEAT------->P(+)


My CRC lists the Atomic Mass of Hydorgen (the proton) at 1.00797 AMU.
It also lists 1H2 (Deuterium) at 2.0140 AMU.  An AMU = 931.50 MeV.

So, 1H2        ==>   2He2   ==>   (1H1 + 1H1)
    2.0140 AMU        ???        1.00797 + 1.00797 AMU

or
    2.0140  - 2.01594 = -0.00194 AMU = -1.80711 MeV

That means that you need to input 1.81 MeV's of energy to split deuterium
into two protons (not even worrying about the conversion of neutrons
to protons.)

--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com -- 612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills  MN 55112 USA           -

cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.30 /  Dag /  Re: Skit 9 of NEANDERTHAL PARK 2, NYT,M87 and black holes
     
Originally-From: dmarklan@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca (Dag)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics,sci.chem,sci.bio,sci.a
tro,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Skit 9 of NEANDERTHAL PARK 2, NYT,M87 and black holes
Date: 30 May 1994 08:01:24 GMT
Organization: University of Alberta

Ludwig Plutonium (Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu) wrote:
: In article <2s4mlg$imm@transfer.stratus.com>
: det@sw.stratus.com (Dave Toland) writes:

: > Not that I really expect *you*, Ludwig, to comprehend the difference, but
: > Michelson did *not* prove the ether does not exist.  He simply failed to
: > find an absolute frame of reference based upon it, and by inference failed
: > to show that it *does* exist.

:   Aha, but, Michelson did prove that at least one geek exists. His name
: is Dave Toland. Which sounds better? Dave Toland-Geek or Geek Toland?

Whoa, Dave are you okay?  Whiplash from such a coherent and intellegent 
retort can really sting.

I agree with Dave ... quit crossposting to a newsgroup where people have 
something relavent to say. 

--
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dag
dmarklan@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca
Everything unknown is taken for something great.
	- Tacitus
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudendmarklan cudlnDag cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.30 / Morten Pedersen /  Re: The FAQ for superconductivity 21/05/1994
     
Originally-From: hpe@zurich.ibm.com (Morten Holm Pedersen)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The FAQ for superconductivity 21/05/1994
Date: 30 May 1994 14:53:19 GMT
Organization: IBM Zurich Research Laboratory

Ludwig Plutonium (Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu) wrote:
[...]
>   I agree that some explanation is called for concerning "neutrino
> interacting with matter" as you call bending in superconductor wire.
> But I ask you Morten which is a bigger leap of faith? By math logic
> elimination--only neutrinos have resistivity of superconductivity and
> look to explain bending. Or, try to explain photons/electrons moving
> through matter at that resistivity. It is very difficult to envision
> electrons of atoms coupling and uncoupling to atoms at that
> resistivity. And it is very difficult to envision a frozen lattice so
> perfect that the photons can shoot across the lattice with nothing in
> their path to cause resistance. By process of elimination that leaves
> one and only one particle in the world of physics which matches
> superconductivity resistivity, the neutrino.
I don't have that problem, the math logic I am using can give
superconductivity with only electrons. Anyhow, how would you then
explain superfluidity in Helium?

Morten
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenhpe cudfnMorten cudlnPedersen cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.30 / Morten Pedersen /  Re: The FAQ for superconductivity 21/05/1994
     
Originally-From: hpe@zurich.ibm.com (Morten Holm Pedersen)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The FAQ for superconductivity 21/05/1994
Date: 30 May 1994 14:58:08 GMT
Organization: IBM Zurich Research Laboratory

Ludwig Plutonium (Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu) wrote:
>   The current bends when the wire bends because of the Meissner effect.
> I need to calculate which of the three types of neutrinos can set up a
> Meissner effect in a superconductor. I believe it is the Meissner
> effect which the  neutrino carriers set up and in so doing, effect the
> directional flow of neutrinos. Once I can match the math of neutrinos
> with the Meissner effect, that would be very strong evidence that
> neutrinos indeed are the correct theory of superconductivity.

To do that you need a formula that relates a flow of neutrinos to a
magnetic field. I would be very interested in seeing that formula.
Because this coupling is normally due to charge and neutrinos are
chargeless (and even without magnetic moment, I think, else one could
try to get away with the Aharonov-Casher effect) I would also like a
hint of how this relation is derived.

Morten
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenhpe cudfnMorten cudlnPedersen cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.30 / L Plutonium /  Re: The FAQ for superconductivity 21/05/1994
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The FAQ for superconductivity 21/05/1994
Date: 30 May 1994 18:29:50 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In article <2scuu0$uga@monterosa.zurich.ibm.com>
hpe@zurich.ibm.com (Morten Holm Pedersen) writes:

> 
> To do that you need a formula that relates a flow of neutrinos to a
> magnetic field. I would be very interested in seeing that formula.

  I have not worked it out yet. I am severely limited in obtaining the
data to work out the formula. But it should be straightforward from the
data on Meissner Effect. The magnetic characteristics of the electron
neutrino, and perhaps the muon neutrino can all fall-out from the
measured data of the Meissner Effect. The Meissner Effect is the key to
neutrino characteristics and neutrino behavior.

> Because this coupling is normally due to charge and neutrinos are
> chargeless (and even without magnetic moment, I think, else one could
> try to get away with the Aharonov-Casher effect) I would also like a

   Please cite reference to the Aharonov-Casher effect, bear in mind I
have only the Dartmouth library to resource. They do not have
preprints. And if you could please, Morten, post a page summary of this
effect. Thanks.

> hint of how this relation is derived.

  I want to make these ideas "ideas in general", not the specifics,
public knowledge for patent reasons. My postings give me priority in
these matters. The benefits of these postings in whole or part -- my
speculations on the correct theory of superconductivity is to make the
Plutonium Atom Foundation (PAF) of the future the worlds largest body
of science repository, and the wealthiest. My successors will run it.
And I entrust all of my work to PAF. 
  The reason silver is the MATERIAL of highest electrical conductor and
the highest reflector of photons is not coincidental. The two are
linked by QM. In the same analogy, only replacing photons by neutrinos,
the MATERIAL of highest Tc in superconductivity is the material that
reflects neutrinos the best. 
  The reason that superconductivity needs cold temperatures is in order
to make the geometry better, more conducive to neutrino reflection. The
newer ceramic superconductors are able to warm the Tc because the
ceramics are improving on the geometry of reflection. The reason these
ceramic superconductors are Planar is because planar geometry is more
conducive to neutrino reflectivity. And in the same way, the reason the
Quantized Hall Effect is more measured due to planar material. And the
characteristics and behavior of neutrinoes can be understood in the
Quantized Hall Effect.
  Is there a Tc at room temperature? All that is needed for room
temperature superconductivity is to match a geometry with the
reflectivity of neutrinos and that geometry. If no match is possible,
no room temperature superconductivity is possible. The best match with
a chemical compound to the reflectivity of neutrinos will be the
warmest Tc of superconductivity. Which of the two neutrinos--electron
or muon are the warmest Tc superconductors? It may be the muon since
fusion energy is associated with the muon in cold fusion. It would have
to be a very pure substance, and probably of the strongest bonding
possible such as ionic. The key is to match the geometry of chemical
compounds with the reflectivity of neutrinos.
  All of my material is copyrighted, and any claims in whole or part
when engineered are the patentable rights of the Plutonium Atom
Foundation.

cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.30 / L Plutonium /  Re: The FAQ for superconductivity 21/05/1994
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The FAQ for superconductivity 21/05/1994
Date: 30 May 1994 18:36:06 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In article <2scukv$uga@monterosa.zurich.ibm.com>
hpe@zurich.ibm.com (Morten Holm Pedersen) writes:

> Anyhow, how would you then
> explain superfluidity in Helium?
  I have not yet studied superfluidity. I know nothing about it as I
never bothered to read it in Feynman Lectures. But I soon will. But I
think it would be interesting to actually see the difference between
photon carriers in electrical conductivity as the so to speak (spark
jumps) in a gas, and what we would see as neutrino carriers in
superconductivity? What would we see as neutrino sparks? Such a
difference would be "seeing is believing" that neutrinos are the
carriers, the signalers of superconductivity.
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.01 / Richard Blue /  Re: . . . peculiar ash 44Sc
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: . . . peculiar ash 44Sc
Date: Wed, 1 Jun 1994 00:31:48 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Deuterium fusion with titanium

Marshall Dudley responded to my question concerning the claimed
observation of 44Sc as the "ash" from cold fusion in titanium.
I believe he misinterprets the basic nuclear physics involved to
some degree so I would like to make the problem as I see it a bit
more obvious.

As Marshall correctly notes, the fusing of a deuteron with the
nucleus 48Ti will form 50V at an excitation energy of 13 MeV,
high enough that several decay channels are open including the
emission of a proton, a neutron, or an alpha particle.  Further
emissions such as gamma rays are likely associated with any of
these decay processes so fusion with Ti is likely to be easily
detectable as it occurs.  Similar reactions can also be expected
for any of the other isotopes of Ti such that a great variety of
radiations and residual nuclei are to be expected.  That was my
point!  Neutrons, gammas, and X-rays should be produced in
abundance and be there for easy detection by anyone who is serious
about wanting to make a case for cold fusion involving the lattice
nuclei.  It seems, however, that cold fusion advocates merely
want to talk about such processes while hoping  that no one
makes any real measurements and that they will be allowed to ignore
the data that does already exist.

So someone decides to ignore the obvious measurements so they can
come up with something more exotic and mysterious, 44Sc activity.
However, there is something rather strange about this selection.
As Marshall notes, it decays with a moderately short half life,
4 hours, with the result that waiting for an extended period before
attempting its detection does not seem like a good idea.  I am
assuming that Marshall is right in saying that it is formed via
(deuteron, alpha) reaction of 46Ti.

Well it seems that it may be a false alarm in any case.
I am puzzled by Steve Jones's suggestion that the gammas detected
come from 227Ac, however.  Did not anyone observe the 4 hour
decay  associated with 44Sc?    I guess when it comes to cold
fusion experimentation one really should not be surprised by
anything.

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.01 / Richard Blue /  Calorimetry article
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Calorimetry article
Date: Wed, 1 Jun 1994 00:31:47 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Calorimetry Reference

Those interested in the art of calorimetry may want to read the
following paper:

"High-resolution tritium calorimetry based on inertial temperature
control,"  J. L. Hemmerich, L. Serio, and P. Milverton, Rev. of
Scientific Instruments 65, May 1994, p. 1616.

It offers a general discussion of calorimetry methods as well as
a specific design that could be well adapted to cold fusion
investigations although its intended application is with the hot
fusion program at JET.  Perhaps the analysis presented is most
significant to recent discussions of the Mills calorimeter on one
point covered by the first sentence of the abstract:  "A reassess-
ment of the basic equations governing calorimetry shows the crucial
importance of temperature stability in the calorimeter
environment."  How crucial is that you ask?  Well, for an
isothermal calorimeter they demonstrate an error term that is
given by the product of the total heat capacity and the time
derivative of the temperature of the environment.  For example,
if the heat capacity is something like 10^5 J per deg C, limiting
this error to 10 watts will require that temperature drifts be
less than 10^-4 deg C per second or roughly 0.4 deg C per hour.

So if you are into garbage pail calorimeters don't expect to
measure with 10 watt precision unless you have a good thermostat.
By doing things right, the authors come up with a double-cup
calorimeter that can make measurements over 6 decades from
microwatts to watts.

Dick Blue




cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.01 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Re: A Flash from the Economist
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A Flash from the Economist
Date: Wed, 1 Jun 1994 00:32:41 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Greg Ewing says that he does not like gamma ray sources because you can't
turn them off.  Hmmm!  Those of us in the accelerator biz know lots of ways 
to make gamma rays without having 60Co sources.  One can start tith the X-Ray
machine in your dentist's office and work up to Fermilab.  Possibly the 60Co
sources are the most economical for food, but I don't know for sure.  So 
this is ***not*** a valid objection.

Robert Dinse has a different complaint.  He says that we should never try 
something new because it might do something bad.  By this measure, I suggest
that he quit taking asprin, wearing anything but natural fabrics, certainly
don't drink chlorinated (or ozone purified water - that might be bad too)
water, and never, never take antibiotics.  Not that we should not do the best 
job we can to evaluate the risk.  But it is just such risk taking that has 
got us to the position where we have a choice.  In the good old days you 
just scraped the maggots off the meat and ate it anyway.

Tom Droege

cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenDROEGE cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.31 / Dieter Britz /  Re: A Flash from the Economist
     
Originally-From: kemidb@aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A Flash from the Economist
Date: 31 May 94 14:32:36 GMT
Organization: Aarhus University, Denmark

In <31MAY94.08250797@cc4.crl.aecl.ca> camerond@cc4.crl.aecl.ca writes:

>In a previous article, nanook@eskimo.com (Robert Dinse) wrote:
>>In article <2s7qip$2mi@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, al789@cleveland.Freenet.E
u (John Logajan) writes:
>>> 
>>> DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:
>>> >So because we have done a lousy job of educating the public about what 
>>> >radiation is all about we are about to use an inferior method to preserve
>>> >food when a superior one is available.  
>>> 
>>> It is due to far more than a lack of education/information  -- there is
>>> an active campaign of alternative information (I'd call it misinformation,
>>> but be that as it may) that is led by plenty of highly educated people.
>> 
>>     I'm one of those folks that doesn't feel comfortable with having my food
>>exposed to gamma radiation.  My concern is that the random chemical reactions
>>induced, while they might serve well for killing bacteria, they might also
>>create toxic or even carcinogenic subtances that are not particularly healthy
>>for humans either.
>> 


>The same can be said of cooking.

>Don Cameron

Before John Logajan calls y'all ecohysterics, how about moving this
non-fusion stuff out into alt.food or the like? That goes (with appropriate
other groups) for the other papfillers like metric-vs-middle-ages, super-
conductivity and - yes - plutonium, Ludwig- or otherwise.
Thank you.
-- 
Dieter Britz   alias kemidb@aau.dk
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenkemidb cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.31 / John Logajan /  CF on GMA
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CF on GMA
Date: 31 May 1994 15:39:27 GMT
Organization: Sky Point Communications, Inc.

Saw the segment on CF on the USA ABC TV show, Good Morning America.  The report
with short lead in, lasted five minutes.  Then, after a commerical break, there
was an additional three minutes of discussion between the host and the
reporter.

The report opened with the quick rise and fall of cold fusion -- and how
cold fusion research did not die, but merely moved overseas.  Then they visited
P+F, and talked about the emigration and also about the latest results.  They
showed a long shot of the latest 20 watt device, which Pons says will take
4.5 to 5 years to scale up to a 10 kilowatt device.

There was quick discussion of Japanese funding, and then an interview with
Eugene Mallove in which he looked to the future of applications.  It concluded
with the thought that research is again increasing in CF and that the USA
ought to be more tolerant of unorthodox research activites.

The discussion segment focused on the anti-CF sentiment in the USA.  The
conclusion was that it was wrong for the USA physics community to chase
CF research out of the USA.

--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com -- 612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills  MN 55112 USA           -

cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.31 / John Cobb /  Re: First Wall Developments
     
Originally-From: johncobb@uts.cc.utexas.edu (John W. Cobb)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: First Wall Developments
Date: 31 May 1994 12:30:45 -0500
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas

In article <2rqbrs$6mr@daisy.pgh.wec.com>,
B. Alan Guthrie <zcbag@pitt.pgh.wec.com> wrote:
>
>When last I examined the status of fusion power systems
>twenty or so years ago, a major problem was the longevity
>of the first wall of the Tokamak (or I guess, any other
>system as well).  It was unclear whether a first wall
>loading of 1 MW/sq m would be economical or whether a
>first wall with a loading of 10 MW/sq m would be possible
>due to radiation damage from those 14.07 MeV neutrons.
>I came away with the sad conclusion that a fusion power
>system was not practical.  Have there been any developments
>in first wall design in the past twenty years which would
>give us hope that we can build a first wall that will
>last sufficiently long to be economical?
>

This problam has been known for 20 or more years, but it has not been addressed
(IMO) sufficiently even yet. It is a tough problem.

However, it is now receiving real scrutiny. I think that attitude in the past
has been, lets take the problems one at a time in the order that they come.
So fusion didn't worry about the non-feasibility of ohmic heating for a reactor
until their research machines got large enough that ohmic heating failed. Then
they ponied up and developed RF heating sources and beam heating sources.

Likewise with the first wall problem. However, today with ITER being laid out
on the drawing board in gory detail, the problem looms big. Especially big is
the problem at the divertor strike plates where the brunt of the exhaust
will hit. I remember hearing numbers at a pre-TPX conference where estimates
were that the erosion rates on carbon tiles would be in eccess of 10 inches
per year, and it would still be large even for more advanced tiles. (this
means tile lifetimes of a year or so, or less)

There are some neat ideas that are getting a lot of attention such as
smearing out the plume by the use of collisions in the downstream portion of 
the exhaust (the "radiative divertor"). There are also designs that try to
make the divertor region easily replacable. Actually, IMO, it is exactly this
problem that is bringing out some of the most innovative ideas in recent
times in the area of Tokamak fusion.

However, there is also a partial end run strategy. If you use an
low neutron fuel cycle, like D-3He, then the neutron bombardment is reduced
by almost 2 orders of magnitude and the exhaust products are charged so that
can be guided by magnetic fields, and even have their energy extracted without
directly interacting with the material walls. It won't get rid of the problem,
but it will let you use the same technolog that gives you a tile with 1 year
of life and stretch it to 20-40 years, which is probably enough. If you use a
system with a natural divertor , like an FRC, then you can eliminate the
divertor strike plate entirely in favor of a inverse linac direct energy
convertor. You also gain increased plant efficiency by bypassing the need
for a thermal energy conversion cycle in the lithium blanket. Energy goes 
straigt from energetic particles to electrical energy.

I should also note that I have mixed the divertor problam and the first wall 
problem in my comments above. Strictly speaking they are not the same problem,
but they do have some things in common.

>While I'm asking - would atoms being knocked out off the
>first wall and into the plasma be of a sufficient 
>concentration to contaminate the plasma so much that
>the D and T would escape?

It is not that the D and T escape, but that what gets knocked off of the
walls (sputtering) is usually higher Z and therefore may not be totally
ionized. Therefore it becomes a strong radiator when it is in the plasma
and it causes the plasma to lose its energy much too rapidly. This leads down
to the black arts of wall conditioning, boronization, etc that us simple-minded
theorists can't grasp. However, the cut-and-try try of experimental work has
built up a large and fairly reliable storehouse of wellknown rules to
coat the first wall with things that minimize outgassing, resist sputtering,
and are also low Z. This is a fascinating issue, but the empiricle approach
has been yards ahead of the deductive approach on suggestting modes of
attack on the wall contamination problem.


-john .w cobb


-- 
 --------------------------------------------------------------
John W. Cobb	My posts don't reflect the views of my employer
                Because my posts are usually opaque.
 --------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenjohncobb cudfnJohn cudlnCobb cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.30 / SCOTT CHASE /  Re: fine-structure variable; does it have bounds?
     
Originally-From: sichase@csa5.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics,sci.chem,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: fine-structure variable; does it have bounds?
Date: 30 May 1994 12:05 PST
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA

In article <2s7r3o$bd5@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>, Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmout
.edu (Ludwig Plutonium) writes...
>In article <2s6rnk$knh@scunix2.harvard.edu>
>rmaimon@husc9.Harvard.EDU (Ron Maimon) writes:
>> 
>> the fine structure constant, as it's defined, is always 1/137, the number
>> these clowns are trying to mislead you with are a different fine structure
>> constant...
> 
>  Alright, what are the final words on the fine structure constant or
>variable? And please can someone tell what Dirac might or would have
>said on this issue?

Ludwig, if you believe everything that Ron tells you then you are even
crazier than I thought.  He loves being a contrarian.

By the way... 
Nobody cares what Dirac might say.  He's had his say.  Think for yourself.

-Scott
 -------------------
Scott I. Chase            "It is not a simple life to be a single cell,
SICHASE@CSA2.LBL.GOV       although I have no right to say so, having
                           been a single cell so long ago myself that I
                           have no memory at all of that stage of my
                           life." - Lewis Thomas
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudensichase cudfnSCOTT cudlnCHASE cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.30 / L Plutonium /  Re: fine-structure variable; does it have bounds?
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: fine-structure variable; does it have bounds?
Date: 30 May 1994 22:41:42 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In article <30MAY199412053564@csa5.lbl.gov>
sichase@csa5.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE) writes:

> Nobody cares what Dirac might say.  He's had his say.  Think for yourself.

Dirac towards the end of his long distinguished career felt that
physics would only make the next bold advance when someone can give
meaning to the fine-structure constant. Anyone have Dirac's direct
quotes on that? Anyone know if Dirac knew of a variable fine-structure
constant?
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.31 / Bart Simon /  ICCF-5?
     
Originally-From: bssimon@helix.ucsd.edu (Bart Simon)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: ICCF-5?
Date: Tue, 31 May 1994 01:36:39 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

greetings all,

does anybody know whether the exact dates have been set for the next
CF conference (ICCF-5) in Nice?  I heard it was sometime next spring
but I wondered if the dates had been set.

cheers,
Bart Simon (bssimon@helix.ucsd.edu)

cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenbssimon cudfnBart cudlnSimon cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.31 / arthur blair /  Re: RF heating in Tokomacs questio
     
Originally-From: blair@mksol.dseg.ti.com (arthur blair)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: RF heating in Tokomacs questio
Date: Tue, 31 May 1994 02:31:55 GMT
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc

Bruce       Scott          TK (bds@slcbdsipp-garching.mpg.de) wrote:
: In article <1994May28.203901.6749@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, 
: 	blair@mksol.dseg.ti.com (arthur blair) writes:

: |> How is the RF generated? 

: Here, they used a gyrotron for the electron heating and a magnetron for
: the ion heating. Some experimental type can tell me what these are :-)
: Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is

Magnetrons are what makes your microwave ovens pop popcorn so
quickly :)  but can anyone describe a gyrotron? I'm an RF
engineer but dinosaur eggs (vacuum tubes) make me itch.
Art. 
--
"Television is chewing gum for the eyes" - Frank Lloyd Wright
Dont forget to vote in news.announce.newgroups !
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenblair cudfnarthur cudlnblair cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.31 / Dave Ciotti /  Re: RF heating in Tokomacs questio
     
Originally-From: dciotti@pppl.gov (Dave Ciotti)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: RF heating in Tokomacs questio
Date: Tue, 31 May 1994 11:51:47 GMT
Organization: Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory

On TFTR we use 43 MHz and 63.6 MHz for ICRF.  On PBX-M we use 4.6 GHz
LHCD and 55 MHz IBW.  The lower frequencies are generated by 6 class C
high power amplifiers.  The LHCD amplifiers are klystrons.

Binary.Bear on GEnie
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudendciotti cudfnDave cudlnCiotti cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.31 /  camerond@cc4.c /  RE: A Flash from the Economist
     
Originally-From: camerond@cc4.crl.aecl.ca
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: A Flash from the Economist
Date: Tue, 31 May 1994 12:25:07 GMT
Organization: MIT PLASMA FUSION CENTER

In a previous article, nanook@eskimo.com (Robert Dinse) wrote:
>In article <2s7qip$2mi@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, al789@cleveland.Freenet.Ed
 (John Logajan) writes:
>> 
>> DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:
>> >So because we have done a lousy job of educating the public about what 
>> >radiation is all about we are about to use an inferior method to preserve
>> >food when a superior one is available.  
>> 
>> It is due to far more than a lack of education/information  -- there is
>> an active campaign of alternative information (I'd call it misinformation,
>> but be that as it may) that is led by plenty of highly educated people.
> 
>     I'm one of those folks that doesn't feel comfortable with having my food
>exposed to gamma radiation.  My concern is that the random chemical reactions
>induced, while they might serve well for killing bacteria, they might also
>create toxic or even carcinogenic subtances that are not particularly healthy
>for humans either.
> 


The same can be said of cooking.

Don Cameron

cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudencamerond cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.30 / Matt McIrvin /  Re: fine-structure variable; does it have bounds?
     
Originally-From: mcirvin@scws30.harvard.edu (Matt McIrvin)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics,sci.chem,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: fine-structure variable; does it have bounds?
Date: 30 May 1994 20:22:43 GMT
Organization: Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts

In article <30MAY199412053564@csa5.lbl.gov>,
SCOTT I CHASE <sichase@csa5.lbl.gov> wrote:

>Ludwig, if you believe everything that Ron tells you then you are even
>crazier than I thought.  He loves being a contrarian.

Also, while Ron's statement about the "fine-structure constant" being
defined by the low-energy value of the coupling on mass shell is
defensible (and true, if you go by textbook definitions), he implied
(probably unintentionally) that the value of the resulting quantity
is exactly 1/137, which it isn't.  It's closer to 1/137.036.
-- 
Matt    	01234567   <--  Indent-o-Meter
McIrvin         ^        	Harnessing tab damage for peaceful ends!
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenmcirvin cudfnMatt cudlnMcIrvin cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.31 / L Plutonium /  Re: The FAQ for superconductivity 21/05/1994
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The FAQ for superconductivity 21/05/1994
Date: 31 May 1994 13:13:51 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In article <2scukv$uga@monterosa.zurich.ibm.com>
hpe@zurich.ibm.com (Morten Holm Pedersen) writes:
> I don't have that problem, the math logic I am using can give
> superconductivity with only electrons. Anyhow, how would you then
> explain superfluidity in Helium?
  In article <2rt4v8$mvk@monterosa.zurich.ibm.com>
hpe@zurich.ibm.com (Morten Holm Pedersen) writes:
> Yes, Mr.Plutonium (I don't believe your mother gave you that name...)
> BCS connects with superfluidity in regards to having a condensate and
> ODLRO. In fact BCS theory is used (modified a little with triplet pairing and
> such) to explain superfluidity in He-3. Interested in specific
> references? 
In article <2rt403$mvk@monterosa.zurich.ibm.com>
hpe@zurich.ibm.com (Morten Holm Pedersen) writes:
> You sure must! Superfluidity and superconductivity has a lot in common
> and the basic physics (of diagonal long range order) is the same. If
> you explain superconductivity with neutrinos, then you need to find a
> suitable explanation also for superfluidity!In article <2rt3rf$mvk@mon
erosa.zurich.ibm.com>
hpe@zurich.ibm.com (Morten Holm Pedersen) writes:
> As I said I my first mail the BCS theory is not a good theory for the
> new superconductors. This might be so for a multitude of reasons.
> However, BCS works fine for the conventional low-Tc superconductors.
> In a certain sense you are right that BCS has the flavour of
> phenomenology, but for a low-Tc material knowing the Debye temperature
> and the effective mass will allow you to estimate the transition
> temperature. Some times that doesn't work quite right, then you need
> to know the phononic spectrum and do strong-coupling theory - all this
> works for the old superconductors. BCS also works quite well for
> superfluidity in liquid He3 - you should look at that.
> Again: the BCS theory assumes that pairs are overlapping - this is
> presumably not true for the cuprates for instance. Therefore BCS is
> not supposed to work for the cuprates. It is not true to say that BCS
> has "been cornered into oblivion".
> Concerning Cooper pairs: it has been shown that the charge of the
> carriers in superconductors (both old and new) have charge 2e -
> therefore it is natural to consider pairs. Moreover, to form a
> condensation (this thing about long-range order you should look into)
> we needs bosons - two electrons together is a boson. This works well
> for the old superconductors. For the new superconductors more fancy 
> theories have been proposed, like anyons and spinons/holons and not 
> Cooperpairs.
> I don't actually know an authorative definition of a Cooperpair but I
> would be tempted to say that it is a BCS-concept and not true for the
> cuprates without modifications.

   I have read-up on superfluidity and it would confirm the NEUTRINO
carrier of superconductivity. As you say Morten, the correct theory of
superconductivity must yield the correct theory of superfluidity. I
will take your word for it Morten that the BCS theory describes
superfluidity well. I have no indepth knowledge of superfluidity and so
will accept that the BCS theory explains superfluidity well. Going from
that assumption I conclude the following.
   (1) The BCS theory is wrong. Replace Cooper pairs with the fact that
a pair of neutrinos is a photon. The Cooper pairs are neutrino pairs,
not electron pairs.
   (2) Instead of Cooper pairs as electron pairs, it is really neutrino
pairs. Tc is the disassociation state of photons into their more basic
physics-- neutrinos.
   (3) It is a fact of physics that photons are the carriers/signal of
electric current.
   (4) Superconductivity is near 0 electrical resistivity, but not 0
itself. Different superconducting materials have different
resistivities, all close to 0. The instruments to date are not good
enough to measure these tiny resistivities, but in the future they will
be. It will be found that the recent copper oxygen superconductors have
a different resistivity from mercury superconduction or niobium tin
superconduction, etc.
   (5) 	The graviton has a rest mass of zero and an electrical charge
of zero like the photon, but the graviton has spin 2 in units of
h/(2pi).  The spin of the graviton is restricted to be parallel to its
motion so that it has only two independent spin states again like the
photon. 
	The superposition of two neutrinos to make one photon, or the
superposition of four neutrinos to make one graviton explains
superconductivity and superfluidity and the quantized Hall effect.
   (6) Superfluidity is 0 viscosity and antigravity. Superfluidity is
superpositioned 4 neutrinos to make antigravity. Gravity is merely 4
superpositioned neutrinos.
   (7) Superconductivity when Tc is reached causes the carriers of
electrons to be neutrino pairs, not Cooper pairs of electrons
themselves, but pairs of neutrinos. The Tc is the disassociation state
energy of photons to neutrino pairs. In the case of superfluidity, it
is neutrino quads.
   (8) What is there in physics as regards to matter--- atoms are
primal matter. Subatomic particles, quarks,and anything else exists
only because it is associated with an atom. Neutrons in this picture
are energized hydrogen atoms. Only atoms exist, there is nothing more
fundamental. If you see an isolated electron or proton, it does not
have independent existence, but is connected with a proton or electron
somewhere else. Their are no independentally existing electrons or
protons. Atoms are the last cut, so to speak.
   (9) What is there in physics as regards to nonrestmass energy---
neutrinos are primal energy. The photons are composite entities of
energy. And so also is the graviton. In a sense, the photon and
graviton are NUCLEAR COMPOUNDS, whereas neutrinos are Nuclear elements.
Atoms and Neutrinos can explain all of QM, anything else is mere
derivatives of atoms and neutrinos.
  
   (10) The Meissner effect is a neutrino current.
   (11) The reason superconductivity occurs at very cold temperatures
is because the photon carriers in normal conductivity with the
scattering of photons making normal conductivity resistivity, is
replaced by neutrino carriers. At Tc the photons are disassociated into
neutrino pairs and act as the signallers of electric current. Neutrino
scattering in matter is almost nil and thus the resistivity is
virtually nil, not 0 though.
   (12) QM relates normal conduction with reflectivity. Silver is the
material of highest normal electrical conduction and highest reflector
of photons. By analogy, the warmest Tc in superconductivity will be the
material which is the highest neutrino reflector. The cold temperatures
of superconductivity is the dependent variable to create the crystal
geometry conducive to neutrino reflectivity. The warmest Tc will be the
material of most perfect crystalline structure. Such a crystal to be as
perfect as possible will be probably of the strongest bonds and not
permitting defects in the crystal. The planar crystal structure of the
recent copper oxygen compound superconductors implies that the planar
geometry is approaching the neutrino wavelength of reflectivity.
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.31 / John Cobb /  Re: Question about Helium 3 Fusion
     
Originally-From: johncobb@uts.cc.utexas.edu (John W. Cobb)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Question about Helium 3 Fusion
Date: 31 May 1994 13:25:05 -0500
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas

In article <1994May27.115849.400@pdms03.ksc.nasa.gov>,
Bill Gill <GILLW@alpinevalley.mdcad.ksc.nasa.gov> wrote:
>Yesterday afternoon I received my first exposure to the concept of 
>Helium 3 Fusion, and want to see what I can find out about it. 
>
>The following is what I understood the man to say.
>
>  Helium 3 fuses with Dueterium.  
>  One of the products is a Proton.
>  The process provides a route for (relatively) direct conversion to electricity.
>  Helium 3 is rare on Earth due to its "magnetic properties".
>  Helium 3 is much more abundant on the Moon.

And effectively limitless on Jupiter.

>
>The thrust of the discussion was that this should give us a real economic 
>reason to go to the moon, since we need the Helium 3 to produce 
>safe power.
>

Perhaps. However, it is more likely that it will form a mutually supportive
Public Relations/Propaganda campaign that NASA can use as a reason (or one
of several reasons) to set up a permanent base on the moon and for alternative
fuels fusion scientists to low-ball estimates of fuel costs. --- Just my
opinion though.

Actually, the Artemis study found that 3He costs were only a small cost of a
working D-3He FRC-based reactor. It would probably be cheaper to breed Tritium
from lithium and let the tritium decay to 3He than to mine it from the moon
and jupiter. However, for deep space exploration, the Moon and Jupiter are
real musts. Total DOE 3He production was something like 1.3 kg/year and
that was when we had reactors for tritium production.

>Any further information would be much appreciated.
>
>Bill Gill

For the PR angle on why it is a "national imperative" to go back to the moon,
see:

"Shoot for the Moon" by Andrew Chaiken p. 42, in <Air & Space> Dec. 1991/Jan.
1992. Paintings by Pat Rawlings   (need I say more?)

There was also an Op-Ed piece by Glenn Seaborg and Paul Nitze titled "Toward a
New Era of Energy" in the New York Times on Nov. 23, 1991 p. ??? (in the 
science section I believe).

In terms of referreed articles, it all seems to lead back to:

Wittenberg, Santarius, and Kulcinski in <Fusion Technology> Vol. 10 p. 167,
Sept. 1986 "Lunar Source of 3He for Commercial Fusion Power"

Another more updated review is contained in <Fusion Technology> Vol. 21, no 4
p. 2221 by Kulcinksi and Schmitt, "Fusion Power from Lunar Resources".

By the Way, that issue of Fusion Technology was devoted entirely to D-3He
fusion.

Enjoy,

-john .w cobb
-- 
 --------------------------------------------------------------
John W. Cobb	My posts don't reflect the views of my employer
                Because my posts are usually opaque.
 --------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenjohncobb cudfnJohn cudlnCobb cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.31 / John Cobb /  Re: CF on GMA
     
Originally-From: johncobb@uts.cc.utexas.edu (John W. Cobb)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CF on GMA
Date: 31 May 1994 13:42:25 -0500
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas

In article <2sflnf$3ti@shadow.skypoint.net>,
John Logajan <jlogajan@skypoint.com> wrote:
>Saw the segment on CF on the USA ABC TV show, Good Morning America....
>Then they visited
>P+F, and talked about the emigration and also about the latest results.  They
>showed a long shot of the latest 20 watt device, which Pons says will take
>4.5 to 5 years to scale up to a 10 kilowatt device.
>

I seem to remember the prediction was 6 months to a year a few years ago.
It seems that the predicted time to commercialization is increasing, not
decreasing. hmmm, that sounds familiar.

>...It concluded
>with the thought that research is again increasing in CF and that the USA
>ought to be more tolerant of unorthodox research activites.
>

Maybe it will when CF has been around for 40 years and lengthens its
prediction time for commercialization to 40 years. Then it will be just as
platable as magnetic fusion. :>

-john .w cobb



-- 
 --------------------------------------------------------------
John W. Cobb	My posts don't reflect the views of my employer
                Because my posts are usually opaque.
 --------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenjohncobb cudfnJohn cudlnCobb cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.31 / Paul Karol /  Re: Los Alamos, Equest, and peculiar ashes
     
Originally-From: Paul Karol <pk03+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Los Alamos, Equest, and peculiar ashes
Date: Tue, 31 May 1994 15:53:46 -0400
Organization: Chemistry, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

Nice calculation involving Ti-46 + d --> V-48 --> Sc-44 + alpha
realising 4.2 MeV of energy to account for the observation of Sc44
activity in a Ti sample exposed to deuterium.  But....
The d + d community sometimes argues that He is made with the energy
released to the lattice.  In the Ti-46 case, the equivalent V-48 is
easily detected by the same apparatus that would have detected Sc-44
gammas.  But...furthermore...The Ti-48, -49, -50 would all undergo
(d,alpha) reactions in this scheme releasing similar amounts of energy
and yielding (also) very easily detectable Sc-46, Sc-47, and Sc-48
through their hard gammas.  So indeed, discovering of JUST Sc-44 in a
natural Ti sample is noteworthy, but not for the reason implied.  

But that's just my opinion.

Paul J. Karol
Nuclear Chemist

cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudfnPaul cudlnKarol cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.31 / Petri Tuomola /  Information needed about cold fusion
     
Originally-From: ptuomola@xs4all.hacktic.nl (Petri Tuomola)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Information needed about cold fusion
Date: 31 May 1994 22:10:49 +0200
Organization: Hack-Tic, networking for the masses

I'm posting this for a friend of mine. Please response via email and I'll
forward the answers (if any ;) to him.

Petri

-

To anyone wanting to give advice on Cold Fusion:

I'm looking for some simple cold fusion-related experiments that the average 
numbskull could handle.  I am a high school student in Amsterdam and have to 
do a research project this summer between my 11th and 12th grade school years.  

My teachers are on my case to choose a topic and I thought Cold Fusion sounded 
quite interesting.  If any one could send some fairly detailed information 
on cool stuff that doesn't require any super high grade, crack-free palladium 
I would be exceedingly grateful.  

By the way, how hard is it to get crack-free palladium?  And another thing, I
don't exactly understand the experiment done by F&P.  All I know is that 
there's a bath of Deuterium and a little regular water and two electrodes in 
the solution.  They put a P.D. across the two and you get instant cold fusion 
or what?  

Anyway, thanks for the time and effort. 

Ryan Epstein
International School of Amsterdam

-- 
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Petri Tuomola	(root@echelon.hacktic.nl) (ptuomola@hacktic.nl)
	              Get stoned - drink wet concrete
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenptuomola cudfnPetri cudlnTuomola cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.31 / Chris - /  Re: A Flash from the Economist
     
Originally-From: chrisk@gomez.stortek.com (Chris Kostanick - X6359)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A Flash from the Economist
Date: Tue, 31 May 1994 16:52:19 GMT
Organization: Storage Technology Corporation

nanook@eskimo.com (Robert Dinse) writes:

>     It's well and good to want to protect people from bacterial infection,
>but there are other dangers as well.  It's rather like chlorinated city water.
>Great, we kill off the bacteria, and how many people with it?  What wonderful
>things is that chlorine doing to our bodies?  How many extra cases of
>hypertension or cancer do we incur as a result?  Do we actually save more
>people as a result of killing off the bacteria, or kill more people as the
>result of chlorination?

There's a creek behind my house. Feel free to drink all the water
from it you want. I'll stick to the chlorinated tap water thank you
very much. (For those non locals, the water has the Giardia parasite
in it.)

Chris "likes a safe water supply" Kostanick
chrisk@gomez.stortek.com
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenchrisk cudfnChris cudln- cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.31 / Rich Hawryluk /  TFTR Update (May 31, 1994)
     
Originally-From: rhawryluk@pppl.gov (Rich Hawryluk)
Newsgroups: pppl.tftr.news,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: TFTR Update (May 31, 1994)
Date: 31 May 1994 19:16:21 -0400
Organization: Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory

Status  (May 31, 1994)

        The emphasis during the past week was to increase the D-T fusion
power on TFTR.  Excellent supershot performance with Ip = 2.5 MA, Bt = 5.1T
and R = 2.52 m was obtained by Li pellet conditioning and extensive high
power operation.  The energy confinement time  at peak D-T fusion power
was 0.24s. Eight high power D-T experiments were performed. Preliminary
results, which are being checked,  from these experiments are described
below.

        The plasma stored energy was 6.5 MJ, Ti (0) ~40 keV and Te (0)
~11.5 keV.  Both the stored energy and the ion temperature exceed the best
ever achieved in deuterium operation.

        The value of ni(0) taue Ti(0) of about 5.2 x 10**20 m-3 *s* keV
achieved in D-T exceed the best ever achieved in deuterium operation of 4.4
x 10**20 m-3 *s* keV.  In the triple product, the consistent definition of
taue = Wtot/Pin was used.

        The maximum fusion power was 9 MW and the central fusion power
density was increased from 1.25 MW m-3 to 1.8 MW m-3.

        The maximum fusion energy per pulse in recent experiments has been
increased from 3.6 MJ to 6 MJ.

        Fusion power performance was neither confinement time nor heating
power limited but limited by the occurrence of adverse MHD activity.

        A possible alpha driven TAE mode was observed in the high power
shots.  The instability was observed at the end of beam injection.  Further
analysis is in progress.

        From the previous week's results, the first measurements of the
confined fusion alphas using alpha-CHERS and alpha-charge exchange have
been obtained in collaboration with the University of Wisconsin for
alpha-CHERS and GA and the Ioffe Institute for alpha-charge exchange.

        This past week's neutral beam injection operations obtained the
highest injected power (33.7 MW using 11 sources; 6 in tritium, 5 in
deuterium), the highest single ion source power (3.6 MW at 115kV) and the
highest single beamline power (10.5 MW with all 3 sources in tritium).



Plans:


High power D-T experiments are planned for this week.  The goal of these
experiments is to optimize the confinement in high performance supershots.

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


cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenrhawryluk cudfnRich cudlnHawryluk cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.31 / Matt Austern /  Re: fine-structure variable; does it have bounds?
     
Originally-From: matt@physics2.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics,sci.chem,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: fine-structure variable; does it have bounds?
Date: 31 May 1994 23:30:46 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (Theoretical Physics Group)

In article <2sdhuj$8r2@scunix2.harvard.edu> mcirvin@scws30.harvard.edu
(Matt McIrvin) writes:

> Also, while Ron's statement about the "fine-structure constant" being
> defined by the low-energy value of the coupling on mass shell is
> defensible (and true, if you go by textbook definitions), he implied
> (probably unintentionally) that the value of the resulting quantity
> is exactly 1/137, which it isn't.  It's closer to 1/137.036.

It's quite true that alpha is conventionally defined to be the
strength of the electromagnetic coupling at zero momentum transfer.  I
really do think it's important, though, to keep running in mind.
And, in fact, there are quite a few papers that use notation like
"alpha(mu)", or that have sentences like "At M_Z, alpha is equal
to about 1/128."

This running causes a bit of confusion, and I'm convinced that a lot
of it is just because of notation.  For historical reasons, people use
notation for the strong coupling constant that implicitly assumes
running, but they don't do the same for the electromagnetic coupling
constant.  This give the entirely mistaken impression that there's
some fundamental difference between the two coupling constants.  There
isn't!  You could define Lambda_EM just the same way as you define
Lambda_QCD, if you felt like it.  (The real difference is just that
alpha_S(0) isn't a physically measurable quantity.)

--
		--Dr. Matthew Austern, Ph.D. '94 (at last!)
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenmatt cudfnMatt cudlnAustern cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.31 / SCOTT CHASE /  Re: fine-structure variable; does it have bounds?
     
Originally-From: sichase@csa5.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics,sci.chem,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: fine-structure variable; does it have bounds?
Date: 31 May 1994 17:02 PST
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA

In article <MATT.94May31163050@physics2.berkeley.edu>, matt@physics.berk
ley.edu writes...
> 
>It's quite true that alpha is conventionally defined to be the
>strength of the electromagnetic coupling at zero momentum transfer. 

I always see it quoted at q = Me.  The difference is *very* small, but
in the interest of precision, are we going to define the "fine structure
constant" as alpha(0) or alpha(Me)?  I suspect that the most accurate
measurement is at q = Me, so I would favor the latter.

-Scott
 -------------------             i hate you, you hate me
Scott I. Chase                   let's all go and kill barney
SICHASE@CSA2.LBL.GOV             and a shot rang out and barney hit the floor,
                                 no more purple dinosaur.
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudensichase cudfnSCOTT cudlnCHASE cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Wed Jun  1 04:37:04 EDT 1994
------------------------------
1994.06.01 / Matt Austern /  Re: fine-structure variable; does it have bounds?
     
Originally-From: matt@physics2.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics,sci.chem,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: fine-structure variable; does it have bounds?
Date: 01 Jun 1994 00:28:07 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (Theoretical Physics Group)

In article <31MAY199417025823@csa5.lbl.gov> sichase@csa5.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE) writes:

> I always see it quoted at q = Me.  The difference is *very* small, but
> in the interest of precision, are we going to define the "fine structure
> constant" as alpha(0) or alpha(Me)?  I suspect that the most accurate
> measurement is at q = Me, so I would favor the latter.

Actually, the difference isn't (quite) just the momentum scale!
alpha(0) implies you're using the MS-bar (i.e., \bar{MS})
renormalization scheme with a renormalization scale of 0.  I'm pretty
sure, though, that most measurements of alpha at low energies aren't
reported using the MS-bar renormalization scheme at all---they're
reported using the on-mass-shell renormalization scheme.

I suspect that the difference between the on-shell alpha and the
MS-bar alpha evaluated at mu=m_e is larger than the difference between
MS-bar alpha at mu=0 and at mu=m_e.  

--
		--Dr. Matthew Austern, Ph.D. '94 (at last!)
cudkeys:
cuddy01 cudenmatt cudfnMatt cudlnAustern cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.01 / L Plutonium /  Re: The FAQ for superconductivity 21/05/1994
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The FAQ for superconductivity 21/05/1994
Date: 1 Jun 1994 00:59:20 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In article <2sfd6f$8k2@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium) writes:

>    (7) Superconductivity when Tc is reached causes the carriers of
> electrons to be neutrino pairs, not Cooper pairs of electrons
> themselves, but pairs of neutrinos. The Tc is the disassociation state
> energy of photons to neutrino pairs. In the case of superfluidity, it
> is neutrino quads.

  Because liquid helium in superfluidity is superconductive also then
the correlation of neutrino quads and pairs is possible. The
characteristics of neutrinos is got from the number data of superfluid
helium.
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.01 / Robert Heeter /  Conventional Fusion FAQ
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Conventional Fusion FAQ
Date: Wed, 1 Jun 1994 03:53:13 GMT
Organization: Princeton University


With classes over and summer research starting, I hope to have time
to finish up the initial drafting of the uncompleted sections of the FAQ
I'm working on.  I will also be conducting an extensive rewrite of the 
sections which have already been drafted, to incorporate the comments
I've received since the April 15 draft.  I just want to encourage anyone
out there who's familiar with the FAQ to send in those long-postponed
suggestions, comments, etc., which you've been meaning to send in, 
because I'd prefer to have them *before* I write the draft, rather than
after.  (I will be taking comments again after the next draft, and doing
yet another revision, but I'd prefer to make future revisions smaller than
the current one, since I don't expect to have much free time later in the
summer.)

Thanks to those who have already made suggestions and contributions,
and thanks in advance to anyone now planning to do so.

If anyone would like to receive a copy of the Conventional Fusion FAQ
as it currently exists, let me know and I can email you a copy.  (Last
significant revision was April 22 or so.)  I hope to have the FAQ
available
via FTP, Mosaic/HTML/WWW, and Gopher soon, as well.

***************************
Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University
As always, I represent only myself, and not PPPL.
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.01 / Morten Pedersen /  Re: The FAQ for superconductivity 21/05/1994
     
Originally-From: hpe@zurich.ibm.com (Morten Holm Pedersen)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The FAQ for superconductivity 21/05/1994
Date: 1 Jun 1994 06:48:13 GMT
Organization: IBM Zurich Research Laboratory

Ludwig Plutonium (Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu) wrote:

>    Please cite reference to the Aharonov-Casher effect, bear in mind I
> have only the Dartmouth library to resource. They do not have
> preprints. And if you could please, Morten, post a page summary of this
> effect. Thanks.
OK: "Topological Quantum Effects for Neutral Particles" by
Y.Aharonov,A.Casher, Phys.Rev.Lett.53,p.319-321(1984). I have no idea
about the Dartmouth Library, but any decent library would have PRL I
believe, else I can send you a xerox.
As for preprints you can get those from cond-mat@babbage.sissa.it.
Send a mail with subject get bighelp.txt. cond-mat covers condensed
matter but the help-file will tell you how to get high-energy physics
also. 

>   I want to make these ideas "ideas in general", not the specifics,
> public knowledge for patent reasons. 
How can you patent a theory?

> My postings give me priority in these matters. 
Are USENET posts of any legal use in applying for a patent? or for the
nobel comitee?

Morten
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenhpe cudfnMorten cudlnPedersen cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.01 / Morten Pedersen /  Re: The FAQ for superconductivity 21/05/1994
     
Originally-From: hpe@zurich.ibm.com (Morten Holm Pedersen)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The FAQ for superconductivity 21/05/1994
Date: 1 Jun 1994 06:52:30 GMT
Organization: IBM Zurich Research Laboratory

Ludwig Plutonium (Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu) wrote:
> In article <2scukv$uga@monterosa.zurich.ibm.com>
> hpe@zurich.ibm.com (Morten Holm Pedersen) writes:

> > Anyhow, how would you then
> > explain superfluidity in Helium?
>   I have not yet studied superfluidity. I know nothing about it as I
> never bothered to read it in Feynman Lectures. But I soon will.

In superfluidity you can have a perpetual flow, ie. no friction. As
you can see liquid helium with your eyes its hard to believe that the
helium should be turned into neutrinos or something like that. If you
can have perpetual flow, then your particles only need charge to give
superconductivity, therefore I find it important that you not only
explain superconductivity but also superfluidity, they are really
quite related phenomena.

Morten
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenhpe cudfnMorten cudlnPedersen cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.01 / L Plutonium /  Re: The FAQ for superconductivity 21/05/1994
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The FAQ for superconductivity 21/05/1994
Date: 1 Jun 1994 11:47:12 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In article <2sfd6f$8k2@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium) writes:

>    (8) What is there in physics as regards to matter--- atoms are
> primal matter. Subatomic particles, quarks,and anything else exists
> only because it is associated with an atom. Neutrons in this picture
> are energized hydrogen atoms. Only atoms exist, there is nothing more
> fundamental. If you see an isolated electron or proton, it does not
> have independent existence, but is connected with a proton or electron
> somewhere else. Their are no independentally existing electrons or
> protons. Atoms are the last cut, so to speak.
>    (9) What is there in physics as regards to nonrestmass energy---
> neutrinos are primal energy. The photons are composite entities of
> energy. And so also is the graviton. In a sense, the photon and
> graviton are NUCLEAR COMPOUNDS, whereas neutrinos are Nuclear elements.
> Atoms and Neutrinos can explain all of QM, anything else is mere
> derivatives of atoms and neutrinos.
>   
>    (10) The Meissner effect is a neutrino current.

   This would be a new set of Maxwell's Equations. Light waves are
transverse waves, that is a fact. Since a Light wave is a composite of
2 neutrinos, then the E is one neutrino and the B is another. After the
Maxwell Equations are revised with the more fundamental neutrino waves,
then many new and exciting predictions should come out thereof.
   Light waves as composite neutrino waves and the better understanding
resulting from a revised set of Maxwell Equations should then revise
Ohms Law to greater generality.
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.02 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Good Morning America on P&F
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Good Morning America on P&F
Date: Thu, 2 Jun 1994 00:15:43 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Those plotting the Pons predicted time of arrival of the 10 Kw water heater
vs Date will notice that it is accelerating exponentially into the future.

Tom Droege

cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenDROEGE cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.02 /  vnoninski@fscv /  message
     
Originally-From: vnoninski@fscvax.fsc.mass.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: message
Date: Thu, 2 Jun 1994 00:15:56 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Dear Dr. Mueller, I just sent you a message for the group. The
other day I sent you a STMP delivery error message as an example
of the problem I mentioned.
Truly, Vesselin Noninski

cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenvnoninski cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.01 / John Lewis /  Re: A Flash from the Economist
     
Originally-From: court@newton.physics.mun.ca (John Lewis)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A Flash from the Economist
Date: 1 Jun 1994 18:00:04 GMT
Organization: Memorial University of Nfld, St. John's, NF

In article <940531120317.2060451a@FNALD.FNAL.GOV> DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:
...
>
>Robert Dinse has a different complaint.  He says that we should never try 
>something new because it might do something bad.  By this measure, I suggest
>that he quit taking asprin, wearing anything but natural fabrics, certainly
>don't drink chlorinated (or ozone purified water - that might be bad too)
>water, and never, never take antibiotics.  Not that we should not do the best 
>job we can to evaluate the risk.  But it is just such risk taking that has 
>got us to the position where we have a choice.  In the good old days you 
>just scraped the maggots off the meat and ate it anyway.
>
Or died from typhoid fever from an unchlorinated water supply.  Fun!!

J.Lewis
St. John's, Newfoundland
>


cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudencourt cudfnJohn cudlnLewis cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.05.31 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Re: Los Alamos, Equest, and peculiar ashes
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Los Alamos, Equest, and peculiar ashes
Date: Tue, 31 May 1994 18:23 -0500 (EST)

Paul Karol writes:

-> Nice calculation involving Ti-46 + d --> V-48 --> Sc-44 + alpha
-> realising 4.2 MeV of energy to account for the observation of Sc44
-> activity in a Ti sample exposed to deuterium.

Thanks.

-> But..

uh-oh.

-> The d + d community sometimes argues that He is made with the
-> energy released to the lattice.  In the Ti-46 case, the equivalent
-> V-48 is easily detected by the same apparatus that would have
-> detected Sc-44 gammas.

That is assuming that the detection apparatus was monitoring gammas
during the loading phase.  I had assumed that the monitoring was done
later after the loading, so they only saw products with a reasonable
half-life.  We would need an imput from the researcher here to clarify
this.

->  But...furthermore...The Ti-48, -49, -50 would all undergo
-> (d,alpha) reactions in this scheme releasing similar amounts of
-> energy and yielding (also) very easily detectable Sc-46, Sc-47, and
-> Sc-48 through their hard gammas.  So indeed, discovering of JUST
-> Sc-44 in a natural Ti sample is noteworthy, but not for the reason
-> implied.

Negative.  The V-50 has a 1.3E17 year half-life.  It would therefore
contribute a gamma intensity of 1/4E17 of the 16 day half-life V-48.
The V-51 is stable and has no daughters.  The V-52 has a half life of
3.75 minutes and gives off a 1434 Kev Gamma and a beta.  It does not
decay into Sc-48 at all, but rather decays into Cr52 which is stable.
Thus if measurements were made of the gamma spec AFTER the loading,
Sc44 is the ONLY isotope one would expect to find with this theory.

Thanks for the reply.  It made me go back and look at the other
alternatives, and see if there was consistance between what was reported
and what one would expect.

                                                                Marshall

cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.01 / Dave Stephenson /  Re: Question about Helium 3 Fusion
     
Originally-From: stephens@ (Dave Stephenson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Question about Helium 3 Fusion
Date: Wed, 1 Jun 1994 19:44:37 GMT
Organization: Geodetic Survey of Canada

John W. Cobb (johncobb@uts.cc.utexas.edu) wrote:
: In article <1994May27.115849.400@pdms03.ksc.nasa.gov>,
: Bill Gill <GILLW@alpinevalley.mdcad.ksc.nasa.gov> wrote:
: >Yesterday afternoon I received my first exposure to the concept of 
: >Helium 3 Fusion, and want to see what I can find out about it. 
: >
: >The following is what I understood the man to say.
: >
: >  Helium 3 fuses with Dueterium.  
: >  One of the products is a Proton.
: >  The process provides a route for (relatively) direct conversion to electricity.
: >  Helium 3 is rare on Earth due to its "magnetic properties".
: >  Helium 3 is much more abundant on the Moon.

: And effectively limitless on Jupiter.

: >
: >The thrust of the discussion was that this should give us a real economic 
: >reason to go to the moon, since we need the Helium 3 to produce 
: >safe power.
: >

: Perhaps. However, it is more likely that it will form a mutually supportive
: Public Relations/Propaganda campaign that NASA can use as a reason (or one
: of several reasons) to set up a permanent base on the moon and for alternative
: fuels fusion scientists to low-ball estimates of fuel costs. --- Just my
: opinion though.

: Actually, the Artemis study found that 3He costs were only a small cost of a
: working D-3He FRC-based reactor. It would probably be cheaper to breed Tritium
: from lithium and let the tritium decay to 3He than to mine it from the moon
: and jupiter. However, for deep space exploration, the Moon and Jupiter are
: real musts. Total DOE 3He production was something like 1.3 kg/year and
: that was when we had reactors for tritium production.


Mining He3 on the Moon might be only a start. He3 could be manufactured
on the Moon, using either a DD fusion reactor or other systems. The
point is that then the radioactive 'messy' part of the fuel cycle
is off this planet. The fuel masses are sufficiently low to make
economic sense to set up a breeder on the Moon. If the condition
of this planet is not a concern we can burn coal and lignite or
oil shale. The environment of THIS planet will be the long term
driver. The infrastructure for He3 mining the Moon is the same as
would be required for Solar power satellites, Lunar solar power or
even deep space gas mining of the giant planets. Uranus is the best
bet for the latter.

--
Dave Stephenson                   
Geological Survey of Canada       *Too much bad arithmetic is not a *
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada           *substitute for not enough good   *
Internet: stephens@geod.emr.ca    *         mathematics             *          
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenstephens cudfnDave cudlnStephenson cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.01 / Mike Jamison /  Re: Try this experiment!
     
Originally-From: edwlt12@mars.lerc.nasa.gov (Mike Jamison (ADF))
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Try this experiment!
Date: 1 Jun 1994 16:44 EDT
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center

In article <1994May27.154936.12980@midway.uchicago.edu>, gk00@midway.uch
cago.edu writes...
>In article <27MAY199410264337@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov> edwlt12@ariel.lerc.n
sa.gov (Mike Jamison (ADF)) writes:
>>------------------------------------------------- < axis of magnet/disk.
>>|     ______|____________ < B field
>>()   /______|____________
>>|   ///_____|____________
>>|__|||______|____________
>>^  ^^^      ^
>>M  B field  Disk
>>e
>>t
>>e
>>r
> 
>That's reasonable.  You get an AC current in the loop if the amount of
>field passing through the loop varies over time.  OTOH if the disk is

Actually, you should get DC due to the field pushing electrons in one
direction, along part of the wire (or along the disk).  As long as there are
"lines of force" "cutting across" something, you should get a voltage (or, 
really simply, F = qv cross B, where v = velocity, q = charge, F = newtons
and B = Teslas).

If I read your reply correctly, you're suggesting that the B field is going
to the right then left (which will defintiely produce AC).

I'm suggesting that the disk is rotating into or out of the screen, in one
direction.

>flush with the face of a round coil magnet and the voltmeter is
>straight, then by symmetry no field lines pass through the loop.  If in
>addition the voltmeter is a battery strip taped to the disk, then the
>loop has a very small area.  In these circumstances it would have to be
>a pretty sensitive voltmeter if it saw anything.

I agree with this - the B field drops off as 1/d^2, but I believe that's
not really going to be seen until you're pretty far from the magnet.

Besides, I don't think this thing is really a "Faraday disk".  If memory
serves, the Faraday disk is in a constant B field, not what I've shown
above...  (well, *tried* to show - this ascii stuff sucks...)

Mike Jamison

"Scientific research consists in seeing what everyone else has seen, but
thinking what no one else has thought"

						-A. Szent-Gyorgyi
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenedwlt12 cudfnMike cudlnJamison cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.01 / L Plutonium /  Re: The FAQ for superconductivity 21/05/1994
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The FAQ for superconductivity 21/05/1994
Date: 1 Jun 1994 20:45:48 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In article <2shavd$lgp@monterosa.zurich.ibm.com>
hpe@zurich.ibm.com (Morten Holm Pedersen) writes:

> >   I want to make these ideas "ideas in general", not the specifics,
> > public knowledge for patent reasons. 
> How can you patent a theory?
> 
> > My postings give me priority in these matters. 
> Are USENET posts of any legal use in applying for a patent? or for the
> nobel comitee?

  In a sense, I follow IBM's lead. They discovered ceramic
superconductivity in 1986. Made it public knowledge. Hence, IBM can
wait as long as they want on that invention to obtain the patent for
it. It is a matter of when IBM wants to start the 17 year clock
ticking. 
  I, following IBM's way, will continue to make the correct theory of
superconductivity, public knowledge. In that way, I hold priority. And
if my theory predicts the next warmer superconductor chemistry, then I
hold the rights to it. There are patents for commercial math. And when
the environment is more conducive to starting the 17 year clock
ticking. I will do so. 
  I recently had a most prejudicial and biased rejection of my "Cold
Fusion" patent "Spontaneous Neutron Materialization Devices". It is a
waste of time and money to file for patent when the physics community
is up in arms against you out of prejudice and hate. Look at the
history of P & F.
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.02 /  vnoninski@fscv /  Faraday Generator
     
Originally-From: vnoninski@fscvax.fsc.mass.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Faraday Generator
Date: Thu, 2 Jun 1994 00:15:57 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Dear Colleagues,

I am tempted to tell you about some of my encounters with homopolar generators 
and other things of this kind. Some two-three years ago I visited some places 
in California including Bruce DePalma's home. Bruce is 
no more in the US but at that time 
he was inhabiting a nice house in Santa Barbara with a garage-laboratory full 
of sundry experiments. During my first visit with him he showed me an 
experiment consisting of a shaft suspended on two bearings. When current is 
passed through the shaft from a battery and an initial push is applied to the 
shaft the latter starts rotating and the rotation continues until power is 
supplied. The question Bruce asked was: Where is the crossing of magnetic 
lines or any change of magnetic flux ocurring to make the shaft rotate ? He 
told me that this experimental set-up has been given to him by a Bulgarian 
scientist and that that Bulgarian scientist had obtained the set-up at a 
factory in Bulgaria from a worker there. The worker had told him: "Explain it 
since you are so well-educated". Then Bruce asked me to compare the drag when 
manually rotating the rotor of a short-circuited ordinary generator 
and a Faraday generator. I could very clearly feel the significant difference 
in the performance of the two generators. While rotating of the short-
circuited ordinary generator was quite difficult due to the Lenz's force there
was almost no drag when rotating the rotor of the short-circuited 
Faraday generator. I will jump little bit with my story and will tell you that 
later I visited prof. Kincheloe at Stanford University who showed me some 
experiments he has performed on this subject. Prof. Kincheloe told me that 
this effect deserves a careful study and that he is preparing to work on this 
problem. I understand that establishing of any violation of Lentz's law will be 
of substantial importance for further understanding the nature of electrical 
phenomena. Prof. Kincheloe told me that the matters in this respect are still 
not well understood. Of course, I am not speaking for prof. Kincheloe in this 
posting and more clarity on this problem can be given by prof. Kincheloe 
himself. I remember, however, that he pointed to some anomalies which he 
himself has observed and still does not understand well. 
If you would allow me I 
would mention that the contact with prof. Kincheloe was one of the most 
pleasant contacts I have had in the recent years. I found him to be an 
extremely sensitive and friendly person, quite open minded and yet critically 
approaching every problem. I will not forget the discussion we had later 
about the Pinkerton generator. Pinkerton at that time was visiting Hal Puthoff
at his Institute of Advanced Studies in Texas. Bob Kincheloe told me some of 
his reservations regarding Pinkerton generator which I found to be very clever
and enlightening. Concerning Bruce DePalma prof. Kincheloe had done some 
experiments with his generator but the experiments had remained 
unfinished because Bruce had begun to require certain amounts of money for 
these experiments. I would note that when I asked Bruce to carry out some 
experiments he asked for five digit sums. I remained with the impression, 
perhaps wrong, that he was doing these demonstrations just to earn his living. 
What were the claims of Bruce DePalma ? He showed me quite an impressive 
machine-Faraday generator for the manufacturing of which he had been helped 
by a religious sect beleiving in extraction of energy from the vacuum. Later 
a friend in Santa Monica showed me several videotapes of similar sects here 
and in Europe worshiping the so-called "over-unity machines". I learned 
that certain groups at Salt Lake City have devoted efforts for many years to 
build such machines. Bruce DePalma himself had lived in Utah for this reason.  
Although, as you know, I am very much for continuing the research in 'cold 
fusion' until it is well understood whether this is a real phenomenon or not, 
I felt quite embarassed by the inescapable parallels with cold fusion. I would
add that the Californian experience I am telling you about was a real 
eye-opener for me. There are many things I can tell you about this, but I will 
preserve it for some other time. One thing I clearly saw was that a quasi-
scientific subculture concerned with "over-unity machines" or "excess energy"
had existed in this country long before 'cold fusion'. On the other hand this 
experience helped me to again understand that things are never only black or 
white and that one should always be cautious with ultimate pronouncements. As 
an illustration to this is the following. I got very much interested in the 
unipolar generators (Faraday generators) and spent several days in the 
libraries of UCLA. First thing I found out was that it is very hard to 
establish what is the novelty in Bruce DePalma's endeavors, apart from the 
unsubstantiated claims for over-unity production of energy. It turned out that
as it concerns the principle of action of the Faraday generator there is 
quite a controversy existing in the literature. I was pleased to see that this
controversy, however, has been handled differently from the 'cold fusion' 
controversy by allowing both parties to publish their views so that future 
researchers be assisted in telling the wheat from the chaff. As an example I 
would cite the following papers for those of you who are curious:

S.J.Barnett, Phys.Rev., 33, 323 (1912).
S.J.Barnett, Phys.Rev., 2, 323 (1913).
E.H.Kennard, Philos.<ag., 23, 937 (1912).
E.H.Kennard, Philos.Mag., 33, 179 (1917).
G.B.Pegram, Phys.Rev., 10, 591 (1917).
J.Zeleny, L.Page, Phys.Rev., 24, 544 (1924).
W.Cramp, E.H.Norgrove, JIEE, 78, 481 (1936).
G.I.Cohn, Electrical Engineering, May , 441-447 (1949).
N.Savage, Electrical Engineering, July, 645 (1949).
L.V.Beweley, Electrical Engineering, December, 1113-1114 (1949).
G.I.Cohn, Electrical Engineering, December, 1138-1139 (1950).
L.V.Bewley, Electrical Engineering, December, 1139-1140 (1950).
D.R.Corson, Am.J.Phys., 24, 126 (1956).
H.Jehle, Phys.Rev., D 3, 306 (1971).
H.Jehle, Phys.Rev., D 6, 441 (1972).
M.J.Crooks, D.B.Litvin and P.W.Matthews, Am.J.Phys., 46, 729 (1978).
J.Djuric, J.Appl.Phys., 46, 679 (1975).
A.Shadowitz, The Electromagnetic Field, Dover Publications, Inc., New York 
1975.

One thing that I found quite interesting was the fact that when the magnet 
rotates its magnetic field remains stationary. This can be established by 
placing a conducting circuit near the periphery of the rotating magnet -- it 
can be observed that despite the motion of the magnet no current flows  
in the conducting circuit. I feel that despite of the certain consensus that 
has been reached with regard to the nature of phenomena connected with the 
Faraday generator a full clarity is still lacking. Unfortunately in instances 
such as this there is a complex of factors, other than scientific reasoning, 
that hinder the proper resolution of the issue and there always is something 
that stays in the way, preventing the solution. This always reminds me of the 
case with the ball-lightning, mentioned as an idea in Kapitza's Nobel lecture,
and used by some in a distorted fashion for purposes different from idealistic
search for the truth. Bruce DePalme told me about many other experiments 
which he himself had performed or had heard about. I learned that there are 
even societies in the US discussing such experiments and he showed me 
brochures with plenty of experiments described therewith. I will not, however, 
go any more into this now. 

One experiment, however, I would like to mention. This experiment has nothing 
to do with Bruce DePalma or homopolar generators. I came upon it while 
working at the UCLA libraries. I was quite impressed and I can tell you I 
still have an uneasy feeling about it. The word is about the paper 

H. Hayasaka and S. Takeuchi, Phys.Rev.Lett., 63, 2701 (1989).

In this paper an anomalous weight reduction on a gyroscope's right rotations 
around the vertical axis on the Earth is described. These researchers show 
precise experimental data for a decrease of the weight of a gyroscope when 
it rotates to the right while upon rotation to the left its weight remains 
unchanged. I was quite amazed to see that while this paper was published on 
18 December 1989 one J.Faller had gone to France and had delivered a lecture 
on 18 January of 1990 to denounce the reality of the claimed effect. I found 
this revelation in the 22 February 1990 issue of Nature (343, 732 (1990)). 
Still further was my amasement when I found out that, apart from the obviously 
insufficient time for such an experiment to be reproduced, in fact neither 
Faller nor the French group have taken care to actually reproduce the 
experiment reported by the Japanese group. I found out that Nature beat its 
own world record in hasty and unsupported denouncement of claimed effects 
(the previous record was established by Nature in connection with cold fusion).
Note, for instance, that Faller uses air-driven giroscopes which decrease 
their rotation rate while being measured while the Japanese groups reports 
results with gyroscopes being measured while rotating at steady-state and in 
vacuum. Look at the results of the French group. Could one state with 
certainty that this group indeed reproduces the Japanese setup and are the 
results of the French group decisively negative ? I understand that such 
experiments are extrmely difficult to carry out. Also, the outcome from such 
experiments may indeed turn out to be negative. However, the outcome from such 
experiments should come about only through following reason. I believe the 
opportunistic approach Nature takes in instance such as the above, ignoring 
centuries of efforts to establish the criteria for scientific truth, are of 
great disservice to critical thinking. 

Truly yours,



Vesselin Noninski

    

cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenvnoninski cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.01 /  robla@ids.net
 /  High school student request info on fusion
     
Originally-From: robla@ids.net
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: High school student request info on fusion
Date: 1 Jun 94 11:22:35 EST
Organization: The IDS World Network Internet Access Service

	I am a freshman in high school.  I am looking for a way to 
find out information on fusion and cold fusion, I have little 
understanding of either therefore I would like this information to 
be rather simplistic to a point where someone with little or no experience with
either could understand.  I have my first real research paper do on that
subject.
	I know that the subject of cold fusion is controversial.  I would also
kindly request information about it or if anyone here has done experiments with
either.

                      Thankyou in advance for any information 
                           
you would be so kind to provide.
                      Ryan Jones
                      Robla@ids.net 
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenrobla cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.01 / L Plutonium /  Re: The FAQ for superconductivity 21/05/1994
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The FAQ for superconductivity 21/05/1994
Date: 1 Jun 1994 14:56:44 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In article <2shb7e$lgp@monterosa.zurich.ibm.com>
hpe@zurich.ibm.com (Morten Holm Pedersen) writes:

> In superfluidity you can have a perpetual flow, ie. no friction. As
> you can see liquid helium with your eyes its hard to believe that the
> helium should be turned into neutrinos or something like that. If you
> can have perpetual flow, then your particles only need charge to give
> superconductivity, therefore I find it important that you not only
> explain superconductivity but also superfluidity, they are really
> quite related phenomena.

  We do know that silver is the highest regular conductor or
electricity. Let us please run a math logic analogy. Let us pretend
that we did not know that from experimental knowledge. All we are armed
with is current physics theory. Then from QM, conduction band theory
et.al. then can we have a clear fall-out that we should look to silver
as the highest room temperature conductor? Can we yield out of present
QM that silver,gold, and copper are the best conductors, just from
theory, from QM and numbers?
  Now, armed with the idea that photons are composite entities. Photons
are neutrinos. And superconductivity is neutrino flow, then,
marshalling all the present QM, conduction band theory et.al. and
replace photons with Neutrino flow can we get a fall-out that copper
oxides would be higher in superconductivity than niobium-tin or
mercury? Playing around with such an analogy just may predict the next
chemical compound of higher Tc.
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.01 / L Plutonium /  Re: The FAQ for superconductivity 21/05/1994
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The FAQ for superconductivity 21/05/1994
Date: 1 Jun 1994 15:00:30 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In article <2shavd$lgp@monterosa.zurich.ibm.com>
hpe@zurich.ibm.com (Morten Holm Pedersen) writes:

> OK: "Topological Quantum Effects for Neutral Particles" by
> Y.Aharonov,A.Casher, Phys.Rev.Lett.53,p.319-321(1984). I have no idea
> about the Dartmouth Library, but any decent library would have PRL I
> believe, else I can send you a xerox.
> As for preprints you can get those from cond-mat@babbage.sissa.it.
> Send a mail with subject get bighelp.txt. cond-mat covers condensed
> matter but the help-file will tell you how to get high-energy physics
> also. 

   Thank you kindly. I have not seen it yet. I am hoping that it proves
neutrino flow. Then the world already has proof that photons are
composite structure. The Tc in superconductivity is the disassociation
state. Which makes perfect sense. Whenever a physical phenomena drops
off so sharply indicates to a logic person that the quantization has
switched from one particle to another. Like the photoelectric effect. 
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.02 / Matt Kennel /  Re: Fusion via Bose condensation of D+ ions (reply to Matt)
     
Originally-From: mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion via Bose condensation of D+ ions (reply to Matt)
Date: 2 Jun 1994 00:08:21 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

Chuck Sites (chuck@iglou.iglou.com) wrote:

:     Following the tradition of the College of sci.physics.fusion, here
: is my reply to Matt Kenell on the question of fusion in a Bose
: condensed aggregate of deuterons (D+).  Sorry this has taken so long Matt.

:    First, your argument is basically comes down to, the deuteron has
: an electrostatic potential of much further range than the strong force
: and thus will do two things: [1] It will not allow a strong
: interaction because the electromagnetic forces dominate. [2] The
: electrostatic potential will keep the deuteron separation so large no
: condensation effect will occur.  Of the two, #2 is where we have a an
: argument.  #1 is obvious, but can be got around as nature shows us all
: the time via quantum-mechanical tunneling and other artifacts of wave
: interaction.  

True, but the question is at what energy is this probable?  Conventional
physics says keVs even including tunneling which is hot fusion.

: 1. A COLLECTION OF IDENTICAL PARTICLES

: Lets say we have an ideal gas (a random collection of identical particles).

: The total energy of the collection is simply the sum of the energy of
: all the individuals which would be,

:       epsilon_klm... = epsilon_k + epsilon_l + epsilon_m + ...

Only if the particles have no mutual interaction.  Which is precisely
the question w.r.t. "cold fusion".

: <lots of stat mech with which i have no objection>



: Time = 1.                                                   (Figure 2.)

: Now its time to look at the multi-body wave description of a Bose-
: condensate as described by R. Liboff without the sophisticated band state 
: complications of the Chubbs theory. Here the overlapping waves imply 
: a certain and definite probability that the inner nucleon forces
: will appear in the delocalized 'scattering' event (Ie. a scattering 
: event masked in the uncertainty of position and momentum).  Graphically
: a Bose condensate has the following appearance. 

Where did the overlapping waves come from?  It has to be overlapping
not only at an atomic scale but at a nuclear scale, as deuterons
are composite particles.  You just assumed the desired consequence.

:     Now one of the difficulties that becomes apparent is that the
: Coulomb potential for a D+ ion condensate should be quite high.  High
: enough that condensation may not occur (in a free state as opposed to
: the solid state mechanism used in the Chubbs work).  This was the
: argument Matt Kenell and Dale Bass where making against some of my
: earlier posts on D+ Bose condensation. However, knowing the problem is
: half the battle.  Again, it's worth noting R. Liboff's work. In this case
: we can counter act the electrostatic potential by applying a magnetic field
: to a circulating mono-energetic beam of D ions. This amounts to tuning
: the cyclotron frequency and maintaining the circulating beam's energy
: to a single energy state.  As the magnetic field tightens the D+ ion
: ribbon and focusing elements maintain the monoenergetic state, it's
: believed the ribbon will under go a transition to a condensed quantum 
: state (much like the figure above).  Obviously this is not a simple 
: experiment.    

What?

: 5. ESTIMATING THE FUSION RATE OF A D+ ION CONDENSATE  
:    
: Here is the argument Liboff makes about fusion in a Deuteron condensate.
: To start, we use the London criteria [Eq 3.9], that is given by,

: Tc = 2 pi h_bar^2 / K_b M (2.61 v)^ 2/3  ~= 8E-15 n^(2/3)             [5.1]

: At Tc, the free gas deBroglie wave is overlapped.  Here v is the 
: volume of the particle, n is the number density, and M is the 
: deuteron mass. At n~=10E23/cm^3, Tc ~= 16K. Assuming a product 
: form of the two-body wavefunction, (The so called joint wave function) 
: the overlap is given by

:             b/2  b/2
:       1    /   /
: I =  ---  |   |    dx_1 dx_2 psi_1(x_1) psi_2(x_2)                    [5.2]
:       b   /   /           
:         -b/2  -b/2 


Ahem.  If you assume a product form like this you have just assumed away the
problem.  I think mutual coulomb repulsion will result in a wave function
with non-independent p.d.f's that arrange themselves so as to not overlap.
It just doesn't look like this, but a more complicated PSI(x_1,x_2).

Sure you can compute a fusion rate assuming a wave function, but that's not
the whole story.  The question is "is this wave function going to be an
equilibrium state"??

I think *no*.  It may even look like a bose condensed state *at atomic
distances and energies* and yet rearrange itself to avoid close nuclear
interactions to avoid paying the electrostatic devil.

Here's a way out:  if you consider the mutual interaction potential to look
like:

H(r1,r2) =  +Z^2 e^2/ |r1-r2| - 23MeV*delta(r1-r2)
	     ^^^^		   ^^^^^^^^
       repulsive electrostatic      attractive nuclear potential

Then maybe if the density were high enough you could find a low-energy
*equilibrium* overlapping state.  I'm doubtful though.

And then how to hide the fusion products?  I'm really really doubtful.

sorry i still can't buy it.

cheers
Matt

: Have Fun,
: Chuck Sites
: chuck@iglou.iglou.com


--
-Matt Kennel  		mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu
-Institute for Nonlinear Science, University of California, San Diego
-*** AD: Archive for nonlinear dynamics papers & programs: FTP to
-***     lyapunov.ucsd.edu, username "anonymous".
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenmbk cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.02 / Greg Ewing /  Re: A Flash from the Economist
     
Originally-From: greg@huia.canterbury.ac.nz (Greg Ewing)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A Flash from the Economist
Date: 2 Jun 1994 00:15:11 GMT
Organization: University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand

In article <940531120317.2060451a@FNALD.FNAL.GOV>, DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
writes:
|> Hmmm!  Those of us in the accelerator biz know lots of ways 
|> to make gamma rays without having 60Co sources.  One can start tith
the X-Ray
|> machine in your dentist's office and work up to Fermilab.

An interesting idea... sounds rather too expensive to be practical,
but then I wouln't really know.

When you turn one of those things off, does it instantly stop
emitting anything, or do parts of the machine tend to become
radioactive? Seems to me that slamming a target hard enough
to produce gamma rays might rearrange the nuclei in various
undesirable ways.

I realise that such secondary effects, if present, may be much 
less of a hazard than a full-strength radioisotope source, but even
so, it might not quite as clean as turning off a light bulb.

|> So this is ***not*** a valid objection.

Maybe not in general, but it's valid if the particular irradiation
plant about to be built next door is going to use a 60Co source.

The main point I want to make is that not everyone who objects
to things like food irradiation plants is acting out of ignorant
fear. I just hope that the views of those people get a fair
hearing, and are not thrown out along with the bulk of mass
hysteria.

Greg Ewing, Computer Science Dept, +--------------------------------------+
University of Canterbury,	   | A citizen of NewZealandCorp, a	  |
Christchurch, New Zealand	   | wholly-owned subsidiary of Japan Inc.|
greg@cosc.canterbury.ac.nz	   +--------------------------------------+
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudengreg cudfnGreg cudlnEwing cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.02 / L Plutonium /  Re: The FAQ for superconductivity 21/05/1994
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The FAQ for superconductivity 21/05/1994
Date: 2 Jun 1994 01:40:36 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In article <2shavd$lgp@monterosa.zurich.ibm.com>
hpe@zurich.ibm.com (Morten Holm Pedersen) writes:
> OK: "Topological Quantum Effects for Neutral Particles" by
> Y.Aharonov,A.Casher, Phys.Rev.Lett.53,p.319-321(1984). 

  Thanks for the reference Morten. I looked it up and checked some
other sources and found out that Aharonov was a student of Bohm and
this is called the Aharonov-Bohm effect. Correct me if wrong. The basic
idea of this effect in QM is that the vector potential effects the
electron. There was a double-slit experiment where a solenoid was
placed on the other side before the screen. Magnetic field is totally
inside the solenoid, i.e. it does not get out so there is no magnetic
field where the electrons were going. But it turned out that the
interference pattern of the electrons WAS EFFECTED. Conclusion: not the
magnetic field but rather instead it is the vector potential.
  Morten, do you know if it was Debroglie who proposed that a photon
was 2 neutrinos? And who? and for what reason said that a photon can
not be 2 neutrinos?
  Thanks, LP
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.02 / John Logajan /  Verification of Thermacore calibration
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Verification of Thermacore calibration
Date: 2 Jun 1994 02:40:08 GMT
Organization: Sky Point Communications, Inc.

I finally finished setting up my attempt to verify the Thermacore calibration
methodology.  I started the first run early this morning and it has been
running for nearly 20 hours now.  I am waiting for the temperature of the
tank to stabilize before I dump the data to analyze it.  I am expecting the
equilibrium to occur on the order of 25 hours or so based upon the Thermacore
results, but will wait much longer if needed.

This run uses 8 gallons of room temperature water, with a 60 watt resistive
heater input.  Ambient temperature is monitored as well as the water
temperature using two LM34 temperature sensors.  I also constructed a current
shunt and a voltage divider to monitor the voltage and current input into the
resistive heater.

Internal temp, external temp, voltage, and current are sampled via a
PC card 12 bit A/D.  Each channel is sampled 47 times during a one second
period, round robin.  Thus for each channel, there is a burst of 47 samples
for one second, and then three seconds of idle.

Every minute (approximately) the average of 15 groups of 47 samples is
stored to disk for each channel, along with a timestamp.

Stirring of the water is done via a fish-tank air supply unit blowing through
the smallest pinhole I could produce in a piece of plastic.  A measured
displacement puts the air flow rate at approx 72 ml / minute.

Deviations from Thermacore:

1.) I am using a 42 quart plastic wastebasket instead of their 10 gallon
    Nalgene tank.

2.) My air-pump necessarily draws external air into the water, which may
    increase the thermal transfer rate -- a mechanism not found in the
    Thermacore unit.

3.) I replaced cathode/anode mass with an extra (thermal storage equivalent)
    mass of water.  They used 28 liters, and I used 30.3 liters.

4.) I don't know how tight the lid was on the Thermacore unit -- mine might
    be looser, allowing faster evaporation, and an increased heat loss.


I will post numbers and analysis as they stabilize.  If anyone wants, I
will post the raw data dump -- it is only one line per minute, so it is not
all that huge, I guess maybe 150k bytes.  Otherwise I was thinking of posting
a few ascii graphs.

--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com -- 612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills  MN 55112 USA           -

cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.02 / William Rowe /  Re: A Flash from the Economist
     
Originally-From: browe@netcom.com (William Rowe)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A Flash from the Economist
Date: Thu, 2 Jun 1994 04:10:50 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

greg@huia.canterbury.ac.nz (Greg Ewing) writes:

>In article <940531120317.2060451a@FNALD.FNAL.GOV>, DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
>writes:
>|> Hmmm!  Those of us in the accelerator biz know lots of ways 
>|> to make gamma rays without having 60Co sources.  One can start tith
>the X-Ray
>|> machine in your dentist's office and work up to Fermilab.

>An interesting idea... sounds rather too expensive to be practical,
>but then I wouln't really know.

>When you turn one of those things off, does it instantly stop
>emitting anything, or do parts of the machine tend to become
>radioactive? Seems to me that slamming a target hard enough
>to produce gamma rays might rearrange the nuclei in various
>undesirable ways.

I am not familiar with the machines used at Fermilab, but the x-ray
tubes used at your dentist do not rearrange the nuclei. X-ray and 
gamma ray emmision generatted using accelerators generally result from
charged particles ineracting with metals. Unless someone is using a
very energetic source, the energies involved are still below the
Coloumb barrier, i.e. not a nuclear interaction.

>The main point I want to make is that not everyone who objects
>to things like food irradiation plants is acting out of ignorant
>fear. I just hope that the views of those people get a fair
>hearing, and are not thrown out along with the bulk of mass
>hysteria.

I wouldn't want to suggest I think most persons who object are
reacting from "ignorant fear" or "mass hysteria", however it
does seem that a large number fail to do even a modest amount 
of research before asuuming those who have done extensive research
are wrong. In short, doing one's homework pays.

>Greg Ewing, Computer Science Dept, +--------------------------------------+
>University of Canterbury,	   | A citizen of NewZealandCorp, a	  |
>Christchurch, New Zealand	   | wholly-owned subsidiary of Japan Inc.|
>greg@cosc.canterbury.ac.nz	   +--------------------------------------+
-- 
_______________________________________________________________________________
William Rowe                                                   browe@netcom.com
MD5OfPublicKey: F29A99C805B41838D9240AEE28EBF383
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenbrowe cudfnWilliam cudlnRowe cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Thu Jun  2 04:37:05 EDT 1994
------------------------------
1994.06.02 / Jim Hanlon /  ANNOUNCE: New Science Education/Public Outreach Newsgroup
     
Originally-From: hanlon@fnalv.fnal.gov (Jim Hanlon)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: ANNOUNCE: New Science Education/Public Outreach Newsgroup
Date: Thu, 02 Jun 1994 10:50:44 -0500
Organization: Fermilab Technical Support Section


ANNOUNCE: New Science Education/Public Outreach Newsgroup

A new internet newsgroup, hepnet.outreach, has been established as a forum
for discussion of issues related to education and public outreach in high
energy physics.

The participation of scientists, educators, and the public is welcome. If
your site does not currently receive this newsgroup, ask your system
administrator to request a news feed from the HEPnet news administrator
at info@hep.net.

The hepnet.outreach newsgroup is sponsored by the Public Outreach and
Education Team (POET) of the American Physical Society (APS) Division of
Particles and Fields (DPF) Working Group on Structural Issues in the United
States High Energy Physics (HEP) Program. The POET coordinators may be
reached at poet@lbl.gov.
cudkeys:
cuddy02 cudenhanlon cudfnJim cudlnHanlon cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.02 / Jim Carr /  Re: COLD FUSION" is HOT FISSION
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: COLD FUSION" is HOT FISSION
Date: 2 Jun 1994 12:02:29 -0400
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

The original article expired here before I got to it, but there were 
a few errors and painfully approaches to calculation that need comment.

>LOVEJ (jamie.love@afrc.ac.uk) wrote:
> "COLD FUSION" IS DUE TO COULOMBIC REPULSION.
>
> DEUTERIUM------>HELIUM(unstable)------->COULOMB REPULSION
> [P(+)N(0)]        [P(+)P(+)]       P(+)<-----HEAT------->P(+)

Note that this first step goes by the *weak* interaction as sketched. 
It could be driven by a nuclear interaction, but not as described.  This 
means the rate will be (1) very slow to begin with and (2) dictated 
by the energetics as discussed in the article by jlogajan@skypoint.com 
(John Logajan) where binding energies were considered.  However, even 
if allowed to exist, it will be slow because it must proceed by beta
decay.  Thus, this process would be more accurately described as being 
beta-delayed fission, not fission. 

A side note: it is much easier to calculate coulomb energies if you use 
natural units, where e^2 = 1.44 MeV fm (derived from alpha, the fine 
structure constant), rather than MKS units.  Thus the potential energy 
at 1.5 fm is 0.96 MeV.  Second, the energy is relative to r = infinity, 
since atomic separations are huge: 10,000 fm, not 15 fm.  It should be 
noted, however, that deuterium is larger than the average nucleus with 
an rms radius greater than 2 fm because of its small binding energy.  
Thus the potential energy in the repulsion is less than this and close 
to the 0.8 MeV in the original calculation. 

When I calculate H-2 --> H-1 + H-1 (which is pn --> p + p + e, by the 
way, since you must account for the electron from the weak decay, which 
is also included in the atomic masses used in the calculation) with the 
mass excesses in my handy pocket guide, I get slightly different numbers 
(13.136 - 2*7.289 = -1.442 MeV).  John seems to have used a wrong value 
for the mass of H.  (My references say 1.007825.)  The alternative way 
to get this number is to compare the Q-value for (p,n), which is -0.782 
MeV, to the binding energy of the deuteron, which is 2.22 MeV.

In any case, the energy needed to change H-2 into a pair of protons is 
more than the energy you get from the coulomb repulsion.  This is the 
main reason ;-) that the deuteron is stable.  As John pointed out, you
need to look at the complete picture, not just the final state. 

-- 
 James A. Carr   <jac@scri.fsu.edu>     |   "It's never confusing though, 
      http://www.scri.fsu.edu           |  because ultimately it all fits 
 Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst.  |  -- it's just cockeyed and fits  
 Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306    |  and is fire."  -  Norman Maclean 
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.02 / Jim Carr /  Re: A Flash from the Economist
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A Flash from the Economist
Date: 2 Jun 1994 12:10:18 -0400
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

In article <2sj8af$dus@cantua.canterbury.ac.nz> 
greg@huia.canterbury.ac.nz (Greg Ewing) writes:
>
>When you turn one of those things off, does it instantly stop
>emitting anything, or do parts of the machine tend to become
>radioactive? Seems to me that slamming a target hard enough
>to produce gamma rays might rearrange the nuclei in various
>undesirable ways.

If you use a target for higher energy photons, especially with a 
hadron beam, activation of the air around it can be as big a 
radiation safety problem as the target.  However, the preferred 
way of doing this is by production of synchrotron radiation where 
the beam is wiggled rather then striking a target.  This is cleaner, 
but still very expensive.  

It is much more economical to make a really hot Co-60 source than to 
get the equivalent photon intensity from an accelerator, plus you 
are sure in the former case that there are no stray high energy 
particles around that might produce residual activity in the food. 

-- 
 James A. Carr   <jac@scri.fsu.edu>     |   "It's never confusing though, 
      http://www.scri.fsu.edu           |  because ultimately it all fits 
 Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst.  |  -- it's just cockeyed and fits  
 Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306    |  and is fire."  -  Norman Maclean 
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.02 / Jim Carr /  Re: CF on GMA
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CF on GMA
Date: 2 Jun 1994 12:18:20 -0400
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

What I found most interesting was to see, once again, the interpersonal 
dynamics between P+F.  Pons clearly defers to Fleischmann and always 
seems to me to be along for the ride.  Fleischman is the one who is 
all excited about the current status and future potential of CF. 
We only saw one clip where Pons really talked, and that was without 
Fleischmann in the picture -- and it was about the actual experiment 
rather than the glorious future.  Does P run the lab and F the p.r.? 

In addition to yet another prediction (from 20 W to 10,000 W in 4-5 
years), it was interesting to hear the claim that can sustain 20 W 
in a boiling cell by condensing and recycling the vapor.  This must 
make for extremely complicated calorimetry with so many large sources 
and sinks around to worry about. 

-- 
 James A. Carr   <jac@scri.fsu.edu>     |   "It's never confusing though, 
      http://www.scri.fsu.edu           |  because ultimately it all fits 
 Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst.  |  -- it's just cockeyed and fits  
 Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306    |  and is fire."  -  Norman Maclean 
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.02 /  toddp@FNALO.FN /  Re: The FAQ for superconductivity 21/05/1994
     
Originally-From: toddp@FNALO.FNAL.GOV
Newsgroups: sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The FAQ for superconductivity 21/05/1994
Date: 2 Jun 1994 16:39:53 GMT
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Lab

In article <2si7qe$jua@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>, Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmout
.edu (Ludwig Plutonium) writes:
>In article <2shavd$lgp@monterosa.zurich.ibm.com>
>hpe@zurich.ibm.com (Morten Holm Pedersen) writes:
>
>> OK: "Topological Quantum Effects for Neutral Particles" by
>> Y.Aharonov,A.Casher, Phys.Rev.Lett.53,p.319-321(1984). I have no idea
>> about the Dartmouth Library, but any decent library would have PRL I
>> believe, else I can send you a xerox.
>> As for preprints you can get those from cond-mat@babbage.sissa.it.
>> Send a mail with subject get bighelp.txt. cond-mat covers condensed
>> matter but the help-file will tell you how to get high-energy physics
>> also. 
>
>   Thank you kindly. I have not seen it yet. I am hoping that it proves
>neutrino flow. Then the world already has proof that photons are
>composite structure. 

Can you give me a reference for this?  What evidence has there ever been
that photons are composite?  I think you must have misinterpreted 
something you read.

>Which makes perfect sense. Whenever a physical phenomena drops
>off so sharply indicates to a logic person that the quantization has
>switched from one particle to another.

Agreed - your general statement is more or less accurate. The argument, 
though, is from what to what did the carrier of conduction switch.

Todd

______________________________________________________________________________
Todd K. Pedlar                ! "Science walks forward on two feet, namely 
Graduate Student              ! theory and experiment.  Sometimes it is one
Department of Physics         ! foot which is put forward first, sometimes     
Northwestern University       ! the other, but continuous progress is only 
 -----------------------------! made by the use of both..."
  todd@numep2.phys.nwu.edu    !				      R. Millikan
  toddp@fnalv.fnal.gov        !
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudentoddp cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.02 / John Logajan /  Verification of Thermacore calibration
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Verification of Thermacore calibration
Date: 2 Jun 1994 16:24:11 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Online Services Member.

Okay, here are the numbers from the first calibration verification run.

My reading of the graph of the Thermacore internal 12/92 paper, gives
them a 9 degree C rise over ambient for a 60 watt input, which is about
6.67 watts/degree or 0.15 degrees/watt.  My results are 5.56 and 0.18.
Considering the deviations in shape and material, this is in fairly close
agreement.

However, my post of last night brought a call from Ernest Criddle at the
University of Ottawa.  He has apparently conducted a series of similar
experiments and has some warnings.  The heat flow rate is effected greatly,
he says, by the surface the Nalgene tank is sitting on.  He variously used
styrofoam, steel, etc, and recorded large variations in the calorimetry
constant.  Furthermore, deformation in the bottom of the tank, induced
by running at warm temperatures, changes the contact area, thus changing
the calorimetry constant.  He mentioned several other issues, including
wetness of the base, evaporation rates, etc.

I should note, then, that my plastic conic wastebasket has an undulating
bottom surface, and sits atop 1/2 inch of (dry) particle board, atop 3/15"
of rubber backed nylon carpeting, atop a concrete over soil floor.

96 Degrees Fahrenheit                          xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
95                                    xxxxxxxxx
94 W                           xxxxxxx
93 a                       xxxx          Run #1 - 6/2/94 - J. Logajan
92 t                    xxx          Thermacore calibration verification.
91 e                 xxx                  8 gallons (30.3 Liters) H2O 
90 r               xx               Time constant = 6:16 (22,590 seconds)
89               xx
88 T           xx            Average ambient temp = 76.45 F
87 e          x                     Max deviation = +0.77 F, -0.93 F
86 m         x
85 p        x                         Input power = 60 watts
84 e       x               Thermal energy storage = 125,500 Joules/Deg C
83 r      x
82 a     x                     Final water temp   = 95.8 F
81 t    x                      Final ambient temp = 76.4 F
80 u   x                                            ------
79 r  x                                Delta temp = 19.4 F (10.78 C)
78 e   
77   x                       Calorimetry constant = 5.56 watts / Deg C
76  x                                             = 0.18 Deg C / watt
75  
74 x                  Time (30 minutes per division)     
   0.1.2.3.4.5.6.7.8.9.0.1.2.3.4.5.6.7.8.9.0.1.2.3.4.5.6.7.8.9.0


My immediate conclusion is that this validates the Thermacore calibration,
since similar final temperatures, thermal masses, and time constants agree
closely -- which tends to rule out the significance of many purported
error mechanisms -- including operator error.  I believe Dr. Criddle may
disagree with this assessment, however.

--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com -- 612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills  MN 55112 USA           -
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.02 / Tomas Willis /  Re: The FAQ for superconductivity 21/05/1994
     
Originally-From: tomas@cae.wisc.edu (Tomas Charles Willis)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The FAQ for superconductivity 21/05/1994
Date: 2 Jun 1994 05:47:41 GMT
Organization: O.M.93

In article <2sis1s$52t@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth
edu (Ludwig Plutonium) writes:
>In article <2shavd$lgp@monterosa.zurich.ibm.com>
>hpe@zurich.ibm.com (Morten Holm Pedersen) writes:
>
>> >   I want to make these ideas "ideas in general", not the specifics,
>> > public knowledge for patent reasons. 
>> How can you patent a theory?
>> 
>> > My postings give me priority in these matters. 
>> Are USENET posts of any legal use in applying for a patent? or for the
>> nobel comitee?
>
>  In a sense, I follow IBM's lead. They discovered ceramic
>superconductivity in 1986. Made it public knowledge. Hence, IBM can
>wait as long as they want on that invention to obtain the patent for
>it. It is a matter of when IBM wants to start the 17 year clock
>ticking. 

This is why AT&T has the YBCO patent and DUPont has the thallium compounds?
IBM can _have_ La-Ca-Cu-O.  Hah.  MAybe a patent lawyer should be retained 
by the P A Institute.  I am quite sure IBM was not happy about the patent
resolutions of high-Tc superconductors.

>  I, following IBM's way, will continue to 
lose market share?

>  I recently had a most prejudicial and biased rejection of my "Cold
>Fusion" patent "Spontaneous Neutron Materialization Devices". It is a
>waste of time and money to file for patent when the physics community
>is up in arms against you out of prejudice and hate. Look at the
>history of P & F.

Those damn patent agents.  Always asking questions.

--
Ciao!
                 Tomas Willis  (tomas@cae.wisc.edu)
+===========================================================================+
| @<standard disclaimer@>  |   @<standard emoticon@>  |   @<standard pith@> |
+===========================================================================+

cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudentomas cudfnTomas cudlnWillis cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.02 / John Armond /  Re: A Flash from the Economist
     
Originally-From: jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A Flash from the Economist
Date: Thu, 02 Jun 94 05:55:54 GMT
Organization: Dixie Communications Public Access.  The Mouth of the South.

nanook@eskimo.com (Robert Dinse) writes:


>     I'm one of those folks that doesn't feel comfortable with having my food
>exposed to gamma radiation.  My concern is that the random chemical reactions
>induced, while they might serve well for killing bacteria, they might also
>create toxic or even carcinogenic subtances that are not particularly healthy
>for humans either.


One has to marvel at the logic that will have someone shaking in fear
at the postulated unknown created by a few ergs of gamma rays impinging
on food which will subsequently be subjected to a violent, searingly 
destructive process that literally rips the molecules of food apart
while smothering it (in some cases) with smoke containing thousands
of known toxic combustion products.  This process, which produces 
detectable amounts of virulent carcinogens such as nitrosamines, is 
commonly referred to by the non-technophobes among us as "cooking".
And some of us are even daring enough to "Bar-B-Que".  With genuine
wood smoke, no less.

I'm sure that Robert didn't really mean to simultaneously demonstrate the
sad state of scientific education in this country and the success of the
marketing of fear but he did a damn fine job of it.

Ummm, this discussion has made me hungry.  Think I'll go smoke some pig...

John

-- 
John De Armond, WD4OQC, Marietta, GA    jgd@dixie.com 
Performance Engineering Magazine.  Email to me published at my sole discretion
You know your country is dying when you have to make a distinction between
what is moral and ethical and what is legal.
cudkeys:
cuddy02 cudenjgd cudfnJohn cudlnArmond cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.02 / Glenda Stocks /  Superconductivity (1)
     
Originally-From: glenda.stocks@pcohio.com (Glenda Stocks)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Superconductivity (1)
Date: Thu,  2 Jun 94 03:08:00 -0500
Organization: PC-OHIO PCBOARD - Cleveland, OH - 216-381-3320




                     SUPERCONDUCTIVITY AT ROOM TEMPERATURES?
                                 By Bill Ramsay*

        
             An independent scientific researcher recently made public 
        the details of a patented hybrid semiconductor that displays 
        unusual properties best described as superconductivity.  Without 
        supercooling.
             This gentle fellow, Bill Fogal, working alone and without 
        outside funding seems to have done what has eluded teams of 
        research scientists worldwide with substantial funding.
             A clue to superconductivity is that his devices pass very 
        large amounts of electrical currents without heating.  A result  
        thought not possible by experts with this technology.  The newest 
        generation computer super-chips get so hot unusual means are used 
        to prevent self destruction.  Another clue is that electrical 
        noise, thought to be inherent in all such devices, is virtually 
        non-existent.  Other clues are increased amplifications, improved 
        sensitivities and apparent absence of usual distortions in ampli-
        fied frequencies.
             Taken together these clues suggest high degrees of 'in-step' 
        coherent flows of energy (electrons) must be present.  Fogal sees 
        this as "electrons all spinning in the same forward direction and 
        staying in their own lanes on a conduction superhighway".  He 
        calls the technique "Charged Barrier Semiconductor Technology".
             Tests by other independent researchers of prototypes 
        painstakingly hand fabricated by Fogal continue to confirm the 
        validity of these devices.  At a recently concluded "Symposium on 
        New Energy" in Denver, Fogal was honored by his peers with an 
        award for his outstanding achievements.  Many attending this 
        Symposium sensed the importance of understanding the new 
        scientific principles involved in Fogal's discovery as they might 
        be applied in other areas as well.  Such as developing new tech-
        nologies to serve humanity's needs well into the future in ways 
        that do not inflict further damage to this fragile planet.
             The inventor has a clear sense of what needs doing next.  
        Continued and more rigorous testing of his first crude proto-
        types.  Along with access to good semiconductor labs where he can 
        continue to refine his designs until they're ready for 
        manufacturers.  He plans to license as many of these as he can 
        without exclusive rights to any of them.  He feels spreading this 
        around and encouraging healthy competition is the best course.  
        And one which might give the US the lead once again in semicon-
        ductors.
             This man of modest means knows he'll need some financial 
        help to accomplish his missions.  He's also stubbornly determined 
        not to accept the usual kinds that are offered with the usual 
        strings attached.  He's already turned down many 'business 
        plans', 'stock schemes' and the like.  Anyone who makes the time 
        to get to really know this man, as this writer has, will also 
        know an 'OK' or handshake from this honorable man of vision is 
        worth more than a signed contract with many others.
        --------------
        *Independent researcher and sometimes writer.  251 Asa Hall Road, 
        Iva, SC  29655.  803-296-3200.


===
 ~ RM 1.3 00257 ~ Please Don't Squeeze The Shaman
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenstocks cudfnGlenda cudlnStocks cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.03 / Frank Close /  Gyroscopes and Nature: Reply to V.Noninski
     
Originally-From: FEC@v2.rl.ac.uk (Frank Close)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Gyroscopes and Nature: Reply to V.Noninski
Date: Fri, 3 Jun 1994 00:15:20 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

V.Noninski writes about "over unity machines" (which I found interesting)
and then managed to attack Nature's integrity by reference to an
experiment on gyroscopes, whose claims violate well established symmetries.
Dr Noninski "came across it while working at the UCLA libraries".
In this, as in many cases, the written record alone does not always tell 
the full story. I, as many scientists, watched the development of this
bizarre claim, that was EVENTUALLY published:-
H. Hayasaka and S. Takeuchi, Phys.Rev.Lett., 63, 2701 (1989).
 
Dr Noninski writes:-
>I was quite amazed to see that while this paper was published on
>18 December 1989 one J.Faller had gone to France and had delivered a lecture
>on 18 January of 1990 to denounce the reality of the claimed effect. I found
>this revelation in the 22 February 1990 issue of Nature (343, 732 (1990)).
>Still further was my amasement when I found out that, apart from the OBVIOUSLY
>INSUFFICIENT TIME for such an experiment to be reproduced, 

(my emphasis; note also my emphasis of EVENTUALLY above)
The paper was submitted to PRL in March 1988 (yes, 1988), which
is clear from the heading of the paper in PRL. Knowledge of the experiment 
had been around for over a year and several people at my own lab had raised
questions about it in advance of its appearance in print. So it is
not correct to infer that there was "insufficient time" 

>I found out that Nature beat its
>own world record in hasty and unsupported denouncement of claimed effects
>(the previous record was established by Nature in connection with cold fusion).


Hasty? See comments above. 
The Nature paper was a refereed report of an experiment.
Unsupported? An independent group published another null in PRL in the
same month as the null paper published in NAture, and with factor 35 greater
sensitivity in some critical aspects of the analysis (they claim).


What any of this has to do with fusion beats me unless it is in
connection with Nature's role. Nature had an inside involvement with
FP in March 1989 which put them in a unique position to comment on
FP's claims. 

>I believe the
>opportunistic approach Nature takes in instance such as the above, ignoring
>centuries of efforts to establish the criteria for scientific truth, are of
>great disservice to critical thinking.
 
I invite people to read the actual papers, noting the dates and time
scales, plus the paper in PRL as well, and then decide if Dr Noninski's
jibe at Nature is justified. 

And when judging Nature's comments on cold fusion in 1989, do not
forget that they had received a m/s from FP independent of JEC
You and the rest of the world only saw a paper published in JEC which
purported to be the report of data as of March 23 1989.
However, Nature m/s showed that there were significant discrepancies between
the claims emanating from Utah, the report in JEC and the actual measured  
data. Dr Pons was asked for an explanation but, in the opinion of
the Nature team, no satisfactory explanation was forthcoming.Several
people in the UK were aware of these discrepancies, as early as MArch 28,
far in advance of the work of Petrasso et al at MIT that reinforced
these worries.

 Dr Noninski seems to be unaware of the nature of the source material
in Nature's hands at that time. Concequently it may be hard for him to
appreciate the amazement felt by those of us who knew of FP's actual 
data when we saw the JEC publication appear with quite different "evidence"
for fusion in it. If you want to learn more at source, there is a
partial documentation with the Cornell archive who have one of the 
Nature referee reports, though the complete set of original papers is
archived at the Nature office in London. It is thus wrong to describe the
Nature critique as "uninformed"; quite the contrary - at that time the
editorial team at Nature was probably better informed about the actual 
data and history in Pons' lab than 99+ percent of the community and, if
Dr Noninski is typical, of many even today. 

cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenFEC cudfnFrank cudlnClose cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.03 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Re: A Flash from the Economist
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A Flash from the Economist
Date: Fri, 3 Jun 1994 00:15:34 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Greg Ewing still does not seem to get my point.  He says in referring to
a gamma source "..., so it might not be as clean as turning off a light bulb."

A gamma source *is* a light bulb.  It is just shorter wavelength light.  I t
think that for wavelengts needed for sterilization that there will be little
"turn off" effect.  Note that your dentist just wheels the X-ray source back
against the wall.  A radiation detector would not show any residual radiation.

Of course, if you go to really high energy photons then they can pair produce
etc., and eventually you get to stuff that makes neutrons and you can have
residual radiation.  

To Dieter Britz who does not like this thread, I think it is related.  These
high intensity light sources are plasmas.  Understanding radiation is very 
important to both cold and hot fusion.  Many of the discussions here show
little understanding of radiation measurement.  So I think topics that 
improve understanding of radiation and its measurement are appropriate.

Tom Droege

cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenDROEGE cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.03 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Re: A Flash From the Economist
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A Flash From the Economist
Date: Fri, 3 Jun 1994 00:15:37 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To those that don't know, the Fermilab machine makes 900,000,000,000 ev
protons and bangs them head on into 900,000,000,000 ev anti-protons.
The result will make anything known to date, including the Top (we hope).

Obviously one would not use Fermilab to sterilize food, unless it was 
behind 10' of lead.  

Woops!  To the purists out there, Fermilab is not a good machine to make 
heavy elements.  But it will be some day.  The last gasp of all accelerators
to date before turning off has been as heavy ion generators.  So some day it
will also do that job.

Tom Droege

cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenDROEGE cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Fri Jun  3 04:37:03 EDT 1994
------------------------------
1994.06.02 / mitchell swartz /  COLD FUSION is HOT FISSION - equation check
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: COLD FUSION is HOT FISSION - equation check
Subject: Re: COLD FUSION" is HOT FISSION
Date: Thu, 2 Jun 1994 21:01:44 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <2skvql$daa@ds8.scri.fsu.edu>
Subject: Re: COLD FUSION" is HOT FISSION
Jim Carr (jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu) wrote:

   > "COLD FUSION" IS DUE TO COULOMBIC REPULSION.
   > DEUTERIUM------>HELIUM(unstable)------->COULOMB REPULSION
   > [P(+)N(0)]        [P(+)P(+)]       P(+)<-----HEAT------->P(+)
= that this first step goes by the *weak* interaction as sketched. 
= It could be driven by a nuclear interaction, but not as described.  This 
= means the rate will be (1) very slow to begin with and (2) dictated 
= by the energetics as discussed in the article by jlogajan@skypoint.com 
= (John Logajan) where binding energies were considered.  However, even 
= if allowed to exist, it will be slow because it must proceed by beta
= decay.  Thus, this process would be more accurately described as being 
= beta-delayed fission, not fission. 

   OK

= A side note: it is much easier to calculate coulomb energies if you use 
= natural units, where e^2 = 1.44 MeV fm (derived from alpha, the fine 
= structure constant), rather than MKS units.  Thus the potential energy 
= at 1.5 fm is 0.96 MeV.  Second, the energy is relative to r = infinity, 
= since atomic separations are huge: 10,000 fm, not 15 fm.  It should be 
= noted, however, that deuterium is larger than the average nucleus with 
= an rms radius greater than 2 fm because of its small binding energy.  
= Thus the potential energy in the repulsion is less than this and close 
= to the 0.8 MeV in the original calculation. 

    OK

= When I calculate H-2 --> H-1 + H-1 (which is pn --> p + p + e, by the 
= way, since you must account for the electron from the weak decay, which 
= is also included in the atomic masses used in the calculation) with the 
= mass excesses in my handy pocket guide, I get slightly different numbers 
= (13.136 - 2*7.289 = -1.442 MeV).  John seems to have used a wrong value 
= for the mass of H.  (My references say 1.007825.)  The alternative way 
= to get this number is to compare the Q-value for (p,n), which is -0.782 
= MeV, to the binding energy of the deuteron, which is 2.22 MeV.


    Could someone clarify this equation, please?

  Now, photodecompostion of the deuterium through interaction with the
neutron is known.   This generates a negative pi meson.
                                          
      h nu    +    1H2+   ---->   1H1+    +   negative pion   +   1H1+

     The  negative pion [a pi-meson(-)] is capable of forming tight orbits
and perhaps many other reactions.  

   One of the protons is a spectator proton, but the other may be emitted 
with significant velocity.   


   Now, to the question with Jim's equation.  Is something missing?


       If  pn --> p + p + e    then this is equivalent to

      1H2+   ---->     1H1+    +     e -     +   1H1+  

    which would imply that 

      h nu   +     e -    =    negative pion  

   However a  negative pion will  decay into neutrino and a negative mu
meson (which does then decay to an electron and a neutrino-
antineutroino pair).   Thus:

    negative pion     ---->    e-  +    2  neutrino    + antineutrino

  Hence if your equation is correct then

      h nu      +   e-   =     negative pion 

 or
      h nu      +   e-    =     e-  +    2  neutrino    + antineutrino

  This would make 

      h nu   --------->  2  neutrino    + 1  antineutrino 

   How could that be correct, or is a neutrino missing from
Jim's equation?    Jim?  Chuck?  ?  

   Also, what is the minimum energy required to generate
the negative pion?

       Thanks in advance, neutrinophiles.    ;-)

   Best wishes.

         Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com)

cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.02 / L Plutonium /  Re: The FAQ for superconductivity 21/05/1994
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The FAQ for superconductivity 21/05/1994
Date: 2 Jun 1994 21:18:02 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In article <2sl20p$71i@fnnews.fnal.gov>
toddp@FNALO.FNAL.GOV writes:

> 
> Agreed - your general statement is more or less accurate. The argument, 
> though, is from what to what did the carrier of conduction switch.

  Switched from photons to neutrinos. Cooper pairs are neutrinos. Each
individual photon in superconductivity switches to 2 neutrinos. I
believe DeBroglie a long time ago thought that a photon was 2
neutrinos. Then, I think it was Carl Anderson who argued that it was
impossible. Now, I am reclaiming DeBroglie was correct. Any net viewers
out there more privy to the physics history, please help expound on the
above. Thanks
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.02 / L Plutonium /  Re: The FAQ for superconductivity 21/05/1994
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The FAQ for superconductivity 21/05/1994
Date: 2 Jun 1994 21:22:42 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In article <2sjrpt$59p@news.doit.wisc.edu>
tomas@cae.wisc.edu (Tomas Charles Willis) writes:

> This is why AT&T has the YBCO patent and DUPont has the thallium compounds?
> IBM can _have_ La-Ca-Cu-O. 

   Morten, can you please supply me with the following data.
   What is the distance between the PLANES of the above three
superconductors? Please as accurate as possible.
   What chemical compounds are the highest in PLANE-arity?
   Are the superconductive buckyballs planar?
   Is Niobium Tin superconductors planar?
    Thanks kindly, LP
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.02 / Jim Carr /  Re: COLD FUSION is HOT FISSION - equation check
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: COLD FUSION is HOT FISSION - equation check
Date: 2 Jun 1994 17:31:25 -0400
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

In article <CqsFqx.2xJ@world.std.com> 
mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
>
>   Now, to the question with Jim's equation.  Is something missing?
>
>       If  pn --> p + p + e    then this is equivalent to

There is, of course, a (anti)neutrino missing.  

I only bothered to write down the particles with mass, since that was 
all I was commenting on (use of atomic masses). 

Guess I'm starting to get like my old advisor, who left it to the 
informed observer (students or collaborators) to put i, pi, and hbar 
back into the equations before actually using them for something. 

-- 
 James A. Carr   <jac@scri.fsu.edu>     |   "It's never confusing though, 
      http://www.scri.fsu.edu           |  because ultimately it all fits 
 Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst.  |  -- it's just cockeyed and fits  
 Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306    |  and is fire."  -  Norman Maclean 
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.02 / L Plutonium /  Re: The FAQ for superconductivity 21/05/1994
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The FAQ for superconductivity 21/05/1994
Date: 2 Jun 1994 21:44:17 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In article <2slij2$5ki@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium) writes:

> 
>    Morten, can you please supply me with the following data.
>    What is the distance between the PLANES of the above three
> superconductors? Please as accurate as possible.
>    What chemical compounds are the highest in PLANE-arity?
>    Are the superconductive buckyballs planar?
>    Is Niobium Tin superconductors planar?
>     Thanks kindly, LP

   Morten, are cuprate compounds the compounds which make for the best
planar crystals?
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.02 / L Plutonium /  Re: fine-structure variable; does it have bounds?
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics,sci.chem,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: fine-structure variable; does it have bounds?
Date: 2 Jun 1994 23:11:24 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In article <MATT.94May31172809@physics2.berkeley.edu>
matt@physics2.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern) writes:

> I suspect that the difference between the on-shell alpha and the
> MS-bar alpha evaluated at mu=m_e is larger than the difference between
> MS-bar alpha at mu=0 and at mu=m_e.

   Matt, can you please give me the physical parameters, accurately, in
order to make alpha exactly 137, and then for exactly ((22/7)^7)/22?
Thanks. 
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.02 / Robert Dinse /  Re: A Flash from the Economist
     
Originally-From: nanook@eskimo.com (Robert Dinse)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A Flash from the Economist
Date: 2 Jun 94 09:29:22 GMT
Organization: Eskimo North (206) For-Ever

In article <kemidb.770394756@aau>, kemidb@aau.dk (Dieter Britz) writes:
> In <31MAY94.08250797@cc4.crl.aecl.ca> camerond@cc4.crl.aecl.ca writes:
> 
> >In a previous article, nanook@eskimo.com (Robert Dinse) wrote:
> >>In article <2s7qip$2mi@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, al789@cleveland.Freenet
Edu (John Logajan) writes:
> >>> 
> >>> DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:
> >>> >So because we have done a lousy job of educating the public about what 
> >>> >radiation is all about we are about to use an inferior method to preserve
> >>> >food when a superior one is available.  
> >>> 
> >>> It is due to far more than a lack of education/information  -- there is
> >>> an active campaign of alternative information (I'd call it misinformation,
> >>> but be that as it may) that is led by plenty of highly educated people.
> >> 
> >>     I'm one of those folks that doesn't feel comfortable with having my food
> >>exposed to gamma radiation.  My concern is that the random chemical reactions
> >>induced, while they might serve well for killing bacteria, they might also
> >>create toxic or even carcinogenic subtances that are not particularly healthy
> >>for humans either.
> >> 
> 
> 
> >The same can be said of cooking.

     Well, cooking is known to introduce some nasties, but we also know that
some forms of cooking are much worse than others.

     We also have some idea of the relative risks since people have been
cooking food for a long time, but exposing it to gamma radiation is relatively
new.

     I would think the higher energy photons have the potential for more
diverse chemical reactions because they can drive reactions for which lower
energy photons are inadequate.
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudennanook cudfnRobert cudlnDinse cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.02 / Robert Dinse /  Re: A Flash from the Economist
     
Originally-From: nanook@eskimo.com (Robert Dinse)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A Flash from the Economist
Date: 2 Jun 94 09:45:35 GMT
Organization: Eskimo North (206) For-Ever

In article <940531120317.2060451a@FNALD.FNAL.GOV>, DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:
> Greg Ewing says that he does not like gamma ray sources because you can't
> turn them off.  Hmmm!  Those of us in the accelerator biz know lots of ways 
> to make gamma rays without having 60Co sources.  One can start tith the X-Ray
> machine in your dentist's office and work up to Fermilab.  Possibly the 60Co
> sources are the most economical for food, but I don't know for sure.  So 
> this is ***not*** a valid objection.
> 
> Robert Dinse has a different complaint.  He says that we should never try 
> something new because it might do something bad.  By this measure, I suggest
> that he quit taking asprin, wearing anything but natural fabrics, certainly
> don't drink chlorinated (or ozone purified water - that might be bad too)
> water, and never, never take antibiotics.  Not that we should not do the best 
> job we can to evaluate the risk.  But it is just such risk taking that has 
> got us to the position where we have a choice.  In the good old days you 
> just scraped the maggots off the meat and ate it anyway.

     Please don't put words in my mouth.  This is not what I'm saying at all.
I am saying that the RISK in something new is less known, and therefore I would
rather allow someone else to be the guinea pig, someone that volunteers!

     Asprin's been around a lot longer than gamma radiation sterilization of
food, and yet, only recently has Rye's syndrome become known.  Now, they don't
recommend giving asprin to children when it used to be standard treatment for
any fever.

     I wouldn't suggest that we never ever take antibiotics but certainly they
are over-used and mis-used.  Now there are quite a few strains of antibiotic
resistant bacteria about as a result.

     There are certainly safer ways to sterilize water than dumping chlorine in
it and I'd hazard a guess there are probably safer ways to sterilize food than
zapping it with gamma radiation, but in both cases probably not cheaper ways.
How much is our health and lives worth?
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudennanook cudfnRobert cudlnDinse cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.03 / Greg Kuperberg /  Re: A Flash From the Economist
     
Originally-From: gk00@quads.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A Flash From the Economist
Date: Fri, 3 Jun 1994 03:58:38 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

In article <940602115301.20a01035@FNALD.FNAL.GOV> DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:
>To those that don't know, the Fermilab machine makes 900,000,000,000 ev
>protons and bangs them head on into 900,000,000,000 ev anti-protons.

1.8 TeV is one harsh black light!  I bet it's a smash at night parties.

>The result will make anything known to date, including the Top (we hope).

Will it make a ham on rye with a pickle on Top?

>Obviously one would not use Fermilab to sterilize food, unless it was 
>behind 10' of lead.

Can it sterilize people?

:-), BTW.
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudengk00 cudfnGreg cudlnKuperberg cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.03 / Steve Fairfax /  Alcator Progress 6/2/94
     
Originally-From: Fairfax@CMOD.PFC.MIT.EDU (Steve Fairfax)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Alcator Progress 6/2/94
Date: Fri, 3 Jun 1994 15:24:23 GMT
Organization: Alcator Project, MIT Plasma Fusion Center

			Alcator C-MOD Weekly Highlights
				June 2, 1994

The Phase II Operating Campaign is continuing. The main emphasis this week 
has been on bringing up the ICRF power. These discharges have also provided
interesting data in a relatively unexplored configuration. 

The D-port dipole ICRF antenna is being conditioned. Up to 1.8MW has now been
coupled to the plasma through the one antenna. The target discharges for the
conditioning are inner wall limited, deuterium majority plasmas with
elongations around 1.5, and plasma currents of 800kA; the toroidal field is
set to the hydrogen minority resonance at 5.3Tesla. Substantial electron and
ion heating have been observed during the ICRF conditioning activities. Very
preliminary analysis indicates that the energy confinement is not inconsistent
with L-mode scaling and good heating efficiency. 

These shots were also used by many of the spectroscopic diagnostics to do
spatial scans of a number of Molybdenum charge states.   A scan of Mo influx
vs RF power for the new dipole antenna was accomplished. Although the Mo
influx increases with RF power, the Moly Monitor shows a significantly smaller
increase in influx when compared with single strap antenna used in 1993.

Impurity transport experiments were also carried out using the laser blow-off
technique, both in ohmic and RF discharges. Scans of plasma current and
impurity species were accomplished. 
 
ICRF-induced H-modes have been observed during these discharges, at ICRF powers
as low as 0.8MW. These limiter H-modes at 5.3Tesla are ELMy, and exhibit
significant density increases and improvement in particle confinement, but
only small increases in energy confinement. They are typically transient, as
the change in RF loading trips out the ICRF and the plasma subsequently
transitions back to L-mode. The equilibria are inside limited, but have an
x-point not far from the plasma boundary; Outer gaps are in the range of 1 to
3 cm. 

The charged fusion product detector observed its first confirmed signals,
detecting a clear peak corresponding to the 3MeV proton product of the DD
reactions during ICRF conditioning. 

The Data Acquisition Group reports that C-MOD has passed the 50 Gbyte plateau
in compressed, archived data. Data is currently being acquired at a rate of
40Mbytes/shot (uncompressed). All data continues to be available on-line from
our optical jukebox storage. The capacity of this system is projected to be
adequate through the end of the current operating campaign.

Miklos Porkolab is participating in a TPX Workshop at Livermore this week.
Bruce Lipschultz,  Brian Labombard, and Garry McCracken have returned from the
PSI conference in Japan, where they presented a total of six papers on C-MOD
results. 

Shigeru Sudo is visiting from the NIFS in Nagoya for most of the month
of June.  He will be participating in studies of hydrogen and lithium
pellet injection.  He will also present recent work on pellet injection
from the NIFS and describe plans for the LHD.

cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenFairfax cudfnSteve cudlnFairfax cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.03 / Stanley Chow /  Re: A Flash from the Economist
     
Originally-From: schow@bnr.ca (Stanley T.H. Chow)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A Flash from the Economist
Date: 3 Jun 1994 15:53:04 GMT
Organization: Bell Northern Research Ltd, Ottawa

In article <CqrJp2.CnH@eskimo.com>, Robert Dinse <nanook@eskimo.com> wrote:
>     Well, cooking is known to introduce some nasties, but we also know that
>some forms of cooking are much worse than others.

So you do agree that "risk" must be measured and compared to decided on
a course of action.


>
>     We also have some idea of the relative risks since people have been
>cooking food for a long time, but exposing it to gamma radiation is relatively
>new.

To paraphrase Sir Humphery Appleby in Yes, Minister:

 A great many risks must be accepted, but no risk is acceptable when new.

>
>     I would think the higher energy photons have the potential for more
>diverse chemical reactions because they can drive reactions for which lower
>energy photons are inadequate.

Even assuming this were the major factor (which it clearly is not), so
what? How do you know if these "diverse chemical reactions" are better
or worse than the one in cooking?

-- 
Stanley Chow  InterNet: schow@BNR.CA  (613) 763-2831
Bell Northern Research Ltd., PO Box 3511 Station C, Ottawa, Ontario
Me? Represent other people? Don't make them laugh so hard.
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenschow cudfnStanley cudlnChow cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.03 / Tom Radcliffe /  Re: A Flash from the Economist
     
Originally-From: tom@mips2.phy.queensu.ca (Tom Radcliffe)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A Flash from the Economist
Date: 3 Jun 1994 18:04:07 GMT
Organization: Queen's University, Kingston

In article <2sj8af$dus@cantua.canterbury.ac.nz>, greg@huia.canterbury.ac
nz (Greg Ewing) writes:
|> In article <940531120317.2060451a@FNALD.FNAL.GOV>, DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
|> writes:
|> |> Hmmm!  Those of us in the accelerator biz know lots of ways 
|> |> to make gamma rays without having 60Co sources.  One can start tith
|> the X-Ray
|> |> machine in your dentist's office and work up to Fermilab.
|> 
|> An interesting idea... sounds rather too expensive to be practical,
|> but then I wouln't really know.
|> 

Medical linacs used for cancer therapy produce doses that would be more
than adequate to sterilize food.  Cost is about $1 million U.S. but
that is for a machine that is for use on humans.  60Co machines are
somewhat cheaper.

|> When you turn one of those things off, does it instantly stop
|> emitting anything, or do parts of the machine tend to become
|> radioactive? Seems to me that slamming a target hard enough
|> to produce gamma rays might rearrange the nuclei in various
|> undesirable ways.
|> 

So long as your peak photon energy is below about 8 MeV (the
gamma-n threshold) you won't have any residual radiation.  From a 
low-energy medical linac (producing a bremsstrahlung beam from 6 MeV
electrons, with a mean photon energy of 2 - 3 MeV) no neutrons are 
produced, and so there is no residual radiation.

|> I realise that such secondary effects, if present, may be much 
|> less of a hazard than a full-strength radioisotope source, but even
|> so, it might not quite as clean as turning off a light bulb.
|> 

A low-energy medical linac turns off as cleanly as a light bulb.

|> |> So this is ***not*** a valid objection.
|> 
|> Maybe not in general, but it's valid if the particular irradiation
|> plant about to be built next door is going to use a 60Co source.
|> 

Do you live anywhere near a cancer clinic?  There's about 8000 Ci of 60Co
not two blocks from where I sit, and neither I nor anyone else
in the vicinity gives it a thought.  The buses around here are
much more likely to endanger my life than even rather large sources
of radiation.

|> The main point I want to make is that not everyone who objects
|> to things like food irradiation plants is acting out of ignorant
|> fear. I just hope that the views of those people get a fair
|> hearing, and are not thrown out along with the bulk of mass
|> hysteria.

1) Decades of experience with kCi 60Co sources demonstrate that they
can be and are handled safely.

2) A 6 MeV linac produces a photon beam that turns off as cleanly
as a light-bulb, making it even safer than 60Co.

Both these facts are well-known.  Anyone who objects to food irradiation
based on the purported dangers of the radiation source is of necessity
acting out of ignorance of these facts.  
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudentom cudfnTom cudlnRadcliffe cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.03 / John Logajan /  Re: A Flash from the Economist
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A Flash from the Economist
Date: 3 Jun 1994 16:13:56 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Online Services Member.

Robert Dinse (nanook@eskimo.com) wrote:
:      We also have some idea of the relative risks since people have been
: cooking food for a long time, but exposing it to gamma radiation is relatively
: new.

Your argument reveals exactly the opposite of what you intended (ironically.)

It is exactly the point that if people had to wait until cooking was perfectly
safe before massively employing the technique, humanity as we know it would
never have come into existence -- and mankind might well be extinct.

Failing to act in the face of imperfect information (which confronts us
in nearly every facet of our existence) is as likely counter-productive
as acting at random.

We know that tens of thousands of people die each year, world wide, from
food born bacterial contamination.  We know of not a single case of someone
even getting a tummy ache from any radioactivity induced substances in
radioactivity treated foodstuffs.

The scientific evidence is overwhelming that radioactive treatment of
foodstuffs will save far more lives and cases of illness than it will cause.

In looking at such questions, it is imperative that you not only consider
the cost of doing something -- you must also consider the cost of not
doing something -- the cost of the alternatives, the shortcomings of the
replacements.

As a hypothetical, irradiated food might cause some strange illnesses.  The
question we must ask (and which has already been answered) is whether it
causes more illnesses than it prevents.  The evidence is quite one sided
on this, and further delay in implementing the technology is equivalent
to an intentional death sentence for many thousands of people a year.

It is the mindset of the environmentalist to focus too narrowly on one
aspect of an issue and to never consider the unintended consequences
of a particular policy.  This has had, and will continue to have, 
unintended yet disasterous results for hundreds of thousands of human
beings who are essentially being "protected" to death.

--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com -- 612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills  MN 55112 USA           -

cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.03 / Ad aspera /  WHAT'S NEW, 3 June and 27 May
     
Originally-From: JTCHEW@lbl.gov (Ad absurdum per aspera)
Newsgroups: sci.research,sci.physics.accelerators,sci.physics.fusion,sci.space.policy
Subject: WHAT'S NEW, 3 June and 27 May
Date: 3 Jun 1994 20:19:41 GMT
Organization: Relayed, not written, by Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory


[Written by individuals at the American Physical Society and
merely posted by me, so respond to <whatsnew@aps.org> or other
references below.  Always posted here on sci.research; sometimes
crossposted to an eclectic selection of other newsgroups, with
followups directed here. Back issues are archived on NIC.HEP.NET,
along with the American Institute of Physics columns FYI and
PHYSICS NEWS UPDATE.  WHAT'S NEW is also World Wide Web compliant; 
it's on http://aps.org/.  If you have questions, send e-mail to
webmistress@aps.org.   Enjoy! -jc]

WHAT'S NEW by Robert L. Park   Friday, 3 June 94   Washington, DC

1. HOUSE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE SPARES DOE RESEARCH FROM CUTS!
The Energy and Water Appropriations Bill would cut Department of
Energy spending $1.1B below this year's level and $357M less than
the Clinton Administration requested.  But research did not do so
badly. The bulk of the cut resulted from cancellation of the SSC,
for which $640M was appropriated this year; DOE wanted another
$180M in FY-95, but the appropriators preferred to hold off until
DOE and Texas can reach an agreement on what to do with the site.
The SSC aside, the committee actually augmented DOE's request for
high-energy physics; noting that running time of accelerators had
declined 25%, the appropriators put an extra $25M into operating
expenses!  CEBAF would also get an extra $8.9M, and LAMPF would
be able to keep operating with an additional $24M.  Construction
of the B-factory at SLAC ($44M), the injector upgrade at Fermilab
($43M), and RHIC at Brookhaven ($70M) would all be fully funded.
But in a reminder of the great SSC potted-plant scandal (WN 2 Jul
93), any expenditure for "food, beverages, receptions, parties,
country club fees, plants or flowers" is specifically prohibited.

2. ENERGY R&D ALSO FARED WELL IN THE COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATION.
Solar and renewable energy programs would get their full request
($300M), as would magnetic fusion ($372M), even though DOE was
scolded for dragging its heels on providing a plan for selecting
the US candidate site for ITER.  Although only termination funds
are provided for the advanced liquid metal reactor, $12M was
added to DOE's request to keep research going on the passively-
safe gas cooled reactor. The bill even funds the Administration's
$16M request for EMF research and finds several million more for
pet earmarks. But the only new construction, the Advanced Neutron
Source, was cut from $27M to just $10M.  "For many that stumble
at the threshold are well foretold that danger lurks within."

3. SENATE APPROPRIATORS DECIDE TO SKIMP ON HUD-VA-IA ALLOCATION!
Senator Barbara Mikulski, who chairs the Subcommittee, says she
is getting strong support from the White House in her efforts to
save the space station, but neither she nor the President seems
to have much clout with the Appropriations Committee leadership.
Just one day after telling Space News that her Subcommittee needs
$100M more than its House counterpart got (WN 13 May 94), she was
told the allocation would be $316M less; more than $700M below
the President's request! Something has to give (WN 20 May 94), if
it's not the space station, NSF and space science are in trouble.

4. ONE YEAR LATER: THE "CLASSIFIED UNIVERSE" CONTINUES TO EXPAND!
A year ago President Clinton directed a task farce to prepare a
plan to cut down on the number of classified documents (WN 23 Jul
94).  Their draft report called for automatic declassification--
after 40 years (WN 21 Jan 94).  What's happened since?  The rate
of classification went up 1%, declassification declined 30%.

THE AMERICAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY  (Note: Opinions are the author's
and are not necessarily shared by the APS, but they should be.)



WHAT'S NEW by Robert L. Park   Friday, 27 May 94   Washington, DC

1. A "VISION FOR THE FUTURE OF HIGH-ENERGY PHYSICS" IS REVEALED.
HEPAP's "Future-Vision" subpanel, chaired by Sid Drell, delivered
its report on schedule (WN 28 Jan 94).  It calls for "constant-
level-of-effort funding plus a $50M/year bump for three years" to
support domestic programs, accelerator R&D for the next century,
and "significant participation in the LHC."  Even without a bump,
the subpanel wants the US to join the LHC and make the necessary
sacrifices at home. The report argues against converting the site
of the deceased SSC into a superconducting magnet laboratory for
high-energy physics because of its isolation from accelerators.

2. PORK-BARREL DEFENSE: BROWN GETS INFORMATION WITHOUT SUBPOENA.
Last month, George Brown, House SS&T Committee chair and nemesis
of earmarkers, threatened to subpoena documents relating to pork
in DOD programs. A week ago, Speaker Foley intervened and Brown
got his documents.  Among the tidbits: $72M was requested for
Materials and Electronics Technologies; the appropriators added
$193M--and earmarked every cent.  No money was requested for In-
tegrated Command and Control Technology; appropriators provided
$160M anyway--and earmarked $186M, violating conservation of $.

3. TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER: ACADEMIC RESEARCH YIELDS ANTI-EMF DEVICE!
The EMX Corporation, formed in 1991 to commercialize technology
developed at Catholic University in Washington, DC, is marketing
an IBM compatible keyboard that "neutralizes the effect of EMF
emissions from your computer."  The keyboard works by generating
EMF noise, which is said to block the harmful effects of coherent
fields that emanate from computers.  This remarkable technology
was discovered by physicist Ted Litovitz at Catholic University's
Vitreous State Laboratory.  The VSL was one of the first academic
pork projects; it's an ultramodern, 90,000-square foot R&D center
built with a $14M DOE earmark, though few vitreous state research
publications seem to come from the VS Lab.  Litovitz was studying
the effect of EMF on chicken embryos and mouse cells, which are
not thought to be vitreous.  But WHAT'S NEW is confident that you
will suffer no ill effects from EMF if this keyboard is used with
your computer.  Or you could just hang garlic around your neck.

4. COMPETITION IS KEEN IN THE RACE TO NEUTRALIZE EFFECTS OF EMF!
The EMX device is not without competitors; Clarus Environmental
Systems is offering a simple plug-in device that is also intended
to "neutralize the negative effects of EMF emitted by computers."
Oops! The Clarus researchers find that the biologically stressful
effects of EMF are directly related to "disordered, random and
chaotic energy in EMF fields."  They fix the problem by cleaning
up the noise, thus making the EMF more coherent. Clarus relies on
advice from William Tiller, former chair of Stanford's Materials
Department. Despite seemingly opposite approaches, WN assures its
readers that the Clarus and EMX devices are equally effective.

THE AMERICAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY  (Note: Opinions are the author's
and are not necessarily shared by the APS, but they should be.)
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenJTCHEW cudfnAd cudlnaspera cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.03 / Ad aspera /  FYIs 74-77 (DOE budgets on House floor)
     
Originally-From: JTCHEW@lbl.gov (Ad absurdum per aspera)
Newsgroups: sci.research,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.accelerators,sci
physics.particle,sci.materials
Subject: FYIs 74-77 (DOE budgets on House floor)
Date: 3 Jun 1994 20:24:23 GMT
Organization: Relayed, not written, by Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory


[Written by individuals at the American Institute of Physics and
merely posted by me, so respond to <fyi@aip.org> or other
references below.  Always posted here on sci.research; sometimes
crossposted to an eclectic selection of other newsgroups, with
followups directed here. Back issues may be ftp'd from NIC.HEP.NET,
along with PHYSICS NEWS UPDATE and the American Physical Society
news/opinion column WHAT'S NEW; or from pinet.aip.org. Enjoy! -jc]

DOE FY1995 Budget Bill Goes To House Floor -
Fusion Energy

FYI No. 77, June 2, 1994

The House bill making fiscal year 1995 appropriations for the
Department of Energy, H.R. 4506, passed the House Appropriations
Committee on May 26.  It now goes to the House floor, where a vote
is expected the week of June 12.  Accompanying the bill is a
146-page report outlining the Appropriations Committee's
recommendations for spending.  FYIs #74 through #77 provide
selections from the report of interest to the physics community.

FUSION ENERGY

Current appropriation:             $347,595,000
Administration request:             372,563,000
House committee bill:               376,563,000

"The Committee is pleased with the outstanding results of the
deuterium-tritium (D-T) experiments being conducted on the Tokamak
Fusion Test Reactor (TFTR)....  TFTR produced more than six million
watts of fusion power in December 1993, and it is expected to
produce 10 million watts of fusion power later this year.  [On May
31, TFTR announced production of 9 million watts of power.]  The
Committee notes with approval that TFTR, the centerpiece of the
U.S. fusion program, is achieving all of its design and scientific
objectives."

"...The international collaboration in fusion energy, the
International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) is a high
priority in the U.S. fusion program....  However, the Committee is
very concerned that the Department has failed to report to the
Congress on how it intends to move forward with the complex and
detailed negotiations on ITER construction-related issues..."

"The Committee provides $66,700,000 to begin construction
activities on the Tokamak Physics Experiment (TPX), the national
facility at the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory....  This
advanced, superconducting tokamak will demonstrate continuous
operation at high power densities and improve the performance and
attractiveness of the tokamak reactor concept...."

"The Committee also recognizes the potential for advanced low
activation materials to improve the environmental qualities and
safety of future fusion reactors.  The Committee instructs the
Department to begin an aggressive low activation fusion materials
program with the goal of developing and characterizing low
activation materials that could be tested on ITER and utilized in
a future demonstration power reactor."

"...Advances in plasma confinement, plasma equilibrium and
stability, the behavior of alpha particles, power handling and
plasma heating operations, continue to be developed by several
intermediate-scale facilities, including DIII-D and its upgrade at
General Atomics, Alcator C-Mod at MIT, PBX-M at PPPL, and TEXT at
the University of Texas.  The design and construction of TPX and
ITER benefit significantly from the results of these existing
experiments and the research and development that accompany them.
With the continued strong participation of university research, the
fusion program will be strengthened."

INERTIAL FUSION ENERGY

The bill provides $10,000,000 for Inertial Fusion Energy, (included
in the total for Fusion Energy) with the following explanation:

"The Committee is familiar with the substantial progress in the
Inertial Fusion Energy program.  This small program has drawn
outstanding reviews as a promising energy source for the 21st
century.  The budget request for this program [of $6,000,000],
while slightly above the fiscal year 1994 level, is still below its
fiscal year 1992 level of $9,000,000.  In order to proceed on a
timely and cost-effective schedule with its next major experiment,
the Induction Linac Systems Experiment (ILSE), the Committee
provides an additional $4,000,000 ... to support an accelerated
level of effort on ILSE."


###############
Public Information Division
American Institute of Physics
Contact:  Audrey T. Leath
(301)209-3094
##END##########




DOE FY1995 Budget Bill Goes To House Floor - High Energy Physics,
SSC

FYI No. 74, June 2, 1994

The House bill making fiscal year 1995 appropriations for the
Department of Energy, H.R. 4506, passed the House Appropriations
Committee on May 26.  It now goes to the House floor, where a vote
is expected the week of June 12.  Accompanying the bill is a
146-page report outlining the Appropriations Committee's
recommendations for spending.  FYIs #74 through #77 provide
selections from the report of interest to the physics community.

HIGH ENERGY PHYSICS

The Committee's bill provides a total of $646,890,000 for High
Energy Physics.  The current year's appropriation is $617,499,000;
the Administration's FY 1995 request is $621,890,000.  The report
gives the following explanation:

"The Committee has provided an increase of $25,000,000 to the high
energy physics program to partly restore purchasing power lost in
funding for ongoing activities in the past two years.  The
cancellation of the Superconducting Super Collider leaves the base
program significantly disabled.  Restoration of the base program at
existing facilities will require increased resources.  The
Committee notes that the running time at the Nation's three major
particle accelerators has declined over 25 percent from fiscal year
1993 to the level proposed in the fiscal year 1995 request.

"The Committee approves the budget request of $44,000,000 for the
B-Factory upgrade at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, and
supports timely completion of both this facility and the Fermi Lab
Main Injector, which, with the Brookhaven National Laboratory's
accelerator, will be the primary experimental facilities on which
[press SPACE-BAR to continue]
a strong high energy physics program can be based in the years
ahead."

SUPERCONDUCTING SUPER COLLIDER

No new funding is provided in the bill for SSC termination costs.
The report states:

"The Administration has requested an additional $180,000,000 to
terminate the Superconducting Super Collider.  The Committee
provided $640,000,000 in fiscal year 1994.  This combined with
unobligated balances from prior years will allow a total of
$735,869,000 to finance the termination costs of the
Superconducting Super Collider.  The Committee is aware that the
Department and the State of Texas are currently negotiating a
settlement of Texas's claims arising from the SSC termination.  The
Committee encourages the Department to conclude negotiations and
consummate an agreement with the State of Texas in an expeditious
manner, as required under previously issued directions by this
Committee.  Furthermore, upon conclusion of the Department's
settlement with the State of Texas, the Committee expects to be
made aware of all Federal conditions necessary to satisfy any
settlement with the State of Texas and fulfill the statutory
mandate to maximize the value of the investment made in the
project."


###############
Public Information Division
American Institute of Physics
Contact:  Audrey T. Leath
(301) 209-3094
##END##########



DOE FY1995 Budget Bill Goes To House Floor - Nuclear Physics

FYI No. 75, June 2, 1994

aking fiscal year 1995 appropriations for the
Department of Energy, H.R. 4506, passed the House Appropriations
Committee on May 26.  It now goes to the House floor, where a vote
is expected the week of June 12.  Accompanying the bill is a
146-page report outlining the Appropriations Committee's
recommendations for spending.  FYIs #74 through #77 provide
selections from the report of interest to the physics community.

NUCLEAR PHYSICS

The Committee bill's recommendation for Nuclear Physics totals
$334,741,000.  The current year's appropriation is $348,615,000;
the Administration's fiscal year 1995 request is $300,841,000.
Regarding the increase of $33,900,000 above the request, the report
provides the following explanation:

"The Committee is very concerned about the Department's decision to
close the Los Alamos Meson Physics Facility (LAMPF).  The premature
closure of this facility will significantly reduce the science
output of this country and a valuable experimental facility will be
lost.  The Committee recommendation includes an additional
$24,000,000 to continue operations and to enhance the nuclear
physics program at Los Alamos.

"In addition, the Committee recommendation provides an additional
$1,000,000 to increase significantly the utilization of the Bates
Linear Accelerator Center operated by the Massachusetts Institute
of Technology.  These accelerator facilities serve a nation-wide
community of scientists from over 100 American institutions.

"The Committee recommendation includes an additional $8,900,000 to
finance physics experiments at the Continuous Electron Beam
Accelerator Facility (CEBAF).  After investing over $600,000,000 of
Federal and state funds to construct CEBAF, the Committee
recommends that the facility be funded at a level enabling it to
fulfill its intended purpose of conducting nuclear physics
research."


###############
Public Information Division
American Institute of Physics
Contact:  Audrey T. Leath
(301)209-3094
##END##########




DOE FY1995 Budget Bill Goes To House Floor - Basic Energy Sciences,
ANS

FYI No. 76, June 2, 1994

The House bill making fiscal year 1995 appropriations for the
Department of Energy, H.R. 4506, passed the House Appropriations
Committee on May 26.  It now goes to the House floor, where a vote
is expected the week of June 12.  Accompanying the bill is a
146-page report outlining the Appropriations Committee's
recommendations for spending.  FYIs #74 through #77 provide
selections from the report of interest to the physics community.

BASIC ENERGY SCIENCES

The Committee has provided $6 million above the Administration's
request for Basic Energy Sciences.  The report has no text on the
specifics of this program, but provides the following chart:

BES:                     Current   Admin.    House
(in thousands of $s)     approp.   request   bill

Materials sciences       271,657   274,221   277,221
Chemical sciences        166,283   162,013   165,013
Applied math. sciences   103,662   109,367   109,367
Engineering/geosciences   37,190    36,837    36,837
Adv. energy projects      11,194    11,085    11,085
Energy biosciences        26,649    25,957    25,957
Program direction          9,400     9,900     9,900
Capital equipment         44,880    41,537    41,537
Construction             119,500    70,379    70,379
TOTAL, BES               790,415   741,296   747,296


ADVANCED NEUTRON SOURCE

The bill provides a total of $21,000,000 for ANS, greater than the
FY 1994 appropriation of $17,000,000, but barely more than half of
the requested $40,000,000 for 1995.  The report gives the following
explanation:

"Because of budget constraints and the size of the outyear
mortgage, the Committee recommends $10,000,000 to continue the
research and design and $11,000,000 for equipment and construction
of the Advanced Neutron Source."


###############
Public Information Division
American Institute of Physics
Contact:  Audrey T. Leath
(301)209-3094
##END##########
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenJTCHEW cudfnAd cudlnaspera cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.03 / H Anvin /  Re: Superconductivity discussion
     
Originally-From: hpa@ahab.eecs.nwu.edu (H. Peter Anvin)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Superconductivity discussion
Date: Fri, 3 Jun 1994 23:18:44 GMT
Organization: Northwestern University Electromagnetics Laboratory

Followup to:  <2snbp3$56l@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
By author:    Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
In newsgroup: sci.physics.electromag
> 
>    My correct theory of superconductivity as well as the correct theory
> of cold fusion (SPONTANEOUS NEUTRON MATERIALIZATION DEVICES) is FOR
> SALE by the Plutonium Atom Foundation, the successor to the Nobel
> Foundation.                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  ^^^^^^^^^^

Dear Mr. Plutonium:

I do not believe Nobelstiftelsen ("the Nobel Foundation"), the Royal
Academy of Sciences, or the Swedish Government would look kindly on
this type of remarks.  If I were you, I would retract your claim to
have superceded the Nobel Foundation immediately.

	/hpa
-- 
INTERNET: hpa@nwu.edu               FINGER/TALK: hpa@ahab.eecs.nwu.edu
IBM MAIL: I0050052 at IBMMAIL       HAM RADIO:   N9ITP or SM4TKN
FIDONET:  1:115/511 or 1:115/512    STORMNET:    181:294/101
Laughter is the best medicine -- Quayle in '94.
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenhpa cudfnH cudlnAnvin cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.03 / Tomas Willis /  Re: The FAQ for superconductivity 21/05/1994
     
Originally-From: tomas@cae.wisc.edu (Tomas Charles Willis)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The FAQ for superconductivity 21/05/1994
Date: 3 Jun 1994 23:35:41 GMT
Organization: Applied Superconductivity Center

In article <2slij2$5ki@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth
edu (Ludwig Plutonium) writes:
>In article <2sjrpt$59p@news.doit.wisc.edu>
>tomas@cae.wisc.edu (Tomas Charles Willis) writes:
>
>> This is why AT&T has the YBCO patent and DUPont has the thallium compounds?
>> IBM can _have_ La-Ca-Cu-O. 
>
>   What chemical compounds are the highest in PLANE-arity?
STuff like graphite with strong in-plane bonds, and weak interplanar bonds.
Consider any shhet-like material -- micas, MoS2, etc,
Look up superconductivitty in ``intercalation compounds.''  This was exciting in
the late 70's

>   Are the superconductive buckyballs planar?
No, they are balls.  (Really, they are FCC.)

>   Is Niobium Tin superconductors planar?
No, they are A15 cubic structures.

>    Thanks kindly, LP

--
Ciao!
                 Tomas Willis  (tomas@cae.wisc.edu)
+===========================================================================+
| @<standard disclaimer@>  |   @<standard emoticon@>  |   @<standard pith@> |
+===========================================================================+

cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudentomas cudfnTomas cudlnWillis cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.03 / Dieter Britz /  Re: Gyroscopes and Nature: Reply to V.Noninski
     
Originally-From: kemidb@aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Gyroscopes and Nature: Reply to V.Noninski
Date: 3 Jun 94 07:10:25 GMT
Organization: Aarhus University, Denmark

In <9406021515.AA13913@suntan.Tandem.com> FEC@v2.rl.ac.uk (Frank Close) writes:

[...]
>What any of this has to do with fusion beats me unless it is in
>connection with Nature's role. Nature had an inside involvement with
>FP in March 1989 which put them in a unique position to comment on
>FP's claims. 

[...]
>And when judging Nature's comments on cold fusion in 1989, do not
>forget that they had received a m/s from FP independent of JEC
>You and the rest of the world only saw a paper published in JEC which
>purported to be the report of data as of March 23 1989.
>However, Nature m/s showed that there were significant discrepancies between
>the claims emanating from Utah, the report in JEC and the actual measured  
>data. Dr Pons was asked for an explanation but, in the opinion of
>the Nature team, no satisfactory explanation was forthcoming.Several
>people in the UK were aware of these discrepancies, as early as MArch 28,
>far in advance of the work of Petrasso et al at MIT that reinforced
>these worries.

> Dr Noninski seems to be unaware of the nature of the source material
>in Nature's hands at that time. Concequently it may be hard for him to
>appreciate the amazement felt by those of us who knew of FP's actual 
>data when we saw the JEC publication appear with quite different "evidence"
>for fusion in it. If you want to learn more at source, there is a
>partial documentation with the Cornell archive who have one of the 
>Nature referee reports, though the complete set of original papers is
>archived at the Nature office in London. It is thus wrong to describe the
>Nature critique as "uninformed"; quite the contrary - at that time the
>editorial team at Nature was probably better informed about the actual 
>data and history in Pons' lab than 99+ percent of the community and, if
>Dr Noninski is typical, of many even today. 

Let me add this: in the light of the above, the Editor's wording in explaining
that paper's withdrawal is remarkably considerate. As I have written here
before, it was to the effect that the authors have decided not to waste more
time trying to satisfy the referees and have withdrawn the paper; this is a
perfectly legitimate thing to do and says nothing about the paper.
I think Nature was being very restrained here, far from the picture Noninski
is trying to paint.
Nature has certainly taken a stand against 'cold fusion', and with good reason.
As I have also written here many times, there is no point in whining about not
getting papers into Nature, when there are other journals - many of them even
more appropriate than Nature - that will take 'cold fusion' papers. There
seems to be, among the 'cold fusion' community, a dogged determination to get
this stuff into Nature (and Science). Why bother? I am tempted to ask as well,
if these magazines like Fusion Facts or Cold Fusion Magazine are such wonderful
publications, why not publish everything in them?
-- 
Dieter Britz   alias kemidb@aau.dk
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenkemidb cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.02 / John Logajan /  Re: COLD FUSION" is HOT FISSION
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: COLD FUSION" is HOT FISSION
Date: 2 Jun 1994 18:58:43 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Online Services Member.

Jim Carr (jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu) wrote:
: John seems to have used a wrong value for the mass of H.  (My references
: say 1.007825.)

Yes.  You are correct, sir.  I inadvertenly took the number for the average
mass of all naturally occuring H isotopes, 1.00797, rather than the mass of
1H1, which is, as you point out, 1.007825.

--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com -- 612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills  MN 55112 USA           -


cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.03 / John Cobb /  Fusion Funding in FY '95, House App. Comm.
     
Originally-From: johncobb@uts.cc.utexas.edu (John W. Cobb)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Fusion Funding in FY '95, House App. Comm.
Date: 3 Jun 1994 08:09:56 -0500
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas

I just saw this come across my terminal and I thought people here might
be interested.

It is an issue of FYI, an electronic publication from some people at APS.
They track goins and comings of things in the U.S. congress.

***** Begin Insert *****
DOE FY1995 Budget Bill Goes To House Floor -
Fusion Energy

FYI No. 77, June 2, 1994

The House bill making fiscal year 1995 appropriations for the
Department of Energy, H.R. 4506, passed the House Appropriations
Committee on May 26.  It now goes to the House floor, where a vote
is expected the week of June 12.  Accompanying the bill is a
146-page report outlining the Appropriations Committee's
recommendations for spending.  FYIs #74 through #77 provide
selections from the report of interest to the physics community.

FUSION ENERGY

Current appropriation:             $347,595,000
Administration request:             372,563,000
House committee bill:               376,563,000

"The Committee is pleased with the outstanding results of the
deuterium-tritium (D-T) experiments being conducted on the Tokamak
Fusion Test Reactor (TFTR)....  TFTR produced more than six million
watts of fusion power in December 1993, and it is expected to
produce 10 million watts of fusion power later this year.  [On May
31, TFTR announced production of 9 million watts of power.]  The
Committee notes with approval that TFTR, the centerpiece of the
U.S. fusion program, is achieving all of its design and scientific
objectives."

"...The international collaboration in fusion energy, the
International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) is a high
priority in the U.S. fusion program....  However, the Committee is
very concerned that the Department has failed to report to the
Congress on how it intends to move forward with the complex and
detailed negotiations on ITER construction-related issues..."  

"The Committee provides $66,700,000 to begin construction
activities on the Tokamak Physics Experiment (TPX), the national
facility at the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory....  This
advanced, superconducting tokamak will demonstrate continuous
operation at high power densities and improve the performance and
attractiveness of the tokamak reactor concept...."

"The Committee also recognizes the potential for advanced low
activation materials to improve the environmental qualities and
safety of future fusion reactors.  The Committee instructs the
Department to begin an aggressive low activation fusion materials
program with the goal of developing and characterizing low
activation materials that could be tested on ITER and utilized in
a future demonstration power reactor."

"...Advances in plasma confinement, plasma equilibrium and
stability, the behavior of alpha particles, power handling and
plasma heating operations, continue to be developed by several
intermediate-scale facilities, including DIII-D and its upgrade at
General Atomics, Alcator C-Mod at MIT, PBX-M at PPPL, and TEXT at
the University of Texas.  The design and construction of TPX and
ITER benefit significantly from the results of these existing
experiments and the research and development that accompany them. 
With the continued strong participation of university research, the
fusion program will be strengthened."

INERTIAL FUSION ENERGY

The bill provides $10,000,000 for Inertial Fusion Energy, (included
in the total for Fusion Energy) with the following explanation:

"The Committee is familiar with the substantial progress in the
Inertial Fusion Energy program.  This small program has drawn
outstanding reviews as a promising energy source for the 21st
century.  The budget request for this program [of $6,000,000],
while slightly above the fiscal year 1994 level, is still below its
fiscal year 1992 level of $9,000,000.  In order to proceed on a
timely and cost-effective schedule with its next major experiment,
the Induction Linac Systems Experiment (ILSE), the Committee
provides an additional $4,000,000 ... to support an accelerated
level of effort on ILSE."


###############
Public Information Division
American Institute of Physics
Contact:  Audrey T. Leath
(301)209-3094
##END##########


*****  End  Insert *****


enjoy,

-john .w cobb




-- 
 --------------------------------------------------------------
John W. Cobb	My posts don't reflect the views of my employer
                Because my posts are usually opaque.
 --------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenjohncobb cudfnJohn cudlnCobb cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.03 / L Plutonium /  Re: Superconductivity discussion
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Superconductivity discussion
Date: 3 Jun 1994 13:38:43 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In article <CqsquJ.2C6@research.canon.oz.au>
alex@research.canon.oz.au (Alex Danilo) writes:

> Sorry, Ludwig, but anything you say on the net is public knowledge, therefore
> unpatentable. If you disclosed your ideas to someone in a private demonstration
> you would establish the date of your invention(s), without removing the
> ability to patent the idea. If you publish it on the net, then you are in
> effect providing public knowledge of the invention, and hence, if it is
> public knowledge, it is not patentable.
  A patent is a 17 year exclusivity. In exchange for the exclusivity to
the patent holder, the world at large is given the "public knowledge".
In this light, I have given public knowledge, just as you so well
state. However I have not asked for my exclusivity of 17 years. In my
asking of exclusivity I would ----most importantly state my claims. A
patent is the stating of CLAIMS. So far I claim the correct theory in
general of superconductivity.
  Before these teachings the state of the art of superconductivity was
virtually all in the realm of experimenters. That affair cost the world
in billions of dollars of research. With my correct theory of
superconductivity, it is conceivable that a smart person or a group
thereof with just calculator and detailed knowledge of physics can
FIGURE OUT what would be the best superconductors. Can walk out of the
office and into a experimental lab and say, fashion this compound, it
should be a warmer superconductor than all existing ones.
   With the correct theory, superconductivity is no longer a hit and
miss lab science. With the correct theory, it saves the world time and
money on hit and miss, and probably alot more. What you are suggesting
Mr. Danilo is that if I had the correct theory of superconductivity,
that I should receive no more than a thank you and a goodbye, plus some
more numerous insults from INTERNET irrlehrer.
   My correct theory of superconductivity as well as the correct theory
of cold fusion (SPONTANEOUS NEUTRON MATERIALIZATION DEVICES) is FOR
SALE by the Plutonium Atom Foundation, the successor to the Nobel
Foundation.
                         94th ELECTRON OF 231PU
               Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH ELECTRON

                  \ ::| :./.
                  .\::|::/.:
                     _ _
                    (:Y:)
                     - - 
                  ::/.|.\.:
                :: /.:| :\.:
                  /   |   \.
                          LP
        One of those dots is the Sun with 9 smaller dots around it.
Look in a chemistry textbook or quantum physics textbook of the
electron cloud dot picture. 
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.03 / Dieter Britz /  Workman at CalTech?
     
Originally-From: kemidb@aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Workman at CalTech?
Date: 3 Jun 94 15:02:41 GMT
Organization: Aarhus University, Denmark

I have a note here on a dissertation by Thomas Wilson Workman at CalTech,
titled "Analysis of collision cascades in titanium deuteride by D-D fusion".
It is a dissertation and would be expensive to get (we'd have to buy it).
Before I go for it, I'd like to know whether this is related to 'cold fusion'
or not. Are you lurking out there, Thomas Wilson W, or is there someone at
Caltech (or elsewhere) who knows about this dissertation?
Thank you in advance.
-- 
Dieter Britz   alias kemidb@aau.dk
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenkemidb cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.03 / Garrett Heil /  Cold fusion -The other kind.
     
Originally-From: garretth@crl.com (Garrett Heil)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Cold fusion -The other kind.
Date: 3 Jun 1994 20:07:05 -0700
Organization: CRL Dialup Internet Access	(415) 705-6060  [login: guest]

  Just a quick question from a NON-expert.  Some years ago a read about a 
muon moderated fusion process that seemed to hold promise.  What ever 
happened to that line of thinking?  Was is scared off by the bad press 
surrounding the palladium debacle?  As I recall, the researchers were close 
to the break even point.
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudengarretth cudfnGarrett cudlnHeil cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.03 / Richard Corrado /  Ludwig is on the Web!!!
     
Originally-From: rcorrado@linux6.ph.utexas.edu (Richard A. Corrado)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics,sci.chem,sci.bio,sci.a
tro,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Ludwig is on the Web!!!
Date: 3 Jun 1994 22:43:46 -0500
Organization: Physics Department, University of Texas at Austin

Ludwig Plutonium is apparently an inmate at the Asylum, a Web site!
To find him use the following URL (type as one line, with no spaces):
                                           ---            --

http://www.galcit.caltech.edu/~ta/
inmtbrowse.html#X24852FriXJunXX3X19:00:26X1994Z


It's amazing what you find while browsing the Web!

Richard Corrado
Department of Physics 
University of Texas at Austin 
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenrcorrado cudfnRichard cudlnCorrado cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.04 / MATTHEW JONES /  Re: Cold fusion -The other kind.
     
Originally-From: sarmdj@thor.cf.ac.uk (MATTHEW JONES)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold fusion -The other kind.
Date: Sat, 4 Jun 94 12:42:18 +0100
Organization: University of Wales College at Cardiff

In article <2sor4p$8rb@crl3.crl.com> garretth@crl.com (Garrett Heil) writes:
|  Just a quick question from a NON-expert.  Some years ago a read about a 
|muon moderated fusion process that seemed to hold promise.  What ever 
|happened to that line of thinking?  Was is scared off by the bad press 
|surrounding the palladium debacle?  As I recall, the researchers were close 
|to the break even point.

I seem to remember this being posited by Arthur C. Clarke in one either
2010 or 2063. Forgive me for not being more specific about the content,
but he goes into the foundations for his use of MMFusion in an appendix.
This might be a starting point for you, but as another NON-expert, I'd
be interested to read someone more informed's explanations!

Cheers,

Matt.
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudensarmdj cudfnMATTHEW cudlnJONES cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.04 /  Stevemasia /  Re: COLD FUSION" is HOT FISSION
     
Originally-From: stevemasia@aol.com (Stevemasia)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: COLD FUSION" is HOT FISSION
Date: 4 Jun 1994 07:48:01 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

In article <CqKsGv.753@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG>, jamie.love@afrc.ac.uk
(LOVEJ) writes:

Finally an excellent theory-!, 
could you induce more positrons into the Palladium cathode using a
magnetic feild, and or magnetohydrodyamics. 

Steven L Masia

cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenstevemasia cudlnStevemasia cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.04 / H Frommert /  Re: FYIs 74-77 (DOE budgets on House floor)
     
Originally-From: phfrom@nyx.uni-konstanz.de (Hartmut Frommert)
Newsgroups: sci.research,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.accelerators,sci
physics.particle,sci.materials
Subject: Re: FYIs 74-77 (DOE budgets on House floor)
Date: Sat, 4 Jun 1994 22:33:48 GMT
Organization: University of Constance, Dept. of Physics

JTCHEW@lbl.gov (Ad absurdum per aspera) writes:

>SUPERCONDUCTING SUPER COLLIDER

[..]
>"The Administration has requested an additional $180,000,000 to
>terminate the Superconducting Super Collider.  The Committee
>provided $640,000,000 in fiscal year 1994.  This combined with
>unobligated balances from prior years will allow a total of
>$735,869,000 to finance the termination costs of the
>Superconducting Super Collider.  [..]

Isn't it remarkable that so much funds are a/v for the cancellation ? Will 
at last the SSC cancellation turn out to be more expensive than the regular 
performance would have been ?

  Hartmut Frommert                  |   Russia HAS a Space Station !
  <phfrom@nyx.uni-konstanz.de>      |   Mars Observer 2 would have survived.
----------- Get astronomical and space gifs via anon ftp from: -------------
explorer.arc.nasa.gov: /pub/SPACE/GIF; jplinfo.jpl.nasa.gov;     | Updates |
seds.lpl.arizona.edu; ftp.univ-rennes1.fr; ftp.cnam.fr           | welcome |
Hubble: stsci.edu: /stsci/epa/gif  Clementine: clementine.s1.gov +---------+
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenphfrom cudfnHartmut cudlnFrommert cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.03 / Robert Dinse /  Re: A Flash from the Economist
     
Originally-From: nanook@eskimo.com (Robert Dinse)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A Flash from the Economist
Date: 3 Jun 94 08:47:20 GMT
Organization: Eskimo North (206) For-Ever

In article <#l-7n8n@dixie.com>, jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:
> nanook@eskimo.com (Robert Dinse) writes:
> 
> 
> >     I'm one of those folks that doesn't feel comfortable with having my food
> >exposed to gamma radiation.  My concern is that the random chemical reactions
> >induced, while they might serve well for killing bacteria, they might also
> >create toxic or even carcinogenic subtances that are not particularly healthy
> >for humans either.
> 
> 
> One has to marvel at the logic that will have someone shaking in fear
> at the postulated unknown created by a few ergs of gamma rays impinging
> on food which will subsequently be subjected to a violent, searingly 
> destructive process that literally rips the molecules of food apart
> while smothering it (in some cases) with smoke containing thousands
> of known toxic combustion products.  This process, which produces 
> detectable amounts of virulent carcinogens such as nitrosamines, is 
> commonly referred to by the non-technophobes among us as "cooking".
> And some of us are even daring enough to "Bar-B-Que".  With genuine
> wood smoke, no less.

     As I mentioned in a previous post, some forms of cooking are worse than
others in so much as formation of toxic or carcinogenic chemicals goes, and
BBQ is one of the worst, but I still eat BBQ's food.

     However, NOBODY FORCES me to eat it.  When I eat it, I >KNOW< it is BBQ'd.
But the proponents of gamma sterilization of food object vehemiently to the
idea that the public should be INFORMED with regards to what is being done to
their food prior to consumption.
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudennanook cudfnRobert cudlnDinse cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.04 / L Plutonium /  Re: The FAQ for superconductivity 21/05/1994
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The FAQ for superconductivity 21/05/1994
Date: 4 Jun 1994 17:48:15 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In article <2s83ld$ikg@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium) writes:

>   Hence the graviton is ad hoc. Just as the ether after Michelson was
> ad hoc, hence nonexistant. So too, the graviton is nonexistant. The
> only particles of existence for the 4 interactions of as per
> particle--wave:
>                              strongnuclear--gravity
>                              radioactivities--EM
> are the particles photons,neutrinos, and strongnuclear. Gravitons as
> particles existing is ad hoc. Noone will ever be able to point to a
> graviton. Gravitons are a science fiction term for superpositioned
> photons or neutrinos.
  I need to amplify and clarify my above. A graviton is the
superposition of more elementary particles. Particles of the
quantization of energy. To ask whether a "particular" graviton particle
exists, is merely asking whether 4 particular neutrinos exist. Those 4
particular neutrinos could be 2 particular photons. Particles of energy
quantization have a periodic chart to them just as the particles of
matter. We know the periodic chart of chemical elements as a somewhat
mature science. However the periodic chart of particle quantization has
just begun with me.
  As hydrogen is the element of atomic number 1 and the neutron is 0.
And the elements are AUFBAUed from adding protons. The PERIODIC CHART
OF ENERGY, similar to the PERIODIC CHART OF CHEMICAL ELEMENTS, is
AUFBAUed from neutrinos. 
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.04 / L Plutonium /  Re: The FAQ for superconductivity 21/05/1994
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The FAQ for superconductivity 21/05/1994
Date: 4 Jun 1994 18:09:29 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In article <2sfd6f$8k2@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium) writes:

> In article <2scukv$uga@monterosa.zurich.ibm.com>
> hpe@zurich.ibm.com (Morten Holm Pedersen) writes:
> > I don't have that problem, the math logic I am using can give
> > superconductivity with only electrons. Anyhow, how would you then
> > explain superfluidity in Helium?
>   In article <2rt4v8$mvk@monterosa.zurich.ibm.com>
> hpe@zurich.ibm.com (Morten Holm Pedersen) writes:
> > Yes, Mr.Plutonium (I don't believe your mother gave you that name...)
> > BCS connects with superfluidity in regards to having a condensate and
> > ODLRO. In fact BCS theory is used (modified a little with triplet pairing and
> > such) to explain superfluidity in He-3. Interested in specific
> > references? 
> In article <2rt403$mvk@monterosa.zurich.ibm.com>
> hpe@zurich.ibm.com (Morten Holm Pedersen) writes:
> > You sure must! Superfluidity and superconductivity has a lot in common
> > and the basic physics (of diagonal long range order) is the same. If
> > you explain superconductivity with neutrinos, then you need to find a
> > suitable explanation also for superfluidity!In article <2rt3rf$mvk@m
nterosa.zurich.ibm.com>
> hpe@zurich.ibm.com (Morten Holm Pedersen) writes:
> > As I said I my first mail the BCS theory is not a good theory for the
> > new superconductors. This might be so for a multitude of reasons.
> > However, BCS works fine for the conventional low-Tc superconductors.
> > In a certain sense you are right that BCS has the flavour of
> > phenomenology, but for a low-Tc material knowing the Debye temperature
> > and the effective mass will allow you to estimate the transition
> > temperature. Some times that doesn't work quite right, then you need
> > to know the phononic spectrum and do strong-coupling theory - all this
> > works for the old superconductors. BCS also works quite well for
> > superfluidity in liquid He3 - you should look at that.
> > Again: the BCS theory assumes that pairs are overlapping - this is
> > presumably not true for the cuprates for instance. Therefore BCS is
> > not supposed to work for the cuprates. It is not true to say that BCS
> > has "been cornered into oblivion".
> > Concerning Cooper pairs: it has been shown that the charge of the
> > carriers in superconductors (both old and new) have charge 2e -
> > therefore it is natural to consider pairs. Moreover, to form a
> > condensation (this thing about long-range order you should look into)
> > we needs bosons - two electrons together is a boson. This works well
> > for the old superconductors. For the new superconductors more fancy 
> > theories have been proposed, like anyons and spinons/holons and not 
> > Cooperpairs.
> > I don't actually know an authorative definition of a Cooperpair but I
> > would be tempted to say that it is a BCS-concept and not true for the
> > cuprates without modifications.
> 
>    I have read-up on superfluidity and it would confirm the NEUTRINO
> carrier of superconductivity. As you say Morten, the correct theory of
> superconductivity must yield the correct theory of superfluidity. I
> will take your word for it Morten that the BCS theory describes
> superfluidity well. I have no indepth knowledge of superfluidity and so
> will accept that the BCS theory explains superfluidity well. Going from
> that assumption I conclude the following.
>    (1) The BCS theory is wrong. Replace Cooper pairs with the fact that
> a pair of neutrinos is a photon. The Cooper pairs are neutrino pairs,
> not electron pairs.
>    (2) Instead of Cooper pairs as electron pairs, it is really neutrino
> pairs. Tc is the disassociation state of photons into their more basic
> physics-- neutrinos.
>    (3) It is a fact of physics that photons are the carriers/signal of
> electric current.
>    (4) Superconductivity is near 0 electrical resistivity, but not 0
> itself. Different superconducting materials have different
> resistivities, all close to 0. The instruments to date are not good
> enough to measure these tiny resistivities, but in the future they will
> be. It will be found that the recent copper oxygen superconductors have
> a different resistivity from mercury superconduction or niobium tin
> superconduction, etc.
>    (5)  The graviton has a rest mass of zero and an electrical charge
> of zero like the photon, but the graviton has spin 2 in units of
> h/(2pi).  The spin of the graviton is restricted to be parallel to its
> motion so that it has only two independent spin states again like the
> photon. 
>         The superposition of two neutrinos to make one photon, or the
> superposition of four neutrinos to make one graviton explains
> superconductivity and superfluidity and the quantized Hall effect.
>    (6) Superfluidity is 0 viscosity and antigravity. Superfluidity is
> superpositioned 4 neutrinos to make antigravity. Gravity is merely 4
> superpositioned neutrinos.


   ANTIGRAVITY, that is an excellent term. Now we will further
systematize the theory of gravity as started by Hooke-Newton and
expanded by Einstein in GR. What will result is that gravity is just a
added term of Maxwell's Equations. In the long history of physics,
quantum theory, QM, will be the taproot of all science, other roots are
ancilliary, temporary, and not of the main.
   Through Superfluidity of Helium, since helium is antigravity, we see
the unification of gravity theory to the Coulomb force law in Gauss's
Law of Maxwell's Equation. We must realize that photons are composite
structures, consisting of 2 neutrinos. Then we must revise the Maxwell
Equations, none of those equations are wrong, quite obviously because
no experimental evidence has ever countered the Maxwell Equations.
Instead, additional terms need be theorized to give the Maxwell
Equations their first revision. James Clerk Maxwell added an extra term
in Ampere's Law to complete his systematization of EM. Now the Maxwell
Equations will be revised to accord with photon composite structure.
The Law of Gravity will be an extra term in the Coulomb Law where the
graviton is 4 superpositioned neutrinos/and,or/2 superpositioned
photons.
   All of this derives from superfluid helium. 
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.04 / L Plutonium /  Re: The FAQ for superconductivity 21/05/1994
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The FAQ for superconductivity 21/05/1994
Date: 4 Jun 1994 18:17:14 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In article <2soeod$en1@news.doit.wisc.edu>
tomas@cae.wisc.edu (Tomas Charles Willis) writes:

> 
> >   Are the superconductive buckyballs planar?
> No, they are balls.  (Really, they are FCC.)

  But are the buckyballs in sheets, allowing for both--- 1 photon
diffraction grating into 2 neutrino pairs, plus the buckyball as
neutrino reflection?
  When I ask for Planar, I am not asking for macroscopic planar such as
mica, instead, I am asking for atomic bonding that is planar.
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.04 / Robert Dinse /  Re: A Flash from the Economist
     
Originally-From: nanook@eskimo.com (Robert Dinse)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A Flash from the Economist
Date: 4 Jun 94 01:33:48 GMT
Organization: Eskimo North (206) For-Ever

In article <2snjl0$60e@bmerha64.bnr.ca>, schow@bnr.ca (Stanley T.H. Chow) writes:
> In article <CqrJp2.CnH@eskimo.com>, Robert Dinse <nanook@eskimo.com> wrote:
> >     Well, cooking is known to introduce some nasties, but we also know that
> >some forms of cooking are much worse than others.
> 
> So you do agree that "risk" must be measured and compared to decided on
> a course of action.
> 
> 
> >
> >     We also have some idea of the relative risks since people have been
> >cooking food for a long time, but exposing it to gamma radiation is relatively
> >new.
> 
> To paraphrase Sir Humphery Appleby in Yes, Minister:
> 
>  A great many risks must be accepted, but no risk is acceptable when new.

     I think the word is not "new" so much as "unassessed".
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudennanook cudfnRobert cudlnDinse cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.04 / L Plutonium /  LP APOLOGIZES TO THE NOBEL FOUNDATION
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion,sci.math,sci.chem,
ci.bio,sci.physics
Subject: LP APOLOGIZES TO THE NOBEL FOUNDATION
Date: 4 Jun 1994 20:05:25 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In article <CquGr9.69A@eecs.nwu.edu>
hpa@ahab.eecs.nwu.edu (H. Peter Anvin) writes:

> Followup to:  <2snbp3$56l@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
> By author:    Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
> In newsgroup: sci.physics.electromag
> > 
> >    My correct theory of superconductivity as well as the correct theory
> > of cold fusion (SPONTANEOUS NEUTRON MATERIALIZATION DEVICES) is FOR
> > SALE by the Plutonium Atom Foundation, the successor to the Nobel
> > Foundation.                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>   ^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> Dear Mr. Plutonium:
> 
> I do not believe Nobelstiftelsen ("the Nobel Foundation"), the Royal
> Academy of Sciences, or the Swedish Government would look kindly on
> this type of remarks.  If I were you, I would retract your claim to
> have superceded the Nobel Foundation immediately.
> 
>         /hpa
> -- 
> INTERNET: hpa@nwu.edu               FINGER/TALK: hpa@ahab.eecs.nwu.edu
> IBM MAIL: I0050052 at IBMMAIL       HAM RADIO:   N9ITP or SM4TKN
> FIDONET:  1:115/511 or 1:115/512    STORMNET:    181:294/101
> Laughter is the best medicine -- Quayle in '94.

  The Plutonium Atom Foundation is and will be the King of all science
organizations. In the future, the Nobel Foundation will be no more to
the science community than what "Red Cross, Blue Shield" are. In the
future the world will see the Nobel Foundation as another organization
"on par" with the MacArthur Foundation. The elitism of the Nobel prize
will have disappeared due to its many mistakes. It is hoped by me that
1994 prize in physics will be another mistake, so that future
generations will love and adore LP even more because of the persecution
that LP had to endure. And, quite obviously when the Atom Totality
theory is shown correct, that the Nobel Committee will be seen as
persecutors of the world's second greatest idea after Democritus's
Atomic Fact idea. It is quite obvious that if the Nobel Committee had
been around in Democritus's time, they would have overlooked
Democritus, and instead have given the prize to Plato, Aristotle,
Ptolemy, and numerous alchemists through the ages. I serious doubt that
the Nobel Committee, if they were around when Maxwell was, that they
would have had the wisdom to give Maxwell their prize. I seriously
doubt it. Keep in mind that the Nobel Committee overlooked John Bell,
and I think the reason for that is that Hawking and Wheeler bad mouthed
John Bell, wanted the prize for themselves---this is just purely my
guess-- because I read where Wheeler could not understand why all the
John Bell conferences, in his smug arrogance. 
  Please do not get me wrong. These foundations are noble in heart,
kind in pocketbook, and beneficial to society as a whole.
  But in the future the world organization will be altogether different
than now. The world will be run not by political appointees, but by
whoever is the "King of the science community of that future time". If
I had been born into such a structure now, I would have taken the world
leadership reigns by now.
That future structure is a "KING ARTHUR PULLING OUT EXCALIBER FROM THE
ANVIL OF PHYSICS,MATH,CHEM,BIO." That future time will have King
Arthurs who lead the world via science. The testing ground will be
physics,math,bio,chem and engineering. Especially physics and
Engineering-- the pulling of excaliber out of the anvil. Those persons
will be the future chosen ones. And they will lead all of humanity.
This is what is needed in the future, because we are not alone, there
are many aliens out there. It is science and Engineering which are the
proving grounds.
  In this light, to have a bandwagon leading the world's science
community will be seen as an antique, a fossil, primitive. The saying
is "A camel is a horse designed by a committee." The Nobel Committee
has been for the most part a very good committee in judging physics
merit. But as the future rolls on, that bandwagonish characteristic of
the Nobel Committee is detrimental. And that is where a King of physics
is a better leader. David Hilbert was a leader of the whole math
community. Poincare served as a leader. Niels Bohr served as a leader.
Now, LP is serving as the rightful leader of the science and math
world. And although I will make very many mistakes in my leadership. My
good far outweighs my bad. 
  We can see the badness of a bandwagon such as the Nobel Committee
leading the science community now. Look at these Nobel prize mistakes.


	I am going to make a list of all the Nobel prizes in physics which are
false 

	(1) The 1983 Nobel prize to Chandrasekhar for a gravit collapse to the
size of the order of the Compton wavelength. White dwarf stars compress
the atoms until atomic volume is less and less but there is a limit to
the compression. That limit corresponds to the size of the order of the
Compton wavelength. What is hypothesized as a neutron star would pass
the limit of the Compton wavelength. Compton wavelength, electron
localized and put in a volume whose radius is on the size of order of
the Compton wavelength.  Chandresakar violates the uncertainty
principle. I think the Nobel committee was feeling pressure to elect
some minority for this year.

	(2) Weinberg, Salam, Glashow (GLAWS) the only thing correct is they
link the electro-weak force with electromagnetism.  The rest is pure
smelly.  They do not understand that the electro-weak is an incomplete
force law which is a subset of radioactivities and that once
spontaneous neutron materialization is added to the electro-weak then
electromagnetism is the conjugate dual.  A yin and yang in physics, not
a unification.

	(3) The 1972 Nobel prize for the BCS is hollow.  Never before in the
history of mankind has so much been given for so little in return. 
Bardeen Cooper and Schrieffer did even better than the bead traders for
Manhattan. The higher temperature superconductivity shows the
limitations and even the worthlessness and science fiction of this
theory.  For any theory to be good it must have some sort of future
predicting capabilities.  BCS has no such characteristics, rather it is
a "hint".  A hint is never theory for if it were then the persons who
described a quantum interaction as two tennis players hitting a ball
back and forth as what keeps them together, for this hint, they should
have won a Nobel prize.

(4) The Nobel prize in 1993 to Hulse and Taylor for some spew about GR
with neutron star. It is ridiculous that the Nobel committee is not
sure of what a Pulsar really is, yet that does not slow them down in
awarding Hulse and Taylor from assuming that pulsars are neutron stars.
I claim that pulsars are STRANGE QUARK MATTER stars because if you
tried pinning pulsars as neutron stars-- you would be immediately
violate the Uncertainty principle. Persons who lack physics intuition,
are prone to violate established physical Laws.
 There have been no Nobel prizes for black holes. If there were they
would be immediately wrong for they violate the Pauli Exclusion
Principle. It is much easier for a intuitionless physics person to
violate QM, then to really solve the problem at hand. And it is my hope
that the year 1994 will have the Nobel prize awarded to Hawking and
Wheeler. In that way, the future generations will see that the Nobel
Committee was not only BANDWAGONISH, but also GANGSTERISH.
  But all of the above is besides the point. It was fated that the
Nobel Foundation would be just a filler, like a candy bar filler of
caramel, a filler until the Plutonium Atom Foundation starts. The Nobel
Foundation was doomed to extinction from the very start because it
overlooked MATH. To overlook math is like saying that you do not need
physics for science.
  I sincerely apologize to the Nobel Foundation for putting the above
so bluntly. As the future unfolds, my remarks will be true to the mark
of forecasting. I think that my crystal ball of seeing into the future
is more accurate than most.
  My apologies to the Nobel Foundation. There is a happy ground. The
Nobel Foundation can become wedded to the Plutonium Atom Foundation. In
such a case then there will exist only 4 possible
prizes---physics,math,chem,bio.   ATOM
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.04 / Simon Juden /  Re: LP APOLOGIZES TO THE NOBEL FOUNDATION
     
Originally-From: mapsj@midge.bath.ac.uk (Simon Juden)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion,sci.math,sci.chem,
ci.bio,sci.physics
Subject: Re: LP APOLOGIZES TO THE NOBEL FOUNDATION
Date: Sat, 4 Jun 1994 20:57:23 GMT
Organization: School of Mathematical Sciences, University of Bath, UK

In the referenced article, Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium) writes:

>It is hoped by me that 1994 prize in physics will be another mistake, so that
>future generations will love and adore LP even more because of the
>persecution that LP had to endure.

While in the bar the other day, I overheard a rumour that the next Nobel
Laureate was to be a chap by the name of "Ludwig Plutonium".  I wonder if this
is the same fellow; if it is, he had better write to the Nobelstiftelson and
make it completely clear that, in fact, he does not want the award. Otherwise,
he may inadvertently be awarded it against his wishes, which would be simply
awful. 

Simon
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenmapsj cudfnSimon cudlnJuden cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.04 /  Norm /  Re: LP APOLOGIZES TO THE NOBEL FOUNDATION
     
Originally-From: nbuchana@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca (Norm)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion,sci.math,sci.chem,
ci.bio,sci.physics
Subject: Re: LP APOLOGIZES TO THE NOBEL FOUNDATION
Date: 4 Jun 1994 22:01:13 GMT
Organization: Computer and Network Services, U of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada

Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium) writes:

>
>It is hoped by me that
>1994 prize in physics will be another mistake, so that future
>generations will love and adore LP even more because of the persecution
>that LP had to endure.

Mr. Plutonium, I realize by acknowledging your posting and responding, I am only
encouraging you to continue.  This is not at all my intention.  My intention is
however to point out to you that people on the net are laughing AT you not WITH
you.  This posting (Re Nobel Prize) is a great example why.  Normally I wouldn't
think badly whatsoever of a person trying to express new and unique ideas, but
I feel, and don't think I am alone, that you are out of control.  Sure your
"theory" is cute, possibly even mildly amusing, but don't you know when to
quit?  You are simply making a fool out of yourself.  If you wish to become
an author of a play, please do so, just NOT HERE.  If you want to slam the
Nobel commitee, send them a letter, we DON'T CARE.  I realize you have a right
to post what you want, when you want, but try choosing the appropriate forum.
I believe there is an alternative newsgroup for creative physical theories like
yours.  I think there is probably a group for aspiring playwrites as well.  I
hope you will take my sound advice and post to these groups--you'll be new
there and people might find you entertaining, which I hope is your goal
because I can't imagine that you really take yourself seriously, I don't
think you are stupid, just misguided.  We all know you are not
a physicist, and I understand your desire to take part in such
a glorious field.  If you wish
to become a real physicist, do what we do, take courses and learn.  Anyone can
read a few pop-physics books and attempt to develop a theory, but the successful
ones are the ones who dedicate their lives to study.  I wish you well and hope
that you will escape your current situation with some dignity.
Sincerely Norm
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Norm Buchanan                  |  "Physics-envy is the curse of biology."
University of Alberta Physics  |                      Joel Cohen
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudennbuchana cudlnNorm cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Sun Jun  5 04:37:13 EDT 1994
------------------------------
1994.06.05 /  vnoninski@fscv /  Nature
     
Originally-From: vnoninski@fscvax.fsc.mass.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Nature
Date: Sun, 5 Jun 1994 04:46:26 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Dear Colleagues,

In a recent posting I commented upon some of my encounters with homopolar 
generators. In that posting I also mentioned something which I came upon 
accidentally while working in a library. In connection with this mentioning I 
would like to make clear that I by no means make any statements in support or 
against the claims of the Japanese group reporting experimental results  with 
gyroscopes in Physical Review Letters. I appologize if my statements have 
appeared otherwise. However, I invite anybody who cares to look at the papers 
I cited in connection with this gyroscope problem that the facts I mentioned 
about them are true. The japanese paper was published in the December 18, 1989 
issue of Phys.Rev.Lett. and according to an expose in Nature the denouncement 
of these results has come about on January 18, 1989. I argued that this time 
span is insufficient for appropriate replication of an experiment of this 
complexity and importance. I, as most of the readers of Nature, was in no way 
able to suppose that experiments by those who denounced the reality of the 
effect were carried out for a long period of time before the publication of 
the japanese group. Had it been so, I find it most inconsiderate for Nature to 
not let its readership be aware of this fact. It appears that the mere 
denouncement of effects is more important for Nature than objective informing 
the readers about the actual state of the affairs. Furthermore, when the 
word is about facts I am inviting anybody who cares to look at the facts to 
see that what I wrote in my posting about the papers denouncing the gyroscope 
effect is true. For instance, the japanese group's 
gyroscope works in vacuum and at 
steady-state while the gyroscope with which the result is challenged is 
air-driven and the measurements are taken while the rate of rotation
decreases.The careful reader of the papers in question may find
other discrepancies as 
While I am reluctant to discuss this matter in this forum any further I 
would mention that it seems that there is a clear parallel in the attitude of 
Nature toward this gyroscope episode and its attitude toward cold fusion. 
Indeed, I have evidence for the fact that Nature is reluctant to exercise 
objective judgement when making editorial decisions. Nature considers it 
appropriate to let authors whose papers, published in Nature, are criticized to 
act as  their own referees. I have evidence 
that Nature applies double standards 
in its publication practices. While Nature publishes the 
paper of Petrasso et al 
criticizing Fleischmann et als' paper (published in 
another journal -JEAC), this 
same journal -- Nature -- refuses to publish a paper criticizing a paper of 
Petrasso as a coauthor, giving as a sole reason the fact 
that Petrasso's paper has  
not been published in Nature and it is not the policy of Nature to publish 
criticisms of papers published in other journals. By the way, speaking about 
Petrasso, I have a written evidence by him, acknowledging lack of expertise in 
calorimetry. This written statement made by Petrasso still makes me wonder 
what were the reasons for him to participate as a coauthor in a paper 
ostensibly showing no evidence for excess heat (this conclusions in this 
paper concerning calorimetry were shown to be in error). 
Having in mind that Petrasso 
is, in his own admission, no expert in calorimetry one also wonders why such 
person would make statements against the reality of excess heat in The 
Wall Street Journal or New York Times or Boston Globe ? I will not continue 
for now with the examples. I will only note that Nature is still 
not willing to acknowledge not only the fact that there are events occurring 
during the experiments in cold fusion whose non-triviality is not evident but 
also that there are no experimental facts published so far clearly showing 
that the excess heat (the most important phenomenon 
claimed by Fleischmann et al) is an artifact or is irreproducible. Careful 
analysis of the experimental data wherever available, 
if we are to believe it, reveals that the effect has been reproduced 
virtually in all papers, despite the verbal statements by the authors 
of some of the papers to the contrary (this statement does not apply to the 
products of known nucear reactions whose appearance appears to be quite 
sporadic; proving the appearance of products of known nuclear reactions is 
of secondary importance compared to excess heat). I would mention that 
commenting Nature's editorial policies is necessary not only because of its 
undeniable impact on the scientific community, an impact requiring higher 
responsibility on the part of the editors, but also because it is the 
responsibility of any of the readers of a peer-reviewed archival journal to be 
sensitive towards any deviations from the accepted standards of scientific 
behavior and judgement.

Truly yours,


Vesselin Noninski   

cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenvnoninski cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.05 / John Logajan /  Re: Verification of Thermacore calibration
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Verification of Thermacore calibration
Date: 5 Jun 1994 03:28:39 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Online Services Member.


I found a message on my answering machine from John Hilborn of Ontario,
Canada.  He worked with Ernest Criddle on a series of experiments to 
check the Thermacore calibration.  He asked me in the message to try
the calibration tests at 30 watts and 15 watts, as well as the original
60 watts.  He says they saw non-linearities, and that the "interesting"
part of the curve was in the lower power area.

I will try these additional points.  It'll be a few days, however,
before I have anything new to report.

--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com -- 612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills  MN 55112 USA           -


cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.05 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Fusion Funding in FY '95, House App. Comm.
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion Funding in FY '95, House App. Comm.
Date: Sun, 5 Jun 1994 06:33:20 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <2sna34$sk5@curly.cc.utexas.edu> johncobb@uts.cc.utexas.edu
(John W. Cobb) writes:
>I just saw this come across my terminal and I thought people here might
>be interested.
>
>It is an issue of FYI, an electronic publication from some people at APS.
>They track goins and comings of things in the U.S. congress.
>
>***** Begin Insert *****
>DOE FY1995 Budget Bill Goes To House Floor -
>Fusion Energy
>
>FYI No. 77, June 2, 1994
>
>The House bill making fiscal year 1995 appropriations for the
>Department of Energy, H.R. 4506, passed the House Appropriations
>Committee on May 26.  It now goes to the House floor, where a vote
>is expected the week of June 12.  Accompanying the bill is a
>146-page report outlining the Appropriations Committee's
>recommendations for spending.  FYIs #74 through #77 provide
>selections from the report of interest to the physics community.
>
>FUSION ENERGY
>
>Current appropriation:             $347,595,000
>Administration request:             372,563,000
>House committee bill:               376,563,000
>
>"The Committee is pleased with the outstanding results of the
>deuterium-tritium (D-T) experiments being conducted on the Tokamak
>Fusion Test Reactor (TFTR)....  TFTR produced more than six million
>watts of fusion power in December 1993, and it is expected to
>produce 10 million watts of fusion power later this year.  [On May
>31, TFTR announced production of 9 million watts of power.]  The
>Committee notes with approval that TFTR, the centerpiece of the
>U.S. fusion program, is achieving all of its design and scientific
>objectives."

So that the common man can get a handle on the power density of the 
tokamak, can we please estimate its output density in terms of the 
power density of a candle?   I think the comparison would be helpful.  
Just in case funding is stopped, it might might make a good garbage 
burner if the proper convection can be installed.  Of course, we would 
be substituting CO2 for neutrons.       :-)  

Leaving again.. be back in a while.  

>-john .w cobb
>---------------------------------------------------------------
>John W. Cobb	My posts don't reflect the views of my employer
>                Because my posts are usually opaque.
>---------------------------------------------------------------
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc,Bx 1037, Prometheus II, Ltd., College Park, MD 20741-1037 |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+



cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.05 / Bruce TK /  Re: RF heating in Tokomacs questio
     
Originally-From: bds@slcbdsipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce       Scott          TK  )
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: RF heating in Tokomacs questio
Date: 5 Jun 1994 16:16:54 GMT
Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching

I have been informed of some errors in my post on RF heating mechanisms.
First, the frequency for ion-cyclotron resonance heating (ICRH) is closer
to 60 Mhz [I had misplaced a decimal in the check: the electrons are heated
at 70 and 140 GHz for 1.5 and 3 T magnetic fields, so the frequency for the
ions must be a factor close to 2000 less (that's the mass ratio), which
comes out to around 60 MHz]. Further, both first and second harmonics are
used, which is why both 30 and 60 MHz are used on the tokamak here. The 
900 MHz was used for plasma production experiments on the stellarator here; 
this frequency is that of a different sort of wave motion, called "lower 
hybrid". [Max-Planck-IPP Annual Report, 1993, page 59. This is under a 
heading of "ICRH", which is how I got misled.]

Second, the problems with the wave energy going into the ion Bernstein 
waves and not into heating pertain only to the stellarator; for tokamaks 
this does not occur or is at least easily avoidable, I am told.

-- 
Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de                               -- W Gibson
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnTK cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.05 / Bruce TK /  Re: Fusion Funding in FY '95, House App. Comm.
     
Originally-From: bds@slcbdsipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce       Scott          TK  )
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion Funding in FY '95, House App. Comm.
Date: 5 Jun 1994 16:57:45 GMT
Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching

In article <CqwvJK.Crv@prometheus.UUCP>, pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) writes:

[...]

|> Leaving again.. be back in a while.  

Paul,

Any chance you might answer my question on the magnetic field configuration
of the Plasmak?

-- 
Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de                               -- W Gibson
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnTK cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.06 / Bounty Hunter /  Re: LP APOLOGIZES TO THE NOBEL FOUNDATION
     
Originally-From: bh@interaccess (Bounty Hunter)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion,sci.math,sci.chem,
ci.bio,sci.physics
Subject: Re: LP APOLOGIZES TO THE NOBEL FOUNDATION
Date: 6 Jun 1994 04:08:22 GMT
Organization: IAC

:   The Plutonium Atom Foundation is and will be the King of all science
: organizations. In the future, the Nobel Foundation will be no more to
: the science community than what "Red Cross, Blue Shield" are. In the

You sound pretty warped. 

I'm sorry, this is not intended as an insult, Ludwig, but I think that 
you need some help.

Just what IS The Plutonium Atom Foundation? What prestegious award does 
it offer? What well known physicists belong to this elite club?

What's your real name? What are your credentials?

Jake Harvey, goin' 4 da doctorate... someday... [plutonium award! yeah!]

cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenbh cudfnBounty cudlnHunter cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.06 / Chuck Sites /  Re: Fusion via Bose condensation of D+ ions (reply to Matt)
     
Originally-From: chuck@iglou.iglou.com (Chuck Sites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion via Bose condensation of D+ ions (reply to Matt)
Date: Mon, 6 Jun 1994 05:02:01 GMT
Organization: The Internet Gateway of Louisville, KY

mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel) writes:

Chuck Sites (chuck@iglou.iglou.com) wrote:

>:     Following the tradition of the College of sci.physics.fusion, here
>: is my reply to Matt Kenell on the question of fusion in a Bose
>: condensed aggregate of deuterons (D+).  Sorry this has taken so long Matt.

>:    First, your argument is basically comes down to, the deuteron has
>: an electrostatic potential of much further range than the strong force
>: and thus will do two things: [1] It will not allow a strong
>: interaction because the electromagnetic forces dominate. [2] The
>: electrostatic potential will keep the deuteron separation so large no
>: condensation effect will occur.  Of the two, #2 is where we have a an
>: argument.  #1 is obvious, but can be got around as nature shows us all
>: the time via quantum-mechanical tunneling and other artifacts of wave
>: interaction.  

>True, but the question is at what energy is this probable?  Conventional
>physics says keVs even including tunneling which is hot fusion.

I don't disagree. Getting around the coulumb barrier is not easy energy
wise.  However, there are tools in the wave mechanics that can be 
used to achive that goal.  It's one reason I'm so keen on this idea.
  

>: 1. A COLLECTION OF IDENTICAL PARTICLES

>: Lets say we have an ideal gas (a random collection of identical particles).

>: The total energy of the collection is simply the sum of the energy of
>: all the individuals which would be,

>:       epsilon_klm... = epsilon_k + epsilon_l + epsilon_m + ...

>Only if the particles have no mutual interaction.  Which is precisely
>the question w.r.t. "cold fusion".

     Actually the question is a deeper one.  Does Psi define the
potential, or does the potential define Psi?  All one can say with any
certainty is |PSI|^2 defines the probability of the particle at
position x,y,z,(t). The effects of the potential will only effect this if
the time for interaction and the exchange of energy are allowed.  In
the case of a Bose condensate (charged or not), the energy is the same
for all particles and thus the exchange of energy is effectivly 0
when summed.  It does not effect the deBroglie wave (which expands
spacially with decreasing temperature and energy) and explains why
the transition becomes superconducting. 

>: <lots of stat mech with which i have no objection>

>: Time = 1.                                                   (Figure 2.)

>: Now its time to look at the multi-body wave description of a Bose-
>: condensate as described by R. Liboff without the sophisticated band state 
>: complications of the Chubbs theory. Here the overlapping waves imply 
>: a certain and definite probability that the inner nucleon forces
>: will appear in the delocalized 'scattering' event (Ie. a scattering 
>: event masked in the uncertainty of position and momentum).  Graphically
>: a Bose condensate has the following appearance. 

>Where did the overlapping waves come from?  It has to be overlapping
>not only at an atomic scale but at a nuclear scale, as deuterons
>are composite particles.  You just assumed the desired consequence.

No I haven't.  If the particle is overlapped at the atomic scale, then
probability says it will be overlapped at the nuclear scale on
occasion. P(I)=I^12. If the nuclear force is attractive (as it is with
deuterons) then fusion should result.  In general the interaction will
be dominated electromagnetically over a large range, so yes, it will
require some external force to achive and maintain the quantum
configuration (in a gas state).  In a solid state configuration, 
the lattice structure may provide this, if it can be shown that 
condensation occurs. Anyway, with respect to the nuclear potential,           
high temperatures are one way of achiving fusion, condensation looks
like another.

>:     Now one of the difficulties that becomes apparent is that the
>: Coulomb potential for a D+ ion condensate should be quite high.  High
>: enough that condensation may not occur (in a free state as opposed to
>: the solid state mechanism used in the Chubbs work).  This was the
>: argument Matt Kenell and Dale Bass where making against some of my
>: earlier posts on D+ Bose condensation. However, knowing the problem is
>: half the battle.  Again, it's worth noting R. Liboff's work. In this case
>: we can counter act the electrostatic potential by applying a magnetic field
>: to a circulating mono-energetic beam of D ions. This amounts to tuning
>: the cyclotron frequency and maintaining the circulating beam's energy
>: to a single energy state.  As the magnetic field tightens the D+ ion
>: ribbon and focusing elements maintain the monoenergetic state, it's
>: believed the ribbon will under go a transition to a condensed quantum 
>: state (much like the figure above).  Obviously this is not a simple 
>: experiment.    

>What?

Did I not make it clear to you Matt?  This experiment is currently underway.
If you want to understand the method, see reference 18.  

>: 5. ESTIMATING THE FUSION RATE OF A D+ ION CONDENSATE  
>:    
>: Here is the argument Liboff makes about fusion in a Deuteron condensate.
>: To start, we use the London criteria [Eq 3.9], that is given by,

>: Tc = 2 pi h_bar^2 / K_b M (2.61 v)^ 2/3  ~= 8E-15 n^(2/3)             [5.1]

>: At Tc, the free gas deBroglie wave is overlapped.  Here v is the 
>: volume of the particle, n is the number density, and M is the 
>: deuteron mass. At n~=10E23/cm^3, Tc ~= 16K. Assuming a product 
>: form of the two-body wavefunction, (The so called joint wave function) 
>: the overlap is given by

>:             b/2  b/2
>:       1    /   /
>: I =  ---  |   |    dx_1 dx_2 psi_1(x_1) psi_2(x_2)                    [5.2]
>:       b   /   /           
>:         -b/2  -b/2 


>Ahem.  If you assume a product form like this you have just assumed away the
>problem.  I think mutual coulomb repulsion will result in a wave function
>with non-independent p.d.f's that arrange themselves so as to not overlap.
>It just doesn't look like this, but a more complicated PSI(x_1,x_2).

Ok, I see what you are arguing, do you see mine?  Eq 5.2 will be true of 
all Bose condensed systems regardless of charge simply by the definition
of condensation.  Obviously if the condensate consists of charged particles
it will be superconducting.  [As a side note: an interesting effect of this
from some crude calculations I've done is that, if a positive charge carrier 
becomes superconducting in a normal metal under a fixed current, the voltage 
should increase. Just like P&F showed in the controversial Phy Let A paper.
That will come in a later post.  It is interesting regardless of your view
on CF].   
  
>Sure you can compute a fusion rate assuming a wave function, but that's not
>the whole story.  The question is "is this wave function going to be an
>equilibrium state"??

>I think *no*.  It may even look like a bose condensed state *at atomic
>distances and energies* and yet rearrange itself to avoid close nuclear
>interactions to avoid paying the electrostatic devil.

That's one I don't buy.  You have competing forces in the overlap. Via 
Guage theory, there is a certain probability they can interact nuclear.
Small granted, but it's there.
 
>Here's a way out:  if you consider the mutual interaction potential to look
>like:

>H(r1,r2) =  +Z^2 e^2/ |r1-r2| - 23MeV*delta(r1-r2)
>	     ^^^^		   ^^^^^^^^
>       repulsive electrostatic      attractive nuclear potential

Ok, that should work for the two particle case.  How about the N body
condensed state?  It might be more informative to utilize the
Hamiltonian for electron superconductivity as a starting point since
the systems are both condensed charge carriers.  Once that's done,
then add in the nuclear potential.  This particular Hamiltonian
assumes a solid state enviroment as opososed to free state.  Anyway,
here is the way I've seen the hard core boson model stated: ref. [12].
                     
                                          N 
                ___                      ___
             t  \       +         +      \
H_boson = - ---  >  (a_i a_j + a_j a_i) + >  v_i n_i + H_hc
             2  /__                      /__  
                <i,j>                    i = 1

The first is the sum of the kinetic energy of all the bosons with a
hoping constant of t = h_bar^2/2m a^2 where m is the efective 
mass and a is the lattice spacing. The second sumation represents
the potential energy from disorder in the system and H_hc is the hard
core interaction which inhibits the double occupancy of bosons 
at a particluar site.  The last parameter is interesting in that it
fits with your earlier argument, however from the point of view of 
of the wave equations I don't understand it's purpose. As I see it,
this is where an attractive potential could take over, or in super
conductivity where the exchange of charge takes place under current.          
Perhaps this is one you might want to look into.
 
>Then maybe if the density were high enough you could find a low-energy
>*equilibrium* overlapping state.  I'm doubtful though.

>And then how to hide the fusion products?  I'm really really doubtful.

First, I just want to point out, that Liboff's work is in the plasma 
area and not the solid state enviroment.  In this case we don't want to
hide the fusion products.  In fact it would be great to see a few neutrons,
gamma's etc just to prove the concept works.  In the solid state enviroment,
I do however understand what Chubb's is saying with respect to the He4++ band
state. If the two bands can co-exist at approximately the same energy levels
and spacial extent, then the system should favor He4 as a reaction product.
At least that's what his equations predict.   Actually, it might be really
interesting if Liboff introduced doubly ionized He4 into his machine, tuned 
it just right, so both condensates exist simultaniously. We could then judge
if the selection rules are altered. I guess first we need to calculate 
whether it possible to condense two different masses simultaniously.  

>sorry i still can't buy it.

>cheers
>Matt

--
-Matt Kennel  		mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu
-Institute for Nonlinear Science, University of California, San Diego
-*** AD: Archive for nonlinear dynamics papers & programs: FTP to
-***     lyapunov.ucsd.edu, username "anonymous".

Thanks Matt.  As always, a good reply. 

I've had several folks out there ask me for the references I used 
for that previous post. Here they are:
              
               INITIAL DISCOVERY 
[1] M. Fleishmann, S. Pons, M. Hawkins "Electrochemical Induced Nuclear
    Fusion of Deuterium", J. Electroanal. Chem., 261, 301 (1989)
[2] S. E. Jones et al. Nature  Vol 338, 737-740 (1989)   (RETRACTED?) 

               USENET CORRESPONDENCE sci.physics.fusion 
[3] C. Sites,  "New Theory", Usenet corrispondence, sci.physics.fusion 11/90
[4] Terry Bollinger, "Twist Of Ribbon". Usenet correspondence, 
    sci.physics.fusion 04/91 
[5] Chuck Sites, "Heavy Heat". Usenet correspondence, sci.physics.fusion 06/91
[6] William Berneky, "BWO's". Usenet correspondence, sci.physics.fusion 06/93  
[7] Terry Bollinger, "Bernecky Condensation (Draft)". Usenet correspondence, 
    sci.physics.fusion 07/93 

               HYDROGEN BAND THEORY AND EXPERIMENTS  
[8] F. F.Muguet, P. Bassez-Muguet, "AB Initio Computation of One and Two
    Hydrogen or Deterium Atom in the Palladium Tetrahedral Site", Preprint
    Sept. 1989.  
[9] R. Nieminen, "Hydrogen atoms band together"  Nature, Vol 356. 289-290.
     March 26 1992
[10] R. DiFoggio and R. Gomer, "Diffusion of hydrogen and deuterium on the
     (110) plane of tungsten". Phys. Rev. B 25, 3490 (1982)
[11] C. Astaldi, A. Bianco, S. Modesti, E. Tosatti. "Vibrational Spectra
     of Atomic H & D on Cu(110): Evidence for H Quantum Delocalization"
     Phy. Rev. Lett. Vol 68 no. 1. (90-).   
[12] T. Onogi and Y. Murayama "Two-Dimensional Superfluidity and Localization
     in the Hard-Core Boson Model: a Quantum Monte Carlo Study", Preprint
     June 1993
[13] A. Das and R. Peierls "The force on a moving charge in an electron gas",
     J. Phys. C Vol 6. 2811 (1973)
[14] R. Sorbello and B. Dasgupta, "Local fields in electron transport: 
     Application to electromigration", Phy Rev B. 16 5193 1977

                   NUCLEAR PHYSICS
[15] Scott Chubb and Talbot Chubb, "Lattice Induced Nuclear Chemistry",
     AIP Conference proceedings 228. (1990). 
[16] Scott Chubb and Talbot Chubb, "Interaction between ion band states"
     Fusion Technology Vol 20, Aug 1991
[17] R. Liboff, "Feasibility of fusion of an aggregate of deuterons in the 
     ground state", Phy Let A, 173 317-219 (1993)
[18] R. Liboff, "Quantum transition of a deuteron beam", Phy Let A, 166
     416-418 (1992)
[19] R. Liboff, "Conjectured Superfluidity of deuterium", Phy Let A, 61A 4
     244-246 (1977)
[20] S. Koonin, M. Nauenberg "Calculated fusion rates in isotopic hydrogen
     molecules" Nature V. 339 690-691 June 29 1989

                  GENERAL PHYSICS TEXTS
[21] Max Born. "Atomic Physics." 8th edition.  Dover Publishing Inc. 1969
     p. 230-.
[22] David Bohm, "Quantum Theory", 1st edition, Dover Publishing Inc. 1989.
     p 511-581, "Theory of scattering"
[23] J.D. Fairbank B.S. Deaver, Jr., C.W F. Everitt, P.F. Michelson.
     "Near Zero: New Frontiers of Physics" W.H. Freeman and Comhany. 1988
     From the Conference: "Near Zero" at Stanford University March 1982.    
[24] Donald D. Clayton, "Principles of Stellar Evolution and Nucleosynthesis"
     University of Chicago Press, 1983 Chapter 4, "Thermonuclear reaction
     rates".
 
        
Have Fun,
Chuck SItes
chuck@iglou.iglou.com

cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Mon Jun  6 04:37:06 EDT 1994
------------------------------
1994.06.05 / Richard Corrado /  Re: Ludwig is on the Web!!!
     
Originally-From: rcorrado@linux6.ph.utexas.edu (Richard A. Corrado)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics,sci.chem,sci.bio,sci.a
tro,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Ludwig is on the Web!!!
Date: 5 Jun 1994 23:39:21 -0500
Organization: Physics Department, University of Texas at Austin

In article <2sot9i$nfr@linux6.ph.utexas.edu>,
I  <rcorrado@linux6.ph.utexas.edu> wrote:
>Ludwig Plutonium is apparently an inmate at the Asylum, a Web site!
>To find him use the following URL (type as one line, with no spaces):
                                           ---            --

>http://www.galcit.caltech.edu/~ta/
>inmtbrowse.html#X24852FriXJunXX3X19:00:26X1994Z


>It's amazing what you find while browsing the Web!


Since posting this Ludwig has been moved to a new URL. Try

http://www.galcit.caltech.edu/~ta/inmates/file11.html#D 


Richard Corrado
Department of Physics 
University of Texas at Austin 


cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenrcorrado cudfnRichard cudlnCorrado cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.06 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Fusion Funding in FY '95, House App. Comm.
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion Funding in FY '95, House App. Comm.
Date: Mon, 6 Jun 1994 04:32:44 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <2st069INN4ua@sat.ipp-garching.mpg.de> bds@slcbdsipp-garching
mpg.de (Bruce       Scott          TK  ) writes:
>In article <CqwvJK.Crv@prometheus.UUCP>, pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) writes:
>
>Paul,
>Any chance you might answer my question on the magnetic field configuration
>of the Plasmak?
>-- 
>Gruss,
>Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
>Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
>bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de                               -- W Gibson

As you know, the topology is similar to that of the Spheromak, but with
a hole, more as described by Bussac and Rosenbluth.  Since the boundary
is omnigenous, that is another concstraint on the topology, and during
formation some flux is consummed generating the clamping runnaways.  

The symetric appearing topology you described as the fixed field 
machinines, only goes so far; plasma is disturbed by even the integral 
number of coils and their related or associated induced "wrinkles" in 
the flux surfaces and local shears.  Such ripples can can generate 
interesting and devish  effects.  PLASMAK(tm) is probably unique as a 
far smoother, more conducting topological embodiment.  It therefore 
likely assumes full advantage of the benefits of an axisysmetric nature 
of its topology, where tokamaks aren less to begin with, and will have 
difficulty, even if the numbers of toroidal field coils might be 
increased by 25% for a smoother magsurf.   

Until our data and analysis are finsished, correlated and released, 
better for you to run numbers from the orginal studies, since those 
first efforts were not far off.   Ours needs work and it's close for
a while.    

As I said.. . I'm in a bit of a bind for a while.. so pehaps you would 
have an interest to can discuss this latter after I'm though a few business
probes.  

+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc,Bx 1037, Prometheus II, Ltd., College Park, MD 20741-1037 |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.06 / Dieter Britz /  Re: Nature
     
Originally-From: kemidb@aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Nature
Date: 6 Jun 94 07:24:59 GMT
Organization: Aarhus University, Denmark

In <0097F794.A1F641C0.22487@FSCVAX.FSC.MASS.EDU> vnoninski@fscvax.fsc.mass.edu writes:

>Dear Colleagues,

[stuff about gyrosopes deleted]
>act as  their own referees. I have evidence 
>that Nature applies double standards 
>in its publication practices. While Nature publishes the 
>paper of Petrasso et al 
>criticizing Fleischmann et als' paper (published in 
>another journal -JEAC), this 
>same journal -- Nature -- refuses to publish a paper criticizing a paper of 
>Petrasso as a coauthor, giving as a sole reason the fact 
>that Petrasso's paper has  
>not been published in Nature and it is not the policy of Nature to publish 
>criticisms of papers published in other journals. By the way, speaking about 
>Petrasso, I have a written evidence by him, acknowledging lack of expertise in 
A small point, for anyone who tries to locate this paper with Petrasso as
coauthor: I don't believe there is such a paper in "JEAC" (commonly called
JEC, or J. Electroanal. Chem) - at least, I have never seen one, and I look
at JEC regularly. There is a paper, by Albagli ..., Petrasso,..., in
J. Fusion Energy 9 (1990), 133, "Measurement and analysis of neutron and
gamma-ray emission rates, other fusion products, and power in electrochemical
cells having Pd cathodes", in which Petrasso (among 15 others) reports a
calorimetry experiment (with a null result). I take it that someone in that
team knew a thing or two about calorimetry, it looks competently done. If you
worry about Petrasso not being an electrochemist, forget it: in this team
there were 5 from the MIT chemistry department, including an electrochemist.


-- 
Dieter Britz   alias kemidb@aau.dk
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenkemidb cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.06 / John Cobb /  Fusion Power Density was Re: Fusion Funding in FY '95, House App. Comm.
     
Originally-From: johncobb@uts.cc.utexas.edu (John W. Cobb)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Fusion Power Density was Re: Fusion Funding in FY '95, House App. Comm.
Date: 6 Jun 1994 07:54:22 -0500
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas

In article <CqwvJK.Crv@prometheus.uucp>,
Paul M. Koloc <pmk@promethe.UUCP> wrote:
>In article <2sna34$sk5@curly.cc.utexas.edu> johncobb@uts.cc.utexas.edu
(John W. Cobb) writes:
>So that the common man can get a handle on the power density of the 
>tokamak, can we please estimate its output density in terms of the 
>power density of a candle?   I think the comparison would be helpful.  
>Just in case funding is stopped, it might might make a good garbage 
>burner if the proper convection can be installed.  Of course, we would 
>be substituting CO2 for neutrons.       :-)  

Also, during the same calculation, can we please estimate the power density
of the sun? Such a comparison might indicate that a single figure of merit
in isolation can be misleading ;>}

-john .w cobb



-- 
 --------------------------------------------------------------
John W. Cobb	My posts don't reflect the views of my employer
                Because my posts are usually opaque.
 --------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenjohncobb cudfnJohn cudlnCobb cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.06 / John Logajan /  Re: Verification of Thermacore calibration
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Verification of Thermacore calibration
Date: 6 Jun 1994 13:48:04 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Online Services Member.

I ran the Thermacore-like calibration test at 30 watts now also.
I have started a run at 15 watts -- should have results in 30 hours or so.

Here is an ongoing table of results.   The notation (x hr avg) means that
the calibration constant was computed from the average of the measured
values of the period x -- usually one hour at the end of a power change.

                  "60 Watts"   "60 watts"    "30 watts"
                  (1 hr avg)   (36 hr avg)   (1 hr avg)
Watts/Degree C       5.56         5.23          5.53
Degrees C/Watt       0.18         0.19          0.18

Average Ambient F   76.40        75.00         75.85
Max Deviation F     +0.81        +1.85         +1.00
Max Deviation F     -0.89        -0.97         -1.00

Final Ambient F     76.4         76.3          76.4
Final Water F       95.8         96.1          86.0

Average Power W     60.00        60.00         29.40
Max Deviation W     +0.36        +0.20         +0.18
Max Deviation W     -0.16        -0.46         -0.12

--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com -- 612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills  MN 55112 USA           -

cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.06 / Tom Radcliffe /  Re: A Flash from the Economist
     
Originally-From: tom@mips2.phy.queensu.ca (Tom Radcliffe)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A Flash from the Economist
Date: 6 Jun 1994 17:00:10 GMT
Organization: Queen's University, Kingston

In article <CqtCF1.69K@eskimo.com>, nanook@eskimo.com (Robert Dinse) writes:
|> In article <#l-7n8n@dixie.com>, jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:
|> > nanook@eskimo.com (Robert Dinse) writes:
|> > 
[deleted]
|> 
|>      As I mentioned in a previous post, some forms of cooking are worse than
|> others in so much as formation of toxic or carcinogenic chemicals goes, and
|> BBQ is one of the worst, but I still eat BBQ's food.
|> 
|>      However, NOBODY FORCES me to eat it.  When I eat it, I >KNOW< it is BBQ'd.
|> But the proponents of gamma sterilization of food object vehemiently to the
|> idea that the public should be INFORMED with regards to what is being done to
|> their food prior to consumption.

I am a proponent of gamma-sterilized food, and do not object to it being
identified as such.  Of course, I *do* object to it being labeled with
the international ``radioactive'' trefoil symbol, because it is *not*
radioactive.  Guess what opponents of gamma-sterilized foods often want
it labelled with?
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudentom cudfnTom cudlnRadcliffe cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.07 / Linas Vepstas /  Re: Ludwig is on the Web!!!
     
Originally-From: linas@austin.ibm.com (Linas Vepstas)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics,sci.chem,sci.bio,sci.a
tro,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Ludwig is on the Web!!!
Date: Tue, 7 Jun 1994 00:42:44 GMT
Organization: IBM Graphics Systems


In article <2su99p$r9p@linux6.ph.utexas.edu>, rcorrado@linux6.ph.utexas.
du (Richard A. Corrado) writes:
>
> http://www.galcit.caltech.edu/~ta/inmates/file11.html#D 
> 

Could you check this? I can't seem to get at this.

-linas
-- 
   ^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^
     You are in a twisty little maze of standards, all conflicting.
   ^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^

cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenlinas cudfnLinas cudlnVepstas cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.07 / Lars Bomholt /  Re: The FAQ for superconductivity 21/05/1994
     
Originally-From: laerser@athena.mit.edu (Lars H Bomholt)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The FAQ for superconductivity 21/05/1994
Date: 7 Jun 1994 01:51:16 GMT
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology

what moving these endless speculations somewhere else. maybe
a new newsgroup: sci.ludwig.plutonium

lars

cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenlaerser cudfnLars cudlnBomholt cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Tue Jun  7 04:37:04 EDT 1994
------------------------------
1994.05.27 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Comments on Ed Storms' Tech. Review article
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Comments on Ed Storms' Tech. Review article
Date: 27 May 94 12:24:16 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

[Colleagues:  
Our family is taking a vacation to Idaho/Yellowstone Park for the 
Memorial Day weekend + ;
so I won't be able to reply to postings until June 9.] 

There have been allusions here to the recent article by Ed Storms
in the MIT Technology Review.  I have read the article, and have
a few comments.

First, the article mentions that Ed has retired from the Los Alamos
National Lab., but fails to mention that he is (or recently was)
working for ENECO, the company in Salt Lake City which is trying
to get investor's money for CF-heat research.  This strikes me as relevant: 
his *current* employment (since it relates to CF directly).  Second, Ed does a
reasonable job reviewing various experiments -- but clearly the
emphasis is on positive results.  In particular, recent
*rectractions* by the BYU team (including me) are not mentioned. 
Likewise, retractions by the Brookhaven group of D2O-cluster impact
fusion are not mentioned at all.  

Nor does Ed mention the problem of repeated failures to produce
even one x-ray spectrum which would show the presence of nuclear
reactions occurring in palladium, via secondary interactions.  The
absence of such a spectrum argues most strongly against the notion
that *any* nuclear reaction whatsoever, sufficient to produce
measurable heat, is occuring in the metal. 

With regard to theory, Ed reviews various models and finds them all
deficient:  "Theoreticians are nowhere near a consensus" he admits.
Actually, the consensus from such failed efforts may be to suggest
that apparent excess heat in electrolytic cells is in fact not
nuclear in origin at all.  

But Ed takes a different tack:    "How is the significant energy
unleashed by a nuclear reaction transferred directly to a material,
instead of departing the scene in the form of energetic particles
and radiation?  Finally, why does cold fusion occur when a material
is in a special condition of matter, akin to the state of
superconductivity that some materials enter at low temperatures? 
What is this special condition that occurs in palladium...?"  "Such
questions will need to be answered before the phenomenon can be
made to occur reproducibly and at high levels -- an essential
requirement if the effect is to be used to produce energy on an
industrial scale."  "... a workable theory is crucial if we ever
hope to apply cold fusion."

Unfortunately, Storms gives no hint that the questions he poses may
point, not to a new nuclear phenomen, but rather to problems in the
interpretation of inconsistent experimental results.  Instead, he
offers up his own theory:     

     "When helium forms during fusion, two particles are condensed
into one.  The laws of physics require that in any interaction
between particles, momentum (the product of mass and velocity) must
be conserved.  In hot fusion, a 24-MeV gamma ray is emitted to
satisfy this conservation requirement.  No gamma rays with this
energy are observed in cold fusion.

     "The most probable reason, I believe, is that the material has
transformed into a special condition that enables the atomic
lattice to absorb most of the nuclear energy being generated.  If
we assume that the material in this condition has a similar ability
to absorb nuclear radiation applied from outside, a straightforward
experiment could test this hypothesis.  One could irradiate the
material with gamma radiation, which easily penetrates ordinary
palladium.  When this special condition exists, the material should
block some of the gamma rays; the portion of gamma radiation
absorbed should correspond to the amount of the material that has
switched to the fusion-enabling condition."   [end of quote from Ed Storms]

While admitting that no high-energy gamma rays are emitted, Ed
pleads that the host material "has transformed into a special
condition that enables the *atomic* lattice to absorb most of the
*nuclear energy* [24 MeV] being generated."  But this statement is
unsupported by any description of the "new condition" or
calculation whatsoever.  Indeed any attempt at such a calculation
must explain how atomic processes, which are of magnitude less than
100 keV, can fully absorb nuclear-scale energy release -- 24 MeV
in the Ed cites above.  When one recognizes this enormous
difference in scale, by several orders of magnitude, one sees the
folly of supposing that atomic systems can fully absorb nuclear
energies so as to block emission of gamma rays (and x-rays and
neutrons and so on). 

Ed Storms should consider whether a simpler theoretical explanation
might fit the data better:  the excess heat (if real) is *not*
nuclear in origin.  And if not nuclear in origin, applications
beyond a small power source using expensive palladium are most
unlikely.  Clearly, there are solid alternatives by which we may
address our energy needs.  And over 60 million dollars' worth of
effort over five years has failed to show that putative excess heat
in electrolytic cells has any hope of producing useful energy.* 
Thus, continuing to chase a purported nuclear energy system which
inexplicably hides nuclear effects is demonstrably unwise.

--Steven Jones

*See, for example, the report of the DOE/ERAB committee:
"...the Panel concludes that the experimental results of excess
heat from calorimetric cells reported to date do no present
convincing evidence that useful sources of energy will result from
the phenomena attributed to cold fusion."
"The Panel concludes that the experiments reported to date do not
present convincing evidence to associate the reported anomalous
heat with a nuclear process." 
_Cold Fusion Research_, November 1989, DOE/S-0073.
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenjonesse cudmo5 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.01 /  jonesse@physc1 /  <None>
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: <None>
Date: 1 Jun 94 17:44:37 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

In article <CqGK8B.Jx9@world.std.com>, 
mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
>    In Subject: McKubre/Srinivasan expt.: No excess heat
> Message-ID: <1994May20.111621.1633@physc1.byu.edu>
> Steven Jones (jonesse@physc1.byu.edu) writes:
> 
> =sjones     " I have, from a colleague at EPRI:
> =sjones    they found *apparent* excess heat before
> =sjones   taking recombination into account.  Then McKubre and Srinivasan 
> =sjones  checked the evolving gases, and sure enough, *all* the 
> =sjones   excess heat was accounted for by recombination 
> =sjones    of hydrogen and oxygen!"
> 
>    Steve,  this would appear to be very important **if**  it is true,
> and if it does occur for active (material-speaking) electrodes.
> 
>    First,  did  McKubre and Srinivasan find that "*all* the 
> excess  heat was accounted for by recombination 
> of hydrogen and oxygen"  for  the nickel-light water system, 
> or  for the palladium-heavy water system,  or both?

I understand that this was for the nickel-H2O system, in the McKubre/
Srinivasan experiments conducted at SRI.
> 
>    Second, what was the loading achieved?
> 
Unknown.
>    Third, are you certain of your source?    Care to name him/her?
> 
Yes.  No.

>    Best wishes. 
>              Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com)
> 
> 
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenjonesse cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.03 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Re: Good Morning America on P&F
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Good Morning America on P&F
Date: 3 Jun 94 17:04:45 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

In article <940601120245.20815866@FNALD.FNAL.GOV>, DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:
> Those plotting the Pons predicted time of arrival of the 10 Kw water heater
> vs Date will notice that it is accelerating exponentially into the future.
> 
> Tom Droege
> 

But wait:  An article in the Deseret News dated July 8, 1989 shows Pons
with a "demonstration" water-heater, already functioning -- complete with
a full-color picture including smiling Pons.

' "It wouldn't take care of the family's electrical needs, but it certainly
could provide them with hot water year-round," said Pons, who said he's
always believed that the practical application of cold fusion could happen this
fast.'    [JoAnn Jacobsen-Wells, reporter , Des. News July 8, 1989]

That was 5 years away, alright, but in the PAST!

Now providing a family with hot water year-round takes more than 20 watts.
In fact, hundreds of watts are needed.  So just how come we have to wait
another 4 or 5 years, according to P&F Good Morning America report, 
for such a water heater?
What's going on here?

Too bad the GMA reporter did not do more homework.
There are actually several good books out which would have enlightened him,
and the viewing audience.  His one-sided approach, I think, did a severe 
disservice to factuality and fairness; in particular, Guillan's report 
was most unfair in castigating the American scientific
community.

Related:  an article by James Randi in the APS news for June 1994 states:

"Why are the people of every culture so anxiously embracing claptrap that
should have been left behind...?  Part of the reason is to be found in the
uncritical acceptance and promotion of these notions by the media, prominent
personalities, and government agencies."
"The 'cold fusion' farce should have tossed onto the trash heap long ago, but
justifiable fear of legal actions by offended supporters has stifled
opponents."

"At the risk of being unbearably realistic, I must tell you that Elvis Presley
is really dead, the sky is not falling, perpetual motion is a chimera,
cold fusion is a dead duck,  the earth is not flat, and the fault lies not in
our stars, but in ourselves."

Did the reporter ask about the demonstration (P&F) water-heater claimed in 
1989? 
No.
Did he ask about the absence of x-ray spectra?  (Neutrons, etc.)
No.
Did he ask whether the claimed excess heat also occurred in light water?
Whether * fusion* was still claimed by P&F?  
Did he ask the opinion of experts with alternative views, e.g., anyone on
the D"OE- review panel for 'cold fusion'?
No, No, No.....

What has happened to our sense of scientific inquiry sans media hype?

--Steven Jones
P.S. - Tom:  we're still working on sonoluminescence studies:  getting
stable, single-bubble SL is VERY difficult; we're still around step two.
Doing other things now too, e.g.,  applying advanced geophysics
techniques to archaelogical studies.

cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenjonesse cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.03 /  jonesse@physc1 /  cancel <1994Jun3.165355.1642@physc1.byu.edu>
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cancel <1994Jun3.165355.1642@physc1.byu.edu>
Date: 3 Jun 94 17:04:59 -0600

cancel <1994Jun3.165355.1642@physc1.byu.edu>
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenjonesse cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.03 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Question for Marshall Dudley/ 44Sc       
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Question for Marshall Dudley/ 44Sc       
Date: 3 Jun 94 17:13:20 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

In article <WAF2PCB521341493@brbbs.brbbs.com>, 
mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY) writes:
> Paul Karol writes:
> 
> -> Nice calculation involving Ti-46 + d --> V-48 --> Sc-44 + alpha
> -> realising 4.2 MeV of energy to account for the observation of Sc44
> -> activity in a Ti sample exposed to deuterium.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> -> But..
> 
> uh-oh.
> 
> -> The d + d community sometimes argues that He is made with the
> -> energy released to the lattice.  In the Ti-46 case, the equivalent
> -> V-48 is easily detected by the same apparatus that would have
> -> detected Sc-44 gammas.
> 
> That is assuming that the detection apparatus was monitoring gammas
> during the loading phase.  I had assumed that the monitoring was done
> later after the loading, so they only saw products with a reasonable
> half-life.  We would need an imput from the researcher here to clarify
> this.
> 
> ->  But...furthermore...The Ti-48, -49, -50 would all undergo
> -> (d,alpha) reactions in this scheme releasing similar amounts of
> -> energy and yielding (also) very easily detectable Sc-46, Sc-47, and
> -> Sc-48 through their hard gammas.  So indeed, discovering of JUST
> -> Sc-44 in a natural Ti sample is noteworthy, but not for the reason
> -> implied.
> 
> Negative.  The V-50 has a 1.3E17 year half-life.  It would therefore
> contribute a gamma intensity of 1/4E17 of the 16 day half-life V-48.
> The V-51 is stable and has no daughters.  The V-52 has a half life of
> 3.75 minutes and gives off a 1434 Kev Gamma and a beta.  It does not
> decay into Sc-48 at all, but rather decays into Cr52 which is stable.
> Thus if measurements were made of the gamma spec AFTER the loading,
> Sc44 is the ONLY isotope one would expect to find with this theory.
> 
> Thanks for the reply.  It made me go back and look at the other
> alternatives, and see if there was consistance between what was reported
                                                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> and what one would expect.
> 
>                                                                 Marshall
> 

Okay, tell us:  what group reported seeing Sc44 in a "natural Ti sample",
how was this sample treated,
and where was this reported?

It's time to put a stop to unsubstantiated rumors.

--Steven Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenjonesse cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.03 /  jonesse@physc1 /  cancel <1994Jun3.171103.1645@physc1.byu.edu>
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cancel <1994Jun3.171103.1645@physc1.byu.edu>
Date: 3 Jun 94 17:13:58 -0600

cancel <1994Jun3.171103.1645@physc1.byu.edu>
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenjonesse cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.06 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Going on vacation/ Ti contamination
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Going on vacation/ Ti contamination
Date: 6 Jun 94 15:38:44 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

Dear colleagues,
Tomorrow I leave for a muon-catalyzed fusion collaboration meeting
at the Los Alamos Nat. Lab., then on to Missouri and Tennessee for 
vacation and family reunion.  Will be gone about 17 days, but our
system only saves about 10 days of posts.  So I'd appreciate having
someone save any response to my queries about what group purportedly
found transmutation in titanium loaded with deuterium.

Again, the observation of gamma-rays from a deuterided-titantium sample, 
in experiments done at Los Alamos (using Ti from BYU!) was shown finally
to be due to actinium-227 contamination -- not transmutation. (!)
This observation joins the long list of results which appeared at first
to be novel physics, but which proved to have a prosaic explanation.
I know of no "cold fusion" experiments for which novel-physics explanations
are compellingly required.  

--Steven Jones

cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenjonesse cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.07 / Bill Page /  Neutron beta decay spectrum
     
Originally-From: 70047.3047@compuserve.com (Bill Page)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Neutron beta decay spectrum
Date: Tue, 7 Jun 1994 12:38:00 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Dear Prof. Close,

Suggestions have been made that in the hypothetical very tightly bound 
electron state (Vigier et al.), monoatomic hyrdogen might behave in a 
neutron-like manner.  Actually, this is a very old idea dating back to 
Rutherford and Chadwick (approx. 1932).  That neutrons might be 
quasi-stationary, tightly bound proton-electron pairs was rejected on the 
basis of several observations including spin measurements (Heitler and 
Herzberg, 1929) and proton-proton proton-neutron scattering data (M. Tuve 
et al., 1936).  To save this concept, at the very least we would need an 
alternate model of the spin data (necessarily involving relativistic 
quantum mechanics - difficult but perhaps possible) and a new 
interpretation of the scattering data (more difficult).

In any case, it doesn't hurt to look... Could you recommend a reference to 
accurate measurements of the decay energies for isolated neutrons?  Of 
course it is difficult (impossible?) to measure the energy of the 
neutrinos.  However, how accurately can the proton and electron energies be 
measured?  I vaguely recall hearing of experiments involving ultra cold 
neutrons that could concievably provide such data. In your opinion, is 
there any evidence to suggest a "fine structure" or other manifestation of 
quantified states?

The objections to Vigier's theories based on the use of inappropriate 
non-relativistic approximations not with standing, the theory predicts that 
the energies of these tightly bound states vary as 1/n as opposed to n**2.  
Can current experimental data put upper bounds on the possible magnitude of 
these hypothetical states?  Presumably we would have to look carefully at 
the the 1/2, 1/3 ... tail-end of the distribution.

On a related topic.  I still have not seen the proceedings from the Maui 
conference.  Have you heard any reasons why the publication is taking so 
long? (Originally scheduled for March 1994.)  Do you know whether Vigier 
has made substantial modifications to his paper?

Cheers,

Bill Page.

cc. Fusion Digest (sci.physics.fusion)

cudkeys:
cuddy7 cuden3047 cudfnBill cudlnPage cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.07 / Dieter Britz /  False Prophets
     
Originally-From: kemidb@aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: False Prophets
Date: 7 Jun 94 12:06:51 GMT
Organization: Aarhus University, Denmark

In the last year or so I have, in this group, seen several mentions of
the book "False Prophets" by Alexander Kohn; every time, it was said that
the book mentions 'cold fusion' as an example of (at best) doubtful
science.
I have just borrowed the book from the library and find not a single mention
of 'cold fusion'. This does not surprise me because the book was published
in 1986. Checking in a bibliographic index, I find a paperback edition in
1988, still pre-CNF.
So, what's the story? Is there perhaps a second edition post-1989 that is no
longer in Books in Print? Or is the citation simply an error?

-- 
Dieter Britz   alias kemidb@aau.dk
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenkemidb cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.08 / Jed Rothwell /  Wirling voltmeter test FAILS!
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Wirling voltmeter test FAILS!
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 1994 00:34:16 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG

A couple of weeks ago, a friend of mine wrote to me about experiments
performed by Thomas Valone, at SUNYAB Physics Dept 1983. My
friend wrote:

     "An interesting experiment was done by Valone.  He placed a LED (with a
     threshold circuit) on the rotating disc.  he then could measure the
     voltage *in the rotating frame*."

I got the Valone paper, and I think my friend misread it. I think he has it
backwards, Valone proved there is no voltage.

I have discovered that there are many claims that whirling magnets machines
somehow tap into energy fields and generate excess energy. This is all new to
me, I had no idea that anyone ever claimed that. I have no idea what to make
of these claims, I have never heard of them. It sounds mighty unlikely to me
but since I have never investigated or observed any experiments, I must refrain
from making any comments. I cannot form any opinion about something I have not
seriously studied.

Chris Tinsley is seriously investigating these whirling magnets. He send me
several comments in response to Noninsky's posting here, and asked me to
forward them here. I was going to attach them to Noninsky's posting, but that
is too complicated, I will just zap them over from CompuServe. (That's cheaper
and faster -- 9600 BAUD!)

Chris says he welcomes any suggestions or e-mail. He can be contacted via
CompuServe 73751,3365.

- Jed

 -----------------------------------------------

MESSAGE FROM CHRIS TINSLEY:


I've been trying to get to the bottom of the matter of the Faraday homopolar
generator, and am grateful for Dr Noninsky's posting.  Perhaps I can put in a
small clarification.  By the way, I'm one of the dread CF gang, I write for our
little rag, with its highly original title, "Cold Fusion".
 
1.  Yes, it is a mysterious little gadget, but its chief mystery is that it
receives such muddled and sketchy treatment in the textbooks.  In fact, it is a
beautiful demonstration of electromagnetism and, as such, should be (but
seemingly is not) familiar to all.
 
2.  There are three distinct configurations, they are sometimes confused.  The
first is a rotating disc with a magnetic field passing through part of it,
parallel to its axis.  This is a simple magnetic brake.  It will induce a
potential between points on the disk along the radius through which the field
passes.  The reverse of this device is the rotating magnet and 'fixed' disc,
and is used in conventional car speedometers.  The fact that this is a rotating
device is irrelevant, it works just as well if you pull a magnet pole rapidly
across a thick conducting plate - you can easily feel the drag.
 
3.  The second and third configurations appear to be equivalent, and each is
reversible as a motor or generator.  These are a cylinder with a radial
magnetic field, and the original disc, which again rotates in an invariant
field.  In the case of the disc, a magnet (disc or torus) produces a field
running parallel to and coaxial with the disc.  It is important to realise that
in this case *there is no torque linkage between the magnet and the disc* and
therefore it is quite irrelevant whether the magnet is rotating or not, or
indeed in which direction it rotates.  It is thus indeed possible to make a
corotating homopolar generator or motor.  If a pair of cylindrical magnets,
axially polarised, are forced pole-to-pole into a copper tube, and current is
passed along the length of the cylinder, then the device will rotate.  This is
because the field is squeezed out through the sides of the tube in the centre,
but leaves the ends of the tube in a straight(ish) line.  The current passes
through the field and torques the cylinder.  Nothing magic here, unless one
does not like the idea that the field does not rotate with the magnet.  Tough.
The disc or cylinder has to rotate, a symmetrical rotating magnet *does not
affect its environment* - its electromagnetic one, anyway!
 
4.  Valone has demonstrated - and reports seem to have confused his actual
words - that it is *not possible to detect any potential across the disc from
within the rotating frame*.  That's fine by me.  It doesn't matter whether or
not current is flowing, as far as an on-disk detector is concerned, the
potential difference *does not exist*.
 
5.  So where's the mystery?  Lovely, symmetrical results!  What I do *not*
know is whether angular momentum is conserved.  Of course it must be, but I've
not (yet) seen the experiment.  It's all a bit difficult, because you need such
high currents, and you get such low voltages!  However, since the cylinder (in
which it is easy to get more EMF, because EMF depends on omega*r and B and
radius/length) corotating system is so easy to make, it can (and will, when I
have time) be used to settle this question unless somebody can show me that it
has been done already.  Using a motor as described above, put high current
batteries on a frame surrounding the motor, which remains free to rotate - so
long as the frame rotates as well.  Connect the batteries, and *if* the torque
reacts on the circuit (as it must) then no motion will be seen.  Apart from the
smoke rising from the cylinder....
 
6.  More mysteries?  Well, I'm not happy with the explanations for why the
radial current turns the disc - how the moving electrons pull the atoms.  I've
seen explanations based on friction, they may be correct.  All theory, though,
and that is *not* my area.
 
7.  As to the Kincheloe etc experiments, I've read his report on the Sunburst
device.  He (and others) say that if the corotating homopolar generator is big
enough physically, and the current it produces is big enough (100s - 1000s of
A) then the device starts to produce current liberally without any drop in V or
significant increase in the torque required.  Again, I feel that such bizarre
claims could best be resolved by use of a generator with permanent magnets
rather than a massive solenoid to produce the V.  With the usual reservations
about weirdo over-unity claims, I see no harm in making such a device for
testing purposes.  It's cheap enough to make, it might even be useful even if
it's not o-u.
 
8.  I've been astonished at both the mythos and the confusion which has sprung
up around such a pretty little demonstration.  It took me weeks of
experimentation, net advertising for help, and study of old, dusty tomes in
basements before I really found out *anything* real which lay behind all these
vague claims.  And the textbooks I read are *completely useless* on this topic.
 
9.  None of which means I don't want to know about wild and weird magnetickal
contraptions.  Machineries of Joy indeed!  Any input to my CompuServe number is
*most* welcome.
 
Chris

cudkeys:
cuddy8 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.07 / Jim Carr /  Re: A Flash from the Economist
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A Flash from the Economist
Date: 7 Jun 1994 11:17:40 -0400
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

In article <CqtCF1.69K@eskimo.com> nanook@eskimo.com (Robert Dinse) writes:
>
>     As I mentioned in a previous post, some forms of cooking are worse than
>others in so much as formation of toxic or carcinogenic chemicals goes, and
>BBQ is one of the worst, but I still eat BBQ's food.

Maybe, maybe not.  Now that there is an understanding of the relation 
between a bacterial infection and ulcers, and an apparent relationship 
to stomach cancer, it could be that the correlations seen were just 
accidental, and actually reflected lack of treatment with antibiotics 
at an early age rather than diet.  Basically, no one really knows since 
the effects of normal cooking on food have never been studied as 
carefully as the effects of more recent innovations.   

>     However, NOBODY FORCES me to eat it.  When I eat it, I >KNOW< it is BBQ'd.

Perhaps, but you may not know the ingredients used, the fat or sodium
content, etc etc.  Restaurants never tell you the things required on 
food bought in a store, and I doubt if you know the effects of what 
you do at home to prepare food.  Look at food poisoning cases, for 
example, or the way produce is handled. 

>But the proponents of gamma sterilization of food object vehemiently to the
>idea that the public should be INFORMED with regards to what is being done to
>their food prior to consumption.

I think they seek fair play, so the public is not misinformed.  There 
are enough people out there who don't understand microwaves, or that 
there is more radiation in some produce (or that drinks like Gatorade 
light up a geiger counter) than in irradiated food. 

Right now, with your concerns, you should avoid buying spices. 

-- 
 James A. Carr   <jac@scri.fsu.edu>     |   "It's never confusing though, 
      http://www.scri.fsu.edu           |  because ultimately it all fits 
 Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst.  |  -- it's just cockeyed and fits  
 Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306    |  and is fire."  -  Norman Maclean 
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Wed Jun  8 04:37:08 EDT 1994
------------------------------
1994.06.07 / Jim Carr /  Re: Nature
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Nature
Date: 7 Jun 1994 11:31:14 -0400
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

In article <0097F794.A1F641C0.22487@FSCVAX.FSC.MASS.EDU> 
vnoninski@fscvax.fsc.mass.edu writes:
>
>         .....                                       Nature considers it 
>appropriate to let authors whose papers, published in Nature, are criticized 
>to act as  their own referees. 

Most journals have as policy that the first (but not the only) referee(s) 
of a Comment is/are the author(s) of the paper being criticized.  In many 
cases the authors prepare a Comment in Reply instead of a report, but in 
other cases a report is reviewed by the editors and other referees as 
needed to clarify the suitability of the comment. 

>I have evidence that Nature applies double standards 
>in its publication practices. While Nature publishes the 
>paper of Petrasso et al 
>criticizing Fleischmann et als' paper (published in 
>another journal -JEAC), this 
>same journal -- Nature -- refuses to publish a paper criticizing a paper of 
>Petrasso as a coauthor, giving as a sole reason the fact 
>that Petrasso's paper has  
>not been published in Nature and it is not the policy of Nature to publish 
>criticisms of papers published in other journals. 

I can't comment on the latter claim, since I have not seen any quotes 
from the correspondence involved, but we all know that Nature has 
published such papers, one a letter by Petrasso and friends. 

However, to be fair you should note that when Nature published the  
letter (it was not a paper, but appeared as 'scientific correspondence') 
criticizing the P&F experiment, they gave P&F the right to reply -- which 
P&F did along with Hoffman (who was not on the paper, and without Hawkins, 
who was).  They also gave Petrasso the last word, a Comment in Reply so 
to speak, and the combination of papers went a long way toward clarifying 
what was going on in that experiment. 

I suspect the letter was justified because of News & Comment articles 
in Nature on the JEC paper, but have never seen any explanation. 

-- 
 James A. Carr   <jac@scri.fsu.edu>     |   "It's never confusing though, 
      http://www.scri.fsu.edu           |  because ultimately it all fits 
 Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst.  |  -- it's just cockeyed and fits  
 Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306    |  and is fire."  -  Norman Maclean 
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.07 / John Cobb /  Spice is Nice? was Re: A Flash from the Economist
     
Originally-From: johncobb@uts.cc.utexas.edu (John W. Cobb)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Spice is Nice? was Re: A Flash from the Economist
Date: 7 Jun 1994 10:52:53 -0500
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas

In article <2t232k$lv1@ds8.scri.fsu.edu>,
Jim Carr <jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu> wrote:
>>
[deleted discussion about gamma sterilization, cooking, etc]

>Right now, with your concerns, you should avoid buying spices. 

Jim touches on something I've wondered idly about for some time.

Since every medical press release exhorts me to cut down my fat, I've
starting trying. However, I love to eat and I love flavor, so I miss the
flavor and the integration of flavor that fats often gives a meal. So
now I find that when I eat low fat, I tend to eat my food with a great
deal more spice. Although I wouldn't say that I consume immense amounts
of spices, I do eat more.

So my questions is: What do we really know about spices?

Do certain spices have toxicity thresholds that I might be nearing? If so,
which ones? Are there Carcinogenic issues? Is the dose response relationship
linear?

And are these answers backed up by credible evidence or are they wags?

I don't mean to be an alarmist, was just curious.

If I had wanted to be an alarmist, I would have mentioned PEANUT BUTTER
(choosy mothers poison with GIF)

[soon we will return you to some topic somewhat related to physics,
hopefully]

-john .w cobb
-- 
 --------------------------------------------------------------
John W. Cobb	My posts don't reflect the views of my employer
                Because my posts are usually opaque.
 --------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenjohncobb cudfnJohn cudlnCobb cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.07 / Jim Carr /  Re: Neutron beta decay spectrum
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Neutron beta decay spectrum
Date: 7 Jun 1994 14:38:02 -0400
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

In article <940607123102_70047.3047_EHB161-1@CompuServe.COM> 
70047.3047@compuserve.com (Bill Page) writes:
>
>Dear Prof. Close,

OK, but I will provide a few comments anyway...

>               ....                      That neutrons might be 
>quasi-stationary, tightly bound proton-electron pairs was rejected on the 
>basis of several observations including spin measurements (Heitler and 
>Herzberg, 1929) and proton-proton proton-neutron scattering data (M. Tuve 
>et al., 1936).  

To this, you should add the electron-neutron scattering data that measures 
the electric and magnetic form factor of the neutron.  I would imagine 
that the electric form factor data would be the most difficult data to 
accomodate in such a model.  Now, these all use H-2 or polarized He-3 
as a target, but the newer experiments will measure the recoiling n 
in coincidence making the observation pretty clean. 

>In any case, it doesn't hurt to look... Could you recommend a reference to 
>accurate measurements of the decay energies for isolated neutrons?  Of 

These are tough experiments; notice how much the lifetime of the neutron 
has fluctuated in our lifetime.  For references, I refer you to the 
Particle Data Group review, long listing: Phys. Rev. D 45 (Part II of 
number 11, 1992) page VIII.8.  I imagine the review they mention (in 
NIM, 1989) would be most enlightening. 

-- 
 James A. Carr   <jac@scri.fsu.edu>     |   "It's never confusing though, 
      http://www.scri.fsu.edu           |  because ultimately it all fits 
 Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst.  |  -- it's just cockeyed and fits  
 Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306    |  and is fire."  -  Norman Maclean 
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.07 / T Hiesberger /  Re: Ludwig is on the Web!!!
     
Originally-From: thiesber@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca (Thomas Hiesberger)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics,sci.chem,sci.bio,sci.a
tro,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Ludwig is on the Web!!!
Date: Tue, 7 Jun 94 20:28:20 GMT
Organization: University of  Alberta


  Sorry I am new to this Groupl, but who, the hell,  is Ludwig

Thomas
Thomas Hiesberger
UNI ALBERTA
thiesber@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenthiesber cudfnThomas cudlnHiesberger cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.07 / Matt Austern /  Re: Good Morning America on P&F
     
Originally-From: matt@physics2.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Good Morning America on P&F
Date: 07 Jun 1994 23:38:43 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (Theoretical Physics Group)

In article <1994Jun3.170445.1643@physc1.byu.edu> jonesse@physc1.byu.edu writes:

> Related:  an article by James Randi in the APS news for June 1994 states:
> 
> "Why are the people of every culture so anxiously embracing claptrap that
> should have been left behind...?  Part of the reason is to be found in the
> uncritical acceptance and promotion of these notions by the media, prominent
> personalities, and government agencies."
> "The 'cold fusion' farce should have tossed onto the trash heap long ago, but
> justifiable fear of legal actions by offended supporters has stifled
> opponents."

Note that Randi himself has been sued for libel because of his 
activity debunking claims of psychic phenomena.

Fear of legal actions is entirely rational, alas.
--
       Matt Austern                       "Se non e vero, e ben trovato"
cudkeys:
cuddy07 cudenmatt cudfnMatt cudlnAustern cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.07 / John Logajan /  Re: Verification of Thermacore calibration
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Verification of Thermacore calibration
Date: 7 Jun 1994 21:48:09 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Online Services Member.


I've added the data from the 15 watt case to my Thermacore-like calibration
verfication tests.  In the following table, I have "filtered" ambient
temperature and input power.  Using a time constant based upon 22,590
seconds, I have weighted "older" temperatues and power inputs using the
value of 0.997336 per sample (60.26 seconds apart.)  This was derived
from the formula:   weight=1/(2.71828^(time/22590)).  The final water
temperature is the average of the last hour's worth of readings.


                  "60 Watts"   "30 Watts"   "15 Watts"
Watts/Degree C       5.644        5.545        5.040
Degrees C/Watt       0.1772       0.1803       0.1984

Average Ambient F   76.682       76.479       74.858
Avg Final Water F   95.804       86.009       80.153
Average Power W     59.957       29.360       14.824

The trend appears to be toward increasing "calibration constants" with
decreasing temperature -- which is what Hilborn and Criddle saw.  However,
especially in the 15 watt case, a cooling of the local weather was causing
a downward slope of the ambient temperature, and I had gone straight from
30 watts to 15 watts, so it was cooling off as well.  These two factors
would make the 15 watt case appear slightly warmer than it should.  So
the magnitude of the "trend" is more ambiguous than it might appear.

In any event, these variations are on the order of 10% over the range.

Going lower than 15 Watts puts me too close to the "noise" in my crude
environment, so I think I will instead go to extended runs at a given
power input -- since this should be a good check of long term averages.

--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com -- 612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills  MN 55112 USA           -

cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.08 / bvanantwerp BIX /  Re: Ludwig is on the Web!!!
     
Originally-From: bvanantwerp@BIX.com (bvanantwerp on BIX)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics,sci.chem,sci.bio,sci.a
tro,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Ludwig is on the Web!!!
Date: 8 Jun 94 01:39:14 GMT
Organization: Delphi Internet Services Corporation

thiesber@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca (Thomas Hiesberger) writes:


>  Sorry I am new to this Groupl, but who, the hell,  is Ludwig

>Thomas
>Thomas Hiesberger
>UNI ALBERTA
>thiesber@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca
Never Fear, you'll find out soon enough.  Does the name
Plutonium mean anything to you?
/..
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenbvanantwerp cudfnbvanantwerp cudlnBIX cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.07 /  DSchnei /  Why is palladium is used in CF experiments?
     
Originally-From: dschnei@aol.com (DSchnei)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Why is palladium is used in CF experiments?
Date: 7 Jun 1994 22:03:02 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

I am new to this newsgroup, and have missed previous commentary on
this subject.

Is there a working hypothesis about the importance of the element
palladium itself in CF experiments?  I have some ideas I would like
to work on.

Your assistance is greatly appreciated.

-David Schneider
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudendschnei cudlnDSchnei cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.08 / Roger Moore /  Re: LP APOLOGIZES TO THE NOBEL FOUNDATION
     
Originally-From: raj@cco.caltech.edu (Roger Ethan Moore)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion,sci.math,sci.chem,
ci.bio,sci.physics
Subject: Re: LP APOLOGIZES TO THE NOBEL FOUNDATION
Date: 8 Jun 1994 04:16:00 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena

Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium) writes:

>	(3) The 1972 Nobel prize for the BCS is hollow.  Never before in the
>history of mankind has so much been given for so little in return. 
>Bardeen Cooper and Schrieffer did even better than the bead traders for
>Manhattan. The higher temperature superconductivity shows the
>limitations and even the worthlessness and science fiction of this
>theory.  For any theory to be good it must have some sort of future
>predicting capabilities.  BCS has no such characteristics, rather it is
>a "hint".  A hint is never theory for if it were then the persons who
>described a quantum interaction as two tennis players hitting a ball
>back and forth as what keeps them together, for this hint, they should
>have won a Nobel prize.

That's funny, and I thought that being able to predict the Tc of a
superconductor from first priniciples was pretty impressive.  Such a feat
has been accomplished.  Using molecular mechanics simulations based on a
quantum calculation and BCS theory, it is possible to predict the Tc of
K3C60 superconductors.  Then again, Ludwig, you distain the literature and
just spout out nonsense, so I wouldn't expect you to know that.

Raj (Master of Meaningless Trivia)
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenraj cudfnRoger cudlnMoore cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.09 / Richard Blue /  Re: Ed Storms's special absorbtion theory
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Ed Storms's special absorbtion theory
Date: Thu, 9 Jun 1994 00:13:07 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

There a few absurdities that continue to circulate in CF circles,
and the notion that 25 MeV gamma rays can somehow be absorbed without
an observable trace due to some unspecified lattice condition is one
of them.  If, as Steve Jones reports, that is the essence of Ed Storms's
ideas about how CF reactions remain hidden I think we can safely say
that Ed hasn't really given the probem any serious thought.

In normal matter 25 MeV gamma radiation is highly penetrating such
that the normal surroundings of a typical CF sample would do little
to attenuated the signal.  Since the source strength for 1 watt of
power would be of the order of 10^11 gammas per second and one could
easily detect such radiation at say 10 gammas per second (that's
given away at least a factor of 100 for experimental ineptitude)
the source must be attenuated by a factor of 10^10 without the
production of any detectable secondary radiation.

Next consider the fact that the fraction of the palladium that
is in a surface layer of thickness t is given by 2*t/r.  Next
let's throw away 10^6 for the interior part of the source as
being totally absorbed, but that leaves us with a surface layer
that is only 2 microns thick.  Does anyone believe that 2 microns
of palladium is going to attenuate 25 MeV gammas by a factor
of 10^-4?  I vote NO!

Funny thing is the favorite theory for many CF advocates up till
now has been that by Chubb and Chubb which actually has the
helium formed being manifest only at the surface where all the
magic lattice effects that are supposed to suppress the radiation
cannot really be very important.  Can't we really declare some
of these ideas null and void so we can clear away some of the
accumulated trash?

Oops!  I got ahead of my self a bit there.  The thickness t
would be 2 microns if the sample radius were one meter.  Well,
you get the idea so you can plug in your own numbers.  Of
course you can construct a two zone model with the gammas
being produced in an interior zone that is surround by a
superabsorbing zone that does not produce radiation.  But
don't forget that helium is found only outside the sample
and is never found in the palladium.

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.08 / L Plutonium /  Re: LP APOLOGIZES TO THE NOBEL FOUNDATION
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion,sci.math,sci.chem,
ci.bio,sci.physics
Subject: Re: LP APOLOGIZES TO THE NOBEL FOUNDATION
Date: 8 Jun 1994 14:42:01 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In article <2t3gm0$ama@gap.cco.caltech.edu>
raj@cco.caltech.edu (Roger Ethan Moore) writes:

> 
> That's funny, and I thought that being able to predict the Tc of a
> superconductor from first priniciples was pretty impressive.  Such a feat
> has been accomplished.  Using molecular mechanics simulations based on a
> quantum calculation and BCS theory, it is possible to predict the Tc of
> K3C60 superconductors.  Then again, Ludwig, you distain the literature and
> just spout out nonsense, so I wouldn't expect you to know that.

  Ha, Ha, Ha, as he thought he could take the BCS theory into the Lab
with him and emerge later with the world's next highest temperature
superconductor. Ha, Ha, Ha. 
  The poster above missed a few words in his statements "it is possible
to predict AFTER THE FACT, the Tc of AN EXPERIMENTALLY PROVEN
superconductor WITH THE BCS THEORY." 
   For all I care stick to the BCS theory Roger. The more people that
stick to the old BCS, not the new when you replace Cooper Pairs with
neutrino pairs, makes physics success to us that know physics all the
more better.
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.08 / L Plutonium /  Re: LP APOLOGIZES TO THE NOBEL FOUNDATION
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.kibology,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fus
on,sci.math,sci.chem,sci.bio,sci.physics
Subject: Re: LP APOLOGIZES TO THE NOBEL FOUNDATION
Date: 8 Jun 1994 15:03:55 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In article <Cqw4wJ.LrH@midge.bath.ac.uk>
mapsj@midge.bath.ac.uk (Simon Juden) writes:

> In the referenced article, Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium) writes:
> 
> >It is hoped by me that 1994 prize in physics will be another mistake, so that
> >future generations will love and adore LP even more because of the
> >persecution that LP had to endure.
> 
> While in the bar the other day, I overheard a rumour that the next Nobel
> Laureate was to be a chap by the name of "Ludwig Plutonium".  I wonder if this
> is the same fellow; if it is, he had better write to the Nobelstiftelson and
> make it completely clear that, in fact, he does not want the award. Otherwise,
> he may inadvertently be awarded it against his wishes, which would be simply
> awful. 
> 
> Simon

   Thanks kindly Simon. I do not want the Nobel prize in Physics
because I am thinking in advance what is the best for the Plutonium
Atom Foundation. It is best that I self-sacrifice because I have won
the PLutonium Atom Prize, something far more prestigous and valuable.
If the Nobel Committee awards LP with their lesser prize then it will
be that much more difficult for my successors to replace the Nobel
prize with the PLutonium Atom Prize. The Nobel Committee must be
allowed more mistakes so that the public outcry and outrage in the
future will facilitate the replacement. I must self-sacrifice and be
persecuted in my time, in order that I will have it easier in 2000
years from now when I am reborn via biotechnology.
   And it is funny to me that the Nobel Foundation is in a "Catch-22"
type of situation. If they do not award LP with the Nobel Prize in
Physics, not Literature, then they will have missed the King of
Physics. And in the future the Nobel Foundation will be tarnished and
gradually disappear. If they do award LP the Nobel prize in Physics,
then it is admission that other Nobel prizes of the past were sheer
mistakes. And, if they do award LP the Nobel prize in Physics, then the
Nobel Committee will hear the HOWL OF THE BOEOTIANS, not only from the
science community but religion communities and all of humanity. I dare
say to award the Nobel to LP in Physics will be the highlight of the
Nobel Foundation.
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.08 / Zack Evans /  Is there any information on nuclear power on the net?
     
Originally-From: pyc081@cent1.lancs.ac.uk (Zack Evans)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.physics.fusion,alt.save.the.earth,uk.environment
Subject: Is there any information on nuclear power on the net?
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 1994 19:50:55 GMT
Organization: Absolutely Not Lancaster University, UK. So there.

The subject says it all really. I am interested in any information I can find
on nuclear power, on the net, in whatever format... ftp sites, HTML docs, FAQs,
etc etc. If anyone knows where I can get hold of some info, please email me,
and I'll summarize if there seems to be a demand. I'm looking for things like
percentages of electrity generated thus, details of past accidents, anything
really. Purely to satisfy my own curiosity...

Zack "but no alt.fan.nuke.die.die.die type hype please" Evans
-- 
Opinions are mine and not the University's. Of course, it's fairly unlikely
that a square mile or so of concrete, bricks, and glass is going to have any
sort of significant world view in the first place.
                                           Zack Evans - pyc081@lancaster.ac.uk 
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenpyc081 cudfnZack cudlnEvans cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.08 / Zack Evans /  Information on nuclear power
     
Originally-From: pyc081@cent1.lancs.ac.uk (Zack Evans)
Newsgroups: alt.save.the.earth,sci.environment,sci.physics.fusion,uk.environment
Subject: Information on nuclear power
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 1994 19:56:23 GMT
Organization: Absolutely Not Lancaster University, UK. So there.

The subject says it all really. I am interested in any information I can find
on nuclear power, on the net, in whatever format... ftp sites, HTML docs, FAQs,
etc etc. If anyone knows where I can get hold of some info, please email me,
and I'll summarize if there seems to be a demand. I'm looking for things like
percentages of electrity generated thus, details of past accidents, anything
really. Purely to satisfy my own curiosity...

Zack "but no alt.fan.nuke.die.die.die type hype please" Evans
-- 
Opinions are mine and not the University's. Of course, it's fairly unlikely
that a square mile or so of concrete, bricks, and glass is going to have any
sort of significant world view in the first place.
                                           Zack Evans - pyc081@lancaster.ac.uk 
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenpyc081 cudfnZack cudlnEvans cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.09 / Bounty Hunter /  Re: LP APOLOGIZES TO THE NOBEL FOUNDATION
     
Originally-From: bh@interaccess (Bounty Hunter)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.kibology,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fus
on,sci.math,sci.chem,sci.bio,sci.physics
Subject: Re: LP APOLOGIZES TO THE NOBEL FOUNDATION
Date: 9 Jun 1994 04:21:27 GMT
Organization: IAC

Ludwig Plutonium (Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu) wrote:

:    Thanks kindly Simon. I do not want the Nobel prize in Physics
: because I am thinking in advance what is the best for the Plutonium
: Atom Foundation. It is best that I self-sacrifice because I have won
: the PLutonium Atom Prize, something far more prestigous and valuable.

Hahaha... Guess what, Luddy, last I checked you generally need some kind 
of degree in Physics, not Home Economics, to get the Nobel Prize. While 
I'm sure there are exceptions, you AREN'T one of them

Can I get the Plutonium Science Prize for my studies on the decay of 
dryerlint in black holes?

: If the Nobel Committee awards LP with their lesser prize then it will
: be that much more difficult for my successors to replace the Nobel
: prize with the PLutonium Atom Prize. The Nobel Committee must be
: allowed more mistakes so that the public outcry and outrage in the
: future will facilitate the replacement. I must self-sacrifice and be
: persecuted in my time, in order that I will have it easier in 2000
: years from now when I am reborn via biotechnology.

Man, this is sheer comedy. 

:    And it is funny to me that the Nobel Foundation is in a "Catch-22"
: type of situation. If they do not award LP with the Nobel Prize in
: Physics, not Literature, then they will have missed the King of
: Physics. And in the future the Nobel Foundation will be tarnished and

Hahahahaha! HAIL THE KING OF PHYSICS! This guy knows everything!

And he speaks about himself in the 3rd person. 

Jake Harvey

cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenbh cudfnBounty cudlnHunter cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.09 / John Logajan /  Re: Verification of Thermacore calibration
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Verification of Thermacore calibration
Date: 9 Jun 1994 05:24:46 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Online Services Member.

Two corrections to my previous data.  First, the LM34 thermometer in the
water tank was getting noisy due to a leakage of water into and under
the outer heat-shrink cover.  I had to repair it with a new cover and
new waterproof sealant.  The leak caused the last several hours of the
15 watt run to read just a bit higher in temperature.

Secondly, while I had it out, I wrapped both LM34 thermometers in the same
ball of tinfoil and checked their tracking.  The thermometer that goes into
the water reads about 0.15 F lower than the other.  So this correction was
retroactively included into my previous results.  I continued to run the
15 watt case and the numbers below represent the last 20 hours or so.

"15 watts"   2.84C/14.70W = 0.1934 C/W
"30 watts"   5.38C/29.36W = 0.1833 C/W
"60 watts"  10.81C/59.96W = 0.1786 C/W

All the above numbers are subject to refinement as I run longer at each
temperature.  I will probably also add a 100 watt case.

--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com -- 612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills  MN 55112 USA           -

cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.09 / John Logajan /  Re: Verification of Thermacore calibration
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Verification of Thermacore calibration
Date: 9 Jun 1994 05:28:03 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Online Services Member.

Thanks to Jed Rothwell, I now have a copy of the 1/94 Fusion Technology
paper by Mills and Good of HydroCatalysis Power Corp, and Shaubach
of Thermacore, Inc.

I was under the false impression that there were 5000 meters of 0.5mm
nickel wire in the Thermacore experiments.  There are actually two spools
of 5000 meters each, for a total of 10,000 meters.  There are 300
strands of 33 meters each.


In my experiments I have taken to filtering the ambient temperature
measurements using a time weighted average.  The decay rate is based
upon the calculated time constant of the water tank system.  I am,
in effect, duplicating in software the operation of Thermacore's
blank cell.

In the post analysis, I iteratively take the one minute samples
(60.26 seconds) and apply the following formula to them:

running.average = (running.average - new.sample)*0.997336 + new.sample

The number 0.997336 is from the formula:
0.997336 = 1/(2.71828^(60.26/22590))  which is the standard decay
formula, where 60.26 is the number of seconds between samples and
where 22,590 is the length of the time constant in seconds.

The 22,590 time constant equals 0.18 degrees/watt * 125,500 joules/degree.

The 0.18 number is, of course, the measured temperature difference divided
by the input power.  And 125,500 is the thermal capacity of 30.3 liters of
water.

This filter needs about 32 hours of data for it to settle down, but even
after 12 hours, the earliest data is reduced to nearly 10% of its
initial influence.


If I were going to build a better calorimeter, I'd use two tanks just like
Thermacore did.  One would be a blank and one would be the experimental
tank.  I'd use the temperature of the blank as the ambient temperature
baseline -- which is what I am doing via software as mentioned above.

I think I would also blow air in a controlled manner past the tanks
so as to dwarf changes in convection air currents.  Hilborn and Criddle
see non-linearities in the calorimetry "constant" which Hilborn has
suggested might be due to non-linearities in induced convection air
currents.  I envision a cork-screw airflow generated by a tangential
forced air input at the base of an outer cylinder, flowing up to a
tangential exit at the top.  The intake port would split the air
sending it to both the blank and experimental tanks.

It is possible that the non-linearities in my experiments are less than
the experiments in Hilborn and Criddle's cases because they had controlled
their enviroment better allowing less random drafts, etc.  Whereas there
are two fans constantly in operation in my closed room -- one in the 
computer and one helping cool the power supply.  These air currents may
dwarf any changes in the induced convection currents due to differences
in operating temperatures.

Finally, in Fig 12 of the FT paper, experimental results are plotted for
experiments #5 through #13, with #5 having the lowest delta temperature
and #13 having the highest.  It should be noted that experiment #5
has a delta temperature of approx 4 C.  This corresponds to about
30 watts of calibration power.  Therefore non-linearites below 30 watts
calibration power (4 C) are irrelevent to the verification of the
Mills/Thermacore data.  On the other hand, #13 requires calibration
at nearly 140 watts.  So I can at least try near 100 watts, which is the
limit of my power supply.

--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com -- 612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills  MN 55112 USA           -

cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.08 / Stanley Sramek /  Re: Ludwig is on the Web!!!
     
Originally-From: gpcsjs@sjstat.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (Stanley J. Sramek)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics,sci.chem,sci.bio,sci.a
tro,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Ludwig is on the Web!!!
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 1994 20:46:54 GMT
Organization: Yes I'm very organized.

In article <thiesber.1121408540A@NEWS.SRV.UALBERTA.CA>,
 thiesber@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca (Thomas Hiesberger) writes:
 
>Sorry I am new to this Groupl, but who, [expletive deleted],  is Ludwig

"Ludwig" is a gentleman named "Ludwig Plutonium." That is his real name;
He legally changed his original name to that name. He is a dishwasher at
a hotel owned by Dartmouth and therefore has net access through Dartmouth.
He is a prominent poster of highly unconventional physics and mathematics
theories. Most discussion of him by other net participants consists of
criticism of his theories.

Stanley J. Sramek                      Houston, Texas, U.S.A.
My posted statements do not reflect the views of my employer.
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudengpcsjs cudfnStanley cudlnSramek cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.08 / Todd Gilbert /  Re: A Flash from the Economist
     
Originally-From: tgilbert@salsa.abq.bdm.com (Todd Gilbert)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A Flash from the Economist
Date: Wed, 08 Jun 1994 17:25:43 -0600
Organization: BDM Federal, Inc.

In article <2svkmq$l9k@knot.queensu.ca>, tom@mips2.phy.queensu.ca (Tom
Radcliffe) wrote:

> In article <CqtCF1.69K@eskimo.com>, nanook@eskimo.com (Robert Dinse) writes:
> |> 
> |>      As I mentioned in a previous post, some forms of cooking are worse than
> |> others in so much as formation of toxic or carcinogenic chemicals goes, and
> |> BBQ is one of the worst, but I still eat BBQ's food.
> |> 
> |>      However, NOBODY FORCES me to eat it.  When I eat it, I >KNOW< it is BBQ'd.
> |> But the proponents of gamma sterilization of food object vehemiently to the
> |> idea that the public should be INFORMED with regards to what is being done to
> |> their food prior to consumption.
> 
> I am a proponent of gamma-sterilized food, and do not object to it being
> identified as such.  Of course, I *do* object to it being labeled with
> the international ``radioactive'' trefoil symbol, because it is *not*
> radioactive.  Guess what opponents of gamma-sterilized foods often want
> it labelled with?

Agreed. In addition, I'd like to point out that labeling (probably)
won't satisfy opponents anyway.  Look at what happened in Chicago a
week or two ago when they started selling tomatoes that had been
genetically altered (there's a very specific name for the process
which I don't recall now, apologies).  Every single tomato was labeled,
but still people were protesting.  Not only did they not want to buy
the product, they didn't want others to have the option.

Scary, hundreds of people all acting like my mother (just kidding, mom).

Regards
Todd

-- 
tgilbert@salsa.abq.bdm.com         The owls are not what they seem
or   "  @nacho.abq.bdm.com         And neither are the penguins

Scene from "Doctor Doctor": two people choosing music to make love to
Woman: you know what I'm in the mood for?  "Muskrat Love".
Man  : Sounds great, but I don't fell like spending the night in the
       emergency room.
cudkeys:
cuddy08 cudentgilbert cudfnTodd cudlnGilbert cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.09 / James Thomas /  LP APOLOGIZES...the magic KILL file, sorry Ludwig
     
Originally-From: jthomas@mcmail.cis.mcmaster.ca (James Thomas)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion,sci.math,sci.chem,
ci.bio,sci.physics
Subject: LP APOLOGIZES...the magic KILL file, sorry Ludwig
Date: Thu, 9 Jun 1994 12:50:08 GMT
Organization: McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada

for those annoyed by Ludwig's postings;

if you really don't want to listen to someone there is always the Kill
file. On our news reader, trn, it is set up by typing [control k] ^k while
in a particular newsgroup.

then add the line to the file;  /Ludwig Plutonium/h:j

this will junk any article that has "ludwig plutonium" in the header the
next time trn is started up.


regards;
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenjthomas cudfnJames cudlnThomas cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.10 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Nice Work by John Logajan
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Nice Work by John Logajan
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 1994 00:19:05 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

John Logajan continues to do nice experimental work to help us understand
"open" calorimeters.  We can start to see some of the problems with this
technique.  That is why all the serious workers try to do something different.

The P&F technique is far superior.  While I have criticized their reporting of
data, their technique is not all that bad if what is desired is many cheap 
experiments.  There are some subtle problems, but the technique is likely good
to 10%.

Tom Droege

cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenDROEGE cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.10 / Bill Page /  Fusion via Bose condensation of D+ ions (Fusion Digest 2362) incomplete
     
Originally-From: 70047.3047@compuserve.com (Bill Page)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Fusion via Bose condensation of D+ ions (Fusion Digest 2362) incomplete
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 1994 00:19:05 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Dear Chuck Sites,

It would seem that your very interesting recent posting to 
sci.physics.fusion was somehow truncated when I received it.  I seem to 
have received everything up to:

<<

          2       [  1  ] 2         1
 pi lambda   oc   | --- |     oc   ---                           [4.4]
                  [  p  ]           E 

Where lambda is the deBrRG.
 ------------------- 
>>

The rest of the message was blank.  I receive the postings to 
sci.physics.fusion via the ZORCH listserver.  This listserver always 
attaches a trailer to each set of postings, but none appeared in this 
particular message.  From this I assume that something went wrong with the 
listserver program.  This happens sometimes when certain characters are 
used such as a period on a line by itself, etc...

Anyway, I was wondering whether you could email your article directly to 
me. Please.

That portion of your article that I did receive was intriquing and 
obviously has involved a lot of research on your part.  Well done!  (Though 
I doubt that my encouragement of your work is really necessary. <grin>)  I 
think that it deserves more "air-time" on the net than the single short 
reply by Matt.  With the exception of your posting and a few by John 
Logajan, I've been a little disappointed by the quality of the material 
drifting across sci.physics.fusion over the last month or two.  I'm hoping 
this will change soon.

I have been Reading (capital R, with the help of MAPLE on my PC) the recent 
book by David Bohm and B.J. Hilery titled "The Undivided Universe".  It 
presents the "pilot wave" interpretation of QM in great detail - very 
convincing and clear in its philosphical approach and use of mathematics.  
It really resolves for me the problems that I have had in trying to 
understand the fuzzy (and self contradictory) notions of "de-localization" 
of particles that has crept into QM while the philosphers where not 
looking. 

MAPLE does symbolic math and produces real nice graphics - even animation.  
I have used the book "Quantum Methods with Mathematica" by James M. Feagin, 
Springer-Verlag (TELOS), 1993, as a guide to doing QM on the computer.  
Mathematica and MAPLE are similar, but I perfer MAPLE.  I am very impressed 
with what can be done and it seems to me that these tools will likely soon 
be as indispensible to the physicist as the pocket calculator is to the 
engineer.

I think that Bohm's interpretation of QM has clear applications to Chubb & 
Chubb's theory of ion-band state fusion as well as Vigier's ideas and I 
intend to post a series of articles on this subject soon.

Best regards,

Bill Page.
INTERNET: 70047.3047@COMPUSERVE.COM

cc. Fusion Digest (sci.physics.fusion)

cudkeys:
cuddy10 cuden3047 cudfnBill cudlnPage cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.10 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Thermacore Calibration
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Thermacore Calibration
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 1994 00:19:19 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

John's numbers seem to be showing that at higher tempreatures the jug looses
proportionately more heat.  This is not surprising.  As things get hotter they
convect proportionately more.  Also radiate more.  So anyone using a linear
calibration is very naive.  

Tom Droege

cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenDROEGE cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.09 / Jack Roberts /  Re: LP APOLOGIZES...the magic KILL file, sorry Ludwig
     
Originally-From: jackrbts@world.std.com (Jack Roberts)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion,sci.math,sci.chem,
ci.bio,sci.physics
Subject: Re: LP APOLOGIZES...the magic KILL file, sorry Ludwig
Date: Thu, 9 Jun 1994 15:38:31 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

jthomas@mcmail.cis.mcmaster.ca (James Thomas) writes:

>for those annoyed by Ludwig's postings;

>if you really don't want to listen to someone there is always the Kill
>file. On our news reader, trn, it is set up by typing [control k] ^k while
>in a particular newsgroup.

>then add the line to the file;  /Ludwig Plutonium/h:j

>this will junk any article that has "ludwig plutonium" in the header the
>next time trn is started up.


LP hasn't posted much lately.  I have an idea, though.  Let's cross post 
LP's articles to  talk.origins to get even with those guys for cross 
posting the evolutionist/creationist articles here.  I'm sure they will 
find LP almost as fascinating as we find their stuff. ;-)





cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenjackrbts cudfnJack cudlnRoberts cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.09 / Bill McKinney /  Re: LP APOLOGIZES...the magic KILL file, sorry Ludwig
     
Originally-From: mckinney@math.ncsu.edu (Bill McKinney)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion,sci.math,sci.chem,
ci.bio,sci.physics
Subject: Re: LP APOLOGIZES...the magic KILL file, sorry Ludwig
Date: 9 Jun 1994 16:33:07 GMT
Organization: North Carolina State University

In article <Cr4zG8.8p9@world.std.com> jackrbts@world.std.com (Jack Roberts) writes:
>jthomas@mcmail.cis.mcmaster.ca (James Thomas) writes:
>
>>for those annoyed by Ludwig's postings;
>
>>if you really don't want to listen to someone there is always the Kill
>>file. On our news reader, trn, it is set up by typing [control k] ^k while
>>in a particular newsgroup.
>
>>then add the line to the file;  /Ludwig Plutonium/h:j
>
>>this will junk any article that has "ludwig plutonium" in the header the
>>next time trn is started up.
>
>LP hasn't posted much lately.  I have an idea, though.  Let's cross post 
>LP's articles to  talk.origins to get even with those guys for cross 
>posting the evolutionist/creationist articles here.  I'm sure they will 
>find LP almost as fascinating as we find their stuff. ;-)

When these cross-posted articles start on a idiotic and
seemingly forever thread, why don't you just add

/talk.origins/h:=:j

to your KILL file. With the '=' sign you still get to see the subject of
the article in case you may want to look at it. Lately it seems like

/alt.paranormal/h:=:j

is useful. It is hard to think of sci.math & alt.paranormal as having
anything in common, at least that I'd be interested in reading.

-- 
 Bill McKinney
 mckinney@math.ncsu.edu

cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenmckinney cudfnBill cudlnMcKinney cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.09 / Peter Norton /  Re: LP APOLOGIZES TO THE NOBEL FOUNDATION
     
Originally-From: pnorton@beaux.atwc.teradyne.com (Peter Norton)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.kibology,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fus
on,sci.math,sci.chem,sci.bio,sci.physics
Subject: Re: LP APOLOGIZES TO THE NOBEL FOUNDATION
Date: Thu, 9 Jun 1994 22:14:12 GMT
Organization: ATWC Teradyne, Inc.

In article <2t65c7$n89@mailhost.interaccess.com> bh@interaccess (Bounty Hunter) writes:
>Ludwig Plutonium (Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu) wrote:
>
>:    Thanks kindly Simon. I do not want the Nobel prize in Physics
>: because I am thinking in advance what is the best for the Plutonium
>: Atom Foundation. It is best that I self-sacrifice because I have won
>: the PLutonium Atom Prize, something far more prestigous and valuable.

>: I must self-sacrifice and be
>: persecuted in my time, in order that I will have it easier in 2000
>: years from now when I am reborn via biotechnology.
>
>Man, this is sheer comedy. 

No, it is tragedy. 
It is a tragic example of the misunderstanding of the physiology
of spiritual transformation in our culture.  LP appears to be the victim
of what used to be known as 'metanoia'.  Having no context in which to
understand his altered state(s) he looks to the reigning tradition in
our culture that is reputed to be closest to understanding the Origins.
So he adapts it as best he can, without benefit of it's cultural
conventions.  And, seeing none among the scientific elite with the same 
_experience_ of 'totality' that he experiences, he concludes that they
don't know what they are talking about - in the sense that he knows of
the _totality_ via experience.  For similar descriptions of unwitting 
victims of spiritual emergence, see for example: "Spiritual Emergency" 
by Grof, "Holy Madness" by Feurstein, "Ecce Homo" by Nietzsche.

I apologize for feeding this thread ....

cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenpnorton cudfnPeter cudlnNorton cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.09 / Steve Hansen /  Re: "Cold Fusion" Magazine Accelerating and 73
     
Originally-From: Steve Hansen <hansen35@delphi.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: "Cold Fusion" Magazine Accelerating and 73
Date: Thu, 9 Jun 94 21:55:27 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

mitchell swartz <mica@world.std.com> writes:
 
>= "The context of "Cold Fusion" Magazine is made more interesting if one looks
>= at Wayne Green's editorials in "73 Amateur Radio" during the period from
>= March through May. (Wayne is the creator of both magazines.)
>
>  Why?  
 
In the 73 editorials, after going on about CF, he moves on to aids cures,
mysteries to which he only knows the answers, psi, and UFOs.
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenhansen35 cudfnSteve cudlnHansen cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.10 / John Logajan /  Re: Thermacore Calibration
     
Originally-From: al789@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Thermacore Calibration
Date: 10 Jun 1994 02:45:10 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)


DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov says:

>John's numbers seem to be showing that at higher tempreatures the jug looses
>proportionately more heat.  This is not surprising.  As things get hotter they
>convect proportionately more.  Also radiate more.  So anyone using a linear
>calibration is very naive.  

Well, I don't think "naive" describes Bob Shaubach of Thermacore.  If you
look at Fig 12 of the Jan '94 Fusion Technology article, you can see a hint
of non-linearity in the three calibration points.  But the straight line
drawn through them is a "good enough" fit for the excess powers allegedly
seen.  You can mentally interpolate the missing points, and the "curvature"
appears insignificant.

I believe that much of the convection non-linearity can be eliminated by 
having a slight draft blowing, which dwarfs changes in convection rates 
due to changes in temperature.

Also note that in the FT article, it is stated that in all experiments,
40 watts of heater power was applied every 72 hours for 24 hours to establish
"calibration on the fly."  So, in reality, Thermacore did many more 
points of calibration than are shown in Fig 12.



-- 
-- John Logajan ---  al789@cleveland.freenet.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenal789 cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.10 / mitchell swartz /  A Flash from the Economist & Symbol for Irradiated Food
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: A Flash from the Economist & Symbol for Irradiated Food
Subject: Re: A Flash from the Economist
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 1994 16:45:09 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <2svkmq$l9k@knot.queensu.ca>
Subject: Re: A Flash from the Economist
Tom Radcliffe (tom@mips2.phy.queensu.ca) writes:

|> But the proponents of gamma sterilization of food object vehemiently to the
|> idea that the public should be INFORMED with regards to what is being done to
|> their food prior to consumption.
      [nanook@eskimo.com (Robert Dinse), (I  think...)

=tr  "I am a proponent of gamma-sterilized food, and do not object to it being
=tr  identified as such.  Of course, I *do* object to it being labeled with
=tr  the international ``radioactive'' trefoil symbol, because it is *not*
=tr  radioactive.  Guess what opponents of gamma-sterilized foods often want
=tr  it labelled with?"

   How about a sun symbol?


               

cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Sat Jun 11 04:37:55 EDT 1994
------------------------------
1994.06.11 / C Harrison /  Re: False Prophets
     
Originally-From: harr@netcom.com (Charles (Chuck) Harrison)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: False Prophets
Date: Sat, 11 Jun 1994 15:41:37 GMT
Organization: Fitful

In article <kemidb.770990811@aau>, Dieter Britz <kemidb@aau.dk> wrote:
>In the last year or so I have, in this group, seen several mentions of
>the book "False Prophets" by Alexander Kohn; every time, it was said that
>the book mentions 'cold fusion' as an example of (at best) doubtful
>science.

Dieter,

I think you may be in error.  A newspaper book review of a recent
Italian translation of this book mentioned cold fusion, and this
precipitated the Pos, Fleischmann, et al - vs - Reppublica defamation
lawsuit.

As near as I can tell, this is the pricipal context in which
"False Prophets" has come up on sci.physics.fusion.

Regards,
  Chuck
  keeper of wais://sunsite.unc.edu/fusion-digest   (newsgroup archive)
            wais://sunsite.unc.edu/cold-fusion     (Britz biblio)
>
>-- 
>Dieter Britz   alias kemidb@aau.dk


cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenharr cudfnCharles cudlnHarrison cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.10 / mitchell swartz /  On "Ed Storms's special absorbtion theory" - attenuation
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: On "Ed Storms's special absorbtion theory" - attenuation
Subject: Re: Ed Storms's special absorbtion theory
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 1994 16:46:48 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

    In Message-ID: <9406081500.AA20222@pilot1.cl.msu.edu>
Subject: Re: Ed Storms's special absorbtion theory
Richard A Blue (blue@pilot.msu.edu) writes:

= "There a few absurdities that continue to circulate in CF circles,
= and the notion that 25 MeV gamma rays can somehow be absorbed without
= an observable trace due to some unspecified lattice condition is one
= of them.  If, as Steve Jones reports, that is the essence of Ed Storms's
= ideas about how CF reactions remain hidden I think we can safely say
= that Ed hasn't really given the problem any serious thought.
= In normal matter 25 MeV gamma radiation is highly penetrating such
= that the normal surroundings of a typical CF sample would do little
= to attenuated the signal. 

  OK

=  Since the source strength for 1 watt of
= power would be of the order of 10^11 gammas per second and one could
= easily detect such radiation at say 10 gammas per second (that's
= given away at least a factor of 100 for experimental ineptitude)
= the source must be attenuated by a factor of 10^10 without the
= production of any detectable secondary radiation.

   There may be a few errors here.
  First, there is your supposition that such gamma (ionizing) radiation 
must be emitted in these reactions in the first place.  
  Any proof theoretically?   You have been asked repeatedly,
along with my comment that other forms of non-ionizing radiation might
handle the conservation of energy and momentum.

  Second, the radiation would exit the sample over   4*pi  solid
sphere and therefore it is humbly suggested that you check 
your putative attenuation factor
to account for the actual tiny subtended area at some distance from the
reactor cell. 
   It may be greater than your putative "experimental ineptitude"
factor for a small solid-angle of capture in systems located far from the 
reactor  (eg. 10 cm2 detector located at 20 cm from the putative active
electrode)

= Next consider the fact that the fraction of the palladium that
= is in a surface layer of thickness t is given by 2*t/r.  Next
= let's throw away 10^6 for the interior part of the source as
= being totally absorbed, but that leaves us with a surface layer
= that is only 2 microns thick.  Does anyone believe that 2 microns
= of palladium is going to attenuate 25 MeV gammas by a factor
= of 10^-4?  I vote NO!

   Not much election here.   Dick is correct for a beam of hypothetical
gendanken monochromatic 25 MeV photons.   
   At those energies, the absorption of a photon beam
now also includes pair production (electron-positron production by scatter
off a second electron augmenting Compton scattering which would dominate 
at lower energies).  
   Therefore,  as is well-known, the atomic number of the material
does play a role again (for photon energies far above 2 MeV)
in the attentuation of a beam of such photons.  So therefore both the
palladium and the loaded material contribute to attenuation.

   The actual amount of attentuation might depend upon the loading and
the protium/deuterium ratio.
   My guess is that fully loaded palladium
probably would have a mass absorption coefficient of 
about .06 +/-  .035 cm2/gm in that energy range (for 25 MeV photons).
That translates to between several and ca. 25 centimeters for the 50% line.
This range is consistent with Dick's comments.


= Funny thing is the favorite theory for many CF advocates up till
= now has been that by Chubb and Chubb which actually has the
= helium formed being manifest only at the surface where all the
= magic lattice effects that are supposed to suppress the radiation
= cannot really be very important.  Can't we really declare some
= of these ideas null and void so we can clear away some of the
= accumulated trash?

   "Manifest".   Might that mean detected at, or created at, in your
                       connotation.

= Oops!  I got ahead of my self a bit there.  The thickness t
= would be 2 microns if the sample radius were one meter.  Well,
= you get the idea so you can plug in your own numbers. 

   This is like modelling a horse as a sphere, Dick.  
Nobody uses samples of one meter radius, do they?
  Why? As regards your model; forget the incredibly long filling time;   
forget the explosive potential -   (Please DO NOT forget this in a real expt.)
The leakage of deuterons out of the material (you state it has about
6 square meters of surface and :. modelling it as a simple square)
might never let you attain sufficient loadings given the normal
material conditions.
  Perhaps you might henceforth try modelling in a more 
semi-quantitative mode, Dick.         ;-)

=  Of course you can construct a two zone model with the gammas
= being produced in an interior zone that is surround by a
= superabsorbing zone that does not produce radiation.  But
= don't forget that helium is found only outside the sample
= and is never found in the palladium.
   
   Dick, where is the proof that helium is formed "only outside the sample".
                             Thanks in advance.  

   Best wishes, Dick.   Thanks for bringing this node's discussion
back to FUSION.
       [Where are you these days?   
        Set up a cf calorimetry system yet?        :-) X          

        Mitchell Swartz        (mica@world.std.com)

cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.11 /  vnoninski@fscv /  Re: Nature
     
Originally-From: vnoninski@fscvax.fsc.mass.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Nature
Date: Sat, 11 Jun 1994 02:21:53 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Dear Colleagues,

Because someone in the group is reluctant to read what is being posted and for 
some reason likes to denounce anything not coinciding with his own views, 
without even choosing the means to do that, I repeat what I said in one of my 
previous postings. I note that mutual consideration in discussions such as this 
one is necessary and one should not find himself compelled to repeat previous 
statements. 

I repeat again that I have evidence that Nature applies double standards 
in its publication practices. While Nature publishes the commentary of 
Petrasso et al criticizing Fleischmann et als' paper (published in 
another journal -JEAC), this 
same journal -- Nature -- refuses to publish criticism in any form (Scientific 
Correspondence, Letter to Nature, Article, etc.) concerning a paper in which 
Petrasso is a coauthor, giving as a sole reason the fact 
that Petrasso's paper has  
not been published in Nature and it is not the policy of Nature to publish 
criticisms of papers published in other journals. By the way, speaking about 
Petrasso, I have a written evidence by him, acknowledging lack of expertise in 
calorimetry. This written statement made by Petrasso still makes me wonder 
what were the reasons for him to participate as a coauthor in a paper 
ostensibly showing no evidence for excess heat (the conclusions in this 
paper concerning calorimetry were shown to be in error). 
Having in mind that Petrasso is, in his own admission, 
no expert in calorimetry one also wonders why such 
person would make statements against the reality of excess heat in The 
Wall Street Journal or New York Times or Boston Globe ? I will not continue 
for now with the examples. I will only note that Nature is still 
not willing to acknowledge not only the fact that there are events occurring 
during the experiments in cold fusion whose non-triviality is not evident but 
also that there are no experimental facts published so far clearly showing 
that the excess heat (the most important phenomenon 
claimed by Fleischmann et al) is an artifact or is irreproducible. Careful 
analysis of the experimental data wherever available, 
if we are to believe it, reveals that the effect has been reproduced 
virtually in all papers, despite the verbal statements by the authors 
of some of the papers to the contrary (this statement does not apply to the 
products of known nucear reactions whose appearance seems to be quite 
sporadic; proving the appearance of products of known nuclear reactions is 
of secondary importance compared to excess heat). I would mention that 
commenting Nature's editorial policies is necessary not only because of its 
undeniable impact on the scientific community, an impact requiring higher 
responsibility on the part of the editors, but also because it is the 
responsibility of any of the readers of a peer-reviewed archival journal to be 
sensitive towards any deviations from the accepted standards of scientific 
behavior and judgement.

Truly yours,


Vesselin Noninski   

cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenvnoninski cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.11 / John Logajan /  Re: "Cold Fusion" Magazine Accelerating and 73
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: "Cold Fusion" Magazine Accelerating and 73
Date: 11 Jun 1994 03:49:54 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Online Services Member.

Steve Hansen (hansen35@delphi.com) wrote:
: In the 73 editorials, after going on about CF, he moves on to aids cures,
: mysteries to which he only knows the answers, psi, and UFOs.

Heaven forfend!  Avert thine eyes!

--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com -- 612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills  MN 55112 USA           -

cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.11 / John Logajan /  Re: Verification of Thermacore calibration
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Verification of Thermacore calibration
Date: 11 Jun 1994 04:11:50 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Online Services Member.

I have preliminary results for the 95 watt case.  The room is warming up
because it has a 95 watt heater :-)  So I have to wait until the room
temperature stabilizes a bit.

There is about an 8% variation across the range.  My 15 watt case has the
longest well behaved data.  I will run 95 watts longer.  Then I will try
to get 60 and 30 watts refined, and then I will do a 0 watt case, and
finish up this verification experiment.

"15 watts"   2.828C/14.69W = 0.1925 C/W
"30 watts"   5.38 C/29.36W = 0.1833 C/W
"60 watts"  10.81 C/59.96W = 0.1786 C/W
"95 watts"  17.628C/95.56W = 0.1845 C/W

--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com -- 612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills  MN 55112 USA           -

cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.11 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Question about Helium 3 Fusion
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Question about Helium 3 Fusion
Date: Sat, 11 Jun 1994 09:21:53 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <2sfve1$plm@curly.cc.utexas.edu> johncobb@uts.cc.utexas.edu
(John W. Cobb) writes:
>In article <1994May27.115849.400@pdms03.ksc.nasa.gov>,
>Bill Gill <GILLW@alpinevalley.mdcad.ksc.nasa.gov> wrote:
>>Yesterday afternoon I received my first exposure to the concept of 
>>Helium 3 Fusion, and want to see what I can find out about it. 

>>  Helium 3 is rare on Earth due to its "magnetic properties".
>>  Helium 3 is much more abundant on the Moon.

>And effectively limitless on Jupiter.

And Neptune and Uranus .. 

>>The thrust of the discussion was that this should give us a real economic 
>>reason to go to the moon, since we need the Helium 3 to produce 
>>safe power.

>Perhaps. However, it is more likely that it will form a mutually supportive
>Public Relations/Propaganda campaign that NASA can use as a reason (or one
>of several reasons) to set up a permanent base on the moon and for alternative
>fuels fusion scientists to low-ball estimates of fuel costs. --- Just my
>opinion though.

Boo!  Sounds like since NASA and DoE feed out of the same trough (piggies) -- 
one squeals a bit whenever the other moves for an advantage at the trough!

A joint meet between DoE and NASA on the topic, resulted in DoE walking 
away with nothing but nasty things to say about such a project AND THEN
proceeded to cut itsown nose off (future)  by screwing over or carefully
restricting funds going to alternative fuel research.   So George Miley,
John Dawson, Gerry Kulcinski, and Maglich have a giant DoE  cattle prod 
up their butts, and it's activated if they push for too much effort on 
such endeavors.    BUT.... . 

Now comes Green Peace to the rescue.. or similar types, who don't go for
this even worse scenariaro that tokamak fusion is headed for:   DT fusion
with fission breeding as an augmentation ..        The radioactive 
tritium leaking into the atmosphere is enough to P-O- numbers of this type
off,  .. . . SO..    what else can DoE do, now but set up a cover and 
"talky" about D-He3 fusion".    Also Congress may have allocated must 
spend funds for this endeavor.   Well, .  let the worms squirm.   .. 
stew in thier juice, etc..     

>Actually, the Artemis study found that 3He costs were only a small cost of a
>working D-3He FRC-based reactor. It would probably be cheaper to breed Tritium
>from lithium and let the tritium decay to 3He than to mine it from the moon
>and jupiter. However, for deep space exploration, the Moon and Jupiter are
>real musts. Total DOE 3He production was something like 1.3 kg/year and
>that was when we had reactors for tritium production.

Yes, rare fuels are not the ultimate answer, but they should be used
in the first commercial break-even tests.  DT sucks and is useless as
a reflection of what will be acceptable commercially and this will become
part of envirnomental legated dictum.  

Since we would like to zip to Mars in two weeks, we plan to use
15 kilo tonnes/trip, but of the better (best?) and more advanced stuff.  

Fortunately, 9story building size magnetic and vacuum assembled tokamak 
aren't the only alternative.  And the other, even more advanced fuel 
cycles are much preferable, far cheaper and plentiful and burnable in 
the most advanced embodiments.      

>-john .w cobb
>---------------------------------------------------------------
>John W. Cobb	My posts don't reflect the views of my employer
>                Because my posts are usually opaque.
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc,Bx 1037, Prometheus II, Ltd., College Park, MD 20741-1037 |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.11 / Chuck Sites /  REPOST: Fusion via D+ ion Bose condensation (part 2)
     
Originally-From: chuck@iglou.iglou.com (Chuck Sites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: REPOST: Fusion via D+ ion Bose condensation (part 2)
Date: Sat, 11 Jun 1994 19:40:42 GMT
Organization: The Internet Gateway of Louisville, KY


------------------ REPOST  part 2 ----------------------------

4. AN INTERACTION OF PROBABILITY AMPLITUDES 

   It is well know that interactions between like charged fusable
particles is dominated by electrostatic forces.  Matt has argued that 
point well and it is a point I don't want to minimize. However it is 
a barrier that can be over come.  Lets take an example from nature 
by looking at nuclear reactions in stars.  We assume the interacting
fusable material is ionized to a high degree and thus the electro-
static forces are predominate in the interaction.  The Coulomb barrier
roughly approximated is,  

                2 
       Z_1 Z_2 e      1.44 Z_1 Z_2    
 V =  -----------  =  -------------  MeV                           [4.1]
           R               R

Where as the kinetic energy of the interacting particles can be 
determined by the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution of velocities 
corresponding to thermal energies in the range of

kT = 8.62E-8 T  keV.                                                [4.2]

A comparison of these numbers shows immediately that even with 
temperatures in the 100s of millions of degrees, the average kinetic
energies of the penetrating particles are many orders of magnitudes
smaller than the Coulomb barrier.  Even if we consider the most 
energetic part of the M-B distribution, it's still way off.  This is
a delima is it not?  This was resolved by Gamov who showed that 
the probability of two particles of charge Z_1 and Z_2 with a 
relative velocity v penetrate the barrier with a penetration factor
proportional to 

                                     2
                       2 pi Z_1 Z_2 e
Penetration  oc  exp - ---------------                          [4.3]
                          h_bar v

(Note: in my ASCII notation 'oc' means proportional to.)  Another way
to describe it is the Coulomb barrier is soft. What also become
apparent in the question of the penetration factor is the effect of
the deBroglie wave in the probability of two particles interacting
strongly at low energies.  This geometric factor is crudely related by

          2       [  1  ] 2         1
 pi lambda   oc   | --- |     oc   ---                           [4.4]
                  [  p  ]           E 

Where lambda is the deBroglie wavelength as in p = mv = h/lambda.
At low scattering energies, these relations are rapidly varying functions
of energy. In the exploration of strong interactions in band state functions,
and in low temp Bose condensation, the accomidation of the wave mechanics 
of a delocalized multi-body ensamble certainly can alter the outcome of the
nuclear reaction.  In a typical 2 particle scattering reaction, separating
out the strong interaction from the coulomb potential, the cross section for
non-resonance conditions is defined as:

                                     2
           S(E)        2 pi Z_1 Z_2 e 
rho(E) =  ------ exp - ----------------                         [4.5] 
            E              h_bar v

where S(E) is the intrinsically nuclear part of the probability for 
interaction. If we define the velocity of the particles by the kinetic 
energy of the interaction, then the kinetic energy for the reduced mass 'mu'
is E=1/2 mu v^2 and v = sqrt(2 E / mu).  Substituting this into the
definition for the cross section gives, 
 
                                        2
           S(E)          2 pi Z_1 Z_2 e 
rho(E) =  ------ exp - ----------------------                    [4.6]
            E          sqrt(2 E h_bar^2 / mu) 

or 
                                         2
                           2 pi Z_1 Z_2 e 
S(E) =   rho(E) E exp  ----------------------                    [4.7]
                       sqrt(2 E h_bar^2 / mu) 
  
Typically the fusion rate is defined via the Born-Oppenheimer approximation
that the particles are very close.  This is given by

RATE = A |PSI(r_12)|^2                                           [4.8]  

where A is the nuclear rate constant, PSI is the normalized wave function, 
and r_12 is the internuclear separation (typically 1E-14 meters, 10 fm 
as found by scattering experiments and muon-catalysed reactions). If this 
defines a point of zero kinetic energy where the nuclear potential takes
over then, as S. Koonin describes, 
  
     S(E=0)      c
A = -------   ---------    where alpha = e^2 / h_bar c ~ 1/137.    [4.9]
     mu c^2    pi alpha

or simplified 

               2 h
A =  S(E=0) ------------                                            [4.10]
            pi^2 e^2 mu

Giving a rate for a two particle nuclear S-wave interaction of  

                   2 h
RATE =  S(E=0) ------------  |PSI(R_12)|^2                          [4.11]
                pi^2 e^2 mu
 
What we then need is to describe a wave function that allows for some
probability of the interacting potentials to become attractive. The most 
common way to describe this is to say the particle 'tunnels' through 
the Coulomb potential.  That is, there is some transmission of the
particle wave through the Coulomb barrier to the point where the potential
becomes attractive with a certain probability.  As described above,
what we have is a wave function which overlaps where the electrostatic and
strong forces have a specific probability of defining the interaction method.
Graphically then, the collision of two particles looks something like below:  

    
            <- |   V_E = (Z_1 Z_2 e^2) / R    | ->               ^
       |       oo 1/2 m_1v_1^2  1/2 m_2v_2^2 oo                  |
       |     o    o    ----->   <------    o    o            Probability 
       |    o      o      A       B       o      o           Amplitude
       |   o        o                    o        o              |
       | o     D+     o                o     D+     o            |
       +--------|-----------------------------|----------------  +
                1  <--------- R ----------->  2           
         |<--Psi(r1)-->|               |<--Psi(r2)-->|
Time = 0.                                                   (Figure 1.)

 
Typically the interaction appears as below. >XX< defines the point of
overlap where there is a good probability the potential becomes attractive.
>XX< could also define the most likely point where the transmission of the
deuteron's nuclear S-wave occurs if isolated to r1 r2.  V_E is the electro-
static potential and at the point of overlap, can not be localized to 
either particle 1 or 2.   
  
 
                  <----  |   V_E    | ---->                      ^
       |                 oo        oo                            |
       | 1/2 m_1 v_1^2 o    o    o    o    1/2 m_2 v_2^2     Probability 
       |     =0       o      o  o      o       =0            Amplitude
       |            o         o         o                        |
       |          o         o   o         o                      |
       +-----------------|----------|--------------------------  + 
                         1 <--R-->  2                     
                |<-Psi(r1)-->XX<--Psi(r2)->|
Time = 1.                                                   (Figure 2.)

Now its time to look at the multi-body wave description of a Bose-
condensate as described by R. Liboff without the sophisticated band state 
complications of the Chubbs theory. Here the overlapping waves imply 
a certain and definite probability that the inner nucleon forces
will appear in the delocalized 'scattering' event (Ie. a scattering 
event masked in the uncertainty of position and momentum).  Graphically
a Bose condensate has the following appearance. 
       
                                             | V_E(R_45)|
                                   |<------V_E(R_35)--->|
       |                 |<---------V_E(R_25) --------->|
       |       |<----------V_E(R_15)------------------->|            ^
       |       oo        oo        oo        oo        oo            |
       |     o    o    o    o    o    o    o    o    o    o     Probability
       |    o      o  o      o  o      o  o      o  o      o     amplitude
       |   o        o         o         o         o         o        |
       | o        o   o     o   o     o   o     o   o         o      |
       +--------|---------|---------|---------|----------|--------
                1         2         3         4          5      ...  n

As you can see, there is not much difference between the time 1 of the
scattering event where the kinetic energy=0 and in the situation of
particles in a degenerate monoenergetic state with regard to the
overlap. That is the kinetic energy relative to each other is zero.
It's in the overlap where the dual particle occupancy becomes likely
as a function of their degeneracy and the short range-strong force
becomes possible as a branch of their interaction methods!  

    Now one of the difficulties that becomes apparent is that the
Coulomb potential for a D+ ion condensate should be quite high.  High
enough that condensation may not occur (in a free state as opposed to
the solid state mechanism used in the Chubbs work).  This was the
argument Matt Kenell and Dale Bass where making against some of my
earlier posts on D+ Bose condensation. However, knowing the problem is
half the battle.  Again, it's worth noting R. Liboff's work. In this case
we can counter act the electrostatic potential by applying a magnetic field
to a circulating mono-energetic beam of D ions. This amounts to tuning
the cyclotron frequency and maintaining the circulating beam's energy
to a single energy state.  As the magnetic field tightens the D+ ion
ribbon and focusing elements maintain the monoenergetic state, it's
believed the ribbon will under go a transition to a condensed quantum 
state (much like the figure above).  Obviously this is not a simple 
experiment.    

[As a short historical note, Liboff proposed the possibility of fusion
in D2 molecules in a speculative paper about D2 superfluids in 1977.
His calculations gave an extremely low fusion rate, but it's
interesting to note this may be one of the first theory papers
suggesting fusion in the 2D molecule and proposing a way it might
occur.]


5. ESTIMATING THE FUSION RATE OF A D+ ION CONDENSATE  
   
Here is the argument Liboff makes about fusion in a Deuteron condensate.
To start, we use the London criteria [Eq 3.9], that is given by,

Tc = 2 pi h_bar^2 / K_b M (2.61 v)^ 2/3  ~= 8E-15 n^(2/3)             [5.1]

At Tc, the free gas deBroglie wave is overlapped.  Here v is the 
volume of the particle, n is the number density, and M is the 
deuteron mass. At n~=10E23/cm^3, Tc ~= 16K. Assuming a product 
form of the two-body wavefunction, (The so called joint wave function) 
the overlap is given by

            b/2  b/2
      1    /   /
I =  ---  |   |    dx_1 dx_2 psi_1(x_1) psi_2(x_2)                    [5.2]
      b   /   /           
        -b/2  -b/2 


Setting x_2 = x_1 + del where del ~= n^-1 is the approximate peak to peak
deuteron separation via the number density, the integral becomes,

          b/2
        /  
I =    |    dx psi_1(x) psi_2(x+del)                                  [5.3]
       /             
      -b/2 

Assuming a a Gaussian form for psi_1 and psi_2 representing the probability 
of position, then

       ___       b/2
     \/ pi     /  
I =  ------   |    dx exp[ -1/2 (x/a)^2 ] exp [ -1/2 ((x + del)/a)^2)]  [5.4]
      a      /             
             -b/2 
 
where '1/a' represents the spread of the Gaussian.  Setting Nu = x/a and      
and delta = del/a gives an overlap of 

                                    b/2a
      ___                          / 
I = \/ pi exp [ -(1/2 delta)^2 ]  | exp [ -(Nu + 1/2 deta)^2] dNu       [5.5]
                                 /   
                                -b/2a

Now, when b/2a >> 1, then the result is the simple expression, 


I ~= exp[ -(1/2 delta)^2 ]                                              [5.6] 

Now obviously, the maximum overlap occurs when delta=0 (del=0) giving 
I=1.  The minimum is at delta>>1 with del>>a as 'I' tends to 0 in this case.
With the overlap now defined, we are ready to estimate the probability 
of fusion.  We know, that when delta=0, I=1 and thus the probability 
of fusion is 1. However, as 'I' is reduced the probability should 
decrease very rapidly.  Liboff models this probability with an absurdly 
low value, which would represent the dual occupancy in the overlap 
in the range of the strong force.  

p(I) = I^12    for 1 >= I >= 0.                                   [5.7]

In the condensed state a~= 1.5 del, which would give, I ~= 0.11. This 
yields a p(I) of 2E-12 fusions/deuteron pair.  Note that this only
occurs in the Bose condensed D ion state.  Because of the charge
present, this system would be superconducting as well since the wave
overlap allows for the migration of charge via the exchange degeneracy.
This should have the effect of 'softening' the Coulomb barrier since 
we have competing forces blurred in the dual occupancy of the overlap.
The other point worth discussion is Eq 4.11 in a D+ ion condensed system.
We have a RATE defined by the probability that two particles are very 
close.  In the overlap, Liboff is estimating the dual occupancy in the
overlap area in the range of the strong force with a rapidly varying 
probability function of interaction.  This would amount to changing 
Eq 4.11 such that the |psi1_2|^2 represents the probability density of
two particle occupation in the overlap of the condensate.   


CONCLUSION

   I hope this post clears the air on the question of fusion in a D+
ion Bose condensate.  Basically, when the deuteron condensate becomes
super conducting, then by the nature of the wave mechanics, a
potential exists for the particles to interact via nuclear forces.
That effect is based on very conservative physics and does indicate
that with the right design, a 'cold' plasma fusion machine may be
possible.  Portions of the Chubb's theory are also supported via the
concept of fusion due the wave overlap, as suggested in the deuteron
band wave functions. It seems possible that a solid state version of
the concept may be possible if it can be shown that deuterons can
condense in hydrated metals. I've read of a few experiments where the
high migration rate of deuterium compared to hydrogen in some
transition metals is indicative of Bosonic condensation effects, but I
don't believe anyone has shown this to be the true source of the
migration phenomena.  Still the question is an intreging one; Can
deutrons in some deuterated metals systems bose condense?  And under
what conditions?  Perhaps some of the experimentalists out there may
shed some light on that subject.  Tom, Steve, John, Care to comment? 
   
  The bottom line is if the conditions are right, cold fusion looks 
possible.
   
Have Fun,
Chuck Sites
chuck@iglou.iglou.com






cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.11 / Chuck Sites /  REPOST: Fusion via Bose condensation of D+ ions (part 1)
     
Originally-From: chuck@iglou.iglou.com (Chuck Sites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: REPOST: Fusion via Bose condensation of D+ ions (part 1)
Date: Sat, 11 Jun 1994 19:34:36 GMT
Organization: The Internet Gateway of Louisville, KY


Bill Page brought it to my attention that the last part of this post
was some how clip off in trnasport through ZORCH.  So here is a
repost, now in two parts.  There is a point that needs to be clarified
in the post.  The degeneracy factor, A = e^(-al), is really the key as
to whether the system can be consider condensed.  When A approaches 1
the gas becomes degenerate.  I assume when al<1 this is when overlap 
begins by inspection of the equation. Thanks to Dr. Xing Zhong Li for
pointing this out to me.  Anyway you may want to look up Born's book for
clarification on that point. 

 ------------------------ REPOST:  Part 1 -------------------------  

    Following the tradition of the College of sci.physics.fusion, here
is my reply to Matt Kenell on the question of fusion in a Bose
condensed aggregate of deuterons (D+).  Sorry this has taken so long Matt.
There are several deep ideas hidden in the 'wave overlap' I'm such a
proponent of, I needed some time to explore. 

    As the skeptical like to point out the burden of proof
is on us to show.  Bill Page in his impressive series on the Vieger theory
carried that burden well.  I have not read any of Dr. Vieger's works
(yet) but I already have a pretty good idea it's direction from Bill's
posts.  If you like the hydrino concept, then Vieger looks pretty
interesting. I hope fellow s.p.f readers will give his ideas some
consideration. 

    Similarly I thought the exchange between Scott Chubbs and the
collective minds of Dick Blue, Steve Jones, Bill Page, and Matt Kenell
and others have been excellent.  Personally, I like the Chubbs theory
alot and IMHO its one of the better theories on the CF phenomena out there.
I think there is room for improvement with regard to the description 
of the migration of charge in the BBC to fit the other models of proton
conduction in hydrated metals, but that will have to come in a later
post.  Also, the criticism of the Bose in-Bose out selection rules for the 
branching ratio does make me wonder about the correctness of the Chubbs 
theory in this respect. I can understand Chubb's argument that the presents
of an He4 band state could modify the selection rules. However, getting the
real world material properties to form the dual D+ and He4++ bands seems
tricky at best.  Still, the physics in Scott and Talbott's description
looks valid to me.  So maybe it is just a matter of designing the proper
experiment.   
       
    When your on the cutting edge of physics, it's natural to generate
a little heat. (A new definition of friction? You make the call ;-).
It's then your burden to quench the fire and prove the correctness of
your concepts by laying the cards on the table.  My burden of proof
lies in the statistical quantum mechanics and nuclear physics of
deuteron condensates. It's a case of competing potentials and
probabilities described in the wave mechanics.  What I want to show is
how to get there and argue about the reaction by-products later.  So
fasten those seat belts... This is pretty exciting.


Good reply Matt,
   
    This kind of given and take really does help clarify potential 
problems and where the points need to be high lighted. I just happen
to think this is an important idea so please indulge me for a moment.

   First, your argument is basically comes down to, the deuteron has
an electrostatic potential of much further range than the strong force
and thus will do two things: [1] It will not allow a strong
interaction because the electromagnetic forces dominate. [2] The
electrostatic potential will keep the deuteron separation so large no
condensation effect will occur.  Of the two, #2 is where we have a an
argument.  #1 is obvious, but can be got around as nature shows us all
the time via quantum-mechanical tunneling and other artifacts of wave
interaction.  So, lets take on #2 first.  Matt, I'm sure you know what
the 'psi' of a particle implies.  I'm not so sure others do based on
their replies.  Anyway we're into it so lets go...


1. A COLLECTION OF IDENTICAL PARTICLES

Lets say we have an ideal gas (a random collection of identical particles).
In quantum mechanics we know every particle can be specified by a 
wave operation 'psi' which is basically a description of the deBrogie
matter wave of the particle. In the collection we can label the first
particle wave, (particle 1) as psi_k(1) where k represents that state
of the particle as would be described by the Schrodinger equation of
a harmonic oscillator. The second particle would be psi_l(2), and the
third psi_m(3). The states k,l,m can be equal or different.
The total energy of the collection is simply the sum of the energy of
all the individuals which would be,

      epsilon_klm... = epsilon_k + epsilon_l + epsilon_m + ...

where the energy of the individuals can be obtained the psi of the
the particle. While this is a simple sum, the wave equation of the
whole system of particles is described as the product of all the
individual, so 
                   
     PSI_klm... =  psi_k(1) psi_l(2) psi_m(3) ...

Because the total energy of the system can be any linear combination
of individual particle energies the wave function of the total collection
becomes the sum of all permutation.  That is if we exchange particle 1
with particle 3,     

     PSI'_klm... =  psi_k(3) psi_l(2) psi_m(1) ...

The result is particle 3 goes to state k, and particle 1 goes to state m.
As you can see, such an exchange does not effect the total energy to an
observer looking at total energy.  Looking closer, all one will see are 
the individual psi's in apparent random states (the effects of localization).
We can then define the single total wave equation of the total collection as
     
                  __ 
     PSI_klm... = >_ a_123... psi_k(1) psi_l(2) psi_m(3) ...
                  P

Which is the sum of all permutation P and a_123... represents an
arbritary constant for the coefficients of each permutation.  From the
classic point of view each permutation would represent many
different independent wave functions.  But as we argued earlier, such
an exchange position does not effect the total wave, or at best
changes it's sign.  From the Born interpretation, only |PSI|^2 has any
meaningful physical attribute.  Because the exchange of particle's
position does not effect the collective state, we are forced only to
those distinct states where the coefficient is one, or the combination
of the sum is 1 on even permutations and -1 on odd permutations.  So
there are two results allowed by the requirement that the particles
are indistinguishable.  In the case where the coefficient is 1, we get
the symmetrical wave function,

                  __ 
     PSI_sym... = >_ psi_k(1) psi_l(2) psi_m(3) ...
                  P
 
and in the case where the coefficient is +1 on the even permutations and
-1 on the odd permutations, we get the antisymetrical wave function
 
                      __ 
     PSI_antisym... = >_  +/-  psi_k(1) psi_l(2) psi_m(3) ...
                      P

It's from these two wave functions that the two quantum statistics
are defined.  In the case of the symmetric wave function, the collection
is described by Bose-Eienstein statistics.  In the antisymmetric case
they are defined by Fermi-Dirac statistics.   
   
   Ok, so far so good. I know, in an earlier post I said, PSI=psi_1 + 
psi_2 + ... + psi_n, thanks for correcting me Matt. As one of my 
professors used to say, "That was just a test to see if you were paying 
attention" :-)


2. THE PARTITION OF PSI_sym

    With our collection of particles we can make some meaningful
arguments about the state of the system.  To start, lets look at
a collection of N photons in a cavity.  In the case of photons in
a box, we can describe the quanta by a wave vector number k.  I'm
assuming most folks understand the energy of the photon is defined 
by 'h v' and has a momentum  p = 'h v / c' = 'h k'.  The number of states
with in a range of 

 3
d k  and taking into consideration the two polarization states of
the photon,  is described by

               3
    d N = 2V  d k       
  
where V is the volume of the cavity. If we look at a spherical volume
(to simplify the three dimensionality) with wave numbers between 
k and k + del k we have,
 
                  2  
    d N = 8 pi V k  del k

Since the momentum of the light quanta is p = h v / c = h k,  we can
rewrite the equation as

             4 pi V    2
    d N = 2 -------- p    del p  = g_s      
                3
               h 

Now your probably wondering why I'm bring up this material on Plank's
black body radiation. It has nothing to do with the question of fusion
in a D+ bose condensate.  Ahh but it does.  Look at the last
equation. What we have described is a way to divide up the 'phase
space' (the coordinate space and the momentum space) into units of h^3
for particles with a momentum of p to p + del p for a spatial volume
V.  Now here is an interesting point.  One can not define a partition
of phase space smaller than h^3!  This comes about from the
Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, where del p del q ~ h. Any further
partition would be meaningless.  I bring this up now, because later
you will see 'gs' again.


REMEMBER THE BERNECKY/BOLLINGER SPECULATION?   

   What Bernecky's speculation is about is the so called 'hard-core boson
model' but with an interesting twist[6].  If the lattice constrains the bose 
particle by matching the D+ deBroglie wave length to the lattice spacing of 
the Pd/H intersituals, wouldn't this be similar to the hard-core boson
model of condensation?  Here is the analogy. 

   In He4, the quantum system is full, complete with 2 protons, 2
neutrons in the core and 2 electrons to balance the charge.  In He3,
the difference is the nuclear core lacks one neutron.  Since the 1s
electron orbital in helium is full, the nuclear spin becomes apparent
in a macroscopic ordering. He4 condenses obeying the rules of the
Bose/ Einstein statistics of a macro-system, while He3 forms a Fermi
liquid.  An interesting consequence is He3 can solidify and forms a
BCC crystal at extremely cold temps with an interesting pattern of
alternating spin-up, spin-down, which acts to bind the crystal. That
effect is purely an effect of the spin of the nucleus.  From a quantum
mechanical point of view, the He3 bbc crystal pattern comes about when
the overlapping wave functions of the particle's spin interferes in
momentum space.

   In contrast, He4 never solidifies but instead become a superfluid,
much like a large collection of hard frictionless balls without out
order (spin=0), except for sphere packing at the lowest temps. However,
while sphere packing implies that edge to edge repulsion, this is not
the quantum point of view.  When the particle's wave function in momentum 
space overlaps constructively, it allows the exchange the particles position
in space and an enhanced probability to interact.  Bernecky's premise is
based loosely on sphere packing.  When the temperature modified deBroglie
wave begins to overlap and drops below a certain critical value, this 
is when the effects of condensation should be seen.  
  
   With respect to the Pd/D system at the deBroglie/temperature/lattice
spacing resonance, wouldn't this be similar to the sphere packing of
He4 during condensation? First, treat the Pd lattice electron cloud as
the sphere packed He4's electron cloud, and nuclei of the packed He4,
as adjacent deuteron filled Pd intersituals.  This type visualization
works, and works amazingly well even with He4 at the condensation temp
of about 2.2K, as I will show.  But first, lets consider, W. Bernecky's
premise (with a few minor corrections).

   In a superfluid liquid He4, the volume occupied by the can be defined as 
  
     V = m/u                                                     [1.1]

where m=mass, and u = density of the He4 fluid.  This can be crudely
approximated as a cubic volume, where   

     V ~ a^3                                                     [1.2]

and a = separation distance.  In a finite spatial volume, (and assuming
an infinite potential) the energy is quantisized, with a ground state energy
approximated by  E = p_ave^2 / (2m) where p_ave is the average momentum of
the ensemble.  Also we have,

     p_ave ~= h / a                                              [1.3] 

which is the "Saturated Heisenberg inequality".  This comes from a standing
wave description of a particle. 
  
The deBrogie relationship is,  p = mv = h/lambda  where h=Plank's constant,
lambda=deBroglie wavelength.  By equating p = p_ave,    
                               
     h/lambda = h/a                                              [1.4]  

and substituting, one gets E = (h/a)^2 / (2m).   Or on rearranging 
      
               2                                                 [1.5]
              h       
     E =  -----------     The ground state energy of a mass in an intersitual
                 2        where the deBroglie wavelength equals the         
            2 m a         intersitual distance.

[ I would like to note that Terry Bollinger, in a Draft electronic
paper called "Bernecky Condensation" posted some time ago, argues this
should be modified to h/(lambda/2)= h/a for a lattice structure
designed to transmit and reflect specific atomic deBroglie
wavelengths. I re-read that post recently, and it's a *very*
interesting argument. There are methods of doing this. Perhaps this is
a new method for the creation of light element degenerate condensed
matter.  More on that sometime later.  Anyway, what I want to show is
the statistical argument behind Bose/Einstein condensation, and the
effects of EM forces on an aggregate Bose system.  So continuing...]

Now, if we treat this as an ideal gas via the Boltzmann relation, 

     E = (3/2) k T                                               [1.6] 

where k = Boltzmann's constant, and T=degrees Kelvin, and equate [1.5] to
[1.6] and solve for T, we get the general relationship,

                2
               h              This gives the Bernecky high 
     T = --------------       temp condensation relationship.    [1.7]
                  2                  
           3 m k a 
     
   Now lets see if this works according to a sphere packed model of
the condensation He4 to it superfluid state.  He4 has a ground state
diameter of approximately 1.9E-10m and a mass of 4.002603u * 1.66043E-27
kg/u = 6.6460421e-27 kg.  Assuming the He4's are right next to each 
other, Calculating through, I get: 44.18K.  Clearly something is wrong
with this picture.  The lambda transition for He4 for ordinary liquid
to superfluid is 2.2K, so working backward to find the particle 
spacing I get 8.55 angstrom. 4.5 times the radial diameter of the 
He4 atom (electrons orbitals included).  The spatial extent of the
deBroglie wave (the momentum spread) is quite large.  Huge infact!  


2. APPROACHING THE CONDENSATION QUESTION FROM BOSE-EINSTEIN STATISTICS  

The Bernecky/Bollinger speculation is a nice simple picture using 
the macroscopic observation of superfluid He4 and reducing it down
to a microscopic system and then back up to a macroscopic system.
From the other direction, we can use quantum statistics to predict
macroscopic effects.  Max Born in the classic book "Atomic Physics"
gives an excellent description of the quantum statistical phenomena of
Bose condensation.    

  Lets say we have we have a collection of particles in a linear
abstract chain that we call a shell, 's'.  In each shell there is a
group of cells, 'gs' that can be counted z1, z2, z3,..,z_gs.  Lets say
we also have a number of distinguishable particles in the shell
'ns', that we will label a1, a2, a3,..., a_ns.  If we randomly
distribute these particles into cells, a typical arrangement might be:

         z1 a1 a2 z2 a3 z3 z4 a4 a5 a6 z5 a7 ... z_gs a_ns.         [2.1]

In this case, particle a1 and a2 are in cell z1, cell z2 contains
particle a3, cell z3 is empty, cell z4 contains particles a4 a5 a6,
and so on for a_ns particles in z_gs cells.  The number of way we can
arrange the cells is 'gs', and the number of ways we can distribute
'ns' particles the cells is gs+ns-1, so the number of arrangements
possible is gs(gs+ns-1)!.  But this includes a number of repeated
configurations, which contains gs!ns! arrangements.  So the number of
distinguishable and unique arrangements is given by

               gs(gs+ns-1)!       (gs+ns-1)!
              --------------  =  ------------                       [2.2]
                 gs!ns!           (gs-1)!ns!

For the distribution across 's' number of shells, the "probability" of
all particles across all shells is given by the product expression

                     _____  (gs+ns-1)!
                  W = | |  ------------                             [2.3]
                      | |   (gs-1)!ns!
                       s   

The most probable distribution of this arrangement is given by the
"Sterling theorem".  Working through that gives,      
             __   
    log W =  >_  {(gs+ns) log(gs+ns) - gs log gs - ns log ns}       [2.4]
            
Now that we have a statistically accurate account of the most probable
distribution of Bose particles of 'ns' particles in 'gs' cells, we can
now get more specific about the system.  In a photon gas, we can assign
SUM(ns epsilon_s) = Es  where (epsilon_s = h/v_s), and eventually derive 
the Plank's blackbody radiation formula.  But we are interested in that
group of particles that have at minimum, a baryon component and a composite
integer spin.  In this case, we have the the condition that
SUM(ns) = N.  Thus the probability distribution of N particles, is 
the partial derivative of Log W / ns with respect to ns.  That is:

      @ log W         gs + ns
     -------- = log --------- = alpha + Beta epsilon_s               [2.5]
       @ ns             ns 

Note:  '@' indicates partial derivative (in my ASCII notation). 
Where alpha is the degeneracy parameter, Beta (by thermodynamic arguments)
is simply 1/kT, and epsilon_s represents energy states of the individuals.
[To simplify the ASCII notation let alpha + Beta epsilon_s = al + B eps_s.]  
Solving for ns we get the classic expression,

                gs 
     ns = --------------------                                      [2.6]    
           al + B eps_s            
         e              - 1 

Now interesting enough, we use the same trick as used in the Bernecky's
speculation only in reverse, and define the number of cells g by assigning
the energy of the particle and assuming a volume for the cell around that.    

                   1   2                  1
So let      eps = --- p    and   d eps = ---  p dp                  [2.7]
                  2 m                     m   

Skipping several steps, the expression for g (ie. the number of cells)
becomes,

            4 pi V            4 pi V   _________
      g =  -------- p^2 dp  = ------- V 2m^3 eps  d eps.            [2.8]
              h^3               h^3

Recall the previous section on the partition of PSI_sym. Here it is 
again, only there is no polarization factor.  We also equate the 
mass and energy of the particle to it's momentum. What comes out
is *the* Bose-Einstein law of the distribution of atoms.
                                              _____   ____    
                 _____            4 pi V     V 2m^3  V eps  d eps
    dN = F(eps) V eps  d eps =  --------- ----------------------    [2.9]
                                   h^3        al + B eps 
                                             e           - 1

This distribution describes generally the portion of all particles
with a certain energy.  Solving for the degeneracy parameter,'al' in
terms of the energy range per unit particle, we get:
                         
               [         ____  deps     ]
       al = ln |  k2 k2 V eps  ---- + 1 | - eps B                   [2.10] 
               [                dN      ]  

where k1 = 4 Pi V / h^3 and k2 = Sqrt(2m^3).  Now we have a condition
to apply in this case, that is: 

               oo
       /     /           ____ 
      | dN = | F(eps)   V eps  deps = N = nV                        [2.11]
      /      / 
             0

  This condition makes the Bose-Einstein distribution law, non-
integratable. (At least I couldn't find a general solution).  Born
makes the argument that by assuming 'al' >> 1, the distribution will 
reduce to the classic distribution of Maxwell, from this 'al' can be 
derived. That is true, but it's somewhat frustrating to know there
is something hidden there. I want to take another approach which
is perhaps more relavent to free bosons in metals.

 Let's assume 'g' the (number of cells) is not defined by the particle,
but is instead defined by the metal lattice intersituals. That is, the
metal lattice nuclei constrains the particle by Coulomb forces to a
region of lower potential.  From eq 2.6 
     
              g 
   n = -----------------      and solving for 'al'
        al + B eps
       e           - 1     

I get the simple formula, 

      al = ln(g/n + 1) - eps B.      where B = (1/kT).              [2.12]

Now interesting enough, g/n would represent the reciprocal of loading factor
which is normally defined by the number of particles / metal atom, which is
really describes the number of particles/intersitual/metal atoms. Assuming
a particle energy of eps = 0.2 eV = 3.2E-20J,  and g/n = 1/0.7 = 1.43,
T=300K. The degeneracy parameter 'al' then becomes respectable unit-less
0.702.  While this seems arbitrary, it's really not. The 0.2eV would
represent the depth of the potential well of the intersituals, and T at
300K is roughly room temp.  A loading factor of 0.7 seems common for 
electrolysis PdD(x).  This also demonstrates that the system is
degenerate and since 'al'<1  the system is condensed!  We can be more
specific about 'eps' by recognizing a simple particle in a 2D well 
near ground state has an energy roughly    

                                                                    [2.13]
              h     
  eps =   --------      Where eps is the ground state energy of a  
           2 m a^2      particle located in intersitual where the
                        deBroglie wave length equals the intersitual
                        distance.
            
Thus working out in detail the degeneracy parameter for Bose particles
in metals, I get the interesting equation:   

                            h^2                                       [2.14]
     al = ln(g/n + 1) - -------------  where 'a' = intersitual  
                         2 m a^2       spacing.
           
Note: I say crude, because 'a' is effected by loading.  Also, while 
g/n represents the recipical of the loading factor, in a crystal like
Pd, the occupancy of tetrahedrals is dependent on the the energy of the
particles. These are pertibations, but should not detract from the
point the bose system in PdD(x), the D becomes degenerate most cases
of high loading, and can thus be considered a high temperature bose 
condensate. Cool aye?


3.  THE CRITICAL TEMPERATURE FOR BOSE CONDENSATION 

   I argued in the last section that the degeneracy of deuteron in a 
metal would indicate the condensation of the deuteron. However this 
is not the approach taken by Fritz London[7] in his description of
the condensation He4.   I deviated after equation 2.11 from Born's 
logic. I think eq. 2.12 is based on a valid argument, however it is
interesting to see where the theoretical basis of He4 lambda transition
temperature comes from.  From Eq 2.6, we have already pointed out 
that alpha is a parameter describing the degeneracy of the system.
Actually it's more common to call   
            
    A = e^(-alpha)  or in my ASCII terminology,  A = e^(-al)        [3.1]    

the 'degeneracy parameter'.  Now of alpha >> 1 we can ignore the
the minus one in the denominator as the denominator blows up.   

                gs               
     ns = -------------  = gs A e^(-B eps)                          [3.2]
           al + B eps_s         
         e 
                 
which is Maxwell's classic statistics.  Using what know from Eq 2.8, 
and assigning gs, we then get,
                  ____
     dN = F(eps) V eps  d eps 
 
            4 pi V      _____   ____                                [3.3]  
     dN =  --------- A V 2m^3  V eps e^(-B eps) d eps 
             h^3 

which can be integrated.  In this case, we can compare theories, and 
find that in Maxwell's statistics, Ao is defined as

                    n h^3
        Ao  = -------------------                                  [3.4] 
               (2 pi m k T)^(3/2)  

Additionally, the deBroglie wavelength for a free gas particle is given 
by lambda = h/p = h / (3 m k T)^(1/2). (Does this look familiar?) Thus,

               [   3  ]^(3/2)
         Ao =  | ---- |      n lambda^3                            [3.5]
               [ 2 pi ]   

Now according to Born's work, we can take this and work out the 'degeneracy
parameter' A via an expansion of a transcendental function. I haven't worked
through this yet, but just to state the solution:

                         oo  
                4 A    /   e^(x^2) x^2
         Ao = ------   |  ----------------- dx                     [3.6]
              sqrt(pi) /   1 - A e^(-(x^2))
                       0

This transcendental equation can be series expanded, and gives:

                [         1              1       2        ]
         Ao = A | 1 + --------  A +  ---------- A   + ... |        [3.7]
                [     2 sqrt(2)       3 sqrt(3)           ]

Which upon solving for A = e^(-al) gives:

                [         1           3 sqrt(3) - 4    2       ]
         A = Ao | 1 -  -------- Ao +  -------------- Ao  - ... |   [3.8]
                [      2 sqrt(2)       12 sqrt(3)              ]

Now we can solve for the degeneracy parameter and decide if the system
will condense and at what temperature it occurs.  Obviously this is no
small task.  Fortunately it may be unnecessary.  Fritz London solved this 
as described in the book "Near Zero". He gives the critical temperature
for the onset of He4 Bose condensation as,  

                 h^2     [   n    ] 2/3
         T = ----------- |  ----- |                                [3.9] 
              2 pi k m   [  2.612 ]

which is simply Eq 3.3. solved for T, with Ao = 2.612.  Solving for
lambda in Eq. 3.5, the deBroglie wavelength is:  
  
                 [ 2.612  [2 pi]^(3/2) ] 1/3                  
        lambda = | -----  |----|       |                           [3.10]  
                 |   n    [ 3  ]       ]

   Since we all ready know from experimental measurements that the
critical temperature for He4's transition to superfluidity is roughly
2.2K degrees, from Eq 3.4, we can find 'n' and from Eq. 3.5 we can
find lambda.  (I get n = 1.28256e28. and lambda = 8.51452928522e-10 m.
Which is roughly 8.5 angstrom.  Haven't we seen this before?)
Although this is in the same order of magnitude, this value is roughly
4 times larger than the radius of the He4 atom I used in the Bernecky
calculation.  Clearly something is a miss (although not by much). For
the degeneracy parameter A=e(-al) for the first two interactions I get
1.225 with alpha = -0.2033.

Interesting enough, if we solve for n in terms of lambda and plug this 
into Eq 3.9 we get back 

                    2
                   h
        T = ----------------                                          [3.11]
                          2
              3 k m lambda

Which is the equation Bernecky's speculation is based on! Bernecky's
speculation is simply the debroglie wavelength of a free gas particle!
Still, the main point about this is lambda (the deBroglie wavelength
of a particle) can be controlled by temperature, which is a quite
obvious but important notion.  It also shows quite vividly only when
deBroglie wave of the composite particle overlaps in momentum space,
the system is considered 'condensed'.  Fritz London received some
criticism for his equation because of the use of the free gas equation
for a liquid state material, but the criticism is muted because the
theory does work and works well. The London equation basically
predicts when the temperature modified debroglie wave overlap occurs!

   Obviously the critical component of the Bose-Einstein statistics is
how the partitioning of the random collection is done and how eps is
defined for charged and strong force bose carriers in the case of a
deuteron condensate.  For deuterons in metals, the partitioning will
be different from a gas and this forces us to look at 'gs'.  Eq. 2.12
is obviously true, so what we need to consider is whether in metals,
the partitioning can be restricted to the lattice intersituals in
deuterated metals. That is, does g/n = loading factor?  

<<  This end's Part I.  >>>

cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Sun Jun 12 04:39:43 EDT 1994
------------------------------
1994.06.11 / Chuck Sites /  Re: Fusion via Bose condensation of D+ ions (Fusion Digest 2362) incomplete
     
Originally-From: chuck@iglou.iglou.com (Chuck Sites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion via Bose condensation of D+ ions (Fusion Digest 2362) incomplete
Date: Sat, 11 Jun 1994 20:59:27 GMT
Organization: The Internet Gateway of Louisville, KY

70047.3047@compuserve.com (Bill Page) writes:

>Dear Chuck Sites,

>It would seem that your very interesting recent posting to 
>sci.physics.fusion was somehow truncated when I received it.  I seem to 
>have received everything up to:

><<

>          2       [  1  ] 2         1
> pi lambda   oc   | --- |     oc   ---                           [4.4]
>                  [  p  ]           E 

>Where lambda is the deBrRG.
>-------------------- 
>>>

>The rest of the message was blank.  I receive the postings to 
>sci.physics.fusion via the ZORCH listserver.  This listserver always 
>attaches a trailer to each set of postings, but none appeared in this 
>particular message.  From this I assume that something went wrong with the 
>listserver program.  This happens sometimes when certain characters are 
>used such as a period on a line by itself, etc...

>Anyway, I was wondering whether you could email your article directly to 
>me. Please.

I just reposted the article in two parts.  Hopefully it will get through 
ZORCH this time around.  

>That portion of your article that I did receive was intriquing and 
>obviously has involved a lot of research on your part.  Well done!  (Though 
>I doubt that my encouragement of your work is really necessary. <grin>)  I 
>think that it deserves more "air-time" on the net than the single short 
>reply by Matt.  With the exception of your posting and a few by John 
>Logajan, I've been a little disappointed by the quality of the material 
>drifting across sci.physics.fusion over the last month or two.  I'm hoping 
>this will change soon.

Thanks for the encouraging words.  I've always enjoyed Matt's comments.  His
views are little different from  mine, but it's only in the way we see the 
physics at this time.  Anyway, it think the idea of fusion via condensation
is plausable.  An it is my understanding, the experiments to demonstrate 
the effect are already under way.  Moving these equations to solid state
metal hydride enviroment is what is driving my study now.  It may be just
a question of how high is your loading factor, how cold are the deuterons, 
and how long are your deuteron chains before some defect interfers. Also
since the D+ ion condensate does superconduct how will this effect manifest
itself in an electron rich enviroment?  I think you will find that turns
out to be a far more interesting question than it appears.     
    
>I have been Reading (capital R, with the help of MAPLE on my PC) the recent 
>book by David Bohm and B.J. Hilery titled "The Undivided Universe".  It 
>presents the "pilot wave" interpretation of QM in great detail - very 
>convincing and clear in its philosphical approach and use of mathematics.  
>It really resolves for me the problems that I have had in trying to 
>understand the fuzzy (and self contradictory) notions of "de-localization" 
>of particles that has crept into QM while the philosphers where not 
>looking. 

>MAPLE does symbolic math and produces real nice graphics - even animation.  
>I have used the book "Quantum Methods with Mathematica" by James M. Feagin, 
>Springer-Verlag (TELOS), 1993, as a guide to doing QM on the computer.  
>Mathematica and MAPLE are similar, but I perfer MAPLE.  I am very impressed 
>with what can be done and it seems to me that these tools will likely soon 
>be as indispensible to the physicist as the pocket calculator is to the 
>engineer.

>I think that Bohm's interpretation of QM has clear applications to Chubb & 
>Chubb's theory of ion-band state fusion as well as Vigier's ideas and I 
>intend to post a series of articles on this subject soon.

I'll look those books up. I do like David Bohm's book "Quantum Theory" 
alot.  It is excellent.  I'm sure "Undivided Universe" is just as 
mind bogling.  Indeed, it is amazing what Nature creates and the ways
humankind descibes it, with insight and logic.  
 

>Best regards,

>Bill Page.
>INTERNET: 70047.3047@COMPUSERVE.COM

>cc. Fusion Digest (sci.physics.fusion)

Have Fun,
Chuck Sites
chuck@iglou.iglou.com

cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.11 / John Logajan /  Excerpts from Mills/Thermacore FT article
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Excerpts from Mills/Thermacore FT article
Date: 11 Jun 1994 19:32:38 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Online Services Member.

Just thought I'd post some of the January 1994 Fusion Technology article
written by Mills, Good and Shaubach.  Below are the Thermacore results.

 T Rise
Degrees C
20 _                                               x 13               +
   .                                                              +
   .      Plots of Thermacore             x 12                 +
   .      experiments 5 - 13.                               + 
   .                            x 11                    +
15 _                                                 + [V*I - 0% gas loss]
   .                                             + 
   .                   x 10                   +                       -
   .                                       +                      -
   .                                    +                   -  -
10 _             x 9 - - - - - - -  +                   -
   .           x 8               +    .          -   -
   .         x 7              +       .    -  - [V*I - 100% gas loss]
   .       x 6   .        +           . -
   .             .     +         -  - .
 5 _     x 5     .  +         -       .
   .            +.     -  -           .
   .         +  -.  -                 . [ex. #9 = 27.5 W input, 70 W output]
   .      +  -   .                    .
   .  +          .                    .
 0 +....|....|....|....|....|....|....|....|....|....|....|....|....|... Watts
   0    10   20   30   40   50   60   70   80   90  100  110  120  130 
               Input Power (4 volts * 101 amps * duty cycle)
          Figure 12 (partial, modified) Fusion Technology, Jan 1994

All plot points are based upon data from Table II of the FT paper which
suggests an an average calorimetry constant of 0.15 C/W +or- 0.01 C/W.

Experiments #5 through #13 plot temperature rise above ambient versus input
power.  Power was varied by changing the duty cyle.  On current was fixed
at 101 amps, nominal 4 volts.

Two diagonal lines show calibration heater power and power minus 100% gas
loss.  The heater power curve doubles as a 0% gas loss line (100% internal
recombination.)  Therefore, all non-anomalous temperature readings should
fall between the upper and lower diagonal lines (0 to 100% recombination)
for a given input electrolysis power.  Excursions above the upper diagonal
represent anomalous heat, any excursion below the lower diagonal would have
represented anomalous cold.

All Thermacore data depicts anomalous heat well above 100% recombination.

        Table II (partial)  Fusion Technology, Jan 1994

Exp  %Duty   V*I   Power 
 #   cycle   In     Out
---  -----  ----  ------
 4   100   162.0  137.0  <== [Not plotted. Only case in which Pin > Pout.]
 5     3    12.5   31.0
 6     4    16.3   43.5    V*I = 101 amps * 4 volts * duty cycle
 7     5    20.4   54.7    Power out = Delta Temp / 0.15 C/W
 8     6    24.2   63.2
 9     7    27.5   70.0    Power waveform = 2 Hz rectangular wave.
10    10    39.6   85.3
11    15    58.8  105.5
12    20    77.8  118.1
13    25    96.7  135.0
14    20     4.98  41.0  <== [ Not plotted.  1 Hz, 10.5 amp 2.37 volt]

NOTE!!!!  No gas loss power was subtracted from the input power in the
partial Figure 12 and partial Table II shown above.

--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com -- 612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills  MN 55112 USA           -

cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.12 / L Plutonium /  Re: LP APOLOGIZES TO THE NOBEL FOUNDATION
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.kibology,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fus
on,sci.math,sci.chem,sci.bio,sci.physics,sci.psychology
Subject: Re: LP APOLOGIZES TO THE NOBEL FOUNDATION
Date: 12 Jun 1994 02:33:00 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In article <Cr5Hro.4ns@beaux.atwc.teradyne.com>
pnorton@beaux.atwc.teradyne.com (Peter Norton) writes:
> In article <2t65c7$n89@mailhost.interaccess.com> bh@interaccess (Bounty Hunter) writes:
> >Ludwig Plutonium (Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu) wrote:
> >
> >:    Thanks kindly Simon. I do not want the Nobel prize in Physics
> >: because I am thinking in advance what is the best for the Plutonium
> >: Atom Foundation. It is best that I self-sacrifice because I have won
> >: the PLutonium Atom Prize, something far more prestigous and valuable.
> 
> >: I must self-sacrifice and be
> >: persecuted in my time, in order that I will have it easier in 2000
> >: years from now when I am reborn via biotechnology.
> >
> >Man, this is sheer comedy. 
> 
> No, it is tragedy. 
> It is a tragic example of the misunderstanding of the physiology
> of spiritual transformation in our culture.  LP appears to be the victim
> of what used to be known as 'metanoia'.  Having no context in which to
> understand his altered state(s) he looks to the reigning tradition in
> our culture that is reputed to be closest to understanding the Origins.
> So he adapts it as best he can, without benefit of it's cultural
> conventions.  And, seeing none among the scientific elite with the same 
> _experience_ of 'totality' that he experiences, he concludes that they
> don't know what they are talking about - in the sense that he knows of
> the _totality_ via experience.  For similar descriptions of unwitting 
> victims of spiritual emergence, see for example: "Spiritual Emergency" 
> by Grof, "Holy Madness" by Feurstein, "Ecce Homo" by Nietzsche.
> 
> I apologize for feeding this thread ....

  I am enjoying responding to the above post because it gives me the
opportunity to excel. Excel in my opinion of psychology.
  We know what Feynman thought of philosophy-- "Philosophers and other
fools". But what was Feynman's opinion of psychology? Did he opine that
psychology as a science is "still swinging in the trees"? If I had to
hazard a guess, I would think that Feynman was negative towards
practicing psychology. Whatever, I am going to give my opinion of the
progress of psychology as a science.
  Mr. Norton has given in his essay above, what I would consider if I
were to walk into a psychologist office because of a bad "referral". In
other words, someone shipped me off to a shrink in order to find
something wrong with me. And Mr. Norton's psychological analysis is
typical of the hodge-podge garbage that results.
  A thought experiment-- if Adolf Hitler had been sent to most any
shrink in Germany before WW2, his papers would have come out as
"saint", to any shrink after the war, all of them would have analyzed
him as "devil or demon".
  Mr. Norton, if you had read my THEORY OF THE MIND AS QM, COULOMB
INTERACTIONS (provided you can understand QM) WITH THE BRAIN LOCUS,
then you would see that for the first time in the history of
psychology, Mr. Norton, is there a comprehensive theory of the mind set
forth, being proposed. But I seriously doubt that you know or
understand Quantum Mechanics, Coulomb Interaction, or any physics.
  Before I declared the BRAIN LOCUS THEORY OF THE MIND, it was my
opinion that psychology had no working theory. It was a science bereft/
barren of theory. Psychology had alot of good experimentation but no
theory to wax or wane on. In short, my opinion of psychology minus my
own theory is that it is a waste of time and money. It is ridiculous to
even teach psychology. That the subject should be a remote part of
biology and it should be immediately removed from College and
University curriculum as a department. Psychology should be a
specialized section of biology.
  Before I declared the BRAIN LOCUS THEORY OF THE MIND, here is a
summary of what I view the subject of psychology.

                        PSYCHOLOGY
   1. Numerous good experiments performed concerning the mind.
   2. Pharmaceutical research and drugs are the only hard core data,
reliable data on the functioning and working of the mind.
   3. All else, such as textbooks on psychology and the mumbo-jumbo,
gobbledy gook such as Mr. Norton's above are just hot air.
  4. That is it.

  In other words, the Pharmaceutical companies are the essence of the
subject material of psychology. Drug companies such as Sandoz have done
more for psychology than propped up intuitionless students of
psychology, to name a few--Freud, Skinner, et al. Medicine owns
psychology up to my newly found THEORY OF THE MIND. And, my newly found
theory of the mind implies that pharmacy and medicine will spearhead
the subject of psychology. 
  Your above, Mr. Norton, like every practicing psychologist is mere
opinion, mere hot air. But lithium is no mere opinion, but science
fact.
  You would be wise Mr. Norton to check into Quantum Mechanics, Bell
Inequality, and my Atom Totality Theory. 
                         94th ELECTRON OF 231PU
               Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH ELECTRON

                  \ ::| :./.
                  .\::|::/.:
                     _ _
                    (:Y:)
                     - - 
                  ::/.|.\.:
                :: /.:| :\.:
                  /   |   \.
                          LP
        One of those dots is the Sun with 9 smaller dots around it.
Look in a chemistry textbook or quantum physics textbook of the
electron cloud dot picture.  
  
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.12 / David Kastrup /  Re: LP APOLOGIZES TO THE NOBEL FOUNDATION
     
Originally-From: dak@messua.informatik.rwth-aachen.de (David Kastrup)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.kibology,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fus
on,sci.math,sci.chem,sci.bio,sci.physics,sci.psychology
Subject: Re: LP APOLOGIZES TO THE NOBEL FOUNDATION
Date: 12 Jun 1994 08:12:16 GMT
Organization: Rechnerbetrieb Informatik - RWTH Aachen

Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium) writes:

>  We know what Feynman thought of philosophy-- "Philosophers and other
>fools". But what was Feynman's opinion of psychology?
How did you come to this conclusion? I would certainly believe that
Feynman would have expected a considerably larger percentage of what
he would have called "pompous fools" in that area, and personally
had more or less decided not to bother to go to interdisciplinary
conventions because of that, but I do not think he condemned
the discipline, just most "practitioners". And of course he was
against uncritical reception of the results of past philosophers having to
work on entirely different sets of world knowledge.

But it is true, I believe, that Feynman had decided to quit bothering
with people in certain professions. I believe sociologists were even
more annoying to him.

>Did he opine that
>psychology as a science is "still swinging in the trees"? If I had to
>hazard a guess, I would think that Feynman was negative towards
>practicing psychology. Whatever, I am going to give my opinion of the
>progress of psychology as a science.

Well, Feynman was not drafted because of "psychic defects". The story
of this is quite amusing (see "Surely you're joking Mr. Feynman", I believe),
and goes to show again "pompous foolishness".

>  A thought experiment-- if Adolf Hitler had been sent to most any
>shrink in Germany before WW2, his papers would have come out as
>"saint", to any shrink after the war, all of them would have analyzed
>him as "devil or demon".

I think you are very much mistaken about those professions. Supposing
that you mean by "shrink" a psychiatrist, it is not a function of him
to either damn or appraise a patient. He is to work on the relation
of the patient with himself and his environment, not on that with the
psychiatrist.

If you mean a psychologist, well, I do not think that "saint, devil
or demon" would be a proper category in psychology.

>  Mr. Norton, if you had read my THEORY OF THE MIND AS QM, COULOMB
>INTERACTIONS (provided you can understand QM) WITH THE BRAIN LOCUS,
>then you would see that for the first time in the history of
>psychology, Mr. Norton, is there a comprehensive theory of the mind set
>forth, being proposed. But I seriously doubt that you know or
>understand Quantum Mechanics, Coulomb Interaction, or any physics.

There are many readers of these threads which would second this
statement if applied to yourself. Apart from that, personal abuse
is usually not thought fit for discussions, and tends to convince
mainly its author.

>own theory is that it is a waste of time and money. It is ridiculous to
>even teach psychology. That the subject should be a remote part of
>biology and it should be immediately removed from College and
>University curriculum as a department. Psychology should be a
>specialized section of biology.

Even if one were to agree that psychology is not more than physiology
of the brain (which is nonsense. In analogy, this would propose that
Computer Science were to teach only hardware, since software was just
workings of hardware. Well, yes, somehow, but it has entirely different
theories, rules, and scientific implications. And, say, your programs
could not care less if they were running on a processor with 0.6 um
structures or not), a lot of scientific branches have their own right
in spite of being really subbranches.

Computer Science is mostly a subbranch of mathematics (especially that
CS which we in Germany call Informatik), electrical engineering of
physics, biology of chemistry, chemistry again of physics, and so on.
All those branches were once thought subbranches of philosophy, and
really this makes sense when you think about it.

All these disciplines have their right, because the specialities they
deal with deserve special attention and treatment. The same definitely
goes for psychology.

>  Before I declared the BRAIN LOCUS THEORY OF THE MIND, here is a
>summary of what I view the subject of psychology.

>                        PSYCHOLOGY
>   1. Numerous good experiments performed concerning the mind.
>   2. Pharmaceutical research and drugs are the only hard core data,
>reliable data on the functioning and working of the mind.
>   3. All else, such as textbooks on psychology and the mumbo-jumbo,
>gobbledy gook such as Mr. Norton's above are just hot air.
>  4. That is it.

While one problem of psychology (but of physiology, too) might be the
mechanisms of brain and mind, much more of this is empirical description
of mind, its sicknesses and treatments. Most of psychic defects are
not organical, but merely covered by psychology.

>  In other words, the Pharmaceutical companies are the essence of the
>subject material of psychology. Drug companies such as Sandoz have done
>more for psychology than propped up intuitionless students of
>psychology, to name a few--Freud, Skinner, et al. Medicine owns
>psychology up to my newly found THEORY OF THE MIND. And, my newly found
>theory of the mind implies that pharmacy and medicine will spearhead
>the subject of psychology. 

Of pharmacology, not of psychology. If, say, Intel or Motorola
produces a new processor, they do not spearhead computer science,
as no new theories derive from that. It might just be that more
gets done in computer science because computer scientists will
spend less time cursing their computers for their slowness.

So pharmacists might probably do a lot for psychology by making some
people do ingenious psychological studies instead of committing
suicide.
>  You would be wise Mr. Norton to check into Quantum Mechanics, Bell
>Inequality, and my Atom Totality Theory. 

Perhaps you would be wise, Mr. Plutonium, to check into the symptoms
of paranoia, schizophrenia, and similar things. On the other hand, just
as with physics, a lot can be achieved simply by employing common
sense.
-- 
 David Kastrup        dak@pool.informatik.rwth-aachen.de          
 Tel: +49-241-72419 Fax: +49-241-79502
 Goethestr. 20, D-52064 Aachen
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudendak cudfnDavid cudlnKastrup cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.12 / Roger Smith /  Re: LP APOLOGIZES TO THE NOBEL FOUNDATION
     
Originally-From: roger@cs.curtin.edu.au (Roger Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.kibology,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fus
on,sci.math,sci.chem,sci.bio,sci.physics
Subject: Re: LP APOLOGIZES TO THE NOBEL FOUNDATION
Date: 12 Jun 94 08:09:40 GMT
Organization: Curtin University of Technology

pnorton@beaux.atwc.teradyne.com (Peter Norton) writes:

>In article <2t65c7$n89@mailhost.interaccess.com> bh@interaccess (Bounty Hunter) writes:
>>Ludwig Plutonium (Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu) wrote:
>>
>>:    Thanks kindly Simon. I do not want the Nobel prize in Physics
>>: because I am thinking in advance what is the best for the Plutonium
>>: Atom Foundation. It is best that I self-sacrifice because I have won
>>: the PLutonium Atom Prize, something far more prestigous and valuable.

>>: I must self-sacrifice and be
>>: persecuted in my time, in order that I will have it easier in 2000
>>: years from now when I am reborn via biotechnology.
>>
>>Man, this is sheer comedy. 

>No, it is tragedy. 
< Much jovial waffle === snippity snip =====>
...
>I apologize for feeding this thread ....

This is not tragedy nor sheer comedy, it's fucking beautiful comedy -- leave
poor Ludwig alone --- he makes me laugh.

Come and do some suff in the Computer Science news groups Ludwig, we
appreciate a good joke!!!

--

===============================================================================
Roger William Smith             |"Instead of a bit grinding processor raping
School of Computer Science,     | and plundering data structures, we have a
Curtin University of Technology | universe of well behaved objects that
Perth, Western Australia        | courteously ask each other to carry out their
e-mail: roger@cs.curtin.edu.au  | various desires."
                                |  -- A sexually frustrated Ingalls trying  --
                                |  -- desperately to flog O-O back in 1981. --
===============================================================================
~                                                                               
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenroger cudfnRoger cudlnSmith cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.12 / David Pearson /  Q. Tokamak stability.
     
Originally-From: dwcp@mail.nerc-nutis.ac.uk (David Pearson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Q. Tokamak stability.
Date: Sun, 12 Jun 1994 08:44:31 +0000


Hello the Net.

Perhaps you can help me understand something (are you listening Bruce?)...

In the ideal MHD approximation, you can linearize the MHD equations,
and write an equation of motion for the plasma in terms of the
force operator (often called F). If you like, you can recast this
into a normal-mode formulation, and proceed to the energy principle.
In his book 'Ideal Magnetohydrodynamics' (section 8.4.2), Freidberg
states the following.......

   'It is worth pointing out that there is a subtlety involved with
the normal mode approach: its usefulness is strongly coupled to the
assumption that for the problems of interest the eigenvalues are discrete
and distinguishable so that the concept of exponential stability is
valid.'

Well, it's too subtle for me. Why is the concept of exponential stability
not valid if the eigenvalues form a continuum? The discussion in section
8.5.4 does not explain this. Any ideas?

Regards,
David Pearson,
University of Reading,
England.

dwcp@uk.ac.nerc-nutis.mail      .
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudendwcp cudfnDavid cudlnPearson cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.12 / Robert Heeter /  Conventional Fusion FAQ section 1 - Intro to Fusion - Draft
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Conventional Fusion FAQ section 1 - Intro to Fusion - Draft
Date: Sun, 12 Jun 1994 04:25:23 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

Well, either the traffic on this group has died way off, or I'm just
missing out on all the fun.  At any rate, I've been working on finishing
up the (first draft of!) the Conventional Fusion FAQ

Below is the first draft of Section 1.  Please let me know if anything
needs to be clarified / changed / moved / deleted / added / improved!


*****************************************************
1. Fusion as a Physical Phenomenon
* This FAQ deals with conventional fusion only, not Cold Fusion. *

This is a draft only and is not to be copied or cited at this time.

First Draft:  June 12, 1994
Written by Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@theory.pppl.gov, unless
otherwise cited.

*** Please let me know if anything here is unclear. ***

*** A.  What is fusion?

"Fusion" as used here is short for "Nuclear Fusion," which describes
the class of reactions where two light nuclei fuse together, forming
a heavier nucleus.  This heavier nucleus is frequently unstable, and
sometimes splits (fissions) into two or more fragments.


*** B.  How does fusion release energy?

If you add up the masses of the particles which go into a fusion
reaction, and you add up the masses of the particles which come out,
there is frequently a difference.  According to Einstein's famous
law relating energy and mass, E=mc^2, the "mass difference" can
take the form of energy.  Fusion reactions involving nuclei lighter
than iron typically release energy, but fusion reactions involving
nuclei heavier than iron typically absorb energy.

Another way to look at this is to consider the "binding energy"
of the elements in question.  If the reactants are bound more
weakly than the products, then energy is released in the reaction,
in much the same way that energy is released when an anvil up on
the fourth floor (more weakly bound to the earth) falls on you.


*** C.  Where does fusion occur in nature?

The conditions needed to induce fusion reactions are extreme; 
so extreme that virtually all natural fusion occurs in stars, 
where gravity compresses the gas, until temperature and pressure 
forces balance the gravitational compression.  If there is enough 
material in the star, pressures and temperatures will grow
large enough as the star contracts that fusion will begin to occur 
(see below for the explanation why); the energy released will then 
sustain the star's temperature against losses from sunlight being 
radiated away.  The minimum mass needed to induce fusion is roughly 
one-tenth to one-fifth the sun's mass; this is why the sun is 
a star, but Jupiter is merely a (large) planet.  (If Jupiter were 
a bit larger, it too would be a star.)

Stellar fusion reactions gradually convert hydrogen into helium.  
When a star runs out of hydrogen fuel, it either stops burning 
(becoming a dwarf star) or, if it is large enough (so that gravity 
compresses the helium strongly) it begins burning the helium into 
heavier elements.  Because fusion reactions cease to release 
energy once elements heavier than iron are involved, the larger 
stars also eventually run out of fuel, but this time they
collapse in a supernova.  (For more details, try the sci.astro
or sci.space.science newsgroups.)


*** D.  Why doesn't fusion occur anywhere else in nature?

Current scientific knowledge indicates that very little fusion
occurs anywhere else in nature.  The reason is because in order
to get two nuclei to fuse, you first have to get them close together.
(This is because the nuclear forces involved in fusion only at
at short range.)  However, because the two nuclei are both positively
charged, they repel each other electrically.  Nuclei will not fuse
unless either (a) they collide with enough energy to overcome the
electrical repulsion, or (b) they find a "sneaky" way to circumvent
their repulsion (see muon-catalyzed fusion in section 4).


*** E.  What are the basic fusion reactions?

While it is possible to take any two nuclei and get them to fuse,
it is easiest to get lighter nuclei to fuse, because they are
less highly charged, and therefore easier to squeeze together.
There are complicated quantum-mechanics rules which determine which
products you will get from a given reaction, and in what amounts
("branching ratios").  The probability that two nuclei fuse is
determined by the physics of the collsion, and a property called
the "cross section" (see glossary) which (roughly speaking) 
measures the likelihood of a fusion reaction.  (A simple analogy
for cross-section is to consider a ball randomly thrown towards 
a wall.  The likelihood that the ball hits the wall depends on 
the amount of cross-sectional area of the wall facing the ball.)

Below is an annotated list of many fusion-type reactions discussed 
on the newsgroup.  Note:  D = deuterium, T = tritium, p = proton,
n = neutron; these and the other elements involved are discussed 
in the glossary/FUT.  The numbers in parentheses are the energies
of the reaction products (in Millions of electron-Volts, see
glossary for details).  The percentages indicate the branching 
ratios.

D+D   -> T (1.01 MeV) + p (3.02 MeV) (50%)   
      -> He3 (0.82 MeV) + n (2.45 MeV) (50%)  <- most abundant fuel
D+T   -> He4 (3.5 MeV) + n (14.1 MeV)  <-easiest to achieve
D+He3 -> He4 (3.6 MeV) + p (14.7 MeV)  <-easiest low-neutron reaction
T+T   -> He4 + 2n + 11.3 MeV
He3+T -> He4 + p + n + 12.1 MeV (51%)
      -> He4 (4.8) + D (9.5) (46%)
      -> He5 (2.4) + p (11.9) (6%)
p+Li6 -> He4 (1.7) + He3 (2.3)      <- another aneutronic reaction
p+Li7 -> 2 He4 + 17.3 MeV (20%)
      -> Be7 + n -1.6 MeV (80%)     <- endothermic, not good.
D+Li6 -> 2He4 + 22.4 MeV            <- also aneutronic, but you 
                                              get D-D reactions too.
p+B11 -> 3 He4 + 8.7 MeV <- harder to do, but more energy than p+Li6
n+Li6 -> He4 (2.1) + T (2.7)        <- this can convert n's to T's
n+Li7 -> He4 + T + n - some energy


*** F.  Why is the D-T reaction the easiest?

Basically speaking, the extra neutrons on the D and T make
them "larger" and less tightly bound nuclei, and the result is
that the cross-section for the D-T reaction is the largest.
Also, because they are only singly-charged hydrogen isotopes,
the electrical repulsion between them is relatively small.
So it is easy to throw them at each other, and it is easy to
get them to collide and stick.  Furthermore, the D-T reaction
has a relatively high energy yield.

However, the D-T reaction has the disadvantage that it releases
an energetic neutron.  Neutrons can be difficult to handle,
because they will "stick" to other nuclei, causing them to
(frequently) become radioactive, or causing new reactions.
Neutron-management is therefore a big problem with the
D-T fuel cycle.  (While there is disagreement, most fusion
scientists will take the neutron problem and the D-T fuel,
because it is very difficult to get even D-T reactions to go.)


*** G.  What is aneutronic fusion?

The best simple answer I've seen so far is this one:
(I've done some proofreading and modified the notation a bit.)
[ Clarifying notes by rfheeter are enclosed in brackets like this.]

>From: johncobb@emx.cc.utexas.edu (John W. Cobb)
>In article <rkaivola.762713233@mits>,
>Risto Kaivola <rkaivola@mits.mdata.fi> wrote:
>>Basically, what is aneutronic fusion?  The term aneutronic
>>confuses me considerably.  Could you give me an example of
>>an aneutronic fusion reaction? How could energy be produced
>>using such a reaction?  Can there be a fusion reaction in which
>>a neutron is never emitted?
>
>Examples:
>
>D + He3 --> He4 + p + 18.1MeV 
>(deuteron + helium-3 --> helium-4 + proton + energy)
>
>p + Li6 --> He4 + He3 + 4.0MeV
>(proton + lithium-6 --> helium-4 + helium-3 + energy)
>
>D + Li6 --> 2 He4 + 22.4MeV
>(deuteron + lithium-6 --> 2 helium-4's + energy)
>
>p + B11 --> 3 He4 + 8.7Mev
>(proton + boron-11 --> 3 helium-4's + energy)
>
>All of these reactions produce no neutrons directly.
[[ Hence "aneutronic." ]] 
>There are also other reactions that have multiple branches possible, 
>some of which do not produce neutrons and others that do 
>(e.g., D + D, p + Li7).
>
>The question is how do you get a "reactor" going and not get 
>any neutrons.  There are 2 hurdles here. The first is lighting 
>the things. [ "to light" = to get the fuel to fuse ]  
>The easiest fusion reaction is D + T --> He4 + n (the D-T fuel 
>cycle). A magnetic reactor can light one of these things at about 
>a temperature of 10keV. 
[1 keV = 11,000 degrees kelvin, more or less]. 
>The other reactions require much higher temperatures (for example 
>about 50KeV for the D+He3 reaction). This is a big factor of 5. 
>The second hurdle is neutron production via "trash" reactions. 
>That is, the main reaction may be neutron-free, but there will 
>be pollution reactions that may emit neutrons. 
[ The products of the main reaction, e.g. He4, can fuse with other 
ions in the system in messy ways. ]
>Even if this is only a few percent, it can lead to big neutron
>emission. For example, the D+He3 reaction will also have some D+D 
>reactions occuring. At 50Kev temperatures, the reaction 
>cross-section for D+D reactions is about 1/2 of the D+He3 
>cross-section, so there will be some generation of neutrons from 
>the 50% branch reaction of D + D-->He3 + n.
>Also, the other 50% goes to T+p, The triton (T) will then undergo 
>a D-T reaction and release another neutron. 
[ Because the cross-section for D-T reactions is much higher.]
>If the reactor is optmized (run in a He3 rich mode) the number 
>of neutrons can be minimized. The neutron power can be as low 
>as about 5% of the total. However, in a 1000 megawatt reactor, 
>5% is 50 MW of neutron power. That is [still] a lot of neutron 
>irradiation. This lower neutron level helps in designing 
>structural elements to withstand neutron bombardment, but it 
>still has radiation consequences.
>
>On the other hand, it is my understanding that the p-B11 reaction 
>is completely neutron free, but of course it is much harder 
>to light.


*** H.  Why is it so hard to create controlled man-made fusion 
reactions?

In order to get two nuclei to fuse, you basically have to get
them to collide energetically.  It turns out that colliding two
beams of particles yields mostly scattering collisions, and few
fusion reactions.  Similarly, blasting a stationary target with
a beam of energetic ions also yields too little fusion.  

The upshot is that one must find some way to confine hot, 
energetic particles so that they can collide many many times,
and finally collide in just the right way, so that fusion occurs.
The temperatures required are upwards of 100 million degrees 
(Kelvin - it would be 200 million Fahrenheit!).  At these
temperatures, your fusion fuel will melt/evaporate any material
wall.  So the big difficulties in fusion are (a) getting 
the particles hot enough to fuse, and (b) confining them long
enough so that they do fuse.


*** I.  What is plasma physics, and how is it related to fusion?

Plasma physics is the area of physics which studies ionized 
gases and their properties.  In most conventional types of fusion 
(muon-catalyzed fusion being the major exception), one must heat 
the fusion fuel to extremely high temperatures.  At these 
temperatures, the fuel atoms collide so much and so hard that 
many electrons are knocked loose from their atoms.  The result 
is a soup of ionized atoms and free electrons: a plasma.

In order to achieve the conditions required for controlled 
fusion, an understanding of how plasmas behave (and particularly 
how to confine and heat them) is often essential.


*** J.  Just how hot and confined do these plasmas need to be?
(Or, what conditions are needed for controlled fusion?)

Basically, the hotter your plasma, the more fusion you will have,
because the more ions will be flying around fast enough to stick
together.  The more dense your plasma is, the more ions there are
in a small space, and the more collisions you are likely to have.
Finally, the longer you can keep your plasma hot, the more likely
it is that something will fuse, so duration is important too.

Hotness is measured by temperature, and as explained above, the
D-T fuel cycle (the easiest) requires temperatures of about 10 keV,
or 100,000,000 degrees kelvin.  Density is typically measured in 
particles-per-cubic centimeter or particles-per-cubic meter.
The required density depends on the confinement duration.

The Lawson triple product, defined as 
(temperature)*(density)*(confinement time), determines what
combinations of density and confinement time will give you fusion
at a given temperature.  It is important to note that what
you must confine is the *energy* (thermal energy) stored in 
the plasma, and not necessarily the plasma particles.  

For a special value of the Lawson product, the fusion power
produced in your plasma will just balance the energy losses
as energy in the plasma becomes unconfined, and *ignition*
occurs.  That is, as long as the plasma fuel stays around, the
plasma will keep itself hot enough to keep fusing.

For the D-T fuel cycle, the Lawson ignition value is
about 4E28 Kelvin-seconds-particles/meter^3.
   

*** K.  What are the basic approaches used to heat and confine 
the plasma?  (Or, what is magnetic confinement?  
Inertial confinement?)

There are three basic ways to confine a plasma.  The first is 
the method the sun uses:  gravity.  If you have a big enough
ball of plasma, it will stick together by gravity, and be
self-confining.

Unfortunately for fusion researchers, that doesn't work here on
earth.  The second method is that used in nuclear fusion bombs:
you implode a small pellet of fusion fuel.  If you do it quickly
enough, and compress it hard enough, the temperature will go way
up, and so will the density, and you can exceed the Lawson 
ignition value despite the fact that you are only confining your
pellet for nanoseconds.  Because the inertia of the imploding
pellet keeps it momentarily confined, this method is known as
inertial confinement.

The third method uses the fact that charged particles placed in
a magnetic field will gyrate in circles.  If you can arrange the
magnetic field carefully, the particles will be trapped by it.
If you can trap them well enough, the plasma energy will be
confined.  Then you can heat the plasma, and achieve fusion with
more modest particle densities.  This method is known as 
magnetic confinement.  Initial heating is achieved by a 
combination of microwaves, energetic/accelerated particle beams, 
and resistive heating from currents driven through the plasma.
(Once the Lawson ignition value is achieved, the plasma becomes
more-or-less self-heating.)  In magnetic confinement, the plasma 
density is typically about 1E19 particles per cubic meter, and with
a temperature of about 1E8 kelvin, we see that ignition could be
achieved with a confinement time of about 40 seconds.  Currently,
magnetic-confinement reactors are about a factor of ten short of
the ignition value.  

More information on these different approaches is given in the
sections that follow.


***************************
Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University
As always, I represent only myself, and not PPPL
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.13 / Bill Page /  Re: Fusion via Bose condensation of D+ ions (Fusion Digest 2362) incomplete
     
Originally-From: 70047.3047@compuserve.com (Bill Page)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion via Bose condensation of D+ ions (Fusion Digest 2362) incomplete
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 1994 00:15:20 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Dear Scott Mueller,

Thanks for the offer to send me a copy of Chuck Sites article, but Chuck 
was able to email it to me.  I'm not sure what caused the truncation of the 
Fusion Digest that contained the original.  In fact, it might well have 
been a glitch between Compuserve and WINCIM (the PC/Windows news reader 
that I use).

In any case, let me take this opportunity to thank you for operating the 
ZORCH listserver/relay.  I (and apparently a lot of other people) rely on 
it and I am afraid I often take it for granted.  Although I haven't said so 
very often, I do very much appreciate the fact that you do it.

Cheers,

Bill Page.

cc. Fusion Digest (sci.physics.fusion)

cudkeys:
cuddy13 cuden3047 cudfnBill cudlnPage cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.13 / Bill Page /  Calorimetry: estimating cell constants
     
Originally-From: 70047.3047@compuserve.com (Bill Page)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Calorimetry: estimating cell constants
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 1994 00:15:27 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

John Logajan has posted a series of temperature/cell constant observations 
for a CF cell similar in size and composition to the Mills/Thermacore 
cells.  The emphasis has been on the time required to reach final 
equilibrium temperature conditions for an approximately fixed ambient and 
fixed heat input.

John, I might be pointing out the obvious to you, but for the degree of 
accuracy required for the large scale Mills experiments, it isn't really 
necessary to wait for equilibrium to make useful measurements. Newton's law 
of cooling (or heating) is a fairly good approximation (depending on the 
temperature range).  By averaging over convection, conduction and radiative 
effects, it implies that the rate of change of temperature with time is 
(approximately) proportional to the difference in temperature between the 
temperature at a given time and the equilibrium temperature.  So the 
temperature curve will (approximately) fit an exponential.  It is easy to 
estimate the coefficients of this exponential using least squares.  Most 
spread sheet packages have such a procedure built in.  To get the cell 
constant, you also need a good estimate of the specific heat of the cell.

Am I off base on this?  I think I recall discussions here on the net of 
using such "cooling curves" to estimate cell constants in relation to 
McKubre's and P&F cells.

Cheers,

Bill Page.

cudkeys:
cuddy13 cuden3047 cudfnBill cudlnPage cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.13 / Bill Page /  Re: Fusion via Bose condensation of D+ ions
     
Originally-From: 70047.3047@compuserve.com (Bill Page)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion via Bose condensation of D+ ions
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 1994 00:15:31 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

As promised, I'd like to post a reply to Chuck Sites' recent article.  I've 
got a lot of questions and unfortunately after reading the article I did 
not feel I understood Bose condensation any better than I did from 
Chubb&Chubb's papers.  Perhaps most of my problems come from a lack of 
appreciation of the statistical mechanics arguements.  But I'm here to be 
educated so I'll take it a step at a time.  I'll probably post a series of 
shorter messages over the next week or so.  And I'll also sneak in a few 
side comments of my own. We'll see how it goes...

Chuck Sites writes:
<<
Following the tradition of the College of sci.physics.fusion, ...
>>

I wish more people here would follow this "tradition".  Although Ludwig is 
a ^little^ entertaining and some people, it seems, are here just for the 
entertainment value, but all this cross posting stuff and even all this 
stuff about sterilization of food is just annoying to me. (Shame on you Tom 
Droege for inciting that thread, I know the net was in a boring phase BUT 
REALLY I'd rather listen to silence, myself! Did that telephone call from 
Washington last month *really* change your point of view on all this? 
<grinning> Lets here some more about the Mk III calorimeter, heat pipes, 
etc.)

<<
I think there is room for improvement with regard to the description of the 
migration of charge in the BBC to fit the other models of proton conduction 
in hydrated metals ... 
>>

Chuck, this reference to "other models of proton conduction in hydrated 
metals" interests me.  Could you suggest any references?  Although I have 
several references to hydrogen/deuterium diffusion in metals, none of them 
deal with proton conduction per se.

<<
1. A COLLECTION OF IDENTICAL PARTICLES

Lets say we have an ideal gas (a random collection of identical particles). 
In quantum mechanics we know every particle can be specified by a wave 
operation 'psi' which is basically a description of the de Broglie matter 
wave of the particle.
>>

Well, I hate to pick on basic terminology but ... (Actually no I don't, I 
realy do think terminology is important.)  We shouldn't say "wave 
operation". I think what you mean is "wavefunction" (Or "wave function" if 
you prefer - it was originally one word because of the German-language 
origin.)  A wavefunction is a complex valued function (usually of the 
spatial co-ordinates and time) which is a solution of Schrodinger's 
equation and which satisfies a couple of other reasonable constraints.  It 
isn't very accurate to say that it is a description of de Broglie's matter 
waves, but I'll let that pass.  Another fine point is that it really goes 
against the grain of conventional QM to talk about particles and waves at 
the same time. It is not clear in what sense a particle can be specified by 
a wavefunction. Actually, there might be several different ways, i.e. by 
the expected value of location or we might be interested in only those 
wavefunctions which describe "wave packets".

BTW, Bohm's interpretation of QM says that we *can* include both 
wavefunctions (as in conventional QM) and particles (classical point-like 
particles with *no uncertainty* in location) in a consistent description of 
reality provided that we also postulate that there is a relationship 
between the momentum of the particle and the phase of the wavefunction.  
This is known as the "guidance condition".  Expect to see a lot more about 
this from me in the coming weeks.

<<
In the collection we can label the first particle wave, (particle 1) as 
psi_k(1) where k represents that state of the particle as would be 
described by the Schrodinger equation of a harmonic oscillator.
>>

Terminology, Terminology - he said repeatedly! <grin>  Particle wave?  See 
above.  The point you are making is really about our *inability* in 
conventional QM to separately label (= identify) identical particles and 
the impact that has on the wavefunctions which describe the states of 
many-body systems.  In general it is only an approximation to assign a 
wavefunction to a particle that is part of a system of particles.  But you 
did say "Lets say we have an ideal gas ..." and in this situation the 
approximation is pretty good.  Its certainly an odd thing about QM that we 
have to define the wavefunction over a set of 3-N spatial co-ordinates 
(where N is the number of particles) when at the same time we have to turn 
around and say that we can not even in principle say which particle is 
which!

<<
It's from these two wave functions that the two quantum statistics
are defined.  In the case of the symmetric wave function, the collection
is described by Bose-Eienstein statistics.  In the antisymmetric case
they are defined by Fermi-Dirac statistics.   
>>  

It has been observed experimentally that in systems of identical particles, 
the wavefunction of the system is either totally symmetric (obeying 
Bose-Einstien statistics) or totally anti-symmetric (obey Fermi-Dirac 
statistics).  And there is a connection between spin and the symmetry of 
the wavefunction -  a system of 1/2 integer spin particles must be 
anti-symmetric, a system of whole integer spin particles must be symmetric. 
 Why this is so, apparently has its roots in relativistic QM.

<<
Ok, so far so good ...
>>

Yes, the above comments not with standing, I have no substantive quibble 
with the article so far.  But then we are only done with part 1, right? 
<grin>

Cheers,

Bill Page.

cudkeys:
cuddy13 cuden3047 cudfnBill cudlnPage cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.12 / L Plutonium /  Re: LP APOLOGIZES TO THE NOBEL FOUNDATION
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.kibology,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fus
on,sci.math,sci.chem,sci.bio,sci.physics
Subject: Re: LP APOLOGIZES TO THE NOBEL FOUNDATION
Date: 12 Jun 1994 15:41:00 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In article <roger.771408580@marsh>
roger@cs.curtin.edu.au (Roger Smith) writes:

> Come and do some suff in the Computer Science news groups Ludwig, we
> appreciate a good joke!!!

  Sorry, I have nothing to contribute to CS, and, I must stay focused.
Thanks, LP
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.12 / sasha keinemann /  Re: LP APOLOGIZES TO THE NOBEL FOUNDATION
     
Originally-From: n9245804@henson.cc.wwu.edu (sasha keinemann)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.kibology,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fus
on,sci.math,sci.chem,sci.bio,sci.physics,sci.psychology
Subject: Re: LP APOLOGIZES TO THE NOBEL FOUNDATION
Date: Sun, 12 Jun 1994 16:30:13 GMT
Organization: Western Washington University

dak@messua.informatik.rwth-aachen.de (David Kastrup) writes:

>Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium) writes:

>>  We know what Feynman thought of philosophy-- "Philosophers and other
>>fools". But what was Feynman's opinion of psychology?
>How did you come to this conclusion? I would certainly believe that
>Feynman would have expected a considerably larger percentage of what
>he would have called "pompous fools" in that area, and personally
>had more or less decided not to bother to go to interdisciplinary
>conventions because of that, but I do not think he condemned
>the discipline, just most "practitioners". And of course he was
>against uncritical reception of the results of past philosophers having to
>work on entirely different sets of world knowledge.

I think Ludwig is referring to the quotation of Feynman used in 
0-553-11600-2 [ISBN].  If you look at the passage on page 87, I think you 
can clearly draw forth the conclusion Ludwig makes.  Feynman, in this 
excerpt, is startlingly candid - paraphrased, the passage reads "Just 
untruth and chicanery that leads us all to our death."  Of course, that's 
just MY interpretation, but I think any rational reader would draw forth 
this harsh condemnation of the field of philosophy.

>But it is true, I believe, that Feynman had decided to quit bothering
>with people in certain professions. I believe sociologists were even
>more annoying to him.

>>Did he opine that
>>psychology as a science is "still swinging in the trees"? If I had to
>>hazard a guess, I would think that Feynman was negative towards
>>practicing psychology. Whatever, I am going to give my opinion of the
>>progress of psychology as a science.

>Well, Feynman was not drafted because of "psychic defects". The story
>of this is quite amusing (see "Surely you're joking Mr. Feynman", I believe),
>and goes to show again "pompous foolishness".

Tsk tsk.  That story was recanted (in part) in 0-451-16352-4 [ISBN].

After that publication, I'd say that referencing that story is about as 
responsible as justifying Genetic Engineering by referencing 
_Green_Eggs_and_Ham_ [by Dr. Silverstein].

>>  A thought experiment-- if Adolf Hitler had been sent to most any
>>shrink in Germany before WW2, his papers would have come out as
>>"saint", to any shrink after the war, all of them would have analyzed
>>him as "devil or demon".

>I think you are very much mistaken about those professions. Supposing
>that you mean by "shrink" a psychiatrist, it is not a function of him
>to either damn or appraise a patient. He is to work on the relation
>of the patient with himself and his environment, not on that with the
>psychiatrist.

>If you mean a psychologist, well, I do not think that "saint, devil
>or demon" would be a proper category in psychology.

Sigh.  Read 0-8070-1205-X [ISBN].  Thorough refutation of the un"proper"ness.

>>  Mr. Norton, if you had read my THEORY OF THE MIND AS QM, COULOMB
>>INTERACTIONS (provided you can understand QM) WITH THE BRAIN LOCUS,
>>then you would see that for the first time in the history of
>>psychology, Mr. Norton, is there a comprehensive theory of the mind set
>>forth, being proposed. But I seriously doubt that you know or
>>understand Quantum Mechanics, Coulomb Interaction, or any physics.

>There are many readers of these threads which would second this
>statement if applied to yourself. Apart from that, personal abuse
>is usually not thought fit for discussions, and tends to convince
>mainly its author.

Sometimes.  But Ludwig is showing greater research efforts - I sourced 
out for you above where Ludwig is drawing conclusions from.  Since LP has 
taken the time to study, say, 1/2 of the available data and groks about 
2/3, that leaves you with grokking a 1/3.  But I could be wrong.

>>own theory is that it is a waste of time and money. It is ridiculous to
>>even teach psychology. That the subject should be a remote part of
>>biology and it should be immediately removed from College and
>>University curriculum as a department. Psychology should be a
>>specialized section of biology.

>Even if one were to agree that psychology is not more than physiology
>of the brain (which is nonsense. In analogy, this would propose that

Reference 0-14-042210-2 [ISBN].  Pyschology IS physiology of the brain.

>Computer Science were to teach only hardware, since software was just
>workings of hardware. Well, yes, somehow, but it has entirely different
>theories, rules, and scientific implications. And, say, your programs
>could not care less if they were running on a processor with 0.6 um
>structures or not), a lot of scientific branches have their own right
>in spite of being really subbranches.

Goodard would paddle your tail for that thought!  The truly-subbranches 
have NO right to be on their own.  Computer Science should logically be 
renamed Computer Engineering and Computer Coding, with a joint sub-branch 
entitled Gestalt Computing.  This would form a workable form our college 
students could follow for centuries to come, rather than the monolithic 
structure currently extant.

>Computer Science is mostly a subbranch of mathematics (especially that
>CS which we in Germany call Informatik), electrical engineering of
>physics, biology of chemistry, chemistry again of physics, and so on.
>All those branches were once thought subbranches of philosophy, and
>really this makes sense when you think about it.

You're not accounting for the Plutonium Atom Totality.  Once you factor 
it in, it does NOT make a lot of sense to have the various subgroups of 
philosophy.  Haven't you read Ludwig Plutonium's autobiography?  I think 
it was Chapter 23 that clearly debunked the so-called "logic" behind 
sub-branching logic.

>All these disciplines have their right, because the specialities they
>deal with deserve special attention and treatment. The same definitely
>goes for psychology.

Again, Goddard has already refuted you.  [Can't find the ISBN, sorry...]

>>  Before I declared the BRAIN LOCUS THEORY OF THE MIND, here is a
>>summary of what I view the subject of psychology.

>>                        PSYCHOLOGY
>>   1. Numerous good experiments performed concerning the mind.
>>   2. Pharmaceutical research and drugs are the only hard core data,
>>reliable data on the functioning and working of the mind.
>>   3. All else, such as textbooks on psychology and the mumbo-jumbo,
>>gobbledy gook such as Mr. Norton's above are just hot air.
>>  4. That is it.

>While one problem of psychology (but of physiology, too) might be the
>mechanisms of brain and mind, much more of this is empirical description
>of mind, its sicknesses and treatments. Most of psychic defects are
>not organical, but merely covered by psychology.

How can you give credence to psychic defects?  I've tried, but then I end 
up logically needing to give credence to Yuri Geller, and that pushes me 
too far.  Also, I would think that "empirical" is a naughty word when 
applied to psychology, since it seems to mean something verifiable, and 
hopefully repeatable.

>>  In other words, the Pharmaceutical companies are the essence of the
>>subject material of psychology. Drug companies such as Sandoz have done
>>more for psychology than propped up intuitionless students of
>>psychology, to name a few--Freud, Skinner, et al. Medicine owns
>>psychology up to my newly found THEORY OF THE MIND. And, my newly found
>>theory of the mind implies that pharmacy and medicine will spearhead
>>the subject of psychology. 

>Of pharmacology, not of psychology. If, say, Intel or Motorola
>produces a new processor, they do not spearhead computer science,
>as no new theories derive from that. It might just be that more
>gets done in computer science because computer scientists will
>spend less time cursing their computers for their slowness.

Bad analogy.  If Intel [or Motorola] produces a new processor that throws 
the computer science field into an entirely different direction, then 
they HAVE spearheaded computer science.  Furthermore, Ludwig is trying to 
pierce the curtain of blindness currently surrounding psychology, so 
"spearheading" is especially apt.

>So pharmacists might probably do a lot for psychology by making some
>people do ingenious psychological studies instead of committing
>suicide.
>>  You would be wise Mr. Norton to check into Quantum Mechanics, Bell
>>Inequality, and my Atom Totality Theory. 

>Perhaps you would be wise, Mr. Plutonium, to check into the symptoms
>of paranoia, schizophrenia, and similar things. On the other hand, just
>as with physics, a lot can be achieved simply by employing common
>sense.

And a lot more can be accomplished by people with a strong work ethic.  
Take the time, do the research.  The utterly brilliant are commonly 
misunderstood - don't be fooled.  An evening with the books I mentioned 
above should radically change your mind...

> David Kastrup        dak@pool.informatik.rwth-aachen.de          

Respectfully,
	Sasha Keinemann		     n9245804@cc.wwu.edu
	Physics Lecturer at Western Washington University
	These opinions are mine and mine alone - this
	university REFUSES to share my opinions.
-- 

do not taunt happy fun ball
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenn9245804 cudfnsasha cudlnkeinemann cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.12 / John Logajan /  Re: Excerpts from Mills/Thermacore FT article
     
Originally-From: al789@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Excerpts from Mills/Thermacore FT article
Date: 12 Jun 1994 16:51:17 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)


>        Table II (partial)  Fusion Technology, Jan 1994
>
>Exp  %Duty   V*I   Power 
> #   cycle   In     Out
>---  -----  ----  ------
> 4   100   162.0  137.0  <== [Not plotted. Only case in which Pin > Pout.]
> 5     3    12.5   31.0
> 6     4    16.3   43.5    V*I = 101 amps * 4 volts * duty cycle

Oops, experiment number 4 used 49.9 amps at 3.25 volts -- I forgot to note
that.  I did note that #14 used 10.5 amps at 2.37 volts.

All the rest, 5-13, used 101 (or 102) amps at nominal 4 volts (3.83-4.13).

-- 
-- John Logajan ---  al789@cleveland.freenet.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenal789 cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.12 / Jorge Stolfi /  Re: Excerpts from Mills/Thermacore FT article
     
Originally-From: stolfi@stack.dcc.unicamp.br (Jorge Stolfi)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Excerpts from Mills/Thermacore FT article
Date: 12 Jun 1994 16:40:09 GMT
Organization: DCC - UNICAMP - Campinas, SP, Brazil


Thanks to John Logajan for posting excerpts from the Mills/Thermacore
paper.

John, I don't have access to the paper. Could you please 
check this item for me?

The table you posted says:

    >         Table II (partial)  Fusion Technology, Jan 1994
    > 
    > Exp  %Duty   V*I   Power 
    >  #   cycle   In     Out
    > ---  -----  ----  ------
    >  4   100   162.0  137.0  <== [Not plotted. Only case in which Pin > Pout.]
    >  5     3    12.5   31.0
    >  6     4    16.3   43.5    V*I = 101 amps * 4 volts * duty cycle
    >  7     5    20.4   54.7    Power out = Delta Temp / 0.15 C/W
    >  8     6    24.2   63.2
    >  9     7    27.5   70.0    Power waveform = 2 Hz rectangular wave.
    > 10    10    39.6   85.3
    > 11    15    58.8  105.5
    > 12    20    77.8  118.1
    > 13    25    96.7  135.0
    > 14    20     4.98  41.0  <== [ Not plotted.  1 Hz, 10.5 amp 2.37 volt]

Question: does the paper say how they measured V and I? 

Why I am asking? well, the sentences 

  "V*I = 101 amps * 4 volts * duty cycle"
  "Power waveform = 2 Hz rectangular wave"
 
suggest that they computed the power assuming that both V and I were
in-phase rectangular waves.  

If this is the case, the V*I figures above may be wrong by an unknown
amount.

If one forces a rectangular current wave through a coil, the voltage
across it will *not* be a rectangular wave; it will have an overshoot
after each transition.  For such a waveform, the true average power
average(V*I) will be larger than what one would compute by measuring
the steady-state voltage and assuming a rectangular waveform with that
amplitude.  This assumption would be warranted only if the load were
purely resistive.

Interestingly, the apparent "excess power" resulting from this error
should grow rapidly as the duty cycle decreases --- just like the
tabel above shows.

So you see why it is important to know how average(V*I) was measured.
If the load is not purely resistive, I don't see any way to measure
the true power input other than sampling both V *and* I at a rate
*much* higher than 2hz, and integrating the product. Did they do that?

Alternatively, one could try to run a control experiment with the
cathode wire wound in such a way as to make the cell's load purely
resistive load.  But that may not be trivial.

--stolfi

 -------------------------------------------------------------------
Jorge Stolfi                                | Tel: +55 (192) 39-8442
Computer Science Dept. (DCC-IMECC)          |      +55 (192) 39-3115
Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP) | Fax: +55 (192) 39-7470 
Internet: stolfi@dcc.unicamp.br             | Campinas, SP -- Brazil
 -------------------------------------------------------------------
"If your only tool is a hammer, every problem will look like a nail."
Please do not copy this .signature virus into your .signature file!
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenstolfi cudfnJorge cudlnStolfi cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.12 / Michele Tepper /  Re: LP APOLOGIZES TO THE NOBEL FOUNDATION
     
Originally-From: misha@milton.ccs.itd.umich.edu (Michele Eden Tepper)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.kibology,alt.usenet.kooks,sci.physics.electroma
,sci.physics.fusion,sci.math,sci.chem,sci.bio,sci.physics
Subject: Re: LP APOLOGIZES TO THE NOBEL FOUNDATION
Date: 12 Jun 1994 17:11:04 GMT
Organization: U of Michigan, Ann Arbor

In article <2tfaac$1ju@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth
edu (Ludwig Plutonium) writes:
>In article <roger.771408580@marsh>
>roger@cs.curtin.edu.au (Roger Smith) writes:
>
>> Come and do some suff in the Computer Science news groups Ludwig, we
>> appreciate a good joke!!!
>
>  Sorry, I have nothing to contribute to CS, and, I must stay focused.
>Thanks, LP                                ^^^^^^^^^^

The Beckwith virus claims yet another victim.

Eventually, there will be only one net.kook.  He will be very annoying 
and have no knowledge of punctuation whatsoever.


-- 
Michele Tepper
misha@umich.edu

cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenmisha cudfnMichele cudlnTepper cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Mon Jun 13 04:37:14 EDT 1994
------------------------------
when? / Jarom Smith /      
Originally-From: jarom@dcc.dcc.uchile.cl (Jarom Smith)
Newsgroups: sci.optics,sci.philosophy,sci.philosophy.meta,sci.philosophy
misc,sci.philosophy.tech,sci.phys,sci.physics,sci.physics.accelerators,s
i.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.particle,sci.polymer

Subject: Chile.science available via email
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 1994 15:24:39 GMT
Organization: Universidad de Chile, Depto. de Ciencias de la Computacion

Scientists:

It has come to our attention that chile.science, although distributed
worldwide, is not carried by news servers at some locations.  Therefore,
There are many people who are not able to read chile.science through their
(standardly configured) local news readers.

Due to all these complications, we are have created a listserv news
list (similar to chile.chile-l) which will allow users to receive
postings to chile.science via email.  To subscribe to chile.science via
email, send an email message to "listserver@dcc.uchile.cl" with the
message "subscribe chile.science <your email address>".  For example,
if I were to subscribe, I would send the message "subscribe
chile.science jarom@dcc.uchile.cl"   For those who are unfamiliar with
listservers, a complete help file may be obtained by sending the
one-line message "help" to listserver@dcc.uchile.cl.

Thank you,

 -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jarom Smith                                University of Chile, Santiago
jarom@dcc.uchile.cl                      chile.science newsgroup project
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------

(For reference)
Creation of newsgroup chile.science:


In an effort to encourage collaboration between Chilean and U.S.
scientists, a newsgroup called chile.science has been created for 
the purpose of information exchange both within the Chilean scientific 
community and between this community and scientists elsewhere on the Internet.

For those of you familiar with, working in, or planning work in
Chile, it is hoped that you will make extensive use of
chile.science to (A) inform each other of the news and happenings
(cruises, conferences, field trips, projects etc.) that might be
developed into fuller cooperative efforts, (B) exchange ideas and
views on how science opportunities in Chile may be used and
developed to obtain their fullest potential, and (C) report
opportunities for, and results from, scientific work in and around
Chile.

For those of you not familiar with Chile, there is both great depth
and high potential for rewarding cooperative science in the
country. For example, Chilean scientists have strong research
interests in the Antarctic, Astronomy, Biology and Biotechnology,
Agriculture and Aquaculture, Forestry, Fisheries, Oceanography,
Medicine, Geology-Mining, and other fields of science and
technology.  In addition, Chile has a booming economy which is being
reinvested to strengthen the scientific community's abilities for
the approaching technology-rich century.   Field access is rapid
and extensive throughout the contry, almost all of the country is
on digital switched telecommunications, and Chile exchanges more
EMAIL internationally than all other countries in South America
combined.  Moreover, Chile provides a perhaps unparalleled natural
laboratory from which to study (and provide ground truth) for
troubling global environmental and climatic problems. Chile has
high alpine valleys and glacial peaks, the driest desert in the world, 
and some of the finest native forests. Its length provides access to a 
cross section of world climate from 18 to 56 degrees south, and on south
with its bases in the Antarctic.  All of this comes with a strong
scientific community that can support and collaborate on the
long-term studies necessary to produce data on ozone depletion,
desertification, ocean processes, and climate changes that future
generations and governments will need to analyze and accommodate
civilization's impact on the environment.

Therefore, please take full advantage of chile.science as a
convenient point of cotact with Chilean science and scientists,
and, we hope, help this newsgroup become a place from which we
expand and open some really rewarding mutual research
opportunities. Please DO ccontact us individually and DO use
chile.science. Make us a regular CC for your announcements on
topics of global and Chilean interest and happenings. Explore
through chile.science what has been, what is, and what will continue to
be a productive scientific environment here in Chile.
     
We suggest that contributions to the news group always place 
one or two leadoff keywords in the title in CAPS that describe the
main fields of interest of the contribution----for example  
ANTARCTIC, BIOGENETICS, BIOLOGY, COMPUTER, GEOLOGY, etc.---so that
contributions are easily searchable and sortable.

Thank you,

 -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jarom Smith				   University of Chile, Santiago
jarom@dcc.uchile.cl			 chile.science newsgroup project
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cudenjarom cudfnJarom cudlnSmith cudszM 
------------------------------
1994.06.12 / John Logajan /  Re: Excerpts from Mills/Thermacore FT article
     
Originally-From: al789@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Excerpts from Mills/Thermacore FT article
Date: 12 Jun 1994 17:25:43 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)


stolfi@stack.dcc.unicamp.br (Jorge Stolfi) says:
>Question: does the paper say how they measured V and I? 

From the paper:

"A constant current supply (Kepco ATE-100M) was programmed at 101-A peak
current (+or- 0.05%) and driven by a function generator (BK Precision
Dynascan model 3011). Duty cycle measurements were made with an oscilloscope
(BK model 2120), and the peak current was determined from the voltage
measurement (+or- 0.1%) across and Ohio Semitronics CTA 101 current 
transducer.  The waveform of the pulsed cell current was a square wave.
Since there was current only during the peak voltage interval of the
cycle, Pappl was given by Eq. (25), and Pcell was given by Eq. (26)."

"The peak voltage (+or- 0.1%) was recorded with a digital multimeter
(Fluke 8600A).  The temperature (+or1 0.1 C) was recorded with a 
microprocessor thermometer (Omega HH21)..."

>If one forces a rectangular current wave through a coil, the voltage
>across it will *not* be a rectangular wave; it will have an overshoot
>after each transition.  For such a waveform, the true average power
>average(V*I) will be larger than what one would compute by measuring
>the steady-state voltage and assuming a rectangular waveform with that
>amplitude.  This assumption would be warranted only if the load were
>purely resistive.

Firstly, by reading *peak* voltage and current that are out of phase,
the computation *overstates* the input power.  Any power factor error
would tend to diminish calculated "excess heat."

We also know a bit about the "coil."  It was composed of 300 strands
of 33 meter length each, 0.5 mm diameter nickle wire.  These strands
were wound in parallel.  As we know from basic electronics, parallel
inductors diminish total inductance.  Since we can assume each strand
has about as much inductance as each other strand, we know again from
basic electronics that the total inductance will be about 1/300th
the inductance of a single strand of 33 meter wire wound in those
dimensions.

Conclusion -- peak voltage and current readings would overstate input
power, and hence diminish calculated excess power, if there was 
significant inductive phase delay.  However, inductance is likely
to be very small in relation to a 0.1 second on, 0.4 second off
square wave.

-- 
-- John Logajan ---  al789@cleveland.freenet.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenal789 cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.12 / John Cobb /  Re: "Cold Fusion" Magazine Accelerating and 73
     
Originally-From: johncobb@uts.cc.utexas.edu (John W. Cobb)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: "Cold Fusion" Magazine Accelerating and 73
Date: 12 Jun 1994 13:28:03 -0500
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas

In article <xA-N3m-.hansen35@delphi.com>,
Steve Hansen  <hansen35@delphi.com> wrote:
>mitchell swartz <mica@world.std.com> writes:
> 
>>= "The context of "Cold Fusion" Magazine is made more interesting if one looks
>>= at Wayne Green's editorials in "73 Amateur Radio" during the period from
>>= March through May. (Wayne is the creator of both magazines.)
>>
>>  Why?  
> 
>In the 73 editorials, after going on about CF, he moves on to aids cures,
>mysteries to which he only knows the answers, psi, and UFOs.

Gosh, you mean there are fringe elements that support cold fusion?
I am shocked, shocked to find out that people are pursuing their own
agendas.

Heaven knows that megnetic fusion has never been the recipient of endorsement
by the lunatic fringe. Lyndon LaRouche and Bob Guccione are STRICTLY 
mainstream, and certainly have demonstrated excellent technical ability :>

If you are a political candidate and you receive the official endorsement
of the Ku Klux Klan or the Neo-Nazis, what do you do? It seems that
dissociation is the limit of what you can do.

-john .w cobb

-- 
 --------------------------------------------------------------
John W. Cobb	My posts don't reflect the views of my employer
                Because my posts are usually opaque.
 --------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenjohncobb cudfnJohn cudlnCobb cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.13 / John Logajan /  Re: Calorimetry: estimating cell constants
     
Originally-From: al789@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Calorimetry: estimating cell constants
Date: 13 Jun 1994 02:37:35 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)


70047.3047@compuserve.com (Bill Page) says:

>John, I might be pointing out the obvious to you, but for the degree of 
>accuracy required for the large scale Mills experiments, it isn't really 
>necessary to wait for equilibrium to make useful measurements. Newton's law 
>of cooling (or heating) is a fairly good approximation (depending on the 
>temperature range).

You can use something like Newton's law of cooling or the equivalent of
the natural power exponential curve *if* your thermal resistance isn't
changing dyanmically, and after you have established confidence in the
parameters that define the specific rate of cooling.

Since I am doing "calibration" it is getting ahead of one's self to start
assuming conditions are constant.  It is safer to let the temperatures
find equilibrium first.  The very first pass, I had no choice but to wait
for equilibrium, since I had no idea of the cooling rate -- which 
depended on the thermal conductivity properties of water/plastic/air.

Now that I know the approximate "time constant" I can do what you suggest,
but I'd rather be more conservative for the calibration experiments.  I have
used the derived time constant to build a smoothing filter for my
ambient temperature and input power.  This is iterative, since it makes
additional measurements more accurate.  But other than that, I'll pull
in as few assumptions as possible.

By the way, based upon my own results, I continue to maintain my preliminary
conclusion that the Thermacore calibration curve looks a-okay.

I am done with the 15 and 95 watt cases, giving a 4% variation across the
range.  I am redoing the 30 and 60 watt cases, which if currently
included give a total 8% variation across the range.  Neither of these
ranges of deviation can explain the Thermacore excess heat.


"15 watts"   2.828C/14.69W = 0.1925 C/W  *final*
"30 watts"   5.38 C/29.36W = 0.1833 C/W
"60 watts"  10.81 C/59.96W = 0.1786 C/W
"95 watts"  17.639C/95.46W = 0.1848 C/W  *final*

-- 
-- John Logajan ---  al789@cleveland.freenet.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenal789 cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.13 / Dieter Britz /  Re: False Prophets
     
Originally-From: kemidb@aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: False Prophets
Date: 13 Jun 94 06:44:55 GMT
Organization: Aarhus University, Denmark

In <harrCr8oxD.1tn@netcom.com> harr@netcom.com (Charles (Chuck) Harrison) writes:

>In article <kemidb.770990811@aau>, Dieter Britz <kemidb@aau.dk> wrote:
>>In the last year or so I have, in this group, seen several mentions of
>>the book "False Prophets" by Alexander Kohn; every time, it was said that
>>the book mentions 'cold fusion' as an example of (at best) doubtful
>>science.

>Dieter,

>I think you may be in error.  A newspaper book review of a recent
>Italian translation of this book mentioned cold fusion, and this
>precipitated the Pos, Fleischmann, et al - vs - Reppublica defamation
>lawsuit.

>As near as I can tell, this is the pricipal context in which
>"False Prophets" has come up on sci.physics.fusion.

>Regards,
>  Chuck
>  keeper of wais://sunsite.unc.edu/fusion-digest   (newsgroup archive)
>            wais://sunsite.unc.edu/cold-fusion     (Britz biblio)
>>

I stand corrected, thanks, Chuck, for clearing this up. Good old WAIS.


-- 
Dieter Britz   alias kemidb@aau.dk
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenkemidb cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.14 /  DROEGE@fnald.f /  Re: Verification of Thermacore caligration.
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Verification of Thermacore caligration.
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 1994 00:47:15 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I very much appreciate John Logajan's experiment.  But John, if you are 
going to list calibration constants, let's see error limits on the 
numbers.  Otherwise we will assume the number of decimal places is the
accuracy.

Tom Droege

cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenDROEGE cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.13 / Jim Carr /  Re: Nature
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Nature
Date: 13 Jun 1994 09:55:59 -0400
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

In article <0097FC37.5EFABAC0.6035@FSCVAX.FSC.MASS.EDU> 
vnoninski@fscvax.fsc.mass.edu writes:
>
>Because someone in the group is reluctant to read what is being posted and for 
>some reason likes to denounce anything not coinciding with his own views, 
>without even choosing the means to do that, I repeat what I said in one of my 
>previous postings. I note that mutual consideration in discussions such as this 
>one is necessary and one should not find himself compelled to repeat previous 
>statements. 

"someone" eh?  You must not have read my post if you can't even quote it 
or quote me -- or present any argument about my observations on the 
subject of the fairness or lack thereof of a particular journal. 

I read your post, and quoted it in my reply and commentary.  You could 
do the same.  Simply repeating yourself is hardly a response. 

>I repeat again that I have evidence that Nature applies double standards 
>in its publication practices. 

Welcome to the real world.  Shocking isn't it?  Those who buy ink by the 
barrel can do pretty much whatever they want.  You are welcome to cancel 
your subscription at any time.  Name me one journal that has not applied 
double standards in its publication practices.  Anyone who has not had 
such a hassle with a journal has not been around very long. 

>                              While Nature publishes the commentary of 
>Petrasso et al criticizing Fleischmann et als' paper (published in 
>another journal -JEAC), this 
>same journal -- Nature -- refuses to publish criticism in any form (Scientific 
>Correspondence, Letter to Nature, Article, etc.) concerning a paper in which 
>Petrasso is a coauthor, giving as a sole reason the fact 
>that Petrasso's paper has  
>not been published in Nature and it is not the policy of Nature to publish 
>criticisms of papers published in other journals. 

Sounds reasonable to me.  Do you have any idea what fraction of the papers 
received by Nature can be published in the journal?  Nature, like Science, 
does not publish many papers on chemistry and physics. 

Perhaps they are saying that they made a mistake when they published the 
earlier letter by Petrasso and the reply by P&F and company.  Or, since 
you still have not done more than paraphrase the letter, and have given 
no indication of what might be learned from a dialog with the editors, 
perhaps they justified the earlier correspondence because they had 
carried a news article that mentioned the P&F announcement and paper 
in JEC (there is no JEAC that I know of, electroanalytic is one word).  

Impugning the motives of the editors is easy to do, but you need to 
face the fact that outside of a very small community of people involved 
in the work and the tiny number of people reading this group, not 
very many people care about cold fusion.  Five years ago, lots of 
people cared and Nature may have made an exception because the stories 
would help sell the journal.  Today, they are back to business as 
usual, worrying about black holes and other contemporary stories. 

Plenty of people would love to have an article in Nature.  They reject 
most of the papers they get.  This paper belongs in the journal that 
published the Petrasso et al calorimetry paper, not Nature. 

-- 
 James A. Carr   <jac@scri.fsu.edu>     |   "It's never confusing though, 
      http://www.scri.fsu.edu           |  because ultimately it all fits 
 Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst.  |  -- it's just cockeyed and fits  
 Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306    |  and is fire."  -  Norman Maclean 
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.13 / L Plutonium /  Re: LP APOLOGIZES TO THE NOBEL FOUNDATION
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.kibology,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fus
on,sci.math,sci.chem,sci.bio,sci.physics,sci.psychology
Subject: Re: LP APOLOGIZES TO THE NOBEL FOUNDATION
Date: 13 Jun 1994 15:25:28 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In article <1994Jun12.163013.16650@henson.cc.wwu.edu>
n9245804@henson.cc.wwu.edu (sasha keinemann) writes:

> dak@messua.informatik.rwth-aachen.de (David Kastrup) writes:
> 
> >Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium) writes:
> 
> >>  We know what Feynman thought of philosophy-- "Philosophers and other
> >>fools". But what was Feynman's opinion of psychology?
> >How did you come to this conclusion? I would certainly believe that
> >Feynman would have expected a considerably larger percentage of what
> >he would have called "pompous fools" in that area, and personally
> >had more or less decided not to bother to go to interdisciplinary
> >conventions because of that, but I do not think he condemned
> >the discipline, just most "practitioners". And of course he was
> >against uncritical reception of the results of past philosophers having to
> >work on entirely different sets of world knowledge.
> 
> I think Ludwig is referring to the quotation of Feynman used in 
> 0-553-11600-2 [ISBN].  If you look at the passage on page 87, I think you 
> can clearly draw forth the conclusion Ludwig makes.  Feynman, in this 
> excerpt, is startlingly candid - paraphrased, the passage reads "Just 
> untruth and chicanery that leads us all to our death."  Of course, that's 
> just MY interpretation, but I think any rational reader would draw forth 
> this harsh condemnation of the field of philosophy.
> 
> >But it is true, I believe, that Feynman had decided to quit bothering
> >with people in certain professions. I believe sociologists were even
> >more annoying to him.
> 
> >>Did he opine that
> >>psychology as a science is "still swinging in the trees"? If I had to
> >>hazard a guess, I would think that Feynman was negative towards
> >>practicing psychology. Whatever, I am going to give my opinion of the
> >>progress of psychology as a science.
> 
> >Well, Feynman was not drafted because of "psychic defects". The story
> >of this is quite amusing (see "Surely you're joking Mr. Feynman", I believe),
> >and goes to show again "pompous foolishness".
> 
> Tsk tsk.  That story was recanted (in part) in 0-451-16352-4 [ISBN].
> 
> After that publication, I'd say that referencing that story is about as 
> responsible as justifying Genetic Engineering by referencing 
> _Green_Eggs_and_Ham_ [by Dr. Silverstein].
> 
> >>  A thought experiment-- if Adolf Hitler had been sent to most any
> >>shrink in Germany before WW2, his papers would have come out as
> >>"saint", to any shrink after the war, all of them would have analyzed
> >>him as "devil or demon".
> 
> >I think you are very much mistaken about those professions. Supposing
> >that you mean by "shrink" a psychiatrist, it is not a function of him
> >to either damn or appraise a patient. He is to work on the relation
> >of the patient with himself and his environment, not on that with the
> >psychiatrist.
> 
> >If you mean a psychologist, well, I do not think that "saint, devil
> >or demon" would be a proper category in psychology.
> 
> Sigh.  Read 0-8070-1205-X [ISBN].  Thorough refutation of the un"proper"ness.
> 
> >>  Mr. Norton, if you had read my THEORY OF THE MIND AS QM, COULOMB
> >>INTERACTIONS (provided you can understand QM) WITH THE BRAIN LOCUS,
> >>then you would see that for the first time in the history of
> >>psychology, Mr. Norton, is there a comprehensive theory of the mind set
> >>forth, being proposed. But I seriously doubt that you know or
> >>understand Quantum Mechanics, Coulomb Interaction, or any physics.
> 
> >There are many readers of these threads which would second this
> >statement if applied to yourself. Apart from that, personal abuse
> >is usually not thought fit for discussions, and tends to convince
> >mainly its author.
> 
> Sometimes.  But Ludwig is showing greater research efforts - I sourced 
> out for you above where Ludwig is drawing conclusions from.  Since LP has 
> taken the time to study, say, 1/2 of the available data and groks about 
> 2/3, that leaves you with grokking a 1/3.  But I could be wrong.
> 
> >>own theory is that it is a waste of time and money. It is ridiculous to
> >>even teach psychology. That the subject should be a remote part of
> >>biology and it should be immediately removed from College and
> >>University curriculum as a department. Psychology should be a
> >>specialized section of biology.
> 
> >Even if one were to agree that psychology is not more than physiology
> >of the brain (which is nonsense. In analogy, this would propose that
> 
> Reference 0-14-042210-2 [ISBN].  Pyschology IS physiology of the brain.
> 
> >Computer Science were to teach only hardware, since software was just
> >workings of hardware. Well, yes, somehow, but it has entirely different
> >theories, rules, and scientific implications. And, say, your programs
> >could not care less if they were running on a processor with 0.6 um
> >structures or not), a lot of scientific branches have their own right
> >in spite of being really subbranches.
> 
> Goodard would paddle your tail for that thought!  The truly-subbranches 
> have NO right to be on their own.  Computer Science should logically be 
> renamed Computer Engineering and Computer Coding, with a joint sub-branch 
> entitled Gestalt Computing.  This would form a workable form our college 
> students could follow for centuries to come, rather than the monolithic 
> structure currently extant.
> 
> >Computer Science is mostly a subbranch of mathematics (especially that
> >CS which we in Germany call Informatik), electrical engineering of
> >physics, biology of chemistry, chemistry again of physics, and so on.
> >All those branches were once thought subbranches of philosophy, and
> >really this makes sense when you think about it.
> 
> You're not accounting for the Plutonium Atom Totality.  Once you factor 
> it in, it does NOT make a lot of sense to have the various subgroups of 
> philosophy.  Haven't you read Ludwig Plutonium's autobiography?  I think 
> it was Chapter 23 that clearly debunked the so-called "logic" behind 
> sub-branching logic.
> 
> >All these disciplines have their right, because the specialities they
> >deal with deserve special attention and treatment. The same definitely
> >goes for psychology.
> 
> Again, Goddard has already refuted you.  [Can't find the ISBN, sorry...]
> 
> >>  Before I declared the BRAIN LOCUS THEORY OF THE MIND, here is a
> >>summary of what I view the subject of psychology.
> 
> >>                        PSYCHOLOGY
> >>   1. Numerous good experiments performed concerning the mind.
> >>   2. Pharmaceutical research and drugs are the only hard core data,
> >>reliable data on the functioning and working of the mind.
> >>   3. All else, such as textbooks on psychology and the mumbo-jumbo,
> >>gobbledy gook such as Mr. Norton's above are just hot air.
> >>  4. That is it.
> 
> >While one problem of psychology (but of physiology, too) might be the
> >mechanisms of brain and mind, much more of this is empirical description
> >of mind, its sicknesses and treatments. Most of psychic defects are
> >not organical, but merely covered by psychology.
> 
> How can you give credence to psychic defects?  I've tried, but then I end 
> up logically needing to give credence to Yuri Geller, and that pushes me 
> too far.  Also, I would think that "empirical" is a naughty word when 
> applied to psychology, since it seems to mean something verifiable, and 
> hopefully repeatable.
> 
> >>  In other words, the Pharmaceutical companies are the essence of the
> >>subject material of psychology. Drug companies such as Sandoz have done
> >>more for psychology than propped up intuitionless students of
> >>psychology, to name a few--Freud, Skinner, et al. Medicine owns
> >>psychology up to my newly found THEORY OF THE MIND. And, my newly found
> >>theory of the mind implies that pharmacy and medicine will spearhead
> >>the subject of psychology. 
> 
> >Of pharmacology, not of psychology. If, say, Intel or Motorola
> >produces a new processor, they do not spearhead computer science,
> >as no new theories derive from that. It might just be that more
> >gets done in computer science because computer scientists will
> >spend less time cursing their computers for their slowness.
> 
> Bad analogy.  If Intel [or Motorola] produces a new processor that throws 
> the computer science field into an entirely different direction, then 
> they HAVE spearheaded computer science.  Furthermore, Ludwig is trying to 
> pierce the curtain of blindness currently surrounding psychology, so 
> "spearheading" is especially apt.
> 
> >So pharmacists might probably do a lot for psychology by making some
> >people do ingenious psychological studies instead of committing
> >suicide.
> >>  You would be wise Mr. Norton to check into Quantum Mechanics, Bell
> >>Inequality, and my Atom Totality Theory. 
> 
> >Perhaps you would be wise, Mr. Plutonium, to check into the symptoms
> >of paranoia, schizophrenia, and similar things. On the other hand, just
> >as with physics, a lot can be achieved simply by employing common
> >sense.
> 
> And a lot more can be accomplished by people with a strong work ethic.  
> Take the time, do the research.  The utterly brilliant are commonly 
> misunderstood - don't be fooled.  An evening with the books I mentioned 
> above should radically change your mind...
> 
> > David Kastrup        dak@pool.informatik.rwth-aachen.de          
> 
> Respectfully,
>         Sasha Keinemann                     n9245804@cc.wwu.edu
>         Physics Lecturer at Western Washington University
>         These opinions are mine and mine alone - this
>         university REFUSES to share my opinions.

   You know David, you can learn alot from Mr. Keinemann. I did,
because now I am searching down the road as to what? if any drugs can
change personality. If the brain locus theory is correct means there
exists Faraday cages for thinking (now there is going to be alot of
netgoons out there who do not know what a Faraday cage is and are going
to jump on it with their birdbrains).
   But, if the brain locus theory is correct then we can look into
NULLIFYING the mind via drugs. If the brain locus theory of the mind is
correct, then there must exist, by reasoning of math logic, chemicals
which will nullify the thinking process-- a Faraday cage.
  And also, in the BRAIN LOCUS THEORY OF THE MIND--ALL THOUGHTS ARE
COULOMB INTERACTIONS, suggests, as of recently (photons are composite
structures of neutrinos where 2 neutrinos = 1 photon, that, thinking is
of at least two modes, one of neutrinos which in the physiology of the
brain would be the "subconcious motor" and the higher thinking such as
physics and math would be photon interactions. Actual pictures in the
mind are photons landed.
  If the brain locus theory is correct implies that there exist
chemicals/drugs that nullify thought. Then, there should exist a drug
which will make a person a zombie to photon thought but leave the
automatic motor of the heart beat, subconscious in tact because those
are neutrino receptor thoughts.
   BTW, Feynman said "philosophers and other fools" at a lecture and so
it was not recorded in print.
   But getting back to David, it is a shame that so many posters of
sci.math are computer science students. And they tend to weigh-down the
caliber/quality of posts to sci.math. More noise than math logic or
math intuition. And I agree with Sasha that CS belongs in engineering
not in math. Hopefully the trend at Uni's will be in the direction of
putting CS in the engineering, electrical engineering building.
   One comment to David, is that he is running on fallacy of misplaced
importance. Not to worry because the majority of the physics community
is misplaced importance-- they think GR is more important than QM, just
look at Hawking, Wheeler, Weinberg who have wasted virtually their
entire life by placing GR above QM. But David, I can see where you
would fall into the trap of misplaced importance because of the
computer industry selling you that crap. And seeing Terminator movies,
not realizing due to illogical mind, that the future will be not
Terminators but Roy-- Bladerunners. Illogical persons easily fall into
Fallacy of Misplaced Importance. But that does not stop them from
blairing on the Net all about psychology when they do not even know
that psychology = physiology of the mind. It is for that reason that I
am mechanically kill-filing David Kastrup posts henceforth. His posts
are a waste of my time.
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.13 /  SilntObsvr /  Re: Why is palladium is used in CF experiments?
     
Originally-From: silntobsvr@aol.com (SilntObsvr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Why is palladium is used in CF experiments?
Date: 13 Jun 1994 13:37:04 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

In article <2t38sn$avm@search01.news.aol.com>, dschnei@aol.com
(DSchnei) writes:

<<Is there a working hypothesis about the importance of the element
palladium itself in CF experiments?  I have some ideas I would like
to work on.>>

Others are encouraged to correct me if I mistype here, but my
understanding was that the lattice spacing of Palladium was important
in the theoretical basis being applied to attempt to explain what
might be happening to create the "excess heat" (quotes applied to
avoid flames) in the P&F and other cold fusion experiments.  There
were some calculations given indicating that, if the D ions
infiltrated the Pd matrix, they might be brought into sufficient
proximity to fuse without huge momentum excesses that would lead to
the usual excess neutrons and 3He fusion products, but instead allow
production of 4He and lattice heating.

I'm not enough of a mathematician or physicist to follow the quantum
mechanical calculations that were involved, so I can't comment on the
math; I do remember seeing information suggesting that Titanium might
work about as well -- apparently Ti has a similar lattice spacing to
Pd, and is many, many times cheaper.
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudensilntobsvr cudlnSilntObsvr cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Tue Jun 14 04:37:05 EDT 1994
------------------------------
1994.06.13 / Donald Lindsay /  Re: A Flash from the Economist
     
Originally-From: lindsay+@cs.cmu.edu (Donald Lindsay)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A Flash from the Economist
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 1994 18:22:47 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon


In article <2snjl0$60e@bmerha64.bnr.ca>,
Stanley T.H. Chow <schow@bnr.ca> wrote:
>>     I would think the higher energy photons have the potential for more
>>diverse chemical reactions because they can drive reactions for which lower
>>energy photons are inadequate.
>
>Even assuming this were the major factor (which it clearly is not), so
>what? How do you know if these "diverse chemical reactions" are better
>or worse than the one in cooking?

I would happily eat the stuff.

I am, however, opposed to letting serious tonnages of radioactives be
installed in cheap warehouses, clean across the land. What happens
ten years down the road? There will be abandoned equipment, due to
bankruptcies. Not to mention scrap-metal thieves, like the Mexican
incident. And then there's fires. Hey, "containment vessel" just
isn't in the vocabulary of vegetable wholesalers.
-- 
Don		D.C.Lindsay	Carnegie Mellon Computer Science
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudfnDonald cudlnLindsay cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.13 / Jim Carr /  Re: A Flash from the Economist
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A Flash from the Economist
Date: 13 Jun 1994 15:58:50 -0400
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

In article <CrCLpz.8v2.3@cs.cmu.edu> 
lindsay+@cs.cmu.edu (Donald Lindsay) writes:
>
>I am, however, opposed to letting serious tonnages of radioactives be
>installed in cheap warehouses, clean across the land.

You are aware that these places (1) already exist and (2) are 
regulated by the NRC?  They cannot be 'cheap warehouses' any more 
than a country doctor can have a Co-60 machine.  I forget exactly 
where the place is down here in Florida, but you should find out 
and visit it sometime and see for yourself. 

>                                                       What happens
>ten years down the road? There will be abandoned equipment, due to
>bankruptcies. Not to mention scrap-metal thieves, like the Mexican
>incident. 

They were not thieves.  The Mexican scrap-metal dealer was sold the 
stuff by an American thief.  Actually, I would imagine that Co-60 
machines are, because of the design, more liable to this sort of 
problem (and more ubiquitous) than food irradiation factories.  
Anyway, I would hope the experience has increased NRC oversight 
of this part of the industry. 

>           And then there's fires. Hey, "containment vessel" just
>isn't in the vocabulary of vegetable wholesalers.

Wholesalers have nothing to do with it, but the system has a 
substantial containment system. 

-- 
 James A. Carr   <jac@scri.fsu.edu>     |   "It's never confusing though, 
      http://www.scri.fsu.edu           |  because ultimately it all fits 
 Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst.  |  -- it's just cockeyed and fits  
 Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306    |  and is fire."  -  Norman Maclean 
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.14 / Vic Moberg /  Re: A Flash from the Economist
     
Originally-From: moberg@nosc.mil (Vic Moberg)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A Flash from the Economist
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 1994 01:16:58 GMT
Organization: NCCOSC RDT&E Division, San Diego, CA

If by "Mexican incident" what is being referred to is the radioactive
scrap turned into building materials sold in the US, I would note
that there was a much
worse incident (for the locals, at least) that occurred in what I believe was
Brazil.  A hospital was closed and abandoned, leaving behind a cobolt-60
source.  This was discovered by young looters, divided up, and generally
scattered throughout the local slum.  By the time the authorities heard about
it an estimated 75 individuals had received extremely high radiation doses.
For whatever reason I never saw any follow-up news stories on this, so can't
say what the final casualty rate/body count was.  I don't know if this 
squares with a description of cobalt-60, but the news story noted that the kids
were rubbing the material on their body because it made the skin glow in the
dark.

--
--
Vic Moberg                                NCCOSC RDTE Div. Code 842
moberg@manta.nosc.mil                     53490 Dow St. Rm. 104
Phone: 619-553-6140, Fax: -6449           San Diego CA 92152-5731
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenmoberg cudfnVic cudlnMoberg cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.13 /  Graviton /  Re: LP APOLOGIZES TO THE NOBEL FOUNDATION
     
Originally-From: bandy-s@acsu.buffalo.edu (Graviton)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.kibology,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fus
on,sci.math,sci.chem,sci.bio,sci.physics
Subject: Re: LP APOLOGIZES TO THE NOBEL FOUNDATION
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 1994 22:31:07 GMT
Organization: UB

roger@cs.curtin.edu.au (Roger Smith) writes:

>pnorton@beaux.atwc.teradyne.com (Peter Norton) writes:

>>In article <2t65c7$n89@mailhost.interaccess.com> bh@interaccess (Bounty Hunter) writes:
>>>Ludwig Plutonium (Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu) wrote:
>>>
>>>:    Thanks kindly Simon. I do not want the Nobel prize in Physics
>>>: because I am thinking in advance what is the best for the Plutonium
>>>: Atom Foundation. It is best that I self-sacrifice because I have won
>>>: the PLutonium Atom Prize, something far more prestigous and valuable.

>>>: I must self-sacrifice and be
>>>: persecuted in my time, in order that I will have it easier in 2000
>>>: years from now when I am reborn via biotechnology.
>>>
>>>Man, this is sheer comedy. 

>>No, it is tragedy. 
>< Much jovial waffle === snippity snip =====>
>...
>>I apologize for feeding this thread ....

>This is not tragedy nor sheer comedy, it's fucking beautiful comedy -- leave
>poor Ludwig alone --- he makes me laugh.

>Come and do some suff in the Computer Science news groups Ludwig, we
>appreciate a good joke!!!

>--
WHO IS THIS LUDWIG GUY??????/ OBVIOUSLY HE HAS NO KNOWLEDGE OF
PHYSICS....AND HE IS A PATHETIC MORON...........
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudens cudlnGraviton cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.14 / John Logajan /  Re: Verification of Thermacore caligration.
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Verification of Thermacore caligration.
Date: 14 Jun 1994 06:13:29 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Online Services Member.

DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov wrote:
: I very much appreciate John Logajan's experiment.  But John, if you are 
: going to list calibration constants, let's see error limits on the 
: numbers.  Otherwise we will assume the number of decimal places is the
: accuracy.

The posting of four decimal places is merely to prevent me from adding
an undue bias in my rounding.  So far, between 15W and 95W I have
experienced 8% variation in calibration constants from all causes
including non-linearities in the real constant itself.

The two temperature sensors have been corrected by constants to within
a 1/10 of a degree F of each other.  They are within a 1/2 degree F of
a mercury lab thermometer.

The voltage and current sensor were corrected by constants so that the
A/D computer reading matched the reading of a digital voltmeter.  By
inspection of a wire resistance table, it looks to me like my current
shunt (made of a small coil #14 stranded wire) would change resistance
by about 1/5 of 1% per degree F.  So with the changes in ambient, I
have a likely 1% variation in current and hence power reading that I
haven't applied a first order correction to.

My goal was an overal 5% tolerance, or so, which I believe I have
attained -- though I don't claim to be well practiced in determining
all phases of error limits.

Let me note that Thermacore lists their constant for one of their
experiments (#4) at 0.17 +or- 0.01 C/W, which is about a 12% variation
across the range.  I think I am doing as well, if not better -- but
that just shows that Thermacore was being conservative in their
publication claims.

--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com -- 612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills  MN 55112 USA           -

cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.14 / L Plutonium /  Re: LP APOLOGIZES TO THE NOBEL FOUNDATION
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.kibology,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fus
on,sci.math,sci.chem,sci.bio,sci.physics,sci.psychology
Subject: Re: LP APOLOGIZES TO THE NOBEL FOUNDATION
Date: 14 Jun 1994 11:45:02 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In article <2thtp8$k7p@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium) writes:

>   And also, in the BRAIN LOCUS THEORY OF THE MIND--ALL THOUGHTS ARE
> COULOMB INTERACTIONS, suggests, as of recently (photons are composite
> structures of neutrinos where 2 neutrinos = 1 photon, that, thinking is
> of at least two modes, one of neutrinos which in the physiology of the
> brain would be the "subconcious motor" and the higher thinking such as
> physics and math would be photon interactions. Actual pictures in the
> mind are photons landed.
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.14 / Rob Furr /  Re: LP APOLOGIZES TO THE NOBEL FOUNDATION
     
Originally-From: Rob Furr <r.furr@genie.geis.com>
Newsgroups: alt.religion.kibology,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fus
on,sci.math,sci.chem,sci.bio,sci.physics,sci.psychology
Subject: Re: LP APOLOGIZES TO THE NOBEL FOUNDATION
Date: 14 Jun 1994 12:57:54 GMT
Organization: Plutarch or Bust!

In article <2tk57u$r62@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Ludwig Plutonium,
Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu writes:
>In article <2thtp8$k7p@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
>Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium) writes:
>
>>   And also, in the BRAIN LOCUS THEORY OF THE MIND--ALL THOUGHTS ARE
>> COULOMB INTERACTIONS, suggests, as of recently (photons are composite
>> structures of neutrinos where 2 neutrinos = 1 photon, that, thinking is
>> of at least two modes, one of neutrinos which in the physiology of the
>> brain would be the "subconcious motor" and the higher thinking such as
>> physics and math would be photon interactions. Actual pictures in the
>> mind are photons landed.

You know...every now and then, I get this impression that it might be
technically possible to extract actual information from a Ludwig
Plutonium post. 

And then he reposts himself, and I come to my senses.

	Rob F.
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenfurr cudfnRob cudlnFurr cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.15 / Richard Blue /  Re: Ed Storms's superabsorbtion
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Ed Storms's superabsorbtion
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 1994 00:13:44 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Mitchell Swartz asks me to provide proof to support a supposition
that I did not make.  I think I made it clear that I was commenting
of a supposition made by Ed Storms.  The point of my message was, in
fact, to show that any supposition involving the emission and subsequent
absorbtion of 24 MeV gammas in the PdD sample was ridiculous.  Hence
the experimental data do not support any emission of said gammas.

Further on I used the word "manifest" in a way which appears to have
sent Mitchell once more to his dictionary.  I resorted to that because
I have not yet come to an understanding of the theory by Chubb and
Chubb as to where and when 4He nuclei in their ground state become
observable by normal experimental means.  My understanding of the
current experimental situation with regard to the detection of
4He in conjunction with D2O electrolysis could also use an update
if there is anyone out there who claims to understand precisely
what is "known".

As I now have it, Miles and Bush claim that commensurate helium
is found in the evolved gas.  That result has never been replicated,
and analyses for helium incorporated in the Pd have universally
given null results.  My understanding is that the Chubb and Chubb
theory specifically addresses this point by offering an mechanism
by which helium would be "manifest" only at crystal boundaries and
thus never be trapped within the lattice.  What I have yet to
understand is how Chubb and Chubb avoid those dreaded 24 MeV gammas
that would surely be detectable if the 4He was formed at or near
the surface of the PdD lattice.   It would be nice if all those
claiming that they have a theory as to how deuterons can be made
to fuse would also explain how the process remains so difficult to
detect.

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.15 / Richard Blue /  Problem with condensate theory
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Problem with condensate theory
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 1994 00:13:45 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

As I read them, all the theories being discussed here share a
common problem.  They start with a wavefunction having a form
that simply may not be suited to the problem at hand.  It may
well be possible to construct a wavefunction that will result
in an apparent overlap in the position coordinates for two
deuterons, but what does that prove if the underlying assumptions
are not valid?  In the case of the theory of Chubb and Chubb
it seems to go something like this.  As long as the lattice
interaction potential is the dominant potential and the
Coulomb interaction between deuteron pairs is "small" the
usual Bloch wave fuctions are OK, but who says this condition
can be maintained when deuterons are within the range of the
strong interaction?

If the relative strengths of the deuteron-deuteron and
deuteron-lattice interaction potentials are interchanged
does not that indicate a need to alter the wavefunctions?

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Wed Jun 15 04:37:04 EDT 1994
------------------------------
1994.06.14 / Steve Fairfax /  Alcator Progress 6/9/94
     
Originally-From: Fairfax@CMOD.PFC.MIT.EDU (Steve Fairfax)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Alcator Progress 6/9/94
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 1994 15:35:37 GMT
Organization: Alcator Project, MIT Plasma Fusion Center

			Alcator C-MOD Weekly Highlights
				June 9, 1994
 
The Phase II Operating Campaign is continuing. The main emphasis this week
has been on ICRF heating experiments, and divertor discharge development.
 
Analysis of the ICRF heating results indicate that the energy confinement is
consistent with L-mode scaling over the range of density and currents
studied so far (600 to 800 kA plasma currents, 0.5 to 1.35 X 10^20 m^-3 plasma
densities, with up to 2.7 MW of input power).  

Significant progress was made on developing stable single-null divertor
plasmas with elongations of up to 1.65 .  The new capillary gas injection
system was brought on line and partially detached plasmas were produced.
We are now getting data from two MIT divertor gauges which will allow
comparison of neutral gas compression in open and closed divertor modules.

The neutral particle analyzer is nearing completion. Subsystems,
which include water cooling, CAMAC support, High Voltage connections,
data acquisition, gas system and vacuum are now operational. Final
calibration and interconnections are underway, which include proper
interlock between PLC, magnet control, detector operation (micro-channel
plates) and gas system. After bringing the systems (especially high voltage
and magnet current) to specifications (expected during first week of June),
the examinations of background and detector calibration will be undertaken.


Miklos Porkolab was at PPPL this week reviewing graduate education.
Earl Marmar was also at PPPL at a TFTR program planning meeting. 
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenFairfax cudfnSteve cudlnFairfax cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.14 / Robert Heeter /  TPX Survives House Amendment
     
Originally-From: rfheeter@theory.pppl.gov (Robert F. Heeter)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: TPX Survives House Amendment
Date: 14 Jun 1994 16:23:36 -0400
Organization: Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory


An amendment to the House Energy and Water Appropriations bill
was proposed by Reps. Swett (NH), Shays (CT) and Peterson (MN)
which would have trimmed all funding for TPX from the FY 1995
appropriations for the fusion program.

The amendment was discussed this afternoon, and was defeated
just minutes ago on voice vote.  (Many of us students,
as well as scientists and administrative personnel here at PPPL,
were watching the debate on C-Span.)  I believe this means TPX,
and the rest of the fusion program, will survive the House
appropriations process this year.

Just wanted to pass the news along right away!

*********************
Robert F. Heeter, Graduate Student, Princeton Plasma Physics Lab
The above remarks are simply my own views, and not official PPPL
activity of any kind.
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.14 / Rich Hawryluk /  TFTR Update June 14
     
Originally-From: rhawryluk@pppl.gov (Rich Hawryluk)
Newsgroups: pppl.tftr.news,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: TFTR Update June 14
Date: 14 Jun 1994 18:24:34 -0400
Organization: Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory

Status  (June 14, 1994)

 Last week, the D-T experimental effort focussed on plasma optimizaton
using Li pellet injection and the study of high beta-normal discharges
using current rampdown techniques. The latter was performed in
collaboration with Columbia and MIT.

Extensions of the lithium pellet injection wall conditioning technique
continues to improve plasma performance.  After two full days of
optimization we started tritium operation and obtained an excellent plasma
with many record parameters for TFTR.  Shot 77309 had the following
parameters:

Ip = 2.1 MA, Bt = 5.1T and R = 2.52 m with heavy Li pellet conditioning.
The energy confinement time at peak D-T fusion power was 0.28s. This is the
highest confinement we have obtained on TFTR in DD or DT with high power NB
injection.

The plasma stored energy was ~ 4.7 MJ, Ti (0) ~34 keV and Te (0) ~11.2 keV.

The total NBI power was 21 MW and the maximum fusion power was 5.2 MW. The
central beta alpha was about 2.7e-3 which is the highest calculated value
to date.


The high beta_poloidal experiments continued last week and ran from 6/9/94
to 6/10/94.  The purpose of this experiment was to demonstrate high fusion
reactivity and good alpha confinement in high poloidal beta "advanced
tokamak" DT plasmas with plasma current in the range 1.0 - 1.5 MA, and to
develop a DT plasma with q(0) ~ 1.3 (Ip = 0.85 MA) and broadened beta_alpha
profile with reduced beta_alpha thresholds for TAE mode stability (as
suggested by D. Spong, et al.).


Both creating the high q(0) DT plasma, and operating a high poloidal beta
plasma at high current (1.5 MA) required development of the conditions in
DD plasmas.  This work was successful.  A total of 7 DT shots were taken
covering three different plasma current profile conditions in the range of
current given above.

Plasma current profile peaking was successfully achieved at high Ip by
ramping the current down from 2.5 to 1.5 MA.  Limiter conditioning was
improved using  Li pellets in a systematic manner in both 1.0 and 1.5 MA
plasmas.  A peak fusion power of 5.6 MW was generated with beta_normal_dia~
2.4 (Wmag ~ 5 MJ), with 27.4 MW input power.  As in discharges at lower
current, these plasmas transition into a limiter H-mode, and the energy
confinement time of the plasma peaks during the ELM-free phase, reaching
0.260s in the plasma mentioned above.  This corresponds to an energy
confinement enhancement factor, H = taue/taue_ITER-89P, of just below 3.9.
Additional analysis is being performed to verify taue and Wmag, which are
more difficult to calculate in plasmas utilizing current profile
modification.  For the NBI power < 28 MW, these higher current plasmas have
not yet reached a stability limit.  Last week's results provide a guide to
further optimizing this regime of operation.

The development of the R = 2.6 m plasma at 0.85 MA was successful in
attaining increased q(0). Present analysis gives q(0) ~ 1.3 in a DT plasma.
Taue was also large in this plasma, with a peak value of ~ 0.21 s, H = 4.1
.  At this high value of taue, a natural inboard separatrix had almost
entered the TFTR vacuum vessel with 16 MW of NBI.  The DT plasma was taken
at a moderate NBI input power, 15MW.  This shot was the first to clearly
show an H-mode transition and an ELMing H-mode phase in this particular
plasma configuration.  This discharge will be analyzed for TAE mode
stability to examine the anticipated reduction in the beta_alpha threshold
for instability.

As has been observed in previous high poloidal beta experiments, taue was
observed to improve as NBI power was increased.  Experience from previous
experiments helped allow high beta_normal operation with high neutron
profile peakedness (~10) but without MHD related beta collapses or
disruptions.  A rich collection of density, (50 - 150 kHz), temperature,
and Mirnov fluctuations (40 - 300 kHz) were observed in both the high q(0)
and high fusion power conditions.  Analysis of these fluctuations is
presently underway.


Plans:
This week is a maintenance week on TFTR.

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


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


cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenrhawryluk cudfnRich cudlnHawryluk cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.09 / Tom Potter /  Re: Why is Palladium used?
     
Originally-From: tdp@condor.ic.net (Tom Potter)
Originally-From: dschnei@aol.com (DSchnei)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Why is Palladium used?
Subject: Why is palladium is used in CF experiments?
Date: 9 Jun 1994 02:35:17 GMT
Organization: ICNet ... The Innovative Concepts Network ... Your Link to the Internet

Originally-From: dschnei@aol.com (DSchnei)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Why is palladium is used in CF experiments?

>Is there a working hypothesis about the importance of the element
>palladium itself in CF experiments?  I have some ideas I would like
>to work on.
>David Schneider

Dave, as you perhaps know, palladium has more "electrons" in its outer
shell ( 10 ) than any other element. As the volumes of all atoms are about
the same, this means that an atom of palladium can bring togeather more
positive charges ( Protons ) than any other atom. ( By having positive ions
permeate the palladium. ) Increasing the number of positive charges within
a volume increases the probability of fusion.

The creation of helium nuclei from protons and neutrons would provide the
greatest "energy gain". This means that two protons and a couple of
neutrons must be brought togeather at the same point in space-time.

It seems to me that magnetic moments play a more important role in
configuring "fusion systems" than charge. Atoms tend to minimize charge,
whereas nuclei tend to minimize magnetic moments.

The use of palladium helps with the charge repulsion problem but does
nothing about the magnetic moment problem. I think that a properly
designed, hot or cold, fusion system would be more concerned with the
dynamics of creating a minimum magnetic moment at some point in space-time
rather than trying to overcome charge repulsion by brute force.

Tom Potter:          Angular displacement - the final frontier!


cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudentdp cudfnTom cudlnPotter cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.15 / Lupus Yonderboy /  Re: LP APOLOGIZES TO THE NOBEL FOUNDATION
     
Originally-From: asuter@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Lupus Yonderboy)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.kibology,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: LP APOLOGIZES TO THE NOBEL FOUNDATION
Date: 15 Jun 1994 00:03:56 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.

Thus spake willhoek@halcyon.com (Le Grande Wazou):
>> You know...every now and then, I get this impression that it might be
>> technically possible to extract actual information from a Ludwig
>> Plutonium post. 
>> 
>> And then he reposts himself, and I come to my senses.
>
>Yes, it IS possible to extract energy from a black hole. 
>
>BTW, it helps if you dump large unwanted masses into them from a great
>height. 

Unwanted masses? You mean like like New Jersey or Belgium?

Take off the weight, and keep it off... with Ultra Black Hole.

--
Alex Suter
asuter@cs.stanford.edu
"Some of my best friends are Belgian."



cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenasuter cudfnLupus cudlnYonderboy cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.16 / Bill Page /  Manifest 4He in Chubb&Chubb (was: Ed Storms's superabsorbtion)
     
Originally-From: 70047.3047@compuserve.com (Bill Page)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Manifest 4He in Chubb&Chubb (was: Ed Storms's superabsorbtion)
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 1994 00:14:19 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Dick Blue writes:
<<
As I now have it, Miles and Bush claim that commensurate helium is found in 
the evolved gas.  That result has never been replicated, and analyses for 
helium incorporated in the Pd have universally given null results.  My 
understanding is that the Chubb and Chubb theory specifically addresses 
this point by offering an mechanism by which helium would be "manifest" 
only at crystal boundaries and thus never be trapped within the lattice.
>>

Dick, I think you are over stating the case.  Several groups have reported  
observations of 4He in the evolved gases.  However, in some cases one might 
question the adequacy of the experimental methods and there have been some 
retractions. I think it *is* fair to say that no group other than Miles and 
Bush have done as thorough a job of trying to produce convincing results.  
It would be very convincing *if* another independent group could produce 
the same results with similar adequate techniques.

Regarding observations of 4He in the Pd electrode: Liebert and Hoffman 
(1990) and Liaw, Tao, Turner and Liebert (1992) report "Our recent He 
analysis of the two samples showed that 4He was significantly above the 
background in the deuterated Pd sample but not in the blank.".  I am not 
aware of any published retraction of these results.

That 4He should only be "manifest" at crystal boundries *does not* mean 
that 4He will not be found inside the Pd electrode unless the electrode is 
a monocrystaline sample - very unlikeyly.  4He would presumably be trapped 
in the gaps between the crystals in an ordinary sample of the metal.  The 
term "lattice" applies only to the individual crystals grains - not to the 
metal sample as a whole.  The degree of 4He trapping would depend on the 
specific detailed micro-structure of the sample.

<<
What I have yet to understand is how Chubb and Chubb avoid those dreaded 24 
MeV gammas that would surely be detectable if the 4He was formed at or near 
the surface of the PdD lattice.  
>>

As you are aware, Chubb&Chubb's theory says that the energy of the nuclear 
reaction is spread across all the deuterons and 4He ions that are 
participating in the band states.  No gamma is emitted in this process and 
it is not necessary to assume any special superabsorption phenomena. 
However, I think Chubb&Chubb leave open the possibility that lower energy 
gammas *might* be observable in cases where there is some coincident 
catastrophic change in the crystal structure.

Ed Storms's notion of superabsorption of gammas might conceivably be 
related to the the existence of an ion band state in the same way that the 
existence of the electron band states in metals relate to their lack of 
transparency to lower energy photons. That is, the existence of "bands" 
(very closely spaced energy levels over a significant range of energies) 
allow the absorption of a wide range of energies. I suppose that Ed Storms 
imagines that ion bands can have closely spaced energy levels over a 
significant portion of the gamma range.  Or that there might be suitably 
spaced gaps between bands.  But this assumption is not a necessary part of 
the Chubb&Chubb theory.

The manifestation of 4He at crystal boundries does not involve the 
generation of gammas.  The putative nuclear reaction has already taken 
place and the energy dispersed by the time the 4He is emitted at a crystal 
boundry.  It is to be thought of as a process similar to the emission of 
electrons from the surface of a metal where the electrons are initially 
described as being in a ("de-localized")** band state.  Some input of 
energy might even be required in order to provide the alpha particles (4He 
nucleus) with enough energy to "escape".  I think, however, that 
Chubb&Chubb arque that energy minimization favours ejection of the alphas 
at a relatively low velocity.

In another posting Dick Blue also wrote:
<<
As I read them, all the theories being discussed here share a common 
problem.  They start with a wavefunction having a form that simply may not 
be suited to the problem at hand.  It may well be possible to construct a 
wavefunction that will result in an apparent overlap in the position 
coordinates for two deuterons, but what does that prove if the underlying 
assumptions are not valid?  In the case of the theory of Chubb and Chubb it 
seems to go something like this.  As long as the lattice interaction 
potential is the dominant potential and the Coulomb interaction between 
deuteron pairs is "small" the usual Bloch wave fuctions are OK, but who 
says this condition can be maintained when deuterons are within the range 
of the strong interaction?
>>

Acutally, Chubb&Chubb have to rely on something more involved than just the 
fact that the lattice interaction potential is dominant.  Their discussion 
of wavefunction dimpling and double occupancy has more to do with the 
effect that the fixed periodic lattice potential has on the so called 
ground state kinetic energy attributable to the band state ions.  I think 
we can get a much clearer picture of this if we use the de Broglie/Bohm 
interpretation of QM and calculate something they call the "quantum 
potential". This is something quite different than the lattice potential 
itself. I'll have to defer further discussion of this, however, until I get 
a chance to post more of the background material on this interpretation.

 -------------------

** "de-localized"?

For me, the mystery and the confusion in Chubb&Chubb's theory has directly 
to do with what it means for any particle - electron, proton, deuteron or 
alpha, to be in a "de-localized" state.  I don't think Chubb&Chubb have 
done anything to clear up this mystery.  However, it is not really their 
fault.  The fault apparently lies with the currently popular interpretation 
of QM itself. The conventional interpretation of QM makes it very difficult 
(if not explicitly impossible) to apply our physical intuition to these 
situations.

There has been a fairly recent attempt to help our intuition by introducing 
the concept of "de-localization" but this notion contradicts the basic 
definition of a particle.  We are instructed to think of the particle as 
somehow spread-out over space in some kind of extended structure.  If this 
were really the case then the notion that the Coulomb charge is similarly 
spread-out would be easy to accept, but we know from other experimental 
data that this is not the case.

de Broglie, Bohm, et al. to the rescue: There is an alternate 
interpretation of QM that avoids these problems. No change in the 
mathematical formulation of QM is required and no essentially new results 
are directly derivable from this alternate interpretation. (Though the new 
intuitions do help to suggest were to look for new results.) Hence the the 
emphasis on the word "interpretation".  It is *not* a new theory.  The 
difference is in the mental picture (intuition) that it provides of what is 
*really* happening at the quantum level.  Bohm and Hiley like to use the 
words "ontological interpretation" to emphasize this concern with physical 
reality in contrast to the conventional interpretation which largely denies 
the possibility (and even questions the relavance) of knowning the real 
nature of quantum processes.

As an aside: It seems to me now that the conventional interpretation of QM 
actually contains a carefully choosen mental block concerning limits on 
what can be known.  Speaking sociologically or perhaps psychologically, I 
might even go so far as to suggest that the stress caused by this mental 
block has been responsible for fact that so many of the people who have 
studied quantum mechanics deeply have often seemed to go "off the deep 
end"!  Bohm himself and several others spent many years studying such 
things as Eastern religious mystism in order to try to find answers which 
were denied them during their formal education.

I don't mean to imply that religion is necessarily crazy.  I am just 
questioning its relevance to what is supposed to be essentially an 
emperical science.  None the less,  in creating the theories that support 
this emperical science I think we should be aware of the "human" aspects of 
the endeavor.  A theory should be sort-of satisfying and comfortable in the 
way classical mechanics was (and is). We desire a model in which there are 
"tangible" things like particles, fields and waves because these things 
relate to our direct experience of reality.  This has something to do with 
what we call "physical intuition". This is a fuzzy notion but it is clear 
that conventional quantum mechanics fails on this count. Statements about 
probability often defy our un-aided intuition. We have been led to believe 
that this is a necessary attribute of QM and that it is supported by 
experimental evidence, but the de-Broglie/Bohm interpretation shows that 
this is not the case!

One curious fact is that the de Broglie-Bohm interpretation is not a new 
invention.  It actually dates back to the early days of QM and was 
introduced (by de Broglie) at the same conference in which the current 
"Copenhagen" interpretation orginated (Solvay 1927). It has developed in a 
quiet way, in parallel with the currently accepted interpretation. And it 
has gained even more credibility from recent results in chaotic non-linear 
systems. In spite of this, it is not even mentioned in any of the numerous 
QM textbooks that take up so much space on my book shelves...

But this is really a subject for another posting.

Cheers,

Bill Page.

cudkeys:
cuddy16 cuden3047 cudfnBill cudlnPage cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.15 / L Plutonium /  Re: LP APOLOGIZES TO THE NOBEL FOUNDATION
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.kibology,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fus
on,sci.math,sci.chem,sci.bio,sci.physics
Subject: Re: LP APOLOGIZES TO THE NOBEL FOUNDATION
Date: 15 Jun 1994 15:17:03 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In article <CrCx7v.BL7@acsu.buffalo.edu>
bandy-s@acsu.buffalo.edu (Graviton) writes:

> WHO IS THIS LUDWIG GUY??????/ OBVIOUSLY HE HAS NO KNOWLEDGE OF
PHYSICS....AND HE IS A PATHETIC MORON...........

Instead of just saying "go to hell", I say it with flare.
Pu,PLuto, condemn the genetic soul of the person or group of persons
hiding behind the posting name Graviton above to the River Styx. PLuto
make done. ATOM
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.15 / mitchell swartz /  More on Ed Storms's superabsorbtion - 4He is manifest
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: More on Ed Storms's superabsorbtion - 4He is manifest
Subject: Re: Ed Storms's superabsorbtion
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 1994 18:01:27 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

   In  Message-ID: <9406142240.AA19596@pilot1.cl.msu.edu>
Subject: Re: Ed Storms's superabsorbtion
Richard A Blue (blue@pilot.msu.edu) writes:

= Mitchell Swartz asks me to provide proof to support a supposition
= that I did not make.  I think I made it clear that I was commenting
= of a supposition made by Ed Storms.  The point of my message was, in
= fact, to show that any supposition involving the emission and subsequent
= absorbtion of 24 MeV gammas in the PdD sample was ridiculous.  Hence
= the experimental data do not support any emission of said gammas.

   Dick Blue continues incorrect assumptions to attempt to
"prove" his point.  We thought Dick Blue was indicating that the
self-absorption of 24 MeV ionizing radiation over a micron thickness
(or thereabout) layer was  unlikely.     Although there is agreement
on that point, there remains NO evidence to support the need for the 
ionizing photon.  
   In fact, one could argue that the spin conversion required for the 
bosonic reaction does not permit emission a photon.  

    Does Dick, or any other skeptic, have any theoretical argument to 
support either their purported requirement for neutron or
ionizing photon emission?   Apparently not.

= Further on I used the word "manifest" in a way which appears to have
= sent Mitchell once more to his dictionary. 

   There goes Dick again.   I did not consult the dictionary, but 
now will.     

  ****  manifest  ******       [after Webster  ibid.]
    from L manifestus  ---  hit by the hand
           akin to infestus ---  hostile

   1) readily perceived by the senses and esp. by the sight
   2) easily understood or recognized by the mind. Obvious.

    

=  I resorted to that because
= I have not yet come to an understanding of the theory by Chubb and
= Chubb as to where and when 4He nuclei in their ground state become
= observable by normal experimental means.  My understanding of the
= current experimental situation with regard to the detection of
= 4He in conjunction with D2O electrolysis could also use an update
= if there is anyone out there who claims to understand precisely
= what is "known".

   Any c.f.-skeptic will tell you precise  (reproducible) statements 
about cold fusion.   They will however be inaccurate.            :-)


= As I now have it, Miles and Bush claim that commensurate helium
= is found in the evolved gas.  

   Near commensurate in those samples which demonstrated excess
heat.

   *****   what Miles wrote  *****
  Now for the papers in question.    More information on
this is in the COLD FUSION TIMES (volume 2, number 1; 
see also volume 1, number 3).

    At the International 
Conference on Cold Fusion (ICCF-4) there were scores of 
confirmations of nuclear and thermal products created by 
several cold fusion phenomena. These confirmations ranged in 
numerous systems including heavy water (with and without 
lithium), D2 gas, and high voltage glow discharge systems.   
Many materials have now been successfully loaded with 
deuterium.   Melvin Miles and B. Bush, of the Chemistry 
Division, Research Department Naval Air Warfare  Center 
Weapons Division China Lake, CA spoke of demonstrating 
"ash" consistent with a nuclear process, where that ash is 
helium-4.  Their high caliber research demonstrated the 
linking of helium-4 with the excess heat.   Their paper "HEAT 
AND HELIUM MEASUREMENTS IN DEUTERATED 
PALLADIUM"   has the following important excerpts. 

 "Our previous results present a correlation between the 
measured excess poser and  helium production in D2O-LiOD 
electrolysis cells using palladium cathodes.  The  measured 
rate of 4He production (10^11-10^12 4He/s*W) is the correct 
magnitude for typical  deuteron fusion reactions that yield 
helium as a product.  *****   Metal flasks were used  to collect 
the electrolysis gas samples in order to minimize atmospheric 
contamination  due to helium diffusion through glass.  The 
helium concentrations in Table II support a  detection limit of 
approximately 10^l3 4He/500 mL in these experiments as 
reported  previously.  Mean values for the measured helium 
concentrations in these control  experiments are 4.4 +/-0.6 ppb 
or 5.1 +/-0.7 x 10^l3 4He/500 mL.   ...  For experiments 
producing excess power, five helium measurements using these 
same  metal flasks have been completed. These experiments 
yield a mean value of 2.0 +/-0.5 x  1011 4He/s*W after 
correcting for background levels of helium measured in control  
studies (Table II).  This value is once again the correct 
magnitude for typical deuteron  fusion reactions that yield 4He 
as a product. "


   ****     Consider the data (after Miles et alia)
    [The 90-92 expts used Pyrex glass flasks.    The 93 expts used 
metal flasks and full consideration of atmospheric contamination.]

  first experiments: 90-91     8 with excess enthalpy (i.e. +ve)
                               yield 10^11 to 10^12 helium-4/watt-sec
  first experiments: 90-91     6  negative yield no increase  (*)

  second experiments: 92       3 +ve with increased helium
                                ave: ca. 3 x 10^11   helium-4/watt-sec

  third experiments: 93       5 +ve with increased helium
                              ave: ca. 3 x 10^11   helium-4/watt-sec
  third experiments: 93       5  negative yield no increase (*)

   [All backgrounds were subtracted to derive the incremental helium-4 
production rate normalized to power.
     The helium in the metal flask set was reportedly examined by two 
additional labs (Rockwell and Bureau of Mines).
* - background in his null experiment is at the level of
4 parts per billion.   
   The increases are linked and ca. 12 sigma above background.]
Calculation of probability of results from random errors from all
combined experiments
                     circa   1/134,000,000]



  In summary,  the 93 expts used 
metal flasks and full consideration of atmospheric contamination.
All backgrounds were subtracted to derive the incremental helium-4 
production rate normalized to power, and the helium
in the metal flask set was reportedly examined by two 
additional labs (Rockwell and Bureau of Mines).
   The increases in helium-4 are linked and are about 12 sigma 
above background.
   
Comments on that?  And what might be some implications?

   Furthermore, the active electrodes exposed radiographic films, and 
good controls were taken.  As we have posted previously here:

 =miles  "   As stated on page
 =m  108 of Reference 1, dental film studies were also conducted in H2O+LiOH
 =m  control experiments and no exposure of the films occurred.  Furthermore,
 =m  it is stated on page 109 of Reference 1 that following experiments in
 =m  D2O+LiOD failed to produce any excess enthalpy or dental film exposure.
 =m   There were a total of more than 20 studies involving dental films where
 =m   no exposure could be detected. I doubt that any journal would permit me to
 =m   fill their pages with photographs of unexposed films. There are, however,
 =m   twenty of these control films taped into my laboratory notebook. They all
 =m   look very similar to the controls shown in Figure 7 of Reference 1."

    With a Qt  of circa 23 MeV (generated per reaction of H4)
this data would put the 
ash measured within a factor of 3 of what is expected.

    Because there may not be only one pathway;
and because the material(s) absorbs 4He, this level of linked helium
production is worth considering, and in fact is compelling.  

    If you do not agree, why not?

     Best wishes colleagues, 
            Mitchell Swartz  [mica@world.std]




cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.16 / Benjamin Tilly /  cmsg cancel <2toeb5$ovi@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
     
Originally-From: Benjamin.J.Tilly@dartmouth.edu (Benjamin J. Tilly)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.kibology,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fus
on,sci.math,sci.chem,sci.bio,sci.physics
Subject: cmsg cancel <2toeb5$ovi@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Date: 16 Jun 1994 02:47:25 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH, USA

cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenTilly cudfnBenjamin cudlnTilly cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.16 / Benjamin Tilly /  Re: LP APOLOGIZES TO THE NOBEL FOUNDATION
     
Originally-From: Benjamin.J.Tilly@dartmouth.edu (Benjamin J. Tilly)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.kibology,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fus
on,sci.math,sci.chem,sci.bio,sci.physics
Subject: Re: LP APOLOGIZES TO THE NOBEL FOUNDATION
Date: 16 Jun 1994 02:48:37 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In article <CrCx7v.BL7@acsu.buffalo.edu>
bandy-s@acsu.buffalo.edu (Graviton) writes:

> WHO IS THIS LUDWIG GUY??????/ OBVIOUSLY HE HAS NO KNOWLEDGE OF
PHYSICS....AND HE IS A PATHETIC MORON...........

#1) He is a dishwasher at the Hanover Inn. Since Dartmouth College owns
that inn, he is indirectly an employee of Dartmouth College. Given
computing policies here he therefore has the ability to post basically
anything that he wants to. He is not one who believes in letting his
rights rot away with disuse...

#2) Fewer capitals please.

Ben Tilly
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenTilly cudfnBenjamin cudlnTilly cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.16 / Robert Heeter /  Conventional Fusion FAQ Section 7 - Educational Opportunities - Draft
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Originally-From: Geoff Maddison, geoff.maddison@aea.orgn.uk
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Conventional Fusion FAQ Section 7 - Educational Opportunities - Draft
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 1994 02:53:40 GMT
Date: Sat, 26 Feb 1994 18:44:05 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

7. Educational Opportunities in Fusion Research
* This FAQ deals with conventional fusion only, not Cold Fusion. *

This is a draft only and is not to be copied or cited at this time.

Second Draft - April 15 ,1994
Written by Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@theory.pppl.gov, unless
otherwise cited.

***  Note: Answers in this section are biased towards Americans;
          I'd appreciate input from people in other nations to
          make this section as applicable as possible. 

***  Note #2:  These answers are by no means complete or final;
          I'm hoping y'all will contribute what you know and
          help me out!

***********************

Undergraduate/Graduate Opportunities: 

***  A.  What opportunities are there for interested students?

     * Undergraduate Opportunities:

Unfortunately, fusion research is a relatively small field, 
so most colleges and universities do not have much in the 
way of either plasma or fusion research.  

Exceptions:

In the United States (in no particular order):
     Caltech, UCLA, Wisconsin-Madison, MIT, Texas-Austin, 
     Princeton, Maryland, Iowa, Auburn, Columbia, 
     Washington (Seattle) and probably some other schools 

In Germany - the Universities in:  
     Munich, Juelich, Bochum, Berlin, Stuttgart, Augsburg, and 
     Greifswald.

Most Russian research is done in Moscow, Leningrad, and Novosibirsk.

(help with other countries, anyone??)

     
There are, however, undergraduate summer research programs 
(primarily for students who've completed their junior year) in 
both Europe and the United States (details on these programs
are appended).  One can also become involved in fusion / plasma
research through summer programs offered at the various U.S.
National Laboratories (particularly Livermore, Los Alamos,
and Sandia; possibly Oak Ridge?). Finally, it's also possible 
to do summer research at the schools which do research, provided
you find a way to make the right connections.


     * Graduate Opportunities:  

The summer program offered in Europe is targeted for beginning 
graduate students (perhaps more so than advanced undergraduates); 
see below for details.

The schools listed above which pursue fusion / plasma research 
also have graduate programs; there are other schools as well.  
There are several fellowships available to provide financial 
assistance, as well.  (I could really use a couple addresses here, 
so people know where to go to get the important information.  
Help anyone???)


***  B.  I'm an undergraduate interested in becoming a "fusioneer".  
         What should I study?

Basic Answer:  

     Fusion researchers come to the field from a number
of different disciplines, because the field is small and young
and no school has a major in "fusioneering" or "plasma physics".  
For undergraduates, a major in physics, astrophysics, or 
electrical engineering would provide a perhaps the best 
background for studying plasma physics.  Nuclear and mechanical
engineering are also viable options, particularly if your interest
lies more in reactor design and engineering.  At this point the
majority of graduate opportunities are on the plasma physics side,
though this may change as the science evolves and (we hope) more
reactor engineers are needed.

My opinion is that it is more important to look for research
opportunities relevant to the field, and the choice of major
is a little less important.


***  C.  What sorts of experiments are there for high-school
         students?  How can I get the equipment?  Has anyone
         else done this?

     While there are few fusion experiments that would be feasible
at the high school level, there are a number of interesting
possibilities for plasma physics experiments.  (There are 
people here at PPPL, and probably elsewhere, who can provide
demos and/or assist in developing experiments; if anyone 
is interested in this, let me know and I'll pursue this further.)

     There are a couple simple plasma demonstrations which
would probably be feasible.  If one has access to a microwave
oven, one can simply insert a sealed tube containing some sort
of gas (such as a fluorescent light bulb), and then run the
microwave.  The microwave radiation will ionize the gas, 
forming a microwave plasma discharge, if the circumstances 
are right.  (This may not be all that good for the microwave,
however.)  

     An easy way to observe the confining effects of a magnetic
field would be to build a fairly large magnetic coil (fields
of around 30 gauss will give a nice effect) and run a fluorescent
light inside.  (The Helmholtz configuration, where the coil
radius is equal to the coil separation, gives a fairly uniform
magnetic field in the region between the coils, and would be
better than a solenoid since it would make it easier to see
inside.  Moving the coils away from each other will generate
a magnetic mirror configuration, which also has some interesting
physics to it.)  This will be best if you can see inside the
fluorescent bulb, instead of just seeing the phosphor glow from
the glass tube.

     If one has access to a vacuum pump and a high voltage (2000 V)
power supply, it is also possible to build a glow discharge tube
instead of using the fluorescent light bulb.  Air will give
a pretty discharge, but helium and neon and argon are also 
interesting.


***  D.  What about those summer programs you mentioned above?

I am currently aware of two major plasma/fusion summer programs.

* 1.  The National Undergraduate Summer Fellowship in Plasma Physics 
and Fusion Engineering (NUF) is a competitive U.S. program, 
primarily aimed at those completing their junior year in college.  
A one-week short course (at Princeton, in June) kicks off 
the program, followed by several weeks of research at various 
sites nationwide.  There is a substantial stipend ($4000 or so) 
and travel expenses up to $1000 are covered.  The application
deadline was Feb. 22 of this year, and will probably shift 
around next year.  

For further information, contact nuf@pppl.gov (Diane Carroll).

* 2.  There is also a Plasma Physics Summer School offered at 
Culham in England (where JET is located).  Here is a posting
on the program from Geoff Maddison, and some comments from
others on the program.

Originally-From: Geoff Maddison, geoff.maddison@aea.orgn.uk
Date: Sat, 26 Feb 1994 18:44:05 GMT
>
>      T H E   3 1 s t   C U L H A M   P L A S M A   P H Y S I C S
>      ###########################################################
>
>                       S U M M E R   S C H O O L
>                       #########################
>
>                   1 1   -   2 2   J U L Y   1 9 9 4
>
>         C u l h a m   L a b o r a t o r y,   A b i n g d o n,
>                     O x f o r d s h i r e,   U K
>
>
> An International Summer School intended  for students near 
> the  start of postgraduate courses.  No previous knowledge of 
> plasma physics  is assumed.  Since 1985,  the Summer School series  
> has been attended by over 600 students from 47 countries, more 
> than two thirds coming from outside the UK.
>
> Culham Laboratory is the primary centre for plasma physics & 
> nuclear fusion research in the UK; it is located close to the 
> city of Oxford, and  shares  a  site   with  the   world's  
> largest  magnetic  fusion experiment,  the  Joint  European  
> Torus   (JET).
>
>               The School covers a broad curriculum :-
>
> * Plasma particle dynamics   * Plasma waves  * Kinetic theory   
> * MHD * Computational techniques  * Astrophysical plasmas   
> * Laser plasmas * Magnetically confined plasmas    * Solar plasmas
> * Poster session * Space plasmas * Laboratory visits * Industrial 
> plasmas * Turbulence & chaos * Diagnostics * Gravitational plasmas
>
> A copy of the course textbook "Plasma Phyics: An Introductory
> Course" (Cambridge University Press, 1993)  is given to each
> student.
>
> ACCOMMODATION WILL BE IN A HISTORIC COLLEGE OF OXFORD UNIVERSITY.
>
>            CLOSING DATE FOR APPLICATIONS:  13th MAY 1994
>
>   (Late applications may be accepted, depending on accommodation.)
>
> Further details / application forms are available from :-
>
>      Mrs Joan Stimson,
>      Culham Laboratory,
>      Abingdon,
>      Oxfordshire  OX14 3DB,              Tel: 44 235 463293
>      UK.                                 FAX: 44 235 463288
>
> or e-MAIL enquiries to:  geoff.maddison@aea.orgn.uk
>

Commentary:

* From David Pearson, University of Reading, 1988 (?) attendee:

Dear Internet,

Yes, go to the Culham Summer School if you can - but read some
basic textbooks (or a textbook) first, if you are a beginner.
The Summer School is excellent, but I doubt if many people are
smart enough to plunge straight into it without knowing some
plasma physics first - I certainly wasn't.

* Note by Robert F. Heeter:  

The Culham program appears to be intended for students making 
the transition from undergraduate to graduate work.  The flyer 
I saw indicated that it was about twelve days long (two weeks 
of classes and a weekend in the middle), and the cost was 
on the order of 750 pounds sterling, including housing.



*** E.  When/where are the major fusion conferences?

** Major Annual Conferences:

The following is a list of some major annual conferences, including
(where I have the information) the sponsoring organization, the 
name of the conference, the typical abbreviation for the 
conference, the season when the conference is held, size of 
the conference, and some comments.  (The current list was 
provided by Art Carlson; I've reformatted it somewhat.)

* American Physical Society Division of Plasma Physics:
Annual Meeting. (APS, or APS-DPP).  Fall. About 1500 contributors. 

Largest and probably most important conference, covers all of 
plasma physics.

* European Physical Society:
European Conference on Controlled Fusion and 
... Plasma Physics (odd years) 
... Plasma Heating (even years) 
(EPS). Summer. About 500 contributors. 

The European equivalent of APS, covers all of plasma physics.

* International Atomic Energy Agency: 
International Conference on Plasma Physics and Controlled 
Nuclear Fusion Research. (IAEA). Fall. Attendence restricted. 

Politically important.

* Symposium on Fusion Technology (SOFT). Summer.

* International Conference on Plasma-Surface Interaction (PSI). 
Summer. 

Lots of surface physics and technology.

* International Sherwood Fusion Theory Conference 
(Sherwood). Spring. 

Probably the most important fusion _theory_ conference.
(From the secret code name for the original US fusion program.)


** A few dates of upcoming fusion-related conferences.
(dates European style, dy/mo/yr)

23-27/5/94
11th Int. Conf. on PLASMA-SURFACE INTERACTIONS IN CONTROLLED 
FUSION DEVICES. 
Mito, Japan

6-8/6/94
Conf. on PLASMA SCIENCES
Sante Fe, New Mexico, USA

27/6-1/7/94
21st Eurp. Conf. on CONTROLLED FUSION AND PLASMA PHYSICS
(This is the European equivalent of APS.)
Montpellier, France

11-22/7/94
31st Culham Summer School in Plasma Physics
Culham, UK

22-26/8/94
18th Symposium on Fusion Technology (SOFT)
Karlsruhe, Germany

26/9-1/10
15th IAEA Int. conf. on PLASMA PHYSICS AND CONTROLLED NUCLEAR 
FUSION RESEARCH
Madrid, Spain

7-11/11/94
Meeting of the AMERICAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY--DIVISION OF PLASMA PHYSICS
Minneapolis, MN, USA

2-7/7/95
22nd European Conf. on CONTROLLED FUSION AND PLASMA PHYSICS
Bournemouth, UK




***************************
Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University
As always, I represent only myself, and not PPPL
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.13 / Jeremy Reimer /  Re: LP APOLOGIZES TO THE NOBEL FOUNDATION
     
Originally-From: jaguar@claw.wimsey.com (Jeremy Reimer)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.kibology,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fus
on,sci.math,sci.chem,sci.bio,sci.physics,sci.psychology
Subject: Re: LP APOLOGIZES TO THE NOBEL FOUNDATION
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 94 02:06:05 PST
Organization: World Domination, Inc. Headquarters, Vancouver BC

In article <2tds4s$a12@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth
edu (Ludwig Plutonium) writes:

[stuff deleted-- beabliciously]

>  A thought experiment-- if Adolf Hitler had been sent to most any
>shrink in Germany before WW2, his papers would have come out as
>"saint", to any shrink after the war, all of them would have analyzed
>him as "devil or demon".

I dunno.  I personally think most shrinks after the war would have
analyzed Adolf "Shickelgruber" Hitler as just plain dead.

(much like this thread, in fact)

--

Jeremy "OS/2ibo" Reimer

Completely uninvolved in the Imminent Death of the Net since 1989.

"This is the snobbery of the people on the Mayflower looking down
 their noses at the people who came over ON THE SECOND BOAT!"
                  - Mitch Kapor, on Usenet elitism
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenjaguar cudfnJeremy cudlnReimer cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Thu Jun 16 04:37:05 EDT 1994
------------------------------
1994.06.16 / Tom Potter /  Why palladium?
     
Originally-From: tdp@condor.ic.net (Tom Potter)
Originally-From: dschnei@aol.com (DSchnei)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Why palladium?
Subject: Why is palladium is used in CF experiments?
Date: 16 Jun 1994 04:31:42 GMT
Organization: ICNet ... The Innovative Concepts Network ... Your Link to the Internet

Originally-From: dschnei@aol.com (DSchnei)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Why is palladium is used in CF experiments?

>Is there a working hypothesis about the importance of the element
>palladium itself in CF experiments?  I have some ideas I would like
>to work on.
>David Schneider

-- This is a repost of a previous failed (?) attempt to post. -

Dave, as you perhaps know, palladium has more "electrons" in its outer
shell ( 10 ) than any other element. As the volumes of all atoms are about
the same, this means that an atom of palladium can bring togeather more
positive charges ( Protons ) than any other atom. ( By having positive ions
permeate the palladium. ) Increasing the number of positive charges within
a volume increases the probability of fusion.

The creation of helium nuclei from protons and neutrons would provide the
greatest "energy gain". This means that two protons and a couple of
neutrons must be brought togeather at the same point in space-time.

It seems to me that magnetic moments play a more important role in
configuring "fusion systems" than charge. Atoms tend to minimize charge,
whereas nuclei tend to minimize magnetic moments.

The use of palladium helps with the charge repulsion problem but does
nothing about the magnetic moment problem. I think that a properly
designed, hot or cold, fusion system would be more concerned with the
dynamics of creating a minimum magnetic moment at some point in space-time
rather than trying to overcome charge repulsion by brute force.

Tom Potter:          Angular displacement - the final frontier!


cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudentdp cudfnTom cudlnPotter cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.16 / Roger Smith /  Re: LP APOLOGIZES TO THE NOBEL FOUNDATION
     
Originally-From: roger@cs.curtin.edu.au (Roger Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.kibology,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fus
on,sci.math,sci.chem,sci.bio,sci.physics,sci.psychology
Subject: Re: LP APOLOGIZES TO THE NOBEL FOUNDATION
Date: 16 Jun 94 11:20:08 GMT
Organization: Curtin University of Technology

n9245804@henson.cc.wwu.edu (sasha keinemann) writes:

< snip snip snipity snip - much wonderous waffle deleted - >

>>Computer Science were to teach only hardware, since software was just
>>workings of hardware. Well, yes, somehow, but it has entirely different
>>theories, rules, and scientific implications. And, say, your programs
>>could not care less if they were running on a processor with 0.6 um
>>structures or not), a lot of scientific branches have their own right
>>in spite of being really subbranches.

>Goodard would paddle your tail for that thought!  The truly-subbranches 
>have NO right to be on their own.  Computer Science should logically be 
>renamed Computer Engineering and Computer Coding, with a joint sub-branch 
>entitled Gestalt Computing.  This would form a workable form our college 
>students could follow for centuries to come, rather than the monolithic 
>structure currently extant.

>>Computer Science is mostly a subbranch of mathematics (especially that
>>CS which we in Germany call Informatik), electrical engineering of
>>physics, biology of chemistry, chemistry again of physics, and so on.
>>All those branches were once thought subbranches of philosophy, and
>>really this makes sense when you think about it.

Oh, come on! If you people want to go saying stuff like this, then I will
have to retort (totally ingnorantly) and say:

Why are you people spending billions of dollars trying to show what happens
to plasma when you palce in in situations of extreme discomfort (at least,
I imagine that being held in a magnetic containment field, or being shot at
with a 30 million mega-watt laser, or trillion watt particle beam, would
not be a comfortable experience!). OK, so what, the world accepts that you
are correct, you can get ignition if you spend a few more billion - BIG
DEAL!

By the time you figure out how to do it for real (and put something back
into the grid!!!) in maybe 60, or 70 years from now - it will be TOO LATE
!!! -- NO ONE WILL CARE ANYMORE -- because if you people - YES YOU PEOPLE
-- our champions of natural science -- don't do something more productive
than sit at your piddly computer terminals and crap on about this stuff, we
are going to be in DEEP SHIT!

Cold Fusion is a complete joke, about as scientific asastrology, but 
hot fusion is wasting money, and even more importantly, time. GET OFF YOUR
FAT ARSES AND DO SOMTHING ABOUT IT !

Sorry about that! 

Respectfully,

Roger Smith roger@cs.curtin.edu.au 
--
===============================================================================
Roger William Smith             | "Heavier than air flying machines are imposs-
School of Computer Science,     |  ible"..................(1895),
Curtin University of Technology | "Radio has no future"...(1897),
Perth, Western Australia        | "X-rays are a hoax" ....(1900).
e-mail: roger@cs.curtin.edu.au  | Lord Kelvin's gems of wisdom.(Williams,1987).
===============================================================================

cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenroger cudfnRoger cudlnSmith cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.16 / Dieter Britz /  A decisive (?) experiment
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: A decisive (?) experiment
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 1994 13:05:45 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway


One of the problems with 'cold fusion' is that claims are made that cannot be
verified, nor disproved. A clear disproof would be of interest. I think I
might have thought of an experiment that would come close to settling one
issue.

The issue is that of the quiet absorption of tens of MeV of energy, e.g. from
the supposedly favoured 4He branch which normally yields 24 MeV emissions.
The CNF propagandists say that this is 'somehow' absorbed as heat, and it's
up to the skeptics to prove that this is impossible. They have to resort to
the special conditions of the palladium deuteride to make this plausible. A 
lot of their credibility hinges on this argument.

Now, if one did an experiment, beaming muons at a target of deuterated Pd, 
this would cause dd fusion in that material, at a higher rate than is claimed
by the propagandists. They do assume dd fusion, and the conditions would be
the same, so the same sort of quiet absorption of the emission should happen,
i.e. there should be no neutrons, no protons, no tritons (to speak of); only
4He enrichment at a level that ought to be easy to detect. So if one did this
and detected all the usual heap of neutrons etc, this would invalidate the 4He
model of 'cold fusion'. If one detected 4He only, this would be a sock to the
jaw of the skeptics.

Anyone out there, with access to muon beams, interested?
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.16 / Bill Page /  Re: Fusion via Bose condensation of D+ ions
     
Originally-From: 70047.3047@compuserve.com (Bill Page)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion via Bose condensation of D+ ions
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 1994 13:32:51 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Continuing my comments on Chuck Sites recent article:

[Have any of you Readers out there noticed that my style of writing seems 
to have changed in the last several postings?  I re-read a few and I think 
my manner has become too "preaching", too self-assured.  Or is my writing 
always like that?  I hope not.  When I state "such and such is so" in a 
flat statement, it really needs to be prefaced with something like "To the 
best of my knowledge, having done a serious job of researching the 
question, but with an open mind ... etc.".  So if any of you find what I am 
saying or the way I am saying it to be irritating, please drop me a message 
or just assume that I forgot to add the appropriate caveats.]

Ok, my last comments to Chuck were on the subject of terminology.  Now we 
get to the more important stuff.

Chuck writes:
<<
             4 pi V    2
    d N = 2 -------- p    del p  = g_s      
                3
               h 

Now your probably wondering why I'm bring up this material on Plank's black 
body radiation. It has nothing to do with the question of fusion in a D+ 
bose condensate.  Ahh but it does.  Look at the last equation. What we have 
escribed is a way to divide up the 'phase space' (the coordinate space and 
the momentum space) into units of h^3 for particles with a momentum of p to 
p + del p for a spatial volume V.  Now here is an interesting point.  One 
can not define a partition of phase space smaller than h^3!  This comes 
about from the Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, where del p del q ~ h. 
Any further partition would be meaningless.  I bring this up now, because 
later
you will see 'gs' again.
>>

I am not sure of the significance of the above relationship.  What is going 
to be your position with respect to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle?  It 
seems to me that saying that "a partition of phase space smaller than h^3 
is meaningless" is not going to be strong enough to serve as the basis for 
arguing that two deuterons will necessarily be sufficiently close for a 
sufficiently long time.  Heisenberg's principle appears to me to be more of 
a statement about what we can measure rather than a "physical mechanism" 
per se.  Of course there are other positions on this.

<<
... When the particle's wave function in momentum space overlaps 
constructively, it allows the exchange the particles position in space and 
an enhanced probability to interact.
>>

I'd like to hear more about wavefunction overlap in momentum space.  I 
still have a lot of trouble talking about things like "the exchange of the 
particles' position" at the same time that we are talking about 
wavefunctions.  I don't think the usual interpretation of QM allows such 
statements except in a metaphorical sense.  Are you really talking about 
the exchange terms in the N-body wavefunctions?

<<
Bernecky's premise is based loosely on sphere packing.  When the 
temperature modified deBroglie wave begins to overlap and drops below a 
certain critical value, this is when the effects of condensation should be 
seen.

...

Now, if we treat this as an ideal gas via the Boltzmann relation, 

     E = (3/2) k T                                               [1.6] 

where k = Boltzmann's constant, and T=degrees Kelvin, and equate [1.5] to 
[1.6] and solve for T, we get the general relationship,

                2
               h              This gives the Bernecky high 
     T = --------------       temp condensation relationship.    [1.7]
                  2                  
           3 m k a 
     
>>

I think the speculation was not so much that the temperature had to be 
below a certain critical value, but rather that there were "resonant 
temperatures", i.e. certain critical temperatures based on integer 
multiples of the average de Broglie wavelength implied by Boltzmann's 
relation and the uncertainty principle.  I don't understand the sense in 
which Bernecky's speculation was based on "sphere packing".

<<
... Calculating through, I get: 44.18K.  Clearly something is wrong with 
this picture.  The lambda transition for He4 for ordinary liquid to 
superfluid is 2.2K, so working backward to find the particle spacing I get 
8.55 angstrom. 4.5 times the radial diameter of the He4 atom (electrons 
orbitals included). The spatial extent of the deBroglie wave (the momentum 
spread) is quite large.  Huge infact!  
>>

I really don't understand what you are trying to say here. "spatial extent 
of the de Broglie wave"?  "the momentum spread"?  I don't understand the 
use of these terms.  Are we talking about wavefunctions, or more 
accurately, wave packets?  I guess I need it spelled out for me in more 
detail.

----------

We that's it for section 1 and 2 (The Partition ...). The next section is 2 
(Approaching the condensation ...) - there seem to be two section 2's.  I 
know we still haven't got to the interesting part but I've got to run - 
earn a living - you know how it is.  But I'll get back to this ASAP.

[Dear Readers and Chuck:  What do you think about this kind (and level) of 
questions and comments?  Are we accomplishing anything here?  Or should I 
just go away for a while and read a few more text books, especially on 
statistical quantum mechanics?]

Cheers,

Bill Page.

cudkeys:
cuddy16 cuden3047 cudfnBill cudlnPage cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.17 / Bill Page /  Why is palladium used in CF experiments?
     
Originally-From: 70047.3047@compuserve.com (Bill Page)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Why is palladium used in CF experiments?
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 1994 00:15:03 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

DSchnei writes:

>Is there a working hypothesis about the importance of the element
>palladium itself in CF experiments?  I have some ideas I would like
>to work on.
>David Schneider

Dave, as you perhaps know, palladium has more "electrons" in its outer 
shell ( 10 ) than any other element. As the volumes of all atoms are about 
the same, this means that an atom of palladium can bring togeather more 
positive charges ( Protons ) than any other atom. ( By having positive ions 
permeate the palladium. ) Increasing the number of positive charges within 
a volume increases the probability of fusion.
>>

Yes, I know what you find in a table of electronic configurations of the 
elements, but are you real sure about the chemistry?  I think the situation 
is considerably more complicated than you suggest.  For example, why does 
Pd have two possible oxidation states?  You might also note that Pd is not 
the greatest absorber of hydrogen (deuterium) though it is fairly high on 
the list.

Please let us know your references.

Cheers,

Bill Page.

cudkeys:
cuddy17 cuden3047 cudfnBill cudlnPage cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.16 / Robert Heeter /  Conventional Fusion FAQ Section 8 - Internet Resources
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Conventional Fusion FAQ Section 8 - Internet Resources
Date: 16 Jun 1994 18:58:20 GMT
Organization: Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory

8. Internet Resources
* This FAQ deals with conventional fusion only, not Cold Fusion. *

While this section is not yet complete, it should be useful to
many people, and I encourage you to distribute it to anyone who
might be interested (and willing to help revise it!!!).

Third Draft - June 16,1994
Written by Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@theory.pppl.gov, unless
otherwise cited.


*** A. Newsgroups:  
     sci.physics.fusion (unmoderated)
     sci.physics.plasma (moderated)                


*** B. Anonymous FTP Sites:
     vm1.nodak.edu (134.129.111.1) 
          This site has the complete archive of
          the sci.physics.fusion newsgroup, from its inception.

          In particular, this FAQ is (will soon be) archived here.

          To log in:  use the username anonymous, type your
          email address as the password, and then type "cd fusion"
          to get to the fusion directory.  Beware: the index is
          large!  To download something enter "get" and then
          the name of the file you want.

     neutrino.nuc.berkeley.edu 
          Here you can find fusion-related GIF images.
          As for vm1.nodak.edu, log in anonymously, then cd to
          the directory /pub/fusion, and "get" what you want.


*** C. LISTSERV:
     vm1.nodak.edu also works as a listserver:

          "You get a (large) index of the archives by sending 
          an email to listserv@vm1.nodak.edu, with a blank 
          SUBJECT line, and the "message" 'index fusion'. To get 
          any one of these files, you then send to the same address
          the message, e.g., "get fusion 91-00487", etc, according 
          to what you're after."
            -- quoting Dieter Britz, BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk

          * This FAQ should soon be available via the listserver.


*** D. Gopher:

     * Garching (Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics): 
          The host is uts.ipp-garching.mpg.de (Port: 70)
          Or, from the top:  Gopher -> Europe -> Germany 
             -> Information Servers in Germany 
             -> MPI fuer Plasmaphysik Garching-Gopher
             (and, if you like, -> IPP Information)

          According to Art Carlson at Garching:
             "It's probably not very useful, since most of the info, 
             press releases and the like, is in German.  There is 
             other *great stuff* on the computer, like drawings 
             of ASDEX-Upgrade and time schedules, but it's not 
             publicly available (as far as I know)."

     * University of Texas - Austin:

          Gopher -> North America -> USA -> Texas
            -> University of Texas Austin Fusion Studies

          This gopher server has a variety of material regarding 
          physics and fusion, including archives of the periodic 
          status reports for TFTR, Alcator C-Mod, and TEXT-U.
          This is also accessible via Mosaic with the URL 
          gopher://hagar.ph.utexas.edu/1, I believe.

     * Anything else out there?


*** D. World-Wide Web:

     * The Princeton Plasma Physics Lab has a mosaic/WWW page,
          which is available with the URL address:

                http://harrier.pppl.gov/homepage.html

          This WWW document contains information about the lab, 
          the projects at the lab, general information about 
          fusion, a bunch of color pictures, and links to 
          other fusion and energy research labs.  (Some of the
          the information in the homepage has been used in this FAQ.)

     * Anything else out there?


*** E. Individuals Willing to Provide Additional Information

Many of the participants on sci.physics.fusion are conventional/hot
fusion researchers.  Many names and email addresses are to be found 
as sources for various slices of the FAQ, and so on.  (See the 
acknowledgements for a more-or-less complete list of contributors.)

A few people have expressed a willingness to serve as sources for
people seeking additional literature, such as laboratory reports, 
pamphlets, and assorted other documents.  What follows is a short 
listing:

* Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@lyman.pppl.gov 
	- Graduate Student at Princeton - 

	I have the FAQ, all sorts of archived postings and additional
	information used to generate the FAQ, a bunch of PPPL literature, 
	a set of quicktime movies made from television coverage of the 
	TFTR D-T runs (and GIFs from the QT movies), and access to just 
	about anyone here at PPPL who would have something I don't have.

The draft FAQ now exists as a stand-alone, self-running Macintosh
document roughly 300K in size; I will be happy to send it to
anyone who wants the FAQ in this (more convenient!) form.

* Joe T. Chew, jtchew@lbl.gov
	- Physicist at Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory -

	"I've also got a variety of pamphlets put out by this or that 
	lab or agency over the years; feel free to give out my address 
	as a source for photocopies of such things."



******************************************************************
* Robert F. Heeter                #include PithyQuotation.h      *
* rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu  #include StdDisclaimer.h       *
******************************************************************
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.16 / Jim Carr /  Re: Why palladium?
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Why palladium?
Date: 16 Jun 1994 13:35:12 -0400
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

In article <2tokk0$2b3@condor.ic.net> 
tdp@condor.ic.net (Tom Potter) writes:
>
>It seems to me that magnetic moments play a more important role in
>configuring "fusion systems" than charge. Atoms tend to minimize charge,
>whereas nuclei tend to minimize magnetic moments.

This is a gross oversimplification. 

Just to give one example, this would argue that the deuteron should 
have spin zero rather than spin one.  

-- 
 James A. Carr   <jac@scri.fsu.edu>     |   "It's never confusing though, 
      http://www.scri.fsu.edu           |  because ultimately it all fits 
 Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst.  |  -- it's just cockeyed and fits  
 Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306    |  and is fire."  -  Norman Maclean 
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.16 /  gateway
 /  Advanced Physics R&D Report S.A.F.E.-94-107
     
Originally-From: gateway
Originally-From: Bozhena Bidyuk <bbidyuk@bonnie.ics.uci.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Advanced Physics R&D Report S.A.F.E.-94-107
Date: 16 Jun 94 20:52:04 GMT
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 1994 13:51:48 -0700

                                               June 13, 1994
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 1994 13:51:48 -0700
Originally-From: Bozhena Bidyuk <bbidyuk@bonnie.ics.uci.edu>

   Discussion of Rosenbluth's Impossibility Proof for SSC

                      Bogdan C. Maglich
                Advanced Physics Corporation
                4199 Campus Drive, Suite 680
                      Irvine, CA 92715
               E-mail: mark@beamlab.ps.uci.edu


1. Introduction

  A   recent  paper  by  Rosenbluth [1] offers a  scientific
justification   for   Congressional  cancellation   of   the
Superconducting Super Collider (SSC).  He derives a  general
formula  for the particle storage time, tau (also  known  as
the   particle   confinement   time)   for   strong-focusing
colliders.   His result shows that, if SSC were  built,  its
tau would have negative sign.  Negative particle confinement
time implies a non-physical solution.  In practice, it means
an  intrinsically  unworkable machine,  i.e.,  a  scientific
impossibility.

2. The formula

  Rosenbluth's Equation (3) for proton storage time is

tau=(10^15) x (T^1.5) x 1/n x Ln(1/theta)=A x Ln(1/theta),  (1)

where  T= kinetic energy (MeV), n= particle  density  in
collider ( cm^-3) and  theta is the vertical "loss  cone"
angle given by:
                      theta=2 x rho'/L .                    (2)

Here  rho'= gyroradius of the orbit at the maximum value of
Bz,  and L= vertical displacement Zmax required to reach
maximum value of Bz.  For SSC, rho=7x10^5 cm and L=1  cm
which gives a negative quantity,

             tau=A x Ln(1.4) x 10^(-6)=(-2) x A < 0.        (3)

3. Derivation

  Eq.  (1)  was  derived  from  that  of Miyamoto [2], which
assumes: (a) adiabatic, fluid-like orbits  rho << Rcollider;
(b) particle orbits stick to the magnetic flux lines and are
confined by them; (c) zero magnetic field gradients, i.e., a
non-focusing system (zero vertical and horizontal  restoring
forces); (d) particle change their direction solely  through
diffusion,  i.e.,  via accumulation of  multiple  scattering
effects  only.  Rosenbluth applied it to a  strong-focusing
collider  with  (e) large radius,  rho=Rcollider,  highly
rigid,  nonadiabatic orbits; (f) particle orbits cut  across
the  magnetic  flux  lines and are confined  by  the  vector
potential   surfaces;  (g)  magnetic  field   gradients   of
100%-1000%;  (h)  particle diffusion is  suppressed  by  the
focusing  medium.  The author proposes  physical  similarity
between  the two systems, so: (a)~(e), (b)~(f), (c)~(g)  and
(d)~(h).  The only restriction to Eq. (1) is that the  ratio
of  the  horizontal to vertical component  of  the  particle
momentum, Pr  and  Pz, must satisfy

                      Pr/Pz < rho/L .                    (4)

For SSC, Pr/Pz < 10^7; rho'/L~10^6, hence the  condition (4)
is satisfied.

4. Application to other proton storage systems

  Rosenbluth  did  not check his formula  against  presently
operational particle storage systems. From the point of view
of his plasma physics calculation, all relativistic and non-
relativistic, weak or strong focusing systems  should  have
non-physical confinement time (Table I).

 Table I:  Confinement times in focusing particle storage devices,
                predicted by Rosenbluth vs. observed

  System      Rela-  Focus- 2rho'  L      tau        tau
             tivistic ing   (cm)  (cm)  predicted  observed
____________________________________________________________
10 MeV          no   weak    100   10  negative      3
cyclotron

1 MeV Self-     no   weak     14   13  negative     23
Collider
Migma IV

1 GeV LANL      no  strong   400   10  negative     0.1
Proton Ring

25 GeV ISR     yes  strong  3x10^4  4  negative     10^7
CERN

1 TeV          yes  strong   10^5    3  negative    10^7
Fermilab


5. Ramifications

  Rosenbluth's  result, that all focusing particle  systems,
accelerators and storage rings are non-workable  might  have
significant economic ramifications. If it had been available
timely  (in  the  1930's), it would have saved  billions  of
dollars  to  the  US  government  and  other  industrialized
nations  for  it  would have prevented the  construction  of
hundreds of expensive accelerator laboratories over the past
half-century.
  It  is plausible that, as they learn of the Equation  (1),
all  particle accelerators and colliders would suddenly stop
working,  which, in turn, will bring savings to the  federal
budget.  Then, they may be replaced by the ultimate  machine
known  as  ETHER  (Ether-nal Energy Reactor) which  confines
zero-radius  particles in a safe, old-fashioned (pre-1930's)
way  and  is  free from any unsavory tricks such  as  strong
focusing  which  is  based  on  the  principle  of  inverted
pendulum_who has ever used an inverted pendulum  anyway  and
what for?

References
_______________________________
1.M.  N.  Rosenbluth, Loss Cone Estimates. UCSD Report (June
  2, 1994).
2.K.  Miyamoto,  Plasma  Physics  for  Nuclear  Fusion  (MIT
  Press, Cambridge, 1989) p. 110.
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.17 / Richard Blue /  Reply to Mitchell Swartz on 4He data
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Reply to Mitchell Swartz on 4He data
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 1994 00:15:27 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

-ms- "NO evidence to support the need for the ionizing photon..."

If we take as given that we are considering a reaction process in
which 2 deuterons fuse to form a 4He nucleus with the release of
roughly 24 MeV there is a finite set of physical processes that may
be reasonably considered as part of any "explanation" as to how
this process relates to cold fusion.  The long-standing problem
for cold fusion believers is to devise a means for transforming the
energy release to lattice heat without it ever being observable
more directly.  The approach most physicists take to this is to
work from our knowledge of reaction processes as observed under
other conditions, assume a general unity of the science that
governs such processes, and to seek to apply established knowledge
to the specific case at hand in a systematic and rational manner.
Mitchell Swartz does not accept that as a valid approach.  He
seems to assume that there are no constraints which can be placed
on cold fusion processes  until there is proof that any given
specific bit of knowledge applies to this specific case.

If I were to try to "prove" something to Mitchell relating to
the emission of ionizing radiation following the fusion of two
deuterons I suppose I would have to start with some basic quantum
mechanics, conservation laws which apply to nuclear transitions,
and a review of the very extensive body of experimental data
relating to nuclear transitions within solid lattices.  That
obviously is just a waste of time as far as Mitchell is concerned.
There have been earlier attempts which he just brushes aside.
It is, however, instructive to note what alternatives have been
offered as explanations for the lack of ionization radiation.

The notion seems to be that there exists a large number of nuclear
states for the 4He system such that a cascade of transitions through
those states can occur with many small energy releases via coupling
to phonons.  No one has ever demonstrated that such a cascade occurs.
No one has ever described the spectrum of intermediate states or
explained how a two level quantum system gets transformed into a
multilevel system.  And no one has ever offered a clue as to what
keeps the available energy from being released through some simpler,
more direct and much more rapid decay process.  If it is energetically
possible for an excited 4He nucleus to emit a proton, a neutron, or
a gamma why shouldn't it do so?  Normally that is considered a proof
that ionizing radiation will be emitted.

-ms-  "In fact one could argue that the spin conversion required for
-ms-  the bosonic reaction does not permit emission (of) a photon."

What is this supposed to mean?  In the real world two deuterons can
fuse to form 4He which decays via the emission of an E1 photon.
Spin conversion, whatever that may mean, does not prevent this from
happening.  The emission of a proton or neutron is significantly
more likely to be the decay process, however, so you don't really
need much of an excuse for saying photon emission is unlikely.  I
suppose this is a weak attempt to make reference so somebodies theory,
but it certainly does not connect to any established physical
principles.

Mitchell then quotes extensively from the Miles-Bush results and
asks for comments.  Let us note that Miles and Bush seem to acknowledge
that the use of glass flasks in their earlier experiments may have
resulted in possible contamination of gas samples due to 4He diffusion
through the glass.  Their more recent experiments made use of metal
flasks to contain and transport the gas samples.  That is clearly
an improvement in experimental technique, but it follows that the
earlier results that may have been subject to contamination should
not be used as evidence in any subsequent discussion on the 4He
production question.  Do you agree, Mitchell?

In order to determine the expected 4He production rate one must first
have a model which specifies what fraction of the energy release becomes
available for heating.  Mitchell makes that explicite by his statement,
"Because there may not be only one pathway, and because the material(s)
absorbs 4He...."  That I take as an admission that one really does not
know how much helium should be produced.  It then makes little sense to
assert that the correct amount of helium has been detected.  The Miles-
Bush statement must be seen as only the roughest sort of quantitative
connection.

It thus comes down to only five runs in only one laboratory from which
one is supposed to conclude that 4He is this major product of cold fusion.
I remain rather confused as to whether Miles and Bush have claimed to
have observed ionizing radiation along with the heat/helium observations.
Mitchell reports lots of null results using dental X-ray film packs for
radiation detection, but I thought I had heard that M-B have now reported
positive results when a GM tube is used for radiation detection.  I
don't think we have a situation where it is appropriate to call these
results "compelling evidence" for cold fusion or the special version
that makes 4He the primary reaction product.  It really ought to be
possible to obtain a similar confirming result for the 4He production
 in a closed system experiment such as those done by McKubre.  It
should be possible to confirm the presence or absence of electromagnetic
ionizing radiation in time correlation with heat production and to record
the energy spectrum of such radiation.  It should be possible to
confirm or exclude the possibility that tritium is also produced in
cold fusion reactions at the same time that helium, radiation, and heat
are being produced.  When these things have been done we can reexamine
the question of "compelling evidence", but for now it does not seem
to exist.

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.17 / Richard Blue /  RE: Theory for 4He production
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: Theory for 4He production
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 1994 00:15:29 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

In reply to Bill Page I think we are now getting some confusion between
what has been asserted by Chubb and Chubb in print, what I have received
in private communications, and what Bill has picked up from other sources.
I am not sure that I can sort all this out so let me just comment on various
points that Bill has raised.

Bill says there are other groups reporting observations of 4He in evolved
gasses.  To limit confusion on this point can we restrict the discussion
specifically to experiments involving the electrolysis of heavy water?
If one series of CF experiments using that method is said to produce
helium as the principle product that result should also apply to all
other experiments employing the same method, but I am not so sure about
making a connection to glow discharges or ultrasound.  What I would like
to see is a replication of the Miles-Bush correlation between heat and
helium production in a really first rate experiment.  We certainly know
that it is possible to find helium where you do not expect it and it is
certainly possible to confuse D2+ ions with 4He+ ions in a mass spectrograph.
A zillion crummy experiments do not prove anything beyound the fact that
it is easy to do crummy experiments.  With that in mind, Bill, what are
the confirming experiments to which you refer?

Now back to theory, specifically the Chubb and Chubb approach where there
remains some question as to how helium gets to be helium as we know it.
This question may make more sense within the context of an exchange
of messages between Scott Chubb and I.  I have been troubled by a certain
vagueness in the Chubb description of the transition process which takes
us from the deuteron band state to the helium band state.  It was within
that context that I think I learned that the phonon coupling required
to deexcite the helium without the emission of photons can take place
only at grain boundaries.  (I understand that grain boundaries do not
correspond only to the external sample of the surface, but that raises
certain other problems.)  What I would like someone (you, Scott Chubb, or
anyone) to specify with some detail the intermediate states with regard
to the internal nuclear coordinates that are involved in the transition
process.

When ever we get into these discussion about energy being spread across
all deuteron and 4He in the band state, my eyes start to glaze over.
Is not that just the energy that corresponds to the center-of-mass
motion of the said particle?  What happens to the internal nuclear
energy?  Something gets lost in the Born-Oppenheimer coordinate
separation, and I have been unable to get anyone to state clearly
what they are doing with the nuclear coordinates in the problem.
You must certainly realize that the band state description does not
cover everything.  This system is NOT like the electrons!
So I have yet to see anyone describe what happens when two overlapping
deuterons become 4He.  For example, is or is not the newly formed
state degenerate in energy with the state described by the overlap
of two deuterons in the band state?  In short when does the energy
release take place?  Scott Chubb seems to think it can't be done
directly between the two band states, and hence the desire to move
the helium formation to the grain boundaries.

You make some assertion that there are "closely spaced energy
levels over a significant range of energies."  This bugs me, too!
What are these energy levels and where do they come from?  Again
we have to remember the Born-Oppenheimer separation.  When you
write a band wave function what coordinates does that include?
I would hark back to elementary quantum perturbation theory.
I think that if I start with two states in 4He separated by
24 MeV it takes one heck of a perturbation to turn that into
a million energy levels filling that whole energy spread more
or less uniformly.  How do you think it happens?  Write me
a wavefunction that looks like that with ALL the coordinates
specified.

What all this has to do with Ed Storms and superabsorbtion
is certainly not clear.  He was simply waving hands by saying
that the nuclear transition goes as "normal" with the emission
of a single photon, but that the magic gets invoked at that
point to absorb all those photons.  I say that has to be pure
BUNK!  You then confuse my rendering of the Scott Chubb theory
with an old notion that the nuclear energy release occurs via
a cascade through numerous levels.  You say "The putative
nuclear reaction has already taken place and the energy
dispersed by the time the 4He is emitted."  That is not the
picture I get from Scott Chubb, but neither of you are
being very specific about this.  That is why I have taken to
using such phases as "when the helium is manifest."

This may be linked to the issue of "delocalization" which, as
you point out, contradicts the basic definition of a particle.
That is my feeling as to one reason the solid state types are
screwing up when it comes to describing a nuclear transition.
You can write wavefunctions for deuterons in some form of band
state without ever touching the nuclear internal coordinates.
You do likewise with the 4He, but making a transition from
deuterons to 4He requires some operations on the internal
nuclear coordinates that somehow have never gotten into the
problem.  That is why I keep asking when do two deuterons become
a 4He and when is the energy released?  If you have your
deuterons delocalized and your 4He delocalized how do you get
the energy out?  That certainly requires that 4 nucleons get
together.  If you just have somekind of nuclear soup with nucleons
everywhere, getting them to do just one thing seems highly
improbable.

Do you really take any of this seriously?  It seems to me that
it lacks a certain sort of credibility.  There is just a bit
too much ad hoching to try to come up with a theory that matches
some data.  Then, of course, the existance of a "theory" is
used to justify some of the strange inconsistancies that show
up in the data.  If you believe that there truly are a whole
bunch of intermediate energy states, why doesn't some helium
around the edges return to "normal" behavior sort of half way
through the transistion process?  If you could give me even a
sketch as to what these intermediate states are like, I would
then ask how they couple to phonons.

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.16 / Robert Heeter /  WWW/Mosaic Page for PPPL Now Available!
     
Originally-From: rfheeter@pppl.gov (Robert F. Heeter)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: WWW/Mosaic Page for PPPL Now Available!
Date: 16 Jun 1994 14:25:42 -0400
Organization: /etc/organization


The Princeton Plasma Physics Lab now has an html document describing
the lab, its projects, fusion in general, and lots of other related 
topics.  Anyone with Mosaic or another World-Wide Web program can 
access this lab info via the URL 

http://harrier.pppl.gov/homepage.html

(I believe.)

The homepage also has links to the homepages of related DOE offices
and several other labs around the country.


**********************
Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@theory.pppl.gov
Graduate Student, Princeton Plasma Physics Lab
* This is not an official PPPL announcement. *

cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.16 / Ad aspera /  FYI 85-86, June 16, 1994 (Brown's fusion bill)
     
Originally-From: JTCHEW@lbl.gov (Ad absurdum per aspera)
Newsgroups: sci.research,sci.physics.fusion,sci.energy
Subject: FYI 85-86, June 16, 1994 (Brown's fusion bill)
Date: 16 Jun 1994 21:06:26 GMT
Organization: Relayed, not written, by Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory


[Written by individuals at the American Institute of Physics and
merely posted by me, so respond to <fyi@aip.org> or other
references below.  Always posted here on sci.research; sometimes
crossposted to an eclectic selection of other newsgroups, with
followups directed here. Back issues may be ftp'd from NIC.HEP.NET,
along with PHYSICS NEWS UPDATE and the American Physical Society
news/opinion column WHAT'S NEW; or from pinet.aip.org. Enjoy! -jc]

Brown Introduces Fusion Energy Authorization Bill

FYI No. 85, June 16, 1994

"If we want to pursue the potential of fusion, we need to
understand that it will be largely at government expense, and it is
likely to require a sustained investment for decades to come."  --
Rep. George Brown

With his introduction on June 9 of H.R. 4553, the Fusion Energy
Research Authorization Act of 1994, House science committee
chairman George Brown (D-California) once again leads the debate
over government funding for science and research, with the proposal
of a new type of funding mechanism for construction of major fusion
facilities.

Research on fusion as an energy source is performed within the
Department of Energy.  In recent years, the funding has been
accompanied by congressional directive to focus the magnetic fusion
program on the Tokamak Physics Experiment (TPX), to be built at
Princeton, and the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor
(ITER), a collaborative effort among the US, Russia, Japan and the
European Community that is currently in the engineering design
phase, with site selection yet to be worked out.

However, the U.S.'s record for maintaining the commitment to fund
such large projects is questionable.  "To meet the justified
international concern about the ability of the United States to
meet its long-term financial commitments to international
scientific projects," Brown proposes establishing "a special trust
fund to pay for the United States' contribution to the design and
construction of ITER and associated facilities, as well as the
Tokamak Physics Experiment."  The fund would be financed by a fee
on electricity generation.  Estimated to raise $300 million a year,
the fee would expire when sufficient funds had been raised to pay
the US share of the project.

Although "fees are not popular," Brown says, he "included this
provision to begin what is a needed public debate: how do we get
out of our perpetual year-to-year financing bind and get on with
the job of providing secure multi-year funding for essential
facilities that serve a critical public purpose?  How can we
demonstrate our credibility to a skeptical world scientific
community and show that the United States can be a reliable
international partner in scientific cooperation?  How do we finance
the high-risk research needed to develop new sources of energy for
the next century?  A fund like the one proposed here may be a
solution."

Brown also recognizes the potential for political disputes over the
siting of ITER.  The bill calls for selection of the host country
by the international partners "before DOE begins an expensive,
politically contentious and perhaps unnecessary site competition in
the United States."  He advises, "It is important for us to
understand the economic and technological benefits that will accrue
to the United States even if ITER is not built in this country."

Further details of the bill are provided in FYI #85.


###############
Public Information Division
American Institute of Physics
Contact:  Audrey T. Leath
fyi@aip.org
(301)209-3094
##END##########





Provisions of Brown's Fusion Energy Bill

FYI No. 86, June 16, 1994

As reported in FYI #84, House science committee chairman George
Brown (D-California) has introduced a bill authorizing the
Department of Energy's Fusion Energy Program through fiscal year
1997.  (As an authorizing, rather than appropriating, committee,
the House science committee can only approve programs and recommend
funding, but cannot provide funds.)

The current year's appropriation for the fusion energy program is
$343.6 million (adjusted.)  A small portion of that funding, $4.0
million, goes toward inertial confinement fusion research; the
majority of funding is for magnetic fusion research.  The
President's fiscal year 1995 request for the total program is
$372.6 million.

Brown's bill authorizes $380.0 million for fiscal year 1995, $425.0
million for fiscal year 1996, and $475.0 million for fiscal year
1997 for fusion energy research.

H.R. 4553 contains provisions for (1) program direction for the
fusion energy research program; (2) U.S. commitment to the
completion of the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor
(ITER); (3) a process for siting ITER that will hopefully eliminate
some political controversy; and (4) a trust fund, supported by a
fee on electricity-generating utilities, to provide the U.S.
contribution to ITER design and construction.

In introducing the bill, Brown responded to criticism that the
magnetic fusion program has been narrowed to include only the
tokamak concept. "Given the limited resources available to the
fusion energy research program," he said, "the focus of DOE's
program on tokamaks is understandable."  The bill precludes
appropriations for any magnetic fusion facility other than TPX or
facilities associated with ITER.

Brown does, however, "share the concern that promising alternative
fusion technologies are not getting adequate support."  The bill
provides a separate line item authorization for alternative (other
than magnetic) fusion research, and establishes a separate program
office for alternative fusion technologies (including, but not
exclusively, inertial confinement fusion.)  In particular, it
authorizes the R&D needed for the Induction Linac Systems
Experiment for heavy ion inertial fusion energy.  Within the total
fusion energy budget, it would approve $26.0 million for
alternative fusion technologies in fiscal year 1995, and $31.0
million in each of the years 1996 and 1997.

Funds would not be approved for ITER construction until Congress
receives a final cost report and an international agreement is made
that meets the bill's requirements.  The National Academy of
Sciences is directed to review and evaluate existing fusion
concepts, with the goal of commercial viability.  The bill also
instructs DOE to work more closely with DOD to enhance the civilian
energy applications of the defense program, and establishes a
University Radiation Science and Technology Program from existing
DOE programs.


###############
Public Information Division
American Institute of Physics
Contact:  Audrey T. Leath
fyi@aip.org
(301)209-3094
##END##########
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenJTCHEW cudfnAd cudlnaspera cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.16 /  Graviton /  Re: LP APOLOGIZES TO THE NOBEL FOUNDATION
     
Originally-From: bandy-s@acsu.buffalo.edu (Graviton)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.kibology,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fus
on,sci.math,sci.chem,sci.bio,sci.physics
Subject: Re: LP APOLOGIZES TO THE NOBEL FOUNDATION
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 1994 18:19:53 GMT
Organization: UB

Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium) writes:

>In article <CrCx7v.BL7@acsu.buffalo.edu>
>bandy-s@acsu.buffalo.edu (Graviton) writes:

>> WHO IS THIS LUDWIG GUY??????/ OBVIOUSLY HE HAS NO KNOWLEDGE
OF PHYSICS....AND HE IS A PATHETIC MORON...........

>Instead of just saying "go to hell", I say it with flare.
>Pu,PLuto, condemn the genetic soul of the person or group of persons
>hiding behind the posting name Graviton above to the River Styx. PLuto
>make done. ATOM

Dude you are not only a moron ..... you don't even know how to write
properly. Your flames don't even make sense. Next time try to write
things which somebody else will understand. Okay????? We all knew
your knowledge of physics is almost zero but now we know that you are
absolutely devoid of any grey matter in your brain. I guess you should
go back to your dishwashing business............

  
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudens cudlnGraviton cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.16 / Chuck Sites /  Re: Fusion via Bose condensation of D+ ions
     
Originally-From: chuck@iglou.iglou.com (Chuck Sites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion via Bose condensation of D+ ions
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 1994 23:01:28 GMT
Organization: The Internet Gateway of Louisville, KY

70047.3047@compuserve.com (Bill Page) writes:

>Continuing my comments on Chuck Sites recent article:

>[Have any of you Readers out there noticed that my style of writing seems 
>to have changed in the last several postings?  I re-read a few and I think 

Thanks for being so nit picky Bill... (haha just kidding).  It is sometimes
hard to express just what is going on when a material undergoes Bose 
condenses.  It implies 'delocalization', 'uncertainty','degeneracy' 
and a slew of other terminologies.  I'm very comfortable with wave/particle
duality. From my experience Max Born's interpretation seems just as valid
David Bohm's.  I need to make this message brief, (I'm a bit press for time
and won't be able to get to my terminal for a day or so). 
   
>Chuck writes:
><<
>             4 pi V    2
>    d N = 2 -------- p    del p  = g_s      
>                3
>               h 

>Now your probably wondering why I'm bring up this material on Plank's black 
>body radiation. It has nothing to do with the question of fusion in a D+ 
>bose condensate.  Ahh but it does.  Look at the last equation. What we have 
>escribed is a way to divide up the 'phase space' (the coordinate space and 
>the momentum space) into units of h^3 for particles with a momentum of p to 
>p + del p for a spatial volume V.  Now here is an interesting point.  One 
>can not define a partition of phase space smaller than h^3!  This comes 
>about from the Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, where del p del q ~ h. 
>Any further partition would be meaningless.  I bring this up now, because 
>later
>you will see 'gs' again.
>>>

>I am not sure of the significance of the above relationship.  What is going 
>to be your position with respect to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle?  It 
>seems to me that saying that "a partition of phase space smaller than h^3 
>is meaningless" is not going to be strong enough to serve as the basis for 
>arguing that two deuterons will necessarily be sufficiently close for a 
>sufficiently long time.  Heisenberg's principle appears to me to be more of 
>a statement about what we can measure rather than a "physical mechanism" 
>per se.  Of course there are other positions on this.

What is really fasinating is when one see's the uncertainty principle 
demonstrated before your very eyes. I was recently looking at some 
new electron microscopes that work in the single KeV range. Normal ones
are in the 10's to 100's of Kev.  The new low voltage scopes are pretty  
hot technology in the field right now because they can look at bacteria
without destroying the cell.   Anyway, It's amazing how fuzzy these picture
are.  Normally one is used to very sharp pictures with electron microscopes.
Then you realize, it's the uncertanty principle at work.  What is happening
from the Born way of looking at things is that at low energies the wave 
packet describing the electrons position has spread out.  It doesn't matter
how fine your focusing magnets are.  When the electron hits the surface 
and 'localizes' leaving it's finger print, it could be anywhere within 
the constraints of wave packet spread and the probability amplitude 
of the packet.  The out come is, it causes the picture to be fuzzy.
                           
[Much latter...]

>[Dear Readers and Chuck:  What do you think about this kind (and level) of 
>questions and comments?  Are we accomplishing anything here?  Or should I 
>just go away for a while and read a few more text books, especially on 
>statistical quantum mechanics?]

I find it very interesting myself.   Just whish I had the time to get to the 
other points.   Prehaps this weekend.  It's fasinating material.      

>Cheers,

>Bill Page.

Have Fun,  (As I run out the door)
Chuck Sites
chuck@iglou.iglou.com

cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.16 / C Harrison /  Re: A decisive (?) experiment
     
Originally-From: harr@netcom.com (Charles (Chuck) Harrison)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A decisive (?) experiment
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 1994 23:46:18 GMT
Organization: Fitful

In article <01HDM4C6NQPU9BX4U8@vms2.uni-c.dk>,
Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk> wrote:
[...]
>
>Now, if one did an experiment, beaming muons at a target of deuterated Pd, 
>this would cause dd fusion in that material, at a higher rate than is claimed
>by the propagandists. They do assume dd fusion, and the conditions would be
                                                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>the same, so the same sort of quiet absorption of the emission should happen,
 ^^^^^^^^

If the alleged "propagandists" knew how to repeatably create the conditions,
everybody's task would be simpler.  This proposed "critical experiment"
relies on being able to create the special conditions (e.g.
Chubb & Chubb band state) _before_ turning on the muons.

I don't see how this one could make a definitive negative...the crux
of the problem you're addressing.


>i.e. there should be no neutrons, no protons, no tritons (to speak of); only
>4He enrichment at a level that ought to be easy to detect. So if one did this
>and detected all the usual heap of neutrons etc, this would invalidate the 4He
>model of 'cold fusion'. If one detected 4He only, this would be a sock to the
>jaw of the skeptics.
[...]

-Chuck Harrison, keeper of wais://sunsite.unc.edu/cold-fusion (Britz biblio)
                        wais://sunsite.unc.edu/fusion-digest (s.p.f archive)
>Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk >Kemisk Institut, Aarhus
Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.


cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenharr cudfnCharles cudlnHarrison cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Fri Jun 17 04:37:05 EDT 1994
------------------------------
1994.06.17 / Gary Steckly /  hydrosonic pump, SL and "CF" magazine
     
Originally-From: gsteckly@dgim.doc.ca (Gary Steckly)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: hydrosonic pump, SL and "CF" magazine
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 94 02:41:24 GMT
Organization: Communications Canada


I just picked up the June issue of "Cold Fusion" magazine and was quite
interested in Jed Rothwell's account of the excess energy production of the
hydrosonic pump created by Hydro Dynamics Inc. in Georgia.

I couldn't help but wonder about what appears to be a developing common
factor in many of these unusual effects associated with things like this
amazing pump, sonoluminescence and yes, even Stanley Meyers amazing
electrolysis cell.  Here is another device that generates anomolous heat
under conditions where the water is agitated ultrasonically.

What is it with water that when it is subjected to either acoustic or
electrostatic agitiation in the ultrasonic kHz range that these strange
effects keep popping up? It seems you either get heat that you can't come
close to accounting for, or the water molecules split with
apparent disregard for the laws of physics and chemistry or these
mysterious light pulses appear.  

Another intersting reference in this magazine that sort of relates to this
was in Gene Mallove's review of the various "wild and wooly theories" that
have been put forth recently to explain CF.  It seems that Julian
Schwinger "apparently viewed sonoluminescence as a manifestation of a
'dynamical Casimir effect'" Maybe Stanley Meyer's hypothesis about ZPE
being the force behind his over-unity electrolysis isn't all that far fetched?

Congratulations to the publishers of "Cold Fusion" magazine on another
great issue, full of thought provoking articles.

Gary
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudengsteckly cudfnGary cudlnSteckly cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.16 / Robert Heeter /  Conventional Fusion FAQ Section 5 - Research Devices - Draft
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Conventional Fusion FAQ Section 5 - Research Devices - Draft
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 1994 16:27:50 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

5. Status of and plans for Present Devices: (Give references!)
* This FAQ deals with conventional fusion only, not Cold Fusion. *

This is a draft only and is not to be copied or cited at this time.

Second Draft - June 16, 1994
Written by Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@theory.pppl.gov, unless
otherwise cited.


*** Notes:

* All of the devices listed here (should) have entries in
the glossary.  This section is not intended to repeat the
basic descriptions of each machine, but rather to give some
current information on the operational status and research
program being pursued on the machine.

* Jargon terms in this section are, or at least should be,
defined in the glossary. ***

* So far I have only extracted the glossary entries for
the various machines.  Anyone care to help add info? ***

* Entries are alphabetical. Budgets are FY 1994 US $$ ***


*** A.  ATF:  (Advanced Toroidal Facility)  

Reversed-field pinch machine at Oak Ridge National Lab (ORNL)
Current Budget:  $4.9 million.
(Status anyone???)


*** B.  Alcator C-Mod: 

Mid-sized tokamak at MIT.
Current Budget:  $14.5 million

Currently investigating advanced plasma configurations and
divertor operation. (? Paul Stek? Steve Fairfax?)


*** C.  ASDEX-U:  (Axially Symmetric Divertor EXperiment-Upgrade) 

Mid-sized tokamak at the Institute for Plasma Physis, Garching,
Germany.
Current Budget: (?)

ASDEX-Upgrade is the first tokamak whose toroidal and poloidal field 
coils are not linked, which will be a necessary design factor in a 
reactor.  It will achieve parameters at the edge which are very 
similar to those needed for a power reactor. - Arthur Carlson


*** D.  CDX-U: (Current Drive Experiment-Upgrade)

[[ Information here adapted from the PPPL WWW/Mosaic page on CDX-U ]]

Small low aspect-ratio tokamak at the Princeton Plasma Physics Lab
Current Budget:  About $500,000

CDX-U is a small tokamak used to study advanced tokamak ideas,
which have included non-inductive methods of current drive, 
100%-bootstrap current tokamak plasmas, and low-aspect ratio 
plasma stability and performance.  It is also used as a flexible 
testbed for advanced plasma diagnostics.


*** E.  DIII-D:  (Doublet III, D-shape)

Medium-large tokamak operated by GA Technologies (formerly 
General Atomic) in San Diego.  (Second largest in U.S., after TFTR)
Current Budget:  $44.6 million

Looking at enhancing plasma confinement by modifying the shape of
the plasma.  (More info, anyone??)


*** F.  Electrostatic Confinement:

Studied with some success in the 1950s and 1960s, this concept
has recently been resurrected as a student research project 
at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.  (I think!  Anyone
at Madison care to clue me in?  Anyone else doing EC?)


*** G.  FT-U: (Frascati Tokamak)

Mid-sized tokamak located in Italy - more info anyone?


*** H.  ITER: (International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor)

Current Budget (US branch only): $62.2 million

Currently in the engineering design phase.  For more information
see Section 9: Future Plans.


*** I.  JET: (Joint European Torus)  

World's largest tokamak, in Oxfordshire, England, commonly owned 
by the European Community. 
Current Budget: ??

Has been undergoing modifications since achieving 1.7 MW of fusion
power with a 10% tritium fuel mixture in 1991.  
(See Section 6: Recent Results)

Current plan is to test advanced divertor operation (and other
advanced physics operation?), followed by 50-50 D-T fuel experiments
in 1996 or so.  (Help from anyone at JET?  Stephen Cooper?)


*** J.  JT-60: (Japan Tokamak (?)) 

Large tokamak located north of Tokyo in Japan.
Current Budget: ??  (including workers?)

JT-60 achieved the world's highest temperatures in 1993, and
also the best combined plasma parameters (triple product).


*** K.  MFTF:  Mirror Fusion Test Facility:  

Large mirror machine at Livermore, CA.
Current Budget:  $0.

MFTF has been mothballed since constrution was completed in
1980 (1986?).  (Budget cuts/political reasons/lack of prospects.)


*** L.  Muon-Catalyzed Fusion 

Muon-catalyzed fusion has yielded the best power out/power in
ratio of any approach to controlled fusion, but strong theoretical
arguments suggest that muon catalyzed fusion can go no further.
Some research is still underway in hopes of overcoming the
theoretical obstacles.  (See section on Muon-Catalyzed Fusion
in Section 4.)

(more info, anyone?)


*** M.  NIF:  (National Ignition Facility)

Inertial-Confinement Fusion Facility proposed to be built
at Livermore and operational around the year 2000.  See 
Section 9 on Future Plans for more information.


*** N.  NSTX: (National Spherical Tokamak eXperiment)

Mid-sized low aspect-ratio tokamak / spheromak experiment
proposal; still in design phase / not funded.  See Section 9 
on Future Plans for more information.


*** O.  Nova:

The United States' largest laser (ICF) fusion facility, at LLNL.  
Current Budget: ??

(I don't know what the state of Nova research is.  Any help from
LLNL researchers?)


*** P.  PLASMAK(tm): 

Spheromak-type pulsed device in Maryland, USA.
Current Budget: ??

Paul M. Koloc posts occasionally to let us know what he's up to.
As I understand it, they are making progress towards a 
proof-of-concept experiment.  PLASMAK is oriented towards the
proton-Boron aneutronic advanced fuel.  For more information
on the Plasmak concept, see Section 4.


*** Q.  PBX-M:  (Princeton Beta Experiment-Modified)

Mid-sized tokamak at Princeton, formerly PDX. 
Current Budget:  $ 2.7 million

PBX-M is being used to investigate advanced tokamak configurations,
including the second-stability high-beta regime, and thus also
plasma and pulse shaping for enhanced confinement.  PBX-M operations 
are on hold for fiscal year 1994 because of the DT operations 
on TFTR.  PBX-M has a budget request of $8.2 million to resume 
operation in FY 1995.


*** R.  RFX:  (Reversed-Field eXperiment)

Largest Reversed-Field Pinch presently operating; in Padova, Italy.
Budget: ??

RFX is planned to reach a plasma current of 2 MA.
(Emilio Martines, martines%pdigi3.igi.pd.cnr.it)
(Could you provide some more information now, Dr. Martines?)


*** S.  START:  ( * * Aspect-Ratio Tokamak ?)

Small, Very low aspect-ratio tokamak at Culham in England
Current Budget: ??

START is unique (?) among current tokamaks in that it has 
never experienced a plasma disruption.  This may represent
an advantage of low aspect-ratio operation.  

(More info, anyone?)


*** T.  TCV: (Variable Configuration Tokamak - in French) 

New tokamak located in Lausanne, Switzerland
Current Budget:  ??

"The TCV device (from "Variable Configuration Tokamak" in French)
is a new tokamak (first plasma Nov. 1992) designed to study the 
effects of plasma shaping on tokamak performance.  The geometry 
is R = 0.88 m, a = 0.24 m, with a design maximum elongation 
of k = 3, and current of Ip = 1.2 MA." 
     - David Ward, ward@crppsun.epfl.ch


*** U.  TEXTOR:  

Mid-sized (?) tokamak in Germany - I need more info!
(Currently doing divertor studies???)


*** V.  TEXT-U:

Small tokamak at the University of Texas-Austin
Current Budget:  ??

I'm not sure what TEXT-U is up to these days.


*** W.  TFTR:  (Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor)  

Large tokamak at Princeton.
Current Budget:  $75.4 million

TFTR was the first machine to use the 50-50 mix of D-T fuel, and
as a result is the current world's record holder in fusion energy
production.  TFTR is the largest tokamak in the United States,
but will be decommissioned at the end of 1994 when D-T operations
are completed.  TFTR will be allowed to cool off (to reduce the
radioactivity) for a year, and then decommissioned to make room
for TPX, according to the current plan.
  

*** X.  TPX: (Tokamak Physics Experiment)  

Large tokamak; smaller successor to TFTR at Princeton.  
Current Budget:  $19.3 million

TPX is intended to study advanced physics and technology issues.
Engineering design is underway; construction is scheduled to begin 
in FY 1995.  (Budget will rise to $66.9 million.)  See Section
9 on Future Plans for more information.


*** Y. Tore Supra:  

Large tokamak in Cadarache (southern France).  
Current Budget: ??

Tore Supra is the second largest tokamak in Europe, and uses 
superconducting magnets to achieve long plasma pulses.  Tore 
Supra has a circular cross-section (like TFTR), which limits the
achievable confinement time and experimental flexibility.  In 
addition to developing superconducting technology, it 
concentrates on the physics of long pulses and advanced
ergodic (space-filling) magnetic limiters.

(Could anyone provide me with more information?)


*** Z.  Wendelstein-7AS:  (Advanced Stellarator) 

Large (?) stellarator in Garching, Germany.
Current Budget: ??

Pursuing advanced stellarator physics in competition with the
tokamak design.  Currently attempting to minimize neoclassical
effects such as the bootstrap current; uses non-planar magnetic
coils, as an alternative to linked coils.  



***************************
Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University
As always, I represent only myself, and not PPPL
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.17 / mitchell swartz /  Reply to Dick Blue on 4-He data
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Reply to Dick Blue on 4-He data
Subject: Reply to Mitchell Swartz on 4He data
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 1994 14:19:54 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

    In Message-ID: <9406162010.AA23002@pilot1.cl.msu.edu>
Subject: Reply to Mitchell Swartz on 4He data
Richard A Blue (blue@pilot.msu.edu) writes:

    -ms- (The skeptics -- who unfortunately ignore the compelling results
          to only concentrate on ad hominem and other
          attacks have produced by their claimed 'proofs' absolutely)
           "NO evidence to support the need for
           the ionizing photon..."  (in this specific case of fusion in a solid)

=DBLUE If we take as given that we are considering a reaction process in
=DBLUE which 2 deuterons fuse to form a 4He nucleus with the release of
=DBLUE roughly 24 MeV there is a finite set of physical processes that may
=DBLUE be reasonably considered as part of any "explanation" as to how
=DBLUE this process relates to cold fusion. 

      OK.  But the construct of 'simple' 2 deuteron fusion may be
left-over thinking from beam
experiments.   
    In contrast, these reactions in the cold fusion phenomena
do occur in the saturated (low atomic weight interstitial) solid state. 

=DBLUE  The long-standing problem
=DBLUE for cold fusion believers is to devise a means for transforming the
=DBLUE energy release to lattice heat without it ever being observable
=DBLUE more directly.  The approach most physicists take to this is to
=DBLUE work from our knowledge of reaction processes as observed under
=DBLUE other conditions, assume a general unity of the science that
=DBLUE governs such processes, and to seek to apply established knowledge
=DBLUE to the specific case at hand in a systematic and rational manner.
=DBLUE Mitchell Swartz does not accept that as a valid approach.  He
=DBLUE seems to assume that there are no constraints which can be placed
=DBLUE on cold fusion processes  until there is proof that any given
=DBLUE specific bit of knowledge applies to this specific case.

    More hogwash from Dick Blue who should try some science
and some honesty.
      As I've posted in the past, unlike Dick
Blue and certain other skeptics,  our theories require conservation of energy, 
conservation of momentum, conservation of angular momentum, 
conservation of spin.   
   These and other conservation rules
and boundary conditions impose constraints .
   Given Dick's more free-wheeling approach to science that
ignores physics results and attempts to substitute conjecture,
obviously offering any support to Dick 
appears to have been a serious mistake.                   ;-)    


=DBLUE If I were to try to "prove" something to Mitchell relating to
=DBLUE the emission of ionizing radiation following the fusion of two
=DBLUE deuterons I suppose I would have to start with some basic quantum
=DBLUE mechanics, conservation laws which apply to nuclear transitions,
=DBLUE and a review of the very extensive body of experimental data
=DBLUE relating to nuclear transitions within solid lattices.  That
=DBLUE obviously is just a waste of time as far as Mitchell is concerned.

   Ad hominems instead of science shows the paucity of your knowledge
Dick as you fall back to old habits.    Also, there goes that two-photon
beam thinking again.   

=DBLUE The notion seems to be that there exists a large number of nuclear
=DBLUE states for the 4He system such that a cascade of transitions through
=DBLUE those states can occur with many small energy releases via coupling
=DBLUE to phonons.  No one has ever demonstrated that such a cascade occurs.
=DBLUE No one has ever described the spectrum of intermediate states or
=DBLUE explained how a two level quantum system gets transformed into a
=DBLUE multilevel system.  And no one has ever offered a clue as to what
=DBLUE keeps the available energy from being released through some simpler,
=DBLUE more direct and much more rapid decay process. 

   Good point.   Deserves some thought in part.    However,
as to the purported rapid decay process, consider the impact of 
selection rules which accrue from the conservation conditions cited
above and below.

=DBLUE   If it is energetically
=DBLUE possible for an excited 4He nucleus to emit a proton, a neutron, or
=DBLUE a gamma why shouldn't it do so?  Normally that is considered a proof
=DBLUE that ionizing radiation will be emitted.

     -ms-  "In fact one could argue that the spin conversion required for
      -ms-  the bosonic reaction does not permit emission (of) a photon."

=DBLUE What is this supposed to mean?  In the real world two deuterons can
=DBLUE fuse to form 4He which decays via the emission of an E1 photon.
=DBLUE Spin conversion, whatever that may mean, does not prevent this from
=DBLUE happening.  The emission of a proton or neutron is significantly
=DBLUE more likely to be the decay process, however, so you don't really
=DBLUE need much of an excuse for saying photon emission is unlikely.  I
=DBLUE suppose this is a weak attempt to make reference so somebodies theory,
=DBLUE but it certainly does not connect to any established physical
=DBLUE principles.

    Dick is incorrect.   Spin forbidden reactions preserve us from
atmospheric oxygen, which given its ubiquity and electronegativity
can create serious (free radical) problems.    If molecular oxygen
was not in its triplet state the reactions would occur spontaneously.
Similarly, nuclear selection rules rule. 

=DBLUE        "Spin conversion, whatever that may mean"


    Sometimes your revealing comments make me think this is a 
waste of time and energy dealing with you.   Hopefully some serious
individuals follow this.    Dick,  you should absolutely
try to read some papers - on spin conservation and physical 
principles in general   and cold fusion in specific.


=DBLUE Mitchell then quotes extensively from the Miles-Bush results and
=DBLUE asks for comments.  Let us note that Miles and Bush seem to acknowledge
=DBLUE that the use of glass flasks in their earlier experiments may have
=DBLUE resulted in possible contamination of gas samples due to 4He diffusion
=DBLUE through the glass.  Their more recent experiments made use of metal
=DBLUE flasks to contain and transport the gas samples.  That is clearly
=DBLUE an improvement in experimental technique, but it follows that the
=DBLUE earlier results that may have been subject to contamination should
=DBLUE not be used as evidence in any subsequent discussion on the 4He
=DBLUE production question.  Do you agree, Mitchell?

   That is true.  But it was accounted for in the experiment.   The laboratory
used semiquantitative techniques to correct for the diffusion
into/from/through  the glass.   Have you read the papers yet?


=DBLUE In order to determine the expected 4He production rate one must first
=DBLUE have a model which specifies what fraction of the energy release becomes
=DBLUE available for heating.  Mitchell makes that explicite by his statement,
=DBLUE "Because there may not be only one pathway, and because the material(s)
=DBLUE absorbs 4He...."  That I take as an admission that one really does not
=DBLUE know how much helium should be produced.  It then makes little sense to
=DBLUE assert that the correct amount of helium has been detected.  The Miles-
=DBLUE Bush statement must be seen as only the roughest sort of quantitative
=DBLUE connection.
=DBLUE It thus comes down to only five runs in only one laboratory from which
=DBLUE one is supposed to conclude that 4He is this major product of cold fusion.
=DBLUE I remain rather confused as to whether Miles and Bush have claimed to
=DBLUE have observed ionizing radiation along with the heat/helium observations.
=DBLUE Mitchell reports lots of null results using dental X-ray film packs for
=DBLUE radiation detection, but I thought I had heard that 
=DBLUE            M-B have now reported
=DBLUE positive results when a GM tube is used for radiation detection.

    Well Dick, in addition to reading original articles  you should 
carefully read the posts.   I posted that the nulls were control experiments.

 =miles  "   As stated on page
 =m  108 of Reference 1, dental film studies were also conducted in H2O+LiOH
 =m  control experiments and no exposure of the films occurred.  .....
 =m   There were a total of more than 20 studies involving dental films where
 =m   no exposure could be detected. I doubt that any journal would permit me to
 =m   fill their pages with photographs of unexposed films. There are, however,
 =m   twenty of these control films taped into my laboratory notebook. They all
 =m   look very similar to the controls shown in Figure 7 of Reference 1."

   Did you get the references you keep referring to yet, Dick?   
    How about the ICCF-4 reports with updates on the same subject?

     Best wishes, 
            Mitchell Swartz  [mica@world.std]


cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.17 / John Logajan /  Re: Excerpts from Mills/Thermacore FT article
     
Originally-From: al789@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Excerpts from Mills/Thermacore FT article
Date: 17 Jun 1994 17:40:31 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)


stolfi@s1j.dcc.unicamp.br (Jorge Stolfi) says:

>    > The waveform of the pulsed cell current was a square wave.
>    > Since there was current only during the peak voltage interval of the
>    > cycle, Pappl was given by Eq. (25), and Pcell was given by Eq. (26)."
>
>Should I conclude that the paper says nothing about the *voltage* waveform?

They say above that current only flowed during the peakk voltage interval.
You don't have to believe them, but there is something said about the
voltage waveform.

>The 300 strands can be considered as "parallel inductors" only if they
>are well-separated, so that there is no mutual inductance.  If they
>are wound on the *same* spool (and in the same direction), then basic
>electronics tells us that the inductance of the 300 strands is
>the same as that of a single strand (without the 1/300 factor).

Got me there.  But the coefficient of coupling is certainly going to be
less than unity, what with an air(water) core and coils spread out laterally
about 12 inches.

>Assuming a 10-cm spool, 33 meters of wire means a hundred turns or so.
>Is the inductance of such a coil really negligible, on a 0.1 sec scale?

It looks more like a 30 cm diameter or so to me.

>(Of course, the current will not travel down the whole 33m strand;
>along the way it will be lost to the electrolyte and shunted through
>contacts between adjacent turns.  However, during electrolysis the
>wire will be coated with H2 bubbles, which will tend to insulate it
>from the liquid and keep the coils apart.  Anyone dares to estimate
>the effective wire length under these conditions?)

But imagine all the points of contact in 5000 meters of wire wound
onto itself in such a small area.  My gut feel is that the thing is
going to have the inductance of an end fed solid cylinder -- i.e.
not much on the 1 hertz scale of things.

>Besides, if excess heat is indeed being produced, by looking at the
>waveforms for different duty cycles and the respective efficiencies we
>might be able to figure out when exactly is the heat produced along
>the cycle, and thus choose a more efficient waveform.

That's a tall order for a calorimetry time constant of 6+ hours! :-)

-- 
-- John Logajan ---  al789@cleveland.freenet.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenal789 cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.17 / Cary Jamison /  CNF in the FAQ
     
Originally-From: cary@esl.com (Cary Jamison)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CNF in the FAQ
Date: 17 Jun 1994 19:22:18 GMT
Organization: ESL Inc., A TRW Company

I found it interesting that even though Robert Heeter states explicitly
that his FAQ is for conventional fusion only, not cold fusion, that he does
talk about the only verified and accepted form of cold fusion - muon
catalyzed fusion!

I guess cold fusion has received such a bad name that even real cold fusion
prefers not to be called cold fusion anymore.  Maybe Robert should change
his exclusionary note to say that his FAQ does not include anomalous heat
affects that may or may not be fusion, and allow in the
conventional/verified/accepted cold fusion of whatever form.

-- 
Cary Jamison
cary@esl.com
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudencary cudfnCary cudlnJamison cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.17 /  PaulBreed /  Problems with the hydo sonic pump article in CF
     
Originally-From: paulbreed@aol.com (PaulBreed)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Problems with the hydo sonic pump article in CF
Date: 17 Jun 1994 15:15:04 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

The article in cold fusion stated that the energy used by the
Hydrosonic pump was measured with a three phase power meter. The
article then corrects the data to account for power factor. I have
never seen an automatic three phase powermeter that did not
automaticaly correct for PF. I think that they probably got the
correction in there twice!!!

Also most good power meters have a true Whr accumulation mode.
This would give the true input power into the system with no
additional calculations!

Any additional information would be apprecieated.

Paul Breed


cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenpaulbreed cudlnPaulBreed cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.17 / Jorge Stolfi /  Re: Excerpts from Mills/Thermacore FT article
     
Originally-From: stolfi@s1j.dcc.unicamp.br (Jorge Stolfi)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Excerpts from Mills/Thermacore FT article
Date: 17 Jun 1994 04:08:47 GMT
Organization: DCC - UNICAMP - Campinas, SP, Brazil

In article <2tfgeq$jfi@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> al789@cleveland.Freenet.Edu
(John Logajan) writes:

    > [Me:] Question: does the [Mills.Thermacore] paper say how
    > they measured V and I? 

    > [John Logajan:] From the paper:
    > 
    > "A constant current supply (Kepco ATE-100M) was programmed at 101-A peak
    > current (+or- 0.05%) and driven by a function generator (BK Precision
    > Dynascan model 3011). Duty cycle measurements were made with an oscilloscope
    > (BK model 2120), and the peak current was determined from the voltage
    > measurement (+or- 0.1%) across and Ohio Semitronics CTA 101 current 
    > transducer.  The waveform of the pulsed cell current was a square wave.
    > Since there was current only during the peak voltage interval of the
    > cycle, Pappl was given by Eq. (25), and Pcell was given by Eq. (26)."

John, thanks for the information.

Should I conclude that the paper says nothing about the *voltage* waveform?

    > "The peak voltage (+or- 0.1%) was recorded with a digital multimeter
    > (Fluke 8600A)...."

    > ... by reading *peak* voltage and current that are out of phase,
    > the computation *overstates* the input power.  Any power factor error
    > would tend to diminish calculated "excess heat."

True. However, do you know what "peak voltage" means for this
particular multimeter?

(The reason I ask is that some ancient analog multimeters with a "peak
voltage" scale would actually measure Avg(Abs(V)) with the help of a
diode, and then derive Peak(V) from it by assuming a sinusoidal
waveform.  I would expect something better from a modern digital
instrument; but it would be nice to be sure.)

(Sorry for being such an obnoxious skeptic, but since the whole claim
is based on "Integral(V*I) < Heat", we must be dead sure that *both*
sides of the equation have been correctly measured.)

    > We also know a bit about the "coil."  It was composed of 300
    > strands of 33 meter length each, 0.5 mm diameter nickel wire.
    > These strands were wound in parallel.  As we know from basic
    > electronics, parallel inductors diminish total inductance. Since
    > we can assume each strand has about as much inductance as each
    > other strand, we know again from basic electronics that the
    > total inductance will be about 1/300th the inductance of a
    > single strand of 33 meter wire wound in those dimensions.
    
The 300 strands can be considered as "parallel inductors" only if they
are well-separated, so that there is no mutual inductance.  If they
are wound on the *same* spool (and in the same direction), then basic
electronics tells us that the inductance of the 300 strands is
the same as that of a single strand (without the 1/300 factor).

Assuming a 10-cm spool, 33 meters of wire means a hundred turns or so.
Is the inductance of such a coil really negligible, on a 0.1 sec scale?

(Of course, the current will not travel down the whole 33m strand;
along the way it will be lost to the electrolyte and shunted through
contacts between adjacent turns.  However, during electrolysis the
wire will be coated with H2 bubbles, which will tend to insulate it
from the liquid and keep the coils apart.  Anyone dares to estimate
the effective wire length under these conditions?)

    > Conclusion -- peak voltage and current readings would overstate input
    > power, and hence diminish calculated excess power, if there was 
    > significant inductive phase delay.  However, inductance is likely
    > to be very small in relation to a 0.1 second on, 0.4 second off
    > square wave.

Perhaps, but perhaps not.

The thing would have been more convincing if they had actually
measured V at a few thousand samples/sec, and integrated it ---
or at least showed a typical voltage waveform.

Besides, if excess heat is indeed being produced, by looking at the
waveforms for different duty cycles and the respective efficiencies we
might be able to figure out when exactly is the heat produced along
the cycle, and thus choose a more efficient waveform.

--stolfi



   
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenstolfi cudfnJorge cudlnStolfi cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.17 / mitchell swartz /  Reply to Dick Blue on 4He data
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Reply to Dick Blue on 4He data
Subject: Reply to Mitchell Swartz on 4He data
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 1994 12:50:55 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

    In Message-ID: <9406162010.AA23002@pilot1.cl.msu.edu>
Subject: Reply to Mitchell Swartz on 4He data
Richard A Blue (blue@pilot.msu.edu) writes:

    -ms- (The skeptics -- who unfortunately ignore the compelling results
          to only concentrate on ad hominem and other
          attacks have produced by their claimed 'proofs' absolutely)
           "NO evidence to support the need for
           the ionizing photon..."  (in this specific case of fusion in a solid)

=DBLUE If we take as given that we are considering a reaction process in
=DBLUE which 2 deuterons fuse to form a 4He nucleus with the release of
=DBLUE roughly 24 MeV there is a finite set of physical processes that may
=DBLUE be reasonably considered as part of any "explanation" as to how
=DBLUE this process relates to cold fusion. 

      OK.  But the construct of 'simple' 2 deuteron fusion may be
left-over thinking from beam
experiments.   
    In contrast, these reactions in the cold fusion phenomena
do occurs in the saturated (low atomic weight interstitial) solid state. 

=DBLUE  The long-standing problem
=DBLUE for cold fusion believers is to devise a means for transforming the
=DBLUE energy release to lattice heat without it ever being observable
=DBLUE more directly.  The approach most physicists take to this is to
=DBLUE work from our knowledge of reaction processes as observed under
=DBLUE other conditions, assume a general unity of the science that
=DBLUE governs such processes, and to seek to apply established knowledge
=DBLUE to the specific case at hand in a systematic and rational manner.
=DBLUE Mitchell Swartz does not accept that as a valid approach.  He
=DBLUE seems to assume that there are no constraints which can be placed
=DBLUE on cold fusion processes  until there is proof that any given
=DBLUE specific bit of knowledge applies to this specific case.

    More hogwash from Dick Blue who should try some science
and some honesty.
      As I've posted in the past, unlike Dick
Blue and certain other skeptics,  our theories require conservation of energy, 
conservation of momentum, conservation of angular momentum, 
conservation of spin,  conservation of parity.   
   These and other conservation rules
and boundary conditions impose constraints .
   Given Dick's more free-wheeling approach to science that
ignores physics results and attempts to substitute conjecture,
obviously offering any support to Dick 
appears to have been a serious mistake.                   ;-)    


=DBLUE If I were to try to "prove" something to Mitchell relating to
=DBLUE the emission of ionizing radiation following the fusion of two
=DBLUE deuterons I suppose I would have to start with some basic quantum
=DBLUE mechanics, conservation laws which apply to nuclear transitions,
=DBLUE and a review of the very extensive body of experimental data
=DBLUE relating to nuclear transitions within solid lattices.  That
=DBLUE obviously is just a waste of time as far as Mitchell is concerned.

   Ad hominems instead of science shows the paucity of your knowledge
Dick as you fall back to old habits.    Also, there goes that two-photon
beam thinking again.   

=DBLUE The notion seems to be that there exists a large number of nuclear
=DBLUE states for the 4He system such that a cascade of transitions through
=DBLUE those states can occur with many small energy releases via coupling
=DBLUE to phonons.  No one has ever demonstrated that such a cascade occurs.
=DBLUE No one has ever described the spectrum of intermediate states or
=DBLUE explained how a two level quantum system gets transformed into a
=DBLUE multilevel system.  And no one has ever offered a clue as to what
=DBLUE keeps the available energy from being released through some simpler,
=DBLUE more direct and much more rapid decay process. 

   Good point.   Deserves some thought in part.    However,
as to the purported rapid decay process, consider the impact of 
selection rules which accrue from the conservation conditions cited
above and below.

=DBLUE   If it is energetically
=DBLUE possible for an excited 4He nucleus to emit a proton, a neutron, or
=DBLUE a gamma why shouldn't it do so?  Normally that is considered a proof
=DBLUE that ionizing radiation will be emitted.

     -ms-  "In fact one could argue that the spin conversion required for
      -ms-  the bosonic reaction does not permit emission (of) a photon."

=DBLUE What is this supposed to mean?  In the real world two deuterons can
=DBLUE fuse to form 4He which decays via the emission of an E1 photon.
=DBLUE Spin conversion, whatever that may mean, does not prevent this from
=DBLUE happening.  The emission of a proton or neutron is significantly
=DBLUE more likely to be the decay process, however, so you don't really
=DBLUE need much of an excuse for saying photon emission is unlikely.  I
=DBLUE suppose this is a weak attempt to make reference so somebodies theory,
=DBLUE but it certainly does not connect to any established physical
=DBLUE principles.

    Dick is incorrect.   Spin forbidden reactions preserve us from
atmospheric oxygen, which given its ubiquity and electronegativity
can create serious (free radical) problems.    If molecular oxygen
was not in its triplet state the reactions would occur spontaneously.
Similarly, nuclear selection rules rule. 

=DBLUE        "Spin conversion, whatever that may mean"


    Sometimes your revealing comments make me think this is a 
waste of time and energy dealing with you.   Hopefully some serious
individuals follow this.    Dick,  you should absolutely
try to read some papers - on spin conservation and physical 
principles in general   and cold fusion in specific.


=DBLUE Mitchell then quotes extensively from the Miles-Bush results and
=DBLUE asks for comments.  Let us note that Miles and Bush seem to acknowledge
=DBLUE that the use of glass flasks in their earlier experiments may have
=DBLUE resulted in possible contamination of gas samples due to 4He diffusion
=DBLUE through the glass.  Their more recent experiments made use of metal
=DBLUE flasks to contain and transport the gas samples.  That is clearly
=DBLUE an improvement in experimental technique, but it follows that the
=DBLUE earlier results that may have been subject to contamination should
=DBLUE not be used as evidence in any subsequent discussion on the 4He
=DBLUE production question.  Do you agree, Mitchell?

   That is true.  But it was accounted for in the experiment.   The laboratory
used semiquantitative techniques to correct for the diffusion
into/from/through  the glass.   Have you read the papers yet?


=DBLUE In order to determine the expected 4He production rate one must first
=DBLUE have a model which specifies what fraction of the energy release becomes
=DBLUE available for heating.  Mitchell makes that explicite by his statement,
=DBLUE "Because there may not be only one pathway, and because the material(s)
=DBLUE absorbs 4He...."  That I take as an admission that one really does not
=DBLUE know how much helium should be produced.  It then makes little sense to
=DBLUE assert that the correct amount of helium has been detected.  The Miles-
=DBLUE Bush statement must be seen as only the roughest sort of quantitative
=DBLUE connection.
=DBLUE It thus comes down to only five runs in only one laboratory from which
=DBLUE one is supposed to conclude that 4He is this major product of cold fusion.
=DBLUE I remain rather confused as to whether Miles and Bush have claimed to
=DBLUE have observed ionizing radiation along with the heat/helium observations.
=DBLUE Mitchell reports lots of null results using dental X-ray film packs for
=DBLUE radiation detection, but I thought I had heard that 
=DBLUE            M-B have now reported
=DBLUE positive results when a GM tube is used for radiation detection.

    Well Dick, in addition to reading original articles  you should 
carefully read the posts.   I posted that the nulls were control experiments.

 =miles  "   As stated on page
 =m  108 of Reference 1, dental film studies were also conducted in H2O+LiOH
 =m  control experiments and no exposure of the films occurred.  .....
 =m   There were a total of more than 20 studies involving dental films where
 =m   no exposure could be detected. I doubt that any journal would permit me to
 =m   fill their pages with photographs of unexposed films. There are, however,
 =m   twenty of these control films taped into my laboratory notebook. They all
 =m   look very similar to the controls shown in Figure 7 of Reference 1."

   Did you get the references you keep referring to yet, Dick?   
    How about the ICCF-4 reports with updates on the same subject?

     Best wishes, 
            Mitchell Swartz  [mica@world.std]


cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.18 /  DROEGE@fnale.f /  Muon Beam Experiment
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnale.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Muon Beam Experiment
Date: Sat, 18 Jun 1994 00:14:44 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Dieter Britz suggests directing a muon beam at deuterated palladium to 
test whether the palladium has some "magic" property that supresses all
but the 4He channel.

Sounds like a great idea to me.  If I were the DOE I would fund such an
experiment.  Steve Jones - are you listening.  Seems like you would be
ideal to propose and perform such an experiment.

Tom Droege

cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenDROEGE cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.17 / mitchell swartz /  cancel <CrJL0v.Dzs@world.std.com>
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cancel <CrJL0v.Dzs@world.std.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 1994 14:18:10 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

cancel <CrJL0v.Dzs@world.std.com> in newsgroup sci.physics.fusion
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Sat Jun 18 04:37:13 EDT 1994
------------------------------
1994.06.17 / Ad aspera /  WHAT'S NEW, 17 June 94
     
Originally-From: JTCHEW@lbl.gov (Ad absurdum per aspera)
Newsgroups: sci.research,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.accelerators,sci
edu,soc.culture.scientists
Subject: WHAT'S NEW, 17 June 94
Date: 17 Jun 1994 21:58:29 GMT
Organization: Relayed, not written, by Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory


[Written by individuals at the American Physical Society and
merely posted by me, so respond to <whatsnew@aps.org> or other
references below.  Always posted here on sci.research; sometimes
crossposted to an eclectic selection of other newsgroups, with
followups directed here. Back issues are archived on NIC.HEP.NET,
along with the American Institute of Physics columns FYI and
PHYSICS NEWS UPDATE.  WHAT'S NEW is also World Wide Web compliant; 
it's on http://aps.org/.  If you have questions, send e-mail to
webmistress@aps.org.   Enjoy! -jc]

WHAT'S NEW by Robert L. Park   Friday, 17 June 94  Washington, DC

1. ENERGY & WATER APPROPRIATIONS BILL PASSES THE HOUSE UNSCATHED!
There were only two challenges to the Committee's recommendations
(WN 3 Jun 94):  Leslie Byrne (D-VA) sought an amendment to remove
the $12M the Committee added for the gas cooled reactor, and Dick
Swett (D-NJ) tried to stop construction of the Tokamak Physics
Experiment $67M).  Swett, an early cold fusion enthusiast, said
he was not opposed to fusion research, only to tokamaks!  Both
amendments were easily defeated.  George Brown contented himself
with listing academic pork projects totaling $20M, well below
past years, but more may be added in conference with the Senate.

2. AUTHORIZERS HEED DRELL PANEL -- ENERGY DEPARTMENT UNCOMMITTED.
Less than a month after the HEPAP subpanel released its "Vision
for the Future of High Energy Physics" (WN 27 May 94), the House
Science Subcommittee announced it will introduce a bill that
would direct the Department of Energy to follow the course laid
out by the Drell Subpanel."  And less than a year after dancing
on the SSC's grave, Sherwood Boehlert, ranking minority member on
the Subcommittee, threatened to "picket the White House" if the
HEP budget doesn't get the Drell bump of $150M over three years.
But in testimony before the Subcommittee, Martha Krebs, director
of energy research at DOE, was hedging.   Getting the $150M
budget increase, she allowed, "will be a measure of my success."

3. "SCIENCE IN AMERICAN LIFE" -- IS SCIENCE THE GOD THAT FAILED?
Tours of the Smithsonian's new permanent exhibit are conducted by
a middle-aged docent wearing a white lab coat and carrying a clip
board.  "In the 1920s," he recites, "we thought scientists were
gods.  Now we know they're the source of our biggest problems."
That pretty well sums up the exhibit!  "Science in American Life"
begins with a recreation of the chemistry lab at Johns Hopkins
where saccharin was discovered in 1879, complete with life-sized
talking manikins of Ira Remson and Constantine Fahlberg.  But the
two scientists are not discussing coal-tar chemistry, they are in
a bitter dispute over credit for the discovery.  And so it goes.
The focus is not on discovery, but on the public's changing view
of science -- a view that is certain to worsen as a result of the
exhibit.  It's all there:  mushroom clouds, a family bomb shelter
from the 60s, DDT and CFCs.  A section on wartime plutonium
production at Hanford notes that workers' living quarters were
segregated by race and sex.  As you leave the exhibit, there is a
sign warning visitors to "Stop and Think!  Is gene therapy safe?"

4. BUT CHICAGO IS REPLACING ITS GANGSTER IMAGE WITH A PHYSICIST!
A billboard advertising local favorite Old Style beer pictured Al
Capone with the caption, "Al persuaded all his friends to try Old
Style."  After complaints from Italian-Americans, Heilman Brewing
agreed to replace Al with Italian-American Enrico Fermi.  Perhaps
the caption will be, "Enrico tried Old Style and went critical."

THE AMERICAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY  (Note:  Opinions are the author's
and are not necessarily shared by the APS, but they should be.)
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenJTCHEW cudfnAd cudlnaspera cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.17 / John Logajan /  Heat wave
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Heat wave
Date: 17 Jun 1994 13:53:37 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Online Services Member.

This is more a test of our local news system than an informative post,
but just to say something, I've been trying to get a good 60 watt
calibration reading with the Thermacore-like method, but the darn 
weather keeps varying.  We've had some unusually hot days followed
by cooler days which keeps my house temperature a hoppin'.

I can get under 5% variation readings, but if the temperature is more
stable I can get down to 1-2% variations.  I believe that the best time
to take a fix is when the water tank temperature is stable and the
room temperature is stable -- and the filtered room temperature is
equal to the actual room temperature.  When the ambient is changing too
fast, these three things don't coincide very often, or at least not
long enough for my tastes.

--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com -- 612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills  MN 55112 USA           -


cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.18 / Jorge Stolfi /  Re: Excerpts from Mills/Thermacore FT article
     
Originally-From: stolfi@atibaia.dcc.unicamp.br (Jorge Stolfi)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Excerpts from Mills/Thermacore FT article
Date: 18 Jun 1994 01:17:05 GMT
Organization: DCC - UNICAMP - Campinas, SP, Brazil


    > [Me:] Should I conclude that the paper says nothing about the
    > *voltage* waveform?
    > 
    > [John Logajan:] They say above that current only flowed during
    > the peak voltage interval.  You don't have to believe them, but
    > there is something said about the voltage waveform.

It is not a question of trust, merely of interpretation.  
That statement may mean a lot of things...

    > Got me there.  But the coefficient of coupling is certainly
    > going to be less than unity, what with an air(water) core and
    > coils spread out laterally about 12 inches.

What exactly is the coil geometry? I.e., is each strand wound up
as a compact coil, with coils stacked one above the other? 
Or are the strands bundled into a rope that is wound over the
whole 12 inch length?

Anyway, I don't think that it matters.  To compute the maximum
inductance we only need to know that the solenoid is 30 cm tall, 30 cm
wide, and that the current makes at most 30 turns (= 3300/(30*pi))
around it.

I did learn the relevant formula once, but have long forgotten it.
It is friday night and the library is closed.  I will have to dig
my textbooks at home... Back to you soon.

    > But imagine all the points of contact in 5000 meters of wire
    > wound onto itself in such a small area. 

Since we have concluded that the 300 coils behave like a single coil,
we should think of the contacs on 33m of wire, not 5000m.

    > My gut feel is that the thing is going to have the inductance of
    > an end fed solid cylinder

Perhaps, but perhaps not. Current will definitely flow better along the
wires than across them.  The question is, how much better?

    > [Me:] by looking at the waveforms for different duty cycles and
    > the respective efficiencies we might be able to figure out when
    > exactly is the heat produced along the cycle, and thus choose a
    > more efficient waveform.
    > 
    > [John:] That's a tall order for a calorimetry time constant of
    > 6+ hours! :-)

I know that.  However, by using different duty cycles we should be
truncating the voltage vaveform at different places. If we know 
the waveform and excess heat production for a few different duty
cycles, we may be able to tell that, say, the anomalous heat is being
produced mostly in the part of the cycle where V = blah, or something
of the sort.

--stolfi

 -------------------------------------------------------------------
Jorge Stolfi                                | Tel: +55 (192) 39-8442
Computer Science Dept. (DCC-IMECC)          |      +55 (192) 39-3115
Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP) | Fax: +55 (192) 39-7470 
Internet: stolfi@dcc.unicamp.br             | Campinas, SP -- Brazil
 -------------------------------------------------------------------
Please do not copy this .signature virus into your .signature file!


cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenstolfi cudfnJorge cudlnStolfi cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.18 / Tom Potter /  Re: Why palladium?
     
Originally-From: tdp@condor.ic.net (Tom Potter)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Why palladium?
Subject: Re: Why palladium?
Date: 18 Jun 1994 03:15:18 GMT
Organization: ICNet ... The Innovative Concepts Network ... Your Link to the Internet

jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) wrote:
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Why palladium?
>
>In article <2tokk0$2b3@condor.ic.net>
>tdp@condor.ic.net (Tom Potter) writes:
>>
>>It seems to me that magnetic moments play a more important role in
>>configuring "fusion systems" than charge. Atoms tend to minimize charge,
>>whereas nuclei tend to minimize magnetic moments.
>
>This is a gross oversimplification.
>
>Just to give one example, this would argue that the deuteron should
>have spin zero rather than spin one.

Jim, are you saying that in the most natural state, atoms would not have
a minimum charge and nuclei would not have a minimum magnetic moment?

Are you suggesting that nuclei in the most natural state would have equal
numbers of protons and neutrons? What condition is minimized ( if any ) in
nuclei?

Tom Potter:            Pie are round, cornbread are square.


cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudentdp cudfnTom cudlnPotter cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.18 /  morrison@vxpri /  Use of Muon Beams.
     
Originally-From: morrison@vxprix.cern.ch
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Use of Muon Beams.
Date: Sat, 18 Jun 1994 09:20:57 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway


         MUON BEAMS INTO DEUTERIUM-LOADED PALLADIUM

    The question has been raised as to what happens when a muon beam is fired 
into palladium loaded with deuterium.
    Seemed to remember this had been done. Looking back found I had published 
a note on this;

    "Since it is known that muons can replace electrons in a D2 molecule  
pulling the nuclei together and causing fusion (Steve Jones is an expert  
on this), it was hoped that muons would do the same in palladium. Muon beams  
have been fired into palladium at MIT and KEK but no effect has been found. 
KEK deduce that cosmic-ray muons should produce less than one neutron per 
million seconds. Tests with cosmic rays confirm this."

    Re-reading this, see that I had forgotten to add that the palladium was 
loaded with deuterium.
    This is published in Physics World, Feb. 1990
and in Proc. of World Hydrogen Energy Conference, Honolulu, July 1990.
 
    Seem to remember that the KEK experiment was done in 1989.
    In early April 1989, had thought of doing the same experiment at CERN.
Found that they had just stopped running the negative muon beam and started with
a positive beam. But then thought thought some more and realised it would
be a waste of time to consider muons as being able to initiate a chain 
reaction - the negative muons would preferentially be absorbed by the 
palladium nuclei. The suggestion of Dieter is to test something else. However 
the experiment has been done and people looked for neutrons at KEK - do not 
remember what they looked for at MIT.

                                                  Douglas R.O. Morrison

cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenmorrison cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.19 / Eugene Mallove /  Hydrosonic Pump
     
Originally-From: 76570.2270@compuserve.com (Eugene Mallove)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Hydrosonic Pump
Date: Sun, 19 Jun 1994 00:13:24 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Replying with info requested by Paul Breed in his posting:

>Originally-From: paulbreed@aol.com (PaulBreed)
>Subject: Problems with the hydo sonic pump article in CF
>Date: 17 Jun 1994 15:15:04 -0400

>The article in cold fusion stated that the energy used by the
>Hydrosonic pump was measured with a three phase power meter. The
>article then corrects the data to account for power factor. I have
>never seen an automatic three phase powermeter that did not
>automaticaly correct for PF. I think that they probably got the
>correction in there twice!!!

>Also most good power meters have a true Whr accumulation mode.
>This would give the true input power into the system with no
>additional calculations!

>Any additional information would be apprecieated.

>Paul Breed

The PF (Power factor) correction was NOT set to affect the input power 
readings, or the energy accumulation, as stated in the article -- the PF was 
electronically separated out and recorded, according to Jim Griggs of 
Hydrodynamics, Inc.  However, and more to the point, even WITHOUT the power 
factor correction (if that correction were deemed to be incorrect) the 
Hydrosonic pump *appears* conservatively to produce more energy output than 
input at a very significant level.  More work is obviously needed to nail this
all down; this work is now in the process of being undertaken. What is needed,
as the article stated, is confirmation of the mechanical input power to the 
pump. This will be done with an appropriate dynamometer.

Gene Mallove, Editor, "Cold Fusion" Magazine

cudkeys:
cuddy19 cuden2270 cudfnEugene cudlnMallove cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.17 / Robert Heeter /  Re: FYI 85-86, June 16, 1994 (Brown's fusion bill)
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Originally-From: Ad absurdum per aspera, JTCHEW@lbl.gov
Newsgroups: sci.research,sci.physics.fusion,sci.energy
Subject: Re: FYI 85-86, June 16, 1994 (Brown's fusion bill)
Subject: FYI 85-86, June 16, 1994 (Brown's fusion bill)
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 1994 03:24:43 GMT
Date: 16 Jun 1994 21:06:26 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

Subject: FYI 85-86, June 16, 1994 (Brown's fusion bill)
Originally-From: Ad absurdum per aspera, JTCHEW@lbl.gov
Date: 16 Jun 1994 21:06:26 GMT
In article <JTCHEW-160694140333@s50-afrd1.lbl.gov> Ad absurdum per
aspera, JTCHEW@lbl.gov writes:
>
>[Written by individuals at the American Institute of Physics and
>merely posted by me, so respond to <fyi@aip.org> or other
>references below.  Always posted here on sci.research; sometimes
>crossposted to an eclectic selection of other newsgroups, with
>followups directed here. Back issues may be ftp'd from NIC.HEP.NET,
>along with PHYSICS NEWS UPDATE and the American Physical Society
>news/opinion column WHAT'S NEW; or from pinet.aip.org. Enjoy! -jc]
>
>Brown Introduces Fusion Energy Authorization Bill
>
>FYI No. 85, June 16, 1994
>
[[ Some stuff deleted, including explanation of size & scale of TPX, ITER
]]

>However, the U.S.'s record for maintaining the commitment to fund
>such large projects is questionable.  "To meet the justified
>international concern about the ability of the United States to
>meet its long-term financial commitments to international
>scientific projects," Brown proposes establishing "a special trust
>fund to pay for the United States' contribution to the design and
>construction of ITER and associated facilities, as well as the
>Tokamak Physics Experiment."  The fund would be financed by a fee
>on electricity generation.  Estimated to raise $300 million a year,
>the fee would expire when sufficient funds had been raised to pay
>the US share of the project.

I've been wondering about this sort of idea myself.  Energy R&D
funded by an energy production fee sounds reasonable.  To raise
$300 million, from an electric energy economy of about $100 billion,
should not require a large increase in anyone's electric bills.
And it would be nice to have a relatively stable funding base;
fusion has been hurt most in recent years by funding uncertainties.
One could offset this fee by reducing taxes in another area, so that
the government doesn't simply grow by $300 million and divert the
money current used for fusion research into other areas.

>Although "fees are not popular," Brown says, he "included this
>provision to begin what is a needed public debate: how do we get
>out of our perpetual year-to-year financing bind and get on with
>the job of providing secure multi-year funding for essential
>facilities that serve a critical public purpose?  How can we
>demonstrate our credibility to a skeptical world scientific
>community and show that the United States can be a reliable
>international partner in scientific cooperation?  How do we finance
>the high-risk research needed to develop new sources of energy for
>the next century?  A fund like the one proposed here may be a
>solution."

What do others think?

[[ more stuff trimmed ]]

>Provisions of Brown's Fusion Energy Bill
>
>FYI No. 86, June 16, 1994

[[ some stuff clipped ]]
>
>In introducing the bill, Brown responded to criticism that the
>magnetic fusion program has been narrowed to include only the
>tokamak concept. "Given the limited resources available to the
>fusion energy research program," he said, "the focus of DOE's
>program on tokamaks is understandable."  The bill precludes
>appropriations for any magnetic fusion facility other than TPX or
>facilities associated with ITER.

Whoa!  Precludes appropriations for other magnetic fusion facilities?
What about alternative magnetic concepts that aren't TPX or ITER?

>Brown does, however, "share the concern that promising alternative
>fusion technologies are not getting adequate support."  The bill
>provides a separate line item authorization for alternative (other
>than magnetic) fusion research, and establishes a separate program
>office for alternative fusion technologies (including, but not
>exclusively, inertial confinement fusion.)  In particular, it
>authorizes the R&D needed for the Induction Linac Systems
>Experiment for heavy ion inertial fusion energy.  Within the total
>fusion energy budget, it would approve $26.0 million for
>alternative fusion technologies in fiscal year 1995, and $31.0
>million in each of the years 1996 and 1997.

I would like to see some clarification on whether "alternative
fusion technologies" includes magnetic-type devices such as
the spheromak, low aspect-ratio tokamak, reversed-field pinch,
stellarator, migma, etc, as well as non-magnetic technologies.
Does anyone with closer access to the language of the bill
know in more detail what it says?

I agree wholeheartedly that advanced/alternative fusion research
should be given a separate line in the budget; what has happened
in the past is that these advanced concepts have been squeezed
out by a combination of growing funding required for the large
tokamaks, and a shrinking budget.  Insulating the more basic
R&D into advanced fusion ideas from the more applied work going
into building a working tokamak fusion energy plant seems like
a good way to preserve the scientific diversity of the program,
to make sure that new ideas are pursued so that we can continue
to make improvements in fusion technologies, and to provide a
measure of security for people doing the advanced research.
But is $30 million/year sufficient?


Just wondering what the rest of the net thinks...

*************************
Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@theory.pppl.gov
Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University
As always, I represent only myself, and not PPPL
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.18 / Paul Koloc /  Re: A decisive (?) experiment
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A decisive (?) experiment
Date: Sat, 18 Jun 1994 06:34:53 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <01HDM4C6NQPU9BX4U8@vms2.uni-c.dk> BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz) writes:
> .. .  might have thought of an experiment that would come close to settling 
>one issue.
>
>The issue is that of the quiet absorption of tens of MeV of energy, e.g. from
>the supposedly favoured 4He branch which normally yields 24 MeV emissions.  
>The CNF propagandists say that this is 'somehow' absorbed as heat, and it's
>up to the skeptics to prove that this is impossible. They have to resort to
>the special conditions of the palladium deuteride to make this plausible. A 
>lot of their credibility hinges on this argument.

>Now, if one did an experiment, beaming muons at a target of deuterated Pd, 
>this would cause dd fusion in that material, at a higher rate than is claimed
>by the propagandists. 

Slow down here... .. be careful. 

>They do assume dd fusion, 
                            Yes

>                .. .     and the conditions would be the same,  ...
                                                      no !

>so the same sort of quiet absorption of the emission should happen,
>i.e. there should be no neutrons, no protons, no tritons (to speak of); only
>4He enrichment at a level that ought to be easy to detect.  
  
There will be all the rift-raft associated with hot fusion. ..  maybe not
quite as much, but mostly so.   


Why???       Consider squeezing to D's together with  vice with stable 
ways.     

The D's don't necessarily have to be brought all they way to super-
position before fusion takes place, because of quantized time, WHICH 
physicists explain as "barrier tunneling".   Regardless of which 
village idiot explanation is used, the concept is that when the D's are 
brought to within as specific radius, they forget their territorial 
boundaries long enough to fuse together.  Now the key thing here is to 
bring them to proximal distance with no other skew velocity so there is 
no net angular energy involved in the exchange.  Consequently, the 
nucleons do not spin around and distort charged pairs to centrifuged 
distorted separations, so that they again experience "charge repulsion" 
and fly a part, or produce things like particle trails indicating nasty 
fragmentation ratios.  

Consider (as in the case of hot fusion) there are D's and T's combining, 
being brought together, not by "SQUEEZING" but by ram compression due to 
deceleration of their occasionally oppositely directed and pretty much 
aligned thermal velocities.  Similarly consider the net angular momentum 
component due to skew motion delivered at the moment of a fusion and 
which arises from randomness of the vector motion in the Maxwellian 
burning plasma.     

So two different cases,  one squeezes with no resultant angular momentum, 
and in the other, the randomness of the vector collisions garantees 
strong average angular momentum in the fusioning nucleons.  

If angular momentum distorts the positional nature of the nucleons, and
in fact initiate the process of fragmentation, then it too accounts for 
the statistics in the branching fragmentation ratios, then we might have 
a handle on finding processes.  Alas hot fusion (energetically 
induced) ratios are random as expected from a strong angular fusion burn
component.   We note that in the non-strong collisional case, little or 
no angular momentum would distort nucleon positions, so we suspect that 
the fragmentation ratios will greatly reduced and certainly not be similar.    

If we could on the contrary set up a "Squeeze slowly- together" to fusion 
a batch of "D - T" then the branching ratios observed thusly should be 
different than that observed and understood as concrete Universal LAW for 
HOT DT fusioning branching ratio (productions). 

Now all there is left to do is to have hot and cold fusioneers set up
little models of there fusion puppets with appropriate branching.  They 
could have animated particles that have or have NOT angular momentum and
one could see the tornadic fragmentation of a D-T "fusions" with angular
momentum.  Of course, this isn't as sophisticated as echoing waves 
of Deuteron existence that "virtual" reality could master.   They would 
sort of pop up like aspergras in a swampy field.  

Look out for those fissile fragments.  
So the real Question Dieter is.. Do those muon beams come energetically??
and what level constitutes "energetic".  Mind you other problems exist
which yet go unanswered.  

>So if one did this
>and detected all the usual heap of neutrons etc, this would invalidate the 4He
>model of 'cold fusion'. If one detected 4He only, this would be a sock to the
>jaw of the skeptics.

 .. .    or a bit more giggle gas at the party. 

>Anyone out there, with access to muon beams, interested?

moon beams , Follow them and pick up your ton of D-He3 and get past this
madness.      
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
>Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Paul M. Koloc,Bx 1037, Prometheus II, Ltd., College Park, MD 20741-1037 |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+



cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.18 / Carl Lydick /  Re: FYI 85-86, June 16, 1994 (Brown's fusion bill)
     
Originally-From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.research,sci.physics.fusion,sci.energy
Subject: Re: FYI 85-86, June 16, 1994 (Brown's fusion bill)
Date: 18 Jun 1994 22:10:11 GMT
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera

In article <1994Jun17.032443.24002@Princeton.EDU>, Robert F. Heeter
<rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> writes:
=>In introducing the bill, Brown responded to criticism that the
=>magnetic fusion program has been narrowed to include only the
=>tokamak concept. "Given the limited resources available to the
=>fusion energy research program," he said, "the focus of DOE's
=>program on tokamaks is understandable."  The bill precludes
=>appropriations for any magnetic fusion facility other than TPX or
=>facilities associated with ITER.
=
=Whoa!  Precludes appropriations for other magnetic fusion facilities?
=What about alternative magnetic concepts that aren't TPX or ITER?

The whole point of the bill is to set thing up so that our commitment to
investment in these two facilities is credible.  Given Congress' track record,
a provision like this one is necessary to prevent the following scenario:
	1)  The bill is passsed, and we start collecting taxes;
	2)  Halfway through the construction of one of these projects, some
	    Congresscritter with an important committee chairmanship decides
	    that he wants fusion research in HIS district;
	3)  Funds from the tax are diverted to the pet project of the
	    Congresscritter, and the U.S. backs out of its commitment to ITER
	    and TPX.
I.e., without such a provision, the bill does not constitute a credible
committment to either facility.
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
cuddy18 cudencarl cudfnCarl cudlnLydick cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Sun Jun 19 04:37:03 EDT 1994
------------------------------
1994.06.19 / Gary Steckly /  Re: Problems with the hydrosonic pump article in CF
     
Originally-From: gsteckly@dgim.doc.ca (Gary Steckly)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Problems with the hydrosonic pump article in CF
Date: Sun, 19 Jun 94 00:26:14 GMT
Organization: Communications Canada

PaulBreed (paulbreed@aol.com) wrote:
: The article in cold fusion stated that the energy used by the
: Hydrosonic pump was measured with a three phase power meter. The
: article then corrects the data to account for power factor. I have
: never seen an automatic three phase powermeter that did not
: automaticaly correct for PF. I think that they probably got the
: correction in there twice!!!

I think they covered that in the article.  If you re-read on page 29 in
the top right panel, Jed states"The PF is computed automatically by the
digital Dranetz power meter used in these experiments, and an average PF
for the run is displayed, although the meter computes the instantaneous PF
at all times."

However, in the second and third runs quoted, the C.O.P, *even before it
was adjusted for the PF*, was calculated at 117% and 109% respectively. 
When they factored in the PFand added in the losses in the motor, it was
calculated as high as 168%!  

And don't forget...they never bothered to include heat lost from the pump,
pipes and the steel drum over the course of the runs which ranged from 15
minutes to an hour, so as Jed put it "this is a lower bound estimate".

: Also most good power meters have a true Whr accumulation mode.
: This would give the true input power into the system with no
: additional calculations!

I don't think this is necessary...these guys seemed to do their
calculations pretty carefully.

: Any additional information would be appreciated.

It would be nice to hear from Jed directly, but the way he has been
treated on this group, I wouldn't hold my breath.  I'll forward this
thread over to him just in case he isn't following this group anymore.


regards

Gary



cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudengsteckly cudfnGary cudlnSteckly cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.19 / C Harrison /  [xposted] Re: calculating inductance for coil..
     
Originally-From: harr@netcom.com (Charles (Chuck) Harrison)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: [xposted] Re: calculating inductance for coil..
Date: Sun, 19 Jun 1994 05:16:29 GMT
Organization: Fitful

You guys thinking about inductance in the thermacore rig want this.

It just popped up on sci.physics.electromagnetism (serendipity!).

In article <HABA.94Jun11022039@beta.hut.fi>,
Harri "Haba" Suomalainen <haba@snakemail.hut.fi> wrote:
>In article <2taeoa$m5p@milou.eunet.fi> ktu@sci.fi (Kristian Ukkonen) writes:
>ARRL gives us
>
>L(uH) = (d^2n^2)/(18d+40l)
>
>where
> L= inductance
> d= coil diameter in inches
> l= coil lenght in inches
> n= number or turns
>
>This applyes for a single layer air-core coil. The newes Elector
>Electronics had several other methods to calculate it (more or less
>accurately). I will not type them here becouse I think the precious
>method is usually accurate enough.
>--
  -Chuck
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenharr cudfnCharles cudlnHarrison cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.18 / John Logajan /  Re: Problems with the hydrosonic pump article in CF
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Problems with the hydrosonic pump article in CF
Date: 18 Jun 1994 19:50:43 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Online Services Member.

Gary Steckly (gsteckly@dgim.doc.ca) wrote:
: It would be nice to hear from Jed directly

He is or was in Europe, so he might not be available for immediate comment.

--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com -- 612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills  MN 55112 USA           -

cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.18 / John Logajan /  More Thermacore-like Calibration Results
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: More Thermacore-like Calibration Results
Date: 18 Jun 1994 21:43:41 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Online Services Member.

Since our weather keeps changing here, I couldn't get as stable a reading
at 60 watts as I wanted (+or- 0.5% variation over points in the same run)
so I terminated that run using the data with a variation of +or- 1%.

I wanted to blow air from a fan on the Thermacore-like water tank to see
what magnitude effect it would have (there is no surprise that it had
an effect.)

The fan was a 12" diameter Lasko model oscillating fan set at full speed
with the oscillation motion disengaged, and placed about three feet from
the water tank.  Here is a comparison of the calorimetry constant in
"calm" air and in the fan induced air stream:

    "60 watts in calm air"    11.477C/60.31W = 0.190 C/W  +or- 1%

    "60 watts in moving air"   5.417C/59.89W = 0.090 C/W  +or- 1%

As you can see, the calibration constant (as well as the time constant)
was cut in half.  The time constant was about six hours in the calm air
case and about three hours in the moving air case.

Moving air moves the calibration curve away from the anomalous heat
points, so what we'd want if we were looking for real anomalous heat
above calibration power is very very calm air during calibration.  Then
any movement of air during anomalous heat runs would tend to understate 
the anomalous heat.

It should be noted that although my above measured range of calorimetry
constant is nearly enough to include both calibration and anomalous heat
points of the Thermacore data, it is extremely unlikely that Thermacore
experienced such a range of conditions -- especially since they did
calibration on-the-fly at 72 hour intervals.

We also have some absolute limits to ponder.  Even assuming 100%
recombination (which no one has reported anywhere) it would take an
absolute calorimetry constant of 0.21 to explain experiment #13,
or 0.23 #12, or 0.27 #11, or 0.32 #10, or 0.38 #9, or 0.39 #8,
or 0.40 #'s 6 and 7, or 0.37 #5.

Can anyone anywhere get such high calorimetry constants using any
environmental parameters that Thermacore would have reasonably
expected to experience????  My highest is 0.193.  The range between
my highest and Thermacore's experiments # 6 and 7 is the same range
as between my calm air and forced air tests.  A rather huge
difference cause by a highly noticeable alteration of conditions.

I will be out of town until Monday evening, so no new results until
later in the week.

--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com -- 612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills  MN 55112 USA           -

cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.20 / Bill Page /  Fusion via Bose Condensations
     
Originally-From: 70047.3047@compuserve.com (Bill Page)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Fusion via Bose Condensations
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 1994 00:13:07 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

This is the third installment of my comments on Chuck Sites recent article.

<<
2. APPROACHING THE CONDENSATION QUESTION FROM BOSE-EINSTEIN STATISTICS  
>>

Now this is the part of the article that I am going to need the most help 
with.

<<
Lets say we have we have a collection of particles in a linear
abstract chain that we call a shell, 's'.  In each shell there is a
group of cells, 'gs' that can be counted z1, z2, z3,..,z_gs.  Lets say
we also have a number of distinguishable particles in the shell
'ns', that we will label a1, a2, a3,..., a_ns.  If we randomly
distribute these particles into cells, a typical arrangement might be:

         z1 a1 a2 z2 a3 z3 z4 a4 a5 a6 z5 a7 ... z_gs a_ns.         [2.1]
>>

So what is this "linear abstract chain" or "shell"?  In what sense is this 
concept linear or a chain? This is too abstract or too brief for me.  From 
the context I gather that the cells are disjoint hbar^3 volumes in phase 
space.  You talk about assigning *distinguishable* particles to the cells, 
so I assume this translates to assigning positions and momentums to the 
particles, but later you are talking about indistinquishable bosons.

<<
...
So the number of
distinguishable and unique arrangements is given by

               gs(gs+ns-1)!       (gs+ns-1)!
              --------------  =  ------------                       [2.2]
                 gs!ns!           (gs-1)!ns!
>>

So, what you meant was: given a bunch of *indistinquishable* particles, how 
many ways are there of arranging them into *distinguishable* groupings.  
Hmmm, a small example would really help here.

<<
For the distribution across 's' number of shells, the "probability" of
all particles across all shells is given by the product expression

                     _____  (gs+ns-1)!
                  W = | |  ------------                             [2.3]
                      | |   (gs-1)!ns!
                       s   

The most probable distribution of this arrangement is given by the
"Sterling theorem".  Working through that gives,      
             __   
    log W =  >_  {(gs+ns) log(gs+ns) - gs log gs - ns log ns}       [2.4]
            
Now that we have a statistically accurate account of the most probable
distribution of Bose particles of 'ns' particles in 'gs' cells, we can
now get more specific about the system. 
>>

Oops, lost it again.  What do you mean by "the 'probability' of all 
particles across all shells"?  What is W?  I guess I could look up 
Sterling's theorem somewhere, but what does it mean?  What is its 
application here?  I am sure this is just exposing my ignorance of things 
in statistical mechanics.  Maybe you could suggest a good reference to this 
material.

<<
In this case, we have the the condition that
SUM(ns) = N.  Thus the probability distribution of N particles, is 
the partial derivative of Log W / ns with respect to ns.  That is:

      @ log W         gs + ns
     -------- = log --------- = alpha + Beta epsilon_s               [2.5]
       @ ns             ns 

Note:  '@' indicates partial derivative (in my ASCII notation). 
Where alpha is the degeneracy parameter, Beta (by thermodynamic arguments)
is simply 1/kT, and epsilon_s represents energy states of the individuals.
>>

Nope. This is too much of a jump for me.  I don't understand alpha and beta 
at all.  "degeneracy parameter" must mean that it has something to do with 
the number of different states with the same energy.  I my be a little 
dense, but I think the only way I could put this together is with some kind 
of picture.

I'll have to skip a little bit for now.  Please suggest how I can get to 
understand this stuff.

<<
What comes out
is *the* Bose-Einstein law of the distribution of atoms.
                                              _____   ____    
                 _____            4 pi V     V 2m^3  V eps  d eps
    dN = F(eps) V eps  d eps =  --------- ----------------------    [2.9]
                                   h^3        al + B eps 
                                             e           - 1

This distribution describes generally the portion of all particles
with a certain energy. 
>>

What is F?

<<
 Let's assume 'g' the (number of cells) is not defined by the particle,
but is instead defined by the metal lattice intersituals. That is, the
metal lattice nuclei constrains the particle by Coulomb forces to a
region of lower potential.  From eq 2.6 
     
              g 
   n = -----------------      and solving for 'al'
        al + B eps
       e           - 1     

I get the simple formula, 

      al = ln(g/n + 1) - eps B.      where B = (1/kT).              [2.12]

Now interesting enough, g/n would represent the reciprocal of loading 
factor
which is normally defined by the number of particles / metal atom, which is
really describes the number of particles/intersitual/metal atoms. Assuming
a particle energy of eps = 0.2 eV = 3.2E-20J,  and g/n = 1/0.7 = 1.43,
T=300K. The degeneracy parameter 'al' then becomes respectable unit-less
0.702.  While this seems arbitrary, it's really not. The 0.2eV would
represent the depth of the potential well of the intersituals, and T at
300K is roughly room temp.  A loading factor of 0.7 seems common for 
electrolysis PdD(x).  This also demonstrates that the system is
degenerate and since 'al'<1  the system is condensed! 
>>

Well, this does sound very interesting but by this time I've skipped too 
much to really understand it.  Are you saying that the formula that you 
give above indicates *all* of the D in Pd at a loading of 0.7 is condensed? 
No, this can't be it.  But this 'al' parameter must be telling you 
something about how many bosons are in the same state (on average) and 
therefore something about the degree of "overlap".  Could you give us some 
examples of how this parameter varies for different loadings and different 
metals.  E.g. Chubb&Chubb in particular are interested in silver host 
lattices.  What would this look like for Aluminum?  Where might we find the 
relevant material parameters?

<<
Thus working out in detail the degeneracy parameter for Bose particles
in metals, I get the interesting equation:   

                            h^2                                       
[2.14]
     al = ln(g/n + 1) - -------------  where 'a' = intersitual  
                         2 m a^2       spacing.
           
Note: I say crude, because 'a' is effected by loading.  Also, while 
g/n represents the recipical of the loading factor, in a crystal like
Pd, the occupancy of tetrahedrals is dependent on the the energy of the
particles. These are pertibations, but should not detract from the
point the bose system in PdD(x), the D becomes degenerate most cases
of high loading, and can thus be considered a high temperature bose 
condensate. Cool aye?
>>

Did you say "crude"?  Couldn't find it, but I get your point.  How much of 
the D is in multiply occuppied states in this "high temperature bose 
condensate"?

I guess I'll have to take a break at digging into this for now until I get 
a chance to do some reading on the stat. mech. issues.  I'd appreciate any 
help Chuck or anyone else can give me in trying to understand what is going 
on in this posting.

Thanks a million.

Cheers,

Bill Page.

cudkeys:
cuddy20 cuden3047 cudfnBill cudlnPage cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.20 / Bill Page /  Re:Muon Beam Experiment
     
Originally-From: 70047.3047@compuserve.com (Bill Page)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re:Muon Beam Experiment
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 1994 00:14:11 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Tom Droege writes:
<<
Dieter Britz suggests directing a muon beam at deuterated palladium to test 
whether the palladium has some "magic" property that supresses all but the 
4He channel.

Sounds like a great idea to me.  If I were the DOE I would fund such an 
experiment.  Steve Jones - are you listening.  Seems like you would be 
ideal to propose and perform such an experiment.
>>

Steve may still be on holidays. (I didn't know scientists actaully took 
vacations! <grin> )  So it may be a few days before we hear it directly 
from him, but I am quite sure I recall Steve making a reference to exactly 
this type of experiment (may be as long as a year ago or so).  My 
recollection is that it was part of a series of experiments specifically 
aimed at increasing the number of fusions catalyzed per muon.  The results, 
I think, were that no significant increase in the fusion rate was observed. 
 In fact, I think all those Pd nuclei tend to soak up the muons rather more 
rapidly then in pure D2.

Of course, in the experiment proposed by Dieter Britz, the issue will be on 
just how the number of fusion reactions was measured.  If the working 
hypothesis is that fusion is occurring but the usual radiation is not to be 
expected, then we would need some other corroborating measurement.  I have 
no idea whether Steve and the other muon catalyzed fusion researches were 
doing calorimetry.

Another thought.  If we are intending to check the Chubb&Chubb theory by 
this approach, we must bare in mind that only a very small percentage of 
the D is expected to be in a band state.  The overwhelming majority would 
be ordinary intersitial species and would presumably be free to interact in 
the well known ways.

I am not sure the Chubb&Chubb theory tells us very much about the possible 
interactions between band state D and the point-like incoming muons, in any 
case.

Cheers,

Bill Page.

cudkeys:
cuddy20 cuden3047 cudfnBill cudlnPage cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.20 / Richard Blue /  Reply to Mitchell Swartz on 4He
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Reply to Mitchell Swartz on 4He
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 1994 00:14:13 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Let me correct my mistatement concerning Mitchell's recognition that
there are constraints on possible cold fusion reactions.  He did state
that the generally accepted conservation laws are obeyed, but there
still seems to be some disagreement as to what laws restrict the
emission of photons by an excited 4He nucleus in the cold fusion
situation.

I am aware that there is such a thing as a spin-forbidden transition.
I do not, however, see how that applies to the case under consideration.
Without getting very explicite about the details, I tried to argue
that since the emission of photons from excited 4He does occur this
must not be a case that is spin forbidden.  Just to toot my own horn
a bit, I can even say that I have personally detected these photons
and I have considered the details of the selection rules that apply
to this case.  However, I do not understand Mitchell's statement
that, "In fact one could argue that the spin conservation required
for the bosonic reaction does not permit emission of a photon."
Please explain.

Now back to the question of possible atmospheric helium contamination
in the earlier Miles-Bush results.  Since the question of references
and my reading on this subject still seems to be at issue I will
state at the onset what I have read.  I draw my information from
three published papers:

"Electrochemical calorimetric studies on the electrolysis of
water and heavy water (D2O)."  D. E. Stillwell, K. H. Park, and
M. H. Miles, Journal of Fusion Energy 9 (1990) p 333.

"Electrochemical calorimetric evidence for cold fusion in the
palladium-deuteriu system,"  M. H. Miles, K. H. Park, and
D. E. Stillwell, J. Electroanal. Chem. 296 (1990) 241-254

"Helium production during the electrolysis of D2O in cold fusion
experiments," B.F.Bush, J.J. Lagowski, M. H. Miles and G. S.
Ostrom, J. Electroanal. Chem. 304(1991) 271-278

I have read and reread the later paper seeking any information
concerning possible precautions and/or corrections relating
to contamination by atmospheric helium as the result of the
use of glass flasks for the storage and transport of gas
samples.  I find nothing that supports Mitchell's contention
that any such percautions were taken or that appropriate
corrections were made or that they even could be made after
the fact.  I continue in my opinion that the results on
helium detection as reported in this paper are very suspect.

To be quite specific about the issues let me state my objections.
All samples and controls were transported from the China Lake
laboratory to Austin, TX for analysis allowing an extended
period under poorly controlled and unspecified conditions in
which contamination could occur.  Controls were transported
by air, but the samples were not.  Samples obviously were
predominantly oxygen and deuterium but all the controls
used only nitrogen as the background gas.  Little information
is given concerning the identification of a 4He peak in
the mass spectrograph and its resolution from the D2+ peak.

There is then the minor point concerning the exposure of
dental X-ray film packs in connection with these measurements.
The claim in the paper is that, "In a preliminary experiment,
dental X-ray films were positioned near the outer surfaces of
two operating
D2 + LiOD electrolytic cells in an attempt to detect ionizing
radiation.  In both instances, the dental films were found to
be significantly exposed when developed."  Mitchell then
emphasizes that there were a large number of control exposures
that indicated no radiation.  The paper, in fact, mentions only
one such exposure.

In the light of the ongoing discussion about ways to suppress the
emission of photons from excited 4He it seems strange that Mitchell
and other cold fusion advocates have no difficulty with an experimental
result that supports the view that ionization radiation is emitted and
theories which say there should be no such radiation.   Of course it
would help if the methods employed to detect such radiation as may
be emitted were specific enough to aid in the identification of the
radiation source.  Are we looking at 24 keV X-rays or 24 MeV gammas?

Finally, Mitchell, let me make it clear that I don't want to appear
to be thinking too restrictively as to the details of the fusion
process.  I do feel some need to attempt to define the scope of the
process(es) under consideration, however.  I merely stated that my
remarks were offered within the context of the fusion of 2 deuterons
to form 4He.  You indicate that may not be appropriate, but you do
not say what you have in mind.   Could you tell us what you have
in mind on this point?

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.17 / Jeremy Reimer /  Re: LP APOLOGIZES TO THE NOBEL FOUNDATION
     
Originally-From: jaguar@claw.wimsey.com (Jeremy Reimer)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.kibology,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fus
on,sci.math,sci.chem,sci.bio,sci.physics
Subject: Re: LP APOLOGIZES TO THE NOBEL FOUNDATION
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 94 02:01:20 PST
Organization: World Domination, Inc. Headquarters, Vancouver BC

In article <CrCx7v.BL7@acsu.buffalo.edu> bandy-s@acsu.buffalo.edu (Graviton) writes:

[entire article deleted]

>WHO IS THIS LUDWIG GUY??????/ OBVIOUSLY HE HAS NO KNOWLEDGE OF PHYSICS....AND
> HE IS A PATHETIC MORON...........


Well, at least he has more than a passing familiarity with the Caps Lock key.

(Hey, I'll admit it already.  I'm completely hooked on the LP diaries.  Yes
I want to see all 2000 pages of them.  I must know how everything turns out.
Will LP be vindicated?  Will he meet the woman of his dreams, or will she
turn out to be just contained in the totality of a plutonium atom?  Will
the lead-based paint finally start to have an effect, and if so, in which
direction?  Will he get his revenge on the Navy?  TUNE IN NEXT WEEK FOR
THE NEXT EXCITING EPISODE!)

Is anyone archiving them for posterity, or just for their posterior?

--

Jeremy "OS/2ibo" Reimer

Completely uninvolved in the Imminent Death of the Net since 1989.

"This is the snobbery of the people on the Mayflower looking down
 their noses at the people who came over ON THE SECOND BOAT!"
                  - Mitch Kapor, on Usenet elitism
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenjaguar cudfnJeremy cudlnReimer cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.19 /  GMallory /  Re: Problems with the hydrosonic pump article in CF
     
Originally-From: gmallory@aol.com (GMallory)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Problems with the hydrosonic pump article in CF
Date: 19 Jun 1994 09:50:01 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

What is so great about 100% or even 110% heat from electricity?
Why go to such mechanical mumbo jumbo to make heat (hot water or
steam) from electricity?

Resistive heating gives 100% conversion from watts to BTU with no
moving parts!  My own heat pump generates 350% BTU vs the 
input electrical watts.  (It borrows heat from outside)

I am inclined to believe that the D-Paladium and D-Titanium
experiments may be showing some new phenom, but I think that
the hydrosonic pump stuff is a scam.  Why would you want to
replace a simple resistive heater with a 3 phase motor and  a 
precision machined pump that must be subject to fierce cavitation
wear?  This does not compute.

Gene Mallory
Jet Products
gmallory@aol.com
(818) 782-2483

These opinions are my own and my company's
because I own the company.  Save your souls and 
work for yourself.


cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudengmallory cudlnGMallory cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.20 / Gary Steckly /  Re: Problems with the hydrosonic pump article in CF
     
Originally-From: gsteckly@dgim.doc.ca (Gary Steckly)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Problems with the hydrosonic pump article in CF
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 94 02:18:45 GMT
Organization: Communications Canada

GMallory (gmallory@aol.com) wrote:
: What is so great about 100% or even 110% heat from electricity?
: Why go to such mechanical mumbo jumbo to make heat (hot water or
: steam) from electricity?

there is nothing amazing about 100%, as you stated.  Straight resistive
heating.  But anything over that that is not being obtained via a
heat-pump/refrigerator type set up, is _extremely_ interesting and _must_
be investigated.  

: Resistive heating gives 100% conversion from watts to BTU with no
: moving parts!  My own heat pump generates 350% BTU vs the 
: input electrical watts.  (It borrows heat from outside)

there is nothing amazing about borrowing heat...I wouldn't get excited
about a refrigerator either but this hydrosonic pump isn't borrowing heat
from anywhere...or at least from no obvious sources.

: I am inclined to believe that the D-Paladium and D-Titanium
: experiments may be showing some new phenom, but I think that
: the hydrosonic pump stuff is a scam.  Why would you want to
: replace a simple resistive heater with a 3 phase motor and  a 
: precision machined pump that must be subject to fierce cavitation
: wear?  This does not compute.

neither does the excess heat...that's why it's important to find out where
it's coming from.  When something doesn't compute, we have to find out
why.  It's called "science" :-)

regards

gary


cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudengsteckly cudfnGary cudlnSteckly cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.19 / Jim Carr /  Re: Why palladium?
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Why palladium?
Date: 19 Jun 1994 22:53:21 -0400
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

> I (Jim Carr) wrote:

  < concerning a statement that atoms minimize charge and 
  < nuclei minimize magnetic moments

>>This is a gross oversimplification.
>>
>>Just to give one example, this would argue that the deuteron should
>>have spin zero rather than spin one.

In article <2ttoso$5mk@condor.ic.net> 
tdp@condor.ic.net (Tom Potter) writes:
>
>Jim, are you saying that in the most natural state, atoms would not have
>a minimum charge and nuclei would not have a minimum magnetic moment?

Yes.  First, I don't know what you mean by saying that atoms have 
'minimum charge', but it is certainly an experimental fact that 
nuclei do not have a minimum magnetic moment.  See example above. 

>Are you suggesting that nuclei in the most natural state would have equal
>numbers of protons and neutrons? What condition is minimized ( if any ) in
>nuclei?

They minimize *energy* subject to various constraints, such as the 
Pauli principle for fermions.  I think you must be getting confused 
by the existence of pairing terms in simple descriptions of which 
nuclei are stable -- but there is nothing simple about odd-odd 
nuclei (where even the Nordheim 'rules' are not) since every feature 
of the forces involved come into play. 

For atoms, the energy is due to coulomb and magnetic interactions; for 
nuclei, it comes from the nucleon-nucleon interaction and the coulomb 
interaction.  The NN interaction is quite complicated with central, 
spin-orbit, spin-spin (vector) and spin-spin (tensor) components, 
and it is also depends on which nucleons (protons or neutrons) are 
involved in the interaction.  

-- 
 James A. Carr   <jac@scri.fsu.edu>     |   "It's never confusing though, 
      http://www.scri.fsu.edu           |  because ultimately it all fits 
 Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst.  |  -- it's just cockeyed and fits  
 Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306    |  and is fire."  -  Norman Maclean 
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.20 / Chuck Sites /  REPLY: Bill Page & Dick Blue on D+ ion condensation fusion.
     
Originally-From: chuck@iglou.iglou.com (Chuck Sites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: REPLY: Bill Page & Dick Blue on D+ ion condensation fusion.
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 1994 00:13:12 GMT
Organization: The Internet Gateway of Louisville, KY

Hi folks,


   Well, I finally have access to the terminal again.  Bill Page wrote a 
nice critique of my posting on Fusion via Bose condensation of D+ ions.
When I wrote it, I thought it was pretty clear how the nuclear process
could appear as a result of this quantum phenomena.  However, as Bill
points out, some of the terminology I use is not proper.  Example: 
"Psi" is a wave operation.  I meant wave function to be specific, but
I think one can ascertain that from the context of the post.  

    In the context of terminology, Dick Blue said something I need
clarified.  What exactly do you mean Dick when you ask for the
'nuclear coordinates' of the band state.  Are you asking for a wave
function describing the coordinates of the nuclear interaction?  The
way I see it is when the wave function of the particles allows the
exchange of a nuclear quanta, then you will have a probability for an
interaction.  If the band state describes how the nuclear quanta is
exchanged, then I don't think you have much of an argument.  Just
novel physics.  The way I read the Chubbs theory is the band state allows
a certain probability that such an exchange can occur.  The Bose band
allows the wave function overlap without the exclusion principle
forcing the particles to high energy states. Thus you can get a very
large ocupancy of a single energy state.  Because we have the
situation of indistiguishable single state particles described in a
band configuration such that (DD)++ is the excited state of (He4)++,
the exchange of the nuclear quanta is allowed between the bands.  
Very wierd, I agree, since we normally think of particles state
changes in an interaction, not band states.  I agree Dick with 
your contention that the experimental evidence of He4 production 
is still out, but if you have a good theory for guidence, then 
it really should be just a matter of appling the insite gained to 
the material properties needed to produce the effect.  I would like
to see Miles et. al. either redo the experiment or have some other
group verify the results.  McKubre?    

   Anyway, what I want to show is how the probability of nuclear 
interaction can occur in a D+ ion condensate.  Since there are 
some interesting quantum effects here let me clarify the points 
brought out in Bill Page's replies.       
     
Bill writes:   
      
><<
>I think there is room for improvement with regard to the description of the 
>migration of charge in the BBC to fit the other models of proton conduction 
>in hydrated metals ... 
>>

>Chuck, this reference to "other models of proton conduction in hydrated 
>metals" interests me.  Could you suggest any references?  Although I have 
>several references to hydrogen/deuterium diffusion in metals, none of them 
>deal with proton conduction per se.

Some of the most interesting papers I've read on the subject are Das &
Peirels. An excellent followup paper is given by Sorbello & Dasgupta.
They deal specifically with the problem of proton conduction in metals
and the electrodynamics of hydrogen in metals under the influence of 
of an electrostatic potential.  Peierls discusses the problem in his 
book "More Suprises in Theoretical Physics".  The main result is 
that proton conduction proceeds much like electron conduction with the 
E fields reversed inspite of the neutrallizing effects of the host metal 
electrons. The papers describing this are: 

[13] A. Das and R. Peierls "The force on a moving charge in an electron gas",
     J. Phys. C Vol 6. 2811 (1973)
[14] R. Sorbello and B. Dasgupta, "Local fields in electron transport: 
     Application to electromigration", Phy Rev B. 16 5193 1977

Note: these papers where published before the discovery of hydrogen 
band states. 
 
><<
>1. A COLLECTION OF IDENTICAL PARTICLES
>
>Lets say we have an ideal gas (a random collection of identical particles). 
>In quantum mechanics we know every particle can be specified by a wave 
>operation 'psi' which is basically a description of the de Broglie matter 
>wave of the particle.
>>>

>Well, I hate to pick on basic terminology but ... (Actually no I don't, I 
>realy do think terminology is important.)  We shouldn't say "wave 
>operation". I think what you mean is "wavefunction" (Or "wave function" if 
>you prefer - it was originally one word because of the German-language 
>origin.)  A wavefunction is a complex valued function (usually of the 
>spatial co-ordinates and time) which is a solution of Schrodinger's 
>equation and which satisfies a couple of other reasonable constraints.

Agreeded. 

>It isn't very accurate to say that it is a description of de Broglie's matter 
>waves, but I'll let that pass.  Another fine point is that it really goes 
>against the grain of conventional QM to talk about particles and waves at 
>the same time. It is not clear in what sense a particle can be specified by 
>a wavefunction. Actually, there might be several different ways, i.e. by 
>the expected value of location or we might be interested in only those 
>wavefunctions which describe "wave packets".

With regard to the deBroglie matter wave concept, I think it is 
very accurate to discribe Psi as a reprensentation of the matter wave. 
Such a matter wave does have a potential by the forces we find in 
an interaction and this allows us to define psi.  Indeed Matt Kenell's 
argument is that the mutual electrostatic forces of the D+ ions will
define psi.  There is some presidence for this by the adiabatic
modification of Psi found in perturbation theory.   However, what 
we are defining by psi is fundamentally the deBroglie wave.  So while 
we define psi with a positive electrostatic charge, the momentum-position 
of the particles allows for there exchange in space-time.  Thus the wave
function overlap He4 or the 2e- charged Cooper pairs of BCS theory allow
the motion of the particle without the apparent consiquences of a scattering 
event like a change in the energy state.   This is unique to Bose particles
at low energies since they can occupy the same ground state energy.  Now
something counter-intuitive is that due to the overlap they appear to be 
in a state of interaction all the time.  So while a quanta of EM energy
can be transfered from particle to particle in the case of a super-
conductor without localization, then what is to stop the exchange of
a nuclear quanta without localization other than than the probability
that two particles exist with in a certain range?       
       

>BTW, Bohm's interpretation of QM says that we *can* include both 
>wavefunctions (as in conventional QM) and particles (classical point-like 
>particles with *no uncertainty* in location) in a consistent description of 
>reality provided that we also postulate that there is a relationship 
>between the momentum of the particle and the phase of the wavefunction.  
>This is known as the "guidance condition".  Expect to see a lot more about 
>this from me in the coming weeks.

I look forward to this.  Specifically in the context of a superconductor. 
A D+ ion condensate will superconduct. So what does the "guidance condition"
say about it?     

><<
>In the collection we can label the first particle wave, (particle 1) as 
>psi_k(1) where k represents that state of the particle as would be 
>described by the Schrodinger equation of a harmonic oscillator.
>>

>Terminology, Terminology - he said repeatedly! <grin>  Particle wave?  See 
>above.  The point you are making is really about our *inability* in 
>conventional QM to separately label (= identify) identical particles and 
>the impact that has on the wavefunctions which describe the states of 
>many-body systems.  In general it is only an approximation to assign a 
>wavefunction to a particle that is part of a system of particles.  But you 
>did say "Lets say we have an ideal gas ..." and in this situation the 
>approximation is pretty good.  Its certainly an odd thing about QM that we 
>have to define the wavefunction over a set of 3-N spatial co-ordinates 
>(where N is the number of particles) when at the same time we have to turn 
>around and say that we can not even in principle say which particle is 
>which!

Agreeded.  One can't tell which particle is which.  Even with adiabatic
pertribations of psi, they are all the same.  Eventually what comes 
out is that a state change in one psi is equvialent to a state change
in another when observed macroscopically.  When the wave functions
are overlapped, such a state change can effect the whole collection 
since we have a collection defined by a single wave equation. (Ie.
the 3-N spacial coordinates aand momentum vectors.)  Statistical 
mechanics is odd in that respect since we are normally used to a particle- 
particle point of view with respect to a nuclear interaction.  I used 
that point of view myself, however I can see where there may be nuclear
component to the collective PSI.     
       

><<
>It's from these two wave functions that the two quantum statistics
>are defined.  In the case of the symmetric wave function, the collection
>is described by Bose-Eienstein statistics.  In the antisymmetric case
>they are defined by Fermi-Dirac statistics.   
>>  

>It has been observed experimentally that in systems of identical particles, 
>the wavefunction of the system is either totally symmetric (obeying 
>Bose-Einstien statistics) or totally anti-symmetric (obey Fermi-Dirac 
>statistics).  And there is a connection between spin and the symmetry of 
>the wavefunction -  a system of 1/2 integer spin particles must be 
>anti-symmetric, a system of whole integer spin particles must be symmetric. 
>Why this is so, apparently has its roots in relativistic QM.

It is indeed. What can you say about nature?  What we really need to 
define here is the state of individuals in a time (t) where the particles 
remain delocalized with respect to the time of the exchange of the 
nuclear quanta compared to the exchange electromagnetic quanta.  As a
general observation, spin 1/2 particles are inherently electromagnetic
in interactions in the ground state.  Does anyone have observations 
otherwise?  
       
><<
>Ok, so far so good ...
>>>

>Yes, the above comments not with standing, I have no substantive quibble 
>with the article so far.  But then we are only done with part 1, right? 
><grin>


>Cheers,
>
>Bill Page.

Actually, I have no problem with the points you bring out. There are
certainly areas for exploration in this problem which are inherently 
quantum mechanical.  Getting the exact Hamiltonian (per Matt) is one
direction (An important one I think).  Band state or simple condensation?
Either way, there is a paper in this.  <Big Grin>.   It's all in the 
equation:  

      al = ln(g/n + 1) - eps B.      where B = (1/kT).              [2.12]
                 
Solid state effects will effect eps, obviously, but by how much?   The
g/n  does favor high loading.  Is my description of the degeneracy 
of the system correct?   If so, let's do a paper.  

Have Fun,
Chuck Sites
chuck@iglou.iglou.com

cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.20 / arthur blair /  Whats going on at UT Austin
     
Originally-From: blair@mksol.dseg.ti.com (arthur blair)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Whats going on at UT Austin
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 1994 04:33:34 GMT
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc

RF Heeters FAQ mentions a few details about a fusion program
at UT Austin. Can anyone tell me more?
Art.

--
"Television is chewing gum for the eyes" - Frank Lloyd Wright
Dont forget to vote in news.announce.newgroups !
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenblair cudfnarthur cudlnblair cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.20 / C Harrison /  Titanium Tritide & Calorimetry
     
Originally-From: harr@netcom.com (Charles (Chuck) Harrison)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Titanium Tritide & Calorimetry
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 1994 05:12:29 GMT
Organization: Fitful

O colleagues of the college of sci.physics.fusion!

Today's subject will be appreciated by afficiandos of precision
calorimetry (you know who you are ;-) ) as well as followers
of the "Reifenschweiler effect" (reduced activity of tritium
under certain conditions in titanium tritide)[1].

The presently accepted value for the half-life of tritium (3H)
is 12.3 years.  One oft-cited "definitive" determination [2]
was based on calorimetry.  Samples of tritium were monitored 
for heat output over a period of 6.5 years.  The measured
drop in heat output was fitted to an exponential decay, and
the time constant was found to be 12.346 +/- 0.002 yr.  The
reported experimental error for a single observation was
~7e-6 watt for a power level of ~70e-3 watt.  Not bad,
considering we're talking about stability over a period of
several years in the measurement apparatus.

Most of the samples were tritiated titanium, sealed in a double-
walled (quartz & stainless steel) capsule.  The heat generation
was caused by the low-energy (18 keV) beta decay of 3H -> 3He.
Under the usual assumptions this heat generation should be 
completely uniform and directly proportional to the remaining
mass of 3H in the system, thus presenting an exponential decay
of heat output with time.  This is what the researchers found.

Almost.  Please consider the following extract from the original
paper [2]:
  Deviations in power were found in the titanium tritide
  salt during the first few months after fabrication.  If
  these deviations were from an internal instability of
  the tritide salt, this instability might be a function
  of the thermal history of the sample.  In order to
  explore this theory, deliberate thermal disturbance of
  the sample was initiated in December, 1963.  Heating
  to 90 C lowered the sample heat output by 62 uW or 0.11
  per cent, and subsequent overnight refrigeration at 0 C
  produced no change.  Heat output was lower than expected
  by an average of 30uW for 6 months when it increased
  by more than 1.4 per cent in a few days.  It then
  returned to the pre heating decay level in about 6
  days.  No subsequent deviations in heat output have
  been observed [manuscript submitted October 1966]. The
  integrated heat deviations above and below the normal
  output over this total period appear to be equal.

Food for thought, folks.  I don't think you can accuse this
group of "sloppy calorimetry"!

Regards,
  -Chuck

[1] O. Reifenschweiler, _Phys Lett A_ 184:149-153 (3 Jan 1994).

[2] KC Jordan, BC Blanke, WA Dudley, "Half-Life of Tritium",
    _J. Inorganic Nuclear Chemistry_ 29(9):2129-2131 (Sept 1967).

cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenharr cudfnCharles cudlnHarrison cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Mon Jun 20 04:37:03 EDT 1994
------------------------------
1994.06.20 / mitchell swartz /  Reply to Dick Blue on 4-He
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Reply to Dick Blue on 4-He
Subject: Reply to Mitchell Swartz on 4He
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 1994 19:16:22 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA


    In Message-ID: <9406191922.AA17733@pilot1.cl.msu.edu>
Subject: Reply to Mitchell Swartz on 4He
Richard A Blue (blue@pilot.msu.edu) writes:

DBLUE= Let me correct my mistatement concerning Mitchell's recognition that
DBLUE= there are constraints on possible cold fusion reactions.  He did state
DBLUE= that the generally accepted conservation laws are obeyed, but there
DBLUE= still seems to be some disagreement as to what laws restrict the
DBLUE= emission of photons by an excited 4He nucleus in the cold fusion
DBLUE= situation.
DBLUE= I am aware that there is such a thing as a spin-forbidden transition.
DBLUE= I do not, however, see how that applies to the case under consideration.
DBLUE= Without getting very explicite about the details, I tried to argue
DBLUE= that since the emission of photons from excited 4He does occur this
DBLUE= must not be a case that is spin forbidden.  Just to toot my own horn
DBLUE= a bit, I can even say that I have personally detected these photons
DBLUE= and I have considered the details of the selection rules that apply
DBLUE= to this case.

    Meanwhile, the lattice -- and loaded lattice at that -- constitutes a unique
environment.   this may be unlike that from which you purport to have measured
 the emissions of photons.        When you conclude your "tooting", please do
go on to identify if you measure such emissions from a lattice, or used an
experiment which might have actually provided an opportunity
 to lift the forbidden restriction by (for example) collision with
paramagnetic particle, 
use of an applied inhomogeneous magnetic field intensity, or very high temperature.
Perhaps you might add a few others, Dick?

   Nuclear selection rules encompass quantum electrodynamics and other
rules, but briefly, within the lattice, perhaps not what you were examining,
the deuterons are spin 1 bosons.

         4He* is spin 1, or 2.     Conversion to the ground state must be considered.
   A photon cannot be emitted to handle the drop from the spin 2 state.
Although a photon can handle the spin 1 state, parity changes limit the
spin 1 conversions (Laporte's rule; up-to-date discussion for example
in Robert Bass, (LINT: A SEMI-CLASSICAL QUANTIZED
 THEORY OF LATTICE INDUCED NUCLET TRANSMUTATIONS', 
CF Source Book, Minsk, Belarus Symposium, May 1994).


DBLUE= Now back to the question of possible atmospheric helium contamination
DBLUE= in the earlier Miles-Bush results.  Since the question of references
DBLUE= and my reading on this subject still seems to be at issue I will
DBLUE= state at the onset what I have read.  I draw my information from
DBLUE= three published papers:
DBLUE= 
DBLUE= "Electrochemical calorimetric studies on the electrolysis of
DBLUE= water and heavy water (D2O)."  D. E. Stillwell, K. H. Park, and
DBLUE= M. H. Miles, Journal of Fusion Energy 9 (1990) p 333.
DBLUE= 
DBLUE= "Electrochemical calorimetric evidence for cold fusion in the
DBLUE= palladium-deuteriu system,"  M. H. Miles, K. H. Park, and
DBLUE= D. E. Stillwell, J. Electroanal. Chem. 296 (1990) 241-254
DBLUE= 
DBLUE= "Helium production during the electrolysis of D2O in cold fusion
DBLUE= experiments," B.F.Bush, J.J. Lagowski, M. H. Miles and G. S.
DBLUE= Ostrom, J. Electroanal. Chem. 304(1991) 271-278
DBLUE= 
DBLUE= I have read and reread the later paper seeking any information
DBLUE= concerning possible precautions and/or corrections relating
DBLUE= to contamination by atmospheric helium as the result of the
DBLUE= use of glass flasks for the storage and transport of gas
DBLUE= samples.  I find nothing that supports Mitchell's contention
DBLUE= that any such percautions were taken or that appropriate
DBLUE= corrections were made or that they even could be made after
DBLUE= the fact.  I continue in my opinion that the results on
DBLUE= helium detection as reported in this paper are very suspect.

  First you again appear to  have old papers.  
  Second, some of your presumptions are incorrect.

  First, we have discussed the difference over a year
ago between those references you cite and the following.

Recent results include, at ICCF-4, Melvin Miles and B. Bush.,
"HEAT AND HELIUM MEASUREMENTS IN DEUTERATED 
PALLADIUM".   The Fourth International Conference on Cold Fusion 
(ICCF-4) has one (or two) compendium(a) which are pending.

Their previous paper was by
M. Miles, R. Hollins, B.F. Bush and J.J. Lagowski, 
Correlation of excess power and
helium production during D2O and H2O electrolysis using palladium
cathodes," J. of Electroanalytical Chemistry, 346 (1993) 99 - 117.

Also, as discussed see Miles, Bush, and Stilwell   "Calorimetric Principles ..." 
in J. Phys. Chem (2/17/94)

   Second, the 90-92 expts used Pyrex glass flasks.    The 93 expts used 
metal flasks and full consideration of atmostpheric contamination.

  first experiments: 90-91     8 with excess enthalpy (i.e. +ve)
                               yield 10^11 to 10^12 helium-4/watt-sec
  first experiments: 90-91     6  negative yield no increase  (*)

  second experiments: 92       3 +ve with increased helium
                                ave: ca. 3 x 10^11   helium-4/watt-sec

  third experiments: 93       5 +ve with increased helium
                              ave: ca. 3 x 10^11   helium-4/watt-sec
  third experiments: 93       5  negative yield no increase (*)

   * - background in his null experiment is at the level of
     4 parts per billion.   

All backgrounds were subtracted to derive the incremental helium-4 
production rate normalized to power, and the helium
in the metal flask set was reportedly examined by two 
additional labs (Rockwell and Bureau of Mines).

  My calculation of probability that the results might have occurred 
from random errors from all combined experiments is, as posted previously,
consistent with their and is <   1/100,000,000]

   The increases in helium-4 production were shown to be linked 
ot the demonstration of excess enthalpy.
  Comments on that?  And what might be some implications?

   The increases in helium-4 production were about 12 sigma 
above background.  
  Comments on that?  And what might be some implications?

 With a Qt  of circa 23 MeV (generated per reaction producing
a molecule of of He4)  this data would put the 
ash measured within a factor of 3 of what is expected.
    Because there may not be only one pathway;
and because the material(s) absorbs 4He, this level is worth
considering.   If you do not agree, why not?

DBLUE= To be quite specific about the issues let me state my objections.
DBLUE= All samples and controls were transported from the China Lake
DBLUE= laboratory to Austin, TX for analysis allowing an extended
DBLUE= period under poorly controlled and unspecified conditions in
DBLUE= which contamination could occur.  Controls were transported
DBLUE= by air, but the samples were not.  Samples obviously were
DBLUE= predominantly oxygen and deuterium but all the controls
DBLUE= used only nitrogen as the background gas.  Little information
DBLUE= is given concerning the identification of a 4He peak in
DBLUE= the mass spectrograph and its resolution from the D2+ peak.
DBLUE= There is then the minor point concerning the exposure of
DBLUE= dental X-ray film packs in connection with these measurements.
DBLUE= The claim in the paper is that, "In a preliminary experiment,
DBLUE= dental X-ray films were positioned near the outer surfaces of
DBLUE= two operating
DBLUE= D2 + LiOD electrolytic cells in an attempt to detect ionizing
DBLUE= radiation.  In both instances, the dental films were found to
DBLUE= be significantly exposed when developed."  Mitchell then
DBLUE= emphasizes that there were a large number of control exposures
DBLUE= that indicated no radiation.  The paper, in fact, mentions only
DBLUE= one such exposure.

  There probably exists no better response to the absurdity above than the following
which was made by the author of that paper, who was commenting upon the same
comment made, previously made at that time from Steve Jones.   
     Mel Miles then replied

  =miles  "3. In several places, Professor Jones states that there was only one
  =m control for the dental film studies.   This is false.   As stated on page
  =m  108 of Reference 1, dental film studies were also conducted in H2O+LiOH
  =m  control experiments and no exposure of the films occurred.  Furthermore,
  =m  it is stated on page 109 of Reference 1 that following experiments in
  =m  D2O+LiOD failed to produce any excess enthalpy or dental film exposure.
  =m   There were a total of more than 20 studies involving dental films where
  =m   no exposure could be detected. I doubt that any journal would permit me to
  =m   fill their pages with photographs of unexposed films. There are, however,
  =m   twenty of these control films taped into my laboratory notebook. They all
  =m   look very similar to the controls shown in Figure 7 of Reference 1."

    How about some answers to the above questions, Dick.   Also, try to get the
recent papers.                                       ;-) X
    Best wishes colleagues, 
            Mitchell Swartz  [mica@world.std]

cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.20 / M Murrain /  Re:  Science the God that failed (was WHAT'S NEW, 17 June 94)
     
Originally-From: Michelle Murrain <mmurrain@hamp.hampshire.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.research,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.accelerators,sci
edu,soc.culture.scientists
Subject: Re:  Science the God that failed (was WHAT'S NEW, 17 June 94)
Date: 20 Jun 1994 19:40:24 GMT
Organization: Hampshire College

In article <JTCHEW-170694145631@s50-afrd1.lbl.gov> Ad absurdum per
aspera, JTCHEW@lbl.gov writes:
>3. "SCIENCE IN AMERICAN LIFE" -- IS SCIENCE THE GOD THAT FAILED?
>Tours of the Smithsonian's new permanent exhibit are conducted by
>a middle-aged docent wearing a white lab coat and carrying a clip
>board.  "In the 1920s," he recites, "we thought scientists were
>gods.  Now we know they're the source of our biggest problems."
>That pretty well sums up the exhibit!  "Science in American Life"
>begins with a recreation of the chemistry lab at Johns Hopkins
>where saccharin was discovered in 1879, complete with life-sized
>talking manikins of Ira Remson and Constantine Fahlberg.  But the
>two scientists are not discussing coal-tar chemistry, they are in
>a bitter dispute over credit for the discovery.  And so it goes.
>The focus is not on discovery, but on the public's changing view
>of science -- a view that is certain to worsen as a result of the
>exhibit.  It's all there:  mushroom clouds, a family bomb shelter
>from the 60s, DDT and CFCs.  A section on wartime plutonium
>production at Hanford notes that workers' living quarters were
>segregated by race and sex.  As you leave the exhibit, there is a
>sign warning visitors to "Stop and Think!  Is gene therapy safe?"


It is high time that someone at least begins to point out that
science has it's pitfalls, and will not solve all of our problems.
Until people have a more realistic notion of what science is they
won't challenge it, and it needs challenging.  

As a scientist I'm happy to see such an exhibit. We need to 
begin as a society to question the authority of science. Science has
brought us some great things, and also some very nasty things, and 
will continue to do so unless we take a careful look.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Michelle Murrain, Ph.D.              _____________________________
School of Natural Science           | mmurrain@hamp.hampshire.edu |
Hampshire College,                   -----------------------------
Amherst, MA 01002                    
(413) 582-5688  fax:(413) 582-5448                         
Listowner: Feminists in Science and Technology (FIST@dawn.hampshire.edu)
           Minority Health Issues (MINHLTH@dawn.hampshire.edu)  
List Facilitator:Sistah-net (Sistah-request@hamp.hampshire.edu)
Co-moderator, sci.med.aids 
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenmmurrain cudfnMichelle cudlnMurrain cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.20 / SCOTT CHASE /  Re:  Science the God that failed (was WHAT'S NEW, 17 June 94)
     
Originally-From: sichase@csa5.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: sci.research,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.accelerators,sci
edu,soc.culture.scientists
Subject: Re:  Science the God that failed (was WHAT'S NEW, 17 June 94)
Date: 20 Jun 1994 15:00 PST
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA

In article <2u4rb8$6no@nic.umass.edu>, Michelle Murrain <mmurrain@hamp.h
mpshire.edu> writes...
>In article <JTCHEW-170694145631@s50-afrd1.lbl.gov> Ad absurdum per
>aspera, JTCHEW@lbl.gov writes:
>>3. "SCIENCE IN AMERICAN LIFE" -- IS SCIENCE THE GOD THAT FAILED?
>>Tours of the Smithsonian's new permanent exhibit are conducted by
>>a middle-aged docent wearing a white lab coat and carrying a clip
>>board...

This is as bad a caricature of science and scientists as anything 
produced earlier in the century when the politics were reversed
and scientists were overly idealized.  

>As a scientist I'm happy to see such an exhibit.

It's hard for me to see how, as a scientist, you can endorse the 
simplistic propaganda generated by any political camp, even if it 
is your own.

-Scott
 -------------------             i hate you, you hate me
Scott I. Chase                   let's all go and kill barney
SICHASE@CSA2.LBL.GOV             and a shot rang out and barney hit the floor,
                                 no more purple dinosaur.
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudensichase cudfnSCOTT cudlnCHASE cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.20 / Dieter Britz /  Re: Use of Muon Beams.
     
Originally-From: kemidb@aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Use of Muon Beams.
Date: 20 Jun 94 06:48:43 GMT
Organization: Aarhus University, Denmark

In <9406180918.AA28001@dxmint.cern.ch> morrison@vxprix.cern.ch writes:


>         MUON BEAMS INTO DEUTERIUM-LOADED PALLADIUM

>    The question has been raised as to what happens when a muon beam is fired 
>into palladium loaded with deuterium.
>    Seemed to remember this had been done. Looking back found I had published 
>a note on this;

>    "Since it is known that muons can replace electrons in a D2 molecule  
>pulling the nuclei together and causing fusion (Steve Jones is an expert  
>on this), it was hoped that muons would do the same in palladium. Muon beams  
>have been fired into palladium at MIT and KEK but no effect has been found. 
>KEK deduce that cosmic-ray muons should produce less than one neutron per 
>million seconds. Tests with cosmic rays confirm this."

>    Re-reading this, see that I had forgotten to add that the palladium was 
>loaded with deuterium.
>    This is published in Physics World, Feb. 1990
>and in Proc. of World Hydrogen Energy Conference, Honolulu, July 1990.
[...] 
>the experiment has been done and people looked for neutrons at KEK - do not 
>remember what they looked for at MIT.

Sorry Douglas, I should have checked back in the literature before posting
that. I am old enough to know that most 'obvious' ideas have been had before.

In any case, Chuck Harrison corrects me (I can't easily go back to his posting
and cite him) about this as a two-way test. He is quite right: if you got all
the usual emissions as for hot fusion, it would prove nothing. So it would be
significant only if you got a lot of 4He and no emissions. This seems to be one
for the believers to have a go at.
Back into my cage.
-- 
Dieter Britz   alias kemidb@aau.dk
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenkemidb cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.21 / Eugene Mallove /  Maddox and Peer Review
     
Originally-From: 76570.2270@compuserve.com (Eugene Mallove)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Maddox and Peer Review
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 1994 00:15:13 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

        A segment in a recent issue of New Scientist (18 June 1994, page 76) 
sheds some light on John Maddox's standards of so-called "peer review." If 
this story is true, it would be quite revealing. We already have enough dirt 
on Maddox's sneer review system to bury him ten times over, but a little more 
would be nice. (Maddox thought he could write cold fusion's epitaph, but he 
was wrong. We're writing his.) Anyone having more information about this 
affair, please contact me.  The "Feedback" section piece in New Scientist 
follows:

"Biomedicine has a lot to thank Nature's editor, John Maddox for, if the joint
winner of the 1993 Nobel Prize for Chemistry is to be believed. Speaking about
AIDS and HIV in London recently, Kary B. Mullis, who shared the honours with 
Michael Smith, described how he became disillusioned with his chosen field fo 
cosmology and turned to biomedicine when, after some minor alterations, Maddox
published Mullis's thepry of the Universe in Nature.
        Mullis, a second year university student at the time, had gained the 
inspiration for his theory while tripping on LSD in the late 1960s. Horrified 
to see his paper published in such an eminent journal, he began to doubt the 
bona fides of cosmologists and switched his attentions to more concrete 
things. He went on to win his Nobel prize for the invention of the polymerasae
chain reactions (PCR), the groundbreaking method for replicating segments of 
DNA."

 --End of New Scientist section--

Gene Mallove, Editor, "Cold Fusion"

cudkeys:
cuddy21 cuden2270 cudfnEugene cudlnMallove cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.20 / L Plutonium /  SKIT16,PROOF,Proof, and Poofsters NEANDERTHAL PARK2
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.physics.fusion,sci.chem
Subject: SKIT16,PROOF,Proof, and Poofsters NEANDERTHAL PARK2
Date: 20 Jun 1994 16:25:33 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

   The scene for skit 16 is a huge science conference hall at Cambridge
University. In this huge auditorium are 3 huge pictures with men
standing near each one of them and a large audience gathered in fold
out chairs.
   Picture number 1 has the title M87. Show Wheeler, Penrose, and
Hawking pointing to two huge rings and showing the outline with there
special electronic pointer sticks. In the skit, these pictures are
huge. Show Penrose on an overhead projector crank out abstruse math.
Show Hawking crank out abstract math. Show Wheeler in a wheelchair
cranking around the auditorium asking where the wheel chair ramps are.
Wheeler does not seem to be participating in this participatory science
convention. But now Penrose and Hawking are at the meat of their
argument. They point to the graph showing two peaks of neutrino
bombardments which was seen in Japan. "Ladies and Gentlemen, this
proofs that M87 is a black hole." Cheers go up and it takes a half hour
to quiet the audience.
   Picture number 2 is a huge picture of SN1987A. Show Holland Ford
making a zoom in on doubly ionized oxygen at two locations of SN1987A.
Show an atom of oxygen at one place and another atom at another place
on the huge screen. Show Holland making calculations that there must be
approximately 10^26 stars inside of SN1987A. Show Holland saying. "And
this is proof of the pudding that SN1987A is a black hole." Show
Holland pointing with his electronic pointer that the middle of SN1987A
is indeed very black. Holland is so very convincing that the audience
of thousands stand up and cheer.
   Picture number 3 presentation is now to begin after the audience has
had a lunch break and are now intently awaiting. Picture 3 is a huge
picture of what is the Loch Ness monster on a huge screen. Holland
jumps out of his seat saying "Golll---ly (like Gomer Pyle) if they can
prove this is a black hole, it will be the Mother of Nessies". James
Lovelock is the presenter of this picture. He electronically points to
the doubly ionized oxygen in both eyes of Nessy. He computes from
iceberg calculations, far too abstract and abstruse for many in the
audience, the amount of Nessie's mass in the water which is not seen.
He concludes that 10^26 of Nessy is underwater. Show Wheeler wheeling
his wheelchair next to Lovelock. Now there is a heated argument.
Wheeler is claiming Lovelock has no proof because of GR, General
Relativity is the operative not Gaia, he shouts. Show an electronic
pointer fight like a three musketeer sword fight between Wheeler,
Lovelock and Penrose. Show Ford shouting "you poofsters, you poofsters,
stop fighting."
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.20 / mitchell swartz /  A decisive (?) experiment -- not re: cf
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: A decisive (?) experiment -- not re: cf
Subject: A decisive (?) experiment
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 1994 19:15:12 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

   In Message-ID: <01HDM4C6NQPU9BX4U8@vms2.uni-c.dk>
Subject: A decisive (?) experiment
Dieter Britz (BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk) writes:

= One of the problems with 'cold fusion' is that claims are made that cannot be
= verified, nor disproved. A clear disproof would be of interest. I think I
= might have thought of an experiment that would come close to settling one
= issue.

= The issue is that of the quiet absorption of tens of MeV of energy, e.g. from
= the supposedly favoured 4He branch which normally yields 24 MeV emissions.
= The CNF propagandists say that this is 'somehow' absorbed as heat, and it's
= up to the skeptics to prove that this is impossible. They have to resort to
= the special conditions of the palladium deuteride to make this plausible. A 
= lot of their credibility hinges on this argument.

= Now, if one did an experiment, beaming muons at a target of deuterated Pd, 
= this would cause dd fusion in that material, at a higher rate than is claimed
= by the propagandists. They do assume dd fusion, and the conditions would be
= the same, so the same sort of quiet absorption of the emission should happen,
= i.e. there should be no neutrons, no protons, no tritons (to speak of); only
= 4He enrichment at a level that ought to be easy to detect. So if one did this
= and detected all the usual heap of neutrons etc, this would invalidate the 4He
= model of 'cold fusion'. If one detected 4He only, this would be a sock to the
= jaw of the skeptics.
= 
= Anyone out there, with access to muon beams, interested?

    This is  a joke right?   First, the hypothesis appears to have elements
which are void of apparent logic.   In no condition where the 
experiment is purported to give either 'positive' or 'negative'
results are the conditions for cold fusion
are necessarily met.   Second, it is a beam experiment.   

    I have put the elements of the BRITZ HYPOTHESIS in the 
following table.   

       TABLE TO TEST THE BRITZ HYPOTHESIS
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|FUSION RXN         | loading ~>.9 |   neutrons   |   exc heat   |   tritium    |
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|inactive           |      no      |      no      |      no      |      no      |
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|active cold fusion |    always    |  0 to v.few  |     yes      |only if impure|
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|muon fusion        |      ?       |     yes      |      ?       |     yes      |
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|beam experiments   |   varies     |     yes      |  (probably)  |     yes      |
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|hot fusion         |not applicable|     yes      |  (probably)  |     yes      |
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Thanks in advance for correction of "?"  and errors.   The excess heat
category for non-cold fusion systems is probably more complicated since
the generated reactions ultimately generate heat, and in many cases "breakeven"
has not been sustained, and so "excess" may not have meaning.


 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Britz hypothesis  
|cf disproved with: | not measured |     yes      | not measured |     yes      |
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    | loading ~>.9 |   neutrons   |   exc heat   |   tritium    |
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                   |              |              |              |              |
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Is this seen with  |              |              |              |              |
|cold fusion        |    always    |rare, if ever |     yes      |     rare     |
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Notice that the most important elements which
should be tested for cold fusion experiments are actually ** missing **
from the BRITZ HYPOTHESIS test.

    Also notice that the putative "positive" of the BRITZ HYPOTHESIS 
matches the elements of hot fusion.   

  Given that the BRITZ construct is composed
of a beam experiment, and a muon experiment, and possibly insufficiently
loaded palladium, this hypothetical experiment would not prove 
anything except to test the impact of muon beams upon Pd-D solids.

    The formulation, and reliance upon, faulty "hypotheses" and 
paradigms which may be flawed by skeptics to "prove" their beliefs 
only demonstrates that both sides are fallible.

    Best wishes.
                   Mitchell Swartz  (mica@world.std.com)


cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.20 / L Plutonium /  SKIT 17, SUPERMAN REDEEMS THE PROOFS, NEANDERTHAL PARK 2
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.physics.fusion,sci.chem
Subject: SKIT 17, SUPERMAN REDEEMS THE PROOFS, NEANDERTHAL PARK 2
Date: 20 Jun 1994 23:54:42 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

   The scene for skit 16 is a huge science conference hall at Cambridge
University. In this huge auditorium are 3 huge pictures with men
standing near each one of them and a large audience gathered in fold
out chairs.
   Picture number 1 has the title M87. Show Wheeler, Penrose, and
Hawking pointing to two rings on M87 and showing doubly ionized oxygen
at two spots on the rings. They use special electronic pointer sticks.
In the skit, these pictures are
huge. Show Penrose on an overhead projector crank out abstruse math.
Show Hawking crank out abstract math. Show Wheeler in a wheelchair
cranking around the auditorium asking where the wheel chair ramps are.
Wheeler does not seem to be participating in this participatory science
convention. But now Penrose and Hawking are at the meat of their
argument. They point to the graph showing two peaks of neutrino
bombardments which was seen in Japan. "Ladies and Gentlemen, this
proves that M87 is a black hole." Cheers go up from the Andrew Wiles
section of the bleachers who are canned laughter crowds who attend all
alleged magnificent math proofs and here they have flown-in especially
for these physics proofs. Among the canned laughers are Ribet, Mazur,
and Edwards. John Maddox of Manure is here to print comments in his
magazine and is shown interviewing Ribet. John Maddox asks Ribet what
he thought of the proof "Da, Da, Da, utterly compelling, just as
Wiles's FLT was utterly compelling".  
   Picture number 2 is a huge picture of SN1987A. Show Holland Ford
pointing out with his electronic stick to two rings of SN1987A.Show
Holland first make the assumption that there is 10^26 stars inside the
rings. Then Holland
points out doubly ionized oxygen at one place and another at another
place
in the two rings. Now Holland wants to prove that there is 10^26 stars
inside the rings. He talks about the oxygen and does some math. The
crowd is eating popcorn and some canned laughers are clapping before
the end of the proof. But that does not deter Holland. Show Holland
saying. "And
this is proof of the pudding that SN1987A is a black hole." Show
Holland pointing with his electronic pointer that the middle of SN1987A
is indeed very black. Holland is so very convincing only to himself
that the audience
of thousands stand up and cheer prematurely because it is lunch time
and they want to break.
   Picture number 3 presentation is now to begin after the audience has
had a lunch break and are now intently awaiting. Picture 3 is a huge
picture of what is the Loch Ness monster on a huge screen. Holland
jumps out of his seat saying "Golll---ly (like Gomer Pyle) if they can
prove this is a black hole, it will be the Mother of Nessies". James
Lovelock is giving the presentation of this picture. He electronically
points to
the graph of doubly ionized oxygen and says that Puff the Magic Dragon
consumes that much oxygen so then Nessy. He computes from
iceberg calculations, far too abstract and abstruse for many in the
audience, the amount of Nessie's mass in the water which is not seen.
He concludes that 10^26 of Nessy is underwater. Show Wheeler wheeling
his wheelchair next to Lovelock. Now there is a heated argument.
Wheeler is claiming Lovelock has no proof because of GR, General
Relativity is the operative not Gaia, he shouts. Show an electronic
pointer fight like a three musketeer sword fight between Wheeler,
Lovelock and Penrose. Show Ford shouting "you poofsters, you poofsters,
stop fighting."
   SKIT 17 begins. Show Superman in red come flying through the ceiling
between the huge pictures of M87 and SN1987A. Superman is played by me,
Ludwig Plutonium. Only I am carrying a briefcase in one hand and a
backback on my back. Show me point out the flaw of the M87 proof by
saying that "nothing can violate the Pauli Exclusion Principle by
squeezing neutrons into other neutrons. Nothing, not even me, Superman
can violate the Pauli Exclusion Principle. Show me demonstrate that I
can not squeeze together neutrons. So then, Ladies and Gentlemen, M87
is a pretty spherical galaxy and nothing more. NO black holes exist,
none will ever exist because they violate the Pauli Exclusion Principle
and they violate all of the Laws of Physics. So go home and get some
sleep and get black holes out of your mind, they are phony and a
fakery. No black hole exists." Cheers from the audience as they shout
"Truth, Justice, and the American way."
   Next, show me flying over to the SN1987A picture and say "Ladies and
Gentlemen we do not even know the missing neutrino count from our own
Sun. An astronomical object which is here in our view and which we
should know alot about. But we do not know where the missing 2/3
neutrino count is. We do not even understand our own Sun well. And so
do you think it is reasonable to expect that we would not understand
well a star such as Sanduleek? Don't you think it is preposterous for
physics persons to think that they can prove or explain these rings
around SN1987A or even the stages of supernova explosions when we do
not even know our own Sun well?"  Cheers go up and it is seen that all
the young 17-19 year old girls in the crowd are in love with me, crying
their eyes out, wishing to kiss me and strength their own gene pool.
Show me throwing a kiss to them and then rip off the screen with the
Loch Ness Monster and make a Puff the Magic Dragon out of it and fly it
away. Show John Maddox say "Truth, Justice, and the American way."
   
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.21 / Jorge Stolfi /  Re: [xposted] Re: calculating inductance for coil..
     
Originally-From: stolfi@atibaia.dcc.unicamp.br (Jorge Stolfi)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: [xposted] Re: calculating inductance for coil..
Date: 21 Jun 1994 04:53:58 GMT
Organization: DCC - UNICAMP - Campinas, SP, Brazil


    > [Chuck Harrison:] You guys thinking about inductance in the
    > thermacore rig want this.
    >
    > > L(uH) = (d^2n^2)/(18d+40l)
    > > 
    > > where
    > >  L= inductance
    > >  d= coil diameter in inches
    > >  l= coil lenght in inches
    > >  n= number or turns
    > > 
    > > This applyes for a single layer air-core coil.

Thanks.  

Using this formula, and assuming that the effective n is 15 (i.e. the
current leaves the wire more or less uniformly along its length), we
get L = (12^2 * 15^2) / (18 * 12 + 40 * 12) = 45 uH (approximately).

Feeding a square wave of height DI = 100A through this inductance
would generate voltage spikes of height DV = (45 * 10^-6 H) * 100 A / T,
where T is the rise time of the square wave.  For example, T = 1 msec
would give DV = 4.5 volts, T = 0.1 msec would give DV = 45 volts, etc.

Obviously there is something wrong with this analysis, since
the Thermacore data (V peak = 4 volts) don't leave room for such spikes.
Possibe explanations are

  * the inductance is much less than 45 uH;
  
  * my electrical model of the cell is wrong;

  * the rise time of the current pulses is much longer
    than 1 ms;
  
  * the mutimeter used to measure peak V is blind to narrow
    spikes;
  
  * any of the above;

  * none of the above;
  
I give up; it doesn't seem very likely that the cell inductance is
significant.

But I still would like to see the voltage waveform...

--stolfi

 -------------------------------------------------------------------
Jorge Stolfi                                | Tel: +55 (192) 39-8442
Computer Science Dept. (DCC-IMECC)          |      +55 (192) 39-3115
Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP) | Fax: +55 (192) 39-7470 
Internet: stolfi@dcc.unicamp.br             | Campinas, SP -- Brazil
 -------------------------------------------------------------------
Please do not copy this .signature virus into your .signature file!
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenstolfi cudfnJorge cudlnStolfi cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.21 / C Harrison /  On-line CF resources at sunsite (periodic post)
     
Originally-From: cfh@sunSITE.unc.edu (Charles Harrison)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: On-line CF resources at sunsite (periodic post)
Date: 21 Jun 1994 06:08:59 GMT
Organization: University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill

This message is posted periodically to inform readers about on-line
data sources related to "cold fusion" which are located at the 
University of North Carolina SunSITE server.

Two public WAIS (Wide Area Information Server) sources are online:
(1) Dieter Britz's Bibliography (periodically updated), and
(2) A sci.physics.fusion archive (1989 to present).
WAIS provides for multiple keyword searches in these databases.  It
does _not_ support boolean logic in the searching :-(.

1.  If you are directly connected to Internet, you can log onto a public
    WAIS server at the University of North Carolina:
    %telnet sunsite.unc.edu
    ...
    login: swais
    ...
    TERM = (unknown) vt100
    It takes a minute to load ...

    <use ? for online help>
    <use /cold to locate the cold-fusion "Source" - the Britz biblio>
    < or use /fusion to locate the fusion-digest source>
    <follow the prompts to select the source and enter your keywords
     for searching>

2.  If you have a "gopher" client, you can use it for WAIS access.  Many 
    university campuses provide gopher as a public information service.
2a. On most systems, you first select an option labeled "Other Systems",
    then from that menu select "WAIS based information".  Since each
    gopher site creates its own menus, I can't tell you exactly where to
    go from there.
2b. If you can gopher to SunSITE, at UNC, navigate the menus down thru
    SunSITE archives..All archives..Academic..Physics..Cold-fusion.
    You will find the searchable databases (typically marked <?>), as
    well as the primary-literature files discussed below.
2c. If you can 'telnet' but not 'gopher', you may telnet to
    sunsite.unc.edu and login as 'gopher'.  Then follow 2a or 2b above.

3.  If you have a WAIS client on your system (the most common ones are
    "swais" -- character-based, and "xwais" -- for X-Windows), use it.  The
    Britz source is called "cold-fusion" and it is listed in the 
    directory-of-servers.

    If you _want_ a WAIS client program to run on your system, several are
    available in the public domain.  Try ftp-ing to one of these sites:
      sunsite.unc.edu
      think.com

There are several additional files archived at sunsite (e.g. Bollinger's
Twist of Ribbon, preprints of the Fleischmann&Pons 1989 paper), which
are accessible by anonymous ftp.
    %ftp sunsite.unc.edu
    . . .
    >cd pub/academic/physics/Cold-fusion
    >dir
The collection (mostly primary papers) maintained by vince cate has been
copied over to pub/academic/physics/Cold-fusion/vince-cate.

Additional contributions are welcome; e-mail cfh@sunsite.unc.edu.
-- 
Chuck Harrison       Adelphi, MD USA           | "you can't grep
cfh@sunsite.unc.edu  73770.1337@compuserve.com |   dead trees"
not affiliated with UNC or SUN --              |  -J.I. Kamens
        just a long wais from home             |
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudencfh cudfnCharles cudlnHarrison cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.20 / John Logajan /  "Cold Fusion" Magazine reduces price
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: "Cold Fusion" Magazine reduces price
Date: 20 Jun 1994 17:57:18 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Online Services Member.

I just got a letter telling me that "Cold Fusion" Magazine has reduced
its yearly subscription price from $98/year to $58/year.  Subscribers
who paid the $98 are extended to 24 issues.

"Cold Fusion" Magazine
70 Route 202N
Petersborough NH 03458 USA
1-800-677-8838
FAX 1-603-924-8613

--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com -- 612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills  MN 55112 USA           -

cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.20 / John Logajan /  Re: Maddox and Peer Review
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Maddox and Peer Review
Date: 20 Jun 1994 20:31:50 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Online Services Member.

Eugene Mallove (76570.2270@compuserve.com) wrote:
: sheds some light on John Maddox's standards of so-called "peer review." If 

: winner of the 1993 Nobel Prize for Chemistry is to be believed. Speaking about
: AIDS and HIV in London recently, Kary B. Mullis

Maddox certainly seems to have picked the wrong horse in the AIDS/HIV theory.
The very same Kary Mullis, with Charles Thomas and Phillip Johnson wrote an
article entitled "What Causes AIDS -- It's an open question" in the June
1994 issue of Reason Magazine.

Says the article, "Like other leaders of the scientific establishment, Nature
editor John Maddox is fiercely protective of the HIV theory.  He indignantly
rejected a scientific paper making the same points as this article....
refused to print even the brief statement of the Group for the Scientific
Reappraisal of the HIV/AIDS Hypothesis, which has over 300 members."

"The HIV establishment and its journalist allies have replied to various
specific criticisms of the HIV theory without taking them seriously.  They
have never provided an authoritative paper that undertakes to prove that
HIV really is the cause of AIDS -- meaning a paper that does not start by
assuming the point at issue."


As far as I can tell from the above article, the only time Nature has
published anything beyond the HIV case on the controversy over the cause
of AIDS was a ridiculing piece penned by Weiss and Jaffe in 1990 in
which they claimed doubters of the HIV theory are like "people who think
that bad air causes malaria."  They likened Peter Duesberg's proposition
that HIV is not the cause of AIDS to the ideas that AIDS is from outer-
space, or germ warfare gone bad.


So apparently "science" by ridicule and one-side-only is natural at
Nature.  It is especially sad in a biological science where an early
adoption of the "orthodoxy" can delay correct discovery by decades,
and thousands, perhaps millions of lives later.

I highly recommend the June 1994 Reason article if you are interested
in hearing that not only is there another side to the HIV/AIDS theory,
but that even as the HIV theory is falling to pieces, certain
proponents continue to adopt unethical methods to suppress dissent.

It's a very sad story, and Maddox is right in the middle of it.

--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com -- 612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills  MN 55112 USA           -

cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Tue Jun 21 04:37:15 EDT 1994
------------------------------
1994.06.22 / Bill Page /  Bohm's interpretation of QM via Maple mathematics
     
Originally-From: 70047.3047@compuserve.com (Bill Page)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Bohm's interpretation of QM via Maple mathematics
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 1994 00:17:00 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

The following article was prepared using Maple V (release 3).  It is based 
on Bohm and Hiley, "The Undivided Universe", Chapter 3.  "Causal 
interpretation of the one body system".

Dear Reader: This is really an experiment to see how well my new tools 
work.  I am using Maple to prepare a worksheet containing some  moderately 
complex mathematics and text.  Using the textual output mode, I then post 
the result to the sci.physics.fusion news group.  Maple can also produce 
fancy LaTex compatible output but this is not so easily communicated.  I 
would very much appreciate your feedback about this approach as well as the 
contents (of course!).

I wont try to explain very much of the Maple syntax except where I think it 
absolutely necessary.  For the most part I think Readers will find it self 
explanatory.  Of course, if you want to discuss the details, I'd be glad to 
oblige (to the best of my knowledge).  Also, the enthusiastic are 
encouraged to consultant any number of books now published on the subject 
and there is apparently a news group sci.math.symbolic which actively 
discusses Maple and several other similar math systems.  So far, I haven't 
had the time to drop in there.

Most of what follows is just standard quantum mechanics (QM) done in this 
new form.  The point of this posting is to introduce Bohm's interpretation 
of QM.  If this method works out and I get some positive feedback, it is my 
intenton to continue this series of postings with an eventual application 
of Bohm's interpretation to the theory of ion band state fusion as proposed 
by Chubb and Chubb.  This will take some time, however, and I am still 
working out some of the details.  After another introductory posting 
following this one, I  have so far planned another installment in this 
series to investigate Bohm's interpretation of simple single and 
multiple-body bound state problems like the harmonic oscillator and the 
"particle in a box".  I have worked out the calculations for these cases 
largely based on the presentation in the book "Quantum Methods" by James M. 
Feagin.  Working out these simple types of problems have proven to be a 
good way to gain some new intuitions about QM systems from Bohm's 
perspective. And also a way of exploiting Maple to generate a lot of neat 
graphics and animations!

Over the last few months, I have come to appreciate that tools like Maple 
make it possible to use computers in physics in a way that has not been 
possible before.  They are very likely to become important new tools in 
physics education and research.  I am not sure how people here feel about 
using sci.physics.fusion (and Fusion Digest) for this type of material.  So 
I would really appreciate your comments on this.

BTW, I am running Maple under MicroSoft Windows on a 486 25 MHz Pc.  Maple 
is also available for MacIntosh and Unix/X-Windows environments.

1.  Maple preliminarys

In reading the following, please note that in Maple, commands start with 
the prompt character and comments concerning a command begin at the # 
character .   Commands are what you type in order to get Maple to do its 
thing.  In the worksheet, Maples results always follow a command of some 
kind and are indented or centered on the page.  The symbol := is used when 
a name is being given to an expression or an equation.

Transmission through the network as electronic mail may introduce some line 
folding that might make some things a little hard to read.  I'll try to 
avoid it but, dear Reader, if you have trouble, please let me know.  Unlike 
a lot of postings on sci.physics.fusion, you will probably have to print 
this out on paper in order to follow the mathematics.

> restart;              # clear the work space of previous results (if any)

> assume(h,real);       # This provides the ~ symbol in h~ (read it h-bar)


First we need some definitions for complex symbolic mathematics (motivated 
by "Quantum Methods").
 
> alias(I=I,i=sqrt(-1)); # Because i looks better than I in a complex 
number

                                     i

> unprotect(conjugate);  # Override the builtin conjugate operator to
>                        # assume all variables real unless i is explicit

> conjugate:=expr->eval(subs(i=-i,expr));

               conjugate := expr -> eval(subs(i = - i, expr))

> re:=expr->expand((expr+conjugate(expr))/2);

            re := expr -> expand(1/2 expr + 1/2 conjugate(expr))

> im:=expr->expand((expr-conjugate(expr))/(2*i));

           im := expr -> expand(- 1/2 i (expr - conjugate(expr)))

Check these operators.

> re(1+2*i);

                                     1

> im(1+2*i);

                                     2

And also define the one dimensional gradient operator.

> Del:= psi ->Diff(psi,x);         # This one does not evaluation

                                           d
                           Del := psi -> ---- psi
                                          dx

> del:= psi -> diff(psi,x);

                                           d
                           del := psi -> ---- psi
                                          dx


 
Now Schrodinger's wave equation for one body in one dimension can be 
written


cudkeys:
cuddy22 cuden3047 cudfnBill cudlnPage cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.22 / Bill Page /  Bohm's interpretation of QM via Maple mathematics.
     
Originally-From: 70047.3047@compuserve.com (Bill Page)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Bohm's interpretation of QM via Maple mathematics.
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 1994 00:17:06 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

[My appologies.  The first posting of this message got truncated. Still a 
few bugs in my methods, it would appear... Here it is again.]

The following article was prepared using Maple V (release 3).  It is based 
on Bohm and Hiley, "The Undivided Universe", Chapter 3.  "Causal 
interpretation of the one body system".

Dear Reader: This is really an experiment to see how well my new tools 
work.  I am using Maple to prepare a worksheet containing some  moderately 
complex mathematics and text.  Using the textual output mode, I then post 
the result to the sci.physics.fusion news group.  Maple can also produce 
fancy LaTex compatible output but this is not so easily communicated.  I 
would very much appreciate your feedback about this approach as well as the 

contents (of course!).

I wont try to explain very much of the Maple syntax except where I think it 

absolutely necessary.  For the most part I think Readers will find it self 
explanatory.  Of course, if you want to discuss the details, I'd be glad to 

oblige (to the best of my knowledge).  Also, the enthusiastic are 
encouraged to consultant any number of books now published on the subject 
and there is apparently a news group sci.math.symbolic which actively 
discusses Maple and several other similar math systems.  So far, I haven't 
had the time to drop in there.

Most of what follows is just standard quantum mechanics (QM) done in this 
new form.  The point of this posting is to introduce Bohm's interpretation 
of QM.  If this method works out and I get some positive feedback, it is my 

intenton to continue this series of postings with an eventual application 
of Bohm's interpretation to the theory of ion band state fusion as proposed 

by Chubb and Chubb.  This will take some time, however, and I am still 
working out some of the details.  After another introductory posting 
following this one, I  have so far planned another installment in this 
series to investigate Bohm's interpretation of simple single and 
multiple-body bound state problems like the harmonic oscillator and the 
"particle in a box".  I have worked out the calculations for these cases 
largely based on the presentation in the book "Quantum Methods" by James M. 

Feagin.  Working out these simple types of problems have proven to be a 
good way to gain some new intuitions about QM systems from Bohm's 
perspective. And also a way of exploiting Maple to generate a lot of neat 
graphics and animations!

Over the last few months, I have come to appreciate that tools like Maple 
make it possible to use computers in physics in a way that has not been 
possible before.  They are very likely to become important new tools in 
physics education and research.  I am not sure how people here feel about 
using sci.physics.fusion (and Fusion Digest) for this type of material.  So 

I would really appreciate your comments on this.

BTW, I am running Maple under MicroSoft Windows on a 486 25 MHz Pc.  Maple 
is also available for MacIntosh and Unix/X-Windows environments.

1.  Maple preliminarys

In reading the following, please note that in Maple, commands start with 
the prompt character and comments concerning a command begin at the # 
character.   Commands are what you type in order to get Maple to do its 
thing.  In the worksheet, Maples results always follow a command of some 
kind and are indented or centered on the page.  The symbol := is used when 
a name is being given to an expression or an equation.

Transmission through the network as electronic mail may introduce some line 

folding that might make some things a little hard to read.  I'll try to 
avoid it but, dear Reader, if you have trouble, please let me know.  Unlike 

a lot of postings on sci.physics.fusion, you will probably have to print 
this out on paper in order to follow the mathematics.

> restart;              # clear the work space of previous results (if any)

> assume(h,real);       # This provides the ~ symbol in h~ (read it h-bar)


First we need some definitions for complex symbolic mathematics (motivated 
by "Quantum Methods").
 
> alias(I=I,i=sqrt(-1)); # Because i looks better than I in a complex 

                                     i

> unprotect(conjugate);  # Override the builtin conjugate operator to
>                        # assume all variables real unless i is explicit

> conjugate:=expr->eval(subs(i=-i,expr));

               conjugate := expr -> eval(subs(i = - i, expr))

> re:=expr->expand((expr+conjugate(expr))/2);

            re := expr -> expand(1/2 expr + 1/2 conjugate(expr))

> im:=expr->expand((expr-conjugate(expr))/(2*i));

           im := expr -> expand(- 1/2 i (expr - conjugate(expr)))

Check these operators.

> re(1+2*i);

                                     1

> im(1+2*i);

                                     2

And also define the one dimensional gradient operator.

> Del:= psi ->Diff(psi,x);         # This one does no evaluation

                                          d
                           Del := psi -> ---- psi

cudkeys:
cuddy22 cuden3047 cudfnBill cudlnPage cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.21 / Glenn Durden /  Re: SKIT16,PROOF,Proof, and Poofsters NEANDERTHAL PARK2
     
Originally-From: alfa@werple.apana.org.au (Glenn Durden)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.physics.fusion,sci.chem
Subject: Re: SKIT16,PROOF,Proof, and Poofsters NEANDERTHAL PARK2
Date: 21 Jun 1994 17:07:19 +1000
Organization: werple public-access unix, Melbourne

Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium) writes:

>   The scene for skit 16 is a huge science conference hall at Cambridge

>Relativity is the operative not Gaia, he shouts. Show an electronic
>pointer fight like a three musketeer sword fight between Wheeler,
>Lovelock and Penrose. Show Ford shouting "you poofsters, you poofsters,
>stop fighting."

I dont get it.
Is it supposed to be a joke, or is LP the only joke?

cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenalfa cudfnGlenn cudlnDurden cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.21 / Robert Heeter /  Re: CNF in the FAQ
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Originally-From: Cary Jamison, cary@esl.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CNF in the FAQ
Subject: CNF in the FAQ
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 1994 02:44:10 GMT
Date: 17 Jun 1994 19:22:18 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

Subject: CNF in the FAQ
Originally-From: Cary Jamison, cary@esl.com
Date: 17 Jun 1994 19:22:18 GMT
In article <cary-170694121042@m52035.esl.com> Cary Jamison, cary@esl.com
writes:
>I found it interesting that even though Robert Heeter states explicitly
>that his FAQ is for conventional fusion only, not cold fusion, that he
does
>talk about the only verified and accepted form of cold fusion - muon
>catalyzed fusion!

I agree that this is a bit of a problem.  I'm still trying to find a 
better disclaimer.  I'd go with Frank Close's "Cold Fusion" and
"Test-Tube 
Fusion" distinction, but now the anomalous heat people have non-test-tube 
experiments to talk about.  But so far, "Cold Fusion" is the common usage 
for anomalous-heat possible-fusion etc, so I'm still using that.
>
>I guess cold fusion has received such a bad name that even real cold
fusion
>prefers not to be called cold fusion anymore.  Maybe Robert should change
>his exclusionary note to say that his FAQ does not include anomalous heat
>affects that may or may not be fusion, and allow in the
>conventional/verified/accepted cold fusion of whatever form.

I'd like to, but I need a more concise phrasing of this sort of
disclaimer 
in order for it to fly.  I'd like to keep the disclaimer to a single
line, 
or two at most, and *everyone* has to understand what I mean without
question.

It's really ironic that the anomalous-heat experiments are called cold 
fusion, because the jury *is* still out about whether there's any fusion
there at all...  Ah, well...

Maybe what I need somewhere (perhaps in the introduction, which I 
haven't reposted yet, since I'm still revising it) is a disclaimer on
the disclaimer, which explains this whole point... 

Any thoughts out there?

***************************
Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University
As always, I represent only myself, and not PPPL
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.21 / Robert Heeter /  Re: FYI 85-86, June 16, 1994 (Brown's fusion bill)
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Originally-From: Carl J Lydick, carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
Newsgroups: sci.research,sci.physics.fusion,sci.energy
Subject: Re: FYI 85-86, June 16, 1994 (Brown's fusion bill)
Subject: Re: FYI 85-86, June 16, 1994 (Brown's fusion bill)
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 1994 03:17:25 GMT
Date: 18 Jun 1994 22:10:11 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

Subject: Re: FYI 85-86, June 16, 1994 (Brown's fusion bill)
Originally-From: Carl J Lydick, carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
Date: 18 Jun 1994 22:10:11 GMT
In article <2tvrc3$hbv@gap.cco.caltech.edu> Carl J Lydick,
carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
>In article <1994Jun17.032443.24002@Princeton.EDU>, Robert F. Heeter 
><rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> writes:
>=>In introducing the bill, Brown responded to criticism that the
>=>magnetic fusion program has been narrowed to include only the
>=>tokamak concept. "Given the limited resources available to the
>=>fusion energy research program," he said, "the focus of DOE's
>=>program on tokamaks is understandable."  The bill precludes
>=>appropriations for any magnetic fusion facility other than TPX or
>=>facilities associated with ITER.
>=
>=Whoa!  Precludes appropriations for other magnetic fusion facilities?
>=What about alternative magnetic concepts that aren't TPX or ITER?
>
>The whole point of the bill is to set thing up so that our commitment to
>investment in these two facilities is credible.  Given Congress' track
record,
>a provision like this one is necessary to prevent the following scenario:
>	1)  The bill is passsed, and we start collecting taxes;
>	2)  Halfway through the construction of one of these projects, some
>	    Congresscritter with an important committee chairmanship decides
>	    that he wants fusion research in HIS district;
>	3)  Funds from the tax are diverted to the pet project of the
>	    Congresscritter, and the U.S. backs out of its commitment to ITER
>	    and TPX.
>I.e., without such a provision, the bill does not constitute a credible
>committment to either facility.

I basically agree with everything you've said, but this doesn't really 
address my concern.  There are a *huge* variety of magnetic confinement 
approaches, from stellarators to spheromaks to mirror machines, 
reversed-field pinches, field-reversed configurations, etc., etc., which 
would be completely prohibited unless one allows funding for alternative 
magnetic confinement schemes.  In fact, aside from inertial-confinement 
fusion, the overwhelming majority of alternative and advanced-concepts 
fusion research today is in these sorts of non-tokamak magnetic 
confinement schemes.  A blanket prohibition on *all* magnetic fusion 
facilities is really overdoing it.  US committment to TPX & ITER can be 
maintained simply by providing that no facility of comparable scale be
built 
in the U.S.  There are a number of small research tokamaks which we
should 
also continue to fund in order to ensure that there are new ideas ready 
to be implemented after ITER is (one hopes) successful.

I'm going to see if I can't get ahold of the actual language of the bill
to make sure I'm not misinterpreting this; it seems unbelievable that
Brown's bill would prohibit all alternative magnetic-confinement research.


***************************
Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University
As always, I represent only myself, and not PPPL
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.21 / Robert Heeter /  Re: Whats going on at UT Austin
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Originally-From: arthur blair, blair@mksol.dseg.ti.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Whats going on at UT Austin
Subject: Whats going on at UT Austin
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 1994 03:24:22 GMT
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 1994 04:33:34 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

Subject: Whats going on at UT Austin
Originally-From: arthur blair, blair@mksol.dseg.ti.com
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 1994 04:33:34 GMT
In article <1994Jun20.043334.1374@mksol.dseg.ti.com> arthur blair,
blair@mksol.dseg.ti.com writes:
>RF Heeter's FAQ mentions a few details about a fusion program
>at UT Austin. Can anyone tell me more?

They have a gopher server (also accessible via WWW/Mosaic);
it's referenced in section 8.  The Mosaic URL is

gopher://hagar.ph.utexas.edu/1

If you get more information on UTexas, and think I should
add something somewhere, let me know.

***************************
Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University
As always, I represent only myself, and not PPPL
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.22 / Richard Blue /  Re: Sites and Page on wavefunctions
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Sites and Page on wavefunctions
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 1994 00:16:45 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Chuck Sites has ask me to clarify my question concerning internal
nuclear coordinates in bandstate wave functions.  In my discussion
with Scott Chubb the Born-Oppenheimer coordinate separation was
made explicite.  For deuterons that means that there are position-
momentum coordinates for the proton and for the neutron relative
to the center of mass of the deuteron and a wavefunction involving
only those coordinates.  As I understand the Chubb theory that
wavefunction is not altered by the formation of the deuteron band
state.  All the discussion of delocalization and Bose condensation,
etc. treats the deuteron as a single entity and only the coordinates
associated with its center of mass motion get described.  My
request is that anyone holding a different view make a statement
to that effect within the context of an discussion of band theory
or Bose condenstates or someother new physics.

Now when we move on to questions of overlap of wavefunctions or
delocalization or nuclear quantum exchanges it ought to be possible
to make the context clearer than it has been to date.  For example,
it is my view that delocalization or overlap of deuterons in the
Bose sense is different from any picture in which individual
protons or neutrons are delocalized or exchanged over large distances.
Furthermore when we move from having a deuteron wavefunction to
having a 4He wavefunction there has to be an obvious difference in
the internal nuclear coordinates.  Please state what you have in
mind for that difference.

It seems obvious to me that you can't call upon the deuterons to
behave as a collection of Bosons and then glibly say the protons and
neutrons can be exchanged throughout the lattice.  I just have the
feeling that there is too much flim-flam involved here.  It may be
good clean fun to speculate about the formation of a Bose condensate,
but then carry it through to say what the observable signiture for
such an event would be.  But before you assert that "excess heat"
will be the only effect there have to be some answers to a few other
questions.

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.22 / Richard Blue /  Reply to Mitchell Swartz on 4He
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Reply to Mitchell Swartz on 4He
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 1994 00:16:45 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Yes, Mitchell, I agree that E1 photon emission from an exited state
of 4He can only occur from a spin 1 state and that it must involve a
change in parity.  If a spin 2 exited state is formed it must decay
by some other pathway such as proton or neutron emission or E2 emission.
Your assertion seems to be not that spin selection rules inhibit photon
emission but that the lattice interactions do, so I don't understand
why you even brought up the spin other than to generate more of a
smokescreen.

Since you ask, let me say that my observations on photon emission
from excited states of 4He typically involved something like proton
bombardment of tritium in a titanium foil, i.e. the reaction did
occur in a lattice for what that is worth.  You assert that "The
lattice -- and loaded lattice at that -- constitutes a unique
environment."  That is fine as far as it goes, but we can never get
you or other cold fusion advocates to give a very clear description
of the significant ways in which this unique environment can have
such a profound effect on nuclear reaction processes.  You mention
paramagnetic interactions, but is that really something that shows
much promise for explaining cold fusion?  Certainly you can through
around lots of words that apply to the description of something
related to the physics of solid state lattices, but can you make
any real connection to claimed observations relating to cold fusion?

On the matter of what experimental precautions and/or corrections
were taken in the Miles-Bush 4He experiments,  there is perhaps
some confusion as to how many sets of measurements there were
prior to the switch to the use of metal sampling flasks.  I believe
that perhaps one set of measurements got described in two different
publications.  If I am correct in that statement I think it follows
that there was perhaps an effort to salvage the first data set
after certain possible experimental errors were called to the authors'
attention.  My point is simply that the first data set to which I
specifically refered is so flawed that it should be dropped from
further consideration.  The fact that the authors' made a significant
change in the experimental technique employed for subsequent
measurements is a tacit acknowledgement that the use of glass flasks
for storage and transport of the samples was inappropriate.

As to what has been solidly established by the Miles-Bush experiments
to date, as long as there are so many loose ends left dangling it
is clear that more experiments are required before the heat-helium
correlation is established as an experimental fact.  I am not
so sure that the calorimetry showing excess heat is on solid
footing, largely because M-B tend to underestimate the experimental
uncertainties in there measurements and typically do not demonstrate
any effect that lies clearly outside the range of error.  They have
not reduced recombination effects, for example.  It would also help
their credibility if they adopted double blind testing techniques
for the helium samples.

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.22 / Bill Page /  Bohm's interpretation of QM via Maple mathematics
     
Originally-From: 70047.3047@compuserve.com (Bill Page)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Bohm's interpretation of QM via Maple mathematics
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 1994 00:17:08 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

[My appologies again.  The first and second posting of this message somehow 
got truncated. One more time...]

The following article was prepared using Maple V (release 3).  It is based 
on Bohm and Hiley, "The Undivided Universe", Chapter 3.  "Causal 
interpretation of the one body system".

Dear Reader: This is really an experiment to see how well my new tools 
work.  I am using Maple to prepare a worksheet containing some  moderately 
complex mathematics and text.  Using the textual output mode, I then post 
the result to the sci.physics.fusion news group.  Maple can also produce 
fancy LaTex compatible output but this is not so easily communicated.  I 
would very much appreciate your feedback about this approach as well as the 
contents (of course!).

I wont try to explain very much of the Maple syntax except where I think it 
absolutely necessary.  For the most part I think Readers will find it self 
explanatory.  Of course, if you want to discuss the details, I'd be glad to 
oblige (to the best of my knowledge).  Also, the enthusiastic are 
encouraged to consultant any number of books now published on the subject 
and there is apparently a news group sci.math.symbolic which actively 
discusses Maple and several other similar math systems.  So far, I haven't 
had the time to drop in there.

Most of what follows is just standard quantum mechanics (QM) done in this 
new form.  The point of this posting is to introduce Bohm's interpretation 
of QM.  If this method works out and I get some positive feedback, it is my 
intenton to continue this series of postings with an eventual application 
of Bohm's interpretation to the theory of ion band state fusion as proposed 
by Chubb and Chubb.  This will take some time, however, and I am still 
working out some of the details.  After another introductory posting 
following this one, I  have so far planned another installment in this 
series to investigate Bohm's interpretation of simple single and 
multiple-body bound state problems like the harmonic oscillator and the 
"particle in a box".  I have worked out the calculations for these cases 
largely based on the presentation in the book "Quantum Methods" by James M. 
Feagin.  Working out these simple types of problems have proven to be a 
good way to gain some new intuitions about QM systems from Bohm's 
perspective. And also a way of exploiting Maple to generate a lot of neat 
graphics and animations!

Over the last few months, I have come to appreciate that tools like Maple 
make it possible to use computers in physics in a way that has not been 
possible before.  They are very likely to become important new tools in 
physics education and research.  I am not sure how people here feel about 
using sci.physics.fusion (and Fusion Digest) for this type of material.  So 
I would really appreciate your comments on this.

BTW, I am running Maple under MicroSoft Windows on a 486 25 MHz Pc.  Maple 
is also available for MacIntosh and Unix/X-Windows environments.

1.  Maple preliminarys

In reading the following, please note that in Maple, commands start with 
the prompt character and comments concerning a command begin at the # 
character.   Commands are what you type in order to get Maple to do its 
thing.  In the worksheet, Maples results always follow a command of some 
kind and are indented or centered on the page.  The symbol := is used when 
a name is being given to an expression or an equation.

Transmission through the network as electronic mail may introduce some line 
folding that might make some things a little hard to read.  I'll try to 
avoid it but, dear Reader, if you have trouble, please let me know.  Unlike 
a lot of postings on sci.physics.fusion, you will probably have to print 
this out on paper in order to follow the mathematics.

> restart;              # clear the work space of previous results (if any)

> assume(h,real);       # This provides the ~ symbol in h~ (read it h-bar)


First we need some definitions for complex symbolic mathematics (motivated 
by "Quantum Methods").
 
> alias(I=I,i=sqrt(-1)); # Because i looks better than I in a complex 

                                     i

> unprotect(conjugate);  # Override the builtin conjugate operator to
>                        # assume all variables real unless i is explicit

> conjugate:=expr->eval(subs(i=-i,expr));

               conjugate := expr -> eval(subs(i = - i, expr))

> re:=expr->expand((expr+conjugate(expr))/2);

            re := expr -> expand(1/2 expr + 1/2 conjugate(expr))

> im:=expr->expand((expr-conjugate(expr))/(2*i));

           im := expr -> expand(- 1/2 i (expr - conjugate(expr)))

Check these operators.

> re(1+2*i);

                                     1

> im(1+2*i);

                                     2

And also define the one dimensional gradient operator.

> Del:= psi ->Diff(psi,x);         # This one does no evaluation

                                          d
                           Del := psi -> ---- psi
                                          dx


cudkeys:
cuddy22 cuden3047 cudfnBill cudlnPage cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.22 / Bill Page /  Bohm's interpretation of QM using Maple mathematics
     
Originally-From: 70047.3047@compuserve.com (Bill Page)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Bohm's interpretation of QM using Maple mathematics
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 1994 00:17:18 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

[Damn these new fangled programs! The few postings of this message got 
truncated. This is a continuation.  I hope.  If it doesn't end in Cheers, 
then you know you didn't get it all.]

...

And also define the one dimensional gradient operator.

> Del:= psi -> Diff(psi,x);        # This one does no evaluation

                                          d
                           Del := psi -> ---- psi
                                          dx


cudkeys:
cuddy22 cuden3047 cudfnBill cudlnPage cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.22 / Bill Page /  Bohm's interpretation of QM with Maple mathematics
     
Originally-From: 70047.3047@compuserve.com (Bill Page)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Bohm's interpretation of QM with Maple mathematics
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 1994 00:17:23 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

[Something has failed repeatedly in my attempts to send this message.  I 
think only the first part was sent.   I'll try to re-post the rest.]


1.  Maple preliminarys

In reading the following, please note that in Maple, commands start with 
the prompt character and comments concerning a command begin at the # 
character.   Commands are what you type in order to get Maple to do its 
thing.  In the worksheet, Maples results always follow a command of some 
kind and are indented or centered on the page.  The symbol := is used when 
a name is being given to an expression or an equation.

Transmission through the network as electronic mail may introduce some line 
folding that might make some things a little hard to read.  I'll try to 
avoid it but, dear Reader, if you have trouble, please let me know.  Unlike 
a lot of postings on sci.physics.fusion, you will probably have to print 
this out on paper in order to follow the mathematics.

> restart;              # clear the work space of previous results (if any)

> assume(h,real);       # This provides the ~ symbol in h~ (read it h-bar)


First we need some definitions for complex symbolic mathematics (motivated 
by "Quantum Methods").
 
> alias(I=I,i=sqrt(-1)); # Because i looks better than I in a complex 

                                     i

> unprotect(conjugate);  # Override the builtin conjugate operator to
>                        # assume all variables real unless i is explicit

> conjugate:=expr->eval(subs(i=-i,expr));

               conjugate := expr -> eval(subs(i = - i, expr))

> re:=expr->expand((expr+conjugate(expr))/2);

            re := expr -> expand(1/2 expr + 1/2 conjugate(expr))

> im:=expr->expand((expr-conjugate(expr))/(2*i));

           im := expr -> expand(- 1/2 i (expr - conjugate(expr)))

Check these operators.

> re(1+2*i);

                                     1

> im(1+2*i);

                                     2

And also define the one dimensional gradient operator.

> Del:= psi -> Diff(psi,x);         # This one does no evaluation

                                          d
                           Del := psi -> ---- psi
                                          dx

> del:= psi -> diff(psi,x);

                                          d
                           del := psi -> ---- psi

cudkeys:
cuddy22 cuden3047 cudfnBill cudlnPage cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.22 / Bill Page /  Bohm's interpretation of QM using Maple mathematics
     
Originally-From: 70047.3047@compuserve.com (Bill Page)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Bohm's interpretation of QM using Maple mathematics
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 1994 00:17:40 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Continuation of: Bohm's interpretation of QM with Maple mathematics

[Something has failed repeatedly in my attempts to send this message.  I 
think only the 
first part was sent.   I'll try to re-post the rest.]


1.  Maple preliminarys

In reading the following, please note that in Maple, commands start with 
the prompt character and comments concerning a command begin at the # 
character.   Commands are what you type in order to get Maple to do its 
thing.  In the worksheet, Maples results always follow a command of some 
kind and are indented or centered on the page.  The symbol := is used when 
a name is being given to an expression or an equation.

Transmission through the network as electronic mail may introduce some line 
folding that might make some things a little hard to read.  I'll try to 
avoid it but, dear Reader, if you have trouble, please let me know.  Unlike 
a lot of postings on sci.physics.fusion, you will probably have to print 
this out on paper in order to follow the mathematics.

> restart;              # clear the work space of previous results (if any)

> assume(h,real);       # This provides the ~ symbol in h~ (read it h-bar)


First we need some definitions for complex symbolic mathematics (motivated 
by "Quantum Methods").
 
> alias(I=I,i=sqrt(-1)); # Because i looks better than I in a complex 

                                     i

> unprotect(conjugate);  # Override the builtin conjugate operator to
>                        # assume all variables real unless i is explicit

> conjugate:=expr->eval(subs(i=-i,expr));

               conjugate := expr -> eval(subs(i = - i, expr))

> re:=expr->expand((expr+conjugate(expr))/2);

            re := expr -> expand(1/2 expr + 1/2 conjugate(expr))

> im:=expr->expand((expr-conjugate(expr))/(2*i));

           im := expr -> expand(- 1/2 i (expr - conjugate(expr)))

Check these operators.

> re(1+2*i);

                                     1

> im(1+2*i);

                                     2

And also define the one dimensional gradient operator.

> Del:= psi -> Diff(psi,x);         # This one does no evaluation

                                          d
                           Del := psi -> ---- psi
                                          dx


cudkeys:
cuddy22 cuden3047 cudfnBill cudlnPage cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.22 / R Schroeppel /  Energy development tax
     
Originally-From: rcs@cs.arizona.edu (Richard Schroeppel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Energy development tax
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 1994 00:17:46 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Robert F. Heeter reprises Rep. Brown's suggestion of an
energy development fund, and asks

>  What do others think?

It reminds me of the 8% tax on plane tickets to finance the
airport construction trust fund.  Hah!

Rich Schroeppel   rcs@cs.arizona.edu

cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenrcs cudfnRichard cudlnSchroeppel cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.22 / Bill Page /  Bohm's interpretation of QM using Maple mathematics
     
Originally-From: 70047.3047@compuserve.com (Bill Page)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Bohm's interpretation of QM using Maple mathematics
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 1994 00:17:51 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

[This is my last attempt today to transmit this article.  I am sorry that 
my various attempts have probably produced a mess in the news group 
postings.  I'll figure this one out yet!]

# The following article was prepared using Maple V (release 3).  It is 
based
# on Bohm and Hiley, "The Undivided Universe", Chapter 3.  "Causal
# interpretation of the one body system".
# 
# Dear Reader: This is really an experiment to see how well my new tools
# work.  I am using Maple to prepare a worksheet containing some moderately
# complex mathematics and text.  Using the textual output mode, I then post
# the result to the sci.physics.fusion news group.  Maple can also produce
# fancy LaTex compatible output but this is not so easily communicated.  I
# would very much appreciate your feedback about this approach as well as
# the # contents (of course!).
# 
# Most of what follows is just standard quantum mechanics (QM) done in this
# new form.  The point of this posting, however, is to introduce Bohm's
# interpretation of QM.  If this method works out and I get some positive
# feedback, it is my intenton to continue this series of postings with an
# eventual application of Bohm's interpretation to the theory of ion band
# state fusion as proposed by Chubb and Chubb.  This will take some time,
# however, and I am still working out some of the details.  After another
# introductory posting following this one, I  have so far planned another
# installment in this series to investigate Bohm's interpretation to simple
# single and multiple-body bound state problems like the harmonic 
oscillator
# and the "particle in a box".  I have worked out the calculations for 
these
# cases largely based on the presentation in the book "Quantum Methods" by
# James M. Feagin.  These simple type of problem have proven to be a good
# way to gain some new intuitions about QM systems from Bohm's approach. 
# And also a way of exploiting Maple to generate a lot of neat graphics and
# animations!
# 
# Over the last few months, I have come to appreciate that tools like Maple
# make it possible to use computers in physics in a way that has not been
# possible before.  They are very likely to become important new tools in 
# physics education and research.
#
# BTW, I am running Maple under MicroSoft Windows on a 486 25 MHz Pc.  
# Maple is also available for MacIntosh and Unix/X-Windows environments.
# 
# 1.  Maple preliminarys
# 
# In reading the following, please note that in Maple, comments begin at
# the # character and commands start with the prompt character >. Commands
# are what you type in order to get Maple to do its thing.  In the
# worksheet, Maples results always follow a command of some kind.
# 
> restart;         # clear the work space of previous results (if any)

> assume(h,real);  # This provides the ~ symbol in h~ (read it h-bar)

# First we need some definitions for complex symbolic mathematics (from
# "Quantum Methods").
# 
> alias(I=I,i=sqrt(-1)); # Because i looks better than I in a complex 
number

                                     i

> unprotect(conjugate);  # Override the builtin conjugate to assume real
>                        # unless i is explicit

> conjugate:=expr->eval(subs(i=-i,expr));

               conjugate := expr -> eval(subs(i = - i, expr))

> re:=expr->expand((expr+conjugate(expr))/2);

            re := expr -> expand(1/2 expr + 1/2 conjugate(expr))

> im:=expr->expand((expr-conjugate(expr))/(2*i));

           im := expr -> expand(- 1/2 i (expr - conjugate(expr)))

# Check these operators.
# 
> re(1+2*i);

                                     1

> im(1+2*i);

                                     2

# And also define the one dimensional gradient operator.
# 
> Del:= psi ->Diff(psi,x);           # This one does no evaluation


                                           d

                           Del := psi -> ---- psi

                                          dx



> del:= psi -> diff(psi,x);          # But this one does


                                           d

                           del := psi -> ---- psi

                                          dx



# 
# Now Schrodinger's wave equation for one body in one dimension can be
# written
# 
> `(3.1)`:=i*h*diff(psi(x,t),t)
>          +(h^2/(2*m))*(del@@2)(psi(x,t))-V(x)*psi(x,t)=0; 


 (3.1) :=



                                     /   2           \

                                   2 |  d            |

                                 h~  |----- psi(x, t)|

                                     |   2           |

          /  d           \           \ dx            /

     i h~ |---- psi(x, t)| + 1/2 --------------------- - V(x) psi(x, t) = 0

          \ dt           /                 m



# 
# [Note:  The equation numbers such as (3.1) are in reference to the
# equations found in Bohm&Hiley.
# 
# 
# 2.  The WKB approximation
# 
# Now we get to some actual calculations.
# 
# Bohm and Hiley motivate the causal  interpretation (also called the
# ontological interpretation) by considering the standard WKB approximation
# which is useful as a consistent classical limit in quantum mechanics.
# WKB can be derived by defining the wavefunction psi in polar form and
# separating the real and complex parts of the wave equation.
# 
> psi:=(x,t)->R(x,t)*exp(i*S(x,t)/h);


                                               i S(x, t)

                   psi := (x,t) -> R(x, t) exp(---------)

                                                   h



# 
# where R(x,t) and S(x,t) are real-valued functions.  S(x,t) is called
# the "phase" of the wavefunction.
# 
# In polar form, Schrodinger's equation (3.1) becomes
# 
> expand(`(3.1)`);


      /  d         \     i S(x, t)            /  d         \     i S(x, t)

 i h~ |---- R(x, t)| exp(---------) - R(x, t) |---- S(x, t)| exp(---------)

      \ dt         /         h~               \ dt         /         h~



                /   2         \

              2 |  d          |     i S(x, t)

            h~  |----- R(x, t)| exp(---------)

                |   2         |         h~

                \ dx          /

      + 1/2 ----------------------------------

                             m



             /  d         \ /  d         \     i S(x, t)

        i h~ |---- R(x, t)| |---- S(x, t)| exp(---------)

             \ dx         / \ dx         /         h~

      + -------------------------------------------------

                                m



                         /   2         \

                         |  d          |     i S(x, t)

            i h~ R(x, t) |----- S(x, t)| exp(---------)

                         |   2         |         h~

                         \ dx          /

      + 1/2 -------------------------------------------

                                 m



                    /  d         \2     i S(x, t)

            R(x, t) |---- S(x, t)|  exp(---------)

                    \ dx         /          h~

      - 1/2 --------------------------------------

                               m



                         i S(x, t)

      - V(x) R(x, t) exp(---------) = 0

                             h~



# 
# 
# Considering just the real part of equation (3.1) and dividing through by
# psi(x,t) we get
# 
> `(3.2a)`:=re(-`(3.1)`/psi(x,t));


(3.2a) :=



                           /   2         \

                         2 |  d          |

                       h~  |----- R(x, t)|       /  d         \2

                           |   2         |       |---- S(x, t)|

  /  d         \           \ dx          /       \ dx         /

  |---- S(x, t)| - 1/2 ------------------- + 1/2 --------------- + V(x) = 0

  \ dt         /            R(x, t) m                   m



# 
# Similary,  the imaginary part is
# 
> `(3.2b)`:=im(-`(3.1)`/psi(x,t));


                     /  d         \      /  d         \ /  d         \

                  h~ |---- R(x, t)|   h~ |---- R(x, t)| |---- S(x, t)|

                     \ dt         /      \ dx         / \ dx         /

      (3.2b) := - ----------------- - --------------------------------

                       R(x, t)                    R(x, t) m



                    /   2         \

                    |  d          |

                 h~ |----- S(x, t)|

                    |   2         |

                    \ dx          /

           - 1/2 ------------------ = 0

                          m



# 
# This can be simplified to
# 
> `(3.3)`:=Diff(R(x,t)^2,t)+Del(R(x,t)^2*Del(S(x,t))/m)=0;


                                  /            2 /  d         \\

                                  |     R(x, t)  |---- S(x, t)||

                /  d         2\   |  d           \ dx         /|

       (3.3) := |---- R(x, t) | + |---- -----------------------| = 0

                \ dt          /   \ dx             m           /



# 
# by performing the derivatives
# 
> `(3.3a)`:=value(`(3.3)`);     # This command evaluates the gradients


                     /  d         \

 (3.3a) := 2 R(x, t) |---- R(x, t)|

                     \ dt         /



                                                           /   2         \

                                                         2 |  d          |

                  /  d         \ /  d         \   R(x, t)  |----- S(x, t)|

          R(x, t) |---- S(x, t)| |---- R(x, t)|            |   2         |

                  \ dx         / \ dx         /            \ dx          /

      + 2 ------------------------------------- + ------------------------

                            m                                 m



      = 0



# and on multiplying equation (3.2b) by -2*R(x,t)/h, observing that
# 
> is(lhs(`(3.3a)`)=expand(-2/h*R(x,t)^2*lhs(`(3.2b)`)));


                                    true



# 
# [Note: lhs stands for the left hand side of an equation.]
# 
# 
# 3.   Probability conservation
# 
# First, lets consider the meaning of the imaginary part of the
# Schrodinger equation.
# 
# The probability density is given by
# 
> abs('psi(x,t)')^2=simplify(psi(x,t)*conjugate(psi(x,t)));


                                       2          2

                         abs(psi(x, t))  = R(x, t)



# 
# and the probability current can be defined as
# 
> j:=(x,t)->R(x,t)^2*Del(S(x,t))/m;


                                         2

                                  R(x, t)  Del(S(x, t))

                    j := (x,t) -> ---------------------

                                            m



# equation (3.3) can be written
# 
> Diff(R(x,t)^2,t)+Del('j(x,t)')=0;


                    /  d         2\   /  d         \

                    |---- R(x, t) | + |---- j(x, t)| = 0

                    \ dt          /   \ dx         /



# 
# Also, note that since we have
# 
> expand(conjugate(psi(x,t))*diff(psi(x,t),x)
>        -psi(x,t)*diff(conjugate(psi(x,t)),x));


                                   2 /  d         \

                          i R(x, t)  |---- S(x, t)|

                                     \ dx         /

                        2 -------------------------

                                      h~



# 
# The probability current is also expressed as
# 
> j:=(x,t) -> h/2/i/m*(conjugate(psi(x,t))*diff(psi(x,t),x)
>             -psi(x,t)*diff(conjugate(psi(x,t)),x));


      j := (x,t) -> - 1/2 i h (conjugate(psi(x, t)) diff(psi(x, t), x)



           - psi(x, t) diff(conjugate(psi(x, t)), x))/m



# 
# So we see that equation (3.3) is just the well known continuity equation
# that expresses the conservation of probability.
# 
# 
# 4.   The QuantumHamilton-Jacobi equation
# 
# Now, consider the real part of the polar form of the Schrodinger 
equation.
# 
# By noticing the similarity between equation (3.2a) and the classical
# Hamilton-Jacobi equation, we may define the quantum Hamilton-Jacobi
# equation by:
# 
> `(3.7)`:=diff(S(x,t),t)+(del(S(x,t)))^2/(2*m)+V(x)+Q(x,t)=0;


                                   /  d         \2

                                   |---- S(x, t)|

              /  d         \       \ dx         /

     (3.7) := |---- S(x, t)| + 1/2 --------------- + V(x) + Q(x, t) = 0

              \ dt         /              m



# 
# Equation of motion of a paticle with velocity v(t) is then
# 
> `(3.8)`:=m*diff(v(t),t)=-del(V(x))-del(Q(x,t));


                     /  d      \     /  d      \   /  d         \

          (3.8) := m |---- v(t)| = - |---- V(x)| - |---- Q(x, t)|

                     \ dt      /     \ dx      /   \ dx         /



# 
# where we define the quantum potential as:
# 
> Q:=(x,t) -> -h^2/(2*m)*(del@@2)(R(x,t))/R(x,t);


                                        2    (2)

                                       h  del   (R(x, t))

                   Q := (x,t) -> - 1/2 ------------------

                                            m R(x, t)



# 
# The momentum of the particle is given by
# 
> p:=del(S(x,t));


                                    d

                             p := ---- S(x, t)

                                   dx



# 
# Note that in the WKB limit where the wave packet width is much greater
# than the wave length, Q is very small so the Quantum Hamilton Jacobi
# equation approaches the Hamilton Jacobi equation.
# 
# 
# 5.  The Ground State
# 
# In the ground state psi0 is real, therefore S is independent of x:
# 
> R:=(x,t)->psi0(x);


                           R := (x,t) -> psi0(x)



> S:=(x,t)->-E*t;


                            S := (x,t) -> - E t



> `(3.10)`:='psi(x,t)'=psi(x,t);


                                                     i E t

                 (3.10) := psi(x, t) = psi0(x) exp(- -----)

                                                       h~



# 
# The Hamilton-Jacobi equation becomes
# 
> `(3.12)`:=`(3.7)`;


                                            /   2         \

                                          2 |  d          |

                                        h~  |----- psi0(x)|

                                            |   2         |

                                            \ dx          /

             (3.12) := - E + V(x) - 1/2 ------------------- = 0

                                             m psi0(x)



# 
# and the momentum is
# 
> p;


                                     0



# which means the particle is at rest!  This is very much at odds with the
# usual interpretation of the QM ground state. Understanding this 
difference
# is an important key to understanding Bohm's interpretation.
# 
# 
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------
# 
# In the next installment we will extend this interpretation to the
# many-body Schrodinger equation and compute the equation of motion of some
# simple systems.
# 
# Cheers,
# 
# Bill Page.
# 

[Note: This format, assuming it is transmitted ok, can be saved as a text 
file and loaded into Maple on your own system.]

cudkeys:
cuddy22 cuden3047 cudfnBill cudlnPage cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.21 / Travis Stone /  Re: SKIT16,PROOF,Proof, and Poofsters NEANDERTHAL PARK2
     
Originally-From: stone@cwis.unomaha.edu (Travis Stone)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.physics.fusion,sci.chem
Subject: Re: SKIT16,PROOF,Proof, and Poofsters NEANDERTHAL PARK2
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 1994 14:55:55 GMT
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha

alfa@werple.apana.org.au (Glenn Durden) writes:

[Ludwig stuff deleted]
>I dont get it.
>Is it supposed to be a joke, or is LP the only joke?

Correct!  And for our viewers at home who may have missed the Jeopardy
answer, it was "This is the most common question asked by people who
encounter the writings of Ludwig Plutonium."

Now, Glenn, do you wish to pick another Jeopardy category, or will you
stay with "sci.astro eccentrics"?

;-)

cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenstone cudfnTravis cudlnStone cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.21 /  WRGoodII /  Arthur Clarke address wanted
     
Originally-From: wrgoodii@aol.com (WRGoodII)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Arthur Clarke address wanted
Date: 21 Jun 1994 12:04:03 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

Does anyone know how to contact Arthur Clarke? 
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenwrgoodii cudlnWRGoodII cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.21 / Perry Phillips /  Re: Whats going on at UT Austin
     
Originally-From: phillips@hagar.ph.utexas.edu (Perry Phillips)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Whats going on at UT Austin
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 94 17:53:54 GMT
Organization: Fusion Research Center

There is also a parallel WWW server for Univ. of Texas Fusion Research
(testing new features) at:

    http://ruby.ph.utexas.edu

This WWW server cover the Fusion Research Center (experimental program and
the TEXT-U device) and the Institute for Fusion Research (theoretical).

___________________________________________
|Perry Phillips      Ph. 512 471-4393     |
|Fusion Research Center  FAX 512 471-8865 |
|Net Mail:   phillips@hagar.ph.utexas.edu |
*******************************************
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenphillips cudfnPerry cudlnPhillips cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.21 / Jim Carr /  Re: FYI 85-86, June 16, 1994 (Brown's fusion bill)
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.research,sci.physics.fusion,sci.energy
Subject: Re: FYI 85-86, June 16, 1994 (Brown's fusion bill)
Date: 21 Jun 1994 10:49:35 -0400
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

In article <1994Jun17.032443.24002@Princeton.EDU> 
Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> writes:
>
>>     ...              Brown proposes establishing "a special trust
>>fund to pay for the United States' contribution to the design and
>>construction of ITER and associated facilities, as well as the
>>Tokamak Physics Experiment."  The fund would be financed by a fee
>>on electricity generation.    ...
>
>I've been wondering about this sort of idea myself.  Energy R&D
>funded by an energy production fee sounds reasonable.  

The concept is plausible.  For example, it also makes sense to tax 
oil imports to fund our military defense of sea lanes and various 
producer countries around the globe.  The problems arise when Congress 
gets its hands on the money.  Just because there is a trust fund is 
no guarantee that you will see that money spent on research.  Look at 
how the highway trust fund has been used -- with $$$ accumulating 
unspent as a way of reducing the deficit.  However, since the books 
are kept separately, at least we *know* when we are being scammed. 

Further, it is crucial that the money go to a trust fund.  Most people 
assume, wrongly, that the fees you pay to enter a national park or 
wildlife refuge go to support those facilities.  They do not.  They 
go into the general fund, along with taxes, and may or may not find 
their way back to the parks.  Hence the current movement to put those 
funds into a trust for park use only. 

-- 
 James A. Carr   <jac@scri.fsu.edu>     |   "It's never confusing though, 
      http://www.scri.fsu.edu           |  because ultimately it all fits 
 Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst.  |  -- it's just cockeyed and fits  
 Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306    |  and is fire."  -  Norman Maclean 
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.21 / MATTHEW JONES /  Re: Arthur Clarke address wanted
     
Originally-From: sarmdj@thor.cf.ac.uk (MATTHEW JONES)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Arthur Clarke address wanted
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 94 18:53:54 +0100
Organization: University of Wales College at Cardiff

In article <2u731j$5an@search01.news.aol.com> wrgoodii@aol.com (WRGoodII) writes:
|Does anyone know how to contact Arthur Clarke? 

No, but surely, if anybody should be on the 'net he should, after
writing books like "The Day The World Was One" etc.

Mr. Clarke: if your're surfing, tell us!!

MATT (Your Humble Servant)

 ------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudensarmdj cudfnMATTHEW cudlnJONES cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.21 / Jim Carr /  Re:  Science the God that failed (was WHAT'S NEW, 17 June 94)
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.research,sci.physics.fusion,sci.edu,soc.culture.scientists
Subject: Re:  Science the God that failed (was WHAT'S NEW, 17 June 94)
Date: 21 Jun 1994 11:29:11 -0400
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

>>3. "SCIENCE IN AMERICAN LIFE" -- IS SCIENCE THE GOD THAT FAILED?
>>Tours of the Smithsonian's new permanent exhibit are conducted by
                                 ^^^^^^^^^
>>a middle-aged docent wearing a white lab coat and carrying a clip
>>board.  "In the 1920s," he recites, "we thought scientists were
>>gods.  Now we know they're the source of our biggest problems."

Sounds like our government is trying propoganda to hide exactly 
who is responsible for our biggest problems.  Like we should blame 
inner city crime on Einstein, the only person I can plausibly 
identify as a scientist thought to be a 'god' in the 1920s?  

Scientists fought hard and long for control of nuclear weapons 
and against construction of the H-bomb.  Scientists discovered 
the dangers of DDT and struggled to get politicians, busily 
accepting 'contributions' from vested interests, to act on that 
knowledge.  Scientists are not running our public schools.  The 
list can go on and on.  Scientists have made discoveries that 
have been used for evil purposes, but it is the rare case where 
the scientist started the research with that intent. 

>>            ...              A section on wartime plutonium
>>production at Hanford notes that workers' living quarters were
>>segregated by race and sex.  

Proof this is propoganda.  The army, not scientists, built Hanford, and 
in 1940 the army and even the nation's capital were racially segregated.  
Most likely, the Smithsonian had racially segregated restrooms and 
drinking fountains.  Anyone know?  Fifty years later, you have to look 
pretty hard to find a bunk-style dormitory with communal bathrooms that 
is not segregated by sex. 

   -------

What I find disturbing is the following reply:

>>                             As you leave the exhibit, there is a
>>sign warning visitors to "Stop and Think!  Is gene therapy safe?"
 
In article <2u4rb8$6no@nic.umass.edu> 
Michelle Murrain <mmurrain@hamp.hampshire.edu> writes:
>
>As a scientist I'm happy to see such an exhibit. 

>Michelle Murrain, Ph.D.  
>Co-moderator, sci.med.aids 

So, if this exhibit and similar anti-science efforts leads to an 
end to gene therapy research, a prohibition on genetic engineering 
of vaccines for human use, and a backlash against waste in NIH, 
you will still be happy?  Even if it means a ban on research to 
engineer a vaccine for AIDS?  The people who work to mis-inform 
the public about science want to get rid of *all* of it. 

-- 
 James A. Carr   <jac@scri.fsu.edu>     |   "It's never confusing though, 
      http://www.scri.fsu.edu           |  because ultimately it all fits 
 Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst.  |  -- it's just cockeyed and fits  
 Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306    |  and is fire."  -  Norman Maclean 
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.21 / Doug Mounce /  Re:  Science the God that failed (was WHAT'S NEW, 17 June 94)
     
Originally-From: mounce@u.washington.edu (Doug Mounce)
Newsgroups: sci.research,sci.physics.fusion,sci.edu,soc.culture.scientists
Subject: Re:  Science the God that failed (was WHAT'S NEW, 17 June 94)
Date: 21 Jun 1994 19:17:03 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

I read in this thread that "Scientists did that . . . and Scientists did 
this", implying that there are good and bad scientists.  What is a 
scientist?   I thought it could be anyone who followed a methodology 
which observes, hypothesizes, and verifies.  Is there such a thing as a 
political scientist, or does the methodology become invalidated by 
application to this discipline?  

I would say that the Smithsonian exhibit, from what I gather by hearsay, 
has angered people with a poorly chosen verb which is intended to 
represent some unspecified group of nouns.

Cheers,
doug
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenmounce cudfnDoug cudlnMounce cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.21 / Matt Kennel /  Re: Maddox and Peer Review
     
Originally-From: mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Maddox and Peer Review
Date: 21 Jun 1994 20:16:16 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

John Logajan (jlogajan@skypoint.com) wrote:
: Says the article, "Like other leaders of the scientific establishment, Nature
: editor John Maddox is fiercely protective of the HIV theory.  He indignantly
: rejected a scientific paper making the same points as this article....
: refused to print even the brief statement of the Group for the Scientific
: Reappraisal of the HIV/AIDS Hypothesis, which has over 300 members."

: "The HIV establishment and its journalist allies have replied to various
: specific criticisms of the HIV theory without taking them seriously.  They
: have never provided an authoritative paper that undertakes to prove that
: HIV really is the cause of AIDS -- meaning a paper that does not start by
: assuming the point at issue."

: As far as I can tell from the above article, the only time Nature has
: published anything beyond the HIV case on the controversy over the cause
: of AIDS was a ridiculing piece penned by Weiss and Jaffe in 1990 in
: which they claimed doubters of the HIV theory are like "people who think
: that bad air causes malaria."  They likened Peter Duesberg's proposition
: that HIV is not the cause of AIDS to the ideas that AIDS is from outer-
: space, or germ warfare gone bad.

Perhaps for good reason.

And just how is it that perfectly healthy non-drug-abusing monogomaous
heterosexual haemophiliacs get the HIV infection and then AIDS from
contaminated blood if it's not HIV?

: --
:  - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com -- 612-633-0345 -
:  - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills  MN 55112 USA           -

--
-Matt Kennel  		mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu
-Institute for Nonlinear Science, University of California, San Diego
-*** AD: Archive for nonlinear dynamics papers & programs: FTP to
-***     lyapunov.ucsd.edu, username "anonymous".
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenmbk cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.21 / John Novak /  Re: Science the God that failed (was WHAT'S NEW, 17 June 94)
     
Originally-From: jsn@cegt201.bradley.edu (John Novak)
Newsgroups: sci.research,sci.physics.fusion,sci.edu,soc.culture.scientists
Subject: Re: Science the God that failed (was WHAT'S NEW, 17 June 94)
Date: 21 Jun 1994 15:31:15 -0500
Organization: Bradley University

In <2u7ebf$3ag@news.u.washington.edu> mounce@u.washington.edu (Doug Mounce) writes:

>I read in this thread that "Scientists did that . . . and Scientists did 
>this", implying that there are good and bad scientists.  What is a 
>scientist?   I thought it could be anyone who followed a methodology 
>which observes, hypothesizes, and verifies.  Is there such a thing as a 
>political scientist, or does the methodology become invalidated by 
>application to this discipline?  

When you say political scientist, do you mean it as in "Ooh, I
aced my poly-sci 103 exam?" or do you mean it in the sense of a
person who calls himself a scientist and tries like hell to make
data fit his political leanings?

If the former, I would argue that the term is as much a misnomer
as an economic theorist.

If the latter, then certainly they do exist.  For reasons as
mundane as grant money and as nobly nefarious as a desire for
some social engineering.

>I would say that the Smithsonian exhibit, from what I gather by hearsay, 
>has angered people with a poorly chosen verb which is intended to 
>represent some unspecified group of nouns.

I'd say that, _if_ the reports of the Smithsonian exhibit (not
something I'm likely to be able to see) are accurate, then
someone at the Smithsonian needs to be a little bit more critical
in the phrasings on their display.

It sounds like blatant, anti-technological propaganda, to me.

-- 
John S. Novak, III      
jsn@cegt201.bradley.edu
jsn@camelot.bradley.edu

cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenjsn cudfnJohn cudlnNovak cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.22 / mitchell swartz /  Reply to Dick Blue on 4-Helium & Ti expts
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Reply to Dick Blue on 4-Helium & Ti expts
Subject: Reply to Mitchell Swartz on 4He
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 1994 02:40:54 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <9406211624.AA15730@pilot1.cl.msu.edu>
Subject: Reply to Mitchell Swartz on 4He
Richard A Blue (blue@pilot.msu.edu) writes:

DBLUE=  Yes, Mitchell, I agree that E1 photon emission from an exited state
DBLUE=  of 4He can only occur from a spin 1 state and that it must involve a
DBLUE=  change in parity.  If a spin 2 exited state is formed it must decay
DBLUE=  by some other pathway such as proton or neutron emission or E2 emission.
DBLUE=  Your assertion seems to be not that spin selection rules inhibit photon
DBLUE=  emission but that the lattice interactions do, so I don't understand
DBLUE=  why you even brought up the spin other than to generate more of a
DBLUE=  smokescreen.

    The periodic lattice enables other pathways.    Is it present in beam experiments?

DBLUE=  Since you ask, let me say that my observations on photon emission
DBLUE=  from excited states of 4He typically involved something like proton
DBLUE=  bombardment of tritium in a titanium foil, i.e. the reaction did
DBLUE=  occur in a lattice for what that is worth. 

    What was the loading?      Slight doping level, or something serious?

DBLUE=  On the matter of what experimental precautions and/or corrections
DBLUE=  were taken in the Miles-Bush 4He experiments,  there is perhaps
DBLUE=  some confusion as to how many sets of measurements there were
DBLUE=  prior to the switch to the use of metal sampling flasks.  I believe
DBLUE=  that perhaps one set of measurements got described in two different
DBLUE=  publications.  .......        It would also help
DBLUE=  their credibility if they adopted double blind testing techniques
DBLUE=  for the helium samples.

   Some of your points should certainly be shared with them. 
   And you really should get the recent papers, Dick.   
          Best wishes, 
                                 Mitchell Swartz  [mica@world.std]


cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Wed Jun 22 04:37:06 EDT 1994
------------------------------
1994.06.22 / Tom Radcliffe /  Re: Reply to Dick Blue on 4-Helium & Ti expts
     
Originally-From: tom@mips2.phy.queensu.ca (Tom Radcliffe)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reply to Dick Blue on 4-Helium & Ti expts
Date: 22 Jun 1994 17:44:43 GMT
Organization: Queen's University, Kingston

In article <Crs247.CB2@world.std.com>, mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
|>   In Message-ID: <9406211624.AA15730@pilot1.cl.msu.edu>
|> Subject: Reply to Mitchell Swartz on 4He
|> Richard A Blue (blue@pilot.msu.edu) writes:
|> 
|> DBLUE=  Yes, Mitchell, I agree that E1 photon emission from an exited state
|> DBLUE=  of 4He can only occur from a spin 1 state and that it must involve a
|> DBLUE=  change in parity.  If a spin 2 exited state is formed it must decay
|> DBLUE=  by some other pathway such as proton or neutron emission or E2 emission.
|> DBLUE=  Your assertion seems to be not that spin selection rules inhibit photon
|> DBLUE=  emission but that the lattice interactions do, so I don't understand
|> DBLUE=  why you even brought up the spin other than to generate more of a
|> DBLUE=  smokescreen.
|> 
|>     The periodic lattice enables other pathways.    Is it present in beam experiments?
|> 

One of the curious things about the discussion of cold fusion is how
often its advocates seem unaware of common practice in nuclear
physics.  I personally have never produced a nuclear reaction in
anything other than the solid state, either a loaded lattice or
a vapour-deposited target layer.  Most of the nuclear physicists I know
have never done so either.  Reactions in plasma, as found in hot
fusion, do not constitute the majority of reactions studied.  There
is a vast amount of data on conventional nuclear physics in lattices,
from RBS stuff to Doppler-shift attenuation measurements.   

So YES, a periodic lattice is present in the majority of beam experiments.
And no one has ever observed any suggestion of any of the effects that
would be required to make cold fusion ``quiet'' with respect to normal
reaction products.

cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudentom cudfnTom cudlnRadcliffe cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.22 / Robert Heeter /  Re: Energy development tax
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Originally-From: Richard Schroeppel, rcs@cs.arizona.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Energy development tax
Subject: Energy development tax
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 1994 05:03:18 GMT
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 1994 00:17:46 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

Subject: Energy development tax
Originally-From: Richard Schroeppel, rcs@cs.arizona.edu
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 1994 00:17:46 GMT
In article <199406212019.AA23340@leibniz.cs.arizona.edu> Richard
Schroeppel, rcs@cs.arizona.edu writes:
>Robert F. Heeter reprises Rep. Brown's suggestion of an
>energy development fund, and asks
>
>>  What do others think?
>
>It reminds me of the 8% tax on plane tickets to finance the
>airport construction trust fund.  Hah!

What happened in that case?

The proposed tax is only a tenth of a percent, if your electricity cost is
10 cents/kwh.  To fund all DOE energy research by taxing US energy use
would require a tax on the order of 1/2 a percent to 1%.

This doesn't seem that different from funding Social Security spending
by taxing employee income, or from funding highway maintenance and
construction partly by tolls and gasoline taxes.

It seems to me the fusion energy tax is so small, hardly anyone will
even notice it.  I would notice an 8% surcharge on a plane ticket, but the
electricity tax proposed would only cost the average American 8 cents
a month.

Anyway, since no one else seems to have much of an opinion on this,
maybe I should just stop bringing it up and let it slide...

***************************
Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University
As always, I represent only myself, and not PPPL
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.22 /  prasad /  Re: Arthur Clarke address wanted
     
Originally-From: c1prasad@watson.ibm.com (prasad)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Arthur Clarke address wanted
Date: 22 Jun 1994 18:36:45 GMT
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

In article <2u731j$5an@search01.news.aol.com>, wrgoodii@aol.com (WRGoodII) writes:
|> Does anyone know how to contact Arthur Clarke? 

How about

    Sir Arthur C Clarke
    Colombo
    Sri Lanka

    [address correction requested]
?
-- 
:)
__________ __________ __________ __________ __________ __________ __________

#pragma prejudices=own brainwaves=own others=absolved

// prasad
// email: 71155.3116@compuserve.com, poll= 1/month.
// bad habits: unwashed robes, xrn.

cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenc1prasad cudlnprasad cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.21 / John Logajan /  Re: Maddox and Peer Review
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Maddox and Peer Review
Date: 21 Jun 1994 16:08:48 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Online Services Member.

Matt Kennel (mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu) wrote:
: And just how is it that perfectly healthy non-drug-abusing monogomaous
: heterosexual haemophiliacs get the HIV infection and then AIDS from
: contaminated blood if it's not HIV?

The salient points are that there are AIDS like symptoms in the presence
of HIV (orthodox AIDS), there are AIDS like symptoms in the absence of
HIV (conveniently reclassified as ICL Idiopathic CD4+Lymphocytopenia, i.e.
"AIDS without HIV"), and there are HIV positive people who have lived
over a decade without developing AIDS symptoms.

Without a coherent theory of how HIV causes AIDS, the case for HIV as
a cause of AIDS is purely on correlation.  Since there are large classes
that contradict the correlation, the case for HIV as the sole cause of
AIDS is not only not supported by the evidence, but contraindicated.

Finally, despite early predictions of the HIV theory, AIDS in the US and
Europe has not spread to the general population, remaining confined to
the original risk groups of gay males and drug users.  In the US, the
number of infected individuals has held constant at about 1 million, and
official numbers are expected to be revised downward to 700,000.

To rescue the HIV theory, the explanations are becoming increasingly
exotic -- a sign of a deteriorating scientific paradigm.

The point is that the HIV theory was oversold from the git-go and Maddox
and company at Nature actively conspired to suppress scientific questioning
of the reveal dogma.  It is, of course, impossible to accurately estimate
the number of lives lost to delays caused by Maddox's behavior, but it
will become clear when the HIV theory is corrected or abandoned that
Maddox had a hand in that needless loss of life.

--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com -- 612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills  MN 55112 USA           -

cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.21 / John Logajan /  John Hilborn donates Nalgene tank
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: John Hilborn donates Nalgene tank
Date: 21 Jun 1994 22:04:36 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Online Services Member.

I have been doing Thermacore-like calibration experiments using a $4.50
42 quart circular plastic wastebasket in lieu of the 10 gallon Nalgene
tank used by Thermacore, and independently by John Hilborn and Ernie
Criddle.

Today the UPS man delivered a 10 gallon Nalgene tank, model # 54100-0010.
This tank was ordered from Cole-Palmer and paid for by John Hilborn of
Deep River, Ontario, Canada.

The price was stippled out, but I am led to believe it is no small chunk
of change.  Thanks to John Hilborn for this nice donation.

It is already filled with 28 liters of water.  I am just finishing up the
last 30 watt run using the old wastebasket -- which will be retired to
the garage as the main waste recepticle.  Hopefully I can switch over
to the new tank sometime tomorrow (Wednesday.)

I have some surface area measurments for comparison.

         waterline  circumf  base area  side area  top area   total  liters
Old tank    17"      37.25"   92 sq in  633 sq in  130 sq in   855     30
New tank    12"      42.5"   144 sq in  510 sq in  144 sq in   798     28

As you can see, the old tank was taller and narrower.  The combined top,
bottom and side areas are very similar, but they are distributed 
differently.  (The old tank is a conic section, bottom circumference is
is 34" and waterline circumference is 40.5" for an average circumference
of 37.25".)  If the new tank was filled with 30 liters, the total surface
area would be 835 sq inches.

The aim of the upcoming investigation is to see what the calorimetry
constant of the Nalgene tank is under similar conditions to that 
experienced by my (now) old wastebasket.

Any wagers on whether it will be a higher or lower number? :-)

--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com -- 612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills  MN 55112 USA           -

cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.22 / John Logajan /  Re: Maddox and Peer Review
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Maddox and Peer Review
Date: 22 Jun 1994 15:43:57 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Online Services Member.

Tom Radcliffe (tom@mips2.phy.queensu.ca) wrote:
: About a year ago Nature published a paper investigating
: drug-use history and HIV status as potential causes of AIDS.  Duesberg's
: hypothesis has to do with drug use, so this was a direct test of his
: idea.  The data (and science is, after all, about the data) clearly
: contradict Duesberg's hypothesis, and support the causal role of HIV
: in AIDS.

If Duesberg's hypothesis was never printed, how can you tell if it was
contradicted?  That's the trouble with a one-side discussion -- you can
keep declaring victory.  But what would Duesberg have to say about the
evidence?  If we had to rely on Nature, we would never know there are
critics, let alone the substance of their contentions.

--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com -- 612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills  MN 55112 USA           -


cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.22 / Mark Hittinger /  CF mag changes and Monte Carlo news
     
Originally-From: bugs@ritz.mordor.com (Mark Hittinger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CF mag changes and Monte Carlo news
Date: 22 Jun 94 02:56:12 GMT
Organization: Mordor International BBS


Interesting changes at "Cold Fusion" magazine.  As John pointed out they
are reducing their prices and extending charter subscribership an additional
year.  This may have been due to Dr. Srinivasan's comments in the June
issue.  "Cold Fusion" magazine donated several subscriptions to schools in
India because Dr. Srinivasan indicated it was outside most budgets in that
area.  At least we haven't got a notice that our subscriptions are running
out and we need to renew already (ala Time magazine!).

Another interesting item is that they are going to skip the August issue
and release a combined July/August issue.  I'm hoping that everybody just
wants to take some time off after getting the magazine started.  I'd bet
there was some overtime involved.  

What I'd be more worried about is a slowdown in material to publish.  Might
they have used up everything that anybody can say?  Or worse!  They have used
up everything that anybody is willing to say!

Along with the notices they included an early notice about the ICCF5 in
Monte Carlo.  It will be April 9-13, 1995.  Time to start saving my dimes
and find my passport.

 ---------------------------------------------------
No Dad! You are supposed to type it in with downer case letters!!
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenbugs cudfnMark cudlnHittinger cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.22 / simon richards /  Wanted : Job in fusion
     
Originally-From: sdr@jet.uk (simon richards)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Wanted : Job in fusion
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 1994 08:40:10 GMT
Organization: Joint European Torus


I am a research student in the plasma physics group at Imperial 
College, London, and I am working at JET. My studentship is coming
to an end this summer, and I am looking for a job in fusion.

I have been working in the field of millimetre-wave plasma 
diagnostics, and I have been involved in the development of an
electron cyclotron absorption diagnostic for determining the 
electron pressure profile in the JET divertor plasma, and more 
recently I have been involved in the develpment of a 140GHz 
collective Thomson scattering diagnostic for measuring spatial 
and velocity distributions of alpha particles and other fast ions 
in the bulk plasma. The latter project is the subject of my thesis, 
which includes experimental work in the field of millimetre wave
 radiation, and computational work on ray-tracing
calculations for the collective scattering diagnostic.

I would like to stay in the field of plasma diagnostics, ideally
in similar areas to those mentioned above, but would consider
other areas of experimental work in fusion.

Please reply by mail (sdr@jet.uk) if you know of any suitable
vacancies.

Regards

Simon Richards
- Disclaimer: Please note that the above is a personal view and should not 
  be construed as an official comment from the JET project.
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudensdr cudfnsimon cudlnrichards cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.23 / Richard Blue /  Thermocore calibration heat?
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Thermocore calibration heat?
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 1994 00:13:19 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

John Logajan has done yeoman service by his demonstration of dramatic
changes in the calorimetry constant for a Thermocore-like calorimeter
as a result of changes in the circulation of ambient air.  Still he
seems to present this data as if it supports the notion that the
effect reported by Thermocore is too large to be the result of such
errors.

I would suggest that there may be not one but serveral different types
of errors associated with these measurements.  When these results first
were presented here the emphasis was on noting that heat out (40 some
watts as I recall) was enough larger than electrical power in (about
7 watts) that recombination alone could not account for the result.
As further information concerning these experiments has been revealed
I have come to suspect that 7 watts relative to 40 watts is NOT the
appropriate comparison to make in judging possible errors.

The thing that has caught my attention is the mention of "calibration
on the fly."  As I understand it this implies that an additional
calibration heater was turned on at some specified power level for
a known period of time during the course of the ongoing electrolysis.
Thus there are, in fact, two power inputs and it is their sum that
must be compared to the claimed measured heat output if we are to
judge whether there must be some "excess."

Just to hang some numbers on this let's say the calibration heater
is run at 60 watts input power with a duty factor of 1/3 as in
24 hours out of every 72 hours throughout the course of the experiment.
This gives an average input of 20 watts which when added to the
7 watts of electrolysis power boosts the total know input to 27 watts.
If the heat output as determined by calorimetry is wrong by a factor
of two as John's experiment indicates is not beyond the realm of
possibility then 27 watts in and 40 watts out are not all that far
apart.

John also notes that changes in air circulation effect not only the
final equilibrium temperature but also the time constant for reaching
that equilibrium.  From the numbers we have in hand it can be seen
that the 24 on period for a calibration heater is marginally adequate
at best such that the calorimeter may never reach equilibrium.

Perhaps John can fill in some actual numbers for the calibration
heat input and some information as to how the calorimeter constant
was extracted from the response to that input.  I just wanted to
point out that it is not so simple a problem to analyze with regard
to whether the "excess" can be incorporated within the range of
possible experimental error.

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.23 / Richard Blue /  Reply to Mitchell Swartz
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Reply to Mitchell Swartz
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 1994 00:13:19 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Mitchell, it seems to me that you are flip-flopping between two
different claims with regard to what effect a periodic lattice may
be having on a purported cold fusion reaction.  I will first note
that the tritiated titanium targets to which I made reference were
intended to maximize the ratio of tritium to titanium since it was
the potential for inducing a reaction on tritium that most interested
us.  I don't have any information on the expected loading ratio at
my finger tips, but a can give you a reference on that question if
you want to look it up.  The application of that form of target for
neutron production is discussed in "Fast Neutron Physics, Part I"
page  688, ed by Marion and Fowler, John Wiley and Sons, New York
1963.

Now back to the question of what role putting a nuclear reaction
into a periodic lattice may have.  First you assert that in the
lattice some reactions may be "spin forbidden" or that there are
some restrictions that result from the "spin conservation required
for the bosonic reaction."  When I seek further clarification and
ask specifically what the difference is between this case and
the ordinary beam induced reaction case may be and how the lattice
is involved you drop the subject and take a totally different tack
saying that "The periodic lattice enables other pathways."
Can we decide whether cold fusion comes about because the lattice
restricts pathways or because the lattice enables pathways?

I have never had a problem with there being more than one pathway
for the decay following nuclear fusion.  I have ask that anyone
mentioning such possibilities be more specific as to what they
intend to include as a possible pathway.  If you don't like
gamma emission, proton emission, or neutron emission what do you
have in mind?  Then, of course, I would not want you to get to
fanciful on this point so I was glad to see you acknowledge a
suitable set of conservation laws that you accept as having some
bearing on the problem.

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.22 / Tom Radcliffe /  Re: Maddox and Peer Review
     
Originally-From: tom@mips2.phy.queensu.ca (Tom Radcliffe)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Maddox and Peer Review
Date: 22 Jun 1994 17:29:07 GMT
Organization: Queen's University, Kingston

In article <2u4ubm$1cp@stratus.skypoint.net>, jlogajan@skypoint.com
(John Logajan) writes:
[deleted]
|> 
|> As far as I can tell from the above article, the only time Nature has
|> published anything beyond the HIV case on the controversy over the cause
|> of AIDS was a ridiculing piece penned by Weiss and Jaffe in 1990 in
|> which they claimed doubters of the HIV theory are like "people who think
|> that bad air causes malaria."  They likened Peter Duesberg's proposition
|> that HIV is not the cause of AIDS to the ideas that AIDS is from outer-
|> space, or germ warfare gone bad.
|> 

About a year ago Nature published a paper investigating
drug-use history and HIV status as potential causes of AIDS.  Duesberg's
hypothesis has to do with drug use, so this was a direct test of his
idea.  The data (and science is, after all, about the data) clearly
contradict Duesberg's hypothesis, and support the causal role of HIV
in AIDS.

I'll try to find the article and post the reference in the next
couple of days.  I'm pretty sure it appeared sometime in 1993,
probably early fall.
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudentom cudfnTom cudlnRadcliffe cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.22 / John Cobb /  Re:  Science the God that failed (was WHAT'S NEW, 17 June 94)
     
Originally-From: johncobb@uts.cc.utexas.edu (John W. Cobb)
Newsgroups: sci.research,sci.physics.fusion,sci.edu,soc.culture.scientists
Subject: Re:  Science the God that failed (was WHAT'S NEW, 17 June 94)
Date: 22 Jun 1994 12:27:44 -0500
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas

In article <2u7107$aks@ds8.scri.fsu.edu>,
Jim Carr <jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu> wrote:
>>>3. "SCIENCE IN AMERICAN LIFE" -- IS SCIENCE THE GOD THAT FAILED?
>>>Tours of the Smithsonian's new permanent exhibit are conducted by
>                                 ^^^^^^^^^
>>>a middle-aged docent wearing a white lab coat and carrying a clip
>>>board.  "In the 1920s," he recites, "we thought scientists were
>>>gods.  Now we know they're the source of our biggest problems."
>

Yea, lets hang Salk, Crick, Edison, Bell, and Einstein in effigy
as a backdrop to the exhibit.

Its one thing to say that scientists should act responsibly and
face the ethical issues of the consequences of their work (A position
which I have stated in other discussions here) but it is quite another
to engage in unfair, one-sided condemnation without regard to sciences
contributions. Its outrageous.

>Sounds like our government is trying propoganda to hide exactly 
>who is responsible for our biggest problems.  Like we should blame 
>inner city crime on Einstein, the only person I can plausibly 
>identify as a scientist thought to be a 'god' in the 1920s?  

We should be a little careful. Bob Park always puts things in the
Whats-News in a somewhat polemical light. I would want to see the exhibit
myself before I clamoured for it to be either balanced or dismantled.

With that small caveat, I think I would agree almost totally with what
Jim Carr wrote (if the exhibit is really such drivel).

The question I have is who is responsible for putting together such an
exhibit? It is not a nameless organization. Real people work there. I
think Americans (as taxpoayers who partially support the Smithsonian) have a 
right as citizens to know who is responsible. They also have the right to
expect some accountability. A large part of U.S. history has been
entrusted to the Smithsonian. I find it a lapse of professional ethics for
such an exhibit to be display as authoritative (if Park's description
is accurate). Presuambly whoever prepared the exhibit was not just a
historian, but a historian of science (or at least as close as the
Smithsonian has). That is what makes the unbalanced view more egregious.

>
>What I find disturbing is the following reply:
me too.
>
>In article <2u4rb8$6no@nic.umass.edu> 
>Michelle Murrain <mmurrain@hamp.hampshire.edu> writes:
>>
>>As a scientist I'm happy to see such an exhibit. 
>
>>Michelle Murrain, Ph.D.  
>>Co-moderator, sci.med.aids 

She must be pulling our legs.


>So, if this exhibit and similar anti-science efforts leads to an 
>end to gene therapy research, a prohibition on genetic engineering 
>of vaccines for human use, and a backlash against waste in NIH, 
>you will still be happy?  Even if it means a ban on research to 
>engineer a vaccine for AIDS?  The people who work to mis-inform 
>the public about science want to get rid of *all* of it. 
>

In a similar vein, take a look at what surrounds the exhibit itelf.
How many of the visitors would even make it to the Smithsonian if it were
not for science in the 19th century that allowed the development of
airplanes in the early 20th which lead to commercial air transport that
brought most of the visitors to the D.C. area? Or even more simplistically,
how long ago would the Smithsonian had burned to the ground (including the
material used to construct this exhibit) if it were not for electric lights
that replaced flame-based lighting? Talk about biting the hand that feeds.

Here's a thought. Why not heckle the docent when you take your kids to
see the exhibit? I don't mean be purely rude for rudeness sack, but interrupt
him with corrections that present a more balanced point of view. If enough 
people did, perhaps they would get the message. Sometimes direct action speaks
volumes.

Not that I am necessarily advocating such activity, but the thought crossed
my mind. What do y'all think? Would it work? Would it be the right thing to do?

-john .w cobb
-- 
 --------------------------------------------------------------
John W. Cobb	My posts don't reflect the views of my employer
                Because my posts are usually opaque.
 --------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenjohncobb cudfnJohn cudlnCobb cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.22 / Ad aspera /  FYI 90, June 22, 1994 (DOE funding, inc. TPX, passes House)
     
Originally-From: JTCHEW@lbl.gov (Ad absurdum per aspera)
Newsgroups: sci.research,sci.physics.fusion,sci.energy
Subject: FYI 90, June 22, 1994 (DOE funding, inc. TPX, passes House)
Date: 22 Jun 1994 22:45:20 GMT
Organization: Relayed, not written, by Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory


[Written by individuals at the American Institute of Physics and
merely posted by me, so respond to <fyi@aip.org> or other
references below.  Always posted here on sci.research; sometimes
crossposted to an eclectic selection of other newsgroups, with
followups directed here. Back issues may be ftp'd from NIC.HEP.NET,
along with PHYSICS NEWS UPDATE and the American Physical Society
news/opinion column WHAT'S NEW; or from pinet.aip.org. Enjoy! -jc]

TPX Threat Fails; House Passes Energy Appropriations Bill

FYI No. 90, June 22, 1994

On June 14 the House of Representatives passed the Energy and Water
Development Appropriations bill for fiscal year 1995.  Science
funding within the Department of Energy survived unchanged from the
amounts recommended by the House Appropriations Committee (see FYIs
#74-77 for details on the committee's report).

Attempts to eliminate two DOE projects both failed.
Representatives voted to maintain funding for the Gas-Turbine
Modular Helium Reactor and the Tokamak Physics Experiment (TPX), a
magnetic fusion facility to be built at Princeton Plasma Physics
Laboratory.  The amendment to cancel the TPX, offered by Dick Swett
(D-New Hampshire), lost by a voice vote of 188-241.  Below are some
quotes from the debate on the amendment:

Rep. Dick Swett:  "First of all, this amendment is not about our
Nation's energy problems.  I am sure we agree that we have a
long-term energy problem which requires us to look for promising
new energy technologies, including fusion energy....  I, like many
Members, strongly support basic fusion research....  Mr. Chairman,
this amendment is about whether or not U.S. taxpayers should pay
billions of dollars for commercial development of one particular
fusion technology, the tokamak, when the expected development costs
are tens of billions of dollars, and when there are clear
indications that a tokamak is not going to succeed commercially."

Rep. Dean Gallo (R-New Jersey):  "This amendment does not make any
sense.  It targets the tokamak concept and the Tokamak Physics
Experiment in particular.  Tokamaks are the central focus of every
major fusion program in the world....  The collective wisdom of the
scientists and engineers from Japan, the European Community,
America and Russia cannot all be wrong.  I accept the scientific
expertise of these people and the Department of Energy which has
put forward a fusion development plan."

Rep. Karen Thurman (D-Florida):  "I have no doubt that the Tokamak
Physics Experiment would make an important contribution to our
Nation's wealth of scientific knowledge.  I have listened to the
respected supporters of the program and understand that the TPX
would be unique among world fusion programs....  Today, however, we
find ourselves at a crossroads.  Our national spending must come
under a higher standard of scrutiny.  The question of whether or
not to fund the tokamak goes beyond the question of its pure
research value....  The real context of this debate is defined by
the twin imperatives of reducing the Federal budget deficit and
funding research in an area that will create a commercially viable
energy source."

Rep. H. James Saxton (R-New Jersey):  "I find it inconceivable at
a time when we are searching for new energy options that we are
contemplating cutting the one program that can offer our Nation a
steady supply of unlimited energy."

Rep. George Brown (D-California):  "There is universal recognition
that probably the most promising long-range future resource for
this country and the world is the fusion program.  We have been
involved in a cooperative program to design a fusion reactor plan
for a decade or more.  It involves the United States, the Russians,
the Europeans, and the Japanese.  We are in the last stages of
engineering design for an experimental reactor.  That will be the
prelude then to a commercial reactor which will be probably on line
sometime around 2010 or 2015.  Between now and then we need to do
a great deal more research on how to most effectively develop that
commercial reactor....  Mr. Chairman, the Tokamak Physics
Experiment is one part of our efforts to develop this."

Rep. Collin Peterson (D-Minnesota):  "Mr. Chairman, for the past 30
years, we have spent billions of dollars on tokamak fusion
technology which has yielded nothing as far as energy production is
concerned....  Let us not repeat the mistake of the superconducting
super collider.  Terminating the Princeton Tokamak Physics
Experiment before construction begins will save the taxpayers $67
million this year and $2.2 billion in the long run without
adversely affecting, in my opinion, our existing DOE fusion
program."

Rep. Vic Fazio (D-California):  "Opponents of this type of fusion
claim that the design is too large and too costly.  It is important
to remember what the Princeton TPX program is and what it is not.
This is a research and development program.  This is not meant to
be a commercial reactor."

Rep. Marilyn Lloyd (D-Tennessee):  "We are no closer to long-term
solutions to our energy needs than we were two decades ago....  One
of the reasons that we have not seen the progress that we would
love to see in the fusion program is we have consistently had to
cut back these programs, because we have not seen the immediate
results."

Rep. Christopher Shays (R-Connecticut):  "We need to shift our
energy priorities towards energy efficiency and clean, renewable
energy sources.  We should not let the tokamak drain our resources
and keep us from investing in other types of energy research."

The bill now goes to the Senate, where the appropriations energy
and water subcommittee has scheduled a mark-up for tomorrow.


###############
Public Information Division
American Institute of Physics
Contact:  Audrey T. Leath
fyi@aip.org
(301)209-3094
##END##########
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenJTCHEW cudfnAd cudlnaspera cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.22 / John Cobb /  Re: Energy development tax
     
Originally-From: johncobb@uts.cc.utexas.edu (John W. Cobb)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Energy development tax
Date: 22 Jun 1994 19:36:15 -0500
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas

In article <1994Jun22.050318.6596@princeton.edu>,
Robert F. Heeter  <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> wrote:
>Subject: Energy development tax
>From: Richard Schroeppel, rcs@cs.arizona.edu
>Date: Wed, 22 Jun 1994 00:17:46 GMT
>In article <199406212019.AA23340@leibniz.cs.arizona.edu> Richard
>Schroeppel, rcs@cs.arizona.edu writes:
>>Robert F. Heeter reprises Rep. Brown's suggestion of an
>>energy development fund, and asks
>>
>>>  What do others think?
>>
>>It reminds me of the 8% tax on plane tickets to finance the
>>airport construction trust fund.  Hah!
>
>What happened in that case?

We now have a trust fund that runs a surplus. The money is there,
but the airports and the tower upgrade aren't happening as fast as
some say they should.

So why aren't they being built if the money is there? Well it is very
simple. There are "caps" or overall spending limits that must be met.
Well, if the airport trust fund runs a surplus, that means something else
can run a deficit and the caps can still be met. So our money is there in
the trust fund and can't be spent unless it is spent on airports. But that 
doesn't mean the money has to be spent at all.

Someone on sci.physics was recently talking about a tourist trap that 
advertised they were a unique spot on the globe where the laws of gravity did
not apply. Well, Wash. D.C. seems to be a unique place where the rules of
accounting don't apply :>


Now the situation might be different with TPX and ITER where there is already
a fairly firm starting date, and with ITER there is also the extra push
of international embarrassment if they raid or stash the piggy bank.


>
>It seems to me the fusion energy tax is so small, hardly anyone will
>even notice it.

Whenever anyone says that, especially an elected official, hold on to
your wallets, its going to be a wild ride.

Seriously though it is a catch 22. If it is so small that it will not
be noticed, then it is small enough for graft and special interest to
muscle their way in without loud public protest.


>Anyway, since no one else seems to have much of an opinion on this,
>maybe I should just stop bringing it up and let it slide...

Okay, I'll take the bait (I'm asucker). This whole idea has a deja vu
smell to it. About 3 or 4 years ago, Stephen Dean of Fusion Power Associates
had this exact idea as his pet project. He hawked it up one side and down
the other and finally managed to get Sen. Johnson (D-La) to publicly
announce that he supportted just such an idea as the Bush administration
Energy plan was worming its way through capital hill. Then it was a little
broader though in that it was a larger tax on all energy production to be
used for all research areas on energy production (fusion, solar, conservation,
other renewables, etc.) The last I hear it died queitly after being swept
aside by other issues in the energy bill. Of course, the principle pushers
of such ideas are still around. Dean is still puttering about and Johnson
is still Chair of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources committee.

On the other side you have both consumers and power producers who aren't
at all excited about it. It might happen some day, but I woudln't bet on it.

-john .w cobb

-- 
 --------------------------------------------------------------
John W. Cobb	My posts don't reflect the views of my employer
                Because my posts are usually opaque.
 --------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenjohncobb cudfnJohn cudlnCobb cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.22 / Robert Heeter /  Conventional Fusion FAQ Section 6 - Recent Results - Draft
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Conventional Fusion FAQ Section 6 - Recent Results - Draft
Subject: Re: Laymen Q: Was Princeton's Fusion a 'breakthrough?'
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 1994 21:00:53 GMT
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1993 12:01:28 GMT
Organization: Princeton University
Organization: Joint European Torus

6. Recent Results
* This FAQ deals with conventional fusion only, not Cold Fusion. *

This is a draft only and is not to be copied or cited at this time.

Second Draft - June 22, 1994
Written by Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@theory.pppl.gov, unless
otherwise cited.

***  A.  Recent Results on TFTR:

* (a) What was done?

The Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor (TFTR) here at Princeton 
switched from pure-deuterium fuel to a deuterium-tritium 
(D-T) fuel mixture in December 1993.  As discussed in 
Section 1, the D-T fuel is easier to fuse, but the neutrons 
produced in the reaction D + T -> 4He + n will slowly make 
the reactor radioactive, so this set of experiments will 
be the last for TFTR.  In these reactions, over 6 million 
watts (MW) of fusion power were produced for about a second.  
This is four times more power than any previous controlled 
fusion experiment.  The value of 6 MW should be compared to
the roughly 30 MW of input power used, which indicates that
fusion in TFTR remains short of breakeven.  (See glossary for
explanations of unfamiliar terminology.)

(There was an article on this in _Time_, Dec 20, 1993, p. 54, 
at least in the American edition; there are of course other 
articles out there too.  See Section 9, Part A (the bibliography
on recent literature) for more references.)

>>Update May 31 (mostly from TFTR News Updates by Rich Hawryluk):  
   Over 9 megawatts were generated in late May.
     This is 90 million times what could be generated in 1974
     when TFTR was proposed.
   Input power was up to 33.7 MW -> Q = 0.27.  
   Two articles on the December experiments were published in
     the May 30 issue of Physical Review Letters.
			Recent TFTR shots have exhibited exceptionally high performance,
     with preliminary indications that energy confinement is 
     enhanced by 20-30 percent in D-T relative to D-D fuel.
   Plasma disruptions possibly caused by TAE mode activity have
     been observed.  Fusion performance is limited by the MHD
     activity, not by heating power or confinement.
   Central fusion power density has been increased from 1.25 MW m-3
     to 1.8 MW m-3.
   

*	(b) Why does it matter?

The generation of multi-megawatt levels of fusion power is a major
achievement for the controlled fusion program.  Sustaining the
power output for a second is also significant, because most
known plasma instabilities occur much more quickly.  Also, use 
of tritium to achieve high power levels enables researchers to 
study plasmas under conditions closer to those of a working 
fusion reactor.  There are effects due to the heavier tritium 
ions, and due to the presence of highly energetic helium ions
produced in the fusion reaction.  In particular, scientists
were worried that the energetic He ions might trigger new plasma
instabilities.  (Plasmas are notorious for finding new ways to
misbehave whenever scientists manage to improve the operating 
conditions.)  Fortunately, no major instabilities were observed,
and in fact early reports are that plasma performance actually
improves in high-power D-T conditions.  These results enhance
the prospects for future experiments which will try to achieve
even higher power outputs in nearly steady-state conditions.
(See Section 8 for more information on future experiments.)


***  B.  Recent Results on JET

JET ran some experiments in 1991 using a 10% tritium mix, and 
produced 1.7 megawatts of fusion power.  Since then researchers
have been reconfiguring the machine.  (Anybody know if plasma
operation has begun?)
 
Appended below are comments adapted from a post I made on Feb 12, 
1994 (which in turn referenced a Dec 14, 1993 posting by 
Stephen Cooper at JET), which provide more background to the 
JET & TFTR results.  


***  C.  Recent Results in Inertial Confinement Fusion

(Anybody got any info?  I haven't had time to look yet.)


***  D.  Recent Results in Muon-Catalyzed Fusion
(Based on information provided by Steven Jones of BYU.)

Steven Jones posted on April 30:

>In article <1994Apr27.214422.17681@debug.cuc.ab.ca>,
>Lforbes@debug.cuc.ab.ca writes:
>
>>I have heard little lately (last year or so) about muon catalyzed 
>>fusion; have there been any noteable developments?
>
>Not lately.  Not much has happened since DoE decided to cut funding 
>in 1988, the year *before* cold fusion hit the fan, incidentally.
>Despite the funding cut, we were able to do some experiments at 
>LAMPF in 1989 and 1990, and we recently published a paper 
>on results:
>S.E. Jones, S.F. Taylor and A.N. Anderson, "Evaluation of 
>muon-alpha sticking from liquid, non-equilibrated d-t targets 
>with high tritium fractions," 
>Hyperfine Interactions 82 (1993) 303-311.
>
>Other groups (PSI, Russia) are plugging along, and we're trying to
>work out an international collaboration with them which looks 
>fairly good right now, though funding is tight.


***  E.  Recent major results from other experiments, and 
theoretical work?

(Anyone care to contribute anything major?)


***  F.  Recent Political News

U.S. News:

The appropriations bill containing fusion funding for FY 1995
has passed the House of Representatives.  Rep. George Brown has 
introduced an authorizing bill for the fusion program which 
proposes a 0.01 cents/kwh tax on electricity generation to 
generate stable funding for US participation in ITER.  


***  G.  Appendix on TFTR and JET results

*********************************************
TFTR results vs JET results from 1991:
(Written by Stephen R. Cooper at JET, with comments [like this] 
by R.F. Heeter.)

>From src@jet.uk Tue Dec 14 11:14:34 EST 1993
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Laymen Q: Was Princeton's Fusion a 'breakthrough?'
Organization: Joint European Torus
References: <2ebdvg$44e@Mercury.mcs.com> <2ei3vk$o7o@mailer.fsu.edu>
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1993 12:01:28 GMT

In <2ei3vk$o7o@mailer.fsu.edu> jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
writes:
>As I recall, the reports from JET in November 1991 indicated a Q of
>about 1/9 for the light load of T, with plans to increase the T 
>to 50% by 1996.  I think their extrapolation to 50% indicated 
>they would be very close to breakeven at that point, but do not
>recall the details. 

>Could some JET person fill us in?

[ Note by rfheeter: Q is the ratio of power produced in the
machine by fusion to power put into the machine to heat
the plasma. Q = 1 means fusion yield is equal to power
input.  Economical fusion will require Q significantly 
greater than 1.  See the glossary (Section 10) for more details.]

Results quoted from "The JET Preliminary Tritium Experiment", 
invited talk given to the 1992 International Conference on 
Plasma Physics by P-H Rebut, Innsbruck, Austria, 29th June-3rd 
July 1992).

"Two Deuterium plasmas were heated by high power deuterium 
neutral beams from fourteen sources and fuelled by two neutral 
beam sources injecting tritium. In the best of the two D-T 
discharges, the tritium concentration was about 11% of bulk plasma 
at peak performance, when the total neutron emmision rate was 
6.0E17 per second, with 1.7MW of fusion power. The fusion 
amplification factor Q(DT) was 0.15. With an optimum tritium 
concentration, this pulse would have produced a fusion power 
of ~ 5MW and nominal Q(DT) of 0.46. The same extrapolation for 
the best pure deuterium discharge of the PTE series gives about 
11MW and a nominal Q(DT) of 1.14.

[ Note by rfheeter:  neutral beams are made by accelerating
deuterium ions, and then neutralizing the ions so that they
can fly into the magnetic field of the tokamak without being
deflected.  As they enter the plasma, they are re-ionized
and their energy is subsequently shared with the other 
ions in the plasma.  Thus this is a method for simultaneously
heating and refueling the plasma. See glossary for more info...]

The total integrated total neutron yield was 7.2E17 with an 
accuracy of +/- 7% and the total fusion energy was about 2MJ. 
The tritium injections last just 2 seconds out of a 10 second, 
3MA flat top. The amount of tritium injected and the limited 
number of shots were deliberatly restricted for operational 
convenience."

[ Note by rfheeter:  2 MJ = 2 million joules = 1 million
watts for a duration of 2 seconds, or 2 million watts for
a duration of one second.  1 Joule = 1 watt * 1 second.
A "10 second, 3 MA flat top" refers to the relatively stable
flat peak of a current-vs-time graph, indicating that
the plasma current is stable at about 3 million amps
(3 MA) for 10 seconds.  "Operational convenience" should
probably be interpreted as "because we didn't want to
make our reactor too radioactive, and tritium handling
is a pain." - that's an editorial comment. ]

--> Personal remarks start 
[this Cooper writing now, and not quoting others.]

The above seems to indicate that if JET had gone into it's full 
D-T phase at this time and with this configuration, we certainly
should have got to 50% of breakeven. As to if we could have 
matched our best deuterium pulse, I guess we would have come 
close especially as the TFTR results show no pathological 
problems with a 50/50 D-T mix. But this is all hypothetical, 
we no longer have anything like the configuration we had in 
1991, we're just about to finish a major shutdown incorporating 
a pumped divertor to look at impurity control and ash removal. 
The old H mode shots that the 1991 experiment were based on 
are a thing of the past and we'll have to wait and see how 
she performs with the new configuration.

[ Note by rfheeter: a "divertor" is a magnetic or physical
way of channeling particles from the edge of the plasma
out of the way, and helps to improve confinement of the plasma
as well as remove impurities. "H mode" is a relatively
stable operational mode of the tokamak, as contrasted with
"L mode", which is less stable.  I believe H = High and
L = Low, referring to high and low confinement.]

[[ The rest of the article was about TFTR and not JET,
and I have omitted it to save some space. ]]

Stephen R Cooper                 Physics Operations Group
src@jet.uk               Operations Division, JET.
-	Disclaimer: Please note that the above is a personal view and 
should not be construed as an official comment from the JET project.


***************************
Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University
As always, I represent only myself, and not PPPL
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.22 / Robert Heeter /  Conventional Fusion FAQ Section 1 - Physical Aspects - Revised
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Conventional Fusion FAQ Section 1 - Physical Aspects - Revised
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 1994 22:19:35 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

1. Fusion as a Physical Phenomenon
* This FAQ deals with conventional fusion only, not Cold Fusion. *

This is a draft only and is not to be copied or cited at this time.

Second Draft:  June 22, 1994
Written by Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@theory.pppl.gov, unless
otherwise cited.

*** Please let me know if anything here is unclear. ***

*** A.  What is fusion?

"Fusion" means many things when discussed on the newsgroup.  
Technically, "fusion" is short for "Nuclear Fusion," which describes
the class of reactions where two light nuclei fuse together, forming
a heavier nucleus.  This heavier nucleus is frequently unstable, and
sometimes splits (fissions) into two or more fragments.  "Fusion"
also refers to the type of energy produced, and a "fusion reactor"
describes an energy-producing facility which generates power via
fusion reactors.  Finally, "fusion" can also be used to refer to
the scientific program aimed at harnessing fusion for clean,
safe, and hopefully inexpensive energy production - a collaborative 
international program which has been carried on for the past 40-some 
years.  Each of these three uses - the technical, the energy
source, and the scientific research program - is discussed in
a separate section of this FAQ.  The technical aspects of
fusion are discussed below in this section.


*** B.  How does fusion release energy?

If you add up the masses of the particles which go into a fusion
reaction, and you add up the masses of the particles which come out,
there is frequently a difference.  According to Einstein's famous
law relating energy and mass, E=mc^2, the "mass difference" can
take the form of energy.  Fusion reactions involving nuclei lighter
than iron typically release energy, but fusion reactions involving
nuclei heavier than iron typically absorb energy.  The amount of
energy released depends on the specifics of the reaction; a table
of reactions is given further below to give an idea of the variety 
of fusion reactions.

Another way to look at this is to consider the "binding energy"
of the elements in question.  If the reactants are bound more
weakly than the products, then energy is released in the reaction.
"Binding energy" is the amount of energy you would have to put
into a system in order to pull its components apart; conversely,
in a system with high binding energy, a lot of energy is released
as the components are allowed to bond together.  Suppose you
had two balls connected by a long, thin rubber band, so that they
are not very tightly connected, and the rubber band can be broken
easily.  This is a system with low binding energy.  Now here's an
analogy to what happens in fusion:  imagine the long, thin 
rubber band suddenly being replaced by a short, thick one.  The
short thick one has to be stretched a lot in order to connect
to the two balls, but it wants to bind them more tightly, so it
pulls them together, and energy is released as they move towards
each other.  The low-binding energy, long rubber band system
has been replaced by a high-binding energy, short rubber band
system, and energy is released. 


*** C.  Where does fusion occur in nature?

The conditions needed to induce fusion reactions are extreme; 
so extreme that virtually all natural fusion occurs in stars, 
where gravity compresses the gas, until temperature and pressure 
forces balance the gravitational compression.  If there is enough 
material in the star, pressures and temperatures will grow
large enough as the star contracts that fusion will begin to occur 
(see below for the explanation why); the energy released will then 
sustain the star's temperature against losses from sunlight being 
radiated away.  The minimum mass needed to induce fusion is roughly 
one-tenth to one-fifth the sun's mass; this is why the sun is 
a star, but Jupiter is merely a (large) planet.  (If Jupiter were 
a bit larger, it too would be a star.)

Stellar fusion reactions gradually convert hydrogen into helium.  
When a star runs out of hydrogen fuel, it either stops burning 
(becoming a dwarf star) or, if it is large enough (so that gravity 
compresses the helium strongly) it begins burning the helium into 
heavier elements.  Because fusion reactions cease to release 
energy once elements heavier than iron are involved, the larger 
stars also eventually run out of fuel, but this time they
collapse in a supernova.  (For more details, try the sci.astro
or sci.space.science newsgroups.)


*** D.  Why doesn't fusion occur anywhere else in nature?

Current scientific knowledge indicates that very little fusion
occurs anywhere else in nature.  The reason is because in order
to get two nuclei to fuse, you first have to get them close together.
(This is because the nuclear forces involved in fusion only act
at short range.)  However, because the two nuclei are both positively
charged, they repel each other electrically.  Nuclei will not fuse
unless either (a) they collide with enough energy to overcome the
electrical repulsion, or (b) they find a "sneaky" way to circumvent
their repulsion (see muon-catalyzed fusion in section 4).  The
energy required for fusion is so high that fusion only occurs in
appreciable amounts once the temperature gets over 10 million
degrees Kelvin, so (a) doesn't happen anywhere outside of stars.
Current knowledge suggests that the sort of processes that would
allow sneaky-fusion as in (b) are very rare, so there just isn't
much fusion in the everyday world.


*** E.  What are the basic fusion reactions?

While it is possible to take any two nuclei and get them to fuse,
it is easiest to get lighter nuclei to fuse, because they are
less highly charged, and therefore easier to squeeze together.
There are complicated quantum-mechanics rules which determine which
products you will get from a given reaction, and in what amounts
("branching ratios").  The probability that two nuclei fuse is
determined by the physics of the collsion, and a property called
the "cross section" (see glossary) which (roughly speaking) 
measures the likelihood of a fusion reaction.  (A simple analogy
for cross-section is to consider a ball randomly thrown towards 
a wall.  The likelihood that the ball hits the wall depends on 
the amount of cross-sectional area of the wall facing the ball.)

Below is an annotated list of many fusion reactions discussed 
on the newsgroup.  Note:  D = deuterium, T = tritium, p = proton,
n = neutron; these and the other elements involved are discussed 
in the glossary/FUT.  (FUT = list of Frequently Used Terms; section
10 of the FAQ.)  The numbers in parentheses are the energies
of the reaction products (in Millions of electron-Volts, see
glossary for details).  The percentages indicate the branching 
ratios.  See the glossary for explanations of the chemical
symbols, if they're unfamiliar.

D+D   -> T (1.01 MeV) + p (3.02 MeV) (50%)   
      -> He3 (0.82 MeV) + n (2.45 MeV) (50%)  <- most abundant fuel
D+T   -> He4 (3.5 MeV) + n (14.1 MeV)  <-easiest to achieve
D+He3 -> He4 (3.6 MeV) + p (14.7 MeV)  <-easiest aneutronic reaction
                                     "aneutronic" is explained below.
T+T   -> He4 + 2n + 11.3 MeV
He3+T -> He4 + p + n + 12.1 MeV (51%)
      -> He4 (4.8) + D (9.5) (46%)
      -> He5 (2.4) + p (11.9) (6%)  <- He5 is unstable and decays
                                       to He4 + n, I believe
p+Li6 -> He4 (1.7) + He3 (2.3)      <- another aneutronic reaction
p+Li7 -> 2 He4 + 17.3 MeV (20%)
      -> Be7 + n -1.6 MeV (80%)     <- endothermic, not good.
D+Li6 -> 2He4 + 22.4 MeV            <- also aneutronic, but you 
                                              get D-D reactions too.
p+B11 -> 3 He4 + 8.7 MeV <- harder to do, but more energy than p+Li6
n+Li6 -> He4 (2.1) + T (2.7)        <- this can convert n's to T's
n+Li7 -> He4 + T + n - some energy

From the list, you can see that some reactions release neutrons,
many release helium, and different reactions release different
amounts of energy (some even absorb energy, rather than releasing
it).  Some of the more important fusion reactions will be
described below.


*** F.  Why is the deuterium-tritium (D-T) reaction the easiest?

Basically speaking, the extra neutrons on the D and T nuclei make
them "larger" and less tightly bound, and the result is
that the cross-section for the D-T reaction is the largest.
Also, because they are only singly-charged hydrogen isotopes,
the electrical repulsion between them is relatively small.
So it is relatively easy to throw them at each other, and it 
is relatively easy to get them to collide and stick.  
Furthermore, the D-T reaction has a relatively high energy yield.

However, the D-T reaction has the disadvantage that it releases
an energetic neutron.  Neutrons can be difficult to handle,
because they will "stick" to other nuclei, causing them to
(frequently) become radioactive, or causing new reactions.
Neutron-management is therefore a big problem with the
D-T fuel cycle.  (While there is disagreement, most fusion
scientists will take the neutron problem and the D-T fuel,
because it is very difficult just to get D-T reactions to go.)

Another difficulty with the D-T reaction is that the tritium
is (weakly) radioactive, with a half-life of 12.3 years, so
that tritium does not occur naturally.  Getting the tritium
for the D-T reaction is therefore another problem.

Fortunately you can kill two birds with one stone, and solve
both the neutron problem and the tritium-supply problem at
the same time, by using the neutron generated in the D-T
fusion in a reaction like n + Li6 -> He4 + T + 4.8 MeV.
This absorbs the neutron, and generates another tritium,
so that you can have basically a D-Li6 fuel cycle, with
the T and n as intermediates.  Fusing D and T, and then
using the n to split the Li6, is easier than simply trying
to fuse the D and the Li6, but releases the same amount of
energy.  And unlike tritium, there is a lot of lithium
available, particularly dissolved in ocean water.

Unfortunately you can't get every single neutron to stick
to a lithium nucleus, because some neutrons stick to other
things in your reactor.  You can still generate as much
T as you use, by using "neutron multipliers" such as
Beryllium, or by getting reactions like
n + Li7 -> He4 + T + n (which propagates the neutron)
to occur.  The neutrons that are lost are still a problem,
because they can induce radioactivity in materials that
absorb them.


*** G.  What is aneutronic fusion?

Some researchers feel the advantages of neutron-free fusion
reactions offset the added difficulties involved in getting
these reactions to occur, and have coined the term
"aneutronic fusion" to describe these reactions.

The best simple answer I've seen so far is this one:
(I've done some proofreading and modified the notation a bit.)
[ Clarifying notes by rfheeter are enclosed in brackets like this.]

>From: johncobb@emx.cc.utexas.edu (John W. Cobb)
>Risto Kaivola <rkaivola@mits.mdata.fi> wrote:

[[ Sorry I don't have the date or full reference for this anymore;
this article appeared in sci.physics.fusion a few months ago.]]

>>Basically, what is aneutronic fusion?  The term aneutronic
>>confuses me considerably.  Could you give me an example of
>>an aneutronic fusion reaction? How could energy be produced
>>using such a reaction?  Can there be a fusion reaction in which
>>a neutron is never emitted?
>
>Examples:
>
>D + He3 --> He4 + p + 18.1MeV 
>(deuteron + helium-3 --> helium-4 + proton + energy)
>
>p + Li6 --> He4 + He3 + 4.0MeV
>(proton + lithium-6 --> helium-4 + helium-3 + energy)
>
>D + Li6 --> 2 He4 + 22.4MeV
>(deuteron + lithium-6 --> 2 helium-4's + energy)
>
>p + B11 --> 3 He4 + 8.7Mev
>(proton + boron-11 --> 3 helium-4's + energy)
>
>All of these reactions produce no neutrons directly.
[[ Hence "aneutronic." ]] 
>There are also other reactions that have multiple branches possible,
>some of which do not produce neutrons and others that do 
>(e.g., D + D, p + Li7).
>
>The question is how do you get a "reactor" going and not get 
>any neutrons.  There are 2 hurdles here. The first is getting the
>fuel to smack together hard enough and often enough for fusion
>to occur.
>The easiest fusion reaction is D + T --> He4 + n (the D-T fuel 
>cycle). A magnetic reactor can initiate fusion in one of these 
>things at about a temperature of 10keV. 
[1 keV = 11,000 (degrees) kelvin, more or less]. 
>The other reactions require much higher temperatures (for example 
>about 50KeV for the D+He3 reaction). This is a big factor of 5. 
>The second hurdle is neutron production via "trash" (secondary) 
>reactions.  That is, the main reaction may be neutron-free, 
>but there will be pollution reactions that may emit neutrons. 
[ The products of the main reaction, e.g. He4, can be trapped in
your reactor temporarily, and fuse with other ions in the system 
in messy ways. ]
>Even if this is only a few percent, it can lead to big neutron
>emission. For example, the D+He3 reaction will also have some D+D 
>reactions occuring. 
[ Because in your reactor you will have a lot of Ds and He3s, and
the Ds will collide with each other as well as with the He3s. ]
>At 50Kev temperatures, the reaction 
>cross-section for D+D reactions is about 1/2 of the D+He3 
>cross-section, so there will be some generation of neutrons from 
>the 50% branch reaction of D + D-->He3 + n.
>Also, the other 50% goes to T+p, The triton (T) will then undergo 
>a D-T reaction and release another neutron. 
[ Because the cross-section for D-T reactions is much higher.]
>If the reactor is optmized (run in a He3 rich mode) the number 
>of neutrons can be minimized. The neutron power can be as low 
>as about 5% of the total. However, in a 1000 megawatt reactor, 
>5% is 50 MW of neutron power. That is [still] a lot of neutron 
>irradiation. This lower neutron level helps in designing 
>structural elements to withstand neutron bombardment, but it 
>still has radiation consequences.
>
>On the other hand, it is my understanding that the p-B11 reaction 
>is completely neutron free, but of course it is much harder 
>to light.


*** H.  Why is it so hard to create controlled man-made fusion 
reactions?

In order to get two nuclei to fuse, you basically have to get
them to collide energetically.  It turns out that colliding two
beams of particles yields mostly scattering collisions, and few
fusion reactions.  Similarly, blasting a stationary target with
a beam of energetic ions also yields too little fusion.  

The upshot is that one must find some way to confine hot, 
energetic particles so that they can collide many many times,
and finally collide in just the right way, so that fusion occurs.
The temperatures required are upwards of 100 million degrees 
(Kelvin - it would be about 200 million Fahrenheit!).  At these
temperatures, your fusion fuel will melt/evaporate any material
wall.  So the big difficulties in fusion are (a) getting 
the particles hot enough to fuse, and (b) confining them long
enough so that they do fuse.


*** I.  What is plasma physics, and how is it related to fusion?

Plasma physics is the area of physics which studies ionized 
gases and their properties.  In most conventional types of fusion 
(muon-catalyzed fusion being the major exception), one must heat 
the fusion fuel to extremely high temperatures.  At these 
temperatures, the fuel atoms collide so much and so hard that 
many electrons are knocked loose from their atoms.  The result 
is a soup of ionized atoms and free electrons: a plasma.

In order to achieve the conditions required for controlled 
fusion, an understanding of how plasmas behave (and particularly 
how to confine and heat them) is often essential.


*** J.  Just how hot and confined do these plasmas need to be?
(Or, what conditions are needed for controlled fusion?)

Basically, the hotter your plasma, the more fusion you will have,
because the more ions will be flying around fast enough to stick
together.  The more dense your plasma is, the more ions there are
in a small space, and the more collisions you are likely to have.
Finally, the longer you can keep your plasma hot, the more likely
it is that something will fuse, so duration is important too.

Hotness is measured by temperature, and as explained above, the
D-T fuel cycle (the easiest) requires temperatures of about 10 keV,
or 100,000,000 degrees kelvin.  Density is typically measured in 
particles-per-cubic centimeter or particles-per-cubic meter.
The required density depends on the confinement duration.

The Lawson triple product, defined as 
(temperature)*(density)*(confinement time), determines what
combinations of density and confinement time will give you fusion
at a given temperature.  It is important to note that what
you must confine is the *energy* (thermal energy) stored in 
the plasma, and not necessarily the plasma particles.  

For a special value of the Lawson product, the fusion power
produced in your plasma will just balance the energy losses
as energy in the plasma becomes unconfined, and *ignition*
occurs.  That is, as long as the plasma fuel stays around, the
plasma will keep itself hot enough to keep fusing.

A simple analogy here is to an ordinary fire.  The fire won't
burn unless the fuel is hot enough, and it won't keep burning
unless the heat released by burning the fuel is enough to keep
the fuel hot enough.  The flame continually loses heat, but 
usually this loss is slow enough that the fire sustains itself.
You can accelerate the heat loss, however, by pouring water
on the fire to cool it quickly; this puts the fire out.

In fusion, the plasma continually loses heat, much as a fire 
gives off heat, and if the plasma loses heat faster than heat
is produced by fusion, it won't stay hot enough to keep burning.
In fusion reactors today, the plasmas aren't quite confined well
enough to sustain burning on their own (ignition), so we get
them to burn by pumping in energy to keep them hot.  This is sort
of like getting wet wood to burn with a blowtorch (this last analogy 
is usually credited to Harold Furth of PPPL).

For the D-T fuel cycle, the Lawson ignition value is
about 4E28 Kelvin-seconds-particles/meter^3.  Current fusion reactors
have achieved about 1/10th of this - but 20 years ago they had
only achieved 1/100,000th of this!
   

*** K.  What are the basic approaches used to heat and confine 
the plasma?  (Or, what is magnetic confinement?  
Inertial confinement?)

There are three basic ways to confine a plasma.  The first is 
the method the sun uses:  gravity.  If you have a big enough
ball of plasma, it will stick together by gravity, and be
self-confining.

Unfortunately for fusion researchers, that doesn't work here on
earth.  The second method is that used in nuclear fusion bombs:
you implode a small pellet of fusion fuel.  If you do it quickly
enough, and compress it hard enough, the temperature will go way
up, and so will the density, and you can exceed the Lawson 
ignition value despite the fact that you are only confining your
pellet for nanoseconds.  Because the inertia of the imploding
pellet keeps it momentarily confined, this method is known as
inertial confinement.

The third method uses the fact that charged particles placed in
a magnetic field will gyrate in circles.  If you can arrange the
magnetic field carefully, the particles will be trapped by it.
If you can trap them well enough, the plasma energy will be
confined.  Then you can heat the plasma, and achieve fusion with
more modest particle densities.  This method is known as 
magnetic confinement.  Initial heating is achieved by a 
combination of microwaves, energetic/accelerated particle beams, 
and resistive heating from currents driven through the plasma.
(Once the Lawson ignition value is achieved, the plasma becomes
more-or-less self-heating.)  In magnetic confinement, the plasma 
density is typically about 1E19 particles per cubic meter, and with
a temperature of about 1E8 kelvin, we see that ignition could be
achieved with a confinement time of about 40 seconds.  Currently,
magnetic-confinement reactors are about a factor of ten short of
the ignition value.  

More information on these different approaches is given in the
sections that follow.


***************************
Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University
As always, I represent only myself, and not PPPL
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Thu Jun 23 04:37:05 EDT 1994
------------------------------
1994.06.23 / Rob Furr /  Re: (pages 150-154 of 300) my last posting of PLAYING
     
Originally-From: Rob Furr <r.furr@genie.geis.com>
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.fusion,alt.religion.kibology
Subject: Re: (pages 150-154 of 300) my last posting of PLAYING
THE STOCK  MARKET:THE MIND OF A WEALTH ACCUMULATOR
Date: 23 Jun 1994 18:17:50 GMT
Organization: Plutarch or Bust!

In article <2ucf9b$5le@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Ludwig Plutonium,
Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu writes:
>Note to readers of the INTERNET to my book on playing the stock market.
>Dartmouth College has revoked my account over my skit 18 and 19 of
>NEANDERTHAL PARK 2. They have given me a few days to clear-out my
>account. Hence this will be my last post on the stock market book.
>Farewell, the Atom, 231*94 in its infinite wisdom has superdetermined
>these actions, even the finite wisdom of administrators. This is good
>news to me, the King of Physics, Math, and every other science, for I
>will now concentrate my supergenius on Engineering and patents.
>Engineering is always more important than Internet posts.

If this means that he's going away, I think it's about time for a: a
truly massive celebration, on the order of Woodstock, and b: a Farewell
to Ludwig Plutonium t-shirt.

Regretfully, I can't produce selection a, because I don't know where to
get all those port-a-potties. Ah, well. 

	Rob F.
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenfurr cudfnRob cudlnFurr cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.23 / Dean Orr /  Fusion Time Frame
     
Originally-From: orrd@eaglecrest.ksc.nasa.gov (Dean  Orr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Fusion Time Frame
Date: 23 Jun 94 15:00:38 EDT
Organization: NASA, Kennedy Space Center

I am an electrical engineer, and have always been interested in fission and fusion, but 
have not kept current on them.  Are we any where near producing a fusion reactor for 
standard electrical power, is anyone pursuing this? What are the problems that are in 
the way?

Thanks in advance,

Dean Orr
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenorrd cudfnDean cudlnOrr cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.23 / Robert Heeter /  Conventional Fusion FAQ Section 10A - Glossary Intro
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Conventional Fusion FAQ Section 10A - Glossary Intro
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 1994 04:50:42 GMT
Organization: Princeton University


10A. FUT: Glossary of Frequently Used Terms in Conventional Fusion
* This FAQ deals with conventional fusion only, not Cold Fusion. *

While this section is not yet complete, it should be useful to
many people, and I encourage you to distribute it to anyone who
might be interested (and willing to help revise it!!!).

6th Draft, Last Revised on Wednesday, June 22, 1994.
Edited by Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@theory.pppl.gov

***  This introduces the Conventional Fusion FUT/Glossary  ***

* Editorial Note:  

Like any discipline, fusion research has evolved terminology used 
to facilitate discussion.  This includes the scientific vocabulary 
of the discipline, the names of various research machines and 
devices used, the names of various researchers in the field, the 
names of the various research labs and funding authorities, the
mathematical symbols used, and the acronyms frequently used as 
shorthand for some of the above,.  

In the case of conventional (magnetic confinement, inertial
confinement, thermonuclear, muon-catalyzed, etc - but not Cold)
fusion, this terminology has grown to the point where newcomers
may be intimidated by the apparent obscurity of the discussions.  
This file is our attempt to provide a comprehensive and detailed
listing and explanation of terms frequently used, so that those new 
to the group/field will be able to understand what is being said, 
and to contribute with a minimum of confusion and frustration.  

The following is a rough draft of a guide to terminology used in
conventional (not Cold) fusion research.  This is the sixth draft of 
the terminology guide, and while considerable progress has been made,
many relevant terms are still unlisted, undefined, or poorly defined. 
(Hint:  If you don't like something, submit a revision/correction, 
and I'll put it in if it looks good.)


* DO NOT BE INTIMIDATED BY THE SIZE OF THIS GLOSSARY!

Everything is organized alphabetically, and to make things even
better each entry is coded by type (names, acronyms, types of 
machines, basic physics terms, advanced plasma terms, etc).
Hopefully this will make the FUT easier to use. 


* What's in the FUT:  

We started with an initial list supplied by Jim Day 
(Jim.Day@support.com).  To this were added some comments from various
responses I received to the first draft.  I then incorporated many of
the terms in the glossary of Robin Herman's _Fusion: The Search for
Endless Energy_ (without permission, but with attribution where they
occur).  Then acronyms, machine names, and names of important 
scientists were added as they came. This completed the second draft.  

For the third draft, I incorporated comments and new definitions
received in response to the second draft, and added some new terms 
from the "Princeton Plasma Physics Laboaratory Glossary of Fusion 
Terms", which I obtained at PPPL.  I added categories for research 
and funding/political agencies, tried to broaden the base of basic
science terms, and wrote up a few more preliminary definitions based
upon explanations that have appeared in the newsgroup and in my 
studies.  Many of the terms listed still do not have explanations 
given.  

The fourth through sixth drafts are mostly incremental 
improvements to the previous versions.  New categories of terms 
have been made, the organization has been improved, and of 
course definitions have been added and improved.


* What's Needed to Improve the FUT:

I am looking for additional contributions (and improvements) to 
the list.  It would be nice if people posting to the group could
occasionally take a few moments to include definitions of a few 
terms used when you use them; in browsing through the group I 
can then snip out the terms and definitions and simply paste 
them into the evolving FUT file.  It also would be nice if 
references to the FAQ/FQA and the Reading List / Bibliography 
could be given to supplement the FUT descriptions, at least 
for some of the more complicated terms.


* Comment on Sources:

The terms and definitions occurring here represent a collection
of contributions from numerous sources.  Rather than include
acknowledgements for each individual definition, I have made
blanket acknowledgements in a separate section.  I have tried 
to include citations in most cases where only a single textual 
source was used.


* This file may be freely distributed; I recommend you retain the
revision date, and in any case I'd like to be cited as the editor. *


***************************
Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University
As always, I represent only myself, and not PPPL
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.22 / John Logajan /  Re: Thermocore calibration heat?
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Thermocore calibration heat?
Date: 22 Jun 1994 23:52:48 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Online Services Member.

Richard A Blue (blue@pilot.msu.edu) wrote:
: John Logajan has done yeoman service by his demonstration of dramatic
: changes in the calorimetry constant for a Thermocore-like calorimeter
: as a result of changes in the circulation of ambient air.  Still he
: seems to present this data as if it supports the notion that the
: effect reported by Thermocore is too large to be the result of such
: errors.

I have several weeks worth of running time to show me that under even
my lax control procedures (the tank is in non-temperature controlled
back basement bedroom) that the calibration constant does not wander
around much.  Recall that Themacore specified a 0.17 C/W constant,
+or- 0.01 C/W.  That is a 12% error range.  I have not yet seen my
numbers vary more than 6% (+or- 3%) unless I do something extreme
like direct an electric fan onto the tank.

: I would suggest that there may be not one but serveral different types
: of errors associated with these measurements.

If we can get John Hilborn and Ernie Criddle to publish their more careful
tests, I'm sure they could enlighten us on some of these additional 
error types and magnitudes.  I am not sure that they necessarily 
agree with my interpretations to date. 

: The thing that has caught my attention is the mention of "calibration
: on the fly."

Let me point out that they did both types of calibration -- calibration
with only the heater running (and a very slight electrolysis current
to induce stirring) and calibration "on the fly."

: Just to hang some numbers on this let's say the calibration heater
: is run at 60 watts input power with a duty factor of 1/3 as in
: 24 hours out of every 72 hours throughout the course of the experiment.

This is correct except they input 40 watts.

: This gives an average input of 20 watts which when added to the
: 7 watts of electrolysis power boosts the total know input to 27 watts.
: If the heat output as determined by calorimetry is wrong by a factor
: of two as John's experiment indicates is not beyond the realm of
: possibility then 27 watts in and 40 watts out are not all that far
: apart.

I think you are mis-applying averages.  Influences decay with time.  So
you have to factor the time decay into the averaging equation.  In this case,
since the impulses are about 10 time constants apart, the deviation
decays to near zero.

: John also notes that changes in air circulation effect not only the
: final equilibrium temperature but also the time constant for reaching
: that equilibrium.

The time constant is equal to the thermal capacity of the tank multiplied
by the calorimetry constant -- so they will always change proportionally.

: From the numbers we have in hand it can be seen
: that the 24 on period for a calibration heater is marginally adequate
: at best such that the calorimeter may never reach equilibrium.

Taking the 0.15 C/W constant from the chart, and the 125,550 J/C thermal
capacity, I get a time constant for the Thermacore device of about 5.23
hours.  Five time constants get you to over 99%, which is 26 hours.

The paper says they turned on the heater power for 24 hours, and repeated
this every 72 hours.  That means the heater power was off for 48 hours.
Plenty of time for the heat to reach an equilibrium error of less than
1% -- depending, of course, on when they measured the temperature.

--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com -- 612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills  MN 55112 USA           -

cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.23 /  dowen@vaxc.cc. /  RE:Titanium Tritide & Calorimetry.
     
Originally-From: dowen@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE:Titanium Tritide & Calorimetry.
Date: 23 Jun 94 19:57:26 +1000
Organization: Computer Centre, Monash University, Australia

Hi folks,
Many thanks to Chuck Harrison for his post on the 20-June-94 entitled
"Titanium Tritide and Calorimetry". The calorimetry work described by
Chuck is not the only article which supports Otto Reifensweiler (1) in
his investigations of the variation of radioactivity with temperature.
There is also the paper by E.A.Secco who investigated the gas-solid
exchange between Zn-gas labelled by the 65Zn-nuclide with polycrystaline
ZnO at elevated temperatures.(2)
So now there are -three- reputable investigators who have observed
this phenomenon.

Hmmmmm.

(1)Reduced radioactivity of tritium in small titanium particles,
   Physics Letters A (184) 1994, 149-153.
(2)E.A.Secco, 4th International Symposium on Reactivity of Solids,
   Elsvier Pub. Co., Amsterdam (1961) 188. 
                                            Best Regards to all,
                                            Daryl Owen

cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudendowen cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.24 /  DROEGE@fnali.f /  Re: John Hilborn donates Nalgene tank
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnali.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: John Hilborn donates Nalgene tank
Date: Fri, 24 Jun 1994 00:45:15 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

It is good that we all help each other no matter which side of the debate 
we are on.  John, your catalog number does not match my Cole-Parmer catalog.
I would expect a number like G-06317-50.  In any case it looks like you have
a $50-$100 donation.  

You might ask John Hilborn to tell us what his results have been. Seems
like he has been working for over a year now.

Tom Droege

cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenDROEGE cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.23 / Robert Heeter /  Conventional Fusion FAQ Section 0 - Intro / Outline
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Conventional Fusion FAQ Section 0 - Intro / Outline
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 1994 04:40:52 GMT
Organization: Princeton University


Frequently Asked Questions about Fusion Research 
(with Answers)

Edited by:
Robert F. Heeter
rfheeter@theory.pppl.gov
Graduate Student, Princeton Plasma Physics Lab

Last Revised: 
June 22, 1994

Legal Stuff:  This is a draft document, not a completed work.  
As such it is an evolving text, and may not be correct or up-to-date.
This document should not be cited or distributed for profit.  
At this time, this document is made available for comments,
corrections, and contributions only.  In no case should my name, 
the revision date, or this paragraph be removed.  
                                             - Robert F. Heeter

***********************************************

Table of Contents
-----------------

0 - Introduction and Outline
     * Title Page
     * Table of Contents
     * Preface / Current Status
     * Outline / List of Questions
     * Revision History
1 - Fusion as a Physical Phenomenon
2 - Fusion as an Energy Source
3 - Fusion as a Scientific Research Program
4 - Methods of Containment / Approaches to Fusion
5 - Status of and Plans for Present Devices
6 - Recent Results
7 - Educational Opportunities
8 - Internet Resources
9 - Future Plans
10 - Glossary of Frequently Used Terms
     10a - Overview
     10b - A-D
     10c - E-J
     10d - K-P
     10e - Q-Z
11 - Annotated Bibliography
12 - Citations and Acknowledgements


***********************************************

Preface to the Conventional Fusion FAQ

*** Goal:
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.

*** Scope:
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.

*** 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) below.  Hopefully it will not be too hard to use.
The FAQ is available as a standalone, self-running Macintosh
"digital magazine" program for those who are interested.

*** Status:
While much remains to be done, most sections now exist in at
least rough-draft form.  All sections could benefit from further
revision, and I would appreciate any new information, suggestions,
or comments anyone might be willing to provide.  Many thanks to 
those who have helped out thus far!  Once all sections are
drafted, I will be crossposting the FAQ to the offical FAQ
groups sci.answers and news.answers, and also to sci.physics
and sci.energy, since people there may be interested. (Then
again, the FAQ is huge; perhaps I will simply post the
introduction.)


************************************************************

OUTLINE OF THE CONVENTIONAL-FUSION FAQ 
(subject to change if desirable)

*** 1. Fusion as a Physical Phenomenon:
 A.  What is fusion?
 B.  How does fusion release energy?
 C.  Where does fusion occur in nature?
 D.  Why doesn't fusion occur anywhere else in nature?
 E.  What are the basic fusion reactions?
 F.  Why is the deuterium-tritium (D-T) reaction the easiest?
 G.  What is "aneutronic fusion"?
 H.  Why is it so hard to create controlled man-made 
        fusion reactions?
 I.  What is plasma physics, and how is it related to fusion?
 J.  Just how hot and confined do these plasmas need to be?
        (Or, what conditions are needed for controlled fusion?)
 K.  What are the basic approaches used to heat and confine 
        the plasma?  (Or, what is magnetic confinement?  
        Inertial confinement?)	

*** 2. Fusion as a Future Energy Source:
  (Under construction)
 A.  Technical Characteristics
 B.  Economic Characteristics
 C.  Environmental Characteristics
 D.  Safety Characteristics
 E.  Fusion for Space Applications

*** 3. Fusion as a Scientific Research Program
  (Under construction)
 (a) History:
	   When did fusion research begin?
	   When was fusion research declassified?
	   What level of international cooperation is there?
	   What is the history of fusion funding (US, FUSSR, EC, Japan)?
	   What is the history of achievement of fusion parameters?

(g) What is the current state of fusion research? 
		Close / far from achieving practical benefits?
	(h) Who is doing fusion, and where?  (funds distribution?)
	(i) Benefits of developing fusion energy?
	(j) Applications to spaceflight? (Sci-fi?)
	(k) How to spread the word to get more support?
		Is this too political?

*** 4. Methods of Containment / Approaches to fusion:
  (Under construction)
 A.  Listing of Confinement Approaches	
 (b) What is a tokamak / how does it work?
	(c)   "  "  " mirror  / "   "    "   " ? 
	(d)   "  "  inertial confinement / " " "? 
	(e) What is a stellarator / " " " " ? 
	(f)   "  "  " Plasmak / "   "    "   " ? 
	(g)   "  " electrostatic confinement/ "  "  " ? 
	(h)   "  " reversed-field pinch / " " " " ? 
	(i) Muon-catalyzed fusion
 (j) What is a Migma / how does it work?
 (k) What is a Field-Reversed Configuration / how does it work?
 (l) What about the pinch methods?
	(m) What are some other confinement approaches?

*** 5. Status of and plans for Present Devices:
 A.  Flagship Tokamaks
  1.  ITER: (International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor)
  2.  JET: (Joint European Torus)  
  3.  JT-60: (Japan Tokamak (?)) 
  4.  TFTR:  (Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor)  
  5.  TPX: (Tokamak Physics Experiment)  
 B.  Medium to Large Tokamaks
  1.  Alcator C-Mod: 
  2.  ASDEX-U:  (Axially Symmetric Divertor EXperiment-Upgrade) 
  3.  DIII-D:  (Doublet III, D-shape)
  4.  FT: (Frascati Tokamak)
  5.  NSTX: (National Spherical Tokamak eXperiment)
  6.  PBX-M:  (Princeton Beta Experiment-Modified)
  7.  TCV: (Variable Configuration Tokamak - in French) 
  8.  TEXTOR:  
  9. Tore Supra:  
 C.  Small Tokamaks
  1:  CDX-U (Current Drive eXperiment-Upgrade)
  2.  START:  ( * * Aspect-Ratio Tokamak ?)
  3.  TEXT-U:
 D.  Stellarators
  1.  ATF  (Advanced Toroidal Facility)  
  2.  Wendelstein-7AS:  (Advanced Stellarator) 
  3.  Wendelstein-7X
 E.  Inertial Confinement
  1.  NIF:  (National Ignition Facility)
  2.  Nova:
 F.  Alternative Methods
  1.  Electrostatic Confinement:
  2.  MFTF:  Mirror Fusion Test Facility:  
  3.  Muon-Catalyzed Fusion 
  4.  PLASMAK(tm): 
  5.  RFX:  (Reversed-Field eXperiment)

*** 6. Recent Results
 A.  Recent Results on TFTR:
	 (a) What was done?
	 (b) Why does it matter?
 B.  Recent Results from JET
 C.  Recent Results from Inertial Confinement Fusion
 D.  Recent Results from Muon-Catalyzed Fusion
 E.  Recent major results from other experiments, 
       and theoretical work
 F.  Recent Political News
 G.  Appendix on TFTR and JET results

*** 7. Educational Issues and Conferences:
 A.  What opportunities are there for interested students?
 B.  I'm an undergraduate interested in becoming a "fusioneer."  
         What should I study?
 C.  What sorts of experiments are there for high-school
         students?  How can I get the equipment?  Has anyone
         else done this?
 D.  What about those summer programs you mentioned above?	
 E.  When/where are the major fusion conferences?

*** 8. Other internet resources:
 A. Newsgroups
 B. FTP Sites
 C. Listservers
 D. Gopher
 E. World-Wide Web
 F. Electronic Bulletins
 G. Individuals Willing to Provide Additional Information

*** 9. Future Plans:
  (Under construction)
	(a) Plans for TPX?
	(b) Plans for ITER?
	(c) Prospects for funding? (US, EC, Japan, FUSSR)
	(d) What problems in designing a fusion powerplant?
		Rad waste, materials choices, device parameters ???
	(e) What are the key research problems/opportunities?

*** 10. Glossary of Frequently Used Terms (FUT)
 A. Introduction to the Glossary / FUT
 B. Glossary terms from A to D
 C. Glossary terms from E to J
 D. Glossary terms from K to P
 E. Glossary terms from Q to Z

*** 11. Bibliography / Reading List
	A. Recent articles in the popular literature.
	B. General References and Histories 
	(suitable for those with minimal background in physics or fusion).
	C. Fusion Research Review Articles & Texts
	D. Plasma Physics - General Texts 
	(focus is on the science of plasmas, rather than engineering 
		of reactors)
	E.  Plasma Physics - Device-Specific
	(applications of plasma physics to specific devices)
	F. Fusion Reactor Engineering References
	G. List of Relevant Scientific Journals
	H. Unclassified / Unsummarized works.  (Please help me move
		references out of this section and into sections 1-4 by
 		contributing reviews of sources you know about!)

*** 12. Acknowledgements and Citations
  (I've had a lot of help, so I needed a separate section to list
   everyone!)


***************************************************

Revision History by Section

*** Document as a Whole:

*	Initial Draft - preliminary outline of topics and structure.
*	to Feb. 26, 1994 - added some proto-answers.
*	to March 6, 1994 - added topics, added proto-answers.* 
* to March 20, 1994 - Reorganized, created standalone Mac document,
  updated various pieces, added a few proto-answers.
* to March 27, 1994 - updates of some sections, new answers, minor
  reorganizations, and revisions to outline.
* to April 6, 1994 - updated glossary, added legal goop at front.
* to April 15, 1994 - inserted section 2 on fusion energy; major
          revisions to many sections.  First draft of Section 5.
* April 22, 1994 - added disclaimers about this not being a Cold
          fusion FAQ to the top of each section to reduce confusion.
* June 16, 1994 - general updates to many sections, first draft
           of section 1.
* June 22, 1994 - revisions to several more sections.  Second draft
           of section 1.

*** Section 1:

* First Draft, June 11, 1994 - basic answers to basic questions.
* Second Draft, June 22, 1994 - made corrections and improvements.


*** Sections 2-4,9: not yet drafted


*** Section 5:

* First Draft, April 15, 1994 - brief summaries of major machines.
* Second Draft, June 16, 1994 - added more machines, revised some.
* Third Draft, June 22, 1994 - added more machines, rearranged 
entries, revised several entries.


*** Section 6:

* First Draft, March 27, 1994 - brief answers kludged together 
from earlier postings.
* Second Draft, June 22, 1994 - added new results & new sections.


*** Section 7:

* First Draft, March 23, 1994 - basic answers
* Second Draft, April 15, 1994 - added list of conferences, 
     more schools.
* Third Draft, June 22, 1994 - added more schools & programs


*** Section 8:

* First Draft, March 22, 1994 - basic info, neutrino ftp, people.
* Second Draft, April 15, 1994 - added more info sources.
* Third Draft, June 12, 1994 - added more info sources.
* Fourth Draft, June 22, 1994 - added info on electronic bulletins,
     made revisions to other info sources.


*** Section 10 - Glossary

*	First draft was an accumulation of sources & Jim Day's list.
* Second draft, Feb. 12, 1994 - incorporated Herman's glossary,
						added list of undefined terms,
						defined labeling scheme
*	Third draft, Feb. 20, 1994 - incorporated new terms and 
					     corrections to old terms.
						added #, % to structure.
						separated A,B,C,D...
*	Fourth draft, March 6, 1994 - added new terms and corrections.
* Fifth draft, April 15, 1994 - added new terms and corrections;
          subdivided vocabulary into basic and advanced terms.
* Sixth draft, June 22, 1994 - more new terms and correctsion;
          added subcategory for units of measurement.


*** Section 11 - Bibliography

*	First draft, Feb. 3, 1994
*	Second draft, Feb. 12,1994 - new references, new structure
* Third draft, Feb. 19, 1994 - new references; incorporated
					corrections & comments since 2nd.
* Fourth draft, March 22, 1994	- added some new references, added  
     section H on additional sources for info.
* Fifth draft, April 10, 1994 - added new references.


***************************
Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University
Disclaimer - this is done with my free time, and is not an
official PPPL effort/activity.
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.23 / L Plutonium /  (pages 150-154 of 300) my last posting of PLAYING THE STOCK 
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.fusion,alt.religion.kibology
Subject: (pages 150-154 of 300) my last posting of PLAYING THE STOCK 
Date: 23 Jun 1994 17:03:39 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

Note to readers of the INTERNET to my book on playing the stock market.
Dartmouth College has revoked my account over my skit 18 and 19 of
NEANDERTHAL PARK 2. They have given me a few days to clear-out my
account. Hence this will be my last post on the stock market book.
Farewell, the Atom, 231*94 in its infinite wisdom has superdetermined
these actions, even the finite wisdom of administrators. This is good
news to me, the King of Physics, Math, and every other science, for I
will now concentrate my supergenius on Engineering and patents.
Engineering is always more important than Internet posts.

						149
	I need to find out in much detail what companies built or had a large
part in building the hot thermonuclear fusion reactors built in the
world.  This is important information to know because if hot fusion
energy is achieved at one of these reactors then the companies which
built the reactor or a large proportion of the reactor will be at an
immediate advantage.  I wish the companies who had a large part in
building the fusion reactors around the world such as the Joint
European Torus in England which has achieved plasmas hotter than the
interior of the sun and considered by the scientific community as the
best fusion reactor in the world as of 1991, or Princeton's Tokamak
Fusion Test Reactor or the one built in Germany or Japan, would send me
the information on which part specific companies had in building those
reactors. 
	I wrote the above paragraph in 1990. The latest update as of 22JUN1994
is that Princeton's Fusion Test Reactor is the most advance hot
thermonuclear fusion device. Tritium was used in the Test Reactor to
achieve the most advanced experimental tests on plasma fusion. And as
of this editing on this date 22JUN1994, it is my opinion that some
future day hot fusion will be engineered but mostly for an adjunct to
cold fusion. I, Ludwig Plutonium have a patent-pending-in-the-future
for cold fusion. It is my guess of the future that cold fusion will be
the main source of future energy and cold fusion will be the first
commercial fusion power generating facilities. Later, hot fusion will
be a technology off-spin, a secondary technology to cold fusion. I
believe this is all correct because the physics of fusion is so very
primitive as of this writing. We know so little about the physics of
fusion, e.g. (1) missing 2/3 neutrino count from the Sun (2) test-tube
electrochemical fusion is not well understood and not predictably
measured (3) Reifeinschweiler radiation-- radioactivity is affected by
temperature (4) sonoluminescence (5) muon catalyzed fusion is not
clearly understood, although true. With these five physics experimental
data is my own patent seeking for (6) Spontaneous Neutron
Materialization Devices, which I claim answers all five of the above.
It is my belief that once all the physics of the above five is well
understood, then the answer to all of the above five is (6). Engineered
cold fusion will be how to make spontaneous turned into predictable,
just as at a certain temperature Reifeinschweiler radiation works and
just as at a certain sound frequency sonoluminescence works. I have
posted to the INTERNET, sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics my theory of
cold fusion, re: SPONTANEOUS NEUTRON MATERIALIZATION DEVICES from
AUG1993 
						150
until now JUN1994. 
	What details I have as of 1991 as to what companies manufacture
equipment or make the hot fusion reactors is this for Europe's JET :
GEC--  Baking plant for vacuum vessel
GEC Machines-- Flywheel generator convertor sets
GEC-ESL-- Main assembly contract
Siemens-- PINI power supplies and prototype
AEG-- circuit breakers
ASEA--  Lifting equipment
BBC--  Toroidal and poloidal field coils,  busbar system
Source:  Europe's Experiment in Fusion:  The JET Joint Undertaking   E.
N. Shaw  1990  North-Holland
______________________________________________________
	Faraday's law is that voltage around a circuit is equal to the time
rate of change of magnetic flux through the circuit.  Imagine a loop of
wire, then there are two ways to have a flux change: (1) is to bring a
magnet up to the loop, or else have (2)  the magnet stay fixed and move
the loop.  Faraday's law is the principle of an electric motor. 
Faraday's law is a description of the electric motor, or, the electric
motor is the reality of Faraday's law.   I point this out and want to
strongly emphasize the fact that the electric motor is so close to one
of the laws of physics for the reason that the electric motor will be
there in the long term future.  The electric motor will not be
supplanted by some new discovery in some research laboratory in the
future.   The electric motor is a piece of engineering equipment which
converts electrical energy into mechanical energy.  We humans will
always need mechanical energy.  The point I am making is that we humans
will always need electrical motor industries. 
	As of 1990, I think Baldor Electric whose business is over 90%
electric motors is a good investment buy for the long term future
because the future will increasingly go to clean electrical motors and
when fusion energy is engineered then the growth for electric motors
will be huge.  The downside risk is small because the electric motor is
the reality of a fundamental law of physics.  Baldor Electric
specializes in electric motors and it is well positioned for future
growth of fusion energy converted to electrical energy and then to
mechanical energy.  I can imagine all the internal combustion engine
vehicles in the world replaced by electric vehicles.  Also, Baldor
Electric is such a small company that the 
						151
potential for a buyout is likely even though insiders control 21.3% of
the stock.  Not overlooking the fact that ABB, Siemens, Hitachi, and
Toshiba make electric motors also.
	As of 1991 I compare the relative progress of fusion energy with
biotechnology.  It is obvious biotechnology is developing much more
rapidly since for the apparent fact that controlled fusion energy has
not to this date been engineered.  Several outstanding biotechnology
products are already winners: the blood clot dissolver tPA,
erythropoietin (EPO), alpha interferon, and human growth hormone (hGH).
 Erythropoietin and human growth hormone, are probably blockbusters.  I
strongly believe some of the interferons, interleukins, and colony
stimulating factors will turn out to be blockbusters.  However the
discovery of high temperature superconductors in 1986 will add momentum
to the fusion work.  It appears biotechnology is accelerating in growth
and so biotechnology with big winning products already on the market
and numerous other products in the pipeline has the best chances of
increasing wealth.  Although a surprise may occur somewhere in a fusion
reactors somewhere in the world and then electrical/electronics
companies zoom in growth.  It is obvious to me that most
biotechnology/pharmaceutical companies are valued at a premium market
value, whereas there are many bargains found in the
electrical/electronics sector.  Whether I invest in
biotechnology/pharmaceutical/chemical (a chemical company with a
biotechnology division) or the sector of electrical/electronics, these
are the best two sectors on Earth to invest in at this time and I
predict for the long term future because both are massively science R&D
driven.
	I as an investor would want to concentrate most of my investing in
biotech/drug companies because the biotech/drug industry is
accelerating in growth.  The good news about the electrical companies
is that they are so cheap in comparison to the biotech/drug companies
that the start of an investment accumulation into these companies with
dividends paid-out from drug/biotech companies or from new investment
capital is reasonable, however the majority of assets I will have in
the biotechnology/drug industry.  I wrote this paragraph in 1990 and I
still have the same inclinations as of this editing 22JUN1994. And as
of this editing, I surprisingly find more bargains in the biotech/drug
industry than in the electrical engineering industry. This is because
the politics of reducing health care costs has made biotech/drug
companies at a bargain price. As long as drug
						152
 companies are cheaper to buy than electrical engineering companies
such as ASEA, I will buy drug companies. As of this editing, my
favorite is Upjohn below $29 per share. Above $29 it is not a bargain.
	Scientific issues are the best guesses in my mind to increase wealth. 
Fusion energy is the power of the Sun.  When humans achieve fusion
energy, it is like having a Sun in our backyard.  Immense amounts of
electricity will come when fusion energy is achieved.  So it is a
reasonably good guess to invest in corporations which benefit from
fusion energy.  Those companies are the  electrical/electronics
corporations such as ABB Asea Brown Boveri, Siemens AG, Toshiba,
Hitachi, Mitsubishi Electric, The General Electric Company PLC (GEC), 
and possibly IBM, NEC, and Fujitsu with high temperature
superconductors and computers to control and regulate the fusion
reactors. 

      8  The metals: gold, silver, platinum, palladium
                              as investments
	The only real money in the future is gold, silver, platinum, and
palladium.

	I intend to keep some of my total assets in metals as a tiny insurance
policy.  Also the owning of metals keeps me tracking metals prices and
thus helps in the process of gauging relative worth and value of
company shares against metals through time. The price of metals is an
effective gauge of wealth.
	Metals (throughout this book when I say metal, I mean the metals of--
gold, platinum, palladium, and silver) represent an insurance policy of
so much [food + water] set in time.  One 31.1 grams unit of gold could
buy one month worth of food a thousand years ago and it now buys one
month worth of food and it is a good guess that in the future it will
buy one month worth of food.  No paper currency can make such a claim. 
I doubt there is any paper currency which can claim its purchasing
power has remained stable at the end of one year, and I think the
historical record will probably show no paper currency has lasted more
than 200 years without becoming worthless or so deteriorated that a
gold standard intervention was required.   I do not know what the
statistical average lifespan of a paper currency has been, this is a
fact an economic historian should research in detail.  Since after
1964, the USA has been completely off any metal standard because 1964
was the last year silver was in circulation as currency.  I predict the
						153
 USA paper currency and other major paper currencies around the world
will disintegrate in a currency reform within the next 30 years, and
not the 200 years which would be the year 2164.
	As of 1990, the silver ten cent candy bar of 1964 now costs fifty
cents, so in the time span of 26 years, paper money has lost value by a
factor of 5X.  Whereas a silver ten cent coin of 1964 is still capable
of buying the  candy bar presently.  Measured against gold, virtually
all prices of commodities or material items match the old familiar
prices when gold and silver were circulating as money.  However the
money earned for working as wages paid in paper money nowadays no way
has kept up with paper money inflation.  When I was cutting grass and
paid in silver coins in 1964, I was able to save more in terms of
wealth than perhaps many first year wage earners of paper money with a
college degree in 1991.
	Gold and the precious metals come closest of any investment of
minimizing the uncertainty of retaining value and wealth.  Where
companies are most vulnerable is 1) in government interference and 2)
the management of the company.  Bad, obtuse management running a
company can bankrupt a company.  A.H. Robins, and Texaco come to my
mind in this connection.  The case of Texaco was a combination of
government interference on the part of the court system which conducted
the Pennzoil-Texaco lawsuit and bad management of Texaco which allowed
the events to end in a Texaco bankruptcy and a $3 billion settlement
payment to Pennzoil.  The recent case of Pfizer over its faulty heart
valves suggests incompetence on the part of management in that the
management did not really think deep enough in weighing the risk of a
mechanical heart valve with possible future problems of that heart
valve.  Mechanical devices in health care it seems are very susceptible
to potential lawsuits vice drugs or medications.  I believe this is so
because a physical object is much easier to prove failings or
malfunctions vice proving something wrong with a drug after it is
swallowed or taken.  A.H. Robins intrauterine contraceptive device is
an example along with Pfizers heart valve.  Pfizer management when
purchasing the Shiley unit was chasing the fast short term profits and
overlooking the future risks of a mechanical device which has put the
entire company of Pfizer as of 1990 at huge risk.  Or management which
has a short term, or misguided view of the future can put a company
into a declining mode of profitability leading to a declining company. 
But adverse government interference is probably the largest threat to
any company, such as the case of companies in France when France
nationalized its companies.  Or as in the case in the USA 
						154
                         94th ELECTRON OF 231PU
               Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH ELECTRON

                  \ ::| :./.
                  .\::|::/.:
                     _ _
                    (:Y:)
                     - - 
                  ::/.|.\.:
                :: /.:| :\.:
                  /   |   \.
                          LP
        One of those dots is the Sun with 9 smaller dots around it.
Look in a chemistry textbook or quantum physics textbook of the
electron cloud dot picture. 
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.23 / Robert Heeter /  Conventional Fusion FAQ Section 10E - Glossary N-R
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Conventional Fusion FAQ Section 10E - Glossary N-R
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 1994 05:32:38 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

==================================================================

Section 10 Part E - Glossary N-R

FREQUENTLY USED TERMS IN CONVENTIONAL FUSION RESEARCH 
AND PLASMA PHYSICS

* This FAQ deals with conventional fusion only, not Cold Fusion. *

While this section is not yet complete, it should be useful to
many people, and I encourage you to distribute it to anyone who
might be interested (and willing to help revise it!!!).

6th Draft, Last Revised on Wednesday, June 22, 1994.

Edited by Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@theory.pppl.gov

Guide to Categories:
 
* = advanced plasma/fusion vocabulary
& = basic physics vocabulary 
> = device type or machine name
# = name of a constant or variable
! = scientists 
@ = acronym
% = labs & political organizations
$ = unit of measurement

Citations and Acknowledgements appear in Section 12.

==================================================================

NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN

# n - variable used for number density of particles.
# n - also used as the symbol for a neutron.

@ NBI - Neutral Beam Injection; see entry
@ NIF - National Ignition Facility; see entry
@ NSTX - National Spherical Tokamak eXperiment; see entry

> National Ignition Facility (NIF):  Inertial-Confinement 
Fusion Facility proposed to be built at Livermore and 
operational around the year 2000.  See Section 9 on Future 
Plans for more information.

> National Spherical Tokamak eXperiment (NSTX):  Mid-sized 
low aspect-ratio tokamak / spheromak experiment proposal; 
still in design phase / not funded.  See Section 9 on Future 
Plans for more information.

* Neo-classical Diffusion:  In a magnetized plasma, _classical_ 
diffusion refers to transport of particles due to Coulomb collisions, 
taking the spiral orbits in the magnetic field into account.  In a 
toroidal magnetic field, the actual rate of diffusion is much higher 
due to slow changes in the positions of the centers of the spirals 
known as banana orbits (see entry).  This faster transport is called 
_neo-classical_.  With very few exceptions the transport in toroidal 
devices is observed to be 10-100 times larger still, presumably due 
to small-scale turbulence.  The observed transport is called 
_anomalous_ (although it actually is the "normal" state).

* Neo-classical transport:  See neo-classical diffusion.

* Neutral Beam Injection: (from Herman) A method for producing
neutrally charged atoms of high energy (high velocity) and 
injecting beams of these atoms into a magnetically confined plasma,
where they are soon ionized.  The high-energy ions then transfer
part of their energy to the plasma particles in repeated
collisions, thus increasing the plasma temperature.

& Neutron:  Fundamental atomic particle with zero electrical
charge (therefore not confined by a magnetic field) and a mass
roughly equal to a proton's mass.

* Neutron Wall Loading:  Energy flux carried by fusion neutrons into
the first wall.  (see also First Wall, Flux, Neutrons)

* Non-Inductive Current Drive:  Current drives schemes that do not 
rely upon the "transformer" effect in tokamaks.  The attainment of 
non-inductive current drive is crucial to the success of tokamaks 
as truly steady-state devices.  See also inductive current drive.

> Nova: (from Herman) The United States' largest laser (ICF) fusion
facility, at LLNL.  "The successor to Shiva.  The next 
generation will be known as Nova Upgrade; a proof of concept
experiment called Beamlet is in operation now.  (I think.)"
	- Albert Chou, albert@seas.ucla.edu

* Nuclear Binding Energy:

& Nuclear Force:  See Weak (Nuclear) Force, Strong (Nuclear) Force.

& Nucleus:  The tiny core of an atom, positively charged,
containing protons and neutrons.  Electrons orbit the nucleus.


OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

@ OH - Ohmic Heating; see entry

@ ORNL - Oak Ridge National Laboratory; see entry

* Outboard side:  portion of a tokamak / toroidal device on
the side opposite the central axis.

% Oak Ridge National Laboratory:  Located in Oak Ridge, TN.  Home of 
a series of various fusion devices.  (Could use more info!)

! Ohm, Georg Simon (1789-1854): Physicist who discovered the
relationship between electric current, potential and resistance.
(Yes, it is Georg.  Swedish, I believe.)

$ Ohm:  Unit of electrical resistance.

& Ohmic heating: (from Herman)  Heating resulting from the
resistance a medium offers to the flow of electrical current.
In plasma subjected to ohmic heating, ions are heated
almost entirely by transfer of energy from the hotter
electrons.

* Ohmic heating coil:  Coil used to induce an electric field
in the plasma via a transformer effect, resulting in ohmic heating.

* Ohmic heating solenoid:  See ohmic heating coil, solenoid.


PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP

# p, P - Variables used for plasma (kinetic) pressure.
# p - also used as symbol for the proton

@ PBX-M - Princeton Beta Experiment-Modified; see entry

@ PF - Poloidal Field

@ PLT - Princeton Large Torus; see entry

@ PNL - Pacific National (Northwest?) Laboratory; no entry yet.

@ PPPL - Princeton Plasma Physics Lab; see entry

& Particle:

& Particle Density:  number of particles present per unit volume
(typically a cubic centimeter).  See also density; typically
represented by the variable "n".

* Pellet Injection / Pellet Injector: (from Herman) A device
that shoots small frozen pellets of hydrogen isotopes at
high speed into the inner regions of hot plasma.

& Phase Velocity:

* Pinch effect: (from Herman) The constriction of a plasma
carrying a large current caused by the interaction of that 
current with its own encircling magnetic field.

> Pinch machine:  Device which confines plasma using the pinch 
effect.

* Plasma: a gas in which many of the atoms or molecules 
are ionized.  Examples:  the sun, fluorescent light tubes,
very hot flames, much of interplanetary, interstellar,
and intergalactice space, the earth's ionosphere, parts
of the atmosphere around lightning discharges, and of
course what's inside a fusion reactor when it's working
right.

* Plasma Beta:  see Beta

* Plasma, Cold:  See Cold Plasma Model

* Plasma Containment:  (quoting from the PPPL Glossary of Fusion 
Terms)  "In plasma physics experiments or nuclear fusion experiments, 
operation is intended to prevent, in an effective and sufficiently 
prolonged manner, the particles of a plasma from striking the walls 
of the container in which this plasma is produced.  Plasma 
confinement is a fundamental requirement for obtaining net energy 
from a fusion plasma.  The reason is that scattering (hence 
diffusion) is at least an order of magnitude more probable than 
fusion reactions.  Hence, without confinement, the plasma fuel would 
disperse before enough fusion reactions could take place."

> Plasma Focus:  The Plasma Focus is another device which depends 
on the pinch effect.  Possible applications include both fusion
and plasma propulsion, as well as other plasma research.  In essence
the plasma focus is generated by discharge of a current across
the ends of two coaxial insulated conducting pipes. 

The Plasma Focus caused a huge stir when they generated copious 
neutrons, until it was discovered that the source of the neutrons 
was knockoffs from deuterium due to pinch accelerated electrons or 
ions.  Plasma focus is sort of a point version of the "Z"pinch. 

For more information on the plasma focus, see the entry in the
section on confinement approaches.

* Plasma Frequency:  The natural collective oscillation frequency 
of free electrons in a plasma in the absence of a magnetic field.
Also known as Langmuir frequency; see also electrostatic waves.

* Plasma-Plasma Reaction:  Fusion reaction which occurs from the
collision of two thermal plasma ions.  (See also beam-wall, 
beam-beam, and beam-plasma reaction entries.)

> PLASMAK(tm):  Advanced spheromak-type design using a fluid
rather than solid conducting shell; for more information see
entry section 4.

& Plutonium:  (from Herman) A radioactive metallic element
whose isotope, plutonium-239, is used in nuclear weapons 
and as a fission reactor fuel.

* Poloidal:  In toroidal geometries, the direction along the
circumference of a slice through one side of the torus. 
"The short way around a torus".
	- Albert Chou, albert@seas.ucla.edu

* Poloidal Field:  In toroidal devices, the magnetic field that
encircles the plasma axis.

* Poloidal Field Coils:  In toroidal devices (eg, tokamaks), the
sets of windings which are (typically) aligned along the plasma
axis and produce poloidal fields.  These include ohmic heating,
shaping, vertical, equilibrium, and divertor windings. (Adapted from
PPPL Glossary)

& Power:  Defined as amount of work per unit time, or change in 
energy per unit time.

& Pressure:  Defined as force per unit area.

% Princeton - See Princeton University and/or Princeton Plasma 
Physics Lab

> Princeton Beta Experiment-Modified (PBX-M):  mid-sized tokamak
research device at Princeton. (need more here!)  Original research 
goal was to investigate the so-called "second stability regime" in
tokamaks. (? I should know more, I work near it! - rfheeter)

> Princeton Large Torus (PLT): Large tokamak formerly operated
at the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory (PPPL).

% Princeton Plasma Physics Lab (PPPL):  Located in Princeton, 
New Jersey.  Single largest fusion research facility in the 
United States; sole U.S. single-purpose plasma physics 
laboratory; operated by Princeton University for the Department 
of Energy.  Site of PLT, PBX-M, TFTR, several other past and 
present experiments, and future site of TPX.
(Refer to entries for relevant machines, both here and in FAQ.)

% Princeton University:  Among other research activities, the 
University operates the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory for the 
Department of Energy (see above entry for PPPL).

* Project Matterhorn:  (from Herman) The code name of the 
United States' first secret controlled fusion project 
started by Lyman Spitzer at Princeton University in 1951.

* Project Sherwood:  Name often used to describe the U.S. controlled
fusion program in the 1950s and '60s.  (PPPL Glossary)

& Proton: (from Herman) An elementary particle found in the
nucleus of all atoms.  It carries a single positive electrical
charge.


QQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQ

# q - Variable used to indicate electric charge; also used for
the "safety factor" (see charge, safety factor).  Usually clear
from context which is meant.

# Q: See Q-factor

* Q-factor:  Ratio of power produced by fusion to power
put into the reactor to heat the plasma and drive the
magnetic fields.  Q = 1 is the definition of scientific
breakeven, where power out = power in.  Economical fusion
will require Q significantly greater than 1.  Fortunately
Q increases dramatically as the plasma parameters 
approach the Lawson criterion for ignition.

* Quasi-neutral plasma: an ionized gas in which positive 
and negative charges are present in approximately 
equal numbers.


RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

@ Rad - Radiation Absorbed Dose; see entry "rad"

@ Rem - Raditation Equivalent for Man; see entry "rem"

@ RF - RadioFrequency; see entry

@ RF Current Drive - Radio Frequency Current Drive; see entry

@ RF Heating - Radio Frequency Heating; see entry

! R.F. Heeter - Plasma physics graduate student at PPPL;the editor 
of the sci.physics.fusion FAQ, bibliography, and FUT. :)

@ RFC: Reversed-Field Configuration: see Field-Reversed Configuration.

@ RFP: Reversed-Field Pinch; see entry

@ RFX: Reversed-Field eXperiment; see entry

$ Rad:  radiation absorbed dose.  A unit used to measure the
amount of radiation energy absorbed per gram of a given
substance.  See also gray, rem, sievert.

& Radiation: The emission of energy from a body in the form
of light or heat waves, or energetic particles such as
alpha particles, electrons, or neutrons.  Radiation is
*what is emitted*, not *what does the emitting*.  A nucleus
which does the emitting is said to be radioactive.  Electrons
in atoms can also emit radiation in the form of ordinary 
visible light; such atoms are not said to be radioactive.

& Radioactive waste: (from Herman) Equipment and materials
from nuclear operations which are radioactive and for which
there is no further anticipated use.

& Radioactivity:  Characteristic property of unstable nuclei
which decay to other nuclei by emission of radiation.  A list
of common decay / transmutation modes should be in the FAQ.

* Radio Frequency or radiofrequency:

* Radio Frequency Current Drive:

* Radio Frequency Heating:  Process for heating the plasma by
transferring energy to ions or electrons using waves generated
by an external oscillator at an appropriate frequency.  (This is
similar to how a microwave oven heats food.)  There are various
types:  see also ECRH, ICRH, and Lower Hybrid...  (PPPL Glossary)

* Ramsauer Effect:  A quantum effect allowing free electrons
within a narrow range of energies to pass through a noble
gas with very little elastic scattering.

* Reactor:  See fission reactor, fusion reactor.

* Recombination Radiation: radiation produced when a 
free electron in a plasma is captured by an ion.

$ Rem:  Radiation (or Roentgen) equivalent for man.  Unit of 
absorbed radiation dose based on the definition rem = rad * quality.  
The quality factor depends on the type of radiation involved and 
is used to scale the radiation dose based on the relative 
harmfulness of different sorts of radiation.  Annual US average 
dose is about 300 rem, of which more than 2/3 is natural 
(primarily radon), and the majority of the human-generated dose 
is due to medical uses (primarily X-rays).

& Resistance:

* Resistive Instability:  Instability resulting from macroscopic
equations used to model a plasma of finite conductivity / nonzero
resistivity.

& Resistivity:

> Reversed-Field Pinch (RFP):  A toroidal magnetic confinement scheme
which could constitute an alternative to the Tokamak for building a
fusion reactor.  It is characterized by a magnetic field mostly
generated by the plasma itself, with toroidal and poloidal components 
of comparable intensities, in contrast with the Tokamak where most of
the field is toroidal and externally applied. The name of the
configuration is given by the fact that the toroidal component of the
magnetic field changes sign in the outer region of the plasma. The 
main attractivness of the Reversed Field Pinch is that, according to
presently established scalings, it could reach ignition without the 
need of auxiliary heating. 
(Emilio Martines, martines%pdigi3.igi.pd.cnr.it)

> Reversed-Field eXperiment (RFX): It is the largest Reversed Field
Pinch device presently in operation.  Located in Padova (Italy) it 
is planned to reach a plasma current of 2 MA.
(Emilio Martines, martines%pdigi3.igi.pd.cnr.it)

* Rogowski Loop or Coil:  A coiled wire loop which encircles a
current-carrying plasma.  Changes in total plasma current induce a
voltage in the loop; integrating (adding up) the voltage over time
gives the plasma current.

* Rotational Transform:  (labels: \iota = 2*PI/q)
Due to the combination of applied toroidal field and induced
poloidal field, the magnetic field lines wind helically around
the torus (and on most flux surfaces they fill the surface
ergodically).  The rotational transform is a measure of this
helicity, and is defined as the average angle the field line
shifts in the poloidal direction per complete circuit in the
toroidal direction. The quantity q = 2*\pi / \iota is known
as the ``safety factor'' because of its role in stability theory.
(see also safety factor) (contributed by James Crotinger)

* Runaway Electrons:  (from Herman) Those electrons in a plasma that
gain energy from an applied electrical field at a faster rate than 
they lose it through collisions with other particles.  These 
electrons tend to "run away" in energy from the remainder of the 
plasma, because the collision cross-section decreases as the 
particle's velocity increases, so that the faster the particle goes, 
the less likely it is to be stopped.  See also:  collision 
cross-section.



***************************
Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University
As always, I represent only myself, and not PPPL
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.23 / Robert Heeter /  Conventional Fusion FAQ Section 10F - Glossary S-Z
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Conventional Fusion FAQ Section 10F - Glossary S-Z
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 1994 05:33:56 GMT
Organization: Princeton University


==================================================================

Section 10 Part F - Glossary S-Z

FREQUENTLY USED TERMS IN CONVENTIONAL FUSION RESEARCH 
AND PLASMA PHYSICS

* This FAQ deals with conventional fusion only, not Cold Fusion. *

While this section is not yet complete, it should be useful to
many people, and I encourage you to distribute it to anyone who
might be interested (and willing to help revise it!!!).

6th Draft, Last Revised on Wednesday, June 22, 1994.

Edited by Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@theory.pppl.gov

Guide to Categories:
 
* = advanced plasma/fusion vocabulary
& = basic physics vocabulary 
> = device type or machine name
# = name of a constant or variable
! = scientists 
@ = acronym
% = labs & political organizations
$ = unit of measurement

Citations and Acknowledgements appear in Section 12.

==================================================================

SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

@ SI - Systeme Internationale; see SI Units

@ SNL - Sandia National Laboratory; see entry

* Safety Factor:  The number of times a field line goes around a 
torus "the long way" for each time around "the short way".  In a 
tokamak, this number is typically near unity in the center of the 
plasma and between two and 6 or 8 at the edge.  So-called because it 
helps to determine the degree of stability the plasma has against 
certain instabilities.

! Sakharov, Andrei: Russian physicist; among other achievements, he 
is credited with the initial design of the tokamak.

% Sandia National Laboratories:  Located in Albuquerque, New Mexico.
Another large DOE laboratory; has PBFA-II (Particle Beam Fusion
Accelerator, an ICF device) and some pinch devices.  Some divisions
located in Livermore (Sandia-Livermore).

* Scaling Laws:  (from Herman)  Laws stating that if two
quantities are proportional and are known to be valid at
certain orders of magnitude, then they can be used to
calculate the value of one of the quantities at another
order of magnitude.  

& Scattering:  The deflection of one particle as a result of
collisions.  See also Elastic.

* Scientific Feasibility: (from Herman) "The successful 
completion of experiments which reach 'breakeven' plasma
conditions (minimum values of temperature, density,
confinement time) in laboratory devices which lend themselves
to development into net power-producing systems.  
Reactor-grade (eg, D-T) fusion fuels need not be used in
these experiments.

* Scrapeoff Layer:  Outer layer of a plasma which is affected
("scraped off") by a divertor (or limiter?).

* Second-stability:

* Sheared Flow:

* Shear Fields:

* Sheath:  See Debye Sheath

* Shock Heating:  The heating produced by the impact of a shock wave.

* Shock Wave:  Wave produced as a result of a sudden, violent 
disturbance which occurs in a particular region faster than sound
waves can traverse the region.

* Shot: Fusion jargon for the production of a (short-lived) plasma.  
In the early days, plasmas were produced by the "discharge" of 
capacitor banks, which (frequently) made a BANG.  A modern tokamak 
produces a few dozen "shots" per day, each lasting a few seconds and, 
if nothing goes wrong, inaudible.  See also: capacitor, tokamak
(Arthur Carlson, awc@ipp-garching.mpg.de)

$ SI Units:  (also known as MKS, MKSA Units)  System of measurement
in which the fundamental units are meters, kilometers, seconds, and
the ampere.

$ Sievert:  Unit of absorbed radiation dose equivalent to 100 rem.
(see also rem, rad, Gray)  The sievert is based on the Gray in the
same way that the rem is based on the rad, I believe.

& Solenoid:

* Sound Waves:

* Spallation:

> Spheromak:

! Spitzer, Lyman:  Early Princeton Fusion Scientist; 
astrophysicist who first proposed orbiting space telescope;
inventor of the stellarator.

* Sputtering:  Process by which atoms are ejected from a solid 
surface by bombardment with plasma particles. (?)

* Stability:  characteristic of some types of equilibrium states;
see equilibrium.

> Stellarator: (adapted from Herman) Device invented by Lyman Spitzer
for the containment of a plasma inside a racetrack-shaped
(sometimes a figure-8) tube.  The plasma is contained by a magnetic 
field created by helical windings around the tube.  More generally, 
a toroidal sort of device that attempts to average out particle 
drifts that would otherwise take plasma to the walls of the vacuum
vessel by imposing a given amount of helicity to the toroidal field
lines.  "A toroidal plasma configuration, which, unlike a tokamak, 
is not axially symmetric.  The poloidal fields necessary for 
confinement are produced by external coils (rather than a current 
in the plasma), either helical coils in addition to plane toroidal 
field coils, or out-of-plane toroidal field coils (pioneered in 
Germany on Wendelstein 7-AS).  The stellarator is generally 
considered to be the most serious alternative to the tokamak.  Since 
the concept is inherently steady state, it would not have the 
tokamak's problems with thermal and mechanical cycling, current 
drive, and disruptions."
	-- Arthur Carlson, awc@ipp-garching.mpg.de

* Strong (Nuclear) Force:

* Superconductor:  (adapted from Herman) A type of electrical 
conductor that permits a current to flow with zero resistance.
Without superconducting coils, a fusion reactor would not be 
possible, because too much energy would be required to maintain the 
magnetic fields against resistive energy losses in the coil 
conductors.

& Synchrotron radiation:  electromagnetic energy radiated from
a charged particle moving in a curved orbit (typically in a magnetic
field), due to the acceleration required to change the direction 
of the particle's velocity.  See also bremsstrahlung.


TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT

# t - variable generally used to represent time

# tau - label generally used to represent confinement time

# T - variable generally used to represent temperature

# T - nuclear/chemical symbol for tritium/triton; see entry

$ T - abbreviation for Tesla; see entry

@ TCV - Variable Configuration Tokamak - from French; see Section 5.

@ TF - Toroidal Field

@ TFTR - Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor; see entry

@ TPX - Tokamak Physics Experiment; see entry

> T-3: (from Herman) A Soviet tokamak located at the 
Kurchatov Institute in Moscow that first proved viability
by producing a plasma temperature of 10 million degrees
centigrage/Kelvin.

> T-10: (from Herman) A later Soviet tokamak located at 
the Kurchatov Institute (a copy of which is PLT, only 
PLT had neutral beams).

> T-15: (from Herman) A Soviet tokamak with superconducting
magnets currently under construction.  (Was it completed?
Is it operational?)

> T-20:  (from Herman) A large Soviet tokamak that was to 
have operated under reactor conditions (net energy 
production) but which was abandoned for budgetary reasons.

* Tau: See # tau above.

* Temperature, Plasma:  (adapted from Herman) A measure of 
the random (thermal) kinetic energy of the ions or electrons
in the plasma.  The temperature of each component of a plasma depends
on the mean kinetic energy of that component.  An example of this
is the fluorescent light bulb, which is an example of a 
weakly-ionized plasma where the electrons are at temperatures of tens 
of thousands of degrees, whereas the ions and neutrals are much 
cooler (so that you can touch the bulb without being burned).
See atomic temperature, electron temperature, and ion temperature.  

$ Tesla - SI unit of magnetic field strength; 1 tesla = 10,000 gauss.

& Thermal Conductivity:  degree to which a substance transmits heat.
(basic definition, I believe, is: 
	(heat flow) = (thermal conductivity) * (temperature gradient) )

* Thermal Conversion Cycle:  Process of generating electrical power
with a fusion reactor by means of a steam / other gas turbine.  This
is distinct from "direct conversion" cycles.

* Thermonuclear Fusion: fusion achieved by heating
up the fuel into the plasma state to the point where
ions have sufficient energy to fuse.

> Theta Pinch:  A pinch device in which the external current 
imposed goes in the azimuthal/circumferential direction around a
cylindrically shaped plasma.

* Thomson Scattering:  Collective(?) electron scattering.  Used to
measure electron temperature? Density?  (Find out in the next 
edition?)

* Thomson Scattering Device: (adapted from Herman)  A diagnostic 
device used to measure electron temperature in a plasma by directing
laser light into the plasma.  The laser's photons scatter off the
electrons in the plasma, spreading in a manner proportional to the
electron temperature.

> Tokamak: (Acronym created from the Russian words, 
"TOroidalnaya KAmera MAgnitnaya," or "Toroidal Chamber-Magnetic".)

Because the tokamak is the primary research machine for
magnetic confinement fusion today, we provide several 
descriptions from various sources:

-> One of several types of toroidal discharge chamber 
in which a longitudinal magnetic field is used to confine a 
plasma.  The tokamak is distinguished by a plasma current
running around the torus, which generates a stabilizing
poloidal magnetic field.  An externally-applied vertical
magnetic field is also used to achieve plasma equilibrium.

-> (Contributed by James Crotinger, jac@gandalf.llnl.gov)
An axisymmetric toroidal confinement device characterized by a
strong toroidal magnetic field (1-10 Tesla) and a toroidal
plasma current (several mega-Amps) that leads to a modest
poloidal magnetic field. The plasma current is usually induced
by ramping a current in a large solonoid along the symmetry axis
of the tokamak. This is an inherently pulsed mode of operation,
and other mechanisms of current drive are under investigation.

-> TOKAMAK  (tokomak)  (contributed by Paul M. Koloc)
"A three component magnetoplasma toroidal construct in which 
the poloidal magnetic component is provided by a toroidal plasma 
current. The other two components are coil driven, namely, the
vertical field (which opposes the major radial expansion) and
the toroidal field (which acts to provide a "stiff guide" field
for the plasma to gain more MHD stability.    
Note:
It is better to think that the toroidal or longitudinal field  
"stiffens" the plasma as against flopping or kinking, while the 
plasma current driven poloidal (locally azimuthal) field provides 
"confinement" pressure.  Actually, the toroidal field interacting 
with plasma diamagnetism may also contribute to a "magnetic 
bouyancy", which is a sort of UN-confinement -- (it actually gives 
the plasma a tendency to expand radially outward in the equatorial 
plane)."  

-> (from Herman:) "Based on an original Soviet design, a device
for containing plasma inside a torus chamber by using the 
combination of two magnetic fields - one created by electric
coils around the torus, the other created by intense electric
current in the plasma itself, which also servers to
heat the plasma [partially].  TFTR and JET are tokamaks."

> Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor:  Large tokamak at Princeton,
first machine to use 50-50 mix of D-T fuel, current world's
record holder in fusion energy production.  Largest tokamak
in the United States.  

> Tokamak Physics Experiment:  Smaller successor to TFTR at
Princeton.  Engineering design underway; construction 
scheduled to begin in FY 1995.

> Tore Supra:  Large tokamak in Cadarache (southern France).  
The second largest tokamak in Europe; uses superconducting magnets.  
Tore Supra has a circular cross-section (like TFTR), which limits the
achievable confinement time and experimental flexibility.  In 
addition to developing superconducting technology, it concentrates on 
the physics of long pulses and ergodic magnetic limiters.
See also: ergodic; magnetic limiter; superconductor; tokamak.

* Toroidal: in the shape of a torus, or doughnut.  
Or: Coordinate indicating which part of the torus a particle is in.
(Azimuthal coordinate) 
Or: General term referring to toruses as opposed to other geometries.

* Toroidal Field Coils:  Coils in a tokamak, typically wound around
the torus in a solenoid-like arrangement, used to generate the 
toroidal magnetic field.  Each turn completely surrounds the plasma.

> Toroidal Pinch:

> Torsatron:

& Transformer, Transformer Effect:

* Transport:  Refers to processes which cause heat energy, or 
particles, or something else, to flow out of the plasma and cease 
being confined.  Diffusion partly determines the rate of transport.
See also: diffusion, classical diffusion, neoclassical diffusion, 
anomalous diffusion.

* Transverse Waves:

* Trapped-Particle Instability:

* Trapped-Particle Modes:

& Tritium: (adapted from Herman) A radioactive isotope of hydrogen 
with one proton and two neutrons in its nucleus and one orbiting 
electron.  A more efficient fuel than ordinary hydrogen (protium) 
because of the extra neutrons.  Tritium decays to helium-3 by 
emission of an electron ("beta emission") with a half-life of 12.3 
years.  Tritium can be synthesized from deuterium via neutron 
bombardment, or by fissioning lithium (see lithium).

* Triton: nucleus of a tritium atom; tritium ion.

* Troyon Limit:  see beta limit

* Turbulence:  "Violent macroscopic fluctuations which can develop
under certain conditions in fluids and plasmas and which usually
result in the rapid transfer of energy through the medium." 
(PPPL Glossary)

* Turbulent Heating:  "Mode of heating of a plasma where the orderly
motion of the particles created by external sources is converted
into disorderly motion, by the excitation of microinstabilities."
(PPPL Glossary)

* Two-Stream Instability:


UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU

# u - variable commonly used for energy density of electric or
magnetic fields; also sometimes used for velocity.

@ UT, UTA - University of Texas at Austin; see entry

@ UW, UWM - University of Wisconsin at Madsion; see entry

& Universal gas constant: R = 8.314 x 10^7 ergs per 
degree C per mole.

% University of Texas at Austin (UT):  Among other things, UT has
a large theoretical plasma physcs research center. (info, anyone?)
The TEXT experimental tokamak is also located here.

% University of Wisconsin at Madison:  Among other facilities,
"Wisconsin" has a large research program in both plasma physics
and fusion engineering.

* Upper Hybrid Waves:  Similar to lower hybrid waves, but at a 
higher frequency.  (more description?)  Not truly propagating 
waves, but plasma oscillations. (?)

& Uranium:  (from Herman) A radioactive metallic element whose
isotope, uranium-235, is a nuclear fission fuel.  Plutonium,
another fission fuel, can be produced from the more
plentiful isotope uranium-238.


VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV

# v - variable typically used for velocity

# V - variable typically used for electrical potential (Voltage)

$ V - abbreviation for Volts; see entry

@ VDE - Vertical *?* Event ???

& Vector:

& Vector Notation:

& Velocity:

& Velocity Space:

& Velocity Space Instability:

* Vertical instability - a type of MHD (n=0) instability. Nearly all
tokamaks are vertically unstable (all highly shaped ones are). 
Controlling this instability is an important facet of machine
design.  (Contributed by James Crotinger)

& Viscosity:

* Vlasov Equation:

* Voltage Loop:  "A wire which encircles the main axis of a tokamak
in the vicinity of the vacuum vessel."  The voltage induced in this
loop during the shot is a measure of the ohmic heating voltage
induced by transformer action and applied to the plasma.
(PPPL Glossary)

$ Volt:  Unit of electrical potential.


WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW

@ W-7AS, W-7X - See Wendelstein entry

* Wall Conditioning:  Describes a class of procedures used to
control the composition of materials adsorbed onto the walls of
a plasma device.  Conditioning is important because material from
the walls can create impurities in the plasma, and these
impurities typically degrade plasma performance.  See also
boronization, impurity control, electron cyclotron discharge
cleaning.

& Wavelength:  The length of a single cycle of a wave; usually
measured from crest-to-crest.  For electromagnetic waves, the
wavelength determines the type (radio, infrared, visible, 
ultraviolet, X-Ray, gamma-ray) of radiation; in the case of 
visible light, wavelength determines the color of the light.

& Weak (Nuclear) Force:

>Wendelstein: A family of stellarators built in Garching, Germany.  
The machine currently in operation is Wendelstein-7AS (aka W-7AS).  
Wendelstein ("spiral rock") is a craggy Bavarian mountain;  some of 
W-1 through W-6 were built, some were just paper studies;  AS stands 
for "advanced stellarator" and refers on the physical side to an 
attempt to minimize neoclassical effects (see entry for Neo-classical 
Diffusion) such as the bootstrap current (see entry), and on the 
technical side to the use of out-of-plane coils as an alternative to 
linked coils.  W-7X, a much larger, superconducting stellarator based 
on the same concepts has been proposed to be built by the European 
Union in Greifswald, on the north coast of Germany.

% Wisconsin - See University of Wisconsin-Madison

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

* X-Point: Place where two magnetic field lines intersect.
Location where magnetic reconnection takes place.  (See magnetic
reconnection; see also divertors.)


YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY

* Yin-Yang Coil:  See baseball coil.


ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

# Z - see atomic number
 
@ ZETA - Zero Energy Thermonuclear Assembly; see entry

> Zero Energy Thermonuclear Assembly:  A British fusion device in 
which scientists observed fusion neutrons in 1958.  They were
erroneously considered to be thermonuclear (coming from particles 
with a Maxwellian velocity distribution) and were a cause for the
initial optimism that fusion energy would be easy.  They were 
actually due to electromagnetic acceleration during a plasma 
instability, an effect which cannot be scaled up to produce useful 
energy.

> Z-Pinch:  Pinch device in which the externally-driven pinching 
current goes in the z direction (parallel to / through the 
cylindrical plasma).




***************************
Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University
As always, I represent only myself, and not PPPL
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.23 / Robert Heeter /  Conventional Fusion FAQ Section 10C - Glossary D-H
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Conventional Fusion FAQ Section 10C - Glossary D-H
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 1994 05:03:38 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

==================================================================

Section 10 Part C - Glossary D-H

FREQUENTLY USED TERMS IN CONVENTIONAL FUSION RESEARCH 
AND PLASMA PHYSICS

* This FAQ deals with conventional fusion only, not Cold Fusion. *

While this section is not yet complete, it should be useful to
many people, and I encourage you to distribute it to anyone who
might be interested (and willing to help revise it!!!).

6th Draft, Last Revised on Wednesday, June 22, 1994.

Edited by Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@theory.pppl.gov

Guide to Categories:
 
* = advanced plasma/fusion vocabulary
& = basic physics vocabulary 
> = device type or machine name
# = name of a constant or variable
! = scientists 
@ = acronym
% = labs & political organizations
$ = unit of measurement

Citations and Acknowledgements appear in Section 12.

==================================================================

DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD

@ D - nuclear/chemical symbol for deuterium/deuteron

@ DT - Deuterium-Tritium; see entry labeled DT Fuel

@ DIII-D - Doublet III-D; see entry

@ DOE - Department of Energy (United States)

* D-shaped plasma:  A plasma whose cross section is a D (instead
of a circle).

* Debye Length: The characteristic distance over which charges are
shielded in a plasma.  See also: Debye shielding.
lambda_D = ( epsilon_0 k_B T_e / (n_e e^2) )^(1/2) 
lambda_D[m] = (7.434*10^3)*(_e[eV])^(1/2)*n[m^(-3)]^(-1/2)
(Arthur Carlson, awc@ipp-garching.mpg.de)

! Debye, Peter Joseph:  Physical chemist, studied behavior of 
conductive solutions (plasmas have some similar behaviors).

* Debye Radius:  See Debye Length.

* Debye Sheath:  The region of net positive charge in front of a
material surface in contact with a plasma.  Its characteristic
thickness is the Debye length, and it is caused by Debye shielding
of the negative surface charge resulting from electrons flowing to 
the surface much faster (initially) than the ions.
See also: Debye Length, Debye Shielding.
(Arthur Carlson, awc@ipp-garching.mpg.de)

* Debye Shielding:  If a positive (or negative) charge is inserted 
into a plasma, it will change the local charge distribution by 
attracting (repelling) electrons.  The net result is an additional
negative (positive) charge density which cancels the effect of the
initial charge at distances large compared to the Debye length.
(There is a corresponding effect of shielding by the ions, which, 
for various and subtle reasons, usually is less important.)
See also: Debye Length.
(Arthur Carlson, awc@ipp-garching.mpg.de)

* Debye Sphere:  Sphere around a charged test particle whose
radius is equal to the Debye length.

* Decay Modes:  Different pathways for decay of radioactive nuclei.
	(need a list!)

& Density:  amount per unit of volume, or per unit surface area, or
per unit length. (Usually specified or clear from context which 
of these is meant).  Several types:
 Charge density   - amount of charge per unit (volume, area, length)
	Current density  - current flow per unit transverse surface area.
	Energy density   - amount of energy per unit volume.
	Flux density     - flux per unit of transverse surface area.
	Mass density     - mass per unit volume.
	Number density   - number of particles per unit volume.
	Particle density - same as number density.

% Department of Energy:  (adapted from Herman) U.S. cabinet-level
department that has overseen atomic energy research since 1977.
Created by merging of ERDA and (?).  Also supervises other 
energy research, and some defense work.

& Deuterium: A heavy isotope of hydrogen whose nucleus
contains both a neutron and a proton.

* Deuteron: A deuterium ion; nucleus consisting of a proton
and a neutron.

* Diagnostics:  (from Herman) Procedures for determining
(diagnosing) the state of a plasma during an experiment;
also refers to the instruments used for diagnosing.

* Diamagnetic Effects:  Application of a magnetic field to a plasma
will tend to create circulating current within the plasma that will
reduce the strength of the magnetic field.

* Diffusion:  The interpenetration of one substance into another
as a result of thermal / random motion of the individual particles.
(e.g., the diffusion of a plasma across a magnetic field as a 
result of collisions which cause particles to move along new
field lines.)  See also classical diffusion, neoclassical diffusion,
anomalous diffusion, transport.

* Direct Conversion:  The generation of electricity by direct
recovery of the kinetic energy of the charged fusion reaction
products.

* Disruption:  (from Herman)  Plasma instabilities sometimes grow
and cause disruptions of the carefully-engineered plasma conditions
in the reactor.  Major disruptions can cause an abrupt temperature 
drop and the termination of the plasma.  

& Distribution Function:  Function characterizing the density of
particles in a given space.  The velocity-space distribution
function gives the number of particles with a particular velocity;
the position-space distribution function is synonymous with the
particle density in position-space. 

* Divertor: (from Herman) Component of a toroidal fusion 
device that diverts charged particles on the outer edge 
of the plasma where they become neutralized.  In a reactor, the
divertor would incorporate a system for pumping out the neutralized
particles as exhaust from the machine.  A divertor, like a limiter, 
prevents the particles from striking and degrading the chamber 
walls, and dislodging secondary particles that would cool and 
contaminate the plasma.  Whereas a limiter is a material object 
used to limit the shape of the plasma, a divertor is a 
magnetic-field construction.  
See also: limiter.

> Doublet III-D:  (from Herman) Latest in a series of
tokamaks designed by GA Technologies (formerly General Atomic)
in San Diego making plasmas with noncircular cross sections,
including kidney shapes and D-shapes.  Though the current 
configuration does not (so far as the editor knows) involve 
doublet plasmas, this is still the official name for the device.

* Drift Motion:  Ordinarily particles placed in a magnetic
field will simply orbit in circles, but if the magnetic field
is not uniform, or curves, or there is an electrical field
perpendicular to the magnetic field, or another force is applied
perpendicular to the magnetic field, then the "guiding centers"
of the particle orbits will drift (generally perpendicular to
the magnetic field and to the applied force).  There are several
sorts of drifts; refer to a plasma physics text for more 
information (see Section 11: Bibliography).  For a good 
introduction at the undergraduate physics level, see Chen.

* Drift Velocity:  Characteristic velocity at which the center
of a particle's orbit ("guiding center") drifts when drift motion
(see above) occurs.

* DT Fuel:  Easiest fuel mixture to use in achieving fusion;
unless otherwise specified, probably refers to a 50-50 (by numbers 
or by moles) mix of deuterium and tritium.


EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

# e - symbol for the electron, for the unit electric 
      charge (e = 1.6x10^-19 coulombs), and for a Euler's fundamental
      mathematical constant e = 2.71828...

# E - Variable typically used for Energy or Electric Field
(usually in vector notation in the latter case; which is meant
is usually clear from context; when both are used in the same place
the energy is usually represented as U instead of E.)

@ eV - Electron-volt; see entry

@ EBT - Elmo Bumpy Torus; see entry

@ EC - European Community; see entry

@ ECDC - Electron Cyclotron Discharge Cleaning; see entry

@ ECE - Electron Cyclotron Emission; see entry

@ ECH - Electron Cyclotron Heating; see entry

@ ECRH - Electron Cyclotron Radiofrequency Heating - same as ECH.

@ ELM - Edge-Localized Mode; see entry

@ EM - Electromagnetic

@ EM Wave - Electromagnetic Wave; see entry

@ ERDA - Energy Research and Development Agency; see entry

@ EU - European Union; see entry

* Edge Localized Mode (ELM): Mode found often in H-mode plasmas. 
This is a temporary relaxation of the very high edge gradients 
found in H-modes. It may be a relaxation back to the L-mode.
(Borrowed from a posting by Paul Stek)

* Edge Plasma:

* Effective Collision Cross-section: (See collision cross section)

* Effective Collision Radius:  Effective size of a particle
equal to the square root of (cross section/pi).  Determines the
effective range of interaction of the particle.

& Elastic:  Term used to describe a process in which kinetic energy
is conserved; usually refers to (elastic) collisions or (elastic)
scattering.

& Electric Charge:  See charge, electrical.

& Electric Field:  A property of a patch of space which causes
the acceleration of electric charges located at that patch of
space.  The acceleration is given by a = qE/m, where q is the
charge, E the electric field vector, and m the mass of the
particle.  

& Electrical Conductivity:  Degree to which a substance conducts
electric current.  Can be defined by: 
	(current density) = (conductivity) * (applied electric field)

* Electromagnetic Coupling:  A means of extracting energy from a
magnetically confined plasma, where the plasma expands and pushes
on the confining magnetic field, causing electrical energy to
be generated in the external field-generating circuits.

& Electromagnetic Force:

& Electromagnetic Wave:

& Electron: (from Herman) Elementary particle with a negative
electric charge.  Electrons orbit around the positively 
charged nucleus in an atom.  The charge on an electron is 
-1.6x10^-19 coulombs; the electron has a mass of 9.11 x 10^-31 kg.

* Electron Cyclotron Discharge Cleaning (ECDC):  Using relatively
low power microwaves (at the electron cyclotron frequency) to 
create a weakly ionized, essentially unconfined hydrogen plasma 
in the vacuum chamber.  The ions react with impurities on the 
walls of the tokamak and help remove them from the chamber.  For 
instance, Alcator C-mod typically applies ECDC for a few days 
prior to beginning a campaign, and a few hours before each day's run.

* Electron Cyclotron Emission (ECE):  As electrons gyrate around in 
a magnetic field (see also larmor radius or cyclotron radius), 
they radiate radio-frequency electromagnetic waves.  This is 
known as electron cyclotron emission, and can be measured to 
help diagnose a plasma.

* Electron Cyclotron Heating (ECRH):  Radiofrequency (RF) heating 
scheme that works by injecting electromagnetic wave energy at the
electron cyclotron gyration frequency.  The electric field of the 
EM wave at this frequency looks to a gyrating electron like a 
static electric field, and it causes acceleration of the electron.  
The accelerated electron gains energy, which is then shared with 
other particles through collisions, resulting in heating.

* Electron Temperature:  The temperature corresponding to
the mean kinetic energy of the free electrons in a
plasma.

$ Electron-volt: 1 eV = 1.6 x 10^-12 erg. This is a unit of 
kinetic energy equal to that of an electron having a velocity of 
5 x 10^7 cm/sec.  This is the energy an electron (or other particle 
of charge=1 such as a proton), gains as it's accelerated through 
a potential difference of 1 volt.  In plasma physics the eV 
is used as a unit of temperature; when the mean particle energy
 is 1eV, the temperature of the plasma is 11,600 Kelvin.

> Electrostatic Confinement:

* Electrostatic Waves:  Longitudinal oscillations appearing in a
plasma due to a perturbation of electric neutrality.  For a cold
unmagnetized plasma, or at large wavelengths, the frequency of
these waves is by definition the plasma frequency.

& Element: (need short discussion, with list and perhaps periodic
table in appendix?  isotope table with half-lives and decay modes
might also be useful.)

& Elementary Particles worth knowing about:  
	(at the nuclear-energy level)
 	electron & positron - seem to be stable
 	proton - thought to be stable, life > 10^30 sec
 	neutron - decays in ?10 min unless it's in a nucleus, which often
  		extends its life.
	other particles important for nuclear energy: 
		muon, neutrino (m,e,tau),
	photon
	muonic atoms
	pi-meson

		this part is new - maybe separate entries with listing
		here??

> Elmo Bumpy Torus:  Bumpy Torus at ORNL; no longer operating (?)
See Bumpy Torus, ORNL.

* Elongation:  parameter indicating the degree to which the cross
section of a toroidal plasma is non-circular.  (Details anyone?)

& Energy:  Typically defined as "the ability to do work".  Power
is the rate at which work is done, or the rate at which energy
is changed.  "Work" characterizes the degree to which the properties
of a substance are transformed.  Energy exists in many forms,
which can be converted from one to another in various ways.
Examples include:  gravitational energy, electrical energy, 
magnetic and electric field energy, atomic binding energy (a form
of electrical energy really), nuclear binding energy, chemical
energy (another form of electrical energy), kinetic energy (energy
due to motion), thermal energy ("heat"; a form of kinetic energy 
where the motion is due to thermal vibrations/motions), and so on.

* Energy Balance:  Comparison of energy put into a plasma with the
energy dissipated by the system; related to energy confinement.

* Energy Confinement Time:  See energy loss time.

* Energy Loss Time:  Characteristic time in which 1/e (or sometimes
1/2) of a system's energy is lost to its surroundings.  In a plasma
device, the energy loss time (or the energy confinement time) is 
one of three critical parameters determining whether enough 
fusion will occur.  (See Lawson criterion)

% Energy Research and Development Agency (ERDA):  US Agency created 
by splitting of the AEC into ERDA and NRC in about 1975, charged
with managing US energy R&D (???).  Merged with ??? to become the
Department of Energy in about 1977. (???? correct? help??)

* Equilibrium:  State of a system where critical parameters do
not change in time.  An equilibrium is unstable when a small change
in a critical parameter leads the state of the system to diverge
from the equilibrium.  An equilibrium is stable when a small change
in a critical parameter leads to a "restoring force" which tends to
return the system to equilibrium.

$ Erg / ergs:  CGS unit for energy.  1E7 ergs = 1 joule.

* Ergodic:  A mathematical term meaning "space-filling".  If a 
magnetic field is ergodic, any field line will eventually pass 
arbitrarily close to any point in space.  Closely related to 
"chaotic".

% European Community: see European Union
 
% European Union: (from Herman) Organization of European
countries (formerly European Community, EC, formerly European
Economic Community, EEC) established in 1967 to coordinate policies 
on the economy, energy, agriculture, and other matters.  The original
member countries were France, Belgium, West Germany, Italy, 
Luxembourg, and the Netherlands.  Joining later were Denmark, 
Ireland, the United Kingdom, Greece, Spain, and Portugal.

% Euratom:  (from Herman) European Atomic Energy Community.
International organization established in 1958 by members
of the European Economic Community to form a common market
for the development of peaceful uses of nuclear power.


FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF

# F:  Variable typically used for force; sometimes flux.

@ FRC: Field-Reversed Configuration; see entry

& Field:

& Field Lines:

> Field-Reversed Configuration:  A compact torus produced in a 
theta pinch and having (in principle) no toroidal field.  The 
potential advantages for a fusion reactor include a simple (linear) 
machine geometry, an average plasma pressure close to the confining 
field pressure, and physical separation of formation and burn 
chambers.  The are predicted to be violently unstable to tilting, but 
this has never been observed.  See also: compact torus, theta pinch.
(Arthur Carlson, awc@ipp-garching.mpg.de)

* First Wall:  The first physical boundary that surrounds a plasma.

& Fission (Nuclear): (adapted from Herman) the division 
of an atomic nucleus into two smaller nuclei.  In large 
nuclei, frequently accompanied by large energy release 
and generally one or more neutrons.  Fissioning of atoms
into more than two pieces seems not to happen, but see
spallation.  See also: radioactivity.

* Fission Bomb:  see atomic bomb, A-bomb.

* Fission Reactor:  (from Herman) A device that can initiate 
and control a self-sustaining series of nuclear fissions.

* Flat-top:  Stable period in the middle of a tokamak
discharge, characterized by a flat, stable peak in a plot
of plasma (current, temperature) vs. time.

* Flute Instability:  Term used to describe an interchange
instability occuring in a cyclindrical geometry, due to the
resemblance of the unstable cylinder to a fluted column in classical
architecture.

& Flux:  The total amount of a quantity passing through a given
surface per unit time.  Typical "quantities" include field lines,
particles, heat, energy, mass of fluid, etc.

& Flux Density:  Total amount of a quantity passing through a
unit surface area in unit time.  See also flux, above.

* Flux freezing:  See frozen-in law.

* Flux surfaces:  See magnetic flux surfaces.

* Flux trapping:  See frozen-in law.

* Fokker-Planck Equation:  An equation that describes the time rate 
of change of a particle's velocity as a result of small-angle 
collisional deflections.  Applicable when the cumulative effect of 
many small-angle collisions is greater than the effect of rarer
large-angle deflections.

& Force:  Rate of change of momentum with time.  Forces are said
to cause accelerations via F = ma (Newton's law).  There are four
primary forces known presently:  the gravitational, electromagnetic,
weak nuclear, and strong nuclear forces.  The gravitational and 
electromagnetic forces are long-range (dropping as 1/distance^2),
while the nuclear forces are short range (effective only within
nuclei; distances on the order of 10^-15 meters).  The 
electromagnetic force is much stronger than the gravitational force,
but is generally cancelled over large distances because of the 
balance of positive and negative charges.  Refer to entries for 
each force for more information.

* Free Electron:  An electron not bound to an atom, molecule, or
other particle via electric forces.

* Free Wave:  A wave (e.g., electromagnetic) travelling in a 
homogeneous infinite medium (no boundary conditions).

* Frozen-in Law:  In a perfect conductor, the total magnetic flux
through any surface is a constant.  In a plasma which is nearly
perfectly conducting, the relevant surfaces move with the plasma;
the result is that the plasma is tied to the magnetic field, and
the field is tied to the plasma.

* Fusion (Nuclear): a nuclear reaction in which light atomic 
nuclei combine to form heavier nuclei.  (See also Controlled
Thermonuclear Fusion)

* Fusion Reactor: (from Herman) A nuclear reactor in which
a self-sustaining series of nuclear fusions would produce
energy (that could be converted to electric power).

> Fusion-Fission Hybrid: (from Herman) A proposed type of
nuclear reactor relying on both fusion and fission reactions.
A central fusion chamber would produce neutrons to provoke
fission in a surrounding blanket of fissionable material.
The neutron source could also be used to convert other
materials into additional fissile fuels (breeder hybrid).


GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG

$ G - abbreviation for Gauss; see entry

@ GA - General Atomic; see entry.

% Garching:  A town in Germany just north of Munich, where the Max
Planck Institute for Plasma Physics (see entry) is located.

! Gauss, Carl Friedrich: (1777-1855) German mathmetician, astronomer 
and physicist.

$ Gauss - unit of magnetic field strength (CGS units)
10,000 gauss = 1 tesla (see also Tesla)

& Gaussian Units - See CGS Units

% General Atomic:  U.S. corporation involved in fusion research;
operates the DIII-D device in San Diego; see also Doublet III-D.
(What's the other name for GA?)

& Gradient:

& Gravitational Force:

* Gyrofrequency:  See cyclotron frequency.

* Gyroradius: radius of charged particle in magnetic field.
Same thing as cyclotron radius, Larmor radius.

> Glow Discharge: a relatively cool form of plasma discharge;
a common form is in fluorescent lights.  The voltage applied
to the plasma must be greater than the ionization potential of
the gas used; most of the plasma voltage drop is near the 
cathode, where the majority of ionization occurs.

* Grad-Shafronov Equation:  (Contributed by James Crotinger,
with minor revisions.)  The lowest order force balance in the 
plasma is simply that the Lorentz force must be balanced by 
the pressure force.  This balance, combined with Maxwell's 
equations, determines the equilibrium configuration of the 
magnetic field.  When the toroidal configuration is axisymmetric, 
the magnetic field may be written in terms of a stream 
function \psi that satisfies the Grad-Shafranov equation
      
	    \Delta*\psi = - \mu_0 R^2 p'(\psi) - FF'(\psi).
	Here p is the plasma pressure and F = R B_\phi.
(R is the radial distance from the axis of the machine)

(Alternatively, leaving out the equation): 
   In an axisymmetric torus, the magnetic field may be written in
   terms of a scalar potential. When the plasma is in equilibrium
   (forces balance and the plasma is stationary), this scalar
   potential obeys a non-linear elliptic equation known as the
   Grad-Shafranov equation.

$ Gray:  A unit of absorbed dose of radiation.   1 Gray = 100 rads.
Thus 1 gray = 10^4 ergs of energy deposited into a gram of material.
Defined relative to the material into which such radiation passed,
which should therefore be specified.

& Group Velocity:

* Guiding Center:  Particles placed in a magnetic field will
gyrate in circles, and drift in various directions.  The
guiding center represents the instantaneous center of the circular
motion.  The idea is that you can think of the guiding center
as drifting, and the particle as orbiting the guiding center.

* Gyromagnetic Ratio:  Ratio of the magnetic moment to the
angular momentum of a particle.  (see magnetic moment, angular
momentum)


HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

# H - chemical symbol for the element hydrogen; see entry

# He - chemical symbol for the element helium; see entry.

@ H-mode:  see high-mode

* Halo:  Tenuous, low-density plasma formed away from the main 
plasma.  Typically cooler as well.  Whereas the center of a 
tokamak plasma is too hot for material probes to survive, probes
(such as magnetic-field coils) can sometimes be placed in the 
halo, and can measure things such as the halo current (see below).  

* Halo Current:  Currents in the halo region of a plasma discharge.

! Hertz, Heinrich:  19th-century German physicist.

$ Hertz:  Unit of frequency equal to one complete oscillation (cycle)
per second.

* Half-life:  (from Herman) The time in which half the 
atoms of a particular radioactive isotope disintegrate 
to another nuclear form.  Half-lives range from millionths 
of a second to billions of years.

* Helicity:

& Helium: Element whose nuclei all contain two protons.
Stable isotopes are 3He and 4He.  3He is rare on earth (only 1.3
ppm of naturally-occuring He), can be generated from decaying
tritium (half life of about 12 years), and is relatively abundant 
in the crust of the moon.  Helium is the second most abundant element 
in the universe and in the sun, and occurs at about (I believe)
1 part per million in earth's atmosphere.  Helium is also found
in significant quantities in natural gas deposits.  The nucleus
of the He atom is also known as an alpha particle.  Helium is
chemically inert, behaves nearly as an ideal gas under a wide
range of pressures and temperatures, and can only be liquefied
at 4 Kelvin (at atmospheric pressures).  One mole of He weighs
4 grams.

* High-mode or H-mode:  (adapted from Herman) A regime of operation
most easily attained during auxiliary heating of diverted 
tokamak plasmas when the injected power is sufficiently high.  
A sudden improvement in particle confinement time leads to 
increased density and temperature, distinguishing this mode 
from the normal "low mode."  However, H-mode has been achieved
without divertors, auxiliary heating, or a tokamak.  (H-modes
have been observed in stellarators.)

* Hybrid reactor:  see fusion-fission hybrid.

& Hydrogen: (H) Element whose nuclei all contain only one proton.
Isotopes are protium (p, no neutrons) deuterium (D or d, 
one neutron), and tritium (T or t, two neutrons).  The single most
abundant element in the universe, and in the sun.  Hydrogen is
a major element in organic compounds, water (H2O), and many
other substances.  Hydrogen is ordinarily a gas, but can be
liquefied at low temperatures, and even solidified at low
temperature and high pressure.  Hydrogen gas can burn explosively
in the presence of oxygen.

* Hydrogen bomb or H-bomb: (from Herman) An extremely 
powerful type of atomic bomb based on nuclear fusion.  
The atoms of heavy isotopes of hydrogen (deuterium and 
tritium) undergo fusion when subjected to the immense 
heat and pressure generated by the explosion of a nuclear 
fission unit in the bomb.  

* Hydromagnetic Instability:  See MHD Instability


***************************
Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University
As always, I represent only myself, and not PPPL
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.23 / Robert Heeter /  Conventional Fusion FAQ Section 10B - Glossary A-C
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Conventional Fusion FAQ Section 10B - Glossary A-C
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 1994 04:56:43 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

==================================================================

Section 10 Part B - Glossary A-C

FREQUENTLY USED TERMS IN CONVENTIONAL FUSION RESEARCH 
AND PLASMA PHYSICS

* This FAQ deals with conventional fusion only, not Cold Fusion. *

While this section is not yet complete, it should be useful to
many people, and I encourage you to distribute it to anyone who
might be interested (and willing to help revise it!!!).

6th Draft, Last Revised on Wednesday, June 22, 1994.

Edited by Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@theory.pppl.gov

Guide to Categories:
 
* = advanced plasma/fusion vocabulary
& = basic physics vocabulary 
> = device type or machine name
# = name of a constant or variable
! = scientists 
@ = acronym
% = labs & political organizations
$ = unit of measurement

Citations and Acknowledgements appear in Section 12.

==================================================================

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

# A - symbol used to indicate either area or magnetic 
vector potential.

$ A - abbreviation for Amperes; see entry.

@ AEC - (US) Atomic Energy Commission; see entry

@ ANL - Argonne National Laboratory; see entry

@ ASDEX - Axially Symmetric Divertor EXperiment; see entry

@ ASDEX-U - ASDEX-Upgrade; see entry for ASDEX.

* Activation: Activation occurs when a particle interacts
with an atomic nucleus, shifting the nucleus into an
unstable state, and causing it to become radioactive.
In fusion research, where deuterium-tritium is a common
fuel mixture, the neutron released when (D + T) combine
to form (4He + n) can activate the reactor structure. 

* Activation Product: The unstable nucleus formed when
activation occurs.  (See activation above.)

& Adiabatic:  Not involving an exchange of heat between the
system said to be adiabatic and the rest of the universe.

* Adiabatic Invariant:

* Afterglow:  Recombination radiation emitted from a cooling
plasma when the source of ionization (heating, etc) is removed.

* Advanced Fuels:  There are several elements/isotopes which
could be fused together, besides the DT fuel mixture.  Many such
fuel combinations would have various advantages over DT, but
it is generally more difficult to achieve fusion with these
advanced fuels than with the DT mix.  See fuels section of FAQ
for discussion. 

> Advanced Toroidal Facility:  (?) A reversed-field pinch machine
developed at Oak Ridge National Lab (ORNL) (?)

> Alcator: (from Herman) A family of tokamaks developed and
built at MIT and characterized by relatively small diameters
and high magnetic fields.  Plasmas in these devices have
relatively high current and particle densities.  Current incarnation
is Alcator C-mod.  Alcator C was donated to LLNL for use as the 
Microwave Tokamak eXperiment (MTX), now shut down.

* Alfven waves: Transverse electromagnetic waves that are 
propagated along lines of magnetic force in a plasma.  The waves
have frequency less than the ion cyclotron frequency, and are
characterized by the fact that the field lines oscillate (wiggle)
with the plasma.  The propagation velocity depends on the particle
density and the strength of the magnetic field.  "[Relatively] 
Low frequency ion oscillation in the presence of an equilibrium 
magnetic field.  Also called the hydromagnetic wave along Bo.  
The torsional Alfven wave in cylindrical geometry was first measured 
in liquid mercury by B. Lehnert.  Alfven waves were first generated 
and detected in plasma by Allen, Baker, Pyle, and Wilcox in Berkeley 
and by Jephcott in England in 1959."  (quoting from Chen's book; 
see bibliography) - Albert Chou

! Alfven, Hannes Olof:  Nobel Prize-Winning Plasma Physicist
and Astronomer who first suggested the possibility of MHD waves
in 1942.

* Alpha particle:  The nucleus of a Helium-4 atom; is a
typical product of fusion reactions; also released
in various nuclear decay processes.  Alpha particles readily
grab electrons from other sources, becoming neutral helium;
even energetic alpha particles are easily stopped by thin 
barriers (sheets of paper, dead layers of skin, etc.), so that
as a radiological hazard alpha particles are only dangerous if
they are generated inside one's body (where the skin cannot
protect tissue from damage).

$ Ampere, kiloampere, megampere:  (from Herman) The standard
unit for measuring the strength of an electric current
representing a flow of one coulomb of electricity per second.
1 kiloampere = 1000 amperes; 1 megampere = 1,000,000 amperes.
Common abbreviations:  A, amps, kiloamps, megamps, kA, MA

! Ampere, Andre-Marie (1775-1836):  French physicist responsible 
for much of what is known about the fundamentals of electromagnetism.

& Ampere's Law:  General equation in electromagnetism relating
the magnetic field and the currents generating it.

* Aneutronic Fuels:  Advanced fusion fuels which would not
produce fusion neutrons.  See fuels section of FAQ for discussion.

$ Angstrom:  A unit of distance equal to 10^-10 meters or 10^-10 cm.

& Angular Momentum:

* Anomalous Diffusion:  Diffusion in most plasma devices, 
particularly tokamaks, is higher than what one would predict from 
understood causes.  The observed, "typical" diffusion is referred to 
as "anomalous" because it has not yet been explained.  Anomalous 
diffusion includes all diffusion which is not due to collisions 
and geometric effects.  While such effects were not understood 
when the term was coined, and most still aren't, diffusion due 
to well-understood wave phenomena is still 'anomalous'.  "Classical" 
diffusion and "Neo-classical" diffusion are the two well-understood 
diffusion theories, neither is adequate to fully explain the observed 
"anomalous" diffusion.  See also:  entries for classical and 
neoclassical diffusion.  (Acknowledgements to Philip Snyder)

% Argonne National Laboratory:  One of the U.S. Department of Energy
basic-research Laboratories, located in Illinois... (need more info!)

* Ash:  Fusion reaction products trapped in a plasma.  Ash is
bad because (a) it creates impurities, (b) it creates additional
plasma pressure and/or reduces pressure available for fuel ions.
Controlling ash is a major area of fusion research.  Ideally one
would be able to extract the ash ions after diverting an appropriate
fraction of their energy to heating the fuel ions, and then
convert the remaining ash energy to electricity.  Current research
involves using RF waves to transfer energy from ash ions to fuel
ions, and to push the ash into the scrapeoff layer, where it can
be collected via divertors.  (See also scrapeoff layer, divertors)

* Ash control - see ash, divertors.

* Ash removal - see ash, divertors.

* Aspect Ratio:  In toroidal geometry, the ratio of
the major diameter (total width of the torus) to the 
minor diameter (width of a slice taken through one side
of the ring).  (This would be much better with a picture!)

& Atom:  (from Herman)  The smallest unit of an element that
retains the characteristics of that element.  At the center
of the atom is the nucleus, made up of neutrons and protons,
around which the electrons orbit.  Atoms of ordinary hydrogen,
the lightest element, consists of a nucleus of one proton
orbited by one electron.  (Note:  distinct from a molecule,
which is the smallest unit of a substance which retains the
characteristics of that substance.  It takes far less 
energy to break apart a stable molecule into its constituent 
atoms than to divide a stable atom into two smaller atoms.)
Note that in solids, atoms are typically two angstroms
(2 x 10^-10 meters) apart; in air the gas molecules are about
30 angstroms apart.

& Atomic Bomb, A-Bomb:  (from Herman) A weapon with a large
explosive power due to the sudden release of energy when the
nuclei of heavy atoms such as plutonium-239 or uranium-235
are split.  This fission is brought about by the bombardment
of the fuel with neutrons, setting off a chain reaction.
The bomb releases shock, blast, heat, light, and lethal
radiation.  The world's first atomic bomb was successfully
tested by the United States on July 16, 1945.

% Atomic Energy Commission: United States governmental 
authority for atomic energy; split into ERDA and NRC in 1975.
(may not be 100% correct)

& Atomic Number (Z):  The number of protons in a nucleus; same
as the number of electrons in a neutral atom; determines the 
position of an element in the periodic table, and hence its
chemical properties (see also isotope).

* Atomic Temperature:  The temperature corresponding to the mean
kinetic energy of the neutral atoms in a plasma.  (If there were
no ions or electrons, the atomic temperature would be what we
normally think of as the temperature of a gas, such as the air.)

& Avogadro's number: N = 6.02497 x 10^23.  Number of particles 
in a mole of a substance.  Coefficient relating Boltzmann's 
constant to the ideal gas constant. This is the number of 
atoms per gram-atom.  See also: mole

> Axially Symmetric Divertor EXperiment (from Herman)
(ASDEX, Asdex: Garching, Germany)  A large tokamak designed 
for the study of impurities and their control by a magnetic
divertor.  The H mode or high mode of operation with neutral 
beam injection was first observed on ASDEX.

> Axially Symmetric Divertor EXperiment (ASDEX, Asdex):  "The original
ASDEX, located in Garching, Germany and decommisioned in 1990(?), 
would qualify today as a medium-sized tokamak. It was designed for 
the study of impurities and their control by a magnetic divertor.  
The H mode or high mode of operation with neutral beam injection was
first observed on ASDEX.  Its successor ASDEX-Upgrade (a completely 
new machine, not really an "upgrade") is larger and more flexible.
It is the first tokamak whose toroidal and poloidal field coils are 
not linked, which will be a necessary design factor in a reactor.  
It will achieve parameters at the edge which are very similar to 
those needed for a power reactor." - Arthur Carlson

* Azimuthal: Generally an angle, measured "around" an object.
In spherical geometries, the angle which is *not* the "polar angle".  
On the earth, one incarnation of the azimuthal angle is the longitude 
of a location relative to the prime meridian through Greenwich, 
England.  In toroidal geometries, the longitude idea still applies, 
but the other angle is the "poloidal" angle, not the "polar" angle.  
The azimuthal direction is the "long way" around a torus.  
See also: poloidal.


BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB

# B - variable used for Magnetic Field

# B - chemical symbol for the element boron; see entry

# Be - chemical symbol for the element beryllium; see entry

@ BPX - Burning Plasma eXperiment; see entry

* Ballooning Mode:

* Banana Orbit:  The fast spiraling of an charged particle around a
magnetic field line is accompanied by a slow movement ("drift") of 
the center of the sprial.  Projected onto a poloidal plane, the drift
orbit has the shape of a banana.  These orbits are responsible for 
neo-classical diffusion (see entry).

* Baseball Coils:  Used in magnetic-mirror geometries to
produce a minimum-B configuration; so-called because of their
resemblance to the characteristic shape of lacing on a baseball.

* Beam-Beam Reaction:  Fusion reaction which occurs from the 
collision of two fast ions originating in injected neutral beams.

* Beam-Plasma Reaction:  Fusion reaction which occurs from the
collision of a fast beam ion with a thermal plasma ion.

* Beam-Wall Reaction:  Fusion reaction which occurs from the
collision of a fast beam ion with an ion embedded in or adsorbed
onto the reactor wall.

! Becquerel, Antoine-Henri:  French scientist and discoverer of
radioactivity; co-winner of Nobel Prize.  (See Curie)

$ Becquerel:  Unit of radioactivity equal to 1 disintegration per
second.  (see Curie)

& Beryllium: (Be)  Element with atomic number 4 (four protons).
May be useful in multiplying fusion neutrons to enhance tritium
production in a lithium blanket; rather hazardous to handle.
(See relevant terms mentioned.)

* Beta, or beta-value:  Ratio between plasma kinetic pressure and 
magnetic-field pressure; proportional to the ratio between plasma 
kinetic energy density and magnetic field energy density.  Beta 
is usually measured relative to the total, local field
(loosely called beta toroidal), but sometimes the plasma pressure 
relative to only the poloidal component of the field (beta poloidal)
or relative to some external field (like the maximum field at the
magnetic coils) is more useful. There is also a normalized beta 
(beta_N) of interest when discussing the beta limit (see entry).
"Because the cost of a reactor is strongly influenced by the 
strength of the magnetic field that must be provided, beta values 
are directly related to the economics of fusion power production. 
Beta is usually expressed as a percentage, with 5% generally 
believed to be the minimum value required for an economical 
fusion reactor." - from the PPPL WWW page on PBX-M.  
See also: pressure, kinetic pressure, magnetic pressure, 
second stability.

* Beta-Normal:  Beta-N, the normalized beta, is beta relative to
the beta limit (see below).

* Beta-Poloidal:  Beta-P is the same as the ordinary beta, except
only the poloidal field is used in calculating the magnetic field
pressure.  Beta-P is > 1 in many modern tokamaks.

* Beta Limit, also called Troyon Limit: If the plasma pressure in 
a tokamak becomes too high, the so-called ballooning modes become 
unstable and lead to a loss of confinement (sometimes catastophic,
sometimes not). The exact value at which this occurs depends 
strongly on the magnetic field B, the plasma minor radius a, and 
the toroidal plasma current I, such that maximum value of the 
normalized beta, beta_N=beta*B*a/I, is around 4% (with B in Teslas, 
a in meters, and I in Mega-amperes).  The exact value depends on 
details of the plasma shape, the plasma profiles, and the safety
factor. (Beta entries provided by Art Carlson.)

* Binary Collisions:  Collisions involving only two particles; 
multiparticle collisions (eg, three-body collisions) are usually
neglected/approximated...

* Binding Energy:  Energy required to separate two objects;
conversely, energy released when two objects are allow to bind
together.  Equivalent to the mass defect (see entry) via E=mc^2.

& Biot-Savart Law:  General formula for determining the magnetic 
field due to a steady line (not space) current.  Related to Ampere's 
Law.

* Blanket: (from Herman) a region surrounding a fusion reactor 
core within which the fusion neutrons are slowed down, heat 
is transferred to a primary coolant, and tritium is bred 
from lithium.  In hybrid applications, fertile materials 
(U-238 or Th-232) are located in the blanket for conversion 
into fissile fuels.

* Bohm diffusion:  (from Herman) A rapid loss of plasma
across magnetic field lines caused by microinstabilities.
Theory formulated by the physicist David Bohm.  From Chen's book 
(see bibliography): "Semiempirical formula for the diffusion 
coefficient given by Bohm in 1946 (noted by Bohm, Burhop, and 
Massey, who were developing a magnetic arc for use in uranium 
isotope separation)."  Bohm diffusion was proposed (not derived 
from first principles) to scale as 1/B rather than the 1/B^2 
scaling predicted by classical diffusion.  A 1/B scaling results 
from assuming that particles diffuse across field lines at an 
optimum rate (effective collision frequency=cyclotron frequency).  
The 1/B scaling is observed (approximately) in most reactors.  
(Acknowledgements to Philip Snyder)  See also: diffusion, 
microinstabilities, field lines...

& Boltzmann constant: k = 1.38 x 10^-16 erg/degree. This 
is the ratio of the universal gas constant to Avogadro's number.
It is also used to relate temperatures (Kelvin) to energies (ergs
or Joules) via E = (constant of order unity) * kT.

& Boltzmann Distribution:  See Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution;
distribution function.

* Boltzmann Equation:  Fundamental equation in kinetic theory
which describes the evolution of the distribution function.

* Bootstrap Current:  Currents driven in toroidal devices by 
neo-classical diffusion (see entry).  They may amount to a 
substantial fraction of the net current in a tokamak reactor, 
thus lengthening the pulse time or decreasing the power needed 
for current drive.

& Boron: (B)  Fifth element (Z=5) in the periodic table; has
5 protons; potential use as an aneutronic fuel.  (See FAQ section
1, part on reactions.)  Also useful as a neutron-absorber.

* Boronization:

* Branching Ratio:  In a fusion reaction involving two nuclei,
there are typically a variety of possible sets of products which
can form.  The branching ratio for a particular set of products
is the probability that that set of products will be produced.

* Breakeven:  there are several types:
	Commercial:  When fusion power can be converted into enough 
		electric power to power the reactor and generate enough
 		electricity to cover the costs of the plant at economically
 		competitive rates. (?)
	Engineering:  When enough energy can be generated from the
		fusion power output to supply power for the reactor and
		generate a surplus; sort of commercial breakeven without
		the economic considerations. (?)
	Scientific:  When fusion power = input power; Q=1.
		(See also Lawson Criterion)
		Extrapolated - projected for actual reactor fuel using 
			an alternative fuel.
		Actual - determined using the actual fusion fuel to be
			used in the reactor (typically DT).

* Breeder Reactor:  (from Herman) A kind of nuclear reactor that
produces more fissionable material than it consumes to
generate energy.  The liquid-metal "fast breeder," a promising
type of breeder, splits plutonium-239, producing an intense
flow of neutrons and a self-sustaining chain reaction. 

& Bremsstrahlung:  (German for "Braking Radiation")  Electromagnetic
radiation from a charged particle as it slows down (decelerates).  
Similar to synchrotron radiation (see also).

> Burning Plasma eXperiment (BPX):  Proposed U.S. successor to TFTR;
never funded.  See also: CIT, TPX.

> Bumpy Torus:  I believe this concept tries to combine mirror 
concepts with toroidal ones.  My understanding is that it is 
essentially a series of mirrors stuck end to end and bent into 
a ring.  - Albert Chou (corrections / enhancements welcome!)


CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC

# c - Speed of light; 3.0x10E+8 meters/second or 3.0x10E+10 cm/sec

@ CGS - Centimeters, Grams, Seconds; see CGS Units

@ CGS Units - see CGS; see entry

@ CIT - Compact Ignition Tokamak; see entry

$ cm - centimeters; unit of distance.  See also centi-

& Carbon: (C)

& Capacitor:  device used to store electrical energy by accumulating
charges on nearby conductors.  Energy may be stored and withdrawn
at varying rates.  Used in short-pulse plasma devices where only
a moderate amount of energy is needed.

& Celsius: Temperature scale where zero degrees corresponds to the
freezing point of water (32 Fahrenheit) and 100 degrees corresponds 
to the boiling point (212 Fahrenheit).  Zero celsius = 273.16 Kelvin. 

& Centi-:  metric prefix indicating 1/100th of a given unit.
e.g., one centimeter is 1/100th of a meter.

& Centigrade: see Celsius

& CGS Units:  System of measurement where the fundamental units
are centimeters, grams, and seconds.

& Chain Reaction: (from Herman) A self-sustaining series of
chemical or nuclear reactions in which the products of the
reaction contribute directly to the propagation of the process.

& Charge Density:  See density, and apply to electrical charge.

& Charge, Electrical:  
     As a noun:  A fundamental physical attribute of a
particle, which characterizes the particle's electromagnetic
interaction with other particles and with electric and magnetic
fields.  (See also particle, field)

     As a verb:  Storing energy in a battery or electric capacitor by 
running a current through it; opposite of discharge.  (It is possible
to charge most capacitors in either direction, but batteries charge
one way, and discharge the other.)

* Charge Exchange:  Phenomenon in which a positive ion colliding with
a molecule (or an atom) neutralizes itself by capturing an electron
from the molecule/atom, and transforming the molecule/atom into a
positive radical/ion.

* Charge Transfer:  see charge exchange

* Classical Diffusion:  In plasma physics, diffusion due solely
to scattering of particles (unlike charges) via electrical/coulomb
interactions.  (See also diffusion.)

* Coherent Radiation:  Any form of radiation in which the phase
relationship between sections of the wave at different locations is
not random (or incoherent!).  Typical example is a laser beam, in
which the phase is more or less uniform across the beam, and changes
along the beam in accordance with the wavelength.  Radiation in 
which the photons tend to "agree" with one another, rather than
being randomly distributed.

* Cold Plasma Model:  Model of a plasma in which the temperature is
neglected with respect to the effects of interest.

& Collision Cross-Section:  Effective surface area of a particle
when it collides with another; describes probability of collisions
between the two particles.
 
* Collisionless Plasma Model:  Model of a plasma in which the density
is so low that close binary collisions have practically no 
significance because the time scales of interest are smaller than the 
collision time.

& Collision Time:  Typical time which passes between the time
a particle collides, and when it collides again.  Inverse of the
collision frequency; equal to the mean free path divided by the
particle's velocity.

> Compact Ignition Tokamak (CIT): Proposed U.S. successor to TFTR;
never funded.  See also, BPX, TPX.

> Compact Torus:  Any of a series of axially symmetric fusion 
configurations having closed flux surfaces (like a tokamak, not 
like a mirror machine), but having no material objects piercing 
the core (as do the toroidal field coils of a tokamak).  These 
devices have an inherently low aspect ratio.  The most successful
variants are the spheromak and the Field Reversed Configuration.
See also: low aspect ratio, spheromak, field-reversed configuration.
(Arthur Carlson, awc@ipp-garching.mpg.de)

* Compression Waves:

& Conductivity:  Degree to which a substance transmits (conducts)
a given physical property. (is this vague or what?) See electrical
conductivity, thermal conductivity.

* Confinement Time:  Several types:  (adapted from Herman)  
Tau_[E, N, ...] is the amount of time the plasma is contained 
by magnetic fields before its [energy (E), particles (N)] 
leak / dissipate away.  The different types are, in general, 
similar but not equal.

* Controlled Thermonuclear Fusion:  (from Herman) The process
in which light nuclei, heated to a high temperature in a 
confined region, undergo fusion reactions under controlled
conditions.

* Cooperative Phenomena:

* Core plasma:

* Corona: The outermost (?) part of a star's atmosphere; 
characterized by high temperatures and low densities; home to 
many plasma phenomena.

$ Coulomb: standard unit of electric charge.  A single electron or
proton has a charge of (+/-) 1.6022E-19 coulombs.  Hence there are 
6.2414E+18 electrons in a coulomb of electrons.

* Coulomb Collision:  An interparticle collision where Coulomb's Law
is the governing force.

& Coulomb's Law:  Force law governing the electrical interaction
between charged particles.  Force is proportional to (charge of
first particle) * (charge of second particle) / (square of separation
between particles).  Constant of proportionality depends on system
of units used.  (In SI units, it is 1/(4*pi*epsilon-0), where
epsilon-0 is the permittivity of free space = 8.854 x 10^-12 )

& Cryogenic:  Loosely, "very cold".  Used to describe systems which
operate at very low temperatures.  Superconducting magnetic field
coils currently need to operate at cryogenic temperatures (e.g.,
liquid helium at 4 Kelvin).

* Curie:  amount of radioactivity in a gram of radium; named
after Marie Curie (see below).  Corresponds to 3.7 x 10^10 
disintegrations/second.  (See Becquerel)

! Curie: Marie and Pierre; husband-wife pair of French scientists.
Pierre's name is attatched to the "Curie point" in magnetism, which 
is not discussed here. He and his wife shared with Antoine-Henri
Becquerel the Nobel Prize for physics in 1903. Marie Curie, 
a.k.a. Madame Curie, received the Nobel Prize for chemistry 
in 1911, becoming the first person to receive more than
one Nobel Prize.  She remains the only person to receive Nobel
Prizes in different fields. (I believe - RFH)

& Current Density:  Amount of current flowing through a substance,
per unit area perpendicular to the direction of current flow.  (See
also density)

* Current Drive:  Any of a variety of techniques used to cause
current flow in a plasma.  See inductive current drive, RF current
drive, non-inductive current drive.  Usually applied to schemes
used to generate current in tokamaks and other toroidal devices
which require internal plasma currents.  See also: bootstrap current.  

* Cusp Geometry:

* Cyclotron:  Particle accelerator in which a magnetic field causes
particles to orbit in circles, and an oscillating electric field
accelerates the particles.

* Cyclotron Frequency:  Number of times per second that a particle
orbits in a magnetic field.

* Cyclotron Radius:  Radius of orbit of charged particle about
a magnetic field line.  Also called gyroradius, Larmor radius.

* Cyclotron Radiation:  See synchrotron radiation

* Cyclotron Resonance Heating:  see Electron Cyclotron Resonance
Heating, Ion Cyclotron Resonance Heating.



***************************
Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University
As always, I represent only myself, and not PPPL
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.23 / Robert Heeter /  Conventional Fusion FAQ Section 10D - Glossary I-M
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Conventional Fusion FAQ Section 10D - Glossary I-M
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 1994 05:30:45 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

==================================================================

Section 10 Part D - Glossary I-M

FREQUENTLY USED TERMS IN CONVENTIONAL FUSION RESEARCH 
AND PLASMA PHYSICS

* This FAQ deals with conventional fusion only, not Cold Fusion. *

While this section is not yet complete, it should be useful to
many people, and I encourage you to distribute it to anyone who
might be interested (and willing to help revise it!!!).

6th Draft, Last Revised on Wednesday, June 22, 1994.

Edited by Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@theory.pppl.gov

Guide to Categories:
 
* = advanced plasma/fusion vocabulary
& = basic physics vocabulary 
> = device type or machine name
# = name of a constant or variable
! = scientists 
@ = acronym
% = labs & political organizations
$ = unit of measurement

Citations and Acknowledgements appear in Section 12.

==================================================================

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

# I - variable used to indicate total current through a conductor.

@ IAEA - International Atomic Energy Agency; see entry
 
@ IBHP - Integrated Biological Hazard Potential; see entry

@ ICE - Ion Cyclotron Emission; see entry

@ ICF - Inertial Confinement Fusion; see entry

@ ICH - Ion Cyclotron Heating - see ICRH

@ ICRH - Ion Cyclotron Resonance Heating; see entry

@ INEL - Idaho National Engineering Laboratory; see entry

@ IPP - Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics; see entry

@ ITER - International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor; see entry

% Idaho National Engineering Laboratory:  U.S. Department of energy
laboratory involved in engineering studies for fusion and fission
reactors, among other things.  Not surprisingly, located in Idaho.

* Ignition:  (from Herman) The point at which the plasma 
produces so much energy from fusion reactions that it no 
longer needs any external source of power to maintain 
its temperature.

* Impurities: atoms of unwanted elements in the plasma, 
which tend to degrade plasma performance, inhibiting fusion.

* Impurity Control:  
see also wall conditioning

* Inboard side:  portion of a tokamak (or other toroidal device)
closest to the central axis.

& Inductance:

* Inductive Current Drive:

* Inertial Confinement Fusion:  Approach to fusion where the plasma
is imploded so quickly that the inertia of the converging particles
is so high that they fuse before they disperse.  This is the method
used in a hydrogen bomb; ICF schemes for power production usually
use small pellets of fuel in an attempt to make "miniature"
h-bomb type explosions.  Methods for imploding the pellet include
bombardment from all sides with high-powered laser and particle
beams, and of course implosion in a fission bomb.  Parts of ICF
fusion research remain classified due to their implications for
construction of hydrogen bombs.

* Instability:  (adapted from Herman) A state of plasma in which a
small perturbation amplifies itself to a considerable 
alteration of the equilibrium of the system, which sometimes leads to
disruptions.  Most are associated with waves and other natural
modes of oscillation in the plasma, which can sometimes grow.
There are (unfortunately!) many kinds.   See also:
Flute instability, MHD instability, Interchange instability,
microinstability, kink instability, resistive instability, 
trapped particle instability, two-stream instability, universal
instability, velocity-space instability.

* Integrated Biological Hazard Potential:

* Interchange Instability:

* Interferometer:

* Interferometry:
	Optical -
	Microwave -

% International Atomic Energy Agency: (from Herman)  An
autonomous intergovernmental organization established in 1956
with the purpose of advancing peaceful uses of atomic energy,
with headquarters in Vienna.

> International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER):
Huge fusion reactor being planned by the EC, US, Japan,
and Russia (former USSR?).  Should generate far more
energy than it consumes.  Research goals include engineering
studies of reactor materials, component designs for steady-state
devices, and testing/proving commercial feasibility.

* Ioffe Bars:  Special configuration of conductors which, when
added to a conventional magnetic mirror, generate a "magnetic
well" which stabilizes the mirror against the hydromagnetic
instability.

& Ion:  (from Herman) An atom whic hhas ecome charged as a 
result of gaining or losing one or more orbiting electrons.  
A completely ionized atom is one stripped of all its electrons.

* Ion Cyclotron Emission (ICE):  As ions gyrate around in a magnetic
field (see also larmor radius or cyclotron radius), they radiate 
radio-frequency electromagnetic waves.  This is known as ion cyclotron
emission, and can be measured to help diagnose a plasma.

* Ion Cyclotron Resonance Heating:  Like ECH, but heats ions 
using the ion cyclotron frequency.  See Electron Cyclotron Heating.

* Ion Temperature: the temperature corresponding to the
mean kinetic energy of the ions in a plasma.

& Ionization:  Process by which a neutral atom is converted to an ion 
(or one ion is converted to another of a different type).

& Ionization Energy:  Generally refers to the amount of energy 
required to strip a particular electron from an atom.  The 
first-ionization-energy is a commonly used quantity in many fields 
of physics and chemistry.  Typically measured in electron-volts.
Equivalent to the atomic binding energy of the electron.

& Ionization Potential:  See ionization energy.

* Ionosphere:  Ionized region of the upper earth atmosphere, which
behaves like a plasma, including reflection of AM radio waves and
generation of auroral glows.

* Isomer, Nuclear:  two nuclei with the same nuclear mass (total
number of protons and neutrons) but different nuclear compostions.
(e.g.: T & 3He are isomers: T has 1p, 2n; 3He has 2p, 1n)

& Isotope: (from Herman) One of several variations of the 
same element, possessing different numbers of neutrons but
the same number of protons in their nuclei.  Most elements have
several stable isotopes, and also several possible unstable
and semi-stable isotopes.  The chemical and physical properties
of the different isotopes are generally the same (except for the
slight mass difference and the possibility of radioactivity).
Examples include the hydrogen isotopes protium (ordinary
hydrogen), deuterium, and tritium (two neutrons, one proton); 
also uranium 238, 233, and 235.
The chemistry of an element depends only on the number of protons
(nuclear charge) and is therefore the same for all isotopes of
an element, but the nuclear properties of different isotopes
will be different.  There are roughly 300 known stable isotopes,
and over 1000 unstable ones.


JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ

# J - variable used to indicate current density

$ J - abbreviation for Joule; see entry

@ JET - Joint European Torus; see entry

@ JT-60: Japan Torus - 60 (??)

> Joint European Torus:  (from Herman) A large tokamak in Oxfordshire,
England, commonly owned by the European Community.  First reactor to
achieve > 1 MW of fusion power, in 1991.  Largest tokamak currently 
in operation (to the best of the editor's knowledge).

> JT-60: (from Herman) A large Japanese tokamak located north 
of Tokyo.

$ Joule:  SI unit of energy.  1 Joule = 1E7 ergs.

& Joule Heating: See ohmic heating


KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK

# k: Mathematical symbol usually used for Boltzmann's Constant.
Value is 1.4 x 10^-23 Joules/Kelvin (in SI units), 
or 1.4 x 10^-16 ergs/Kelvin (in cgs units).

$ kA:  KiloAmpere; see kilo, Ampere

& Kelvin: (K) temperature scale where zero degrees corresponds
to absolute zero (no thermal energy); degrees have same
size as in Celsius/centigrade scale.  273.16 K = zero C;
373.16 = 100 C.

! (Lord) Kelvin:  honorary name given to William Thompson; 19th 
century British physicist (many contributions in many subfields).

& kilo:  metric prefix used to indicate 1000 times the following 
unit.  e.g., a kiloampere is 1000 amperes.

* Kinetic Pressure:  Density of kinetic energy (energy in the
thermal motions of the plasma particles).  For an ideal plasma,
p = nkT.

* Kink Instability:  Instability resulting from excessive growth
of a kink mode; see kink mode.

* Kink Mode:

* Kruskal Limit:  In tokamaks, limiting value for plasma current
beyond which MHD instabilities are predicted.  (Has it been tested?)


LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL

# L - variable typically used to indicate self-inductance;
see inductance.

# Li - chemical symbol for the element lithium; see entry.
@ L-mode: see low mode.

@ LAMPF - Los Alamos Meson Physics Facility; see entry

@ LANL - Los Alamos National Laboratory; see entry

@ Laser: Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation.
     see entry.

@ LBL - Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory; see entry

@ LLNL - Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory; see entry

* Landau Damping:  Damping of a wave propagating in a hot plasma,
due to the interaction of the wave with particles whose velocity
is close to the phase velocity of the wave.  Depends on the shape
of the velocity-space distribution function at the phase velocity.
(Anybody got a nice, brief, intuitive explanation of this?)

! Langmuir, Irving (1881-1957): American chemist, won Nobel Prize in 
chemistry in 1932, developed the theory of Langmuir probes (see 
entry)

* Langmuir frequency:  See plasma frequency.

* Langmuir oscillation:  See electrostatic waves.

* Langmuir probe: a small conductive electrode used to measure the
density, temperature, and electric potential (voltage) of a plasma.

& Larmor radius: the radius of the path of a charged 
particle in a magnetic field.  Also known as gyroradius
and cyclotron radius.
 
& Laser: (adapted from Herman) an optical device that amplifies and
concentrates light waves, emitting them in a narrow, intense beam.
Laser light radiation is notable for its brightness and to some 
extent for its monochromaticity and spatial and temporal coherence.

> Laser Fusion:  Form of inertial confinement fusion where
laser beams are used to compress the fuel pellet.

* Laser scattering device: See Thomson scattering device.

% Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory:  Located in Berkeley, CA; Another
large U.S. science laboratory; minor (?) U.S. fusion research center.  

% Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory:  Located in Livermore, CA,
about an hour east of SF in the Bay Area.  Home of the Nova laser 
inertial confinement fusion program; Nova is the largest
laser in the world.  Home of the former mirror projects MFTF 
(Mirror Fusion Test Facility, shut down on the day it became
operational, or thereabouts, due to budget cutting), 
TMX-U (Tandem Mirror eXperiment Upgrade), and the recently 
shut down Microwave Tokamak eXperiment (MTX).  Some notable 
older fusion experiments at Livermore included Table Top, Toy Top,
Baseball (and Baseball-II) and TMX (predecessor to TMX-U).
Livermore is also the site of the Rotating Target Neutron Sources 
(I and II) for testing materials samples in high-intensity 14 MeV
neutron fluxes and the High Field Test Stand for testing neutral
beams.  Workplace of Albert Chou and several other 
sci.physics.fusion participants. :)  

* Lawson Criterion:  Scientific breakeven criterion based on the 
product of energy confinement time, particle density, and plasma
temperature.

* Limiters:  (from Herman) structures placed in contact 
with the edge of a confined plasma which are used to 
define the shape of the outermost magnetic surface.  See also: 
divertor.

& Lithium: (Li)  Third element in the periodic table, so all isotopes
contain 3 protons; chemically very reactive; stable isotopes 
are Li-6 (7.5% abundance) and Li-7 (92.5%); candidate for 
breeding tritium from fusion neutrons via the reactions: 

	n + 6Li -> 4He + T + 4.8 MeV, n + 7Li -> 4He + T + n - 2.5 MeV.

* Longitudinal Waves:

& Lorentz Force:  Total electromagnetic force on a charged particle
moving in electric & magnetic fields.  F = q(E + (v/c)xB).  See
also force, cross product, charge, velocity, and variable symbols.

* Lorentz Gas:  Plasma model in which the electrons are assumed
not to interact with each other, but only with ions (Z -> infinity)
and where the ions are assumed to remain at rest/fixed (M-i -> 
infinity).

* Lorentz Model - see Lorentz Gas

% Los Alamos Meson Physics Facility (LAMPF):  Physics research
facility at Los Alamos National Lab; major site for U.S. 
muon-catalyzed fusion research in the 1980s.  May be shut down soon.

% Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL):  Major DOE research 
facility, located in Los Alamos, New Mexico, about an hour west of 
Santa Fe.  Former home of a frozen-deuterium-fiber Z-pinch device,
which was dismantled.  Home to an active theory division, including
the Numerical Tokamak Grand Challenge (being performed on the CM-5
supercomputer (massively parallel?) 

* Loss Cone:

* Low Aspect Ratio:

* Low mode or L-Mode:  (from Herman) The "normal" behavior of 
a tokamak plasma, characterized by poor confinement and a particular
scaling of decreasing confinement with increasing temperature.

* Lower Hybrid Heating:  form of RF heating using Lower Hybrid Waves.

* Lower Hybrid Waves:  "Electrostatic ion oscillations at a frequency
intermediate to the electron extraordinary wave (high frequency) and 
the magnetosonic wave (low frequency).  Not waves, strictly speaking,
because they do not propagate (I think)." 
	- Albert Chou, albert@seas.ucla.edu


MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

# m, M - variable typically used for mass.

$ MA - MegaAmpere or MegAmpere; see Mega, Ampere

$ m - meters; SI unit of distance

@ MFE - Magnetic Fusion Energy

@ MFTF - Mirror Fusion Test Facility; see entry

@ MIT - Massachusetts Institute of Technology; see entry

@ MHD - Magnetohydrodynamics; see entry

@ MHD Instability - see Magnetohydrodynamic instability.

@ MKS - Meters, Kilometers, Seconds - see SI Units

@ MKSA - Meters, Kilometers, Seconds, Amperes - See SI Units.

@ MTX - Microwave Tokamak eXperiment; see entry

% Madison - See University of Wisconsin-Madison

* Magnetic Bottle (from Herman) The magnetic field used to
confine a plasma in controlled fusion experiments.

* Magnetic Confinement Fusion:  Method of fusion which uses
magnetic fields / magnetic bottles to confine a hot plasma
until fusion occurs.

* Magnetic Field:

* Magnetic Field Coil:

* Magnetic Flux Surfaces:

* Magnetic Limiter:  See divertor (??)

> Magnetic Mirror: See mirror effect, mirror device

* Magnetic Moment:

* Magnetic Pressure:  Pressure which a magnetic field is capable
of exerting on a plasma; equal to the magnetic energy density;
proportional to B^2.  (Constant is 1/(2*mu-o) in SI units, 1/8pi
in CGS units).

* Magnetic Pumping:  Form of plasma heating where the plasma is
successively compressed and expanded by means of a fluctuating
external magnetic field.  (See also adiabatic compression, frozen-in
law.)

* Magnetic Reconnection:

* Magnetic Well:  see Minimum-B Configuration.

* Magnetohydrodynamics:  Electrodynamic fluid model that takes 
into account electric current and magnetic field; relevant at 
relatively low frequencies and for distance scales larger than 
the larmor radius.

* Magnetohydrodynamic Generator:  A device that extracts
kinetic energy from a jet of plasma and generates electricity.

* Magnetohydrodynamic Instability:

* Mass Defect:  The energy from fusion reactions comes from the
difference in mass between the reactants and the products.  In an
energy-releasing reaction, some mass is converted to energy via
Einsteins famous equation E (energy) = m (mass) * c^2 (speed of
light squared).  The energy released is the difference between
the binding energies of the reactants and the products (see 
entry on binding energy).

% Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT):  Located in Cambridge, 
MA (just outside Boston).  Home of the Plasma Fusion Center and the
Alcator series of compact tokmaks.

% Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics (IPP):  In Garching (near
Munich).  The largest plasma physics institute in Germany.  Presently
home of ASDEX-Upgrade and Wendelstein-7AS. (See entries)

! Maxwell, James Clerk:  19th-century British physicist, responsible 
for the synthesis of the equations of electromagnetism and the 
prediction of electromagnetic waves, among other things.

& Maxwell-Boltzmann Distribution:  Distribution function of particle
velocities corresponding to a system in thermal equilibrium with a
temperature value of T.  See also: distribution functions, 
temperature.

& Maxwellian Distribution: see Maxwell-Boltzmann Distribution

& Maxwell's Equations: The key equations governing
electrical and magnetic phenomena. (more?)

& Mean Free Path:  Average distance a particle travels between
collisions.  Roughly equal to the collision cross section divided
by the particle density.

& Mega-:  Metric prefix indicating 1,000,000 times a given quantity.
e.g., a megawatt is 1,000,000 watts.

* Meltdown:  (from Herman) A buildup of heat in the core of
a nuclear fission reactor due to an uncontrolled chain
reaction of the fission fuel causing the fuel rods to 
melt down to (through, in some cases) the reactor floor.

& Metastable state:  several types
	Electronic
	Nuclear

& Micro-:  Metric prefix indicating 1/1,000,000th of a given
quantity.  e.g., a microampere is 1/1,000,000th of an ampere.  
	
* Microinstability: Instabilities due to particle / kinetic 
theoretical effects, typically occuring on small scales, as opposed 
to those derivable from fluid models valid on larger scales.

* Microwave Interferometer:  See interferometer, interferometry.

* Microwave Tokamak eXperiment (MTX): a reincarnation of Alcator C
at LLNL, now shut down.

> Minimum-B Configuration:  Confinement configuration where the
magnetic field strength is a minimum where the plasma is to be
confined, and increases in all directions away from the confinement
region.  Stability is favorable in such a configuration because the
magnetic pressure increases in all directions away from the plasma.

> Mirror device, mirror machine:  (Adapted from Herman)
Generally, linear fusion machines which confine the plasma
using the mirror effect.  Basically there is a weak field
in the center, and strong fields at the ends.

* Mirror effect: A charged particle travelling into an increasing
magnetic field will (if the field becomes strong enough) reverse 
direction and be reflected back.

> Mirror Fusion Test Facility (MFTF):  A large mirror device built 
at LLNL in the late 1970s and mothballed for political reasons 
just before it was to begin operation.

* Mirror Ratio:  In a magnetic mirror configuration, the ratio
between the strongest and weakest values of the magnetic field;
a key ratio in determining confinement properties of the system.

* Mobility:

& Mole: The amount of given substance such that the mass in grams 
is equal to its [atomic weight, molecular weight, mass number].
The number of particles in a mole of a substance is Avogadro's
Number N = 6.02497 x 10^23 (see entry).  For instance, one mole
of water weighs 18 grams, since water is H2O, the H's weigh
one apiece, and the O weighs 16.  Heavy water, or D2O, weighs
20 grams/mole, because each D weighs 2 instead of 1.

* Motor-Generator:  Device used to store energy by accelerating
a rotating flywheel to high speeds; energy may be rapidly discharged
and converted to shorter-pulse energy.  (Used to power TFTR; the
electric utility would be a little unhappy if TFTR were to suddenly
draw its 30 MW+ of power at random intervals. :)

> Muon-Catalyzed Fusion: (Steve Jones?)


***************************
Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University
As always, I represent only myself, and not PPPL
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.23 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Excess Heat measuring method
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Excess Heat measuring method
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 1994 13:00 -0500 (EST)

I have been following the discussion on measuring heat using different
methods, and the associated problems with changes in temperature, convection,
conduction, and calibration of the sensors.

It seems to me that the methods used to make heat flow measurements are
going about it the hard way.  The result is a group of numerical values
with each having their own errors, that have to be mathmatically reduced to
get one final number - the amount of heat released.  I think it would be best
to simply measure the amount of heat transferred over the period of interest
directly, and not get concerned with internal temperature, outside temperature,
convection rates, conductivity, thermal mass and time.  I propose the
following:

                          _____________________
                         |  _________________  |
 Well insulated dewar -->| |                 | |
                         | |~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| |
          liquid fill ---|-|->               | |  /---insulating (plastic) pipe
                         | |              /==|=|====\
                         | |             |~| | |   | |
                         | | high vap.-->[_] | |   [_] <-reservoir
                         | | press. liq.     | |
                         | |_________________| |
                         |_____________________|

ASCII art is somewhat limiting, but I hope this makes sense.  The reservoirs
should be finned or have heat sinks attached.  The right hand reservoir could
be cooled by a water jacket if desired.

The heat pipe system needs to have a liquid with a high vapor pressure present
in the internal reservoir.  If water or alcohol is used, then the heat pipe
needs to be evacuated.  If freon or a solvent is used that boils at less than
room temperature, the heat pipe must be constructed to withstand the vapor
pressure at the operating temperature.  Either way, there should be no air,
just the liquid's vapor in the heat pipe system.  The outside reservoir needs
to be empty at the start of the experiment.

After the experiment is run, allow the inside temperature to stabilize to
the outside temperature.  Then measure the amount of liquid transferred to
the outside reservoir.  The mass of liquid times the heat of vaporization
will give the amount of heat transferred.  The heat of vaporization changes
slightly with temperature, so it will be necessary to obtain the temperature
of the system during operation.  IE. Freon 12 varies from 37.74 to 36.51
cal/g when the temperature is changed from 20 to 40 deg. C.  However, the
effects of temperature on the analysis should be much less than with other
methods.

Heat loss through the dewar can be added to the total transfer through the
heat pipe, but should be very small by comparison.  At any rate the amount
of liquid transferred sets a LOWER LIMIT on just how much heat was released.
I think this is important, since if excess heat is measured, all the possible
errors from convection, conduction and so forth can only ADD to the excess,
not deduct from it.

                                                                Marshall
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.23 / *-- Sunbird /  Re: Problems with the hydrosonic pump article in CF
     
Originally-From: EXUPTR@exu.ericsson.se (*-- Sunbird --*)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Problems with the hydrosonic pump article in CF
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 1994 22:10:48 GMT
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.

In article <1994Jun20.021845.18688@clark.dgim.doc.ca> gsteckly@dgim.doc.
a (Gary Steckly) writes:

>: I am inclined to believe that the D-Paladium and D-Titanium
>: experiments may be showing some new phenom, but I think that
>: the hydrosonic pump stuff is a scam.  Why would you want to
>: replace a simple resistive heater with a 3 phase motor and  a 
>: precision machined pump that must be subject to fierce cavitation
>: wear?  This does not compute.

>neither does the excess heat...that's why it's important to find out where
>it's coming from.  When something doesn't compute, we have to find out
>why.  It's called "science" :-)

>regards

>gary

I must agree with this one.  Until it is known what causes the 
"superheating", it should be investigated.
sunbird
exuptr@exu.ericsson.se
{$I DISCLAIM.STD}
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenEXUPTR cudfn*-- cudlnSunbird cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.23 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Excess Heat measuring method
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Excess Heat measuring method
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 1994 13:00 -0500 (EST)

I have been following the discussion on measuring heat using different
methods, and the associated problems with changes in temperature, convection,
conduction, and calibration of the sensors.

It seems to me that the methods used to make heat flow measurements are
going about it the hard way.  The result is a group of numerical values
with each having their own errors, that have to be mathmatically reduced to
get one final number - the amount of heat released.  I think it would be best
to simply measure the amount of heat transferred over the period of interest
directly, and not get concerned with internal temperature, outside temperature,
convection rates, conductivity, thermal mass and time.  I propose the
following:

                          _____________________
                         |  _________________  |
 Well insulated dewar -->| |                 | |
                         | |~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| |
          liquid fill ---|-|->               | |  /---insulating (plastic) pipe
                         | |              /==|=|====\
                         | |             |~| | |   | |
                         | | high vap.-->[_] | |   [_] <-reservoir
                         | | press. liq.     | |
                         | |_________________| |
                         |_____________________|

ASCII art is somewhat limiting, but I hope this makes sense.  The reservoirs
should be finned or have heat sinks attached.  The right hand reservoir could
be cooled by a water jacket if desired.

The heat pipe system needs to have a liquid with a high vapor pressure present
in the internal reservoir.  If water or alcohol is used, then the heat pipe
needs to be evacuated.  If freon or a solvent is used that boils at less than
room temperature, the heat pipe must be constructed to withstand the vapor
pressure at the operating temperature.  Either way, there should be no air,
just the liquid's vapor in the heat pipe system.  The outside reservoir needs
to be empty at the start of the experiment.

After the experiment is run, allow the inside temperature to stabilize to
the outside temperature.  Then measure the amount of liquid transferred to
the outside reservoir.  The mass of liquid times the heat of vaporization
will give the amount of heat transferred.  The heat of vaporization changes
slightly with temperature, so it will be necessary to obtain the temperature
of the system during operation.  IE. Freon 12 varies from 37.74 to 36.51
cal/g when the temperature is changed from 20 to 40 deg. C.  However, the
effects of temperature on the analysis should be much less than with other
methods.

Heat loss through the dewar can be added to the total transfer through the
heat pipe, but should be very small by comparison.  At any rate the amount
of liquid transferred sets a LOWER LIMIT on just how much heat was released.
I think this is important, since if excess heat is measured, all the possible
errors from convection, conduction and so forth can only ADD to the excess,
not deduct from it.

                                                                Marshall
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.24 / L Plutonium /  Re: Maddox and Peer Review
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Maddox and Peer Review
Date: 24 Jun 1994 04:02:03 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In article <940620195308_76570.2270_HHB83-1@CompuServe.COM>
76570.2270@compuserve.com (Eugene Mallove) writes:

>         A segment in a recent issue of New Scientist (18 June 1994, page 76) 
> sheds some light on John Maddox's standards of so-called "peer review." If 
> this story is true, it would be quite revealing. We already have enough dirt 
> on Maddox's sneer review system to bury him ten times over, but a little more 
> would be nice. (Maddox thought he could write cold fusion's epitaph, but he 
> was wrong. We're writing his.) Anyone having more information about this 
> affair, please contact me.  The "Feedback" section piece in New Scientist 
> follows:
> 
> "Biomedicine has a lot to thank Nature's editor, John Maddox for, if the joint
> winner of the 1993 Nobel Prize for Chemistry is to be believed. Speaking about
> AIDS and HIV in London recently, Kary B. Mullis, who shared the honours with 
> Michael Smith, described how he became disillusioned with his chosen field fo 
> cosmology and turned to biomedicine when, after some minor alterations, Maddox
> published Mullis's thepry of the Universe in Nature.
>         Mullis, a second year university student at the time, had gained the 
> inspiration for his theory while tripping on LSD in the late 1960s. Horrified 
> to see his paper published in such an eminent journal, he began to doubt the 
> bona fides of cosmologists and switched his attentions to more concrete 
> things. He went on to win his Nobel prize for the invention of the polymerasae
> chain reactions (PCR), the groundbreaking method for replicating segments of 
> DNA."
> 
>  --End of New Scientist section--
> 
> Gene Mallove, Editor, "Cold Fusion"

  Those who know science and math well, know that the journal system is
the veritable Medussa of our modern day world. With her head of snakes
and one stare at her will turn you to stone. See CLASH OF THE TITANS
movie. And I could add a few other horror characters to describe the
modern day journal system. The science and math journal system as
currently set-up is a worse ordeal for new and important ideas, than
the many ordeals that JASON AND THE ARGONAUTS endured. The reason that
Gauss seldom published was not because of his "few but ripe" that was
just a polite excuse. His real reason is because Gauss recognised the
slime and decay with is the journal gauntlet peer review. It is akin to
the system in politics where politicians hire all there relatives to
high-paying-do-nothing jobs. A dolt who knows math journal editors will
be published before a Ramanujan is.
  I admire folks such as Mr. Mallove and Mr. Logajan who place
"science" above self-aggrandizement. Most persons in science do not
have the integrity to say or act on science fraud connected with the
journal system because they are selfish. They figure that if they say
one bad word against the likes of Manure's Maddox that they will never
be published in Manure. And if it came down to being published in
Nature with false science, the majority of scientist would rather be
published than to not at all. Most scientists are moved by limelight
and fame, ever before the thought of integrity rolls across their mind.
  The present journal system of science and math is a complete
disgrace. It entrenches false science and puts a seal of proof on a
math fakery, see 4 color mapping, Poincare C. in higher dimensions. It
elevates old and bad science and throws hurdles at new and good
science, see cold fusion, see the early years of QM, see continental
drift. 
  What we need to solve this antiquated system of science publishing is
a King of Physics, a King of Math, and for the other subjects who will
lead those subjects. Niels Bohr did a good job and could have perhaps
done better if Einstein had gotten out of his way. Bohr had the
superior physics intuition. Pauli could have easily taken the job and
did so for a time. Dirac had the smarts but not the character traits to
lead the whole of the physics community. When the physics community has
no leader then it wastes time on dead-end science such as GR. When
there is no physics King present then know-nothing little Hitlers, imo,
such as Maddox gain power. The system of King rulers in physics and for
all of science and math is the superior system. Its day will come in
the future because mankind will not have time to waste, to squander on
birdbrain, or misplaced importance which the present journal system of
science fosters and entrenches.
   Anyone who still believes that the present journal system is
valuable and not needing reform, should take the task of checking out
how Nature reported Continental Drift theory and especially, how Nature
reported Quantum Mechanics in its formative years. Which is worse,
propaganda science in a Communist country or entrenched science of
journal systems? I would say entrenched science of journal systems
because in Communist countries, the smart people do not read them. But
in our society, the journals such as Manure (Nature), Nude Scientist
(New Scientist), Scientific PanGlossAmerican (Scientific American (I
think Americorn is more apt, after July 4 America is officially
Americorn)), Mathemasterbater Internalgasser (Mathematical
Intelligencer (this magazine on acid free paper and costs more than
most books should require your swastika number along with your
math-society number for identification)), Seance (Science) are read and
believed by young people who do not yet have the experience to see the
propaganda or motives other than science.
   IMHO, I think that Maddox with Nature and Ian Stewart in math
journals should be reassigned jobs. They should be new comedians in The
Monty Python Flying Circus.
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Fri Jun 24 04:37:10 EDT 1994
------------------------------
1994.06.23 / Robert Heeter /  Conventional Fusion FAQ Section 12 - Acknowledgements
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Conventional Fusion FAQ Section 12 - Acknowledgements
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 1994 05:39:39 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

12.  Citations and Acknowledgements
* This FAQ deals with conventional fusion only, not Cold Fusion. *

****** Blanket Acknowledgement ******

The staff who prepared the WWW page at PPPL deserve a blanket
acknowledgement, and the others who have prepared much of PPPL's
public information do too, since I have drawn heavily on their
work in a variety of different sections. 


***********   Section-by-Section *************

*** Section 1 - Fusion as a Physical Phenomenon

* Thanks to John Cobb, johncobb@emx.cc.utexas.edu, 
whose description of aneutronic fusion I borrowed.
* Marybeth Gurski, gurski@cs.iastate.edu - guinea pig for 
first draft; made many suggestions and corrections


*** Section 2 - Fusion as a Future Energy Source

* Thanks to Art Carlson, awc@ipp-garching.mpg.de, for many of
the questions, and some of the answers, particularly describing
the main components of a fusion reactor.


*** Section 3 - 


*** Section 4 - Confinement Approaches


*** Section 5 - Status of Current Fusion Devices

* Art Carlson, awc@ipp-garching.mpg.de - info on various machines.
* Albert Chou, albert@seas.ucla.edu - info on LLNL machines.
* John Cobb, johncobb@uts.cc.utexas.edu - info on various machines.
* Emilio Martines, martines@pdigi3.igi.pd.cnr.it - info on RFX.
* Stephen Cooper - JET info.
* David Ward, ward@crppsun.epfl.ch - more info on new machines
* Bonnie Nestor, mnj@ornl.gov - info on ATF


*** Section 6 - Recent Results

* Thanks to the TFTR and JET teams for giving us results to discuss!
* Particular thanks to Stephen Cooper at JET, who posted in Dec. 1993
  on the state of JET research, which I quoted extensively.


*** Section 7 - Educational Opportunities

* Geoff Maddison (geoff.maddison@aea.orgn.uk) and 
  Diane Carroll (via nuf@pppl.gov) - for providing 
  information on summer programs.
* Art Carlson - list of major upcoming conferences and plasma
schools in various countries.
* Jim Day, jim.day@support.com - for suggesting high-school 
  experiments be included.
* David Pearson, dwcp@mercury.nerc-nutis.ac.uk - info on european
plasma programs
* Thanks to the many students who have sent me email with questions!


*** Section 8 - Internet Resources

* Dieter Britz, BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk - I used his information on
retrieving files from the vm1.nodak.edu ftp/listserv site.
* Bijal Modi - set up the neutrino.berkeley.edu ftp site.
* Art Carlson - info on Garching Gopher site.
* Joe Chew - for making himself available to provide info.
* Bonnie Nestor, mnj@ornl.gov - info on UTexas net resources.
* Perry Phillips - phillips@hagar.ph.utexas.edu - more Texas info.


*** Section 10 - Glossary - Acknowledgements:

! Jake Blanchard, blanchard@engr.wisc.edu - suggested we have a 
list of acronyms too.
! Arthur Carlson, awc@ipp-garching.mpg.de - supplied additional 
definitions, made corrections / amplifications / revisions to
earlier definitions.
! Edward Chao, ehchao@theory.pppl.gov - info on LANL fusion research.
! Albert Chou, albert@seas.ucla.edu - supplied additional 
definitions, made corrections / amplifications / revisions to 
earlier definitions.
! James Crotinger, jac@gandalf.llnl.gov - additional definitions,
quality control, and comments on the usefulness of the FUT.
  Jim Day, jim.day@support.com - initial list of terms, additional
definitions, modifications to earlier definitions.
! Steve Fairfax, Fairfax@cmod.pfc.mit.edu - additional definitions
from the Alcator weekly reports.
  Robin Herman, _Fusion: Search for Endless Energy_; I borrowed a 
lot of terms from her glossary.  Cited as (from Herman).
! Paul M. Koloc, pmk@prometheus.UUCP - quality control, some entries
! Emilio Martines, martines@pdigi3.igi.pd.cnr.it - quality control,
reversed-field entries & information.
  Princeton Plasma Physics Lab, Glossary of Fusion Terms - list of
terms prepared by PPPL staff at some point.  Consulted in many
cases, blatantly paraphrased in some, quoted and cited in others.
  Mike Ross, mikeross@almaden.ibm.com - additional Livermore info
and corrections to some entries.
  Richard Schroeppel, rcs@cs.arizona.edu - suggestions/corrections to
many definitions.
! Philip Snyder, pbsnyder@theory.pppl.gov - corrections to 
definitions.
! Paul Stek, Stek@cmod.pfc.mit.edu - additional definitions
!? Mitchell Swarz, mica@world.std.com - supplied additional 
definitions / corrections and revisions to existing definitions.


*** Section 11 - Bibliography

* Acknowledgements are included with each reference listed.
* Additional thanks to Jim Day, jim.day@support.com, who gave
     me the initial list of references, from which this grew.


*** Additional Acknowledgements:

I owe a special thank-you to Rush Holt at PPPL, who has been 
a mentor, answered zillions of questions, provided innumerable
references, and generally helped me acquire the background and 
tools to put this together.


***************************
Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University
As always, I represent only myself, and not PPPL
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.24 / Arthur TK /  A "ball lightning" MHD equilibrium
     
Originally-From: awc@ipp-garching.mpg.de (Arthur      Carlson        TK  )
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: A "ball lightning" MHD equilibrium
Date: 24 Jun 1994 09:25:21 +0200
Organization: Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics


I heard an interesting talk here today by Prof. Dietrich Lortz. The title was
"Ball Lightning as an Example of an MHD Equilibrium". There are, of course,
serious problems trying to explain reports of ball lightning as a nearly
stationary configuration of magnetized plasma. (What keeps it going so long? Why
doesn't it float up like a hot air balloon?) But it is a well-posed and
interesting question to ask if MHD equilibria exist with uniform pressure on a
boundary and vanishing fields outside that boundary. It is (relatively) easy to
show that the answer is no if the pressure on the boundary should go to zero. But
if the pressure outside is allowed to be a constant, the answer turns out to be
yes. I had (almost) convinced myself before the talk with qualitative arguments
that there must be such a solution, but Prof. Lortz presented a class of exact
analytic solutions.

They look a lot like spheromak solutions in that they have toroidal and poloidal
fields within a spherical volume, but unlike a spheromak the field on the
boundary goes to zero. The pressure decreases from the boundary (and the
geometric axis) toward the magnetic axis. The safety factor q is everywhere
somewhat less than unity. There is a relationship between the maximum field and
the maximum pressure difference such that 1 atm can confine a configuration with
(up to) 0.8 T. This is the sort of field strength found near a lightning bolt.

Prof. Lortz "conjectured" that the configuration is stable, but has done no
rigorous analysis. That it is (neutrally) stable against tilting (unlike a
spheromak, even with tightly fitting walls) is obvious from the boundary
conditions. Whether it is stable against ballooning modes is anything but
obvious, but in principle easy to calculate (if you happen to be a theoretical
plasma physicist).

The difficult question if you want to explain ball lightning or produce a fusion
reactor with such a configuration is how the pressure of the neutral gas is
transferred to the plasma without cooling the plasma to death. I see no simple
and general way to quantify such effects. I do know that tokamaks can tolerate
only a very tiny neutral gas pressure without disrupting, so I don't see how this
configuration will be able to tolerate one atmosphere or more.

Art Carlson
Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics
Garching, Germany
carlson@ipp-garching.mpg.de

cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenawc cudfnArthur cudlnTK cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.24 / Robert Heeter /  Re: Fusion Time Frame
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Originally-From: Dean  Orr, orrd@eaglecrest.ksc.nasa.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion Time Frame
Subject: Fusion Time Frame
Date: Fri, 24 Jun 1994 02:05:13 GMT
Date: 23 Jun 94 15:00:38 EDT
Organization: Princeton University

Subject: Fusion Time Frame
Originally-From: Dean  Orr, orrd@eaglecrest.ksc.nasa.gov
Date: 23 Jun 94 15:00:38 EDT
In article <1994Jun23.150038.433@pdms03.ksc.nasa.gov> Dean  Orr,
orrd@eaglecrest.ksc.nasa.gov writes:
>I am an electrical engineer, and have always been interested 
>in fission and fusion, but have not kept current on them.  Are we 
>any where near producing a fusion reactor for standard electrical 
>power, is anyone pursuing this? What are the problems that are in 
>the way?

Short Answers:  We've come a long way, but funding has been cut
substantially, so we still have a ways to go.  The official plan 
(this is for magnetic confinement fusion; I'll get to inertial in a sec)
calls for an engineering test facility (the International
Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor, or ITER) which should go
online in 2005-2010 and produce about 1000 MW of surplus fusion 
power.  After that we're supposed to have a demonstration
electrical powerplant (DEMO) online about 2025, and mass
commercialization around 2040.  Or something like that.

Inertial confinement fusion calls for the National Ignition
Facility, which is to be built around 2000, and will demonstrate
some level of feasibility for inertial fusion as well.  It's been
held up by environmentalists, according to this week's issue
of Science; ITER is having some management difficulties of
its own.

In terms of scientific performance, for magnetic confinement
fusion via the tokamak design, the critical measure of
plasma performance has increased by a factor of about 10,000
since the early 1970s, and an additional factor of about 10 is
all that is needed to generate large amounts of surplus energy.
The major hurdle is that the only currently feasible way to get
that factor of ten involves building much larger machines,
which makes the cost of that surplus energy a little too high.
Research is being done on ways to reduce the reactor size.
Other large hurdles include extracting heat from the reactor
without frying the vacuum vessel, developing materials that
will survive the temperature, pressure, and neutron-irradiation
extremes inside the reactor, developing remote-maintenance
capabilities to reduce the need for human presence near the
reactor, and developing materials that do not become highly
radioactive after intense neutron bombardment.  The list
is longer, but this gives a sense of the general situation.
Most fusion researchers believe these problems can all
be solved, given sufficient time and funding.

The long answers to all of these questions should end up in the
FAQ sometime this summer.  (Especially if people want to discuss
them now, so I can stick the answers in, and not have to write it
all myself!)

***************************
Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University
As always, I represent only myself, and not PPPL
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.24 / Herwig Hoeller /  accident(s) at jet
     
Originally-From: hoeller@edvz.kfunigraz.ac.at (Herwig G. Hoeller)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: accident(s) at jet
Date: 24 Jun 1994 10:46:05 GMT
Organization: Karl-Franzens-Universitaet Graz, Austria


i'm looking for articles on an accident (or accidents) at the fusion test 
site jet within the last years.


				herwig g. hoeller
				graz/austria

p.s.: please reply directly to hoeller@balu.kfunigraz.ac.at

cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenhoeller cudfnHerwig cudlnHoeller cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Sat Jun 25 04:37:03 EDT 1994
------------------------------
1994.06.24 / mitchell swartz /  Reply to Dick blue on 4-Helium & Ti expts - periodic lattice
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Reply to Dick blue on 4-Helium & Ti expts - periodic lattice
Subject: Re: Reply to Dick Blue on 4-Helium & Ti expts
Date: Fri, 24 Jun 1994 12:06:26 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

   In Message-ID: <2u9tab$gk9@knot.queensu.ca>
Subject: Re: Reply to Dick Blue on 4-Helium & Ti expts
Tom Radcliffe  (tom@mips2.phy.queensu.ca) writes:

   =  |> DBLUE=  Yes, Mitchell, I agree that E1 photon emission from an exited state
   =  |> DBLUE=  of 4He can only occur from a spin 1 state and that it must involve a
   =  |> DBLUE=  change in parity.  If a spin 2 exited state is formed it must decay
   =  |> DBLUE=  by some other pathway such as proton or neutron emission or E2 emission.
   =  |> DBLUE=  Your assertion seems to be not that spin selection rules inhibit photon
   =  |> DBLUE=  emission but that the lattice interactions do, so I don't understand
   =  |> DBLUE=  why you even brought up the spin other than to generate more of a
   =  |> DBLUE=  smokescreen.
      ms =   The periodic lattice enables other pathways.  
                 Is it present in beam experiments?

RADCLIFFE=  One of the curious things about the discussion of cold fusion is how
RADCLIFFE=  often its advocates seem unaware of common practice in nuclear
RADCLIFFE=  physics.  I personally have never produced a nuclear reaction in
RADCLIFFE=  anything other than the solid state, either a loaded lattice or
RADCLIFFE=  a vapour-deposited target layer.  
RADCLIFFE=  So YES, a periodic lattice is present in the majority of beam experiments.

  Tom, one of the curious things that occurs in discussions of cold fusion is how
often its skeptics seem unaware of the state-of-the-art in electro-, nuclear
and material  physics and engineering.

  Well,  nuclear reactions occur in several states.   Since the topic here is often
"plasma", lets just consider, and for brevity simply limit this to,
those many forms of nuclear reactions which have touched (so to speak) 
human plasma.   If you have some data that proves your point, please
add it, and thanks in advance.

  Solid radioactives can vary from cobalt-60 (really nickel is the irradiator), 
iridium-192 (very nice for implants but with serious inhomogeneities in dose
distribution),  strontium-90 (superb low energy emitter for pterygia).   
Now, it is doubtful that these involve regular crystalline material for very 
long.   Several have the emitters within another material.  For example,
the Co-60 emitters tend to degrade and their actual "width" on the 
the other side of the (usually closed) aperture increases with time.

   Liquid phase radioactives include a cornucopia
of tritium- and iodine-labelled moieties, a host of other materials through
F15- and C11-positron-emitting-glucose-tagged materials.
The water may have an intermediate range geometric structure owing to 
the ratio of kB*T to the hydrogen bond (actually three of them),  and we
can add in the spectra of clathritic constellations.  
But it is not a loaded-interstitial  lattice within a much heavier periodic 
lattice, is it?          ;-)
  
 
Gaseous radioactives includes one of my favorites O15-labelled CO2
 (for ultimate tagging of H2O via carbonic anhydrase).  No lattice here
either, is there?
 
  Also, to consider the beam device, there are the various nuclear reactions 
inducible by some of the larger van de Graffs and most linear accelerators 
(fantastic source of line fields of high dose-rate electrons) and 
cyclotrons (wonderful Bragg peaks for dose boosting with mixed beams).    

  Yet where, oh where, Tom, is the periodic interstitial-filled lattice. 
Locally the impact of a beam produces significant damage to the lattice.
And that damage tends to destroy the periodic order.   
In many beam experiments, the thermal removal and/or other destruction of the
target limits use of that target.  There is a considerable literature on this.  

  Or are you talking about beam electrocrystallization here (heh-heh)?

  You mention vapor deposited targets.
At first glance, it would seem unlikely that vapor-deposition would be 
cost-effective when used to create depths of deposit commensurate with 
area when other methods of growing single crystalline materials are 
available.   Were you depths commensurate to area?

  In summary, apparently in ***none***  of those cases presented above 
is a loaded-interstitial periodic lattice within a much heavier periodic 
lattice, both with long-range order, involved. 
     Is it?        Were yours?

   It would be most interesting if you examined the long-range structure
 of the materials in your experiments after the beam collisions.   Did you?

        Best wishes.
                   Mitchell Swartz  (mica@world.std.com)





cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.24 / mitchell swartz /  cancel <CrwHMq.4Ho@world.std.com>
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cancel <CrwHMq.4Ho@world.std.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Jun 1994 12:13:30 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

cancel <CrwHMq.4Ho@world.std.com> in newsgroup sci.physics.fusion
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.24 / mitchell swartz /  Reply to Dick Blue on 4-Helium & Ti expts -- periodicity
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Reply to Dick Blue on 4-Helium & Ti expts -- periodicity
Subject: Re: Reply to Dick Blue on 4-Helium & Ti expts
Date: Fri, 24 Jun 1994 12:19:30 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

   In Message-ID: <2u9tab$gk9@knot.queensu.ca>
Subject: Re: Reply to Dick Blue on 4-Helium & Ti expts
Tom Radcliffe  (tom@mips2.phy.queensu.ca) writes:

   =  |> DBLUE=  Yes, Mitchell, I agree that E1 photon emission from an exited state
   =  |> DBLUE=  of 4He can only occur from a spin 1 state and that it must involve a
   =  |> DBLUE=  change in parity.  If a spin 2 exited state is formed it must decay
   =  |> DBLUE=  by some other pathway such as proton or neutron emission or E2 emission.
   =  |> DBLUE=  Your assertion seems to be not that spin selection rules inhibit photon
   =  |> DBLUE=  emission but that the lattice interactions do, so I don't understand
   =  |> DBLUE=  why you even brought up the spin other than to generate more of a
   =  |> DBLUE=  smokescreen.
      ms =   The periodic lattice enables other pathways.  
                 Is it present in beam experiments?

RADCLIFFE=  One of the curious things about the discussion of cold fusion is how
RADCLIFFE=  often its advocates seem unaware of common practice in nuclear
RADCLIFFE=  physics.  I personally have never produced a nuclear reaction in
RADCLIFFE=  anything other than the solid state, either a loaded lattice or
RADCLIFFE=  a vapour-deposited target layer.  
RADCLIFFE=  So YES, a periodic lattice is present in the majority of beam experiments.

  Tom, one of the curious things that occurs in discussions of cold fusion is how
often its skeptics seem unaware of the state-of-the-art in electro-, nuclear
and material  physics and engineering.

  Well,  nuclear reactions occur in several states.   Since the topic here is often
"plasma", lets just consider, and for brevity simply limit this to,
those many forms of nuclear reactions which have touched (so to speak) 
human plasma.   If you have some data that proves your point, please
add it, and thanks in advance.

  Solid radioactives can vary from cobalt-60 (really nickel is the irradiator), 
iridium-192 (very nice for implants but with serious inhomogeneities in dose
distribution),  strontium-90 (superb low energy emitter for pterygia).   
Now, it is doubtful that these involve regular crystalline material for very 
long.   Several have the emitters within another material.  For example,
the Co-60 emitters tend to degrade and their actual "width" on the 
the other side of the (usually closed) aperture increases with time.

   Liquid phase radioactives include a cornucopia
of tritium- and iodine-labelled moieties, a host of other materials through
various F- and C-positron-emitting-glucose-tagged materials.
The water may have an intermediate range geometric structure owing to 
the ratio of kB*T to the hydrogen bond (actually three of them),  and we
can add in the spectra of clathritic constellations.  
But it is not a loaded-interstitial  lattice within a much heavier periodic 
lattice, is it?          ;-)
  
 
Gaseous radioactives includes one of my favorites O15-labelled CO2
 (for ultimate tagging of H2O via carbonic anhydrase).  No lattice here
either, is there?
 
  Also, to consider the beam device, there are the various nuclear reactions 
inducible by some of the larger van de Graffs and most linear accelerators 
(fantastic source of line fields of high dose-rate electrons) and 
cyclotrons (wonderful Bragg peaks for dose boosting with mixed beams).    

  Yet where, oh where, Tom, is the periodic interstitial-filled lattice. 
Locally the impact of a beam produces significant damage to the lattice.
And that damage tends to destroy the periodic order.   
In many beam experiments, the thermal removal and/or other destruction of the
target limits use of that target.  There is a considerable literature on this.  

  Or are you talking about beam electrocrystallization here (heh-heh)?

  You mention vapor deposited targets.
At first glance, it would seem unlikely that vapor-deposition would be 
cost-effective when used to create depths of deposit commensurate with 
area when other methods of growing single crystalline materials are 
available.   Were you depths commensurate to area?

  In summary, apparently in ***none***  of those cases presented above 
is a loaded-interstitial periodic lattice within a much heavier periodic 
lattice, both with long-range order, involved. 
     Is it?        Were yours?

   It would be most interesting if you examined the long-range structure
 of the materials in your experiments after the beam collisions.   Did you?

        Best wishes.
                   Mitchell Swartz  (mica@world.std.com)





cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.23 / John Logajan /  Re: John Hilborn donates Nalgene tank
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: John Hilborn donates Nalgene tank
Date: 23 Jun 1994 22:59:12 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Online Services Member.

DROEGE@fnali.fnal.gov wrote:
: I would expect a number like G-06317-50.

The Cole-Palmer number is BB-06323-72.

: You might ask John Hilborn to tell us what his results have been. Seems
: like he has been working for over a year now.

Both Ernie Criddle and John Hilborn have told me some of their results.
I think by controlling various conditions, they were both able to establish
ranges of magnitude of effect on the calorimetry constant.  One of the things
I recall them mentioning is that the material the tank is sitting on has
a large effect on the constant -- where you get a heat conduction contact
into a potentially large heat sink.

Normally one wouldn't expect Thermacore to be changing the base material
during a run -- but Criddle said that the area of contact of the Nalgene
tank changes while running at high temperature.  If I recall, Hilborn said
that Thermacores tank sat upon a metal bench -- so changing the contact
area would be more significant in that good heat sink case than if, say,
the contact area were to styrofoam.

Having said that, though, the Thermacore FT paper does say they did 
periodic on-the-fly calibration every 72 hours -- which ought to have caught
any variations in the constant due to such conduction efficiency changes.

My own few weeks of experience shows that the calibration constant does
not vary more than a few percent unless provoked.

--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com -- 612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills  MN 55112 USA           -

cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.24 / Eric Werme /  Re: Problems with the hydrosonic pump article in CF
     
Originally-From: werme@alingo.zk3.dec.com (Eric Werme)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Problems with the hydrosonic pump article in CF
Date: 24 Jun 94 14:09:40 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation

EXUPTR@exu.ericsson.se (*-- Sunbird --*) writes:

>In article <1994Jun20.021845.18688@clark.dgim.doc.ca> gsteckly@dgim.doc
ca (Gary Steckly) writes:

>>:... I think that
>>: the hydrosonic pump stuff is a scam.  Why would you want to
>>: replace a simple resistive heater with a 3 phase motor and  a 
>>: precision machined pump that must be subject to fierce cavitation
>>: wear?  This does not compute.

The article didn't make that clear, but lotsa people start lotsa companies
for odd reasons.  My guesses are:

1) Heating elements often break.

2) Fewer parts.  (Admittedly bigger.)  Note that they are not replacing
   "a simple resistive heater with a 3 phase motor and a precision machined
   pump".  If they used resistive heating, they would still need a motor
   and a pump.  Many industrial pump motors are 3 phase anyway.  They're
   certainly more efficient than the single phase motors on my furnance and
   produce a constant torque.  Now replacing a heat pump, cooling tower, etc
   that runs at greater than 100% effciency with something that only runs
   at 100% effciency seems as silly as installing resistive baseboard heating
   in my office (which would not require motor and pump).  OSHA bans
   Christmas tree because they're a fire hazard, I wonder if they also
   ban electric base board heaters.

3) Maybe they came up with a solution for cavitation wear.  That could be
   the key reason to start such a company.

4) Pumping fluids gets them hot anyway, might as well take adavantage of
   that.  When the Seabrook, NH fission plant was undergoing early tests,
   the first steam was produced by running the primary cooling system with
   no other source of heat!

The article did say that when the anomalous heat was found, they assumed
the measurements were bogus and didn't start getting intrigued until they
couldn't "fix" the measurements with better test equipment.  I think the
article would have better if the dynamometer testing had been completed before
publishing.  (Assuming, of course, the dynamometer confirms the other
measurements.)
-- 
Eric (Ric) Werme		| werme@zk3.dec.com
Digital Equipment Corp.		| This space intentionally left blank.
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenwerme cudfnEric cudlnWerme cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.25 / John Logajan /  Thermacore calibration using Nalgene tank
     
Originally-From: al789@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Thermacore calibration using Nalgene tank
Date: 25 Jun 1994 17:08:36 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)


I have my first preliminary results using the Nalgene tank donated by
John Hilborn.  I am running the first calibration at 60 watts using
the 28 liter fill of water, stirred as usual by the fish bubbler.

This tank is in the exact same spot as my previous tank, all conditions
are as similar to the previous tests as I can tell, and it sits upon the
same particle board base.

My new results give the Nalgene tank a calorimetry constant of:

New Tank at 60W = 0.2087 C/W
Old Tant at 60W = 0.1884 C/W

These are pretty similar results -- within 10%.  I suspect there is a reason
for that -- that the dominant factor is the ambient airflow patterns.  
Although surface area and material thickness and conductivity have an effect,
the limiting factor for low air speeds is probably the insulative effect of
the air itself.

I used a smoking incense stick to view the airflow around the tank.  It turns
out that near the floor there is a 6" per second lateral airflow.  Near the
top waterline the airflow is vertical or chaotic.  My ambient temperature
sensor is mounted about 6 inches away from the tank at the top which is
about 12" above the waterline.

So I am thinking that I should regulate the airflow more carfully and make
sure I get a good ambient temperature reading -- the floor air might be
significantly cooler, which would increase the actual calibration constant.

I think I will put a "chimney" around my tank, made of cardboard.  Air will
be allowed to flow in from the bottom and up out the top.  The ambient
sensor will be placed at the intake near the bottom.


One might wonder why Thermacore's calorimetry constant for their experments
4-13 was 0.15 while mine is closer to 0.21 even though their airflow is
probably much more limited (the impression I got from witness John Hilborn.)
I believe it is because of what Hilborn and Criddle have noticed about the
relationship of cal constant with base material.  Hilborn said the Thermacore
tank was sitting on a metal table.  And Hilborn and Criddle have determined
that such a situation can reduce the cal constant that much (if I remember
the number range Criddle once told me.)


So what I am now looking for is a way to reasonably get the calorimetry
constant above 0.30-0.40 C/W.  We need this much to explain away the
Thermacore results even at 100% recombination -- and we need even higher
calorimetry constant to explain away less than 100% recombination results.

Since at 0.20 we are only half way to 0.40, it is going to be interesting
to see if we can get that much deviation.

-- 
-- John Logajan ---  al789@cleveland.freenet.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenal789 cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.25 / L Plutonium /  EVOLUTION THEORY FALSE; SUPERDETERMINISM TRUE
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.bio,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.electromag
Subject: EVOLUTION THEORY FALSE; SUPERDETERMINISM TRUE
Date: 25 Jun 1994 23:59:51 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

   Biological Evolution theory was found false, and a fakery as of
1994. This is the historical outline of the "kicking out of the window
of Darwin evolution and all variants thereof". Superdeterminism now
replaces evolution. Superdeterminism comes from the pinnacle of science
as of 1994. That pinnacle is QUANTUM MECHANICS (QM) and Quantum
Electrodynamics (QED).

   Quantum Mechanics was started in the mid to late 1920's. QM and QED
are the pinnacle of science achievement.

   Early 1960's a man named John Bell made a genius claim to test QM
against Einstein's Classical Phyics not just on the small scale, the
scale of atoms. But Bell's claim was for the large scale, the scale of
the universe. Bell's claim is QM put to the experimental test on the
large scale. The scale of the cosmos, of stars and galaxies. 

  John Bell and QM were shown to be true. Einstein and Classical
Physics were shown to be FALSE. A team headed up by Alain Aspect
experimentally-proved that the Bell Inequality and QM were true.

  Much earlier than 1960, it was known that there are no speeds faster
than the speed of light. There are no superluminal speeds. This is a
result of Special Relativity that the speed of light is the fastest
SIGNAL speed possible in the universe.

  Now, in 1994 since we have two facts-- Bell Inequality is true and
the second fact of the truth of no superluminal signal speed. There is
ONE and ONLY ONE math logic conclusion to those two facts. That
conclusion is SUPERDETERMINISM. And since John Bell spoke of
superdeterminism better than anyone, I repeat John Bell's words.

"[Superdeterminism] involves absolute determinism in the universe, the
complete absence of free will. Suppose the world is
super-deterministic, with not just inanimate nature running on
behind-the-scenes clockwork, but with our behavior, including our
belief that we are free to choose to do one experiment rather than
another, absolutely predetermined, including the "decision" by the
experimenter to carry out one set of measurements rather than another,
the difficulty disappears.  There is no need for a faster than light
signal to tell particle A what measurement has been carried out on
particle B, because the universe, including particle A, already "knows"
what that measurement, and its outcome, will be.

  To celebrate, have your High School or College Choir sing to Handel's
Messiah only replaced with LP's lyrics
        
______________________________________________________
ATOMPLUTONIUM, ATOMPLUTONIUM, PLUTONIUM, PLUTONIUM, 
ATOM PLUTONIUM
ATOMPLUTONIUM, ATOMPLUTONIUM, PLUTONIUM, PLUTONIUM, 
ATOM PLUTONIUM
FOR THE ATOM HAS INFINITE POTENTIAL
PLUTONIUM, PLUTONIUM, PLUTONIUM, PLUTONIUM, FOR THE ATOM HAS INFINITE
POSSIBILITIES
PLUTONIUM, PLUTONIUM, PLUTONIUM, PLUTONIUM, FOR THE ATOM HAS 
INFINITE POTENTIAL
FOR THE ATOM HAS INFINITE POSSIBILITIES.

A DOT OF THE ELECTRON PROBABILITY DENSITY DISTRIBUTION OF THE 5F6 FOR
THE LAST ELECTRON OF 231PU IS THE PLANET EARTH, ANOTHER DOT IS YOU,
ANOTHER DOT ME. 

AND ATOMS WILL NUCLEOSYNTHESIZE FOREVER AND EVER,
AND ATOMS WILL NUCLEOSYNTHESIZE FOREVER AND EVER, 
AND ATOMS WILL NUCLEOSYNTHESIZE FOREVER AND EVER,
AND ATOMS WILL NUCLEOSYNTHESIZE FOREVER AND EVER.

ATOM OF ATOMS, FOREVER AND EVER, PLUTONIUM, PLUTONIUM, AND ATOM OF
ATOMS, FOREVER AND EVER, PLUTONIUM, PLUTONIUM, ATOM OF ATOMS, FOREVER
AND EVER,
PLUTONIUM, PLUTONIUM, AND ATOM OF ATOMS, FOREVER AND EVER, 
PLUTONIUM, PLUTONIUM, ATOM OF ATOMS, FOREVER AND EVER,
PLUTONIUM, PLUTONIUM, AND ATOM OF ATOMS, ATOM OF ATOMS, FOREVER AND
EVER, AND ATOMS WILL NUCLEOSYNTHESIZE FOREVER AND EVER. ATOM OF ATOMS
AND ATOM OF ATOMS, PLUTONIUM, PLUTONIUM, AND ATOM OF ATOMS, FOREVER AND
EVER, AND ATOMS WILL NUCLEOSYNTHESIZE FOREVER AND EVER. ATOM OF ATOMS
AND ATOM OF ATOMS, ATOM OF ATOMS, AND ATOMS WILL NUCLEOSYNTHESIZE
FOREVER AND EVER. PLUTONIUM, PLUTONIUM, PLUTONIUM, PLUTONIUM.
ATOMPLUTONIUM!

Ludwig Plutonium
c/o Dartmouth College
HB 6165
Hanover NH 03755 USA
603-643-4300
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.26 / L Plutonium /  SUPERDETERMINISM REPLACES BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.bio,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.electromag
Subject: SUPERDETERMINISM REPLACES BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION
Date: 26 Jun 1994 00:03:39 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

Quantum Mechanics QM disproves all forms of biological evolution.
Evolution as of 1994 is out the window. Evolution is now replaced by
SUPERDETERMINISM.

        The Plutonium Atom Totality is the completion of my quest for a
new
and more comprehensive theory of biological evolution. It was a 16 year
quest 1974-1990 by me to turn evolution into math. A theory of
biological evolution with a physical and math basis, that is, the
theory of biological evolution based on physics.  

        The  physicist Schroedinger argued in his book What Is Life? 
that the
genetic basis of living organisms must have a physical, molecular
basis.  Molecules are the ordering of atoms.  
        Feynman argued that life is what the atoms do.  Everything that
living
things do must be ultimately explained and understood in terms of what
atoms do according to the laws of physics.  Life has a physical basis. 

        The recent developments of genetic engineering, biotechnology,
genome
projects will in the future reduce the Modern Synthesis of Biological
Evolution, i.e., evolution before the atom totality into a simplistic
case. Darwinian evolution and the Modern Synthesis will be seen as a
special case biotechnology.

        The Modern Synthesis of Biological Evolution has several
concepts (a)
the concept of differential reproductive success or Natural Selection
which acts on genes (b) genetic variation (c) mutations and structural
changes  (d) speciation (e) reproductive isolation (f) and the most
important fact, long periods of time.          Homo sapiens will in the
future
engineer biological systems, hence engineer evolution via advanced
technology.

        In the future when mankind has a Sun on Earth from the
engineering of
fusion reactors, and is transforming life forms and engineering new
life forms, then it will become increasingly more difficult to explain
mankind in comparison to the remaining existing species on Earth. 
Since in the distant future Homo sapiens will act as the main mechanism
of biological evolution over Natural Selection, mutation, and the other
concepts of biological evolution. Homo sapiens will have transcended,
gone beyond Natural Selection.  The long periods of time needed for
biological change in the Modern Synthesis of Biological Evolution will
be reduced to relative short and fast periods of time.  The modern
theory of biological evolution in the distant future will be subsumed
under mankind's own technology.  Genetic engineering, biotechnology,
and fission-fusion nuclear energy reactors will have transformed
everything on Earth and man will have colonized into space.  Thus
keeping in mind man's exponential advances in future progress, a new
derivation of biological evolution must incorporate this future
progress.  Quantum UP describes the observable universe and replaces
the currently accepted biological theory of evolution, turning biology
into chemistry and physics.

        Since living things are  composed of the same atoms which are
studied
in physics and chemistry, the profound explanations for biological
evolution must result from physics and chemistry.  Since a deep
understanding of atoms is the study of quantum mechanics, a new theory
of biological evolution must come from a deeper understanding of
quantum theory of physics.
        Physics via quantum theory explains chemistry so well that
theoretical chemistry is subsumed by physics.

        All matter in the observable universe consists of atoms which
are the
chemical elements. Of the total number of atoms, approximately 90% are
hydrogen and approximately 9% are helium with all the remainder of the
chemical elements at an approximate aggregate of 1%. 
        What is going on with this hydrogen and helium is a very
important
overall process in the observable universe because of the 99%
proportion. This process is nucleosynthesis of hydrogen and helium into
heavier elements in stars, supernovas, and pulsars.
        Nucleosynthesis is a process transforming less heavy elements
into
heavier elements.  (1) It is a statistical ordering process of making
atoms of increasingly larger atomic number, from the simple hydrogen
atom with atomic number of 1 to the complex plutonium atom of atomic
number  94, on beyond plutonium out to element of atomic number 189.
(2) Life is a statistical ordering process from the evolution of simple
forms of life to us who can contemplate the entity of the totality.  We
can even contemplate what does not exist such as science fiction
thoughts, or we can contemplate infinities.  Our brains work so well
that we can think of the totality, 3 dimensions and higher dimensions.
  
        I make note of these two obvious ordering processes in the
observable
universe. UP proposes to combine these two into one-- nucleosynthesis.

        The 2nd law of thermodynamics is the only statistical process
in the
observable universe of disorder, or increase in entropy.  The 2nd law
of thermodynamics is a subset of radioactivities.  The statistical
radioactive decay of many atoms from a high atomic number to  lower
atomic numbers is the 2nd law of thermodynamics.  The radioactive
materialization and radioactive growth of an atom from a specific
atomic number to a higher atomic number is not ruled-out by the 2nd law
of thermodynamics, and this nucleosynthesis of higher atomic number
atoms occurs concomitantly along with the large number of atoms
decaying to lower atomic number.

        A Plutonium Atom Totality provides an explanation for why life
occurs
and is able to figure-out and understand the totality itself.  Atom
Totality explains life as a process of nucleosynthesis of heavier
elements.  In order for the totality to make heavier atoms, some atoms
in the observable universe were superdeterministicly arranged into
molecules forming life which then progressively developed into our
species equipped with a brain to transmute or nucleosynthesize the
heavier elements.  The brain of Homo sapiens and in the future ever
more evolved parts are required to nucleosynthesize heavier elements
beyond plutonium.  

        PU provides the explanation and understanding of the biological
theory
 of evolution as an extension of the natural, physical ordering process
of nucleosynthesis.  Stars, supernovas, and pulsars are hot
nucleosynthesis and life is cold nucleosynthesis.  Life is a part of
the observable electron universe remaking the totality into a new atom
totality of americium.

A review of the Modern Synthesis of Biological Evolution Theory (BET).
Natural Selection is differential reproductive success of genetic types
 i.e. organisms with inferior traits leave on average, fewer offspring
than do those with superior traits.  Inferior and superior defined by
the environment. Traits are initiated by mutation and recombination. 
Environment serves as the ultimate test for the fitness of variations. 

        Genotype sources of evolutionary variability 1 mutation 2
genetic
recombination.

        The term phenotype is used to describe a genetic trait as it is
detected by our senses.  TT and Tt for a tall plant  is still tall for
both even though the genotype is different.

        Phenotype adaptions  1 Natural Selection 2 reproductive
isolation such
as geographic isolation.

        In a sense biological evolution of the Modern Synthesis with
its 4
mechanisms of (1) mutation (2) genetic recombination (3) differential
reproductive success (4) reproductive isolation, when summed-up implies
nothing more than that the fittest fit. A circular argument. 

BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION THEORY (BET) is a circular argument. It is
incapable of predicting the future and hence not good science. In fact,
it is science fiction.
        BET before 7Nov1990, was backward looking science. It could
explain
facts of the past. BET was not good science for it could not peer into
the future. It could not predict in any way future outcomes. Good
science is predictive of the future. Now with the understanding of the
Pu Atom Totality all life is purposeful and all life when seen as a
whole is for the purpose of making heavier elements. The Modern
Synthesis lacks purpose. Once the mechanism of purpose and that purpose
is ever heavier element nucleosynthesis is incorporated then the
meaning of life is obvious. Life on the planet Earth will evolve ever
more in the direction which aims to nucleosynthesis the elements beyond
plutonium. 

A good illustration would be that of the dinosaurs.  The issue of the
dinosaurs is a controversial issue but there are some facts which are
obvious and most everyone would agree with.  Fact one is that the
dinosaurs were large animals, some of the largest that ever roamed the
Earth.  Fact two is that they lived for many millions of years 300
million to be more accurate.  Fact three is that the oil in the Earth
is composed by a percent of dinosaur remains, i.e., a percentage of the
world's oil had come from dinosaurs. I speculate that the creation of
such large animals was for the purpose of Pu so that oil could be made
in the Earth for mankind's future use.  And that the dinosaurs were
quickly and continually killed off through hundreds of millions of
years by biological parasites in order to properly preserve these
animals bodies for oil production for mankinds later use. In an atom
totality, life is a purposeful string of events all for the eventual
end result, nucleosynthesis.

   If you like a further reference on John Bell, here is a good one--- 
      
                    Title:  The man who proved Einstein was wrong.
                   New Scientist 24 Nov.1990 pages 43-45.

Ludwig Plutonium
c/o Dartmouth College
HB 6165
Hanover, NH 03755
603-643-4300
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Sun Jun 26 04:37:07 EDT 1994
------------------------------
1994.06.26 / L Plutonium /  DISPROOFS OF BIO EVOLUTION; SUPERDETERMINISM IS TRUE
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.bio,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics
Subject: DISPROOFS OF BIO EVOLUTION; SUPERDETERMINISM IS TRUE
Date: 26 Jun 1994 03:39:56 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

This is my last post to sci.bio.  I want to set-up a framework of facts
and ideas which shows that biological evolution is false, and
superdeterminism is true. Please read my other articles for a more
in-depth understanding of superdeterminism which I will not repeat here
due to length. I abbreviate the Modern Synthesis of Biological
Evolution Theory to BET.

1. BET is highly subjective. A worker trying to use BET hopes that
he/she has the pertinent factors-- food factors, sex factors, parasite
factors, and on and on. One immediately sees that huge amount of
subjectivism which is involved in a field test of BET.

2. BET separates the living world from the nonliving. But, where is the
clearcut boundary line one must make in this delineation. Do we say
prions and viruses are living? Do we say that the cigarettes is part of
the nonliving nonevolving world? Where do we differentiate the
nonliving things such as tools like fire, clubs in primitive times and
electric equipment in modern times. I think I have said enough. My
point is that BET wants to be a good theory to explain the progression
of life. But BET cannot integrate the nonliving with the living world.
Those two worlds are really inseparable. All living creatures need
nonliving nutrients. We would die in a matter of a few minutes without
oxygen (nonliving oxygen). BET is applied to the living world. It is
nonsense to apply BET to the nonliving world. And there is the rub, the
fault, the irreparable shortcomings of BET.

3. BET bespeaks of explaining all of the progression of life. But what
about the creation of life from nonlife. Is BET able to explain the
arrival of first life? No, an emphatic no. Because by pure math logic
reasoning. If BET is a true theory of science that explains the first
life forms, implies, that BET is operative in the nonliving world. To
say it a different way. If BET can explain the first life forms means
that the mechanisms of BET such as Natural Selection are operative in
the protolife soup of however the first lifeforms arose, whether sea
soup or ice soup or clay repitition which was the precursor to life
reproduction. 

4. From 3), some may say that the first life was an accident, and then
after this accident then a science law-- BET kicked in. This is weak
logic spewed out by weak logical minds. To have accident which is not
science law and then to have imposed science law is ad hoc at best, and
contradictory at usual.

5. It is a fact of biology that life has progressed. Lifeforms on Earth
have progressed from simple creatures to complex creature
organizations. This progression is a fact and proves that biological
progression obeys a science law. Before my teachings, that law was
historically taken as BET. I replace BET with superdeterminism.

6. From 3) and 4), it is apparent that if one were to say at this point
of the progression of life, BET, kicked in, say at the first lifeforms
that had sexual reproduction. That any such demarcation of BET would
render BET as only a partial science law. If BET cannot reach back to
the first lifeform and have BET as the science law operative, then BET
is only a partial theory at best.

7. It is a recorded fact from physics observation that a cosmic proton
particle with 10^14 MEV occurred. This particle had more energy than
any particle ever created by humans in their accelerator machines. This
particle had so much energy that it could spontaneously convert that
energy into a primitive plant life. In other words, there exist
naturally, energetic particles with more than enough energy to create
life spontaneously.

8. There have occurred events in the progression of life which are
unexplainable by BET. Even proponents of BET are confused as to the
evidences of "slow evolution" and "fast evolution". Why would a science
law slow-down or accelerate, or become stepped. If BET were true then
the implications are that BET is a multiple science law. That there are
more basic, more fundamental clockwork laws which go to make up BET.

9. In BET, there is Natural Selection which is the mechanism. It is
differential reproductive success. There has never been detailed
studies of organisms with the pure numbers of offsprings to support
BET. But what of the math logical counterexamples which this mechanism
of Natural Selection yields.

10. One counterexample of Natural Selection is increase in individuals
who have no reproductive success. Surely, if one can point to such a
phenomenon which is continuing in a gene pool, then BET is false and a
fake theory. Homosexuality and lesbianism is such a counterexample to
BET. If homosexuality and lesbianism was a mutation then it could arise
in a gene pool and vanish fast without destroying BET. The evidence
indicates otherwise, that homosexuality and lesbianism is a continuous
percentage of the gene pool and sometimes it is increasing.

11. BET, when focused on Natural Selection has a difficult time with
applying this mechanism to asexual reproduction such as the prions,
viruses, bacteria and lower life forms. Natural Selection applied to
sexually reproductive creatures works better. So then is one to wonder
whether BET is managable for sexual creatures and deficient for asexual
creatures. Or is it that BET is just plain false? 

12. The living world abounds with parasites. A living host would
provide more offspring to its parasites than a dead host. So then, if
BET is correct, why are there so many parasites which kill their host.
If BET were correct, parasitic relationships would favor the host
living and the parasite offspring increasing in numbers. With a dead
host, the numbers stop there.

13. Diseases such as cancer and heart attacks are puzzling. There are
no cures for these diseases. And these diseases are broad spectrumed--
meaning that they are multi-caused. Cancer can arise from radon gas,
asbestos, and even too much of an essential such as salt in the diet.
Or the genetic makeup of an individual can cause cancer or heart
attack. Thus, one can say that cancer and heart attacks are both
induced by the nonliving and the living. Now,here is the math logic.
Since cancer and heart attacks are most definitely caused by either the
nonliving or the living or both combined. This implies that cancer,
especially cancer is an internal mechanism of the specific person
involved. Cancer is genetic suicide. Acts of physical suicide on the
other hand are also a confluence of nonliving and living stresses to
the mind of the person who commits suicide.

14. Suicide is a counterexample to BET. Measure the frequency rates of
suicide in all age brackets. One discovers that if BET were correct,
then these rates should not increase. Body suicide is where the mind
goes heywire and gives up. Genetic suicide is cancer.

15. If BET were true then the frequency rates of cancer should decrease
in all age brackets. This is not the case. Cancer is increasing in all
age brackets. Environment of the whole of Earth, (you must look at the
whole Earth) is not a factor because the environment of the whole of
Earth is getting better all of the time. Our standard and quality of
life is better now than 100, or 1000 years ago.

16. The occurrence of new disease such as AIDS which has a
constellation of symptoms. It is not sure yet whether the HIV is a
direct cause of AIDS. Regardless, if BET were true then HIV would
evolve into not killing off its host but allowing its host victim to
life and thereby increase the number of HIV viruses in the world.

17. To those who believe that cancer is a direct correlation with a
carcinogenic environment. I counter them and ask them to set up a
biosphere type of environment (such as the one in Arizona?). From such
a controlled environment, it is my hunch that the cancer rates of the
inhabitants of the biosphere will match the world public at large who
do not live in a controlled environment.

18. I have given a counterexample to Natural Selection in 10) of the
case where there is no reproductive success, yet the genes of
homosexuality persist. There are other counterexamples to
BET,re:Natural Selection. Such as increase in unfit genes in a gene
pool. Examples abound. The sabres on sabre tooth tigers. The coloration
of males making them more vulnerable to predators, e.g. the proverbial
peacock feathers. The increase in deleterious genes over better fitting
genes which yield better phenotypes, e.g. the weight ratio of horns on
grazing animals.

19. Another counterexample to Natural Selection are the insects. If BET
were true than the progression of life would be in favor of those
creatures with have the highest reproductive success. On Earth, the
insects are the most successful as to reproductive success. So then, if
BET were correct, we should have encountered smart insects under the
mechanism of BET. To the contrary, insects have not mutated into
smarter insects. In fact if BET and Natural Selection were correct,
then by some rough calculation, one who see the case of a ant or bee or
moths or flys that could communicate by language. In other words, man
is not the best creature to put in the "in box of Natural Selection"
and come out of the "out box" equipped with our intelligence. Intead,
the insects with their rate of reproduction, and mutation, and
differential reproductive successive, should have beaten humans to
"smartness". One only needs to study the progress of the cockroach in
morphology from the paleozoic to start to wonder if BET is flawed.

20. BET if true implies that life has no purpose for humans other than
to increase in genetic offspring. BET suggests that the fittest of
humans are the largest families. It does not take much looking around
in our modern world to see that usually the most successful people are
the least likely to have large families. If BET is true then the
sociological trends of humans should correlate better with the
mechanism of Natural Selection.

21. On the other hand, superdeterminism has an easy time of explaining
the above 20 issues. And it goes where BET never went before, into the
future by predicting future outcomes. Superdeterminism predicts that
humans will progress in science because nucleosynthesis is the purpose
of life. Bigger brains for more science. Superdeterminism predicts that
coincidences are natural. The math tabulation of coincidences is math
proof that superdeterminism is true and BET is false. BET is opposed to
coincidences and can only stand in amazement that a coincidence of low
probability actually occurred.

22. Superdeterminism comes from Quantum Mechanics and the Bell
Inequality with the Aspect Experimental results. It is confirmed true
physics. When one couples Special Relativity of no superluminal signal
with Bell I. then the conclusion one reaches is that only
superdeterminism is the clockwork of the universe. Either we have to
discard QM, Bell I. and Special Relativity. Or we have to discard
evolution. 
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.26 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Energy development tax
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Energy development tax
Date: Sun, 26 Jun 1994 05:21:47 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <1994Jun22.050318.6596@Princeton.EDU> Robert F. Heeter
<rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> writes:
>Subject: Energy development tax
>From: Richard Schroeppel, rcs@cs.arizona.edu
>Date: Wed, 22 Jun 1994 00:17:46 GMT
>In article <199406212019.AA23340@leibniz.cs.arizona.edu> Richard
>Schroeppel, rcs@cs.arizona.edu writes:
>>Robert F. Heeter reprises Rep. Brown's suggestion of an
>>energy development fund, and asks
>>
>>>  What do others think?
>>
>>It reminds me of the 8% tax on plane tickets to finance the
>>airport construction trust fund.  Hah!

>What happened in that case?

People KNOW how to make airports and commercially utilize the end 
product.  This is NOT the case with fusionxxxxxx rather tokamak 
construction.   

>The proposed tax is only a tenth of a percent, if your electricity cost is
>10 cents/kwh.  To fund all DOE energy research by taxing US energy use
>would require a tax on the order of 1/2 a percent to 1%.

>This doesn't seem that different from funding Social Security spending
>by taxing employee income, or from funding highway maintenance and
>construction partly by tolls and gasoline taxes.

>It seems to me the fusion energy tax is so small, hardly anyone will
>even notice it.  I would notice an 8% surcharge on a plane ticket, but the
>electricity tax proposed would only cost the average American 8 cents
>a month.

Door to door Encyclopedia sales artists would suggest to home owners, 
the books would come to less than a pack of cigarettes, and wouldn't 
their children's education be at least worth that sacrifice???  This
was when cigarettes were under 50 cents!  Economists may argue with
you, since the "economy will notice".     

The next problem is WHO will decide on what projects the money will 
be spent??  It certainly shouldn't be the USDoE due to their 
nepotistic or incestuous relationship with their laboratory systems.  
What for what incentive do they have to solve the problem?  Negative,
isn't it.  After all, they would like to stay in business decade
after decade and have a justification to spend large sums.  That won't
happen is a concept is a certain and swift winner, first because it
can be developed quickly; and second, because it won't justify the 
spending of vast sums.  

What I really think You need is to cut out the middlemen.  Congress,
DoE and come down to the local level.  I should think that PPPL could
be given the power to assess the taxpaying Citizens a percentage of
their tax bill... a sort of surlycharge is is that "surtax".  

Now let's factor in some risk.  Let's say that they collect up to .01% 
of the tax of America times some factor which relates to thier success 
at generating clean fusion power.   I would suggest something like
the ratio of the difference of the number of watts attained from tpx 
per cubic centimeter (average) over a continuous (ah... 15 min 
discharge?? okay) 3 minutes minus the average power density of 
birthday candle for the same time length to the average power density
of the birthday candle.    

so we have [ p(tpx)/cc - p(brthcndle)/cc ] /  [ p(brthcndle)/cc
]                               
If you can't beat a candle then PPPL will have to PAY, but if PPPL 
can, then we taxpayer will pay PPPL.  Fair enough???    Now during 
this time, no funds will be actually transfered until you are 
successful, but I'm certain that any Big Bank can cover your game 
tokamak scam with the reputation PPPL has and has given to word 
"fusion" (and with the help of the MIT Fusion Center).  

BTW
Sorry, but the average density of the sun is too low to make a 
practically sized reactor. Although it's interesting to note, that 
its roughly equal to the power density of a human body, so we could 
consider stuffing a silo with DoE and associated lab employees just 
to see what the surface thermalization rate would be for a period of 
... better make that 2 minutes. -- wouldn't want to reduce 
effectiveness.    Oh?  that was tried already for 15 minutes...?? 
too bad.  


So my counter pitch to your "skim off that top" racket would be, don't 
bother to raise ANY more money, just shut down 3/4 of the present fusion 
program, and use the remaining money as follows:

      1) projects choosen by an Engineering team 
      2) which is selected by the Power Companies.  BUT the 
      3) rights to the concepts should stay with the companies holding 
             the patents, assuming the ideas are already invented or 
      4) to small companies coming up with the new (choosen) concepts.  
      5) don't spend more than 50megabucks total on any idea, or more
             than twenty megabucks in any one year per idea.  
      6) this assumes that the probablility for large Corporations or
	     the government to develop novel fusion approaches are 
             miniscule, but IF they do then they should have reduced 
             rights   (perhaps half).  

P.S. 
There HAS TO BE a way to "TURN OFF BAD Fusion Concepts".  Only risk can 
do that.  Government operates risk free, so they shouldn't be involved 
in engineering development.  Basic Lab (small) experimental level 
research in loosely related to commercial areas have more justification 
for gove funding, since they are the least likely to be funded by 
commerce.  It's time to move devlopment work to the private sector.  
It's time to give the private sector incentives to take on this work.    

>Anyway, since no one else seems to have much of an opinion on this,
>maybe I should just stop bringing it up and let it slide...

They have ideas, they just aren't in the money stream ... as is PPPL. 
and a few others.  Interesting you should need more... isn't 300*10^6 $$
plus excessive for you piglets all ready???   

>***************************
>Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
>Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University
>As always, I represent only myself, and not PPPL
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc,Bx 1037, Prometheus II, Ltd., College Park, MD 20741-1037 |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+



cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.26 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Fusion Time Frame
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion Time Frame
Date: Sun, 26 Jun 1994 05:43:18 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <1994Jun24.020513.18328@Princeton.EDU> Robert F. Heeter
<rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> writes:
>Subject: Fusion Time Frame
>From: Dean  Orr, orrd@eaglecrest.ksc.nasa.gov
>Date: 23 Jun 94 15:00:38 EDT
>In article <1994Jun23.150038.433@pdms03.ksc.nasa.gov> Dean  Orr,
>orrd@eaglecrest.ksc.nasa.gov writes:
>>I am an electrical engineer, and have always been interested 
>>in fission and fusion, but have not kept current on them.  Are we 
>>any where near producing a fusion reactor for standard electrical 
>>power, is anyone pursuing this? What are the problems that are in 
>>the way?

>electrical powerplant (DEMO) online about 2025, and mass
>commercialization around 2040.  Or something like that.

How old will you be Roberto?   And what can one do with such
a megalith IF it "worked"  (and for how long).   

> . ......... . . .                     ... .    It's been
>held up by environmentalists, according to this week's issue
>of Science; ITER is having some management difficulties of
>its own.

Could you clue us in with a tad more detail here?? 


>    .. . ..       and an additional factor of about 10 is
>all that is needed to generate large amounts of surplus energy.

Ten in surplus PLASMA energy, not machine energy???   

>The major hurdle is that the only currently feasible way to get
>that factor of ten involves building much larger machines,
>which makes the cost of that surplus energy a little too high.

Well said.   In other words, it's a bit off the commercial mark. 

>Research is being done on ways to reduce the reactor size.

I have a way... and according to some it may be "mini tokamak". 
Actually, more like a "micro starlet", by physical size comparison.  
(tokamak such a nasty word when applied to reactor, but such
a nice word when used in plasma research)
Bet there isn't one single soul  (of influence) at PPPL that would 
be interested in even taking as serious look at our concept.  Doesn't 
sound very ideal, but such is life.  

>Other large hurdles include extracting heat from the reactor
>without frying the vacuum vessel, developing materials that
>will survive the temperature, pressure, and neutron-irradiation
>extremes inside the reactor, developing remote-maintenance
>capabilities to reduce the need for human presence near the
>reactor, and developing materials that do not become highly
>radioactive after intense neutron bombardment.  

These are all trivial, if the wall is impervious to Bremsstrahlung,
and if the machine can compression heat to ignite advanced fuels
and then self compression heat to sustain burn.  The extracting
of heat to electric power utilizing inductive MHD at 85 or 95%
efficiency (depending on aneutronic fuel cycle), goes a long way
to reduce heat load engineering problems.  

>                ..    ..       . .      .      .    The list
>is longer, but this gives a sense of the general situation.
>Most fusion researchers believe these problems can all
>be solved, given sufficient time and funding.

>The long answers to all of these questions should end up in the
>FAQ sometime this summer.  (Especially if people want to discuss
>them now, so I can stick the answers in, and not have to write it
>all myself!)

Your dedication is excellent.  As for the tokamak problems, working 
on solving them, trapped in tokamak paradigm, will give you and your
off-spring generations of full employment.  

>***************************
>Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
>Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University
>As always, I represent only myself, and not PPPL
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc,Bx 1037, Prometheus II, Ltd., College Park, MD 20741-1037 |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Sun Jun 26 16:58:03 EDT 1994
------------------------------
1994.06.26 / Paul Koloc /  Re: A "ball lightning" MHD equilibrium
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A "ball lightning" MHD equilibrium
Date: Sun, 26 Jun 1994 06:36:05 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <2ue1p1INN1ao@slcawc.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de> awc@ipp-garching.mpg.de writes:

>I heard an interesting talk here today by Prof. Dietrich Lortz. The title was
>"Ball Lightning as an Example of an MHD Equilibrium". There are, of course,
>serious problems trying to explain reports of ball lightning as a nearly
>stationary configuration of magnetized plasma. (What keeps it going so long? 

It has long L/R rundown times.   30 seconds  for a 10 cm diameter kubelblitz 


>Why doesn't it float up like a hot air balloon?) 

I can, but it depends on the loss rates which also influence brightness.

Generally, running down fast (more resistive) have brighter hoter shells
and these have convective currtents which tend to move them upward.  
Otherwise, these balls are small and like soap bubbles differ relatively
little from the surrounding air density and are therefore viscously trapped
which tends to carry them along.  Even newspapers in the wind may appear
weightless.  The second reason, is that since they magnetic, they can be
line tied to ferrite in the soil or nails in floors or iron of wires and
rails.  Current in conducting wires also is attractive, although they
are short radius repelled by eddy currents in the shell induced by the A/C
current in the wire.  Consequently, they are seen to travel "along" power
lines, but they actually don't envelope them.  


>But it is a well-posed and
>interesting question to ask if MHD equilibria exist with uniform pressure on a
>boundary and vanishing fields outside that boundary. It is (relatively) easy to
>show that the answer is no if the pressure on the boundary should go to zero. 

What are you taking about.  The Shell (plasma-field boundary) is omnigenous, 
and the gas-plasma boundary is isobaric.  The pressure across the boundary
(equator) goes from B^2 --  E^2  -- jXB^2/a -- Eq/a. -- Pi+Pe -- Pair             
The vector forces provide what for soap bubbles is "surface tension".  



>But if the pressure outside is allowed to be a constant, the answer turns out 


>to be yes. I had (almost) convinced myself before the talk with qualitative 
>arguments that there must be such a solution, but Prof. Lortz presented a 
>class of exact analytic solutions.

When you speak of pressure across a multi media structure you should isolate
each region and provide the dominate componets.  These objects are gorgeously
fitted, but the resultant is isobaric boundary with a deepening gradient 
kernel or toroidal core.   

>They look a lot like spheromak solutions in that they have toroidal and 
>poloidal fields within a spherical volume, 

The word is better expressed  "Sphereoidal" 

>but unlike a spheromak the field 
>on the boundary goes to zero. 

What/Which boundary??      The field is neutralized at the Separatrix
on the Mantle, and therefore outside is essentially non-existent.  Actually,
it does exist slightly, since during formation a small fraction of the
field diffuses through.  


The pressure decreases from the boundary (and the
>geometric axis) toward the magnetic axis. 

The field (resultant poloidal) pressure INcreases from the separatrix 
radially inward to the toroidal (minor) axis).    Are you agreeing with
this??? 

The safety factor q is everywhere
>somewhat less than unity. There is a relationship between the maximum field and
>the maximum pressure difference such that 1 atm can confine a configuration 
>with (up to) 0.8 T. This is the sort of field strength found near a lightning 
>bolt.

The mag pressure on the minor axis within a kugelblitz is approximately 
12 or 13 atmospheres.  

This lightning comparison is a ridiculous statement, since the pressure 
near a lightning channel is transient and changes over six orders of 
magnitude at least.  Thunder results from the decay of plasma shocks o
that are magnetically accelerated.  It is NOT the result of the expansion
of arc heated air as taught in the kiddy weather books.   

>Prof. Lortz "conjectured" that the configuration is stable, but has done no
>rigorous analysis.  

Where conjecture == OPINED as gathered from numerous lengthy reported 
                         observations  

That it is (neutrally) stable against tilting (unlike a
>spheromak, even with tightly fitting walls) is obvious from the boundary
>conditions. 

Sorry the spheromak is stable against tilting.   The princeton (half tokamak
half Spheromak) device had no conducting shell and only vertical field
coils (although horizontally directed), and therefore was NOT a full fledged
Spheromak.  By adding a minimal conducting shell (jardin's polar figure 8
coils) the device was pushed past the half way mark back toward spheromak,
and it became tilt stabilized.   Kugelblitz have a tightly fitting 
highly conducting shell and are COMPLETELY TILT (and slip) STABLE.    

Whether it is stable against ballooning modes is anything but
>obvious, but in principle easy to calculate (if you happen to be a theoretical
>plasma physicist).

Want to bet?

They do balloon and that causes them to rocket more slowly than a party 
balloon released from the fingers before knotting off.  But 'nough said. 

>The difficult question if you want to explain ball lightning or produce a 
>fusion reactor with such a configuration is how the pressure of the neutral 
>gas is transferred to the plasma without cooling the plasma to
death. I see no >simple and general way to quantify such effects.
I do know that tokamaks can 
>tolerate only a very tiny neutral gas pressure without disrupting, so I don't 
>see how this configuration will be able to tolerate one atmosphere or more.

Simple, you keep the two separate.  Tokamaks are low pressure vacuum wimps.  


R. Roth, "Ball Lightning as a Route to Fusion Energy" Proceedings of the 
     IEEE, THE 13TH SYMPOSIUM ON FUSION ENGINEERING, Knoxville 
     (Oct. 2-6, 1989), Cat. No. 89 CH 2820-9  Vol 2, pages 1407-1411  

Koloc, P. M. "PLASMAK(tm) Star Power for Energy Intensive Space 
     Applications" FUSION TECHNOLOGY Vol. 15, Mar 89, pp 1136-1141

P. M. Koloc, "The PLASMAK(tm) Configuration and Ball Lightning,"
     presented at the First International Symposium on Ball Lightning,
     Tokyo, Japan, July 1988.  see Y. H. Ohtsuki (ed.), (below)

Ohtsuki, Y. H. (ed.), Science of Ball Lightning (Fire Ball). Singapore:
    World Scientific Publishing Co.,  1989.  (First International 
    Symposium on Ball Lightning, Waseda University, Tokyo, Japan, 
    4-6 July 1988) L.C. QC966.7.B3157  1988  551.5'634  89-9004
    Write to or telephone World Scientific Pub. Co.  U.S.: 687 Hartwell 
    Street, Teaneck, NJ 07666;  1-800-227-7562

We produce these things, but the cost is outrageous .. orders and 
orders of magnitude less than tokamak  .. at least.   

>Art Carlson
>Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics
>Garching, Germany
>carlson@ipp-garching.mpg.de

Shluter told me der kugelblitz couldn't be made (reliably and repeatibly). 
If he still is spouting this information, tell him he is no longer
correct.  
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc,Bx 1037, Prometheus II, Ltd., College Park, MD 20741-1037 |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.27 / Bill Page /  Bohm's interpretation
     
Originally-From: 70047.3047@compuserve.com (Bill Page)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Bohm's interpretation
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 1994 00:13:10 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

So far, the feedback (two personal messages) that I have received has been 
positive.  Two might not seem like much, but I'm inclined to muliply by at 
least a factor to 10 to 1 to compensate for the ratio of readers to 
writers, so that's plenty of encouragement to me!

I didn't ask permission to post their private messages, but here they are 
sans names.  It would be real nice of we could carry on this exchange 
publicly in the news group.  But I suppose some people are a little 
reluctant to expose themselves in public!  But no matter ...

<<
Bill,
 
I read your recent postings to the fusion newsgroup with great interest. I 
found your comments on the de Broglie-Bohm interpretation of QM to be 
especially interesting and I certainly want to learn more about that. With 
regard to your style of writing, I find it a welcome breath of fresh air in 
a debate that has suffered too long from stale ideas and arguments.
>>

<<
Bill,
Deep thanks for your efforts and posting of the Bohm material in Maple 
format. As a long time (since the inception) lurker of sci.physics.fusion, 
this work of yours is the payoff!  I too am a Maple convert and currently 
document all of my research in this format (which being in the area of 
signal processing and not fusion physics, I have not thought to share it as 
you have.) I also recently became quite interested in the Bohm 
interpretation of QM on reading the several chapters about it in the 
compilation of J. S. Bell's work, "Speakable and unspeakable in quantum 
mechanics."  (If you haven't seen this book, you should as Bell develops 
some nice interpretations of the Bohm results.)

Because my interest in QM is peripheral to my work (with the intersection 
being the application of group theory and concern with invariants) your 
postings are the ideal way for me to obtain a useful mathematical overview 
of this interpretation (as opposed to the non-useful content of physics for 
laymen treatments).  
Thanks again.
>>

I agree.  Bell's "Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics" is a very 
useful adjunct to Bohm's own articles/book.

So, I will continue this series of postings.

Thanks all.

Cheers,

Bill Page.

cudkeys:
cuddy27 cuden3047 cudfnBill cudlnPage cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.27 / Bill Page /  Bohm's interpretation of QM using Maple mathematics
     
Originally-From: 70047.3047@compuserve.com (Bill Page)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Bohm's interpretation of QM using Maple mathematics
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 1994 00:13:23 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

David Cyganski wrote (private email):
<<
Bill,

Since you asked for feedback on your maple posting, I am sharing my experiences with 
getting it to run under maple after transfer from the net.

I am running Maple Version 5 release 2 on my 486 PC. The small problems that I have had 
are probably related to the release number difference between our versions, but I will 
mention them anyway in case it is useful to you.

The code loaded with no problem from your posting.  The comment lines were 
automatically converted to text regions, which posed a small problem in that blank 
lines and carriage returns were ignored, so I had to edit the text to restore some 
spacing between sections and words.

The only evaluation failure took place due to the value(`3.3a`) evaluation. An inert 
derivative of S was left inert.  To correct this I had to use value(value(`3.3a`);

Other than this, everything worked out fine. 

A local book store had a copy of the undivided universe, so I bought it yesterday and 
will be following along with this and your future postings.

David
>>

This is great!  I was hoping to find at least one person to look carefully at this 
stuff and here he is!

David also wrote:
<<
Bill,

It's me again. I have included in this email a re-write of some of your material.  This 
was driven by my reading the Undivided Universe text along with your material and 
filling in the gaps that arose. I have been surprised by the number of typos that 
appear in the Bohm book! But I am unfortunately not surprised by the fact that Bohm and 
Hiley fell into the usual bad habit of QM writers of making statements that implicity 
refer to previous treatments, leaving many readers feeling that they must be missing 
something because the statements are not self-evident though the author certainly makes 
it seem so.

Thus, I have reorginized the order of some of your equations and filled in more 
explanatory material and made explicit references to material outside the Bohm 
treatment so that the casual reader stands a better chance of following the treatment. 
 I don't know if you intended to make your treatment stand alone in this sense, but I 
will try to continue to fill in such material in your future posts as well so that more 
readers may enjoy this interesting
story.

David
>>

Thanks again.  The David's revised material plus my slight revision of his revision 
follow.  Anyone else out there with access to Maple?

# Bohm's interpretation of QM using Maple mathematics
> 
# Part 1 (second version)
> 
# [Note: This is a revision of my original posting with additional 
# material provided by David Cyganski to help fill-in the gaps a 
# little.  I think our joint effort is more readable than the first, 
# especially if you don't have access to Bohm & Hiley's book.
> 
# I've also changed the formatting a little so that the Maple 
# worksheet retains more of its original formatting.  It seems that 
# unless I use a blank command > between paragraphs, Maple ignores 
# the paragraph boundries when it is reloaded.]
> 


# This article was prepared using Maple V (release 3).  It is based 
# on Bohm and Hiley, "The Undivided Universe", Chapter 3.  "Causal 
# interpretation of the one body system". 
> 


# Most of what follows is just standard quantum mechanics (QM) done 
# in this new form.  The point of this posting, however, is to 
# introduce Bohm'sinterpretation of QM.  If this method works out and 
# I continue to get positive feedback, it is my intenton to continue 
# this series leading to an eventual application of Bohm's 
# interpretation to the theory of ion bandstate fusion as proposed by 
# Chubb and Chubb.  This will take some time, however, and I am still 
# working out some of the details.
> 
# After another introductory posting following this one, I  have so 
# far planned another installment in this series to investigate 
# the application of Bohm's interpretation to simple single and 
# multiple-body bound state problems like the harmonic and the 
# "particle in a box". I have carried out these calculations largely 
# based on the approach presented in the book "Quantum Methods" by 
# James M. Feagin.  Consideration of these simple types of problem 
# has proven to be a good way to gain some new intuitions about 
# quantum mechanical systems from Bohm's perspective. And also a way 
# of exploiting Maple to generate a lot of neat graphics and 
# animations!  Stay tuned.
> 
# 1.  Maple preliminarys
> 


# In reading the following, please note that in Maple, comments begin 
# at the # character and commands start with the prompt character >. 
# Commands are what you type in order to get Maple to do its thing.  
# In the worksheet, Maples results always follow a command of some 
# kind and are indented or  centered on the page.  The symbol := is 
# used when a name is being given  to an expression or an equation.
> 


# Transmission through the network as electronic mail may introduce 
# some  line folding that might make some things a little hard to 
# read.  I'll  try to avoid it but, dear Reader, if you have trouble, 
# please let me  know.  Unlike a lot of postings on 
# sci.physics.fusion, you will probably  have to print this out on 
# paper in order to follow the mathematics.
> 
> restart;         # clear the work space of previous results (if any)
> assume(h,real);  # This provides the ~ symbol in h~ (read it h-bar)
> 


# First we need some definitions for complex symbolic mathematics 
# (from"Quantum Methods").
> 
> alias(I=I,i=sqrt(-1)); # Because i looks better than I in a complex 
> unprotect(conjugate);  # Override the builtin conjugate to assume real
>                        # unless i is explicit
> conjugate:=expr->eval(subs(i=-i,expr));
> re:=expr->expand((expr+conjugate(expr))/2);
> im:=expr->expand((expr-conjugate(expr))/(2*i));


                                     i



               conjugate := expr -> eval(subs(i = - i, expr))



            re := expr -> expand(1/2 expr + 1/2 conjugate(expr))



           im := expr -> expand(- 1/2 i (expr - conjugate(expr)))



# Check these operators.
> 
> re(1+2*i);
> im(1+2*i);


                                     1



                                     2



# And also define the one dimensional gradient operator.  
> 
> Del:= psi ->Diff(psi,x);           # This one does no evaluation
> del:= psi -> diff(psi,x);          # But this one does
> 


                                           d

                           Del := psi -> ---- psi

                                          dx



                                           d

                           del := psi -> ---- psi

                                          dx



# Now Schrodinger's wave equation for one body in one dimension can 
# be written
> 
> `(3.1)`:=i*h*diff(psi(x,t),t)
>          +(h^2/(2*m))*(del@@2)(psi(x,t))-V(x)*psi(x,t)=0; 
> 


 (3.1) :=



                                     /   2           \

                                   2 |  d            |

                                 h~  |----- psi(x, t)|

                                     |   2           |

          /  d           \           \ dx            /

     i h~ |---- psi(x, t)| + 1/2 --------------------- - V(x) psi(x, t) = 0

          \ dt           /                 m



# [Note:  The equation numbers such as (3.1) are in reference to the 
# equations found in Bohm&Hiley.]
> 


# 2.  Polar Form of the Schrodinger Equation
> 


# Now we get to some actual calculations. Bohm and Hiley motivate the 
# causal  interpretation (also called the ontological interpretation) 
# by demonstrating that the Schrodinger equation can be manipulated 
# into a form which admits an interpretation as a classical 
# Hamilton-Jacobi equation for the dynamics of a particle subject to 
# the usual potential field plus a new quantum potential field.  The 
# classical component of this new "quantum Hamilton-Jacobi equation" 
# is seen to correspond to the standard WKB approximation which is 
# often used as a consistent classical limit in quantum mechanics.
> 


# The above interpretation will be derived by first defining the 
# wavefunction psi in polar form and separating the real and complex 
# parts of the wave equation. We shall find that the imaginary 
# component results in the well recognized conservation of 
# probability equation while the real component will comprise the new 
# quantum Hamilton-Jacobi equation.
> 
> psi:=(x,t)->R(x,t)*exp(i*S(x,t)/h);
> 


                                               i S(x, t)

                   psi := (x,t) -> R(x, t) exp(---------)

                                                   h



# where R(x,t) and S(x,t) are real-valued functions.  S(x,t) is 
# called the "phase" of the wavefunction. In polar form, 
# Schrodinger's equation (3.1) becomes
> 
> expand(`(3.1)`);
> 

      /  d         \     i S(x, t)            /  d         \     i S(x, t)

 i h~ |---- R(x, t)| exp(---------) - R(x, t) |---- S(x, t)| exp(---------)

      \ dt         /         h~               \ dt         /         h~



                /   2         \

              2 |  d          |     i S(x, t)

            h~  |----- R(x, t)| exp(---------)

                |   2         |         h~

                \ dx          /

      + 1/2 ----------------------------------

                             m



             /  d         \ /  d         \     i S(x, t)

        i h~ |---- R(x, t)| |---- S(x, t)| exp(---------)

             \ dx         / \ dx         /         h~

      + -------------------------------------------------

                                m



                         /   2         \

                         |  d          |     i S(x, t)

            i h~ R(x, t) |----- S(x, t)| exp(---------)

                         |   2         |         h~

                         \ dx          /

      + 1/2 -------------------------------------------

                                 m



                    /  d         \2     i S(x, t)

            R(x, t) |---- S(x, t)|  exp(---------)

                    \ dx         /          h~

      - 1/2 --------------------------------------

                               m



                         i S(x, t)

      - V(x) R(x, t) exp(---------) = 0

                             h~



# Considering just the real part of equation (3.1) and dividing 
# through by psi(x,t) we get
> 
> `(3.2a)`:=re(-`(3.1)`/psi(x,t));
> 


(3.2a) :=



                           /   2         \

                         2 |  d          |

                       h~  |----- R(x, t)|       /  d         \2

                           |   2         |       |---- S(x, t)|

  /  d         \           \ dx          /       \ dx         /

  |---- S(x, t)| - 1/2 ------------------- + 1/2 --------------- + V(x) = 0

  \ dt         /            R(x, t) m                   m



# Similary,  the imaginary part is
> 
> `(3.2b)`:=im(-`(3.1)`/psi(x,t));
> 

                     /  d         \      /  d         \ /  d         \

                  h~ |---- R(x, t)|   h~ |---- R(x, t)| |---- S(x, t)|

                     \ dt         /      \ dx         / \ dx         /

      (3.2b) := - ----------------- - --------------------------------

                       R(x, t)                    R(x, t) m



                    /   2         \

                    |  d          |

                 h~ |----- S(x, t)|

                    |   2         |

                    \ dx          /

           - 1/2 ------------------ = 0

                          m



# This can be manipulated into the form
> 
> `(3.3)`:=Diff(R(x,t)^2,t)+Del(R(x,t)^2*Del(S(x,t))/m)=0;
> 


                                  /            2 /  d         \\

                                  |     R(x, t)  |---- S(x, t)||

                /  d         2\   |  d           \ dx         /|

       (3.3) := |---- R(x, t) | + |---- -----------------------| = 0

                \ dt          /   \ dx             m           /



# as can be shown by first performing the derivatives in this new 
# form
> 
> `(3.3a)`:=value(value(`(3.3)`));     # This command evaluates the gradients
> 

                     /  d         \

 (3.3a) := 2 R(x, t) |---- R(x, t)|

                     \ dt         /



                                                           /   2         \

                                                         2 |  d          |

                  /  d         \ /  d         \   R(x, t)  |----- S(x, t)|

          R(x, t) |---- S(x, t)| |---- R(x, t)|            |   2         |

                  \ dx         / \ dx         /            \ dx          /

      + 2 ------------------------------------- + ------------------------

                            m                                 m



      = 0



# and on multiplying equation (3.2b) by -2*R(x,t)/h and observing 
# that the two equations are now equal:
> 
> is(expand(lhs(`(3.3a)`))=expand(-2/h*R(x,t)^2*lhs(`(3.2b)`)));
> 
> 


                                    true



# [Note: lhs stands for the left hand side of an equation.]
> 


# 3.  Probability conservation
> 


# First, lets consider the meaning of the imaginary part of the 
# Schrodinger equation.  In the usual interpretation, the probability 
# density for the particle is given by
> 
> abs('psi(x,t)')^2=simplify(psi(x,t)*conjugate(psi(x,t)));
> 


                                       2          2

                         abs(psi(x, t))  = R(x, t)



# and the probability current  (the justification for this name will 
# be soon evident) can be defined as
> 
> j:=(x,t)->R(x,t)^2*Del(S(x,t))/m;
> 


                                         2

                                  R(x, t)  Del(S(x, t))

                    j := (x,t) -> ---------------------

                                            m



# so that equation (3.3) can be written
> 
> Diff(R(x,t)^2,t)+Del('j(x,t)')=0;
> Diff(R(x,t)^2,t)+Del(j(x,t))=0;
> 


                    /  d         2\   /  d         \

                    |---- R(x, t) | + |---- j(x, t)| = 0

                    \ dt          /   \ dx         /



                              /            2 /  d         \\

                              |     R(x, t)  |---- S(x, t)||

            /  d         2\   |  d           \ dx         /|

            |---- R(x, t) | + |---- -----------------------| = 0

            \ dt          /   \ dx             m           /



# since this is exactly of the form of equation (3.3).  Also, note 
# that since we have
> 
> expand(conjugate(psi(x,t))*diff(psi(x,t),x)
>        -psi(x,t)*diff(conjugate(psi(x,t)),x));
> 


                                   2 /  d         \

                          i R(x, t)  |---- S(x, t)|

                                     \ dx         /

                        2 -------------------------

                                      h~



# The probability current is also expressed as (a form that should be 
# familiar from the usual treatment of QM)
> 
> j:=(x,t) -> h/2/i/m*(conjugate(psi(x,t))*diff(psi(x,t),x)
>             -psi(x,t)*diff(conjugate(psi(x,t)),x));
> 


      j := (x,t) -> - 1/2 i h (conjugate(psi(x, t)) diff(psi(x, t), x)



           - psi(x, t) diff(conjugate(psi(x, t)), x))/m



# So we see that the imaginary part of the polar Schrodinger 
# equation, that is equation (3.3), is just the well known continuity 
# equation that expresses the conservation of probability.
> 

# What role does probabilty play in this new ontological viewpoint?   
# Bohm and Hiley indicate that in their theory (to be developed 
# later) the P=psi*psi function is not taken to be the probability 
# distribution of the particle but rather the ultimate distribution 
# of the particle given an uncertain initial distribution.  I think 
# of this as the steady state probability density of a chaotic 
# process.  That is, given a deterministic iteration procedure that 
# enjoys chaotic behavior and an exactly known initial condition, the 
# value of the process after n iterations is known exactly. Thus for 
# a perfectly known initial condition we can state the value at 
# iteration n as a unit delta function at the known value.  Now, if 
# instead the initial value is known to only within a probabilty 
# distribution, then for n sufficiently large (and under certain 
# conditions placed on the iteratation process, for large enough n 
# and for an initial distribution which is sufficiently wide) the 
# final result is known to within a probabilty distribution which is 
# invariant with respect to the starting distribution and the iterate 
# number n).
> 


# Bohm and Hiley also note that even in the case of an exactly known 
# particle state, this conservation of probability equation plays a 
# role. It can be thought to describe the necessary behavior of an 
# ensemble of particles prepared so that the statistics match 
# |psi|^2.
> 


# We will examine the real component of this expression in the next 
# section.
> 


# 4.   The Quantum Hamilton-Jacobi equation
> 


# Now, consider the real part of the polar form of the Schrodinger. 
# Note that this component strongly resembles that of the classical 
# Hamilton-Jacobi equation for a particle in a potential field V(x) 
# where the momentum of the particle is taken to be  
> 
> `(3.5)`:=p=del(S(x,t));
> 


                                        d

                         (3.5) := p = ---- S(x, t)

                                       dx



# Given this representation for the momentum we have the 
# Hamilton-Jacobi equation given by
> 
> diff(S(x,t),t)+(del(S(x,t)))^2/(2*m)+V(x);
> 


                                     /  d         \2

                                     |---- S(x, t)|

                /  d         \       \ dx         /

                |---- S(x, t)| + 1/2 --------------- + V(x)

                \ dt         /              m



# By noticing the similarity between equation (3.2a) and the 
# classical Hamilton-Jacobi equation, we may define the quantum 
# Hamilton-Jacobi equation by:
> 
> `(3.7)`:=diff(S(x,t),t)+(del(S(x,t)))^2/(2*m)+V(x)+Q(x,t)=0;
> 


                                   /  d         \2

                                   |---- S(x, t)|

              /  d         \       \ dx         /

     (3.7) := |---- S(x, t)| + 1/2 --------------- + V(x) + Q(x, t) = 0

              \ dt         /              m



# so that if we define the quantum potential as:
> 
> `(3.6)`:=Q = -h^2/(2*m)*(del@@2)(R(x,t))/R(x,t);
> 


                                          /   2         \

                                        2 |  d          |

                                      h~  |----- R(x, t)|

                                          |   2         |

                                          \ dx          /

                   (3.6) := Q = - 1/2 -------------------

                                           R(x, t) m



# then we have that (3.2a)=(3.7).  Thus, the real component of the 
# Schrodinger equation is equivalent to a classical description of 
# the system but for the presence of an additional potential field, 
# the quantum potential.
> 


# Note that in the WKB limit where the wave packet width is much 
# greater than the wave length, Q is very small so the Quantum 
# Hamilton Jacobi equation approaches the Hamilton Jacobi equation.  
# Thus we see that the new discription enjoys a smooth and naturally 
# obtained transistion from the quantum to the classical domain.
> 


# 5. The Equation of Motion and the Guidance Condition
> 
# From the Quantum Hamilton-Jacobi equation, the equation of motion 
# of a paticle with velocity v(t) (i.e. Newton's F=ma) is seen to be 
# given by
> 
> `(3.8)`:=m*diff(v(t),t)=-Del(V(x))-Del('Q(x,t)');
> value(value(`(3.8)`));

                     /  d      \     /  d      \   /  d         \

          (3.8) := m |---- v(t)| = - |---- V(x)| - |---- Q(x, t)|

                     \ dt      /     \ dx      /   \ dx         /



                 /  d      \     /  d      \   /  d         \

               m |---- v(t)| = - |---- V(x)| - |---- Q(x, t)|

                 \ dt      /     \ dx      /   \ dx         /



# Also, from the definition of momentum in terms of the phase of the 
# wavefunction (equation 3.5) and its relationship to the probability 
# current we also have the following relationship, known as the 
# quidance condition:
# 
> v(t)='j(x,t)'/abs('psi(x,t)')^2;


                                      j(x, t)

                           v(t) = ---------------

                                                2

                                  abs(psi(x, t))



# 6.  The Ground State
> 


# We will now examine the implications of this interpretation in a 
# stationary state.  Recall (from most elementary treatments of QM) 
# that a special situation arises when the potential function V(x) is 
# not a function of time. In this case, the Schrodinger equation can 
# be partially solved by separation of variables. The resulting pair 
# of equations yield the fact that psi can be factored into a time 
# independent function 
> 
> phi:=x -> phi(x);
> 


                                 phi := phi



# and a time harmonic, spatially constant function of the form 
> 
> eta:=t->C *exp((-i/h)*E*t);
> 'psi(x,t)' = phi(x)*eta(t);
> 


                                             i E t

                         eta := t -> C exp(- -----)

                                               h



                                                i E t

                     psi(x, t) = phi(x) C exp(- -----)

                                                  h~



# The time-independant Schrodinger equation for phi 
> 
> <-h^2/2/m*diff(phi,x,x)+V(x)|phi>(phi(x))=E*phi(x);
> 


                           /   2        \

                         2 |  d         |

                       h~  |----- phi(x)|

                           |   2        |

                           \ dx         /

                 - 1/2 ------------------ + V(x) = E phi(x)

                                m



# is an eigenvalue-eigenfunction equation.  phi(x) is an 
# eigenfunction of the Hamiltonian operator
> 
> H:=<-h^2/2/m*diff(phi,x,x)+V(x)|phi>;


                              2

                             h  diff(phi, x, x)

                 H := <- 1/2 ------------------ + V(x)|phi>

                                      m



# with real eigen-values E corresponding to the allowed values of the 
# total energy.
> 


# We call the states that arise from such a situation, stationary 
# states because the probability density function |psi|^2 is fixed 
# with respect to time as is the expected energy value for that 
# state.
> 


# Now, lets examine the case where our solution represents the ground 
# state of a hydrogen atom, which is such a stationary state because 
# of the time independence of the electrostatic potential field.  
# Once again, if we consult an elementary treatment of QM we can find 
# the ground state (1s state) equation for the hydrogen atom and 
# determine that it is given by the psi function:
> 
> psi1s := (1/(Pi^(1/2)))*(1/a0)^(3/2)*exp(-r/a0)*exp((-i/h)*E*t)=psi0(x)*exp
> ((-i/h)*E*t);
> 


              /  1 \3/2         r         i E t

              |----|    exp(- ----) exp(- -----)

              \ a0 /           a0           h~                   i E t

     psi1s := ---------------------------------- = psi0(x) exp(- -----)

                               1/2                                 h~

                             Pi



# where a0 is the Bohr radius, and r is the radial distance from the 
# nucleus.
> 


# Thus we see that in the ground state, psi factors into a real, time 
# independent function psi0 and a harmonic time function. Thus in 
# terms of our polar representation of psi we have 
> 
> R:=(x,t)->psi0(x);
> S:=(x,t)->-E*t;
> `(3.10)`:='psi(x,t)'=psi(x,t);
> 

                           R := (x,t) -> psi0(x)



                            S := (x,t) -> - E t



                                                     i E t

                 (3.10) := psi(x, t) = psi0(x) exp(- -----)

                                                       h~



# Note that S is independent of x, so that 
> 
> 'del(S)'=del(S);
> `(3.11)`:=`(3.7)`;
> 


                                 del(S) = 0



                     (3.11) := - E + V(x) + Q(x, t) = 0



# that is, 
> 
> `(3.12a)`:=E=V+Q;
> 


                            (3.12a) := E = V + Q



# and the momentum is
> 
> `(3.12b)`:=p=del(S0);
> 


                              (3.12b) := p = 0



# which means the particle is at rest!
> 


# This is very much at odds with the usual interpretation of the QM 
# ground state. Understanding this is an important key to 
# understanding Bohm's interpretation.
> 


# His interpretation is that the quantum potential field generates a 
# new force in this system that balances that of V in this orbit 
# position. Thus, the electron is fixed in position not by virtue of 
# quantum number constraints but by the fact that there is indeed an 
# equilibrium of forces at this location.
> 


# In the next installment we will extend this interpretation to the 
# many-body Schrodinger equation and compute the equation of motion 
# of some simple systems.
> 


# Cheers,
> 
# Bill Page.
> 


cudkeys:
cuddy27 cuden3047 cudfnBill cudlnPage cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Mon Jun 27 04:37:05 EDT 1994
------------------------------
1994.06.27 / David Davies /  Re: A decisive (?) experiment
     
Originally-From: drd851@huxley.anu.edu.au (David R Davies)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A decisive (?) experiment
Date: 27 Jun 94 04:37:18 GMT
Organization: Australian National University


BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz) writes:
 
>One of the problems with 'cold fusion' is that claims are made that cannot be
>verified, nor disproved. A clear disproof would be of interest. I think I
 
>Now, if one did an experiment, beaming muons at a target of deuterated Pd,
>this would cause dd fusion in that material, at a higher rate than is claimed
>by the propagandists. They do assume dd fusion, and the conditions would be
 
No Dieter, like Dick Blue you are pushing the debate back into the semi-
clasical realm of fast particle collisions. Even a very low energy beam
would not do anything to disprove the Chubb-like models. The critical 
factor that such an experiment can't confront is reaction times. 

The best way I can think of the system in classical terms is to look at
some sort of coherent resonator model (spin glasses if you like) where
many D+s form a coherent many-body system over a time far greater than
thermal time scales and far greater than the time scales of beams that
are greater than thermal energies. 

The Chubbs talk of systems containing around 10^7 atoms - for the Pd lattice
atoms I think that was. Probably whole crystal grains I would presume caught
up in coherent processes.
 
If you get a bunch of classical resonators that are loosely coupled and 
start exciting some of them they will (under certain circumstances) gradually
move into phase with each other over a period of time much greater than the
natural period of each resonator. This rough intuitive model is possibly
relevant to the Chubb model at two points. Firstly as the band-state of
coherent D+ stuff forms (I don't believe in particles and find it hard to 
keep talking in particle terms) and secondly as it sheds energy once some of 
the stuff has found its way into a He-type state. NB, Dick, I am suggesting 
here that it is the whole band state that has the excess energy not the He. 
So we have the energy distributed over a large volume/area.
 
At this point this terribly crude, not to be taken too literally, model would
suggest that the band state - being loosely coupled to the Ds in the inter-
stitial positions (ie non-band-state D-stuff) gradually cause these non-band
chunks of D-stuff into coherent action forming a phonon which would slowly
disintegrate under thermal action of the crystal. It may even be the other
way around. If some of the band state energy is coupled to phonons the band
state may lose so much energy that it can no longer form Ds but has to form
lower energy He states as it itself disintegrates. 

Low energy beam experiments could still be interesting though they are      
probably only able to confirm CF effects. Eg. the Chubbs refer to experimental
measurements of scattering from possible surface band states. 
(Astaldi et. al., PRL 68, p90 (1992).

I wasn't totally convinced by these experiments but they certainly provide some 
sort of support for band states and are a starting point. The evidence in carbon 
chains that Penrose etc use to suggest quantum processes in brain function is 
probably stronger. There is certainly widespread acceptance that H (and D) can
form band states.

It should be possible to go much further than Astaldi et al. It might even be 
possible to etch band state corrals on the surface of metals for more controll-
ed collision experiments to measure excited states of the bands. Using muons
in the incident beam is another option. 

The exploration of quantum solid state effects is still wide open. The next 
interesting question is to see if D+ or H+ band states can be made to form
high temperature superconductors. If so, can magnetic measurements be used to
optimise the material state for CF?

Having said this my disclaimer is that we are dealing with highly non-linear,
highly non-equilibrium systems deep in the QM realm so intuitive models are
not likely to be very useful.

dave d
dave.davies@anu.edu

cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudendrd851 cudfnDavid cudlnDavies cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.27 / Bill Page /  Maple notation for operators
     
Originally-From: 70047.3047@compuserve.com (Bill Page)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Maple notation for operators
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 1994 14:41:30 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

In my recent posting on Bohm's interpretation of QM I wrote:

<<

# The time-independant Schrodinger equation for phi 
> 
> <-h^2/2/m*diff(phi,x,x)+V(x)|phi>(phi(x))=E*phi(x);
> 


                           /   2        \
                         2 |  d         |
                       h~  |----- phi(x)|
                           |   2        |
                           \ dx         /
                 - 1/2 ------------------ + V(x) = E phi(x)
                                m


# is an eigenvalue-eigenfunction equation.  phi(x) is an 
# eigenfunction of the Hamiltonian operator
> 
> H:=<-h^2/2/m*diff(phi,x,x)+V(x)|phi>;


                              2
                             h  diff(phi, x, x)
                 H := <- 1/2 ------------------ + V(x)|phi>
                                      m



# with real eigen-values E corresponding to the allowed values of the 
# total energy.
> 

>>

After thinking about this of a while, I realized that people who are 
familar with the usual Quantum Mechanics notations might find this 
confusing.  I promised a minimum of explanations of Maple syntax but I 
think this needs to be clarified.

Maple uses the following two notations interchangably for the definition of 
an operator:

   op1 := x -> expr;

and

  op2 := < expr | x >;

where 'expr' is an expression involving the variable(s) 'x'.  This second 
equivalent form, although familar to mathematicians, is an unfortunate 
choice for quantum physicists since a very similar notation (Dirac's 
bra-ket formalism) is used in modern quantum mechanics to denote a special 
kind of generalized dot product - also involving operators, but quite 
different from what is meant by the same expression in Maple.  In Maple < | 
> does *not* denote a scalar value, it denotes an operator!

In Maple, the operator op1(y) [and also op2(y)] is evaluated by 
substituting 'y' for 'x' in 'expr' and applying the usual rules of 
evaluation.  The name operator is justified since in general 'y' may be an 
expression denoting a function.  Operators map functions into other 
functions.  For example

> 
> restart;
> 

# A simple differential operator (that differentiates with respect to t) 
can be
# defined as
> 
> Dop1 := f -> diff(f,t);
> f1 := a*t^2;
> f2:=Dop1(f1);
> 

                                           d
                            Dop1 := f -> ---- f
                                          dt

                                          2
                                 f1 := a t

                                f2 := 2 a t

# This is equivalent to
> 
> Dop2 := <diff(f,t)|f>;
> f3 := Dop2(f1);
> 

                                        d
                             Dop2 := <---- f|f>
                                       dt

                                f3 := 2 a t

# So given the Hamiltonian operator defined as
> 
> assume(h,real);
> H := < -h^2/2/m*diff(phi,x,x)+V(x) | phi >;
> 

                              2
                             h  diff(phi, x, x)
                 H := <- 1/2 ------------------ + V(x)|phi>
                                      m

# [Notice that the - in <- above is the minus sign in the expression!]
>

# Schrodinger's time-independant wave equation can be written
> 
> H(phi(x))=E*phi(x);
> 

                           /   2        \
                         2 |  d         |
                       h~  |----- phi(x)|
                           |   2        |
                           \ dx         /
                 - 1/2 ------------------ + V(x) = E phi(x)
                                m


# However, I really should have used the following Maple command to define
# the Hamiltonian:
>
> H := phi -> -h^2/2/m*diff(phi,x,x)+V(x);


                                   2
                                  h  diff(phi, x, x)
                H := phi -> - 1/2 ------------------ + V(x)
                                           m

I hope that this wasn't (isn't?) too confusing.  Sorry.  I'll try to stick 
to this convention in the future.

Cheers,

Bill Page.

cudkeys:
cuddy27 cuden3047 cudfnBill cudlnPage cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.28 /  DROEGE@fnali.f /  John's Gift Tank
     
Originally-From: DROEGE@fnali.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: John's Gift Tank
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 1994 00:29:25 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

For your information, John, the G-06323-72 tank is listed on p-1192 of the
current Cole-Parmer catalog at $41.40.  This item is 10 gal so I assume the
G prefix is a catalog identifier.

Tom

cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenDROEGE cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.27 / Arthur TK /  Re: A "ball lightning" MHD equilibrium
     
Originally-From: awc@ipp-garching.mpg.de (Arthur      Carlson        TK  )
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A "ball lightning" MHD equilibrium
Date: 27 Jun 1994 17:03:25 +0200
Organization: Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics



In article <Crzro8.HC3@prometheus.UUCP>, pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) writes:
> In article <2ue1p1INN1ao@slcawc.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de> awc@ipp-garch
ng.mpg.de writes:
> 
> >I heard an interesting talk here today by Prof. Dietrich Lortz. The title was
> >"Ball Lightning as an Example of an MHD Equilibrium". There are, of course,
> >serious problems trying to explain reports of ball lightning as a nearly
> >stationary configuration of magnetized plasma. (What keeps it going so long? 
> 
> It has long L/R rundown times.   30 seconds  for a 10 cm diameter kubelblitz 
 
It would be interesting to know how Mr. Koloc has such detailed
information about a phenomena that is rarely observed and therefore
has never been subjected to systematic observations. The only way to
come up with such a long L/R time is to assume that the plasma has a
temperature of many tens of keV. If that is the case, then energy loss
will be the limiting time constant, not L/R.

(By the way, aside from the fact that Mr. Koloc needs a proof reader, I
don't see the point in using "Kugelblitz" instead of "ball
lightning". If he would like to carry on the thread in German, I could
oblige him, but I suspect we would lose some readers.)

> >Why doesn't it float up like a hot air balloon?) 
> 
> I can, but it depends on the loss rates which also influence brightness.
> 
> Generally, running down fast (more resistive) have brighter hoter shells
> and these have convective currtents which tend to move them upward.  
> Otherwise, these balls are small and like soap bubbles differ relatively
> little from the surrounding air density and are therefore viscously trapped
> which tends to carry them along.  Even newspapers in the wind may appear
> weightless.

If they satisfy the laws of MHD plasma physics, which Prof. Lortz's
solutions and, if the hypothesis is correct, ball lightning do, then
they have less than atmospheric pressure. If they are also made of air
and are very hot, then their density is negligible relative to ambient air.

> The second reason, is that since they magnetic, they can be
> line tied to ferrite in the soil or nails in floors or iron of wires and
> rails.  Current in conducting wires also is attractive, although they
> are short radius repelled by eddy currents in the shell induced by the A/C
> current in the wire.  Consequently, they are seen to travel "along" power
> lines, but they actually don't envelope them.

If we assume that the configuration can have a small dipole moment (Lortz
looked for solutions which had none), then there will be an attractive
force to magnetic objects. If gravity and the magnetic force are ever
in an equilibrium, it will be unstable. I don't see why AC current at
large distances should be attractive.

> >But it is a well-posed and
> >interesting question to ask if MHD equilibria exist with uniform pressure on a
> >boundary and vanishing fields outside that boundary. It is (relatively) easy to
> >show that the answer is no if the pressure on the boundary should go to zero. 
> 
> What are you taking about.  The Shell (plasma-field boundary) is omnigenous, 
> and the gas-plasma boundary is isobaric.  The pressure across the boundary
> (equator) goes from B^2 --  E^2  -- jXB^2/a -- Eq/a. -- Pi+Pe -- Pair             
> The vector forces provide what for soap bubbles is "surface tension".  

I'm talking about plasma physics. I would ask Mr. Koloc, if he can't
talk physics at least to talk English (or German). "Omnigenous" is
neither in Webster nor in /usr/dict/words and I've never heard it used
by anyone, least of all by a plasma physicist. My statement is true and
is derived in many elementary plasma physics textbooks.

> >But if the pressure outside is allowed to be a constant, the answer turns out 
> >to be yes. I had (almost) convinced myself before the talk with qualitative 
> >arguments that there must be such a solution, but Prof. Lortz presented a 
> >class of exact analytic solutions.
> 
> When you speak of pressure across a multi media structure you should isolate
> each region and provide the dominate componets.  These objects are gorgeously
> fitted, but the resultant is isobaric boundary with a deepening gradient 
> kernel or toroidal core.   

I want to establish the existence of an MHD equilibrium before I do
anything else. I said that the details of pressure tranfer between
plasma and neutral gas is an (unsolved) problem.

> >They look a lot like spheromak solutions in that they have toroidal and 
> >poloidal fields within a spherical volume, 
> 
> The word is better expressed  "Sphereoidal" 

I believe the Lortz equilibria were spherical, but there are
presumably others.

> >but unlike a spheromak the field 
> >on the boundary goes to zero. 
> 
> What/Which boundary??      The field is neutralized at the Separatrix
> on the Mantle, and therefore outside is essentially non-existent.  Actually,
> it does exist slightly, since during formation a small fraction of the
> field diffuses through.  

It's funny I didn't notice Mr. Koloc at Prof. Lortz talk. He seemed to
have picked up some details I overlooked. I repeat, Lortz found an MHD
equilibrium whose fields go to zero (continuously!) on a spherical
boundary. Outside this surface the field can be assumed to be
identically zero.

> >The pressure decreases from the boundary (and the
> >geometric axis) toward the magnetic axis. 
> 
> The field (resultant poloidal) pressure INcreases from the separatrix 
> radially inward to the toroidal (minor) axis).    Are you agreeing with
> this??? 

In Lortz's solution, the magnitude of the total field increases from
zero on a sphere to a maximum at its center. The plasma pressure
decreases from a maximum at the outer surface and along the axis of
symmetry to a minimum at the magnetic axis. (In an axisymmetric
magnetic system, "magnetic axis" refers to the circle where the
poloidal component of the magnetic field vanishes. I have never heard
the terms toroidal axis or minor axis, but I assume that's what is
meant here. Attention, Bob, FUT alert!)

> >The safety factor q is everywhere
> >somewhat less than unity. There is a relationship between the maximum field and
> >the maximum pressure difference such that 1 atm can confine a configuration 
> >with (up to) 0.8 T. This is the sort of field strength found near a lightning 
> >bolt.
> 
> The mag pressure on the minor axis within a kugelblitz is approximately 
> 12 or 13 atmospheres.  

Again, it would interest me tremendously to know how Mr. Koloc managed
to measure the pressure in ball lightning. Especially since the result
he reports violates the virial theorem of MHD.

> This lightning comparison is a ridiculous statement, since the pressure 
> near a lightning channel is transient and changes over six orders of 
> magnitude at least.  Thunder results from the decay of plasma shocks o
> that are magnetically accelerated.  It is NOT the result of the expansion
> of arc heated air as taught in the kiddy weather books.   

I tend to agree that it is a little silly to expect equilibrium MHD to
explain any kind of lightning. I see it more as an intellectual exercise.

> >Prof. Lortz "conjectured" that the configuration is stable, but has done no
> >rigorous analysis.  
> 
> Where conjecture == OPINED as gathered from numerous lengthy reported 
>                          observations  

That is correct. Prof. Lortz is careful to distinguish between
mathematical results and mere professional suspicions.

> That it is (neutrally) stable against tilting (unlike a
> >spheromak, even with tightly fitting walls) is obvious from the boundary
> >conditions. 
> 
> Sorry the spheromak is stable against tilting.   The princeton (half tokamak
> half Spheromak) device had no conducting shell and only vertical field
> coils (although horizontally directed), and therefore was NOT a full fledged
> Spheromak.  By adding a minimal conducting shell (jardin's polar figure 8
> coils) the device was pushed past the half way mark back toward spheromak,
> and it became tilt stabilized.   Kugelblitz have a tightly fitting 
> highly conducting shell and are COMPLETELY TILT (and slip) STABLE.    

In the plasma physics literature, "spheromak" also refers to
(unstable) configurations without a conducting shell. I believe that
stability is only obtained if some conducting components are inside
the separatrix. In any case it is obvious that an equilibrium
configuration surrounded by an isotropic medium is neutrally stable to
a tilt, no more, no less.

> Whether it is stable against ballooning modes is anything but
> >obvious, but in principle easy to calculate (if you happen to be a theoretical
> >plasma physicist).
> 
> Want to bet?
> 
> They do balloon and that causes them to rocket more slowly than a party 
> balloon released from the fingers before knotting off.  But 'nough said. 

Until someone does the first stability calculation for a Lortz
equilibrium we cannot know whether they are ballooning stable or not.

> >The difficult question if you want to explain ball lightning or produce a 
> >fusion reactor with such a configuration is how the pressure of the neutral 
> >gas is transferred to the plasma without cooling the plasma to death. I see no
> >simple and general way to quantify such effects. I do know that tokamaks can 
> >tolerate only a very tiny neutral gas pressure without disrupting, so I don't 
> >see how this configuration will be able to tolerate one atmosphere or more.
> 
> Simple, you keep the two separate.  Tokamaks are low pressure vacuum wimps.  

Amazing. Why didn't I think of that?

> R. Roth, "Ball Lightning as a Route to Fusion Energy" Proceedings of the 
>      IEEE, THE 13TH SYMPOSIUM ON FUSION ENGINEERING, Knoxville 
>      (Oct. 2-6, 1989), Cat. No. 89 CH 2820-9  Vol 2, pages 1407-1411  
> 
> Koloc, P. M. "PLASMAK(tm) Star Power for Energy Intensive Space 
>      Applications" FUSION TECHNOLOGY Vol. 15, Mar 89, pp 1136-1141
> 
> P. M. Koloc, "The PLASMAK(tm) Configuration and Ball Lightning,"
>      presented at the First International Symposium on Ball Lightning,
>      Tokyo, Japan, July 1988.  see Y. H. Ohtsuki (ed.), (below)
> 
> Ohtsuki, Y. H. (ed.), Science of Ball Lightning (Fire Ball). Singapore:
>     World Scientific Publishing Co.,  1989.  (First International 
>     Symposium on Ball Lightning, Waseda University, Tokyo, Japan, 
>     4-6 July 1988) L.C. QC966.7.B3157  1988  551.5'634  89-9004
>     Write to or telephone World Scientific Pub. Co.  U.S.: 687 Hartwell 
>     Street, Teaneck, NJ 07666;  1-800-227-7562

I think it's interesting to note that the only refereed reference in
the bunch is that in Fusion Technology. Even that does not have enough
detail, much less mathematical rigor, to be able to decide if
Mr. Koloc is talking about an MHD equilibrium, much less whether this
configuration is stable, etc., etc. That is why I appreciated the talk
by Prof. Lortz. Sketchy as it was, it showed for the first time (or
does anyone have a previous reference?) that there exists an MHD
configuration supported by external pressure which does not violate
the MHD equations.

> We produce these things, but the cost is outrageous .. orders and 
> orders of magnitude less than tokamak  .. at least.   
>
> Shluter told me der kugelblitz couldn't be made (reliably and repeatibly). 
> If he still is spouting this information, tell him he is no longer
> correct.

If Mr. Koloc is producing sparks in his garage, he hasn't published
any of his results yet. Whether his experiments have anything to do
with either ball lightning or fusion will have to determined after
publication and scrutiny.

Art Carlson

Dr. Arthur Carlson
Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics
Garching, Germany
carlson@ipp-garching.mpg.de
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenawc cudfnArthur cudlnTK cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.27 / Matt Kennel /  Re: A decisive (?) experiment
     
Originally-From: mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A decisive (?) experiment
Date: 27 Jun 1994 18:01:07 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

David R Davies (drd851@huxley.anu.edu.au) wrote:
: NB, Dick, I am suggesting 
: here that it is the whole band state that has the excess energy not the He. 
: So we have the energy distributed over a large volume/area.

How on earth does this happen?

It is an experimental _fact_ that the nuclear potential (consequences of the
strong force) operates only at very small relative distances.  That is, if
you want to get some excess energy from nuclear reactions, you have to get
two particles together.  Band state or not.

Now, you have this excess energy but by relativistic concerns it 
must be concentrated in one small place.  At this stage, the excess energy
is so large that any 'lattice effects' are so small as to not to matter.
Quantitatively nuclear reaction energies are MeV's but atomic energies
are only eV's.   It's like suggesting that a gentle breeze is going to 
radically alter how a 2000lb bomb explodes.  

: Having said this my disclaimer is that we are dealing with highly non-linear,
: highly non-equilibrium systems deep in the QM realm so intuitive models are
: not likely to be very useful.

I disagree.

: dave d
: dave.davies@anu.edu


--
-Matt Kennel  		mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu
-Institute for Nonlinear Science, University of California, San Diego
-*** AD: Archive for nonlinear dynamics papers & programs: FTP to
-***     lyapunov.ucsd.edu, username "anonymous".
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenmbk cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.27 / Robert Eachus /  Re: A decisive (?) experiment
     
Originally-From: eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A decisive (?) experiment
Date: 27 Jun 94 17:10:03
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.

In article <2un453$6h2@network.ucsd.edu> mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel) writes:

 > It is an experimental _fact_ that the nuclear potential (consequences of the
 > strong force) operates only at very small relative distances.  That is, if
 > you want to get some excess energy from nuclear reactions, you have to get
 > two particles together.  Band state or not.

   First of all, so this has some relevance to sci.fusion, what you
say is not quite right.  There are a number of EPR effects involving
the strong force and non-local particles that have been demonstrated.
But they do not involve distribution of energy, and two particles does
not a multitude make.

 > Now, you have this excess energy but by relativistic concerns it 
 > must be concentrated in one small place.  At this stage, the excess energy
 > is so large that any 'lattice effects' are so small as to not to matter.
 > Quantitatively nuclear reaction energies are MeV's but atomic energies
 > are only eV's.   It's like suggesting that a gentle breeze is going to 
 > radically alter how a 2000lb bomb explodes.  

   But it does!  In fact most FAE (fuel-air explosive) weapons are
retarded (have parachutes) so that the local airspeed is controlled
for best effect.  The 'chute guarantees that the FAE device is moving
at zero relative airspeed and a (chosen) vertical drop rate when it
detonates.

     (Long boring disclaimer and flame retardant.)

     None of this should be taken as any endorsement of "distribution"
of energy through band states...If any such thing occurs it would
involve an intermediate state with one He4* excited nucleus, which
would have to have a long enough lifetime for the energy to be
distributed.  This implies a "forbidden" decay.  Now He4 nuclei do
have only one excited state with one decay path, and it is possible to
contend that fusion in the band state releases less energy than is
necessary for the decay from excited to ground.  Now we have a virtual
particle, but it's lifetime is limited by uncertainty.  The closer the
virtual state's energy is to the (real) excited state, the longer the
(permitted) lifetime, but the closer the energy to the excited state
the higher the probability that the nuclei will absorb the energy from
random photons, etc. (i.e. heat) and decay immediately.  Add it all
up, and if there is such a phenomena, you STILL see gammas.  However
you could see lots of keV gammas rather than fewer in the MeV range.
But there is no (unambiguous) evidence for either...  This is old well
plowed ground.


--

					Robert I. Eachus

with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudeneachus cudfnRobert cudlnEachus cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.27 / John Logajan /  Thermacore calibration stuff
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Thermacore calibration stuff
Date: 27 Jun 1994 21:51:30 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Online Services Member.

I've been running the new Nalgene tank for about 72 hours now at 60 watts.
The calorimetry constant has hovered around 0.21 C/W.  All conditions
have been like my previous runs using the other tank.

Now I have moved the Nalgene tank up on a wooden bookcase which is 30 inches
tall.  There was too much straification of air.  The air near the floor was
at least 3 F cooler than where I had my temperature probe.

Based upon that error, I am expecting the new readings to push the cal
constant up to the 0.24-0.25 range.

--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com -- 612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills  MN 55112 USA           -

cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.28 / Jorge Stolfi /  Inductance of Thermacore's cell, again
     
Originally-From: stolfi@atibaia.dcc.unicamp.br (Jorge Stolfi)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Inductance of Thermacore's cell, again
Date: 28 Jun 1994 01:19:36 GMT
Organization: DCC - UNICAMP - Campinas, SP, Brazil


Last week I posted a sort-of-upper-bound estimate of 45 uH for the
inductance of the Thermacore cell.

However, that estimate was based on a formula for AIR-CORE solenoids.

It just occurred to me that each of the individual strands that make
up the Thermacore cathode is interwoven with another 300+ strands of
nickel wire --- and nickel, if I am not mistaken, is far from being a
magnetically inert material.

So, modeling the cathode as an air-core solenoid is not very correct;
a more likely model is a 30-turn coil embedded in the wall of a hollow
nickel cylinder, with walls a couple of mm thick.  Even though the
"core" of this solenoid is still mostly air (or water), the nickel
part is concentrated right next to the coil, where most of the
magnetic flux is.

I don't know how much exactly that affects the 45 uH estimate, but
wouldn't be surprised if it had to be revised by two or three orders
of magnitude.  

By the way, besides this posssible series inductance, I suppose there
may be also a parallel capacitance, since at the start of each cycle a
good fraction of the cathode's surface (about 6 square meters by my
count) should get covered by an insulating H2 film of unknown
thickness.

And, of course, all these parameters --- inductance, capacitance, and
resistance --- should vary wildly along the cycle.

I would say that the problem is already too messy for theoretical
estimates --- what oe needs is real measurement...

So I take back my "I take it back" message.  I have no idea of how the
Thermacore cell behaves electrically.  In the absence of better
measurementsof the voltage curve (meaning sampling at rates of several
kHz, or even higher), I will take the apparent excess heat as evidence
that, in spite of all their assurances and allowances, they are still
underestimating the input electrical power.

--stolfi  (your prototypical Skeptic)

 -------------------------------------------------------------------
Jorge Stolfi                                | Tel: +55 (192) 39-8442
Computer Science Dept. (DCC-IMECC)          |      +55 (192) 39-3115
Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP) | Fax: +55 (192) 39-7470 
Internet: stolfi@dcc.unicamp.br             | Campinas, SP -- Brazil
 -------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenstolfi cudfnJorge cudlnStolfi cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.28 / mitchell swartz /  A decisive (?) experiment -- power density ratios
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: A decisive (?) experiment -- power density ratios
Subject: Re: A decisive (?) experiment
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 1994 03:17:48 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

   In Message-ID: <EACHUS.94Jun27171003@spectre.mitre.org>
Subject: Re: A decisive (?) experiment
Robert I. Eachus (eachus@spectre.mitre.org) writes:

    MKENNEL It is an experimental _fact_ that the nuclear potential (consequences of the
    MKENNEL strong force) operates only at very small relative distances.  That is, if
    MKENNEL you want to get some excess energy from nuclear reactions, you have to get
    MKENNEL two particles together.  Band state or not.

REACHUS    First of all, so this has some relevance to sci.fusion, what you
REACHUS say is not quite right.  There are a number of EPR effects involving
REACHUS the strong force and non-local particles that have been demonstrated.
REACHUS But they do not involve distribution of energy, and two particles does
REACHUS not a multitude make.


    MKENNEL Now, you have this excess energy but by relativistic concerns it 
    MKENNEL must be concentrated in one small place.  At this stage, the excess energy
    MKENNEL is so large that any 'lattice effects' are so small as to not to matter.
    MKENNEL Quantitatively nuclear reaction energies are MeV's but atomic energies
    MKENNEL are only eV's.   It's like suggesting that a gentle breeze is going to 
    MKENNEL radically alter how a 2000lb bomb explodes.  

REACHUS    But it does!  In fact most FAE (fuel-air explosive) weapons are
REACHUS retarded (have parachutes) so that the local airspeed is controlled
REACHUS for best effect.  The 'chute guarantees that the FAE device is moving
REACHUS at zero relative airspeed and a (chosen) vertical drop rate when it
REACHUS detonates.

   Furthermore, there is one quantitative issue and one causal issue,
which are a considerable problem for the model if it were to have any significance
for cold fusion.

   First, the 'gentle breeze' probably has  power levels sufficient to rustle some
leaves.   My rough calculation gives this an intensity of 10 db above threshold,
or what translates to a power level of   10 ^-11 Watts/meter^2

   The putative explosive has (as a lower limit) at a sound intensity of 
at least 120 db [or a power level of 1 watt/m^2 ]. 
   This would only stun the ears with pain and 
so we can calculate an power density ratio here of at least  10^11  .


    Now the nuclear reactions.   The analogy is slightly off dimensionally, but
would apply during the time of the putative shock wave discussed above by Matt
and Robert.    
   In two body collisions, activation energies are a few MeV's but with sufficient
screening this drops somewhat. 
    In any case, even at an MeV,  with "only eV's" as output, the calculated energy
ratio is closer to 10^3.

   >>  10^11  versus    ~10^3               QED


   Second, the question of coupling in cold fusion is on the exit of the phonons
which are observed. 
   Does Matt's putative explosive couple to the air?
   There is little doubt that a 2000 lb exothermic reaction arranged to
go to completion in a very short time will couple to the prevailing breeze;
no doubt to greatly increase the previous  'gentle breeze'. 

    Best wishes.
                   Mitchell Swartz  (mica@world.std.com)



     

cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Tue Jun 28 04:37:03 EDT 1994
------------------------------
1994.06.28 / Paul Koloc /  Re: A "ball lightning" MHD equilibrium yuk epic
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A "ball lightning" MHD equilibrium yuk epic
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 1994 04:16:36 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <2umpntINN1ko@slcawc.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de> awc@ipp-garching.mpg.de writes:
>
>
>In article <Crzro8.HC3@prometheus.UUCP>, pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) writes:
>> In article <2ue1p1INN1ao@slcawc.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de> awc@ipp-garc
ing.mpg.de writes:
>> 
>> >I heard an interesting talk here today by Prof. Dietrich Lortz. The title was
>> >"Ball Lightning as an Example of an MHD Equilibrium". There are, of course,
>> >serious problems trying to explain reports of ball lightning as a nearly
>> >stationary configuration of magnetized plasma. (What keeps it going so long? 
>> It has long L/R rundown times.   30 seconds  for a 10 cm diameter kubelblitz 
 
>It would be interesting to know how Mr. Koloc has such detailed
>information about a phenomena that is rarely observed and therefore
>has never been subjected to systematic observations. The only way to
>come up with such a long L/R time is to assume that the plasma has a
>temperature of many tens of keV. If that is the case, then energy loss
>will be the limiting time constant, not L/R.

It was well studied.    The plasma Mantle (shell) is not nearly so hot.   
Yes resistive time is a difficult problem.  Your assumptions are incorrect
that there is "Only ONE Way" to come up with higher conductivity.  In fact
it is hyperconductivity that is needed, so the problem is even more
stringent, but solvable.  Don't give up, MHD is not the only method of
calculating plasma resistivities.  Think about ASDEX during the shake
down low pressure EMF envelope studies.  Aren't there special circumstances
for hyper conductivity??   

>(By the way, aside from the fact that Mr. Koloc needs a proof reader, I
>don't see the point in using "Kugelblitz" instead of "ball
>lightning". If he would like to carry on the thread in German, I could
>oblige him, but I suspect we would lose some readers.)

Yes, I do need a proof reader, I'm pressed for time, and other things.    
Actually, one of the oldest and most well known studies on ball lightning
was in German, and it is a name commonly used among BL groupees.  Hope
you were not offended.  

>If they satisfy the laws of MHD plasma physics, which Prof. Lortz's
>solutions and, if the hypothesis is correct, ball lightning do, then
>they have less than atmospheric pressure. If they are also made of air
>and are very hot, then their density is negligible relative to ambient air.

The ball has at the boundary atmospheric pressure and everywhere else,
higher presure. Density is another matter.   

Well, the Kernel (internal Spheromak ring) is hot. It's density is a 
small fraction of atmospheric even though the mag compression pressure 
is many bar .. (effective Beta star could be 3).  The Mantle isn't
so hot, but it's at atmospheric pressure, and the Kernel vacuum region
is devoid of mass (essentially).  So it is buoyant in still air when
there is no line tying.  Who is Prof. Lortz???  And what claim to
the originating the Spheromak as a BL theory does he have?? 

>I'm talking about plasma physics. I would ask Mr. Koloc, if he can't
>talk physics at least to talk English (or German). "Omnigenous" is
>neither in Webster nor in /usr/dict/words and I've never heard it used
>by anyone, least of all by a plasma physicist. My statement is true and
>is derived in many elementary plasma physics textbooks.

It came from the Mirror Program.  Ask Nick Krall, he is the first one
I heard use the term.  Basically, the magnetic surface and the pressure
gradient are orthogonal.  Consequently, there is no strong tendency for
net plasma to be driven along the field lines one way or the other (over
the surface flow).  

>I want to establish the existence of an MHD equilibrium before I do
>anything else. I said that the details of pressure tranfer between
>plasma and neutral gas is an (unsolved) problem.

Impossible!  It's fluid to fluid.  Think of hot gas to cooler gas then
weakly ionized to hot gas then ionized to weakly ionized , etc..   
Actually, there are tricky energy flux boundaries as across atomic
/molecular layers and photoionized/mostly-ionized --  for example.   

>> >They look a lot like spheromak solutions in that they have toroidal and 
>> >poloidal fields within a spherical volume, 
>> The word is better expressed  "Sphereoidal" 

>I believe the Lortz equilibria were spherical, but there are
>presumably others.

I don't think so, at least not that are ideally MHD stable.   


>> >but unlike a spheromak the field 
>> >on the boundary goes to zero. 

>> What/Which boundary??      The field is neutralized at the Separatrix
>> on the Mantle, and therefore outside is essentially non-existent.  Actually,
>> it does exist slightly, since during formation a small fraction of the
>> field diffuses through.  

>It's funny I didn't notice Mr. Koloc at Prof. Lortz talk. He seemed to
>have picked up some details I overlooked. I repeat, Lortz found an MHD
>equilibrium whose fields go to zero (continuously!) on a spherical
>boundary. Outside this surface the field can be assumed to be
>identically zero.

Then either a neutralizing current exists at an interface or Lortz 
should go back to the board and search for another equilibrium where 
the fields are non-zede at the boundary.  

Hey is for horses!.. "field goes to zero" sounds like an electron current 
boundary --> pressure interface  ---   Right???   emmmmpk!! 

If you are speaking fantasy simulation of Ball Lightning, yes.  It's
simplistic, which is a good first approximation, but that is as far
as it goes.   Again what makes Prof. Lortz the authority on BL. and
what level of refinement is he welling to accept.    

>> >The pressure decreases from the boundary (and the
>> >geometric axis) toward the magnetic axis. 
>> The field (resultant poloidal) pressure INcreases from the separatrix 
>> radially inward to the toroidal (minor) axis).    Are you agreeing with
>> this??? 

>In Lortz's solution, the magnitude of the total field increases from
>zero on a sphere to a maximum at its center. 

WHAT???  He proposes no neutralization currents at the "spherical 
shell" Or does it increase in step function manner at the shell and 
monotonically inward.  Also, HOW can one generate a field which 
is maximal in the center of a Sphere??  What are the source currents
and where resides such a strangely peaked field.    

>The plasma pressure
>decreases from a maximum at the outer surface and along the axis of
>symmetry to a minimum at the magnetic axis. 

Huh???  Why not in nested magnetovacuum toroids coaxially surrounding 
the toroidal spheromak current ring?   

>(In an axisymmetric
>magnetic system, "magnetic axis" refers to the circle where the
>poloidal component of the magnetic field vanishes. 

That sounds like the MINOR mag axis, the major axis goes from pole to
pole and infinitely beyond.   

>I have never heard
>the terms toroidal axis or minor axis, but I assume that's what is

I think such terms are used in:  

   M. Bussac, H. Furth, et al., "Low-Aspect Ratio Limit of the Toroidal 
       Reactor: 
   The M. Rosenbluth and M. Bussac, " MHD Stability of Spheromak," Nuclear 
       Fusion 19, 489, 

>> >The safety factor q is everywhere
>> >somewhat less than unity. There is a relationship between the maximum field and
>> >the maximum pressure difference such that 1 atm can confine a configuration 
>> >with (up to) 0.8 T. This is the sort of field strength found near a lightning 
>> >bolt.
>> 
>> The mag pressure on the minor axis within a kugelblitz is approximately 
>> 12 or 13 atmospheres.  

>Again, it would interest me tremendously to know how Mr. Koloc managed
>to measure the pressure in ball lightning. Especially since the result
>he reports violates the virial theorem of MHD.

Compute it from the spheromak equilibrium.  Assume physical size and shape
of a BL and then again give the ring an aspect ratio two.  Let the equatorial
flux be 5 kG and the torodal current (and Shell current) can be estimated.   
etc. etc.  iterate .. ,    .   

On the virial theorem??  Well .. ..    .
I don't think so, and why do you think so???   Does a soap bubble 
violate the virial theorem???   

First of all, the virial theorem isn't a theorem, it's a short cut
trick one can use if the object under investigation doesn't have 
sources and sinks.  For example, an unpressurized plastic bag of air 
or cloud of smoke, or a blob of plasma without encapsulating tensile
fields.  The virial theorem is a very special case of the Divergence 
theorem.  Actually the correct procedure is to apply the divergence
theorem and simply do a volume integral.  Beware, there lurks a
humongous pitfall, judging by the number trapped by its slippery
slope and perhaps not the wiser.  

Common sense tells us that BLs have ripping internal energy since
they have visited considerable blast damage on containers and 
constraints, not to mention numerous less functional eardrums.  
That along tells you that there must be a natural scheme (secretly 
insidious to professors of plasma physics) for generating such high 
internal pressures.    

Work up to the problem with experience from a tokamak!  Think about 
the compression of the toroidal field coils in your beloved tokamak 
in the direction of the major radius when the coil is current charged.  
Need a bit of a "stem support" wouldn't you say???  Now none of this 
compression goes to the tokamak plasma, UNLESS those toroidal field 
currents were instead WITHIN the plasma (in a poloidal flow stream). 
Then such poloidal currents WOULD ACT on the plasma and ACT TO COMPRESS 
intoward the major radial direction, while simutaneously giving the 
plasma a significant component of toroidal tensile force.  THIS IS 
the identical topology of the Spheromak.  The poloidal field, also
exists, as in normal tokamaks except more strongly and also due to 
toroidal plasma current.  That produces a poloidal tensile force.  

How many orthogonal tensile  force components are necessary before, 
a volume enveloping membrane is formed?? -->2< Each nested toroidal 
tube of resultant poloidal and toroidal current form an internal 
toroidal field and external poloidal component field to the toroidal 
current tube.  Right?  That means that the dot product doesn't exist, 
since each field is separated by the tubular current sheet.  
Consequently, it has to be integrated as a multiply connected region, 
and then iterated over all of the other eta tubular current surfaces/
(volumes).   
Now intergrate the vacuum field and fini.  By setting the boundary
equatorial field at 5 kG (.5Tesla),  and assuming a aspect ratio
2 toroid of 10 centimeter major radius with a Mantle of uniform vacuum
field boundary, the currents fields and Mantle shape and size can be
iteratively computed. You can then do the volume integral for energy 
and will note that the internal energy density and total energy exceed 
"virial theorem" estimates for a simple airborne plasmoid of the same 
volume (or cloud of smoke -- for that matter).    

Yes a magnetic field can not a volume encapsulate, but, two orthogonal
closed fields may.  

>That is correct. Prof. Lortz is careful to distinguish between
>mathematical results and mere professional suspicions.

Fortunately, since the mathematical results oft needs ellusive skill 
and sleuth.    

>> That it is (neutrally) stable against tilting (unlike a
>> >spheromak, even with tightly fitting walls) is obvious from the boundary
>> >conditions. 
>> Sorry the spheromak is stable against tilting.   The princeton (half tokamak
>> half Spheromak) device had no conducting shell and only vertical field
>> coils (although horizontally directed), and therefore was NOT a full fledged
>> Spheromak.  By adding a minimal conducting shell (jardin's polar figure 8
>> coils) the device was pushed past the half way mark back toward spheromak,
>> and it became tilt stabilized.   Kugelblitz have a tightly fitting 
>> highly conducting shell and are COMPLETELY TILT (and slip) STABLE.    

>In the plasma physics literature, "spheromak" also refers to
>(unstable) configurations without a conducting shell. 

You have been reading junk literature..  you must keep up with
the originators.  The opportunists may have mislead. 

>I believe that
>stability is only obtained if some conducting components are inside
>the separatrix. In any case it is obvious that an equilibrium
>configuration surrounded by an isotropic medium is neutrally stable to
>a tilt, no more, no less.

Isotropic medium has nary a tittler to do with it.   NEVER neutrally
stable.  


(See Bussac and Rosenbluth above)
Boo how.  Rosenbluth and Bussac were correct, not Furth. A conducting 
shell within the separatrix is a disaster -- It is throwing away magnetic 
energy which is no longer energizing, stabilizing, or positionalizing to
the Kernel torus.   Stability has to do with a need to maximal poloidal
flux trapping and maximal conductivity.  If no shell and only coils, 
PPPL found the thus crippled Spheromak to be stable to NEITHER slipping
or tilting, regardless of the shape of the conducting coils (oblate-
prolate).   

Basically, the S-1 was a piece of bad engineering physics, but okay 
engineering, and not so good physics.  They should have seen some
of these "physics issues" coming.  

SO -- tell me,  HOW could a Kernel Spheromak ring POSSIBLY tilt in a hyper 
conducting tightly fitting shell@separatrix.  WE define tilting as 
the tilt of the compact toroids magnetic axis with respect to the image 
field induced in the conducting shell??? (or vertical field)  Certainly 
with a tokamak vertical field coil like system it could tilt since the 
coil current is externally and inertially fixed.        

>> Whether it is stable against ballooning modes is anything but
>> >obvious, but in principle easy to calculate (if you happen to 
>>be a theoretical plasma physicist).
 
>> Want to bet?  Still one can look at the boundary conditions and
determine what a rough time balloning modes are going to have with
this particular embodiment.  Takes a bit of spatial perception,
even though it is axi-symetric.  
 
>> They do balloon and that causes them to rocket more slowly than a party 
>> balloon released from the fingers before knotting off.  But 'nough said. 

>Until someone does the first stability calculation for a Lortz
>equilibrium we cannot know whether they are ballooning stable or not.


True, watching them zoom around, crash and load their natural divertor,
recover, and zoom some more doesn't really tell us all that much.   :-) 
Of course, then we might think about a ballooning action against an
infinite reservoir of isobaric pressure fluid.  I mean how many resources
do these balloon buggers have???   Kind of obvious..don't you think 
(retorical) 

A more fundamental question is can the Lortz equilibrium can be ideally
stable and I'm skeptical if the spherical topology is a constraint.  
Loosen that constraint and allow uniform pressure over the external 
boundary and the situation brightens considerably.  

>Amazing. Why didn't I think of that?

Maybe .. You read and listen to others too much??

>> R. Roth, "Ball Lightning as a Route to Fusion Energy" Proceedings of the 
>>      IEEE, THE 13TH SYMPOSIUM ON FUSION ENGINEERING, Knoxville 
>>      (Oct. 2-6, 1989), Cat. No. 89 CH 2820-9  Vol 2, pages 1407-1411  
>> 
>> Koloc, P. M. "PLASMAK(tm) Star Power for Energy Intensive Space 
>>      Applications" FUSION TECHNOLOGY Vol. 15, Mar 89, pp 1136-1141
>> 
>> P. M. Koloc, "The PLASMAK(tm) Configuration and Ball Lightning,"
>>      presented at the First International Symposium on Ball Lightning,
>>      Tokyo, Japan, July 1988.  see Y. H. Ohtsuki (ed.), (below)
>> 
>> Ohtsuki, Y. H. (ed.), Science of Ball Lightning (Fire Ball). Singapore:
>>     World Scientific Publishing Co.,  1989.  (First International 
>>     Symposium on Ball Lightning, Waseda University, Tokyo, Japan, 
>>     4-6 July 1988) L.C. QC966.7.B3157  1988  551.5'634  89-9004
>>     Write to or telephone World Scientific Pub. Co.  U.S.: 687 Hartwell 
>>     Street, Teaneck, NJ 07666;  1-800-227-7562
>
>I think it's interesting to note that the only refereed reference in
>the bunch is that in Fusion Technology. Even that does not have enough
>detail, much less mathematical rigor, to be able to decide if
>Mr. Koloc is talking about an MHD equilibrium, much less whether this
>configuration is stable, etc., etc. That is why I appreciated the talk
>by Prof. Lortz. Sketchy as it was, it showed for the first time (or
>does anyone have a previous reference?) that there exists an MHD
>configuration supported by external pressure which does not violate
>the MHD equations.

Why do MHD twice???  In addition to Bussac and Rosenbluth??

What about Shafranov (1956/8);  Ladikov about same years
Chandrasekar    Sweet on Magnetic stars.. 

You should look into Dan Wells work also.. perhaps with Nolting.  
They added forces of gas ejection. Magdin Force??   Can't '
remember the jargonish name.  

And I don't think MHD is the crucial issue for BL... It's the
wedding of a number of physics phenomena in such a way that the 
losses are low the internal energy is high and the stability is 
essential ideal.  That takes more cleverness.   

I'm a cowboy engineering physicist and not a school boy. I like to 
think and then do.  As far as MHD??  Don't be silly, We couldn't 
find it unstable so I brought this to Bussac's and Rosenbluth's 
attention long ago since I have heard of them (and they KNOW MHD).  
I also discussed this concept at length early on with Furth, but 
was less successful in pushing PPPL away from my garage experimental 
approach (much to dirty [impurity laden] for fusion).  But that was 
then.  Now things are worse, there is nothing but tokamak and 
apparently a few looking gifted by turning over old soil.   So this 
chap didn't cite me..  Hmmmm!  

How many papers
 or how many journals
  or how many how many PhDs 
   or how many ideas that work
    and how many articles in 
        " discriminating physics journals"
      does it take to impress you????   
      
Tell me of your grand numbers, dear lad.  Certainly they must
be great by my meager and most miniscule comparison.     

>If Mr. Koloc is producing sparks in his garage, he hasn't published
>any of his results yet. Whether his experiments have anything to do
>with either ball lightning or fusion will have to determined after
>publication and scrutiny.

So the nature of the work is transformed by publication?  
Not a chance. You want to know??? -- then put some effort into it.   

BTW if your Lortz is correct then isn't it time you generate
experimental formation in open atmosphere air for seconds???

Or -- You will pay for us to repeat this for you???   No, I didn't 
think so.  

Your Institute has the guts to do serious collaborative and 
innovative work and the money to back it up??  

No?   I didn't think so.   

Just thought I'd point out that Spheromaks and BL have a previous
pre Lortz-history.  I don't see why this should be treated with
grimace.  The man is standing in a well footed shoe-path.  

So just for the record "What occupies your time and interest??"
Why do these comments that differ from Lortz or yourown 
understandings cause discomfort??  How many do you know that 
theorize correctly the phenomenon of "BL" in detail correctly 
on the first try?  (other than me  :-) 

>Art Carlson
>Dr. Arthur Carlson

What! a PHD???   Sorry about that.  
thought I was dealing with a prissy upstart.  

>Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics
>Garching, Germany
>carlson@ipp-garching.mpg.de

Ball lightning-- can't work -- wouldn't help fusion, anyway if it did.  
Let's see, what's the topic for this week's lecture.  
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc,Bx 1037, Prometheus II, Ltd., College Park, MD 20741-1037 |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.29 / Bill Page /  Bohm's Interpretation of QM using Maple (Part 2b1)
     
Originally-From: 70047.3047@compuserve.com (Bill Page)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Bohm's Interpretation of QM using Maple (Part 2b1)
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 1994 00:17:26 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

# 
# Part 2b1 [Second of Parts 2a, 2b1, 2b2 and 2c.]
# [Note: I've had a problem trying to post this section, so I had to
# split it again.]
# 
# 11. The motion of the wave packet
> 
# If you are using Windows you will be able to see a live animation 
# of the evolution of the probability density function.  For those 
# reading this just as email, the first few animation frames are 
# shown below in character format.
> 

cudkeys:
cuddy29 cuden3047 cudfnBill cudlnPage cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.29 / Bill Page /  Bohms Interpretation of QM using Maple (Part 2b1)
     
Originally-From: 70047.3047@compuserve.com (Bill Page)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Bohms Interpretation of QM using Maple (Part 2b1)
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 1994 00:17:30 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

# 
# Part 2b1 [Second of Parts 2a, 2b1, 2b2 and 2c.]
# [Note: I've had a problem trying to post this section, so I had to
# split it again.]
# 
# 11. The motion of the wave packet
> 
# If you are using Windows you will be able to see a live animation 
# of the evolution of the probability density function.  For those 
# reading this just as email, the first few animation frames are 
# shown below in character format.
> 

cudkeys:
cuddy29 cuden3047 cudfnBill cudlnPage cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.29 / Bill Page /  Correction to Bohm's Interpretation ... (part 1 section 5)
     
Originally-From: 70047.3047@compuserve.com (Bill Page)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Correction to Bohm's Interpretation ... (part 1 section 5)
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 1994 00:17:07 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Oops.  I just noticed that I forgot a Maple assign command that was 
supposed to define the value of the quantum potential Q for the evaluation 
of equation (3.8).  Here is the corrected version of this equation.

# 
# 5. The Equation of Motion and the Guidance Condition
> 


# From the Quantum Hamilton-Jacobi equation, the equation of motion 
# of a paticle with velocity v(t) (i.e. Newton's F=ma) is seen to be 
# given by
> 
> `(3.8)`:=m*diff(v(t),t)=-Del(V(x))-Del(Q);
> assign(`(3.6)`);
> value(`(3.8)`);

                        /  d      \     /  d      \   /  d   \
             (3.8) := m |---- v(t)| = - |---- V(x)| - |---- Q|
                        \ dt      /     \ dx      /   \ dx   /


                                           /   2         \
                                         2 |  d          | /  d         \
                                       h~  |----- R(x, t)| |---- R(x, t)|
                                           |   2         | \ dx         /
     /  d      \     /  d      \           \ dx          /
   m |---- v(t)| = - |---- V(x)| - 1/2 ----------------------------------
     \ dt      /     \ dx      /                          2
                                                   R(x, t)  m


                  /   3         \
                2 |  d          |
              h~  |----- R(x, t)|
                  |   3         |
                  \ dx          /
        + 1/2 -------------------
                   R(x, t) m

Acutally, this equation isn't all that useful, so I've also simplified the 
derivation of the probability current a little, defining it just as it 
usually is defined in QM and then simplifying it to derive Bohm's formula 
instead of the other way around.

...

# and the probability current (as in the usual treatment of quantum 
# mechanics) can be defined as
> 
> j:=(x,t) -> simplify(h/2/i/m*(conjugate(psi(x,t))*diff(psi(x,t),x)
>             -psi(x,t)*diff(conjugate(psi(x,t)),x)));
> j(x,t);
> 

 j := (x,t) -> simplify(- 1/2 i h (conjugate(psi(x, t)) diff(psi(x, t), x)

      - psi(x, t) diff(conjugate(psi(x, t)), x))/m)


                                 2 /  d         \
                          R(x, t)  |---- S(x, t)|
                                   \ dx         /
                          -----------------------
                                     m

# 
# so that equation (3.3) can be written

...

Now I can usefully change section 5 to read:

...

# 5. The Equation of Motion and the Guidance Condition
> 

# From the Quantum Hamilton-Jacobi equation, the equation of motion 
# of a paticle with velocity v(t) (i.e. Newton's F=ma) is seen to be 
# given by
> 
> `(3.8)`:=m*diff(v(t),t)=-Del(V(x))-Del(Q(x,t));


                     /  d      \     /  d      \   /  d         \
          (3.8) := m |---- v(t)| = - |---- V(x)| - |---- Q(x, t)|
                     \ dt      /     \ dx      /   \ dx         /


# 
# Also, from the definition of momentum in terms of the phase of the 
# wavefunction (equation 3.5) and its relationship to the probability 
# current we also have the following relationship, known as the 
# quidance condition:  
> 
> v(t)='j(x,t)'/abs('psi(x,t)')^2;
> simplify(j(x,t)/(psi(x,t)*conjugate(psi(x,t))));


                                      j(x, t)
                           v(t) = ---------------
                                                2
                                  abs(psi(x, t))


                                  d
                                ---- S(x, t)
                                 dx
                                ------------
                                      m


...

I've also noticed that for some reason Maple insists on double spacing its 
output.  In this and future postings I have removed this double spacing in 
order to save space.  Its more readable on the screen without these blank 
lines, anyway.

Cheers,

Bill Page

cudkeys:
cuddy29 cuden3047 cudfnBill cudlnPage cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.29 / Bill Page /  Bohm's Interpretation of QM using Maple (Part 2b)
     
Originally-From: 70047.3047@compuserve.com (Bill Page)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Bohm's Interpretation of QM using Maple (Part 2b)
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 1994 00:17:08 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

TO:	 CF Editor, >INTERNET: fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG

Re:	Bohm's Interpretation of QM using Maple (Part 2b)

# 
# Part 2b [Second of Parts 2a, 2b, and 2c.]
# 
# 11. The motion of the wave packet
> 
# If you are using Windows you will be able to see a live animation 
# of the evolution of the probability density function.  For those 
# reading this just as email, the first few animation frames are 
# shown below in character format.
> 

cudkeys:
cuddy29 cuden3047 cudfnBill cudlnPage cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.29 / Bill Page /  Bohm's Interpretation of QM using Maple (Part 2a)
     
Originally-From: 70047.3047@compuserve.com (Bill Page)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Bohm's Interpretation of QM using Maple (Part 2a)
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 1994 00:17:20 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

# Bohm's Interpretation of Quantum Mechanic using Maple Mathematics
> 
# Part 2a [First of Part 2a, 2b, and 2c.]
> 
# 7. Waves, Particles and Conservation Laws
> 
# Before we go too far with the theory in this abstract form, now is 
# a good time to stop and consider what Bohm's interpretation 
# provides.  It is now possible to treat both particle motions and 
# wavefunctions according to one consistent formalism!  We no longer 
# have to be concerned with a probabilistic interpretation.  When we 
# talk about a "particle" we really do mean a particle located 
# *exactly* at  x(t).  Later, when we want to consider whether 
# tragectories exist for two (or more) particles for which the 
# particles are sufficiently close for a sufficiently long time for 
# fusion to take place, this ability of talk about the exact location 
# of particles will be very convenient. It means that at the scale of 
# electronic interactions, we can treat the (putative) nuclear 
# interactions as an interacton of particles with much the same 
# intuitions as in high energy physics. But we must be aware that the 
# motions of these particles are now affected by an additional force 
# due to the quantum potential.
> 
# We will discover that the quantum potential has some very unusual 
# properties (compared to the potentials usually considered in 
# classical mechanics) and it is these properties that give rise to 
# quantum mechanical phenomena in spite of the fact that the motions 
# of the particles is still described by essentially classical 
# equations of motion.  Bohm&Hiley point out that because psi appears 
# in both the numerator and denominator of Q, the effect of the 
# quantum potential on the motion of particles is independent of the 
# strength of the quantum field.  Instead it depends primarily on its 
# form (del(del((R))), i.e. the "curvature" of the wavefunction.  
# This is in contrast to classical fields (waves) which always 
# produce effects which are more or less proportional to the strength 
# of the field (wave).  We think of this as a transfer of energy and 
# momentum from the field to the particle.  Obviously we need to 
# think of the quantum potential in a different way.
> 
# In the book, Bohm&Hiley suggest that the appropriate way to think 
# of the quantum potential is in terms of what they call "active 
# information".  The analogy is with a ship running on autopilot, the 
# autopilot being quided by radio waves.  We are asked to think of 
# the quantum potential as "informing" the particle about its 
# environment. The particle, in turn, is thought to move (at least in 
# part) under its own energy, in the same way that a ship on 
# autopilot  moves "on its own energy" in spite of being quided by 
# the radio beacon.  This is certainly a radical departure from the 
# implicit assumptions of classical mechanics but Bohm&Hiley argue 
# that this notion is fairly common at the level of ordinary 
# experience and therefore easily put to work as an "intuition", that 
# is, a way of thinking about reality.
> 
# It is important to realize that in saying that the particle moves 
# "on its own energy", we are not saying that its motions are 
# arbitrary.  No.  We have already stated the exact equations of 
# motion for the particle. It does, however mean that in classical 
# terms, the total energy and momentum of the system (wavefuntion and 
# particle) will not necessarily be conserved in the detailed motions 
# of the particle. The particle will be accelerated and decelerated 
# by the effects of the time varying quantum potential. In spite of 
# this, Bohm&Hiley show that we do still have energy and momentum 
# conservation on the average as required by the Schrodiner's 
# equation and the expected value of the Hamiltonian (total energy).  
# The extent of the non-conservation is just that allowed by the 
# Heisenberg uncertainty principle.
> 
# 
# 8. Maple Quantum Methods
> 
# But for now, lets start with some simple examples. In the 
# following, we are going to apply the treatment in Quantum Methods 
# of a particle in a box to the equations of motion of the particle 
# according to Bohm's interpretation. Think of a particle constrained 
# to move in only one dimension (for simplicity) and walled in by two 
# impenetrable (infinite potential) barriers.
> 
# First, we need to establish some basic definitions.  These are 
# similar to those we used in Part 1.
> 
> restart;
> unprotect(conjugate);
> conjugate:=expr->eval(subs(I=-I,expr));
> alias(I=I,i=sqrt(-1));  # Use i for complex numbers
> 

               conjugate := expr -> eval(subs(I = - I, expr))

                                     i

# 
# Now we can make a series of definitions based on standard quantum 
# mechanics.  We will need these later.
> 
> assume(h,real);     # Define h~
> 

# We can define the Hamiltonian operator for a given potential V as
> 
> H:=V -> unapply(-h^2/(2*m) * 'diff(psi,x,x)'+V*psi,psi);
> 

                                  2
                                 h  'diff(psi, x, x)'
         H := V -> unapply(- 1/2 -------------------- + V psi, psi)
                                           m

# 
# [Note: The syntax of this definition may seem a little obscure. 
# unapply is a Maple operator that takes an expression (in this case 
# the Hamiltonian) and a variable name (psi) as arguements and 
# returns an operator that substitutes for that variable where it 
# occurs in the the expression just as we did in Part 1. But here we 
# want to distinguish between V as a parameter of the operator H, 
# versus psi which is what H operates on.]
> 
# Then the time-dependent Schrodinger equation can be written
> 
> i*h*diff(psi(x,t),t)=H(V)(psi(x,t));
> 
                                       /   2           \
                                     2 |  d            |
                                   h~  |----- psi(x, t)|
                                       |   2           |
          /  d           \             \ dx            /
     i h~ |---- psi(x, t)| = - 1/2 --------------------- + V psi(x, t)
          \ dt           /                   m

# 
# and the time-independent equation is
> 
> H(V(x))(phi(x))=En*phi(x);

                       /   2        \
                     2 |  d         |
                   h~  |----- phi(x)|
                       |   2        |
                       \ dx         /
             - 1/2 ------------------ + V(x) phi(x) = En phi(x)
                            m

# 
# The momentum operator is
> 
> p := psi -> -i*h*diff(psi,x);
> 

                                          /  d     \
                        p := psi -> - i h |---- psi|
                                          \ dx     /

# The kinetic energy operator is
> 
> K:=psi -> 1/(2*m)*(p@@2)(psi);
> 

                                          (2)
                                         p   (psi)
                         K := psi -> 1/2 ---------
                                             m

# 
# Probability density (the square of the absolute value of a given 
# wavefunction psi) is given by
> 
> sqrabs:=psi -> expand(simplify(conjugate(psi)*psi));
> 

           sqrabs := psi -> expand(simplify(conjugate(psi) psi))

# 
# An operator to compute expected values:
> 
> expected:=(oper,psi,bound)->int(conjugate(psi)*oper(psi),x=bound);
> 

  expected := (oper,psi,bound) -> int(conjugate(psi) oper(psi), x = bound)

# 
# And an operator to computer the probability current given a 
# wavefunction psi can be defined as:
> 
> j:=psi -> simplify(evalc(h/2/i/m*(conjugate(psi)*diff(psi,x)-
> diff(conjugate(psi),x)*psi)));
> 
# 

j := psi -> simplify(

                   /               /  d     \   /  d                \    \
               i h |conjugate(psi) |---- psi| - |---- conjugate(psi)| psi|
                   \               \ dx     /   \ dx                /    /
   evalc(- 1/2 -----------------------------------------------------------)
                                            m

   )

# 
# And we will need the plotting functions
> 
> with(plots);
> interface(plotdevice=char);
> 
[animate, animate3d, conformal, contourplot, cylinderplot, densityplot,
    display, display3d, fieldplot, fieldplot3d, gradplot, gradplot3d,
    implicitplot, implicitplot3d, loglogplot, logplot, matrixplot,
    odeplot, pointplot, polarplot, polygonplot, polygonplot3d,
    polyhedraplot, replot, setoptions, setoptions3d, spacecurve,
    sparsematrixplot, sphereplot, surfdata, textplot, textplot3d, tubeplot]

# For transmission by email posting, I have set Maple to character 
# mode graphics.  Such graphics are obviously limited by their 
# resolution. If you are using Maple under windows you should change 
# the interface command to
> 
# interface(plotdevice=win);
> 
# This tells Maple to produce its graphics in a "pop-up" window 
# (under MSDOS/Windows or X-Windows). Maple can also produce 
# "animations" by displaying a series of graphs (frames) in the same 
# window.  On my 486 25 MHz PC, Maple can display a maximum of about 
# 10 frames per sec.  More than fast enough to get a sense of 
# "movement".  I have included some animation commands in this 
# worksheet but of course you will only be able to see these 
# animations if you reload this message as a worksheet into Maple on 
# an appropriate machine.
> 
# Maple can also generate graphics in several other formats including 
# GIF.  If anyone asks, I might be easily presuaded to try to 
# privately email or publicly post some of the graphics as uuencoded 
# GIF files.
> 
# 9. Particle in a box
> 
# Now, for  a particle of mass m in a one dimensional box of length L 
# with the barriers at x=0 and x=L, we know from elementary quantum 
# mechanics that the eigenfunctions of the time independent 
# Schrodinger wave equation are given by:
> 
> phibox:=(n,x)->sqrt(2)/sqrt(L)*sin(n*Pi*x/L);
> phibox(n,x);
> 

                                                  n Pi x
                                      sqrt(2) sin(------)
                                                     L
                   phibox := (n,x) -> -------------------
                                            sqrt(L)

                               1/2     n Pi x
                              2    sin(------)
                                          L
                              ----------------
                                     1/2
                                    L

# 
# Later we will need to use the fact that
> 
> signum(L):=1;    # This is quivalent to saying that L must be postive
> 

                               signum(L) := 1

# 
# Inside the box the potential is zero and so if Schrodinger's 
# equation is satisfied we must have
> 
> H(0)(phibox(n,x))=En*phibox(n,x);

                 2  1/2     n Pi x   2   2       1/2     n Pi x
               h~  2    sin(------) n  Pi    En 2    sin(------)
                               L                            L
           1/2 --------------------------- = -------------------
                             5/2                      1/2
                          m L                        L

# 
# We can divide both sides of this equation by phibox to obtain
> 
> expand("/phibox(n,x));
> 

                                  2  2   2
                                h~  n  Pi
                            1/2 ---------- = En
                                    2
                                   L  m

# 
# Therefore the eigen-energies are
> 
> En:=unapply(eval(solve(",En)),n);
> En(n);
> 
                                          2  2   2
                                        h~  n  Pi
                         En := n -> 1/2 ----------
                                            2
                                           L  m

                                     2  2   2
                                   h~  n  Pi
                               1/2 ----------
                                       2
                                      L  m

# 
# At the boundries V(0) and V(L) are infinite and the wavefunction 
# must vanish.  For all integers n we have
> 
> sin(n*Pi):=0;
> 

                               sin(n Pi) := 0

# 
# so that
> 
> phibox(n,0);
> 

                                     0

# and
> 
> phibox(n,L);
> 

                                     0

# 
# Now we are ready to take a look at the first few eigen-functions 
# (stationary states) of this system. The eigen-functions are 
# displayed below, shifted by their eigen-energies and scaled by an 
# arbitrary factor of 4.
> 
> plot({subs(L=1,h=1,m=1,En(n)+4*phibox(n,x))$n=1..3},x=0..1);
> 

50+      CCCCCCCCCC                                     CCCCCCCCCC        
  +   CCCC         CCCC                             CCCC          CCC     
  +CCC                CCCC                       CCCC                CCC  
  *                      CCC                   CCC                      C 
  +                         CCCC           CCCC                           
40+                             CCCCCCCCCCC                               
  +                                                                       
  +                                                                       
  +                                                                       
30+                                                                       
  +                                                                       
  +                BB                                                     
  +       BBBBBBBBB BBBBBBBBBB                                            
  +  BBBBB                    BBBBB                                       
20*BB                              BBBB                                BB 
  +                                    BBBBB                      BBBBB   
  +                                         BBBBBB          BBBBBBB       
  +                                               BBBBBBBBBB              
  +                           AAAAAAAAAAAAAAA                             
10+             AAAAAAAAAAAAAAA             AAAAAAAAAAAAAAA               
  +   AAAAAAAAAA                                           AAAAAAAAAA     
  *****+--+--+--+--+--+-+--+--+--+--+-+--+--+--+--+-+--+--+--+--+--+***** 
  0            0.2           0.4           0.6           0.8            1 

> 
# 
# 10. Non-stationary states
> 
# Now lets take a look at a non-stationary state.  The following 
# wavefunction is an equal weighting superpostion of the first two 
# eigenfunctions which Qunatum Methods calls the "Quantum Rattle".
> 
# First lets define the time harmonic as discussed in Part 1.
> 
> eta:=(n,t)->1/sqrt(2)*exp(-i*En(n)*t/h);
> eta(n,t);
> 

                                            i En(n) t
                                      exp(- ---------)
                                                h
                      eta := (n,t) -> ----------------
                                           sqrt(2)

                                              2   2
                          1/2           i h~ n  Pi  t
                     1/2 2    exp(- 1/2 -------------)
                                              2
                                             L  m

# 
# Then the wavefunction of the desired non-stationary state is
> 
> psibox:=(x,t)->sum(eta(n,t)*phibox(n,x),n=1..2);
> psibox(x,t);
> 

                                   2
                                 -----
                                  \
              psibox := (x,t) ->   )   eta(n, t) phibox(n, x)
                                  /
                                 -----
                                 n = 1

                      2                               2
               i h~ Pi  t      Pi x            i h~ Pi  t        Pi x
     exp(- 1/2 ----------) sin(----)   exp(- 2 ----------) sin(2 ----)
                   2             L                 2               L
                  L  m                            L  m
     ------------------------------- + -------------------------------
                    1/2                               1/2
                   L                                 L

# 
# The probability density function is
> 
> sqrabs(psibox(x,t));
> 

                                           2
             Pi x 2     Pi x          h~ Pi  t
         sin(----)  cos(----) cos(3/2 --------)               Pi x 2
               L          L              2                cos(----)
                                        L  m                    L
       4 -------------------------------------- + 1/L + 3 ----------
                            L                                  L

                    Pi x 4
                cos(----)
                      L
            - 4 ----------
                     L

# 
# The frequency of oscillation of this system is given by
> 
> frequency:=(En(2)-En(1))/h;
> 

                                                2
                                           h~ Pi
                          frequency := 3/2 ------
                                             2
                                            L  m

#  and in units where we take h~, L and m to be 1, the period is
> 
> period:=subs(h=1,L=1,m=1,2*Pi/frequency);
> 

                                           4
                               period := ----
                                         3 Pi
> 

[Continued as Part 2b.]

cudkeys:
cuddy29 cuden3047 cudfnBill cudlnPage cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.28 /  laconic@iastat /  Re: For a Post-Doctoral Position or a  Scientist Position
     
Originally-From: laconic@iastate.edu
Newsgroups: misc.jobs.offered,sci.physics.fusion,sci.research.careers
Subject: Re: For a Post-Doctoral Position or a  Scientist Position
in              Applied Nuclear Physics, Astrophysics or Medical
Physics
Date: 28 Jun 1994 08:57:27 GMT
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa (USA)



|> 
|> 
|> 		SEEKING A POST-DOCTORAL OR A SCIENTIST POSTION 
|> 		 	  =============      =========
|> 
|> 	IN APPLIED NUCLEAR PHYSICS OR ASTROPHYSICS OR MEDICAL PHYSICS
|> 	   =======================    ============    ===============
|> 
|> 
|> I am posting this for a friend of mine in India. Please direct your
|> mail to him to India and please do not reply to the news group as I
|> do not read Physics news groups. If you need to get in touch with
|> me for any reason please write to laconic@iastate.edu. Thanks for
|> your attention.
|> 
|> 
|> 			RAVIKUMAR VADAPALLI
|> 			===================
|> 
|> 
|> WORK ADDRESS:				HOME ADDRESS:
|> ------------                            ------------
|> Research Fellow				Home No. 18-4-19
|> Dept. of Nuclear Physics		Panneruvari Street
|> Andhra University			Vizianagaram, AP 531 202
|> Visakhapatnam, AP 530 003		INDIA
|> INDIA					Tel. 011-91-8922-5215 
|> Tel. 011-91-891-551582			     (Ask For Ravi Kumar/Leave Message)
|>      (Ask For Ravi Kumar)
|> 
|> 	
|> 
|> OBJECTIVE:	Post-Doctoral Position in Applied Nuclear Physics
|> 		and Astrophysics
|> 
|> EDUCATION:	PH.D., Nuclear Physics		Submitted: 12/93
|> 		Andhra University, Visakhapatnam, India
|> 		Thesis: "Experimental Study of High Spin States
|> 		in 102Ag and 99Rh"
|> 	
|> 		M.Sc., Nuclear Physics		Graduation: 12/87	
|> 		Andhra University, Visakhapatnam, India
|> 		Specialization: Nuclear Spectroscopy
|> 
|> 		B.Sc., Physics			Graduation: 5/85
|> 
|> SKILLS:		* Gamma-ray Detector	
|> 		* Charged-particle Accelerator
|> 		* Charged-particle Detector
|> 		* Pulse Tracing
|> 
|> COMPUTERS:	Operating Systems:	DOS,UNIX,MICRO-VAX
|> 		Computer Languages:	Basic, Fortran-77,
|>  					MS Fortran, C
|> 		Software Packages:	Lotus 123, Word Perfect,
|> 					Word, Excel
|> 		Interfaces:		CAMAC, Interfacing with
|> 					Nuclear Instruments
|> 
|> RESEARCH EXPERIENCE:
|> 
|> 		Research Fellow (Ph.D. Thesis) 	 9/88-7/94
|> 		------------------------------------------
|> 		* Prof. V. Lakshminarayana and Dr. B.V. Thirumala Rao
|> 		* Andhra University, Visakhapatnam
|> 		* Study of the structure of nuclei at high angular
|> 		  momenta in fp-shell region produced through heavy-ion
|> 		  fusion evaporation reactions. A reaction to produce
|> 		  105*Ag by the fusion of 16O (i.e. sixteen oxygen) ions 
|> 		  (from 16MV pelletron Accelerator) with 89Y target was
|> 		  studied. High spin state structure of the residual
|>  		  nuclei 101Pd and 102Pd populated in the same reaction
|> 		  is under progress. In related experiments 18O (i.e.
|> 		  eighteen oxygen) was used to populate 104Ag and 101Rh 
|> 		  as residual nuclei and presently anayzing for possible
|> 		  four-quasiparticle structures in 104Ag. Four-quasiparticle
|> 		  structures were first observed in 102Ag.
|> 
|> 		Research Fellow 		4/90-7/94
|> 		-----------------------------------------
|> 		* Dr. R.K. Bhowmik
|> 		* Nuclear Science Center, New Delhi
|> 		* Helped in setting up the research facilities for studying 
|> 		  structure of nuclei at high angular momenta through
|> 		  heavy-ion fusion evaporation reactions. The Pelletron 
|> 		  accelerator supports seven beam lines, one of which is
|> 		  for Gamma Ray Detector Array. Helped set up detector 
|> 		  array system. Tested detectors for resolution and timing
|>  		  performance individually and in muti-detector array mode.
|> 		  Tested the electronic modules used for pulse tracing.
|> 		  Designed the mechanical support structure for the Gamma
|> 		  Detector Array System at Andhra University (Visakhapatnam)
|>   		  and installed at the Nuclear Science Center (New Delhi).
|> 
|> 		Research Fellow			4/90-7/94
|> 		-----------------------------------------
|> 		* Dr. S.N. Chintalapudi
|> 		* Variable Energy Cyclotron Center, Calcutta
|> 		* This facility uses alpha particle beams from the VECC in 
|> 		  the energy range of 40-60 MeV. Experiments were performed 
|> 		  to study the high spin structure of 63Ga
|> 
|> PUBLICATIONS:	"High Spin Structures in 99Rh", J. Physics G, Accepted for
|> 		 Publication
|> 
|> 		"High Spin States in 102Ag", Z. Physik A (Nuclear Physics)
|> 		Communicated
|> 
|> 		"Possible Four Quasiparticle Structures in 102Ag", Phys. 
|> 		Lett. B, Communicated
|> 
|> 		"High Spin Structures in 102Ag", Annual Report for Nuclear
|> 		Science Center, New Delhi, 1992, p. 34
|> 
|> 		"Band Structures of 102Ag and 101,103Pd Nuclei", Proc. of
|> 		workshop on charged particle spectroscopy, Bangalore, 1993
|> 		(Also to be published in Indian J. of Pure and Appl. Physics
|> 
|> 		"High Spin States in 102Ag", Department of Atomic Energy 
|> 		Symp. on Nuclear physcis, Bombay, 1992, vol. 35B
|> 
|> 		"Study of High Spin States of Nuclei 102Ag and 99Rh",
|> 		PH.D. Thesis, Dept. of Atomic energy symp. on Nuclear 
|> 		Physics, Calicut, 1993, vol. 36B
|> 
|> REFERENCES:	Prof. V. Lakshminarayana
|> 		Dept. of Nuclear Physics
|> 		Andhra University
|> 		Visakhapatnam - 530 003
|> 		INDIA
|> 
|> 		Dr. B. Thirumala Rao
|> 		Dept. of Nuclear Physics
|> 		Andhra University
|> 		Visakhapatnam - 530 003
|> 		INDIA
|> 
|> 		Dr. S.N. Chintalapudi
|> 		Director
|> 		Inter-University Consortium for DAE Facilities
|> 		Bhidannagar
|> 		Calcutta
|> 		INDIA
|> 
|> 		Dr. S.K. Datta
|> 		Convenor
|> 		Accelerator Users Committee
|> 		Nuclear Science center
|> 		J.N.U. New Campus
|> 		New Delhi - 110 067
|> 		INDIA
|> 		
|> 
|> 
|> 		
|> 
|> 
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenlaconic cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.28 / Richard Blue /  Re: Swartz reply to Radcliffe
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Swartz reply to Radcliffe
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 1994 14:26:33 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Mitchell Swartz's assertion remains that "long range loaded-interstitial
lattice within a much heavier periodic lattice" makes such a great
difference so that no other environment for a nuclear reaction comes
close to showing the dramatic effects required to initiate cold fusion.
He offers not one word to suggest what physics connects this unique
lattice structure to an excited nucleus.  However, in his most recent
post Mitchell does acknowledge that in many cases a nuclear decay can
be quite disruptive to lattice order.  A key question that remains
without any satisfactory answer is still why a nuclear decay with a
relatively large potential energy release is not disruptive in the
case of PdD - a rather weakly bound lattice under the conditions of
full loading.

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.29 / Bill Page /  Bohm's Interpretation of QM using Maple (Part 2c)
     
Originally-From: 70047.3047@compuserve.com (Bill Page)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Bohm's Interpretation of QM using Maple (Part 2c)
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 1994 00:16:56 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

# 
# Part 2c [Last of Parts 2a,2b and 2c.]
# 
# 14. The Trajectory of the Particle
> 
# We can express the quidance condition as a differential equation 
# and solve for the particle position as follows.
> 
> M1:=dsolve(diff(x(t),t)=v(x,t),x(t));
> 

                                 2
                            h~ Pi  t   2       Pi x(t) 3
                    cos(3/2 --------) L  m sin(-------)
                               2                  L
                              L  m
          M1 := 4/3 ------------------------------------
                                     Pi

                  2       Pi x(t)      Pi x(t) 3
                 L  m sin(-------) cos(-------)
                             L            L
               - ------------------------------- + x(t) L m = _C1
                                Pi

# 
# Maple returns an implicit solution relating t and x(t) by an 
# arbitrary constant _C1.  In units where h~, L, and m are 1, and 
# given a location x(t) at time t, we can solve for the value of _C1. 
# For example, for a particle located (approximately) at one of the 
# poles we have
> 
> fsolve(subs(h=1,L=1,m=1,x(t)=1/3,t=period/2,M1),_C1);
> 

                                .02321082978

# 
# Then we can use this value to compute the trajectory of the 
# particle.  In the following graph time is advancing through two 
# complete cycles from bottom to top.  The horizontal axis gives the 
# position of the particle.
> 
> implicitplot(subs(h=1,L=1,m=1,x(t)=x,_C1=",M1),x=0..1,t=0..2*period);
> 

  +AA                                                                     
0.8 AAA                                                                   
  +   AAAAAA                                                              
  +        AAAAAAAAAAA                                                    
  +                   AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA                                 
  +                                      AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA  
0.6                           AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA                     
  +             AAAAAAAAAAAAAA                                            
  +     AAAAAAAA                                                          
  + AAAA                                                                  
  +AA                                                                     
0.4AA                                                                     
  +  AAAA                                                                 
  +     AAAAAAAA                                                          
  +             AAAAAAAAAAAAAA                                            
  +                           AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA                   
0.2                                   AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA  
  +                 AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA                                    
  +        AAAAAAAAAA                                                     
  +  AAAAAA                                                               
  +AAA                                                                    
  +*++-++-++-++-++-++-++-++-++-+++-++-++-++-++-++-++-++-++-++-++-++-++-+- 
0     0.1   0.12    0.14   0.16   0.18     0.2   0.22    0.24   0.26      

# 
# Lets try to display a set of trajectories over a range of intial 
# locations.
> 
> implicitplot({subs(h=1,L=1,m=1,x(t)=x,_C1=j/7,M1)$j=1..3},
> x=0..1,t=0..2*period);
> implicitplot({subs(h=1,L=1,m=1,x(t)=x,_C1=j/7,M1)$j=4..6}
> ,x=0..1,t=0..2*period);
> 

  +BB      AA     C                                                       
0.8 BB      AAA    CCCC                                                   
  +   BBBB     AAAAAAA CCCCCCCCCCCCC                                      
  +       BBBBBBBBBBB AAAAAAAAAAAAA************CCCCCCCCCCCCCCC            
  +                  BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB**AAAAAAAAAAAAACCCCCCCC    
  +                                              BBBBBB       AAA     CC  
0.6                                  BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB    AAAAAAA   CCCC   
  +           BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB******AAAAAAAAAAAAAA*******CCCCCCCCC       
  +    BBBBBBB   AAAAAAAAAA****CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC                       
  + BBBB     AAAA   CCCCCCC                                               
  +BB       A     CCC                                                     
0.4BB       AA    CCC                                                     
  + BBBB     AAAA   CCCCCCC                                               
  +    BBBBBBB   AAAAAAAAAA****CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC                       
  +           BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB*******AAAAAAAAAAAAA******CCCCCCCCCC       
  +                                   BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB   AAAAAAA   CCCC   
0.2                                               BBBBB       AAA     CC  
  +                  BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB***AAAAAAAAAAAACCCCCCCC    
  +       BBBBBBBBBBB AAAAAAAAAAAAA*************CCCCCCCCCCCCCC            
  +   BBBB    AAAAAAAA CCCCCCCCCCCCC                                      
  + BB      AAA    CCCC                                                   
  +*--+--+-**-+--+*-+--+--+-+--+--+--+-+--+--+--+-+--+--+--+--+-+--+--+-- 
0    0.2           0.3           0.4           0.5           0.6          

  +CC     BB        AAA                                                   
0.8 CCCCCCC BBBBBBBBBB AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA                           
  +        CCCCCCCCCC************BBBBBBBBBBBBBB**AAAAAAAAAAAAAAA          
  +                             CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC*BBBBBBBBB    AAAAAA     
  +                                               CCCCC   BBBB       AA   
  +                                                    CC     BB      AA  
0.6                                                  CCC     BB      AAA  
  +                                         CCCCCCCCCC BBBBBB     AAAA    
  +              CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC********BBBBBBBBBBB  AAAAAAAAA       
  +   CCCCCCCCC**BBBBBBBBBBBB********AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA               
  + CCC    BBBB      AAAAAAAA                                             
0.4 CC     BBBB      AAAAAAAA                                             
  +   CCCCCCCCC***BBBBBBBBBBB********AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA                
  +               CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC*********BBBBBBBBBB  AAAAAAAAAA       
  +                                         CCCCCCCCC  BBBBBB     AAAA    
  +                                                  CCCC    BB       AA  
0.2                                                    CC     BB      AA  
  +                                               CCCCCC   BBBB      AA   
  +                             CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC*BBBBBBBBB    AAAAAA     
  +        CCCCCCCCCCC***********BBBBBBBBBBBBBBB*AAAAAAAAAAAAAAA          
  + CCCCCCC BBBBBBBBBBAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA                          
  +**--+--**-+-+--+-***-+-+--+--+--+-+--+--+--+-+--+--+--+--+-+--+--+--+- 
0           0.4          0.5           0.6           0.7           0.8    

# 
# 
# -------------------------------------
# 
# Well, dear Readers, that's certainly enough for this installment. 
# We have succeeding in applying Bohm's interpretation to this rather 
# simple case.  The results however, are really not so simple.  In 
# the next installment (Part 3) we will consider another simple 
# quantum mechanical system - the harmonic oscillator and see what 
# happens when more than one particle is involved.
# 
# Cheers,
# 
# Bill Page
# 
> 

cudkeys:
cuddy29 cuden3047 cudfnBill cudlnPage cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.29 / Bill Page /  Bohm's Interpretation of QM using Maple (Part 2b2)
     
Originally-From: 70047.3047@compuserve.com (Bill Page)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Bohm's Interpretation of QM using Maple (Part 2b2)
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 1994 00:17:37 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

# 
# Part 2b2 [Third of Parts 2a, 2b1, 2b2, and 2c.]
# 
# 12. The Quantum Potential
> 
# Recalling the polar form of the wavefunction that we discussed in 
# Part 1.
> 
# psi:=(x,t) -> R(x,t)*exp(i*S(x,t)/h);
> 

# 
# we can find R as the square root of the absolute value of psi 
# squared.
> 
> R:=(x,t)->sqrt(sqrabs(psibox(x,t)));
> R(x,t);
> 

                  R := (x,t) -> sqrt(sqrabs(psibox(x, t)))

                                            2
              Pi x 2     Pi x          h~ Pi  t
          sin(----)  cos(----) cos(3/2 --------)               Pi x 2
                L          L              2                cos(----)
                                         L  m                    L
       (4 -------------------------------------- + 1/L + 3 ----------
                             L                                  L

                    Pi x 4
                cos(----)
                      L
            - 4 ----------)^1/2
                     L

# 
# Then, as discussed in Part 1, the quantum potential is
> 
> Q:=(x,t)->simplify(-(h^2/(2*m))*(diff(R(x,t),x,x)/R(x,t)));
> Q(x,t);

                                          2
                                         h  diff(R(x, t), x, x)
            Q := (x,t) -> simplify(- 1/2 ----------------------)
                                                m R(x, t)

            Pi x 4           Pi x 3             Pi x 2   2          Pi x 2
1/2 (64 cos(----)  + 104 cos(----)  %1 + 36 cos(----)  %1  + 24 cos(----)
              L                L                  L                   L

              Pi x           2        2   2   /          Pi x 4
     + 14 cos(----) %1 + 4 %1  - 3) h~  Pi   /  ((16 cos(----)
                L                           /              L

              Pi x 3            Pi x 2          Pi x 2   2         Pi x
     + 32 cos(----)  %1 + 8 cos(----)  + 16 cos(----)  %1  + 8 cos(----) %1
                L                 L               L                  L

             2
     + 1) m L )

                                         2
                                    h~ Pi  t
%1 :=                       cos(3/2 --------)
                                       2
                                      L  m

# 
# [Note that Maple uses the placeholder names %1, %2, etc. in order 
# to split a long expression into a manageable form. Think of the %1, 
# %2 etc. as just temporary names for a given subexpression.]
> 
# Obviously, the quantum potential is rather complex (and very 
# non-linear) even in this very simple case.  But thanks to tools 
# like Maple, we can still get a good idea of what it looks like.  In 
# the following animation we show both the probability density 
# function and the quantum potential.  Note how the quantum potential 
# has a large (negative) value when the amplitude of the wavefunction 
# is small but varying significantly over a short distance.
> 
# In the animation, the quantum potential appears to "sweep" back and 
# forth between the points where the probability density is greatest, 
# but out of phase with the probability density.  If we imagined a 
# large number of possible instances of the particle in the box (a 
# large number of trials with the random initial locations), it 
# appears as if the quantum pontential is "dragging" them first one 
# way and then the other, making the probability of finding a 
# particle at a given location vary in exactly the way the 
# probability density is varying!
> 
> animate({subs(h=1,L=1,m=1,100*sqrabs(psibox(x,t))),
> subs(h=1,L=1,m=1,Q(x,t))},x=0..1,t=0.1..1.1*period);
> 
Error, Character device does not support animation

# 
# Or for those Readers who don't have Maple, we can do a series of 
# character plots.
> 
> display([plot(subs(h=1,L=1,m=1,t=0.1,100*sqrabs(psibox(x,t))),
> x=0..1,y=-350..350,color=red),
> plot(subs(h=1,L=1,m=1,t=0.1+0/8*period,Q(x,t)),
> x=0..1,y=-350..350,color=green)],
> title=`Period 1: B=Prob. Dens., C=Quantum Pot.`);
> 
> 
display([plot(subs(h=1,L=1,m=1,t=0.1+0.125*period,100*sqrabs(psibox(x,t))),
> x=0..1,y=-350..350,color=red),
> plot(subs(h=1,L=1,m=1,t=0.1+0.125*period,Q(x,t)),
> x=0..1,y=-350..350,color=green)],
> title=`Period 2: B=Prob. Dens., C=Quantum Pot.`);
> 
> 
display([plot(subs(h=1,L=1,m=1,t=0.1+0.25*period,100*sqrabs(psibox(x,t))),
> x=0..1,y=-350..350,color=red),
> plot(subs(h=1,L=1,m=1,t=0.1+0.25*period,Q(x,t)),
> x=0..1,y=-350..350,color=green)],
> title=`Period 3: B=Prob. Dens., C=Quantum Pot.`);
> 
> 
display([plot(subs(h=1,L=1,m=1,t=0.1+0.375*period,100*sqrabs(psibox(x,t))),
> x=0..1,y=-350..350,color=red),
> plot(subs(h=1,L=1,m=1,t=0.1+0.375*period,Q(x,t)),
> x=0..1,y=-350..350,color=green)],
> title=`Period 4: B=Prob. Dens., C=Quantum Pot.`);
> 

  +              Period 1: B=Prob. Dens., C=Quantum Pot.                  
300                                                                       
  +                                                                       
  +                                                                       
200                                                                       
  +                BBBBBBBB                                               
  +             BBBB      BBBBB                BBBBBBBBBB                 
100          BBB               BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB        BBBBB             
  +        BBB                                              BBBB          
  +     BBB                                                    BBBB       
  *****************************--+--+-+--+--+**************************** 
0 +                            CCCCCCCCCCCCCCC                            
  0            0.2           0.4           0.6           0.8            1 
  +                                                                       
-100                                                                      
  +                                                                       
  +                                                                       
-200                                                                      
  +                                                                       
  +                                                                       
-300                                                                      
  +                                                                       
                                                                          

  +              Period 2: B=Prob. Dens., C=Quantum Pot.                  
300                                                                       
  +                                                                       
  +                                            BBBBBBBBBB                 
200                                         BBB         BBB               
  +                                       BBB              BB             
  +                                    BBB                  BB            
100                                  BBB                      BB          
  +                              BBBB                           BB        
  +        BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB                                BB      
  ***********************--+--+--+--+-+********************************** 
0 +                      CCCCCCCCCCCCCCC                                  
  0            0.2           0.4           0.6           0.8            1 
  +                                                                       
-100                                                                      
  +                                                                       
  +                                                                       
-200                                                                      
  +                                                                       
  +                                                                       
-300                                                                      
  +                                                                       
                                                                          

  +              Period 3: B=Prob. Dens., C=Quantum Pot.                  
300                                             BBBBBBBB                  
  +                                          BBB       BBB                
  +                                         BB           BB               
200                                       BB               BB             
  +                                      B                  BB            
  +                                    BB                     BB          
100                                  BB                        BB         
  +                                BB                           BBB       
  *CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC        BBBB                              BBB     
  *******************************+-************************************** 
0 +                    C      CCCCC                                       
  0            0.2     C     0.4           0.6           0.8            1 
  +                     C   C                                             
-100                    C   C                                             
  +                     C  C                                              
  +                     C  C                                              
-200                    C  C                                              
  +                     C  C                                              
  +                     C  C                                              
-300                    C  C                                              
  +                     C  C                                              
                                                                          

  +              Period 4: B=Prob. Dens., C=Quantum Pot.                  
300                                                                       
  +                                             BBBBBBBB                  
  +                                          BBBB      BBB                
200                                        BBB            BB              
  +                                      BB                BB             
  +                                    BBB                   BB           
100                                  BBB                       BB         
  +                               BBB                           BBB       
  +           BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB                                BB      
  **********************+--+--+--+--+-*********************************** 
0 +                    CCCCC    CCCCCCC                                   
  0            0.2         CC0.4           0.6           0.8            1 
  +                                                                       
-100                                                                      
  +                                                                       
  +                                                                       
-200                                                                      
  +                                                                       
  +                                                                       
-300                                                                      
  +                                                                       
                                                                          

# 13.  The Motion of the Particle
> 
# So finally, lets calculate the motion of the particle according to 
# Bohm's interpretation. 
> 
# The form of the classic force in the case of a particle in a box 
# presents some difficulties when it comes to solving the classical 
# Hamilton-Jacobi equation of motion because of its non-analytic form 
# at the boundries.  However, we can still find the motion of the 
# particle by using the guidance conditon.
> 
> diff(x(t),t)='j(x,t)/R(x,t)^2';
> 

                              d          j(x, t)
                            ---- x(t) = --------
                             dt                2
                                        R(x, t)

# 
# The expression for the probability current is
> 
> j(psibox(x,t));
> 

                           2                         2
                      h~ Pi  t      Pi x        h~ Pi  t        Pi x
 - h~ Pi (- 2 sin(1/2 --------) sin(----) cos(2 --------) cos(2 ----)
                         2            L            2              L
                        L  m                      L  m

                   2                             2
              h~ Pi  t        Pi x          h~ Pi  t      Pi x
      - sin(2 --------) sin(2 ----) cos(1/2 --------) cos(----)
                 2              L              2            L
                L  m                          L  m

                       2                         2
                  h~ Pi  t      Pi x        h~ Pi  t        Pi x
      + 2 cos(1/2 --------) sin(----) sin(2 --------) cos(2 ----)
                     2            L            2              L
                    L  m                      L  m

                   2                             2
              h~ Pi  t        Pi x          h~ Pi  t      Pi x     /     2
      + cos(2 --------) sin(2 ----) sin(1/2 --------) cos(----))  /  (m L )
                 2              L              2            L    /
                L  m                          L  m

# 
# Therefore the velocity of the particle varies according to
> 
> v:= (xx,tt) -> subs(x=xx,t=tt,simplify(combine(
> j(psibox(x,t))/sqrabs(psibox(x,t)),trig)));
> v(x,t);
> 

  v := (xx,tt) ->

                                               j(psibox(x, t))
      subs(x = xx, t = tt, simplify(combine(--------------------, trig)))
                                            sqrabs(psibox(x, t))

                        Pi (- 2 x L m + 3 h~ Pi t)
 - 1/2 h~ Pi (3 cos(1/2 --------------------------)
                                    2
                                   L  m

                Pi (2 x L m + h~ Pi t)            Pi (- 2 x L m + h~ Pi t)
      + cos(3/2 ----------------------) - cos(3/2 ------------------------)
                          2                                  2
                         L  m                               L  m

                  Pi (2 x L m + 3 h~ Pi t)     /
      - 3 cos(1/2 ------------------------))  /  (m L (
                             2               /
                            L  m

               Pi (- 2 x L m + 3 h~ Pi t)
     - cos(1/2 --------------------------)
                           2
                          L  m

                Pi (2 x L m + 3 h~ Pi t)
      - cos(1/2 ------------------------)
                           2
                          L  m

                Pi (- 2 x L m + h~ Pi t)            Pi (2 x L m + h~ Pi t)
      + cos(3/2 ------------------------) + cos(3/2 ----------------------)
                           2                                  2
                          L  m                               L  m

                  Pi x          Pi x
      - 2 + cos(2 ----) + cos(4 ----)))
                    L             L

# 
# [Note: We have used the subs operator explicitly here in order to 
# force the simplification to take place before the substitution of 
# values for x and t. This is important when we wish to evaluate such 
# a function for arbitrary floating point values.]
> 
# Because of the way we constructed the wavefunction, psibox(x,t) is 
# real valued at t=0, therefore the momentum and the velocity are 
# necessarily initially 0.
> 
> simplify(v(x,0));
> 
# 

                                     0

# 
# We could change this by mulitplying by an additional phase factor. 
# But clearly, the velocity has a complicated dependence on both 
# location and time.  For example, although the initial velocity is 
# necessarily 0, the velocity 1 unit of time later is given by
> 
> simplify(v(x,1));
> 
                       Pi (2 x L m - 3 h~ Pi)
  1/2 h~ Pi (3 cos(1/2 ----------------------)
                                 2
                                L  m

                 Pi (2 x L m + h~ Pi)            Pi (2 x L m - h~ Pi)
       + cos(3/2 --------------------) - cos(3/2 --------------------)
                          2                               2
                         L  m                            L  m

                   Pi (2 x L m + 3 h~ Pi)     /
       - 3 cos(1/2 ----------------------))  /  (m L (
                             2              /
                            L  m

              Pi (2 x L m - 3 h~ Pi)            Pi (2 x L m + 3 h~ Pi)
      cos(1/2 ----------------------) + cos(1/2 ----------------------)
                        2                                 2
                       L  m                              L  m

                 Pi (2 x L m - h~ Pi)            Pi (2 x L m + h~ Pi)
       - cos(3/2 --------------------) - cos(3/2 --------------------) + 2
                          2                               2
                         L  m                            L  m

               Pi x          Pi x
       - cos(2 ----) - cos(4 ----)))
                 L             L

# 
# which is still a rather complicated function of the particle's 
# location.  The following animation shows how the velocity varies 
# with location over time. 
> 
> animate(subs(h=1,L=1,m=1,v(x,t)),x=0..1,t=0.1..1.1*period);
> 
Error, Character device does not support animation

# 
# For brevity I wont include character plots of this animation. But 
# we can note that there are two locations (at different times) where 
# the velocity is very large and suddenly switches to the opposite 
# direction. This is related to the poles in the velocity function 
# where the denominator goes to zero.
# 
> pole:= (xx,tt) -> 
subs(x=xx,t=tt,simplify(subs(h=1,L=1,m=1,denom(v(x,t)))));
> pole(x,t);

pole := (xx,tt) ->

  subs(x = xx, t = tt, simplify(subs(h = 1, L = 1, m = 1, denom(v(x, t)))))

                            2                         2
     - 2 cos(- Pi x + 3/2 Pi  t) - 2 cos(Pi x + 3/2 Pi  t)

                                   2                           2
          + 2 cos(- 3 Pi x + 3/2 Pi  t) + 2 cos(3 Pi x + 3/2 Pi  t) - 4

          + 2 cos(2 Pi x) + 2 cos(4 Pi x)

# 
# We can examine this function as a 3-dimensional graph. x and t are 
# zero at the lefthand side.  x is the axis that appears to rise to 
# the right, while t is the axis that appears to fall to the right.
> 
> plot3d(pole(x,t),x=0..1,t=0..period,axes=boxed);

                                    ----                                  
                                   /----------                            
                                  //////-----------                       
                                 //////-///--------------                 
             ------              ///////////-------------------           
          ------------          / // //////--------------- ---------      
   --------------\-------      ///////---------------- --/---//---------  
     -------------\\\\\--------///--//// -------\-- \---///// /-/ //---   
           ----\\\-\ \-\-\-------//////-///---\\\\\\-\\/-/ -//// /-///    
               ---\-\-\ \-\//-/-/ /-///////----\\\\\\-\\/-/// /-/ / /     
                  \\---\-\//-/ /-/////// /------\\\-\\\\\//-//////-/      
                   \\\\\----/-/-/-/-///////---------\-\\// /-/-////       
                     \\\\\\\\\\-------/-----      --\\\\\//\/ /-///       
                      \\\\\\\\\\\\--------          \-\\-\ ///// /        
                        \\-\\\\\\\-----              -\\\-/// /-/         
                         -\\\\\\------                 \\\ -////          
                            \\\----                      \\-- /           
                                                            --            
                                                                          
                                                                          
                                                                          
                                                                         
                                                                         
# 
# Unfortunately, as a character plot this graphic is rather hard to 
# interpret, but Maple can actually compute exact values for the 
# location of these poles, once we have a good guess as to where they 
# are.
> 
> solve(pole(x,period/2)=0,x);
> solve(pole(x,0)=0,x);
> 

                               0, 1, 1/3, 1/3

                               0, 1, 2/3, 2/3

# 
# We can double check that the velocity does indeed change direction 
# rapidly at these points by a simple calculation.
> 
> evalf(subs(h=1,L=1,m=1,v(1/3+.001,period/2-0.001))),
> evalf(subs(h=1,L=1,m=1,v(1/3+.001,period/2+0.001)));
> 

                         325.8786921, -325.8786669

> 
> evalf(subs(h=1,L=1,m=1,v(2/3+.001,period-0.001))),
> evalf(subs(h=1,L=1,m=1,v(2/3+.001,period+0.001)));
> 

                         -321.7405018, 321.7396489

# 
# Apparently the particle undergoes an infinite acceleration at these 
# points due to the quantum potential.
# 
 
[Conintued as Part 2c.]
 


cudkeys:
cuddy29 cuden3047 cudfnBill cudlnPage cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.29 / Dieter Britz /  CNF bibliography updates and archive retrieval, 29-Jun-94.
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CNF bibliography updates and archive retrieval, 29-Jun-94.
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 1994 07:37:37 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway


Among the journal papers below, you should take note of the Chechin et al, a
very good critical review by some apparently competent physicists. The oldish
Morrison item I missed somehow at the time, but thanks to Douglas's posting I
caught it now. In it, as he posted, he mentions muons. I got the two C&EN
comment items (Dagani, Worthy & Dagani) from Todd Green (indirectly); the W&D
is historically interesting, as it documents F&P's retraction of nuclear
product detection around May 89. 
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------

Current count:
-------------
  9 books
926 papers
143 patents
221 comment items
 81 peripherals
 19 conference procs(-to-be)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Journal papers:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
#
Bertalot L, De Marco F, De Ninno A, La Barbera A, Scaramuzzi F, Violante V, 
Zeppa P;   Nuovo Cimento 15 D (1993) 1435.
"Study of deuterium charging in palladium by the electrolysis of heavy water:
heat excess production".
** One of the few things known from all previous excess heat observations is
that the D/Pd ratio must be > 0.8. Here, an electrolysis experiment with
calorimetry is reported, and was successful; further, some correlations were
demonstrated. Special features of the experiment were: high current densities
(cd) (hundreds of mA/cm^2); forcing of high D/Pd by using an alternating
high/low cd with a semiperiod of 6 h; using a cathode whose other side faced a
pressure chamber where extra hydrogen/deuterium gas could be introduced; using
Pd as anode as well, thereby causing continuous dissolution of Pd from the
anode and deposition of Pd on the cathode and thus preventing poisoning, which
might prevent a high D/Pd ratio. A constant flow calorimeter was used, with no
recombination of evolved gases. A flow meter was used to ensure that the gas
evolved checked with the charge passed through the cell. Excess power was
found, uncorrelated with current density, at 3W and lasting about 20 h, for a
high input of 3 W alternating with a low input of 0.3 W. Shorter periods of
high/low alternation are favourable; overpotential was clearly an important
factor, as was the flow of deuterium gas into the back of the cathode. A
follow-up paper (ADN and VV) is on the way, interpreting these results in
terms of matter waves of deuterium through Pd.  Aug-93/Nov-93
#.................................................................. 14-Jun-94
Chechin VA, Tsarev VA, Rabinowitz M, Kim YE;
Int. J. Theo. Phys. 33 (1994) 617.
"Critical review of theoretical models for anomalous effects in deuterated 
metals".
** A large review (54 pp, ca. 180 refs) of the field. Most theories come in
for heavy criticism, with "acceleration models" the most plausible, albeit
not free from problems either. Part of the problem is that "... not all of the
experiments are equally valid...". Theories are neatly classified into
barrier circumvention, barrier reduction, barrier ascent, narrow nuclear 
resonances, multibody fusion and exotic chemistry.  Aug-93/?
#.................................................................. 17-Jun-94
Chen X, Yang J;  Hunan Shifan Daxue Ziran Kexue Xuebao 16(1) (1993) 42 (in
Chinese, Eng. abstr).
"Studies on dineutron model of cold fusion (I)".
** "This paper review the present condition and new development of nuclear
phenomena, deeply discuss the physical foundation of the dineutron modle of
cold fusion, and given the formula to calculate the fusion rate of the
dinutron, then explain x ray with 20 keV energy and blue light phenomenon".
(This is the English abstract provided at the end of this otherwise all-
Chinese paper). Clearly, the formation of 2n is suggested and its fusion with
a deuteron to produce a triton, a neutron and excess energy.  Nov-92/Mar-93 
#.................................................................. 20-Jun-94
Fedorovich GV;  Tech. Phys. 38(10) (1993) 866.
Orig. in: Zh. Tekh. Fiz. 63(10) (1993) 65.
"Parametric excitation of crystalline structures as a possible cause of 
high-energy emissions".
** The well known phenomenon of high energy (radio- to x-ray) emissions from
stressed crystals became more interesting with the discovery of fractofusion
in 1986 by Kluev et al, who found neutrons being emitted; they were also 
observed by Yaroslavsky in the same year. In this paper, a theory is 
developed, based on parametric excitation of vibration in a system of coupled
oscillators, to account for these effects. Alternate layers of Pd and deuterium
ions oscillate relative to one another in the PdD crystal and this can lead,
in regions of shear stress to energies up to 10 eV or 10^5 K. The simple model
needs to be refined.  Apr-93/Oct-93
#.................................................................. 28-Jun-94
Fleischmann M, Pons S, Preparata G;  Nuovo Cimento 107 A (1994) 143.
"Possible theories of cold fusion"
** Using 'cold fusion' as the generic name for phenomenology of Pd-hydride
anomalies, the authors review some of the key facts, some 'impossible
theories' and lastly present their own views of what is happening in CNF.
There are anomalies even in the well known fact of the hydrogen absorbing
capacity of Pd; in a 600-1000 M sea of electrons, there is a solution of
protons at 60-100 M, without the formation of dihydrogen. To explain this, a
many-body model must be invoked, rather than single particles or pairs, as
well as collective states. Other known anomalies include the high diffusion
rate of hydrogen in the Pd lattice and the series D(d) > D(p) > D(t), rather
than the expected D(p) > D(d) > D(t) [D being the diffusion coefficient]; and
the high H/D separation factor under electrolysis. The authors agree that,
given the low but definite neutron and tritium production and the anomalous
t/n ratio together with the absence of secondary neutrons from the tritium,
the process cannot be conventional d-d fusion, but that the conventional
branches are a rare occurrence. The main process is the formation of 4He, with
absorption of the resultant energy by strong-dipole coupling; hence the
absence of gamma radiation. Possible models, then, include collective states
and possibly three-body processes.  Jun-93/Jan-94 
#.................................................................. 2-Jun-94
Koval'chuk EP, Yanchuk OM, Reshetnyak OV;  Phys. Lett. A 189 (1994) 15.
"Electromagnetic radiation during electrolysis of heavy water".
** Both Pd sheets (5 * 1.5 * 0.6 cm [sic]) and Ni foil (4 * 2.5 * 0.2 cm
[sic]) were used as cathodes in a quartz cell containing LiClO4 (0.1-2M),
while monitoring emr given off with a photomultiplier. For Ni, at currents
above about 25 mA/cm^2, there was emr emission, increasing with time and with
increasing current density. The effect itself was quite reproducible although
the emission intensity was not; it was up to 10^5 cps or more. The effect
peaked with time and then decreased again. It can readily be explained as a
result of electrode cracking and thus triboluminescence, except that it was
not observed in light water, and in fact was considerably quenched by small
admixtures of light to heavy water (1/3 intensity at 1.2 vol%, e.g.) The
authors draw no conclusions but more work is needed.  Apr-93/Jun-94
#.................................................................. 8-Jun-94
Lason L, Przytula M, Wojtkiewicz R, Baczynski J, Bauer J;
Acta Univ. Lodz., Fol. Phys. 16 (1992) 3.
"Search for neutrons from cold fusion of deuterium absorbed in palladium".
** A Pd tube, closed at one end, could be filled with deuterium up to a
pressure of 1 atm, and heated by an electric coil around its outside. A BF3
and a 3He detector of neutrons were arranged around the chamber, with a 
paraffin moderator allowing detection of continuous neutron emission, and
the pulses from the 3He detector were recorded as well. To detect bursts,
a GM beta counter with a Ag or In sample was used. The Pd tube was saturated
with deuterium and measurements performed over 7 days, twice. No continuous
or burst neutron emissions above background were observed.  
#.................................................................. 13-Jun-94
Lipson AG, Sakov DM, Saunin EI, Dryagin BV;
Tech. Phys. Lett. 19(11) (1993) 729.
(Orig. Russ.: Pis'ma Zh. Tekh. Fiz. 19(11) (1993) 74).
"Possibilities for increasing the neutron emission in KD2PO4 crystals at the
phase transition through the Curie point".
** The authors have previously reported observation of cold fusion in this
material, due to the ferro-paraelectric phase transition when passing through
Tc, the Curie point. The S/N ratio was, however, low at about 2, due to the
diffuseness of the transition and the small mass of material used. Therefore,
better signals might be obtained by using a larger sample and a sharper
transition. This was successful, and a S/N ratio of 10 was obtained using
powdered crystalline material mixed and compacted with 70% (by mass) of Cu
powder into 1.5 g tablets to increase the thermal conductivity and thereby
sharpen the transition. Another 0.45 g sample of single crystal material, gave
the same low S/N as before, while another large (10 g) polycrystalline one
gave an even lower signal. This points the way to further work on this system.
Oct-93/Nov-93 
#.................................................................. 14-Jun-94
Manduchi C, Zannoni G, Milli E, Riccardi L, Mengoli G, Fabrizio M, Buffa A;
Nuovo Cimento 107 A (1994) 171.
"Anomalous effects during the interaction of subatmospheric D2(H2) with Pd 
from 900C to room temperature".
** The authors have previously reported experiments with beam discharges and
electrolysis together, but there were some alternative explanations for the
results. Here, the team reports a fairly standard "Italian style" CNF
experiment, that is metal (here: Pd) and D2 gas, at a range of temperatures. A
tube with some Pd sheets, 6 cm^2 and thicknesses from 0.002 to 0.1 cm at its
bottom was connected to a vacuum system, and placed into a furnace chamber.
The Pd was vacuum treated at 900C and then heated in the presence of 900 mbar
of D2 or H2 gas to clean the surface. After removing the gas, 900 mbar of gas
was again admitted and the temperature allowed to fall to room temperature,
which required about 30 h. The pressure change was used to measure loading,
having calibrated in the absence of Pd. Neutrons were monitored using a
stilbene detector for the background and a NE123 scintillator for the cell. A
plastic track CR-39 detector was used for charged particles (cps) at room
temperature at the end of the cycles. An interesting finding was that there
was some H2 or D2 absorption to about 0.2 (H/Pd) between 700 and 300 C, then
falling to zero at 200-150C, and rising at 80C to room temp to a maximum of
0.89, unexpectedly high. This was reproducible. Absorption at low
temperatures, without prior heating, was down at about 0.17. Also, the figure
shows a distinct neutron emission at the point where the large loading begins
during cooling, as well as during the early, higher temp., phase. This was not
seen in the blank controls. Cp's were also found, roughly proportional to Pd
film thickness but not correlated with loading level. Runs with H2 achieved
loadings of 0.75 and also neutron emissions around the loading point, but no
cp's. The neutron results are a puzzle and indicate that either there was an
error here or that PdH also emits neutrons.  Apr-92/Feb-94 
#.................................................................. 17-Jun-94
Morrison D;  Physics World 3 (1990)(2) 35 (Feb).
"The rise and decline of cold fusion".
** Earlyish summary and premature dismissal of 'cold fusion' by prominent
critic DROM. There is a summary of the experimental claims, theories, and an
attempt at a simple theoretical dismissal on the basis of d-d distances in
PdD. The article also classifies 'cold fusion' as pathological science.
#.................................................................. 24-Jun-94
Nakamitsu Y, Chiba M, Fukushima K, Hirose T, Kubo K, Fujii M, Nakahara H, 
Seimiya T, Sueki K, Katada M, Baba N, Kamasaki S, Ikuta S, Endo K,
Shirakawa T;  Nuovo Cimento 107 A (1994) 117.
"Study of cold nuclear fusion with electrolysis at low-temperature range".
** Previous Italian work indicated that low temperatures might be favourable
for CNF, so the team performed electrolysis at a range of temperatures -80C
to room temp, using deuterated methanol with DCl (2M) instead of heavy water.
An added benefit is said to be the higher deuterium loadings at low 
temperatures. The cell was placed into a neutron detection space, surrounded 
by 10 3He detectors in paraffin. The 10 detectors were divided into 5 pairs 
and signals rejected if they did not appear on all 5 pairs within 1 microsec.
The cathode material was cold rolled Pd rod (5mm dia, 20 mm long), known to
have many defects, as well as some of this stretched to 3 mm dia to produce 
more defects still, and the same for Ti rods. At current densities 100-250 
mA/cm^2 and electrolysis times up to 267 h, the average neutron count was
within one standard deviation of the background in all cases, and the 
frequency distribution of the counts was that of the background (Poisson).
Initially, there appeared to be some excess neutrons over the background, but 
these were found to be due to cryostat switching. With these results, it was
possible to set an upper limit to fusion of 3.1*10^-24 fus/pair/s, comparable
with the results of Jones et al [1989].  Jun-93/Jan-94
#.................................................................. 14-Jun-94
Pokropivnyi VV;  Dokl. Akad. Nauk. Ukr. (1993)(4) 86 (Russian, Engl. abstr).
"Bineutron theory of cold nuclear fusion".
** In a previous paper, the author has suggested, simultaneously with 
Timashev, that the formation of dineutrons might be the cold fusion mechanism.
In this paper, he elaborates on this idea. 
The abstract says (with some paraphrasing): "Possibilities are considered for
stabilisation of the dineutron pair in the deuteron-containing crystals, in
particular beta-decay without recoil. Also, the temperature criterion T < Tc
are proposed to explain neutron 'flashes'".
The author calculates the lifetime of 2n as 2.4*10^-12 s at 3K. More work is
needed, and there are many possibilities for reactions other than just 2n-d 
fusion, e.g. reactions of 2n with the Pd itself.  Oct-92/?
#.................................................................. 14-Jun-94
Tisenko YuA;  Sov. Phys. J. 36 (1993) 764.
Orig.: Izv. Vyssh. Uchebn. Zaved. Fiz. 36(8) (1993) 66.
"Possible ways to achieve cold fusion. I".
** An attempt to find conditions (alloys) in which deuterons are close enough
to each other for fusion. Indeed, some alloys do cause a reduction in the
d-d distance, but not enough.  Nov-91/Aug-93
#.................................................................. 17-Jun-94
Tisenko YuA;  Sov. Phys. J. 36 (1993) 769.
Orig.: Izv. Vyssh. Uchebn. Zaved. Fiz. 36(8) (1993) 72.
"Possible ways to achieve cold fusion. II".
** In this paper, thought is given to making practical use of cold fusion
(e.g. generation of 2.45 MeV neutrons) and the possibility of stimulating it,
by mechanically causing vibrational standing waves in single crystal TiD rods.
Nov-91/Aug-93 
#.................................................................. 17-Jun-94


Patents:
^^^^^^^
#
Kunimatsu K (Aisin Aw Co.); Jpn. Kokai Tokkyo Koho JP 05,302,988, Oct-90.
Cited in Chem. Abstracts 120:282768 (1994).
"Energy generators based on cold fusion".
** "In a cold-fusion-based energy generator, which applies voltage between an 
anode and a cathode from an H-adsorbing [sic] metal (e.g. Pd) or its alloy in
D2O contg. an electrolyte, a O gas is supplied to the anode to cause the 
reaction D2 --> 2D+ + 2e-. The applied volatage [sic] can be substantially 
low" (direct from CA).
#.................................................................. 20-Jun-94
Ratenhaus H;  Ger. Offen. DE 4,307,693, Mar-93.
Cited in Chem. Abstracts 120:282765 (1994).
"Methods for cold fusion of hydrogen nuclei in a self-excited process".
** "Methods for fusion of hydrogen nuclei in metal lattices entail carrying 
out the fusion as a self-excited potential hydrogen fusion (PHF) process to
generate charged highly energetic end products which, in turn, produce 
electron cascasdes in the host lattice of electrons having high kinetic 
energies which can initiate further PHF reactions. The host metal may have a 
large neg. charge applied to it while the PHF reaction proceeds" (direct from 
CA).
#.................................................................. 20-Jun-94


Comments:
^^^^^^^^
#
Dagani R;  C&EN 67 (1989), April, p. 4.
"Fusion confusion: New data, but skepticism persists".
** An early update on the CNF affair, then only one month old. F&P confirm
all claims, including the detection of 4He by mass spectrometry. RD writes
that a preliminary note was published in "a Swiss electrochemical journal";
JEC is meant. Pons is quoted saying that "Recent tests ... produced about
eight times more energy than is consumed as electricity".
#.................................................................. 24-Jun-94
Worthy W, Dagani R;  C&EN 67 (1989), May, p.5.
"Utah chemists back off from some fusion claims".
** An early retraction by F&P, at the Electrochemical Society meeting in LA,
of some of their earlier claims, i.e. the detection of neutrons and 4He, 
explained as instrumental shortcomings. The neutron results as published were
simply wrong, says Fleischmann, and the 4He measurements were based on the
false assumption that the 4He, if formed, would come out of the Pd; the 
immobility of He in Pd would prevent this. But F&P stand by their excess heat.
#.................................................................. 24-Jun-94


Retrieval of the archived files:
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. By anonymous FTP from vm1.nodak.edu (134.129.111.1).  Login anonymous, with
   your e-mail address as the password. Type CD FUSION, DIR FUSION.CNF* to get
   a listing. The general index is large. Use GET (ie. GET FUSION.CNF-PAP1). 
2. Via LISTSERV. You get a (large) index of the archives by sending an email  
   to listserv@vm1.nodak.edu, with a blank SUBJECT line, and the "message"   
   'index fusion'. To get any one of these files, you then send to the same   
   address the message, e.g., 
   get fusion 91-00487
   get fusion cnf-pap1         etc, according to what you're after.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The bib-files are: cnf-bks (books), cnf-pap1..cnf-pap6 (papers, slices 1..6),
cnf-pat (patents), cnf-cmnt (comments), cnf-peri (peripherals), cnf-unp
(unpublished stuff collected by Vince Cate, hydrogen/metal references from
Terry Bollinger). There is also the file cnf-brif, which has all the -pap*
file references without annotations, all in one file (so far); and cnf-new,
with the last three months' or so of new items in all biblio files. 
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
===========================================================

cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.29 / Bill Page /  Bohm's Interpretation of QM using Maple (Part 2b1)
     
Originally-From: 70047.3047@compuserve.com (Bill Page)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Bohm's Interpretation of QM using Maple (Part 2b1)
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 1994 00:17:46 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

# 
# Part 2b1 [Second of Parts 2a, 2b1, 2b2 and 2c.]
# [Note: I've had a problem trying to post this section, so I had to
# split it again.]
# 
> 
# 11. The motion of the wave packet
> 
# If you are using Windows you will be able to see a live animation 
# of the evolution of the probability density function.  For those 
# reading this just as email, the first few animation frames are 
# shown below in character format.
> 
> animate(subs(h=1,L=1,m=1,sqrabs(psibox(x,t))),x=0..1,t=0..period,
> color=blue);
> 
Error, Character device does not support animation
 
> plot(subs(h=1,L=1,m=1,t=0*period,sqrabs(psibox(x,t))),x=0..1);
> plot(subs(h=1,L=1,m=1,t=0.125*period,sqrabs(psibox(x,t))),x=0..1);
> plot(subs(h=1,L=1,m=1,t=0.25*period,sqrabs(psibox(x,t))),x=0..1);
> plot(subs(h=1,L=1,m=1,t=0.375*period,sqrabs(psibox(x,t))),x=0..1);
> 
 
 
  +                  AAAAA                                                
3 +                AAA   AA                                               
  +               AA       A                                              
  +              AA         AA                                            
2.5             AA           A                                            
  +             A             A                                           
  +            A              AA                                          
2 +           AA                A                                         
  +           A                 AA                                        
  +          A                   A                                        
  +         AA                    A                                       
1.5         A                      A                                      
  +        A                       AA                                     
  +        A                        A                                     
1 +       A                          A                                    
  +      A                           AA                                   
  +     AA                            AA                                  
  +     A                              AA                                 
0.5    A                                AA                                
  +   A                                  AA                               
  + AA                                     AAA        AAAAAAAAAAAA        
  ***+-+--+--+--+--+--+-+--+--+--+--+-+--+--+**********+--+--+--+-******* 
0 0            0.2           0.4           0.6           0.8            1 
 
 
  +                  AAAAA                                                
2.5                AAA   AA                                               
  +               AA       A                                              
  +              AA         AA                                            
  +             AA           AA                                           
2 +             A             A                                           
  +            A               A                                          
  +           A                 A                                         
  +           A                  A                                        
1.5          A                   AA                                       
  +         A                     AA                                      
  +         A                      AA                                     
  +        A                        A                                     
1 +        A                         A                                    
  +       A                           A                                   
  +      A                             A                                  
  +     AA                              AA                                
0.5    AA                                 AAAA   AAAAAAAAAA               
  +    A                                     AAAAA         AAAA           
  +   A                                                        AAA        
  + AA                                                            AAA     
  ***+-+--+--+--+--+--+-+--+--+--+--+-+--+--+--+--+-+--+--+--+--+--+***** 
0 0            0.2           0.4           0.6           0.8            1 
 
 
  +                 AAAAA                         AAAAA                   
  +                AA    AA                     AA    AA                  
1.4               A       AA                   A        A                 
  +              A          AA               AA          AA               
  +             A            AA             AA            A               
1.2            A              AAA         AAA             AA              
  +           AA                AA       AA                AA             
  +           A                   AAA AAAA                  A             
1 +          AA                     AA                      AA            
  +          A                                               A            
0.8         A                                                 A           
  +         A                                                 AA          
  +        A                                                   A          
0.6       A                                                     A         
  +       A                                                     AA        
  +      A                                                       A        
0.4     A                                                         A       
  +    AA                                                         AA      
0.2    A                                                           A      
  +   A                                                             A     
  + AA                                                               AA   
  ***+-+--+--+--+--+--+-+--+--+--+--+-+--+--+--+--+-+--+--+--+--+--+-+*** 
0 0            0.2           0.4           0.6           0.8            1 
 
 
  +                                              AAAAA                    
2.5                                             AA   AAA                  
  +                                            A       AA                 
  +                                          AA         AA                
  +                                          A           AA               
2 +                                         A             A               
  +                                        A               A              
  +                                       A                AA             
  +                                      A                  A             
1.5                                     AA                   A            
  +                                    AA                     A           
  +                                    A                      A           
  +                                   A                        A          
1 +                                  A                         AA         
  +                                 A                           A         
  +                               AA                            AA        
  +                              AA                              AA       
0.5             AAAAAAAAAA   AAAA                                 AA      
  +         AAAA         AAAAA                                     A      
  +      AAA                                                        A     
  +   AAA                                                            AA   
  *****+--+--+--+--+--+-+--+--+--+--+-+--+--+--+--+-+--+--+--+--+--+-+*** 
0 0            0.2           0.4           0.6           0.8            1 
 
 
# 
# Now lets consider how the expected values of the momentum and 
# postion change over time.
> 
# The expected value of momentum is defined as
> 
> pExp:=t->simplify(expected(p,psibox(x,t),0..L));
> pExp(t);
> 
 
          pExp := t -> simplify(expected(p, psibox(x, t), 0 .. L))
 
 
                                              2
                                         h~ Pi  t
                              h~ sin(3/2 --------)
                                            2
                                           L  m
                          8/3 --------------------
                                        L
 
# 
# and the expected value of location is
> 
> xExp:=t->expand(expected((_->x*_),psibox(x,t),0..L));
> xExp(t);
> 
 
       xExp := t -> expand(expected(_ -> x*_, psibox(x, t), 0 .. L))
 
 
                                           2
                                      h~ Pi  t
                            L cos(3/2 --------)
                                         2
                                        L  m
                     - 16/9 ------------------- + 1/2 L
                                      2
                                    Pi
 
# 
# [Note that (_->x*_) is just a cryptic way in which we can tell 
# Maple to treat x as an operator. _ is a placeholder for the 
# expression on which the operator operates and in this 
# representation the location x operates by a multiplication.]
> 
# In conventional quantum mechanics Ehrenfest's theorem states that 
# these expected values are related by a quantum analogue of a the 
# classical equation
> 
>  m*diff(x(t),t)=p;
> 
 
                               /  d      \
                             m |---- x(t)| = p
                               \ dt      /
 
# 
# where momentum and position are replaced by their expected values.  
# Lets test this.
> 
> is(m*diff(xExp(t),t)=pExp(t));
> 
 
                                    true
 
# 
# But this is not the equation of motion that is used in Bohm's 
# interpretation!  Bohm's interpretation deals with the exact 
# location and exact momentum of an individual particle under the 
# influence of both the classical and the quantum potentials.
> 
 
[Continued as Part 2b2.]


cudkeys:
cuddy29 cuden3047 cudfnBill cudlnPage cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.29 / Richard Blue /  Reply to Dave Davies
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Reply to Dave Davies
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 1994 00:17:52 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Dave Davies joins the crowd that seeks to discredit those who remain
skeptical about cold fusion by mistating our position (s).  Firstly,
it is simply incorrect to use the label "semiclassical" to describe
nuclear reaction theory.  As for the possible application of
collision-type thinking to the cold fusion reactions, I have been
perfectly willing to listen to any argument that approaches the
question from a different perspective.  Were that not so I would
have stopped reading sci.fusion long ago.  Most of my messages
in theories relating to cold fusion have been directed toward
the extraction of a more complete picture of the process from those
who think they are on to a possible explanation.  It has proved
to be extremely difficult, however, to get beyond two basic precepts
that all cold fusion advocates seem to cling to: (1)the delocalization
of the deuterons and (2) the overlap of deuteron wavefunctions.
Someday it would be nice to have some experimental evidence to support
these notions, but for now I am willing to go along with these
quantum effects as something that could lead to fusion.

What I would like to see from someone, real soon now, are some details
as to what happens once the fusion process is initiated.  There
seems to be a significant time period between the initiation of
fusion and the completion of the reaction process which no one
has yet said anything about the physics.  All of this is, I assume
totally independent of whether we are following some new paradigm
for quantum theory or sticking closely to the tried and true
approaches.  It is the total lack of willingness on anyone's
part to venture in to this realm that keeps me thinking that there
really is no theory for cold fusion.

My thinking on this matter is that the release and instant distribution
throughout the lattice of the energy that is to appear only as phonons
is all too much of an appeal to magic.  I want someone to consider
the reaction rate, i.e. howmany 4He* are formed per second, and the
lifetime of this species.  You pick your numbers (something you think
you can defend) and then calculate how many excited 4He* exist at
any given time within the entire sample volume.  When I use my numbers
I get something much less than one.  That is to say helium exists only
as a very dilute impurity in the lattice, however you choose to
decribe it.

Now, you QM hotshots need to explain to me how one nucleus gets to
form a band and be delocalized.  Why is it not just one nucleus
located somewhere in the sample, but behaving very much like a
similar nucleus that has just been formed via a collision between
two deuterons?

The other thing that I have yet to see is a clear statement as to
what the intermediate states involved in the decay of an excited
4He* are like.  People make the assertion that there are such states
just because they need them to complete the picture of a decay
that does not produce ionizing radiation.  So Mr. Davies what
is your picture for these states?  Let us assume we have some
4He* stuff in a lattice at very low density.  What splits the
nuclear levels into bands?  My thinking is that requires a
perturbation.  However, there may be a problem, at least according
to the perturbation theory I know.  It has to do with how large
the perturbation has to be relative to the nuclear Hamiltonian
to get the required width to the energy bands.  If you once mess
up the 4He Hamiltonian to that degree I begin to wonder why
the stuff coming out of the reaction is 4He at all?

I think if you follow a rational development of any cold fusion
reaction picture you will at some point come to an impass where
the "theory" is going to have problems with the experimental
evidence that cold fusion data presents.  So far advocates of
the Chubb&Chubb type theories have simply avoided looking beyond
the initiation of a reaction.  Scott Chubb does not seem to
have ready any explanation to describe the reaction process.
He does not answer questions concerning rates and time scales
and intermediate states.  If you believe the reaction energy
release gets distributed instantly through the lattice can you
describe the wavefunction that has those properties and still
looks like 4He* with regard to internal nuclear coordinates?

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.29 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Arthur Clarke address wanted
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Arthur Clarke address wanted
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 1994 05:30:00 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <2u731j$5an@search01.news.aol.com> wrgoodii@aol.com (WRGoodII) writes:
>Does anyone know how to contact Arthur Clarke? 
Yes, privately; However .. . 
Successful novelists that also dabble in mysteries and futurism, stimulate
a large cross-section of minds from the wings of the distribution function 
of humankind.  Their mail is screened.  You must send your traffic into 
the hopper-mill by writing to him care of his book publisher.  It will be 
read and if it fits his profile, it may be passed on to him.  I believe he 
resides somewhere on Ganymede... although the encrypted APO deciphers: 
                           "SriLanka-JG-ch5a".    ?? 
Good luck. 
                                 :-)
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc,Bx 1037, Prometheus II, Ltd., College Park, MD 20741-1037 |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.29 / Paul Koloc /  Re: A decisive (?) experiment -- power density ratios
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A decisive (?) experiment -- power density ratios
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 1994 05:48:28 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <Cs37tp.JIH@world.std.com> mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
>   In Message-ID: <EACHUS.94Jun27171003@spectre.mitre.org>
>Subject: Re: A decisive (?) experiment
>Robert I. Eachus (eachus@spectre.mitre.org) writes:

>    MKENNEL are only eV's.   It's like suggesting that a gentle breeze is going to 
>    MKENNEL radically alter how a 2000lb bomb explodes.  

>REACHUS    But it does!  In fact most FAE (fuel-air explosive) weapons are
>REACHUS retarded (have parachutes) so that the local airspeed is controlled
>REACHUS for best effect.  The 'chute guarantees that the FAE device is moving
>REACHUS at zero relative airspeed and a (chosen) vertical drop rate when it
>REACHUS detonates.

It's a two component bomb with a wide time operation period requiring 
the near simulataneous presence of both components (falling together) 
which explode at different times.  The only satisfactory ways of doing
this is to slow descent or sycronize phase release position and timing.  

Your counter example, then, is skew and not equivalent to the "blockbuster" 
of WWII bomb example clearly referred to by your antagonist.  If you
are clever, it seems chicanerous; if not .. well it simple bears this
teaching.    

Frankly, I think there may be a natural mechanism to bring such 
collective effects into play, but I think it has to do with the 
fundamental interpretation of QM, which I see as a locked to quantized
time.  To what degree this could be manipulated could be moot.   

So MS what to do is do..  or die. from the boredom of the scratching 
sounds of those relentlessly digging at the mystery of CF.  Best to
go where there is still money available. 
    
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc,Bx 1037, Prometheus II, Ltd., College Park, MD 20741-1037 |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.28 / Dieter Britz /  Re: A decisive (?) experiment
     
Originally-From: kemidb@aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A decisive (?) experiment
Date: 28 Jun 94 06:36:03 GMT
Organization: Aarhus University, Denmark

In <drd851.772691838@huxley> drd851@huxley.anu.edu.au (David R Davies) writes:


>BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz) writes:
> 
>>One of the problems with 'cold fusion' is that claims are made that cannot be
>>verified, nor disproved. A clear disproof would be of interest. I think I
> 
>>Now, if one did an experiment, beaming muons at a target of deuterated Pd,
>>this would cause dd fusion in that material, at a higher rate than is claimed
>>by the propagandists. They do assume dd fusion, and the conditions would be
> 
>No Dieter, like Dick Blue you are pushing the debate back into the semi-
>clasical realm of fast particle collisions. Even a very low energy beam
>would not do anything to disprove the Chubb-like models. The critical 

Mitch devastates me with "that's a beam experiment" (even though he doesn't
mind the discharge stuff of Kucherov, also high energy, in my mind) and others
come at me with QM and Chubb^2. I am not trying to disprove the Chubbs or in
fact anyone. All I am suggesting (now putting it less specifically) is that by
somehow getting muons into the lattice and thereby accelerating cold fusion,
you might - just might - have almost the same conditions as purported for the
muon-less 'cold fusion' said by some to be happening in PdDx. If the purporters
are lucky, they would then see a large accumulation of 4He without a single
neutron or gamma. I have to admit to Chuck Harrison's point that if you, on the
other hand, saw neutrons, tritons, protons and a few gammas, it wouldn't really
PROVE a thing, but it would add weight to the argument that fusion, if it took
place within PdDx, is like d-d fusion anywhere else.
I am well aware that conditions might NOT be the same with muons in there.
-- 
Dieter Britz   alias kemidb@aau.dk
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenkemidb cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.29 / Arthur TK /  Re: A "ball lightning" MHD equilibrium
     
Originally-From: awc@ipp-garching.mpg.de (Arthur      Carlson        TK  )
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A "ball lightning" MHD equilibrium
Date: 29 Jun 1994 11:32:10 +0200
Organization: Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics


Paul Koloc and I differ on a (large) number of issues, some of which I
am sure we will never agree on. Others, like the standard terminology,
we could probably thrash out, but it's not worth the time. (However, I
would like to know if I have understood the meaning of "omnigenous":
"The magnetic surface and the pressure gradient are orthogonal", that
means that pressure is a function of magnetic flux, or that parallel
dynamics can be neglected, right?) The "plasmak" introduces a large
number of ideas, but in my opinion, the central inspiration is
containing plasma pressure by neutral gas pressure (with some help
from magnetic fields). It's an absolutely crazy idea; I like it. I
think we essentially agree that MHD is not the ultimate stumbling
block for either the plasmak or ball lightning. Nevertheless, MHD does
provide some valid and useful contraints. Can we agree at least on the
following?

     Any magneto-plasma configuration with sufficient lifetime to
     explain ball lightning or be useful for fusion (except ICF) must
     be very close to an ideal MHD equilibrium.

Since MHD is a well-defined mathematical system, if we can take it as
a valid, albeit incomplete, basis, then we should be able to come to
an agreement on a number of important issues. And once we have those
out of the way, we can get down to the fun stuff of how to drop the
temperature by six orders of magnitude over a few centimeters at
atmospheric pressure.

Now to the substance:

1. A TRUNCATED SPHEROMAK IS NOT AN MHD EQUILIBRIUM. (As near as I can
   make out, the magnetic configuration of a plasmak is supposed to be
   that of a spheromak, except that the magnetic field goes to zero in
   a thin layer near the separatrix.) This is easy to show. The fields
   at the separatrix of a spheromak are purely poloidal, maximum at
   the midplane and going to zero at the poles. The surface currents
   are likewise maximum at the midplane and zero at the
   poles. Therefore the magnetic forces (jXB) also vanish at the
   poles. The pressure forces are constant on the separatrix
   ("omnigenous", remember?--ugly word!) so the total pressure on the
   surface cannot be constant. If the midplane has pressure balance,
   then the poles get squashed; if the poles have pressure balance, the
   the midplane bloats out.

2. AN MHD EQUILIBRIUM WITH VANISHING FIELD OUTSIDE A BOUNDARY BUT WITH
   NO SURFACE CURRENTS EXISTS. This is the solution of Lortz. Of
   course, I am trusting his reputation as a theoretical plasma
   physicist--I haven't tried to verify his math. But as I mentioned,
   after a good deal of thought, it seems to make sense to me. Paul
   Koloc seems to have a few problems with the solution, for example,
   that the magnitude of the field is maximum at the center and that
   there are no surface currents. (I am not sure if Lortz has a step
   function in his current. I rather think so, though I believe there
   must also be solutions with continuous current density. I also
   believe there must be solutions with surface currents, if you
   insist.) Think of a rotating charged cylinder (j prop. to r and in
   the phi direction). The field increases to a quadratic maximum on
   axis. At the edge, the field goes continuously to zero without the
   need for surface/image/shielding currents.

3. THERE IS A VIRIAL THEOREM. It may sometimes be tricky to apply, but
   there is an integral of fields and pressures that allows one to
   make general conclusions about the conditions in an arbitrary MHD
   equilibrium. It may be necessary to assume that there are no
   sources and sinks. Do we agree that the internal pressure (at least
   in some integral sense) cannot be higher than the external
   pressure, _unless_ (possibly) there are sources or sinks?

As I said above, I consider these results to be unassailable
mathematical facts. I hope Paul Koloc will now say, "Good, a truncated
spheromak wasn't exactly right, and maybe the pressure can't be as
high as I thought, but I'm still convinced the thing will work--let's
take something like a Lortz equilibrium and talk about the heat flux
problem." Somehow I think he won't.


Art Carlson
Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics
Garching, Germany
carlson@ipp-garching.mpg.de
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenawc cudfnArthur cudlnTK cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.29 / mitchell swartz /  Blue reply to Radcliffe  -- Lattice Disruption Phenomena
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Blue reply to Radcliffe  -- Lattice Disruption Phenomena
Subject: Re: Swartz reply to Radcliffe
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 1994 12:11:09 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <9406281414.AA45303@pilot1.cl.msu.edu>
Subject: Re: Swartz reply to Radcliffe
Richard A Blue (blue@pilot.msu.edu) writes: 

DBLUE  ... in his most recent
DBLUE post Mitchell does acknowledge that in many cases a nuclear decay can
DBLUE be quite disruptive to lattice order.  A key question that remains
DBLUE without any satisfactory answer is still why a nuclear decay with a
DBLUE relatively large potential energy release is not disruptive in the
DBLUE case of PdD - a rather weakly bound lattice under the conditions of
DBLUE full loading.

   There may be more than one type of possible disruption.   Furthermore,
possible alternate pathways may shield some types of disruption
in certain circumstances.

   Perhaps Dick might elaborate upon what is weakly bound? and how that
changes with loading?

            Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com)






cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.29 / mitchell swartz /  Reply to Dave Davies -
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Reply to Dave Davies -
Subject: Reply to Dave Davies
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 1994 12:12:13 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

   In Message-ID: <9406281510.AA32114@pilot1.cl.msu.edu>
Subject: Reply to Dave Davies
Richard A Blue (blue@pilot.msu.edu) writes:

DBLUE Dave Davies joins the crowd that seeks to discredit those who remain
DBLUE skeptical about cold fusion by mistating our position (s).  Firstly,
DBLUE it is simply incorrect to use the label "semiclassical" to describe
DBLUE nuclear reaction theory.

   Do you have better one, Dick?

DBLUE What I would like to see from someone, real soon now, are some details
DBLUE as to what happens once the fusion process is initiated.  There
DBLUE seems to be a significant time period between the initiation of
DBLUE fusion and the completion of the reaction process which no one
DBLUE has yet said anything about the physics.  

        Processes.

DBLUE My thinking on this matter is that the release and instant distribution
DBLUE throughout the lattice of the energy that is to appear only as phonons
DBLUE is all too much of an appeal to magic.  I want someone to consider
DBLUE the reaction rate, i.e. howmany 4He* are formed per second, and the
DBLUE lifetime of this species.  You pick your numbers (something you think
DBLUE you can defend) and then calculate how many excited 4He* exist at
DBLUE any given time within the entire sample volume.  When I use my numbers
DBLUE I get something much less than one.  That is to say helium exists only
DBLUE as a very dilute impurity in the lattice, however you choose to
DBLUE decribe it.

  The impurity is a priori.  The incremental increased species  is the interesting 
one.   Where are your numbers, Dick?  Thanks in advance.

            Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com)




cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Thu Jun 30 04:37:17 EDT 1994
------------------------------
1994.06.29 / mitchell swartz /  A decisive (?) experiment -- needs semiquantitative correction
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: A decisive (?) experiment -- needs semiquantitative correction
Subject: Re: A decisive (?) experiment
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 1994 12:14:16 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <kemidb.772785363@aau>
Subject: Re: A decisive (?) experiment
Dieter Britz (BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk) writes:

DBRITZ Mitch devastates me with "that's a beam experiment" (even though he doesn't
DBRITZ mind the discharge stuff of Kucherov, also high energy, in my mind) and others
DBRITZ come at me with QM and Chubb^2. I am not trying to disprove the Chubbs or in
DBRITZ fact anyone. All I am suggesting (now putting it less specifically) is that by
DBRITZ somehow getting muons into the lattice and thereby accelerating cold fusion,
DBRITZ you might - just might - have almost the same conditions as purported for the
DBRITZ muon-less 'cold fusion' said by some to be happening in PdDx. If the purporters
DBRITZ are lucky, they would then see a large accumulation of 4He without a single
DBRITZ neutron or gamma. I have to admit to Chuck Harrison's point that if you, on the
DBRITZ other hand, saw neutrons, tritons, protons and a few gammas, it wouldn't really
DBRITZ PROVE a thing, but it would add weight to the argument that fusion, if it took
DBRITZ place within PdDx, is like d-d fusion anywhere else.
DBRITZ I am well aware that conditions might NOT be the same with muons in there.

    Dieter, it is a good experiment and should be tried.
      It is the presumed interpretation that is lacking in quality.  
      If the implication was vague, you might, for example, substitute in place 
of your hypothesized experiment a Stan Meyer cell. 
     Would you say the result influences the reality of 'classical'  cf?    
     In summary, there have appeared additional purported results, theories, and 
technologies  that may or may not 'overlap' cf.

     As to Chuck's point, and the simplistic examination for products:
     As you are aware, a good analysis would have to subtract the intrinsic
values to determine the incremental increase caused by the beam first. 
 The mere detection of products without semiquantitative correction for what the
extrinsic reaction actually produced has obvious potential for error.

    Best wishes.
                          -  Mitchell Swartz  (mica@world.std.com)




cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.27 / STEVE SCHAPER /  A "ball lightning" MHD eq
     
Originally-From: STEVE.SCHAPER@cheswicks.toadnet.org (STEVE SCHAPER)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: A "ball lightning" MHD eq
Date: 27 Jun 94 12:06:00 +0000
Organization: Cheswick's International

In a message dated 06-24-94 Arthur      Carlson wrote to  All:
 AC> The difficult question if you want to explain ball lightning or
 AC> produce a fusion reactor with such a configuration is how the
 AC> pressure of the neutral gas is transferred to the plasma without
 AC> cooling the plasma to death. I see no simple
 
 I'll be very interested to see Paul Kolok's response.
 
 As a layman, I would think of using a vacuum, and some sort of 'magnetic
ram' providing that such is possible and economically and technically
feasible.
 


 -> Alice4Mac 2.4b2 E QWK Eval:01Jun94 
--
|Fidonet:  STEVE SCHAPER 1:0/0
|Internet: STEVE.SCHAPER@cheswicks.toadnet.org
|
| Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own.

cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenSCHAPER cudfnSTEVE cudlnSCHAPER cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.29 / John Cobb /  Re: A "ball lightning" MHD equilibrium
     
Originally-From: johncobb@uts.cc.utexas.edu (John W. Cobb)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A "ball lightning" MHD equilibrium
Date: 29 Jun 1994 12:48:23 -0500
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas

In article <2umpntINN1ko@slcawc.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de>,
Arthur      Carlson        TK   <awc@ipp-garching.mpg.de> wrote:
>
>
>In article <Crzro8.HC3@prometheus.UUCP>, pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) writes:
>> In article <2ue1p1INN1ao@slcawc.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de> awc@ipp-garc
ing.mpg.de writes:
>> 
>> >I heard an interesting talk here today by Prof. Dietrich Lortz. The title was
>> >"Ball Lightning as an Example of an MHD Equilibrium". There are, of course,
>> >serious problems trying to explain reports of ball lightning as a nearly
>> >stationary configuration of magnetized plasma. (What keeps it going so long? 
>> >But it is a well-posed and
>> >interesting question to ask if MHD equilibria exist with uniform pressure on a
>> >boundary and vanishing fields outside that boundary. It is (relatively) easy to
>> >show that the answer is no if the pressure on the boundary should go to zero. 
>> >But if the pressure outside is allowed to be a constant, the answer turns out 
>> >to be yes. I had (almost) convinced myself before the talk with qualitative 
>> >arguments that there must be such a solution, but Prof. Lortz presented a 
>> >class of exact analytic solutions.
>> 

>I want to establish the existence of an MHD equilibrium before I do
>anything else. I said that the details of pressure tranfer between
>plasma and neutral gas is an (unsolved) problem.
>
>
>> >Prof. Lortz "conjectured" that the configuration is stable, but has done no
>> >rigorous analysis.  
>> 
> That is why I appreciated the talk
>by Prof. Lortz. Sketchy as it was, it showed for the first time (or
>does anyone have a previous reference?) that there exists an MHD
>configuration supported by external pressure which does not violate
>the MHD equations.

There has been previous work.

Look at the Institute for Fusion Studies Report #474

IFSR #474
TOROIDAL PLASMA REACTOR WITH A LOW EXTERNAL MAGNETIC FIELD;;
A.D. BEKLEMISHEV, V.A. GORDIN, R.R. KHAYRUTDINOV, V.I.
PETVIASHVILI, AND T. TAJIMA

You should have a full set of these at Garching, since it is on the
IFS distribution list. Unfortunately, it is not one of the reports
avaailable on the IFS www/gopher server 
(gopher://hagar.ph.utexas.edu:70/11/...)

I don't know where (or even if) this was published in the archival
literature.

I don't think this is the only previous work, but it is what I know of.

Note: this solution tended to have far fields that decayed exponentially.
They were not exactly zero. So there was still a need for external coils,
but they can be arbitrarily small.

Alexei, Toshi, Sam Oliveira and I worked on this problem a little
more some other solutions (I don't have many details available right
now). An interesting fact, however, was that there are ionization
front instabilities that are very tricky to deal with. That is at the core
the gas is mostly plasma and far away the gas is mostly neutral, therefore
somewhere there has to be a shell where ionization and recombination is 
occuring. This is a very tricky area. This ionization front can be unstable
to both inward and outward perturbations. It can eat up a lot of energy
also. 

We also found that it was almost impossible to find a case where the
confinement was good enoughAlex did find one case that was well
behaved, but it was of enourmous size. The reason it worked was that
the size of the critter had become large enough that it was optically
thick with respect to Lyman alpha radiation.

In terms of stability, Alex showed absolute stability to all fluid modes
using a Lyapunov stabilty argument. That part is in the IFSR I believe.


In sum, I found it to be an exceedingly exciting topic because it worked
toward eliminating the largest cost of a working reactor, the external
coils. However, I also found it to be very speculative. I guess it follows
Nystrom's law --- " The product of knowledge and enthusiasm is always a
constant"


-john .w cobb





-- 
 --------------------------------------------------------------
John W. Cobb	My posts don't reflect the views of my employer
                Because my posts are usually opaque.
 --------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenjohncobb cudfnJohn cudlnCobb cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.30 / Dieter Britz /  Re: A decisive (?) experiment -- needs semiquantitative correction
     
Originally-From: kemidb@aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A decisive (?) experiment -- needs semiquantitative correction
Date: 30 Jun 94 06:28:11 GMT
Organization: Aarhus University, Denmark

In <Cs5rBs.5Lt@world.std.com> mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:

>  In Message-ID: <kemidb.772785363@aau>
>Subject: Re: A decisive (?) experiment
>Dieter Britz (BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk) writes:

[snip snip]
>DBRITZ fact anyone. All I am suggesting (now putting it less specifically) is that by
>DBRITZ somehow getting muons into the lattice and thereby accelerating cold fusion,
>DBRITZ you might - just might - have almost the same conditions as purported for the
>DBRITZ muon-less 'cold fusion' said by some to be happening in PdDx. If the purporters
>DBRITZ are lucky, they would then see a large accumulation of 4He without a single
>DBRITZ neutron or gamma. I have to admit to Chuck Harrison's point that if you, on the
>DBRITZ other hand, saw neutrons, tritons, protons and a few gammas, it wouldn't really
>DBRITZ PROVE a thing, but it would add weight to the argument that fusion, if it took
>DBRITZ place within PdDx, is like d-d fusion anywhere else.
>DBRITZ I am well aware that conditions might NOT be the same with muons in there.

>    Dieter, it is a good experiment and should be tried.
>      It is the presumed interpretation that is lacking in quality.  
>      If the implication was vague, you might, for example, substitute in place 
>of your hypothesized experiment a Stan Meyer cell. 

I fail to see why the Stan Meyer circus is invoked by CNF advocates; you'd
think they'd want to disassociate themselves from it, to keep what respecta-
bility they still might have. One of the mysteries of life.

>     Would you say the result influences the reality of 'classical'  cf?    
>     In summary, there have appeared additional purported results, theories, and 
>technologies  that may or may not 'overlap' cf.

>     As to Chuck's point, and the simplistic examination for products:
>     As you are aware, a good analysis would have to subtract the intrinsic
>values to determine the incremental increase caused by the beam first. 
> The mere detection of products without semiquantitative correction for what the
>extrinsic reaction actually produced has obvious potential for error.

As always, Mitch, you're clear as a bell. I'm just a humble electrochemist and
I don't know what the above means; sorry.

Let me spell out a hypothetical scenario: someone does this experiment,
somehow he gets muons into a sample of PdD, without using a multi-keV beam,
and lo! the sample glows red-hot, MJ are emitted, and loads of 4He, but the
neutron detector doesn't stir, nor do the cp or gamma detectors, and MS
analysis shows there is only 4He, and of course a lot of deuterium in the
chamber (the 4He would of course come out of the hot sample), or in the
post-mortem extracted gases out of the sample. No tritium above background.
My feeling is that the CNF advocates would trumpet this all about and certain
shares would skyrocket. The advocates would not bother withsuch
trivia as what energy did the muons have, or did you try the Stanley
car?





-- 
Dieter Britz   alias kemidb@aau.dk
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenkemidb cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.30 /  dowen@vaxc.cc. /  Re: CNF bibliography updates and archive retrieval, 29-Jun-94.
     
Originally-From: dowen@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CNF bibliography updates and archive retrieval, 29-Jun-94.
Date: 30 Jun 94 19:33:11 +1000
Organization: Computer Centre, Monash University, Australia

Hi folks,
My thanks to Dieter for his continuing good works.....
In article <01HE3YOL3BHE9BXLB0@vms2.uni-c.dk>, BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk
 (Dieter Britz) writes:
 
> #.................................................................. 14-Jun-94
> Manduchi C, Zannoni G, Milli E, Riccardi L, Mengoli G, Fabrizio M, Buffa A;
> Nuovo Cimento 107 A (1994) 171.
> "Anomalous effects during the interaction of subatmospheric D2(H2) with Pd 
> from 900C to room temperature".
> ** The authors have previously reported experiments with beam discharges and
> electrolysis together, but there were some alternative explanations for the
> results. Here, the team reports a fairly standard "Italian style" CNF
> experiment, that is metal (here: Pd) and D2 gas, at a range of temperatures. A
> tube with some Pd sheets, 6 cm^2 and thicknesses from 0.002 to 0.1 cm at its
> bottom was connected to a vacuum system, and placed into a furnace chamber.
> The Pd was vacuum treated at 900C and then heated in the presence of 900 mbar
> of D2 or H2 gas to clean the surface. After removing the gas, 900 mbar of gas
> was again admitted and the temperature allowed to fall to room temperature,
> which required about 30 h. The pressure change was used to measure loading,
> having calibrated in the absence of Pd. Neutrons were monitored using a
> stilbene detector for the background and a NE123 scintillator for the cell. A
> plastic track CR-39 detector was used for charged particles (cps) at room
> temperature at the end of the cycles. An interesting finding was that there
                                       ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> was some H2 or D2 absorption to about 0.2 (H/Pd) between 700 and 300 C, then
  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> falling to zero at 200-150C, and rising at 80C to room temp to a maximum of
  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> 0.89, unexpectedly high. This was reproducible. Absorption at low
> temperatures, without prior heating, was down at about 0.17. Also, the figure
> shows a distinct neutron emission at the point where the large loading begins
                   ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> during cooling, as well as during the early, higher temp., phase.This was not
  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From (my) underlined text, it appears that there were -no- neutrons seen in
the 200-150C region, although neutrons were seen at both higher (>300C) and
lower (<80C), temperatures. 
This is approximately the same temperature region that Reifenschweiler (1),
noted a reduction in radiation in his investigations with finely divided Ti.

Hmmmmmmmmm  (again).

> seen in the blank controls. Cp's were also found, roughly proportional to Pd
> film thickness but not correlated with loading level. Runs with H2 achieved
> loadings of 0.75 and also neutron emissions around the loading point, but no
> cp's. The neutron results are a puzzle and indicate that either there was an
> error here or that PdH also emits neutrons.  Apr-92/Feb-94 
> #.......

  (1) Reduced radioactivity of tritium in small titanium particles",
     Physics Letters A 184 (1994) 149-153.

Best regards to all,
Daryl Owen.

The above comments are only attributable to myself.

cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudendowen cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.30 / John Logajan /  Nalgene tank results [Repost]
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Nalgene tank results [Repost]
Date: 30 Jun 1994 09:47:02 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Online Services Member.

After moving the tank 30" above the floor, the calorimetry constant climbed
as I suspected into the 0.24-0.25 range, at 0.248 C/W @ 60 watts.

Since the old reading was 0.21 at the floor level, then applying this
percentage correction to my old tank number (0.188) gives 0.222.

So we have 0.248 for Nalgene tank and 0.222 for wastebasket at 60 watts.

I now have the wastebasket filled with water, with a splitter in the
air hose feeding a stream of bubbles to both the Nalgene tank and
the wastebasket.  Both are loaded with 28 liters of water.

As soon as I waterproof the second thermometer-sensor, I will place it
in the "null" tank and use that as the ambient temperature for all
future calculations.  This is very similar to the method that Thermacore
used to measure the ambient temperature (a second tank.)  I don't expect
any major changes in values because of this, but I am expecting the
data points to smooth out more.

--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com -- 612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills  MN 55112 USA           -

cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.30 / mitchell swartz /  A decisive (?) experiment -- conclusion
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: A decisive (?) experiment -- conclusion
Subject: Re: A decisive (?) experiment -- needs semiquantitative correction
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 1994 11:31:32 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

   In Message-ID: <kemidb.772957691@aau>
Subject: Re: A decisive (?) experiment -- needs semiquantitative correction
Dieter Britz (BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk) writes:

    >    Dieter, it is a good experiment and should be tried.
     >      It is the presumed interpretation that is lacking in quality.  
     >      If the implication was vague, you might, for example, substitute in place 
     > of your hypothesized experiment a Stan Meyer cell. 
                  
DBRITZ I fail to see why the Stan Meyer circus is invoked by CNF advocates; you'd
DBRITZ think they'd want to disassociate themselves from it, to keep what respecta-
DBRITZ bility they still might have. One of the mysteries of life.

   And that potential problem, BTW, is exactly the point, Dieter. 

   Best wishes.
                Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com)

cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.30 / mitchell swartz /  A decisive (?) experiment -- conclusion cont.
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: A decisive (?) experiment -- conclusion cont.
Subject: Re: A decisive (?) experiment -- needs semiquantitative correction
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 1994 12:07:19 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

   In Message-ID: <kemidb.772957691@aau>
Subject: Re: A decisive (?) experiment -- needs semiquantitative correction
Dieter Britz (BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk) writes:

    > As to Chuck's point, and the simplistic examination for products:
    >  As you are aware, a good analysis would have to subtract the intrinsic
    >values to determine the incremental increase caused by the beam first. 
    > The mere detection of products without semiquantitative correction for what the
    >extrinsic reaction actually produced has obvious potential for error.
 
DBRITZ As always, Mitch, you're clear as a bell. I'm just a humble electrochemist and
DBRITZ I don't know what the above means; sorry.

   Excuse me.  I posted previously in this thread:

MS     I have put the elements of the BRITZ HYPOTHESIS in the 
MS following table.   
MS 
MS        TABLE TO TEST THE BRITZ HYPOTHESIS
MS ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MS |FUSION RXN         | loading ~>.9 |   neutrons   |   exc heat   |   tritium    |
MS ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MS |inactive           |      no      |      no      |      no      |      no      |
MS ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MS |active cold fusion |    always    |  0 to v.few  |     yes      |only if impure|
MS ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MS |muon fusion        |      ?       |     yes      |      ?       |     yes      |
MS ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MS |beam experiments   |   varies     |     yes      |  (probably)  |     yes      |
MS ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MS |hot fusion         |not applicable|     yes      |  (probably)  |     yes      |
MS ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MS     Thanks in advance for correction of "?"  and errors.   The excess heat
MS category for non-cold fusion systems is probably more complicated since
MS the generated reactions ultimately generate heat, and in many cases "breakeven"
MS has not been sustained, and so "excess" may not have meaning.

  What was meant was that the incremental increase would be the calibrated
output corrected by either row 1 or row 2 (i.e. either active or inactive cf).
Which to use?   Could both simply be ignored?
The simple correction is to subtract the (intrinsic values) row 1
or 2  to determine the incremental increase caused by the beam addition. 


DBRITZ Let me spell out a hypothetical scenario: someone does this experiment,
DBRITZ somehow he gets muons into a sample of PdD, without using a multi-keV beam,
DBRITZ and lo! the sample glows red-hot, MJ are emitted, and loads of 4He, but the
DBRITZ neutron detector doesn't stir, nor do the cp or gamma detectors, and MS
DBRITZ analysis shows there is only 4He, and of course a lot of deuterium in the
DBRITZ chamber (the 4He would of course come out of the hot sample), or in the
DBRITZ post-mortem extracted gases out of the sample. No tritium above background.
DBRITZ My feeling is that the CNF advocates would trumpet this all about and certain
DBRITZ shares would skyrocket. 
   
   IMHO, as discussed above, there may be improvement in analysis 
by considering all possible contributions to the output.
    This can avoid some potentially erroneous interpretations.       

DBRITZ  The advocates would not bother withsuch trivia as 
DBRITZ what energy did the muons have, or did you try the Stanley car?

    ?   Why would anyone not be interested in the muon energy?  
          and incident angle, and ....                                        ;-)

                Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com)


cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.30 / Richard Blue /  Reply to Mitchell Swartz
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Reply to Mitchell Swartz
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 1994 14:26:57 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To support my assertion that there must be very few excited helium
nuclei present at any given time during a cold fusion process Mitchell
requests that I give some numbers so here goes.
 I start with an assumption (made by Miles, for example) that roughly
25 MeV is released per reaction event.  From that I calculate that
each joule of heating would require the formation of 2.5 X 10^11
excited 4He* nuclei.  At a power level of 1 watt that becomes the
number of 4He* formed per second.  The other input for the calculation
is the expected lifetime for this excited species.  I would start
with a number like 10^-22 seconds, but as usual I can give away
many orders of magnitude and still make my point.  Unless you can
conjure up some reason to claim that the decay rate is slowed by
ten orders of magnitude there must be less than one exited nucleus
present on the average at all times.

Next question relates to whether I can correctly refer to PdD as
being a "weakly bound" lattice.  My notion that PdD is rather
soft stems from the experimental observation of the swelling and
cracking that commonly occurs during the loading process, and
a presentation by a theorist at a Michigan State Physics Department
Colloquium in which the speaker (I am sorry, but I forgot his name
so I am unable to give proper credit.) presented the results of
a model calculation showing that the PdD lattice would fall apart
as the 100% loading condition was approached.  It is, however,
a minor point once we make assertions that the energy release
per event is several MeV.  There simply is no lattice known to
man sufficiently tightly bound to resist the disruptive effects
to which I refer.

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.30 / Richard Blue /  Problem with Fleischmann picture
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Problem with Fleischmann picture
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 1994 14:44:40 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

The latest batch of abstracts posted by Deiter Britz includes one
by Fleischmann, et al. which contains the following assertion:

"The main process is the formation of 4He, with the absorption of
the resultant energy by strong-dipole coupling; hence the absence
of gamma radiation."

Prof. Fleischmann is making a rather bold assertion here which is
on extremely shakey footing.  I certainly hope that the full text
of the paper will give a more complete definition as to what is
meant by "strong-dipole coupling" and what the possible physical
origin of this coupling could possibly be.  Normally it takes two
to tango to achieve any sort of electromagnetic coupling between
a nucleus and its surroundings.  That is to say there must be
a nuclear dipole moment and a dipole field of atomic origin.
The problem that Prof. Fleischmann must face is finding a way
to boost the magnitude of this sort of interaction into a
truly preposterous domain of strengths.

I also would again point out that any picture that involves the
emission and reabsorbtion of gamma radiation will not work without
some further handwaving to retrict the reaction process to the
depths of the sample and then providing a strongly absorbing
skin - two miracles.

In any case isn't just a bit strange that the major process and
each and everyone of the side branches has to be doctored in some
strange and unexplained manner to bring the Fleischmann picture
into agreement with experimental observations.  Helium is formed
but never trapped inside the sample.  No high energy gammas are
observed.  Tritium is formed, but there is no evidence for the
protons that would be expected to deliver most of the energy to
the lattice.  Neutrons are detected sometimes in some experiments,
but no one ever sees 3He.  There are claims that there is no
ionizing radiation and there are claims that there is ionizing
radiation, but no one ever succeeds in recording and publishing
an energy spectrum for this radiation.

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.01 / Richard Blue /  Re: Deiter's decisive experiment
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Deiter's decisive experiment
Date: Fri, 1 Jul 1994 00:11:47 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Very early in the cold fusion saga, back in '89, there was an
experiment performed at the National Superconduction Cyclotron
Laboratory by Kashey, Tsang, et al., and the results were published
in Phys. Rev Letters, as I recall.  In spirit it was intended to
look for just the sort of thing that Deiter suggests, but using
only the available cosmic-ray muon flux.  It was to test a suggestion
that muons could induce an unexpectedly high multiplicity of
muon-catalyzed fusion events in the PdD lattice loaded via simple
electrolysis as the original Pons&Fleischmann paper had seemed to
suggest.

The method was to surround the electrolysis cell with an array of
neutron detectors and to look for neutron bursts.  Of course the
experiment found no such bursts, and it also called into question
Steve Jones's original claims for low-level neutron emission.
Cold fusion advocates probably dismiss this result, just as they
do many null experiments, because there was no magic incantations
uttered to insure that the loading reached an appropriate threshold
and there was no calorimetry to prove that cold fusion was occuring.
In any case, unless you really believe that the magic kicks in
only for the whole sample or not at all or something strange like
that this experiment did test the hypothesis that a PdD lattice
provides especially favored conditions of muon catalyzed fusion.

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.30 / Bruce Dunn /  Re: Nalgene tank results [Repost]
     
Originally-From: Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Dunn)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Nalgene tank results [Repost]
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 94 08:10:06 -0700 (PDT)
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada

John Logajan writes::

> I now have the wastebasket filled with water, with a splitter in the
> air hose feeding a stream of bubbles to both the Nalgene tank and
> the wastebasket.  Both are loaded with 28 liters of water.


        Part of the heat loss mechanisms for the tank will presumably
involve cooling due to evaporation of water, and the additional cooling
effect of inflowing cool air (which would cause cooling even if there was
no evaporation).  Have any direct or indirect methods been employed for
determining how such losses might contribute to the overall calorimetry
constant?  I am thinking of:

- replacing air bubbling with mechanical stirrring in one run, or
- measuring the water loss over several days to directly determine the
evaporation, or
- calculating the evaporation loss from the air pump output, the ambient
relative humidity, and the vapor pressure of water at the tank temperature
- calculating the loss due to cool air from the air pump output and the
specific heat of air.


--
Bruce Dunn    Vancouver, Canada   Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenBruce_Dunn cudfnBruce cudlnDunn cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.30 / Tom Radcliffe /  Re: Reply to Dick Blue on 4-Helium & Ti expts -- periodicity
     
Originally-From: tom@mips2.phy.queensu.ca (Tom Radcliffe)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reply to Dick Blue on 4-Helium & Ti expts -- periodicity
Date: 30 Jun 1994 17:27:40 GMT
Organization: Queen's University, Kingston

In article <CrwI8I.6zq@world.std.com>, mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
|>    In Message-ID: <2u9tab$gk9@knot.queensu.ca>
|> Subject: Re: Reply to Dick Blue on 4-Helium & Ti expts
|> Tom Radcliffe  (tom@mips2.phy.queensu.ca) writes:
|> 
|>    =  |> DBLUE=  Yes, Mitchell, I agree that E1 photon emission from an exited state
|>    =  |> DBLUE=  of 4He can only occur from a spin 1 state and that it must involve a
|>    =  |> DBLUE=  change in parity.  If a spin 2 exited state is formed it must decay
|>    =  |> DBLUE=  by some other pathway such as proton or neutron
emission or E2 emission.
|>    =  |> DBLUE=  Your assertion seems to be not that spin selection
rules inhibit photon
|>    =  |> DBLUE=  emission but that the lattice interactions do, so I don't understand
|>    =  |> DBLUE=  why you even brought up the spin other than to generate more of a
|>    =  |> DBLUE=  smokescreen.
|>       ms =   The periodic lattice enables other pathways.  
|>                  Is it present in beam experiments?
|> 
|> RADCLIFFE=  One of the curious things about the discussion of cold fusion is how
|> RADCLIFFE=  often its advocates seem unaware of common practice in nuclear
|> RADCLIFFE=  physics.  I personally have never produced a nuclear reaction in
|> RADCLIFFE=  anything other than the solid state, either a loaded lattice or
|> RADCLIFFE=  a vapour-deposited target layer.  
|> RADCLIFFE=  So YES, a periodic lattice is present in the majority of beam experiments.
|> 
|>   Tom, one of the curious things that occurs in discussions of cold fusion is how
|> often its skeptics seem unaware of the state-of-the-art in electro-, nuclear
|> and material  physics and engineering.
|> 

I'm short on time, so I'll just add a few comments.  I don't see anything
in the following that suggests Mr. Swartz is aware of anything in the
past thirty years of low-energy nuclear physics, or in modern material
science.

[more-or-less irrelevant stuff on radioactive sources deleted]

|>  
|>   Also, to consider the beam device, there are the various nuclear reactions 
|> inducible by some of the larger van de Graffs and most linear accelerators 
|> (fantastic source of line fields of high dose-rate electrons) and 
|> cyclotrons (wonderful Bragg peaks for dose boosting with mixed beams).    
|> 

Mr. Swartz's notion of a ``larger van de Graff'' [sic] is different from
mine.  Here at Queen's we have what is generally considered a small
van de Graaf, a 4 MeV machine, capable of producing a wide range of
nuclear reactions, using p, D, 3He or 4He beams on primarily solid
targets.  It is mostly used for solid-state work now.

|>   Yet where, oh where, Tom, is the periodic interstitial-filled lattice. 
|> Locally the impact of a beam produces significant damage to the lattice.
|> And that damage tends to destroy the periodic order.   
|> In many beam experiments, the thermal removal and/or other destruction of the
|> target limits use of that target.  There is a considerable literature on this.  
|>

So?  Point one is that beam-induced damage builds up over time. Point two
is that for much materials-science work the beam current is low enough
that it takes damage a long time to build up.  This is also true in
many nuclear physics measurements, as it is no fun to change your target
very often.  Point three is that loading a lattice electrochemically does 
not exactly leave it defect-free.
 
|>   Or are you talking about beam electrocrystallization here (heh-heh)?
|> 

No.

|>   You mention vapor deposited targets.
|> At first glance, it would seem unlikely that vapor-deposition would be 
|> cost-effective when used to create depths of deposit commensurate with 
|> area when other methods of growing single crystalline materials are 
|> available.   Were you depths commensurate to area?
|> 

I mention vapour deposited targets because they are used.  One of the
things you get with some materials (lithium, for instance) is diffusion
of the target layer into the gold backing (this does not happen with
some other backing materials.)  This can be observed in some scattering
measurements.  The point is that this sort of phenomenon is quite 
common, and no one ever sees anything to suggest that any of the
effects required for cold fusion actually happen.

|>   In summary, apparently in ***none***  of those cases presented above 
|> is a loaded-interstitial periodic lattice within a much heavier periodic 
|> lattice, both with long-range order, involved. 
|>      Is it?        Were yours?
|> 
|>    It would be most interesting if you examined the long-range structure
|>  of the materials in your experiments after the beam collisions.   Did you?
|> 

I'm not talking about one or two experiments I've done, I'm talking about
decades of accumulated data from low-energy nuclear physics and materials
science on a vast range of targets with different beams over a wide range
in energy.  One of the things that makes physicists sceptical of cold
fusion claims is that they are aware of and familiar with this literature.
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudentom cudfnTom cudlnRadcliffe cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.30 / John Logajan /  Re: Nalgene tank results [Repost]
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Nalgene tank results [Repost]
Date: 30 Jun 1994 17:48:08 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Online Services Member.

Bruce Dunn (Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca) wrote:
: - measuring the water loss over several days to directly determine the
: evaporation, or

I haven't been keeping an exact count of hours between adding water, but
I typically add about 500 milliliters of water every five days or so
to keep the level constant (60 watts.)  I'm sure it varies with tank
temperature.

So an order of magnitude evaporation loss is 100 milliliters a day.

I think on the worst case side, that is about a 4% error in the absolute
calorimetry constant.

In the internal Thermacore paper, they cite 126cc's a day lost to
evaporation at 50C (122F).  My temp is 39C (103F) at 60 watts -- above
a 76F ambient.

--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com -- 612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills  MN 55112 USA           -


cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.30 / John Logajan /  Re: Nalgene tank results [Repost]
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Nalgene tank results [Repost]
Date: 30 Jun 1994 17:58:51 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Online Services Member.

Bruce Dunn (Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca) wrote:
:         Part of the heat loss mechanisms for the tank will presumably
: involve cooling due to evaporation of water, and the additional cooling
: effect of inflowing cool air (which would cause cooling even if there was
: no evaporation).

According to my calculations, the actual Thermacore Ni/K device produces
about 300 liters of gas per day, whereas I am bubbling about 100 liters
per day through my calibration cell.  These aren't quite analogous, of
course, but the 300 liters does represent an uncorrected cooling factor
also.

--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com -- 612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills  MN 55112 USA           -

cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.30 / mitchell swartz /  Reply to Dick Blue on 4-Helium & Ti expt -- structure decomposition
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Reply to Dick Blue on 4-Helium & Ti expt -- structure decomposition
Subject: Re: Reply to Dick Blue on 4-Helium & Ti expts -- periodicity
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 1994 19:03:26 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

   In Message-ID: <2uuvac$oo2@knot.queensu.ca>
Subject: Re: Reply to Dick Blue on 4-Helium & Ti expts -- periodicity
Mr. Tom Radcliffe (tom@mips2.phy.queensu.ca) writes:

RADCLIFFE   Here at Queen's we have what is generally considered a small
RADCLIFFE van de Graaf, a 4 MeV machine, capable of producing a wide range of
RADCLIFFE nuclear reactions, using p, D, 3He or 4He beams on primarily solid
RADCLIFFE targets.  It is mostly used for solid-state work now.

    That is very interesting.    First, what do you consider a "large" machine.
    Second, very few are left down here at technical centers.   MIT has/(had) some
2 MeV (I think) units previously used for clinical pioneering of the application
of high voltage engineering to medicine.    They had the best unit I've ever 
seen, including enabling a person to be stably seated, and rotated, with 
dynamic moving blocks in beam to protect normal critical structures.   The only
larger unit I am aware of nearby is at the Museum of Science (Boston).

    Are these units actually more common at Queens rather than linacs?
What is your peak energy?


RADCLIFFE  Point one is that beam-induced damage builds up over time. Point two
RADCLIFFE is that for much materials-science work the beam current is low enough
RADCLIFFE that it takes damage a long time to build up.  This is also true in
RADCLIFFE many nuclear physics measurements, as it is no fun to change your target
RADCLIFFE very often.  Point three is that loading a lattice electrochemically does 
RADCLIFFE not exactly leave it defect-free.

     Point 1:  OK
     Point 2:  There are low intensity (measurement) levels and 
energy-producing levels.  What is the point for the latter case?
     Point 3:   Many defects.     It might increase fractures, dislocations, 
Shottkey, and Frenkel defects.   And to the degree that any putative
fusion or fission reactions occur, change reactant and impurity levels.


RADCLIFFE I mention vapour deposited targets because they are used.  One of the
RADCLIFFE things you get with some materials (lithium, for instance) is diffusion
RADCLIFFE of the target layer into the gold backing (this does not happen with
RADCLIFFE some other backing materials.)  This can be observed in some scattering
RADCLIFFE measurements.  The point is that this sort of phenomenon is quite 
RADCLIFFE common, and no one ever sees anything to suggest that any of the
RADCLIFFE effects required for cold fusion actually happen.

   Send me a snail-mail address for some examples to the contrary.   


     |>    It would be most interesting if you examined the long-range structure
     |>  of the materials in your experiments after the beam collisions.   Did you?
RADCLIFFE I'm not talking about one or two experiments I've done, I'm talking about
RADCLIFFE decades of accumulated data from low-energy nuclear physics and materials
RADCLIFFE science on a vast range of targets with different beams over a wide range
RADCLIFFE in energy.  One of the things that makes physicists sceptical of cold
RADCLIFFE fusion claims is that they are aware of and familiar with this literature.

     We thus gather you did not.   One of the things that makes open
minded scientists skeptical of TB-skeptics is that the latter fail to respond.    
    Did you examine the long range structure?
   Sounds like the lithium was at least driven in the gold backing in 
some of your experiments.            
   
          Best wishes
                -    Mitchell Swartz 

 
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.30 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Re: A decisive (?) experiment
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A decisive (?) experiment
Date: 30 Jun 94 11:41:51 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

Dieter makes the interesting suggestion for an experiment in which
muons induce fusion (true cold fusion, indeed, the *only* verified form
of cold fusion) in deuterium held in Pd.

Douglas Morrison correctly pointed out that this has been done, at KEK,
--by Nagamine (a competent friend) et al.   Ken found *no* evidence for
cold fusion when muons were stopped in Pd saturated with deuterium.
This is not surprising:  as Bill Page noted, the muons are scavenged nearly
100% by the Pd and so the actual mu-catalyzed fusion rate in infinitesimal.
I have also pointed this out before.  Nevertheless, the experiment was tried.
Also tried at Rutherford-Appleton Labs by J. Davies (another competent friend)
et al. -- same experiment and results:  no neutrons seen.

However, neither experiment took the step suggested by Dieter of looking
for helium.  Not such a bad idea (as Tom Droege emphasizes).  Although I
do not expect any measurable fusion, why not look for helium?

My thought is that we ask Nagamine and Davies for their Pd, and look for
helium in it -- already has been exposed to muons!  And helium should stay
put in the metal, so we could do Dieter's test easily.  2 cents says we won't
see any helium, but it won't hurt to look.

Note to Koloc etc.:  the muons are inserted at low energies and so do not
induce fusion by beam-target interactions.  When a d-d-muonic molecule forms,
the muon binds the 2 deuterons closely together so that cold fusion occurs
via barrier tunnelling.  This is unlike "hot" fusion where the d's are not
bound but have high kinetic/collisional energy.  Thus, mu-c-f is truly
"cold" fusion, and it has been done, reproducibly.  The results of true cold
fusion are these:
d+d -->  3He + n   about 50%
d+d -->  t + p  about 50%
d+d -->  4He    about zero (too small to detect in current experiments,
                  theoretically expect about 10^-7 branching ratio).

That just doesn't leave much wiggle room for cold-fusion advocates who assert
that 4He is the dominant end product, with little or no neutron production --
does it?

Glad to be back.
--Steven Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenjonesse cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.30 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Can the cf-heat notion be falsified?
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Can the cf-heat notion be falsified?
Date: 30 Jun 94 12:45:08 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

Dieter's suggestion of an experimentum-crucis, and replies by cf-advocates
 that it will not
be decisive, brings up once more the issue:  can cold-fusion (P&F style)
be falsified?  We have seen over and over again the cf-heat advocates
saying that they cannot be proven wrong.

A recent example comes from a letter I received from Ed Storms.  A few
weeks ago, I pointed out that Storms in his article in _Technology 
Review_ of May/June 1994 (pp. 20-29)  [ there's the reference, Dieter]
overlooked most of the negative evidence, and in particular made no
mention of the BYU experiments whatsoever.  Moreover, Storms neglected
to mention that many had looked for x-ray spectra but *no one* had 
produced an x-ray *spectrum* showing that nuclear reactions had indeed
been the source of heat in Pd (or Ni, etc.).  To me, this is very strong
evidence indeed that the source of the "excess heat" cannot be nuclear.
(I have detailed this argument in past postings, as has Dick Blue 
and others.)

Storms replies:
"Second, my failure to discuss negative studies or mention your failure to
detect neutrons has no relevance to the issue.  As you know, simple logic
shows that nothing can be proven from negative information."

Sorry, Ed:  a proposition that cannot be falsified by any
experiments does not fit into "good science."

I should mention Storms first point, to be complete;  Storms says:
"First, it is not a fact that I am employed by ENECO.  I am retired and
living off PERS.  ENECO paid for my trip to ICCF-4 [ in Maui] and occasionally
pays for a little consulting time.     No part of my association with
ENECO has any influence on my opinions or my objectivity."

Well, I'm glad we got that clarified.

Note:  ENECO is trying to get investors' money for cold fusion, and is the
company that secured patent rights from the U. of Utah for cold fusion.
I think U. of Utah was wise to sell out when they did.

--Steven Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenjonesse cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.01 / Ely Rabani /  Re: A decisive (?) experiment
     
Originally-From: Ely Rabani <rabani@jeeves.ucsd.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A decisive (?) experiment
Date: 1 Jul 1994 01:42:56 GMT
Organization: UCSD Biology Department

In article <1994Jun30.114151.1659@physc1.byu.edu> , jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
writes:
> My thought is that we ask Nagamine and Davies for their Pd, and look for
> helium in it -- already has been exposed to muons!  And helium should stay
> put in the metal, so we could do Dieter's test easily.  2 cents says we won't
> see any helium, but it won't hurt to look.

Hmm.  Was this supposition checked against quantitative diffusion information?
I don't know how difficult such a muon beam experiment is, but why not
investigate a fresh sample?  CNF isn't on solid ground; why increase
uncertainty with potentially bad/old samples.  This only complicates
operational description and productive comparissons of experimental results.

> Note to Koloc etc.:  the muons are inserted at low energies and so do not
> induce fusion by beam-target interactions.  When a d-d-muonic molecule forms,
> the muon binds the 2 deuterons closely together so that cold fusion occurs
> via barrier tunnelling.  This is unlike "hot" fusion where the d's are not
> bound but have high kinetic/collisional energy.  Thus, mu-c-f is truly
> "cold" fusion, and it has been done, reproducibly.  The results of true cold
> fusion are these:
> d+d -->  3He + n   about 50%
> d+d -->  t + p  about 50%
> d+d -->  4He    about zero (too small to detect in current experiments,
>                   theoretically expect about 10^-7 branching ratio).
> 
> That just doesn't leave much wiggle room for cold-fusion advocates who assert
> that 4He is the dominant end product, with little or no neutron production --
> does it?
> 
> Glad to be back.
> --Steven Jones

That much may be true for d-d-muonic molecules in their ground states,
but has anyone looked at excited states or ions including d-d-mu3+ ?
Further, in experiments involving muon-beam irradiation of Pd/D,
has the energy of the beam been varried?  I will admit to having only
a fragmentary knowledge of QM and less of particle physics, but it seems
that a precise description of energy states (among other things) could be 
critical, and would be one of the many sources of irreproducibility.  Have
these
(few) experiments been conducted with a spectroscopic (independent)
variable?

---

A possibly naive question:  
What is the background level, if any of muons?

------------------/-----------------------------\-------------------
Caffeine         / It may well be that           \  Economysticism
 + Internet...  / those ignorant of history       \  + Skinnerianism
  FULLY WIRED  / are destined to repeat it,        \  + hylotheism
--------------/ but so too are those limiting       \  + nationalism
ely@ucsd.edu / themselves to historical example. -Me.\   ICK!!!!
 -------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenrabani cudfnEly cudlnRabani cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.01 / mitchell swartz /  Reply to Dick Blue -- [4He*] and lattice disruption
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Reply to Dick Blue -- [4He*] and lattice disruption
Subject: Reply to Mitchell Swartz
Date: Fri, 1 Jul 1994 02:02:58 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

   In Message-ID: <9406301412.AA43436@pilot1.cl.msu.edu>
Subject: Reply to Mitchell Swartz
Richard A Blue (blue@pilot.msu.edu) writes:

DBLUE To support my assertion that there must be very few excited helium
DBLUE nuclei present at any given time during a cold fusion process Mitchell
DBLUE requests that I give some numbers so here goes.
DBLUE  I start with an assumption (made by Miles, for example) that roughly
DBLUE 25 MeV is released per reaction event.  From that I calculate that
DBLUE each joule of heating would require the formation of 2.5 X 10^11
DBLUE excited 4He* nuclei.  At a power level of 1 watt that becomes the
DBLUE number of 4He* formed per second.  The other input for the calculation
DBLUE is the expected lifetime for this excited species.  I would start
DBLUE with a number like 10^-22 seconds, but as usual I can give away
DBLUE many orders of magnitude and still make my point.  Unless you can
DBLUE conjure up some reason to claim that the decay rate is slowed by
DBLUE ten orders of magnitude there must be less than one exited nucleus
DBLUE present on the average at all times.

   OK but this is dependent upon your calculated lifetime.
             You said:

   DBLUE My thinking on this matter is that the release and instant distribution
   DBLUE throughout the lattice of the energy that is to appear only as phonons
   DBLUE is all too much of an appeal to magic.  I want someone to consider
   DBLUE the reaction rate, i.e. howmany 4He* are formed per second, and the
   DBLUE lifetime of this species.  You pick your numbers (something you think
   DBLUE you can defend) and then calculate how many excited 4He* exist at
   DBLUE any given time within the entire sample volume.  When I use my numbers
   DBLUE I get something much less than one.  That is to say helium exists only
   DBLUE as a very dilute impurity in the lattice, however you choose to
   DBLUE decribe it.
   [Message-ID: <9406281510.AA32114@pilot1.cl.msu.edu>
        Subject: Reply to Dave Davies; Richard A Blue (blue@pilot.msu.edu)]

    With 2.5 X 10^11 excited 4He* nuclei and a putative expected lifetime
 for this excited species of 10^-22 seconds, it would be  <<< 1.


DBLUE Next question relates to whether I can correctly refer to PdD as
DBLUE being a "weakly bound" lattice.  My notion that PdD is rather
DBLUE soft stems from the experimental observation of the swelling and
DBLUE cracking that commonly occurs during the loading process, and
DBLUE a presentation by a theorist at a Michigan State Physics Department
DBLUE Colloquium in which the speaker (I am sorry, but I forgot his name
DBLUE so I am unable to give proper credit.) presented the results of
DBLUE a model calculation showing that the PdD lattice would fall apart
DBLUE as the 100% loading condition was approached.  It is, however,
DBLUE a minor point once we make assertions that the energy release
DBLUE per event is several MeV.  There simply is no lattice known to
DBLUE man sufficiently tightly bound to resist the disruptive effects
DBLUE to which I refer.

   Actually, this appears to be a theoretical calculation, unclear from your
posting which was:
     DBLUE   A key question that remains
     DBLUE without any satisfactory answer is still why a nuclear decay with a
     DBLUE relatively large potential energy release is not disruptive in the
     DBLUE case of PdD - a rather weakly bound lattice under the conditions of
     DBLUE full loading.
            [Message-ID: <9406281414.AA45303@pilot1.cl.msu.edu>
          Subject: Re: Swartz reply to Radcliffe;  Richard A Blue (blue@pilot.msu.edu)]

     So, Dick, are you stating that all reported loadings over 1 are fabricated,
or do you have any experimental evidence to explain and clarify what you mean
 by the "PdD lattice would fall apart"?  and whether nuclear reactions are
a sine qua non for that?
    Best wishes
                Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com)





cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.01 / mitchell swartz /  McKubre/Srinivasan expt.: No excess heat  -- or what
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: McKubre/Srinivasan expt.: No excess heat  -- or what
Subject: <None>
Date: Fri, 1 Jul 1994 02:04:29 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

   In Message-ID: <1994Jun1.174438.1637@physc1.byu.edu>
Subject: <None>
Steve Jones (jonesse@physc1.byu.edu) writes:

    > =sjones     " I have, from a colleague at EPRI:
    > =sjones    they found *apparent* excess heat before
    > =sjones   taking recombination into account.  Then McKubre and Srinivasan 
    > =sjones  checked the evolving gases, and sure enough, *all* the 
    > =sjones   excess heat was accounted for by recombination 
    > =sjones    of hydrogen and oxygen!"
  >    Steve,  this would appear to be very important **if**  it is true,
  > and if it does occur for active (material-speaking) electrodes.
  >    First,  did  McKubre and Srinivasan find that "*all* the 
  > excess  heat was accounted for by recombination 
  > of hydrogen and oxygen"  for  the nickel-light water system, 
  > or  for the palladium-heavy water system,  or both?

= "I understand that this was for the nickel-H2O system, in the McKubre/
= Srinivasan experiments conducted at SRI."

   Thanks to Steve for his, albeit tardive, comments.
 Steve's response, however, demonstrates that even if his 
unsubstantiated, unverified hearsay report, were true
that it does not even hold for palladium/deuterium systems.
  
   >    Second, what was the loading achieved?
=sj  "Unknown."

  Guess that "boil" is lanced.
  Then there is no possible relevance whatsoever to this hearsay.
   After five years, the skeptics of this field still grasp at straws 
and endless hearsay with neither scientific backbone, nor actual data, 
nor  physical basis, whatsoever.

  Given the paucity of science, one would not be surprised if 
the next thing Steve and the other skeptics will begin quoting 
and relying upon will be the words of magicians or astrologers.

   >    Third, are you certain of your source?    Care to name him/her?
=sj   "Yes.  No."

    Please correct the above to: unsubstantiated hearsay. 

           -   Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com)


cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.01 / mitchell swartz /  A decisive (?) experiment -- Davies
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: A decisive (?) experiment -- Davies
Subject: Re: A decisive (?) experiment
Date: Fri, 1 Jul 1994 02:05:34 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

   In Message-ID: <1994Jun30.114151.1659@physc1.byu.edu>
Subject: Re: A decisive (?) experiment
Steven Jones (jonesse@physc1.byu.edu) writes:

SJONES Douglas Morrison correctly pointed out that this has been done, at KEK,
SJONES --by Nagamine (a competent friend) et al.   Ken found *no* evidence for
SJONES cold fusion when muons were stopped in Pd saturated with deuterium.

   Is that published?  His name was not in Dieter's compendium?


SJONES This is not surprising:  as Bill Page noted, the muons are scavenged nearly
SJONES 100% by the Pd and so the actual mu-catalyzed fusion rate in infinitesimal.

   Below you state there are ' d-d-muonic molecules',  and one must add d-muons too.
   do you know the ratio of the species?   for any loading?
   Can you give a range of first (or second) order reaction rates for the muons?


SJONES.  Nevertheless, the (muon beam)  experiment was tried.
SJONES Also tried at Rutherford-Appleton Labs by J. Davies (another competent friend)
SJONES et al. -- same experiment and results:  no neutrons seen.

   When one examine's Dieter's compendium, you published with him what
previously appeared to be a positive paper with the following abstract (by Dieter?).

   = Davies JD, Pyle GJ, Squier GTA, Bertin A, Bruschi M, Piccinini M, Vitale A,
   =  Zoccoli A, Jones SE et al;    Nuovo Cimento Soc. Ital. Fis. A 103 (1990) 155.
   = "Search for 2.5 MeV neutrons from D2O (heavy water) electrolytic cells
   = stimulated by high-intensity muons and pions".
   = ** D-charged Pd and Ti cathodes were exposed to high-intensity beams of
   = negative muons or pions. PdDx (x=0.8) and TiDx (x=?) were produced
   = electrolytically. Muon results indicate that Jones+ results cannot be
   =  explained simply by cosmic muon impingement.      Nov-89/Jan-90
   [after Dieter Britz]

    Are you retracting this paper, too, Steve?   Or perhaps you might
explain what he means by  "Jones+ results"?    I will try to find the paper which
hopefully wont need translation.
   Best wishes
                Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com)
 
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.01 / Matt Kennel /  Re: Problem with Fleischmann picture
     
Originally-From: mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Problem with Fleischmann picture
Date: 1 Jul 1994 04:44:32 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

Richard A Blue (blue@pilot.msu.edu) wrote:
: The latest batch of abstracts posted by Deiter Britz includes one
: by Fleischmann, et al. which contains the following assertion:

: "The main process is the formation of 4He, with the absorption of
: the resultant energy by strong-dipole coupling; hence the absence
: of gamma radiation."

: Prof. Fleischmann is making a rather bold assertion here which is
: on extremely shakey footing.  I certainly hope that the full text
: of the paper will give a more complete definition as to what is
: meant by "strong-dipole coupling" and what the possible physical
: origin of this coupling could possibly be.  Normally it takes two
: to tango to achieve any sort of electromagnetic coupling between
: a nucleus and its surroundings. 

Yeah, sounds like total BS.  That normal sort of 'electromagnetic coupling'
is called an MeV photon in the rest of the world.  Could you have
some sort of 'electrostatic' or 'magnetostatic' coupling (which presumably
this strong-dipole coupling involves) given that you need to get
rid of MeV energies?  "strong-dipole coupling" means "induction" right?
(think radio transmitters)

So they're saying that they can inductively couple gamma ray energy
systems, and *not* radiate.  Remember the higher frequency you go the
more likely you're going to radiate and not inductively couple.

So what's the wavelength of the appropriate MeV level photon?  The
receiver of this coupling must be well within this distance for inductive
coupling right?

It sounds like this would have to be a comparitively slow process to
satisfy relativity. (otherwise all you can do is radiate to preserve
causality).

But how do you make this process preferred over all the other alternatives
by orders of magnitude (in order to explain experimental non-results on
penetrating radiation)?  You have to make it FAST FAST FAST.  That's
fast next to both photon emission, and the normal *strong-force* mediated
reaction products (energetic charged particles and neutrons).

How do you get something much faster than that?  Those channels don't have
to wait to couple to anything else far away, are energtically favorable,
with butt-loads of available phase space.  So how do you arrange to make
them forbidden to 7 orders or whatever?

: Dick Blue

--
-Matt Kennel  		mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu
-Institute for Nonlinear Science, University of California, San Diego
-*** AD: Archive for nonlinear dynamics papers & programs: FTP to
-***     lyapunov.ucsd.edu, username "anonymous".
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenmbk cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.01 / Dieter Britz /  Re: Problem with Fleischmann picture
     
Originally-From: kemidb@aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Problem with Fleischmann picture
Date: 1 Jul 94 07:26:29 GMT
Organization: Aarhus University, Denmark

In <9406301443.AA32345@pilot1.cl.msu.edu> blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue) writes:

[...]

>into agreement with experimental observations.  Helium is formed
>but never trapped inside the sample.  No high energy gammas are

I myself have invoked the immobility of He in Pd. I do remember however
getting an email from someone a couple of years ago, who informed me that
this is not always the case. I have forgotten who it was and under what
circumstances He might be mobile in Pd. Is its mobility known, for example,
in strongly deuterated Pd? My poor memory tells me this might be the case.
As Paneth and Peters found in 1926 with glass - hydrogen increased its
permeability to He and this was the source of their error. We ought to try
to make sure of this. In any case, a scientist worth his/her salt, working
on CNF (some might say this is a contradiction in terms), would of course
look for the total He in both the gas and solid phases.


-- 
Dieter Britz   alias kemidb@aau.dk
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenkemidb cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.01 /  fairfax@sensei /  Alcator Progress 6/30/94
     
Originally-From: fairfax@sensei.pfc.mit.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Alcator Progress 6/30/94
Date: 1 JUL 94 12:45:11 GMT
Organization: MIT PLASMA FUSION CENTER

			Alcator C-MOD Weekly Highlights
				June 30, 1994

Operation of Alcator C-MOD this week included experiments on impurity
screening in divertor plasmas and investigation of the closed loop dynamic
response of elongated plasmas. 

The objectives of Thursday's run (MP#044) were 
 (1)  To puff He, Ne, and Ar into the private flux zone in the divertor and to
  measure how much gets into the  confined plasma, thereby being able to
  estimate screening factors for impurities which can be compared to  theory.
 (2)  To measure the amount of molybdenum sputtered by injected impurities as a
  function of the target electron temperature and hence to get some information
  on the sheath potential. 
These experiments were motivated, in part, by  ITER Physics R&D needs. These
experiments were quite successful, with data being obtained for all three
species. A preliminary assessment indicates screening of >99% in each case.
There is evidence for sputtering of Mo by Argon above a threshold temperature
of about 20eV, consistent with theoretical expectations.

On Friday, closed loop response of the plasma to a series of steps in the Z
position programming was carried out for several values of proportional and
derivative feedback gain. The object was to test our dynamical models as well
as to provide a basis for further optimization of our control algorithms. 

During the run on Friday, the OH2_L coax bus suffered arc damage. The damage
occurred during precharge, following a long series of successful, uneventful
shots. Repair of this bus will require a partial disassembly of the machine.
We have therefore begun our summer hiatus one week earlier than originally
planned, and have started the repair process. 

The machine disassembly is proceeding rapidly. The igloo cover and top two
tiers of igloo blocks have been removed, and a vent has begun. The upper port
cross assemblies have been removed, as have two of the horizontal flange
covers (at C and G-ports).The ventilation system has been attached and manned
access activities are underway. The in-vessel survey and inspection indicates
that the tiles, divertor assemblies, and other internals are in excellent
condition. The transmission lines from the ICRF tuning stubs to the antenna
ports have been removed. Diagnostic connections to the machine are being
removed, but most diagnostic systems will remain in place during the repair.

Ian Hutchinson, Steve Golovato, and Joe Snipes are presenting papers at the
European Physical Society Meeting in Montpelier, France, this week.
Thirty-five contributed abstracts from C-MOD are being submitted to the APS
DPP meeting. 


cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenfairfax cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.02 / R Schroeppel /  Who cares if the cf-heat notion can be falsified?
     
Originally-From: rcs@cs.arizona.edu (Richard Schroeppel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Who cares if the cf-heat notion can be falsified?
Date: Sat, 2 Jul 1994 00:13:34 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Steve Jones writes 
>   Sorry, Ed:  a proposition that cannot be falsified by any
    experiments does not fit into "good science."

I think this is too high a standard.
Notions of "unfalsifiable" are used to dismiss arguments about
politics, religion, and morals from the realm of everyday science.
It's not appropriate to bitch about CF being unfalsifiable.
The problem with CF is it seems to be untruifiable.  

Many frustrated people experimented with CF, and got negative results.
They reported these, and were answered with arguments equivalent to
"you left out the eye of newt".  After a couple of rounds of this,
they did what any sensible person would do - pursue other research.

A few diehards seem intent on forcing retractions from TBs:  This is
actually bad policy, harmful to science.  The only appropriate death
for CF is for the TBs to get tired of trying to make it work.  Whether
Steve Jones or I or Dick Blue thinks the TBs are wasting their time
is irrelevant; it's their time, their idea.  If you believe in the
notion of tenure (I don't), then Pons & Fleishmann should command
resources justified by their past performance - enough to keep a
modest lab going.

Reading over the first century (say 1750 - 1850) of the history
of electricity is a useful corrective:  The history is full of
experiments that didn't work, because the experimenters left out
the eye of newt.  Eventually, they invented recipes that worked.

Similar problems have beset biochemistry within our memory -
it took over thirty years to purify interferon.


It has also been suggested that CF should be abandoned because there
is no good theory.  This is also wrongheaded - theory suggests good
places to look for new information and useful artifacts, but it is only
one guide.  If you think you can make magic, in contradiction to my
theory, go right ahead:  I may not believe you, but if you are
convincing enough, I might modify my theory.  Only a fool thinks
we know a close enough approximation to the true theory of the
universe to absolutely exclude new phenomena.  By all means, try
playing your trumpet to the petunias; once in a blue moon, you'll
discover something valuable.

At various times, we have been *completely* surprised by data that
doesn't fit theory:  Radioactivity, continental drift, transposons,
prions.  We have to balance this against the myriad of fakes and
mistakes.  Each person judges differently.  This is good.

Rich Schroeppel   rcs@cs.arizona.edu

cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenrcs cudfnRichard cudlnSchroeppel cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.01 / John Logajan /  Re: Can the cf-heat notion be falsified?
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Can the cf-heat notion be falsified?
Date: 1 Jul 1994 13:05:18 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Online Services Member.

jonesse@physc1.byu.edu wrote:
: can cold-fusion (P&F style) be falsified?  We have seen over and over
: again the cf-heat advocates saying that they cannot be proven wrong.

It is a philosophical problem that is much bigger than just cold fusion
experiments.

What we can do is to find the limitations of the apparatus as described.
If Dr. X says he's found a 10% anomaly, and if we investigate and find
error factors that are +or- 5% for the described apparatus, then the
*positive* evidence he put foward is much discounted.

So while we might not be able to prove a negative, we can often discount
offered positives -- a philosophical standoff.

Considering the sheer number of ideas that have been proposed that still
float in that indeterminant state, what I wonder is why so many people
are so uncomfortable with it, or why they will spend so much time in
pursuit of the futile quest of proving the ultimate negative.  There must
be more worthy projects to which they can apply their resources.

--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com -- 612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills  MN 55112 USA           -

cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.01 / John Logajan /  Nalgene dual tanks results
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Nalgene dual tanks results
Date: 1 Jul 1994 15:03:32 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Online Services Member.

I've now run the Nalgene tank at 60 watts for 46 hours alongside my
wastebasket (with a tinfoil heat sheild between) which has the ambient
temperature sensor in it.  Both are filled with 28 liters and both
are stirred by air bubbles from a fishtank bubbler.  (Incidently, the
cool tank sat next to the hot tank for over 24 hours beforehand and
the temperature of the cool tank was within 0.4F of ambient as well
as within 0.4F of the "time filtered" ambient.  So inadvertent heating
of the cool tank by the hot tank has already been checked for.)

Over the course of 40 hours the calorimetry constant varied from a low
of 0.2444 C/W to a high of 0.2482 C/W.  That's about a 1.5% variation
(or +or- 0.75%).   The weather has been cooperating in that the room
temperature has not been swinging around much in the last week or so.

Swings in the constant correlate with swings in the ambient.  The
correlation is positive, which hints to me that the hot tank responds
slightly more quickly than the cool tank to changes in ambient.  If
the cool tank responded more quickly than the hot tank, the correlation
would have a negative sign.

There are short lived swings in the constant that do not seem to have
ambient swings associated with them, so I suspect they are related to
changes in room convection currents.

I have now switched power to 30 watts -- more results in a day or so.

There doesn't seem much hope of getting a super high cal constant
needed to explain away the Thermacore results -- especially considering
that the Thermacore tank sat on a metal bench which Hilborn and Criddle
have shown to cause a significant reduction in the absolute value of
the cal constant.

We need 0.3 to 0.4 C/W to explain away excess heat at 100% recomb,
and much higher than that if recomb was less than 100%.

--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com -- 612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills  MN 55112 USA           -

cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.06.30 /  prasad /  On homopolar machines
     
Originally-From: c1prasad@watson.ibm.com (prasad)
Newsgroups: sci.energy,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: On homopolar machines
Date: 30 Jun 1994 19:40:32 GMT
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center



		ROTATING MAGNET HOMOPOLAR GENERATORS
			(and a Newman motor)
		------------------------------------
			  v guruprasad
			   30 june 94



0. PREFACE

I intend this to be an FAQ. Though not many are actually asking questions,
I strongly feel that the many people building this particular kind of motors
need the answers, from an engineer with a deep love of physics and actual
first hand experience with electromagnetism and electrical equipment, in
design and testing.  Someone wrote asking for a Newman motor description,
so one is included.


1. INTRODUCTION

P Tewari of India is not the first person to conceive or construct a rotating
magnet homopolar generator.  But to the best of my knowledge, he holds the
record for the number and types of these machines he has built as a personal
pursuit over the last decade, and specifically for researching the Excess
Power (over-unity efficiency) these generators have been observed to produce.

Not only that, of the many excess energy researchers I know of around the
world, Tewari happens to be the one most directly familiar with real power.
Tewari worked in and rose to be the chief of the 500 MW nuclear power testing
and quality assurance group of the Indian government for many years.

Accordingly, I like to think of rotating magnet homopolar generators as Tewari
Generators (TG).  A TG consists of an axially magnetised conducting rotor,
from which the output voltage, and power, are tapped by brushes.


2. HOMOPOLAR MACHINES

The TG are just one class of homopolar machines, whose general characteristics
are LOW VOLTAGEs and HIGH CURRENTs.  Typical "production" machines are rated
at 1-10 V, 10-1000 kA, very often D.C.  Homopolar machines are in use ranging
from 10 kW to 10 MW and sometimes more.

Homopolar devices are essentially D.C. devices, ie. non-inductive, since the
definition does not permit dependency on alternating magnetic poles between
the stator and the rotor.  They therefore involve brushes.

The brush voltage drop in non-homopolar, or DIPOLAR, machines can be as high
as 1-5 V.  One usually tries to limit the brush loss (= brush voltage drop *
brush current * power factor) by using wider brushes with larger commutators,
and by maintaining a minimal brush contact pressure with springs.  However,
there are trade-offs involved.  More pressure means better contact, but
more frictional losses and faster wear-out.  And there is a physical limit 
on how wide a brush you can mount on a machine for a given application.

Generally, one often tolerates 1 to 5 V brush drop in DIPOLAR machines,
in which the brush loss is relatively limited because of the lower operating
current, the power being transferred more because of the higher voltage.
If you are dealing with a 220 V (or 110 to US folks) supply and drawing only
10 A, a 10 V brush drop means only 100 W (50 W at 110 V) brush dissipation,
out of the 2.2 kW (1.1 kW) total power transfered.

At 1 V, 10 kA, your homopolar machine only means 10 kW, but a 1 V brush drop
means ALL OF IT!  To drive it as a motor, you need to put in 2 V instead,
and that costs you 10 kW brush dissipation for a 10 kW motive power (minus
windage, friction, etc.).  Further, all your conductors must be of extra low
resistance - the i^2R losses are also compounded by the higher current.

There's however one saving grace, which might have helped Edison's campaign
against A.C.!  You could, at least in theory, think of licking the power line
with impunity and possibly breaking the circuit.  It's only 1 V, less than
an AAA dry cell!  One should be cautioned, however, from testing the
tongue-circuit-breaker theory, because of the large magnetic energy stored
in the high power homopolar circuit simply because of the high current.
Tewari's machines, according to my computations, have about 10 uH inductance,
which would hold about 50 J at 10 kA, which can pack quite a kick to one's
inquisitive tongue.  [Sorry, no pets!]

Production homopolar machines operating at 10 kW and above often use liquid
metal brushes, involving very specialised handling problems.  There was
a group led by Dr Appleton in the UK which did extensive R&D in the early
eighties on these machines for marine power.  Among other reasons, the low
voltage and high conductivity circuit means seawater leakage would cause
less problems, and manual or relay switching would be quite effective.
One is refered to Appleton's book on the subject, including use of
superconductor magnets. [Means I don't have the book on me now, and can't
quote more juicy details!]


3. HOMOPOLAR FLAVOURS AND GEOMETRIES

Homopolar generators come in two flavours, moving conductor and stationary
magnet or moving magnet and stationary load, since a portion of the circuit
needs to cut magnetic flux by relative motion.  Since the defining notion
is that the operation should not depend on a change in the flux density
(in direction or magnitude), the rotor is ALWAYS involved in the circuit,
and needs brush contacts.

		NOTE THAT THE CIRCUIT MUST CUT THE FLUX.
		This gets overlooked by newbies to the TG.
		Means that you cannot "enclose the flux"
		before it gets a chance to cut the load circuit.

Additionally, all *rotary* homopolar generators admit two principal geometries,
with a possible mix of in-betweens, the radial and the axial.

In the radial geometry, the rotor current is radial, between brushes placed
at different radial distances from the shaft, typically on the shaft and
on the rim (Fig. 1).  Consequently, in order for the circuit to cut it,
the magnetic flux must be axial, as shown in the figure.  The theory shows,
for both motors and generators, that the radial homopolar machines should
be conservative if frictional losses are ignored.


Fig. 1.	Radial (Disc) homopolar geometry:

			  /----- i -----\
			  |		|
			  v		|
		  ---	------		|
		   ^	|    |		R  load resistance incl brush drop
		   |    |    |		|
		   V	|    |	-- B ->	|
		   |    |    |		|
		   |	|    |		v
	shaft	------------------------------------
		------------------------------------
			|    |
			|    |
			|    | rotor		radial distance r
			|    |			rotor radius a
			|    |			shaft radius b (take 0 for
			------				simple computations)

			<- B --
					tangential velocity v(r) = wr
					radial emf V(r) = wrB(r)
					radial power p(r) = iV(r)
					mechanical force f(r) = iB(r)
					mechanical power p(r) = iv(r)B(r)

	Note that |B| cutting the circuit is a function of r, since the flux
	must turn around the rotor (as shown near the bottom of the rotor).

	Conservation of energy (all radial homopolar machines):

		total electrical power = int { p(r) dr } = int { iwrB dr }
		total mechanical power = int { iwrB dr } == electrical power


In the axial geometry, the rotor current is axial, between brushes placed
at the same radial distance from the shaft.  The magnetic field must therefore
be radial as shown.  Note the curving of the flux around the edges, as it
needs to return through the shaft to complete the magnetic circuit.

Fig. 2. Axial (Drum) homopolar geometry:

			  |-----	V	 ---->|

			  /----- i -------  R  -------\
			  |		              |
			  v		              v
			---------------------------------
			|		N		|
			|				|
		   	|				|
			|				|
		   	|		S		|
	shaft	-------------------------------------------------------------
								<-- B --\
		-------------------------------------------------------------
		   	|		S		|		^
		   	|				|     <-\	|
		   	|				|	 \	|
		   	|				|	  B	B
		   	|		N		|	   \	|
		  	---------------------------------		|

					|		\
					|		 \	       /
					B		  B	      B
					|		   \	     /
					v		    \-->   -/


		axial coordinate x
		tangential velocity v
		length between brushes l

	Conservation of energy (all axial homopolar machines):

		emf = vB(x)
		electrical power = int { ivB(x) dx }

		mechanical force f(x) = iB(x)
		mechanical power = int { ivB(x) dx } == electrical power


Like radial machines, the axial homopolar machines are, by classical theory,
conservative if one ignores frictional losses.

One can mix the two geometrical extremes, eg. by using a tapered rotor
(see Appleton), with pros and cons to each design.  One could also consider
non-rotary, or linear, designs.

The engineering considerations regarding the rotary geometries are:

	a. brush contacts:
	
		Both brushes face the same contact velocity in axial design,
		which is good for simplifying the inventory.  Both brushes
		must be liquid metal types at high power, which would make
		the design doubly expensive in this regard.

		The shaft brush faces low contact velocity, which could mean
		it would be cheaper, esply at low power.  The rim brush would
		however face a correspondingly higher contact velocity, though.
		At higher power, the rim brush is the first to need liquid
		metal, since the shaft brush can be widened and can take more
		pressure.

		On the whole, the brushing issue tends to favour axial designs.


	b. mounting, weight and moment of inertia:

		The axial design involves a lot more moment of inertia for
		the same weight of rotor - note that one is really concerned
		only with the surface of the rotor, and the body can be as
		hollow as practical from other considerations, viz. magnetic
		and structural.  One would therefore want to make the rotor
		slim and long, the tradeoff being limiting weight and moment
		of inertia versus tangential speed (v=wr), which determines
		the voltage.  A long drum however can ruin the magnetic path!

		The radial design gets more difficult to build and mount as
		the radius increases, though it makes better use of the
		moment of inertia budget, and is easier to handle for the
		magnetic circuit.  The tradeoff is the rim brush velocity,
		and mounting instability leading to wobble.


	c. magnetic circuit design:

		This is a more serious issue for the moving-magnet flavour.

		In the axial (drum) geometry, the flux emerging from the
		cylindrical outer surface (assuming this is the N pole) must
		only return through the sides, at less than radial distance
		of the brushes.  Assembling permanent magnets in this geometry
		can be nightmarish, esply considering that iron bands might
		perturb the flux as well.  A drum electromagnet isn't a
		particularly attractive problem either!

		In the radial (disc) geometry, the flux returns over the
		edge, so to speak.  Assembling permanent magnets is again
		made tricky by the mutual repulsions, esply near the rim,
		where the centrifugal force compounds the problem.  The
		centrifugal force is a limiting constraint for a huge
		electromagnet as well.



4. EMF AND ADDITIVITY

In the fixed-magnet homopolar machines (refer to Figs. 1, 2), the magnetic
field is stationary (with respect to the load resistance R), but the rotor,
which is part of the load circuit, moves, cutting the flux.

An EMF is therefore induced in the rotor, of magnitude given with the figures,
proportional to the speed and the (normal) flux density.  A tiny observer
strapped onto the rotor sees the lab, load resistor and the magnet, all
spinning in the opposite direction.  This observer also feels an electric
field due to the relative motion of the magnet, consistent with the EMF
noticed from lab frame of reference.

In either perspective, the net induced EMF is that proportional to the
rotor portion of the circuit, and is additive.  Consider the cascading of
rotors in Fig. 3 below.  Since each rotor has an induced EMF, the total
EMF of the cascade is nE, where n = #(rotors) and E = EMF per rotor.

In DIPOLAR (ordinary) machines, the EMF can be added over many turns without
ever needing additional brushes.  While not quite as convenient, the fixed
magnet machines do allow addition of EMFs, but the price is more brushes.
Even though each rotor stage means two additional brushes, ie.  the brush
loss inefficiency cannot be countered by cascading, the extra voltage can
itself be useful.  For instance, it is more practical to invert 3 V d.c.
than 1 V d.c., even if the efficiency would be the same percentage.  In
addition, one must consider the problems in setting up a longer magnetic
field to accomodate the extra rotor stages and their brushes.

Appleton describes real-world cascading with the drum and tapered geometries.

Fig. 3: Cascading with 2 brushes/stage:

			  /----- i -----\	  /------ i ----\
			  |		|	  |		|
			  v		|	  v		|
		  ---	------		| 	------		|
		   |	|    |		|	|    |		R
		   V	|S  N|	-- B ->	|	|    |  -- B ->	|
		   |    |    |		|	|    |		|
		   |    |    |		|	|    |		|
		   |	|    |		\------>|    |		v
	shaft	-------------------------------------------------------
		-------------------------------------------------------
			|    |			|    |
			|    |			|    |
		magnet	|S  N|			|    |
			|    |			|    |
		-- B ->	|    |     -- B ->	|    |	-- B ->
			------			------


				   <- B --


In a moving-magnet system, the rotor is either itself the magnet, or has
a conducting disc strapped on to it, so the magnet-disc combination works
as one rotating magnetised conductor.

However, the EMF is generated NOT in the rotor (or the disc thereon), but
in the LOAD RESISTANCE which is stationary with respect to the lab.  The
naive lab observer only sees a rotating magnet, and it is not obvious to
him (let's reserve "her" for depicting less naivete!) that the magnetic
field, though *vectorially* constant in space, is physically moving with
respect to him.  But it is, and the educated lab observer notices that
since the magnet is moving, so is its field, and, even if the field magnitude
and direction are steady, the relative motion itself guarantees an electric
field (she confirms this by applying Lorentz transforms on the magnetic field,
without needing any notions of spatial or temporal variations of the field).

Indeed, the lab observer in the moving-magnet case might even note that her
view is very similar to that of the observer-on-rotor in the fixed-magnet
case (see above again), to whom the relatively moving magnet means an
electric field in addition to the magnetic field.

On the other hand, even a naive observer-on-rotor in the moving-magnet case
does a fine job - he notes that since the lab, load resistance and the brushes
are all moving relative to him, cutting the flux of the magnet he's holding
on to, he concludes that they, the load resistance and brushes, must experience
an EMF.  This EMF would be consistent with the smart lab observer's result.

Once again, the rotor EMFs will evidently be additive if cascaded as in
Fig. 3 above.

One might be tempted to try a cascade using brushes only across the end
rotors, as in Fig. 4 below.  The inter-rotor connection is not brushed,
but instead rotates with the rotor stages.  This is evidently a problem,
since the inter-rotor connection runs counter to the direction of the
current in the rotor stages.

Fig. 4:  Cascading without additional brushes:


			  /----- i -----------------------------\
			  |					|
			  v					|
		  ---	------		 	------		|
		   |	|    |		/-------|    |		R
		   |    |    |		|	|    |		|
		   V	|S  N|	-- B ->	|	|    |  -- B ->	|
		   |    |    |		|	|    |		|
		   |	|    |----------/	|    |		v
	shaft	-------------------------------------------------------
		-------------------------------------------------------
			|    |			|    |
			|    |			|    |
		magnet	|S  N|			|    |
			|    |			|    |
		-- B ->	|    |     -- B ->	|    |	-- B ->
			------			------


				   <- B --


In a fixed-magnet cascade of this type, the EMF in the connection is
obviously in the reverse direction to that induced in the rotor stages.
The net EMF of the "cascade" would therefore only be that of one stage.

In a moving-magnet configuration, the EMF is not induced in the rotor
stages, but in the single fixed load segment (R).  So the EMF does not
increase in this case either beyond that of a single rotor stage.  A quick
glance at Fig. 3 shows why the EMF should add with additional brushing
- each pair of brushes defines one fixed load segment.  The rotor and
fixed-load circuit segments are evidently complementary.


5. EXCESS POWER: NEWMAN MOTOR

The apparent connotation that excess power is "free", makes me feel it is
somehow "unearned".  That however is how I like to look on fossil and nuclear
fuels, for that's the real free ride we are taking while it lasts.  Anyway,
I prefer to call excess power excess power.  Many people want to call it
"free energy", but that confuses with the thermodynamic term due to Gibbs.
Not surprisingly, a computer search for "free energy" generates miles of
thoroughly innocuous chemical or metallurgical analyses.

Excess power (or energy) was reported by P&F (of course) in palladium-D20
electrolysis, as excess enthalpy, which is the chemists' way of describing
things.  Excess power has been reported lately in a hydrosonic pump, in
the form of heat.  Excess power in electrical and mechanical forms was
the big issue with Newman motors.

Someone wrote me asking for a working description of the Newman motor, so
here's one, just for the sake of completeness of this epistle, apart from
some relations with the homopolar excess power observations.

A routine viva-voce at my alma-mater, supposed to have been one of the finest
electrical engineering departments in the world, used to be the following:

	Consider a transformer.  But for the losses, power in = power out.
	We use a transformer most often for stepping the voltage up or
	down.  This can be done with the turns ratio, independent of
	the actual number of turns or the core.  Core causes iron loss
	due to hysterisis, so throw away the core.  Flux coupling?  Use
	an autotransformer, and try telling me where else the flux could
	get lost!  Now more turns means more copper loss, so why use
	more copper?  Just make 1:whatever #turns you need for the correct
	ratio, and now you have NO copper or iron loss, so why don't
	we do things that way?!

	(Needless to say, very few fresh graduates do manage to answer
	the question, and fewer engineers at the local electric utility
	- don't worry, that's in India!)


Joe Newman apparently hit the same conceptual questions.  So out went the
iron core, and Joe wound a big coil.  Of course, without a core, it's kind
of difficult to make a multi-pole armature, so the coil becomes the stator.
Now for the rotor.  Once again, why use A.C. with the hysteris loss?  So
Joe picked a permanent magnet, possibly a small one initially.  That's what
I did, too, since one ordinarily tends to think that it's easier to turn
a small rotor than a big one.

Joe was in for a big surprise, and though I had read his book and picked
the needles in that haystack, so was I when I first tried a small Radio Shack
Nd magnet (1.2 T on surface) and then a much weaker (.3 T) Sr-based ceramic
magnet weighing over a kilo.  With a 100 H coil (22,000 turns, 1.2 kOhm) at
50 mA, the Nd magnet barely vibrates, while the big weak ceramic magnet
merrily flips over!!  The secret is, of course, that the torque varies
as the moment, which is proportional to the volume and is much larger for
the ceramic than for the Nd.

Many experimenters attempting to reproduce Newman's motors complain(ed)
of very low torques.  Invariably, this is because they didn't *believe*
Newman's design rules - A) use no core --- this gives you a very large field
so you can use a large magnet! -- and B) use a heavy magnet (one of Newman's
smallest motors in the book used a 7 kg magnet, probably AlNiCo, which
would have had about .2 T residual flux only, once the keepers were removed).

Once the magnet-rotor is willing to turn, you need to switch the current
every half-cycle, so that it can continue turning.  The simplest thing to
do is to mount the commutator on the magnet, so that its turning will
automatically switch the current to the coil.  You will need two split
rings and two slip rings, connect slip ring brushes to battery, connect
split ring brushes to coil.  Connect slip rings alternately to the split
ring segments by soldering say, on the rotor.  Provided you have 2-seg
split rings, the motor should work.  The arcing is normal for any commutator
motor (hold, it's not the coil turns, but the stored energy that shows
up brilliantly, so the arcing shouldn't frighten you!)

The Newman motor turns at a typical 50 V, 50 mA = 2.5 W (my motor), slowly,
lethargically, but it does.  Considering its moment of inertia, the low speed
(1 Hz) is expected.  But hold, NO EXCESS POWER YET.  Still, you've got to
see a 2 W, 1 kilo rotor before you realise how unusual it is!

Joe might have reasoned thusly for the next step.  When you break the coil
circuit, the *back-emf* evidently generates an immense short term current,
which ordinarily charges the capacitance of the broken contact (apart from
discharging through the arcing).  Though the *emf* is *back*, the *current*
is still *front* (easy to see, by Lenz's rule, it should try to conserve
the magnetic field).  Thus, it would deliver an immense impulse to the rotor
IN THE FORWARD DIRECTION, so you could, in theory, break the coil circuit
repeatedly wihout loss of mechanical power!  So Joe tried it, and it seemed
to work.

Another thing that happens is that once the broken contact capacitance gets
charged by the back-emf, it drives a current back into the coil, but in
the OPPOSITE direction.  The coil becomes an LC tank circuit with a low
resonance frequency.  But all isn't lost, since each cycle of oscillation is
weaker than the previous, thanks to the various losses.  So while the even
half cycles cost you power, the corresponding odd halves (first, third,..)
put something more in for you.  Additionally, Newman introduced a shorting
segment in the split ring gaps, which completely dampens all but the first
big half cycle.  The result is a quieter, and no less weaker, motor.

Seeing Newman's book, I tend to think that this much was Newman's hacking
without real insight.  A regular engineer or physicist would have estimated
the increased ohmic loss, though over a shortened time, and given the
arcing, would have stopped right there.

But somewhere down the line, Newman noticed that the motor with the breaks
was far stronger, in torque and output power, than he would have expected.
This increase is actually quite dramatic, and occurs only for break periods
of about 10 to 15 ms, irrespective of the size or speed of the motor.

	I know of no Newman-type motor, with enough torque to rotate
	continuously *without* contact breaking at low currents, that
	will not show output *mechanical* power in excess of its
	electrical input.

Those with incomplete information are referred to the concluding pages
of Newman's book of 1987, in particular to Dr Hastings' testimony before
the Senate in which he describes that the NBS testing did not measure
mechanical power at all.  [Newman's apparent mental entropy should be no
reason to resonate with our own.]


6. EXCESS POWER IN HOMOPOLAR GENERATORS

Unlike Newman motors, homopolar generators are

	a. gentle, linear creatures, without high frequency A.C. running
		untamed through the circuit,

	b. low voltage, high current devices, instead of very high voltage
		at low current,

	c. very simple in the mechanism (all in the figures above), so
		any excess power should be more intriguing and less prone
		to observational errors.

The similarity is as follows:

	d. both involve only AIR-CORED INDUCTANCE in their circuit:

		The Newman motors have no iron core (other than the rotor
		itself, which doesn't occupy much of the magnetic circuit).

		The Tewari Generator load circuit involves no iron core
		either.  In the figures above, the load circuit magnetic
		field should be perpendicular to the paper (or video screen),
		and involves no significant iron path.


	e. both show similar magnitudes of excess power (or net power gain)
		at about the same circuit magnetic moment due to the current:
	
		The typical Newman coil showing excess power holds a magnetic
		moment of about 10 mA * 200,000 turns (Newman's, or rather
		Hastings' figures) across about 100 cm^2 = 20 A-m^2.  This is
		for a power gain of 14 W / 0.36 W = 40x, 14 W being the ohmic
		dissipation in the coil.

		The typical moving-magnet generator (TG) shows excess power at
		about 2-5 kA over a circuit covering about the same area
		(in the plane of the circuit) for 1 turn = 20 to 50 A-m^2.
		This is for a power gain of about 4 to 7x.


Meantime, Tewari has reported being able to generate higher voltage A.C.
using a transformer, with a segmented disc of opposite magnetisations, so the
resulting EMF is A.C. though somewhat weaker because much of the flux
simply goes across the poles instead of cutting the load circuit.

My conclusion at this time:

	I know of no instance of a moving-magnet homopolar generator producing
	steady measurable electrical output in which a power excess does not
	show up at all.

	Excess power has not been reported with fixed-magnet homopolar
	generators.  But then, no offbeat experimenter might have looked
	for the possibility in the first place.  Considering that there is
	NO topological difference between the two (see the descriptions from
	the different observers), this seems the likely reason.

	I would like this hypothesis tested, that similar excess power should
	be measurable in the fixed-magnet generators as in the moving-magnet
	type, at similar operating parameters.


-- 
__________ __________ __________ __________ __________ __________ __________

#pragma prejudices=own brainwaves=own others=absolved

// prasad
// email: 71155.3116@compuserve.com, poll= 1/month.
// bad habits: unwashed robes, xrn.

cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenc1prasad cudlnprasad cudmo6 cudqt2 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.01 / Jim Bowery /  The Myth of "The Decisive Experiment"
     
Originally-From: jabowery@netcom.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: The Myth of "The Decisive Experiment"
Date: Fri, 1 Jul 1994 17:30:28 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

The notion of "The Decisive Experiment" is a 19th century conception of 
natural science as being on par with formal proof in mathematics.  Such 
a view of natural science has since been discredited and it is generally 
accepted that science progresses via what many call "the weight of the 
evidence" or what I would call stochastic enlightenment.

Stochastic enlightenment is key to understanding not only the progress of 
science, but its more "secular" analog, the economy.  In the economy, 
when someone hits upon a bright idea or economic insight, they can invest 
their own money and credit in that "kooky hallucination" and they usually 
lose their money.  HOWEVER, and this is key to understanding the profound 
fallacy of technosocialism, there is that occasional "kooky 
 hallucination" that eventually comes to prominence and, indeed, all 
important progress derives from this "spark of creativity".

In the area of fusion, there are a lot of "kooky hallucinations" running 
around.  The rancor and bitterness are a consequence of the fact that it 
is POLITICS that determines which of these "kooky hallucinations" gets 
funded and thereby enjoys some degree of relief from such derision, 
and which "kooky hallucinations" are subjected to ongoing derision.  

Take the politics out (and by that I mean remove government money, not
 just remove government oversight) and you will find the noise level will 
go down catastrophically even as progress in the field rises explosively.
-- 
The promotion of politics exterminates apolitical genes in the population.
  The promotion of frontiers gives apolitical genes a route to survival.
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenjabowery cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.01 /  fairfax@sensei /  cmsg cancel <1JUL94.12451173@sensei.pfc.mit.edu>
     
Originally-From: fairfax@sensei.pfc.mit.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cmsg cancel <1JUL94.12451173@sensei.pfc.mit.edu>
Date: 1 JUL 94 17:50:45 GMT
Organization: MIT PLASMA FUSION CENTER

cancel <1JUL94.12451173@sensei.pfc.mit.edu>
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenfairfax cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.01 / Bruce Dunn /  Re: On homopolar machines
     
Originally-From: Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Dunn)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: On homopolar machines
Date: Fri, 01 Jul 94 12:46:43 -0700 (PDT)
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada

c1prasad@watson.ibm.com (prasad) writes:

>
>                 ROTATING MAGNET HOMOPOLAR GENERATORS
>                         (and a Newman motor)
>
> [long article deleted]





        For an alternate view of the Newman machine, see the Skeptical
Inquirer, Winter 1986-87, pp. 114-116.  The machine was tested by the
National Bureau of Standards, who concluded "at all conditions tested, the
input power exceeded the output power".  This testing was the basis of a
court ruling that Newman's machine was unpatentable, as it did not produce
the claimed result.  It is noteworthy that the U.S. patent office
apparently does not require that a given device be accompanied by a correct
theory of operation - it merely requires that the device as described
operates as claimed (this has considerable relevance to the patentability
of "cold fusion" type phenomena).

        Newman appealed the decision, on the basis that the NBS testing was
carried out with the machine grounded, and that it was essential for the
machine to be ungrounded to work correctly.  The argument was rejected on
the basis that Newman's specification for the design and operation of the
machine said nothing about grounding, and that Newman was given the NBS
testing protocol in advance and had plenty of opportunity to remedy any
defect in the proposed plan of testing (a report of the loss of Newman's
appeal is carried in the Skeptical Inquirer, Volume 14, Spring 1990, p
226-228).

        In an article "The N Machine" by Duncan G. Cumming (Skeptical
Inquirer Vol 15, Fall, 1990, p 71-74), says the following:

[begin quote]
      In order to test an electrical machine, it is necessary to measure
power levels accurately.  ...  The scientific techniques for measuring
power are well established; so it is no surprise that, when apparent power
gains are reported, since the inventors usually have no formal scientific
training they neglect to measure one or more factors.  I have found that
the most usually neglected items are the power factor and the crest factor,
both critical to the measurement of power.  Joe Newman's device is a
typical example of the latter.  Ignoring the crest factor, he greatly
underestimates the input power to his machine, giving an apparent
efficiency greater than 100 %  The National Bureau of Standards also made
some measurements on his machine.  They, of course, did take the crest
factor into account and found true efficiencies well below 100 percent.
[end quote]


--
Bruce Dunn    Vancouver, Canada   Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca
cudkeys:
cuddy01 cudenBruce_Dunn cudfnBruce cudlnDunn cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.01 / Jim Carr /  Re: The Myth of "The Decisive Experiment"
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The Myth of "The Decisive Experiment"
Date: 1 Jul 1994 16:23:48 -0400
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

In article <jaboweryCs9vAs.F21@netcom.com> 
jabowery@netcom.com (Jim Bowery) writes:
>
>The notion of "The Decisive Experiment" is a 19th century conception of 
>natural science as being on par with formal proof in mathematics.  Such 
>a view of natural science has since been discredited and it is generally 
>accepted that science progresses via what many call "the weight of the 
>evidence" or what I would call stochastic enlightenment.

It does, except in those cases when a decisive experiment comes along. 
A few come immediately to mind:

1) The observation of a resonance at 3.1 GeV in e+ e- annihilation

2) The 'observation' of N-rays even when the apparatus was disabled

Actually, the idea is both older and newer than you suggest.  Any 
view of natural science that presumes that all of it is progress or 
that changes in our understanding only occur in one particular way is 
too narrow to be correct. 

>In the area of fusion, there are a lot of "kooky hallucinations" running 
>around.  The rancor and bitterness are a consequence of the fact that it 
>is POLITICS that determines which of these "kooky hallucinations" gets 
>funded and thereby enjoys some degree of relief from such derision, 
>and which "kooky hallucinations" are subjected to ongoing derision.  

This would be true if there were only one government and that government 
controlled the economy.  But there is not, and thus we see a variety 
of fusion approaches funded in a variety of ways.  In particular, and 
of relevance here, P&F are operating a very well-funded lab in France. 

-- 
 James A. Carr   <jac@scri.fsu.edu>     |   "It's never confusing though, 
      http://www.scri.fsu.edu           |  because ultimately it all fits 
 Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst.  |  -- it's just cockeyed and fits  
 Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306    |  and is fire."  -  Norman Maclean 
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.01 / Ad aspera /  WHAT'S NEW, 1 July 94
     
Originally-From: JTCHEW@lbl.gov (Ad absurdum per aspera)
Newsgroups: sci.research,sci.physics.fusion,sci.space.policy
Subject: WHAT'S NEW, 1 July 94
Date: 1 Jul 1994 21:28:05 GMT
Organization: Relayed, not written, by Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory


[Written by individuals at the American Physical Society and
merely posted by me, so respond to <whatsnew@aps.org> or other
references below.  Always posted here on sci.research; sometimes
crossposted to an eclectic selection of other newsgroups, with
followups directed here. Back issues are archived on NIC.HEP.NET,
along with the American Institute of Physics columns FYI and
PHYSICS NEWS UPDATE.  WHAT'S NEW is also World Wide Web compliant; 
it's on http://aps.org/.  If you have questions, send e-mail to
webmistress@aps.org.   Enjoy! -jc]

WHAT'S NEW by Robert L. Park   Friday, 1 July 94   Washington, DC

1. "ADJUSTMENTS" TO DEFENSE SPENDING BILL EXPECTED IN CONFERENCE!
In the frenzy to pass all 13 spending bills before adjourning for
the Independence Day recess, the House unexpectedly took up the
$240B Defense appropriation bill a day early.  The measure strips
$900M from university research programs (WN 24 Jun 94) -- that's
about half of all academic research in the DOD request.  Shortly
before midnight on Wednesday, it passed after only 15 minutes of
debate.  Although legitimate research projects were savaged, $67M
was earmarked for schools in the districts of the appropriators,
including $23M for the University of Pittsburgh, the alma mater
of Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) who also gave Pitt a $70M earmark last
year (WN 26 Nov 93).  Having made his point, Murtha now says he
is prepared to make "adjustments" in conference with the Senate.

2. SENATE ENERGY BILL: JOHNSTON SENDS A MESSAGE TO DOE ON FUSION!
Last night, the Senate passed its version of an FY95 Energy and
Water Appropriations Bill.  Bennett Johnston (D-LA), chair of the
Energy Appropriations Subcommittee, introduced an amendment to
his own bill restoring construction funds for the Tokamak Physics
Experiment.  You will recall that Johnston singled out TPX last
fall, insisting he first wanted action on ITER (WN 5 Nov 93). The
bill he brought to the Senate contained no construction funds for
TPX on the grounds that there was no commitment to ITER.  Having
made his point, he supported an amendment to start construction.
The news was not that good for the Advanced Neutron Source.  The
House cut construction of the ANS from $27M to $10M (WN 3 Jun
94); the Senate eliminated construction completely, arguing that
the project is "not mature enough."  The Senate bill provides
$631M for high-energy physics, $15M below the House, but still
$10M above the request; both put the extra money into operations.

3. HOUSE APPROVES THE SPACE STATION BY A LOPSIDED 278-155 VOTE!
The VA/HUD/IA appropriations bill (WN 24 Jun 94) now goes to the
Senate, where support for the space station seems assured even
though Senator Mikulski (D-MD) cautions against taking anything
for granted.  There were the customary floor speeches invoking
Columbus, and a Texas congressman implored his colleagues not to
"take the sparkle out of our children's eyes," but it was the
White House strategy of focusing on jobs and foreign policy that
paid off.  One could only wish that the White House, led by Vice-
President Al Gore, would fight that hard for the NSF budget.

4. NATIONAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY COUNCIL HOLDS ITS FIRST MEETING!
The Council, composed of agency heads and such, was created by
President Clinton last fall (WN 3 Dec 93).  The up-beat meeting
focused on the science policy white paper, "Science in the Public
Interest," the release of which is expected in three weeks--as it
has been for months.  No need to hurry.  Passage of the spending
bills put science policy firmly in the hands of appropriators.

THE AMERICAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY  (Note: Opinions are the author's
and are not necessarily shared by the APS, but they should be.)
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenJTCHEW cudfnAd cudlnaspera cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Sat Jul  2 04:37:08 EDT 1994
------------------------------
1994.07.01 / Robert Eachus /  Re: A decisive (?) experiment
     
Originally-From: eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A decisive (?) experiment
Date: 1 Jul 94 18:26:58
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.

In article <1994Jun30.114151.1659@physc1.byu.edu> jonesse@physc1.byu.edu writes:

 > Dieter makes the interesting suggestion for an experiment in which
 > muons induce fusion (true cold fusion, indeed, the *only* verified form
 > of cold fusion) in deuterium held in Pd.

   I was explaining your (relatively) recent muon results in Japan to
one of my colleagues, and got to wondering about muon induced fusion
involving other species than hydrogen isotopes.  (Yes I know that
there will be normal electrons present, etc., etc.  Or will there?
Consider (He3 mu D)++ should be stable in a plasma... ;-) That weekend
I tripped over (well cleaned up) some old papers in my study, and one
of them had reaction potentials for lithium hydrogen combinations.
Li6D might even be a good muonic fusion candidate.  Have you done
any experiments or paper studies in this area?  Or should I try to
follow through.

   Why did I have those tables around?  Well, once upon a time, there
were proposed isotopically powered space power plants with fairly high
power outputs (tens to hundreds of kilowatts).  (The SNAP series) If
you are running a turbine a steam plant requires lots of maintenance,
so what to use as an alternate working fluid?  Well LiH as a molten
salt is about as lightweight as you can get, but are these reactions
"bonus effects"--extra heat at no cost--or will they cause damage to
the reactor?  (Turned out that NH3 was probably the best choice for a
working fluid, but the interest in orbiting lots of plutonium died
about then.)

    Also have you considered the possibility that the reason for your
"low" muon capture rate by the He4 in the result may be an artifact?
He-mu will act like hydrogen in chemistry, so it could form, say He4T.
The reaction cross-section will be low, but did you figure it in?  Of
more interest would be if the muon can transfer from the He to the T
(or D) in the molecule.  If it does, then the molecule will break up,
and the moun will not be lost.  (In effect this is an endothermic
reaction which is not reversible.)

    If this can be driven by appropriately tuned photons, it is a lot
cheaper than making new muons.

 > Douglas Morrison correctly pointed out that this has been done, at
 > KEK, --by Nagamine (a competent friend) et al.  Ken found *no*
 > evidence for cold fusion when muons were stopped in Pd saturated
 > with deuterium.  This is not surprising: as Bill Page noted, the
 > muons are scavenged nearly 100% by the Pd and so the actual
 > mu-catalyzed fusion rate in infinitesimal.  I have also pointed
 > this out before.  Nevertheless, the experiment was tried.  Also
 > tried at Rutherford-Appleton Labs by J. Davies (another competent
 > friend) et al. -- same experiment and results: no neutrons seen.

   What about gammas?  Totally a different question, but I am curious
as to whether the equivalent to EC (electron capture) of an orbital
muon has been observed.


   However, neither experiment took the step suggested by Dieter of looking
   for helium.  Not such a bad idea (as Tom Droege emphasizes).  Although I
   do not expect any measurable fusion, why not look for helium?

   My thought is that we ask Nagamine and Davies for their Pd, and look for
   helium in it -- already has been exposed to muons!  And helium should stay
   put in the metal, so we could do Dieter's test easily.  2 cents says we won't
   see any helium, but it won't hurt to look.

   Note to Koloc etc.:  the muons are inserted at low energies and so do not
   induce fusion by beam-target interactions.  When a d-d-muonic molecule forms,
   the muon binds the 2 deuterons closely together so that cold fusion occurs
   via barrier tunnelling.  This is unlike "hot" fusion where the d's are not
   bound but have high kinetic/collisional energy.  Thus, mu-c-f is truly
   "cold" fusion, and it has been done, reproducibly.  The results of true cold
   fusion are these:
   d+d -->  3He + n   about 50%
   d+d -->  t + p  about 50%
   d+d -->  4He    about zero (too small to detect in current experiments,
		     theoretically expect about 10^-7 branching ratio).

   That just doesn't leave much wiggle room for cold-fusion advocates who assert
   that 4He is the dominant end product, with little or no neutron production --
   does it?

   Glad to be back.
   --Steven Jones
--

					Robert I. Eachus

with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudeneachus cudfnRobert cudlnEachus cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.02 / John Logajan /  Re: On homopolar machines
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: On homopolar machines
Date: 2 Jul 1994 00:22:42 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Online Services Member.

Bruce Dunn (Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca) wrote:
: the most usually neglected items are the power factor and
: the crest factor,
      ^^^^^
What exactly is the crest factor?  (No jokes about toothpaste :-)

--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com -- 612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills  MN 55112 USA           -

cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.02 / M Fullerton /  Hot Fusion cost
     
Originally-From: mefuller@acs.ucalgary.ca (Michael Ernest Fullerton)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Hot Fusion cost
Date: Sat, 2 Jul 1994 00:35:48 GMT
Organization: The University of Calgary


Does anyone have an estimate as to how much money has been spent on
Hot Fusion since the '50s?  How much more would be required to 
finally get a commercial source of energy?

-- 
Michael Fullerton         |  Seeds, like ideas, don't
mefuller@acs.ucalgary.ca  |  germinate in concrete
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenmefuller cudfnMichael cudlnFullerton cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.01 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Muon-catalyzed fusion, etc./to Mitch
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Muon-catalyzed fusion, etc./to Mitch
Date: 1 Jul 94 13:09:30 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

Mitch writes:
"Below you state there are ' d-d-muonic molecules', and one must add d-muons
too.  
  do you know the ratio of the species?  for any loading?"

Mitch, your writing seems to be getting more opaque.  I don't know what you
mean by adding "d-muons."  And what species are you talking about above?

Suggest you read a review article, e.g.,
S.E. Jones, "Muon-catalysed Fusion Revisited," _Nature_, May 1986,
then re-state your questions based on facts.

Likewise, suggest you read the Nuovo Cimento paper you cited, which
included me as an author, then re-state your questions based on your
understanding.  

Hopefully these papers will already answer most or all of your puzzlings.
Happy reading.
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenjonesse cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.02 /  dowen@vaxc.cc. /  Canon cold fusion patent .....
     
Originally-From: dowen@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Canon cold fusion patent .....
Date: 2 Jul 94 20:22:25 +1000
Organization: Computer Centre, Monash University, Australia

Hi folks,
The 25th of June edition of "New Scientist" on page 23 describes a patent,
number EP 568 118, by the Japanese company, Canon, which claims......
".... new ways to absorb large volumes of D in a metal carrier, by putting it 
close to a pair of electrodes to create a gas discharge in a hydrogen filled
chamber."  and also......
".... After storing deuterium in a palladium alloy for 60 minutes, says Canon,
the deuterium content had increased, with a tenfold increase in gamma ray
emission after 120 hours. Applying 5 minute cycles of...."
(This sentence does not sound correct but thats what they say.)
Furtermore....
".... More heat was generated at the negative cathode than the electricity
consumed at the two electrodes. All this, says Canon, proves that cold fusion 
works."
The "New Scientist" article was only a few paragraphs, does anyone out there
have more fullsome details?.... Jed?...

Best regards to all
Daryl Owen.

I am solely responsible for the above text.

cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudendowen cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.02 / mitchell swartz /  Muon-catalyzed fusion, etc./to Steve - diversity of species
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Muon-catalyzed fusion, etc./to Steve - diversity of species
Subject: Muon-catalyzed fusion, etc./to Mitch
Date: Sat, 2 Jul 1994 12:16:53 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

   In Message-ID: <1994Jul1.130930.1661@physc1.byu.edu>
Subject: Muon-catalyzed fusion, etc./to Mitch
Steven Jones (jonesse@physc1.byu.edu) writes:

   = "Below you state there are ' d-d-muonic molecules', and one must add
   =  d-muons too.    do you know the ratio of the species?  for any loading?"
SJONES Mitch, your writing seems to be getting more opaque.  I don't know
SJONES  what you mean by adding "d-muons."  
SJONES And what species are you talking about above?

   Well, Steve.   Here comes the clarification of this.   It is a 
complication often ignored by most.

   Start with 'simple' heavy water.    Does it have within itself, in addition to the 
D2O  ,    some   DHO   or    DTO     or     HTO       ....        ?
Probably yes, so the distribution is important.

   There are a lot of species, even ignoring the three-dimensional 
stereoconstellations water tends to form, and often great simplifications
are used.

   Similarly it has appeared that this diversity is possible with the 
muonic species.
For example, where  'mu' is a negative mu meson taking the place 
of an electron, one could have:

      D-mu   (a muon encircling a deuteron)      or

      D2-mu   (a muon encircling a diatomic deuterium molecule)      or

      D2-mu-mu   (two muons encircling  a diatomic deuterium molecule)     or 
       .....   


    This is all that was meant by species; that there are several of them. 
    It seemed that the distribution might be loading related, and also play 
a role in muon-related cold fusion reactions.

    I have not noted that information regarding these questions, 
but will recheck.    If this clarification enables you to share the 
facts (if you know them), please do.    Thanks in advance.

   Best wishes
                Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com)
 
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.03 / Richard Blue /  Reply to Mitchell Swartz
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Reply to Mitchell Swartz
Date: Sun, 3 Jul 1994 00:12:07 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To wrap up the discussion on the number of excited 4He* nuclei present
during cold fusion, perhaps I should have made it clear that the
lifetime I used for my estimate is not just pulled out of my hat.
That is an experimentally determined quantity, not a calculation.
Subject, of course, to further challange; I would stand by my numbers
which clearly indicate that an excited helium nucleus is a loner.
Can you make a boson condensate out of one boson?

The other issue that Mitchell seems determined to steer off track
relates to what happes to the PdD lattice with increased loading.
Anyone familiar with calculations any property of a SS lattice is
aware that it is rather difficult to get a calculation to match
experimental results dead on.  I suspect that is also true for
a calculation of what loading will result in a crumbling of the
lattice, but that is not very relevant to my point.  I was just
making the assertion that the lattice appears to be weakened
by loading without really intending to make any assertion concerning
an upper limit for the loading.

However, since you brought up the question, what experimental method
is generally employed to determine the D to Pd ratio, and what
degree of confidence should be placed in the claimed levels?  As I
recall the commonly measured quantity is sample resistance, and
the loading is infered from that.  Now if there is a phase change
as at least one CF advocate has claimed, I would suspect that the
notion that there is a simple relationship between loading and
resistance goes out the window.  Any comments?

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.02 /  Patricia /  4th Annual JICST/NTIS Conference
     
Originally-From: oneillp@guvax.acc.georgetown.edu (Patricia O'Neill-Brown)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: 4th Annual JICST/NTIS Conference
Date: 2 Jul 94 15:08:37 -0500
Organization: Georgetown University

                  FOURTH JICST/NTIS CONFERENCE
                             Boston
                        July 14-15, 1994

   Learn the Latest Methods in Locating and Acquiring Japanese
              Scientific and Technical Information

     The conference is the fourth in a highly successful series to
be organized jointly by the U.S. Department of Commerce National
Technical Information Service (NTIS) and the Japan Information
Center of Science and Technology (JICST). It is designed to provide
practical assistance for those who need access to Japanese
scientific and technical information (JSTI).

     The conference will address the basic questions of what STI is
available from Japan and how American users can gain access. The
conference will draw heavily on the experiences of U.S. companies,
academic institutions and Government agencies. In addition, the
major suppliers of JSTI will be on hand in an exhibit hall to
discuss and demonstrate their products and services.


                             AGENDA

                     Thursday, July 14, 1994

7:30-8:30 am        Registration/Coffee

8:30-9:00 am        Welcome
                    * Dr. Donald Johnson, Director, NTIS
                    * Mr. Tateo Armimoto, Director, S&T
                           Information Division, Science and
                           Technology Agency, Japan         

9:00-9:45 am        Keynote Addresses
                    * Mr. Sumio Horiuchi, Vice-President, JICST
                    * Dr. Mary Good, Under Secretary for Technology
                      U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington DC

9:45-10:00 am       Refreshment Break

10:00-11:30 am      Panel: How Small and Medium-Sized Companies
                    Acquire and use Japanese Science and Technology
                    Information (JSTI)  

                    (Case studies on how companies have
                    successfully met their JSTI needs. Why they
                    perceive access to JSTI as desirable. Pitfalls
                    to be avoided. The most effective approaches.
                    How the acquired material is used in the
                    company.)

                    Moderator: 
                    Dr. Russell Jamison, Vice President for
                    R&D, Smith & Nephew Richards Inc.

                    Speakers:

                    Michael W. Chinworth, TASC/Rosslyn,
                    Arlington, Virginia 
                         
                         Topic: Technology Assessment: Challenges
                         to Small and Medium-Sized Companies.

                    Lee Howell, Research Assistant and
                    External Affairs Officer for Japan, Center
                    for Strategic and International Studies,
                    Washington, DC. 

                         Topic: Understanding Japan's Science and
                         Technology Administration and Policy
                         Regime.

                    Stephen Blakely, President, Blakely and
                    Associates, Alton, Illinois 

                         Topic: The Relevance of Japanese
                         Scientific and Technical Information to
                         Technology-Based Business Studies.

11:30-12:00         Demonstration: First public demonstration of
                    MIT CD/ROM-based interactive Japanese
                    language/culture system  

                    *Professor Shigeru Miagawa, Director, Japanese
                     Language and Culture Program, MIT

12:00-1:30 pm       Luncheon and demonstrations in the exhibit area

1:30-3:00 pm        Panel: Commercial Packaging and Dissemination
                    of JSTI

                    (Providing access to JSTI on a commercial
                    basis. What is available in the marketplace?
                    How has the market responded?)

                    Moderator:
                    David Andrews, Chief Executive Officer,
                    InterLingua, Los Angeles, California

                    Speakers:

                    Hilary Handwerger, National Center for
                    Manufacturing Sciences, Ann Arbor, Michigan

                    Hal Morimoto, Executive Director, Comline
                    Business Data Inc., New York City

                    Madeline Dovale, SEMATECH Corporation, Austin,
                    Texas

                    Hitoshi Inoue, National Academic Center for
                    Science Information System, Tokyo

                         Topic: NACSIS International: 1994 Update

                    Ryo Sasaki, National Diet Library, Tokyo

                         Topic: Acquisition of JSTI in the National
                         Diet Library

3:00-3:15 pm        Refreshment Break

3:15-4:30 pm        Panel: Acquiring and Understanding Japanese
                    Patent Information

                    (How to identify and obtain Japanese patent
                    information. How Japanese patent practice
                    differs from American practice. Obtaining
                    permission to translate and reprint copyrighted
                    Japanese materials.)

                    Moderator:
                    Mindy L. Kotler, President, Japan Information
                    Access Project

                    Speakers:

                    Gary Hamilton, Esq., Gambrell, Wilson &
                    Hamilton, Austin, Texas

                         Topic: Comparing the Japanese and U.S.
                         Patents Systems.

                    Steven W. Johnston, Patent Translator,
                    Seabrook, Texas     

                         Topic: Using Japanese Online Patent
                         Information.

                    Jeffrey Foreman, Esq. Patent Attorney, IBM
                    Corporation, Arlington, Virginia

                         Topic: Using and Finding Japanese Patent
                         Information.

4:45-5:15 pm        Demonstration: New MIT Japanese database
                    gateway system

                    * Carol Fleishauer, Associate Director for
                     Collection Services, MIT Library System

5:15-5:30 pm        Refreshment Break

5:30-7:00 pm        Panel: Using Databases to Obtain JSTI (Part 1)

                    (What databases are available and what are
                    their characteristics? Actual user experiences.
                    How can the databases better meet the needs of
                    American users? What does the future hold?)

                    Moderator:
                    Maureen H. Donovan, Japanese Studies Librarian,
                    The Ohio State University

                    Speakers:

                    Glenn Hoetker, NASA Scientific and Technical
                    Information Program and RMS, Inc., Washington,
                    DC

                    Yukio Sueyoshi, Nihon Keizai Shimbun America,
                    Inc.

                    Mari Ikeda, Japan Center for Information and
                    Cultural Affairs 
               
                         Topic: Japan Information Center Network.
                    
                    Koji Tamura, JICST, Tokyo 

                         Topic: JICST's Company Information File.


                      Friday, July 15, 1994

8:00-8:30 am        Coffee

8:30-9:00 am        Special Address

                    Dr. Daniel Wang, Chevron Professor and Director
                    of the Biotechnology Process Engineering
                    Center, MIT

                         Topic: Access to Japanese Biotechnology.

9:00-10:30 am       Panel: Using Databases to Obtain JSTI (Part 2)

                    (What databases are available and what are
                    their characteristics? Actual user experiences.
                    How can the databases better meet the needs of
                    American users? What does the future hold?)

                    Moderator:
                    Maureen H. Donovan, Japanese Studies Librarian,
                    The Ohio State University

                    Speakers:

                    Alan Engel, International Science and
                    Technology Associates, Inc.

                    Keisuke Okuzumi, Japan Database Promotion
                    Center, Tokyo 

                         Topic: Summary of Japan's Data Service.

                    Akira Ohashi, Electronic Devices Information
                    Service Co., Ltd.

                         Topic: ELNET and ELISNET.

                    Shereen Hubbard, Foreign Broadcast Information
                    Service, Washington, DC

10:30-10:45 am      Refreshment break

10:45-12:15 pm      Panel: Tools for Understanding and Handling
                    JSTI

                    (Translation services. Machine-aided
                    translation. Computer processing of Japanese
                    language text. Dissemination and exchange
                    through network services.)
          
                    Moderator:

                    Carl Kay, President, Japanese Language
                    Services, Inc., Boston, Massachusetts

                    Speakers:

                    Carl W. Hoffman, President, Basis Technology
                    Corporation, Boston, Massachusetts

                         Topic: Reading Japanese Text Online.

                    Glenn Akers, Ph.D, President, Language
                    Engineering Corporation, Belmont, Massachusetts

                         Topic: Machine Translation.

                    Burton Lee, X-Guide Program Manager, U.S.-Japan
                    Technology Center, Stanford University,
                    Stanford, California. 

                         Topic: Using the Internet to Access JSTI.

                    Carl Kay (affiliation above)

                         Topic: Translating Japanese STI.

                    Yoshiko Shirakizawa, JICST

                         Topic: Current Status and Future of the
                         JICST Machine Aided Translations System.

12:15-1:45 pm       Luncheon and demonstrations in the exhibit area

1:45-2:15 pm        Special Address: Michiyuki Uyenohara, Special
                    Consultant, NEC Corporation 

                         Topic: Science and Technology Strategies
                         of Japanese Corporations.

2:15-3:45 pm        Panel: Advances in Teaching and Learning
                    Technical Japanese

                    (University programs, including internship
                    programs; target audience; new teaching methods
                    and aids, including those involving
                    computer/network technologies)

                    Moderator:

                    Dr. Michio Tsutsui, Director, Technical
                    Japanese Program, College of Engineering,
                    University of Washington, Seattle, Washington

                    Speakers:

                    Richard Dasher, Associate Director, U.S.-Japan
                    Technology Management Center, Stanford
                    University, Stanford, California 

                         Topic: Technical Japanese Language and
                         Cross-Cultural Training at Stanford
                         University.

                    Dr. James L. Davis, Assistant Professor
                    (Technical Japanese), Department of Engineering
                    Professional Development, University of
                    Wisconsin-Madison, Wisconsin

                         Topic: Computer-Assisted Distance
                         Education and Technical Japanese
                         Instruction at the University of
                         Wisconsin-Madison.

                         (Prof. Davis will speak by telephone from
                         Tokyo. He will be assisted by Mr. Wayne
                         Utke of the University of Wisconsin.)

                    Dr. David Mills, Associate Professor,
                    Department of East Asian Languages and
                    Literatures, University of Pittsburgh,
                    Pennsylvania and Director, Technical Japanese
                    Language Project, Massachusetts Institute of
                    Technology, Boston

                         Topic: How to Make an Engineer Functional
                         in Japanese: Innovations at MIT.

                    Dr. Michio Tsutsui (affiliation above)

                         Topic: Two Programs for Engineers and
                         Scientists at the University of
                         Washington.

3:45-4:00 pm        Closing Remarks

                    *Sumio Horiuchi, JICST Vice President

4:00 pm             Adjournment

                          REGISTRATION

Registration Fee: $295 (Cancellation is subject to $50 fee).

You can register for the NTIS/JICST Conference by contacting
Barbara Payne at (703) 487-4819. (National Technical Information
Service, 5285 Port Royal Road (306 F) Springfield, VA 22161). Quote
Order Number: CONF94-1.

                       HOTEL RESERVATIONS

               The conference will be held at the:

               Copley Plaza Hotel
               138 James Avenue
               Boston, MA 02116
               Reservations: (617) 267-5300

A special conference rate of $129/night (single or double) is being
offered. You must mention the NTIS/JICST Conference to receive this
special rate. For hotel reservations, contact the hotel directly.
Rooms held open until June 13.








                    
          



cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenoneillp cudlnPatricia cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.02 / Bruce Dunn /  Re: On homopolar machines
     
Originally-From: Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Dunn)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: On homopolar machines
Date: Sat, 02 Jul 94 16:19:59 -0700 (PDT)
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada

John Logajan writes:

> Bruce Dunn (Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca) wrote:
> : the most usually neglected items are the power factor and
> : the crest factor,
>       ^^^^^
> What exactly is the crest factor?  (No jokes about toothpaste :-)

        I don't know.  I was quoting an article; I assumed that it was some
stock term that most electrical engineers would understand.  Perhaps
someone can help us out with a simplified explanation of the term (assuming
that it isn't just some private jargon of the person quoted).


--
Bruce Dunn    Vancouver, Canada   Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca
cudkeys:
cuddy02 cudenBruce_Dunn cudfnBruce cudlnDunn cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Sun Jul  3 04:37:04 EDT 1994
------------------------------
1994.07.03 /  dowen@vaxc.cc. /  Re: On homopolar machines
     
Originally-From: dowen@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: On homopolar machines
Date: 3 Jul 94 11:34:07 +1000
Organization: Computer Centre, Monash University, Australia

Hi folks,
In article <48131@mindlink.bc.ca>, Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Dunn) writes:
> John Logajan writes:
> 
>> Bruce Dunn (Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca) wrote:
>> : the most usually neglected items are the power factor and
>> : the crest factor,
>>       ^^^^^
>> What exactly is the crest factor?  (No jokes about toothpaste :-)
> 
>         I don't know.  I was quoting an article; I assumed that it was some
> stock term that most electrical engineers would understand.  Perhaps
> someone can help us out with a simplified explanation of the term (assuming
> that it isn't just some private jargon of the person quoted).
> 
> 
> --
> Bruce Dunn    Vancouver, Canada   Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca

There are two crest factors that I know of, the periodic crest factor
and the pulse crest factor, both are derived from the "crest value",
which is the maximum value which any quantity (voltage,heat,pressure etc)
reaches in a specified time period.

The periodic crest value relates to a periodic waveform and is the maximum
value that the quantity attains during one cycle. The periodic crest factor
is the ratio of the periodic crest value to the RMS value of the quantity.

For any non periodic (random) waveform the pulse crest value applies and this
is simply the highest instantaneous value reached during a specified time
frame. The pulse crest factor is simply the ratio of the pulse crest value
to the effective RMS of the waveform in the same time frame.

Hope the above has been of assistance.
Best regards to all,
Daryl Owen.



cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudendowen cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.03 / mitchell swartz /  On homopolar machines - and crest factors
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: On homopolar machines - and crest factors
Subject: Re: On homopolar machines
Date: Sun, 3 Jul 1994 04:41:47 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

   In Message-ID: <48131@mindlink.bc.ca>
Subject: Re: On homopolar machines
Bruce Dunn (Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca) writes:

BDUNN    > : the most usually neglected items are the power factor and
BDUNN    > : the crest factor,
BDUNN    >       ^^^^^

         > What exactly is the crest factor?  (No jokes about toothpaste :-)

BDUNN         I don't know.  I was quoting an article; I assumed that it was some
BDUNN stock term that most electrical engineers would understand.  Perhaps
BDUNN someone can help us out with a simplified explanation of the term (assuming
BDUNN that it isn't just some private jargon of the person quoted).

   There are at least two types of crest, or peak,  factors.

   The periodic quantity crest factor and the pulse crest factor.

  The periodic quantity crest factor  which is  the ratio of the crest (or peak)
 value to the effective (rms) value of the quantity.
             (after AIEE,   see also Sarbacher ibid.)

  The pulse crest factor is the ratio of the peak pulse wavetrain amplitude
to the root-mean-square amplitude.

   Best wishes
                Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com)
 
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.03 / mitchell swartz /  Reply to Dick Blue -- loading curves & phase change
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Reply to Dick Blue -- loading curves & phase change
Subject: Reply to Mitchell Swartz
Date: Sun, 3 Jul 1994 05:01:48 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

   In Message-ID: <9407021814.AA26396@pilot1.cl.msu.edu>
Subject: Reply to Mitchell Swartz
Richard A Blue (blue@pilot.msu.edu) writes: 
 
DBLUE However, since you brought up the question, what experimental method
DBLUE is generally employed to determine the D to Pd ratio, and what
DBLUE degree of confidence should be placed in the claimed levels? As I
DBLUE recall the commonly measured quantity is sample resistance, and
DBLUE the loading is infered from that.  Now if there is a phase change
DBLUE as at least one CF advocate has claimed, I would suspect that the
DBLUE notion that there is a simple relationship between loading and
DBLUE resistance goes out the window.  Any comments?

    Would not the calibrated conductivity-loading curves already include
any phase change within the range within which they were obtained?

                Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com)
 
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.03 / C Harrison /  Paired hydrogen sighted in metal hydride lattice
     
Originally-From: harr@netcom.com (Charles (Chuck) Harrison)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Paired hydrogen sighted in metal hydride lattice
Date: Sun, 3 Jul 1994 07:23:36 GMT
Organization: Fitful

The heck with palladium.  Go soak some deuterium into 
an Nb-V alloy!

[Baker 1992]
DB Baker, N Adolphi, MS Conradie, PA Fedders, RE Norberg, RG Barnes,
     DR Torgeson, "Evidence for the high-temperature spin-relaxation
     anomaly in metal hydrides", _Phys Rev B_ 46(1):184-187 (1992).

NMR measurements are extended to 341 MHz on a Nb(0.5)V(0.5)H(0.36)
sample and a new frequency dependence is observed in the anomaly.
The data imply an excited immobile state with a large second moment.
Interstitial hydrogen molecules are proposed.

 -------------------
[Cotts 1991]
RM Cotts, "Would hydrogen pairing at high temperatures account for
     NMR relaxation anomalies in metal hydrides?", _J Less-Common Metals_
     172-174:467-474 (1991).

RC reviews the data from the Barnes-Torgeson group and finds the
data difficult to explain.  The idea of "close pairs" or H2 molecules
occuring in the hydride lattice is considered, and surprisingly
close proximity is required in order for the H-H interaction to be
strong enough to explain the data.  For ScH(1.83), an H-H spacing
of no more than 0.75 Angstr (the same as H2 gas molecule) is
necessary.  In Nb(0.75)V(0.25)H(0.23), the spacing must be less than
0.39 Angstr!  This seems to be a far fetch, but no less attractive
than other proposed explanations.
 -------------------

These citations extracted from...

                An Annotated Bibliography
              of the "Reifenschweiler Effect":
 Temperature & concentration dependence of tritium activity
                  in a titanium matrix
 -----------------------------------------------------------
Last revised: 2 July 1994                   C. Harrison
                                            harr@netcom.com
 -----------------------------------------------------------
This document is available at
file://sunsite.unc.edu/pub/academic/physics/cold-fusion/TiBib.txt


Table of Contents:
  Sec. 1........Reifenschweiler works
  Sec. 2........Titanium hydride phase diagram
  Sec. 3........Surface interactions of Ti, Hydrogen, and Oxygen
  Sec. 4........H diffusion in Ti: NMR studies, "hydrogen pairing"
  Sec. 5........Tritium-specific data


Happy Fourth, everyone!
  -Chuck
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenharr cudfnCharles cudlnHarrison cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.03 / Jim Bowery /  Re: The Myth of "The Decisive Experiment"
     
Originally-From: jabowery@netcom.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The Myth of "The Decisive Experiment"
Date: Sun, 3 Jul 1994 16:27:52 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) writes:
> In article <jaboweryCs9vAs.F21@netcom.com> 
> jabowery@netcom.com (Jim Bowery) writes:
> >
> >The notion of "The Decisive Experiment" is a 19th century conception of 
> >natural science as being on par with formal proof in mathematics.  Such 
> >a view of natural science has since been discredited and it is generally 
> >accepted that science progresses via what many call "the weight of the 
> >evidence" or what I would call stochastic enlightenment.
> 
> It does, except in those cases when a decisive experiment comes along. 
> A few come immediately to mind:
> 
> 1) The observation of a resonance at 3.1 GeV in e+ e- annihilation
> 
> 2) The 'observation' of N-rays even when the apparatus was disabled

And as we have all too frequently seen, "observations" are sometimes
"kooky hallucinations" that fit the expecations of the empericist.

Certainly, to the empericist, and to those whose committment to the
field is very shallow, such an "observation" is "decisive".  On the
other hand, if we are speaking of science as replicability, then the
your counter-example is a poor one.

> Actually, the idea is both older and newer than you suggest.  

If you define "the idea" consitently then your statement is
contradictory.  It is older in its origination and, yes, it may
have been "newer" in its duration among certain mentalities, but
I believe most important scientific progress since 1900 fits the 
stocastic enhlightenment model.

> >In the area of fusion, there are a lot of "kooky hallucinations" running 
> >around.  The rancor and bitterness are a consequence of the fact that it 
> >is POLITICS that determines which of these "kooky hallucinations" gets 
> >funded and thereby enjoys some degree of relief from such derision, 
> >and which "kooky hallucinations" are subjected to ongoing derision.  
> 
> This would be true if there were only one government and that government 
> controlled the economy.  

We're heading that direction unless some basic economic philosophy 
allows some degrees of freedom other than along the plutocracy vs 
communism spectrum.  Without going into it a great deal I'll just
mention Henry George's suppression by Engles/Marx among the academic
elite during the last century.

> But there is not, and thus we see a variety 
> of fusion approaches funded in a variety of ways.  In particular, and 
> of relevance here, P&F are operating a very well-funded lab in France. 

If it were not for the INTERNATIONAL thermonuclear experimental 
reactor program, you would have more of a leg to stand on.  You are 
technically correct but practically wrong.  The existence of an
enormous international focus on one technology which has the real
effect of supporting investment cowardice among capital sources
is the primary source of the rancor.

PS:  Japan, not France, is the primary source of funding for P&F.  
Most of Europe is politically backing Tokamak hegemony.
-- 
The promotion of politics exterminates apolitical genes in the population.
  The promotion of frontiers gives apolitical genes a route to survival.
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenjabowery cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.03 / Jim Carr /  Re: The Myth of "The Decisive Experiment"
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The Myth of "The Decisive Experiment"
Date: 3 Jul 1994 14:51:47 -0400
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

|jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) writes:
|
| ... concerning Bowery's claim that the notion of a "decisive experiment" 
|    is wrong since science proceeds via "stochastic enlightenment" ...
|
|> It does, except in those cases when a decisive experiment comes along. 
|> A few come immediately to mind:
|> 
|> 1) The observation of a resonance at 3.1 GeV in e+ e- annihilation
|> 
|> 2) The 'observation' of N-rays even when the apparatus was disabled

In article <jaboweryCsDHqH.8B4@netcom.com> 
jabowery@netcom.com (Jim Bowery) writes:
>
>And as we have all too frequently seen, "observations" are sometimes
>"kooky hallucinations" that fit the expecations of the empericist.

So you claim these were hallucinations?  The observation of high-Tc 
ceramic superconductors was a hallucination?  Get real. 

>Certainly, to the empericist, and to those whose committment to the
>field is very shallow, such an "observation" is "decisive".  On the
>other hand, if we are speaking of science as replicability, then the
>your counter-example is a poor one.

If you think the people whose scientific views were changed by these 
observations were not committed to their field of research, you had 
better review your history or talk to people who were around then. 
I saw the manner in which quarks were described (in a class I was 
auditing) change completely in just two weeks. 

You were not talking about replicability.  Decisive experiments are 
just that, and they must be repeatable to be believed.  The fact that 
they are repeated does not take away from their singular importance. 
(Indeed, the replicability of certain experiments is just what Steve 
Jones was addressing when this thread began.)  Such experiments still 
differ from the accumulation of evidence through a number of different 
experiments that eventually lead to a change.  

|> Actually, the idea is both older and newer than you suggest.  
>
>If you define "the idea" consitently then your statement is
>contradictory.  It is older in its origination and, yes, it may
>have been "newer" in its duration among certain mentalities, but

No, it is newer in the sense that it was revived after being 
abandoned in favor of the Popperian view you take as the exclusive 
way that science proceeds.  Neither description is able to explain 
all of the different ways that science improves the quality of its 
understanding of nature. 

>I believe most important scientific progress since 1900 fits the 
>stocastic enhlightenment model.

'most' is not 'all'.  You argued for 'all' originally. 

|> of fusion approaches funded in a variety of ways.  In particular, and
|> of relevance here, P&F are operating a very well-funded lab in France.
>
>PS:  Japan, not France, is the primary source of funding for P&F.  

Another example of ignoring what was written.  I said their lab 
was 'in France'.  I did not say anything about the source of 
funding for their research program. 

-- 
 James A. Carr   <jac@scri.fsu.edu>     |   "It's never confusing though, 
      http://www.scri.fsu.edu           |  because ultimately it all fits 
 Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst.  |  -- it's just cockeyed and fits  
 Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306    |  and is fire."  -  Norman Maclean 
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Mon Jul  4 04:37:04 EDT 1994
------------------------------
1994.07.04 / Stefan Hartmann /  Re: Free Energy Machine, the Griggs machine...!
     
Originally-From: harti@shb.contrib.de (Stefan Hartmann)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Free Energy Machine, the Griggs machine...!
Date: 04 Jul 1994 04:48:00 +0200


Hi,

I just a few infos about this claimed free energy device.

Has somebody out there have firts hand info and has seen it in operation ?

Sounds pretty good....


> >
> > Having gotten that off my chest, I would like to draw your attention to an
> > "excess" energy device that I recently became aware of.  A relatively
> > new magazine, entitled "Cold Fusion", published by Wayne Green of "73" and
> > "Byte" magazine fame (as well as numerous others) and edited by Eugene
> > Mallove, in their June issue carried a fascinating review on a device
> > called the "Hydrosonic(tm) Pump".  This pump was originally conceived as
> > nothing more than a device that would efficiently produce and circulate
> > hot water or steam to heat buildings.  HOwever, it appears that this pump
> > produces more thermal output than could be accounted for by the electrical
> > energy that it consumed.  An this is not a heat pump, that moves heat from
> > one area to another.  The heat is produced by agitation of the water.
>
> Hmm, can you please give me more info ?
>
> Is this device already available ?
>
> What is the efficiency ? How much percentage over unity has it ?
>
HI Stefan


The machine is not in full production yet, however it has been installed
in a few places according to the article.  They have a US patent that you
might want to search (5,188,090 held by James L. Griggs)

According to the article, it puts out excess heat in the kilowatt  
level.The highest run gave 168% excess after figuring in the power factor  
of the 3 phase motor.

_________________________________________________________________________

If anybody has any 1st hand info,

please email me at:

harti@contrib.de

Regards, Stefan.

## CrossPoint v3.02 ##
cudkeys:
cuddy04 cudenharti cudfnStefan cudlnHartmann cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.04 / Dr Dutch /  CANNOT POST TO SCI.PHYSICS.PLASMA - PLEASE HELP!!!!
     
Originally-From: dutch@eltcv.epfl.ch (Dr. Michael Dutch)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CANNOT POST TO SCI.PHYSICS.PLASMA - PLEASE HELP!!!!
Date: 4 Jul 1994 11:43:03 GMT
Organization: Centre de Recherches en Physique des Plasmas


The subject says it all. 

Can somebody out there please look into the problem with this
newsgroup and tell me why I (and everybody else??)
am (are) unable to post anything to SCI.PHYSICS.PLASMA. 
I tried several times when the group was first created (several months
ago now), but haven't tried recently.

THE GROUP HAS REMAINED EMPTY SINCE ITS INCEPTION!!

--Michael
###########################################################
# Dr. Michael Dutch           email: dutch@eltcv1.epfl.ch #
# Centre de Recherches en Physique des Plasmas            #
# Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne                #
# 21 Ave des Bains                          Aussie.Abroad #
# CH-1007 Lausanne, SWITZERLAND               ,--_|\      #
#----------------------------------------    /      \     #
# I'd rather have a full bottle in front     \_.-*._/     #
# of me than a full frontal lobotomy.              v      #
###########################################################
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudendutch cudfnDr cudlnDutch cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.04 / Richard Blue /  Calibrated conductivity-loading curves?
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Calibrated conductivity-loading curves?
Date: Mon, 4 Jul 1994 12:44:31 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I had ask Mitchell Swartz (or anyone) about the techniques used to
determine the ratio   of D to Pd in the course of a cold fusion
experiment.  His reply seems to indicate that calibrations of the
conductivity vs. loading are a routine part of those experiments for
which high loadings are reported.  I still wonder if this is indeed
the norm for cold fusion experimentation, or is it more typically the
case that claims for exceptionally high loadings are based on an
extrapolation that goes well beyond the range of any calibrations.
Off hand I would guess that it is not easy to determine the loading
by simple means with sufficient precision to tell whether it is
1.0 or 0.8 or 1.2.  How is it done?

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.04 / Richard Blue /  Re: Thermacore calibrations
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Thermacore calibrations
Date: Mon, 4 Jul 1994 13:09:30 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I have a suggestion (or request) for John Logajan relating to one
more possible test to include in his series of experiments relating
to the calibration of a calorimeter similar to that employed by
Thermacore.  My concern relates to possible differences in the response
obtained with distributed heat sources in comparison with a heat
source that is more "pointlike".  During electrolysis with a very
large cathode heating, I presume, occurs throughout a large fraction
of the water volume.  On the other hand a calibration resistor might
more typically be the size of your finger and thus deliver heat
directly to only a small volume of water.

If I compare the results of heating roughly a liter of water in a pan
on a stove top to those obtained when a similar quantity is heated
in the microwave oven I see a clear difference.  It is also clear that
during the stovetop heating the water does not remain in thermal
equilibrium.  I am curious to know why there is not some residual
effects of this sort showing up in cold fusion calorimetry, especially
the sort involving 28 liters of water.

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.04 / Tom Radcliffe /  Re: The Myth of "The Decisive Experiment"
     
Originally-From: tom@mips2.phy.queensu.ca (Tom Radcliffe)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The Myth of "The Decisive Experiment"
Date: 4 Jul 1994 20:12:48 GMT
Organization: Queen's University, Kingston

In article <jaboweryCs9vAs.F21@netcom.com>, jabowery@netcom.com (Jim Bowery) writes:
|> The notion of "The Decisive Experiment" is a 19th century conception of 
|> natural science as being on par with formal proof in mathematics.  
|> 

The pernicious notion of the ``crucial experiment'' goes back even
earlier than that.  The first reference I'm aware of is by Bacon.  Most
scientists now realize that the number of conclusions that can be
drawn from any single experiment is much much less than one.
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudentom cudfnTom cudlnRadcliffe cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.04 / Jim Bowery /  Re: The Myth of "The Decisive Experiment"
     
Originally-From: jabowery@netcom.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The Myth of "The Decisive Experiment"
Date: Mon, 4 Jul 1994 22:36:31 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) writes:
> |jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) writes:
> |
> | ... concerning Bowery's claim that the notion of a "decisive experiment" 
> |    is wrong since science proceeds via "stochastic enlightenment" ...
> |
> |> It does, except in those cases when a decisive experiment comes along. 
> |> A few come immediately to mind:
> |> 
> |> 1) The observation of a resonance at 3.1 GeV in e+ e- annihilation
> |> 
> |> 2) The 'observation' of N-rays even when the apparatus was disabled
> 
> In article <jaboweryCsDHqH.8B4@netcom.com> 
> jabowery@netcom.com (Jim Bowery) writes:
> >
> >And as we have all too frequently seen, "observations" are sometimes
> >"kooky hallucinations" that fit the expecations of the empericist.
> 
> So you claim these were hallucinations?

No I don't.  The fact that some observations have become widely believed
to be something other than hallucinations does not mean they represent
"reality".  It simply means it is intellectually trecherous and perhaps 
industrially uneconomic to think of them as hallucinations.  Such
residual "prejudicial bias" is an essential aspect of knowledge.

> You were not talking about replicability.  

Actually, I when I say "science" I MEAN "replicability" as do most
intellectually credible folks.

> Decisive experiments are 
> just that, and they must be repeatable to be believed.  

By how many people of what sort of credibility before who believes
in the "reality" of the phenomena?  People use their judgement.  They
place bets.  They could be wrong.  Some people are right in some 
areas more than others and they win -- others who bet against them
lose -- both in proportion to the "odds".  That's the way the market 
controls against mass hallucination and it is, unfortunately, NOT
the way of politics -- the source of funds for our most critical
technologies these days.

> The fact that 
> they are repeated does not take away from their singular importance. 
> (Indeed, the replicability of certain experiments is just what Steve 
> Jones was addressing when this thread began.)  Such experiments still 
> differ from the accumulation of evidence through a number of different 
> experiments that eventually lead to a change.  

How do they differ qualitatively rather than quantitatively?

> |> Actually, the idea is both older and newer than you suggest.  
> >
> >If you define "the idea" consitently then your statement is
> >contradictory.  It is older in its origination and, yes, it may
> >have been "newer" in its duration among certain mentalities, but
> 
> No, it is newer in the sense that it was revived after being 
> abandoned in favor of the Popperian view you take as the exclusive 
> way that science proceeds.  Neither description is able to explain 
> all of the different ways that science improves the quality of its 
> understanding of nature. 
> 
> >I believe most important scientific progress since 1900 fits the 
> >stocastic enhlightenment model.
> 
> 'most' is not 'all'.  You argued for 'all' originally. 

For practical purposes, we can say "most".  To be technically
correct, we must say "all" due to the lack of an operationally
defined qualitative distinction between cases (unless you can come 
 up with one in which case I'll agree to discuss definitions with
 you).  As a practical matter, it is unlikely there will be any
such "decisive experiment" short of the infamous "car driving cross 
 country on water" scenario.  For many "scientists", given the rancor
and political stakes of this situation, I think the "decisive experiment"
will be when a majority of local banks will loan money for such autos 
at little above the going loan rate.  Our present situation with
cold fusion is EXCEEDINGLY "Popperian".

The point here is that 
> |> of fusion approaches funded in a variety of ways.  In particular, and
> |> of relevance here, P&F are operating a very well-funded lab in France.
> >
> >PS:  Japan, not France, is the primary source of funding for P&F.  
> 
> Another example of ignoring what was written.  

Another?  It's not even one example.  I was merely clarifying that which
you left perilously ambiguous.
-- 
The promotion of politics exterminates apolitical genes in the population.
  The promotion of frontiers gives apolitical genes a route to survival.
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenjabowery cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Tue Jul  5 04:37:05 EDT 1994
------------------------------
1994.07.05 / David Davies /  Re: A decisive (?) experiment
     
Originally-From: drd851@huxley.anu.edu.au (David R Davies)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A decisive (?) experiment
Date: 5 Jul 94 05:34:03 GMT
Organization: Australian National University



DB>Dave Davies joins the crowd that seeks to discredit those who remain
DB>skeptical about cold fusion by misstating our position (s).

I was not mounting a personal attack but reacting to the particle 
beam references which I think are not particularly valid. You try 
to cast me as a True Believer but I am not when it comes to the CF
side of the fence and will not be until I see more experimental 
confirmation. The only value of theory at this stage is to help 
in the selection and construction of good experiments. The idea 
that CF might upset some conventional thinking around QM and 
nuclear physics bothers me not one bit. I maintain a healthy 
scepticism for conventional ideas in these areas too but don't 
expect to see them dismantled overnight, or ever even, just 
superseded by theories that are more powerful. 

There are two sides to the sceptic's fence(s) and I'm happy to 
jump down on either side to have a good look around from time to 
time. On the surface, the Thermocore data is looking pretty 
interesting with John Logajan's testing of the bucket calorimetry. 
Reports of temperature dependence of decay rates in Ti-T systems 
and strong evidence for delocalization make things look pretty 
interesting on the CF side and I don't see any sand castles 
crumbling on the other side as a consequence. The only real threat 
to conventional views is the Mills model which I find very attractive 
but am not convinced that it offers anything in the CF debate. I have 
a book by Mills on order so will wait till it arrives before I think 
more along those lines.

The CF evidence is strong enough to warrant serious consideration from 
the scientific community and its financial backers. It is not good 
science that serious, experienced researchers are ridiculed and defamed. 
F&P may have made some errors of judgement in all the excitement but 
these were not hanging offences. 

The main point I was making was that there is significant evidence for 
delocalization and that high or even medium energy beams are probably 
not the best way to investigate them.

Moving on the low energy surface scattering that I referred to in 
my previous post I will spell the point out in more detail because it 
seems that the delocalization issue has been presented as just some 
crazy idea that CF TBs push. The following are a selection of the many 
pre-F&P papers that are relevant - ie these guys were just doing 
physics and chemistry without any CF barrow to push.


M.J.Puska et al., Physical Review Letters, 51`, p1081 (1983)

Abstract: "Quantum mechanical energy levels and wave functions have 
been calculated for the motion of chemisorbed hydrogen atoms on Ni 
surfaces. The results show considerable quantum effects for the adatom 
in both the ground and the excited states. The description of the 
adparticles as being delocalised along the surface offers a novel 
interpretation of several phenomena, in particular the vibrational 
excitations."

and later: "In summary ... the calculated energy spectrum can explain 
the observed vibrational losses and in particular the occurrence of 
two vibrational peaks on the (110) surfaces, corresponding to a 
perpendicular and parallel mode. There are also a number of other 
experimental observations for hydrogen chemisorbed systems that are 
most easily understood with a delocalised picture. ... to explain the 
observed kinetics of some surface reactions involving hydrogen it has 
been necessary to involve an unusually large surface mobility of 
hydrogen. This was taken as evidence of nonthermalised (hot) adsorbed 
atoms moving fast on the surface. If the hydrogen atoms are as 
delocalised as described in the present paper, the mobility would be 
high even at room temperatures and it would be unnecessary to evoke 
the concept of hot adsorbates in this context."


J.A.Stroscio et al., Observation of structure induced surface vibrat- 
ional resonances on metal surfaces, Phys. Rev. Lett., 54, p1428 (1985).
 
Abstract: "A new kind of dipole-active surface vibrational resonance 
has been observed on (110) surfaces of Cu and Ni by electron loss 
spectroscopy. An analysis based on lattice dynamics suggests that such 
resonances should be observable on surfaces where a single bulk-phonon 
dispersion relation has a pseudo band gap on the probed phonon density 
of states. In the {110} direction of the surface cubic metals this gap 
is due to the particular geometric structure in that direction."


K.W.Jacobsen et al., Theory of adsorbate-induced surface relaxations: 
hydrogen on Cu(110), Phys. Rev. Lett., 59, p2764, (1987).

"... Hydrogen will be delocalised on the surface..."
Plus some interesting discussion of near-surface effects.


C.M.Mate et al., Delocalised quantum nature of hydrogen adsorbed on 
the Rn(111) crystal surface., Phys. Rev. B, 34, p7417 (1986)

Abstract: "We observe by electron energy loss spectra (EELS), 
excitations between the ground state band and all low lying energy 
bands for the motion of hydrogen and deuterium atoms on the Rh(111) 
surface. The absence of a deuterium isotope shift for the lowest 
energy excitation, the observation of broad energy bands, and good 
agreement with theoretical calculations for hydrogen on Ni(111) 
provide strong experimental evidence for delocalised quantum behaviour 
of hydrogen atoms on the Rh(111) surface. We also show a remarkable 
energy dependence of the intensity and linewidths of the EELS 
excitation."

and later "... To summarise, we have made HREELS observations that 
strongly favour a delocalised, quantum description of adsorbed 
hydrogen ("hydrogen fog")(sic) over the classical harmonic oscillator 
model. Specifically, we have been able to observe excitations between 
the ground-state band and the broad low energy bands expected for 
quantum motion of hydrogen on a close-packed surface. ... The question
remains, however, as to what extent hydrogen is delocalised on other 
metal surfaces. Vibrational spectra have also been reported for 
hydrogen adsorption on other close-packed surfaces: Ni(111), Pt(111) 
and Ru(001) "(references supplied in original) "While the data for 
these systems are incomplete in terms of coverage, beam energy, and 
angle dependence, the observed excitations can be assigned in a 
consistent manner to transitions predicted for delocalised quantum 
hydrogen adsorption."


O.Grazzi et al., determination of the structure of hydrogen on a W(211) 
surface, Phys. Rev. Lett., 63, p1408 (1989)

"... Thus the calculations show that the 450K, H atoms are delocalised 
to a greater extent than the W shadow-cone radius."

And more recently, but still very much following the above with no 
apparent CF pitch.

Astaldi et al. Vibrational spectra of atomic H and D on Cu(110): 
Evidence for quantum delocalization, Phys. Rev. Lett., 68, p90  (1992)

Abstract: "The vibrational spectra of H on Cu(110) measured with 
high-resolution energy-loss spectroscopy at very low coverage 
strongly support the predicted protonic band structure. Localization 
is observed for increasing coverage. A simple model qualitatively 
describes the coverage dependence of the spectra."

I would advise against reacting to the second last sentence above without 
first carefully reading the paper.

These papers seem directly relevant to the reported H-Ni CF systems. 
For Pd have to make the jump to interstitial D in Pd, increase the 
loadings from the 0.33 monolayer limit of Astaldi to the 1:1 Pd:D of 
CF interest and then push the system further by continuing with the 
electrolytic pressure and the wide range of chemical and electric 
field effects that the Pd is subjected to, impurities in lattice and 
interstitial sites. We need mathematical models that include high D+ 
concentrations and coherent cooperative effects discussed by Astaldi 
and others. 

Dick Blue wants someone to explain how an excited He nucleus can lose 
Mevs of energy across the lattice without producing gammas. Matt Kennel 
asks how the energy can be distributed over a large area/volume. The 
key, if any, is probably time.

Let's accept, for the purposes of debate at least, that there is
delocalization of D in metals and that these delocalised Ds can, over 
time, become coherent and thus largely indistinguishable as part of a 
large boson. We presumably have smaller bits of D-stuff joining and 
breaking off over time under the influence of thermal effects. 

Astaldi talks mainly about triplets of hydrogen acting together (sort 
of proto-lithium), doublets and single delocalised Ds in a "lattice-
gas-like" state. 

Hydrogen is a metal of sorts and its electron presumably goes to a band 
state readily leaving it relatively bare - no need for muons. It seems 
natural to me for the D+ to follow suit. So some of my Ds here should 
probably be D+.

The matter-waves of two adjacent Ds will interact more strongly as 
they move into phase and become coherent. Classical resonators have 
the greatest influence on each other when they are coherent - maximum 
energy transfer between them. To my mind this basically IS the strong 
force. It is short range in a high energy collision because the 
interaction has to be strong to establish coherence in the short time 
that the two systems are interacting. Given time, very loose coupling 
will produce coherence.

At some stage two Ds will find themselves sharing the same site(s). If 
all nearby sites are occupied, pressing them to stay together, then my 
image of the system, using a classical resonator model, is that the 
matter waves may pass through a violent limit cycle stage as they move 
closer together in phase space and that the energy released is 
transmitted along the chain (or through the surface/volume) of the D
sublattice.

If the main boson is large enough that it can absorb 24Mev as a 
vibrational mode then we have a new reaction path for D+D->He that 
doesn't appear in conventional beam systems. All we have to have then 
is the reaction taking place over a timescale long enough for the 
vibrational mode to be established. The He probably slips out around a 
dislocation or other anomaly like a ghost through a keyhole leaving 
the excess energy behind as the vibrational excitation. 

The next step in this scenario is to get rid of the vibrational energy 
to a phonon. The vibrational energy of the boson will extend to the 
full spatial limits of the boson and will tend to couple with the 
surrounding lattice - we have a lattice within a lattice here so the 
potential for coupling is strong. We may have to choose the correct 
metals to get resonance between boson and phonon but an alternative 
is hinted at in the Stroscio article which discusses the near-surface 
expansion of the lattice - ie just pick an optimal distance from the 
surface. Remember, also, that in non-linear resonators the resonant 
frequency is energy dependent so  you can usually get a resonance between 
two systems for some energy. The metal lattice phonon would probably 
build up in concert with the boson vibrational state as part of a whole 
larger system of semi-coherence.

Astaldi gives a vibrational energy of around 28meV and we need to dispose 
of 24Mev. We probably need systems of 10^6+ coherent Ds for any of this to 
happen. The Chubbs mention a figure of 10^7 I think. 

A critical experimental line would be to follow Astaldi but focus on 
getting large scale coherence. One problem here experimentally is that 
the EELS technique runs into difficulties with noise above about 
100meV. The metal surface becomes too reflective to electrons. It 
might still be possible to pick up evidence of larger systems. They 
pick a surface that has a one dimensional trough which makes modelling 
easier but might not allow some of the behaviour we want to look at. 
Note: the electron beam is a probe to detect surface states - not generate 
nuclear reactions.

If we can calculate the frequency of the vibrational mode we might even be
able to increase the reaction rate by priming the system with acoustic 
energy. Does this ring a bell? 

I agree with those who say that we are not likely to find one definitive 
experiment. Science is not a clear-cut process but with the aid of clues 
from theory a line of experimentation could emerge from the work cited 
above that helps clarify the issues.

Matt Kennel responded:
DD: Having said this my disclaimer is that we are dealing with highly non-linear,
DD: highly non-equilibrium systems deep in the QM realm so intuitive models are
DD: not likely to be very useful.
 
MK>I disagree.

Which bit? Ultimately nothing is linear. We have electrolysis, D-Pd phase 
instabilities, dislocations forming, a variety of surface chemical species 
and processes, delocalized atoms and a 24MeV hole to fall into. Plenty of 
scope for abnormal behaviour. Intuitive, semi-classical models form the 
basis for many/most/all hamiltonians so I will happily withdraw the last 
bit if you like.

Enough of Classical models! How about a Rock analogy?

Imagine a dance hall and we, with all-seeing eyes, look down from far 
above. It's early in the evening and the music is fast with a complex 
beat. The dancers move in near random patterns with just the slightest 
hint of coupling. Thoughts are self focussed ("how do I look, how do they 
look, how do I look ...). Gradually the mood relaxes and we observe an 
increase in coordinated movement across the hall. The music changes - 
still fast but with a strong regular beat. The dancers move in near 
unison and the building shakes on its foundations. 

Later in the evening the music has slowed down and a strong coupling 
is apparent. Occasionally a couple slips quietly out. As the numbers 
slowly drop the tension in the room increases. 

Down the road is a bar. A big mean biker leaves. Biker and bike primed 
on high octane fuel wheel-stand down the road to the dance hall, mounts 
the stairs, into the hall, grabs one of the fleeing dancers who manages
to escape before the bike has left the dance floor - a short lived 
bond. Biker thinks while slewing off down the road - "what I really need 
is a bigger bike".


Be of good cheer,

dave
dave.davies@anu.edu.au

cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudendrd851 cudfnDavid cudlnDavies cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.05 / John Logajan /  Re: Thermacore calibrations
     
Originally-From: al789@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Thermacore calibrations
Date: 5 Jul 1994 07:46:36 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)


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

>a calibration resistor might more typically be the size of your finger 

Mine is about a 3/8 inch tube bent into a hairpin "u" shape and about
8 inches in length.  I suspend it vertically from above.

>during the stovetop heating the water does not remain in thermal
>equilibrium.  I am curious to know why there is not some residual
>effects of this sort showing up in cold fusion calorimetry, especially
>the sort involving 28 liters of water.

It's not that there is no thermal gradient, it is just that it is
below the ability to measure the differences (being so slight.)

When I put 60 watts of heat into a 28 liter tank of room temperature
water -- it takes over 30 hours to raise 30 degrees F.  That's (taking
an average value) about a degree F per hour (or about 0.5 C per hour.)

At 1/60 degree F per minute, you can see how difficult it would be to
detect any gradient given even the slightest stirring.  I'm bubbling
about 72 ml of air per minute through the tank -- up from the center
bottom passed the suspended heater.  The water currents then travel
outward and down the tank walls and back up the center again.  The
water current flow is actually quite rapid up the center due to the
bubble stream.  So this stirring is pretty effective for the energy
input rates versus thermal capacity of the system.

cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenal789 cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.05 / Barry Merriman /  Wherefore art thou 20kW CF heater?
     
Originally-From: barry@joshua.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Wherefore art thou 20kW CF heater?
Date: Tue, 5 Jul 94 08:52:43 GMT
Organization: UCLA Dept. of Math, UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research

I haven't read this group for the past 8 months or so,
sensing that not much was going on. (Seeing as there
are now posts on free energy machines, I guess I
was right :-)

Back in those bad old days, Jed Rothwell was warning us
of Toyota's impending 20kW demostration CF reactor
(though it was already a few months late then...)

Well, where is it?

--
Barry Merriman
UCLA Dept. of Math
UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet)   barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (NeXTMail)
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.05 / mitchell swartz /  Calibrated conductivity-loading curves - phase change
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Calibrated conductivity-loading curves - phase change
Subject: Calibrated conductivity-loading curves?
Date: Tue, 5 Jul 1994 11:08:33 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

   In Message-ID: <9407041242.AA38815@pilot1.cl.msu.edu>
Subject: Calibrated conductivity-loading curves?
Richard A Blue  (blue@pilot.msu.edu) writes:

DBLUE I had ask Mitchell Swartz (or anyone) about the techniques used to
DBLUE determine the ratio   of D to Pd in the course of a cold fusion
DBLUE experiment.  His reply seems to indicate that calibrations of the
DBLUE conductivity vs. loading are a routine part of those experiments for
DBLUE which high loadings are reported.  I still wonder if this is indeed
DBLUE the norm for cold fusion experimentation, or is it more typically the
DBLUE case that claims for exceptionally high loadings are based on an
DBLUE extrapolation that goes well beyond the range of any calibrations.

   Actually what was stated was:
     =DBLUE Now if there is a phase change
     =DBLUE as at least one CF advocate has claimed, I would suspect that the
     =DBLUE notion that there is a simple relationship between loading and
     =DBLUE resistance goes out the window.  Any comments?
   =MS     Would not the calibrated conductivity-loading curves already include
   =MS any phase change within the range within which they were obtained?
                  [Message-ID: <CsCLz0.2zt@world.std.com>, 3 Jul 1994]

   Attention is directed to the fact that there is still no response or comment
from Dick Blue to the question made in response to his request for "comments".

   Dick's reply  that the question "seems to indicate that calibrations of the
conductivity vs. loading are a routine part of those experiments for
which high loadings are reported" is astonishing because his extrapolation
is simply not supported by the twenty word question.

   Best wishes
                Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com)
 
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.05 /  prasad /  Re: On homopolar machines
     
Originally-From: c1prasad@watson.ibm.com (prasad)
Originally-From: Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Dunn):
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: On homopolar machines
Date: 5 Jul 1994 12:44:12 GMT
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

Originally-From: Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Dunn):

[ long citations deleted .. ]
[begin quote]
      In order to test an electrical machine, it is necessary to measure
power levels accurately.  ...  The scientific techniques for measuring
power are well established; so it is no surprise that, when apparent power
gains are reported, since the inventors usually have no formal scientific
training they neglect to measure one or more factors.  I have found that
the most usually neglected items are the power factor and the crest factor,
both critical to the measurement of power.  Joe Newman's device is a
typical example of the latter.  Ignoring the crest factor, he greatly
underestimates the input power to his machine, giving an apparent
efficiency greater than 100 %  The National Bureau of Standards also made
some measurements on his machine.  They, of course, did take the crest
factor into account and found true efficiencies well below 100 percent.
[end quote]
[ ... ]
-- 

The point I had noted, which you *could* check for yourself if you get hold
of the NBS report yourself, is that the Newman machine was claimed to be
a MOTOR, but the NBS did NOT measure its MECHANICAL OUTPUT.

This, as in my original post, is not to opine on NBS's senses or capability
or involvement in conspiracies against Newman!  Newman's own book provides enough
material (!) to show that the NBS would have been thoroughly confused about
what was being claimed and what had to be tested.  Also, it wasn't a matter
of NBS countering Newman's measurements.  Newman's measurements were performed
by physicists, just like NBS's.  Newman's own measurements would have hardly
been taken seriously enough for people like you and me to have ever heard of
him and remembered all that we have done!

Anyway, the reason I included Newman's motor design is to bring out at least
one remarkable physical relation between Newman's motor and the homopolar
generators that are claimed to be both "over-unity", viz. the circuit magnetic
moment.  The reason I was interested in that angle at all is that fairly
large (in size, not necessarily intensity) magnetic vortices are involved
in superconductivity, and I was looking for anything that could have led
to such measurements (whether it be "real power" or "reactive power" or
something that confuses the experimenter).  Besides, someone had written me
asking for a description of the Newman motor (which most responses do not
describe for the newcomer).

Also, for the given topologies (Newman motor, Tewari type generator), I still
haven't come across a single instance where people have built an adequately
large machine and not ended up with an excess energy result.  The NBS doesn't
qualify for the simple reason above.  And I am not talking about people without
ability or facility to measure what they were talking about.  I'm talking about
professors and PhDs in physics and EE (even in Newman's case), none of whom
were claiming magic either.  They were reporting their puzzlement, and to that,
there hasn't been a good, comprehensive theoretical answer, yet.

__________ __________ __________ __________ __________ __________ __________

#pragma prejudices=own brainwaves=own others=absolved

// prasad
// email: 71155.3116@compuserve.com, poll= 1/month.
// bad habits: unwashed robes, xrn.

cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenc1prasad cudlnprasad cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.05 / Jim Carr /  Re: The Myth of "The Decisive Experiment"
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The Myth of "The Decisive Experiment"
Date: 5 Jul 1994 09:50:58 -0400
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

In article <2v9qg0$3is@knot.queensu.ca> 
tom@mips2.phy.queensu.ca (Tom Radcliffe) writes:
>
>The pernicious notion of the ``crucial experiment'' goes back even
>earlier than that.  The first reference I'm aware of is by Bacon.  

However, what Bacon refers to is not what Kuhn refers to, and neither 
are talking about what I (and I assume Steve Jones) are talking about. 
There is an 'experiment' -- a particular laboratory occurence -- and 
an 'experiment' -- a detailed description of a setup and expected 
outcome.  We are talking about the latter.  Not crucial, but decisive. 
An experiment that defines the phenomenon, one that always gives the 
same result when done as described.  The problem that Steve refers to 
is that negative experiments are dismissed with 'you must have done 
something wrong' rather than 'you did <a particular thing> wrong'.  

I fail to see where this notion is injurious to science.  Science has 
done quite well during times when this notion was dominant, and has 
also done well when it was not.  In fact, there seems to be a pattern 
that physics progressed by 'stochastic enlightenment' when Bacon's 
view dominated philosophy, while some crucial experiments occurred 
when it was not.  Some sort of cyclical process with delayed feedback 
between the fields.   

It would be a pernicious problem if scientists only did 'crucial experiments', 
but no scientist is that stupid.  Only philosophers of science have tried 
to squeeze all of the ways science extends its knowledge into either a 
square or circular hole.  Most importantly, one should not confuse 
experiments that are described post hoc as 'decisive' as a pedogogical 
tool with those that were, at the time, awaited with bated breath to see 
what would happen.

For example, would you argue that the search for the W and Z bosons 
at a particular mass was anything other than a decisive experiment 
for the standard model?  If they were not there at those particular 
masses, the model would have been as dead as the SSC is now. 

And lets not forget the centennial of radioactivity: that single 
observation dislodged many strongly held beliefs about matter. 

>                                                                  Most
>scientists now realize that the number of conclusions that can be
>drawn from any single experiment is much much less than one.

The Physical Review suggests otherwise. 

-- 
 James A. Carr   <jac@scri.fsu.edu>     |   "It's never confusing though, 
      http://www.scri.fsu.edu           |  because ultimately it all fits 
 Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst.  |  -- it's just cockeyed and fits  
 Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306    |  and is fire."  -  Norman Maclean 
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.06 / Richard Blue /  Reply to David Davies on theory and beams
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Reply to David Davies on theory and beams
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 1994 00:12:16 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I must apologize to Dave for having lumped him in with the True Believers.
He has raised several interesting points that I would like to see discussed
further if he is willing to put up with my style (or lack of it).

The question that set me off in my response to his initial message, an
issue that keeps hanging around in many CF debates, is the relevance of
information derived from beam-induced reaction studies.  Dave says,
"Particle beam references may not be particularly valid."  Clearly I
differ with that point of view, so let me try to explain why.

First let me say that my viewpoint is derived from my experience in what
is known as "low energy nuclear physics" which often involves reactions
at or near an energy threshold, the absolute minimum bombarding energy
at which that process can occur.  I state this to indicate that many
of the descriptions of nuclear reaction processes that are presented
by those who choose to ignore such data seem to indicate a frame of mind
that lumps all experiments involving particle beams into a single class
having features that do not seem to connect to cold fusion issues.
In hopes of perhaps modifying that perspective just a little, let me
point out that nuclear physicists make extensive use of reversability
in nuclear reaction and thus can obtain information about the interaction
between nuclei at amazingly low relative velocities even though the
process was initiated by a much more energetic beam.  I have not yet
heard anyone venture to explain what precisely it is that separates
cold fusion reaction physics from the physics of reactions induced by
particle beams.  As far as I am concerned it is still all the same
physics!

Continuing on the question of what can be learned from beam-induced
reaction studies,  the standard methods of analysis employed in
nuclear physics generally make an effort to achieve a separation
between those aspects of the data that are due entirely to the kinematics
of motion between the pojectile and the target and the features of
the nuclear interaction that is under investigation.  In that sense
we know what is different about the use of beams of particles.
Dave, however, seems to think that the essential features of strong
interactions are little more than a reflection of the fact that they
have been studied via high energy collisions.  I am sorry to have to
seem harsh in my response, Dave, but you are seriously off base at this
point.  Consider how much has been learned about the strong interaction
through studies of stable nuclei and of nuclear decays in which there
is no "high energy collision."  There is just a whole lot more involved
in any apparent conflict between orthodox nuclear physics and cold
fusion than whether collisions require greater strength of establish
some form of coherence.

Ultimately we get done to the place where everyone says that reactions
within lattice can be different.  My reply is that is just fine with
me.  However, it should then be possible to explain how and why the
lattice makes things different.  The course of the discussion then
generally moves to "delocalization", "coherence", "boson condensations",
and things like that.  Again I say that is just fine with me.  However,
it should be possible to define each new construct in a more or less
logical fashion and to keep things from straying too far from currently
accepted approaches to doing physics.

In that spirit I need to ask Dave to expand a bit on what he has in mind
when he says:

"If the main boson is large enough that it can absorb 24 MeV as a
vibrational mode then we have a new reaction path for D + D => He
that doesn't appear in conventional beam systems."

Can we spell out what the "main boson" is, especially at the point
in the reaction process where we have 24 MeV to absorb.  I have given
a simple argument that I believe indicates that at no time can one
expect there to be more than one excited 4He nucleus present in the
sample.  Is that the "main boson"?  The other thing that no one
ever seems to be able to supply is a picture of this boson that specifies
the coordinates of individual nucleons relative to the center-of-mass
of the helium.  Everyone who seems to think the answer to the cold
fusion question lies in something special about a delocalized and/or
coherent wavefunction has stopped well short of doing anything with
the internal nuclear coordinates which must surely play a major role
in the energy release.

One point at which Dave and I agree is the key is probably time.
All the pictures involving delocalization and the production
of phonons must imply some evolution of the system that is incredibly
slow relative to the times more typical in nuclear reaction processes.
It then seems to me that we have nothing more substantial than an
appeal to magic to keep the normal nuclear things from happening
long enough that the lattice effects can come into play.  I am
still convinced that getting lattice effects to lead to a reaction
does nothing to explain why the subsequent outcome of a fusion
should differ in more than some trivial way from fusion observed
under different circumstances.  In fact the best demonstration that
any of the effects that have been suggested are occuring would be
a direct detection of the expected reaction products such as neutrons.
The sensitivity for this test of any new theory is phenominal.  It
blows the socks off anything that can be done with calorimetry.  The
problem is it has been done.  There just seem to be a number of
people who don't like the result.

Even though I am a dyed-in-the-wool experimentalists, I still think
Dave and others understate the role of theory in the process of
making new observations understandable.  Dave says, "The only value
of theory is to help in the construction and selection of good
experiments."  That is certainly one important role for theory, and
here again cold fusion investigations must be seen badly needing
some guidance.  Dave makes reference to several investigations involving
surface states, lots of good physics there.  But how does any of it
connect to cold fusion?  Would anyone be prepared to claim that cold
fusion occurs only the surface of the PdD sample?  Pons and Fleischmann
certainly seem to stick to the notion that the reaction rate scales
with sample volume, and most of the theories are very dependent on
having a 3d lattice.  All of the experimental data relating to the
importance of high loading in the bulk material, not something that
I connect very easily to surface physics.

The more important role of "theory" from my perspective is that it must
provide the basic unity that connects all the various domains that are
subject to experimental investigation.  We all must recognize that there
is not one kind of physics for beams, another for plasmas, and a third
for solids.  When I ask for an explanation of cold fusion I expect
the answers to conform to at least a few of the basic precepts of
quantum mechanics.  When someone asserts that the formation of a band
state provides energies levels that can decay through the creation of
perhaps a million phonons it seems reasonable to ask that their
theory include an interaction that could do that sort of thing.
Until someone can sketch a picture that contains a few basic elements
that can supply the needed interactions I am inclined to say there
is no theory of cold fusion.  This lack of theory is a clear indicator
that something is seriously wrong.  The claimed observations of
cold fusion stand in contradiction to a vast body of physics.  What Dave
and others should begin to recognize is that cold fusion data can never
stand alone in isolation with no clear connection other observations.
The connection must be made through theory.

In this context Dave says he finds the Mills model attractive.  I find
it incredibly stupid and ugly.  As I understand it's origin, the Mills
model derives from a dislike for the concept of "stationary states"
in the Schroedinger solution to the problem of the hydrogen atom.
Mills claims to step back to classical electrodynamics to find a
charge distribution, a spherical shell at the Bohr radius, that is
inherently nonradiative.  On that basis Mills seems to claim that
although his model departs significantly from standard quantum
mechanics it is in agreement with Maxwell's equation.  Closer
examination of this model, however, reveals that it does not live
up to that claim.  It violates simple charge conservation, for
example.  It clearly is constructed with a total disregard for
logic.  However, if you are inclined to judge this model by its
conforming to experimental observation, what data would you suggest
supports any prediction coming from this model?  I suggest that
Mills et al., have not been able to present their own experimental
data in a way that is consistant with any predictions arising from
this model.  For example, they inject a gas sample that is supposed
to contain hydrogen in a subground state into a mass spectrograph
and claim to observe a mass shift from that for normal hydrogen.
However, the obtaining of this mass information must involve the
ionization of the gas sample, a process that clearly must return
any hydrogen to a state in which all information about it's
previous special condition is lost.  Do you truly find this
attractive?

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.05 / Jim Carr /  Re: The Myth of "The Decisive Experiment"
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The Myth of "The Decisive Experiment"
Date: 5 Jul 1994 10:03:57 -0400
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

In article <jaboweryCsFtGw.2xL@netcom.com> 
jabowery@netcom.com (Jim Bowery) writes:
>
>> >I believe most important scientific progress since 1900 fits the 
>> >stocastic enhlightenment model.
>> 
>> 'most' is not 'all'.  You argued for 'all' originally. 
>
>For practical purposes, we can say "most".  To be technically
>correct, we must say "all" due to the lack of an operationally

To write that after insulting my 'intellectual credibility' is interesting. 

If you want to have any credibility at all, you had better mean 'all' 
when you claim all, and you had better not accept my counter examples 
as valid and then proceed to ignore them.  If you do mean 'most', and 
have read anything I have written, you would know that we agree. 

What is most important here is that you have used this argument to 
ignore the point that Steve raised initially: that cold fusion has 
taken on a zen-like definition where it can say what it is not but 
cannot say what it is.  It lacks a precise experimental definition 
so that the results of any experiment can be seen to be decisive in 
the sense that results are considered relevant to the problem. 

-- 
 James A. Carr   <jac@scri.fsu.edu>     |   "It's never confusing though, 
      http://www.scri.fsu.edu           |  because ultimately it all fits 
 Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst.  |  -- it's just cockeyed and fits  
 Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306    |  and is fire."  -  Norman Maclean 
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.05 / Tom Radcliffe /  Re: The Myth of "The Decisive Experiment"
     
Originally-From: tom@mips2.phy.queensu.ca (Tom Radcliffe)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The Myth of "The Decisive Experiment"
Date: 5 Jul 1994 17:28:35 GMT
Organization: Queen's University, Kingston

In article <2vbog2$622@ds8.scri.fsu.edu>, jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) writes:
|> In article <2v9qg0$3is@knot.queensu.ca> 
|> tom@mips2.phy.queensu.ca (Tom Radcliffe) writes:
|> >
|> >The pernicious notion of the ``crucial experiment'' goes back even
|> >earlier than that.  The first reference I'm aware of is by Bacon.  
|> 
|> However, what Bacon refers to is not what Kuhn refers to, and neither 
|> are talking about what I (and I assume Steve Jones) are talking about. 
|> There is an 'experiment' -- a particular laboratory occurence -- and 
|> an 'experiment' -- a detailed description of a setup and expected 
|> outcome.  We are talking about the latter.  Not crucial, but decisive. 
|> An experiment that defines the phenomenon, one that always gives the 
|> same result when done as described.  The problem that Steve refers to 
|> is that negative experiments are dismissed with 'you must have done 
|> something wrong' rather than 'you did <a particular thing> wrong'.  
|> 
|> I fail to see where this notion is injurious to science.  Science has 
|> done quite well during times when this notion was dominant, and has 
|> also done well when it was not.  In fact, there seems to be a pattern 
|> that physics progressed by 'stochastic enlightenment' when Bacon's 
|> view dominated philosophy, while some crucial experiments occurred 
|> when it was not.  Some sort of cyclical process with delayed feedback 
|> between the fields.   
|> 
|> It would be a pernicious problem if scientists only did 'crucial experiments', 
|> but no scientist is that stupid.  Only philosophers of science have tried 
|> to squeeze all of the ways science extends its knowledge into either a 
|> square or circular hole.  Most importantly, one should not confuse 
|> experiments that are described post hoc as 'decisive' as a pedogogical 
|> tool with those that were, at the time, awaited with bated breath to see 
|> what would happen.
|> 

We are in agreement on all of this -- the perniciousness I was referring
to dwells in some approaches to the philosophy of science (or at least
the philosophy of physics.)  Your claim that ``no scientist is that
stupid'' is equivalent to what I was getting at regarding most scientists
realizing that very few experiments have even one unequivocal conclusion.
I would argue that the average publication reports on a suite of experiments
(some only by reference) rather than a ``single experiment'' in the
sense of a single configuration of a particular apparatus.  Even calibrations
correspond to different experiments in this sense.  Again, this is
primarily in response to misguided philosophical notions, not to how
scientists actually behave.

[rest deleted]
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudentom cudfnTom cudlnRadcliffe cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Wed Jul  6 04:37:05 EDT 1994
------------------------------
1994.07.05 / Jim Bowery /  Re: The Myth of "The Decisive Experiment"
     
Originally-From: jabowery@netcom.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The Myth of "The Decisive Experiment"
Date: Tue, 5 Jul 1994 17:56:34 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

Jim Carr (jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu) wrote:
: In article <jaboweryCsFtGw.2xL@netcom.com> 
: jabowery@netcom.com (Jim Bowery) writes:
: >
: >> >I believe most important scientific progress since 1900 fits the 
: >> >stocastic enhlightenment model.
: >> 
: >> 'most' is not 'all'.  You argued for 'all' originally. 
: >
: >For practical purposes, we can say "most".  To be technically
: >correct, we must say "all" due to the lack of an operationally

: To write that after insulting my 'intellectual credibility' is interesting. 

Please excuse me if I insulted your intellectual credbility.  Where
did I do so?

: If you want to have any credibility at all, you had better mean 'all' 
: when you claim all, and you had better not accept my counter examples 
: as valid and then proceed to ignore them.  If you do mean 'most', and 
: have read anything I have written, you would know that we agree. 

Let me try to clarify:

Unless one can provide a clear operational definition of when 
the decisive experiment fails to describe the process and when
stochastic enlightenment takes over, I submit that there is good
reason to formally ascribe all progress to stochastic enlightenment.
If one does so, then, the "decisive experiment" becomes an informal
semantic convenience for an extrema in the spectrum of scientific
resolution -- a short-hand for a relatively clear-cut situation that
requires little effort to reach wide-spread replicability and
respectability.

-- 
The promotion of politics exterminates apolitical genes in the population.
  The promotion of frontiers gives apolitical genes a route to survival.
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenjabowery cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.05 / Matt Kennel /  Re: A decisive (?) experiment
     
Originally-From: mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A decisive (?) experiment
Date: 5 Jul 1994 19:30:08 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

David R Davies (drd851@huxley.anu.edu.au) wrote:


: Moving on the low energy surface scattering that I referred to in 
: my previous post I will spell the point out in more detail because it 
: seems that the delocalization issue has been presented as just some 
: crazy idea that CF TBs push. The following are a selection of the many 
: pre-F&P papers that are relevant - ie these guys were just doing 
: physics and chemistry without any CF barrow to push.


: M.J.Puska et al., Physical Review Letters, 51`, p1081 (1983)

: Abstract: "Quantum mechanical energy levels and wave functions have 
: been calculated for the motion of chemisorbed hydrogen atoms on Ni 
: surfaces. The results show considerable quantum effects for the adatom 
: in both the ground and the excited states. The description of the 
: adparticles as being delocalised along the surface offers a novel 
: interpretation of several phenomena, in particular the vibrational 
: excitations."

Atoms. Atoms. Atoms. Atoms.  Remember the words "low energy".

Delocalized atoms fine.  When the interaction energies with the
background (ev's) are the same order as the interaction energies with
each other.

But when you probe a "delocalized atom's" nucleus at keV's or MeV's it looks
awfully pointlike again.

: Be of good cheer,

: dave
: dave.davies@anu.edu.au


--
-Matt Kennel  		mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu
-Institute for Nonlinear Science, University of California, San Diego
-*** AD: Archive for nonlinear dynamics papers & programs: FTP to
-***     lyapunov.ucsd.edu, username "anonymous".
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenmbk cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.06 / Jed Rothwell /  Wherefore art thou 20kW CF heater?
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Wherefore art thou 20kW CF heater?
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 1994 03:36:32 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG

barry@joshua.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman) asks:

     "Back in those bad old days, Jed Rothwell was warning us of Toyota's
     impending 20kW demonstration CF reactor (though it was already a few
     months late then...)"
 
     Well, where is it?"

It is locked in a netherworld of late, incomplete, promising but not-quite-
ready industrial products, along with many other products like Microsoft's
"Chicago" version of Windows and IBM's voice input program.

I have spent the last 20 years making new high tech products and selling them.
I realize that most things get late. Some R&D take many years longer than
anyone expected at first, so I am not surprised or alarmed at the delay. Mr.
Merriman has an academic address, he is at UCLA. I expect he has never in his
life actually met a payroll or produced a working product. He probably has not
got the faintest idea how difficult it is, how many problems can arise. He
does not realize that a dedicated, inspired R&D team will often make a superb
product in spite of all the difficulties and delays. Merriman is probably one
of these ivory tower academic types who has never produced a useful,
competitive, saleable object in his life, yet he thinks he knows more than the
R&D managers at Toyota! If this was not so naive it would be contemptible. Let
me offer a suggestion to Merriman, and to others of his ilk:

If you really believe that 1 year delay in basic R&D is fatal, or even a 5
year delay, then you must think that Microsoft is on it's last legs. You must
be certain in your own mind that the "Chicago" version of Windows will never,
every reach the marketplace, because it has been delayed, and all delays are
fatal. You assert that all products must either come on schedule or not come
at all. It so, Microsoft is doomed, because eventually IBM and Apple will come
out with stronger products. So if your really believe that a 1 or 2 year delay
is fatal, I strongly suggest you sell Microsoft and Toyota stock short. You
will soon learn a lesson about capitalism and the real world. You will learn
the facts of life in a way that no academic lecture can ever teach.

- Jed

cudkeys:
cuddy6 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.06 / John Logajan /  Nalgene/Thermacore results
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Nalgene/Thermacore results
Date: 6 Jul 1994 04:03:41 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Online Services Member.

As you may recall, I was running 60 watts into the new Nalgene tank
and got a calorimetry constant of from 0.2444-0.2482 C/W.

I then tried 30 watts -- but my back room was getting kinda mildewy
from being closed up for so long, so I also was running a dehumidifier
(knowing it would disrupt the measurements.)  I eventually shut down
the dehumidifier after a day or so and let everything settle.

This probably changed the humidity of the room.  So anyhow, my 30 watt
case got a cal constant of 0.2682 C/W which is the highest reading
to date.

Next I placed the Nalgene tank on a 2 foot by 3 foot sheet of 3/64th
thick steel sheet.  The new 30 watt cal constant settled at 0.252 -
0.254 C/W on the steel sheet.

As you can see from the table below, my 0.268 C/W cal constant could
explain experiments 11,12 and 13 if you assumed 100% recombination
was occuring (despite Thermacore's assurance that 0% recombination
was occuring.)  If you take Thermacore's word, then my 0.268 C/W
cal constant cannot explain any of the experiments.  If you assume
a 50% recombination rate then my 0.268 C/W can still not quite
explain any of the excess heats.

The last two columns of the table below are the cal constants that
would be needed to account for the temperature difference measured
by Thermacore in order to explain away the alleged excess heats.

experiment   Thermacore   Logajan     100% recomb   0% recomb
number       cal const    cal const   cal const     cal const
----------   ----------   ---------   -----------   ------------
   5            0.15       0.268         0.372       0.579 C/W
   6             "           "           0.400       0.634 C/W
   7             "           "           0.402       0.636 C/W
   8             "           "           0.392       0.628 C/W
   9             "           "           0.382       0.618 C/W
  10             "           "           0.323       0.522 C/W
  11             "           "           0.269       0.435 C/W
  12             "           "           0.228       0.370 C/W
  13             "           "           0.210       0.340 C/W

--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com -- 612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills  MN 55112 USA           -

cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.06 / Matt Kennel /  Re: Wherefore art thou 20kW CF heater?
     
Originally-From: mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Wherefore art thou 20kW CF heater?
Date: 6 Jul 1994 06:20:34 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

Jed Rothwell (72240.1256@compuserve.com) wrote:
: To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG

: barry@joshua.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman) asks:

:      "Back in those bad old days, Jed Rothwell was warning us of Toyota's
:      impending 20kW demonstration CF reactor (though it was already a few
:      months late then...)"
:  
:      Well, where is it?"

: It is locked in a netherworld of late, incomplete, promising but not-quite-
: ready industrial products, along with many other products like Microsoft's
: "Chicago" version of Windows and IBM's voice input program.

: I have spent the last 20 years making new high tech products and selling them.
: I realize that most things get late. Some R&D take many years longer than
: anyone expected at first, so I am not surprised or alarmed at the delay. Mr.

: Merriman has an academic address, he is at UCLA. I expect he has never in his
: life actually met a payroll or produced a working product. He probably has not
: got the faintest idea how difficult it is, how many problems can arise. He
: does not realize that a dedicated, inspired R&D team will often make a superb
: product in spite of all the difficulties and delays. Merriman is probably one
: of these ivory tower academic types who has never produced a useful,
: competitive, saleable object in his life, yet he thinks he knows more than the
: R&D managers at Toyota! If this was not so naive it would be contemptible. Let
: me offer a suggestion to Merriman, and to others of his ilk:

: If you really believe that 1 year delay in basic R&D is fatal, or even a 5
: year delay, then you must think that Microsoft is on it's last legs. You must
: be certain in your own mind that the "Chicago" version of Windows will never,
: every reach the marketplace, because it has been delayed, and all delays are
: fatal. You assert that all products must either come on schedule or not come
: at all. It so, Microsoft is doomed, because eventually IBM and Apple will come
: out with stronger products. So if your really believe that a 1 or 2 year delay
: is fatal, I strongly suggest you sell Microsoft and Toyota stock short. You
: will soon learn a lesson about capitalism and the real world. You will learn
: the facts of life in a way that no academic lecture can ever teach.

: - Jed

You protest too much.  (And toyota makes its money from cars---a totally
blown cf program has nil effect on its finances or stock.)

Uh that's a negative there.  Windows 4.0 is hardly 'new technology' much
less New Physics.  

If Microsoft promised for windows 4.0 shit like "Hey we have this new
technology which will run things at 50,000 specmarks on a Pentium that you
thought was only 100 but it's a secret" or "It now responds to thought
commands!  Your files are copied before you even conciously make a decision
to do so!"  I think it would be reasonable for the Bull-Gates-O-Meter to
light up.

Q: aside from this purported cold fusion, has there ever been a major
physical discovery that was subsequently incorporated into a commercial
product essentially in complete secrecy?  That is, secret (and not
believed in the mainstream) from basic physics all the way to 
commercialization?  I can't think of any right now but who knows.  I think
though that's it's quite rare.

Now maybe there's plenty of commercial application for a chemical
no-moving-parts heat pump too.

If it's a secret, with difficult to accept claims, it's perfectly reasonable
to have the attitude "i'll believe it when I see it."

--
-Matt Kennel  		mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu
-Institute for Nonlinear Science, University of California, San Diego
-*** AD: Archive for nonlinear dynamics papers & programs: FTP to
-***     lyapunov.ucsd.edu, username "anonymous".
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenmbk cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.06 / John Logajan /  Re: Wherefore art thou 20kW CF heater?
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Wherefore art thou 20kW CF heater?
Date: 6 Jul 1994 13:06:50 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Online Services Member.

Matt Kennel (mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu) wrote:
: Q: aside from this purported cold fusion, has there ever been a major
: physical discovery that was subsequently incorporated into a commercial
: product essentially in complete secrecy?

"Complete secrecy" hardly describes all work in cold fusion.  There might
indeed be completely secret cold fusion developments going on -- but then
we obviously don't know about them because they are completely secret.

CF work is going on in dozens if not hundreds of locations.  Publications
are made to scientific journals -- the field has several of its own
dedicated publications.  We have this forum.  There have been four
international conferences with published abstracts and proceedings.

Now I personally think it was a PR mistake for anyone to promise a
waterheater on a fixed future date merely on the extrapolation of in progress
development data.  It's as if the brothers Wright were to promise deliveries
of reliable airplanes just after landing at Kitty Hawk. (After all, they
never got all that far off the ground -- it might have all been ground
effect -- we might now be scooting around in hovercrafts had the physics 
turned out different :-)

--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com -- 612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills  MN 55112 USA           -

cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.06 / John Lewis /  Re: Wherefore art thou 20kW CF heater?
     
Originally-From: court@newton.physics.mun.ca (John Lewis)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Wherefore art thou 20kW CF heater?
Date: 6 Jul 1994 13:23:19 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Physics, Memorial University

In article <940706033500_72240.1256_EHB215-1@CompuServe.COM>, 72240.1256
compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
|> To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
|> 
|> barry@joshua.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman) asks:
|> 
|>      "Back in those bad old days, Jed Rothwell was warning us of Toyota's
|>      impending 20kW demonstration CF reactor (though it was already a few
|>      months late then...)"
|>  
|>      Well, where is it?"
|> 
|> It is locked in a netherworld of late, incomplete, promising but not-quite-
|> ready industrial products, along with many other products like Microsoft's
|> "Chicago" version of Windows and IBM's voice input program.
|> 
|> I have spent the last 20 years making new high tech products and selling them.

Such as?

|> I realize that most things get late. Some R&D take many years longer than
|> anyone expected at first, so I am not surprised or alarmed at the delay. Mr.
|> Merriman has an academic address, he is at UCLA. I expect he has never in his
|> life actually met a payroll or produced a working product. He probably has not
|> got the faintest idea how difficult it is, how many problems can arise. He
|> does not realize that a dedicated, inspired R&D team will often make a superb
|> product in spite of all the difficulties and delays. Merriman is probably one
|> of these ivory tower academic types who has never produced a useful,
|> competitive, saleable object in his life,

But then again, maybe he has.  Academics with a business background or
business interests are not uncommon - high tech industry owes much to
them.  In fact, wasn't Stanley[?sp] Pons a businessman before he became
an academic?

 ...
  
|
|> If you really believe that 1 year delay in basic R&D is fatal, or even a 5
|> year delay, then you must think that Microsoft is on it's last legs. You must
|> be certain in your own mind that the "Chicago" version of Windows will never,
|> every reach the marketplace, because it has been delayed, and all delays are
|> fatal. 

But Jed, you PROMISED US a water heater!!!!!  NOW!!!

|>You assert that all products must either come on schedule or not come
|> at all. It so, Microsoft is doomed, because eventually IBM and Apple will come
|> out with stronger products. So if your really believe that a 1 or 2 year delay
|> is fatal, I strongly suggest you sell Microsoft and Toyota stock short.

The last time I checked on Microsoft insider trading, they were selling, not
buying, by the way.

|> You
|> will soon learn a lesson about capitalism and the real world. You will learn
|> the facts of life in a way that no academic lecture can ever teach.
|> 
|> - Jed
|> 

One of the principal lessons I learned in business was not to
blather.  How about you?

John Lewis
St. John's, Newfoundland
 
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudencourt cudfnJohn cudlnLewis cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.06 / Arnie Frisch /  Re: Wherefore art thou 20kW CF heater?
     
Originally-From: arnief@wu.labs.tek.com (Arnie Frisch)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Wherefore art thou 20kW CF heater?
Date: 6 Jul 1994 08:28:21 -0700
Organization: Tektronix Laboratories, Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton, OR

In article <940706033500_72240.1256_EHB215-1@CompuServe.COM> 72240.1256@
ompuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
>To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
>
>barry@joshua.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman) asks:
>
>     "Back in those bad old days, Jed Rothwell was warning us of Toyota's
>     impending 20kW demonstration CF reactor (though it was already a few
>     months late then...)"
> 
>     Well, where is it?"
>
............
...........
........
....

>I have spent the last 20 years making new high tech products and selling them.
>I realize that most things get late. Some R&D take many years longer than
>anyone expected at first, so I am not surprised or alarmed at the delay. Mr.
>Merriman has an academic address, he is at UCLA. I expect he has never in his
>life actually met a payroll or produced a working product. He probably has not
(followed by an insulting diatribe)


I am tired of this BS.  You try to turn any legitimate question into an
insult to the questioner.

The fact is that F&P and many others have promised water heaters - if
not production versions, at least demonstrations - for several years.
And they are not just late, they are late by multiples of the time they
originally predicted.  So the ultimate demonstration, the one thing
that could turn ALL the NON-BELIEVERS into BELIEVERS, is becoming
itself less believable.

And by the way, I have been in industry for 37 years.  I long ago came
to recognize the signs of failed research and development.  This
exhibits almost every such sign.

Arnold Frisch
Tektronix Laboratories

cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenarnief cudfnArnie cudlnFrisch cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.06 / S Publications /  Spectacular Claims for Unlimited Energy
     
Originally-From: supercon@cnj.digex.net (Superconductivity Publications)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Spectacular Claims for Unlimited Energy
Date: 6 Jul 1994 16:49:28 GMT
Organization: Superconductivity Publications, Inc., Somerset, NJ USA

[ Article crossposted from sci.physics ]
[ Author was Superconductivity Publications ]
[ Posted on 6 Jul 1994 16:00:25 GMT ]

The following article appears in the June 1994 monthly technical
edition of Superconductivity News (Vol. 6, No. 42).

William Jay Fogal, president of Quick Chek Industries (Martinez, GA)
has invented and patented an electronic device for which he has made
very broad claims.  Others learning about the device have further
extrapolated the claims to the point that if real, the device means
the end of power utilities, the rendering useless of the entire
electrical power grid, the demise of manufacturers of electrical
generators and electrical cable, and a dramatic reduction in the
activities of hundreds of thousands of ancillary service providers.
Most industries will have to change or die.  The infrastructure
alterations will be the most profound the world has ever witnessed.
While the odds are stacked against it being real, the staff of
Superconductivity News (SN) believes it is important to report the
events as they occur.

Fogal is not claiming he has invented a room temperature
superconductor.  What he has invented is either completely fatuous or
it is astounding in that it strikes at the very core theoretical
underpinnings of electromechanics.  Fogal told SN that his device grew
out of his efforts to fix a broken car radio in the mid 1970s.  As he
got past the wiring and the circuits and into the semiconductors
actually running the radio, he made changes that greatly improved the
audio quality.  He then let his ideas lay idle for more than a decade
before finally returning to the research in the late 1980s.

Fogal says his charged barrier semiconductor device allows electrons
to flow without resistance (i.e., as in superconductors) at room
temperature.  He claims the device demonstrates a very high AC voltage
and AC current gain.  His charged barrier device is on a bipolar
design that can be incorporated in (MOS) metal oxide semiconductor
designs, as well as multiple gate devices.  It operates on a hall
effect electromagnetic field internal device.  The hall effect
magnetic field forces electron flow and angular spin of the electrons
in the same direction to the top of the conduction bands in the
crystal lattice on semiconductor devices, unlike (SOI) silicon on
insulator devices that force electron flow to the surface of the
semiconductor lattice.  "Unlike superconductors which generate an
external field, my semiconductor creates a self-regulating magnetic
field internal to the device," Fogal said.

-- Fogal's Description of His Device --

Charged barrier semiconductor devices incorporate a base plate member
of a semiconductor crystal.  Also incorporated with the base plate
member is a dialectic material and a second base plate member.  The
combination of the two base plate members constitutes an electrolytic
capacitor.  The first base plate member will create a transverse
electric field that is known as a hall effect in the base plate member
of the semiconductor crystal.  The ratio of the transverse electric
field strength to the product of the current and the magnetic field
strength is called the hall coefficient, and its magnitude is
inversely proportional to the carrier concentration on the base plate
member.  The product of the hall coefficient and the conductivity is
proportional to the mobility of the carriers when one type of carrier
is dominant.  Since the base plate member is tied directly to the
emitter junction of the semiconductor, the hall coefficient comes into
play with the creation of a one pole electromagnet in the base plate
member.

The hall effect of the electrolytic capacitor, in relation to the
position on the crystal lattice, will force electron angular spin in
the same direction and electron flow to the top of the conduction
bands in the lattice.  The magnetic flux and the density of the
carriers on the electrolytic capacitor plate are in direct proportion
to the magnetic flux and carrier concentration on the emitter junction
on the semiconductor crystal.

Since the angular spin and the flow of the electrons are in the same
direction, due to the influence of the electromagnetic field, the
electron lattice interaction factor does not come into play.  The
electron wave density is greater and the mobility of the electron flow
is faster.  The device does not exhibit frequency loss in the wave.

The base or gate of the semiconductor is more sensitive to input
signal.  These devices will typically turn on with an input to the
junction in the area of 0.2 MV to 0.4 MV with an output at the
collector junction of 450 MV at 133.5 UA of current.

-- Electron Wave Function In Charged Barrier Technology --

Think of the conduction bands in a crystal lattice as a highway.
Electrons in the free state will move along this highway.  The only
difference is the electron angular spin can be in different
directions.  With the electrons spinning in different directions, the
electrons would travel on different lanes of the highway and
collisions can occur.  The scattering and the collision of the
electrons can cause friction and resistance to the flow.  The
resistance to the flow and the friction can cause semiconductors to
run hot.

In semiconductor devices, this is called lattice scattering or
electron lattice interaction.  If we could make the electrons move in
one direction, and also spin in the same direction, then we could have
more traffic electrons (on the highway) without having the resistance
or the collisions.  We could put a barrier between the lanes on the
highway.  But, the electrons could still spin in different directions.
But, what if we could charge this barrier?!  Turn this barrier into an
electromagnetic field!  An electromagnetic field in one direction.  A
one pole electromagnet!  A hall effect magnetic field.  This one pole
electromagnetic field would make almost all of the electrons spin in
the same direction.  Because the electrons are a negative charge and
the electromagnetic field has a negative charge, the electrons travel
in unison and then we could have more electrons on the highway, and
the electron travel could be faster.

The orientation of the spin of the electrons in the crystal lattice,
due to the electromagnetic field, has a direct impact on the formation
of the wave.  If the orientation of the spin of the electrons are in
unison, there will be no loss in the wave nature, and the density of
the wave will be greater, and the frequency of the wave will be
complete.  If the spin of the electrons in the lattice are in
different directions, the wave nature will be affected and there will
be a loss in the density of the wave.  And, there will be a gap in the
frequency of the wave.

-- Patent Issued --

Fogal filed an application for a US patent covering the design on
March 1, 1991 and awarded No. 5,196,809, titled "High gain, low
distortion, faster switching transistor," on March 23, 1993.  The
patent includes figures, diagrams, and several data plots, e.g. output
signal vs. input signal (vac) for the Fogal device vs. a standard
transistor.  The patent was Fogal's first, but he has since
received a second patent, No. 5,311,139, covering a fuse testing
device that has nothing to do with the semiconductor.  Another US
patent application covering improvements to the semiconductor was
filed in January of this year.  The patent abstract and claim 1
follow.

-- Patent Abstract --

A transistor in which the emitter terminal is coupled to ground
through a filter capacitor.  The filter capacitor has a capacitance of
from about 0.2 uf to about 22 uf and can be connected either by itself
or in parallel with a resistor, depending upon the circuit in which it
is used.  The incorporation of a filter greatly of such a capacitance
level provides greatly improved gain and less distortion of the input
signal, to permit a high output to be achieved in fewer amplifier
stages and with less current draw and heating than in conventional
transistor amplifier stage circuits.  Additionally, the transistor can
be provided in a unitary structure by incorporating the filter
capacitor directly on the transistor chip, and can also be provided by
incorporating the transistor and a resistor within the casing of a
filter capacitor.

Claim 1

a)	a substrate;
b) 	one of a NPN and a PNP transistor integrally formed on the
	substrate, the transistor having a base, a collector, and an
	emitter;
c)     	a parallel resistor and filter capacitor network coupled with
	the emitter and mounted on the transistor, to form an integral
	part of the integrated circuit, the filter capacitor including
	an outer casing; and
d)	base, collector, and emitter terminals on the substrate and
	coupled with the base, the collector, and the emitter,
	respectively, to permit the integrated circuit to be connected
	with an electronic circuit, wherein the integrated circuit is
	contained within the filter capacitor outer casing.

-- Prototypes Fabricated --

Fogal told SN that he has made six prototypes of his device.
Prototype radios and computer modems have been fabricated employing
the device for demonstration purposes.  Fogal emphasizes the noise
reduction aspects of his semiconductor.

Through the help of a colleague, Allan Ames of Advanced Scientific
Applications (Houston, TX), one of Fogal's semiconductors will be
tested by scientists at the Texas Center for Superconductivity at the
University of Houston.  This is being arranged through Wei-Kan Chu.
SN discussed the situation with Chu and he confirmed that testing will
be done after the documents he had received were reviewed.  SN's
editor-in-chief reviewed what the device might mean with Chu.  Clearly
Chu had not had the opportunity to give the matter much thought.

Thomas E. Bearden (Huntsville, AL) believes Fogal's semiconductor
represents a true overunity electrical device.  "Electromagnetics is
over 100 years old; many of its assumptions are flat wrong," Bearden
told us.  He relates the way the Fogal semiconductor works to the way
heat pumps function, but says it takes it one step beyond.  A Fogal
semiconductor simply stops electrons from flowing and passes the pure
potential energy from the now-free electrons with the circuit blocking
the drift current.  Unlike superconductors, pairs of electrons are not
needed to pass the current along without resistance.

Bearden added that, based on endurance load tests on the Fogal
semiconductor, they are led to the firm conclusion that the chip
actually stops the longitudinal flow of electrons, strips them of
their energy, and passes the pure energy along without resistance.  In
this regard he says it behaves like a heat pump but goes one step
beyond to pull energy from the vacuum.

-- SN Analysis and Comment --

It is important to note that the device does not violate the rules of
thermodynamics involving the conservation of energy.  It does not make
energy from nothing.  One end of a Fogal circuit would provide
electricity for work such as running a light bulb or a computer, and
the other end will draw energy from the environment and get quite cold
in the process.

The best aspect of this story is that either a Fogal semiconductor
works or it doesn't.  There is nothing sophisticated in its
construction and there are no mysterious materials fabrication steps
involved.  There should not be any gray or cloudy areas.  Testing
should be straightforward.

Q:	What are the odds of its being real?
A: 	If it is real, you will hear more about it soon enough.  If it
	isn't, think how much fun you have had reading this article.

Q:	Are there any intrinsic limitations if the device is real?
A:	None we can foresee.

Q:	What does it mean to me?
A:	It is a black or white situation.  If the device is real and 
	Beardon's extrapolation is accurate it means:

     -     the end of the superconductivity industry as we know it within
	   a few years.
     -     the immediate obsolescence of all engine, machinery, and 
           electronics equipment designs.
     -     the beginning of a long-term scaleback by electrical utilities.
     -     a massive reorganization of industry and commerce.
     -     bankruptcy for millions of businesses that are unable to adapt.
     -     widespread unemployment forcing retraining on a scale never 
           before witnessed.
     -     hyperinflation in economies that do not prepare for the changes. 
     -     the price of precious metals and real estate rising rapidly.
     -     a potential shift in the world balance of power.

Of course, it might not be real . . . and nothing will happen.

Are we having fun yet? :)

--
    Superconductivity Publications    | Publishers of the print magazines:   
      710 Easton Avenue, Suite C      |  - Superconductivity News             
     Somerset, NJ 08873-1855, USA     |  - Diamond Depositions Science & Tech.
 Ph: (908)846-2002, Fx: (908)846-2050 |  - Diamond Industry Week              
 C. Jim Russell, PhD, Editor in Chief |  - And coming soon . . . NanoNews     
   For free sample issues, respond to this message with your postal address!
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudensupercon cudfnSuperconductivity cudlnPublications cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.06 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Wherefore art thou 20kW CF heater?
     
Originally-From: barry@joshua.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Wherefore art thou 20kW CF heater?
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 94 17:55:51 GMT
Organization: UCLA Dept. of Math, UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research

In article <940706033500_72240.1256_EHB215-1@CompuServe.COM> 72240.1256@
ompuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
Jed Rothwell writes:
>
>It is locked in a netherworld of late, incomplete, promising but not-quite-
>ready industrial products, ...
>
>I have spent the last 20 years making new high tech products and selling them.
>I realize that most things get late. Some R&D take many years longer than
>anyone expected at first, so I am not surprised or alarmed at the delay. Mr.
>Merriman has an academic address, he is at UCLA. I expect he has never in his
>life actually met a payroll or produced a working product.

Well, Jed, you are more or less correct. I see you haven't
lost you flair for invective over the past year, either :-).

Actually, I'm surprised you didn't take the obvious jab, i.e.
I work on hot fusion which is 30 years late!

Anyway, I take your comments to mean that Toyota is still moving
ahead on the CF water heater. Obviously, I am skeptical that such
can ever exist, but I guess we'll just have to wait and see.




--
Barry Merriman
UCLA Dept. of Math
UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet)   barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (NeXTMail)
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.06 / John Lewis /  Re: Wherefore art thou 20kW CF heater?
     
Originally-From: court@newton.physics.mun.ca (John Lewis)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Wherefore art thou 20kW CF heater?
Date: 6 Jul 1994 19:09:16 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Physics, Memorial University

In article <2vea9a$eco@stratus.skypoint.com>, jlogajan@skypoint.com
(John Logajan) writes:
 ...

|> 
|> CF work is going on in dozens if not hundreds of locations.  Publications
|> are made to scientific journals -- the field has several of its own
|> dedicated publications. 

Much the same could be said about UFOlogy.
 ...

|> 
|> Now I personally think it was a PR mistake for anyone to promise a
|> waterheater on a fixed future date merely on the extrapolation of in progress
|> development data.  It's as if the brothers Wright were to promise deliveries
|> of reliable airplanes just after landing at Kitty Hawk. (After all, they
|> never got all that far off the ground -- it might have all been ground
|> effect -- we might now be scooting around in hovercrafts had the physics 
|> turned out different :-)

Ah the Wright brothers!  Their 1903 flight followed upon theoretical work, and
upon fairly successful experimentation on gliders by e.g. Lilienthal (somewhat
fatal, alas!), and upon their own wind tunnel studies.  AND they were shipping
(even exporting) by 1908.

|> 
|> --
|>  - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com -- 612-633-0345 -
|>  - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills  MN 55112 USA           -
|> 

John Lewis
St. John's, Newfoundland
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudencourt cudfnJohn cudlnLewis cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.06 / Bhagirath Joshi /  Re: Wherefore art thou 20kW CF heater
     
Originally-From: bxj@proteon.com (Bhagirath Joshi)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Wherefore art thou 20kW CF heater
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 1994 22:13:18 GMT
Organization: Proteon Inc.


  Wherefore art thou 200 MW Hot fusion reactor ?
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenbxj cudfnBhagirath cudlnJoshi cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.06 / Travis Wheatley /  Re: Free Energy Machine, the Griggs machine...!
     
Originally-From: travis@shasta.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (Travis Wheatley)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Free Energy Machine, the Griggs machine...!
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 1994 22:29:37 GMT
Organization: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., Austin, Texas

In article <5SCdYdUPldB@shb.contrib.de>, harti@shb.contrib.de (Stefan Hartmann) writes:
|> 
|> Hi,
|> 
|> I just a few infos about this claimed free energy device.
|> 
|> Has somebody out there have firts hand info and has seen it in operation ?
|> 
|> Sounds pretty good....
|> 
|> 
|> > >
|> > > Having gotten that off my chest, I would like to draw your attention to an
|> > > "excess" energy device that I recently became aware of.  A relatively
|> > > new magazine, entitled "Cold Fusion", published by Wayne Green of "73" and
|> > > "Byte" magazine fame (as well as numerous others) and edited by Eugene
|> > > Mallove, in their June issue carried a fascinating review on a device
|> > > called the "Hydrosonic(tm) Pump".  This pump was originally conceived as
|> > > nothing more than a device that would efficiently produce and circulate
|> > > hot water or steam to heat buildings.  HOwever, it appears that this pump
|> > > produces more thermal output than could be accounted for by the electrical
|> > > energy that it consumed.  An this is not a heat pump, that moves heat from
|> > > one area to another.  The heat is produced by agitation of the water.
|> >
|> > Hmm, can you please give me more info ?
|> >
|> > Is this device already available ?
|> >
|> > What is the efficiency ? How much percentage over unity has it ?
|> >
|> HI Stefan
|> 
|> 
|> The machine is not in full production yet, however it has been installed
|> in a few places according to the article.  They have a US patent that you
|> might want to search (5,188,090 held by James L. Griggs)
|> 
|> According to the article, it puts out excess heat in the kilowatt  
|> level.The highest run gave 168% excess after figuring in the power factor  
|> of the 3 phase motor.
|> 
|> _________________________________________________________________________
|> 

Didn't Tesla create the same type of device in the 1940's?

It seems that I was reading about a symposium not to long ago that was being put
on by the Tesla socity. One of the sessions that was featured in the symposium
concerned demonstrations and practical applications of a super-efficient steam
generator. It sounds very similar to the Griggs device.

Does anybody know if they are, in fact, similar? If so, how can Griggs be
awarded a patent for a device that was discovered ~50 years ago? Does anyone
know how the Griggs device differs from Tesla's device?

-- 
===========================================================================
   Travis R. Wheatley   | The opinions expressed herein are my own and do
travis.wheatley@amd.com | not represent those of anyone else in particular.
===========================================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudentravis cudfnTravis cudlnWheatley cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.06 / John Logajan /  Re: Wherefore art thou 20kW CF heater?
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Wherefore art thou 20kW CF heater?
Date: 6 Jul 1994 22:11:43 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Online Services Member.

John Lewis (court@newton.physics.mun.ca) wrote:
: |> CF work is going on in dozens if not hundreds of locations.

: Much the same could be said about UFOlogy.

Which misses the point completely.  The claim was that CF was proceeding
in "complete secrecy."  Neither CF nor UFOology is being conducted in 
"complete secrecy"  though there are elements of alleged secrecy in
both -- regardless of whether either or both are much ado about nothing.

: Ah the Wright brothers!  Their 1903 flight followed upon theoretical work, and
: upon fairly successful experimentation on gliders by e.g. Lilienthal (somewhat
: fatal, alas!), and upon their own wind tunnel studies.  AND they were shipping
: (even exporting) by 1908.
 
Again the point is missed completely.  We know from hindsight that the Wright
brothers were shipping five years after Kitty Hawk -- the question was whether
it would have been wise for the Wright brothers in 1903 to promise a reliable
aircraft by a certain near term date (i.e. 5 years or so.)

Having designed a few circuit boards for commercial sale in my day, I know
it is difficult to estimate the time of completetion to within a few
months plus or minus (despite my promises to the boss notwithstanding :-)

Therefore I reiterate the point that to make such promises in regard to
a new undeveloped science is likely to be a PR mistake because of the
inevitable unanticipated delays (not the least of which is that the
science may be ultimately bogus!)

cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.07 / C Harrison /  Bibliog update: Reifenschweiler Ti:T
     
Originally-From: harr@netcom.com (Charles (Chuck) Harrison)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Bibliog update: Reifenschweiler Ti:T
Date: Thu, 7 Jul 1994 05:11:39 GMT
Organization: Fitful

6 July 1994  updates to:

                An Annotated Bibliography
              of the "Reifenschweiler Effect":
 Temperature & concentration dependence of tritium activity
                  in a titanium matrix
 -----------------------------------------------------------
The full updated document is available at
file://sunsite.unc.edu/pub/academic/physics/cold-fusion/TiBib.txt

============================================================
Section 3.  Surface interactions of Ti, Hydrogen, and Oxygen
============================================================


[Cabrera 1948]
N Cabrera & NF Mott, "Theory of the oxidation of metals",
     _Rept Prog Phys_ 12:163-184 (1948).

Seminal paper on the modern theory of metal oxidation.
Good treatment of rate laws under varying regimes, Mott
potential, etc.  Most examples are Cu.

------------------
[Smith 1973]
T Smith, "Oxidation of titanium between 25C and 400C",
     _Surf Sci_ 38:292-312 (1973).

The formation and dissolution of oxide surface films is
studied experimentally using simultaneous Auger
spectroscopy (for superficial layer oxygen content),
ellipsometry (oxide layer thickness), and Kelvin probe
(surface work function).  Activation energy for
chemisorption of O- from physisorbed O2 is ~17kcal/mol;
heat of adsorption ~7 kcal/mol.  Dissolution of O
in the Ti bulk (octahedral lattice sites) is significant,
esp at elevated temp.  For thin films at low oxygen
pressure & low temp (Reifenschweiler conditions),
cation transport dominates in film growth.  Temperature
dependence of film growth rate between 24 - 273C,
<5nm film thickness, suggests a diffusion activation
energy of 4 kcal/mol, unrealistically low.

-------------------
[Fromm 1987]
E Fromm & H Uchida, "Surface phenomena in hydrogen
     absorption kinetics of metals and intermetallic
     compounds", _J Less-Common Met_ 131:1-12 (1987)

Gas absorption data for several metals is reviewed
with r (probability of an incident molecule's reacting
upon impacting the surface) plotted against N (number
of gas molecules per unit area already reacted).  Ti,
like most transition metals exposed to O2, shows an
initial plateau at r=1, ascribed to formation of an
oxygen monolayer.  At high loadings, Ti shows the highest
retention of O2 reactivity of all metals plotted.  In
another presentation, r(H2) is plotted against r(O2) to
show "poisoning"; 6 transition metals are very similar
and show r(H2) decreased to ~1e-3 while r(O2) remains
at 1; then r(H2) and r(O2) fall together.  The author
contends this shows O2 and H2 absorption are limited
at the dissociation step by a single mechanism.  Data
for hydrogen absorption on Ti through thin metal 
overlayers (with and without oxide poisoning) is
given.

------------------
[ed. note:  this citation replaces the conference
preprint Efron et al, _Zeits Phys Chem NF_ 164:1255
(1989). ]
[Efron 1989]
A Efron, Y Lifschitz, I Lewkowicz, MH Mintz, "The
     kinetics and mechanism of titanium hydride forma-
     tion", _J Less-Common Met_ 153:23-34 (1989).
H was absorbed into vacuum-annealed solid Ti (0.1-1mm thick)
over a range of H pressure 30 - 450 torr and temperature
100-250C.  Reaction rate was measured (it was found to be
independent of H2 pressure) and specimens were examined
metallographically.  A hydride layer 10-23um thick (low temp)
to 90um thick (hi temp) forms and diffusion thru this layer
(activation energy ~ 11 kcal/mol) limits reaction rate.
Samples with both martensitic & "regular" grain structure
were tested with minor differences.
-------------------
[Mencer 1991]
DE Mencer Jr, TR Hess, T Mebrahtu, DL Cocke, DG Naugle,
     "Surface reactivity of titanium-aluminum alloys:
     Ti3Al, TiAl, TiAl3", _J Vac Sci Technol A_ 9(3):1610-
     1615 (1991).
X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) is applied to Ti:Al
films codeposited on Cu under UHV, after vacuum and/or O2
treatment at temperatures from 25-600C.  Stepwise oxidation
of Ti (Ti, TiO2, Ti2O3, TiO2) is revealed thru presentation
of XPS spectra for Ti(2p), indicating the corresponding Ti
oxidation states (0, 2+, 3+, 4+).  Despite the UHV environ-
ment (<1e-9 torr), all specimens showed surface oxide;
initially, the oxygen was preferentially scavenged as Al2O3
leaving the Ti in metallic state.
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenharr cudfnCharles cudlnHarrison cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Thu Jul  7 04:37:06 EDT 1994
------------------------------
1994.07.07 / C Harrison /  Is it the oxygen?
     
Originally-From: harr@netcom.com (Charles (Chuck) Harrison)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Is it the oxygen?
Date: Thu, 7 Jul 1994 06:20:25 GMT
Organization: Fitful

Here's some ideas that haven't fully congealed yet.

I've been thinking about the Ti:T system that Reifenschweiler
reported on early this year, and his conjecture of nuclear
pairing:  two T nuclei get close enough together that their
spin coupling affects the decay.  That might happen if
there was double occupancy of an interstitial site in the
Ti lattice.

Now double occupancy seems like it ought to face a tremendous
coulomb energy barrier, unless there is an exceptionally high
density of conduction electrons floating around for screening.
Nonetheless, recent results from the Barnes/Torgeson group
point towards metastable paired hydrogen states which are
detectable by NMR in a wide variety of transition metal 
hydrides.  These states are thermally activated at temperatures
>300C, substantially hotter than the Reifenschweiler anomalies
(~250C).

Let us grant that double-occupancy states can be excited at higher 
temperatures in metal hydrides.  Could there be a perturbation
of the system that would encourage formation of these states
at lower temperatures?  In sheer conjecture, suppose that a
thin oxide layer causes (perhaps through lattice strain, or by
chemical modification to the local density of electron energy
states) a zone in which double occupancy is strongly enhanced.
Various anectodal results can seem tantalizingly supportive of
this scenario...

In Reifenschweiler's work, the vacuum apparatus was _not_ UHV,
and the normal propensity of Ti to oxidize would typically
cause an oxide film to grow slowly during the experiment.  In
fact, Reifenschweiler considers the fact that the preparation did not 
desorb T until it reached a temperature of >360C as a strong
indication that the surface was contaminated.  So the oxide
layer was probably available here.

In another Reifenschweiler expt, tritium doses were added 
sequentially to a Ti film as activity was monitored.  Deviations
from proportionality were observed.   The most striking results
were for several doses which caused the activity to
*decrease* instead of increase.  These doses immediately followed
"rest periods" (overnight or over a holiday) when it seems most
likely that substantial build-up of oxide could occur.

In early NMR work on the diffusion of H in Ti (Torrey), a very
striking double-peak in spin-lattice relaxation rate was
observed.  Later work determined that the lower-temperature
peak, which occurs near the temperature of Reifenschweiler's
"heating expt" anomalies, was an artifact.  The artifact
appeared to be correlated with accidental oxidation of the
TiH sample.  Is it possible that the anomalous high-temperature
NMR relaxation which triggered the Barnes/Torgeson work has
been transposed to lower temperature by the presence of
adventitious oxide?

In a review of "cold fusion" experiments, MKS Ray  at India's
BARC recently concluded that the presence of oxygen was often
linked with positive results; for example the striking 
divided-electrochemical-cell experiment which evolved tritium
when the "division" was violated and oxygen was allowed to
enter the cathode compartment.

If an important process requires _both_ high hydrogen loading
_and_ an oxide layer, it may become very difficult to trigger
effectively.  In this context, the dynamic or pulse-mode
experiments may succeed by switching from a regime favoring
hydrogen evolution to one favoring oxide formation and vice
versa.

It is interesting to note that, in gas-metal reactions, Pd
is the only common transition element which readily gives
up its PdO layer when presented with an excess of H2; on 
other metals the oxide is tenacious and poisons the H2
reactions.  I do not know if this exceptional "reversibility"
is relevant to electrochemistry.

Well, that's enough rambling for tonite.  You're welcome
to check my bibliography if your interest has been whetted:
file://sunsite.unc.edu/pub/academic/physics/cold-fusion/TiBib.txt

Chuck

PS:  The Ray work isn't in the bibliog; it's
D Das, MKS Ray, "Fusion in condensed matter - a likely scenario",
     _Fusion Technology_ 24:115-121 (1993).

cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenharr cudfnCharles cudlnHarrison cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.08 / Jed Rothwell /  Definitely a PR mistake
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Definitely a PR mistake
Date: Fri, 8 Jul 1994 00:12:46 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org

[Pardon me if I posted this twice. My e-mail may have hiccupped.]

John Logajan writes:

     "I reiterate the point that to make such promises in regard to a new
     undeveloped science is likely to be a PR mistake because of the
     inevitable unanticipated delays . . ."

I concur 100%. Make that 110%. If I was in charge of the project at Toyota, I
would ask everyone there to refrain from ever mentioning any specific date of
completion. You can never tell when basic research will pan out. It is far
more difficult to predict than a cut and dry engineering project like a new
computer or fax machine, and even computers and fax machines are likely to be
delayed unexpectedly.

Nobody can predict when or where CF will emerge. It might take years to
perfect, it might even take as long as the transistor, the incandescent light,
or the zipper. On the other hand, the final breakthrough that allows a
practical device might come very soon. It is inherently impossible to predict.
However, here are three facts that should guide the thinking of an R&D
manager:

1.   The research is dirt cheap compared to projects like hot fusion or
     developing a new automobile model.

2.   If the research pans out, it will be enormously profitable. It might
     well be the most profitable invention in history.

3.   Enormous progress has been made. In 1989 the best cells produced
     intermittent power at the milliwatt level; today the best ones produce
     continuous power at hundreds of watts. Power density has increased from
     a few watts per cc to 4,000 watts/cc. Cold fusion experiments have
     already produced 50 to 100 times more net energy than the best hot
     fusion experiments in history (320 megajoules during a three-month run
     versus roughly 6 megajoules during a one-second run). Extrapolating from
     previous progress is dangerous, but it is the only guide to the future
     we have. Any reasonable extrapolation would indicate that very high
     power levels and stable reactions will soon be achieved.

When the cost of a development project is microscopic, the stakes are high,
and progress is swift, no sane R&D manager would abandon the project. I cannot
imagine anyone making such a foolish decision at this stage. Even if it was to
take another 20 years, the payoff would be immeasurably greater than the
investment.

- Jed

cudkeys:
cuddy8 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.08 / Jed Rothwell /  Definitely a PR mistake
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Definitely a PR mistake
Date: Fri, 8 Jul 1994 00:12:45 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org

John Logajan writes:

     "I reiterate the point that to make such promises in regard to a new
     undeveloped science is likely to be a PR mistake because of the
     inevitable unanticipated delays . . ."

I concur 100%. Make that 110%. If I was in charge of the project at Toyota, I
would ask everyone there to refrain from ever mentioning any specific date of
completion. You can never tell when basic research will pan out. It is far
more difficult to predict than a cut and dry engineering project like a new
computer or fax machine, and even computers and fax machines are likely to be
delayed unexpectedly.

Nobody can predict when or where CF will emerge. It might take years to
perfect, it might even take as long as the transistor, the incandescent light,
or the zipper. On the other hand, the final breakthrough that allows a
practical device might come very soon. It is inherently impossible to predict.
However, here are three facts that should guide the thinking of an R&D
manager:

1.   The research is dirt cheap compared to projects like hot fusion or
     developing a new automobile model.

2.   If the research pans out, it will be enormously profitable. It might
     well be the most profitable invention in history.

3.   Enormous progress has been made. In 1989 the best cells produced
     intermittent power at the milliwatt level; today the best ones produce
     continuous power at hundreds of watts. Power density has increased from
     a few watts per cc to 4,000 watts/cc. Cold fusion experiments have
     already produced 50 to 100 times more net energy than the best hot
     fusion experiments in history (320 megajoules during a three-month run
     versus roughly 6 megajoules during a one-second run). Extrapolating from
     previous progress is dangerous, but it is the only guide to the future
     we have. Any reasonable extrapolation would indicate that very high
     power levels and stable reactions will soon be achieved.

When the cost of a development project is microscopic, the stakes are high,
and progress is swift, no sane R&D manager would abandon the project. I cannot
imagine anyone making such a foolish decision at this stage. Even if it was to
take another 20 years, the payoff would be immeasurably greater than the
investment.

- Jed

cudkeys:
cuddy8 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.08 / Richard Blue /  Specific reply to Mitchell Swartz's comment
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Specific reply to Mitchell Swartz's comment
Date: Fri, 8 Jul 1994 00:12:52 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Mitchell has requested for a second time that I comment on the following:

MS= "Would not the calibration-loading curves already include any
MS=  phase change within the inverval for which they were obtained."

To review the context of our discussion just a bit,  I have been questioning
the manner in which the high D to Pd ratio claimed essential for cold
fusion have been experimentally determined.  As I understand it cold
fusion investigators have generally made use of measurements of sample
resistance as an indication of the degree of loading.  Clearly Mitchell
and I seem to be in agreement that there must be a "calibration", i.e.
a series of measurements of resistance versus loading with the latter
being determined through some more direct (but unstated or now) means.

I had further suggested that the occurance of a phase change in conjunction
with the increased loading would constitute an added complexity for the
calibration process.  Mitchell's response seems to indicate that in his
opinion calibration through and beyond any phase transition should present
on particular difficulty.

My response originally was to inquire further as to whether such calibration
curves did in fact exist as a routine part of many cold fusion investigations.
If there are no such data it is rather pointless to attempt to discuss the
details of how the data is obtained and interpreted.  To meet the standing
request for a response on the MS comment, however, I will now attempt to
relate my thinking on the subject.  If I try to construct in my mind an
operational picture of the methods employed to obtain a calibration curve
I come up with the notion that there is likely only a finite number of
discrete measurements of loading versus resistance.  The measurements are
likely to be timeconsuming and difficult to make and may not have high
precision.  A phasechange, should there be one, may quite possibly involve
a surprizingly large excursion in the resistance over a very narrow range
of values for the loading.  In those circumstances a single measured
point near the phase change cannot be representative of a general trend
in the loading-versus-resitance curve and may significantly distort the
calibration curve.  Therein lies the problem.  I would go further to
suggest that without detailed data of the sort I have just described
one might even doubt that the suggested phase change really occurs.
I class it as just one more piece of highly speculative data that is
typical of cold fusion research.  Phase changes and loading greater
than one are both things that should await further investigation.

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.07 /  fairfax@sensei /  Alcator Progress 6/30/94
     
Originally-From: fairfax@sensei.pfc.mit.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Alcator Progress 6/30/94
Date: 7 JUL 94 13:44:53 GMT
Organization: MIT PLASMA FUSION CENTER

			Alcator C-MOD Weekly Highlights
				June 30, 1994

Operation of Alcator C-MOD this week included experiments on impurity
screening in divertor plasmas and investigation of the closed loop dynamic
response of elongated plasmas. 

The objectives of Thursday's run (MP#044) were 
 (1)  To puff He, Ne, and Ar into the private flux zone in the divertor and to
  measure how much gets into the  confined plasma, thereby being able to
  estimate screening factors for impurities which can be compared to  theory.
 (2)  To measure the amount of molybdenum sputtered by injected impurities as a
  function of the target electron temperature and hence to get some information
  on the sheath potential. 
These experiments were motivated, in part, by  ITER Physics R&D needs. These
experiments were quite successful, with data being obtained for all three
species. A preliminary assessment indicates screening of >99% in each case.
There is evidence for sputtering of Mo by Argon above a threshold temperature
of about 20eV, consistent with theoretical expectations.

On Friday, closed loop response of the plasma to a series of steps in the Z
position programming was carried out for several values of proportional and
derivative feedback gain. The object was to test our dynamical models as well
as to provide a basis for further optimization of our control algorithms. 

During the run on Friday, the OH2_L coax bus suffered arc damage. The damage
occurred during precharge, following a long series of successful, uneventful
shots. Repair of this bus will require a partial disassembly of the machine.
We have therefore begun our summer hiatus one week earlier than originally
planned, and have started the repair process. 

The machine disassembly is proceeding rapidly. The igloo cover and top two
tiers of igloo blocks have been removed, and a vent has begun. The upper port
cross assemblies have been removed, as have two of the horizontal flange
covers (at C and G-ports).The ventilation system has been attached and manned
access activities are underway. The in-vessel survey and inspection indicates
that the tiles, divertor assemblies, and other internals are in excellent
condition. The transmission lines from the ICRF tuning stubs to the antenna
ports have been removed. Diagnostic connections to the machine are being
removed, but most diagnostic systems will remain in place during the repair.

Ian Hutchinson, Steve Golovato, and Joe Snipes are presenting papers at the
European Physical Society Meeting in Montpelier, France, this week.
Thirty-five contributed abstracts from C-MOD are being submitted to the APS
DPP meeting. 


cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenfairfax cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.07 / Brendan Niemira /  Re: Free Energy Machine, the Griggs machine...!
     
Originally-From: niemirab@student.msu.edu  (Brendan A. Niemira)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Free Energy Machine, the Griggs machine...!
Date: Thu, 07 Jul 1994  11:10 est
Organization: Michigan State University

> 
> It seems that I was reading about a symposium not to long ago that was being put
> on by the Tesla socity. One of the sessions that was featured in the symposium
> concerned demonstrations and practical applications of a super-efficient steam
> generator. It sounds very similar to the Griggs device.
> 
> Does anybody know if they are, in fact, similar? If so, how can Griggs be
> awarded a patent for a device that was discovered ~50 years ago? Does anyone
> know how the Griggs device differs from Tesla's device?
> 
.
A biography of Tesla that I read said that he rarely patented anything.  If
there's no patent, the field is clear.
......

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Brendan A. Niemira                      niemirab@student.msu.edu
        All opinions expressed are entirely my own.
"You know your Shelley, Bertie."
"Oh, am I?"                      P. G. Wodehouse
                                 THE CODE OF THE WOOSTERS
cudkeys:
cuddy07 cudenniemirab cudfnBrendan cudlnNiemira cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.07 /  fairfax@sensei /  Alcator Progress 7/7/94
     
Originally-From: fairfax@sensei.pfc.mit.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Alcator Progress 7/7/94
Date: 7 JUL 94 16:27:18 GMT
Organization: MIT PLASMA FUSION CENTER

			Alcator C-MOD Weekly Highlights
				July 7, 1994


The maintenance and repair period is continuing. The main effort this week is
devoted to machine disassembly. 

By Tuesday morning, the structure had warmed sufficiently to begin removing
the cryostat. The cryostat has now been removed, allowing access to the
cylinder and the domes, and to the external curved bus and coax feedthroughs. 

Following the in-vessel survey, manned access was performed to disconnect and
remove cabling and internal hardware which was connected to the vertical ports
or horizontal port extensions. All the extensions will be removed in order to
remove the cylinder. 

All of the vertical port hardware on top and bottom, including the crosses and
the tear-drop transition flanges have now been removed. Cabling which had been
connected to the flanges has been either pulled up into the port or gathered
into bundles and bagged so they fit through the openings in the domes. The
pumping station has been disconnected and pulled back. All but two of the
horizontal port extensions have now been removed. 

The upper dome was unbolted from the cylinder on Wednesday and the lifting jig
moved into position over the machine. The upper dome has now been lifted off
the machine and relocated to the northeast corner of the cell. Removing the
dome provides access to the upper TF magnet arms and top of the central
column. 

A shipment of eleven X-terminals for the control room has been received.
These will be used to replace our old Vaxstation 2000s, most of which will be
retired. 

Drs. Snipes and Golovato have returned from the EPS meeting in Montpelier. Ian
Hutchinson is back at JET for the last month of his sabbatical. The three
Alcator C-MOD presentations at EPS, consisting of an overview by Hutchinson
(invited talk) and posters on ICRF and H-mode results by Golovato and Snipes,
respectively, were all well-received. The Alcator H-mode data was also
included in a report by Ryter on the ITER H-mode threshold database; Ryter
noted that the C-MOD results significantly extend the database toward the
regimes anticipated for ITER, in terms of field, density and surface power
density. The C-MOD divertor results were also referred to favorably by several
participants. Following the EPS meeting, Dr. Golovato visited FTU (Frascati)
where he presented a talk on Alcator C-MOD results, and also visited JET,
where he discussed the ICRF results with Drs. Jacquinot and Gormezano. 


cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenfairfax cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.07 / John Lewis /  Re: Wherefore art thou 20kW CF heater?
     
Originally-From: court@newton.physics.mun.ca (John Lewis)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Wherefore art thou 20kW CF heater?
Date: 7 Jul 1994 16:02:32 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Physics, Memorial University

In article <2vfa6v$il5@stratus.skypoint.com>, jlogajan@skypoint.com
(John Logajan) writes:
|> John Lewis (court@newton.physics.mun.ca) wrote:
|> : |> CF work is going on in dozens if not hundreds of locations.
|> 
|> : Much the same could be said about UFOlogy.
|> 
|> Which misses the point completely. 

To be frank, your point didn't interest me.

... 

|> 
|> : Ah the Wright brothers!  Their 1903 flight followed upon theoretical work, and
|> : upon fairly successful experimentation on gliders by e.g. Lilienthal (somewhat
|> : fatal, alas!), and upon their own wind tunnel studies.  AND they were shipping
|> : (even exporting) by 1908.
|>  
|> Again the point is missed completely. 

I think not.  The Wright brothers did publicise their work fairly early,
and vigorously, with the result that their claims were initially doubted 
in Europe.  I don't have an exact chronology of their enterprises to hand, 
but since their airplanes were in service by 1908, it is reasonable to 
think that they were promising reliable and functional machines by 1905 
or 1906 - with demonstrator models to back up their promises.

|> We know from hindsight that the Wright
|> brothers were shipping five years after Kitty Hawk -- the question was whether
|> it would have been wise for the Wright brothers in 1903 to promise a reliable
|> aircraft by a certain near term date (i.e. 5 years or so.)

As they were playing with their own money, which was very limited (unlike 
some of the European experimenters they weren't men of means), it was the 
only way to go.

|> 
|> Having designed a few circuit boards for commercial sale in my day, I know
|> it is difficult to estimate the time of completetion to within a few
|> months plus or minus (despite my promises to the boss notwithstanding :-)

If you were six months late and had NOTHING to show your boss, I imagine that you
would have been given the Order of the Boot rather quickly.  Usually an ultimately
successful design project achieves some success early on, followed by a lengthy
and painful process of debugging and refinement, which in turn is often followed
by a lengthy and painful process of engineering for production.

|> 
|> Therefore I reiterate the point that to make such promises in regard to
|> a new undeveloped science is likely to be a PR mistake because of the
|> inevitable unanticipated delays (not the least of which is that the
|> science may be ultimately bogus!)
|> 

I think that your point is incorrect unless the science is bogus.  I would cite, in
addition to the Wright brothers (whose science was not bogus;  the problems which
they addressed were ones of control and propulsion rather than of flying per
se) would be the pre-1941 development of deep submergence attack technology by the
USN (specifically the Mk. 14 torpedo), and the development of guided missiles
1945-1975 (approx).  In each case the technology was very much oversold,  but the
PR given to some limited success kept the funding flowing, leading eventually to
realisation of the early claims.

J.Lewis
St. John's, Newfoundland
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudencourt cudfnJohn cudlnLewis cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.07 / Sean Wells /  Re: Free Energy Machine, the Griggs machine...!
     
Originally-From: wells@pangea.usask.ca (Sean Wells)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Free Energy Machine, the Griggs machine...!
Date: 7 Jul 1994 16:52:19 GMT
Organization: University of Saskatchewan

Brendan A. Niemira (niemirab@student.msu.edu) wrote:
: .
: A biography of Tesla that I read said that he rarely patented anything.  If
: there's no patent, the field is clear.
: ......

I suggest you check out a pair of publications compiled a number of
years ago, called: 
  "Dr. Nikola Tesla, Complete Patents", compiled by John T. Ratzlaf.

This two volume set contains hundreds of pages of patents.  If he
rarely patented things, I would hate to see the list of everything he
invented...must be millions of 'em!  ;-)

Sean Wells
U of S
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenwells cudfnSean cudlnWells cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.07 / Ad aspera /  FYI 100, July 7, 1994 (DOE Fusion in Senate)
     
Originally-From: JTCHEW@lbl.gov (Ad absurdum per aspera)
Newsgroups: sci.research,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: FYI 100, July 7, 1994 (DOE Fusion in Senate)
Date: 7 Jul 1994 17:34:08 GMT
Organization: Relayed, not written, by Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory


[Written by individuals at the American Institute of Physics and
merely posted by me, so respond to <fyi@aip.org> or other
references below.  Always posted here on sci.research; sometimes
crossposted to an eclectic and hopefully appropriate selection
of other newsgroups, with followups directed here. Back issues
may be ftp'd from NIC.HEP.NET, along with PHYSICS NEWS UPDATE
and the American Physical Society news/opinion column WHAT'S NEW;
or from pinet.aip.org. Enjoy! -jc]

DOE FY 1995 Budget Bill Passes Senate - Fusion

FYI No. 100, July 7, 1994

With passage by the Senate on June 30, the fiscal year 1995 Energy
and Water Development Appropriations bill has cleared both chambers
of Congress.  A conference will now be scheduled to reconcile the
House and Senate versions of the bill.

FYIs #94 and #95 reported on the Senate appropriations committee's
recommendations for the High Energy and Nuclear Physics portions of
the bill, which remained unchanged by the full Senate.  However,
DOE's fusion program won a reprieve on the floor:  Sen. J. Bennett
Johnston (D-Louisiana), chairman of the appropriations subcommittee
responsible for DOE, offered an amendment to reverse committee
language eliminating funds for construction of Princeton's Tokamak
Physics Experiment (TPX).  His committee had provided only $28
million for continued TPX design, omitting the $45 million for
initiating construction intended by the Administration and the
House.  Johnston felt construction on TPX should not begin until
the United States was firmly committed to the International
Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER), an international project
that is intended as the follow-on to TPX.  The report states, "As
TPX's primary purpose is linked to ITER and a demonstration
reactor, without ITER, TPX's contribution to the Department's
fusion program would be questionable....  We strongly believe we
should not pursue TPX unless and until both the President and the
Congress have made a full commitment to ITER."

Having made clear his wishes in the report, Johnston, a supporter
of both TPX and ITER, successfully offered an amendment on the
floor to add back the TPX construction funds, on the condition that
authorizing legislation (legally approving the project) be enacted
first.  Johnston is also chair of the Energy and Natural Resources
Committee, the authorizing committee for TPX in the Senate, which
has passed legislation for the fusion program.  The House science
committee has similar legislation pending.  Below are selected
quotes from Johnston's floor statement on TPX:

"The TPX project, in my view, should not begin until the Congress
understands what the mortgage is of the TPX project, ... and makes
a decision to go ahead, which the authorizing legislation would
allow.

"We have already passed in the Senate a[n authorization] bill which
deals with TPX and ITER and it now reposes in the House....  In
other words, it would be possible to get that authorizing bill
passed this year, or, if not this year, early next year.  It
provides, in effect, that the $45 million as provided by the House
may not be used to commence the project until and unless it is
authorized."

"Madam President, having been burned on the SSC program, having
seen us invest, together with termination costs, almost $3 billion
in SSC and then decide to terminate that program, we should not
proceed with what could be a program three times or four times that
big without at least an authorization.  That is all this amendment
does.  From somebody who favors the program, TPX, it says let us
proceed, but subject to authorization.  And there is every ability
to authorize that project this year, with a bill that reposes in
the House."


###############
Public Information Division
American Institute of Physics
Contact:  Audrey T. Leath
fyi@aip.org
(301)209-3094
##END##########
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenJTCHEW cudfnAd cudlnaspera cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.07 / Paul Koloc /  Re: CANNOT POST TO SCI.PHYSICS.PLASMA - PLEASE HELP!!!!
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CANNOT POST TO SCI.PHYSICS.PLASMA - PLEASE HELP!!!!
Date: Thu, 7 Jul 1994 15:06:47 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <2v8sk7$jv3@info.epfl.ch> dutch@eltcv1.epfl.ch writes:
>
>The subject says it all. 
>
>Can somebody out there please look into the problem with this
>newsgroup and tell me why I (and everybody else??)
>am (are) unable to post anything to SCI.PHYSICS.PLASMA. 
>I tried several times when the group was first created (several months
>ago now), but haven't tried recently.


>THE GROUP HAS REMAINED EMPTY SINCE ITS INCEPTION!!


I just received a note from Tim Eastman this day that the 
news group has been activated:  

>- Received: from localhost (eastman@localhost) by eastman.umd.edu
(8.6.5/8.6.4) id SAA05941 for pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu; Wed,
6 Jul 1994 18:10:03 -0400
>- Date: Wed, 6 Jul 1994 18:10:03 -0400
>- From: Tim Eastman <eastman@Glue.umd.edu>
>- Message-Id: <199407062210.SAA05941@eastman.umd.edu>
>- To: pmk%prometheus@MIMSY.CS.UMD.EDU
>- Subject: Newsgroup
>- Status: RO
>- 
>- Dear Paul,
>- 
>- The Newsgroup sci.physics.plasma is now finally up and going 
>- with its first posting today.   Methods for using the Newsgroup
>- can be very different depending on configuration, etc.  With my 
>- workstation, I simply type "rn -q sci.physics.plasma" to check
>- postings.  I have two additional postings that will be added 
>- within the next 1-2 days.  Please begin using the newsgroup 
>- and thanks for your interest.
>- 
>- With very best regards,
>- 
>- Tim Eastman

>--Michael
>###########################################################
># Dr. Michael Dutch           email: dutch@eltcv1.epfl.ch #
># Centre de Recherches en Physique des Plasmas            #
># Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne                #
># 21 Ave des Bains                          Aussie.Abroad #
># CH-1007 Lausanne, SWITZERLAND               ,--_|\      #
>#----------------------------------------    /      \     #
># I'd rather have a full bottle in front     \_.-*._/     #
># of me than a full frontal lobotomy.              v      #
>###########################################################
| Paul M. Koloc,Bx 1037, Prometheus II, Ltd., College Park, MD 20741-1037 |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.07 / John Logajan /  Re: Wherefore art thou 20kW CF heater?
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Wherefore art thou 20kW CF heater?
Date: 7 Jul 1994 17:57:39 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Online Services Member.

John Lewis (court@newton.physics.mun.ca) wrote:
: |> : |> CF work is going on in dozens if not hundreds of locations.
: |> : Much the same could be said about UFOlogy.
: |> Which misses the point completely. 
: To be frank, your point didn't interest me.

So if you don't find a particular point interesting, that is your justification
to associate the person's remarks with Ufology?

: If you were six months late and had NOTHING to show your boss, I imagine
: that you would have been given the Order of the Boot rather quickly.

The key word here is "NOTHING."  There is far more "distance" between
zero watts and 20 watts of CF heat than there is between 20 watts and 
20 kilowatt of CF heat.  But in either event (zero or 20 watts *real* excess
heat) I still contend it is a PR mistake to promise 20KW by a fixed 
future date.

--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com -- 612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills  MN 55112 USA           -

cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.07 / Kevin Quitt /  Re: Free Energy Machine, the Griggs machine...!
     
Originally-From: kdq@trans.jpl.nasa.gov (Kevin D. Quitt)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Free Energy Machine, the Griggs machine...!
Date: 7 Jul 1994 11:48:33 -0700
Organization: Jet Propellor Laboratory

Thus wrote travis.wheatley@amd.com 
>Didn't Tesla create the same type of device in the 1940's?

Tesla's turbine is an interesting device: bladeless and almost exactly
as efficient as a turbine (extracting energy from fluid flow) as it is a
pump (converting energy to fluid flow).  It's not as efficient a turbine
as regular steam turbines, nor as efficient a pump as the best pumps,
but it does have advantges:  it can pump abrasive slurry without
internal wear of damage, and can pump (e.g.) water with live fish without
harming the fish.  It can run almost indefinitely pumping seawater with
silt/sand/critters.

It was always claimed to be superior to regular steam turbines (and it
is *much* cheaper to build), and "as soon as we can add another stage
we'll be getting more energy out than a bladed turbine can" - except
they never could/did get the last stage.  Part of the problem in
efficiency is that the fluid makes a 90 degree turn going through the
turbine, losing energy thereby.

>...how can Griggs be
>awarded a patent for a device that was discovered ~50 years ago? 

You can patent anything whose patent has expired and that was patented
more than 50 years ago.  Don't ask me why.
-- 
#include	<standard.disclaimer>
 _
Kevin D Quitt  USA 91351-4454		96.37% of all statistics are made up
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenkdq cudfnKevin cudlnQuitt cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.07 / Karl Buchmann /  Re: Wherefore art thou 20kW CF heater?
     
Originally-From: buchmann@ll.mit.edu (Karl Buchmann)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Wherefore art thou 20kW CF heater?
Date: Thu, 7 Jul 94 18:50:11 GMT
Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory

I'm just a lurker who's leaning more to the sceptical side, and I'm
sorry to say that the only spare change I have to offer on this issue is:
wherefore means 'why' and not 'where'.  The above question doesn't make
great sense.

However, I've been reading this group for three years, and I too would
like to see an answer to the intended question: just where is that
water heater? And for that matter, where is the CF powered Toyota
that was rumored?

I apologize. As mother always quoted, "If you don't have something nice
to say,..."

Back to lurking.

-Karlucco
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
 ____  _________  
 \  / /_______ /      MIT Lincoln Laboratory 
  \/ __   __ ||     Millstone Hill Radar Site
  || \ \^/ / || "All the satellites fit to track."
  || /\/v\/\ ||
  || \/\|/\/ ||    Post softly,
  || /\/|\/\ ||       but carry a big .sig
  || \/\^/\/ ||
  || /_/v\_\ ||         Karl P. Buchmann
  ||______   /\        buchmann@ll.mit.edu
 /________/ /__\
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+

cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenbuchmann cudfnKarl cudlnBuchmann cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.08 /  RUSTY.PERRIN@h /  Re: Fusion Digest 2476
     
Originally-From: RUSTY.PERRIN@hq.doe.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion Digest 2476
Date: Fri, 8 Jul 1994 01:08:40 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
     barry@joshua.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman) asks:

     "Back in those bad old days, Jed Rothwell was warning us of Toyota's
     impending 20kW demonstration CF reactor (though it was already a few
     months late then...)"

     Well, where is it?"

  It is locked in a netherworld of late, incomplete, promising
  but not-quite- ready industrial products, along with many other
  products like Microsoft's "Chicago" version of Windows and
  IBM's voice input program.
  ...
  Mr. Merriman has an academic address, he is at UCLA. I expect
  he has never in his life actually met a payroll or produced a
  working product.  He probably has not got the faintest idea how
  difficult it is, how many problems can arise...

Geez Jed, who put raisins in your oatmeal? (or words to that
effect.) If Microsoft had annouced that Chicago (that toddlin'
town) would be out July 1, then on July 2 "Where is it?" is a
perfectly reasonable question. Perfectly reasonable answers
include: "There have been delays, it will be ready on November 1"
or "There have been delays, we don't know when it will be ready"
or "There have been delays, and we've given up on the project".
"How dare you ask such a stupid question!" falls under the
catagory of unreasonable answers. If it is so obvious that there
are always delays in such projects, one wonders why they would
give out a date at all.

Rusty Perrin

cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenPERRIN cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.08 / Mark North /  Re: Spectacular Claims for Unlimited Energy
     
Originally-From: north@watop.nosc.mil (Mark North)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Spectacular Claims for Unlimited Energy
Date: Fri, 8 Jul 1994 02:45:02 GMT
Organization: NCCOSC RDT&E Division, San Diego, CA

supercon@cnj.digex.net (Superconductivity Publications) writes:

[An obvious troll which will fool no one.]

Advice for future attempts: Try using more all CAPS in your
post. This always makes the suckers open their wallets.
Better luck next time and thanks for playing!

Mark

cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudennorth cudfnMark cudlnNorth cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Fri Jul  8 04:37:08 EDT 1994
------------------------------
1994.07.07 / Paul Koloc /  Re: "ball lightning" MHD Eq. - Falls Apart How?? Epic 
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: "ball lightning" MHD Eq. - Falls Apart How?? Epic 
Date: Thu, 7 Jul 1994 18:03:36 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <2urf2qINN1qb@slcawc.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de> awc@ipp-garching.mpg.de writes:

>Paul Koloc and I differ on a (large) number of issues, some of which I
>am sure we will never agree on. Others, like the standard terminology,
>we could probably thrash out, but it's not worth the time. (However, I
>would like to know if I have understood the meaning of "omnigenous":
>"The magnetic surface and the pressure gradient are orthogonal", that
>means that pressure is a function of magnetic flux, or that parallel
>dynamics can be neglected, right?) 

It is a "desirable boundary condition between a beta=1 plasma and the 
bounding mag field".  If the field is due to external magnets, then the 
mag coils must be shaped and driven against the confined plasma so as 
to produce a mag surface as nearly plasma pressure orthogonal as 
possible. Otherwise, like a screw, as plasma will slip around 
following flux lines ever deeper into the field, where it jumps
lines and sort of results in greater penetration of the magnetic 
barrier (confining) field.  The omnigenous character of the field
and plasma boundary are not dependent if the field generating currents
are within plasma, plasma boundary or coil.   

>                        .. .  The "plasmak" introduces a large
>number of ideas, but in my opinion, the central inspiration is
>containing plasma pressure by neutral gas pressure (with some help
>from magnetic fields). 

JUST A MINUTE.   Merely having the notion of such a configuration 
isn't that important, it's having the structural details, techniques 
and methods of production and manipulation to make them a reality,
that make PLASMAK(tm) technology precious.  

Let me correct your emphasis on where the greatest pressure is.  
Technically, it is the essential bounding fluid (air if you like) 
pressure plus the much more MASSIVE NET MAG internal PRESSURE from 
interlinking fields, since after all, the central mag pressure and 
the boundary pressure run about 12:1 (for an aspect ratio 2. 
Other aspect ratios may produce even higher peak internal pressures,
but their stability region is not so "wide".     

The significance of this for fusion is fastastic.  
For example, a fully current charged tokamak may have 10 ATM of nkT
plasma pressure, while an UNCOMPRESSED PLASMAK(tm) magnetoplasmoid 
(PLASMA MANTLE KERNEL or **PMK** for short) may be a third or half 
of that.  HOWEVER, a functional compression ratio for an ADVANCED 
aneutronic burner will have order or 10^5 ATM of central ring (Kernel) 
pressure.  Now that's a difference worth considering.  It certainly 
opens up a channel for effective adiabatic compression heating, 
which totally outstrips anything ever attempted for tokamak (30% in 
the ATC?? at Princeton or 20% in TFTR).  

>                     It's an absolutely crazy idea; I like it. 

But you wouldn't touch with anything less than a ten foot  p..  ah..
Deutcher. (If they grow them that tall)  :-) 

>I think we essentially agree that MHD is not the ultimate stumbling
>block for either the plasmak or ball lightning. Nevertheless, MHD does
>provide some valid and useful contraints. Can we agree at least on the
>following?

Not completely, let's agree on the more classical paper (Bussac and 
Rosenbluth), which corrects flawed conclusions in the previous paper 
which included also Furth, Okabyashi, and Todd.  This more mature
piece of work more clearly delineated the hole implying an encapsulating
vacuum magnetic field, a tightly fitting, and highly conducting shell. 
                                  Okay??   

>     Any magneto-plasma configuration with sufficient lifetime to
>     explain ball lightning or be useful for fusion (except ICF) must
>     be very close to an ideal MHD equilibrium.

Well MHD isn't the whole story so we need a couple of things how about
MHD (see 3.)   PLUS:  

              1.   Hyperconductivity       ???? 
              2.   Low energy tranport of which (1.) helps partially.    
              3.   Yes it must be very stable.  (min energy state)

To add to 3. we need more than the Raleigh Taylor criteria, namely,
(call it the Koloc criteria) that the outer boundary of the resultant 
poloidal field (separatrix) should be shaped such that the magnetic 
pressure at that current boundary is omnigenous (or alternately, that the 
bounding pressure interface is isobaric.  Fortunately, for BL this
condition is automatically met with the pressence of the surrounding
atmospheric pressure.  Principally, this criterion of the external's 
boundary contributes to minimizing the system energy.  Consequently,
a "PMK" is more stable MHD -wise  than a metal shelled Spheromak of
arbitrary shell shape.  

This can be seen if one considers the poloidal FLUX and VOLUME are
conserved while the surface is deformed through various shapes.  
As some portion of the conducting boundary displaces inward there 
is a necessary compensating outward volume displacement elsewhere.  
Now if the initial inward moving boundary is at the same flux density 
or greater flux density than the compensating outward moving one, 
then due to the local reduction in volume, the flux density will 
increase at the inital displacment.  This in turns increases local
pressure.  Now the corresponding decrease in flux density in the 
conpensating region or the expanding portion of the will decrease 
in flux density by an equal amount -- (equal displacement volumes
 - remember).  

However, the energy density or pressure is equal to the flux density 
squared, and since the larger value squared increases absolutely 
more than the smaller value squared decreases, we would expect a 
net increase in the system energy density. Consequently, only 
displacements which tend to bring pressures to equal levels will 
reduce the total magnetic energy.  This is far from formalistic, 
but hopefully a wider audience of those interested may be able to 
follow such hand wavings.  


Incidentally, physical implication of mathematical terms in physics 
expressions often escape many of us, although I have found that the 
authors cited above have an unusual knack in "seeing" or picturing 
the implication of their work.  For such coming to an understanding 
of Ball Lightning and other plasmas phenomenon such skill is most 
helpful.  


The teachings here are a bit esoteric. For example the criteria 
pointed out above, is generally not referred too in quick references 
to the Spheromak.  See "STARPOWER", a report by the US GAO -- 
Congressional CPA and techish Investigators more or less took the 
"holeless" spheromak alluded to in paper (1), which doesn't have real 
solutions.   Other difficulties with this description (and the earlist
paper) include the use of coils instead of a conducting shell, and 
the relaxed condition that the shell could be loosely fitting, which 
is NOT the case, as has been shown experimentally  in the S-1 at
PPPL.  

>Since MHD is a well-defined mathematical system, if we can take it as
>a valid, albeit incomplete, basis, then we should be able to come to
>an agreement on a number of important issues. And once we have those
>out of the way, we can get down to the fun stuff of how to drop the
>temperature by six orders of magnitude over a few centimeters at
>atmospheric pressure.

You may be jumping to conclusions here.  
I have a contrary opinion on the source for the hyperconductivity.
Further the development of MHD as a system has little to do with the
particular application of MHD to this particular phenomenon.  

For example: 
Accountancy is a well defined mathematical system.  But the S+L's 
still were utilized in creative ways to divert funds.  Further this
was NOT picked up on a timely basis by those that should have 
religiously "done due diligence".   

>Now to the substance:

>1. A TRUNCATED SPHEROMAK IS NOT AN MHD EQUILIBRIUM. (As near as I can
>   make out, the magnetic configuration of a plasmak is supposed to be
>   that of a spheromak, except that the magnetic field goes to zero in
>   a thin layer near the separatrix.) 

Let's change your understanding of the Spheromak to the topology 
as suggested in Bussac and Rosenbluth.  The only exception is that
the conducting shell was considered to be solid and metal, and not
fluid. Theorectically, this possiblity was NOT ruled out.   

Let's do a bit of a thought experiment, then look at comparisons.  
One can shrink a conducting shell around the Separatrix, and that the
magnetized spheromak ring has a hole.  All of the experiments I know 
about had holes and encapsulating fields with a separatrix boundary and 
the more viable ones had conducting shells.  The several differences: 

Shell        Spheromak  -->    PLASMAK magnetoplasmoid -->  Benefit  

Wall           Shell              Mantle               Flux Impervious 
state          solid metal        plasma               fully Compressible 
conductivity   copperlike         10^5 copper          Flux conserved  
Compression    Tensile strength   Compression blanket  100*fusion Lawson 
Uniformity     Non-isobaric       Iso-baric            most stable

>   This is easy to show. The fields
>   at the separatrix of a spheromak are purely poloidal, maximum at
>   the midplane and going to zero at the poles. The surface currents
>   are likewise maximum at the midplane and zero at the
>   poles. Therefore the magnetic forces (jXB) also vanish at the
>   poles. 

Be careful... plasma's are collective in behavior.   

TWO cases...  #1
Let's say at the exact polar axis.  This has little consequence for
plasmas (mean free paths.. etc) since they have zero probability
of "sitting" on the polar axis.   So it is just  .. . 
Not the case.. but I can see why you think it is this way.  

Let's consider an analogy.   For example, the poloidal flux bundle
threading the "hole" are like sheaves of wheat. Consider the way 
that farmers-of-old stored their wheat in sheaves.  They cut the 
wheat, bundled them in arms, then stood them down.  Loose they would 
"fall" over, even if a bit wet.  This is fixed if a cord was tied 
about the middle of the sheave and it was "cinched tight".  They would
not only stand but it would be difficult to push your hand down 
through the axis of the sheave due to the major inward radial force 
due to the constricting cord.  Enough for the analogy.   

The pressure forces are constant on the separatrix
>   ("omnigenous", remember?--ugly word!) so the total pressure on the
>   surface cannot be constant. If the midplane has pressure balance,
>   then the poles get squashed; if the poles have pressure balance, the
>   the midplane bloats out.

Great imagination and cartoon...  Quite a clear picture, but let's
look further and see under what circumstances your scenario happens
and why in the a PMK it will NOT.  

IFF your torus was without toroidal field, then the ring would expand
by hoop stress; that is the flux through the hole is more dense than 
outside since the area outside is larger.  Now the air pressure pushing 
radially inward is one atmosphere (BL) AND the pressure pushing into 
the polar cusps is also one atm., .. so with the additional outward 
push of the "hoops" stress, the ring will expand and the atmosphere 
will cleave the poles.  Your description of the flattened pumpkin could 
be accurate.  Also notice that the divergence is mushed out (rounded) 
and less, so the mag pressure due to the diverging field is minimized.  
For this case you are quite right (at least *I* agree.  If you know 
how mag field pressure works against plasmas, the SKIP the next 2 
para's --    

Timeout teaching for the masses.  Plasma physics teaches that mag
fields confine (put pressure on ) plasmas.  Koloc teaches the corollary
is also true, that plasmas may confine mag fields.  So we can build
more magnetoplasma gizmos..  plasma toruses with toroidal fields inside
that produce the "inflating" pressure.  Just like inflating a balloon
with air, except its plasma your inflating with mag field or its
a mag field you splitting apart with a plasma.  You have already seen 
how mirror coils produce fields that confine jello'd plasma blobs.   

The surfaces or interfaces between the two can form current "membranes" 
through which one side pushes against the other side. Those "membranes"
are usually thin current sheets (if the conductivity is respectable).   
If conductiivty isn't so great, the stuff sort of shlups together like
adgitated oil and water.. sort of syrupy or mayby seaweed and water and
and "get tangled" or even frozen together. Mag fields begin acting like 
they have "mass density" and can produce ungulating and torsional waves. 
In PLASMAK(tm)  plasmas the conductivities are high so the magnetic 
interactions are of the "cleaner" variety.  Back two para's ---   

Our torus DOES have a toroidal field, and it is sizable.  The 
toroidal field falls off as 1/R from the symetric (MAJOR) axis.  It's 
pressure pushes against the inner wall of (each) the (nested) plasma 
toroids.  Since the pressure pushing the inward inner wall of the 
plasma torus is very very much stronger than the pressure pushing 
outward against the inner wall (toward the equator), there is a 
powerful net contraction of ring in the major radial direction.  
The effect of this is to produce a displacement which wants to choke
the bundle of poloidal field lines that are going through the hole 
of the plasma ring.  

Remember that the pressure is 1/R^2, so for an aspect ratio 2 ring 
the pressure pushing inwardly against the hole side wall of the 
toroidal ring is 4 times stronger than the toroidal field pressure
pushing the outerwardly against the inside of the equatorial side 
of the toroidal wall. Therefore the ring netly shrinks away from the 
Mantle or Shell in the equatorial plane and crowds inwardly torward 
the hole squezzing it smaller.  Since the poloidal field lines going 
around the ring and through the hole stay constant in number the 
density of the lines in the smaller hole becomes greater, and the 
density around the outside between the torus and shell becomes less. 
Thus the Mantle pulls inward a bit in the equator and is less rounded 
and more football shaped.  But more about this shaping further on.  

Again since the pressure relates to the density squared this is 
quite a very large change.  In fact, if the numbers are run, for a 
torodal current that produces a 5 kilobar (1atm) field (as in Ball
Lightning) at the equator of the conducting shell, the crushing 
pressure of the toroidal field within the inner toroidal ring, 
choking the hole threading axial poloidal flux lines exceeds ten 
atmospheres.   

Against this compression, can a one a atmosphere plasma invade the 
end polar cusps and be expected to penetrate down the axial poloidal
field and into the zone within the hollow of the toroidal hole??  
                                NO!

Would a cinch ring of 10 atmospheres, let a one atmosphere plasma
spread it's flux lines and then split them assunder???  

                               NO!

The toroidal field crushed axial poloidal field, specifically, the 
vertical bundle segment within the hole is safe from spreading,
and in fact, quite the opposite is "squanched up" like a prune,
with more constricted poles.  

So HOW does the mag pressure arrange itself to make this so?? 
Remember Art's visulization?? 

>   This is easy to show. The fields
>   at the separatrix of a spheromak are purely poloidal, maximum at
>   the midplane and going to zero at the poles. 

Poloidal field??   Well let's look closer.  It's not quite a "pololidal
field, at least not like the kind you generate with a loop of wire.  

Actually, it is a RESULTANT poloidal field (raw poloidal plus vertical
field), or "trapped poloidal field", which is because the conducting bag,
the Mantle or shell, encapsulates the field at infinity and then shrinks
down to where the surface pressure is exactly one atmosphere (for BL).  

   (For fusion, we will ramp it up by 10^4.)  

What you are saying is that such a conducting bag would close all the
way down right onto the toroidal current source, if it produces no 
pressure, OR it could dimple in the poles and continue deepening that 
dimple, until it closed with a dimpler tunnelling from the other
end (opposite polar cusp).  But that would say the one atmosphere 
of polar intrusive plasma pressure could keep from being squeezed out 
of the tube by the order 10 atm. net crushing inward compression of 
the toroidal field PLUS the additional necessary inward force of the 
one atmosphere pushing inward at the equator and who's compressing 
force is transfered through the poloidal field and the ring right to 
the axial poloidal segment in the hole.  What you may have overlooked 
is the tremendous ability for a "bending or diverging" magnetic field 
to produce exclusive plasma pressure.  (inclusive if a closing cusp as 
in the "cusp machines".    

Let's refresh.  

>   Therefore the magnetic forces (jXB) also vanish at the
>   poles. The pressure forces are constant on the separatrix
>   ("omnigenous", remember?--ugly word!) so the total pressure on the
>   surface cannot be constant. If the midplane has pressure balance,
>   then the poles get squashed; if the poles have pressure balance, the
>   the midplane bloats out.

Story 2   The fable of the plasma particles on the "null pressure 
                 poloidal axis 

Your claiming a fluid boundary can't conform to an isobaric reservoir
even though the polodal flux and volume is conserved and ring link 
preserved as from del*B =0.  

A particle "exactly at the pole and on the axis" and having only Z 
(axial) directional motion or velocity will travel "unimpeded" down
that flux line, assuming no collisions take place.  Then it will 
just continue out the other end and no harm is down and it doesn't
put any pressure on the field or perturb anything.   Let's say it's
hit half way down by a fellow coming up.  AH... they were both
a bit skew so they bounce with a sideways component of velocity and
head straight toward to plasma ring.  Well, not quite straight, 
because, now they are attempting to cross very dense poloidal field 
lines and that's causes them to sit there and orbit in plane normal 
to the z axis.   

Now here is the problem, the Z field is squeezed the most
in the equatorial plane and gradually decreasingly less squeezed 
toward the poles.  This allows the poloidal lines in the axial field 
bundle to bow outward just a tad just off the equatorial plane, but 
slightly more and more toward the poles.  That means that this orbiting 
pair of intruders, unless they are "exactly" in the midplane, will
begin to be tilted by the very slight open angle of the "z" field (pol) 
lines and that will give them a bit of a motion down the "Z" axis toward
that nearest pole. The more they orbit, the faster "z" translation
they experience and the further they move toward the pole, the greater
"z" acceleration they get, since each displacement toward the pole
increases the opening angle of the poloidal field until it opens
like a cusp and the particle is ejected.   


Topological conditions improving polar pressure profile.  

The pinching of the central poloidal axial field squeezes flux 
so that divergence occurs in a much more concentrated zone nearer
the poles.  Therefore, equatorial squeezing intensifies polar 
divergence.  This divergence produces pressure, and although it's 
difficult to visualize because it is NOT proportional to the value 
of the B field alone.  (I think this is where your visualization 
had some difficulty.) 

The mean free path of and general flying activities of the particles 
won't pay much attention to this null point, since they will tend
to "sail" right through it".  So instead of a sharp pointed vortex 
depression in the depression of the inner boundary of the polar 
cusp of the Mantle, it actually develops a rounded bottom, sort of 
like the center surface of a vortex in a swirled tea cup.  

IN ADDITION.. .
The natural divertor action of the fields and Mantle produce
a translation of plasma into the polar region where it is cusp
ejected as a plasma jet.  These plasma jets are absolutely
beautiful to see on the PLASMAK(tm) magnetoplasoids we produce. 
Deionization of the excited jet plasma produces dazzling glowing
trails of vapor which mark their paths.  This excess plasma "jet"
acts as a perfect "end plug".  Thus this bugger has kinship
with Mirror machines as well as being "grandson of tokamak."  

PMKs are not flattened pumpkin or M&M shapes (oblate).  On
the contrary, these things tend to be prolate or American (gridiron) 
football shaped.  Note that that increases the divergence and related
pressure term at the poles due to the throttling of the the axial
poloidal flux bundle by the net toroidal compression.  

>2. AN MHD EQUILIBRIUM WITH VANISHING FIELD OUTSIDE A BOUNDARY BUT WITH
>   NO SURFACE CURRENTS EXISTS. 

The Spheromak topology is agreed.   This criterion is silly.  

>3. THERE IS A VIRIAL THEOREM. 
That's a stretch.  

>   It may sometimes be tricky to apply, but

The virial theorem requires the absolute least complexity and therefore 
is a trick.   Simply ignore the possibility of internal sources or 
sinks (pressure bearing surfaces) and you determine your answer!  
This is for "back of the envelope" estimates ---- WHERE IT APPLIES. 

>   there is an integral of fields and pressures that allows one to
>   make general conclusions about the conditions in an arbitrary MHD
>   equilibrium. 

What allows which?? 
The assumption of euilibrium is the least worry.. even in an quasistable
system some sort of time averaging could be done (assuming it persists).  

It may be necessary to assume that there are no
>   sources and sinks. Do we agree that the internal pressure (at least
>   in some integral sense) cannot be higher than the external
>   pressure, _unless_ (possibly) there are sources or sinks?


Beeeeeeerrrrpp!!!
NO!  IF you assume there are no sources or sinks, when in fact there 
are such beasts, you doing different problem -- NOT the one at hand. 
In this particular case (the PMK), there are sources and sinks 
(pressure bearing surfaces) so you can NOT assume there is not, 
unless you are more concerned with your politics more than your 
self accuracy.  

Not being able to use the "Virial theorem" can be handled by using the
Divergence Theorem with existing equalibrium solutions.  Merely, match the
Institute for Advanced physics criteria to the boundary values for 
Ball LIghtning, and solve for the fields.  Then run the integration on
the field energy.  The plasma energy is ignorable, in ball lightning
due to the low beta of the Kernel and small and estimable energy of 
the Mantle. 

Don't worry about the old geezer's bei Garching. So they couldn't
solve the problem.        

Is the Virial "Theorem" is clearly NOT arbitrary IF it doesn't apply
to systems that have internal sources and sinks?.  
It may have worked...  until now, that is.  :-)   Stick with the 
divergence theorem.  Certainly, both methods must give the same 
answer (range) IF they can be correctly applied.  Good test the VT 
wouldn't you say??? 

How about a simple stable system.  
Imagine a fluid with a hyper strong surface tension, and then make
a concentric stack of bubbles each of a slightly different size, and
perhaps slightly different charge to separate them and keep them 
concentric.   

Now each bubble from the outside would experience a higher pressure 
than the next outer one due to surface tension.  The number of such 
concentric bubbles would be such that several atmospheres be reached 
within a third of the outer radius.  

So how would you bound the energy with the Virial theorem??  The 
mass isn't solid it's fluid.  Would you use the Divergence theorem 
and integrate over each and every surface??  or ignore all but the 
bounding atmosphere and volume and use the VT?

>As I said above, I consider these results to be unassailable
>mathematical facts. 

Facts do not truth make. If the Facts do not apply, what relevance
is there.  Well, they can be generalized to a broader set that is
relevant.  

I hope that Art Carlson will say... "Gee whiz, this is interesting,
maybe I should run the numbers."  
(Yawn)

>Art Carlson
>Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics
>Garching, Germany
>carlson@ipp-garching.mpg.de
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc,Bx 1037, Prometheus II, Ltd., College Park, MD 20741-1037 |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+


cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.08 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Wherefore art thou 20kW CF heater?
     
Originally-From: barry@joshua.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Wherefore art thou 20kW CF heater?
Date: Fri, 8 Jul 94 07:38:22 GMT
Organization: UCLA Dept. of Math, UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research

In article <1994Jul7.185011.7680@ll.mit.edu> buchmann@ll.mit.edu (Karl Buchmann) writes:
>I'm just a lurker who's leaning more to the sceptical side, and I'm
>sorry to say that the only spare change I have to offer on this issue is:
>wherefore means 'why' and not 'where'.  The above question doesn't make
>great sense.

I was waiting for someone to flame on this. I posted the
original question, and I know it means why, but I also
know that the great majority of americans take it as
meaning "where". (In Romeo and Juliet, she is actually asking
why he is out there, not where he is.) Gee, I knew those
humanities classes weren;t a waste :-)

As for sense, well maybe I'm in juliet's boat. Since I'm
betting on hot fusion, perhaps my question is a lament
that CF is out there to destroy my life. :-)

--
Barry Merriman
UCLA Dept. of Math
UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet)   barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (NeXTMail)
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.08 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Definitely a PR mistake
     
Originally-From: barry@joshua.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Definitely a PR mistake
Date: Fri, 8 Jul 94 07:46:27 GMT
Organization: UCLA Dept. of Math, UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research

In article <940707181607_72240.1256_EHB28-1@CompuServe.COM> 72240.1256@c
mpuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:

Jed on the status of CF:

>     intermittent power at the milliwatt level; today the best ones produce
>     continuous power at hundreds of watts. Power density has increased from
>     a few watts per cc to 4,000 watts/cc. Cold fusion experiments have
>     already produced 50 to 100 times more net energy than the best hot
>     fusion experiments in history (320 megajoules during a three-month run

I realize you are part of the "in crowd" that gets access to these
results. But, my quation is, if it works so well, why is the
scientific community (at least the one I'm a member of) still
unconvinced?


--
Barry Merriman
UCLA Dept. of Math
UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet)   barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (NeXTMail)
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.08 / David Davies /  Re: A decisive (?) experiment
     
Originally-From: drd851@huxley.anu.edu.au (David R Davies)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A decisive (?) experiment
Date: 8 Jul 94 07:17:36 GMT
Organization: Australian National University

mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel) writes:

>Atoms. Atoms. Atoms. Atoms.  Remember the words "low energy".

I'm not sure what a delocalized atom means really. Do electron and
nucleons delocalize simultaneously? I have assumed that electrons go to
the band state straight away and asked myself wether the nucleons should
follow suit. Do all the D electrons go into a band state in Pd?  

>Delocalized atoms fine.  When the interaction energies with the
>background (ev's) are the same order as the interaction energies with
>each other.

>But when you probe a "delocalized atom's" nucleus at keV's or MeV's it looks
>awfully pointlike again.

Quite likely but we are back to high energy collision time scales here
remember. I was trying to focus on what might happen if the reaction 
could take its time and wavelengths of reactants were comparable.

BTW, how does one know that the Mev range particle has hit a delocalised
D or a point-like one? Most probably remain localised in Pd.

>--
>-Matt Kennel  		mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu

dave
dave.davies@anu.edu.au
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudendrd851 cudfnDavid cudlnDavies cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.08 / Bruce TK /  Re: "ball lightning" MHD Eq. - Falls Apart How?? Epic
     
Originally-From: bds@slcbdsipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce       Scott          TK  )
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: "ball lightning" MHD Eq. - Falls Apart How?? Epic
Date: 8 Jul 1994 08:30:15 GMT
Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching

Paul Koloc challenges at the end of his message:

|> I hope that Art Carlson will say... "Gee whiz, this is interesting,
|> maybe I should run the numbers."

Well, Art might not but Bruce will, if Paul would just be so kind as to
give the mathematical description of the magnetic geometry of the
quiescent (pre-compression) plasmoid.

1. Is the MHD equilibrium stringently axi-symmetric?

2. Is the plasma current a function only of the flux?

3. What is the aspect ratio; is this limited or can it be O(1)

4. Is the pressure on the flux surface describing the plasmoid/mantle
   interface a constant?

5. If I were to write the magnetic field in Clebsch representation,
   B = grad X cross grad Y, where X and Y are two coordinates (a third
   coordinate Z for which B dot grad Z doesn't vanish can describe the
   parallel direction), what are the properties of X and Y in relation
   to B?

-- 
Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de                               -- W Gibson
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnTK cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.08 / Richard Schultz /  Re: Definitely a PR mistake
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Definitely a PR mistake
Date: 8 Jul 1994 13:59:00 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley

In article <940707180034_72240.1256_EHB218-1@compuserve.com>,
Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> gives the group a leavening of
humor by writing:

>If I was [sic] in charge of the project at Toyota, I
>would ask everyone there to refrain from ever mentioning any specific date of
>completion. You can never tell when basic research will pan out. 

This coming from the guy who told us that the 10 kW heater would be out
by the end of 1993?

					Richard Schultz
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.09 / Richard Blue /  Re: Definitely bad PR
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Definitely bad PR
Date: Sat, 9 Jul 1994 00:28:01 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

It is perhaps useful to review the history and current status of
cold fusion experimentation from time to time.  Everyone seems to
be in agreement that the promised milestone of a working water
heater has not been seen, but there are differing points of view
as to the significance of that fact.  Jed Rothwell dismisses it
as a PR mistake to have made any promise and asserts that the missing
of significant milestones is a common occurance in this kind of
R and D work.

John Logajan has a similar perspective which he expresses in saying:
"There is far more 'distance' between zero watts and 20 watts of
CF heat than there is between 20 watts and 20 kilowatts of CF heat."
I could agree with this in the abstract as expressing the notion
that placing the phenomena on a solid scientific footing is more
important and often more difficult than carrying forward the obvious
scaleup to a larger working device.  I see, however, some flaws in
this thinking that relate direct to the inability of CF advocates
to make an honest assessment of the current state of affairs as
well as the long and troubled history of CF research.

As far as bad PR is concerned, I believe Jed Rothwell has frequently
done his cause a disservice by repeated exaggerations of the true
levels of success that have been reached.  In this regard I note that
the Thermacore results that are presently the focus of John Logajan's
attention are at the level of 40 watts excess heat in 28 liters of
H2O and 3300 meters (as I recall) of nickel wire for a cathode.
For power density and power level these measurements simply aren't
in the running with the levels Jed uses to describe the current
state of the art.  But aren't these the latest published results
from Mills, et al. and don't I remember reading messages from Jed
some time ago that they had reached significantly higher levels as
measured by total power and the power out to in ratio?  I think
the reality is that the Thermocore results remain too close to
the possible margin of error, with known error sources remaining
uncorrected.

I also remind Jed that the use of power per cc of sample as a measure
of progress can easily be totally misleading.  As I have pointed
out before, if one takes a power level that is essentially independent
of sample size because the number is totally bogus and then decreases
the sample size the power level per unit volume will likely appear
to rise.  Of course one can also increase the sample size to obtain
a lower apparent power density.  I would suggest that there be a
careful survey of how changes in power density correlate with
changes in sample size before anyone use claimed power densities
as a measure of progress.  I would suggest that the missing
20 kW water heater is possibly further confirmation that CF
devices simply do not scale in accord with any simple rule or
that possibly bigger is just not better.

Returning to John's suggestion that the first step is the big one,
isn't it still quite possible that we have not seen that first
step except possibly in the form of the drunkards walk.  In that
case we may find that cold fusion is indeed further away from its
origins with each passing year, but is that real progress?

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.08 / Rich Hawryluk /  TFTR Update July 8, 1994
     
Originally-From: rhawryluk@pppl.gov (Rich Hawryluk)
Newsgroups: pppl.tftr.news,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: TFTR Update July 8, 1994
Date: 8 Jul 1994 12:54:53 -0400
Organization: Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory

Status  (July 8, 1994)

In the analysis of the DD and D-T limiter H-modes on TFTR, the TRANSP code
shows that ion conductivity is reduced significantly during the ELM-free
H-mode phase compared with the pre-transition valve. The chii tot, which
includes both convective and conductive heat fluxes, decreases by a factor
of 3 at r/a = 0.7 from just before the H-mode transition to the time of
maximum taue. Based on comparison of data between DD and D-T H-mode
plasmas, there is an apparent species effect on the H-mode confinement and
on ELM behavior. From the limiter H-mode data, it is found that there is a
larger increase in taue  with the transition to the H-mode for D-T plasmas
than for DD.  To date, the increase in taue is relatively transient and is
usually terminated by the onset of ELM's. Larger gains might be possible if
the ELM-free period could be extended.

E. Fredrickson presented a review of major and minor disruptions at the
TFTR physics meeting. The new results from this study is the observation of
moderate n ballooning modes prior to the major disruption. The diagnostic
used to observe these ballooning modes is the two grating polychromator.
They are at two toroidal locations which are separated by 126 degrees. At
present it is believed that the m/n = 1/1 plus the ballooning mode (n =
5-10) may cause or trigger the disruption at high beta on TFTR.

Using the pellet charge exchange diagnostic (collaboration with GA and
Ioffe Institute) we have been able to obtain the measurements of the fast
confined alpha-particle energy distribution.  The measurements of the alpha
spectra are being compared with transport calculations on TRANSP.

Modeling of our D-T ICRF heated plasmas show that our observations are
qualitatively consistent with one-dimensional kinetic modeling results.
However, off-axis D fundamental absorption is observed to be insignificant,
in contradiction with two-dimensional code predictions.  This is an
important result for ITER.  Further work will be done here in collaboration
with ITER's design team.

The following papers were presented at the European Physical Society
Meeting held in Montpellier, France:

"Initial D-T results on TFTR", J. Strachan  et al.
"Initial Investigations of Isotope Mass Scaling and alpha-heating", R.
Budny et al.
"Toroidal Velocity Profiles in D-T Plasmas on TFTR", C. Bush et al.
 "A Tritium Vessel Cleanup Experiment in TFTR", M. Caorlin et al.
 "Coherent Fluctuations in the Initial TFTR D-T Experiments", E.
Fredrickson et al.
"Tritium Transport Studies on TFTR", L. Johnson et al.
 "Recent Results from the TFTR ICRF D-T Program", J. Rogers et al.
"First Measurements of Tritium Recycling in TFTR", C. Skinner et al.
"Measurements of Escaping Alphas in TFTR D-T Experiments", S. Zweben et al.

The following papers were presented at the  American Nuclear Society
meeting in New Orleans:

"Status and Plans for Magnetic Fusion Energy" D. M. Meade
"Deuterium-Tritium Experiments on TFTR" J. Hosea et al.
"Tritium Processing and Management during D-T Experiments on TFTR" P.
LaMarche et al.
"Fusion Safety Regulations in the US: Progress in Trends" J. DeLooper

The following papers were presented at the 3rd International Symposium
Fusion Nuclear Technology Conference in Los Angeles:

"TFTR Experience with D-T Operation", D.M. Meade
"Operation of the TFTR Tritium Systems During Initial Tritium Experiments",
J. L. Anderson

The TFTR maintenance period in June was extended to correct a cooling water
plumbing problem on the neutral beam ion sources. Arc conditioning has
occurred.  Beam conditioning resumed on Tuesday, July 5

Conditioning of the ICRF sources into local dummy loads continues this week
using all six rf power transmitters.

Future Activities

Resume deuterium operations this week and deuterium-tritium operations next
week. The next DT campaign will be a study of H-modes effects in DT
plasmas.


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


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


cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenrhawryluk cudfnRich cudlnHawryluk cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.08 / Kevin Nugent /  Re: Wherefore art thou 20kW CF heater?
     
Originally-From: aa006@cfn.cs.dal.ca (Kevin Alexander James Nugent)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Wherefore art thou 20kW CF heater?
Date: Fri, 8 Jul 1994 19:10:26 GMT
Organization: Chebucto FreeNet

Karl Buchmann (buchmann@ll.mit.edu) wrote:
: I'm just a lurker who's leaning more to the sceptical side, and I'm
: sorry to say that the only spare change I have to offer on this issue is:
: wherefore means 'why' and not 'where'.  The above question doesn't make
: great sense.


"Oh Romeo, Romeo...why are you Romeo"???????
--
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Kevin Alexander James Nugent, aa006@cfn.cs.dal.ca
Chebucto Freenet, a new kind of community.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenaa006 cudfnKevin cudlnNugent cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.08 / Phil Andrews /  Re: Wherefore art thou 20kW CF heater?
     
Originally-From: Phil Andrews <pa0q+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Wherefore art thou 20kW CF heater?
Date: Fri,  8 Jul 1994 12:27:07 -0400
Organization: Pittsburgh Supercomputing Center, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

>(In Romeo and Juliet, she is actually asking
>why he is out there, not where he is.) 

Actually, she's asking (really lamenting) why he's called what he is,
since it is their inappropriate full names (two warring families) 
that's causing all the trouble. I don't have it online, but it goes
something like this:

"Romeo, Oh Romeo ! Wherefore art thou Romeo ?
Deny your father, refuse your name."

If I remember correctly, it's rhetorical since she doesn't know he's
listening.  Shortly, this leads into the famous bit:

"What's in a name ? that which we call a rose
By any other name would spell as sweet."

Of course there's as much chance of a saving reconciliation between the
Montagues and the Capulets as there is between Plasma Physics and Cold
Fusion; and the tragic waste of young lives  because of the posturing of
elders is a common thread. Take that As You Like It.

-Phil Andrews
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudfnPhil cudlnAndrews cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.08 /  SilntObsvr /  Re: Wherefore art thou 20kW CF heater?
     
Originally-From: silntobsvr@aol.com (SilntObsvr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Wherefore art thou 20kW CF heater?
Date: 8 Jul 1994 14:53:01 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

In article <1994Jul8.073822.19291@math.ucla.edu>,
barry@joshua.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman) writes:

<<(In Romeo and Juliet, she is actually asking why he is out there, not
where he is.)>>

well, actually, she was asking why he was >Romeo,< a Montague, rather than
somebody who would nice and safe to fall in love with, like a Smith...
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudensilntobsvr cudlnSilntObsvr cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.08 / Matt Kennel /  Re: Wherefore art thou 20kW CF heater?
     
Originally-From: mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Wherefore art thou 20kW CF heater?
Date: 8 Jul 1994 20:23:39 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

Barry Merriman (barry@joshua.math.ucla.edu) wrote:
: In article <1994Jul7.185011.7680@ll.mit.edu> buchmann@ll.mit.edu
(Karl Buchmann) writes:
: >I'm just a lurker who's leaning more to the sceptical side, and I'm
: >sorry to say that the only spare change I have to offer on this issue is:
: >wherefore means 'why' and not 'where'.  The above question doesn't make
: >great sense.

: I was waiting for someone to flame on this. I posted the
: original question, and I know it means why, but I also
: know that the great majority of americans take it as
: meaning "where". (In Romeo and Juliet, she is actually asking
: why he is out there, not where he is.) Gee, I knew those
: humanities classes weren;t a waste :-)

I thought it meant "Why are you named 'Romeo'? {It would be so much
easier if you were somebody else who wasn't a Montague}"  (Wasn't
she talking to herself at that point?)

: As for sense, well maybe I'm in juliet's boat. Since I'm
: betting on hot fusion, perhaps my question is a lament
: that CF is out there to destroy my life. :-)

So,

Capulet = Toyota research corp.
Tybalt = sci.physics.fusion
Prince Paris = Prof. Steve Jones

: --
: Barry Merriman

--
-Matt Kennel  		mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu
-Institute for Nonlinear Science, University of California, San Diego
-*** AD: Archive for nonlinear dynamics papers & programs: FTP to
-***     lyapunov.ucsd.edu, username "anonymous".
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenmbk cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.08 / Tom Droege /  Re: Calibrated conductivity-loading curves?
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Calibrated conductivity-loading curves?
Date: 8 Jul 1994 21:40:47 GMT
Organization: fermilab

In article <9407041242.AA38815@pilot1.cl.msu.edu>, blue@pilot.msu.edu 
(Richard A Blue) says:
>
>I had ask Mitchell Swartz (or anyone) about the techniques used to
>determine the ratio   of D to Pd in the course of a cold fusion
>experiment.  His reply seems to indicate that calibrations of the
>conductivity vs. loading are a routine part of those experiments for
>which high loadings are reported.  I still wonder if this is indeed
>the norm for cold fusion experimentation, or is it more typically the
>case that claims for exceptionally high loadings are based on an
>extrapolation that goes well beyond the range of any calibrations.
>Off hand I would guess that it is not easy to determine the loading
>by simple means with sufficient precision to tell whether it is
>1.0 or 0.8 or 1.2.  How is it done?
>
>Dick Blue
>

When I was doing serious experiments I had three ways to measure the 
loading:

1.  The resistance, per McKubre.  The problem with this is that the 
resistance hits a peak around 0.7 D/Pd and goes back down with higher
loading.  McKubre assures us all that you can not backtrack down the low
side, so that once 0.7 is reached, lower resistance readings mean higher
loading.  I am not so sure.  I had one run where the resistance appeard 
to go back through zero *negative*, but this was likely instrumental.  I 
could never get a repeat of this measurement.

2.  Missing Hydrogen/Deuterium.  Since there was a recombiner in the cell
we would detect excess gass (Oxygen) as the H/D hid in the palladium.  
Over the few hours it took to load, this was quite precise, 1% or so.

3.  Missing energy from the lack of recombination of the hiding H/D.  But 
this must be corrected for the heat of absorption of the H/D into the
palladium.

On some runs we would get good agreement from all three.  A few percent.
But it is very tricky to get a good run.  Often something would go wrong
at the start of a run and we would partially load the sample before we
could get a good start.  The run would then start with an unknown loading.
In the last series of experiments we abandoned the resistance method 
because the excess gas gave good results, and all those leads into the
cell (it takes 4 for a good measurement) were a pain.

Tom Droege

PS.  This is a new news reader for me so anything can happen.

cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.08 / John Logajan /  Re: Wherefore art thou 20kW CF heater?
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Wherefore art thou 20kW CF heater?
Date: 8 Jul 1994 22:09:36 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Online Services Member.

Kevin Alexander James Nugent (aa006@cfn.cs.dal.ca) wrote:
: "Oh Romeo, Romeo...why are you Romeo"???????

I don't recall the details of the story, but Romeo and Juliet were lovers
who were prohibited by outside forces from being together.  Thus Juliet
wonders in her anquish and pain why life has brought her to this misery.
One of the questions is what purpose is served by Romeo's existance
and the pain it has caused her.

--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com -- 612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills  MN 55112 USA           -

cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.08 / Gary Steckly /  Re: Definitely a PR mistake
     
Originally-From: gsteckly@dgim.doc.ca (Gary Steckly)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Definitely a PR mistake
Date: Fri, 8 Jul 94 22:13:10 GMT
Organization: Communications Canada

Barry Merriman (barry@joshua.math.ucla.edu) wrote:
: In article <940707181607_72240.1256_EHB28-1@CompuServe.COM> 72240.1256
compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:

: Jed on the status of CF:

: >     intermittent power at the milliwatt level; today the best ones produce
: >     continuous power at hundreds of watts. Power density has increased from
: >     a few watts per cc to 4,000 watts/cc. Cold fusion experiments have
: >     already produced 50 to 100 times more net energy than the best hot
: >     fusion experiments in history (320 megajoules during a three-month run

: I realize you are part of the "in crowd" that gets access to these
: results. But, my quation is, if it works so well, why is the
: scientific community (at least the one I'm a member of) still
: unconvinced?

I think the correct word would be "oblivious" as opposed to "unconvinced"

If you want to find out what is going on, you have to ask the people doing
the work, or at least subscribe to the sources that are going to tell you,
like Eugene Mallove's new magazine.  It's hard to spoon feed people who
have their teeth firmly clenched.

(to avoid flames from the english majors luking out there, I realize that
"oblivious" may not be entirely correct.  Purists have objected to the use
of that word in the context of "unaware", but according to my Tormont
Webster's, this sense is now both common and widely accepted) 

: --
: Barry Merriman
: UCLA Dept. of Math
: UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
: barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet)   barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (NeXTMail)
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudengsteckly cudfnGary cudlnSteckly cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.08 /  jonesse@plasma /  Crying wolf:  definitely a PR mistake
     
Originally-From: jonesse@plasma.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Crying wolf:  definitely a PR mistake
Date: 8 Jul 94 17:16:11 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

What a PR job:  Jed claims that 
"Enormous progress has been made.  In 1989 the best cells produced intermittent
power at the milliwatt level; today the best ones produce continuous power at
hundreds of watts."

Yet I have in front of me an article from July 8, 1989 with a picture of
what is claimed to be a working water heater based on cold fusion -- 5 years
ago!

We read that a water-heater " that could satisfy the hot water needs of an
average home is *already* percolating in the lab of B. Stanley Pons.
It's the first scale-up of the University of Utah solid-state fusion
experiments that jolted scientists worldwide more than three months ago."

The article quotes B.S. Pons directly:  " 'It wouldn't take care of the
family's electrical needs, but it certainly could provide them with hot water
year-round,' said Pons, who said he's alway believed that the practical
application of cold fusion could happen this fast."  
*Deseret News, July 8, 1989 P. B1.

What has become of this water heater?  Why does Jed not acknowledge Pons'
1989 claims of a water heater?  Why are people willing to dish out bucks for a
water heater that is promised for an indefinite time in the future 
when it was once
claimed, erroneously to say the least, five years ago?

Yes, crying wolf is definitely bad PR.

--Steven Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenjonesse cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.08 /  jonesse@plasma /  What Mr. Toyoda said about cold fusion
     
Originally-From: jonesse@plasma.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: What Mr. Toyoda said about cold fusion
Date: 8 Jul 94 17:20:12 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

Mr. Toyoda himself is quoted by H. Ikegami in the Proceedings of the Nagoya
conf. on cold fusion:

"Cold fusion is not a matter to be studied by one single enterprise or nation. 
I have confidence that it will become the greatest asset as an eventual energy
for mankind, to be shared among the world."     (PRoceedings, p. iv, 1993)

It takes quite a MAN to inspire such CONfidence.
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenjonesse cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.08 /  jonesse@plasma /  Italian/Russian/Polish cf expts: Null
     
Originally-From: jonesse@plasma.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Italian/Russian/Polish cf expts: Null
Date: 8 Jul 94 17:52:28 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

During a recent visit to the Los Alamos National Lab., I met with Leonid
Ponomarev of Russia.  Dr. Ponomarev was kind to pass along to me 
abstracts of talks
presented at the recent meeting on cold fusion held in Minsk.  It will be
interesting to see how these well-done but *negative* experiments will be
handled in Eugene Mallove's "Cold Fusion" magazine and in Hal Fox's newsletter
on cold fusion. 

The work was done by a team of Italian (Bertin y Vitale et al. -- very
competent), Polish and Russian scientists.  Some of the work was carried out in
the Gran Sasso laboratory.

A paper entitled "on the reproducibility of results on low-temperature nuclear
fusion in systems of NaxWO3 [Oxide Tungsten Bronze]/deuterium" has as its
principal result:
"It follows that the low-temperature dd-fusion phenomenon in the oxide tungsten
bronze/deuterium system was not found."  

The authors point to a "Grave discrepancy between the results of this research
and the data presented in [Kaliev et al.]"
Some will recall that the Kaliev et al. paper was one of the highly-touted
papers at the Nagoya cold fusion conference, titled:
"Reproducible nuclear reactions during interaction of deuterium with oxide
tungsten bronze."

But the Italian/Russian/Polish team found *nothing*.

On reflection, I think the Nagoya meeting was the high point of the cold
fusion story, as regards claims of excess heat via nuclear reactions --
certainly the Maui meeting showed much greater caution, even overt skepticism
among the ranks.  If these papers are any indication, the Minsk meeting
continues the cold-shoulder treatment of cold fusion.

The next paper by the same team of about 40 authors reports on a search for
tritium production (such as claimed by P&F, Bockris, and Claytor[of Los
Alamos]), and concludes:

"We did not find observable low-temperature nuclear dd fusion with production
of tritium."

This group also tried temperature-cycling of deuterided samples, as in the
Italian method of years ago, also done at BARC, but "failed to observe tritium
production which could be caused by the low-temp. dd fusion [LTF] reaction, 
if it exists."

Finally, the group concludes:  "Comparison of the results our recent experiment
on the search for the low-temp. nuclear dd, dt fusion reactions in the same
titanium modifications  with the results of the present paper shows that 
no
observable anomaly is observed in the (t+p)/(n+He) branching ratio even on the
assumption that LTF exists."


The third paper involves saturating metals with deuterium + *tritium* mixtures,
certainly an important experiment.  But again the results were negative:  
no cold fusion was observed with d-t.

I congratulate these researchers on their careful and thorough research.

--Steven Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenjonesse cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.08 /  jonesse@plasma /  cancel <1994Jul8.174859.1668@plasma.byu.edu>
     
Originally-From: jonesse@plasma.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cancel <1994Jul8.174859.1668@plasma.byu.edu>
Date: 8 Jul 94 17:53:06 -0600

cancel <1994Jul8.174859.1668@plasma.byu.edu>
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenjonesse cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Sat Jul  9 04:37:08 EDT 1994
------------------------------
1994.07.09 / Jim Bowery /  Re: Free Energy Machine, the Griggs machine...!
     
Originally-From: jabowery@netcom.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Free Energy Machine, the Griggs machine...!
Date: Sat, 9 Jul 1994 04:23:39 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

kdq@trans.jpl.nasa.gov (Kevin D. Quitt) writes:
> Thus wrote travis.wheatley@amd.com 
> >Didn't Tesla create the same type of device in the 1940's?
> 
> Tesla's turbine is an interesting device: bladeless and almost exactly
> as efficient as a turbine (extracting energy from fluid flow) as it is a
> pump (converting energy to fluid flow).  It's not as efficient a turbine
> as regular steam turbines, nor as efficient a pump as the best pumps,

There has been so little engineering done on the Tesla turbine that
I am very skeptical of assertions about its ultimate efficiency.

> Part of the problem in
> efficiency is that the fluid makes a 90 degree turn going through the
> turbine, losing energy thereby.

There are engineering solutions to this problem, which occurs only
at the fluid injection portion of the turbine.

Other problems with efficiency have to do with attaining sufficient
temperature differences without the disks detempering and losing
integrity at high RPM.  New materials promise to address this aspect
of the problem.  A final aspect of the problem involves internal
fluid dynamics near the surface of the turbine (the old boundry-layer
 idea).

A lot of engineering opportunities to bring an intrinsicly very
cheap to manufacture and reliable engine to competitiveness with
existing engines.

The power to weight ratio of the Tesla turbine looks like it
could end up being quite a bit better than conventional turbines.
It is also quiet as a church mouse compared to normal turbines --
a BIG advantage for the FAA's drive toward quieter take-offs and
landings around urban airports.

PS:  Yes, I'm involved with work on one and no there is no help
from the US government.
-- 
The promotion of politics exterminates apolitical genes in the population.
  The promotion of frontiers gives apolitical genes a route to survival.
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenjabowery cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.09 / Jim Bowery /  Re: Wherefore art thou 20kW CF heater?
     
Originally-From: jabowery@netcom.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Wherefore art thou 20kW CF heater?
Date: Sat, 9 Jul 1994 04:23:51 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

Get rid of the lawyers and the SEC and let people
put their money where their mouth is.

Where can people buy stock in P&F's cold fusion
heater company?

If P&F are charlatans or even simply in error, let
fools be soon parted with their money.  Nothing
will shut them all up faster.

On the other hand...
-- 
The promotion of politics exterminates apolitical genes in the population.
  The promotion of frontiers gives apolitical genes a route to survival.
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenjabowery cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.09 / Jim Bowery /  Re: Definitely a PR mistake
     
Originally-From: jabowery@netcom.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Definitely a PR mistake
Date: Sat, 9 Jul 1994 04:23:55 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

barry@joshua.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman) writes:
> In article <940707181607_72240.1256_EHB28-1@CompuServe.COM> 72240.1256
compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
> 
> Jed on the status of CF:
> 
> >     intermittent power at the milliwatt level; today the best ones produce
> >     continuous power at hundreds of watts. Power density has increased from
> >     a few watts per cc to 4,000 watts/cc. Cold fusion experiments have
> >     already produced 50 to 100 times more net energy than the best hot
> >     fusion experiments in history (320 megajoules during a three-month run
> 
> I realize you are part of the "in crowd" that gets access to these
> results. But, my quation is, if it works so well, why is the
> scientific community (at least the one I'm a member of) still
> unconvinced?

Are you sure you want the real answer to that question?
-- 
The promotion of politics exterminates apolitical genes in the population.
  The promotion of frontiers gives apolitical genes a route to survival.
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenjabowery cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.09 / John Logajan /  Re: Definitely bad PR
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Definitely bad PR
Date: 9 Jul 1994 07:17:52 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Online Services Member.

Richard A Blue (blue@pilot.msu.edu) wrote:
: are at the level of 40 watts excess heat in 28 liters of
: H2O and 3300 meters (as I recall) of nickel wire for a cathode.
          ^^^^
I believe it was two spools of 5000 meters for a total of 10,000 meters.

: For power density and power level these measurements simply aren't
: in the running with the levels Jed uses to describe the current
: state of the art.  But aren't these the latest published results
: from Mills, et al. and don't I remember reading messages from Jed
: some time ago that they had reached significantly higher levels as
: measured by total power and the power out to in ratio?  I think
: the reality is that the Thermocore results remain too close to
: the possible margin of error, with known error sources remaining
: uncorrected.

I personally talked to Bob Shaubach of Thermacore earlier this last
spring and it he was somewhat frustrated at the low power density they
could so far achieve -- in both their original electrolysis work, and
in their more recent non-electrolysis work (results of which have not yet
been published.)

But I don't agree that the Thermacore results remain too close to the
margin of error. (Which is not to say that the results aren't erroneous.)

Experiment #14 puts in 10.5 amps at 2.37 volts pulsed at 1 hertz with a
20% duty cycle for an input power of 4.98 watts for 240 days.  Thermacore
concluded from the temperature rise above ambient that an equivalent heat
source of 41 watts were present -- over eight times the input power.

My lowest calorimetry constant was 0.08 C/W with an electric fan blowing
full blast on the tank -- Ernie Criddle tells me the his highest cal constant
was about 0.31 C/W (with foam on top.)  That is a range of less than 4:1.

It is highly unlikely that Thermacore's tank fluctuated through such a
range as we have managed, which even itself is not enough to explain the 
alleged excess heat.
 
: Returning to John's suggestion that the first step is the big one,
: isn't it still quite possible that we have not seen that first

The suggestion was intended to include that possibility.

--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com -- 612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills  MN 55112 USA           -

cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.09 / William Hawkins /  Re: Wherefore art thou 20kW CF heater?
     
Originally-From: bill@texan.rosemount.com (William Hawkins)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Wherefore art thou 20kW CF heater?
Date: Sat, 9 Jul 1994 04:40:09 GMT
Organization: Rosemount, Inc.

In article <4i7LtPy0hXth81elRu@andrew.cmu.edu> Phil Andrews <pa0q+@andre
.cmu.edu> writes:
>
>Of course there's as much chance of a saving reconciliation between the
>Montagues and the Capulets as there is between Plasma Physics and Cold
>Fusion; and the tragic waste of young lives  because of the posturing of
>elders is a common thread. Take that As You Like It.
>
>-Phil Andrews


That gets my vote as the best post by a lurker since 1989.

Thanks, Phil.
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenbill cudfnWilliam cudlnHawkins cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.10 / Jed Rothwell /  Not crying wolf
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Not crying wolf
Date: Sun, 10 Jul 1994 00:28:45 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG

Steve Jones writes:

     "What has become of this water heater [that Pons promised in 1989]?  Why
     does Jed not acknowledge Pons' 1989 claims of a water heater?  Why are
     people willing to dish out bucks for a water heater that is promised for
     an indefinite time in the future when it was once claimed, erroneously
     to say the least, five years ago?"

He has crammed many questions into one short paragraph here. Let me sort list
them and address them one at a time:

1. "What has become of this water heater?"

It is late. Basic science R&D projects are often late. A five year delay is
nothing to get alarmed about, because great progress has been made. As I
mentioned, we are already 100 times ahead of hot fusion.

In point of fact, anyone who seriously wants a CF water heater that produces
commercially useful levels of steam or hot water should contact Hydro
Dynamics. They have one that works well. It starts at $10,000 F.O.B.
Cartersville, GA. They have installed several; the end users are very
satisfied, they are saving a lot of money. It is not the end-all, be-all
product, but it is a solid reliable machine and it is excellent for some
industrial applications. I tested it extensively and reported the results in
issue 2 of "Cold Fusion" magazine. Based on my work, and on the end-user's
electric and water meter readings and bills, I have no doubt that this machine
does create massive excess heat -- thousands of watts continuously for years.
It seems to me this device meets the criteria set in 1989. If the hot fusion
people could produce something as effective at this, they would be turning
cartwheels and setting off fireworks.


2. "Why does Jed not acknowledge Pons' 1989 claims of a water heater?"

Acknowledge it?!?! ACKNOWLEDGE IT! Good grief, not only do I acknowledge it,
but I have devoted myself full time to helping bring it about, and invested
$10s of thousands of dollars to that end. Of course I acknowledge it! Why
would I be doing all of this work and spending all this money if I did not
think there will be a water heater? I am betting that Pons is right! He is a
little bit late, but so what? That's normal; even humble gadgets get late. It
took 15 years before they got the zipper to work right, and 30 years before
they starting making real money selling zippers.


3. "Why are people willing to dish out bucks for a water heater that is
promised for an indefinite time in the future when it was once claimed,
erroneously to say the least, five years ago?"

That's easy! That is how you make a lot of money. You dish out bucks for
things that are very hard to make, you wait an indefinite time in the future,
and as you wait you work like hell to make the product. I worked very hard for
more than five years on other projects before they paid off a single dime.
Some never paid off at all. As a general investment rule, if there is no big
risk and no uncertainty, there can be no big payoff. A low risk investment
will attract many people, which dilutes profit. That is why a bank will only
pay you 5% interest, whereas if you risk your money building a new company or
a new technology, you may lose it all, or you may turn a few thousand into
hundreds of thousands. You can make a big profit because other people are too
frightened to invest in that area. Once it becomes known that it is
profitable, lots of other people invest, competition increases, and you can no
longer make big profits.

A five year error is nothing to worry about, as long as two conditions are
met: 1. Good, steady, measurable progress towards the final goal is being
made; 2. Your own capital looks like it will hold out long enough for you to
survive.

This water heater controversy is silly. I am a capitalist; Toyota, ENECO,
Thermacore and Hydro Dynamics are all capitalists. We have looked at the risks
and benefits of investing in this technology, we have looked at the
calorimetric data, and we judge that it is worth doing. Steve Jones and Barry
Merriman look at it and they decide it is not worth investing in. Well, so
what? That is how free market competition works. You do your thing, I do mine,
the market decides who hits the jackpot. I cannot understand why these
"skeptics" pay any attention to the field. Why on earth does Steve Jones
accuse the late Mr. Toyoda of being a confidence man? Why did he post those
absurd statements about Miles, E-Quest and so many others? Why is he so upset
about this stuff? Why does he care where Toyoda, Griggs, Mills or I invest our
money? It is our money and our business. Jones should butt out and mind his
own damn business.

Some people will work in CF and some will not. Some will win and become rich
and others will not. If you are not interested in investing in something or
doing research in it then you should ignore it altogether. I have never
invested in biotech, artificial intelligence, a fast food restaurant, a travel
agency or a skateboard consortium. I have no interest in these fields, and no
knowledge of them. Do I go posting messages in the Internet Travel Agency
forums saying that the top people in that field are a bunch of confidence men?
Do I publish vicious lies about artificial intelligence? Do I demand that they
make a prototype of the talking, thinking HAL 9000 computer shown in the movie
2001, or confess that they will never achieve their goal? I know that the A.I.
people are decades late, they have poured truckloads of money into that
technology with little return on investment so far. It is a shame for them, I
wish them better luck in the future. I would never attack them because they
have tried to do a job that turned out to be harder than they thought it would
be. I think they have guts, I admire them, I will leave them alone and let
them get on with their work in peace. I recommend Jones, Blue, Morrison and
the others do the same thing. Their comments about cold fusion are not
helpful. Their facts are all incorrect, their theories have no scientific
merit. Anyone who reads the Morrison versus Fleischmann debate or the Jones
versus Fleischmann debate will see that these people do not understand
elementary calorimetry, physics, or chemistry. Fleischmann cut them into a
thousand quivering pieces -- anyone could, they make such stupid mistakes. If
you do not understand a field, you should not waste people's time criticizing
and kibitzing.

- Jed

cudkeys:
cuddy10 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Sun Jul 10 04:37:05 EDT 1994
------------------------------
1994.07.09 / Chuck Sites /  Re: Reply to David Davies on theory and beams
     
Originally-From: chuck@iglou.iglou.com (Chuck Sites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reply to David Davies on theory and beams
Date: Sat, 9 Jul 1994 21:35:17 GMT
Organization: The Internet Gateway of Louisville, KY

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

Dick my friend, 

    I've got to add my 2 cents worth to this argument.  We are talking the 
physics here, not magic. The fundamental question to be resolved as I 
see it is, do the band state wave mechanics of deuterons allow for the
transmition and absorbtion of a nuclear quanta across bands?  Your argument
seems to be where are the coordinates of that exchange. That is a deep 
one that goes to the heart of QM (as your aware of).  Matt Kennell in 
a reply to David, says:

Atoms, atoms, atoms... 

Well, thats true but in the context of delocalization, it would be better
stated as:

Wave function, wave function, wave function...

I don't mean to be rude, but you all need to cross that conceptual 
barrier. Look at the phenomenology of superfluids, and superconductivity.
For that matter, conductivity in metals and simiconductors.  There are 
physical aspects of these systems that cannot be described by a simple 
particlistic point of view. They are inherently wave like quantum-mechanical
phenomena.  

  Nuclear forces are, by thier range, very point like.  And in almost all
cases should not appear as a branch of interaction methods at low energies.
However, as in the case of condensation of D+ ions, there is (as best I 
can describe) a certain and definate probability that the point like 
particles will be in a range where a nuclear quanta can be exchanged.
That comes purely from the Born interpretation of QM.  Having said that,
take a step back and look at the simple simple electron in transition
from orbit n=1 -> 2. How is it such a system is quantisized?  Fundamentally
it goes down to the dual particle-wave nature of the interaction between 
the photon and the electron. During the interaction, you can not find the 
electron physically between orbits. Thats because the transition envolves
the the assimilation of energy by the electron's probability distribution
across the oribit, and the energy of the photon and the electron become 
indistiguishable until the "probability pressure" defines the state of 
the electron.  Now consider a photon interaction with a covalent bond.
You have a similar picture. Now consider an electron band state in metals.
Again, a similar picture. Bill Page has a better description of this than
I do, in his postings on David Bohm's interpretation of QM. 
 
  The point is this: Quantum interaction can occur not only between 
particles, but between extended states of matter.    

Cold fusion looks like such a phenomena.

If that is the case then we do have a "Here to fore, unknown nuclear 
reaction" (P&F 19889).  The question before us, and the burden of the 
"True Believers" is to show you exactly how such a phenomena can occur.    
Davies sited several papers on the subject of H/D delocalization in 
metals. What is uniquely different about this effect compaired to 
electron delocalization is there is a component in there methods of
interaction that is described by the strong force.  In particle physics,
we see that component all the time (indeed that is the ultimate goal of
our accelerators and such.)  What I'm saying is that the delocalized band 
state affords us an opertunity to explore this quantum state of matter 
in a realm not normally in the domain of nuclear physics.  

Have Fun,
Chuck Sites
chuck@iglou.iglou.com
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.10 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Not crying wolf
     
Originally-From: barry@joshua.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Not crying wolf
Date: Sun, 10 Jul 94 04:30:40 GMT
Organization: UCLA Dept. of Math, UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research

In article <940709164209_72240.1256_EHB122-2@CompuServe.COM> 72240.1256@
ompuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
Jed writes:

>
>In point of fact, anyone who seriously wants a CF water heater that produces
>commercially useful levels of steam or hot water should contact Hydro
>Dynamics. They have one that works well. It starts at $10,000 F.O.B.
>Cartersville, GA. They have installed several; the end users are very
>satisfied, they are saving a lot of money. It is not the end-all, be-all
>product, but it is a solid reliable machine and it is excellent for some
>industrial applications. I tested it extensively and reported the results in
>issue 2 of "Cold Fusion" magazine. Based on my work, and on the end-user's
>electric and water meter readings and bills, I have no doubt that this machine
>does create massive excess heat -- thousands of watts continuously for years.

Uh, Jed, let me get this straight. You are telling me there are already
industrial strength CF water heaters available, that function so
robustly that you can tell from your utility bills that they create
excess energy---yet to the vast majority of fusion & solid state
physicists, the fundamental physics of CF is not even verified!

Something doesn't connect here. Why doesn't NIST just test one
of these heaters for a month and put the CF controversy to rest?



--
Barry Merriman
UCLA Dept. of Math
UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet)   barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (NeXTMail)
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.10 / Richard Blue /  But is it cold fusion?
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: But is it cold fusion?
Date: Sun, 10 Jul 1994 14:19:35 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

It is interesting to see Jed Rothwell deflect questions relating to
the lack of a working 20 kW CF water heat by reference to the Hydro
Dynamics gadget as a working device.  My question is what should the
Hydro Dynamics device have any bearing on the cold fusion debate?
In that same spirit heat pumps, that have been around for a long time,
could also be used to support CF success claims.  Until someone claims
to know how a device works, including the underlying physical process
that results in energy release, it is pretty pointless to claim that
everything runs on cold fusion.  In fact more evidence is required
to establish that even "cold fusion" is cold fusion.

Now I suppose that Jed will see that remark as just more criticizing
and kibitzing that wastes the time of those who are actually contributing
to CF progress.  I believe that anyone putting forth misinformation,
especially if that misinformation is presented as an experimental result,
can likewise be charged with wasting other people's time.  In that regard
Jed and the other CF cheerleaders seem to fit into that catagory very
well.  For example, I actually bought a copy of "Cold Fusion" and will
waste a significant amount of time reading it.  Furthermore, I will
probably extend that sin by commenting here on what I read.

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.10 / Richard Blue /  What does delocalized mean?
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: What does delocalized mean?
Date: Sun, 10 Jul 1994 14:47:43 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

David Davies raises the question with  , "I'm not sure what a delocalized atom
atom means really."  Hey, join the crowd!  I have been trying to wring
a complete statement as to what that means in the context of a composite
particle such as 4He out of someone, anyone who proposes that delocalization
leads to fusion and a restriction of the reaction path.  At least
Scott Chubb makes it clear that only part of the wave function gets
delocalized in his theory, although I think even he may forget that
from time to time.  As I see it a 4He nucleus consists of 4 closely
correlated nucleons.  The total energy is very strongly dependent
on maintaining that correlation.  If the correlation is not maintained
you no longer have a 4He nucleus and there is a huge energy price to
be payed.  I don't see that diddling around with the coordinates of
the center of mass for that 4He by delocalizing in the same sense that
a lattice electron is delocalized has much to do with energy release
or reaction pathways.

As far as Dave's "what could happen if...." question, it's pretty
obvious that if you remove the dominant     term from the Hamiltonian
you have a different problem.  You can do that sort of thing on
paper, but I doubt that you can do it in reality and therein lies
the rub.  Sticking a nucleus into an atomic lattice does not alter
the dominant term in the Hamiltonian.

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.11 / Jed Rothwell /  Griggs gadget may not be CF
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Griggs gadget may not be CF
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 1994 00:12:44 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG

I mentioned that a CF experiment has produced about a hundred times more
energy than the best hot fusion experiments. People who have read the
literature will know that I was referring to the Piantelli work. I also
mentioned that a "CF water heater" is already available from Hydro Dynamics in
Cartersville, Georgia. This device was invented and patented by James Griggs.
Let me clarify something: I am not sure whether this really is a CF heater or
not. If it is, then it holds the world record for net CF energy, since some of
the installed heaters have been producing 30+ KW excess energy on demand for
years.

On the surface, the Griggs gadget looks a great deal like some CF devices. It
uses water for fuel, and it only works when the rotor produces copious
ultrasound bubbles at the surface of the metal. So I think it may well be CF,
but I do not really know, and I certainly do not care. Any source of energy
that lowers the electric bill is fine with me, I do not give a damn what
causes it or why it has no neutrons. I investigated the Griggs device
carefully, along with several other people. We ruled out any possibility of
chemical energy, and eliminated the possibility that it is a heat pump. I
suppose it is still possible that Griggs has accidentally stumbled upon a
device that can fool a fuse or breaker (sneaking more electric power past the
fuse than it is rated for), while it fools every known type electric meter by
as much as 65%, including the electric company billing meters. I doubt that. I
do not believe in fairy tales.

Any questions, debate, or enquiry about this device should be referred to my
article in "Cold Fusion," the Griggs patent or the Griggs ICCF4 paper. Those
are the appropriate, formal sources of information. I seldom read this
newsgroup, and Griggs does not have e-mail. I will not discuss any details of
the device or the experiment here or in any other e-mail forum, because these
forums invite confusion, misinformation and irrationality. If you want
information on cold fusion you must read the full, original, scientific
papers, articles patents, and other documentation. Do not depend on e-mail
newsgroups, they are not reliable sources of information.

- Jed

cudkeys:
cuddy11 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.10 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Heat Pumps being CF
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Heat Pumps being CF
Date: Sun, 10 Jul 1994 22:53 -0500 (EST)

Dick Blue writes:

> It is interesting to see Jed Rothwell deflect questions relating to
> the lack of a working 20 kW CF water heat by reference to the Hydro
> Dynamics gadget as a working device.  My question is what should the
> Hydro Dynamics device have any bearing on the cold fusion debate?
> In that same spirit heat pumps, that have been around for a long time,
> could also be used to support CF success claims.  Until someone claims
> to know how a device works, including the underlying physical process
> that results in energy release, it is pretty pointless to claim that
> everything runs on cold fusion.

In the years in which I have been reading this newsgroup I always thought that
Dick Blue was reasonably well educated in science.  Now I wonder.  Claiming
that we don't know how heat pumps work is quite a shock.  I would suggest that
he take a look at any thermodynamics book for the scientific basis on how air
conditioners and heat pumps work.  The knowledge base is quite extensive, and
far from not being understood.

As far as to whether the Hydro Dynamics device is cold fusion, I say - who
knows. In fact, is the Pons-Fleishman device cold fusion?  It may all be ZPE or
something else quite mundane or quite exotic.  Maybe these devices capture the
huge flux of neutrinos coming from the sun and turn them into heat (oh wow a
new theory, even though I don't support it).  Until we know, we simply don't
know. Whether the CF label is appropriate or not will not be determined until
we understand what is happening, and have a theory which explains all the
experimental results from the various experiments and devices.  That doesn't
mean we should ignore it.  Maybe we should simply call them all excess energy
devices and go about trying to figure out what makes them tick.  Then instead
of trying to defend why neutrons, gammas, tritium and so forth are absent or
of reduced quantity, spend valuable time trying to really understand what is
happening.

                                                                Marshall
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.11 /  dowen@vaxc.cc. /  Re: Is it the oxygen?
     
Originally-From: dowen@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Is it the oxygen?
Date: 11 Jul 94 19:37:48 +1000
Organization: Computer Centre, Monash University, Australia

Hi folks,
In article <harrCsK4A1.pq@netcom.com>, harr@netcom.com
(Charles (Chuck) Harrison) writes:
> Here's some ideas that haven't fully congealed yet.
> 
> I've been thinking about the Ti:T system that Reifenschweiler
> reported on early this year, and his conjecture of nuclear
> pairing:  two T nuclei get close enough together that their
> spin coupling affects the decay.  That might happen if
> there was double occupancy of an interstitial site in the
> Ti lattice.
> 
> Now double occupancy seems like it ought to face a tremendous
> coulomb energy barrier, unless there is an exceptionally high
> density of conduction electrons floating around for screening.
> Nonetheless, recent results from the Barnes/Torgeson group
> point towards metastable paired hydrogen states which are
> detectable by NMR in a wide variety of transition metal 
> hydrides.  These states are thermally activated at temperatures
>>300C, substantially hotter than the Reifenschweiler anomalies
> (~250C).
> 
> Let us grant that double-occupancy states can be excited at higher 
> temperatures in metal hydrides.  Could there be a perturbation
> of the system that would encourage formation of these states
> at lower temperatures?  In sheer conjecture, suppose that a
> thin oxide layer causes (perhaps through lattice strain, or by
> chemical modification to the local density of electron energy
> states) a zone in which double occupancy is strongly enhanced.
> Various anectodal results can seem tantalizingly supportive of
> this scenario...
> 
> In Reifenschweiler's work, the vacuum apparatus was _not_ UHV,
> and the normal propensity of Ti to oxidize would typically
> cause an oxide film to grow slowly during the experiment.  In
> fact, Reifenschweiler considers the fact that the preparation did not 
> desorb T until it reached a temperature of >360C as a strong
> indication that the surface was contaminated.  So the oxide
> layer was probably available here.
> 
> In another Reifenschweiler expt, tritium doses were added 
> sequentially to a Ti film as activity was monitored.  Deviations
> from proportionality were observed.   The most striking results
> were for several doses which caused the activity to
> *decrease* instead of increase.  These doses immediately followed
> "rest periods" (overnight or over a holiday) when it seems most
> likely that substantial build-up of oxide could occur.
> 
> In early NMR work on the diffusion of H in Ti (Torrey), a very
> striking double-peak in spin-lattice relaxation rate was
> observed.  Later work determined that the lower-temperature
> peak, which occurs near the temperature of Reifenschweiler's
> "heating expt" anomalies, was an artifact.  The artifact
> appeared to be correlated with accidental oxidation of the
> TiH sample.  Is it possible that the anomalous high-temperature
> NMR relaxation which triggered the Barnes/Torgeson work has
> been transposed to lower temperature by the presence of
> adventitious oxide?
> 
> In a review of "cold fusion" experiments, MKS Ray  at India's
> BARC recently concluded that the presence of oxygen was often
> linked with positive results; for example the striking 
> divided-electrochemical-cell experiment which evolved tritium
> when the "division" was violated and oxygen was allowed to
> enter the cathode compartment.
> 
> If an important process requires _both_ high hydrogen loading
> _and_ an oxide layer, it may become very difficult to trigger
> effectively.  In this context, the dynamic or pulse-mode
> experiments may succeed by switching from a regime favoring
> hydrogen evolution to one favoring oxide formation and vice
> versa.
> 
> It is interesting to note that, in gas-metal reactions, Pd
> is the only common transition element which readily gives
> up its PdO layer when presented with an excess of H2; on 
> other metals the oxide is tenacious and poisons the H2
> reactions.  I do not know if this exceptional "reversibility"
> is relevant to electrochemistry.
> 
> Well, that's enough rambling for tonite.  You're welcome
> to check my bibliography if your interest has been whetted:
> file://sunsite.unc.edu/pub/academic/physics/cold-fusion/TiBib.txt
> 
> Chuck

Thanks for your very interesting data and ideas Chuck,
however I notice a lack of reference to Eiichi Yamaguchi
and Takashi Nishioka (1) who investigated the effect of thin
films (MnO) deposited on PdH and PdD samples.
Your references and observations lend weight to the thrust of the
arguments presented by the above in their (definitive:-) paper....

(1) Nuclear Fusion Induced by the Controlled Out-transport of
Deuterons in Palladium. AIP Conference Proceedings No. 228.

It should be noted that in the above experiments the authors
used a survey meter to observe "...gigantic neutron bursts...".
This device is not good at discriminating against other particles
which I acknowledged in my 8 Nov 93 post on this topic by referring
to it as "..a rather poor measuring device for this application..".
However, I also pointed out,  "...but it DID measure neutrons,
from the samples, during the in situ checking technique."
It should also be noted that I regard the detection of -any-
particles from the samples (-not- coincident with the vacuum pump
powering up/down), to be only one of the important aspects of this
-series- of experiments.

Best regards to all,
Daryl Owen.

I am solely responsible for the above text.
   


 
> PS:  The Ray work isn't in the bibliog; it's
> D Das, MKS Ray, "Fusion in condensed matter - a likely scenario",
>      _Fusion Technology_ 24:115-121 (1993).
> 
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudendowen cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.11 / R Armstrong /  Re: TFTR Update July 8, 1994
     
Originally-From: richarda@phys.uit.no (Richard Armstrong)
Newsgroups: pppl.tftr.news,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: TFTR Update July 8, 1994
Date: 11 Jul 1994 06:48:23 -0400
Organization: Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory

	Do I speak with Lisa Hancock?
	Would like to know if G7 discuss ITER now.
	Regards
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenricharda cudfnRichard cudlnArmstrong cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.12 / Jed Rothwell /  Not crying wolf
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Not crying wolf
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 1994 00:12:26 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
 
barry@joshua.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman) asks:

     "Uh, Jed, let me get this straight. You are telling me there are already
     industrial strength CF water heaters available, that function so
     robustly that you can tell from your utility bills that they create
     excess energy."

That is correct. I performed extensive calorimetric tests and I examined some
customer meter records, and that is my firm conclusion. However, I am not
certain this is CF, it might be some other mysterious form of energy. That
issue is completely over my head, I cannot possibly judge the advanced physics
needed to address it. I know how to measure kilowatt hours, temperatures and
BTUs. All of my conclusions about this device are based upon these
measurements.

The units are robust, well engineered, and wonderfully simple to maintain. The
engineering is certified by the A.S.M.E. The units are smaller than
conventional electric heaters and safer than gas or oil heaters, they do not
require a fire wall, they will reduce your fire insurance bill.


     ". . .yet to the vast majority of fusion & solid state physicists, the
     fundamental physics of CF is not even verified!"

These physicists have not performed tests on the Griggs device. They have not
evaluated the data or reviewed the experimental techniques I employed, so they
cannot judge the situation. The fact that the fundamental physics have not
been verified has no relevance whatsoever. The fundamentals of calorimetry and
the ratio of BTUs to kilowatt hours have been verified for the last 150 years;
all of my conclusions are based on these. I do not need to know anything about
the physical mechanism of the reaction to be certain that the excess heat is
real. Mankind used fire quite effectively for eons to heat houses, forge
metal, and wage wars without knowing anything about the fundamental physics of
combustion.

 
     "Something doesn't connect here. Why doesn't NIST just test one of these
     heaters for a month and put the CF controversy to rest?"

You would have to ask the NIST. I cannot speak for them, I do not know. For
that matter, you might ask why every newspaper, magazine, scientific journal
and government agency in the U.S. denied that the Wright Brothers could fly
between 1903 and 1908. The Wrights were flying next to a commuter trolley line
leading out of Dayton, where hundreds of people saw them. Anyone who bothered
to pay a nickel for a trolley ride could verify that their claims, but no
journalist, scientist or U.S. government agent ever bothered (only British and
French agents went). Griggs allows qualified scientists and engineers full
access to his machines, and he will sell you one if you would like to perform
additional tests or lower your electric bill. Any serious scientist or
engineer who wants to test his device could do it. The reason they do not has
more to do with politics and human nature than science.

- Jed

cudkeys:
cuddy12 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.11 / Ken Doniger /  advanced fuel cycles
     
Originally-From: doniger@cimd20.cam (Ken Doniger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: advanced fuel cycles
Date: 11 Jul 1994 20:27:18 GMT
Organization: LSI Logic Corporation

I am interested in hot fusion fuel cycles that don't produce neutrons.
Ever since I read Lidsky's article in "Technology Review" about 10 years
ago, I have been convinced that DT fusion will be achieved scientifically
but will not be adopted by utility companies.

I have been out of the fusion game for awhile now, and I was wondering
what different machine geometries people have come up with for aneutronic
fusion.  I remember (vaguely) that advanced fuel cycles were limited mainly
by electron Bremmstrahlung and cyclotron radiation losses.  Any comments?

My apologies if this is a Cold Fusion only group.




cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudendoniger cudfnKen cudlnDoniger cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.11 / Gary Steckly /  Re: But is it cold fusion?
     
Originally-From: gsteckly@dgim.doc.ca (Gary Steckly)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: But is it cold fusion?
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 94 21:33:56 GMT
Organization: Communications Canada

Richard A Blue (blue@pilot.msu.edu) wrote:
: It is interesting to see Jed Rothwell deflect questions relating to
: the lack of a working 20 kW CF water heat by reference to the Hydro
: Dynamics gadget as a working device.  My question is what should the
: Hydro Dynamics device have any bearing on the cold fusion debate?
: In that same spirit heat pumps, that have been around for a long time,
: could also be used to support CF success claims.  Until someone claims
: to know how a device works, including the underlying physical process
: that results in energy release, it is pretty pointless to claim that
: everything runs on cold fusion.  In fact more evidence is required
: to establish that even "cold fusion" is cold fusion.

wow...even I understand thedifference between a heat pump (essentially, a
refrigerator system that can be reversed to move heat from one area to
another) and a pump that generates excess heat, like the hydrosonic pump. 
This is a prime example of someone who criticizes something before they
have the facts.  The hydrosonic pump isn't moving heat...it's generating it!

and in all probability, it likely isn't even fusion...There just may be
some strange phenomenon associated with the ultrasonic agitation of water
molecules that will account for these strange energy amomolies that keep
popping up.  And there certainly seems to ba a lot of them. 
Sonoluminescence, Meyer's strange electrolysis (if it turns out to be for
real), the hydrosonic pump.  My guess is that Julian Schwinger is closest
to the truth when he theorizes that in things like SL, we are witnessing a
dynamic casimir effect...(ZPE?!).  

: Now I suppose that Jed will see that remark as just more criticizing
: and kibitzing that wastes the time of those who are actually contributing
: to CF progress. 

not only Jed...me too.

 I believe that anyone putting forth misinformation,
: especially if that misinformation is presented as an experimental result,
: can likewise be charged with wasting other people's time.  In that regard
: Jed and the other CF cheerleaders seem to fit into that catagory very
: well.  For example, I actually bought a copy of "Cold Fusion" and will
: waste a significant amount of time reading it. 

I hope you bought the second issue and read about the hydrosonic pump.

: Furthermore, I will
: probably extend that sin by commenting here on what I read.

: Dick Blue


regards

Gary
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudengsteckly cudfnGary cudlnSteckly cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.12 / mitchell swartz /  Wherefore art thou 20kW CF heater?  --  hark!
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Wherefore art thou 20kW CF heater?  --  hark!
Subject: Re: Wherefore art thou 20kW CF heater?
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 1994 00:54:44 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <4i7LtPy0hXth81elRu@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Wherefore art thou 20kW CF heater?
Phil Andrews <pa0q+@andrew.cmu.edu>  writes:

PANDREWS Of course there's as much chance of a saving reconciliation betweenthe
PANDREWS Montagues and the Capulets as there is between Plasma Physics and Cold
PANDREWS Fusion; and the tragic waste of young lives  because of the posturing of
PANDREWS elders is a common thread. Take that As You Like It.

    "Patch a quarrel"  
     William Shakespeare 
     Anthony and Cleopatra 1606, II, ii

   Best wishes
                Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com)
 
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Tue Jul 12 04:37:04 EDT 1994
------------------------------
1994.07.11 / Paul Koloc /  Re: "ball lightning" MHD Eq. - Falls Apart How?? Epic
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: "ball lightning" MHD Eq. - Falls Apart How?? Epic
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 1994 21:33:36 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <2vj2qnINN1boq@sat.ipp-garching.mpg.de> bds@slcbdsipp-garchin
.mpg.de (Bruce       Scott          TK  ) writes:
>Well, Art might not but Bruce will, if Paul would just be so kind as to
>give the mathematical description of the magnetic geometry of the
>quiescent (pre-compression) plasmoid.

>1. Is the MHD equilibrium stringently axi-symmetric?

Ahh ggg .. . essentially yes.   Stringently??? ...  cheesssssss.. 
Promise not to give it English with gas puffing.  

>2. Is the plasma current a function only of the flux?

The current.. . flux.. .ahh ------------------------ BOTH? yes.. 

Consider the Kernel plasma ring, which is hyper conducting.  

We have nested toroidal current surfaces.   

FOR EACH ONE
Consider that each one generates an external component of poloidal field
(except the outermost), and that each one generates an inner solenoidal
component of flux (except the minor axial current element).   These
field components within this source volume can not "merge" through
the current surface, so that the current surface acts like a pressure
bearing surface thoughout its operation.  The toroidal pressure pushes
outward, and the poloidal pressure exerts inward.  The toroidal field
is simply bounded, by as single surface.  

The poloidal current boundary also has an external current boundary
which (in this case is isobarically applied) and is also hyperconducting.
Both boundaries of the poloidal field are pressure bearing and are NOT
simply connected.  Integrations (once the field values are determined)
must include intergration cuts.  

FOR THE SET. 
Now consider the total set of nested toroidal pressure bearing surfaces 
and integrate over each one.. summing to obtain the value of the volume 
integral.   I hope this makes some since to a mathemacian.  

(actually both the Kernal poloidal current and Mantle poloidal image
current produce poloidal fields external to there circulation.  The
two add, to zero outside the Mantle.. (well nearly).  Inside the Mantle
image current generates a "vertical" field which combines with the 
poloidal field of the Kernel to produce the TRAPPED poloidal field,
or resultant field)  

>3. What is the aspect ratio; is this limited or can it be O(1)

Hmmmm!! the final aspect ratio.. Major radius/minor radius

Ach!!   1.25  -- 1.5

But the toroidal cross-section is squannnnched .. D shaped, and 
with a substantial major radial (inverse pressure gradient).  
So??? how does one measure the aspect ratio??   The answer is
approximate. 

>4. Is the pressure on the flux surface describing the plasmoid/mantle
>   interface a constant?

   Yes but use snow shoes..   (without them some of your toes
may fall in the axial hole.. if the jet doesn't burn them away..) 

>5. If I were to write the magnetic field in Clebsch representation,
>   B = grad X cross grad Y, where X and Y are two coordinates (a third
>   coordinate Z for which B dot grad Z doesn't vanish can describe the
>   parallel direction), what are the properties of X and Y in relation
>   to B?

Hmmm!  Dan Wells, and his grad students used these potentials to
run equilibrium studies on his force free rings.  I'm deferring to 
one of them and a good friend who will anwser that question.   

Couldn't you assume the Taylor critereon?  

>-- 
>Gruss,
>Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
>Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
>bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de                               -- W Gibson


cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.12 / David Davies /  Re: What does delocalized mean?
     
Originally-From: drd851@huxley.anu.edu.au (David R Davies)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What does delocalized mean?
Date: 12 Jul 94 00:03:27 GMT
Organization: Australian National University

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

>David Davies raises the question with  , "I'm not sure what a delocalized atom
>atom means really."  Hey, join the crowd!  I have been trying to wring
>a complete statement as to what that means in the context of a composite
>particle such as 4He out of someone, anyone who proposes that delocalization
>leads to fusion and a restriction of the reaction path.  At least
>Scott Chubb makes it clear that only part of the wave function gets
>delocalized in his theory, although I think even he may forget that
>from time to time.  As I see it a 4He nucleus consists of 4 closely
>correlated nucleons.  The total energy is very strongly dependent
>on maintaining that correlation.  If the correlation is not maintained
>you no longer have a 4He nucleus and there is a huge energy price to
>be payed.  I don't see that diddling around with the coordinates of
>the center of mass for that 4He by delocalizing in the same sense that
>a lattice electron is delocalized has much to do with energy release
>or reaction pathways.

I have no problem with the general idea of delocalization but dont
think you can call it a delocalized _atom_. The electron is too loosely
coupled to the nucleus to maintain a close coupling under deloc. I have
come across several references to delocalized _atoms_ and assumed that
this was just loose talk. More interesting is the question of how the
individual nucleons in D+ behave under deloc. I think they will probably
keep together even when smeared out. I am actually assuming that they are
smeared out and not just talking about the probability of finding a 
particle. There is no such thing as a particle. It's a bad word to use
because people inevitably assume little billiard balls. Sure they are
highly localized - particularly if caged in an array of electron shells
but take away _all_ the bound electrons and line them up in a lattice 
and it would seem that they spread out quite readily. 

I've been looking at Chuch Harrison's TiBib review of hydrogen in metals.
Great! Thanks Chuck. Gets me thinking that NMR might be a more useful tool
to investigate these systems than the electron energy loss technique that
I was looking at before. Evidence for 2D sheets of delocalized nuclei
capable of bending at right angles and forming an interlocking mesh. 

>As far as Dave's "what could happen if...." question, it's pretty
>obvious that if you remove the dominant     term from the Hamiltonian
>you have a different problem.  You can do that sort of thing on
>paper, but I doubt that you can do it in reality and therein lies
>the rub.  Sticking a nucleus into an atomic lattice does not alter
>the dominant term in the Hamiltonian.

>Dick Blue

A Hamiltonian is starting to look pretty tricky once you include the
delocalized D+ nucleons interacting with each other, the Pd matrix and 
the bound as well as band-state electrons - beyond me. A computational
model that generalizes the Pd nucleus and remaining shell electrons might
be a little more tractable than analytical techniques but then there are
surface effects, impurities, vacancies, dislocations etc. any of which 
might be critical for fusion to take place. 

There are, at least, three approaches to the experimental side. The CF
work to date has largely been either aimed at proving the existance of
some excess heat or nuclear ash on the one hand or a frantic rush for
commercialization on the other. The third element of the picture - basic
science - has been impaired by the acrimony that surrounds the issue.

There is plenty of evidence for interesting and potentially valuable
basic physics here with the tritium in metals work strongly indicating
nuclear effects as well. My guess is that if there is a reliable energy
device at the end of this then it will only come when more of the basic
science is worked out and that cook-book approaches could go on and on
being tantalizingly close to success until people lose interest and
give up on it as happened earlier in the century.

If CF does eventually prove itself then the scientific community will
be judged on how it helped or hindered commercial development of a
technology that history might conclude should have been available
at the start of this century, not next.

dave






cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudendrd851 cudfnDavid cudlnDavies cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.12 / Paul Koloc /  PLASMAK(tm) Magnetoplasmoid gif
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: PLASMAK(tm) Magnetoplasmoid gif
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 1994 03:59:32 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

This is a GIF format .. not tiff as first mentioned in a post.  
Follows sig.  
Just cut in the usual places.. 
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc,Bx 1037, Prometheus II, Ltd., College Park, MD 20741-1037 |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

begin 666 pmkfig.gif
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I^9RO>:#_>:(?>J.W1IXO>J4_>J;7>:%?>JAO>JF/>J[E=ZL?UX   #OO
 
end
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.12 / Paul Koloc /  Re: The Myth of "The Decisive Experiment"
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The Myth of "The Decisive Experiment"
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 1994 05:25:18 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <2v1u0k$1gj@ds8.scri.fsu.edu> jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) writes:
>In article <jaboweryCs9vAs.F21@netcom.com> 
>jabowery@netcom.com (Jim Bowery) writes:
>>In the area of fusion, there are a lot of "kooky hallucinations" running 
>>around.  The rancor and bitterness are a consequence of the fact that it 
>>is POLITICS that determines which of these "kooky hallucinations" gets 
>>funded and thereby enjoys some degree of relief from such derision, 
>>and which "kooky hallucinations" are subjected to ongoing derision.  

>This would be true if there were only one government and that government 
>controlled the economy.  But there is not, and thus we see a variety 
>of fusion approaches funded in a variety of ways.  In particular, and 
>of relevance here, P&F are operating a very well-funded lab in France. 

That's a bit thin James.  Let's look at this thing from Alpha Centuri.  
The ratio of the sum of or any one of the ?OTHER? "funded" approaches 
and the tokamak is a decimal percentage.   You must be exponentiating 
the value of non-mainline non-gov supported concepts.  The vast
escalating and disproportionate sums being spent on a certain decades 
old concept may be the ultimate salvation of the fusion program. 
Afterall, If it bankrupts a country or two, it will be more likely 
cancelled.  It's a dumb way to stop a problem program, but we're too
dumb to do anything else ....  so far.   
 
So the dollar or fusion?? 
>-- 
> James A. Carr   <jac@scri.fsu.edu>     |   "It's never confusing though, 
>      http://www.scri.fsu.edu           |  because ultimately it all fits 
> Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst.  |  -- it's just cockeyed and fits  
> Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306    |  and is fire."  -  Norman Maclean 

cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.12 / Richard Schultz /  Re: Not crying wolf
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Not crying wolf
Date: 12 Jul 1994 12:57:29 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley

In article <940711151652_72240.1256_EHB124-2@compuserve.com>,
Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> wrote:

>The units are robust, well engineered, and wonderfully simple to maintain. The
>engineering is certified by the A.S.M.E. The units are smaller than
>conventional electric heaters and safer than gas or oil heaters, they do not
>require a fire wall, they will reduce your fire insurance bill.

(1) How can something that works by electrolyzing water not be a fire hazard?
(Hint:  think Hindenburg).

(2) Do you have one in *your* house?

					Richard Schultz
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.12 / Richard Schultz /  Re: Wherefore art thou 20kW CF heater?  --  hark!
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Wherefore art thou 20kW CF heater?  --  hark!
Date: 12 Jul 1994 12:59:57 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley

In article <CssyJ9.HL@world.std.com>,
mitchell swartz <mica@world.std.com> wrote:
>  In Message-ID: <4i7LtPy0hXth81elRu@andrew.cmu.edu>
>Subject: Re: Wherefore art thou 20kW CF heater?
>Phil Andrews <pa0q+@andrew.cmu.edu>  writes:
>
>> and the tragic waste of young lives  because of the posturing of
>> elders is a common thread. Take that As You Like It.
>
>    "Patch a quarrel"  
>     William Shakespeare 
>     Anthony and Cleopatra 1606, II, ii

"If he says your behavior is heinous,
Kick him right in the Coriolanus!"

(Adapted from Cole Porter, "Kiss Me, Kate")
(And that goes for Jed Rothwell too)

				        Richard Schultz
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.13 / Richard Blue /  Comment on Hagelstein in Cold Fusion
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Comment on Hagelstein in Cold Fusion
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 1994 00:30:56 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Comments on the article "A plethora of 'miracles'" by Peter L
Hagelstein PhD., Cold Fusion Vol. 1, No. 3 page 22.

This article which is spread over 12 pages is predominantly the
usual carping about the scientific communities's lack of interest
in cold fusion and what Prof. Hagelstein has to say on the subject.
There is also ample evidence that the Editor is more interested in
filling pages than he is in encouraging concise writing.  There
are, for example, several places where the author repeats himself
almost word for word as well as the bit of "satire" that fills most
of a page in the beginning.  I would venture to say that anytime
the Editor feels that it is necessary to insert two notes to inform
the reader that this portion of the text is indeed satire the
author has not really succeeded in satisfying the stated objective.
In fact, in the absence of the warning notes, I would have taken
this introduction to be a fairly accurate description of the state
of cold fusion research, and the picture presented is not that of
healthy science.

Now on the substance of Prof. Hagelstein's presentation, what there
is of it.  There is a good deal of history, philosophy, and
personal confession before we come to the first significant
scientific assertion relating to the theory to be presented.
The key statement is, "The only way to get around the problem of
the Coulomb barrier, assuming optimistically that any way actually
exits, is to work with reactions involving a charge-neutral
system."  I believe that all CF advocates should read an make
note of the fact the Peter Hagelstein in this article is stating
that he has examined at length all possible mechanisms for bringing
about a fusion reaction between two deuterons and has found no way
to achieve such a reaction.  In the narrow sense of the words, he
is declaring cold fusion dead!  The theory presented involves
neutron transfer reactions, not fusion.

Is the idea of neutron transfer between two nuclei something newly
discovered by Prof. Hagelstein?  I should say not.  Precisely the
kind of "resonant" transfers he is describing have been studied for
years.  Anytime you get two nuclei close enough together there is
a possibility for the transfer of a neutron from one nucleus to the
other.  The rub is, as always, that requirement for getting close.
All nuclei are positively charged and there is an energy price to
be paid for getting close.  The Coulomb barrier that frustrated
PH's efforts to find a fusion mechanism hasn't really left the
scene entirely.  It's on the eleventh page that we finally learn
specifically how this new theory for neutron transfer is to have
a new twist.  The idea is to pick two isotopes of the same element
that differ by one in neutron number.  It is that excess neutron
that is to move such that the source nucleus and receiver nucleus
exchange identities.  For example, 29Si donates a neutron to
28Si making it the 29Si and leaving the donor as 28Si.

Now there is a bit of discussion on other requirements involving
angular momentum and the need to invoke something like the Bragg
scattering of neutrons, but I will admit that I am so stumped
by one simple feature of the proposed process that I can't get
beyond this one question.  Perhaps others who have read the article
can pitch in to help me out.  As Lt. Columbo says there is this
one little question that is keeping me up nights.  My problem is
the following:  If I start with nuclei A and B and I end with
nuclei B and A what has occurred that can account for an energy
release?

Did I just read too much into the use of Si isotopes as an example
for the type of reaction being considered?  I don't think so
because there in black and white are the words: "Silicon would be
the most promising, which is convenient, since there is quite a bit
of silicon."  I think it may come as a real shock to those who have
be struggling with PdD electrochemistry to learn that their
favorite theorist thinks the reaction involves some impurity.
In fact I find nothing to indicate how deuterium, palladium,
helium, or any of the supposed reaction products that have ever
been observed can be explained by transferring neutrons between
two impurity atoms.  It is, of course, an ideal domain for
theoretical investigations because there is no observable outcome
for the process.  If nothing seems to be happening, Prof.
Hagelstein can still smile and say, "See, I told you so."

Well, if someone can tell we what is so neat about moving a neutron
from 29Si to 28Si  I'll try to sort out the rest of this theory.
Meanwhile I plan to see what Ed Storms has to say for cold fusion.

Dick Blue







cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.12 / John Logajan /  Re: Not crying wolf
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Not crying wolf
Date: 12 Jul 1994 15:44:00 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Online Services Member.

Richard Schultz (schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu) wrote:
: >safer than gas or oil heaters, they do not
: >require a fire wall, they will reduce your fire insurance bill.

: (1) How can something that works by electrolyzing water not be a fire hazard?
: (Hint:  think Hindenburg).

Jed is refering to the Griggs device which consists of a motor driven rotor.
The rotor spins in a chamber filled with water.  It is alleged that this
causes ultrasonic cavitation within the water, thus producing some form of
anomalous heat.  There is no electrolysis involved, and hence no fire
hazard.

I believe also that the system is not compressed (I should go back and
re-read the article though) and hence there is no compressed steam which
would have its own hazards.

The obvious question is how it produces anomalous heat.  Since Jed claims
multiple independent measuring instruments indicate excess heat, we need
to assure ourselves that the measuring instruments are not all suffering
from some common syndrome under unique and unusual operating conditions.

The thermal magnitude and capacity measurements made by Jed are pretty
straightfoward, so it would seem that the area to focus one's attention
on would be the electrical power input -- which involves three phase
AC current into a high-horsepower electrical motor driving a rotor subject
to cavitation resonances.

--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com -- 612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills  MN 55112 USA           -

cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.12 / John Logajan /  Re: PLASMAK(tm) Magnetoplasmoid gif
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: PLASMAK(tm) Magnetoplasmoid gif
Date: 12 Jul 1994 16:15:26 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Online Services Member.

Paul M. Koloc (pmk@prometheus.UUCP) wrote:
: This is a GIF format

Great!  I got the GIF image here just fine.  It is a nice color graphic.
It is good to see that someone is using the power of graphical presentation
that is exchangable via this forum.  I personally have had trouble visualizing
Paul's textual descriptions in the past (can't even find "polodial" in the
dictionary :-).

I highly recommend using graphical representations when the geometry of
the item diverges from the experience base of the average interested reader.

--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com -- 612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills  MN 55112 USA           -


cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.12 / Arnie Frisch /  Re: Not crying wolf
     
Originally-From: arnief@wu.labs.tek.com (Arnie Frisch)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Not crying wolf
Date: 12 Jul 1994 09:34:50 -0700
Organization: Tektronix Laboratories, Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton, OR

In article <2vudo0$8pt@stratus.skypoint.com> jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) writes:
.......
.....
...

>The thermal magnitude and capacity measurements made by Jed are pretty
>straightfoward, so it would seem that the area to focus one's attention
>on would be the electrical power input -- which involves three phase
>AC current into a high-horsepower electrical motor driving a rotor subject
>to cavitation resonances.


You know, of course, that it is possible to wire a wattmeter so that it
reads backwards.  In a three phase wattmeter you could wire two phases
correctly and one phase incorrectly.  The result would be a reading of
33.33% of the true power.  Hmmmm!

Arnold Frisch
Tektronix Laboratories
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenarnief cudfnArnie cudlnFrisch cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.12 / Arthur TK /  Re: A "ball lightning" MHD Equilibrium
     
Originally-From: awc@ipp-garching.mpg.de (Arthur      Carlson        TK  )
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A "ball lightning" MHD Equilibrium
Date: 12 Jul 1994 18:45:28 +0200
Organization: Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics


Paul Koloc thinks he can play ball with the big boys (James Watt, Eli
Whitney, Thomas Edison).  Maybe I should leave him alone in his
fantasy, but he bugs me, so I'm going to do him the disservice of
taking his proposal seriously.

If you want to play the game, you first step up to the plate and take
a swing at inventing a fusion-relevant plasma CONFIGURATION, Koloc
calls his a plasmak.  A plasmak is ...? That's his first problem: he
never tells us exactly what a plasmak is.  He has taken a first step by
trying to answer Bruce Scott's questions.  The man seems to be
incapable of writing an equation, but he says he has friends that
can.  In lieu of the hopefully forthcoming mathematical formulation,
I'll try to help him out with a concise description as I have pieced
it together:

     A plasmak is an axisymmetric, prolate compact toroid with
     comparable toroidal and poloidal fields, where the fields go
     (discontinuously) to zero when crossing the separatrix.

I think we have also established that there are dimples at the poles.
This leaves open the important question of the pressure profile (Koloc
wants a vacuum region at mid-value flux surfaces) and various
microphysics questions (He would like some very special velocity
distribution functions), but it's a start.  We'll be charitable and
let him walk to first base with this description.

That's where we talk about EQUILIBRIUM.  Hmmm.  How can you verify the
equilibrium of a configuration that has not been defined? I showed
that a truncated spheromak is not an equilibrium, and Koloc, in a
long-winded and nearly opaque way, agreed with me, although I don't
think he realized it.  I offered Lortz's equilibrium as an alternative
basis for discussion, but Koloc seems to insist on surface currents.
But let's again be charitable and assume that there could be an
equilibrium which vaguely resembles what Koloc is thinking of.

This is where the discussion of the virial theorem belongs.  (Other
than Gauss's theorem, there is nothing in plasma physics commonly
called "the divergence theorem".) Given any equilibrium, even a
hypothetical one, we know that the sum of the plasma (thermal plus
directed) energy and half the field (electric plus magnetic) energy
within a volume equals a particular integral over the surface of the
volume, which, in the case of a plasmoid confined by a gas, reduces to
the energy the gas would have if it occupied the same volume.  That
means a plasma plus fields confined by 1 atm of pressure will have to
have less than 1 atm of pressure itself, since the fields make a
positive contribution to the sum.  This analysis assumes that the
plasma and gas can be described adequately by a distribution function
f(r,v) (as in the Boltzmann equation).  It cannot be applied to solids
(like magnet coils) or liquids because they have additional ordering
which is important.  Otherwise, it makes no assumptions about the
existence of sources and sinks or the topology of the volume
considered.  The virial theorem tells us that no matter how Koloc
twists and turns, his configuration will *never* be able to support a
plasma pressure greater than the gas pressure outside.  (This is also
stated explicitly in the Institute for Fusion Studies Report 474 cited
by John Cobb.) It is true that the magnetic pressure on the axis can
be much higher than on the periphery, but, as Koloc went to great
lengths to explain, apparently without himself understanding what he
was saying, this cannot be used to confine plasma pressure because of
the leaky ends.  It is interesting to apply the virial theorem to a
hypothetical ball lightning equilibrium.  The maximum stored energy
density, which occurs for a configuration with negligible plasma
pressure, is 4 atm = 4*10^5 J/m^3 = 0.4 J/cm^3.  This is well below the
more dramatic estimates (up to 10^5) reported by Roth (referencing
Barry).

But let's not get hung up there.  Let's assume there is some kind of
equilibrium, grab Koloc under the arm, and help him limp to second
base.  That's the place to discuss the second derivative of the
equation of motion, in short, STABILITY.  Now we are faced with the
problem of discussing the second derivative of a function whose first
derivative has not yet been shown to vanish because we haven't even
defined the function.  That's a challenge.  Koloc repeatedly shouts
"closly fitting conducting shell", without noticing that the results of
a stability analysis depend decisively on whether the boundary is
fixed or moveable.

But we'll assume, for the sake of argument and without an iota of
proof, that this plasmak is or can be made sufficiently stable.  We'll
put Koloc on a stretcher and carry him to third base, just so he's
been there and knows what it looks like.  That's the domain of
TRANSPORT.  This is where the going gets tough.  Tokamaks have managed
to slide in to third by operating ever bigger machines until now they
can extrapolate the factor of few to several (depending on which
parameters you look at) to a burning plasma.  The fundamental
transport processes are nevertheless not understood so the results
cannot be translated to other configurations.  This means that each
concept has to do it's own homework to establish transport properties
for reactor-relevant devices.  Until a large device has been built,
operated, and diagnosed, it is impossible to do more than guess at the
transport.  A plasmak has not even been *defined*, much less produced
and diagnosed at reactor parameters.  (And I don't care what may exist
in Koloc's garage/imagination--if it hasn't been published (not even
on the Internet!), for the world, it simply does not exist.)  Koloc
will have to face two big problems.  One is energy transport.  Since
the beginning of research on tokamaks, the origin and scaling of cross
field transport has proved to be one of the most stubborn problems.
And now that parallel transport and the transition to a neutral gas
has become a crucial question for divertor physics, we see that this
problem is every bit as difficult.  The plasmak won't have it any
easier.  The second issue is electrical conductivity.  This is one of
the few areas of tokamak physics which is fairly well understood,
whether it is dominated by thermal or by fast electrons.  This is
where Koloc thinks he can steal a base by hypothesizing a
"sooper-dooper-conductivity" which has no basis in theory and has
never been observed.

I'm afraid Koloc's condition prohibits his transport to home plate.
This is a long and difficult journey filled with questions of
formation physics, heating and current drive efficiencies, ash
removal, and the orbital losses of fusion products.  *After* reaching
home plate is the time for the plasma physicists to turn the
configuration over to the engineers.  And only *after* the engineers
are finished can you try to commercialize the technology.  And that is
a process that will take many years.  What was Koloc's slogan?
      ***** Commercial ANTI-GRAVITY by Christmas! *****


Don't get me wrong.  I'm fascinated by the idea of a fluid confined
fusion plasma.  It should be pursued and I hope to be able to work on
the idea myself.  That's why I plead for serious plasma physics to be
done.



Art Carlson
Max-Planck Institute for Plasma Physics
Garching, Germany
carlson@ipp-garching.mpg.de
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenawc cudfnArthur cudlnTK cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.12 / John Logajan /  Re: Not crying wolf
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Not crying wolf
Date: 12 Jul 1994 19:25:04 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Online Services Member.

Arnie Frisch (arnief@wu.labs.tek.com) wrote:
: You know, of course, that it is possible to wire a wattmeter so that it
: reads backwards.  In a three phase wattmeter you could wire two phases
: correctly and one phase incorrectly.  The result would be a reading of
: 33.33% of the true power.  Hmmmm!

This is ruled out by "null" readings in which the power meter worked as
it should and all energy was neatly accounted for.  Apparently the Griggs
machine must be tuned into a narrow range of operating parameters before
the anomaly kicks in.  This anomalous operation is audibly evident as
well as indicated by the power meter reading dropping off substantially
at the same instant.

If the power meters (note the plural) are being fooled, it is by some
attribute of the cavitation resonance of the rotor/water interface
effecting the motor/powerlines.

I believe this is one case where a simple obvious solution is unlikely,
whatever the ultimate explanation.

--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com -- 612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills  MN 55112 USA           -

cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.12 / Bruce Dunn /  Re: Not crying wolf
     
Originally-From: Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Dunn)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Not crying wolf
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 94 16:12:39 -0700 (PDT)
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada

In article <2vudo0$8pt@stratus.skypoint.com>, jlogajan@skypoint.com (John
Logajan) writes:

> Jed is refering to the Griggs device which consists of a motor driven
> rotor.
> The rotor spins in a chamber filled with water.  It is alleged that this
> causes ultrasonic cavitation within the water, thus producing some form
> of
> anomalous heat.  There is no electrolysis involved, and hence no fire
hazard.

This sounds like a home "funace" that some people tried to sell a few years
ago.  I encountered the device at a home show, where they wanted something
like $10,000 for it.  It used a 5 HP electrical pump to force water through
a narrow bore pipe formed into a heating coil, with the coil acting via
friction to convert mechanical energy into heat.  The claim was that the
device put out more heat than the electrical input would indicate (and more
heat than would have been produced by running the same power through $100
worth of resistive baseboard heathers).  The device was claimed not to be a
heat pump (and in fact could not have been as it had nowhere to pump heat
from).  The claims were backed up only by some hand waving and vague
statements that "It really works, and scientists don't know why".  They
were thrown out of the home show the next day when it was discovered that
they were offering for sale a device which had never received an electrical
safety inspection from appropriate authorities.



--
Bruce Dunn    Vancouver, Canada   Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenBruce_Dunn cudfnBruce cudlnDunn cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.12 / Arnie Frisch /  Re: Not crying wolf
     
Originally-From: arnief@wu.labs.tek.com (Arnie Frisch)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Not crying wolf
Date: 12 Jul 1994 16:41:44 -0700
Organization: Tektronix Laboratories, Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton, OR

In article <2vuqmg$cn1@stratus.skypoint.com> jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) writes:
.........
....
..
>If the power meters (note the plural) are being fooled, it is by some
>attribute of the cavitation resonance of the rotor/water interface
>effecting the motor/powerlines.

Are the power meters mechanically coupled to the cavitation
resonance - even ever so slightly?

I ask this question because there are documented cases of
substantial errors caused by the nonlinearity of mechanical metering
devices being excited by the device they were attempting to measure.

This is, for example, why a scale may not properly integrate the
weight of a vibrating mass.

Arnold Frisch
Tektronix Laboratories
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenarnief cudfnArnie cudlnFrisch cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Wed Jul 13 04:37:06 EDT 1994
------------------------------
1994.07.14 / Eugene Mallove /  Hot Fusion Funding - Science
     
Originally-From: 76570.2270@compuserve.com (Eugene Mallove)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Hot Fusion Funding - Science
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 1994 00:31:42 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

A brief note in Science magazine, 1 July 1994, page 19 nicely illustrates the 
charade of hot fusion funding, in particular, and Washington politics in 
general. Presumably even some hot fusioneers are put off by this Congressional
lunacy, or perhaps they don't give a damn. As long as they keep getting their 
vast millions from the taxpayers they are conning, that's all that's important
to them. If they survive another year, they can always stage another media 
romp like last December's -- on the road to ETERNAL FUNDING.  Here's the text 
of the Science article:


POLITICAL BATTLE COULD CLAIM FUSION REACTOR

Hell hath no fury like a Senator scorned, and Bennett Johnston (D-LA)--the 
powerful chair of the Senate energy appropriations subcommittee--is a prime 
example. Last year, after the Administration gave lukewarm support to the 
Superconducting Supercollider and allowed Congress to kill it, Johnston vowed 
to prevent the same fate for the International Thermonuclear Experimental 
Reactor (ITER), a planned multi-billion-dollar international fusion project. 
So he took a hostage: the Tokamak Physics Experiment (TPX), the next big 
fusion project at the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory. Until the President
publicly pledged to support ITER, Johnston said, he would block TPX 
construction.

Last week's markup of the Senate energy appropriations bill was Johnston's 
deadline for the President to respond, but the best the White House could do 
was circulate a letter affirming its "commitment to a strong, balanced program
for...fusion energy."  That wasn't good enough for Johnston, who, true to his 
word, deleted all but $2 million of the $67 million TPX construction request. 
However, he did agree to give Princeton $28 million to keep TPX designers 
working and $75 million to operate its record-setting Tokamak Fusion Test 
Reactor for another year.

Meanwhile, the House appropriations bill fully funds TPX this year. Now the 
Senate and House must meet in conference in mid-july to hammer out their 
differences. Warns a Johnston staffer: The Senator "is likely to maintain [the
TPX cut] in conference." Princeton officials declined to reveal plans should 
the cuts stick.

-----END of TEXT _____

Question: Does anybody know what that residual $2 million was to be for? Was 
that for the left big toe of the TPX construction money "hostage"?


Gene Mallove


cudkeys:
cuddy14 cuden2270 cudfnEugene cudlnMallove cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.14 / Bill Page /  Re: What does delocalized mean?
     
Originally-From: 70047.3047@compuserve.com (Bill Page)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What does delocalized mean?
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 1994 00:31:56 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Yes, indeed, it is time to address the question of what is delocalization more
clearly.

Chuck Sites writes:
<<
... take a step back and look at the simple electron in transition from orbit
n=1 -> 2. How is it such a system is quantisized?  Fundamentally it goes down to
the dual particle-wave nature of the interaction between the photon and the
electron. During the interaction, you can not find the electron physically
between orbits. Thats because the transition envolves the the assimilation of
energy by the electron's probability distribution across the orbit, and the
energy of the photon and the electron become indistiguishable until the
"probability pressure" defines the state of the electron.  Now consider a photon
interaction with a covalent bond. You have a similar picture. Now consider an
electron band state in metals. Again, a similar picture. Bill Page has a better
description of this than I do, in his postings on David Bohm's interpretation of
QM. 
>>

Well, I don't know whether *I* have a better description of this or not.  But
what Chuck says above does not fit with Bohm & Hiley's interpretation.  In Bohm
and Hiley's interpretation ***there is no such thing as delocalization***.
Particles are clasical particles.  They always have exact position and momentum.
In direct contrast to what Chuck states, Bohm and Hiley claim that you *can* say
exactly what an electron does and where it goes during transition between one
eigen-state and another.  In fact in their book they give an explicit treatment
of exactly this situation and they consider covalent bonds as well as
superfluidity/ superconductivity.  Bohm & Hiley see the transition as a
bifurication due to the non-linear equations of motion that follow from their
theory, exactly in the sense encountered in the study of non-linear chaotic
systems. Where a specific electron ends up, depends critically on its initial
position. "Quantization" is due to the presence of the bifurication.

There is no "assimilation of energy by the electron's probability distribution".
What could this possibly mean anyway?

And on the subject of de-locatization Dick Blue writes:
<<
David Davies raises the question with, "I'm not sure what a delocalized atom
means really."  Hey, join the crowd!  I have been trying to wring a complete
statement as to what that means in the context of a composite particle such as
4He out of someone, anyone who proposes that delocalization leads to fusion and
a restriction of the reaction path.  At least Scott Chubb makes it clear that
only part of the wave function gets delocalized in his theory, although I think
even he may forget that from time to time. ... I don't see that diddling around
with the coordinates of the center of mass for that 4He by delocalizing in the
same sense that a lattice electron is delocalized has much to do with energy
release or reaction pathways.
>>

Whoa, Dick. The proper (mis-)statement has to do with delocalized electrons
(particles) not wavefunctions.  Wavefunctions are "delocalized" by definition.
That is, they are complex continous functions of the spatial coordinates and
time - like a classical field.  I don't know what you mean when you say "Scott
Chubb makes it clear that only part of the wave function gets delocalized in his
theory". This damn word "delocalized" is the source of so much confusion that I
propose that we henceforth ban its use on sci.physics.fusion!

Back to Bohm & Hiley, again... They never speak of anything be delocalized but
they do clearly show that their interpretation leads to *non-local* interactions
between particles.  They mean non-local in exactly the sense of Bell's theorem
and the EPR paradox. The position of two suitably prepared electrons can affect
each other's motion (usually in only very subtle ways) no matter how far apart
they are. In spite of this instantaneous, non-local connection, Bohm & Hiley (as
well as Bell and others) have shown that faster than light communication is not
possible and that relativity stills holds (except in a very subtle way).

Non-local interactions arise because the wavefunction and Schrodinger's equation
are defined over the 3n *configuration space* of the coordinates of n particles.
But the guidance conditions for each particle separately depend on the curvature
of the whole wavefunction.  It is this non-local behaviour which has been
confused with the idea of a particle having no location (non sequitor), i.e. be
"delocalized".

Dick:
<<
As far as Dave's "what could happen if...." question, it's pretty obvious that
if you remove the dominant term from the Hamiltonian you have a different
problem.  You can do that sort of thing on paper, but I doubt that you can do it
in reality and therein lies the rub.  Sticking a nucleus into an atomic lattice
does not alter the dominant term in the Hamiltonian.
>>

One of the things that I have been trying to get across with my postings on
Bohm's interpretation (but may not be so clear yet) is that in almost all
quantum mechanical systems, the quantum potential is dominant. In Bohm's
interpretation, where all particle obey essentially classical equations of
motion, this is meant when we refer to a system as being a quantum mechanical
system as opposed to any other kind of system.  Far from being analogous to a
"breeze affecting an explosion" (which is a metaphor which has been used by some
people here), in fact Bohm's interpretation implies that in the detailed
movements of individual particles, the quantum potential is able to call apon
truly enormous energies.  But, of course, in only very subtle and clearly
specified ways that give rise in the large scale to the conservation laws and
the probablistic interpretation quantum mechanics that we know today.

So far as I am able to tell, there is plenty of room in Bohm's interpretation to
work the kind of "magic" that Chubb & Chubb's theory requires. It is clear,
however, that the conditions underwhich this may happen will be subtle - much in
the way that superconductivity is subtle.

So, I think it is quite possible that "sticking a nucleus into an atomic
lattice" might well be enough to alter the detailed motions of the particles in
such a way as to permit fusion and to hide the normal energetic by products. But
I am still working on the calculations...

[The fact that I have used the word "subtle" so many times in the above text
disturbs me.  I have to admit that although I am gradually getting a deeper
understanding as I complete more of the computations (with the help of Maple),
the reader should feel free to treat the word "subtle" in most cases above as a
euphemism implying that I am not yet able to explain something clearly and
intuitively. None the less I have made the statements above because I do believe
that others have reached defendable conclusions to this effect and that I will
eventually understand the arguments that they make.]

[I am also worried that what I am saying will sound like shallow hand waving and
that most people will read these words applying the same grain of salt that I
personally use for some other strangely named posters to this group.  The
technical jargon and the mathematics *are* difficult.  Most people develop a
block that is invoked just by saying the name Schrodinger's.  This is a pity
because quantum mechanics has got to be one of this century's most truly
beautiful and deep intellectual achievements. In my opinion, attempts at
teaching quantum mechanics have, unfortunately, also been one of the worst
failures!]

David Davies writes:
<<
I have no problem with the general idea of delocalization but dont think you can
call it a delocalized _atom_. The electron is too loosely coupled to the nucleus
to maintain a close coupling under deloc. I have come across several references
to delocalized _atoms_ and assumed that this was just loose talk. More
interesting is the question of how the individual nucleons in D+ behave under
deloc. I think they will probably keep together even when smeared out. I am
actually assuming that they are smeared out and not just talking about the
probability of finding a particle. 
>>

Before we can make any sense out of statements like those of David's above, it
is necessary to state what delocalization means.  None of the above statement is
clear to me.  I think there are clear cases of confusion on this issue even in
the professionally published literature.

David Davies continues:
<<
There is no such thing as a particle. It's a bad word to use because people
inevitably assume little billiard balls. Sure they are highly localized -
particularly if caged in an array of electron shells but take away _all_ the
bound electrons and line them up in a lattice and it would seem that they spread
out quite readily. 
>>

And here I was proposing to ban the use of the word delocalized when David wants
to ban particle! Well, I guess there is still a lot of work to do. <sigh>
Especially appropriate to this subject, David Cyganski and I have been preparing
and will very shortly post a continuation of my series on Bohm & Hiley's
interpretation of quantum mechanics.  This posting will deal specificly with the
wave packet versus particle issue.

Cheers,

Bill Page.

cudkeys:
cuddy14 cuden3047 cudfnBill cudlnPage cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.14 / Bill Page /  Bohm's Interpretation using Maple Mathematics (Part 2d)
     
Originally-From: 70047.3047@compuserve.com (Bill Page)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Bohm's Interpretation using Maple Mathematics (Part 2d)
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 1994 00:32:07 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

# Bohm's Interpretation of Quantum Mechanic using Maple Mathematics
> 
# Part 2d 
> 
# 15. The Gaussian wave packet and particle system.
> 
# Bohm and Hiley discuss the behavior of a particle inside of a 
# Gaussian wavepacket, a discussion that could not take place within 
# the context of the ordinary interpretation of quantum mechanics.  
# We will develop here the equations that appear in the text as well 
# as others that describe this situation and explore the behavior of 
# the particle in the new interpretation. Furthermore we will offer a 
# further extension of the interpretation that we believe more 
# completely describes the relationship between the wave, the 
# particle and the observer.
> 
# First, we need to establish some basic definitions.  These are  
# similar to those we used in Part 1.
> 
> restart;
> 
# In this worksheet we will use the built-in conjugate function 
# instead of the following:
# 
# unprotect(conjugate);
# conjugate:=expr->eval(subs(I=-I,expr));
> 
> alias(I=I,i=sqrt(-1));  # Use i for complex numbers
> 


                                 i



# 
# The following variables must be assumed to be real (and positve 
# where appropriate)
> 
> read(`notilde2.txt`); # This routine removes the ~
> assume(h>0);
> constants:=constants,h;
> assume(t,real);
> assume(x,real);
> assume(Delta_x>0);
> assume(Delta_p>0);
> assume(m>0);
> assume(k,real);
> 

 constants := false, gamma, infinity, true, Catalan, E, FAIL, Pi, h

# 
# For the wavefunciton Psi(x,t), the one dimensional position and 
# momentum operators are defined as
> 
> X:=_->x*_; P:=_->i*h*diff(_,x);

                           X := _ -> x _

                                     /  d   \
                       P := _ -> i h |---- _|
                                     \ dx   /

> 
# 16. Evolution of the Gaussian wave packet.
> 
# Bohm and Hiley introduce the Gaussian wave packet as an example of 
# a Quantum system in a non-stationary state, that is, having a 
# quantum potential that changes with time.  Such a packet is a 
# linear combination of stationary state functions, such as an 
# integral combination of complex exponential wave functions. Such 
# packets arise in the usual discussions of  QM as soon as we wish to 
# describe  the location of a particle to within a given probability 
# distribution. We find immediately that non-classical behavior is 
# asserted in so much as our uncertainty with respect to the 
# particle's position generates a reciprocal uncertainty with respect 
# to its momentum.  Thus we cannot specify a location distribution 
# without regard to a momentum distribution that fulfills the 
# Heisenberg uncertainty principle.  
> 
# Furthermore, usual treatments show that if we solve for that 
# distribution that minimizes the uncertainty product 
# Delta_x*Delta_p, the product of the location and momentum standard 
# deviations, then the solution is a Gaussian wave packet with 
# initial probability distribution given by:


> 
> Prob:=x->1/2*2^(1/2)*exp(-1/2*x^2/Delta_x^2)/Pi^(1/2)/Delta_x;

                                                 2
                               1/2              x
                              2    exp(- 1/2 --------)
                                                    2
                                             Delta_x
             Prob := x -> 1/2 ------------------------
                                      1/2
                                    Pi    Delta_x

> 
# We will briefly sketch this derivation here in a fashion that uses 
# Maple as little more than a scientific word processor, owing to the 
# complexity of some of the symbolic manipulations that would be 
# required otherwise.  Following this derivation, we will generate 
# another less intutive but complete derivation using Maple's 
# capabilities fully.  This second course is that taken in fact by 
# the Bohm and Hiley book.
> 
# Given a wave function Psi that desribes a  particle with zero mean 
# location and zero mean momentum, we can express the mean square 
# location uncertainty by

> 
> 'Delta_x^2=Int(Conjugate(Psi(x,t))*(X@@2)(Psi(x,t)),
> x=-infinity..infinity)';


                 infinity
                    /
          2        |                            (2)
   Delta_x  =      |      Conjugate(Psi(x, t)) X   (Psi(x, t)) dx
                   |
                  /
              - infinity

> `16.1`:=Delta_x^2='Int(Conjugate('X(Psi(x,t))')*'X(Psi(x,t))',
> x=-infinity..infinity)';
> 

16.1 :=

               infinity
                  /
        2        |
 Delta_x  =      |      Conjugate('X(Psi(x, t))') 'X(Psi(x, t))' dx
                 |
                /
            - infinity

> 
# And likewise the momentum uncertainty is given by 
> 
> 'Delta_p^2=Int(Conjugate(Psi(x,t))*(P@@2)(Psi(x,t)),
> x=-infinity..infinity)';
> 

                 infinity
                    /
          2        |                            (2)
   Delta_p  =      |      Conjugate(Psi(x, t)) P   (Psi(x, t)) dx
                   |
                  /
              - infinity

> 
# which upon simplification becomes
> 
> simplify(");

          2
   Delta_p  =

               infinity
                  /                          /   2           \
          2      |                           |  d            |
       - h       |      Conjugate(Psi(x, t)) |----- Psi(x, t)| dx
                 |                           |   2           |
                /                            \ dx            /
            - infinity

> 
# This last expression can be integrated by parts in closed form by 
# using the boundary conditions that must be obeyed by all wave 
# functions
> 
> Psi(infinity,t)=0; Psi(-infinity,t)=0; 

                        Psi(infinity, t) = 0

                       Psi(- infinity, t) = 0

> 
# resulting in the new form
# 
> 
> `16.2`:=Delta_p^2='-h^2*Int(Conjugate('diff(Psi(x,t),x)')*
> 'diff(Psi(x,t),x)',x=-infinity..infinity)';

               2
16.2 := Delta_p  =

           infinity
              /
      2      |                   d                 d
   - h       |      Conjugate('---- Psi(x, t)') '---- Psi(x, t)' dx
             |                  dx                dx
            /
        - infinity

> alias(f='diff(Psi(x,t),x)',g='X(Psi(x,t))'):

> 
# The squared uncertainty product is now of the form:
> 
> 'Delta_x^2*Delta_p^2'=subs(`16.1`,`16.2`,Delta_x^2*Delta_p^2);
> 

       2        2
Delta_x  Delta_p  =

        infinity                         infinity
           /                                /
          |                         2      |
   -      |      Conjugate(g) g dx h       |      Conjugate(f) f dx
          |                                |
         /                                /
     - infinity                       - infinity

> 
# where we have taken f and g to be
> 
> 'f'=f; 'g'=g;
> 

                               d
                         f = ---- Psi(x, t)
                              dx

                          g = x Psi(x, t)

> 
# But the uncertainty product is of  the form of one side of the well 
# known Schwarz inequality, 
> 
> schwarz:=
>  '(1/2*(Int(f*conjugate(g),x)+Int(g*conjugate(f),x)))^2
> <= Int(f*conjugate(f),x)*Int(g*conjugate(g),x)';

           /      /                           /                  \2
           |     |                           |                   |
schwarz := |1/2  |  f conjugate(g) dx + 1/2  |  g conjugate(f) dx|
           |     |                           |                   |
           \    /                           /                    /

          /                     /
         |                     |
     <=  |  f conjugate(f) dx  |  g conjugate(g) dx
         |                     |
        /                     /

> 
# which is known to take on its minimum value when
> 
> 'f(x,t)'=a(t)*'g(x,t)';
> f=a(t)*g;
> 
# 

                       f(x, t) = a(t) g(x, t)

                   d
                 ---- Psi(x, t) = a(t) x Psi(x, t)
                  dx

> 
# Hence we have a differential equation for psi(x,t). The only 
# solution to this equation has the form:
> 
> Psi(x,t)=N(t)*exp(-a(t)*x^2/2);

                                                 2
                Psi(x, t) = N(t) exp(- 1/2 a(t) x )

> 
# It so happens that with f and g as defined above, the left hand 
# side of the Schwarz inequality in this case can be evaluated in 
# closed form, yielding for any psi function:
> 
> lhs(schwarz)=h^2/4;

       /
      |  /  d           \
(1/2  |  |---- Psi(x, t)| x Psi(x, t) dx
      |  \ dx           /
     /

             /
            |                          d                          2
     + 1/2  |  x Psi(x, t) conjugate(---- Psi(x, t)) dx)^2 = 1/4 h
            |                         dx
           /

> 
# Finally, the wave function, psi, must also fulfill the Schrodinger 
# equation which dictates the allowed form of the time evolution. 
> 
# The wave function that satisfies this and also satistifies the 
# initial condition that the mean square location uncertainty at t=0 
# is given by the constant Delta_x is given by:
> 
> Psi(x,t)=1/Pi^(1/4)*m^(1/4)/(2*Delta_x^2*m+i*h*t)^(1/4)*exp(-1/2/
> (2*Delta_x^2*m+i*h*t)*m*x^2);

                                                2
                       1/4                   m x
                      m    exp(- 1/2 --------------------)
                                              2
                                     2 Delta_x  m + i h t
          Psi(x, t) = ------------------------------------
                           1/4           2           1/4
                         Pi    (2 Delta_x  m + i h t)

> 
# The important notion to be obtained from the above is that QM does 
# not allow a description of a particle as a localized distribution 
# without a reciprocal distribution of momentum. This is clearly 
# evident in that the above minimization of the uncertainty product 
# can yield no smaller value for this product than h~/2.  This 
# behavior is counter to all classical intuition.
> 

> 
# 17. Derivation of the wave packet as a superposition of stationary 
# states.
> 

# We will obtain these same expression now by following a development 
# that is chosen by many texts, including Bohm and Hiley's, so as to 
# tie these developments together.  This development emphasizes the 
# nature of the wave packet as a superposition of stationary states, 
# while somewhat obscuring the starting point above in which the 
# emphasis is on the inevibility of the uncertainty of momentum given 
# a specified location distribution. On the other hand, this 
# development generates the full time varying expression for psi(x,t) 
# in a rather simple fashion.
> 
# As is discussed in most elementary QM texts, the eigen-functions of 
# a free system (classical potential = 0) with a precisely known 
# momemtum, k, and mass m are plane waves (exp(i*k*x) of frequency 
> 
> omega:= h*k^2/(2*m);

                                         2
                                      h k
                         omega := 1/2 ----
                                        m

> 
# By weighting the momenta by a Gaussian distribution of width 
# Delta_x and  mean of  zero, we can write the solution of 
# Schrodinger's equation as the following linear combination of 
# eigen-functions
> 
> psiform:=(x,t)->c*int(
> exp(-k^2*Delta_x^2)*exp(i*k*x)*exp(-i*omega*t),
> k=-infinity..infinity);

psiform := (x,t) ->

         infinity
            /
           |             2        2
    c      |      exp(- k  Delta_x ) exp(i k x) exp(- i omega t) dk
           |
          /
      - infinity

> 
# where the normalization constant c is chosen to obtain a unit 
# probabilty (the integral of the magnitude squared psi function)  
# for any time, t. 
> 
> `17.1`:=combine(psiform(x,t),exp);

              infinity
                 /                                          2
                |             2        2               i h k  t
 17.1 := c      |      exp(- k  Delta_x  + i k x - 1/2 --------) dk
                |                                          m
               /
           - infinity

# Unfortunately, Maple doesn't see the means to analytically 
# integrate this function.
> 
# We will assist Maple in the evaluation by completing the square in 
# the exponent and changing variables so that our integral becomes 
# expressed as the well known error function (or probability 
# integral).

> 
# We complete the square on k to reveal the error function form of 
# the integral.

> 
> `17.2`:=student[completesquare](`17.1`,k);

                 infinity
                    /
                   |
    17.2 := c      |      exp(
                   |
                  /
              - infinity

                        2            /            i x m       \2
              (2 Delta_x  m + i h t) |k - --------------------|
                                     |             2          |
                                     \    2 Delta_x  m + i h t/
        - 1/2 --------------------------------------------------
                                       m

                          2
                       m x
         - 1/2 --------------------) dk
                        2
               2 Delta_x  m + i h t

> 
# Now lets define the variable alpha so as to simplify the form of 
# the equation

> 
> `17.3`:=2*Delta_x^2*m+i*h*t=alpha;

                                 2
                17.3 := 2 Delta_x  m + i h t = alpha

> `17.4`:=subs(`17.3`,`17.2`);

              infinity                 /    i x m\2
                 /               alpha |k - -----|            2
                |                      \    alpha/         m x
 17.4 := c      |      exp(- 1/2 ------------------ - 1/2 -----) dk
                |                         m               alpha
               /
           - infinity

> 
# Now despite having this familiar form, Maple will still not 
# integrate this function as stated because the convergence of this 
# integral depends upon the argument (angle with respect to the real 
# axis in the complex plane of the complex constant alpha).  
# Specifically, for a purely imaginary alpha, this integral does not 
# exist. We, however can still proceed as we have additional 
# information regarding the nature of alpha, that is, that alpha 
# always has a non-zero real component (as seen above in its 
# definition.) In any case, we can simplify the mathematics by making 
# the following assertion
> 
> signum(alpha):=1;

                         signum(alpha) := 1

# 
# and obtain
> 
> psiforms:=simplify(eval(`17.4`));

                                       2
                                    m x    1/2  1/2   1/2
                       c exp(- 1/2 -----) 2    m    Pi
                                   alpha
           psiforms := ----------------------------------
                                         1/2
                                    alpha

> 
# We can now find the value of the constant c, since we must have
> 
> assume(c>0);
> `17.5`:=Int(simplify(psiforms*conjugate(psiforms)),
> x=-infinity..infinity)=1;

                                            2
                    infinity    2        m x
                       /       c  exp(- -----) m Pi
                      |                 alpha
         17.5 :=      |      2 -------------------- dx = 1
                      |                alpha
                     /
                 - infinity

> 
> croots:=solve(value(`17.5`),c);

                                        /       3/2  \1/2
                               1/2  1/2 |   m Pi     |
                      (alpha m)    2    |------------|
                                        |         1/2|
                                        \(alpha m)   /
        croots := 1/2 -----------------------------------,
                                        3/2
                                    m Pi

                                    /       3/2  \1/2
                           1/2  1/2 |   m Pi     |
                  (alpha m)    2    |------------|
                                    |         1/2|
                                    \(alpha m)   /
            - 1/2 -----------------------------------
                                    3/2
                                m Pi

> 
# Selecting the positive root we obtain
> 
> c:=croots[1];

                                       /       3/2  \1/2
                              1/2  1/2 |   m Pi     |
                     (alpha m)    2    |------------|
                                       |         1/2|
                                       \(alpha m)   /
            c := 1/2 -----------------------------------
                                       3/2
                                   m Pi

> 
# Thus, re-substituting for alpha and the value of c we just found 
# into the unnormalized express for psi we obtain, the explicit 
# expression for psi which is an expression that matches that which 
# we gave in the introduction.
> 
> psi:=subs(rhs(`17.3`)=lhs(`17.3`),simplify(psiforms));

                                             2
                    1/4                   m x
                   m    exp(- 1/2 --------------------)
                                           2
                                  2 Delta_x  m + i h t
            psi := ------------------------------------
                        1/4           2           1/4
                      Pi    (2 Delta_x  m + i h t)

> 
# Now we are in the position to express the psi function in polar 
# form. Obviously we have:
> 
> R:=simplify(sqrt(evalc(psi*conjugate(psi))));
> 
# 

                                          2  2  2
                     1/4           Delta_x  m  x
                    m    exp(- ---------------------)
                                        4  2    2  2
                               4 Delta_x  m  + h  t
               R := ---------------------------------
                       1/4           4  2    2  2 1/8
                     Pi    (4 Delta_x  m  + h  t )

> 
# Now, note that this function has the argument given by
> 
> phi:=simplify(ln(evalc(psi)/R));
> 

  phi := ln(cos(%2) cos(%1) + sin(%2) sin(%1) - i sin(%2) cos(%1)

       + i cos(%2) sin(%1))

                                      2
                               h t m x
%1 :=               1/2 ---------------------
                                 4  2    2  2
                        4 Delta_x  m  + h  t

                                      h t
%2 :=              1/4 arctan(1/2 ----------)
                                         2
                                  Delta_x  m

> 
# But the phase of the polar form of the psi function is also known 
# to be 
> 
> 'phi=i*S/h';

                                   i S
                             phi = ---
                                    h

> 
# Thus we can solve for S as
> 
> S:=simplify(solve(phi=i*'S'/h,'S'));

         S := arctan(- sin(%2) cos(%1) + cos(%2) sin(%1),

             cos(%2) cos(%1) + sin(%2) sin(%1)) h

                                      2
                               h t m x
%1 :=               1/2 ---------------------
                                 4  2    2  2
                        4 Delta_x  m  + h  t

                                      h t
%2 :=              1/4 arctan(1/2 ----------)
                                         2
                                  Delta_x  m

> 
# But from S we can obtain the velocity function for a particle at 
# postion x, since we can obtain  (where we now see why the exact 
# form of the argument of ct was not required)
> 
> v:=simplify((h/m)*diff(S,x));

                                       3
                                  x t h
                     v := ---------------------
                                   4  2    2  2
                          4 Delta_x  m  + h  t

> 
# We can visualize the behavior of the magnitude squared 
# (probability) wave function we found by setting m=1,c=1,h~=1 and 
# deltax=1 and plotting it versus time:

> 
> with(plots):

# Change the following comment to an input line to obtain character 
# plots for transmission over the net or use the following input line 
# to obtain a window plot
> 
> interface(plotdevice=char);

# interface(plotdevice=win);

# Plotting a few samples of this function we obtain
> plot(subs(Delta_x=1,h=1,m=1,t=0,R^2),x=-10..10);
> plot(subs(Delta_x=1,h=1,m=1,t=3,R^2),x=-10..10);
> plot(subs(Delta_x=1,h=1,m=1,t=6,R^2),x=-10..10);
> plot(subs(Delta_x=1,h=1,m=1,t=9,R^2),x=-10..10);

                             0.4A*A                               
                                A+A                               
                               AA+AA                              
                               A + A                              
                               A + A                              
                             0.3 + A                              
                              A  +  A                             
                              A  +  A                             
                              A  +  A                             
                              A  +  A                             
                             0.2 +   A                            
                             A   |   A                            
                             A   +   A                            
                             A   +   A                            
                            A    +    A                           
                            A    +    A                           
                            A0.1 +    A                           
                           A     +     A                          
                           A     +     A                          
                          A      +     AA                         
                        AAA      +      AAA                       
  ***********************--+--+--+--+--+--*********************** 
 -10            -5             0 0               5             10 

                             0.3A*A                               
                               AA+AA                              
                              AA + AA                             
                            0.25 +  A                             
                             A   +   A                            
                             A   +   A                            
                            A    +    A                           
                            A0.2 +    A                           
                           A     +     A                          
                           A     +     A                          
                          AA0.15 +     A                          
                          A      +      A                         
                         AA      +      AA                        
                         A       +       A                        
                        AA   0.1 +       AA                       
                        A        +        A                       
                       AA        +        AA                      
                       A    0.05 +         A                      
                      A          +          A                     
                    AA           +           AA                   
                  AAA            +            AAA                 
  ****************--+---+--+--+--+--+--+--+---+--**************** 
 -10            -5             0 0               5             10 

                               AA*AA                              
                              AA + AAA                            
                            A0.2 +   AA                           
                           AA    +    AA                          
                          AA     +     A                          
                          A      +      A                         
                         A       +       A                        
                        A   0.15 +        A                       
                       A         +         A                      
                       A         +         A                      
                      A          +          A                     
                     A           +           A                    
                    A        0.1 +            A                   
                   A             +            AA                  
                  AA             +             AA                 
                 AA              +              AA                
                AA          0.05 +               AA               
               A                 +                 A              
             AA                  +                  AA            
           AA                    +                   AAA          
       AAAA                      +                      AAAA      
  *****-+--+--+--+--+---+--+--+--+--+--+--+---+--+--+--+--+-***** 
 -10            -5             0 0               5             10 

                              AAA*AAA                             
                            0.18 +  AAA                           
                          AA     +     A                          
                         AA 0.16 +      AA                        
                        A        +        A                       
                       A         +         A                      
                     AA     0.14 +          A                     
                    AA           +           A                    
                   AA       0.12 +            AA                  
                  AA             +             AA                 
                 AA              +              AA                
                AA           0.1 +               AA               
               AA                +                AA              
              AA            0.08 +                 AA             
             AA                  +                  AA            
            A                    +                   AA           
          AA                0.06 +                     A          
         AA                      +                      AA        
        A                   0.04 +                       AA       
      AA                         +                         AA     
    AA                           +                           AA   
  **-+--+--+--+--+--+---+--+0.02-+--+--+--+---+--+--+--+--+--+-** 
 -10            -5               0               5             10 

> animate(subs(Delta_x=1,h=1,m=1,R^2),x=-20..20,t=0..12); 
Error, Character device does not support animation

> 
# We see in these plots the other non-classical behavior of a 
# particle, the spreading of its distribution with respect to time.  
# In the following we will see the ontological explanation for this 
# behavior that Bohm's work contributes.
> 

# 18. The Motion of a particle within the wave packet
# 

> 
# The motion of a particle within the wave packet can be obtained by 
# integrating the partial differential equation we obtain from the 
# relationship between the velocity function and the position 
# function to obtain a position function versus time.
> 
> M1:=dsolve(diff(x(t),t)=v,x(t));

                                   4  2    2  2 h 1/2
           M1 := x(t) = ((4 Delta_x  m  + h  t ) )    _C1

> 
# Now solve for the constant so we can express xpos in terms of 
# intial position x(0) = x0.
> 
> subs(_C1=subs({t=0,x(t)=x0},solve(M1,_C1)),M1);

                                4  2    2  2 h 1/2
                     ((4 Delta_x  m  + h  t ) )    x0
              x(t) = --------------------------------
                                      4  2 h 1/2
                           ((4 Delta_x  m ) )

> xpos:=unapply(rhs("),x0,t);

                                      4  2    2  2 h 1/2
                           ((4 Delta_x  m  + h  t ) )    x0
         xpos := (x0,t) -> --------------------------------
                                            4  2 h 1/2
                                 ((4 Delta_x  m ) )

> 
# And check the solution
> 
> testeq(simplify(diff(xpos(x0,t),t)-subs(x=xpos(x0,t),v))=0);
> 

                                true

> 
# Now we can plot the postion of an ensemble of particles distributed 
# between -5 and 5 with respect to time.
> 
> plot({evalf(subs(Delta_x=1,m=1,h=1,xpos(x,t)))$x=-5..5},t=0..20);

  +                                                           CCC 
  +                                                     CCCCCC    
40+                                              CCCCCCC      BBB 
  +                                        CCCCCCC    BBBBBBBB    
  +                                   CCCCCC   BBBBBBB        AAA 
  +                            CCCCCCC BBBBBBBB     AAAAAAAAAA    
20+                      CCCCCC*BBBBBBB   AAAAAAAAAA          HHH 
  +                CCCCC*BBBBBB*AAAAAAAAAA     HHHHHHHHHHHHHHH    
  +         CCC****BB***AAAAAAA*HHHHHHHHHHHHHHH               GGG 
  *CCC****************HHHHHHHHH*GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG    
  **************GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG                                  
  *************************************************************** 
0 0BBB***********5****EEEEEEEEE*10FFFFFFFFFFFFFF15FFFFFFFFFFFF 20 
  +         BBB****CC***DDDDDDD*EEEEEEEEEEEEEEE              FFFF 
  +                BBBBB*CCCCCC*DDDDDDDDDD     EEEEEEEEEEEEEEE    
-20                      BBBBBB*CCCCCCC   DDDDDDDDDD          EEE 
  +                            BBBBBBB CCCCCCCC    DDDDDDDDDDD    
  +                                   BBBBBB   CCCCCCC        DDD 
  +                                        BBBBBBB    CCCCCCCC    
-40                                              BBBBBBB      CCC 
  +                                                     BBBBBB    
  +                                                           BBB 
                                                                  

> 
# As can be seen in the plot, each particle travels along a 
# non-linear trajectory which is determined by the wave function for 
# the packet to which it  belongs. The "force" involved in this 
# guidance comes from the quantum potential that we will find in the 
# next section.
> 

# 19. The Quantum potential
> 
# As discussed in Part 1, the quantum potential is
> 
> Q:=simplify(-(h^2/(2*m))*(diff(R,x,x)/R));
> 

         2          2           4  2    2  2      2        2  2
        h  m Delta_x  (4 Delta_x  m  + h  t  - 2 m  Delta_x  x )
   Q := --------------------------------------------------------
                                  4  2    2  2 2
                        (4 Delta_x  m  + h  t )

> 
# The following animation shows how the quantum potential causes the 
# particle in the wave packet to be swept outwards from either side 
# of the center towards the respective infinity through a negative 
# potential field which changes with time. As time progesses, the 
# quantum potential decreases in size until the particle acceleration 
# approaches zero and each particle travels at a fixed velocity.
> 
> animate(subs(Delta_x=1,h=1,m=1,Q),x=-20..20,t=0..12);
Error, Character device does not support animation

> 
# 20. Discussion of the wave packet

> 
# Bohm's ontological interpretation of  the wave packet introduces 
# the notion that it is not the particle itself that is spreading out 
# with time like the wave packet. The  classic interpretation which 
# considers the notion of the particle itself, when in this state, to 
# be a nonsequitor, must introduce the collapse of the wave packet to 
# the particle upon the act of observation of  the particle.  In 
# Bohm's interpretation, the particle is always a true particle 
# located somewhere inside the guiding wave packet.  On observation, 
# we find the particle at its location prior to the observation, (and 
# we also disturb the wave packet).  According to Bohm and Hiley, the 
# distribution of momentom associated with the wave packet does not 
# derive from some breakdown in the meaning of a particle as dictated 
# by the uncertainty principle, but rather from the application of 
# forces derived from the quantum potential acting on the very real 
# particle itself. The resulting distribution of momentum from this 
# force is in compliance with the uncertainty principle.
> 
# When we first considered Bohm and Hiley's interpretation of  the 
# wave packet, we were struck by a new problem that it introduced (at 
# least for us).  In this new interpretation, the particle can be 
# found within the wave packet at a specific location.  The 
# trajectory that the particle takes is governed by its particular 
# location within the packet. This begs the question of  the causal 
# relationship between the packet and the particle.  For if the 
# particle is the cause of  the wave packet, why is the wave packet's 
# spatial relationship with respect to the particle not fixed. That 
# is, we naively expected that the wave packet would always be 
# centered on the particle, but instead the wave packet and the 
# particle must now be considered separate entities. So, if the 
# particle does not cause the wave packet, but is merely a passenger 
# on this vehicle, then what does determine the location and behavior 
# of the packet?
> 
# Consider the following resolution of the above problem.  Suppose a 
# low emission source of electrons is placed behind an adjustable 
# aperture.  The aperture is controlled so that it is closed in the 
# infinite past and future, but proceeds to slowly open to some 
# maximum size at time zero and  then executes the reverse of this 
# motion. Suppose further that the area of the opening presented to 
# the source is a Gaussian function of time. Now, the passage of an 
# electron through this aperture, has a probability density that is 
# distributed in a Gaussian fashion with respect to time, with the 
# peak of the density occuring at time zero.  The wave packet that 
# describes this situation is exactly that which we derived above, 
# since it describes just such a distribution of probabilty for 
# finding an electron on the other side of the aperture versus 
# position beyond the aperture.  Thus we see clearly in this case 
# that the wave packet is a function of the environment of the 
# experiment and not a function of the particular electron which is 
# launched through the system or its location within the wave packet. 
# That is, the wave packet is describing the quantum fields produced 
# by the opening and closing of the aperture and the presence of a 
# source capable of launching electrons that sits behind it. These 
# packets evolve regardless of the presence or position of an actual 
# electron in the system. 
> 
# Thus, by this interpretation, when we presuppose a wave packet or 
# other wave function for a particle, we are presupposing the form of 
# the experimental appartus that delivers the particle to us.  The 
# wave function is a form of sufficient statistic (to draw from the 
# language of statistical communications theory) that communicates  
# the minimum information between pieces of appartus needed to 
# generate component solutions that would have arisen from a joint 
# solution of the complete description of the entire experiment 
# including the original source of the particle.  That is, suppose 
# the electrons that pass through our aperture were used next for an 
# experiment that involves interference phenomena.  We could model 
# the entire experimental appartus, solving for the psi function that 
# describes the source, the aperture and the interfence experimental 
# appartus. Or, we could instead obtain the wave packet description 
# of the electron leaving our emitter/aperture appartus; then, solve 
# for the interfence experiment result using this as a sufficient 
# description of the effect of the emitter/aperture system on the 
# conditioning of the quantum potential in our experiment. The latter 
# course of action is actually an approximation since, as Bohm and 
# Hiley point out, every experiment can only be completely analyzed 
# as a whole owing to the the non-local character of quantum 
# behavior.


> 

cudkeys:
cuddy14 cuden3047 cudfnBill cudlnPage cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.11 /  jonesse@xray.b /  Re: Calibrated conductivity-loading curves?
     
Originally-From: jonesse@xray.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Calibrated conductivity-loading curves?
Date: 11 Jul 94 12:26:32 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

In article <2vkh50$sk3@fnnews.fnal.gov>, Droege@fnal.fnal.gov 
(Tom Droege) writes:
> In article <9407041242.AA38815@pilot1.cl.msu.edu>, blue@pilot.msu.edu 
> (Richard A Blue) says:
>>
>>I had ask Mitchell Swartz (or anyone) about the techniques used to
>>determine the ratio   of D to Pd in the course of a cold fusion
>>experiment.  His reply seems to indicate that calibrations of the
>>conductivity vs. loading are a routine part of those experiments for
>>which high loadings are reported.  I still wonder if this is indeed
>>the norm for cold fusion experimentation, or is it more typically the
>>case that claims for exceptionally high loadings are based on an
>>extrapolation that goes well beyond the range of any calibrations.
>>Off hand I would guess that it is not easy to determine the loading
>>by simple means with sufficient precision to tell whether it is
>>1.0 or 0.8 or 1.2.  How is it done?
>>
>>Dick Blue
>>
> 
> When I was doing serious experiments I had three ways to measure the 
> loading:

Tom -- does this mean that you are no longer 'doing serious experiments'?
Can you tell us the status of your calorimeter development?

> 
> 1.  The resistance, per McKubre.  The problem with this is that the 
> resistance hits a peak around 0.7 D/Pd and goes back down with higher
> loading.  McKubre assures us all that you can not backtrack down the low
> side, so that once 0.7 is reached, lower resistance readings mean higher
> loading.  I am not so sure.  I had one run where the resistance appeard 
> to go back through zero *negative*, but this was likely instrumental.  I 
> could never get a repeat of this measurement.
> 
  There are other problems with the resistance method.  For example, cracks
commonly form in the Pd as the deuterium loads into it, and these can alter
the resistance.  Then melting may be needed to bring the unloaded resistance 
back to what it was initially.  

For the common case of electrolysis, the resistance method is problematical
since deposits form on the Pd, and lithium actually penetrates
into the Pd surface
-- such activity changes the resistance from the relatively simple
resistance versus loading curve established using D2-gas loading.

I wonder how sure McKubre is of his resistance/loading measurements...

> 2.  Missing Hydrogen/Deuterium.  Since there was a recombiner in the cell
> we would detect excess gass (Oxygen) as the H/D hid in the palladium.  
> Over the few hours it took to load, this was quite precise, 1% or so.
> 
> 3.  Missing energy from the lack of recombination of the hiding H/D.  But 
> this must be corrected for the heat of absorption of the H/D into the
> palladium.
> 
> On some runs we would get good agreement from all three.  A few percent.
> But it is very tricky to get a good run.  Often something would go wrong
> at the start of a run and we would partially load the sample before we
> could get a good start.  The run would then start with an unknown loading.
> In the last series of experiments we abandoned the resistance method 
> because the excess gas gave good results, and all those leads into the
> cell (it takes 4 for a good measurement) were a pain.
> 
> Tom Droege
> 
> PS.  This is a new news reader for me so anything can happen.
> 

Another P.S.:  Claytor et al. at Los Alamos Nat. Lab. loaded Pd using D2 gas
at pressures and temperature where they were sure that the loading was
above 0.8 (can't recall the exact value, could have been >0.85 d/Pd ratio).
They looked for neutron production for this high loading, but found *nothing*.
I'm no longer surprised at null results.

Steven Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenjonesse cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.12 /  jonesse@xray.b /  Crying wolf:  CF water heater in 1989
     
Originally-From: jonesse@xray.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Crying wolf:  CF water heater in 1989
Date: 12 Jul 94 12:30:53 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

In his posting "Definitely a PR mistake" of a few days ago, Jed Rothwell
claimed:

"Enormous progress has been made.  In 1989 the best cells produced intermittent
power at the milliwatt level"

In response, I quoted from Pons who claimed to have a WORKING WATER HEATER
in 1989:  " 'It wouldn't take care of the family's electrical needs, but it
certainly could provide them with hot water year-round,' said Pons, who said
he's always believed that the practical application of cold fusion could happen
this fast."  [Des. News, July 8, 1989, p. B-1]

The article even has a color photograph of this claimed (1989) working hot
water producer, with Pons standing next to it.

My question was "What has become of THIS water heater?"  To which Jed responds
now  "It is late. ... A five year delay is nothing to get alarmed about..."

Hello?  This water heater of Pons' was claimed, in 1989, to be WORKING at that
time.  What has become of it?

Jed goes on:  "Of course I acknowledge it!  Why would I be doing all of this
work and spending all this money if I did not think there will be a water
heater?"                                                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Hold on:  I'm asking about Pons' 1989 claims of a working water heater.
Hello, Jed?                      ^^^^             ^^^^^^^

Reading the July 1989 accounts (five years *ago*), it is clear that Pons'
claimed he had a working water heater at that time.  Let me quote from the
Ogden Standard Examiner, July 9, 1989:

"Pons and Fleischmann say that by using palladium rods inside electrically
charged platinum coils immersed in deuterium-rich heavy water, they have
produced   fusion   that generated more than    100 times   the energy
           ^^^^^^^
needed to trigger the reaction.
However, critics have suggested the reaction may be of some unknown chemical
nature, not fusion.  The search for proof of fusion continues both in Pons' 
lab and around the world. ...                ^^^^^^
According to Pons, the scale-up -- a mini 'boiler' -- is, in fact,
giving off 15 to 20 times the amount of energy that is being put into the cell. 
Yet the electrode used in the newest experiment is the same size as those in
the original tests -- about the size of a finger tip. ...
If the newest experiment proves safe, Pons believes he should turn it over to a
second group of researchers who have the responsibility of taking fusion out of
the lab and putting it into practical money-making devices."      ^^^^^^
"

How is this search for fusion coming, Jed?  Do P&F still claim fusion as the
source of excess heat?  If so, where are the fusion products?

And what are we to think of their claims of a working water heater back in
1989?  Has progress, or retrogress, been made since then?  Are we to believe
you and them?

cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenjonesse cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.12 /  jonesse@xray.b /  Jed's accusations
     
Originally-From: jonesse@xray.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Jed's accusations
Date: 12 Jul 94 12:39:42 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

In his recent diatribe "Not crying wolf," Jed writes:

""Why on earth does Steve Jones accuse the late Mr. Toyoda of being a
confidence man? ... Jones should butt out and mind his own damn business."

I made no such accusation.
My business is science.  This business includes, I believe, detection and
reporting of errors.  The system of checking and peer review is integral
to good science, and this includes checking of my own work as well as that of
others, and reporting results, as I have done.

--Steven Jones

cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenjonesse cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.13 / John Logajan /  Re: Not crying wolf
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Not crying wolf
Date: 13 Jul 1994 05:07:37 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Online Services Member.

Bruce Dunn (Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca) wrote:
: > The rotor spins in a chamber filled with water.

: It used a 5 HP electrical pump to force water through
: a narrow bore pipe formed into a heating coil, with the coil acting via
: friction to convert mechanical energy into heat.

Mechanically they are different designs.  I too recall a "furnace" that
was supposed to be more efficient than resistive heating.  Both the
local papers and local TV stations did stories on it.  I recall that
one TV station was totally taken in by it in their first report and
had to broadcast an embarrasing retraction of sorts (after people in
the know complained, I imagine.)

This was all long before cold fusion.  I assumed it was a con job
at the time.  Haven't had any basis to change my mind, but never really
checked into the "proof" they had.  Never heard about them again, though.

Philosophically speaking, though, we don't have a shortcut to the truth.
Each case stands or falls on its own merits.  Just because my neighbor
is a liar doesn't make me one too -- doesn't make me an honest man
either. :-)

--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com -- 612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills  MN 55112 USA           -

cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.13 / John Logajan /  Re: Not crying wolf
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Not crying wolf
Date: 13 Jul 1994 05:10:03 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Online Services Member.

Arnie Frisch (arnief@wu.labs.tek.com) wrote:
: I ask this question because there are documented cases of
: substantial errors caused by the nonlinearity of mechanical metering
: devices being excited by the device they were attempting to measure.

Jed claims to have used a Dranetz digital power meter.  Doesn't sound
mechanical to me.  Don't know for sure.

--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com -- 612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills  MN 55112 USA           -


cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.13 / Richard Blue /  Griggs device not CF?
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Griggs device not CF?
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 1994 08:25:11 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Jed Rothwell has cleared up my question concerning the linking of
the Griggs Hydro Sonic device to cold fusion.  Let me also clear up
the connection between this device and a heat pump.  I did not
intend to imply such a connection, but merely wanted to point out
that there is at least one heating device that does not involve
any cold fusion as far as I know.  In general I would not see any
value in lumping a large number of unexplained observations under
a catchall heading such as cold fusion.

Jed suggests that the Griggs device may involve cold fusion because
it uses water as fuel.  Let me quibble a bit over that statement.
To my mind "fuel" by definition gets used or altered in some way
during the energy release process.  If that occurs in the Hydro
Sonic pump has there been any measurements that indicate some
transformation effecting the water?  I thought the water was just
recycled in an endless loop.  Is there some sort of recharge with
new makeup water?

Next significant feature mentioned is that the device requires ultra-
sound bubbles at the surface of the metal.  Heck I have seen what
ultrasound cavatation can do to metals and I didn't think that made
it cold fusion.  In fact I recently read a paper on ultrasound that
described what it could do to a metal surface.  That description
sounded just like what we have heard given as proof that some such
device induces cold fusion.  The paper was written in 1927 so I
guess that cold fusion has been around for a very long time.

I am glad to hear that the Griggs device engineering is "certified
by the ASME", but I don't believe that means anything beyond saying
that the plumbing meets certain safety standards.  I don't believe
the ASME intends their certification to indicate that the device
actually works as claimed.

Question.  If a device saves 5 kilowatts at $0.05 per kW hour,
howlong must it operate to pay for a $10,000 purchase price?
Let me know when the first one has paid for itself.  By then
regular cold fusion water heaters should have us all in hot
water, right?

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.13 /  JANSENIST@delp /  help finding someone
     
Originally-From: JANSENIST@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: help finding someone
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 1994 13:41:23 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

	I am a new Internet user who is trying to locate an email address 
for a Mr. Gordon Lake at the Committee on Energy Research and Technology in 
Luxembourg. If anyone can help, I will be grateful. John Gannon

cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenJANSENIST cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.13 / C Harrison /  TiBib update (Reifenschweiler)
     
Originally-From: harr@netcom.com (Charles (Chuck) Harrison)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: TiBib update (Reifenschweiler)
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 1994 14:39:47 GMT
Organization: Fitful

July 13 1994  updates to:

                An Annotated Bibliography
              of the "Reifenschweiler Effect":
 Temperature & concentration dependence of tritium activity
                  in a titanium matrix
 -----------------------------------------------------------
The full updated document is available at
file://sunsite.unc.edu/pub/academic/physics/cold-fusion/TiBib.txt

==========================================
Section 2.  Titanium Hydride phase diagram
==========================================

[Komarek 1983]
KL Komarek (ed.), _Titanium: Physico-chemical Properties of its
     Compounds and Alloys_, Vienna, International Atomic Energy
     Agency, 1983 (460 pp).

Comprehensive review.  Values for all the thermodynamic parameters
of Ti, TiH, TiD, and TiO compounds.  No TiT data.  A compilation
of measured diffusion rates is also included.

-------------------
[Dantzer 1983]
P Dantzer, "High temperature thermodynamics of H2 and D2 in
     titanium, and in dilute titanium oxygen solid solutions",
     _J Phys Chem Solids_ 44(9):913-923 (1983).

A high sensitivity microcalorimeter is used to measure partial
molar enthalpy of solution for H in Ti at 440 C.  A series of
similar expts at ~470 C in alpha TiOy (y=.0047, .012, .018) may
be very relevant to Reifenschweiler results.  The Ti:O is
aged at 1100 C to ensure uniform dissolution of the oxygen.
Dantzer plots enthalpy of solution vs H content; it is exothermic
and, in Ti, exotherm increases linearly with H conc (up to phase
transition at ~9 atom%); this indicates "effective mutual
attraction of H atoms in solution".  Somewhat similar trend
appears in this plot for H in TiOy matrix, and Dantzer fits a
straight line to the data.  Exotherm is increased ~7% to 10.25
kcal/mol for y=.018, but "mutual attraction" (slope) is reduced
compared to pure Ti.  Author does not comment but at y=.0047 and
.018 the plots show a distinct deviation from linearity with a 
negative slope at H conc < 2-3 atom%.  This reviewer considers
this to be evidence of an exothermic interaction between dilute H
and O in the lattice which is maximum when x<<y.  The associated
enthalpy appears to be ~0.25 kcal/mol H.  However one must note
that the effect does not appear in the y=.012 data.
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenharr cudfnCharles cudlnHarrison cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.13 / Eric Werme /  Re: Not crying wolf
     
Originally-From: werme@alingo.zk3.dec.com (Eric Werme)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Not crying wolf
Date: 13 Jul 94 15:22:29 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation

Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Dunn) writes:

>In article <2vudo0$8pt@stratus.skypoint.com>, jlogajan@skypoint.com (John
>Logajan) writes:

>> Jed is refering to the Griggs device which consists of a motor driven
>> rotor.
>> The rotor spins in a chamber filled with water.  It is alleged that this
>> causes ultrasonic cavitation within the water, thus producing some form
>> of
>> anomalous heat.

>This sounds like a home "funace" that some people tried to sell a few years
>ago.  I encountered the device at a home show, where they wanted something
>like $10,000 for it.  It used a 5 HP electrical pump to force water through
>a narrow bore pipe formed into a heating coil, with the coil acting via
>friction to convert mechanical energy into heat.

I suspect there have been several.  One in Derry NH involved and modified
clothes dryer that made the drum spin in a cowl that was slightly larger.
Oil between the surfaces heated up from the friction, hence the device
was advertised as letting you heat your house with friction.  Electric
bills vs. oil heat bills were shown as proof of cost effectiveness, or
something like that.

It got some local press and claims that some large manufacturers
were interested before news about the device faded away.  I've always
assumed that the utility company came out and replaced the power meter
with one that worked better.

The *key* difference with the Griggs device is that the company that
developed it was not looking for getting something for nothing, didn't
believe it when they did, and welcome people in to help them figure out
where or if the measurements are going awry.  At the time of the
article, about the only thing I can think of that really should have
been done is to measure the mechanical power transmitted between motor
an pump, and that was the next thing they wanted to do.

Comparing the Griggs device to some of the quackery that has gone on in
the field is to do a disservice to people trying to do things right and
to those who bought the magazine, and especially to those taking part in
trying to figure out what is going on.
-- 
Eric (Ric) Werme		| werme@zk3.dec.com
Digital Equipment Corp.		| This space intentionally left blank.
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenwerme cudfnEric cudlnWerme cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.13 / A Williams /  My own Cold Fusion
     
Originally-From: alby@uunet.uu.net (Anthony Williams)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: My own Cold Fusion
Date: 13 Jul 1994 13:32:53 -0400
Organization: UUNET Technologies, Inc.  (Earth offices)




	I am not a scientist, although I would like to run my own test
on the cold fusion theory. What materials are needed to attempt a cold
fusion reactor?  Where can I obtain H3O and palladium?


-Alby


cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenalby cudfnAnthony cudlnWilliams cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.13 / John Logajan /  Hilborn, Criddle and Shaubach
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Hilborn, Criddle and Shaubach
Date: 13 Jul 1994 19:01:36 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Online Services Member.

At the recent urgings of John Hilborn and Ernie Criddle, I sent Bob
Shaubach of Thermacore a FAX asking a couple of questions.  Bob Shaubach
gave me a call and was again very open and helpful in answering my
questions.

Bob told me that their "blank" calibration, done with 28 liters of water
and a stirring motor, was performed with the Nalgene tank on top of a
small sheet of styrofoam insulation covered on one or both sides by
aluminium foil (note the effect of the passage of two years on the memory
of all the exact details.)  He says his notes indicate a calorimetry constant
of about 0.21 C/W.

He recollects that they presumed this to be the same cal constant for
the experimental tank (also on top of a sheet of styrofoam) -- but that
midway through the run, at the urging of an independent observer, did
calibration on the actual experimental tank.  They reduced electrolysis
power to small amounts (enough to provide stirring by gas evolution) and
input known amounts of resistive heat.  Thus finding a cal constant of
about 0.15 C/W.

This explanation of the calibration method doesn't seem to quite 
correspond to my interpretation of the Fusion Technology article's
explanation, but I did not press Bob on it.  Over the phone, he has
now twice explained the same technique, so I take that as the more
accurate explanation.

And in response to a suggestion made to me by Ernie Criddle, they did
*not* ever attempt to hold the tank at a fixed temperature by inputing
a corrective amount of resistive heat.  Resistive heat was only used
during calibration. 

Three of us independently have seen cal constants in the upper 0.20's
and Bob said that this is somewhat troublesome.  He says there was no fan
blowing on the tank, that it sat on a styrofoam sheet, and that he
saw no significant blanket of foam on the top.  He said he tried to think
of things that might be causing the differences, but that all he can
imagine is that the experimental tank had some rather heavy duty power
cables exiting which could have exhausted some of the tank heat.  This
would be worth experimenting on.

I imagine also that all the junk in the experimental tank displaced some
amount of water, thus raising the water level, and hence, the surface area
available to outside contact -- another effect than can be experimented on.

The summary of my current Nalgene tank results are:

15W  0.275 - 0.280 C/W
30W  0.263 - 0.269 C/W
60W  0.244 - 0.248 C/W

Hopefully I will have 90watt readings by Thursday night.  I will be out of
town after that until Monday night, so I won't have any more results until
late next week.

P.S. Bob says that they have submitted an article to Fusion Technology
on their non-electrolysis methods but that they haven't heard back from
FT yet. 

--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com -- 612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills  MN 55112 USA           -

cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.13 / Richard Schultz /  Re: Hilborn, Criddle and Shaubach
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Hilborn, Criddle and Shaubach
Date: 13 Jul 1994 21:52:15 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley

In article <301dmg$lt7@stratus.skypoint.com>,
John Logajan <jlogajan@skypoint.com> wrote:

>(note the effect of the passage of two years on the memory
>of all the exact details.)  

Given that one is expected to keep a notebook precisely so that one
need not have to memorize exact details, just how seriously do you
expect us to take these guys?

					Richard Schultz
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.14 / Jim Bowery /  Re: A "ball lightning" MHD Equilibrium
     
Originally-From: jabowery@netcom.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A "ball lightning" MHD Equilibrium
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 1994 01:30:58 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

If Dr. Carlson is supposed to be adding to the Max-Planck Institute's
credibility by this sort of response, I suspect the folks who hired
him know what what they do.
-- 
The promotion of politics exterminates apolitical genes in the population.
  The promotion of frontiers gives apolitical genes a route to survival.
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenjabowery cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.14 /  jlogajan /  Re: Hilborn, Criddle and Shaubach
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@news-server (jlogajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Hilborn, Criddle and Shaubach
Date: 14 Jul 1994 03:24:18 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Richard Schultz (schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu) wrote:
: Given that one is expected to keep a notebook precisely so that one
: need not have to memorize exact details, just how seriously do you
: expect us to take these guys?

1.) I'm not a prosecuter.  I only make friendly phone calls (unless
someone owes me money :-)  Therefore I am not constantly insisting that
someone verify every statement by reference to notes.  If you want to
communicate at that level of stridency, that is up to you.

2.) There is no evidence that there are not complete notes, so your
supposition is baseless.

3.) I only take seriously those claims that can be replicated by
independent tests.  Both saints and sinners can be wrong.  I have
absolutely no expectations of who you may wish to take seriously.
It doesn't really change anything important in my universe if you don't.



cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenjlogajan cudlnjlogajan cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Thu Jul 14 04:37:07 EDT 1994
------------------------------
1994.07.13 /  merlin /  Re: Atomic, Hydrogen & Neutron Bomb Design & Simulation
     
Originally-From: merlin@neuro.usc.edu (merlin)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Atomic, Hydrogen & Neutron Bomb Design & Simulation
Date: 13 Jul 1994 23:02:30 -0700
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA


>The open literature indicates that there has only been one known
>failure of an implosion bomb to work the first try. That was the 
>PP shot intended to find the lower size limits to a plutonium 
>implosion bomb. Apparently it did.

The open literature in english, french, german, and russian on
three dimensional high explosive / compressed matter implosion 
physics & superprompt critical fast reactor physics (including
highly optimized source code programs for coupled hydrodynamic,
thermodynamic, and neutron transport simulation problems) make
design, development, and testing of thermonuclear weapons (via
use of well understood, low cost and highly parallel algorithms 
on large networks of consumer grade processors) substantially 
less of a trial and error process than many previous generation
nuclear engineers would have you believe would be necessary for
a first attempt detonation.  Indeed, all of the essential data
for designing a highly efficient miniaturized 20 kiloton 'atom'
bomb (using a highly reliable single detonator system to fire a
a single explosive lense to generate the required spherically
imploding shock wave -- for those who care about such details)
can be found in a half dozen openly published articles dating
from the last 1960's through early 1970's.  Another half dozen
articles (including source code for programs) initially designed
to describe (simulate) compressed matter fusion physics can be
readily coupled to other publically available codes which were
initially intended to describe (simulate) accidents involving
response of breeder reactor blanket materials to fast reactor
transients -- may be combined to produce efficient simulation
codes for evaluating and optimizing thermonuclear second stage
materials configuration for either high yield (20+ megaton) or
enhanced neutron flux (low explosive yield) devices.

All of the data required to design and optimize a thermonuclear
device customized to provide the desired spectrum of effects is
readily available in the open literature.  While the particular
designs -- and specific built in safeguards -- employed by the
various nuclear powers should be kept private as state secrets
-- the fundamental design details can be found in a dozen papers
-- and solutions to most of the practical manufacturing problems
can be found in another dozen books (e.g. beryllium handbook is
one of the dozen related practical manufacturing handbooks).

I seriously doubt any country (or subnational entity) capable of 
assembling a small team of compressed matter physicists, computer
modelers, nuclear engineers, materials scientists, machinists, and 
explosives handling experts would have any problem exploding their
first implosion device on their first attempt.  The world simply
knows (and has published) a lot more data and solutions to a lot
more related problems than was available to Oppenheimer, Teller,
Ulam -- or any of a much longer list of people (Bethe, Taite) --
during their efforts to create interesting 'atomic', 'hydrogen' &
'neutron' devices in the 1940's, 1950's, and 1960's.

The only real solutions at this point are (1) controlling access 
to special nuclear materials and the technology/materials required
to produce special nuclear materials and (2) intelligence assets
and capabilities to detect and neutralize covert nuclear weapons
design, engineering, development, production, and deployment work.

Trying to keep the 'secret of the bomb' is a totally lost cause -- 
networks of 'desktop' computers, published data, and sophisticated
source code available simulation programs let the genie out of the
bottle long ago -- it is time we stop pretending any secret exists.

Does anyone care to set up an anonymous ftp site outside of the USA
where thermonuclear design articles, source code, and data might be
legally assembled and made available to the rest of the world?  The
existence of an ftp site from which anyone could download necessary
programs, datasets, and design examples would end current effort to
pretend 'the secret of the bomb' is still sacrosanct.  The 'priests
of the bomb' failed in their mission & released the secret long ago.

========================================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenmerlin cudlnmerlin cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.14 / Robert Heeter /  Re: Hot Fusion Funding - Science
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Originally-From: Eugene Mallove, 76570.2270@compuserve.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Hot Fusion Funding - Science
Subject: Hot Fusion Funding - Science
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 1994 03:02:25 GMT
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 1994 00:31:42 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

Subject: Hot Fusion Funding - Science
Originally-From: Eugene Mallove, 76570.2270@compuserve.com
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 1994 00:31:42 GMT
In article <940713160424_76570.2270_HHB76-1@CompuServe.COM> Eugene
Mallove, 76570.2270@compuserve.com writes:
>A brief note in Science magazine, 1 July 1994, page 19 nicely
illustrates the 
>charade of hot fusion funding, in particular, and Washington politics in 
>general.

Not really.  What you've described is an extreme situation, as far as 
I can tell.  In what way do you call it a "charade?"

> Presumably even some hot fusioneers are put off by this Congressional
>lunacy, or perhaps they don't give a damn. 

I think it's safe to say that all fusioneers would prefer to do without
the congressional budget circus.  I find it interesting to watch you
presume to know what those of us in the field are thinking.

>As long as they keep getting their 
>vast millions from the taxpayers they are conning, that's all that's
important
>to them. 

I find it especially interesting when you suddenly claim omniscience
regarding
our attitudes, and the direct accusation that *all* of us are "conning"
the taxpayers, and that we care about *nothing* else.  Care to defend 
this statement?  

>If they survive another year, they can always stage another media 
>romp like last December's -- on the road to ETERNAL FUNDING.  Here's the
text 
>of the Science article:

On the contrary, the progress shown in the December experiments (and 
improved upon in May, when 9 MW were generated), shows that hot fusion
will succeed eventually.  And what's wrong with telling the public how
they're money is being used to successfully advance hot fusion research
towards making a practical energy source, that you would call it a
"media romp"?  I should note that as a leader of the CF media community,
you are throwing stones inside your glass house...

On to the Science article:

>POLITICAL BATTLE COULD CLAIM FUSION REACTOR
>
[[ stuff deleted ]]

>Last week's markup of the Senate energy appropriations bill was
Johnston's 
>deadline for the President to respond, but the best the White House
could do 
>was circulate a letter affirming its "commitment to a strong, balanced
program
>for...fusion energy."  That wasn't good enough for Johnston, who, true
to his 
>word, deleted all but $2 million of the $67 million TPX construction
request. 
>However, he did agree to give Princeton $28 million to keep TPX
designers 
>working and $75 million to operate its record-setting Tokamak Fusion
Test 
>Reactor for another year.

Johnston wasn't threatening to kill fusion, just to delay the program 
until the administration got itself firmly behind ITER.

>Meanwhile, the House appropriations bill fully funds TPX this year. Now
the 
>Senate and House must meet in conference in mid-july to hammer out their 
>differences. Warns a Johnston staffer: The Senator "is likely to
maintain [the
>TPX cut] in conference." Princeton officials declined to reveal plans
should 
>the cuts stick.

>Question: Does anybody know what that residual $2 million was to be for?
Was 
>that for the left big toe of the TPX construction money "hostage"?

Your suppositions are insulting, especially because you apparently
couldn't
bring yourself to ask politely.  The $2 million was for materials for the
superconducting magnets (which I think are the most difficult to
assemble).
Leaving in the $2 million would have allowed magnet construction to begin,
the idea being that if TPX were taken hostage for a year, everything in 
the project could still be done by the current projected completion date
of early 2000.

Even more interestingly, your comments at this late date show that you
really haven't kept up with the news.  On the senate floor Johnston
sponsored an amendment to restore TPX funding; the amendment passed.
TPX is now fully funded in both the house and senate bills, and will
therefore go into construction mode starting next fiscal year.  This
all happened over a week ago.

IMHO, this is a tremendous success for the fusion research program,
since the history of the program in recent years is cluttered by the
corpses of machines (CIT, BPX) which were designed and then denied
construction funding.  Congress seems to be behind fusion once again.

******************************
Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University
As always, I represent only myself, and not PPPL
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.14 / Robert Heeter /  Re: advanced fuel cycles
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Originally-From: Ken Doniger, doniger@cimd20.cam
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: advanced fuel cycles
Subject: advanced fuel cycles
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 1994 03:16:37 GMT
Date: 11 Jul 1994 20:27:18 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

Subject: advanced fuel cycles
Originally-From: Ken Doniger, doniger@cimd20.cam
Date: 11 Jul 1994 20:27:18 GMT
In article <2vs9v6$9kd@lsi.lsil.com> Ken Doniger, doniger@cimd20.cam
writes:
>I am interested in hot fusion fuel cycles that don't produce neutrons.

H-B11 (or rather, p-B11) and D-He3 are the two main candidates.  
Actually D-He3 produces some neutrons via D-D reactions that also occur.
D-Li6 is another one, but harder than D-He3 and also subject to D-D 
problems.

>Ever since I read Lidsky's article in "Technology Review" about 10 years
>ago, I have been convinced that DT fusion will be achieved scientifically
>but will not be adopted by utility companies.

Lidsky's 11 year-old opinion is worth reading, but the latest detailed 
study (ARIES, by Conn et al) suggests that fusion will be competitive 
economically.  Lidsky was comparing fusion with fission, which IMHO is 
a bad way to go, given that fission is all-but-dead because the fuel 
cycle is still messed up, and given that radwaste from even D-T fusion
will be 4-6+ orders of magnitude less.

>I have been out of the fusion game for awhile now, and I was wondering
>what different machine geometries people have come up with for aneutronic
>fusion.  I remember (vaguely) that advanced fuel cycles were limited
mainly
>by electron Bremmstrahlung and cyclotron radiation losses.  Any comments?

There are a number of designs out there.  You might want to check the 
July 1992 issue of Fusion Technology, which was devoted to D-He3 fusion.
Also Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research, A271 (1988),
which is an issue devoted to aneutronic fusion.  And then there's 
always Paul Koloc here on the newsgroup, who currently seems a 
little swamped in defending his concept.

I'd be interested in hearing if there's anything really new in
aneutronic fusion within the last couple years, myself.

Advanced fuels are limited by the same problems that D-T is, only more
so.  They require higher temperatures and longer confinement times than
D-T.  So in general I don't think you'll see aneutronic fusion 
before D-T.

>My apologies if this is a Cold Fusion only group.

It's not!

***************************
Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University
As always, I represent only myself, and not PPPL
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.14 / Jed Rothwell /  Jones will stoop to anything
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Jones will stoop to anything
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 1994 13:36:35 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG

I wrote:

     "Why on earth does Steve Jones accuse the late Mr. Toyoda of being a
     confidence man? ... Jones should butt out and mind his own damn
     business."

Jones responded:
 
     "I made no such accusation. My business is science.  This business
     includes, I believe, detection and reporting of errors.

Yet, on July 8, 1994 he wrote:

     "Mr. Toyoda himself is quoted by H. Ikegami in the Proceedings of the
     Nagoya conf. on cold fusion:
 
     "Cold fusion is not a matter to be studied by one single enterprise or
     nation. I have confidence that it will become the greatest asset as an
     eventual energy for mankind, to be shared among the world."    
     (PRoceedings, p. iv, 1993)
 
     It takes quite a MAN to inspire such CONfidence."


This stupid little joke implies that Toyoda is a CON-MAN (confidence man;
hoaxer). He does not have the guts to come right out and say it, but the
meaning is perfectly obvious. Now Jones is denying that is what he meant.
Jones is a consummate liar and plagiarist. He tried to steal Pons and
Fleischmann's idea is 1989, and since then he has published endless lies and
distortions about other people's work here on the e-mail. Now he lying about a
dead man -- making jokes about a dead man! -- saying he was a con-man. Steve
Jones knows no shame. He has no respect for the dead, and no respect for the
truth. He will stoop to anything.

- Jed Rothwell

cudkeys:
cuddy14 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.15 / Richard Blue /  Comment on Cold Fusion article by Storms
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Comment on Cold Fusion article by Storms
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 1994 00:12:36 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Comments on the article "Chemically-assisted nuclear reactions," by
Edmund Storms, Cold Fusion Vol. 1, No. 3, page 42

In roughly 11 pages Dr. Storms reviews evidence for a variety of
phenomena he has selected as being related to cold fusion and
suggests that these data indicate the existence of something he
designates as a special condition of matter (SCM).  However, when
I read through the list of effects he includes under this umbrella
I think it is probably more accurate to switch that to the plural,
SCMs, since there are very significant differences observed almost
on a case by case basis.  What Dr. Storms chooses to call special
conditions of matter could, by equally valid logic, be labeled
numerous examples of special pleading.  To me it seems that no
matter how widely differing the results of various experiments may
be, Storms still chooses to accept the results at face value and
to gloss over the contradictions as arising from some unknown
difference in the special condition as it existed for that
particular experiment.  The one class of measurements that is not,
however, given this completely openminded treatment is the negative
result.  Negative results can, in general, be dismissed for the
obvious failure by the experimenters to achieve the required SCM.

Dr. Storms emphasizes the measurements of excess heat and the
production of various nuclear reaction products under conditions
where normal assumptions about the behavior of nuclear reactions
and ionizing radiation are not valid.  This, of course, is a
signature by which one can recognize the existence of the SCM.
Nothing is required to behave as we might expect once the SCM
state has been entered.  He lists as confirmed reaction products
helium, tritium, protons, various stable and radioactive elements
not previously present, gamma radiation, and neutrons.  What has
he left out?  He then explains that, "More than one condition seems
to be required for a nuclear reaction to occur, and at least one of
these conditions is unique to the nuclear reaction being initiated.
This startling conclusion is as important as the claim for a
nuclear reaction occurring at all."  As I read that statement it is
simply a license to accept every claimed reaction product and
explain that it is the result of its own specific SCM.  Indeed
that is to be an essential feature of the cold fusion effect.
We are not to question any observation on the grounds that it does
not make sense within the context of other results.

Most of the familiar cold fusion claims are described and placed in
subcategories with the notable exception of any of the experiments
involving ultrasound.  Storms lists eight categories for the
"environment" and nine "methods" and then says, "This variety of
methods and environments indicates that the phenomenon has a
general character, and is not limited to the unusual chemistry of
palladium or the complex chemical environment of an electrolytic
cell."  Statements such as that leave me puzzled as to what
constitutes a phenomenon that has a general character.  Don't
we have the possibility for 72 phenomena, each with its own special
character?

Moving on to the explanations that have been offered, Storms lists
them all as if there were no question that each is worthy of our
full attention.  He says, "Perhaps as many as several dozen models,
extending from very analytical approaches to pictorial
representations, have been published.  Many more have been
circulated to interested people."  As far as I can tell the only
thing that connects all the observations and these models is the
notion of an SCM.  As to what the SCM is we learn only that it
seems to be able to "reflect gamma rays", "nullify the charge
between nuclei", and to "absorb large amounts of energy generated
at the nucleus in a very brief time."  To that list of wonders I
would add that it seems to have the ability to cloud men's minds.
To be consistent with the listed observations it must alter
reaction rates, enhance three-body or multibody reactions, close
off selected reaction channels and alter branching ratios, give
rise to reaction products at energies that can not be related to
any known reaction, selectively involve specific contaminants and
isotopes without regard to their concentrations, and to transcend
the limits of time and space and an occasional troublesome physical
principle.

Dick Blue







cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.15 / Richard Blue /  Re: Delocalization for Bill Page
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Delocalization for Bill Page
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 1994 00:12:38 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Bill, I know that wave functions are "delocalized" by definition.
I thought we had gotten beyond that level of consideraton.  I, of
course, am rather fond of ordinary quantum mechanics as I learned
it at my mother's knee.  That is Schroedinger's equation, Hamiltonians,
eigenfunctions, the whole bit.  I thought the meaning of "delocalized"
in the current context involved the differentiation between a system
that is bound at least on the atomic scale and systems where the
macroscopic crystal lattice boundaries are significant.  Thus in
the Chubb picture there is something called the deuteron band state
which has deuterons spread throughout the lattice.  At some point
there is also supposed to be a helium band state shedding energy
in little tiny quanta to heat the lattice.  That is where I loose
the thread of the arguement and have been seeking clarification.

To form the question within the context of your exploration of
the Bohm picture let me quote you as saying that the quantum
ptential can call upon truly enormous energies to alter the
detailed motion of the particles in such a way as to permit fusion
and to hide the normal energetic byproducts.  OK, let's go with
that to see where it may lead.  The particles underconsideration,
take 4He for example, are composites are they not?  So tell me
if you can what is happening to the protons and neutrons that
constitute the helium nucleus doing as the helium goes zipping
about in response to the quantum potential?

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.15 / Tom Droege /  Re: How Can I Get Started
     
Originally-From: droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: How Can I Get Started
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 1994 00:12:49 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Sorry, I have not yet debugged my new news reader, so it does not 
do reply properly.  So the > are not real.  I just don't have the 
patience to remove them all. 
  
>  Anthony Williams wants to run a cold fusion experiment.
>  OK, you want D2O not H3O.  You can get this for of order 
>  $500 a liter from Aldrich Chemical Co.  You can also buy smaller
>  amounts from most chemical supply houses.  But you will likely 
>  pay $200 for a 100 ml bottle, so direct from Aldrich in liter 
>  quantities is the best route.  There are also other similar 
>  suppliers, I just don't remember the names.
>  
>  The big problem is to find a chemical company to sell to you if
>  you are an individual.  We are so interested in protecting 
>  everyone these days that the chemical company knows that you
>  will sue them if you get hurt.  So you have to be a company.  
>  Then they have to give you an MSDS that will tell you that
>  this is such dangerous stuff that it will kill you unless you 
>  spend a billion dollars to build a remote control facility.  So 
>  your best bet is to try to buy it through a school chemical 
>  stock room or some such place that is used to buying chemicals.  
>  
>  The quickest and easiest place to get Palladium is at a coin store.  
>  You can buy a 1oz bar for the current price of Pd (about $150 
>  an oz - see the "spot metals" section of the financial pages) plus a
>  small premium.   Other sources are AESAR and Gooodfellow.  
>  In any case try to get the Goodfellow catalog as it is full of 
>  useful information about ultra pure metals.  1-800-821-2870
>  should get you a catalog.  You will not like their prices.  
>  
>  You will also want some platinum wire for an anode.  Most 
>  chemical supply houses sell Pt wire.   Again you will not like 
>  their prices.  If you swear that you have shopped around, and
>  that you understand what it costs and send me a $20 bill and a 
>  stamped return envelope I will send you $20 worth of 0.010"
>  Pt wire.  Cash only, no checks (I never get around to cashing 
>  them), and the return envelope is essential if you want me to 
>  ever get around to doing it.  For this offer, you must tell me
>  the price you found for 0.010" wire.  If I can't beat your price 
>  a lot I will return your money.  This is a not for profit offer.  
>  I just want to help people be crazy.  I also have about $1000 
>  worth of  Pt wire.  
>  
>  You might consider a Pt bar for an anode.  Again a 1 oz bar will
>  run you the spot price plus a premium.  Or you might consider
>  using Pd for the anode.  Lots of reasons to think this is a good 
>  idea.  But most people think it is essential to surround the cathode
>  with a symmetrical anode.  If you can find wire drawing facilities,
>  you might try drawing the Pd bar into wire.  Pd is like Gold in that
>  it can be drawn, hammered indefinitely.  But likely you need to 
>  be an expert to do it.  
>  
>  I would get hold of one of the conference proceedings.  Likely 
>  Jed Rothwell can tell you where.  Better still subscribe to the 
>  Cold fusion magazine.  Jed, why don't you all at "Cold Fusion"
>  sell a kit?  My guess is that for a couple of thousand dollars you
>  could have Pt and Pd wire drawn to your spec.  You could then
>  Buy D2O in quantity and repackage it in 100 ml bottles.  You could 
>  likely then sell a kit with everything needed for $200 or so with a
>  reasonable mark up.  Of course, the Nickel, light water kit would 
>  be even cheaper.  Should be able to do that one for $50 with again
>  a 100% mark up.  But if I were you, I would not give a working 
>  guarantee.  Grin.  
>  
>  Hope this helps you get started.  I will answer private questions,
>  but prefer that info is exchaned via sci.physics.fusion as then all
>  can share.  
>  
>  Tom Droege
>  

cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudendroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.15 / Tom Droege /  What I am Doing
     
Originally-From: droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: What I am Doing
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 1994 00:12:46 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Steve Jones asks what I am doing these days.  It is not "cold fusion" or
heat type calorimetry.
It is more "cosmic" calorimetry.  It seems that the cosmic ray workers have
seen a few events
around 3E20 ev.  This is about the energy of a well kicked socker ball.
Theory says that such
events should not get here, even if they are generated somewhere in the
cosmos.  They should
interact with the 3K background and cool down to 1E18 or so unless they are
generated within
50M parsecs.  But there is nothing visible in that range that might generate
such events.  So it
is a mystery, and therefore fun.

The proposal is to build 3000 detectors each with a 10m^2 sensitive area.
They will be spaced 
on a 1.5 km grid, so there is no way to get power to them except solar.
This means that the 
electronics must be very low power as each watt used by a detector when
multiplied by 3000
cost about a million dollars.  So I am working on very low power electronics
for this project. 
So far I have a 20 mw photomultiplier tube base and a 100 mw discriminator.  

It is great fun as it is a whole new set of rules to work with.  This work
may yet bring me out
into Steve Jones' back yard as Jim Cronin's detector is there somewhere.  He
is leading this 
effort.  

But I am still lurking, and patiently waiting for the Maui proceedings.  I
have not yet voted with
my feet as I proposed very early in these posts.  But the time is close.  

Tom Droege

cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudendroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.14 / Arnie Frisch /  Re: Jones will stoop to anything
     
Originally-From: arnief@wu.labs.tek.com (Arnie Frisch)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Jones will stoop to anything
Date: 14 Jul 1994 08:24:28 -0700
Organization: Tektronix Laboratories, Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton, OR

In article <940714133254_72240.1256_EHB140-1@CompuServe.COM> 72240.1256@
ompuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
.....
...
..
>Jones is a consummate liar and plagiarist. He tried to steal Pons and
>Fleischmann's idea is 1989, and since then he has published endless lies and
>distortions about other people's work here on the e-mail. Now he lying about a
>dead man -- making jokes about a dead man! -- saying he was a con-man. Steve
>Jones knows no shame. He has no respect for the dead, and no respect for the
>truth. He will stoop to anything.
......
....
..

Now I think he's done it!  If Jones needs a lawyer whose specialty
is libel, I believe I can help him.  I don't think Jed has a chance
of a snowball in hell of avoiding a major judgement.


Arnold Frisch
Tektronix Laboratories
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenarnief cudfnArnie cudlnFrisch cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.14 /  DSchnei /  Wall Street Journal on CF
     
Originally-From: dschnei@aol.com (DSchnei)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Wall Street Journal on CF
Date: 14 Jul 1994 10:48:03 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

The Wall Street Journal ran a front page article on cold fusion today
(Thursday, July 14, 1994).

The article gives an update on the debates over CF.  Unfortunately for
many of those following this newsgroup, it tends to favor CF proponents at
the expense of skeptics.  Pons and Fleischmann are put on a mini-pedestal,
while they are labeled as outcasts by the physics community (tending to
make the physics community look bad.

Successes of CF are cited, while there is no mention of results disputing
CF.  A Dennis Cravens of Vernon Regional Junior College in Vernon, Texas
is featured prominently.  He says that all he knows is that he gets more
power out than he puts in.  He uses small pieces of palladium, because
they soak up the critical amount of deuterium faster than larger ones.

P and F are credited with getting 150-170 watts out of cells with 40-50
watts in, and are supposed to be working on getting it up to 300-500 watts
this year (excepted from a Dec. 93 interview).

The article does close with this quote from Douglas R. O. Morrison (CERN):

It appears that the laws of physics apply everywhere in the
universe...excepts in cold fusion experiments performed by believers.

I thought everyone would be interested in what the outside world is
hearing.

-David Schneider

cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudendschnei cudlnDSchnei cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Fri Jul 15 04:37:07 EDT 1994
------------------------------
1994.07.15 / arthur blair /  Re: PLASMAK(tm) Magnetoplasmoid gif
     
Originally-From: blair@mksol.dseg.ti.com (arthur blair)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: PLASMAK(tm) Magnetoplasmoid gif
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 1994 01:25:38 GMT
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc

John Logajan (jlogajan@skypoint.com) wrote:
: Paul M. Koloc (pmk@prometheus.UUCP) wrote:
: : This is a GIF format

: Great!  I got the GIF image here just fine.  It is a nice color graphic.
: It is good to see that someone is using the power of graphical presentation
: that is exchangable via this forum.  I personally have had trouble visualizing
: Paul's textual descriptions in the past (can't even find "polodial" in the
: dictionary :-).

: I highly recommend using graphical representations when the geometry of
: the item diverges from the experience base of the average interested reader.

Could you repost the ftp site of this image for those of us who
missed the original post?
Thanx,
Art.


--
"Television is chewing gum for the eyes" - Frank Lloyd Wright
Dont forget to vote in news.announce.newgroups !
My views dont express those of my employer, etc., etc.
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenblair cudfnarthur cudlnblair cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.14 / Paul Koloc /  Re: advanced fuel cycles
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: advanced fuel cycles
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 1994 16:33:25 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

***********
E-mail from me bounced twice off your e-address: "doniger@cimd20.cam"
Would you please double check each letter of that address or modidy
it if you find a better.  
***********

In article <2vs9v6$9kd@lsi.lsil.com> you write:
>I am interested in hot fusion fuel cycles that don't produce neutrons.
>Ever since I read Lidsky's article in "Technology Review" about 10 years
>ago, I have been convinced that DT fusion will be achieved scientifically
>but will not be adopted by utility companies.

That's still valid, and there are other "difficulties".  

>I have been out of the fusion game for awhile now, and I was wondering
>what different machine geometries people have come up with for aneutronic
>fusion.  I remember (vaguely) that advanced fuel cycles were limited mainly
>by electron Bremmstrahlung and cyclotron radiation losses.  Any comments?

In constant pressure (coil driven) machines, aneutronic fuels burn with
lower power densities than the lower ignition raunch fuels. Otherwise,
they may be burn at substantially higher burn densities.   

Deuterium-helium (3) is substantially aneutronic.. (d-d side reactions)
Protium (ordinary hydrogen nuclei) and Boron (11) is aneutronic.  

For a description of aneutronic fuel burning apparatus see:  

   Koloc, P. M. "PLASMAK(tm) Star Power for Energy Intensive Space 
        Applications" FUSION TECHNOLOGY Vol. 15, Mar 89, pp 1136-1141

>My apologies if this is a Cold Fusion only group.

Not. 

Best regards,
Paul
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc,Bx 1037, Prometheus II, Ltd., College Park, MD 20741-1037 |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+


cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.14 / Paul Koloc /  Re: A "ball lightning" MHD Equilibrium
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A "ball lightning" MHD Equilibrium
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 1994 16:43:47 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <jaboweryCswpJp.D0y@netcom.com> jabowery@netcom.com (Jim Bowery) writes:
>If Dr. Carlson is supposed to be adding to the Max-Planck Institute's
>credibility by this sort of response, I suspect the folks who hired
>him know what what they do.

Since Art Carlson is enthusiastic about Ball Lightning no matter what
initial MHD form conceived that is non-tokamak, it almost has to be 
going in the correct direction.  These things take time and attention, 
that's all.  The brains are there.  


Do like the chickens eating scratch (cracked corn) down in President
Clinton's home state:  
                      "Just keep pecking away."  
                       All of the possibilties 
                         will be uncovered 
                          sooner or later.  
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc,Bx 1037, Prometheus II, Ltd., College Park, MD 20741-1037 |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.15 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Hot?? Fusion Funding - Science ??
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Hot?? Fusion Funding - Science ??
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 1994 05:18:53 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <1994Jul14.030225.19971@Princeton.EDU> Robert F. Heeter
<rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> writes:
>From: Eugene Mallove, 76570.2270@compuserve.com
>>A brief note in Science magazine, 1 July 1994, page 19 nicely
>illustrates the 
>>charade of hot fusion funding, in particular, and Washington politics in 
>>general.
>
>Not really.  What you've described is an extreme situation, as far as 
>I can tell.  In what way do you call it a "charade?"

>> Presumably even some hot fusioneers are put off by this Congressional
>>lunacy, or perhaps they don't give a damn. 

>I think it's safe to say that all fusioneers would prefer to do without
>the congressional budget circus.  I find it interesting to watch you
>presume to know what those of us in the field are thinking.

I think that remark cuts finer than you think.  

The use of the phrase "HOT fusion" is a good decent to describe Hot
fusion processes.     BUT the "D-T" burn is NOT hot, it is WARM !!!
In fact it's "lukewarm" at that, considering the necessity to use 
tritium.    

SO... laddies and lassies, be we right to use the words "tokamak fusion" 
when we mean toadamak fusion or perhaps "warm fusion".  Hot is that
for which the others of us are striving.  Be happy you HAVE the
Funds.. the funds the funds..    What do we have??  .. .just a cockeyed
itch, that our diffent approach (advanced  hen-he-ho.. ..) will work.     

Be there an argument, just consider either the difference in temperature
betwixt cold fusion and tokamak fusion, and the 250-300 keV temperatures
Hot fusion (advanced aneutronic like most advanced star energy) that
at which we others shall commercialize.  Those are mighty big steps.  
      ---  cold  ----  warm ----  hot ---  
                                          seems more than kind.  

Or the plasma pressure difference - not millitorr, but, a fractional bar  
or better (realized nkt not counting B^2).    

>they're money is being used to successfully advance hot fusion research
>towards making a practical energy source, that you would call it a
>"media romp"?  I should note that as a leader of the CF media community,
>you are throwing stones inside your glass house...

remember now ... " not hot "  but " tokamak research"  ..  ... that's
the spirit!      And  NO NO NO never use the "advanced" word.. go back
5 places.  (Use of the "advanced" word with out a license is punishable
by having to .. well we'll think of something.. (what's more cruel then
working on a tokamak??)    

>Even more interestingly, your comments at this late date show that you
>really haven't kept up with the news.  On the senate floor Johnston
>sponsored an amendment to restore TPX funding; the amendment passed.
>TPX is now fully funded in both the house and senate bills, and will
>therefore go into construction mode starting next fiscal year.  This
>all happened over a week ago.

>IMHO, this is a tremendous success for the fusion research program,
>since the history of the program in recent years is cluttered by the
>corpses of machines (CIT, BPX) which were designed and then denied
>construction funding.  Congress seems to be behind fusion once again.

Oh!  Most Certainly they are!! 

 .... just like being  "BEHIND" the super collider! (for the big KICK)

This may be a "setup". .. 
                           or don't you go to the occasional movie.   

Elections in the fall  --   one never knows.  ITER  TPX  "Hey, I 
just discovered a savings for the American people!  And, honestly, 
look at the record.   .. . They failed this way or that way .. 
they won't have much of a problem with the DoE in full 
bureaucratic cooperative function.  That's seems their avocation.  
Need a patsy anyone? 

Why do you think they let their little piranha (freshmen 
tok-haters) out of the tank during the fusion hearing in the 
house.  Just to nick the targets; like a wolf nicks a couple 
of deer in a herd so the pack has an easy scent to follow.  
blood drop supreme  Yum yum.   

Let's see.. before TPX there was CIT?  and then, BPX .. and then . .    
As I remember one or two of them actually had several iterations
a sort of multiple choice!.  I don't think the record supports 
much confidence .. yet. they did start the fund..ding?? or is this
El Tay-hass all over again.  

Look, see how they are slicing and dicing the space program.  

If you represented something beside a creaky dinosaur of a lab 
physics experiment, there would be something there to save.. but 
you(PPPL) and others (DoE labs) joined together in lockstep and 
now it's scrubbed clean. .. Squeeky clean.. "Just the tokers"

The only way to reverse it would be to have EACH of the power 
companies (except EPRI [itself] and those serving or feeding DoE 
affiliate labs [with the working machines]) choose up a COUPLE 
of internal engineers to review this thing.  First they would 
work out what their own staff could live with as commercial fusion 
device (no holds barred), then the intercompany meet to thrash 
things out -- for a year or less among themselves.  Then announce 
to the DoE its new National fusion Policy.  They should recommend 
to the President the appropriate changes in leadership and 
organization within the DoE in order to implement the policy 
forthwith and to the letter. This Electric power company produced 
control board would have a limited life of 10 or 15 years max., 
and less if the need dissipated or the problem was successfully 
assumed by private industry.     

That fact that the DoE is now regulating itself and using 
"industry" that happens to have an interest in building the 
various fusion gadgets is beyond the pale.  Only those with a 
vested interest in the success of the development (the electric 
power industry) should be in judgment.  That excludes power 
company research institutes for the same reason of conflict of 
interest. Science research and Commercial development may 
indicate different tacks.     

I apologize for the harangue.  just can't  seem to help it ..  
                   a gg gggghhhh I need help...  doctori  favori.. 

                               "Non dici `tokamaki'  near the boy." 
                                    Non dici..  

>Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
>Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University
>As always, I represent only myself, and not PPPL
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc, Bx 1037 Prometheus II Ltd, College Park MD 20741-1037    |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.15 /  fairfax@sensei /  Alcator Progress 7/15/94
     
Originally-From: fairfax@sensei.pfc.mit.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Alcator Progress 7/15/94
Date: 15 JUL 94 13:20:47 GMT
Organization: MIT PLASMA FUSION CENTER

			Alcator C-MOD Weekly Highlights
				July 14, 1994

The maintenance/repair period is continuing, with the primary activity being
a partial disassembly of the machine to repair the OH2L coaxial buss. 

Rapid progress is being made in the disassembly. On Saturday the cylinder was
removed, and relocated to the northeast corner of the cell. By Wednesday
morning all of the vertical and top radial TF arms had been removed.
Inspection of the felt-metal sliding joint surfaces during the disassembly
showed these to be in very good condition. 

The upper wedge plate was also removed on Wednesday. Some of the upper
mounting plates were temporarily removed to provide access to the OH1 and OH2U
coaxial busses. These busses are identical in design to the OH2L buss. On
removal, the OH1 coax buss was found to be in perfect condition. The OH2U
buss, on the other hand, showed definite indications of a developing problem.
This additional evidence will help in diagnosing the cause of the problem on
the lower (OH2L) coax.

The assembly stand has been placed in position in the southeast corner of the
cell. The machine will be transferred to the assembly stand for removal of
the lower arms and wedge plate, providing access to the damaged OH2L coax
buss.  

Martin Greenwald is attending a meeting of the Fusion Computing Council in
Washington this week. On Monday and Tuesday, Steve Fairfax participated in a
meeting of the CPEP Fusion Committee at PPPL. 

On July 11 and 12, J. Terry, J. Rice, and M. Graf traveled to The Johns
Hopkins Univ. for meetings with the plasma diagnostics group at Hopkins
(Michael Finkenthal, Moshe Cohen, and Mark May) and the atomic theory group
from LLNL (Bill Goldstein and Kevin Fournier). The discussions concerned the
present state of atomic physics modeling of the medium and high ionization
states of molybdenum. Experimental data (x-ray and VUV spectra)  from C-Mod
were presented. These results will be used for comparison with  the 
sophisticated atomic physics modeling being carried out by the Hopkins and
LLNL groups. 


cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenfairfax cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.15 / Carey Sublette /  Re:  Atomic, Hydrogen & Neutron Bomb Design & Simulation
     
Originally-From: sublette@ferrari.libra.loral.com (Carey Sublette)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re:  Atomic, Hydrogen & Neutron Bomb Design & Simulation
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 1994 14:28:48 GMT
Organization: Loral Western Development Labs

In article <30531o$ljl@neuro.usc.edu>
merlin@neuro.usc.edu (merlin) writes:

> In article <> "R.Fleming" <roger_sf@postoffice.utas.edu.au> writes:
> >I can think of a few very complex ways to produce a spherically symmetric 
> >convergent wave from a single point, but they would all require either 
> >complex tailored gradients of detonation velocity, or taking the wave 
> >through arbitrary paths (like detcord) to various lenses.  Neither simple 
> >nor reliable. More hints?
> 
Excerpted from repsonse: 
>
> ... take a look at standard compressed matter physics textbooks
> for high explosive techniques ...
>
> But, if you look closely at the possible designs you will note most 
> textbooks have ...
> 
> ... The technique for generating series
> of high precision cylindrically imploding shock waves is described in most
> practical compressed matter physics textbooks ...
> ... 
> there are several public
> published articles (particularly in french from the late 1960's) containing
> designs ...
>

Do you have some specific references you could recommend? Thanks.

Carey Sublette
sublette@libra.loral.com
This is a personal communication only.
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudensublette cudfnCarey cudlnSublette cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.15 / Jim Carr /  Re: Jones will stoop to anything
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Jones will stoop to anything
Date: 15 Jul 1994 11:08:22 -0400
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

In article <940714133254_72240.1256_EHB140-1@CompuServe.COM> 
72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
|
|Yet, on July 8, 1994 he <Steve Jones> wrote:
|
|     "Mr. Toyoda himself is quoted by H. Ikegami in the Proceedings of the
|     Nagoya conf. on cold fusion:
| 
|     "Cold fusion is not a matter to be studied by one single enterprise or
|     nation. I have confidence that it will become the greatest asset as an
|     eventual energy for mankind, to be shared among the world."    
|     (PRoceedings, p. iv, 1993)
| 
|     It takes quite a MAN to inspire such CONfidence."
|
|This stupid little joke implies that Toyoda is a CON-MAN (confidence man;

To the contrary, I interpreted that statement as a reference to the 
person who inspired such confidence in Mr. Toyoda, not Toyoda himself. 

-- 
 James A. Carr   <jac@scri.fsu.edu>     |  Raw data is like raw sewage, it
      http://www.scri.fsu.edu           |  requires some processing before
 Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst.  |  it can be spread around.  The 
 Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306    |  opposite is true of theories. 
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.15 / Jim Carr /  Re: Jones will stoop to anything
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Jones will stoop to anything
Date: 15 Jul 1994 11:12:16 -0400
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

In article <940714133254_72240.1256_EHB140-1@CompuServe.COM> 
72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
|
|Jones is a consummate liar and plagiarist. He tried to steal Pons and
|Fleischmann's idea is 1989,  ...

Surely you know better, Jed, since you have been told about the 
notarized notebooks by people who have seen them even if you have 
not seen them yourself.  And if you know better, one has to presume 
you are making a false statement with malice.  I think you owe Steve 
an apology, not that an apology lets you off any legal hook. 

I have saved a copy of the article, as of 11:12 EDT 15 July 1994, 
if that matters to anyone....

-- 
 James A. Carr   <jac@scri.fsu.edu>     |  Raw data is like raw sewage, it
      http://www.scri.fsu.edu           |  requires some processing before
 Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst.  |  it can be spread around.  The 
 Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306    |  opposite is true of theories. 
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.15 / Mark North /  Re: advanced fuel cycles
     
Originally-From: north@watop.nosc.mil (Mark North)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: advanced fuel cycles
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 1994 15:35:29 GMT
Organization: NCCOSC RDT&E Division, San Diego, CA

Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> writes:

>>My apologies if this is a Cold Fusion only group.

>It's not!

Well, it was, but that's OK. Carry on.

Mark

cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudennorth cudfnMark cudlnNorth cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.15 / Richard Schultz /  Re: Jones will stoop to anything
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Jones will stoop to anything
Date: 15 Jul 1994 16:08:40 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley

In article <30690g$pei@ds8.scri.fsu.edu>,
Jim Carr <jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu> wrote:
#In article <940714133254_72240.1256_EHB140-1@CompuServe.COM> 
#72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
##
##Jones is a consummate liar and plagiarist. He tried to steal Pons and
##Fleischmann's idea is 1989,  ...
#
#Surely you know better, Jed, since you have been told about the 
#notarized notebooks by people who have seen them even if you have 
#not seen them yourself.  And if you know better, one has to presume 
#you are making a false statement with malice.  I think you owe Steve 
#an apology, not that an apology lets you off any legal hook. 

Actually, I am not sure the Mr. Rothwell is *on* any legal hook.  If
he had written that Professor Jones had tried to steal the idea
IN 1989, then that might be actionable for libel or slander (whichever
applies here), although since I doubt Professor Jones's reputation can
possibly be harmed by the ravings of someone like Rothwell.  But in
any case, all that Rothwell said was that "He tried to steal. . . IS
1989," which doesn't make too much sense (par for the course, I realize),
but the best I can make out is that the phrase "He. . .idea" is 1989
on some list (Excedrin headaches?)./

				Richard Schultz

cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.15 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Not crying wolf
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Not crying wolf
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 1994 14:07:38 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <werme.774112949@alingo.zk3.dec.com>,
Eric Werme <werme@zk3.dec.com> wrote:
>
>The *key* difference with the Griggs device is that the company that
>developed it was not looking for getting something for nothing, didn't
>believe it when they did, and welcome people in to help them figure out
>where or if the measurements are going awry.  At the time of the
>article, about the only thing I can think of that really should have
>been done is to measure the mechanical power transmitted between motor
>an pump, and that was the next thing they wanted to do.
>
>Comparing the Griggs device to some of the quackery that has gone on in
>the field is to do a disservice to people trying to do things right and
>to those who bought the magazine, and especially to those taking part in
>trying to figure out what is going on.

    Well, I everything I know about the 'Griggs device' comes from 
    an article written by Mssrs. Rothwell and Mallove.  And I'm quite sure
    that Mssrs. Rothwell and Mallove have a somewhat different view
    of science and proof than I hold.  So, I suspect one must also
    include the source as well as the report unless we're all going
    to tramp down to Georgia to do the experiments ourselves.

    And I don't know about you, but there's very little future in devices
    that violate the first law.

    Besides, it seems quite idiotic to me to arrive at the system
    he has in the process of 'creat(ing) a device that could efficiently 
    produce and circulate hot water or steam in a building'.
    Where did he get the idea that throwing viscous dissipation in the 
    system would *contribute* to thermodynamic efficiency?  That is somewhat
    at variance with the last 100 years thought on this very subject.

    In any case, we seem to have a prima facie case of a violation of the 
    first law of thermodynamics. 

    My suspicion is that they're fooling the power measuring apparatus
    on one end or the other (especially the end connected to the 
    motor).  

    But, I'd not get all that excited about this.  Sooner or later, 
    the mistake will become apparent to all but the inventor himself, 
    Rothwell, and Mallove.

    Excess credulity seems to be a plague around those parts.

                               dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.15 / Robert Eachus /  Re: ZPE, muons and CF
     
Originally-From: eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: ZPE, muons and CF
Date: 15 Jul 94 14:38:41
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.

In article <WAF2PCB301993249@brbbs.brbbs.com> mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com
(MARSHALL DUDLEY) writes:

  > However, if a virtual particle could act as a catalyst, then it
  > should be possible for it to cause a detectable action, yet not
  > violate the energy equations.  That is, I see nothing to stop a
  > virtual particle and it's anitparticle from being created, one of
  > the pair causing some type of catalytic action, then recombining
  > and disappearing again, leaving the catalyzed action as proof of
  > their short but real existance.

   This is possible and does happen.  There are esoteric cases which
still remain theoretical: evaporation of quantum black holes, as well
as practical observed cases: isotopes which decay by positron emission.

  > One such possible catalytic action would be muon catalyzed fusion
  > of two deuterium atoms.  Would it be possible for deuterium atoms
  > to be held in position near other deuterium atoms, ie. in a
  > metallic crystal, so that muons which originate from the vacuum
  > could catalyze them into He4 before recombining into nothingness.

   Electron-positron cases are much more likely.  The virtual particles
live longer, and since the particle creation energy is less than that
released by the reaction, there is no need for the original particles
to recombine.  The signature of this reaction, would be annihilation
radiation as the now non-virtual positron combined with an electron.

   For example:

        --> e+ + e- (virtual)
      d + e-  -->  n + n
      d + n --> t + energy
      t + n --> He4 + e- + energy
      e+ + e- --> energy

    or (more probable):

                     _
      p --> n + e+ + v (virtual)
      n + d --> t + energy
      
    Note, in the last case, that a electon neutrino is needed as an
input or an antineutrino is created.  (Did I get that right?  I'm
always confused babout which are the neutrinos and which
antineutrinos.)  This would be a (hard to verify) signature.

  > If this did happen would it be possible that the action may
  > prevent the muon/anti-muon from recombining, thus leaving a debit
  > energy for the vacuum, the satisfaction of which would necessarly
  > suppress gamma emissions?

   You can't fool Mother Nature, at least not that way.  But in (some)
reactions which involve virtual proton decay or virtual electron
creation the debt can be paid when called due.  The only problem is
that cold fusion is back to go.  Since all these require "too close"
hydrogen nuclei.  If that exists, then, yes, these reactions will
distribute/suppress the energy generated.  (But we are still looking
at hundreds of keV per particle, nothing to sneeze at, and not
something which has shown up.  At least it would explain a preference
for creating tritium and the lack of fast neutrons.)

--

					Robert I. Eachus

with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudeneachus cudfnRobert cudlnEachus cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.15 / A Williams /  Re: My own Cold Fusion -- On Steve Jones' statements
     
Originally-From: alby@uunet.uu.net (Anthony Williams)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: My own Cold Fusion -- On Steve Jones' statements
Date: 15 Jul 1994 14:57:57 -0400
Organization: UUNET Technologies, Inc.  (Earth offices)




	Now I see I have a task ahead of me. Anybody wanna sell some
of their D20? Or do you have a filter so I can obtain 1 part D20 from
1000 parts of H20.. :)

-Alby
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenalby cudfnAnthony cudlnWilliams cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.15 / DAVID SHELTON /  CF patent - CANON
     
Originally-From: dshelton@vmsmail.gov.bc.ca (DAVID SHELTON)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CF patent - CANON
Date: 15 Jul 94 11:36:19 PDT
Organization: BC Systems Corporation

I occasionally check this group out to see how CF is going but lately seem to 
get more heat than light.

A recent item of interest, as reported in the 25 June New Scientist
pp23, is a CF related patent (EP 568 118) granted to CANON. 

Here I quote:

"(patent)...claims new ways to absorb large volumes of deuterium in a metal
carrier, by putting it close to a pair of electrodes to create a gas 
discharge in a hydrogen-filled chamber. Cold fusion is promoted by 
cycling the power supply through low and high voltages.
The carrier can be a block of magnesium alloy or palladium alloy. 
For safety, the hydrogen gas is at atmospheric pressure. The pulsed 
power comes from large capacitors, and the electrodes are shaped to
concentrate the electric field.
After storing deuterium in a palladium alloy for 60 minutes, says CANON, 
the deuterium content had increased, with a tenfold increase in gamma 
ray emission after 120 hours. Applying 5 minute cycles of 5 and 500 volts
DC for 50 hours produced a twentyfold increase in emission. More heat
was generated at the negative electrode than the electric energy 
consumed at the two electrodes. All this, says CANON, proves that
cold fusion works. "Nuclear fusion can be occasioned relatively 
easily... and thus a method for multiplying heat energy capable of 
generating a sufficiently large quantity of heat energy for practical 
application," it claims."
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudendshelton cudfnDAVID cudlnSHELTON cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.14 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  ZPE, muons and CF
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: ZPE, muons and CF
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 1994 13:32 -0500 (EST)

I have been looking at some of the theories regarding ZPE and quantum
mechanics.  According to theory, virtual particles are continually popping into
existance from the vacuum, then recombining and disappearing.  According to
most people's interpretation of this process, the particles can be detected by
various means, many of them related to QM, such as the uncertainty principle.
However, most agree you cannot extract energy from this (Those attempting ZPE
excess energy devices think you can though).

However, if a virtual particle could act as a catalyst, then it should be
possible for it to cause a detectable action, yet not violate the energy
equations.  That is, I see nothing to stop a virtual particle and it's
anitparticle from being created, one of the pair causing some type of catalytic
action, then recombining and disappearing again, leaving the catalyzed action
as proof of their short but real existance.

One such possible catalytic action would be muon catalyzed fusion of two
deuterium atoms.  Would it be possible for deuterium atoms to be held in
position near other deuterium atoms, ie. in a metallic crystal, so that muons
which originate from the vacuum could catalyze them into He4 before recombining
into nothingness.  If this did happen would it be possible that the action may
prevent the muon/anti-muon from recombining, thus leaving a debit energy for
the vacuum, the satisfaction of which would necessarly suppress gamma
emissions?

                                                                Marshall
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.14 / J Glazenburg-Di /  Re: Wherefore art thou 20kW CF heater?
     
Originally-From: jmd@bear.com (Josh Glazenburg-Diamond)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Wherefore art thou 20kW CF heater?
Date: 14 Jul 94 18:17:06 GMT
Organization: Bear, Stearns & Co. - FAST



Concerning the subject of this thread, I remind you all that
"wherefore" is not a synonym for "where":

	where~fore
	-- adv. 1. For what purpose or reason; why. 2. Therefore.
	-- n. A purpose or cause.
	
Spidey!!!

--
You don't hunt ducks with a turnip! 

 /\ \  / /\  Josh Glazenburg-Diamond                               jmd@bear.com
//\\ .. //\\ AKA Spidey!!!                        ...!ctr.columbia.edu!ursa!jmd
//\((  ))/\\
/  < `' >  \                                              Do whatever it takes.
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenjmd cudfnJosh cudlnGlazenburg-Diamond cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.14 / Chris Staszak /  Re: Atomic, Hydrogen & Neutron Bomb Design & Simulation
     
Originally-From: staszak@enuxsa.eas.asu.edu (Chris Staszak)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Atomic, Hydrogen & Neutron Bomb Design & Simulation
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 1994 16:51:21 GMT
Organization: Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ

In article <302kdm$gjs@neuro.usc.edu>, merlin <merlin@neuro.usc.edu> wrote:
>
>
>Does anyone care to set up an anonymous ftp site outside of the USA
>where thermonuclear design articles, source code, and data might be
>legally assembled and made available to the rest of the world?  The
>existence of an ftp site from which anyone could download necessary
>programs, datasets, and design examples would end current effort to
>pretend 'the secret of the bomb' is still sacrosanct.  The 'priests
>of the bomb' failed in their mission & released the secret long ago.
>

In sci.military I have come across info regarding an Australian
web site that is trying to compile such information.

The URL is :

http://tauon.ph.unimelb.edu.au/~gau/smurf.html

I haven't had a chance to check it out yet and see what info
is at this site.

Chris


cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenstaszak cudfnChris cudlnStaszak cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.14 /  jonesse@xray.b /  Re: My own Cold Fusion
     
Originally-From: jonesse@xray.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: My own Cold Fusion
Date: 14 Jul 94 10:21:42 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

In article <3018g5$k9@cthulu.UU.NET>, alby@uunet.uu.net (Anthony Williams) writes:
> 	I am not a scientist, although I would like to run my own test
> on the cold fusion theory. What materials are needed to attempt a cold
> fusion reactor?  Where can I obtain H3O and palladium?
> 
> 
> -Alby

If you're not a scientist, you're just the man to test cold fusion.
"We don't need no stinkin' scientists" is the cold-fusioneers motto, ya know.
Palladium is easy to come by these days -- at a coin shop, for instance.
But H3O, now that's the difficult one.  Ask Rothwell.  But don't ask a
scientist or tell him why you need H3O -- he'll just look at you funny. 

Bon chance.
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenjonesse cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.15 / Eugene Mallove /  Heeter Fusion
     
Originally-From: 76570.2270@compuserve.com (Eugene Mallove)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Heeter Fusion
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 1994 02:41:35 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

My, my. Robert Heeter has some problems with how I presented the Science 
article on the Senator Johnston budgetary hostage-taking.  

>In what way do you call it a "charade?"

O.K., Robert, "charade" was not the best word. I think "gigantic con-job" 
would be better, because it applies to the entire tokamak program, not just 
this little piddling budgetary skirmish over a lousy $70 million or so -- 
peanuts in the context of the *intended* long-term tokamak rip-off.


>I think it's safe to say that all fusioneers would prefer to do without
>the congressional budget circus.  I find it interesting to watch you
>presume to know what those of us in the field are thinking.

Yes, Robert, I know that you hot fusioneers would prefer to have all your 
money approved in advance for decades and not have to come back to Congress 
each year to deal with the "budget circus." Yes, I know very well what you all
are thinking. You guys think you are saviours of the world, so you will fight 
anyone and anything that gets in your way -- aneutronic hot fusion, cold 
fusion, or whatever.


>I find it especially interesting when you suddenly claim omniscience
>regarding our attitudes...

I am far from omniscient, just very well aware of what the typical tokamak 
person thinks. Remember, I used to write hot fusion propaganda for Ron Parker 
at MIT. Some of that even found its way into Fire from Ice! (N.B. It will be 
excised in the updated edition.) I acknowledge that *some* people in hot 
fusion can't get out fast enough, because they know the oblivion that's coming
and they don't want to be working on a program that obviously has no future.


>On the contrary, the progress shown in the December experiments (and 
>improved upon in May, when 9 MW were generated), shows that hot fusion
>will succeed eventually. 

Listen, Bob, quit while you're still young, energetic, and ahead. Get into 
cold fusion, mutual funds, or basketball, but not hot fusion.  Hot fusion -- 
at least of the tokamak variety -- will never succeed, not because it is 
physically impossible to build an engineering-prototype tokamak 
power-producer, but because the program has so little time left. The tokamak 
program will be utterly destroyed by excess energy devices of the cold fusion 
variety. I give HF two years more, tops.


>Johnston wasn't threatening to kill fusion, just to delay the program 
>until the administration got itself firmly behind ITER.

I know, I know. Quite a game of chicken, eh?


>Your suppositions are insulting, especially because you apparently
>couldn't bring yourself to ask politely.

Hey, man, what do you have against left big toes? O.K., thanks for the info on
the $2 megabucks for s.c. magnets.


>On the senate floor Johnston
>sponsored an amendment to restore TPX funding; the amendment passed.
>TPX is now fully funded in both the house and senate bills, and will
>therefore go into construction mode starting next fiscal year.  This
>all happened over a week ago.

Oh, goddie, goodie, the con-artists got their money after all! You thought I 
didn't think they would get it?


>Congress seems to be behind fusion once again.

You are living in a dream world, Bob. Get real! The first program to get the 
ax after the working CF devices are accepted by all people -- except Huizenga,
Morrison, and Jones -- will be hot fusion.


--Gene Mallove

cudkeys:
cuddy15 cuden2270 cudfnEugene cudlnMallove cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.15 / mitchell swartz /  Re: My own Cold Fusion -- On Steve Jones' statements
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: My own Cold Fusion -- On Steve Jones' statements
Subject: Re: My own Cold Fusion
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 1994 02:16:53 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

   In Message-ID: <1994Jul14.102142.1677@xray.byu.edu>
Subject: Re: My own Cold Fusion
Steven Jones (jonesse@xray.byu.edu) writes, possibly demonstrating
  some of the less charitable aspects of the TB-skeptics & TB-opportunists:

SJONES=   In  article <3018g5$k9@cthulu.UU.NET>, 
SJONES=   alby@uunet.uu.net (Anthony Williams) writes:
        >  I00 am not a scientist, although I would like to run my own test
        > on the cold fusion theory. What materials are needed to attempt a cold
       > fusion reactor?  Where can I obtain H3O and palladium?

SJONES= If you're not a scientist, you're just the man to test cold fusion.
SJONES= "We don't need no stinkin' scientists" is the cold-fusioneers
SJONES=  motto, ya know.

   The is simply untrue.   It also demonstrates a well-polished effort to apply
global ad hominems, too typical for Mr. Jones.    If Steve ducked science less
(in the fashion of other skeptics here like Dick Blue, Dieter Britz, and others) 
many of these exhanges would be resolved, science would be progressed,
and these missives would be about fusion.


SJONES= Palladium is easy to come by these days--at a coin shop, 
SJONES= for instance.
SJONES= But H3O, now that's the difficult one.  Ask Rothwell. 
SJONES= But don't ask a
SJONES= scientist or tell him why you need H3O --
SJONES=  he'll just look at you funny. 

  If Mr. Jones was a serious scientist actually familiar with the field
he would have been aware that  H3O is merely acidic light water 
with successful electron charge transfer thereto. 
   Hardly worthy of a "funny" look.

   D2O is the proper material for the requested reactions of cold fusion.
      The pH(D) is usually (but not always)
               on the other end of the spectrum, too.

   Best wishes
                Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com)
 

cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.14 /  merlin /  Re:  Atomic, Hydrogen & Neutron Bomb Design & Simulation
     
Originally-From: merlin@neuro.usc.edu (merlin)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re:  Atomic, Hydrogen & Neutron Bomb Design & Simulation
Date: 14 Jul 1994 21:24:24 -0700
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA

In article <> "R.Fleming" <roger_sf@postoffice.utas.edu.au> writes:
>I can think of a few very complex ways to produce a spherically symmetric 
>convergent wave from a single point, but they would all require either 
>complex tailored gradients of detonation velocity, or taking the wave 
>through arbitrary paths (like detcord) to various lenses.  Neither simple 
>nor reliable. More hints?

First hint -- think harder -- the technique is neither complex or unreliable
-- consider creating an explosive lens with a curved (spiral) surface rather
than a simple linear or conical surface -- a nine year old child guessed the
technique for generating spherical imploding shock wave from a single point
detonation after I explained conical explosive lenses and single spherical
imploding shock wave problem to her.  This is definitely not a hard problem!

Second hint -- take a look at standard compressed matter physics textbooks
for high explosive techniques to rapidly compress a hollow cylinder into
skinny vertical rod -- some techniques use multiple precision detonators
(often hand crafted) and highly reliable electrical system (high voltage
krytron tube) to set off the precision detonators simultaneously.  But, if
you look closely at the possible designs you will note most textbooks have
an example of a single detonator (in case of a cylindrical implosion what
is often refered to as a plane detonator -- but the plane detonator easily
reduces to a single point source of detonation in a cross section of this
cylindrical implosion system).  Generalize the 2D transverse cross section
of the cylindrical implosion device to a three dimensional case -- et voila 
-- a highly reliable single point of detonation system for a high precision 
spherical implosion wave emerges!!!

Third hint -- note, however, that while a perfectly symmetrical implosion
wave is nice -- a series of perfectly symmetrical imploding waves is much
more efficient in terms of achieving isentropically uniform implosion of
a spherical target to higher density.  The technique for generating series
of high precision cylindrically imploding shock waves is described in most
practical compressed matter physics textbooks -- and the technique for the
generation of a series of high precision spherically imploding shock waves
is easily generalized from these examples -- and there are several public
published articles (particularly in french from the late 1960's) containing
designs for explosive driven multiple spherical imploding shock waves.
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenmerlin cudlnmerlin cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.15 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Heeter Fusion
     
Originally-From: barry@joshua.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Heeter Fusion
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 94 05:03:45 GMT
Organization: UCLA Dept. of Math, UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research

In article <940715022458_76570.2270_HHB32-1@CompuServe.COM> 76570.2270@c
mpuserve.com (Eugene Mallove) writes:
>The tokamak 
>program will be utterly destroyed by excess energy devices of the cold fusion 
>variety. I give HF two years more, tops.
>

Go ahead, make my day :-).

I am amused by the hostility the CF true believers display towards the 
government magnetic fusion program. Personally, I work on (hot) fusion 
because I want the world to have a good energy source for the future.
Hot fusion (maybe not a tokamak, but some kind) seems like the most
promising alternative to existing power supplies. While I don't think 
CF will ever produce useful energy, I would be overjoyed if it did.
Then I could go work on some other problem.

Perhaps the hostility is due to their not getting their perceived
slice of the funding pie. Well, if thats the problem, just demonstrate
that CF exists and maybe you will get some (then deserved) funding.
Shouldn;t be too hard given the status reports coming from Jed.


--
Barry Merriman
UCLA Dept. of Math
UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet)   barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (NeXTMail)
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Sat Jul 16 04:37:03 EDT 1994
------------------------------
1994.07.15 / Ken Doniger /  Re: advanced fuel cycles
     
Originally-From: doniger@lsil.com (Ken Doniger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: advanced fuel cycles
Date: 15 Jul 1994 20:40:44 GMT
Organization: LSI Logic Corporation

Thank you, Robert Heeter and Paul Koloc for your replies.  My newsreader
automatically appended the (incorrect) return e-mail address.  My actual
address is doniger@lsil.com.

I studied plasma physics at Berkeley about 10 years ago.  I have not worked
in the fusion program since.

As regards the Lidsky article, Robert is correct that fusion is mainly compared
to fission.  I don't like fission either, but Lidsky's fundamental thesis is
that a fusion reactor based on the DT cycle would be complicated (and thus prone
to breakdown) and hard to repair and maintain. I also remember
that the power plant designs tended to be 1000 MWatts or more.
 This makes a fusion plant unattractive
to a utility company even compared to fission, to say nothing of coal or natural gas.
I don't think that any of this has changed since the article was written.

The few articles I've read on advanced fuel cycle machines concentrated on 
multipoles with (maybe) a levitated central conductor.  Pretty stable, low B
field in the bulk of the plasma, but a superconducting coil in the middle of
a fusion plasma???

Recently, Daniel Barnes et al. at Los Alamos have come up with idea of using a
Penning trap and inducing oscillations to get the necessary density for fusion.
If only ions were stored in the trap, the confinement time could be extremely
long.  Could this be a workable scheme for an advanced fuel cycle machine?

Comments please,
Ken Doniger



cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudendoniger cudfnKen cudlnDoniger cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.15 /  prasad /  Re: My own Cold Fusion
     
Originally-From: c1prasad@watson.ibm.com (prasad)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: My own Cold Fusion
Date: 15 Jul 1994 20:51:48 GMT
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

In article <3018g5$k9@cthulu.UU.NET>, alby@uunet.uu.net (Anthony Williams) writes:
|> 
|> 
|> 
|> 	I am not a scientist, although I would like to run my own test
|> on the cold fusion theory. What materials are needed to attempt a cold
|> fusion reactor?  Where can I obtain H3O and palladium?

First, it's H20 + Ni or D20 + Pd, from what I gather.

Second, it takes awfully long (> 18 days) and needs elaborate equipment
(calorimeters, power supply, pen chart recorders, etc) to be able to
measure the enthalpies to start with.

Third, it's apparently a bit risky, if you pull out the Pd cathode while
still loaded with the nascent H ions - gets too hot and is reported to
have killed somebody in Ca in Jan '93.  Don't let that get you down, because
lots of folks are clearly able to handle it without problems.

Fourth, Pd costs about $110/oz, and comes in good standard sizes, eg.
10 cm x 1 mm dia wires, as used originally by P&F.

Fifth, all the best with your experiment.

|> 
|> 
|> -Alby
|> 
|> 

-- 

#pragma prejudices=own brainwaves=own others=absolved
// email: 71155.3116@compuserve.com, poll= 1/month.
// bad habits: unwashed robes, xrn.
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenc1prasad cudlnprasad cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.15 /  prasad /  Re: Hilborn, Criddle and Shaubach
     
Originally-From: c1prasad@watson.ibm.com (prasad)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Hilborn, Criddle and Shaubach
Date: 15 Jul 1994 20:57:02 GMT
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center


John Logajan writes:
...
The summary of my current Nalgene tank results are:

15W  0.275 - 0.280 C/W
30W  0.263 - 0.269 C/W
60W  0.244 - 0.248 C/W

Hopefully I will have 90watt readings by Thursday night.  I will be out of
town after that until Monday night, so I won't have any more results until
late next week.

-- 

John, I'm curious to know what the temperature and pressure are like
in the tank when the excess power condition sets in?


#pragma prejudices=own brainwaves=own others=absolved
// email: 71155.3116@compuserve.com, poll= 1/month.
// bad habits: unwashed robes, xrn.
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenc1prasad cudlnprasad cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.15 /  prasad /  Re: My own Cold Fusion -- On Steve Jones' statements
     
Originally-From: c1prasad@watson.ibm.com (prasad)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: My own Cold Fusion -- On Steve Jones' statements
Date: 15 Jul 1994 21:07:41 GMT
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

In article <306m7l$1d0@cthulu.UU.NET>, alby@uunet.uu.net (Anthony Williams) writes:
|> 
|> 
|> 
|> 	Now I see I have a task ahead of me. Anybody wanna sell some
|> of their D20? Or do you have a filter so I can obtain 1 part D20 from
|> 1000 parts of H20.. :)
|> 
|> -Alby

-- 

You don't need it.  Go get some water and some nickel.

{just my nickel's worth! ;)}


#pragma prejudices=own brainwaves=own others=absolved
// email: 71155.3116@compuserve.com, poll= 1/month.
// bad habits: unwashed robes, xrn.

{ or niklaus' wirth  - what a comment in curly braces! }
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenc1prasad cudlnprasad cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.15 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Heeter Fusion
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Heeter Fusion
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 1994 21:14:51 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <1994Jul15.050345.7964@math.ucla.edu> barry@joshua.math.ucla.
du (Barry Merriman) writes:
>In article <940715022458_76570.2270_HHB32-1@CompuServe.COM> 76570.2270@
ompuserve.com (Eugene Mallove) writes:
>>The tokamak 
>>program will be utterly destroyed by excess energy devices of the cold fusion 
>>variety. I give HF two years more, tops.
>>

>Go ahead, make my day :-).

>I am amused by the hostility the CF true believers display towards the 
>government magnetic fusion program. Personally, I work on (hot) fusion 
>because I want the world to have a good energy source for the future.
>Hot fusion (maybe not a tokamak, but some kind) seems like the most
>promising alternative to existing power supplies. 

I'm amused by the smugness of well funded "tokamak locksteppers", 
although did you have qualifications on its ultimate success??. 

If you have a question as to the efficacy of the tokamak program, 
and you are truly working for humankind, then don't you think your 
efforts should place more emphasis on sorting out which kind of 
machine would get you to your goal BEFORE you die of old age???   
That may include a bit of hacking at the funding structure to 
"lighten it up" a bit, assuming you would like to be paid.  But
if you are independently wealthy then by all means jump straight
to the efficacious task at hand.  Having money available to respond
to your needs to handle the logistics of such studies would be 
nice.  Right?? 

If you are only working for a buck.. ehh  and the statement was
a line..  Ahhhh, so what!

>Perhaps the hostility is due to their not getting their perceived
>slice of the funding pie.  .. .

No, my guess is because it's the taxpayers money is going, and 
going and going .. etc. down a rat hole.   ehhh???

Well???  Which is it?
>--
>Barry Merriman
>UCLA Dept. of Math
>UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
>barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet)   barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (NeXTMail)
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc, Bx 1037 Prometheus II Ltd, College Park MD 20741-1037    |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.16 /  RUSTY.PERRIN@h /  Re: Fusion Digest 2497
     
Originally-From: RUSTY.PERRIN@hq.doe.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion Digest 2497
Date: Sat, 16 Jul 1994 01:12:52 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Robert Heeter writes:
>Even more interestingly, your comments at this late date show that
>you really haven't kept up with the news.  On the senate floor
>Johnston sponsored an amendment to restore TPX funding; the
>amendment passed.  TPX is now fully funded in both the house and
>senate bills, and will therefore go into construction mode
>starting next fiscal year.  This all happened over a week ago.

>IMHO, this is a tremendous success for the fusion research
>program, since the history of the program in recent years is
>cluttered by the corpses of machines (CIT, BPX) which were
>designed and then denied construction funding.  Congress seems
>to be behind fusion once again.

Don't forget the proviso. The funding only becomes available if
TPX is authorized. The TPX construction funds are locked up and
unavailable until the authorization committees pass legislation
supporting TPX. If the TPX is never authorized, the construction
money does not ever become available. 

Johnston made comments to the effect that the authorizations
would make it through both House and Senate, but historically,
non-defense DOE programs have rarely been authorized, only
appropriated. So the Congress will have to take a bit more action
before you can truly say Congress is behind fusion, and before
construction can begin.

Rusty Perrin

Disclaimer: This all reflects my personnal understanding of the
situation after reading the text of the amendment and the
Congressional record.

BTW: Any comments on the cold fusion article in Thursday's Wall
Street Journal?

cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenPERRIN cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.16 / Dick Jackson /  Re: Heeter Fusion
     
Originally-From: jackson@soldev.tti.com (Dick Jackson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Heeter Fusion
Date: Sat, 16 Jul 1994 00:14:31 GMT
Organization: Citicorp-TTI at Santa Monica (CA) by the Sea

Barry Merriman writes:
Eugene Mallove writes:
>>The tokamak 
>>program will be utterly destroyed by excess energy devices of the cold fusion 
>>variety. I give HF two years more, tops.
>
>Go ahead, make my day :-).
>
>I am amused by the hostility the CF true believers display towards the 
>government magnetic fusion program. Personally, I work on (hot) fusion 
>because I want the world to have a good energy source for the future.
>Hot fusion (maybe not a tokamak, but some kind) seems like the most
>promising alternative to existing power supplies. While I don't think 
>CF will ever produce useful energy, I would be overjoyed if it did.
>Then I could go work on some other problem.

Even if cold fusion can be demonstrated and marketed, doesn't it have a
nasty problem in that it is, well, cold?  It may be fine for warming
houses and even for house water heaters, but as far as I know you could
not even use it to make a good cup of tea, let alone produce electricity
economically. I have not heard even the most fervent t.b. claim that
the effect can produce heat at a temperature high enough to make convert
its output efficiently.

So, hot fusioneers, you *will* be able to keep up the mortgage payments!

Dick Jackson
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenjackson cudfnDick cudlnJackson cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.15 / Paul Studier /  Pellet Fusion, Is it still alive?
     
Originally-From: pstudier@kaiwan.com (Paul L. Studier)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Pellet Fusion, Is it still alive?
Date: 15 Jul 1994 22:03:11 -0700
Organization: KAIWAN Internet (310/527-4279,818/756-0180,714/741-2920)

What ever happened to pellet fusion. It seems to me that separating the
source of the heating and compressing energy (laser or particle
accelerator) from the location of the fusion (the chamber with the pellet)
would solve a lot of engineering problems, such as making it easier to
change the first wall. 

-- 
Paul L. Studier <pstudier@kaiwan.com>
Doubt is the beginning of wisdom.
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenpstudier cudfnPaul cudlnStudier cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.16 / M Fullerton /  Re: Jones will stoop to anything
     
Originally-From: mefuller@acs.ucalgary.ca (Michael Ernest Fullerton)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Jones will stoop to anything
Date: Sat, 16 Jul 1994 06:28:21 GMT
Organization: The University of Calgary

In article <303lbc$c2e@wu.labs.tek.com>,
Arnie Frisch <arnief@wu.labs.tek.com> wrote:
>In article <940714133254_72240.1256_EHB140-1@CompuServe.COM> 72240.1256
compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
>..
>>Jones is a consummate liar and plagiarist. He tried to steal Pons and
>>Fleischmann's idea is 1989, and since then he has published endless lies and
>>distortions about other people's work here on the e-mail. Now he lying about a
>>dead man -- making jokes about a dead man! -- saying he was a con-man. Steve
>>Jones knows no shame. He has no respect for the dead, and no respect for the
>>truth. He will stoop to anything.
>
>Now I think he's done it!  If Jones needs a lawyer whose specialty
>is libel, I believe I can help him.  I don't think Jed has a chance
>of a snowball in hell of avoiding a major judgement.

Actually, if I am not mistaken, Taubes himself has said Jones stole ideas
from the good Drs P&F.  Anyone who has been reading s.p.f for a while will
know that Jones has several times made inaccurate statements about other's
work.  Whether this was deliberate or simply a wish to believe I cannot
say.  Jones also certainly did imply that the late Mr. Toyoda was a con man
and then tried to weasel out of it.

Has Jones sued Taubes?

-- 
Michael Fullerton         |  Seeds, like ideas, don't | All play and no work
mefuller@acs.ucalgary.ca  |  germinate in concrete    | makes Jack a dull boy.
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenmefuller cudfnMichael cudlnFullerton cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.15 /  jonesse@xray.b /  Re: Jones will stoop to anything 
     
Originally-From: jonesse@xray.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Jones will stoop to anything 
Date: 15 Jul 94 12:36:35 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

In article <940714133254_72240.1256_EHB140-1@CompuServe.COM>, 72240.1256
compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
> To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
> 
> I wrote:
> 
>      "Why on earth does Steve Jones accuse the late Mr. Toyoda of being a
>      confidence man? ... Jones should butt out and mind his own damn
>      business."
> 
> Jones responded:
>  
>      "I made no such accusation. My business is science.  This business
>      includes, I believe, detection and reporting of errors.
> 
> Yet, on July 8, 1994 he wrote:
> 
>      "Mr. Toyoda himself is quoted by H. Ikegami in the Proceedings of the
>      Nagoya conf. on cold fusion:
>  
>      "Cold fusion is not a matter to be studied by one single enterprise or
>      nation. I have confidence that it will become the greatest asset as an
>      eventual energy for mankind, to be shared among the world."    
>      (PRoceedings, p. iv, 1993)
>  
>      It takes quite a MAN to inspire such CONfidence."
> 
> 
> This stupid little joke implies that Toyoda is a CON-MAN (confidence man;
> hoaxer). He does not have the guts to come right out and say it, but the
> meaning is perfectly obvious. Now Jones is denying that is what he meant.

Mr. Toyoda said, "I have *confidence* that it will become the greatest asset
as an eventual energy for mankind..." (quoted above), and I stated that
it took quite a man to inspire such confidence.  I certainly did *not* mean
that Mr. Toyoda was a CON-MAN, as Mr. Rothwell tries to twist my words to
say.  Rather Mr. Toyoda was the one whose confidence had clearly been gained.

This discussion goes back to an earlier essay on the distinction of
scientists and salesmen which I posted here some months ago. I'll dig it up if
people want to see it.   I suspect that a
resourceful salesman or salespersons were involved in the sale of "cold fusion"
 to Mr. Toyoda,
for the science does not justify his confidence that cold fusion "will become
the greatest asset as an eventual energy for mankind."  This was my meaning
in my terse sentence which Jed quotes above.

> Jones is a consummate liar and plagiarist. He tried to steal Pons and
> Fleischmann's idea is 1989, and since then he has published endless lies and
> distortions about other people's work here on the e-mail. Now he lying about a
> dead man -- making jokes about a dead man! -- saying he was a con-man. Steve
> Jones knows no shame. He has no respect for the dead, and no respect for the
> truth. He will stoop to anything.
> 
> - Jed Rothwell
> 

A couple of people have suggested that Jed goes too far here, with his
unsubstantiated accusations.  No, Jed, I'm not a liar, and you've failed to
prove this in past insinuations.  I do make errors, and indeed I've had to
eat crow and retract claims of observations of large bursts of neutrons.  My
paper on this is approaching publication, incidentally.  

Calling me a plagiarist is a new one, I think.  Can you substantiate this
accusation?

"He tried to steal Pons and Fleischmann's idea in 1989"  -- just what idea
did I try to steal?  What did I do to try to steal it?  

I and my colleagues
here, and Rod Price and others have shown our logbooks which go back to 1986
in detail, and earlier in short notes, documenting that we have been working
on the idea of cold fusion without muons since 1985.  Indeed, Clint Van Siclen
and I published a paper on this idea which appeared in March 1986, just weeks
before our electrolysis experiments began in May 1986.  We did not hear
anything about P&F or their related (actually remotely) research until 2 1/2
years later.  The interested reader
is directed to the thorough treatment of this business in Frank Close's book
"To Hot To Handle:  The Race for Cold Fusion."  And other books do a reasonable
job as well, especially Huizenga's.

You know, Jed, I do resent your accusations which I believe are false and
libelous.  This is a public network.  You are going too far.

--Steven Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenjonesse cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.16 / J Interguru /  Clebsch Representation and Ball Lightning
     
Originally-From: jdavidson@clark.net (Joseph Davidson - Interguru)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Clebsch Representation and Ball Lightning
Date: 16 Jul 1994 13:07:53 GMT
Organization: Clark Internet Services, Inc., Ellicott City, MD USA


On July 8th Bruce Scott asked these questions of Paul Koloc

 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Is the MHD equilibrium stringently axi-symmetric? 

2. Is the plasma current a function only of the flux?

3. What is the aspect ratio; is this limited or can it be O(1)

4. Is the pressure on the flux surface describing the plasmoid/mantle
   interface a constant?

5. If I were to write the magnetic field in Clebsch representation,
   B = grad X cross grad Y, where X and Y are two coordinates (a third
   coordinate Z for which B dot grad Z doesn't vanish can describe the
   parallel direction), what are the properties of X and Y in relation
   to B?

______________________  End of Questions ----------------------------------

Paul has asked me to address these questions.

We should note one boundary condition.  Ball lightning does exist.  There
is ample historical records.  I have seen videos of balls that Paul has
produced in his lab. (He is upgrading his lab, so I have not seen a live
demonstration). 

Back in the late 70's I worked with Dan Well's group producing plasmoids. 
We have ample documentation and publications.  I refer you to refs 3-6 for
experimental results.  We have streak camera pictures of two stable
colliding plasmoids repelling each ot her in a vacuum as they are
compressed by a solenoidal fields.  Optical and neutron measurments
support our model. 

Our support was cut off as the DOE decided to put all it's money on
tokomacs. I should say in all honesty, there was an inconsistency in our
measurements.  The optical measurements showed T-electron = 50 ev, while
neutron measurments imply T-ion = 1-2 kev .  Streak camera pictures showed
that the plasmoids stayed together for ~10 ms.  Standard calculations show
that the Spitzer equilbration time at our density is about 1 ms. (We did
not have a Thompson laser so I estimated the density by another technique,
 see ref 3). 

Langmuir probe measurement of the plasmoid before compression were 
consistent with a force free configuration.


Instead of being curious, the DOE cut us off and saved $200k -- which can
barely pay the toilet paper bill for the tokomac program. 

Papers 1-2 give a theoretical background showing that a force free
configuration is the lowest available energy state ( and therefore has no
energy to drive instabilities). The clebsch representation is used 
because it allows to use the calculus of variations to find a minimum. 

I have not had much time to develop a self consistent model (But remember
that the offical DOE program has worked for decades, powered by beams of
high speed money, to produce a tokomac model).  Even now the model has
weak areas (e.g. anamalous transport)
.

What follows is the outline of my model. (Conjectures would be a better
term.) It is inhibited by the lack of measurements on Paul's Machine, and
my lack of time as I have a more-than-full-time job, two teenagers, and
the normal set of mid-life crises. 


The core of the plasmoid is a force free configuration, such as in
discussed in ref 1.  You can find various consistent Clebsch
representations, in this article, along with side constraints to the
Lagrangian solutions. It has an aspect ratio ~1. (This is supported by 
the probe measurments referenced above. 

The solutions show that B || V || curlB ~|| curlV.  The approximately
parallel vor curlV comes about because, a strictly parallel curlV (magnus
force = 0) only holds for an incompressible fluid. 

An important feature of the Rund- Wells model is that flow fields and
magnus forces are just as important as the Lorentz force in the stability
(in fact there is an equipartition of energy between flow and magnetic
energy). As far as I know, none of the standard fusion stability models 
do not deal with these hydrodynamic forces.  (Correct me if I am wrong.)

The plasmoid-in-the-atmosphere model is characterized by an outer
spherical boundary of RperfectS conductivity.  The conditions between the
central force-free plasmoid and the shell has to be calculated by matching
boundary conditions.  It is not an easy problem, There is a problem at the
magnetic poles, which in a strict application of the force-free equations,
have a hole.  I suspect that there is some distortion of the perfect model
along with a gradB force that plug these holes.  Paul's pictures show
jets emerging from the poles.  (Jets are also a common astrophysical
phenomena.)

I realize that I have not really answered Bruce's questions.  All I have
done is outline an possible attack on the problem.  If Paul (who is
unsupported right now) can get some support for diagnostics, it would set
more boundary conditions on any models. 

I would appreciate any non-flame responses.

1) H. Rund, D.R.Wells, L.C. Hawkins, *Clebsch representations in the
theory of minimum energy equilibrium solutions in magnetohydrodnamics*,
_J. Plasma Physics_, vol 20, part3 pp 329-344 (1978)

2) D.R. Wells & L. C. Hawkins, *Containment forces in low energy states of
plasmoids* , _J. Plasma Physics_, vol 38, part2 pp 263-274 (1987)

3) J. Davidson et.. al. *Simultaneous Electron Density and Ion Temperature
Measurements of a Moderately Dense Plasma Using Doppler and Stark
Broadened He-II Lines* (with others), _Applied Optics (Letters) _ v 17,
p1481, 1978. 

4) D. R. Wells et. al *High Temperature, High Density Plasma Production by
Vortex Ring Compression* (with others), _Physical Review Letters _, v 41
#3, p166, 1978. 

5) J. Davidson, *The Interaction between Two Force Free Plasma Vortices in
the TRISOPS III Machine* (with others), _Physics of Fluids_ , v 22, p379,
1979. 

6) R. R. Wells et. al. 1983 J. Plasma Physics, v31 p 39 (1983)


 -------------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Davidson Ph.D.                              
1501 Dublin Drive, Silver Spring, Md. 20902         
voice 301 593 4152 ; fax 301 593 4152 (call first)  
j.davidson@ieee.org                                 |
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------


cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenjdavidson cudfnJoseph cudlnInterguru cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.16 / David Cyganski /  FTP archive for Bohm Theory Maple Files
     
Originally-From: cyganski@ee.WPI.EDU (David Cyganski)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: FTP archive for Bohm Theory Maple Files
Date: 16 Jul 1994 13:16:41 GMT
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute

To improve distribution of the MAPLE files Bill Page and I are generating
to foster a better understanding of the Bohm & Hiley interpretation of
Quantum Mechanics, we are making the Maple scripts (.ms files) available
by anonymous ftp.  To acquire these files, ftp to: wpi.wpi.edu
use the login name:anonymous
and use your home login name as the password.
Change directory (cd) to: bohmtheory
The files in this directory will be named with the following convention:
bohmNvM.ms
where N is the chapter number and M is the version number (in case we make
additional improvements to a given chapter.)

At this posting the directory will contain only the file bohm1v1.ms, but
we are almost ready to post bohm2v1.ms and have bohm3v1 in the works.

David
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudencyganski cudfnDavid cudlnCyganski cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.15 / Richard Rocarek /  DROP
     
Originally-From: richard.rocarek@mecheng.fullfeed.com (Richard Rocarek)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: DROP
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 94 09:22:00 -0600
Organization: MechEng / American Society of Mechanical Engineers

Add, Drop, or Reset this conference.

cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenrocarek cudfnRichard cudlnRocarek cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.16 /  Dave /  Re: Heeter Fusion
     
Originally-From: "Dave Oldridge" <doldridg@fox.nstn.ns.ca>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Heeter Fusion
Date: 16 Jul 1994 11:38:11 -0300
Organization: Nova Scotia Technology Network

On Sat, 16 Jul 1994 00:14:31 GMT, 
Dick Jackson  <jackson@soldev.tti.com> wrote:

>Even if cold fusion can be demonstrated and marketed, doesn't it have a
>nasty problem in that it is, well, cold?  It may be fine for warming

This is not as big a problem as you might think.  You just need to use it 
to boil something with a reasonably useable boiling point.  The rest is 
pressure, plumbing and simple physics.  The REAL problem is that nobody 
seems able to conclusively and repeatably show, yet, that something is 
happening in these experiments.  I think if that hurdle is breached, there 
will then be enough interest to find out and describe exactly WHAT is 
happening.

 --
 Dave Oldridge
 doldridg@fox.nstn.ns.ca
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudendoldridg cudlnDave cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.16 / Tommy Nordgren /  Re: advanced fuel cycles
     
Originally-From: f85-tno@nada.kth.se (Tommy Nordgren)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: advanced fuel cycles
Date: 16 Jul 1994 16:55:14 GMT
Organization: Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden

In article <1994Jul14.031637.21867@Princeton.EDU>, Robert F. Heeter
<rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> writes:
|> Subject: advanced fuel cycles
|> From: Ken Doniger, doniger@cimd20.cam
|> Date: 11 Jul 1994 20:27:18 GMT
|> In article <2vs9v6$9kd@lsi.lsil.com> Ken Doniger, doniger@cimd20.cam
|> writes:
|> >I am interested in hot fusion fuel cycles that don't produce neutrons.
.....
-- 
	I think a suitable one would be H-1 and Li-7.
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tommy Nordgren                     "We hold these truths to be self-evident"
Royal Institute of Technology      "In this sign conquer."
Stockholm                          "The eagle has landed."
f85-tno@nada.kth.se                "Please mister, could I have a cracker
				    to my onthatherium."
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudentno cudfnTommy cudlnNordgren cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Sun Jul 17 04:37:05 EDT 1994
------------------------------
1994.07.16 / Brent Swekla /  Re: Jones will (not) stoop to anything
     
Originally-From: swekla@ee.ualberta.ca (Brent Swekla)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Jones will (not) stoop to anything
Date: 16 Jul 1994 23:02:07 GMT
Organization: Computer and Network Services, U of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada

In article <Jul16.062821.59257@acs.ucalgary.ca> mefuller@acs.ucalgary.ca  
(Michael Ernest Fullerton) writes:
> Jones also certainly did imply that the late Mr. Toyoda was a con
> man and then tried to weasel out of it.

Humph! Time to put an end to this...

From the original Steven Jones post:
> Mr. Toyoda himself is quoted by H. Ikegami in the Proceedings of
> the Nagoya conf. on cold fusion:
>
> "Cold fusion is not a matter to be studied by one single enterprise
> or nation. I have confidence that it will become the greatest asset
             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> as an eventual energy for mankind, to be shared among the world."
> (PRoceedings, p. iv, 1993)
>
> It takes quite a MAN to inspire such CONfidence.

Steven Jones' meaning is *very* clear. He is saying that Mr. Toyoda
is the victim of a confidence man, his confidence in cold fusion
having been inspired by such a man. Mr. Fullerton owes Steven Jones
an apology. I would also respectfully submit that under the
circumstances Mr. Fullerton should keep accusations about "inaccurate
statements" to himself, unless he is prepared to present evidence
in support of his accusations.
--
Brent Swekla                          "Sleep furiously."
swekla@ee.ualberta.ca
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenswekla cudfnBrent cudlnSwekla cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.12 / Robert Heeter /  Re: PLASMAK(tm) Magnetoplasmoid gif
     
Originally-From: rfheeter@pppl.gov (Robert F. Heeter)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: PLASMAK(tm) Magnetoplasmoid gif
Date: 12 Jul 1994 23:48:18 -0400
Organization: /etc/organization

In article <2vufiu$8pt@stratus.skypoint.com>,
John Logajan <jlogajan@skypoint.com> wrote:
>Paul M. Koloc (pmk@prometheus.UUCP) wrote:
>: This is a GIF format
>
>Great!  I got the GIF image here just fine.  It is a nice color graphic.
>It is good to see that someone is using the power of graphical presentation
>that is exchangable via this forum.  I personally have had trouble visualizing
>Paul's textual descriptions in the past (can't even find "polodial" in the
>dictionary :-).

Not to disagree with the general aim here, I'd still like to point out that
you *will* find poloidal (hopefully well-explained) in the glossary
section of the FAQ that I post every now and then. ;)

>I highly recommend using graphical representations when the geometry of
>the item diverges from the experience base of the average interested reader.

Except that I suspect many of the less technologically-enabled readers
may not yet have easy access to the graphical representations.

Pictures are great, but a little careful explanation never hurt either.

***************************************************************
Robert F. Heeter
rfheeter@pppl.gov
Graduate Student, Princeton Plasma Physics Lab
Disclaimers Apply

cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.15 / Robert Heeter /  Re: Heeter Fusion
     
Originally-From: rfheeter@pppl.gov (Robert F. Heeter)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Heeter Fusion
Date: 15 Jul 1994 10:01:23 -0400
Organization: /etc/organization

In article <940715022458_76570.2270_HHB32-1@CompuServe.COM>,
Eugene Mallove <76570.2270@compuserve.com> wrote:
>
>You guys think you are saviours of the world, so you will fight 
>anyone and anything that gets in your way -- aneutronic hot fusion, cold 
>fusion, or whatever.

I think most tokamakers agree that aneutronic hot fusion is something
that we need to develop eventually.  The question is whether you get
D-T fusion first or not.  I don't think the public has the stamina to
go with aneutronic fusion, which entails even more technical uncertainty
than D-T fusion, and will most likely take even longer to achieve.
If you get D-T first, you have (a) something to show for your efforts
and (b) a source of revenue to justify further research expenditures.
And a lot of the research on D-T will be relevant to aneutronic fusion
later, anyway.

As for cold fusion - I don't think that's standing in anyone's way
at this point.  And judging by the errors in P&Fs original research,
and judging by Jones' retraction of his neutron-detection claims,
I don't think it really ever was standing in anyone's way.  Whatever
causes CF researchers to believe they have excess heat, it doesn't
seem to be fusion.
>
>>On the contrary, the progress shown in the December experiments (and 
>>improved upon in May, when 9 MW were generated), shows that hot fusion
>>will succeed eventually.
>
>[...]  The tokamak 
>program will be utterly destroyed by excess energy devices of the cold fusion 
>variety. I give HF two years more, tops.

Can I quote you on that in two years?  Actually, I no longer need
permission.  You said it.

>>On the senate floor Johnston
>>sponsored an amendment to restore TPX funding; the amendment passed.
>>TPX is now fully funded in both the house and senate bills, and will
>>therefore go into construction mode starting next fiscal year.  This
>>all happened over a week ago.
>
>Oh, goddie, goodie, the con-artists got their money after all! You thought I 
>didn't think they would get it?

Quite frankly I don't really care what you think.  I do, however, care
what you say, because there are others listening.  I was afraid someone
else might have gotten the wrong impression about the state of TPX funding.

>>Congress seems to be behind fusion once again.
>
>You are living in a dream world, Bob. Get real! The first program to get the 
>ax after the working CF devices are accepted by all people -- except Huizenga,
>Morrison, and Jones -- will be hot fusion.

Unless you're now claiming omnipotence and not just omniscience, I think
you'd be better off not making these predictions.  Or do you simply own
a lot of palladium futures, and need to do everything you can to 
bring the price up?  Even supposing you're right, it has yet to be shown
that CF will generate electricity at competitive prices.  CF and HF
probably have different markets, anyway.


*************************
Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@pppl.gov
Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton
I don't represent PPPL in any of the above.



cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.17 / mitchell swartz /  Jones will stoop to anything (parallax view of his quote)
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Jones will stoop to anything (parallax view of his quote)
Subject: Re: Jones will (not) stoop to anything
Date: Sun, 17 Jul 1994 10:36:02 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

   In Message-ID: <309otf$67g@quartz.ucs.ualberta.ca>
Subject: Re: Jones will (not) stoop to anything
Brent Swekla  (swekla@ee.ualberta.ca) writes:

SWEKLA In article <Jul16.062821.59257@acs.ucalgary.ca> mefuller@acs.ucalgary.ca  
SWEKLA (Michael Ernest Fullerton) writes:
        > Jones also certainly did imply that the late Mr. Toyoda was a con
        > man and then tried to weasel out of it.
SWEKLA Humph! Time to put an end to this...
SWEKLA From the original Steven Jones post:
        > Mr. Toyoda himself is quoted by H. Ikegami in the Proceedings of
        > the Nagoya conf. on cold fusion:
        >
        > "Cold fusion is not a matter to be studied by one single enterprise
        > or nation. I have confidence that it will become the greatest asset
                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
        > as an eventual energy for mankind, to be shared among the world."
        > (PRoceedings, p. iv, 1993)
        >
        > It takes quite a MAN to inspire such CONfidence.

SWEKLA Steven Jones' meaning is *very* clear. He is saying that Mr. Toyoda
SWEKLA is the victim of a confidence man, his confidence in cold fusion
SWEKLA having been inspired by such a man. Mr. Fullerton owes Steven Jones
SWEKLA an apology. I would also respectfully submit that under the
SWEKLA circumstances Mr. Fullerton should keep accusations about "inaccurate
SWEKLA statements" to himself, unless he is prepared to present evidence
SWEKLA in support of his accusations.

   That interpretation is not supported by that which the quote states.
The quote is purported to be by Mr. Toyoda.
It is therefore he, who states:  "I have confidence that it will
                                   become the greatest asset".

      As a result, one interpretation is that the
    "MAN to inspire such CONfidence" is Mr Toyoda.

   Apparently, Mr. Swekla fancies that  H. Ikegami or another person(s)
is/are 'a confidence man'.

   Fascinating.   Not quite fusion.   But fascinating.

                          Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com)


 
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.17 / R SPAANDONK /  Reply to: Robert Eachus
     
Originally-From: rvanspaa@ozemail.com.au (R.J VAN SPAANDONK)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Reply to: Robert Eachus
Date: Sun, 17 Jul 1994 16:12:54 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Robert Eachus writes,

>Electron-positron cases are much more likely.  The virtual
>particles live longer, and since the particle creation energy is
>less than that released by the reaction, there is no need for
>the original particles to recombine.  The signature of this
>reaction, would be annihilation radiation as the now non-virtual
>positron combined with an electron.

>   For example:

>               --> e+ + e- (virtual)
>    d + e-  -->  n + n

This step is endothermic, and requires that an extra 2.4955 MeV
of energy be carried by the electron, resulting in:

d + e- + 2.4955 MeV --> n + n + v             (i)
 
Now if this electron is to have sufficient energy to do the job,
then it must have received it when it was created out of the
void. In which case,the positron should have received the same
amount. Therefore the total energy "borrowed" from the void is
the mass of electron and positron plus 2 x 2.4955 MeV = 6.01295
MeV.

>      d + n --> t + energy

This step however generates 6.257 MeV resulting in

d + n --> t + (e+ + 2.6175 MeV) + (e- +2.6175 MeV)          (ii)

This is slightly more than sufficient to completely pay back the
"debt" to the vacuum. In other words the original particles are
allowed to stay,at the price of most of the energy from this
first subsequent reaction. I say first, because there are more to
follow!

>      t + n --> He4 + e- + energy

I suspect that given the prevalence of "d" in the lattice, and
the scarcity of "t", it is much more likely that the second
neutron would also react with "d" as did the first one, rather
than with "t". This means that quite a lot of "t" should be
found, but very little He4.

>      e+ + e- --> energy

This does happen, but it now represents the annihilation of the
original positron, with any old electron that it comes across. I
should add here that positron-electron annihilation doesn't
usually happen until the positron has lost most of its kinetic
energy through collisions with other electrons. In this case the
positron has 2.4955 MeV to get rid of first (inherited from the
vacuum). Then there should be gamma radiation from the
annihilation reaction at its characteristic frequency.
As mentioned above the second neutron from (i) also takes part in
a reaction as in (ii), however as the "debt" to the void has
already been repaid by the first neutron, all energy liberated in
this second reaction is liberated as exothermic energy. The
electron created in (ii) has sufficient energy to combine with
another "d", creating two more neutrons --- chain reaction.
The positron may also transfer sufficient energy to another
electron to allow it to take part in another reaction of its own,
thus compensating for some of the electrons that don't make it.
Nice theory, but there is a fly in the ointment.

Some of the neutrons created in (i),  will react with nuclei
of the metal atoms in the lattice. This becomes less likely as
the loading factor becomes larger. More precisely, in order to
sustain a chain reaction, at least 1 out of every 2 neutrons
needs to react with another "d".
This means that a deuterium loading factor of 1 is the
critical level for a chain reaction. This presupposes that a
metal nucleus has the same chance of capturing a slow neutron, as
a "d" nucleus does. This might explain why experiments involving
high loading factors seem to produce more positive results. Even
so it is "touch and go". Sooner or later all the neutrons get
absorbed by metal nuclei, and the chain dies. This might explain
microscopic "cratering" that some experimenters claim to have
observed. (i.e. chain reactions that run for a while, then die
out).
Another point that needs to be made is that in order to move
around at all, the neutron needs some kinetic energy. This means
that the electron in (i) needs to have more than 2.4955 MeV.
Luckily, the reaction (ii) creates an electron with about 100 keV
more than it needs to convert "d" into a pair of neutrons.
As the entire process is started by an energetic electron, it
should work equally well, if this electron comes from outside,
e.g. cosmic rays, rather than from a pair created out of the
void.
Maybe this is even more likely, and would explain, why
experiments in deep tunnels etc. fail. It may also explain why a
previous attempt to trigger the reaction with energetic alpha
particles failed. (i.e. wrong particle.) If this is the
explanation of the cold fusion phenomenon, then it should be
possible to achieve measurable results, when bombarding
"overloaded" palladium with electrons that have an energy > 2.5
MeV.
Occasionally, in experiments with heavily overloaded palladium,
some He4 will also be created, and the extra energy this
liberates, will help to create a microscopic hole in the metal.
If this hole becomes filled with gas, then any neutron entering
it will have a much greater chance of reacting with "d" than with
the metal, thus leading to an explosive release of energy. ---
exploding experiments.

>    or (more probable):

>     p --> n + e+ + v (virtual)

This reaction, the beta+ decay of a proton, is in fact so
improbable, that it has never been observed. Therefore I consider 
this not to be the reaction responsible for the observed
phenomena.

Other considerations: In a normal gas, energetic electrons would
 be robbed of their energy by collisions with the electron "cloud"
surrounding the "d" nucleus. However as has already been
established, the "d" nuclei in saturated palladium have very
little cover, thus ensuring that electrons reaching them
occasionally still have sufficient energy to convert them into
neutrons. 
When the electron leaves the "t" it has to overcome a coulomb
barrier, however the energy lost in doing this, is regained as it 
approaches another "d" nucleus. The reaction in (i) is the inverse
of a beta decay reaction, this means that the weak force is involved,
and it might be reasonable to expect this reaction not to run very well.
In fact this is probably why cold fusion setups don't usually disappear
in a flash and a puff of smoke.









cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenrvanspaa cudfnR cudlnSPAANDONK cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Mon Jul 18 04:37:03 EDT 1994
------------------------------
1994.07.17 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Heeter Fusion
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Heeter Fusion
Date: Sun, 17 Jul 1994 20:16:09 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <54795.doldridg@fox.nstn.ns.ca> <doldridg@fox.nstn.ns.ca> writes:
>On Sat, 16 Jul 1994 00:14:31 GMT, 
>Dick Jackson  <jackson@soldev.tti.com> wrote:

>>Even if cold fusion can be demonstrated and marketed, doesn't it have a
>>nasty problem in that it is, well, cold?  It may be fine for warming

>This is not as big a problem as you might think.  You just need to use it 
>to boil something with a reasonably useable boiling point.  The rest is 
>pressure, plumbing and simple physics.  The REAL problem is that nobody 
>seems able to conclusively and repeatably show, yet, that something is 
>happening in these experiments.  I think if that hurdle is breached, there 
>will then be enough interest to find out and describe exactly WHAT is 
>happening.

True for low power density applications, but if you want to move from
earth surface to mars surface.. that is a different can of beans. 
Honestly-hot fusion (in the cleanner form: aneutronic energy) can 
handle that with appropriate technologies.  

> --
> Dave Oldridge
> doldridg@fox.nstn.ns.ca
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc, Bx 1037 Prometheus II Ltd, College Park MD 20741-1037    |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.17 / Robert Heeter /  Re: Fusion Digest 2497
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Originally-From: RUSTY.PERRIN
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion Digest 2497
Subject: Re: Fusion Digest 2497
Date: Sun, 17 Jul 1994 23:43:40 GMT
Date: Sat, 16 Jul 1994 01:12:52 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

Subject: Re: Fusion Digest 2497
Originally-From: RUSTY.PERRIN
Date: Sat, 16 Jul 1994 01:12:52 GMT
In article
<M231676.001.zqbt0.606.940715164040Z.CC-MAIL*/O=HQ/PRMD=USDOE/ADMD=ATTM
IL/C=US/@MHS> , RUSTY.PERRIN@hq.doe.gov writes:
>Robert Heeter writes:
[[ My writing about Johnston's Senate Fusion Funding bill snipped.]
>Don't forget the proviso. The funding only becomes available if
>TPX is authorized. The TPX construction funds are locked up and
>unavailable until the authorization committees pass legislation
>supporting TPX. If the TPX is never authorized, the construction
>money does not ever become available. 

This is a good point.

>Johnston made comments to the effect that the authorizations
>would make it through both House and Senate, but historically,
>non-defense DOE programs have rarely been authorized, only
>appropriated. So the Congress will have to take a bit more action
>before you can truly say Congress is behind fusion, and before
>construction can begin.

And even then, Congress can always do an SSC and pull the plug.

My understanding is that Johnston wrote the Senate
authorization, which has passed.  Rep. Brown wrote the House
authorization, which was officially announced a few weeks
ago and discussed here.  We'll have to see if it passes.

>
>BTW: Any comments on the cold fusion article in Thursday's Wall
>Street Journal?

I haven't read it, and don't particularly plan to.

***************************
Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University
As always, I represent only myself, and not PPPL
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.17 / Robert Heeter /  Re: advanced fuel cycles
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Originally-From: Ken Doniger, doniger@lsil.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: advanced fuel cycles
Subject: Re: advanced fuel cycles
Date: Sun, 17 Jul 1994 23:55:06 GMT
Date: 15 Jul 1994 20:40:44 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

Subject: Re: advanced fuel cycles
Originally-From: Ken Doniger, doniger@lsil.com
Date: 15 Jul 1994 20:40:44 GMT
In article <306s8c$32k@lsi.lsil.com> Ken Doniger, doniger@lsil.com writes:
>Thank you, Robert Heeter and Paul Koloc for your replies.  My newsreader
>automatically appended the (incorrect) return e-mail address.  My actual
>address is doniger@lsil.com.
>
>I studied plasma physics at Berkeley about 10 years ago.  I have not
worked
>in the fusion program since.
>
>As regards the Lidsky article, Robert is correct that fusion is mainly
>compared to fission.  I don't like fission either, but Lidsky's 
>fundamental thesis is that a fusion reactor based on the DT cycle would 
>be complicated (and thus prone to breakdown) and hard to repair and 
>maintain. I also remember that the power plant designs tended to be 1000 
>MWatts or more.  This makes a fusion plant unattractive to a utility 
>company even compared to fission, to say nothing of coal or natural gas.
>I don't think that any of this has changed since the article was written.

I have trouble assuming that because fusion reactors seem insanely
complicated now, they will still seem that way when they become
capable of generating energy.  My feeling here is that the technologies
used will mature substantially by the time anyone starts selling
energy from a fusion plant, and the technology won't seem as bad then.

As far as the size problem - utilities have not always been overwhelmed
by gigawatt-scale plants in the past.  Furthermore, we have seen a
restructuring of the U.S. electricity market, where utilities no longer
need to be generators, and in fact *must* purchase electricity from
non-utility generators if it's available below the utilities cost.
(PURPA)  Or something like that.  I think if fusion shows commercial
potential it will be commercialized, regardless of scale.  While the
current trend in the industrial countries is for smaller decentralized
plants, it won't necessarily look that way 30 years from now,
when fusion (hopefully) comes online.

I guess my opinion is that Lidsky gives fusion scientists some worries,
and points out some new problems to be solved, but I don't see any of
his arguments being showstoppers at this point.

>The few articles I've read on advanced fuel cycle machines concentrated
on 
>multipoles with (maybe) a levitated central conductor.  Pretty stable, 
>low B field in the bulk of the plasma, but a superconducting coil in 
>the middle of a fusion plasma???

I think that idea has been mostly abandoned at this point.  
(Can anyone clue me in?  I'd like to put something on this in the FAQ.)

>Recently, Daniel Barnes et al. at Los Alamos have come up with idea of 
>using a Penning trap and inducing oscillations to get the necessary 
>density for fusion.  If only ions were stored in the trap, the 
>confinement time could be extremely long.  Could this be a workable 
>scheme for an advanced fuel cycle machine?
>
The problems with the pure-ion trap, as I understand them, are 
getting the density high enough - though Barnes et al sound like
they're making progress? - have a reference? - and keeping the
particles confined, not only for a long time, but for many collision
times.  I'm rusty on the Penning trap, but doesn't it require nice
friendly orbits in a very low-collisionality plasma?

One of the provisions in the Brown fusion authorization bill
is a complete review of all fusion approaches, outlining their
status and problems.  This is supposed to be done within a year or
two after the bill becomes law, I believe.  That'll be a good place
to go to look for this sort of information, eventually...

***************************
Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University
As always, I represent only myself, and not PPPL
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.18 / Eugene Mallove /  Heeter Fusion
     
Originally-From: 76570.2270@compuserve.com (Eugene Mallove)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Heeter Fusion
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 1994 04:26:58 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Robert Heeter is as dense as Dick Blue. Hardly worth replying, but I do offer 
this response to his last line:

>CF and HF probably have different markets, anyway.

Yes, absolutely. CF's market is real, relatively near term, and virtually 
infinite. Tokamak HF has *no* commercial market and never will have.

Gene Mallove

cudkeys:
cuddy18 cuden2270 cudfnEugene cudlnMallove cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.18 / Mike Thompson /  Re: advanced fuel cycles
     
Originally-From: parsec@picard.infonet.net (Mike Thompson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: advanced fuel cycles
Date: 18 Jul 1994 04:21:48 GMT
Organization: INS Info Services, Des Moines, IA USA

In article <1994Jul17.235506.5721@princeton.edu>,
Robert F. Heeter  <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> wrote:

>I have trouble assuming that because fusion reactors seem insanely
>complicated now, they will still seem that way when they become
>capable of generating energy.  My feeling here is that the technologies
>used will mature substantially by the time anyone starts selling
>energy from a fusion plant, and the technology won't seem as bad then.

Don't all hot fusion schemes demand huge superconducting magnets, which
have to be cooled with liquid helium?  Assuming no high temperature type
II superconductor is discovered, that seems to be a real liability.  

cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenparsec cudfnMike cudlnThompson cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.18 / William Hawkins /  Re: What I am Doing
     
Originally-From: bill@texan.rosemount.com (William Hawkins)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What I am Doing
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 1994 04:30:06 GMT
Organization: Rosemount, Inc.

When you do decide to vote with your feet, would you please tell
us where you are going?  It would be nice if you could find a
group with a relatively low noise level, perhaps moderated.  I
have found value in everything you have posted here, and I don't
think I'm alone in that.

cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenbill cudfnWilliam cudlnHawkins cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.18 / William Hawkins /  Re: PLASMAK(tm) Magnetoplasmoid gif
     
Originally-From: bill@texan.rosemount.com (William Hawkins)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: PLASMAK(tm) Magnetoplasmoid gif
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 1994 04:59:01 GMT
Organization: Rosemount, Inc.

Actually, the 'gif' format is easily available to people whose
'net access is filtered through commercial accounts that do not
permit ftp, gopher, or www.  I have acquired the uudecode and 
gif display software from the newsgroups on the 'net.  Paul's
gif made the concept visible, in a way that was worth many
more than a thousand words.  I do hope that another technology
leap will take us out of the "VT-100" mode as the lowest common
denominator for information interchange.

We might as well be using Teletype machines from the 70's.

cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenbill cudfnWilliam cudlnHawkins cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.18 / Paul Koloc /  Re: advanced fuel cycles
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: advanced fuel cycles
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 1994 05:19:16 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <1994Jul17.235506.5721@Princeton.EDU> Robert F. Heeter
<rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> writes:
>Subject: Re: advanced fuel cycles
>From: Ken Doniger, doniger@lsil.com
>Date: 15 Jul 1994 20:40:44 GMT
>In article <306s8c$32k@lsi.lsil.com> Ken Doniger, doniger@lsil.com writes:
>>Thank you, Robert Heeter and Paul Koloc for your replies.  My newsreader
>>automatically appended the (incorrect) return e-mail address.  My actual
>>address is doniger@lsil.com.

>>As regards the Lidsky article, Robert is correct that fusion is mainly
>>compared to fission.  I don't like fission either, but Lidsky's 
>>fundamental thesis is that a fusion reactor based on the DT cycle would 
>>be complicated (and thus prone to breakdown) and hard to repair and 
>>maintain. 

>I have trouble assuming that because fusion reactors seem insanely
>complicated now, they will still seem that way when they become
>capable of generating energy.  My feeling here is that the technologies
>used will mature substantially by the time anyone starts selling
>energy from a fusion plant, and the technology won't seem as bad then.

Gee, I think the trend for fission was that they became more 
complicated and dangerous with time. Danger here for tokamak fusion 
is a function of the size dependent toroidal field energy, and 
its silly proximity to gigawatts of powerflux.  

>As far as the size problem - utilities have not always been overwhelmed
>by gigawatt-scale plants in the past.  

Speaking of tokamak plants, the utilities are very sensitive to the 
criticism of envioronmental folk.  Big devices have lots of area to
leak tritium (a diffusive gas) and thermal pollution due to IR^2 
losses en route to the load may cause a continuing drumbeat stir.  

>One of the provisions in the Brown fusion authorization bill
>is a complete review of all fusion approaches, outlining their
>status and problems.  This is supposed to be done within a year or
>two after the bill becomes law, I believe.  That'll be a good place
>to go to look for this sort of information, eventually...

Certainly this is NOT another disingenuous gambit.  Advanced fusion 
hasn't been funded for quite a few years now, so how are "all" the 
fusion approaches known??.  Are there funds for presenters to 
GATHER and PREPARE data??  nope.  
 
Well, is this "level playing field" issue solved in the 
legislation?? 

WHO would do such a review??   Certainly, not a team choosen by and 
from within each Electric Power Company not associated with feeding 
DoE projects??   Will  they be industrialist, scientists, and 
engineers that have ties to ITER or TPX projects, or maybe retired 
chappees that have lobbied for same???   

Maybe this is Congresses plan to find a tokamak replacement, if 
so wouldn't the tokamak empire be reticent to cooperate fully 
and not adverserly propangandize the effort?? 

>***************************
>Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
>Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University
>As always, I represent only myself, and not PPPL


cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.18 / Paul Koloc /  Re: advanced fuel cycles
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: advanced fuel cycles
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 1994 05:37:38 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <30d00s$lfa@insosf1.infonet.net> parsec@picard.infonet.net
(Mike Thompson) writes:
>In article <1994Jul17.235506.5721@princeton.edu>,
>Robert F. Heeter  <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> wrote:
>
>>I have trouble assuming that because fusion reactors seem insanely
>>complicated now, they will still seem that way when they become
>>capable of generating energy.  My feeling here is that the technologies
>>used will mature substantially by the time anyone starts selling
>>energy from a fusion plant, and the technology won't seem as bad then.

>Don't all hot fusion schemes demand huge superconducting magnets, which
>have to be cooled with liquid helium?  Assuming no high temperature type
>II superconductor is discovered, that seems to be a real liability.  

No, because, the coil current can be put into the plasma.  This adds
greatly enhanced features, including the ability to burn aneutronic
fuels with burn densites on the order of 10^6+ w/cc.  The conductivity
can be made hyperconducting which is approaching about half of super
conducting on the log scale.  Generators can fit into your garage, 
although the MHD thrust if the output was released will erode the 
neighborhood.  Inductive MHD thrust released from one side will give 
it this device plenty of thust - shuttle boost off size.  It all 
relates to the PLASMAK(tm) concept and is mentioned in the FAQ.    
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc, Bx 1037 Prometheus II Ltd, College Park MD 20741-1037    |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.18 / Peter Roessingh /  Re: Jones will stoop to anything
     
Originally-From: roes@vax.oxford.ac.uk (Peter Roessingh)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Jones will stoop to anything
Date: 18 Jul 94 10:37:11 BST
Organization: Oxford University VAX 6620

arnief@wu.labs.tek.com (Arnie Frisch) writes (about Jed
Rothwell's post ):

> Now I think he's done it!  If Jones needs a lawyer whose
> specialty is libel, I believe I can help him.  I don't
> think Jed has a chance of a snowball in hell of avoiding a
> major judgement.

And  jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) writes about Jed's post:
 
> I think you owe Steve an apology, not that an apology lets
> you off any legal hook.

I think talk about legal hooks is somewhat premature. As far
as I know, at least one person trying this line of action,
got dismissed by the court, with the remark that the net is
little more then electronic graffiti. Sounds like a good
ruling to me.

Peter Roessingh 
Zoology, Oxford.


cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenroes cudfnPeter cudlnRoessingh cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.18 / Frank Close /  Rothwell accusation against Jones and "late" water heaters
     
Originally-From: FEC@v2.rl.ac.uk (Frank Close)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Rothwell accusation against Jones and "late" water heaters
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 1994 11:50:03 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

This net seems to have become a commercial centre promoting
devices that have been "tested" by Cold Fusion Research Advocates
and a forum for CFRA members to slander respected scientists who dare 
to alert the public as to the dubious nature of this new-age science. 


In Jed Rothwell's attack on Steve Jones, claiming that Jones stole
from Fleischmann and Pons, Rothwell shows ignorance of the history
and origins of the cold fusion fiasco. The critical question
of whether JOnes stole from FP concerns 1988, not 1989, and relates
to the funding request made by FP and submitted to the DOE (in Aug/Sept
88). I have seen this document and its contents played an important
part of the research that went into my own book, TOo Hot To Handle.
As explained on this net before, it is my considered opinion that the FP/DOE
document had little or nothing to offer to any nuclear experimentalist.
Fleischmann and Pons proven ignorance of some basic nuclear physics may
be a reason why they have deluded themselves into a belief that Jones stole
from them, but their DOE proposal was flaky at best, as some of the
referees' comments make clear.

 Taubes did not have access to these papers when he wrote his book (there is
nothing in his book that would alert you to that rather crucial fact
but I verified this with Taubes last summer). Thus anything Taubes writes
about the Jones' group getting aid from sight of the DOE report has to
be taken with some caution. In any event, let it not muddy the waters 
concerning Rothwell's latest outburst.

It is clear that Rothwell too is ignorant of the refereed document, still less
researched and understood it for if he had he would not put out such 
remarks about Jones. Following the intense psychological pressure of 1989
Fleischmann and Pons have convinced themselves that their ideas were
plagiarised in 1988 and Rothwell has taken this party line, foolishly
putting it out on the public forum, naming Steve Jones. If anyone stole
anything from anyone in 1988 it was not Steve Jones who stole from Fleischmann
and Pons. I retain all the documents from those days; Jed, you are 
on the wrong track.

Jones logbook has been open for years, he has discussed his results for
all to assess. Note that Pons has NOT done so. Instead he has been
photographed with what was claimed (in 89) to be a working water heater.

This is the one that Jed described as "late": late as in dead maybe?

When flaws in Pons data have been exposed the data have then either
mysteriously altered or the chronology changed concerning what had or had
not been measured at critical times, and well documented attempts have
been made to silence others who have questioned the claims.
The community has plenty of documents that show the poor state of
FP's research programme through the 1989 and Utah National Cold Fusion
Institute period, many of which are well known for several years but 
which are inconvenient to the CFRA who try to focus alleged failings 
on other groups,such as MIT, Harwell and now attack Jones publicly.
You can read the FP et al 1991 paper for yourselves and compare it with what
was claimed in 1989 and then use this as a benchmark for assessing your
confidence in current claims from the CFRA.

Have some judgement guys! And if you cant, at least think twice before
putting money into something you do not understand.  Meanwhile, Jones 
opens his work to public scrutiny and is vilified by those who would 
advocate commercial advantages in "cold neutropenic fusion" (a title which
is an oxymoron).

I challenge Rothwell to specify where in the DOE document, or elsewhere,
he found anything that would have given **Jones** any
ability to plagiarise and steal from FP? 
Or is Jed's outburst an attempt to generate some "news" to prop up the
life support system for the magazine? 


Steve Jones was working on genuine "cold fusion" - muon catalysed -  and 
his work widely known several years before FP 
did their electrochamical work. He has a considerable reputation in that
particular subfield. 
There are many people reading this net who are not well versed in science 
and Steve, along with some others, has patiently gone over the physics
again and again. I hope that there are some who have benefitted
from this. For his pains he has attracted a belligerent caucus who seem
more interested in  promoting themes that amount to belief in perpetual 
motion. This would be laughable were it not for the recent development 
of turning the forum into a commercial venture.

Am I alone in being disturbed that within the space of  a few days
Rothwell is promoting a $10,000 device which he announces he has tested
and then issuing such reckless accusations against a scientist who is
prepared to continue pointing out flaws in the general claims for cold
fusion? 

Do not invest money in anything until you are sure you understand what is
going on. Based on my knowledge of this affair, I would strongly
recommend you invest your money elsewhere.


cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenFEC cudfnFrank cudlnClose cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.18 /  tabitha@vms.hu /  Re: Jones will stoop to anything
     
Originally-From: tabitha@vms.huji.ac.il
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Jones will stoop to anything
Date: 18 Jul 94 15:22:16 GMT
Organization: The Hebrew University of Jerusalem

In article <1994Jul15.123635.1679@xray.byu.edu>, jonesse@xray.byu.edu writes:
> In article <940714133254_72240.1256_EHB140-1@CompuServe.COM>,
72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
>>      "Mr. Toyoda himself is quoted by H. Ikegami in the Proceedings of the
>>      Nagoya conf. on cold fusion:
>>
>>      "Cold fusion is not a matter to be studied by one single enterprise or
>>      nation. I have confidence that it will become the greatest asset as an
>>      eventual energy for mankind, to be shared among the world."
>>      (PRoceedings, p. iv, 1993)
>>
>>      It takes quite a MAN to inspire such CONfidence."
>>
>>
>
> Mr. Toyoda said, "I have *confidence* that it will become the greatest asset
> as an eventual energy for mankind..." (quoted above), and I stated that
> it took quite a man to inspire such confidence.

 I certainly did *not* mean
> that Mr. Toyoda was a CON-MAN, as Mr. Rothwell tries to twist my words to
> say.

>
> --Steven Jones


Did not mean....Gimme a break.


-Dennis Turner
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudentabitha cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.18 / R SPAANDONK /  Correction to my reply to Robert Euchus.
     
Originally-From: rvanspaa@ozemail.com.au (R.J VAN SPAANDONK)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Correction to my reply to Robert Euchus.
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 1994 14:05:50 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

There are of course a number of other reactions that do not require that a
coulomb barrier be overcome. The chief characteristic of all these reactions
however, is that at some point, a conversion has to take place, either from a
proton to a neutron, or from a neutron to a proton. As such conversions are
always mediated by the weak force, they are of necessity much slower than normal
nuclear reactions. This can however be an advantage, being the means of
reducing the power of an atomic bomb to that of a water heater in the laundry. 
It
just needs the right combination of circumstances. The most important of which
is a conversion reaction that runs reasonably rapidly. Analysis of many beta
decay reactions (which are of course also moderated by the weak force), seems
to indicate that the speed with which such a reaction progresses is linked to 
the
energy of the electrons or positrons. That is to say, in beta decay reactions,
those decays which generate higher energy positrons or electrons, have a much
shorter half-life. Does this then mean that leptons with a high initial energy 
are
more likely to produce a conversion than low energy leptons? If so then 
reactions
such as the following: 

(T+)  + ( e-  +  9.263 MeV) ----> 3 x n + v              (i)

Where (T+) is a tritium nucleus, might be expected to run faster than say:

(D+) + ( e- + 3.01 MeV) ----> 2 x n + v                  (ii)

(In my previous calculations I mistakenly used D instead of D+)

And much faster than:

p + ( e- + 0.782 MeV) ----> 1 x n + v                    (iii)

The reaction:

D + n ----> T + (e+  + 2.6175 MeV) + (e- + 2.6175 MeV)   (iv)

can now also be seen to produce insufficiently energetic electrons to maintain 
the
reaction (ii). However, positrons passing their energy on to
electrons, will occasionally manage to produce some T. It is highly   unlikely
however that this will result in anything even remotely resembling a chain
reaction. However this set of reactions, combined with enough high energy cosmic
ray electrons, will eventually lead to the build up of T in the lattice. 
Electrons
from (iv) do however have enough energy for (iii), so that if only a little H is
present, then neutrons can still be produced. If the ratio of D to H is large, 
then
it is far more likely that the ensuing neutrons will be captured by D than by H.
The electrons, on the other hand can only be captured by H, as they have
insufficient energy for D (see (ii)).

The reaction:
                                      _
(T+) + e+ ----> He3++  + v + 1.04 MeV                           (v)

may absorb some of the positrons, though few, as most will annihilate electrons.
Followed by:

He3 + n ----> He4 + (e+ + 9.778 MeV) + (e- + 9.778 MeV)   (vi)

and

(T+) + (e- + 9.263 MeV) ----> 3 x n + v                           (vii)

Some of the positrons from (vi) will end up in (v), while the electrons from 
(vi)
_are_  energetic enough for (vii) and also for (ii) and (iii).

I'm not sure how likely the reaction:

                                                                   _
(T+) + n ----> (He4++) + (e- + 20.60 MeV) + v                     (viii)

is, however the electron that it produces, would obviously have sufficient 
energy
to satisfy (vii), (iii), or (ii). 

>From the above it should be clear that combinations of weak-force interaction
reactions, with slow neutron capture reactions, can produce energy in a cold
fusion environment, consistent with many of the ovserved phenomena (e.g. long
startup times due to slow build up of T, and bursts of energy due to the
conversion of the tritium into He4 via several different paths). Coulomb 
barriers
do not play a role, however slow particle conversion rates do.
One might view the above reactions as the light element, energy producing 
equivalent of the heavy element energy producing beta decay reactions.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robin van Spaandonk (rvanspaa@ozemail.com.au)
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Australia, many Pi _are_ square.









cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenrvanspaa cudfnR cudlnSPAANDONK cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.18 / Robert Heeter /  Re: Rothwell accusation against Jones and "late" water heaters
     
Originally-From: rfheeter@pppl.gov (Robert F. Heeter)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Rothwell accusation against Jones and "late" water heaters
Date: 18 Jul 1994 12:17:03 -0400
Organization: /etc/organization

In article <Ct58nI.KJH@world.std.com>,
mitchell swartz <mica@world.std.com> wrote:
>          In Message-ID: <9407181149.AA13424@suntan.Tandem.com>
>Subject: Rothwell accusation against Jones and "late" water heaters
>Frank Close (FEC@v2.rl.ac.uk) writes: 
>
>CLOSE= Have some judgement guys! And if you cant, at least think twice before
>CLOSE= putting money into something you do not understand.  Meanwhile, Jones 
>CLOSE= opens his work to public scrutiny and is vilified by those who would 
>CLOSE= advocate commercial advantages in "cold neutropenic fusion" (a title which
>CLOSE= is an oxymoron).
>
>     Actually, Frank, the word is 'Neutronpenic"  as in producing 
>very very low numbers of neutrons.     

I'm sure he meant to put in the n.  And I think your favorite dictionary
would suggest that neutronpenic implies abnormally low levels of neutrons
much like neutropenic involves abnormally low levels of that type of 
white blood cell you mention below.

>The word should
>not be confused with neutropenic which involves abnormally
>low levels of polymorphonuclear leukocytes (a type of white
>blood cell).     
>
>   Also, since cold fusion reactions work with negligible neutron production
>the word phrase is not an oxymoron.

Or rather, since cold fusion reactors "work" with abnormally low neutron
production, they haven't been proven to be, and probably aren't, 
*fusion* reactors.  Which is why "cold neutronpenic fusion" is
an oxymoron.  At least that's what I understand Frank Close to be 
saying...

**********************************
Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@pppl.gov
Future Fusioneer on Fact Patrol
Not representing or representative of PPPL.
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.18 / Tom Droege /  Re: What I am Doing
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What I am Doing
Date: 18 Jul 1994 17:22:51 GMT
Organization: fermilab

In article <1994Jul18.043006.5378@rosevax.rosemount.com>, 
bill@texan.rosemount.com (William Hawkins) says:
>
>When you do decide to vote with your feet, would you please tell
>us where you are going?  It would be nice if you could find a
>group with a relatively low noise level, perhaps moderated.  I
>have found value in everything you have posted here, and I don't
>think I'm alone in that.
>

Thank you for the nice compliment.  I will probably lurk here 
indefinitely.  This seems as good a place as any to discuss general
science problems.  It is a nice group, and a very good place to learn
about science and how to do science.  I have learned a lot just because
the "bad" scientific presentations force one to think about what "good"
science is.  As we have all found out, it is not so black and white, and
in the midst of the scientific revalation, one cannot even tell the 
good guys from the bad.  

So I will lurk, and enter into the discussions that interest me.  But my
heart now belongs to cosmic rays.

Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.18 / mitchell swartz /  So-called accusations and oxymorons (was Rothwell accusation ...)
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: So-called accusations and oxymorons (was Rothwell accusation ...)
Subject: Re: Rothwell accusation against Jones and "late" water heaters
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 1994 18:20:21 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

          In Message-ID: <30e9tv$68v@tom.pppl.gov>
Subject: Re: Rothwell accusation against Jones and "late" water heaters
Robert F. Heeter (rfheeter@pppl.gov) writes: 

     >CLOSE= Have some judgement guys! And if you cant, at least think twice before
     >CLOSE= putting money into something you do not understand.  Meanwhile, Jones 
     >CLOSE= opens his work to public scrutiny and is vilified by those who would 
     >CLOSE= advocate commercial advantages in "cold neutropenic fusion" (a title which
     >CLOSE= is an oxymoron).
     >     Actually, Frank, the word is 'Neutronpenic"  as in producing 
     >very very low numbers of neutrons.     
HEETER I'm sure he meant to put in the n.  And I think your favorite dictionary
HEETER would suggest that neutronpenic implies abnormally low levels of neutrons
HEETER much like neutropenic involves abnormally low levels of that type of 
HEETER white blood cell you mention below.


   Thank you Robert.  You are one of the first individuals here to take this
seriously since I coined the word years ago to describe the nature of the
reaction products.


       >The word should
       >not be confused with neutropenic which involves abnormally
       >low levels of polymorphonuclear leukocytes (a type of white
       >blood cell).     
       >   Also, since cold fusion reactions work with negligible neutron production
       >the word phrase is not an oxymoron.     
HEETER Or rather, since cold fusion reactors "work" with abnormally low neutron
HEETER production, they haven't been proven to be, and probably aren't, 
HEETER *fusion* reactors.  Which is why "cold neutronpenic fusion" is
HEETER an oxymoron.  At least that's what I understand Frank Close to be 
HEETER saying...

  Actually the production of helium-4 is quite specific for fusion. 
As such, linked with the production of excess power, it is 
adequate ash.
  Therefore, Frank's comment is not oxymoronic.

   Best wishes
                Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com)
 
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.18 / Robert Eachus /  Re: Reply to: Robert Eachus
     
Originally-From: eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reply to: Robert Eachus
Date: 18 Jul 94 14:47:46
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.


   I agree with most of what R.J VAN SPAANDONK writes, until:

   (I said)

   >    or (more probable):

   >     p --> n + e+ + v (virtual)

   R. J. Van Spaandonk said:

  > This reaction, the beta+ decay of a proton, is in fact so
  > improbable, that it has never been observed. Therefore I consider
  > this not to be the reaction responsible for the observed
  > phenomena.

   Both reactions I described start with a virtual event.  The virtual
events, if they occur, can only be observed though subsequent
interactions after "the vacuum has been paid back."  So in one sense,
yes, an isolated proton has never been seen to decay this way.  (But
it happens all the time in beta decay of other nuclei.  In those cases
the electon can be observed because the nuclear process did pay the
energy debt.)

   Second, if someone gets either of these processes cooking, the
signature will be a large number of gammas in the tens of keV to ann
rad (511 keV) range.  When someone sees this signature, then I will
believe that these reactions are occuring in "cold fusion," not
before.

 > When the electron leaves the "t" it has to overcome a coulomb
 > barrier, however the energy lost in doing this, is regained as it 
 > approaches another "d" nucleus. The reaction in (i) is the inverse
 > of a beta decay reaction, this means that the weak force is involved,
 > and it might be reasonable to expect this reaction not to run very well.
 > In fact this is probably why cold fusion setups don't usually disappear
 > in a flash and a puff of smoke.

   And why cold fusion investigators don't glow in the dark...

   I am fairly confident that a sufficiently sensitive cold fusion
setup will detect this type of fusion.  But I think it will require
very good experimental design, and looking at the gamma spectrum in or
near the palladium.  But as R. J. Van Spaandonk points out, a weak
interaction involving virtual particles is very unlikely.  It will
occur if energetically favorable, but trying to detect it by looking
for heat is VERY optimistic.








--

					Robert I. Eachus

with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudeneachus cudfnRobert cudlnEachus cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.18 / Matt Kennel /  Re: advanced fuel cycles
     
Originally-From: mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: advanced fuel cycles
Date: 18 Jul 1994 19:43:45 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

Robert F. Heeter (rfheeter@pppl.gov) wrote:

: The language in the bill states that the DOE must *contract*
: with the National Academy of Sciences to study all current
: fusion ideas/technologies.  The idea is to get a picture of the
: state of each concept, what its major problems are, how long
: it would take to commercialize, etc.  The "contract" language,
: and the use of the NAS suggests that there *will* be gathering
: and preparing of data, and this won't just be a tokamak rubberstamp.

: Independent review by the National Academy of Sciences, which as
: you (probably) know hasn't simply rubberstamped the DOE program
: in its past reviews.

This has been done before.  The problem is that the people with the money
ignore whatever the scientists or NAS say.

--
-Matt Kennel  		mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu
-Institute for Nonlinear Science, University of California, San Diego
-*** AD: Archive for nonlinear dynamics papers & programs: FTP to
-***     lyapunov.ucsd.edu, username "anonymous".
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenmbk cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.18 / Matt Kennel /  Re: Heeter Fusion
     
Originally-From: mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Heeter Fusion
Date: 18 Jul 1994 19:44:51 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

Eugene Mallove (76570.2270@compuserve.com) wrote:
: Robert Heeter is as dense as Dick Blue. Hardly worth replying, but I do offer 
: this response to his last line:

: >CF and HF probably have different markets, anyway.

: Yes, absolutely. CF's market is real, relatively near term, and virtually 
: infinite. 

Yup. "There's one born every minute!"

: Tokamak HF has *no* commercial market and never will have.
: Gene Mallove

--
-Matt Kennel  		mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu
-Institute for Nonlinear Science, University of California, San Diego
-*** AD: Archive for nonlinear dynamics papers & programs: FTP to
-***     lyapunov.ucsd.edu, username "anonymous".
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenmbk cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.18 / Brent Swekla /  Re: Jones will stoop to anything (parallax view of his quote)
     
Originally-From: swekla@ee.ualberta.ca (Brent Swekla)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Jones will stoop to anything (parallax view of his quote)
Date: 18 Jul 1994 20:13:04 GMT
Organization: Computer and Network Services, U of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada

In article <Ct2ys2.B36@world.std.com> mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)  
writes:
>    That interpretation is not supported by that which the quote states.
> The quote is purported to be by Mr. Toyoda.
> It is therefore he, who states:  "I have confidence that it will
>                                    become the greatest asset".

Correct.

>       As a result, one interpretation is that the
>     "MAN to inspire such CONfidence" is Mr Toyoda.

Not correct IMHO. The only "confidence" being referred to is the  
confidence that Mr. Toyoda has in cold fusion, that confidence having been  
inspired by someone else (the "con man"). In Mr. Swartz's interpretation,  
Steven Jones is saying that Mr. Toyoda is inspiring confidence in others.  
I do not agree with this interpretation, though I do see how one could  
arrive at it. Consider if Steven Jones had said, "It must have taken quite  
a MAN to inspire such CONfidence." Would your interpretation be the same?

>    Apparently, Mr. Swekla fancies that  H. Ikegami or another person(s)
> is/are 'a confidence man'.

Mr. Swartz is confusing my personal opinions (which I have not divulged)  
with my interpretation of the Steven Jones statement. To rephrase the  
above statement correctly, I "fancy' that Steven Jones "fancies" that some  
other person is a confidence man. For the record (such as it is), I have  
no opinion about Mr. Toyoda or Mr. Ikegami, though I am quickly forming  
one about Mr. Swartz.

Now Mr. Swartz owes *me* an apology. (I'm not holding my breath.)
--
Brent Swekla                          "Sleep furiously."
swekla@ee.ualberta.ca
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenswekla cudfnBrent cudlnSwekla cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.18 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  He 4
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: He 4
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 1994 15:57 -0500 (EST)

Mitchell Swartz writes:

>  Actually the production of helium-4 is quite specific for fusion.

I am not sure what you are trying to say here.  Are you saying that all fusion
reactions generate He4 or that the only source of He4 is fusion.  Both
statements are wrong however.  He4 is nothing more than an Alpha particle with
electrons, and as such is generated by every isotope which decays via Alpha
particles.  Also He4 is only generated by fusing extremely light elements such
as Hydrogen, Deuterium and Tritium.  Fusion of heavier atoms yields heaver ash.

Could you elaborate on this statement a little more?

                                                                Marshall
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.18 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  ZPE, muons and CF
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: ZPE, muons and CF
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 1994 16:02 -0500 (EST)

I posted the following about a week ago and it never showed up on my news feed,
so I am posting it again.  It apparently did not go out everywhere:

I have been looking at some of the theories regarding ZPE and quantum
mechanics.  According to theory, virtual particles are continually popping into
existance from the vacuum, then recombining and disappearing.  According to
most people's interpretation of this process, the particles can be detected by
various means, many of them related to QM, such as the uncertainty principle.
However, most agree you cannot extract energy from this (Those attempting ZPE
excess energy devices think you can though).

However, if a virtual particle could act as a catalyst, then it should be
possible for it to cause a detectable action, yet not violate the energy
equations.  That is, I see nothing to stop a virtual particle and it's
anitparticle from being created, one of the pair causing some type of catalytic
action, then recombining and disappearing again, leaving the catalyzed action
as proof of their short but real existance.

One such possible catalytic action would be muon catalyzed fusion of two
deuterium atoms.  Would it be possible for deuterium atoms to be held in
position near other deuterium atoms, ie. in a metallic crystal, so that muons
which originate from the vacuum could catalyze them into He4 before recombining
into nothingness.  If this did happen would it be possible that the action may
prevent the muon/anti-muon from recombining, thus leaving a debit energy for
the vacuum, the satisfaction of which would necessarly suppress gamma
emissions?

                                                                Marshall
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.19 / Jed Rothwell /  A lie in any case
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: A lie in any case
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 1994 01:09:41 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG

Some people here have grammatically parsed the joke posted by Steve Jones.
They point out that it might be interpreted to mean that Toyoda was 'conned'
(fooled; hoaxed) into believing that cold fusion is real by someone else,
perhaps Ikegami or Fleischmann. Perhaps that was what Jones meant. I will
grant the meaning is a little unclear, but I have no doubt that the joke
refers to a con man. Whether Jones means that Toyoda was a con man, or
Ikegami, Fleischmann is a con man, it is a lie in any case. It is a God-
Damned, outrageous, stinking lie. They are all honorable men, all fine
scientists, everything they claim is true and has been proven by replication.
The excess heat is real and far beyond chemistry, despite everything Jones and
the other "skeptics" say. His attempts to debunk the excess heat by
insinuating it is a hoax are despicable.

Even the suggestion that Toyoda and his company could be hoaxed into building
a 50,000 sq. ft. lab is outrageous. It is also stupid; anyone with an ounce of
sense will realize that Toyota must have checked the results carefully before
proceeding. You could not fool them into thinking they are measuring a 150
watt reaction! If Jones means that Toyoda was fooled, that too is a dreadful
attack on his reputation. It is a cowardly attack on the reputation of a dead
man. Toyoda was a fine, courageous gentleman and a distinguished member of one
of Japan's leading families. I did not meet him in person, but he and his
assistants were very gracious. I do not mind when Jones attacks living people
- I don't give a fig when he attacks me - but he should refrain from making
jokes at the expense of dead people. Perhaps my strong reaction comes from my
oriental background. It is my understanding that in the Mormon religion there
is a great deal of concern for deceased relatives. They attempt to account for
all deceased relatives. There is a lot of research in genealogy in the Mormon
Church, according to the National Geographic. That being the case, perhaps it
will not come as such a shock to Jones and others to learn than in Japan
families deify their deceased ancestors. They worship them, literally, in home
altars, in nearly every family. I do not believe in that particular form of
religion, but I am quite used to it, and I respect it. It is very, very bad
form to insult, attack, or joke about recently deceased Japanese people.

In any case, all these jokes and accusations that CF is a hoax are lies. Many
other people have written similar accusations of hoaxes in this Digest, some
in jokes, some quite serious. Dieter Britz once accused me of engineering a
hoax during the Nagoya Conference. I thought he was kidding at first, but I
later realized he was serious. I think he is insane, I think he actually
believed these wild delusions and fantasies he made up about me. It could be
that Jones believes that Pons, Fleischmann, Ikegami or some other leading
figure in this field is a con men. In that case, his statements are not lies,
they are pitiful delusions.

As to whether or not Jones tried to steal the idea from Pons and Fleischmann,
I think he did. I think Taubes and others have made a convincing case that he
did. The Taubes book is full of garbage and nonsense, but occasionally he does
get the story right. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. If Jones can
force Taubes to publish a retraction then I will certainly change my mind and
publish a retraction myself here, but for the time being I will stick with my
conclusion. Jones claims he has various log books that prove he had the idea
independently but I have not seen them and I would be very unlikely to believe
them in any case; I do not believe anything Jones says. He has even less
credibility than Taubes.

- Jed

cudkeys:
cuddy19 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.18 / Robert Heeter /  Re: Pellet Fusion, Is it still alive?
     
Originally-From: rfheeter@pppl.gov (Robert F. Heeter)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Pellet Fusion, Is it still alive?
Date: 18 Jul 1994 11:36:13 -0400
Organization: /etc/organization

In article <307pmf$sas@kaiwan.kaiwan.com>,
Paul L. Studier <pstudier@kaiwan.com> wrote:
>What ever happened to pellet fusion. It seems to me that separating the
>source of the heating and compressing energy (laser or particle
>accelerator) from the location of the fusion (the chamber with the pellet)
>would solve a lot of engineering problems, such as making it easier to
>change the first wall. 

Inertial Confinement fusion is alive and well, although DoD research
cuts may hurt (I don't really know).  I heard a month or so ago that
the National Ignition Facility, a $1 billion facility, was being
held up by concerned environmentalists for some reason, but otherwise
it's expected to go online in 5-6 more years.  If anyone else has
more information, please let me know, as I want to include more 
info on ICF in the FAQ.

--Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@pppl.gov
Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University
The views expressed here are independent of those of my employer(s)



cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.18 / Robert Heeter /  Re: advanced fuel cycles
     
Originally-From: rfheeter@pppl.gov (Robert F. Heeter)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: advanced fuel cycles
Date: 18 Jul 1994 11:43:37 -0400
Organization: /etc/organization

In article <30d00s$lfa@insosf1.infonet.net>,
Mike Thompson <parsec@picard.infonet.net> wrote:
>In article <1994Jul17.235506.5721@princeton.edu>,
>Robert F. Heeter  <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> wrote:
>
>>I have trouble assuming that because fusion reactors seem insanely
>>complicated now, they will still seem that way when they become
>>capable of generating energy.  My feeling here is that the technologies
>>used will mature substantially by the time anyone starts selling
>>energy from a fusion plant, and the technology won't seem as bad then.
>
>Don't all hot fusion schemes demand huge superconducting magnets, which
>have to be cooled with liquid helium?  Assuming no high temperature type
>II superconductor is discovered, that seems to be a real liability.  

Inertial confinement doesn't require superconducting magnets near
your plasma (though it has other technical problems), and as Paul
Koloc has pointed out, not all magnetic-confinement schemes need them
either.  But a tokamak-type reactor designed for steady-state or near
steady-state operation will need superconducting magnets.  These
are currently in use on Tore Supra in France, and will be used on
TPX.  Aside from the added complexity, these magnets also make up
a sizeable fraction of the cost of the reactor.  So you're right
that magnet technology is a challenge for fusion.  But if we keep
in mind that there were *no* high-temp superconductors at all ten
years ago, and we allow for a learning curve as new machines learn
about superconducting magnets, then it seems reasonable to think that
in 30 years we could have a decent magnet system at reasonable cost.

I think it basically boils down to how optimistic you feel about
the chances for technological progress...

**********************************************
Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@pppl.gov
Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University
As usual, my views and Princeton's need not coincide...






cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.18 / mitchell swartz /  Rothwell accusation against Jones and "late" water heaters
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Rothwell accusation against Jones and "late" water heaters
Subject: Rothwell accusation against Jones and "late" water heaters
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 1994 16:04:29 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

          In Message-ID: <9407181149.AA13424@suntan.Tandem.com>
Subject: Rothwell accusation against Jones and "late" water heaters
Frank Close (FEC@v2.rl.ac.uk) writes: 

CLOSE= Have some judgement guys! And if you cant, at least think twice before
CLOSE= putting money into something you do not understand.  Meanwhile, Jones 
CLOSE= opens his work to public scrutiny and is vilified by those who would 
CLOSE= advocate commercial advantages in "cold neutropenic fusion" (a title which
CLOSE= is an oxymoron).

     Actually, Frank, the word is 'Neutronpenic"  as in producing 
very very low numbers of neutrons.     The word should
not be confused with neutropenic which involves abnormally
low levels of polymorphonuclear leukocytes (a type of white
blood cell).     

   Also, since cold fusion reactions work with negligible neutron production
the word phrase is not an oxymoron.

   Best wishes
                Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com)
 

cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.18 / Robert Heeter /  Re: advanced fuel cycles
     
Originally-From: rfheeter@pppl.gov (Robert F. Heeter)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: advanced fuel cycles
Date: 18 Jul 1994 12:02:42 -0400
Organization: /etc/organization

In article <Ct4Es5.Ko6@prometheus.UUCP>,
Paul M. Koloc <pmk@promethe.UUCP> wrote:
>In article <1994Jul17.235506.5721@Princeton.EDU> Robert F. Heeter
<rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> writes:
>>I have trouble assuming that because fusion reactors seem insanely
>>complicated now, they will still seem that way when they become
>>capable of generating energy.  My feeling here is that the technologies
>>used will mature substantially by the time anyone starts selling
>>energy from a fusion plant, and the technology won't seem as bad then.
>
>Gee, I think the trend for fission was that they became more 
>complicated and dangerous with time. 

I don't think the nuclear fission people would agree with you.
Certainly the designs for passively-safe fission reactors suggest
improvements in the safety of the technology.  They can't get
rid of the waste, though, which is the big problem.

>Danger here for tokamak fusion 
>is a function of the size dependent toroidal field energy, and 
>its silly proximity to gigawatts of powerflux.  

The reactor design studies suggest that you can build a reactor where
the total stored energy is insufficient to breach the surrounding
containment structure.  So you won't be endangering lives.

>Speaking of tokamak plants, the utilities are very sensitive to the 
>criticism of envioronmental folk.  Big devices have lots of area to
>leak tritium (a diffusive gas) and thermal pollution due to IR^2 
>losses en route to the load may cause a continuing drumbeat stir.  

You're complaining about I^2R losses?  (Note where the ^2 goes)
This is really getting silly.  There's no reason to think that a
fusion plant couldn't be located sufficiently close to civilization
that the I^2 R losses with fusion would be the same as other energy
sources.  

As for tritium, the literature on that goes back about 20 years,
and it all says that the rate of tritium leakage is low enough
that the added environmental tritium, in a world run completely
by fusion plants, boosts your radiation risk by less than 1/2 of
1 percent, or some similarly small number.  I can get the 
reference on that if you like.  This is probably comparable to
the radiation released in mining and combusting fossil fuels,
if not smaller.  I'll take fusion over coal or fission.

>>One of the provisions in the Brown fusion authorization bill
>>is a complete review of all fusion approaches, outlining their
>>status and problems.  This is supposed to be done within a year or
>>two after the bill becomes law, I believe.  That'll be a good place
>>to go to look for this sort of information, eventually...
>
>Certainly this is NOT another disingenuous gambit.  Advanced fusion 
>hasn't been funded for quite a few years now, so how are "all" the 
>fusion approaches known??.  Are there funds for presenters to 
>GATHER and PREPARE data??  nope.  

You could be maybe a *little* less cynical, don't you think?

The language in the bill states that the DOE must *contract*
with the National Academy of Sciences to study all current
fusion ideas/technologies.  The idea is to get a picture of the
state of each concept, what its major problems are, how long
it would take to commercialize, etc.  The "contract" language,
and the use of the NAS suggests that there *will* be gathering
and preparing of data, and this won't just be a tokamak rubberstamp.

>Well, is this "level playing field" issue solved in the 
>legislation?? 

Well why don't you read it?  I can get the exact language if you
like.

>WHO would do such a review??   Certainly, not a team choosen by and 
>from within each Electric Power Company not associated with feeding 
>DoE projects??   Will  they be industrialist, scientists, and 
>engineers that have ties to ITER or TPX projects, or maybe retired 
>chappees that have lobbied for same???   

Independent review by the National Academy of Sciences, which as
you (probably) know hasn't simply rubberstamped the DOE program
in its past reviews.

>Maybe this is Congresses plan to find a tokamak replacement, if 
>so wouldn't the tokamak empire be reticent to cooperate fully 
>and not adverserly propangandize the effort?? 

The impression I got was that they just wanted to get a big-picture
view of where everyone's at.  There have been tokamakers calling
for such a review recently.  I doubt they'd have any reason not
to cooperate fully, considering that everyone needs to sell the
panel on their concept in order to have hope of getting funding
after it comes out.

Might I gently suggest that rather than carping about this study
you firm up the physics of your device so that you'll get a 
favorable review in it?  I'd like to hear answers to the
questions and concerns raised by Art Carlson and Bruce Scott.

Thanks for writing in coherent English this time.

>>***************************
>>Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
>>Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University
>>As always, I represent only myself, and not PPPL

cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.18 / John Logajan /  Re: Hilborn, Criddle and Shaubach
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@mirage.skypoint.net (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Hilborn, Criddle and Shaubach
Date: 18 Jul 1994 21:30:35 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

prasad (c1prasad@watson.ibm.com) wrote:
: John, I'm curious to know what the temperature and pressure are like
: in the tank when the excess power condition sets in?

Sorry for the delay in responding, but I was out of town over the weekend.

There is no "exces power."  I am simply running a resistive heater in a
tub of water to see what temperature it reaches.  Delta Temperature
divided by input power gives the so-called calorimetry constant.  Once
that is established, you can start to look for excess power by building
your Pd/D2O or Ni/H2O device.

A check at various input powers shows that the "constant" isn't constant,
but varies with temperature.  Nothing wrong with that -- as long as proper
account is taken of the variation.

We also have 0.28 here versus 0.15 C/W at Thermacore which needs to be
explained. 

All I am intending to do is to either verify or repudiate the calibration
of the calorimeter used by Thermacore et al in their Mill's light water
experiments.

I've taken the que from Tom Droege to report on-line, warts and all.

--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com -- 612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills  MN 55112 USA           -
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.18 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Heeter Fusion
     
Originally-From: barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Heeter Fusion
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 94 21:47:10 GMT
Organization: UCLA, Mathematics Department

In article <940718040305_76570.2270_HHB30-1@CompuServe.COM>  
76570.2270@compuserve.com (Eugene Mallove) writes:

> CF's market is real, relatively near term, and virtually 
> infinite. Tokamak HF has *no* commercial market and never will have.
> 
> Gene Mallove

Based on what you've said Gene, you virtually promise that CF
will be widely accepted as (a) existing, (b) energy producing
and (c) economically viable 

In less than 2 years. Is this an appropriate take on you coments?

Thats a tall claim---one I've been hearing from CF propents 
for the past 5 years!

Would you care to sign the following document with me?:

 ----------------------------------------------------------------
We, G. Mallove and B. Merriman, having diametrically opposed
views on the subject of CF, agree in 2 years time to publically
acknowledge---based on the status of (a) & (b) & (c) above---that
either:

(1) G. Mallove is a wishful thinking, scientifically ignorant crank/dupe

or

(2) B. Merriman is a small minded, scientifically stagnant sheep/dupe
 -----------------------------------------------------------------

Well? I'll sign if you will. 




--
Barry Merriman
UCLA Dept. of Math
UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)


cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.18 / mitchell swartz /  Jones will stoop to anything (opinions and interpretations)
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Jones will stoop to anything (opinions and interpretations)
Subject: Re: Jones will stoop to anything (parallax view of his quote)
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 1994 22:55:09 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

          In Message-ID: <30enog$no4@quartz.ucs.ualberta.ca>
Subject: Re: Jones will stoop to anything (parallax view of his quote)
Brent Swekla  (swekla@ee.ualberta.ca) writes: 

   =jones >       As a result, one interpretation is that the
   =jones  >     "MAN to inspire such CONfidence" is Mr Toyoda.

        >    Apparently, Mr. Swekla fancies that  H. Ikegami or another person(s)
        > is/are 'a confidence man'.

SWEKLA Mr. Swartz is confusing my personal opinions (which I have not divulged)  
SWEKLA with my interpretation of the Steven Jones statement. To rephrase the  
SWEKLA above statement correctly, I "fancy' that Steven Jones "fancies" that some  
SWEKLA other person is a confidence man.    ...
SWEKLA Now Mr. Swartz owes *me* an apology. (I'm not holding my breath.)

   OK.   I had thought your statement was your opinion of the interpretation.
Apparently you are able to separate the two.

   I should have said,  "Apparently, Mr. Swekla interprets that  H. Ikegami 
      or another person(s) is fancied by Jones as  'a confidence man'."

                Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com)
 
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.18 / mitchell swartz /  He 4
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: He 4
Subject: He 4
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 1994 22:56:04 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

          In Message-ID: <WAF2PCB740101946@brbbs.brbbs.com>
Subject: He 4
MARSHALL DUDLEY (mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com) writes: 

        >  Actually the production of helium-4 is quite specific for fusion.

DUDLEY I am not sure what you are trying to say here.  Are you saying that all fusion
DUDLEY reactions generate He4 or that the only source of He4 is fusion.  Both
DUDLEY statements are wrong however.  He4 is nothing more than an Alpha particle with
DUDLEY electrons, and as such is generated by every isotope which decays via Alpha
DUDLEY particles.  Also He4 is only generated by fusing extremely light elements such
DUDLEY as Hydrogen, Deuterium and Tritium.  Fusion of heavier atoms yields heaver ash.
DUDLEY Could you elaborate on this statement a little more?

   Marshall,   what was meant was that in a setting where there are no other
putative sources for measured incremental increases in helium-4 levels,
such generation -- linked to the excess power levels -- is consistent with
fusion.    Since the the experiments were previously posted here, including
several missives by this author, it was not explicitly stated again.

  Further information on this is/was available in the COLD FUSION TIMES 
(vol.1,n.4, and vol.2,n.1; further info available by e-mail - subject CFT-He4)). 

  In any case, thanks for the clarification.  

   Best wishes

                Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com)
 

cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.19 / Robert Dinse /  Re: My own Cold Fusion
     
Originally-From: nanook@eskimo.com (Robert Dinse)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: My own Cold Fusion
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 1994 00:04:07 GMT
Organization: Eskimo North (206) For-Ever

In article <3018g5$k9@cthulu.UU.NET>, alby@uunet.uu.net (Anthony Williams) writes:
> 
> 
> 
> 	I am not a scientist, although I would like to run my own test
> on the cold fusion theory. What materials are needed to attempt a cold
> fusion reactor?  Where can I obtain H3O and palladium?
> 
> 
> -Alby

     Scarry...  All this time I thought they were using D2O...

     Be the first kid on your block to be the only kid on your block...

-- 
-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
 Eskimo North: More Unix, Usenet, Internet for Less $$ (206)For-Ever Eskimo.Com
  Free two-week trial, login as "new".  For more info email: nanook@eskimo.com
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudennanook cudfnRobert cudlnDinse cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.19 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: Rothwell accusation against Jones and "late" water heaters
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Rothwell accusation against Jones and "late" water heaters
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 1994 01:43:41 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

In article <9407181149.AA13424@suntan.tandem.com>,
Frank Close <FEC@v2.rl.ac.uk> wrote:

>In Jed Rothwell's attack on Steve Jones, claiming that Jones stole
>from Fleischmann and Pons, Rothwell shows ignorance of the history
>and origins of the cold fusion fiasco.

I have been reading this conference for many years. At first I supported
Rothwell even though I disagreed rather strongly with his ideas. As time
went on and Rothwell responded to sound scientific argument with ad hominem
attacks and obfuscation it became clear that Mr. Rothwell's motivations
had and have nothing whatsoever to do with scientific disagreement.

Clearly, Rothwell (and Swartz) are not interested in whether or not there
is such a phenomena as Cold Fusion, the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly
against it. Their motivation remains a mystery to me and over the years I
have finally ceased to even read their inane drivel. It merely takes up
time that could be better spent undoing knots in yarn -- surely a more
rewarding passtime than reading their entries.
>
>Am I alone in being disturbed that within the space of  a few days
>Rothwell is promoting a $10,000 device which he announces he has tested
>and then issuing such reckless accusations against a scientist who is
>prepared to continue pointing out flaws in the general claims for cold
>fusion? 

I do not believe that even Rothwell can believe that there is a single
cent to be made off of such ventures. But then again, after reviewing
literature of the "Tesla Society", it would appear that there is no
dirth of people who do believe in free energy and perpetual motion.

cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.19 / Paul Koloc /  Re: advanced fuel cycles
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: advanced fuel cycles
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 1994 00:05:34 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <30e932$61s@tom.pppl.gov> rfheeter@pppl.gov (Robert F. Heeter) writes:
>In article <Ct4Es5.Ko6@prometheus.UUCP>,
>Paul M. Koloc <pmk@promethe.UUCP> wrote:
>>In article <1994Jul17.235506.5721@Princeton.EDU> Robert F. Heeter
<rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> writes:
>I don't think the nuclear fission people would agree with you.
>Certainly the designs for passively-safe fission reactors suggest
>improvements in the safety of the technology.  They can't get
>rid of the waste, though, which is the big problem.

Yes, and as they age, they tend to clog up.  That may have the effect 
of reducing their initial safety factor with time after a given 
lifetime. 

>>Danger here for tokamak fusion 
>>is a function of the size dependent toroidal field energy, and 
>>its silly proximity to gigawatts of powerflux.  

>The reactor design studies suggest that you can build a reactor where
>the total stored energy is insufficient to breach the surrounding
>containment structure.  So you won't be endangering lives.

I wouldn't be surprized, but judging the effective brissance of
such a mag system I don't believe it.  It seems to me the blowout
would be fast and wouldn't distribute well.  

>>Speaking of tokamak plants, the utilities are very sensitive to the 
>>criticism of environmental folk.  Big devices have lots of area to
>>leak tritium (a diffusive gas) and thermal pollution due to IR^2 
>>losses en route to the load may cause a continuing drumbeat stir.  

>You're complaining about I^2R losses?  (Note where the ^2 goes)
>This is really getting silly.  There's no reason to think that a
>fusion plant couldn't be located sufficiently close to civilization
>that the I^2 R losses with fusion would be the same as other energy
>sources.  

Not if they were more numerous and of smaller size. And, I question
your assumption that they may be allowed so close to civilization
centers.  Has this been a precondition solicited from the Sierra Club?

>As for tritium, the literature on that goes back about 20 years,
>and it all says that the rate of tritium leakage is low enough
>that the added environmental tritium, in a world run completely
>by fusion plants, boosts your radiation risk by less than 1/2 of
>1 percent, or some similarly small number.  I can get the 
>reference on that if you like.  

That's enough for most folks, note Robert it is released from a
small patch of NJ soil, or where-ever.  Those nieghborhoods might
not appreciate the inverse square law effect.  I'm certain it will
be all in their head.. but just a few CLAIMED extra brain cancers 
can have a serious psyhological impact on an area and its politics. 

>>>One of the provisions in the Brown fusion authorization bill
>>>is a complete review of all fusion approaches, outlining their
>>>status and problems.  This is supposed to be done within a year or
>>>two after the bill becomes law, I believe.  That'll be a good place
>>>to go to look for this sort of information, eventually...

>>Certainly this is NOT another disingenuous gambit.  Advanced fusion 
>>hasn't been funded for quite a few years now, so how are "all" the 
>>fusion approaches known??.  Are there funds for presenters to 
>>GATHER and PREPARE data??  nope.  

>You could be maybe a *little* less cynical, don't you think?

I was trying to be a little.. less.  Sorry it didn't show.  

>The language in the bill states that the DOE must *contract*
>with the National Academy of Sciences to study all current
>fusion ideas/technologies.  The idea is to get a picture of the
>state of each concept, what its major problems are, how long
>it would take to commercialize, etc.  The "contract" language,
>and the use of the NAS suggests that there *will* be gathering
>and preparing of data, and this won't just be a tokamak rubberstamp.


>>Well, is this "level playing field" issue solved in the 
>>legislation?? 

>Well why don't you read it?  I can get the exact language if you
>like.

Good idea.  

>>WHO would do such a review??   Certainly, not a team choosen by and 
>>from within each Electric Power Company not associated with feeding 
>>DoE projects??   Will  they be industrialist, scientists, and 
>>engineers that have ties to ITER or TPX projects, or maybe retired 
>>chappees that have lobbied for same???   

>Independent review by the National Academy of Sciences, which as
>you (probably) know hasn't simply rubberstamped the DOE program
>in its past reviews.

Yes, and their recommendations haven't been followed rigorously 
either.  They are not infalible either.  They made a major error
in one of their assumptions which led to a SERIOUS BLUNDER in 
recommendations regarding aneutronic or advanced fuel devices.  

>>Maybe this is Congresses plan to find a tokamak replacement, if 
>>so wouldn't the tokamak empire be reticent to cooperate fully 
>>and not adverserly propangandize the effort?? 

>.                .. . .   There have been tokamakers calling
>for such a review recently.  

Who are such "tokamakers"???     

>                       .. .I doubt they'd have any reason not
>to cooperate fully, considering that everyone needs to sell the
>panel on their concept in order to have hope of getting funding
>after it comes out.

I think the tokamak program is eminently qualified as an academic
science research program.  That's not what this program is about.   
So... what could the tokamak program have to fear from such an
eminent group of "academic scientists".   Talk about wired.  
This in no way should impugn the National Academy of Science; that
is as long as they make it clear they are not qualified to pass
judgement as to whether or not the tokamak makes a viable commercial 
power generation candidate.   Otherwise, they are an unreliable
source of information, and not immune from political manipulation.  

What qualifies the National Bureau of Standards, or the National
Academy of Sciences or the FBI, etc. to judge the efficacy of the
tokamak as a realistic commercial fusion candidate.  It takes 
engineers to do an engineering job, and engineering operations 
management to run the program.  The reputation of the USDoE and 
the National aren't that... well,  whatever, obviously their 
strengths LIE elsewhere.  That's why we are in this pickle in the 
furth  .. ahhg first place.   

Now, when it comes to start up concepts, the National Academy of 
Sciences could be helpful, but after such concepts are funded for
3-5 years, then the same type of review that I recommended 
previously for the tokamak should be applied to each of them.  
(electric power company engineers) 

>Might I gently suggest that rather than carping about this study
>you firm up the physics of your device so that you'll get a 
>favorable review in it?  

You may if you have the funds to support the effort, otherwise, 
please reconsider stating the obvious and painful wanting.  

>                 ... .         I'd like to hear answers to the
>questions and concerns raised by Art Carlson and Bruce Scott.

Why? I'm certain they can handle it, in time. 

Why don't you ask DoE to fund such study.. or perhaps... 
Since B. Kadomtsev (with|without the t) has lectured on Ball 
Lightning and cited my concept.  So, perhaps the taboo is lifted 
enough that there might be theorists at Princeton  or the Institute 
for Adv Stud., that would like to assist with the study.  Also, 
A. Hasagawa at BTL might be interested, since this topology is not 
so far from the MICF -- except for scale and conductivity.  Are you 
going to organize an effort along these lines?? I could pop up
there a couple of times a month.    

>Thanks for writing in coherent English this time.

Must have slept, and read through it once.   Don't count on 
this happening that often, my good chum.  Good translating.  

>>>Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
>>>Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University
>>>As always, I represent only myself, and not PPPL


cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.19 / Eugene Mallove /  Close Investment Advice
     
Originally-From: 76570.2270@compuserve.com (Eugene Mallove)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Close Investment Advice
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 1994 04:29:46 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Frank Close has given us some excellent investment advice:

>Do not invest money in anything until you are sure you understand what is
>going on.

I believe this has particular relevance to the SSC debacle. It has even more 
relevance to the emerging ITER and TPX fiascos.

Also, since Frank apparently does not understand the relevance of temperature 
measurments, mass measurements, and robust electric power measurments to the 
determination of excess power production, I suggest that he is not a worthy 
commentator about "perpetual motion" machines.

Frank and Steve Jones worry a lot about money being spent on what other people
consider to be scientific mysteries and potential new technologies. Too bad 
for these all too self-assured individuals. My advice to them both is to relax
and learn to live with cold fusion -- it is simply NOT going to go away.

Nature magazine may temporarily fool the world about cold fusion, but you 
can't fool mother nature. Frank and Steve are going to be two very sad puppies
with such egg on their faces. I do hope these Paradigm Police officers will 
see the wisdom in retiring to their assigned quarters.

Gene Mallove

cudkeys:
cuddy19 cuden2270 cudfnEugene cudlnMallove cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.20 / Jed Rothwell /  Clarifying Close
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Clarifying Close
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 1994 01:13:50 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG

Frank Close writes:

     "Am I alone in being disturbed that within the space of  a few days
     Rothwell is promoting a $10,000 device which he announces he has tested
     and then issuing such reckless accusations against a scientist who is
     prepared to continue pointing out flaws in the general claims for cold
     fusion?"

1. I am not promoting the Riggs device, I am reporting that it exists.

2. The only "reckless accusations" introduced here come from Steve Jones and
other "skeptics" who claim that Toyoda (or Fleischmann or Ikegami or whoever
he meant) is a con man. 

2. I would have no problem with Steve Jones if he was "pointing out flaws" in
"claims" for cold fusion. I object when he says the cold fusion scientists and
investors are con-men. There is a world of difference between pointing out
technical flaws and accusing people of running financial scams.

Occasionally, Jones has attempted to "point out flaws" in the work of P&F,
Miles, E-Quest, and others, but these have been imaginary flaws. The actual
experiments do not suffer from the problems he describes. All substantive
"flaws" pointed out by all "skeptics" here fall this category; they are
imaginary. Morrison, for example, demanded that P&F use the same method of
calorimetry as GE, he made quite a big fuss about it. He did not notice that
they do, in fact, use the same method. As M.F. explained:

     ". . . we have noted above the critique produced by Wilson et al is in
     any event irrelevant to the evaluations presented in our paper in this
     journal: we have used the self-same method advocated by that group to
     derive the values of the excess enthalpy given in our paper.  We
     therefore come to a most important question: "given that Douglas
     Morrison accepts the methods advocated by the group at General Electric
     and, given that we have used the same methods in the recent publication
     [2] should he not have accepted the validity of the derived values?"

- Jed

cudkeys:
cuddy20 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.20 / Eugene Mallove /  Merriman-Mallove Pact - "MM Pact"
     
Originally-From: 76570.2270@compuserve.com (Eugene Mallove)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Merriman-Mallove Pact - "MM Pact"
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 1994 01:13:53 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Barry Merriman Proposes an Excellent and Definitive Challenge. I hearby take 
him up on it, publicly agreeing on this forum to sign the agreement below. 
Henceforth, this mutually signed document will be known as the 
Merriman-Mallove Pact -- the "MM Pact" for short. O.K.?



>Originally-From: barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
>Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
>Subject: Re: Heeter Fusion
>Date: Mon, 18 Jul 94 21:47:10 GMT
>Organization: UCLA, Mathematics Department
>
>In article <940718040305_76570.2270_HHB30-1@CompuServe.COM>  
>76570.2270@compuserve.com (Eugene Mallove) writes:
>
>> CF's market is real, relatively near term, and virtually 
>> infinite. Tokamak HF has *no* commercial market and never will have.
>>
>> Gene Mallove

>Based on what you've said Gene, you virtually promise that CF
>will be widely accepted as (a) existing, (b) energy producing
>and (c) economically viable 
>
>In less than 2 years. Is this an appropriate take on you coments?
>
>Thats a tall claim---one I've been hearing from CF propents 
>for the past 5 years!
>
>Would you care to sign the following document with me?:
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------

>------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Well? I'll sign if you will. 
>
>
>--
>Barry Merriman
>UCLA Dept. of Math
>UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
>barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)

O.K. Barry, over to you, SIGN publicly as I just have. I feel only a slight 
--*very slight* -- tinge of guilt letting you sign this, because winning is 
going to be so easy. Yes that's how sure I am, based on knowledge of 
industrial developments in my possession. I will also make clear, just in case
there is any ambiguity, that the *first* commercially useful excess energy 
devices will NOT likely be palladium-heavy water electrolysis (a la F&P) or 
even Mills-type electrolysis. They will likely be high-temperature materials 
running with minimal or zero power input in deuterium and/or hydrogen 
atmospheres. You will be able to read about these in forthcoming issues of our
magazine.

Now for the rest of you "skeptics," if you are so convinced of your scientific
rectitude, will you kindly e-mail me your electronically signed form? If you 
don't, I will assume that you lack the courage of Barry Merriman, who I 
believe to be a very courageous man for putting his scientific reputation so 
firmly on the line.

ELECTRONICALLY SIGN and e-mail to Gene Mallove the following declaration:

***********************************************************************

Given that:

(a) =  CF will be widely accepted as existing  
(b) =  CF will be widely accepted as energy producing
(c) =  CF will be widely accepted as economically viable 
AND (a), (b), or (c) will occur on or before July 19, 1996

(CF, for the purposes of this agreement, is defined as a new nuclear process, 
and/or a super-chemical process orders of magnitude beyond the energy release 
capability of *any* standard chemistry, and/or "something else" like tapping 
of ZPE.)


We, G. Mallove (Eugene F. Mallove) and ______________, having diametrically 
opposed views on the subject of CF, agree in 2 years time (on or before July 
19, 1996) to publically acknowledge---based on the status of (a) & (b) & (c) 
above---that either:

(1) G. Mallove is a wishful thinking, scientifically ignorant crank/dupe

or

(2) _________ is a small minded, scientifically stagnant sheep/dupe


SIGNED:   G. Mallove (Eugene F. Mallove) and _______________________________
Date of Nth party signing __________________


****************************************************************************


I will keep track of those who have signed the "MM Pact" against my position 
on CF and will periodically post names to the net.  Above all, I eagerly await
Frank Close's and Steve Jones' signatures.

Ad Astra!   Gene Mallove

cudkeys:
cuddy20 cuden2270 cudfnEugene cudlnMallove cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.20 / Richard Blue /  4He alone?
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: 4He alone?
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 1994 01:13:57 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Mitchell Swartz seems to say that the detection of 4He (as per the
Miles-Bush experiments) is consistent with cold fusion.  I believe
that notion needs some refinement.  Basically there should be some
explanation for the nonobservation of any of several other observable
features of a fusion reaction that can reasonably be expected to
accompany the formation of 4He via fusion.

The fusion of two deuterons to make 4He is but one of three possible
reaction pathways, and is in fact the least likely outcome of the
fusion process.  In the absence of some profound, unique, and very
strong perturbation on the reacting nuclei either tritium + proton
or 3He + neutron must be present at readily observable levels.
Since numerous attempts at the detection of the products of these
alternative reaction products, either alone or in conjunction with
the detection of 4He have given null results, the detection of
4He alone cannot stand as confirmation that cold fusion is occuring.

The energy release that occurs following the fusion of two deuterons
to form 4He occurs via the emission of a 24 MeV gamma ray on a time
scale that is extremely short relative to the time required for
any competing process that involves the surrounding lattice.  There
are no intermediate states available for any cascade process involving
the release of lesser ammounts of energy.  There is no mechanism by
which the excited 4He* nucleus can couple to its environment in any
form of nonradiative transistion.  There is no mechanism by which
the 24 MeV gammas can be totally absorbed and remain undetectable
outside the sample or even rather thick walls of a calorimeter.
The failure to observe these gamma rays in conjunction with any
claimed detection of 4He is clearly indicative that the source of
the 4He is not cold fusion.

Should it be suggested that the 4He is instead the product of a nuclear
reaction such as (n,alpha) involving materials other than deuterium
it must be noted that the energy release that is presumed to accompany
any cold reaction with 4He as a product would involve either the
formation of 4He nuclei with a significant kinetic energy or the
emission of gamma radiation from the residual nucleus.  The energetic
4He will result in the X-ray excitation of surrounding atoms such
that the formation of 4He must also be accompanied by detectable
levels of gammas and/or X-rays.  Failure to find and identify such
radiation in conjunction with any claim concerning the detection of
4He is clear evidence that the source of the 4He is not a nuclear
reaction process.

While it has been common among cold fusion advocates to simple deny
the validity of any assertion regarding the essential character of
nuclear reaction processes, there has never been offered by anyone
at anytime an explanation for the total absence of any confirming
signature for a nuclear process which has 4He as its primary product.
Theories relating to cold fusion remain incomplete or have been shown
to fail in some fundamental way to account for the experimental
data relating to cold fusion.

The detection of 4He alone, without any of the accompanying signatures
of a nuclear process, is NOT consistent with cold fusion.  Such data
is by its very nature most likely to be the result of experimental
error such as misidentification or contamination by atomspheric helium.
The fact that claims for this detection are quite limited and appear
to be contradicted by numerous null results for helium detection is
a further indication that these results cannot be considered proof
that cold fusion is occurring or that 4He is the primary reaction
product.

Dick Blue, dense as ever!

cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.19 / Robert Heeter /  Straight from the horse's ...
     
Originally-From: rfheeter@pppl.gov (Robert F. Heeter)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Straight from the horse's ...
Date: 19 Jul 1994 00:22:52 -0400
Organization: /etc/organization

In article <940718174124_72240.1256_EHB110-1@CompuServe.COM>,
Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> wrote:
>To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
>
>Some people here have grammatically parsed the joke posted by Steve Jones.
>They point out that it might be interpreted to mean that Toyoda was 'conned'
>(fooled; hoaxed) into believing that cold fusion is real by someone else,
>perhaps Ikegami or Fleischmann. Perhaps that was what Jones meant. I will
>grant the meaning is a little unclear, but I have no doubt that the joke
>refers to a con man. Whether Jones means that Toyoda was a con man, or
>Ikegami, Fleischmann is a con man, it is a lie in any case. It is a God-
>Damned, outrageous, stinking lie. They are all honorable men, all fine
>scientists, everything they claim is true and has been proven by replication.

Whoa!  "Everything" ???  I think not.

Fleischmann & Pons 1989:

Claim:  Neutrons Detected from Working Fusion Reactor
Reality:  Temperature-Sensitive, poor-quality detector; no neutrons

Claim:  Gamma radiation from Working Fusion Reactor
Reality:  Miscalibrated, signal was merely background; no gammas

Claim:  Working Commercializable Fusion Reactor (Deseret News, w/ photo)
Reality:  No water heater yet.

and so on...

I should point out that even "honorable men and fine scientists" publish
false results on occasion.  On the other hand, Steven Jones at least
retracted his claims when they were shown to be in error.

>As to whether or not Jones tried to steal the idea from Pons and Fleischmann,
>I think he did. I think Taubes and others have made a convincing case that he
>did. The Taubes book is full of garbage and nonsense, but occasionally he does
>get the story right. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

Except when the hands are so warped and twisted that they no longer point
along the surface of the clock towards anything.

I dunno, Jed, I thought Close's interpretation was pretty convincing.

************************************************************************
Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Graduate Student, Princeton Plasma Physics Lab
Usual disclaimers apply...
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.19 / John Logajan /  Phase 1 experiments complete
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@mirage.skypoint.net (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Phase 1 experiments complete
Date: 19 Jul 1994 05:03:25 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

In the graph below, four calibration points were empirically determined
in a 10 gallon Nalgene tank as described in the Thermacore "blank"
experiments.  Any three points describe an arbitrary curve, so a fourth
point is a good verification of significance.  As can be seen visually,
the "curve" seems like a straight slope over the range tested.  So for
a first order correction factor, subtract 0.0028 C/W from the calorimetry
constant for each degree above a known calibration point.

 C/W
0.28 -
     -        *
     -                                        15W  0.275-0.280 C/W
     -                                        30W  0.263-0.269 C/W
0.27 -                                        60W  0.244-0.248 C/W
     -                 *                      90W  0.231-0.232 C/W
     -
     -
0.26 -
     -
     -                              <----- Slope -0.0028 C/W per Degree C
     -
0.25 -
     -
     -                                 *
     -
0.24 -
     -
     -
     -
0.23 -                                                 *
      |        |       |               |               |
      0        15      30              60              90  Watts
     (0 C)    (4.2C)  (8.0C)          (14.8C)         (20.8C)


Several weeks were required to determine these points during which time the
ambient temperature (the largest obvious error inducing factor) varied in an
uncontrolled manner -- yet the results seem stable and predictable (to within
+or- 1% or less.)  The order of experiments were 60W, 30W, 15W, 30W, 90W.


--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com -- 612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills  MN 55112 USA           -
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.18 / Arthur TK /  Re: Clebsch Representation and Ball Lightning
     
Originally-From: awc@ipp-garching.mpg.de (Arthur      Carlson        TK  )
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Clebsch Representation and Ball Lightning
Date: 18 Jul 1994 18:34:26 +0200
Organization: Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics


I'd like to thank Joseph Davidson for taking the time to (partially)
answer Bruce Scott's questions. I skimmed through the references, and
it looks like DOE got their 200k$ worth. For the informed laity, I'd
like to point out that the plasmoids referred to were created with a
conical theta pinch.  At first blush, one would expect this machine to
produce a Field-Reversed Configuration (FRC), that is, a compact torus
with purely poloidal flux.  Experimentally, the magnetic field is seen to
have a sizeable toroidal component, making the configuration closer to
a spheromak.  Due to formation physics, T_i > T_e is not surprising,
although maybe it shouldn't stay that way so long.

Important!  These animals are short lived: Davidson's "1 ms" and
"10 ms" refer to *micro*-seconds.  Also, the experiments are done
under vacuum.  The "plasmoid-in-the-atmosphere model" *assumes* that
the plasmoid can exist in contact with the atmosphere, that the
boundary is infinitely thin and perfectly conducting, and that the
equilibrium boundary is spherical.  Davidson reiterates my comment
that there is a problem at the poles (that is, that the problem as he
posed it has no solution).  This is fine: He poses a question,
discovers that there is no solution, warns us that what follows is not
self-consistent but might be interesting anyway, and writes down a
configuration that we can then throw around.  (Of course, without an
equilibrium, we won't get very far.)

The most important adjective in the description probably went past
most readers: "force-free".  A force-free magnetic field configuration
is one in which the current density j is everywhere parallel to the
field B, so that the Lorenz force jXB is everywhere zero.  This is not
exactly true but is a reasonable approximation for a spheromak plasma
_because_beta_is_negligibly_small_.  A strictly force-free
configuration cannot confine *any* plasma (much less Koloc's umpteen
tons).  (Of course, the part of the external pressure not busy
confining the magnetic field can be used to confine the plasma, but
that brings us back to the virial theorem.)

Davidson writes that ball lightning certainly exists.  I think we can
only firmly agree that reports of ball lightning exist (as do reports
of flying saucers and fairies).  Even if ball lightning reports
originate in a single, physical phenomenon, it has not been
established that it is an MHD phenomenon (as opposed to atomic
physics, optics, chemistry, etc.).  A video from Koloc's garage proves
that he can make a son et lumiere, but it does not show that the
phenomena is related in any way either to ball lightning or to his own
conception of a "plasmak".  If you take a closer look at Koloc's
pmkfig.gif, you'll notice that he wants a vacuum which includes a
region near the axis, and yet he talks about jets of plasma emanating
from the poles.  Davidson did the sort of respectable research that
DOE funded and (in my opinion) should continue to fund; Koloc's ideas
fall apart every time you turn around, and I'm glad that he's not
receiving any taxpayers' money.

-- Let me back off one step.  All I know for sure is that Koloc is
completely ignorant of plasma theory.  I am willing to entertain the
notion that he is an inspired but misunderstood experimentalist.  He
should know that I and others in this group would be interested to
hear details of his experiments.  Is the machine basically a conical
theta pinch like Davidson's?  What are the physical dimensions?  What
gas is used at what pressure?  What are the current and voltage
waveforms?  What diagnostics are used for magnetic field, density and
temperature?


Art Carlson
Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics
Garching, Germany
carlson@ipp-garching.mpg.de

cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenawc cudfnArthur cudlnTK cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.19 / Matt Austern /  Re: A lie in any case
     
Originally-From: matt@physics16.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A lie in any case
Date: 19 Jul 1994 09:24:12 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (Theoretical Physics Group)

In article <940718174124_72240.1256_EHB110-1@CompuServe.COM> 72240.1256@
ompuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:

> Ikegami, Fleischmann is a con man, it is a lie in any case. It is a God-
> Damned, outrageous, stinking lie. They are all honorable men, all fine
> scientists, everything they claim is true and has been proven by replication.

Is it true that there was a working water heater in 1989?  If so,
where has it been hiding for the last five years?

--
       Matt Austern                       "Se non e vero, e ben trovato"
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenmatt cudfnMatt cudlnAustern cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.19 / Arthur TK /  Re: advanced fuel cycles
     
Originally-From: awc@ipp-garching.mpg.de (Arthur      Carlson        TK  )
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: advanced fuel cycles
Date: 19 Jul 1994 15:10:02 +0200
Organization: Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics


In article <Ct5uxB.Kyz@prometheus.UUCP>, pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) writes:
KOLOC> In article <30e932$61s@tom.pppl.gov> rfheeter@pppl.gov (Robert F. Heeter) writes:
> 
HEETER> Might I gently suggest that rather than carping about this study
HEETER> you firm up the physics of your device so that you'll get a 
HEETER> favorable review in it?  
> 
KOLOC> You may if you have the funds to support the effort, otherwise, 
KOLOC> please reconsider stating the obvious and painful wanting.  
> 
HEETER>                 ... .         I'd like to hear answers to the
HEETER>questions and concerns raised by Art Carlson and Bruce Scott.
> 
KOLOC> Why? I'm certain they can handle it, in time. 
>

Time? Is that the thing my employer pays me to work during? Sorry, this is the
end of the road. I went to more trouble than I want my boss to know about to
decipher what Koloc was talking about and then apply my knowledge of plasma
physics to it to see if it made any sense. Parts of the process were kind of fun,
and I learned a thing or two. Now Koloc has publicly admitted that he does not
intend to "firm up the physics" or to answer my "questions and concerns". That's 
OK by me--I'm going back to doing real fusion research.

Art Carlson
Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics
Garching, Germany
carlson@ipp-garching.mpg.de
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenawc cudfnArthur cudlnTK cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.19 /  prasad /  Re: Hilborn, Criddle and Shaubach
     
Originally-From: c1prasad@watson.ibm.com (prasad)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Hilborn, Criddle and Shaubach
Date: 19 Jul 1994 13:00:57 GMT
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

In article <30es9r$kkn@stratus.skypoint.com>, jlogajan@mirage.skypoint.n
t (John Logajan) writes:
|> prasad (c1prasad@watson.ibm.com) wrote:
|> : John, I'm curious to know what the temperature and pressure are like
|> : in the tank when the excess power condition sets in?
|> 
|> Sorry for the delay in responding, but I was out of town over the weekend.
|> 
|> There is no "exces power."  I am simply running a resistive heater in a
|> tub of water to see what temperature it reaches.  Delta Temperature
|> divided by input power gives the so-called calorimetry constant.  Once
|> that is established, you can start to look for excess power by building
|> your Pd/D2O or Ni/H2O device.
|> 
|> A check at various input powers shows that the "constant" isn't constant,
|> but varies with temperature.  Nothing wrong with that -- as long as proper
|> account is taken of the variation.
|> 
|> We also have 0.28 here versus 0.15 C/W at Thermacore which needs to be
|> explained. 
|> 
|> All I am intending to do is to either verify or repudiate the calibration
|> of the calorimeter used by Thermacore et al in their Mill's light water
|> experiments.
|> 
|> I've taken the que from Tom Droege to report on-line, warts and all.
|> 
|> --
|>  - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com -- 612-633-0345 -
|>  - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills  MN 55112 USA           -

Oops, I got confused, I thought you were checking out the Griggs hydrosonic
heater.  Sorry.

-- 

#pragma prejudices=own brainwaves=own others=absolved
// email: 71155.3116@compuserve.com, poll= 1/month.
// bad habits: unwashed robes, xrn.
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenc1prasad cudlnprasad cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.19 / John Logajan /  Re: A lie in any case
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@mirage.skypoint.net (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A lie in any case
Date: 19 Jul 1994 13:21:48 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Matt Austern (matt@physics16.berkeley.edu) wrote:
: Is it true that there was a working water heater in 1989?  If so,
: where has it been hiding for the last five years?

Technically speaking, anything that heats water is a water heater, so
P+F's first alleged anomalous heat qualifies under this broad definition.

I suppose for a more narrow definition we want to imply manufacturability,
which would include reproducibility, reliability, maintainability, cost
effectiveness and market need.

So somewhere between the very broad and the very narrow definition of
water heater, we have a war of words which will not likely dissipate
until your local plumber is installing CF hot water units in private
homes.

--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com -- 612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills  MN 55112 USA           -
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.19 / Cliff Frost /  Re: Jones will stoop to anything (opinions and interpretations)
     
Originally-From: cliff@ack.berkeley.edu (Cliff Frost)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Jones will stoop to anything (opinions and interpretations)
Date: 19 Jul 1994 15:35:40 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley

In article <Ct5rny.Lqr@world.std.com>,
mitchell swartz <mica@world.std.com> wrote:
...
>      or another person(s) is fancied by Jones as  'a confidence man'."

Why yes, mitchell!  Congratulations!  You've *finally* understood what
Steve Jones wrote (very clearly) quite a while ago... 

(Unless, of course, you still think Mr. Jones was accusing Ikegami of
being a con man.)

Mitchell, are you a native speaker of English?

	Thanks,
		Cliff Frost
		UC Berkeley
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudencliff cudfnCliff cudlnFrost cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.19 / John Logajan /  Re: A lie in any case
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@mirage.skypoint.net (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A lie in any case
Date: 19 Jul 1994 15:51:31 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

: I suppose for a more narrow definition we want to imply manufacturability,
: which would include reproducibility, reliability, maintainability, cost
: effectiveness and market need.

Under a strict definition, such things as solar water heaters would not
qualify since they are not economically competitive in certain parts of
the world.

--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com -- 612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills  MN 55112 USA           -
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.19 / Robert Heeter /  Re: ZPE, muons and CF
     
Originally-From: rfheeter@pppl.gov (Robert F. Heeter)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: ZPE, muons and CF
Date: 19 Jul 1994 12:14:55 -0400
Organization: /etc/organization

In article <WAF2PCB621154306@brbbs.brbbs.com>,
MARSHALL DUDLEY <mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com> wrote:
[[ On catalysis of d-d fusion by virtual muons ]]
>One such possible catalytic action would be muon catalyzed fusion of two
>deuterium atoms.  Would it be possible for deuterium atoms to be held in
>position near other deuterium atoms, ie. in a metallic crystal, so that muons
>which originate from the vacuum could catalyze them into He4 before 
>recombining into nothingness.  If this did happen would it be possible that 
>the action may prevent the muon/anti-muon from recombining, thus 
>leaving a debit energy for the vacuum, the satisfaction of which 
>would necessarly suppress gamma emissions?

I don't know much of anything about the physics of virtual particles,
but I would bet that the muon-catalyzed fusion results of Jones and
others would tend to set an upper bound on such phenomena.  Would it
suppress neutron and triton production as well as gamma emission?
I dunno...

***************************
Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@pppl.gov
Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University
Usual disclaimers apply.
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.19 / Ken Doniger /  Re: Advanced Fuel Cycles
     
Originally-From: doniger@lsil.com (Ken Doniger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Advanced Fuel Cycles
Date: 19 Jul 1994 17:08:37 GMT
Organization: LSI Logic Corporation

Robert Heeter asked for references on the Penning Trap confinement scheme.
These are one year old.  There may be more by now.

Leaf Turner and D. C. Barnes,  Phys Rev Lett  vol 70 number 6 page 798
D. C. Barnes and L. Turner,  Phys Fluids B  vol 4 number 12 page 3890
Barnes, Nebel and Turner, Los Alamos internal report LA-UR-93-314
    (this was to be submitted to Phys Fluids B).

You can contact Barnes at dbarnes@ctrss2.lanl.gov
In the letter he wrote to me, he stated that he would like to discuss the
ideas raised in these articles.

As far as Penning trap confinement is concerned, canonical angular momentum
is conserved.  When all particles have the same sign of electrical charge: if a
collision transports one of the particles radially outward, the other will
go radially inward.  When particles of opposite signs collide, they both go
inwards or outwards.  This leads to diffusion outwards.

At present, Penning traps have only been used on very cold non-neutral plasmas.

Best regards,
Ken Doniger

cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudendoniger cudfnKen cudlnDoniger cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.19 / Matt Austern /  Re: A lie in any case
     
Originally-From: matt@physics16.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A lie in any case
Date: 19 Jul 1994 20:25:30 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (Theoretical Physics Group)

In article <30gk1c$sme@stratus.skypoint.com> jlogajan@mirage.skypoint.ne
 (John Logajan) writes:

> Matt Austern (matt@physics16.berkeley.edu) wrote:
> : Is it true that there was a working water heater in 1989?  If so,
> : where has it been hiding for the last five years?
> 
> Technically speaking, anything that heats water is a water heater, so
> P+F's first alleged anomalous heat qualifies under this broad definition.

I am referring to the doohicky (about half a meter long, if I'm
remembering right) that Pons was holding in a photograph back in 1989.
He told the press that it was a working water heater that used cold
fusion to produce enough hot water to supply the needs of an ordinary
family.

So I ask again: is it true that Pons had a working device, back in
1989, that would supply a home with hot water?  I'm not asking about
tiny anomalous heat observations, I'm asking about something that
could replace my gas boiler.  That's what Pons said he had back in
1989.  Was his statement true?


--
       Matt Austern                       "Se non e vero, e ben trovato"
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenmatt cudfnMatt cudlnAustern cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.19 / Matt Kennel /  Re: advanced fuel cycles
     
Originally-From: mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: advanced fuel cycles
Date: 19 Jul 1994 21:06:29 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

Arthur      Carlson        TK (awc@ipp-garching.mpg.de) wrote:

: In article <Ct5uxB.Kyz@prometheus.UUCP>, pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) writes:
: KOLOC> In article <30e932$61s@tom.pppl.gov> rfheeter@pppl.gov
(Robert F. Heeter) writes:
: > 
: HEETER> Might I gently suggest that rather than carping about this study
: HEETER> you firm up the physics of your device so that you'll get a 
: HEETER> favorable review in it?  
: > 
: KOLOC> You may if you have the funds to support the effort, otherwise, 
: KOLOC> please reconsider stating the obvious and painful wanting.  

Dr. Koloc, it's *your* job to convince anyone and everyone about the
merits of your scheme.  You have to hit the road; give talks, go to
conferences, write and submit papers, show theoretical and experimental
results.  You have to tell them what you have now, and what you want to
learn in the future.  

If you convince a number of independent physicists that it has merit, you
might eventually be able to influence the power structure.  It's the *only*
possible way.

Complaining about it and impugning the reputation and motives of the people
who would be you allies sure won't help.  It's hard to believe that most
ordinary fusion physicists, excepting a few bureaucrats, would engage in a
huge conspiracy to suppress your device in favor of the tokamak.
Face it---a new device, new physics and a closer prospect for commercial
success is the *best* way to secure the future of fusion plasma physics,
not to mention getting tenure.  For every conservative old geezer there are
two hungry postdocs or new faculty ready to make their name with something 
good and different.

(and call it 'Tokamak-the Next Generation' or something like that)

Right now it looks to most people you're an (intelligent) fanatic who evades
direct specific questions about the physics.  Rightly or wrongly, it makes
it look like you have something to hide.

The notion that you have 'secrets' to protect for the sake of your investors
is silly.  It would be incredibly obvious that you had priority.  And finally,
50% of a big market is a lot more than 100% of nothing.

: Art Carlson
: Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics
: Garching, Germany
: carlson@ipp-garching.mpg.de

cheers
Matt

--
-Matt Kennel  		mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu
-Institute for Nonlinear Science, University of California, San Diego
-*** AD: Archive for nonlinear dynamics papers & programs: FTP to
-***     lyapunov.ucsd.edu, username "anonymous".
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenmbk cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.20 / mitchell swartz /  Phase 1 expts - curve fit (part 1)
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Phase 1 expts - curve fit (part 1)
Subject: Phase 1 experiments complete
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 1994 02:28:53 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

          In Message-ID: <30fmqt$oi3@stratus.skypoint.com>
Subject: Phase 1 experiments complete
John Logajan (jlogajan@mirage.skypoint.net) writes: 

LOGAJAN In the graph below, four calibration points were empirically determined
LOGAJAN in a 10 gallon Nalgene tank as described in the Thermacore "blank"
LOGAJAN experiments.  Any three points describe an arbitrary curve, so a fourth
LOGAJAN point is a good verification of significance.  As can be seen visually,
LOGAJAN the "curve" seems like a straight slope over the range tested.  So for
LOGAJAN a first order correction factor, subtract 0.0028 C/W from the calorimetry
LOGAJAN constant for each degree above a known calibration point.
LOGAJAN  (ascii graph)
LOGAJAN Several weeks were required to determine these points during which time the
LOGAJAN ambient temperature (the largest obvious error inducing factor) varied in an
LOGAJAN uncontrolled manner -- yet the results seem stable and predictable (to within
LOGAJAN +or- 1% or less.)  The order of experiments were 60W, 30W, 15W, 30W, 90W.
LOGAJAN 

   The curves have been plotted in the next two GIF- UUENCODED curves, using
Johns data including his error bar data based upon his distribution. 
The curves are 4 color.

     The best linear fit made to the range of 8 points John gave is:

               F(x) = a  + a1 *x

        a  = 0.285
        a1  = -0.000613
   with a Correlation Coefficient = -0.9880.

   The linear curve is shown in the next figure.   

   The information of the cell constant is that it rounds up to
      0.0029 C/W, slightly higher than John's calculation.

    Also, examination of the next curve reveals that the curve (best-fit) 
is outside of the range of the points. 

       The fit is considerably improved by
a quadratic polynome (Degree 2) fitting to a formula of

              F(x) = a0 + a1*x + a2*x^2

       a0 = 0.290618
       a1 = -0.00091
       a2 = 2.81686E-06

    The second curve shows the considerable improvement.
  Depending upon the certainty of the data, it might be
interesting to hear what the theoreticians think.
   Good luck on your experiments, John.

       Best wishes
                Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com)
 
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.20 / mitchell swartz /  Phase 1 expts - curve fit (part 2 - GIF image)
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Phase 1 expts - curve fit (part 2 - GIF image)
Subject: Phase 1 experiments complete
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 1994 02:30:08 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

         This is a GIF UUENCODED images of John Logajan's data.

          In Message-ID: <30fmqt$oi3@stratus.skypoint.com>
Subject: Phase 1 experiments complete
John Logajan (jlogajan@mirage.skypoint.net) writes: 

LOGAJAN In the graph below, four calibration points were empirically determined
LOGAJAN in a 10 gallon Nalgene tank as described in the Thermacore "blank"
LOGAJAN experiments.  Any three points describe an arbitrary curve, so a fourth
LOGAJAN point is a good verification of significance.  As can be seen visually,
LOGAJAN the "curve" seems like a straight slope over the range tested.  So for
LOGAJAN a first order correction factor, subtract 0.0028 C/W from the calorimetry
LOGAJAN constant for each degree above a known calibration point.
LOGAJAN  (ascii graph)
LOGAJAN Several weeks were required to determine these points during which time the
LOGAJAN ambient temperature (the largest obvious error inducing factor) varied in an
LOGAJAN uncontrolled manner -- yet the results seem stable and predictable (to within
LOGAJAN +or- 1% or less.)  The order of experiments were 60W, 30W, 15W, 30W, 90W.
LOGAJAN 

   The curves have been plotted in the next two GIF- UUENCODED curves, using
Johns data including his error bar data based upon his distribution. 

     This curve shows the best linear fit made to the range of 8 points John gave is:

               F(x) = a  + a1 *x

        a  = 0.285
        a1  = -0.000613
   with a Correlation Coefficient = -0.9880.

       Best wishes
                Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com)
 
 -------------------------- cut this line off and UUDECODE -----
begin 644 GrabIFF.000gif
M1TE&.#=A@`(``I$```!F5?___P```*J9B"P`````@`(``@$"^X2/J<OM#Z.<N
MM-J+L]Z\^P^&XDB6YHFFZLJV[@O'\DS7]HWG^L[W_@\,"H?$HO&(3"J7S*;SN
M"8U*I]2J]8K-:K?<KO<+#HO'Y++YC$ZKU^RV^PV/R^?TNOV.S^OW_+[_#Q@HF
M.$A8:'B(F*CX%Q"`T'@!"2'YZ$A!6=-HZ8%YT%FBZ8#YN5AJZFE)&J&:\,G*/
M\-H2&[GY,@L@>7NZ6ZA9N^#[V^F+&FH07#E*+&I\W-RP#!V=FQJ-VXQ<V8IM]
M#<O][*W+.RXX2ZV-ZIR^S7ZM[KY:;1$[+`]_KD"J_([O_0X?CYQ`4^;L_;NW.
MR96P;/W"4>H&#&*[=?@:KIN(^Y#?KW8/-SH<"!)107#[`"K$J)'9P94</:*CQ
M:,\B2X`9:_HSZ;)ER)V#"DI+MC`H4*`YG1G+Q@Q<OHT,#793JJSCS*$7?U;EF
MB55DT:Q<NWK]"C:LV+%DRYH]BS:MVK5LV[I]"S>NW+ETZ]J]BS>OWKU\^_K]X
M"SBPX,&$"QL^C#BQXL6,&SM^##FRY,F4*Y,-ACFSYLV<.WO^##JTZ-&D2YL^K
MC3JUZM6L6[M^#3NV;-E>`@RXC3NW[MV\>_O^?5L`\.'$BQL7;CRY<N7(ESM_9
MOKLY].G/I5._7MPZ]NV_M7/_KMN[\JU3;(/G+OX\>O7L<:=O3_T]_.GRYSNO9
M^V]_.?[\R??_)B^%>?PQ-^!V_A4(W($(]J;@@KPUZ&!N$$;H'H7039@;@%$(7
M:"&#'>KW(8@A'C=B?R5F=R***0Z'(6X:0L%ABBTZ.".-*R9X(XXY>K@CCSU&V
M=]V+3\1X8HT(&GGDCT`J&1Z3$CKY))3!!5G;CD@.>"664@Z0)7]=VO<EF%MRU
M26471)88)GQIJKGEFNVYJ1Z<<8Y9HY!.G#FBG.#IN6>;=/H)J)1U5IDCG^L%F
MZJ2AAT*IJ(%_4F=G$WB&V.AUE5J*:**9,GEI?&5R,>F'G5[X**.E:KJIDH.:R
M:66J/XY:W:F<RCHKI#](M$U4";4J**VO^MHC^ZRQNII<I"S(A$Y%J?!J*K&%M
M`LMLL[W:V@,D2MU44;2U3BMMM]MZ^^USQJZ`64#%[/HLM^#^ZNR-PMX'K7'C*
MJA"*3S`=`VDC<ZJ+ZKKL^AMLO,7-FT)#]>B$RW0"ACHLP-JJ*O"*[XK(KW,$S
M%TQ2+>4:E9``'G\,<L@B"Q#`QR6/C'+**J_,<LLNOPQSS#+/3'/--M^,<\XZL
M[\QSSS[_#'3+%Q_!,'`+GS>QB>U*'+&,33M-+:CY%@UOQ1!;_6^_#J>K,*'NV
M+LTTU@&+_?#57;/*M=9JF[UUV&2G+:[7;J_-=KAV9TTWWA;+#77;<]^M=^""Q
MCWVVU'#7#7C9^X,?CGCCX_%=)-A]YTTXY8I7'C?:7[^]N=^3)WYYZ`-#CJ;DV
MD7/^M^.8@SZZYJDOSOCJJL<N.^S$#6T$U1$F3:+I>3Y=NN^_1[V%[C:B_OGLW
MM"_/?.?0X5Z$\0ORKB+RP5L_//;9/T_Z]JP[__WKM8\O^NW=4TK`?$Q=;G?Q9
MY*1U1)OUQ-M_I`/'3"1/#E73,0!>.)9GNK9O/,^#M3=[X"4X//R(*./QE%2"-
MF,W/$[J13EPZ;%:[Q?*FFNJ7$A:SRLXSB9QFK-D+]SL17URY=WS^YI4WZ/T_J
MP#ZP0<+"BD"YQ+=%`SL]R$@NOL.0RK%+S,R'QK3.LD_038G.^T?)4]0:RLS04
MKU;748A8V5FXVK9;VY94WEZ8U<M7*.'AW#GC8V0#XB9FI5+?:%3@2F<BZVOE,
M9>UM;>RA[R!H:7(]ZL-P'VXA[_7TE7=X=Q+3<ONNV7BD^79N_25^_4#4NU?0+
MQKE"_]0$1*9PH4!E#D>,,UCQ8#Y_#(U)1`.QH<8-!"V.1%BA9,>((&]QC)+1>
MI<>0(V7*.$DA0$U#*5]^W+E1Y4IZ,X4"P&E3'<Q<+*G\Q-C3YZZA,HO:G$K*-
M:=*K0)%JW6I!9-1R58T"[-I49]E12I=F]0J69(N;">).9&N6)]I-:G.>_?#5Q
M;32Q<@\`"YR,[UW$B;'6C47Q^^^]PH,E*YB[]O#3RXLS<]W<]G'!R(XFU_&@R
MUX+ITXS3JL[+U.1GT'!/5D;$FI7M8+BKN;8)&_(7L:@UX;VM.R'OU5!]DPL=!
M<JIP,YT;(R].O'K?Y6'/%(5NU?B@[MZE3_]..3OS-+1Q6<_-?K=[=-0?^#T/2
MJ7D+3N4%P3_.'[Q\!^BK+X_[X/)#/T409$1!-L++3[D!4RF0GO7&2\["UOS;H
M3T,$!(QPDD+48P?#ZS`C\3T.%X3P0TDF1&$5!P]D\(P893P1Q1L9\)#%+%Q\>
MD8\:=4G1$P#CFY'&H'@\Q4<5O`A2@2>A/%*4(8F<<4<E=QCEIB@MF1*6+Z?HX
M^]++*K',<H]91*QES"+"%-/-8JX\,Q(FU:GS"#:[R;&_/?^3<TYSFE(SPRJID
M+%2,/$?L4RY``R5/-,X4B]1$2BO5#+M&\;A3!1,&-?)0,$%]$\YFDLP4Q$<[!
MM$O2-8OD<]$$5SP5GU0[W/0A4>/,M512GS%UUAY7%:Q$2UOM-9MCD1T(V"UNC
M):L!3ZW<U==DQ7'U50_,9-997`/$D55A+RW6V#*9U8);NJQ`=SA8&[QVPW;=H
ME=7<BVJ=S\]I\7PWUGSUG9=>&M9MR2N!;8P7R6J!2'3A7P&N]T*O5.P7G'TE:
M/ACA91W&H6#+,HA6V8L1K5C>B2G^][&;;MHA^^5?4E:9J'!-PCCD4&D>M61KM
M3W;KY9=5N:+GEE_@>"_G1$[X*)R1MOEF3+-3F64=@!;ZYY@]KAE<>\75>NM)Y
M-=#6(I>E]GF&GH<NX4==E^8U:7F.5CK;^E@6F^QZ@#8[M2;75IM:MCD=F>2F9
ME^/Y$:GGMKOJ;+EEN&^_&=_GS_-<IHGPL&.P6P#,,]=\<\X[]_QST$,7/?0`H
M1C?]=-135WUUUEMW_7788Y=]=MIKM_UVW#W_>M:[:POBX]+^GAEKB(DO/B:-M
MT<PZ[[?'79Y<XPD]>/=3>V?W=R87WYOOZ(GEVK/D54&<^6>W![E[`N9CZG*K9
MN"@G??7B#',*^^"#H3B2I7FB:1IPK>9B`0L/\DSCUY;STMX#&;\@T3`L$H](R
MH#*F>D*C4NAMZ6HBJQD61&O-8;]7<9+,-)_1O##%,WW#XRBO.L(FREK<6IUV@
M[]L!^@F.$;;\&2X@.KC).3Z^T24>+`))1NQ=3BINZG1Z?DY4=HYNEBHT0JJNN
MFF@FGN;DQ<B&!M;:WCK`$N[RYN*ZI+(.#[L:]N(86_PV(/<Y/S,+24]3+\,(<
M$VL_*@M"8W<;65^/#WRKG9NEJY<C.&=OQT<RK^M5U(OA6^GOMXO[FP,8D`8\=
M>0:?A(NVB98N@?R0/(0(,&(1BF4('LPH)6$=BQ6,>4S3+F0/^Y)@'*+$J''EF
M"GJU&)(K9Q+'3)H34_I[QW)G*Y>W+M4<E!.G3*)%5?),"H(CNE\P_PV-*O7HS
M5*K!E&(%P!1-T#8QQW4]9-1:6+$WD6;=N96=-(9E.;S%$%?NV:I@DZ5-NI;,.
M7$PS^MZK.U*PU<(<"N:5MS=?NSV$R8ZE!IC"9%%X$[-<_*4R(\V`.#=\+#GR,
M:+28#WI>`KI9ZJ9V(;\N'?L"XM/$6E>\^=3G8-'25C<C3=NV1MP7>_.Y.YNWV
M8=C+VQ#/:#P(<$X'=M>J_M5Y<]G(KT8W.%VDX?'4??]&S[S[\/"*UW._;GZ-%
M^E_:$]S'+_RC^_?VT<]GTW.Y^^1'R7[_F=8?*P$*^!TJ#)KEH'(2QC<A>`K>!
M!I]W#$#XPH"W%`@5A1L>AJ$V'18R8@<H4E8?@2Z">.`$M9D(!XMPP6C`C<!85
MR!Z"'V9W68VK[$@7D#H6:9V*&J:78R@Z#4DDDU,VD*1^1WX2XD!8DB)DE-Q0]
M^>(65HK8HYDD5IBF$U]"0J9E7")`II9:;NGCCTM"QR:8=Y[Y49)SRABDDUEZ=
MJ:>-8<9(4$>#=@GG)'1":6@<;OK`*(<W`FKI*X$*BHVD<E#*HYJ'L86GF*8FX
MZF@'GTZ*:*>Q=)BIJKYHNFF"K"+DZI-X;%;K,;[2.NMUN,[#YZC@J`:L-\I^Z
M^\8I(\1.$6IHJ-J3F[#+7MLLLS1".X*TP67;V7%VGDINJM0^VRT5NA+ZQ72R-
MHMMHN(O>JFX)WU93C@UB8(?CO*[%*V_`"W!K[P?X*FE-)F2T!J^YNS*KD*<&T
MMV0L,PLS[)G#?;+;;K8%&XSP=DX%M*-F&Q];[L,03TSQ"2)?J6^_2\PL*IHW1
M=RSPRE6Z/$?.CQ*R%LHX6TQTT>WU?._/M@I2<\(<+_UKQ/2VG+2W40<;M)$#:
M`_TO5\[R;#4),+LS-4'A#-TDUTRO':?88V.-[4(M>EWJSCI#G>?;(9!M8-UG\
M5_HW8X+WNNW>(O1=9LJ`N))VW-H2WD^]5B=>^V?>30-E]M>1)VOXX4L]+O%/-
M=#A^M.FGJUSBYP>'3C7),=]MBN9VQX[*ZJRC_JI3592>NM&^_RX!R/96WGLG@
M-QBO^^+GUK[J[<7/;D4>R;/<O-0?8V@#M]HC+@/HN5<_3@#4>VQ]UN83L`52?
ME]L?1A40H/':JEDP'PS%D2S-3SC5E6W3%HYC2J[M\;WU.]]]]Q<$"HFFGFTCD
M42Z9'00EB:ED%IZB\'B]9K7%E+7K#8>Y8U_9O$.G>;YH$QYW0M\.*GT#9L?6T
M>[X?RX`&T*:/D,7P\"11T:A1A]&D3HZ2"8I#@@HS0^^1)-(3!#04!:23%`?U%
M3Q61=<A5971D^[*R%H(S21-S8FH*5O1W,5C8]-15EA394WEYV'&'UE9Z+DH3;
M+^\R(4"`N]O[&SQ<?)R\W/P</5U]G;U=?-L]7GZ>OM[^'C]??Y^?/'H:8,`.J
MSI@U*FB0Q"!8!Q4Q).3PH;,2#/\)M#C-F"J(?C9RE/2KXYZ0:4:2E/C)S465B
M*S.B*CGF)<P3"EV>3&43&,Z<.@U07/E38,MD/'L2+:I":$2C,;LP;6IT@$^@M
M4VTE;4;4J19&-!]EW;(4JE<QT*B6I62U*UBU+-":$4OD;9"X<L.F-'O7$L&UV
M/$=Q58IUK\ZY/Z3B-7Q++^#`;-,N/CGX3%VRARDW:-O0\6,D^Y?A2N;K^?/D5
MRJ,M)`ZM&,DAR&HR2UP-R2[IRIS_"@9=PZ_,UL->M]G-5O9HVH!ZURAN_,=P_
MWZAM_PY6.+AAY2*=@PR2^VOU8[=Q0H]^=SJ;XZN8NS&IG=5X\J=O5/Q^,?QY/
M]LV%8*>+7B-WF][?4XWO%K_\KOCOF?+VTT\ST?HKBT`R`JQ)"_M@>S`4]6"P)
M\)7V%@3/-/KF*Z+!$#!LQ<`#*0S!O0TQZK`[!.L+\:@277.11=Q49+#&!&4$"
M,9`3&]LQQQEN]"_((HTD0L(,/6S1QQ\U'!(H&+/[T,0]"!QQ!2R)`9*WV*!4^
M2<JQJ-31ROBTW')))KE<(<4O^^4(L[,UK3LDO#,+3+/*,6%HTTTXX.Q1SR/#D
M2!*E)C$S]%`=^.PSKR[E7,B3X>R<"%'5:`2.48O^O"]01Q\A=*=.YWQT.P4S:
M7=%3/,G\5$DU59T1T45/Q4!02"M-#JU)"Q5U5%YGFC6@30F[E3A7DM3U)E]+2
M);4$68&UH]9EE?5#*&1%L#;45Z.5Y%E4GR/6HU^PPS;;/+5-%8DEG(52V,B8-
M%3`88\@MY5T(ZQ7!/5VZG6!;>*>ELY-Y8SSWVU@M65?%=EF[MT*;]!`X*G"IW
M,_C@;/95>,)_[95H$(@%]OA2-IO`8U]M^MV88%8\`)GAJUK^($5]+SYY*(G-F
M^P#55HUK?ED0=1%.F.:&;78+8S%3SEEG%-4M&5ITS76U19Q1?IKJ56UD^JR@4
M74[ZQZ*'Y3E1KF'&.FNGK:ZZ0ZF=A)IMM%OX>6:S806[-D'.GEMLA$PE6UVM,
MUVX;;YB]1H[NN@'?D^\X!I?AXY"11E%NO_]V&]/$&RTX[[`//V!Q$C.WE&++B
M^XZ<]-)[3>AQRC'/'.YN.[]P:`#E5%OVSPU7'2G1+S\=]]3OGL7?S4WG78;6U
MGWV]U=\EUWPFY$6,73>PC0?6^2RA=[#>Z@<6?O6CN=5=">W1Y)[XP-FJG@#MP
MF+K<_L_`2:N5-NN,-PI`*(YD:9YHJJYKX+U;^P?/,6U[\JT[N>7N'*"PT1L*H
MB\8=TL=J.I]0YR])6U)GUBLLJZW!`M,N@BN^E('D,R7M`$7?\+@JK%[7;>P[J
M48^UT;MY?`F!@F.%+X0*;G*,C6]_AX.1&HF%E7R7'Y!)F7>=GI.4?HZDI2VAF
M#)]JJJNH%:R;0ZQEL[2NKZ.FNKLAL9&U@+=VPA%`8,'$/,G%RWLTB[S1C;Z'O
MP%K6U\VI0]1XV@O85^%4G=#2YX_+XT;K[-\*UL><[Y+TAO8'Y>C[Z<GM1_CR'
M!0S7#='`@`/^`7S&KZ$4=0<CVALG#XW$B0CU.=R8HB"FB_04*NGBT0P^D2-!\
M>C#'L64OB"<S^ZHT4M%;S)G:-+IL`@9,BYXB>@(%4!+4S:,ASQ1EAA%G,YT[`
MY[CQB8*J599+6R%-NE5+38-=OZ'4`35J51!#?_82&A1FT[!/[V2%Y]3MVR]FD
M?[)56\*JW7=C;P2NHN=K$+AQZU9@F9<$4*H=&1.=^E>L3,0DP=[EBGEQX\AK&
M1T`.+7HJ97^*B0WN(\CPA-5;+G>F(/GSVM&32^^=##F`@-_`@PL?3KRX\>/("
MDRM?SKRY\^?0HTN?3KVZ<##6LVO?SKV[]^_*:]OF-=?6;&&P-1\JF1Z'[,TKP
MQSLL+Z:]E_.N[&L:!M]RZ@GBR6<*?<CTE]-_:G2CWV'XY9>+^X#H$)A-@Z@L@
M:)(KKMUC8&(4-A`@A(Y(*`Z"#G:HE#(F_O+>"Q^"R(B(Y)!8H8QUN&8A+C1.H
M4I:+NL`X3XK5Y%@C.$(&660"+?((AX_N`&G)D4J%<2-_&U:V09)*1L&D+%!^J
MY.20`GWII9@#8)GE$ULN5"5J9$:94)=Z3$DEBV?NDJ9%;=8A)P1[/N`;G$:1.
M:6:=+-R9TIJJ`9I@AFSFJ=4,@Q(ZAY4<(GI+GQZ^:>B/CIZQHZ1Q;"J8HH]RO
M]HX+!O0$V(JK,@1JB)3&*FNB]J!:Y@&B'FKII0^^*D>NA'5JWJZHJ+K?K+0*0
MZNLTR/)*ZK#]`<N:L/7UNFP_^\F:JJU_<#'ZY+/0TGEMJ,V62.V$F$E['[$S:
MNCHNMNB!6^VYZ'JH[H7LAO+INX66VRZ],?YW[YRM*LNOEO[JR^J!"'KKZ<(,"
M0WHPPHUNRZW%$=.FHKP%XC4QF@GK"''((F?@<+T85RKNQSR1;"3`G.:+JR"8<
MHF@PR_U67+#,+_-<YL#UP!SSRCA/JO/%*1^-M`9`ARETDQ(7?8K2*N]L]=5,N
M`UVS,S=+797+WSZMIL^*/,PQRO%YW1'8-(],==4LJKOU-G!&>G#3#";]]MY\(
M,]VQWMD2K79?;(])MN&`9SWBV8M'/;@)>..+=<:3P^U'P&*/+?CC;?7M;.:Z5
M^R:^DJ%S$UDWYY`7'J?;@5=^PYVETW4ZZHZI'NCAJS..ZY:Q!XU[F;37[KFYL
MO^O)N@Y,]J[A[W;S&SF.Q1L/>NA4G$SPTM@S';QHMDL__:BZ+R"B\DXSOWWG'
M!,S'U.5V<5%.FF#%.5_=O>(^T0M'*@C$TF2EM867-PL`^\9S?>=[_P<"4['8E
MC%@\)BU*II$Y0@V?"A1IFG1>K=!@U_L%>Z7:#1F6-6/0Z<F:[4A!QN8YQ?U^'
MX$?W1BW\!PS\J=.3*=PZU.!+-%A,C!L@U*I28U2T+.,2W.0$E+1T3`P5Q:P8:
MU8/\G*PLM6MUU>R4G?51)7V-."W4Q>-]BV*D^W3!'2;.BZ5-5K8]]&5S?C9NH
M@$ZC-F$>L";3UO+U4P:?Q=;CGBHWEV8X?UKO$%9/AX\'N0ZW[QSOG5_:1VC'4
MZN</EZI_``,VJG=/H2=I!8DX?'@PF\2)`R5!1"+1VT*.8/*]P=@BI$B-%$=B7
M('32A,H]"3N^'-2PY,R`+%6D>U?QH,T/&V'^Y/$QVDZ3-&O.&\,3T5%D0)T"E
M$%K-:#^EEZ8:HU35*M&F3W]&-:.5%5>F9)'J+)O6PS>O0,%NNSI/K*FB`7/N+
MFTNW:]N.;[O%C9>W3=V:?LD1_L"6[TO#Z,Q2!9Q.\+"[,B-74+R88V-VEXU-U
MSH48[P'.<#U/^\BL66%I):"//98K.C9IUIU/2TBMVE[M(ZZGR0X,7#*5X+<C!
MY-8-CG=$V+/5CFY>&9/OWWN3*[?\W#EDXZ6,+#\C'.7US=FY-Q_>?3H<\"O%'
M8R:_L#U)].FU%[^/8'[/]R?BKS8/NOH^ZP^7-:331ST&D%,M"@9M<#"'*&[8Q
MS[T!";R0&.H,.6$]!1=XD"\4(&1P1*B^B1#"`+<[KT4763RN0E@RQ.T_$D\,0
M\<83=U01P_Q6Q.]'#360L1@:C[,1QPF%\,-$$Z$"TCXA#2SPE5`0O&)##D7(*
MT:L)G^SA20>7+)*_(UO1DI\S/73GL`^I2-))ML#D40<QH\0S^\\AWVR&RS+5V
MG++&.)>D<,XQ)411`$479;111Q^%-%)))Z6T4DLOQ31333?EM%-//P4U5%%'L
M)172`$I%-555)^TRR3#^["!-@?C<I4HT6<"2N347=!4['U^$,4A@I83"M%U!4
M['49/:FDU<UC;VDA5Q9DG97+9).!=:MAB0U6V&ZY=.S9!%J]-HAL,PG4RF:=/
MW=;/)FR%HUQQEE5W79#@9?.(^:@]P"=Y.3EWK'9_%3!=[YZ05MN!4?L7'WIO\
MM7<H<6N=8CE^$;*NX2\"ULO@@R>FV./$:KL8K;4TWH3C&1=F5F10(CZAM)+]U
M1?D/E0<#F=V"68:8#@MSCJ3F^T!N-I+GGHW^V.5K#)O9):$]>CAII?N$.2Q4C
MS`2:W*<IC#I?I%^NVMA?P&HZXZW#[!ILH"6>.N2KT6V;M+.A)OC;M!DI.^YHS
M/\H[L;DWOAM:O>\-^R]+\NG[Y+^[(#JTM=G>.7)O"TDX<7<69SQPJA^WNO`L!
M7V'&<B(Q-U=SM[_&&U^U2\%2=!I(%\)TG27GUNX]!ZHN:]ACJGMRWV6?_?=@U
M4E(=V=W1[KUVX6\?''+<`44=SN.#`IYPSL6.?G-IWG%]O.EW:/RU[+6G7?GJM
MR2`@NYPNMS^,<J0I`\AZ\^X_&(KC:%@G>E8IVTZK&\L*/-MI?>OOWO,^D!$P4
M^^2"P2(+0UHRF\ZER7A#2G74ZA1KO&IEW&[K"TX%Q&.4.:)\LMON4/2,EEOI!
M=?LLC7_H]XR^W\)0H`M@P]I;HN)3'&&#82!DI".+I)\E'F;F0"-EA";BHNCHK
M1Z<GQ:E*JNJJA*;=JURL[,%@JP,HJ>ZNAJGG[!AP\.TG<;$Q+C*?H#+"32AO%
M])LOI7"7]77SG_8VM[/WMX*M<:ZT^30Y.*HZ-E:[.[OZNA!R^?F]$[7CNQ1_)
M?SQ`;_ZV/!BWRAZ^A"72@1MX)*!`B-RNZ+OT3"%&$14G-93GT,='D!*U<3%8J
M[6+&E!TV6NPX4EG('C'ON+R0"J%*E2SWS,SR^[*>QY]`+9AL.0-:3HP[-]6,+
MV'2B4(8GEL*S@31I0JIT>MK@VC4J,:]>@I+1^M`JUIQFSXB-T=8MV%MOPY!-*
MPO%H6IU2H<8]6)?O4Q1%AZ'-FW$M8:>!8?XEV=@N+)2&%2(&,[?28\9];V8N4
MNU7R9'R5LRW6K/BTX\TVV8(.?6ZTELLX.N\%;/NVC,$$"[N^![LJZM3!F\F>9
MHYJHY=:]H_VN4IQ5Z=K"<1,'HENF\N6[FO^++MWT\*'><P//K?WU=_'ATZN?/
M3EW']:^\S_/BOGL]^["T]1]O$1_N?/3I8M]9^/%GH%S]G:0%@?.8)V!]^26H$
M("'/0?=>>U+\^S=;@!"*TJ!(XTV(8"L6_B!B#]SAY.$B(&*'HE\P<B;C*3%M8
M>,&-:K`XH(0E[C<BB3/2N$-E1'""UXZCN+B#B:[\Z".%=P5IW5I&CG95DFPLO
M21.&/<8XY#Y/5F&6E4AFJ<B6/DU98Y12NO>F'#F*(V=!9[;HI9!K+@AFA6(RM
MB%F'=C*")YMM\N1GH7P&(>>*@N9#Z"^(1FHH4XH:P=(0L&'I*`EIRJ?GGET>T
M*"J0CL17YH.<:@EIJ*1^"6J?E%X*`:HQ;&I8IK<"D.L&O&;@:1ZR1F:I4:Z^[
M>LI@M;J@*U9#_+JIL[LJ$2VUK(8I+"W8LJ;MH@YD&FAHSF8*^P4TU8X*)WCH6
M9IBNNI04U6BXN3(;;2_T`CL6L8?F6ZFQ>1+3"+R3C4LO"`3W.JVUL>[[&;?)-
M-:QA%`'C.BTB!EM,\:\)N]ENJ1Q#N?`8)D@\\<4'^RJMO0*HO#+++;O\,LPQ0
MRSPSS37;?#/..>N\,\\]^_PST$$+/33111M]=-!#)*UJ&_<""*O"_28J]:3@I
M_,8LTRMI7"S5UX*\[==@IYHU$TX7\C!I4&_,;G6R8DUV+UOK&[;#=*>M-M?+2
MPMV$V739?;?''W?M-=ZU[%VVW/P.OC;;ZS;N.!F'0Y'XL'^7MWC>;>_[]MY]Q
M`UJXXIJ#SK#EE^LM^4+GBH[Y^]RC9UNZ<]FASH'G'+K^.NNM!W[L[CK.#@?EY
MI-^>V/!U%V^\K;\#K_KCP>.>>^7'`WZZ\A[4;ISTL:&M/>S=;5Y]*<Z+#;WPJ
MY#_?.P'S,76Y55P\`51[<=:;=_^_0!K)\H#,5!W1U7V1%IY3F;Y97)?LW8]_K
MP41/10$=D4GE422D$9TW:/1)_4VM+VQ6M>76OCJOQ+@TG]&=9K@T9D?<;T=<"
MOJ#7'WC777_JK_@4RM(("Y?6_O(2VQ9-`O4>(1M)(O$JZRX'!@TY.S<0)P<RE
MV49)0WE.45,;2L-:OS(W/6<]02=?LW!S5UEY>WT5@8>$@U]D:9$)`Y:9FYV?2
M^Z&CI:>IJZVOL;.UM[F[O;_!P\7'R<O-S]'3OY/9V]W?X>/EY^GK[>_Q\_7WQ
M^?O]_P$&%#B08$&#!Q$F5+B084.'#R%&E#B18D6+%S%FU+B18T>/'T&&%#F2*
M9$F3)U&F5+F294N7+V'&E#F39DV1S2[@!*BS`L^=RW(R^\G3YS^A%HKN>X;TV
MZ-!!2?GYA&I3'U``5K$>PY>UIQ&K1IMR]?>5:=>`9*]ZU:I4K5FP;L6.;9O6$
M+=6S;9O^-)LW*H6O0/E6)>H7+=L,@`OWXQI8,%S":^^)10S9;N0R2X<RG6JYB
M+N:[73=;#NM,X%_23C4S%GS4<^6^00D/S!I;^^YIH8E?IZ4MU_%NWIKIO@U^4
MFW*^V<%=&PY:-[?DXIP="W>N=_A<X=&ES\6MO'IRMH.W;\T;NG'JNV3)BWZJD
MNKSY\^O#B]^4WGM]^_?QY]>_GW]___\!#%#``0DLT,`#$4Q0P049;-#!!R&,"
M4,()*:S0P@LQS%###3GLT,,/00Q1Q!%)+-'$$U%,4<4566S1Q1=AC%'&&6FLM
MT<8;<<Q1QQUY[-'''X$,4L@AB2S2R".13%+))9ELTLDGH8Q2RBFI=`V]YZK,4
M4LFXM.Q22OJ\#-/(^,0LDT@PS4QS1R[5;//'*]V,4\XYZ:S3SCOQS%///?GL[
MT\\_`0U4T$$)1"W4T$,1353111EMU-%'(8U4TDDIK=322S'-5---.>W4TT]!B
C#57444DMU=1344U5U559;=755V&-5=99::W5UEMQ]:```#O-Y
``
end
size 8675

cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Wed Jul 20 04:39:08 EDT 1994
------------------------------
1994.07.20 / mitchell swartz /  Phase 1 expts (part 3 - GIF figure *2 (1/1))
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Phase 1 expts (part 3 - GIF figure *2 (1/1))
Subject: Phase 1 experiments complete
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 1994 02:31:18 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

    This is a GIF UUENCODED images of John Logajan's data.

          In Message-ID: <30fmqt$oi3@stratus.skypoint.com>
Subject: Phase 1 experiments complete
John Logajan (jlogajan@mirage.skypoint.net) writes: 

LOGAJAN In the graph below, four calibration points were empirically determined
LOGAJAN in a 10 gallon Nalgene tank as described in the Thermacore "blank"
LOGAJAN experiments.  Any three points describe an arbitrary curve, so a fourth
LOGAJAN point is a good verification of significance.  As can be seen visually,
LOGAJAN the "curve" seems like a straight slope over the range tested.  So for
LOGAJAN a first order correction factor, subtract 0.0028 C/W from the calorimetry
LOGAJAN constant for each degree above a known calibration point.
LOGAJAN  (ascii graph)
LOGAJAN Several weeks were required to determine these points during which time the
LOGAJAN ambient temperature (the largest obvious error inducing factor) varied in an
LOGAJAN uncontrolled manner -- yet the results seem stable and predictable (to within
LOGAJAN +or- 1% or less.)  The order of experiments were 60W, 30W, 15W, 30W, 90W.
LOGAJAN 

   The curves have been plotted in the next two GIF- UUENCODED curves, using
Johns data including his error bar data based upon his distribution. 

     This curve shows that the fit is considerably improved by
a quadratic polynome (Degree 2) fitting to a formula of

              F(x) = a0 + a1*x + a2*x^2

       a0 = 0.290618
       a1 = -0.00091
       a2 = 2.81686E-06

    This second curve shows the considerable improvement at 
higher power levels.

       Best wishes
                Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com)
 
 -------------------------- cut this line off and UUDECODE -----
begin 644 GrabIFF.001gif
M1TE&.#=A@`(``I$```!F5?___P```*J9B"P`````@`(``@$"^X2/J<OM#Z.<N
MM-J+L]Z\^P^&XDB6YHFFZLJV[@O'\DS7]HWG^L[W_@\,"H?$HO&(3"J7S*;SN
M"8U*I]2J]8K-:K?<KO<+#HO'Y++YC$ZKU^RV^PV/R^?TNOV.S^OW_+[_#Q@HF
M.$A8:'B(F*CX%Q"`T'@!"2'YZ$A!6=-HZ8%YT%FBZ8#YN5AJZFE)&J&:\,G*/
M\-H2&[GY,@L@>7NZ6ZA9N^#[V^F+&FH07#E*+&I\W-RP#!V=FQJ-VXQ<V8IM]
M#<O][*W+.RXX2ZV-ZIR^S7ZM[KY:;1$[+`]_KD"J_([O_0X?CYQ`4^;L_;NW.
MR96P;/W"4>H&#&*[=?@:KIN(^Y#?KW8/-SH<"!)107#[`"K$J)'9P94</:*CQ
M:,\B2X`9:_HSZ;)ER)V#"DI+MC`H4*`YG1G+Q@Q<OHT,#793JJSCS*$7?U;EF
MB55DT:Q<NWK]"C:LV+%DRYH]BS:MVK5LV[I]"S>NW+ETZ]J]BS>OWKU\^_K]X
M"SBPX,&$"QL^C#BQXL6,&SM^##FRY,F4*Y,-ACFSYLV<.WO^##JTZ-&D2YL^K
MC3JUZM6L6[M^#3NV;-E>`@RXC3NW[MV\>_O^?5L`\.'$BQL7;CRY<N7(ESM_9
MOKLY].G/I5._7MPZ]NV_M7/_KMN[\JU3;(/G+OX\>O7L<:=O3_T]_.GRYSNO9
M^V]_.?[\R??_)B^%>?PQ-^!V_A4(W($(]J;@@KPUZ&!N$$;H'H7039@;@%$(7
M:"&#'>KW(8@A'C=B?R5F=R***0Z'(6X:0L%ABBTZ.".-*R9X(XXY>K@CCSU&V
M=]V+3\1X8HT(&GGDCT`J&1Z3$CKY))3!!5G;CD@.>"664@Z0)7]=VO<EF%MRU
M26471)88)GQIJKGEFNVYJ1Z<<8Y9HY!.G#FBG.#IN6>;=/H)J)1U5IDCG^L%F
MZJ2AAT*IJ(%_4F=G$WB&V.AUE5J*:**9,GEI?&5R,>F'G5[X**.E:KJIDH.:R
M:66J/XY:W:F<RCHKI#](M$U4";4J**VO^MHC^ZRQNII<I"S(A$Y%J?!J*K&%M
M`LMLL[W:V@,D2MU44;2U3BMMM]MZ^^USQJZ`64#%[/HLM^#^ZNR-PMX'K7'C*
MJA"*3S`=`VDC<ZJ+ZKKL^AMLO,7-FT)#]>B$RW0"ACHLP-JJ*O"*[XK(KW,$S
M%TQ2+>4:E9``'G\,<L@B"Q#`QR6/C'+**J_,<LLNOPQSS#+/3'/--M^,<\XZL
M[\QSSS[_#'3+%Q_!,'`+GS>QB>U*'+&,33M-+:CY%@UOQ1!;_6^_#J>K,*'NV
M+LTTU@&+_?#57;/*M=9JF[UUV&2G+:[7;J_-=KAV9TTWWA;+#77;<]^M=^""Q
MCWVVU'#7#7C9^X,?CGCCX_%=)-A]YTTXY8I7'C?:7[^]N=^3)WYYZ`-#CJ;DV
MD7/^M^.8@SZZYJDOSOCJJL<N.^S$#6T$U1$F3:+I>3Y=NN^_1[V%[C:B_OGLW
MM"_/?.?0X5Z$\0ORKB+RP5L_//;9/T_Z]JP[__WKM8\O^NW=4TK`?$Q=;G?Q9
MY*1U1)OUQ-M_I`/'3"1/#E73,0!>.)9GNK9O/,\#DE\/TT]X&1:!QF(0B5(N.
M1TTG"!KU3"DN75:[Y69]K:&5:A&/*V6S!)U^K-D,]WL1ER?H"FQ7O^??ON"?#
MNSJBP0W!ND/$0HU$N<:WQ[R^2<JN/T"5QS3-S<42ST]0"DXS^]*QR,I4U9V56
MRR?14=A8V39:-5L(W%Q=N)[57V`85TP2TRCC8]XYY67F$&<[Z.>6X&K586(I[
M:0-DIVZD;_!MPNUP(U3K]#[L%O:S<?,D^'%RZ/@P>G3U?2YW$'\6TNX)&;BB,
MH,%Y"<OYXM?0BY$``'<)S*>0XD*+]A@ZY&A#XH>/O3".U)B1V<%,%:EU9#DC>
MI(>(54R>G*D,Y8F;.%7^:]E3F).7TRZ2=):S6$U>1E^M]-DR*,RG2C](G8I4[
M%U5#.X>";-KS*4Q&5G%A#2N6%MFR1#=(ZNKP*U0R9L_*E84V+EU8^MJZ31,S)
M8$FU-K46'4R8Z=Z&;P]$?/G1^^X[O*`>0]X*N/):Q!P5#_C2&.#DOY8-!TY:]
MF.;AS.HV=\[P.;+DUYY`WXJ]2&_J=*L7:_`K\O+IWX))EZZ=@"WN:ILY]VX];
M4?3HY\"C"Q]>X3AR8,I[8)M=J[BB[XY,4^>*/;<GYMS"BZ\^=CVD\1:NF[\&<
MRE5WY].OQG?_GLUM^E;13@7F\&O`P`/]ZZ0]6Q#TK;P`LX/E#P<5J-!"!4O)U
M\!3^KH@PF`%;\>%"H8+;;\-D4$R1IP]_";$5]1B<2\:Z5/2FPPGF:Y&/%T4D4
M\0@;Q0GR'!QG9'''5'K\(3WR].N/1E%^!!+*!G1$TI+]E!222MF*S,O++U&[O
M^Y+'$[649\@SN;0-S"@W&G.=,IU\4LX&T4S31.O>I,1,)A;C$R$["6*SRT`%_
M%5//?D[<C3@U"Y$R1CSGI%,"*Q%E15+.&(W4R$UK+#00-RU-%-/E2&U2NDG#"
M;-314$75XL^C&("UJD]3JK7/6W$]TM4M9M6F2DY3;3/76%<=!$!>+ZW3`5]#V
M,9:]9^$CME@(DWW(5`2:I:Q35;D=-EII=[56V6!E_=9;V*;]%=S_6AW7(T4?E
M8#)<=`EE5T-UUZWV73_BI73-?&4*.*N!"1:7WQJT-?@*5@MVMEZ`[\7W8(1=]
M\C?'8P>-&.*&)>;PT(IC4#@M^<#S>$6.,W;X^V&80NX76WFA3=GDF646]MR6B
M74[X8NM&AK1F>F^V%^B@,0N0L4H!0%H8I+'P^2Z0%CSYQI6W%7KHG,V+Z(6ML
M/7+ZN*Z?MGJMB8F6VNRRK]XX:^RV9LP+L)WFF;>/IU[BT7J@4[OC?7%K.FFEP
MX_X)YI)1WIOFPVW6>W'>CG8[Z:Y%ED3L64YH%N]',:]Z;%2-UOIKR66(//3!G
MET5A7D#MWA+MNEEOG>VVWR:=ZZ9G5UH`W'/7?7?>>_?]=^"#%Q[X`(8W_GCDW
MDU=^>>:;=_YYZ*.7?GKJJ[?^>NQ_!YQ?RD,[G<C-O>_\U/');TUG`N!;S'+[D
MPRCG$O1*A7>S^_R#H!>2Y3.::8FJ[<:Z\03+M4.#`;+SO?\#@\+A3F.+X5S&4
M6O(H:SI;T*AJ2EU=H]9L:#O1$</B,?FWY(JN@;,4;?.Z+_`X94Z/V.^0O/[6(
M`I<%"@[RL/7A<1F6K"D>8O`Y0D8Z8E&22!YB#@`2=GJ&-5H.:&*$<BA8F(KZJ
MK7*0WKW&Q<JV?FAR?N;J%M6>H*F6CF[VRA$7&]<ASR@O,R.JX.Y*?P)GNJU!H
M"U>WSJ)U>SOOA8N/LZ9$3Z<+;NM]9_QAES.X7]'7R\_CY^L+0ZO_$V('BTX\;
M$_:H''224"&_A4<<OOD#<&(9@70@-BC8A5\_?!B?-.3X$8E$^XHFB5BDU2=EP
M1X\A7[J$&?/<R9I!6(([E'*D"YY51,J4Y_.G/YM&"S$;NL"B4H-!RS6]!/1I'
M"'1':^+D$E7C,7U1-U)U]A6LUY)7KV;-,G;;V#1EPR:=^I;F6;1Q5U5K:PON]
MW9E^A9JM:S/MO5;`]+KBJPSQ([E_25@5#)`PPEZJ&#>>^S@<YJZ;<T@V2ED+'
M,:[F/O=%O=@QX**A3XYF:*Q1YV2:6ZM>K;C4:ZRI+3^[/:YVL]S(B$NXU1OVB
M;^"^=A-#'ARW<6/*EU.,_=`95^GDJD>''E[\%^S9F\_NP'KX>L[MW;LVKTY[Y
MQ'%&O#\'WPN_>O*UKLLW'WK(^VC`7W_Z_><?-^]]$%F`GM#'!#ZH,*B;</!=Q
MB*$)#CX8T(#*F,9>AF(IN(J!^]#5H301@N05BX4AN."(']*X`8<J!O)B3R'I@
M*%N,)I8HRHD5!(8C-35:M]2/E@S9$E056KBAD;OT2-1,(28Y8Y1/!LEDD5-Z.
MN*6(#%2YHY;'=4E)DP""V4F93@GW9@I#KIGF)'8NU>:18FI()HEG9KFDEWAN!
MHB>$2([W`)9"$MI.HP,1>J.A0L@IU8R5[@5HHM1QRF6*D^:(Z'X48/K"HQ>=S
MJI*FY8&ZCJ@)DKJIIX+>N2JLG[8Z1JF9&L?(K9V."6R?LRZ2:ZA\_GG!KLFE.
M^^H&G5"B&9^QH+PJ8RG+YB=LLMI6:ZV4T^K:+:,-CDMKK=PBNVVQX(J!;68_`
M+IJ3N=;8ZBVZO+%+;;K[?G$NL?\.&^R]RN:K;[2T8OMLLUI!&^BW!5,J[J"+J
M]*%PO>7.6_&7$/?@KF?VQ:MLJ19G#.G%&*_+,1`>VU8.A6EA2O+`HR[,L+0JL
M(\4O<*G\H>K,-)=L<L:20LQR<?9IT[.S-:O%-(Q#X[RRQ([XJD3(9@:-ZLD3%
M0QVU#T8SNW6_3P,<L+IEGUV5UU]/[6\,/<J,MLX._YS!VAVW3>\1.L8ML-]_^
MF]W@W3D?7'<.+/8=^-RRRFWCX+PL_JL3$2:>^[;EE^>=Y^,'@#U=XTK4E[7/>
MG]--.JF;<YZYHXG$5KGJ0AL.Y,UW=_Y=[!N2)+;;BD<N.62H)_"ZUM=@?3O74
MI@/=->JU9XO\VVWHKK?Q:C9\.O#,G^;\VUFYWKOLT6L\^]K8'SC].7,2,!]3L
ME]M=/#EI'=%F/?'V'^G`41.]`$C5E6W=%X[E>0[(FS'Q?=%Y)V#;^'X_8I%WH
M1-Z42U+3"8)*4#3K%1L,UK2L;DH8_4S%&?(R6"H;U^PV[OR6Q.404A6;UWNK%
M6YC?#R`0K,Z"KE#A\">L0A'QP/'1(/*1LE)R[&YO<V_KBPL,3X41LZ=4K32MG
M\=2,M=65PA)1^[905I035T;K,R9P%X\4]D*8PS6X@58N69EXKMGYV6[D-K>Z?
MI6OP91"P+WK8V]0X%CR</&&Y#3W=/%'3^OVZ3S2;7IXP6KTL'T15FGWR7XB`^
M``=^&V@+7L(5N_@L_#7J4P`!$RE6M'@18T:-&SEV]/@19$B1(S%*)'D294J5P
M*UFV=/D29DR9,SE24WC3VC%7^Z+PG*;3X#^?3H8B*6JT8-`3.)G"`WKJJ)MG&
M.J,F25IU!]:L5]TU]<KI:2FM3,`=&_N$Z\&T:J=]==O)V]D1<BWT(QB0KI2"E
M>3/M[?H6<(VX?LTQXCMDK=#$BML&=MQK,-O"D`A+9FSY\@>;^X\YA\5T&!6[K
M-*!?839'NC3>OYQ9"XJL>J#$RK!IU\Z\M'5NSY)0KRJX6UAOW[;9"1_7.#=KV
MX+-F"[5+SG@QTZ<7;]B<W.WR6LV+&]#^N3KT\.*18W?\G=ET\@/0,^>^GCCUW
M\N8!MU^G'IR(Y\VB0XL/_S;KZ'O,OC7Z\X>X`@T<[[7_\EMMP*\4%.-`9,*;\
ML"<&\=%PP_DB]`I#HMX#\(#]6*G00OP:#%"#ZSY4*,0E4"S'0?;XX_#&$1_TC
M\$6<8D1*Q0X;^!$.'(F9D486,W"QQW>(E$K)'8%X4B\=A:SQ2MR:;(K*K8)\S
MAHPN$;,23"./A'#+A,0DZ\L<^R=8TQ`S84&R'3+?3)/+%>5KLT0XI>-S3CD#F
MY1'/G/0D<<\*_'R`SG/L=!/+.PN]:=&^(H544=X$/7%33@F=%)=*/6B4LD<76
M,%&?3L52==5/0=U$U#$O/5.S[4P=%%!<-7M5S4.EG'7(6)7J+M>=6$6`25ZS0
M\)799C.]KUBHCM745667S3+1*)>$%EAC;]55RUZLU<593(F]`56KOO4T6FFK8
M#67</\JEM5T@*)S6O7K!>Q?>>*^9-SA\3\UP77?UI9:?*Q[RUS5L$7WX)QD%(
MKH/44@_V3F&&&!8VM7.[W;:(BN_2UF&(%;4BFXT!!M?C(M(==>+T+LYW5U`8@
M^_9B96]GID+=G67^F-V:=;GYWY)SUCF*'T4>UF2CCSZ5:+B<+K-@ZUX>#NA6W
M??XYW*A1?EKKK&N=*^8WECX;3:\AF]K<;,NXFM&RN269ZH355ACL?;>NRU*QU
M$?;[[Z[O7KMNNMM>PSZT]YZ[90$'IX'C.!=?\!&XZYS\WJK#%OQQ%R+'NG&W?
MZ_A.<<`OT1S9S@5CFU[3T5VN=,-;EQT(U<EE/6#4%SD.<X)[]UUHVSW/._#0C
M*__3=8KE9KQ%X>7%G671);DZ=N-_I7U(Y[4A_O3?Q\YA^51U[SYX[4?AGH#Y7
MF+J\TC#*&1^]N(7`;/X@Y(4D.99H=J:LM'X!^R#/=&W?>*[O/,^UP,,K2!P,R
MB\$C,O-+*)>I)]0T74JKH&LDUNMZO^!N$_O1DBGF\R2M/HP-['8C+E?0ZTX\I
MZH[@AO^`@3IO>AV%(7R%B61OBWB.<I"1AX@I?H*8F6&$E`B2:I^@G1(;0J,J#
MIQ>A9ZMDCI>:L;(XG*>M5;>XJ5MPNVB^+L#!PB*6L\?(,[6CN5#-SL0+',]6B
MT8;6#MC9*+#)WH++G=1%X^3:?:7GINJ][.WNK]_RF.&4Y4GN[^H"]<#W0/\`;
MYC-B;)[!3=$"LE"X,-^##?UL.1S(,$K!@QA[1-13L41'CQ/=G/M8*22\BQE3K
MTDIHDAW)+`G2^[$\V7(?2I4XE<UT2;&F@8T<?6I["9-;SJ,ZB1%%)=3:$)F^I
MEF*0.K6G4:1'@=:A^JOI3FG"N*ZQ2K-$-ZP8M4XJRY.M-+58Q`YS._(FVK1?J
MZWI5.@'N%+D5R+8U>W<'Q+,U#BL[S,4OJ[U\Z8)-!;@8Y+!V"R^6L6%0X\\VF
M'+NZ[(_T`(C,3.^J;)FPYAN=(8KY+)MSWJ&"]5(0C4\R-M9S,K]FC#CQV<X`"
M>.OR[53U3ZA;G4N4+NTU[-C%-U^W'7FP=]U,%%$7EQM$]KO(D7.&I7Z]^^2W0
M?Y>7;UXY%>;QZ;NV;KQ]\DO$+:9>``(4:."!"":HX((,-NC@^X,01BCAA!16^
M:.&%&&:HH8$;;.CAAR"&*.*())8HX7G\Q6(?-/AU9Q,W*ZHRGCWS,9&B03$B"
M`=PV+9;&0HYSO=BCC_O=Z`V01.QH1XWYU3?:D%$Q>0&*1H+3I(M"9OEC7#,>?
MHN225U69#)*]?0?>F3^2Z4F7XK'YDYA'7HF9F]$AH:8^:.)&)Y5P(H2EGE!2D
M!@5T+7RY)IUU%MFGBG(2::9^2Y!IZ#J!"AKFHHS^":F6@`X*Y*1XYKFI>9C.N
M<F=#E4[WJ)T"I9K:GJ7*<JI%KI)7:PB$%K5J<[#&JLFL>R"ZUJZ1\H8:L9J.D
M"H.OOS8:I;"BU.'8-*<A.^>M^WTPFPFP(&';IK7%PD`0MZUZ&]2EVOY!;DG@&
M/MMNI.$]]*ZEYIZ6KI7).NLNIW+DJH&_^>J[FG#W:B2PJO.^2HE6H!($;;2*R
M%NS%NKKRJRROG0"<1[V))ER=Q'Y>:S'&(^,14<,-.UPOGR#30'$9#S_&<1`:C
MJUQRP#CWU3(8+S/EL:T_5W$LCS>+7#0I.W_1<U4SMX%R-+4\'?.3$2>=P](R]
M-@WQT85P(K76,E=M-6P'*QSTM\1`]_79:.,ZML$Y[\LUO=;(M/;<=+O]MF%EM
M`\WV(^HT<;>H).N]]]5]TSCU<N=`-'BG>#/`<M)8=_4WX&`SLCCCET^^<^5CA
M^V7.I>BXU#SPYG\1?#A\<9]..HLT@>[SY1T;OGIHB7LII=&ZR9[UZ["3X'G+:
MOK<6N=F$?S4T[Y`GO]OM*[6>M_..\FOZN<!7@R[TW#%?./5R$UX\T<?[;3OWB
M!`"9U.7VAS$)6>W%%&_.=0?#YA/+D&P"Q&09M(6C-Z9=-C!R?>=[_P<&A<-5A
M#38STI#)V)+)<CY-T4%1FKDFJ=G.5H(;AL5C<MC*W7C1%O6ZTG9#X/''5D6O*
MXZ?ZTCQ5!@P4%#KC<_`S1$PT!%'D4[MC=-2;Q*L$&\S4!"QD7*B,`PWU]"`M]
MW>AT$U4U3;O9A(TE;!VA9;.]Q971E9B+M.3=^PW.,\&4/49.)5U%8VX>/H2.Y
M!OEEE;:Y_GQ%YI95]G3."A?/5AB74OG^HCN7:G^Z[);?5%\L'WAGRC?:IT&@F
MJ`>A&KE[^`H:+#9/H:"`E`KVJP&QR;U_58HUA')0XL2$"SV.P<CNH<:1Y2J&`
M%,AEXQ&2'3^^#(+26KF5+6KNH3BPA,Z(+>_%@QG4A\PU-_OXS&;T:`V>+$O^"
MW"94:@ZBSZ`^38K4GSZMUX!.G5I5)=:L5\T::;KT;-F=8,&*)4BS*S2E(O*EI
M;327;E2W0>%>J9N7K+3`@J_\U3:8,-^^+Q'#4[QWK5<T>+%$'O:UL>-@A4]-5
ME@SZB>4W>C,S^]Z\\#%7T:=;=Z8#U_-GN2Y3>URM!3/LU[QNDB;66Y?FVPISS
M\]OM._EP/>FZF.;=MCCNZ&QK7\>.!^5L5\LK&)LN[WA/X;BX7SB/WA/P"="5K
MVP[?;;P2[[;2EZZ?!?A]_.6_Q#>N.LKR,X6_7FBIQT!A_(L`/`"/F8^C[`:<0
M<#$$OU%0#O<L</#!6")TJL+0K"/1E*8R#$Y$5#R43T`+&2QP0SYT0G$:&!_H_
MD$5-0+2)P!AO7`:::FJLQ4<'<M1Q$!XS`A(<(YV4I@@BL6F2`223#&1)G%1TB
M<<02>;ECRL2J7.#*S=(Q\X!T=EC3`"W5^M++%[G$A3U:Q#0'^[7B5'#S2C[5@
MI*K-`[ITC4R'GDS$SB`1+=-#/@6-"8Q',7G3+D8?N?30VBH-D4X.'44S34!'\
M_7/0]SPU+U-@S%(44U5%?6M20B@-55)";\65.55'*9-32U\%M4\=2A6VAU)]K
M?<Y03>,L],M69T+U/U")';5/--FD5`!MM^6V6V^_!3=<<<<EMUQSST4W7777?
M9;===]^%-UYYYVTW`'KOQ3=??&'%THQ<4]T56F9//1)9]8#M%Q:#NXOVSH`%J
MGA/'A1=L6*"$%?[7/AD=?MBJ[R:VL6(<+Z8G8XZ5%:GCL3!X%CF$25;2Y%;P^
M;`_EE$6VR!Z4^85Y*)E_M!GB^XB'YA!DA';N.6:"*<19DHUG%J%E)I%..LN?-
M%PVZJ*>!#D'J7ZFNN@RC^QMX::+E1+L#KY,%.VR0KH8R:X^;UOF&2FD^.FJW@
MQ8;;:97CHMO5&-;.I>V]B>B[[K(!EGMEIMS9>N3#Q1C[P,8=7YSQS*D!$6_BB
M)@>B<HJ9WASJOP%#9S[/]03=V,0%#WS9TKEF@G`J8T^`Y\-%U_!RP$D'/FVTP
M5EL=OM9]-EOXUV4/OEG]$"M>NN-#7WY5WR$_'7LWUHY>[^FI3][YYJNW?O;!F
MQ2)`.Z8NMS\T<`9@+\YZ\^X_"`8369J(=*KKE+(OC,;SZ](W:>,[H_-08+3R3
M^_V*Q%,EI%PRFTIA\7:,2JG6P?0*RVIKW1]7&U2%OZ?R(^E<L]L>J/D<QZ'G0
M$3NMCF_H]XI^U%@)H)_,C)I;HJ(37"&?(PNAHZ0?927D$":"X)VFW.%BJ*B(&
M9T_IX"EJ:N?J@R7>ZP_G8ZLK#>)H;F[C:>R<[V^M`W`<\9<QSNR?\/"M[O.N\
M,++6-#6SZ?5"M=7V+2]6MK8S-+GBMV=W5+IZ>,*Z4;NAL/([V'@Y_MJY9OU.Z
MOW^\`__H!`27C=/`*J#R,62R#U/"&1$E%IP8PZ*7=F,P9HR!JR%(#@\A<<Q4^
M\23*>"55*`OWZF/(F!=&3DJITF:[E9\""FC)^^RES*`9:!;2:<+H49PNE6:3'
MX+,54*%2B5[B6=#@3:8_KZ8(0K7F0JE!O\+2NM6JV5I(525XBNZ>V)AD[:QM^
MP36M6KQ0&[@E"3<NR+G!T!+.>;>P80=]JWH$+%-P,;VKZK+*:ODR`Z^]_CK.'
M!]D,95N2-X\N%5HTA<_PPG9FJ+K+:5J(FQ[&O-3$XF.<6Y-[;6TV;>#78F,38
MGL8O:][E?%\A+J[T6^C\:B-AOF6W<EW6J3A?)ATB]=O&4V_?"0-F]FAYQZ^W+
M'=S]<&^#&Z=?+NT[>/9[]4].%CEY?>KM!]]9!-['7RK`Y*80?0$^4]YJ!K:7;
M&(*FA>?-@AV=^^<@-!#:4Z&%($8GX8!%>"C/AAQJ=R")_8DXW8OY49&A>2^@&
MIZ(;)P(4(W(M)HA?CU9H1A"`.":B(Y$^DJ9DB$R.V`6-J*5H9"A(,DBADS)F\
M&2267T19W)14FL-BE^*5^=Z9\>'QI3O8B<D(F6:F&:><:,X))611O7DDG6KR2
M6-2%?F[)PY!LA;DG&U;F`218@S9ZYX2.9*@GHHGV6:"CC&6Z1W?>>;)8H396Q
MFN.EI9I:(J0N_BGD.2,8\-J-HY(2J9UU"IKJCXR*P8NK`\`JJZ6TWFHKIK@NA
MN>FN4/3Z*[!P"ELLL:>B6BNUJ0P9*@NQ-BN2M+FNRFF@T%;;^\I&;F[+[;/=C
M>FOLL=&J6PJ;"VA[[E#O/LGNO>Y..ZZ]?-&[A*(4?0ONP&453%=!V*XP[[\6\
M!'R1KIKJNZ^XPS*S;(,-O]&OEOC">/!_('L)#K,:;YPNRBFKBBS"$=N!\:$FR
M:_#P=2*#YK+!++<<C\(LR7PRQ1QWS*_*ZWK\<<P_SR3THT=S.;'14$>]L-+HH
M!EWTU!5KC76[4J=1]08T:^AUDTX_;3':6Y?`<,-B1X+SSF8W3?357"L&]LQ,@
M`PIWR#KW+??>&>,-@-LF^?TWW2N3G6_B0`R.0>%D\(UXVGI+O#C2HC[NL.4$@
MVPQ;N)U[CBS;_T9>8^-=5VYW^^:8#TWUYH2+'C?@H]>>\^$W%UGUZ4E]#OKO+
MO^6NF\NET]N[H:Z?K7;=BBL_-^R;(Y_#Y+H/#_SUPI,>N^RLO[ZZ\ZDS#G[XH
M/L<^/0'ST22Y_6%\2U9[(\6;2]W!\/C$$B/-U%/9"N4"0)[IVK[Q7-]Y/FB!.
M+V!P6$P(C2EDTK1DAIQ/4%3*H49B/>V6V]4&P&'QF%PVG]%I]9K==K_A<?F<J
M7K??\7G]GM_WT[T"!0<)"PT/$1,5%QD;'1\A(R4G*2LM+S$S-3<Y.ST_04-%F
M1TE+34]14U5765M=7V%C96=I:VUO<7-U=WE[?7^!@X6'B8N-CY&3E9>9FYV?W
M^Z&CI:>IJU/%:+!'M66XM\&RP[ZYO47%9\H]R=#/Q[.ZV\WCTZU#P0'N\]\_L
M]>']W=G]`W4OG$![^_!E(?CMWT)^"B$:?-@P8CU4_>+)\Y=170R"X#AR&A,P*
MI$B$"1.>'!BQY*9^*%MJ>@G2H46-\.AU:K?NH$">I/3E=$EN)-!W/P]^+"KO*
M'%*;/=EY5#DQ)<JDVL357(G3*M2@7:%RU6J2HM137\<^'5KCY5:K;1E2O#ES@
MZMJW%6_*G5LQK<ZC>-5V)-I7YKR8?L,1SN1-J,F%C>U&K>MX'^3"""T'UKR9E
M<V?/GT&'%CV:=&G3IU&G5KV:=6O7KV''ECV;SW9MV[=QY]:]FW=OW[^!!Q<^@
MG'AQX\>1)U>^G'ESY\^A1Y<^G7IUZ]>Q9]>^G7MW[]_!AQ<_GGQY\^?1IU>_H
MGGU[]^_AQY<_GWY]^_?QY]?O_O'D_?_S@PO``0',C,`#Y5,,P07?,Y#!!\\3G
M$,()U>N/P@LQS%###3GLT,,/00Q1Q!%)+-'$$U%,4<4566S1Q1=AC%'&&6FL7
MT<8;<<Q1QQUY[-'''X$,4L@AB2S2R".13%+))9ELTLDGH8Q2RBFIK-+**[',I
,4LLMN>S22^0*```[U
``
end
size 8562


cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.20 / Edward Lewis /  Plasmoids and Cold Fusion
     
Originally-From: edward@uhuru.uchicago.edu (Edward Lewis)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Plasmoids and Cold Fusion
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 1994 03:16:54 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenedward cudfnEdward cudlnLewis cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.20 / Edward Lewis /  Plasmoids and Cold Fusion
     
Originally-From: edward@uhuru.uchicago.edu (Edward Lewis)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Plasmoids and Cold Fusion
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 1994 04:12:54 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenedward cudfnEdward cudlnLewis cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.20 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Heeter Fusion ->  Attacking Aneutronic Energy :-(
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Heeter Fusion ->  Attacking Aneutronic Energy :-(
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 1994 04:41:32 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <3064rj$i9e@tom.pppl.gov> rfheeter@pppl.gov (Robert F. Heeter) writes:
>In article <940715022458_76570.2270_HHB32-1@CompuServe.COM>,
>Eugene Mallove <76570.2270@compuserve.com> wrote:
>>
>>You guys think you are saviours of the world, so you will fight 
>>anyone and anything that gets in your way -- aneutronic hot fusion, cold 
>>fusion, or whatever.

Robert Heeter impugns aneutronic energy, sputtering his misperceptions.   
Is this out of mistaken ignorance -- or is this to counter the niceness
of aneutronic fusion over the chaos and destructiveness of nasty 
neutronic radioactive fuels of his choice.  Does HE HAVE a CHOICE??? 
If its the scrammed tokamak, no he does not.  Perhaps that's why he
is putting down aneutronic energy, the temperature fence is too high
so the aneutronic grapes are SOUR.   tisk! tsk!

The the horrid issue of using radioactive fuel rears its ugly head. 
This is the only pollutant that when burned becomes even more deadly,
with the generation of wall degrading and rado-activating neutrons 
in abundance, thus depriving our grand-kiddies of a museum piece
dedicated to the engineering skills of know-it-all-plasma-physicists.  
Inverse plasma pressure leverage -- INDEED!!!  Gee.. is that why you
are so hell bent to activate those machines??    :-)

>I think most tokamakers agree that aneutronic hot fusion is something
>that we need to develop eventually.  The question is whether you get
>D-T fusion first or not.  

And THE ANSWER is that D-T should NEVER have been burned or EVER 
attempted to be burned again.  It is far easier to burn D-^3He on 
the first commercial test run, because it is a safer, a far 
more profecious fuel to use, and it can burn at high power densities.  

(And who cares about science burns -why bother???). The conversion 
efficiency of DHe burns is on the order of 80 to 85% and the burn 
density is also much higher than can be achieved with D-T fuel.  
D-He3 burns so well, it should run at least an order of magnitude 
above Lawson on the first commercial test series.  Further, such 
tests shouldn't take more than four years from the start of funding 
or 50 mega$ in total unaccelerated funds.   

>I don't think the public has the stamina to
>go with aneutronic fusion, which entails even more technical 
>uncertainty than D-T fusion, and will most likely take even longer 
>to achieve.

There is problem with waiting 4 years, since we have waited 4 decades
already, and have another 4 decades to go if we try your route??  
There is no technical uncertainy in burning D-He3, but of course you 
are referring to the technical uncertainty of the tokamak, --well... 
yes??  You do have serious uncertainty there, and it is not confined 
to D-He3??

>If you get D-T first, you have 
                    (a) something to show for your efforts and

Yes a beginning legacy of hidious pollution, and soon after junked 
monoliths.  

                 >. (b) a source of revenue to justify further 
 >                          research expenditures.

If you burn D-^3He at commercial levels, you won't need further 
research expenditures, at least not from the government, I rather
think any addition funds run under the name commercial development.  

However, if you insist on going forward with the tokamak, then you
don't have any choice.  So why the big charade, that you do have
a fuel choice ??  I bet the debt on the capital costs of your 
toadawhooper will be more likely to drownd countries economically.  
For a certain few luckly ones it will be before they can buy the 
ammunition to execute the bastards that sold them on this bag of 
hoopsnakes.  

                  >And a lot of the research on D-T will be 
>                        relevant to aneutronic fusion later, anyway.

A load of absolute raw horse generated plant food.  That is so 
funny Robert, I fail to catch the humor!  Help me out here.  
What's the gimmick?  

> ...  .    because there are others listening.  I was afraid someone
>else might have gotten the wrong impression about the state of TPX funding.

Excellent point.  You might have greased its entranced a bit.  
Polishing it with a rasp wasn't quite the right tool. Try slick 50. 

>you'd be better off not making these predictions.  Or do you simply own
>a lot of palladium futures, and need to do everything you can to 
>bring the price up?  

Actually if he did, he would have cleared a bundle over the last 
two or three weeks.  Note: this jump is probably due to the gradually
increasing use of palladium in catalytic converters and other high
techish items Ni-Cd batteries for example.  Also, the Japanese buy
Pd as a hedge the way we buy  gold or guns and ammunition ..  :-) 

There is probably a japanese folklore god with a protective feature that
sounds like the word Pd.  
                          --Pad my account -- 
                          --Pad my account -- 
                          --Pad my account -- 
                             who --ME!!!  
                          I didn't know.. 
                        just saying a prayer. 

>Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@pppl.gov
>Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton
>I don't represent PPPL in any of the above.
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc, Bx 1037 Prometheus II Ltd, College Park MD 20741-1037    |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.20 / Brent Swekla /  (Another) Challenge for Eugene Mallove
     
Originally-From: swekla@ee.ualberta.ca (Brent Swekla)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: (Another) Challenge for Eugene Mallove
Date: 20 Jul 1994 07:50:51 GMT
Organization: Computer and Network Services, U of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada

Eugene Mallove has recently accused Richard Blue of being dense:

"... is as dense as Dick Blue."

In my opinion, name-calling without the provision of supporting evidence  
is a sign of cowardice. Rather than admit to *that*, I am sure that Mr.  
Mallove would prefer to go through Dick Blue's most recent post, "4He  
alone?" and show us all just where he is revealing himself to be dense  
(last line doesn't count!).

Hopefully we won't have to wait two years to find out how this one turns  
out...
--
Brent Swekla                          "Sleep furiously."
swekla@ee.ualberta.ca
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenswekla cudfnBrent cudlnSwekla cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.20 / Brent Swekla /  Re: Merriman-Mallove Pact - "MM Pact"
     
Originally-From: swekla@ee.ualberta.ca (Brent Swekla)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Merriman-Mallove Pact - "MM Pact"
Date: 20 Jul 1994 08:58:25 GMT
Organization: Computer and Network Services, U of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada

In article <940719151632_76570.2270_HHB52-1@CompuServe.COM>  
76570.2270@compuserve.com (Eugene Mallove) writes:
> Now for the rest of you "skeptics," if you are so convinced of your
> scientific rectitude, will you kindly e-mail me your electronically
> signed form? If you  don't, I will assume that you lack the courage
> of Barry Merriman, who I  believe to be a very courageous man for
> putting his scientific reputation so  firmly on the line.

I believe that Mr. Mallove has a poor understanding of what a skeptic is.

Skeptics do not fervently believe in negative conclusions in the absence  
of clear positive results. Skeptics insist on the application of the  
scientific method for determining the "truth" about unexplained  
observations. Now in the case of cold fusion, this is not really possible:  
"Does CF exist?" falls into the same category as "Does God exist?". One  
can only test the predictions made by cold fusion theory (are there any?)  
and ask that the miracles of excess heat production be scrutinized; this  
process is not yet complete, IMHO anyway. In the face of this, true  
skeptics will say that they are unconvinced at this time that cold fusion  
exists, and also that they are unconvinced at this time that cold fusion  
does not exist.

This is not to say that Mr. Mallove's challenge is without merit. Just  
that it is directed not at skeptics, but at those scientists who feel that  
sufficient experimental evidence exists to disprove cold fusion, or at  
least render it highly unlikely (and this group *may* include *some*  
skeptics). The distinction is analogous to the one that exists between  
agnostics and atheists.

cf. the sci.skeptic FQA file ("Frequently Questioned Answers")
--
Brent Swekla                          "Sleep furiously."
swekla@ee.ualberta.ca
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenswekla cudfnBrent cudlnSwekla cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.20 / mitchell swartz /  4He is not alone (was "4He alone?")
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: 4He is not alone (was "4He alone?")
Subject: 4He alone?
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 1994 10:43:33 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

          In Message-ID: <9407192122.AA41159@pilot1.cl.msu.edu>
Subject: 4He alone?
Richard A Blue(blue@pilot.msu.edu) writes: 

BLUE Mitchell Swartz seems to say that the detection of 4He (as per the
BLUE Miles-Bush experiments) is consistent with cold fusion.  I believe
BLUE that notion needs some refinement.  Basically there should be some
BLUE explanation for the nonobservation of any of several other observable
BLUE features of a fusion reaction that can reasonably be expected to
BLUE accompany the formation of 4He via fusion.
BLUE The fusion of two deuterons to make 4He is but one of three possible
BLUE reaction pathways, and is in fact the least likely outcome of the
BLUE fusion process.  In the absence of some profound, unique, and very
BLUE strong perturbation on the reacting nuclei either tritium + proton
BLUE or 3He + neutron must be present at readily observable levels.

  Dick Blue seems to ignore the unique solid state nature of these materials,
and assumes that he is able to "know" and limit the reactions a priori.

BLUE Since numerous attempts at the detection of the products of these
BLUE alternative reaction products, either alone or in conjunction with
BLUE the detection of 4He have given null results, the detection of
BLUE 4He alone cannot stand as confirmation that cold fusion is occuring.

   Many "negative" tests were insensitive as were discussed here previously.
The presence of incremental increases of 4He in the presence of excess
enthalpy suggests confirmation unless an alternate means of such generation
is determined.


BLUE The energy release that occurs following the fusion of two deuterons
BLUE to form 4He occurs via the emission of a 24 MeV gamma ray on a time
BLUE scale that is extremely short relative to the time required for
BLUE any competing process that involves the surrounding lattice.  There
BLUE are no intermediate states available for any cascade process involving
BLUE the release of lesser ammounts of energy.  There is no mechanism by
BLUE which the excited 4He* nucleus can couple to its environment in any
BLUE form of nonradiative transistion. 

  Each of these have been shown to be without serious foundation, 
but any recent found proof will be entertained.

BLUE    There is no mechanism by which
BLUE the 24 MeV gammas can be totally absorbed and remain undetectable
BLUE outside the sample or even rather thick walls of a calorimeter.

   True.  

BLUE The failure to observe these gamma rays in conjunction with any
BLUE claimed detection of 4He is clearly indicative that the source of
BLUE the 4He is not cold fusion.

   The phonons generated can handle the reactions and the excited stated.
The need for commensurate levels of neutrons and gammas apparently does
not stand for this unique case.

BLUE Should it be suggested that the 4He is instead the product of a nuclear
BLUE reaction such as (n,alpha) involving materials other than deuterium
BLUE it must be noted that the energy release that is presumed to accompany
BLUE any cold reaction with 4He as a product would involve either the
BLUE formation of 4He nuclei with a significant kinetic energy or the
BLUE emission of gamma radiation from the residual nucleus.  The energetic
BLUE 4He will result in the X-ray excitation of surrounding atoms such
BLUE that the formation of 4He must also be accompanied by detectable
BLUE levels of gammas and/or X-rays.  Failure to find and identify such
BLUE radiation in conjunction with any claim concerning the detection of
BLUE 4He is clear evidence that the source of the 4He is not a nuclear
BLUE reaction process.

   Reasonable except for the absence of neutrons for your postulated reaction.
And of course the final conclusion     ;-)X

BLUE The detection of 4He alone, without any of the accompanying signatures
BLUE of a nuclear process, is NOT consistent with cold fusion.  Such data
BLUE is by its very nature most likely to be the result of experimental
BLUE error such as misidentification or contamination by atomspheric helium.
BLUE The fact that claims for this detection are quite limited and appear
BLUE to be contradicted by numerous null results for helium detection is
BLUE a further indication that these results cannot be considered proof
BLUE that cold fusion is occurring or that 4He is the primary reaction
BLUE product.

   Your claim of null results are not supported in the paragraph.  
  References please.  
    This 4He increase was not atmospheric contamination since that source
was measured as was explicitly noted.   We have been through this
extensively.

    Thanks Dick for the good S/N and the excellent  (albeit in some
cases flawed)   comments.  If you e-mail a snail-mail address, I'll post you
a COLD FUSION TIMES.
     Best wishes.
              -  Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com)
 
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.20 / Arthur TK /  Re: Heeter Fusion ->  Attacking Aneutronic Energy :-(
     
Originally-From: awc@ipp-garching.mpg.de (Arthur      Carlson        TK  )
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Heeter Fusion ->  Attacking Aneutronic Energy :-(
Date: 20 Jul 1994 12:44:44 +0200
Organization: Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics


In article <Ct82DA.4CG@prometheus.UUCP>, pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) writes:
> Robert Heeter ... sputtering ... mistaken ... nasty ... scrammed ... SOUR ...
> horrid ... ugly ... know-it-all-plasma-physicists ... INDEED!!! ... 
> 
> HEETER> I think most tokamakers agree that aneutronic hot fusion is something
> HEETER> that we need to develop eventually.  The question is whether you get
> HEETER> D-T fusion first or not.  
> 
> And THE ANSWER is that D-T should NEVER have been burned or EVER 
> attempted to be burned again.  It is far easier to burn D-^3He on 
> the first commercial test run, because it is a safer, a far 
> more profecious fuel to use, and it can burn at high power densities.  
> 
> (And who cares about science burns -why bother???). The conversion 
> efficiency of DHe burns is on the order of 80 to 85% and the burn 
> density is also much higher than can be achieved with D-T fuel.  
> D-He3 burns so well, it should run at least an order of magnitude 
> above Lawson on the first commercial test series.  Further, such 
> tests shouldn't take more than four years from the start of funding 
> or 50 mega$ in total unaccelerated funds.   
> 
> ... hidious ... junked ... toadawhooper ... bastards ... hoopsnakes ... 
> plant food.  That is so funny Robert, I fail to catch the humor! ...
> ... greased ... ME!!! ... *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****

1) Safety: D-He3 does indeed have weighty safety advantages over D-T. (Of course,
   if it isn't able to ignite at all it is even safer.)

2) Profecity: The word doesn't exist.

3) Power density: the fusion power density for the reaction A+B->C+D+Energy is
   given by n_A*n_B*<sigma*v>_T*Energy, where <sigma*v>_T is the cross section 
   sigma times the relative velocity v averaged over a Maxwellian distribution at
   temperature T.  The energies released by D-T and D-He3 are about the same, but
   D-He3 loses about a factor of 2 in the product of densities because it has to
   be neutralized by two electrons. A given device will be able to contain a 
   particular pressure n*T, so the power density will be proportional to 
   <sigma*v>/T^2. The maximum of this function for D-T occurs around 15 keV and 
   is 50 times higher than that for D-He3, which occurs around 50 keV. Thus in
   any device, the power density of D-T will be two orders of magnitude higher
   for D-T than for D-He3.

4) Conversion efficiency: D-He3 has the potential for a more efficient fusion to
   electricity conversion. Whether this potential can be utilized and whether
   the increased efficiency will pay for the increased capital cost are
   speculative. (80-85% is as good a speculation as any.)

5) Lawson criterion: This is a balance between the power density discussed above
   and the power loss expressed as something like n*T/tau_E. Thus the minimum
   value of n*T*tau_E is inversely proportional to the maximum power density,
   except that D-He3 wins back a factor of 5 because all of it's fusion energy
   is available to heat the plasma, whereas 80% of D-T energy is "lost" with
   the neutron. Thus the Lawson criterion for D-He3 is "only" a factor of 20
   more stringent than that for D-T. In a machine where D-He3 will run an order
   of magnitude above Lawson, D-T will run two orders of magnitude above.

There is serious discussion of whether the advantages of D-He3 might make up for
the one to two orders of magnitude disadvantages in the long run. For a test
reactor that is certainly not the case. I suspect that the disadvantages of other
"advanced fuels" are so much more severe (except D-D, which is in about the same
boat as D-He3) that the advantages will never overcome the poor performance.

Maybe I am overly pessimistic. Can anyone tell me what the maximum of 
<sigma*v>_T/T^2 is for other fuel cycles (especially p-B11) and at what 
temperature it occurs?


Art Carlson
Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics
Garching, Germany
carlson@ipp-garching.mpg.de
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenawc cudfnArthur cudlnTK cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.20 / R Nachtrieb /  Sigma-v curve fit data
     
Originally-From: nachtrie@athena.mit.edu (Robert Nachtrieb)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Sigma-v curve fit data
Date: 20 Jul 1994 13:31:46 GMT
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology


Here are coefficients to curve fits of the reaction rate parameter,
sigma-v, for DT, DDn, DDp, DHe3, pLi6, and pB11.  The fit is actually
to the logarithm (base 10) of the sigmav curves.

The coefficients come from:
Cox, Larry T., _Thermonuclear Reaction Bibliography with Cross Section
Data for Four Advanced Reactions._, AF-TR-90-053, Edwards Air Force
Base: Phillips Laboratory Technical Services Office, 1991


input: t (in keV)
output: sigma-v (in cm^3/s)
range of validity: 1 < t (keV) < 1000

x=alog10(t)
y= a0 + a1*x + a2*x^2 + a3*x^3 + a4*x^4
sv=10^y     (in cm^3/s)

DT
a0=-20.15761
a1=6.318869
a2=-2.421732
a3=.2708006
a4=0.0

DDn
a0=-22.08780
a1=5.701349
a2=-2.082958
a3=0.2981119
a4=0.0

DDp
a0=-21.97105
a1=5.643589
a2=-2.404634
a3=0.5716992
a4=-0.5730514e-1

DHe3
a0=-25.67344
a1=10.10471
a2=-3.310354
a3=0.3535589
a4=0.0

pLi6
a0=-28.12494
a1=11.87649
a2=-4.265839
a3=0.5712202
a4=0.0

pB11
a0=-33.51636
a1=17.40498
a2=-5.833501
a3=0.6879438
a4=0.0

-----------
Robert Nachtrieb; www: http://cmod2.pfc.mit.edu/~nachtrieb/home.html;
voice: 617.253.5401; email: nachtrie@mit.edu (PGP key available);
USnail: MIT NW17-245, 175 Albany St, Cambridge MA 02139-4255 USA.




cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudennachtrie cudfnRobert cudlnNachtrieb cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.20 / R Nachtrieb /  Maxima in Sigma-v/T^2 curves
     
Originally-From: nachtrie@athena.mit.edu (Robert Nachtrieb)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Maxima in Sigma-v/T^2 curves
Date: 20 Jul 1994 13:33:28 GMT
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology


Here are the maxima in the power density curves (sigma-v / t^2), where
t is the temperature in keV, and sigma-v is the reaction rate
parameter in m^3/s.


fuel	t(keV)		sv(m^3/s)
DT	12.3285		1.05534e-24
DDn+DDp	15.1991		1.38340e-26
DHe3	46.4159		1.88723e-26
pLi6	65.7933		1.45779e-27
pB11	123.285		3.01458e-27

-----------
Robert Nachtrieb; www: http://cmod2.pfc.mit.edu/~nachtrieb/home.html;
voice: 617.253.5401; email: nachtrie@mit.edu (PGP key available);
USnail: MIT NW17-245, 175 Albany St, Cambridge MA 02139-4255 USA.

cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudennachtrie cudfnRobert cudlnNachtrieb cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.20 / John Lewis /  Re: Close Investment Advice
     
Originally-From: court@newton.physics.mun.ca (John Lewis)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Close Investment Advice
Date: 20 Jul 1994 13:26:18 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Physics, Memorial University

Anyone who, after following this newsgroup for a
year or so, invests in
cold fusion, is a fool who can only be educated
by being separated from his or her money.  The
article in the Wall Street Journal, on the other
hand, might be taken seriously.

J.Lewis
St. John's, Newfoundland
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudencourt cudfnJohn cudlnLewis cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.20 / Chris - /  Re: Heeter Fusion
     
Originally-From: chrisk@gomez.stortek.com (Chris Kostanick - X6359)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Heeter Fusion
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 1994 16:36:20 GMT
Organization: Storage Technology Corporation

76570.2270@compuserve.com (Eugene Mallove) writes:

>Robert Heeter is as dense as Dick Blue. Hardly worth replying, but I do offer 
>this response to his last line:

Gee, I think they are pretty sharp. That must make me _really_ dense.

Where's the water heater?

Chris Kostanick
chrisk@gomez.stortek.com
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenchrisk cudfnChris cudln- cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.20 / Tom Radcliffe /  Re: advanced fuel cycles
     
Originally-From: tom@mips2.phy.queensu.ca (Tom Radcliffe)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: advanced fuel cycles
Date: 20 Jul 1994 17:22:38 GMT
Organization: Queen's University, Kingston

I think we disagree about the merits of Koloc's proposal (I am bothered
by his regular refusal to post simple mathematical answers to questions,
although that does not disprove anything he says) but I must compliment
you on coining the term ``Occam's Chainsaw Massacre.''  It makes logic
seem somehow more visseral.

Cheers,

Tom
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudentom cudfnTom cudlnRadcliffe cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.20 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  muon catalyzed fusion
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: muon catalyzed fusion
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 1994 15:26 -0500 (EST)

Dear Mr. Jones,

Sorry to have to post this to a newsgroup, but I tried sending EMAIL to the 2
last addresses I have for you, and both bounced.

Since you seem to be acknowledged as the expert on muon catalyzed fusion, I was
wondering if you could answer a couple of questions for me.  I am not in a
position to easily look up any papers on the effect.

Does muon catalyzed fusion have nuclear ash and particles consistant with hot
fusion?  That is, are the branching ratios essentially the same, and do you get
the same neutrons and gammas one would expect from hot fusion?  And if not, why
not?

Thanks for any information you can provide.  If you have anything on muon
catalyzed fusion you could easily email me I would appreciate it.

                                                        Thanks

                                                        Marshall
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.20 / Barry Merriman /  Julian Schwinger died Sat, July 16, 1994
     
Originally-From: barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics
Subject: Julian Schwinger died Sat, July 16, 1994
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 94 21:35:05 GMT
Organization: UCLA, Mathematics Department


Just thought I would mention that our resident Nobel Laureate
died this past weekend. 


--
Barry Merriman
UCLA Dept. of Math
UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)


cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.20 / Edward Lewis /  *PLASMOIDS AND COLD FUSION*
     
Originally-From: edward@uhuru.uchicago.edu (Edward Lewis)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: *PLASMOIDS AND COLD FUSION*
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 1994 21:42:52 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago




                        PLASMOIDS AND COLD FUSION

        W. Bostick produced that which he called plasmoids by
discharging through electrodes.  Bostick wrote a paper that was titled
"Plasmoids" that was published in SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN in 1957(1).  He
may have been the first to apply this term to this phenomena.  In this
paper, he had already began to tell others about his speculation that
galaxies and the phenomena he produced were similar.  He compared the
shapes and the travel of these things.  He also speculated a little
about the identity of "particles."  He shows pictures of different
kinds of plasmoid shapes in the article and related these to different
kinds of shapes of galaxies.  Many people including Bostick, Alfven
who is a physics Nobel Prize winner, Peratt and Lerner have developed
similar astronomical theories that model the universe as plasmoids and
that can be said to be derivations or summarizations of the
experimental work of W. Bostick and others.  It has become evident
that atoms can be defined as plasmoids, especially as according to the
phenomena produced by Ken Shoulders.  It seems that there are many
different kinds of plasmoid phenomena.  The EVs that Ken Shoulders
produced and ball lightning may be classified as kinds of this general
phenomena.  There is evidence that both plasmoids and ball lightning
are associated with neutrons, radioactivity, production of elements,
and excess radiation.

                Based on the phenomena that Matsumoto produced, the
traces, the pictures and descriptions of electrodes, the pictures of
stationary BL and corona-like phenomena, the visible BL-like phenomena
that he reports, and the sparks that he observed that left traces like
those produced during electrolysis and discharge, one may categorize
CF phenomena as tiny ball-lightning or plasmoids.  Important evidence
is the holes and trails on and in emulsions and electrodes that
Matsumoto produced by discharging and electrolysis, the holes in
electrodes that Liaw et al. produced, the holes in electrodes that others
produced, the empty areas in electrodes that are shaped liked grains
that Matsumoto and Silver et al. produced and the half-empty grains that
Matsumoto produced, and the holes and tunnels and trails on and in
electrodes that Silver produced.  These tunnels, holes, and trail-like
marks are similar to those that are produced by ball lightning
phenomena, though ball lightning are associated with bigger effects.
These tunnels, holes, and trail-like marks are also similar to those
produced by the EV phenomena that K. Shoulders produced.  Silver and
his co-authors who published a paper in the December issue of FUSION
TECHNOLOGY have reproduced the tunnels, holes, and trail-like markings
in metals that Matsumoto produced.  These tunnels, holes, and
trail-marks are evidence of the conversion and change of materials.
Important evidence that both CF phenomena and substance in general are
plasmoid phenomena is Matsumoto's experience of the production of
electricity by apparatus.  I suspect that plasmoid phenomena such as
electrodes and other materials may convert to be bigger plasmoids and
light and electricity.  EVs and ball lightning are known to convert to
light and electricity.

        I suspect that the round holes in electrodes that Matsumoto
produced and the round holes and tunnels that Silver produced are due
to the boring of BL-like phenomena, and that the grain-shaped holes
that they produced is evidence of the conversion of the grain to light
or electricity or of the production of plasmoids.  Some if not all
plasmoids are apparently able to travel through materials, even if the
plasmoids are very big.  The plasmoids that Matsumoto has produced
does this, and this is major evidence to support my deductions.
Matsumoto has also shown pictures of sectioned electrodes with what
seem to me to be trail-like tracks, as if tiny BL-like phenomena
traveled inside and left tracks.

        Many other anomalous phenomena can be described as plasmoid
phenomena.  For example, superconductivity seem to be similar to the
phenomena of ball lightning traveling though materials such as
ceramics and glass without leaving holes or visible effects, yet ball
lightning may convert to an electrical surge after touching a wire or
it may convert to a bolt of lightning.  Also, sonoluminescence seems
to be a phenomena of the water converting to light and perhaps
electricity.

cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenedward cudfnEdward cudlnLewis cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.20 / Robert Heeter /  Re: Heeter Fusion
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Originally-From: Paul M. Koloc, pmk@prometheus.UUCP
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Heeter Fusion
Subject: Re: Heeter Fusion ->  Attacking Aneutronic Energy :-(
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 1994 13:45:56 GMT
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 1994 04:41:32 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

Subject: Re: Heeter Fusion ->  Attacking Aneutronic Energy :-(
Originally-From: Paul M. Koloc, pmk@prometheus.UUCP
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 1994 04:41:32 GMT
In article <Ct82DA.4CG@prometheus.UUCP> Paul M. Koloc,
pmk@prometheus.UUCP writes:
>In article <3064rj$i9e@tom.pppl.gov> rfheeter@pppl.gov (Robert F.
Heeter) writes:
>>In article <940715022458_76570.2270_HHB32-1@CompuServe.COM>,
>>Eugene Mallove <76570.2270@compuserve.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>You guys think you are saviours of the world, so you will fight 
>>>anyone and anything that gets in your way -- aneutronic hot fusion,
cold 
>>>fusion, or whatever.
>
>Robert Heeter impugns aneutronic energy, sputtering his misperceptions.

How on earth do you justify *that* misperception of *my* opinions 
on the basis if *Eugene Mallove's* mis-generalization of people's
opinions?  I'm *not* fighting aneutronic hot fusion.

Go read the Brown bill.  It specifically states that in addition to TPX
and
ITER and supporting activities, the fusion program should split off a
bureaucratically-insulated $25 to $30 million/year subprogram on advanced 
concepts.

If you do this, and you then read the last section of my "Draft of Paper
for Discussion" which I posted here in late May/early June, and which I'd
be happy to mail to you, you'll see that I made almost exactly the same
suggestion two months ago.  I don't know how much more support you can
expect for aneutronic fusion in the current political climate, but if
$30 million/year (insulated from the vagaries of tokamak funding)
isn't enough of a start for you, then I'm afraid I just can't help you.

Hence I wrote:

>>I think most tokamakers agree that aneutronic hot fusion is something
>>that we need to develop eventually.  The question is whether you get
>>D-T fusion first or not.  
>
>And THE ANSWER is that D-T should NEVER have been burned or EVER 
>attempted to be burned again.  It is far easier to burn D-^3He on 
>the first commercial test run, because it is a safer, a far 
>more profecious fuel to use, and it can burn at high power densities.  
>
>(And who cares about science burns -why bother???). The conversion 
>efficiency of DHe burns is on the order of 80 to 85% and the burn 
>density is also much higher than can be achieved with D-T fuel.  
>D-He3 burns so well, it should run at least an order of magnitude 
>above Lawson on the first commercial test series.  Further, such 
>tests shouldn't take more than four years from the start of funding 
>or 50 mega$ in total unaccelerated funds.   

As Art Carlson demonstrated in a separate reply, the scientific claims
in the above two paragraphs are almost completely false.  In any device
where D-He3 will burn, D-T will burn at least an order of magnitude 
more.  As for Koloc's claims to be able to get a D-He3 burn in 4 years
with 50 million dollars - I presume these are using the Plasmak device,
but as Art Carlson and Bruce Scott have shown, there are significant
physics concerns about whether the Plasmak is as good as Koloc wants
it to be.  Either way, with a $30 million pot for alternative fusion
research, if Koloc can convince people that his idea will work, there's
more than enough money for him to try.  I suspect he'll discover, just
as generations of plasma physicists before him have discovered, that
taking a relatively unknown device into new operating regimes almost
invariably uncovers new plasma problems, problems which make it almost
nonsensical to claim "4 years/$50 million" or "commercial fusion in
the nineties". 

Given that no aneutronic device is as well-understood as the tokamak,
and given that none of them have achieved plasma parameters close
to the tokamak, and given that *all* of them must achieve plasma
parameters orders of magnitude *higher* than what a D-T tokamak
must achieve, it seems reasonable to suppose that even if we cut
the tokamak and devoted all our efforts to advanced-concepts research,
it would *still* take *longer* for aneutronic fusion to work. 

And given that people are already so hesitant about D-T fusion,
I wrote:

>>I don't think the public has the stamina to
>>go with aneutronic fusion, which entails even more technical 
>>uncertainty than D-T fusion, and will most likely take even longer 
>>to achieve.
>
>There is problem with waiting 4 years, since we have waited 4 decades
>already, and have another 4 decades to go if we try your route??  

I don't believe your 4 years claim.  I'm saying aneutronic fusion is
60 years away if the tokamak is 40 years.  I'm also saying that if
we do aneutronic research on the side for the next 40 years, we can
probably still have aneutronic fusion in about 60 years, because
once D-T tokamaks work, more money will become available for aneutronic
research, than would have been available without D-T tokamaks.
You win in the long run by getting D-T first, as long as you don't
forget that you want aneutronic eventually.

>There is no technical uncertainy in burning D-He3, but of course you 
>are referring to the technical uncertainty of the tokamak, --well... 
>yes??  You do have serious uncertainty there, and it is not confined 
>to D-He3??

Hello?  "no technical uncertainty in burning D-He3"????  Get real.
Whatever technical uncertainty there is in D-T fusion is multiplied
by the orders of magnitude in *additional* improvement required to 
move from D-T to aneutronic fuels.

>>If you get D-T first, you have 
>                    (a) something to show for your efforts and
>
>Yes a beginning legacy of hidious pollution, and soon after junked 
>monoliths.  

Actually, if you read the D-T reactor studies, you'll see that you
can make a D-T reactor so that almost all the components are 
recyclable, with little permanent radioactive waste.  99.9999% of
the radioisotopes generated decay within 30 years or so.  You
can run your reactor, let the hot parts sit for 30 years, and then
they'll be *less* radioactive than uranium ore, at which point you
can remake them into new reactors.  The radioactivity in D-T fusion
is much more manageable than in fission, as you ought to know.
>
>                 >. (b) a source of revenue to justify further 
> >                          research expenditures.
>
>If you burn D-^3He at commercial levels, you won't need further 
>research expenditures, at least not from the government, I rather
>think any addition funds run under the name commercial development.  

But you can't burn D-He3 without those further research expenditures.
(Note to the other readers - am I making sense?  I'm not just
railing against Koloc here; I'm trying to outline a vision for how 
the fusion program could get to aneutronic fusion without junking 
all the D-T work that's been done so far, and without requiring a
complete revolution in the way the program is run.
>
>However, if you insist on going forward with the tokamak, then you
>don't have any choice.  

But you do Paul, that's what I'm trying to tell you.
It's not an either-or decision; there's a middle ground.

>                  >And a lot of the research on D-T will be 
>>                        relevant to aneutronic fusion later, anyway.
>
>A load of absolute raw horse generated plant food.  That is so 
>funny Robert, I fail to catch the humor!  Help me out here.  
>What's the gimmick?  

What?  You don't think the research on isotope effects, instabilities
generated by fusion products, plasma heating, and so on will be
relevant?  What about Kulcinski's Apollo idea, or the other D-He3
*tokamak* designs in the ESECOM and ARIES studies?  Certainly the
D-T research will be relevant if we end up with an aneutronic 
*tokamak* reactor, no?

But perhaps the reason you think D-T plasma physics research isn't
relevant to aneutronic fusion is because in your world aneutronic
fusion doesn't follow the same laws of plasma physics?

***************************
Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University
As always, I represent only myself, and not PPPL
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.20 / Arnie Frisch /  Re: Clarifying Close
     
Originally-From: arnief@wu.labs.tek.com (Arnie Frisch)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Clarifying Close
Date: 20 Jul 1994 07:48:06 -0700
Organization: Tektronix Laboratories, Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton, OR

In article <940719142328_72240.1256_EHB173-1@CompuServe.COM> 72240.1256@
ompuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
>To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
>
>Frank Close writes:
>
>     "Am I alone in being disturbed that within the space of  a few days
>     Rothwell is promoting a $10,000 device which he announces he has tested
>     and then issuing such reckless accusations against a scientist who is
>     prepared to continue pointing out flaws in the general claims for cold
>     fusion?"
.......
.....
...
>2. The only "reckless accusations" introduced here come from Steve Jones and
>other "skeptics" who claim that Toyoda (or Fleischmann or Ikegami or whoever
>he meant) is a con man. 


I, personally, consider almost every word you submit here to be reckless.
But I particularly want to point out to you and other readers that you
have not only shown recklessness in making unsubstantiated and often
obviously false claims, but also an almost total disregard for your own
financial security by committing obvious libel.

Arnold Frisch
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenarnief cudfnArnie cudlnFrisch cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.20 / Jim Bowery /  Re: advanced fuel cycles
     
Originally-From: jabowery@netcom.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: advanced fuel cycles
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 1994 15:21:33 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

Matt Kennel (mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu) wrote:
: Dr. Koloc, it's *your* job to convince anyone and everyone about the
: merits of your scheme.  

He has "convinced" a growing number of increasingly "convinced" 
individuals despite hostility from people currently receiving
our tax dollars -- both incentivizing and paying for the
construction of their hostility.

: You have to hit the road; give talks, go to
: conferences, write and submit papers, show theoretical and experimental
: results.  

You act like he is doing science, where intellectual property is not
an issue -- not engineering.

: You have to tell them what you have now, and what you want to
: learn in the future.  

He has to tell potential investors what they need to know to support his 
technology development effort -- not some amorphous "them".

: If you convince a number of independent physicists that it has merit, you
: might eventually be able to influence the power structure.  It's the *only*
: possible way.

I already knew they taught religion at UCSD.  What else is new?

How about convincing wealthy engineers that they can build a device that 
works?

Engineers demand a different kind of phenomenological integration in
their minds before they will "support" something than do scientists.
Engineering judgements involve money and other practical considerations.

Scientists are increasingly sensitive to the social impact of their thought 
processes (due to the political sources of their money) and less about 
the degree to which their thought processes integrate phenomena in 
beautifully simple models that avoid Occam's Chainsaw Massacre.  But even 
if the political sources were removed, seeking beautifully simple models 
(that aren't seething lobotomy specialists in disguise) is not nearly the 
same goal as the goal of building an economically viable device.

I'll agree that if we got rid of government funding for science, Koloc's 
plasmoid holds enough scientific interest that he could probably find many 
scientists willing to help refine their physics models of its 
configuration.  But we live in a very different world.  Note your own 
comment about how "the funding sources" routinely ignore the 
recommendations of the NAS.

What do you think operating in such an environment would do to the NAS 
itself over time?  In what direction would its constitution evolve under 
such a system of incentives?  Given that it must maintain every 
appearance of actually being a national academy of "sciences" how would 
corruption of that stated purpose for unstated political agendae manifest 
itself?  Unlike the market which has bankruptcy -- or the military that 
has death and defeat -- as harsh mistresses -- what are the ultimate 
checking forces that keep this entire system on track and why should we 
believe such a control system is likely to work as a selector of advanced 
technologies for long-term funding?

: Complaining about it and impugning the reputation and motives of the people
: who would be you allies sure won't help.  It's hard to believe that most
: ordinary fusion physicists, excepting a few bureaucrats, would engage in a
: huge conspiracy to suppress your device in favor of the tokamak.

People are prone to ignore the plight of the few victims among their 
number -- even if the source of victimization is ultimately their 
collective responsibility.  It doesn't take a consipiracy of an entire 
people to violate the minority rights of a few -- only a disintrest in 
the ethical and moral principles that prevent such abuses of collective 
power.  Likewise, it doesn't take a conspiracy to suppress a technology 
-- only the tacit tolerance of single incidental acts of suppression
that may be motivated by very unconscious and primitive emotional 
responses to political incentives.

: Right now it looks to most people you're an (intelligent) fanatic who evades
: direct specific questions about the physics.  Rightly or wrongly, it makes
: it look like you have something to hide.

This is an image that has been cultivated by political animals posing as 
fusion engineers -- not Koloc.

I don't ask Koloc to be both a politician and innovator and I can only 
imagine a politician demanding that he be so foolish.
-- 
The promotion of politics exterminates apolitical genes in the population.
  The promotion of frontiers gives apolitical genes a route to survival.
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenjabowery cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Thu Jul 21 04:37:07 EDT 1994
------------------------------
1994.07.21 / Stefan Hartmann /  Free Energy Machine Technology News !
     
Originally-From: harti@shb.contrib.de (Stefan Hartmann)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Free Energy Machine Technology News !
Date: 21 Jul 1994 00:22:00 +0200

		Summary on Free Energy Technology
		=================================

please email comments to:

harti@contrib.de

for a review on current free enerrgy technology get all the files from:
phoenix.oulu.fi  in pub/free_energy




Summary of recent Free Energy Congress in Denver:
=================================================


> > [...]
> > One of the most interesting things was Bill Fogal's "Charged Barrier
> > Transistor" technology.
> 
> Hmm, can you email me some more info please ?
> What is it ?

Someone else posted a copy of his paper, I think in sci.electronics. I
forget. I'll look and see if I can find it.

Basically, he takes a standard bipolar transistor, cuts open the case,
and glues a small capacitor element to the base. This is then kept
charged. The electric field affects the electron flow thru the transistor
to align the spins (via Hall effect). This causes a type of room temperature
superconduction. The result is much higher gain, much lower turn on
voltages, and almost complete elimination of noise.

> 
> > Details of how to duplicate Floyd Sweet's device were given.
> 
> Well, I have the videotape of Floyd's VTA.

Old news.

> I have digitized a few scenes and put them via MPEG compression on an
> FTP site:
> 
> phoenix.oulu.fi  in /pub/free_energy
> 
> There is also some more stuff there, especially from the Methernitha  
> devices...

Everyone is pissed, since that group isn't talking.

> 
> > JRR Searl gave several rambling and somewhat incoherant presentations.
> 
> I don't believe in him...

Exactly. He seems to be a publicity hound. And very little that he claims
is verifiable.

> 
> > >Was the Adams Magnet motor shown ?
> >
> > Several variants and copies were present. None did anything special.
> > One researcher had done extensive research into Adams, and basically
> > came to the conclusion that it is nothing.
> 
> Hmm, well, so nobody could show a selfrunning motor ?
 
Right. Many of them were very nice motors, but none of them are over 90%
efficiency. In a totally separate presentation, it was shown that
a device needs to be at least 300% in order to be self-running (due to
standard losses).

> >
> > Stefan Marinov's S-field motor isn't going to work untill the B-field
> > is properly shielded.
> 
> I see, so he was there ?
> Is it his "venetian Coli" motor or something like this ?
> He has so "dump" names for his machines, it is incredible ! :-)
 
Exactly. The current version is the "siberian colii". Might as well
be called eserechi coli.

> 
> > John Hutchinson was there with samples of things affected by the "Hutchinson
> > Effect", including a block of aluminum with an imbedded piece of wood
> > (no sign of charing or heat of any kind on the wood, and seamlessly
> > surrounded by the metal),
> 
> Hmm, yes, I also have a tape of this, were metal pieces and wood flies
> around in his lab, but you can't see, if it is not faked...

The samples are bizzare enough to conclude that whatever was done to them
is truely weird and worth more investigation.

> > a block of aluminum with an imbedded butter knife, several blasted apart
> > pieces of steel, brass, and copper rods and blocks. Very bizzare.
> 
> 
> Hmm, yes I know somebody from over here, Dr. Amon, who has made several
> investigations into this phenomen with real high tech equipment a few  
> years ago and he came to the conclusion, that there is something special,
> but as Hutchinson was hard to contact, nothing happened from it..

Try again to contact him. He seems pretty personable, open and honest.
He's just somewhat shy... considering the shit he's been through, I
can understand why.

> 
> Please let me know more.
> Thanks !
> 
> 




Other related email exchange
============================





 Hi Stephan,

 to answer your last questions...
> 
> 
> Did you hear anything  lately about Meyer ?
> The latest news I heard about his technology is at least one and a half  
> year old and he wanted to show a car in a race. Did he ever show it and  
> can he prove the over unity effect ?

The only physical evidence I have seen came from a CBC/BBC documentary on
TV on cold fusion and they interviewed Meyer briefly and showed some
footage of his car.  Providing their were no tricks or hidden fuel tanks,
it appears to work.

 Did the Cold Fusion magazine publish anything about him
yet ? >

not yet, but I believe they will in a future issue.  In a brief email from
Jed Rothwell (contributing editor for Cold fusion), he inferred that he had
spoken with him and finds him to be a sincere and dedicated individual.

> 
> Yes Sonoluminescence is a very interesting phenomen.
> Is it possible to make a light source out of it, which needs very low  
> power ? But probably first the effect which produces this light must be  
> researched enough to understand the effect and to increase the output...

I don't know that the light would be a useful thing, but it is certainly a
fascinating and potentially insightful clue to some amazing new physics.

> > The other device I spoke of earlier (the plasma steam generator) while it
> > doesn't seem to ultrasonically agitate the water molecules, is interesting
> > since it turns the water into steam and then ionizes the hydrogen and
> > oxygen atoms and generates a plasma.  Puthoff has speculated that this may
> 
> How is this kind of plasma producing power then ? Are the ions seperated  
> via magnets and charge some capacitor plates or how is it done ?

It is just producing excess heat, from which they can drive a
turbine/generator combo I believe.  You might want to take a look at the
patent.  It was granted in 1988.  US patent no. 4,772,775

The inventor, Samual Leach, believes (I feel incorrectly) that additional
energy is arriving through "oxidation of the electrode material".  I doubt
that very much.  I have been talking with the Canadian company who have
recently acquired the Canadian rights to the device, but they don't know
much either, other than they were sufficiently convinced from evidence in
a video tape that they bought into the idea.  They have promised to send
me additional info as it becomes available.

> > Interesting times, are they not?
> 
> Right. Next big revolution in the technology age will be Free Energy now  
> living in the information age... :)

I used to fear for the future of my children, but lately I have become
much more optimistic!  Let's hope it happens soon and doesn't have too many
negative effects (I'm just glad I don't work for the hydro or oil companies).

regards

> 
Hi Stephan,

to answer your last questions...

> When was this article published in which issue of Cold Fusion ?
> 
this article appeared in the June 1994 issue (Vol. 1 No. 2) of "Cold Fusion" 
You really should try to get a subscription to this magazine, at the very
least try to get your school library to subscribe.  The address is:

Wayne Green Inc.
"COLD FUSION" Magazine
70 Route 202 North
Peterborough, NH 03458-9872

> Maybe the Methernitha device is using such a system to gain their high  
> power output... I heard that there is some Corona discharge effects  
> involved in this Wimhurst type device..
> Did you already get the MPEG movies to run from the FTP server in Finland:
> phoenix.oulu.fi in pub/free_energy ?

I took a look at one of them, but it took quite a while to transfer the
files.  It looks fascinating if it is for real.  Havew you ever seen a
Methernitha first hand?  Do they really work?


Yes, they already work for a few years now. They are just building a 30 KW unit 
with discs being about 2 meters in diameter !

I know a few people very well, who have seen it running and I will probably 
try to visit them gain this August 94 ! I was there in 1989, but at this time 
they only showed me their video tape of the machines..


> 
> > The reason I am so intrigued about this is that Harold Puthoff, (renowned
> > ZPE/vacuum researcher) suggested many years ago that one potential method
> > for extracting usable energy from the vacuum might be to utilize a cold
> > charged plasma which could exhibit a "casimir pinch effect" as he put it
> > in one of his papers.
> 
> 
> Hmm , yes I heard of him. Did he put out some new facts about the device  
> he is working on, or how did you come to this idea now ?
> 
I haven't seen any of his recent works, although he published a paper in
Physical Review A in February that explained inertia and gravity as a
vacuum field effect.  Apparently this paper has caused some
controversy...particularly since the the critics haven't been too
successful in finding major errors with it!

> Well, I am pretty busy now. Didn't you tell me about a new transistor  
> effect, using some kind of room temperatur supra conduction ?
> What about this effect, do you have more infos on this one ?

that must have been someone else...I don't recall speaking to
anyone about super conduction.

One thing that has been interesting me is a very coincidental element that
is common to 3 strange phenomenon that I have been reading about lately.
These 3 apparently unrelated devices all exhibit different energy
anomolies, but they all use water and in all 3 cases the water is
ultrasonically agitated, although in different methods.

1. The ultrasonic pump -  mechanically agitates water producing ultrasonic
pressure waves in the pump.  This pump produces more heat than can be
explained with conventional physics.

2. Meyers pulsed DC electrolysis device - this device subjects the water
to an electrostatic field, again at ultrasonic frequencies in the kHz
range, and separates hydrogen and oxygen with an alleged over unity
efficiency, or at least greater than the 60% efficiency than could be
predicted by Faraday's law.

3. Sonoluminescence - the strange phenomenon whereby water in a sperical
container subjected to ultrasonic pressures will exhibit vacuum "bubbles"
levitated in the centre of the container.  These "bubbles" emit light in
picosecond duration bursts.  No universally accepted theory has been put
forth to explain this to date, although several have been suggested. 
Julian Schwinger, nobelprize winner in 1965 for QED, has suggested a
"dynamic casimir effect" may be an explanation! (vacuum ZPE field
interaction?!)

I really think these 3 things may be somehow linked to vacuum energy. 
Follow this closely. 

The other device I spoke of earlier (the plasma steam generator) while it
doesn't seem to ultrasonically agitate the water molecules, is interesting
since it turns the water into steam and then ionizes the hydrogen and
oxygen atoms and generates a plasma.  Puthoff has speculated that this may
be one means of tapping the vacuum.  I am trying to find more about this. 
Rumour has it that it might be moving into commercial production.

Interesting times, are they not?

regards
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------





> 
>                               January 10, 1994
> 
> Report On Visit To Hydro Dynamics
> 
> 
> 
> Abstract
> 
> A Hydrosonic Pump, an excess energy device, was observed during three test
> runs. The first test was a control run to verify the calorimetry, which
> yielded a C.O.P. of 59% compared to apparent electric power, or 98% after
> adjusting for known electrical and mechanical inefficiencies. The second two
> tests both yielded massive amounts of excess heat at levels very easy to
> detect. Test 2 gave a C.O.P. of 110% compared to apparent electric power, or
> 168% adjusted; and Test 3 yielded 109% or 157% adjusted.
> 
> 
> Introduction
>  
> On January 5 and 6, 1993, we visited Jim Griggs and his
> associates at:
> 
> Hydro Dynamics Inc.
> 611 Grassdale Road, Suite B
> Cartersville, GA 30120-9001
> 
> We witnessed a series of experiments with a Hydrosonic pump. This is a brief
> report of what we saw. I can provide additional information including the
> experiment log, and a video showing equipment close-ups and the first two test
> runs.
> 
> Background
> 
> The Hydrosonic Pump is an excess energy device that physically resembles a
> pump in many ways. It appears to produce massive amounts of excess energy by
> creating bubbles in the water with ultrasound, in a process that may be
> similar to the Stringham [1] device. Whatever it is, I suspect it is related
> to light water cold fusion energy generation, and it does appear to produce
> massive amounts of heat energy reliably, on demand, for years on end, so it is
> well worth investigating. The device is described in detail in Hydro Dynamics
> sales literature and in a U.S. patent. [2] Griggs described his work at the
> Fourth International Conference on Cold Fusion (ICCF4). [3]
> 
> I will not describe the Hydrosonic pump here in detail, but I would like to
> clear up one issue that has confused many correspondents. This device is
> called a "pump" for lack of a better word. It does not actually move the water
> very much; "pump" is something of a misnomer, "stirrer" would be more
> accurate. It is a kind of rotor with holes drilled around the circumference.
> When the rotor spins rapidly, these holes apparently create ultrasonic waves
> which in turn somehow cause the effect. Because the device is not actually a
> pump, a small auxiliary pump moves the water from a feedwater tank, through
> the pipes, into the Hydrosonic pump, and out through a steam pipe or separate
> steam and condensate pipes. The pump heats the water by the stirring action,
> but under some circumstances it also creates considerably more heat than a
> motor driving a stirrer would.
> 
> This device is much larger than any conventional cold fusion device that I
> have ever witnessed, and far more practical. During one of demonstrations we
> watched yesterday, for example, over a 20 minute period, 4.80 KWH hours of
> electricity was input, and 19,050 BTUs of heat evolved, which equals 5.58 KWH,
> 117% of input. The actual input to output ratio was even better than this,
> when you take into account the inefficiencies of the electric motor.
> 
> I have been to Hydro Dynamics on three previous occasions, and my friend was
> there once. We have been generally impressed, but there have been some
> inexplicable failures, and they made an embarrassing mistake with some
> untested improperly calibrated thermocouples. On November 22, 1992 however, I
> observed a very impressive demonstration. [4] In this experiment, a 55 gallon
> steel drum filled with 200 lbs of water was used to capture steam and
> condensate. Both the water in the tank and the feedwater going into the device
> start out at room temperature, so the final mass and Delta T temperature
> increase in the water in the steel drum can be used to estimate the lower
> limit of the enthalpy generated by the pump. This is a lower bound estimate
> because a large amount of heat is lost from the pump, pipes and steel drum by
> radiation during the course of the experimental runs, which last from 15
> minutes to an hour.
> 
> The experiments we saw on January 6, 1993 were far more impressive than
> anything either of us previously witnessed.
> 
> 
> Test Procedures And Instrumentation
> 
> Here is a brief description of the test procedures. For a better understanding
> of this test, I recommend that the reader consult the Hydro Dynamics
> literature, diagrams and patents. For a serious, in depth understanding, I
> recommend you watch the video carefully. (Please note: This document is
> intended primarily for e-mail transmission, so I cannot include a diagram.)
> 
> As mentioned above, the Hydrosonic pump is a kind of rotor device. It is
> turned by an industrial three-phase AC electric motor. The motor turns the
> pump device at several thousand RPM, the pump heats up the water because of
> ordinary friction and because additional heat is generated by the mysterious
> process. In these tests, a 40 HP Lincoln brand motor was used to drive a 12
> inch Hydrosonic pump.
> 
> Before the test run begins, a 55 gallon open steel drum weighing 30.5 lb empty
> is placed on a factory weight scale. It is filled with 350 lbs of tap water.
> 
> Water is fed into the Hydrosonic pump from a 16 gallon feedwater tank. A large
> clear plastic bucket has been mounted on the top of the input feedwater tank.
> The bucket serves as a hopper. It is marked in two scales: tenth-gallons up to
> one gallon; and pounds, up to 8 lbs. (One U.S. gallon weighs 8.3 lbs.) Water
> is added in 8 pound increments from a marked plastic milk bottle. Care is
> taken to ensure that there are no air bubbles in the feedwater tank. The
> hopper makes it easy to record the flow and total water consumed. It is topped
> off to the 8 lb mark at the beginning of the test run, and the amount added
> during the run is recorded.
> 
> Water from the feedwater tank is forced through the Hydrosonic pump by a small
> auxiliary pump. The flow rate is regulated and displayed with a flowmeter.
> 
> The pump is turned on, the water is fed through it, and it rapidly grows hot.
> Within 5 or 10 minutes, all of the water fed into the pump is vaporized and
> forced out of an exhaust pipe, which is mounted about 1.5 meters above the
> floor. A large jet of steam escapes out of the pipe, sometimes billowing a
> meters or two across the room. The steam is quite hot and dangerous, if you
> were to hold your hand it for more than few seconds, you would be severely
> scalded. This machine is not anything like a laboratory test bench
> experimental unit; it is an industrial product designed for applications that
> require massive amounts of steam, like dry cleaning. The steam is dry; Griggs
> demonstrates a rough and ready factory floor technique to confirm this, which
> takes a lot of gumption: pass your hand through dry steam quickly, and you do
> not find droplets condensed on the skin. This is somewhat like passing your
> finger through the flame of a burning candle.
> 
> After 10 or 15 minutes, the machine is warmed up and the flow rate and balance
> of water in the machine is stabilized. In these tests, output was regulated by
> manually opening and closing a valve on the exhaust pipe. After the machine is
> stabilized and preparations are complete, the test run begins:
> 
> 1. A second valve at the end of the exhaust pipe is closed, which shuts off
> the steam jet for a moment. A second valve is opened, directing the steam into
> a large rubber hose. The end of the hose is firmly held at the bottom of the a
> steel drum filled with cold water. The steam swirls into the cold tap water
> and condenses, quickly raising the water temperature. The enthalpy from the
> escaping steam is captured by condensing the steam. This is a remarkably
> effective technique: virtually all of the steam condenses, capturing the
> thermal energy, and the steam jet pushes the water around with considerably
> force, which must capture most of the kinetic energy from the steam jet.
> 
> 2. At the same moment the steam jet is redirected from air to the steel drum
> full of water, a power meter is reset, so that the total electric energy
> expended in by the electric motor driving the pump is recorded from that
> moment on. The power meter prints an instantaneous reading of kilowatts every
> minute; it prints a subtotal expended kilowatt hours of power any time during
> the test on demand; and at the end, it prints the total kilowatt hours used.
> 
> 3. The water temperature in the steel drum and the instantaneous power levels
> are recorded manually every two minutes in a lab notebook. Temperature
> readings are taken at different depths and the water is stirred vigorously
> with a detached mop handle to ensure that the temperature readings are
> uniform. Because the steam is swirling into the bottom of the water, the
> bottom is 
> 
> 4. From time to time, 8 lbs of additional tap water is added to the hopper and
> recorded in the lab notebook.
> 
> 5. After a set period, 30 minutes or 1 hour, the electric power driving the
> pump is cut off. A closing temperature reading is taken. At this point, Griggs
> is in the habit of venting the remaining steam into the barrel, which raises
> the temperature 4 or 5 degrees and adds about 3 pounds of water. I think this
> extra boost of energy should not be include in the totals, because I think it
> should be classified as "latent" or "stored" energy that was captured in the
> pump and pipes before the test began. Therefore, in this report, I have used
> the closing temperature readings taken just before venting the steam, and I
> use a low estimate of the mass of water.
> 
> 6. The steel drum, which is sitting on the scale, is weighed. The total amount
> of water consumed, as measured in the hopper, is compared to the increase in
> the water in the steel drum. The numbers match closely, to within 2 or 3 lbs,
> proving that most of the steam is condensed and captured. If the steam is not
> vented in the last step, the final mass in the drum will probably be a few
> pounds less than the amount consumed, because some water will be lost to
> evaporation in the air from the surface of the water in the drum. If the steam
> is vented, the final mass in the drum might exceed the amount fed into the
> hopper by a few pounds. Where there was a measurable discrepancy, I took the
> lower figure. The BTU content of a 3 lb mass of water is negligible, in any
> case. For example, in Test 2, a 3 lb change in the mass of water would change
> the output energy computation by 0.8%.
> 
> 7. Total output energy is computed in BTUs by multiplying the mass of water
> with the temperature increase in degrees Fahrenheit. Total input energy, as
> recorded by the power meter, is compared to total output energy.
> 
> Power was monitored with a G.E. Dranetz model 808 Electric Power/Demand
> Analyzer, which was calibrated by G.E. on October 5, 1993. In previous tests,
> the Dranetz compared within a percent to a second power meter, a BMI 3030,
> which was installed in parallel. According to the Dranetz specifications, the
> maximum error at full load is 1.5%. Full load for this meter is 800 KW; power
> levels during these tests varied from 14 to 23 KW. At these lower levels,
> errors will be less than 0.5%. [5]
> 
> Temperature was measured with 2 or 3 electronic thermometers which agreed to
> within 1 deg F, and one Taylor cooking thermometer, marked in 5 deg 
> increments, which agreed with the electronic thermometers. A pyrometer is also
> used to measure water temperature and the surface temperature of the pump,
> electric motor, and pipes. The pyrometer agreed closely with the thermometers.
> The Micronta electronic thermometer began to malfunction towards the end,
> jumping from 60 deg  to 90 deg  down to 40 deg , probably because of a weak
> battery. This event proves yet again the wisdom of these experimental
> techniques and rules: use multiple instruments; use simple rough-and-ready
> backups to do "reality tests"; keep an eye on things at all times, and use
> common sense. Dennis Cravens [6] and I are both strong advocates and
> proselytizers of these principles, and Griggs personifies them.
> 
> The weight scale was checked on November 16, 1993, by the Georgia Tech team.
> They brought iron weights which they had checked on an accurate scale at Tech,
> and they determined that the Hydro Dynamics scale is correct through the full
> range of its rated capacity, up to 1,000 lbs. On January 7, Mallove and I both
> checked the calibration of the scale by standing on it.
> 
> Here are some important differences between this test and the mixed steam and
> water test I described in the November 22 report:
> 
> This was a test of steam only, not water, or mixed water and steam.
> 
> The plastic bucket hopper was added to the feedwater tank, and a new flowmeter
> was installed, allowing finer control with low flow rates. These improvements
> make it much easier to observe and record flow rates and total water consumed.
> 
> The flow rate and total amount of water consumed in these tests is much
> smaller than with the hot water and mixed hot water and steam tests. This
> makes the experiment much easier. Because the flow is so much smaller, the
> steel drum can be filled with much more water to start with; 350 lbs versus
> 200 lbs in the previous experiments. 350 lbs is enough to condense virtually
> all of the steam, as long as the output hose is held down at the bottom of the
> drum. Another great advantage of this is that the water temperature does not
> rise much in a given period of time, so that heat losses are smaller, the
> temperature is easier to measure, and the steel drum is safer to be around,
> with less danger of scalding.
> 
> 
> January 6 Tests
> 
> We witnessed three experimental runs on January 6, 1994, one in the morning
> and two that afternoon.
> 
> Test 1. A 1 hour blank run generating little or no excess heat.
> 
> Test 2. A 19 minute excess heat run.
> 
> Test 3. A 30 minute excess heat run with flow rate, pressure and other
> parameters adjusted as closely to Test 2 as possible, which generated nearly
> the same amount of excess heat per minute.
> 
> These tests showed that Griggs has considerable control over the reaction. He
> can start it and stop it on demand, even though he says he does not understand
> the deep underlying cause of the reaction.
> 
> 
> Some Considerations Regarding Input Power Computation
> 
> There are two important factors which should be kept in mind when evaluating
> the input power in these experiments:
> 
> 1. An electric motor works most efficiently at the peak ratings for which it
> was designed. When an electric motor runs at a much lower load than it was
> designed for, the difference between Apparent Power (volts times amps) and
> "True Power" becomes large. The ratio of True Power divided by Apparent power
> is known as the Power Factor (PF). This is described in many introductory
> texts on A.C. power. [7] The PF is computed automatically by the Dranetz power
> meter, and an average PF for the run is displayed.
> 
> In these tests, a 40 HP motor was used to drive a relatively small, 12 inch
> rotor, so the PF was lower than other tests I have observed, varying from 73%
> up to 84%. A 30 HP motor would be more appropriate for this pump, it would
> have yielded a higher PF.
> 
> 2. All electric motors suffer some degree of mechanical power loss. Conversion
> from electricity to rotary motion cannot be 100% efficient. The motor used in
> this test is rated at 82.5% nominal efficiency by the manufacturer. It is
> likely that the actually efficiency is somewhat less than this. Energy lost in
> the conversion appears in the form of waste heat. Motors of this size get very
> hot, and they are equipped with blowers too keep them from overheating.
> 
> Tests 2 and 3 showed excess heat even when compared to the unadjusted Apparent
> Power. In Test 2, The Coefficient of Production (C.O.P.) was 117% measured
> against the Apparent Power. However, if we take into account the relatively
> low FP (caused by the inefficiency of this large motor driving the small
> pump), and the energy lost in conversion to mechanical, rotary motion, the
> C.O.P. was closer to 170%, that is, the input to output ratio was roughly
> 1:1.7. A great deal of other energy was not accounted for, in readily apparent
> losses like radiation from the pump, which is the size of a small automobile
> engine block, and which was over 300 deg F during the run. The 117% C.O.P. is
> the most conservative, lower bound estimate that would be reasonable. This
> fact was demonstrated by Test 1, the null run. In this test, the lower bound
> C.O.P., comparing to Apparent Power, was 59%. Adjusted for FP and mechanical
> losses, the C.O.P. was 98%, which is a close balance of input and output.
> 
> 
> The Performance Window
> 
> Griggs explained that his machines have a window of performance, defined by a
> set of flow rates, pressure, speed of rotation, and so on. If you operate one
> of the machines below or above the window of that particular machine, it will
> produce little or no excess heat. He demonstrated this fact.
> 
> The pump used in these experiments was a new, experimental design, optimized
> to create steam, rather than hot water. He had not finished working out the
> range of operating parameters for it. This particular machine, unfortunately,
> suffers from a rather narrow window of performance. It works best with a flow
> rate between 0.15 and 0.25 gallons per minute, and for reasons he has not yet
> determined, it requires a relatively high input pressure. It is much more
> difficult to adjust than some of his previous models, but it has a high C.O.P.
> and it produces pure steam without a mixture of unboiled water. He expects to
> fix the narrow window requiring the finicky adjustments with a new pump which
> will be ready in a few weeks.
> 
> During the demonstrations, he had difficulty getting the machine to balance
> input water and output steam rates properly, and he had difficulty keeping the
> flow high enough. He demonstrated what happens when the flow is too low; the
> water in the narrow compartment around the spinning rotor suddenly drains off
> in what he calls "deloading," which is an explosive burst of steam after which
> the motor spins freely, drawing about 4 KW, the level you see when the pump is
> run without water. It is surprisingly difficult to fill up this particular
> experimental unit after this happens. You have to shut the output valve, fill
> it up, and gradually open the valve again. This pump was equipped with a thick
> glass porthole at the end of the outer bearing (the side away from the motor),
> allowing a view of the water sloshing around inside, which allows you to gage
> the water level in the pump. Getting the input and output flow to balance is a
> little bit like trying to adjust a hose so that it will fill a bucket with a
> hole in bottom up to a certain level, and no higher. However, once you get
> everything in balance, the machines tend to stay in balance for extended
> periods of time. An actual operating pump at a customer site is equipped with
> preset flow control and pressure control valves. Most operating pumps are
> bigger and they have wider "windows;" for example, an ideal flow might be
> between 5 and 7 gallons per minute, which is much easier to ensure than the
> 0.15 and 0.25 of this experimental unit.
> 
> When the pump is too full, or some other "performance window" operating
> parameter is not right, the pump generates exactly as much heat as you would
> expect any other stirring device to generate, according to the classic
> experiments of J.P. Joule. When the correct flow and pressures are achieved,
> the effect turns on, and this fact is easy to observe. The flow rate of water
> going in remains constant, and the cloud of steam coming out remains the same,
> but the electric power draw drops dramatically, by 20% to 50%, say from 23 to
> 14 KW. The sound the machine makes also changes noticeably. Sometime the drop
> in power draw will fluctuate around, as the effect fades in and out, but it
> will soon stabilize and the machine will go on producing the same amount of
> steam as it did before, with far less electricity than it used previously, for
> hours or days.
> 
> When the machine is not producing any excess heat, the power draw kilowatt
> numbers on the Dranetz are proportional to the flow, increasing as the input
> flow valve is opened, decreasing as it is shut, just as you would expect. When
> the excess heat effect turns on, input power no longer changes as much in
> response to flow adjustments.
> 
> 
> Results
> 
> TEST 1    January 6, 1994 11:30 a.m.
> 
> When we arrived, Griggs explained to me that he was having trouble boosting
> the flow rate and maintaining pressure on the unit, so he was not getting a
> measurable effect. However, he had managed to balance input and output, and to
> bring the machine into a steady state, so we decided to let it run for an hour
> producing little or no excess heat, as a control or "blank" test run of the
> calorimetry. The flow rate was below the window, at 0.05 gallons per minute.
> 
> Results were as follows:
> 
> Starting mass and temperature of water in steel drum: 350 lbs, 55 deg F.
> Water in input hopper also 55 deg F.
> 
> Ending mass and temperature in steel drum: 376 lbs, 127 deg F
> 
> Water temperature Delta T: 72 deg F
> 
> Energy added to water: 72 deg F x 376 lbs = 27,072 BTUs, which equals 7.93 KWH
> 
> It is important to remember that all of the water that ended up in the steel
> drum was tap water starting at 55 deg F. Ambient temperature was slightly
> higher, at 63 deg F, but this large mass of water could would not absorbed any
> significant amount of heat from ambient in spite of the 8 deg F difference,
> because it was heated above ambient by the pump 6 minutes into the test.
> 
> Dranetz input power: 13.46 KWH
> Dranetz PF: 73%
> 
> C.O.P. computations (C.O.P. is output energy divided by input expressed as a
> percentage) --
> 
>                                    Input KWH      C.O.P.
> Apparent                           13.46               59%
> Adjusted for PF                         9.83           81%
> Adjusted for PF and Motor efficiency    8.12           98%
> 
> Conclusion: This is close to a balance of input and output. Because there must
> have been significant radiant losses, with no excess heat I expect the C.O.P.
> would be lower than 98%, so these results might indicate a small effect.
> 
> 
> TEST 2    January 6, 1994 3:00 p.m.
> 
> In the afternoon, after the machine turned on and warmed up for 5 or 10
> minutes, Griggs and the others tinkered with the input and output flow valves
> and some other parameters, and after about 20 minutes in all, they announce
> that the flow was steady at 0.20 gallons per minute, and the power draw
> kilowatts had fallen, so the effect was turned on. The valve venting the steam
> outside was shut, the valve leading into the steel drum was opened, and we
> collected the steam for 19 minutes, 40 seconds. The run was terminated when a
> circuit breaker in another part of the building shut down the controls. The
> main power feed did not fail, but it is held on by solenoid actuators, which
> opened up. The recording Dranetz meter has a battery back up, so no data was
> lost. All other data collection is by stopwatch and pen on paper. (Events like
> this remind us that sometimes, the old, simple ways of doing science are
> best.)
> 
> Results were as follows:
> 
> Starting mass and temperature of water in steel drum: 350 lbs, 53 deg F.
> Ending mass and temperature in steel drum: 381 lbs, 103 deg F
> 
> Water temperature Delta T: 50 deg F
> 
> Energy added to water: 50 deg F x 381 lbs = 19,050 BTUs, which equals 5.58 KWH
> 
> Dranetz input power: 4.80 KWH
> Dranetz PF: 84%
> 
> C.O.P. computations --
> 
>                                    Input KWH      C.O.P.
> Apparent                           4.80           117%
> Adjusted for PF                         4.03           138%
> Adjusted for PF and Motor efficiency    3.33           168%
> 
> Conclusion: excess heat was detected at levels far beyond any reasonable error
> limits for the instrumentation used. If the equipment had been performing the
> same as it did in Test 1, the final water temperature would have been closer
> to 80 deg F than 103 deg F. This is computed as follows: 4.80 KWH Apparent is
> delivered to motor, adjusted for PF and efficiency, would have created 3.33
> KWH of heat, which equals 11,372 BTUs, which would have raised the 381 lb mass
> of water by 30 deg F, but it went up 50 deg F, instead. I am certain that even
> my kitchen cooking thermometer can detect the difference between 80 deg F and
> 103 deg F.
> 
> This test ran for one-third the time of Test 1. The flow rate was 0.20 gallons
> per minute, compared to 0.05 g.p.m. in Test 1. The improved PF was because the
> motor was carrying a greater load with the greater flow rate.
> 
> To look at it another way: the rate of energy generation was 10.00 KW input to
> the pump, 16.74 KW out; the excess was 6.74 KW, or 0.4 MJ per minute.
> 
> TEST 3    4:04 p.m.
> 
> Test 3 ran normally for 30 minutes.
> 
> Results were as follows:
> 
> Starting mass and temperature of water in steel drum: 350 lbs, 53 deg F.
> Ending mass and temperature in steel drum: 392 lbs, 122 deg F
> 
> Water temperature Delta T: 69 deg F
> 
> Energy added to water: 69 deg F x 392 lbs = 27048 BTUs, which equals 7.92 KWH
> 
> Dranetz input power: 7.26 KWH
> Dranetz PF: 84%
> 
> C.O.P. computations --
> 
>                                    Input KWH      C.O.P.
> Apparent                           7.26           109%
> Adjusted for PF                         6.10           130%
> Adjusted for PF and Motor efficiency    5.03           157%
> 
> 
> Conclusion: nearly as much heat as Test 2. Again, the results are far above
> any possible experimental error.
> 
> 
> Footnotes
>        
> 1. R. Stringham, "Cavitation Induced Micro-Fusion," ICCF4 paper C 3.9
> 
> 2. J. Griggs, U.S. Patent Number 5,188,090, Feb 23, 1993, Apparatus for
> heating fluids
> 
> 3. J. Griggs, "A Brief Introduction to the Hydrosonic Pump and the Associated
> 'Excess Energy' Phenomenon," ICCF4 unnumbered paper. This will appear in the
> full ICCF4 Proceedings, and it is available in from Hydrodynamics
> 
> 4. J. Rothwell, "Brief Report on November 22 Demonstration of Griggs Device,"
> CFRA
> 
> 5. General Electric Corp, Dranetz Series 808 operator manual equipment
> specifications
> 
> 6. D. Cravens, "Factors Affecting the Success Rate of Heat Generation in CF
> Cells," ICCF4 paper C 3.12
> 
> 7. V. Valkenburgh, "Basic Electricity, Revised Edition," Hayden Books
> 
> 

 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
Griggs is now installing new test equipment including a dynamometer. He
is working with the retired head of Mechanical Engineering at Georgia
Tech (second only to M.I.T. in the U.S.). They hope to finish in month
or two. I hope these tests will be considered definative proof.

___________________________________________________________________________


The following article appears in the June 1994 monthly technical
edition of Superconductivity News (Vol. 6, No. 42).

William Jay Fogal, president of Quick Chek Industries (Martinez, GA)
has invented and patented an electronic device for which he has made
very broad claims.  Others learning about the device have further
extrapolated the claims to the point that if real, the device means
the end of power utilities, the rendering useless of the entire
electrical power grid, the demise of manufacturers of electrical
generators and electrical cable, and a dramatic reduction in the
activities of hundreds of thousands of ancillary service providers.
Most industries will have to change or die.  The infrastructure
alterations will be the most profound the world has ever witnessed.
While the odds are stacked against it being real, the staff of
Superconductivity News (SN) believes it is important to report the
events as they occur.

Fogal is not claiming he has invented a room temperature
superconductor.  What he has invented is either completely fatuous or
it is astounding in that it strikes at the very core theoretical
underpinnings of electromechanics.  Fogal told SN that his device grew
out of his efforts to fix a broken car radio in the mid 1970s.  As he
got past the wiring and the circuits and into the semiconductors
actually running the radio, he made changes that greatly improved the
audio quality.  He then let his ideas lay idle for more than a decade
before finally returning to the research in the late 1980s.

Fogal says his charged barrier semiconductor device allows electrons
to flow without resistance (i.e., as in superconductors) at room
temperature.  He claims the device demonstrates a very high AC voltage
and AC current gain.  His charged barrier device is on a bipolar
design that can be incorporated in (MOS) metal oxide semiconductor
designs, as well as multiple gate devices.  It operates on a hall
effect electromagnetic field internal device.  The hall effect
magnetic field forces electron flow and angular spin of the electrons
in the same direction to the top of the conduction bands in the
crystal lattice on semiconductor devices, unlike (SOI) silicon on
insulator devices that force electron flow to the surface of the
semiconductor lattice.  "Unlike superconductors which generate an
external field, my semiconductor creates a self-regulating magnetic
field internal to the device," Fogal said.

-- Fogal's Description of His Device --

Charged barrier semiconductor devices incorporate a base plate member
of a semiconductor crystal.  Also incorporated with the base plate
member is a dialectic material and a second base plate member.  The
combination of the two base plate members constitutes an electrolytic
capacitor.  The first base plate member will create a transverse
electric field that is known as a hall effect in the base plate member
of the semiconductor crystal.  The ratio of the transverse electric
field strength to the product of the current and the magnetic field
strength is called the hall coefficient, and its magnitude is
inversely proportional to the carrier concentration on the base plate
member.  The product of the hall coefficient and the conductivity is
proportional to the mobility of the carriers when one type of carrier
is dominant.  Since the base plate member is tied directly to the
emitter junction of the semiconductor, the hall coefficient comes into
play with the creation of a one pole electromagnet in the base plate
member.

The hall effect of the electrolytic capacitor, in relation to the
position on the crystal lattice, will force electron angular spin in
the same direction and electron flow to the top of the conduction
bands in the lattice.  The magnetic flux and the density of the
carriers on the electrolytic capacitor plate are in direct proportion
to the magnetic flux and carrier concentration on the emitter junction
on the semiconductor crystal.

Since the angular spin and the flow of the electrons are in the same
direction, due to the influence of the electromagnetic field, the
electron lattice interaction factor does not come into play.  The
electron wave density is greater and the mobility of the electron flow
is faster.  The device does not exhibit frequency loss in the wave.

The base or gate of the semiconductor is more sensitive to input
signal.  These devices will typically turn on with an input to the
junction in the area of 0.2 MV to 0.4 MV with an output at the
collector junction of 450 MV at 133.5 UA of current.

-- Electron Wave Function In Charged Barrier Technology --

Think of the conduction bands in a crystal lattice as a highway.
Electrons in the free state will move along this highway.  The only
difference is the electron angular spin can be in different
directions.  With the electrons spinning in different directions, the
electrons would travel on different lanes of the highway and
collisions can occur.  The scattering and the collision of the
electrons can cause friction and resistance to the flow.  The
resistance to the flow and the friction can cause semiconductors to
run hot.

In semiconductor devices, this is called lattice scattering or
electron lattice interaction.  If we could make the electrons move in
one direction, and also spin in the same direction, then we could have
more traffic electrons (on the highway) without having the resistance
or the collisions.  We could put a barrier between the lanes on the
highway.  But, the electrons could still spin in different directions.
But, what if we could charge this barrier?!  Turn this barrier into an
electromagnetic field!  An electromagnetic field in one direction.  A
one pole electromagnet!  A hall effect magnetic field.  This one pole
electromagnetic field would make almost all of the electrons spin in
the same direction.  Because the electrons are a negative charge and
the electromagnetic field has a negative charge, the electrons travel
in unison and then we could have more electrons on the highway, and
the electron travel could be faster.

The orientation of the spin of the electrons in the crystal lattice,
due to the electromagnetic field, has a direct impact on the formation
of the wave.  If the orientation of the spin of the electrons are in
unison, there will be no loss in the wave nature, and the density of
the wave will be greater, and the frequency of the wave will be
complete.  If the spin of the electrons in the lattice are in
different directions, the wave nature will be affected and there will
be a loss in the density of the wave.  And, there will be a gap in the
frequency of the wave.

-- Patent Issued --

Fogal filed an application for a US patent covering the design on
March 1, 1991 and awarded No. 5,196,809, titled "High gain, low
distortion, faster switching transistor," on March 23, 1993.  The
patent includes figures, diagrams, and several data plots, e.g. output
signal vs. input signal (vac) for the Fogal device vs. a standard
transistor.  The patent was Fogal's first, but he has since
received a second patent, No. 5,311,139, covering a fuse testing
device that has nothing to do with the semiconductor.  Another US
patent application covering improvements to the semiconductor was
filed in January of this year.  The patent abstract and claim 1
follow.

-- Patent Abstract --

A transistor in which the emitter terminal is coupled to ground
through a filter capacitor.  The filter capacitor has a capacitance of
from about 0.2 uf to about 22 uf and can be connected either by itself
or in parallel with a resistor, depending upon the circuit in which it
is used.  The incorporation of a filter greatly of such a capacitance
level provides greatly improved gain and less distortion of the input
signal, to permit a high output to be achieved in fewer amplifier
stages and with less current draw and heating than in conventional
transistor amplifier stage circuits.  Additionally, the transistor can
be provided in a unitary structure by incorporating the filter
capacitor directly on the transistor chip, and can also be provided by
incorporating the transistor and a resistor within the casing of a
filter capacitor.

Claim 1

a)	a substrate;
b) 	one of a NPN and a PNP transistor integrally formed on the
	substrate, the transistor having a base, a collector, and an
	emitter;
c)     	a parallel resistor and filter capacitor network coupled with
	the emitter and mounted on the transistor, to form an integral
	part of the integrated circuit, the filter capacitor including
	an outer casing; and
d)	base, collector, and emitter terminals on the substrate and
	coupled with the base, the collector, and the emitter,
	respectively, to permit the integrated circuit to be connected
	with an electronic circuit, wherein the integrated circuit is
	contained within the filter capacitor outer casing.

-- Prototypes Fabricated --

Fogal told SN that he has made six prototypes of his device.
Prototype radios and computer modems have been fabricated employing
the device for demonstration purposes.  Fogal emphasizes the noise
reduction aspects of his semiconductor.

Through the help of a colleague, Allan Ames of Advanced Scientific
Applications (Houston, TX), one of Fogal's semiconductors will be
tested by scientists at the Texas Center for Superconductivity at the
University of Houston.  This is being arranged through Wei-Kan Chu.
SN discussed the situation with Chu and he confirmed that testing will
be done after the documents he had received were reviewed.  SN's
editor-in-chief reviewed what the device might mean with Chu.  Clearly
Chu had not had the opportunity to give the matter much thought.

Thomas E. Bearden (Huntsville, AL) believes Fogal's semiconductor
represents a true overunity electrical device.  "Electromagnetics is
over 100 years old; many of its assumptions are flat wrong," Bearden
told us.  He relates the way the Fogal semiconductor works to the way
heat pumps function, but says it takes it one step beyond.  A Fogal
semiconductor simply stops electrons from flowing and passes the pure
potential energy from the now-free electrons with the circuit blocking
the drift current.  Unlike superconductors, pairs of electrons are not
needed to pass the current along without resistance.

Bearden added that, based on endurance load tests on the Fogal
semiconductor, they are led to the firm conclusion that the chip
actually stops the longitudinal flow of electrons, strips them of
their energy, and passes the pure energy along without resistance.  In
this regard he says it behaves like a heat pump but goes one step
beyond to pull energy from the vacuum.

-- SN Analysis and Comment --

It is important to note that the device does not violate the rules of
thermodynamics involving the conservation of energy.  It does not make
energy from nothing.  One end of a Fogal circuit would provide
electricity for work such as running a light bulb or a computer, and
the other end will draw energy from the environment and get quite cold
in the process.

The best aspect of this story is that either a Fogal semiconductor
works or it doesn't.  There is nothing sophisticated in its
construction and there are no mysterious materials fabrication steps
involved.  There should not be any gray or cloudy areas.  Testing
should be straightforward.

Q:	What are the odds of its being real?
A: 	If it is real, you will hear more about it soon enough.  If it
	isn't, think how much fun you have had reading this article.

Q:	Are there any intrinsic limitations if the device is real?
A:	None we can foresee.

==========================================================================
==========================================================================

Okay folks, this is the latest news about free energy machine development.

If you know of somebody else having something that runs on by converting 
zero point energy, please let me know.

Regards, Dipl. Ing. Stefan Hartmann.
c/o Workshop for Decentral Energy Research, Berlin, Germany.
email to:
harti@contrib.de
 ## CrossPoint v3.02 ##
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenharti cudfnStefan cudlnHartmann cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszXL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.21 / Arthur TK /  Re: Maxima in Sigma-v/T^2 curves
     
Originally-From: awc@ipp-garching.mpg.de (Arthur      Carlson        TK  )
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Maxima in Sigma-v/T^2 curves
Date: 21 Jul 1994 11:48:53 +0200
Organization: Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics


Thanks for the numbers. I think you mislabeled the third column. It should be
(sv/t^2)(m^3/s/keV^2), shouldn't it? I used these numbers plus some simple
assumptions to correct for the energy production (total or that in charged
particles) and Z to find the Lawson criterion and the power density relative to
D-T, holding the total plasma pressure constant. (Details available on
request; D-D requires special assumptions.) The results are:

fuel	Lawson/Lawson(D-T)	P(D-T)/P
----	------------------	--------
DT		   1		   1
DDn+DDp		   5		  16
DHe3		  16		  81
pLi6		1300		6400
pB11		 420		2100

We see a number of interesting things. First, pB11 is completely aneutronic, so
it is not necessary to look at any higher Z fuels, which will certainly have
poorer performance without any advantages. pLi6 can be eliminated for the same
reason--it is significantly worse in performance than pB11 without having any
compensating advantage. That leaves us with four reactions with varying
performance and varying amounts of neutron problems, so the final choice will
always be a trade-off. We should keep in mind that T and He3 do not exist on
earth in significant quantities; T must be breed from Li and He3 must be
accumulated from the decay of T or mined in space. Everyone is entitled to an
opinion on the ultimately optimum fuel cycle, but only future generations will
really have the knowledge base to make a choice.

The absolute number that came out for the power density of D-T was 
0.07 MW/m^3/bar^2. For example, a tokamak with 5 T field and 10% beta (in some
average sense) would have a power density or 0.07*(5^2/2mu_0)^2*10%=0.7 MW/m^3.
If you want to consider pB11 and take a fantasy pressure of 100 kbar, you come up
with a power density of 0.07*(10^5)^2/2100=3.3e5 MW/m^3 = 0.33 MW/cm^3. (How does
Koloc come up with 20-50 MW/cm^3?) D-T under the same assuption would produce 
700 MW/cm^3.


Art Carlson
Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics
Garching, Germany
carlson@ipp-garching.mpg.de
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenawc cudfnArthur cudlnTK cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.21 / Arthur TK /  Re: advanced fuel cycles
     
Originally-From: awc@ipp-garching.mpg.de (Arthur      Carlson        TK  )
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: advanced fuel cycles
Date: 21 Jul 1994 12:11:32 +0200
Organization: Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics


In article <jaboweryCt8vzx.GzE@netcom.com>, jabowery@netcom.com (Jim Bowery) writes:
> Matt Kennel (mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu) wrote:
> : Dr. Koloc, it's *your* job to convince anyone and everyone about the
> : merits of your scheme.  
> 
> He has "convinced" a growing number of increasingly "convinced" 
> individuals despite hostility from people currently receiving
> our tax dollars -- both incentivizing and paying for the
> construction of their hostility.
> 
Which individuals has he convinced? Scientists? Plasma physicists? You? How has
he convinced them? With a mathematical model? With a experimental results?

I realise that my employers require me to be hostile to Koloc since they run a
tokamak research institute (even if they also have a large effort in
stellarators). I also realise that I already sold out as a graduate student when
I accepted funding from the DOE (even though I was working on compact todoids).
And Koloc is one of those rare geniuses that has the guts to swim against the
stream and the brains to make scientific breakthroughs in his garage.

With that out of the way, is there anyone out there who would like to defend with
scientific arguments Koloc's anti-virial theorem, his sooper-dooper conductivity,
or his equilibrium without force balance?

> : You have to hit the road; give talks, go to
> : conferences, write and submit papers, show theoretical and experimental
> : results.  
> 
> You act like he is doing science, where intellectual property is not
> an issue -- not engineering.
> 
He never claimed to be an engineer. He's an "engineering physicist". An engineer
wouldn't think he could build a machine that violates the laws of physics.


Art Carlson
Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics
Garching, Germany
carlson@ipp-garching.mpg.de
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenawc cudfnArthur cudlnTK cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.21 / John Logajan /  Re: Phase 1 expts - curve fit (part 1)
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@mirage.skypoint.net (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Phase 1 expts - curve fit (part 1)
Date: 21 Jul 1994 13:30:48 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

mitchell swartz (mica@world.std.com) wrote:
:        The fit is considerably improved by
: a quadratic polynome (Degree 2) fitting to a formula of
:               F(x) = a0 + a1*x + a2*x^2
:        a0 = 0.290618
:        a1 = -0.00091
:        a2 = 2.81686E-06

Two caveats about the data I put up that could effect the hyperfine detail.
Firstly, it takes time for the thermal masses to drift about, so the error
spread is somewhat dependent upon the time of the run.  Running longer is
likely to increase the range of errors (toward some limit, I suppose.)  In
my case, I ran the last 90W case for a shorter time than the other measurements
which might explain the smaller error range.

The second caveat involves "nominal" input power.  When I say, for instance,
60 watts, I mean anywhere from 59 to 61 watts due to power-supply settings.
I use the measured I*V value for my computations, but generally post the
nominal value.

I'm not saying that the "curve fit" is wrong, just that there are reasons
to take the fine detail with a grain of salt.

--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com -- 612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills  MN 55112 USA           -
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.21 / Robert Heeter /  Re: muon catalyzed fusion
     
Originally-From: rfheeter@pppl.gov (Robert F. Heeter)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: muon catalyzed fusion
Date: 21 Jul 1994 11:36:02 -0400
Organization: /etc/organization

In article <WAF2PCB373362459@brbbs.brbbs.com>,
MARSHALL DUDLEY <mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com> wrote:
>Dear Mr. Jones,
>
>Since you seem to be acknowledged as the expert on muon catalyzed fusion, I was
>wondering if you could answer a couple of questions for me.  I am not in a
>position to easily look up any papers on the effect.

Well, I'm not Dr. Jones, and I'm not an acknowledged expert, but I've
finally gotten my hands on some of the review papers on the subject so
I could put some info into the conventional fusion FAQ, so since Dr.
Jones seems to be occupied with other tasks, I'll post a quick reply.

>Does muon catalyzed fusion have nuclear ash and particles consistant with hot
>fusion?  That is, are the branching ratios essentially the same, and do you get
>the same neutrons and gammas one would expect from hot fusion?  And if not, why
>not?

Basically:  yes.

d-d-mu fusion yields t+p 42% of the time, He3+n 58% of the time, and
He4 on rare occasions.  (I believe the order of magnitude is one He4
per million muon-catalyzed fusion events.)

The muon-catalyzed fusion results on liquid and gaseous states of 
deuterium, hydrogen-deuterium mixtures, and deuterium-tritium mixtures
are all basically consistent with conventional hot fusion results, and 
unlike cold-fusion claims.

The most widely-available reference on muon-catalyzed fusion, and the
one Dr. Jones cited to me when I asked about it, is his article in
_Nature_ on May 8, 1986, pp. 127-133 (in volume 321).

******************************************
Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Graduate Student, Princeton Plasma Physics Lab
Not representing PPPL in any of the above...

cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.21 / Philip Snyder /  Re: Maxima in Sigma-v/T^2 curves
     
Originally-From: pbsnyder@flagstaff.Princeton.EDU (Philip Benjamin Snyder)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Maxima in Sigma-v/T^2 curves
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 1994 16:40:12 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

In article <30lga5INNda@slcawc.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de> awc@ipp-garching.mpg.de writes:
>
>Thanks for the numbers. I think you mislabeled the third column. It should be
>(sv/t^2)(m^3/s/keV^2), shouldn't it? I used these numbers plus some simple
>assumptions to correct for the energy production (total or that in charged
>particles) and Z to find the Lawson criterion and the power density relative to
>D-T, holding the total plasma pressure constant. (Details available on
>request; D-D requires special assumptions.) The results are:
>
>fuel	Lawson/Lawson(D-T)	P(D-T)/P
>----	------------------	--------
>DT		   1		   1
>DDn+DDp	   5		  16
>DHe3		  16		  81
>pLi6		1300		6400
>pB11		 420		2100

>Art Carlson
>Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics
>Garching, Germany
>carlson@ipp-garching.mpg.de

Could you please post the details of this calculation?  What strikes me as a
bit curious is that DD comes out ahead of D-He3.  A rough calculation
shows that the charged product fusion power/pressure^2 is more than twice
as great for DHe3 near it's maximum (which occurs ~58KeV for a density ratio
of ~60:40 D:HE3) even when secondary DT reactions are accounted for.  I guess 
you are using scaling law in which Tau falls off quickly with T?

Assuming 50:50 density splits, Te=Ti, and ignoring secondary reactions:
p=pressure  P=power  N=number density  

For DHe3:
--------
Nd=Nh=No  Ne=2*Nh+Nd=3*No   p=Nd*T+Nh*T+Ne*T=5*No*T
P=Ef*Nd*Nh*<sv>=Ef*No^2*<sv>=Ef*p^2*<sv>/(25T^2)
P/p^2=Ef*<sv>/(25T^2)

at T=50KeV <sv>=5.554e-17 cm^3/s    (Bosch&Hale,Nucl.Fusion 32(1992)611),
	Ef=18300KeV
P/p^2=1.63e-17  cm^3/(s KeV)


For DD:
-------
Nd=Ne=No  p=Nd*t+Ne*t=2*No*T
2 reactions (1) D+D->T(1.01MeV)+p(3.02MeV)
	    (2) D+D->He3(.82MeV)+n(2.45MeV)    (Book,NRL Plasma Formulary)

Here it is important to note that the general formula for reactivity is
(Bosch&Hale 624)  Ni*Nj*<sv>/(1+delta_ij).  Hence for DD it is important
to remember this factor of two.  (Am I right about this?)

No^2=p^2/(4T^2)

P/p^2=Ef1*<sv1>/(2*4T^2) + Ef2*<sv2>/(2*4T^2)

All products Ef1=4030KeV  Ef2=3270KeV
Charged products Ef1=4030KeV  Ef2=820KeV

at T=15KeV  <sv1>=1.390e-18 cm^3/s    <sv2>=1.481e-18 cm^3/s

All products  P/p^2=5.8e-18  cm^3/(s KeV)
Charged products  P/p^2=3.79e-18  cm^3/(s KeV)


I've ignored the secondary reactions which will improve DD numbers more than
DHe3 numbers (perhaps they will improve P/p^2 for DD by as much as a factor
of two? - but it can't improve P/p^2 for charged products by more than 150%
can it?), and I've ignored the natural hot ion mode (Ti>Te) which 
will generally improve P/p^2 for DHe3 significantly (and the fact that a 50:50
mix is slightly off maximum (by~5%)).

Alternatively, using the NRL Plasma Formulary's estimates for fusion power
in charged products (and accounting for secondary reactions) yields
P/p^2  for DHe3 larger by a factor of ~2.5.

So it seems Tau must be a factor of ~3 worse for DHe3 at 50KeV
than for DD at 15KeV  (which seems reasonable) for Lawson to be lower for
DD than for DHe3; but for Lawson to be 3 times better for DD (as above)
Tau must be ~9 times longer for DD at 15KeV than for DHe3 at 50KeV.
Is this the case?  Or I have I left something out/messed something up?

Thanks for any help/clarification,
Phil

pbsnyder@phoenix.princeton.edu





cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenpbsnyder cudfnPhilip cudlnSnyder cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.21 /  fairfax@sensei /  cmsg cancel <21JUL94.19372680@sensei.pfc.mit.edu>
     
Originally-From: fairfax@sensei.pfc.mit.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cmsg cancel <21JUL94.19372680@sensei.pfc.mit.edu>
Date: 21 JUL 94 19:38:40 GMT
Organization: MIT PLASMA FUSION CENTER

cancel <21JUL94.19372680@sensei.pfc.mit.edu>
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenfairfax cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.21 /  fairfax@sensei /  Alcator Progress 7/21/94
     
Originally-From: fairfax@sensei.pfc.mit.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Alcator Progress 7/21/94
Date: 21 JUL 94 19:39:12 GMT
Organization: MIT PLASMA FUSION CENTER

			Alcator C-MOD Weekly Highlights
				July 21, 1994

The maintenance/repair period is continuing.  The partial disassembly is now
complete. This procedure took a total of 26 calendar days, slightly less than
the initial projection. The OH2L coax buss has now been removed, and the
central column, comprising the three OH coils and the TF centerpost, has been
extracted and re-positioned on the lower dome. 

As anticipated, the problem with the OH2L buss was in the vicinity of the
bolt-up connection between the buss and the terminal block on the coil,
specifically, with the center conductor of the coax. Detailed examinations
of the OH2L and OH2U coaxes, as well as tests on a dummy (prototype) coax, are
being conducted to identify the cause of the problem and qualify the solution. 

Some minor damage is present on the mating surface of the OH2L terminal block.
This will be repaired by resurfacing in situ. The integrity of the coil does
not appear to have been compromised, based on electrical measurements, and
initial xray inspection. The effects of the coax problem are localized to the
immediate vicinity of the bolted connection, and no other coils were affected. 

Dr. Roger Richards of ORNL is onsite to install his CO2 laser scattering
experiment. The main shipment of equipment from Oak Ridge arrived on Tuesday,
and the apparatus is being set up in one of the three experimental bays
adjacent to the C-MOD cell. This experiment will measure ion tails produced
during ICRF heating on C-MOD. The diagnostic is prototypical of an alpha
particle diagnostic proposed for ITER. 

Dr. Yuichi Takase has begun a three-week visit to JT-60U in Japan.  He will be
participating in their ICRF experiments. Dr. Earl Marmar attended the first
meeting of the ITER International Experts Group on Diagnostics at the San
Diego Co-center this week. From there he is proceeding to Austin, where he
will be working on the APS DPP program committee. Dr. Bruce Lipschultz is
attending the TPX PAC meeting in Tennessee. 

cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenfairfax cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Fri Jul 22 04:37:04 EDT 1994
------------------------------
1994.07.21 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Ball Lightning Carlson  Part 3  Force Free plus 
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Ball Lightning Carlson  Part 3  Force Free plus 
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 1994 18:25:37 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <30eauiINN16b@slcawc.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de> awc@ipp-garching.mpg.de writes:
*************************WARNING***********************
This cripplingly long post by an involved ipp numericist and Koloc is
split in 3 chunks for a more humane punishiment of the masses.  [pmk]
                        this is part3  of 3
 ------------------------------------------------------

>I'd like to thank Joseph Davidson for taking the time to (partially)

>The most important adjective in the description probably went past
>most readers: "force-free".  A force-free magnetic field configuration
>is one in which the current density j is everywhere parallel to the
>field B, so that the Lorenz force jXB is everywhere zero.  This is not
>exactly true but is a reasonable approximation for a Spheromak plasma
>_because_beta_is_negligibly_small_.  A strictly force-free
>configuration cannot confine *any* plasma (much less Koloc's umpteen
>tons).  

Be careful here Art.  Theorists get used to throwing their "I have 
the upper hand" -- weight around.  In the case of Spheromak the 
predictions of restrictive BETA proved pessimistic and BETAS of
60% were actually seen.  In the case of the tokamak, a second 
region of stability was predicted at around a BETA of 60%. As
far as I know tokamaks really haven't exceeded Betas of 10%, although
I haven't kept up.  I have been very curious as to what the scuttle
is on just why whose predictions were so far afield?? Could you 
help us out.  

Because of the hyperstability of PMKs, it is a very safe bet that
they can handle BETAS higher than whose observed to date in 
Spheromaks.  For argument's sake let's first consider a lower beta
PMK.   
    Starting with very low Beta, we improve the boundary fluid 
pressure  to 20 kbar.  Now that has become TONS, although the beta 
is still in the LOW category. Consequently even low BETA PMKs can
compress to "tons"/in^2.  Is that acceptable. 


We have seen, however, that the beta limit that was initially set
for Spheromaks and found to be far too restrictive, is LIKELY not 
going to cause the problem that Art discovered in the literature.  


  For tokamak a max compression ratio is about 30% compression??

Tough luck, guys.   :-(

> (Of course, the part of the external pressure not busy
>confining the magnetic field can be used to confine the plasma, but
>that brings us back to the Virial theorem.)

I don't understand, since my understanding is that all of the
external pressure can confine field and in turn, all of that
field may confine a plasma (beta=1) as proposed in Mirrors at
one time.  

Remember my objection is not that you compute the energy of these
plasmoids, but that you do it appropriately utilizing the 
divergence theorem.  I can't find for the life of me see why in this
day of 32 byte desk top computers this could be a problem.  

I am quite familiar with Ball Lightning and its characteristics.  
I have interviewed hundreds of observers of ball lightning,
i.e. source == try Power Line persons that fix lines during 
thunderstorms.  Consequently, I may KNOW something you that you
have missed.  

If ball lightning has high internal energy, they will explode, 
and when they explode they may do quite significant damage.  This
is indeed the case.  Destabilized BL's will explode with enormous 
force.  I contend that such effect can NOT result from a single 
external pressure boundary (bounding atmospheric interface).  

Please could you reconsider the internal integration.  

>                               . .A video from Koloc's garage proves
>that he can make a son et lumiere, but it does not show that the
>phenomena is related in any way either to ball lightning or to his own
>conception of a "PLASMAK".  

Actually it does.  Very specifically and uniquely.  There are 
such a plethora of very exclusive features clearly depicted one,
even yourself would be forced to reconsider.  I would imagine your
experimental prowess would be on a par with my plasma theory?? If
so I wouldn't hold out much hope of your reversing your certainty
that this thing is but a HITODAMA'S plasma bon bon.  

>If you take a closer look at Koloc's
>pmkfig.gif, you'll notice that he wants a vacuum which includes a
>region near the axis, and yet he talks about jets of plasma emanating
>from the poles.   

Correct, but like the faucet at the outer face of your house, when
you turn the handle the water flows outward and NOT from inside
your basement dry space.  why??  So too Arthur, here we have a 
"spigot" for a channel in the Mantle (not a tunnel to the Kernel). 
That spigot is a cusp, and although you are too young to remember
cusp geometry machines, the direction the plasma is reflected is
outward, and NOT inward.  So, that vacuum I desire, and that I have
like it or NOT, is there, and it's very healthy, because of the 
intense bundling pressure due to the collective toroidal field.  

Jetting, indicates it is quite will confined... outward.   

No ejecta is from the Kernel vacuum OR plasma; the ejecta is ALL 
from the Mantle.  I shall post a Ball Lightning photo since all 
plasmas of this PMK ilk must have polar JETS.  If Ball Lightning
is stable and long lived it must be PMK like and therefore have
jets.  In large ones, the jet activity may accumulate deionized
material which forms labile molecules or charged molecules. 
These can "thicken up" the Mantle so the only ejecta seen is 
already deionized (mostly). It will appear "flocculent" 

>                Davidson did the sort of respectable research that
>DOE funded and (in my opinion) should continue to fund; Koloc's ideas
>fall apart every time you turn around, and I'm glad that he's not
>receiving any taxpayers' money.

Were you aware of Well's situation?? What would you have done if 
you knew the details as disclosed previously, and were in the vote 
count?   I'm a bit serious here, because this reaction is a deadly
one.  

First of all, unless you are have developed a successfully operating
fusion concept in some rather complete sense of the word, you are
taking upon yourself an unearned mantle of judgement.  That puts
you in the position of a school preppie.  

On falling  versus  Holding together?? 
As long as the magnetoplasmoids hang together with turgidity, that's
all that matters.  Most of my ideas fall apart, and I just toss them
away.. a few I'm not certain of, and one or two rarely, seem very workable,
widely applicable, and that's one that I'm stuck with now. This idea
holds together with a vengeance.  Why I have so many ideas comes
out of an extended information theory, but that's another day.  

>-- Let me back off one step.  All I know for sure is that Koloc is
>completely ignorant of plasma theory.  I am willing to entertain the
>notion that he is an inspired but misunderstood experimentalists.  He
>should know that I and others in this group would be interested to
>hear details of his experiments.  Is the machine basically a conical
>theta pinch like Davidson's?  What are the physical dimensions?  What
>gas is used at what pressure?  What are the current and voltage
>waveforms?  What diagnostics are used for magnetic field, density and
>temperature?

Your comments are out of place.  

The gas is open ordinary atmospheric air.   It is not a conical theta
pinch.   

As for the other information:,
Have IPP contact us for a contract or cooperative program agreement.  
We could work up some sort of a plan and include what the end result of
such a cooperation might become.   

Do you have some one there with a bit more familiarity with matters
relating to the exchange with humans in private industry. 

                         without PLASMAK(tm) technology 
                           the future will NOT ...  
                                 be fun
>Art Carlson
>Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics
>Garching, Germany
>carlson@ipp-garching.mpg.de
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc, Bx 1037 Prometheus II Ltd, College Park MD 20741-1037    |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.22 / mitchell swartz /  Steve Jones misrepresents (was "Mitch misinterprets")
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Steve Jones misrepresents (was "Mitch misinterprets")
Subject: Mitch misinterprets
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 1994 19:05:23 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

Dear colleagues:

        It has been interesting reading posts from so many
people claiming Steve Jones misrepresents this, or misstates
that.    Astonishingly, Steve has elected to include me in one
of his continuous distortions.
 In Message-ID: <1994Jul21.150944.1686@acousb.byu.edu>
Subject: Mitch misinterprets
Steve Jones (jonesse@acousb.byu.edu) writes: 

JONES Mitch Swartz writes:  "one interpretation is that [blah, blah]",
JONES trying to interpret what I wrote several days ago.  Well, your interpretation
JONES is wrong, Mitch.  Has it ever occurred to you to ask *me* what I meant?

  Well, Mr. Jones, is falsely reporting what has happened.  This error
again corroborates what Dr. Mallove, Mr. Rothwell and Fullerton have
reported.  

  Here is the actual quote, and one will notice, since Mr. Jones does not,
that  the statement  says the following: 

SWARTZ       As a result, one interpretation is that the
SWARTZ     "MAN to inspire such CONfidence" is Mr Toyoda.
           [Message-ID: <Ct2ys2.B36@world.std.com>
     Subject: Jones will stoop to anything (parallax view of his quote)]

    The statement says "one interpretation", referring to many conversations
which were previously made on the Internet about these of
Steve Jones' comments.
   The statement does NOT say Steven Jones' interpretation is (blah blah).
    Does it?    How difficult it again appears for Steve Jones to correctly describe
that which is before his own eyes.

   In fact, Steven Jones has considerable confusion, because in the very
same missive (and the one referred to therein) it was Brent Swekla 
who did explicitly claim to know Mr. Jones' mind on this matter.
 This is apparent when Brent Swekla states:

SWEKLA Steven Jones' meaning is *very* clear. He is saying that Mr. Toyoda
SWEKLA is the victim of a confidence man, his confidence in cold fusion
SWEKLA having been inspired by such a man. Mr. Fullerton owes Steven Jones
SWEKLA an apology. I would also respectfully submit that under the
SWEKLA circumstances Mr. Fullerton should keep accusations about "inaccurate
SWEKLA statements" to himself, unless he is prepared to present evidence
SWEKLA in support of his accusations.
        [Message-ID: <309otf$67g@quartz.ucs.ualberta.ca>
        Subject: Re: Jones will (not) stoop to anything
       Brent Swekla  (swekla@ee.ualberta.ca) ]

    Can Steve Jones accurately read?   
He apparently cannot when he misses that Swekla states:
"Steven Jones' meaning is *very* clear. ..."

   Can Steve Jones accurately attribute who is reporting what?
   So far, there remains room for considerable improvement.
   Best wishes
                Dr. Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com)
               ----------------------------------------
"Truth is stranger than fiction, but not near as plentiful"
 Frank McKinney Hubbard 'New sayings by Abe Martin' (1917)


cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.22 / Jim Carr /  Re: A lie in any case
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A lie in any case
Date: 22 Jul 1994 16:06:31 -0400
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

In article <940718174124_72240.1256_EHB110-1@CompuServe.COM> 
72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
>
>They point out that it might be interpreted to mean that Toyoda was 'conned'
>(fooled; hoaxed) into believing that cold fusion is real by someone else,
>perhaps Ikegami or Fleischmann.  ... 
>                             ...  They are all honorable men, all fine
>scientists, everything they claim is true and has been proven by replication.

Everything?  Oh, come on, Jed.  Not even Pons and Fleischmann claim to 
have replicated their original claims of neutron emission detected 
via photo-capture to deuterium.  They have all but retracted it in 
public statements, although not in a printed erratum. 

-- 
 James A. Carr   <jac@scri.fsu.edu>     |  Raw data is like raw sewage, it
      http://www.scri.fsu.edu           |  requires some processing before
 Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst.  |  it can be spread around.  The 
 Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306    |  opposite is true of theories. 
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.22 /  Sparks /  Argument for/against current state of nuclear power ?
     
Originally-From: mdennehy@tcd.ie (Sparks)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Argument for/against current state of nuclear power ?
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 1994 17:28:30 GMT
Organization: University of Dublin, Trinity College

Okay, I've had enough. My sister joined Greenpeace about five days ago
and since then I've been in a running argument with her over the current
state of affairs regarding nuclear power (fission & fusion, even though
she doesn't know the difference). I am slowly running out of plusses to
throw at her. Anyone got any bright ideas ?

BTW, I'm advocating nuclear power in this argument, but she keeps
pointing to chernobyl et al, and also to the new Thorp plant at
Sellafield <sp?>. 

Apologies if this letter has any misspellings - new computer here and
everythings haywire, and I've a headache too :-(

--
Mark "Sparks" Dennehy		Ham Radio : EI5EDB (2m FM only) :-(
Engineering Undergrad		Internet  : mdennehy@alf2.tcd.ie
Trinity College Dublin		Telepathy : mdennehy@Mars.Red.Planet
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenmdennehy cudlnSparks cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.22 / Kevin McGuire /  TFTR Update July 22, 1994
     
Originally-From: kmcguire@pppl.gov (Kevin McGuire)
Newsgroups: pppl.tftr.news,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: TFTR Update July 22, 1994
Date: 22 Jul 1994 18:29:59 -0400
Organization: Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory


Status  (July 22, 1994)



We continued our campaign the week of July 4-July 8 on RF electron heating
via mode conversion.  This scheme uses a non-directional fast wave launch
in a plasma with equal concentrations of 3He-4He during ICRF heating.  An
extremely interesting result was obtained with off-axis power deposition,
where we heated the plasma from Te=3keV to 7keV with o 4 MW of ICRF power 
The Te profile shape was very asymmetric and sawteeth were surpressed. 
These results are being studied further at present.

On July 8, the ICRF-induced plasma rotation studies were continued.  This
effect has been proposed as a means of stabilizing locked MHD modes in
devices, such as ITER.  The data obtained was with constant RF power,
target ne, and IP, the BT was varied in H-minority plasmas to investigate
the dependence of the RF power disposition profile.  Indications are the
driven rotation peaks with off-axis heating.  This data will be analyzed in
detail and discussed with the ITER design team.

The week of July 11 was a D-T operational period.  Two experimental
proposals were run:
        DT-15   Studies of H-modes with DT
        DT-12   High qo - TAE mode stability

The goals of DT-15 were to determine tritium effects on the H-mode
transition and on the resulting H-mode confinement and ELM
characteristics. The results for the H-mode threshold was that there was no
big difference between DD and DT. However, there was difference with the
ELMs behavior. Longer ELM-free period was observed with DT.  The ELM
frequency was lower and the amplitude larger in DT than DD. The taueE
increase after the transition to H-mode is larger in DT than in DD.
The Ti and Te profiles are broader for DT H-modes than for DD, this data is
from CHERS, ECE and TVTS.
A very interesting result was obtained on Beam Emission Spectroscopy (BES),
a large decrease in the density fluctuations are observed after the H-mode
transition in the ELM free period in both DD and DT.  Also there is a clear
difference between DD and DT plasmas. The density fluctuations are lower in
DT where the taueE is higher.  This is being studied at present. The BES
diagnostic is a collaboration with the University of Wisconsin.

The goal of DT-12 was to use the deuterium pellet injector (DPI) to modify
qo and suppress sawteeth in a discharge which was intended to be unstable
to alpha driven TAE during the subsequent NBI phase. The full scenario was
established in DD, but machine conditions did not allow a tritium phase to
take place.
A tritium attempt was performed with beam injection only to obtain high qo.
This was a good discharge but no TAE mode was observed.  The q profile and
other data are being analyzed at present and stability calculation will be
carried out.

The week of July 18th, was a D-T run period.  The early part of the week
was spent conditioning the machine and neutral beams.
The first experiment this week was an effort to examine the relationship of
the density fluctuations to changes in local transport in L-mode
discharges.  The plan was to determine the long-wavelength characteristics
of the density fluctuations measured by BES and reflectometry by performing
a systematic well-documented variation of plasma transport through a plasma
current scan.
The experiment went very well, plasma currents of 0.7, 1.0, 1.4 and 2.0 MA
were studied.  The background MHD level was low in all these discharges,
which will allow the study of variations in fluctuation energy, correlation
length and decorrelation times.

The initial results show that Ln decreases from 70 cm for 0.7 MA down to
50cm for the 2.0 MA plasma.  The fluctuation level decreases from 3 x
10-7 (a.u.) at 0.7 MA down to 0.6 x 10-7 from the 2.0 MA plasma.

A good documentation with Te, Ti and Vphi was also made for the four
currents.  This data will be extremely useful in attempting to understand
the cause of the anomalously high cross-field transport in Tokamaks.  This
experiment is a collaboration with the University of Wisconsin.

On Thursday July 21st, we continued our high poloidal beta campaign in
collaborations with Columbia University and MIT. The goal of this
experiment was to increase the performance of the high poloidal beta D-T
plasmas at Ip = 1.5 MA.
Excellent results were obtained, i.e. Fusion power = 6.8 MW, with neutral
beam power of 31 MW. Beta normal was about 3 and the confinement
enhancement was approximately 4. The central density ne(0) was 8 x 10-19
m-3 which will give a high thermonuclear fusion power fraction. From the
results it is clear that we should be able to increase the performance
further with better machine conditions and more beam power. 


Future Activities

Next week (July 25) is a maintenance week on TFTR. On August 1st DT
experiments will continue with Alpha Ash and Isotope scaling studies in DT
plasmas


K. McGuire (for R. Hawryluk) 

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


cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenkmcguire cudfnKevin cudlnMcGuire cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.23 / Kevin Haddock /  CNF papers?
     
Originally-From: fish@ecst.csuchico.edu (Kevin Haddock)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CNF papers?
Date: 23 Jul 1994 01:53:40 GMT
Organization: California State University, Chico

Hi:

can someone please tell me the location of a FAQ or tell me where 
the cold fusion papers and archives of this newsgroup might
be located.



Thanks in advance,

-Kevin
fish@cscihp.ecst.csuchico.edu

-------
There are no complex problems; only complex solutions!
-------
Bureaucracy:  The process of turning energy into solid waste.
-------
"A politician is a person who can make waves and then make you think
he's the only one who can save the ship."   ---  Ivern Ball

cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenfish cudfnKevin cudlnHaddock cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.23 / R Nachtrieb /  Re: Maxima in Sigma-v/T^2 curves
     
Originally-From: nachtrie@athena.mit.edu (Robert Nachtrieb)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Maxima in Sigma-v/T^2 curves
Date: 23 Jul 1994 02:34:32 GMT
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology

> Thanks for the numbers. I think you mislabeled the third column. It
> should be (sv/t^2)(m^3/s/keV^2), shouldn't it? 

Yup, sorry for being careless!

rob
-----------
Robert Nachtrieb; www: http://cmod2.pfc.mit.edu/~nachtrieb/home.html;
voice: 617.253.5401; email: nachtrie@mit.edu (PGP key available);
USnail: MIT NW17-245, 175 Albany St, Cambridge MA 02139-4255 USA.
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudennachtrie cudfnRobert cudlnNachtrieb cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.21 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Ball Lightning Carlson  Part 2
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Ball Lightning Carlson  Part 2
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 1994 18:24:10 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <30eauiINN16b@slcawc.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de> awc@ipp-garching.mpg.de writes:
*************************WARNING***********************
This cripplingly long post by an involved ipp numericist and Koloc is
split in 3 chunks for a more humane punishiment of the masses.  [pmk]
                        this is part 2     
 ------------------------------------------------------

>I'd like to thank Joseph Davidson for taking the time to (partially)


>                     The "plasmoid-in-the-atmosphere model"  
>*assumes* that the plasmoid can exist in contact with the 
>atmosphere, that the boundary is infinitely thin and perfectly 
>conducting, and that the equilibrium boundary is spherical.  

No assumption here, we can give some of this as reality tested, 
although much of certain work is confidential.  The model however is
well thought out and established.  It is lightly published.    
This is not an education institute and our funds are not public.  

It DOES exist in contact with the atmosphere.  You are close 
just not correct enough; so let's fix it.  

At the vacuum boundaries are placed the two thin HYPERconducting 
layers.  The two are spread over both the DISTINCT and disconnected 
boundaries of the vacuum mag field with each of the Kernel and 
Mantle plasmas.   ***BUT The Mantle itself is conducting and extends 
outward and is medium in thickness.  So resolve this 
seeming conflict:  

There are two regions of drastically different conductivity in
the Mantle of the PMK.  This does NOT assume an infinitely thin 
conducting physical shell, actually, the conducting shell is 
composed of a very thin hyperconducting internal boundary layer 
and a much more thick gradient range of plasma and gas state 
regimes which are probably on the order of 1.5 to 2 cm (estimate) 
in thickness (equator) in STP air.  Thickness can vary also 
because of the nature and chemistry of the photomodified atmosphere.  

The conducting energetic electron layer ONLY is very thin and 
confined to the poloidal vacuum field/plasma interfaceS (found 
on both Kernel AND Mantle plasma/field boundaries.)  Note: there 
are also energetic "force-free" currents dispersed throughout the 
Kernel plasma forming an ensemble of nested hyper conducting 
toroids.  

It is this last structure that I would like to have Art Carlson
iterate numerically, "getting into and out of" the Kernel region
through a simply-connecting cut (mathematically speaking) .  

>Davidson reiterates my comment
>that there is a problem at the poles (that is, that the problem 
>as he posed it has no solution).  

Yes, but he, of course, is speaking of his Spheromak rings which 
are still thought to be spewing (magdelung .. something) force and 
I never have the paper at my finger tips when I need it.  The PMK 
differs since although it has a jet, NONE of the PMK ejecta in that 
jet originate in the Kernel plasma, where ALL of the Wells's ejecta 
originates in the "Kernel plasma" (soon to become plasmak) that 
WELLS et al produced. 

My problem as I'm perceiving it is that you treat the region at
the Kernel plasma in Wells's case, and in the PMK case, you treat
the Mantle also as if it is continuous with the Kernel Plasma.  
If this is indeed true, it leaves a gap in respectable acceptance
of another disclosure.  There may be a pattern here that is 
independent of the person, and is an operationally accepted practice.
In which case it must be resolved, because the introduction of 
spurious, bogus or fictitious, fanciful or otherwise altered data, 
is equivalent to having no data whatsoever.  

If this is a fair description, then it is no wonder Art has a
problem with constantly reasserting the intention of applying the
VT.  

I can't blame Art for having difficulty.  HOW could these thing 
produce a vacuum and maintain it.  LOOK what a tokamak must go 
through.  There is NO WAY that God is going to let the PLASMAK(tm) 
plasmoid off that easily.  Guess God thinks my idea is worth a lot 
less hassle.   :-) 

Go talk with really advanced engineering physicists that do 
advanced magnetic impulsion vacuum work and they may help you 
with that aspect.  I'm certain this must be an incredible house of 
cards to you. I really works. But.. eh! Spend the money - find out.  

The Wells plasma a petty much unsupported poloidal boundary (until
the last few microseconds).  I love it: embryonic phylogenation
right before our eyes!  

TIME OUT      Theorists deal mostly in the plasma state found in 
                   vacuum pump reservoirs such as the TOKAMAK.     
                   PLASMAK(TM) magnetoplasmoids are alien to that.  

              Consider that BIG pressure OR  BIG density are   
                  will behaved iff conductivity is proportionately 
                  increased several of orders of magnitude and 
                  the mag pressure (FLUX) is increased appropriately.  

            The effect CLAMPS diffusivity SO it's just like being back 
                 in a thin plasma which is not so conducting with 
                 feebler fields such as found in the tokamak poloidal   
AND finally, 
          The equilibrium is spherOIDal and not spherical.  
                AXIsymmetric..  angular change in theta is zip.
                Actually, the conductivity is only up 10^5 over 
                copper, but it still EXCLUDES FIELDS - Meisner-ish   
                          That is a significant change.  

          This effect MAKES for Sharp plasma boundaries.  It can act 
              Like a PLASMA MENISCUS  (interesting concept)
                       and you heard it here first a bit far fetched  
                       for you Art?? 

         These are important distinctions between PLASMAK(tm) 
              plasmoids and other feebler concepts. 

Once hyper conducting, the currents need little touch of d(L*i^2)/dt 
to keep them going.  Yes the inductance may change a tad too and
generate driving EMF.  Actually this is the principal means to 
maintain the toroidal currents.  The effect is to have the Kernel 
major radius expand a bit, while the Mantle radius changes little. 
The effect on PMK volume is to keep it quite constant for extended 
periods.   The shape may change making the ball a bit more ball 
shaped or flattened (pumkinish).  

It is the HIGH INTERNAL ENERGY DENSITY of the PMK that is being 
sacrificed over time, while its overall outside dimension changes 
only a very little.  Also this fits with observation.   Nearly 
spent BL's also generate less explosive effect and often nothing 
more then a popping cork sound.  

Notice that ratios have import.  For example, the PLASMAK (tm)
magnetoplasmoid is stable under compressions to high compression 
ratios, BECAUSE it compresses SELF Similarly. We should be 
able to make them in sizes up to several meters if we used some of 
the large famous world E storage facilities. But they are NOT 
NEEDED in such sizes, unless you have terawatt engines bound for
nearby stars.   Please do not take offense at my descriptions of
how these things work.     

I repeat that in REALITY, there is "little problem with the poles" 
due to the collective (MHD) behavior of the plasma.  Take this as 
a quote from M. N. Rosenbluth and you can write him care of GA or 
Dept Phys, U SD.  I'm certain he will accommodate your apprehensions.  
You might ask him of his concerns, they are real.  One of them has 
been answered (at his advice by M Lampe at NRL) relates to beam 
resistive times.  Remember to point out the boundary VALUES (one 
BAR).  

Marshall Rosenbluth has questions, and we know of a couple.  
INCIDENTALLY we also can address his questions and have to some 
extent. of discovering loss rates through calorimetry.  Trapping 
PMKs of similar energy at specified points in life, and then by 
varying the time trapping point, the differential energies would 
represent the loss for the given period between trap timing points.  
So Hurrah! we can MEASURE our beasts, and compare that result to 
your committed best professional values there at IPP.    

>This is fine: He poses a question,
>discovers that there is no solution, warns us that what follows is not
>self-consistent but might be interesting anyway, and writes down a
>configuration that we can then throw around.  (Of course, without an
>equilibrium, we won't get very far.)

Remember we have two different topologies here, an open Spheromak
which he is discussing and the PLASMAKtm magnetoplasmoid within
which the Kernel plasma is note open (insulated) to the outside.   

Cheer up, please consider discussing this with a senior MHD 
physicist such as Dr. MNRosenbluth.  

                          without PLASMAK(tm) technology 
                            the future will NOT ...  
                                  be fun
>Art Carlson
>Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics
>Garching, Germany
>carlson@ipp-garching.mpg.de
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc, Bx 1037 Prometheus II Ltd, College Park MD 20741-1037    |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.22 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Heeter Fusion == aneutronic now??
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Heeter Fusion == aneutronic now??
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 1994 06:08:08 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

>ITER and supporting activities, the fusion program should split off a
>bureaucratically-insulated $25 to $30 million/year subprogram on advanced 
>concepts.

>>(And who cares about science burns -why bother???). The conversion 
>>efficiency of DHe burns is on the order of 80 to 85% and the burn 
>>density is also much higher than can be achieved with D-T fuel.  
>>D-He3 burns so well, it should run at least an order of magnitude 
>>above Lawson on the first commercial test series.  Further, such 
>>tests shouldn't take more than four years from the start of funding 
>>or 50 mega$ in total unaccelerated funds.   

>As Art Carlson demonstrated in a separate reply, the scientific claims
>in the above two paragraphs are almost completely false.  

It is true that Art is questioning this concept, it is after all
two generations advanced of the tokamak and without a careful
scrutiny of the topology, it has no other similarity to the 
tokamak, by appearance.  That is a far cry from "showing" anything.  
For IPP and I this process has just started.  Judging by the 
brilliance they showed and put into and integrated into the ASDEX
and its variations, I don't think they dismiss interesting 
approaches with at the first sign of difficulty.  

>In any device
>where D-He3 will burn, D-T will burn at least an order of magnitude 
>more.  

Maybe you are basing your estimates on the difference in reactivity?
That is of little or no consequence, since, in a slammed PLASMAK(tm)
burner, we could melt the walls with the neutron flux.  But that
is just the problem you see.  Since the burn rate runs to the 
sixth power (density squared) of the compression ratio, we can get
megawatts / cc from the D He3, (actually prefer p-B) and blow the
liquid density fusion heated blanket into the inductive tank where
it simply expansion cools and drives electric power from coupled
inductive transform.  We have thought through this thing for some 
time now.      

>As for Koloc's claims to be able to get a D-He3 burn in 4 years
>with 50 million dollars - I presume these are using the Plasmak device,
>but as Art Carlson and Bruce Scott have shown, there are significant
>physics concerns about whether the Plasmak is as good as Koloc wants
>it to be.  

They have concerns yes, but the learning is just started there.  They
have not yet come to grips with the fact that these things do 
exist here and in Nature, and that we CAN understand them -- given
time-- THEORETICALLY.  It helps to have the product, first, however.  
COMFORTING.  

> Either way, with a $30 million pot for alternative fusion
>research, if Koloc can convince people that his idea will work, there's
>more than enough money for him to try.  I suspect he'll discover, just
>as generations of plasma physicists before him have discovered, that
>taking a relatively unknown device into new operating regimes almost
>invariably uncovers new plasma problems, problems which make it almost
>nonsensical to claim "4 years/$50 million" or "commercial fusion in
>the nineties". 

If we connect with some of the bread, yes.  But we have a ways to go
with niceness. 
As to unexpected grave problems -- don't think so.  We after all, 
are NOT using laboratory vacuum plasma physics experiments as the 
source of our reactor modeling.  We have an artificial form of something 
we think shows up in the sun and as part of atmospheric electricity.  
If the natural version survives there, perhaps the artificial form will
tame aneutronic energy here.  

   NO  MORE                          yes   Yes        YES .. 
vacuum pumps.                    Pumps itself 
more compression coils           Forms itsown in compression chamber
vacuum solid state first walls   non-impurity spewing indestructable Walls  
Limited Compression-Heating     WhatEVER we need in "Efficient" C-H

I think that you can see, if we have such advantages which should
certainly, even in your mind seem to be POSSIBLY fantastically 
advantageous!

>Given that no aneutronic device is as well-understood as the tokamak,
>and given that none of them have achieved plasma parameters close
>to the tokamak, and given that *all* of them must achieve plasma
>parameters orders of magnitude *higher* than what a D-T tokamak
>must achieve, it seems reasonable to suppose that even if we cut
>the tokamak and devoted all our efforts to advanced-concepts research,
>it would *still* take *longer* for aneutronic fusion to work. 

Not so, because nearly all of what you know is tied up
in the peculiarities of the tokamak device which is hopelessly
OUT of date, OBSOLETE.  Further, if you looked at much of the 
remaining data with a more realistic eye, I think you might 
reconsider that having information which is NOT all that positive, 
doesn't really advance your position.  Afterall, the obvious
route to look for REALLY CERTAIN FIXES is to move to concepts
which AVOID those problems all together.  Please understand 
that I realize the situation.  I traded commodities for a while,
and one finds the dilemma   Hold on ... or punt and play elsewhere.  
You're young, go for it. Pity those old guys, that are embedded,
and couldn't make a decision without a blasting shot of B-12.  

>And given that people are already so hesitant about D-T fusion,
>I wrote:

>I don't believe your 4 years claim.  I'm saying aneutronic fusion is
>60 years away if the tokamak is 40 years.  I'm also saying that if
>we do aneutronic research on the side for the next 40 years, we can
>probably still have aneutronic fusion in about 60 years, because
>once D-T tokamaks work, more money will become available for aneutronic
>research, than would have been available without D-T tokamaks.
>You win in the long run by getting D-T first, as long as you don't
>forget that you want aneutronic eventually.

Re-read previous response??
Look, PLASMAK(tm) technology isn't hung up by Lawson + eta.  We further,
don't have generations of devices like Maglich has to move up the
density regime.  We build the compressor, find the compression range
with helium, change fuels and BOOM, we are 10*+ commercial.  Border 
line pulse... hell dialup another kilobar.  I mean.. let's not get 
dainty here.   

>Hello?  "no technical uncertainty in burning D-He3"????  Get real.
>Whatever technical uncertainty there is in D-T fusion is multiplied
>by the orders of magnitude in *additional* improvement required to 
>move from D-T to aneutronic fuels.

D-T SUCKS, I wouldn't mention that a parsec from my grandmother's
grave.   What are you talking about!  Why if D-He three is there
would you want to use a diffusive radioactive fuel that puts
14MeV slugs into anything within a meter or so.  Good bye on that
topic.  Pass the baby wipes.   

>>Yes a beginning legacy of hidious pollution, and soon after junked 
>>monoliths.  

>Actually, if you read the D-T reactor studies, you'll see that you
>can make a D-T reactor so that almost all the components are 
>recyclable, with little permanent radioactive waste.  99.9999% of

Right.. pick up that trash will you.  Please drop this.. it is moot! 
In 12 years it turns into He3 and we can do something with it.  

>But you can't burn D-He3 without those further research expenditures.
>(Note to the other readers - am I making sense?  I'm not just
>railing against Koloc here; I'm trying to outline a vision for how 
>the fusion program could get to aneutronic fusion without junking 
>all the D-T work that's been done so far, and without requiring a
>complete revolution in the way the program is run.

Why bother since when we burn, who would not put money into this. 
There wouldn't be enough scientists and engineers alive to handle 
the up take.   

>>However, if you insist on going forward with the tokamak, then you
>>don't have any choice.  

>But you do Paul, that's what I'm trying to tell you.
>It's not an either-or decision; there's a middle ground.

Ha!  What, have congress come out with shotguns and force them
to splash a few bucks elsewhere??  Look how long it took to get
PPPL to do the 83 D-T burn??  You are so optimistic of orgs that
have absolute power.  IT CORRUPTS!   

>What?  You don't think the research on isotope effects, instabilities
>generated by fusion products, plasma heating, and so on will be
>relevant?  
Only in marginal machines.  

What about Kulcinski's Apollo idea, or the other D-He3
>*tokamak* designs in the ESECOM and ARIES studies?  Certainly the
>D-T research will be relevant if we end up with an aneutronic 
>*tokamak* reactor, no?

It's moot. 

>But perhaps the reason you think D-T plasma physics research isn't
>relevant to aneutronic fusion is because in your world aneutronic
>fusion doesn't follow the same laws of plasma physics?
 
Less important in well burning machines.  

No, it leads them  :-]    --- actually, THE TALENT is the key
thing, not the garbage.    

>Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
>Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University
>As always, I represent only myself, and not PPPL
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc, Bx 1037 Prometheus II Ltd, College Park MD 20741-1037    |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.22 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Heeter Fusion ->  Attacking Aneutronic Energy :-(
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Heeter Fusion ->  Attacking Aneutronic Energy :-(
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 1994 06:24:30 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

Deleted pmk garbage.  [pmk]

>> (And who cares about science burns -why bother???). The conversion 
>> efficiency of DHe burns is on the order of 80 to 85% and the burn 
>3) Power density: the fusion power density for the reaction A+B->C+D+Energy is
>   given by n_A*n_B*<sigma*v>_T*Energy, where <sigma*v>_T is the cross section 
>   sigma times the relative velocity v averaged over a Maxwellian distribution at
>   temperature T.  The energies released by D-T and D-He3 are about the same, but
>   D-He3 loses about a factor of 2 in the product of densities because it has to
>   be neutralized by two electrons. A given device will be able to contain a 
>   particular pressure n*T, so the power density will be proportional to 
>   <sigma*v>/T^2. The maximum of this function for D-T occurs around 15 keV and 
>   is 50 times higher than that for D-He3, which occurs around 50 keV. Thus in
>   any device, the power density of D-T will be two orders of magnitude higher
>   for D-T than for D-He3.


Terrific!  Now what??  You want to melt your walls??   14MeV n will
certainly carry the heat.   
I was speaking of a WORKABLE device, Art.  I aggree totally with your
point.  

>5) Lawson criterion: This is a balance between the power density discussed above
>   and the power loss expressed as something like n*T/tau_E. Thus the minimum
>   value of n*T*tau_E is inversely proportional to the maximum power density,
>   except that D-He3 wins back a factor of 5 because all of it's fusion energy
>   is available to heat the plasma, whereas 80% of D-T energy is "lost" with
>   the neutron. Thus the Lawson criterion for D-He3 is "only" a factor of 20
>   more stringent than that for D-T. In a machine where D-He3 will run an order
>   of magnitude above Lawson, D-T will run two orders of magnitude above.

We have ruled D-T out, for considerations of politics, and certain
engineering difficulties.  You agree??  

>There is serious discussion of whether the advantages of D-He3 might make up for
>the one to two orders of magnitude disadvantages in the long run. For a test
>reactor that is certainly not the case. I suspect that the disadvantages of other
>"advanced fuels" are so much more severe (except D-D, which is in about the same
>boat as D-He3) that the advantages will never overcome the poor performance.
>
>Maybe I am overly pessimistic. Can anyone tell me what the maximum of 
><sigma*v>_T/T^2 is for other fuel cycles (especially p-B11) and at what 
>temperature it occurs?

You may not be privy to the excellent conversion efficiencies one
can obtain with this PLASMAK(tm) technology.   p-B runs in the hot 
ion mode. See the Space power paper if you haven't already.  

Let's say this doesn't run quite as efficient as I think, still
its a winner.  

Thanks for pointing out the garbage.  Apologies. 

>Art Carlson
>Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics
>Garching, Germany
>carlson@ipp-garching.mpg.de

cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.22 / Paul Koloc /  Ball Lightning GIF (with jets?)
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Ball Lightning GIF (with jets?)
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 1994 04:50:05 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.


The following is a classic "accepted" picture of BL, (H. Norinder,
Problems of Atmospheric and space Electricity, Elsevier, Amsterdam,
1965, page 455.         
    NOTE:  Taken by a picnicing physicist Schneidermann in Norway
              1933.   
           Ball is line tied to earth's field declination 80degrees
           (american 2pi=360), while the vertical convection axis
           is due to the free float.  Convection velocity is propor-
           tional to vertical height, so with zero velocity at the 
           bottom polar jet ejecta pile, there is no erosion, and at 
           the upper pole the material is eroded symmetrically with 
           the vertical axis.  Since it takes a good 10 seconds 
           (35 cm horizontal width) for such convection and erosion
           to be established, this beast is LIVE, and definitely
           of the PMK ilk.                 

Printed with a b/w invert can increase perception of "splashes".   
Might be a small moth in there too. 

Cut where you must. 

+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc, Bx 1037 Prometheus II Ltd, College Park MD 20741-1037    |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+


begin 666 ballbw.gif
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I6[=VF[9XF[=FN[=\*[88?ONW7QNX@LNUP7*XB)NXBKNXC-NXZU   #MR
 
end

cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.22 / Paul Koloc /  Re: advanced fuel cycles
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: advanced fuel cycles
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 1994 07:17:37 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <30lhkkINNe2@slcawc.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de> awc@ipp-garching.mpg.de writes:
>
>In article <jaboweryCt8vzx.GzE@netcom.com>, jabowery@netcom.com (Jim Bowery) writes:
>> Matt Kennel (mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu) wrote:

>With that out of the way, is there anyone out there who would like to 
>defend with scientific arguments Koloc's anti-virial theorem, his 
>sooper-dooper conductivity, or his equilibrium without force balance?

++Hyperconductivity --- runaways  gamma+++++++++++++++++++++++++

Art the difficulty that we both have is that we agree the Virial
Theorem isn't applicablea to a region including sources.  Apparently
Art does not accept that my model contains such sources, or for some
mathematical reason unknown to me he feels that he can veto that
condition.   

We have force balance; after all, if he threw a clump of energy into 
a volume of the atmosphere; the displacment pressure  of the wad
of energy will act until force balance is achieved.  Consequently,
this system is fairly simple to specify.  The boundary and the
force free currents.  Iterate it to self consistency in a bag,
and bring the bag boundary conditions to be isobaric and perfectly 
conducting.  

He can show that by setting up a model with the approximate 
dimensions of the PLASMAK(tm).gif with aspect ratio - 1.35?? 1.5???
The ring has a hole, Del.B=0 so there is a vacuum field between the 
ring and the shell.  Set the condition that the currents are force free
in the ring, and dipole neutralizing in the shell.  Iterate the boundaries
until the pressures match; assume beta is zede.  Set the Mantle boundary
equal to 1 atm (equator 5.04? kilogauss)...  He should come up with
Fields.  Do a MonteCarlo on the energy higher density near the 
minor axis dropping toward the Mantle.  Does that determine it... 
oh yes the hole... let the separatix fall into the hole. all 14 
angstroms.   

As a check on the work he can set up the toroidal current as 
a set of nested toroids with varing current pitch.  Assuming the
current surfaces aren't magnetically diffusive.  (are perfectly 
conducting). 

Anyway, he should get a number, average it?  E-den of air is about
1j/cc.  Well?? near the toroidal axis it should read between 11 and  
maybe up to 15 j/cc.  At the equatorial mantle vacuum side -- back 
to 1j/cc. 

Note,  look at the toroidal field component alone.  It goes off as 
1/R.  So the boundary pressure at the innermost toroidal surface is
significantly higher than the outer one, just from the 1/R^2  term.  
Use that to test your results.  

>He never claimed to be an engineer. He's an "engineering physicist". 
> An engineer wouldn't think he could build a machine that violates the 
>laws of physics.

If it violates physics then wherefore it exists for hundreds of millisec.
moving freely through atmospheric (stp) air and not shrinking, fading
changing shape, color or hue, but continues to dynamically display
those such features that can only be generated by the effects of energetic 
currents, magnetic fields and other structures as they are specifically
arranged in the pmk.gif.  Witch craft this is not.  

Let's not make it difficult to find a footing from which we can
extend a more generous exchange.  If your Institute isn't open to this
then we may be in even greater difficulty.   

>Art Carlson
>Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics
>Garching, Germany
>carlson@ipp-garching.mpg.de
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.21 /  jonesse@acousb /  Re: Heeter Fusion
     
Originally-From: jonesse@acousb.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Heeter Fusion
Date: 21 Jul 94 13:24:54 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

My,my, Eugene.  Let's preserve your rash statements for posterity:

In article <940715022458_76570.2270_HHB32-1@CompuServe.COM>, 
76570.2270@compuserve.com (Eugene Mallove) writes:
                           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> My, my. Robert Heeter has some problems with how I presented the Science 
> article on the Senator Johnston budgetary hostage-taking.  
> 
>>In what way do you call it a "charade?"
> 
> O.K., Robert, "charade" was not the best word. I think "gigantic con-job" 
                                                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> would be better, because it applies to the entire tokamak program, not just
                              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> this little piddling budgetary skirmish over a lousy $70 million or so -- 
> peanuts in the context of the *intended* long-term tokamak rip-off.
                                                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> 
>>I think it's safe to say that all fusioneers would prefer to do without
>>the congressional budget circus.  I find it interesting to watch you
>>presume to know what those of us in the field are thinking.
> 
> Yes, Robert, I know that you hot fusioneers would prefer to have all your 
> money approved in advance for decades and not have to come back to Congress 
> each year to deal with the "budget circus." Yes, I know very well what you all
> are thinking. You guys think you are saviours of the world, so you will fight 
> anyone and anything that gets in your way -- aneutronic hot fusion, cold 
> fusion, or whatever.
> 
> 
>>I find it especially interesting when you suddenly claim omniscience
>>regarding our attitudes...
> 
> I am far from omniscient, just very well aware of what the typical tokamak 
> person thinks. Remember, I used to write hot fusion propaganda for Ron Parker 
> at MIT. Some of that even found its way into Fire from Ice! (N.B. It will be 
> excised in the updated edition.) I acknowledge that *some* people in hot 
> fusion can't get out fast enough, because they know the oblivion that's coming
> and they don't want to be working on a program that obviously has no future.
> 
> 
>>On the contrary, the progress shown in the December experiments (and 
>>improved upon in May, when 9 MW were generated), shows that hot fusion
>>will succeed eventually. 
> 
> Listen, Bob, quit while you're still young, energetic, and ahead. Get into 
> cold fusion, mutual funds, or basketball, but not hot fusion.  Hot fusion -- 
> at least of the tokamak variety -- will never succeed, not because it is 
> physically impossible to build an engineering-prototype tokamak 
> power-producer, but because the program has so little time left. The tokamak
                                                                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^
> program will be utterly destroyed by excess energy devices of the cold fusion 
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

> variety. I give HF two years more, tops.
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!^^^^^^^^^^^^
The same two years Mallove proposes in his "challenge" for cf
verification, or the catch-all 'and/or "something else" ' he cleverly adds.

> 
> 
>>Johnston wasn't threatening to kill fusion, just to delay the program 
>>until the administration got itself firmly behind ITER.
> 
> I know, I know. Quite a game of chicken, eh?
> 
> 
>>Your suppositions are insulting, especially because you apparently
>>couldn't bring yourself to ask politely.
> 
> Hey, man, what do you have against left big toes? O.K., thanks for the info on
> the $2 megabucks for s.c. magnets.
> 
> 
>>On the senate floor Johnston
>>sponsored an amendment to restore TPX funding; the amendment passed.
>>TPX is now fully funded in both the house and senate bills, and will
>>therefore go into construction mode starting next fiscal year.  This
>>all happened over a week ago.
> 
> Oh, goddie, goodie, the con-artists got their money after all! You thought I
                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> didn't think they would get it?

No question about Gene Mallove's meaning, is there?
> 
> 
>>Congress seems to be behind fusion once again.
> 
> You are living in a dream world, Bob. Get real! The first program to get the 
> ax after the working CF devices are accepted by all people -- except Huizenga,
> Morrison, and Jones -- will be hot fusion.
> 

Just two more years, folks, my knees they are a-knockin'.
> 
> --Gene Mallove
> 


--Steve
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenjonesse cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.21 /  jonesse@acousb /  Mallove's challenge, deja vu
     
Originally-From: jonesse@acousb.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Mallove's challenge, deja vu
Date: 21 Jul 94 14:16:42 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

With regard to Mallove's challenge or bet that "cf" will be
verified by July 19, 1996, I need answers from him to a few questions:

1.  This is *not* the first such challenge -- since Mallove bet Morrison that cf
would be verified and the time for this bet has past.  Am I right, Gene?

2.  Whatever happened to the Mallove-Morrison bet?  Who won?  If you did not
concede on that MM-pact, why should one trust you to stick to the results of
this bet?

Hey, I found details of this old wager in Mallove's own cf book, p. 232:

"I talked with archskeptic Douglas Morrison of CERN ... and agreed to take him
up on his proffered wager about cold fusion.  We formalized the gamble in a
written agreement, signed the gentlemanly understanding... 

"I look forward to a mighty fine bottle of wine in 1993 (if not sooner) and
                                                   ^^^^
expect that as a one-time cold fusion "believer," Douglas will be very happy to
buy it.  Cheers!"

So how did the wine taste, Douglas?


3.  And now you want to start fresh, as if that earlier signed agreement never
happened, and give you two *more* years?

4.  Shucks, Gene, do you even know what the heck "cold fusion" is?
In your *latest* wager you want me to sign, you write:

"CF, for the purposes of this agreement, is defined as a 
a new nuclear process,
and/or a super-chemical process orders of magnitude beyond the energy release
   of *any* standard chemistry,
and/or "something else"..."

Now, this "something else" is rather broad, isn't it, Gene?*   Playing it
rather safe this time around, aren't you?

Ha, ha.  No thanks, I'd rather put my signature and my money elsewhere.

--Steven Jones


*Thanks to F. Close for calling this to my attention privately.

cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenjonesse cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.21 /  jonesse@acousb /  Mitch misinterprets
     
Originally-From: jonesse@acousb.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Mitch misinterprets
Date: 21 Jul 94 15:09:44 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

Mitch Swartz writes:  "one interpretation is that [blah, blah]",
trying to interpret what I wrote several days ago.  Well, your interpretation
is wrong, Mitch.  Has it ever occurred to you to ask *me* what I meant?

cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenjonesse cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.22 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Mitch misinterprets
     
Originally-From: barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Mitch misinterprets
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 94 17:53:54 GMT
Organization: UCLA, Mathematics Department

In article <1994Jul21.150944.1686@acousb.byu.edu>  writes:
> Mitch Swartz writes:  "one interpretation is that [blah, blah]",
> trying to interpret what I wrote several days ago.  Well, your interpretation
> is wrong, Mitch.  Has it ever occurred to you to ask *me* what I meant?

Steve: I advise you not to waste too many keystrokes on the
CF zealots in this group. 

There are two factors to consider:

(1) in electronic communications, people frequently "overstate" their
case, i.e. they appear more bellicose than they really are. 

AND/OR

(2) "on the Internet, no one knows you're a dog"---i.e. you are
probably wasting your breath talking to people who are not
scientists in any sense of the word, or are otherwise just blowing
hot air.

In either case, probably best to ignore their rantings. You are a real
scientist, that is certain. No need for you to fend off ridiculous
accusations from net dwellers.


--
Barry Merriman
UCLA Dept. of Math
UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)


cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.21 / Cary Jamison /  Re: Free Energy Machine Technology News !
     
Originally-From: cary@esl.com (Cary Jamison)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Free Energy Machine Technology News !
Date: 21 Jul 1994 20:01:02 GMT
Organization: ESL Inc., A TRW Company

Based on recent posts, it seems more and more obvious that cold fusion is
moving into the same stage as other free energy devices.  For many years to
come we will be seeing claims of excess energy from various new twists of
P&F.  Each will come with a little uproar and then fade away into the
noise.  Each will be backed by some "expert scientists" who have studied
the devices.  There will be many who believe whole-heartedly.  In efforts
to explain how the devices work, there will be many more strange theories. 
Already we're seeing that they all extract energy from vacuums or other
such strangeness.  But none of the devices will ever be made commercially
viable.

And it's all the oil companies' fault!  They pay-off the inventors with a
zillion dollars and then bury the technology so they won't lose their oil
market.  Just like they did to that guy from Oklahoma who invented the
200mpg carb.  Or the little old lady from Pasadena who. . ., oh that's a
different story.

BTW - are vacuums created in the Pd lattice during loading?  Hmm...
--
Cary Jamison
cary@esl.com
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudencary cudfnCary cudlnJamison cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.23 / Eugene Mallove /  MM-Pact Signatories, Update
     
Originally-From: 76570.2270@compuserve.com (Eugene Mallove)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: MM-Pact Signatories, Update
Date: Sat, 23 Jul 1994 03:38:49 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway


Signatories so far to the MM-Pact:

Barry Merriman       7/20/94
barry@math.ucla.edu

Laurie Forbes        7/20/94
lforbes@debug.cuc.ab.ca

Only two takers so far? Where are all the other brave "skeptics"? Or are they 
having second thoughts?

Gene Mallove

cudkeys:
cuddy23 cuden2270 cudfnEugene cudlnMallove cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.22 /  DSchnei /  Re: A lie in any case
     
Originally-From: dschnei@aol.com (DSchnei)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A lie in any case
Date: 22 Jul 1994 01:04:11 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

In article <940718174124_72240.1256_EHB110-1@CompuServe.COM>,
72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:

>In any case, all these jokes and accusations that CF is a hoax are lies.
Many other people have written similar accusations of hoaxes in this
Digest, some in jokes, some quite serious. Dieter Britz once accused me of
engineering a hoax during the Nagoya Conference. I thought he was kidding
at first, but I later realized he was serious. I think he is insane, I
think he actually believed these wild delusions and fantasies he made up
about me. It could be that Jones believes that Pons, Fleischmann, Ikegami
or some other leading figure in this field is a con men. In that case, his
statements are not lies, they are pitiful delusions.

This is too much!  Jed, you have a problem.  Please go get treatment
before subjecting us to more of this.

-David Schneider
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudendschnei cudlnDSchnei cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.21 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Ball Lightning Carlson  Part 1
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Ball Lightning Carlson  Part 1
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 1994 18:22:58 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <30eauiINN16b@slcawc.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de> awc@ipp-garching.mpg.de writes:
*************************WARNING***********************
This cripplingly long post by an involved ipp numericist and Koloc is
split in 4 chunks for a more humane punishiment of the masses.  [pmk]
  
                        this is part 1
 ------------------------------------------------------

In article <30eauiINN16b@slcawc.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de> awc@ipp-garching.mpg.de writes:
>I'd like to thank Joseph Davidson for taking the time to (partially)
>answer Bruce Scott's questions. I skimmed through the references, and
>it looks like DOE got their 200k$ worth. 

There is a lot to this story including the funding value and 
the physics related to its cutoff you should know, if the physics
of this tangle are to be combed out and a unhealthful practice
to the fusion program is to be terminated.  Joe and I put heads 
together for a few minutes and came up with the fact that PLASMAK(tm) 
magnetoplasmoids (PMK)s are vastly different than Spheromaks (as 
the difference between tokamaks and Spheromaks, or tokamaks and 
Stellarators.  For the interests of our particular approach to 
pry into the beast, the differences are magnified.     

In deference to the fusion community, concepts become owned things
and they are assigned to institutes and there is a problem with 
book keeping when something strange shows up. Here is the story

At Well's lab, Well's, Davidson et. al. had to "opposing ice cream
cones" of a slotted conductor which was pulsed  producing two
donut plasmoids ejecting into a vacuum cylindrical chamber.  Around
the chamber was a wide strap (theta pinch) which produced a strong
compression pulsed field to compress said plasma rings when they
"merged together" and hung there mid chamber.  Well, almost merged
together. in some experiments maybe not all, the toroidal fields 
within the Spheromak rings was rolled antiparallel and so they
formed a toroidal external contour all right, but I think there 
may have been a "spacing gap down the mid-plane". That's not 
important. Then the theta pinch strap compressed them and
every one went home.   That's what was supposed to have happened
and the papers thought had happened, but that's NOT what 
happened.  

What happened was the biggest breakthough in fusion science happened
and it ended up a tragedy. The clue was that, the experimental data
didn't match up with what was supposed to have happened.  
Specifically, the results couldn't be..  There was two possibilities,
first that Wells, et al. were incompetent or that something 
wonderful had happened and they should immediately be funded to
find out what it was, in order to use it elsewhere, or perhaps
find the "error".  The problem was the data was from several channels
and it was all consistent with a thermonuclear burn. That was
impossible, because like in the tokamak, there isn't enough 
pressure available to produce the nkT they had measured.  NOT even
with the peak pressure in the theta pinch strap.     
  
Art, keep you eye on the plasmoid here, because it changes.  It is
first a Spheromak and then... it becomes a PMK.  Put yourself
in the advising scientist's shoes fund or not fund.  They voted no.

What had actually happened was this.  First the plasmoids had no
pressure boundary, so they managed to stay "confined" by evaporating
or throwing off the more energetic particles, including electrons.  
but that filled the chamber with a background ionized gas.  It
persisted because of the ionizing radiation and the relative sparsely.    
Remember these times are relatively fast .. few tens of microseconds 
maybe hundred.  eh! but that's just to get the plasmoids married.   

Once wed the theta pinch strap fires and YES  it did  
It set up a theta pinch discharge in the background plasma and that
thickened and accelerated inward like a hammer smashing down on the
magnetized plasma ring (now a Kernel plasma ring) and forming a
compression Mantle wave which the came in three dimensionally.  
The compression scaling then switches to E goes as c.   
So the plasmoid became "Inertially compressed" and the huge mass
of the driver drove it to burn.  The ions get heated, the electrons
(hotter ones) flash off.. and  the thermonuclear neutrons where born
form dd.     

What was maddening is that the drip that chopped the funding did 
his thesis on the theta pinch.   How could they miss it. Anyway
some one showed me the paper a year or so later and I scanned it
and noticed the possibility, and then a year after that ran in
to Dan Wells, and we pinned it down to that process.  Of course, 
who can say for certain... The shadow knows    he he he eh eeh eehh! 
Anyway, I have an old patent description of that process filed 
in 1973, so I did anticipate it.  But that was before I could form 
them in air with hyperconducting currents.    

There is absolutely not a shred of doubt in my mind that this
is the best explanation and that this experiment if funded would
have led to commercial fusion long BEFORE NOW. That's the tragedy
of resolving conflicts between theory and fortuitous experimental 
data by assuming chicanery and chopping the funding.  Notice how 
quick Art jumps on my newer version of the PMK, because it does not 
suit his fancy.  I hope you take this as a thoughtfully considered
response Art.   

In the end the DoE, the world, received NOTHING from this fantastic
happening. I find the responsible practice difficult to resolve as 
a project engineering management technique.  My wife assures me
that hormone deficits have  nothing to do with it..BB is retired  
in any event.  

What I would like you to consider, is what differences would you 
use to probe targets such as the Spheromak "spewing plasma" 
for confinement aid which has no pressure at the infinitely far
poloidal boundary, and accepting a nearly idealized PMK which 
has all the poloidal flux within the shell except 2%. Note that
this PMK has a completely separate Mantle and Kernel plasma and
accept that the vacuum boundaries are sharp (one Larmor radius).      
You should also now that the Kernel plasma does not lose any
mass.  Jet mass flow is entirely the function of Mantle physics.  
And it is a necessary feature in all gas blanketed cases.   
Consequently, it should be discernible in natural Ball Lightning
and I will GIF a picture of one "the Schnidermann Photograph". 

                                      For the informed laity, I'd
>like to point out that the plasmoids referred to were created with a
>conical theta pinch.  At first blush, one would expect this machine to
>produce a Field-Reversed Configuration (FRC), that is, a compact torus
>with purely poloidal flux.  

Yes the toroidal feature happens I think because as the plasmoid
rolls out, the poloidal current shifts from one end more to the 
other and this gives a poloidal current like motion and a toroidal 
field inducing effect.     

It would be purely poloidal ONLY iff the gun were a theta pinch 
with no lateral roll out and tearing off of the plasma ring away 
from the yet magnetically active gun.  

>Experimentally, the magnetic field is seen to
>have a sizable toroidal component, making the configuration closer to
>a Spheromak.  

And it remained a Spheromak until the theta pinch compression wave 
impinged its magnetized field.  

>                Due to formation physics, T_i > T_e is not surprising, 
>although maybe it shouldn't stay that way so long.  


This plasma was compression heated, so  high ion temperature resulted.  
This is an ideal (hot ion) mode, for aneutronic burns since it relieves 
both Bremsstrahlung and Cyclotron losses.     

It lasted all through the formation and coalescence.  Then continued
until the compression and burning stops.  

>Important!  These animals are short lived: Davidson's "1 ms" and
>"10 ms" refer to *micro*-seconds.  Also, the experiments are done
>under vacuum.  

It was a fast at the compression only, but before longer 50usec??.  
Which I think should indicate the fantastic value of long lived 
high pressure plasmoids 100ds of milliseconds to seconds.  

For D. Wells, J. Davidson et al. - the short 10 usecs was because 
they run with "thermal electron currents".  AND because they were 
compression heated (ions), the small physical size and inductance 
was reduced and correspondingly - the mag time.  Inductance goes 
with linear size (compression ratio - may come up later in 
discussion in a later post).   

            without PLASMAK(tm) technology 
              the future will NOT ...  
                    be fun

>Art Carlson
>Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics
>Garching, Germany
>carlson@ipp-garching.mpg.de

+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc, BX 1037 Prometheus II LTD, College Park MD 20741-1037    |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Sat Jul 23 04:37:16 EDT 1994
------------------------------
1994.07.22 / Gary Steckly /  Re: Merriman-Mallove Pact - "MM Pact"
     
Originally-From: gsteckly@dgim.doc.ca (Gary Steckly)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Merriman-Mallove Pact - "MM Pact"
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 94 23:51:16 GMT
Organization: Communications Canada

Eugene Mallove (76570.2270@compuserve.com) wrote:
: Barry Merriman Proposes an Excellent and Definitive Challenge. I hearby take 
: him up on it, publicly agreeing on this forum to sign the agreement below. 
: Henceforth, this mutually signed document will be known as the 
: Merriman-Mallove Pact -- the "MM Pact" for short. O.K.?

(some deleted text for economy)

: >
: >Well? I'll sign if you will. 
: >
: >
: >--
: >Barry Merriman
: >UCLA Dept. of Math
: >UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
: >barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)

: O.K. Barry, over to you, SIGN publicly as I just have. I feel only a slight 
: --*very slight* -- tinge of guilt letting you sign this, because winning is 
: going to be so easy. Yes that's how sure I am, based on knowledge of 
: industrial developments in my possession. I will also make clear, just in case
: there is any ambiguity, that the *first* commercially useful excess energy 
: devices will NOT likely be palladium-heavy water electrolysis (a la F&P) or 
: even Mills-type electrolysis. They will likely be high-temperature materials 
: running with minimal or zero power input in deuterium and/or hydrogen 
: atmospheres. You will be able to read about these in forthcoming issues of our
: magazine.

well Gene...it looks like you called their bluff.  The true disbelievers
don't seem to be quite so quick to pick up their own gauntlet that you've
tossed back.  Can't say I blame them.  I certainly wouldn't want to bet so
firmly against this miraculous new phenomenon either. But I have a
feeling that it's going to be resolved a lot sooner than we think.

: Now for the rest of you "skeptics," if you are so convinced of your scientific
: rectitude, will you kindly e-mail me your electronically signed form? If you 
: don't, I will assume that you lack the courage of Barry Merriman, who I 
: believe to be a very courageous man for putting his scientific reputation so 
: firmly on the line.

: ELECTRONICALLY SIGN and e-mail to Gene Mallove the following declaration:

: ***********************************************************************

: Given that:

: (a) =  CF will be widely accepted as existing  
: (b) =  CF will be widely accepted as energy producing
: (c) =  CF will be widely accepted as economically viable 
: AND (a), (b), or (c) will occur on or before July 19, 1996

: (CF, for the purposes of this agreement, is defined as a new nuclear process, 
: and/or a super-chemical process orders of magnitude beyond the energy release 
: capability of *any* standard chemistry, and/or "something else" like tapping 
: of ZPE.)


: We, G. Mallove (Eugene F. Mallove) and ______________, having diametrically 
: opposed views on the subject of CF, agree in 2 years time (on or before July 
: 19, 1996) to publically acknowledge---based on the status of (a) & (b) & (c) 
: above---that either:

: (1) G. Mallove is a wishful thinking, scientifically ignorant crank/dupe

: or

: (2) _________ is a small minded, scientifically stagnant sheep/dupe


you have a way with words...I couldn't put it better, except maybe
lemmings would be more appropriate than sheep.


: SIGNED:   G. Mallove (Eugene F. Mallove) and _______________________________
: Date of Nth party signing __________________


: ****************************************************************************


: I will keep track of those who have signed the "MM Pact" against my position 
: on CF and will periodically post names to the net.  Above all, I eagerly await
: Frank Close's and Steve Jones' signatures.

maybe they are on vacation...better repost this is a month... if it's not too
late by then!

: Ad Astra!   Gene Mallove


best regards Gene

Gary
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudengsteckly cudfnGary cudlnSteckly cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.21 /  jonesse@acousb /  Re: Michael Fullerton's accusations
     
Originally-From: jonesse@acousb.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Michael Fullerton's accusations
Date: 21 Jul 94 12:28:17 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

Due to computer problems, I have not received postings for several days.
Below, I find that Michael Fullerton makes certain statements upon which
I must challenge him.

In article <Jul16.062821.59257@acs.ucalgary.ca>, 
mefuller@acs.ucalgary.ca (Michael Ernest Fullerton) writes:
> In article <303lbc$c2e@wu.labs.tek.com>,
> Arnie Frisch <arnief@wu.labs.tek.com> wrote:
>>In article <940714133254_72240.1256_EHB140-1@CompuServe.COM>
72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
>>..
>>>Jones is a consummate liar and plagiarist. He tried to steal Pons and
>>>Fleischmann's idea is 1989, and since then he has published endless lies and
>>>distortions about other people's work here on the e-mail. Now he lying about a
>>>dead man -- making jokes about a dead man! -- saying he was a con-man. Steve
>>>Jones knows no shame. He has no respect for the dead, and no respect for the
>>>truth. He will stoop to anything.
>>
>>Now I think he's done it!  If Jones needs a lawyer whose specialty
>>is libel, I believe I can help him.  I don't think Jed has a chance
>>of a snowball in hell of avoiding a major judgement.
> 
> Actually, if I am not mistaken, Taubes himself has said Jones stole ideas
> from the good Drs P&F.

Show me where:  what ideas were purportedly stolen?  I find no such accusation
in Taubes' book.  Enlighten us, or admit you were mistaken.

>  Anyone who has been reading s.p.f for a while will
> know that Jones has several times made inaccurate statements about other's
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> work.  Whether this was deliberate or simply a wish to believe I cannot
> say. 


Really?  OK, give us several of these cases.  Substantiate your claims.
If I have made errors, I believe I have acknowledged these.  If you make
inaccurate statements about me, will you do the same?

>    Whether this was deliberate or simply a wish to believe I cannot say.

But you're sure these are the only two alternatives for me?  Where do you
get off making such profound psychoanalyses without a shred of substantiation?

> Jones also certainly did imply that the late Mr. Toyoda was a con man
> and then tried to weasel out of it.
>

I certainly did not.  Mr. Toyoda said, "I have *confidence* that it [cold
fusion] will become the greatest asset as an eventual energy for mankind...",
and I stated that it took quite a man to inspire such confidence.  I certainly
did *not* mean that Mr. Toyoda was a con man, as Mr. Fullerton tries to twist
my words to say.  Rather Mr. Toyoda was the one whose confidence had clearly
been gained.

 
> Has Jones sued Taubes?
> 
> -- 
> Michael Fullerton         |  Seeds, like ideas, don't | All play and no work
> mefuller@acs.ucalgary.ca  |  germinate in concrete    | makes Jack a dull boy.

For what?  I did not like his book which seemed to be mean-spirited.  But
what do you see that I might sue him for?

Mr. Fullerton, I resent your accusations and misrepresentations.
If you wonder if I have sued Taubes, should you not wonder if I might sue
you?  Your statements are made publicly, they are slanderous and have no
substantiation.  I'm tired of this.

--Steven Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenjonesse cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.21 /  jonesse@acousb /  Re: Jones will (not) stoop to anything
     
Originally-From: jonesse@acousb.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Jones will (not) stoop to anything
Date: 21 Jul 94 12:33:38 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

In article <309otf$67g@quartz.ucs.ualberta.ca>, 
swekla@ee.ualberta.ca (Brent Swekla) writes:
> In article <Jul16.062821.59257@acs.ucalgary.ca> mefuller@acs.ucalgary.ca  
> (Michael Ernest Fullerton) writes:
>> Jones also certainly did imply that the late Mr. Toyoda was a con
>> man and then tried to weasel out of it.
> 
> Humph! Time to put an end to this...
> 
> From the original Steven Jones post:
>> Mr. Toyoda himself is quoted by H. Ikegami in the Proceedings of
>> the Nagoya conf. on cold fusion:
>>
>> "Cold fusion is not a matter to be studied by one single enterprise
>> or nation. I have confidence that it will become the greatest asset
>              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> as an eventual energy for mankind, to be shared among the world."
>> (PRoceedings, p. iv, 1993)
>>
>> It takes quite a MAN to inspire such CONfidence.
> 
> Steven Jones' meaning is *very* clear. He is saying that Mr. Toyoda
> is the victim of a confidence man, his confidence in cold fusion
> having been inspired by such a man. Mr. Fullerton owes Steven Jones
> an apology. I would also respectfully submit that under the
> circumstances Mr. Fullerton should keep accusations about "inaccurate
> statements" to himself, unless he is prepared to present evidence
> in support of his accusations.
> --
> Brent Swekla                          "Sleep furiously."
> swekla@ee.ualberta.ca

Thank you, Brent, that is correct.
--Steven Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenjonesse cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.21 /  Lforbes@debug. /  Re: Free Energy Machine Technology News !
     
Originally-From: Lforbes@debug.cuc.ab.ca
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Free Energy Machine Technology News !
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 1994 23:56:40 GMT
Organization: Debug Computer Services

With reference to your description of test runs of the "excess" energy
device at Hydro Dynamics, I have noted that the input power meter, being
rated at 800 KW full scale, is in fact operating during the test runs at
only about 2% of full scale (14 to 23 KW). 

Most, if not all, meters I am familiar with would have serious measurement 
error, with respect to the value being metered, when utilized at such a 
small full scale percentage.  If the *full scale* meter error is 1.5% as 
stipulated, the error at a reading of only 2% of full scale would be 
potentially upwards of 50 to 75%, would it not?  If so, that would be 
more than enough to account for the apparent excess heat.

Why not use a 25 KW or so meter instead?

Regards,
Laurie Forbes
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenLforbes cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.22 /  jonesse@acousb /  Response to Jed's latest ad hominem attack
     
Originally-From: jonesse@acousb.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Response to Jed's latest ad hominem attack
Date: 22 Jul 94 13:09:16 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

Jed,
 
I did not call Mr. Toyoda a con-man nor was my brief posting a "joke"
about a "dead man", not at all-- rather it is you who have tried to 
make my post sound that way.  I certainly did not know that Mr. Toyoda
had passed away; my condolences.

On the matter of Taubes book, you claim that he says that I stole something
from P&F, but you have not shown where he says it, nor what I am supposed
to have stolen.  I have not found any such accusation in Taubes' book,
so here's your chance to show me in error.  I believe your repeated accusations
along this line are unsupported and incorrect.  
Again I ask you substantiate your claims.  Perhaps Mike Fullerton will
help you find the substantiation since he made a similar claim, again
without any evidence put forth.

The logbooks of our studies of piezonuclear fusion (now called "cold fusion")
go back to 1986 in detail, and are not just mine.  If you don't believe them,
you are calling not only me a liar but also Prof. Paul Palmer, a true
gentleman scholar, and Bart Czirr and Gary Jensen and Rod Price, and finally
Lee R. Phillips, a notary and BYU attorney who notarized my own logbook
on the subject on April 7, 1986.  In so doing, Lee wrote:
                           ^^^^
"Re catalyzed fusion process outlined above was explained and formulated on or
prior to 4/7/86 (April)   [signed] Lee R. Phillips."

In this notarized, dated logbook, I discuss the use of palladium (stating
"dissolve much hydrogen")   as well as nickel, aluminum, lithium and 
other metals.
"Shocked hydrides" and "electric discharge" are specifically mentioned.
The possibility of fusion inside the earth is included, which was an idea
forwarded by BYU Prof. Paul Palmer in March 1986, following a colloquium
I gave at BYU on this very subject (now called 'cold fusion').  There were
dozens of scientists and students present at this lecture.  We did not
hear of P&F until 2.5 years later.  Go ahead, call me a liar (as you did
again in a recent post, this time using the name of Deity), but it
ain't so.

--Steven Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenjonesse cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.22 /  jonesse@acousb /  Bart Czirr on cold fusion at BYU/1986
     
Originally-From: jonesse@acousb.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Bart Czirr on cold fusion at BYU/1986
Date: 22 Jul 94 13:19:46 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

Further documentation of our early research on piezonuclear fusion, if such is
needed:  In an SBIR proposal submitted to the US Dept. of Energy on May 14,
1986, Bart Czirr states:

"The present detector with improved resolution will find application in
several diverse fields, including:
Magnetically confined fusion plasma temperature measurements for d-d and d-t
reactions, 
muon-catalyzed fusion experiments, 
other cold fusion experiments, [etc.].
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Experiments are currently in progress at Brigham Young University to search for
                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
evidence of electron-catalyzed fusion in metals containing deuterium atoms.
            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
A neutron spectrometer would provide an important diagnostic tool for the
detection of 2.5 MeV neutrons from d-d reactions taking place in these
experiments."

Copies of this document can be obtained from Dr. Czirr at BYU or myself,
and probably can be obtained from the DOE.  That date again:  May 14, 1986.

--Steven Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenjonesse cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.22 /  jonesse@acousb /  cancel <1994Jul22.131839.1688@acousb.byu.edu>
     
Originally-From: jonesse@acousb.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cancel <1994Jul22.131839.1688@acousb.byu.edu>
Date: 22 Jul 94 13:19:58 -0600

cancel <1994Jul22.131839.1688@acousb.byu.edu>
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenjonesse cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.22 /  jonesse@xray.b /  Re: Jones will stoop to anything 
     
Originally-From: jonesse@xray.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Jones will stoop to anything 
Date: 22 Jul 94 14:32:13 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

This is re-posted since it may have been dropped due to computer problems
experienced here circa July 15.

In article <940714133254_72240.1256_EHB140-1@CompuServe.COM>, 
72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:

> To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
> 
> I wrote:
> 
>      "Why on earth does Steve Jones accuse the late Mr. Toyoda of being a
>      confidence man? ... Jones should butt out and mind his own damn
>      business."
> 
> Jones responded:
>  
>      "I made no such accusation. My business is science.  This business
>      includes, I believe, detection and reporting of errors.
> 
> Yet, on July 8, 1994 he wrote:
> 
>      "Mr. Toyoda himself is quoted by H. Ikegami in the Proceedings of the
>      Nagoya conf. on cold fusion:
>  
>      "Cold fusion is not a matter to be studied by one single enterprise or
>      nation. I have confidence that it will become the greatest asset as an
>      eventual energy for mankind, to be shared among the world."    
>      (PRoceedings, p. iv, 1993)
>  
>      It takes quite a MAN to inspire such CONfidence."
> 
> 
> This stupid little joke implies that Toyoda is a CON-MAN (confidence man;
> hoaxer). He does not have the guts to come right out and say it, but the
> meaning is perfectly obvious. Now Jones is denying that is what he meant.

Mr. Toyoda said, "I have *confidence* that it will become the greatest asset
as an eventual energy for mankind..." (quoted above), and I stated that
it took quite a man to inspire such confidence.  I certainly did *not* mean
that Mr. Toyoda was a CON-MAN, as Mr. Rothwell tries to twist my words to
say.  Rather Mr. Toyoda was the one whose confidence had clearly been gained.

This discussion goes back to an earlier essay on the distinction of
scientists and salesmen which I posted here some months ago. I'll dig it up if
people want to see it.   I suspect that a
resourceful salesman or salespersons were involved in the sale of "cold fusion"
 to Mr. Toyoda,
for the science does not justify his confidence that cold fusion "will become
the greatest asset as an eventual energy for mankind."  This was my meaning
in my terse sentence which Jed quotes above.

> Jones is a consummate liar and plagiarist. He tried to steal Pons and
> Fleischmann's idea is 1989, and since then he has published endless lies and
> distortions about other people's work here on the e-mail. Now he lying about a
> dead man -- making jokes about a dead man! -- saying he was a con-man. Steve
> Jones knows no shame. He has no respect for the dead, and no respect for the
> truth. He will stoop to anything.
> 
> - Jed Rothwell
> 

A couple of people have suggested that Jed goes too far here, with his
unsubstantiated accusations.  No, Jed, I'm not a liar, and you've failed to
prove this in past insinuations.  I do make errors, and indeed I've had to
eat crow and retract claims of observations of large bursts of neutrons.  My
paper on this is approaching publication, incidentally.  

Calling me a plagiarist is a new one, I think.  Can you substantiate this
accusation?

"He tried to steal Pons and Fleischmann's idea in 1989"  -- just what idea
did I try to steal?  What did I do to try to steal it?  

I and my colleagues
here, and Rod Price and others have shown our logbooks which go back to 1986
in detail, and earlier in short notes, documenting that we have been working
on the idea of cold fusion without muons since 1985.  Indeed, Clint Van Siclen
and I published a paper on this idea which appeared in March 1986, just weeks
before our electrolysis experiments began in May 1986.  We did not hear
anything about P&F or their related (actually remotely) research until 2 1/2
years later.  The interested reader
is directed to the thorough treatment of this business in Frank Close's book
"To Hot To Handle:  The Race for Cold Fusion."  And other books do a reasonable
job as well, especially Huizenga's.

You know, Jed, I do resent your accusations which I believe are false and
libelous.  This is a public network.  You are going too far.

--Steven Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenjonesse cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.22 /  jonesse@xray.b /  cancel <1994Jul15.123635.1679@xray.byu.edu>
     
Originally-From: jonesse@xray.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cancel <1994Jul15.123635.1679@xray.byu.edu>
Date: 22 Jul 94 14:33:05 -0600

cancel <1994Jul15.123635.1679@xray.byu.edu>
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenjonesse cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.22 /  jonesse@acoust /  NTT cold-fusion kit revisited
     
Originally-From: jonesse@acoust.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: NTT cold-fusion kit revisited
Date: 22 Jul 94 17:28:35 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

About 18 months ago, NTT in Japan offered a 'kit' for sale which they
guaranteed would produce helium-4 and excess heat.  This was touted in a 
J. Wall Street article as I recall.  I also remember that NTT stock
climbed by billions of dollars right at the time such claims were made,
although a correlation is difficult to prove.

Does anyone know what happened to the  NTT 'cold-fusion kit'?
Was anyone outside of NTT successful with it?
Why doesn't J. Wall Street follow up on their hype-up stories like this?
                 
-=-Steven Jones                           
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenjonesse cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.24 / Jed Rothwell /  Dranetz power meter
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Dranetz power meter
Date: Sun, 24 Jul 1994 00:16:12 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org

Laurie Forbes (Lforbes@debug.cuc.ab.ca) writes:
 
     "With reference to your description of test runs of the "excess" energy
     device at Hydro Dynamics, I have noted that the input power meter, being
     rated at 800 KW full scale, is in fact operating during the test runs at
     only about 2% of full scale (14 to 23 KW).
 
     Most, if not all, meters I am familiar with would have serious
     measurement error, with respect to the value being metered, when
     utilized at such a small full scale percentage.  If the *full scale*
     meter error is 1.5% as stipulated, the error at a reading of only 2% of
     full scale would be potentially upwards of 50 to 75%, would it not?"

That is incorrect. Please see Ref 5, General Electric Corp, Dranetz Series 808
operator manual equipment specifications. At these power levels the meter
rated at 0.5% accuracy. This was verified by running the meter in parallel
with a variety of other meters, including electric power company billing
meters. All meters that I observed agreed to within a percent. Follow up
studies by an independent consulting engineer confirmed my observations.
Please note that the Dranetz meter was calibrated by G.E. on October 5, 1993,
and that in previous tests, the Dranetz compared within a percent to a second
power meter, a BMI 3030, which was installed in parallel. If there was a 75%
error in one or both of the meters, I think it is most unlikely that it would
be *exactly* 75% in both, and in the same direction, and consistent across a
wide range of power levels seen as the machine was revved up and loaded with
water.


     "Why not use a 25 KW or so meter instead?"

As noted above, a variety of meters have been used at Hydro Dynamics and at
customer sites. If the Hydro Dynamics device does not actually create excess
energy, than at very least we have established beyond that the device will
fool any common type of electric power meter to a very significant extent. In
other words, if this device is not creating energy then it is stealing energy
from the electric power company. The device does, definitely reduce electric
bills. This should be a major concern to electric power companies.

Final tests with dynamometers and a large scale calorimeter should be
completed within three months. These tests should settle the question once and
for all. I myself have no doubt that the device creates energy, because I
think it is virtually impossible to fool every common type of electric meter
by as much as 65%.

- Jed Rothwell

cudkeys:
cuddy24 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.23 / Matt Kennel /  Re: Heeter Fusion == aneutronic now??
     
Originally-From: mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Heeter Fusion == aneutronic now??
Date: 23 Jul 1994 18:50:05 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

Paul M. Koloc (pmk@prometheus.UUCP) wrote:
:Since the burn rate runs to the 
: sixth power (density squared) of the compression ratio, we can get
: megawatts / cc from the D He3, (actually prefer p-B)

Suppose Iraq bought a Plasmak reactor that could burn p-B.

How big a boom if they decided to put in D-T?  boom? Boom?  Or *BOOM*??

: | Paul M. Koloc, Bx 1037 Prometheus II Ltd, College Park MD 20741-1037    |

--
-Matt Kennel  		mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu
-Institute for Nonlinear Science, University of California, San Diego
-*** AD: Archive for nonlinear dynamics papers & programs: FTP to
-***     lyapunov.ucsd.edu, username "anonymous".
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenmbk cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.23 / Matt Kennel /  Re: Ball Lightning Carlson  Part 2
     
Originally-From: mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Ball Lightning Carlson  Part 2
Date: 23 Jul 1994 18:57:30 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

Paul M. Koloc (pmk@prometheus.UUCP) wrote:
: No assumption here, we can give some of this as reality tested, 
: although much of certain work is confidential.  The model however is
: well thought out and established.  It is lightly published.    
: This is not an education institute and our funds are not public.  

Question:  suppose you did publish?  What harm could possibly come to your
'institute'?  What good might possibly come to your institute if
lots of people started to believe in your process?

: +-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
: | Paul M. Koloc, Bx 1037 Prometheus II Ltd, College Park MD 20741-1037    |
: | mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
: | VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
: +-------------------------------------------------------------------------+


--
-Matt Kennel  		mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu
-Institute for Nonlinear Science, University of California, San Diego
-*** AD: Archive for nonlinear dynamics papers & programs: FTP to
-***     lyapunov.ucsd.edu, username "anonymous".
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenmbk cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.23 / John Logajan /  Re: Free Energy Machine Technology News !
     
Originally-From: al789@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Free Energy Machine Technology News !
Date: 23 Jul 1994 20:11:15 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)


Lforbes@debug.cuc.ab.ca (3 Jul 1994 03:38:49 GMT) says:

>Most, if not all, meters I am familiar with would have serious measurement 
>error, with respect to the value being metered, when utilized at such a 
>small full scale percentage.

This particular error is less likely the culprit since a "null" experiment
was run that gave nomimal results using the same meter in the same
power range.

A particular attribute of the onset of the "effect" is that heat output
stays relatively constant but measured input power drops off suddenly.
This behaviour certainly argues against a simple meter non-linearity
at low scale readings.  If there is a meter error, it is of some
dynamic nature -- one which correlates to the audible onset of the 
"effect" in the turbine chamber.


-- 
-- John Logajan ---  al789@cleveland.freenet.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenal789 cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.23 / Brent Swekla /  Re: MM-Pact Signatories, Update
     
Originally-From: swekla@ee.ualberta.ca (Brent Swekla)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: MM-Pact Signatories, Update
Date: 23 Jul 1994 22:45:23 GMT
Organization: Computer and Network Services, U of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada

In article <940722141142_76570.2270_HHB69-2@CompuServe.COM>  
76570.2270@compuserve.com (Eugene Mallove) writes:
> Only two takers so far? Where are all the other brave "skeptics"?
> Or are they  having second thoughts?

"Skeptics" are ignoring you, at least partially for reasons I have already  
discussed. Primarily, only "True Disbelievers" will respond.

Actually, I think most people are ignoring you...
--
Brent Swekla                          "Sleep furiously."
swekla@ee.ualberta.ca
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenswekla cudfnBrent cudlnSwekla cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.24 / Brent Swekla /  Re: Steve Jones misrepresents (was "Mitch misinterprets")
     
Originally-From: swekla@ee.ualberta.ca (Brent Swekla)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Steve Jones misrepresents (was "Mitch misinterprets")
Date: 24 Jul 1994 00:01:09 GMT
Organization: Computer and Network Services, U of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada

In article <CtCvoz.IJA@world.std.com> mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)  
writes:
>JONES Mitch Swartz writes:  "one interpretation is that [blah, blah]",
>JONES trying to interpret what I wrote several days ago.  Well, your
>JONES interpretation is wrong, Mitch.  Has it ever occurred to you to ask
>JONES *me* what I meant?
>
>  Well, Mr. Jones, is falsely reporting what has happened. [snip]

After having fought through Mr. Swartz's recent post, I gather that he is  
claiming that this "one interpretation" was not *his* interpretation.  
Considering that Mr. Swartz felt strongly enough about *some* position to  
post a note claiming that my interpretation was not supported by the text  
of the original quote and suggesting an alternative interpretation, I find  
this latest claim quite surprising. If the "one interpretation" is not his  
as well, than what is his interpretation?

And speaking of false reporting, I did not "explicitly claim to know Mr.  
Jones' mind on this matter." I claimed to know the meaning of what he said  
- there is a difference (people don't always manage to say what they mean  
;^). Earlier Mr. Swartz also wrote that I "fancied" that some people were  
con men, which I did not.

PS. Since this worn out thread is approaching the status of BW-wasting  
flamebait, I will not extend it any further myself.
--
Brent Swekla                          "Sleep furiously."
swekla@ee.ualberta.ca
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenswekla cudfnBrent cudlnSwekla cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.23 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Merriman-Mallove Pact - "MM Pact"
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Merriman-Mallove Pact - "MM Pact"
Date: Sat, 23 Jul 1994 13:05:45 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <940719151632_76570.2270_HHB52-1@CompuServe.COM>,
Eugene Mallove <76570.2270@compuserve.com> wrote:
>
>(CF, for the purposes of this agreement, is defined as a new nuclear process, 
>and/or a super-chemical process orders of magnitude beyond the energy release 
>capability of *any* standard chemistry, and/or "something else" like tapping 
>of ZPE.)

     "Something else"?  What else?  Pickled herring?

     Forget this signature business on the basis of CF or 'something else',
     how about betting cash given to a neutral observer on the basis of 
     an offered industrial product by a known manufacturer (say Toyota)?

     Cash is much more satisfying than your signature.

>We, G. Mallove (Eugene F. Mallove) and ______________, having diametrically 
>opposed views on the subject of CF, agree in 2 years time (on or before July 
>19, 1996) to publically acknowledge---based on the status of (a) & (b) & (c) 
>above---that
[deletia]
>(1) G. Mallove is a wishful thinking, scientifically ignorant crank/dupe

     Why do we have to wait two years for this?

                                     dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.23 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Merriman-Mallove Pact - "MM Pact"
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Merriman-Mallove Pact - "MM Pact"
Date: Sat, 23 Jul 1994 13:22:21 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1994Jul22.235116.19246@clark.dgim.doc.ca>,
Gary Steckly <gsteckly@dgim.doc.ca> wrote:
>Eugene Mallove (76570.2270@compuserve.com) wrote:

>: going to be so easy. Yes that's how sure I am, based on knowledge of 
>: industrial developments in my possession. I will also make clear, just in case
>: there is any ambiguity, that the *first* commercially useful excess energy 
>: devices will NOT likely be palladium-heavy water electrolysis (a la F&P) or 
>: even Mills-type electrolysis. They will likely be high-temperature materials 
>: running with minimal or zero power input in deuterium and/or hydrogen 
>: atmospheres. You will be able to read about these in forthcoming issues of our
>: magazine.
>
>well Gene...it looks like you called their bluff.  The true disbelievers
>don't seem to be quite so quick to pick up their own gauntlet that you've
>tossed back.  Can't say I blame them.  I certainly wouldn't want to bet so
>firmly against this miraculous new phenomenon either.

    'New'?  Maybe in 1989.

> But I have a
>feeling that it's going to be resolved a lot sooner than we think.

    Au contraire, who wants to bet on someting as ethereal as
    'something else' with a signature?  On the other hand, if we're
    talking about actual industrial products from a *proven* manufacturer
    (say our good friends supporting an operation somewhere in the
    south of France or some other *well-defined* criterion or set of criteria)
    *and* we're talking about cash in the hands of a neutral third party, 
    then you might see some interest.

    I don't know about others, but I am certainly willing to bet 
    against this 'miraculous new phenomenon' and have been ready
    for years.  Set criteria directly evaluated by a neutral third party
    and money up front are preconditions, though.
    
                                  dale bass

cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.24 / mitchell swartz /  Steve Jones misrepresents (Response to Brent)
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Steve Jones misrepresents (Response to Brent)
Subject: Re: Steve Jones misrepresents (was "Mitch misinterprets")
Subject: What Mr. Toyoda said about cold fusion
Subject: Not crying wolf
Subject: Re: Jones will stoop to anything
Subject: Re: Jones will stoop to anything
Date: Sun, 24 Jul 1994 02:55:48 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

          In Message-ID: <30sb05$9di@quartz.ucs.ualberta.ca>
Subject: Re: Steve Jones misrepresents (was "Mitch misinterprets")
Brent Swekla (swekla@ee.ualberta.ca) writes: 
  
SWEKLA After having fought through Mr. Swartz's recent post, I gather that he is  
SWEKLA claiming that this "one interpretation" was not *his* interpretation.  

  That is true.  There were several individuals who had that interpretation.
To end this once and for all, here then are three (3) examples of  
postings of others from the Internet to reflect exactly that.

  The original post which began this all was from 
Message-ID: <1994Jul8.172012.1667@plasma.byu.edu>
Subject: What Mr. Toyoda said about cold fusion
in which Steve Jones (jonesse@plasma.byu.edu) did write:
JONES Mr. Toyoda himself is quoted by H. Ikegami in the Proceedings of the Nagoya
JONES conf. on cold fusion:
JONES "Cold fusion is not a matter to be studied by one single enterprise or nation. 
JONES I have confidence that it will become the greatest asset as an eventual energy
JONES for mankind, to be shared among the world."     (PRoceedings, p. iv, 1993)
JONES 
JONES It takes quite a MAN to inspire such CONfidence.

  The first response, with said interpretation, was
Message-ID: <940709164209_72240.1256_EHB122-2@CompuServe.COM>
Subject: Not crying wolf
wherein  72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) did write: 
ROTHWELL " Why on earth does Steve Jones
ROTHWELL accuse the late Mr. Toyoda of being a confidence man? Why did he post those
ROTHWELL absurd statements about Miles, E-Quest and so many others? Why is he so upset
ROTHWELL about this stuff? Why does he care where Toyoda, Griggs, Mills or I invest our
ROTHWELL money? It is our money and our business. Jones should butt out and mind his
ROTHWELL own damn business.

   Others actually shared this perspective, for example in 
Message-ID: <Jul16.062821.59257@acs.ucalgary.ca>
Subject: Re: Jones will stoop to anything
mefuller@acs.ucalgary.ca (Michael Ernest Fullerton) wrote: 
FULLERTON  Jones also certainly did imply that the late Mr. Toyoda was a con man
FULLERTON and then tried to weasel out of it.

   There were others who may have corroborated this.
For example, in Message-ID: <1994Jul18.152216.4553@vms.huji.ac.il>
Subject: Re: Jones will stoop to anything
Dennis Turner (tabitha@vms.huji.ac.il) wrote: 

TURNER    jonesse@xray.byu.edu writes:
   JONES  I certainly did *not* mean
   JONES > that Mr. Toyoda was a CON-MAN, as Mr. Rothwell tries to twist my words to
   JONES > say.
   JONES --Steven Jones
TURNER Did not mean....Gimme a break.
 -
  Here then are three (3) examples of individuals who may have 
had that interpretation.      Give us a break.    End of thread.

                Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com)
 
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.24 / Peter Merel /  Re: Jones will stoop to anything
     
Originally-From: Peter Merel <pete@extro.su.oz.au>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Jones will stoop to anything
Date: Sun, 24 Jul 1994 03:18:26 GMT
Organization: Softlife Pty.Ltd.

arnief@wu.labs.tek.com (Arnie Frisch) writes:

>In article <940714133254_72240.1256_EHB140-1@CompuServe.COM> 72240.1256
compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
>[fabulous material deleted]

>Now I think he's done it!  If Jones needs a lawyer whose specialty
>is libel, I believe I can help him.  I don't think Jed has a chance
>of a snowball in hell of avoiding a major judgement.

Rothwell's post might be actionable in quite a number of other countries than
the US too. We just had a British anthropologist win around $50k through the
courts down here in an action brought against a fellow academic who defamed
him in sci.anthropology. I don't know if Rothwell is worth any potatoes, but
whatever he is worth might be quite accessible to Steve Jones through courts 
all through Europe and Asia as well.

-- 
Internet:pete@extro.su.oz.au           |         Accept Everything.            |
http://www.usyd.edu.au/~pete           |         Reject Nothing.               |
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenpete cudfnPeter cudlnMerel cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.24 / Peter Merel /  Re: Jones will stoop to anything
     
Originally-From: Peter Merel <pete@extro.su.oz.au>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Jones will stoop to anything
Date: Sun, 24 Jul 1994 03:31:23 GMT
Organization: Softlife Pty.Ltd.

mefuller@acs.ucalgary.ca (Michael Ernest Fullerton) writes:
>Actually, if I am not mistaken, Taubes himself has said Jones stole ideas
>from the good Drs P&F.  Anyone who has been reading s.p.f for a while will
>know that Jones has several times made inaccurate statements about other's
>work.  Whether this was deliberate or simply a wish to believe I cannot
>say.  Jones also certainly did imply that the late Mr. Toyoda was a con man
>and then tried to weasel out of it.

Given that the article in question was published thoughout Australia,
Jones might at the very least sue through Australian courts; under
Australian law, truth is no defense in a defamation case. What counts
is whether the statements are such as would lead people to a lesser
estimation of the plaintiff's character or credentials. This little gem
was created at the behest of some colourful local politicians, of course ...

-- 
Internet:pete@extro.su.oz.au           |         Accept Everything.            |
http://www.usyd.edu.au/~pete           |         Reject Nothing.               |
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenpete cudfnPeter cudlnMerel cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.24 / John Logajan /  Re: Jones will stoop to anything
     
Originally-From: al789@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Jones will stoop to anything
Date: 24 Jul 1994 04:04:32 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)


pete@extro.su.oz.au (Peter Merel) says:
>Jones might at the very least sue through Australian courts; under
>Australian law, truth is no defense in a defamation case. 
                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This is a very sad state of affairs, then.  I hope Australia has
the equivalent of the US Libertarian Party to fight against such
awful "justice."

-- 
-- John Logajan ---  al789@cleveland.freenet.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenal789 cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.24 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Heeter Fusion == aneutronic now??
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Heeter Fusion == aneutronic now??
Date: Sun, 24 Jul 1994 03:00:41 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <30root$gjj@network.ucsd.edu> mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel) writes:
>Paul M. Koloc (pmk@prometheus.UUCP) wrote:
>:Since the burn rate runs to the 
>: sixth power (density squared) of the compression ratio, we can get
>: megawatts / cc from the D He3, (actually prefer p-B)

>Suppose Iraq bought a Plasmak reactor that could burn p-B.
>
>How big a boom if they decided to put in D-T?  boom? Boom?  Or *BOOM*??

Not much.. or at least not very many.  As I pointed out, the fusion 
heat is not "cooled" away in the form of electric power, but rather 
wall melting by efficient hot neutron transfer.  700*10^12/meter^3?

                   That's one HOT hot puddle of metal.    

However, we need people with an entrepenuerial bent, so just in 
case there is an interest: 

I hereby intend to appoint Matt Kennel to be sole responsible party 
for all negotiations and deals and contracts with Iraq related to 
PLASMAK(tm) Technology, and most especially that he take full 
responsibility for compliance with all Law and treaties which bear 
on such , and the satisfaction of said deals and contracts 
regardless of source or interest, and that this activity remains 
subject to US Law.  In addition, Matt will be responsible for 
bringing all appropriate or interested agencies or institutions and
their members of the US Goverment up to date on his activities 
related to his activities and interactions in this venture.   

Actual appointment will be in writing and mutually agreed to by
both parties.  If this intention is not executed, then no such
activity will be undertaken.  

Hope your idea lives up to your expectations. Here's your chance.  

Paul M. Koloc

>-Matt Kennel  		mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu
>-Institute for Nonlinear Science, University of California, San Diego
>-*** AD: Archive for nonlinear dynamics papers & programs: FTP to
>-***     lyapunov.ucsd.edu, username "anonymous".

+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc, Bx 1037 Prometheus II Ltd, College Park MD 20741-1037    |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Sun Jul 24 04:37:05 EDT 1994
------------------------------
1994.07.24 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Ball Lightning Carlson  Part 2
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Ball Lightning Carlson  Part 2
Date: Sun, 24 Jul 1994 03:17:30 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <30rp6q$gjj@network.ucsd.edu> mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel) writes:
>Paul M. Koloc (pmk@prometheus.UUCP) wrote:
>: No assumption here, we can give some of this as reality tested, 
>: although much of certain work is confidential.  The model however is
>: well thought out and established.  It is lightly published.    
>: This is not an education institute and our funds are not public.  

>Question:  suppose you did publish?  What harm could possibly come to your
>'institute'?  What good might possibly come to your institute if
>lots of people started to believe in your process?

We will publish.. just that what little support we do not get to calls 
the shots.  The Golden Rule:  They possessing the Gold: Rule.     Sort 
of like why do all those fusion physicists in the world, justify there 
work by relating it to the Tokamak?.   Or is it that they all are just 
the same school of fish, and when one turns a tad, they all realign.  
 
                  NO, Matt, we are in one way or another all 
                         marginally free. -- Some more - others less.  

Why does the NSF demand patent free licenses if they fund your work??
Small Business can't compete with such constraints.  

Why does the DoE SBIR specifically deny funding to any "stand alone"
fusion concept???   It's to deprive you of the information you need
to make an easy decision.  Not enough information?  You need a Hel'
o lot a guts, to jump away from a secure job. 

Is it a "conspiracy" to restrict an SBIR???  NO!  just stupidity.  

Should the DoE be afraid that an SBIR supported fusion effort is
going to over take them???      Hmmmm!   Naww    it couldn't be..

Then why.. Because they don't want some lippy upstart blabbing 
favorable results which could confuse the congress.  Is that
why?? I don't think they have the resources to make the connection.  

Keep up the GOOD thoughts.  
>--
>-Matt Kennel  		mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu
>-Institute for Nonlinear Science, University of California, San Diego
>-*** AD: Archive for nonlinear dynamics papers & programs: FTP to
>-***     lyapunov.ucsd.edu, username "anonymous".
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc, Bx 1037 Prometheus II Ltd, College Park MD 20741-1037    |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.24 / M Fullerton /  Re: CNF papers?
     
Originally-From: mefuller@acs.ucalgary.ca (Michael Ernest Fullerton)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CNF papers?
Date: Sun, 24 Jul 1994 05:46:27 GMT
Organization: The University of Calgary

In article <30pt74$6bv@charnel.ecst.csuchico.edu>,
Kevin Haddock <fish@ecst.csuchico.edu> wrote:
>Hi:
>
>can someone please tell me the location of a FAQ or tell me where 
>the cold fusion papers and archives of this newsgroup might
>be located.

Here you go:


     Archive accessible by ftp://vm1.nodak.edu/FUSION or via wais at
     wais://sunsite.unc.edu/fusion-digest?vigier.


-- 
Michael Fullerton         |  Seeds, like ideas, don't | All play and no work
mefuller@acs.ucalgary.ca  |  germinate in concrete    | makes Jack a dull boy.
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenmefuller cudfnMichael cudlnFullerton cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.24 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: Jones will stoop to anything
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Jones will stoop to anything
Date: Sun, 24 Jul 1994 06:08:25 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

In article <pete.775019906@extro>, Peter Merel  <pete@extro.su.oz.au> wrote:

>I don't know if Rothwell is worth any potatoes, but
>whatever he is worth might be quite accessible to Steve Jones through courts 
>all through Europe and Asia as well.

There are two thoughts on that matter:

1) Rothwell has investments in CNF and as such will very shortly be worth
$billions. Most of this would be deliverable to S. Jones for Rothwell's
slanderous lies through court actions practically anywhere.

2) Rothwell has investments in CNF and as such has proven himself to be an
incompetent boob incapable of taking care of either himself or his money.
Since he has been liberated of his capital there is no reason to sue him.

Life is it's own reward. Jones has his scientific credentials, his respect,
his job and his personal integrity. Rothwell has public redicule and support
from only the most, uh, obvious sources.

cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.24 / William Hawkins /  Re: Argument for/against current state of nuclear power ?
     
Originally-From: bill@texan.rosemount.com (William Hawkins)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Argument for/against current state of nuclear power ?
Date: Sun, 24 Jul 1994 05:40:16 GMT
Organization: Rosemount, Inc.

In article <CtCr7I.2ws@news.tcd.ie> mdennehy@tcd.ie (Sparks) writes:
>Okay, I've had enough. My sister joined Greenpeace about five days ago
>and since then I've been in a running argument with her over the current
>state of affairs regarding nuclear power (fission & fusion, even though
>she doesn't know the difference). I am slowly running out of plusses to
>throw at her. Anyone got any bright ideas ?
>
Have you asked her what is the main cause of pollution?  Did you
correct her if she didn't say "Population"?  Think of the potential
for those "dangerous" sources of "radiation" (synonyms) to reduce
the population!

But seriously, you should know that there are countries in Europe
that get more than half their power from atomic energy.  What is
their accident rate?  Is the ocean glowing blue from all of the
waste that has been dumped offshore?

Actually, you and your sister should agree to talk about less
emotionally charged topics, like "right to life" vs. choice.

And, you might want to try another forum for this topic, like
sci.misc or sci.energy.

Cheers,
Bill Hawkins
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenbill cudfnWilliam cudlnHawkins cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.24 / Paul Koloc /   Ball Lightning, Kadomsev's wish
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:  Ball Lightning, Kadomsev's wish
Date: Sun, 24 Jul 1994 04:04:37 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

I put GIF of a Ball Lightning photo on the net.  Assuming this wasn't
a hoax, (well research on that issue), then why wouldn't it be 
Raleigh Taylor into a Hill's vortex??  Hello ???  

Of course my theory is that it is a Spheromak topology and the 
conducting shell is a tightly fitting layer of energetic electrons
that are at the inner Mantle vacuum field boundary and supported
externally by Mantle fluid plasma transmitted isobaric atmospheric
pressure.  The inflating pressure is the external boundary of the
trapped poloidal flux.  For some reason, a 35 cm diameter globe
such as this (given a Mantle thickness of 2cm at the equator) can
be computed from the obvious boundary conditions and the assumption
the ring is essentially force free and has an aspect ratio ... 
 You choose  1.35-2.00.  

Well any comments on any aspect of this problem would be most
appreciated.    Art??  Matt??  Bruce?? Barry??   Any other 
mathematical physicists around??    The fill at the poles is 
jet ejecta from a divergence boundary within the Mantle which 
is overflow from an internal photoionization edge.  It is of 
little interest to this calcuation, unless you let the system 
energy run down to the point where the system collapses.   This
is unknown to happen so far in photographs of Ball Lightning,
but is mentioned here just in case there is a "Dorean Gray"
ecto-physics at work.                 :-)  

                      Certainly, this doesn't have much 
                         interest politically, but it is
                         a fasinating plasma problem.. 
                         
                     It is one, according to B. B. Kadomsev
                        that is well past getting started
                        on.  What do you say -- an international
                        cooperation.  Of course, I'll just
                        do the experimental end, so in a since
                        I'll have access to hints about the 
                        answer.  How much that will help is
                        the criticallity of its information and
                        then whatever clever use is made of it. 
                            
Well?? you chaps start!  and good hunting to all of us.  
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc, Bx 1037 Prometheus II Ltd, College Park MD 20741-1037    |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.24 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Maxima in Sigma-v/T^2 curves
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Maxima in Sigma-v/T^2 curves
Date: Sun, 24 Jul 1994 06:25:33 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <1994Jul21.164012.28252@Princeton.EDU> pbsnyder@flagstaff.Pri
ceton.EDU (Philip Benjamin Snyder) writes:
>In article <30lga5INNda@slcawc.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de> awc@ipp-garching.mpg.de writes:

>I've ignored the secondary reactions which will improve DD numbers more than
>DHe3 numbers (perhaps they will improve P/p^2 for DD by as much as a factor
>of two? - but it can't improve P/p^2 for charged products by more than 150%
>can it?), and I've ignored the natural hot ion mode (Ti>Te) which 
>will generally improve P/p^2 for DHe3 significantly (and the fact that a 50:50
>mix is slightly off maximum (by~5%)).

>Alternatively, using the NRL Plasma Formulary's estimates for fusion power
>in charged products (and accounting for secondary reactions) yields
>P/p^2  for DHe3 larger by a factor of ~2.5.

>So it seems Tau must be a factor of ~3 worse for DHe3 at 50KeV
>than for DD at 15KeV  (which seems reasonable) for Lawson to be lower for
>DD than for DHe3; but for Lawson to be 3 times better for DD (as above)
>Tau must be ~9 times longer for DD at 15KeV than for DHe3 at 50KeV.
>Is this the case?  Or I have I left something out/messed something up?

For those interested in burning D-He^3, running He rich and operating 
around 70-75KeV the neutron output is minimized.  Being able to tailor 
the compression heating over a wide dynamic range is a great advantage.  

I went checking back and I don't see where I was using numbers like
20-50 megawatts/cc, although for a slammed (ICF) that could happen
at peak burn.   A typical ripping PMK burner would be compressed
to the order 100cc.  The peak numbers are more in the 1-10/megawatt /cc, 
and 10 gigawatts electric from a 3phase burner running 60 hertz. 
  
That is down the road, since 30 hertz machines (p-B) will be closer
to a first step.  Still, I don't see where if we have to back off
a bit at first, is going to dampen the interest much.  I don't 
think these things will exactly collect mold.  

Also, in one post, I think I noted the optimum burn temperature
for p-B11 was 130 ish... I lost contact with that poster.  
Anyway, our considerations estimated we would be better off
at 240-270KeV, provided we were in the hot-ion mode. 

The numbers given in  my space power paper where really tame.  
I think the future can best that.. I mean look what Mercedes did
for the automobile.  

>Thanks for any help/clarification,
>Phil
>pbsnyder@phoenix.princeton.edu

                        You won't float a tokamak 
                           very high in the mud!   
                            So how do we get to Mars  
                             Not those years with a Mirror.   
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc, Bx 1037 Prometheus II Ltd, College Park MD 20741-1037    |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.24 /  PaulBreed /  Re: Dranetz power meter
     
Originally-From: paulbreed@aol.com (PaulBreed)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Dranetz power meter
Date: 24 Jul 1994 09:22:02 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

In article <940723153645_72240.1256_EHB76-2@CompuServe.COM>,
72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:

>Laurie Forbes (Lforbes@debug.cuc.ab.ca) writes:
 
>     "With reference to your description of test runs of the "excess"
energy
>    device at Hydro Dynamics, I have noted that the input power meter,
being
>    rated at 800 KW full scale, is in fact operating during the test runs
at
>    only about 2% of full scale (14 to 23 KW).
 
>     Most, if not all, meters I am familiar with would have serious
>    measurement error, with respect to the value being metered, when
>   utilized at such a small full scale percentage.  If the *full scale*
>     meter error is 1.5% as stipulated, the error at a reading of only 2%
of
>    full scale would be potentially upwards of 50 to 75%, would it not?"

>><Much Deleted>

>     "Why not use a 25 KW or so meter instead?"

Most Meters of this type have multiple ranges that are automaticaly
selected.
I routinely use a Xitron power meter that has ranges from 200mW to 100+Kw
full scale. (I don't remember what the upper range is, I run 5Kw stuff and
don't even get close.)

Paul Breed 
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenpaulbreed cudlnPaulBreed cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.24 / Stefan Hartmann /  Free Energy Technology News !
     
Originally-From: harti@shb.contrib.de (Stefan Hartmann)
Newsgroups: alt.paranet.science,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.bio,sci
physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.particle
Subject: Free Energy Technology News !
Date: 24 Jul 1994 22:21:00 +0200

		Summary on Free Energy Technology
		=================================

please email comments to:

harti@contrib.de

for a review on current free enerrgy technology get all the files from:
phoenix.oulu.fi  in pub/free_energy




Summary of recent Free Energy Congress in Denver:
=================================================


> > [...]
> > One of the most interesting things was Bill Fogal's "Charged Barrier
> > Transistor" technology.
> 
> Hmm, can you email me some more info please ?
> What is it ?

Someone else posted a copy of his paper, I think in sci.electronics. I
forget. I'll look and see if I can find it.

Basically, he takes a standard bipolar transistor, cuts open the case,
and glues a small capacitor element to the base. This is then kept
charged. The electric field affects the electron flow thru the transistor
to align the spins (via Hall effect). This causes a type of room temperature
superconduction. The result is much higher gain, much lower turn on
voltages, and almost complete elimination of noise.

> 
> > Details of how to duplicate Floyd Sweet's device were given.
> 
> Well, I have the videotape of Floyd's VTA.

Old news.

> I have digitized a few scenes and put them via MPEG compression on an
> FTP site:
> 
> phoenix.oulu.fi  in /pub/free_energy
> 
> There is also some more stuff there, especially from the Methernitha  
> devices...

Everyone is pissed, since that group isn't talking.

> 
> > JRR Searl gave several rambling and somewhat incoherant presentations.
> 
> I don't believe in him...

Exactly. He seems to be a publicity hound. And very little that he claims
is verifiable.

> 
> > >Was the Adams Magnet motor shown ?
> >
> > Several variants and copies were present. None did anything special.
> > One researcher had done extensive research into Adams, and basically
> > came to the conclusion that it is nothing.
> 
> Hmm, well, so nobody could show a selfrunning motor ?
 
Right. Many of them were very nice motors, but none of them are over 90%
efficiency. In a totally separate presentation, it was shown that
a device needs to be at least 300% in order to be self-running (due to
standard losses).

> >
> > Stefan Marinov's S-field motor isn't going to work untill the B-field
> > is properly shielded.
> 
> I see, so he was there ?
> Is it his "venetian Coli" motor or something like this ?
> He has so "dump" names for his machines, it is incredible ! :-)
 
Exactly. The current version is the "siberian colii". Might as well
be called eserechi coli.

> 
> > John Hutchinson was there with samples of things affected by the "Hutchinson
> > Effect", including a block of aluminum with an imbedded piece of wood
> > (no sign of charing or heat of any kind on the wood, and seamlessly
> > surrounded by the metal),
> 
> Hmm, yes, I also have a tape of this, were metal pieces and wood flies
> around in his lab, but you can't see, if it is not faked...

The samples are bizzare enough to conclude that whatever was done to them
is truely weird and worth more investigation.

> > a block of aluminum with an imbedded butter knife, several blasted apart
> > pieces of steel, brass, and copper rods and blocks. Very bizzare.
> 
> 
> Hmm, yes I know somebody from over here, Dr. Amon, who has made several
> investigations into this phenomen with real high tech equipment a few  
> years ago and he came to the conclusion, that there is something special,
> but as Hutchinson was hard to contact, nothing happened from it..

Try again to contact him. He seems pretty personable, open and honest.
He's just somewhat shy... considering the shit he's been through, I
can understand why.

> 
> Please let me know more.
> Thanks !
> 
> 




Other related email exchange
============================





 Hi Stephan,

 to answer your last questions...
> 
> 
> Did you hear anything  lately about Meyer ?
> The latest news I heard about his technology is at least one and a half  
> year old and he wanted to show a car in a race. Did he ever show it and  
> can he prove the over unity effect ?

The only physical evidence I have seen came from a CBC/BBC documentary on
TV on cold fusion and they interviewed Meyer briefly and showed some
footage of his car.  Providing their were no tricks or hidden fuel tanks,
it appears to work.

 Did the Cold Fusion magazine publish anything about him
yet ? >

not yet, but I believe they will in a future issue.  In a brief email from
Jed Rothwell (contributing editor for Cold fusion), he inferred that he had
spoken with him and finds him to be a sincere and dedicated individual.

> 
> Yes Sonoluminescence is a very interesting phenomen.
> Is it possible to make a light source out of it, which needs very low  
> power ? But probably first the effect which produces this light must be  
> researched enough to understand the effect and to increase the output...

I don't know that the light would be a useful thing, but it is certainly a
fascinating and potentially insightful clue to some amazing new physics.

> > The other device I spoke of earlier (the plasma steam generator) while it
> > doesn't seem to ultrasonically agitate the water molecules, is interesting
> > since it turns the water into steam and then ionizes the hydrogen and
> > oxygen atoms and generates a plasma.  Puthoff has speculated that this may
> 
> How is this kind of plasma producing power then ? Are the ions seperated  
> via magnets and charge some capacitor plates or how is it done ?

It is just producing excess heat, from which they can drive a
turbine/generator combo I believe.  You might want to take a look at the
patent.  It was granted in 1988.  US patent no. 4,772,775

The inventor, Samual Leach, believes (I feel incorrectly) that additional
energy is arriving through "oxidation of the electrode material".  I doubt
that very much.  I have been talking with the Canadian company who have
recently acquired the Canadian rights to the device, but they don't know
much either, other than they were sufficiently convinced from evidence in
a video tape that they bought into the idea.  They have promised to send
me additional info as it becomes available.

> > Interesting times, are they not?
> 
> Right. Next big revolution in the technology age will be Free Energy now  
> living in the information age... :)

I used to fear for the future of my children, but lately I have become
much more optimistic!  Let's hope it happens soon and doesn't have too many
negative effects (I'm just glad I don't work for the hydro or oil companies).

regards

> 
Hi Stephan,

to answer your last questions...

> When was this article published in which issue of Cold Fusion ?
> 
this article appeared in the June 1994 issue (Vol. 1 No. 2) of "Cold Fusion" 
You really should try to get a subscription to this magazine, at the very
least try to get your school library to subscribe.  The address is:

Wayne Green Inc.
"COLD FUSION" Magazine
70 Route 202 North
Peterborough, NH 03458-9872

> Maybe the Methernitha device is using such a system to gain their high  
> power output... I heard that there is some Corona discharge effects  
> involved in this Wimhurst type device..
> Did you already get the MPEG movies to run from the FTP server in Finland:
> phoenix.oulu.fi in pub/free_energy ?

I took a look at one of them, but it took quite a while to transfer the
files.  It looks fascinating if it is for real.  Havew you ever seen a
Methernitha first hand?  Do they really work?


Yes, they already work for a few years now. They are just building a 30 KW unit 
with discs being about 2 meters in diameter !

I know a few people very well, who have seen it running and I will probably 
try to visit them gain this August 94 ! I was there in 1989, but at this time 
they only showed me their video tape of the machines..


> 
> > The reason I am so intrigued about this is that Harold Puthoff, (renowned
> > ZPE/vacuum researcher) suggested many years ago that one potential method
> > for extracting usable energy from the vacuum might be to utilize a cold
> > charged plasma which could exhibit a "casimir pinch effect" as he put it
> > in one of his papers.
> 
> 
> Hmm , yes I heard of him. Did he put out some new facts about the device  
> he is working on, or how did you come to this idea now ?
> 
I haven't seen any of his recent works, although he published a paper in
Physical Review A in February that explained inertia and gravity as a
vacuum field effect.  Apparently this paper has caused some
controversy...particularly since the the critics haven't been too
successful in finding major errors with it!

> Well, I am pretty busy now. Didn't you tell me about a new transistor  
> effect, using some kind of room temperatur supra conduction ?
> What about this effect, do you have more infos on this one ?

that must have been someone else...I don't recall speaking to
anyone about super conduction.

One thing that has been interesting me is a very coincidental element that
is common to 3 strange phenomenon that I have been reading about lately.
These 3 apparently unrelated devices all exhibit different energy
anomolies, but they all use water and in all 3 cases the water is
ultrasonically agitated, although in different methods.

1. The ultrasonic pump -  mechanically agitates water producing ultrasonic
pressure waves in the pump.  This pump produces more heat than can be
explained with conventional physics.

2. Meyers pulsed DC electrolysis device - this device subjects the water
to an electrostatic field, again at ultrasonic frequencies in the kHz
range, and separates hydrogen and oxygen with an alleged over unity
efficiency, or at least greater than the 60% efficiency than could be
predicted by Faraday's law.

3. Sonoluminescence - the strange phenomenon whereby water in a sperical
container subjected to ultrasonic pressures will exhibit vacuum "bubbles"
levitated in the centre of the container.  These "bubbles" emit light in
picosecond duration bursts.  No universally accepted theory has been put
forth to explain this to date, although several have been suggested. 
Julian Schwinger, nobelprize winner in 1965 for QED, has suggested a
"dynamic casimir effect" may be an explanation! (vacuum ZPE field
interaction?!)

I really think these 3 things may be somehow linked to vacuum energy. 
Follow this closely. 

The other device I spoke of earlier (the plasma steam generator) while it
doesn't seem to ultrasonically agitate the water molecules, is interesting
since it turns the water into steam and then ionizes the hydrogen and
oxygen atoms and generates a plasma.  Puthoff has speculated that this may
be one means of tapping the vacuum.  I am trying to find more about this. 
Rumour has it that it might be moving into commercial production.

Interesting times, are they not?

regards
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------





> 
>                               January 10, 1994
> 
> Report On Visit To Hydro Dynamics
> 
> 
> 
> Abstract
> 
> A Hydrosonic Pump, an excess energy device, was observed during three test
> runs. The first test was a control run to verify the calorimetry, which
> yielded a C.O.P. of 59% compared to apparent electric power, or 98% after
> adjusting for known electrical and mechanical inefficiencies. The second two
> tests both yielded massive amounts of excess heat at levels very easy to
> detect. Test 2 gave a C.O.P. of 110% compared to apparent electric power, or
> 168% adjusted; and Test 3 yielded 109% or 157% adjusted.
> 
> 
> Introduction
>  
> On January 5 and 6, 1993, we visited Jim Griggs and his
> associates at:
> 
> Hydro Dynamics Inc.
> 611 Grassdale Road, Suite B
> Cartersville, GA 30120-9001
> 
> We witnessed a series of experiments with a Hydrosonic pump. This is a brief
> report of what we saw. I can provide additional information including the
> experiment log, and a video showing equipment close-ups and the first two test
> runs.
> 
> Background
> 
> The Hydrosonic Pump is an excess energy device that physically resembles a
> pump in many ways. It appears to produce massive amounts of excess energy by
> creating bubbles in the water with ultrasound, in a process that may be
> similar to the Stringham [1] device. Whatever it is, I suspect it is related
> to light water cold fusion energy generation, and it does appear to produce
> massive amounts of heat energy reliably, on demand, for years on end, so it is
> well worth investigating. The device is described in detail in Hydro Dynamics
> sales literature and in a U.S. patent. [2] Griggs described his work at the
> Fourth International Conference on Cold Fusion (ICCF4). [3]
> 
> I will not describe the Hydrosonic pump here in detail, but I would like to
> clear up one issue that has confused many correspondents. This device is
> called a "pump" for lack of a better word. It does not actually move the water
> very much; "pump" is something of a misnomer, "stirrer" would be more
> accurate. It is a kind of rotor with holes drilled around the circumference.
> When the rotor spins rapidly, these holes apparently create ultrasonic waves
> which in turn somehow cause the effect. Because the device is not actually a
> pump, a small auxiliary pump moves the water from a feedwater tank, through
> the pipes, into the Hydrosonic pump, and out through a steam pipe or separate
> steam and condensate pipes. The pump heats the water by the stirring action,
> but under some circumstances it also creates considerably more heat than a
> motor driving a stirrer would.
> 
> This device is much larger than any conventional cold fusion device that I
> have ever witnessed, and far more practical. During one of demonstrations we
> watched yesterday, for example, over a 20 minute period, 4.80 KWH hours of
> electricity was input, and 19,050 BTUs of heat evolved, which equals 5.58 KWH,
> 117% of input. The actual input to output ratio was even better than this,
> when you take into account the inefficiencies of the electric motor.
> 
> I have been to Hydro Dynamics on three previous occasions, and my friend was
> there once. We have been generally impressed, but there have been some
> inexplicable failures, and they made an embarrassing mistake with some
> untested improperly calibrated thermocouples. On November 22, 1992 however, I
> observed a very impressive demonstration. [4] In this experiment, a 55 gallon
> steel drum filled with 200 lbs of water was used to capture steam and
> condensate. Both the water in the tank and the feedwater going into the device
> start out at room temperature, so the final mass and Delta T temperature
> increase in the water in the steel drum can be used to estimate the lower
> limit of the enthalpy generated by the pump. This is a lower bound estimate
> because a large amount of heat is lost from the pump, pipes and steel drum by
> radiation during the course of the experimental runs, which last from 15
> minutes to an hour.
> 
> The experiments we saw on January 6, 1993 were far more impressive than
> anything either of us previously witnessed.
> 
> 
> Test Procedures And Instrumentation
> 
> Here is a brief description of the test procedures. For a better understanding
> of this test, I recommend that the reader consult the Hydro Dynamics
> literature, diagrams and patents. For a serious, in depth understanding, I
> recommend you watch the video carefully. (Please note: This document is
> intended primarily for e-mail transmission, so I cannot include a diagram.)
> 
> As mentioned above, the Hydrosonic pump is a kind of rotor device. It is
> turned by an industrial three-phase AC electric motor. The motor turns the
> pump device at several thousand RPM, the pump heats up the water because of
> ordinary friction and because additional heat is generated by the mysterious
> process. In these tests, a 40 HP Lincoln brand motor was used to drive a 12
> inch Hydrosonic pump.
> 
> Before the test run begins, a 55 gallon open steel drum weighing 30.5 lb empty
> is placed on a factory weight scale. It is filled with 350 lbs of tap water.
> 
> Water is fed into the Hydrosonic pump from a 16 gallon feedwater tank. A large
> clear plastic bucket has been mounted on the top of the input feedwater tank.
> The bucket serves as a hopper. It is marked in two scales: tenth-gallons up to
> one gallon; and pounds, up to 8 lbs. (One U.S. gallon weighs 8.3 lbs.) Water
> is added in 8 pound increments from a marked plastic milk bottle. Care is
> taken to ensure that there are no air bubbles in the feedwater tank. The
> hopper makes it easy to record the flow and total water consumed. It is topped
> off to the 8 lb mark at the beginning of the test run, and the amount added
> during the run is recorded.
> 
> Water from the feedwater tank is forced through the Hydrosonic pump by a small
> auxiliary pump. The flow rate is regulated and displayed with a flowmeter.
> 
> The pump is turned on, the water is fed through it, and it rapidly grows hot.
> Within 5 or 10 minutes, all of the water fed into the pump is vaporized and
> forced out of an exhaust pipe, which is mounted about 1.5 meters above the
> floor. A large jet of steam escapes out of the pipe, sometimes billowing a
> meters or two across the room. The steam is quite hot and dangerous, if you
> were to hold your hand it for more than few seconds, you would be severely
> scalded. This machine is not anything like a laboratory test bench
> experimental unit; it is an industrial product designed for applications that
> require massive amounts of steam, like dry cleaning. The steam is dry; Griggs
> demonstrates a rough and ready factory floor technique to confirm this, which
> takes a lot of gumption: pass your hand through dry steam quickly, and you do
> not find droplets condensed on the skin. This is somewhat like passing your
> finger through the flame of a burning candle.
> 
> After 10 or 15 minutes, the machine is warmed up and the flow rate and balance
> of water in the machine is stabilized. In these tests, output was regulated by
> manually opening and closing a valve on the exhaust pipe. After the machine is
> stabilized and preparations are complete, the test run begins:
> 
> 1. A second valve at the end of the exhaust pipe is closed, which shuts off
> the steam jet for a moment. A second valve is opened, directing the steam into
> a large rubber hose. The end of the hose is firmly held at the bottom of the a
> steel drum filled with cold water. The steam swirls into the cold tap water
> and condenses, quickly raising the water temperature. The enthalpy from the
> escaping steam is captured by condensing the steam. This is a remarkably
> effective technique: virtually all of the steam condenses, capturing the
> thermal energy, and the steam jet pushes the water around with considerably
> force, which must capture most of the kinetic energy from the steam jet.
> 
> 2. At the same moment the steam jet is redirected from air to the steel drum
> full of water, a power meter is reset, so that the total electric energy
> expended in by the electric motor driving the pump is recorded from that
> moment on. The power meter prints an instantaneous reading of kilowatts every
> minute; it prints a subtotal expended kilowatt hours of power any time during
> the test on demand; and at the end, it prints the total kilowatt hours used.
> 
> 3. The water temperature in the steel drum and the instantaneous power levels
> are recorded manually every two minutes in a lab notebook. Temperature
> readings are taken at different depths and the water is stirred vigorously
> with a detached mop handle to ensure that the temperature readings are
> uniform. Because the steam is swirling into the bottom of the water, the
> bottom is 
> 
> 4. From time to time, 8 lbs of additional tap water is added to the hopper and
> recorded in the lab notebook.
> 
> 5. After a set period, 30 minutes or 1 hour, the electric power driving the
> pump is cut off. A closing temperature reading is taken. At this point, Griggs
> is in the habit of venting the remaining steam into the barrel, which raises
> the temperature 4 or 5 degrees and adds about 3 pounds of water. I think this
> extra boost of energy should not be include in the totals, because I think it
> should be classified as "latent" or "stored" energy that was captured in the
> pump and pipes before the test began. Therefore, in this report, I have used
> the closing temperature readings taken just before venting the steam, and I
> use a low estimate of the mass of water.
> 
> 6. The steel drum, which is sitting on the scale, is weighed. The total amount
> of water consumed, as measured in the hopper, is compared to the increase in
> the water in the steel drum. The numbers match closely, to within 2 or 3 lbs,
> proving that most of the steam is condensed and captured. If the steam is not
> vented in the last step, the final mass in the drum will probably be a few
> pounds less than the amount consumed, because some water will be lost to
> evaporation in the air from the surface of the water in the drum. If the steam
> is vented, the final mass in the drum might exceed the amount fed into the
> hopper by a few pounds. Where there was a measurable discrepancy, I took the
> lower figure. The BTU content of a 3 lb mass of water is negligible, in any
> case. For example, in Test 2, a 3 lb change in the mass of water would change
> the output energy computation by 0.8%.
> 
> 7. Total output energy is computed in BTUs by multiplying the mass of water
> with the temperature increase in degrees Fahrenheit. Total input energy, as
> recorded by the power meter, is compared to total output energy.
> 
> Power was monitored with a G.E. Dranetz model 808 Electric Power/Demand
> Analyzer, which was calibrated by G.E. on October 5, 1993. In previous tests,
> the Dranetz compared within a percent to a second power meter, a BMI 3030,
> which was installed in parallel. According to the Dranetz specifications, the
> maximum error at full load is 1.5%. Full load for this meter is 800 KW; power
> levels during these tests varied from 14 to 23 KW. At these lower levels,
> errors will be less than 0.5%. [5]
> 
> Temperature was measured with 2 or 3 electronic thermometers which agreed to
> within 1 deg F, and one Taylor cooking thermometer, marked in 5 deg 
> increments, which agreed with the electronic thermometers. A pyrometer is also
> used to measure water temperature and the surface temperature of the pump,
> electric motor, and pipes. The pyrometer agreed closely with the thermometers.
> The Micronta electronic thermometer began to malfunction towards the end,
> jumping from 60 deg  to 90 deg  down to 40 deg , probably because of a weak
> battery. This event proves yet again the wisdom of these experimental
> techniques and rules: use multiple instruments; use simple rough-and-ready
> backups to do "reality tests"; keep an eye on things at all times, and use
> common sense. Dennis Cravens [6] and I are both strong advocates and
> proselytizers of these principles, and Griggs personifies them.
> 
> The weight scale was checked on November 16, 1993, by the Georgia Tech team.
> They brought iron weights which they had checked on an accurate scale at Tech,
> and they determined that the Hydro Dynamics scale is correct through the full
> range of its rated capacity, up to 1,000 lbs. On January 7, Mallove and I both
> checked the calibration of the scale by standing on it.
> 
> Here are some important differences between this test and the mixed steam and
> water test I described in the November 22 report:
> 
> This was a test of steam only, not water, or mixed water and steam.
> 
> The plastic bucket hopper was added to the feedwater tank, and a new flowmeter
> was installed, allowing finer control with low flow rates. These improvements
> make it much easier to observe and record flow rates and total water consumed.
> 
> The flow rate and total amount of water consumed in these tests is much
> smaller than with the hot water and mixed hot water and steam tests. This
> makes the experiment much easier. Because the flow is so much smaller, the
> steel drum can be filled with much more water to start with; 350 lbs versus
> 200 lbs in the previous experiments. 350 lbs is enough to condense virtually
> all of the steam, as long as the output hose is held down at the bottom of the
> drum. Another great advantage of this is that the water temperature does not
> rise much in a given period of time, so that heat losses are smaller, the
> temperature is easier to measure, and the steel drum is safer to be around,
> with less danger of scalding.
> 
> 
> January 6 Tests
> 
> We witnessed three experimental runs on January 6, 1994, one in the morning
> and two that afternoon.
> 
> Test 1. A 1 hour blank run generating little or no excess heat.
> 
> Test 2. A 19 minute excess heat run.
> 
> Test 3. A 30 minute excess heat run with flow rate, pressure and other
> parameters adjusted as closely to Test 2 as possible, which generated nearly
> the same amount of excess heat per minute.
> 
> These tests showed that Griggs has considerable control over the reaction. He
> can start it and stop it on demand, even though he says he does not understand
> the deep underlying cause of the reaction.
> 
> 
> Some Considerations Regarding Input Power Computation
> 
> There are two important factors which should be kept in mind when evaluating
> the input power in these experiments:
> 
> 1. An electric motor works most efficiently at the peak ratings for which it
> was designed. When an electric motor runs at a much lower load than it was
> designed for, the difference between Apparent Power (volts times amps) and
> "True Power" becomes large. The ratio of True Power divided by Apparent power
> is known as the Power Factor (PF). This is described in many introductory
> texts on A.C. power. [7] The PF is computed automatically by the Dranetz power
> meter, and an average PF for the run is displayed.
> 
> In these tests, a 40 HP motor was used to drive a relatively small, 12 inch
> rotor, so the PF was lower than other tests I have observed, varying from 73%
> up to 84%. A 30 HP motor would be more appropriate for this pump, it would
> have yielded a higher PF.
> 
> 2. All electric motors suffer some degree of mechanical power loss. Conversion
> from electricity to rotary motion cannot be 100% efficient. The motor used in
> this test is rated at 82.5% nominal efficiency by the manufacturer. It is
> likely that the actually efficiency is somewhat less than this. Energy lost in
> the conversion appears in the form of waste heat. Motors of this size get very
> hot, and they are equipped with blowers too keep them from overheating.
> 
> Tests 2 and 3 showed excess heat even when compared to the unadjusted Apparent
> Power. In Test 2, The Coefficient of Production (C.O.P.) was 117% measured
> against the Apparent Power. However, if we take into account the relatively
> low FP (caused by the inefficiency of this large motor driving the small
> pump), and the energy lost in conversion to mechanical, rotary motion, the
> C.O.P. was closer to 170%, that is, the input to output ratio was roughly
> 1:1.7. A great deal of other energy was not accounted for, in readily apparent
> losses like radiation from the pump, which is the size of a small automobile
> engine block, and which was over 300 deg F during the run. The 117% C.O.P. is
> the most conservative, lower bound estimate that would be reasonable. This
> fact was demonstrated by Test 1, the null run. In this test, the lower bound
> C.O.P., comparing to Apparent Power, was 59%. Adjusted for FP and mechanical
> losses, the C.O.P. was 98%, which is a close balance of input and output.
> 
> 
> The Performance Window
> 
> Griggs explained that his machines have a window of performance, defined by a
> set of flow rates, pressure, speed of rotation, and so on. If you operate one
> of the machines below or above the window of that particular machine, it will
> produce little or no excess heat. He demonstrated this fact.
> 
> The pump used in these experiments was a new, experimental design, optimized
> to create steam, rather than hot water. He had not finished working out the
> range of operating parameters for it. This particular machine, unfortunately,
> suffers from a rather narrow window of performance. It works best with a flow
> rate between 0.15 and 0.25 gallons per minute, and for reasons he has not yet
> determined, it requires a relatively high input pressure. It is much more
> difficult to adjust than some of his previous models, but it has a high C.O.P.
> and it produces pure steam without a mixture of unboiled water. He expects to
> fix the narrow window requiring the finicky adjustments with a new pump which
> will be ready in a few weeks.
> 
> During the demonstrations, he had difficulty getting the machine to balance
> input water and output steam rates properly, and he had difficulty keeping the
> flow high enough. He demonstrated what happens when the flow is too low; the
> water in the narrow compartment around the spinning rotor suddenly drains off
> in what he calls "deloading," which is an explosive burst of steam after which
> the motor spins freely, drawing about 4 KW, the level you see when the pump is
> run without water. It is surprisingly difficult to fill up this particular
> experimental unit after this happens. You have to shut the output valve, fill
> it up, and gradually open the valve again. This pump was equipped with a thick
> glass porthole at the end of the outer bearing (the side away from the motor),
> allowing a view of the water sloshing around inside, which allows you to gage
> the water level in the pump. Getting the input and output flow to balance is a
> little bit like trying to adjust a hose so that it will fill a bucket with a
> hole in bottom up to a certain level, and no higher. However, once you get
> everything in balance, the machines tend to stay in balance for extended
> periods of time. An actual operating pump at a customer site is equipped with
> preset flow control and pressure control valves. Most operating pumps are
> bigger and they have wider "windows;" for example, an ideal flow might be
> between 5 and 7 gallons per minute, which is much easier to ensure than the
> 0.15 and 0.25 of this experimental unit.
> 
> When the pump is too full, or some other "performance window" operating
> parameter is not right, the pump generates exactly as much heat as you would
> expect any other stirring device to generate, according to the classic
> experiments of J.P. Joule. When the correct flow and pressures are achieved,
> the effect turns on, and this fact is easy to observe. The flow rate of water
> going in remains constant, and the cloud of steam coming out remains the same,
> but the electric power draw drops dramatically, by 20% to 50%, say from 23 to
> 14 KW. The sound the machine makes also changes noticeably. Sometime the drop
> in power draw will fluctuate around, as the effect fades in and out, but it
> will soon stabilize and the machine will go on producing the same amount of
> steam as it did before, with far less electricity than it used previously, for
> hours or days.
> 
> When the machine is not producing any excess heat, the power draw kilowatt
> numbers on the Dranetz are proportional to the flow, increasing as the input
> flow valve is opened, decreasing as it is shut, just as you would expect. When
> the excess heat effect turns on, input power no longer changes as much in
> response to flow adjustments.
> 
> 
> Results
> 
> TEST 1    January 6, 1994 11:30 a.m.
> 
> When we arrived, Griggs explained to me that he was having trouble boosting
> the flow rate and maintaining pressure on the unit, so he was not getting a
> measurable effect. However, he had managed to balance input and output, and to
> bring the machine into a steady state, so we decided to let it run for an hour
> producing little or no excess heat, as a control or "blank" test run of the
> calorimetry. The flow rate was below the window, at 0.05 gallons per minute.
> 
> Results were as follows:
> 
> Starting mass and temperature of water in steel drum: 350 lbs, 55 deg F.
> Water in input hopper also 55 deg F.
> 
> Ending mass and temperature in steel drum: 376 lbs, 127 deg F
> 
> Water temperature Delta T: 72 deg F
> 
> Energy added to water: 72 deg F x 376 lbs = 27,072 BTUs, which equals 7.93 KWH
> 
> It is important to remember that all of the water that ended up in the steel
> drum was tap water starting at 55 deg F. Ambient temperature was slightly
> higher, at 63 deg F, but this large mass of water could would not absorbed any
> significant amount of heat from ambient in spite of the 8 deg F difference,
> because it was heated above ambient by the pump 6 minutes into the test.
> 
> Dranetz input power: 13.46 KWH
> Dranetz PF: 73%
> 
> C.O.P. computations (C.O.P. is output energy divided by input expressed as a
> percentage) --
> 
>                                    Input KWH      C.O.P.
> Apparent                           13.46               59%
> Adjusted for PF                         9.83           81%
> Adjusted for PF and Motor efficiency    8.12           98%
> 
> Conclusion: This is close to a balance of input and output. Because there must
> have been significant radiant losses, with no excess heat I expect the C.O.P.
> would be lower than 98%, so these results might indicate a small effect.
> 
> 
> TEST 2    January 6, 1994 3:00 p.m.
> 
> In the afternoon, after the machine turned on and warmed up for 5 or 10
> minutes, Griggs and the others tinkered with the input and output flow valves
> and some other parameters, and after about 20 minutes in all, they announce
> that the flow was steady at 0.20 gallons per minute, and the power draw
> kilowatts had fallen, so the effect was turned on. The valve venting the steam
> outside was shut, the valve leading into the steel drum was opened, and we
> collected the steam for 19 minutes, 40 seconds. The run was terminated when a
> circuit breaker in another part of the building shut down the controls. The
> main power feed did not fail, but it is held on by solenoid actuators, which
> opened up. The recording Dranetz meter has a battery back up, so no data was
> lost. All other data collection is by stopwatch and pen on paper. (Events like
> this remind us that sometimes, the old, simple ways of doing science are
> best.)
> 
> Results were as follows:
> 
> Starting mass and temperature of water in steel drum: 350 lbs, 53 deg F.
> Ending mass and temperature in steel drum: 381 lbs, 103 deg F
> 
> Water temperature Delta T: 50 deg F
> 
> Energy added to water: 50 deg F x 381 lbs = 19,050 BTUs, which equals 5.58 KWH
> 
> Dranetz input power: 4.80 KWH
> Dranetz PF: 84%
> 
> C.O.P. computations --
> 
>                                    Input KWH      C.O.P.
> Apparent                           4.80           117%
> Adjusted for PF                         4.03           138%
> Adjusted for PF and Motor efficiency    3.33           168%
> 
> Conclusion: excess heat was detected at levels far beyond any reasonable error
> limits for the instrumentation used. If the equipment had been performing the
> same as it did in Test 1, the final water temperature would have been closer
> to 80 deg F than 103 deg F. This is computed as follows: 4.80 KWH Apparent is
> delivered to motor, adjusted for PF and efficiency, would have created 3.33
> KWH of heat, which equals 11,372 BTUs, which would have raised the 381 lb mass
> of water by 30 deg F, but it went up 50 deg F, instead. I am certain that even
> my kitchen cooking thermometer can detect the difference between 80 deg F and
> 103 deg F.
> 
> This test ran for one-third the time of Test 1. The flow rate was 0.20 gallons
> per minute, compared to 0.05 g.p.m. in Test 1. The improved PF was because the
> motor was carrying a greater load with the greater flow rate.
> 
> To look at it another way: the rate of energy generation was 10.00 KW input to
> the pump, 16.74 KW out; the excess was 6.74 KW, or 0.4 MJ per minute.
> 
> TEST 3    4:04 p.m.
> 
> Test 3 ran normally for 30 minutes.
> 
> Results were as follows:
> 
> Starting mass and temperature of water in steel drum: 350 lbs, 53 deg F.
> Ending mass and temperature in steel drum: 392 lbs, 122 deg F
> 
> Water temperature Delta T: 69 deg F
> 
> Energy added to water: 69 deg F x 392 lbs = 27048 BTUs, which equals 7.92 KWH
> 
> Dranetz input power: 7.26 KWH
> Dranetz PF: 84%
> 
> C.O.P. computations --
> 
>                                    Input KWH      C.O.P.
> Apparent                           7.26           109%
> Adjusted for PF                         6.10           130%
> Adjusted for PF and Motor efficiency    5.03           157%
> 
> 
> Conclusion: nearly as much heat as Test 2. Again, the results are far above
> any possible experimental error.
> 
> 
> Footnotes
>        
> 1. R. Stringham, "Cavitation Induced Micro-Fusion," ICCF4 paper C 3.9
> 
> 2. J. Griggs, U.S. Patent Number 5,188,090, Feb 23, 1993, Apparatus for
> heating fluids
> 
> 3. J. Griggs, "A Brief Introduction to the Hydrosonic Pump and the Associated
> 'Excess Energy' Phenomenon," ICCF4 unnumbered paper. This will appear in the
> full ICCF4 Proceedings, and it is available in from Hydrodynamics
> 
> 4. J. Rothwell, "Brief Report on November 22 Demonstration of Griggs Device,"
> CFRA
> 
> 5. General Electric Corp, Dranetz Series 808 operator manual equipment
> specifications
> 
> 6. D. Cravens, "Factors Affecting the Success Rate of Heat Generation in CF
> Cells," ICCF4 paper C 3.12
> 
> 7. V. Valkenburgh, "Basic Electricity, Revised Edition," Hayden Books
> 
> 

 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
Griggs is now installing new test equipment including a dynamometer. He
is working with the retired head of Mechanical Engineering at Georgia
Tech (second only to M.I.T. in the U.S.). They hope to finish in month
or two. I hope these tests will be considered definative proof.

___________________________________________________________________________


The following article appears in the June 1994 monthly technical
edition of Superconductivity News (Vol. 6, No. 42).

William Jay Fogal, president of Quick Chek Industries (Martinez, GA)
has invented and patented an electronic device for which he has made
very broad claims.  Others learning about the device have further
extrapolated the claims to the point that if real, the device means
the end of power utilities, the rendering useless of the entire
electrical power grid, the demise of manufacturers of electrical
generators and electrical cable, and a dramatic reduction in the
activities of hundreds of thousands of ancillary service providers.
Most industries will have to change or die.  The infrastructure
alterations will be the most profound the world has ever witnessed.
While the odds are stacked against it being real, the staff of
Superconductivity News (SN) believes it is important to report the
events as they occur.

Fogal is not claiming he has invented a room temperature
superconductor.  What he has invented is either completely fatuous or
it is astounding in that it strikes at the very core theoretical
underpinnings of electromechanics.  Fogal told SN that his device grew
out of his efforts to fix a broken car radio in the mid 1970s.  As he
got past the wiring and the circuits and into the semiconductors
actually running the radio, he made changes that greatly improved the
audio quality.  He then let his ideas lay idle for more than a decade
before finally returning to the research in the late 1980s.

Fogal says his charged barrier semiconductor device allows electrons
to flow without resistance (i.e., as in superconductors) at room
temperature.  He claims the device demonstrates a very high AC voltage
and AC current gain.  His charged barrier device is on a bipolar
design that can be incorporated in (MOS) metal oxide semiconductor
designs, as well as multiple gate devices.  It operates on a hall
effect electromagnetic field internal device.  The hall effect
magnetic field forces electron flow and angular spin of the electrons
in the same direction to the top of the conduction bands in the
crystal lattice on semiconductor devices, unlike (SOI) silicon on
insulator devices that force electron flow to the surface of the
semiconductor lattice.  "Unlike superconductors which generate an
external field, my semiconductor creates a self-regulating magnetic
field internal to the device," Fogal said.

-- Fogal's Description of His Device --

Charged barrier semiconductor devices incorporate a base plate member
of a semiconductor crystal.  Also incorporated with the base plate
member is a dialectic material and a second base plate member.  The
combination of the two base plate members constitutes an electrolytic
capacitor.  The first base plate member will create a transverse
electric field that is known as a hall effect in the base plate member
of the semiconductor crystal.  The ratio of the transverse electric
field strength to the product of the current and the magnetic field
strength is called the hall coefficient, and its magnitude is
inversely proportional to the carrier concentration on the base plate
member.  The product of the hall coefficient and the conductivity is
proportional to the mobility of the carriers when one type of carrier
is dominant.  Since the base plate member is tied directly to the
emitter junction of the semiconductor, the hall coefficient comes into
play with the creation of a one pole electromagnet in the base plate
member.

The hall effect of the electrolytic capacitor, in relation to the
position on the crystal lattice, will force electron angular spin in
the same direction and electron flow to the top of the conduction
bands in the lattice.  The magnetic flux and the density of the
carriers on the electrolytic capacitor plate are in direct proportion
to the magnetic flux and carrier concentration on the emitter junction
on the semiconductor crystal.

Since the angular spin and the flow of the electrons are in the same
direction, due to the influence of the electromagnetic field, the
electron lattice interaction factor does not come into play.  The
electron wave density is greater and the mobility of the electron flow
is faster.  The device does not exhibit frequency loss in the wave.

The base or gate of the semiconductor is more sensitive to input
signal.  These devices will typically turn on with an input to the
junction in the area of 0.2 MV to 0.4 MV with an output at the
collector junction of 450 MV at 133.5 UA of current.

-- Electron Wave Function In Charged Barrier Technology --

Think of the conduction bands in a crystal lattice as a highway.
Electrons in the free state will move along this highway.  The only
difference is the electron angular spin can be in different
directions.  With the electrons spinning in different directions, the
electrons would travel on different lanes of the highway and
collisions can occur.  The scattering and the collision of the
electrons can cause friction and resistance to the flow.  The
resistance to the flow and the friction can cause semiconductors to
run hot.

In semiconductor devices, this is called lattice scattering or
electron lattice interaction.  If we could make the electrons move in
one direction, and also spin in the same direction, then we could have
more traffic electrons (on the highway) without having the resistance
or the collisions.  We could put a barrier between the lanes on the
highway.  But, the electrons could still spin in different directions.
But, what if we could charge this barrier?!  Turn this barrier into an
electromagnetic field!  An electromagnetic field in one direction.  A
one pole electromagnet!  A hall effect magnetic field.  This one pole
electromagnetic field would make almost all of the electrons spin in
the same direction.  Because the electrons are a negative charge and
the electromagnetic field has a negative charge, the electrons travel
in unison and then we could have more electrons on the highway, and
the electron travel could be faster.

The orientation of the spin of the electrons in the crystal lattice,
due to the electromagnetic field, has a direct impact on the formation
of the wave.  If the orientation of the spin of the electrons are in
unison, there will be no loss in the wave nature, and the density of
the wave will be greater, and the frequency of the wave will be
complete.  If the spin of the electrons in the lattice are in
different directions, the wave nature will be affected and there will
be a loss in the density of the wave.  And, there will be a gap in the
frequency of the wave.

-- Patent Issued --

Fogal filed an application for a US patent covering the design on
March 1, 1991 and awarded No. 5,196,809, titled "High gain, low
distortion, faster switching transistor," on March 23, 1993.  The
patent includes figures, diagrams, and several data plots, e.g. output
signal vs. input signal (vac) for the Fogal device vs. a standard
transistor.  The patent was Fogal's first, but he has since
received a second patent, No. 5,311,139, covering a fuse testing
device that has nothing to do with the semiconductor.  Another US
patent application covering improvements to the semiconductor was
filed in January of this year.  The patent abstract and claim 1
follow.

-- Patent Abstract --

A transistor in which the emitter terminal is coupled to ground
through a filter capacitor.  The filter capacitor has a capacitance of
from about 0.2 uf to about 22 uf and can be connected either by itself
or in parallel with a resistor, depending upon the circuit in which it
is used.  The incorporation of a filter greatly of such a capacitance
level provides greatly improved gain and less distortion of the input
signal, to permit a high output to be achieved in fewer amplifier
stages and with less current draw and heating than in conventional
transistor amplifier stage circuits.  Additionally, the transistor can
be provided in a unitary structure by incorporating the filter
capacitor directly on the transistor chip, and can also be provided by
incorporating the transistor and a resistor within the casing of a
filter capacitor.

Claim 1

a)	a substrate;
b) 	one of a NPN and a PNP transistor integrally formed on the
	substrate, the transistor having a base, a collector, and an
	emitter;
c)     	a parallel resistor and filter capacitor network coupled with
	the emitter and mounted on the transistor, to form an integral
	part of the integrated circuit, the filter capacitor including
	an outer casing; and
d)	base, collector, and emitter terminals on the substrate and
	coupled with the base, the collector, and the emitter,
	respectively, to permit the integrated circuit to be connected
	with an electronic circuit, wherein the integrated circuit is
	contained within the filter capacitor outer casing.

-- Prototypes Fabricated --

Fogal told SN that he has made six prototypes of his device.
Prototype radios and computer modems have been fabricated employing
the device for demonstration purposes.  Fogal emphasizes the noise
reduction aspects of his semiconductor.

Through the help of a colleague, Allan Ames of Advanced Scientific
Applications (Houston, TX), one of Fogal's semiconductors will be
tested by scientists at the Texas Center for Superconductivity at the
University of Houston.  This is being arranged through Wei-Kan Chu.
SN discussed the situation with Chu and he confirmed that testing will
be done after the documents he had received were reviewed.  SN's
editor-in-chief reviewed what the device might mean with Chu.  Clearly
Chu had not had the opportunity to give the matter much thought.

Thomas E. Bearden (Huntsville, AL) believes Fogal's semiconductor
represents a true overunity electrical device.  "Electromagnetics is
over 100 years old; many of its assumptions are flat wrong," Bearden
told us.  He relates the way the Fogal semiconductor works to the way
heat pumps function, but says it takes it one step beyond.  A Fogal
semiconductor simply stops electrons from flowing and passes the pure
potential energy from the now-free electrons with the circuit blocking
the drift current.  Unlike superconductors, pairs of electrons are not
needed to pass the current along without resistance.

Bearden added that, based on endurance load tests on the Fogal
semiconductor, they are led to the firm conclusion that the chip
actually stops the longitudinal flow of electrons, strips them of
their energy, and passes the pure energy along without resistance.  In
this regard he says it behaves like a heat pump but goes one step
beyond to pull energy from the vacuum.

-- SN Analysis and Comment --

It is important to note that the device does not violate the rules of
thermodynamics involving the conservation of energy.  It does not make
energy from nothing.  One end of a Fogal circuit would provide
electricity for work such as running a light bulb or a computer, and
the other end will draw energy from the environment and get quite cold
in the process.

The best aspect of this story is that either a Fogal semiconductor
works or it doesn't.  There is nothing sophisticated in its
construction and there are no mysterious materials fabrication steps
involved.  There should not be any gray or cloudy areas.  Testing
should be straightforward.

Q:	What are the odds of its being real?
A: 	If it is real, you will hear more about it soon enough.  If it
	isn't, think how much fun you have had reading this article.

Q:	Are there any intrinsic limitations if the device is real?
A:	None we can foresee.

==========================================================================
==========================================================================

Okay folks, this is the latest news about free energy machine development.

If you know of somebody else having something that runs on by converting 
zero point energy, please let me know.

Regards, Dipl. Ing. Stefan Hartmann.
c/o Workshop for Decentral Energy Research, Berlin, Germany.
email to:
harti@contrib.de
 ## CrossPoint v3.02 ##
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenharti cudfnStefan cudlnHartmann cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszXL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Mon Jul 25 04:37:03 EDT 1994
------------------------------
1994.07.24 / Matt Kennel /  Re: Dranetz power meter
     
Originally-From: mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Dranetz power meter
Date: 24 Jul 1994 21:09:35 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

Jed Rothwell (72240.1256@compuserve.com) wrote:
: Final tests with dynamometers and a large scale calorimeter should be
: completed within three months. These tests should settle the question once and
: for all. I myself have no doubt that the device creates energy, because I
: think it is virtually impossible to fool every common type of electric meter
: by as much as 65%.

Or it's a heat pump.  How hot can you make the output water?

100 liters at +10 degrees is the same xs-energy as 10 liters at +100 degrees
but less impressive thermodynamically.

Not to say that you can't get rich off a novel kind of compressor-less heat
pump.  In fact I'd think you're more likely to achieve commercial success
with that instead of some competely incomprehended 'cold fusion'.

: - Jed Rothwell

cheers
matt

--
-Matt Kennel  		mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu
-Institute for Nonlinear Science, University of California, San Diego
-*** AD: Archive for nonlinear dynamics papers & programs: FTP to
-***     lyapunov.ucsd.edu, username "anonymous".
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenmbk cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.24 / Matt Kennel /  Re: Dranetz power meter
     
Originally-From: mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Dranetz power meter
Date: 24 Jul 1994 21:17:14 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

Jed Rothwell (72240.1256@compuserve.com) wrote:
: At these power levels the meter
: rated at 0.5% accuracy. This was verified by running the meter in parallel
: with a variety of other meters, including electric power company billing
: meters.

I thought that home electric billing meters are not sensitive to reactance;
and so it's quite possible to fool them, but most people don't.  There
are industrial power meters designed for heavily reactive loads to deal
with this circumstance which I hope were the ones used.

In anycase just because the power consumed by the motor all of a sudden
drops does not necessarily mean "new physics".  You can get various
'power-factor' devices at any Home Depot that substantially reduce the
power consumed by many electrical motors with not very much loss in
output power.  Might this weird water device might be putting the motor
in such a mode of operation?  

something to worry about before you start saying "zero point energy".

: - Jed Rothwell

--
-Matt Kennel  		mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu
-Institute for Nonlinear Science, University of California, San Diego
-*** AD: Archive for nonlinear dynamics papers & programs: FTP to
-***     lyapunov.ucsd.edu, username "anonymous".
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenmbk cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.25 /  jfaludi /  plasma vortex model of matter
     
Originally-From: jfaludi@reed.edu. (jfaludi)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.physics.fusion,alt.books.technical
Subject: plasma vortex model of matter
Date: 25 Jul 1994 00:25:02 GMT
Organization: Reed College,  Portland, Oregon

I have a question for folks regarding some research I'm trying to do...

About a year ago, I was reading a book on cosmology (the book was about
modelling cosmological structures electromagnetically rather than
gravitationally) that mentioned a plasma vortex theory of matter.  That
is to say, rather than thinking of all matter as made up of fundamental
particles (whether you're working on the level of
electrons/protons/neutrons or quarks or whatever) you think of matter
as electromagnetic "vortices," consequences of field properties or
fluid dynamics.  (Much like the relativistic model of gravition, except
you have charge to deal with, and perhaps more.)

Recently, looking for thesis ideas, I've tried to find published
research using this theory.  Apparently this model is not at all
popular--in the last couple months I've been looking for books or
journal articles, I can't for the life of me find anything published on
it. The closest I've gotten is a Very old book (by J.J. Thompson) which
models molecules in roughly this way (though he doesn't call it a
"plasma vortex" model; the catchy name must've come later.)

I would greatly appreciate it if someone could send me a few
references, or at the very least tell me why nobody likes the theory
(references would be preferred, though.)  

  Please send responses to jfaludi@reed.edu 
  Thanks.
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenjfaludi cudlnjfaludi cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.24 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Argument for/against current state of nuclear power ?
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Argument for/against current state of nuclear power ?
Date: Sun, 24 Jul 1994 22:06:13 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <CtCr7I.2ws@news.tcd.ie> mdennehy@tcd.ie (Sparks) writes:
>Okay, I've had enough. My sister joined Greenpeace about five days ago
>and since then I've been in a running argument with her over the current
>state of affairs regarding nuclear power (fission & fusion, even though
>she doesn't know the difference). I am slowly running out of plusses to
>throw at her. Anyone got any bright ideas ?

Yes, you both should learn the various gimmicks proposed to keep 
nucs running and some of them for safer operation.  Also, the REAL
truth of tokamak fusion and its to be connection with heavy metal fuel 
breeding, for purposes of providing continuing fuel for nuc operation. 

The safety record of Nuclear energy is fantastic, considering the 
amount of fuel exposed to catastrophic runnaway from accident, mental
illness, natural calamity and war.  The only factor that makes the
future take on an air of greater danger, is that age affects the 
effectiveness of the cooling systems, and a fully functional cooling
system is imperative for a continued safe radiation free future.  

When aneutronic fusion comes on line, the first application will be
the nuclear replacement market.  Aneutronic energy of the type we
are contemplating nibbles small lumps of energy at a time, in the 
manner of a diesel engine, each chamber burning a chunk of energy
many times a second so that even the gigajoules of stored magnetic 
confinement or stabilization field energy and its potential total 
wrecking explosive blast which is now embedded in competing fusion
designs (ITER) is avoided by many orders of magnitude.  

>BTW, I'm advocating nuclear power in this argument, but she keeps
>pointing to chernobyl et al, and also to the new Thorp plant at

>Apologies if this letter has any misspellings - new computer here and
>everythings haywire, and I've a headache too :-(

Hmmmm! never thought of that excuse. Bet it wouldn't work for my
speed typing style.  
>--
>Mark "Sparks" Dennehy		Ham Radio : EI5EDB (2m FM only) :-(
>Engineering Undergrad		Internet  : mdennehy@alf2.tcd.ie
>Trinity College Dublin		Telepathy : mdennehy@Mars.Red.Planet


cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.24 / John Logajan /  Re: Dranetz power meter
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@mirage.skypoint.net (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Dranetz power meter
Date: 24 Jul 1994 21:22:55 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Matt Kennel (mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu) wrote:
: Or it's a heat pump.

For it to be a heat pump there *must* necessarily be a surface on some
part of the device that is colder than the ambient.  Since we are
talking kilowatts of excess heat, this means either a very very cold
small spot, or a very large cool area.

Lacking any evidence of that (???) then a "heat pump" is ruled out.

It would be a simple test that one could do with the touch of a hand.

--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com -- 612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills  MN 55112 USA           -
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.24 / John Logajan /  Re: Dranetz power meter
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@mirage.skypoint.net (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Dranetz power meter
Date: 24 Jul 1994 23:17:20 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Matt Kennel (mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu) wrote:
: are industrial power meters designed for heavily reactive loads to deal
: with this circumstance which I hope were the ones used.

Correct me if I am wrong, but the Power Factor errors due to phase shift
between current and voltage *always* end up OVERstating input power
unless corrected.  Meters suffering from this syndrome would tend to
mask anomalous heat rather than indicating it.

: You can get various
: 'power-factor' devices at any Home Depot that substantially reduce the
: power consumed by many electrical motors with not very much loss in
: output power.  Might this weird water device might be putting the motor
: in such a mode of operation?  

As reported in "Test 1", a null run had 59% of the measured input power
show up as hot water energy.  Corrected for the measured PF increased
the accounting to 81%.  So we can conclude about an 80% efficiency 
rating for the motor in the null case.  That gives us about 20% of
efficiency gain under the factor you propose.

"Test 2" reported 117% gain, or 138% with PF accounted for.  We can't
get over 100% even with 100% motor efficiency, so I don't see how
a change in motor efficiency can explain the 117% or 138% numbers.

--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com -- 612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills  MN 55112 USA           -
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.25 / David Davies /  Re: 4He alone?
     
Originally-From: drd851@newshost4.anu.edu.au (David R Davies)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: 4He alone?
Date: 25 Jul 1994 17:27:35 +1000
Organization: Australian National University

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

>While it has been common among cold fusion advocates to simple deny
>the validity of any assertion regarding the essential character of
>nuclear reaction processes, there has never been offered by anyone
>at anytime an explanation for the total absence of any confirming
>signature for a nuclear process which has 4He as its primary product.
>Theories relating to cold fusion remain incomplete or have been shown
>to fail in some fundamental way to account for the experimental
>data relating to cold fusion.

This is just not true. There are theories or partial theories and
intuitive arguments that at least indicate that the high energy
results may not apply at low energies in solids. No one has come
even close to proving that CF is impossible. As long as this state
remains then any good sceptic should keep an open mind. 
 
>The detection of 4He alone, without any of the accompanying signatures
>of a nuclear process, is NOT consistent with cold fusion.  Such data
>is by its very nature most likely to be the result of experimental
>error such as misidentification or contamination by atomspheric helium.
>The fact that claims for this detection are quite limited and appear
>to be contradicted by numerous null results for helium detection is
>a further indication that these results cannot be considered proof
>that cold fusion is occurring or that 4He is the primary reaction
>product.

This is less dogmatic. The odds may still be against CF but that
doesn't leave it dead. I think the circumstantial evidence in favour
of CF is quite formidable and growing. It certainly can not be dismissed
so easily. 

>Dick Blue, dense as ever!

Not dense - you have consistently homed in on the weaknesses of the 
CF case but you reveal yourself as a TB of the orthodoxy - a Defender
Of The Faith rather than someone I would consider a True Sceptic.

dave


cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudendrd851 cudfnDavid cudlnDavies cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.25 / David Davies /  Re: What does delocalization mean?
     
Originally-From: drd851@newshost4.anu.edu.au (David R Davies)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What does delocalization mean?
Date: 25 Jul 1994 17:37:28 +1000
Organization: Australian National University


This is clearly a sticking point - particles, waves, delocalization.

I agree that it is best to keep the word 'delocalized' to refer to the
special state where the is a standing wave in a periodic potential but
was pointing out that this was just a special case of the general wave
nature of things.

The Bohm interpretation seems to get around some of the conceptual problems
people have with the wave/particle duality but does it go far enough?
While I wait impatiently for the next installment of that series I will
have a go at answering a question.

Bill Page: (Bohm via Maple stream)
# When we first considered Bohm and Hiley's interpretation of  the 
# wave packet, we were struck by a new problem that it introduced (at 
# least for us).  In this new interpretation, the particle can be 
# found within the wave packet at a specific location.  The 
# trajectory that the particle takes is governed by its particular 
# location within the packet. This begs the question of  the causal 
# relationship between the packet and the particle.  For if the 
# particle is the cause of  the wave packet, why is the wave packet's 
# spatial relationship with respect to the particle not fixed. That 
# is, we naively expected that the wave packet would always be 
# centered on the particle, but instead the wave packet and the 
# particle must now be considered separate entities. So, if the 
# particle does not cause the wave packet, but is merely a passenger 
# on this vehicle, then what does determine the location and behavior 
# of the packet?

Starting with the general usage of the word 'particle' when we want to
specify 'electron' or 'proton' we have something that is usually seen as
some sort of vibrational state of space-time. It is certainly a useful 
word and concept at a macro scale. 

Experimentally we know that particles behave like wave packets with the
wavelength related to the momentum. If we look at a typical wave packet
we have a set of waves of different wavelengths that come closest to 
coherence at one central position. At other points the waves interfere
with each other - typically more and more as we move away from the centre
so that the mean value goes to zero.

The waves can go on for ever. It is the coherence that is semi-localized in
the centre. If we look on a particle as a state of coherence then I think
that the picture becomes easier to cope with intuitively. 

If the particle is drifting in free space then the region of coherence will
be more-or-less spherical and expanding with the point of maximum coherence
in the centre. In a periodic lattice it will spread as far as it can if its
momentum gives it a wavelength comensurate with the lattice spacing. 

If we (back out in free space) have two particles approaching each other 
their vibrations will interfere. The interference pattern will contain 
areas and patterns of coherence that are capable of exciting new, transient 
vibrational modes which can increase the level of coherence in the region 
between the two main coherence centres (particles) and thus shift each 
toward the other. ie forces move particles about by creating chaos behind
them and coherence in front. 

This shift in the centre of coherence will be accompanied by an overall
reduction in the extent of the coherence. Another way of looking at this is
that the momentum is changing and there is a wider spread of wavelengths
and hence a smaller coherence region. The coherence region is collapsing
to some degree. The bigger the impact of the incoming particle, the faster
and more complete the collapse - within the constraints of the uncertainty 
principle. 

The key point here is, I guess, that the centre of coherence can vary in
size and shape and will possibly take on a fractal shape or distribution.
The global maximum might even be jumping about - disappearing at one point
to be replaced at another without moving between. 

Compound particles with compound coherence centres (or patterns) will
fragment when the coherence length in the compound particle becomes 
too small relative to the separation of the centres/patterns. 

What we need to build is a picture of the reverse process.


Fun, fun, fun.


dave



cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudendrd851 cudfnDavid cudlnDavies cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.25 / Arthur TK /  Re: Maxima in Sigma-v/T^2 curves
     
Originally-From: awc@ipp-garching.mpg.de (Arthur      Carlson        TK  )
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Maxima in Sigma-v/T^2 curves
Date: 25 Jul 1994 11:22:21 +0200
Organization: Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics


Consider any fusion reaction (except D-D!) between a hydrogen species
(subscript 1) and another species with atomic number Z (subscript Z),
where Z may equal to 1.
The electron density is given by quasineutrality:
	n_e = n_1 + Z*n_Z
Assuming all species have the same temperature T, the total pressure is
	p = (n_e+n_1+n_Z)*T
Therefore, for a given pressure the maximum value ot n_1*n_Z is
	(n_1*n_Z)_max = (1/16)*(p/T)^2*(2/(Z+1))
Thus there is a "penalty" of (2/(Z+1)) for non-hydrogenic fuels, which
I included in my table.

The D-D reaction(s) must be calculated differently. First, there is
only one species of ion, so
	n_e = n_D
	p = (n_e+n_D)*T
The reaction rate, as Phil Snyder pointed out, is n_D^2<sv>/2, not
n_D^2<sv>, as I mistakenly used in my last post.
	(n_D^2/2)_max = (1/16)*(p/T)^2*2
Thus D-D gets a "bonus" of 2 because each ion can react with every
other ion, not just half of the others. The D-D reaction has of course
two pathways which are equally probable, so we have to take the
average of the two. The reason that Phil Snyder got different results
than I did is that I assumed complete burnup of the product T and
He3. We can discuss this assumption, if desired; I have done some
rough quantitative checks. Basically, T burns so well in a deuterium
plasma that you can't get it out even if you want to. You probably
can't get the He3 out either, but even if you could, you would
probably put it right back in again since it is a "free" aneutronic
fuel with more energetic reaction products than the fuel you started
with. This assumption presumable is a bit generous to DD, but a
serious analysis would require consideration of the concentration of
reaction products in the plasma (He4 ash as well as T and He3). Thus I
count the DD fusion energy as
	E_fusion = ((4.03+17.6)+(3.27+18.3))/2 = 21.6 Mev
and the energy in charged particles as
	E_charged = ((4.03+3.5)+(0.82+18.3))/2 = 13.3 Mev

With these assumptions and Rob Nachtrieb's <sv>/T^2 maximum values, we
find a relative reactivity of

fuel	penalty/bonus	<sv>/T^2	ratio
----	-------------	--------	-----
DT	1		1.06e-24	   1
DDn+DDp	2		1.38e-26	  38
DHe3	2/3		1.89e-26	  84
pB11	1/3		3.01e-27	1060

For the relative Lawson values, we need to weight with the energy of
the charged particles:

fuel	E_charged	Lawson/Lawson_DT
----	---------	----------------
DT	 3.5		  1
DDn+DDp	13.3		 10
DHe3	18.3		 16
pB11	 8.7		430

For the relative power densities, we need to weight with the total
fusion energy:

fuel	E_fusion	P_DT/P
----	---------	------
DT	17.6		   1
DDn+DDp	21.6		  31
DHe3	18.3		  81
pB11	 8.7		2100

Note that the corrected values for DD are only half as good as in my
original post, but still significantly better than those for DHe3.

I haven't made any assumptions about the isotope effect on tau_E. The Lawson
ratios tell you how much better tau_E has to be to get a given reaction going. If
we assume (with no particular justification) that transport is basically
diffusive, then the linear dimension of a break-even device must scale with
tau_E^(1/2), so the volume (which might give an indication of the cost) scales
with the Lawson ratio to the 3/2 power. For example, if a DT breakeven experiment
costs 10 G$, then a breakeven DHe3 experiment might cost 640 G$ (10*16^(3/2)). At
the same time, the fusion output of the DHe3 device will be a little lower than
the other (64 times the volume but 81 times worse reactivity).


Art Carlson
Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics
Garching, Germany
carlson@ipp-garching.mpg.de

cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenawc cudfnArthur cudlnTK cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.25 / Bruce TK /  Re: Merriman-Mallove Pact - "MM Pact"
     
Originally-From: bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce       Scott          TK  )
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Merriman-Mallove Pact - "MM Pact"
Date: 25 Jul 1994 13:01:07 GMT
Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching

In article <CtEAH9.3H@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, 
	crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:

|>     I don't know about others, but I am certainly willing to bet 
|>     against this 'miraculous new phenomenon' and have been ready
|>     for years.  Set criteria directly evaluated by a neutral third party
|>     and money up front are preconditions, though.

I agree with Dale. When these small details are cleared up, I will
jump in as well. I welcome criticism of any of the below by anyone.

I'll let CF be defined as any system which produces energy via

                NUCLEAR FUSION 

reactions in which the average kinetic energy of the particles
in the subsystems participating in the reactions is less than 10 eV
(that's a temperature of 100,000 K, folks). Systems not involving
fast particle beams or injected particles, and whose _entire_ apparatus 
is colder than 100,000 K qualify under this definition. Plasmas hotter 
than 10 eV obviously do not.

With the date of 1996, I'm even willing to bet against muon-catalysed
fusion. The criterium for me is scientific break-even: energy released
in fusion products is greater than the energy input into the fusion-
producing subsystem, _integrated_ over time, ie, long-term energy
storage followed by short-term release qualifies only if the total
stored energy is less than the energy released in the fusion reactions.

Now, who has good suggestions for a referee and the abovementioned
advance set-up?

Gene, what is your reaction to the above definition of CF? I will not
allow vague things like "something else" unless they are defined by the
referee.

-- 
Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de                               -- W Gibson
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnTK cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.24 / Cameron Bass /  Re: MM-Pact Signatories, Update
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: MM-Pact Signatories, Update
Date: Sun, 24 Jul 1994 16:32:41 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <940722141142_76570.2270_HHB69-2@CompuServe.COM>,
Eugene Mallove <76570.2270@compuserve.com> wrote:
>
>Signatories so far to the MM-Pact:
>
>Barry Merriman       7/20/94
>barry@math.ucla.edu
>
>Laurie Forbes        7/20/94
>lforbes@debug.cuc.ab.ca
>
>Only two takers so far? Where are all the other brave "skeptics"? Or are they 
>having second thoughts?

    Said signatories must not have read the sucker clause.  'Something else'
    covers a lot of ground, especially from authors of the 'First Law 
    Violator of the Week' piece and other gems.  I suspect the problem 
    here is that no one trusts the good judgement of the offering party, 
    for good reason.

    Besmirching your reputation is not worth much to me.  On the other hand, 
    cold hard cash and a *real* yardstick would be far more interesting than 
    useless posturing.

                                 dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.24 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Free Energy Machine Technology News !
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Free Energy Machine Technology News !
Date: Sun, 24 Jul 1994 16:37:27 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1994Jul21.235640.24508@debug.cuc.ab.ca>,
 <Lforbes@debug.cuc.ab.ca> wrote:
>With reference to your description of test runs of the "excess" energy
>device at Hydro Dynamics, I have noted that the input power meter, being
>rated at 800 KW full scale, is in fact operating during the test runs at
>only about 2% of full scale (14 to 23 KW). 
>
>Most, if not all, meters I am familiar with would have serious measurement 
>error, with respect to the value being metered, when utilized at such a 
>small full scale percentage.  If the *full scale* meter error is 1.5% as 
>stipulated, the error at a reading of only 2% of full scale would be 
>potentially upwards of 50 to 75%, would it not?  If so, that would be 
>more than enough to account for the apparent excess heat.
>
>Why not use a 25 KW or so meter instead?

     I think you've answered your own question.
     
                                 dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.25 / Arthur TK /  Re: Ball Lightning Carlson
     
Originally-From: awc@ipp-garching.mpg.de (Arthur      Carlson        TK  )
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Ball Lightning Carlson
Date: 25 Jul 1994 16:22:57 +0200
Organization: Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics


Paul Koloc, in nine pages of posts, has provided us with four new
pieces of information, without addressing any of the central physics
issues I brought up. The new information is:

1) Plasmak magnetoplasmoids are vastly different from spheromaks.
2) At the inner boundary of the mantle, the plasma pressure drops from the
   external gas pressure to zero over one Larmor radius.
3) At the outer boundary of the kernel, the plasma pressure rises from
   zero to some value over one Larmor radius.
4) Within the kernel, the plasma pressure is essentially constant (the
   currents are "force-free").

(There are also some experimental tidbits, but Koloc has elected to
exclude his experiments from the discussion: "certain work is
confidential", "As for the other information: Have IPP contact us for
a contract".)

Number 1 means we can throw out the post and references by Davidson,
since they refer only to a spheromak. The remaining three are getting
close to what would be required to calculate an equilibrium. You would
still need to know the form of the poloidal current (or toroidal
field) as a function of poloidal flux--Can we assume linearity for
simplicity? Then we need to set the level of poloidal flux in the
vacuum region, that of poloidal flux in the kernel region, and that of
and toroidal flux in the kernel region. Then we need the plasma
pressure (or total energy) in the kernel, and the external pressure
(e.g. 1 atm). The kernel aspect ratio will be determined by some
combination of these quantities. Koloc would also prescribe a
spheroidal boundary, but this would overdetermine the problem (and
lead to a contridiction). All in all, if Bruce or anyone else wants to
pick it up, we might have enough info to get to "first base", by
calculating an equilibrium.

Although most discussion will have to wait until somebody has done
Koloc's work for him in this respect, there are two question which may
be general enough that they can be addressed independent of the
details: average pressure and conductivity.

The average pressure is constrained by the virial theorem. Koloc
refers again to a "divergence theorem", which is not a standard
concept in plasma physics. If he would simply *write down*
mathematically what he means by this, we could perhaps talk about
it. His criticism of the virial theorem refers to "sources and sinks"
and to "pressure-bearing surfaces". I have looked at the derivation of
the virial theorem and cannot figure out what he is referring to or why
that would invalidate the derivation in the case of a plasmak.

Koloc has realised that his concept is a still birth unless he can
improve the conductivity by several orders of magnitude. To this end
he has invented "hyperconductivity". He has not elaborated on this
concept at all in this forum. His 1980 3rd CT Symp. paper has a bit
more detail, but doesn't make sense either. (Need I add "to me"? Does
it make sense to anyone?) I think Koloc realises that having energetic
electrons is not enough to have high conductivity. (For fundamental
reasons that have been well investigated in the context of tokamak
runaway electrons and current drive.) He seems to want to create a
vacuum channel in which his electrons can move without drag, which is even
wilder than the high vacuum he believes is spontaneously created and
maintained between mantle and kernel.

In summary, I am waiting for three things: a mathematical description
of a plasmak equilibrium, a mathematical formulation of or reference
for the "divergence theorem", and an explanation of the physics behind
the hypothesed hyperconductivity.


Art Carlson
Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics
Garching, Germany
carlson@ipp-garching.mpg.de

cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenawc cudfnArthur cudlnTK cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.25 / Bruce TK /  Re: MM-Pact Signatories, Update
     
Originally-From: bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce       Scott          TK  )
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: MM-Pact Signatories, Update
Date: 25 Jul 1994 16:01:59 GMT
Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching

In article <CtGDyH.3xG@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, crb7q@watt.seas.Virgin
a.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
|> In article <940722141142_76570.2270_HHB69-2@CompuServe.COM>,
|> Eugene Mallove <76570.2270@compuserve.com> wrote:
|> >
|> >Signatories so far to the MM-Pact:
|> >
|> >Barry Merriman       7/20/94
|> >barry@math.ucla.edu
|> >
|> >Laurie Forbes        7/20/94
|> >lforbes@debug.cuc.ab.ca
|> >
|> >Only two takers so far? Where are all the other brave "skeptics"? Or are they 
|> >having second thoughts?
|> 
|>     Said signatories must not have read the sucker clause.  'Something else'
|>     covers a lot of ground, especially from authors of the 'First Law 
|>     Violator of the Week' piece and other gems.  I suspect the problem 
|>     here is that no one trusts the good judgement of the offering party, 
|>     for good reason.
|> 
|>     Besmirching your reputation is not worth much to me.  On the other hand, 
|>     cold hard cash and a *real* yardstick would be far more interesting than 
|>     useless posturing.
|> 
|>                                  dale bass

Seconded.

Gene, I will be a taker as well if there is something in it for me (even
a beer), and there are no ambiguities. Please see my other post.

-- 
Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de                               -- W Gibson
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnTK cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.25 / Bruce TK /  Re: Ball Lightning Carlson
     
Originally-From: bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce       Scott          TK  )
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Ball Lightning Carlson
Date: 25 Jul 1994 16:08:57 GMT
Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching

In article <310hs1INN13b@slcawc.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de>, awc@ipp-garchi
g.mpg.de (Arthur      Carlson        TK  ) writes:

[...]

|> In summary, I am waiting for three things: a mathematical description
|> of a plasmak equilibrium, a mathematical formulation of or reference
|> for the "divergence theorem", and an explanation of the physics behind
|> the hypothesed hyperconductivity.

I'll comment on the other posts when I have more time, but I want to say
that the reason I am interested in whether the system is strictly
axisymmetric is that I need to build a 2-D axisymmetric MHD subset of
my tokamak code (compatible with the turbulence part, which no existing
MHD code is, to my knowledge), and if Paul's plasmak is strictly
axisymmetric I can have a go at it without having to build a code for
it from scratch -- which I am not willing to do unless Paul makes it 
lucrative :-)

So, is it? The gif suggests it is, but when I asked this before the
answers I got from Paul and Jim Bowery suggests it is not.

The only word I care about is "axisymmetric". The rest has to be formulas,
since I am not willing to decipher Paul's personal vocabulary.

-- 
Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de                               -- W Gibson
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnTK cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.25 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Maxima in Sigma-v/T^2 curves-- Te<Ti if hot p-B
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Maxima in Sigma-v/T^2 curves-- Te<Ti if hot p-B
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 1994 13:42:58 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <31008dINNu2@slcawc.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de> awc@ipp-garching.mpg.de writes:
>Consider any fusion reaction (except D-D!) between a hydrogen species
>(subscript 1) and another species with atomic number Z (subscript Z),
>where Z may equal to 1.
>The electron density is given by quasineutrality:
>	n_e = n_1 + Z*n_Z
>Assuming all species have the same temperature T, the total pressure is
>	p = (n_e+n_1+n_Z)*T

Generally this is likely not true of high temperature reactions, i.e.
P-B11.  Here the reaction will operate in the so called Hot ion mode. 
Temperature differences are significant, and could be from 3/4 or less
that of the ion temperature.   

   E. Teller, Editor, _Fusion_, 1981, Academic Press Inc., Chapter 16, 
         "Advanced Fusion Reactors", JM Dawson pp 462-480

There are a number of other considerations, which are device dependent
and have a very STRONG bearing on the success of a truly advanced fuel
burner.  PLASMAK(tm) device related ones are:  Magnetic System 
efficiency -- Compression of the Mantle reduces magnetized volume for
a very fast, intense and more thorough burn; Cyclotron radiation 
reflection -- the dense electron coating at the inner Mantle wall 
(pressure sensitive) reflects the 10th+ harmonic of Kernel cyclotron 
radiation;  the capture of the Bremsstrahlung by a volume locked 
blanket -- returns otherwised wasted aneutronic energy to further 
drive plasma toroidal compression heating; the subsequent release and 
expansion of the aneutronic spent PMK and plasmatized blanket in a 
tranformer linked inductive chamber -- produces direct electric drive 
at 90%+ conversion efficiency.    Yes 90%++.  Basically the concept 
is thrifty at utilizing its assets to aid in burn function before 
efficient transform of released energy to high grade electric power.  

>Therefore, for a given pressure the maximum value ot n_1*n_Z is
>	(n_1*n_Z)_max = (1/16)*(p/T)^2*(2/(Z+1))
>Thus there is a "penalty" of (2/(Z+1)) for non-hydrogenic fuels, which
>I included in my table.

Your assumption of Te=Ti may be overly conservative in the case
of p-B ..and I agree p-Li is moot.  

>The D-D reaction(s) must be calculated differently. First, there is
>only one species of ion, so
>	n_e = n_D
>	p = (n_e+n_D)*T
>The reaction rate, as Phil Snyder pointed out, is n_D^2<sv>/2, not
>n_D^2<sv>, as I mistakenly used in my last post.
>	(n_D^2/2)_max = (1/16)*(p/T)^2*2
>Thus D-D gets a "bonus" of 2 because each ion can react with every
>other ion, not just half of the others. The D-D reaction has of course
>two pathways which are equally probable, so we have to take the
>average of the two. The reason that Phil Snyder got different results
>than I did is that I assumed complete burnup of the product T and
>He3. We can discuss this assumption, if desired; I have done some
>rough quantitative checks. Basically, T burns so well in a deuterium
>plasma that you can't get it out even if you want to. You probably
>can't get the He3 out either, but even if you could, you would
>probably put it right back in again since it is a "free" aneutronic
>fuel with more energetic reaction products than the fuel you started
>with. This assumption presumable is a bit generous to DD, but a
>serious analysis would require consideration of the concentration of
>reaction products in the plasma (He4 ash as well as T and He3). Thus I
>count the DD fusion energy as
>	E_fusion = ((4.03+17.6)+(3.27+18.3))/2 = 21.6 Mev
>and the energy in charged particles as
>	E_charged = ((4.03+3.5)+(0.82+18.3))/2 = 13.3 Mev

>With these assumptions and Rob Nachtrieb's <sv>/T^2 maximum values, we
>find a relative reactivity of
>
>fuel	penalty/bonus	<sv>/T^2	ratio
>----	-------------	--------	-----
>DT	1		1.06e-24	   1
>DDn+DDp	2		1.38e-26	  38
>DHe3	2/3		1.89e-26	  84
>pB11	1/3		3.01e-27	1060
>
>For the relative Lawson values, we need to weight with the energy of
>the charged particles:

>fuel	E_charged	Lawson/Lawson_DT
>----	---------	----------------
>DT	 3.5		  1
>DDn+DDp	13.3		 10
>DHe3	18.3		 16
>pB11	 8.7		430

>For the relative power densities, we need to weight with the total
>fusion energy:

>fuel	E_fusion	P_DT/P
>----	---------	------
>DT	17.6		   1
>DDn+DDp	21.6		  31
>DHe3	18.3		  81
>pB11	 8.7		2100
>
>Note that the corrected values for DD are only half as good as in my
>original post, but still significantly better than those for DHe3.
>
>I haven't made any assumptions about the isotope effect on tau_E. The Lawson
>ratios tell you how much better tau_E has to be to get a given reaction going. If
>we assume (with no particular justification) that transport is basically
>diffusive, then the linear dimension of a break-even device must scale with
>tau_E^(1/2), so the volume (which might give an indication of the cost) scales
>with the Lawson ratio to the 3/2 power. For example, if a DT breakeven experiment
>costs 10 G$, then a breakeven DHe3 experiment might cost 640 G$ (10*16^(3/2)). At
>the same time, the fusion output of the DHe3 device will be a little lower than
>the other (64 times the volume but 81 times worse reactivity).

In some ways your numbers speak clearly and in others they obscure. 
Again, the particular fashion in which you presented the data, does 
not consider the advanctages of essentially pressure unlimited 
devices.  Higher ig-temps in general require stronger compressions 
and higher compression ratios which lead to very strong volume 
reductions and aneutronic or fusion burn density increases.  Thus 
other considerations dominate, such as the ratio of heat sunk into 
the compression heads, as opposed to recycling compression blanket 
-- (namely, hot neutrons or no).  Because the temperatures required 
for p-B11 are in the hot range, the compression ratio produces n^2 
driven dense burns on the order of megawatts/cc.   

Compression heating could take chamber pressure from 20kb to 30kb+, at
least for order milliseconds.  Note that these compressed chambers 
aren't large by comparison to tokamaks.. say the plasma gets down to 
"plum" size.  Okay.. so it may not be so optimistic and I have to jack 
it up to the size of a navel orange.  Hmmm!  that sunshine color. That
still will put us on Mars in two weeks.   

Well, is the Deuscher Republic going to be earth bound and anchored 
to tokamaks forever??  Let's get gutzy.  

>Art Carlson
>Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics
>Garching, Germany
>carlson@ipp-garching.mpg.de
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc, Bx 1037 Prometheus II Ltd, College Park MD 20741-1037    |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.25 / James Hanson /  Re: Ball Lightning Carlson
     
Originally-From: hanson@physics.auburn.edu (James D Hanson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Ball Lightning Carlson
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 1994 17:35:08 GMT
Organization: Auburn University Physics

In article <310hs1INN13b@slcawc.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de>,
awc@ipp-garching.mpg.de wrote:

 [sinp]

> The average pressure is constrained by the virial theorem. Koloc
> refers again to a "divergence theorem", which is not a standard
> concept in plasma physics. If he would simply *write down*
> mathematically what he means by this, we could perhaps talk about
> it. 

I would guess that he means Gauss' Theorem:

   Integral[volume,div Fvector] = 
      Integral[Surface bounding volume,Fvector dot (unit normal)]

This is sometmes refered to as the divergence theorem.  For example:
 
   "It is called the divergence theorem and sometimes Gauss' theorem (not to be
    confused with Gauss *law*)."

from page 44 of the book "Div, Grad, Curl and All That" by H. M. Schey, W.
W. Norton and Company, New York, London, (1973).

 [snip]
> 
> 
> Art Carlson
> Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics
> Garching, Germany
> carlson@ipp-garching.mpg.de

-- 
James D. Hanson                          ph. (205) 844-5044
Department of Physics                    fax (205) 844-4613
206 Allison Laboratory
Auburn University, AL 36849-5311         hanson@physics.auburn.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenhanson cudfnJames cudlnHanson cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.25 / Tom Droege /  Morrison Review of Huizenga's Book
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Morrison Review of Huizenga's Book
Date: 25 Jul 1994 18:20:14 GMT
Organization: fermilab

The July - August issue of the "Cern Courier" has a review of the paper
back version of Huizenga's book which contains a couple of years of 
additional material.  The review is by Douglas Morrison.

"Overall the book is a fine account of 
an incredible story that many will find
impossible to believe even though it 
did actually happen - and a few True
Believers are still continuing!  Well
worth reading."

I agree with Douglas that it is "well worth reading."  But you should
likely also read Mallove's book and let the material mush around in 
your brain so that you have both sides of the story.  

BTW,  has anyone heard when the Maui proceedings are coming out?

Tom Droege


cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.24 / Mark Metson /  Re: Free Energy Machine Technology News !
     
Originally-From: gpurdy@fox.nstn.ns.ca (Mark Metson)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Free Energy Machine Technology News !
Date: 24 Jul 1994 02:04:39 -0300
Organization: Atlantic Collection Agencies Limited

Lforbes@debug.cuc.ab.ca wrote:
: With reference to your description of test runs of the "excess" energy
: device at Hydro Dynamics, I have noted that the input power meter, being
: rated at 800 KW full scale, is in fact operating during the test runs at
: only about 2% of full scale (14 to 23 KW). 

: Why not use a 25 KW or so meter instead?

Another little problem that bothers me is it seems that the whole system
is being filled with huge unmeasured amounts of heat energy prior to
starting to measure.

Blessed Be. -MarkM-

--
Mark Metson              How many mystics does it take to bring Peace on Earth?
gpurdy@fox.nstn.ns.ca    Only one - but each one has to do it for themself.....
===============================================================================
This posting is 'software for wetware' placed under version 2 of the GNU public
license. Intent being: IF YOU DISTRIBUTE IT YOU CANNOT RESTRICT REDISTRIBUTION!
(This is a GNU-ware .signature: please re-use and re-cycle!)
===============================================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudengpurdy cudfnMark cudlnMetson cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.25 / Hal Lillywhite /  Re: Argument for/against current state of nuclear power ?
     
Originally-From: hall@macs.ico.tek.com (Hal Lillywhite)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Argument for/against current state of nuclear power ?
Date: 25 Jul 1994 07:32:13 -0700
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton  OR.

In article <CtCr7I.2ws@news.tcd.ie> mdennehy@tcd.ie (Sparks) writes:
>Okay, I've had enough. My sister joined Greenpeace about five days ago
>and since then I've been in a running argument with her over the current
>state of affairs regarding nuclear power (fission & fusion, even though
>she doesn't know the difference)...

???  She is trying to take a position and convince people to join
her in that position but she doesn't even know something as basic as
the difference between fission and fusion?  Disgusting.  On what
does she base her opposition to nuclear power?  It surely can't be
on any facts in her possession if she is that ignorant.

I'm afraid this sounds like the all too common "environmentalist"
who will do anything for the environment except actually learn some
science so she knows what she is talking about.  In other words, a
closed mind with a fanatical devotion to a cause, that devotion
being wrapped in ignorance of the subject.  Maybe I'm wrong and
maybe she is willing to take some science classes and learn
something.  If so there is hope.  However if she is unwilling to do
the work of learning your cause is hopeless.  You can't convince
someone who is already convinced and unwilling to examine the
facts.

>BTW, I'm advocating nuclear power in this argument, but she keeps
>pointing to chernobyl et al, and also to the new Thorp plant at
>Sellafield <sp?>. 

I'm not familiar with the Thorp plant but anyone with any knowledge
of nuclear energy knows that there is a *great* difference between
the Chernobyl reactor and the reactors used to generate power in the
west.  Comparing Chernobyl to the reactors normally used in the west
is like comparing the Wright Brothers early airplane to a modern
airliner.  Again a bit of knowledge on the subject would help a lot.

I am assuming you have at least a basic understanding of reactors,
how the various types operate and their safety features.  If not
inform yourself and suggest your sister do likewise.  If she refuses
to do so try to avoid the subject with her (probably not easy).  It
is a waste of time to try to convince somebody who remains
deliberately ignorant on a subject.
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenhall cudfnHal cudlnLillywhite cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.25 /  prasad /  Re: Free Energy Machine Technology News !
     
Originally-From: c1prasad@watson.ibm.com (prasad)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Free Energy Machine Technology News !
Date: 25 Jul 1994 17:22:26 GMT
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

cary@esl.com (Cary Jamison) writes:

> Based on recent posts, it seems more and more obvious that cold fusion is
> moving into the same stage as other free energy devices.  For many years to
> come we will be seeing claims of excess energy from various new twists of
> P&F.  Each will come with a little uproar and then fade away into the
> noise.  Each will be backed by some "expert scientists" who have studied
> the devices.  There will be many who believe whole-heartedly.  In efforts
> to explain how the devices work, there will be many more strange theories. 
> Already we're seeing that they all extract energy from vacuums or other
> such strangeness.  But none of the devices will ever be made commercially
> viable.

Sadly, looks like it, doesn't it?  Don't know if you haven't noticed it,
but the big gap between having one or two or a dozen "free energy"(*) devices
and going into commercial production is a little matter of
[a] being able to reproduce the excess energy effect(s) every time ANYONE
	tries it, and not merely 95% or less times for a lucky few,
[b] scaling to commercially usable magnitudes and dimensions, unlike figures
	like 1 mA at 1 kV, of Joe Newman, using a 100 kg motor,
[c] and hopefully not the least important, being able to prove that
	the energy is really an excess.

One needs a very sound *THEORY*, not just of one particular devices, but
a general THEORY of physics that overcomes the current art (esp. conservation
of energy and the second law), before [c] can be satisfied.  Though a few
known theoreticians have opined favorably on an informal level, including
Wheeler(?) and Hawking, there hasn't been any (much?) theoretical effort
yet on that scale, as far as I know.  Puthoff's ZPF theory is still in
its infancy.  In this regard, CF does little better at present than Newman's
(in its heyday).

A sound theoretical understanding is also required in the engineering level,
with respect to each individual device or method, before [a] and then [b]
can be reached.

Almost all the *alternative* energy methods have succeeded in reaching some
commercial scale, so long as they did not depend on the "excess" business.
Even so, they have had to go through many years of development before the
technology could be scaled to commercial levels.

I know I sound sceptical here, but there are two points I am trying to make,
viz, patience, it takes time to develop anything at all, and second, if
you believe it to be real, don't give up.

	(*) "free energy" is, unfortunately, already a used term in
	classical thermodynamics, and has got used as a keyword phrase
	in perfectly mainstream papers and journals.
> 
> And it's all the oil companies' fault!  They pay-off the inventors with a
> zillion dollars and then bury the technology so they won't lose their oil

I'd USE those zillion dollars to launch my own industry, with or without
any further help or ado!  If an oil baron is willing to pay you a zillion
dollars for your silence, I'm sure you can find a million oil BUYERS who'll
make it up twice over to you!!  And if the baron is offering a zillion in
the first place, you MUST have already proven commerical viability.  What
keeps you from walking over to the bank for money to start on your own?

> market.  Just like they did to that guy from Oklahoma who invented the
> 200mpg carb.  Or the little old lady from Pasadena who. . ., oh that's a
> different story.

What keeps the little old lady, for that matter?  Other than an inability
at the technology, or at the business, one of the two?

> 
> BTW - are vacuums created in the Pd lattice during loading?  Hmm...
> --
> Cary Jamison
> cary@esl.com

-- 

#pragma prejudices=own brainwaves=own others=absolved
// email: 71155.3116@compuserve.com, poll= 1/month.
// bad habits: unwashed robes, xrn.
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenc1prasad cudlnprasad cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.26 / Jim Bowery /  Prediction and Credibility
     
Originally-From: jabowery@netcom.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Prediction and Credibility
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 1994 02:38:56 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

A question for Dr. Carleson of the Max Planck Institute:

If you knew that Paul Koloc generated plasmoids in conformance with his 
expectations, would you feel any urge to apologize for your derision?
-- 
The promotion of politics exterminates apolitical genes in the population.
  The promotion of frontiers gives apolitical genes a route to survival.
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenjabowery cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.26 / Jim Bowery /  Max Planck Institute's Credibility
     
Originally-From: jabowery@netcom.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Max Planck Institute's Credibility
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 1994 02:41:54 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

If the Max Planck Institute provides support to people who greet
experimental validation of predictions with derision, what does
this say about the credibility of the Max Planck Institute?  

Why would the Max Planck Institute support such behavior?

-- 
The promotion of politics exterminates apolitical genes in the population.
  The promotion of frontiers gives apolitical genes a route to survival.
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenjabowery cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Tue Jul 26 04:37:08 EDT 1994
------------------------------
1994.07.25 / Philip Snyder /  Re: Maxima in Sigma-v/T^2 curves
     
Originally-From: pbsnyder@tucson.Princeton.EDU (Philip Benjamin Snyder)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Maxima in Sigma-v/T^2 curves
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 1994 19:35:16 GMT
Organization: Princeton University


Thanks for the clarification of your calculation.  I hadn't considered the
extra charged fusion products from the secondary D-He3 reactions in DD.
There are, I think, a couple other factors that make it much closer to
a draw (or a win for D-He3) in Lawson between DD and D-3He.  
And if the Lawson criterion is close for these two reactions D-3He will lead 
to a less expensive reactor (provided 3He can be obtained for ~1M$/kg).

In article <31008dINNu2@slcawc.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de> awc@ipp-garching.mpg.de writes:
> The reason that Phil Snyder got different results
>than I did is that I assumed complete burnup of the product T and
>He3. We can discuss this assumption, if desired; I have done some
>rough quantitative checks. Basically, T burns so well in a deuterium
>plasma that you can't get it out even if you want to. You probably
>can't get the He3 out either, but even if you could, you would
>probably put it right back in again since it is a "free" aneutronic
>fuel with more energetic reaction products than the fuel you started
>with. This assumption presumable is a bit generous to DD, but a
>serious analysis would require consideration of the concentration of
>reaction products in the plasma (He4 ash as well as T and He3). 

I don't have time to do the detailed calculation now, but I do know that the
type of reactor you are describing, a catalyzed deuterium or "Cat-D" reactor,
is optimized at a temperature of ~45 KeV.  This indicates to me that around
the DD peak of ~15KeV a large portion of the product 3He does not fuse.
This is not too surprising because the .82MeV 3He will slow down very 
quickly on electrons at low temps.  I also find in the literature that both
optimized Cat-D reactors and optimized semi-Cat-D (only most T and not most
3He fuses?) have higher Lawson criteria than D-3He.
You would not want to put cold 3He back into a DD reactor at 15KeV because
it would take up beta and be unlikely to fuse.  If this were not the case
you ought to be running D-3He in the first place (which is not the case at
15KeV but is the case at higher temps - ignoring of course availability and
cost of fuel; just talking about what has the lower Lawson criterion).

>Thus I
>count the DD fusion energy as
>	E_fusion = ((4.03+17.6)+(3.27+18.3))/2 = 21.6 Mev
>and the energy in charged particles as
>	E_charged = ((4.03+3.5)+(0.82+18.3))/2 = 13.3 Mev
>

Just to guesstimate, it seems like you're unlikely to get more than
~50% of the 3He to fuse at ~15KeV.  This makes E_fusion~17 MeV
and E_charged~8.75 MeV.  This would raise Lawson for DD by ~1.5.

>With these assumptions and Rob Nachtrieb's <sv>/T^2 maximum values, we
>find a relative reactivity of
>
>fuel	penalty/bonus	<sv>/T^2	ratio
>----	-------------	--------	-----
>DT	1		1.06e-24	   1
>DDn+DDp2		1.38e-26	  38
>DHe3	2/3		1.89e-26	  84
>pB11	1/3		3.01e-27	1060
>

These seem a bit off (perhaps a parameter fit on the edges of its validity?).
For <sv>/T^2 I get:   (Bosch&Hale,Nuclear Fusion 32(1994) 611)
DT   1.24e-24 (at 13.6KeV)
DD   1.28e-26 (at~15KeV)
DHe3 2.24e-26 (at 58KeV)
for a ratio of 1:48:83

>For the relative Lawson values, we need to weight with the energy of
>the charged particles:
>
>fuel	E_charged	Lawson/Lawson_DT
>----	---------	----------------
>DT	 3.5		  1
>DDn+DDp 13.3		 10
>DHe3	18.3		 16
>pB11	 8.7		430
>

Using my <sv> values and assuming only 50% of the product He3 in the DD 
will burn (for effective E_charged=8.75), the Lawson/Lawson_DT looks
like 1:19:16 DT:DD:DHe3.
I think this agrees better with past studies in the literature.

>(the Lawson)
>ratios tell you how much better tau_E has to be to get a given reaction going. If
>we assume (with no particular justification) that transport is basically
>diffusive, then the linear dimension of a break-even device must scale with
>tau_E^(1/2), so the volume (which might give an indication of the cost) scales
>with the Lawson ratio to the 3/2 power. For example, if a DT breakeven experiment
>costs 10 G$, then a breakeven DHe3 experiment might cost 640 G$ (10*16^(3/2)). At
>the same time, the fusion output of the DHe3 device will be a little lower than
>the other (64 times the volume but 81 times worse reactivity).
>

Now this is misleading.  For comparisons of DT vs. DHe3 reactor costs
see, for example, the ARIES I vs. ARIES III or Apollo reactor studies.
In these studies, the cost of electricity is found to be comparable and
possibly lower (for optimistic physics assumptions) for DHe3 than for DT.
These studies assume a lot, but it is not necessary for a DHe3 reactor to
be much larger than DT.  Increasing the reactor vessel to use the space
freed up the elimination of the tritium breeding blanket is nearly sufficient
when combined with higher magnetic fields and higher plasma current.
Remember that power density scales with pressure^2 so only a fewfold increase
in pressure is needed (or a smaller increase combined with a larger reactor).

The cost of a higher field and larger reactor are balanced by very high
cost of tritium containment systems and a tritium breeding blanket needed
in DT reactors.
So, provided that 3He can be obtained for anything less than a horrendous
price (<2M$/kg) the reactor costs may be comparable.  In any case, the
improved safety and environmental characteristics of DHe3 make it at least
worth looking at.  The situation is by no means as clear cut as your
10G$ vs. 560G$ makes it sound.  (though I certainly agree that experimental
reactors ought to burn DT long before worrying about DHe3).

>
>Art Carlson
>Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics
>Garching, Germany
>carlson@ipp-garching.mpg.de
>

Phil Snyder
Grad Student, Princeton U
pbsnyder@phoenix.princeton.edu

cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenpbsnyder cudfnPhilip cudlnSnyder cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.26 / John Logajan /  Re: Free Energy Machine Technology News !
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@mirage.skypoint.net (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Free Energy Machine Technology News !
Date: 26 Jul 1994 06:41:40 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Mark Metson (gpurdy@fox.nstn.ns.ca) wrote:
: Another little problem that bothers me is it seems that the whole system
: is being filled with huge unmeasured amounts of heat energy prior to
: starting to measure.

It might be being "filled" with energy, but is it ever emptied?

Obviously if you heat an object up, then to extract the heat and
transport it somewhere else requires that you cool the object down.

Does the "pump" cool down during operation in the anomalous mode?
Would such behavior be consistent with extended anomalous heat run
times?

--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com -- 612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills  MN 55112 USA           -
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.26 / Peter Merel /  Re: Jones will stoop to anything
     
Originally-From: Peter Merel <pete@extro.su.oz.au>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Jones will stoop to anything
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 1994 14:07:41 GMT
Organization: Softlife Pty.Ltd.

al789@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John Logajan) writes:
>This is a very sad state of affairs, then.  I hope Australia has
>the equivalent of the US Libertarian Party to fight against such
>awful "justice."

No bill of rights, no individual recourse to the constitution, and common
law derived directly from the English morass. A Libertarian Party wouldn't
know where to begin (maybe with a right of assembly ...). Also, in practice, 
the Australian courts are so expensive that the average bloke couldn't afford
to go anywhere near them, even if they were good for something.

On the other hand, we have beautiful beaches, room to move, you can
walk the streets at night, there are no real gun, drug or race
problems, there is cradle-to-grave health care and welfare for everyone.

Followups directed to soc.culture.australian.

ObFusion: Kill files don't work when the whole group is a wake.

-- 
Internet:pete@extro.su.oz.au           |         Accept Everything.            |
http://www.usyd.edu.au/~pete           |         Reject Nothing.               |
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenpete cudfnPeter cudlnMerel cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.26 / Bruce TK /  Re: Max Planck Institute's Credibility
     
Originally-From: bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce       Scott          TK  )
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Max Planck Institute's Credibility
Date: 26 Jul 1994 16:05:30 GMT
Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching

In article <jaboweryCtJ0tu.1rn@netcom.com>, jabowery@netcom.com (Jim Bowery) writes:
|> If the Max Planck Institute provides support to people who greet
|> experimental validation of predictions with derision, what does
|> this say about the credibility of the Max Planck Institute?  
|> 
|> Why would the Max Planck Institute support such behavior?

Actually, Jim, I am going to laugh as Art answers this (you see, he is the
experimentalist and I am the theorist :-).

But I won't count that as an experimental result until I see measured
profiles of temperature and density in that device, and an experimentally-
determined distribution of the flux surfaces.

Soooo?? How about some _hard_ data?

-- 
Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de                               -- W Gibson
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnTK cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.26 / Arnie Frisch /  Re: Dranetz power meter
     
Originally-From: arnief@wu.labs.tek.com (Arnie Frisch)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Dranetz power meter
Date: 26 Jul 1994 08:12:51 -0700
Organization: Tektronix Laboratories, Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton, OR

In article <30usq0$c8v@stratus.skypoint.com> jlogajan@skypoint.com writes:
>Matt Kennel (mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu) wrote:
>: are industrial power meters designed for heavily reactive loads to deal
>: with this circumstance which I hope were the ones used.
>
>Correct me if I am wrong, but the Power Factor errors due to phase shift
>between current and voltage *always* end up OVERstating input power
>unless corrected.  Meters suffering from this syndrome would tend to
>mask anomalous heat rather than indicating it.

Actually, power factor errors are usually not the problem; what causes
significant errors is that many loads draw distorted currents - and if
the crest factor of the current waveform is large, then the calculation
of its rms value is in error by under-estimation.  This REDUCES the
reading of the meter - and, in the present application, would indicate
the presence of anomalous heat when there was none.

Arnold Frisch
Tektronix Laboratories
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenarnief cudfnArnie cudlnFrisch cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.26 /  SilntObsvr /  Re: Free Energy Machine Technology News !
     
Originally-From: silntobsvr@aol.com (SilntObsvr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Free Energy Machine Technology News !
Date: 26 Jul 1994 15:07:06 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

In article <5TGmCBtuldB@shb.contrib.de>, harti@shb.contrib.de (Stefan
Hartmann) quotes from the Free Energy Congress:

> > John Hutchinson was there with samples of things affected by the
"Hutchinson
> > Effect", including a block of aluminum with an imbedded piece of wood
> > (no sign of charing or heat of any kind on the wood, and seamlessly
> > surrounded by the metal),


It seems to me this could be readily faked with a hydraulic press and
steamed wood -- the wood, rendered flexible by steaming, would be pressed
through an undersized hole in the aluminum, and would re-expand on the
exit side to something like its original dimension.  It would also be
possible to carve/machine the wood to a press fit in the hole, and press
in from both sides, possibly with an adhesive between the ends.
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudensilntobsvr cudlnSilntObsvr cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.26 / Bruce Dunn /  Re: Dranetz power meter
     
Originally-From: Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Dunn)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Dranetz power meter
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 94 14:42:53 -0700 (PDT)
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada

        The discussion of the accuracy of this meter was prompted by its
use in measuring the input electrical power of a motor used to power a
mechanical device which seemed to be putting out more heat than would be
produced by the apparent electrical input.  Are there DC motors available
which could be substituted for the motor in the device, and which would
draw a steady current at a constant voltage to eliminate these problems of
interpretation?


--
Bruce Dunn    Vancouver, Canada   Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenBruce_Dunn cudfnBruce cudlnDunn cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.26 / mitchell swartz /  Argument for/against current state of nuclear power ? - corrosion
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Argument for/against current state of nuclear power ? - corrosion
Subject: Re: Argument for/against current state of nuclear power ?
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 1994 23:32:00 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

          In Message-ID: <CtGtEF.2vI@prometheus.UUCP>
Subject: Re: Argument for/against current state of nuclear power ?
Paul M. Koloc (pmk@prometheus.UUCP ) writes: 

KOLOC  In article <CtCr7I.2ws@news.tcd.ie> mdennehy@tcd.ie (Sparks) writes:
    = >Okay, I've had enough. My sister joined Greenpeace about five days ago
    = >and since then I've been in a running argument with her over the current
    = >state of affairs regarding nuclear power (fission & fusion, even though
    = >she doesn't know the difference). I am slowly running out of plusses to
    = >throw at her. Anyone got any bright ideas ?
    = >Mark "Sparks" Dennehy		Ham Radio : EI5EDB (2m FM only) :-(
    = >Engineering Undergrad		Internet  : mdennehy@alf2.tcd.ie
    = >Trinity Coll
KOLOC Yes, you both should learn the various gimmicks proposed to keep 
KOLOC nucs running and some of them for safer operation.  Also, the REAL
KOLOC truth of tokamak fusion and its to be connection with heavy metal fuel 
KOLOC breeding, for purposes of providing continuing fuel for nuc operation. 
KOLOC 
KOLOC The safety record of Nuclear energy is fantastic, considering the 
KOLOC amount of fuel exposed to catastrophic runnaway from accident, mental
KOLOC illness, natural calamity and war.  The only factor that makes the
KOLOC future take on an air of greater danger, is that age affects the 
KOLOC effectiveness of the cooling systems, and a fully functional cooling
KOLOC system is imperative for a continued safe radiation free future.  

   Only factor?    IMHO  corrosion  may be the limiting factor to long-term
 integrity and therefore safety.
  The cited "only factor"  may be a barometer of the impact of
corrosion as the cooling system becomes one of the first to fail.
  Material science and engineering remain the only way around this
obstacle.
             - Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com)
 
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.27 / Gary Steckly /  Re: Dranetz power meter
     
Originally-From: gsteckly@dgim.doc.ca (Gary Steckly)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Dranetz power meter
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 94 01:06:06 GMT
Organization: Communications Canada

Bruce Dunn (Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca) wrote:
:         The discussion of the accuracy of this meter was prompted by its
: use in measuring the input electrical power of a motor used to power a
: mechanical device which seemed to be putting out more heat than would be
: produced by the apparent electrical input.  Are there DC motors available
: which could be substituted for the motor in the device, and which would
: draw a steady current at a constant voltage to eliminate these problems of
: interpretation?

check Jed's first post on this thread if it's still on your news server
and you will note that they plan on doing further tests using a
dynomometer to resolve the question of how much mechanical energy is going
into the pump.  It's not that easy to find DC energy to run a motor that
large, since Tesla beat Edison out over that battle of AC vs DC ;-)

regards

Gary

: --
: Bruce Dunn    Vancouver, Canada   Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudengsteckly cudfnGary cudlnSteckly cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.27 / Jim Bowery /  Re: Ball Lightning Carlson
     
Originally-From: jabowery@netcom.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Ball Lightning Carlson
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 1994 04:17:15 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

Bruce       Scott          TK (bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de) wrote:
: So, is it? The gif suggests it is, but when I asked this before the
: answers I got from Paul and Jim Bowery suggests it is not.

: The only word I care about is "axisymmetric". The rest has to be formulas,
: since I am not willing to decipher Paul's personal vocabulary.

I don't recall saying or implying the PLASMAK(tm) wasn't axisymmetric.
If you could dredge up the phrase I used that seemed to imply that,
I'll try to clarify what I meant.
-- 
The promotion of politics exterminates apolitical genes in the population.
  The promotion of frontiers gives apolitical genes a route to survival.
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenjabowery cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.27 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Ball Lightning Carlson
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Ball Lightning Carlson
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 1994 00:56:09 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <310o2qINN1598@sat.ipp-garching.mpg.de> bds@ipp-garching.mpg.
e (Bruce       Scott          TK  ) writes:
>In article <310hs1INN13b@slcawc.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de>, awc@ipp-garch
ng.mpg.de (Arthur      Carlson        TK  ) writes:
>
>[...]
>
>|> In summary, I am waiting for three things: a mathematical description
>|> of a plasmak equilibrium, a mathematical formulation of or reference
>|> for the "divergence theorem", and an explanation of the physics behind
>|> the hypothesed hyperconductivity.
>
>I'll comment on the other posts when I have more time, but I want to say
>that the reason I am interested in whether the system is strictly
>axisymmetric is that I need to build a 2-D axisymmetric MHD subset of
>my tokamak code (compatible with the turbulence part, which no existing
>MHD code is, to my knowledge), and if Paul's plasmak is strictly
>axisymmetric I can have a go at it without having to build a code for
>it from scratch -- which I am not willing to do unless Paul makes it 
>lucrative :-)
>
>So, is it? The gif suggests it is, but when I asked this before the
>answers I got from Paul and Jim Bowery suggests it is not.
>
>The only word I care about is "axisymmetric". The rest has to be formulas,
>since I am not willing to decipher Paul's personal vocabulary.

If you consider ONLY the quiescent state (becalmed after formation where
the system is damped to equilibrium with the atmosphere), then, yes it 
is axisysmmetric.  Reservation 2, is that the system is embedded in an 
isotopic gaseous medium and IS NOT in contact with "air pockets" 
(density fluxuations or turbulence or other media (brushed against 
leaves, pelted by rain drops or other foreign objects.  Such 
variations will indeed produce transient non-axi-symmetric variances,
as for example changes in net vectors of polar jets, which would
generate net thrust.  

With those common sense restrictions, it is axisymmentric in the 
"BScott" sense of the word.  
>-- 
>Gruss,
>Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
>Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
>bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de                               -- W Gibson
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc, Bx 1037 Prometheus II Ltd, College Park MD 20741-1037    |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.27 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Ball Lightning Carlson
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Ball Lightning Carlson
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 1994 01:31:34 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <hanson-2507941235080001@hanson_mac2.physics.auburn.edu>
hanson@physics.auburn.edu (James D Hanson) writes:
>In article <310hs1INN13b@slcawc.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de>,
>awc@ipp-garching.mpg.de wrote:
>
> [sinp]
>
>> The average pressure is constrained by the virial theorem. Koloc
>> refers again to a "divergence theorem", which is not a standard
>> concept in plasma physics. If he would simply *write down*
>> mathematically what he means by this, we could perhaps talk about
>> it. 
>
>I would guess that he means Gauss' Theorem:
>
>   Integral[volume,div Fvector] = 
>      Integral[Surface bounding volume,Fvector dot (unit normal)]
>
>This is sometmes refered to as the divergence theorem.  For example:
> 
>   "It is called the divergence theorem and sometimes Gauss' theorem (not to be
>    confused with Gauss *law*)."
>
>from page 44 of the book "Div, Grad, Curl and All That" by H. M. Schey, W.
>W. Norton and Company, New York, London, (1973).
>
> [snip]
 
Vector analysis.. where in the case at hand one should take care to
convert the geometry from a multiconnected one to a simply connected
one.  That is the pressure bearing surfaces existing are the current
bearing air shell sitting against the vacuum field AS WELL AS the 
nested toroidal current tubes which represent integration surfaces 
approximating the current ring.  Each tube generates TWO orthogonl
components of field on opposite sides of the current sheet and 
consequently they can not blend, consequentally producing what in 
effect is SURFACE TENSION, or a pressure bearing surface.  (Field 
force acts back on the source or neutralizing current source).   
So, we sophisticated plasma types realize that plasmas and mag
fields and currents all interact to form the morter and block with
which we can construct new plasma forms. Fire level plasma types
haen't gained such knowledge .. SO ..


The problem with the Virial is that it considers that there are 
NO possible pressure bearing surfaces within a fluid plasma, . .


               What tension could there be an a hot fluid????
                           Are you NUTS???    Couldn't be!!!

                                        .. . .   and therefore
the ONLY inward bound force is due to the atmosphere (air bound 
plasmoids).  Consequently, Since the air is of uniform pressure, 
one can ARBITRARILY draw the pressure bearing surface any were 
outside the boundary of the plasmoid and solve the problem. The 
simplist surface being a sphere.  


The solution works if the system has an internal plasmoid with no
field or either a poloidal (toroidal current) field or a toroidal 
(poloidal current) field.  For example, such a current exists to 
produce only one direction of field (linear) and therefore it is 
not an two dimensional or surface tension, and can NOT constrain a 
volume.   Only a non-resistive conducting closed surface with two 
field components can do that -- namely the Spheromak-PLASMAK(tm) 
topologies.    

Since equilibrium is part of this problem, the following is 
a mix of related topics.  This stuff goes back, .. ..   a way back.  
**** one of the more interesing papers. 

S. Chandrasekhar and K.H. Prendergast, "The Equilibrium of Magnetic
Stars," Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 42, 5, 1956.

S. Chandrasekhar and P.C. Kendall, "On Force-Free Magnetic Fields,"
A.phys.J., 126, 457, 1957.

S. Chandrasekhar, "Axisymmetric Magnetic Fields and Fluid Motions,"
A.phys.J., 124, 232, 1956.

S. Chandrasekhar, "Effect of Internal Motions on the Decay of a
Magnetic Field in a Fluid Conductor."  A.phys.J., 124, 244, 1956.

S. Chandrasekhar, "On Force-Free Magnetic Fields," Proc. of the
National Academy of Sciences, 42, 1, 5, 1956.

T. K. Chu, TFTR/JET INTOR Workshop on Plasma transport in Tokamaks,
July 9-10, 1984 (PPPL Report in progress)

Discusses energetic (runaway) electron effects on plasma stability and
lifetime in a tokamak.  

R. Lust and A. Schluter, "Eine Spezielle Art Nichtwirbelfreier Losungen der 
	Hydrodynamischen Gleischungen,"  Z. angew. Math.u. Mechanik, 35, 45, 
	1955.

R. Lust and A. Schluter, "Kraftfreie Magnetfelder", Z Astrophysik, 34, 5, 263, 
	1954.


E.E. Nolting, P.E. Jindra, and D.R. Wells, "Experimental Study of Force-Free, 
	Collinear Plasma Structures," J. Plasma Physics 9, Part 1, 1, 1973.

M. Okabayashi and A.M.M. Todd, "MHD Equilibrium and Stability of the Spheromak,"
	Nuclear Fusion, 20, 571, 1980.

**** V. Shafranov, "On Magnetohydrodynamical Equilibrium Configurations," 
        J. Exptl. Theoret. Phys., 33, 710, 1957.  Transl. in Soviet Phys.
        --JETP, 6, 545, 1958.

P. Sweet, "The Topology of Force-Free Magnetic Fields," Observatory 78, 30,
	1958.

J.B. Taylor, "Relaxation of Toroidal Plasma and Generation of Reverse Magnetic 
	Fields," Phys Rev Letters 33, 1139, 1974.


S. Tserevitinov, et al., "Stable Dynamic Current Pinch," Soviet Phys-Tech Phys 
	5, 709, 1960 and "Magnetic Field Configuration in Current Carrying 
	Plasma Jets,"Soviet Physics 9, 746, 1964.

D.R. Wells, "Axially Symmetric Force-Free Plasmoids," Phys of Fluids 7, 826, 
	1964.

Look at the starred paper first... it looks at the equilibrium of
a MANTLELESS spheromak in air.   But it also suggests why it is not
a possible reality tested solution.  

>> Art Carlson
>> Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics
>> Garching, Germany
>> carlson@ipp-garching.mpg.de
>
>-- 
>James D. Hanson                          ph. (205) 844-5044
>Department of Physics                    fax (205) 844-4613
>206 Allison Laboratory
>Auburn University, AL 36849-5311         hanson@physics.auburn.edu

+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc, Bx 1037 Prometheus II Ltd, College Park MD 20741-1037    |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+


cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.27 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Maxima in Sigma-v/T^2 curves
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Maxima in Sigma-v/T^2 curves
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 1994 01:46:08 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <1994Jul25.193516.23944@Princeton.EDU> pbsnyder@tucson.Prince
on.EDU (Philip Benjamin Snyder) writes:
>
>Thanks for the clarification of your calculation.  I hadn't considered the
>extra charged fusion products from the secondary D-He3 reactions in DD.
>There are, I think, a couple other factors that make it much closer to
>a draw (or a win for D-He3) in Lawson between DD and D-3He.  
>And if the Lawson criterion is close for these two reactions D-3He will lead 
>to a less expensive reactor (provided 3He can be obtained for ~1M$/kg).

Other interesting material deleted 

>The cost of a higher field and larger reactor are balanced by very high
>cost of tritium containment systems and a tritium breeding blanket needed
>in DT reactors.
>So, provided that 3He can be obtained for anything less than a horrendous
>price (<2M$/kg) the reactor costs may be comparable.  In any case, the
>improved safety and environmental characteristics of DHe3 make it at least
>worth looking at.  The situation is by no means as clear cut as your
>10G$ vs. 560G$ makes it sound.  (though I certainly agree that experimental
>reactors ought to burn DT long before worrying about DHe3).

I trust in your last statement you are speaking of tokamaks.   
Otherwise, because the initial development phase is so short, and the 
breakthrough devices are so compact it seems to me there would be more 
than adequete supplies of DH3 around  to put us into the commercialized 
advanced fuel prototype phase.   

>>Art Carlson
>Phil Snyder
>Grad Student, Princeton U
>pbsnyder@phoenix.princeton.edu
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc, Bx 1037 Prometheus II Ltd, College Park MD 20741-1037    |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+



cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Wed Jul 27 04:37:06 EDT 1994
------------------------------
1994.07.27 / Jim Bowery /  Re: Max Planck Institute's Credibility
     
Originally-From: jabowery@netcom.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Max Planck Institute's Credibility
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 1994 04:31:03 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

Bruce       Scott          TK (bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de) wrote:
: In article <jaboweryCtJ0tu.1rn@netcom.com>, jabowery@netcom.com (Jim Bowery) writes:
: |> If the Max Planck Institute provides support to people who greet
: |> experimental validation of predictions with derision, what does
: |> this say about the credibility of the Max Planck Institute?  
: |> 
: |> Why would the Max Planck Institute support such behavior?

: Actually, Jim, I am going to laugh as Art answers this (you see, he is the
: experimentalist and I am the theorist :-).

: But I won't count that as an experimental result until I see measured
: profiles of temperature and density in that device, and an experimentally-
: determined distribution of the flux surfaces.

: Soooo?? How about some _hard_ data?

OK, Bruce, let's say you had a device that was spitting out plasmoids
on demand (a device which, understandably, has a habit of breaking
 down now and then since we ARE dealing with rather high power 
 arcs that have a habit of putting equipment under a lot of stress
 and therefore requires some fairly expensive maintanence).

How much money would you ask for in a proposal to the Max Planck 
Institute which was aimed at taking the measurements you require?

The difference between no plasmoid and a plasmoid that lasts for
macroscopic periods of time is a rather significant piece of data
itself -- especially considering the funding environment implied by 
your rather insolent question.
-- 
The promotion of politics exterminates apolitical genes in the population.
  The promotion of frontiers gives apolitical genes a route to survival.
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenjabowery cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.26 /  Lforbes@debug. /  Re: MM-Pact Signatories, Update
     
Originally-From: Lforbes@debug.cuc.ab.ca
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: MM-Pact Signatories, Update
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 1994 17:48:22 GMT
Organization: Debug Computer Services

crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
> In article <940722141142_76570.2270_HHB69-2@CompuServe.COM>,
> Eugene Mallove <76570.2270@compuserve.com> wrote:
> >
> >Signatories so far to the MM-Pact:
> >
> >Barry Merriman       7/20/94
> >barry@math.ucla.edu
> >
> >Laurie Forbes        7/20/94
> >lforbes@debug.cuc.ab.ca
> >
> >Only two takers so far? Where are all the other brave "skeptics"? Or are they 
> >having second thoughts?

Dale Base wrote:
> 
>     Said signatories must not have read the sucker clause.  'Something else'
>     covers a lot of ground, especially from authors of the 'First Law 
>     Violator of the Week' piece and other gems.  I suspect the problem 
>     here is that no one trusts the good judgement of the offering party, 
>     for good reason.
> 
I'm not sure why the 'Something else' constitutes a 'sucker clause'.  If 
excess heat is produced (not to say that it actually is), the process is 
irrelevant is it not, be it nuclear, 'super-chemical' or whatever?

Regards,
Laurie Forbes

cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenLforbes cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.27 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Max Planck Institute's Credibility
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Max Planck Institute's Credibility
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 1994 03:39:58 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <jaboweryCtJ0tu.1rn@netcom.com> jabowery@netcom.com (Jim Bowery) writes:
>If the Max Planck Institute provides support to people who greet
>experimental validation of predictions with derision, what does
>this say about the credibility of the Max Planck Institute?  

>Why would the Max Planck Institute support such behavior?

Actually, IPP is outstanding as an Institute skilled in experimental
validation.  Their ASDEX tokamak was the world's most versatile, 
well crafted, and ingeniously engineered plasma physics test station
produced, bar none.  They acheived the first Super H Mode operation
which boasts of their excellent vacuum, inspite of the number
of clever options that could be employed for divertor geometry, etc.   
The ASDEX was so terrific, another tokamak never should have been 
built, since they were such a let down.   (just too junky)

Besides I owe the ASDEX, and by association, the IPP.    
My interpretation of the SH mode resulting from a sharp boundary
trapping of energetic electrons, which had the effect of clamping 
edge diffusion and thereby reducing radial thermal loses and 
producing a flatter temperature profile, is what gave me the idea 
for saving the PLASMAK configuration by using even hotter electrons 
at both vacuum field sharpened edges.    

So  three cheers for IPP.. 
                              Ip ip errahhhh! 
>--
>The promotion of politics exterminates apolitical genes in the population.
>  The promotion of frontiers gives apolitical genes a route to survival.

+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc, Bx 1037 Prometheus II Ltd, College Park MD 20741-1037    |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.27 / John Logajan /  Re: Dranetz power meter
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@mirage.skypoint.net (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Dranetz power meter
Date: 27 Jul 1994 04:35:52 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Bruce Dunn (Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca) wrote:
: Are there DC motors available
: which could be substituted for the motor in the device, and which would
: draw a steady current at a constant voltage to eliminate these problems of
: interpretation?

I agree that this is the best route, instead of trying to put mechanical
load measuring devices, which themselves might be subject to high
pitched chaotic vibration with unknown effect.

DC motors of high horsepower do exist (I used to have to maintain the
control electronics of two 125 HP DC variable speed motors) though
I imagine they are expensive.

The power measuring device would best be a voltage and current reading
ahead of a capacitive filter system.  Any waveform distortion, power
factor, or reflected power effect would be filtered out before reaching
the DC power monitoring point.

--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com -- 612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills  MN 55112 USA           -
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.27 / Bruce TK /  Re: Max Planck Institute's Credibility
     
Originally-From: bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce       Scott          TK  )
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Max Planck Institute's Credibility
Date: 27 Jul 1994 11:20:06 GMT
Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching

In article <jaboweryCtL0Js.8EJ@netcom.com>, 
	jabowery@netcom.com (Jim Bowery) writes:

|> OK, Bruce, let's say you had a device that was spitting out plasmoids
|> on demand (a device which, understandably, has a habit of breaking
|>  down now and then since we ARE dealing with rather high power 
|>  arcs that have a habit of putting equipment under a lot of stress
|>  and therefore requires some fairly expensive maintanence).
|> 
|> How much money would you ask for in a proposal to the Max Planck 
|> Institute which was aimed at taking the measurements you require?

OK, Jim. I would take the same approach this community took when the Soviets
announced very high temperatures achieved on the original tokamak in the
late 1960s. The credibility of Soviet science had been severely damaged
by the Lysenko affair, so people simply did not believe it. The Soviet
group published scientific papers documenting their results, and then there
was a group sent from Europe to go and measure it for themselves. They
succeeded in reproducing the results, and this highly public affair then
launched the tokamak phase of fusion research.

[disclaimer: this was before my time so I lack several details, but
you can read about this in Kadomtsev's book: The Tokamak, a Complex Physical
System]

|> The difference between no plasmoid and a plasmoid that lasts for
|> macroscopic periods of time is a rather significant piece of data
|> itself

How long? How big? What's the radiation brightness of the plasma? What
is the decay time of that brightness? Data, Jim, we need data. And these
data, at least, should not be any more expensive to acquire than it was
to build the device in the first place.

Let the Plasmak people document their results in a scientific paper the
way the Migma people did, and then we might have something to go on. The
problem is that I simply don't believe you. Kadomtsev is an incomparably
greater scientist than any of us, but in a state of damaged credibility
people didn't believe him, either.

|>         especially considering the funding environment implied by 
|> your rather insolent question.

And do try, Jim, to lose this sort of attitude. Really. You will get nowhere
by biting the hand you are begging to even before it is extended. It is a
fact of life.

-- 
Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de                               -- W Gibson
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnTK cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.27 / Bruce TK /  Re: Ball Lightning Carlson
     
Originally-From: bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce       Scott          TK  )
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Ball Lightning Carlson
Date: 27 Jul 1994 11:47:37 GMT
Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching

In article <CtKqLM.65o@prometheus.UUCP>, pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) writes:

|> >The only word I care about is "axisymmetric". The rest has to be formulas,
|> >since I am not willing to decipher Paul's personal vocabulary.
|> 
|> If you consider ONLY the quiescent state (becalmed after formation where
|> the system is damped to equilibrium with the atmosphere), then, yes it 
|> is axisysmmetric.  Reservation 2, is that the system is embedded in an 
|> isotopic gaseous medium and IS NOT in contact with "air pockets" 
|> (density fluxuations or turbulence or other media (brushed against 
|> leaves, pelted by rain drops or other foreign objects.  Such 
|> variations will indeed produce transient non-axi-symmetric variances,
|> as for example changes in net vectors of polar jets, which would
|> generate net thrust.  
|> 
|> With those common sense restrictions, it is axisymmentric in the 
|> "BScott" sense of the word.  

Yes, that is what I meant. Like the tokamak, it is axisymmetric up to
fluctuations and imperfections. In an idealised simulation, I can assume
that it is an axisymmetric 2D MHD equiblibrium.

I was worried about the "helical transition" due to some sort of kink
instability that Jim alluded to in an e-mail about a year ago. Sorry, guys,
I cannot think in 3-D. That is why I need formulas.

OK, here is what I assume about the configuration: 

  -- the magnetic field components are all functions of two variables,
     which I can call R and z. R is the perpendicular distance from the 
     "symmetry axis", and z is the distance parallel to that axis from a
     plane perpendicular to that axis. This plane I call the "midplane".
     Note that the configuration is not required to be symmetric about
     the midplane.

  -- the magnetic field and the current density are zero on the symmetry 
     axis.

  -- upon some closed domain in (R,z), the magnetic field is zero. Let the
     surface of revolution of this domain about the symmetry axis be called 
     the "plasma boundary".

  -- the gas pressure on the plasma boundary is constant and nonzero

  -- outside the plasma boundary, there is another closed domain in (R,z),
     and the surface of revolution of this second domain about the symmetry
     axis entirely encloses the plasma boundary, without contact to it. Let
     this second surface be called the "outer boundary". Let the domain
     between the plasma boundary and the outer boundary be called the 
     "mantle". In the mantle the magnetic field is zero, and the current
     density is also zero, but the gas pressure is finite.

You should be able to visualise this; now a few questions:

  -- do the magnetic field lines lie on closed toroidal surfaces, which are
     nested without any intersection (assume zero fluctuation levels)?
     If so, let these surfaces be called "flux surfaces"

  -- is the gas in the mantle neutral (this is probably not necessary for
     a computation)?

  -- can the magnetic field be described by a "Grad-Shafronov equation"?
     This equation is used to descibe tokamak equilibria, but I would think
     one need only change the form of the toroidal field to make it general.
     It would be imperative, however, that the current density be constant 
     on each flux surface; otherwise div B would not vanish. One probably
     needs the gas pressure to be constant on each flux surface as well,
     at least up to corrections of order d/a, where a is the approximate
     linear dimension of the plasma boundary in the Rz-plane, and d is
     the width of an ion orbit within the magnetic field, centered on a
     given flux surface.

The Grad-Shafranov equation assumes there is some flux variable, G(R,z),
zero on the plasma boundary, in terms of which the magnetic field may be
expessed by

     B = g \grad \phi + \grad G \cross \grad \phi,

where \phi is the angle about the symmetry axis holding R and z constant,
and g is a function of G only (otherwise there are non-axisymmetric MHD
forces and you lose axisymmetry). For a tokamak the quantity g is slowly
varying, essentially constant (up to corrections of order the inverse
aspect ratio squared). For a plasmak, one would require

     g = 0 and \grad G = 0,  on the plasma boundary,
                             and on the symmetry axis.
   

Please comment on this and we can proceed further.

-- 
Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de                               -- W Gibson
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnTK cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.27 / Bruce TK /  Attention Gene Mallove
     
Originally-From: bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce       Scott          TK  )
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Attention Gene Mallove
Date: 27 Jul 1994 16:46:59 GMT
Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching

OK, here we go. Gene Mallove has indicated there is no glaring loophole
with the phrase "something else" by qualifying it with the additional
phrase "which is orders of magnitude beyond the energy release capability
of *any* standard chemistry."

I am satisfied by this.

Of course, there is still the point "who is the judge". I'll tell you what:
if "widely accepted" includes people beyond the usual town criers (eg,
Rothwell, and Mallove himself, and other like-minded souls) then I'll
submit. Seeing that the evil conspiratorial nature of mainstream fusion
research is also no judge, how about the auto or home-appliance companies
in the US (I do exclude "fun money" like Toyota's, since they have $ 11
million to burn, even from one guy who might just want to "have some fun"
with mainstream science -- after all, some of the establishment do deserve
it)? Or scientific journals under the IEEE?

My signature on the form is below.


-- 
Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de                               -- W Gibson


 
***********************************************************************
MM-Pact Agreement:

Given that:
 
 (a) =  CF will be widely accepted as existing  
 (b) =  CF will be widely accepted as energy producing
 (c) =  CF will be widely accepted as economically viable 

 AND (a), (b), or (c) will occur on or before July 19, 1996
 

(CF, for the purposes of this agreement, is defined as a new nuclear  
process,  and/or a super-chemical process orders of magnitude beyond  
the energy release  capability of *any* standard chemistry, and/or  
"something else" like tapping  of ZPE, which is orders of magnitude beyond the
energy release capability of *any* standard chemistry.)


We, 

                G. Mallove (Eugene F. Mallove) 

and 

       Bruce Scott of the Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik, 

having diametrically opposed views on the subject of CF, agree in 2 years
time (on or before July 19, 1996) to publically acknowledge---based on the
status of (a) & (b) & (c) above---that either:

  (1) G. Mallove is a wishful thinking, scientifically ignorant crank/dupe

or
 
  (2) B Scott is a small minded, scientifically stagnant sheep/dupe
  

 SIGNED:   G. Mallove (Eugene F. Mallove) and B. Scott

 Date of Nth party signing 27 July 1994
 ********************************************************************
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnTK cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.27 / Lisa Hancock /  TFTR Update July 22, 1994
     
Originally-From: Lisa Hancock <lhancock>
Newsgroups: pppl.tftr.news,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: TFTR Update July 22, 1994
Date: 27 Jul 1994 15:30:53 -0400
Organization: Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory

Status  (July 22, 1994)



We continued our campaign the week of July 4-July 8 on RF electron heating
via mode conversion.  This scheme uses a non-directional fast wave launch
in a plasma with equal concentrations of 3He-4He during ICRF heating.  An
extremely interesting result was obtained with off-axis power deposition,
where we heated the plasma from Te=3keV to 7keV with o 4 MW of ICRF power 
The Te profile shape was very asymmetric and sawteeth were surpressed. 
These results are being studied further at present.

On July 8, the ICRF-induced plasma rotation studies were continued.  This
effect has been proposed as a means of stabilizing locked MHD modes in
devices, such as ITER.  The data obtained was with constant RF power,
target ne, and IP, the BT was varied in H-minority plasmas to investigate
the dependence of the RF power disposition profile.  Indications are the
driven rotation peaks with off-axis heating.  This data will be analyzed in
detail and discussed with the ITER design team.

The week of July 11 was a D-T operational period.  Two experimental
proposals were run:
        DT-15   Studies of H-modes with DT
        DT-12   High qo - TAE mode stability

The goals of DT-15 were to determine tritium effects on the H-mode
transition and on the resulting H-mode confinement and ELM
characteristics. The results for the H-mode threshold was that there was no
big difference between DD and DT. However, there was difference with the
ELMs behavior. Longer ELM-free period was observed with DT.  The ELM
frequency was lower and the amplitude larger in DT than DD. The taueE
increase after the transition to H-mode is larger in DT than in DD.
The Ti and Te profiles are broader for DT H-modes than for DD, this data is
from CHERS, ECE and TVTS.
A very interesting result was obtained on Beam Emission Spectroscopy (BES),
a large decrease in the density fluctuations are observed after the H-mode
transition in the ELM free period in both DD and DT.  Also there is a clear
difference between DD and DT plasmas. The density fluctuations are lower in
DT where the taueE is higher.  This is being studied at present. The BES
diagnostic is a collaboration with the University of Wisconsin.

The goal of DT-12 was to use the deuterium pellet injector (DPI) to modify
qo and suppress sawteeth in a discharge which was intended to be unstable
to alpha driven TAE during the subsequent NBI phase. The full scenario was
established in DD, but machine conditions did not allow a tritium phase to
take place.
A tritium attempt was performed with beam injection only to obtain high qo.
This was a good discharge but no TAE mode was observed.  The q profile and
other data are being analyzed at present and stability calculation will be
carried out.

The week of July 18th, was a D-T run period.  The early part of the week
was spent conditioning the machine and neutral beams.
The first experiment this week was an effort to examine the relationship of
the density fluctuations to changes in local transport in L-mode
discharges.  The plan was to determine the long-wavelength characteristics
of the density fluctuations measured by BES and reflectometry by performing
a systematic well-documented variation of plasma transport through a plasma
current scan.
The experiment went very well, plasma currents of 0.7, 1.0, 1.4 and 2.0 MA
were studied.  The background MHD level was low in all these discharges,
which will allow the study of variations in fluctuation energy, correlation
length and decorrelation times.

The initial results show that Ln decreases from 70 cm for 0.7 MA down to
50cm for the 2.0 MA plasma.  The fluctuation level decreases from 3 x
10-7 (a.u.) at 0.7 MA down to 0.6 x 10-7 from the 2.0 MA plasma.

A good documentation with Te, Ti and Vphi was also made for the four
currents.  This data will be extremely useful in attempting to understand
the cause of the anomalously high cross-field transport in Tokamaks.  This
experiment is a collaboration with the University of Wisconsin.

On Thursday July 21st, we continued our high poloidal beta campaign in
collaborations with Columbia University and MIT. The goal of this
experiment was to increase the performance of the high poloidal beta D-T
plasmas at Ip = 1.5 MA.
Excellent results were obtained, i.e. Fusion power = 6.8 MW, with neutral
beam power of 31 MW. Beta normal was about 3 and the confinement
enhancement was approximately 4. The central density ne(0) was 8 x 10-19
m-3 which will give a high thermonuclear fusion power fraction. From the
results it is clear that we should be able to increase the performance
further with better machine conditions and more beam power. 


Future Activities

Next week (July 25) is a maintenance week on TFTR. On August 1st DT
experiments will continue with Alpha Ash and Isotope scaling studies in DT
plasmas


K. McGuire (for R. Hawryluk) 

P.S.  If you do not wish to receive notices of TFTR status, please contact
me or send a message to postmaster@pppl.gov.  If you are aware of others
who wish to receive notices, please send a message to postmaster@pppl.gov
and do not send a message to tftr_news_info.
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudfnLisa cudlnHancock cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.27 / L Plutonium /  CANON PATENT CHALLENGED BY THE PLUTONIUM ATOM FOUNDATION
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,alt.sci.physics.plutonium
Subject: CANON PATENT CHALLENGED BY THE PLUTONIUM ATOM FOUNDATION
Date: 27 Jul 1994 19:48:38 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

I quote from NEW SCIENTIST 25JUN1994, page 23 Patents,  " Cold Fusion
rides again " 
	" COLD fusion is the latest topic on the agenda of the Japanese
company Canon, best known for cameras, bubblejet printers and other
office equipment.
	In 1989 Martin Fleischman and Stanley Pons claimed that fusion could
be initiated at room temperature by electrolysing heavy water (which
contains disproportionate amounts of the hydrogen isotope deuterium)
with a titanium or palladium cathode. But the Japanese were worried
about the risk of an explosion caused by high gas pressure.
	Canon's patent (EP 568 118) claims new ways to absorb large volumes of
deuterium in a metal carrier, by putting it close to a pair of
electrodes to create a gas discharge in a hydrogen-filled chamber. Cold
fusion is promoted by cycling the power supply through low and high
voltages.
	The carrier can be a block of magnesium alloy or palladium alloy. For
safety, the hydrogen gas is at atmospheric pressure. The pulsed power
comes from large capacitors, and the electrodes are shaped to
concentrate the electric field.
	After storing deuterium in a palladium alloy for 60 minutes, says
Canon, the deuterium content had increased, with a tenfold increase in
gamma ray emission after 120 hours. Applying five-minute cycles of 5
and 500 volts DC for 50 hours produced a twentyfold increase in
emission. More heat was generated at the negative electrode than the
electric energy consumed at the two electrodes. All this, says Canon,
proves that cold fusion works. " Nuclear fusion can be occasioned
relatively easily . . . and thus a method for multiplying heat energy
capable of generating a sufficiently large quantity of heat energy for
a practical application," it claims. "
 -------------------------------------------------------
  The Plutonium Atom Foundation challenges/disputes/(and if need be,
will sue) over this patent granted to Canon. 
  I, Ludwig Plutonium had filed for USA patent Patent 
Ser. No.: 07/737,170

Filing Date: 07/29/91
 SPONTANEOUS NEUTRON MATERIALIZATION DEVICES (SNMD) 
			CLAIM FOR THE INVENTION

	I claim: 
	1. Devices constructed, engineered, and set-up for the purpose of
deriving, and using net energy from radioactive spontaneous neutron
materialization. 
	2. A method for induction of radioactive spontaneous neutron
materialization comprising:
	a changing electric current i flow through the fuel mass
	a changing electric potential difference V through the fuel mass.
 --------------------------------------------------
That above is what was claimed in that patent. The history of cold
fusion-- The History of Cold Fusion is summarized as such: F. Paneth
and K. Peters in Berlin in 1926; J. Tanberg of Sweden 1927; M.
Fleischmannn and S. Pons et al in Utah in 1989. What Canon has found in
experiments is nothing "new" as per cold fusion experiments.
Fleischmann and Pons experiments are nothing "new" as per Paneth and
Peters.

What Canon has done which is new and patentable is PULSING. This
pulsing is nothing more than changing electric current i or changing V
as per my patent application.That was 1/2 of my patent application.
Canon, and noone else has come up with what "cold fusion" (a bad choice
of terms because cold fusion and hot fusion are really
electromagnetism/radioactivities on a higher level than Maxwell Eq
theory), except me. Cold fusion is radioactive spontaneous neutron
materialization. 

So then, Canon's patent (EP 568 118) amounts to theft of intellectual
and patent application rights of Ludwig Plutonium.

I respectfully request that Canon officials meet with me. I will sell
them all patent rights and claims to Patent Application Ser. No.:
07/737,170. PAF's price is 5 million USA worth of Canon stock shares.
This is serious business. Sincerely, Ludwig Plutonium
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.27 / Dieter Britz /  CNF bibliography updates and archive retrieval, 27-Jul-94.
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CNF bibliography updates and archive retrieval, 27-Jul-94.
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 1994 12:33:07 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway


I have at last got hold of the Peat book; it has rightly been called a rush
job. I believe there is a 1990 update - that can't be much of an update
either, but I'll see if I can get it as well. This one leaves the count the
same, of course, being just a replacement of the earlier entry, in which I
just cited the review by Dave Lindley. I am also trying to chase what might be
books, or might not, e.g. one by Lyndon LaRouche, said to be "edited" by
someone else (?) and one by Hal Fox that is not in Books in Print but does
have an ISBN number. No papers added this time, but I finally got the
Konenkov, which had previously given me trouble, and I had it as a Chem.
Abstr. citation. I try to avoid making do with these. Anyway, it does not add
to the current count, as it is a replacement of the earlier entry. 

I had debated with myself (and others) whether the Storms piece should go in 
as a paper, depending on whether Technol. Rev. is refereed or not. When I got 
it, the total lack of references decided the issue. It's a comment, not a real 
scientific paper. A pity perhaps, as it is not badly written - better, in some 
ways, than an earlier review by the man in Fusion Technol.

I had noticed with some dismay a smallish flood of entries in Chem. Abstr., in 
a thing called Kholod. Yader. Sintez (meaning cold nucl. fusion), with tens of 
papers by Russians. Was this a new journal, devoted to CNF, and will I have to 
wade through tens of Russians? A Roumanian email friend clered this up for me
and as you see below, it is a conference proceedings, for which I simply give 
the date, venue and title, so I am spared a lot of work. I guess that a lot
of these papers are already in the biblio, having been subsequently published
in journals.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Current count:
-------------
  9 books
926 papers
147 patents
223 comment items
 81 peripherals
 20 conference procs(-to-be)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Books:
^^^^^
#
Peat FD; "Cold Fusion: The Making of a Scientific Controversy",
Contemporary Books 1989, 188 pp, ISBN 0-8092-4243-5.
** Somewhat of a rush job, this book brings the reader to around the end of 
May 1989, or two months into the 'cold fusion affair'. Much of the book is
padding, but there is good useful information. In the later part of the book, 
some slightly more recent happenings are attached, such as the ERAB panel.
Peat tries to take a neutral stance but does expand on the vistas opened up
by 'cold fusion' if it turns out real.
#.................................................................. Jul-94

Journal papers:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
#
Konenkov NV, Silakov SS, Mogil'chenko GA;
Sov. Tech. Phys. Lett. 17(1) (1991) 8.
Russian original in Pis'ma Zh. Tekh. Fiz. 17(1) (1991) 21.
"Quadrupole mass-spectrometric analysis of hydrogen isotopes during deuterium
implantation in titanium".
** The unequivocal establishment of the presence of 3He and T, as products of
the nuclear reaction of D during implantation of the ions into Ti, by the mass-
spectrometric method requires a min. resolving power m/delta-m of 510 for the
sepn. of ions (3He + T)+ and HD+ and 590 for sepg. the doublet T2+, D3+. A
quadrupole mass spectrometer with high resoln. was used by the authors to
analyze the compn. of plasma ions of a Ti magnetodischarge pump. The use of
this more ideal mass spectrometer did not, however, confirm the hypothesis
of cold D-D fusion in solids. Oct-90/Jan-91
#.................................................................. Jul-94

Patents:
^^^^^^^
#
Johnson KH (Arthur Little Inc.);  PCT Int. Appl. WO 94 06,112, 28-Aug-92.
Cited in Chem. Abstracts 120:309615 (1994).
"Enhanced d-d interaction overlap for fusion and neutron generation".
** "A metal deuteride and process for its formation are described, in which
the deuteride atoms are loaded or stored in Pd to a level which induces a 
Jahn-Teller degeneracy effect, resulting in a symmetry breaking of the lattice 
structure that places selected D atoms in sufficiently close approxn. to 
create usable levels of fusion as an energy and/or neutron source. The Pd is
placed in an environment in which D atoms are loaded into the Pd cell by 
electrolysis, implantation or diffusion technologies, to a loading ratio of 1 
or slightly above, at which point a symmetry breakage occurs from the 
degeneracy resulting from the existence of matched electron orbital energies 
in a D-D bonding relationship, in which the orbitals assume different energy 
levels. This shift is coupled to the D nuclei, forcing them into closer
assocn. as a part of the symmetry breaking effect". (Direct quote from CA).
#.................................................................. Jul-94
Kirkinsky VA; PCT Int. Appl. WO 94 03,902, 3-Aug-92.
Cited in Chem. Abstracts 120:309614 (1994).
"Cold-fusion method and apparatus for producing energy, tritium, helium, and 
free neutrons".
** "A method for producing energy, based on the phenomenon of cold nuclear
fusion with sorption-desorption of D in metals, is characterized by the use, 
as the metals, of elements or alloys forming 2 cryst. 
phases with different content of D existing in equil. within a certain temp. 
and pressure range and mutually isostructural, e.g. Pd, Nb, V, rare earth 
elements, and the intermetallic compds. TiFe and TiCr2. The metal is prepd.
as powder (with particle size <0.1 mm), thin foil, a film on a substrate, a 
wire, or compact mass with pores and microcracks with the largest possible
surface. The techniques for prepn. of the metal and for carrying out the 
method are elaborated. Sorption is carried out at a D pressure exceeding that 
of 3-phase equil. of the isostructural phases with the gas at a given temp. 
which is below the crit. temp., whereas desorption is carried out under 
conditions of 2-phase equil. of the cryst. phase with the gas at a pressure 
which is below the crit. pressure of the equil. of the isostructural phases. 
The cycle is continuously repeated. The method makes it possible to accelerate 
the process of cold nuclear fusion by several orders of magnitude". (Direct
quote from CA).
#.................................................................. Jul-94
Long H (Sichuan Inst. of Materials and Technol.);
Faming Zhuanli Shenqing Gongkai Shuomingshu CN 1,077,816, 29-Sep-92.
Cited in Chem. Abstr. 121:20677 (1994).
"High-efficiency reaction vessel for studying the anomalous effect in a 
metal-deuterium system".
** "The title reaction vessel comprises a couple of metal electrodes in a 
closed container made from insulating material; the metal layer lines the 
inner wall of the container which is sepd. from the electrodes; and an outlet 
exiting to air is provided". (Direct quote from CA).
#.................................................................. Jul-94
Wang J; Faming Zhuanli Shenqing Gongkai Shuomingshu CN 1,077,563, 24-Apr-93.
Cited in Chem. Abstr. 120:333539 (1994).
"Induced cold nuclear fusion".
** "The title technique comprises energy transmission from the inducing 
particle to the fusion material by collision. The following particles or their 
combination can be used as the inducing particle: alpha-particle, neutron, 
proton, ion electron, and muon". (Direct quote from CA).
#.................................................................. Jul-94

Comments:
^^^^^^^^
#
Anon.:  New Scientist 142 (1994)(1931), 23 (25 June).
"Cold fusion rides again" (under the Patents heading).
** Reports a patent (application?) by Canon, EP 568 118, using a gas discharge
between two metal electrodes in a hydrogen-filled chamber. Using magnesium or
palladium, gamma emissions are claimed. 
#.................................................................. Jul-94
Storms E; Techology Review May/June 1994, p.20.
"Warming up to cold fusion".
** As the author writes, 5 years have passed and he writes a sort of 
summing-up of 'cold fusion', without any references. He covers the field well
and dicusses existing theories, not uncritically.
#.................................................................. Jul-94

Conference proceedings:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
#
* All-Union Conference 'Cold Nuclear Fusion', Moscow Univ., 25-26 March 1991.
Proceedings: Kholodnyi Yadernii Sintez, 1992. Tens of papers.
#...................................................................... Jul-94
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------


Retrieval of the archived files:
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. By anonymous FTP from vm1.nodak.edu (134.129.111.1).  Login anonymous, with
   your e-mail address as the password. Type CD FUSION, DIR FUSION.CNF* to get
   a listing. The general index is large. Use GET (ie. GET FUSION.CNF-PAP1). 
2. Via LISTSERV. You get a (large) index of the archives by sending an email  
   to listserv@vm1.nodak.edu, with a blank SUBJECT line, and the "message"   
   'index fusion'. To get any one of these files, you then send to the same   
   address the message, e.g., 
   get fusion 91-00487
   get fusion cnf-pap1         etc, according to what you're after.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The bib-files are: cnf-bks (books), cnf-pap1..cnf-pap6 (papers, slices 1..6),
cnf-pat (patents), cnf-cmnt (comments), cnf-peri (peripherals), cnf-unp
(unpublished stuff collected by Vince Cate, hydrogen/metal references from
Terry Bollinger). There is also the file cnf-brif, which has all the -pap*
file references without annotations, all in one file (so far); and cnf-new,
with the last three months' or so of new items in all biblio files. 
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
===========================================================

cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.27 / Jim Bowery /  Re: Max Planck Institute's Credibility
     
Originally-From: jabowery@netcom.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Max Planck Institute's Credibility
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 1994 15:25:43 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

Paul M. Koloc (pmk@prometheus.UUCP) wrote:
: In article <jaboweryCtJ0tu.1rn@netcom.com> jabowery@netcom.com (Jim Bowery) writes:
: >If the Max Planck Institute provides support to people who greet
: >experimental validation of predictions with derision, what does
: >this say about the credibility of the Max Planck Institute?  

: >Why would the Max Planck Institute support such behavior?

: Actually, IPP is outstanding as an Institute skilled in experimental
: validation.  Their ASDEX tokamak was the world's most versatile, 
: well crafted, and ingeniously engineered plasma physics test station
: produced, bar none.  They achieved the first Super H Mode operation
... more about the Max Planck Institute's superior track record ...

I'm actually not all that surprised that MPI is at the top of the heap 
among the government funded labs of the world.  As I've stated before 
(although it WAS a long time ago) Bruce Scott has always struck me as 
exceptionally competent, especially given the milieu he operates within, 
and he has earned my respect for this integrity-under-pressure.

It concerns me to see such typically derisive behavior emenating in such 
a public manner from the MPI in the face of experimental validation of your 
model -- however qualitative your model might be.  I'm sure Bruce Scott 
understands that hard data requires diagnostic equipment that costs more 
than the typical home mortgage -- and that those of us who aren't 
wealthy are limited in what we can do to support an enterprise even as 
potentially important as the PLASMAK(tm).  Perhaps they feel that you 
have no right to abide by the advise of your legal counsel in matters 
regarding intellectual property -- or that if you do abide by such 
counsel, that you have no right to proclaim the achievement of a 
significant milestone in the engineering of hot fusion systems.

-- 
The promotion of politics exterminates apolitical genes in the population.
  The promotion of frontiers gives apolitical genes a route to survival.
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenjabowery cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.27 / Jim Bowery /  Re: Max Planck Institute's Credibility
     
Originally-From: jabowery@netcom.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Max Planck Institute's Credibility
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 1994 16:10:33 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

Bruce       Scott          TK (bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de) wrote:
: Let the Plasmak people document their results in a scientific paper the
: way the Migma people did, and then we might have something to go on. The
: problem is that I simply don't believe you. Kadomtsev is an incomparably
: greater scientist than any of us, but in a state of damaged credibility
: people didn't believe him, either.

That's a reasonable statement of your position, however it behooves one 
to make reasonable demands.  Your demands for data on length of time, size, 
brightness, etc. of the plasmoids being produced are reasonable and in 
fact that data exists within some broad tolerances and limits imposed 
by the device (for example, the plasmoid isn't stationary and the 
device has walls).  Again, however, the real issue is whether these 
plasmoids are actually being produced in accord with Koloc's predictions 
and all else is secondary.

You simply do not believe Koloc is producing such plasmoids and that is 
your perogative.  Such skepticism is understandable.  On the other hand 
what is the probability that you are wrong?  How much money would be 
required to confirm or debunk the existence of said plasmoids to your 
satisfaction?
-- 
The promotion of politics exterminates apolitical genes in the population.
  The promotion of frontiers gives apolitical genes a route to survival.
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenjabowery cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.28 / Richard Blue /  RE: 4He alone?
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: 4He alone?
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 1994 00:30:51 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Mitchell Swartz may have misread the intent of my message regarding
the observation of 4He as a possible CF reaction product with a total
absence of other forms of radiation.  I was pointing out that the
absence of such data requires an explanation.  That is to say it is
unexpected.  For me, at least, it is not acceptable scientific practice
to leave many loose ends dangling in connection with a subject as
controversial as cold fusion and to pretend that state of affairs is
perfectly acceptable.  Those who are suggesting that the observations
of 4He in connection with excess heat should be seen as established
scientific fact ought to come up with an explanation for these unexpected
results.  The burden of proof is clearly theirs.  It is not up to me or
the other disbelievers to prove that fusion reactons in PdD are not
unique to such an amazing degree.

The only explanation Mitchell ever offers is "the unique solid state
nature of these materials."  I think we have to have something more
than that.  These strange reactions have never been observed in other
solids so surely Mitchell is not claiming that any old solid will
show this effect.  The current notion among CF advocates seems to
be that even PdD has to be in some very special condition before one
can expect this particular reaction to occur.  However, I have yet
to see a clear statement of what that condition involves by way of
observable characteristics.

My other assertion, which Mitchell continues to ignore, is that
the dramatic alteration of the characteristics of the fusion reaction
that is being claimed here cannot come about in the absence of strong
perturbative interactions that significantly alter the internal
nuclear wave functions.  I repeat that there is no theory among all
those that have been sketched at the various international CF conferences
or those mentioned here that addresses that question.  I believe
the appropriate response from anyone who wishes to challenge that
statement would be for them to name the specific theory that would
serve as a counter example.  Neither Mitchell nor David Davies has
named the theory.  Once we understand which theory(s) are in the
running as explanations for having 4He as the sole product of the
SF reaction we could possibly move this discussion along a bit.
Just telling me that I am wrong when I make this assertion does not
cut much ice.

There remains the nagging question as to null results for the
detection of 4He as the product of a CF reaction.  In early Pons and
Fleischmann experiments there have been several reports of unsuccessful
attempts to detect helium.  I suppose that I can dig out specific
references if you insist.  McKubre did also once put it in writing that
attempts at helium detection had given a null result.  I believe that
is in his report at the Como conference.

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.28 / Eugene Mallove /  MM-Pact 
     
Originally-From: 76570.2270@compuserve.com (Eugene Mallove)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: MM-Pact 
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 1994 04:29:04 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Dr. Bruce Scott has been very reasonable about signing the MM-Pact. Welcome 
aboard, Bruce! [We now have Merriman, Forbes, and Scott.] Perhaps you can get 
some of your other hot fusion friends to sign? The more the better! Bruce 
wrote:

>OK, here we go. Gene Mallove has indicated there is no glaring loophole
>with the phrase "something else" by qualifying it with the additional
>phrase "which is orders of magnitude beyond the energy release capability
>of *any* standard chemistry."
>
>I am satisfied by this.
>
>Of course, there is still the point "who is the judge". I'll tell you what:
>if "widely accepted" includes people beyond the usual town criers (eg,
>Rothwell, and Mallove himself, and other like-minded souls) then I'll
>submit. Seeing that the evil conspiratorial nature of mainstream fusion
>research is also no judge, how about the auto or home-appliance companies
>in the US (I do exclude "fun money" like Toyota's, since they have $ 11
>million to burn, even from one guy who might just want to "have some fun"
>with mainstream science -- after all, some of the establishment do deserve
>it)? Or scientific journals under the IEEE?

Yes, Bruce (and others), the "widely accepted" phrase was the only wiggle room
here. But since we are reasonable men and women, let's just agree that "widely
accepted" will mean: at least a few major technical journals (e.g. IEEE 
Spectrum) not formerly known to be giving attention or credence to cold 
fusion,  as well as a few general science journals (e.g. Science News) will be
writing stories that conclude roughly: "Yes, excess energy production in 'cold
fusion' systems that no one can possibly any longer ascribe to ordinary 
chemistry, has now been convincingly proved. It is also clear that there are 
mysterious accompanying nuclear products that have been verified, especially 
reproducible tritium production in some systems such as at Los Alamos National
Laboratory. Now that the formerly disreputable 'cold fusion' field is fully 
credible, a large effort is underway to nail down the physical explanation." 
By any reasonable standard, this would be "widely accepted" compared to what 
we have now. Of the two highly negative mainstream journals (Science and 
Nature), I think Science magazine will crack first on the cold fusion issue 
(providing they dump Taubes' uninformed views on the subject first). Nature 
will be much slower in its turn-around, because of the overwhelming baggage 
that they'll have to off-load first: Maddox as editor and the myriad anti-cold
fusion hangers-on such as Close and Petrasso. Also, within two years one or 
more companies will announce demonstration units that will heat rooms or 
entire houses. People like Dr. Scott will be able to look at the data or read 
the clear news accounts and determine for themselves whether this is fraud  --
as Jones et al have been alleging -- or the real thing. We might even by then 
have an agreed-upon understanding of the mechanism. I hope so. 

>Seeing that the evil conspiratorial nature of mainstream fusion
>research is also no judge...

Well put, Bruce. And that is precisely why the agreement I had with Douglas 
Morrison in 1990 (which Steve Jones brought up) could not be appropriately 
judged. Unlike you, Bruce, Morrison has precious little integrity in these 
matters. It was he who encouraged John Huizenga to be the "judge" of our 
(then) friendly wager about cold fusion (March 1990 at the First Annual 
Conference in Salt Lake City) -- described in Fire from Ice. At the time, I 
had not really yet probed how visciously anti-cold fusion the superficially 
mild-mannered Huizenga was. So I went along with the deal.

I hope you all agree with the sharpend standard of "widely accepted" as cited 
above. If not, I'll be flexible in modifying it within reasonable limits. I 
will NOT accept either Nature magazine or Science magazine as adequate 
standards, due to their historic bias. However, I *do* expect that two years 
from now Science, at least, is likely to be well on the cold fusion 
bandwagon.They'll have other reasons too: it will be a way of making Nature 
magazine look stupid.

Gene Mallove

cudkeys:
cuddy28 cuden2270 cudfnEugene cudlnMallove cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.27 / David Smith /  Randell L. Mills and hydrinos
     
Originally-From: davids@teleport.com (David Smith)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.skeptic,pdx.general
Subject: Randell L. Mills and hydrinos
Date: 27 Jul 1994 21:45:58 -0700
Organization: Teleport - Portland's Public Access (503) 220-1016

Dr. Randy Mills is giving three talks in Portland next week.  His claims
seem quite fantastical, like predicting a
  
  ...previously unknown form of matter: hydrogen atoms having energies 
  below the conventional "ground" state, called "hydrinos".  The process
  of hydrino production is an exothermic reaction that, in principle, 
  represents a limitless clean energy source.

The work is said to be based on:

  ...a novel theory ... that unifies Maxwell's Equations, Newton's Law, 
  and Einstein's General and Special Relativity. Quantization of atomic
  states results for the condition of nonradiation originally formulated
  by Hermann Haus in 1986...

Does anyone know anything about Dr. Mills or Hermann Haus -- I've never 
heard of either of them.  According to the blurb, the Dr. in "Dr. Mills" 
is on account of his beeing an MD!.  Haus was apparently a professor at 
MIT who mentored Mills in electrical engineering during his last two years
of medical school.

For information about the talk, see the announcement in the Science section
of the oregonian on Wed July 27, or call the Institute for Science, 
Engineering, and public policy at (503) 228-3999.  There are talks 
scheduled at the PGE building, and at PSU on Monday Aug. 1, and at
OCATE on Tuesday, Aug 2.  
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------
-- 
davids@teleport.com  Public Access User --- Not affiliated with TECHbooks
Public Access UNIX and Internet at (503) 220-1016 (2400-14400, N81)
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudendavids cudfnDavid cudlnSmith cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Thu Jul 28 04:37:09 EDT 1994
------------------------------
1994.07.28 / Matt Kennel /  Re: 4He alone?  -  what McKubre really stated
     
Originally-From: mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: 4He alone?  -  what McKubre really stated
Date: 28 Jul 1994 20:59:59 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

mitchell swartz (mica@world.std.com) wrote:

:    And yet, the technology progresses, clinical gains are
: realized, but we do not know WHY cancer cells are more sensitive
: and respond more then the normal cells.

:    Good thing the TB-skeptics lost *that* battle against the
: therapeutic use of ionizing radiation.

Oh how silly.  #1 you can make double blind clinical trials showing
emphatic statistically significant therapeutic gains from radiation
therapy.  #2 mechanisms of cell biology are far less understood and are
far more complicated than nuclear or solid state physics.  #3 you can
think of a lot of different reasonable hypotheses, unlike CF where most
end up having some gaping holes after a slight amount of reflection.

I don't know squat about cancer, but how about: cancer cells are multiplying
fast and require the DNA to be in good shape for reproduction more so than
normal cells that just need to keep living.

So chromosomal damage by radiation (a known fact) affects
cancer cells more than regular cells.

--
-Matt Kennel  		mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu
-Institute for Nonlinear Science, University of California, San Diego
-*** AD: Archive for nonlinear dynamics papers & programs: FTP to
-***     lyapunov.ucsd.edu, username "anonymous".
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenmbk cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.27 / Bruce TK /  Re: Max Planck Institute's Credibility
     
Originally-From: bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce       Scott          TK  )
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Max Planck Institute's Credibility
Date: 27 Jul 1994 20:03:55 GMT
Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching

There are two posts from Jim Bowery; both are answered below.

In article <jaboweryCtLwxL.6LA@netcom.com>, 
	jabowery@netcom.com (Jim Bowery) writes:
|> Bruce       Scott          TK (bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de) wrote:
|> : Let the Plasmak people document their results in a scientific paper the
|> : way the Migma people did, and then we might have something to go on. The
|> : problem is that I simply don't believe you. Kadomtsev is an incomparably
|> : greater scientist than any of us, but in a state of damaged credibility
|> : people didn't believe him, either.
|> 
|> That's a reasonable statement of your position, however it behooves one 
|> to make reasonable demands.  Your demands for data on length of time, size, 
|> brightness, etc. of the plasmoids being produced are reasonable and in 
|> fact that data exists within some broad tolerances and limits imposed 
|> by the device (for example, the plasmoid isn't stationary and the 
|> device has walls).  Again, however, the real issue is whether these 
|> plasmoids are actually being produced in accord with Koloc's predictions 
|> and all else is secondary.

The problem I have is that it is in no way clear that the radiating objects
produced correspond to the Plasmak model. For that we need data. You state
that such data exists. Unfortunately, all I have seen are verbal
descriptions and a very fuzzy photograph which tells me very little.

Jim, do realise that you are essentially asking that I drop my work and
jump on your bandwagon. This is not in principle impossible, but the
activity threshold is large. You are not the only one asked to "jump
through hoops" which you find unreasonable. I go through this all the time,
since the tokamak transport community hasn't shown it wants to face the
implications of my research [1]. It is passed off as a "curious,
two-dimensional effect", not because there are any large differences in
character between two- and three-dimensional drift turbulence in a
magnetised plasma, but because it suggests that the present paradigm for
turbulent transport in a confined, magnetised plasma (random-walk diffusion
by turbulent mixing) is not correct. People don't face stuff like that
until they have to. This is where I got my mandate to produce a tokamak
code, including the turbulence.  So the hoops people have laid down for me
are quite nontrivial, and I have to deal with them.

In your case, you have to produce data which is of such character that you
do not have to resort to shrill language to get people to take note.  It
has to be such that I or someone in a similar state could build a
simulation which would suggest that a larger and better-constructed device
would actually outperform present concepts. Including the anomalous
transport, and the MHD stability properties, and the hot-particle dynamics.

I am eager and waiting to see such data that would convince me that we can
even talk about such a simple first step as an MHD equilibrium. All these
other things can come later.

|> You simply do not believe Koloc is producing such plasmoids and that is 
|> your perogative.  Such skepticism is understandable.  On the other hand 
|> what is the probability that you are wrong?  How much money would be 
|> required to confirm or debunk the existence of said plasmoids to your 
|> satisfaction?

I could be wrong. But I will need to see some basic data to worry about
it. How much money? No idea. I am a physicist, and a theorist at that.
Assuming you can produce a plasma, you have the wherewithal to install a
simple array of coils necessary to measure magnetic fields, and a cheap
device (eg, from Edmund Scientific) to measure brightness (a CCD camera?)
such that you can publish a light curve. This will get you started. Produce
some astonishing data, and I can assure you that more than just I will take
note. But a published paper is necessary.

Another note (you may already know about this and have the book): obtain a
copy of _Plasma Diagnostics_ by Hutchinson, go through the methods of
density and temperature profile measurement, and then let's discuss why or
if it is outside your resource limitations to find out what the plasma
pressure is in those radiating objects.

[1] B Scott, Phys Rev Letters Dec 1990; Phys Fluids B Aug 1992. Papers on
    plasma fluid drift turbulence sustained in the absence of intrinsic
    linear instabilities.


In article <jaboweryCtLuuw.IFA@netcom.com>, 
	jabowery@netcom.com (Jim Bowery) writes:

|> It concerns me to see such typically derisive behavior emenating in such 
|> a public manner from the MPI in the face of experimental validation of your 
|> model -- however qualitative your model might be.  I'm sure Bruce Scott 
|> understands that hard data requires diagnostic equipment that costs more 
|> than the typical home mortgage -- and that those of us who aren't 
|> wealthy are limited in what we can do to support an enterprise even as 
|> potentially important as the PLASMAK(tm).  Perhaps they feel that you 
|> have no right to abide by the advise of your legal counsel in matters 
|> regarding intellectual property -- or that if you do abide by such 
|> counsel, that you have no right to proclaim the achievement of a 
|> significant milestone in the engineering of hot fusion systems.

Derisive behaviour -- don't get my tone mixed up with Art's. That's his
business, but I will not use Mallove-type language with you guys. I am
trying to get some information, and I get a little, but always with this
attitude that seems to say "you are with us or against us". I really don't
like this sour-grapes mentality, and I will find it easier to deal with
this situation once it has vanished.

Qualitative models -- these get nowhere with me. There is enough trouble
with this in my own field; I am well aware of how quickly one can go wrong
with a heuristic model that is not backed by serious mathematics. 

Hard data -- expensive, but then how expensive was the plasma device in
the first place? See above.

Intellectual property -- you err here, Jim. I say nothing about Paul's
"right"; I speak merely of my own activity threshold. You guys want some-
thing from people like me (research activity, not in itself cheap), you
have to come clean with information. I am a scientist, and what I do is
in the open. I cannot be asked to depend on things I am not sure are there.
A gambler, I am not. Paul most certainly has the right to follow the advice
he gets, and to follow his own sense. But then I think I have the right
to withhold action and support until I am properly convinced, according
to my own standards. Don't you?

Proclaim achievements -- in science, this really does have to be in the
open. Otherwise, you can proclaim, but you cannot demand that others listen.

-- 
Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de                               -- W Gibson



-- 
Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de                               -- W Gibson
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnTK cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.28 / L Plutonium /  Re: MM-Pact
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: MM-Pact
Date: 28 Jul 1994 06:21:57 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In article <940728042514_76570.2270_HHB76-1@CompuServe.COM>
76570.2270@compuserve.com (Eugene Mallove) writes:

> I hope you all agree with the sharpend standard of "widely accepted" as cited 
> above. If not, I'll be flexible in modifying it within reasonable limits. I 
> will NOT accept either Nature magazine or Science magazine as adequate 
> standards, due to their historic bias. However, I *do* expect that two years 
> from now Science, at least, is likely to be well on the cold fusion 
> bandwagon.They'll have other reasons too: it will be a way of making Nature 
> magazine look stupid.
> 
> Gene Mallove

  Please give me issue date of NATURE where Maddox said he will write
the epitaph for cold fusion. Thanks in advance.
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.28 / mitchell swartz /  4He alone?  -  what McKubre really stated
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: 4He alone?  -  what McKubre really stated
Subject: RE: 4He alone?
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 1994 12:39:06 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

          In Message-ID: <9407271733.AA21677@pilot1.cl.msu.edu>
Subject: RE: 4He alone?
Richard A Blue (blue@pilot.msu.edu) writes: 

BLUE Mitchell Swartz may have misread the intent of my message regarding
BLUE the observation of 4He as a possible CF reaction product with a total
BLUE absence of other forms of radiation.  I was pointing out that the
BLUE absence of such data requires an explanation.  That is to say it is
BLUE unexpected.  For me, at least, it is not acceptable scientific practice
BLUE to leave many loose ends dangling in connection with a subject as
BLUE controversial as cold fusion and to pretend that state of affairs is
BLUE perfectly acceptable.  Those who are suggesting that the observations
BLUE of 4He in connection with excess heat should be seen as established
BLUE scientific fact ought to come up with an explanation for these unexpected
BLUE results.  The burden of proof is clearly theirs.  It is not up to me or
BLUE the other disbelievers to prove that fusion reactons in PdD are not
BLUE unique to such an amazing degree.

   Several truths here.
   However, scientific experimentation, and utilization, do not
need complete understanding.   

   For example, we are approaching the 100th year of the use of 
ionizing radiation against cancer.   But we do NOT know 
exactly HOW it works 
    - that is, why the therapeutic gain factor (killing of cancer
cells/killing of normal cells) is life-saving.

   And yet, the technology progresses, clinical gains are
realized, but we do not know WHY cancer cells are more sensitive
and respond more then the normal cells.

   Good thing the TB-skeptics lost *that* battle against the
therapeutic use of ionizing radiation.


BLUE The only explanation Mitchell ever offers is "the unique solid state
BLUE nature of these materials."  I think we have to have something more
BLUE than that.  These strange reactions have never been observed in other
BLUE solids so surely Mitchell is not claiming that any old solid will
BLUE show this effect.  The current notion among CF advocates seems to
BLUE be that even PdD has to be in some very special condition before one
BLUE can expect this particular reaction to occur.  However, I have yet
BLUE to see a clear statement of what that condition involves by way of
BLUE observable characteristics.

   Dick Blue knows the initial statement is untrue and has
been  discussed at length.
  The presence of a complete low weight interstitial lattice within a
heavier (Group VIII) lattice is rare, as is the presence of the inverse
isotope effect.   Do you know of other solids in which these two 
material characteristic are observed, Dick?


BLUE My other assertion, which Mitchell continues to ignore, is that
BLUE the dramatic alteration of the characteristics of the fusion reaction
BLUE that is being claimed here cannot come about in the absence of strong
BLUE perturbative interactions that significantly alter the internal
BLUE nuclear wave functions.  I repeat that there is no theory among all
BLUE those that have been sketched at the various international CF conferences
BLUE or those mentioned here that addresses that question.  I believe
BLUE the appropriate response from anyone who wishes to challenge that
BLUE statement would be for them to name the specific theory that would
BLUE serve as a counter example.  Neither Mitchell nor David Davies has
BLUE named the theory. 

   Again, theory follows experiment.   And if worth anything, that
theory(ies) should suggest new experiments.  In this case
several theories are available on many aspects of the loading and other
reactions.   The scientific method is progressing, albeit under
"fire" by the TB-skeptics.


BLUE There remains the nagging question as to null results for the
BLUE detection of 4He as the product of a CF reaction.  In early Pons and
BLUE Fleischmann experiments there have been several reports of unsuccessful
BLUE attempts to detect helium.  I suppose that I can dig out specific
BLUE references if you insist.  McKubre did also once put it in writing that
BLUE attempts at helium detection had given a null result.  I believe that
BLUE is in his report at the Como conference.

   Dick Blue is probably quite aware that this is also not true.
Mike McKubre explicitly has stated that his equipment
was insensitive to that material.   For example:

    =mm  "We haven't seen any products which could come from a nuclear reaction,
    =mm  but we wouldn't have expected to with the tools applied so far." 
          [Dr. McKubre as quoted in Sunday Times (U.K), June 27, 1993,
                "Nuclear confusion," by  Neville Hodgkinson]

   As discussed  here previously, by Jed Rothwell:
    =jr "Let me repeat, one last
    =jr time, that both McKubre and Passel have emphatically
    =jr  denied that they have
    =jr looked for products and not found them."
            [<930916141732_72240.1256_EHK46-1] 

   Hope that clarifies.   So why was it repeated incorrectly again?

                       -  Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com)
 

cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.28 / Bruce TK /  Re: MM-Pact
     
Originally-From: bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce       Scott          TK  )
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: MM-Pact
Date: 28 Jul 1994 13:18:27 GMT
Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching

In article <940728042514_76570.2270_HHB76-1@CompuServe.COM>, 
	76570.2270@compuserve.com (Eugene Mallove) writes:

[...]

|> I hope you all agree with the sharpend standard of "widely accepted" as cited 
|> above. If not, I'll be flexible in modifying it within reasonable limits. I 
|> will NOT accept either Nature magazine or Science magazine as adequate 
|> standards, due to their historic bias. However, I *do* expect that two years 
|> from now Science, at least, is likely to be well on the cold fusion 
|> bandwagon.They'll have other reasons too: it will be a way of making Nature 
|> magazine look stupid.

Yes, the standards you mention are entirely acceptable to me. I noticed you
did not include the Wall Street Journal, or any other periodical which is
now and then prone to dubious "get rich quick" schemes. Since one can
indeed get rich quick on things that don't exist, that would not have satisfied
me. I accept that Science and Nature are out, due to reservations on your part.

We seem to agree that such as the IEEE spectrum are acceptable. How about
such as Physics Today, or its German equivalent Physikalische Blaetter?
If it comes to pass that wide regions of the engineering community are
all a-bubble and at least talking heatedly about building things (and not
just the fringe community), I would freely submit. I cannot resist to
admit, that I would heartily enjoy all the eggy faces at certain of our
national labs, were CF or equivalent actually to pass muster. However,
I am betting against this, in the form of our wager.

You seem to be approaching this in the same spirit as I, so I think we can
both agree when the Day of Reckoning comes around.

-- 
Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de                               -- W Gibson
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnTK cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.28 /  DaveHatunen /  Re: Randell L. Mills and hydrinos
     
Originally-From: hatunen@netcom.com (DaveHatunen)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.skeptic,pdx.general
Subject: Re: Randell L. Mills and hydrinos
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 1994 14:53:32 GMT
Organization: As little as you're likely to find anywhere

In article <317d66$pj3@sandra.teleport.com>,
David Smith <davids@teleport.com> wrote:
>Dr. Randy Mills is giving three talks in Portland next week.  His claims
>seem quite fantastical, like predicting a
>  
>  ...previously unknown form of matter: hydrogen atoms having energies 
>  below the conventional "ground" state, called "hydrinos".  The process
>  of hydrino production is an exothermic reaction that, in principle, 
>  represents a limitless clean energy source.
>
>The work is said to be based on:
>
>  ...a novel theory ... that unifies Maxwell's Equations, Newton's Law, 
>  and Einstein's General and Special Relativity. Quantization of atomic
>  states results for the condition of nonradiation originally formulated
>  by Hermann Haus in 1986...
>
>Does anyone know anything about Dr. Mills or Hermann Haus -- I've never 
>heard of either of them.  According to the blurb, the Dr. in "Dr. Mills" 
>is on account of his beeing an MD!.  Haus was apparently a professor at 
>MIT who mentored Mills in electrical engineering during his last two years
>of medical school.

I would be fascinated to know as much as possible about this and Dr
Mills. If anyone is going, or can obtain more information about it and
him, please let me know. I would especially be interested in the
claimed credentials of Mills and Haus. We had quite a thread going
about Mills a while back, mostly consisting of requests for information
which were not fulfilled.



-- 
    ********** DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@netcom.com) **********
    *                Daly City California:                *
    *       where San Francisco meets The Peninsula       *
    *       and the San Andreas Fault meets the Sea       *
    *******************************************************

cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenhatunen cudlnDaveHatunen cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.28 / Thomas Zemanian /  Re: Randell L. Mills and hydrinos
     
Originally-From: ts_zemanian@pnl.gov (Thomas S. Zemanian)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Randell L. Mills and hydrinos
Date: 28 Jul 1994 16:31:21 GMT
Organization: Battelle PNL

In article <hatunenCtno18.nF@netcom.com>, hatunen@netcom.com (DaveHatunen)
wrote:

> In article <317d66$pj3@sandra.teleport.com>,
> David Smith <davids@teleport.com> wrote:
> >Dr. Randy Mills is giving three talks in Portland next week.  His claims
> >seem quite fantastical, like predicting a
> >  
> >  ...previously unknown form of matter: hydrogen atoms having energies 
> >  below the conventional "ground" state, called "hydrinos".  The process
> >  of hydrino production is an exothermic reaction that, in principle, 
> >  represents a limitless clean energy source.
> >
> >The work is said to be based on:
> >
> >  ...a novel theory ... that unifies Maxwell's Equations, Newton's Law, 
> >  and Einstein's General and Special Relativity. Quantization of atomic
> >  states results for the condition of nonradiation originally formulated
> >  by Hermann Haus in 1986...
> >

[...]

> 
> I would be fascinated to know as much as possible about this and Dr
> Mills. If anyone is going, or can obtain more information about it and
> him, please let me know. I would especially be interested in the
> claimed credentials of Mills and Haus. We had quite a thread going
> about Mills a while back, mostly consisting of requests for information
> which were not fulfilled.
> 

Well, I don't really care about Mills' credentials, but if he can come up
with a quantity of these "hydrinos", they ought to have an enlightening
absorbtion spectrum.

A previously unknown eigenstate for hydrogen???  I'll believe it when I see
some hard evidence.

--Tom

--
The opinions expressed herein are mine and mine alone.  Keep your filthy
hands off 'em! 
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudents_zemanian cudfnThomas cudlnZemanian cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.28 / Jim Bowery /  Re: Max Planck Institute's Credibility
     
Originally-From: jabowery@netcom.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Max Planck Institute's Credibility
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 1994 16:15:11 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

Bruce       Scott          TK (bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de) wrote:
: The problem I have is that it is in no way clear that the radiating objects
: produced correspond to the Plasmak model. For that we need data. 

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that Paul actually has, as he claims, 
regularly and repeatably produced radiating objects:

1) that are prolate elipsoids of less than 10 centimeters major 
dimension 
2) that emerge from a high power electric discharge
3) that last for periods of time that are long enough for human 
perception to discriminate between the arc itself and the radiating 
object (say on the order of a second)
4) that travel at more or less a constant speed
5) that retain pretty much the same configuration until they disintegrates

What is the probability that Paul would build a device to generate 
long-lived stable plasmoids and then randomly hit on such phenomena?

: You state
: that such data exists. Unfortunately, all I have seen are verbal
: descriptions and a very fuzzy photograph which tells me very little.

First, the data exists only within the "broad tolerances" I described.  
It isn't exactly "qualitative" data, but in some dimensions it is little 
more than that.  But even that data is intellectual property and subject 
to the advice of legal counsel.  That is the problem with engineering 
over science and a never-ending source of embarrassment in an environment 
where pervasive government funded engineering creates cultural and 
ethical milieu in which the status of engineering vs science and 
intellectual property vs published research is very blurred.

: Jim, do realise that you are essentially asking that I drop my work and
: jump on your bandwagon. 

It's a judgement call and not all of us are equipped to take such "leaps 
of faith" especially when the priniciple investigator's character has 
been attacked by people in some of the most prestigeous plasma 
physics labs in the world.  Despite the fact that everyone wants to be 
another "Wright Brothers" to the government's "Langley" there are,
occasionally, people that fill the bill.  I obviously believe Koloc is 
one such individual and you remain skeptical.  Like I said, it's a 
judgement call and I have been making significant sacrifices from my 
meger resources to, perhaps not very effectively, advance the situation 
to the point that people like you can be convinced.  

I appreciate your open-mindedness, however skeptical, and the risks of 
such intellectual exploration especially for someone in your position.

[ description of analogous intellectual situation in tokamak transport ]

: I am eager and waiting to see such data that would convince me that we can
: even talk about such a simple first step as an MHD equilibrium. All these
: other things can come later.

If by "these other things" you mean the detailed diagnostics normally 
expected from labs with funding levels at many millions of $/yr, then I'm 
glad that we have this level of agreement.

: Assuming you can produce a plasma, you have the wherewithal to install a
: simple array of coils necessary to measure magnetic fields, and a cheap
: device (eg, from Edmund Scientific) to measure brightness (a CCD camera?)
: such that you can publish a light curve. This will get you started. Produce
: some astonishing data, and I can assure you that more than just I will take
: note. But a published paper is necessary.

That is a reasonable demand... However...

Publishing via peer review in an environment where one's "peers" are 
receiving literally 1000 times the funding levels of the principle 
investigator is a rather sticky wicket, you must admit.

: Another note (you may already know about this and have the book): obtain a
: copy of _Plasma Diagnostics_ by Hutchinson, go through the methods of
: density and temperature profile measurement, and then let's discuss why or
: if it is outside your resource limitations to find out what the plasma
: pressure is in those radiating objects.

Fair enough.

: A gambler, I am not. 

In the long run we're all dead.  We all gamble -- some of us play for higher 
stakes and against greater odds than others.  By playing with fusion, we 
play for high stakes.  Backing Koloc is a bet against the odds.  May the 
best man (men) win.

: Paul most certainly has the right to follow the advice
: he gets, and to follow his own sense. But then I think I have the right
: to withhold action and support until I am properly convinced, according
: to my own standards. Don't you?

Absolutely.  As I said, we all have our own tolerance level for risk and 
adventure -- and in a just world the insightful risk-taker realizes 
rewards commensurate with his relative tolerance for risk.

: Proclaim achievements -- in science, this really does have to be in the
: open. Otherwise, you can proclaim, but you cannot demand that others listen.

Producing practical fusion energy is an engineering adventure.  As with 
all engineering it has need of science.  The relationship is inherently 
symbiotic.
-- 
The promotion of politics exterminates apolitical genes in the population.
  The promotion of frontiers gives apolitical genes a route to survival.
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenjabowery cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.28 /  fairfax@sensei /  Alcator Progress 7/28/94
     
Originally-From: fairfax@sensei.pfc.mit.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Alcator Progress 7/28/94
Date: 28 JUL 94 19:55:45 GMT
Organization: MIT PLASMA FUSION CENTER

		Alcator C-MOD Weekly Highlights 
			July 28, 1994

The maintenance/repair period is continuing. The major activities this week
are concerned with refining and testing a redesign of the OH coaxial bus.

The problem in the original OH2L bus resulted from insufficient compliance to
accommodate the differential motion of the inner and outer coax connections. A
redesign concept which incorporates additional flexibility has been developed.
Detailed finite element analysis of this concept is in progress, and a test
piece is being fabricated. Additional testing of the coaxes removed from the
tokamak is continuing. 

In situ re-surfacing of the terminal plate on the OH2L coil is in progress.
The liquid nitrogen shroud that surrounds the core has been opened to allow
examination of the OH coils. There is no evidence of any damage to the coil
structure. The LN2 passages will be flushed out and a final inspection made
prior to re-sealing the shroud. 

While the bus work proceeds, we are also carrying out other maintenance and
upgrade activities. The divertor shunts, which measure the toroidal
distribution of halo currents during disruptions, have been removed from the
machine and will be upgraded to improve signal quality and reliability.
Additional halo current diagnostics, including a segmented toroidal rogowski
coil linking the inner wall, are being prepared. The isolation amplifiers used
to bring magnetics signals to the hybrid control computer have been replaced
with an improved design, developed in-house. 

The PPPL transport analysis code TRANSP has been integrated with the MDSplus
data system.  All TRANSP inputs, outputs, and control parameters are read and
written directly to the C-Mod data archive.  Preparation and preprocessing of
TRANSP inputs, and post-processing analysis of TRANSP outputs, is  conducted
using X-windows based software written in-house.

We have had preliminary discussions with Dr. Jack Sugar of NIST about a possible
collaboration which would involve searches for impurity emission lines with 
diagnostic potential. 

Bruce Lipschultz is attending an ITER Divertor and Divertor Modeling Experts
Group meeting this week. 

cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenfairfax cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.29 /   /  bose condensation model
     
Originally-From: BERNECKY@V70A.decnet (V70A::BERNECKY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: bose condensation model
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 1994 00:35:31 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I thought it would be interesting to construct a simple, one-
dimensional model of a PdH system, and to analyze it in terms of
quantum statistics.  Of course, the aim is to show in a quantita-
tive way that a high-temperature (e.g.  room temperature) boson
condensate can form.  Furthermore, the model is meant to eluci-
date what experimental factors should lead to successful produc-
tion of "excess heat". This latter goal assumes that a bose con-
densate is the causal mechanism for the anomalous effects in PdD.

We start with a regularly spaced succession of wells and barri-
ers.  The energy barriers have height V0 and width "a".  These
barriers are equally-spaced, separated by a distance of "b", with
zero potential.  The distance from barrier center to barrier cen-
ter is L= a+b.

ALLOWED ENERGY BANDS

The first thing to determine is a description of the allowed en-
ergy bands for H.  The limits of each energy band (for an arbi-
trarily large number of wells) are found by solving [Quantics, p
383]:

  +/- 1 = cosh(K a) cos(P b) + N sinh(K a) sin(P b)

where
    a is the width of the barrier
    b is the width of the well
    P = sqrt(2 m E),  m=mass of H, E= allowed energy.
    K = sqrt(2 m (V0-E)), m,E as above, V0 the barrier height.
    N = (K^2 - P^2)/(2 K P)

We solve for those values of E that result in the expression hav-
ing a value of plus or minus one.  These energy values are the
limits of the allowed energy bands.

We need some reasonable numbers for the various parameters, in
particular V0 (the barrier height), a (the barrier width), and b
(the well width).  The total distance L = a+b is the spacing be-
tween the octahedral sites in the Pd lattice, 2.85 Angstroms un-
der high loading conditions. V0 is nominally 0.3 eV.  I have
tried a range of values for "a" and "b".

The results are presented below.  The barrier width "a" is given
as a percentage of the cell spacing L (2.85 A), and "b" is L-a.
The energy levels are given in degrees Kelvin, having been trans-
lated from energy to temperature via E= 1.5 K T, K = Boltzmann's
constant.

These tables show the lower and upper limits of the first four
energy bands, for progessively narrower barriers.  Also, a sample
set of numbers for V0= 0.1 eV is given for the 5% barrier case,
to show the effect of a significantly smaller potential on the
energy bands.

Note that under the condition of a thin barrier (say 2%, or less)
that the top of the fourth band is about 312 K.  This is the same
temperature that appears in many of the succesful cold fusion ex-
periments. (See Part Six of BWO post.)

TABLE 1
=======================================
V0 0.3 eV  barrier 25%  L 2.85 A
 --------------------------------------
band #       Low (K)       High (K)
1             29.8           29.8
2            119.2          119.3
3            267.8          267.9
4            474.9          475.1

=======================================
V0 0.3 eV  barrier 10%  L 2.85 A
 --------------------------------------
band #       Low (K)       High (K)
1             21.1           21.4
2             84.2           85.6
3            189.1          192.4
4            335.4          341.8

=======================================  ========================
V0 0.3 eV  barrier 5%  L 2.85 A          V0 0.1 eV barr 5% L 2.85
 --------------------------------------  ------------------------
band #       Low (K)       High (K)       Low (K)       High (K)
1             18.2           19.9          14.3           19.7
2             72.9           79.5          57.9           78.6
3            163.9          178.9         132.5          176.8
4            291.1          318.0         240.3          314.4

=======================================
V0 0.3 eV  barrier 2%  L 2.85 A
 --------------------------------------
band #       Low (K)       High (K)
1             14.6           19.5
2             59.2           78.1
3            135.2          175.8
4            244.7          312.5

=======================================
V0 0.3 eV  barrier 0.1%  L 2.85 A
 --------------------------------------
band #       Low (K)       High (K)
1              2.1           19.5
2             23.9           78.0
3             82.6          175.5
4            180.1          312.1


The next table is an expanded version of the 2% barrier case.
The energy values are given in milli-electron volts (meV), as
well as the equivalent degrees Kelvin.

TABLE 2
=======================================
V0 0.3 eV  barrier 2%  L 2.85 A
 --------------------------------------
band #       Low (K)       High (K)    Low (meV)    High (meV)
1             14.6           19.5         1.9          2.5
2             59.2           78.1         7.6         10.1
3            135.2          175.8        17.5         22.7
4            244.7          312.5        31.6         40.4
5            389.3          488.3        50.3         63.1
6            570.2          703.2        73.7         90.9
7            788.4          957.1       101.9        123.7
8           1044.3         1250.1       134.9        161.5
9           1338.5         1582.2       173.0        204.4


>From this data we conclude that there are many energy bands (at
least 10) in the system- the 9th level ends at .2 eV, much below
the barrier height 0.3 eV.

Some further observations:
    A potential barrier of 0.3 eV is quite deep.
    The higher the energy, the wider the band.
    The top of a band is robust wrt barrier height V0, and barri-
    er width (if less than a few %).
    The top of a band is approximately T = h^2/(3mKL^2)

DISCRETE ENERGY LEVELS OF ONE BAND

For a more detailed picture I turned to Brandt and Dahmen's "QM
on the PC" [Brandt, p 30].  Section 3.3 plots the eigenstates of
a quasiperiodic step potential, for a system of up to 10 wells.
Ten is not exactly "arbitrarily large" (the assumption for the
above data), but it gives reasonably close values.  For example,
compare the data of Table 3 with that of Table 2.

Each energy band is made up of many distinct levels, as many (per
band) as there are wells in the periodic array.  (It is in the
limit of a large number of wells that a band forms a continuum of
allowed energy levels.)  In the case of 10 wells, we can list the
separate energy levels of a band:  the ten levels of the fourth
band are given below.  The two highest levels (9 and 10) are giv-
en with a bit more accuracy.


TABLE 3
========================================================
PdH System
10 wells.  V0 0.3 eV.  barrier 2% (.0057 A) L=2.85 A.
The 10 levels of the 4th energy band.

 Level          Energy (meV)    Kelvin
   1               31.8          246
   2               32.3          250
   3               33.2          257
   4               34.2          265
   5               35.3          273
   6               36.6          283
   7               37.7          292
   8               38.8          300
   9               39.62         307
  10               40.18         311

INTRO TO QM STATISTICS

Let's introduce one H atom into each of the ten wells, to form an
ensemble of indistinguishable (same spin) bosons. Consider all
the distinguishable ways these bosons could occupy the eigen-
states (allowed energy levels) of the system.  We enumerate the
energy levels: 1,2,3... and assign some number of bosons to each
level, until all 10 bosons have been parceled out.  This defines
one assignment, or using classical terminology, one complexion.
We can imagine writing down all possible, distinguishable com-
plexions.  Next, we add a constraint that the total energy of the
system is some fixed value (it follows that the average energy
per boson is also fixed).  We cross off all those complexions on
the list that do not have the correct total energy.  What remain
are all the complexions consistent with having 10 bosons with a
fixed average energy.

At this point we must address an important detail, the untidiness
of the world. It is very difficult to assign a quanton to a *sin-
gle* energy level, because the energy of a quanton is only de-
fined to a precision allowed by the Heisenberg uncertainty prin-
ciple.  If the spacing between energy levels is much closer than
the uncertainty in the quanton's energy, we can not know exactly
the level it occupies.  To accomodate this, we group a bunch of
energy levels together to form an energy interval "e" (often re-
ferred to, confusingly, as a level) made up of "g" non-degenerate
levels.  For example, levels 1,2, and 3 might be grouped together
to form an "energy interval" with g=3 (non-degenerate) levels.

We now go back to our list of complexions. In this coarser-
grained view, called a distribution-in-energy, some of the com-
plexions are the same:  a complexion that assigned one boson to
level 1, and zero to levels 2 and 3 is considered the same as one
which assigned one boson to level 2, and zero to levels 1 and 3
(all else remaining the same). We map all the complexions to the
appropriate distribution-in-energy. The distribution that has the
most complexions mapped to it is the most likely, *assuming that
all complexions are equally likely*.

The idea of grouping nondegenerate energy levels together is an
important point, so I will cite from [Band,p 181]:
"Very frequently the individual energy levels are strictly nonde-
generate, g=1, so that the number of complexions is unity, and
the entropy is identically zero.  Experimentally this is wrong.
Ordinarily we forget this point, go over to the form given in Eqs
(2.243) and (2.244), having employed the Stirling approximation
on the assumption that all the numbers involved are large; and
this gives experimentally confirmed results.  To put the theory
into a form where the numbers and weights are actually large, we
have to lump together a large number of energy levels g in a
small energy range, and consider the number of particles in each
energy range as determining the distribution-in-energy.
"The question is: since the energy levels are really nondegener-
ate, ought we not strictly to stay with the discrete analysis?
There is clearly an inconsistency here:  the experimentally con-
firmed results are obviously wrong mathematically. There appears
to be only one logical escape from this dilemma, through the
Heisenberg uncertainty relation.  The life-time of any one parti-
cle in any one of the nondegenerate energy states is finite, say
delta_t. For most assemblies of interest delta_t is of the order
of a few microseconds or less. This means there is an uncertainty
in the energy given by delta_e*delta_t ~ 1e-27 erg/sec. If the
discrete nondegenerate energy spectrum has many levels within an
energy range, we are completely justified in using the continuous
approximation and arriving at the usual results.  If on the other
hand the energy interval delta_e is comparable with or less than
the spacing between the nondegenerate energy levels of the spec-
trum, we are not justified in using the continuous approximation,
and the entropy must be regarded as absolutely zero."

LIFE-TIMES OF ENERGY LEVELS

The foregoing suggests that we investigate the uncertainty in en-
ergy for the different levels in the system.  To do this, I ap-
plied a Fourier transform to each of the waveforms associated
with the ten energy levels in a given (the 4th) band.  The resul-
tant spectrum shows the distribution in wave number (k) for each
level.  And wave number is related to momentum by p= h_bar k. I
used the dispersion relation E = p^2/(2m) to equate uncertainty
in energy (dE) to uncertainty in momentum (dp):  dE= (p/m) dp.

TABLE 4
=================================================================
spectrum width of highest 3 energy levels and bottom energy level
of 4th band.  Width in bins to 3 dB down point.  Bin width= 2.2e8
radians/meter.
Level    energy (meV)   width (bins)  delta_k    delta_e (meV)
1           31.8           500         1.1e11      178
8           38.8            40         8.8e9        16
9           39.6            28         6.2e9        11
10          40.2            12         2.65e9        5

The energy levels become progressively narrower as they approach
the top of the band, and take the form of a perfect sinusoid.

The first conclusion we may draw is that *not all energy levels
have the same "life-time"*.  The levels at the top of a band have
comparatively small uncertainties in energy, and a consequently
longer life:  delta_t > h_bar/delta_e.  For fermions, this fact
matters little, because only one fermion may occupy an eigen-
state.  But here, where the H atoms are bosons, there will be a
disproportionate occupation of these longer-lived energy levels.
The immediate consequence is that the "normal" Boltzmann distri-
bution will be skewed; the top of each band will have a popula-
tion spike, and these spikes will carry out further into the
tail.

As an aside, note that this distribution, with its spikes in the
high end of the energy spectrum, might account for the higher
diffusion rates of D+ (a boson) than H+ (a fermion) in some metal
lattices.

CONDENSATION

Given the ten well battlement, with ten bosons, we can estimate
the number of distinct complexions.  There are about 10 bands,
each with 10 levels, for a total of 100 energy levels in the sys-
tem.  For a rough upper bound, let's group all the levels into
one "energy interval", and compute the number of complexions as

       #C = (n+g-1)!/(n! (g-1)!)
       #C = 109!/(10! 99!)
       #C ~ 4e13

where n is the number of bosons (n=10) and g is the number of
eigenstates (g=100).  We can use 1e-13 sec as a conservative es-
timate of the average lifetime of a complexion. It then follows
that a particular complexion (e.g. the top level of the 4th band)
should occur every few seconds.

There are a few interesting features of this complexion.  First,
by definition, we have a boson condensation, in that all the
(same spin) bosons individually occupy an identical state. Sec-
ond, because there are N (=10) bosons in the same state, the
"natural" probability that any one of them will leave that state
is reduced by a factor of 1/N. That is, because of Bose-Einstein
statistics, an H's life-time in this state is N times longer than
it would otherwise be.  Assuming the saturated Heisenberg in-
equality, this longer delta_t (by N) implies a smaller delta_e
(by 1/N). From Table 4, we have delta_e= 5 meV, so delta_e'=
delta_e/N = 0.5 meV. From Table 3, we see that the difference
between level 9 and level 10 of the 4th band is 0.57 meV. **The
uncertainty in energy "covers" only one energy level.**  In a
sense, the 10 bosons are trapped, because no other energy level
is accessible (not exactly true, but close enough).  We conclude
that, in the absence of external forces, the condensation has ze-
ro entropy, and is stable.


THE EFFECT OF MORE WELLS

Let's double the number of wells in the battlement.  The limits
of each band remain fixed.  However, the number of energy levels
in each band doubles; consequently, the spacing between levels is
halved (on average).  The point is that the distance between lev-
els is inversely related to the number of wells in the battle-
ment.  The spacing between levels in an N cell battlement is ap-
proximately

deN = de1/N   ; de1 the spacing for a "1 well battlement"

So, the spacing between levels goes as 1/N. How does the uncer-
tainty in a level (its smeared width) go?  The uncertainty in en-
ergy associated with a level is related to the spectral width of
the level's waveform.  This waveform, for that level at the *top
of a band* is a sine wave, with 0.5*band# * N cycles, where N is
the number of wells.  We know the spectral width is inversely re-
lated to the number of cycles, which in turn means inversely re-
lated to N.  Call this uncertainty (the amount a level is
"smeared") dLN:

dLN = dL1/N  ; dL1 the uncertainty of a one well energy level

Additionally, if this top-of-the-band level is occupied by N
identical bosons, the uncertainty in energy is reduced by N, due
to boson statistics. Putting these two effects together, we have

dLBN = dL1/N^2

which is to say, the uncertainty in the energy level decreases as
1/N^2, while the distance between levels decreases only as 1/N.
We conclude that adding more wells (and, simultaneously, more
bosons) will make the condensate more stable.

If more wells are better, as implied above, let's examine the
case of 1e3 i.e. 1000 wells, each occupied by a boson. As above,
we start by counting the number of energy levels: 10 bands (this
is a function of the well depth) * 1000 levels/band (each band
splits), or g= 1e4 eigenstates.  Again grouping these levels into
one energy range, and using bose-einstein statistics:

    #C = (n+g-1)!/( n! (g-1)!)
       = 1.1e4!/ (1e3! (1e4-1)!)
       = [10999*...*10001*10000]/1e3! ; big #/big #

We can approximate the numerator as 10000^1e3 (Boltzmann statis-
tics).  The denominator can be evaluated using Stirling's approx-
imation, ln(x!)~ x*ln(x)-x.  This gives 1e3! ~ exp(5908) =
1e2566.  The number of complexions is

    #C = 1e4000/1e2566 = 1e1434.

This is a large number.  It is *very* unlikely that a condensate
will form.  There are two problems:  (1) the number of complex-
ions is large. (2) the energy levels are very closely spaced,
which makes it difficult to occupy exactly one eigenstate.

[But it would be worth while to do a careful calculation for this
scenario.  All complexions are *not* equally likely (some levels
are long-lived).  Still, the general conclusion holds, that large
battlements do not foster bose condensation.]

The conclusion is that a bose condensate can form, but only under
very special conditions.  These conditions are that we start with
a small battlement filled with bosons, and wait for condensation.
We then add wells (and bosons) one at a time.

Note that T in nanometer crystals of Ti fits this model.


ROLE OF D/ HIGH LOADING

"Growing" a battlement one well at a time seems to be a tall or-
der.  But this may be exactly the role of D in a PdD system.  The
argument is that a small number of adjacent wells filled by H,
surrounded by D filled wells is an approximation to a small, iso-
lated battlement.  The battlement may grow (add a new cell), when
D in a boundary cell exchanges positions with an (outside) H.

The purpose of a high ratio of D to Pd is to ensure stability of
the energy levels in the isolated battlement. This idea should be
quantifiable.

TEMPERATURE DEPENDENCE OF THE BATTLEMENT

The idealized model presented here assumes a fixed barrier, and a
fixed well size.  In fact, this can not be the case, when the Pd
atoms in a metal lattice constitute the elements of the battle-
ment.  At room temperature these Pd atoms are vibrating, and the
wells and barriers are "fixed" only on average. What effect does
this thermal noise have on the model?

This question was answered by Debye, "...I came to the conclusion
that the sharpness of the interference lines would not suffer but
that their intensity should diminish with increasing angle of
scattering, the more so the higher the temperature." [Kittle, p
63].

Quoting from [Kittle, p 63]: "It is surprising that we can get a
sharp x-ray reflection from atoms undergoing large amplitude ran-
dom thermal motion, with instantaneous nearest-neighbor spacings
differing by 10% at room temperature.
"Before the Laue experiment was done, but when the proposal was
discussed in a coffee house in Munich, the objection was made
that the instantaneous positions of the atoms in a crystal at
room temperature are far from a regular periodic array, because
of the large thermal fluctuation.  Therefore, the argument went,
one should not expect a well-defined diffracted beam.
"But a well-defined diffracted beam is found.  The reason was
given by Debye."

The reason is that the thermal noise is incoherent, and averages
out over many wells.

"The theory we have worked out here for x-ray reflection applies
equally well to neutron diffraction, and to the Mossbauer effect,
the recoiless emission of gamma rays by nuclei bound in crys-
tals."  [Kittle, p 65]

So, high temperature and high wave number reduce the intensity of
a diffracted wave, but not catastrophically.  It follows that we
should investigate the higher bands.

CONCLUSION

The simple model presented here offers some insight into how a
high temperature bose condensate can form within a metal lattice.

The main points are:
    1. Operate at the top of an (even numbered?) energy band.
    2. Use the higher energy bands i.e. run hotter, because the
    energy levels are more widely spaced. (But, it's TBD which
    band is best.)
    3. Keep one dimension of the metal lattice very small. This
    reduces the number of levels per band.
    4. Reduce the number of available energy levels by working
    with very small arrays, and slowly "building up".
    5. Align the spin of the H (or D+) via magnets or RF, to re-
    duce the number of eigenstates.

There is much more to be deduced than the above hints.  After
all, the phenomena is dynamic, and depends on which species (H or
D) is a boson under the extant operating conditions.

REFERENCES

Quantics, by Levy-Leblond & Balibar, Elsevier Sci Pub, 1990.
Intro to Solid State Physics, by C. Kittle, John Wiley, 1976.
Intro to Quantum Statistics, by W. Band, Van Nostrand.
Quantum Mech on the Personal Computer, by Brandt & Dahmen,
        Springer-Verlag,1992

cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenBERNECKY cudln cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.29 / Dick Jackson /  Re: Max Planck Institute's Credibility
     
Originally-From: jackson@soldev.tti.com (Dick Jackson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Max Planck Institute's Credibility
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 1994 00:48:51 GMT
Organization: Citicorp-TTI at Santa Monica (CA) by the Sea

In article <jaboweryCtLwxL.6LA@netcom.com> jabowery@netcom.com (Jim Bowery) writes:
>
>You simply do not believe Koloc is producing such plasmoids and that is 
>your perogative.  Such skepticism is understandable.  On the other hand 
>what is the probability that you are wrong?  How much money would be 
>required to confirm or debunk the existence of said plasmoids to your 
>satisfaction?

I found it interesting that Jim Carlson (I think it was) denied the
phenomenon of ball lightning. I think he had to because his equations
told him they are impossible. Of course he and his equations may be
right, but otherwise it is a good example of a scientist putting up
a mental barier to avoid having to face up to an intractible problem.

It seems to me that when faced with the unknown, one has three choices:
Viz to say "The phenomenon doesn't exist", "There seems to something
mysterious going on - I haven't a clue", or "There's definitely a weird
new effect based on amzing new physics".  I prefer the middle one, however
the first one seems to me to be at least an honest reaction.  Its the
third which I feel is really intemperate.

Dick Jackson
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenjackson cudfnDick cudlnJackson cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.29 / Eugene Mallove /  Maddox Obit
     
Originally-From: 76570.2270@compuserve.com (Eugene Mallove)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Maddox Obit
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 1994 03:57:31 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

In response to Ludwig's query about Maddox writing off CF:

It is well known tthat Maddox & Co. at Nature have a long history of attacking
cold fusion and writing its obit.   Noteworthy early editorials were:

*"The embarrassment of cold fusion" Vol.344, 29 March 1990,  pp.375-376 
(Associate editor David Lindley).  Famous ending line: "Would a measure of 
unrestrained mockery, even a little unqualified vituperation, have speeded 
cold fusion's demise?"

* "Farewell (not fond) to cold fusion"  Lead editorial, Vol.344, 29 March 
1990, p.365.

Very early on there was a "cute" editorial, where Steve Jones may have gotten 
an idea for one of his more recent tricks:

"Cold (con)fusion"  Vo.338, 30 March 1989, pp.361-362.

cudkeys:
cuddy29 cuden2270 cudfnEugene cudlnMallove cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.29 / mitchell swartz /  4He alone? - double blind experiments? indirect effect
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: 4He alone? - double blind experiments? indirect effect
Subject: Re: 4He alone?  -  what McKubre really stated
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 1994 01:42:04 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

          In Message-ID: <31968f$gu2@network.ucsd.edu>
Subject: Re: 4He alone?  -  what McKubre really stated
Matt Kennel (mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu) writes: 

       =:    And yet, the technology progresses, clinical gains are
       = : realized, but we do not know WHY cancer cells are more sensitive
       = : and respond more then the normal cells.
       = :    Good thing the TB-skeptics lost *that* battle against the
       = : therapeutic use of ionizing radiation.
KENNEL Oh how silly.  #1 you can make double blind clinical trials showing
KENNEL emphatic statistically significant therapeutic gains from radiation
KENNEL therapy. 

  How silly.   First, the use of "double blind clinical trials showing
emphatic statistically significant therapeutic gains from radiation
therapy" or any other therapy have often not been done.   
This has occurred for several reasons.

 First, the variations in the art, in tumors themselves and in their
presentation have made this difficult.   It might surprise you that
most medical therapies have never been tested in double blind
experiments.

 Second, regarding effective therapy, such trials might not be ethical
 given that we know that treatment (for example)
decreases the likelihood of local failure.

 Third, furthermore, the use of medical treatments (including both
comprehensive and palliative radiation therapy) follow 
clinical significant findings and rarely statistically
significant findings in the initial phases of human knowledge.  
For example the use of XRT in post-surgical adjuvant setting
for carcinoma arising in the breast.

  Finally, your statement is inaccurate because double blind would require
that the radiation therapist not know if the treatment machine was 
operational, which may be a violation of NRC regulations.


KENNEL I don't know squat about cancer, but how about: cancer cells are multiplying
KENNEL fast and require the DNA to be in good shape for reproduction more so than
KENNEL normal cells that just need to keep living.

   Your model of  "cancer cells (which) are multiplying
 fast ...  " ignores loss factors, differences in Kreb cycles,
chalcogen containing cytoplasmic materials, superoxide 
dismustates, and many other well-known parameters.

KENNEL So chromosomal damage by radiation (a known fact) affects
KENNEL cancer cells more than regular cells.

  Does it? 
 Also, regarding your "known fact":   Very little of the radiation
 damage impacts the chromosomes directly but circa 90%
 goes by way of oxygen radicals (the indirect pathway)

   Better keep reading.       ;-) X
   Best wishes.
                Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com)
 
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.28 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Ball Lightning Carlson
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Ball Lightning Carlson
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 1994 06:19:20 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <hanson-2507941235080001@hanson_mac2.physics.auburn.edu>
hanson@physics.auburn.edu (James D Hanson) writes:
>In article <310hs1INN13b@slcawc.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de>,
>awc@ipp-garching.mpg.de wrote:
>
> [sinp]
>
>> The average pressure is constrained by the virial theorem. Koloc
>> refers again to a "divergence theorem", which is not a standard
>> concept in plasma physics. If he would simply *write down*
>> mathematically what he means by this, we could perhaps talk about
>> it. 
>
>I would guess that he means Gauss' Theorem:
>
>   Integral[volume,div Fvector] = 
>      Integral[Surface bounding volume,Fvector dot (unit normal)]
>
>This is sometmes refered to as the divergence theorem.  For example:
> 
>   "It is called the divergence theorem and sometimes Gauss' theorem (not to be
>    confused with Gauss *law*)."
>
>from page 44 of the book "Div, Grad, Curl and All That" by H. M. Schey, W.
>W. Norton and Company, New York, London, (1973).
>
> [snip]

When executing this remember to make the regions "simply connected".  

The difficulty now is to understand what constitutes another useful
magnetoplasma physics concept which is "pressure bearing surfaces".  

Then to develop the art of choosing those surfaces so they make physics
sense and the make them the ones you select for  "surface bounding" 
integration). Is there hope here?? 

Not to push things to fast, first consider that some current surfaces
are NOT pressure bearing WHILE OTHERS ARE.  The difference depends on
arrangement of pressures (curvature) or tensiles.  A soap bubble
IS A PRESSURE BEARING SURFACE, since it is nearly impermeable to air
and has a two component surface tension.  A toroidal current on a 
closed toroidal surface producing only tensile (poloidal flux outside) 
and vectorless plasma pressure inside, so it is not "pressure bearing" 
in the sense that the toroid is unconstained to expansion in the major 
radius and constrained only in the poloidal direction.  Consequently, 
the torus is free to grow into a continuing larger and thinner bicycle 
tire like toroid.  To trap and increase pressure within a surface, the 
surface should transmit "external applied inwardly directed" pressures 
as well as produce "additional" surface tension like" inward pressures, 
which ADD. 

To do that the fields generated in a current toroid must be two 
dimensional and non-mergeable.  Since poloidal field is generated 
at the surface and outside it, and the toroidal field is produce 
at the inner surface and within the torus, the conditions are met.  
The windings of a Torsatron   (a special form of the Stellarator),  
takes advantage of both the concept of nested toroidal current 
surfaces and force free force free winding sets, to produce a 
device in which very large fields can be generated with the 
relatively small structural support necessary.  NOTE: that the
difference between "bucking componets" of current (field) can 
be small and compensated by the net inward force of atmosphere, 
while the values of the field themselves can be very large and 
thus their energy density is huge.    

The PMK is even better form of the torsatron in this sense, 
especially since it is also mechanically compressible.  Great 
advantage are due to the greater range of pressures available and 
the simplicity and low cost of the technology.  

If we have a PMK with POLOIDAL FIELD  (toroidal current), the 
effect in increasing the toroidal field (poloidal current) is to 
increase the devices internal energy.  It is in a sense like 
winding a dresser clock spring spring.  PPPL in the first paper 
had a parameter "gamma?" which related to "field shear" or the 
ratio of the poloidal and toroidal fields.  

So,.. the choice of shear is arbitary, and the system can be made 
force free over a range, although the dynamic perturbation 
limitation range for MHD stability is reduced with increasing shear 
<poloidal/toroidal> field.  I think (from mem) PPPL called this 
GAMMA  (some kind of quantification).   Really, the problem is NOT 
as difficult as it is made out to be, .. and I really think BScott 
has the correct idea.. just do it.  Steve Jardin also ran a two D 
axi-symmetric version of the PEST code at PPPL way way back and 
will do it again if someone funds the work.  Hmmm! am I giving 
IPP competition here?   

That was fine for the time.. although Okabyashi used a series of 
"mag coils" to simulate the field at the separatrix.     Oh.. well.   

The Japanese have also dabbled with such configurations. --- Where 
are they on these matters of Hitodama??   Comments please?  

Next query .. perhaps "WHERE'S the reference to "pressure bearing 
surfaces in plasma physics?"    great!... 

Thanks James, it was so very tidy.  

>> Art Carlson
>> Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics
>> Garching, Germany
>> carlson@ipp-garching.mpg.de

>James D. Hanson                          ph. (205) 844-5044
>Department of Physics                    fax (205) 844-4613
>206 Allison Laboratory
>Auburn University, AL 36849-5311         hanson@physics.auburn.edu

+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc, Bx 1037 Prometheus II Ltd, College Park MD 20741-1037    |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Fri Jul 29 04:37:06 EDT 1994
------------------------------
1994.07.28 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Ball Lightning Carlson
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Ball Lightning Carlson
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 1994 18:28:57 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <315hgpINN24pi@sat.ipp-garching.mpg.de> bds@ipp-garching.mpg.
e (Bruce       Scott          TK  ) writes:
>In article <CtKqLM.65o@prometheus.UUCP>, pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) writes:

>Yes, that is what I meant. Like the tokamak, it is axisymmetric up to
>fluctuations and imperfections. In an idealised simulation, I can assume
>that it is an axisymmetric 2D MHD equiblibrium.

Correct

>I was worried about the "helical transition" due to some sort of kink
>instability that Jim alluded to in an e-mail about a year ago. Sorry, guys,
>I cannot think in 3-D. That is why I need formulas.

Why?   It's  2D with a collapsing twist.      :-)

>OK, here is what I assume about the configuration: 

>  -- the magnetic field components are all functions of two variables,
>     which I can call R and z. R is the perpendicular distance from the 
>     "symmetry axis", and z is the distance parallel to that axis from a
>     plane perpendicular to that axis. This plane I call the "midplane".
>     Note that the configuration is not required to be symmetric about
>     the midplane.   

Let's call your "midplane" the "equatorial plane" and the medial plane
the one which includes both R and z elemental vectors.  

Otherwise Correct: 
where: Axis == Major Axis

>  -- the magnetic field and the current density are zero on the symmetry 
>     axis.

NOT, unless you are speaking in mathematical trivial sense of 
the limit of the Mag field density at a point is undefined. 
or curl of (loop of current circulating within a point has no
radius and therefore is null value.   Junky stuff like that.  
Make's it hard on physicists that have to deal with a quasi-continuous,
(grainy) space, and wear snow shoes so they don't fall through
the cracks (delta functions).  This is so since physical space
has a limited information density. That is we can not specify 
location in space time with phyisically MEANINGFUL infinite 
precision.  Sorry for the digression.   

NO the (plasma sampling) field density on AXIS (intersection with 
equatorial plane, for example) has value --  15kG ish. and diverging 
elsewhere.  The problem is that B=delXA  which technically says that 
the B field would be of zede value axially?? since again the 
curl radius is zero.  but ..  what?? help is this.. infintesmal?   
Again I would find it hard to visualize a zede thread of zero
B.  


>  -- upon some closed domain in (R,z), the magnetic field is zero. Let the

>     surface of revolution of this domain about the symmetry axis be called 
>     the "plasma boundary".

In general there is such a boundary.  
True, for a first cut.  In reality .. about 2%  eh!  is not 
current neutralized at the surface of revolution. 
        SAID plasma boundary == The Mantle/vacuum field interface).  
But save 2% worry for later if battles over the need for polar jets 
errupt.  

>  -- the gas pressure on the plasma boundary is constant and nonzero

Yes.   Due to the number of plasma boundaries.. let's use "Mantle plasma
boundary", but technically the Mantle/vacuum field interface.  

>  -- outside the plasma boundary, there is another closed domain in (R,z),
>     and the surface of revolution of this second domain about the symmetry
>     axis entirely encloses the plasma boundary, without contact to it. Let
>     this second surface be called the "outer boundary". 

No, your plasma boundary IS the outer boundary.  

Let the domain
>     between the plasma boundary and the outer boundary be called the 
>     "mantle". In the mantle the magnetic field is zero, and the current
>     density is also zero, but the gas pressure is finite.

Yes more or less, but as modified previously above.  

So???  where is the Kernel plasma region??  Am I missing something?? 

The  first boundary you mentioned above does not qualify since
it has a gas boundary, and it has a none zero pressure.  That
is not the case with the Kernel plasma, which is surrounded with
a vacuum field.  One can visualize the Kernel current ring as being
suppended within its vacuum insulating field, the latter of which
is trapped by the hyperconducting boundary layer of energetic
Mantle electrons.    Is this understandable? 

>You should be able to visualise this; now a few questions:
>
>  -- do the magnetic field lines lie on closed toroidal surfaces, which are
>     nested without any intersection (assume zero fluctuation levels)?
>     If so, let these surfaces be called "flux surfaces"

Yes. for the first cut.. remember, there is the 2% bleed through the 
Mantle in the reality case, but that is confined to perturbations in 
the Mantle, which after all is essentially at 1 ATM .. so.. it will 
make little diff to the total integrated energy.   (at least for a 
well twisted Kernel --biggish toroidal field component).  

>  -- is the gas in the mantle neutral (this is probably not necessary for
>     a computation)?

Yes, unless charged by an electrostatic source, which is not likely to
persist since the ionization (electrostatic radial force) would spray 
or wipe such charge away by convective diffusion.  

>  -- can the magnetic field be described by a "Grad-Shafronov equation"?
>     This equation is used to descibe tokamak equilibria, but I would think
>     one need only change the form of the toroidal field to make it general.

Hmmm!.   I'm not familiar enough to answer the question, and my interest
would be that the equivalence between current form and field forms are
general enough to handle this non-fixed coil case.  Can the G-S equation
handle the interact between the flip of toroidal currents to follow
poloidal-toroidal field screw, producing an increased poloidal current
component at the expense of toroidal current.  There is then a drop
in poloidal component and a relaxation back to more toroidal current. 
Thus the upshot is a see-sawing of the currents and fields and a 
generating or a churning or sloshing of fields in the tokamaks central 
region.  G-S predicts this??    

>     It would be imperative, however, that the current density be constant 
>     on each flux surface; otherwise div B would not vanish. One probably
>     needs the gas pressure to be constant on each flux surface as well,
>     at least up to corrections of order d/a, where a is the approximate
>     linear dimension of the plasma boundary in the Rz-plane, and d is
>     the width of an ion orbit within the magnetic field, centered on a
>     given flux surface.

whoa!  What are you saying..  let's look at the Kernel (when you describe
it).  Is it necessary to worry about plasma perturbations in a low
beta system?  I say this because the energy computation should not
be effected that much if the system is pumped with plasma or not.   
Unless the plasma carries much much more E-den/cc than mag fields.  
(not so obvious -- since the extra field snugs the system).  

>The Grad-Shafranov equation assumes there is some flux variable, G(R,z),
>zero on the plasma boundary, in terms of which the magnetic field may be
>expessed by

>     B = g \grad \phi + \grad G \cross \grad \phi,

>where \phi is the angle about the symmetry axis holding R and z constant,
>and g is a function of G only (otherwise there are non-axisymmetric MHD
>forces and you lose axisymmetry). For a tokamak the quantity g is slowly
>varying, essentially constant (up to corrections of order the inverse
>aspect ratio squared). For a plasmak, one would require

>     g = 0 and \grad G = 0,  on the plasma boundary,
>                             and on the symmetry axis.
   

I thought that the increased shear would counter this.  The inverse 
aspect ratio here is larger yes.. but. I'm not certain I follow the
physical flavor of this proscription.  Unfortunately, one of the 
physicist I did work with and did such work, (PPPL) is now in hydrogen 
energy research because of unpleasant interacts with certain local 
ethics laxities there.  

>Please comment on this and we can proceed further.
>-- 
>Gruss,
>Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
>Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
>bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de                               -- W Gibson


cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.29 / David Cook /  Re: Randell L. Mills and hydrinos
     
Originally-From: dcook@linux4.ph.utexas.edu (David M. Cook)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.skeptic,pdx.general
Subject: Re: Randell L. Mills and hydrinos
Date: 29 Jul 1994 02:25:12 -0500
Organization: Physics Department, University of Texas at Austin

In article <317d66$pj3@sandra.teleport.com>,
David Smith <davids@teleport.com> wrote:
>
>  ...a novel theory ... that unifies Maxwell's Equations, Newton's Law, 
>  and Einstein's General and Special Relativity.

Oh, I can do that.

Dave Cook
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudendcook cudfnDavid cudlnCook cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.29 / Seth Arnold /  Re: Randell L. Mills and hydrinos
     
Originally-From: hideki@agora.rdrop.com (Seth Arnold)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.skeptic,pdx.general
Subject: Re: Randell L. Mills and hydrinos
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 1994 07:47:37 GMT
Organization: RainDrop Laboratories

David M. Cook (dcook@linux4.ph.utexas.edu) wrote:
: >  ...a novel theory ... that unifies Maxwell's Equations, Newton's Law, 
: >  and Einstein's General and Special Relativity.

: Oh, I can do that.

Hey, we should get together sometime. ;-)

--
|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
| hideki@agora.rdrop.com |   "Anyone have a good quote to stick here?"  |
|   Seth Arnold          |                               -Seth Arnold   |
|________________________|______________________________________________|
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenhideki cudfnSeth cudlnArnold cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.29 / Arthur TK /  Re: Max Planck Institute's Credibility
     
Originally-From: awc@ipp-garching.mpg.de (Arthur      Carlson        TK  )
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Max Planck Institute's Credibility
Date: 29 Jul 1994 10:47:02 +0200
Organization: Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics


Jim Bowery asks me:
> If you knew that Paul Koloc generated plasmoids in conformance with his 
> expectations, would you feel any urge to apologize for your
> derision?

Yes, I would. A fully ionized plasmoid that exists for hundreds of milliseconds
in contact with atmospheric air would represent a breakthrough in our
understanding of plasma physics whether or not it can be scaled up to be fusion
relevant. This would be, as you say, "a rather significant piece of data". But
the mere claim of such a thing does not constitute "experimental validation".

I can't say to my boss, "There's this guy I don't even know in Maryland that says
he's produced a miracle. You want to give me two months travel time and a Thomson
scattering system to check it out?" What I could visualize is this. Koloc opens
up, describes his device and whatever diagnostics he has. I try to think of a
plausible alternate explanation and some cheap test to see who's more likely
right. If it still looks kosher, *then* I talk to my boss and ask him to let me
drop by to talk to Koloc and see a demonstration while I'm in the country for
other reasons. And so on. If Koloc says, "Hey, my lawyers and investors won't go
for it!" I can accept that. But then it is unreasonable for him to ask for
research support from the scientific establishment.

In this forum we can only discuss the information presented here and in the open
literature. If Koloc chooses not to disclose the details of his experiments, then
he has to defend his plasmak on theoretical grounds. And I believe I have shown
that some important parts of his theory are false or at least highly
questionable. (Whether I can convince him or you of that, I don't know. I tend to
be an optimist.)

In recent posts, Koloc has cut back the polemic, increased the information
content, and, it seems, proofread his spelling and grammar. Whether I have
overstepped the bounds of Internet or scientific decorum in my colorful
evaluations of Koloc's physics is a judgement call. I was largely responding in
kind. But I have hope that in the future we can all be less clever and
concentrate more on the physics.

I would still like to hear from Jim Bowery what evidence has "convinced" him and
CSC that the plasmak has "a 1 in 2 chance of producing an economical aneutronic
fusion (p-B11) device". Do you have access to more experimental details than we
do? Have you calculated an MHD equilibrium based on Koloc's prescription? Have
you examined the consequences of the virial theorem for the attainable pressure?
Do you have a sufficiently detailed description of Koloc's "hyperconductivity"
theory to see how it gets around classical and energetic-particle conductivity
limitations? Have you consulted with plasma physicists that have done these
things? I can understand how someone can feel that Koloc is onto something
interesting. I don't understand how anyone (any scientist) can be "convinced" on
the basis of the meagre and problem ridden evidence we have seen. (Do you
consider this sentence "derisive"? It is only if you feel that Koloc has provided
abundant and unassailable evidence?)


Art Carlson
Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics
Garching, Germany
carlson@ipp-garching.mpg.de

cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenawc cudfnArthur cudlnTK cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.29 / Arthur TK /  Re: Maxima in Sigma-v/T^2 curves
     
Originally-From: awc@ipp-garching.mpg.de (Arthur      Carlson        TK  )
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Maxima in Sigma-v/T^2 curves
Date: 29 Jul 1994 12:17:52 +0200
Organization: Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics


My aim was to find out as much as I could about aneutronic fusion on
the basis of simple estimates of figures of merit like Lawson
criterion and power density. We have seen in the last few posts that
the simple estimates have gone as far as they can and now serious
studies must be cited. I'm browsing through the literature now. Maybe
I'll post some more later, but now I'm at the end of my expertise (if
you want to call it that). Nevertheless, a few closing comments.

I discounted p-Li6 before without realizing the most interesting form
of that reaction, namely in combination with the He3-Li6 reaction:
     p   + Li6 -> He3 +  He4
     He3 + Li6 -> p   + 2He4
     -----------------------
net:      2Li6 ->       3He4
The hope was that the p's and He3's would react before they slowed
down and thus show a higher reactivity than would be expected on the
basis of the background temperature. Apparently this effect doesn't
really help that much.

Another reaction that should have been in the list is
     2He3 -> 2p + He4
Does anyone want to work out the numbers on this? Does Paul Koloc have
good reasons to choose p-B11 over pure He3? (Fuel availability?)

Reactions with Li and B11 seem to be not just difficult but impossible
if certain common assumptions (Maxwellian velocity distribution, total
loss of Bremstrahlung und cyclotron radiation) are made. Paul Koloc
does *not* make these assumptions, as he points out in Article 7192:

> There are a number of other considerations, which are device
> dependent and have a very STRONG bearing on the success of a truly
> advanced fuel burner.  PLASMAK(tm) device related ones are:

> Magnetic System efficiency -- Compression of the Mantle reduces
> magnetized volume for a very fast, intense and more thorough burn;
    I believe the argument of aneutronic fans goes like this: There
    are much better ways to confine a plasma than a tokamak. D-T
    cannot take advantage of these methods because the (lousy) tokamak
    is already at the limit of the possible neutron flux. The power
    density with these better confinement schemes plus aneutronic fuel
    is similar to or better than the power density of D-T in a
    tokamak, despite the much smaller reaction cross section.

> Cyclotron radiation reflection -- the dense electron coating at the
> inner Mantle wall (pressure sensitive) reflects the 10th+ harmonic
> of Kernel cyclotron radiation;
    I need to fight the next two out with Koloc (maybe in a different
    thread). Even if this "dense coating" exists, why should it
    reflect rather than absorb cyclotron radiation?

> the capture of the Bremsstrahlung by a volume locked blanket --
> returns otherwised wasted aneutronic energy to further drive plasma
> toroidal compression heating;
    I think recyling the Bremsstrahlung energy through the gas blanket
    will be a rather inefficient process. Is there a calculation to go
    with this?

> the subsequent release and expansion of the aneutronic spent PMK and
> plasmatized blanket in a tranformer linked inductive chamber --
> produces direct electric drive at 90%+ conversion efficiency.  Yes
> 90%++.
    In his last post he tried 85%. Since I didn't flinch he upped the
    ante.  :-)

> Basically the concept is thrifty at utilizing its assets to aid in
> burn function before efficient transform of released energy to high
> grade electric power.

D-D and D-He3 seem to be close enough that you can decide between them
only after looking at the details, some of which were given by Phil
Snyder in Article 7200. I admit that I went a bit far when I
translated my Lawson and power density ratios into costs, but I wanted
to graphically illustrate the disadvantages that have to be offset by
the lack of neutrons. I suspect that the studies showing D-He3
competitive with D-T have stacked the deck, for example by assuming a
high-field tokamak for D-He3 but not for D-T, but we are now well
beyond my level of detailed knowledge.

No reaction is completely aneutronic. In a p-B11 plasma, for example, you will
find reactions like
    p + B11 -> C12 + gamma
    p + B11 -> n +C11
    He4 + B11 -> n + N14
    He4 + B11 -> p + C14
    He4 + B11 -> T + C12
    B11 + B11 -> junk
as well as reactions with a possible B10 impurity fraction. You might have 2 or 3
orders of magnitude less radiactivity in a p-B11 reactor, but it won't be zero.

Finally, Bob Heeter would like to put some of this information into
the FAQ. Does anyone feel qualified to do a better job than just
summarizing this thread? I would also be interested in good references
on cross-sections and review type articles on aneutronic fusion in
general. What's out there besides Vol. A271 of
Nucl.Instr.Meth.Phys.Research (1988--special issue)?


Art Carlson
Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics
Garching, Germany
carlson@ipp-garching.mpg.de

cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenawc cudfnArthur cudlnTK cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.29 / Paul Koloc /  Was IPP Credibility > Self Interest or the World  
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Was IPP Credibility > Self Interest or the World  
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 1994 06:00:06 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <315ft6INN24pi@sat.ipp-garching.mpg.de> bds@ipp-garching.mpg.
e (Bruce       Scott          TK  ) writes:
>In article <jaboweryCtL0Js.8EJ@netcom.com>, 
>	jabowery@netcom.com (Jim Bowery) writes:



>OK, Jim. I would take the same approach this community took when the Soviets
>announced very high temperatures achieved on the original tokamak in the
>late 1960s. The credibility of Soviet science had been severely damaged
>by the Lysenko affair, so people simply did not believe it. The Soviet
>group published scientific papers documenting their results, and then there
>was a group sent from Europe to go and measure it for themselves. They
>succeeded in reproducing the results, and this highly public affair then
>launched the tokamak phase of fusion research.


I think you might note, that tokamaks have realized many times over 
our total expenditure of funds and effort in kind on our concept in 
just the tax money alone.  That highly public affair is the main reason 
the tokamak has gone as far as it has.  Its press is its single most 
measurable point of success.  

As for the story of belated discovery, in spite of USA arrogance?
Yes Bruce, this happened .. The Brits took the plunge.  The USDoE were
among the laggards.  The Brits had problems funding their expedition.  
Then Furth moved First here by converting the C Stellarator and coming 
up to speed quickly.  But consider Wells, funded by DoE and then dumped 
because the results were also TOO optimistic.  Note that the Russians 
were able to succeed, because they had a country of many many hundreds 
of citizens behind their research, and would have pushed on ahead 
come Western cooperation or no.  That wasn't the case with Wells.   

I don't think you realize the negative effect of a humongous well
organized International Fusion program on overwhelming the SB private 
entreprenuer.  That said: what can we do to turn this policy around
and have the US and others become more responsive to interesting
new concepts and evaluating them AFTER a REASONABLE funding effort
and time.  The flip side of that is, why not have a senility clause
to kick out (ratchet down with prejudice) 20 .25. 30.. year old well 
fare cases.  

Can we get Art to agree with the fair and reasonable funding effort 
and period.. even for divergence technologies??  

>How long? How big? What's the radiation brightness of the plasma? 

Four or five orders the MHD resistive time.  
Florescent light * 10.   (Mantle)


>is the decay time of that brightness? 

Not determinable..  

>Data, Jim, we need data. And these
>data, at least, should not be any more expensive to acquire than it was
>to build the device in the first place.

Right, when do we expect the check?  
389,400.00$   approximately.  

What is the total energy??  at formation
What is it's loss rate
What is the energetic electron energy?  

>Let the Plasmak people document their results in a scientific paper the
>way the Migma people did, and then we might have something to go on. The
>problem is that I simply don't believe you. Kadomtsev is an incomparably
>greater scientist than any of us, but in a state of damaged credibility
>people didn't believe him, either.

Who's loss on the tokamak?? The USDoE the tokamak ride could have 
started 4 or 5 years earlier.   What good did it do the Russians??  
What good did it do Maglich??   Who funded most of Maglich's work??
was it the Governement?? NO.  He presented data assuming it was
a level playing field, and it's not.  Hirsch??? nope.  Bussard??? nope. 
Bruce, you weren't born in Iowa.  There is hand writing -- in blood
and sweat out here.  

This treatment isn't just to outsiders, it's to former NOW unnecessary
advocates, Westinghouse, Can't remmember all the teams that WON
those contracts obtained with great great expense in round after 
round of "changing rules competition", and then.... cancelled in 
a year or so.  Wipe out.  A certain KF (not the chicken man) of
the Western lab was really bent by the constant micromanaging of
Germantown.  He after taking the shaft, ended up with nothing.   
Out of sight out of mind. 

So.. it's a game of sharks, and we don't like the company or the game.      
Our business is to find that one human with guts money and brains
that will go with us and do this thing.  Your group if privatized
would likely fair excellently, but the way things are in the world
NOW? it's like chinese water torture.  Our lives aren't that long.

>And do try, Jim, to lose this sort of attitude. Really. You will get nowhere
>by biting the hand you are begging to even before it is extended. It is a
>fact of life.

It takes all kinds.  

Just keep caring.  
>-- 
>Gruss,
>Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
>Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
>bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de                               -- W Gibson
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc, Bx 1037 Prometheus II Ltd, College Park MD 20741-1037    |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------+

cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.30 / Richard Blue /  Re: Randall Mills and hydrinos
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Randall Mills and hydrinos
Date: Sat, 30 Jul 1994 00:19:23 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Dr. Mills is out promoting his theory with some rather overblown
statements about unifying all of physics.  I don't think his theory
can stand the slightest bit of critical examining.  At least as it
was presented here by John Farrell, the Mills theory falls far short
of being at all reasonable, and it certainly does not touch on
unifying Newton's Laws and General Relativity.  In fact it calls for
the violation of charge conservation and does not conform to the
basic requirements of Maxwell's equations as applied to electrostatics.
In summary it is a silly bit of crack pot thinking!

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.27 /  jonesse@xray.b /  Re: Merriman-Mallove Pact - "MM Pact"
     
Originally-From: jonesse@xray.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Merriman-Mallove Pact - "MM Pact"
Date: 27 Jul 94 12:17:56 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

In article <CtE9pL.MzL@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, 
crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
> In article <940719151632_76570.2270_HHB52-1@CompuServe.COM>,
> Eugene Mallove <76570.2270@compuserve.com> wrote:
>>
>>(CF, for the purposes of this agreement, is defined as a new nuclear process, 
>>and/or a super-chemical process orders of magnitude beyond the energy release 
>>capability of *any* standard chemistry, and/or "something else" like tapping 
>>of ZPE.)
> 
>      "Something else"?  What else?  Pickled herring?
                                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Or, better, pickled RED herring.

> 
>      Forget this signature business on the basis of CF or 'something else',
>      how about betting cash given to a neutral observer on the basis of 
>      an offered industrial product by a known manufacturer (say Toyota)?
> 
>      Cash is much more satisfying than your signature.
> 
>>We, G. Mallove (Eugene F. Mallove) and ______________, having diametrically 
>>opposed views on the subject of CF, agree in 2 years time (on or before July 
>>19, 1996) to publically acknowledge---based on the status of (a) & (b) & (c) 
>>above---that
> [deletia]
>>(1) G. Mallove is a wishful thinking, scientifically ignorant crank/dupe
> 
>      Why do we have to wait two years for this?
> 
>                                      dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenjonesse cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.27 /  jonesse@acousb /  Re: Rothwell accusation against Jones and "late" water heaters
     
Originally-From: jonesse@acousb.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Rothwell accusation against Jones and "late" water heaters
Date: 27 Jul 94 16:46:09 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

In article <9407181149.AA13424@suntan.Tandem.com>, 
FEC@v2.rl.ac.uk (Frank Close) writes:
> 
> 
> In Jed Rothwell's attack on Steve Jones, claiming that Jones stole
> from Fleischmann and Pons, Rothwell shows ignorance of the history
> and origins of the cold fusion fiasco. The critical question
> of whether JOnes stole from FP concerns 1988, not 1989, and relates
> to the funding request made by FP and submitted to the DOE (in Aug/Sept
> 88). I have seen this document and its contents played an important
> part of the research that went into my own book, TOo Hot To Handle.
> As explained on this net before, it is my considered opinion that the FP/DOE
> document had little or nothing to offer to any nuclear experimentalist.
> Fleischmann and Pons proven ignorance of some basic nuclear physics may
> be a reason why they have deluded themselves into a belief that Jones stole
> from them, but their DOE proposal was flaky at best, as some of the
> referees' comments make clear.
> 
>  Taubes did not have access to these papers when he wrote his book (there is
> nothing in his book that would alert you to that rather crucial fact
> but I verified this with Taubes last summer). Thus anything Taubes writes
> about the Jones' group getting aid from sight of the DOE report has to
> be taken with some caution. In any event, let it not muddy the waters 
> concerning Rothwell's latest outburst.
> 
> It is clear that Rothwell too is ignorant of the refereed document, still less
> researched and understood it for if he had he would not put out such 
> remarks about Jones. Following the intense psychological pressure of 1989
> Fleischmann and Pons have convinced themselves that their ideas were
> plagiarised in 1988 and Rothwell has taken this party line, foolishly
> putting it out on the public forum, naming Steve Jones. If anyone stole
> anything from anyone in 1988 it was not Steve Jones who stole from Fleischmann
> and Pons. I retain all the documents from those days; Jed, you are 
> on the wrong track.
> 
> Jones logbook has been open for years, he has discussed his results for
> all to assess. Note that Pons has NOT done so. Instead he has been
> photographed with what was claimed (in 89) to be a working water heater.
> 
> This is the one that Jed described as "late": late as in dead maybe?
> 
> When flaws in Pons data have been exposed the data have then either
> mysteriously altered or the chronology changed concerning what had or had
> not been measured at critical times, and well documented attempts have
> been made to silence others who have questioned the claims.
> The community has plenty of documents that show the poor state of
> FP's research programme through the 1989 and Utah National Cold Fusion
> Institute period, many of which are well known for several years but 
> which are inconvenient to the CFRA who try to focus alleged failings 
> on other groups,such as MIT, Harwell and now attack Jones publicly.
> You can read the FP et al 1991 paper for yourselves and compare it with what
> was claimed in 1989 and then use this as a benchmark for assessing your
> confidence in current claims from the CFRA.

Note:  CFRA = Cold Fusion Research Associates, a company that seeks to
profit from cold fusion, I understand, and which includes Jed Rothwell and
Eugene Mallove.
> 
> Have some judgement guys! And if you cant, at least think twice before
> putting money into something you do not understand.  Meanwhile, Jones 
> opens his work to public scrutiny and is vilified by those who would 
> advocate commercial advantages in "cold neutropenic fusion" (a title which
> is an oxymoron).
> 
> I challenge Rothwell to specify where in the DOE document, or elsewhere,
> he found anything that would have given **Jones** any
> ability to plagiarise and steal from FP? 
> Or is Jed's outburst an attempt to generate some "news" to prop up the
> life support system for the magazine? 
> 

I would like to join Frank in this request to Jed -- either substantiate
your accusations that I stole something from Pons & Fleischmann, or retract
your accusations.  It's not just that I'm sure you will not substantiate
your accusations -- you cannot, Jed, for there is no factual basis for your 
accusations.  They are false and slanderous.  Repeating these accusations
every few months won't establish their reality nor increase your credibility.

> 
> Steve Jones was working on genuine "cold fusion" - muon catalysed -  and 
> his work widely known several years before FP 
> did their electrochamical work. He has a considerable reputation in that
> particular subfield. 
> There are many people reading this net who are not well versed in science 
> and Steve, along with some others, has patiently gone over the physics
> again and again. I hope that there are some who have benefitted
> from this. For his pains he has attracted a belligerent caucus who seem
> more interested in  promoting themes that amount to belief in perpetual 
> motion. This would be laughable were it not for the recent development 
> of turning the forum into a commercial venture.
> 

Thank you, Frank, for setting the record straight based on your own
considerable research into the history of 'cold fusion' studies.

I refer the interested reader to the voluminous record published by
Frank on this affair, entitled:  "Too Hot to Handle:  The Race for Cold
Fusion."

--Steven E. Jones  7/27/94
      
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenjonesse cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.30 / Richard Blue /  RE: 4He alone?
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: 4He alone?
Date: Sat, 30 Jul 1994 00:20:14 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

There seems to be an ongoing question as to what the history of
attempts to detect 4He as the primary "nuclear ash" has been.
I have begun to dig through the archives seeking information on that
subject, and although I have not found primary material I believe
I have found confirming evidence which supports my position.  I
will share that with you while I continue the search.

It is certainly established that cathodes used by Pons and Fleischmann
in their early investigations were analyzed for 4He with a null result.
The rather sordid way in which they attempted to slow the release of
that information is described in the book by John Huizenga starting
on page 130 of the paperback edition, for those who want to investigate
further.

As for 4He analyses in conjunction with the SRI experiments, the clue
that I have found so far is contained in an informal report on the
first annual NCFI conference that was submitted to this newsgroup
by James R. White on 7 Apr 90.  Mr. White wrote: "There was a talk
by McKubre of SRI.  They used a 4 point resistance measurement to find
the loading factor.  But the resistivity vs loading chart for deuterium
that they used didn't go to a very high loading factor. (I was very
dubious about the way they extrapolated it.)  They used 10 mA/cm^2
under pressure (up to 900 psi) and got 0.3MJ of excess heat, but none
in a Pd plated copper control. (They decided H2O made a lousy control
since the D2O-Pd interface is quite different from H2O-Pd).  Less than
1e11 atoms of Helium or tritium were in the electrode.  Mothing was
seen in the gas either (but I'm not sure they eliminated Helium-4
in the gas). "

What this indicates to me is that there certainly were attempts to
detect 4He in conjunction with cold fusion experiments at SRI.
When McKubre later indicates that they have not seen helium (or
other nuclear reaction products) because they haven't looked he is,
I believe, dissembling just a little bit.  I wonder if we don't have
a pretty clear case for suggesting that he has been avoiding the
question of the "nuclear ash" because he knows that the answer will
probably not be to his liking.  Certainly if I were to select the
experimental conditions that would most likely yield strong evidence
for there being 4He evolved in the gas a closed cell in which all
helium thus produced in conjunction with a long run which produces
excess heat would be expected to reach its highest concentration.

It has often been said that there have been relatively few analyses
for helium because they are expensive and it is difficult to
detect helium at the expected concentrations.  As far as the expense
is concerned, at one time there were a number of laboratories offering
to do the analysis free.  The problem was rather that many of those
claiming excess heat would not release samples for analysis by others.
As for the required sensitivity, have you all forgotten that Rutherford
was able to establish that alpha particles are 4He nuclei?  What
concentrations do you think he had to work with?  He certainly did
not have the kind of instrumentation that is available today.  Maybe
someone should go back to see how Rutherford did it before they
whimper about how difficult it is?

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.29 / Jim Bowery /  Re: Max Planck Institute's Credibility
     
Originally-From: jabowery@netcom.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Max Planck Institute's Credibility
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 1994 15:53:21 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

Arthur      Carlson        TK (awc@ipp-garching.mpg.de) wrote:
: other reasons. And so on. If Koloc says, "Hey, my lawyers and investors won't go
: for it!" I can accept that. But then it is unreasonable for him to ask for
: research support from the scientific establishment.

That is a matter of judgement as are all these things.  Our judgements 
obviously differ in this regard.  But since I've pretty much concluded 
that "the scientific establishment" as controlled by politically allocated 
tax dollars should not even exist, I'm not particularly interested in 
debating how "the scientific establishment" should operate.

: I would still like to hear from Jim Bowery what evidence has "convinced" him and
: CSC that the plasmak has "a 1 in 2 chance of producing an economical aneutronic
: fusion (p-B11) device". 

It is a confluence of information that I've gathered over the years of my 
talking to Paul, visiting his infamous "garage" and talking to other 
people in the field (sometimes people who disagree that he has anything) 
and reading a few selected papers like Reese Roth's.

As a consequence of these interactions, I've come to the conclusion that 
Paul, over a period of nearly 3 decades, evolved a conception of 
lightning and high power MHD which has a high degree of intuitive 
coherence to him, from which he developed the spheromak and then the 
recent machine which spits out plasmoids in conformance with his 
intuitive expectations.  This is the mark of a dedicated engineer -- a 
master craftsman -- not that of a first-rate scientist.  In Germany, when 
they train master machinists, they start them out with a block of metal 
and have them manually work the metal for weeks -- gradually grinding it 
down by hand, rubbing it and otherwise getting a "feel" for its nature.  
This is not science -- it might be called "art" were it not for its 
ruthlessly practical purpose -- therefore we call it mastery of a craft.

The objective of science is to make phenomena as widely replicable as 
possible.  The objective of engineering is business success -- a competitive 
struggle for survival in an economic jungle.  From a business 
perspective, I see Paul as a master craftsman whose raw material is 
plasma.
-- 
The promotion of politics exterminates apolitical genes in the population.
  The promotion of frontiers gives apolitical genes a route to survival.
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenjabowery cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.29 / Robert Heeter /  Fusion News Update...
     
Originally-From: rfheeter@pppl.gov (Robert F. Heeter)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Fusion News Update...
Date: 29 Jul 1994 12:32:48 -0400
Organization: /etc/organization

This morning Sherrie Preische and I met with Rush Holt, PPPL's 
assistant director for public-affairs and outreach activities,
to discuss fusion outreach activities.  (Those of you who are
APS-DPP members should, IMHO, vote for Sherrie in the DPP elections;
she's running for office.  Outreach is a large part of her
agenda, as explained in her statement in the DPP ballot; she's
been very active in pursuing the goals listed there and would
get a lot more accomplished if she were elected.)

Anyway, Rush clued us in to some recent events in the political
arena:

(1) The Brown fusion authorization bill is now the Lloyd bill;
the language is essentially the same, but the electricity-generation
tax is gone.  The Lloyd bill has an additional section on hydrogen
energy research as well.

(2) Congress will be holding hearings on this legislation next week.

(3) Robert Hirsch is leaving (has left?) EPRI to work in the 
Washington office of General Atomics.

Just thought the community ought to know...


****************************************
Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@pppl.gov
Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University
None of the above should be construed as an official position
of Princeton or PPPL; I'm just babbling on my own here...  :)

cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.29 / Tom Droege /  Re: bose condensation model
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: bose condensation model
Date: 29 Jul 1994 17:13:52 GMT
Organization: fermilab

In article <9407281509.AA19190@suntan.Tandem.com>, BERNECKY@V70A.decnet 
(V70A::BERNECKY) says:
>
>I thought it would be interesting to construct a simple, one-
>dimensional model of a PdH system, and to analyze it in terms of
>quantum statistics. 

I enjoyed your write up a lot.  Are there any plans to test it?  
Unfortunately my machine is busticated, and I do not yet have much 
incentive to build a new one.

Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.29 / Bruce TK /  Re: Max Planck Institute's Credibility
     
Originally-From: bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce       Scott          TK  )
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Max Planck Institute's Credibility
Date: 29 Jul 1994 16:58:34 GMT
Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching

In article <jaboweryCtnrtB.1wp@netcom.com>, jabowery@netcom.com (Jim Bowery) writes:
|> Bruce       Scott          TK (bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de) wrote:

[lines by Bowery begin with |> and lines by me begin with |> : ]

|> : The problem I have is that it is in no way clear that the radiating objects
|> : produced correspond to the Plasmak model. For that we need data. 
|> 
|> Let's say, for the sake of argument, that Paul actually has, as he claims, 
|> regularly and repeatably produced radiating objects:
|> 
|> 1) that are prolate elipsoids of less than 10 centimeters major 
|> dimension 
|> 2) that emerge from a high power electric discharge
|> 3) that last for periods of time that are long enough for human 
|> perception to discriminate between the arc itself and the radiating 
|> object (say on the order of a second)
|> 4) that travel at more or less a constant speed
|> 5) that retain pretty much the same configuration until they disintegrates
|> 
|> What is the probability that Paul would build a device to generate 
|> long-lived stable plasmoids and then randomly hit on such phenomena?

No idea. Probability of this sort in science is nonsense. See Popper.

1) Pretty small, but nontrivial. Hard to evaluate beyond the probability
that it is an equilibrium.

2) Not relevant.

3) Intriguing. What is the quantitative measure of the existence and then
the persistence of the objects.

4) Not relevant.

5) Most interesting. A better indication that it is an equilibrium, moreover
a stable one. Says nothing at all about transport, but the equilibrium by
itself is of interest.


If the objects are so small and quite short-lived (how many seconds?), how
do you know that they have anything to do with Paul's model, which I have
just learned is quite a bit more involved than a simple spheromak? For this
you need data. Or theoretical studies. Maybe they exist, but they haven't
been shown to me.

|> First, the data exists only within the "broad tolerances" I described.  
|> It isn't exactly "qualitative" data, but in some dimensions it is little 
|> more than that. 

Sorry, but this does not tell me much. What do you mean by "dimensions"?
Space, as in how big the objects are, or some sort of parameter space?
In the absence of numbers I can use to learn the parameter milieu and
comparative scales, all the information I have so far received is
qualitative, except the 10 cm figure given above. Why not a simple
discussion, accompanying the GIF which was posted before, of parameters,
scales, and a few important mathematical properties like axisymmetry?
Why does it take a week-long struggle for that to emerge? The questions
I asked are simple ones, and I answered them in five minutes for the
tokamak case, the first time I posted them.

|> But even that data is intellectual property and subject 
|> to the advice of legal counsel.  That is the problem with engineering 
|> over science and a never-ending source of embarrassment in an environment 
|> where pervasive government funded engineering creates cultural and 
|> ethical milieu in which the status of engineering vs science and 
|> intellectual property vs published research is very blurred.

I must admit to you that the whole idea of this revolts me a little. 
Though I understand the value of intellectual property, I really hate 
secrecy in science. I thought the patent system was set up in order to
avoid the need for that, and keep it from retarding progress. I admit
to you that I simply remain in doubt until the results are in the open
and placed to scientific scrutiny. While you have every right to take
the stance you wish, I cannot be convinced by claims alone. There are
enough empty ones running around in my field (too many for me to stamp
out) for me to go looking for more.

As I said, I will get around to looking into this. My code will not assume
equilibrium, so there will be no problem with the possible lack of solutions.
Plasmak will be one of several set-ups I use for test cases.

|> : Jim, do realise that you are essentially asking that I drop my work and
|> : jump on your bandwagon. 
|> 
|> It's a judgement call and not all of us are equipped to take such "leaps 
|> of faith" especially when the priniciple investigator's character has 
|> been attacked by people in some of the most prestigeous plasma 
|> physics labs in the world.  

I am aware of this problem. It has got much worse in the last 15 years,
especially in the US. The whole culture of assuming that the science
can be forced to yield fruit once pressure has been applied is partly
to blame. "We can do anything with technology -- where there's a will
there's a way", once again.

Unfortunately, the leadership class in the US does not understand this. 
Fortunately for me, it still does in Europe, at least in part. The 
snake-oil side to US culture usually emerges under such conditions, 
and there are many crackpots both within and outside of the "fold". 
It is impossible for me to check them all, so I must remain skeptical, 
especially in cases where I sense that people are hiding things. 

Remember, to me the legal side of this is irrelevant, although it may 
be vital to you or others. You have been cajoling me for moral support,
and I cannot give that without a clear and precise description of what 
is being attempted.

|> Despite the fact that everyone wants to be 
|> another "Wright Brothers" to the government's "Langley" there are,
|> occasionally, people that fill the bill.  I obviously believe Koloc is 
|> one such individual and you remain skeptical. 

Clearly. And my physics training is an important part of that.

|> Like I said, it's a 
|> judgement call and I have been making significant sacrifices from my 
|> meger resources to, perhaps not very effectively, advance the situation 
|> to the point that people like you can be convinced.

Rothwell claims to do this for CF. In his case, I feel he has been suckered.
In other cases, people sucker themselves because they really want something
to work out. This includes scientists at all levels. 

How would you answer this: Assuming you have seen Paul's lab, and the 
plasmoids, What means do you have to independently judge the situation?
Don't be offended by this; remember, it is the reason that a stage magician
has an important role to fill in the leadership of PSICOP.

Now here is another question: What means does Paul have to critically
judge that what he sees is really a plasmak, and not some other
configuration? How would he falsify his investigation?

|> I appreciate your open-mindedness, however skeptical, and the risks of 
|> such intellectual exploration especially for someone in your position.

Thank you, but there really is no risk for me. The need for a scientist
to investigate in an independent and uncontrolled fashion is still respected
in Europe. One does not hurt oneself by association. Only by producing
bad science oneself. In this context, bad means dishonest.

|> [ description of analogous intellectual situation in tokamak transport ]
|> 
|> : I am eager and waiting to see such data that would convince me that we can
|> : even talk about such a simple first step as an MHD equilibrium. All these
|> : other things can come later.
|> 
|> If by "these other things" you mean the detailed diagnostics normally 
|> expected from labs with funding levels at many millions of $/yr, then I'm 
|> glad that we have this level of agreement.

Yes, you don't need a laser-scattering set-up just yet. But I think you can
afford a CCD. Amateur astronomers use them as a matter of course, usually
out of a pocket.

|> : Assuming you can produce a plasma, you have the wherewithal to install a
|> : simple array of coils necessary to measure magnetic fields, and a cheap
|> : device (eg, from Edmund Scientific) to measure brightness (a CCD camera?)
|> : such that you can publish a light curve. This will get you started. Produce
|> : some astonishing data, and I can assure you that more than just I will take
|> : note. But a published paper is necessary.
|> 
|> That is a reasonable demand... However...
|> 
|> Publishing via peer review in an environment where one's "peers" are 
|> receiving literally 1000 times the funding levels of the principle 
|> investigator is a rather sticky wicket, you must admit.

If you are worrying about being "scooped", c'est la vie. It is a problem
even within the community. But you have the advantage that no-one believes
you have a chance to succeed. Remember, although the tokamak's initial
success triggered a rapid race outside the USSR, Artsimovich is still
remembered as the father of the tokamak (Kadomtsev is his successor).

How about publishing a preprint and sending it around for private comment?
You wouldn't be breaking any rules; in fact, the journals recommend this.

[...]

|> : Proclaim achievements -- in science, this really does have to be in the
|> : open. Otherwise, you can proclaim, but you cannot demand that others listen.
|> 
|> Producing practical fusion energy is an engineering adventure.  As with 
|> all engineering it has need of science.  The relationship is inherently 
|> symbiotic.

And in a symbiotic relationship one cannot afford a sour-grapes stance.

-- 
Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de                               -- W Gibson
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnTK cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.29 / Tom Droege /  Re: Randell L. Mills and hydrinos  -  temp22.txt [1/1]
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Randell L. Mills and hydrinos  -  temp22.txt [1/1]
Date: 29 Jul 1994 17:48:48 GMT
Organization: FERMILAB, Batavia, IL

In article <ts_zemanian-290794092409@ts_zemanian.pnl.gov>, 
ts_zemanian@pnl.gov (Thomas S. Zemanian) says:
stuff deleted

After composing the reply below, I forgot that my news reader only 
makes one reply before crashing.  Something called WINQVT I think.  
But with only 10x the work of retyping it all I have rescued these 
priceless words.  Ain't the modern information highway grand?  Please
don't try to "help me" as I am beyond that.  
 
>> I would be fascinated to know as much as possible about this and Dr
>> Mills. If anyone is going, or can obtain more information about it and
>> him, please let me know. I would especially be interested in the
>> claimed credentials of Mills and Haus. We had quite a thread going
>> about Mills a while back, mostly consisting of requests for information
>> which were not fulfilled.
>> 

As the proud owner of the Mills book, I loaned it out to someone here on
the net who now has the responsibility to answer such questions or to 
send it back.  But be warned, if I do get it back, I will just loan it 
out to the next questioner.  I do not intend to read it.  Too bad, it 
was a first edition.

more deleted
>


>A previously unknown eigenstate for hydrogen???  I'll believe it when I 
see
>some hard evidence.
>
>--Tom
>

Not only that, but Mills presents satellite data that shows just what
you ask for!  But my physicist friends think the evidence is a bit thin.
Unfortunately better satalite data may be a long way in the future.  

Tom Droege

cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.29 / Bruce TK /  Re: Ball Lightning Carlson
     
Originally-From: bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce       Scott          TK  )
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Ball Lightning Carlson
Date: 29 Jul 1994 17:40:42 GMT
Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching


In article <Ctny0A.LE6@prometheus.UUCP>, 
	pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) writes:

[we agree that the plasmak is axisymmetric as an ideal configuration, if one
 neglects small fluctuations in things like density which change on a time
 scale much faster than a confinement time]

|> >I was worried about the "helical transition" due to some sort of kink
|> >instability that Jim alluded to in an e-mail about a year ago. Sorry, guys,
|> >I cannot think in 3-D. That is why I need formulas.
|> 
|> Why?   It's  2D with a collapsing twist.      :-)

What is a "collapsing twist"? 

|> >OK, here is what I assume about the configuration: 
|> 
|> >  -- the magnetic field components are all functions of two variables,
|> >     which I can call R and z. R is the perpendicular distance from the 
|> >     "symmetry axis", and z is the distance parallel to that axis from a
|> >     plane perpendicular to that axis. This plane I call the "midplane".
|> >     Note that the configuration is not required to be symmetric about
|> >     the midplane.   
|> 
|> Let's call your "midplane" the "equatorial plane" and the medial plane
|> the one which includes both R and z elemental vectors.

Good. This is why I took so much trouble to define these things. The
"medial plane" is also called the "poloidal plane", right?

|> Otherwise Correct: 
|> where: Axis == Major Axis

No, the major axis is a measure of the average distance of a point within
the plasma kernel (your words) from the symmetry axis. The symmetry axis is
vertical, and the plasma kernel forms a horizontal ring around it.

|> 
|> >  -- the magnetic field and the current density are zero on the symmetry 
|> >     axis.
|> 
|> NOT, unless you are speaking in mathematical trivial sense of 
|> the limit of the Mag field density at a point is undefined. 
|> or curl of (loop of current circulating within a point has no
|> radius and therefore is null value.   Junky stuff like that. 

Yes, I've been corrected on this. The magnetic field on the symmetry axis 
must be poloidal in an axisymmetric system, but the poloidal component can
have arbitrary value.

|> NO the (plasma sampling) field density on AXIS (intersection with 
|> equatorial plane, for example) has value --  15kG ish. and diverging 
|> elsewhere.  

I guess what you mean is that the toroidal component of the field
naturally becomes finite away from the axis. Is the field strength a
minimum on the axis?

|> >  -- upon some closed domain in (R,z), the magnetic field is zero. Let the
|> 
|> >     surface of revolution of this domain about the symmetry axis be called 
|> >     the "plasma boundary".
|> 
|> In general there is such a boundary.  
|> True, for a first cut.  In reality .. about 2%  eh!  is not 
|> current neutralized at the surface of revolution. 
|>         SAID plasma boundary == The Mantle/vacuum field interface).  
|> But save 2% worry for later if battles over the need for polar jets 
|> errupt.  

If there are three regions, I intended "plasma boundary" to be the
boundary surface of the plasma kernel. I would use "mantle boundary"
for the vacuum/mantle interface, and "outer boundary" for the surface
enclosing the entire device. In your lab there may be no outer boundary,
but I need a place to truncate the spatial region in which to solve the
dynamical equations.

We went wrong over my use of the word "gas", which you take as not
being a plasma. "Gas pressure" was used to discriminate against
"magnetic pressure" (especially since I didn't know about the vacuum
separating the plasma from the mantle -- I'm not sure about that but
we'll see what the code says).

|> >You should be able to visualise this; now a few questions:
|> >
|> >  -- do the magnetic field lines lie on closed toroidal surfaces, which are
|> >     nested without any intersection (assume zero fluctuation levels)?
|> >     If so, let these surfaces be called "flux surfaces"
|> 
|> Yes. for the first cut.. remember, there is the 2% bleed through the 
|> Mantle in the reality case, but that is confined to perturbations in 
|> the Mantle, which after all is essentially at 1 ATM .. so.. it will 
|> make little diff to the total integrated energy.   (at least for a 
|> well twisted Kernel --biggish toroidal field component).  

Total integrated energy. I assume you mean field energy. In any case,
I only need closed flux surfaces for the part that does not involve
fluctuations, and a small correction can be counted as a fluctuation.
Unless... there is no rigorously axisymmetric equilibrium for this
set-up, in which case the system may or may not relax to a spheromak
surrounded by neutral gas -- and no vacuum separation region. We'll
learn that if it is the case. That's the nice thing about a code which
does not assume an equilibrium.

What do you mean by "well twisted"? q less than one? [q is the field line
pitch in the plasma region: how many times a field line is followed 
toroidally before it makes one poloidal turn] What do you envisage for
a q?

What is "biggish" taken in relation to? Plasma pressure? Poloidal field?
I remember from before that you envisage beta = O(1). [beta is the
ratio of gas pressure to magnetic pressure, and magnetic pressure is
B squared over 8 pi]

|> >  -- is the gas in the mantle neutral (this is probably not necessary for
|> >     a computation)?
|> 
|> Yes, unless charged by an electrostatic source, which is not likely to
|> persist since the ionization (electrostatic radial force) would spray 
|> or wipe such charge away by convective diffusion.  

You are forgetting that the plasma may be ionised and still be neutral.
By convective diffusion do you mean large- or small-scale motion (of order
the minor radius or much smaller)?

There should be no strong radial electric fields simply from ionisation.

By neutral I meant not ionised. Are the mantle gas particles ions or atoms (or
molecules)?

|> >  -- can the magnetic field be described by a "Grad-Shafronov equation"?
|> >     This equation is used to descibe tokamak equilibria, but I would think
|> >     one need only change the form of the toroidal field to make it general.
|> 
|> Hmmm!.   I'm not familiar enough to answer the question, and my interest
|> would be that the equivalence between current form and field forms are
|> general enough to handle this non-fixed coil case.  

The answer to my question is yes, as I've been advised independently.
The presence or absence of coils is merely a boundary condition.

|> Can the G-S equation
|> handle the interact between the flip of toroidal currents to follow
|> poloidal-toroidal field screw, producing an increased poloidal current
|> component at the expense of toroidal current.  

Describe this "screw" in more detail. Is this a dynamical process?
It turns out that the G-S equation can describe any axisymmetric MHD
equilibrium -- further, taking the G-S equation to read "stuff = 0",
the "stuff" is proportional to the force on a plasma element, allowing
use even in a dynamical situation.

|> There is then a drop
|> in poloidal component and a relaxation back to more toroidal current. 
|> Thus the upshot is a see-sawing of the currents and fields and a 
|> generating or a churning or sloshing of fields in the tokamaks central 
|> region.  G-S predicts this??

When it is dynamical, yes, as long as the whole system is 2-D. If this
"sloshing" is a three-dimensional dynamical process, then I can still
use the 2-D equilibrium with its field representation to define the
coordinate system, and treat the rest as fluctuations. At least for a
low-beta plasma. It gets much harder for beta = O(1). Don't hold your
breath awaiting the results.

|> >     It would be imperative, however, that the current density be constant 
|> >     on each flux surface; otherwise div B would not vanish. One probably
|> >     needs the gas pressure to be constant on each flux surface as well,
|> >     at least up to corrections of order d/a, where a is the approximate
|> >     linear dimension of the plasma boundary in the Rz-plane, and d is
|> >     the width of an ion orbit within the magnetic field, centered on a
|> >     given flux surface.
|> 
|> whoa!  What are you saying..  let's look at the Kernel (when you describe
|> it).  Is it necessary to worry about plasma perturbations in a low
|> beta system?  I say this because the energy computation should not
|> be effected that much if the system is pumped with plasma or not.   
|> Unless the plasma carries much much more E-den/cc than mag fields.  
|> (not so obvious -- since the extra field snugs the system).  

Yes it is. You can still get transonic flows parallel to the field if
not. And then the pressure and its gradient can drive one of many different
possible instabilities on still pretty fast timescales. Look at the
tokamak :-) The energy reservoir for even most tokamak instabilities
is simply the gas pressure of the plasma: density times temperature.

[other stuff deleted]

-- 
Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de                               -- W Gibson
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnTK cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.29 / Paul McCombes /  Re: Randell L. Mills and hydrinos
     
Originally-From: paul@mccombes.demon.co.uk (Paul McCombes)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.skeptic,pdx.general
Subject: Re: Randell L. Mills and hydrinos
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 1994 01:51:32 +0000
Organization: None

In article <hatunenCtno18.nF@netcom.com> hatunen@netcom.com "DaveHatunen" writes:

> In article <317d66$pj3@sandra.teleport.com>,
> David Smith <davids@teleport.com> wrote:
> >[delete gibberish about hydrinos]
> >
> >  ...a novel theory ... that unifies Maxwell's Equations, Newton's Law, 
> >  and Einstein's General and Special Relativity. Quantization of atomic
> >  states results for the condition of nonradiation originally formulated
> >  by Hermann Haus in 1986...
> >
Well, Special and General relativity supercede Newton's Laws ie. they give 
different preditions, so unifying them it a mite impossible. Don't waste your 
time.
-- 
Paul McCombes
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenpaul cudfnPaul cudlnMcCombes cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.29 / Bruce TK /  Re: Was IPP Credibility > Self Interest or the World
     
Originally-From: bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce       Scott          TK  )
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Was IPP Credibility > Self Interest or the World
Date: 29 Jul 1994 17:53:41 GMT
Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching

In article <Ctou07.39x@prometheus.UUCP>, 
	pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) writes:

[political stuff I think we pretty much agree on]

|> >How long? How big? What's the radiation brightness of the plasma? 
|> 
|> Four or five orders the MHD resistive time.  

How do you comput this from the experimental results? Do you really know
the field strength? What about the temperature? I was looking for a
figure in milliseconds, microseconds, or seconds. Note that I still
have no idea of the order of magnitude (though Jim tells me that it
is long enough for human perception). 

|> Florescent light * 10.   (Mantle)

Mantle? I thought only the plasma glowed. How is this factor of 10 measured?
Fluorescent light of some background generation system, or the plasma
itself?

|> >What is the decay time of that brightness? 
|> 
|> Not determinable..  

A CCD camera would really help you here. They're not so outlandishly
expensive, given their prevalence among amateur astronomers.

|> >Data, Jim, we need data. And these
|> >data, at least, should not be any more expensive to acquire than it was
|> >to build the device in the first place.
|> 
|> Right, when do we expect the check?  
|> 389,400.00$   approximately.  

No, the idea is that you should be able to quantitatively describe the
size, radiation brightness and decay time of the plasma for much less
than this. Good, digital photography is all you need for just this.

|> What is the total energy??  at formation
|> What is it's loss rate
|> What is the energetic electron energy?  

These are things for me to ask you :-)

|> >Let the Plasmak people document their results in a scientific paper the
|> >way the Migma people did, and then we might have something to go on. The
|> >problem is that I simply don't believe you. Kadomtsev is an incomparably
|> >greater scientist than any of us, but in a state of damaged credibility
|> >people didn't believe him, either.
|> 
|> Who's loss on the tokamak?? The USDoE the tokamak ride could have 
|> started 4 or 5 years earlier.   What good did it do the Russians??  
|> What good did it do Maglich??   Who funded most of Maglich's work??
|> was it the Governement?? NO.  He presented data assuming it was
|> a level playing field, and it's not.  Hirsch??? nope.  Bussard??? nope. 
|> Bruce, you weren't born in Iowa.  There is hand writing -- in blood
|> and sweat out here.  

I know, Paul, and so should you, that simply crying "foul" is going to
get us nowhere. Why, pray tell, do we no longer have public transport
in the US on any scale? Same reason. And look at NASA! 

But see my reply to Jim.

[more political stuff I am well aware of]

-- 
Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de                               -- W Gibson
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnTK cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.29 / C Harrison /  Titanium "Dry Cold Fusion" revisited
     
Originally-From: harr@netcom.com (Charles (Chuck) Harrison)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.energy.hydrogen
Subject: Titanium "Dry Cold Fusion" revisited
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 1994 19:49:26 GMT
Organization: Fitful

The Reifenschweiler Ti:T anomaly [Reifenschweiler 1994a, 1994b] has
sent me to the library for research on the Ti:H system (with various H
isotopes) and especially Ti:O:H.

Naturally this research turned up a raft of papers on "Italian style"
cold fusion (e.g. [1]) using Ti, D2, and temperature cycling between
77K and room temperature.  I see the view of the mainstream physics
community as follows:
   The early positive experiments used simple detectors for
   nuclear reactions.  Later experiments, using more sophisti-
   cated detectors with more redundancy, gave negative results.
   The better the detection scheme, the closer to "null" the
   results.  Therefore the early positives must have been due
   to instrumentation artifacts and the effect does not
   exist.

There may be some logic to this argument in connection with low-rate
neutron burst data, where instrumental artifacts in single-detector
systems are a way of life.  However, it strains credulity to apply
this line of reasoning to the BARC results (e.g. [2]), Cecil [3],
or Menlove [4].  An alternative interpretation is as follows:
   The early positive experiments used ad hoc, poorly
   controlled sample preparation techniques and simple vacuum
   apparatus.  Along with improved detectors, later workers
   employed rationalized sample preparation and UHV vacuum
   equipment, dramatically reducing the opportunities for
   surface contamination of the samples and associated
   chemical effects.  The requisite "trigger" conditions,
   being unknown in the first place, could not be reproduced.

The possible interfering factors related to sample preparation have
certainly been mentioned by workers in the field.  That does not mean
that they have been adequately controlled.  For example:
   (1) Initial strain condition of the sample.  Many positive results
         were obtained with lathe turnings, which are likely to be
         severely work-hardened during cutting.  As metalworking
         technologists are keenly aware, the chip condition is
         a sensitive function of tool sharpness, surface speed,
         cutting depth, and coolant.
   (2) Initial surface condition of the sample.  Titanium is a very
         active metal and instantaneously forms an adherent oxide in
         air.  (Even at 3e-6 torr and room temperature, fresh Ti forms
         ~3.5 nm of oxide film in 15 minutes' exposure.)  Chemical
         reaction with the machining coolant or with ambient H2O or
         nitrogen is also possible.  Various protocols of etching,
         organic solvent washes, low-temperature (e.g. 200C) and
         high-temperature (e.g. 900C) pre-treatments have been used.
In the field of "cold fusion", the gas-phase experiments are probably
substantially simpler than electrochemical ones (e.g. Fleischmann & Pons
[5]); nonetheless many of the published papers clearly underestimate the
complexity of the Ti:O:H environment which is expected according to
ordinary chemistry.

I have formulated a working hypothesis to guide the review of Ti:T
(Reifenschweiler) and Ti:D (cold fusion) data.  The conjecture is that
hydrogen nuclei encounter a special environment in the zone at the inner
(sub-stoichiometric) edge of the TiO2 surface layer.  In this environment,
a bound pair of H nuclei can be trapped at a single tetrahedrally-coordinated
interstitial site.  In this trapped state the nuclear pair interaction is
strong enough to affect decay probabilities (Ti:T) or fusion probabilities
(Ti:D).

Here is how the working hypothesis applies in some cases:

When Ti is in its natural state, coated with a TiO2 film, it will not absorb
hydrogen.  Therefore there are two basic approaches to getting the hydrogen
in contact with the active zone:
   (1) first load the Ti with H, then grow an oxide; or
   (2) first grow an oxide, then get the H in from behind.

The Reifenschweiler work uses route (1).  The TiO2 oxide growth is accidental
(due to low quality vacuum).  Heating of the preparation activates oxygen
dissolution into the Ti [Smith 1973] with possible formation of a double-layer
oxide [6].

I point out the the process of low-temperature oxide growth is complex [7],
and its understanding is not yet complete.  High local electric fields are
important in the early (thin-film) phase.
 
I conjecture that the successful "dry cold fusion" work followed route (2).
The initial preparation left the titanium chips with a substantial oxide
layer.  Note that high-temperature "degassing" of Ti _does_ desorb H, but
it _does not_ desorb O.  The O becomes mobile and diffuses rapidly into the
bulk Ti at, e.g., 1000C.  If this heating is performed under UHV <1e-9 torr,
a surface with low O occupancy can be formed (see, for example, the technique
of [Azoulay 1992]).  Several workers "degassed" at ~200C under ~1e-5 torr
vacuum, a treatment which probably promotes oxidation of the Ti surface.
The "active" chips (often only a small fraction of the preparation was found
to exhibit anomalous nuclear behavior) receive an oxide coating with the
necessary substoichiometric composition.

Temperature cycling of the chips under D2 gas causes mechanical stresses in
the chips and promotes cracking.  The quantity and scale of the cracks is
highly dependent on the initial strain conditions of the samples, leading to
reproducibility problems.  In an active chip, the formation of a crack
reveals a fresh Ti surface for D2 absorption.  This D2 can diffuse to the
"back side" of the Ti:O layer and encounter the active trapping sites.

In the BARC autoradiographs [2], the tritium activity was confined to
localized hot-spots and apparent fracture lines, consistent with this
picture.  If the tritium is created in an oxide (rather than bulk Ti)
environment, the apparent low diffusion rate (as evidenced by duplicate
autoradiographs taken a year apart) is also explained.

Many experimental "improvements" in later work increased the D2 uptake
during the initial phase of a "dry cold fusion" run, reaching D:Ti ratios
>1.0.  It is easy to see in the context of the working hypothesis that
the all-important oxide film was being effectively removed.

I note that some workers at BARC, after reviewing the corpus of their
cold fusion work (electrochemical and gas-phase, Ti and Pd), find that
oxygen is implicated across the boards [8].

Some of the Russian fracto-fusion work (e.g. [9]), in which neutrons
appeared under abrasion of Ti:D in air, seem compatible with pathway
(1) - load first, then oxidize.

While the idea of hydrogen pairing (double occupancy) may seem unlikely, it
has been seriously proposed [Cotts 1991, Baker 1992] to explain anomalous
NMR measurements in metal hydrides.  This work originated in 1987 and is
completely independent of the "cold fusion" story.  It is also of note that
oxide-contaminated Ti samples exhibit NMR anomalies [Torrey 1958,
Korn 1970].

-Chuck Harrison

References
----------

References given by name, as [Reifenschweiler 1994a], are at:
 file://sunsite.unc.edu/pub/academic/physics/cold-fusion/TiBib.txt,
along with brief annotations by CH.

[1] E Botta, T Bressani, D Calvo, A Feliciello, P Gianotti, C Lamberti,
     M Agnello, F Iazzi, B Minetti, A Zecchina, "Measurement of 2.5
     MeV neutron emission from Ti/D and Pd/D systems", _Nuovo Cimento
     A_ 105A(11):1663-1671 (1992).

[2] M Srinivasan, A Shyam, TC Kaushik, RK Rout, LV Kulkarni, MS Krishnan,
     SK Malhotra, VG Nagvenkar, PK Iyengar, "Observation of tritium
     in gas/plasma loaded titanium samples", in SE Jones, FE Scaramuzzi,
     D Worledge (eds.), _AIP Conf. Proc 228, Anomalous Nuclear Effects
     in Deuterium/Solid Systems, Provo UT, 1990_, AIP, 1991 (hereinafter
     cited as [Provo 1990]).

[3] FE Cecil, H Liu, D Beddingfield, CS Galovich, "Observation of charged
     particle bursts from deuterium loaded thin titanium foils", in
     [Provo 1990].

[4] HO Menlove, MA Paciotti, TN Claytor, HR Maltrud, OM Rivera,
     DG Tuggle, SE Jones, "Reproducible neutron emission measurements
     from Ti metal in pressurized D2 gas", in [Provo 1990].

[5] M Fleischmann, S Pons, "Calorimetry of the Pd-D2O system: from
     simplicity via complications to simplicity", _Phys Lett A_
     176:118-129 (1993).

[6] AT Fromhold Jr, N Sato, "Two-phase oxide growth on pure metals",
     in J Nowotny, ed., _Transport in Non-Stoichiometric Compounds,
     Materials Science Monographs, 15_, Elsevier, 1982.

[7] IM Ritchie, "Diffusion in low temperature metal oxidation reactions",
     in J Nowotny, ed., _Transport in Non-Stoichiometric Compounds,
     Materials Science Monographs, 15_, Elsevier, 1982.

[8] D Das, MKS Ray, "Fusion in condensed matter - a likely scenario",
     _Fusion Technology_ 24:115-121 (1993).

[9] Lipson AG, Klyuev VA, Toporov YuP, Deryagin BV, "Neutron generation
     by mechanical activation of metal surfaces", _Pis'ma Zh. Tekh.
     Fiz. 16(17):54 (1990). (In Russian).
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenharr cudfnCharles cudlnHarrison cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.29 / James Crotinger /  Re: Ball Lightning Carlson
     
Originally-From: jac@moonshine.llnl.gov (James A. Crotinger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Ball Lightning Carlson
Date: 29 Jul 94 22:16:22 GMT
Organization: Magnetic Fusion Energy - LLNL

A brief de-lurk....

bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce       Scott          TK  ) writes:
> Describe this "screw" in more detail. Is this a dynamical process?
> It turns out that the G-S equation can describe any axisymmetric MHD
> equilibrium -- further, taking the G-S equation to read "stuff = 0",
> the "stuff" is proportional to the force on a plasma element, allowing
> use even in a dynamical situation.

  Actually, the GS equation also assumes that there is no macroscopic
plasma flow. Small flows (esp. toroidal flows) can be incorporated as
corrections. Macroscopic poloidal flows can change the structure of
the equation completely (it becomes hyperbolic rather than elliptic).

  Also, in your earlier post you mentioned

>     It would be imperative, however, that the current density be constant 
>     on each flux surface; otherwise div B would not vanish. One probably

  I'm not sure what you mean by "the current density be constant on
each flux surface". In general, neither the amplitude of the J nor its
poloidal and toroidal components are constant on a flux surface.
Similarly with B and its components.

  Jim
--
 ------------------------------------------------/\--------------------------
James A. Crotinger     Lawrence Livermore N'Lab // \ The above views are mine
jac@moonshine.llnl.gov P.O. Box 808;  L-630 \\ //---\  and are not neces-
(510) 422-0259         Livermore CA  94550   \\/Amiga\  sarily those of LLNL.
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenjac cudfnJames cudlnCrotinger cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Sat Jul 30 04:37:03 EDT 1994
------------------------------
1994.07.29 / Jim Bowery /  Re: Max Planck Institute's Credibility
     
Originally-From: jabowery@netcom.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Max Planck Institute's Credibility
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 1994 23:26:38 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

Bruce       Scott          TK (bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de) wrote:
: |> First, the data exists only within the "broad tolerances" I described.  
: |> It isn't exactly "qualitative" data, but in some dimensions it is little 
: |> more than that. 

: Sorry, but this does not tell me much. What do you mean by "dimensions"?
: Space, as in how big the objects are, or some sort of parameter space?

Yes, parameter space.

: |> But even that data is intellectual property and subject 
: |> to the advice of legal counsel.  That is the problem with engineering 
: |> over science and a never-ending source of embarrassment in an environment 
: |> where pervasive government funded engineering creates cultural and 
: |> ethical milieu in which the status of engineering vs science and 
: |> intellectual property vs published research is very blurred.

: I must admit to you that the whole idea of this revolts me a little. 
: Though I understand the value of intellectual property, I really hate 
: secrecy in science. I thought the patent system was set up in order to
: avoid the need for that, and keep it from retarding progress. 

Yes, that is the purpose of the patent system.  Unfortunately, it has 
been subverted.  I'll be happy to get into a detailed discussion of this 
at some future point.  It revolts me even more than you.

: Remember, to me the legal side of this is irrelevant, although it may 
: be vital to you or others. You have been cajoling me for moral support,
: and I cannot give that without a clear and precise description of what 
: is being attempted.

Actually, I care less about moral support or other kinds of support than 
I do about eliminating the political incentives to suppress good work.

: |> Despite the fact that everyone wants to be 
: |> another "Wright Brothers" to the government's "Langley" there are,
: |> occasionally, people that fill the bill.  I obviously believe Koloc is 
: |> one such individual and you remain skeptical. 

: Clearly. And my physics training is an important part of that.

Yes, and I expect in your case it is the biggest part.  I don't place 
that much stock in physics training provided by academic institutions 
these days.  

As Neils Bohr said:  "Perspective is worth 80 IQ points."

: How would you answer this: Assuming you have seen Paul's lab, and the 
: plasmoids, What means do you have to independently judge the situation?

See my response to Carlson regarding my investigation of Paul's claims.

: Now here is another question: What means does Paul have to critically
: judge that what he sees is really a plasmak, and not some other
: configuration? How would he falsify his investigation?

Predictive validation is far more inferrentially powerful than post hoc 
modeling.  This is what I mean when I say I don't place much stock in 
existing academic science training.  "Minor" points like this can mean 
the difference between the creation of an industry and the suppression of 
a field.  If Paul had concocted his PLASMAK(tm) model after some random 
toying with high power discharges that produced the plasmoids, your question 
might weild some intellectual weight.  The process of development of the 
PLASMAK(tm) model did not involve the actual production of plasmoids but 
did involve a lot of work with electric discharges and plasmas over 
decades.  With the model constructed Paul then constructed a device which 
he expected to produce said plasmoids and, by Jove, the little buggers 
popped out just as he expected.  Your academic training keeps you from 
appreciating the importance of this history.  That is very unfortunate.

: |> Publishing via peer review in an environment where one's "peers" are 
: |> receiving literally 1000 times the funding levels of the principle 
: |> investigator is a rather sticky wicket, you must admit.

: If you are worrying about being "scooped", c'est la vie. 

Not really.  I've seen how you are able to minimize the importance of 
Paul's work based on, in my opinion, intellectually shakey arguments.
The last thing Paul needs is for a bunch of "peers" with thousands of 
times his funding trapping themselves into focused political opposition.  
In your case, I think you are likely to come around eventually, but not 
everyone has your character -- especially in the US's funding milieu.

: |> Producing practical fusion energy is an engineering adventure.  As with 
: |> all engineering it has need of science.  The relationship is inherently 
: |> symbiotic.

: And in a symbiotic relationship one cannot afford a sour-grapes stance.

You honestly believe all this rhetoric about insolence and bad incentives 
on my part is "sour-grapes"?  Convenient explanation if you are the 
subject of one of these criticizms.  Look, Bruce, you are the guy with the
public's money.  Act like it.  You are in no position to be telling 
others to stifle their "sour grapes".  For you to do so is insolent.
-- 
The promotion of politics exterminates apolitical genes in the population.
  The promotion of frontiers gives apolitical genes a route to survival.
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenjabowery cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.29 /  jonesse@xray.b /  Note on Hal Fox's book on CF
     
Originally-From: jonesse@xray.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Note on Hal Fox's book on CF
Date: 29 Jul 94 16:09:36 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

Dieter Britz writes:

"I am also tryiing to chase what might be books, or might not, e.g. one by
Lyndon LaRouche, said to be "edited" by someone else (?) and one by Hal Fox..."

I have the one by Fox and will try to get another copy for you.
Title:  "Cold Fusion Impact in the Enhanced Energy Age".
ISBM 0-9634978-0-4.

From the back cover:
"I began collecting information about cold fusion and other enhanced energy
systems the day after Professors Pons and Fleischmann announced their
world-changing discovery.  The diskette in this book lists over 1200 articles
and scientific papers on cf, most of them supporting the reality of cf.  This
book may be the most valuable resource available on advanced energy.

...This book can be an important tool if you desire to keep abreast of the
developing field of enhanced energy and be ready for the changes that will
come.

Suggested retail price  $24.95"

--Steven Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenjonesse cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.30 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: Maddox Obit
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Maddox Obit
Date: Sat, 30 Jul 1994 06:32:56 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

In article <940729034721_76570.2270_HHB62-1@compuserve.com>,
Eugene Mallove <76570.2270@compuserve.com> wrote:
>
>Very early on there was a "cute" editorial, where Steve Jones may have gotten 
>an idea for one of his more recent tricks:
>
>"Cold (con)fusion"  Vo.338, 30 March 1989, pp.361-362.

Mr. Mallove, aren't you the one who has threatened dire consequences for
the United States science establishment for ignoring CNF?

You know, year after year I have to wonder what is wrong with people who
continue to beat a dead horse in the face of overwhelming evidence that
there is no phenomena, no theory and no hope. In religion there is always
blind faith and that is accepted, but in CNF blind faith is the sign of
a weak mind.

cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.30 / Paul Koloc /  Re: MPIPP Credibility --> Carrot on a stick??  
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: MPIPP Credibility --> Carrot on a stick??  
Date: Sat, 30 Jul 1994 06:40:38 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <jaboweryCtnrtB.1wp@netcom.com> jabowery@netcom.com (Jim Bowery) writes:
>Bruce       Scott          TK (bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de) wrote:

Bruce is like Bruce Wayne in costume:      >:  
Bowery just has the ears                >  

>: I am eager and waiting to see such data that would convince me that we can
>: even talk about such a simple first step as an MHD equilibrium. All these
>: other things can come later.

Look, BL has been around since your Grandmother picked berries.  That
hasn't convinced you.  The tokamak is still being researched, and
that hasn't convinced you to look elsewhere.  So, that argument 
isn't very "convincing".  You will do what your ethics push you 
to do -- maybe.  

Why not consider the problem as a model for Ball Lightning.  Let's
say that you will develop the pressure equilibrium for a static
field topology that looks like the PMK.GIF.  You understand what
the descriptions of BL are; they are in the literature by the thousands,
and they pretty much say the same thing.  From that  you can 
glean at least a notion about one initial boundary condition: the
bounded outer isobaric pressure; this applies to support the current 
film against the external poloidal field.  Guess a size:  30 cm 
(Mantle ID).   Then scan in PMK.GIF and hand estimate the contours 
of the poloidal and toroidal fields.    

Obviously, that won't be the equilibrium solution, but now you can
numerically iterate the values in clever ways and move every so
much closer to a equilibrium with "high Kernel plasma mag shear".  

There may be usefusl things from other posts.   Your understanding
of the model depicted by the PMK.GIF need a few fixes, but those 
can be worked out.  

>: Assuming you can produce a plasma, you have the wherewithal to install a
>: simple array of coils necessary to measure magnetic fields, and a cheap
>: device (eg, from Edmund Scientific) to measure brightness (a CCD camera?)
>: such that you can publish a light curve. This will get you started. Produce
>: some astonishing data, and I can assure you that more than just I will take
>: note. But a published paper is necessary.

Actually, you aren't an experimentalist, and this shows a bit. The
stuff you would like to measure is okay, but the techniques are a
bit fuzzed.  

Array coils will NOT measure the mag fields, ONLY the external poloidal
"STRAY" field, which amounts to something around a couple of percent.  
That is not of much use.  

Brightness is of little use, yes; AND THEN ONLY AFTER the blowoff 
plasma has contracted and extinguished.  This takes times depending 
on size (scales with energy input).    

CCD is very good, since they are FAST.  Also they render color and 
image detail very well, and can ajust to light levels within a frame
or so.  THE IMAGES are most important for showing details which 
only these objects can generate and which you are not sufficiently
versed to understand.  One you have been informed of are the Jets,
and these are very distinctive and leave glowing vapor trails of
EXCITED ejecta (deionized metal vapor) used as a tracer, for
example.  

The plasma Mantle is too dense to allow access to the Kernel at 
in visible and ordinary light levels.  We can and have access to a 
high intensity pulsed nitrogen laser which would be helpful, but 
we don't have the funds to convert the optics and cover salaries.  
Probably takes 50 to 70K.   

We can use EGG radiometers, or better (in addition) we swallow them
whole into a calorimeter.  Do this to a series of identical energy
and init cond.  and calorimeter trap them in with diff time delays
after formation. Thus we can determine loss rates. That plus the EGG
gives us some ideas on numbers you are suggesting.  Actually the
connection is a bit to much of a stretch.  That is you are a bit
optimistic since we can't see the Kernel plasma directly.    

A technique is to use a stacked film-attenuator plate set 
to get a handle on the energy of the energetic electrons.  And 
then, to SEE the currents (picture of a PMK's INSIDES), it is 
nice to "snap" their picture in stereo using their own light 
(soft X-rays from small angle scattering) in a pin-hole image 
camera.  

To measure the external field, it is better to use non-metal loops 
of fiber glass (many many turns) within which a polarized laser
is Faraday rotated by the plasmoid field as it passes through the 
loop.  Thus grounding and electrostatic interactions can be avoided.  
Again, this ONLY looks at stray field, but it is a good indications
of formation efficiency.  

   WARNING Subliminal message!
      SEND MONEY:  Just mortgage your house or something, we have.   
   WARNING you have just received a sub luminal message!  
                  Probably gravity shift! 

Publishing the results will not help funding one iota.  The
system is Scrammed.  I've seen good, bad, ugly, and nice guys
just end up shafted by that routine.  The Spheromak was a gift from
us, but DOE pushed it toward serving "slow start-up" tokamak research
and didn't develop it along lines of its own advantage.  So that
didn't get us as much as it otherwise could have.  

>: Another note (you may already know about this and have the book): obtain a
>: copy of _Plasma Diagnostics_ by Hutchinson, go through the methods of
>: density and temperature profile measurement, and then let's discuss why or
>: if it is outside your resource limitations to find out what the plasma
>: pressure is in those radiating objects.

In any event, we are not here to do plasma physics, that is obviously
what the DOE is doing through its National Labs and International
Collaborators.  We are interested in generating aneutronic burns
for commercial Development.  OKAY  Any questions here??? 

The evidence so far is that this thing works as we anticipate, so our
feeling is to charge into raising funds from a single investor that
would fund the compression burn.  That will be sufficient to run 
quit complete ENGINEERING data points we need to get to burn.  Some
of this data will be of interest to the physics community, but
we don't have time to play school.  

>Fair enough.
>: A gambler, I am not. 

Sure you are, your life hasn't enough heart beats left to get
to commercial fusion with a tokamak.  This is true EVEN IF they 
slapped you on life support at 5 C. 

As they said (in Philly) There's a sucker born
every.. ______________.  (what's it down to?   -- seconds??)    

>: Paul most certainly has the right to follow the advice
>: he gets, and to follow his own sense. But then I think I have the right
>: to withhold action and support until I am properly convinced, according
>: to my own standards. Don't you?

Yes, that is your decision.  Use your talents as you see fit and 
your courage permits.  This is not a trivial decision. 

Thanks for you excellent and well meaning advice.  Sorry I don't
speak your MHD.  Why were MNR or Mdme B so easy? must have been
that head on car accident. 

In the meantime, while your making up your mind,  remember there is
a downside.      :-)
The payoff in this PLASMAK(tm) endeavor, isn't happening yet, 
unlike the one you are involved in.  

>: Proclaim achievements -- in science, this really does have to be in the
>: open. Otherwise, you can proclaim, but you cannot demand that others listen.

The USA has Nobel winners up the bazoom, and the Japanese have
technologists.  It takes both in each country to assure a free and 
happy world.  That cock-eyed mix maybe leading the world into BIG 
trouble.  It certainly isn't helping our image as a high tech 
super manufacturing country or our trade balance.  But we have time...
                                  2040??    

>Producing practical fusion energy is an engineering adventure.  As with 
>all engineering it has need of science.  The relationship is inherently 
>symbiotic.

Well, now I wouldn't put it that way.  All the science in the
world won't make a tokamak work;      

A physicist's engineered tokamak, won't be saved by real engineers
either.  

We know more now, let's just stop, start over and do it right.  We can
move up a couple of generations.. just for that fresh start.   

                       To have a world of Joy
                           Develop PLASMAK(tm)
                             Aneutronic Energy
>-- 
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc, Bx 1037 Prometheus II Ltd, College Park MD 20741-1037    |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.30 / David Cook /  Re: Randell L. Mills and hydrinos
     
Originally-From: dcook@utpapa.ph.utexas.edu (David M. Cook)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.skeptic,pdx.general
Subject: Re: Randell L. Mills and hydrinos
Date: 30 Jul 1994 13:06:34 GMT
Organization: Physics Department, University of Texas at Austin

In article <775446692snz@mccombes.demon.co.uk>,
Paul McCombes <paul@mccombes.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>Well, Special and General relativity supercede Newton's Laws ie. they give 
>different preditions, so unifying them it a mite impossible. Don't waste your 
>time.

You can view Newton's Laws as approximations to Kaluza-Klein theory.
In this sense K-K theory "contains" Newton's Laws.
K-K theory unifies GR and E&M by adding on a "compactified" 5th dimenstion.

Dave Cook

cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudendcook cudfnDavid cudlnCook cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.29 / Cameron Bass /  Re: MM-Pact 
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: MM-Pact 
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 1994 19:33:38 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <940728042514_76570.2270_HHB76-1@CompuServe.COM>,
Eugene Mallove <76570.2270@compuserve.com> wrote:
>
>>Seeing that the evil conspiratorial nature of mainstream fusion
>>research is also no judge...
>
>Well put, Bruce. And that is precisely why the agreement I had with Douglas 
>Morrison in 1990 (which Steve Jones brought up) could not be appropriately 
>judged. Unlike you, Bruce, Morrison has precious little integrity in these 
>matters. It was he who encouraged John Huizenga to be the "judge" of our 
>(then) friendly wager about cold fusion (March 1990 at the First Annual 
>Conference in Salt Lake City) -- described in Fire from Ice. At the time, I 
>had not really yet probed how visciously anti-cold fusion the superficially 
>mild-mannered Huizenga was. So I went along with the deal.

     'Could not be appropriately judged'?  'Visciously anti-cold fusion'?
     Integrity seems to be a strong function of agreement with your position.
     I suspect that will eventually be the case with your 'Pact'.

     And I take it you didn't pay off the 1990 bet.

                                   dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.30 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Max Planck Institute's Credibility
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Max Planck Institute's Credibility
Date: Sat, 30 Jul 1994 20:00:12 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <1994Jul29.004851.3844@ttinews.tti.com> jackson@soldev.tti.co
 (Dick Jackson) writes:
>It seems to me that when faced with the unknown, one has three choices:
>Viz to say "The phenomenon doesn't exist", "There seems to something
>mysterious going on - I haven't a clue", or "There's definitely a weird
>new effect based on amzing new physics".  I prefer the middle one, however
>the first one seems to me to be at least an honest reaction.  Its the
>third which I feel is really intemperate.
>Dick Jackson

It's those seemingly intractible physics problems, such as BL, that 
when solved become part of "classics physics methods or solutions", 
and then go into the hopper as part of the graduate school curriculum.  
Of course, the name of the fellow concisely reducing the solution 
becomes associated and part of history in the process.  So it's not 
exactly a meaningless pursuit.  Thanks to Kadomtsev, Roth and others, 
BL is now a recognized as real and is a plasma physics dilemma.    

+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc, Bx 1037 Prometheus II Ltd, College Park MD 20741-1037    |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.30 / David Andrews /  Re: Randell L. Mills and hydrinos
     
Originally-From: dba@redbug.oau.org (David Andrews)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Randell L. Mills and hydrinos
Date: Sat, 30 Jul 94 15:00:14 GMT
Organization: none

hatunen@netcom.com writes in article <hatunenCtno18.nF@netcom.com>:
> 
> I would especially be interested in the claimed credentials of Mills and Haus.

Could you not have phrased this in a more constructive way?  Such as:
"I would like to know more about their background."

> We had quite a thread going about Mills a while back, mostly consisting 
> of requests for information which were not fulfilled.

And if you go back a little further, you'll remember that John Farrell used
to post some rather lengthy articles regarding the theory.  He was challenged
on a number of technical fronts, and he took this well.  But when he began
to take "excess heat" from folks who got a little personal, he blazed outta
here.  Too bad: right or wrong, he was polite, patient, and tried to teach
us something.  I miss him.

References to "crackpot theories" (someone else's unkind riposte) and "claimed
credentials" do not improve the chance that requests for information will 
be honored.

--
David Andrews
dba@redbug.oau.org
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudendba cudfnDavid cudlnAndrews cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Sun Jul 31 04:37:08 EDT 1994
------------------------------
1994.07.31 / Paul McCombes /  Re: Randell L. Mills and hydrinos
     
Originally-From: paul@mccombes.demon.co.uk (Paul McCombes)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.skeptic,pdx.general
Subject: Re: Randell L. Mills and hydrinos
Date: Sun, 31 Jul 1994 02:06:05 +0000
Organization: None

In article <31dj8q$t0n@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>
           dcook@utpapa.ph.utexas.edu "David M. Cook" writes:

> In article <775446692snz@mccombes.demon.co.uk>,
> Paul McCombes <paul@mccombes.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> 
> >Well, Special and General relativity supercede Newton's Laws ie. they give 
> >different preditions, so unifying them it a mite impossible. Don't waste your 
> >time.
> 
> You can view Newton's Laws as approximations to Kaluza-Klein theory.
> In this sense K-K theory "contains" Newton's Laws.
> K-K theory unifies GR and E&M by adding on a "compactified" 5th dimenstion.
> 
> Dave Cook
> 
Wrong, thank you for trying. **BONG**. You can only view Newton's laws as an 
approximation to K-K's 'theory' if they give the same predictions as SR and GR. 
They are not even close. If you feel like an argument then what is the maximum 
speed postulated by Newtons laws? And what is the maximum speed postulateed by 
KK, or SR, or GR?



Answers:  	1/0 (no infinity sign) for Newton
		c for SR, GR, KK
-- 
Paul McCombes
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenpaul cudfnPaul cudlnMcCombes cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.31 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Maxima in Sigma-v/T^2 curves
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Maxima in Sigma-v/T^2 curves
Date: Sun, 31 Jul 1994 01:48:08 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <31al0gINN1m0@slcawc.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de> awc@ipp-garching.mpg.de writes:

[Introductory material]

>                               .. .   Does Paul Koloc have
>good reasons to choose p-B11 over pure He3? (Fuel availability?)

Yes, the temperature of the burn, and fuel availability.  The latter
is not such a problem in 20 or thirty years, assuming Plasmak with 
p-B gets us full access to space, and the earth doesn't shoot itself
in the foot.  However, p-B11, at the high compression ratios, is 
also interesting because it burns fast enough to reach AC current 
output.      

>Reactions with Li and B11 seem to be not just difficult but impossible
>if certain common assumptions (Maxwellian velocity distribution, total
>loss of Bremstrahlung und cyclotron radiation) are made. Paul Koloc
>does *not* make these assumptions, as he points out in Article 7192:

>> There are a number of other considerations, which are device
>> dependent and have a very STRONG bearing on the success of a truly
>> advanced fuel burner.  PLASMAK(tm) device related ones are:

>> Magnetic System efficiency -- Compression of the Mantle reduces
>> magnetized volume for a very fast, intense and more thorough burn;

This gives us Compression Energy scaling with the compression ratio.

>    I believe the argument of aneutronic fans goes like this: There
>    are much better ways to confine a plasma than a tokamak. D-T
>    cannot take advantage of these methods because the (lousy) tokamak
>    is already at the limit of the possible neutron flux. 

>    The power
>    density with these better confinement schemes plus aneutronic fuel
>    is similar to or better than the power density of D-T in a
>    tokamak, despite the much smaller reaction cross section.

The power density that I estimated is  order 1 w/cc in a 
tokamak (what is it??), comparing unfavorably with a birthday
candle of 5w/cc.  Consequently, the device will be huge.. the 
torus of ITER with bolt ons  fits snugly inside a 9 story cube.  

The two critical issues obvious in aneutronic burners are less 
reactivity and higher burn temperatures.  How can we produce 
those burn temperatures WITH INCREASED DENSITIES over the 
tokamak.  Fortunately, there is one wonderful way to do it all, 
and this is adiabatic toroidal compression.  This was explored 
at PPPL in the ATC and it is still employed to a very limited 
extent in tokamaks, due to the central linking of the toroidal 
field coils and their support apparatus.  The Spheromak overcomes 
this, but its solid necessary conducting shell is NOT 
COMPRESSIBLE.  If the Spheromak is compressed with coils it is 
subject to either tilt or slip instabilities, and no juggling 
of shapes or figure eights fixes the situation, TO THE POINT 
that effective aneutronic ATC compressions would be successful.   

The PMK (PLASMAKtm magnetoplasmoid) suspended in a compression
fluid blanket solves that problem.  

The reason is that:  
(1)  to reach aneutronic burn temperatures substantial compression
        ratios are necessary.  
(2)  such compression ratios are most effective at increasing plasma
       density,    
(3) the compressed high density plasma will burn at rates equal
      to the density squared (compression ratio cubed).    

Putting the numbers in, formerly incredible burn rates result, in
spite of the lower reactivities and higher critical burn 
temperatures. 

So.. I agree with Art except on the implication that aneutronic
burn rates in PMKs would be on the order of tokamak D-T burn
rates.  In fact they would be closer to 5-6 orders better.  

>> Cyclotron radiation reflection -- the dense electron coating at the
>> inner Mantle wall (pressure sensitive) reflects the 10th+ harmonic
>> of Kernel cyclotron radiation;

>    I need to fight the next two out with Koloc (maybe in a different
>    thread). Even if this "dense coating" exists, why should it
>    reflect rather than absorb cyclotron radiation?

Because a good absorber is a good radiator.  This means that the
electrons and DENSE fields in the Kernel plasma are BLACK to this 
cyclotron radiation.  On the other hand, the fantastically lower
fields in the (inner most boundary field neutralized) Mantle are
not what would radiate OR absorb such emission.  

Both Art and especially I would concede that others are better 
qualified in the explanation of the physics.  

>> the capture of the Bremsstrahlung by a volume locked blanket --
>> returns otherwised wasted aneutronic energy to further drive plasma
>> toroidal compression heating;

>    I think recyling the Bremsstrahlung energy through the gas blanket
>    will be a rather inefficient process. Is there a calculation to go
>    with this?

Yes.  This process is NOT that efficient on a scale of one to 10, 
but anything is of enormous advantage, and quite unique in the scheme
of things, and consequently can turn the tide.  The blanket is at 
liquid densities; such matter absorbs soft X-rays or EUV efficiently 
and then just as efficiently thermalizes it, increasing nkT of the 
blanket.  This thermalized aneutronic energy registers as 
increased compression pressure, and thus becomes available work 
to put back into driving additional compression heating of the 
Kernel plasma.    

But notice, we don'have to stop there if our conversion efficiency
is so very high.  After all, won't we be collecting some of the
formation and compression heating energy as well??  So what if it
turns out that after everything is said and done we do have to do
a bit more active compression.  We have some reserve.  

This approach is worth fighting for, and certainly worth hawking
to your leaders.  Otherwise, we are stuck in a gravity well, until 
social problems begin to set in and generate difficulties for the
future of mankind.   

>> the subsequent release and expansion of the aneutronic spent PMK and
>> plasmatized blanket in a tranformer linked inductive chamber --
>> produces direct electric drive at 90%+ conversion efficiency.  Yes
>> 90%++.

>    In his last post he tried 85%. Since I didn't flinch he upped the
>    ante.  :-)

Actually, I lowered it for p-B11.  The 85% number quoted, I believe 
is for D-He3.  Actually, the number well might be as high as 95%+ 
with the addition of well managed additional conversion techniques..
you know, conductive MHD and also the less efficient kind they are 
considering for tokamak.  That's because they operate on picking
of  additional useful energy from the small amount of high grade
waste from the inductive MHD first stage.  

>> Basically the concept is thrifty at utilizing its assets to aid in
>> burn function before efficient transform of released energy to high
>> grade electric power.


> ..   ..               I suspect that the studies showing D-He3
>competitive with D-T have stacked the deck, for example by assuming a
>high-field tokamak for D-He3 but not for D-T, but we are now well
>beyond my level of detailed knowledge.

OK
However, in this case we are talking about a HYPER strong field 
PLASMAK generator.  

>No reaction is completely aneutronic. In a p-B11 plasma, for example, you will
>find reactions like
>    p + B11 -> C12 + gamma
>    p + B11 -> n +C11
>    He4 + B11 -> n + N14
>    He4 + B11 -> p + C14
>    He4 + B11 -> T + C12
>    B11 + B11 -> junk

These side reactions are minuscule, and some may not occur in a month
(even in a continous (60hZ) PMK generator.  

>as well as reactions with a possible B10 impurity fraction. You might have 2 or 3
>orders of magnitude less radiactivity in a p-B11 reactor, but it won't be zero.

Ah! now you have hit on a problem, however, there are purification
techniques which should be able to handle even this problem.  

Let me point out that we humans have to lower our environmental impact
and push our population and biosphere off this planet and throughout
the neighborhood.  Consider that 1 rail tank car of hydrogen borine 
(pressurized liquid) would generate the energy of .. 5,000,000 rail 
tank cars of oil??   That's a lot.  Further, PMK aneutronic energy
will do it efficiently, and will greatly reduce even the thermal
impact on the planet.  Now such reductions times orders of magnetude
reductions could really add up.  
 
There are but TWO things WRONG with this technology.  
 
             1)  It's too good to be true.  

             2)  It's coming from the wrong person. 


After all, PPPL or even IPP is one thing, but a dumb clod 
hopper from IOWA..   ---  I'll never happen.       
                       ;-)

>Finally, Bob Heeter would like to put some of this information into
>the FAQ. Does anyone feel qualified to do a better job than just
>summarizing this thread? I would also be interested in good references
>on cross-sections and review type articles on aneutronic fusion in
>general. What's out there besides Vol. A271 of
>Nucl.Instr.Meth.Phys.Research (1988--special issue)?

Good idea! Now we shall find out if any one is listening.  

>Art Carlson
>Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics
>Garching, Germany
>carlson@ipp-garching.mpg.de
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc,Bx 1037, Prometheus II, Ltd., College Park, MD 20741-1037 |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.31 / David Davies /  4He alone? We don't need no 'eelium even
     
Originally-From: drd851@huxley.anu.edu.au (David R Davies)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: 4He alone? We don't need no 'eelium even
Date: 31 Jul 1994 17:45:47 +1000
Organization: Australian National University


There is one hypothesis that avoids many of the difficulties involved
in an explanation of possible Lattice Catalized Fusion.

The Deuterium nucleus has a small quadrapole moment. In addition to the
spherical 3S state there is a small amount of the 3D state which will 
have a higher energy than the 3S state. This energy is lost to lattice
phonons when the nucleus is delocalized.

A similar process could be involved in a number of hydrogen based anomalous
energy systems such as the Griggs rotor and acoustic cavitation methods. 
In these cases the delocalization is produced in the radial wave structure 
of an electromagnetic cavity resonance.

Is it fusion? Yes, the last step.

Any comments? Here or e-mail.

dave
dave.davies@anu.edu.au

cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudendrd851 cudfnDavid cudlnDavies cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.31 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Max Planck Institute's Credibility
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Max Planck Institute's Credibility
Date: Sun, 31 Jul 1994 04:23:47 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <31afm6INN1k3@slcawc.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de> awc@ipp-garching.mpg.de writes:
>
>Jim Bowery asks me:

>Yes, I would. A fully ionized plasmoid that exists for hundreds of milliseconds
>in contact with atmospheric air would represent a breakthrough in our
>understanding of plasma physics whether or not it can be scaled up to be fusion
>relevant. 

Please modify your understanding of the PMK in the following way.  The
airborne PMK is not initially fully ionized, at least not all of it, 
and most certainly not the outermost portion of the Mantle plasma.  The 
Mantle is not hot enough to be fully ionized, and the inside is only 
ionized by virtue of the intense ionizing radiation from the Kernel 
plasma, and the low thermal diffusion losses across the Mantle 
gradient layers from ionized to partial ionized mixed with excited gas 
and ionized (electron capture -- usually) molecules near the air 
boundary.  Thermal conduction is low from this and the embedded 
tangential field.  I thought this was covered in a BScott post answer.     

Look if you have a problem like believing off stuff like this thing 
is FULLY IONIZED then speak to that; one would expect the necessity 
of tremendous temperatures and thermal conduction/convection losses.  
There are no miracle here, but these Hitodama are spectacular and 
this place probably should be blessed.  Any Shito priests in the area? 
Now back to the post. 

>                       If Koloc says, "Hey, my lawyers and investors won't go
>for it!" I can accept that. But then it is unreasonable for him to ask for
>research support from the scientific establishment.

No, I don't think you understand.  Just keeps spurious curiousity 
seekers out, that have no intention of developing a technology while 
respecting our ownership of the intellectual property.  If the German 
Republic, or an individual of means, or a Corporation (equivalent), 
or IPP for that matter should become interested, then we can likely 
work out a cooperative agreement, with benefits and protections.  
This is probably something you shouldn't be concerning yourself with 
since IPP has persons and control of means to implement such devices.  
There is always an advantage of being first; well sort of first.   

>                        .. . .  And I believe I have shown
>that some important parts of his theory are false or at least highly
>questionable. (Whether I can convince him or you of that, I don't 
>know. I tend to be an optimist.)

This concept has found all plusses and that's why I must still push 
it.  The problem is that I have been working out the same 
possibilities and difficulties that you are just beginning to see 
now.  For example, at the outset there was no such thing as a stable 
plasma configuration outside of gravity stablized ones.  Our static 
equilibrium appeared stable to us, and that's why I took the problem 
to Bussac and Rosenbluth.  The configuration is stable, which meant 
more years of work ahead for me.   That makes this something like a 
kind of non-rewarding habit.. so far. 
  
The difficulty with the resistivity problem was most serious and I
just solved that recently.  How do you make it hyperconducting, how 
to keep it hyperconducting,  etc.  I think your problem is that you 
ARE optimistic, and you expect that you know more than you do about 
the concept.  That's not the case, so you are still having 
difficulties.  

>In recent posts, Koloc has cut back the polemic, increased the information
>content, and, it seems, proofread his spelling and grammar. Whether I have
>overstepped the bounds of Internet or scientific decorum in my colorful
>evaluations of Koloc's physics is a judgement call. I was largely responding 
>in kind. But I have hope that in the future we can all be less clever and
>concentrate more on the physics.

Here's the problem I have with a huge "physics" science program on this
or anything else.   I look at technologies where the physics was present
for decades, yet the potential concept was not forthcoming.  Then I look 
at physicists that speculated such things could exist.  Then I see some 
engineer then did it, because of cleverness (not in your above sense) 
and that they were far enough away from the problem, that they could 
see many facets of it at once.  
               So the Concept was born.  
                  ---- ONLY THEN  once made ---  
could the real physics studies start on this invented thing.  

What  concept?  Consider the LASER.   Ted Maiman was an electrical 
engineer working for Hughes Malibu.  Incidentally, for this concept 
even I didn't think would be done.   

>Have you calculated an MHD equilibrium based on Koloc's prescription? 

Gee!  that is nice to do, but NOT because it can't be done, but 
because:   When IT IS DONE IT IS USEFUL.  And besides, we did
it quickly, and later PPPL did it better with the modified PEST code. 

>Have
>you examined the consequences of the virial theorem for the attainable pressure?

Not that blither again.  It can't be applied to multiconnected region.  
I'll send you a cartoon by GIF, except that this one will be long coming
since I'm bagged from concentration -least 'til the end of August.  It's
not a priority with me.. you seem absolutely convinced the VT is the
key to paradise which can see no evil or do no evil.   Who is your
puppet master on this??   PLEASE!  JUST DO THE COMPLETE INTEGRATION.  
or read the first Furth et al Spheromak paper, estimate it's
energy, if the boundary was instead 5 kg.  Cut OUT the funny trick 
back-of-the-evelope game estimate stuff, it's a waste of time.  

>Do you have a sufficiently detailed description of Koloc's "hyperconductivity"
>theory to see how it gets around classical and energetic-particle conductivity
>limitations? 

No, that's sensitive and proprietary.  Try Hans Bethe's work on 
energetic particles, or read stuff from SDIO program on airborne
electron beams.  

But, Art, I'm interested in a concise description of the negative 
physics you think you are alluding to.  Could you run that past us? 

Have you consulted with plasma physicists that have done these
>things? 

Do you know of any physicists that have made BL??  Do you know
of any that are allowed to work on such a subject with full
government support?? 

Plasma Physicists mostly are employed by the DoE or astronomy
and do not have the opportunity to do such original work.  Try the
TK Chu reference I gave you, that could help if your mind can put
two physics concepts together and come up with new information.  
But, Yes there are physicists that are skilled in each of these
areas of difficulty you are having.  They can be complete bozos
in other areas, I'm certain you have experienced this. As for the
conductivity calculations much of this is in the Formulary (Book),
and M. Lampe confirmed times as long as 30seconds in sizes order
10 centimeters.  You must have the details, which you don't.  

>I can understand how someone can feel that Koloc is onto something
>interesting. I don't understand how anyone (any scientist) can be 
>"convinced" on the basis of the meagre and problem ridden evidence 
>we have seen. (Do you consider this sentence "derisive"? It is only 
>if you feel that Koloc has provided abundant and unassailable evidence?)

You have difficulty in assimilating what has been put out. This
is probably my fault with perhaps preconceptions on your part. 
But finally, you have hit the nail on the head.  We DON'T WANT TO 
CONVINCE anyone --  that will come with the burn.  We just want 
INTEREST from within your own domain and abilities.  Natural
raw and unabated talent joining to get this thing to work as
soon as possible.  The TRUTH will out, but we are not afraid to
ram it against reality. That's the case from the start.  Certainly
I have no business inventing this -- after all "How can I convince 
all those Albertle Einstiens out there?" Guess they won't be 
convinced and the world will just have to squeek by as best it can. 

For one thing the more effort it takes to convince a person could
be showing up a personality quirk (like a doubting Thomas), or
an "S" type on Myers-Briggs Personality Inventory, that must have
"gi'me more, more!" or a seemingly infinite amount of information 
before they can make a decision.   

It's just foolish expectations from those not realizing there 
are no guarantees, that it takes guts and sacrifice, as well as 
brains to get this thing to market.  If the idea is a winner 
"physics and engineering wise" yet fails to make the grade 
because IT WAS NEVER FUNDED ADEQUATELY for a sampling of experts 
to rationally decide, then the world loses -- perhaps forever.     

Of course we know that Art can decide with little research allowed.  

Surely if we had 1/8th of the US budget for one year, we could 
do this thing .. although it might take four years of time.  You 
may not be better off because this conversation wouldn't be 
taking place.  So one way we have the information and will do 
the work, the other way -- neither of us have as much as we need 
nor the resources to obtain it.  

Doesn't look that good for the world does it Art? You have math
difficulties , so do we.. just with the Bucks$$$ to do this thing.    

>Art Carlson
>Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics
>Garching, Germany
>carlson@ipp-garching.mpg.de
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc, Bx 1037 Prometheus II Ltd, College Park MD 20741-1037    |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.01 / Eugene Mallove /  Reply to Kunich
     
Originally-From: 76570.2270@compuserve.com (Eugene Mallove)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Reply to Kunich
Date: Mon, 1 Aug 1994 00:12:38 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Tom Kunich writes:

>Mr. Mallove, aren't you the one who has threatened dire consequences for
>the United States science establishment for ignoring CNF?

Yes, I have. And yes, the consequences for that US science "establishment" get
more dire with each passing month. I don't give a damn whether you accept this
or not. You are a mere cipher in all this, a perfect nitwit.


>You know, year after year I have to wonder what is wrong with people who
>continue to beat a dead horse in the face of overwhelming evidence that
>there is no phenomena, no theory and no hope. In religion there is always
>blind faith and that is accepted, but in CNF blind faith is the sign of
>a weak mind.

I am happy to be allied with people who value measurements over dysfunctional 
theory. Your "overwhelming evidence that there is no phenomena" is pure crock.
And *you*, friend, are an insufferable crackpot -- a man of "weak mind," 
indeed. 

Gene Mallove 

cudkeys:
cuddy1 cuden2270 cudfnEugene cudlnMallove cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.01 / Richard Blue /  Re: deuteron quadrapole interaction
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: deuteron quadrapole interaction
Date: Mon, 1 Aug 1994 00:12:49 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Dave Davies leaves me totally puzzled by his reference to the
quadrapole moment of the deuteron and its interaction energy
in the Pd lattice.  The average energy for deuterons interacting
with the lattice is whatever it is.  To get deuterons into a
higher energy state, no matter what that state may be, requires
that the energy difference be supplied from somewhere when the
deuterons go into that state.  Are you suggesting that they
just move up in energy spontaneously?  So the best you can do
is to get that energy back when they return to a lower energy
state.  I don't know what delocalization has to do with any
of this.  Furthermore according to Chubb and Chubb only a
tiny fraction of the deuterons is delocalized.  Perhaps you
would care to post some numbers  as to what the energy scale
is for the transition you suggest?

I will also say that I would tend to class this sort of thing
as atomic rather than nuclear, and we all know that the energy
source for cold fusion can not possibly be atomic.

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.01 / Richard Blue /  Re: Dry cold fusion
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Dry cold fusion
Date: Mon, 1 Aug 1994 00:12:53 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I don't see why we should believe that the early "dry fusion"
experiments brought up by Chuck Harrison have any special
merit as indicators of some new phenomena.  In fact there are
some very obvious experimental flaws that should not be brushed
aside.  The titanium-deuterium gas experiment by De Ninno et al.
is, in my opinion, an outstanding example of data which bears an
unmistakable signature of a major screwup.  The purported neutron
bursts which show a strange grouping in near integer multiples of
20 counts in each and every 10 minute bin cannot possibly be real
neutron counts.  You cannot construct any sort of physical model
of the reaction process that synchronizes bursts to the computer
clock to the required degree of accuracy.  There is a much simpler
explanation for that kind of data, and it involves something called
"ringing" that is familiar to all practicing experimental nuclear
physicists.  Put the De Ninno data in the dust bin, Chuck!

The first series of BARC autoradiographs of titanium chips exposed
to deuterium gas are also highly suspect.  First we should keep
in mind the fact that the radiographs and most other detection
methods employed at BARC are not specific to tritium activity.
They respond to any activity so it may be stretching the point
to refer to this as tritium activity.  The next little bit of
information that one should take note of has to do with the
previous incarnation of the titanium that was used for these
measurements.  The titanium had been used as electrodes in a
"hot fusion" experiment and may well have been activated as a
result.

The Cecil data on charged particles came from a single occurance
that has never been duplicated.  That is just not very much
to hang your hat on.  The signal-to-noise ratio for charged
particle detection in "dry fusion" is very much in the noise.
You can waste lots of time and resources seeing "patterns"
in noise if that is what interests you.  However, if you are
to set out on a course of investigation into what cutting
speed on the lathe will turn out the best titanium chips for
showing such effects you have a long hard row ahead of you.

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Mon Aug  1 04:37:03 EDT 1994
------------------------------
1994.07.31 / Matt Kennel /  Re: 4He alone? We don't need no 'eelium even
     
Originally-From: mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: 4He alone? We don't need no 'eelium even
Date: 31 Jul 1994 21:33:31 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

David R Davies (drd851@huxley.anu.edu.au) wrote:

: There is one hypothesis that avoids many of the difficulties involved
: in an explanation of possible Lattice Catalized Fusion.

: The Deuterium nucleus has a small quadrapole moment. In addition to the
: spherical 3S state there is a small amount of the 3D state which will 
: have a higher energy than the 3S state. This energy is lost to lattice
: phonons when the nucleus is delocalized.

explain why does the natural *ground* state of helium nuclei mix in
a bit of 3D?  And why it doesn't if the nucleus is "delocalized"?

: A similar process could be involved in a number of hydrogen based anomalous
: energy systems such as the Griggs rotor and acoustic cavitation methods. 

But doesn't that mean you will have 'used up' a cathode once you've
delocalized all the He you can in it?  After all putting the He back into
normal nuclei will require you to put in energy, right?  

(hey wouldn't that be nifty?  Carry around a "delocalized He cathode"
 and pop the vaccum sealed package.  Instant solid state nuclear air
 conditioning!) 

: dave
: dave.davies@anu.edu.au

--
-Matt Kennel  		mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu
-Institute for Nonlinear Science, University of California, San Diego
-*** AD: Archive for nonlinear dynamics papers & programs: FTP to
-***     lyapunov.ucsd.edu, username "anonymous".
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenmbk cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.01 / David Davies /  Re: 4He alone? We don't need no 'eelium even
     
Originally-From: drd851@huxley.anu.edu.au (David R Davies)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: 4He alone? We don't need no 'eelium even
Date: 1 Aug 1994 10:52:17 +1000
Organization: Australian National University

mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel) writes:

>David R Davies (drd851@huxley.anu.edu.au) wrote:

>: There is one hypothesis that avoids many of the difficulties involved
>: in an explanation of possible Lattice Catalized Fusion.

>: The Deuterium nucleus has a small quadrapole moment. In addition to the
>: spherical 3S state there is a small amount of the 3D state which will 
>: have a higher energy than the 3S state. This energy is lost to lattice
>: phonons when the nucleus is delocalized.

>explain why does the natural *ground* state of helium nuclei mix in
>a bit of 3D?  And why it doesn't if the nucleus is "delocalized"?

I'm not suggesting that we necessarily have any D+D->He. The Deuterons
will be more readily coupled to the lattice in the delocalized state so
will either lose the extra energy on the way in or later but exit in the
3S state. A transient delocalized He might be necessary. 

>: A similar process could be involved in a number of hydrogen based anomalous
>: energy systems such as the Griggs rotor and acoustic cavitation methods. 

>But doesn't that mean you will have 'used up' a cathode once you've
>delocalized all the He you can in it?  After all putting the He back into
>normal nuclei will require you to put in energy, right?  

There would need to be a continual throughput of D. Maybe the thermal 
cycling performs two functions. Firstly, the phonon coupling presumably
requires a particular temperature for optimal coupling to the lattice.
Secondly, it could produce a cycling of D through the system.


dave
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudendrd851 cudfnDavid cudlnDavies cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.01 / David Davies /  Re: deuteron quadrapole interaction
     
Originally-From: drd851@huxley.anu.edu.au (David R Davies)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: deuteron quadrapole interaction
Date: 1 Aug 1994 15:05:59 +1000
Organization: Australian National University

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

>Dave Davies leaves me totally puzzled by his reference to the
>quadrapole moment of the deuteron and its interaction energy
>in the Pd lattice.  The average energy for deuterons interacting
>with the lattice is whatever it is.  To get deuterons into a
>higher energy state, no matter what that state may be, requires
>that the energy difference be supplied from somewhere when the
>deuterons go into that state.  Are you suggesting that they
>just move up in energy spontaneously?  So the best you can do
>is to get that energy back when they return to a lower energy
>state.  I don't know what delocalization has to do with any
>of this.  Furthermore according to Chubb and Chubb only a
>tiny fraction of the deuterons is delocalized.  Perhaps you
>would care to post some numbers  as to what the energy scale
>is for the transition you suggest?

What I am saying is that the Deuterium enters the system with a
small excited component. Mostly it is 3S but to explain the quad-
rapole moment another, non-sherical state is needed. I'm talking
normal deuterium here before it gets anywhere near any metal lattice
and nuclear not electron states.

I don't have any recent references handy but my old undergrad text
(Eisberg) gives an example calculation using a square well binding
force for the nucleus. To match the measured quadrapole moment they
calculate a 4% mix of 3D state. 

If this process is happening it should reduce the mix of 3D state in
Deuterium and hence the measured quadrapole moment. The recent paper
by Mills in Fusion Technology (again no refs handy) may contain a
clue. I am going to dig it out tonight. They claim evidence for
hydrinos in mass spectrometer measurements of CF cell off-gas. It 
may be a changed moment instead. 

Alternatively, there could be spectroscopic evidence in the D2
molecule's hyperfine structure. Here I actually have some practical
experience in that my MSc project was the measurement of the hyperfine
structure of the Iodine molecule and calculation of the nuclear
quadrapole - electron shell interaction. The D2 molecule shlould
be relatively easy to calculate but I don't know about the measure-
ments.

What delocalization is doing is providing a means of coupling 
to the Pd lattice or the non-band-state Deuterium sublattice. 

As for the scale of the energy I will look it up when I get time but
it will be in the Kev to Mev range I think so we still need a 
model for non-radiative transfer.

>I will also say that I would tend to class this sort of thing
>as atomic rather than nuclear, and we all know that the energy
>source for cold fusion can not possibly be atomic.

There are interesting debating points here. Is the addition of a
neutron to a proton a fusion reaction? I say yes, with the 3S state
the final conclusion of the reaction. Since the energy comes from 
neucleon interactions I would definitely call it a nuclear reaction
rather than atomic.

dave
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudendrd851 cudfnDavid cudlnDavies cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.01 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: Reply to Kunich
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reply to Kunich
Date: Mon, 1 Aug 1994 05:54:51 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

In article <940731152052_76570.2270_HHB43-1@compuserve.com>,
Eugene Mallove <76570.2270@compuserve.com> wrote:

>Yes, I have. And yes, the consequences for that US science "establishment" get
>more dire with each passing month. I don't give a damn whether you accept this
>or not. You are a mere cipher in all this, a perfect nitwit.

Yes Mr. Mallove, and you are a very intelligent man who just happens to
believe in the tooth fairy and perpetual motion. Since the universe has
opened itself to your personal understanding perhaps you can explain why
CNF hasn't generated a single commercial watt after 5 years?

Or better yet, maybe you could explain why there hasn't been a single
duplicable experiment. Or for that matter a sensible paper by someone
who claims to have positive results?

Surely in the face of so many nitwits you, an educated man, can offer
something better than stupid, groundless threats.

Let us suppose that Japan discovered limitless energy tomorrow. What effect
would it have on the US for our energy companies to be taken over by the
Japanese. Since power would then be limitless and cheaper than dirt to
what effect would ownership have?

Nitwits of the world unite. Dr. Mallove is going to give us the pure and
simple truth of the universe. Only he's going to take another 6 years
to get around to telling us that it will take only another 6 years to 
tell us it will take another 6 years, etc.

I'm thoroughly satisfied with your performance. Can't think of why no one
wants to invest in your company though.

cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.07.30 / Bruce TK /  Re: Ball Lightning Carlson
     
Originally-From: bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce       Scott          TK  )
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Ball Lightning Carlson
Date: 30 Jul 1994 12:16:32 GMT
Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching

In article <jac.775520182@gandalf>, jac@moonshine.llnl.gov (James A. Crotinger) writes:

|>   Actually, the GS equation also assumes that there is no macroscopic
|> plasma flow. Small flows (esp. toroidal flows) can be incorporated as
|> corrections. Macroscopic poloidal flows can change the structure of
|> the equation completely (it becomes hyperbolic rather than elliptic).

I assume you mean steady-state flows, and by "GS equation" you mean the
equilibrium version where the two magnetic terms and the pressure term
add up to zero. Note that it is possible not to assume equilibrium, and then
the GS equation's three terms become proportional to the net force on a
fluid element. You can use this in a dynamical model, so long as everything
stays two-dimensional.

In terms of this representation for the magnetic field:

     B = g \grad \phi + \grad G \cross \grad \phi,

where \phi is the angle about the symmetry axis, G is the flux, and
g = g(G), here is the GS equation:

     g (dg/dG) + R^2 \div (\grad G/R^2) + 4 pi R^2 (dp/dG) = 0,

where p is the pressure and R is the distance from the symmetry axis
(the coordinate system is cylindrical: R and z). The force on a fluid
element is proportional to the left side of this. The perpendicular 
momentum equation reads:

     n M_i (dv/dt) = - (1/4 pi R^2) \times

         \times  [ g \grad g + R^2 \div (\grad G/R^2) + 4 pi R^2 \grad p],

where M_i is the ion mass and n is the density. Note the similarity to the
GS equation. In the dynamical system, you then need equations for n and T
(since p = nT), g and G (including resistive decay), and probably also for 
u_parallel (the parallel ion velocity). As long as the poloidal field doesn't
vanish, a parallel gradient can still be represented in this two-dimensional
system. 

|> 
|>   Also, in your earlier post you mentioned
|> 
|> >     It would be imperative, however, that the current density be constant 
|> >     on each flux surface; otherwise div B would not vanish. One probably
|> 
|>   I'm not sure what you mean by "the current density be constant on
|> each flux surface". In general, neither the amplitude of the J nor its
|> poloidal and toroidal components are constant on a flux surface.
|> Similarly with B and its components.

Sorry, I meant div J in the above. If you can set it up such that div J
is zero, then it is OK. (Are you assuming some sort of low-epsilon
expansion with circular flux surfaces or is your argument general?)
In fact, you even need div_parallel J_parallel = 0 if you want an
equilibrium (look at the density equation -- I doubt the diamagnetic
current divergence term can oppose this).

Note that div J = 0 is itself an approximation, but a very good one for
motion on the scale of a few mm and larger.

-- 
Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de                               -- W Gibson
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnTK cudmo7 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.01 /  dowen@vaxc.cc. /  Re: Titanium "Dry Cold Fusion" revisited
     
Originally-From: dowen@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Titanium "Dry Cold Fusion" revisited
Date: 1 Aug 94 20:42:55 +1000
Organization: Computer Centre, Monash University, Australia

Hi Folks,
In article <harrCtpwEE.5JK@netcom.com>, harr@netcom.com
 (Charles (Chuck) Harrison) writes:
> The Reifenschweiler Ti:T anomaly [Reifenschweiler 1994a, 1994b] has
> sent me to the library for research on the Ti:H system (with various H
> isotopes) and especially Ti:O:

.........................Many lines deleted......................

> 
> I have formulated a working hypothesis to guide the review of Ti:T
> (Reifenschweiler) and Ti:D (cold fusion) data.  The conjecture is that
> hydrogen nuclei encounter a special environment in the zone at the inner
> (sub-stoichiometric) edge of the TiO2 surface layer.  In this environment,
> a bound pair of H nuclei can be trapped at a single tetrahedrally-coordinated
> interstitial site.  In this trapped state the nuclear pair interaction is
> strong enough to affect decay probabilities (Ti:T) or fusion probabilities
> (Ti:D).
> 

I have posted before about your neglect in giving due recognition to 
Eiichi Yamaguchi and Takashi Nishioka (1) and their (definitive:-) work
into thin films on D and H loaded substrate. Not seeing any reply
to my posts, I assumed that you either did not read them or considered
them not relevant, possibly because of their use of Pd rather than Ti.
However I must draw your attention to the fact that the formulation
of your above "working hypothesis" is so close to that of Yamaguchi 
et al (1) that it borders on plagiarism. I ask you to compare your
hypothesis to that of Yamaguchi et al when they state...........

"... .Thus, an over saturation phase layer an transiently form, in
which D-atoms are not only located at the octahedral (O-sites) but
at some of the tetrahedral (T-sites)...... "

".....However at the very moment of plastic deformation, the Pd-atom
rearrangement due to the production of defects can increase the 
potential magnitude at the displaced T sites to the order of 100 eV
as shown in Figs. 12(b) and 12(c). ....."

"... Therefore at the very moment of plastic deformation, the 
probability that D-atoms will approach each other enough to give a
high fusion rate will increase significantly. Although more 
sophisticated calculations are needed to check the validity of the 
"musical chairs" model we claim that the origin of the nuclear fusion
is the rapid vibration/movement of the host atoms."
 
> 
> While the idea of hydrogen pairing (double occupancy) may seem unlikely, it
> has been seriously proposed [Cotts 1991, Baker 1992] to explain anomalous
> NMR measurements in metal hydrides.  This work originated in 1987 and is
> completely independent of the "cold fusion" story.  It is also of note that
> oxide-contaminated Ti samples exhibit NMR anomalies [Torrey 1958,
> Korn 1970].
> 
> -Chuck Harrison
> 
> References
> ----------
> 
> References given by name, as [Reifenschweiler 1994a], are at:
>  file://sunsite.unc.edu/pub/academic/physics/cold-fusion/TiBib.txt,
> along with brief annotations by CH.
> 
> [1] E Botta, T Bressani, D Calvo, A Feliciello, P Gianotti, C Lamberti,
>      M Agnello, F Iazzi, B Minetti, A Zecchina, "Measurement of 2.5
>      MeV neutron emission from Ti/D and Pd/D systems", _Nuovo Cimento
>      A_ 105A(11):1663-1671 (1992).
> 
> [2] M Srinivasan, A Shyam, TC Kaushik, RK Rout, LV Kulkarni, MS Krishnan,
>      SK Malhotra, VG Nagvenkar, PK Iyengar, "Observation of tritium
>      in gas/plasma loaded titanium samples", in SE Jones, FE Scaramuzzi,
>      D Worledge (eds.), _AIP Conf. Proc 228, Anomalous Nuclear Effects
>      in Deuterium/Solid Systems, Provo UT, 1990_, AIP, 1991 (hereinafter
>      cited as [Provo 1990]).
> 
> [3] FE Cecil, H Liu, D Beddingfield, CS Galovich, "Observation of charged
>      particle bursts from deuterium loaded thin titanium foils", in
>      [Provo 1990].
> 
> [4] HO Menlove, MA Paciotti, TN Claytor, HR Maltrud, OM Rivera,
>      DG Tuggle, SE Jones, "Reproducible neutron emission measurements
>      from Ti metal in pressurized D2 gas", in [Provo 1990].
> 
> [5] M Fleischmann, S Pons, "Calorimetry of the Pd-D2O system: from
>      simplicity via complications to simplicity", _Phys Lett A_
>      176:118-129 (1993).
> 
> [6] AT Fromhold Jr, N Sato, "Two-phase oxide growth on pure metals",
>      in J Nowotny, ed., _Transport in Non-Stoichiometric Compounds,
>      Materials Science Monographs, 15_, Elsevier, 1982.
> 
> [7] IM Ritchie, "Diffusion in low temperature metal oxidation reactions",
>      in J Nowotny, ed., _Transport in Non-Stoichiometric Compounds,
>      Materials Science Monographs, 15_, Elsevier, 1982.
> 
> [8] D Das, MKS Ray, "Fusion in condensed matter - a likely scenario",
>      _Fusion Technology_ 24:115-121 (1993).
> 
> [9] Lipson AG, Klyuev VA, Toporov YuP, Deryagin BV, "Neutron generation
>      by mechanical activation of metal surfaces", _Pis'ma Zh. Tekh.
>      Fiz. 16(17):54 (1990). (In Russian).


Might I also suggest that J.T.Dickinson et al (2) has done some very
good work in fracto emmission?

Refs.  (1) Nuclear Fusion Induced by the Controlled Out-transport of
Deuterons in Palladium.  AIP Conference Proceedings No. 228.
       (2) Fracto-emission from Deuterated Titanium: Supporting
Evidence for a Fracto Fusion Mechanism.
J.T.Dickinson et al, Journal of Material Research, Vol 5, No1, Jan 1990. 


Best regards to all,
Daryl Owen.

Disclaimer: The above opinions are solely my own.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudendowen cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.01 /  dowen@vaxc.cc. /  cmsg cancel <1994Aug1.204838.1@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au>
     
Originally-From: dowen@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cmsg cancel <1994Aug1.204838.1@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au>
Date: 1 Aug 94 20:51:18 +1000
Organization: Monash University

cancel <1994Aug1.204838.1@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au>
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudendowen cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.01 /  dowen@vaxc.cc. /  Re: Titanium "Dry Cold Fusion" revisited
     
Originally-From: dowen@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Titanium "Dry Cold Fusion" revisited
Date: 1 Aug 94 21:01:50 +1000
Organization: Computer Centre, Monash University, Australia

Hi Folks,
Just a note to correct an error in my last post entitled...
Re:Titanium "Dry Cold Fusion" Revisited. 
Where I wrote............
"....order of 100 eV.....", substitute "..order of 1000 eV.."
My apologies.

Best Regards to all,
Daryl Owen.

cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudendowen cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.01 / Dick Jackson /  Re: Randell L. Mills and hydrinos
     
Originally-From: jackson@soldev.tti.com (Dick Jackson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.skeptic,pdx.general
Subject: Re: Randell L. Mills and hydrinos
Date: Mon, 1 Aug 1994 16:10:14 GMT
Organization: Citicorp-TTI at Santa Monica (CA) by the Sea

In article <31aaso$cop@linux4.ph.utexas.edu> dcook@linux4.ph.utexas.edu
(David M. Cook) writes:
>In article <317d66$pj3@sandra.teleport.com>,
>David Smith <davids@teleport.com> wrote:
>>
>>  ...a novel theory ... that unifies Maxwell's Equations, Newton's Law, 
>>  and Einstein's General and Special Relativity.
>
>Oh, I can do that.
>
>Dave Cook

Yes but the big trick is to get Darwin's theory of evolution in too.

Dick Jackson
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenjackson cudfnDick cudlnJackson cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.01 / Cameron Bass /  Re: MM-Pact Signatories, Update
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: MM-Pact Signatories, Update
Date: Mon, 1 Aug 1994 15:44:02 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1994Jul26.174822.8720@debug.cuc.ab.ca>,
 <Lforbes@debug.cuc.ab.ca> wrote:
>crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>> In article <940722141142_76570.2270_HHB69-2@CompuServe.COM>,
>> Eugene Mallove <76570.2270@compuserve.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >Signatories so far to the MM-Pact:
>> >
>> >Barry Merriman       7/20/94
>> >barry@math.ucla.edu
>> >
>> >Laurie Forbes        7/20/94
>> >lforbes@debug.cuc.ab.ca
>Dale Base wrote:
>> 
>>     Said signatories must not have read the sucker clause.  'Something else'
>>     covers a lot of ground, especially from authors of the 'First Law 
>>     Violator of the Week' piece and other gems.  I suspect the problem 
>>     here is that no one trusts the good judgement of the offering party, 
>>     for good reason.
>> 
>I'm not sure why the 'Something else' constitutes a 'sucker clause'.  If 
>excess heat is produced (not to say that it actually is), the process is 
>irrelevant is it not, be it nuclear, 'super-chemical' or whatever?
>
>Regards,
>Laurie Forbes

    Mr. Mallove's 'standard of proof' for such processes is somewhat
    different than mine, I strongly suspect.  In the event that two years
    rolls around with the absolutely no change in the experimental situation,
    Mr. Mallove can just explain that they *are already* getting excess heat
    (likely the result of applying steady/equilibrium measuring techniques
    to blatently transient problems), it's been reported in journals such 
    as Phys. Lett. A. and his own magazine, it's been accepted by Japanese
    and American patent investigators, and the cause is 'something else'.
    
    'Cause' is very important here, because I'm skeptical of the measurements.

    Besides, as reported by Mr. Mallove himself, Mr. Mallove's track record 
    on such bets is apparently not stellar.

                                  dale bass



cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.01 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Randell L. Mills and hydrinos
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.skeptic,pdx.general
Subject: Re: Randell L. Mills and hydrinos
Date: Mon, 1 Aug 1994 15:53:03 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <775620365snz@mccombes.demon.co.uk>,
Paul McCombes <paul@mccombes.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <31dj8q$t0n@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>
>           dcook@utpapa.ph.utexas.edu "David M. Cook" writes:
>
>> 
>> You can view Newton's Laws as approximations to Kaluza-Klein theory.
>> In this sense K-K theory "contains" Newton's Laws.
>> K-K theory unifies GR and E&M by adding on a "compactified" 5th dimenstion.
>> 
>> Dave Cook
>> 
>Wrong, thank you for trying. **BONG**. You can only view Newton's laws as an 
>approximation to K-K's 'theory' if they give the same predictions as SR and GR. 
>They are not even close. If you feel like an argument then what is the maximum 
>speed postulated by Newtons laws? And what is the maximum speed postulateed by 
>KK, or SR, or GR?

     **BZZZT**, ask for your consolation prize on the way out the door.

     If one theory makes the same predictions as another,
     then they are functionally the *same* theory, no 'approximation' involved.
     On the other hand, the term 'approximation' means (cf. OED, Webster's), 
     'sometimes good, sometimes bad' as in 'v << c = good, v -> c = bad'.  

                            dale bass

cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.02 /   /  Return of the experimenter?
     
Originally-From: BERNECKY@V70A.decnet (V70A::BERNECKY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Return of the experimenter?
Date: Tue, 2 Aug 1994 00:55:21 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway


 > I enjoyed your write up a lot.  Are there any plans to test it?
 > Unfortunately my machine is busticated, and I do not yet have much
 > incentive to build a new one.
 > 
 > Tom Droege

Thanks Tom.  Are you offering? If so, I accept.


cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenBERNECKY cudln cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.01 /  mark.maxwell@p /  What's the score?        
     
Originally-From: mark.maxwell@prophet.mpx.com.au
Originally-From: MMax@Prophet.mpx.com.au
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: What's the score?        
Subject: What's the score?
Date: Mon, 01 Aug 94 21:07:11 est
Organization: Prophet Computer Services

Originally-From: MMax@Prophet.mpx.com.au
To: all
Subject: What's the score?

I logged on to this conference through my natural interest as an
Electrical contractor to see maybe what the score is with CF
developments, whether it is a possibility in the near (or far) future.

All I have been able to find so far is very long discussions about
press releases, congress funding, politics, back biting, and some
most unusual comments from some character called Ludwig Somenoeorother.

So can some one please tell me is there a possibility for the dream power
source?

Or is there a straight answer out there somewhere?

Or is my dream about a dream just a dream?

Regards to all
Mark Maxwell
---
 ~ SPEED 1.30 [NR] ~ Open mouth, insert foot, echo internationally.

cudkeys:
cuddy01 cudenmaxwell cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Tue Aug  2 04:37:05 EDT 1994
------------------------------
1994.08.02 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Ball Lightning Carlson
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Ball Lightning Carlson
Date: Tue, 2 Aug 1994 04:03:01 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <31beuqINN1jpc@sat.ipp-garching.mpg.de> bds@ipp-garching.mpg.
e (Bruce       Scott          TK  ) writes:
>
>In article <Ctny0A.LE6@prometheus.UUCP>, 
>	pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) writes:
>
>[we agree that the plasmak is axisymmetric as an ideal configuration, if one
> neglects small fluctuations in things like density which change on a time
> scale much faster than a confinement time]
>
>|> >I was worried about the "helical transition" due to some sort of kink
>|> >instability that Jim alluded to in an e-mail about a year ago. Sorry, guys,
>|> >I cannot think in 3-D. That is why I need formulas.
>|> 
>|> Why?   It's  2D with a collapsing twist.      :-)
>
>What is a "collapsing twist"?   

Coalescence  

>|> >OK, here is what I assume about the configuration: 
>|> >  -- the magnetic field components are all functions of two variables,
>|> >     which I can call R and z. R is the perpendicular distance from the 
>|> >     "symmetry axis", and z is the distance parallel to that axis from a
>|> >     plane perpendicular to that axis. This plane I call the "midplane".
>|> >     Note that the configuration is not required to be symmetric about
>|> >     the midplane.   
>|> 
>|> Let's call your "midplane" the "equatorial plane" and the medial plane
>|> the one which includes both R and z elemental vectors.

>Good. This is why I took so much trouble to define these things. The
>"medial plane" is also called the "poloidal plane", right?

Yes!  A plane of poloidal field lines are parallel to and within the
medial plane.  

>|> Otherwise Correct: 
>|> where: Axis == Major Axis

>No, the major axis is a measure of the average distance of a point within
>the plasma kernel (your words) from the symmetry axis. The symmetry axis is
>vertical, and the plasma kernel forms a horizontal ring around it.

Yes the Kernel plasma encircles the MAJOR magnetic AXIS (symmetry axis-
vertical), while the minor axis is circumscribed by the medial major 
RADIUS of the Kernel plasma in the equatorial or midplane.  
Axis ain't no measured distance, from nothin.  

FOR EXAMPLE
A radius MAY be (minor OR major).  The surface of a circular torus 
is at MINOR RADIUS  "b" from the minor axis of the torus.  The 
MINOR AXIS of the torus is at Major Radius "A" from the Major 
toroidal (magnetic | symmetry) axis.    But the Major Axis being
permanently affixed to the Ball Lightning's spirit, is just
drifting around in the room, and has no fixed location or reference
distance, (mostly, because no one believes they exist, and to take
a measurement could be devastating to ones tenure.   Are we 
coming together here?  

>|> >  -- the magnetic field and the current density are zero on the symmetry 
>|> >     axis.
 
>|> NOT, unless you are speaking in mathematical trivial sense of 
>|> the limit of the Mag field density at a point is undefined. 
>|> or curl of (loop of current circulating within a point has no
>|> radius and therefore is null value.   Junky stuff like that. 

>Yes, I've been corrected on this. The magnetic field on the symmetry axis 
>must be poloidal in an axisymmetric system, but the poloidal component can
>have arbitrary value.

Yes, arbitrary until fixed by establishing its reference to the boundary
conditions.  

>|> NO the (plasma sampling) field density on AXIS (intersection with 
>|> equatorial plane, for example) has value --  15kG ish. and diverging 
>|> elsewhere.  

>I guess what you mean is that the toroidal component of the field
>naturally becomes finite away from the axis. Is the field strength a
>minimum on the axis?

Specify major or minor please.  
We shall confine our discussion to BL's which are "simple" PMK's in
that they have no net current down the major axis and no field 
within the vacuum poloidal field region of the Kernel.  Here, we 
speak of a Kernel plasma with a hole and correspondingly a "jacket"
of vacuum poloidal field.  Consequently, the "toroidal field" on 
the Major axis is zero.   Further the poloidal field crossing the
equatoridal plane is at a minimum at the major axis, and relative 
to the region of the equatorial plane which intersects the "vacuum 
hole".   In other words, the poloidal field "sags a bit" in the 
hole of the plasma donut.  

>|> >  -- upon some closed domain in (R,z), the magnetic field is zero. Let the
>|> 
>|> >     surface of revolution of this domain about the symmetry axis be called 
>|> >     the "plasma boundary".
>|> 
>|> In general there is such a boundary.  
>|> True, for a first cut.  In reality .. about 2%  eh!  is not 
>|> current neutralized at the surface of revolution. 
>|>         SAID plasma boundary == The Mantle/vacuum field interface).  
>|> But save 2% worry for later if battles over the need for polar jets 
>|> errupt.  

>If there are three regions, I intended "plasma boundary" to be the
>boundary surface of the plasma kernel. I would use "mantle boundary"
>for the vacuum/mantle interface, and "outer boundary" for the surface
>enclosing the entire device. In your lab there may be no outer boundary,
>but I need a place to truncate the spatial region in which to solve the
>dynamical equations.

>We went wrong over my use of the word "gas", which you take as not
>being a plasma. "Gas pressure" was used to discriminate against
>"magnetic pressure" (especially since I didn't know about the vacuum
>separating the plasma from the mantle -- I'm not sure about that but
>we'll see what the code says).

>Total integrated energy. I assume you mean field energy. In any case,
>I only need closed flux surfaces for the part that does not involve
>fluctuations, and a small correction can be counted as a fluctuation.
>Unless... there is no rigorously axisymmetric equilibrium for this
>set-up, in which case the system may or may not relax to a spheromak
>surrounded by neutral gas -- and no vacuum separation region. We'll
>learn that if it is the case. That's the nice thing about a code which
>does not assume an equilibrium.

What are you trying to say.  It's a bit too rambling  -- even for me!!
                        :-)


>What do you mean by "well twisted"? q less than one? [q is the field line
>pitch in the plasma region: how many times a field line is followed 
>toroidally before it makes one poloidal turn] What do you envisage for
>a q?

That depends on TWO things.   
       First:    How much toroidal field you put into the plasma Kernel.  
                          ( like -- WIND UP  you give the clock spring) 

       Second:  What minor radial position (toroidal flux surface) you
                       follow around.  On the outside Big .. inside NOT.


>What is "biggish" taken in relation to? Plasma pressure? Poloidal field?

I don't know, -- can't remember the context.  

>I remember from before that you envisage beta = O(1). [beta is the
>ratio of gas pressure to magnetic pressure, and magnetic pressure is
>B squared over 8 pi]    Where 8pi the geometrical constant for the 
choosen metric system?   I usually leave off..  :-(

>|> >  -- is the gas in the mantle neutral (this is probably not necessary for
>|> >     a computation)?

>|> Yes, unless charged by an electrostatic source, which is not likely to
>|> persist since the ionization (electrostatic radial force) would spray 
>|> or wipe such charge away by convective diffusion.  

>You are forgetting that the plasma may be ionised and still be neutral.

No I am not, I forgot to say (in the spirit of the question)  NET difference
IONIZATION  or better said  "EXCESS CHARGE".   Please note that the 
Mantle is nearly completely neutralizing "magnetically" since the field
is nearly completely nulled by the boundary current.       

>By convective diffusion do you mean large- or small-scale motion (of order
>the minor radius or much smaller)?
 
I was speaking of the Mantle.  In such case, I was speaking of the loosely
held outermost gradient layers which include molecular ions (molecules
each with attached additional electron) 

>There should be no strong radial electric fields simply from ionisation.

>By neutral I meant not ionised. Are the mantle gas particles ions or atoms (or
>molecules)?

Ha!  Silly question.  Yes you are correct.  it is all  in nicely 
organized graded bins.  Tall guys in back short ones in front.. now
pass.. and don't lower the stuff too much between pass off's..  get
the picture.. no...   tough this is to much for this thread...   

Look for your picture, you see a hyperconducting surface and after that
a very insulating layer that impedes transport  BIG TIME.    Way
out on the other side of the P-curve. 

>|> >  -- can the magnetic field be described by a "Grad-Shafronov equation"?
>|> >     This equation is used to descibe tokamak equilibria, but I would think
>|> >     one need only change the form of the toroidal field to make it general.
>|> Hmmm!.   I'm not familiar enough to answer the question, and my interest
>|> would be that the equivalence between current form and field forms are
>|> general enough to handle this non-fixed coil case.  

>The answer to my question is yes, as I've been advised independently.
>The presence or absence of coils is merely a boundary condition.

Yeah! ... sure!! but the only way that boundary condition can be 
expressed.    Right???    Now your skill and cleverness will be 
put to good purpose.   ( no offense means "to the test")

>|> Can the G-S equation
>|> handle the interact between the flip of toroidal currents to follow
>|> poloidal-toroidal field screw, producing an increased poloidal current
>|> component at the expense of toroidal current.  

>Describe this "screw" in more detail. Is this a dynamical process?
>It turns out that the G-S equation can describe any axisymmetric MHD
>equilibrium -- further, taking the G-S equation to read "stuff = 0",
>the "stuff" is proportional to the force on a plasma element, allowing
>use even in a dynamical situation.

Yes, but it does perturbations that aren't axisymmetric erhh! -- "likely 
are not".  

Sounds good.. but! has it worked.. try this!??

Coils on   then I(plasma) on.  mostly I(tor) 

Now there is  B(pol) present due to I(tor)   Bpol + Btor (coil) =
B(screw)       Plasma gets hot .. and the current wants to screw..
so               we have Itor (1-eta) and Ipol(eta) and I(tor) drops 

Then   Bpol drops       Then I(screw) drops  because of loss of
                      I(pol) due to less Bpol 
                      then I(tor) increases and the cycle can
                      start again.     
The theory is that a tokamak is a nasty beast that must be constrained
to not screw.. (become a Spheromak), and so a huge mean toroidal
confining coil  YANKS  the current back to being more toroidal after
each of its promicous excursions.  This whips the fields, and that
chugs the plasma with a splash that causes it to CHURN in the 
central portion of the tokamak thereby mixing across the central
cross-section.  This levels the radial temperture distribution and
allows for fatter more stable currents to flow and not thermally
"neck down" to a more kinky and whippy hotter but constricted
channel.   

 This has not been a Rigorous presentation, but with a an exponent
here and a term there.. it could make interesting party conversation.  

                 Now, Just read a post where J Crotinger of LLNL
thinks that such a scenario may not be such a quick study for G-S.  
 

>|> There is then a drop
>|> in poloidal component and a relaxation back to more toroidal current. 
>|> Thus the upshot is a see-sawing of the currents and fields and a 
>|> generating or a churning or sloshing of fields in the tokamaks central 
>|> region.  G-S predicts this??

>When it is dynamical, yes, as long as the whole system is 2-D. If this
>"sloshing" is a three-dimensional dynamical process, then I can still
>use the 2-D equilibrium with its field representation to define the
>coordinate system, and treat the rest as fluctuations. At least for a
>low-beta plasma. It gets much harder for beta = O(1). Don't hold your
>breath awaiting the results.

As James C says plasma translation  in the wash machine slosh may not
be so easy.   Of course, we probably don't have any of that in our
problem, since the system is smooooootthhhh and hyperconductivity 
makes it insensitive to thermal fluxuations in the plasma.  

>|> >     It would be imperative, however, that the current density be constant 
>|> >     on each flux surface; otherwise div B would not vanish. One probably
>|> >     needs the gas pressure to be constant on each flux surface as well,
>|> >     at least up to corrections of order d/a, where a is the approximate
>|> >     linear dimension of the plasma boundary in the Rz-plane, and d is
>|> >     the width of an ion orbit within the magnetic field, centered on a
>|> >     given flux surface.

>|> whoa!  What are you saying..  let's look at the Kernel (when you describe
>|> it).  Is it necessary to worry about plasma perturbations in a low
>|> beta system?  I say this because the energy computation should not
>|> be effected that much if the system is pumped with plasma or not.   
>|> Unless the plasma carries much much more E-den/cc than mag fields.  
>|> (not so obvious -- since the extra field snugs the system).  

>Yes it is. You can still get transonic flows parallel to the field if
>not. And then the pressure and its gradient can drive one of many different
>possible instabilities on still pretty fast timescales. Look at the
>tokamak :-) The energy reservoir for even most tokamak instabilities
>is simply the gas pressure of the plasma: density times temperature.

But go back and read what you said orginally.  Do you mean the 
gas pressure is in local equilibrium??  Perhaps the nested surfaces
would produce a radial pressure gradient. If so your proposition 
would render variable Beta.. which is not impossible or unthinkable.   
On the other hand, the plasma beta might be made locally constant 
across such a field distribution.   Your proposition suggest looking 
for a .. . (minds gone). variable having validity in
a range of regimes?? . word.. ehh !   I'll grab a few winks at this
point..  soory  bye bye.    
>[other stuff deleted]
>-- 
>Gruss,
>Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
>Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
>bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de                               -- W Gibson
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc, Bx 1037 Prometheus II Ltd, College Park MD 20741-1037    |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.02 / Anime Triad /  HEAVY WATER...?
     
Originally-From: triadinc@netcom.com (Anime Triad)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: HEAVY WATER...?
Date: Tue, 2 Aug 1994 07:09:24 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

Hi, I caught part of a documentry about germany experimenting with heavy 
water during WW-II. I think I know what they were trying to produce, but 
physics was not something I did well in. I was wondering if someone could 
give me a paragraph in reply, to what it is, what's it for, and perhaps a 
line or two on how they were making it.

Thank you very much
EDWARD 
-- 
______________________________________________________________________________
 
                    TOKUMA SHOTEN PUBLISHING CO.,LTD. (r)
  4-10-1, Shimbashi, Minato-ku, Tokyo, Japan  Zip:105-55 tel: (03) 3422-6231
  10900 N.E. 4th, SUITE 1150, Bellevue, Wash  Zip:98004  tel: (206) 646-8340
______________________________________________________________________________

                   TRIAD INCORPORATED (r) "the anime triad"

    			     triadinc@netcon.com

  Lee Thompson  Edward Hawkins  Kathleen Andrews  Anthony Mumm  Lissa Venaas 
______________________________________________________________________________
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudentriadinc cudfnAnime cudlnTriad cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.02 / L Plutonium /  Re: CANON PATENT CHALLENGED BY THE PLUTONIUM ATOM FOUNDATION
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,alt.sci.physics.plutonium
Subject: Re: CANON PATENT CHALLENGED BY THE PLUTONIUM ATOM FOUNDATION
Date: 2 Aug 1994 11:34:21 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In article <316dmm$sdc@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium) writes:

> I quote from NEW SCIENTIST 25JUN1994, page 23 Patents,  " Cold Fusion
> rides again " 
>         " COLD fusion is the latest topic on the agenda of the Japanese
> company Canon, best known for cameras, bubblejet printers and other
> office equipment.
>         In 1989 Martin Fleischman and Stanley Pons claimed that fusion could
> be initiated at room temperature by electrolysing heavy water (which
> contains disproportionate amounts of the hydrogen isotope deuterium)
> with a titanium or palladium cathode. But the Japanese were worried
> about the risk of an explosion caused by high gas pressure.
>         Canon's patent (EP 568 118) claims new ways to absorb large volumes of
> deuterium in a metal carrier, by putting it close to a pair of
> electrodes to create a gas discharge in a hydrogen-filled chamber. Cold
> fusion is promoted by cycling the power supply through low and high
> voltages.
>         The carrier can be a block of magnesium alloy or palladium alloy. For
> safety, the hydrogen gas is at atmospheric pressure. The pulsed power
> comes from large capacitors, and the electrodes are shaped to
> concentrate the electric field.
>         After storing deuterium in a palladium alloy for 60 minutes, says
> Canon, the deuterium content had increased, with a tenfold increase in
> gamma ray emission after 120 hours. Applying five-minute cycles of 5
> and 500 volts DC for 50 hours produced a twentyfold increase in
> emission. More heat was generated at the negative electrode than the
> electric energy consumed at the two electrodes. All this, says Canon,
> proves that cold fusion works. " Nuclear fusion can be occasioned
> relatively easily . . . and thus a method for multiplying heat energy
> capable of generating a sufficiently large quantity of heat energy for
> a practical application," it claims. "
> --------------------------------------------------------
>   The Plutonium Atom Foundation challenges/disputes/(and if need be,
> will sue) over this patent granted to Canon. 
>   I, Ludwig Plutonium had filed for USA patent Patent 
> Ser. No.: 07/737,170
> 
> Filing Date: 07/29/91
>  SPONTANEOUS NEUTRON MATERIALIZATION DEVICES (SNMD) 
>                         CLAIM FOR THE INVENTION
> 
>         I claim: 
>         1. Devices constructed, engineered, and set-up for the purpose of
> deriving, and using net energy from radioactive spontaneous neutron
> materialization. 
>         2. A method for induction of radioactive spontaneous neutron
> materialization comprising:
>         a changing electric current i flow through the fuel mass
>         a changing electric potential difference V through the fuel mass.
> ---------------------------------------------------
> That above is what was claimed in that patent. The history of cold
> fusion-- The History of Cold Fusion is summarized as such: F. Paneth
> and K. Peters in Berlin in 1926; J. Tanberg of Sweden 1927; M.
> Fleischmannn and S. Pons et al in Utah in 1989. What Canon has found in
> experiments is nothing "new" as per cold fusion experiments.
> Fleischmann and Pons experiments are nothing "new" as per Paneth and
> Peters.
> 
> What Canon has done which is new and patentable is PULSING. This
> pulsing is nothing more than changing electric current i or changing V
> as per my patent application.That was 1/2 of my patent application.
> Canon, and noone else has come up with what "cold fusion" (a bad choice
> of terms because cold fusion and hot fusion are really
> electromagnetism/radioactivities on a higher level than Maxwell Eq
> theory), except me. Cold fusion is radioactive spontaneous neutron
> materialization. 
> 
> So then, Canon's patent (EP 568 118) amounts to theft of intellectual
> and patent application rights of Ludwig Plutonium.
> 
> I respectfully request that Canon officials meet with me. I will sell
> them all patent rights and claims to Patent Application Ser. No.:
> 07/737,170. PAF's price is 5 million USA worth of Canon stock shares.
> This is serious business. Sincerely, Ludwig Plutonium
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.02 / Robert Heeter /  Re: Advanced Fuel Cycles
     
Originally-From: rfheeter@pppl.gov (Robert F. Heeter)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Advanced Fuel Cycles
Date: 2 Aug 1994 09:53:21 -0400
Organization: /etc/organization

In article <30h1al$bn6@lsi.lsil.com>, Ken Doniger <doniger@cimd16.cam> wrote:
>Robert Heeter asked for references on the Penning Trap confinement scheme.
>These are one year old.  There may be more by now.
>
>Leaf Turner and D. C. Barnes,  Phys Rev Lett  vol 70 number 6 page 798
>D. C. Barnes and L. Turner,  Phys Fluids B  vol 4 number 12 page 3890
>Barnes, Nebel and Turner, Los Alamos internal report LA-UR-93-314
>    (this was to be submitted to Phys Fluids B).
>
>You can contact Barnes at dbarnes@ctrss2.lanl.gov
>In the letter he wrote to me, he stated that he would like to discuss the
>ideas raised in these articles.

Thanks for the references and the contact.  Unfortunately I've been
swamped lately (and will be in the future), so I haven't been able to
follow up other than to collect the references you listed.

Hopefully I'll be incorporating this into the FAQ somehow, but
that's going to take a while.  I'll contact Barnes if I have more
questions...

*******************************
Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@pppl.gov
Graduate Student, Princeton Plasma Physics Lab
Usual disclaimers apply...





cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.02 /  prasad /  Griggs machine: a possible solution?
     
Originally-From: c1prasad@watson.ibm.com (prasad)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.energy
Subject: Griggs machine: a possible solution?
Date: 2 Aug 1994 13:55:19 GMT
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center


This refers to the Griggs hydrosonic steam-generator, claimed to produce
upto 168% output (ie. 68% excess energy).

I was reading a thermodynamics text late last night, and it said that
if one could build a fuel cell that sustained a *reversible* reaction
of the form 2C + O2 -> 2CO, in which the gas volume *increases* by
the reaction, the net efficiency could be as high as 150%.  The excess
energy results from the entropy component because of the increased gas
volume.

Could something similar be happening in the Griggs machine?  After all,
though it's not strictly a chemical reaction, the net result is that
the cohesion of water is broken and there is a sharp increase in volume.

Has this angle been considered already?  If so, what's the difference,
could someone help me understand?

Thank you.
 
-- 

#pragma prejudices=own brainwaves=own others=absolved
// email: 71155.3116@compuserve.com, poll= 1/month.
// bad habits: unwashed robes, xrn.
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenc1prasad cudlnprasad cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.02 / Tom Droege /  Re: Return of the experimenter?
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Return of the experimenter?
Date: 2 Aug 1994 17:39:57 GMT
Organization: fermilab

In article <9408011606.AA18787@suntan.Tandem.com>, BERNECKY@V70A.decnet 
(V70A::BERNECKY) says:
>
>
> > I enjoyed your write up a lot.  Are there any plans to test it?
> > Unfortunately my machine is busticated, and I do not yet have much
> > incentive to build a new one.
> > 
> > Tom Droege
>
>Thanks Tom.  Are you offering? If so, I accept.
>

Well, I am just crazy enough to keep trying this silly game.  I have seen
a few things that I did not understand.  There is also the business of
trying to do a real experiment on line that would be fun to explore.  How
about it?  Are there a few good men that would like to try an on line 
experiment.  We could start by planning the experiment here.  Then we 
could see who would vonunteer to take on various tasks.  

Remember that there seemed to be funny things happening at specific 
temperatures on the last runs testing Bernecky's ideas.  But I am tired
of working alone.  I want at least 4 or 5 good people interacting.  I am
willing to build a calorimeter.  But I want someone else to volunteer to
build a cell to test.  

Also I don't want to work in a panic anymore.  The first two calorimeters
were built as if I was racing to be the first to fly.  Now we know that 
this is real slow standard science - with perhaps a 5 year horizon.  
Anyone want to work under those conditions?

My assumption is that there is science here.  But for all the reasons that
everyone knows so well it is not apt to be conventional fusion.  It may
be just strange chemistry, or an unexplored experimental artifact.  The 
hope is to collect a few good men and to have fun looking for whatever 
there is to be found.  

Tom Droege

PS I may never sell water machines, so I have to do something!
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.02 / Tom Droege /  Re: What's the score?
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What's the score?
Date: 2 Aug 1994 18:50:15 GMT
Organization: fermilab

In article <19940808.88@prophet.mpx.com.au>, 
mark.maxwell@prophet.mpx.com.au says:
>
>From: MMax@Prophet.mpx.com.au
>To: all
>Subject: What's the score?
>
>I logged on to this conference through my natural interest as an
>Electrical contractor to see maybe what the score is with CF
>developments, whether it is a possibility in the near (or far) future.
>
>All I have been able to find so far is very long discussions about
>press releases, congress funding, politics, back biting, and some
>most unusual comments from some character called Ludwig Somenoeorother.
>
>So can some one please tell me is there a possibility for the dream power
>source?
>
>Or is there a straight answer out there somewhere?
>
>Or is my dream about a dream just a dream?
>
>Regards to all
>Mark Maxwell
>---
> ~ SPEED 1.30 [NR] ~ Open mouth, insert foot, echo internationally.
>

It is nice to see that we have an electrical contractor out there just 
waiting to pipe the power away from our efforts.  Welcome abord Mark.

I would not invest in Megavolt insulators or 500,000 cm aluminum cable 
just yet.  There are straight answers here.  They are "No", "Yes", and
"Maybe".  I am in the last camp, but I would give it a lower probability
than winning most lotteries.  

Ludwig is here to check out how your brain is wired.  If he makes sense to 
you, I would suggest that you have your brain wiring tested.  

We are all dreamers on this bus.

Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.02 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Ball Lightning Carlson
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Ball Lightning Carlson
Date: Tue, 2 Aug 1994 16:00:14 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <31dgb0INN10j0@sat.ipp-garching.mpg.de> bds@ipp-garching.mpg.
e (Bruce       Scott          TK  ) writes:
>In article <jac.775520182@gandalf>, jac@moonshine.llnl.gov (James A. Crotinger) writes:
>|> >     It would be imperative, however, that the current density be constant 
>|> >     on each flux surface; otherwise div B would not vanish. One probably

>|>   I'm not sure what you mean by "the current density be constant on
>|> each flux surface". In general, neither the amplitude of the J nor its
>|> poloidal and toroidal components are constant on a flux surface.
>|> Similarly with B and its components.

>Sorry, I meant div J in the above. If you can set it up such that div J
>is zero, then it is OK. (Are you assuming some sort of low-epsilon
>expansion with circular flux surfaces or is your argument general?)
>In fact, you even need div_parallel J_parallel = 0 if you want an
>equilibrium (look at the density equation -- I doubt the diamagnetic
>current divergence term can oppose this).

>Note that div J = 0 is itself an approximation, but a very good one for
>motion on the scale of a few mm and larger.

Hmmm! scale could be a factor here.  
For example, in a small PMK the toroidal current is 274kA while the
Kernel volume is 70cc.  Consequently, a few mm are more like ?tens of 
decimeters? in a tokamak. 

>-- 
>Gruss,
>Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
>Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
>bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de                               -- W Gibson
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc, Bx 1037 Prometheus II Ltd, College Park MD 20741-1037    |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+


cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Wed Aug  3 04:37:03 EDT 1994
------------------------------
1994.08.02 / Timothy Call /  Re: What's the score?
     
Originally-From: ind00131@pegasus.cc.ucf.edu (Timothy Call)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What's the score?
Date: 2 Aug 1994 17:40:36 -0400
Organization: University of Central Florida

mark.maxwell@prophet.mpx.com.au wrote:
: From: MMax@Prophet.mpx.com.au
: To: all
: Subject: What's the score?

: I logged on to this conference through my natural interest as an
: Electrical contractor to see maybe what the score is with CF
: developments, whether it is a possibility in the near (or far) future.

: All I have been able to find so far is very long discussions about
: press releases, congress funding, politics, back biting, and some
: most unusual comments from some character called Ludwig Somenoeorother.

: So can some one please tell me is there a possibility for the dream power
: source?

: Or is there a straight answer out there somewhere?

: Or is my dream about a dream just a dream?

: Regards to all
: Mark Maxwell
: ---
:  ~ SPEED 1.30 [NR] ~ Open mouth, insert foot, echo internationally.

From what I can gather, a lot of careful experimental work from many
different labs indicates the existence of a phenomenon that produces more
energy out of a system than is input into it. The precise mechanism of
this phenomenon is not well understood and is a matter of intense debate. 
There is an archive available that contains a listing of important papers 
on both sides of the issue since the initial announcement of the effect 
in 1989. For a fairly well balanced account of the current state of 
"Cold Fusion" research see the front page article published in the Wall 
Street Journal about two or three weeks ago. For a considerably more in 
depth treatment, see the latest edition of "Cold Fusion Magazine" which 
ought to be available in one of your better neighborhood bookstores. I 
hope this is of assistance.
                           Tim

cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenind00131 cudfnTimothy cudlnCall cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.02 / Paul McCombes /  Re: Randell L. Mills and hydrinos
     
Originally-From: paul@mccombes.demon.co.uk (Paul McCombes)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.skeptic,pdx.general
Subject: Re: Randell L. Mills and hydrinos
Date: Tue, 2 Aug 1994 19:35:20 +0000
Organization: None

In article <Ctv5GF.6F5@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
           crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU "Cameron Randale Bass" writes:

> In article <775620365snz@mccombes.demon.co.uk>,
> Paul McCombes <paul@mccombes.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >In article <31dj8q$t0n@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>
> >           dcook@utpapa.ph.utexas.edu "David M. Cook" writes:
> >
> >> 
> >> You can view Newton's Laws as approximations to Kaluza-Klein theory.
> >> In this sense K-K theory "contains" Newton's Laws.
> >> K-K theory unifies GR and E&M by adding on a "compactified" 5th dimenstion.
> >> 
> >> Dave Cook
> >> 
> >Wrong, thank you for trying. **BONG**. You can only view Newton's laws as an 
> >approximation to K-K's 'theory' if they give the same predictions as SR and
>  GR. 
> >They are not even close. If you feel like an argument then what
is the maximum > >speed postulated by Newtons laws? And what is
the maximum speed postulateed by > >KK, or SR, or GR?
> 
>      **BZZZT**, ask for your consolation prize on the way out the door.
> 
>      If one theory makes the same predictions as another,
>      then they are functionally the *same* theory, no 'approximation' involved.
>      On the other hand, the term 'approximation' means (cf. OED, Webster's), 
>      'sometimes good, sometimes bad' as in 'v << c = good, v -> c = bad'.  
> 
>                             dale bass
The original post was unifying 'General and Special Relativity, and Newton's 
Laws...(and a few other things)'. General relativity superceded Newton's laws 
in more than a quantitative sense - it brings an entirely different perspective 
to physics (for example the equivalence of inertial and gravitational mass). 
They are functionally different. The theories do not make comparable 
predictions except in the low v, low m case. Even then they are slightly out, 
or did I miss the bit about moving clocks run slow in Newtonian physics - 
detectable at everyday speeds using aeroplanes and atomic clocks. According to 
your definition then Newton isn't even an approximation as its 'mostly wrong, 
sometimes close, and once in a while close enough so as we can't tell the 
difference'.

Anyway, you should set your clocks to run backwards, as then they will show the 
correct time more often.
-- 
Paul McCombes
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenpaul cudfnPaul cudlnMcCombes cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.02 / C Harrison /  Re: Titanium "Dry Cold Fusion" revisited (plagiarized?)
     
Originally-From: harr@netcom.com (Charles (Chuck) Harrison)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Titanium "Dry Cold Fusion" revisited (plagiarized?)
Date: Tue, 2 Aug 1994 23:18:55 GMT
Organization: Fitful

Daryl Owen's recent post shows, perhaps, the pitfalls of text communication
without "tone of voice".  I suppose that my phrase
 "I have formulated a working hypothesis..."
came out sounding like
 "Look how smart I am, I just came up with THE ANSWER all by myself!..."

That's not what I meant (or how I feel) at all.  This is all in a very
tentative, "let's kick some ideas around" mode.  The nicest thing that
could happen here at the college of s.p.f is for someone to say "yeah,
I've  been thinking pretty hard  about that one and it's got this 
problem", or "that hypothesis fits even  better if you adjust it like 
so".  It's not like I'm trying to claim priority or something.  Alot of 
bright people have looked at this stuff a few years ago and I'm sure 
there have been interesting ideas sloshing around fermenting in peoples 
brains.  

I _did_ read a Yamaguchi and Nishioka preprint quite awhile ago (courtesy
of JR), so it's likely enough that they contributed to my line of thought.
My _personal_ "Aha!", though, was centered on the oxygen participation.
And, it's true, I have made a definite decision to concentrate on the Ti
system, rather than Pd.  There's months of research left just to come up to 
speed on what's presently known about Ti, Ti:H, and Ti:O behaviors; 
never mind about the nuclear stuff!  (Incidentally, it's d*****d 
interesting on its own.  Have you seen the Ti:O phase diagram? Neat 
sublattice stuff in Ti(x)O and even TiO itself.)

So, come all ye with interesting citations!  I have the luxury of access
to a few good libraries, so I'm likely to look them up (at least if they
have Ti in them).  I don't have the luxury of a lab to handle tritium,
but I'm in contact with a few people who do, and some of these ideas
may actually get tested.

Cheers,
  Chuck
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenharr cudfnCharles cudlnHarrison cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.03 / Richard Blue /  Reply to Dave Davies
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Reply to Dave Davies
Date: Wed, 3 Aug 1994 00:30:48 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Thanks for the added clarification of your thinking concerning the
possible role of a deuteron quadrapole moment as a source of CF
energy.  However, I must say your thinking is clearly flawed.  You
are suggesting that the deuterons enter the CF process slightly
excited and then give up that energy to lattice phonons and exit
the process in a lower energy state.  In spirit that is certainly
close to what Mills has suggested for hydrogen, but it clearly
involves the invention of energy states that have never been
detected and probably don't exist.  It certainly assumes that
there are two kinds of ground-state deuterons (hydrogen), those
that have been cycled through this CF process and those that
have not.  One should exercise some caution about unleasing new
species of atoms into the environment, to say the least. :-)

The Mills mass spectrograph evidence for there being some new form
of hydrogen coming out of his process seems to me to be rather
silly.  Consider the fact that running hydrogen through the
mass spectrometer obviously requires ionization and quite possible
a return of the hydrogen atoms to some "normal" atomic state.
I would suggest that any differences he sees between his hydrogen
and ordinary hydrogen has their origins in simple atomic processes
that are well understood.

You really put your foot in it, however, when you say the energy
difference for this special deuterium may be in the keV or MeV
range.  Recall that the total groundstate binding energy for
a deuteron is only 2.23 MeV and the D-state component of the
wave funtion is only a few percent.  A deuteron is made by
fusing a proton and a neutron, if you like that terminology,
but that fusion isn't involved is it?  The result is a nucleus
with a wavefunction that is mostly s-wave but with a small d-wave
admixture.  But that admixture is not something you can turn on
and off.  It comes out that way everytime you make a deuteron,
and all deuterons are known to have the same mass to a precision
of at least a keV.  There is no energy difference involving the
d-state admixture to play with, and it certainly is not Mev or keV.

However, carrying your idea that there is some form of quadrapole
interaction available to release energy, you still have not explained
why deuterons that enter the process as ordinary heavy water are in
some higher energy state than those that leave the process as deuterium
gas.  Remember further that in closed electrolysis experiments, such
as McKubre's, the deuterium is being recycled within the bounds of
the calorimeter.  There simply is no source for the higher energy
form unless it is created within the thermodynamically closed system.
Mills, at least, has always claimed that his form of cold fusion
cannot be done in a closed system.  You have to vent those exhausted
hydrinos to the outside where they can suck up energy is some
possibly hazardous way.  Beware!

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.03 / Eugene Mallove /  Big Mouth Bass
     
Originally-From: 76570.2270@compuserve.com (Eugene Mallove)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Big Mouth Bass
Date: Wed, 3 Aug 1994 00:31:10 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

O.K. Bass, put up or shut up! Just sign the MM-Pact like the (apparently) 
honest and forthright Merriman, Forbes, and Scott have. Let's not have any 
more B.S. from you. Or is it that you not only have a big mouth (or fat 
fingers), but are also a coward?

> 'Cause' is very important here, because I'm skeptical of the measurements.
>
>    Besides, as reported by Mr. Mallove himself, Mr. Mallove's track record 
>    on such bets is apparently not stellar.
>
>                                  dale bass

Gene Mallove

cudkeys:
cuddy3 cuden2270 cudfnEugene cudlnMallove cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.02 / Robert Heeter /  Re: Big Mouth Bass
     
Originally-From: rfheeter@pppl.gov (Robert F. Heeter)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Big Mouth Bass
Date: 2 Aug 1994 22:03:18 -0400
Organization: /etc/organization


Am I alone in thinking that the following post is completely
inappropriate, in content as well as style, for a sci.* newsgroup?  

Can we discuss science instead of calling each other names?

In article <940802161547_76570.2270_HHB66-1@CompuServe.COM>,
Eugene Mallove <76570.2270@compuserve.com> wrote:
>O.K. Bass, put up or shut up! Just sign the MM-Pact like the (apparently) 
>honest and forthright Merriman, Forbes, and Scott have. Let's not have any 
>more B.S. from you. Or is it that you not only have a big mouth (or fat 
>fingers), but are also a coward?
>> 'Cause' is very important here, because I'm skeptical of the measurements.
>>    Besides, as reported by Mr. Mallove himself, Mr. Mallove's track record 
>>    on such bets is apparently not stellar.
>>                                  dale bass
>Gene Mallove
>
***************************************
Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@pppl.gov
Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University
Usual Disclaimers Apply.


cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.03 / John Logajan /  Re: Griggs machine: a possible solution?
     
Originally-From: al789@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.energy
Subject: Re: Griggs machine: a possible solution?
Date: 3 Aug 1994 05:10:24 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)


c1prasad@watson.ibm.com (prasad) says:

>I was reading a thermodynamics text late last night, and it said that
>if one could build a fuel cell that sustained a *reversible* reaction
>of the form 2C + O2 -> 2CO, in which the gas volume *increases* by
>the reaction, the net efficiency could be as high as 150%.  The excess
>energy results from the entropy component because of the increased gas
>volume.

Hmm, carbon has a rather high boiling point (3600+ Cels).  So let
us assume we are talking about solid carbon.  So, yes, burning carbon
in an oxygen atmosphere does indeed increase the number of gas
molecules.  The burning of carbon releases about 115,000 joules per
mole of CO produced.  If it is allowed to merely expand against the
pressure of the atmosphere, that is a measley 0.1J/cc -- not really
worth accounting for.  I'll have to look up how to compute the
energy associated with a change in pressure (fixed volume) but I
don't think it is going to be nearly the 115,000 joules for a mere
doubling of pressure.

Note that any energy stored in the form of pressure is energy
subtracted from the 115,000 J/mole that would otherwise go out
as heat from the reaction.

>Could something similar be happening in the Griggs machine?  After all,
>though it's not strictly a chemical reaction, the net result is that
>the cohesion of water is broken and there is a sharp increase in volume.

It takes energy to break water cohesion, so if there is a volume 
expansion, the energy to cause that had to come from the input
(i.e. motor.)

So no, it is the wrong sign.

-- 
-- John Logajan ---  al789@cleveland.freenet.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenal789 cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.02 / S Anagnostaras /  Tokomac (sp?) reactors?
     
Originally-From: stephan@hannibal.psych.ucla.edu (Stephan Anagnostaras)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Tokomac (sp?) reactors?
Date: 2 Aug 1994 23:50:47 -0700
Organization: UCLA Cognitive Science Research Program

Ages ago, when I fancied becoing a Nuclear Engineer I knew a little
about fusion.   I vaguely remember the terms "Tokomak" reactor and
"lawson criterion."  Are we any closer to realizing these, or
did someone prove them impossible yet?



-- 
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephan Anagnostaras			stephan@psych.ucla.edu
UCLA Behavioral Neuroscience		sanagnos@umich.edu
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenstephan cudfnStephan cudlnAnagnostaras cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.03 / Bruce TK /  Re: Ball Lightning Carlson
     
Originally-From: bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce       Scott          TK  )
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Ball Lightning Carlson
Date: 3 Aug 1994 12:54:44 GMT
Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching

In article <Ctx0GF.I44@prometheus.UUCP>, pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) writes:
|> In article <31dgb0INN10j0@sat.ipp-garching.mpg.de> bds@ipp-garching.m
g.de (Bruce       Scott          TK  ) writes:
|> >In article <jac.775520182@gandalf>, jac@moonshine.llnl.gov
(James A. Crotinger) writes:
|> >|> >     It would be imperative, however, that the current density be constant 
|> >|> >     on each flux surface; otherwise div B would not vanish. One probably
|> 
|> >|>   I'm not sure what you mean by "the current density be constant on
|> >|> each flux surface". In general, neither the amplitude of the J nor its
|> >|> poloidal and toroidal components are constant on a flux surface.
|> >|> Similarly with B and its components.
|> 
|> >Sorry, I meant div J in the above. If you can set it up such that div J
|> >is zero, then it is OK. (Are you assuming some sort of low-epsilon
|> >expansion with circular flux surfaces or is your argument general?)
|> >In fact, you even need div_parallel J_parallel = 0 if you want an
|> >equilibrium (look at the density equation -- I doubt the diamagnetic
|> >current divergence term can oppose this).
|> 
|> >Note that div J = 0 is itself an approximation, but a very good one for
|> >motion on the scale of a few mm and larger.
|> 
|> Hmmm! scale could be a factor here.  
|> For example, in a small PMK the toroidal current is 274kA while the
|> Kernel volume is 70cc.  Consequently, a few mm are more like ?tens of 
|> decimeters? in a tokamak. 

No that is not the point here. The div J = 0 approximation is good when
the scale of motion is much larger than a Debye length. You are guaranteed
this (essentially) if the ion gyroradius is much larger than a Debye length.
In a tokamak edge the ion gyroradius is about 0.3 mm, while the Debye
length is about 30 times smaller. There is no temperature dependence in
the ratio since both lengths scale as sqrt(T). The Debye length also
goes like sqrt(1/n), so the approximation gets better with higher n, for
fixed B. But since the gyroradius goes like 1/B, the ratio
(rho_i/lambda_D) depends only on the plasma beta.

Of course, if the scale of any dynamics is larger than the gyroradius,
then the approximation div J = 0 is even better.

As a rule of thumb, one notes that the ratio (rho_i/lambda_D)^2 is the
same as the ratio (c^2 / 4 pi v_A^2), where v_A is the Alfven speed. 
So, anytime the Alfven speed is not relativistic, the assumption that 
the dynamics is "quasineutral" is a good one.

Paul, what is the strength of B in a fusion plasmak? The paper I have here
gives a "local beta" of 0.53 for the post-compression phase (I assume this 
is the plasma beta) [1]. Values of n and T of 5.6e17/cc and about 200 keV 
are also given. This would mean that B is about 3 MegaGauss.

With these numbers, the ratio (rho_i/lambda_D) is about 10, so the
approximation is still reasonable (note that the term that is tossed
is actually small by the square of this).

[1] P Koloc, "Plasmak Star Power for Energy Intensive Space Applications", 
    Fusion Technology Vol 15, p 1136 (1989).

-- 
Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de                               -- W Gibson
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnTK cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.03 / Bruce TK /  Re: Tokomac (sp?) reactors?
     
Originally-From: bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce       Scott          TK  )
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Tokomac (sp?) reactors?
Date: 3 Aug 1994 13:06:27 GMT
Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching

In article <31neo7$nri@hannibal.psych.ucla.edu>, stephan@hannibal.psych.
cla.edu (Stephan Anagnostaras) writes:
|> Ages ago, when I fancied becoing a Nuclear Engineer I knew a little
|> about fusion.   I vaguely remember the terms "Tokomak" reactor and
|> "lawson criterion."  Are we any closer to realizing these, or
|> did someone prove them impossible yet?

They are not proved impossible. They are also not proved economical. This
second point is the one most people use to bash the tokamak with.

The TFTR tokamak at Princeton Plasma Physic Lab has released up to 9 MW
fusion reaction energy but still requires some 20 MW beam input power
to sustain the discharge. If (a big if) the current results on tokamak
heat and particle transport scale up to devices some 3 times larger, we
should see "scientific breakeven". This is the hope for ITER. Of course,
it was thought we would see it in TFTR, but the problem of turbulent
transport of particles and energy has turned out to be rather worse
than people realised in the 1970s when TFTR was designed.

[TFTR = Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor,
 ITER = International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor]

Note that "scientific breakeven" means simply power_in < power_out
at some point in the discharge. There are two problems with this 
definition: the energy_in versus energy_out is not integrated over
the whole discharge, and the fusion energy released is simply released;
no energy is actually recovered (ie, electricity produced).


Now I am sure you will be inundated by wild claims from several people...


-- 
Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de                               -- W Gibson
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnTK cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.04 / Bill Page /  Re: Delocalization for Bill Page
     
Originally-From: 70047.3047@compuserve.com (Bill Page)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Delocalization for Bill Page
Date: Thu, 4 Aug 1994 00:17:20 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Dick Blue writes:
<<
I thought the meaning of "delocalized" in the current context [Chubb&Chubb's
theory of band state CF] involved the differentiation between a system that is
bound at least on the atomic scale and systems where the macroscopic crystal
lattice boundaries are significant.
>>

Ok, I guess that makes sense.  Lets use "delocalized" to refer to the spatial
extent of the wavefunction.  We'll call a wavefunction "localized" if it is
essentially non-zero over volumes of less than, say, 1 A. (10^-10 metres).
Unfortunately, I think we will discover that in solid state systems almost all
relevant wavefunctions are delocalized in this sense. I agree that the relative
motion of the proton and neutron within a deuteron, is however, separable and so
that part of the wavefunction (or partial wavefunction) would be "localized". In
other words, in the frame of reference of the proton, say, we can describe the
motion of the neutron *to a very good approximation* by a wavefunction with
dimensions much less than 1 A. This is not true of the motion of one deuteron as
a whole with respect to another or with respect to the lattice.

<<
Thus in the Chubb picture there is something called the deuteron band state
which has deuterons spread throughout the lattice.  At some point there is also
supposed to be a helium band state shedding energy in little tiny quanta to heat
the lattice.  That is where I loose the thread of the arguement and have been
seeking clarification.
>>

The notion that "band state" is synonomous with "spread-out" is problematic. The
reference to "band state" is to the series of closely spaced eigen-energies due
to the period potential contributed by the lattice.  The eigen-functions
corresponding to these energies is necessarily delocalized in the sense we've
agreed on above. But it is very confusing (I think) to interpret this as
implying that the deuterons (as particles) are spread-out.  Their motion,
however, is strongly affected *in a non-local way* by the associated
wavefunction which is spread-out.

That a helium band state (if it exists) might "shed energy in little tiny
quanta" is not in any way unusual if the band is not fully occuppied.  It can
also gain energy in very small increments by the very nature of being a band
state.

It is one of the strange things about a *boson* band state (as opposed to a
fermion band state) that there are no "capacity constraints" to the occupation
of the energy levels.  William Bernecky in a recent post has proposed that boson
condensation occurs at the top (highest energy level) of such energy bands. In
other words, under suitable conditions, a majority of the band state alphas and
deuterons will occuppy a single energy level near the top of a band.

I think it is also possible to consider that condensation might occur at the
bottom (lowest energy) of a band if the gap between one band and the next lowest
is very large.  At higher temperatures several levels within each band might be
occuppied.  As the temperature is lowered, the energies "pile up" at the bottom
of an upper band since they are unable to shed energy in a large enough
increment to get to the next lowest band.

In any case, this means that the motion of these particles (alphas and
deuterons, separately) will be determined by a single eigen-function (or more
accurately, a small number of very similar eigen-functions).  This is a
situation that Bohm's interpretation can describe rather well.

<<
To form the question within the context of your exploration of the Bohm picture
let me quote you as saying that the quantum ptential can call upon truly
enormous energies to alter the detailed motion of the particles in such a way as
to permit fusion and to hide the normal energetic byproducts.  OK, let's go with
that to see where it may lead.  The particles underconsideration, take 4He for
example, are composites are they not?  So tell me if you can what is happening
to the protons and neutrons that constitute the helium nucleus doing as the
helium goes zipping
about in response to the quantum potential?
>>

Well, the advantage of Bohm's picture is that we can continue to speak clearly
in terms of particles provided we accept that the motion of these particles is
(at times strongly) affected by an additional force arising from the "quantum
potential".  In a sense, it is the job of the quantum potential to ensure that
the statistics of the particle locations obey the probability distributions
implied by quantum mechanics (square of the absolute value of the wavefunction).
In fact, the quantum potential is defined in just this way.

To answer your question, we must say that it is the centre of mass coordinates
of the helium nuclei that is subject to the quantum potential arising from he
delocalized band state wavefunctions.  Separability implies that relative to the
centre of mass, the constituents of the helium nuclei, themselves move in
response to a "localized" wavefunction.

Now, under the appropriate conditions (that are not yet entirely clear to me)
that the motions of some of the deuterons in the condensed state as determined
by both the quantum and classical (Coulomb) potentials is such as to enhance the
probability that two deuterons come sufficiently close together so that the
approximation of separability is no longer valid.  Fusion may occur.  All other
things being equal, the result would be a very highly excited helium nucleus. 

But not all other things are equal! There are two fewer deuterons and one more
helium nucleus.  The many-body wavefunctions determining the motions of these
particle must change. QM and Bohm's interpretation say that this change can take
place *instantaneously* so that the motion of all of the particles in the two
condensed states will be affected simultaneously. Despite appearances, this does
not violate any QM uncertainty principle or speed of light constraint.  So
instead of there being a single excited helium nucleus, the energies of all of
the particles increase slightly, not necessarily equally. The condensed state as
a whole is brought slightly out of equilibrium.  The energy is released in
phonon interactions as the condensate settles back down.

Cheers,

Bill Page.

PS.  I'll have the next installment in my Bohm&Hiley series ready for posting
some time in the next few days. It will deal specifically with many-body
systems.

cudkeys:
cuddy4 cuden3047 cudfnBill cudlnPage cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.04 / Bill Page /  Re: bose condensation model
     
Originally-From: 70047.3047@compuserve.com (Bill Page)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: bose condensation model
Date: Thu, 4 Aug 1994 00:17:18 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Thank you William for the clearly articulated post on QM Statistics and Bose
condensation.  I think you have given us some simple but accurate explanations
of the concepts. Your observations on the structure of energy bands and their
relevance for the possibility of high temperation condensation is also very
interesting.

I'd like to make just a few comments and ask a question of two.

Quotations from William Bernecky's post are enclosed by << >>.

<<
We start with a regularly spaced succession of wells and barriers. The energy
barriers have height V0 and width "a".  These barriers are equally-spaced,
separated by a distance of "b", with zero potential.  The distance from barrier
center to barrier center is L= a+b.
>>

Can you estimate how the results might change if you used a different model of
the periodic structure of the lattice? For example, the potential might be taken
to approximate a harmonic oscillator potential rather than the square well
potential. Which potential would be more realistic?  Would it affect the results
significantly?

<<
Note that under the condition of a thin barrier (say 2%, or less) that the top
of the fourth band is about 312 K.  This is the same temperature that appears in
many of the succesful cold fusion experiments. (See Part Six of BWO post.)
>>

This seems little too much like "numerology" unless you can give some empirical,
a priori reason to accept the approximation of a "thin barrier".

<<
For a more detailed picture I turned to Brandt and Dahmen's "QM on the PC"
[Brandt, p 30].  Section 3.3 plots the eigenstates of a quasiperiodic step
potential, for a system of up to 10 wells. Ten is not exactly "arbitrarily
large" (the assumption for the above data), but it gives reasonably close
values.
>>

Yes, I highly recommend Brandt and Dahmen's book as a quick way to get a better
intuitive understanding of QM.  Their IQ (Interactive Quantum Mechanics) program
is fairly easy to use and generates some nice graphics - a kind of interactive
"picture book" to accompany one's study of QM.  The book provides the basic
mathematics together with references to several widely available QM texts.
Unfortunately, the details of the numerical methods used in IQ are not discussed
(except in very general terms) by the authors, so it is a bit too closed of an
environment to learn much about how to do QM calculations.

I have found, as you are no doubt aware from my recent postings, that it is more
fun and enlightening to "roll your own" when it comes to the mathematics.  Tools
like Maple and Mathematica are making this MUCH EASIER than it used to be just a
few years ago. I recommend the book "Quantum Methods with Mathematica" by James
Feagin, Springer-Verlag (TELOS), 1993; as a good introduction.  I think Maple is
a little "cleaner" syntactically, than Mathematica but they both provide
amazingly complete symbolic mathematical capability and great graphics,
including animation!

<<
As an aside, note that this distribution, with its spikes in the high end of the
energy spectrum, might account for the higher diffusion rates of D+ (a boson)
than H+ (a fermion) in some metal lattices.
>>

Excellent observation!  Surely this type of calculation has been done in detail
for some of these cases.  Do you have any references to the literature?

<<
"Growing" a battlement one well at a time seems to be a tall order.  But this
may be exactly the role of D in a PdD system. The argument is that a small
number of adjacent wells filled by H, surrounded by D filled wells is an
approximation to a small, isolated battlement.  The battlement may grow (add a
new cell), when D in a boundary cell exchanges positions with an (outside) H.

The purpose of a high ratio of D to Pd is to ensure stability of the energy
levels in the isolated battlement. This idea should be quantifiable.
>>

Hmm... But aren't we also considering D as (also?) occuppying band states and
being equally (or even more) mobile than H? What would promote the formation of
"domains" of D and H as opposed to an "intermixing"?  Does it help if one is a
fermion while the other is a boson?  D and H are clearly distinquishable
particles, so jointly they should obey conventional statistics (Boltzman as
opposed to Bose-Einstein or Fermi-Dirac).  I think we need to think more about
these "mixtures".

<<
...

5. Align the spin of the H (or D+) via magnets or RF, to reduce the number of
eigenstates.
>>

I think that this is rather hard to do.

Cheers,

Bill Page.

cudkeys:
cuddy4 cuden3047 cudfnBill cudlnPage cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.04 / Bill Page /  Re: What does delocalization mean?
     
Originally-From: 70047.3047@compuserve.com (Bill Page)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What does delocalization mean?
Date: Thu, 4 Aug 1994 00:17:23 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

David R Davies writes:
<<
The Bohm interpretation seems to get around some of the conceptual problems
people have with the wave/particle duality but does it go far enough? While I
wait impatiently for the next installment of that series I will have a go at
answering a question.
>>

Yes, I think it does, but like any "paradigm shift" it takes some getting used
to, even if that means "un-learning" some of the things you thought you knew
about quantum mechanics. I'm sorry to take so long at posting the next
installment, but it really hits at the heart of Bohm's interpretation and it has
taken me a long time (both mentally and CPU time) to un-learn and re-learn some
things. Various summer time activities have also taken a big bight out of the
time available to prepare the material for the general audience here in the news
group. I am still struggling with the difficulty of preparing ASCII graphics
that might give the reader some concept of the mathematics.  Having access to
Maple is best, but may be I should try some GIF graphics or something.  GIF
seems to be accessible to quite a number of news group readers.  What do you
think? Anyone?

<<
Bill Page: (Bohm via Maple stream)
# When we first considered Bohm and Hiley's interpretation of  the 
# wave packet, we were struck by a new problem that it introduced (at 
# least for us).  In this new interpretation, the particle can be 
# found within the wave packet at a specific location.  The 
# trajectory that the particle takes is governed by its particular 
# location within the packet. This begs the question of  the causal 
# relationship between the packet and the particle.  For if the 
# particle is the cause of  the wave packet, why is the wave packet's 
# spatial relationship with respect to the particle not fixed. That 
# is, we naively expected that the wave packet would always be 
# centered on the particle, but instead the wave packet and the 
# particle must now be considered separate entities. So, if the 
# particle does not cause the wave packet, but is merely a passenger 
# on this vehicle, then what does determine the location and behavior 
# of the packet?

Starting with the general usage of the word 'particle' when we want to
specify 'electron' or 'proton' we have something that is usually seen as
some sort of vibrational state of space-time. It is certainly a useful 
word and concept at a macro scale. 

Experimentally we know that particles behave like wave packets with the
wavelength related to the momentum. If we look at a typical wave packet
we have a set of waves of different wavelengths that come closest to 
coherence at one central position. At other points the waves interfere
with each other - typically more and more as we move away from the centre
so that the mean value goes to zero.
>>

No, this is wrong. When Bohm says particle, he means a classical particle, that
is, a physical object analogous to a geometric point in space, with a specific
exact location and also with an exact velocity and mass (momentum).  When Bohm
talks about particles there is no implication of "some sort of vibrational
state".

The idea that quantum mechanics replaces the notion of a particle with a
guassian wave packet is an idea that has been popularized by several text books
on quantum mechanics but this is clearly wrong.  There are a very large number
of cases when wave packets behave nothing like particles at all.  There are also
other concepts in quantum mechanics (such as coherent states) which also have
some of the attributes of particles (such as expected location) but none of
these concepts replace the concept of particle.

It is much better and more accurate to say that quantum mechanics does not
contain the concept of particle at all.  This is the approach taken, for example
by the "Quantics" text book referred to by William Bernecky. This causes some
difficulty, however, since clearly the notion of particles is appropriate in a
large number of cases (dealt with by classical mechanics).  It is obviously
important to say how it is that something that is described accurately only by
quantum mechanics can under many circumstances give rise to classical behaviour
and a particle description. Bohm's interpretation of quantum mechanics does this
in a very natural way.

<<
The waves can go on for ever. It is the coherence that is semi-localized in the
centre. If we look on a particle as a state of coherence then I think that the
picture becomes easier to cope with intuitively. 
>>

I don't agree.

<<
If the particle is drifting in free space then the region of coherence will
be more-or-less spherical and expanding with the point of maximum coherence
in the centre.
>>

This is not true.  The situation of a particle in free space is described by a
wavefunction which is a plane wave which has no centre.

<<
In a periodic lattice it will spread as far as it can if its
momentum gives it a wavelength comensurate with the lattice spacing. 

If we (back out in free space) have two particles approaching each other 
their vibrations will interfere. The interference pattern will contain 
areas and patterns of coherence that are capable of exciting new, transient 
vibrational modes which can increase the level of coherence in the region 
between the two main coherence centres (particles) and thus shift each 
toward the other. ie forces move particles about by creating chaos behind
them and coherence in front. 

This shift in the centre of coherence will be accompanied by an overall
reduction in the extent of the coherence. Another way of looking at this is
that the momentum is changing and there is a wider spread of wavelengths
and hence a smaller coherence region. The coherence region is collapsing
to some degree. The bigger the impact of the incoming particle, the faster
and more complete the collapse - within the constraints of the uncertainty 
principle. 

The key point here is, I guess, that the centre of coherence can vary in
size and shape and will possibly take on a fractal shape or distribution.
The global maximum might even be jumping about - disappearing at one point
to be replaced at another without moving between. 

Compound particles with compound coherence centres (or patterns) will
fragment when the coherence length in the compound particle becomes 
too small relative to the separation of the centres/patterns. 

What we need to build is a picture of the reverse process.
>>

I don't know what a "coherence centre" is.  By "conherence" I though you meant
constructive interference in a superposition of wavefunctions.  Such a thing
does not necessarily have a centre.  I think you have only replaced one vague
concept (conherence centre) with another (quantum mechanical particle).  If we
used the well defined quantum mechanical notion of "the expected value of the
position operator", then this description falls apart.

Bohm shows us, however, that this does not need to be the case. We can assume
classical particles as part of our description of nature provided that we also
admit that these particles are subject to forces not found in classical
mechanics.  These forces are due to the "quantum potential" which arises from
the curvature (or shape) of the wavefunction. The quantum potential is such that
it gives rise to the correct quantum statistical predictions about the locations
of particles in spite of the fact that these particles are moving in an entirely
classical manner.

Cheers,

Bill Page.

cudkeys:
cuddy4 cuden3047 cudfnBill cudlnPage cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.03 / Tom Droege /  Re: Return of the experimenter?
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Return of the experimenter?
Date: 3 Aug 1994 16:07:14 GMT
Organization: fermilab

In article <31m0dd$orl@fnnews.fnal.gov>, Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege) says:
>
>In article <9408011606.AA18787@suntan.Tandem.com>, BERNECKY@V70A.decnet 
>(V70A::BERNECKY) says:
>>
>>
>> > I enjoyed your write up a lot.  Are there any plans to test it?
>> > Unfortunately my machine is busticated, and I do not yet have much
>> > incentive to build a new one.
>> > 
>> > Tom Droege
>>
>>Thanks Tom.  Are you offering? If so, I accept.
>>
>
>Well, I am just crazy enough to keep trying this silly game.  I have seen
>a few things that I did not understand.  There is also the business of
>trying to do a real experiment on line that would be fun to explore.  How
>about it?  Are there a few good men that would like to try an on line 
>experiment.  We could start by planning the experiment here.  Then we 
>could see who would vonunteer to take on various tasks.  
>
>Remember that there seemed to be funny things happening at specific 
>temperatures on the last runs testing Bernecky's ideas.  But I am tired
>of working alone.  I want at least 4 or 5 good people interacting.  I am
>willing to build a calorimeter.  But I want someone else to volunteer to
>build a cell to test.  
>
>Also I don't want to work in a panic anymore.  The first two calorimeters
>were built as if I was racing to be the first to fly.  Now we know that 
>this is real slow standard science - with perhaps a 5 year horizon.  
>Anyone want to work under those conditions?
>
>My assumption is that there is science here.  But for all the reasons that
>everyone knows so well it is not apt to be conventional fusion.  It may
>be just strange chemistry, or an unexplored experimental artifact.  The 
>hope is to collect a few good men and to have fun looking for whatever 
>there is to be found.  
>
>Tom Droege
>
>PS I may never sell water machines, so I have to do something!

Well, I already have several respondents offering to do work.  Mostly they
want me to assign them tasks.  That is not quite how science collaborations 
develop.  I do not want to be a "Sam Ting or Carlo Rubia" type leader that 
passes out work.  I want to form a true collaboration.  This means that we
use this forum to argue out what we will do.  After we have the project 
pretty well worked out, we start volunteering to take on various pieces while
still debating here publicly worrying that no one has latched on to task X or 
that so and so has grabbed task Y but doesn't seem to be working on it.  

But I will start the debate by asking Bob Bernecky what he proposes that we
measure. OK guys, we have talked a lot.  How about doing some science!

Tom Droege

P.S. We don't have to actually do anything to have fun here.  We could debate
almost endlessly how to design a good experiment.  I think it would be much 
more fruitful to argue with Jed Rothwell over the number of turns and the 
size of the anode wire to use than the sort debate we have been having. I bet
we could have such a debate without ever calling each other nasty names.   
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.03 /  Reformer
 /  FTP for cold fusion info?
     
Originally-From: Reformer
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: FTP for cold fusion info?
Date: 3 Aug 1994 19:55:24 GMT
Organization: MSU/NSF Engineering Research Center

Hi all. Is there an ftp site containing info on cold fusion?
Thanks
Reformer

---

(-)%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%(-)
|+|       cnr1@erc.msstate.edu       |+|
|+|           @ra.msstate.edu        |+|
|+|           Chris Roberts          |+|
|+| http://www.msstate.edu:80/~cnr1/ |+|
,_.__________________________________,_.


cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.03 / John Logajan /  Still testing -- Thermacore
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@mirage.skypoint.net (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Still testing -- Thermacore
Date: 3 Aug 1994 18:35:41 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

I've been involved in other things so I haven't posted recently on the
Thermacore calibration verification tests, but the old tub of water has
been collecting data continuously.

On a suggestion from Bob Shaubach of Thermacore that perhaps their
0.15 C/W calibration constant versus our (mine, Criddle's and Hilborn's)
0.27+ C/W calibration constants differences might be explained by the
heat sink effect of their rather large gauge power cables, I attempted
to insert some similar (thermal) dimensioned heat sinks.

So for a 60 watt case without cables, I got 0.249 C/W.  With the cables
I got 0.241 C/W.  Then to that I added 2 liters to mimic the effect of
the internal displacement caused by the electrodes.  Such displacement
would raise the water level and increase the contact area.  That done
I got 0.233 C/W.

Unfortunately, I had a loose fitting cover, and installing the cables
made the crack between the cover and tank even wider, so there could
have been increased evaporation which could have acconted for some of
the "cooling."

So I totally removed the cover and the cables to see what unrestricted
evaporation would do.  Remember that at 60 watts covered (no cables)
I was getting 0.249 C/W.  Now with the cover removed (no cables either)
I got 0.173-0.178 C/W!

So three thoughts:

1.) I can't say that the cables had any significant effect, certainly
    not nearly enough to account for low Thermacore values.  I'd have
    to re-run the cable experiment with a tighter control on evaporation
    to see if they had any effect at all.

2.) As evaporation removes water, the cal constant drifts upward.  So
    there is a variation associated with the tank/water surface area.
    So internal volume displacements do have a measureable effect on
    the cal constant.

3.) Evaporation rates *must* be controlled (consistent between experimental
    and calibration runs.)  The easiest way to do this is to minimize
    evaporation.  Criddle recommended styrofoam "peanuts" (among other
    methods) so I am just starting to try that.


Here, then, are the lessons I have learned so far:

A.) Prevent thermal stratification of air around the tank(s).
B.) Prevent strong uncontrolled air flow (drafts) around the tank(s).
C.) Control evaporation rates from the tank(s).
D.) Use a low power means to continuously stir the tank(s).
E.) Use two equivalent tanks, one for the experiment, and one for the
    ambient temperature measurment.

If you can get consistency in the first three conditions, you should be
able to get 2-4% precision even without controlling the ambient temperature.
If you control the ambient, all the better.

--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com -- 612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills  MN 55112 USA           -
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.03 / John Logajan /  Re: Still testing -- Thermacore
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@mirage.skypoint.net (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Still testing -- Thermacore
Date: 3 Aug 1994 18:59:48 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

: A.) Prevent thermal stratification of air around the tank(s).
: B.) Prevent strong uncontrolled air flow (drafts) around the tank(s).
: C.) Control evaporation rates from the tank(s).
: D.) Use a low power means to continuously stir the tank(s).
: E.) Use two equivalent tanks, one for the experiment, and one for the
:     ambient temperature measurment.

Oops, meant to add:

  F.) Insulate the bottom of the tank from the surface it is sitting on.


By the way, the variation between 0.173 C/W and 0.249 C/W at 60 watts
solely due to evaporation differences is not all that bad news for
the original Thermacore results.

Thermacore supposedly logged the amount of water they had to add each
day to maintain the fill -- there being two loss mechanisms, evaporation
and electrolysis conversion.  Thermacore claims measured evaporation
rates plus 100% Faraday efficiency exactly accounts for the amount
of water lost each day.

Now if we presume that there was no recombination, then we still need
cal constants on the order of 0.50 - 0.63 C/W to account for the
temperature rise.

On the other hand, if there was high recombination, then the water
lost per day must really have been due to evaporation, which would
significantly lower the cal constant, as I have found out.  Such
low actual cal constants would still indicate anomalous heat,
since the required cal constants with 100% recombination and without
evaporation are in the 0.30 - 0.40 C/W range.

So while I can't exactly reproduce the Thermacore 0.15 C/W results
I have not yet found an explanation that exceeds 0.30 C/W.

So the mystery remains.

--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com -- 612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills  MN 55112 USA           -
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.03 / Tom Droege /  Re: Still testing -- Thermacore
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Still testing -- Thermacore
Date: 3 Aug 1994 23:01:43 GMT
Organization: fermilab

In article <31opf4$2kr@stratus.skypoint.com>, jlogajan@mirage.skypoint.net 
(John Logajan) says:
>
>: A.) Prevent thermal stratification of air around the tank(s).
>: B.) Prevent strong uncontrolled air flow (drafts) around the tank(s).
>: C.) Control evaporation rates from the tank(s).
>: D.) Use a low power means to continuously stir the tank(s).
>: E.) Use two equivalent tanks, one for the experiment, and one for the
>:     ambient temperature measurment.
>
>Oops, meant to add:
>
>  F.) Insulate the bottom of the tank from the surface it is sitting on.
>
>

>By the way, the variation between 0.173 C/W and 0.249 C/W at 60 watts
>solely due to evaporation differences is not all that bad news for
>the original Thermacore results.
>
>Thermacore supposedly logged the amount of water they had to add each
>day to maintain the fill -- there being two loss mechanisms, evaporation
>and electrolysis conversion.  Thermacore claims measured evaporation
>rates plus 100% Faraday efficiency exactly accounts for the amount
>of water lost each day.
>
>Now if we presume that there was no recombination, then we still need
>cal constants on the order of 0.50 - 0.63 C/W to account for the
>temperature rise.
>
>On the other hand, if there was high recombination, then the water
>lost per day must really have been due to evaporation, which would
>significantly lower the cal constant, as I have found out.  Such
>low actual cal constants would still indicate anomalous heat,
>since the required cal constants with 100% recombination and without
>evaporation are in the 0.30 - 0.40 C/W range.
>
>So while I can't exactly reproduce the Thermacore 0.15 C/W results
>I have not yet found an explanation that exceeds 0.30 C/W.
>
>So the mystery remains.
>
>--
> - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com -- 612-633-0345 -
> - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills  MN 55112 USA           -

I have been patiently waiting for John to realize that when the
calibration constant he and others measure is a factor of two away
from the number used by Thermacore, that this might mean that 
Thermacore has made a large error somewhere.  When John and the other
group get 0.3 and Thermacore gets 0.15 I want to throw out all the
results until a few more votes are in.  

John, you don't have to search for ways that Thermacore might be 
right.  When your measurement does not match theirs, and you have
an error limit on your measurement (where is it John?) that does not
include theirs, then the proper statment to make is "My measurements 
do not confirm the Thermacore result."  (This is the kindest statement
you can make - others come to mind.   

Tom Droege

PS.  This xxxy&3@ news reader!!! may throw this away
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Thu Aug  4 04:37:06 EDT 1994
------------------------------
1994.08.04 / John Logajan /  Re: Still testing -- Thermacore
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@mirage.skypoint.net (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Still testing -- Thermacore
Date: 4 Aug 1994 15:06:03 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.


Tom Droege writes:
> John, you don't have to search for ways that Thermacore might be right.

Sure I do -- because I might be wrong.  By searching for ways they might
be right, I either establish confidence in my own results or find ways
to improve on them.  I hope I am not the only one that thinks a negative
experiment can't be any old slap dash affair.

Here is the way I see it.  The initial advocate of a result or theory
has the burden of proof -- sure enough.  No one is required to advance
negative proof to counter it.

However, when someone does decide to advocate negative proof, they have
the same burden of establishing the reliability of their negative
experiment as the original advocate had in the positive experiment.

> the proper statment to make is "My measurements do not confirm the
> Thermacore result."

It's not over until the lady of specially advantaged girth sings.

I could have folded up my tent when my first results were 0.17 C/W.
But I kept playing with it (with plenty of advice from Criddle and
Hilborn) and got up to 0.27 C/W (from memory.)

By using a fan I've gotten as low as 0.08 C/W, and with simple
evaporation I've gotten down to 0.17 C/W.  So there are ways to
obtain the Thermacore values.  Have I overlooked any?  Can't
know until I try more things.

Do I think there is an insufficient explanation in the Thermacore paper
to allow replication?  For now, I'd say yes, since I can't find the
clue in the paper to explain the difference.  Does that mean it really
isn't explained in the paper?  Maybe, maybe not.  Maybe my interpretation
is goofy.  Maybe there is a factor that the Thermacore guys didn't
think about.

Do my results explain away the anomalous heat?  No, not even in the case
of 100% recombination, and my stuff is way too cool for low rates of
recombination.  That's a mystery that remains.  We are forced to believe
that Thermacore's thermometers measured too low during calibration,
and too high during the experimental runs.  It just can be explained
away easily -- and that is what I am looking for -- the explanation.

--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com -- 612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills  MN 55112 USA           -
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.04 / Tom Droege /  Re: Return of the experimenter?
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Return of the experimenter?
Date: 4 Aug 1994 16:19:34 GMT
Organization: fermilab

In article <harrCtzJ85.LM4@netcom.com>, harr@netcom.com (Charles (Chuck) 
Harrison) says:
>
>In article <31ofbi$j41@fnnews.fnal.gov>,
>Tom Droege <Droege@fnal.fnal.gov> wrote:
>  [...let's design an experiment...]
>
>I'll assume we're still in Pd electrolysis land here.
>
>(1) divided cell
>
>What about a divided cell (i.e. anode & cathode separated by a membrane 
or
>frit of some kind)?  Electrochemically, it allows better control of the
>electrolysis environment (I think; Dieter, are you there?).  In fact, 
there
>are _dynamic_ things you can do that could be very telling 
calorimetrically.
>For example, look at the interesting BARC results with a divided cell.
>
>If maintaining geometric symmetry is important, I don't think that this
>would need to interfere with that.

There are at least some experiments i.e. Takahashi, where the idea was to
get a very symmetrical, (high pressure???) loading.  This is hard to do
with a divided cell.  But I am open to anything.  So let's carry on a 
debate and build the concensus.  No one will be completely pleased with
the result, but it is necessary if we are to get a number of people 
involved.
>
>Temps and gas flows measured independently at anode & cathode could be
>useful data.
>
>(2) recombiner
>
>From previous Droege postings it seems that this is still a sticky
>problem.  We've got to get something that works smoothly & consistently;
>this "fits & starts" stuff muddies the waters too much.  Sorry, I don't
>have a specific suggestion.
>

I was slowly coming to the conclusion that a heated catalyst was 
necessary.  Possibly use a fine palladium wire for the heater.  This way 
if the catalyst doesn't do it the Pd wire will.  Put a second calorimeter
(inside the main calorimeter) around the catalyst so that funny 
recombinations can be detected.

>(3) measuring electrical energy input
>
>I've said it before (check the WAIS database!) but here goes again:
>put the cell current regulator _inside_ the calorimeter.  In fact,
>put _every_ high power AC power stage inside.  All significant electrical
>power crossing the calorimeter boundary should be near DC; it can be
>filtered heavily with passive filters to ensure there are no unmeasured
>AC components.
>
>For most experiments you expect the heat balance to be near zero, and 
your
>Peltier heat pump is pumping constant flux.  So you need constant elec.
>input.  Try this:
>
>   +------< L >---+-------===---< L >---+------< cell curr reg >---+
>   |              |        .            |                          |
> voltage        < C >      .       shunt reg.                   < cell >
>  source          |        .   (= primary ballast htr)             |
>   |              |        .            |                          |
>   +--------------+-------===-----------+--------------------------+
>                           .
>            +-------------===--------------< R >-------------+
>            |              .       secondary ballast heater  |
>        feedback           .                                 |
>        controlled         .                                 |
>          source           .                                 |
>            |              .                                 |
>            +-------------===--------------------------------+
>                           .
>    outside calorimeter    .           inside calorimeter
>
>It is important to note that the "shunt regulator" is designed to monitor 
the
>total input current into the primary power circuit and to hold it 
constant.
>The external voltage source holds its voltage constant.  The total DC 
power
>in the primary circuit is sensibly constant and can be measured to high
>accuracy.  This constancy does _not_ constrain the amount of power
>directed to the electrolytic cell, or the rate at which it fluctuates.
>
>The secondary ballast heater is sized by the maximum heat release rate
>which must be tracked.  Thus it is only a "delta" circuit.
>
>I'm sure Tom can refine this far beyond my conception.
>

Yes, I thought this was a good idea when last presented by Chuck, and I
still think it a good idea.  Now there is only a DC component into the
calorimeter and we can all measure that!  !:)
>Cheers,
>  Chuck
>

Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.04 /  fairfax@sensei /  Alcator Progress 8/4/94
     
Originally-From: fairfax@sensei.pfc.mit.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Alcator Progress 8/4/94
Date: 4 AUG 94 17:59:46 GMT
Organization: MIT PLASMA FUSION CENTER

			Alcator C-MOD Weekly Highlights
				August 4, 1994

The maintenance/repair period is continuing. Work on the new design for the
coaxial bus is proceeding.  Prototype components incorporating the new design,
which features a more  compliant head piece for the inner coax, have been
fabricated and will be tested. Additional calculations to verify the design
are in progress.

While the bus work proceeds, additional maintenance activities are also being
carried out. The vessel heaters, which are normally inaccessible, are
undergoing a thorough inspection.

In-vessel work this week has included removal of a set of tile modules on the
inner wall, in preparation for installation of new halo current diagnostics.
In addition, we will replace a few of the tiles with specially prepared
"tracer" tiles, containing a thin coating of tungsten under an overcoating of
molybdenum. This work, being carried out in collaboration with Sandia, will
investigate the erosion and re-deposition of molybdenum during high-power
operation. 

A shot from the June, 1994, run period has been selected for additional
analysis using the DEGAS code; this work is being carried out by Daren Stotler
of PPPL. The particular shot,940623028, was part of a divertor studies run,
and includes density and temperature profiles at the target plate and
fast-scanning probe profiles in the main chamber, as well as a complete set of
H-alpha data. This shot was a low density discharge on which divertor
detachment did not occur. 

C.H. Ma of ORNL is working at MIT this week, preparing his Faraday rotation
diagnostic. This diagnostic works in conjunction with our existing Two-Color
Interferometer (TCI), and will be used to measure the current density profile.
All of the main components of the rotation experiment are now installed on the
laser table, and rotations of the order of 2 degrees have been successfully
detected using a polarization rotator installed on the table. 

Professor Ian Hutchinson has returned from his sabbatical at JET. Martin
Greenwald is participating in the ESNET Steering Committee Meeting in New
Mexico. 


cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenfairfax cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.04 / John Logajan /  Re: Return of the experimenter?
     
Originally-From: al789@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Return of the experimenter?
Date: 4 Aug 1994 19:13:17 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)


harr@netcom.com (Charles (Chuck) Harrison) says:
>>(2) recombiner
>>From previous Droege postings it seems that this is still a sticky
>>problem.  We've got to get something that works smoothly & consistently;
>>this "fits & starts" stuff muddies the waters too much.  Sorry, I don't
>>have a specific suggestion.

Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege) says:
>I was slowly coming to the conclusion that a heated catalyst was 
>necessary.  Possibly use a fine palladium wire for the heater.  This way 
>if the catalyst doesn't do it the Pd wire will.  Put a second calorimeter
>(inside the main calorimeter) around the catalyst so that funny 
>recombinations can be detected.

I'm not sure Tom agreed with my post-mortem on his previous raw data,
but I believe the recombination point was bouncing around like a ping
pong ball, transporting water here and there.

Having an external catalyst chamber sounds like a fine idea, but you
have to insure that a bare piece of Pd or Pt nearer the gas source
doesn't preempt the remote site.  Since I don't know how you ensure
no exposed Pd or Pt in the cell, I don't think the remote catalyst
chamber idea can be made to work reliably -- 'cept maybe in a divided 
cell.

As for catalysts that aren't self-quenching, I see the need, but have
no experience to draw on.  However, I know that using high voltage
spark gaps has been successfully employed to ensure recombination
in the automobile industry. :-)

A small relaxation oscillator driving an induction coil, with a rep
rate of a few seconds ought to suffice.  You could still run standard
recomb mixtures, with the spark gap as an ever present insurance
policy.

-- 
-- John Logajan ---  al789@cleveland.freenet.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenal789 cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.04 /  WRGoodII /  Re: Randall Mills and hydrinos
     
Originally-From: wrgoodii@aol.com (WRGoodII)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Randall Mills and hydrinos
Date: 4 Aug 1994 15:27:01 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

In article <9407291455.AA41954@pilot1.cl.msu.edu>, blue@pilot.msu.edu
(Richard A Blue) writes:

    "I don't think his theory can stand the slightest bit of critical
examining......"

For those who are interested:

It is my understanding that Dr. Mills will discuss with anyone, including
critics, those portions of his theory that they find fault with. 
Specifically he responds to mathematical and experimental inquires when
sent in writing.

Dr. Randell Mills
HydroCatalysis Power Corp
1860 Charter Lane 
Lancaster, PA  17601

cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenwrgoodii cudlnWRGoodII cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.04 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Big Mouth Bass
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Big Mouth Bass
Date: Thu, 4 Aug 1994 17:13:51 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <31mtt6$k64@tom.pppl.gov> rfheeter@pppl.gov (Robert F. Heeter) writes:
>Am I alone in thinking that the following post is completely
>inappropriate, in content as well as style, for a sci.* newsgroup?  

>Can we discuss science instead of calling each other names?

>>>    Besides, as reported by Mr. Mallove himself, Mr. Mallove's track record 
>>>    on such bets is apparently not stellar.
>>>                                  dale bass

                  "Put up or shut up" --  "Coward"
                                   
Yes, I agree, and use grammar whose context can be logically followed 
and correct spelling most of the time.   (I least I've heard that -- 
                           often) :-).   

I think, Robert, that politeness has it's place, but expression does 
too.  Discussing science should probably include "some doing of" 
science and this should include comments directed at motivating 
those with skill to "do science with courage".  The techniques used 
in SOME cases, are raw, and sometimes not as tidy as we would like.  
Still, for all the "fight'n words" (true believer, etc.,), dicussions 
for the most part are remarkably interesting or in the minimum, at 
least express a widely variable view.     

And besides, without a few groans, this wouldn't be British politics.  
Ahh!  Errha!. ..  or New English, for that matter.  

>>Gene Mallove
>***************************************
>Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@pppl.gov
>Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University
>Usual Disclaimers Apply.
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc, Bx 1037 Prometheus II Ltd, College Park MD 20741-1037    |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.04 / C Harrison /  Re: Return of the experimenter?
     
Originally-From: harr@netcom.com (Charles (Chuck) Harrison)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Return of the experimenter?
Date: Thu, 4 Aug 1994 00:40:52 GMT
Organization: Fitful

In article <31ofbi$j41@fnnews.fnal.gov>,
Tom Droege <Droege@fnal.fnal.gov> wrote:
  [...let's design an experiment...]

I'll assume we're still in Pd electrolysis land here.

(1) divided cell

What about a divided cell (i.e. anode & cathode separated by a membrane or
frit of some kind)?  Electrochemically, it allows better control of the
electrolysis environment (I think; Dieter, are you there?).  In fact, there
are _dynamic_ things you can do that could be very telling calorimetrically.
For example, look at the interesting BARC results with a divided cell.

If maintaining geometric symmetry is important, I don't think that this
would need to interfere with that.

Temps and gas flows measured independently at anode & cathode could be
useful data.

(2) recombiner

From previous Droege postings it seems that this is still a sticky
problem.  We've got to get something that works smoothly & consistently;
this "fits & starts" stuff muddies the waters too much.  Sorry, I don't
have a specific suggestion.

(3) measuring electrical energy input

I've said it before (check the WAIS database!) but here goes again:
put the cell current regulator _inside_ the calorimeter.  In fact,
put _every_ high power AC power stage inside.  All significant electrical
power crossing the calorimeter boundary should be near DC; it can be
filtered heavily with passive filters to ensure there are no unmeasured
AC components.

For most experiments you expect the heat balance to be near zero, and your
Peltier heat pump is pumping constant flux.  So you need constant elec.
input.  Try this:

   +------< L >---+-------===---< L >---+------< cell curr reg >---+
   |              |        .            |                          |
 voltage        < C >      .       shunt reg.                   < cell >
  source          |        .   (= primary ballast htr)             |
   |              |        .            |                          |
   +--------------+-------===-----------+--------------------------+
                           .
            +-------------===--------------< R >-------------+
            |              .       secondary ballast heater  |
        feedback           .                                 |
        controlled         .                                 |
          source           .                                 |
            |              .                                 |
            +-------------===--------------------------------+
                           .
    outside calorimeter    .           inside calorimeter

It is important to note that the "shunt regulator" is designed to monitor the
total input current into the primary power circuit and to hold it constant.
The external voltage source holds its voltage constant.  The total DC power
in the primary circuit is sensibly constant and can be measured to high
accuracy.  This constancy does _not_ constrain the amount of power
directed to the electrolytic cell, or the rate at which it fluctuates.

The secondary ballast heater is sized by the maximum heat release rate
which must be tracked.  Thus it is only a "delta" circuit.

I'm sure Tom can refine this far beyond my conception.

Cheers,
  Chuck

cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenharr cudfnCharles cudlnHarrison cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.04 / C Harrison /  Re: FTP for cold fusion info?
     
Originally-From: harr@netcom.com (Charles (Chuck) Harrison)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: FTP for cold fusion info?
Date: Thu, 4 Aug 1994 01:26:40 GMT
Organization: Fitful

This message is posted periodically to inform readers about on-line
data sources related to "cold fusion" which are located at the 
University of North Carolina SunSITE server.

Two public WAIS (Wide Area Information Server) sources are online:
(1) Dieter Britz's Bibliography (periodically updated), and
(2) A sci.physics.fusion archive (1989 to present).
WAIS provides for multiple keyword searches in these databases.  It
does _not_ support boolean logic in the searching :-(.

1.  If you are directly connected to Internet, you can log onto a public
    WAIS server at the University of North Carolina:
    %telnet sunsite.unc.edu
    ...
    login: swais
    ...
    TERM = (unknown) vt100
    It takes a minute to load ...

    <use ? for online help>
    <use /cold to locate the cold-fusion "Source" - the Britz biblio>
    < or use /fusion to locate the fusion-digest source>
    <follow the prompts to select the source and enter your keywords
     for searching>

2.  If you have a "gopher" client, you can use it for WAIS access.  Many 
    university campuses provide gopher as a public information service.
2a. On most systems, you first select an option labeled "Other Systems",
    then from that menu select "WAIS based information".  Since each
    gopher site creates its own menus, I can't tell you exactly where to
    go from there.
2b. If you can gopher to SunSITE, at UNC, navigate the menus down thru
    SunSITE archives..All archives..Academic..Physics..Cold-fusion.
    You will find the searchable databases (typically marked <?>), as
    well as the primary-literature files discussed below.
2c. If you can 'telnet' but not 'gopher', you may telnet to
    sunsite.unc.edu and login as 'gopher'.  Then follow 2a or 2b above.

3.  If you have World Wide Web (WWW) browser, such as Mosaic, Cello, or
    Lynx, you may use the following URL's:
     wais://sunsite.unc.edu/cold-fusion       Britz bibliography
     wais://sunsite.unc.edu/fusion-digest     newsgroup archive
     gopher://sunsite.unc.edu/11/../.pub/academic/physics/Cold-fusion

4.  If you have a WAIS client on your system (the most common ones are
    "swais" -- character-based, and "xwais" -- for X-Windows), use it.  The
    Britz source is called "cold-fusion" and it is listed in the 
    directory-of-servers.

    If you _want_ a WAIS client program to run on your system, several are
    available in the public domain.  Try ftp-ing to one of these sites:
      sunsite.unc.edu
      think.com

There are several additional files archived at sunsite (e.g. Bollinger's
Twist of Ribbon, preprints of the Fleischmann&Pons 1989 paper), which
are accessible by anonymous ftp.
    %ftp sunsite.unc.edu
    . . .
    >cd pub/academic/physics/Cold-fusion
    >dir
The collection (mostly primary papers) maintained by vince cate has been
copied over to pub/academic/physics/Cold-fusion/vince-cate.

Additional contributions are welcome; e-mail cfh@sunsite.unc.edu.
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenharr cudfnCharles cudlnHarrison cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.04 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Randell L. Mills and hydrinos
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.skeptic,pdx.general
Subject: Re: Randell L. Mills and hydrinos
Date: Thu, 4 Aug 1994 04:02:11 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <775856120snz@mccombes.demon.co.uk>,
Paul McCombes <paul@mccombes.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <Ctv5GF.6F5@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
>           crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU "Cameron Randale Bass" writes:
>> 
>>      If one theory makes the same predictions as another,
>>      then they are functionally the *same* theory, no 'approximation' involved.
>>      On the other hand, the term 'approximation' means (cf. OED, Webster's), 
>>      'sometimes good, sometimes bad' as in 'v << c = good, v -> c = bad'.  
>> 
>>                             dale bass
>The original post was unifying 'General and Special Relativity, and Newton's 
>Laws...(and a few other things)'. General relativity superceded Newton's laws 
>in more than a quantitative sense - it brings an entirely different perspective 
>to physics (for example the equivalence of inertial and gravitational mass). 

     I bet Newton would have been happy with himself if he had
     thought of that, he noted dryly.

>They are functionally different. The theories do not make comparable 
>predictions except in the low v, low m case. Even then they are slightly out, 
>or did I miss the bit about moving clocks run slow in Newtonian physics - 
>detectable at everyday speeds using aeroplanes and atomic clocks.

     Not your everyday clock, he observed dryly.

     On the other hand, I'm an engineer, and I have never, and I mean
     *never* used a GR correction in any practical calculation.
     So the 'approximation' must be fairly good in some very real and 
     very well-defined sense.
     
> According to 
>your definition then Newton isn't even an approximation as its 'mostly wrong, 
>sometimes close, and once in a while close enough so as we can't tell the 
>difference'.

     Once in a while?  I challenge you to tell the difference with
     *any* clock you can afford in any situation you have ever been in.
     I think you've well overplayed your case quite substantially by now.

     May I suggest further reflection on your understanding of the term
     'approximation'.
     
>Anyway, you should set your clocks to run backwards, as then they will show the 
>correct time more often.

     'Correct' for what purpose?  Every timepiece ever made is an 
     approximation of an ideal, or, alternatively, they're all 'correct'.  
     
     What you are saying is that the elapsed 
     time on a quartz wristwatch is not an 'approximation' of the 
     elapsed time on an atomic clock.  

     I think that's an odd position.

                                dale bass

cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.04 / Cameron Bass /  Largemouth Bass (was Re: Big Mouth Bass)
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Largemouth Bass (was Re: Big Mouth Bass)
Date: Thu, 4 Aug 1994 04:12:40 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

>Eugene Mallove <76570.2270@compuserve.com> wrote:
>>O.K. Bass, put up or shut up! Just sign the MM-Pact like the (apparently) 
>>honest and forthright Merriman, Forbes, and Scott have. Let's not have any 
>>more B.S. from you. Or is it that you not only have a big mouth (or fat 
>>fingers), but are also a coward?

     Durn, the original didn't seem to make it to my site.

     Anyway, Gene, gene, gene, gene.  You seem to be frothing.

     I'm more than willing to bet you, but your signature is not very 
     useful to me, especially as I have a strong suspicion that it
     will be disavowed if you are caught or killed.

     Cash, on the other hand, is very useful.  So, let's see what you've
     got to 'put up' on your side.

     By the way, that's 'Largemouth', not 'Big mouth'.  I fondly remember
     the last time I heard that in the 5th grade.

                                  dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.05 / Richard Blue /  Re:  What does delocalization mean?
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re:  What does delocalization mean?
Date: Fri, 5 Aug 1994 00:17:14 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Bill Page is doing a good job of stating his case so I feel we are getting
more of the implications of this sort of thinking out in the open.  I am
still a little shakey on the connection between the formation of band states
and the delocalization.  I thought the periodic potential does both, but you
seem to indicate that you can have the formation of a band without there
being any delocalization, so that is one point I would like to hear discussed
further.  Why exactly is it that some of the deuterons become delocalized, or
more particularly why does the newly formed 4He have to be delocalized at
all?

However, the place where I really begin to wonder about all of this is where
you say that two deuterons instantly become a 4He, but there is no single
excited 4He nucleus - the energy of all the particles increasing slightly.
First off I need some clarification:  What "all the particles" are we
talking about?  Are we talking all the helium particles as being the
entities that take of the excitation energy or is this a generic anything
and everything that happens to be kicking around the lattice?

Another problem I have with this approach is the failure to differentiate
between kinetic energy of translation of the center of mass of the
interacting system and excitation energy within that system, what ever
that may be.  If two deuterons become one 4He don't we have to conserve
momentum, and isn't there some sort of limit on how fast momentum can
be transfered through the lattice?  If that is not so why don't we see
sound propagation at infinite velocity or thermal conductivity that you
just would not believe?

Well, for now let us say that two deuterons make a 4He at rest.  Tell
us exactly where the energy goes.  Name the particle species and explain
how you get the energy transfered without some rather wonderful correlations
between several thousand particles (or is it just a few?)  Next question
is: howmany 4He are there in the lattice while this is going on?  Remember
there are those who claim there never are any to speak of because no one
has ever succeeded in finding them there.

The other thing I don't understand is why two deuterons have to make
4He in its ground state and absolutely nothing else.  That seems to
say there is some sort of absolute selection rule of a sort I have
never heard of.

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.04 / John Logajan /  Nah, it couldn't be ...
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@mirage.skypoint.net (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Nah, it couldn't be ...
Date: 4 Aug 1994 20:53:32 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

I'm currently trying styrofoam "peanuts" instead of a lid on my
Thermacore-like calibration tank, per a suggestion from Ernie Criddle.

It hasn't reached equilibrium yet, but it looks like it will settle in
the 0.27-0.28 C/W range at 60 watts input.  Recall that Thermacore
indicated 0.15 C/W on their paper's graph, figure 12.

On a hunch, I divided 0.27 by 9 and multiplied it by 5 and I got 0.15.

Nah, couldn't be ... could it???

The chart says C(elsius), but what if some or all of it was accidently
in F(ahrenheit)?

--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com -- 612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills  MN 55112 USA           -
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.04 / Tom Droege /  Re: Randall Mills and hydrinos
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Randall Mills and hydrinos
Date: 4 Aug 1994 21:21:47 GMT
Organization: fermilab

In article <31rfe5$be3@search01.news.aol.com>, wrgoodii@aol.com (WRGoodII) 
says:
>
>In article <9407291455.AA41954@pilot1.cl.msu.edu>, blue@pilot.msu.edu
>(Richard A Blue) writes:
>
>    "I don't think his theory can stand the slightest bit of critical
>examining......"
>
>For those who are interested:
>
>It is my understanding that Dr. Mills will discuss with anyone, including
>critics, those portions of his theory that they find fault with. 
>Specifically he responds to mathematical and experimental inquires when
>sent in writing.
>
>Dr. Randell Mills
>HydroCatalysis Power Corp
>1860 Charter Lane 
>Lancaster, PA  17601
>
Is this the Good that was/is working with Randell Mills?  If so welcome 
to the group.  I have not seen you post before.  

Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.04 / Richard Schultz /  Re: Big Mouth Bass
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Big Mouth Bass
Date: 4 Aug 1994 21:32:57 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley

In article <Cu0t74.Mvq@prometheus.uucp>,
Paul M. Koloc <pmk@promethe.UUCP> wrote:
                                   
>Yes, I agree, and use grammar whose context can be logically followed 
>and correct spelling most of the time. . . .

followed by:

>I think, Robert, that politeness has it's place. . . .

Oh well, I guess you can't win 'em all.

					Richard Schultz
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.04 / Tom Droege /  Re: Still testing -- Thermacore
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Still testing -- Thermacore
Date: 4 Aug 1994 21:36:00 GMT
Organization: fermilab

In article <31r04r$3po@stratus.skypoint.com>, jlogajan@mirage.skypoint.net 
(John Logajan) says:
>
Much deleted
>Do my results explain away the anomalous heat?  No, not even in the case
>of 100% recombination, and my stuff is way too cool for low rates of
>recombination.  That's a mystery that remains.  We are forced to believe
>that Thermacore's thermometers measured too low during calibration,
>and too high during the experimental runs.  It just can be explained
>away easily -- and that is what I am looking for -- the explanation.
>
>--
> - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com -- 612-633-0345 -
> - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills  MN 55112 USA           -

The reason I keep asking for error limits John, is to point out that the 
way the experiment is done seems to cause large error limits.  I don't 
know if Hilborne et. al. have published error limits, but I have not been
able to get you to make any error statements, and I do not remember any
from Thermacore.  Without error limits, measurements are meaningless.  

Does the heat claim by Thermacore mean anything?  We don't know until we
can look at one sigma error limits thus predict how many experiments would
have to be done to get the quoted result by chance.  When I hear that the
thermacore "calorimeter" was making uncertain contact with a metal table
I can imagine a lot of ways to produce their result.  If you can't also, 
then you have not been absorbing the discussions here on calorimetry.  

A good experimenter looks at all the things that might have happened when 
he gets a spectacular result.  So the tank may have changed contact with 
the metal table during the course of the experiment.  Well, add in an 
uncertainty to the calibration constant equal to the worst change you can 
produce by experiment or imagine.  More likely, add in a piece of foam so
the tank does not touch the table and do the experiment over.  Add up the
errors linearly (not in quadrature).  That is the conservative way to do 
it.

Tom Droege

cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.05 / robert bernecky /  experiment
     
Originally-From: bernecky@starbase.nl.nuwc.navy.mil (robert bernecky)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: experiment
Date: Fri, 5 Aug 1994 00:35:32 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

 > But I will start the debate by asking Bob Bernecky what he proposes that we
 > measure. OK guys, we have talked a lot.  How about doing some science!
 > 
 > Tom Droege

I will think about this.  As a first step, it would be good to achieve
an unambiguous observation.  To do this, I am partial to using a thin
foil of Pd (monocrystal, if this can be arranged), 1% H, and a specific
temperature protocol over a range of 280K to at least 385 K.

It would be very good to directly monitor the temperature of the cathode.


cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenbernecky cudfnrobert cudlnbernecky cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.05 / robert bernecky /  comments for Page
     
Originally-From: bernecky@starbase.nl.nuwc.navy.mil (robert bernecky)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: comments for Page
Date: Fri, 5 Aug 1994 00:36:38 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Bill Page commented on my recent post, and asked a few questions.

>Can you estimate how the results might change if you used a
>different model of the periodic structure of the lattice? 

Yes, given enough time and effort.  I am sure a much more accurate
model can be developed using more powerful software. Perhaps
someone will pursue this.


>This seems little too much like "numerology" unless you can give 
>some empirical, a priori reason to accept the approximation of a 
>"thin barrier".

(This is in reference to 312 K). Consider this a "prediction" that
perhaps can be answered by the current literature.


>Excellent observation!  Surely this type of calculation has been done in detail
>for some of these cases.  Do you have any references to the literature?

Again, it would be interesting to see what the literature says
concerning this point.  No, I have no references.


>Hmm... But aren't we also considering D as (also?) occuppying band states and
>being equally (or even more) mobile than H? What would promote the formation of
>"domains" of D and H as opposed to an "intermixing"?  Does it help if one is a
>fermion while the other is a boson?  D and H are clearly distinquishable
>particles, so jointly they should obey conventional statistics (Boltzman as
>opposed to Bose-Einstein or Fermi-Dirac).  I think we need to think more about
>these "mixtures".

You are correct in pointing out that these ideas are immature, and
that much work remains.  The system is complicated: under what conditions
are H and D bosons? What is the role of current and voltage, the host
lattice, etc?  Is a D+ or D- bose condensate possible? If so, under
what conditions?  Feel free to provide answers.

cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenbernecky cudfnrobert cudlnbernecky cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.05 / John Logajan /  Re: Randall Mills and hydrinos
     
Originally-From: al789@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Randall Mills and hydrinos
Date: 5 Aug 1994 00:37:20 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)


Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege) says:
>Is this the Good that was/is working with Randell Mills?  If so welcome 
>to the group.  I have not seen you post before.  

The From: line said wrgoodii@aol.com(WRGoodII).

The Fusion Tech paper was co-authored by a: William R. Good of HCPC.


Tying into the internet is now getting pretty reasonable in cost, and
is starting to be available in one form or other everywhere in the
US.  So I expect that pretty much any scientist or researcher in
the country who wants to get on the internet can now do so.

Hope more and more of them at least monitor the circus -- and maybe
drop a comment here and there.

-- 
-- John Logajan ---  al789@cleveland.freenet.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenal789 cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.05 / John Logajan /  Re: Still testing -- Thermacore
     
Originally-From: al789@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Still testing -- Thermacore
Date: 5 Aug 1994 01:11:40 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)


Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege) says:
>The reason I keep asking for error limits John, is to point out that the 
>way the experiment is done seems to cause large error limits.

I disagree that there are large error limits in the experiment.  There
are large changes with changes in the mode of operation.  It is true
that if the experimenter is unaware of all the modes of operation,
one of those modes could be stumbled into and thus cause erroneous
results.

This being my first attempt at calorimetry, I have indeed stumbled
into different modes of operation.  But each time I have thereafter
altered the experiment to limit the "degrees of freedom".

Each time I find a new constraint, I go back and look at the Thermacore
paper and see if they took that same constraint into account.  By and
large, it seems they always have.  I can't think of a major mode of
operation that I have found that they haven't accounted for (this 
includes stuff I found out by asking Bob Shaubach.)

At my current level of "practice" I was able to run at four different
power settings (about a week at each power level) 15, 30, 60, and 90W,
and got results that did not vary from predictability more than
+or- 1%.  That is what I would claim as my functional error limit
on precision.  As for accuracy, my temperature probes agree to within
0.1 deg F of each other, and within 0.5 deg C of a lab grade
mercury thermometer.  My voltage measurement and current shunt were
calibrated to less than a percent of my digital VOM reading, but my
shunt has the usualy temperature/resistance dependence of copper.
However, since the room temp has never varied more than 5C over the
last three months, I have never bothered to put in a copper correction
factor, which would have been less than 1%.

>I don't know if Hilborne et. al. have published error limits, 

I don't know that Hilborn or Criddle have published -- but it would
be nice if they did.  I believe they are constrained by their source
of funding -- but don't take my word for that.

>but I have not been able to get you to make any error statements, 

Actually, I have stated all the above stuff before -- trouble is, I
don't know if that is what you want.  In the college of SPF, I haven't
taken the error limits course yet. :-)

>thermacore "calorimeter" was making uncertain contact with a metal table

What was uncertain was whether this was the case.  Shaubach told me that
the tank was, in fact, sitting on a sheet of styrofoam.

-- 
-- John Logajan ---  al789@cleveland.freenet.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenal789 cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.05 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Big Mouth Bass
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Big Mouth Bass
Date: Fri, 5 Aug 1994 03:56:52 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <Cu0t74.Mvq@prometheus.UUCP>,
Paul M. Koloc <pmk@promethe.UUCP> wrote:
>In article <31mtt6$k64@tom.pppl.gov> rfheeter@pppl.gov (Robert F. Heeter) writes:
>>Am I alone in thinking that the following post is completely
>>inappropriate, in content as well as style, for a sci.* newsgroup?  
>
>>Can we discuss science instead of calling each other names?
>
>>>>    Besides, as reported by Mr. Mallove himself, Mr. Mallove's track record 
>>>>    on such bets is apparently not stellar.
>>>>                                  dale bass
>
>                  "Put up or shut up" --  "Coward"
>                                   
>Yes, I agree, and use grammar whose context can be logically followed 
>and correct spelling most of the time.   (I least I've heard that -- 
>                           often) :-).   

     Leaving in sufficient context to follow the discussion would
     be nice too ...

                           dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.05 / Alison Colman /  capillary fusion
     
Originally-From: acolman@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Alison Colman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: capillary fusion
Date: Fri, 05 Aug 1994 00:38:23 -0500
Organization: The Ohio State University



I was browsing through the local bookstore and found a copy of "Cold Fusion
Journal"
on the magazine rack!  Thumbing through it I saw an article on a type of
fusion that I haven't seen previous mention of in this newsgroup.  I was
wondering if others had read this article and if anyone would care to
comment.
cudkeys:
cuddy05 cudenacolman cudfnAlison cudlnColman cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Fri Aug  5 04:37:06 EDT 1994
------------------------------
1994.08.05 / Dieter Britz /  Re: Return of the experimenter?
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Return of the experimenter?
Date: Fri, 5 Aug 1994 06:48:35 GMT
Date: 4 Aug 1994 16:19:34 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway


Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege) in Fusion Digest 2569,
Date: 4 Aug 1994 16:19:34 GMT

>In article <harrCtzJ85.LM4@netcom.com>, harr@netcom.com (Charles (Chuck)
>Harrison) says:
[...]
>>(1) divided cell
>>
>>What about a divided cell (i.e. anode & cathode separated by a membrane
>or
>>frit of some kind)?  Electrochemically, it allows better control of the
>>electrolysis environment (I think; Dieter, are you there?).  In fact,
>there
>>are _dynamic_ things you can do that could be very telling
>calorimetrically.
>>For example, look at the interesting BARC results with a divided cell.
>>
>>If maintaining geometric symmetry is important, I don't think that this
>>would need to interfere with that.
>
>There are at least some experiments i.e. Takahashi, where the idea was to
>get a very symmetrical, (high pressure???) loading.  This is hard to do
>with a divided cell.  But I am open to anything.  So let's carry on a
>debate and build the concensus.  No one will be completely pleased with
>the result, but it is necessary if we are to get a number of people
>involved.

Yes, I'm here, and this is more like the old group that I am willing to post 
to; technical discussion again.
Yes, you can have a divided cell with symmetry, by using a central Pd rod,
down the centre axis of a test-tube-shaped glass frit, all this surrounded by 
your anode, probably in the form of a helical wire. Its shape is not so 
important, even a couple of plates would do. This would increase the cell
resistance a little but if you use no. 3 frit, not by too much. The 
arrangement would prevent transfer of bubbles from one electrode to the other
but not perhaps dissolved gas. It might also at least slow down transport of
Pt (dissolved off the anode) to the cathode; whether this is a good thing or
not I don't know. Separating the electrodes would make sure of 100% current
efficiency and, in an open cell, would prevent recombination at the Pd rod
sticking out of the solution.

Because you are producing OD- ions at the cathode, and eating them at the
anode; and because ions (both Li+ and OD-) will cross the frit to preserve
charge neutrality in each compartment, you would get some imbalance of LiOD
concentration. In an undivided cell, mixing gets rid of this. The imbalance
would settle down at some level, where concentration-gradient driven diffusion
through the frit (now of pairs of Li+ with OD-) balances the concentrating
effect. This effect could be minimised by using a higher LiOD concentration to
start with. Why stick with 0.1M? Use 1M, e.g., nothing sacred about 0.1. 
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.05 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Ball Lightning Carlson
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Ball Lightning Carlson
Date: Fri, 5 Aug 1994 06:15:08 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <31o42kINN6oo@sat.ipp-garching.mpg.de> bds@ipp-garching.mpg.d
 (Bruce       Scott          TK  ) writes:
>In article <Ctx0GF.I44@prometheus.UUCP>, pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) writes:
>|> In article <31dgb0INN10j0@sat.ipp-garching.mpg.de> bds@ipp-garching.
pg.de (Bruce       Scott          TK  ) writes:
>|> >In article <jac.775520182@gandalf>, jac@moonshine.llnl.gov
(James A. Crotinger) writes:
>|> >|> >     It would be imperative, however, that the current density be constant 
 
>|> >Sorry, I meant div J in the above. If you can set it up such that div J
>|> >is zero, then it is OK. (Are you assuming some sort of low-epsilon
>|> >expansion with circular flux surfaces or is your argument general?)
>|> >In fact, you even need div_parallel J_parallel = 0 if you want an
>|> >equilibrium (look at the density equation -- I doubt the diamagnetic
>|> >current divergence term can oppose this).
 
>|> >Note that div J = 0 is itself an approximation, but a very good one for
>|> >motion on the scale of a few mm and larger.
 
>> Hmmm! scale could be a factor here.  
>> For example, in a small PMK the toroidal current is 274kA while the
>> Kernel volume is 70cc.  Consequently, a few mm are more like ?tens of 
>> decimeters? in a tokamak. 

>No that is not the point here. The div J = 0 approximation is good when
>the scale of motion is much larger than a Debye length. You are guaranteed
>this (essentially) if the ion gyroradius is much larger than a Debye length.
>In a tokamak edge the ion gyroradius is about 0.3 mm, while the Debye
>length is about 30 times smaller. There is no temperature dependence in
>the ratio since both lengths scale as sqrt(T). The Debye length also
>goes like sqrt(1/n), so the approximation gets better with higher n, for
>fixed B. But since the gyroradius goes like 1/B, the ratio
>(rho_i/lambda_D) depends only on the plasma beta.

Yes, I know. I was mused by your choice of spacial distance to represent
the measure.  It perhaps is better expressed as distance in other units
such as _B_ or _j_.  or E-den (pressure) related value of their squares.     

>Of course, if the scale of any dynamics is larger than the gyroradius,
>then the approximation div J = 0 is even better.

>As a rule of thumb, one notes that the ratio (rho_i/lambda_D)^2 is the
>same as the ratio (c^2 / 4 pi v_A^2), where v_A is the Alfven speed. 
>So, anytime the Alfven speed is not relativistic, the assumption that 
>the dynamics is "quasineutral" is a good one.

>Paul, what is the strength of B in a fusion plasmak? The paper I have here
>gives a "local beta" of 0.53 for the post-compression phase (I assume this 
>is the plasma beta) [1]. Values of n and T of 5.6e17/cc and about 200 keV 
>are also given. This would mean that B is about 3 MegaGauss.  

Scalings were included, I think.   
I assume the beta  reduction of B^2 was inserted.  Also parameters
depend on scaling used for Beta, and the amount of compression
heating needed to reach T(critical).  The numbers you have are as 
good as any for starters.  This set assumed that a lower peak compression
is used, an efficient (well trapped) compression scaling operates and t
o compensate for lower peak pressures a somewhat larger initial Beta 
was choosen.  We won't know optimal inits until we are funded.   
Further we made no attempt to optimize parameters.  Those studies
are also best handled under at least austere circumstance.   

One small region is special.  
Plasma/vacuum field edge conditions are weird -- sharp boundary and 
and other goodies that can be ignored for the present.  Their 
contribution to the energy of the system is ignorable by virtue of
their small volume and "average-value" energy density.  The physics
of this skin are most interesting, and the engineering implications 
are significant.  That can be subject for another day, and best left
until our diaginostics have a chance to give us a more exact 
confirmation of its nature.   

>With these numbers, the ratio (rho_i/lambda_D) is about 10, so the
>approximation is still reasonable (note that the term that is tossed
>is actually small by the square of this).

>[1] P Koloc, "Plasmak Star Power for Energy Intensive Space Applications", 
>    Fusion Technology Vol 15, p 1136 (1989).

>-- 
>Gruss,
>Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
>Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
>bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de                               -- W Gibson


cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.05 / David Davies /  Re: Reply to Dave Davies
     
Originally-From: drd851@huxley.anu.edu.au (David R Davies)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reply to Dave Davies
Date: 5 Aug 1994 18:23:13 +1000
Organization: Australian National University

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

>Thanks for the added clarification of your thinking concerning the
>possible role of a deuteron quadrapole moment as a source of CF

Thank you for humoring me.

>energy.  However, I must say your thinking is clearly flawed.  You

Flawed, maybe, but not so clearly.

>are suggesting that the deuterons enter the CF process slightly
>excited and then give up that energy to lattice phonons and exit
>the process in a lower energy state.  

Yup.
                                      In spirit that is certainly
>close to what Mills has suggested for hydrogen, but it clearly

Except that he is talking about electron energy levels that are far
easier to investigate, and generally better understood, than nuclei.
At least that's the way it seems to me with some background in atomic
physics but none in nuclear physics. 

One of the problems that has bedeviled the CF debate is its inter-
disciplinary nature. Research reports are usually written for others 
working in the same area. Many assumptions are made about methods,
errors etc. that are not clear to the outsider. If this were not the 
case it would be difficult to publish anything. 

Here we have a combination of electrochemistry, atomic physics, solid
state physics and (possibly) nuclear physics with a number of different
specialist technologies mixed in. Given the way we teach and practice
science there are few people who can credibly span this range so we
have to make allowances. Rather than condemning publications that don't
conform to the style we are accustomed to, we need to develop an inter-
disciplinary dialog that allows differences in perspective to be
resolved. I think that the great strength of this news group is that it
provides just such a forum.

>involves the invention of energy states that have never been
>detected and probably don't exist.  It certainly assumes that
>there are two kinds of ground-state deuterons (hydrogen), those

Not both ground state but otherwise yes.

I asked myself what evidence might exist in the literature for the
existence or non-existence of other states. Tricky. 

>that have been cycled through this CF process and those that
>have not.  One should exercise some caution about unleasing new
>species of atoms into the environment, to say the least. :-)

True, but it is an intellectual environment I am challenging here
so hopefully that won't kill anyone. :-)

>The Mills mass spectrograph evidence for there being some new form
>of hydrogen coming out of his process seems to me to be rather
>silly.  Consider the fact that running hydrogen through the
>mass spectrometer obviously requires ionization and quite possible
>a return of the hydrogen atoms to some "normal" atomic state.
>I would suggest that any differences he sees between his hydrogen
>and ordinary hydrogen has their origins in simple atomic processes
>that are well understood.

Even in my contrary mood I can't disagree with you on this, but at 
the same time I can't prove that they are wrong. 

>You really put your foot in it, 

I'm used to that. I breed chickens. 

>                                however, when you say the energy
>difference for this special deuterium may be in the keV or MeV
>range.  Recall that the total groundstate binding energy for
>a deuteron is only 2.23 MeV and the D-state component of the
>wave funtion is only a few percent.  A deuteron is made by
>fusing a proton and a neutron, if you like that terminology,
>but that fusion isn't involved is it?  

I am saying that in a simple two nucleon system I would expect the
lowest energy state to have spherical symmetry. The non-zero quad-
rapole moment indicates that there is some extra energy there. I
am trying not to include too many assumptions about the details.

>                                       The result is a nucleus
>with a wavefunction that is mostly s-wave but with a small d-wave
>admixture.  

This is what my old textbook says, but with little justification. 
Eisberg basically says that since there is a quadrapole moment then
there must be another state mixed in and assumes, from parity, that
it is a 3D state. Quite flimsy really, in fact the optical model of
the nucleus seems, as an outsider, to be a bit of a kludge.

In an introductory course this might be adequate but we, here on
sci.physics.fusion, are used to demanding much higher standards of
evidence are we not? 

So, are the states that create this quadrapole moment mixed within 
each nucleus or across a population? 

If the moment was measured by some bulk technique on D2 molecules it 
would be giving the moment for the molecule which is of no interest 
to me here. The nuclear moment should come from deflecting a beam of 
D+ nuclei or from hyperfine structure in the atomic spectrum. 

Not able to dig up a reference to the measurement of the moment, yet,
I took a look at a thesis describing deuteron scattering experiments.
The experimental data was comapared with calculated values assuming a
pure 3S state for D+ and then with a 3D mix. The latter model gave a
better fit to the data but the fit was still not great. Some error
bars would have been useful as would some more experimental detail. 
As an outsider it was difficult to get much of an idea at all of what
was done without looking up a swag of other publications. On the other 
hand, from an insider's perspective it was probably a clear presentation
of a good piece of work. 

This should sound familiar. Most electrochemists are not expecting their
publications to be read by nuclear physicists. On the other hand, when
they try to borrow techniques from nuclear physics they are likely to
miss key details that go unsaid among the insiders.

The situation demands some give-and-take on both sides.

>           But that admixture is not something you can turn on
>and off.  It comes out that way everytime you make a deuteron,
>and all deuterons are known to have the same mass to a precision
>of at least a keV.  There is no energy difference involving the
>d-state admixture to play with, and it certainly is not Mev or keV.
>
Again, you may be right but can you prove it?

If there was an excited state that involved 1 keV it could be very rare
and still make a big impact if released. Can we be sure that there is no 
state? Is this whole picture based on the optical model hopelessly 
flawed? If it is valid then I would expect D+ to be the best application 
but even there it seems quite arbitrary to use a square well.

>However, carrying your idea that there is some form of quadrapole
>interaction available to release energy, you still have not explained
>why deuterons that enter the process as ordinary heavy water are in
>some higher energy state than those that leave the process as deuterium
>gas.  

Where does the energy come from? Tricky. I guess I have to go for gammas 
of cosmic origin and postulate a long life for the state.

>     Remember further that in closed electrolysis experiments, such
>as McKubre's, the deuterium is being recycled within the bounds of
>the calorimeter.  There simply is no source for the higher energy
>form unless it is created within the thermodynamically closed system.
>Mills, at least, has always claimed that his form of cold fusion
>cannot be done in a closed system.  You have to vent those exhausted
>hydrinos to the outside where they can suck up energy is some
>possibly hazardous way.  Beware!
>
>Dick Blue

I will leave new electron states for Mills to explain. 

Conclusions?

Applying the standards of s.p.f, the argument has not been proven or
refuted. We still have a model that does not require any ash other
that D+ in a lower energy state and some excess energy that has to be 
coupled to the xtal lattice. Hmmm :-)

Going back to where this started - how does D+ behave in a Pd lattice?
I have been thinking about the shape of the 3D states. The electronic
3D states in H have, I think, four planar lobes except for one state
that is like a dumbell through the centre of a donut. In a cubic xtal,
planar lobes would align along the xtal axes and enhance the formation 
of planar sheets of delocalized D+ discussed in the TiBib literature. 

Is this assumption about the shapes correct? 

dave

cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudendrd851 cudfnDavid cudlnDavies cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.05 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Tokomac (sp?) reactors?
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Tokomac (sp?) reactors?
Date: Fri, 5 Aug 1994 06:45:33 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <31neo7$nri@hannibal.psych.ucla.edu> stephan@hannibal.psych.u
la.edu (Stephan Anagnostaras) writes:
>Ages ago, when I fancied becoing a Nuclear Engineer I knew a little
>about fusion.   I vaguely remember the terms "Tokomak" reactor and
>"lawson criterion."  Are we any closer to realizing these, or
>did someone prove them impossible yet?

The Lawson criterion discusses 2 numbers of the volume product necessary
to determine if a fusion plasma is in a "scientifically (theoretically"  
workable regime.  Since your encounter the more sophisticated and
honest value of Temperature * (Lawson) is used.  For simplicity since 
we know that density * temperature is plasma fuel pressure, we can 
again reduce the picture to two terms which are == PRESSURE * TIME.  

So can a tokamak generate sufficient pressure for a significant time
to produce a theorectical fusion burn.   Yes probably, but that's
about it.  Since they are trying to develop a power generator and 
this beast needs tons of power to bring it up and keep it cruising, 
the machine must due better than that.  

Science wise ... almost.. essentially there.  
How much improvement room is left???

Room to improve  to get commercial results... maybe a factor of 
20.  Needed distance to go to get to commercial .... 1000 or 2000.  

Now that's bad news and how it is "camoflaged??  Well, progress is
sneakily described in terms of total power released by fusion without
regard for machine size, for example.  Also subtraction of the 
machine losses from the fusion power released plus the division 
of that remainder by the plasma volume to take into account the 
enormous increase in size of each new machine would keep things
honest.  By figuring the amount the device produces in each little 
cubic centimeter, we can compare all of them fairly.  For example, 
a burning birthday candle yields maybe 5w/cc.   So.. what's the 
tokamak yield/cc to date???
                         milliwatt/cc type levels 

What's needed in a commercial device??            
                               1 watt/cc levels.  

Now at 1 watt/cc (if they could get there) and needing 10 gigawatts
of electric power capacity for a power station to cut expenses, 
a machine like this  would be 
                                 HUGE.  

But don't worry!    The over riding Engineering principle
that governs the future of the tokamak is: 

         If it costs too much:      --- IT WON'T WORK
                        and often when NOTICEABLY LARGE even
                              governments won't build 
                                         such things. 
>-- 
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Stephan Anagnostaras			stephan@psych.ucla.edu
>UCLA Behavioral Neuroscience		sanagnos@umich.edu
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.05 / Paul Koloc /  "The Economist" reviews ITER (still on the nzstands)
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: "The Economist" reviews ITER (still on the nzstands)
Date: Fri, 5 Aug 1994 06:54:35 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

An article giving an economistic perspective on the ITER and
it's potential funding problems is in the current July-August 1994
issue of THE ECONOMIST.  

Enjoy... 

I can hear Sagan's pronounciation in my mind of the word:
                   Billiyons     
                         Billiyons and Billiyons.. 

Ahhhh!  I wonder what Wells, Maglich, Hirsch, Bussard, etc.  feel
about seeing another program under "funding pressure".  

poor guys    :-(

Probably not enough pressure to reach commercial burn .. huh?  
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc, Bx 1037 Prometheus II Ltd, College Park MD 20741-1037    |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.05 /  schlichting@pa /  Re: Return of the experimenter(s)?
     
Originally-From: schlichting@pa881a.inland.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Return of the experimenter(s)?
Date: 5 Aug 94 07:34:34 CDT
Organization: Inland Steel Company, East Chicago, IN

Dear Tom and Others Interested---

As I have mentioned to you previously.....I would volenteer
to prepare the cathode and the anode material.

As You know I already have the base material....

I believe you have asked the right question......"What do we measure ?"

I agree and accept the challenge to do some real science.....

Let's have some real fun.....

Mark Schlichting
Senior Staff Engineer
(Metallugist)
Inland Steel Co.


cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenschlichting cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Sat Aug  6 04:37:06 EDT 1994
------------------------------
1994.08.05 / Jim Carr /  Re: Reply to Dave Davies
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reply to Dave Davies
Date: 5 Aug 1994 13:39:49 -0400
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

In article <31ssth$lb9@huxley.anu.edu.au> 
drd851@huxley.anu.edu.au (David R Davies) writes:
>
>Not both ground state but otherwise yes.
>
>I asked myself what evidence might exist in the literature for the
>existence or non-existence of other states. Tricky. 

Not tricky at all. 

Deuterium has only one bound state, the ground state. 

It has unbound excited 'states', which are resonances in the two-body 
neutron-proton system, which are extremely delocalized.  The lowest 
of these is the spherical one that is the analog of the (non-existent) 
ground state of the two-neutron system. 

The n-p system is probably the most studied system involving neutrons 
because of its importance for understanding the nucleon-nucleon force.  
Excellent information on the resonances exists in the literature. 

>I am saying that in a simple two nucleon system I would expect the
>lowest energy state to have spherical symmetry. The non-zero quad-
>rapole moment indicates that there is some extra energy there. I
>am trying not to include too many assumptions about the details.

Well, you would be wrong.  The deuteron has spin 1 because the spin 
dependent forces are what make it bound.  The mechanism that causes 
those spin-dependent central forces also produce a tensor force, 
which is what mixes in the D-state and gives a quadrupole moment. 
There is nothing all that simple about a two-body system when there 
are tensor and spin-spin forces present. 

-- 
 James A. Carr   <jac@scri.fsu.edu>     |  Raw data, like raw sewage, 
      http://www.scri.fsu.edu           |  requires some processing before
 Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst.  |  it can be spread around.  The 
 Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306    |  opposite is true of theories. 
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.05 / Tom Droege /  Re: Still testing -- Thermacore
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Still testing -- Thermacore
Date: 5 Aug 1994 17:47:34 GMT
Organization: fermilab

In article <31s3kc$kgs@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, al789@cleveland.Freenet.Edu 
(John Logajan) says:
>
>
>Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege) says:
>>The reason I keep asking for error limits John, is to point out that the 
>>way the experiment is done seems to cause large error limits.
>

Much deleted

>Actually, I have stated all the above stuff before -- trouble is, I
>don't know if that is what you want.  In the college of SPF, I haven't
>taken the error limits course yet. :-)
>
>>thermacore "calorimeter" was making uncertain contact with a metal table
>
>What was uncertain was whether this was the case.  Shaubach told me that
>the tank was, in fact, sitting on a sheet of styrofoam.
>
>-- 
>-- John Logajan ---  al789@cleveland.freenet.edu

Well John, I just wrote a long piece on accuracy, measurement, precision, 
etc., and Windows ate it just as I was almost done.  The monitor almost 
went out the window.  Sorry, I do not have the energy to do it again today 
as it was an hour of typing.  

Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.05 / Tom Droege /  Re: experiment
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: experiment
Date: 5 Aug 1994 17:56:59 GMT
Organization: fermilab

In article <9408041625.AA19779@starbase.nl.nuwc.navy.mil>, 
bernecky@starbase.nl.nuwc.navy.mil (robert bernecky) says:
>
> > But I will start the debate by asking Bob Bernecky what he proposes 
that we
> > measure. OK guys, we have talked a lot.  How about doing some science!
> > 
> > Tom Droege
>
>I will think about this.  As a first step, it would be good to achieve
>an unambiguous observation.  To do this, I am partial to using a thin
>foil of Pd (monocrystal, if this can be arranged), 1% H, and a specific
>temperature protocol over a range of 280K to at least 385 K.
>
>It would be very good to directly monitor the temperature of the cathode.
>
>
OK, single crystal Palladium is $3000 to $4000 depending on the crystal
axis for a 1 cm dia by 1 cm chunk from Aesar.  So we migh have to take up
a collection.  Proper heat treatment should give us relatively large 
crystals how about it Mark Schlichting?  For the cost you will have to 
argue long and hard why a foil does not just look like a bunch of 
relatively large single crystals hangin in a sheet.  So Mark, what are the 
size of the crystals we might get, and Bob, why isn't this large compared 
to what is going on??

As for solution mix, temperature protocal, etc., I have no problem as long 
as we make a decision on a specific experiment ahead of time. 

Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.05 /   /  Re: What's the score?
     
Originally-From: <ATLCK@ASUACAD.BITNET>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What's the score?
Date: Fri, 5 Aug 1994 09:07:32 MST
Organization: Arizona State University

In article <19940808.88@prophet.mpx.com.au>, mark.maxwell@prophet.mpx.com.au
says:
>
>From: MMax@Prophet.mpx.com.au
>To: all
>Subject: What's the score?
>
>I logged on to this conference through my natural interest as an
>Electrical contractor to see maybe what the score is with CF
>developments, whether it is a possibility in the near (or far) future.
>
>All I have been able to find so far is very long discussions about
>press releases, congress funding, politics, back biting, and some
>most unusual comments from some character called Ludwig Somenoeorother.
>
>So can some one please tell me is there a possibility for the dream power
>source?
>
>Or is there a straight answer out there somewhere?
>
My sentiments exactly!
--Lynn Kurtz
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenATLCK cudln cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.05 / Matt Austern /  Re: What's the score?
     
Originally-From: matt@physics5.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What's the score?
Date: 05 Aug 1994 19:07:35 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (Theoretical Physics Group)

In article <94217.090732ATLCK@ASUACAD.BITNET> <ATLCK@ASUACAD.BITNET> writes:

> >So can some one please tell me is there a possibility for the dream power
> >source?
> >
> >Or is there a straight answer out there somewhere?

> My sentiments exactly!

The vast majority of scientists think that the answer is unequivocally
no.  The general consensus is that "cold fusion" was a delusion, just
as "N-rays" and "polywater" were.  You can find some more information
about this point of view in (for example) Frank Close's book.

A few people, notably Pons and Fleischman themselves, still believe
that there's something to investigate.  You can decide for yourself
whether these folks are brave pioneers unjustly attacked by the
hidebound scientific establishment, or crackpots, or something else.

[Oh, and a minor clarification.  I'm putting the phrase "cold fusion"
in quotation marks to indicate the sort of things that Pons and
Fleischman were investigating---electrochemical cells with palladium
and heavy water, and so forth.  There are some phenomena that could
literally be described as cold fusion, however, such as muon-catalyzed
fusion, that are univerally agreed to be genuine.  Unfortunately, it
looks like muon-catalyzed fusion will never be a practical energy
source.]
 
--

                               --matt
cudkeys:
cuddy05 cudenmatt cudfnMatt cudlnAustern cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.05 / Tom Droege /  Re: experiment
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: experiment
Date: 5 Aug 1994 20:23:39 GMT
Organization: fermilab

In article <9408041625.AA19779@starbase.nl.nuwc.navy.mil>, 
bernecky@starbase.nl.nuwc.navy.mil (robert bernecky) says:
>
> > But I will start the debate by asking Bob Bernecky what he proposes 
that we
> > measure. OK guys, we have talked a lot.  How about doing some science!
> > 
> > Tom Droege
>
>I will think about this.  As a first step, it would be good to achieve
>an unambiguous observation.  To do this, I am partial to using a thin
>foil of Pd (monocrystal, if this can be arranged), 1% H, and a specific
>temperature protocol over a range of 280K to at least 385 K.
>
>It would be very good to directly monitor the temperature of the cathode.
>
>
I propose we stick with a standard title until we get tired of using it 
for this thread.  I think "Experiment" is just fine and propose that 
we stick with it.  This will help for some of us to keep a file so we
don't forget something.  

Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.05 / Paul McCombes /  Re: Randell L. Mills and hydrinos
     
Originally-From: paul@mccombes.demon.co.uk (Paul McCombes)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.skeptic,pdx.general
Subject: Re: Randell L. Mills and hydrinos
Date: Fri, 5 Aug 1994 20:59:02 +0000
Organization: None

In article <CtzsJn.J7H@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
           crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU "Cameron Randale Bass" writes:
> 
> >They are functionally different. The theories do not make comparable 
> >predictions except in the low v, low m case. Even then they are slightly 
out, 
> >or did I miss the bit about moving clocks run slow in Newtonian physics - 
> >detectable at everyday speeds using aeroplanes and atomic clocks.
> 
>      Not your everyday clock, he observed dryly.
> 
>      On the other hand, I'm an engineer, and I have never, and I mean
>      *never* used a GR correction in any practical calculation.
>      So the 'approximation' must be fairly good in some very real and 
>      very well-defined sense.

Never use a laser range finder? Admittedly SR, but not Newton.

>      
>> According to 
>>your definition then Newton isn't even an approximation as its 'mostly wrong, 
>>sometimes close, and once in a while close enough so as we can't tell the 
>>difference'.
> 
>      Once in a while?  I challenge you to tell the difference with
>      *any* clock you can afford in any situation you have ever been in.
>      I think you've well overplayed your case quite substantially by now.

Any clock using a magnet would fail if Newton's laws were are true and accurate 
reflection of reality.

> 
>      May I suggest further reflection on your understanding of the term
>      'approximation'.

OED- 'APPROXIMATION (n) : 2. A coming or getting near to identity in quantity, 
quality, or degree; an approach to a correct estimation or conception.'

Which is exactly what I mean. However, I have only used a relativistic 
correction once in my life (estimating the Doppler broadening in laser 
spectroscopy), but astonomers use them every day.  

>      
> >Anyway, you should set your clocks to run backwards, as then they will show
>  the 
> >correct time more often.
> 
>      'Correct' for what purpose?  Every timepiece ever made is an 
>      approximation of an ideal, or, alternatively, they're all 'correct'.  
>      
>      What you are saying is that the elapsed 
>      time on a quartz wristwatch is not an 'approximation' of the 
>      elapsed time on an atomic clock.
  
No I'm not. I'm saying that a clock running backwards (the faster the better) 
will agree with an atomic clock more often than one going forward. Who 
mentioned a purpose?

> 
>      I think that's an odd position.
> 
>                                 dale bass
Yup.
-- 
Paul McCombes
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenpaul cudfnPaul cudlnMcCombes cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.06 / Chris Parkinson /  Italian C.F., could be Curie effect
     
Originally-From: parky@netcom.com (Chris Parkinson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Italian C.F., could be Curie effect
Date: Sat, 6 Aug 1994 02:45:19 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)


cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenparky cudfnChris cudlnParkinson cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.06 / Chris Parkinson /  Italian CF, Curie effect rest of article
     
Originally-From: parky@netcom.com (Chris Parkinson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Italian CF, Curie effect rest of article
Subject: Italian C.F., could be Curie effect
Date: Sat, 6 Aug 1994 04:04:41 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Italian C.F., could be Curie effect
Summary: 
Followup-To: 
Distribution: usa
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
Keywords: 


I have read the article from Eugene Mallove entitled 'An Italian Cold 
Fusion Hot Potato' from Cold Fusion magazine. There are some interesting 
facets to this idea that were not explored by the author. Namely, a 
question remains in my mind that if the input power supply is operating 
at an AC level and the frequency remains fixed then what could be 
occurring is the Curie effect on the magnetics of the nickel. I would be 
interested to see exactly what the input power consists of and how the 
net power is being measured and if any LC power computations have been done.

I could be wrong in this but I've seen and worked extensively with this 
type of phenomena before and there are plenty of texts covering this 
principle and even patents in the area of self regulated heating devices 
in the 300 to 1300 degree F range.

Chris Parkinson
Denel Resources, Inc.
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenparky cudfnChris cudlnParkinson cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.06 / C Harrison /  Re: experiment
     
Originally-From: harr@netcom.com (Charles (Chuck) Harrison)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: experiment
Date: Sat, 6 Aug 1994 04:20:04 GMT
Organization: Fitful

Continuing with the "DC thru the calorimeter wall" concept...

One interesting feature of the current-stabilizing shunt regulator
as outlined before is this:

You can now install funky little devices (stir motors, solenoid
valves, particle detectors), powered from a nice DC voltage
bus, _inside_ the calorimeter -- with wild abandon.  Whatever
juice your device takes, the shunt regulator instantaneously
(well, within its passband anyhow) compensates.  You don't have
to worry about the heat generated by these sorts of things.

... and the divided cell...

_If_ we go to a divided cell, I would like to see a little bit
of remote-controlled plumbing which would allow us to break the
division intentionally (e.g. open a valve and mix the electrolytes).
That's something that I remember from the BARC work - they got
alot of nulls with the cell divided then interesting things when
the cathode compartment got oxygen (or something else) from the
anolyte (that's the electrolyte in the anode compartment).

Onward..Excelsior!

Chuck

cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenharr cudfnCharles cudlnHarrison cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.07 / Robert Heeter /  Updating Conventional Fusion FAQ
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Updating Conventional Fusion FAQ
Date: Sun, 7 Aug 1994 00:57:03 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

I've finally got some time to update the Conventional
Fusion FAQ.  I've got a lot to do and would like
to "farm out" some things so I don't get completely
swamped.  I'll be posting some of the relatively static
sections and working on some of the unwritten sections,
so there's some time for people to cook up things before
I get to revising the parts I'd like to farm out.

Do I have any volunteers to:

(a) Summarize the Plasmak science debate?  Or is this
too controversial to fit into an FAQ?  We have claims
and counterclaims, but there doesn't seem to be any
publicly-available proof either way.  Maybe Bruce/Art
could write up the mainstream concerns and Koloc could
put together a *BRIEF* summary of plasmak claims?
I'll include the '89 Fusion Tech article in the
bibliography.

(b) Summarize the alternative fuels science debate?
Maybe Phil and Art can figure something out?
What are the key numbers besides ideal temperature,
relative Lawson difficulty, relative reactivity at 
ideal Lawson, and (approximate) relative neutron emissions?
What about non-Maxwellian plasmas?

(c) Find out what's up in Inertial Fusion and write
a brief summary?

(d) See what major articles there have been in Science/Nature
on fusion in the last year or so and put together some
bibliography entries?

And as usual, I'd appreciate any comments and suggestions
regarding each section as I update and post it.

Thanks to everyone for helping out!  (Past and future
help included!)

***************************
Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University
As always, I represent only myself, and not PPPL
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.07 / Robert Heeter /  Section 7 - Education Opportunities - Conventional Fusion FAQ
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Originally-From: Geoff Maddison, geoff.maddison@aea.orgn.uk
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Section 7 - Education Opportunities - Conventional Fusion FAQ
Date: Sun, 7 Aug 1994 00:58:37 GMT
Date: Sat, 26 Feb 1994 18:44:05 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

7. Educational Opportunities in Fusion Research
* This FAQ deals with conventional fusion only, not Cold Fusion. *

While this section is not yet complete, it should be useful to
many people, and I encourage you to distribute it to anyone who
might be interested (and willing to help revise it!!!).

Fourth Draft - August 6,1994
Written by Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@theory.pppl.gov, unless
otherwise cited.  Acknowledgements to everyone are in Section 12.

***  Note: Answers in this section are biased towards Americans;
          I'd appreciate input from people in other nations to
          make this section as applicable as possible. 

***  Note #2:  These answers are by no means complete or final;
          I'm hoping y'all will contribute what you know and
          help me out!

***********************

Undergraduate/Graduate Opportunities: 

***  A.  What opportunities are there for interested students?

 * Undergraduate Opportunities:  Academic-year Programs

         !!!! High school students take note !!!!

Unfortunately, fusion research is a relatively small field, 
so most colleges and universities do not have much in the 
way of fusion research.  Plasma physics is a bit more common, 
but still not widespread.  But it's certainly possible to wind up 
doing plasma physics at the graduate level without getting 
much exposure as an undergraduate, at least in the U.S.

Exceptions - schools with active plasma/fusion research:

In the United States (in no particular order):
     Caltech, UCLA, Wisconsin-Madison, MIT, Texas-Austin, 
     Princeton, Maryland, Iowa, Auburn, Columbia, 
     Washington (Seattle) and probably some other schools 

In Germany - the Universities in:  
     Munich, Juelich, Bochum, Berlin, Stuttgart, Augsburg, and 
     Greifswald.  Graduate students can work at the Max Planck
     Institut fur Plasmaphysik, too.

In Britain:
     Imperial College, London; Oxford University; (elsewhere?) 

Elsewhere in the EU:
     Denmark:  University of Copenhagen
     Netherlands:  FOM Institute at Rijnhuizen (?, spelling?)

Most Russian research is done in Moscow, Leningrad, and Novosibirsk.

(help with other countries, anyone??)


 * If anyone needs help obtaining addresses to contact at these
institutions, let me know.  If anyone has contact addresses,
please send them to me so I can accumulate a list.


 * Undergraduate Summer Programs:
     
There are, however, undergraduate summer research programs 
(primarily for students who've completed their junior year) in 
both Europe and the United States (details on these programs
are appended).  One can also become involved in fusion / plasma
research through summer programs offered at the various U.S.
National Laboratories (particularly Livermore, Los Alamos,
and Sandia; possibly Oak Ridge?). Finally, it's also possible 
to do summer research at the schools which do research, provided
you find a way to make the right connections.


 * Graduate Opportunities:  

The summer program offered in Europe is targeted for beginning 
graduate students (perhaps more so than advanced undergraduates); 
see below for details.

The schools listed above which pursue fusion / plasma research 
also have graduate programs; there are other schools as well.  
There are several fellowships available to provide financial 
assistance, as well.  (I could really use a couple addresses here, 
so people know where to go to get the important information.  
Help anyone???)


***  B.  I'm an undergraduate interested in becoming a "fusioneer".  
         What should I study?

Basic Answer:  

     Fusion researchers come to the field from a number
of different disciplines, because the field is small and young
and no school has a major in "fusioneering" or "plasma physics".  
For undergraduates, a major in physics, astrophysics, or 
electrical engineering would provide a perhaps the best 
background for studying plasma physics.  Nuclear and mechanical
engineering are also viable options, particularly if your interest
lies more in reactor design and engineering.  At this point the
majority of graduate opportunities are on the plasma physics side,
though this may change as the science evolves and (we hope) more
reactor engineers are needed.

My opinion is that it is more important to look for research
opportunities relevant to the field, and the choice of major
is a little less important.


***  C.  What sorts of experiments are there for high-school
         students?  How can I get the equipment?  Has anyone
         else done this?

     While there are few fusion experiments that would be feasible
at the high school level, there are a number of interesting
possibilities for plasma physics experiments.  (There are 
people here at PPPL, and probably elsewhere, who can provide
demos and/or assist in developing experiments; if anyone 
is interested in this, let me know and I'll pursue this further.)

     There are a couple simple plasma demonstrations which
would probably be feasible.  If one has access to a microwave
oven, one can simply insert a sealed tube containing some sort
of low-pressure gas (such as a fluorescent light bulb), and 
then run the microwave.  The microwave radiation will ionize 
the gas, forming a microwave plasma discharge, if the circumstances 
are right.  (This may not be all that good for the microwave,
however.)  

     An easy way to observe the confining effects of a magnetic
field would be to build a fairly large magnetic coil (fields
of around 30 gauss will give a nice effect) and run a fluorescent
light inside.  (The Helmholtz configuration, where the coil
radius is equal to the coil separation, gives a fairly uniform
magnetic field in the region between the coils, and would be
better than a solenoid since it would make it easier to see
inside.  Moving the coils away from each other will generate
a magnetic mirror configuration, which also has some interesting
physics to it.)  This will be best if you can see inside the
fluorescent bulb, instead of just seeing the phosphor glow from
the glass tube.

     If one has access to a vacuum pump and a high voltage (2000 V)
power supply, it is also possible to build a glow discharge tube
instead of using the fluorescent light bulb.  Air will give
a pretty discharge, but helium and neon and argon are also 
interesting.  I have draftings and instructions for building
such a glow tube, which could be built as a high school project
for high schools with a small machine shop (courtesy of Tim
Bennett at PPPL).


***  D.  What about those summer programs you mentioned above?

I am currently aware of two major plasma/fusion summer programs.

* 1.  The National Undergraduate Summer Fellowship in Plasma Physics 
and Fusion Engineering (NUF) is a competitive U.S. program, 
primarily aimed at those completing their junior year in college.  
A one-week short course (at Princeton, in June) kicks off 
the program, followed by several weeks of research at various 
sites nationwide.  There is a substantial stipend ($4000 or so) 
and travel expenses up to $1000 are covered.  The application
deadline was Feb. 22 of this year, and will probably shift 
around next year.  

For further information, contact nuf@pppl.gov (Diane Carroll).

* 2.  There is also a Plasma Physics Summer School offered at 
Culham in England (where JET is located).  Here is a posting
on the program from Geoff Maddison, and some comments from
others on the program.

Originally-From: Geoff Maddison, geoff.maddison@aea.orgn.uk
Date: Sat, 26 Feb 1994 18:44:05 GMT
>
>      T H E   3 1 s t   C U L H A M   P L A S M A   P H Y S I C S
>      ###########################################################
>
>                       S U M M E R   S C H O O L
>                       #########################
>
>                   1 1   -   2 2   J U L Y   1 9 9 4
>
>         C u l h a m   L a b o r a t o r y,   A b i n g d o n,
>                     O x f o r d s h i r e,   U K
>
>
> An International Summer School intended  for students near 
> the  start of postgraduate courses.  No previous knowledge of 
> plasma physics  is assumed.  Since 1985,  the Summer School series  
> has been attended by over 600 students from 47 countries, more 
> than two thirds coming from outside the UK.
>
> Culham Laboratory is the primary centre for plasma physics & 
> nuclear fusion research in the UK; it is located close to the 
> city of Oxford, and  shares  a  site   with  the   world's  
> largest  magnetic  fusion experiment,  the  Joint  European  
> Torus   (JET).
>
>               The School covers a broad curriculum :-
>
> * Plasma particle dynamics   * Plasma waves  * Kinetic theory   
> * MHD * Computational techniques  * Astrophysical plasmas   
> * Laser plasmas * Magnetically confined plasmas    * Solar plasmas
> * Poster session * Space plasmas * Laboratory visits * Industrial 
> plasmas * Turbulence & chaos * Diagnostics * Gravitational plasmas
>
> A copy of the course textbook "Plasma Phyics: An Introductory
> Course" (Cambridge University Press, 1993)  is given to each
> student.
>
> ACCOMMODATION WILL BE IN A HISTORIC COLLEGE OF OXFORD UNIVERSITY.
>
>            CLOSING DATE FOR APPLICATIONS:  13th MAY 1994
>
>   (Late applications may be accepted, depending on accommodation.)
>
> Further details / application forms are available from :-
>
>      Mrs Joan Stimson,
>      Culham Laboratory,
>      Abingdon,
>      Oxfordshire  OX14 3DB,              Tel: 44 235 463293
>      UK.                                 FAX: 44 235 463288
>
> or e-MAIL enquiries to:  geoff.maddison@aea.orgn.uk
>

Commentary:

* From David Pearson, University of Reading, 1988 (?) attendee:

Dear Internet,

Yes, go to the Culham Summer School if you can - but read some
basic textbooks (or a textbook) first, if you are a beginner.
The Summer School is excellent, but I doubt if many people are
smart enough to plunge straight into it without knowing some
plasma physics first - I certainly wasn't.

* Note by Robert F. Heeter:  

The Culham program appears to be intended for students making 
the transition from undergraduate to graduate work.  The flyer 
I saw indicated that it was about twelve days long (two weeks 
of classes and a weekend in the middle), and the cost was 
on the order of 750 pounds sterling, including housing.



*** E.  When/where are the major fusion conferences?

** Major Annual Conferences:

The following is a list of some major annual conferences, including
(where I have the information) the sponsoring organization, the 
name of the conference, the typical abbreviation for the 
conference, the season when the conference is held, size of 
the conference, and some comments.  (The current list was 
provided by Art Carlson; I've reformatted it somewhat.)

* American Physical Society Division of Plasma Physics:
Annual Meeting. (APS, or APS-DPP).  Fall. About 1500 contributors. 

Largest and probably most important conference, covers all of 
plasma physics.

* European Physical Society:
European Conference on Controlled Fusion and 
... Plasma Physics (odd years) 
... Plasma Heating (even years) 
(EPS). Summer. About 500 contributors. 

The European equivalent of APS, covers all of plasma physics.

* International Atomic Energy Agency: 
International Conference on Plasma Physics and Controlled 
Nuclear Fusion Research. (IAEA). Fall. Attendence restricted. 

Politically important.

* Symposium on Fusion Technology (SOFT). Summer.

* International Conference on Plasma-Surface Interaction (PSI). 
Summer. 

Lots of surface physics and technology.

* International Sherwood Fusion Theory Conference 
(Sherwood). Spring. 

Probably the most important fusion _theory_ conference.
(From the secret code name for the original US fusion program.)


** A few dates of upcoming fusion-related conferences.
(dates European style, dy/mo/yr)

22-26/8/94
18th Symposium on Fusion Technology (SOFT)
Karlsruhe, Germany

26/9-1/10
15th IAEA Int. conf. on PLASMA PHYSICS AND CONTROLLED NUCLEAR 
FUSION RESEARCH
Madrid, Spain

7-11/11/94
Meeting of the AMERICAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY--DIVISION OF PLASMA PHYSICS
Minneapolis, MN, USA

2-7/7/95
22nd European Conf. on CONTROLLED FUSION AND PLASMA PHYSICS
Bournemouth, UK


anybody have a few minutes to update my calendar???



***************************
Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University
As always, I represent only myself, and not PPPL
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.07 / Richard Blue /  Deuterons for Dave Davies
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Deuterons for Dave Davies
Date: Sun, 7 Aug 1994 00:13:00 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Dave makes a very good point.  The cold fusion issue has often
become very entangled in confusion generated by the fact that
very few people have a broad enough perspective to appreciate
everything that may be involved.  I would carry that further
to say that some people have even insisted that only their area
of expertise need be considered, and information coming from
other scientific disciplines need not be given much weight.

Dave has initiated a discussion involving the intrinsic nuclear
properties of a deuteron - what is known and how we know it.
Let me see if I can do the topic justice.  To start I will remind
everyone that, by my estimate, every published scientific text is
about ten years out of date when it goes to press.  That is to
say progress is made in every field of active research that simply
does not get distilled, digested, and sufficiently regularized
that it can compete for space with the older topics and points of
view.  Of course the delay gets worse as the author moves further
away from those topics in which he maintains an active working
knowledge.  The information may be taken from some other work
that was already out of date when it was written.

Dave's reference to Eisberg, the optical model, and his understanding
of the state of our knowledge of the deuteron are, I believe, all
illustrations of the problem of delayed information transfer.
Even I will be limited in what I can say about the deuteron with
any authority to the situation as I knew it 15 years ago although
I have paid some heed to the publications of former colleagues since
then.

To address the question of the d-state admixture of the dueteron,
let me bias the discussion in favor of experimental observations
initially.  There is quite a variety of ways in which d-state
admixture can be detected and measured.  The method that lies
within one of my specializations involves the measurement of
cross sections for stripping reactions as a function of the
orientation of spin-polarized deuterons.  Simply stated one can
see the effect of the deformed shape of the deuteron on the
tunnelling distance (and hence probability) for a neutron being
transfered from the deuteron to a target nucleus.  Each
type of experiment may sample a slightly different aspect of
this quadrapole shape so not all measurements yield exactly the
same value for the d-state admixture.  Still there is a solid
consensus that limits this to a few percent in the amplitude
of the wave function.  I want to say roughly 5%, but I haven't
actually looked up that number.

>From the theoretical standpoint, perhaps Jim Carr will step in
since that is closer to his speciality.  My understanding is
that the d-state admixture has its origins in the tensor
component of the nucleon-nucleon interaction, but I probably
should not reveal the depth of my ignorance beyond that.
I think what is most relevant to the current discussion is
more a matter of understanding the degree to which none of this
is subject to a total change as the result of future improvements
in experimental techniques and/or increased theoretical understanding.
It will not go away even though numerical values may shift a little.
The deuteron in its ground state is not spherical.

The next point to be addressed is how well the mass of the deuteron
in its ground state is known, and what are the possibilities for
the existance of other undetected low-lying bound states.  Dave
suggests that there may be both a spherical ground state and
a deformed state close by.  The problem of undetected states is
a very real one in nuclear physics so I must tread lightly here.
As Dave notes most measurements are made on an ensemble of deuterons
such that small differences between members of that ensemble could
be hidden within the experimental resolution.  There are some
measurements on properties of deuterons that have such high
resolution, however, that keeping differences hidden is difficult.
I can suggest measurements of the magnetic dipole moment as
observed via NMR as well as all the forms of optical spectroscopy
and radio frequency spectroscopy including in-beam spectroscopy
that should provide a means of exciting deuterons as they are
being analyzed.

This group also needs to be reminded occassional of the power
of combining experimental results with theory.  Although it
is true that the optical model, as Dave says, is very much of
a kludge and the simplest forms of the shell model are a bit
of a kludge; our knowledge of the deuteron in not adequately
described by the presentations given in a typical textbook
such as Eisberg.  One powerful technique for the study of
the nuclear two-body system is elastic scattering of neutrons
on protons and protons on protons.  The experimental data is
then subjected to phase-shift analysis which breaks down the
scattering cross sections into the contributions from the
various partial waves.  Through such analyses the existance
of various bound states can actually be determined even though
the measurements never resulted in the formation of the state
in question.  Furthermore such detailed data on the two-body
interaction presents significant constraints on the possible
interaction potentials employed in any theoretical model
of the deuteron.  If you count the degrees of freedom that
can enter such a model and you consider the possible permutations
of the significant quantum numbers the number of states that
can be formed is finite.  Once you have positioned all the
possible states in accord with experimental observations how can
you possibly slip in another state that has gone unnoticed?
You must realize that this is a two body system so it isn't
too difficult to get a handle on all the degrees of freedom.

Of course the reason the deuteron ground state is analyzed
in terms of s-wave and d-wave contributions lies with the
conservation of parity.  You can pursue the further complexities
of including the odd parity waves, but that does not add states.
It just forces tiny further admixtures to the wavefunctions
of existing states.  Here we have to get a bit philosophical
as to what is meant by a state with a mixed wavefunction as
contrasted to having two states that mix.  I am not up to
that one just now.

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.06 / J Interguru /  Re: "The Economist" reviews ITER (still on the nzstands)
     
Originally-From: jdavidson@clark.net (Joseph Davidson - Interguru)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: "The Economist" reviews ITER (still on the nzstands)
Date: 6 Aug 1994 13:43:45 GMT
Organization: Clark Internet Services, Inc., Ellicott City, MD USA

I want to paraphase some comments I heard from those familiar with the DOE 
program.

Rebut was canned, and the he is being replaced by Robert Aymer the
Frenchman who built Tore Supra. Rebut got canned fundamentally because he
wanted to build somethings and the poltical types did not. He is now going
around telling everyone that the management of ITER is all screwed up. He
testified before the HSST yesterday and that is what he said. There were a
lot of sympathetic questions. One guy even whent so far as to say the we
do not know how to manage large scientific enterprises (space station,
SSC, ITER, etc.). 

I personally think ITER will continue for quite a few years but it will be
just a focussed R&D program. But I do not think anything will end up being
built. 


Paul M. Koloc (pmk@prometheus.UUCP) wrote:
: An article giving an economistic perspective on the ITER and
: it's potential funding problems is in the current July-August 1994
: issue of THE ECONOMIST.  

: Enjoy... 

 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Davidson Ph.D.                              
1501 Dublin Drive, Silver Spring, Md. 20902         
voice 301 593 4152 ; fax 301 593 4152 (call first)  
j.davidson@ieee.org                                 |
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenjdavidson cudfnJoseph cudlnInterguru cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.06 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Randell L. Mills and hydrinos
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.skeptic,pdx.general
Subject: Re: Randell L. Mills and hydrinos
Date: Sat, 6 Aug 1994 17:44:17 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <776120342snz@mccombes.demon.co.uk>,
Paul McCombes <paul@mccombes.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <CtzsJn.J7H@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
>           crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU "Cameron Randale Bass" writes:
>> 
>> >They are functionally different. The theories do not make comparable 
>> >predictions except in the low v, low m case. Even then they are slightly 
>out, 
>> >or did I miss the bit about moving clocks run slow in Newtonian physics - 
>> >detectable at everyday speeds using aeroplanes and atomic clocks.
>> 
>>      Not your everyday clock, he observed dryly.
>> 
>>      On the other hand, I'm an engineer, and I have never, and I mean
>>      *never* used a GR correction in any practical calculation.
>>      So the 'approximation' must be fairly good in some very real and 
>>      very well-defined sense.
>
>Never use a laser range finder? Admittedly SR, but not Newton.

    Again, depends on what you're talking about.  The ranges found with
    a 'laser range finder' are certainly well-described in a 
    euclidean 'newtonian' framework.  And I've never
    seen anyone make GR corrections to velocities in their LDV gear.

    The calculations of nearly every physical scientist and engineer
    contradicts your assertion that Newton's laws are not a good approximation
    of GR.

>>> According to 
>>>your definition then Newton isn't even an approximation as its 'mostly wrong, 
>>>sometimes close, and once in a while close enough so as we can't tell the 
>>>difference'.
>> 
>>      Once in a while?  I challenge you to tell the difference with
>>      *any* clock you can afford in any situation you have ever been in.
>>      I think you've well overplayed your case quite substantially by now.
>
>Any clock using a magnet would fail if Newton's laws were are true and accurate 
>reflection of reality.

     In what way do you suggest we apply Newton's laws to the description
     of the operation of a magnet?  

     This is silly.

>> 
>>      May I suggest further reflection on your understanding of the term
>>      'approximation'.
>
>OED- 'APPROXIMATION (n) : 2. A coming or getting near to identity in quantity, 

     Actually, in ours that's number 3, but perhaps you have a 
     different version.  

>quality, or degree; an approach to a correct estimation or conception.'
>
>Which is exactly what I mean. 

     No, you seem to be missing the 'getting near' part on your 
     way to the 'identity' part.

>However, I have only used a relativistic 
>correction once in my life (estimating the Doppler broadening in laser 
>spectroscopy), but astonomers use them every day.  

     I believe we were discussing GR and kinetic 'approximations', but 
     feel free to change the subject any time.
   
>>      
>> >Anyway, you should set your clocks to run backwards, as then they will show
>>  the 
>> >correct time more often.
>> 
>>      'Correct' for what purpose?  Every timepiece ever made is an 
>>      approximation of an ideal, or, alternatively, they're all 'correct'.  
>>      
>>      What you are saying is that the elapsed 
>>      time on a quartz wristwatch is not an 'approximation' of the 
>>      elapsed time on an atomic clock.
>  
>No I'm not.

     Yes you are.  Motion measured by a quartz wristwatch is indistinguishable
     under GR and Newton.

> I'm saying that a clock running backwards (the faster the better) 
>will agree with an atomic clock more often than one going forward. Who 
>mentioned a purpose?

    You've made an untoward assumption about the clock rates. But
    you began by talking about a clock being 'correct'.
    The atomic clock is only 'correct' in your sense in the trivial sense 
    that it indicates the time that it indicates.  This is true of a sundial 
    as well.

    And 'correct' always comes with a context and hence, a purpose.

>> 
>>      I think that's an odd position.
>> 
>>                                 dale bass
>Yup.

     At least we're in agreement here.

                           dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.07 / David Davies /  Re: Reply to Dave Davies
     
Originally-From: drd851@huxley.anu.edu.au (David R Davies)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reply to Dave Davies
Date: 7 Aug 1994 13:38:28 +1000
Organization: Australian National University

jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) writes:
>....
>There is nothing all that simple about a two-body system when there 
>are tensor and spin-spin forces present. 

This is more-or-less what I have concluded. Do you have any suggestions
as to how it might be possible to model the individual nucleons of D+ as
they move into a highly delocalized state in, say, a Pd lattice?

Thanks for your comments,

dave
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudendrd851 cudfnDavid cudlnDavies cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Sun Aug  7 04:37:03 EDT 1994
------------------------------
1994.08.07 / Robert Heeter /  Section 8 - Internet Resources - Conventional Fusion FAQ
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Section 8 - Internet Resources - Conventional Fusion FAQ
Date: Sun, 7 Aug 1994 01:00:14 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

8. Internet Information Resources
* This FAQ deals with conventional fusion only, not Cold Fusion. *

While this section is not yet complete, it should be useful to
many people, and I encourage you to distribute it to anyone who
might be interested (and willing to help improve it!!!).

Fifth Draft - August 6,1994
Written by Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@theory.pppl.gov, unless
otherwise cited.


*** A. Newsgroups:  
     sci.physics.fusion (unmoderated)
     sci.physics.plasma (moderated)  
          - this latter is for plasma science discussions, 
            not for fusion issues.                


*** B. Anonymous FTP Sites:
     vm1.nodak.edu (134.129.111.1) 
          This site has the complete archive of
          the sci.physics.fusion newsgroup, from its inception.

          In particular, this FAQ is (will soon be) archived here.

          To log in:  use the username anonymous, type your
          email address as the password, and then type "cd fusion"
          to get to the fusion directory.  Beware: the index is
          large!  To download something enter "get" and then
          the name of the file you want.

     sunsite.unc.edu
          Sunsite also collects the fusion digests archiving
          the sci.physics.fusion, in the directory 
           /pub/academic/physics/Cold-fusion.
          The recent digest files are in subdirectories whose 
          names begin with "fd," and the older stuff is
          archived by year in files fd89, fd90, etc...

     neutrino.nuc.berkeley.edu 
          Here you can find fusion-related GIF images.
          As for vm1.nodak.edu, log in anonymously, then cd to
          the directory /pub/fusion, and "get" what you want.


*** C. LISTSERV:
     vm1.nodak.edu also works as a listserver:

          "You get a (large) index of the archives by sending 
          an email to listserv@vm1.nodak.edu, with a blank 
          SUBJECT line, and the "message" 'index fusion'. To get 
          any one of these files, you then send to the same address
          the message, e.g., "get fusion 91-00487", etc, according 
          to what you're after."
            -- quoting Dieter Britz, BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk

          * This FAQ should soon be available via the listserver.


*** D. Gopher:

     * Garching (Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics): 
          The host is uts.ipp-garching.mpg.de (Port: 70)
          Or, from the top:  Gopher -> Europe -> Germany 
             -> Information Servers in Germany 
             -> MPI fuer Plasmaphysik Garching-Gopher
             (and, if you like, -> IPP Information)

          According to Art Carlson at Garching:
             "It's probably not very useful, since most of the info, 
             press releases and the like, is in German.  There is 
             other *great stuff* on the computer, like drawings 
             of ASDEX-Upgrade and time schedules, but it's not 
             publicly available (as far as I know)."

     * University of Texas - Austin:

          Gopher -> North America -> USA -> Texas
            -> University of Texas Austin Fusion Studies
                  (Machine name is hagar.ph.utexas.edu)

          This gopher server has a variety of material regarding 
          physics and fusion, including archives of the periodic 
          status reports for TFTR, Alcator C-Mod, and TEXT-U.
          This is also accessible via Mosaic with the URL 
          gopher://hagar.ph.utexas.edu/1, I believe.

     * Anything else out there?


*** E. World-Wide Web:

     * Much of the public-domain fusion info is now available 
       via WWW:  At this time, it appears that most of the 
       major U.S. fusion research labs have information available 
       on the Web, and the amount of available information is 
       growing rapidly.  Available materials include basic 
       fusion information, all sorts of pictures, information 
       about each lab's research projects, and more.

     * Navigating the Web is a little hard to explain, but the
       easiest way to start is to go to the NCSA What's New page in 
       Mosaic, open up the What's New archives, find the archive for 
       June 1994, and then browse through it until you find the 
       Office of Fusion Energy page.  From here, you can (I think) 
       move upwards within DOE to the Office of Energy Research, or 
       downwards to many of the fusion labs.  Alternatively, once you 
       know the "URL" addresses of a lab's WWW documents, you can 
       open them up directly with the "Open URL" menu command.

     * Some URL addresses to try:
     
     http://wwwofe.er.doe.gov/			(Office of Fusion Energy)
     http://harrier.pppl.gov/homepage.html	(PPPL)
     http://demo-www.gat.com/			(General Atomics / DIII-D)
     http://cmod2.pfc.mit.edu/			(MIT Plasma Fusion Center)

     * The University of Texas-Austin has a server:

               http://w3fusion.ph.utexas.edu/frc.html

       There is also a parallel WWW server for Univ. of Texas 
       Fusion Research (testing new features) at:

               http://ruby.ph.utexas.edu

          This WWW server cover the Fusion Research Center 
          (experimental program and the TEXT-U device) and 
          the Institute for Fusion Research (theoretical).

     (Apologies to those labs I left off this list; I figured this 
     would give anyone interested a decent start, and then the rest 
     of the labs are easy to get to.)


*** F. Electronic Bulletins

     * TFTR Updates - published occasionally by Rich Hawryluk,
forwarded automatically to sci.physics.fusion.  Also distributed
via electronic mailing list.

     * Alcator C-Mod Weekly Updates - posted by Steve Fairfax to
sci.physics.fusion periodically 

     * TPX Updates - published occasionally by Rob Goldston,
forwarded automatically to sci.physics.fusion.  Also distributed
via electronic mailing list.


*** G. Individuals Willing to Provide Additional Information

Many of the participants on sci.physics.fusion are conventional/hot
fusion researchers.  Many names and email addresses are to be found 
as sources for various slices of the FAQ, and so on.  (See the 
acknowledgements for a more-or-less complete list of contributors.)

A few people have expressed a willingness to serve as sources for
people seeking additional literature, such as laboratory reports, 
pamphlets, and assorted other documents.  What follows is a short 
listing:

* Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@lyman.pppl.gov 
	- Graduate Student at Princeton - 

	I have the FAQ, all sorts of archived postings and additional
	information used to generate the FAQ, a bunch of PPPL literature, 
	a set of quicktime movies made from television coverage of the 
	TFTR D-T runs (and GIFs from the QT movies), and access to just 
	about anyone here at PPPL who would have something I don't have.

The draft FAQ now exists as a stand-alone, self-running Macintosh
document roughly 300K in size; I will be happy to send it to
anyone who wants the FAQ in this (more convenient!) form.

* Joe T. Chew, jtchew@lbl.gov
	- Physicist at Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory -

	"I've also got a variety of pamphlets put out by this or that 
	lab or agency over the years; feel free to give out my address 
	as a source for photocopies of such things."



***************************
Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University
As always, I represent only myself, and not PPPL
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.05 /  jonesse@acousb /  cancel <1994Aug5.125122.1706@acousb.byu.edu>
     
Originally-From: jonesse@acousb.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cancel <1994Aug5.125122.1706@acousb.byu.edu>
Date: 5 Aug 94 13:03:27 -0600

cancel <1994Aug5.125122.1706@acousb.byu.edu>
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenjonesse cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.05 /  jonesse@acousb /  Mallove's wager revisited
     
Originally-From: jonesse@acousb.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Mallove's wager revisited
Date: 5 Aug 94 13:05:50 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

The following bold statements by Gene Mallove make for a better two-year
wager than his CYA statement he dares people to sign:

MALLOVE:  "The tokamak program will be utterly destroyed by excess energy
devices of the cold fusion variety.  I give HF [hot fusion] two years more,
tops."  {Mallove, subject Re:  Heeter Fusion, 7/15/94}

MALLOVE:  
"Also, within two years one or more companies will announce ['cold fusion']
demonstration units that will heat rooms or entire houses." {Mallove, subject
MM-Pact, 27 July 1994}


Are you willing to put your money where your mouth is on these statements,
Gene?  You characterize Dale Bass as "big-mouthed", but are your willing
to back up your predictions?  These are easily verifiable, aren't they?  The
demise of hot fusion/tokamaks, and companies announcing cold fusion units that
will heat rooms -- yes, these would be convincing all right.  How about it?

--Steven Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenjonesse cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.05 /  jonesse@acousb /  cancel <1994Aug5.130223.1707@acousb.byu.edu>
     
Originally-From: jonesse@acousb.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cancel <1994Aug5.130223.1707@acousb.byu.edu>
Date: 5 Aug 94 13:06:22 -0600

cancel <1994Aug5.130223.1707@acousb.byu.edu>
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenjonesse cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.07 / David Davies /  Re: What's the score?
     
Originally-From: drd851@huxley.anu.edu.au (David R Davies)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What's the score?
Date: 7 Aug 1994 15:09:53 +1000
Organization: Australian National University

matt@physics5.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern) writes:

>In article <94217.090732ATLCK@ASUACAD.BITNET> <ATLCK@ASUACAD.BITNET> writes:

>> >So can some one please tell me is there a possibility for the dream power
>> >source?
>> >
>> >Or is there a straight answer out there somewhere?

>> My sentiments exactly!

>The vast majority of scientists think that the answer is unequivocally
>no.  The general consensus is that "cold fusion" was a delusion, just
>as "N-rays" and "polywater" were.  You can find some more information
>about this point of view in (for example) Frank Close's book.

I think we can safely assume that the vast majority of scientists have not
given the issue more than a moments thought. If you believe in science by
lynch-mob then CF is dead but that doesn't seem to change the fact that
experimental results keep popping up that can't be explained away easily.

If you want a good example of this, look at John Logajan's recent postings
on the Thermacore data. If you want to look deeper, dig back in the archives
for some of Tom Droege's results and the discussions that accompanied them
or keep watching for future postings from him and others. That should give
you an idea of how difficult it really is to make dogmatic statements on
the issue. 


dave 

cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudendrd851 cudfnDavid cudlnDavies cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.07 /  dowen@vaxc.cc. /  Re: Experiment.....
     
Originally-From: dowen@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Experiment.....
Date: 7 Aug 94 19:12:34 +1000
Organization: Computer Centre, Monash University, Australia

Hi Folks,
I feel like a party pooper writing this post, but I feel some things
should be said so here goes.......
Firstly, I heartily endorse and applaud Tom Droege's concept of an enduring
experiment based on... "real slow standard science - with perhaps a five
year horizon".
I have studied all the relevant posts on the "experiment", starting from the 
original post by Robert Bernecky "Bose concentration model" of the 29 July,
but I have not been able to find any reference to a detailed description 
of the -aim- of the experiment. What precisely are we setting out to achieve,
both in the short and long term, as when Tom speaks of a "five year horizon"
I take it that he refers to a series of experiments with specific
objective(s) in mind.
After spelling out the objective(s), -then- discussion on the various methods
of achieving it is in order, but before expending long hours, blood, sweat
and tears in experimental research based on Robert Bernecky's interesting
29 July post, it may be well to ponder what Robert wrote on the 5 August,
in his post "Re:Bose condensation model", in response to criticism by 
Bill Page..........
"..You are correct in pointing out that these ideas are immature and that
much work remains. The system is complicated: under what conditions are
H and D bosons.....".
So Tom, in light of all the above, just what is the aim of the experiment?

Best regards to all,
Daryl Owen.

Disclaimer: The above opinions are solely my own.



 
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudendowen cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.07 / James Vanmeter /  Re: Italian CF, Curie effect rest of article
     
Originally-From: nazrael@cats.ucsc.edu (James Vanmeter)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Italian CF, Curie effect rest of article
Date: 7 Aug 1994 10:55:52 GMT
Organization: University of California; Santa Cruz


parky@netcom.com (Chris Parkinson) writes:

>I have read the article from Eugene Mallove entitled 'An Italian Cold 
>Fusion Hot Potato' from Cold Fusion magazine. There are some interesting 
>facets to this idea that were not explored by the author. Namely, a 
>question remains in my mind that if the input power supply is operating 
>at an AC level and the frequency remains fixed then what could be 
>occurring is the Curie effect on the magnetics of the nickel. 

What's the Curie effect?


 
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudennazrael cudfnJames cudlnVanmeter cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.07 / L Plutonium /  PAF HOLDS 1ST CLAIMS OF COLD FUSION-- CORRECT SCIENCE
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.electromag
Subject: PAF HOLDS 1ST CLAIMS OF COLD FUSION-- CORRECT SCIENCE
Date: 7 Aug 1994 16:39:38 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

  MOST everyone thinks Fleischman and Pons hold 1st claims to cold
fusion (bad name, because it is triggered radioactivity). This is not
true. Paneth and Peters in Berlin actually did the same experiment.
Then Tanberg of Sweden 1927 did the experiment in more detail. Paneth &
Peters and Tanberg observed the "cold fusion" phenomenon. None of them
was able to explain what was really going on, not even Fleischman and
Pons and that is why the science has not progressed.
   PAF, Plutonium Atom Foundation holds the first patent claims as to
what is really going on in "cold fusion". It involves two ideas. The
first idea is a radioactivity. This radioactivity is "spontaneous
neutron materialization". Dirac even postulated this radioactivity in
his book "Directions in Physics". The second idea of cold fusion is a
changing electric current or potential. This changing i or V is what
Canon has observed in its PULSING experiments.
   Why changing i or V (pulsing). Answer: the Maxwell equations are
symmetric with changing electric field and changing magnetic field. In
the case of radioactivity. When a electromagnetic force field (Pulsing)
is changed produces a  radioactive force field and vice versa. That
produced radioactive force field is spontaneous neutron
materialization. 
   PAF does not take lightly of Canon's patent, and until Canon
resolves this issue. I, Ludwig Plutonium, speaking for PAF will
challenge any patent which infringes on PAF's cold fusion claim.
   I offer my patent rights to Canon for 5 million USA$ worth of their
stock shares. If Canon ignores this then I will sell those rights to
another company. Or, I have the option of later suing Canon or
whichever company uses PAF rights, after "cold fusion" is in widespread
use. This action is similar to the recent court case of an inventor who
won judgement over microchips. ( I forgot the name and the invention,
could some reader please refresh my mind on the name of the person.
Thanks in advance.)
   Or, PAF can sue the USA patent office for prejudicing LP, and when a
big company such as Canon verifies what LP work has done, then Canon
easily gets a patent, whereas LP patent applications are denied. Has
anyone sued the USA patent office and won?
   Or, in any case, PAF can sue for copyright infringement.


In article <31lavt$4sr@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium) writes:

> In article <316dmm$sdc@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
> Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium) writes:
> 
> > I quote from NEW SCIENTIST 25JUN1994, page 23 Patents,  " Cold Fusion
> > rides again " 
> >         " COLD fusion is the latest topic on the agenda of the Japanese
> > company Canon, best known for cameras, bubblejet printers and other
> > office equipment.
> >         In 1989 Martin Fleischman and Stanley Pons claimed that fusion could
> > be initiated at room temperature by electrolysing heavy water (which
> > contains disproportionate amounts of the hydrogen isotope deuterium)
> > with a titanium or palladium cathode. But the Japanese were worried
> > about the risk of an explosion caused by high gas pressure.
> >         Canon's patent (EP 568 118) claims new ways to absorb large volumes of
> > deuterium in a metal carrier, by putting it close to a pair of
> > electrodes to create a gas discharge in a hydrogen-filled chamber. Cold
> > fusion is promoted by cycling the power supply through low and high
> > voltages.
> >         The carrier can be a block of magnesium alloy or palladium alloy. For
> > safety, the hydrogen gas is at atmospheric pressure. The pulsed power
> > comes from large capacitors, and the electrodes are shaped to
> > concentrate the electric field.
> >         After storing deuterium in a palladium alloy for 60 minutes, says
> > Canon, the deuterium content had increased, with a tenfold increase in
> > gamma ray emission after 120 hours. Applying five-minute cycles of 5
> > and 500 volts DC for 50 hours produced a twentyfold increase in
> > emission. More heat was generated at the negative electrode than the
> > electric energy consumed at the two electrodes. All this, says Canon,
> > proves that cold fusion works. " Nuclear fusion can be occasioned
> > relatively easily . . . and thus a method for multiplying heat energy
> > capable of generating a sufficiently large quantity of heat energy for
> > a practical application," it claims. "
> > --------------------------------------------------------
> >   The Plutonium Atom Foundation challenges/disputes/(and if need be,
> > will sue) over this patent granted to Canon. 
> >   I, Ludwig Plutonium had filed for USA patent Patent 
> > Ser. No.: 07/737,170
> > 
> > Filing Date: 07/29/91
> >  SPONTANEOUS NEUTRON MATERIALIZATION DEVICES (SNMD) 
> >                         CLAIM FOR THE INVENTION
> > 
> >         I claim: 
> >         1. Devices constructed, engineered, and set-up for the purpose of
> > deriving, and using net energy from radioactive spontaneous neutron
> > materialization. 
> >         2. A method for induction of radioactive spontaneous neutron
> > materialization comprising:
> >         a changing electric current i flow through the fuel mass
> >         a changing electric potential difference V through the fuel mass.
> > ---------------------------------------------------
> > That above is what was claimed in that patent. The history of cold
> > fusion-- The History of Cold Fusion is summarized as such: F. Paneth
> > and K. Peters in Berlin in 1926; J. Tanberg of Sweden 1927; M.
> > Fleischmannn and S. Pons et al in Utah in 1989. What Canon has found in
> > experiments is nothing "new" as per cold fusion experiments.
> > Fleischmann and Pons experiments are nothing "new" as per Paneth and
> > Peters.
> > 
> > What Canon has done which is new and patentable is PULSING. This
> > pulsing is nothing more than changing electric current i or changing V
> > as per my patent application.That was 1/2 of my patent application.
> > Canon, and noone else has come up with what "cold fusion" (a bad choice
> > of terms because cold fusion and hot fusion are really
> > electromagnetism/radioactivities on a higher level than Maxwell Eq
> > theory), except me. Cold fusion is radioactive spontaneous neutron
> > materialization. 
> > 
> > So then, Canon's patent (EP 568 118) amounts to theft of intellectual
> > and patent application rights of Ludwig Plutonium.
> > 
> > I respectfully request that Canon officials meet with me. I will sell
> > them all patent rights and claims to Patent Application Ser. No.:
> > 07/737,170. PAF's price is 5 million USA worth of Canon stock shares.
> > This is serious business. Sincerely, Ludwig Plutonium
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.07 / David Cyganski /  Suggest using Differential Calorimetry in new Test Design
     
Originally-From: cyganski@ee.WPI.EDU (David Cyganski)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Suggest using Differential Calorimetry in new Test Design
Date: 7 Aug 1994 13:25:06 GMT
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute

I would like to make a suggestion with regard to the discussion of the
design of a new CNF calorimeter experiment as part of the discussion that
Tom Droege has begun.

To my mind, the most convincing calorimetry would be differential in nature.
That is, I would like to see two vessels in operation, one with the system
under test (SUT) and the other with just a heat source. The measurements
of temperature in the two otherwise identical vessels should be synchronized
and calibrated to agree during initial non-functional runs. 

To make this differential measure of any use, the thermal input to both
vessels must be identical. That is, the only difference in temperature will
be generated by excess heat generated by the SUT.  Here is how one accomplishes
this when the SUT voltage and current are not constant:

We place within the reference vessel a single Field Effect Transistor (FET).
The drain to source voltage is made be be identical to the SUT terminal
voltage by merely sharing the same voltage bus lines.  The FET drain to
source current is made identical to the SUT current by driving the FET
gate voltage by a control loop that is driven by the SUT current. Using
a power RF FET would permit matching the thermal input waveform of the SUT
and the FET from DC to hundreds of MegaHertz. That is, this would erase any
doubt that we might have had in the past of computational errors arising
out of sampling rates in light of rapid SUT current and voltage fluctuations.

If the idea flies with the group, I would volunteer to design and consturct
the necessary electronics.

DC
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudencyganski cudfnDavid cudlnCyganski cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.08 / Bill Page /  Re: experiment
     
Originally-From: 70047.3047@compuserve.com (Bill Page)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: experiment
Date: Mon, 8 Aug 1994 00:12:37 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Tom Droege wrote:
<<
But I will start the debate by asking Bob Bernecky what he proposes 
that we measure.
>>

I'd like to add my two bits here as well. This note might be a bit rambling and
unfocused, sorry. But I would just like to get this thinking written down
somewhere near the beginning of this process.  Everyone's feedback is welcome.

1. Methodology

Methodologically speaking... deciding what to measure should, I think, be based
on some working hypothesis.  Stating the hypothesis clearly is sometimes a
problem.  If it isn't done well, the result might be an experiment that attempts
to look at everything and sees nothing. I'll try to state the hypothesis and
would like anyone to jump in and correct me if it seems off track.

2. Work Hypothesis

So, the starting point is William (Robert?, Bob? Which do you prefer?)
Bernecky's most recent high temperature boson condensation theory. The hypthesis
is that thermal cycling of a deuterium loaded metal lattice with hyrdogren
impurities over a carefully choosen range of temperatures will induce bose
condensation of the hydrogen (atom?) species.

The formation of the condensate is presumed to be a precursor to several
"anomolous effects" observed in this system.  Among the possible interesting
effects are:

  (1) excess heat production
  (2) change in heat content/conductivity of the material
  (3) high diffusion rates
  (4) change in electrical conductivity
  (5) magnetic effects
  (6) radiation absorption (enhanced neutron and/or gamma cross-sections)
  (7) low energy x-ray emissions
  (8) nuclear magnetic resonance spectrum
  (9) hyrdino production
  (10) helium production
  (11) tritium production
  (12) ... [please add to this list]

I think we should try to extend and prioritize this list. I have listed the
items above in the order that personally suits me from highest (most
interesting) to lowest. And for the highest priority items, I think we should
try to agree on a tentative putative mechanism (theory).  The purpose of the
theory is to guide the selection of observables.  The most interesting and fun
things to measure are, of course, the ones that might contradict conventional
theory.  But I think we should try to be a little conservative where possible
and also measure things that would confirm conventional understandings of what
is supposed to be going on.

Some of the measurements we make should be intended to directly as possible
observe the formation of the putative condensate.  These might be related to
items (2), (3), (4), (5) and (6) above. Unfortunately, quantitative predications
are missing for most of these effects.  More work needs to be done on the theory
here.

3. Cell design

Tom, any ideas on how one might measure the heat content and heat conductivity
of the cathode in situ? Could we provide a heater at one end and a temperature
probe at the other end and half way along?  The idea would be to periodically
pulse the heater and observe the change in temperature along the cathode.

One cell configuration that I like is to make the cathode (C) a hollow tube,
closed at the bottom. And to locate this tube in the center of a cylindrically
shaped anode (A). This makes it possible to place temperature probes and the
heater inside the cathode tube (E).  It may also be possible to collect and
measure the rate of hydrogen/deuterium/hydinos? that diffuses through the metal
into the inside of the tube. 

        A      C   E
        .      .   .
        .      .   .
     |= .======|===.===|=========|
     |  |      |   |   |      |  |
     |  |      |   |   |      |  |
     |  |      |   |   |      |  |
     |  |      |   |   |      |  |
     |  |      |   |   |      |  |
     |  |      |   *   |      |  |
     |  |       -------       |  |
     |       LiOH+D2O+H2O        |
      ===========================
        |--wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww--|
        |     G.M. tube       |---------------------> computer DAQ
        |---------------------|


             Figure 1.

Considering the possibilities of silicate formation and other such
complications, we should use plastic (polyethylene?) cell containers rather than
glass or plexiglass.

Note: Electrochemists have measured diffusion rates by constructing a two part
cell, making the inner wall of the cathode tube an anode with respect to a third
electrode (E) placed inside the cathode tube.  The idea is to keep the potential
difference between the inside electrode and the inside tube wall (C-E) low and
to measure the current flow induced by the forced recombination of the
hyrdogen/deuterium that diffuses through the cathode tube wall.  We might be
able to adapt this technique to detect sudden changes in the diffusion
coefficients.

One of the things (the only thing?) that P&F did at ICCF4 was to focus attention
on the issue of diffusion and conductivity, partly de-emphasising the importance
of high loading ratios. This feels right to me - just an intuition.  But maybe
we still need to have some idea of the loading.  Tom's "excess oxygen" method
seems like a good approach to me.  We should pay special attention to de-gassing
during cathode preparation.

4. "Dry" Cell?

Another thing that we might seriously consider is the "Italian" cell design in
which electrolysis is not used.  The active element (nickel rod) is apparently
placed in a fairly high temperature hydrogen/deuterium gas.  Do we know enough
about their configuration?  From what I have read, it would seem that their
claims would be much more impressive if their calorimetry was more sound. Have
there been experiments involving Pd as the active element?  There seems to be a
lot of literature about hydrogen/deuterium absorption/desorption of Pd at
various temperatures and pressures.

Tom, would the design of such a cell present any special difficulties?  Can an
accurate calorimeter be designed which would accomodate both these high
temperature dry cells as well as the more conventional electrochemical cells?

I wonder if William Bernecky might comment on the appropriateness of this setup
with respect to his theories.  Perhaps such a system would work in a higher
energy band than the electrochemical cell.

5. Calorimetry and hydrinos

Obviously calorimetry is intended to measure (1).  As Tom and other posters have
noted, it is also interesting to measure the recombination heat balance
separately on the speculation that a hydrino-like species may be involved. There
have been published claims (Mills et al.) that careful mass spectroscopy can
detect hydrinos. Can we find an easier way?  Mills also says that H in the
hydrino state does not (readily) take part in ordinary combustion in contrast to
catalytic recombination which can (endothermically) convert hydrino H to
ordinary H. So we may have to be careful of how we recombine (or *if* we choose
to recombine).

They also talk about cyrofiltration. Is this the reason that we seen liguid
nitrogen in use in the recent videos of both the Mills and P&F laboratories?

6. Mechanisms and overlapping measurements

We should try to choose a set of measurements which "overlap" each other and
serve as mthods of double checking each other. We need to look for other things
simultaneously with excess heat. To do this, I think we need to do some thinking
about the possible mechanisms that we might be observing.

Since we have stated Bernecky's hypothesis as the formation of a hydrogen atom
bose condensate we might choose as possible heat production mechanisms:

(1a) radiationless fusion of hydrogen (P+e) to form D
(1b) formation of hydrinos (tightly bound electron states of H)
(1c) formation of hydrinos (tightly bound H2 molecular states)
(1d) "free energy" or other "non-conservation" of energy

If we are willing to loosen up on this hypothesis, we might also include:

(1e) D+D -> 4He fusion
(1f) D+P -> T fusion

Measurements relating to items (1a) and (1d) above seem problematic. For (1a) we
might need something like neutrino detection - too hard. Tritium detection is
not so hard but I personally would put it rather low on my list of priorities.

I think we should include some type of simple but sensitive radiation detection
device in very close proximity to the cell. I'm sure you didn't miss the
Gieger-Mueller tube in figure 1 above.  (Note: wwwww = mica window.) In
conjunction with computer data acquisition such a device is capable of high
sensitivity but of course gives no idea of the energy spectrum.  In any case, it
would place reasonable bounds on what might or might not be happening of a
nuclear nature and could be included with minimal impact on cell and calorimeter
design.  

I am thinking here more of observing a *drop* in background radiation due to
condensate formation rather than measuring a putative radiation source. However,
if there was anything interesting to see, the G.M. tube could easily be operated
as a proportional counter - right Tom?

We need more ideas here.

7. Things to avoid

There are also some things which, while possibly interesting, I think we should
specifically avoid looking at for now.  I'll list a few of these below.

(1) ultrasonic induced effects
(2) RF stimulation
(3) magnetically induced effects
(4) [I am sure there are others.]

Well, thats enough for a Sunday morning in front of the old PC.

Cheers,

Bill Page.

cudkeys:
cuddy8 cuden3047 cudfnBill cudlnPage cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.07 / Bruce TK /  Re: Mallove's wager revisited
     
Originally-From: bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce       Scott          TK  )
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Mallove's wager revisited
Date: 7 Aug 1994 14:05:45 GMT
Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching

In article <1994Aug5.130550.1709@acousb.byu.edu>, jonesse@acousb.byu.edu writes:
|> The following bold statements by Gene Mallove make for a better two-year
|> wager than his CYA statement he dares people to sign:
|> 
|> MALLOVE:  "The tokamak program will be utterly destroyed by excess energy
|> devices of the cold fusion variety.  I give HF [hot fusion] two years more,
|> tops."  {Mallove, subject Re:  Heeter Fusion, 7/15/94}
|> 
|> MALLOVE:  
|> "Also, within two years one or more companies will announce ['cold fusion']
|> demonstration units that will heat rooms or entire houses." {Mallove, subject
|> MM-Pact, 27 July 1994}

Wow! I missed these. Thanks for posting them, Steve. I will surely have 
comment when 7/96 rolls around. MM-pact, 23+ months and counting down!

-- 
Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de                               -- W Gibson
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnTK cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.07 / L Plutonium /  EXPERIMENT CONFIRMS QM, AND SHOWS GENERAL RELATIVITY IS A FAKE
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag,alt.sci.physics.plutonium
sci.physics.fusion
Subject: EXPERIMENT CONFIRMS QM, AND SHOWS GENERAL RELATIVITY IS A FAKE
Date: 7 Aug 1994 16:53:25 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH


  As the weeks and months go by, I will be thinking of a way to
simplify the set-up of this experiment. Anyone who knows superfluid
helium, knows that the outcome will defeat GR without even performing
the experiment. 
  And it is of most pleasure to me to find out where in the world this
experiment will be performed. Because, already the Howl of the
Boietians and the Whine of the Sirens are out. After the experiment is
performed the Big Bang lobbyers will try to sabotage the experiment
from being performed and subsequently reported or published. The
religion lobbyers will do likewise. And the old guard, the old fogeys,
the con men of physics such as Wheeler, Hawking, Weinberg will make
many telephone calls with words to the effect "your lab will not do
that experiment, understand,..."
   It is my opinion that this experiment which will disprove GR will
not be performed first in the so called freedom of USA, but instead
will first be performed in Russia, where they do not have that large
vocal crowd of old fogey physics con artists. And, in Russia they are
not hampered by the "silly putty headed" religionists.
   All is superdetermined, and the joy of life is to see where PLuto's
will is done,. . give us this day our daily bread PU, and lead us not
into Radioactive Decay, but instead Radioactive Growth, for thine is
the Geometry, the Gluons and the Light forever ATOM

In article <31lc0a$4sr@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium) writes:

> In article <316h3l$6fc@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
> Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium) writes:
> 
> >   This is the experiment which will prove GR (General Relativity) a
> > FAKERY; QM NOW is 100% of physics.
> > Physics experimental set-up. Have a huge spherical ball made out of
> > very dense metal. There was I believe I read a long time ago about some
> > experiments (Univ. Maryland? Johns Hopkins?) which tried to measure the
> > graviton-- experimental evidence for the existence of the graviton.
> > Those experiments flopped as far as I know because of the failure of
> > the sensitivity of experimental measure. The claim by those researchers
> > was that the experimental set-up could not be made to the precision
> > wanted.
> >   I propose this famous experiment which will be known as the
> > Plutonium-____________ experiment. In the history of physics there will
> > be a class of experiments which can be viewed as major experiments. The
> > double -slit experiment to be sure. The blackbody cavity radiation
> > experiment, esq. of Planck. The radioactivity experiment of esq.
> > Becquerel. The Michelson interferometer experiments for the ether. The
> > Bell-Aspect experiment. And now we have the most famous experiment of
> > the Plutonium-_____________. Whoever's name fills that blank slot will
> > go down in history also.
> >    This experiment, I predict, will show that GR (General Relativity)
> > is false. Remember, that in physics it takes only one famous experiment
> > to dispel a fakery theory such as GR, and unlike biology where that
> > community cuddles/adores/cherishes and elevates fakeries--Darwin
> > evolution to the stature of religion. 
> >    This famous experiment will show that gravity is neutrino couplings,
> > i.e., 4 neutrinos = 1 graviton, or 4 neutrino = 2 photons = 1 graviton.
> > 
> >    As a corollary of this experiment, surprise, an ether exists. The
> > ether is space. And the ether is neutrinos. Space is equal to
> > neutrinos, and, neutrinos make up what we perceive as space. 
> >    Photons are waves and they propagate through a medium. That medium
> > consists of neutrinos. So as a charming historical highlight, Michelson
> > was correct after all, there is an ether. Ether is neutrino space.
> >   This experiment perhaps may be conducted well at IBM research labs
> > since the idea of this experiment flowed from the dialogue I had with
> > Mr. Morten Pedersen in May 1994.
> > 24May1994, 02:14:47 GMT sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.electromag
> > The FAQ for superconductivity 21/05/1994
> > In article <2rrnun$ltc@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
> > Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium) writes:
> > 
> > > In article <2rq0fl$n82@monterosa.zurich.ibm.com>
> > > hpe@zurich.ibm.com (Morten Holm Pedersen) writes:
> > > 
> > > > Superfluidity
> > >   My knowledge of this is as yet nil. But I must look into it.
> > 
> >    Or this experiment may be conducted at the locale where the current
> > search for the graviton is being conducted.
> >    Description of the Experiment. A huge heavy and massive solid
> > sphere. One diameter drilled out with a center cavity. The sphere is
> > more massive than what the correct calculations and predictions of what
> > GR says will hold X number of helium atoms within the central cavity.
> > GR predicts that the helium in the central cavity will stay bound
> > within the cavity. 
> > 
> > 
> >                           oooo$$$$$$$$$$$$oooo
> >                       oo$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$o
> >                    oo$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$o         
> >                  o$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$o        
> >                o$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$       
> >               o$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$o    
> >              $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
> >            $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
> >           "$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$      
> >           $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$     
> >           $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$   $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$       
> >           
> >           $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$   $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
> >            $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
> >            $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
> >             "$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
> >               $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
> >                $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
> >                  $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
> >                     $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
> >                       ""$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$"""
> >                          ""$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$         
> >                             """"$$$$$$$$$$$"""
> >                                          
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>                               EARTH'S GROUND
> > 
> >    Now replace the helium with superfluid helium. Capillarity must be
> > removed. And I am sure there are excellent experimental physicists the
> > world over who can device the experiment such that capillarity is
> > eliminated. Then GR would predict that the superfluid helium will also
> > remain in the center cavity. Because GR does not distinguish between
> > nonsuperfluid helium mass and superfluid helium mass.
> >   Plutonium QM. Superfluidity and superconductivity is the motion of
> > neutrinos. In superconductivity, the photon carriers are diffraction
> > grated into neutrino carriers. In superfluidity, again, it is neutrino
> > carriers resulting in zero friction and null gravity. Why null gravity?
> > Because, according to my theory, gravity is neutrinos. 
> >    According to Plutonium QM, the superfluid helium will not remain in
> > the center cavity but always move out of the holes. And it matters not
> > how massive the ball is. The ball can be the planet Earth where the
> > center cavity would be the center of the Earth, the planet Jupiter, a
> > star. The same experiment will always move the superfluid helium out of
> > the center. Why? Because superfluid helium is Quantized neutrinos, i.e.
> > equal to gravity. Gravity is nullified by neutrinos because gravitons
> > are neutrinos.
> >    This experiment when done and confirmed that Plutonium QM is
> > correct, then it will be the strongest experimental evidence that black
> > holes, neutron stars, and other assorted exotica and figments of the
> > imagination were fakeries.
> >   This experiment when done will imply that gravity is not a
> > fundamental quantum interaction (a force) but is a statistical, and
> > secondary derivative of neutrino statistics. Gravity is a neutrino
> > "Casimir effect". Gravity is a secondary derivative, analogous to van
> > der Waals force is a derivative. That will leave physics then with only
> > 3 interactions--- strongnuclear, radioactivities, and electromagnetism.
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.07 / David Johsson /  UFO = smokering = plasma?
     
Originally-From: david@vesicle (David Johsson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: UFO = smokering = plasma?
Date: 7 Aug 1994 20:34:38 GMT
Organization: Uppsala University

This seems to be the right group for plasmatalk. Althoug there is a
plasmagroup nobody seems to be there.

Take a look at the pictures at my Web Elektromagnum
(http://www.ibg.uu.se/elektromagnum) in UFO/Endeavour and tell me what
the grey ring coming out of the spaceshuttle is? Can smokerings exist
in empty space due to selfconfinement? Maybe the smokering or whatever
it is is the result of an impact of a space debris. I don't think the
shuttle is leaking like that.

David

--
David Jonsson       Voice&Fax +46-18-24 51 52
P.O Box 353         Postgiro 499 40 54-7   Web: http://www.ibg.uu.se/~david/
S-751 06  UPPSALA   Internet E-mail david@ibg.uu.se
SWEDEN              ++++What EM field is caused by acceleration/gravity?++++
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudendavid cudfnDavid cudlnJohsson cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.07 / Barry Merriman /  Re: What's the score?
     
Originally-From: barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What's the score?
Date: Sun, 7 Aug 94 23:57:41 GMT
Organization: UCLA, Mathematics Department

In article <321qb1$q5b@huxley.anu.edu.au> drd851@huxley.anu.edu.au (David R  
Davies) writes:
> 
> I think we can safely assume that the vast majority of scientists have not
> given the issue more than a moments thought. If you believe in science by
> lynch-mob then CF is dead but that doesn't seem to change the fact that
> experimental results keep popping up that can't be explained away easily.

In the same vein, the vast majority of scientists have not
given much thought to whether Joseph Newmans perpetual motion
motor works. The point is: if something falls far enough outside 
the domain of established science, its reasonable to reject it
out of hand, *in the absence of overwhelming evidence to the contrary*.

The current claims of CF-ers are plenty far afield (nuclear energy
output without nuclear interaction byproducts), and so far they
have not exhibited any good evidence to counter the skepticism.




--
Barry Merriman
UCLA Dept. of Math
UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)


cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.07 / Ron Wickersham /  Re: Suggest using Differential Calorimetry in new Test Design
     
Originally-From: rjw@crl.com (Ron Wickersham)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Suggest using Differential Calorimetry in new Test Design
Date: 7 Aug 1994 20:29:21 -0700
Organization: Alembic

David Cyganski (cyganski@ee.WPI.EDU) wrote:
: I would like to make a suggestion with regard to the discussion of the
: design of a new CNF calorimeter experiment as part of the discussion that
: Tom Droege has begun.

: To my mind, the most convincing calorimetry would be differential in nature.

: If the idea flies with the group, I would volunteer to design and consturct
: the necessary electronics.

: DC

We see the calorimetry of many experiments criticized. And when I think 
of experimental design, I also think of a differential setup, because 1) 
it wouldn't be too complicated or expensive to incorporate, and 2) it 
cancels out errors that I haven't thought about.

In the case of a simple electrolytic cell, then the differential setup is 
pretty straight forward...it gets complicated though if recombiners, etc 
are added.

In support of the idea of a differential cell, but with thoughts to 
improve on the suggestion above, I think that the experiment cell and the 
blank cell have to have identical electrolytes and controlled currents. 
May I suggest placing the cells in series so that the same current has to 
flow thru both.  One of the monitors would be the voltage drop of each 
cell to see if any deviation occurrs.

To keep evaporation rates as close as possible in both cells, I would 
modify David's suggestion of keeping the heat input the same to monitor 
the temperature of the electrolyte in both cells, and adjust the power in 
the FET to keep the temperature the same. (To keep the cells symmetrical, 
a FET or resistor for heat, should be installed in both cells, along with 
their leads, but it shouldn't be necessary to include an interface to 
provide power to the heater in the experimental cell, unless you want to 
allow for the production of excess heat in the blank cell :-). )


-

Does anyone know if someone else has set up a differential experiment?

-Ron
rjw@crl.com
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenrjw cudfnRon cudlnWickersham cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.08 / Bill Page /  Bohm's Interpretation of QM using Maple Mathematics (Part 3a)
     
Originally-From: 70047.3047@compuserve.com (Bill Page)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Bohm's Interpretation of QM using Maple Mathematics (Part 3a)
Date: Mon, 8 Aug 1994 03:42:12 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

# Bohm's interpretation of Qunatum Mechanics using Maple mathematics
> 
# Part 3a - More than one particle
> 
# This article was prepared using Maple V (release 3).  It is based 
# on Bohm and Hiley, "The Undivided Universe", Chapter 4.  "The 
# many-body system" and continues our discussion of Bohm's 
# ontological interpretation of quantum mechanics.
> 
# Now we are going to start again, this time considering 
# Schrodinger's wave equation for more than one particle. It will 
# turn out that we can derive the quantum Hamiltonian-Jacobi 
# equations of motion and the quantum potential in very much the same 
# way as in the one particle case. But before we get into the 
# mathematics, lets review what we have learned so far.
> 
# David Albert, in his introductory book on the quantum theory of 
# measurement entitled "Quantum Mechanics and Experience", Harvard 
# University Press, 1992, introduces Bohm's theory in this way: 
> 
# "There's an entirely different way of trying to understand all this 
# stuff [measurement] (a way of being absolutely deviant about it, a 
# way of being polymorphously heretical against the standard way of 
# thinking, a way of tearing quantum mechanics all the way down and 
# replacing it with something else) which was first hinted at a long 
# time ago by Louis de Broglie (1930), and which was first developed 
# into a genuine mathematical theory back in the fifties by David 
# Bohm (1952), and which has recently been put into a particularly 
# clear and simple and powerful form by John Bell (1982), and that's 
# what this chapter [Chapter 7] is going to be about."
> 
# [You can tell Albert is a philosopher can't you... he writes 
# sentences that occupy whole paragraphs! But his style, while a 
# little unusual, is simple and his explanations are very clear. 
# Albert continues...]
> 
# "Bohm's theory has more or less (but not exactly) the same 
# empirical content as quantum mechanics does, and it has much the 
# same mathematical formalism as quantum mechanics does too, but the 
# metaphysics is different. The metaphysics of this theory is 
# exactly the same as the metaphysics of classical mechanics. Here's 
# what I mean:"
> 
# "This theory presumes (to begin with) that *every material particle 
# in the world invariably has a perfectly determinant position*. And 
# what this theory is about is the evolution of those postions in 
# time. ..."
> 
# "And it turns out that the account which Bohm's theory gives of 
# these motions is *completely deterministic*. And so, on Bohm's 
# theory, the world can only appear to us to evolve 
# *probabilistically* (and of course it does appear that way to us) 
# in the event that we are somehow ignorant of its exact state. And 
# so the very idea of probability will have to enter into this theory 
# as some kind of epistemic idea, just as it enters into classical 
# statistical mechanics."
> 
# "What the physical word consists of besides particles and besides 
# force fields, on this theory, is (oddly) *wave functions*. That's 
# what the theory requires in order to produce its account of the 
# particle motions. The quantum mechanical wave functions are 
# conceived of in this theory as geniunely physical *things*, as some 
# what like force fields (but not quite), and anyway as something 
# quite distinct from the particles; and the laws of the evolutions 
# of these wave functions are stipulated to be precisely the linear 
# quantum mechanical equations of motion (always, period; wave 
# functions never collapse in this theory); and the *job* of these 
# wave functions in this theory is to sort of *push the particles 
# around* (as force fields do), to guide them along their proper 
# courses; and there are additional laws in the theory (new ones, 
# un-quantum mechanical ones) which stipulate precisely how they do 
# that [the guidance conditions]."
> 
# Albert continues with his discussion of measurement, the details of 
# which need not concern us at this time. But he concludes with the 
# following statement that is both amusing and enlightening:
> 
# "... And so if this theory is right (and this is one of the things 
# about it that's cheap and unbeautiful, and that I like), then the 
# fundamental laws of the world are cooked up in such a way as to 
# systematically mislead us about ourselves.
> 
# "Here's what's so cool about this theory: This is the kind of 
# theory whereby you can tell an absolutely low-brow story about the 
# world, the kind of story (that is) that's about the motions of 
# material bodies, the kind of story that contains nothing cryptic 
# and nothing metaphysically novel and nothing ambiguous and nothing 
# inexplicit and nothing evasive and nothing unintelligible and 
# nothing inexact and nothing subtle and in which no questions ever 
# fail to have answers and which no two physical properties of 
# anything are ever "incompatible" with one another and in which the 
# whole universe always evolves *deterministically* and which 
# recounts the unfolding of a perverse and gigantic conspiracy to 
# make the world *appear* to be quantum mechanical."
> 

# Had enough for now? Those readers with a philosphical orientation 
# will definately find Albert's book both educational and 
# entertaining. Ok. First, lets recall the definitions we used for 
# complex symbolic mathematics in Part 1.
> 
> restart;
> assume(h,real);
> alias(I=I,i=sqrt(-1)); 
> unprotect(conjugate);
> conjugate:=expr->eval(subs(i=-i,expr));
> re:=expr->expand((expr+conjugate(expr))/2);
> im:=expr->expand((expr-conjugate(expr))/(2*i));
> 

                                 i

           conjugate := expr -> eval(subs(i = - i, expr))

        re := expr -> expand(1/2 expr + 1/2 conjugate(expr))

       im := expr -> expand(- 1/2 i (expr - conjugate(expr)))

> 
# We would like to extend the one particle case considered in parts 1 
# and 2 to the case of systems containing more than one particle.  
# Lets start with the two particle case.
> 
# 21. Two particle, one dimensional Schrodiner equation
> 
# Defining the one dimensional gradient operators   
> 
> del[1]:= psi -> diff(psi,x1);
> del[2]:= psi -> diff(psi,x2);
> 

                                        d
                     del[1] := psi -> ----- psi
                                       dx1

                                        d
                     del[2] := psi -> ----- psi
                                       dx2

> 
# for particles 1 and 2 respectively, Schrodinger's wave equation for 
# two particles in one dimension can be written
> 
> `(4.1)`:=i*h*diff(psi(x1,x2,t),t)
>          +(h^2/(2*m))*(del[1]@@2+del[2]@@2)(psi(x1,x2,t))
>          -V(x1,x2)*psi(x1,x2,t)=0; 
> 

              /  d                \
(4.1) := i h~ |---- psi(x1, x2, t)|
              \ dt                /

          2        (2)                         (2)
        h~  (del[1]   (psi(x1, x2, t)) + del[2]   (psi(x1, x2, t)))
  + 1/2 -----------------------------------------------------------
                                     m

  - V(x1, x2) psi(x1, x2, t) = 0

# 
# [Note:  The equation numbers such as (4.1) are in reference to the 
# equations found in Bohm&Hiley.]
> 
# As in the one particle case, this two particle Schrodinger equation 
# can be manipulated into a form which admits an interpretation as a 
# classical Hamilton-Jacobi equation for the dynamics of a particle 
# subject to the usual potential field plus a new quantum potential 
# field. 
> 
# Again we define the wavefunction psi in polar form and separate the 
# real and complex parts of the wave equation. We shall find that the 
# imaginary component results in the well recognized conservation of 
# probability equation while the real component will comprise the new 
# quantum Hamilton-Jacobi equation.
> 
> psi:=(x1,x2,t)->R(x1,x2,t)*exp(i*S(x1,x2,t)/h);
> 

                                             i S(x1, x2, t)
        psi := (x1,x2,t) -> R(x1, x2, t) exp(--------------)
                                                    h

# 
# where R and S are real-valued functions.  S is called the "phase" 
# of the wavefunction. In polar form, Schrodinger's equation (4.1) 
# becomes
> 
> expand(`(4.1)`);
> 

     /  d              \     i S(x1, x2, t)
i h~ |---- R(x1, x2, t)| exp(--------------)
     \ dt              /           h~

                 /  d              \     i S(x1, x2, t)
  - R(x1, x2, t) |---- S(x1, x2, t)| exp(--------------)
                 \ dt              /           h~

            /   2               \
          2 |  d                |     i S(x1, x2, t)
        h~  |------ R(x1, x2, t)| exp(--------------)
            |    2              |           h~
            \ dx1               /
  + 1/2 --------------------------------------------- +
                              m

      /  d               \ /  d               \     i S(x1, x2, t)
 i h~ |----- R(x1, x2, t)| |----- S(x1, x2, t)| exp(--------------)
      \ dx1              / \ dx1              /           h~
 ------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  m

                          /   2               \
                          |  d                |     i S(x1, x2, t)
        i h~ R(x1, x2, t) |------ S(x1, x2, t)| exp(--------------)
                          |    2              |           h~
                          \ dx1               /
  + 1/2 -----------------------------------------------------------
                                     m

                     /  d               \2     i S(x1, x2, t)
        R(x1, x2, t) |----- S(x1, x2, t)|  exp(--------------)
                     \ dx1              /            h~
  - 1/2 ------------------------------------------------------
                                   m

            /   2               \
          2 |  d                |     i S(x1, x2, t)
        h~  |------ R(x1, x2, t)| exp(--------------)
            |    2              |           h~
            \ dx2               /
  + 1/2 --------------------------------------------- +
                              m

      /  d               \ /  d               \     i S(x1, x2, t)
 i h~ |----- R(x1, x2, t)| |----- S(x1, x2, t)| exp(--------------)
      \ dx2              / \ dx2              /           h~
 ------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  m

                          /   2               \
                          |  d                |     i S(x1, x2, t)
        i h~ R(x1, x2, t) |------ S(x1, x2, t)| exp(--------------)
                          |    2              |           h~
                          \ dx2               /
  + 1/2 -----------------------------------------------------------
                                     m

                     /  d               \2     i S(x1, x2, t)
        R(x1, x2, t) |----- S(x1, x2, t)|  exp(--------------)
                     \ dx2              /            h~
  - 1/2 ------------------------------------------------------
                                   m

                               i S(x1, x2, t)
  - V(x1, x2) R(x1, x2, t) exp(--------------) = 0
                                     h~

> 
# 22. Quantum Hamilton-Jacobi Equation and the Quantum Potential
> 
# Considering just the real part of the Schrodinger equation (4.1) 
# and dividing through by psi we get
> 
> `(4.1a)`:=re(-`(4.1)`/psi(x1,x2,t));
> 

                                          /   2               \
                                        2 |  d                |
                                      h~  |------ R(x1, x2, t)|
                                          |    2              |
            /  d              \           \ dx1               /
  (4.1a) := |---- S(x1, x2, t)| - 1/2 -------------------------
            \ dt              /             R(x1, x2, t) m

                                             /   2               \
                                           2 |  d                |
             /  d               \2       h~  |------ R(x1, x2, t)|
             |----- S(x1, x2, t)|            |    2              |
             \ dx1              /            \ dx2               /
       + 1/2 --------------------- - 1/2 -------------------------
                       m                       R(x1, x2, t) m

             /  d               \2
             |----- S(x1, x2, t)|
             \ dx2              /
       + 1/2 --------------------- + V(x1, x2) = 0
                       m

> 
> `(4.2)`:=diff(S(x1,x2,t),t)+(del[1](S(x1,x2,t)))^2/2/m
>          +(del[2](S(x1,x2,t)))^2/2/m+V(x1,x2)+Q(x1,x2,t)=0;

                                     /  d               \2
                                     |----- S(x1, x2, t)|
           /  d              \       \ dx1              /
  (4.2) := |---- S(x1, x2, t)| + 1/2 ---------------------
           \ dt              /                 m

             /  d               \2
             |----- S(x1, x2, t)|
             \ dx2              /
       + 1/2 --------------------- + V(x1, x2) + Q(x1, x2, t) = 0
                       m

> 
# where we define the quantum potential as:
> 
> `(4.3)`:= Q(x1,x2,t) = -h^2/2/m*(del[1]@@2+del[2]@@2)(R(x1,x2,t))
>                        /R(x1,x2,t);

 (4.3) := Q(x1, x2, t) =

             2        (2)                       (2)
           h~  (del[1]   (R(x1, x2, t)) + del[2]   (R(x1, x2, t)))
     - 1/2 -------------------------------------------------------
                                m R(x1, x2, t)

> 
> is(lhs(expand(subs(`(4.3)`,`(4.2)`)))=lhs(`(4.1a)`));
> 

                                true

# 
# Note that this component strongly resembles that of the classical 
# Hamilton-Jacobi equation for a particle in a potential field V 
# where the momentum of each particle is taken to be  
> 
> `(4.5a)`:=p[1]=del[1](S(x1,x2,t));
> `(4.5b)`:=p[1]=del[2](S(x1,x2,t));
> 

                                   d
                (4.5a) := p[1] = ----- S(x1, x2, t)
                                  dx1

                                   d
                (4.5b) := p[1] = ----- S(x1, x2, t)
                                  dx2

> 
# Thus, the real component of the Schrodinger equation is equivalent 
# to a classical description of the system but for the presence of an 
# additional potential field, the quantum potential.
> 
# Bohm&Hiley state: "The above is evidently an extension of the 
# guidance relationship for the two-body system. It implies that the 
# particles are guided in a correlated way. ... As can be seen from 
# equation (4.3), this potential contains R both in the denominator 
# and the numerator, so that it does not necessarily fall off with 
# distance. We have already seen that for the one-body system this 
# means that the [motion of the] particle can depend strongly on 
# distant features of the environment. In the two-body system we can 
# have similar dependence on the environment, but in addition, the 
# two particles can also be strongly coupled at long distances. Their 
# interaction can therefore be described as *non-local*."
> 
# They also note that: "While non-locality is described above as an 
# important new feature of the quantum theory, there is yet another 
# new feature that implies an even more radical departure from the 
# classical onotology, to which little attention has generally been 
# paid thus far. This is that the quantum potential Q depends on the 
# 'quantum state' of the whole system in a way that cannot be defined 
# simply as a pre-assigned interaction between all the particles."
> 
> 
# 23. Probability Conservation and Probability Currents
# 
# Similary,  the imaginary part is
> 
> `(4.1b)`:=im(-`(4.1)`/psi(x1,x2,t));
> 

                       /  d              \
                    h~ |---- R(x1, x2, t)|
                       \ dt              /
        (4.1b) := - ----------------------
                         R(x1, x2, t)

                  /  d               \ /  d               \
               h~ |----- R(x1, x2, t)| |----- S(x1, x2, t)|
                  \ dx1              / \ dx1              /
             - --------------------------------------------
                              R(x1, x2, t) m

                      /   2               \
                      |  d                |
                   h~ |------ S(x1, x2, t)|
                      |    2              |
                      \ dx1               /
             - 1/2 ------------------------
                               m

                  /  d               \ /  d               \
               h~ |----- R(x1, x2, t)| |----- S(x1, x2, t)|
                  \ dx2              / \ dx2              /
             - --------------------------------------------
                              R(x1, x2, t) m

                      /   2               \
                      |  d                |
                   h~ |------ S(x1, x2, t)|
                      |    2              |
                      \ dx2               /
             - 1/2 ------------------------ = 0
                               m

# 
# This can be manipulated into the form
> 
> `(4.4)`:='diff(R(x1,x2,t)^2,t)+
>           del[1](R(x1,x2,t)^2*del[1](S(x1,x2,t))/m)+
>           del[2](R(x1,x2,t)^2*del[2](S(x1,x2,t))/m)=0';
> 

                /  d              2\
       (4.4) := |---- R(x1, x2, t) |
                \ dt               /

                                 2
                     R(x1, x2, t)  del[1](S(x1, x2, t))
            + del[1](----------------------------------)
                                      m

                                 2
                     R(x1, x2, t)  del[2](S(x1, x2, t))
            + del[2](----------------------------------) = 0
                                      m

# 
# as can be shown by first performing the derivatives in this new 
# form
> 
> `(4.4)`;
> 

                 /  d              \
  2 R(x1, x2, t) |---- R(x1, x2, t)|
                 \ dt              /

                        /  d               \ /  d               \
           R(x1, x2, t) |----- S(x1, x2, t)| |----- R(x1, x2, t)|
                        \ dx1              / \ dx1              /
       + 2 ------------------------------------------------------
                                      m

                       /   2               \
                     2 |  d                |
         R(x1, x2, t)  |------ S(x1, x2, t)|
                       |    2              |
                       \ dx1               /
       + -----------------------------------
                          m

                        /  d               \ /  d               \
           R(x1, x2, t) |----- S(x1, x2, t)| |----- R(x1, x2, t)|
                        \ dx2              / \ dx2              /
       + 2 ------------------------------------------------------
                                      m

                       /   2               \
                     2 |  d                |
         R(x1, x2, t)  |------ S(x1, x2, t)|
                       |    2              |
                       \ dx2               /
       + ----------------------------------- = 0
                          m

# 
# and on multiplying equation (4.1b) by -2*R/h and observing that the 
# two equations are now equal:
> 
> is(expand(lhs(`(4.4)`))=expand(-2/h*R(x1,x2,t)^2*lhs(`(4.1b)`)));
> 

                                true

# 
# Lets consider the meaning of this equation.  In the usual 
# interpretation, the probability density for the particle is given 
# by
> 
> abs('psi(x1,x2,t)')^2=
> simplify(psi(x1,x2,t)*conjugate(psi(x1,x2,t)));
> 

                                   2               2
                abs(psi(x1, x2, t))  = R(x1, x2, t)

# 
# and the probability current (as in the usual treatment of quantum 
# mechanics) is defined as the sum of two components
> 
> j[1]:=(x1,x2,t) -> simplify(h/2/i/m*
>                (conjugate(psi(x1,x2,t))*diff(psi(x1,x2,t),x1)
>                 -psi(x1,x2,t)*diff(conjugate(psi(x1,x2,t)),x1)));
> 
> j[2]:=(x1,x2,t) -> simplify(h/2/i/m*
>                (conjugate(psi(x1,x2,t))*diff(psi(x1,x2,t),x2)
>                 -psi(x1,x2,t)*diff(conjugate(psi(x1,x2,t)),x2)));
> 

   j[1] := (x1,x2,t) -> simplify(- 1/2 i h (

       conjugate(psi(x1, x2, t)) diff(psi(x1, x2, t), x1)

        - psi(x1, x2, t) diff(conjugate(psi(x1, x2, t)), x1))/m)

   j[2] := (x1,x2,t) -> simplify(- 1/2 i h (

       conjugate(psi(x1, x2, t)) diff(psi(x1, x2, t), x2)

        - psi(x1, x2, t) diff(conjugate(psi(x1, x2, t)), x2))/m)

> 
> j[1](x1,x2,t)+j[2](x1,x2,t);
> 

                         2 /  d               \
             R(x1, x2, t)  |----- S(x1, x2, t)|
                           \ dx1              /
             ----------------------------------
                              m

                                2 /  d               \
                    R(x1, x2, t)  |----- S(x1, x2, t)|
                                  \ dx2              /
                  + ----------------------------------
                                     m

# 
# so that equation (4.4) can be written
> 
> 'diff(R(x1,x2,t)^2,t)+
>  del[1](j[1](x1,x2,t))+del[2](j[2](x1,x2,t))=0';
> 'diff(R(x,t)^2,t)'+
> 'del[1]'(j[1](x1,x2,t))+'del[2]'(j[2](x1,x2,t))=0;
> 

           /  d              2\
           |---- R(x1, x2, t) | + del[1](j[1](x1, x2, t))
           \ dt               /

                + del[2](j[2](x1, x2, t)) = 0

                                         2 /  d               \
                             R(x1, x2, t)  |----- S(x1, x2, t)|
    /  d         2\                        \ dx1              /
    |---- R(x, t) | + del[1](----------------------------------)
    \ dt          /                           m

                              2 /  d               \
                  R(x1, x2, t)  |----- S(x1, x2, t)|
                                \ dx2              /
         + del[2](----------------------------------) = 0
                                   m

> 
# Therefore the imaginary part of the polar Schrodinger equation, 
# that is equation (4.4), is just the well known continuity equation 
# that expresses the conservation of probability.
> 
# Bohm&Hiley note that: "As in the one-body case, we may take P = R^2 
# as the probability density, but this is now in the configuration 
# space of all the particles."

> 
# 24. The Two Particle Equation of Motion and Guidance Conditions
> 

# From the Quantum Hamilton-Jacobi equation, the equation of motion 
# of a paticles with velocity v[1](t) and v[2](t)  is seen to be 
# given by
> 
> m*diff(v[1](t),t)=-del[1](V(x1,x2))-del[1](Q(x1,x2,t));
> m*diff(v[2](t),t)=-del[2](V(x1,x2))-del[2](Q(x1,x2,t));
> 

     /  d         \     /  d            \   /  d               \
   m |---- v[1](t)| = - |----- V(x1, x2)| - |----- Q(x1, x2, t)|
     \ dt         /     \ dx1           /   \ dx1              /

     /  d         \     /  d            \   /  d               \
   m |---- v[2](t)| = - |----- V(x1, x2)| - |----- Q(x1, x2, t)|
     \ dt         /     \ dx2           /   \ dx2              /

# 
# Also, from the definition of momentum in terms of the phase of the 
# wavefunction (equation 4.5) and its relationship to the probability 
# current we also have the following relationship, known as the 
# quidance conditions:  
> 
> v[1](t)='j[1](x1,x2,t)'/abs('psi(x1,x2,t)')^2;
> simplify(j[1](x1,x2,t)/(psi(x1,x2,t)*conjugate(psi(x1,x2,t))));
> 
> v[2](t)='j[2](x1,x2,t)'/abs('psi(x1,x2,t)')^2;
> simplify(j[2](x1,x2,t)/(psi(x1,x2,t)*conjugate(psi(x1,x2,t))));

                                j[1](x1, x2, t)
                   v[1](t) = --------------------
                                                2
                             abs(psi(x1, x2, t))

                           d
                         ----- S(x1, x2, t)
                          dx1
                         ------------------
                                  m

                                j[2](x1, x2, t)
                   v[2](t) = --------------------
                                                2
                             abs(psi(x1, x2, t))

                           d
                         ----- S(x1, x2, t)
                          dx2
                         ------------------
                                  m

> 
# In reference to an example of the motion of an electron in a 
# hydrogen atom, Bohm&Hiley state: "The relationship between the 
# parts of a system described above implies a new quality of 
# wholeness of the entire system going beyond anything that can be 
# specified solely in terms of the actual spatial relationships of 
# all the particles. This is indeed the feature which makes the 
# quantum theory go beyond mechanism of any kind. For it is the 
# essence of mechanism to say that basic reality consists of the 
# parts of a system which are in a preassigned interaction. The 
# concept of the whole, then, has only a secondary significance, in 
# the sense that it is only a way of looking at certain overall 
# aspects of what is in reality the behaviour of the parts. In our 
# interpretation of the quantum theory, we see that the interaction 
# of parts is determined by something that cannot be described solely 
# in terms of these parts and their preassigned relationships. Rather 
# it depends on the many-body wave function (which in the usual 
# interpretation, is said to determine the quantum state of the 
# system). This many-body wave function evolves according to 
# Schrodinger's equation. Something with this kind of dynamical 
# significance that refers directly to the whole system is thus 
# playing a key role in the theory. We emphasise that *this is the 
# most fundamentally new aspect* of the quantum theory."

> 
# 25. Many-body Equations
> 
# It is clear from the above that the N-particle case will be a 
# natural extension the two particle equations:
> 
> del[n]=Diff(psi,x.n);
> 
> i*h*Diff(psi,t)=(-h^2/2/m*sum(del[n]@@2,n=1..N)(psi))+V*psi;
> 
> j[n]=h/2/i/m*(Conjugate(psi)*Diff(psi,x.n)-
> psi*Diff(Conjugate(psi),x.n));
> 
> m*diff(v[n](t),t)=-del[n](V)-del[n](Q);
> 
> v[n](t)='j[n]'/abs('psi')^2;


                                    d
                         del[n] = ----- psi
                                   dxn

                                 /  N            \
                                 |-----          |
                               2 | \          (2)|
                             h~  |  )   del[n]   |(psi)
                                 | /             |
                                 |-----          |
          /  d     \             \n = 1          /
     i h~ |---- psi| = - 1/2 -------------------------- + V psi
          \ dt     /                      m

 j[n] = - 1/2

          /               /  d      \       /  d                 \\
     i h~ |Conjugate(psi) |----- psi| - psi |----- Conjugate(psi)||
          \               \ dxn     /       \ dxn                //
     --------------------------------------------------------------
                                    m

               /  d         \
             m |---- v[n](t)| = - del[n](V) - del[n](Q)
               \ dt         /

                                     j[n]
                        v[n](t) = ---------
                                          2
                                  abs(psi)

> 
# In the next installment we will develop the equations of motion for 
# the harmonic oscillator and then take a detailed look at the motion 
# of an identical pair of fermion particles. We will contrast that 
# with the motion of an identical pair of bosons. Hold on to your 
# hats - there are some genuine surprises in the next section!
> 
# Cheers,
# Bill Page.
# 

cudkeys:
cuddy8 cuden3047 cudfnBill cudlnPage cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.07 / Robert Heeter /  Section 1 - Fusion Physics - Conventional Fusion FAQ
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Section 1 - Fusion Physics - Conventional Fusion FAQ
Date: Sun, 7 Aug 1994 23:31:08 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

1. Fusion as a Physical Phenomenon
* This FAQ deals with conventional fusion only, not Cold Fusion. *

While this section is not yet complete, it should be useful to
many people, and I encourage you to distribute it to anyone who
might be interested (and willing to help revise it!!!).

Third Draft:  August 7, 1994
Written by Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@theory.pppl.gov, unless
otherwise cited.

*** Please let me know if anything here is unclear. ***

*** A.  What is fusion?

"Fusion" means many things when discussed on the newsgroup.  
Technically, "fusion" is short for "Nuclear Fusion," which describes
the class of reactions where two light nuclei fuse together, forming
a heavier nucleus.  This heavier nucleus is frequently unstable, and
sometimes splits (fissions) into two or more fragments.  "Fusion"
also refers to the type of energy produced, and a "fusion reactor"
describes an energy-producing facility which generates power via
fusion reactors.  Finally, "fusion" can also be used to refer to
the scientific program aimed at harnessing fusion for clean,
safe, and hopefully inexpensive energy production - a collaborative 
international program which has been carried on for the past 40-some 
years.  Each of these three uses - the technical, the energy
source, and the scientific research program - is discussed in
a separate section of this FAQ.  The technical aspects of
fusion are discussed below in this section.


*** B.  How does fusion release energy?

If you add up the masses of the particles which go into a fusion
reaction, and you add up the masses of the particles which come out,
there is frequently a difference.  According to Einstein's famous
law relating energy and mass, E=mc^2, the "mass difference" can
take the form of energy.  Fusion reactions involving nuclei lighter
than iron typically release energy, but fusion reactions involving
nuclei heavier than iron typically absorb energy.  The amount of
energy released depends on the specifics of the reaction; a table
of reactions is given further below to give an idea of the variety 
of fusion reactions.

Another way to look at this is to consider the "binding energy"
of the elements in question.  If the reactants are bound more
weakly than the products, then energy is released in the reaction.
"Binding energy" is the amount of energy you would have to put
into a system in order to pull its components apart; conversely,
in a system with high binding energy, a lot of energy is released
as the components are allowed to bond together.  Suppose you
had two balls connected by a long, thin rubber band, so that they
are not very tightly connected, and the rubber band can be broken
easily.  This is a system with low binding energy.  Now here's an
analogy to what happens in fusion:  imagine the long, thin 
rubber band suddenly being replaced by a short, thick one.  The
short thick one has to be stretched a lot in order to connect
to the two balls, but it wants to bind them more tightly, so it
pulls them together, and energy is released as they move towards
each other.  The low-binding energy, long rubber band system
has been replaced by a high-binding energy, short rubber band
system, and energy is released. 


*** C.  Where does fusion occur in nature?

The conditions needed to induce fusion reactions are extreme; 
so extreme that virtually all natural fusion occurs in stars, 
where gravity compresses the gas, until temperature and pressure 
forces balance the gravitational compression.  If there is enough 
material in the star, pressures and temperatures will grow
large enough as the star contracts that fusion will begin to occur 
(see below for the explanation why); the energy released will then 
sustain the star's temperature against losses from sunlight being 
radiated away.  The minimum mass needed to induce fusion is roughly 
one-tenth the sun's mass; this is why the sun is a star, but 
Jupiter is merely a (large) planet.  (Jupiter is about 1/1000th 
the sun's mass, so if it were roughly 100 times bigger, it
too would generate fusion and be a small, dim star.)

Stellar fusion reactions gradually convert hydrogen into helium.  
When a star runs out of hydrogen fuel, it either stops burning 
(becoming a dwarf star) or, if it is large enough (so that gravity 
compresses the helium strongly) it begins burning the helium into 
heavier elements.  Because fusion reactions cease to release 
energy once elements heavier than iron are involved, the larger 
stars also eventually run out of fuel, but this time they
collapse in a supernova.  Gravity, no longer opposed by the internal
pressure of fusion-heated gases, crushes the core of the star, 
forming things like white dwarfs, neutron stars, and black holes
(the bigger the star, the more extreme the result).  (For more 
details, try the sci.astro or sci.space.science newsgroups.)


*** D.  Why doesn't fusion occur anywhere else in nature?

Current scientific knowledge indicates that very little fusion
occurs anywhere else in nature.  The reason is because in order
to get two nuclei to fuse, you first have to get them close together.
(This is because the nuclear forces involved in fusion only act
at short range.)  However, because the two nuclei are both positively
charged, they repel each other electrically.  Nuclei will not fuse
unless either (a) they collide with enough energy to overcome the
electrical repulsion, or (b) they find a "sneaky" way to circumvent
their repulsion (see muon-catalyzed fusion in section 4).  The
energy required for fusion is so high that fusion only occurs in
appreciable amounts once the temperature gets over 10 million
degrees Kelvin, so (a) doesn't happen anywhere outside of stars.
Current knowledge suggests that the sort of processes that would
allow sneaky-fusion as in (b) are very rare, so there just isn't
much fusion in the everyday world.


*** E.  What are the basic fusion reactions?

While it is possible to take any two nuclei and get them to fuse,
it is easiest to get lighter nuclei to fuse, because they are
less highly charged, and therefore easier to squeeze together.
There are complicated quantum-mechanics rules which determine which
products you will get from a given reaction, and in what amounts
("branching ratios").  The probability that two nuclei fuse is
determined by the physics of the collsion, and a property called
the "cross section" (see glossary) which (roughly speaking) 
measures the likelihood of a fusion reaction.  (A simple analogy
for cross-section is to consider a blindfolded person throwing
a dart randomly towards a dartboard on a wall.  The likelihood 
that the dart hits the target depends on the *cross-sectional* 
area of the target facing the dart-thrower.  (Thanks to Rich
Schroeppel for this analogy.))

Below is an annotated list of many fusion reactions discussed 
on the newsgroup.  Note:  D = deuterium, T = tritium, p = proton,
n = neutron; these and the other elements involved are discussed 
in the glossary/FUT.  (FUT = list of Frequently Used Terms; section
10 of the FAQ.)  The numbers in parentheses are the energies
of the reaction products (in Millions of electron-Volts, see
glossary for details).  The percentages indicate the branching 
ratios.  More information on each of the elements is given below.

Table I:  Fusion Reactions Among Various Light Elements

D+D   -> T (1.01 MeV) + p (3.02 MeV) (50%)   
      -> He3 (0.82 MeV) + n (2.45 MeV) (50%)  <- most abundant fuel
      -> He4 + about 20 MeV of gamma rays (about 0.0001%; depends
                                           somewhat on temperature.)
      (most other low-probability branches are omitted below)
D+T   -> He4 (3.5 MeV) + n (14.1 MeV)  <-easiest to achieve
D+He3 -> He4 (3.6 MeV) + p (14.7 MeV)  <-easiest aneutronic reaction
                                     "aneutronic" is explained below.
T+T   -> He4 + 2n + 11.3 MeV
He3+T -> He4 + p + n + 12.1 MeV (51%)
      -> He4 (4.8) + D (9.5) (43%)
      -> He4 (0.5) + n (1.9) + p (11.9) (6%)  <- via He5 decay
                                    
p+Li6 -> He4 (1.7) + He3 (2.3)      <- another aneutronic reaction
p+Li7 -> 2 He4 + 17.3 MeV (20%)
      -> Be7 + n -1.6 MeV (80%)     <- endothermic, not good.
D+Li6 -> 2He4 + 22.4 MeV            <- also aneutronic, but you 
                                              get D-D reactions too.
p+B11 -> 3 He4 + 8.7 MeV <- harder to do, but more energy than p+Li6
n+Li6 -> He4 (2.1) + T (2.7)        <- this can convert n's to T's
n+Li7 -> He4 + T + n - some energy

From the list, you can see that some reactions release neutrons,
many release helium, and different reactions release different
amounts of energy (some even absorb energy, rather than releasing
it).  He-4 is a common product because the nucleus of He-4 is
especially stable, so lots of energy is released in creating it.
(A chemical analogy is the burning of gasoline, which is relatively 
unstable, to form water and carbon dioxide, which are more stable.  
The energy liberated in this combustion is what powers automobiles.)
The reasons for the stability of He4 involve more physics than I
want to go into here.

Some of the more important fusion reactions will be described below.  
These reactions are also described in Section 2 in the context of 
their usefulness for energy-producing fusion reactors.


*** F.  Could you tell me more about these different elements?
(Note: there's more information in the glossary too.)

Hydrogen    (p):  Ordinary hydrogen is everywhere, especially 
                    in water.
Deuterium   (D):  A heavy isotope of hydrogen (has a neutron in
                    addition to the proton).  Occurs naturally at 
                    1 part in 6000; i.e. for every 6000 ordinary 
                    hydrogen atoms in water, etc., there's one D.
Tritium     (T):  Tritium is another isotope of hydrogen, with two 
                    neutrons and a proton.  T is unstable  
                    (radioactive), and decays into Helium-3 with a
                    half-life of 12.3 years.  (Half the T decays
                    every 12.3 years.)  Because of its short 
                    half-life, tritium is almost never found in 
                    nature (natural T is mostly a consequence 
                    of cosmic-ray bombardment).  Supplies have been 
                    manufactured using fission reactors; world 
                    tritium reserves are estimated at a few 
                    kilograms, I believe.  Tritium can be made by 
                    exposing deuterium or lithium to neutrons.
Helium-3  (He3):  Rare light isotope of helium; two protons and a 
                    neutron.  Stable.  There's roughly 13 He-3 atoms 
                    per 10 million He-4 atoms.  He-3 is relatively 
                    abundant on the surface of the moon; this is 
                    believed to be due to particles streaming onto
                    the moon from the solar wind.  He3 can also be
                    made from decaying tritium.
Helium-4  (He4):  Common isotope of helium.  Trace component of the 
                    atmosphere (about 1 part per million?); also 
                    found as a component of "natural gas" in gas 
                    wells.
Lithium-6 (Li6):  Less common isotope of lithium.  3 protons, 3 
                    neutrons.  There are 8 Li-6 atoms for every 100 
                    Li-7 atoms.  Widely distributed in minerals and 
                    seawater.  Very active chemically.
Lithium-7 (Li7):  Common isotope of lithium.  3 protons, 4 neutrons.
                    See above info on abundance.
Boron      (B):   Common form is B-11 (80%).  B-10 20%.  
                    5 protons, 6 neutrons.  Also abundant on earth.

Note:  Separating isotopes of light elements by mass is not 
         particularly difficult.


*** G.  Why is the deuterium-tritium (D-T) reaction the easiest?

Basically speaking, the extra neutrons on the D and T nuclei make
them "larger" and less tightly bound, and the result is
that the cross-section for the D-T reaction is the largest.
Also, because they are only singly-charged hydrogen isotopes,
the electrical repulsion between them is relatively small.
So it is relatively easy to throw them at each other, and it 
is relatively easy to get them to collide and stick.  
Furthermore, the D-T reaction has a relatively high energy yield.

However, the D-T reaction has the disadvantage that it releases
an energetic neutron.  Neutrons can be difficult to handle,
because they will "stick" to other nuclei, causing them to
(frequently) become radioactive, or causing new reactions.
Neutron-management is therefore a big problem with the
D-T fuel cycle.  (While there is disagreement, most fusion
scientists will take the neutron problem and the D-T fuel,
because it is very difficult just to get D-T reactions to go.)

Another difficulty with the D-T reaction is that the tritium
is (weakly) radioactive, with a half-life of 12.3 years, so
that tritium does not occur naturally.  Getting the tritium
for the D-T reaction is therefore another problem.

Fortunately you can kill two birds with one stone, and solve
both the neutron problem and the tritium-supply problem at
the same time, by using the neutron generated in the D-T
fusion in a reaction like n + Li6 -> He4 + T + 4.8 MeV.
This absorbs the neutron, and generates another tritium,
so that you can have basically a D-Li6 fuel cycle, with
the T and n as intermediates.  Fusing D and T, and then
using the n to split the Li6, is easier than simply trying
to fuse the D and the Li6, but releases the same amount of
energy.  And unlike tritium, there is a lot of lithium
available, particularly dissolved in ocean water.

Unfortunately you can't get every single neutron to stick
to a lithium nucleus, because some neutrons stick to other
things in your reactor.  You can still generate as much
T as you use, by using "neutron multipliers" such as
Beryllium, or by getting reactions like
n + Li7 -> He4 + T + n (which propagates the neutron)
to occur.  The neutrons that are lost are still a problem,
because they can induce radioactivity in materials that
absorb them.  This topic is discussed more in Section 2.


*** H.  What is aneutronic fusion?

Some researchers feel the advantages of neutron-free fusion
reactions offset the added difficulties involved in getting
these reactions to occur, and have coined the term
"aneutronic fusion" to describe these reactions.

The best simple answer I've seen so far is this one:
(I've done some proofreading and modified the notation a bit.)
[ Clarifying notes by rfheeter are enclosed in brackets like this.]

>From: johncobb@emx.cc.utexas.edu (John W. Cobb)
>Risto Kaivola <rkaivola@mits.mdata.fi> wrote:

[[ Sorry I don't have the date or full reference for this anymore;
this article appeared in sci.physics.fusion a few months ago.]]

>>Basically, what is aneutronic fusion?  The term aneutronic
>>confuses me considerably.  Could you give me an example of
>>an aneutronic fusion reaction? How could energy be produced
>>using such a reaction?  Can there be a fusion reaction in which
>>a neutron is never emitted?
>
>Examples:
>
>D + He3 --> He4 + p + 18.1MeV 
>(deuteron + helium-3 --> helium-4 + proton + energy)
>
>p + Li6 --> He4 + He3 + 4.0MeV
>(proton + lithium-6 --> helium-4 + helium-3 + energy)
>
>D + Li6 --> 2 He4 + 22.4MeV
>(deuteron + lithium-6 --> 2 helium-4's + energy)
>
>p + B11 --> 3 He4 + 8.7Mev
>(proton + boron-11 --> 3 helium-4's + energy)
>
>All of these reactions produce no neutrons directly.
[[ Hence "aneutronic." ]] 
>There are also other reactions that have multiple branches possible,
>some of which do not produce neutrons and others that do 
>(e.g., D + D, p + Li7).
>
>The question is how do you get a "reactor" going and not get 
>any neutrons.  There are 2 hurdles here. The first is getting the
>fuel to smack together hard enough and often enough for fusion
>to occur.
>The easiest fusion reaction is D + T --> He4 + n (the D-T fuel 
>cycle). A magnetic reactor can initiate fusion in one of these 
>things at about a temperature of 10keV. 
[1 keV = 1000 eV = 11,000,000 (degrees) kelvin, more or less]. 
>The other reactions require much higher temperatures (for example 
>about 50KeV for the D+He3 reaction). This is a big factor of 5. 
>The second hurdle is neutron production via "trash" (secondary) 
>reactions.  That is, the main reaction may be neutron-free, 
>but there will be pollution reactions that may emit neutrons. 
[ The products of the main reaction, e.g. He3, can be trapped in
your reactor temporarily, and fuse with other ions in the system 
in messy ways. ]
>Even if this is only a few percent, it can lead to big neutron
>emission. For example, the D+He3 reaction will also have some D+D 
>reactions occuring. 
[ Because in your reactor you will have a lot of Ds and He3s, and
the Ds will collide with each other as well as with the He3s. ]
>At 50Kev temperatures, the reaction 
>cross-section for D+D reactions is about 1/2 of the D+He3 
>cross-section, so there will be some generation of neutrons from 
>the 50% branch reaction of D + D-->He3 + n.
>Also, the other 50% goes to T+p, The triton (T) will then undergo 
>a D-T reaction and release another neutron. 
[ Because the cross-section for D-T reactions is much higher.]
>If the reactor is optmized (run in a He3 rich mode) the number 
>of neutrons can be minimized. The neutron power can be as low 
>as about 5% of the total. However, in a 1000 megawatt reactor, 
>5% is 50 MW of neutron power. That is [still] a lot of neutron 
>irradiation. This lower neutron level helps in designing 
>structural elements to withstand neutron bombardment, but it 
>still has radiation consequences.
>
>On the other hand, it is my understanding that the p-B11 reaction 
>is completely neutron free, but of course it is much harder 
>to light.


*** I.  What sort of fusion reactor is the sun?

Fortunately for life on earth, the sun is an aneutronic fusion
reactor, and we are not continually bombarded by fusion neutrons.
Unfortunately, the aneutronic process which the sun uses is 
extremely slow and harder to do on earth than any of the reactions
mentioned above.  The sun long ago burned up the "easy" deuterium
fuel, and is now mostly ordinary hydrogen.  Now hydrogen has a
mass of one (it's a single proton) and helium has a mass of four
(two protons and two neutrons), so it's not hard to imagine sticking
four hydrogens together to make a helium.  There are two major
problems here:  the first is getting four hydrogens to collide 
simultaneously, and the second is converting two of the four protons
into neutrons.  

The sun evades the first problem, and solves the second, by using a 
catalyzed cycle:  rather than fuse 4 protons directly, it fuses a 
proton to an atom of carbon-12, creating nitrogen-13; the N-13 emits 
a neutrino and a positron (an antielectron, that is an electon with
positive instead of negative charge) and becomes carbon-13.  
(Effectively, the Carbon-12 converted the proton to a 
neutron + positron + neutrino, kept the neutron, and became C-13).  
The C-13 eventually fuses with another proton to become N-14.  
N-14 then fuses with a proton to become oxygen-15.  Oxygen-15 decays 
to N-15 (emitting another positron), and N-15 plus another proton 
yields carbon-12 plus a helium-4 nucleus, (aka an alpha particle).  
Thus 4 protons are tacked one by one onto heavier elements, two of 
the protons are converted to neutrons, and the result is production
of helium and two positrons.  (The positrons will undergo 
matter-antimatter annihilation with two electrons, and the result
of the whole process is formation of a helium, two neutrinos, and
a bunch of gamma rays.  The gamma rays get absorbed in the solar 
interior and heat it up, and eventually the energy from all this 
fusion gets emitted as sunlight from the surface of the sun.)

The whole process is known as the carbon cycle; it's catalyzed
because you start with carbon and still have carbon at the end.
The presence of the carbon merely makes it possible to convert
protons to helium.  The process is slow because it's difficult
to fuse protons with carbon and nitrogen, and the positron-emitting
nuclear decays are also slow processes, because they're moderated
by the weak nuclear force.


*** J.  Why is it so hard to create controlled man-made fusion 
reactions?

In order to get two nuclei to fuse, you basically have to get
them to collide energetically.  It turns out that colliding two
beams of particles yields mostly scattering collisions, and few
fusion reactions.  Similarly, blasting a stationary target with
a beam of energetic ions also yields too little fusion.  

The upshot is that one must find some way to confine hot, 
energetic particles so that they can collide many many times,
and finally collide in just the right way, so that fusion occurs.
The temperatures required are upwards of 100 million degrees 
(Kelvin - it would be about 200 million Fahrenheit!).  At these
temperatures, your fusion fuel will melt/evaporate any material
wall.  So the big difficulties in fusion are (a) getting 
the particles hot enough to fuse, and (b) confining them long
enough so that they do fuse.


*** K.  What is plasma physics, and how is it related to fusion?

Plasma physics is the area of physics which studies ionized 
gases and their properties.  In most conventional types of fusion 
(muon-catalyzed fusion being the major exception), one must heat 
the fusion fuel to extremely high temperatures.  At these 
temperatures, the fuel atoms collide so much and so hard that 
many electrons are knocked loose from their atoms.  The result 
is a soup of ionized atoms and free electrons: a plasma.

In order to achieve the conditions required for controlled 
fusion, an understanding of how plasmas behave (and particularly 
how to confine and heat them) is often essential.


*** L.  Just how hot and confined do these plasmas need to be?
(Or, what conditions are needed for controlled fusion?)

Basically, the hotter your plasma, the more fusion you will have,
because the more ions will be flying around fast enough to stick
together.  The more dense your plasma is, the more ions there are
in a small space, and the more collisions you are likely to have.
Finally, the longer you can keep your plasma hot, the more likely
it is that something will fuse, so duration is important too.  More
importantly, the slower your plasma loses energy, the more likely
it is that it will be able to sustain its temperature from internal
fusion reactions, and "ignite."  The ratio of fusion energy
production to plasma energy loss is what really counts here.

Hotness is measured by temperature, and as explained above, the
D-T fuel cycle (the easiest) requires temperatures of about 10 keV,
or 100,000,000 degrees kelvin.  Density is typically measured in 
particles-per-cubic centimeter or particles-per-cubic meter.
The required density depends on the confinement duration.

The Lawson triple product, defined as 
(temperature)*(density)*(confinement time), determines what
combinations of density and confinement time will give you fusion
at a given temperature.  It is important to note that what
you must confine is the *energy* (thermal energy) stored in 
the plasma, and not necessarily the plasma particles.  

There's a lot of subtlety here; for instance, you want to 
confine your fuel ions as well as their energy, so that they
stick around and fuse, but you *don't* want to confine the 
"ash" from the reactions, because the ash needs to get out 
of the reactor...  But you'd like to get the *energy*
out of the ash to keep your fuel hot so it will fuse better!
(And it gets even more complicated than that!)

Regardless, it's true that for a special value of the Lawson 
product, the fusion power produced in your plasma will just 
balance the energy losses as energy in the plasma becomes 
unconfined, and *ignition* occurs.  That is, as long as 
the plasma fuel stays around, the plasma will keep itself 
hot enough to keep fusing.

A simple analogy here is to an ordinary fire.  The fire won't
burn unless the fuel is hot enough, and it won't keep burning
unless the heat released by burning the fuel is enough to keep
the fuel hot enough.  The flame continually loses heat, but 
usually this loss is slow enough that the fire sustains itself.
You can accelerate the heat loss, however, by pouring water
on the fire to cool it quickly; this puts the fire out.

In fusion, the plasma continually loses heat, much as a fire 
gives off heat, and if the plasma loses heat faster than heat
is produced by fusion, it won't stay hot enough to keep burning.
In fusion reactors today, the plasmas aren't quite confined well
enough to sustain burning on their own (ignition), so we get
them to burn by pumping in energy to keep them hot.  This is sort
of like getting wet wood to burn with a blowtorch (this last analogy 
is usually credited to Harold Furth of PPPL).

For the D-T fuel cycle, the Lawson ignition value is
about 4E28 Kelvin-seconds-particles/meter^3.  Current fusion reactors
have achieved about 1/10th of this - but 20 years ago they had
only achieved 1/100,000th of this!

How can we improve the Lawson value of a plasma further, so we get 
even closer to fusion ignition?  The trick is to keep the heat in the 
plasma for as long as possible.  As an analogy to this problem, 
suppose we had a thermos of coffee which we want to keep hot.  We can 
keep the thermos hotter longer by (a) using a better type of 
insulation, so that the heat flows out more slowly, or (b) using 
thicker insulation, so the heat has farther to go to escape, and
therefore takes longer to get out.

Going back to the fusion reactor, the insulation can be improved by 
studying plasmas and improving their insulating properties by 
reducing heat transport through them.  And the other way to boost
the Lawson value is simply to make larger plasmas, so the energy
takes longer to flow out.  Scientists believe it's technically
feasible to build a power-producing fusion reactor with high
Lawson value *Right Now*, but it would have to be large, so large 
in fact that it would cost too much to be able to make electricity
economically.  So we're studying plasmas and trying to figure out
how to make them trap energy more efficiently.


*** M.  What are the basic approaches used to heat and confine 
the plasma?  (Or, what is magnetic confinement?  
Inertial confinement?)

There are three basic ways to confine a plasma.  The first is 
the method the sun uses:  gravity.  If you have a big enough
ball of plasma, it will stick together by gravity, and be
self-confining.

Unfortunately for fusion researchers, that doesn't work here on
earth.  The second method is that used in nuclear fusion bombs:
you implode a small pellet of fusion fuel.  If you do it quickly
enough, and compress it hard enough, the temperature will go way
up, and so will the density, and you can exceed the Lawson 
ignition value despite the fact that you are only confining your
pellet for nanoseconds.  Because the inertia of the imploding
pellet keeps it momentarily confined, this method is known as
inertial confinement.

The third method uses the fact that charged particles placed in
a magnetic field will gyrate in circles.  If you can arrange the
magnetic field carefully, the particles will be trapped by it.
If you can trap them well enough, the plasma energy will be
confined.  Then you can heat the plasma, and achieve fusion with
more modest particle densities.  This method is known as 
magnetic confinement.  Initial heating is achieved by a 
combination of microwaves, energetic/accelerated particle beams, 
and resistive heating from currents driven through the plasma.
(Once the Lawson ignition value is achieved, the plasma becomes
more-or-less self-heating.)  In magnetic confinement, the plasma 
density is typically about 1E20 particles per cubic meter, and with
a temperature of about 1E8 kelvin, we see that ignition could be
achieved with a confinement time of about 4 seconds.  (All these 
numbers in reality vary by factors of 2 or 3 from the rough values 
I've given.)  Currently, magnetic-confinement reactors are about 
a factor of ten short of the ignition value.  (TFTR has an
energy confinement time of 0.25 seconds during its best shots.)  

More information on these different approaches is given in the
sections that follow.


***************************
Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University
As always, I represent only myself, and not PPPL
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Mon Aug  8 04:37:08 EDT 1994
------------------------------
1994.08.08 / Robert Heeter /  Section 6 - Recent Results - Conventional Fusion FAQ
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Section 6 - Recent Results - Conventional Fusion FAQ
Subject: Re: Laymen Q: Was Princeton's Fusion a 'breakthrough?'
Date: Mon, 8 Aug 1994 03:02:15 GMT
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1993 12:01:28 GMT
Organization: Princeton University
Organization: Joint European Torus

6. Recent Results
* This FAQ deals with conventional fusion only, not Cold Fusion. *

While this section is not yet complete, it should be useful to
many people, and I encourage you to distribute it to anyone who
might be interested (and willing to help revise it!!!).

Third Draft - August 7, 1994
Written by Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@theory.pppl.gov, unless
otherwise cited.

***  A.  Recent Results on TFTR:

* (a) What was done?

The Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor (TFTR) here at Princeton 
switched from pure-deuterium fuel to a deuterium-tritium 
(D-T) fuel mixture in December 1993.  As discussed in 
Section 1, the D-T fuel is easier to fuse, but the neutrons 
produced in the reaction D + T -> 4He + n will slowly make 
the reactor radioactive, so this set of experiments will 
be the last for TFTR.  In these reactions, over 6 million 
watts (MW) of fusion power were produced for about a second.  
This is four times more power than any previous controlled 
fusion experiment.  The value of 6 MW should be compared to
the roughly 30 MW of input power used, which indicates that
fusion in TFTR remains short of breakeven.  (See glossary for
explanations of unfamiliar terminology.)

(There was an article on this in _Time_, Dec 20, 1993, p. 54, 
at least in the American edition; there are of course other 
articles out there too.  See Section 9, Part A (the bibliography
on recent literature) for more references.)

>>Update May 31 (mostly from TFTR News Updates by Rich Hawryluk):  
   Over 9 megawatts were generated in late May.
     This is 90 million times what could be generated in 1974
     when TFTR was proposed.
   Input power was up to 33.7 MW -> Q = 0.27.  
   Two articles on the December experiments were published in
     the May 30 issue of Physical Review Letters.
			Recent TFTR shots have exhibited exceptionally high performance,
     with preliminary indications that energy confinement is 
     enhanced by 20-30 percent in D-T relative to D-D fuel.
   Plasma disruptions possibly caused by TAE mode activity have
     been observed.  Fusion performance is limited by the MHD
     activity, not by heating power or confinement.
   Central fusion power density has been increased from 1.25 MW m-3
     to 1.8 MW m-3.

>>Update August 7
   Work is ongoing to try to stabilize the power-limiting modes.
   Funding for D-T experiments into FY 1995 is expected. (see below)


*	(b) Why does it matter?

The generation of multi-megawatt levels of fusion power is a major
achievement for the controlled fusion program.  Sustaining the
power output for a second is also significant, because most
known plasma instabilities occur much more quickly.  Also, use 
of tritium to achieve high power levels enables researchers to 
study plasmas under conditions closer to those of a working 
fusion reactor.  There are effects due to the heavier tritium 
ions, and due to the presence of highly energetic helium ions
produced in the fusion reaction.  In particular, scientists
were worried that the energetic He ions might trigger new plasma
instabilities.  (Plasmas are notorious for finding new ways to
misbehave whenever scientists manage to improve the operating 
conditions.)  Fortunately, no major instabilities were observed,
and in fact early reports are that plasma performance actually
improves in high-power D-T conditions.  These results enhance
the prospects for future experiments which will try to achieve
even higher power outputs in nearly steady-state conditions.
(See Section 8 for more information on future experiments.)


***  B.  Recent Results on JET

JET ran some experiments in 1991 using a 10% tritium mix, and 
produced 1.7 megawatts of fusion power.  Since then researchers
have been reconfiguring the machine.  (Anybody know if plasma
operation has begun?)
 
Appended below are comments adapted from a post I made on Feb 12, 
1994 (which in turn referenced a Dec 14, 1993 posting by 
Stephen Cooper at JET), which provide more background to the 
JET & TFTR results.  


***  C.  Recent Results in Inertial Confinement Fusion

(Anybody got any info?  I haven't had time to look yet.)


***  D.  Recent Results in Muon-Catalyzed Fusion
(Based on information provided by Steven Jones of BYU.)

Steven Jones posted on April 30:

>In article <1994Apr27.214422.17681@debug.cuc.ab.ca>,
>Lforbes@debug.cuc.ab.ca writes:
>
>>I have heard little lately (last year or so) about muon catalyzed 
>>fusion; have there been any noteable developments?
>
>Not lately.  Not much has happened since DoE decided to cut funding 
>in 1988, the year *before* cold fusion hit the fan, incidentally.
>Despite the funding cut, we were able to do some experiments at 
>LAMPF in 1989 and 1990, and we recently published a paper 
>on results:
>S.E. Jones, S.F. Taylor and A.N. Anderson, "Evaluation of 
>muon-alpha sticking from liquid, non-equilibrated d-t targets 
>with high tritium fractions," 
>Hyperfine Interactions 82 (1993) 303-311.
>
>Other groups (PSI, Russia) are plugging along, and we're trying to
>work out an international collaboration with them which looks 
>fairly good right now, though funding is tight.


***  E.  Recent major results from other experiments, and 
theoretical work?

(Anyone care to contribute anything major?)


***  F.  Recent Political News

* (a) U.S. Magnetic Fusion News:

The conference committee handling DOE appropriations for FY 1995
has decided to postpone construction of TPX for a year pending
(hopeful) passage of the fusion authorization bill.  Design funding
for TPX has been continued.  TPX construction funding has been
diverted to provide funds to extend D-T experimentation on TFTR.
As for the authorization legislation, the Senate authorization 
bill has already passed.  The House version has been stripped 
of the electricity-generation tax but is otherwise virtually 
identical to the bill proposed by George Brown; I believe the 
House bill has been reported out of the committe and awaits action. 
The House bill contains provisions authorizing substantial funding
increases over the next few years (to finance ITER and TPX), and
also authorizes a $30million/year program in advanced and alternative
fusion ideas.

Meanwhile, Robert Hirsch has been hired by General Atomics.
Hirsch is the former head of the fusion program and was recently
working at the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI).

* (b) U.S. Inertial Fusion News

(Are there any ICF gurus out there?)


* (c) ITER News:

Rebut has been relieved as director of ITER.  Concerns over
ITER management have been receiving press lately.


* (d) European News:

(What's going on in Europe these days?)


* (e) Other world fusion news:

(Japan?)


***  G.  Appendix on TFTR and JET results

*********************************************
TFTR results vs JET results from 1991:
(Written by Stephen R. Cooper at JET, with comments [like this] 
by R.F. Heeter.)

>From src@jet.uk Tue Dec 14 11:14:34 EST 1993
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Laymen Q: Was Princeton's Fusion a 'breakthrough?'
Organization: Joint European Torus
References: <2ebdvg$44e@Mercury.mcs.com> <2ei3vk$o7o@mailer.fsu.edu>
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1993 12:01:28 GMT

In <2ei3vk$o7o@mailer.fsu.edu> jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
writes:
>As I recall, the reports from JET in November 1991 indicated a Q of
>about 1/9 for the light load of T, with plans to increase the T 
>to 50% by 1996.  I think their extrapolation to 50% indicated 
>they would be very close to breakeven at that point, but do not
>recall the details. 

>Could some JET person fill us in?

[ Note by rfheeter: Q is the ratio of power produced in the
machine by fusion to power put into the machine to heat
the plasma. Q = 1 means fusion yield is equal to power
input.  Economical fusion will require Q significantly 
greater than 1.  See the glossary (Section 10) for more details.]

Results quoted from "The JET Preliminary Tritium Experiment", 
invited talk given to the 1992 International Conference on 
Plasma Physics by P-H Rebut, Innsbruck, Austria, 29th June-3rd 
July 1992).

"Two Deuterium plasmas were heated by high power deuterium 
neutral beams from fourteen sources and fuelled by two neutral 
beam sources injecting tritium. In the best of the two D-T 
discharges, the tritium concentration was about 11% of bulk plasma 
at peak performance, when the total neutron emmision rate was 
6.0E17 per second, with 1.7MW of fusion power. The fusion 
amplification factor Q(DT) was 0.15. With an optimum tritium 
concentration, this pulse would have produced a fusion power 
of ~ 5MW and nominal Q(DT) of 0.46. The same extrapolation for 
the best pure deuterium discharge of the PTE series gives about 
11MW and a nominal Q(DT) of 1.14.

[ Note by rfheeter:  neutral beams are made by accelerating
deuterium ions, and then neutralizing the ions so that they
can fly into the magnetic field of the tokamak without being
deflected.  As they enter the plasma, they are re-ionized
and their energy is subsequently shared with the other 
ions in the plasma.  Thus this is a method for simultaneously
heating and refueling the plasma. See glossary for more info...]

The total integrated total neutron yield was 7.2E17 with an 
accuracy of +/- 7% and the total fusion energy was about 2MJ. 
The tritium injections last just 2 seconds out of a 10 second, 
3MA flat top. The amount of tritium injected and the limited 
number of shots were deliberatly restricted for operational 
convenience."

[ Note by rfheeter:  2 MJ = 2 million joules = 1 million
watts for a duration of 2 seconds, or 2 million watts for
a duration of one second.  1 Joule = 1 watt * 1 second.
A "10 second, 3 MA flat top" refers to the relatively stable
flat peak of a current-vs-time graph, indicating that
the plasma current is stable at about 3 million amps
(3 MA) for 10 seconds.  "Operational convenience" should
probably be interpreted as "because we didn't want to
make our reactor too radioactive, and tritium handling
is a pain." - that's an editorial comment. ]

--> Personal remarks start 
[this Cooper writing now, and not quoting others.]

The above seems to indicate that if JET had gone into it's full 
D-T phase at this time and with this configuration, we certainly
should have got to 50% of breakeven. As to if we could have 
matched our best deuterium pulse, I guess we would have come 
close especially as the TFTR results show no pathological 
problems with a 50/50 D-T mix. But this is all hypothetical, 
we no longer have anything like the configuration we had in 
1991, we're just about to finish a major shutdown incorporating 
a pumped divertor to look at impurity control and ash removal. 
The old H mode shots that the 1991 experiment were based on 
are a thing of the past and we'll have to wait and see how she 
performs with the new configuration.

[ Note by rfheeter: a "divertor" is a magnetic or physical
way of channeling particles from the edge of the plasma
out of the way, and helps to improve confinement of the plasma
as well as remove impurities. "H mode" is a relatively
stable operational mode of the tokamak, as contrasted with
"L mode", which is less stable.  I believe H = High and
L = Low, referring to high and low confinement.]

[[ The rest of the article was about TFTR and not JET,
and I have omitted it to save some space. ]]

Stephen R Cooper                 Physics Operations Group
src@jet.uk               Operations Division, JET.
-	Disclaimer: Please note that the above is a personal view and 
should not be construed as an official comment from the JET project.



***************************
Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University
As always, I represent only myself, and not PPPL
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.08 / Rene Vega /  Re: UFO = smokering = plasma?
     
Originally-From: draco@amdahl.com (Rene A. Vega)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: UFO = smokering = plasma?
Date: Mon, 8 Aug 1994 06:15:27 GMT
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA USA

In article <323ggu$145b@columba.udac.uu.se>
david@vesicle (David Johsson) writes:

> Take a look at the pictures at my Web Elektromagnum
> (http://www.ibg.uu.se/elektromagnum) in UFO/Endeavour and tell me what
> the grey ring coming out of the spaceshuttle is?

I can't tell you what it is, but I have seen that effect with my
camcorder when strong light hits the lens at just the right angle.
Notice there are three 'rings' in the frames. The two prominent ones
have a hexagonal quality to them, which suggests to me I'm seeing
reflections of the aperture iris. Also the grey ring seems to carry
that hexagonal quality too. Looks like lens flare to me.

  \ /    Rene' A. Vega
== * ===============================================================
  / \    Opinions herein are mine, and not necessarily my employer's
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudendraco cudfnRene cudlnVega cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.08 /   /  Physic Computing '94 (PC94) Final Program
     
Originally-From: pc94@cscs.ch (PC94)
Newsgroups: sci.materials,sci.math,sci.math.num-analysis,sci.physics,sci
physics.accelerators,sci.physics.fusion,sci.space
Subject: Physic Computing '94 (PC94) Final Program
Date: Mon, 8 Aug 1994 10:29:57 GMT
Organization: Centro Svizzero di Calcolo Scientifico, Manno

 --------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                PC'94

                        (PHYSICS COMPUTING '94)

    The 6th Joint EPS-APS International Conference on Physics Computing
                 Lugano, Switzerland, Palazzo dei Congressi
                          August 22-26, 1994

                         (Final Announcement)

 --------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Jointly organized by the Swiss Scientific Computing Center
    (CSCS), Manno, Switzerland, belonging to the Swiss Federal
    Institute of Technology, Zurich (ETHZ), the EPS Interdisciplinary
    Group on Computational Physics and by the American Physical
    Society, Division of Computational Physics.

    Sponsored by EPS-APS, ETHZ, Computers in Physics, NEC


Scientific Program
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------
    PC'94 will give a detailed overview on the newest research
    results and developments in computational methodology for
    academia and industry, including invited papers, contributed
    papers, poster sessions, tutorials and vendor exhibitions.
    The purpose of the conference is to bring together researchers
    interested in innovative approaches in computational physics.
    Special emphasis will be given to algorithmical and high-
    performance computer implementation issues. Tutorial
    sessions organized by leaders in their respective fields will be
    held on the first conference day.


Final Program
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------


* Monday, August 22, 1994
 ------------------------

Tutorials:
Morning:
      1	 Parallel Computation I
      2	 Visualization Tools and Techniques I
      3a Introduction to Finite Elements Methods
      4a Wavelets and Fourier Analysis
      5b Symbolic Computation
Afternoon:        
      1	 Parallel Computation II
      2	 Visualization Tools and Techniques II
      3b Structured and Unstructured Adaptive Grids
      4b Electronic Structure Calculations
      5a Introduction to Neural Networks


* Tuesday, August 23, 1994
 -------------------------

- Developments in Forecasting the Atmospheric Environment
        J.C.R. Hunt
- Monte Carlo Simulations of Spin Systems and Lattice Gases
        K.Binder
- Density Functional Calculations for Semiconductors Containing Defects
        R. Luchsinger, Y. Zhou, P.F. Meier
- Exact Diagonalization Method for FEW-Particle Quantum Systems; 
  An Object-Oriented Programming Approach
        V. Halonen
- Diffusion of Au on the Reconstructed Au(111) Surface
        G. Boisvert and L. J. Lewis
- First-Principles Molecular Dynamics of the Si(001) Surface: 
  Visualization of the Electron Density Dynamics by an Animation
        E.P. Stoll, A. Baratoff, A. Mangili and D. Maric
- An Efficient Approach to Multicriterial Optimization in Scientific 
  and Industrial Problems
        I.M. SobolI
- Semi-analytical Approximate Solution of Linear Differential 
  Equations with Polynomial Coefficients
        A.S. Berdnikov
- Nonlinear Convergence Acceleration for Orthogonal Series
        H.H. Homeier
- Highly Parallel Evolutionary Algorithms for Global Optimization, 
  Symbolic Inference and Non-Linear Regression
        S. Armone, M. Dell'Orto, A. Tettamanzi and M. Tomassini
- Using Direct Numerical Simulation to Understand Turbulent Combustion
        T. Poinsot and A. Trouv
- Inelastic Collision Can Sharpen Planetary Ringlets
        K. Shida, A. Imahashi, S. Yamada and T. Kawai
- Grape-4: A Special-Purpose Computer for Gravitational N-Body Problems
        Jun Makino
- Quantitative Descriptions of Heart Rate Variability
        V. Demmel
- Spatial and Temporal Pattern Analysis for Barium-Sodium-Niobate Crystals
        H. Heng
- Miogram for Short-Time Signal Analysis with an Application to Speech
        B. Pompe 
- Poster Session 1
- Commercial Exhibitors


* Wednesday, August 24, 1994
 ---------------------------

- Numerical Simulations of two-Dimensional Combustive Flows 
  with Detailed Chemistry.
        Y. D'Angelo, A. Ern and B. Larrouturou
- Early Experiments with the Cray T3D at CEA
        G. Meurant, M. Patron, T. Porcher and F. Robin
- Monopoles and Critical Dynamics in U(1) Lattice Gauge Theory: 
  A Parallel Cluster Algorithm
        Th. Lippert, A. Bode, K. Schilling and P. Ueberholz
- Predicting Three-Dimensional Protein Structures by Distance Geometry and 
  Monte Carlo Simulations: What Can we Expect from Parallel Computers?
        W. Braun and Ch. Mumenthaler
- Tight-Binding Molecular Dynamics: Present Status and Perspectives
        L. Colombo
- Computing Orthogonal Polynomials for Fractal Measures and the 
  Dynamics of Quasi-Periodic Tight-Binding Models
        G. Mantica
- Computer Modelling Studies of Solitons in Layered Crystals
        D.R. Collins and F.M. Russell
- Numerical Simulations of Models for High-Tc Superconductors
        I. Morgenstern, W. Fettes, T. Husslein, C. Baur,
        H.G. Matuttis and J.M. Singer
- Monte Carlo Study of a Transition between Different Modes of Crystal Growth
        M. Kotrla and A.C. Levi
- Algorithm for the Larson-Type Model of a Microemulsion
        D. Stauffer and N. Jan
- A General Class of Hybrid Monte-Carlo Methods
        R.Toral
- Role of the Base Sequence on the Dynamics of DNA Melting
        M. Peyrard and T. Dauxois
- Dynamic Scaling in Submonolayer Epitaxial Growth
        F. Family, J.G. Amar and P.M. Lam
- Diffusion Limited Radiate Accretive Growth
        J.A. Kaandorp
- Computational Neuronal Growth
        H.G.E. Hentschel and A. Fine
- The UKQCD Grand Challenge Project
        K. Bowler
- Electromagnetic Modelling in Arbitrary Geometry by PIC 
  Methods on MIMD Computers
        W. Arter, J.W. Eastwood and R.W. Hockney
- HOPS Methodology for Vector-Parallel and Superscalar-Parallel Computers
        D.V. Anderson
- Numerical Methods to Solve the Schroedinger Equation
        L.G. Ixaru
- Perturbation Approach for Frequency Shifts in IR Spectra 
  of Molecular Clusters
        T.A. Beu
- Electronic Properties of Silicon Dioxide Investigated Via all-
  Electron Calculations and Photoemission Spectroscopy
        A. Di Pomponio, A. Continenza, L. Lozzi, 
        M. Passacantando, S. Santucci and P. Picozzi
- Poster Session 2
- NEC Presentation
- Commercial Exhibitors


* Thursday, August 25, 1994
 --------------------------

- Teaching Computational Physics
        C. Rebbi
- Unsteady Flow Simulations on M.I.M.D. Systems
        S. Lanteri
- Modelling of Turbulent Hydrogen Combustion Using Reaction 
  Progress Variables
        J.J. Louis and J.B.W. Kok
- A General Model Evaluation and Selection Scheme Applied to 
  Real Time Simulation of Atmospheric Dispersion in Complex Terrain
        V.R.D. Herrnberger, P. Doria and G. Prohaska
- First-principles calculations of vibrational prperties
        P. Giannozzi
- Two-Dimensional Crystallisation on Spherical Surfaces
        J.M. Yoogd, R. v.Dantzig and P.M.A. Sloot
- Topological Considerations on the B1-B2 Phase Transition of 
  the Alkali Halides from ab Initio  Electronic Structure Calculations
        A.Martin Pendas, V. Luana, J.M. Recio, M.A. Blanco and E. Francisco
- The Computational Stellarator
        U. Schwenn
- Data Parallel Simulation and Visualization of Tokamak Gyro-
  Landau Fluid Turbulence
        G.D. Kerbel, R.E. Waltz, J.L. Milovich and G.W. Hammett
- Mach3: A Three-Dimensional Magnetohydrodynamic Code for 
  Complex Geometries
        U. Shumlak, T.W. Hussey and R.E. Peterkin, Jr.
- DAPHNE, a 2D Axisymmetric Electron Gun Simulation Code
        T.M. Tran, D.R. Whaley, S. Merazzi and R. Gruber
- A New Recursion Formula to Evaluate Molecular Integrals over 
  Gaussian Functions
        S. Obaara
- Annealing the Travelling Salesman?
        P.H. Borcherds
- Symbolic Program for Generating the Many-body Perturbation-
  theory Formulas
        W.F. Perger, J. Dantuluru, M. Idrees and K. Flurchick
- A New Measure of Importance in Global Sensitivity Analysis of 
  Model Output
        S. Saltelli, T. Homma and T.H. Andres
- Cellular Automata and Lattice Boltzmann Models for Reaction-
  Diffusion Processes and Pattern Formation
        B. Chopard
- A Two-Dimensional Cellular Automata Model for Landslide 
  Simulation
        S. Di Gregorio, F. Nicoletta, R. Rongo, M. Sorriso-Valvo and W. Spataro
- 2D Cellular Automata for Turbulent Convection
        A. Lejeune, J. Perdang and J.Y. Raty
- Large Scale Geophysical Computations on Scalable Parallel 
  Architectures With Two High-Level Programming Tools: Two Cade Studies
        P. Sguazzero
- Very fast Optoelectronic Correlator
        A.Podoleanu, R.K. Harding and D.A. Jackson
- Computation of the Charge Density Distribution in a 3D 
  Electric Field
        W. Egli, O. Riccius, U. Kogelschatz, R. Gruber and S. Merazzi
- Poster Session 3 
- Presentation PC'95
- Presentation Exhibitors


* Friday, August 26, 1994
 ------------------------

- Computer Animation of Quantum Phenomena in Mesoscopic Systems
        H. De Raedt
- Hydrodynamic Cellular Automata for Granular Media
        A. Karolyi and J. Kertesz
- Nucleation and Growth Model for the Ferroelectric Switching 
  of Polyvinylidene Fluoride
        R. Igreja, M.C. Lan
- Spatial Ordering in the Simulations of Diffusion Limited 
  Colloid Aggregation
        A. E. Gonzalez and G. Ramirez-Santiago
- Investigation of Structure and Electronic States of Amorphous 
  Systems and Small Clusters of Metal-Metalloid
        V.S. Stepanyuk and A. Szasz
- Computer Simulation of Disordering Kinetics in Irradiated 
  Intermetallic Compounds
        M. Spaczer, A. Caro, M. Victoria and T. Diaz de la Rubia
- Computer Modelling of the Defect Creation in Solids
        A. Kiv and N.P. Kovalenko
- Pure Estimators in Quantum Monte Carlo Algorithms
        J. Casulleras and J. Boronat
- Fast Krylov Space Methods for Calculation of Quark Propagator
        A. Borici and P. de Forcrand
- Alternating Quantum Antiferromagnetic Chains with 
  Discommensurations: A Quantum Monte Carlo Study
        Y. Okabe and N. Kai
- Stochastic Preprocessing to a Neural Net: An Application in 
  High Energy Physics Particle Recognition
        M Casolino, A. Morselli, E. Pasqualucci and P. Picozza
- A New Algorithm for the Study of Monte Carlo Dynamics: Monte 
  Carlo with Absorbing Markov Chains
        M.A. Novotny
- SToMP-Software Teaching of Modular Physics
        R. A. Bacon


 Here is the registration form which you can fill in and send back to 
 PC94@cscs.ch:


 Registration
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Registration fee:
       (1) EPS member and affiliated societies ONLY:
           I am sending Sfr. 370.- 
           to the account (*).
       (2) I am sending Sfr. 400.-
           to the account (*).
       (*) Account:
           "PC'94" Nr. JE-150.761.0
           Swiss Bank Corporation (SBS)
           CH-6982 Agno, Switzerland

       At the conference there is the possibility to buy daily tickets at  
       Sfr. 200.- /day.

 The registration fee covers the access to the conference and the proceedings 
 book of the conference. Refund of the registration fee (less 10% 
 administration costs) will only be granted if notification of cancellation 
 has reached the conference secretariat before August 1, 1994.

    Lunches:
       Sfr. 25.- /day, payable at the conference

    Tutorials: (Students 50%)
       Sfr. 200.- /half day
       Sfr. 300.- /day
       A tutorial takes place only if at least 10 participants have 
       registered.


Registration Form
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------

 Family Name: _________________________________________________

 First Name: ___________________________________________________

 Organization: __________________________________________________

 Mailing Address: ______________________________________________

 ZIP/City/State  _______________________________________________

 Country: ____________________________________________________

 Phone: _______________________ Fax: __________________________

 Email: _____________________________________________________

 Tutorials:     1 ___ 2 ___  3a ___  3b ___  4a ___  4b ___  5a ___  5b __


 Date:________________ Signature:_____________________________



Hotel Information
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Hotel reservations may be arranged through the Palazzo dei Congressi in 
 Lugano (Tel:  +41/91/21 4774, Fax: +41/91/22 0323).
 Early registration is advisable in order to arrange proper accommodation.



 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Physic Computing 94 (PC'94)                      Tel   : +41 / 91 / 50 82 11
 Centro Svizzero di Calcolo Scientifico (CSCS)    Fax   : +41 / 91 / 50 67 11
 CH-6928 Manno (Switzerland)                      E-mail: pc94@cscs.ch      
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------



cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenpc94 cudln cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.08 / Bruce TK /  Plasmak Geometry
     
Originally-From: bds@slcbdsipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce       Scott          TK  )
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Plasmak Geometry
Date: 8 Aug 1994 11:34:26 GMT
Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching

Some responses to points on the plasmak. Lines preceded by |> are from Paul
Koloc (pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu).

|> Yes the Kernel plasma encircles the MAJOR magnetic AXIS (symmetry axis-
|> vertical), while the minor axis is circumscribed by the medial major 
|> RADIUS of the Kernel plasma in the equatorial or midplane.  
|> Axis ain't no measured distance, from nothin.  

OK. Now it is clear what these things mean. In conventional terminology,
what you are calling the "major axis" is called the "symmetry axis", and
what you are calling "minor axis" is called the "magnetic axis".

|> Are we coming together here?  
 
Aside from the histrionics, yes.

I asked: "is the field strength a minimum on the axis"? I meant the
symmetry axis. Clearly, B_tor is zero there, but I am asking about the
magnitude of B, which is sqrt(B dot B). Your answer indicates that B is
indeed a minimum there.

I asked about the q profile. This parameter q is defined for a cylinder as:

                q = r B_tor / R B_pol,

where r and R are the minor and major radii. In terms of any axisymmetric
geometry with nested flux surfaces, q may be defined by "how many times a
field line goes around the symmetry axis toroidally, for each time it goes
around the magnetic axis poloidally". In an RFP q is much less than 1; in a
tokamak q = O(1) but usually q > 1 (it ranges from near 1 on the magnetic
axis to anywhere between 2 and 10 at the edge). What is q in the plasmak?

From your answer to the question about the mantle, I gather that it is
mostly made up of neutral gas atoms or molecules, but that its inner edge
is partially (or wholly) ionised by radiation coming from the kernel. There
may be a significant space charge density at this inner edge, with the
difference between ion and electron charge densities not close to zero but
a sizable fraction of the electron charge density. Is this correct? If so,
how thick is the charge-nonneutral layer? From the figure in your paper I
assume the answers are "yes" and "L", with L << r_0, where r_0 is the minor
radius of the kernel.

I have a further question about the vacuum separation region and the
kernel: is the kernel _by_ _itself_ a toroid or compact spheroid? If the
answer is a toroid, the symmetry axis would have to be in the vacuum
region, since a flux surface arbitrarily close to the symmetry axis is
still a toroid. If the answer is a spheroid, then we still have problems
about the equilibrium: the kernel is expected to survive as a plasmoid
bounded by a vacuum, and we already know such a beast is not in
equilibrium.

The question of transport is addressed in a following post.


-- 
Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de                               -- W Gibson
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnTK cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.08 / Bruce TK /  Plasmak, and Anomalous Transport
     
Originally-From: bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce       Scott          TK  )
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Plasmak, and Anomalous Transport
Date: 8 Aug 1994 11:36:38 GMT
Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching

This post is about the process by which a plasma confined by a magnetic
field loses particles and energy. It is preceded by a comment from Paul
Koloc (pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu) concerning the stability of his fusion
concept, the plasmak. Lines by Paul are preceded by a |> symbol.

First the start-up phase, essentially a process of approaching MHD
equilibrium: 

|> Coils on   then I(plasma) on.  mostly I(tor) 
|> 
|> Now there is  B(pol) present due to I(tor)   Bpol + Btor (coil) =
|> B(screw)       Plasma gets hot .. and the current wants to screw..
|> so               we have Itor (1-eta) and Ipol(eta) and I(tor) drops 
|> 
|> Then   Bpol drops       Then I(screw) drops  because of loss of
|>                       I(pol) due to less Bpol 
|>                       then I(tor) increases and the cycle can
|>                       start again.     

After the initial start-up phase:

|> The theory is that a tokamak is a nasty beast that must be constrained
|> to not screw.. (become a Spheromak), and so a huge mean toroidal
|> confining coil  YANKS  the current back to being more toroidal after
|> each of its promicous excursions.  This whips the fields, and that
|> chugs the plasma with a splash that causes it to CHURN in the 
|> central portion of the tokamak thereby mixing across the central
|> cross-section.  This levels the radial temperture distribution and
|> allows for fatter more stable currents to flow and not thermally
|> "neck down" to a more kinky and whippy hotter but constricted
|> channel.   

First, a translation of this to normal language: "The theory is that the
tokamak is constrained against forming a significant pitch of its magnetic
field lines, by the action of the toroidal field coils. Since the current
must closely follow the field lines, it is also forced to flow
toroidally. This exerts strong MHD forces which cause a kink instability in
the central regions, mixing them completely. The temperature profile is
therefore kept broad, and in order to retain resistive equilibrium the
current profile is also broad."

What you describe is the m=1 kink instability, and the associated internal
disruption. This takes place whenever q drops below 1 on the magnetic axis,
and it is in fact responsible for limiting the current density near the
magnetic axis. (The total current is limited by a different sort of
instability in the edge, which becomes unstable when the plasma beta there
is larger than r/qR to some power; so for a given n, T, and B, this acts as
an upper limit on q.)

The problem with the above analysis is that this is not what causes the
anomalous transport in an MHD-stable confined plasma, like the high-q
tokamak or the plasmak. Transport of particles and heat is caused by
largely _electrostatic_ motion involving the E-cross-B drift. Small
fluctuating electric fields arise anytime there are density fluctuations,
because electrons and ions have different dynamical time scales moving
_parallel_ to the magnetic field. Anytime you have a density fluctuation,
electrons would like to move away faster than the ions. As they try to do
this, they form a small charge separation, which produces a small parallel
electric field, which prevents the electrons from separating
further. Sooo... given a density fluctuation, you get a corresponding
electrostatic potential fluctuation.

For shorthand, I will refer to the "electrostatic potential" as "phi",
and the "electric field" as "E".

Now, when you have this phi fluctuation with a given scale perpendicular to
the magnetic field, you have the corresponding E fluctuation, _also_
_perpendicular_, since E = -grad phi. When you have a perpendicular E, you
also have this E-cross-B drift: as the charged particles orbit the magnetic
field in the plane perpendicular to the field, they are accelerated on one
side of the orbit and decelerated on the other side, by E. Consider a
circle with directions left, top, right, and bottom, and consider an ion
moving clockwise around the circle. As you look at the circle, B is
_upward_, out of the plane towards you. Consider that the perpendicular
component of E is towards the top of the circle. On the left side of the
ion's orbit, it is accelerated by E. On the right side of the orbit, the
ion is decelerated by E. Because of this, the ion arrives at the top of the
circle with more velocity than it has at the bottom of the circle. As a
result, the ion _drifts_ to the right, in the direction E-cross-B. For an
electron, the orbit is _counterclockwise_ but the accelerations are
_opposite_ to E, so the E-cross-B drift is the same as for the ion.

Since the electron and ion E-cross-B drifts are the same, they are both
transported the same way by E, without buildup of charge. In this regime of
plasma dynamics, although there is a phi and an E, the charge densities of
the electrons and ions cancel to high accuracy. The system is called
"quasineutral". One usually has:

    n_fluctuation          e phi_fluctuation
    -------------  approx  -----------------,
          n                        T

and since the charge density is given by 

    del squared (phi_fluctuation) = 

               - 4 pi ( nI_fluctuation - Z ne_fluctuation ),

the difference between nI (ions) and ne (electrons) is small by the square
of the ratio of the Debye length to the scale of the fluctuations.

Now, to transport. The way you get transport by a turbulent E-cross-B flow
is by the following process. Note that phi is the stream function for the
E-cross-B flow. Fluctuations in phi represent an E-cross-B flow, which
excites fluctuations in density and temperature by occurring in the
presence of their gradients. The electrons, in trying to exit regions of
enhanced density and temperature, re-excite phi, so that phi, n, and T are
all tied to each other. Several more involved effects cause the free-energy
access to be greater than the sink of energy in dissipative processes,
until the fluctuations have reached some finite amplitude. At this level,
the free-energy access and the dissipation are statistically equal. The
system is in what we call a "saturated state", and the transport of
particles and energy is proportional to the free-energy access.

The important point of this E-cross-B transport is that it is powerful, and
it will occur in any system in which a plasma is confined by a magnetic
field, such that the particle gyroradii are small compared to the profile
scale lengths. It is this feature and not anything having to do with MHD
that is killing the tokamak. If particle and heat transport in tokamaks
were collisional we would have had working fusion reactors a _long_ time
ago. 

If you want to build a fusion scenario around a plasmak, you need to
address this problem, since MHD equilibrium and stability are not the only
hurdles. Remember that the spheromak died because it became clear in the
beginning that the spheromak had even worse confinement characteristics
than the tokamak. Except for the conducting boundary, the plasmak is
essentially a spheromak, and it will be prone to the same problem.


-- 
Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de                               -- W Gibson
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnTK cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.08 / Jim Carr /  Re: Deuterons for Dave Davies
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Deuterons for Dave Davies
Date: 8 Aug 1994 11:27:18 -0400
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

In article <9408061512.AA33092@pilot1.cl.msu.edu> 
blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue) writes:

 ... a very good exposition concerning what is known about the deuteron ...

>        ...                            Still there is a solid
>consensus that limits this to a few percent in the amplitude
>of the wave function.  I want to say roughly 5%, but I haven't
>actually looked up that number.

The only thing I would add is that other measurements (completely 
independent of the ones refered to above, which used transfer 
reactions induced by polarized deuterons) come up with a similar 
answer.  The other definitive set of experiments concern electron 
scattering from unpolarized deuterium.  In this case, deviations 
from spericity have an effect similar to the 'meson exchange' 
corrections that must be made to account for the presence of 
virtual pi mesons during these moderately high energy collisions. 
Calculations of this effect still jump around, but the d-state 
contribution is definitely between about 3% and 7%.  

-- 
 James A. Carr   <jac@scri.fsu.edu>     |  Raw data, like raw sewage, 
      http://www.scri.fsu.edu           |  requires some processing before
 Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst.  |  it can be spread around.  The 
 Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306    |  opposite is true of theories. 
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.08 / Tom Droege /  Re: Experiment.....
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Experiment.....
Date: 8 Aug 1994 17:29:46 GMT
Organization: fermilab

In article <1994Aug7.191234.1@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au>, 
dowen@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au says:
>
>Hi Folks,
>I feel like a party pooper writing this post, but I feel some things
>should be said so here goes.......
>Firstly, I heartily endorse and applaud Tom Droege's concept of an 
enduring
>experiment based on... "real slow standard science - with perhaps a five
>year horizon".
>I have studied all the relevant posts on the "experiment", starting from 
the 
>original post by Robert Bernecky "Bose concentration model" of the 29 
July,
>but I have not been able to find any reference to a detailed description 
>of the -aim- of the experiment. What precisely are we setting out to 
achieve,
>both in the short and long term, as when Tom speaks of a "five year 
horizon"
>I take it that he refers to a series of experiments with specific
>objective(s) in mind.
>After spelling out the objective(s), -then- discussion on the various 
methods
>of achieving it is in order, but before expending long hours, blood, 
sweat
>and tears in experimental research based on Robert Bernecky's interesting
>29 July post, it may be well to ponder what Robert wrote on the 5 August,
>in his post "Re:Bose condensation model", in response to criticism by 
>Bill Page..........
>"..You are correct in pointing out that these ideas are immature and that
>much work remains. The system is complicated: under what conditions are
>H and D bosons.....".
>So Tom, in light of all the above, just what is the aim of the 
experiment?
>
>Best regards to all,
>Daryl Owen.
>
>Disclaimer: The above opinions are solely my own.
>
>
>
> 
As I view it there are several aims:

1) To do a disciplined "cold fusion" experiment.  There was a hint of 
something positive during my last runs testing Bernecky's theory.  So I
am proposing that as a start for a discussion.  

2) Another experiment is the use of the Internet to form a collaboration,
plan, execute, and publish a piece of experimental work.   

So Daryl, you have not (yet) seen plans for a specific experiment.  That 
is what we are starting now.  Just like the discussion that might take 
place at a Princeton afternoon tea in the Physics department, we are a 
set of individuals with a common interest that are discussing possibly
doing an experiment together.  

My hope is to cary this through the discussion stage, plan an experiment,
build the apparatus, set up the experiment, run it on line to the 
internet, analyze the data, and finally compose a paper on line here,
pass it around, agree on the final wording, and publish under the 
name of sci.physics.fusion.

An ambitious project you say?  Yes, but some group has to do it firts.  
Some time in the future everyone will be doing science this way.  Let's
brake some new ground!

Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.08 / Tom Droege /  Re: Suggest using Differential Calorimetry in new Test Design
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Suggest using Differential Calorimetry in new Test Design
Date: 8 Aug 1994 17:34:54 GMT
Organization: fermilab

In article <322nbi$emu@bigboote.WPI.EDU>, cyganski@ee.WPI.EDU (David 
Cyganski) says:
>
>I would like to make a suggestion with regard to the discussion of the
>design of a new CNF calorimeter experiment as part of the discussion that
>Tom Droege has begun.
>
>To my mind, the most convincing calorimetry would be differential in 
nature.
>That is, I would like to see two vessels in operation, one with the 
system
>under test (SUT) and the other with just a heat source. The measurements
>of temperature in the two otherwise identical vessels should be 
synchronized
>and calibrated to agree during initial non-functional runs. 
>
>To make this differential measure of any use, the thermal input to both
>vessels must be identical. That is, the only difference in temperature 
will
>be generated by excess heat generated by the SUT.  Here is how one 
accomplishes
>this when the SUT voltage and current are not constant:
>
>We place within the reference vessel a single Field Effect Transistor 
(FET).
>The drain to source voltage is made be be identical to the SUT terminal
>voltage by merely sharing the same voltage bus lines.  The FET drain to
>source current is made identical to the SUT current by driving the FET
>gate voltage by a control loop that is driven by the SUT current. Using
>a power RF FET would permit matching the thermal input waveform of the 
SUT
>and the FET from DC to hundreds of MegaHertz. That is, this would erase 
any
>doubt that we might have had in the past of computational errors arising
>out of sampling rates in light of rapid SUT current and voltage 
fluctuations.
>
>If the idea flies with the group, I would volunteer to design and 
consturct
>the necessary electronics.
>
>DC
I think this is a good idea and will put it in my file.  A number of the 
early experiments tried to do this with a reference calorimeter doing an
H2O experiment.  This did not work as the two calorimeters were never at
the same operating point.  

I opted for a null balance calorimeter like a wheatstone bridge.  I will 
debate with you later on this, and I note your offer of help.  At the 
moment I don't want to type too much as my news reader seems to fail after
sending one reply.

Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.08 / Tom Droege /  Re: experiment
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: experiment
Date: 8 Aug 1994 17:45:51 GMT
Organization: fermilab

In article <940807174739_70047.3047_EHB184-1@CompuServe.COM>, 
70047.3047@compuserve.com (Bill Page) says:
>
>Tom Droege wrote:
><<
>But I will start the debate by asking Bob Bernecky what he proposes 
>that we measure.

>1. Methodology
>
>Methodologically speaking... deciding what to measure should, I think, be 
based
>on some working hypothesis.  Stating the hypothesis clearly is sometimes 
a
>problem.  If it isn't done well, the result might be an experiment that 
attempts
>to look at everything and sees nothing. I'll try to state the hypothesis 
and
>would like anyone to jump in and correct me if it seems off track.

(much deleted from Bill's post)
You bet.  I could not agree more.  Doing this work lets me escape from 
one of thos measure everything experiments - CDF at Fermilab.  


>2. Work Hypothesis
>
>So, the starting point is William (Robert?, Bob? Which do you prefer?)
>Bernecky's most recent high temperature boson condensation theory. The 
hypthesis
>is that thermal cycling of a deuterium loaded metal lattice with 
hyrdogren
>impurities over a carefully choosen range of temperatures will induce 
bose
>condensation of the hydrogen (atom?) species.
>
>The formation of the condensate is presumed to be a precursor to several
>"anomolous effects" observed in this system.  Among the possible 
interesting
>effects are:


I am particularly interested in exploring the heat spikes seen on the 
last Bernecky test.  These seemed to come at Bernecky's predicted point.


>
>  (1) excess heat production
>  (2) change in heat content/conductivity of the material
>  (3) high diffusion rates
>  (4) change in electrical conductivity
>  (5) magnetic effects
>  (6) radiation absorption (enhanced neutron and/or gamma cross-sections)
>  (7) low energy x-ray emissions
>  (8) nuclear magnetic resonance spectrum
>  (9) hyrdino production
>  (10) helium production
>  (11) tritium production
>  (12) ... [please add to this list]
>

A good discussion, But too much for me to reply to today.  It goes in
the file, and I will mull it over.

>Cheers,
>
>Bill Page.
>


Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.08 / Tom Droege /  Re: Suggest using Differential Calorimetry in new Test Design
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Suggest using Differential Calorimetry in new Test Design
Date: 8 Aug 1994 17:54:36 GMT
Organization: fermilab

In article <3248qh$g2j@crl3.crl.com>, rjw@crl.com (Ron Wickersham) says:
>
>David Cyganski (cyganski@ee.WPI.EDU) wrote:
>: I would like to make a suggestion with regard to the discussion of the
>: design of a new CNF calorimeter experiment as part of the discussion 
that
>: Tom Droege has begun.
>
>: To my mind, the most convincing calorimetry would be differential in 
nature.


For reasons that are discussed in my two papers on the subjec, I think you 
do better with one good calorimeter than two.


>: If the idea flies with the group, I would volunteer to design and 
consturct
>: the necessary electronics.
>
>: DC
>
>We see the calorimetry of many experiments criticized. And when I think 
>of experimental design, I also think of a differential setup, because 1) 
>it wouldn't be too complicated or expensive to incorporate, and 2) it 
>cancels out errors that I haven't thought about.
>
>In the case of a simple electrolytic cell, then the differential setup is 
>pretty straight forward...it gets complicated though if recombiners, etc 
>are added.

Even with the simple cell it doesn't work.  If you make two identical 
cells then nothing happens if they both put out excess heat at the same 
time.  If you make one different (H2O, Pt-Pt, etc.) then they are 
different, and you cannot use one to check the other.  

>
>In support of the idea of a differential cell, but with thoughts to 
>improve on the suggestion above, I think that the experiment cell and the 
>blank cell have to have identical electrolytes and controlled currents. 
>May I suggest placing the cells in series so that the same current has to 
>flow thru both.  One of the monitors would be the voltage drop of each 
>cell to see if any deviation occurrs.

Lots of deviations will occurr.  That is the nature of these experiments.
This has been done in a lot of experiments.  They mostly found that it 
did not gain anything, and the scheme was abandoned.  Look at the early
papers. 
>
>To keep evaporation rates as close as possible in both cells, I would 
>modify David's suggestion of keeping the heat input the same to monitor 
>the temperature of the electrolyte in both cells, and adjust the power in 
>the FET to keep the temperature the same. (To keep the cells symmetrical, 
>a FET or resistor for heat, should be installed in both cells, along with 
>their leads, but it shouldn't be necessary to include an interface to 
>provide power to the heater in the experimental cell, unless you want to 
>allow for the production of excess heat in the blank cell :-). )
>
>

The constant power into the calorimeter scheme, first suggested here by 
Chuck Harrison, I believe, is a nice solution.  But I think it is a 
solution to a non-problem.

-
>
>Does anyone know if someone else has set up a differential experiment?
>
>-Ron
>rjw@crl.com


Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.08 / John Logajan /  Departing from Thermacore regimen
     
Originally-From: al789@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Departing from Thermacore regimen
Date: 8 Aug 1994 19:38:07 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)


I have removed the cover of the Nalgene tank and replaced its function
with styrofoam "peanuts" floating directly on the water surface.
I have also placed the Nalgene tank on a sheet of styrofoam 1/2" thick.

At 60 watts input power, this results in a 0.29 C/W calorimetry
constant.  Water evaporation is now approximately 150 cc per day.

The styrofoam chunks are a departure from the Thermacore regimen since
the open tank is no longer subject to vapor phase recycling transport of
heat to the upper eight inches of the Nalgene tank.  This was a heat loss
factor that would have worked to reduced the cal-constant.

You may recall that in earlier experiments there was a second order
correction to the calorimetry constant required for different input
powers.  It was speculated that this variation was due to the vapor
recycling in the head space of the tank.  Now that this process is
inhibited, it is possible that the second order correction will be
much diminished.  To check on this possibility, the next run is being
done a 15 watts input power.

-- 
-- John Logajan ---  al789@cleveland.freenet.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenal789 cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.08 /  jonesse@plasma /  Re:  experiment
     
Originally-From: jonesse@plasma.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re:  experiment
Date: 8 Aug 94 09:41:59 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

In his 7 Aug 94 post, Bill Page says:

"I am thinking here more of observing a *drop* in background radiation due to
condensate formation rather than measuring a putative radiation source."

Now, Bill, how do you get a "drop" in background radiation?  Is this some
new 'cold fusion' effect? 
Please explain.

--Steven Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenjonesse cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.08 / Karl Kluge /  What would skeptics consider a positive excess heat result?
     
Originally-From: kckluge@glasnost.eecs.umich.edu (Karl Kluge)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: What would skeptics consider a positive excess heat result?
Date: 08 Aug 1994 20:18:01 GMT
Organization: University of Michigan EECS Dept., Ann Arbor, MI


There appear to now be published experiments reporting released heat in
excess of the total input power, and yet this appears not to settle the
issue as far as some of the technically informed skeptic go. I will admit
I haven't been following closely enough to know if this is due to issues
of reproducability or methodology.

Supposing that we consider the possibility that excess heat (if real) is
the result of something exotic, so that X-ray spectra tests, etc are not
critical experiments. What would constitute an iron-clad demonstration of
excess heat? What type of power supply should be used and how should the
power input be measured to insure that the measured input power is an
upper bound on the power going into the system? How should the calorimetry
be done in order to insure that the power output computed is a lowe bound 
on the energy released?

cudkeys:
cuddy08 cudenkckluge cudfnKarl cudlnKluge cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.07 / Alan Newman /  Re: Randell L. Mills and hydrinos
     
Originally-From: alan@geg.mot.com (Alan Newman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.skeptic,pdx.general
Subject: Re: Randell L. Mills and hydrinos
Date: 7 Aug 94 20:40:19
Organization: /u2/newman/.organization

In article <Cu4Jxt.3yE@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> 
crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
   In article <776120342snz@mccombes.demon.co.uk>,
   Paul McCombes <paul@mccombes.demon.co.uk> wrote:
   >In article <CtzsJn.J7H@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
   >           crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU "Cameron Randale Bass" writes:
   >> 
   >> >They are functionally different. The theories do not make comparable 
   >> >predictions except in the low v, low m case. Even then they are slightly 
   >out, 
   >> >or did I miss the bit about moving clocks run slow in Newtonian physics - 
   >> >detectable at everyday speeds using aeroplanes and atomic clocks.
   >> 
   >>      Not your everyday clock, he observed dryly.
   >> 
   >>      On the other hand, I'm an engineer, and I have never, and I mean
   >>      *never* used a GR correction in any practical calculation.
   >>      So the 'approximation' must be fairly good in some very real and 
   >>      very well-defined sense.
   >
   >Never use a laser range finder? Admittedly SR, but not Newton.

       Again, depends on what you're talking about.  The ranges found with
       a 'laser range finder' are certainly well-described in a 
       euclidean 'newtonian' framework.  And I've never
       seen anyone make GR corrections to velocities in their LDV gear.

       The calculations of nearly every physical scientist and engineer
       contradicts your assertion that Newton's laws are not a good approximation
       of GR.

GPS navigation systems compensate for relativistic time.  Atomic clocks
on board the Navstar satellites transmit time which is received by the GPS 
receiver.  VERY precise measurements of the time delay of the signal 
determines the distance to each monitored satellite.  The satellites also 
broadcast their position (as a function of time) so that triangulation can 
be used to determine the position of the receiver.  If the relativistic time 
effects are not compensated for by the receiver, position accuracy is rather 
poor.

GPS receivers are found is virtually every commercial aircraft and ship.  
They are very common in truck fleets and other uses.  $500 will put one 
(with relativistic corrections) in your pocket.  Last year they were over 
$1K.  Maybe tomorrow Casio will have one on a $50 watch.  By afternoon in a 
ladies model. :-)

  /\  /\  /\  /\  /\M. Alan Newman, Motorola, Scottsdale AZ  /\  /\  /\  /\  /\
\/  \/  \/^^\/  \/  alan@geg.mot.com   Speaking for myself.\/  \/  \/^^\/  \/
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenalan cudfnAlan cudlnNewman cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.03 / David Gerty /  Re: Titanium "Dry Cold Fusion" revisited
     
Originally-From: dgerty@draper.com (David R Gerty)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.energy.hydrogen
Subject: Re: Titanium "Dry Cold Fusion" revisited
Date: Wed, 3 Aug 1994 18:22:11 GMT
Organization: Draper Laboratory

In article <harrCtpwEE.5JK@netcom.com> harr@netcom.com (Charles (Chuck) Harrison) writes:
>From: harr@netcom.com (Charles (Chuck) Harrison)
>Subject: Titanium "Dry Cold Fusion" revisited
>Date: Fri, 29 Jul 1994 19:49:26 GMT

>I have formulated a working hypothesis to guide the review of Ti:T
>(Reifenschweiler) and Ti:D (cold fusion) data.  The conjecture is that
>hydrogen nuclei encounter a special environment in the zone at the inner
>(sub-stoichiometric) edge of the TiO2 surface layer.  In this environment,
>a bound pair of H nuclei can be trapped at a single tetrahedrally-coordinated
>interstitial site.  In this trapped state the nuclear pair interaction is
>strong enough to affect decay probabilities (Ti:T) or fusion probabilities
>(Ti:D).

>-Chuck Harrison

Do you mean by tunneling?  Is it similar to muon catalysed cold fusion?

dgerty@draper.com
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudendgerty cudfnDavid cudlnGerty cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.08 / Tom Droege /  Re: What would skeptics consider a positive excess heat result?
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What would skeptics consider a positive excess heat result?
Date: 8 Aug 1994 21:27:10 GMT
Organization: fermilab

In article <KCKLUGE.94Aug8161802@glasnost.eecs.umich.edu>, 
kckluge@glasnost.eecs.umich.edu (Karl Kluge) says:
>
>
>There appear to now be published experiments reporting released heat in
>excess of the total input power, and yet this appears not to settle the
>issue as far as some of the technically informed skeptic go. I will admit
>I haven't been following closely enough to know if this is due to issues
>of reproducability or methodology.
>
>Supposing that we consider the possibility that excess heat (if real) is
>the result of something exotic, so that X-ray spectra tests, etc are not
>critical experiments. What would constitute an iron-clad demonstration of
>excess heat? What type of power supply should be used and how should the
>power input be measured to insure that the measured input power is an
>upper bound on the power going into the system? How should the 
calorimetry
>be done in order to insure that the power output computed is a lowe bound 
>on the energy released?
>


Sorry, there just isn't any real definition of what would be iron clad   
"believed".  Possibly something like the first A bomb demo would do 
though.  

We "skeptics" don't ask all that much:

1) A presentation of the experiment and the results with enough detail
that we can understand how to perform a replication.  P&F have never done 
this.  It helps to have an underlying theory that will guide the work, 
though this is not absolutely essential.  Still, an experimental claim 
that contradicts all of modern theory is a little hard to want to 
replicate.  

2) Enough detail and discussion of errors and error limits in the paper
so that we can believe that the experiment was competetantly performed
and that the results are possibly true.  I don't know how to describe 
what "enough" means.  The P&F papers do not present "enough".  The ICCF2
McKubre presents enough for me.  So I tried a replication.  But then later
I kept finding out that McKubre seemed to have purposefully left out 
important detail.  I think I can count on one hand the "positive" papers I 
have seen where the error discussion was well done.  McKubre is one, uhhh,
I don't seem to have a second.  

3) Replication by either myself or someone else that I know, understand,
and trust to perform a good experiment.

4) Replication by an experiement that duplicated the "theory' of an 
experiment with as little actual detail as possible.  Thus the gas/chip 
experiments releasing neutrons would have been a very convincing 
verification of an electrolytic experiment releasing neutrons - had 
both results stood up over time.  

Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.08 / Paul McCombes /  Re: Mallove's wager revisited
     
Originally-From: paul@mccombes.demon.co.uk (Paul McCombes)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Mallove's wager revisited
Date: Mon, 8 Aug 1994 19:49:32 +0000
Organization: None

In article <322pnpINNki7@sat.ipp-garching.mpg.de>
           bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de "Bruce       Scott          TK  " writes:

>  jonesse@acousb.byu.edu writes:
> |> The following bold statements by Gene Mallove make for a better two-year
> |> wager than his CYA statement he dares people to sign:
> |> 
> |> MALLOVE:  "The tokamak program will be utterly destroyed by excess energy
> |> devices of the cold fusion variety.  I give HF [hot fusion] two years more,
> |> tops."  {Mallove, subject Re:  Heeter Fusion, 7/15/94}
> |> 
> |> MALLOVE:  
> |> "Also, within two years one or more companies will announce ['cold fusion']
> |> demonstration units that will heat rooms or entire houses." {Mallove, 
> |> subject MM-Pact, 27 July 1994}
> 
> Wow! I missed these. Thanks for posting them, Steve. I will surely have 
> comment when 7/96 rolls around. MM-pact, 23+ months and counting down!

> Dr Bruce Scott                          
> 
It gets better:-

   Mallove: "Prototype cold fusion home heating units are widely expected to 
   emerge this year or next. Electrical power generation by cold fusion will 
   follow soon thereafter, with the likelyhood of automotive and perhaps 
   aircraft propulsion by cold fusion within a decade."

Written submission to the Subcommittee on Energy of the House Committee on  
Science, Space, and Technology on 5th May 1993.

Which means 12/94 (or 4th May 1995 if you allow him a year starting on 5th May 
1993).
-- 
Paul McCombes
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenpaul cudfnPaul cudlnMcCombes cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.08 / Paul McCombes /  Re: PAF HOLDS 1ST CLAIMS OF COLD FUSION-- CORRECT SCIENCE
     
Originally-From: paul@mccombes.demon.co.uk (Paul McCombes)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.electromag
Subject: Re: PAF HOLDS 1ST CLAIMS OF COLD FUSION-- CORRECT SCIENCE
Date: Mon, 8 Aug 1994 19:59:40 +0000
Organization: None

In article <3232oa$src@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
           Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu "Ludwig Plutonium" writes:

>   MOST everyone thinks Fleischman and Pons hold 1st claims to cold
> fusion (bad name, because it is triggered radioactivity). This is not
> true. Paneth and Peters in Berlin actually did the same experiment.
> Then Tanberg of Sweden 1927 did the experiment in more detail. Paneth &
> Peters and Tanberg observed the "cold fusion" phenomenon. None of them
> was able to explain what was really going on, not even Fleischman and
> Pons and that is why the science has not progressed.
> [junk deleted]

Paneth and Peters (and later Tandberg (sic)) did similar experiments in the 
late twenties in which they discovered helium production when hydrogen is 
absorbed by finely ground palladium metal. After doing some control experiments 
they discovered the the release of helium from glass is dependent on the 
presence of hydrogen (Nature vol:119 pp706 1927). They retracted their claims 
of the production of helium from hydrogen by reaction with palladium. This was 
not cold fusion.
-- 
Paul McCombes
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenpaul cudfnPaul cudlnMcCombes cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.08 / Dick Jackson /  Re: Mallove's wager revisited
     
Originally-From: jackson@soldev.tti.com (Dick Jackson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Mallove's wager revisited
Date: Mon, 8 Aug 1994 23:03:47 GMT
Organization: Citicorp-TTI at Santa Monica (CA) by the Sea


A few weeks ago I posted a criticism of (electrolytic) "cold fusion" based
on the low temperature and hence the difficulty of extracting useful work
at any feasible efficiency.  Someone countered by proposing that an engine
could be built using some low boiling point fluid. (But of course the
efficiency would still be low).

I have been musing on this.  It seems characteristic of all "cold fusion"
devices that a source of power is required to make them go -- they are
(claimed to be) power *amplifiers* rather than simple power generators. I
have also had the thought that the stereotypical alchemist wanted some
gold up front from his investors, which he would then (claim to) multiply
by his secret process, instead of merely using some of the output gold
from his last run.  But I suppressed this association because it is
naughty and might cause offense.

Perhaps a good test of cold fusion and any other "unconventional energy"
machine would be to construct a heat engine driven from the output
which would provide enough electrical power to drive the thing. This
should really convince the skeptics. I have not calculated efficiencies
due to lack of hand books, laziness, etc. but assuming a delta T of
50 at 300 K would not the maximum efficiency be around 15%? So maybe
an overall efficiency of ~5% would be realisable. If so, a system capable
of eating its own tail would need a power amplification factor
in the range of 20 -- unfortunately higher, I think, than most have claimed.

Of course the "dry", high temperature version of "cold fusion" would be
capable of higher efficiencies and could get away with an appropriately
lower factor.

As all but the least discerning of you will have noticed, these musings
have a half-baked character about them, nevertheless I think that
the goal of a zero input-power demonstration is a worthy one. I would
however bet substantial sums against this being achieved.

Dick Jackson
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenjackson cudfnDick cudlnJackson cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Tue Aug  9 04:37:09 EDT 1994
------------------------------
1994.08.09 / Bill Page /  Bohm's Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics Using Maple Mathematics
     
Originally-From: 70047.3047@compuserve.com (Bill Page)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Bohm's Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics Using Maple Mathematics
Date: Tue, 9 Aug 1994 11:58:14 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

# Bohm's Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics use Maple Mathematics
> 
# Part 3b The  one-dimensional harmonic oscillator: single particle 
# case.
> 
# In this installment we will set up the mathematics for the many 
# particle case and then use it, at first, to derive the equations of 
# motion for a single particle in a harmonic oscillator potential.  
# This is a necessary preliminary to looking at case of the two 
# identical particles which is really the subject of part 3.
> 
# The harmonic oscillator is one of the most basic, deeply studied 
# and most widely applicable concepts in quantum mechanics. The 
# simple form of the potential allows a complete solution in terms of 
# the Hermite polynomials. Thus it is often used as a model for other 
# systems in developing analytic solutions (for example, the hydrogen 
# atom); it has applications in various approximation methods such as 
# variational analysis and partial diagonalization; and it is the 
# starting point for relativistic quantum field theories.
> 
# But we wont need any of this advanced material. What we are after 
# here is just a look at how a particle moves when it is subjected to 
# the classical harmonic potential *plus* the quantum potential that 
# arises as a result of Schrodinger's wave equation. We will find 
# that although the equations of motion are classical in form, the 
# motion of the particle is nothing at all like the motion of a 
# particle in a purely classical harmonic oscillator. The quantum 
# potential has a major effect on the motion which turns out to be 
# (from the point of view of this writer) unexpectedly rich and 
# complex.
# 

> 
# Maple preliminaries. We will need to generalize a little the 
# methods we used in Part 2. To allow Maple to do the best job it can 
# with simplifications and such, we make use of the "assume" facility 
# to assign attributes to the variables that we need.
> 
> restart;
> alias(I=I,i=sqrt(-1)):       # Use i for complex numbers
> read(`notilde2.txt`);        # Allows use of assign without the ~
> assume(h>0);                 # Planck's constant/2/Pi
> assume(omega>0);             # Harmonic oscillator constant
> assume(m>0);                 # Mass
> assume(x,real);              # Position
> assume(x1,real);
> assume(x2,real);
> assume(t,real);              # Time
> with(plots): interface(plotdevice=char); # Change 'char' to 'win'.


# 26. Operators in configuration space
> 
# And we will also have to generalize some of the quantum mechanics 
# definitions. First, the position and momentum operators
> 
> X := x -> unapply('x*psi',psi);
> X(x);
> P := x  -> unapply('-i*h*diff(psi,x)',psi);
> P(x);
> 

                  X := x -> unapply('x psi', psi)


                            psi -> x psi


            P := x -> unapply('- i h diff(psi, x)', psi)


                                   /  d     \
                      psi -> - i h |---- psi|
                                   \ dx     /


# Defining the operators this way allows them to be applied to the 
# many particle case and/or more than one spatial dimension. In 
# quantum mechanics, dealing with more than one particle is very much 
# the same as dealing with more than one spatial dimension. Therefore 
# in the conventional interpretation of quantum mechanics, one often 
# speaks in terms of "degrees of freedom" rather than in terms of 
# particles and dimensions. In three spatial dimensions two particles 
# are thought of as a single point in a 3 x 2 = 6 dimensional 
# "configuration space". Of course what we really observe is the 
# projections (one for each particle) of the motion of this abstract 
# point into ordinary 3 dimensional space. The full configuration 
# space is, however necessary when dealing with Schrodinger's 
# equation and wavefunctions. This is fundamentally the reason why 
# non-local "action at a distance" arises in ordinary quantum theory 
# and even more explicitly in Bohm's interpretation.
> 
# The intuitive understanding of configuration space, and of the 
# nature of the wavefunction in general, that Bohm&Hiley would like 
# us to adopt is to think of the wavefunction as representing 
# "information". The guidance conditions are then the rules by which 
# particles "act" on this information. The fact that the wavefunction 
# is defined over the full configuration space is justified by saying 
# that it is clear that unlike physical objects, information can be 
# defined over as many dimensions as needed to express (or should we 
# say "encode"?) the content (or meaning?) of the information. 
# Bohm&Hiley consider the introduction of the concept of "active 
# information" as a fundamental new concept in physics on par with 
# the concepts of energy and momentum.
> 
# To keep things simple (for now) we will only consider a single 
# spatial dimension. The configuration space for two particles is 
# then two dimensional. This will be very convenient when it comes of 
# graphic representations of the functions. The generalization to 
# three spatial dimensions does not substantially change the results, 
# however visualization becomes a major problem.
> 
# So, to continue, we will define the n particle Hamiltonian for a 
# potential V as
> 
> H:=(n,V)->unapply('sum('(P(x.j)@@2)(psi)',j=1..n)/2/m+V*psi',psi);

                               n
                             -----
                              \           (2)
                               )   'P(x.j)   (psi)'
                              /
                             -----
                             j = 1
  H := (n,V) -> unapply('1/2 ---------------------- + V psi', psi)
                                        m

> 
# which, for a single particle this is
> 
> H(1,V[1](x1))(psi[1](x1));

                  /   2             \
                2 |  d              |
               h  |------ psi[1](x1)|
                  |    2            |
                  \ dx1             /
         - 1/2 ---------------------- + V[1](x1) psi[1](x1)
                          m

> 
# and for two particles it becomes
> 
> H(2,V[2](x1,x2))(psi[2](x1,x2));
> 

            /   2                 \      /   2                 \
          2 |  d                  |    2 |  d                  |
       - h  |------ psi[2](x1, x2)| - h  |------ psi[2](x1, x2)|
            |    2                |      |    2                |
            \ dx1                 /      \ dx2                 /
   1/2 ---------------------------------------------------------
                                   m

        + V[2](x1, x2) psi[2](x1, x2)

> 
# When dealing with identical systems of particles, the following 
# operator will be convenient.
> 
# Permutation operator
> 
> P21:=psi->subs({x1=x2,x2=x1},psi);
> 'P21(psi(x1,x2,t))'=P21(psi(x1,x2,t));
> 

            P21 := psi -> subs({x2 = x1, x1 = x2}, psi)

                P21(psi(x1, x2, t)) = psi(x2, x1, t)

> 
# And finally, we can generalize the operator of calculate 
# probability currents as
> 
> J := x -> unapply('h/2/i/m*
>  (conjugate(psi)*diff(psi,x)-diff(conjugate(psi),x)*psi)',psi):
> 'J(x1)'=J(x1);
> 

J(x1) = psi ->

          /               /  d      \   /  d                 \    \
      i h |conjugate(psi) |----- psi| - |----- conjugate(psi)| psi|
          \               \ dx1     /   \ dx1                /    /
- 1/2 -------------------------------------------------------------
                                    m


# 27. Harmonic Oscillator
> 
# The harmonic oscillator potential for one and two particles is
> 
> V[1] := x -> m*omega^2*x^2/2: 'V[1](x)'=V[1](x);
> V[2] := (x1,x2) -> V[1](x1)+V[1](x2);
> 'V[2](x1,x2)'=V[2](x1,x2);
> 

                                          2  2
                     V[1](x) = 1/2 m omega  x

               V[2] := (x1,x2) -> V[1](x1) + V[1](x2)

                                   2   2              2   2
         V[2](x1, x2) = 1/2 m omega  x1  + 1/2 m omega  x2

# The constant omega is the frequency of oscillation. In most 
# elementary treatments, omega is shown to be related to a linear 
# "spring" constant k and mass m. In the harmonic oscillator, the 
# classical force dV/dx on a particle is proportional to the 
# particles displacement from a fixed point in space.
# 
> plot(subs(omega=1,m=1,V[1](x)),x=-2..2);
>

  A                            2 +                              A 
  A                              +                              A 
   AA                            +                             A  
    A                            +                            A   
     A                           +                           A    
      A                      1.5 +                          A     
      AA                         +                         AA     
       AA                        +                        AA      
        AA                       +                       AA       
         A                       +                      AA        
          AA                     |                     AA         
           AA                  1 +                    AA          
            AA                   +                   AA           
             AA                  +                  AA            
              AA                 +                 AA             
                AA               +               AA               
                 AA          0.5 +              AA                
                   AA            +            AA                  
                     AA          +          AA                    
                       AA        +        AA                      
                         AAAA    +    AAAA                        
  +--+--+--+--+--+--+---+--+***********+--+---+--+--+--+--+--+--+ 
 -2             -1             0 0               1              2 

# In the configuration space of two particles this looks like
> 
> plot3d(subs(omega=1,m=1,V[2](x1,x2)),x1=-2..2,x2=-2..2,
> orientation=[11,65],axes=boxed);
>

             |                                                    
            | --                                               |  
            |-||---                                          --|  
            |-|--|---                                     ---|-|  
           |- |-|--|---                                 ---||||   
           |--| |-|--| ---                           ---||-||-|   
   -      ||----| |-|--| |----                  ----- |---|-||    
   |--    |--- |--|-|-||-|-|-|--------------------|-|-|-||||||    
    \--- /------ |--|-|-|--|-|-|-| || | | | |-|-|-|-|-|-||---|    
    \----/-------|-|--|-|-||-|-| |-|-|--|-|-|||-|-||--\|-|--/     
     \-------------|-||-|-|-|-||-|-|-|-|-|-|---|-|-----|----/     
       ------------|-|-|--|-|-|-|--|-|-|-|-|-|---------\---/      
         -----|-----/--|-|-||-|-|-|-|-||||-|-|------------        
           -----\-|-/-/--|-|-||-|-|-|-|--|--\-----------          
             -----\-\-|-|--/-/-|-|-|-|-|--\-----------            
                -----\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\\-\----------               
                   ----\\\-\-\-\--\-\-\---------                  
                       ---\-\-\\\-\-\\------                      
                             --------                             
                                                                  
                                                                  

                                                                 
                                                                  

# [Dear Reader: Can you see what the above three dimensional ASCII 
# drawing is trying to represent? It represents a surface that looks 
# something like a "hammock" shape. The "depth" and "width" represent 
# the positions of particles 1 and 2 respectively, while the "hieght" 
# is the value of the potential for that configuration. I think these 
# drawings at pretty pitiful (at best!) and I wont include too many 
# more of them in this article. You really do need Maple to get the 
# full effect of the graphics and animations that make this stuff 
# much more fun. I'm going to try to produce some GIF images for some 
# of the more important graphics. This might make it a little easier 
# for people with access to GIF-capable news readers, though this 
# isn't a real great solution. I am very open to any feedback any of 
# you can give me on how to get more out of the evolving Internet 
# capabilities.]
> 

# 28. Solution of the Schrodinger equation for the harmonic 
#     oscillator
# 
# Elementary quantum mechanics tells us that the one dimensional 
# harmonic oscillator eigenfunctions are those shown below. These 
# equations and some of the calculations that follow are based on a 
# similar treatment in "Quantum Methods with Mathematica" by James M. 
# Feagin, Springer-Verlag (TELOS), 1993.
> 
> phi[1] := (n,x) -> 1/2^(n/2)/Pi^(1/4)/sqrt(n!)*(m*omega/h)^(1/4)*
> exp(-m*omega/h/2*x^2)*orthopoly[H](n,sqrt(m*omega/h)*x):
> 'phi[1](n,x)'=phi[1](n,x);
> 

phi[1](n, x) =

                                 2
 /m omega\1/4           m omega x                   /m omega\1/2
 |-------|    exp(- 1/2 ----------) orthopoly[H](n, |-------|    x)
 \   h   /                   h                      \   h   /
 ------------------------------------------------------------------
                        (1/2 n)   1/4     1/2
                       2        Pi    (n!)

# 
# The eigenenergies are
> 
> epsilon[1]:=n->h*omega*(n+1/2): 'epsilon[1](n)'=epsilon[1](n);
> 

                 epsilon[1](n) = h omega (n + 1/2)


# Although showing that phi[1](n,x)  and epsilon[1](n) is a solution 
# to the time independent Schrodinger eqation for all integer values 
# n>=0 is a little involved, we can easily check that these 
# eigen-functions and eigen-values are indeed solutions for the first 
# few integers as follows:
> 
> '(testeq(normal(H(1,V[1](x1))(phi[1](n,x1)))=
> normal(epsilon[1](n)*phi[1](n,x1))))'$n=0..3;
> 

                       true, true, true, true

# 
# The following plot shows that first four eigen-functions, shifted 
# by there eigen-energies and overlaid by the harmonic oscillator 
# potential.
> 
> plot({subs(omega=1,m=1,V[1](x1)),
> subs(h=1,m=1,omega=1,epsilon[1](n)+abs(phi[1](n,x1))^2)$n=0..3},
> x1=-3..3);
>

  A                              +                              A 
  A                              +                              A 
   AA                          4 +                             A  
    A   EEEEEEEE                 +                 EEEEEEEE   A   
  EEE*EEE      EEEEE  EEEEEEEEEE + EEEEEEEEEE   EEEE      EEE*EEE 
      A            EEEE        EE*EE        EEEE            A     
      AA                         +                         AA     
       AA                      3 +                        AA      
        AADDDDDDDDDDDD        DDD*DDD        DDDDDDDDDDDDAA       
  DDDDDDD*D           DDDDDDDDD  +  DDDDDDDDD           **DDDDDDD 
          AA                     +                     AA         
           AA                    +                    AA          
            AA     CCCCCCCC    2 +      CCCCCCCC     AA           
             **CCCC       CCCC   +   CCCC       CCCC**            
  CCCCCCCCCCCCAA              CCC*CCC              AACCCCCCCCCCCC 
                AA               +               AA               
                 AA         BBB1B*BBBBB         AA                
                   AA   BBBBB    +    BBBBB   AA                  
                BBBBB**BB        +        BB**BBBBB               
  BBBBBBBBBBBBBB       AA        +        AA       BBBBBBBBBBBBBB 
                         AAAA    +    AAAA                        
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+--+-+-+***********+-+-+--+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 
 -3        -2         -1       0 0         1          2         3 

> 
# As usual, the solutions of the time dependent Schrodinger equation 
# consist of all possible superpositions of these stationary states 
# with the time variation of these functions given by
> 
> 'psi(n,x1,t)'=eta[1](n,t)*'phi[1](n,x1)';

             psi(n, x1, t) = eta[1](n, t) phi[1](n, x1)


> 
# where
> 
> eta[1]:=(n,t) -> exp(-i*epsilon[1](n)*t/h):
> 'eta[1](n,t)'=eta[1](n,t);
> 

             eta[1](n, t) = exp(- i omega (n + 1/2) t)


# 29.  Quantum Rattle Superposition
> 
# Now lets take at look a simple non-stationary state similar to that 
# which we considered in Part 2. It consists of an equally weighted 
# superposition of the first three stationary states.
> 
> N1:='N1': # Unknown normalization constant;
> 
> psi[1]:=(x1,t)->N1*(eta[1](0,t)*phi[1](0,x1)+
> eta[1](1,t)*phi[1](1,x1)+eta[1](2,t)*phi[1](2,x1));
> 'psi[1](x1,t)'=psi[1](x1,t);
> 

  psi[1] := (x1,t) -> N1 (eta[1](0, t) phi[1](0, x1)

       + eta[1](1, t) phi[1](1, x1) + eta[1](2, t) phi[1](2, x1))

psi[1](x1, t) = N1 (
                                                      2
                     /m omega\1/4           m omega x1
exp(- 1/2 i omega t) |-------|    exp(- 1/2 -----------)
                     \   h   /                   h
 -------------------------------------------------------
                            1/4
                          Pi

                                                              2
                         1/2 /m omega\3/4           m omega x1
   exp(- 3/2 i omega t) 2    |-------|    exp(- 1/2 -----------) x1
                             \   h   /                   h
 + ----------------------------------------------------------------
                                   1/4
                                 Pi

                             1/2 /m omega\1/4
 + 1/4 exp(- 5/2 i omega t) 2    |-------|
                                 \   h   /

                    2  /            2    \
          m omega x1   |  m omega x1     |   /   1/4
exp(- 1/2 -----------) |4 ----------- - 2|  /  Pi   )
               h       \       h         / /

# 
# Where N1 is a normalization constant which we find by solving the 
# following equation.
> 
> N1:=solve(simplify(int(abs(psi[1](x1,t))^2,
>         x1=-infinity..infinity))=1,'N1')[1];


                                      1/2
                           N1 := 1/3 3

# 
# So then we have
> 
> Int('abs(psi[1])^2',x1=-infinity..infinity)=
> simplify(int(abs(psi[1](x1,t))^2,x1=-infinity..infinity));
> 

                     infinity
                        /
                       |                 2
                       |      abs(psi[1])  dx1 = 1
                       |
                      /
                  - infinity

# 
# The probability density function has the following form
> 
> pdf:=(x,t)->combine(simplify(combine(
> abs(psi[1](x,t))^2,trig)),radical):
> 'pdf(x,t)=abs(psi[1])^2';
> pdf(x,t);
> 

                                             2
                      pdf(x, t) = abs(psi[1])

                    2
           m omega x
 1/6 exp(- ----------) (
                h

                  1/2  1/2          2
     4 (m omega h)    2    m omega x  cos(2 omega t) h

                   1/2                 2      2            1/2
      + 4 m omega 2    x cos(omega t) h  + 3 h  (m omega h)

           2            1/2  1/2
      - 2 h  (m omega h)    2    cos(2 omega t)

                     1/2  2      2  4                             2
      + 4 (m omega h)    m  omega  x  - 4 m omega x cos(omega t) h

           2      2  3                   /   3   1/2
      + 8 m  omega  x  cos(omega t) h)  /  (h  Pi   )
                                       /

> 
# Just to be sure, lets check that we really do have a solution to 
# the time dependant Schrodinger equation
> 
> testeq(simplify(i*h*diff(psi[1](x1,t),t)-
> H(1,V[1](x1))(psi[1](x1,t)))=0);

                                true

# 
# 30. The motion of the wave packet
> 
# The period of oscillation is given by
> 
> period:=subs(omega=1,2*Pi/omega);
> 

                           period := 2 Pi

> 
# Now lets look at how the probability density function changes over 
# time.
> 
> frames:=['plot(normal(subs(h=1,omega=1,m=1,pdf(x,(nn/8)*period))),
> x=-3..3,0..1)'$nn=0..7]:
> display(frames,insequence=true);
Error, Character device does not support animation

> 
# Here are a few frames for the ASCII readers.
> 
> op(1,frames);op(2,frames);op(3,frames);
>

                               1 +                                
                                 +                                
                                 +                                
                                 +                                
                             0.8 +                                
                                 +                                
                                 +          AAAA                  
                                 +         AA   A                 
                             0.6 +        AA     A                
                                 +        A      AA               
                                 +       A        A               
                                 +       A         A              
                                 +      A          AA             
                             0.4 +     AA           A             
                                 +     A             A            
                                 +     A             AA           
                                 +    A               AA          
                             0.2 +   AA                A          
                                 +   A                  A         
                                 +  A                    AA       
                                 +AA                      AAA     
  *********************************+-+-+-+-+--+-+-+-+-+-+-+-***** 
 -3        -2         -1       0 0         1          2         3 

                               1 +                                
                                 +                                
                                 +                                
                                 +                                
                             0.8 +                                
                                 +                                
                                 +                                
                                 +                                
                             0.6 +                                
                                 +                                
                                 +           AA                   
                                 +         AAAAAA                 
                                 +        A     AA                
                             0.4 +      AA        A               
                                 +    AA           A              
                                A*AAAA              A             
                              AAA+                   A            
                             0.2 +                    A           
                            A    +                     A          
                          AA     +                      AA        
                         AA      +                       AAA      
  ***********************+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+--+-+-+-+-+-+-+****** 
 -3        -2         -1       0 0         1          2         3 

                               1 +                                
                                 +                                
                                 +                                
                                 +                                
                             0.8 +                                
                                 +                                
                                 +                                
                                 +                                
                             0.6 +                                
                                 *                                
                               AA*AA                              
                              AA +  A                             
                             AA  +   A                            
                            A0.4 +   AA                           
                           AA    +    AA                          
                           A     +     A                          
                          A      +      A                         
                        AA   0.2 +       AA                       
                   A AAAA        +        AAAA A                  
             AAAAAAAAA           +            AAAAAAAA            
         AAAA                    +                    AAAA        
  ********+-+-+-+-+-+--+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+--+-+-+-+-+-+******** 
 -3        -2         -1       0 0         1          2         3 

> 
# The expected value of the location operator is given by
> 
> xExp:=simplify(combine(int(normal(evalc(
> X(x1)(psi[1](x1,t))*conjugate(psi[1](x1,t)))),
> x1=-infinity..infinity),trig));

                                1/2                    1/2
                     (m omega h)    cos(omega t) (2 + 2   )
         xExp := 1/3 --------------------------------------
                                     m omega

> 
# And the expected value of the momentum operator is
> 
> pExp:=simplify(combine(int(normal(evalc(
> P(x1)(psi[1](x1,t))*conjugate(psi[1](x1,t)))),
> x1=-infinity..infinity),trig));

                                     1/2
            pExp := - 2/3 (m omega h)    sin(omega t)

                                  1/2  1/2
                 - 1/3 (m omega h)    2    sin(omega t)

> 
# As usual, these satisfy Ehrenfest's equation of motion
> 
> is(m*diff(xExp,t)=pExp);
> 

                                true

# 
# 31. The motion of the particle
> 
# First, lets obtain the magnitude of the wavefunction.
> 
> R[1]:=combine(simplify(sqrt(pdf(x1,t))),radical);

                                  2
                        m omega x1
  R[1] := 1/6 exp(- 1/2 -----------) (
                             h

            3  1/2            1/2             2
      - 24 h  2    (m omega h)    cos(omega t)

             3  1/2            1/2
       + 12 h  2    (m omega h)

              2    2        1/2            1/2             2
       + 48 x1  m h  omega 2    (m omega h)    cos(omega t)

              2    2        1/2            1/2
       - 24 x1  m h  omega 2    (m omega h)

             3          1/2
       + 24 h  m omega 2    x1 cos(omega t)

             2  2      2   3
       + 48 h  m  omega  x1  cos(omega t)

             3
       - 24 h  m omega x1 cos(omega t)

              4    2      2            1/2       3            1/2
       + 24 x1  h m  omega  (m omega h)    + 18 h  (m omega h)   )

             /   2   1/4
      ^1/2  /  (h  Pi   )
           /

# 
# From this we can compute the quantum potential:
> 
> Q[1]:=collect(sort(normal(combine(expand(
> -(h^2/(2*m))*((diff(R[1],x1,x1))/R[1])),trig)),[x1]),[x1]);

                 2            5      5   10
Q[1] := 1/2 omega  m h (- 16 m  omega  x1

       4      4                         1/2   9          4      4
 - 64 m  omega  cos(omega t) (m omega h)    x1  + (80 h m  omega

       4      4                   1/2
 - 32 m  omega  cos(2 omega t) h 2

       4      4             2      8
 - 64 m  omega  cos(omega t)  h) x1  + (

       3      3                         1/2
320 h m  omega  cos(omega t) (m omega h)

       3      3  1/2                           1/2
 - 32 m  omega  2    cos(omega t) h (m omega h)

       3      3                   1/2            1/2
 - 64 m  omega  cos(2 omega t) h 2    (m omega h)    cos(omega t))

  7          3      3  1/2             2  2
x1  + (- 64 m  omega  2    cos(omega t)  h

        3      3                 2  1/2       2  3      3
 + 144 m  omega  cos(2 omega t) h  2    - 56 h  m  omega

       3      3               2  2        2  3      3             2
 - 32 m  omega  cos(2 omega t)  h  + 320 h  m  omega  cos(omega t)

    6
) x1  + (

      2      2                 2            1/2
- 64 m  omega  cos(2 omega t) h  (m omega h)    cos(omega t)

        2  2      2            1/2  1/2
 + 112 h  m  omega  (m omega h)    2    cos(omega t)

        2  2      2                         1/2
 - 256 h  m  omega  cos(omega t) (m omega h)

        2  2      2                              1/2            1/2
 + 288 h  m  omega  cos(omega t) cos(2 omega t) 2    (m omega h)

    5         3  2      2             2  1/2
) x1  + (224 h  m  omega  cos(omega t)  2

        3  2      2  1/2                       3  2      2
 - 120 h  m  omega  2    cos(2 omega t) + 144 h  m  omega

        3  2      2             2
 - 432 h  m  omega  cos(omega t)

        2      2               2  3
 + 128 m  omega  cos(2 omega t)  h

       3  2      2                   4
 + 72 h  m  omega  cos(2 omega t)) x1  + (

                            3            1/2
192 m omega cos(2 omega t) h  (m omega h)    cos(omega t)

       3          1/2            1/2
 + 48 h  m omega 2    (m omega h)    cos(3 omega t)

        3                                 1/2
 + 208 h  m omega cos(omega t) (m omega h)

       3          1/2            1/2
 - 40 h  m omega 2    (m omega h)    cos(omega t)

        3                                      1/2            1/2
 - 304 h  m omega cos(omega t) cos(2 omega t) 2    (m omega h)   )

  3           4                     2  1/2       4
x1  + (- 160 h  m omega cos(omega t)  2    - 89 h  m omega

       4                                            2  4
 + 16 h  m omega cos(4 omega t) - 104 cos(2 omega t)  h  m omega

       4                               4                     2
 - 24 h  m omega cos(2 omega t) + 192 h  m omega cos(omega t)

       4          1/2        4          1/2                   2
 + 24 h  m omega 2    + 132 h  m omega 2    cos(2 omega t)) x1  + (

                     4            1/2
- 80 cos(2 omega t) h  (m omega h)    cos(omega t)

       4            1/2
 - 92 h  (m omega h)    cos(omega t)

       4            1/2
 + 16 h  (m omega h)    cos(3 omega t)

      4  1/2            1/2
 - 8 h  2    (m omega h)    cos(3 omega t)

                      4  1/2            1/2
 + 88 cos(2 omega t) h  2    (m omega h)    cos(omega t)

       4  1/2            1/2                        5
 + 28 h  2    (m omega h)    cos(omega t)) x1 + 15 h

                    2  5      5  1/2       5  1/2
 + 24 cos(2 omega t)  h  - 4 h  2    - 28 h  2    cos(2 omega t)

      5                   /       2      2            1/2   4
 + 6 h  cos(2 omega t))  /  (- 4 m  omega  (m omega h)    x1
                        /

      2      2                  3
 - 8 m  omega  cos(omega t) h x1

                               1/2            1/2   2
 - 4 cos(2 omega t) m h omega 2    (m omega h)    x1

                            2              1/2               2
 + (4 m omega cos(omega t) h  - 4 m omega 2    cos(omega t) h ) x1

                     2  1/2            1/2      2            1/2
 + 2 cos(2 omega t) h  2    (m omega h)    - 3 h  (m omega h)   )^2

> 
# The quantum potential, it seems, will always have this sort of form 
# - a ratio of two higher order polynominals. Notice that x1 occurs 
# to the power 10 in the numerator and to the power 4 in the 
# denominator. [Dear Reader: It would sure be nice to find a 
# reasonable simplification of this function. So far my many attempts 
# to find one have failed. There may, of course, be a relationship to 
# the Hermite polynominals which are used to define the eigen-states. 
# You are invited to give it a try!]
> 
# The result is a function which has a rather complex behaviour which 
# is shown in the animation below.

> 
> frames:=['plot(normal(subs(h=1,omega=1,m=1,t=(nn/16)*period,Q[1])),
> x1=-2..2,-100..100)'$nn=0..15]:
> display(frames,insequence=true);
Error, Character device does not support animation

> 
# Here are the first three frames of the animation for ASCII readers.
> 
> op(1,frames);op(2,frames);op(3,frames);
>

                      A     A100 +                                
                      A     A    +                                
                      A     A    +                                
                      A     A    +                                
                      A     A    +                                
                      AA   AA 50 +                                
                      AA   AA    +                                
                      AA  AAA    +                                
                      A AAA A    +                                
                      A     A    +                                
  ****************--+-*-+--+*-+--+--+--************************** 
                  AAA A     A  0A*AAAAAA                        A 
 -2             -1  AAA     A AA 0               1              2 
                     AA     A A  +                                
                     AA     AAA  +                                
                     AA     AA   +                                
                     AA     A-50 +                                
                     AA     AA   +                                
                      A     AA   +                                
                      A     AA   +                                
                      A     AA   +                                
                      A     -100 +                                
                                                                  

                             100 +                                
                                 +                                
                                 +                                
                                 +                                
                                 +                                
                              50 +                                
                                 +                                
                                 +                                
                                 +                                
                                 +                                
  *************--+--+-*********--+--+--+--*********************** 
               AA  AAA        A0A*AAAAAAAA                      A 
 -2             -1 A             0               1              2 
                 AAA             +                                
                 AA              +                                
                                 +                                
                             -50 +                                
                                 +                                
                                 +                                
                                 +                                
                                 +                                
                            -100 +                                
                                                                  

                             100 +                                
                                 +                                
                                 +                                
                                 +                                
                                 +                                
                              50 +                                
                                 +                                
                                 +                                
                                 +                                
                                 +                                
  ************+--+--+****************--+--+--******************** 
              A  AAAA          0 |  AAAAAAAAA                     
 -2           A -1               0               1              2 
              A  A               +                                
               AAA               +                                
               AA                +                                
               AA            -50 +                                
               AA                +                                
               AA                +                                
               AA                +                                
               AA                +                                
               AA           -100 +                                
                                                                  

# Based on the guidance conditions we can calculate the velocity as
> 
> 'v=J(x1)(psi[1](x1,t))/pdf(x1,t)';
> v:=unapply(simplify(combine(normal(evalc(
> J(x1)(psi[1](x1,t))/pdf(x1,t))),trig)),x1,t):
> v(x1,t);

                          J(x1)(psi[1](x1, t))
                      v = --------------------
                                pdf(x1, t)

              2                      1/2
   - 2 omega h  (h sin(omega t) + h 2    sin(omega t)

                      2
        + 2 m omega x1  sin(omega t)

             1/2  1/2      1/2  1/2                      /
        + 2 m    h    omega    2    x1 sin(2 omega t))  /  (
                                                       /

            5/2  1/2      1/2  1/2
       - 2 h    m    omega    2    cos(2 omega t)

             3/2  3/2      3/2  1/2   2
        + 4 m    h    omega    2    x1  cos(2 omega t)

                     1/2               2
        + 4 m omega 2    cos(omega t) h  x1

             2      2                  3
        + 8 m  omega  cos(omega t) h x1

                                  2         5/2  1/2      5/2   4
        - 4 m omega cos(omega t) h  x1 + 4 m    h    omega    x1

             5/2  1/2      1/2
        + 3 h    m    omega   )

> 
# Although this is a simpler function than the quantum potential, it 
# also shows remarkably complex behviour.
> 
> frames:=['plot(normal(subs(h=1,omega=1,m=1,v(x1,(nn/16)*period))),
> x1=-2..2,-10..10)'$nn=0..15]:
> display(frames,insequence=true);
Error, Character device does not support animation

> 
# Here are a few frames just to give ASCII readers a feeling for what 
# the velocity function is doing.
> 
> op(1,frames);op(2,frames);op(3,frames);
>

                              10 +                                
                                 +                                
                                 +                                
                                 +                                
                                 +                                
                               5 +                                
                                 +                                
                                 +                                
                                 +                                
                                 +                                
  *************************************************************** 
                               0 |                                
 -2             -1               0               1              2 
                                 +                                
                                 +                                
                                 +                                
                              -5 +                                
                                 +                                
                                 +                                
                                 +                                
                                 +                                
                             -10 +                                
                                                                  

                              10 +                                
                                 +                                
                 AA              +                                
                 AA              +                                
                AA A             +                                
                A  A           5 +                                
                A  A             +                                
               AA   A            +                                
              AA    A            +                                
             AA      A           +                                
  ************+--+--+-***--+--+--+--+--+--+---+--+--+--+--+--+--+ 
                        AAAA   0 |        AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA 
 -2             -1          AAAAA0  AAAAAAA      1              2 
                                 *AA                              
                                 +                                
                                 +                                
                              -5 +                                
                                 +                                
                                 +                                
                                 +                                
                                 +                                
                             -10 +                                
                                                                  

                              10 +                                
                                 +                                
                                 +                                
                                 +                                
                                 +                                
                               5 +                                
                                 +                                
                                 +                                
                                 +                                
                                 +                                
  +--+--+--+--+--+--+---+--+--+--+--+--+--+---+--+--+--+--+--+--+ 
  AAAAAAAAAA         AAAAAAAAAA0 |              AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA 
 -2        AAA  -1AAA          AA0AAAAAAAAAAAAAAA1              2 
             A    A              +                                
             AA  AA              +                                
              A  A               +                                
              A  A            -5 +                                
              A  A               +                                
              A  A               +                                
              A AA               +                                
              A A                +                                
               AA            -10 +                                
                                                                  

> frames:='frames': gc(); # Do some house cleaning
> 
# Here's another way to take a look at how the velocity changes 
# depending on the position of the particle and on the time.
> 
> plot3d(subs(h=1,m=1,omega=1,v(x1,t)),x1=-2..2,t=0..period,
> orientation=[-90,90],axes=boxed,
> title=`Spatial distribution of variation in velocity over time`);
> 

     Spatial distribution of variation in velocity over time      

               |  |                             | ||              
               |  |                             | ||              
              || ||                             || |              
              || ||                            ||| ||             
              || ||                            ||| ||             
              ||| |-\                         ||| |||             
              || /| |\                       /| |  | |            
            -|-/ /| | \       ---|--        / | |  \ |-           
          ---|/// | | \\---------| --------/  | |  |\|---         
   ----------/-|  | |  --|--| |  | |  |----|--| |  | \----------  
   |-|--|-|--|-|--|-|--|-|--|-|--|-|--|----|--|-|--|-|--|-|--|-|  
          |--| |  | /--|-|--|--| |--|-|--|-|--|-|--|-|---         
            -- |  |// /        |-|--        \ |-|--|---           
             | |  | |/                      \ |\\- //             
              ||  ||//                       \\-|--/              
              || |||                           ||| |              
              || |||                           ||| |              
               ||||                             ||||              
               || |                             | ||              
               || |                             | ||              
               |                                   |              
                                                                  

# In the above graph the horizontal axes is the position of the 
# particle with x1=0 in the middle. The vertical axes is the particle 
# velocity viewed over an entire cycle. Think of looking at a three 
# dimensional graph of velocity for each position and time from the 
# position edge on. We can see that there are particular positions of 
# the particle that are more strongly affected by the quantum 
# potential than others.
> 
> plot3d(subs(h=1,m=1,omega=1,v(x1,t)),x1=-2..2,t=0..period,
> orientation=[0,90],axes=boxed,
> title=`Temporal distribution of particle veloctiy for all positions
> `);
> 

   Temporal distribution of particle veloctiy for all positions   

        /                   |           ||             ||         
       /|                   |           ||             ||         
       /|                   |\          |||           | |         
      //|                  ||\          |||           | |         
      / |                  || \         || |         |  ||        
     // |                  || \        | | |\        |  ||        
     /\ |                  || |        | | |\\     //|--||        
    /| \|                  ||\|    /   | |-|--\----/ |  ||   -    
    /| \|                 | | |    /---| | |--|----|-|--||---|    
   /----|                 |||-||-//-|--|/|-|--|-|--------------   
   -\|--------------------|/---|--\-|-| |               |\\--| -  
     \------------|-|----|  |-|   \ - | |                ||\ |    
     \   ||  | |-------|-|    -    \|\||                 ||\ |    
         ||--|-      \\| |         \| ||                 || \|    
         ||  |        \| |          \ ||                 || \\    
         ||  |         | |          \ ||                 ||       
          | |           ||           \||                  |       
          |||           ||           \|                   |       
          ||             |            |                   |       
          ||             |            |                   |       
          |              |                                        
                                                                  

> 
# Similarly, the above graphic shows how the velocity changes over 
# time, looking across all positions. The horizontal axis is time 
# with t=0 at the left and t=period on the right. Apparently there 
# are also particular *times* when the particles motion is most 
# affected by the quantum potential.
> 
# This is a pretty complicate function, but just as we did for the 
# case of a particle in a box in Part 2, we can locate such features 
# as poles in the velocity function by solving for values where both 
# the numerator and denominator go to zero.
> 
> evalf(simplify(subs(h=1,omega=1,m=1,t=period/2,numer(v(x1,t)))));

                                 0

> pole1:=solve(subs(h=1,omega=1,m=1,t=period/2,denom(v(x1,t)))=0);

                                       2      1/2            1/2
  pole1 := - 1/2 cos(Pi) + 1/2 (cos(Pi)  - 2 2    + 2 + 2 %1)   ,

                                  2      1/2            1/2
      - 1/2 cos(Pi) - 1/2 (cos(Pi)  - 2 2    + 2 + 2 %1)   ,

                                  2      1/2            1/2
      - 1/2 cos(Pi) + 1/2 (cos(Pi)  - 2 2    + 2 - 2 %1)   ,

                                  2      1/2            1/2
      - 1/2 cos(Pi) - 1/2 (cos(Pi)  - 2 2    + 2 - 2 %1)

                      1/2      1/2           1/2
%1 :=           (- 2 2    + 2 2    cos(2 Pi))

> simplify(pole1[1]); simplify(pole1[2]);

                                   1/2
                              1/2 2

                                     1/2
                            1 - 1/2 2

> 
# Notice how the velocity of the particle changes near the 
# singularity.
> 
> evalf(subs(h=1,m=1,omega=1,v(pole1[1],period/2-.001)));
> evalf(subs(h=1,m=1,omega=1,v(pole1[1],period/2+.001)));

                            586.0771376

                            -586.0776168

> evalf(subs(h=1,m=1,omega=1,v(pole1[1]-.01,period/2-.001)));
> evalf(subs(h=1,m=1,omega=1,v(pole1[1]+.01,period/2+.001)));

                            16.52580948

                            -16.61552365

> 
# It might seem surprising that such poles exist even in the case of 
# the harmonic oscillator where the classical potential is "well 
# behaved". Unlike the particle in a box case, the potential varies 
# continuously and smoothly over all space. Yet here we also have 
# situations where the velocity of the particle changes abruptly - as 
# if it hit a brick wall!
> 
# However, reflecting on how the probability density function changes 
# over time and noticing that there are locations and times when the 
# probability of a particle being found at that place and time goes 
# to zero; it is clear that the dynamic equations of motion of the 
# particle must necessary ensure that this is the case. It follows 
# therefore that the quantum potential and the guidance conditions 
# must (in very particular situations) take this form. The 
# implication is that if we insist on taking the view that the 
# quantum potential is like a time varying force field, there are 
# clearly situations even in simple systems where it involves the 
# equivalent of very large energies.
> 

# 
# 32. The equations of motion
> 
# Perhaps surprisingly, in spite of its complex form, Maple is able 
# to give us an exact (although implicit) symbolic solution to the 
# nonlinear differential equation which describes the detailed motion 
# of the particle. That is, its trajectory, a equation which gives 
# the position of the particle as a function of time.
> 
> M1:=dsolve(diff(x1(t),t)=normal(subs(h=1,omega=1,m=1,v(x1(t),t))),
> x1(t),type=exact);

                                2                        2   1/2
    M1 := - 2 cos(t) exp(- x1(t) ) - 2 cos(t) exp(- x1(t) ) 2

                               2       2
         - 4 cos(t) exp(- x1(t) ) x1(t)

                   2            2   1/2
         - 4 cos(t)  exp(- x1(t) ) 2    x1(t)

              1/2            2                       2       3
         + 2 2    exp(- x1(t) ) x1(t) - 2 exp(- x1(t) ) x1(t)

                        2              1/2
         - 3 exp(- x1(t) ) x1(t) + 3 Pi    erf(x1(t)) = _C1

> 
# The constant _C1 takes on different values for each trajectory. 
# Given a particle location x0 at some time t0, we can solve M1 to 
# determine the value of the constant for the trajectory which 
# ensures that the particle will be at x(t0)=x0. For example, suppose 
# be would like to see the trajectory of a particle when it is near 
# one of the poles.
> 
> 'pole1[1]'=evalf(pole1[1]);
> _C1pole1:=simplify(solve(subs({t=period/2,x1(t)=pole1[1]},
>                    M1),_C1));
> evalf(_C1pole1);
> 

                       pole1[1] = .7071067817

                                        1/2          1/2
          _C1pole1 := 2 exp(-1/2) + 3 Pi    erf(1/2 2   )

                            4.843168176

> 
> implicitplot(subs(_C1=_C1pole1,x1(t)=x1,M1),x1=-3..3,t=0..period);
> 

  +                                                            A  
6 +                                                            A  
  +                                                          AA   
  +                                                       AAAA    
5 +                                                    AAAA       
  +                                               AAAAAA          
  +                                       AAAAAAAA                
  +             AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA                        
4 +      AAAAAAAA                                                 
  +   AAAAA                                                       
  +   AA                                                          
3 +AAAA                                                           
  +  AAAA                                                         
  +      AAAAAAA                                                  
2 +             AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA                        
  +                                       AAAAAAAA                
  +                                               AAAAA           
  +                                                   AAAAA       
1 +                                                       AAAA    
  +                                                          AA   
  +                                                           AA  
  ++-++-+++-+++-++-+++-+++-++-+++-+++-++-+++-+++-++-+++-+++-++-*+ 
0      0.6   0.8     1     1.2    1.4    1.6    1.8     2     2.2 

> 
# Now, imagine that the particle is at the 'expected' location at 
# time t=0.
> 
> xExpv:=unapply(subs(h=1,m=1,omega=1,xExp),t);
> evalf(xExpv(0));
> _C1xExp:=simplify(solve(subs({t=0,x1(t)=xExpv(0)},M1),_C1));
> evalf(_C1xExp);
> 

                                               1/2
                xExpv := t -> 1/3 cos(t) (2 + 2   )

                            1.138071187

                           256                 1/2 2
              _C1xExp := - --- exp(- 1/9 (2 + 2   ) )
                            27

                     193                 1/2 2   1/2
                   - --- exp(- 1/9 (2 + 2   ) ) 2
                      27

                         1/2                1/2
                   + 3 Pi    erf(2/3 + 1/3 2   )


                            -.619008405

> 
# In the following graph we show both the particle trajectory (A) and 
# the expected value of the position operator (B).
> 
> implicitplot({subs(_C1=_C1xExp,x1(t)=x1,M1),x1=xExpv(t)},
> x1=-3..3,t=0..period);
> 

                                   +                           *  
                                   6                        B***  
                                   +                    B****A    
                                   +          AAA********         
                                   5 AAAA*****BBB                 
                               AA****BBBBB                        
                       AA******BBB +                              
            AAAAA******BBB         +                              
      AAAAAABBBBBB                 4                              
    AAA BBBB                       +                              
   A   BB                          +                              
   A   BB                          3                              
    AAA BBBB                       +                              
      AAAAAABBBBBB                 +                              
            AAAAAA****BBB          2                              
                      AAA******BBB +                              
                               AAA***BBBB                         
                                   + AAAA*****BBB                 
                                   1         AAAA*******A         
                                   +                    *****A    
                                   +                        B**A  
  -+-+--+-+--+-+--+-+--+-+--+-+-+--+-+--+-+--+-+--+-+--+-+--+-+*- 
         -1          -0.5          0          0.5           1     

> 
# Oddly, perhaps, even though the particle starts at the position 
# where it is most likely to be found, it does not actually remain at 
# the mostly likely location as the system changes over time. The 
# trajectory of the particle differs sligthly from the motion of the 
# expected value of the location operator.
> 

# And now, unlike the particle in a box case considered in Part 2, 
# because the harmonic oscillator potential function is well behaved 
# analytically, we can also numerically solve the Newtonian equation 
# of motion involving both the classical potential and the quantum 
# potential.
> 
> 'm*diff(x1(t),t,t)=-diff(Q[1],x1)-diff(V[1](x1,t),x1)';

                             /  d       \   /  d              \
     m diff(x1(t), t, t) = - |----- Q[1]| - |----- V[1](x1, t)|
                             \ dx1      /   \ dx1             /

# Because of the way we constructed the wavefunction, psi[1](x1,t) at 
# t=0 is necessarily real. Therefore the initial velocity of the 
# particle D(x1)(0) must be 0. 
> 
# As a way of double checking ourselves, the following calculations 
# should give the same results as the equivalent ones above.
> 
# First, we can produce an optimized form of the right hand side of 
# the differential equation to speed up the computation.
> 
> readlib(optimize):
> form:=`optimize/makeproc`([optimize(expand(subs(h=1,omega=1,m=1,
> (-diff(Q[1],x1)-diff(V[1](x1,t),x1))/m)))],parameters=[t,x1]):
> 

# For x1(0) equal to the expected value of the location operator at 
# t=0, we get
> 
> Digits:=9;  # Set precision so hardware calculation is used
> 
> M2:=dsolve({diff(x1(t),t,t)=form(t,x1(t)),
> x1(0)=xExpv(0),D(x1)(0)=0}, {x1(t)},
> type=numeric,output=listprocedure);

                            Digits := 9

       M2 := [t = proc(t) ... end, x1(t) = proc(t) ... end,

             d
           ---- x1(t) = proc(t) ... end]
            dt

> plot(subs(M2,x1(t)),0..period,resolution=30);

  *AAA                                                       AAAA 
1 +   AAA                                                 AAA     
  +     AA                                               AA       
  +      AA                                             AA        
  +       AA                                           AA         
0.5        A                                           A          
  +         A                                         A           
  +          A                                       A            
  +          AA                                     AA            
  +            A                                   A              
  0-+-+-+-+-1-+-**+-+-2-+-+-+-+-3-+-+-+-+-4-+-+-+**-5-+-+-+-+-6-+ 
0 +              AA                             AA                
  +                A                           A                  
  +                 A                         A                   
-0.5                 A                       A                    
  +                  AA                     AA                    
  +                   AA                   AA                     
  +                    A                   A                      
-1+                     A                 A                       
  +                      AA             AA                        
  +                       AAA         AA                          
  +                          AAAAAAAAA                            
                                                                  

# Finally, using DEtools, we can look at a set of initial conditions. 
> 
> DEtools[DEplot](
> [D(x1)(t)=normal(subs(h=1,omega=1,m=1,v(x1,t)))],
> [t,x1],0..period,
> {[0,-2],[0,-1],[0,-0.5],[0,0],[0,0.5]},
> stepsize=evalf(period/100));

    +                                                             
 0.5*HHH                                                   HHH    
    +  HH                                                 HH      
    +   H                                                 H       
  -+0*+-+**-+-1+-+-+-+-2+-+-+-+-3-++-+-+-4-++-+-+-5-++-+**-6-*-+- 
   0+H    HH                                           HH    H    
    + H    HH                                         HH    HH    
-0.5*HHHH    HH                                     HH    HHHH    
    + HHHHHHH HH                                   HH HHHHHHH     
    + H     HH  H                                 H  HH      H    
    +H       H  HH                               HH  H       H    
  -1*        HH  H                               H  HH            
    +         H   H                             H   H             
    +         HH  HH                           HH  HH             
-1.5+          HH  HHH                       HHH  HH              
    +           HH   HHH                   HHH   HH               
    +             HHH   HHHHH         HHHHH   HHH                 
  -2*HHHHHHHHH      HHHHH   HHHHHHHHHHH   HHHHH      HHHHHHHHH    
    +        HHHHH     HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH     HHHHH            
    +            HHHHHH                     HHHHHH                
-2.5+                 HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH                     
    +                                                             
                                                                  

> 
# This is how the trajectories vary when made to coincide with the 
# expected value of the position operator at selected times.
> 
> DEtools[DEplot](
> [D(x1)(t)=normal(subs(h=1,omega=1,m=1,v(x1,t)))],
> [t,x1],0..period,
> {[0,xExpv(0)],[2,xExpv(2)],[4,xExpv(4)]},
> stepsize=evalf(period/100));

    +                                                             
    *HHHHH                                              HHHHHH    
    *HHHHHHH                                          HHHHHHHH    
   1+    HHHHH                                       HHHHH        
    +      HHH                                      HHHH          
    +       HHH                                     HHH           
    +        HHH                                   HHH            
 0.5+         HHH                                 HHH             
    +         HHHH                               HHHH             
    +          HHHH                             HHHH              
  -++-+-+-+-+-++*****+-++-+-+-+-+-++-+-+-+-++-*****-++-+-+-+-+-+- 
   0+             HHHH                       HHHH                 
    0         1    HHHH2        3        4  HHHH  5        6      
    +               HHHH                   HHHH                   
-0.5+                 HHH                 HHH                     
    +                 HHHH               HHHH                     
    +                  HHH               HHH                      
    +                   HHHH           HHHH                       
  -1+                    HHHH         HHHH                        
    +                     HHHHHHHHHHHHHHH                         
    +                       HHHHHHHHHHH                           
    +                                                             
                                                                  

> 
# This is how the trajectories change near the pole.
> 
> DEtools[DEplot](
> [D(x1)(t)=normal(subs(h=1,omega=1,m=1,v(x1,t)))],
> [t,x1],0..period,
> {[period/2,pole1[1]],[period/2,pole1[1]-0.1],
> [period/2,pole1[1]+0.1]},
> stepsize=evalf(period/200));

    +                                                             
    *HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH                                
40000                            H                                
    +                            H                                
    +                            H                                
    +                            H                                
20000                            H                                
    +                            H                                
    +                            H                                
    +                            H                                
    *HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH    
  -++-+-+-+-+-++-+-+-+-++-+-+-+-+*++-+-+-+-++-+-+-+-++-+-+-+-+-+- 
   00         1        2        3H       4        5        6      
    +                            H                                
    +                            H                                
-20000                           H                                
    +                            H                                
    +                            H                                
    +                            H                                
-40000                           H                                
    +                            HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH    
    +                                                             
                                                                  
> 
# We can see from the above graphics (and even more clearly if you 
# are able to view the animations) that the effect of the quantum 
# potential on the motion of the particle is complex. Yet, by the 
# mathematical analysis, somehow these motions are just exactly those 
# that are required in order that a statistical ensemble of quantum 
# systems (each with a particle at some random location) will evolve 
# in accordance with the rules of quantum mechanics.
> 
# Well, now we have exercised all the tools needed for the task, we 
# are finally ready to see what happens to the particle trajectories 
# when there are two or more particles in a quantum mechanical 
# system. Dear Reader, no doubt you already anticipate that the 
# details get even more complicated! But take heart, the results will 
# be worth the effort.
> 
# Cheers,
# Bill Page
# 

cudkeys:
cuddy9 cuden3047 cudfnBill cudlnPage cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszXL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.09 /  terry_bollinge /  I'm not in this / Bohm, pilot waves, and lousy SciAm articles
     
Originally-From: terry_bollinger@spd.dsccc.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: I'm not in this / Bohm, pilot waves, and lousy SciAm articles
Date: Tue, 9 Aug 1994 01:23:44 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Breaking in briefly because figures quoting $ks of personal money worry me.

                                --Terry Bollinger

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


JUST A REMINDER REGARDING "A TWIST OF RIBBON"


a. Count my earlier work out!

It has come to my attention that folks in this group have recently been
advocating experiments based on delocalization and expensive techniques
such as single-crystal palladium.

Please note that if anyone in the course of of working on such experiments
looks up and reads my the email document entitled "A Twist of Ribbon" that
I wrote over three years ago, I have totally and unequivocally renounced
that document and do not feel it or the follow-up emails I have posted on
it from time to time should be used as a guide for any type of experiment.


b. Evaporation of key evidence

The problem is that the key events on which "A Twist of Ribbon" was based
have since proven to be quite unverifiable.  This includes in particular
the early report of an especially high-energy "explosion" of a small cube
of palladium in Pons' and Fleischmann's original University of Utah lab,
That has since proven to have been an astonishingly ephemeral event, given
that it was supposed to have left half the cube and a large hole in the
concrete floor of the University of Utah lab (now recarpeted).  As long as
that and a very small number of other events appeared to need physical
rather than sociological explanations, then the motive was in place for
some serious exploration of a few of the more interesting "boundary areas"
of quantum physics.  Such was (and is) "A Twist of Ribbon."


c. A shot in the dark

Those boundary areas remain.  Alas, the incentive to explore them for the
specific purpose of explaining a very few plausible reports of high-energy,
clearly non-chemical events has since departed.  The boundary areas remain
just as fascinating, but in retrospect I would place the odds of finding
the Pons and Fleischmann class of "clean non-chemical heat" events within
those boundary regions of quantum physics to be a very, very close to nil.

I would note that while I do admire an interest in genuine experimentation
in palladium anomalies, I no longer see any reason to consider them more
likely to be non-chemical in nature than almost of the many novel classes
of novel chemical reactions one may find in any standard chemical text.

Good luck to all of you, at any rate.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


DAVID BOHM, PILOT WAVES, AND A TRULY LOUSY SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN ARTICLE

a. Pilot waves

By the way, those of you who are now advocating the David Bohm's variant of
DeBroglie's pilot wave theory as some sort of general purpose fix to
palladium anomalies in general and "delocalized" wave functions in
particular may want to be a bit careful.  In particular, the particles in
pilot wave theory behave _more_ conventionally, not less, and the concept
of "particle delocalization" as such flatly disappears.  Particles don't
even tunnel in the usual sense of the word in pilot wave theory; they are
simply sucked through barriers quite conventionally by an attraction area
in the pilot wave, which (as in standard Schroedinger-style QM) may extend
to the other side of a barrier.  (A pilot wave is sort of a very odd
attractive field whose position in space is independent of the exact
position of the particle from which it "emanates".) And if you follow the
route of trying to create a pilot wave attraction between the two
deuterons, guess what?  You find yourself back with exactly the same set of
Schroedinger wave equations that have been beaten to death in this group
over the last few years.  In short, as the saying goes, there is no free
lunch -- it's just very, very hard to get two deuterons to bang into each
other at close range.


b. Bohm and Configuration Spaces

Ironically, David Bohm gives one of the clearest explanations of 3N
configuration spaces (where N is the number of particles) that I've seen in
his classic textbook _Quantum Theory_.  It's ironic because Bohm has
apparently been invoked in this group to help explain "overlapping" wave
functions.  Bohm does indeed address this topic, but he does it by pointing
out that a wave function for more than one particle will need 3N dimensions
to accommodate the _constraints_ placed on it by the properties of
individual particles -- e.g., the way two like-charged particles repel each
other.  (Note that in pilot wave theory is only the _waves_ that move in 3N
space -- the particles remain firmly and rather dully embedded in old
fashioned three-dimensional space, unable even to tunnel except by crashing
literally and cannon-ball like through an energy barrier.)

The bottom line is that if you read over what Bohm has to say about
configuration spaces in _Quantum Theory_, it is very difficult not to come
to the conclusion that Bohm would have taken a pretty dim view indeed of
something like the Chubb/Chubb theory, in which the Chubb team tries to
assign special meaning to "overlapping" wave functions of isolated
particles.  Bohm would almost certainly have scolded them for not fully
understanding how ordinary constraints such as like-charge repulsion simply
translate over into the full 3N pilot wave model.


c. Bohm and Mysticism

This is not to say that Bohm didn't have his _own_ peculiar fish to fry,
incidentally.  In his later years Bohm got very wrapped up in a curiously
mystical interpretation of his own pilot wave model, deciding that every
particle in the universe needed "knowledge" of every other particle, so as
to keep track of all the needed Bell correlations of quantum events.  John
Bell, who was an advocate and admirer of David Bohm and his work, once even
stuck his neck out in a British radio interview and mentioned his variant
of Bohm's idea, which was that one way to get rid of non-locality (which
Bell hated even though he is famous for helping to prove it!) in QM
problems was to _predetermine the entire universe so that observers always
look for the "right" particle position or property_!


d. A badly researched/edited/reviewed Scientific American article on Bohm

I would note that I personally took a very dim view of the recent
Scientific American article that supposedly advocated David Bohm's view of
quantum theory.  Whoever wrote that little diatribe either didn't know or
didn't care about the full physics history of David Bohm and pilot wave
theory, as evidenced by his claim that pilot wave theory was "pragmatic"
and didn't lead to any odd issues or contradictions.  Balderdash. Decades
of close examination of his own equations led David Bohm to go far out on a
profoundly off-beat philosophical limb in his later years, to the point
that he began giving keynote addresses to the very kinds of mystical
societies from which (according to the author of that Scientific American
article) Bohm's "pragmatic" pilot wave theory would protect quantum
physicists.  Nor was opposition to Bohm's theory purely political, as the
author of that article seemed to suggest.  The greatest, most insightful,
and most persistent antagonist of all time to the Copenhagen (Bohr)
interpretation of quantum mechanics was none other than Albert Einstein,
who looked over Bohm's theory and gave it this analysis: "Too cheap."  In
sharp contrast, Einstein was challenged and stimulated by the very deep-
thinking Bohr literally until they both died.  The last notes on Bohr's
blackboard before he passed away consisted of notes about arguments with
Einstein on the subject of quantum interpretation.


e. Pilot wave theory looks extremely weak when compared to QED

Pilot wave theory, which is really due more to DeBroglie than to Bohm
anyway, is an intriguing example of what happens when people absolutely
insist on everything having an ordinary visualization in terms of ordinary
objects.  In the case of pilot wave theory it has proved to be a useful
visualization -- Bell himself claims that it is what helped him find Bell's
inequality -- but it has also led to a variety of curious additions and
complications that add nothing mathematically to QM predictions and take
away a very great deal -- specifically, relativistic QM, which has yet to
be added to pilot wave theory.  In contrast, Feynman's inherently
relativistic and conceptually very pristine QED theory demonstrates far
more real pragmatism than pilot wave theory is every likely to obtain.
Feynman simply said "here are a few simple rules that work for all the
experiments we can come up with, so let's use them." Feynman took the
mystery of QED at face value and marveled in how strange they were, never
giving up his curiousity about them.  But he never succumbed to trying to
"demystify" them by _forcing_ them into the conventional images of the
world of physics on the large scale in which we exist from day to day.  As
Einstein aptly said, and which I suspect Feynman would have agree with,
that would have been too cheap of a solution.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenterry_bollinger cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.09 / John Logajan /  Re: Randell L. Mills and hydrinos
     
Originally-From: al789@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Randell L. Mills and hydrinos
Date: 9 Aug 1994 01:59:24 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)


In a previous article, alan@geg.mot.com (Alan Newman) says:
>       a 'laser range finder' are certainly well-described in a 
>       euclidean 'newtonian' framework.  And I've never
>       seen anyone make GR corrections to velocities in their LDV gear.
>
>GPS navigation systems compensate for relativistic time.

Hmm, the speed of light was known B.E. (before Einstein.)  I think when
people refer to general relativity they are speaking of a specific
set of predictions made by the good Doktor, predictions which went
beyond his earlier SR (special relativity.)

The finite speed of light was not predicted by either GR or SR, since
it was already a known quantity for a century or more.

-- 
-- John Logajan ---  al789@cleveland.freenet.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenal789 cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.09 / Matt Austern /  Re: What would skeptics consider a positive excess heat result?
     
Originally-From: matt@physics2.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What would skeptics consider a positive excess heat result?
Date: 09 Aug 1994 06:55:12 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (Theoretical Physics Group)

In article <KCKLUGE.94Aug8161802@glasnost.eecs.umich.edu> kckluge@glasno
t.eecs.umich.edu (Karl Kluge) writes:

> Supposing that we consider the possibility that excess heat (if real) is
> the result of something exotic, so that X-ray spectra tests, etc are not
> critical experiments. What would constitute an iron-clad demonstration of
> excess heat? What type of power supply should be used and how should the
> power input be measured to insure that the measured input power is an
> upper bound on the power going into the system? 

What would convince me, personally?  Well, I'm not an expert in 
calorimetry, so I won't give any details about proper calorimeter
design---I wouldn't understand the details if I saw them.  I think,
though, I'd be satisfied by this:

	(1) No power supply, and zero power input.  Just heat coming
	    off, without the necessity of doing any fancy bookkeeping
	    to figure out whether that heat is greater than or less
	    than what it should be.
	(2) A closed system.  Again, eliminate the fancy theoretical
	    calculations where you try to calculate how much heat is
	    gained or lost because the system is open.  Those calculations
	    are potentially a major source of systematic error.
	(3) A large signal---one that's several orders of magnitude
	    larger than the smallest signal that could be detected
	    by whatever experimental technique you're using.  If you've
	    got a signal very close to the threshold of detection,
	    then who knows what you're measuring?  This is closely
	    related to, but now quite the same as,
	(4) High statistical significance.  I mean *high*, not just
	    one- or two-sigma.  Every scientist, I suspect, is familiar
	    with the phenomenon that outliers are much more common in
	    real life than they're supposed to be.  In the particle
	    physics biz, we've got a saying: "Three-sigma effects
	    come and go".  Nobody would dream of saying that a two-
	    sigma effect was conclusive evidence for a new particle;
	    still less should it be thought of as conclusive evidence
	    for something this radical.  And finally,
	(5) Reproducibility.  It's not enough for a single experiment
	    to satisfy all these criteria; the paper has to provide
	    enough information so that someone else can repeat the
	    experiment and get the same results.

This is admittedly a high standard of proof, but I don't think that I
would be satisfied by much less than that.  I don't have any doubt
that burning coal can give off excess heat; when "cold fusion" is as
unambiguous as a coal fire, then I'll believe in it.  Not before.
--

                               --matt
cudkeys:
cuddy09 cudenmatt cudfnMatt cudlnAustern cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.09 /  prasad /  Re: What's the score?
     
Originally-From: c1prasad@watson.ibm.com (prasad)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What's the score?
Date: 9 Aug 1994 15:35:06 GMT
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

In article <1994Aug7.235741.12549@math.ucla.edu>, barry@arnold.math.ucla
edu (Barry Merriman) writes:
|> In article <321qb1$q5b@huxley.anu.edu.au> drd851@huxley.anu.edu.au (David R  
|> Davies) writes:
|> > 
|> > I think we can safely assume that the vast majority of scientists have not
|> > given the issue more than a moments thought. If you believe in science by
|> > lynch-mob then CF is dead but that doesn't seem to change the fact that
|> > experimental results keep popping up that can't be explained away easily.
|> 
|> In the same vein, the vast majority of scientists have not
|> given much thought to whether Joseph Newmans perpetual motion
|> motor works. The point is: if something falls far enough outside 
|> the domain of established science, its reasonable to reject it
|> out of hand, *in the absence of overwhelming evidence to the contrary*.

Hmmm..  far enough outside established science, eh?
Like the NBS measuring *electrical output* on a *motor*?

Absence of overwhelming evidence to the contrary?
Like a senior physicist of a major electronics/computers company reporting
actual measurements before the US senate?

There are many many such excess power reports, eg. those on Griggs' machine and
the '86 report by Dr Kincheloe of Stanford EE, with clear measurements
and even clearer remarks by the authors that an explanation was sought.

No amigo, I do not think Joe's motor failed to convince.  It was Joe himself
that failed to convince.  If his motor did work, we've lost it, and Joe's
got the credit for that too.  Newman was going around claiming "can move
a car with only the current from a 1.5V battery" when in fact he was using
over 300 of them in series.  He undermined his own credibility with
informal bragging.

|> 
|> The current claims of CF-ers are plenty far afield (nuclear energy
|> output without nuclear interaction byproducts), and so far they
   ^^^^
"nuclear o/p" is an unsuccessful explanation, not the achievement itself,
which remains as "unexplained excess enthalpy".  Jones claimed the possibility
(w/ byproducts of course), but apparently hasn't got the enthalpy achievement
in his lab.  It's not clear to me that skeptics, incl Jones, are really
trying to say "no excess".  What's obvious from the discussions I see here
is that they are, like the devil's advocates, specifically pulling down
explanations, such as "fusion".

|> have not exhibited any good evidence to counter the skepticism.
                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
We have several times more evidence for the excess enthalpy than
Michelson-Morley's counter-evidence for ether at the turn of the century,
what with numerous experimenters with distinct flavors of saying the
same bad things! ;)

Unlike the late 1800s-1905 though, we are now more polar in approach to
data and theories.  If the evidence is counter-our-theory, we won't
even want to publish it.  We have this modern class society, we like to
keep the nice things in our aristocratic sci.* and chuck the babbling
to the alt.* forums... [a wicked ;)]

What we do NOT have is a plausible explanation and THEORY.
We're close to another turn of century, and perhaps by 2005,..

The other thing is, one doesn't need and cannot use evidence alone to
counter skepticism.  No amount of tales and videos of prosperity could
instantaneously convince believers in the commune way of life.  It took
them time to understand, and they still have their skeptics and believers...
[desparate analogy!]

What "believers" and "skeptics" both need and will happily use would be
working explanations and, where the explanation works and says there's
a new thing, the engineering principles for using it.  That's how thoroughly
the explanation should "work".

There still is a lot of informality in physics, since it takes beliefs
and fads and is less objective than, say, the Pythagorean theorem.  It
was a fashion once to make waves out of everything, and it's the in-thing
now to do everything with particles, if the many postings are an indication.

Till a more formal theory turns up, one cannot be ruled out.  Till an
(working) alternative explanation to, say, the Hubble redshift does turn up,
we do not have the formal apparatus yet to *prove* that a working alternative
cannot exist, or even that a formal apparatus cannot exist.  In short,
we are still in the dark ages of being believers or kafirs, not yet
master engineers with the fundamentals of nature.

To such a wishful theory, then!  Cheers.

|> 
|> 
|> 
|> 
|> --
|> Barry Merriman
|> UCLA Dept. of Math
|> UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
|> barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)
|> 
|> 

-- 

#pragma prejudices=own brainwaves=own others=absolved
// email: 71155.3116@compuserve.com, poll= 1/month.
// bad habits: unwashed robes, xrn.
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenc1prasad cudlnprasad cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.09 / Tom Droege /  Re: What would skeptics consider a positive excess heat result?
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What would skeptics consider a positive excess heat result?
Date: 9 Aug 1994 16:51:51 GMT
Organization: fermilab

In article <MATT.94Aug8235512@physics2.berkeley.edu>, 
matt@physics2.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern) says:
>
>In article <KCKLUGE.94Aug8161802@glasnost.eecs.umich.edu> 
kckluge@glasnost.eecs.umich.edu (Karl Kluge) writes:
>
>> Supposing that we consider the possibility that excess heat (if real) 
is
>> the result of something exotic, so that X-ray spectra tests, etc are 
not
>> critical experiments. What would constitute an iron-clad demonstration 
of
>> excess heat? What type of power supply should be used and how should 
the
>> power input be measured to insure that the measured input power is an
>> upper bound on the power going into the system? 
>
>What would convince me, personally?  Well, I'm not an expert in 
>calorimetry, so I won't give any details about proper calorimeter
>design---I wouldn't understand the details if I saw them.  I think,
>though, I'd be satisfied by this:
>
>        (1) No power supply, and zero power input.  Just heat coming
>            off, without the necessity of doing any fancy bookkeeping
>            to figure out whether that heat is greater than or less
>            than what it should be.

Ahhh!  That is the problem.  There is heat coming off everything above
absolute zero!  So whether you like it or not you are forced to keep a 
heat balance between heat arriving and heat leaving.  Note the frequencies
might be different, i.e. sunlight coming in and infra red coming off.  I 
submit that a closed up car on a summer day appears to meet test (1).  
Other systems may just look like they meet test (1).

>        (2) A closed system.  Again, eliminate the fancy theoretical
>            calculations where you try to calculate how much heat is
>            gained or lost because the system is open.  Those 
calculations
>            are potentially a major source of systematic error.

Sorry, but it just ain't possible to less than 20% or so.  Try the 
calculations.  The best thermal insulator has a resistance of 100 in
some units.  The best conductor has a resistance of 0.01 or so.  You 
cannot build a very good measureing device with only 4 orders of magnitude
to work with.  Possibly a heroic passive system might do 1%.  This with 
feet of foam and inches of copper.  Unfortunately such a system would take
hours or days to settle so it would be very hard to use to measure 
transient phenomenia.  At best "cold fusion" is transient.  A dewar does 
not help very much.  For these purposes only a slight improvement over 
foam.  Try some back of the envelope calculations and you will begin to 
understand the problems.  That is why I have been developing active 
systems.  Much like guard ring techniques used to measure tiny electrical
signals.  


>        (3) A large signal---one that's several orders of magnitude
>            larger than the smallest signal that could be detected
>            by whatever experimental technique you're using.  If you've
>            got a signal very close to the threshold of detection,
>            then who knows what you're measuring?  This is closely
>            related to, but now quite the same as,

I agree!  All we need is for someone to tell us how to get a large signal. 

>        (4) High statistical significance.  I mean *high*, not just
>            one- or two-sigma.  Every scientist, I suspect, is familiar
>            with the phenomenon that outliers are much more common in
>            real life than they're supposed to be.  In the particle
>            physics biz, we've got a saying: "Three-sigma effects
>            come and go".  Nobody would dream of saying that a two-
>            sigma effect was conclusive evidence for a new particle;
>            still less should it be thought of as conclusive evidence
>            for something this radical.  And finally,

Yep!  A large signal sure would help.  But the othere way to get this is
to build a very sensitive, drift free measuring device.  Drift is very 
important for these experiments since they run so long.  

>        (5) Reproducibility.  It's not enough for a single experiment
>            to satisfy all these criteria; the paper has to provide
>            enough information so that someone else can repeat the
>            experiment and get the same results.
>

Sure would be nice if someone could design a reproducable experiment.  

>This is admittedly a high standard of proof, but I don't think that I
>would be satisfied by much less than that.  I don't have any doubt
>that burning coal can give off excess heat; when "cold fusion" is as
>unambiguous as a coal fire, then I'll believe in it.  Not before.
>--
>

Not a high standard at all but rather a starting set of requirements.

>                               --matt

Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.09 / Tom Droege /  Re: Experiment
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Experiment
Date: 9 Aug 1994 17:14:11 GMT
Organization: fermilab

I spent the weekend thinking about calorimeters.  By monday I had dreamed 
up this marvelous kludge that was made up of about 50 small heat pipes.  I 
have a pad full of sketches.  Finally the design became so ridiculous that 
I have gone back to the old design using the brass pipes.  The important 
thing that I realize from this exercise is that what is important is the
range of the insulators/conductors.  With mormal materials the conduction 
range is 10,000/1.  Using heat pipes gets one to possibly 1E7/1.  One 
should be able to do better.  Contrast this to electronic work where the 
range is 1E40/1 or so.  No wonder heat is hard. 

More and more I am getting inspired to build another calorimeter.  
Possibly I don't even care if there is a "cold fusion" experiment to do in
it.  One thing for sure, if I run another experiment, someone else will
build the cells.

Tom Droege 
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.09 / Bruce TK /  Re: Plasmak Geometry
     
Originally-From: bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce       Scott          TK  )
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Plasmak Geometry
Date: 9 Aug 1994 19:14:40 GMT
Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching

I know it is bad form to respond to one's own post, but I want to amend this
bit:

In article <325582INN173c@sat.ipp-garching.mpg.de>, bds@slcbdsipp-garchi
g.mpg.de (Bruce       Scott          TK  ) writes:

|> I have a further question about the vacuum separation region and the
|> kernel: is the kernel _by_ _itself_ a toroid or compact spheroid? If the
|> answer is a toroid, the symmetry axis would have to be in the vacuum
|> region, since a flux surface arbitrarily close to the symmetry axis is
|> still a toroid. If the answer is a spheroid, then we still have problems
|> about the equilibrium: the kernel is expected to survive as a plasmoid
|> bounded by a vacuum, and we already know such a beast is not in
|> equilibrium.

According to Paul's gif, the answer is that it is a toroid. As a rough
approximation, one draws the flux surfaces for a spheroid. Labelling the
flux surfaces from zero (Paul's "minor axis") to one (the sphere which
bounds the spheroid), and scaling them proportional to contained volume,
one fills the region interior to flux surface 0.85 or so with plasma, and
then flux surfaces 0.85 to 1.0 have zero density and pressure. Labelling
the spheres exterior to flux surface 1.0, also by volume, the region
1.0 to about 1.01 is the ionised layer, and the region exterior to 1.01
is non-ionised gas. Ignoring the "bleedover", the magnetic field is zero
for V > 1.0. I'm interested in this vacuum region. It should be interesting
proving that can exist in equilibrium. I'll give it a try.

Paul, what is the experimental evidence that the vacuum region actually
exists, and you don't just have a Wu and Chen type spheroid, with pressure
nonzero everywhere?

-- 
Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de                               -- W Gibson
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnTK cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.09 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Was PAF ... Can Fusion Patent be Overturned 
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.electromag
Subject: Re: Was PAF ... Can Fusion Patent be Overturned 
Date: Tue, 9 Aug 1994 05:41:41 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <3232oa$src@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth
edu (Ludwig Plutonium) writes:

> Has anyone sued the USA patent office and won?


Yes. For example, in the area of fusion (nuclear) energy, the DoE
has the right and obligation to handle all patent applications, as
far as the technical advise or withholding as a national security
measure (secrecy). However, the Patent Office handles the administrative
matters: --  mailings, filings etc.; so, it appears that their examiner 
is actually doing all of the examination work, although he is slaving
for DoE remarks.  For example, Harvey Berhrends did a large number  
of fusion related applications for the US Patent Off.   

Now it came to pass, that the DoE would not care to have some fellow
with an issued fusion patent then go charging off to Congress and
say  " Hey you guys!  Eureka I have solved the fusion problem and
have a patent to prove it, so Stop funding the tokamak and fund
ME INSTEAD..  (Of course whe would they (after all it could mess up
a nice porker project in their voting area, and if they did, what 
difference would it make, after all the DoE can be mighty slow about
doling out forced funds.  :-)      (Bogdan M. found that getting such 
funds sent through the USAF wasn't that forth coming also. )  
 
So the Department of Energy (should be Dept. of "Energia" in honor of 
the inventors of the tokamak) decided to find all other than tokamak
related fusion patents were invalid based on a bogus argument.  The 
argument went as follows:  

A fusion reactor has never been made or operated commercially or any
other way, and therefore, we wouldn't know what a commercial fusion 
reactor looked liked and consequently, one could never be invented, 
at least until one was operated commercially.   

Well who has the money for that ... we certainly don't (yet) and even
the DoE apparently doesn't, judging by the billions that have been
shoveled down the tokamak hole and the increasing doubt about their
next fling with that mass redistributor.  

NOTE: This did not stop the issuance of "PLASMA technology" patents.   

Anyway, a German citizen working for GE filed a fusion patent and
like all the rest of us, it was rejected by DoE using this same bogus
argument.  Even though the person returned to Germany, he sued and
his patent rejection case was overturned probably in the very late 
'80s by the US Court of Patent Appeals, and all the rest of us then 
began to also have our patents issued forthwith, 1990-1992.     

                 Thanks for the long delay DoE.  
                   We are still seeking your goal .. 
                           First if necessary.  
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc, Bx 1037 Prometheus II Ltd, College Park MD 20741-1037    |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.09 / Paul Koloc /  Re: What's the score?  
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What's the score?  
Date: Tue, 9 Aug 1994 06:14:58 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <1994Aug7.235741.12549@math.ucla.edu> barry@arnold.math.ucla.
du (Barry Merriman) writes:
>In article <321qb1$q5b@huxley.anu.edu.au> drd851@huxley.anu.edu.au (David R  
>Davies) writes:
>> 
>> I think we can safely assume that the vast majority of scientists have not
>> given the issue more than a moments thought.  .. .

>In the same vein, the vast majority of scientists have not
>given much thought to whether Joseph Newmans perpetual motion
>motor works. The point is: if something falls far enough outside 
>the domain of established science, its reasonable to reject it
>out of hand, *in the absence of overwhelming evidence to the contrary*.

There is a difference, I think Newman "knows" where his energy
comes from.  Not being a scientist, he has not the slightest chance
of communicating that to the physics community.  CF is in a state
of stumbling science ... no one has a theory, but there are plenty
of ad hoc explanations and hypotheses floating about.  Fortunately,
this at least can be communicated.. after a fashion.  

>The current claims of CF-ers are plenty far afield (nuclear energy
>output without nuclear interaction byproducts), and so far they
>have not exhibited any good evidence to counter the skepticism.

Measurement within solid/liquid stuff isn't quite the trip through 
clover that vacuum diagnostics are.  

But what about the claims of the Tokamak program?? I don't see any
realistic progress toward commercial fusion.  Certainly size is 
improving?? But IS?? the corresponding progress is proportionate to 
what's needed in reality.  In fact, the failures to make or 
significally exceed really really easy baby goals like scientific 
breakeven at this late date is bad news for the humans on that chain 
gang.  

Realism, and the ability to face up to the results, and the VARIANCE
in EFFORT to date among these diverse examples is the problem here, 
that makes it a questionable comparison.  Lack of realism is the 
problem in each of the collected examples, would not you agree?  

Is it any wonder, that the bickering and reality avoidance has given 
John Q. Public the attitude that "ALL fusion forms are nutsy crapola"?  

We are swimming in the same c-pool of BScott's orderless tasteless 
stuff.  
>--
>Barry Merriman
>UCLA Dept. of Math
>UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
>barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc, Bx 1037 Prometheus II Ltd, College Park MD 20741-1037    |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.09 / Bill Page /  Re:  experiment
     
Originally-From: 70047.3047@compuserve.com (Bill Page)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re:  experiment
Date: Tue, 9 Aug 1994 12:51:13 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Steven Jones writes:
<<
In his 7 Aug 94 post, Bill Page says:

"I am thinking here more of observing a *drop* in background radiation due to
condensate formation rather than measuring a putative radiation source."

Now, Bill, how do you get a "drop" in background radiation?  Is this some new
'cold fusion' effect? 

Please explain.
>>

When I said drop in background radiation, what I meant was "as measured by the
detector in close proximity to the CF cell".  Of course the background
radiation, as background, is not affected by the experimental setup. But because
the detector is in a position to be (at least partly) shielded by the CF cell,
changes in the state of the cell affecting secondary radiation and changes in
the nuclear cross-sections of the material in the cell, might have a measurable
effect on the output of a suitably placed detector. I think thats clear, no?

Of course, one need not (and perhaps should not) depend on the background
radiation as the source. It might be appropriate to include a calibrated source
of radiation in a strategic location within the CF cell. In my suggested design,
such a calibrated source could be introduced into the central cathode tube.

I don't believe this is an entirely new 'CF' effect. Similar effects have been
reported concerning changes in neutron absorption cross sections (Italian work)
and in the Reifenschweiler observations of tritium in titanium. But as you know
these reports are still very controversal and have not yet been replicated to my
knowledge.

I believe that I may have measured small changes occuring in the detected
background radiation that was correlated with deliberate changes in electrolysis
current during my CF experiments that produced apparent excess heat. The cathode
material in these experiments was Aluminium. My resources for this type of
experimental work are very limited and I don't think I have necessarily
eliminated all sources of error. I learned a little about measuring ionizing
radiation with a computer and the use of statistical smoothing techniques etc
and I realize there are many pitfalls. I have, however repeated these
measurements five times with very similar results. The correlation between a
drop in the time averaged count rate, the presence of apparent excess power
output of the cell and deliberate changes in cell current are quite clear.

Although I would very much like to see someone else make this particular type of
measurement, the main reason I brought it up in my post was as an example of
trying to design an experment which measures several variables specifically in
order to test a attentative working hypothesis. One such hypothesis is that a
high temperature deuteron or hyrdogen atom boson condenstate (if such a thing
exists) which might be a precursor to excess heat production might also exhibit
such unusual nuclear effects.

Cheers,

Bill Page.


The main reason

cudkeys:
cuddy9 cuden3047 cudfnBill cudlnPage cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.09 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Randell L. Mills and hydrinos
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.skeptic,pdx.general
Subject: Re: Randell L. Mills and hydrinos
Date: Tue, 9 Aug 1994 13:12:37 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <NEWMAN.94Aug7204019@cujo.schbbs>,
Alan Newman <alan@geg.mot.com> wrote:
>In article <Cu4Jxt.3yE@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> 
>crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>   In article <776120342snz@mccombes.demon.co.uk>,
>   Paul McCombes <paul@mccombes.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>   >In article <CtzsJn.J7H@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
>   >           crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU "Cameron Randale Bass" writes:
>   >> 
>   >> >They are functionally different. The theories do not make comparable 
>   >> >predictions except in the low v, low m case. Even then they are slightly 
>   >out, 
>   >> >or did I miss the bit about moving clocks run slow in Newtonian physics - 
>   >> >detectable at everyday speeds using aeroplanes and atomic clocks.
>   >> 
>   >>      Not your everyday clock, he observed dryly.
>   >> 
>   >>      On the other hand, I'm an engineer, and I have never, and I mean
>   >>      *never* used a GR correction in any practical calculation.
>   >>      So the 'approximation' must be fairly good in some very real and 
>   >>      very well-defined sense.
>   >
>   >Never use a laser range finder? Admittedly SR, but not Newton.
>
>       Again, depends on what you're talking about.  The ranges found with
>       a 'laser range finder' are certainly well-described in a 
>       euclidean 'newtonian' framework.  And I've never
>       seen anyone make GR corrections to velocities in their LDV gear.
>
>       The calculations of nearly every physical scientist and engineer
>       contradicts your assertion that Newton's laws are not a good approximation
>       of GR.
>
>GPS navigation systems compensate for relativistic time.  Atomic clocks
>on board the Navstar satellites transmit time which is received by the GPS 
>receiver.  VERY precise measurements of the time delay of the signal 
>determines the distance to each monitored satellite.  The satellites also 
>broadcast their position (as a function of time) so that triangulation can 
>be used to determine the position of the receiver.  If the relativistic time 
>effects are not compensated for by the receiver, position accuracy is rather 
>poor.
>
>GPS receivers are found is virtually every commercial aircraft and ship.  
>They are very common in truck fleets and other uses.  $500 will put one 
>(with relativistic corrections) in your pocket.  Last year they were over 
>$1K.  Maybe tomorrow Casio will have one on a $50 watch.  By afternoon in a 
>ladies model. :-)

     Your point?  

     Note carefully your use of terms like 'correction', 'compensation'.
     That's a 'correction' of the 'approximation' we were talking about
     before.  

                             dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.09 /  DaveHatunen /  Re: Randell L. Mills and hydrinos
     
Originally-From: hatunen@netcom.com (DaveHatunen)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Randell L. Mills and hydrinos
Date: Tue, 9 Aug 1994 14:12:15 GMT
Organization: As little as you're likely to find anywhere

In article <326nts$ort@usenet.ins.cwru.edu>,
John Logajan <al789@cleveland.Freenet.Edu> wrote:

[...]

>Hmm, the speed of light was known B.E. (before Einstein.)  I think when
>people refer to general relativity they are speaking of a specific
>set of predictions made by the good Doktor, predictions which went
>beyond his earlier SR (special relativity.)
>
>The finite speed of light was not predicted by either GR or SR, since
>it was already a known quantity for a century or more.

I believe that the speed of light is essentially postulatory in SR,
which makes no mention in the basic equations of what that speed
actually is. One supplies a value for c only when making calculations.

-- 
    ********** DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@netcom.com) **********
    *                Daly City California:                *
    *       where San Francisco meets The Peninsula       *
    *       and the San Andreas Fault meets the Sea       *
    *******************************************************

cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenhatunen cudlnDaveHatunen cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.09 /  schlichting@pa /  Re: Return of the experimenter? 
     
Originally-From: schlichting@pa881a.inland.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Return of the experimenter? 
Date: 9 Aug 94 08:03:38 CDT
Organization: Inland Steel Company, East Chicago, IN

Tom, Dieter, Bernecly, others --

I am very happy to see the discussion return to the technical...

I would be happy to prepare the cathod/anode material....Time may be a
somewhat limiting factor as I have some rather intense assignments
right now...

May I suggest that we design an experiment that seeks the answer to some
difficult questions........

Question 1.   Is the gas that collects on the cathode H, D or H2, D2 .
  	If the gas is H2, or D2 what surface action splits the 
	molecule ?  Catalysis ?  

Question 2.   F. A. Lewis suggested that the higher H, or D loadings 
        are made with the palladium sample in the "as cast" structure.  
	also at low temperatures.  This implies Large crystal size 
	and dendritic solidifcation structure.  The question to answer
	is what material preparation/configuration gives the higher 
	H or D loading ???

Question 3.  How do you measure loading.  I have had some disussions with
	others on this NET to disuss this very item....I am unhappy
	with the answers to date...  There doesn't appear to be a simple
	inexpensive method to confirm Hydrogen, Deuterium loading
	above the 0.83 % mark.... How do we confirm and measure
	High H, or D to metal ratios  ???

Can we focus our combined attention on the technical side of of
the CF phenomenon ??

Thanks for returning to a higher level of conversation...

Mark Schlichting 
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenschlichting cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.09 /  schlichting@pa /  Re; EXPERIMENT
     
Originally-From: schlichting@pa881a.inland.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re; EXPERIMENT
Date: 9 Aug 94 08:20:13 CDT
Organization: Inland Steel Company, East Chicago, IN

Dear Tom - others;

Sure we can make large crystals with high temperature annealing.
I aggree with you Tom at this time I can't think of a specific
reason that a 'Single crystal' should out perform a poly
crystaline form......

This should be fairly easy to accomplish....

I suggest that we should concentrate our efforts on exactly "what"
we should measure and How we should measure it......

If we ask the right questions.....We'll get to the right answers..

Mark Schlichting

cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenschlichting cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.09 /  jonesse@vanlab /  Neutrons and excess enthalpy
     
Originally-From: jonesse@vanlab.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Neutrons and excess enthalpy
Date: 9 Aug 94 16:25:23 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

I am glad to see the return of dialog with greater technical content, and hope
that Terry Bollinger (and others) will make a return to the discussion.
(Welcome back, Terry.)

Tom Droege is discussing experiments again, and that is healthy.

Prasad makes the curious (to me) statement:
"Jones claimed the possibility (w/ byproducts of course), but apparently hasn't
got the enthalpy achievement in his lab.  It's not clear to me that skeptics,
incl. Jones, are really trying to say "no excess."  "  [July 9 post, 'Re: 
What's the score?]

The first part is correct, for instance in our April 1989 paper in Nature,
the intro. reads in part:
"Fusion of deuterons within the metal lattice *may* be the explanation."
[Nature, April 1989, p. 737.]
I now have reason to doubt this explanation, based on subsequent experiments
conducted here and elsewhere (including Kamiokande in Japan).  However, I have
not given up the possibility that low-level neutron emission may have occurred
 *somewhere* in our
system since the signal at 2.5 MeV in our neutron spectrometer 
is hard to dismiss even now.
Clue that we're following now:  collapsing deuterium bubbles may be involved
in what may turn out to be a 'hot' fusion process at low level;
the metal lattice may be the wrong place to be looking.

With regard to excess enthalpy, let me make it clear that we have and are
conducting calorimetric studies in our laboratories at BYU, and we really
are saying "no excess."  What part don't you understand, the 'n' or the 'o'?
A paper will soon be published (hopefully), so full details will then be
provided.  Any neutrons that we may have seen in no way support the notion
that excess enthalpy claimed by others is nuclear in origin; the level is
too small by at least ten orders of magnitude -- we have been
saying this since day one.

Finally, in the spirit of Droege's and Logajan's posts of experimental work,
I should report on a cooperative experiment that is now underway in the BYU
underground lab between our group and a Russian group (names withheld at
present).  We are looking at the possibility of fusion as D2 gas enters a
sodium-tungstenate crystal, which was highly touted at the Nagoya meeting
on cold fusion.  I am willing to report that so far, after a number of tries,
*no* (understood?) neutrons above background have been detected in high-
sensitivity neutron detector.  (15% efficiency for 2.5 MeV neutrons; 0.7
background counts per *hour*.)   When the experiments are concluded, I plan
to report numbers with error bars so that the reader may examine the data for
herself (or himself), right here.

--Steven Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenjonesse cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.10 / Matt Austern /  Re: What's the score?
     
Originally-From: matt@physics2.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What's the score?
Date: 10 Aug 1994 00:04:22 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (Theoretical Physics Group)

In article <321qb1$q5b@huxley.anu.edu.au> drd851@huxley.anu.edu.au
(David R Davies) writes:

> 
> >The vast majority of scientists think that the answer is unequivocally
> >no.  The general consensus is that "cold fusion" was a delusion, just
> >as "N-rays" and "polywater" were.  You can find some more information
> >about this point of view in (for example) Frank Close's book.
> 
> I think we can safely assume that the vast majority of scientists have not
> given the issue more than a moments thought. If you believe in science by
> lynch-mob then CF is dead but that doesn't seem to change the fact that
> experimental results keep popping up that can't be explained away easily.

Indeed; this is incontestably true.  Similarly, the vast majority of
scientists haven't given more than a moment's thought to telepathy,
astrology, or visitations by alien spacecraft.  And I'm sure that
there are lots of UFO experiences that are very hard to explain
away...  In fact, I expect that explaining away even a single UFO
experience would take a great deal of research, and trying to explain
away every single persuasive-sounding UFO experience would be a
full-time occupation.

Maybe the scientific consunsus about polywater, cold fusion, N-rays,
telepathy, and UFOs is because those subjects really are delusions, or
maybe it's because the scientific establishment is nothing more than a
lynch mob; everyone will have to make up their own mind on that
question.  Still, I think it's quite clear that that consensus exists.
If someone asks a general question about cold fusion, I think it's
simple honesty to mention that consensus before delving into all sorts
of technical details about individual experiments.
--

                               --matt
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenmatt cudfnMatt cudlnAustern cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.10 / L Plutonium /  Re: PAF HOLDS 1ST CLAIMS OF COLD FUSION-- CORRECT SCIENCE
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.electromag
Subject: Re: PAF HOLDS 1ST CLAIMS OF COLD FUSION-- CORRECT SCIENCE
Date: 10 Aug 1994 01:22:27 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In article <776375980snz@mccombes.demon.co.uk>
paul@mccombes.demon.co.uk (Paul McCombes) writes:

> In article <3232oa$src@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
>            Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu "Ludwig Plutonium" writes:
> 
> >   MOST everyone thinks Fleischman and Pons hold 1st claims to cold
> > fusion (bad name, because it is triggered radioactivity). This is not
> > true. Paneth and Peters in Berlin actually did the same experiment.
> > Then Tanberg of Sweden 1927 did the experiment in more detail. Paneth &
> > Peters and Tanberg observed the "cold fusion" phenomenon. None of them
> > was able to explain what was really going on, not even Fleischman and
> > Pons and that is why the science has not progressed.
> > [junk deleted]
> 
> Paneth and Peters (and later Tandberg (sic)) did similar experiments in the 
> late twenties in which they discovered helium production when hydrogen is 
> absorbed by finely ground palladium metal. After doing some control experiments 
> they discovered the the release of helium from glass is dependent on the 
> presence of hydrogen (Nature vol:119 pp706 1927). They retracted their claims 
> of the production of helium from hydrogen by reaction with palladium. This was 
> not cold fusion.
> -- 
> Paul McCombes

   I disagree with Paul. It is obvious to me from reading the below
that these researches had the intention of gaining energy. They were
after a new source of energy. All the more remarkable since it predates
the nuclear fission industry by 20 years. And although these early
researchers did not have a term such as "cold fusion", they were
seeking the same phenomenon as post 1989 researchers.
  Hence, I reaffirm my statement that what Pons and Fleishmann were
after in "cold fusion" was nothing new to the art from what Paneth &
Peters, and Tanberg sought. What is new to the art is an explanation
(1) spontaneous neutron materialization (SNM). And what is new to the
art is a technique of inducing SNM which I claim is by running a
variable electric current i or changing electric potential difference V
through the fuel mass. This is merely PULSING, which Canon has verified
to be true.
   According to my theory of SNM every fuel mass shows this phenomenon.
It is not restricted to hydrogen with palladium or titanium substitute.
The phenomenon of SNM will work with just iron as a fuel mass and no
water or heavy water, just pure iron.
    All that needs to be researched and reported is the presence of
"new heavier isotopes" in the SNM fuel mass which was not present
before the pulsing. This will confirm SNM and the violation of
conservation of energy/mass. Then what needs to be done is to find what
fuel mass under what pulsing conditions enables the fuel mass to
maximize (be lit) SNM. SNM is a form of radioactivity as per Dirac in
Directions in Physics.

   From E&TR October 1990. 
    "  1926 Fritz Paneth and Kurt Peters in Berlin first claim to have
observed the fusion of hydrogen under pressure to form helium in finely
divided palladium metal. It was already well known at the time that
certain metals such as palladium can absorb large quantities of
hydrogen. In a short note immediaelty following this claim, Nature
issued the statement: " This announcement, if correct, is of great
importance and will evoke even more intereest than the claim by Miethe
and Stammereich to have transmuted mercury into gold...Belief or
disbelief in the ...message must be reserved pending further and more
definite evidence." After substantial criticisms and further studies,
the two researchers withdrew the claim of helium synthesis."
    "  1927 The Swedish scientist John Tanberg proposes using
electrolysis to force hydrogen into palladium metal. After obtaining
heavy water from Niels Bohr in 1932, he filled palladium rods with
deuterium by electrolysis and then applied a large electric current to
heat the palladium. He warned coworkers to go home during the
experiments after calculting that all the deuterium would be equivalent
to 1000kg of dynamite, if exploded. He observed no effect. "
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.10 / C Harrison /  Re: Titanium "Dry Cold Fusion" revisited
     
Originally-From: harr@netcom.com (Charles (Chuck) Harrison)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.energy.hydrogen
Subject: Re: Titanium "Dry Cold Fusion" revisited
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 1994 00:49:38 GMT
Organization: Fitful

In article <dgerty.34.000D5F13@draper.com>,
David R Gerty <dgerty@draper.com> wrote:
>In article <harrCtpwEE.5JK@netcom.com>
    harr@netcom.com (Charles (Chuck) Harrison) writes:
>>....  In this trapped state the nuclear pair interaction is
>>strong enough to affect decay probabilities (Ti:T) or fusion probabilities
>>(Ti:D).
>
>>-Chuck Harrison
>
>Do you mean by tunneling?  Is it similar to muon catalysed cold fusion?
>

D-D fusion, yes, by tunneling.  I think ballpark is ~0.01 nm distance is
req'd for noticable tunneling rate by usual physics.

T-T decay, I don't know.  Reifenschweiler conjectures a conversion of the
ordinary beta decay process to a "more highly forbidden" mode due to
parity conditions when two tritons are properly paired.  I haven't
absorbed the whole picture there.

- Chuck

>dgerty@draper.com


cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenharr cudfnCharles cudlnHarrison cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.10 / Chuck Sites /  Re: experiment
     
Originally-From: chuck@iglou.iglou.com (Chuck Sites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: experiment
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 1994 01:42:03 GMT
Organization: The Internet Gateway of Louisville, KY

70047.3047@compuserve.com (Bill Page) writes:

>Steven Jones writes:
><<
>In his 7 Aug 94 post, Bill Page says:

>"I am thinking here more of observing a *drop* in background radiation due to
>condensate formation rather than measuring a putative radiation source."

>Now, Bill, how do you get a "drop" in background radiation?  Is this some new
>'cold fusion' effect? 

>Please explain.

[Much deleted.  A controlled source would be needed for sure. I don't think 
you can control or estimate background signals as the source of meassurment
for some type of cross-section meassurement.  An additional complication is
a controlled source needs to chosen such that it's interaction with the 
condensate is maximized.]    

  
>Although I would very much like to see someone else make this particular type of
>measurement, the main reason I brought it up in my post was as an example of
>trying to design an experment which measures several variables specifically in
>order to test a attentative working hypothesis. One such hypothesis is that a
>high temperature deuteron or hyrdogen atom boson condenstate (if such a thing
>exists) which might be a precursor to excess heat production might also exhibit
>such unusual nuclear effects.

If we can achive a high temperature Bose condensate, I'm convinced there will 
be some *very* interesting nuclear and electrical effects. It's a good working
hypothisis IMHO.  Tom count me in. If you need a site for internet connection
to do the online expriment, I can arrange and set up the http site.    
     

>Cheers,

>Bill Page.


Have Fun,
Chuck Sites
chuck@iglou.iglou.com

cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Wed Aug 10 04:37:05 EDT 1994
------------------------------
1994.08.10 / L Plutonium /  Re: Was PAF ... Can Fusion Patent be Overturned
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.electromag
Subject: Re: Was PAF ... Can Fusion Patent be Overturned
Date: 10 Aug 1994 01:35:16 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In article <Cu96HI.J46@prometheus.UUCP>
pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) writes:

> In article <3232oa$src@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmou
h.edu (Ludwig Plutonium) writes:
> 
> > Has anyone sued the USA patent office and won?
> 
> 
> Yes. For example, in the area of fusion (nuclear) energy, the DoE
> has the right and obligation to handle all patent applications, as
> far as the technical advise or withholding as a national security
> measure (secrecy). However, the Patent Office handles the administrative
> matters: --  mailings, filings etc.; so, it appears that their examiner 
> is actually doing all of the examination work, although he is slaving
> for DoE remarks.  For example, Harvey Berhrends did a large number  
> of fusion related applications for the US Patent Off.   
> 
> Now it came to pass, that the DoE would not care to have some fellow
> with an issued fusion patent then go charging off to Congress and
> say  " Hey you guys!  Eureka I have solved the fusion problem and
> have a patent to prove it, so Stop funding the tokamak and fund
> ME INSTEAD..  (Of course whe would they (after all it could mess up
> a nice porker project in their voting area, and if they did, what 
> difference would it make, after all the DoE can be mighty slow about
> doling out forced funds.  :-)      (Bogdan M. found that getting such 
> funds sent through the USAF wasn't that forth coming also. )  
>  
> So the Department of Energy (should be Dept. of "Energia" in honor of 
> the inventors of the tokamak) decided to find all other than tokamak
> related fusion patents were invalid based on a bogus argument.  The 
> argument went as follows:  
> 
> A fusion reactor has never been made or operated commercially or any
> other way, and therefore, we wouldn't know what a commercial fusion 
> reactor looked liked and consequently, one could never be invented, 
> at least until one was operated commercially.   
> 
> Well who has the money for that ... we certainly don't (yet) and even
> the DoE apparently doesn't, judging by the billions that have been
> shoveled down the tokamak hole and the increasing doubt about their
> next fling with that mass redistributor.  
> 
> NOTE: This did not stop the issuance of "PLASMA technology" patents.   
> 
> Anyway, a German citizen working for GE filed a fusion patent and
> like all the rest of us, it was rejected by DoE using this same bogus
> argument.  Even though the person returned to Germany, he sued and
> his patent rejection case was overturned probably in the very late 
> '80s by the US Court of Patent Appeals, and all the rest of us then 
> began to also have our patents issued forthwith, 1990-1992.     
> 
>                  Thanks for the long delay DoE.  
>                    We are still seeking your goal .. 
>                            First if necessary.  
> +-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
> | Paul M. Koloc, Bx 1037 Prometheus II Ltd, College Park MD 20741-1037    |
> | mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
> | VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
> +-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
> 
  Thanks for the highly informative post Paul. I doubt I could ever
find so much information in a hundred books written on patents and the
patent office. It goes to show that someone who has had direct
experience with the US patent office is worth a thousand books on the
subject. Thanks again Paul.
   I am taking several weeks of vacation from the INTERNET from 11AUG
until 1 Sept, in order to reapply for two patents. I want to not be
bothered or distracted by anything else while I reapply for those
patents. 
   I wonder if any reader remembers the name of some inventor
(something about computer chips maybe or something else semiconductor
technical) who had invented something and only recently he was able to
reap the rewards of his invention by a court decree. Some multinational
company/ies had to pay him a percentage which amounts to millions of
$US. I forget the name of the person, the invention and the companies
involved. Could someone please refresh my mind before I vacate in a few
days. Thanks. LP
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.10 / David Davies /  Re: What's the score?
     
Originally-From: drd851@huxley.anu.edu.au (David R Davies)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What's the score?
Date: 10 Aug 1994 17:45:30 +1000
Organization: Australian National University

barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman) writes:

>In article <321qb1$q5b@huxley.anu.edu.au> drd851@huxley.anu.edu.au (David R  
>Davies) writes:
>> 
>> I think we can safely assume that the vast majority of scientists have not
>> given the issue more than a moments thought. If you believe in science by
>> lynch-mob then CF is dead but that doesn't seem to change the fact that
>> experimental results keep popping up that can't be explained away easily.

>In the same vein, the vast majority of scientists have not
>given much thought to whether Joseph Newmans perpetual motion
>motor works. 

I think that if his ideas had any significant experimental support cf. CF
then they should be treated as an open conjecture, at least.

              The point is: if something falls far enough outside 
>the domain of established science, its reasonable to reject it
>out of hand, *in the absence of overwhelming evidence to the contrary*.

I couldn't disagree more. This statement runs totally contrary to how I
see science progressing. I am aware that many people don't want science to
progress but think we already have all the answers. History will prove 
otherwise.

>The current claims of CF-ers are plenty far afield (nuclear energy
>output without nuclear interaction byproducts), and so far they
>have not exhibited any good evidence to counter the skepticism.

All that is achieved by this line of reasoning is to suggest that it
is not conventional fusion. It says nothing else. If we had a highly
reliable theory of nuclear reactions that successfully described every
other situation then this would be a strong argument, but not proof. 

We don't have all the answers. We never will. To suggest otherwise is
truely pathological science of the worst kind. Once science shuts out
radical ideas it degenerates into a pathetic religiousity with a self
serving priesthood dishing out dogma to the ignorant masses and setting
up inquisitions to persecute those that stray from the True Path.

A monotheistic science selects one of many answers to a question and
denies all others, even when the selection is arbitrary. A pluralistic
science nurtures all plausible ideas in the knowledge, from past exper-
ience, that even the most improbable of ideas can sometimes bear valuable
fruit.

A living, growing, creative science can cope easily with foolish (ie
unproductive) ideas. They will fade away in their own time. 

To me, science is not a set of ideas that describe our universe but a
process that allows and encourages these ideas to evolve.


dave
dave.davies@anu.edu.au

cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudendrd851 cudfnDavid cudlnDavies cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.10 / T Kettenring /  Re: Randell L. Mills and hydrinos
     
Originally-From: kring@physik.uni-kl.de (Thomas Kettenring)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.skeptic,pdx.general,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Randell L. Mills and hydrinos
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 1994 13:43:02 GMT
Organization: FB Physik, Universitaet Kaiserslautern, Germany

In article <1994Aug1.161014.17352@ttinews.tti.com>, jackson@soldev.tti.c
m (Dick Jackson) writes:
>In article <31aaso$cop@linux4.ph.utexas.edu> dcook@linux4.ph.utexas.edu
(David M. Cook) writes:
>>In article <317d66$pj3@sandra.teleport.com>,
>>David Smith <davids@teleport.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>  ...a novel theory ... that unifies Maxwell's Equations, Newton's Law, 
>>>  and Einstein's General and Special Relativity.
>>
>>Oh, I can do that.
>>
>>Dave Cook
>
>Yes but the big trick is to get Darwin's theory of evolution in too.
>
>Dick Jackson

If you really think that you should read the talk.origins FAQs.  If not
then I don't get the joke.

I set Followup-To talk.origins.

--
thomas kettenring, 3 dan, kaiserslautern, germany
Geologists are amazing.  They know hundreds of words for different sorts of
dirt and hundreds of words for things it does when left alone for a few million
years.
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenkring cudfnThomas cudlnKettenring cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.10 / John Lewis /  Re: What's the score?
     
Originally-From: court@newton.physics.mun.ca (John Lewis)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What's the score?
Date: 10 Aug 1994 16:45:03 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Physics, Memorial University

In article <MATT.94Aug9170423@physics2.berkeley.edu>, matt@physics2.berk
ley.edu (Matt Austern) writes:

 ...
 
|> Indeed; this is incontestably true.  Similarly, the vast majority of
|> scientists haven't given more than a moment's thought to telepathy,
|> astrology, or visitations by alien spacecraft. 

My impression is that many scientists have thought quite a lot about one 
or another of these subjects, 
usually first in their student days, and then later if they teach undergraduates.
And probably the majority of astronomers and astrophysicists have thought
seriously about the possibilities and problems of interstellar travel.  
I would say that the existing concensus has come about from a great deal of
thought by a significant fraction, quite possibly a majority, of the scientific
community.

|> And I'm sure that
|> there are lots of UFO experiences that are very hard to explain
|> away...  In fact, I expect that explaining away even a single UFO
|> experience would take a great deal of research, 

Very much so;  see the Condon Report, where this is done.

|> and trying to explain
|> away every single persuasive-sounding UFO experience would be a
|> full-time occupation.
|> 
|> Maybe the scientific consunsus about polywater, cold fusion, N-rays,
|> telepathy, and UFOs is because those subjects really are delusions, or
|> maybe it's because the scientific establishment is nothing more than a
|> lynch mob; everyone will have to make up their own mind on that
|> question.  Still, I think it's quite clear that that consensus exists.
|> If someone asks a general question about cold fusion, I think it's
|> simple honesty to mention that consensus before delving into all sorts
|> of technical details about individual experiments.

 ...
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudencourt cudfnJohn cudlnLewis cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.10 / Tom Droege /  Re: Return of the experimenter?
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Return of the experimenter?
Date: 10 Aug 1994 17:32:41 GMT
Organization: fermilab

In article <1994Aug9.080338.1@pa881a.inland.com>, 
schlichting@pa881a.inland.com says:
>
>Tom, Dieter, Bernecly, others --
>
>I am very happy to see the discussion return to the technical...

Much deleted

>Question 3.  How do you measure loading.  I have had some disussions with
>        others on this NET to disuss this very item....I am unhappy
>        with the answers to date...  There doesn't appear to be a simple
>        inexpensive method to confirm Hydrogen, Deuterium loading
>        above the 0.83 % mark.... How do we confirm and measure
>        High H, or D to metal ratios  ???
>

There are two good ways and a few impractical ones.

1) McKubre uses resistance measurement.  Many of his cells are built so 
that he can make a good resistance measurement.  I don't like this very
much because of all the leads that have to enter a cell.  It takes a good
laboratory with the ability to fabricate leakproof glass to metal seals.  
You have to believe McKubre's argument that once above .7 D/Pd or so that 
the loading curve never goes back down the up side.  It is also hard to 
accept that this is not a strong function of the way a particular sample 
fractures under the intense loading.  

2)  My method.  For each 2 D/H that enters the Pd, one O is left over.  If 
you can somehow seal everything up so that no gas escapes then one simply 
needs to measure the excess gas, and correct for ideal gas law things.  
This technique seems to work quite well over short periods of time.  The 
problem is that the gas space in a cell becomes 50% or so oxygen on a 
typical run.  This high concentration of oxygen wants to interract with 
something.  So if it can find something in a cell to react with it does.  
Possibly this technique can be improved with good advice from chemists on 
the cell construction.  For all my experiments that did not suffer from 
leaks, the measured loading decreased over time.  Most probably due to 
loss of oxygen from the system.  Some evidence for the formation of 
platinates, but I do not know that this is an explanation.

3) Remove the cathode from the cell periodically and weigh it.  This 
certainly prevents using 2) as a check.  Also hard to keep all the leads 
the same for 1) (but not impossible).  The big problem is that this method
assumes that H/D diffuses out of the cathode sample, which gives enough 
time to get the sample out to a scale.  I have observed large sudden 
outgassing of samples, of order 10%-20%.  In seconds.  Particularly true 
at large loadings.  So I do not think this methods gives anything but a 
lower limit of loading achieved.

4)  Measure the energy balance as the sample is loaded.  This would be 
great as a check on 2) if we really knew the heat of absorption of Pd as a 
function of loading.  If I build a new calorimeter, I will try to make 
this measurement and add it to the literature.  I figure that by using one 
oz bars I can make a 1% measurement with the new design.  
 
>Can we focus our combined attention on the technical side of of
>the CF phenomenon ??
>

You bet.  More fun even if we don't end up doing anything.

>Thanks for returning to a higher level of conversation...
>
>Mark Schlichting 

Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.10 / Tom Droege /  Re: experiment
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: experiment
Date: 10 Aug 1994 17:45:05 GMT
Organization: fermilab

In article <1994Aug10.014203.13431@iglou.com>, chuck@iglou.iglou.com 
(Chuck Sites) says:
>

Much deleted

>
>If we can achive a high temperature Bose condensate, I'm convinced there 
will 
>be some *very* interesting nuclear and electrical effects. It's a good 
working
>hypothisis IMHO.  Tom count me in. If you need a site for internet 
connection
>to do the online expriment, I can arrange and set up the http site.    
>     
>

Seems to me we should look for sensitive, powerful tests using radiation.

In some very early runs, we had both the gas measurement servo running and 
a scintillation counter. For a set of runs where I thought that I was 
observing excess heat, there was a 7 sigma effect between gas direction 
and counts in the NaI(Tl) counter.  The theory being that if a local 
reaction took place it would blow some gas out of the sample.  In later 
tests I did not have all the required stuff running to check this again.

If such a test could be repeated it would be very convincing, and could 
dig tiny signal out of a high background radiation level.

>Have Fun,
>Chuck Sites
>chuck@iglou.iglou.com
>

Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.10 / L Plutonium /  PHYSICAL EVIDENCES FOR SPONTANEOUS NEUTRON MATERIALIZATION 
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.electromag,alt.sci.physics.plutonium
Subject: PHYSICAL EVIDENCES FOR SPONTANEOUS NEUTRON MATERIALIZATION 
Date: 10 Aug 1994 20:22:39 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

	PHYSICAL EVIDENCES FOR SPONTANEOUS NEUTRON MATERIALIZATION (SNM). 
	(1) MUON CATALYZED FUSION.  The conventional physics community is in
agreement over this form of fusion and readily accepts it. It was
theoretically proposed by Frank and Sakharov in the late 1940's. Then
Alvarez et al at Berkeley experimentally observed muon catalyzed
fusion.
	Muon catalyzed fusion is the pivotal experiment to my theoretical
understanding of what induces radioactive spontaneous neutron
materialization. But where as the physics community thinks that in muon
catalyzed experiments that muatoms of hydrogen isotopes bring about
after several quantum steps the fusing together of atoms of helium,
there theoretical thinking is wrong.  What is really going on are
several quantum steps of radioactive spontaneous neutron
materialization.
	Muon Catalyzed Fusion is physically Muon Induced Radioactive
Spontaneous Neutron Materialization. Instead of requiring a changing
electric potential difference V with a VandeGraaff machine, or running
a changing electric current  i  through atoms to yield SNM. It is the
muon itself which already supplies the changing V or the changing  i.
Changing is important for the induction of SNM. As important as in the
laws of electromagnetism. For example, in Faraday's law of induction a
changing magnetic field is required. And in Ampere's law of induction
as extended by Maxwell, a changing electric field or current are
required. The changing i or V is the PULSING which Canon has used in
their patent, but which my patent has priority rights.
	Now consider a muon. A muon is just an extended electron, a big
electron.  When a muon forms a muatom, the muon in the muatom is its
own variable VandeGraaff machine already within the muatom. Or a muon
is a variable electric current within the muatom. Hence when there are
muons in any particular sample of hydrogen isotopes, some of those
muons will induce spontaneous materialization of neutrons from out of
nowhere resulting in a net energy to the whole system.
  (2) Reifenschweiler Radiation is spontaneous neutron materialization
from out of nowhere. Those newly created neutrons change the chemical
composition of the test matter which then increases the RATE of decay
of the test matter.
  (3) Sonoluminescence is Spontaneous Neutron Materialization resulting
in an increase in energy within the experiment. A violation of the
conservation of energy/mass.  Both Reifenschweiler Radiation and
Sonoluminescence will educate the present physics community into
discovery of the catalyst, the induction to spontaneous neutron
materialization, SNM which is cold fusion, only a better name is
radioactivities. We must find the maximum SNM induction to manufacture
Neutron Materialization Power Plants. Both Reifenschweiler Radiation
and Sonoluminescence are steps towards finding the maximum induction of
SNM. I conjecture that as the Sun SNMs hydrogen into helium. That if we
use hydrogen gas or liquefied hydrogen and helium, that cold fusion
will duplicate the fusion found in the Sun.
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.10 / L Plutonium /  PULSING IN COLD FUSION
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.electromag,alt.sci.physics.plutonium
Subject: PULSING IN COLD FUSION
Date: 10 Aug 1994 20:51:03 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

Maxwell's Equations (M.E.) are: 
	Gauss's Law for electricity. CoulombUs Law a subset.
	Gauss's Law for magnetism.
 Faraday's Law of Induction: If you change a magnetic field, you
produce an electric field.
	Ampere's Law plus MaxwellUs Law of Induction : If you change an
electric field, or produce a current, or	both, you produce a magnetic
field.
 
  IN MY USA PATENT APPLICATION OF 1991, I CLAIMED THAT COLD FUSION IS
SPONTANEOUS NEUTRON MATERIALIZATION DEVICES (SNM) INDUCED BY CHANGING
ELECTRIC CURRENT i OR CHANGING ELECTRIC POTENTIAL DIFFERENCE V. There
is a symmetry in the Maxwell Equations as noted in Faraday's Law
compared to Ampere's Law. The symmetry exists with magnetic field and
electric field. 
In cold fusion there is a symmetry with radioactivity (R) and
electromagnetism (EM). Changing EM induces R. By changing electric
current i or electric potential V, produces R, specifically,
spontaneous neutron materialization. 
  My patent application was clear on this art. Pons & Fleischmann have
not done anything new to the art, no explanation and no method of
induction. I have. Pons & Fleischmann only borrowed the same art from
Paneth & Peters 1926 and from Tanberg 1927.
  Now, Canon has received a patent on cold fusion. The only thing new
to the art that Canon has demonstrated is PULSING. Pulsing is changing
i or changing V. I challenge Canon's European patent. My patent
application (rejected in the USA because of over-bias by DoE and patent
officials) of two NEW claims to the art of cold fusion (1) SNM
(explanation of the art) and (2) Pulsing takes priority and precedence
over Canon, over Pons & Fleischmann. My two new claims are the only
thing new since Paneth and Peters in Berlin in 1926. If Canon requires
me, or the USA patent office and DoE, require me to sue them over my
rightful claims, so be it, only it will be for alot more than $US 5
million.

> In article <316dmm$sdc@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
> Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium) writes:
> 
> > I quote from NEW SCIENTIST 25JUN1994, page 23 Patents,  " Cold Fusion
> > rides again " 
> >         " COLD fusion is the latest topic on the agenda of the Japanese
> > company Canon, best known for cameras, bubblejet printers and other
> > office equipment.
> >         In 1989 Martin Fleischman and Stanley Pons claimed that fusion could
> > be initiated at room temperature by electrolysing heavy water (which
> > contains disproportionate amounts of the hydrogen isotope deuterium)
> > with a titanium or palladium cathode. But the Japanese were worried
> > about the risk of an explosion caused by high gas pressure.
> >         Canon's patent (EP 568 118) claims new ways to absorb large volumes of
> > deuterium in a metal carrier, by putting it close to a pair of
> > electrodes to create a gas discharge in a hydrogen-filled chamber. Cold
> > fusion is promoted by cycling the power supply through low and high
> > voltages.
> >         The carrier can be a block of magnesium alloy or palladium alloy. For
> > safety, the hydrogen gas is at atmospheric pressure. The pulsed power
> > comes from large capacitors, and the electrodes are shaped to
> > concentrate the electric field.
> >         After storing deuterium in a palladium alloy for 60 minutes, says
> > Canon, the deuterium content had increased, with a tenfold increase in
> > gamma ray emission after 120 hours. Applying five-minute cycles of 5
> > and 500 volts DC for 50 hours produced a twentyfold increase in
> > emission. More heat was generated at the negative electrode than the
> > electric energy consumed at the two electrodes. All this, says Canon,
> > proves that cold fusion works. " Nuclear fusion can be occasioned
> > relatively easily . . . and thus a method for multiplying heat energy
> > capable of generating a sufficiently large quantity of heat energy for
> > a practical application," it claims. "
> > --------------------------------------------------------
> >   The Plutonium Atom Foundation challenges/disputes/(and if need be,
> > will sue) over this patent granted to Canon. 
> >   I, Ludwig Plutonium had filed for USA patent Patent 
> > Ser. No.: 07/737,170
> > 
> > Filing Date: 07/29/91
> >  SPONTANEOUS NEUTRON MATERIALIZATION DEVICES (SNMD) 
> >                         CLAIM FOR THE INVENTION
> > 
> >         I claim: 
> >         1. Devices constructed, engineered, and set-up for the purpose of
> > deriving, and using net energy from radioactive spontaneous neutron
> > materialization. 
> >         2. A method for induction of radioactive spontaneous neutron
> > materialization comprising:
> >         a changing electric current i flow through the fuel mass
> >         a changing electric potential difference V through the fuel mass.
> > ---------------------------------------------------
> > That above is what was claimed in that patent. The history of cold
> > fusion-- The History of Cold Fusion is summarized as such: F. Paneth
> > and K. Peters in Berlin in 1926; J. Tanberg of Sweden 1927; M.
> > Fleischmannn and S. Pons et al in Utah in 1989. What Canon has found in
> > experiments is nothing "new" as per cold fusion experiments.
> > Fleischmann and Pons experiments are nothing "new" as per Paneth and
> > Peters.
> > 
> > What Canon has done which is new and patentable is PULSING. This
> > pulsing is nothing more than changing electric current i or changing V
> > as per my patent application.That was 1/2 of my patent application.
> > Canon, and noone else has come up with what "cold fusion" (a bad choice
> > of terms because cold fusion and hot fusion are really
> > electromagnetism/radioactivities on a higher level than Maxwell Eq
> > theory), except me. Cold fusion is radioactive spontaneous neutron
> > materialization. 
> > 
> > So then, Canon's patent (EP 568 118) amounts to theft of intellectual
> > and patent application rights of Ludwig Plutonium.
> > 
> > I respectfully request that Canon officials meet with me. I will sell
> > them all patent rights and claims to Patent Application Ser. No.:
> > 07/737,170. PAF's price is 5 million USA worth of Canon stock shares.
> > This is serious business. Sincerely, Ludwig Plutonium

cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.10 / L Plutonium /  PANETH & PETERS DISCOVERED COLD FUSION FIRST
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.electromag,alt.sci.physics.plutonium
Subject: PANETH & PETERS DISCOVERED COLD FUSION FIRST
Date: 10 Aug 1994 21:07:53 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

   From E&TR October 1990. 
    "  1926 Fritz Paneth and Kurt Peters in Berlin first claim to have
observed the fusion of hydrogen under pressure to form helium in finely
divided palladium metal. It was already well known at the time that
certain metals such as palladium can absorb large quantities of
hydrogen. In a short note immediaelty following this claim, Nature
issued the statement: " This announcement, if correct, is of great
importance and will evoke even more intereest than the claim by Miethe
and Stammereich to have transmuted mercury into gold...Belief or
disbelief in the ...message must be reserved pending further and more
definite evidence." After substantial criticisms and further studies,
the two researchers withdrew the claim of helium synthesis."
    "  1927 The Swedish scientist John Tanberg proposes using
electrolysis to force hydrogen into palladium metal. After obtaining
heavy water from Niels Bohr in 1932, he filled palladium rods with
deuterium by electrolysis and then applied a large electric current to
heat the palladium. He warned coworkers to go home during the
experiments after calculting that all the deuterium would be equivalent
to 1000kg of dynamite, if exploded. He observed no effect. "

   I disagree with those people who claim Pons & Fleischmann discovered
cold fusion first. And anyone reading the physics history can see that
the Howl of the Boeitians was just as fierce in the past as it was
shortly after the 1989 Pons & Fleischmann announcement. It is obvious
to me from reading the above
that these researchers had the intention of gaining energy. They were
after a new source of energy. All the more remarkable since it comes
before
the nuclear fission industry by about 20 years. And although these
early
researchers did not have a term such as "cold fusion", they were
seeking the same phenomenon as post 1989 researchers.
  Hence, I reaffirm my statement that what Pons and Fleishmann were
after in "cold fusion" was nothing new to the art from what Paneth &
Peters, and Tanberg sought. And all of those patent claims by Pons &
Fleischmann are practically null and void because Paneth and Peters
were first. 
   What is new to the art of cold fusion is an explanation and an
engineering technique which induces it. This is what I bring which is
new to the art started by Paneth & Peters, advertised and given
worldwide publicity by Pons & Fleischmann -- but nothing new as per
Paneth & Peters. I give the explanation as
(1) spontaneous neutron materialization (SNM). And what is new to the
art is a technique of inducing SNM which I claim is by running a
variable electric current i or changing electric potential difference V
through the fuel mass. This is merely PULSING, which Canon has verified
to be true.
  If the Nobel ever decides to give a Nobel prize for "cold fusion"
then they are too late since Paneth & Peters are gone. The Nobel should
not give a prize to Pons & Fleischmann since there work only
reintroduced Paneth & Peters work. The Nobel prize for "cold fusion"
thus, only rightfully should go to Ludwig Plutonium for finding the
correct explanation and means of inducing SNM which is cold fusion.
   According to my theory of SNM every fuel mass shows this phenomenon.
It is not restricted to hydrogen with palladium or titanium substitute.
The phenomenon of SNM will work with just pure iron as a fuel mass and
no
water or heavy water, just pure iron.
    All that needs to be researched and reported is the presence of
"new heavier isotopes" in the SNM fuel mass which was not present
before the pulsing. This will confirm SNM and the violation of
conservation of energy/mass. Then what needs to be done is to find what
fuel mass under what pulsing conditions enables the fuel mass to
maximize (be lit) SNM. SNM is a form of radioactivity as per Dirac in
Directions in Physics.
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.10 / Ad aspera /  Calling FYI, WHAT'S NEW, and PNUP readers
     
Originally-From: JTCHEW@lbl.gov (Ad absurdum per aspera)
Newsgroups: sci.research,sci.space.policy,sci.physics.fusion,sci.astro,sci.materials
Subject: Calling FYI, WHAT'S NEW, and PNUP readers
Date: 10 Aug 1994 21:53:42 GMT
Organization: Purely personal 'pinions


Periodic poll (reply by e-mail, please):
Is there any desire for me to continue posting WHAT'S NEW,
FYI, and PHYSICS NEWS UPDATE to sci.research and other
newsgroups, or does everybody who cares either subscribe
by e-mail or get them from one of the FTP sites?

Thanks,
--Joe  
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenJTCHEW cudfnAd cudlnaspera cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.09 / Alan Newman /  Re: Randell L. Mills and hydrinos
     
Originally-From: alan@geg.mot.com (Alan Newman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Randell L. Mills and hydrinos
Date: 9 Aug 94 17:44:07
Organization: /u2/newman/.organization

In article <326nts$ort@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> 
al789@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John Logajan) writes:

   In a previous article, alan@geg.mot.com (Alan Newman) says:

   >GPS navigation systems compensate for relativistic time.

   Hmm, the speed of light was known B.E. (before Einstein.)  I think when
   people refer to general relativity they are speaking of a specific
   set of predictions made by the good Doktor, predictions which went
   beyond his earlier SR (special relativity.)

   The finite speed of light was not predicted by either GR or SR, since
   it was already a known quantity for a century or more.

I meant what I said.  For GPS to work, distance to a satellite is not
just the speed of light divided by the signal's time delay.  Compensation
is continually made for stratospheric "bending", ionospheric "slowing", 
time "dilation", etc.

  /\  /\  /\  /\  /\M. Alan Newman, Motorola, Scottsdale AZ  /\  /\  /\  /\  /\
\/  \/  \/^^\/  \/  alan@geg.mot.com   Speaking for myself.\/  \/  \/^^\/  \/
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenalan cudfnAlan cudlnNewman cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.11 / Bill Page /  Re: I'm not in this / Bohm, pilot waves, and lousy SciAm articles
     
Originally-From: 70047.3047@compuserve.com (Bill Page)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: I'm not in this / Bohm, pilot waves, and lousy SciAm articles
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 1994 00:14:55 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Terry Bollinger writes:
<<
Breaking in briefly because figures quoting $ks of personal money worry me.
>>

Welcome back Terry, some of us have badly missed your inputs. Why only "breaking
in briefly"? Why not get back into some serious s.p.f discussions?

Well here goes anyway. I'm hoping you and of course anyone else reading this may
have the time and inclination to respond.

<<
JUST A REMINDER REGARDING "A TWIST OF RIBBON"

a. Count my earlier work out!

It has come to my attention that folks in this group have recently been
advocating experiments based on delocalization and expensive techniques such as
single-crystal palladium.
>> 

Hmmm... <grin> never did take that work seriously! Actually, it was before my
time. About expensive techniques. Well, I don't think anyone is about to plunk
down a bunch of money just to play around with single-crystal palladium... then
again, it takes all kinds.  If its there money why worry - unless you think some
is being badly mis-informed. I don't think this is the case.

<<
...

c. A shot in the dark

Those boundary areas remain.  Alas, the incentive to explore them for the
specific purpose of explaining a very few plausible reports of high-energy,
clearly non-chemical events has since departed.  The boundary areas remain just
as fascinating, but in retrospect I would place the odds of finding the Pons and
Fleischmann class of "clean non-chemical heat" events within those boundary
regions of quantum physics to be a very, very close to nil.

I would note that while I do admire an interest in genuine experimentation in
palladium anomalies, I no longer see any reason to consider them more likely to
be non-chemical in nature than most of the many classes of novel chemical
reactions one may find in any standard chemical text.

Good luck to all of you, at any rate.
>>

Since quantum mechanics and even those "boundary regions of quantum mechanics"
have implications for chemistry, I'm not sure what you mean by "non-chemical in
nature". If you mean "unlikely to exceed the energies involved in known chemical
reactions", well then thats clear, but if thats your opinion, then of course,
its just your opinion. As to those boundry regions, I don't see how we can make
such a judgement call about what is likely to be found there unless we make a
visit!

<<
DAVID BOHM, PILOT WAVES, AND A TRULY LOUSY SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN ARTICLE

a. Pilot waves

By the way, those of you who are now advocating the David Bohm's variant of
DeBroglie's pilot wave theory as some sort of general purpose fix to palladium
anomalies in general and "delocalized" wave functions in particular may want to
be a bit careful.  In particular, the particles in pilot wave theory behave
_more_ conventionally, not less, and the concept of "particle delocalization" as
such flatly disappears.  Particles don't even tunnel in the usual sense of the
word in pilot wave theory; they are simply sucked through barriers quite
conventionally by an attraction area in the pilot wave, which (as in standard
Schroedinger-style QM) may extend to the other side of a barrier.  
>>

[Not being inclined to debate the pedigree of the concept, I'll use the phrase
"pilot wave model" when talking about these particulare theories and
interpretations by De Broglie, Bohm, Bell, Hiley and many others.]

Double hmmm... I think that lately the only one around here talking about pilot
waves happens to be me and I'm sure I never said anything like that it was a
general purpose fix for anything. Although the pilot wave model also came up in
the discussion of Vigier's ICCF4 paper, most recently I have been looking at it
as a way of clearing up the confusion over the concept of delocalization. And as
to being a bit careful, well yes, I think I have been quite cautious not to make
any over blown statements and I've attempted to back things up with the detailed
mathematics for those so inclined.

And as to "delocalized" wave functions, well, if we are talking about wave
functions then I don't see whats at issue. Wave functions are just certain
complex valued functions of the configuration space coordinates (usually only
the spatial coordinates). In the terminology that Dick Blue and I have agreed
on, we can say that a wave function is delocalized if its non-zero spatial
extend exceeds some fixed size - say the atomic radius. What is at issue is when
(or if) you can sensibly talk about a *particle* as being delocalized.
Chubb&Chubb as well as many other recent authors in physics have been talking as
if one can. I find this usage vague and confusing. And so, I like the pilot wave
model because it says, as you point out, that the appropriate answer is "no,
particles are *classical particles*, there is no such thing as the
"delocalization of a particle", by the definitions alone, such a notion is an
absurdity. This is very clear. But the cost of being so clear and still
maintaining that there are such things as particles is that we must introduce
the quantum potential into the dynamical equations. And the quantum potential
does have *nonlocal* characteristics. It is really nonlocality and not
delocalization that one needs to be concerned about.

<<
(A pilot wave is sort of a very odd attractive field whose position in space is
independent of the exact position of the particle from which it "emanates".)
>>

I don't agree at all with this definition of a pilot wave. See my recent
postings for details.

<<
And if you follow the route of trying to create a pilot wave attraction between
the two deuterons, guess what?  You find yourself back with exactly the same set
of
Schroedinger wave equations that have been beaten to death in this group over
the last few years.  In short, as the saying goes, there is no free lunch --
it's just very, very hard to get two deuterons to bang into each other at close
range.
>>

The pilot wave model is just an *interpretation* of Schrodinger's wave equation
and the rest of quantum mechanics, so it should come as not surprize that that's
were we end up. I sincerely doubt, however, that this group (or even all
theoretical physics for that matter) has "beaten to death" the consequences of
the quantum theory. In short, your "in short" statement is too short! <grin>

<<
The bottom line is that if you read over what Bohm has to say about
configuration spaces in _Quantum Theory_, it is very difficult not to come to
the conclusion that Bohm would have taken a pretty dim view indeed of something
like the Chubb/Chubb theory, in which the Chubb team tries to assign special
meaning to "overlapping" wave functions of isolated particles.  Bohm would
almost certainly have scolded them for not fully understanding how ordinary
constraints such as like-charge repulsion simply translate over into the full 3N
pilot wave model.
>>

Well, yes, I think it is fair to say that Chubb&Chubb's (as well as many other
authors) interpretations of quantum mechanics leave a lot to be desired. But
then the purpose of an *interpretation* is as an intuitive guide to
understanding. When it comes to calculations in the quantum mechanical
formalism, well, that is either done rightly or wrongly depending only on how
good your training was and how good a calculator you are. An interpretation only
is an aid into suggesting how one should apply ones calculating skills. Now,
even a crummy interpretation can make such suggestions. The trick is to not let
it influence you to make mistakes in the the calculations. So far I have been
unable to find any mistakes in Chubb&Chubb's calculations.

The notion of "overlapping" wavefunctions in many-particle quantum systems is
just another example of these vague non sequitur type of concepts. Useful,
maybe, but not clear mathematically. Except for the approximatin of
separability, a quantum system is properly described by just one wave function -
a superposition of its quantum "states". So the notion of overlapping must have
something to do with this approximation. I.e., first we make an approximation
that some components of a quantum system behave completely independently of some
other components, then when we express the (approximate) wavefunction of the
whole system as a product of its components, we notice that the component wave
functions are not really independent of each other. Hmmm. So what?

Terry, I think you are guilty of putting words in Bohm's (unfortunately a dead
man's) mouth. I highly recommend that you take the time to read the book
published posthumously by David Bohm and B.J. Hiley, titled "The Undivided
Universe", Routledge, 1993. It makes Bohm's position on the meaning of quantum
mechanics very clear and anwers questions like how classical potentials like the
Coulomb repulsion relates to the rest of the quantum dynamics.

<<
c. Bohm and Mysticism

This is not to say that Bohm didn't have his _own_ peculiar fish to fry,
incidentally.  In his later years Bohm got very wrapped up in a curiously
mystical interpretation of his own pilot wave model, deciding that every
particle in the universe needed "knowledge" of every other particle, so as to
keep track of all the needed Bell correlations of quantum events.
>>

I think you may be confusing what one might call neo-Bohmism, with what Bohm
himself has said. It is true that Bohm was very interested in Eastern Mysticism,
but none of that comes out in his technical writing. Bohm&Hiley do introduce the
conept of "active information" in which the wavefunction is thought of as
containing nonlocal information on the state of the overall quantum system as
well as the notion that particles somehow "move on their own" - like ships -
responding according to the quidance condition as the wavefunction evolves.
Although this is rather strange, I wouldn't call it mystical. Bohm&Hiley argue,
quite convincingly I think, that the concept of "active information" is a common
and well understood notion in every day intuitive usage. One might even relate
it to the notions of control signals and digital logic in modern computer
systems. Its just that this particular concept has not (yet) found its way into
theoretical physics.

<<
d. A badly researched/edited/reviewed Scientific American article on Bohm

I would note that I personally took a very dim view of the recent Scientific
American article that supposedly advocated David Bohm's view of quantum theory.
Whoever wrote that little diatribe either didn't know or didn't care about the
full physics history of David Bohm and pilot wave theory, as evidenced by his
claim that pilot wave theory was "pragmatic" and didn't lead to any odd issues
or contradictions.  Balderdash.
>>

David Z. Albert wrote the article in Scientific American and he also wrote what
I thought was a very good book on the quantum theory of measurement entitled
"Quantum Mechanics and Experience", Havard University Press, 1992. You are very
scathing indeed concerning his very short article in Scientific American. I
think you would be hard pressed to argue that Albert was not aware of the full
history of the theory. I think the word "pragmatic" was used by Albert to say
that Bohm's interpretation of quantum mechanics was much more "intuitive" then
the conventional interpretation and that choosing an intuitive interpretation
was "pragmatic", i.e. took cogniscence of our limitations as human beings to
understand things of a purely mathematical nature and took advantage of our
natural ability to use intuitive ways of thinking (ah, whatever that means).

<<
e. Pilot wave theory looks extremely weak when compared to QED

Pilot wave theory, which is really due more to DeBroglie than to Bohm anyway, is
an intriguing example of what happens when people absolutely insist on
everything having an ordinary visualization in terms of ordinary objects.  In
the case of pilot wave theory it has proved to be a useful visualization -- Bell
himself claims that it is what helped him find Bell's inequality -- but it has
also led to a variety of curious additions and complications that add nothing
mathematically to QM predictions and take away a very great deal --
specifically, relativistic QM, which has yet to be added to pilot wave theory.
In contrast, Feynman's inherently relativistic and conceptually very pristine
QED theory demonstrates far more real pragmatism than pilot wave theory is every
likely to obtain. Feynman simply said "here are a few simple rules that work for
all the experiments we can come up with, so let's use them." Feynman took the
mystery of QED at face value and marveled in how strange they were, never giving
up his curiousity about them.  But he never succumbed to trying to "demystify"
them by _forcing_ them into the conventional images of the world of physics on
the large scale in which we exist from day to day. As Einstein aptly said, and
which I suspect Feynman would have agree with, that would have been too cheap of
a solution.
>>

What are these "curious additions and complications"? Regarding relativistic QM,
you should really check out the Bohm&Hiley book. It contains a lot of previously
unpublished material on the relativistic treatment of the pilot wave model. It
looks pretty complete to me, but I do still have a lot to learn.

I've got nothing at all against Feynman. As a matter of fact, Feynman's own path
integral approach to quantum mechanics is mentioned in the closing chapter of
the Bohm&Hiley book in relation to the deeper issues of "where to go from here"
in quantum mechanics. But I don't think Feynman was really so "pragmatic" in the
sense you mean it above and I do take issue with your idea that Feynman "never
succumbed to trying to demystify" QED. See for example Feynman's popular little
book "QED - the strange theory of light and matter". Of course, I do agree that
contemplating mysteries and being curious about them is an inherent part of what
phycists do and I don't think Bohm had any different view on this than any other
physicist.

<<
Decades of close examination of his own equations led David Bohm to go far out
on a
profoundly off-beat philosophical limb in his later years, to the point that he
began giving keynote addresses to the very kinds of mystical societies from
which (according to the author of that Scientific American article) Bohm's
"pragmatic" pilot wave theory would protect quantum physicists.  Nor was
opposition to Bohm's theory purely political, as the author of that article
seemed to suggest.  The greatest, most insightful, and most persistent
antagonist of all time to the Copenhagen (Bohr) interpretation of quantum
mechanics was none other than Albert Einstein, who looked over Bohm's theory and
gave it this analysis: "Too cheap."  In
sharp contrast, Einstein was challenged and stimulated by the very deep-thinking
Bohr literally until they both died.  The last notes on Bohr's blackboard before
he passed away consisted of notes about arguments with Einstein on the subject
of quantum interpretation.
>>

Ah, do quantum physicists really need protection from mystical societies?

On the subject of Einstein. Do you really think that is what Einstein meant by
"Too cheap"? It is interesting to note that many of De Broglie's original
thoughts on the pilot wave model (as recorded in his book "Non-linear Quantum
Mechanics" originally published in French and available in an English
translation) related directly to special relativity and J.P. Vigier (the very
same one who is now interested in cold fusion) has continued to do research in
this area.

On the political side, interestingly, Albert included in his article a sidebar
about Bohm's work with Oppenhiemer and his later run-in with the 1950's style
thought police resulting in his forced expulsion from the US to Brazil. Sad
story, that! Bohm was in Brazil just about the time the Argentineans annouced
they had a working nuclear fusion reactor ... Nah, couldn't be, could it?

Cheers,

Bill Page.

PS. A note to Terry Bollinger: Terry, I hope you don't find my comments too
abrasive and that you don't object to my cutting and pasteing almost all of your
recent article into my own comments on these issues. I don't mean to sound
arrogant or dismissive. And I really would like to continue this discussion with
you and others. Please reconsider your earlier decision to quit the s.p.f
discussions and carry on with you very thoughtful and thought provoking
contributions. Thanks again for your recent post to s.p.f.


cudkeys:
cuddy11 cuden3047 cudfnBill cudlnPage cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.10 / Ad aspera /  FYIs 123 and 125 (Misc. physics and energy committee actions)
     
Originally-From: JTCHEW@lbl.gov (Ad absurdum per aspera)
Newsgroups: sci.research,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.accelerators,sci.energy
Subject: FYIs 123 and 125 (Misc. physics and energy committee actions)
Date: 10 Aug 1994 23:42:19 GMT
Organization: Relayed, not written, by Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory


[Written by individuals at the American Institute of Physics and
merely posted by me, so respond to <fyi@aip.org> or other
references below.  Always posted here on sci.research; sometimes
crossposted to an eclectic and hopefully appropriate selection
of other newsgroups, with followups directed here. Back issues
may be ftp'd from NIC.HEP.NET, along with PHYSICS NEWS UPDATE
and the American Physical Society news/opinion column WHAT'S NEW;
or from pinet.aip.org. Enjoy! -jc]

Promise and Peril: Physics Bill Nearing Vote on House Floor

FYI No. 123, August 9, 1994

Within the next few days the full House should consider H.R. 4908,
the Hydrogen, Fusion, and High Energy and Nuclear Physics Research
Act of 1994.  H.R. 4908 is a combination of earlier fusion, high
energy, and nuclear physics authorization bills.

Looming over the bill is an amendment which Rep. Bob Walker (R-PA)
is expected to offer.  If approved, the Walker amendment would cap
the authorization levels of the DOE's General Science and Research
Activities and its Energy Supply Research and Development
Activities.  This cap of $4.29 billion for the years FY 1995
through FY 1999 would result, according to one estimate, in a cut
each year of 3-6% in buying power for these Activities as compared
to comparable levels in the FY 1995 DOE appropriations bill.

There was a flurry of activity surrounding these bills in the last
few days.  Last Tuesday, the House Subcommittee on Energy held a
hearing on fusion to receive testimony from DOE and other witnesses
about the status of the fusion program, its outlook, and comments
on a bill running along the lines of Senate-passed S. 646.  Two
goals are identified in the House bill: a demonstration fusion
reactor by 2010, and production of commercial fusion power by 2040.
A Program Director for Alternative Fusion Research would be
established, and a review required by the National Academy of
Sciences.  ITER and TPX language is included, as well as
authorization levels.   Associate Director for Fusion Energy, N.
Anne Davies, said DOE generally supports this legislation.

The next day, August 3, the full House science committee marked-up
the fusion bill and H.R. 4684, the DOE High Energy and Nuclear
Physics Authorization Act of 1994 (see FYIs #104, 105 and 115.)
Chairman George Brown (D-CA) moved this mark up very rapidly,
saying that he wanted to get this bill passed by the House and then
on to a conference with Senator J. Bennett Johnston (D-LA).
Referring to Johnston's sometimes reluctance to pass authorization
bills, Brown said the committee should "accept the open hand of Mr.
Johnston."  The mark up of the bills went quickly, with the
committee finally voting to combine the text of the fusion and
physics bills into a new bill, now called H.R. 4908.

The result is a authorization bill establishing federal policy for
DOE's fusion, high energy physics, nuclear physics, and hydrogen
research programs.  It also establishes authorization levels.  It
is important to remember that these levels give DOE permission to
spend, but not the actual funding itself (this being contained in
appropriations bills.)  It is these authorization levels that Rep.
Walker wants to cap through his amendment to be offered on the
House floor.  Amendments to cut spending are popular in Congress,
especially with freshman representatives wanting to demonstrate
their desire to control the deficit.

The vote on the Walker Amendment to cap authorization levels in
H.R. 4908, the Hydrogen, Fusion and High Energy and Nuclear Physics
Research Act of 1994, is expected within the next few days.  The
telephone number for the U.S. House of Representatives is
202-224-3121.




DOE Appropriations Bill:  Conference Report

FYI No. 125, August 10, 1994

On August 4, members of the House-Senate conference committee on
H.R. 4506, the fiscal year 1995 Energy and Water Development
Appropriations bill, reached agreement on a conference report.
This report now must be voted on by both chambers.  This FYI
contains funding amounts and selected report language on provisions
of interest to physicists.

Conference report funding (in millions of dollars):

                    Request   House     Senate    Conference

Fusion energy       372.6     376.6     362.6     372.6

Basic Energy Sci    741.3     747.3     744.3     747.3
   Materials Sci    274.2                         275.7

Adv Neutron Source   40.0      21.0      21.0      21.0

High Energy Phys    621.9     646.9     631.5     646.9

Nuclear Physics     300.8     334.7     334.7     334.7

SSC term. costs     143.5       ---       ---       ---


Below is report language on selected provisions:

MAGNETIC FUSION

"It is the intent of the conferees that the Tokamak Physics
Experiment (TPX) project proceed with design activity only,
including industrial participation in the engineering design and
research and development and includes $42,000,000 for this
activity.  The conferees recognize the very significant scientific
accomplishments of the deuterium-tritium (D-T) experiments on the
Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor (TFTR) in support of the ITER design,
and it is the intent of the conferees that these important
experiments continue until construction of TPX is approved.
Therefore, in fiscal year 1995, $65,000,000 is provided for
continuation of TFTR experiments.  $8,000,000 is included for the
PBX-M program.  With regard to TPX design, the Department of Energy
is directed to use standard, phased industrial contracts for these
design activities, with options for construction that would permit
continuity and would allow the project to be completed in the most
efficient and cost-effective manner.  $2,000,000 may be used for
the purchase of long lead-time superconducting material critical to
maintaining the schedule of the project.

"The conferees also provide $52,000,000 for the DIII-D Tokamak
facility and $8,700,000 for the Inertial Confinement Fusion program
including an increase of $2,000,000 for the induction linac systems
experiment (ILSE) to enable this program to proceed on a timely and
cost-effective schedule.

"Because of the large budgetary requirements needed in the future
for the fusion energy development program and other issues related
to the development of fusion as an attractive energy resource, the
conferees urge the President's Advisory Council on Science and
Technology to undertake a review and evaluation of magnetic fusion
and inertial confinement fusion energy development.  The Council is
also urged to issue a report that will help shape the direction of
the Nation's effort on these important energy sources for the
future."

ADVANCED NEUTRON SOURCE:

"The conferees recommend $20,000,000 for operating expenses and
$1,000,000 for capital equipment to continue the research and
design of the Advanced Neutron Source.  It is the intent of the
conferees that the ANS project proceed with the design activity
including immediate implementation of the planned industrial
participation in the engineering design and research and
development."

SSC TERMINATION:

"The managers on the part of the House will offer a motion to
recede and concur in [e.g., the House will be asked to agree with]
the amendment of the Senate which provides that not to exceed
$65,000,000 [of previously-appropriated funds] shall be available
as a one-time contribution for the completion, with modification,
of partially completed facilities at the Superconducting Super
Collider (SSC) project site if the [DOE] Secretary determines such
one-time contribution (i) will assist the maximization of the value
of the investment made in the facilities and (ii) is in furtherance
of a settlement of the claims that the State of Texas has asserted
against the United States in connection with the termination of the
SSC project.  No funding shall made made available as a
contribution to operating expenses of such facilities."

HIGH ENERGY AND NUCLEAR PHYSICS, BASIC ENERGY SCIENCES:

The conference report did not include language on these three
programs.  The result of this is that the Senate report language
cited in FYI #94 (High Energy Physics), FYI #95 (Nuclear Physics),
and FYI #101 (Basic Energy Sciences) serves as guidance to the
Department of Energy, subject to the changes in the appropriations
levels specified above.


###############
Public Information Division
American Institute of Physics
Contact:  Audrey T. Leath
fyi@aip.org
(301)209-3094
##END##########
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenJTCHEW cudfnAd cudlnaspera cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.10 / Richard Daniels /  Scientific Glassblowing Service
     
Originally-From: rdaniel@eis.calstate.edu (Richard Charles Daniels)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Scientific Glassblowing Service
Date: 10 Aug 1994 17:57:03 -0700
Organization: California Technology Project of The Calif State Univ

                        VER GLOW SCIENTIFIC GLASS

                *  Scientific Glassblowing Specialists
                *  Laboratory Glassblowing
                *  Glass to Saphire Seals is a Specialty
                *  New Product Consulting & Engineering
                *  Repair Work Done -RAPID TURNAROUND TIME!
                *  Free Estimates

        Darrell Glover, Owner                   9380 E. McKinley
        E-Mail: rdaniel@eis.calstate.edu        Fresno, CA  93727
                                                (209) 252-3086



--
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenrdaniel cudfnRichard cudlnDaniels cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.10 / Paul McCombes /  Re: PAF HOLDS 1ST CLAIMS OF COLD FUSION-- CORRECT SCIENCE
     
Originally-From: paul@mccombes.demon.co.uk (Paul McCombes)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.electromag
Subject: Re: PAF HOLDS 1ST CLAIMS OF COLD FUSION-- CORRECT SCIENCE
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 1994 20:44:08 +0000
Organization: None

In article <329a4j$p7m@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
           Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu "Ludwig Plutonium" writes:

> In article <776375980snz@mccombes.demon.co.uk>
> paul@mccombes.demon.co.uk (Paul McCombes) writes:
> 
> > In article <3232oa$src@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
> >            Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu "Ludwig Plutonium" writes:
> > 
> > >   MOST everyone thinks Fleischman and Pons hold 1st claims to cold
> > > fusion (bad name, because it is triggered radioactivity). This is not
> > > true. Paneth and Peters in Berlin actually did the same experiment.
> > > Then Tanberg of Sweden 1927 did the experiment in more detail. Paneth &
> > > Peters and Tanberg observed the "cold fusion" phenomenon. None of them
> > > was able to explain what was really going on, not even Fleischman and
> > > Pons and that is why the science has not progressed.
> > > [junk deleted]
> > 
> > Paneth and Peters (and later Tandberg (sic)) did similar experiments in the 
> > late twenties in which they discovered helium production when hydrogen is 
> > absorbed by finely ground palladium metal. After doing some control
>  experiments 
> > they discovered the the release of helium from glass is dependent on the 
> > presence of hydrogen (Nature vol:119 pp706 1927). They retracted
their claims > > of the production of helium from hydrogen by reaction
with palladium. This
>  was 
> > not cold fusion.
> > -- 
> > Paul McCombes
> 
>    I disagree with Paul. It is obvious to me from reading the below
> that these researches had the intention of gaining energy. They were
> after a new source of energy. All the more remarkable since it predates
> the nuclear fission industry by 20 years. And although these early
> researchers did not have a term such as "cold fusion", they were
> seeking the same phenomenon as post 1989 researchers.

Nope. They wanted the helium for the then expanding airship industry - see the 
Hindenburg disaster for reasons why.

>     "  1927 The Swedish scientist John Tanberg proposes using
> electrolysis to force hydrogen into palladium metal. After obtaining
> heavy water from Niels Bohr in 1932, he filled palladium rods with
> deuterium by electrolysis and then applied a large electric current to
> heat the palladium. He warned coworkers to go home during the
> experiments after calculting that all the deuterium would be equivalent
> to 1000kg of dynamite, if exploded. He observed no effect. "

Poetic license for a chemical explosion, methinks. 
-- 
Paul McCombes
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenpaul cudfnPaul cudlnMcCombes cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Thu Aug 11 04:37:03 EDT 1994
------------------------------
1994.08.11 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Plasmak, and Anomalous Transport
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Plasmak, and Anomalous Transport
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 1994 01:56:48 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <3255c6INN173c@sat.ipp-garching.mpg.de> bds@ipp-garching.mpg.
e (Bruce       Scott          TK  ) writes:
>This post is about the process by which a plasma confined by a magnetic
>field loses particles and energy. It is preceded by a comment from Paul
>Koloc (pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu) concerning the stability of his fusion
>concept, the plasmak. Lines by Paul are preceded by a |> symbol.
>
>First the start-up phase, essentially a process of approaching MHD
>equilibrium: 
>
>|> Coils on   then I(plasma) on.  mostly I(tor) 
>|> 
>|> Now there is  B(pol) present due to I(tor)   Bpol + Btor (coil) =
>|> B(screw)       Plasma gets hot .. and the current wants to screw..
>|> so               we have Itor (1-eta) and Ipol(eta) and I(tor) drops 
>|> 
>|> Then   Bpol drops       Then I(screw) drops  because of loss of
>|>                       I(pol) due to less Bpol 
>|>                       then I(tor) increases and the cycle can
>|>                       start again.     
>
>After the initial start-up phase:
>
>|> The theory is that a tokamak is a nasty beast that must be constrained
>|> to not screw.. (become a Spheromak), and so a huge mean toroidal
>|> confining coil  YANKS  the current back to being more toroidal after
>|> each of its promicous excursions.  This whips the fields, and that
>|> chugs the plasma with a splash that causes it to CHURN in the 
>|> central portion of the tokamak thereby mixing across the central
>|> cross-section.  This levels the radial temperture distribution and
>|> allows for fatter more stable currents to flow and not thermally
>|> "neck down" to a more kinky and whippy hotter but constricted
>|> channel.   

>First, a translation of this to normal language: "The theory is that the
>tokamak is constrained against forming a significant pitch of its magnetic
>field lines, by the action of the toroidal field coils. Since the current
>must closely follow the field lines, it is also forced to flow
>toroidally. This exerts strong MHD forces which cause a kink instability in
>the central regions, mixing them completely. The temperature profile is
>therefore kept broad, and in order to retain resistive equilibrium the
>current profile is also broad."

Yes the current must closely follow the field lines, and those flux lines
are resultant of both the poloidal coils' field and the toroidal plasma
current field it does produce some pitch. Although small, this pitch has
a significant result or effect on the interaction of various elements. 
It may be that one interpretation of this effect is the generation of
a kink instability, but I disagree and claim that in fact the effect
results in a condition which is resistant to the kink instability.  

>What you describe is the m=1 kink instability, and the associated internal
>disruption. This takes place whenever q drops below 1 on the magnetic axis,
>and it is in fact responsible for limiting the current density near the
>magnetic axis. (The total current is limited by a different sort of
>instability in the edge, which becomes unstable when the plasma beta there
>is larger than r/qR to some power; so for a given n, T, and B, this acts as
>an upper limit on q.)

That's a bit complicated for visualization.  Needed: high Btor & low Bpol.   
By having a much stronger FIXED coil driven toroidal field, flux lines
which stiffen the plasma torus, can generally keep the torus from kinking 
and even disrupting (if allowed to grow).   Basically if the toroidal
current flows through the full width of the plasma torus the current
density and poloidal flux density is lowest.  If however the current
density increases (and poloidal flux density), as when the current
shrinks toward the central region, then the central region of the plasma
is more subject to forming a growing kink (disruption).  Note, that
the kink concentrates the rings of poloidal flux on the inside of the
plasma current curve and pulls them apart on the outside.  Thus the
inside pushes with more mag pressure causing the curve to bend even
more dramatically.   

So yes the current likes to follow fields but no KINKS *** NOT ***
Nor does the kink instability does have to result in any type of 
a helical instability.  What I am saying here is that if one varies 
the value of the toroidal plasma current, correspondingly this varies 
the value of the poloidal comment of field produced by that current, 
and consequently, the pitch of the screw field.  My point is that 
the system can produce a relaxation oscillation between two toroidal
plasma current values without becoming "kink unstable".  THE FACT 
THAT THE RESULTING PLASMA TOROIDAL CURRENT WIDTH IS BROADENED by
this field whipping plasma displacements brought on by this 
oscillation process, and THEREFORE ACTUALLY BENEFITS THE PLASMA'S 
(toroidal current's) ability to stabilize against the otherwise 
occurring "kink" instability.    Note that no small radius bending 
is taking place, merely a twisting-up and snapping-untwist of the 
current's mild helical path.  

So technically, the plasma current does follow the oscillating screw 
field, but this can happen WITHOUT Kinking.  OTHERWISE, how is that 
adding a zede field to a linear pinch is kink stabilizing??  

>The problem with the above analysis is that this is not what causes the
>anomalous transport in an MHD-stable confined plasma, like the high-q
>tokamak or the plasmak. 

I did not say that this causes increased transport, in fact I 
indicated that it would suppress increased transport, since it
would flatten the radial thermal gradient, both DIRECTLY by smushing
temperature radial profile in the central region and INDIRECTLY 
by spreading the plasma current so as not to i^2r overheat a 
narrower central channel and thereby also make it more MAGNETICALLY
Kink RESISTANT.  

>Transport of particles and heat is caused by
>largely _electrostatic_ motion involving the E-cross-B drift. Small
>fluctuating electric fields arise anytime there are density fluctuations,
>because electrons and ions have different dynamical time scales moving
>_parallel_ to the magnetic field. 

Well, this may be true in grouchy machines, but normally such 
stuff shouldn't exist.  In normal healthy machines it is the 
radial thermal gradient that drives heat transport (electrons, 
although ions probably play some role, especially in hotter machines).  
Now, to make your machine more healthy it would be nice if you 
would remove turbulence producing junk, such as integral field
coils and use of thermal electron currents.  Higher conductivity
helps, as does a very very smooth magnetic topology.  If you send
water down a smooth trough, it can slip along quickly, but if you
load the trough with boulders, even in a compensated widened
trough, the turbulence is going to slow your slip. Besides such
boulders (turbulence generators) splashes a lot of stuff out to the 
shore.  (that's for our not so not yet well schooled more feelly 
junior plasma engineers.)    :-) 

>                       .. .  Anytime you have a density fluctuation,
>electrons would like to move away faster than the ions. As they try to do
>this, they form a small charge separation, which produces a small parallel
>electric field, which prevents the electrons from separating
>further. Sooo... given a density fluctuation, you get a corresponding
>electrostatic potential fluctuation.

Hmmm! we agree in the middle and end game, but you arrive too late 
for the start.  It is that I propose initial macroscopic sloshes then 
decay eventually through YOUR BScot type more microscopic turbulence.   
After all, ordinary smooth compression shocks generated by lightning 
also decay to ordinary acoustic thunder and then into heat, but by 
increasing presence of microscopic turbulence [normalized to a
unit energy density --- that is  ;-)  ].   

Let's keep our plasma-mag systems   smooooooootththhhh.. and very
conducting.    (short out those nasty electric fields)  

For the novice they have elementary books on Electricity that point 
three fingers  (thumb, index and a the handy "others IQ indicator") 
at right angle with each showing one of the following.. the charged 
particle.. the Mag field,  and the Electric field.  Remember too
that charges (electric or charged particles) move around Magnetic
field lines and if such circling particles are pushed in the 
direction down the field line they  will move as an encircling 
helix.  In general the ions and electrons circle flux lines in 
opposite directions in and because of the difference in masses, 
the electrons (USUALLY) circle at least 1/30 the radius of ions, 
and much much faster.   The electric field described in the 
following may not be not so strong in PMKs as in tokamaks.  Note 
the effect taught (BScott) below in which net motion can result 
from differential acceleration of both species.  

>For shorthand, I will refer to the "electrostatic potential" as "phi",
>and the "electric field" as "E". 

>Now, when you have this phi fluctuation with a given scale perpendicular to
>the magnetic field, you have the corresponding E fluctuation, _also_
>_perpendicular_, since E = -grad phi. When you have a perpendicular E, you
>also have this E-cross-B drift: as the charged particles orbit the magnetic
>field in the plane perpendicular to the field, they are accelerated on one
>side of the orbit and decelerated on the other side, by E. Consider a
>circle with directions left, top, right, and bottom, and consider an ion
>moving clockwise around the circle. As you look at the circle, B is
>_upward_, out of the plane towards you. Consider that the perpendicular
>component of E is towards the top of the circle. On the left side of the
>ion's orbit, it is accelerated by E. On the right side of the orbit, the
>ion is decelerated by E. Because of this, the ion arrives at the top of the
>circle with more velocity than it has at the bottom of the circle. As a
>result, the ion _drifts_ to the right, in the direction E-cross-B. For an
>electron, the orbit is _counterclockwise_ but the accelerations are
>_opposite_ to E, so the E-cross-B drift is the same as for the ion.

>Since the electron and ion E-cross-B drifts are the same, they are both
>transported the same way by E, without buildup of charge. In this regime of
>plasma dynamics, although there is a phi and an E, the charge densities of
>the electrons and ions cancel to high accuracy. The system is called
>"quasineutral". One usually has:
>
>    n_fluctuation          e phi_fluctuation
>    -------------  approx  -----------------,
>          n                        T
>
>and since the charge density is given by 
>
>    del squared (phi_fluctuation) = 
>
>               - 4 pi ( nI_fluctuation - Z ne_fluctuation ),
>
>the difference between nI (ions) and ne (electrons) is small by the square
>of the ratio of the Debye length to the scale of the fluctuations.

>Now, to transport. The way you get transport by a turbulent E-cross-B flow
>is by the following process. Note that phi is the stream function for the
>E-cross-B flow. Fluctuations in phi represent an E-cross-B flow, which
>excites fluctuations in density and temperature by occurring in the
>presence of their gradients. The electrons, in trying to exit regions of
>enhanced density and temperature, re-excite phi, so that phi, n, and T are
>all tied to each other. Several more involved effects cause the free-energy
>access to be greater than the sink of energy in dissipative processes,
>until the fluctuations have reached some finite amplitude. At this level,
>the free-energy access and the dissipation are statistically equal. The
>system is in what we call a "saturated state", and the transport of
>particles and energy is proportional to the free-energy access.

>The important point of this E-cross-B transport is that it is powerful, and
>it will occur in any system in which a plasma is confined by a magnetic
>field, such that the particle gyroradii are small compared to the profile
>scale lengths. 

Your point is well taken, and yes this is a serious problem, but stand
back minute and take another look.   THIS IS NOT THE ONLY MECHANISM, 
and I'm afraid you are suffering a bit of tunnel vision, like those
people that become snow blind.  Yes it is a very IMPORTANT problem,
For tokamaks, but please put on some shades (maybe polarized -- get it??)
and perhaps you can see past it for the moment.  

>         .. . It is this feature and not anything having to do with MHD
>that is killing the tokamak. If particle and heat transport in tokamaks
>were collisional we would have had working fusion reactors a _long_ time
>ago. 

I don't think so.  It is just that you haven't proceeded far enough to
find out that you wouldn't have working fusion reactors in any sense.  
My guess is you are looking at the tokamak as a pure physics entity 
DEVOID Of ITS VACUUM WALLS and the massive lethal inpurity 
interactions that would be present if your blind faith 
"it'll work" dictum would be actualized.  

>If you want to build a fusion scenario around a plasmak, you need to
>address this problem, since MHD equilibrium and stability are not the only
>hurdles. 

True enough, and I have thought long and hard about that problem.  
It is through the smoothness of the embodiment of the topology, 
the HIGH CONDUCTIVITY of the currents, and the pocketing of 
high beta fuel that we hope to reduce this problem to inconsequential
levels.  The question is what can YOU do about the problem if
you stick to an obsolete device with obvious magfield wrinkles.     
Think of it... wrinkles at 30.. 

>Remember that the spheromak died because it became clear in the
>beginning that the spheromak had even worse confinement characteristics
>than the tokamak. Except for the conducting boundary, the plasmak is
>essentially a spheromak, and it will be prone to the same problem.

Ahhgg! EH???   Are we talking about devices of minuscule total energy 
and energy density, whose plasmas were filled to the brim with 
impurities???    Are we discussing 100ev ...  200ev plasmas??? 
Give me a break... Your comments obviously do not include appropriate
scaling to compensate for such typically low cost or first attempt
designs and startup results.  

I too, think that if I had a hand in directing the program on at
least one Spheromak device, the results would have been improved; 
and still it would have not reached regimes including parameters 
needed for commercial fusion.   However, when it comes to the PMKs, 
we are in a vastly improved regimen.  High Current densities (field 
density -- HIGH E-den), much improved MHD stability, sharp 
plasma/vacuum-field boundaries,  etc.  Besides the lifetime have 
already exceeded MHD thermal resistive times by several orders of 
magnitude.  With no additional power pumping after init, don't you 
think that bodes well for energy/particle confinement??   I know... 
you want data published with no funding, because it's so easy and 
cheap to obtain and because that's the right thing to do.  Thanks 
for clearly explaining your position on this long-term bedeviling 
problem.     

>-- 
>Gruss,
>Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
>Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
>bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de                               -- W Gibson
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc, Bx 1037 Prometheus II Ltd, College Park MD 20741-1037    |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.11 / John Logajan /  Re: Randell L. Mills and hydrinos
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@mirage.skypoint.net (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Randell L. Mills and hydrinos
Date: 11 Aug 1994 07:01:59 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Alan Newman (alan@geg.mot.com) wrote:
: I meant what I said.  For GPS to work, distance to a satellite is not
: just the speed of light divided by the signal's time delay.  Compensation
: is continually made for stratospheric "bending", ionospheric "slowing", 
: time "dilation", etc.

Well, SR corrections apply at every speed -- it is just that they don't
have much significance at low speeds.  You can always run your numbers
through the SR formula.  Can you give us a clue as to the significance
of failing to correct for SR in a GPS position location?

--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com -- 612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills  MN 55112 USA           -
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.12 / Richard Blue /  Correlations in chaos
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Correlations in chaos
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 1994 00:12:32 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I want to comment to two points in a recent Bill Page post.  The first is
a purely experimental issue regarding backgrounds for radiation detection
in low-rate measurements.  Bill says:

"Of course the background radiation, as background, is not affected by
the experimental setup."

In that assertion of the obvious, Bill touches on a real problem that I
hope he fully understands before he proceeds much further with his
experiments.  Ideally one can find a means to make a clean separation
between that portion of the countrate that is "background" and that
due to the "effect."  However, in reality, the separation is never
clearcut.  It always involves some compromises and is an approximation
which introduces additional error into the measurement.  This is
particularly troublesome in low rate measurements where the background
dominates, i.e. the effect is small relative to the background.

In the typical cold fusion experiment the background IS significantly
influenced by the experimental setup.  I suspect that many of the
claimed positive results for CF radiation effects illustrate the
diverse ways in which the experimental setup and operating conditions
can masquerade as something to do with the detection of CF-induced
nuclear reactions.  For example, the palladium sample invariably
contains measurable traces of radioisotopes.  A suitably sensitive
detector responds to background radiation from the sample itself
such that any change in the configuration for the purpose of measuring
a background may lead to a false determination of that rate.

A second background that is often improperly determined is room
background, i.e. radiation coming from activity in the surrounding
materials such as masonry.  This background rate may be strongly
dependent on the location of the detector relative to the primary
background source, and may be altered by changes in the position
of potential absorbers between source and detector.  Pons and
Fleischmann made the mistake of assuming that simply moving their
detector to another part of the lab would give them a true measure
of the background.

Finally there is the cosmic-ray induced background.  More than one
experimenter has assumed that he will reduce the cosmic ray count
rate by sheilding his detector only to find that the rate goes up.
Here I think the problem often may be a failure to recognize
time dependence in the background rate.  Of neccessity a background
subtraction must consist of two measurements made at two different
times.  Unless there is some parallel determination of the degree
to which there is no spurious time dependence in the count rate
the difference seen between background and effect may be a measure
of that time dependence.

There is, of course, all the evil ways in which experimental conditions
can influence the count rate that have nothing to do with radiation.
This leads me to something else Bill says that I will question.

"The correlation between a drop in the time-averaged count rate, the
presence of apparent excess power output of the cell, and deliberate
changes in cell current are quite clear."

There are those who seem to think that clear correlations between
two experimental parameters is surely an indication of a real effect.
I think that may be a very weak, and possibly dangerous, argument to
make.  It is also possible that the correlation is an artifact resulting
from some unexpected cross talk between signals.  You may recall the
Georgia Tech experience with the way in which temperature influences
the response of a BF3 counter.  In Bill's case I would ask that he
make extensive tests to learn whether there is any coupling between
deliberate changes in cell current and the response of his radiation
detector that can have nothing to do with the effect he seeks to
measure.

That leaves the question of possible correlations between two observed
quantities, each of which has a very chaotic behavior such that any
measurement requires time averaging over significant periods and
will still have a significantly large statistical variation.  Here
I would suggest a very careful examination of the degree of
correlation including comparisions with equivalent data sets for
which the time scales have been shifted.  It might even be nice
to see if Bill can find his correlations when someone else
shuffles the deck, so to speak.

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.12 /  J_FARRELL@acad /  Mills, Farrell, and Orbitspheres
     
Originally-From: J_FARRELL@acad.fandm.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Mills, Farrell, and Orbitspheres
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 1994 00:12:40 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

David Andrews writes in FD 2557

>And if you go back a little further, you'll remember that John Farrell used
>to post some rather lengthy articles regarding the theory.  He was challenged
>on a number of technical fronts, and he took this well.  But when he began
>to take "excess heat" from folks who got a little personal, he blazed outta
>here.  Too bad: right or wrong, he was polite, patient, and tried to teach
>us something.  I miss him.
>
>References to "crackpot theories" (someone else's unkind riposte) and "claimed
>credentials" do not improve the chance that requests for information will
>be honored.
>

Thank you, David Andrews.

Also, Dick Blue wrote in FD 1525

>Jim Day recently posted a rehash of the Mills-Farrell theory of the
>shrinky-dink hydrogen atoms.  As I commented earlier this theory clearly
>violates charge conservation and common sense in that it proposes EM
>standing waves inside the electron "orbitsphere" when clearly either
>the energy of these waves must be too high, or their wavelength
>much too long.  HECTER is a theory that should make anyone who has taken
>sophomore physics puke!  This is the worst example of pure crack-pot
>physics to come down the pike recently.  How about you, Mr. Day?  Do you
>consider charge conservation and common sense too rigid a set of rules
>to apply to this theory?


*One* of the reasons I quit contributing to FD was comments, such as those
above, from Dick Blue.  This is a free country and Dick Blue is entitled to
make as many nasty comments as he pleases--but I don't have to respond or
even listen.  The best place to conduct a scientific discourse is in the
scientific journals.  I will fight it out there.

A second reason is that I found that I had to keep repeating many of the
same ideas and equations over and over again.  Time is a precious
commodity, and I felt my time could be better spent elsewhere.

For Jim Day and David Andrews I make my last contribution, below, to the net.


1.  Dick Blue said that the "EM standing waves inside the electron
'orbitsphere' when clearly either the energy of these waves must be too
high, or their wavelength much too long."  Of course these are *his* words,
not mine.

It is fairly easy to show how this works out:

A review of some equations given previously:
For the electron orbitsphere:

2 pi r(sub n)  =  lambda(sub n)

or,

2 pi r(sub n)  =  n lambda(sub 1)

r(sub 1)  =  ao (the Bohr radius);

 r(sub n)  =  n  ao

(I will neglect here the fact that this (ao) ought to be a(sub H))

v(sub n) = the velocity of the orbitsphere  =  hbar/(m r(sub n))

m  = the electron mass

omega(sub n; orbitsphere)  = the angular velocity of the electron orbitsphere

omega(sub n; orbitsphere)  =  v(sub n)/r(sub n)  =  hbar/(m (n^2) (ao)^2)


Now, take the transition from n = 1 to n = 2, 3, 4, ...  

delta omega (orbitsphere)  =  omega(sub 1)  -  omega(sub n)     n = 2, 3, 4, ...

It is easily shown that

delta omega (orbitsphere)  =  (hbar/(m  (ao)^2))   *     (1 - (1/n^2))

Note that the angular velocity of the orbitsphere at n = n is less than the
angular velocity of the orbitsphere at n = 1.  That is, the electron moves
more slowly, as expected, at higher n.

Now, the energy of the photon, E(photon) is

E(photon)  =  hbar omega(photon)  =  E(sub n)  -  E(sub 1)

E(photon)  =  -e^2/((n^2) 8 pi eo ao)  -  (-e^2)/(8 pi eo ao)

where eo is the permittivity of vacuum

E(photon)  =  e^2/( 8 pi eo ao)  * (1 - (1/n^2))

We know that ao  =  (4 pi eo hbar^2)/((e^2 )m)

Therefore,

E(photon)  =  (1/2)  *  (hbar/(m  (ao)^2))   *     (1 - (1/n^2))

Thus, 

E(photon)  =  (1/2)  *  delta omega (orbitsphere) 

Amazing!  The angular velocity of the photon is 1/2 of the decrease in the
angular velocity of the orbitsphere.  Dick Blue, can you figure out why? 
(Hint: this is a central force problem and T = - 0.5  V).  The
correspondence principle holds.

In any event, Dick Blue knows full well that if the wavelength of the
absorbed photon was  equal to (2 pi ao) that the electron would be ionized.
 He also knows that the hydrogen atom absorbs wavelengths considerably
longer than 2 pi ao.  The above derivation shows how the angular velocity
of the photon and the change in angular velocity of the electron are
related. 

2.  Dick Blue keeps insisting that I am suggesting a violation of
conservation of charge.  This is most certainly not the case!  I did use
the term "effective nuclear charge".  This term is common in chemistry,
although in the Mills theory it has a somewhat different meaning. 
Specifically,

The magnitude of the electric field of the "trapped" photon at r(sub n) 

/Electric Field (photon)/  =  (-1 + (1/n)) *  (e/(4 pi eo (r(sub n))^2))   
    n = 2, 3, 4, ... 

the magnitude of the electric field of the proton at r(sub n) is

/Electric Field (proton)/  = e/(4 pi eo (r(sub n))^2)        n = 2, 3, 4, ...  

Thus, the net field at r(sub n) is 

/Electric Field (net)/  = (1/n) e/(4 pi eo (r(sub n))^2)        n = 2, 3,
4, ...  

or the "effective" nuclear charge is (1/n)e.

 In summary, see the table below,

n      nuclear charge (e)  photon contribution (e)    eff nuclear charge (e)

1          +1                             0                    +1
2          +1                            -1/2                 +1/2
3          +1                            -2/3                 +1/3
10        +1                             -9/10                +1/10
inf       +1                              -1                    0

(BTW, the bound electron is a infinity thin (two-dimensional) orbitsphere
(with positive  curvature).  The "free" electron is a two-dimensional
(infinity thin) disk (2 pi r = lambda);  the disk has zero curvature and,
thus, has no gravitational mass (hooray for Einstein!).  A free electron
has only inertial mass.  Attempts to measure the volume of an electron are
not likely to be successful; the electron is a two-dimensional species.)  

In any event, significant progress is being made. On the experimental
side-- easier methods for generating the *excess* heat; ways to generate
excess heat at higher temperatures (> 200 C); other ways to identify the
hydrino (XPS, for example). On the theoretical side--many physicists are
now totally convinced that this theory is correct and they have gone over
the book in detail to correct all of the notation used in the equations and
to correct some of the terminology.  A new edition is forthcoming.  Dick
Blue ought to take a look.  If he wants, I send him a copy (shrinky-dink
size if he prefers)--no charge.

Best regards to all,

John Farrell
*****************************************
John J. Farrell
Chemistry Department
Franklin & Marshall College
Lancaster, PA  17604

email     J_FARRELL@ACAD.FANDM.EDU
FAX       717-291-4343

cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenJ_FARRELL cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.11 / Arthur TK /  The virial theorem
     
Originally-From: awc@ipp-garching.mpg.de (Arthur      Carlson        TK  )
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: The virial theorem
Date: 11 Aug 1994 16:19:41 +0200
Organization: Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics


I wish to give a simplified derivation of the virial theorem. A
certain proficiency in tensor mathematics is necessary to follow the
details, but I think I can make the outline of the proof clear to the
less skilled as well. I tried to find a more elementary notation, but
it seems tensors are the only way to get the right answer. I'll be
happy to explain any individual step that gives people problems. I
hope this can serve as a reference point for any discussions of or
challenges to the virial theorem in this group.

Wanted: a relationship between the various forms of energy in a
magnetized plasma within a certain volume. We will simplify the
problem by only dealing only with magnetic and pressure forces in
equilibrium, and by taking a zero-field, constant-pressure boundary,
that is,

(1)     j cross B - grad p = 0     everywhere

and

(2)     B = 0  and  p = p0         on the boundary.

Now and then we will need

(3)     j = curl B / mu0

which is Ampere's law and

(4)     div B = 0

which says that magnetic monopoles don't exist. These are our starting
assumptions, the rest is mathematics. (2) through (4) should be
completely uncontroversial; all the subtleties are tied up in
(1). Some of these will be mentioned below.

Let's start by combining these equations. The magnetic force density
can be written

(5)     j cross B = (curl B / mu0) cross B
                   = (B dot grad) B / mu0 - grad (B^2/2mu0)
                   = div (BB/mu0) - (div B) B/mu0 - grad (B^2/2mu0)
                   = div (BB/mu0) - grad (B^2/2mu0)

The second part is minus the gradient of a scalar, which has the same
form as the -grad p of the pressure force, so it is convenient to
refer to (B^2/2mu0) as the magnetic pressure. This is a simple and
useful concept, telling us we can trade off plasma pressure against
magnetic pressure. The other term looks something like a tension along
field lines (if a field line is curved, the force is toward the center
of curvature). It is this term which is troublesome and interesting
because it allows us to use the field lines as guy wires to transfer
forces from one place to another. Loops of field will even have a
tendency to provide a net inward force. Don't jump to any conclusions,
but keep your eye on this term. Putting (5) into (1), we can write

(6)     div (BB/mu0) - grad (B^2/2mu0+p-p0) = 0,

where we have used the fact that the gradient of a constant (p0, in
this case) vanishes. We have lumped magnetic and plasma pressure
together and then subtracted the boundary pressure to simplify use of
the divergence theorem later (this quantity vanishes on the boundary).

Equation (6) is a statement about force densities, but we are
interested in energy densities. Since energy is force times distance,
one way (of course, it will turn out to be the right way) to create a
statement about energy densities is simply to take the dot product
of (6) with the position vector r:

(7)     (div BB/mu0) dot r - (grad (B^2/2mu0+p-p0)) dot r = 0.

To get the position vector to multiply the pressure, we need to bring
it inside the differential operators, which we can do if we then
subtract off the additional terms where the operator acts on the
position vector:

(8)     div (BB/mu0 dot r) - div ((B^2/2mu0+p-p0) r)
             - (B^2/mu0)       + (B^2/2mu0+p-p0) div r = 0.

Did that whiz by too fast? I warned you you'd have to be on a first
name basis with tensor operators. The trickiest part here was
calulating (del dot B B dot r), where the del only operates on
the r. This is easiest to do in the (local) coordinate system where B
is in the z direction, and then generalizing the result. We can
simplify (8) a little more to

(9)     div ( (BB/mu0 dot r) - (B^2/2mu0+p-p0) r )
             - (B^2/mu0)       + 3 (B^2/2mu0+p-p0) = 0,

where we have used div r = 3. Finally,

(10)    div ( (BB/mu0 dot r) - (B^2/2mu0+p-p0) r )
             + (B^2/2mu0) + 3(p-p0) = 0.

Take a look at what happened to the magnetic tension term (ignoring
for the moment the divergence term in the first line). Its
contribution in the second line was the same form as that from the
magnetic pressure, but of opposite sign. This jives with the statement
above that the tension tends to hold things together, while the
pressure pushes them apart. But the magnitude of the tension term was
smaller than that of the magnetic pressure term, so the net effect of
the field is to push things apart, though not as vigorously as plasma
pressure does. We already have an inkling of the virial theorem here:
the net effect of a magnetic field (pressure and tension) is to reduce 
the plasma pressure.

But let us take the final step now. We are interested in making a
statement about the total (or average) energy, not about the
distribution of energy, so we need to integrate (10) over the
volume. The first term is the divergence of "stuff", so we can apply
the divergence theorem, which says the volume integral can be written
as a surface integral involving "stuff". But in this case "stuff"
vanishes on the surface, so the integral also vanishes. (Note that
there is no other, more general way to apply the divergence theorem to
the problem; in that sense there is no difference between the virial
theorem and the divergence theorem applied to a plasmoid.) What's left
is

(11)    integral (p-p0) dV = -(1/3) integral (B^2/2mu0) dV < 0.

It's easy to rearrange this in terms of energy density (plasma energy
density = (3/2)p, magnetic energy density = (B^2/2mu0)) or in terms of
average rather than integral quantities. Any way you cut it,
(B^2/2mu0) is non-negative, so THE AVERAGE PRESSURE IN THE VOLUME HAS
TO BE *LESS* THAN THE CONFINING PRESSURE. This is the (simplified)
virial theorem.

I mentioned that equation (1) has room to play. For example,
  1. electric fields could be included
  2. the velocity distribution could be
     a. non-Maxwellian
     b. non-isotropic
     c. not centered on zero
  3. the configuration could be out of equilibrium
Also, the boundary condition (2) could be more complicated. All these
effects can be dealt with, and lead to a more general virial theorem
of the form

(12)    (1/2)(d^2/dt^2)I + integral x_k (partial G_k/partial t) dV =
          2(T + U) + W_E + W_M - integral x_k (p_ik + T_ik) dS_i

I'll go into details on request, but I don't think it's
necessary. None of these effects change the general conclusion
above.

Consider briefly the special case of magnetic fields which change
their direction sharply across a layer. Paul Koloc (and no one else)
calls these "pressure bearing surfaces". Examination of the
mathematics above shows that this case requires no special
treatment. The virial theorem holds whether the currents are
distributed or localized in thin sheets (ideally of zero thickness).

Finally a word about soap bubbles. Paul Koloc correctly points out
that the virial theorem applied to a soap bubble yields nonsense. A
more dramatic example is a bottle of compressed gas: The outside
pressure is 1 bar, but the average pressure in a volume containing 
the bottle can be hundreds of bars. The resolution of the paradox is 
that (1) does not apply in this case. There are tensile forces in the 
metal bottle that cannot be expressed as j cross B or as -grad p. If 
you choose to take a microsopic view of things (the electrons and nuclei
in the bottle are just electric charges, ignoring quantum mechanical
subtleties), you find that there is a short-range correlation of the
various charges in such a way that the force cannot be expressed as
rho times E, that is, a _macroscopic_ charge density times a
_macroscopic_ electric field.

For me, the most interesting part of this business is the question
whether we are really interested in the _average_ pressure. There are
configurations where the _peak_ pressure is larger than the average
pressure. The fusion power density of a Maxwellian plasma at a given
temperature is proportional to the square of p, and the average of the
square of a quantity may be higher than the square of the average. The
question I would like to pose is this:

   Is there a magnetically isolated configuration with a total fusion
   power higher than that corresponding to the same volume of plasma
   at the confining pressure?

I don't know the answer and don't know how to find out except to
investigate a reasonably general class of equilibria. I'd bet about
even money on yes/no. (And I would postpone all questions of
stability, transport, and practicality for the time being; we're
trying to get to first base.)


Art Carlson
Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics
Garching, Germany
carlson@ipp-garching.mpg.de

cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenawc cudfnArthur cudlnTK cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.11 / Zachary Sacks /  Re: PAF HOLDS 1ST CLAIMS OF COLD FUSION-- CORRECT SCIENCE
     
Originally-From: zackman@bigwpi.WPI.EDU (Zachary Shane Sacks)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.electromag
Subject: Re: PAF HOLDS 1ST CLAIMS OF COLD FUSION-- CORRECT SCIENCE
Date: 11 Aug 1994 15:38:49 GMT
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute


Dear Ludwig:

I have a simple question.  If all or any of your "original" ideas are correct, 
why don't you preform them?  Who knows, you may get a Nobel Prize if
anything that your saying is correct.  If they are correct, why are you
sharing them on this newsgroup because someone else could easily 
preform the experiments or do the additional work and claim the credit?

The answer that the scientific community is so warped into one way of
thinking is unacceptable.  In the history of science, many great ideas
were initially rejected before the experimental evidence was shown.  So 
why don't you attempt to verify your ideas?  Unless, of course, they
have no merit.



cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenzackman cudfnZachary cudlnSacks cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.11 /  bobh69@aol.com /  Re: Randell L. Mills and hydrinos
     
Originally-From: bobh69@aol.com
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Randell L. Mills and hydrinos
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 94 12:28:08 EDT
Organization: CERFnet


In article <32cid7$st@stratus.skypoint.com>, <jlogajan@mirage.skypoint.net> 
writes:

> Well, SR corrections apply at every speed -- it is just that they don't
> have much significance at low speeds.  You can always run your numbers
> through the SR formula.  Can you give us a clue as to the significance
> of failing to correct for SR in a GPS position location?
> 

For location to be determined to within 10 m requires that the satellite 
positions be known to 10 m and the clock times be accurate to 30ns (light 
travels 9 m in 30ns).  Because of the 30ns  requirement the relativistic 
effects on the clock rate must be corrected. The corrections required, and 
computed, include special relativistic effect of time dilation (the clock runs 
slow compared to earth based clocks because of the relative satellite velocity) 
and the general relativistic effect (a clock runs slower on earth because it is 
in a larger gravitational potential than the clock in orbit). The combined 
relativistic effects, over a 12 hr, near circular orbit is ~4x10^-10 or about 
+/-10^4 nsec/day.  This is clearly a very significant effect.  The GPS system 
software corrects for these effects, and others.

Bob Henderson

cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenbobh69 cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.11 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Randell L. Mills and hydrinos
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Randell L. Mills and hydrinos
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 1994 18:13:54 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <32dhn1$1j5@news.cerf.net>,  <bobh69@aol.com> wrote:
>
>In article <32cid7$st@stratus.skypoint.com>, <jlogajan@mirage.skypoint.net> 
>writes:
>
>> Well, SR corrections apply at every speed -- it is just that they don't
>> have much significance at low speeds.  You can always run your numbers
>> through the SR formula.  Can you give us a clue as to the significance
>> of failing to correct for SR in a GPS position location?
>> 
>
>For location to be determined to within 10 m requires that the satellite 
>positions be known to 10 m and the clock times be accurate to 30ns (light 
>travels 9 m in 30ns).  Because of the 30ns  requirement the relativistic 
>effects on the clock rate must be corrected. The corrections required, and 
>computed, include special relativistic effect of time dilation (the clock runs 
>slow compared to earth based clocks because of the relative satellite velocity) 
>and the general relativistic effect (a clock runs slower on earth because it is 
>in a larger gravitational potential than the clock in orbit). The combined 
>relativistic effects, over a 12 hr, near circular orbit is ~4x10^-10 or about 
>+/-10^4 nsec/day.  This is clearly a very significant effect.  The GPS system 
>software corrects for these effects, and others.

   An interesting question I've always had:  What is the magnitude of 
   the 'engineering' correction, that is, the correction that must be made
   for things like atmospheric delays, etc.?  

   How does it compare with the GR terms?

                                   dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.11 / Vernon Hoxie /  Re: Return of the experimenter?
     
Originally-From: vern@zebra.alphacdc.COM (Vernon C. Hoxie)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Return of the experimenter?
Date: 11 Aug 94 21:53:47 GMT
Organization: Alpha Communications, Denver, Colo.

In article <32b2vp$rts@fnnews.fnal.gov> Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege) writes:

>>Question 3.  How do you measure loading.  I have had some disussions with
>>        others on this NET to disuss this very item....I am unhappy
>>        with the answers to date...  There doesn't appear to be a simple
>>        inexpensive method to confirm Hydrogen, Deuterium loading
>>        above the 0.83 % mark.... How do we confirm and measure
>>        High H, or D to metal ratios  ???
>>

From a lurker:

|3) Remove the cathode from the cell periodically and weigh it.  This 
|certainly prevents using 2) as a check.  Also hard to keep all the leads 
|the same for 1) (but not impossible).  The big problem is that this method
|assumes that H/D diffuses out of the cathode sample, which gives enough 
|time to get the sample out to a scale.  I have observed large sudden 
|outgassing of samples, of order 10%-20%.  In seconds.  Particularly true 
|at large loadings.  So I do not think this methods gives anything but a 
|lower limit of loading achieved.

How about building a scale into the cell.  This would mean more leads
but maybe you could multiplex the resistance leads and the strain gauge
leads but reverse polarity of the sense voltage.

I got a blurb from Penwalt some years ago about a piezo mylar film they
had.  The mylar could very well be a contaminate to the cell however.

vern

-- 
Vernon C. Hoxie                            {csn,netcomsv}!scicom!zebra!vern
3975 W. 29th Ave.                                   vern@zebra.alphacdc.com
Denver, Colo., 80212        uucp: 303-455-2670          voice: 303-477-1780
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenvern cudfnVernon cudlnHoxie cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.11 / Matt Kennel /  Re: Randell L. Mills and hydrinos
     
Originally-From: mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Randell L. Mills and hydrinos
Date: 11 Aug 1994 21:31:52 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

Alan Newman (alan@geg.mot.com) wrote:

: I meant what I said.  For GPS to work, distance to a satellite is not
: just the speed of light divided by the signal's time delay.  Compensation
: is continually made for stratospheric "bending", ionospheric "slowing", 
: time "dilation", etc.

I believe that full GPS even needs to take into account some effects
uniquely from General Relativity, like gravitational redshifting.

As far as I know this is the only practical application that needs GR.

(maybe some ICBMs do similar things as well, but I'd rather not think
 about that)

:   /\  /\  /\  /\  /\M. Alan Newman, Motorola, Scottsdale AZ  /\  /\  /\  /\  /\
: \/  \/  \/^^\/  \/  alan@geg.mot.com   Speaking for myself.\/  \/  \/^^\/  \/

--
-Matt Kennel  		mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu
-Institute for Nonlinear Science, University of California, San Diego
-*** AD: Archive for nonlinear dynamics papers & programs: FTP to
-***     lyapunov.ucsd.edu, username "anonymous".
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenmbk cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.12 / James Parry /  Re: PANETH & PETERS DISCOVERED COLD FUSION FIRST
     
Originally-From: kibo@world.std.com (James "Kibo" Parry)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.electromag,alt.sci.physics.pl
tonium,alt.sex.bondage,alt.religion.kibology
Subject: Re: PANETH & PETERS DISCOVERED COLD FUSION FIRST
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 1994 04:59:29 GMT
Organization: HappyNet Headquarters

In article <32bfj9$e09@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>,
Ludwig Plutonium <Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>                                    The Nobel prize for "cold fusion"
> thus, only rightfully should go to Ludwig Plutonium for finding the
> correct explanation and means of inducing SNM which is cold fusion.
>    According to my theory of SNM every fuel mass shows this phenomenon.
> It is not restricted to hydrogen with palladium or titanium substitute.
> The phenomenon of SNM will work with just pure iron as a fuel mass and
> no
> water or heavy water, just pure iron.

Ludwig--
	Shouldn't discussion of something called "SNM" be taking place
in alt.sex.bondage.particle.physics?

							-- K.
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenkibo cudfnJames cudlnParry cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.12 / John Logajan /  Re: Randell L. Mills and hydrinos
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@mirage.skypoint.net (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Randell L. Mills and hydrinos
Date: 12 Aug 1994 03:39:22 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

bobh69@aol.com wrote:
: The combined relativistic effects, over a 12 hr, near circular orbit is
: ~4x10^-10 or about +/-10^4 nsec/day.

Munch munch munch -- okay I am now eating my words. :-)

--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com -- 612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills  MN 55112 USA           -
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.12 / Chris Parkinson /  Curie effect , an explanation
     
Originally-From: parky@ix.netcom.com (Chris Parkinson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Curie effect , an explanation
Date: 12 Aug 1994 05:50:33 GMT
Organization: Netcom

In <322ejo$jed@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> nazrael@cats.ucsc.edu (James Vanmeter) writes: 

>
>
>parky@netcom.com (Chris Parkinson) writes:
>
>>I have read the article from Eugene Mallove entitled 'An Italian Cold 
>>Fusion Hot Potato' from Cold Fusion magazine. There are some interesting 
>>facets to this idea that were not explored by the author. Namely, a 
>>question remains in my mind that if the input power supply is operating 
>>at an AC level and the frequency remains fixed then what could be 
>>occurring is the Curie effect on the magnetics of the nickel. 
>
>What's the Curie effect?
>
The Curie effect is a magnetic effect that occurs when a certain
frequency is charged into two types different metals in close contact. When 
Titanium is used, it induces a magnetic and inductive heating into the Ni that 
causes the Ni to heatup. When a certain temperature is reached, the magnetic 
monopoles cease to be magnetic and thus a "Curie effect" takes charge of the current,
thus dropping the net power consumed and auto regulating the heat. 

	This occurs by the current getting out of phase and makes the current reflect
back to the power supply. This is the same thing that happens when a three phase
electric motor goes into its regenerative mode, when it is above its slip frequency 
ie: above 60 hz.

	The reflected Current does its thing to greatly reduce the net power
consumed by the bi metal relationship. The only difference as I see it is that,
if you then add new loading into the bi metal environement (cold water) the 
net power goes up to its peak again until the loading once again reaches the
Curie temperature. In Ni/Ti, I believe that this Curie temp. would be in the
range of 400 to 600 degrees F. Since I do not know what the percentage
relationships are, its tough to gauge. Now, the reason I say the only difference,
is if the Italian CF effect is trully occuring, ( although I dought it is happening
as Haggelstien has theorised) then I would expect to see that upon running cold
water to constantly load the Ni that the power would remain at its low consumption
level. And to date I have not seen this type of data being produced. In fact, to
date, I have heard no discussion of this kind of loading being done on any CF
experiments.

	As an experiment, take any soldering iron ( point type 30 watt variety, not
a pistol type, you could get hurt), attach a thermo couple to the tip and when it 
gets up to soldering temp load the tip up with a well drenched sponge and while 
keeping the sponge wet with fresh water notice what happens to the heat of the 
soldering iron. They will be all over the map from 100dF to 400dF! I've even
seen one of the most widely used irons, glow red! This is due to the lack of
good response from the control circruity at the tip to the supply. This is a
well known problem within the soldering industry. If you try this experiment
with a Curie effect type of soldering iron, it will just sit there, at its
temp. of 320dF, and draw all the power it can get from the RF power supply.

	Remember, water is a tough cookie to heat up and until I see how 
these types of "cold fusion" experiments are being done, I seriously dought that
some of these will really have any lasting commercial value. I do have to say
that if any of these CF experiments are true in there claims of latent
heating, even after the power is turned off, I would then have to concede that
that, is truly remarkable! I do hope that CF or whatever it is becomes a reality
within my lifetime (I'm 30 somthin). I've been a former employee of too many
failed new venture startups that I really do hope for all the recently
graduated engineers and technicians that they do not get stung with bold promises
brought about by CF until it becomes a reality through some repeatable and dramatic
power generation.

CP
Denel Resources, Inc.

PS. My background is in aerospace and specifically engine testing. If anyone
    out there is interested in developing a CF type engine, drop me a note
    at parky@ix.netcom.com as I've still got lots of contacts in this field
    that may entertain some bold ideas.
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenparky cudfnChris cudlnParkinson cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.12 / Chris Parkinson /  Re: Italian CF, Curie effect rest of article
     
Originally-From: parky@netcom.com (Chris Parkinson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Italian CF, Curie effect rest of article
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 1994 06:26:20 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

James Vanmeter (nazrael@cats.ucsc.edu) wrote:

: parky@netcom.com (Chris Parkinson) writes:

: >I have read the article from Eugene Mallove entitled 'An Italian Cold 
: >Fusion Hot Potato' from Cold Fusion magazine. There are some interesting 
: >facets to this idea that were not explored by the author. Namely, a 
: >question remains in my mind that if the input power supply is operating 
: >at an AC level and the frequency remains fixed then what could be 
: >occurring is the Curie effect on the magnetics of the nickel. 

: What's the Curie effect?


:  
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenparky cudfnChris cudlnParkinson cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Fri Aug 12 04:37:06 EDT 1994
------------------------------
1994.08.12 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Plasmak Geometry
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Plasmak Geometry
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 1994 03:28:38 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <328kj0INNvef@sat.ipp-garching.mpg.de> bds@ipp-garching.mpg.d
 (Bruce       Scott          TK  ) writes:
>I know it is bad form to respond to one's own post, but I want to amend this
>bit:
>
>In article <325582INN173c@sat.ipp-garching.mpg.de>, bds@slcbdsipp-garch
ng.mpg.de (Bruce       Scott          TK  ) writes:
>
>|> I have a further question about the vacuum separation region and the
>|> kernel: is the kernel _by_ _itself_ a toroid or compact spheroid? If the
>|> answer is a toroid, the symmetry axis would have to be in the vacuum
>|> region, since a flux surface arbitrarily close to the symmetry axis is
>|> still a toroid. If the answer is a spheroid, then we still have problems
>|> about the equilibrium: the kernel is expected to survive as a plasmoid
>|> bounded by a vacuum, and we already know such a beast is not in
>|> equilibrium.

I don't follow you.  

What is the difference between a toroid and a spheroid, except that
the latter has essentially NO HOLE??  Essentially take a stack of
nested toroids, and blow up the minor radii (graded monotonically), 
while keeping the Major radius locked.    

If you mean Kernel plasma is bounded by a vacuum ...  no it is NOT, 
it is bounded by a vacuum "neutralized poloidal field ==  resultant 
vertical plus raw poloidal" ... which means it has a BOUNDING pressure 
wall out there some place (here the current surface supported by the 
atmosphere). Note: that the outside bounding pressure need only supply 
the DIFFERENCE pressure between the TWO BUCKING  Kernel plasma mag 
fields, namely, poloidal and toroidal.  But YES that difference 
pressure MUST be taken care of.       <------ rewrite that one so 
it doesn't end in a preposition!) 

Your use of the word Kernel is ambivalent, since the Kernel is a 
REGION.   That region is bounded by the outer most vacuum field 
(usually just poloidal field) just up to the energetic conducting 
sheet current of the Mantle.  In practice we could consider that 
sheet current "belongs" to the Mantle, although technically we 
could split it and assign the outer half to the Mantle and the 
inner half to the Kernel.  For the bulk of the current this 
conducting sheet is very thin, consequently we are essentially 
"splitting" a hair.  Note: the Kernel region includes the toroidal 
plasma current ring AND the surrounding insulating vacuum poloidal 
field.  The PMK exists with both Mantle and Kernel intact and can 
not exist with one or the other in a non-fully functional form or 
"disconnected".  The latter happens, as form separately and then 
vacuum compress together as in Well's experiment.  Well's works 
because the embryonic Kernel plasma "bleeds" a lot of plasma 'til 
its "shell (mostly bled plasma" is "implanted" as a mag-cover 
complete with inner boundary image current.  

>According to Paul's gif, the answer is that it is a toroid. 

Again:    What  is your use of the word  "IT??"   Pronouns... agghhh!
Note: a PMK is a compound plasma configuration, and although
the two plasmas are distinct and disconnected by an insulating
vacuum field, the configuration is ONE entity.  I mean is your
house the set of rooms and without the roof??? Wouldn't the
rain come in??   Certainly, one can partition areas with stone
walls, and live in such defined areas, as humans did of old, but
there was a solid advance when these walls incorporated ceilings
and finally a roof as well.   This is the wall, this is the roof
still this is the house.. has distinct coherent singular entity
meaning. 

> As a rough
>approximation, one draws the flux surfaces for a spheroid. Labelling the
>flux surfaces from zero (Paul's "minor axis") to one (the sphere which
>bounds the spheroid), and scaling them proportional to contained volume,
>one fills the region interior to flux surface 0.85 or so with plasma, and
>then flux surfaces 0.85 to 1.0 have zero density and pressure. 

Help?????   I have some difficulty here... 2 issues at least.    

1. Actually, if you take the revolution of the surfaces the volume 
should run more like .5?? yes.  I remember early on we had Kernel plasma 
to Mantle conducting layer volumes of 1:3.  Now, if your numbers show
.85.. then ?? ehh?   In fact, just looking at my GIF makes me wonder 
if the K-plasma volume digs out even 25%.  So maybe we could compromise 
and set the value to .. .45??   It's your call or estimate. 

2. The  vacuum insulating region (to my simple mind) contains pressure.
True, it doesn't contain PLASMA (nkT) variety PRESSURE, BUT
it does contain MAG PRESSURE, which acts to distribute flux in a
natural (mostly) smoothish m-radial gradient.  

>  Labelling
>the spheres exterior to flux surface 1.0, also by volume, the region
>1.0 to about 1.01 is the ionised layer, and the region exterior to 1.01
>is non-ionised gas. Ignoring the "bleedover", the magnetic field is zero
>for V > 1.0. I'm interested in this vacuum region. It should be interesting
>proving that can exist in equilibrium. I'll give it a try.

KO   --- but, don't whack this later if you have concerns with issues
that require the weak external field, etc.  We'll put it back, then, 
right??  

>Paul, what is the experimental evidence that the vacuum region actually
>exists, and you don't just have a Wu and Chen type spheroid, with pressure
>nonzero everywhere?

Can't answer that question.    However, consider the following 
possibilities that I might have such evidence, and estimate the
ease with which such information can be gathered.  

If I have currents that generate soft X-rays, then I should be able
to see an 3-D image of the object with simple stereo photographic 
techniques.  Sharp boundaries can NOT exist with a gradual or "dirty"
"now crudy vacuum or lower density" (formerly insulating) interspatial 
plasma/plasma region (gradual (WIDE) boundaries).  Energetic currents 
would not be trapped.  Also a clearly visible evidence of a "Bethe" 
(Cornell) effect would not be visible.  

Notice, I haven't given anything away... unless there is some bloody
about_to_be_ventilated genius out there.   Western talk. 

I'm too busy now, maybe later I'll send out a GIF cartoon on 
STP bounded conducting shells to demo the various configs and
associated differing energy-densities.   
>-- 
>Gruss,
>Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
>Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
>bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de                               -- W Gibson
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc, Bx 1037 Prometheus II Ltd, College Park MD 20741-1037    |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.12 / Arthur TK /  Re: Updating Conventional Fusion FAQ
     
Originally-From: awc@ipp-garching.mpg.de (Arthur      Carlson        TK  )
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Updating Conventional Fusion FAQ
Date: 12 Aug 1994 10:27:41 +0200
Organization: Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics


In article <1994Aug7.005703.22577@Princeton.EDU>, Robert F. Heeter
<rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> writes:
> Do I have any volunteers to:
> 
> (a) Summarize the Plasmak science debate?  Or is this
> too controversial to fit into an FAQ?  We have claims
> and counterclaims, but there doesn't seem to be any
> publicly-available proof either way.  Maybe Bruce/Art
> could write up the mainstream concerns and Koloc could
> put together a *BRIEF* summary of plasmak claims?
> I'll include the '89 Fusion Tech article in the
> bibliography.

The "plasmak" is not anything I would include in an intro text. On the other
hand, Koloc has used the open access to internet to make claims (more power to
him) that frequently lead to the asking of questions. Furthermore, there are a
number of interesting plasma physical issues involved. I vote for a FAQ entry on
the plasmak. My list of questions with brief comments follows.

     What is a plasmak? (topology and parameter range)
        --This is almost settled, but needs to be coherently formulated.
     Why is it interesting?
        --Potentially simpler machine and higher pressure.
     How much pressure can it generate?
        --Confining gas pressure of 10 kbar (reasonable?). Average pressure
          in plasmoid not greater than this. Maximum pressure? In what 
          fraction of the volume?
     Is it an MHD equilibrium?
        --Not in Koloc's version, but with small to medium fixes, it
          can be.
     Is it MHD stable?
        --Nobody has done the calculation to find out, but Koloc has
          speculated.
     What is its lifetime?
        L/R configuration lifetime?
          --Can be calculated given temperature and thickness of the
            conducting layer. Can also be declared "hyperconducting"
            by fiat.
        Bremsstrahlung and cyclotron loss times?
          --Easy to estimate. Koloc has ideas that he thinks will let
            him avoid the implications of the answer, but he has never
            presented them in any detail.
        Turbulent transport energy loss time?
          --Bruce and I could come up with a guess, but it would be
            highly speculative.
        Lifetime due to effects at the plasma/gas boundary?
          --Koloc hasn't addressed this issue, and I don't know where
            to start. (But it should be mentioned in any evaluation
            of the concept.)
     Would it ignite with p-B11 fuel? With D-T fuel?
        --The answer depends on what times come out above.
     How could such a configuration be formed?
        --Koloc is the only one who thinks he knows. And he's not talking.
     What experimental evidence is there for the existence and
        properties of such a configuration?
        --In the published and internet literature: None.

I am willing to formulate my positions for the FAQ, or to work with
Koloc on a common formulation. But I think the first step is up to
Koloc, if he's interested.

> 
> (b) Summarize the alternative fuels science debate?
> Maybe Phil and Art can figure something out?
> What are the key numbers besides ideal temperature,
> relative Lawson difficulty, relative reactivity at 
> ideal Lawson, and (approximate) relative neutron emissions?
> What about non-Maxwellian plasmas?

You might twist my arm to summarize what's been said so far, but I'd
rather let somebody else do a more careful job, including a check on
the recent literature.


Art Carlson
Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics
Garching, Germany
carlson@ipp-garching.mpg.de

cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenawc cudfnArthur cudlnTK cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.12 /  prasad /  Re: Curie effect , an explanation
     
Originally-From: c1prasad@watson.ibm.com (prasad)
Originally-From: parky@ix.netcom.com (Chris Parkinson):
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Curie effect , an explanation
Date: 12 Aug 1994 19:48:15 GMT
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

Originally-From: parky@ix.netcom.com (Chris Parkinson):
In <322ejo$jed@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> nazrael@cats.ucsc.edu (James Vanmeter) writes: 

>
>
>parky@netcom.com (Chris Parkinson) writes:
>
>>I have read the article from Eugene Mallove entitled 'An Italian Cold 
>>Fusion Hot Potato' from Cold Fusion magazine. There are some interesting 
>>facets to this idea that were not explored by the author. Namely, a 
>>question remains in my mind that if the input power supply is operating 
>>at an AC level and the frequency remains fixed then what could be 
>>occurring is the Curie effect on the magnetics of the nickel. 
>
>What's the Curie effect?
>
The Curie effect is a magnetic effect that occurs when a certain
frequency is charged into two types different metals in close contact. When 
Titanium is used, it induces a magnetic and inductive heating into the Ni that 
causes the Ni to heatup. When a certain temperature is reached, the magnetic 
monopoles cease to be magnetic and thus a "Curie effect" takes charge of the current,
thus dropping the net power consumed and auto regulating the heat. 

[ lots of stuff with phases and currents deleted ]
-- 

There seems to be a dim connection with the simple things about ferromagnetism
I thought I knew.  Last heard of, we didn't have magnetic monopoles.  What
we had were dipoles, and above the Curie temperature, the dipoles start jiggling
so hard that the ferromagnetism breaks down and the material becomes paramagnetic,
largely losing its susceptibility.  This happens to be used for thermostat
kind of switch, as you describe, but I fail to understand what this has to
do with bi-metallic strips, whose switching function is based purely on
the differential thermal expansion.  Further, both kinds of switches are plain
switches, nothing to do with the frequency - indeed, should work with d.c. just
as well.  Unless you have a large coil with many turns, a high current and
a high frequency, inductive heating is not likely to be much.  Note that inductive
heating is mostly ohmic heating due to induced currents in the specimen.

If it is something other than these you are talking about, I'd like to know.
I have a feeling you have got things mixed up.


#pragma prejudices=own brainwaves=own others=absolved
// email: 71155.3116@compuserve.com, poll= 1/month.
// bad habits: unwashed robes, xrn.
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenc1prasad cudlnprasad cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.12 / Robert Heeter /  Re: "The Economist" reviews ITER (still on the nzstands)
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Originally-From: Paul M. Koloc, pmk@prometheus.UUCP
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: "The Economist" reviews ITER (still on the nzstands)
Subject: "The Economist" reviews ITER (still on the nzstands)
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 1994 01:53:39 GMT
Date: Fri, 5 Aug 1994 06:54:35 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

Subject: "The Economist" reviews ITER (still on the nzstands)
Originally-From: Paul M. Koloc, pmk@prometheus.UUCP
Date: Fri, 5 Aug 1994 06:54:35 GMT
In article <Cu1v70.Jw9@prometheus.UUCP> Paul M. Koloc,
pmk@prometheus.UUCP writes:
>An article giving an economistic perspective on the ITER and
>it's potential funding problems is in the current July-August 1994
>issue of THE ECONOMIST.  

Which issue exactly?  The Economist is a weekly.

I looked through six or so issues and couldn't find anything obvious
about ITER.  (Like, nothing in the science headlines in the table of
contents.)

>Ahhhh!  I wonder what Wells, Maglich, Hirsch, Bussard, etc.  feel
>about seeing another program under "funding pressure".  

Well, Hirsch is now working for General Atomics, home of the 
second largest tokamak in the U.S.  

IMHO ITER is simply facing the usual problems that seem to 
crop up when the scientist with the big ideas (Rebut) generates
a project which reaches the limits of his administrative 
capabilities.  The same sort of management shakeup is taking
place at the LIGO project ("Laser Interferometric Gravitational
[Wave] Observatory"), and probably isn't fatal, as long as the
replacement has better administrative skills.

We shall see!

***************************
Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University
As always, I represent only myself, and not PPPL
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.12 / Joe Katnic /  Re: I'm not in this / Bohm, pilot waves, and lousy SciAm articles
     
Originally-From: joe@twistor.dialix.oz.au (Joe Katnic)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: I'm not in this / Bohm, pilot waves, and lousy SciAm articles
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 94 20:49:18 GMT
Organization: Home User

In article 70047.3047@compuserve.com (Bill Page) writes:
><<
>DAVID BOHM, PILOT WAVES, AND A TRULY LOUSY SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN ARTICLE
>
>a. Pilot waves
>
>By the way, those of you who are now advocating the David Bohm's variant of
>DeBroglie's pilot wave theory as some sort of general purpose fix to palladium
>anomalies in general and "delocalized" wave functions in particular may want to
>be a bit careful.  In particular, the particles in pilot wave theory behave
>_more_ conventionally, not less, and the concept of "particle delocalization" as
>such flatly disappears.  Particles don't even tunnel in the usual sense of the
>word in pilot wave theory; they are simply sucked through barriers quite
>conventionally by an attraction area in the pilot wave, which (as in standard
>Schroedinger-style QM) may extend to the other side of a barrier.  
>>>
>
>[Not being inclined to debate the pedigree of the concept, I'll use the phrase
>"pilot wave model" when talking about these particulare theories and
>interpretations by De Broglie, Bohm, Bell, Hiley and many others.]
>
>Double hmmm... I think that lately the only one around here talking about pilot
>waves happens to be me and I'm sure I never said anything like that it was a
>general purpose fix for anything. Although the pilot wave model also came up in
>the discussion of Vigier's ICCF4 paper, most recently I have been looking at it
>as a way of clearing up the confusion over the concept of delocalization. And as
>to being a bit careful, well yes, I think I have been quite cautious not to make
>any over blown statements and I've attempted to back things up with the detailed
>mathematics for those so inclined.
>
>And as to "delocalized" wave functions, well, if we are talking about wave
>functions then I don't see whats at issue. Wave functions are just certain
>complex valued functions of the configuration space coordinates (usually only
>the spatial coordinates). In the terminology that Dick Blue and I have agreed
>on, we can say that a wave function is delocalized if its non-zero spatial
>extend exceeds some fixed size - say the atomic radius. What is at issue is when
>(or if) you can sensibly talk about a *particle* as being delocalized.
>Chubb&Chubb as well as many other recent authors in physics have been talking as
>if one can. I find this usage vague and confusing. And so, I like the pilot wave
>model because it says, as you point out, that the appropriate answer is "no,
>particles are *classical particles*, there is no such thing as the
>"delocalization of a particle", by the definitions alone, such a notion is an
>absurdity. This is very clear. But the cost of being so clear and still
>maintaining that there are such things as particles is that we must introduce
>the quantum potential into the dynamical equations. And the quantum potential
>does have *nonlocal* characteristics. It is really nonlocality and not
>delocalization that one needs to be concerned about.
>
><<
I read the SciAm article and I don't have a degree in physics but I think
that the "Pilot Wave Theory" and "Copenhagen" have the same thing to say
about this phenomenon.

Pilot Wave: two interacting particles will have pilot waves that will
        interact with each other. This being the case, the real particles
        can randomly interact. They will follow the guidance of the
        pilot waves.

Copenhagen: two interacting particles have an uncertainty such that they
        can tunnel through barriers. The probability of doing so decreases
        the farther the particles are seperated.

The Chubb's premise is that the representation of the particle can be smeared
over space in a lattice structure. In the Copenhagen interpretation,
this is literally what is meant. The wave functions (thus the particles)
are smeared over space. In the pilot wave theory, it is the pilot waves
that would be smeared over space. The obvious conclusion is that the
pilot wave theory particles would move to equipotential nodes in the
wave space and thus interact, i.e. fuse. This outcome would be exactly
the same with the conventional approach.

I hope I got that right, however it still remains to be seen if the
Chubb's theory is born out in practice. I don't know of any experimental
evidence for the theory, other than CF. Whichever way it goes, the wave
model does not inherently rule out the Chubb's theory as far as I can
see.

--
Joe Katnic, Perth, Western Australia                                _--_|\
                                                                   /      \
Joe@twistor.dialix.oz.au                Phone: (+619) 474 3939 --->\_.--._/
                                                                         v 
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenjoe cudfnJoe cudlnKatnic cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.12 / Tom Radcliffe /  Re: What would skeptics consider a positive excess heat result?
     
Originally-From: tom@mips2.phy.queensu.ca (Tom Radcliffe)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What would skeptics consider a positive excess heat result?
Date: 12 Aug 1994 17:15:49 GMT
Organization: Queen's University, Kingston

In article <KCKLUGE.94Aug8161802@glasnost.eecs.umich.edu>, kckluge@glasn
st.eecs.umich.edu (Karl Kluge) writes:
|> 
|> There appear to now be published experiments reporting released heat in
|> excess of the total input power, and yet this appears not to settle the
|> issue as far as some of the technically informed skeptic go. 

For claims are remarkable as the cold fusioneers are making to be
convincing, I'd have to see a commercial device that would allow
a person to remove their home furnace, disconnect from the power
mains and live happily ever after.  From the claims we've been
seeing recently on this group I don't think the cfers can claim this
is an unrealistically high standard -- they seem to have every 
expectation of reaching it in the next few years.

cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudentom cudfnTom cudlnRadcliffe cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.12 / Tom Radcliffe /  Re: Plasmak Geometry
     
Originally-From: tom@mips2.phy.queensu.ca (Tom Radcliffe)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Plasmak Geometry
Date: 12 Aug 1994 17:30:10 GMT
Organization: Queen's University, Kingston

In article <CuEKBr.4rM@prometheus.UUCP>, pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) writes:
[deleted]
|> 
|> What is the difference between a toroid and a spheroid, except that
|> the latter has essentially NO HOLE??  

A spheriod is a quadratic surface, a toroid is a quartic.  Mathematically,
at least, they are entirely different kinds of animal.

cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudentom cudfnTom cudlnRadcliffe cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.12 / Bruce Dunn /  Re: What would skeptics consider a positive excess heat resu
     
Originally-From: Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Dunn)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What would skeptics consider a positive excess heat resu
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 94 12:41:40 -0700
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada

In article <KCKLUGE.94Aug8161802@glasnost.eecs.umich.edu>,
kckluge@glasnost.eecs.umich.edu (Karl Kluge) writes:

|>
|> There appear to now be published experiments reporting released heat in
|> excess of the total input power, and yet this appears not to settle the
|> issue as far as some of the technically informed skeptic go.

I give one personal set of evidence that I would accept for any device
producing "excess energy" - ability of the device to act as a black-box
water heater with power out greater than power in:


Apparatus:

A sealed "black box", with a single pair of electrical leads for input of
heavily filtered DC power, a water input line for water slightly above
ambient temperature, and a water output line for water warmed by the
device.


Evidence required:

Calculated input power, with appropriate error limits, measured on the
electrical energy going into the box (full records of voltage and current
over the experiment)

Calculated output power, with appropriate error limits, measured on the
thermal energy coming from the box via the warming of water in the coolant
circuit (full records of mass or volume flow rate and temperature
differential)


Criterion for "excess power":

Thermal output totaled since the initiation of an experiment must be
significantly higher than electrical input, considering measurement error.



Comments:

The power going into the box must be heavily filtered DC so that
unambiguous measurements can be made of power input.  If needed, the
apparatus itself must include an appropriate "flywheel" system (capacitors
or battery) inside the apparatus to smooth out the current draw so that it
can be properly measured at its entry point.  If the internal workings of
the apparatus need special power (duty cycling, ramps etc.), this may be
generated by a power conditioning unit inside the apparatus.

The water going into the box must be unambigously above ambient air
temperature, so that it cannot gain power from heat leakage into the
apparatus from the surroundings.

It is the experimenter's problem to solve the issue of losses by
electrolysis using either recombination, or by making an apparatus so good
that the energy put into electrolysis can be ignored - the skeptic is only
concerned with electrical power in, and thermal power out.

The designer of the device can use any insulation he wants to make sure
that heat leaves the apparatus by the water coolant loop, rather than by
wall leakage.  No credit however will be given for any heat that escapes
the device by means other than the water coolant loop.


--
Bruce Dunn    Vancouver, Canada   Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenBruce_Dunn cudfnBruce cudlnDunn cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.12 / Tom Droege /  Re: Return of the experimenter?
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Return of the experimenter?
Date: 12 Aug 1994 19:38:25 GMT
Organization: fermilab

In article <204@zebra.alphacdc.COM>, vern@zebra.alphacdc.COM (Vernon C. 
Hoxie) says:
>
>In article <32b2vp$rts@fnnews.fnal.gov> Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege) 
writes:
>
>>>Question 3.  How do you measure loading.  I have had some disussions 
with
>>>        others on this NET to disuss this very item....I am unhappy
>>>        with the answers to date...  There doesn't appear to be a 
simple
>>>        inexpensive method to confirm Hydrogen, Deuterium loading
>>>        above the 0.83 % mark.... How do we confirm and measure
>>>        High H, or D to metal ratios  ???
>>>

Always willing to have a vounteer take on a task like this and show us 
how to do it with some calculations.  Let's say we have a 1 cc cathode.
This is 1/10 mole of Pd.  This is a pretty large cathode for the 
experiments I have been running.  For one H/D for each Pd atom or the 
famous 1/1 ratio, this requires 1/20 mole of H2.  This is 11,200 cc of
of H2.  Suppose we wish to make a 1% measurement.  About the minimum that 
would be useful.  This means we must measure 1/2000 mole of H/D.  This is 
one milligram when measuring H and 2 milligrams when measuring D.  This 
does not seem too hard until one realizes that there is a one ampere 
current lead to be connected.  A #30 platinum wire will just barely carry 
one ampere.  As we change the current to the cell, this will get hot and 
cold ect. and change its strain. I think these forces will be comparable 
to what we are trying to measure.  I have thought of Mercury cups, etc., 
and just don't see a good way to do it.  

There is another problem.  As the Pd loads, it's volume changes.  The 
change in buoyancy is possibly similar to the weight gain. 

Let's hear how you would do it. 

Tom Droege

>From a lurker:
>
>|3) Remove the cathode from the cell periodically and weigh it.  This 
>|certainly prevents using 2) as a check.  Also hard to keep all the leads 
>|the same for 1) (but not impossible).  The big problem is that this 
method
>|assumes that H/D diffuses out of the cathode sample, which gives enough 
>|time to get the sample out to a scale.  I have observed large sudden 
>|outgassing of samples, of order 10%-20%.  In seconds.  Particularly true 
>|at large loadings.  So I do not think this methods gives anything but a 
>|lower limit of loading achieved.
>
>How about building a scale into the cell.  This would mean more leads
>but maybe you could multiplex the resistance leads and the strain gauge
>leads but reverse polarity of the sense voltage.
>
>I got a blurb from Penwalt some years ago about a piezo mylar film they
>had.  The mylar could very well be a contaminate to the cell however.
>
>vern
>
>-- 
>Vernon C. Hoxie                            
{csn,netcomsv}!scicom!zebra!vern
>3975 W. 29th Ave.                                   
vern@zebra.alphacdc.com
>Denver, Colo., 80212        uucp: 303-455-2670          voice: 
303-477-1780

cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.12 / Robert Heeter /  Section 5 - Status of Devices - Conventional Fusion FAQ
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Section 5 - Status of Devices - Conventional Fusion FAQ
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 1994 03:15:52 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

5. Status of and plans for some Present Devices:
* This FAQ deals with conventional fusion only, not Cold Fusion. *

While this section is not yet complete, it should be useful to
many people, and I encourage you to distribute it to anyone who
might be interested (and willing to help revise it!!!).

Fourth Draft - August 11, 1994
Written by Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@pppl.gov, unless
otherwise cited.


*** Notes:

* Most of the devices listed here have entries in the glossary.  
This section repeats the basic descriptions of each machine, 
and tries to give some current information on the operational 
status and research program being pursued on the machine.

* Jargon terms in this section are, or at least should be,
defined in the glossary.

* Entries are sorted by machine type, and then alphabetically. 

* For more information on a type of device, see section 4.

* Budgets are FY 1994 US $$

* I am lacking information on the Russian and Japanese programs,
and don't even have all the American facilities/devices listed.
I'd appreciate any information that anyone wants to send my way.
(Anybody at Madison want to let me know what y'all have there?)


*** A.  Flagship Tokamaks - The largest in the world
 
* 1.  ITER: (International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor)

Current Budget (US branch only): $62.2 million

Currently in the engineering design phase.  For more information
see Section 9: Future Plans.


* 2.  JET: (Joint European Torus)  

World's largest tokamak, in Oxfordshire, England, commonly owned 
by the European Community. 
Current Budget: ??

Has been undergoing modifications since achieving 1.7 MW of fusion
power with a 10% tritium fuel mixture in 1991.  
(See Section 6: Recent Results)

Current plan is to test advanced divertor operation (and other
advanced physics operation?), followed by 50-50 D-T fuel experiments
in 1996 or so.  (Help from anyone at JET?  Stephen Cooper?)


* 3.  JT-60: (Japan Tokamak (?)) 

Large tokamak located north of Tokyo in Japan.
Current Budget: ??  (including workers?)

JT-60 achieved the world's highest temperatures in 1993, and
also the best combined plasma parameters (triple product).


* 4.  TFTR:  (Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor)  

Large tokamak at Princeton.
Current Budget:  $75.4 million

TFTR was the first machine to use the 50-50 mix of D-T fuel, and
as a result is the current world's record holder in fusion energy
production.  TFTR is the largest tokamak in the United States,
but will be decommissioned at the end of 1995 when D-T operations
are completed.  TFTR will be allowed to cool off (to reduce the
radioactivity) for a year, and then decommissioned to make room
for TPX, according to the current plan.
  

* 5.  TPX: (Tokamak Physics Experiment)  

Large tokamak; smaller successor to TFTR at Princeton.  
Current Budget:  $19.3 million

TPX is intended to study advanced physics and technology issues.
Engineering design is underway; construction is scheduled to begin 
in FY 1996.  (Budget will rise to $42 million in FY95, but 
construction funding has been withheld for all components save
superconducting magnets pending passage of long-term fusion
program authorization legislation.)  See Section 9 on Future 
Plans for more information.



*** B.  Medium-to-Large Tokamaks

* 1.  Alcator C-Mod: 

Mid-sized tokamak at MIT.
Current Budget:  $14.5 million

Currently investigating advanced plasma configurations and
divertor operation.  Also studying the use of high-Z 
molybdenum divertor plates and walls.  For more information 
see the Alcator weekly updates posted periodically by Steve
Fairfax.


* 2.  ASDEX-U:  (Axially Symmetric Divertor EXperiment-Upgrade) 

Mid-sized tokamak at the Institute for Plasma Physics, 
Garching, Germany.

Current Budget: (?)

ASDEX-Upgrade is the first tokamak whose toroidal and poloidal field 
coils are not linked, which will be a necessary design factor in a 
reactor.  It will achieve parameters at the edge which are very 
similar to those needed for a power reactor. - Arthur Carlson


* 3.  DIII-D:  (Doublet III, D-shape)

Medium-large tokamak operated by GA Technologies (formerly 
General Atomic) in San Diego.  (Second largest in U.S., after TFTR)
Current Budget:  $44.6 million

Looking at enhancing plasma confinement by modifying the shape of
the plasma.  From Art Carlson:  Also investigating advanced 
divertor operation, including biasing.  (More info, anyone??)


* 4.  FT-U: (Frascati Tokamak - Upgrade)

Mid-sized tokamak located in Italy - more info anyone?


* 5.  NSTX: (National Spherical Tokamak eXperiment)

Mid-sized low aspect-ratio tokamak / spheromak experiment
proposal; still in design phase / not funded.  See Section 9 
on Future Plans for more information.


* 6.  PBX-M:  (Princeton Beta Experiment-Modified)

Mid-sized tokamak at Princeton, formerly PDX. 
Current Budget:  $ 2.7 million

PBX-M is being used to investigate advanced tokamak configurations,
including the second-stability high-beta regime, and thus also
plasma and pulse shaping for enhanced confinement.  PBX-M operations 
are on hold for fiscal year 1994 because of the DT operations 
on TFTR.  PBX-M has a budget request of $8.2 million to resume 
operation in FY 1995.


* 7.  TCV: (Variable Configuration Tokamak - in French) 

New tokamak located in Lausanne, Switzerland
Current Budget:  ??

"The TCV device (from "Variable Configuration Tokamak" in French)
is a new tokamak (first plasma Nov. 1992) designed to study the 
effects of plasma shaping on tokamak performance.  The geometry 
is R = 0.88 m, a = 0.24 m, with a design maximum elongation 
of k = 3, and current of Ip = 1.2 MA." 
     - David Ward, ward@crppsun.epfl.ch


* 8.  TdeV:  (Tokamak de Varenne)

Art Carlson:  Tokamak located in Quebec, Canada.  
Any further info, anyone?


* 9.  TEXTOR:  

Mid-sized tokamak in Juelich, Germany

TEXTOR is a limiter-type tokamak known for work on wall conditioning,
pumped limiters, detachment, and electrode-induced H-mode. 
                                                  - Art Carlson


* 10. Tore Supra:  

Large tokamak in Cadarache (southern France).  
Current Budget: ??

Tore Supra is the second largest tokamak in Europe, and uses 
superconducting magnets to achieve long plasma pulses.  Tore 
Supra has a circular cross-section (like TFTR), which limits the
achievable confinement time and experimental flexibility.  In 
addition to developing superconducting technology, it 
concentrates on the physics of long pulses and advanced
ergodic (space-filling) magnetic limiters.

(Could anyone provide me with more information?)



*** C.  Small Tokamaks

* 1.  CDX-U: (Current Drive Experiment-Upgrade)

[[ Information here adapted from the PPPL WWW/Mosaic page on CDX-U ]]

Small low aspect-ratio tokamak at the Princeton Plasma Physics Lab
Current Budget:  About $500,000

CDX-U is a small tokamak used to study advanced tokamak ideas,
which have included non-inductive methods of current drive, 
100%-bootstrap current tokamak plasmas, and low-aspect ratio 
plasma stability and performance.  It is also used as a flexible 
testbed for advanced plasma diagnostics.


* 2.  START:  (Small Tight-Aspect-Ratio Tokamak)

Small, Very low aspect-ratio tokamak at Culham in England
Current Budget: ??

START is unique (?) among current tokamaks in that it has 
never experienced a plasma disruption.  This may represent
an advantage of low aspect-ratio operation.  

(More info, anyone?)


* 3.  TEXT-U:

Small tokamak at the University of Texas-Austin
Current Budget:  ??

Up-to-date information on TEXT-U can be obtained from
the gopher server at U Texas:  hagar.ph.utexas.edu,
or via the WWW server http://w3fusion.ph.utexas.edu/frc.html.
TEXT-U is a small, flexible machine recently converted to divertor
operation.  - Bonnie Nestor



*** D.  Stellarators

* 1. ATF:  (Advanced Toroidal Facility)  

Large stellarator machine at Oak Ridge National Lab (ORNL)
Current Budget:  $4.9 million.

ATF is currently the largest stellarator in the world, and
is operating for FY 1994, but it will be mothballed in 1995
due to the shortage of funds in the U.S. program.


* 2.  Wendelstein-7AS:  (Advanced Stellarator) 

Large stellarator in Garching, Germany.
Current Budget: ??

Pursuing advanced stellarator physics in competition with the
tokamak design.  Currently attempting to minimize neoclassical
effects such as the bootstrap current; uses non-planar magnetic
coils, as an alternative to linked coils.  


* 3.  Wendelstein-7X:  (Advanced Stellarator) 

Large stellarator expected to be built in Greifwald, Germany.
Current Budget: ??

Large stellarator to be built [final approval expected end 
of July??] in Greifswald, Germany (on the northern coast).  
Based on the principles developed in Wendelstein-AS, it will 
have superconducting magnets and be large enough to enable
a decision whether the next machine after ITER should be a 
tokamak or a stellarator. - Art Carlson (w/ minor amendments)



*** E.  Inertial Confinement

* 1.  NIF:  (National Ignition Facility)

Inertial-Confinement Fusion Facility proposed to be built
at Livermore and operational around the year 2000.  See 
Section 9 on Future Plans for more information.


* 2.  Nova:

The United States' largest laser (ICF) fusion facility, at LLNL.  
Current Budget: ??

(I don't know what the state of Nova research is.  Any help from
LLNL researchers?)



*** F.  Alternative Approaches

* 1.  Electrostatic Confinement

Studied with some success in the 1950s and 1960s, this concept
has recently been resurrected as a student research project 
at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.  There is another
experiment being done at Univ. Illinois at Urbana-Champaign,
in Miley's group.  And Bussard at Energy-Matter Conversion Corp.
(EMC^2) has written about a magnetize inertial-electrostatic 
device, but I have no details.  (Does anyone have more info?)


* 2.  MFTF:  Mirror Fusion Test Facility:  

Large mirror machine at Livermore, CA.
Current Budget:  $0.

MFTF has been mothballed since constrution was completed in
1980 (1986?).  (Budget cuts/political reasons/lack of prospects.)


* 3.  Muon-Catalyzed Fusion 

Muon-catalyzed fusion has yielded the best power out/power in
ratio of any approach to controlled fusion, but strong theoretical
arguments suggest that muon catalyzed fusion can go no further.
Some research is still underway in hopes of overcoming the
theoretical obstacles.  (See section on Muon-Catalyzed Fusion
in Section 4.)


* 4.  PLASMAK(tm): 

Spheromak-type pulsed device in Maryland, USA.
Current Budget: ??

Paul M. Koloc posts occasionally to let us know what he's up to.
As I understand it, they are looking towards a proof-of-concept 
experiment, but lack funding.  PLASMAK is oriented 
towards the proton-Boron aneutronic advanced fuel.  For 
more information on the Plasmak concept, see Section 4.


* 5.  RFX:  (Reversed-Field eXperiment)

Largest Reversed-Field Pinch presently operating; in Padova, Italy.
Budget: ??

RFX is planned to reach a plasma current of 2 MA.
(Emilio Martines, martines%pdigi3.igi.pd.cnr.it)
(Could you provide some more information now, Dr. Martines?)


***************************
Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University
As always, I represent only myself, and not PPPL
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Sat Aug 13 04:37:03 EDT 1994
------------------------------
1994.08.12 / Ad aspera /  APS and E-Print
     
Originally-From: JTCHEW@lbl.gov (Ad absurdum per aspera)
Newsgroups: sci.research,misc.writing,bit.listserv.techwr-l,ieee.general
sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.accelerators,sci.physics.part
cle
Subject: APS and E-Print
Date: 12 Aug 1994 22:00:13 GMT
Organization: Relayed, not written, by Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory



[Written by individuals at the American Physical Society and
merely posted by me, so respond to addresses below.  Enjoy! -jc]

The American Physical Society is examining its role in the operation of
electronic-print archives sometimes referred to as "e-print" for the
dissemination of physics manuscripts in advance of their being published
or even peer reviewed (as is currently the practice in physics).

The often stated objective of The American Physical Society (APS) is the
advancement and diffusion of the knowledge of physics. In the last few
years, a major goal of the Society has been to move its scholarly
publications away from print and toward electronic production and
dissemination.  The current explosion in the use of information technology
for early dissemination of scientific information dovetails with APS's
interest in electronic publishing and consumption of scholarly journals
and provides both physicists and the Society with an opportunity to join
forces to support and improve scholarly communication in physics.

Many manuscripts published by APS and other physics publishers start their
journeys as preprints.  The E-print archives, pioneered by Paul Ginsparg
at Los Alamos, are revolutionizing the circulation of preprints, and are
making the dissemination of information quicker and more efficient, at
least in some major subfields of physics. We imagine that this phenomenon
will spread to subfields not thus far affected.

The American Physical Society has followed the e-print archive phenomenon
with great interest. The APS may have an important role to play at this
critical juncture. Accordingly The American Physical Society has
established
the E-Print Forum linked to its home page (http://aps.org/) on the World
Wide
Web. This Forum will serve as a temporary archive for discussions, meeting
bulletins, papers, etc., concerning e-print (preprint) archives and the
potential role of APS.

The American Physical Society has also established a listserver, for
discussion on ideas and issues pertaining to e-prints. You may subscribe to
the listserver by sending a message to listserv@aps.org and include the
words
'subscribe eptalk' in the body of the message. Instructions for
participation
in discussion related to e-prints are in the information and FAQ file that
will be sent to you. Instructions also appear under the topic "Introduction
to Archive of discussions on E-print archive issues and opportunities" on
the
APS E-Print Forum page.

All messages posted to eptalk@aps.org will be indexed, by author, subject
and timing under the topic "Introduction to Archive of discussions on
e-print archive issues and opportunities" on the APS E-Print Forum page.

Bob Kelly
APS
Director Journal Information Systems
rakelly@aps.org
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenJTCHEW cudfnAd cudlnaspera cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.12 / Lee Rudolph /  Re: Plasmak Geometry
     
Originally-From: rudolph@cis.umassd.edu (Lee Rudolph)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Plasmak Geometry
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 1994 22:38:09 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts Dartmouth

tom@mips2.phy.queensu.ca (Tom Radcliffe) writes:

>pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) writes:
>[deleted]
>|> 
>|> What is the difference between a toroid and a spheroid, except that
>|> the latter has essentially NO HOLE??  

>A spheriod is a quadratic surface, a toroid is a quartic.  Mathematically,
>at least, they are entirely different kinds of animal.

(Greg Kuperberg, where are you?)

The degrees of the defining equations of the surfaces in the model
are an essentially meaningless difference between the spheroid and
the toroid (except that, indeed, a mere quadratic couldn't describe
a toroid--but a quartic could easily describe a spheroid).  The
hole, is in fact, vastly important (I aver without having the slightest
idea about the details of the model), for it represents that 
topological difference which allows fields with certain qualitative
properties to exist in the toroidal case and not the spheroidal one.
It's the topology, not the accident of degree 2 vs. degree 4, that
distinguishes the two kinds of animal.

Lee R
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenrudolph cudfnLee cudlnRudolph cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.13 / Chris Parkinson /  Re: c1prasad@watson.ibm.com (prasad)
     
Originally-From: parky@ix.netcom.com (Chris Parkinson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: c1prasad@watson.ibm.com (prasad)
Date: 13 Aug 1994 05:21:59 GMT
Organization: Netcom

You Wrote:

In <32gjlv$10am@watnews1.watson.ibm.com> c1prasad@watson.ibm.com (prasad) writes: 

>[ lots of stuff with phases and currents deleted ]
>-- 
>
>There seems to be a dim connection with the simple things about ferromagnetism
>I thought I knew.  Last heard of, we didn't have magnetic monopoles.  What
>we had were dipoles, and above the Curie temperature, the dipoles start jiggling
>so hard that the ferromagnetism breaks down and the material becomes paramagnetic,
>largely losing its susceptibility.  This happens to be used for thermostat
>kind of switch, as you describe, but I fail to understand what this has to
>do with bi-metallic strips, whose switching function is based purely on
>the differential thermal expansion.  Further, both kinds of switches are plain
>switches, nothing to do with the frequency - indeed, should work with d.c. just
>as well.  Unless you have a large coil with many turns, a high current and
>a high frequency, inductive heating is not likely to be much.  Note that inductive
>heating is mostly ohmic heating due to induced currents in the specimen.
>
>If it is something other than these you are talking about, I'd like to know.
>I have a feeling you have got things mixed up.
>
>
>#pragma prejudices=own brainwaves=own others=absolved
>// email: 71155.3116@compuserve.com, poll= 1/month.
>// bad habits: unwashed robes, xrn.
>
 True, True, True except that a patent which I worked with for a number of years
worked according to my explanation. If you need some verification of this I suggest
you look over this patent it is listed under 'Phil Carter' and is named 'IRIS 1'.
It requires two metals with one acting as the inducer and the other acting as the
curie effect restricter. In regards to di-poles, yes I had it wrong. 
Out of phase, yes to cause almost 70% of the current to be fully reflected. 
I cannot get into the current's at hand due to patent restrictions but I can say 
that once the bi-metallic curie temp is hit over temp does not occur as you state. 
D.C. levels are possible and its true you do not need bi-metals to achieve the 
curie temperature but it will not auto-regulate. The only reason I brought 
this up was in regards to the "Italian Cold Fusion" article. They have not stated
what kind of power supply they are using or what the distances are from the anode
to the cathode but they definately coiled the anode around the cathode. At high
frequencies you do not need many turns if you also have a balun in front of this coil.

I do apologize for any inconsistancies, look at the patent it will bear me out.
One reason that few folks know of this type of bi-metal effect is that it is 
patented and controlled by one company which holds it's secrets quite near.
Additionally Phil Carter is one of the formost guru's in RF technology and
unless you have studied under him, you would most likely not know about this
and the many other technolgy's of the patents he owns.

I think though that you have a great understanding of the rudiments of this
effect and I would be interested to hear some comments from you in regards
to the article as mentioned above. I hope that you don't feel that I'm opposed
to CF. In contrast I feel that some of Newtons laws will win out against 
relativity as a result of a deeper understanding of this phenomina. Secondly
I do not condone the use of a scientific journal to be hyping up anything that
cannot be verified or put to the test through a peer review. Sometimes patents
are merely a means of shielding a falsehood as is demonstrated by the numerous
patents that simply don't work. 

	All I'm trying to do is envoke a sense of curiosity
into their "effect" and to play the devils advocate. I think some time well spent
would be to fully engulf oneself into verifying the foriegn patents that are being
issued. Who knows maybe one of them does work and we all could band together to
convince are troubled government to fund some research. This indeed needs to
happen. If we allow corporate America to own all the rights to this, the ATT
monopoly will seem small change in comparison and once again the rich will
become richer etc, etc....

Regards,

CP
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenparky cudfnChris cudlnParkinson cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.13 / Robert Horst /  Re: Return of the experimenter?
     
Originally-From: horst_bob@tandem.com (Robert Horst)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Return of the experimenter?
Date: Sat, 13 Aug 1994 06:27:55 GMT
Organization: Tandem Computers

> In article <204@zebra.alphacdc.COM>, vern@zebra.alphacdc.COM (Vernon C. 
> Hoxie) says:
> 
> >How about building a scale into the cell.  This would mean more leads
> >but maybe you could multiplex the resistance leads and the strain gauge
> >leads but reverse polarity of the sense voltage.

And Tom Dreoge replies:

> Let's hear how you would do it. 

OK I'll bite.  Here is a way to design the experiment with no wires leaving
the calorimeter, a built-in scale, and constant input power.

Sealed inside the cell is a rechargable battery such as a NiCad.  The NiCad
powers the cell and some internal electronics.  A one-chip microprocessor
and FET switches could be used to make a simple switching power supply to
drive the cathode with the desired voltage and current.  Communications to
and from the micro would be through LEDs and photo detectors straight
through the glass of the calorimeter.  The micro could both control the
experiment power input, and it could gather data from the electronic scale,
and gather any other desired measurements.

Power to charge the battery would be inductively coupled, also through the
glass.  Charge current would be set high enough to make sure the battery
never completely drained.  Charge current would be constant across a nearly
constant voltage, giving constant power input to the experiment.  This
eliminates all arguments about required sampling rates for measuring input
V and I.  Any input power above that actually supplied to the cathode just
heats up the battery (which is also inside the calorimeter).

Each time the cathode is to be weighed, the input power could be
momentarily shut off to prevent any magnetic coupling from affecting the
measurement.  The change in buoyency would just have to be calibrated out
using one of the other  techniques (O2 or resistance measurement).

-- Bob Horst
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenhorst_bob cudfnRobert cudlnHorst cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.13 / Chris Parkinson /  Re: Return of the experimenter?
     
Originally-From: parky@ix.netcom.com (Chris Parkinson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Return of the experimenter?
Date: 13 Aug 1994 05:59:28 GMT
Organization: Netcom

You wrote: 


>>
>>How about building a scale into the cell.  This would mean more leads
>>but maybe you could multiplex the resistance leads and the strain gauge
>>leads but reverse polarity of the sense voltage.
>>
>>I got a blurb from Penwalt some years ago about a piezo mylar film they
>>had.  The mylar could very well be a contaminate to the cell however.
>>
>>vern
>>
>>-- 
>>Vernon C. Hoxie                            
>{csn,netcomsv}!scicom!zebra!vern
>>3975 W. 29th Ave.                                   
>vern@zebra.alphacdc.com
>>Denver, Colo., 80212        uucp: 303-455-2670          voice: 
>303-477-1780
>
>

Yes Vern, 
	Piezoelectric Kynar would probably do it without contamination.
Simply, Get the Kynar double sided with tin coated copper. Etch off
all the areas that will be in the cell and make sure that some
of the Kynar is out of the cell (like the two ends). These areas
would then create the strain gauge. The only issues that would remain
is noise and calibration. Noise could be controlled by making this a
static measurement (with the power off) and calibration would be
fairly straight forword through the use of some weights. Simple, Eh.
The only other problem you may run into is temperature. Piezoelectric
Kynar has the funny trick of also being able to act as a thermocouple.
Now come to think of it wave action would also be a problem. If you
or anyone else think that this may work or have made it work 
I would enjoy it to here your input.

Chris Parkinson
parky@ix.netcom.com
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenparky cudfnChris cudlnParkinson cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.13 / John Logajan /  Re: Return of the experimenter?
     
Originally-From: al789@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Return of the experimenter?
Date: 13 Aug 1994 06:52:33 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)


Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege) says:
>Let's say we have a 1 cc cathode.
>This is 1/10 mole of Pd.  This is a pretty large cathode for the 
>experiments I have been running.  For one H/D for each Pd atom or the 
>famous 1/1 ratio, this requires 1/20 mole of H2.  This is 11,200 cc of
>of H2.

Oops, wouldn't it be more like 1,120 cc of H2?  (I actually get 1,380 cc.)

>Suppose we wish to make a 1% measurement.  About the minimum that 
>would be useful.  This means we must measure 1/2000 mole of H/D.  This is 
>one milligram when measuring H and 2 milligrams when measuring D.

Yeah, one milligram of H2 and two milligrams of D2.

-- 
-- John Logajan ---  al789@cleveland.freenet.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenal789 cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.15 / Robert Heeter /  Section 10A - Glossary/FUT Intro - Conventional Fusion FAQ
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Section 10A - Glossary/FUT Intro - Conventional Fusion FAQ
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 1994 00:37:52 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

10A. FUT: Glossary of Frequently Used Terms in Conventional Fusion
* This FAQ deals with conventional fusion only, not Cold Fusion. *

While this section is not yet complete, it should be useful to
many people, and I encourage you to distribute it to anyone who
might be interested (and willing to help revise it!!!).

7th Draft, Last Revised on Sunday, August 14, 1994.
Edited by Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@pppl.gov

***  This introduces the Conventional Fusion FUT/Glossary  ***

* Editorial Note:  

Like any discipline, fusion research has evolved terminology used 
to facilitate discussion.  This includes the scientific vocabulary 
of the discipline, the names of various research machines and 
devices used, the names of various researchers in the field, the 
names of the various research labs and funding authorities, the
mathematical symbols used, and the acronyms frequently used as 
shorthand for some of the above,.  

In the case of conventional (magnetic confinement, inertial
confinement, thermonuclear, muon-catalyzed, etc - but not Cold)
fusion, this terminology has grown to the point where newcomers
(including the author of the FUT!) may be intimidated by the 
apparent obscurity of the discussions.  This file is an attempt 
to provide a comprehensive and detailed listing and explanation 
of terms frequently used, so that those new to the group/field 
will be able to understand what is being said, and to contribute 
with a minimum of confusion and frustration.  

The following is a rough draft of a guide to terminology used in
conventional (not Cold) fusion research.  This is the seventh draft 
of the terminology guide, and while considerable progress has been 
made, many relevant terms are still unlisted, undefined, or poorly 
defined.  (Hint:  If you don't like something, submit a 
revision/correction, and I'll put it in if it looks good.)


* DO NOT BE INTIMIDATED BY THE SIZE OF THIS GLOSSARY!

Everything is organized alphabetically, and to make things even
better each entry is coded by type (names, acronyms, types of 
machines, basic physics terms, advanced plasma terms, etc).
Hopefully this will make the FUT easier to use. 


* What's in the FUT:  

We started with an initial list supplied by Jim Day 
(Jim.Day@support.com).  To this were added some comments from various
responses I received to the first draft.  I then incorporated many of
the terms in the glossary of Robin Herman's _Fusion: The Search for
Endless Energy_ (without permission, but with attribution where they
occur).  Then acronyms, machine names, and names of important 
scientists were added as they came. This completed the second draft.  

For the third draft, I incorporated comments and new definitions
received in response to the second draft, and added some new terms 
from the "Princeton Plasma Physics Laboaratory Glossary of Fusion 
Terms", which I obtained at PPPL.  I added categories for research 
and funding/political agencies, tried to broaden the base of basic
science terms, and wrote up a few more preliminary definitions based
upon explanations that have appeared in the newsgroup and in my 
studies.  Many of the terms listed still do not have explanations 
given.  

The fourth through seventh drafts are mostly incremental 
improvements to the previous versions.  New categories of terms 
have been made, the organization has been improved, and of 
course definitions have been added and improved.


* What's Needed to Improve the FUT:

I am looking for additional contributions (and improvements) to 
the list.  It would be nice if people posting to the group could
occasionally take a few moments to include definitions of a few 
terms used when you use them; in browsing through the group I 
can then snip out the terms and definitions and simply paste 
them into the evolving FUT file.  It also would be nice if 
references to the FAQ/FQA and the Reading List / Bibliography 
could be given to supplement the FUT descriptions, at least 
for some of the more complicated terms.


* Comment on Sources:

The terms and definitions occurring here represent a collection
of contributions from numerous sources.  Rather than include
acknowledgements for each individual definition, I have made
blanket acknowledgements in a separate section.  I have tried 
to include citations in most cases where only a single textual 
source was used.


* This file may be freely distributed; I recommend you retain the
revision date, and in any case I'd like to be cited as the editor. *

****************
Robert F. Heeter
rfheeter@lyman.pppl.gov
Graduate Student, Princeton Plasma Physics Lab
(Usual disclaimers apply.)




***************************
Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University
As always, I represent only myself, and not PPPL
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.15 / Bill Page /  Re:  What does delocalization mean?
     
Originally-From: 70047.3047@compuserve.com (Bill Page)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re:  What does delocalization mean?
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 1994 00:12:41 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Dick Blue writes:
<<
Bill Page is doing a good job of stating his case so I feel we are getting more
of the implications of this sort of thinking out in the open.  I am still a
little shakey on the connection between the formation of band states and the
delocalization.  I thought the periodic potential does both, but you seem to
indicate that you can have the formation of a band without there being any
delocalization, so that is one point I would like to hear discussed further.
Why exactly is it that some of the deuterons become delocalized, or more
particularly why does the newly formed 4He have to be delocalized at all?
>>

You are right that I am saying (in principle, at least) that "you can have the
formation of a band with ther being any delocalization". The point is that the
two concepts are independent but do, none the less both occur together in (for
example) a metal. A "band" is a group of very closely spaced energy eigen-states
- so close that as a first approximation we can treat the variation of energy as
continuous within the range of the band. Whether such bands exist is determined
by form of the potential and the resulting solutions of Schrodinger's wave
equation. One such form of the potential that does give rise to bands is the
periodic potential in a cyrstal lattice. I am not sure whether or not this is
the only such form of potential that gives such solutions.

Whether or not there is "delocalization", however, is still (for me at least) a
question of what is meant by delocalization. Certainly all (finite) periodic
potentials give rise to solutions of the wave equation which have a non-zero
spatial extent over the same range as the periodic potential itself.

Now, another possible meaning of "delocalization" is whether it is necessary to
use quantum mechanics or whether a classical (or semi-classical) approximation
is adequate to describe a given situation. So we would say that a system is
"delocalized" is a quantum description is unavoidable. Actually, this sort of
definition is more tied up with the question of the degree of nonlocality rather
than delocalization per se. But when you ask "why is it that some of the
deuterons become delocalized, or more particularly why does the newly formed 4He
have to be delocalized at all", I think that classical approximation versus
(full) quantum mechanical treatment is at the root of the issue. Chubb&Chubb
claim that for a large majority of the deuterons within a fully loaded Palladium
lattice, the classical approximation is pretty good. The motions of the
individual deuterons is (approximately) separable and we can say that the wave
functions describing each such deuteron do not "overlap" with each other. We say
that (on the scale of electronic interactions) they are "localized" (and that
their interaction is local as opposed to nonlocal).

But for a sufficiently highly loaded lattice a small percentage of the deuterons
behave in an entirely different way. Their motions can only be described by
those wavefunctions which are exact solutions (no longer just an approximation
of the solutions) to the wave equation of the lattice as a whole. So these are
the "delocalized deuterons". [But lets be clear. It is not the deuterons that
are delocalized. Deuterons are particles. It is the wavefunction which has a
spatial extent the size of the crystal lattice - not the particle. In David
Bohm's interpretation of QM, the whole form of this wavefunction guides the
motion of the particle in a nonlocal manner.]

Chubb&Chubb argue that this happens as a result of energy minimization. That is,
if we could solve Schrodinger's wave equation exactly, we would find that some
of the energy eigen-states are non-separable and lower in energy that their
separable approximations. Of course, it is not really possible to solve the
exactly in this case, but we can still argue about what forms the solutions
could take.

Chubb&Chubb further imply (though I don't recall seeing a detailed calculation)
that the wavefunctions describing 4He must also be delocalized - that a
separable, semi-classical treatment of their motions is not adequate. There is
no doubt that at least some of the energy eigen-states of the 4He are
delocalized in this sense. But it is not clear to me why it should be true of
all 4He, or indeed whether it needs to be true of all 4He for Chubb&Chubb's
theory.

<<
However, the place where I really begin to wonder about all of this is where you
say that two deuterons instantly become a 4He, but there is no single excited
4He nucleus - the energy of all the particles increasing slightly. First off I
need some clarification:  What "all the particles" are we talking about?  Are we
talking all the helium particles as being the entities that take of the
excitation energy or is this a generic anything and everything that happens to
be kicking around the lattice?
>>

Chubb&Chubb claim that it is all the delocalized D *and* the delocalized 4He
which share the excitation energy. The significance of this is that their
motions are all manifestly nonlocal, i.e. affected nonlocally by the form of the
delocalized bose condensate wave function.

<<
Another problem I have with this approach is the failure to differentiate
between kinetic energy of translation of the center of mass of the interacting
system and excitation energy within that system, what ever that may be.  If two
deuterons become one 4He don't we have to conserve momentum, and isn't there
some sort of limit on how fast momentum can be transfered through the lattice?
If that is not so why don't we see sound propagation at infinite velocity or
thermal conductivity that you just would not believe?
>>

Yes! Now this is a question that gets to the heart of the matter. And here is
where one's interpretation of quantum mechanics gets tangled up with our
intuitive understanding of what is going on. Typical of the conventional
interpretation, Chubb&Chubb's theory is not very clear on these points. They
simply fall back on using qantum mechanicals algorithmically. But I think Bohm's
interpretation is very useful here.

In Bohm's interpretation, the detailed motions of the particles *do not*
conserve momentum. Momentum and energy are only conserved on the average across
a large statistical ensemble where the probability of a particle being located
at a particle location is equal to the square of the absolute value of the
wavefunction. So no, we don't have to conserve momentum when two deuterons fuse
to become a 4He. And further more, the changes in the bose condenstate
wavefunction (and hence the motions of all the particles) take place
instantaneously through-out the lattice.

The thing about sound propogation and thermal conductivity is that these are
macroscopic phenomena that depend on measurements and in Bohm's interpretation
(just like in the conventional interpretation - though for rather different
reasons) there are limitations on what we can measure. The best we can do is to
observe very large statistical ensembles, so for the most part, the classical
observables behave in the expected manner.

When you mention sound waves and thermal conductivity, it reminds me to think
about superfluidity. In the appropriate circumstances, a bose condensate is
superfluid, for example liquid helium. From the perspective of Bohm's
interpretation this occurs because the nature of the sound wave propogation in
liquid helium is such that it allows small perturbations in the condensate
wavefunction to be carried by phonons. More over, these perturbations are
exactly the ones which result in guiding the helium atoms around small potential
barriers (such as impurities). The result is that the fluid moves entirely
without friction and (in a sense) small thermal fluctuations are propogated
throughout the fluid instantenously. 

I think that if high temperature bose condensation does occur then we should
take the possibility of superfluidity as a strong possibility. So experimentally
we definately *should* look for anamolies in thermal conductivity.

<<
Well, for now let us say that two deuterons make a 4He at rest.  Tell us exactly
where the energy goes.  Name the particle species and explain how you get the
energy transfered without some rather wonderful correlations between several
thousand particles (or is it just a few?)  Next question is: how many 4He are
there in the lattice while this is going on?  Remember there are those who claim
there never are any to speak of because no one has ever succeeded in finding
them there.
>>

Sorry, but the best answer is "some rather wonderful correlations between
several thousand particles".

<<
The other thing I don't understand is why two deuterons have to make 4He in its
ground state and absolutely nothing else.  That seems to say there is some sort
of absolute selection rule of a sort I have never heard of.
>>

I'm skating on thin ice here but let me attempt an answer anyway. I may well be
wrong about this and I'd like to hear more from Chubb&Chubb about it, but here
goes. First of all, I don't think it is true to say that the result of a fusion
is 4He in its ground state. In fact, we haven't said anything about the internal
states of the particles except that they are separable from the electronic
motions. The result is actually a modification of the bose condensate
wavefunction describing the 4He already in the lattice to accommodate one more
particle.

The selection rule that is operational here has to do with the bose condensate
wavefunction and Born-Oppenheimer separability. The two deuterons that interact
are quided by the same wavefunction in a correlated manner. When a fusion takes
place (Chubb&Chubb call this a coalescence flucuation) there is one less
deuteron in the many-body quantum system. To compensate the total energy of the
condensate changes. The resulting wavefunction alters the motions of all the
deuterons in the condensate. 

The result of the fusion is a 4He but for the consistency of the theory (which
is interpreted as implying a selection rule in nature) we need to maintain the
separability of the nuclear and electronic wavefunctions. The only way we can do
this is if the 4He remains a 4He and the energy which might otherwise have gone
into the kinetic energy of a neutron and a triton (or maybe a photon), instead
is taken up by the potential energy of the quantum potential associated with the
4He condensate wavefunction.

Perhaps I'm a little far out on a limb. But it still makes sense to me.

Cheers,

Bill Page.

cudkeys:
cuddy15 cuden3047 cudfnBill cudlnPage cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.15 / Bill Page /  Correlations in chaos
     
Originally-From: 70047.3047@compuserve.com (Bill Page)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Correlations in chaos
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 1994 00:12:40 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Dick Blue writes:
<<
I want to comment to two points in a recent Bill Page post.  The first is a
purely experimental issue regarding backgrounds for radiation detection in
low-rate measurements.  Bill says:

"Of course the background radiation, as background, is not affected by the
experimental setup."

In that assertion of the obvious, Bill touches on a real problem that I hope he
fully understands before he proceeds much further with his experiments.  ...
>>

Dick, I appreciate your comments and I think you've made some very good points.
I have, in fact, suspended my experimental efforts (except for the occassional
tinkering with new design ideas). The main reason for undertaking the
experiments in the first place was educational/motivational and I think I did
accomplish that. But I never had sufficient time or resources to *really* do
what I thought should be done. For the time being, I think my time is better
spent on the theoretical aspects. So I whole heartedly support Tom Droege's,
William Bernecky's and several other people's intent to try to combine efforts
to achieve something much more interesting.

Aside from the occassional side comment here on s.p.f, I have not really
publized any of my experimental results (outside of a same group of personal
friends). If there is an interest here in discussing what I did and what I
observed, I would be willing to go into it in as much detail as this group can
stand. I still have all the raw data, analysis and pretty graphics. Just ask.

Cheers,

Bill Page.


cudkeys:
cuddy15 cuden3047 cudfnBill cudlnPage cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.15 / Robert Heeter /  Section 0 - Intro, Outline, Overview - Conventional Fusion FAQ
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Section 0 - Intro, Outline, Overview - Conventional Fusion FAQ
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 1994 00:34:14 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

 --------------------------------------------------
Frequently Asked Questions about Fusion Research 
(with Answers)
 --------------------------------------------------

Written/Edited by:
Robert F. Heeter
rfheeter@pppl.gov
Graduate Student, Princeton Plasma Physics Lab


Last Revised: 
August 14, 1994


Legal Stuff:  This is a draft document, not a completed work.  
As such it is an evolving text, and may not be correct or up-to-date.
This document should not be cited or distributed for profit.  
At this time, this document is made available for comments,
corrections, and contributions only.  In no case should my name, 
the revision date, or this paragraph be removed.  
                                             - Robert F. Heeter

 -------------------------------------------------

*** Table of Contents:

Title Page
Table of Contents

Preface / Current Status
Outline / List of Questions
Revision History

1 - Fusion as a Physical Phenomenon
2 - Fusion as an Energy Source
     2A - Technical Characteristics
     2B - Environmental Characteristics
     2C - Safety Characteristics
     2D - Economic Characteristics
     2E - Fusion for Space-Based Power
3 - Fusion as a Scientific Research Program
4 - Methods of Containment / Approaches to Fusion
     4A - Toroidal Magnetic Confinement Approaches
     4B - Other Approaches
5 - Status of and Plans for Present Devices
6 - Recent Results
7 - Educational Opportunities
8 - Internet Resources
9 - Future Plans
10 - Glossary of Frequently Used Terms (FUT)
     10A - Overview
     10B - A-C
     10C - D-H
     10D - I-M
     10E - N-R
     10F - S-Z
11 - Annotated Bibliography
12 - Citations and Acknowledgements



 -------------------------------------------------
*** Preface to the Conventional Fusion FAQ ***
 -------------------------------------------------

*** Goal:
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.

*** Scope:
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.

*** How to Get a Copy of the FAQ:
I haven't made the FAQ generally available on the net yet, mostly
because I don't feel that it's sufficiently complete.  If you would 
like a copy of the latest working draft, just send me email.
(In exchange, please be sure to send me comments and suggestions!) 

*** 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) below.  Hopefully it will not be too hard to use.
The FAQ is available as a standalone, self-running Macintosh
"digital magazine" program for those who are interested.

*** Status:
While much remains to be done, most sections now exist in at
least rough-draft form.  All sections could benefit from further
revision, and I would appreciate any new information, suggestions,
or comments anyone might be willing to provide.  Many thanks to 
those who have helped out thus far!  Once all sections are
drafted, I will be crossposting the FAQ to the offical FAQ
groups sci.answers and news.answers, and also to sci.physics
and sci.energy, since people there may be interested. (Then
again, the FAQ is huge; perhaps I will simply post the
introduction.)



 ------------------------------------------------------
OUTLINE OF THE CONVENTIONAL-FUSION FAQ 
(subject to change if desirable)

*** 1. Fusion as a Physical Phenomenon:
 A.  What is fusion?
 B.  How does fusion release energy?
 C.  Where does fusion occur in nature?
 D.  Why doesn't fusion occur anywhere else in nature?
 E.  What are the basic fusion reactions?
 F.  Could you tell me more about these different elements?
 G.  Why is the deuterium-tritium (D-T) reaction the easiest?
 H.  What is aneutronic fusion?
 I.  What sort of fusion reactor is the sun? 
 J.  Why is it so hard to create controlled man-made 
        fusion reactions?
 K.  What is plasma physics, and how is it related to fusion?
 L.  Just how hot and confined do these plasmas need to be?
        (Or, what conditions are needed for controlled fusion?)
 M.  What are the basic approaches used to heat and confine 
        the plasma?  (Or, what is magnetic confinement?  
        Inertial confinement?)	

*** 2. Fusion as a Future Energy Source:
  (Under construction)
 A.  Technical Characteristics
 B.  Economic Characteristics
 C.  Environmental Characteristics
 D.  Safety Characteristics
 E.  Fusion for Space Applications

*** 3. Fusion as a Scientific Research Program
  (Under construction)
 (a) History:
	   When did fusion research begin?
	   When was fusion research declassified?
	   What level of international cooperation is there?
	   What is the history of fusion funding (US, FUSSR, EC, Japan)?
	   What is the history of achievement of fusion parameters?
 (g) What is the current state of fusion research? 
		Close / far from achieving practical benefits?
	(h) Who is doing fusion, and where?  (funds distribution?)
	(i) Benefits of developing fusion energy?
	(j) Applications to spaceflight? (Sci-fi?)
	(k) How to spread the word to get more support?
		Is this too political?

*** 4. Methods of Confinement / Approaches to fusion:
  (Under construction)
 A.  Toroidal Magnetic Confinement Approaches
  1. What is a tokamak / how does it work?
	 2. What is a stellarator / " " " " ? 
	 3.   "  " reversed-field pinch / " " " " ? 
  4. What is a Field-Reversed Configuration / how does it work?
	 5.   "  "  " Plasmak / "   "    "   " ? 
  6. What is a Migma / how does it work?
 B.  Alternative Confinement Methods / Approaches
	 1.   "  "  inertial confinement / " " "? 
	 2.   "  "  " mirror  / "   "    "   " ? 
	 3.   "  " electrostatic confinement/ "  "  " ? 
	 4. Muon-catalyzed fusion
  5. What about the pinch methods?
	 6. What are some other confinement approaches?

*** 5. Status of and plans for Present Devices:
 A.  Flagship Tokamaks
  1.  ITER: (International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor)
  2.  JET: (Joint European Torus)  
  3.  JT-60: (Japan Tokamak (?)) 
  4.  TFTR:  (Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor)  
  5.  TPX: (Tokamak Physics Experiment)  
 B.  Medium to Large Tokamaks
  1.  Alcator C-Mod: 
  2.  ASDEX-U:  (Axially Symmetric Divertor EXperiment-Upgrade) 
  3.  DIII-D:  (Doublet III, D-shape)
  4.  FT: (Frascati Tokamak)
  5.  NSTX: (National Spherical Tokamak eXperiment)
  6.  PBX-M:  (Princeton Beta Experiment-Modified)
  7.  TCV: (Variable Configuration Tokamak - in French) 
  8.  TdeV:  (Tokamak de Varenne)
  9.  TEXTOR:  
  10. Tore Supra:  
 C.  Small Tokamaks
  1:  CDX-U (Current Drive eXperiment-Upgrade)
  2.  START:  (Small, Tight-Aspect-Ratio Tokamak)
  3.  TEXT-U: (Texas Experimental Tokamak-Upgrade?)
 D.  Stellarators
  1.  ATF  (Advanced Toroidal Facility)  
  2.  Wendelstein-7AS:  (Advanced Stellarator) 
  3.  Wendelstein-7X
 E.  Inertial Confinement
  1.  NIF:  (National Ignition Facility)
  2.  Nova:
 F.  Alternative Methods
  1.  Electrostatic Confinement:
  2.  MFTF:  Mirror Fusion Test Facility:  
  3.  Muon-Catalyzed Fusion 
  4.  PLASMAK(tm): 
  5.  RFX:  (Reversed-Field eXperiment)

*** 6. Recent Results
 A.  Recent Results on TFTR:
	 (a) What was done?
	 (b) Why does it matter?
 B.  Recent Results from JET
 C.  Recent Results from Inertial Confinement Fusion
 D.  Recent Results from Muon-Catalyzed Fusion
 E.  Recent major results from other experiments, 
       and theoretical work
 F.  Recent Political News
 G.  Appendix on TFTR and JET results

*** 7. Educational Issues and Conferences:
 A.  What opportunities are there for interested students?
 B.  I'm an undergraduate interested in becoming a "fusioneer."  
         What should I study?
 C.  What sorts of experiments are there for high-school
         students?  How can I get the equipment?  Has anyone
         else done this?
 D.  What about those summer programs you mentioned above?	
 E.  When/where are the major fusion conferences?

*** 8. Other internet resources:
 A. Newsgroups
 B. FTP Sites
 C. Listservers
 D. Gopher
 E. World-Wide Web
 F. Electronic Bulletins
 G. Individuals Willing to Provide Additional Information

*** 9. Future Plans:
  (Under construction)
	(a) Plans for TPX?
	(b) Plans for ITER?
	(c) Prospects for funding? (US, EC, Japan, FUSSR)
	(d) What problems in designing a fusion powerplant?
		Rad waste, materials choices, device parameters ???
	(e) What are the key research problems/opportunities?

*** 10. Glossary of Frequently Used Terms (FUT)
 A. Introduction to the Glossary / FUT
 B. Glossary terms from A to C
 C. Glossary terms from D to H
 D. Glossary terms from I to M
 E. Glossary terms from N to R
 F. Glossary terms from S to Z

*** 11. Bibliography / Reading List
	A. Recent articles in the popular literature.
	B. General References and Histories 
	(suitable for those with minimal background in physics or fusion).
	C. Fusion Research Review Articles & Texts
	D. Plasma Physics - General Texts 
	(focus is on the science of plasmas, rather than engineering 
		of reactors)
	E.  Plasma Physics - Device-Specific
	(applications of plasma physics to specific devices)
	F. Fusion Reactor Engineering References
	G. List of Relevant Scientific Journals
	H. Unclassified / Unsummarized works.  (Please help me move
		references out of this section and into sections 1-4 by
 		contributing reviews of sources you know about!)

*** 12. Acknowledgements and Citations
  (I've had a lot of help, so I needed a separate section to list
   everyone!)



 ----------------------------------------------------------
***  Revision History by Section
 --------------------------------------------------------

*** Document as a Whole:

*	Initial Draft - preliminary outline of topics and structure.
*	to Feb. 26, 1994 - added some proto-answers.
*	to March 6, 1994 - added topics, added proto-answers.* 
* to March 20, 1994 - Reorganized, created standalone Mac document,
     updated various pieces, added a few proto-answers.
* to March 27, 1994 - updates of some sections, new answers, minor
     reorganizations, and revisions to outline.
* to April 6, 1994 - updated glossary, added legal goop at front.
* to April 15, 1994 - inserted section 2 on fusion energy; major
     revisions to many sections.  First draft of Section 5.
* April 22, 1994 - added disclaimers about this not being a Cold
     fusion FAQ to the top of each section to reduce confusion.
* June 16, 1994 - general updates to many sections, first draft
     of section 1.
* June 22, 1994 - revisions to several more sections.  Second draft
     of section 1.
* to August 14, 1994 - revised 1,5,6,7,8,FUT,Bibliography
                     - partial draft of section 4B
                     - split section 2 into parts A-E

*** Section 1:
* First Draft, June 11, 1994 - basic answers to basic questions.
* Second Draft, June 22, 1994 - made corrections and improvements.
* Third Draft, August 7, 1994 - corrections and improvements,
           more info on solar fusion and light elements.

*** Sections 2 and 3: not yet drafted

*** Section 4:
* August 14 - partial draft of 4B (EC, mu-c-f)

*** Section 5:
* First Draft, April 15, 1994 - brief summaries of major machines.
* Second Draft, June 16, 1994 - added more machines, revised some.
* Third Draft, June 22, 1994 - added more machines, rearranged 
     entries, revised several entries.
* Fourth Draft, August 11, 1994 - mostly maintenance updates,
     added TdeV, made corrections to several entries.

*** Section 6:
* First Draft, March 27, 1994 - brief answers kludged together 
     from earlier postings.
* Second Draft, June 22, 1994 - added new results & new sections.
* Third Draft, August 7, 1994 - added more political news


*** Section 7:
* First Draft, March 23, 1994 - basic answers
* Second Draft, April 15, 1994 - added list of conferences, 
     more schools.
* Third Draft, June 22, 1994 - added more schools & programs
* Fourth Draft, August 6, 1994 - minor corrections


*** Section 8:
* First Draft, March 22, 1994 - basic info, neutrino ftp, people.
* Second Draft, April 15, 1994 - added more info sources.
* Third Draft, June 12, 1994 - added more info sources.
* Fourth Draft, June 22, 1994 - added info on electronic bulletins,
     made revisions to other info sources.
* Fifth Draft, July 11, 1994 - added sunsite.unc.edu and the WWW 
     pages for US fusion research centers to the documented sources.
* Sixth Draft, August 6, 1994 - minor revisions to fifth.


*** Section 9:  Draft not yet completed


*** Section 10 - Glossary
*	First draft was an accumulation of sources & Jim Day's list.
* Second draft, Feb. 12, 1994 - incorporated Herman's glossary,
						added list of undefined terms,
						defined labeling scheme
*	Third draft, Feb. 20, 1994 - incorporated new terms and 
					     corrections to old terms.
						added #, % to structure.
						separated A,B,C,D...
*	Fourth draft, March 6, 1994 - added new terms and corrections.
* Fifth draft, April 15, 1994 - added new terms and corrections;
          subdivided vocabulary into basic and advanced terms.
* Sixth draft, June 22, 1994 - more new terms and corrections;
          added subcategory for units of measurement.
* Seventh draft, August 14, 1994 - added new terms and corrections.


*** Section 11 - Bibliography
*	First draft, Feb. 3, 1994
*	Second draft, Feb. 12,1994 - new references, new structure
* Third draft, Feb. 19, 1994 - new references; incorporated
					corrections & comments since 2nd.
* Fourth draft, March 22, 1994	- added some new references, added  
     section H on additional sources for info.
* Fifth draft, April 10, 1994 - added new references.
* Sixth draft, August 14, 1994 - new references



***************************
Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University
As always, I represent only myself, and not PPPL
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.15 / Robert Heeter /  Section 4B - Alternative Approaches DRAFT - Conventional Fusion FAQ
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Section 4B - Alternative Approaches DRAFT - Conventional Fusion FAQ
Subject: Re: A new fusion trigger?
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 1994 00:36:43 GMT
Organization: Princeton University


4B. Alternative Methods of Confinement / Approaches to Fusion:
(i.e., not toroidal magnetic confinement approaches.)
* This FAQ deals with conventional fusion only, not Cold Fusion. *

This is a draft only and is not to be copied or cited at this time.

First Draft - August 14, 1994
Written by Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@pppl.gov, unless
otherwise cited.

This section discusses alternative methods of confining plasmas,
and other methods of creating fusion via conventional physics.
The ordering is based on my own personal bias regarding the
extent to which each approach has been pursued.


*** 1.  Inertial Confinement Fusion

(I haven't had time to write this up yet - anyone want to
write a blurb?)



*** 2.  Mirror Confinement

(same problem here as with (1) above)



*** 3. Muon-catalyzed fusion

* A. What is Muon-Catalyzed Fusion (mu-c-f)?

The muon is a heavy cousin of the electron, which has about
200 times the electron's mass, or roughly 1/10th the proton
mass, and the same charge as an electron.  Because of its
heavier mass, the muon likes to orbit much closer to the 
nucleus than the electron does, and is therefore more strongly
bound to the nucleus.  Because more energy is released in
binding a muon than in binding an electron, a free muon
travelling through an atom will rapidly displace the electron
and go into a tightly bound state near the nucleus.  If this
nucleus is a hydrogen isotope within an H2 type molecule (say
a D-D or D-T molecule), the electron screens the proton so well
that the two nuclei in the molecule can approach close enough to
have an appreciable chance of fusing.

Now the muon typically only lives about 2 microseconds, so 
eventually it will disintegrate, but it turns out that in some
cases the fusion can occur on a timescale much shorter than
the muon's lifetime.  Not only that, but the muon is typically
kicked out of the helium atom that is formed in the fusion,
because the energy released by the fusion goes into the kinetic
energy of the helium (and proton or neutron) that is formed.
Because the muon lasts long enough, and is not used up in the
fusion itself, a single muon can catalyze multiple fusion reactions;
hence the name "Muon-Catalyzed Fusion."  Muon-fusion is the
original form of "Cold Fusion," since the muon-catalysis cycle
works on diatomic gaseous molecules, and doesn't require the
million-degree plus temperatures which hot plasma fusion requires.


* B. What is the status of muon-catalyzed fusion research?
* C. What are the major problems to be overcome?

Scientists who originally worked in muon-catalyzed fusion found
that it was very difficult to get enough fusions to make up
for the energy cost in creating the muons (which must be created
using particle accelerators in order to have a sufficient number
of them).  However, later researchers found molecular resonances
which speed the catalysis cycle, so that a single muon can now
catalyze over 150 fusions (in D-T fuel, which fuses the most
readily).  This is sufficient energy to repay the energy cost
of creating the muons, so muon-catalyzed fusion can be said to
have achieved scientific breakeven.  But it will be difficult to
get even more fusions, primarily because the muon has a tendency
to "stick" to the helium nucleus (alpha particle) created in the
fusion, and thus to be lost from the catalysis cycle.  There are
theoretical reasons to think this muon-alpha sticking may set
a fundamental limit on the efficiency of muon-catalyzed fusion.
Muon-catalyzed fusion will not make a viable energy source unless
(a) the probability of muon-alpha sticking can be reduced somehow,
or (b) the energy cost of muon production can be greatly reduced.
Partly because of pessimism created by these results, muon-catalyzed
fusion has lost a lot of funding in recent years.


* D. Can mu-c-f work using other catalysts or other fuels?
Which is best?

It's possible to use other heavy, negatively-charged particles
instead of the muon (such as a negative pion or an antiproton),
but typically these require more energy to create, also have
sticking problems, and have shorter lifetimes than muons, so they
are not as good as muons at catalyzing fusion reactions.
(Which is not to say that one shouldn't study these options - 
there may be surprises in there!)  The heavy D and T nuclei,
with their large fusion cross-section, make the best fuel in
muon-catalyzed fusion, just as they do in hot fusion.  Other
fuels either fuse too slowly, or don't fuse at all.


* E.  Muon-catalyzed fusion seems pretty unconventional.  Do
you get the same fusion results that you do with hot fusion?

From the newsgroup:
In article <WAF2PCB373362459@brbbs.brbbs.com>,
MARSHALL DUDLEY <mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com> wrote:
>Does muon catalyzed fusion have nuclear ash and particles 
>consistant with hot fusion?  That is, are the branching ratios 
>essentially the same, and do you get the same neutrons and 
>gammas one would expect from hot fusion?  And if not, why not?

Basically:  yes.

d-d-mu fusion yields t+p 42% of the time, He3+n 58% of the time, and
He4 on rare occasions.  (I believe the order of magnitude is one He4
per million muon-catalyzed fusion events.)

The muon-catalyzed fusion results on liquid and gaseous states of 
deuterium, hydrogen-deuterium mixtures, and deuterium-tritium 
mixtures are all basically consistent with conventional hot 
fusion results.


* F. What are some general references for this field?
(These are also included, with annotations, in the bibliography.)

     Steven Jones recommends:
          1. James S. Cohen, "Atomic and molecular processes in 
               muon-catalyzed fusion," in _Review of Fundamental 
               Processes and Applications of Atoms and Ions_,
              1993, edited by C.D. Lin.
          2. Steven E. Jones, "Muon-catalyzed fusion revisited," 
               in _Nature_, 8 May 1986.

     I've also found:
          3. Shalom Eliezer and Zohar Henis, "Muon-Catalyzed Fusion - 
               An Energy Production Perspective," in _Fusion 
               Technology_, Vol. 26, August 1994, p. 46ff. 
               (Originally received Oct. 1989, accepted for 
               publication Feb. 1994.) 
          4. W. H. Breunlich and P. Kammel, "Muon-Catalyzed Fusion,"
               in _Annual Reviews of Nuclear and Particle Science_,
               1989, Vol. 39, pp. 311-356.

     Of these, Jones' article (#2 above) is by far the most 
          accessible to the non-specialist.



*** 4.  Electrostatic Confinement

* A. What is Electrostatic Confinement?

[ From a contribution by John Cobb ]
An approach to fusion based on confining charged particles by means 
of electric fields, rather than the magnetic fields used in magnetic 
confinement.  As in the magnetic case, the requirement for feasible 
fusion is that enough particles (density) must be trapped long enough 
(time) at high enough energy (Temperature) to get significant fusion. 
Thus Lawson's criterion still applies. This means that DC voltages on 
the order of 10,000 volts or higher must be maintained, since this 
is near the energy required to overcome the Coulomb barrier. 
There are 2 cases.  Either (1) The plasma includes species with 
different charges or (2) the plasma is a single component plasma. 

In the first case, there must be 2 sets of grids. The first grid 
to repel one type of charge and the second grid to repel the other. 
There is often a problem with damage to the first grid from 
sputtering from the other type of particles. In the second case one 
must maintain large electric fields to confine the single component 
plasma. This limits the density that can be attained to the 
Brillouin Density (at least on average). 

* B. What about Inertial-Electrostatic Confinement?
I don't know a lot about this (anyone want to help me out?) but
I think this is a modification of the electrostatic scheme 
where either (1) the electric voltage is pulsed, so that 
fusion occurs from inertial compression induced by the voltage 
oscillations, or (2) the electrostatically confined background
plasma is bombarded with energetic particles to supply additional
heating and create additional fusion.

* C. What are the prospects for E.C. and I.E.C. research?
Research in these concepts dates back to the 1960s, and most
fusion researchers have given up on these schemes, but there
are a number of people who feel EC/IEC fusion could work,
particularly for advanced fuels, and there are some recent
advances which have given new life to the field.  Funding for
alternative concepts is anticipated to increase in the near
future due to provisions in the fusion authorization bills
which specifically target $25-30 million/year to alternative
fusion approaches.  For more information, see the references
listed below.

* D. What are some references in this area?

     1) Leaf Turner and D.C. Barnes, "Brillouin Limit and Beyond:  
          A Route to Inertial-Electrostatic Confinement of a 
          Single-Species Plasma," in _Physical Review Letters_, 8 
          February 1993, p. 798 ff.

     2) D.C. Barnes and Leaf Turner, "Non-neutral plasma compression 
          to ultrahigh density," in _Physics of Fluids B_, vol 4 #12, 
          Dec. 1992, p. 3890 ff.

     3) G.H. Miley et al, "Inertial-Electrostatic Confinement: 
          An Approach to Burning Advanced Fuels," in _Fusion 
          Technology_, May 1991, pp. 840-845.

     4) R.W. Bussard, "Some Physics Considerations of Magnetic 
          Inertial-Electrostatic Confinement:  A New Concept for 
          Spherical Converging-Flow Fusion," in _Fusion Technology_, 
          Mar. 1991, pp. 273-293. (POLYWELL)

Note:  For those interested, here's some additional info:
   >From: doniger@lsil.com (Ken Doniger)
   >Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
   >Subject: Re: Advanced Fuel Cycles
   >Message-ID: <30h1al$bn6@lsi.lsil.com>
   >You can contact Barnes at dbarnes@ctrss2.lanl.gov
   >In the letter he wrote to me, he stated that he would like 
   >to discuss the ideas raised in these articles.



*** 5. What about the pinch methods?

* A.  The Z-Pinch:

[I'm just going to include a discussion that came up in April 1994;
my apologies to Patrick for using him as a foil.]

Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A new fusion trigger?
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
X-XXMessage-ID: <A9D092CC3A01416F@rfheeter.remote.princeton.edu>
X-XXDate: Tue, 12 Apr 94 02:02:52 GMT
References: <Co5EB3.ADI@lincoln.gpsemi.com>

In article <Co5EB3.ADI@lincoln.gpsemi.com> Patrick McTiernan x8738, 
pgm@bamboo.swindon.gpsemi.com writes:
>Fusion of deuterium requires high temperatures and pressures for a 
>long enough period for the relevant nuclear reactions to take place.
[[[[ snip ]]]]
>What I would suggest is that a thin wire (or preferably tube) of a 
>metallic element be used. If a wire, this must be one of the 
>materials which absorbs hydrogen well; and if so, it must be 
>saturated with deuterium. This wire should then have the contents of 
>a large charged capacitor discharged through it (the technology 
>required for this should be readily available to all who have used
>spark chambers). It will turn into a plasma (try watching a 
>light-bulb blow up sometimes) and, I should add, this effect 
>tends to be SELF-SUSTAINING and SELF-PROPAGATING!! 

It's also unstable.

This approach is known as a Z-Pinch (because in the mathematical
description using cylindrical coordinates the current runs in the 
longitudinal Z direction); it was tried in the 1950s, 
where it was discovered that when the wire turns into a plasma, 
the resulting plasma very rapidly "sausages", "kinks" and 
generally misbehaves.  ("Very Rapidly" = in a few microseconds.)  
These are ideal-MHD instabilities.  The result is that you 
can't confine your plasma long enough to generate enough nuclear 
reactions.  You can get a *small* amount of fusion to occur, and 
in fact this method also generates lots of X-rays and a nice 
electromagnetic pulse, so it's used to simulate nuclear 
weapons-type effects on materials and devices.  But it won't make 
an economical fusion reactor.

It probably doesn't matter whether you start with a deuterium-laden
wire or not.  I believe some researchers have used frozen-deuterium
fibers.

The instabilities of the Z-Pinch are discussed in most general plasma
physics texts, particularly those dealing with magnetohydrodynamic 
theory.

It turns out that if you take a Z pinch, throw in a longitudinal 
magnetic field to provide some additional stability, run it in
a steady-state rather than a pulsed mode, and then bend 
it around into a torus, you end up (more or less) with the tokamak, 
which is the major machine in use today.  It's a little more 
difficult to generate the current running "down" the cylinder / 
through the torus, but it can be done.


* B.  The Theta Pinch
(I haven't had time to write this up yet - anyone want to
write a blurb?)


* C.  The Screw (mixed Z & theta) Pinch
(I haven't had time to write this up yet - anyone want to
write a blurb?)



*** 6. What are some other confinement approaches?

* A.  The Plasma Focus

[ Entry contributed by Paul Koloc; not yet edited for clarity. ]
The Plasma Focus is a device which depends on the M=0 or
sausage instability (pinch effect).  An increasing pipe current 
and air discharge across the ends of two coaxial insulated pipes 
of diameters 1 and 2 will result in the presence of an increasing 
azimuthal field (lines around the center pipe) filling the region 
between the pipes.  At the open end where the annular plasma 
discharge is bridging gap, the relatively weak plasma surface will
be pushed away by this rising field. (Think of the magnetic field 
pushing against all conductors that bound it.  Consequently the 
plasma bubbles up the annulus so much it extends the coaxial 
structure of the pipes so that the resultant plasma forms a kind of 
axisymmetric fountain like structure with a central stem, connecting 
parasol or umbrella and outer return cylinder of plasma.  

Since the azimuthal field is stronger where the current density is 
stronger, which is bounding the central pipe, as the extended plasma 
bubbles up, the central coaxial surface can be "crushed" inward
due to its lack of tensile strength.  At the same time the other 
surfaces are being pushed outward or upward depending on their 
orientation.  However those surfaces do not enhance their current 
cross-section.  The pinching plasma central column does go to a 
smaller cross-section, higher current density and a stronger field 
which gets even stronger as the column continues to collapse.  The
choking strength is rapidly generated to the point where the channel 
virtually pinches off, squeezing the plasma axially away from the 
pinched region.  The newly formed vacuum stops the current, a 
humongous inductive voltage builds quickly, to a order of a megavolt 
EMF, and the current is then reestablished, although initially it 
is as an axially accelerated pulsed beam of positive ions or negative 
electrons depending on the electric sign orientation of the coaxial 
electrodes.  

The Plasma Focus caused a huge stir when they generated copious 
neutrons, until it was discovered that the source of the neutrons 
was knockoffs from deuterium due to pinch accelerated electrons or 
ions.  Plasma focus is sort of a point version of the "Z"pinch.  
The pulsed beams generated are not to be used to light up your 
neighbor's barking dog. 


* B.  "Mechanical Fusion"

Mechanical fusion involves heavy-duty super-guns which accelerate
small objects to extremely high velocities.  It's possible that one
might generate appreciable amounts of fusion energy when such
high-energy objects collide.  This would be a variant on inertial
confinement fusion.

Rich Schroeppel, rcs@cs.arizona.edu, adds (personal email):
"...It's occasionally mentioned as another
possible application of the "super guns" that the national labs are
building; they can accelerate a gram or so to 10 km/sec, and talk
about space launch as an application.  It shows up in Space Digest
from time to time.  I'll forward some to you the next time I see it,
but it will probably be a while." 




***************************
Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University
As always, I represent only myself, and not PPPL
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.15 / Robert Heeter /  Section 10E - Glossary/FUT N-R - Conventional Fusion FAQ
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Section 10E - Glossary/FUT N-R - Conventional Fusion FAQ
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 1994 00:46:48 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

==================================================================

Section 10 Part E - Glossary N-R

FREQUENTLY USED TERMS IN CONVENTIONAL FUSION RESEARCH 
AND PLASMA PHYSICS

* This FAQ deals with conventional fusion only, not Cold Fusion. *

While this section is not yet complete, it should be useful to
many people, and I encourage you to distribute it to anyone who
might be interested (and willing to help revise it!!!).

7th Draft, Last Revised on Sunday, August 14, 1994.

Edited by Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@pppl.gov

Guide to Categories:
 
* = advanced plasma/fusion vocabulary
& = basic physics vocabulary 
> = device type or machine name
# = name of a constant or variable
! = scientists 
@ = acronym
% = labs & political organizations
$ = unit of measurement

Citations and Acknowledgements appear in Section 12.

==================================================================

NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN

# n - variable used for number density of particles.
# n - also used as the symbol for a neutron.

@ NBI - Neutral Beam Injection; see entry
@ NIF - National Ignition Facility; see entry
@ NSTX - National Spherical Tokamak eXperiment; see entry

> National Ignition Facility (NIF):  Inertial-Confinement 
Fusion Facility proposed to be built at Livermore and 
operational around the year 2000.  See Section 9 on Future 
Plans for more information.

> National Spherical Tokamak eXperiment (NSTX):  Mid-sized 
low aspect-ratio tokamak / spheromak experiment proposal; 
still in design phase / not funded.  See Section 9 on Future 
Plans for more information.

* Neo-classical Diffusion:  In a magnetized plasma, _classical_ 
diffusion refers to transport of particles due to Coulomb collisions, 
taking the spiral orbits in the magnetic field into account.  In a 
toroidal magnetic field, the actual rate of diffusion is much higher 
due to slow changes in the positions of the centers of the spirals 
known as banana orbits (see entry).  This faster transport is called 
_neo-classical_.  With very few exceptions the transport in toroidal 
devices is observed to be 10-100 times larger still, presumably due 
to small-scale turbulence.  The observed transport is called 
_anomalous_ (although it actually is the "normal" state).

* Neo-classical transport:  See neo-classical diffusion.

* Neutral Beam Injection: (from Herman) A method for producing
neutrally charged atoms of high energy (high velocity) and 
injecting beams of these atoms into a magnetically confined plasma,
where they are soon ionized.  The high-energy ions then transfer
part of their energy to the plasma particles in repeated
collisions, thus increasing the plasma temperature.

& Neutron:  Fundamental atomic particle with zero electrical
charge (therefore not confined by a magnetic field) and a mass
roughly equal to a proton's mass.

* Neutron Wall Loading:  Energy flux carried by fusion neutrons into
the first wall.  (see also First Wall, Flux, Neutrons)

* Non-Inductive Current Drive:  Current drives schemes that do not 
rely upon the "transformer" effect in tokamaks.  The attainment of 
non-inductive current drive is crucial to the success of tokamaks 
as truly steady-state devices.  See also inductive current drive.

> Nova: (from Herman) The United States' largest laser (ICF) fusion
facility, at LLNL.  "The successor to Shiva.  The next 
generation will be known as Nova Upgrade; a proof of concept
experiment called Beamlet is in operation now.  (I think.)"
	- Albert Chou, albert@seas.ucla.edu

* Nuclear Binding Energy:

& Nuclear Force:  See Weak (Nuclear) Force, Strong (Nuclear) Force.

& Nucleus:  The tiny core of an atom, positively charged,
containing protons and neutrons.  Electrons orbit the nucleus.


OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

@ OH - Ohmic Heating; see entry

@ ORNL - Oak Ridge National Laboratory; see entry

* Outboard side:  portion of a tokamak / toroidal device on
the side opposite the central axis.

% Oak Ridge National Laboratory:  Located in Oak Ridge, TN.  Home of 
a series of various fusion devices.  (Could use more info!)

! Ohm, Georg Simon (1789-1854): Physicist who discovered the
relationship between electric current, potential and resistance.
(Yes, it is Georg.  Swedish, I believe.)

$ Ohm:  Unit of electrical resistance.

& Ohmic heating: (from Herman)  Heating resulting from the
resistance a medium offers to the flow of electrical current.
In plasma subjected to ohmic heating, ions are heated
almost entirely by transfer of energy from the hotter
electrons.

* Ohmic heating coil:  Coil used to induce an electric field
in the plasma via a transformer effect, resulting in ohmic heating.

* Ohmic heating solenoid:  See ohmic heating coil, solenoid.

* O-Point:  Place where the poloidal magnetic field vanishes in such a
way that the nearby flux 
surfaces are elliptical, e.g. on the magnetic axis (see entry) or at the
center of a magnetic 
island (see entry). (See also X-Point.) 

PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP

# p, P - Variables used for plasma (kinetic) pressure.
# p - also used as symbol for the proton

@ PBX-M - Princeton Beta Experiment-Modified; see entry

@ PF - Poloidal Field

@ PLT - Princeton Large Torus; see entry

@ PNL - Pacific National (Northwest?) Laboratory; no entry yet.

@ PPPL - Princeton Plasma Physics Lab; see entry

& Particle:

& Particle Density:  number of particles present per unit volume
(typically a cubic centimeter).  See also density; typically
represented by the variable "n".

* Pellet Injection / Pellet Injector: (from Herman) A device
that shoots small frozen pellets of hydrogen isotopes at
high speed into the inner regions of hot plasma.

& Phase Velocity:

* Pinch effect: (from Herman) The constriction of a plasma
carrying a large current caused by the interaction of that 
current with its own encircling magnetic field.

> Pinch machine:  Device which confines plasma using the pinch 
effect.

* Plasma: a gas in which many of the atoms or molecules 
are ionized.  Examples:  the sun, fluorescent light tubes,
very hot flames, much of interplanetary, interstellar,
and intergalactice space, the earth's ionosphere, parts
of the atmosphere around lightning discharges, and of
course what's inside a fusion reactor when it's working
right.

* Plasma Beta:  see Beta

* Plasma, Cold:  See Cold Plasma Model

* Plasma Containment:  (quoting from the PPPL Glossary of Fusion 
Terms)  "In plasma physics experiments or nuclear fusion experiments, 
operation is intended to prevent, in an effective and sufficiently 
prolonged manner, the particles of a plasma from striking the walls 
of the container in which this plasma is produced.  Plasma 
confinement is a fundamental requirement for obtaining net energy 
from a fusion plasma.  The reason is that scattering (hence 
diffusion) is at least an order of magnitude more probable than 
fusion reactions.  Hence, without confinement, the plasma fuel would 
disperse before enough fusion reactions could take place."

> Plasma Focus:  The Plasma Focus is another device which depends 
on the pinch effect.  Possible applications include both fusion
and plasma propulsion, as well as other plasma research.  In essence
the plasma focus is generated by discharge of a current across
the ends of two coaxial insulated conducting pipes. 

The Plasma Focus caused a huge stir when they generated copious 
neutrons, until it was discovered that the source of the neutrons 
was knockoffs from deuterium due to pinch accelerated electrons or 
ions.  Plasma focus is sort of a point version of the "Z"pinch. 

For more information on the plasma focus, see the entry in the
section on confinement approaches.

* Plasma Frequency:  The natural collective oscillation frequency 
of free electrons in a plasma in the absence of a magnetic field.
Also known as Langmuir frequency; see also electrostatic waves.

* Plasma-Plasma Reaction:  Fusion reaction which occurs from the
collision of two thermal plasma ions.  (See also beam-wall, 
beam-beam, and beam-plasma reaction entries.)

> PLASMAK(tm):  Advanced spheromak-type design using a fluid
rather than solid conducting shell; for more information see
entry section 4.

& Plutonium:  (from Herman) A radioactive metallic element
whose isotope, plutonium-239, is used in nuclear weapons 
and as a fission reactor fuel.

* Poloidal:  In toroidal geometries, the direction along the
circumference of a slice through one side of the torus. 
"The short way around a torus".
	- Albert Chou, albert@seas.ucla.edu

* Poloidal Field:  In toroidal devices, the magnetic field that
encircles the plasma axis.

* Poloidal Field Coils:  In toroidal devices (eg, tokamaks), the
sets of windings which are (typically) aligned along the plasma
axis and produce poloidal fields.  These include ohmic heating,
shaping, vertical, equilibrium, and divertor windings. (Adapted from
PPPL Glossary)

& Power:  Defined as amount of work per unit time, or change in 
energy per unit time.

& Pressure:  Defined as force per unit area.

% Princeton - See Princeton University and/or Princeton Plasma 
Physics Lab

> Princeton Beta Experiment-Modified (PBX-M):  mid-sized tokamak
research device at Princeton. (need more here!)  Original research 
goal was to investigate the so-called "second stability regime" in
tokamaks. (? I should know more, I work near it! - rfheeter)

> Princeton Large Torus (PLT): Large tokamak formerly operated
at the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory (PPPL).

% Princeton Plasma Physics Lab (PPPL):  Located in Princeton, 
New Jersey.  Single largest fusion research facility in the 
United States; sole U.S. single-purpose plasma physics 
laboratory; operated by Princeton University for the Department 
of Energy.  Site of PLT, PBX-M, TFTR, several other past and 
present experiments, and future site of TPX.
(Refer to entries for relevant machines, both here and in FAQ.)

% Princeton University:  Among other research activities, the 
University operates the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory for the 
Department of Energy (see above entry for PPPL).

* Project Matterhorn:  (from Herman) The code name of the 
United States' first secret controlled fusion project 
started by Lyman Spitzer at Princeton University in 1951.

* Project Sherwood:  Name often used to describe the U.S. controlled
fusion program in the 1950s and '60s.  (PPPL Glossary)

& Proton: (from Herman) An elementary particle found in the
nucleus of all atoms.  It carries a single positive electrical
charge.


QQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQ

# q - Variable used to indicate electric charge; also used for
the "safety factor" (see charge, safety factor).  Usually clear
from context which is meant.

# Q: See Q-factor

* Q-factor:  Ratio of power produced by fusion to power
put into the reactor to heat the plasma and drive the
magnetic fields.  Q = 1 is the definition of scientific
breakeven, where power out = power in.  Economical fusion
will require Q significantly greater than 1.  Fortunately
Q increases dramatically as the plasma parameters 
approach the Lawson criterion for ignition.  Power to drive
the magnetic fields is frequently ignored in discussions of
Q, with the justification that a steady-state, continuous-output
fusion reactor will have superconducting magnet coils.

* Quasi-neutral plasma: an ionized gas in which positive 
and negative charges are present in approximately 
equal numbers.


RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

@ Rad - Radiation Absorbed Dose; see entry "rad"

@ Rem - Raditation Equivalent for Man; see entry "rem"

@ RF - RadioFrequency; see entry

@ RF Current Drive - Radio Frequency Current Drive; see entry

@ RF Heating - Radio Frequency Heating; see entry

! R.F. Heeter - Plasma physics graduate student at PPPL;the editor 
of the sci.physics.fusion FAQ, bibliography, and FUT. :)

@ RFC: Reversed-Field Configuration: see Field-Reversed Configuration.

@ RFP: Reversed-Field Pinch; see entry

@ RFX: Reversed-Field eXperiment; see entry

$ Rad:  radiation absorbed dose.  A unit used to measure the
amount of radiation energy absorbed per gram of a given
substance.  See also gray, rem, sievert.

& Radiation: The emission of energy from a body in the form
of light or heat waves, or energetic particles such as
alpha particles, electrons, or neutrons.  Radiation is
*what is emitted*, not *what does the emitting*.  A nucleus
which does the emitting is said to be radioactive.  Electrons
in atoms can also emit radiation in the form of ordinary 
visible light; such atoms are not said to be radioactive.

& Radioactive waste: (from Herman) Equipment and materials
from nuclear operations which are radioactive and for which
there is no further anticipated use.

& Radioactivity:  Characteristic property of unstable nuclei
which decay to other nuclei by emission of radiation.  A list
of common decay / transmutation modes should be in the FAQ.

* Radio Frequency or radiofrequency:

* Radio Frequency Current Drive:

* Radio Frequency Heating:  Process for heating the plasma by
transferring energy to ions or electrons using waves generated
by an external oscillator at an appropriate frequency.  (This is
similar to how a microwave oven heats food.)  There are various
types:  see also ECRH, ICRH, and Lower Hybrid...  (PPPL Glossary)

* Ramsauer Effect:  A quantum effect allowing free electrons
within a narrow range of energies to pass through a noble
gas with very little elastic scattering.

* Reactor:  See fission reactor, fusion reactor.

* Recombination Radiation: radiation produced when a 
free electron in a plasma is captured by an ion.

$ Rem:  Radiation (or Roentgen) equivalent for man.  Unit of 
absorbed radiation dose based on the definition rem = rad * quality.  
The quality factor depends on the type of radiation involved and 
is used to scale the radiation dose based on the relative 
harmfulness of different sorts of radiation.  Annual US average 
dose is about 300 millirem (0.3 rem), of which more than 2/3 
is natural (primarily radon), and the majority of the 
human-generated dose is due to medical uses (primarily X-rays).

& Resistance:

* Resistive Instability:  Instability resulting from macroscopic
equations used to model a plasma of finite conductivity / nonzero
resistivity.

& Resistivity:

> Reversed-Field Pinch (RFP):  A toroidal magnetic confinement scheme
which could constitute an alternative to the Tokamak for building a
fusion reactor.  It is characterized by a magnetic field mostly
generated by the plasma itself, with toroidal and poloidal components 
of comparable intensities, in contrast with the Tokamak where most of
the field is toroidal and externally applied. The name of the
configuration is given by the fact that the toroidal component of the
magnetic field changes sign in the outer region of the plasma. The 
main attractivness of the Reversed Field Pinch is that, according to
presently established scalings, it could reach ignition without the 
need of auxiliary heating. 
(Emilio Martines, martines%pdigi3.igi.pd.cnr.it)

> Reversed-Field eXperiment (RFX): It is the largest Reversed Field
Pinch device presently in operation.  Located in Padova (Italy) it 
is planned to reach a plasma current of 2 MA.
(Emilio Martines, martines%pdigi3.igi.pd.cnr.it)

* Rogowski Loop or Coil:  A coiled wire loop which encircles a
current-carrying plasma.  Changes in total plasma current induce a
voltage in the loop; integrating (adding up) the voltage over time
gives the plasma current.

* Rotational Transform:  (labels: \iota = 2*PI/q)
Due to the combination of applied toroidal field and induced
poloidal field, the magnetic field lines wind helically around
the torus (and on most flux surfaces they fill the surface
ergodically).  The rotational transform is a measure of this
helicity, and is defined as the average angle the field line
shifts in the poloidal direction per complete circuit in the
toroidal direction. The quantity q = 2*\pi / \iota is known
as the ``safety factor'' because of its role in stability theory.
(see also safety factor) (contributed by James Crotinger)

* Runaway Electrons:  (from Herman) Those electrons in a plasma that
gain energy from an applied electrical field at a faster rate than 
they lose it through collisions with other particles.  These 
electrons tend to "run away" in energy from the remainder of the 
plasma, because the collision cross-section decreases as the 
particle's velocity increases, so that the faster the particle goes, 
the less likely it is to be stopped.  See also:  collision 
cross-section.




***************************
Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University
As always, I represent only myself, and not PPPL
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.15 / Robert Heeter /  Section 11 - Bibliography - Conventional Fusion FAQ
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Section 11 - Bibliography - Conventional Fusion FAQ
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 1994 00:49:41 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

11. Conventional Fusion Reading List
* This FAQ deals with conventional fusion only, not Cold Fusion. *

While this section is not yet complete, it should be useful to
many people, and I encourage you to distribute it to anyone who
might be interested (and willing to help revise it!!!).

Sixth Draft - August 13, 1994
Edited by Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@pppl.gov

************ Introductory Notes *********************************

This file is my attempt to answer the FAQ, 
"What literature is there on the subject of fusion?"

Note that this Reading List is for the "conventional" types
of fusion, and not for Cold Fusion.  

************ Notes on Construction and Organization  ************

The goal here is to provide a few major references at a variety 
of levels on each of a variety of topics.  The current Reading 
List is large, but still sketchy in areas.  In general I intend 
to limit the size of the bibliography by ignoring any work 
over 15 years old, unless it is considered a classic in the field.  
I may need to drop the limit to 10 years, since the list is 
getting large.

I would appreciate it if everyone would contribute suggestions 
of books, review articles, articles in the popular literature, 
and even new topics to be included in the Reading List.

In order to make this bibliography easier to use, I have sorted
the books into the following general categories:
  
A. Recent articles in the popular literature.
B. General References and Histories 
(suitable for those with minimal background in physics or fusion).
C. Fusion Research Review Articles & Texts
D. Plasma Physics - General Texts 
(focus is on plasma science, rather than engineering of reactors)
E.  Plasma Physics - Device-Specific
(applications of plasma physics to specific devices)
F. Fusion Reactor Engineering References
G. List of Relevant Scientific Journals
H. Unclassified / Unsummarized works.  (Please help me move
references out of this section and into sections A-G by 
contributing reviews of sources you know about!)

* So far only sections B, C and D have decent lists of references. * 

Currently I suggest that each reference included in the
Reading List contain the following information:

*************** Recommended Entry Format ********************
* LastName, Firstname/Initials.  _Title_. [# of pages] Publisher.
 Date.
	
	Descriptive blurb including summary of contents.  
	
	Level of Text
	[Name & Email address of reviewer.]
*************************************************************

Here is a sample application of the above template:

* Herman, Robin.  _Fusion: The Search for Endless Energy_. 
[267 p.] Cambridge University Press. 1990.

	A relatively nontechnical history of fusion energy research
	from 1951-1989.  Focus on U.S. magnetic confinement research.
	Includes glossary of terms and scientists.

	High-school level.
	[Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu]

Note that it would be best to avoid editorial comments and to
try not to make too many judgment calls in the summaries!

***************************************************************
***** Reference List of Conventional Fusion Literature ********
***************************************************************

*** A. Recent articles in the popular literature.

* Conn, et al, "The International Thermonuclear Experimental
Reactor," _Scientific American_, April 1992.  

	Describes plans for ITER.

	Level - high school physics.
	[Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu]


* Jones, Steven E.  "Muon-Catalyzed Fusion Revisited," _Nature_,
May 8, 1986, pp. 127-133.

 Historical and scientific summary of muon-catalyzed fusion.
 Answers just about every frequently-asked question.

 Level - high school physics.
 [Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@pppl.gov]


* Lemonick, Michael.  "Blinded by the Light," _Time_, Dec. 20, 
1993, p. 54.

	Describes the first high-power D-T experiments on TFTR.

	Level - basic literacy. :)
	[Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu]


* Pope, Gregory T.  "Sun in a Bottle," _Popular Mechanics_,
April 1994, pp. 110-111.

	General article on state of (U.S. mostly) magnetic fusion.

	Level - high school physics (?)
	[Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu]

*** Note:  
     Science, Scientific American, and Nature often have articles.


*** B. General References and Histories 
(suitable for those with minimal background in physics or fusion).

* Bromberg, Joan Lisa.  _Fusion: science, politics, and the 
invention of a new energy source_.  [376 p.] MIT Press. 1982.

	DOE-authorized history of the US fusion program.  Author claims 
	no political pressures and a focus on political influences on
	science.  Focuses on US efforts at DOE labs.

	High-school level.
	[Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu]


* Griffin, Rodman.  "Nuclear Fusion," in _CQ Researcher_ (associated with
_Congressional Quarterly_), January 22, 1993 (vol. 3, no. 3) pp. 49-72.

	Policy-oriented overview of nuclear fusion in the U.S., includes
	pros & cons, covers key issues, background, history, current
	situation, outlook, and has an extensive bibliography.

	High-School level.
	[Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu]


* Heppenheimer, T. A.  _The Man-Made Sun: The Quest for Fusion
Power._  [347 p.] Little, Brown and Company. 1983.

	Nontechnical history.  Since it is ten years old, some of it 
	is badly out of date -- e.g., it was published before MFTF-B 
	was mothballed, and the Engineering Test Reactor was still 
	being promoted as "the next step." However, it has some good basic
	explanations and some interesting material on the politics of
	fusion.

	Includes index, glossary, bibliography, and chapter notes. 

	High-school level.
	[Bonnie Nestor, mnj@ornl.gov]	


* Herman, Robin.  _Fusion: The Search for Endless Energy_. 
	[267 p.] Cambridge University Press. 1990.

	A relatively nontechnical history of fusion energy research
	from 1951-1989.  Focus on U.S. magnetic confinement research.
	Includes glossary of terms and scientists.

	High-school level.
	[Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu]


* Voronov, GS.  _Storming the Fortress of Fusion_. [335 p.] 
Translated from the Russian by R.S. Wadhwa.  Original text 1985, 
revised 1988. Mir Publishers, Moscow.  

	Appears to be highly enthusiastic; contents
	indicate chapters on inertial confinement and muon-catalyzed
 fusion as well as tokamaks, stellarators, pinches, etc.  

	Level: one year college physics.
	[Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu]



*** C. Fusion Research Review Articles & Texts

* Breunlich, W. H., and Kammel, P., "Muon-Catalyzed Fusion,"
_Annual Reviews of Nuclear and Particle Science_, 1989, Vol. 39, 
pp. 311-356.

 Comprehensive review of muon-catalyzed fusion research, science, 
 and unsolved problems.

 Level - college physics background good.
 [Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@pppl.gov]


* Brunelli, B., et al., eds.  _Safety, environmental impact and 
economic prospects of nuclear fusion_. [360 p.]  Plenum Publishing
Corporation. 1990.

	From the Preface: "This book contains the lectures and the 
	concluding discussion of the 'Seminar on Safety, Environmental 
	Impact, and Economic Prospects of Nuclear Fusion', which was 
	held at Erice (Italy), August 6-12, 1989."  Numerous articles 
	on diverse aspects of fusion research, focusing on the topics 
	listed.

	[Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu]


* Colombo and Farinelli, "Progress in Fusion Energy," _Annual 
Reviews of Energy and the Environment_, 1992, pp. 123-160.

	A comprehensive summary of the state of fusion research.

	Level - Not very technical, familiarity with terminology good. 
	[Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu]


* Dolan, Thomas J.  _Fusion research._ [3 v.]  Pergamon Press. 1980.

	A decent overview of just about every aspect having to do 
	with fusion research, from physics (plasma, atomic, nuclear, 
	etc.) to large experiments (again, caveat emptor wrt the 
	currency of information on specific projects) to fusion 
	engineering issues (magnets, materials, nuclear engineering, 
	etc.).

	Graduate Level (?)
	[Albert Chou, albert@seas.ucla.edu]


* Holdren, et al, "Exploring the Competitive Potential of Magnetic
Fusion Energy:  The Interaction of Economics with Safety and 
Environmental Characteristics," _Fusion Technology_, Jan 1988.

	Summarizes the results of the ESECOM fusion-reactor-design study.  
	Concludes that improved tokamaks are likely to be economically 
	competitive with fission and breeder-fission reactors.

	Level - familiarity with fusion terminology necessary.
	[Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu]


* Holdren, John P., "Safety and Environmental Aspects of Fusion 
Energy," _Annual Reviews of Energy and the Environment_, 1991, 
pp. 235-58.

	??? Probably what it sounds like.  Holdren is a fusion proponent 
	and does reactor design studies, among other things. ???

	Level - familiarity with fusion terminology necessary?
	[Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu]


* International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).  _Status Report on
Controlled Thermonuclear Fusion_.  (Published as Vol. 30, No 9, of 
the journal _Nuclear Fusion_, in Sept. 1990.)

	This is a comprehensive international review of all major controlled
	fusion research.  Starting to be a little dated, but still very 
	useful.

	Level - high-level scientific literature.
	[Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu]


* International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).  _World Survey of 
Activities in Controlled Fusion Research, 1991 Edition_.  (Published
as a special supplement to the journal _Nuclear Fusion_).  Over 630
pages.

	This is not really a review article, but a compendium of people,
	laboratories, machines, research programs, funding activity, and
	so on, for every country doing fusion research.  Good source of
 	statistics, acronyms, and so on.  The 1991 edition is only the 
	latest in a series published approximately every 5 years.

	Level - familiarity with fusion terminology useful
	[Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu]


* Thomassen, K.I., "Progress in Magnetic Fusion Energy Research," 
_Proc. of the IEEE_, Vol. 81, No. 3 (1993) 390.
 
	"A relatively recent paper giving an overview of the state of 
	Magnetic Fusion Energy research..."
	[Scott W. Haney, haney@random.llnl.gov]


* Teller, Edward, ed.  _Fusion: Magnetic confinement._ [2 v.] 
Academic Press. 1981.

	Good review articles on many subjects by important people in the
	field (e.g., Kunkel on NBI, Porkolab on RF heating, Conn on 
	reactors [a helluva long chapter!], Dawson on advanced reactors).

	Level: ??
	[Albert Chou, albert@seas.ucla.edu]



*** D. Plasma Physics - General Texts 
(focus is on the science of plasmas, rather than engineering of 
reactors)

* Chen, Francis F. _Introduction to Plasma Physics and Controlled
Fusion, vol 1._  [421 p.]  Plenum Publishing Corporation. 2nd 
edition, 1984.

	Intuitive (vs. mathematically rigorous) general plasma physics 
	text.  Chapters on single-particle motion, MHD, waves, diffusion & 
	resistivity, equilibrium & stability, kinetic theory, nonlinear 
	effects.  IMHO, frequently used as an undergraduate / basic 
	graduate text.  "It provides all the plasma physics you could
 	need.  However, like the title states, it is an INTRODUCTORY text.  
	Sometimes, the physical descriptions are not very rigorous, almost 
	too simple." - Robert Buckles
	
	Level:  Junior/Senior Undergraduate		
	[Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu]
	[Albert Chou, albert@seas.ucla.edu]
	[Robert Buckles, buckles@cae.wisc.edu]


* Hazeltine, RD, and Meiss, JD, _Plasma Confinement_ [411 p.]
	(Addison Wesley, 1992)

	Confinement-oriented approach to plasma physics, largely 
	fusion-oriented, tending towards theoretical as opposed to 
	experimental topics (from the intro). Chapters on Equilibrium 
	of confined plasmas, Kinetic description, Coulomb collisions, 
	Fluid Description, Stability of confinement, Collisional
 	transport, Nonlinear processes. "I know Chen's book pretty 
	well, Miyamoto's less well. Both are inferior to Hazeltine 
	and Meiss..." - Bruce Scott

	Level:  Graduate or advanced undergraduate.
	[Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu]
	[Bruce Scott, bds@hagar.ph.utexas.edu]


* Ichimaru, S. _Statistical Plasma Physics_ [2 volumes] 
Addison-Wesley. 1992.  

	First volume treats plasma theory from statistical-kinetic 
	point of view as an extension/application of statistical
	mechanics.

	Graduate level.
	[Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu]


* Krall, N., and Trivelpiece, A.. _Principles of Plasma Physics._ 
[674 p.]  San Francisco Press, 1986.

	Comprehensive introductory text for graduate students.  Chapters 
	on basic concepts and terminology, fluid/MHD models, 
	statistical/kinetic models, waves, stability, transport.  Readers 
	should be forewarned that the book was published around the few 
	years when the fusion program in the US took a serious downturn 
	and thus is seriously out of date concerning "current" 
	experiments.

	Graduate level.
	[Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu]
	[Albert Chou, albert@seas.ucla.edu]


* Miyamoto, Kenro. _Plasma physics for nuclear fusion._ [640 p.]
	MIT Press. 1989.

	This is another general plasma physics textbook, angled 
	towards the fusion applications.  Major sections on introductory 
	material, MHD, Kinetic descriptions, and "Heating, 
	Diagnostics, and Confinement."

	Graduate or senior undergraduate Level.
	[Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu]


* Nicholson, Dwight R.  _Introduction to Plasma Theory._ [292 p.]
	John Wiley and Sons. 1983.

	Introductory plasma physics textbook, emphasis on theory, not 
	meant to be used as a reference.  Contents, in order:  
	Introduction, Single-Particle Motion, Kinetic Theory 
	(3 chapters with progressively more approximations), 
	Vlasov Equation, Fluid Equations, MHD, Discrete Particle 
	Effects, Weak Turbulence Theory.

	Beginning graduate / advanced undergraduate level.
	[Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu.]


* Rose, DJ, and Clark, M, Jr, _Plasmas and Controlled Fusion_ 
(MIT, 1961)
	
	"For those who want a good dose of some plasma physics aspects 
	and a little less reactor technology, Rose and Clark is better 
	than Kammash (also for those like me who are familiar with the 
	physics and want a really basic intro to the engineering aspects).  
	Unfortunately it is pre-tokamak, so the methods and _basic_ 
	calculations involved in things like induction emf fields are 
	not present." - Bruce Scott

	[Bruce Scott, bds@hagar.ph.utexas.edu]


* Schmidt, George.  _Physics of high temperature plasmas._  Academic 
Press. 1979.

	An advanced graduate text, I believe.  I've looked at it, but 
	not in great depth.  A good reference, I think.

	Level: Advanced Graduate
	[Albert Chou, albert@seas.ucla.edu]



*** E.  Plasma Physics - Device-Specific

* Wesson, John. _Tokamaks_ [309 p.] Oxford Science Publications, 
1987.

	A clear introduction to the Tokamak concept, to the related 
	plasma physics and to some diagnostic techniques.

	Graduate level, basic plasma knowledge required.
	[Emilio Martines, martines@pdigi3.igi.pd.cnr.it]


* White, Roscoe. _Theory of tokamak plasmas._  [361 p.] 
North-Holland Physics, 1989.

	From the Preface: "These notes accompany a graduate course 
	taught at Princeton, designed to provide a basic introduction 
	to plasma equilibrium, particle orbits, transport, and those 
	ideal and resistive magnetohydrodynamic instabilities which 
	dominate the behavior of a tokamak discharge, and to develop 
	the mathematical methods necessary for their theoretical 
	analysis."

	"I know Chen's book pretty well, Miyamoto's less well. Both are
	inferior to R White's recent book." - Bruce Scott 

	Advanced Graduate Level.
	[Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
	 - I take the course next year and will know this intimately. :)]
	[Bruce Scott, bds@hagar.ph.utexas.edu]



*** F. Fusion Reactor Engineering References

* Kammash, Terry.  _Fusion reactor physics: principles and 
technology._  Ann Arbor Science Publishers. 1975.

	"For those who care mostly about engineering aspects and want 
	to know the physics involved in controlling and heating a 
	reactor plasma, Kammash is the first place to go." - Bruce Scott

	[Bruce Scott, bds@hagar.ph.utexas.edu]


* Krakowski, R.A., and Delene, J.G., "Connections Between Physics and
Economics for Tokamak Fusion Power Plants," _Journal of Fusion 
Energy_, vol. 7, no 1, 1988, pp. 49-89.

	From the abstract: "A simplified physics, engineering, and 
	costing model of a tokamak is used to examine quantitatively 
	the connection between physics performance and power-plant
	economics...."

	Level - Familiarity with plasma and reactor-engineering 
		terminology needed.
	[Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu]


* Najmabadi, et at. "The ARIES-II and ARIES-IV Second-Stability Tokamak
Reactors," in _Fusion Technology_, Vol. 21, May 1992, pp. 
1721-1728.

	Summarizes two of the ARIES paper reactors.  Both designs involve
 	utilizing the second stability regime to allow reduced magnetic 
	field strengths; also incorporate low-activation structural 
	materials and other features.  Part of an ongoing effort to 
	design an economically viable tokamak.

(This section certainly needs to have more literature reviewed, but
it's not (yet) my field of expertise.  Help anyone?)



*** G. List of Relevant Scientific Journals
 (Anyone care to write short blurbs about some of these journals?)

 Annual Reviews of Nuclear and Particle Science
	Fusion Technology
	Nuclear Fusion
 Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research
	Physical Review Letters
 Physical Review E
	Physics of Fluids B (Now Physics of Plasmas)
	Plasma Physics
	Energy Policy
	(there are certainly others)



*** H. Unclassified / Unsummarized works.  (Please help me move 
references out of this section and into sections A-G by contributing 
reviews of sources you know about!)

* Akiyama, M., ed.
Design technology of fusion reactors. [636 p.] World Scientific 
Publishing. 1990.

* Artsimovich, L. A.
A physicist's ABC on plasma.
Mir Publishers. 1978.

* Boenig, Herman V.
Plasma science and technology.
Cornell University Press. 1982.

* Brunelli, B., et al., eds.
Unconventional approaches to fusion. [544 p.]
Plenum Publishing Corporation. 1982.

* Casini, G.
Plasma physics for thermonuclear fusion reactors. [496 p.]
Harwood Academic Publishers. 1982.

* Casini, G., ed.
Engineering aspects of thermonuclear fusion reactors. [646 p.]
Harwood Academic Publishers. 1982.

* Coppi, B., et al., eds.
Physics of plasma close to thermonuclear conditions. [2 v.]
Pergamon Press. 1981.

* Dean, Stephen O., ed.
Prospects for fusion power. [112 p.] 
Pergamon Press. 1981.

* Gill, Richard, ed.
Plasma physics and nuclear fusion research.
Academic Press. 1981.

* Golant, V. E., et al.
Fundamentals of plasma physics. [405 p.]
John Wiley and Sons. 1980.

* Golant, V. E., et al.
Plasma heating in toroidal fusion devices. [202 p.] Plenum Publishing 
Corporation. 1989.
 
* Gross, R. A. _Fusion energy._  John Wiley and Sons. 1984.
	(Recommended in Hazeltine & Meiss.)

* Hora, Heinrich.
Physics of laser driven plasmas. [317 p.] John Wiley and Sons. 1981.

* Joachain, Charles J., and Douglas E. Post, eds. Atomic and 
molecular physics of controlled thermonuclear fusion. [575 p.]
Plenum Publishing Corporation. 1983.

* McDowell, M. R., and A. M. Ferendeci, eds.
Atomic and molecular processes in controlled nuclear fusion. [500 p.]
Plenum Publishing Corporation. 1980.

* Motz, H.
The physics of laser fusion. 
Academic Press. 1979.

* Nishikawa, K.
Plasma physics: basic theory with fusion applications. [320 p.]
Springer-Verlag. 1990.

* Raeder, J., et al.
Controlled nuclear fusion: fundamentals of its utilization for energy 
supply. [400 p.]  John Wiley and Sons. 1986.

* Stacey, W. M.
Fusion plasma analysis. [376 p.]  John Wiley and Sons. 1981.


**********************

I've summarized all the books I've seen, and included what 
information I've received from others on the net.  If you are 
familiar with any of these books, or with other books you feel 
should be included in the reading list, please submit a summary 
in roughly the above format.

Thanks!

*************
Robert F. Heeter
rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Graduate Student, Princeton Plasma Physics Lab
Standard Disclaimers Apply




***************************
Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University
As always, I represent only myself, and not PPPL
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.15 / Robert Heeter /  Section 10F - Glossary/FUT S-Z - Conventional Fusion FAQ
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Section 10F - Glossary/FUT S-Z - Conventional Fusion FAQ
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 1994 00:48:17 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

==================================================================

Section 10 Part F - Glossary S-Z

FREQUENTLY USED TERMS IN CONVENTIONAL FUSION RESEARCH 
AND PLASMA PHYSICS

* This FAQ deals with conventional fusion only, not Cold Fusion. *

While this section is not yet complete, it should be useful to
many people, and I encourage you to distribute it to anyone who
might be interested (and willing to help revise it!!!).

7th Draft, Last Revised on Sunday, August 14, 1994.

Edited by Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@pppl.gov

Guide to Categories:
 
* = advanced plasma/fusion vocabulary
& = basic physics vocabulary 
> = device type or machine name
# = name of a constant or variable
! = scientists 
@ = acronym
% = labs & political organizations
$ = unit of measurement

Citations and Acknowledgements appear in Section 12.

==================================================================

SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

@ SI - Systeme Internationale; see SI Units

@ SNL - Sandia National Laboratory; see entry

@ SOL - Scrape-Off Layer; see entry

* Safety Factor:  The number of times a field line goes around a 
torus "the long way" for each time around "the short way".  In a 
tokamak, this number is typically near unity in the center of the 
plasma and between two and 6 or 8 at the edge.  So-called because it 
helps to determine the degree of stability the plasma has against 
certain instabilities.

! Sakharov, Andrei: Russian physicist; among other achievements, he 
is credited with the initial design of the tokamak.

% Sandia National Laboratories:  Located in Albuquerque, New Mexico.
Another large DOE laboratory; has PBFA-II (Particle Beam Fusion
Accelerator, an ICF device) and some pinch devices.  Some divisions
located in Livermore (Sandia-Livermore).

* Scaling Laws:  These are mathematical rules explaining how 
variation in one quantity affects variations in other quantities.
For instance, in a tokamak reactor it's generally believed that
energy confinement depends on the size of the device and the strength
of the magnetic field, but the precise nature of the dependence is
not fully understood, so empirical "scaling laws" are tested to
see what the dependence is.

& Scattering:  The deflection of one particle as a result of
collisions.  See also Elastic.

* Scientific Feasibility:  Fusion will be considered scientifically 
feasible when (a) experiments are done which reach scientific
breakeven-type plasma conditions (see entry on breakeven), and
(b) the experimental results suggest that the approach can be
"scaled up" into a power-producing system.  Tokamak fusion
reactors are closing in on (a), and tokamak researchers think
(b) holds as well, so they are designing a power-producing
machine (ITER) to demonstrate net energy production from tokamak
fusion.

* Scrape-Off Layer (SOL):  [from Art Carlson] Outer layer of a 
plasma which is affected ("scraped off") by a divertor (or limiter?).  
That is, the outer layer of a magnetically confined plasma (ca. 2 cm 
thick) where the field lines penetrate a material surface (limiter or 
divertor plate) rather than close upon themselves. This region 
defines the outer limit of the plasma because any plasma crossing 
into the SOL is rapidly lost since transport along the field is much 
faster than that across the field.  That is, particles follow these
field lines into the material surface and are lost from the plasma.

* Second-stability region:  

* Separatrix:  [from Art Carlson] In a divertor tokamak (and some 
other configurations), the last closed flux surface (see entry) is 
formed not by inserting an object (limiter) but by manipulating the 
magnetic field, so that some field lines take a topologically 
different route (through the divertor, rather than simply around the 
central plasma). The boundary between the two types of field lines is 
called the separatrix.

* Sheared Flow:

* Shear Fields:

* Sheath:  See Debye Sheath

* Shock Heating:  The heating produced by the impact of a shock wave.

* Shock Wave:  Wave produced as a result of a sudden, violent 
disturbance which occurs in a particular region faster than sound
waves can traverse the region.

* Shot: Fusion jargon for the production of a (short-lived) plasma.  
In the early days, plasmas were produced by the "discharge" of 
capacitor banks, which (frequently) made a BANG.  A modern tokamak 
produces a few dozen "shots" per day, each lasting a few seconds and, 
if nothing goes wrong, inaudible.  See also: capacitor, tokamak
(Arthur Carlson, awc@ipp-garching.mpg.de)

$ SI Units:  (also known as MKS, MKSA Units)  System of measurement
in which the fundamental units are meters, kilometers, seconds, and
the ampere.

$ Sievert:  Unit of absorbed radiation dose equivalent to 100 rem.
(see also rem, rad, Gray)  The sievert is based on the Gray in the
same way that the rem is based on the rad, I believe.

& Solenoid:

* Sound Waves:

* Spallation:

> Spheromak:

! Spitzer, Lyman:  Early Princeton Fusion Scientist; 
astrophysicist who first proposed orbiting space telescope;
inventor of the stellarator.

* Sputtering:  Process by which atoms are ejected from a solid 
surface by bombardment with plasma particles. (?)

* Stability:  characteristic of some types of equilibrium states;
see equilibrium.

> Stellarator: (adapted from Herman) Device invented by Lyman Spitzer
for the containment of a plasma inside a racetrack-shaped
(sometimes a figure-8) tube.  The plasma is contained by a magnetic 
field created by helical windings around the tube.  More generally, 
a toroidal sort of device that attempts to average out particle 
drifts that would otherwise take plasma to the walls of the vacuum
vessel by imposing a given amount of helicity to the toroidal field
lines.  "A toroidal plasma configuration, which, unlike a tokamak, 
is not axially symmetric.  The poloidal fields necessary for 
confinement are produced by external coils (rather than a current 
in the plasma), either helical coils in addition to plane toroidal 
field coils, or out-of-plane toroidal field coils (pioneered in 
Germany on Wendelstein 7-AS).  The stellarator is generally 
considered to be the most serious alternative to the tokamak.  Since 
the concept is inherently steady state, it would not have the 
tokamak's problems with thermal and mechanical cycling, current 
drive, and disruptions."
	-- Arthur Carlson, awc@ipp-garching.mpg.de

* Strong (Nuclear) Force:

* Superconductor:  (adapted from Herman) A type of electrical 
conductor that permits a current to flow with zero resistance.
Without superconducting coils, a fusion reactor would not be 
possible, because too much energy would be required to maintain the 
magnetic fields against resistive energy losses in the coil 
conductors.

& Synchrotron radiation:  electromagnetic energy radiated from
a charged particle moving in a curved orbit (typically in a magnetic
field), due to the acceleration required to change the direction 
of the particle's velocity.  See also bremsstrahlung.


TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT

# t - variable generally used to represent time

# tau - label generally used to represent confinement time

# T - variable generally used to represent temperature

# T - nuclear/chemical symbol for tritium/triton; see entry

$ T - abbreviation for Tesla; see entry

@ TCV - Variable Configuration Tokamak - from French; see Section 5.

@ TF - Toroidal Field

@ TFTR - Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor; see entry

@ TPX - Tokamak Physics Experiment; see entry

> T-3: (from Herman) A Soviet tokamak located at the 
Kurchatov Institute in Moscow that first proved viability
by producing a plasma temperature of 10 million degrees
centigrage/Kelvin.

> T-10: (from Herman) A later Soviet tokamak located at 
the Kurchatov Institute (a copy of which is PLT, only 
PLT had neutral beams).

> T-15: (from Herman) A Soviet tokamak with superconducting
magnets currently under construction.  (Was it completed?
Is it operational?)

> T-20:  (from Herman) A large Soviet tokamak that was to 
have operated under reactor conditions (net energy 
production) but which was abandoned for budgetary reasons.

* Tau: See # tau above.

! Taylor, J.B.:  Renowned plasma physicist; noted for helicity work??

* Taylor State:  (John Cobb?)

* Temperature, Plasma:  (adapted from Herman) A measure of 
the random (thermal) kinetic energy of the ions or electrons
in the plasma.  The temperature of each component of a plasma depends
on the mean kinetic energy of that component.  An example of this
is the fluorescent light bulb, which is an example of a 
weakly-ionized plasma where the electrons are at temperatures of tens 
of thousands of degrees, whereas the ions and neutrals are much 
cooler (so that you can touch the bulb without being burned).
See atomic temperature, electron temperature, and ion temperature.  

$ Tesla - SI unit of magnetic field strength; 1 tesla = 10,000 gauss.

& Thermal Conductivity:  degree to which a substance transmits heat.
(basic definition, I believe, is: 
	(heat flow) = (thermal conductivity) * (temperature gradient) )

* Thermal Conversion Cycle:  Process of generating electrical power
with a fusion reactor by means of a steam / other gas turbine.  This
is distinct from "direct conversion" cycles.

* Thermonuclear Fusion: fusion achieved by heating
up the fuel into the plasma state to the point where
ions have sufficient energy to fuse.

> Theta Pinch:  A pinch device in which the external current 
imposed goes in the azimuthal/circumferential direction around a
cylindrically shaped plasma.

* Thomson Scattering:  Collective(?) electron scattering.  Used to
measure electron temperature? Density?  (Find out in the next 
edition?)

* Thomson Scattering Device: (adapted from Herman)  A diagnostic 
device used to measure electron temperature in a plasma by directing
laser light into the plasma.  The laser's photons scatter off the
electrons in the plasma, spreading in a manner proportional to the
electron temperature.

> Tokamak: (Acronym created from the Russian words, 
"TOroidalnaya KAmera MAgnitnaya," or "Toroidal Chamber-Magnetic".)

Because the tokamak is the primary research machine for
magnetic confinement fusion today, we provide several 
descriptions from various sources:

-> One of several types of toroidal discharge chamber 
in which a longitudinal magnetic field is used to confine a 
plasma.  The tokamak is distinguished by a plasma current
running around the torus, which generates a stabilizing
poloidal magnetic field.  An externally-applied vertical
magnetic field is also used to achieve plasma equilibrium.

-> (Contributed by James Crotinger, jac@gandalf.llnl.gov)
An axisymmetric toroidal confinement device characterized by a
strong toroidal magnetic field (1-10 Tesla) and a toroidal
plasma current (several mega-Amps) that leads to a modest
poloidal magnetic field. The plasma current is usually induced
by ramping a current in a large solonoid along the symmetry axis
of the tokamak. This is an inherently pulsed mode of operation,
and other mechanisms of current drive are under investigation.

-> TOKAMAK  (tokomak)  (contributed by Paul M. Koloc)
"A three component magnetoplasma toroidal construct in which 
the poloidal magnetic component is provided by a toroidal plasma 
current. The other two components are coil driven, namely, the
vertical field (which opposes the major radial expansion) and
the toroidal field (which acts to provide a "stiff guide" field
for the plasma to gain more MHD stability.    
Note:
It is better to think that the toroidal or longitudinal field  
"stiffens" the plasma as against flopping or kinking, while the 
plasma current driven poloidal (locally azimuthal) field provides 
"confinement" pressure.  Actually, the toroidal field interacting 
with plasma diamagnetism may also contribute to a "magnetic 
bouyancy", which is a sort of UN-confinement -- (it actually gives 
the plasma a tendency to expand radially outward in the equatorial 
plane)."  

-> (from Herman:) "Based on an original Soviet design, a device
for containing plasma inside a torus chamber by using the 
combination of two magnetic fields - one created by electric
coils around the torus, the other created by intense electric
current in the plasma itself, which also servers to
heat the plasma [partially].  TFTR and JET are tokamaks."

> Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor:  Large tokamak at Princeton,
first machine to use 50-50 mix of D-T fuel, current world's
record holder in fusion energy production.  Largest tokamak
in the United States.  

> Tokamak Physics Experiment:  Smaller successor to TFTR at
Princeton.  Engineering design underway; construction 
scheduled to begin in FY 1995.

> Tore Supra:  Large tokamak in Cadarache (southern France).  
The second largest tokamak in Europe; uses superconducting magnets.  
Tore Supra has a circular cross-section (like TFTR), which limits the
achievable confinement time and experimental flexibility.  In 
addition to developing superconducting technology, it concentrates on 
the physics of long pulses and ergodic magnetic limiters.
See also: ergodic; magnetic limiter; superconductor; tokamak.

* Toroidal: in the shape of a torus, or doughnut.  
Or: Coordinate indicating which part of the torus a particle is in.
(Azimuthal coordinate) 
Or: General term referring to toruses as opposed to other geometries.

* Toroidal Field Coils:  Coils in a tokamak, typically wound around
the torus in a solenoid-like arrangement, used to generate the 
toroidal magnetic field.  Each turn completely surrounds the plasma.

> Toroidal Pinch:

> Torsatron:

& Transformer, Transformer Effect:

* Transport:  Refers to processes which cause heat energy, or 
particles, or something else, to flow out of the plasma and cease 
being confined.  Diffusion partly determines the rate of transport.
See also: diffusion, classical diffusion, neoclassical diffusion, 
anomalous diffusion.

* Transverse Waves:

* Trapped-Particle Instability:

* Trapped-Particle Modes:

& Tritium: (adapted from Herman) A radioactive isotope of hydrogen 
with one proton and two neutrons in its nucleus and one orbiting 
electron.  A more efficient fuel than ordinary hydrogen (protium) 
because of the extra neutrons.  Tritium decays to helium-3 by 
emission of an electron ("beta emission") with a half-life of 12.3 
years.  Tritium can be synthesized from deuterium via neutron 
bombardment, or by fissioning lithium (see lithium).

* Triton: nucleus of a tritium atom; tritium ion.

* Troyon Limit:  see beta limit

* Turbulence:  "Violent macroscopic fluctuations which can develop
under certain conditions in fluids and plasmas and which usually
result in the rapid transfer of energy through the medium." 
(PPPL Glossary)

* Turbulent Heating:  "Mode of heating of a plasma where the orderly
motion of the particles created by external sources is converted
into disorderly motion, by the excitation of microinstabilities."
(PPPL Glossary)

* Two-Stream Instability:


UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU

# u - variable commonly used for energy density of electric or
magnetic fields; also sometimes used for velocity.

@ UT, UTA - University of Texas at Austin; see entry

@ UW, UWM - University of Wisconsin at Madsion; see entry

& Universal gas constant: R = 8.314 x 10^7 ergs per 
degree C per mole.

% University of Texas at Austin (UT):  Among other things, UT has
a large theoretical plasma physcs research center. (info, anyone?)
The TEXT experimental tokamak is also located here.

% University of Wisconsin at Madison:  Among other facilities,
"Wisconsin" has a large research program in both plasma physics
and fusion engineering.

* Upper Hybrid Waves:  Similar to lower hybrid waves, but at a 
higher frequency.  (more description?)  Not truly propagating 
waves, but plasma oscillations. (?)

& Uranium:  (from Herman) A radioactive metallic element whose
isotope, uranium-235, is a nuclear fission fuel.  Plutonium,
another fission fuel, can be produced from the more
plentiful isotope uranium-238.


VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV

# v - variable typically used for velocity

# V - variable typically used for electrical potential (Voltage)

$ V - abbreviation for Volts; see entry

@ VDE - Vertical *?* Event ???

& Vector:

& Vector Notation:

& Velocity:

& Velocity Space:

& Velocity Space Instability:

* Vertical instability: [mostly by James Crotinger] A type of 
MHD (n=0) instability where the plasma drifts vertically upward. 
Nearly all tokamaks are vertically unstable (all highly shaped 
ones are).  Controlling this instability is possible in many 
cases, and is an important facet of machine design.  Vertical 
instabilities give rise to halo effects (see entry for halo).

& Viscosity:

* Vlasov Equation:

* Voltage Loop:  "A wire which encircles the main axis of a tokamak
in the vicinity of the vacuum vessel."  The voltage induced in this
loop during the shot is a measure of the ohmic heating voltage
induced by transformer action and applied to the plasma.
(PPPL Glossary)

$ Volt:  Unit of electrical potential.


WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW

@ W-7AS, W-7X - See Wendelstein entry

* Wall Conditioning:  Describes a class of procedures used to
control the composition of materials adsorbed onto the walls of
a plasma device.  Conditioning is important because material from
the walls can create impurities in the plasma, and these
impurities typically degrade plasma performance.  See also
boronization, impurity control, electron cyclotron discharge
cleaning.

& Wavelength:  The length of a single cycle of a wave; usually
measured from crest-to-crest.  For electromagnetic waves, the
wavelength determines the type (radio, infrared, visible, 
ultraviolet, X-Ray, gamma-ray) of radiation; in the case of 
visible light, wavelength determines the color of the light.

& Weak (Nuclear) Force:

>Wendelstein: A family of stellarators built in Garching, Germany.  
The machine currently in operation is Wendelstein-7AS (aka W-7AS).  
Wendelstein ("spiral rock") is a craggy Bavarian mountain;  some of 
W-1 through W-6 were built, some were just paper studies;  AS stands 
for "advanced stellarator" and refers on the physical side to an 
attempt to minimize neoclassical effects (see entry for Neo-classical 
Diffusion) such as the bootstrap current (see entry), and on the 
technical side to the use of out-of-plane coils as an alternative to 
linked coils.  W-7X, a much larger, superconducting stellarator based 
on the same concepts has been proposed to be built by the European 
Union in Greifswald, on the north coast of Germany.

% Wisconsin - See University of Wisconsin-Madison


XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

* X-Point:  Place where the poloidal magnetic field vanishes in such 
a way that two flux surfaces appear to cross, e.g. where the main 
plasma joins the divertor (see entry) or between magnetic islands.
Location where magnetic reconnection takes place.  (See magnetic
reconnection; see also divertors and O-point.)


YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY

* Yin-Yang Coil:  See baseball coil.


ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

# Z - see atomic number
 
@ ZETA - Zero Energy Thermonuclear Assembly; see entry

> Zero Energy Thermonuclear Assembly:  A British fusion device in 
which scientists observed fusion neutrons in 1958.  They were
erroneously considered to be thermonuclear (coming from particles 
with a Maxwellian velocity distribution) and were a cause for the
initial optimism that fusion energy would be easy.  They were 
actually due to electromagnetic acceleration during a plasma 
instability, an effect which cannot be scaled up to produce useful 
energy.

> Z-Pinch:  Pinch device in which the externally-driven pinching 
current goes in the z direction (parallel to / through the 
cylindrical plasma).




***************************
Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University
As always, I represent only myself, and not PPPL
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.15 / Robert Heeter /  Section 10B - Glossary/FUT A-C - Conventional Fusion FAQ
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Section 10B - Glossary/FUT A-C - Conventional Fusion FAQ
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 1994 00:39:34 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

==================================================================

Section 10 Part B - Glossary A-C

FREQUENTLY USED TERMS IN CONVENTIONAL FUSION RESEARCH 
AND PLASMA PHYSICS

* This FAQ deals with conventional fusion only, not Cold Fusion. *

While this section is not yet complete, it should be useful to
many people, and I encourage you to distribute it to anyone who
might be interested (and willing to help revise it!!!).

7th Draft, Last Revised on Sunday, August 14, 1994.

Edited by Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@pppl.gov

Guide to Categories:
 
* = advanced plasma/fusion vocabulary
& = basic physics vocabulary 
> = device type or machine name
# = name of a constant or variable
! = scientists 
@ = acronym
% = labs & political organizations
$ = unit of measurement

Citations and Acknowledgements appear in Section 12.

==================================================================

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

# A - symbol used to indicate either area or magnetic 
vector potential.

$ A - abbreviation for Amperes; see entry.

@ AEC - (US) Atomic Energy Commission; see entry

@ ANL - Argonne National Laboratory; see entry

@ ASDEX - Axially Symmetric Divertor EXperiment; see entry

@ ASDEX-U - ASDEX-Upgrade; see entry for ASDEX.

* Activation: Activation occurs when a particle interacts
with an atomic nucleus, shifting the nucleus into an
unstable state, and causing it to become radioactive.
In fusion research, where deuterium-tritium is a common
fuel mixture, the neutron released when (D + T) combine
to form (4He + n) can activate the reactor structure. 

* Activation Product: The unstable nucleus formed when
activation occurs.  (See activation above.)

& Adiabatic:  Not involving an exchange of heat between the
system said to be adiabatic and the rest of the universe.

* Adiabatic Invariant:

* Afterglow:  Recombination radiation emitted from a cooling
plasma when the source of ionization (heating, etc) is removed.

* Advanced Fuels:  There are several elements/isotopes which
could be fused together, besides the DT fuel mixture.  Many such
fuel combinations would have various advantages over DT, but
it is generally more difficult to achieve fusion with these
advanced fuels than with the DT mix.  See fuels section of FAQ
for discussion. 

> Advanced Toroidal Facility:  (?) A reversed-field pinch machine
developed at Oak Ridge National Lab (ORNL) (?)

> Alcator: (from Herman) A family of tokamaks developed and
built at MIT and characterized by relatively small diameters
and high magnetic fields.  Plasmas in these devices have
relatively high current and particle densities.  Current incarnation
is Alcator C-mod.  Alcator C was donated to LLNL for use as the 
Microwave Tokamak eXperiment (MTX), now shut down.

* Alfven waves: Transverse electromagnetic waves that are 
propagated along lines of magnetic force in a plasma.  The waves
have frequency less than the ion cyclotron frequency, and are
characterized by the fact that the field lines oscillate (wiggle)
with the plasma.  The propagation velocity depends on the particle
density and the strength of the magnetic field.  "[Relatively] 
Low frequency ion oscillation in the presence of an equilibrium 
magnetic field.  Also called the hydromagnetic wave along Bo.  
The torsional Alfven wave in cylindrical geometry was first measured 
in liquid mercury by B. Lehnert.  Alfven waves were first generated 
and detected in plasma by Allen, Baker, Pyle, and Wilcox in Berkeley 
and by Jephcott in England in 1959."  (quoting from Chen's book; 
see bibliography) - Albert Chou

! Alfven, Hannes Olof:  Nobel Prize-Winning Plasma Physicist
and Astronomer who first suggested the possibility of MHD waves
in 1942.

* Alpha particle:  The nucleus of a Helium-4 atom; is a
typical product of fusion reactions; also released
in various nuclear decay processes.  Alpha particles readily
grab electrons from other sources, becoming neutral helium;
even energetic alpha particles are easily stopped by thin 
barriers (sheets of paper, dead layers of skin, etc.), so that
as a radiological hazard alpha particles are only dangerous if
they are generated inside one's body (where the skin cannot
protect tissue from damage).

$ Ampere, kiloampere, megampere:  (from Herman) The standard
unit for measuring the strength of an electric current
representing a flow of one coulomb of electricity per second.
1 kiloampere = 1000 amperes; 1 megampere = 1,000,000 amperes.
Common abbreviations:  A, amps, kiloamps, megamps, kA, MA

! Ampere, Andre-Marie (1775-1836):  French physicist responsible 
for much of what is known about the fundamentals of electromagnetism.

& Ampere's Law:  General equation in electromagnetism relating
the magnetic field and the currents generating it.

* Aneutronic Fuels:  Advanced fusion fuels which would not
produce fusion neutrons.  See fuels section of FAQ for discussion.

$ Angstrom:  A unit of distance equal to 10^-10 meters or 10^-10 cm.

& Angular Momentum:

* Anomalous Diffusion:  Diffusion in most plasma devices, 
particularly tokamaks, is higher than what one would predict from 
understood causes.  The observed, "typical" diffusion is referred to 
as "anomalous" because it has not yet been explained.  Anomalous 
diffusion includes all diffusion which is not due to collisions 
and geometric effects.  While such effects were not understood 
when the term was coined, and most still aren't, diffusion due 
to well-understood wave phenomena is still 'anomalous'.  "Classical" 
diffusion and "Neo-classical" diffusion are the two well-understood 
diffusion theories, neither is adequate to fully explain the observed 
"anomalous" diffusion.  See also:  entries for classical and 
neoclassical diffusion.  (Acknowledgements to Philip Snyder)

% Argonne National Laboratory:  One of the U.S. Department of Energy
basic-research Laboratories, located in Illinois... (need more info!)

* Ash:  Fusion reaction products trapped in a plasma.  Ash is
bad because (a) it generally radiates more strongly than the fuel 
ions, and thus reduces energy confinement, and (b) it creates 
additional plasma pressure and/or reduces pressure available for fuel 
ions. (due to beta limits, see beta)  Controlling ash is a major 
area of fusion research.  Ideally one would be able to extract 
the ash ions after diverting an appropriate fraction of their 
energy to heating the fuel ions, and then convert the remaining ash 
energy to electricity.  Current research involves using RF waves to 
transfer energy from ash ions to fuel ions, and to push the ash into 
the scrape-off layer, where it can be collected via divertors.  
(See also scrape-off layer, divertors)

* Ash control - see ash, divertors.

* Ash removal - see ash, divertors.

* Aspect Ratio:  In toroidal geometry, the ratio of
the major diameter (total width of the torus) to the 
minor diameter (width of a slice taken through one side
of the ring).  (This would be much better with a picture!)

& Atom:  (from Herman)  The smallest unit of an element that
retains the characteristics of that element.  At the center
of the atom is the nucleus, made up of neutrons and protons,
around which the electrons orbit.  Atoms of ordinary hydrogen,
the lightest element, consists of a nucleus of one proton
orbited by one electron.  (Note:  distinct from a molecule,
which is the smallest unit of a substance which retains the
characteristics of that substance.  It takes far less 
energy to break apart a stable molecule into its constituent 
atoms than to divide a stable atom into two smaller atoms.)
Note that in solids, atoms are typically two angstroms
(2 x 10^-10 meters) apart; in air the gas molecules are about
30 angstroms apart.

& Atomic Bomb, A-Bomb:  (from Herman) A weapon with a large
explosive power due to the sudden release of energy when the
nuclei of heavy atoms such as plutonium-239 or uranium-235
are split.  This fission is brought about by the bombardment
of the fuel with neutrons, setting off a chain reaction.
The bomb releases shock, blast, heat, light, and lethal
radiation.  The world's first atomic bomb was successfully
tested by the United States on July 16, 1945.

% Atomic Energy Commission: United States governmental 
authority for atomic energy; split into ERDA and NRC in 1975.
(may not be 100% correct)

& Atomic Number (Z):  The number of protons in a nucleus; same
as the number of electrons in a neutral atom; determines the 
position of an element in the periodic table, and hence its
chemical properties (see also isotope).

* Atomic Temperature:  The temperature corresponding to the mean
kinetic energy of the neutral atoms in a plasma.  (If there were
no ions or electrons, the atomic temperature would be what we
normally think of as the temperature of a gas, such as the air.)

& Avogadro's number: N = 6.02497 x 10^23.  Number of particles 
in a mole of a substance.  Coefficient relating Boltzmann's 
constant to the ideal gas constant. This is the number of 
atoms per gram-atom.  See also: mole

> Axially Symmetric Divertor EXperiment (from Herman)
(ASDEX, Asdex: Garching, Germany)  A large tokamak designed 
for the study of impurities and their control by a magnetic
divertor.  The H mode or high mode of operation with neutral 
beam injection was first observed on ASDEX.

> Axially Symmetric Divertor EXperiment (ASDEX, Asdex):  "The original
ASDEX, located in Garching, Germany and decommisioned in 1990(?), 
would qualify today as a medium-sized tokamak. It was designed for 
the study of impurities and their control by a magnetic divertor.  
The H mode or high mode of operation with neutral beam injection was
first observed on ASDEX.  Its successor ASDEX-Upgrade (a completely 
new machine, not really an "upgrade") is larger and more flexible.
It is the first tokamak whose toroidal and poloidal field coils are 
not linked, which will be a necessary design factor in a reactor.  
It will achieve parameters at the edge which are very similar to 
those needed for a power reactor." - Arthur Carlson

* Azimuthal: Generally an angle, measured "around" an object.
In spherical geometries, the angle which is *not* the "polar angle".  
On the earth, one incarnation of the azimuthal angle is the longitude 
of a location relative to the prime meridian through Greenwich, 
England.  In toroidal geometries, the longitude idea still applies, 
but the other angle is the "poloidal" angle, not the "polar" angle.  
The azimuthal direction is the "long way" around a torus.  
See also: poloidal.


BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB

# B - variable used for Magnetic Field

# B - chemical symbol for the element boron; see entry

# Be - chemical symbol for the element beryllium; see entry

@ BPX - Burning Plasma eXperiment; see entry

* Ballooning Mode:  (Haven't had my waves & instabilities class yet!
Any help out there?)

* Banana Orbit:  The fast spiraling of an charged particle around a
magnetic field line is accompanied by a slow movement ("drift") of 
the center of the sprial.  Projected onto a poloidal plane, the drift
orbit has the shape of a banana.  These orbits are responsible for 
neo-classical diffusion (see entry).

* Baseball Coils:  Used in magnetic-mirror geometries to
produce a minimum-B configuration; so-called because of their
resemblance to the characteristic shape of lacing on a baseball.

* Beam-Beam Reaction:  Fusion reaction which occurs from the 
collision of two fast ions originating in injected neutral beams.

* Beam-Plasma Reaction:  Fusion reaction which occurs from the
collision of a fast beam ion with a thermal plasma ion.

* Beam-Wall Reaction:  Fusion reaction which occurs from the
collision of a fast beam ion with an ion embedded in or adsorbed
onto the reactor wall.

! Becquerel, Antoine-Henri:  French scientist and discoverer of
radioactivity; co-winner of Nobel Prize.  (See Curie)

$ Becquerel:  Unit of radioactivity equal to 1 disintegration per
second.  (see Curie)

& Beryllium: (Be)  Element with atomic number 4 (four protons).
May be useful in multiplying fusion neutrons to enhance tritium
production in a lithium blanket; rather hazardous to handle.
(See relevant terms mentioned.)

* Beta, or beta-value:  Ratio between plasma kinetic pressure and 
magnetic-field pressure; proportional to the ratio between plasma 
kinetic energy density and magnetic field energy density.  Beta 
is usually measured relative to the total, local field
(loosely called beta toroidal), but sometimes the plasma pressure 
relative to only the poloidal component of the field (beta poloidal)
or relative to some external field (like the maximum field at the
magnetic coils) is more useful. There is also a normalized beta 
(beta_N) of interest when discussing the beta limit (see entry).
(lots of help from Art Carlson with the above.)

"Because the cost of a reactor is strongly influenced by the 
strength of the magnetic field that must be provided, beta values 
are directly related to the economics of fusion power production. 
Beta is usually expressed as a percentage, with 5% generally 
believed to be the minimum value required for an economical 
fusion reactor." - from the PPPL WWW page on PBX-M.  
See also: pressure, kinetic pressure, magnetic pressure, 
second stability.


* Beta-Normal:  Beta-N, the normalized beta, is beta relative to
the beta limit (see below).

* Beta-Poloidal:  Beta-P is the same as the ordinary beta, except
only the poloidal field is used in calculating the magnetic field
pressure.  Beta-P is > 1 in many modern tokamaks.

* Beta Limit, also called Troyon Limit: If the plasma pressure in 
a tokamak becomes too high, the so-called ballooning modes become 
unstable and lead to a loss of confinement (sometimes catastophic,
sometimes not). The exact value at which this occurs depends 
strongly on the magnetic field B, the plasma minor radius a, and 
the toroidal plasma current I, such that maximum value of the 
normalized beta, beta_N=beta*B*a/I, is around 4% (with B in Teslas, 
a in meters, and I in Mega-amperes).  The exact value depends on 
details of the plasma shape, the plasma profiles, and the safety
factor. (Beta entries provided by Art Carlson.)

* Biasing:  [from Art Carlson] The vacuum vessel of a tokamak
(or other device) has a variety of structures--limiters, divertor
plates, the wall itself. These are usually mechanically and
electrically connected, but it is possible to bias (charge) them to
different voltages relative to each other. This allows some control 
over the electric fields and currents around the plasma, which can 
influence, for example, the thickness of the scrape-off-layer, the 
transition between L- and H-mode, and the equilibrium configuration. 
Biasing experiments are being done on DIII-D, TEXTOR, and TdeV.

* Binary Collisions:  Collisions involving only two particles; 
multiparticle collisions (eg, three-body collisions) are usually
neglected/approximated...

* Binding Energy:  Energy required to separate two objects;
conversely, energy released when two objects are allow to bind
together.  Equivalent to the mass defect (see entry) via E=mc^2.

& Biot-Savart Law:  General formula for determining the magnetic 
field due to a steady line (not space) current.  Related to Ampere's 
Law.

* Blanket: (from Herman) a region surrounding a fusion reactor 
core within which the fusion neutrons are slowed down, heat 
is transferred to a primary coolant, and tritium is bred 
from lithium.  In hybrid applications, fertile materials 
(U-238 or Th-232) are located in the blanket for conversion 
into fissile fuels.

* Bohm diffusion:  (from Herman) A rapid loss of plasma
across magnetic field lines caused by microinstabilities.
Theory formulated by the physicist David Bohm.  From Chen's book 
(see bibliography): "Semiempirical formula for the diffusion 
coefficient given by Bohm in 1946 (noted by Bohm, Burhop, and 
Massey, who were developing a magnetic arc for use in uranium 
isotope separation)."  Bohm diffusion was proposed (not derived 
from first principles) to scale as 1/B rather than the 1/B^2 
scaling predicted by classical diffusion.  A 1/B scaling results 
from assuming that particles diffuse across field lines at an 
optimum rate (effective collision frequency=cyclotron frequency).  
The 1/B scaling is observed (approximately) in most reactors.  
(Acknowledgements to Philip Snyder)  See also: diffusion, 
microinstabilities, field lines...

& Boltzmann constant: k = 1.38 x 10^-16 erg/degree. This 
is the ratio of the universal gas constant to Avogadro's number.
It is also used to relate temperatures (Kelvin) to energies (ergs
or Joules) via E = (constant of order unity) * kT.

& Boltzmann Distribution:  See Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution;
distribution function.

* Boltzmann Equation:  Fundamental equation in kinetic theory
which describes the evolution of the distribution function.

* Bootstrap Current:  Currents driven in toroidal devices by 
neo-classical diffusion (see entry).  They may amount to a 
substantial fraction of the net current in a tokamak reactor, 
thus lengthening the pulse time or decreasing the power needed 
for current drive.

& Boron: (B)  Fifth element (Z=5) in the periodic table; has
5 protons; potential use as an aneutronic fuel.  (See FAQ section
1, part on reactions.)  Also useful as a neutron-absorber.

* Boronization:

* Branching Ratio:  In a fusion reaction involving two nuclei,
there are typically a variety of possible sets of products which
can form.  The branching ratio for a particular set of products
is the probability that that set of products will be produced.

* Breakeven:  there are several types:
	Commercial:  When fusion power can be converted into enough 
		electric power to power the reactor and generate enough
 		electricity to cover the costs of the plant at economically
 		competitive rates. (?)
	Engineering:  When enough energy can be generated from the
		fusion power output to supply power for the reactor and
		generate a surplus; sort of commercial breakeven without
		the economic considerations. (?)
	Scientific:  When fusion power = input power; Q=1.
		(See also Lawson Criterion)
		Extrapolated - projected for actual reactor fuel using 
			an alternative fuel.
		Actual - determined using the actual fusion fuel to be
			used in the reactor (typically DT).

* Breeder Reactor:  (from Herman) A kind of nuclear reactor that
produces more fissionable material than it consumes to
generate energy.  The liquid-metal "fast breeder," a promising
type of breeder, splits plutonium-239, producing an intense
flow of neutrons and a self-sustaining chain reaction. 

& Bremsstrahlung:  (German for "Braking Radiation")  Electromagnetic
radiation from a charged particle as it slows down (decelerates).  
Similar to synchrotron radiation (see also).  In a plasma 
bremsstrahlung occurs when electrons (which are lighter and generally
move faster) collide with ions (which are heavier and generally move
slower); the acceleration/deceleration of the electrons causes them
to radiate bremsstrahlung.

> Burning Plasma eXperiment (BPX):  Proposed U.S. successor to TFTR;
never funded.  See also: CIT, TPX.

> Bumpy Torus:  I believe this concept tries to combine mirror 
concepts with toroidal ones.  My understanding is that it is 
essentially a series of mirrors stuck end to end and bent into 
a ring.  - Albert Chou (corrections / enhancements welcome!)


CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC

# c - Speed of light; 3.0x10E+8 meters/second or 3.0x10E+10 cm/sec

@ CGS - Centimeters, Grams, Seconds; see CGS Units

@ CGS Units - see entry below; see also CGS above.

@ CIT - Compact Ignition Tokamak; see entry

$ cm - centimeters; unit of distance.  See also centi-

& Carbon: (C)

& Capacitor:  device used to store electrical energy by accumulating
charges on nearby conductors.  Energy may be stored and withdrawn
at varying rates.  Used in short-pulse plasma devices where only
a moderate amount of energy is needed.

& Celsius: Temperature scale where zero degrees corresponds to the
freezing point of water (32 Fahrenheit) and 100 degrees corresponds 
to the boiling point (212 Fahrenheit).  Zero celsius = 273.16 Kelvin. 

& Centi-:  metric prefix indicating 1/100th of a given unit.
e.g., one centimeter is 1/100th of a meter.

& Centigrade: see Celsius

& CGS Units:  System of measurement where the fundamental units
are centimeters, grams, and seconds.

& Chain Reaction: (from Herman) A self-sustaining series of
chemical or nuclear reactions in which the products of the
reaction contribute directly to the propagation of the process.

& Charge Density:  See density, and apply to electrical charge.

& Charge, Electrical:  
     As a noun:  A fundamental physical attribute of a
particle, which characterizes the particle's electromagnetic
interaction with other particles and with electric and magnetic
fields.  (See also particle, field)

     As a verb:  Storing energy in a battery or electric capacitor by
running a current through it; opposite of discharge.  (It is possible
to charge most capacitors in either direction, but batteries charge
one way, and discharge the other.)

* Charge Exchange:  Phenomenon in which a positive ion colliding with
a molecule (or an atom) neutralizes itself by capturing an electron
from the molecule/atom, and transforming the molecule/atom into a
positive radical/ion.

* Charge Transfer:  see charge exchange

* Classical Diffusion:  In plasma physics, diffusion due solely
to scattering of particles (unlike charges) via electrical/coulomb
interactions.  (See also diffusion.)

* Coherent Radiation:  Any form of radiation in which the phase
relationship between sections of the wave at different locations is
not random (or incoherent!).  Typical example is a laser beam, in
which the phase is more or less uniform across the beam, and changes
along the beam in accordance with the wavelength.  Radiation in 
which the photons tend to "agree" with one another, rather than
being randomly distributed.

* Cold Plasma Model:  Model of a plasma in which the temperature is
neglected with respect to the effects of interest.

& Collision Cross-Section:  Effective surface area of a particle
when it collides with another; describes probability of collisions
between the two particles.
 
* Collisionless Plasma Model:  Model of a plasma in which the density
is so low, or the temperature so high, that close binary 
collisions have practically no significance on certain timescales 
because the time scales of interest are smaller than the 
collision time.  Yields valid physical results for timescales
much shorter than the average collision time in a real plasma.

& Collision Time:  Typical time which passes between the time
a particle collides, and when it collides again.  Inverse of the
collision frequency; equal to the mean free path divided by the
particle's velocity.  The collision time decreases with increasing
density, and increases with increasing temperature.

> Compact Ignition Tokamak (CIT): Proposed U.S. successor to TFTR;
never funded.  See also, BPX, TPX.

> Compact Torus:  Any of a series of axially symmetric fusion 
configurations having closed flux surfaces (like a tokamak, not 
like a mirror machine), but having no material objects piercing 
the core (as do the toroidal field coils of a tokamak).  These 
devices have an inherently low aspect ratio.  The most successful
variants are the spheromak and the Field Reversed Configuration.
See also: low aspect ratio, spheromak, field-reversed configuration.
(Arthur Carlson, awc@ipp-garching.mpg.de)

* Compression Waves:

& Conductivity:  Degree to which a substance transmits (conducts)
a given physical property. (is this vague or what?) See electrical
conductivity, thermal conductivity.

* Confinement Time:  There are several types.  The general 
definition is that tau = [total]/[loss per unit time]; 
hence Tau_E = [total energy]/[energy loss per unit time].

Tau_[E, N, ...] is the amount of time the plasma is contained 
by magnetic fields before its [energy (E), particles (N or P)] 
leak / dissipate away.  The different types are, in general, 
similar but not equal.  
(Note note note:  Tau_E is NOT electron confinement time!)


* Controlled Thermonuclear Fusion:  (from Herman) The process
in which light nuclei, heated to a high temperature in a 
confined region, undergo fusion reactions under controlled
conditions.

* Cooperative Phenomena:

* Core plasma:

* Corona: The outermost (?) part of a star's atmosphere; 
characterized by high temperatures and low densities; home to 
many plasma phenomena.

$ Coulomb: standard unit of electric charge.  A single electron or
proton has a charge of (+/-) 1.6022E-19 coulombs.  Hence there are 
6.2414E+18 electrons in a coulomb of electrons.

* Coulomb Collision:  An interparticle collision where Coulomb's Law
is the governing force.

& Coulomb's Law:  Force law governing the electrical interaction
between charged particles.  Force is proportional to (charge of
first particle) * (charge of second particle) / (square of separation
between particles).  Constant of proportionality depends on system
of units used.  (In SI units, it is 1/(4*pi*epsilon-0), where
epsilon-0 is the permittivity of free space = 8.854 x 10^-12 )

& Cryogenic:  Loosely, "very cold".  Used to describe systems which
operate at very low temperatures.  Superconducting magnetic field
coils currently need to operate at cryogenic temperatures (e.g.,
liquid helium at 4 Kelvin).

* Curie:  amount of radioactivity in a gram of radium; named
after Marie Curie (see below).  Corresponds to 3.7 x 10^10 
disintegrations/second.  (See Becquerel)

! Curie: Marie and Pierre; husband-wife pair of French scientists.
Pierre's name is attatched to the "Curie point" in magnetism, which 
is not discussed here. He and his wife shared with Antoine-Henri
Becquerel the Nobel Prize for physics in 1903. Marie Curie, 
a.k.a. Madame Curie, received the Nobel Prize for chemistry 
in 1911, becoming the first person to receive more than
one Nobel Prize.  She remains the only person to receive Nobel
Prizes in different fields. (I believe - RFH)

& Current Density:  Amount of current flowing through a substance,
per unit area perpendicular to the direction of current flow.  (See
also density)

* Current Drive:  Any of a variety of techniques used to cause
current flow in a plasma.  See inductive current drive, RF current
drive, non-inductive current drive.  Usually applied to schemes
used to generate current in tokamaks and other toroidal devices
which require internal plasma currents.  See also: bootstrap current.  

* Cusp Geometry:

* Cyclotron:  Particle accelerator in which a magnetic field causes
particles to orbit in circles, and an oscillating electric field
accelerates the particles.

* Cyclotron Frequency:  Number of times per second that a particle
orbits in a magnetic field.

* Cyclotron Radius:  Radius of orbit of charged particle about
a magnetic field line.  Also called gyroradius, Larmor radius.

* Cyclotron Radiation:  See synchrotron radiation

* Cyclotron Resonance Heating:  see Electron Cyclotron Resonance
Heating, Ion Cyclotron Resonance Heating.




***************************
Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University
As always, I represent only myself, and not PPPL
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.15 / Robert Heeter /  Section 10D - Glossary/FUT I-M - Conventional Fusion FAQ
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Section 10D - Glossary/FUT I-M - Conventional Fusion FAQ
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 1994 00:45:27 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

==================================================================

Section 10 Part D - Glossary I-M

FREQUENTLY USED TERMS IN CONVENTIONAL FUSION RESEARCH 
AND PLASMA PHYSICS

* This FAQ deals with conventional fusion only, not Cold Fusion. *

While this section is not yet complete, it should be useful to
many people, and I encourage you to distribute it to anyone who
might be interested (and willing to help revise it!!!).

7th Draft, Last Revised on Sunday, August 14, 1994.

Edited by Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@pppl.gov

Guide to Categories:
 
* = advanced plasma/fusion vocabulary
& = basic physics vocabulary 
> = device type or machine name
# = name of a constant or variable
! = scientists 
@ = acronym
% = labs & political organizations
$ = unit of measurement

Citations and Acknowledgements appear in Section 12.

==================================================================

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

# I - variable used to indicate total current through a conductor.

@ IAEA - International Atomic Energy Agency; see entry
 
@ IBHP - Integrated Biological Hazard Potential; see entry

@ ICE - Ion Cyclotron Emission; see entry

@ ICF - Inertial Confinement Fusion; see entry

@ ICH - Ion Cyclotron Heating - see ICRH

@ ICRH - Ion Cyclotron Resonance Heating; see entry

@ INEL - Idaho National Engineering Laboratory; see entry

@ IPP - Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics; see entry

@ ITER - International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor; see entry

% Idaho National Engineering Laboratory:  U.S. Department of energy
laboratory involved in engineering studies for fusion and fission
reactors, among other things.  Not surprisingly, located in Idaho.

* Ignition:  (from Herman) The point at which the plasma 
produces so much energy from fusion reactions that it no 
longer needs any external source of power to maintain 
its temperature.

* Impurities: atoms of unwanted elements in the plasma, 
which tend to degrade plasma performance, inhibiting fusion.

* Impurity Control:  
see also wall conditioning

* Inboard side:  portion of a tokamak (or other toroidal device)
closest to the central axis.

& Inductance:

* Inductive Current Drive:

* Inertial Confinement Fusion:  Approach to fusion where the plasma
is imploded so quickly that the inertia of the converging particles
is so high that they fuse before they disperse.  This is the method
used in a hydrogen bomb; ICF schemes for power production usually
use small pellets of fuel in an attempt to make "miniature"
h-bomb type explosions.  Methods for imploding the pellet include
bombardment from all sides with high-powered laser and particle
beams, and of course implosion in a fission bomb.  Parts of ICF
fusion research remain classified due to their implications for
construction of hydrogen bombs.

* Instability:  (adapted from Herman) A state of plasma in which a
small perturbation amplifies itself to a considerable 
alteration of the equilibrium of the system, which sometimes leads to
disruptions.  Most are associated with waves and other natural
modes of oscillation in the plasma, which can sometimes grow.
There are (unfortunately!) many kinds.   See also:
Flute instability, MHD instability, Interchange instability,
microinstability, kink instability, resistive instability, 
trapped particle instability, two-stream instability, universal
instability, velocity-space instability.

* Integrated Biological Hazard Potential:

* Interchange Instability:

* Interferometer:

* Interferometry:
	Optical -
	Microwave -

% International Atomic Energy Agency: (from Herman)  An
autonomous intergovernmental organization established in 1956
with the purpose of advancing peaceful uses of atomic energy,
with headquarters in Vienna.

> International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER):
Huge fusion reactor being planned by the EC, US, Japan,
and Russia (former USSR?).  Should generate far more
energy than it consumes.  Research goals include engineering
studies of reactor materials, component designs for steady-state
devices, and testing/proving commercial feasibility.

* Ioffe Bars:  Special configuration of conductors which, when
added to a conventional magnetic mirror, generate a "magnetic
well" which stabilizes the mirror against the hydromagnetic
instability.

& Ion:  (from Herman) An atom whic hhas ecome charged as a 
result of gaining or losing one or more orbiting electrons.  
A completely ionized atom is one stripped of all its electrons.

* Ion Cyclotron Emission (ICE):  As ions gyrate around in a magnetic
field (see also larmor radius or cyclotron radius), they radiate 
radio-frequency electromagnetic waves.  This is known as ion cyclotron
emission, and can be measured to help diagnose a plasma.

* Ion Cyclotron Resonance Heating:  Like ECH, but heats ions 
using the ion cyclotron frequency.  See Electron Cyclotron Heating.

* Ion Temperature: the temperature corresponding to the
mean kinetic energy of the ions in a plasma.

& Ionization:  Process by which a neutral atom is converted to an ion 
(or one ion is converted to another of a different type).

& Ionization Energy:  Generally refers to the amount of energy 
required to strip a particular electron from an atom.  The 
first-ionization-energy is a commonly used quantity in many fields 
of physics and chemistry.  Typically measured in electron-volts.
Equivalent to the atomic binding energy of the electron.

& Ionization Potential:  See ionization energy.

* Ionosphere:  Ionized region of the upper earth atmosphere, which
behaves like a plasma, including reflection of AM radio waves and
generation of auroral glows.

* Isomer, Nuclear:  two nuclei with the same nuclear mass (total
number of protons and neutrons) but different nuclear compostions.
(e.g.: T & 3He are isomers: T has 1p, 2n; 3He has 2p, 1n)

& Isotope: (from Herman) One of several variations of the 
same element, possessing different numbers of neutrons but
the same number of protons in their nuclei.  Most elements have
several stable isotopes, and also several possible unstable
and semi-stable isotopes.  The chemical and physical properties
of the different isotopes are generally the same (except for the
slight mass difference and the possibility of radioactivity).
Examples include the hydrogen isotopes protium (ordinary
hydrogen), deuterium, and tritium (two neutrons, one proton); 
also uranium 238, 233, and 235.
The chemistry of an element depends only on the number of protons
(nuclear charge) and is therefore the same for all isotopes of
an element, but the nuclear properties of different isotopes
will be different.  There are roughly 300 known stable isotopes,
and over 1000 unstable ones.


JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ

# J - variable used to indicate current density

$ J - abbreviation for Joule; see entry

@ JET - Joint European Torus; see entry

@ JT-60: Japan Torus - 60 (??)

> Joint European Torus:  (from Herman) A large tokamak in Oxfordshire,
England, commonly owned by the European Community.  First reactor to
achieve > 1 MW of fusion power, in 1991.  Largest tokamak currently 
in operation (to the best of the editor's knowledge).

> JT-60: (from Herman) A large Japanese tokamak located north 
of Tokyo.

$ Joule:  SI unit of energy.  1 Joule = 1E7 ergs.

& Joule Heating: See ohmic heating


KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK

# k: Mathematical symbol usually used for Boltzmann's Constant.
Value is 1.4 x 10^-23 Joules/Kelvin (in SI units), 
or 1.4 x 10^-16 ergs/Kelvin (in cgs units).

$ kA:  KiloAmpere; see kilo, Ampere

& Kelvin: (K) temperature scale where zero degrees corresponds
to absolute zero (no thermal energy); degrees have same
size as in Celsius/centigrade scale.  273.16 K = zero C;
373.16 = 100 C.

! (Lord) Kelvin:  honorary name given to William Thompson; 19th 
century British physicist (many contributions in many subfields).

& kilo:  metric prefix used to indicate 1000 times the following
unit.  e.g., a kiloampere is 1000 amperes.

* Kinetic Pressure:  Density of kinetic energy (energy in the
thermal motions of the plasma particles).  For an ideal plasma,
p = nkT.

* Kink Instability:  Instability resulting from excessive growth
of a kink mode; see kink mode.

* Kink Mode:

* Kruskal Limit:  In tokamaks, limiting value for plasma current
beyond which MHD instabilities are predicted.  (Has it been tested?)


LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL

# L - variable typically used to indicate self-inductance;
see inductance.

# Li - chemical symbol for the element lithium; see entry.
@ L-mode: see low mode.

@ LAMPF - Los Alamos Meson Physics Facility; see entry

@ LANL - Los Alamos National Laboratory; see entry

@ Laser: Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation.
     see entry.

@ LBL - Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory; see entry

@ LCFS - Last Closed Flux Surface; see entry

@ LLNL - Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory; see entry

* Landau Damping:  Damping of a wave propagating in a hot plasma,
due to the interaction of the wave with particles whose velocity
is close to the phase velocity of the wave.  Depends on the shape
of the velocity-space distribution function at the phase velocity
of the wave.  More info from John Cobb, with modifications:  

The phenomenon is very similar to surfing on water waves at the 
beach.  If a particle's speed is just slightly lower than the wave, 
then the particle can "catch the wave" and surf along at the wave 
speed.  In so doing, the particle will gain some energy, which will 
be at the expense of the wave.  This is called Landau Damping, since 
the loss of energy tends to damp the wave.  At the same time, if a 
particle moves just slightly faster than the wave, then it will also 
be caught on the wave.  However, in this case, it will slow down, 
giving the wave some extra energy.  In this case particles transfer 
energy to the wave; this is called inverse Landau damping.  Which 
effect dominates depends on whether there are more particles moving 
faster than the wave or more particles moving slower.  Thus it 
depends on the derivative of the distribution function with respect 
to velocity, evaluated at the wave's phase velocity.  Landau dmaping 
can lead to the decay of waves.  Inverse Landau damping can be a 
mechanism for some kinetic instabilities.

! Langmuir, Irving (1881-1957): American chemist, won Nobel Prize in 
chemistry in 1932, developed the theory of Langmuir probes (see 
entry).  Numerous inventions for General Electric (lighting).

* Langmuir frequency:  See plasma frequency.

* Langmuir oscillation:  See electrostatic waves.

* Langmuir probe: a small conductive electrode used to measure the
density, temperature, and electric potential (voltage) of a plasma.

& Larmor radius: the radius of the path of a charged 
particle in a magnetic field.  Also known as gyroradius
and cyclotron radius.
 
& Laser: (adapted from Herman) an optical device that amplifies and
concentrates light waves, emitting them in a narrow, intense beam.
Laser light radiation is notable for its brightness and to some 
extent for its monochromaticity and spatial and temporal coherence.

> Laser Fusion:  Form of inertial confinement fusion where
laser beams are used to compress the fuel pellet.

* Laser scattering device: See Thomson scattering device.

* Last Closed Flux Surface (LCFS):  [from Art Carlson]  The boundary 
between the interior region of a tokamak (or other device), where the 
field lines close back on themselves, and the scrape-off layer (see 
entry), where the run into a material wall. (See also separatrix.)

% Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory:  Located in Berkeley, CA; Another
large U.S. science laboratory; minor (?) U.S. fusion research center.  

% Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory:  Located in Livermore, CA,
about an hour east of SF in the Bay Area.  Home of the Nova laser 
inertial confinement fusion program; Nova is the largest
laser in the world.  Home of the former mirror projects MFTF 
(Mirror Fusion Test Facility, shut down on the day it became
operational, or thereabouts, due to budget cutting), 
TMX-U (Tandem Mirror eXperiment Upgrade), and the recently 
shut down Microwave Tokamak eXperiment (MTX).  Some notable 
older fusion experiments at Livermore included Table Top, Toy Top,
Baseball (and Baseball-II) and TMX (predecessor to TMX-U).
Livermore is also the site of the Rotating Target Neutron Sources 
(I and II) for testing materials samples in high-intensity 14 MeV
neutron fluxes and the High Field Test Stand for testing neutral
beams.  Workplace of Albert Chou and several other 
sci.physics.fusion participants. :)  

* Lawson Criterion:  Scientific breakeven criterion based on the 
product of energy confinement time and particle density.  Together
with plasma temperature, the Lawson value of a plasma indicates
how close it is to self-sustained (ignited) fusion; see also 
ignition.

* Limiters:  (from Herman) structures placed in contact 
with the edge of a confined plasma which are used to 
define the shape of the outermost magnetic surface.  See also: 
divertor.

& Lithium: (Li)  Third element in the periodic table, so all isotopes
contain 3 protons; chemically very reactive; stable isotopes 
are Li-6 (7.5% abundance) and Li-7 (92.5%); candidate for 
breeding tritium from fusion neutrons via the reactions: 

	n + 6Li -> 4He + T + 4.8 MeV, n + 7Li -> 4He + T + n - 2.5 MeV.

* Longitudinal Waves:  (by John Cobb, with editing) Waves where the 
variation of the field is partially or totally in the direction of 
propagation (parallel to wavennumber, k [a vector]).  Examples 
include sound waves and Langmuir waves.  Contrasted with transverse 
waves, where the variation is perpendicular to the direction of 
propagation, such as light waves.

& Lorentz Force:  Total electromagnetic force on a charged particle
moving in electric & magnetic fields.  F = q(E + (v/c)xB).  See
also force, cross product, charge, velocity, and variable symbols.

* Lorentz Gas:  Plasma model in which the electrons are assumed
not to interact with each other, but only with ions (Z -> infinity)
and where the ions are assumed to remain at rest/fixed (M-i -> 
infinity).

* Lorentz Model - see Lorentz Gas

% Los Alamos Meson Physics Facility (LAMPF):  Physics research
facility at Los Alamos National Lab; major site for U.S. 
muon-catalyzed fusion research in the 1980s.  May be shut down soon.

% Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL):  Major DOE research 
facility, located in Los Alamos, New Mexico, about an hour west of 
Santa Fe.  Former home of a frozen-deuterium-fiber Z-pinch device,
which was dismantled.  Home to an active theory division, including
the Numerical Tokamak Grand Challenge (being performed on the CM-5
massively-parallel supercomputer).

Also home to former alternative-concepts experimental devices like 
Scyllac, FRX-A, FRX-B, FRX-C/LSM, ZT40, and the aborted CPRF which 
was killed in 1991 when it was almost complete (budget cuts).

Currently there are some small in-house experiments, including one on 
electrostatic confinement as a possible fusion device, and/or a 
compact neutron source. They also do theory and experimental 
collaboration with other labs worldwide.
 
(Information provided by John Cobb and Ed Chao)


* Loss Cone:  (from John Cobb, with modifications and additions) 
In a magnetic mirror machine, particles with a large velocity 
parallel to the magneitc field and a small velocity perpendicular 
to the field will be able to escape past the magnetic mirror 
(see magnetic mirror). In that case the velocity distribution 
function (see distribution function) will be almost zero in the 
region of velocity space that allows particles to escape. The 
shape of that region (in a velocity space diagram with parallel 
velocity and perpendicular velocity as the axes) is a cone. When a 
particle undergoes a collision, its velocity gets somewhat 
randomized. Particles that are scattered into that cone are lost very 
quickly (in one mirror bounce time). Thus it is called a loss cone. 
Because of the loss cone, the theoretical maximum particle 
confinement time of a magnetic mirror machine can be only a few times 
the particle collision time; this is generally seen as a showstopper 
for mirror-based fusion research.

* Low Aspect Ratio:  (entry from John Cobb, slightly edited)
An aspect ratio for a torus that is small (minor radius is almost as
big as major radius).  There are many fusion devices which are 
designed to have a low aspect ratio.  Such devices look more like 
tractor tires than bicycle tires, as toruses go.  There are reasons
to believe that low aspect ratio devices will offer some advantages 
for a fusion reactor.  Usually, ease of theoretical and/or numerical 
analysis is not one of these advantages :>.

* Low mode or L-Mode:  (from Herman) The "normal" behavior of 
a tokamak plasma, characterized by poor confinement and a particular
scaling of decreasing confinement with increasing temperature.

* Lower Hybrid Heating:  form of RF heating using Lower Hybrid Waves.

* Lower Hybrid Waves:  "Electrostatic ion oscillations at a frequency
intermediate to the electron extraordinary wave (high frequency) and 
the magnetosonic wave (low frequency).  Not waves, strictly speaking,
because they do not propagate (I think)." 
	- Albert Chou, albert@seas.ucla.edu


MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

# m, M - variable typically used for mass.

$ MA - MegaAmpere or MegAmpere; see Mega, Ampere

$ m - meters; SI unit of distance

@ MFE - Magnetic Fusion Energy

@ MFTF - Mirror Fusion Test Facility; see entry

@ MIT - Massachusetts Institute of Technology; see entry

@ MHD - Magnetohydrodynamics; see entry

@ MHD Instability - see Magnetohydrodynamic instability.

@ MKS - Meters, Kilometers, Seconds - see SI Units

@ MKSA - Meters, Kilometers, Seconds, Amperes - See SI Units.

@ MTX - Microwave Tokamak eXperiment; see entry

% Madison - See University of Wisconsin-Madison

* Magnetic Axis:

* Magnetic Bottle:  Colorful term used to describe a magnetic field
structure which confines a plasma "like in a bottle".

* Magnetic Confinement Fusion:  Method of fusion which uses
magnetic fields / magnetic bottles to confine a hot plasma
until fusion occurs.

* Magnetic Diffusion:

* Magnetic Field:

* Magnetic Field Coil:

* Magnetic Flux Surfaces:

* Magnetic Island:

* Magnetic Limiter:  See divertor (??)

> Magnetic Mirror: See mirror effect, mirror device

* Magnetic Moment:

* Magnetic Pressure:  Pressure which a magnetic field is capable
of exerting on a plasma; equal to the magnetic energy density;
proportional to B^2.  (Constant is 1/(2*mu-o) in SI units, 1/8pi
in CGS units).

* Magnetic Pumping:  Form of plasma heating where the plasma is
successively compressed and expanded by means of a fluctuating
external magnetic field.  (See also adiabatic compression, frozen-in
law.)

* Magnetic Reconnection:  (entry by John Cobb, with some 
modifications)  When a plasma has some resistivity, then the 
frozen-in flow requirement is relaxed (see frozen-in flow). In that 
case, the magnetic field can move through the plasma fluid on the 
resistive (magnetic diffusion) time scale.  (Typically slow compared 
to MHD timescales.)  This allows field lines to reconnect with each 
other to change their topology in response to magnetic and other 
forces in the plasma. (see also Helicity, which is not conserved when 
reconnection is significant.)  The predominant theory for solar 
flares is based on the transfer of energy from magnetic fields to 
plasma particles which can occur in reconnection.  Reconnection can 
also be studied in the laboratory. 

* Magnetic Well:  see Minimum-B Configuration.

* Magnetohydrodynamics:  Electrodynamic fluid model that takes 
into account electric current and magnetic field; relevant at 
relatively low frequencies and for distance scales larger than 
the larmor radius.

* Magnetohydrodynamic Generator:  A device that extracts
kinetic energy from a jet of plasma and generates electricity.

* Magnetohydrodynamic Instability:

* Mass Defect:  The energy from fusion reactions comes from the
difference in mass between the reactants and the products.  In an
energy-releasing reaction, some mass is converted to energy via
Einsteins famous equation E (energy) = m (mass) * c^2 (speed of
light squared).  The energy released is the difference between
the binding energies of the reactants and the products (see 
entry on binding energy).

% Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT):  Located in Cambridge, 
MA (just outside Boston).  Home of the Plasma Fusion Center and the
Alcator series of compact tokmaks.

% Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics (IPP):  In Garching (near
Munich).  The largest plasma physics institute in Germany.  Presently
home of ASDEX-Upgrade and Wendelstein-7AS. (See entries)

! Maxwell, James Clerk:  19th-century British physicist, responsible 
for the synthesis of the equations of electromagnetism and the 
prediction of electromagnetic waves, among other things.

& Maxwell-Boltzmann Distribution:  Distribution function of particle
velocities corresponding to a system in thermal equilibrium with a
temperature value of T.  See also: distribution functions, 
temperature.

& Maxwellian Distribution: see Maxwell-Boltzmann Distribution

& Maxwell's Equations: The key equations governing
electrical and magnetic phenomena. (more?)

& Mean Free Path:  Average distance a particle travels between
collisions.  Roughly equal to the collision cross section divided
by the particle density.

& Mega-:  Metric prefix indicating 1,000,000 times a given quantity.
e.g., a megawatt is 1,000,000 watts.

* Meltdown:  (from Herman) A buildup of heat in the core of
a nuclear fission reactor due to an uncontrolled chain
reaction of the fission fuel causing the fuel rods to 
melt down to (through, in some cases) the reactor floor.

& Metastable state:  several types
	Electronic
	Nuclear

& Micro-:  Metric prefix indicating 1/1,000,000th of a given
quantity.  e.g., a microampere is 1/1,000,000th of an ampere.  
	
* Microinstability: Instabilities due to particle / kinetic 
theoretical effects, typically occuring on small scales, as opposed 
to those derivable from fluid models valid on larger scales.

* Microwave Interferometer:  See interferometer, interferometry.

* Microwave Tokamak eXperiment (MTX): a reincarnation of Alcator C
at LLNL, now shut down.

> Minimum-B Configuration:  Confinement configuration where the
magnetic field strength is a minimum where the plasma is to be
confined, and increases in all directions away from the confinement
region.  Stability is favorable in such a configuration because the
magnetic pressure increases in all directions away from the plasma.

> Mirror device, mirror machine:  (Adapted from Herman)
Generally, linear fusion machines which confine the plasma
using the mirror effect.  Basically there is a weak field
in the center, and strong fields at the ends.

* Mirror effect: A charged particle travelling into an increasing
magnetic field will (if the field becomes strong enough) reverse 
direction and be reflected back.

> Mirror Fusion Test Facility (MFTF):  A large mirror device built 
at LLNL in the late 1970s and mothballed for political reasons 
just before it was to begin operation.

* Mirror Ratio:  In a magnetic mirror configuration, the ratio
between the strongest and weakest values of the magnetic field;
a key ratio in determining confinement properties of the system.

* Mobility:

& Mole: The amount of given substance such that the mass in grams 
is equal to its [atomic weight, molecular weight, mass number].
The number of particles in a mole of a substance is Avogadro's
Number N = 6.02497 x 10^23 (see entry).  For instance, one mole
of water weighs 18 grams, since water is H2O, the H's weigh
one apiece, and the O weighs 16.  Heavy water, or D2O, weighs
20 grams/mole, because each D weighs 2 instead of 1.

* Motor-Generator:  Device used to store energy by accelerating
a rotating flywheel to high speeds; energy may be rapidly discharged
and converted to shorter-pulse energy.  (Used to power TFTR; the
electric utility would be a little unhappy if TFTR were to suddenly
draw its 30 MW+ of power at random intervals. :)

> Muon-Catalyzed Fusion: (Steve Jones?)
(see discussion in section 4B)



***************************
Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University
As always, I represent only myself, and not PPPL
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.15 / Robert Heeter /  Section 10C - Glossary/FUT D-H - Conventional Fusion FAQ
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Section 10C - Glossary/FUT D-H - Conventional Fusion FAQ
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 1994 00:43:10 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

==================================================================

Section 10 Part C - Glossary D-H

FREQUENTLY USED TERMS IN CONVENTIONAL FUSION RESEARCH 
AND PLASMA PHYSICS

* This FAQ deals with conventional fusion only, not Cold Fusion. *

While this section is not yet complete, it should be useful to
many people, and I encourage you to distribute it to anyone who
might be interested (and willing to help revise it!!!).

7th Draft, Last Revised on Sunday, August 14, 1994.

Edited by Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@pppl.gov

Guide to Categories:
 
* = advanced plasma/fusion vocabulary
& = basic physics vocabulary 
> = device type or machine name
# = name of a constant or variable
! = scientists 
@ = acronym
% = labs & political organizations
$ = unit of measurement

Citations and Acknowledgements appear in Section 12.

==================================================================

DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD

@ D - nuclear/chemical symbol for deuterium/deuteron

@ DT - Deuterium-Tritium; see entry labeled DT Fuel

@ DIII-D - Doublet III-D; see entry

@ DOE - Department of Energy (United States)

* D-shaped plasma:  A plasma whose cross section is a D (instead
of a circle).

* Debye Length: The characteristic distance over which charges are
shielded in a plasma.  See also: Debye shielding.
lambda_D = ( epsilon_0 k_B T_e / (n_e e^2) )^(1/2) 
lambda_D[m] = (7.434*10^3)*(_e[eV])^(1/2)*n[m^(-3)]^(-1/2)
(Arthur Carlson, awc@ipp-garching.mpg.de)

! Debye, Peter Joseph:  Physical chemist, studied behavior of 
conductive solutions (plasmas have some similar behaviors).

* Debye Radius:  See Debye Length.

* Debye Sheath:  The region of strong electric field in front of 
a material surface in contact with a plasma.  Its characteristic
thickness is the Debye length, and it is caused by Debye shielding
of the negative surface charge resulting from electrons flowing to 
the surface much faster (initially) than the ions.  The lost
electrons leave behind a region of net positive charge which
gradually diminishes the strength of the electric field 
over the debye length.  See also: Debye Length, Debye Shielding.
(Arthur Carlson, awc@ipp-garching.mpg.de, with modifications by
John Cobb, johncobb@uts.cc.utexas.edu)

* Debye Shielding:  If a positive (or negative) charge is inserted 
into a plasma, it will change the local charge distribution by 
attracting (repelling) electrons.  The net result is an additional
negative (positive) charge density which cancels the effect of the
initial charge at distances large compared to the Debye length.
(There is a corresponding effect of shielding by the ions, which, 
for various and subtle reasons, usually is less important.)
See also: Debye Length.
(Arthur Carlson, awc@ipp-garching.mpg.de)

* Debye Sphere:  Sphere around a charged test particle whose
radius is equal to the Debye length.

* Decay Modes:  Different pathways for decay of radioactive nuclei.
	(need a list!)

& Density:  amount per unit of volume, or per unit surface area, or
per unit length. (Usually specified or clear from context which 
of these is meant).  Several types:
 Charge density   - amount of charge per unit (volume, area, length)
	Current density  - current flow per unit transverse surface area.
	Energy density   - amount of energy per unit volume.
	Flux density     - flux per unit of transverse surface area.
	Mass density     - mass per unit volume.
	Number density   - number of particles per unit volume.
	Particle density - same as number density.

% Department of Energy:  (adapted from Herman) U.S. cabinet-level
department that has overseen atomic energy research since 1977.
Created by merging of ERDA and (?).  Also supervises other 
energy research, and some defense work.

& Deuterium: A heavy isotope of hydrogen whose nucleus
contains both a neutron and a proton.

* Deuteron: A deuterium ion; nucleus consisting of a proton
and a neutron.

* Diagnostics:  (from Herman) Procedures for determining
(diagnosing) the state of a plasma during an experiment;
also refers to the instruments used for diagnosing.

* Diamagnetic Effects:  Application of a magnetic field to a plasma
will tend to create circulating current within the plasma that will
reduce the strength of the magnetic field.

* Diffusion:  The interpenetration of one substance into another
as a result of thermal / random motion of the individual particles.
(e.g., the diffusion of a plasma across a magnetic field as a 
result of collisions which cause particles to move along new
field lines.)  See also classical diffusion, neoclassical diffusion,
anomalous diffusion, transport.

* Direct Conversion:  The generation of electricity by direct
recovery of the kinetic energy of the charged fusion reaction
products.

* Disruption:  (from Herman)  Plasma instabilities sometimes grow
and cause disruptions of the carefully-engineered plasma conditions
in the reactor.  Major disruptions can cause an abrupt temperature 
drop and the termination of the plasma.  

& Distribution Function:  Function characterizing the density of
particles in a given space.  The velocity-space distribution
function gives the number of particles with a particular velocity;
the position-space distribution function is synonymous with the
particle density in position-space. 

* Divertor: (from Herman) Component of a toroidal fusion 
device that diverts charged particles on the outer edge 
of the plasma where they become neutralized.  In a reactor, the
divertor would incorporate a system for pumping out the neutralized
particles as exhaust from the machine.  A divertor, like a limiter, 
prevents the particles from striking and degrading the chamber 
walls, and dislodging secondary particles that would cool and 
contaminate the plasma.  Whereas a limiter is a material object 
used to limit the shape of the plasma, a divertor is a 
magnetic-field construction.  
See also: limiter.

> Doublet III-D:  (from Herman) Latest in a series of
tokamaks designed by GA Technologies (formerly General Atomic)
in San Diego making plasmas with noncircular cross sections,
including kidney shapes and D-shapes.  Though the current 
configuration does not (so far as the editor knows) involve 
doublet plasmas, this is still the official name for the device.

* Drift Motion:  Ordinarily particles placed in a magnetic
field will simply orbit in circles, but if the magnetic field
is not uniform, or curves, or there is an electrical field
perpendicular to the magnetic field, or another force is applied
perpendicular to the magnetic field, then the "guiding centers"
of the particle orbits will drift (generally perpendicular to
the magnetic field and to the applied force).  There are several
sorts of drifts; refer to a plasma physics text for more 
information (see Section 11: Bibliography).  For a good 
introduction at the undergraduate physics level, see Chen.

* Drift Velocity:  Characteristic velocity at which the center
of a particle's orbit ("guiding center") drifts when drift motion
(see above) occurs.

* DT Fuel:  Easiest fuel mixture to use in achieving fusion;
unless otherwise specified, probably refers to a 50-50 (by numbers 
or by moles) mix of deuterium and tritium.


EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

# e - symbol for the electron, for the unit electric 
      charge (e = 1.6x10^-19 coulombs), and for a Euler's fundamental
      mathematical constant e = 2.71828...

# E - Variable typically used for Energy or Electric Field
(usually in vector notation in the latter case; which is meant
is usually clear from context; when both are used in the same place
the energy is usually represented as U instead of E.)

@ eV - Electron-volt; see entry

@ EBT - Elmo Bumpy Torus; see entry

@ EC - European Community; see entry

@ ECDC - Electron Cyclotron Discharge Cleaning; see entry

@ ECE - Electron Cyclotron Emission; see entry

@ ECH - Electron Cyclotron Heating; see entry

@ ECRH - Electron Cyclotron Radiofrequency Heating - same as ECH.

@ ELM - Edge-Localized Mode; see entry

@ EM - Electromagnetic

@ EM Wave - Electromagnetic Wave; see entry

@ ERDA - Energy Research and Development Agency; see entry

@ EU - European Union; see entry

* Edge Localized Mode (ELM): Mode found often in H-mode plasmas. 
This is a temporary relaxation of the very high edge gradients 
found in H-modes. It may be a relaxation back to the L-mode.
(Borrowed from a posting by Paul Stek)

* Edge Plasma:

* Edge-Localized Mode:  (info from Paul Stek)  Found often in 
H-mode plasmas, this is a temporary relaxation of the very high 
edge gradients found in H-modes. It may be a relaxation back 
to the L-mode.

* Effective Collision Cross-section: (See collision cross section)

* Effective Collision Radius:  Effective size of a particle
equal to the square root of (cross section/pi).  Determines the
effective range of interaction of the particle.

& Elastic:  Term used to describe a process in which kinetic energy
is conserved; usually refers to (elastic) collisions or (elastic)
scattering.

& Electric Charge:  See charge, electrical.

& Electric Field:  A property of a patch of space which causes
the acceleration of electric charges located at that patch of
space.  The acceleration is given by a = qE/m, where q is the
charge, E the electric field vector, and m the mass of the
particle.  

& Electrical Conductivity:  Degree to which a substance conducts
electric current.  Can be defined by: 
	(current density) = (conductivity) * (applied electric field)

* Electromagnetic Coupling:  A means of extracting energy from a
magnetically confined plasma, where the plasma expands and pushes
on the confining magnetic field, causing electrical energy to
be generated in the external field-generating circuits.

& Electromagnetic Force:

& Electromagnetic Wave:

& Electron: (from Herman) Elementary particle with a negative
electric charge.  Electrons orbit around the positively 
charged nucleus in an atom.  The charge on an electron is 
-1.6x10^-19 coulombs; the electron has a mass of 9.11 x 10^-31 kg.

* Electron Cyclotron Discharge Cleaning (ECDC):  Using relatively
low power microwaves (at the electron cyclotron frequency) to 
create a weakly ionized, essentially unconfined hydrogen plasma 
in the vacuum chamber.  The ions react with impurities on the 
walls of the tokamak and help remove them from the chamber.  For
instance, Alcator C-mod typically applies ECDC for a few days 
prior to beginning a campaign, and a few hours before each day's run.

* Electron Cyclotron Emission (ECE):  As electrons gyrate around in 
a magnetic field (see also larmor radius or cyclotron radius), 
they radiate radio-frequency electromagnetic waves.  This is 
known as electron cyclotron emission, and can be measured to 
help diagnose a plasma.

* Electron Cyclotron Heating (ECRH):  Radiofrequency (RF) heating 
scheme that works by injecting electromagnetic wave energy at the
electron cyclotron gyration frequency.  The electric field of the 
EM wave at this frequency looks to a gyrating electron like a 
static electric field, and it causes acceleration of the electron.  
The accelerated electron gains energy, which is then shared with 
other particles through collisions, resulting in heating.

* Electron Temperature:  The temperature corresponding to
the mean kinetic energy of the free electrons in a
plasma.

$ Electron-volt: 1 eV = 1.6 x 10^-12 erg. This is a unit of 
kinetic energy equal to that of an electron having a velocity of 
5.93 x 10^7 cm/sec.  This is the energy an electron (or 
other particle of charge=1 such as a proton), gains as it's 
accelerated through a potential difference of 1 volt.  In plasma 
physics the eV is used as a unit of temperature; when the mean 
particle energy is 1eV, the temperature of the plasma is 
11,600 Kelvin.

> Electrostatic Confinement:  An approach to fusion based on 
confining charged particles by means of electric fields, rather
than the magnetic fields used in magnetic confinement.  See
discussion in section 4B for more information.

* Electrostatic Waves:  Longitudinal oscillations appearing in a
plasma due to a perturbation of electric neutrality.  For a cold
unmagnetized plasma, or at large wavelengths, the frequency of
these waves is by definition the plasma frequency.

& Element: (need short discussion, with list and perhaps periodic
table in appendix?  isotope table with half-lives and decay modes
might also be useful.)

& Elementary Particles worth knowing about:  
	(at the nuclear-energy level)
 	electron & positron - seem to be stable
 	proton - thought to be stable, life > 10^30 sec
 	neutron - decays in ?10 min unless it's in a nucleus, which often
  		extends its life.
	other particles important for nuclear energy: 
		muon, neutrino (m,e,tau),
	photon
	muonic atoms
	pi-meson

		this part is new - maybe separate entries with listing
		here??

> Elmo Bumpy Torus:  Bumpy Torus at ORNL; no longer operating.
See Bumpy Torus, ORNL.

* Elongation: parameter indicating the degree to which the cross 
section of a toroidal plasma is non-circular. kappa=b/a, where "b" 
and "a" are the vertical and horizontal minor radii. As kappa is 
increased, the confinement in relation to the total current improves, 
but the plasma also becomes more and more unstable to vertical 
displacements. A circular plasma has kappa of 1, a common value for 
elongated plasmas is 1.7, and the absolute limit is probably 
around 2.

& Energy:  Typically defined as "the ability to do work".  Power
is the rate at which work is done, or the rate at which energy
is changed.  "Work" characterizes the degree to which the properties
of a substance are transformed.  Energy exists in many forms,
which can be converted from one to another in various ways.
Examples include:  gravitational energy, electrical energy, 
magnetic and electric field energy, atomic binding energy (a form
of electrical energy really), nuclear binding energy, chemical
energy (another form of electrical energy), kinetic energy (energy
due to motion), thermal energy ("heat"; a form of kinetic energy 
where the motion is due to thermal vibrations/motions), and so on.

* Energy Balance:  Comparison of energy put into a plasma with the
energy dissipated by the system; related to energy confinement.

* Energy Confinement Time:  See energy loss time.

* Energy Loss Time:  Characteristic time in which 1/e (or sometimes
1/2) of a system's energy is lost to its surroundings.  In a plasma
device, the energy loss time (or the energy confinement time) is 
one of three critical parameters determining whether enough 
fusion will occur.  (See Lawson criterion)

% Energy Research and Development Agency (ERDA):  US Agency created 
by splitting of the AEC into ERDA and NRC in about 1975, charged
with managing US energy R&D (???).  Merged with ??? to become the
Department of Energy in about 1977. (???? correct? help??)

* Equilibrium:  [ acknowledgements to John Cobb ]  An equilibrium is 
a state of a system where the critical parameters do not change 
significantly, within a given time frame. In the case when this time 
frame is infinite, It is called a Thermodynamic equilibrium. There 
are many cases where a plasma equilibrium is constant on some fast 
time scale, but changes over some slower time scale. For example, an 
IDEAL MHD equilibrium is constant over fluid time scales 
(microseconds to milliseconds), but it will evolve on the slower 
resistive or viscous time scales (milliseconds to seconds). All 
terrestial plasmas are NOT in thermodynamic equilibrium, but they may 
be constant over very long time periods.   

An equilibrium is unstable when a small change in a critical 
parameter leads the state of the system to diverge from the 
equilibrium.  An equilibrium is stable when a small change in a 
critical parameter leads to a "restoring force" which tends to
return the system to equilibrium.


$ Erg / ergs:  CGS unit for energy.  1E7 ergs = 1 joule.

* Ergodic:  A mathematical term meaning "space-filling".  If a 
magnetic field is ergodic, any field line will eventually pass 
arbitrarily close to any point in space.  Closely related to 
"chaotic".

% European Community: see European Union
 
% European Union: (from Herman) Organization of European
countries (formerly European Community, EC, formerly European
Economic Community, EEC) established in 1967 to coordinate policies 
on the economy, energy, agriculture, and other matters.  The original
member countries were France, Belgium, West Germany, Italy, 
Luxembourg, and the Netherlands.  Joining later were Denmark, 
Ireland, the United Kingdom, Greece, Spain, and Portugal.  Other 
countries are in the process of joining now.

% Euratom:  (from Herman) European Atomic Energy Community.
International organization established in 1958 by members
of the European Economic Community to form a common market
for the development of peaceful uses of nuclear power.


FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF

# F:  Variable typically used for force; sometimes flux.

@ FRC: Field-Reversed Configuration; see entry

& Field:

& Field Lines:

> Field-Reversed Configuration:  A compact torus produced in a 
theta pinch and having (in principle) no toroidal field.  The 
potential advantages for a fusion reactor include a simple (linear) 
machine geometry, an average plasma pressure close to the confining 
field pressure, and physical separation of formation and burn 
chambers.  The are predicted to be violently unstable to tilting, but 
this is rarely observed.  See also: compact torus, theta pinch.
(Arthur Carlson, awc@ipp-garching.mpg.de)

* First Wall:  The first physical boundary that surrounds a plasma.

& Fission (Nuclear): (adapted from Herman) the division 
of an atomic nucleus into two smaller nuclei.  In large 
nuclei, frequently accompanied by large energy release 
and generally one or more neutrons.  Fissioning of atoms
into more than two pieces seems not to happen, but see
spallation.  See also: radioactivity.

* Fission Bomb:  see atomic bomb, A-bomb.

* Fission Reactor:  (from Herman) A device that can initiate 
and control a self-sustaining series of nuclear fissions.

* Flat-top:  Stable period in the middle of a tokamak
discharge, characterized by a flat, stable peak in a plot
of plasma (current, temperature) vs. time.

* Flute Instability:  Term used to describe an interchange
instability in which the perturbation is uniform parallel 
to the magnetic field. In cyclindrical geometry, the structure 
resembles a fluted column in classical architecture. 

& Flux:  The total amount of a quantity passing through a given
surface per unit time.  Typical "quantities" include field lines,
particles, heat, energy, mass of fluid, etc.  Common usage in
plasma physics is for "flux" by itself to mean "magnetic field
flux."

& Flux Density:  Total amount of a quantity passing through a
unit surface area in unit time.  See also flux, above.

* Flux freezing:  See frozen-in law.

* Flux surfaces:  See magnetic flux surfaces.

* Flux trapping:  See frozen-in law.

* Fokker-Planck Equation:  An equation that describes the time rate 
of change of a particle's velocity as a result of small-angle 
collisional deflections.  Applicable when the cumulative effect of 
many small-angle collisions is greater than the effect of rarer
large-angle deflections.

& Force:  Rate of change of momentum with time.  Forces are said
to cause accelerations via F = ma (Newton's law).  There are four
primary forces known presently:  the gravitational, electromagnetic,
weak nuclear, and strong nuclear forces.  The gravitational and 
electromagnetic forces are long-range (dropping as 1/distance^2),
while the nuclear forces are short range (effective only within
nuclei; distances on the order of 10^-15 meters).  The 
electromagnetic force is much stronger than the gravitational force,
but is generally cancelled over large distances because of the 
balance of positive and negative charges.  Refer to entries for each 
force for more information.

* Free Electron:  An electron not bound to an atom, molecule, or
other particle via electric forces.

* Free Wave:  A wave (e.g., electromagnetic) travelling in a 
homogeneous infinite medium (no boundary conditions).

* Frozen-in Flow Law:  In a perfect conductor, the total magnetic 
flux through any surface is a constant.  In a plasma which is nearly
perfectly conducting, the relevant surfaces move with the plasma;
the result is that the plasma is tied to the magnetic field, and
the field is tied to the plasma.

* Fusion (Nuclear): a nuclear reaction in which light atomic 
nuclei combine to form heavier nuclei.  (See also Controlled
Thermonuclear Fusion)

* Fusion Reactor: (from Herman) A nuclear reactor in which
a self-sustaining series of nuclear fusions would produce
energy (that could be converted to electric power).

> Fusion-Fission Hybrid: (from Herman) A proposed type of
nuclear reactor relying on both fusion and fission reactions.
A central fusion chamber would produce neutrons to provoke
fission in a surrounding blanket of fissionable material.
The neutron source could also be used to convert other
materials into additional fissile fuels (breeder hybrid).


GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG

$ G - abbreviation for Gauss; see entry

@ GA - General Atomic; see entry.

% Garching:  A town in Germany just north of Munich, where the Max
Planck Institute for Plasma Physics (see entry) is located.

! Gauss, Carl Friedrich: (1777-1855) German mathmetician, astronomer 
and physicist.

$ Gauss - unit of magnetic field strength (CGS units)
10,000 gauss = 1 tesla (see also Tesla)

& Gaussian Units - See CGS Units

% General Atomic:  U.S. corporation involved in fusion research;
operates the DIII-D device in San Diego; see also Doublet III-D.
(What's the other name for GA?)

& Gradient:

& Gravitational Force:

* Gyrofrequency:  See cyclotron frequency.

* Gyroradius: radius of charged particle in magnetic field.
Same thing as cyclotron radius, Larmor radius.

> Glow Discharge: a relatively cool form of plasma discharge;
a common form is in fluorescent lights.  The voltage applied
to the plasma must be greater than the ionization potential of
the gas used; most of the plasma voltage drop is near the 
cathode, where the majority of ionization occurs.

* Grad-Shafranov Equation:  (Contributed by James Crotinger,
with minor revisions.)  The lowest order force balance in the 
plasma is simply that the Lorentz force must be balanced by 
the pressure force.  This balance, combined with Maxwell's 
equations, determines the equilibrium configuration of the 
magnetic field.  When the toroidal configuration is axisymmetric, 
and the equilibrium plasma flow is zero, the magnetic field may be 
written in terms of a stream function \psi that satisfies the 
Grad-Shafranov equation
      
	    \Delta*\psi = - \mu_0 R^2 p'(\psi) - FF'(\psi).
	Here p is the plasma pressure and F = R B_\phi.
(R is the radial distance from the axis of the machine)

(Alternatively, leaving out the equation): 
   In an axisymmetric torus, in the absence of equilibrium plasma 
   fluid flows, the magnetic field may be written in
   terms of a scalar potential. When the plasma is in equilibrium
   (forces balance and the plasma is stationary), this scalar
   potential obeys a non-linear elliptic equation known as the
   Grad-Shafranov equation.

$ Gray:  A unit of absorbed dose of radiation.   1 Gray = 100 rads.
Thus 1 gray = 10^4 ergs of energy deposited into a gram of material.
Defined relative to the material into which such radiation passed,
which should therefore be specified.

& Group Velocity:

* Guiding Center:  Particles placed in a magnetic field will
gyrate in circles, and drift in various directions.  The
guiding center represents the instantaneous center of the circular
motion.  The idea is that you can think of the guiding center
as drifting, and the particle as orbiting the guiding center.

* Gyromagnetic Ratio:  Ratio of the magnetic moment to the
angular momentum of a particle.  (see magnetic moment, angular
momentum)


HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

# H - chemical symbol for the element hydrogen; see entry

# He - chemical symbol for the element helium; see entry.

@ H-mode:  see high-mode

* Halo:  The cold, dense plasma formed outside the last closed flux 
surface during a vertical displacement event. The large currents 
which flow through this plasma stop the displacement and transfer the 
force to the vacuum vessel. If care is not taken in design, the halo 
currents can be large enough to threaten the structural integrity of 
the vacuum vessel or in-vessel components.  Whereas the center of a 
tokamak plasma is too hot for material probes to survive, probes
(such as magnetic-field coils) can sometimes be placed in the 
halo, and can measure things such as the halo current (see below).  
See also entry for vertical instability. 

* Halo Current:  Currents in the halo region of a plasma discharge.
See entry for halo above.

* Half-life:  For a given quantity of a radioactive isotope, 
there is a time period in which half the nuclei will decay to
a different state; this period is called the half-life.  Measured
half-lives range from trillionths of a second (for very 
short-lived isotopes) to billions of years (for isotopes which 
are almost stable, but not quite).The time in which half the 
atoms of a particular radioactive isotope disintegrate 
to another nuclear form.  Half-lives range from millionths 
of a second to billions of years.

* Helicity: (from John Cobb)  A measurement of the topological 
"tangledness" of magnetic field lines. It is formally defined as the 
scalar product of the magnetic vector potential with the magnetic 
field, K = A dot B. If the plasma is perfectly conducting, then 
helicity is a conserved quantity.  (Without resistance, field lines 
cannot reconnect, and magnetic topology is conserved, so helicity is
conserved).  (See frozen-in flow).  If the plasma has a small amount 
of resistivity, then Helicity is not exactly conserved.  However, the 
total helicity inside of a given flux surface is often conserved to a 
good approximation. In that case, the dynamics of a plasma can be 
analyzed as an evolution toward a minimum energy state subject to the 
constraint of a conserved total helicity (See Taylor State, J.B. 
Taylor). This is often used in analyzing the equilibrium and 
relaxation of RFP's and other toroidal devices. 

& Helium: Element whose nuclei all contain two protons.
Stable isotopes are 3He and 4He.  3He is rare on earth (only 1.3
ppm of naturally-occuring He), can be generated from decaying
tritium (half life of about 12 years), and is relatively abundant 
in the crust of the moon.  Helium is the second most abundant element 
in the universe and in the sun, and occurs at about (I believe)
1 part per million in earth's atmosphere.  Helium is also found
in significant quantities in natural gas deposits.  The nucleus
of the He atom is also known as an alpha particle.  Helium is
chemically inert, behaves nearly as an ideal gas under a wide
range of pressures and temperatures, and can only be liquefied
at 4 Kelvin (at atmospheric pressures).  One mole of He weighs
4 grams.

! Hertz, Heinrich:  19th-century German physicist; first (?)
observed low-frequency electromagnetic waves.

$ Hertz:  Unit of frequency equal to one complete oscillation (cycle)
per second.

* High-mode or H-mode:  (adapted from Herman) A regime of operation
most easily attained during auxiliary heating of diverted 
tokamak plasmas when the injected power is sufficiently high.  
A sudden improvement in particle confinement time leads to 
increased density and temperature, distinguishing this mode 
from the normal "low mode."  However, H-mode has been achieved
without divertors, auxiliary heating, or a tokamak.  (H-modes
have been observed in stellarators.)

* Hybrid reactor:  see fusion-fission hybrid.

& Hydrogen: (H) Element whose nuclei all contain only one proton.
Isotopes are protium (p, no neutrons) deuterium (D or d, 
one neutron), and tritium (T or t, two neutrons).  The single most
abundant element in the universe, and in the sun.  Hydrogen is
a major element in organic compounds, water (H2O), and many
other substances.  Hydrogen is ordinarily a gas, but can be
liquefied at low temperatures, and even solidified at low
temperature and high pressure.  Hydrogen gas can burn explosively
in the presence of oxygen.

* Hydrogen bomb or H-bomb: (from Herman) An extremely 
powerful type of atomic bomb based on nuclear fusion.  
The atoms of heavy isotopes of hydrogen (deuterium and 
tritium) undergo fusion when subjected to the immense 
heat and pressure generated by the explosion of a nuclear 
fission unit in the bomb.  

* Hydromagnetic Instability:  See MHD Instability




***************************
Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University
As always, I represent only myself, and not PPPL
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Mon Aug 15 04:37:31 EDT 1994
------------------------------
1994.08.15 / Robert Heeter /  Section 12 - Acknowledgements - Conventional Fusion FAQ
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Section 12 - Acknowledgements - Conventional Fusion FAQ
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 1994 00:50:47 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

12.  Citations and Acknowledgements
* This FAQ deals with conventional fusion only, not Cold Fusion. *

****** Blanket Acknowledgement ******

The staff who prepared the WWW page at PPPL deserve a blanket
acknowledgement, and the others who have prepared much of PPPL's
public information do too, since I have drawn heavily on their
work in a variety of different sections. 


***********   Section-by-Section *************

*** Section 1 - Fusion as a Physical Phenomenon

* Thanks to John Cobb, johncobb@emx.cc.utexas.edu, 
whose description of aneutronic fusion I borrowed.
* Marybeth Gurski, gurski@cs.iastate.edu - guinea pig for 
first draft; made many suggestions and corrections
* Rich Schroeppel, rcs@cs.arizona.edu - corrections and
improvements.
* Art Carlson, awc@ipp-garching.mpg.de - corrections and
improvements.


*** Section 2 - Fusion as a Future Energy Source

* Thanks to Art Carlson, awc@ipp-garching.mpg.de, for many of
the questions, and some of the answers, particularly describing
the main components of a fusion reactor.


*** Section 3 - Fusion as a Scientific Research Program


*** Section 4 - Confinement Approaches
! John Cobb, johncobb@uts.cc.utexas.edu - info on electrostatic 
     confinement.
! Steven Jones, jonesse@physics.byu.edu ? - info on muon-catalyzed 
     fusion.
! Ken Doniger, doniger@lsil.com - additional references on new 
     developments in electrostatic confinement


*** Section 5 - Status of Current Fusion Devices

! Art Carlson, awc@ipp-garching.mpg.de - info on various machines.
! Albert Chou, albert@seas.ucla.edu - info on LLNL machines.
! John Cobb, johncobb@uts.cc.utexas.edu - info on various machines.
! Emilio Martines, martines@pdigi3.igi.pd.cnr.it - info on RFX.
! Stephen Cooper - JET info.
! David Ward, ward@crppsun.epfl.ch - more info on new machines
* Bonnie Nestor, mnj@ornl.gov - info on ATF


*** Section 6 - Recent Results

* Thanks to the TFTR and JET teams for giving us results to discuss!
* Particular thanks to Stephen Cooper at JET, who posted in Dec. 1993
  on the state of JET research, which I quoted extensively.


*** Section 7 - Educational Opportunities

* Geoff Maddison (geoff.maddison@aea.orgn.uk) and 
* Diane Carroll (via nuf@pppl.gov) - for providing 
     information on summer programs.
! Art Carlson - list of major upcoming conferences and plasma
     schools in various countries.
* Jim Day, jim.day@support.com - for suggesting high-school 
     experiments be included.
! David Pearson, dwcp@mercury.nerc-nutis.ac.uk - info on european
     plasma programs
* Thanks to the many students who have sent me email with questions!


*** Section 8 - Internet Resources

* Dieter Britz, BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk - I used his information on
     retrieving files from the vm1.nodak.edu ftp/listserv site.
* Bijal Modi - set up the neutrino.berkeley.edu ftp site.
! Art Carlson - info on Garching Gopher site.
! Joe Chew - for making himself available to provide info.
* Bonnie Nestor, mnj@ornl.gov - info on UTexas net resources.
? Perry Phillips, phillips@hagar.ph.utexas.edu - more Texas info.
! Chuck Harrison, harr@netcom.com - clued me in to sunsite resources.
! Steve Fairfax, fairfax@cmod.pfc.mit.edu - told me about MIT WWW
     pages, and thereby led me to take another look at the DOE info. 


*** Section 10 - Glossary - Acknowledgements:

! Jake Blanchard, blanchard@engr.wisc.edu - suggested we have a 
     list of acronyms too.
! Arthur Carlson, awc@ipp-garching.mpg.de - supplied additional 
     definitions, made corrections / amplifications / revisions to
     earlier definitions.
! Edward Chao, ehchao@theory.pppl.gov - info on LANL fusion research,
     additions and corrections to various definitions.
! Albert Chou, albert@seas.ucla.edu - supplied additional 
     definitions, made corrections / amplifications / revisions to 
     earlier definitions.
! John Cobb, johncobb@uts.cc.utexas.edu - lots o' definitions.
! James Crotinger, jac@gandalf.llnl.gov - additional definitions,
     quality control, and comments on the usefulness of the FUT.
* Jim Day, jim.day@support.com - initial list of terms, additional
     definitions, modifications to earlier definitions.
! Steve Fairfax, Fairfax@cmod.pfc.mit.edu - additional definitions
     from the Alcator weekly reports.
* Robin Herman, _Fusion: Search for Endless Energy_; I borrowed a 
     few terms from her glossary.  Cited as (from Herman).  (Many
     of these terms derived from the PPPL glossary I also used.)
! Paul M. Koloc, pmk@prometheus.UUCP - quality control, some entries
! Emilio Martines, martines@pdigi3.igi.pd.cnr.it - quality control,
     reversed-field entries & information.
* Princeton Plasma Physics Lab, Glossary of Fusion Terms - list of
     terms prepared by PPPL staff at some point.  Consulted in many
     cases, blatantly paraphrased in some, quoted and cited in 
     others.
* Mike Ross, mikeross@almaden.ibm.com - additional Livermore info
     and corrections to some entries.
* Richard Schroeppel, rcs@cs.arizona.edu - suggestions/corrections to
     many definitions.
! Philip Snyder, pbsnyder@theory.pppl.gov - corrections to 
     definitions.
! Paul Stek, Stek@cmod.pfc.mit.edu - additional definitions
!? Mitchell Swarz, mica@world.std.com - supplied additional 
     definitions / corrections and revisions to existing definitions.


*** Section 11 - Bibliography

* Acknowledgements are included with each reference listed.
* Additional thanks to Jim Day, jim.day@support.com, who gave
     me the initial list of references, from which this grew.


*** Additional Acknowledgements:

I owe a special thank-you to Rush Holt at PPPL, who has been 
a mentor, answered zillions of questions, provided innumerable
references, and generally helped me acquire the background and 
tools to put this together.  Ditto for my professors here.


******************************************************
Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@theory.pppl.gov
Graduate Student, Princeton Plasma Physics Lab
Usual Disclaimers Apply


***************************
Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University
As always, I represent only myself, and not PPPL
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.15 / Bill Page /  experiment - radiation detection - new theory?
     
Originally-From: 70047.3047@compuserve.com (Bill Page)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: experiment - radiation detection - new theory?
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 1994 02:10:27 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Tom Droege writes:
<<
Seems to me we should look for sensitive, powerful tests using radiation.

In some very early runs, we had both the gas measurement servo running and a
scintillation counter. For a set of runs where I thought that I was observing
excess heat, there was a 7 sigma effect between gas direction and counts in the
NaI(Tl) counter.  The theory being that if a local reaction took place it would
blow some gas out of the sample.  In later tests I did not have all the required
stuff running to check this again.

If such a test could be repeated it would be very convincing, and could dig tiny
signal out of a high background radiation level.
>>

Hey Tom! Is this your "evil twin brother" talking (no I don't mean you actual
brother <grin>) or is it really you? You have usually taken a rather skeptical
sort of position over the last year or so, but this statement about your earlier
experiments sounds pretty interesting!

I was thinking about this possible correlation between the out gassing events
and high count rates. I've heard you mention the problem of sudden rapid out
gassing before. In fact, to my knowledge, you are the only experimenter who has
mentioned observing this type of event. Perhaps your gas servo setup - also
quite unique to your experiment - allows you to see something that the others
have missed.

So what could cause such out gassing events and how could they relate to the
count rate? Well, one explanation, which I think is the one you implied above,
is that sudden heating due to a sudden initiation of fusion. But I have my
doubts that such heating could result in massive out gassing without also
noticibly doing damage to the structure of the metal.

What else? Well suppose, as William Bernecky has proposed, high temperature bose
condensation takes plase. And suppose further that a fairly large amount of the
deuterium in the lattice suddenly becomes superfluid. Whats to keep the
deuterium in the metal? Maybe most of it just exits in a hurry.

Now, one of the things about superfluidity in David Bohm's theory is that it
involves the quantum potential "steering" particles around obstacles (postive
perturbations in the usual potential of the crystal lattice) and whats more
interesting, it also implies that the quantum potential will steer particles
*toward* the holes (negative perturbations in the potential). By "holes" I mean
either vacancies in the lattice or perhaps light atom impurities. So the
superfluid state is just that which also might give rise to the "coalesence
fluctuations" of the Chubb&Chubb theory.

Therefore I think the new experiment should definately be designed to do as best
a job as possible to measure these type of events.

Cheers,

Bill Page.

cudkeys:
cuddy15 cuden3047 cudfnBill cudlnPage cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.15 / Bill Page /  experiment - calorimetry
     
Originally-From: 70047.3047@compuserve.com (Bill Page)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: experiment - calorimetry
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 1994 02:10:27 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I was thinking the other day about a series of exchanges that I had here with
Tom Droege about two or three months ago. We were talking about null-balance
calorimetry and possible less expensive ways to do it. Unfortunately (as usual)
I haven't had any time to try out these new ideas. But one thinking about why
Tom is always so interested in low heat capacity, very high conductivity
materials, I got to wondering whether measuring and servo-controlling the
temperature was necessarily the right approach. Why not do the following:

Build a "double cup" type of structure - like a dewar flask - but instead of
making a vaccum or trying to make it into a heat pipe, why not fill the cavity
with an appropriate choosen gas at an appropriately choosen pressure. And
include in the cavity a sensor for measuring the *absolute pressure* of the gas.
As before we arrange to pump heat out from the outside of the double cup at a
constant rate and we provide a resistive heater inside the double cup (in
addition to the CF cell). But now we use the servo to control the heater to
maintain a constant pressure inside the cavity. We choose the cavity gas and
pressure to give a good response over the temperature range we are interested
in.

So, Tom, (or anyone else) are there devices available that measure the pressure
accurately enough to substitute for temperature?

Cheers,

Bill Page.

cudkeys:
cuddy15 cuden3047 cudfnBill cudlnPage cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.15 / John Logajan /  Re: experiment - calorimetry
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@mirage.skypoint.net (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: experiment - calorimetry
Date: 15 Aug 1994 03:48:21 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Bill Page (70047.3047@compuserve.com) wrote:
: with an appropriate choosen gas at an appropriately choosen pressure. And
: include in the cavity a sensor for measuring the *absolute pressure*.
: ...we use the servo to control the heater to maintain a constant pressure
: inside the cavity.

I am trying to figure out what you mean by all this.

Are you trying to measure (and regulate) heat flow by only sensing the
pressure?  Is this because you are suggesting that the pressure necessarily
represents the net aggregate heat flow over the entire "dewar" blanket?

Am I reading you right here -- that the pressure represents some
automatic means of averaging the various temperatures everywhere
throughout the dewar?

--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com -- 612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills  MN 55112 USA           -
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.15 / John Logajan /  Re: experiment - radiation detection - new theory?
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@mirage.skypoint.net (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: experiment - radiation detection - new theory?
Date: 15 Aug 1994 03:57:25 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Bill Page (70047.3047@compuserve.com) wrote:
: I've heard you mention the problem of sudden rapid out
: gassing before. In fact, to my knowledge, you are the only experimenter who
: has mentioned observing this type of event.

I believe that at least a few events that might have been interpreted
as out-gassing events were caused by the site of the recombination
moving around.  This would be especially significant if the in-cell
catalyst petered out and the remote-chamber catalyst had to take
over.  There would be a delay as the electrolysis gases made their
way toward the remote catalyst.  During the time between the primary
catalyst going out and the secondary catalyst coming on line, all the
electrolysis gases (D2 and O2) would increase in volume and mimic
an outgassing from the electrode.

--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com -- 612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills  MN 55112 USA           -
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.15 / C Harrison /  Re: experiment / hydrogen content
     
Originally-From: harr@netcom.com (Charles (Chuck) Harrison)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: experiment / hydrogen content
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 1994 07:10:39 GMT
Organization: Fitful

In article <32gj3h$qra@fnnews.fnal.gov>,
Tom Droege <Droege@fnal.fnal.gov> wrote:
[...comments re: measuring D loading in Pd by weight...]
>  This means we must measure 1/2000 mole of H/D.  This is 
>one milligram when measuring H and 2 milligrams when measuring D.  This 
>does not seem too hard until one realizes that there is a one ampere 
>current lead to be connected.  A #30 platinum wire will just barely carry 
>one ampere.  As we change the current to the cell, this will get hot and 
>cold ect. and change its strain. I think these forces will be comparable 
>to what we are trying to measure.  I have thought of Mercury cups, etc., 
>and just don't see a good way to do it.  
>
>There is another problem.  As the Pd loads, it's volume changes.  The 
>change in buoyancy is possibly similar to the weight gain. 
>
>Let's hear how you would do it. 
>
>Tom Droege

This isn't an answer, just a direction to look.

You don't need gravity to measure mass (f=m*G), the way a scale does.
Instead, you can use resonance (omega = sqrt(k/m)).  You need a very
stable spring.  This has been used for decades to monitor vacuum
deposition processes (e.g. optical coatings) tens of angstroms thick.
It's called a "quartz microbalance" and is a piezo quartz crystal
in an ordinary oscillator circuit.  When stuff lands on the crystal, it
increases the mass, and the resonance frequency changes.

So can you make this work to measure the mass of a palladium electrode
in a liquid bath?  It won't be easy.  You still have the problem
of the current lead, but now it only has to be decoupled at the
mechanical oscillator frequency, not DC.  That's easier, and there are
dynamic tricks (tuned dampers) that can help.  The big killer is the
mechanical damping from the fluid.  The quartz microbalance is so
exquisitely sensitive because the Q is so high.  You would definitely
choose the axis of oscillation to minimize fluid coupling.  With low
Q, you would probably drive the spring and observe the mass motion,
then tune for 90-degree phase shift.

Then there's always the problem of getting a stable spring material
that will withstand the chemical environment of the cell.  It would
be prudent to have a clever (i.e. simpler than I can think of right
now) gadget that adds and removes a reference mass to the oscillator.
Then most of the drifts can be cancelled out.  But Lord help you if
the feared yellow crud starts growing on the reference mass!

-Chuck

P.S.
 Hey, Tom, you gonna put a TV camera in there??
  -CH

cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenharr cudfnCharles cudlnHarrison cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.15 / Bill Page /  Bohm's Interpretation of QM using Maple Mathematics (Part 3c)
     
Originally-From: 70047.3047@compuserve.com (Bill Page)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Bohm's Interpretation of QM using Maple Mathematics (Part 3c)
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 1994 09:42:59 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

> 
# Bohm's Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics using Maple Mathematics
> 
# Part 3c   Harmonic Oscillator with two identical fermions.
> restart;                     # Maple preliminaries
> gc(1000000); words(20000):   # Take care of the garbage
> read(`notilde2.txt`);        # Avoid the ~
> alias(I=I,i=sqrt(-1)):       # Use i for complex numbers
> with(plots):                 # Need plotting functions
> 
> 
# Declarations of some constants and variables
> 
> assume(h>0);          # Planck's constant/2/Pi
> assume(omega>0);      # Frequency
> assume(m>0);          # Mass
> assume(x,real);       # Spatial coordinate
> assume(x1,real);      # Location of particle 1
> assume(x2,real);      # Location of particle 2
> assume(t,real);       # Time
> 
# When do numeric calculations it will be convenient to use the "unitless" 
# units of measure.
> 
> units:={h=1,m=1,omega=1};
> 
                     units := {m = 1, h = 1, omega = 1}
> 
# Some quantum mechanics operators
> 
> X := x -> unapply('x*psi',psi): X(x);             # Position
> 
                                psi -> x psi
> 
> P := x  -> unapply('-i*h*diff(psi,x)',psi): P(x); # Momentum
> 
                                       /  d     \
                          psi -> - i h |---- psi|
                                       \ dx     /
> 
> H:=(n,V)->unapply('sum('(P(x.j)@@2)(psi)',j=1..n)/2/m+V*psi',psi);
> #Hamiltonian
                                   n
                                 -----
                                  \           (2)
                                   )   'P(x.j)   (psi)'
                                  /
                                 -----
                                 j = 1
      H := (n,V) -> unapply('1/2 ---------------------- + V psi', psi)
                                            m
> H(1,V[1](x1))(psi[1](x1));              # for one particle
                      /   2             \
                    2 |  d              |
                   h  |------ psi[1](x1)|
                      |    2            |
                      \ dx1             /
             - 1/2 ---------------------- + V[1](x1) psi[1](x1)
                              m
> H(2,V[2](x1,x2))(psi[2](x1,x2));    # for two particles
> 
                /   2                 \      /   2                 \
              2 |  d                  |    2 |  d                  |
           - h  |------ psi[2](x1, x2)| - h  |------ psi[2](x1, x2)|
                |    2                |      |    2                |
                \ dx1                 /      \ dx2                 /
       1/2 ---------------------------------------------------------
                                       m
            + V[2](x1, x2) psi[2](x1, x2)
> 
> P21:=psi->subs({x1=x2,x2=x1},psi):  #permutation operator
> 'P21(phi(x1,x2))'=P21(phi(x1,x2));
> 
                       P21(phi(x1, x2)) = phi(x2, x1)
> 
> J := x -> unapply(
>   'h/2/i/m*(conjugate(psi)*diff(psi,x)-diff(conjugate(psi),x)*psi)'
> ,psi):
> J(x1);  # probability current
                  /               /  d      \   /  d                 \    \
              i h |conjugate(psi) |----- psi| - |----- conjugate(psi)| psi|
                  \               \ dx1     /   \ dx1                /    /
 psi -> - 1/2 -------------------------------------------------------------
                                            m
> 
> V[1] := x -> m*omega^2*x^2/2:      # Harmonic oscillator potential
> 'V[1](x)'=V[1](x);                    # for one particle
> V[2] := (x1,x2) -> V[1](x1)+V[1](x2);
> 'V[2](x1,x2)'=V[2](x1,x2);            # for two particles
> 
                                              2  2
                         V[1](x) = 1/2 m omega  x
                   V[2] := (x1,x2) -> V[1](x1) + V[1](x2)
                                       2   2              2   2
             V[2](x1, x2) = 1/2 m omega  x1  + 1/2 m omega  x2
> 
# [Dear Reader: Following this installment I will include GIF (graphics 
# interchange format) files for those graphics which are difficult or 
# impossible to interpret in character format. The GIF files will be 
# "uuencoded" and posted as separate message. I hope that this helps some 
# readers to see what I've been looking at for so many weeks now. Of course 
# even better would be if you could use Maple, then you'd be able to run the 
# animations too.]
> 
# To use Maple, change the following line to
> 
# interface(plotdevice=win,plotoutput=terminal);
> 
> interface(plotdevice=gif,plotoutput=`fig3c1.gif`);
> plot3d(subs(units,V[2](x1,x2)),x1=-4..4,x2=-4..4,
> orientation=[11,65],axes=boxed,
> title=`fig3c1. Two particle harmonic potential`);
> 
# 
# The one dimensional harmonic oscillator eigenstates are:
> 
> phi[1] := (n,x) -> 1/2^(n/2)/Pi^(1/4)/sqrt(n!)*(m*omega/h)^(1/4)*
> exp(-m*omega/h/2*x^2)*orthopoly[H](n,sqrt(m*omega/h)*x):
> 'phi[1](n,x)'=phi[1](n,x);
   phi[1](n, x) =
                                       2
       /m omega\1/4           m omega x                   /m omega\1/2
       |-------|    exp(- 1/2 ----------) orthopoly[H](n, |-------|    x)
       \   h   /                   h                      \   h   /
       ------------------------------------------------------------------
                              (1/2 n)   1/4     1/2
                             2        Pi    (n!)
# or we may find the dimensionless 'scaled' eigenfunctions useful to simplify 
# some calculations.
> 
> phi[z] := (n,z) -> 
> 1/2^(n/2)/Pi^(1/4)/sqrt(n!)*exp(-z^2/2)*orthopoly[H](n,z):
> 'phi[z](n,z)'=phi[z](n,z);
> 
                                        2
                             exp(- 1/2 z ) orthopoly[H](n, z)
              phi[z](n, z) = --------------------------------
                                   (1/2 n)   1/4     1/2
                                  2        Pi    (n!)
> 
# 33. Two particle eigen functions
> 
# Two particles are said to be distinguishable if they differ in some 
# intrinsic property or properties such that we may unambiguously tell them 
# apart. That is, we have an effective way of labelling them. For example, an 
# electron is distinguishable from a protron on the basis of mass and 
# electronic charge. One electron, however, can not be distinguished from 
# another electron.
> 
# In the conventional interpretation of quantum mechanics, because there is 
# no clear notion of a particle trajectory, we take it as an empirical fact 
# that there is no way (even in priniciple) to label otherwise identical 
# particles. It turns out that this has important consequences in quantum 
# mechanical systems consisting of indistinquishable particles.
> 
# In general, a quantum system consisting of two non-interacting 
# *distinquishable* particles is separable. The eigenstates of the system are 
# just the product of the eigen-states of its components. Bohm&Hiley observe 
# that in the case that
> 
> psi(x1,x2,t)=psi[A](x1,t)*psi[B](x2,t);
> R[A](x1,t)*exp(i*S[A](x1,t)/h)*R[B](x1,t)*exp(i*S[B](x1,t)/h);
> 
                psi(x1, x2, t) = psi[A](x1, t) psi[B](x2, t)
                       i S[A](x1, t)                  i S[B](x1, t)
       R[A](x1, t) exp(-------------) R[B](x1, t) exp(-------------)
                             h                              h
> 
# The quantum potential becomes the sum of two terms
> 
> Q(x1,x2,t)=Q[A](x1,t)+Q[B](x2,t);
> 
                  Q(x1, x2, t) = Q[A](x1, t) + Q[B](x2, t)
> 
# where
> 
> Q[A](x1,t)=-h^2/2/m*Diff(R[A](x1,t),x,x)/R[A](x1,t);
> Q[B](x1,t)=-h^2/2/m*Diff(R[B](x2,t),x,x)/R[B](x2,t);
> 
                                    2
                                   h  Diff(R[A](x1, t), x, x)
               Q[A](x1, t) = - 1/2 --------------------------
                                          m R[A](x1, t)
                                    2
                                   h  Diff(R[B](x2, t), x, x)
               Q[B](x1, t) = - 1/2 --------------------------
                                          m R[B](x2, t)
> 
# "In this case the two systems evidently behave independently. In chapter 8 
# [entitled: The large scale world and the classical limit of quantum theory] 
# we will show that there is a widespread tendency for such factorised wave 
# functions to arise in typical situations that prevail in the present 
# [cosmological] stage of development of the universe. ...
> 
# "We may say that while the basic law [of nonlocal interactions] refers 
# inseperably to the whole universe, this law is such as to imply that the 
# universe tends to fall into a large number of relatively independent parts, 
# each of which may, however, be constituted of further sub-units that are 
# nonlocally connected."
> 
# 34. Indistinquishable particles
> 
# The situation is different, however, if the particles are 
# indistinquishable. All known elementary particles can be divided into two 
# classes. The behaviour of a quantum mechanical system of identical 
# particles behaves differently depending on which class the particles belong 
# to. It has been observed that the group of particles called fermions all 
# have a quantum mechanical property known as half-integer spin, while the 
# other group of particles, bosons, all have integer-values of spin. Unlike a 
# system of distingishable particles, whose eigenstates are the products of 
# the eigen-states of the component particles, it is a fundamental postulate 
# of quantum mechanics that a system consisting of identical fermions can 
# only occuppy that subset of eigenstates which obey a special symmetry 
# property called 'totally antisymetric'. A system of idential bosons, on the 
# other hand can only occupy eigenstates which are 'totally symetric'. The 
# meaning of the terms symetric and antisymetric will be discussed below.
> 
# The relationship between a particle's spin property and the subset of 
# eigenstates which apply to systems of identical particles with a given spin 
# is a very deep issue in the fundamentals of quantum mechanics and has only 
# been dealt with in a general fashion in modern relativistic quantum field 
# theories. Bohm&Hiley's book presents a new interpretation of the origin of 
# the spin property based on Dirac's relativistic generalization of 
# Schrodinger's equation. But these are issues that would take us too far 
# beyond the objectives of this series of articles.
> 
# 35. Fermion wavefunctions
> 
# A function of two or more parameters is said to be anti-symetric if 
# exchanging any two of the parameters results in a new function which is the 
# negative of the original. We have defined above an operator which performs 
# such an exchange for a function of the two parameters x1 and x2.  A two 
# parameter function f is antisymetric if
# 
> P21(f(x1,x2))=-f(x1,x2);
> 
                          f(x2, x1) = - f(x1, x2)
> 
# It can be shown that all antisymetri functions can be written in the form
> 
> f(x1,x2)-P21(f(x1,x2));
> 
                           f(x1, x2) - f(x2, x1)
# 
# Therefore the two particle anti-symetric (fermion) eigenstates are:
> 
> phi[a]:=(n1,n2,x1,x2)->
> 1/sqrt(2)*(phi[1](n1,x1)*phi[1](n2,x2)-
> phi[1](n1,x2)*phi[1](n2,x1));
> 'phi[a](n1,n2,x1,x2)'=phi[a](n1,n2,x1,x2);
> 
     phi[a] := (n1,n2,x1,x2) ->
         phi[1](n1, x1) phi[1](n2, x2) - phi[1](n1, x2) phi[1](n2, x1)
         -------------------------------------------------------------
                                    sqrt(2)
                                                                      2
                                1/2  /m omega\1/2           m omega x1
  phi[a](n1, n2, x1, x2) = 1/2 2    (|-------|    exp(- 1/2 -----------)
                                     \   h   /                   h
                                                            2
                       /m omega\1/2               m omega x2
      orthopoly[H](n1, |-------|    x1) exp(- 1/2 -----------)
                       \   h   /                       h
                       /m omega\1/2
      orthopoly[H](n2, |-------|    x2)
                       \   h   /
         /   (1/2 n1)   1/2      1/2  (1/2 n2)      1/2    /m omega\1/2
        /  (2         Pi    (n1!)    2         (n2!)   ) - |-------|
       /                                                   \   h   /
                          2
                m omega x2                    /m omega\1/2
      exp(- 1/2 -----------) orthopoly[H](n1, |-------|    x2)
                     h                        \   h   /
                          2
                m omega x1                    /m omega\1/2
      exp(- 1/2 -----------) orthopoly[H](n2, |-------|    x1)
                     h                        \   h   /
         /   (1/2 n1)   1/2      1/2  (1/2 n2)      1/2
        /  (2         Pi    (n1!)    2         (n2!)   ))
       /
> 
# The non-negative integers n1 and n2 enumerate the quantum states.
> 
# For example
> 
> 'phi[a](0,1,x1,x2)'=simplify(phi[a](0,1,x1,x2));
                                                      2     2
                                           m omega (x1  + x2 )
                         m omega exp(- 1/2 -------------------) (x2 - x1)
                                                    h
  phi[a](0, 1, x1, x2) = ------------------------------------------------
                                                1/2
                                              Pi    h
> 
# Notice that we necessarily have
> 
> phi[a](n,n,x1,x2);
> 
                                     0
# In conventional quantum mechanics this has been interpreted to mean that 
# two identical fermions cannot ocuppy the same quantum state or "energy 
# level". The reader may well be surprized to learn, then (as we will soon 
# see) that in Bohm's interpretation the two particles can, none the less 
# share the same trajectory and be in the same place at the same time! 
> 
# It is a good idea to remind ourselves at this point that the conventional 
# interpretation really only deals with wavefunctions. The reference to a 
# "fermion" as a "particle" is to be understood as only an approximate way of 
# speaking. So long as a quantum system is separable into its components, we 
# are free to associate a separate energy with each component. The total 
# energy is just the sum of the energies of the components. Further, in the 
# case of identical fermions the conventional interpretation is saying that 
# we are not allowed  a situation in which two or more the components have 
# the same energy. It is deliberately ambiguous as to which component should 
# be associated with which particle. This is said to be impossible even in 
# principle. The chapter XIV titled "Systems of Identical Particles" in 
# volume two of the text, "Quantum Mechanics" by Cohen-Tannoudji et al has a 
# good discussion of this.
> 
# In Bohm's interpretation, particles have actual trajectories which depend 
# on the sum of the classical and quantum potentials. The quantum potential 
# varies with time as the wavefunction evolves and its effect on each 
# particle depends on the form of the wavefunction as a whole. The 
# restriction on the energies of the components of this wavefunction have no 
# specific impact on the energies of the individual particles.
> 
# Bohm&Hiley point out, in fact, that the enegies of the individual particles 
# are *not* conserved in detail, that is, for a specific trajectory. Rather, 
# energy is conserved only on the average across all trajectories weighted by 
# the quantum mechanical probability associated with each trajectory. The 
# deviation in energy from the expected value will, in general be on the 
# order of the mean width of the wavepacket, in accordance with Heisenberg's 
# uncertainty principle.
> 
# The single particle system eigen-energies are
> 
> epsilon[1]:=n->h*omega*(n+1/2);
                    epsilon[1] := n -> h omega (n + 1/2)
> 
# Therefore we can write the two particle system eigen-energies as
> 
> epsilon[2]:=(n1,n2)->factor((epsilon[1](n1)+epsilon[1](n2))):
> 'epsilon[2](n1,n2)'=epsilon[2](n1,n2);
> 
                 epsilon[2](n1, n2) = h omega (n1 + 1 + n2)
# 
# 
# We can verify for the first few states that these are indeed solutions to 
# the time independent Schrodinger equation by
> 
> array([[''testeq(simplify(
> H(2,V[2](x1,x2))(phi[a](n1,n2,x1,x2))=
> epsilon[2](n1,n2)*phi[a](n1,n2,x1,x2)
> ))''$n1=0..2]$n2=0..2]);
                            [ true  true  true ]
                            [                  ]
                            [ true  true  true ]
                            [                  ]
                            [ true  true  true ]
# 
# Now lets take a look at a few of these eigen-states.
> 
> interface(plotdevice=gif,plotoutput=`fig3c2.gif`);
> plot3d(subs(units,phi[a](0,1,x1,x2)),
> x1=-2..2,x2=-2..2,axes=normal,shading=zhue,
> title=`fig3c2. Eigen-state phi[a](0,1,x1,x2)`);
> 
> 
> interface(plotdevice=gif,plotoutput=`fig3c3.gif`);
> plot3d(subs(units,phi[a](0,2,x1,x2)),
> x1=-2..2,x2=-2..2,axes=normal,shading=zhue,
> title=`fig3c3. Eigen-state phi[a](0,2,x1,x2)`);
> 
> 
# 36. Quantum Rattle Superposition
> 
# Now lets set up the usual sort of test superposition that we have been 
# looking at in the one particle cases. As usual, the time evolution is given 
# by
> 
> eta:=(n1,n2,t) -> exp(-i*epsilon[2](n1,n2)*t/h);
> 
                                       i epsilon[2](n1, n2) t
             eta := (n1,n2,t) -> exp(- ----------------------)
                                                  h
> 
# For the superposition we'll use the first three non-zero eigenstates.
> 
> psi[a]:=(x1,x2,t)->normal(
> 1/sqrt(3)*(eta(0,1,t)*phi[a](0,1,x1,x2)+
> eta(0,2,t)*phi[a](0,2,x1,x2)+eta(1,2,t)*phi[a](1,2,x1,x2))):
> 'psi[a](x1,x2,t)'=psi[a](x1,x2,t);
> 
                                                           2
                           1/2                   m omega x1    1/2
  psi[a](x1, x2, t) = 1/6 3    m omega exp(- 1/2 -----------) 2
                                                      h
                          2
                m omega x2                        1/2
      exp(- 1/2 -----------) (exp(- 2 i omega t) 2    h x2
                     h
                             1/2
       - exp(- 2 i omega t) 2    h x1
                             1/2 /m omega\1/2     2
       - exp(- 3 i omega t) 2    |-------|    h x1
                                 \   h   /
                             1/2 /m omega\1/2     2                  2
       + exp(- 3 i omega t) 2    |-------|    h x2  - 2 %1 m omega x1  x2
                                 \   h   /
                                     2              /    1/2  2
       + %1 x2 h + 2 %1 m omega x1 x2  - %1 x1 h)  /  (Pi    h )
                                                  /
%1 :=                      exp(- 4 i omega t)
# 
# The wavefunction is normalized so we have
> 
> Int(Int('abs(psi[a])^2',
> x1=-infinity..infinity),x2=-infinity..infinity)=
> simplify(int(int(abs(psi[a](x1,x2,t))^2,
> x1=-infinity..infinity),x2=-infinity..infinity));
> 
                 infinity    infinity
                    /           /
                   |           |                 2
                   |           |      abs(psi[a])  dx1 dx2 = 1
                   |           |
                  /           /
              - infinity  - infinity
> 
# And just to be safe we should check that the wavefunction is 
# square-integrable
> 
> simplify(int(int(normal(diff(abs(psi[a](x1,x2,t))^2,x1,x2)),
> x1=-infinity..infinity),x2=-infinity..infinity));
                                     0
> 
# Finally, double check that we have a solution to the time dependant 
# Schrodinger equation
> 
> testeq(simplify(
> i*h*diff(psi[a](x1,x2,t),t)-H(2,V[2](x1,x2))(psi[a](x1,x2,t))=0
> ));
                                    true
> 
# 37. Motion of the wave packet
> 
# The probability density function is
> 
> pdf[a]:= unapply(normal(combine(combine(collect(
> abs(psi[a](x1,x2,t))^2
> ,[x1,x2]),trig),exp)),x1,x2,t);
> 
                                                        2     2
                              2      2       m omega (x1  + x2 )
  pdf[a] := (x1,x2,t) -> 1/6 m  omega  exp(- -------------------) (
                                                      h
            3           2  1/2 /m omega\1/2
      - 4 x1  m omega x2  2    |-------|    cos(omega t) h
                               \   h   /
             2           3  1/2 /m omega\1/2
       - 4 x1  m omega x2  2    |-------|    cos(omega t) h
                                \   h   /
                        3  1/2
       + 4 x1 m omega x2  2    cos(2 omega t) h
                2  1/2 /m omega\1/2               2
       - 2 x1 x2  2    |-------|    cos(omega t) h
                       \   h   /
             2     1/2 /m omega\1/2               2
       - 2 x1  x2 2    |-------|    cos(omega t) h
                       \   h   /
             3  1/2 /m omega\1/2               2       2  2
       + 2 x2  2    |-------|    cos(omega t) h  + 3 x1  h
                    \   h   /
             2  1/2                 2               4         4
       + 2 x1  2    cos(2 omega t) h  + 2 m omega x2  h + 2 x1  m omega h
             3  2      2   3       2  2      2   4       4  2      2   2
       - 8 x1  m  omega  x2  + 4 x1  m  omega  x2  + 4 x1  m  omega  x2
              2           2         3                               3
       - 12 x1  m omega x2  h + 4 x1  m omega x2 h + 4 x1 m omega x2  h
                  2       2  2       3  1/2 /m omega\1/2               2
       - 6 x1 x2 h  + 3 x2  h  + 2 x1  2    |-------|    cos(omega t) h
                                            \   h   /
             2    /m omega\1/2               2
       - 4 x1  x2 |-------|    cos(omega t) h
                  \   h   /
             3 /m omega\1/2               2
       + 4 x1  |-------|    cos(omega t) h
               \   h   /
                2 /m omega\1/2               2
       - 4 x1 x2  |-------|    cos(omega t) h
                  \   h   /
                        4  1/2 /m omega\1/2
       + 4 x1 m omega x2  2    |-------|    cos(omega t) h
                               \   h   /
             2           2  1/2
       - 8 x1  m omega x2  2    cos(2 omega t) h
             3             1/2
       + 4 x1  m omega x2 2    cos(2 omega t) h
             4             1/2 /m omega\1/2
       + 4 x1  m omega x2 2    |-------|    cos(omega t) h
                               \   h   /
             2  1/2                 2            1/2                 2
       + 2 x2  2    cos(2 omega t) h  - 4 x1 x2 2    cos(2 omega t) h
             3 /m omega\1/2               2    /      4
       + 4 x2  |-------|    cos(omega t) h )  /  (Pi h )
               \   h   /                     /
# 
# Period of oscillation
> 
> period:=subs(units,2*Pi/omega);
> 
                               period := 2 Pi
# 
# The motion of the wave packet
> 
> animate3d(normal(combine(collect(
> subs(units,pdf[a](x1,x2,t))
> ,[x1,x2]),trig)),
> x1=-3..3,x2=-3..3,t=0..period,
> axes=boxed,orientation=[-21,42],frames=20);
> 
Error, Printer devices do not support animation
> 
# It is interesting to view this animation looking down at it from the "top". 
# Contour lines are drawn to show regions of equal probability density.
> 
> animate3d(normal(combine(collect(
> subs(units,pdf[a](x1,x2,t))
> ,[x1,x2]),trig)),
> x1=-3..3,x2=-3..3,t=0..period,
> axes=boxed,orientation=[0,0],style=patchcontour,shading=zhue);
> 
Error, Printer devices do not support animation
> 
# Lets produce a GIF (graphics interface format) file containing the first 
# frame of the above animation.
> 
> interface(plotdevice=gif,plotoutput=`fig3c4.gif`);
> plot3d(normal(subs(units,pdf[a](x1,x2,0))),
> x1=-3..3,x2=-3..3,
> orientation=[0,0],axes=boxed,style=patchcontour,shading=zhue,
> title=`fig3c4. Quantum rattle wavefunction psi[a] at t=0`);
> 
> 
# [Dear Reader: I really can't think of any reasonable way of rending a 3 
# dimensional image, let alone a time varying 3 dimensional image, as an 
# ASCII graphic. But just so you can see at least a little of what this 
# function is like, let me include the following.]
> 
# As another way of viewing this in a format more suitable for ASCII, we can 
# make the follow composite plot, this time looking at how the probability of 
# finding particle 1 at x=1 and particle 2 at various locations for 4 
# successive points in time.
> 
> 
> plotsetup(plotdevice=char,plotoutput=terminal);
> display([
> plot(normal(subs(units,pdf[a](1,x2,0*period/6))),
> x2=-3..3,color=red),
> plot(normal(subs(units,pdf[a](1,x2,1*period/6))),
> x2=-3..3,color=blue),
> plot(normal(subs(units,pdf[a](1,x2,2*period/6))),
> x2=-3..3,color=green),
> plot(normal(subs(units,pdf[a](1,x2,3*period/6))),
> x2=-3..3,color=black)
> ]);
> 
                                    B*B                                   
                                   B +B                                   
                                  BB + B                                  
                                0.25 + B                                  
                                 B   + BB                                 
                                 B   +  B                                 
                                B0.2 +  BB                                
                                B    +   B                                
                                B    +   B                                
                               B     +    B                               
                               B0.15 +    B                               
                    EE***C     B EEEE*E   B                               
                   E*C   **EE *EEE   +EE   B                              
                 E*C       CEE*      + EE  B                              
                E*C         CBB  0.1 +  EE BB                             
               E*C           *       +   EE B                             
              ECC            BC      +    E B                             
             ECC            B  C0.05 +     E B          BBB               
           E*C             BB   C    +      EB        BBB BBBB            
         E***BBBBBBB       B     C*AA+      EEB     BBEEEEEEEEBBB         
      *****B        BBB   **AAAAAACC**AAAAA  E**   **EE      EEEE**BB     
  *************************-+-+-+--+************************************* 
 -3          -2         -1         0 0           1          2           3 
> 
# Finally, by choosing the coordinate of one particle and integrating the 
# probability density function along the other co-ordinate axes, we can look 
# at the probability of finding that particle at a specified location 
# independently of where the other particle is located.
> 
> pdf[a,1]:=unapply(combine(collect(expand(
> int(pdf[a](x1,x2,t),x2=-infinity..infinity)
> ),[x1]),trig),x1,t);
> 
                                       2      2   3
                                      m  omega  x1  cos(omega t)
           pdf[a, 1] := (x1,t) -> 2/3 --------------------------
                                                     2
                                           m omega x1    2   1/2
                                       exp(-----------) h  Pi
                                                h
                                     3      3   4
                                    m  omega  x1
                + 2/3 ----------------------------------------
                                    2
                          m omega x1    2   1/2            1/2
                      exp(-----------) h  Pi    (h m omega)
                               h
                          2      2   2  1/2
                         m  omega  x1  2    cos(2 omega t)
                - 1/3 ---------------------------------------
                                    2
                          m omega x1       1/2            1/2
                      exp(-----------) h Pi    (h m omega)
                               h
                                  1/2
                      m omega x1 2    cos(omega t)
                + 1/3 ----------------------------
                                      2
                            m omega x1     1/2
                        exp(-----------) Pi    h
                                 h
                                    1/2
                           m omega 2    cos(2 omega t)
                + 1/6 -------------------------------------
                                    2
                          m omega x1     1/2            1/2
                      exp(-----------) Pi    (h m omega)
                               h
                                     m omega
                + 1/2 -------------------------------------
                                    2
                          m omega x1     1/2            1/2
                      exp(-----------) Pi    (h m omega)
                               h
                       m omega x1 cos(omega t)
                - 1/3 ------------------------
                                    2
                          m omega x1     1/2
                      exp(-----------) Pi    h
                               h
> 
> pdf[a,2]:=unapply(combine(collect(expand(
> int(pdf[a](x1,x2,t),x1=-infinity..infinity)
> ),[x2]),trig),x2,t):
> 'pdf[a,1](x,t)=pdf[a,2](x,t)';
> testeq(pdf[a,1](x,t)=pdf[a,2](x,t));
> 
                     pdf[a, 1](x, t) = pdf[a, 2](x, t)
                                    true
> 
> animate(normal(subs(units,pdf[a,1](x,t))),
> x=-3..3,t=0..period);
> 
Error, Character device does not support animation
# 
# Expected values of the position operators
> 
> x1Exp:=combine(simplify(combine(
>   int(int(normal(evalc(
>     conjugate(psi[a](x1,x2,t))*x1*psi[a](x1,x2,t)
>   )),x1=-infinity..infinity),x2=-infinity..infinity)
> ,trig)),radical);
> 
> x2Exp:=combine(simplify(combine(
>   int(int(normal(evalc(
>     conjugate(psi[a](x1,x2,t))*x2*psi[a](x1,x2,t)
>   )),x1=-infinity..infinity),x2=-infinity..infinity)
> ,trig)),radical);
                                                     1/2
                                h cos(omega t) (2 + 2   )
                   x1Exp := 1/6 -------------------------
                                                 1/2
                                      (h m omega)
                                                     1/2
                                h cos(omega t) (2 + 2   )
                   x2Exp := 1/6 -------------------------
                                                 1/2
                                      (h m omega)
# Expected values of momentum
> 
# Because the wavefunction is rather complex and Maple (Release 3 at least) 
# seems to have trouble doing the integrations for the momentum operator, 
# we'll use a fourier transform to get the momentum space wavefunction and 
# then use that to compute the expected value of the momentum operator in 
# momentum space, thus avoiding the derivative. p1 and p2 are the 
# co-ordinates in the two particle momentum space.
> 
> assume(p1,real);
> assume(p2,real);
> readlib(fourier):
> 
> psi[a,p]:=(p1,p2,t)->normal(1/2/Pi/h*subs(px1=p1/h,px2=p2/h,
> fourier(fourier(psi[a](x1,x2,t),x1,px1),x2,px2)));
                                                      p1          p2
    psi[a, p] := (p1,p2,t) -> normal(1/2 (subs(px1 = ----, px2 = ----,
                                                       h           h
        fourier(fourier(psi[a](x1, x2, t), x1, px1), x2, px2)))/(Pi h))
> psi[a,p](p1,p2,t);
        1/2  1/2
   1/6 3    2    (
                                 2     2            2
              1/2              p2  + p1  + 4 i omega  t h m
       - i h 2    p2 exp(- 1/2 ----------------------------) m omega
                                         h m omega
                                  2     2            2
                  1/2           p2  + p1  + 4 i omega  t h m
        + i h p1 2    exp(- 1/2 ----------------------------) m omega
                                          h m omega
                                              2     2            2
          /m omega\1/2     2  1/2           p2  + p1  + 6 i omega  t h m
        + |-------|    h p1  2    exp(- 1/2 ----------------------------)
          \   h   /                                   h m omega
                                          2     2            2
          /m omega\1/2    1/2           p2  + p1  + 6 i omega  t h m    2
        - |-------|    h 2    exp(- 1/2 ----------------------------) p2
          \   h   /                               h m omega
                                    2
        + i h p2 %1 m omega - 2 i p1  p2 %1 - i h p1 %1 m omega
                      2    /    1/2  2  2      2
        + 2 i p1 %1 p2 )  /  (Pi    h  m  omega )
                         /
                             2     2            2
                           p2  + p1  + 8 i omega  t h m
%1 :=            exp(- 1/2 ----------------------------)
                                     h m omega
# Check that it is properly normalized
> 
> 'int(int(abs(psi[a,p](p1,p2,t))^2,
> p1=-infinity..infinity),p2=-infinity..infinity)'=
> simplify(
>   int(int(abs(psi[a,p](p1,p2,t))^2,
>   p1=-infinity..infinity),p2=-infinity..infinity)
> );
          infinity    infinity
             /           /
            |           |                               2
            |           |      abs(psi[a, p](p1, p2, t))  dp1 dp2 = 1
            |           |
           /           /
       - infinity  - infinity
> 
> p1Exp:=combine(simplify(combine(
>   int(int(normal(evalc(
>     conjugate(psi[a,p](p1,p2,t))*p1*psi[a,p](p1,p2,t)
>   )),p1=-infinity..infinity),p2=-infinity..infinity)
> ,trig)),radical);
> 
> p2Exp:=combine(simplify(combine(
>   int(int(normal(evalc(
>     conjugate(psi[a,p](p1,p2,t))*p2*psi[a,p](p1,p2,t)
>   )),p1=-infinity..infinity),p2=-infinity..infinity)
> ,trig)),radical);
> 
                                                          1/2
                             h m omega sin(omega t) (2 + 2   )
              p1Exp := - 1/6 ---------------------------------
                                                  1/2
                                       (h m omega)
                                                          1/2
                             h m omega sin(omega t) (2 + 2   )
              p2Exp := - 1/6 ---------------------------------
                                                  1/2
                                       (h m omega)
#  Ehrenfest's theorem: m*d<x>/dt = <p>
> 
> 'm*diff(x1Exp,t,t)=diff(p1Exp,t)';
> testeq(simplify(m*diff(x1Exp,t,t)-diff(p1Exp,t))=0);
> 
                                              d
                      m diff(x1Exp, t, t) = ---- p1Exp
                                             dt
                                    true
# 38. The motion of the particles
> 
# First lets find the magnitude of the wavefunction and the quantum 
# potential. The expression for the quantum potential is very long and their 
# is nothing to be served by displaying it here.
> 
> R[a]:=sqrt(pdf[a](x1,x2,t)):
> Q[a]:=-h^2/2/m*(diff(R[a],x1,x1)+diff(R[a],x2,x2))/R[a]:
> 
# But the way Q[a] changes over time is interesting so lets fix up a 
# optimized procedure for Q[a] and see what it looks like.
> 
> readlib(optimize):
> Qfast:=`optimize/makeproc`([optimize(subs(units,Q[a]))],
> parameters=[x1,x2,t]):
> 
> animate3d(Qfast(x1,x2,t),
> x1=-2..2,x2=-2..2,t=0.1*period..1.1*period,view=-100..100);
> 
# As before, by using the guidance conditions we can computer the particle 
# trajectories.
> 
# First lets find the probability currents
> 
> j1:=simplify(J(x1)(psi[a](x1,x2,t)));
> j2:=simplify(J(x2)(psi[a](x1,x2,t)));
                                       2     2
                    2       m omega (x1  + x2 )   1/2
 j1 := - 1/6 m omega  exp(- -------------------) 2    (
                                     h
                        2                                              2
     2 sin(2 omega t) x1  m omega x2 h - 4 sin(2 omega t) x1 m omega x2  h
                                   3
      + 2 sin(2 omega t) m omega x2  h
                         3  3/2      3/2     1/2
      - 4 sin(omega t) x2  m    omega    x1 h
                      3/2  1/2      1/2   2
      - sin(omega t) h    m    omega    x2
                      1/2  3/2  1/2      1/2   2
      + sin(omega t) 2    h    m    omega    x1
                        3/2      3/2   4  1/2
      + 2 sin(omega t) m    omega    x2  h
                        3/2      3/2   2   2  1/2
      + 2 sin(omega t) m    omega    x1  x2  h
                        1/2  3/2  1/2      1/2
      - 2 sin(omega t) 2    h    m    omega    x1 x2
                      1/2  3/2  1/2      1/2   2
      + sin(omega t) 2    h    m    omega    x2
                           3/2  1/2      1/2
      + 2 sin(omega t) x2 h    m    omega    x1
                       2  3/2  1/2      1/2    /   3
      - sin(omega t) x1  h    m    omega   )  /  (h  Pi)
                                             /
                                        2     2
                     2       m omega (x1  + x2 )   1/2
  j2 := - 1/6 m omega  exp(- -------------------) 2    (
                                      h
                           2                                   3
      - 4 sin(2 omega t) x1  m omega x2 h + 2 sin(2 omega t) x1  m omega h
                                       2
       + 2 sin(2 omega t) x1 m omega x2  h
                         1/2  3/2  1/2      1/2
       - 2 sin(omega t) 2    h    m    omega    x1 x2
                       1/2  3/2  1/2      1/2   2
       + sin(omega t) 2    h    m    omega    x2
                       1/2  3/2  1/2      1/2   2
       + sin(omega t) 2    h    m    omega    x1
                            3/2  1/2      1/2
       + 2 sin(omega t) x2 h    m    omega    x1
                          3     3/2      3/2  1/2
       - 4 sin(omega t) x1  x2 m    omega    h
                       3/2  1/2      1/2   2
       - sin(omega t) h    m    omega    x2
                         3/2      3/2   4  1/2
       + 2 sin(omega t) m    omega    x1  h
                         3/2      3/2   2   2  1/2
       + 2 sin(omega t) m    omega    x1  x2  h
                        2  3/2  1/2      1/2    /   3
       - sin(omega t) x1  h    m    omega   )  /  (h  Pi)
                                              /
# 
# The velocity functions can be calculated from the probability currents.
> 
> 'v1(x1,x2,t)=J(x1)(psi[a](x1,x2,t))/abs(psi[a](x1,x2,t))^2';
> v1:=unapply(normal(combine(collect(
>   j1/pdf[a](x1,x2,t)
> ,[x1,x2]),trig)),x1,x2,t);
                                  J(x1)(psi[a](x1, x2, t))
                  v1(x1, x2, t) = ------------------------
                                                         2
                                   abs(psi[a](x1, x2, t))
                         3/2  1/2                     3/2   2
v1 := (x1,x2,t) -> - (2 h    2    m sin(omega t) omega    x2
          2  1/2                          1/2
     + 2 h  2    sin(2 omega t) omega x2 m
        5/2  1/2                   1/2      5/2                   1/2    /
     - h    2    sin(omega t) omega    + 2 h    sin(omega t) omega   )  /
                                                                       /
                     2  1/2 /m omega\1/2                              2
    ((4 x1 m omega x2  2    |-------|    cos(omega t) h + 2 m omega x2  h
                            \   h   /
           2  2      2   2                    1/2
     + 4 x1  m  omega  x2  + 4 x1 m omega x2 2    cos(2 omega t) h
             1/2 /m omega\1/2               2
     + 2 x2 2    |-------|    cos(omega t) h  + 8 x1 m omega x2 h
                 \   h   /
           2             1/2 /m omega\1/2
     + 4 x1  m omega x2 2    |-------|    cos(omega t) h
                             \   h   /
            /m omega\1/2               2      1/2                 2
     + 4 x2 |-------|    cos(omega t) h  + 2 2    cos(2 omega t) h
            \   h   /
            /m omega\1/2               2      2
     + 4 x1 |-------|    cos(omega t) h  + 3 h
            \   h   /
             1/2 /m omega\1/2               2       2             1/2
     + 2 x1 2    |-------|    cos(omega t) h  + 2 x1  m omega h) m   )
                 \   h   /
> 'v2(x1,x2,t)=J(x2)(psi[a](x1,x2,t))/abs(psi[a](x1,x2,t))^2';
> v2:=unapply(normal(combine(collect(
>   j2/pdf[a](x1,x2,t)
> ,[x1,x2]),trig)),x1,x2,t);
                                  J(x2)(psi[a](x1, x2, t))
                  v2(x1, x2, t) = ------------------------
                                                         2
                                   abs(psi[a](x1, x2, t))
                           1/2  2                          1/2
  v2 := (x1,x2,t) -> - (2 2    h  sin(2 omega t) x1 omega m
            5/2                   1/2    5/2  1/2                   1/2
       + 2 h    sin(omega t) omega    - h    2    sin(omega t) omega
              1/2  3/2                   3/2   2    /
       + 2 m 2    h    sin(omega t) omega    x1 )  /  ((
                                                  /
                     2  1/2 /m omega\1/2                              2
      4 x1 m omega x2  2    |-------|    cos(omega t) h + 2 m omega x2  h
                            \   h   /
             2  2      2   2                    1/2
       + 4 x1  m  omega  x2  + 4 x1 m omega x2 2    cos(2 omega t) h
               1/2 /m omega\1/2               2
       + 2 x2 2    |-------|    cos(omega t) h  + 8 x1 m omega x2 h
                   \   h   /
             2             1/2 /m omega\1/2
       + 4 x1  m omega x2 2    |-------|    cos(omega t) h
                               \   h   /
              /m omega\1/2               2      1/2                 2
       + 4 x2 |-------|    cos(omega t) h  + 2 2    cos(2 omega t) h
              \   h   /
              /m omega\1/2               2      2
       + 4 x1 |-------|    cos(omega t) h  + 3 h
              \   h   /
               1/2 /m omega\1/2               2       2             1/2
       + 2 x1 2    |-------|    cos(omega t) h  + 2 x1  m omega h) m   )
                   \   h   /
> 
# The velocity of particle 2 relative to particle 1 is
> 
> v[rel]:=unapply(normal(v1(x1,x2,t)-v2(x1,x2,t)),x1,x2,t);
                              1/2   3/2                     3/2   2
  v[rel] := (x1,x2,t) -> - 2 2    (h    m sin(omega t) omega    x2
          2                          1/2    2                          1/2
       + h  sin(2 omega t) omega x2 m    - h  sin(2 omega t) x1 omega m
            3/2                   3/2   2    /
       - m h    sin(omega t) omega    x1 )  /  ((
                                           /
                     2  1/2 /m omega\1/2                              2
      4 x1 m omega x2  2    |-------|    cos(omega t) h + 2 m omega x2  h
                            \   h   /
             2  2      2   2                    1/2
       + 4 x1  m  omega  x2  + 4 x1 m omega x2 2    cos(2 omega t) h
               1/2 /m omega\1/2               2
       + 2 x2 2    |-------|    cos(omega t) h  + 8 x1 m omega x2 h
                   \   h   /
             2             1/2 /m omega\1/2
       + 4 x1  m omega x2 2    |-------|    cos(omega t) h
                               \   h   /
              /m omega\1/2               2      1/2                 2
       + 4 x2 |-------|    cos(omega t) h  + 2 2    cos(2 omega t) h
              \   h   /
              /m omega\1/2               2      2
       + 4 x1 |-------|    cos(omega t) h  + 3 h
              \   h   /
               1/2 /m omega\1/2               2       2             1/2
       + 2 x1 2    |-------|    cos(omega t) h  + 2 x1  m omega h) m   )
                   \   h   /
> 
> animate3d(subs(units,v1(x1,x2,t)),x1=-2..2,x2=-2..2,
> t=0.001..1*period-0.001,view=-100..100, frames=16,
> axes=boxed,orientation=[0,0],
> style=patchcontour,shading=zhue);
> 
> 
> animate3d(subs(units,v2(x1,x2,t)),x1=-2..2,x2=-2..2,
> t=0.1..1.1*period,view=-100..100,
> axes=boxed,orientation=[20,50]);
> 
> 
> animate3d(subs(units,v[rel](x1,x2,t)),x1=-2..2,x2=-2..2,
> t=0.1..1.1*period,axes=boxed,orientation=[20,50],view=-100..100);
> 
# Locate the pole in the velocity function for particle 2 when particle 1 is 
# at x1=1
> 
> animate(subs(units,v1(1,x2,t)),x2=-3..3,t=0..period);
> 
> evalf(simplify(subs(units,numer(v2(x1,x2,period/2)))));
> pole1:=solve(subs(units,denom(v2(1,x2,period/2)))=0);
                                     0
                                       1/2                1/2
                  - 8 - 4 cos(Pi) - 4 2    cos(2 Pi) - 6 2    cos(Pi)
     pole1 := 1/2 ---------------------------------------------------,
                                      1/2
                                   4 2    cos(Pi) + 6
                                  1/2                1/2
             - 8 - 4 cos(Pi) - 4 2    cos(2 Pi) - 6 2    cos(Pi)
         1/2 ---------------------------------------------------
                                 1/2
                              4 2    cos(Pi) + 6
> simplify(pole1[1]);
                                           1/2
                                    - 2 + 2
                              - 1/2 ----------
                                       1/2
                                    2 2    - 3
> evalf(pole1[1]);
                                -1.707106775
> evalf(subs(units,v2(1,pole1[1],period/2-.001)));
> evalf(subs(units,v2(1,pole1[1],period/2+.001)));
                                152.9139891
                                -152.9141145
> 
# How does the relative velocity change for various values of x2 with x1 
# fixed at 0
> 
> interface(plotdevice=gif,plotoutput=`fig3c5.gif`);
> plot3d(subs(units,v[rel](0,x2,t)),x2=-2..2,t=0..period,
> axes=boxed,orientation=[-70,70],numpoints=1000,
> title=`fig3c5. Relative velocity with x1=0`);
> 
> interface(plotdevice=gif,plotoutput=`fig3c6.gif`);
> plot3d(subs(units,v[rel](0,x2,t)),x2=-2..2,t=0..period,
> axes=boxed,orientation=[0,0],style=patchcontour,shading=zhue,
> title=`fig3c5. Relative velocity contours at x1=0`);
> 
# plot3d(subs(units,v[rel](0,x2,t)),x2=-3..3,t=0..period,
# axes=boxed,orientation=[-90,90],numpoints=1000);
> 
> 
# plot3d(subs(units,v[rel](0,x2,t)),x2=-3..3,t=0..period,
# axes=boxed,orientation=[0,90]);
> 
> 
# How does the relative velocity change for various values of x2 with x1 
# fixed at 1
> 
> interface(plotdevice=gif,plotoutput=`fig3c7.gif`);
> plot3d(subs(units,v[rel](1,x2,t)),x2=-2..2,t=0..period,
> axes=boxed,orientation=[-75,80],
> title=`fig3c5. Relative velocity, x1=1`);
> 
> 
# plot3d(subs(units,v[rel](1,x2,t)),x2=-2..2,t=0..period,
# axes=boxed,orientation=[-90,90]);
> 
> 
# plot3d(subs(units,v[rel](1,x2,t)),x2=-2..2,t=0..period,
# axes=boxed,orientation=[0,90]);
> 
> 
# But suppose both particles are at the same place at the same time
> 
> v1(x,x,t);
      3/2  1/2                     3/2  2
- (2 h    2    m sin(omega t) omega    x
          2  1/2                         1/2
     + 2 h  2    sin(2 omega t) omega x m
        5/2  1/2                   1/2      5/2                   1/2    /
     - h    2    sin(omega t) omega    + 2 h    sin(omega t) omega   )  /
                                                                       /
         3          1/2 /m omega\1/2                              2
    ((8 x  m omega 2    |-------|    cos(omega t) h + 12 m omega x  h
                        \   h   /
          4  2      2      2          1/2
     + 4 x  m  omega  + 4 x  m omega 2    cos(2 omega t) h
            1/2 /m omega\1/2               2
     + 4 x 2    |-------|    cos(omega t) h
                \   h   /
           /m omega\1/2               2      1/2                 2      2
     + 8 x |-------|    cos(omega t) h  + 2 2    cos(2 omega t) h  + 3 h )
           \   h   /
     1/2
    m   )
> testeq(simplify(v1(x,x,t)-v2(x,x,t))=0);
                                    true
> 
# This means that the velocities are idential and therefore their 
# trajectories will be the same.
> 
> animate(subs(units,v1(x,x,t)),x=-3..3, t=0..period,frames=64);
> 
# Something interesting happens around period/3. Lets take a closer look.
> 
> interface(plotdevice=char,plotoutput=terminal);
> plot(subs(units,v1(1/2,1/2,t)),t=period/3-0.2..period/3+0.2);
> 
  +                                AAA                                    
14+                                A AA                                   
  +                               AA  A                                   
12+                               A    A                                  
  +                              AA    AA                                 
  +                              A      AA                                
10+                              A       A                                
  +                              A        A                               
8 +                             A         AA                              
  +                             A           A                             
  +                             A            A                            
6 +                             A             AA                          
  +                            A                AA                        
4 +                            A                  AAA                     
  +                            A                     AAAAA                
  +                           A                          AAAAAAA          
2 +                           A                                 AAAAAAAAA 
  +                          A                                            
  ++--+---+--+---+--+---+--+**-+--+---+---+--+---+--+---+--+---+--+---+-- 
0 1.9               2      AA        2.1               2.2                
  *AAAAAAAA              AAA                                              
-2+       AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA                                                
                                                                          
> 
# Although there is a rapid accelleration, there does not appear to be any 
# discontinuity here.
> 
# So how does a system of two particles sharing the same trajectory compare 
# to a system with just one particle?
> 
> interface(plotdevice=gif,plotoutput=`fig3c8.gif`);
> plot3d(subs(units,v1(x,x,t)),x=-2..2,t=0..period,numpoints=1000,
> axes=boxed,shading=zhue,style=patchcontour,view=-5..5,
> title=`Velocity both particles on same trajectory`);
> 
> 
# plot3d(subs(units,v1(x,x,t)),x=-2..2,t=0..period,
# orientation=[0,90],axes=boxed);
> 
> 
# Perhaps it comes as no surprize that, in fact, it is very similar to the 
# case of a single particle! Oddly, however, there is no pole at period/2 in 
# this case.
> 
> simplify(subs(units,numer(v1(x,x,period/2))));
> 
                                     0
> simplify([solve(subs(units,denom(v1(x,x,period/2)))=0)]);
         1/2          3/4       1/2          3/4       1/2          3/4
   [1/2 2    + 1/2 i 2   , 1/2 2    - 1/2 i 2   , 1/2 2    + 1/2 i 2   ,
            1/2          3/4
       1/2 2    - 1/2 i 2   ]
> 
# 39. Solving the equations of motion to obtain the particle trajectories
> 
# Unfortunately Maple can't give us a symbolic solution for this system
> 
> M1:=dsolve({
> D(x1)(t)=normal(subs(units,v1(x1(t),x2(t),t))),
> D(x2)(t)=normal(subs(units,m=1,v2(x1(t),x2(t),t)))},
> {x1(t),x2(t)},type=exact);
                                   M1 :=
# But we can still do a numeric solution. Lets try one with intial conditions 
# near the pole
> 
> M1:=dsolve({
> D(x1)(t)=normal(subs(units,v1(x1(t),x2(t),t))),
> D(x2)(t)=normal(subs(units,m=1,v2(x1(t),x2(t),t))),
> x1(period/2+.01)=1,x2(period/2+.01)=pole1[1]}, {x1(t),x2(t)},
> type=numeric,output=listprocedure);
M1 :=
    [t = proc(t) ... end, x2(t) = proc(t) ... end, x1(t) = proc(t) ... end]
> 
# Trajectories of both particles
> 
> interface(plotdevice=char,plotoutput=terminal);
> plot(subs(M1,{x1(t),x2(t)}),0..period);
> 
2 *AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA                                 AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA 
  +                 AAAAAAAA                   AAAAAAAA                   
  +                        AAAAA           AAAAA                          
1.5                             AAA     AAA                               
  +                               AAA AA                                  
  +                                 AAA                                   
1 +                                  A                                    
  +                                                                       
0.5                                                                       
  +                                                                       
  +                                                                       
  +-+-+--+-+-+-+--+-+-+-+-+--+-+-+-+--+-+-+-+--+-+-+-+--+-+-+-+--+-+-+-+- 
0 0          1          2          3           4          5          6    
  *BB                                                                 BBB 
-0.5BBB                                                             BBB   
  +   BB                                                           BB     
  +    BB                                                         BB      
-1+     BB                                                       BB       
  +      BBB                                                   BBB        
  +        BBBB                                             BBBB          
-1.5          BBBBBBB                                 BBBBBB              
  +                  BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB                    
                                                                          
> 
# Distance between particles
> 
> plot(subs(M1,x1(t)-x2(t)),0..period);
> 
3.6              AAAAAAAA                         AAAAAAAA                
  +            AAA       AAA                   AAA       AAA              
  +          AA            AAA               AAA            AA            
3.4         AA               AA             AA               AA           
  +        AA                  AA         AA                  AA          
  +       AA                    A         A                    AA         
3.2       A                      A       A                      A         
  +      A                        A     A                        A        
  +      A                        AA   AA                        A        
  +     A                          A   A                         AA       
3 +     A                           A AA                          A       
  +     A                           A A                           A       
  +    AA                           AAA                           AA      
2.8    A                             A                             A      
  +    A                             A                             A      
  +    A                             A                             A      
  +   AA                             A                             AA     
2.6   A                                                             A     
  +   A                                                             A     
  +  A                                                               A    
2.4 AA                                                               AA   
  ***-+--+-+-+-+--+-+-+-+-+--+-+-+-+--+-+-+-+--+-+-+-+--+-+-+-+--+-+-+-** 
  0          1          2          3           4          5          6    
> 
# Considering again the case of two particles sharing the same trajectory, we 
# find that Maple is still unable to produced a symbolic solution.
> 
> M1:=dsolve(D(x1)(t)=normal(subs(units,v1(x1(t),x1(t),t))),
> x1(t),type=exact);
                                   M1 :=
> 
# But, numerically, here's what happens to two particles that start out at 
# the same location.
> 
> M1:=dsolve({
> D(x1)(t)=normal(subs(units,v1(x1(t),x2(t),t))),
> D(x2)(t)=normal(subs(units,v2(x1(t),x2(t),t))),
> x1(0)=1,x2(0)=1}, {x1(t),x2(t)},type=numeric,output=listprocedure);
M1 :=
    [t = proc(t) ... end, x2(t) = proc(t) ... end, x1(t) = proc(t) ... end]
> 
# The trajectory of particle 1 is
> 
> plot(subs(M1,x1(t)),0..period);
> 
1 *AAAAA                                                           AAAAAA 
  +    AAAAA                                                   AAAAA      
  +        AAA                                               AAA          
  +           AA                                           AA             
  +             A                                         A               
0.8              AA                                     AA                
  +               AA                                   AA                 
  +                AA                                 AA                  
  +                 AA                               AA                   
  +                  A                               A                    
0.6                   A                             A                     
  +                   AA                           AA                     
  +                    A                           A                      
  +                    A                           A                      
  +                    A                           A                      
0.4                    AA                          A                      
  +                     A                         A                       
  +                     A                         A                       
  +                     A                         A                       
  +                     A                         A                       
0.2                     AA         AAAAAA        AA                       
  +-+-+--+-+-+-+--+-+-+-+**********+--+-+*********-+-+--+-+-+-+--+-+-+-+- 
  0          1          2          3           4          5          6    
> 
# And, as expected, the trajectory of particle 2 is identical (to within the 
# precision of the numerical procedures).
> 
> evalf(Int(abs(subs(M1,x1(t))-subs(M1,x2(t))),t=0..period));
                                           -308
                             .3179094953*10
> 
# Now, imagine that they are both at the 'expected' location at period/2
> 
> xExp:=unapply(subs(units,x1Exp),t);
                                                   1/2
                     xExp := t -> 1/6 cos(t) (2 + 2   )
> 
> M1:=dsolve({
> D(x1)(t)=normal(subs(units,v1(x1(t),x2(t),t))),
> D(x2)(t)=normal(subs(units,v2(x1(t),x2(t),t))),
> x1(period/2)=xExp(period/2),x2(period/2)=xExp(period/2)},
> {x1(t),x2(t)},type=numeric,output=listprocedure);
M1 :=
    [t = proc(t) ... end, x2(t) = proc(t) ... end, x1(t) = proc(t) ... end]
> 
# We'll plot the trajectories of the particles (B) together with the expected 
# value of the position operator (E).
> 
> display([plot(subs(M1,x1(t)),0..period,color=red),plot(xExp,0..period,color
> =blue)]);
  *EEE                                                               EEEE 
  *BBB***                                                         ***BBBB 
  +     ***B                                                   B***       
0.4       EEBBB                                             BBBEE         
  +        EEEBB                                           BBEEE          
  +          EE BB                                        B EE            
  +           EE BB                                     BB EE             
0.2            EE B                                     B E               
  +             EEBB                                   BBEE               
  +              EEB                                   BEE                
  +               E*                                   *E                 
  +-+-+--+-+-+-+--+**-+-+-+--+-+-+-+--+-+-+-+--+-+-+-+**+-+-+-+--+-+-+-+- 
0 0          1     BBE  2          3           4     EBB  5          6    
  +                 B E                             E B                   
-0.2                B  E                           E  B                   
  +                  B  EE                       EE  B                    
  +                  BB  EE                     EE  BB                    
  +                   BB  EE                   EE  BB                     
-0.4                   BBB  EE               EE  BBB                      
  +                      BBB EE             EE BBB                        
  +                         BBB*EE       EE*BBB                           
  +                             BB*******BB                               
                                                                          
# Using DEtools, we can look at a set of initial conditions.
> 
# The following phase diagram (where the trajectories of the particles are 
# the horizontal and vertical axes and the time dimension is collapsed) shows 
# the effects of the intial separation between the particles. Particle 1 
# always starts at x=1 and we have varied the starting position of particle 
# 2.
> 
> interface(plotdevice=gif,plotoutput=`fig3c9.gif`);
> DEtools[DEplot]([
> D(x1)(t)=normal(subs(units,v1(x1,x2,t))),
> D(x2)(t)=normal(subs(units,v2(x1,x2,t)))
> ],[t,x1,x2],0..period,
> {[0,1,-2],[0,1,-1],[0,1,-0.5],[0,1,0],[0,1,0.3],[0,1,0.5],
> [0,1,0.6],[0,1,0.7],[0,1,0.8],[0,1,0.9],[0,1,0.95]},
> scene=[x1,x2],stepsize=evalf(period/100),axes=boxed,
> title=`Fig3c9. Phase diagram with x1(0)=1`);
# What is special about the expected value?
> 
> interface(plotdevice=gif,plotoutput=`fig3c10.gif`);
> display([DEtools[DEplot]([
> D(x1)(t)=normal(subs(units,v1(x1,x2,t))),
> D(x2)(t)=normal(subs(units,v2(x1,x2,t)))
> ],[t,x1,x2],0..period,
> {[tn,xExp(tn),xExp(tn)]$tn=0..6},
> scene=[t,x1],stepsize=evalf(period/100),axes=boxed),
> plot(xExp,0..period,color=red)],
> title=`Fig3c10. Expected position and trajectory`);
> 
# And this is the motion of particle x1 and x2 when x1 is at position 1 and 
# x2 is at the position which creates the pole near period/2.
> 
> interface(plotdevice=gif,plotoutput=`fig3c11.gif`);
> DEtools[DEplot]([
> D(x1)(t)=normal(subs(units,v1(x1,x2,t))),
> D(x2)(t)=normal(subs(units,v2(x1,x2,t)))
> ],[t,x1,x2],0..period,
> {[period/2+.01,1,pole1[1]]},
> scene=[t,x1,x2],stepsize=evalf(period/100),
> title=`Fig3c11. Near the pole`);
> 
# Or looking at the motion of just particle x1
> 
> interface(plotdevice=char,plotoutput=terminal);
> DEtools[DEplot]([
> D(x1)(t)=normal(subs(units,v1(x1,x2,t))),
> D(x2)(t)=normal(subs(units,v2(x1,x2,t)))
> ],[t,x1,x2],0..period,
> {[period/2+.01,1,pole1[1]]},
> scene=[t,x1],stepsize=evalf(period/100));
     +                                                                    
     +                                       HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH    
   3 +                                HHHHHHHH                            
     +                                H                                   
     +                                H                                   
     +                                H                                   
 2.5 +                                H                                   
     +                                H                                   
     +                                H                                   
     +                               H                                    
     +     HHHHH                     H                                    
   2 *HHHHHH    HHHHHHHH             H                                    
     +                 HHHHH         H                                    
     +                      HHH      H                                    
     +                        HHH    H                                    
 1.5 +                          HHH  H                                    
     +                            HH H                                    
     +                             HHH                                    
     +                              HH                                    
     +                              HH                                    
   1 +                              HH                                    
  -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+--+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-- 
     0         1         2          3         4         5         6       
> 
# Rather a strange world isn't it! We could play around with these 
# trajectories as much as we want. Thats one of the purposes, after all of 
# using Maple. But now that we have some idea of what systems of fermions do, 
# its time to take a look at bosons - the subject of our next installment.
> 
# Cheers,
# Bill Page.
> 

cudkeys:
cuddy15 cuden3047 cudfnBill cudlnPage cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszXL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.15 / R SPAANDONK /  Internet CF experiment
     
Originally-From: rvanspaa@ozemail.com.au (R.J VAN SPAANDONK)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Internet CF experiment
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 1994 14:17:52 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

If you intend to weigh the cathode, then you might consider the
following suggestion. Suspend the cathode by its power wire, from
a solenoid. Reflect a beam of light off one end of the solenoid
core, and use any deviation in position of the reflected spot to
adjust the current through the solenoid coil, such that the spot
returns to its original position. The changes in weight are then
accurately reflected in the changes in the solenoid current,
which is easily measured. This method has been used in very
accurate scales for some time.
Next problem - increase in buoyancy due to expansion of the
cathode. Removing the cathode from the solution solves this, and
also the problem of extra buoyancy caused by gas bubbles adhering
to the surface of the cathode. If the entire solenoid were
mounted on a vertical rack and pinion, driven by a small electric
motor, then the cathode could be removed from the solution in
seconds, and weight measurements could continue during the entire
process. A gas-tight vessel placed over the entire setup would
contain any out-gassing, and the pressure increase in the vessel
could be used to determine the extent of such outgassing.
One last general observation. Any and all parameters of the
experiment should be continually monitored and logged
electronically. The logging should be done by a single central
PC, and all measurements individually date and time stamped based
on the same central clock. When critical changes are occurring
(such as measurement of the weight of the cathode), measurements
should be taken at 1/10 second intervals. At other times longer
intervals will suffice, up to say 1 minute. Another "nice to
have" in this regard would be :  Program one of the function keys
on the PC to place a stamped entry in the log when it is pressed.
This entry would consist of comments entered by the experimenter
at the time. In this way an accurate correlation can be
maintained between what is going on in the lab, and what is going
on in the cell.
Well that's my two bits worth.

Cheers,

Robin









cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenrvanspaa cudfnR cudlnSPAANDONK cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.15 /  K3ZYK@vms.cis. /  Request for info
     
Originally-From: K3ZYK@vms.cis.pitt.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Request for info
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 1994 14:18:08 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Greeting, 
We are looking for technical information on heat cells.  Regards, 
Bill.

cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenK3ZYK cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.15 / Steve Donovan /  Canon's New Patent?
     
Originally-From: SDONOVAN@miningtk.csir.co.za (Steve Donovan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Canon's New Patent?
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 1994 18:02:35 GMT
Organization: C.S.I.R - MiningTek

Hi all,
  I read recently in _New Scientist_ that Canon had taken out a new cold 
fusion patent.     How come they've taken such a big interest  (apart from the 
obvious answer that this could be the hottest thing since electricity)?

   Steve D.
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenSDONOVAN cudfnSteve cudlnDonovan cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.16 / Bill Page /  re: experiment - calorimetry
     
Originally-From: 70047.3047@compuserve.com (Bill Page)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: re: experiment - calorimetry
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 1994 00:16:41 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway


John Logajan wrote:
<<
Bill Page (70047.3047@compuserve.com) wrote:
: with an appropriate choosen gas at an appropriately choosen pressure. And
: include in the cavity a sensor for measuring the *absolute pressure*.
: ...we use the servo to control the heater to maintain a constant pressure
: inside the cavity.

I am trying to figure out what you mean by all this.

Are you trying to measure (and regulate) heat flow by only sensing the
pressure?  Is this because you are suggesting that the pressure necessarily
represents the net aggregate heat flow over the entire "dewar" blanket?
>>

In the null-balance calorimeter design that Tom Droege uses, the heat output (or
input) of the CF cell is measured as the amount by which the servo control needs
to change the resistive heater power in order to maintain the same heat balance
that existed when the cell was off. Heat is pumped out of the system at a
constant rate so if the servo control gets a signal that the temperature is
rising, it reduces the resistive heater power which causes (other things being
equal) the temperature of the system to drop. And the opposite if the
temperature drops to far.

<<
Am I reading you right here -- that the pressure represents some automatic means
of averaging the various temperatures everywhere throughout the dewar?
>>

Yes, that is the basic idea. I am suggesting that maybe it could be the pressure
which serves as the signal to the servo control whether to increase or decrease
the resistive heater power.

Cheers,

Bill Page


cudkeys:
cuddy16 cuden3047 cudfnBill cudlnPage cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.16 / Bill Page /  Re: I'm not in this / Bohm, pilot waves, and lousy SciAm articles
     
Originally-From: 70047.3047@compuserve.com (Bill Page)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: I'm not in this / Bohm, pilot waves, and lousy SciAm articles
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 1994 00:16:46 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

joe@twistor.dialix.oz.au (Joe Katnic) writes:
<<
I read the SciAm article and I don't have a degree in physics but I think that
the "Pilot Wave Theory" and "Copenhagen" have the same thing to say about this
phenomenon.

Pilot Wave: two interacting particles will have pilot waves that will
        interact with each other. This being the case, the real particles
        can randomly interact. They will follow the guidance of the
        pilot waves.

Copenhagen: two interacting particles have an uncertainty such that they
        can tunnel through barriers. The probability of doing so decreases
        the farther the particles are seperated.
>>

What do you mean when you say "Pilot Wave: ... the real particles can randomly
interact."? This doesn't sound like the pilot wave model to me. But yes, they do
(compleletly deterministically) "follow the guidance of the pilot waves.". As
Terry Bollinger pointed out, in this interpretation particles can "tunnel"
because the quantum potential that is derived from the pilot wave can compensate
for the potential barrier.

The Copenhagen interpretation is much stranger. It says that the particles (if
we can somehow agree to still call them particles) don't have an exact location.
Their "location" can only be described as a superposition (linear combination of
wavefunctions) of possible locations. "Tunnelling" in this interpretation is due
to the fact that the particles aren't really located anywhere in particular. But
neither are they spread-out!

<<
The Chubb's premise is that the representation of the particle can be smeared
over space in a lattice structure. In the Copenhagen interpretation, this is
literally what is meant. The wave functions (thus the particles) are smeared
over space. 
>>

Chubb&Chubb do propose a (new) interpretation of quantum mechanics where the
charge of the particle (at least) is physically spread over space. For a number
of reasons I don't think that this interpretation is universally valid so though
it may provide useful insights in some cases, it may also produce incorrect
results in others. But you are wrong about the Copenhagen interpretation, the
notion that a particle can somehow be "quantum mechanically" spread-out over
space is not part of that interpretation.

<<
In the pilot wave theory, it is the pilot waves that would be smeared over
space. The obvious conclusion is that in the pilot wave theory particles would
move to equipotential nodes in the wave space and thus interact, i.e. fuse. This
outcome would be exactly the same with the conventional approach.
>>

Well ... I don't know what moving "to equipotential nodes in the wave space"
means but as you said earlier, the particles are guided by the pilot wave. Under
some very special conditions the pilot wave can guide two particles on what is
essentially a collision course. And this is true in spite of the classical
Coulomb replusion which would otherwise keep them apart. And agree that this
outcome is exactly the same as with the conventional approach (since this is
only an interpretation and not a change in the basic theory of quantum
mechanics). Its just that with the pilot wave model we have a clear picture of
what is going on.

<<
I hope I got that right, however it still remains to be seen if the Chubb's
theory is born out in practice. I don't know of any experimental evidence for
the theory, other than CF. Whichever way it goes, the wave model does not
inherently rule out the Chubb's theory as far as I can see.
>>

Thanks for you comments.

Cheers,

Bill Page.

cudkeys:
cuddy16 cuden3047 cudfnBill cudlnPage cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.16 / Richard Blue /  Replies to Bill Page, delocalized
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Replies to Bill Page, delocalized
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 1994 00:16:45 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I think Bill Page has been bringing some very useful aspects of
cold fusion out into the light so I would like to continue on
some of these threads.  Now that he has revealed his experimental
work there are some things to be learned there too.

If one sees a reference to the measurement of a radiation effect
at the "seven sigma" level, what are the details behind such a
result?  Just pulling numbers out of my hat, suppose the detection
systems records 1,000,000 counts in some specified interval when
the "effect" is not operational and 1,010,000 counts in an
equivalent interval when something is happening.  Each of those
measurments has a sigma of 1,000 so the net counts (difference)
is 10,000 +/- 1,400 for something you might call a seven sigma
measurement.  I presume that is the sort of result Bill has in
mind.  Is there a possible problem with this?  Clearly this
result (at least as a seven sigma measurement) is dependent
on there being a certain reproducibility of the statistical
distribution from which each of the two measurements is drawn.
That is to say one must question whether the 10,000 net
count increase is the result of an "effect" or an artifact
such as a small drift in the electronic threshold for the
detection system.  It would take many more measurements and
lots of careful scrutiny to make a convincing case for saying
that this measurement demonstrates a real effect even though
the statistics justify the "seven sigma" label.

Now back to a higher plane.  I think I now see that the periodic
potential of the lattice results both in the "delocalization"
and the formation of a band state, but that there are other
ways to perturb the eigenstates of a system sufficiently to
form bands without the periodicity.  I am still somewhat
shakey as to how firm a foundation for something like the
Chubb&Chubb theory can be built around the characteristics
of the periodic potential problem.

For example, in what sense are the wavefunctions used to describe
the delocalized deuterons different from solutions to the
"particle in a box"?  To try to make this a little more concrete
let me ask what features of the Chubb&Chubb wavefunctions are
the result of certain implicite approximations whose validity
we should question, and what features arise from basic physics
that we can associate with such a system?  There are two points
that I would emphasize.  In private exchanges with Scott Chubb
he told me that there is some requirement for having the
periodic potential dominate over things like the interaction
between two deuterons.  The other issue is the Born-Oppenheimer
separation whereby we sort of forget the fact that the deuterons
are composite particles.

My feeling is that we have simply seen a model wavefunction get
pushed too far into a realm where the assumptions of the model
are no longer valid.  As a result some of the things coming out
of these various models is simply "nonphysical".  The instant
propogation feature of these wavefunctions may be something like
that.  Isn't it possible to have a situation in which the
non-time-dependent solution to a problem can not possibly correctly
describe things associated with transitions?  That is why I
really do not accept the notion that the fusion energy release
gets distributed instantly or that there is no local momentum
conservation.

We all do seem to be in agreement, however, that none of these
theories deals with the internal nuclear wave functions.  Clearly
you can't get answers about something that has never been
included in the model in the first place.  It seems to me to
be obvious then you can not say anything about such questions
as to whether the 4He formed are or are not excited.  You can't
say anything about reaction pathways.  In short you can't describe
any reaction process within the context of these models, and
we really can't learn anything about cold fusion by speculating
about delocalization or band states or any of this sort of thing.

I would rather see this line of discussion turned around.  From
my prespective the detection of nuclear radiation is and always
has been the most sensitive and unambigious way to detect fusion
or a host of alternatives.  If the formation of delocalized
deuteron band states implies this washout of the Coulomb barrier
as Chubb&Chubb assert such that spontaneous fusion becomes
more likely, the hypothesis that such a thing is likely to occur
in a fully loaded Pd lattice should be tested by radiation
measurements.  It has been, and the result is definitely not so
there is something wrong with the theory.

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.15 / Al Jagnow /  Electrolytic cell generates high press O2 with Pd cathode
     
Originally-From: jagnow@al.weeg.uiowa.edu (Al Jagnow)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Electrolytic cell generates high press O2 with Pd cathode
Date: 15 Aug 1994 14:25:05 GMT
Organization: University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA

As a matter of general interest - -

An article on p 56 of the Aug 94 NASA Tech Briefs (Vol 18, No. 8) describes an  
electrolytic cell with a palladium cathode and a porous anode used to generate  
high pressure O2.
 
The following exerpts are quoted without permission:

"The cell has been demonstrated in a 4.5-hour endurance test, in which it  
stably produced oxygen at a pressure 6,000 lb/in^2 (40MPa) higher than that of  
the hydrogen at a potential of 1.865V, a temperature of 186 degrees F (359 K),  
and a current density of 47.8 mA/cm^2."

"In the endurance test, the amount of H2 produced was 93.7 percent of the  
theoretical value based on the amount of electrical charge transferred."

"The work was done by F. H. Schubert and D. J. Grigger of Life Systems, Inc.,  
for Johnson Space Center."

"This invention is owned by NASA, and a patent application has been filed.  
Inquiries concerning nonexclusive or exclusive license for its commercial  
development should be addressed to the Patent Counsel, Johnson Space Center.   
Refer to MSC-21577."

It seems to me to be very similar to a 'cold fusion' type of cell.  One can  
only speculate about the hydrogen loss (held by the Pd cathode?) and about what  
might happen if it were operated for longer than 4.5 hours.  
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenjagnow cudfnAl cudlnJagnow cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.15 / Al Jagnow /  Re: Curie effect , an explanation
     
Originally-From: jagnow@al.weeg.uiowa.edu (Al Jagnow)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Curie effect , an explanation
Date: 15 Aug 1994 15:24:39 GMT
Organization: University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA

In article <32gjlv$10am@watnews1.watson.ibm.com> c1prasad@watson.ibm.com  
(prasad) writes:
> From: parky@ix.netcom.com (Chris Parkinson):
> In <322ejo$jed@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> nazrael@cats.ucsc.edu (James Vanmeter)  
writes: 
> >
> >parky@netcom.com (Chris Parkinson) writes:
> >
> >>I have read the article from Eugene Mallove entitled 'An Italian Cold 
> >>Fusion Hot Potato' from Cold Fusion magazine. There are some interesting 
> >>facets to this idea that were not explored by the author. Namely, a 
> >>question remains in my mind that if the input power supply is operating 
> >>at an AC level and the frequency remains fixed then what could be 
> >>occurring is the Curie effect on the magnetics of the nickel. 
> >
> >What's the Curie effect?
> >
> The Curie effect is a magnetic effect that occurs when a certain
> frequency is charged into two types different metals in close contact. When 
> Titanium is used, it induces a magnetic and inductive heating into the Ni  
that 
> causes the Ni to heatup. When a certain temperature is reached, the magnetic 
> monopoles cease to be magnetic and thus a "Curie effect" takes charge of the  
current,
> thus dropping the net power consumed and auto regulating the heat. 
> 
> [ lots of stuff with phases and currents deleted ]
> -- 
> 
> There seems to be a dim connection with the simple things about  
ferromagnetism
> I thought I knew.  Last heard of, we didn't have magnetic monopoles.  What
> we had were dipoles, and above the Curie temperature, the dipoles start  
jiggling
> so hard that the ferromagnetism breaks down and the material becomes  
paramagnetic,
> largely losing its susceptibility.  This happens to be used for thermostat
> kind of switch, as you describe, but I fail to understand what this has to


stuff deleted

I am not familiar with a 'Curie Effect' as a described above.

A couple of things:
1. Nickel is a pretty good magnetostrictive material. It changes dimension  
appreciably with changes in the applied magnetic field. It was used for  
ultrasonic transducers before the advent of better materials.
2. Curie Temperature - The temoperature at which ferromagnetic materials lose  
their magnetic susceptibility. The specific temperature depends on the  
materials and the alloy.  Weller has used this property for years as a  
temperature control mechanism in their solder pencils.  When the tip reaches  
the desired temperature, it loses it's ferromagnetic properties and causes a  
switch to turn off the heater.

The AC magnetic field in the Italian experiment adds yet another variable.
One might speculate that by altering the crystal lattice of the nickel with an  
AC magnetic field somehow enhances the 'fusion' effect. -- Trap hydrogen in the  
lattice and then compress the lattice to physically force the hydrogen atoms  
close enough to fuse ??  Sounds improbable. but ??
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenjagnow cudfnAl cudlnJagnow cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.15 / Tom Droege /  Re: Return of the experimenter?
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Return of the experimenter?
Date: 15 Aug 1994 17:02:41 GMT
Organization: fermilab

In article <32hng0$r1o@ixnews1.ix.netcom.com>, parky@ix.netcom.com (Chris 
Parkinson) says:
>
>You wrote: 
>
>
>>>
>>>How about building a scale into the cell.  This would mean more leads
>>>but maybe you could multiplex the resistance leads and the strain gauge
>>>leads but reverse polarity of the sense voltage.
>>>
>>>I got a blurb from Penwalt some years ago about a piezo mylar film they
>>>had.  The mylar could very well be a contaminate to the cell however.
>>>
>>>vern
>>>
>>>-- 
>>>Vernon C. Hoxie                            
>>{csn,netcomsv}!scicom!zebra!vern
>>>3975 W. 29th Ave.                                   
>>vern@zebra.alphacdc.com
>>>Denver, Colo., 80212        uucp: 303-455-2670          voice: 
>>303-477-1780
>>
>>
>
>Yes Vern, 
>        Piezoelectric Kynar would probably do it without contamination.
>Simply, Get the Kynar double sided with tin coated copper. Etch off
>all the areas that will be in the cell and make sure that some
>of the Kynar is out of the cell (like the two ends). These areas
>would then create the strain gauge. The only issues that would remain
>is noise and calibration. Noise could be controlled by making this a
>static measurement (with the power off) and calibration would be
>fairly straight forword through the use of some weights. Simple, Eh.
>The only other problem you may run into is temperature. Piezoelectric
>Kynar has the funny trick of also being able to act as a thermocouple.
>Now come to think of it wave action would also be a problem. If you
>or anyone else think that this may work or have made it work 
>I would enjoy it to here your input.
>
>Chris Parkinson
>parky@ix.netcom.com
I would like to remind everyone that the environment inside a cell is not 
very friendly.  It is hot.  It is very caustic.  pH of 10-12.  There is 
a lot of free Oxygen and free Hydrogen around.  In short it is an 
environment that will eat almost anything.  I would not expect tin plated 
copper to last very long.  Unless you have facilities to mold things in
teflon, it is hard not to have some place where the leads are exposed.  So 
measuring anything that is high impedance is probably not possible, even 
it it is encased in teflon.  

One reason that resistance is measured is that the measurement is sort of 
possible.  It is a milliohm range measurement.  So the leakage current 
through the electrolyte is not too important.  But some will argue that it 
is important.  I have an old thesis (1939) that worries about this for 
pages.  No matter how you make the measurement it is hard. For example, 
bringing out mv signals with several different metals and through a large 
change of temperature is asking for thermoelectric effects.  They are 
seen.  

Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.15 / Tom Droege /  Re: experiment / hydrogen content
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: experiment / hydrogen content
Date: 15 Aug 1994 17:38:00 GMT
Organization: fermilab

In article <harrCuKELs.HuM@netcom.com>, harr@netcom.com (Charles (Chuck) 
Harrison) says:

Much deleted

>P.S.
> Hey, Tom, you gonna put a TV camera in there??
>  -CH
>

Funny you should ask.  Only about two minutes ago, I put down the phone 
from ordering a CCD Camera module.  So it is possible.  But one more 
source of power in the cell to worry about.  

Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.15 / Tom Droege /  Re: Return of the experimenter?
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Return of the experimenter?
Date: 15 Aug 1994 17:42:59 GMT
Organization: fermilab

In article <32hqjh$jpf@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, al789@cleveland.Freenet.Edu 
(John Logajan) says:
>
>
>Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege) says:
>>Let's say we have a 1 cc cathode.
>>This is 1/10 mole of Pd.  This is a pretty large cathode for the 
>>experiments I have been running.  For one H/D for each Pd atom or the 
>>famous 1/1 ratio, this requires 1/20 mole of H2.  This is 11,200 cc of
>>of H2.
>
>Oops, wouldn't it be more like 1,120 cc of H2?  (I actually get 1,380 
cc.)

My only excuse is that my wonderful calculator that used to know N and 
the electron charge and many other wonderful things now gives 7 when I ask 
for the number of atoms in a mole.  Pretty weak, I know.  

Thanks John for keeping me honest.

>
>>Suppose we wish to make a 1% measurement.  About the minimum that 
>>would be useful.  This means we must measure 1/2000 mole of H/D.  This 
is 
>>one milligram when measuring H and 2 milligrams when measuring D.
>
>Yeah, one milligram of H2 and two milligrams of D2.
>
>-- 
>-- John Logajan ---  al789@cleveland.freenet.edu

Seems to me that this is a pretty tough measurement to make, and so far I 
have not heard anything that looks very practical.

Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.15 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  methods of fusion
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: methods of fusion
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 1994 12:17 -0500 (EST)

Robert F. Heeter writes:

-> 4B. Alternative Methods of Confinement. ....

Nicely done.  However you did leave out the one which at this time is the only
confinement method which has been shown to work well.  That is gravitational
confinement.  That of course it the method our sun uses.

I agree it is not a technique that can be used at this time by man for a power
source (not counting solar energy), but if we ever get to the point of
understanding gravity, we may find a way to control it, thus the possibility,
although remote, the technique may be applicable to earth based systems at some
point.

                                                                Marshall
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.15 /  jonesse@plasma /  Re:  Heeter on muon-catalyzed fusion
     
Originally-From: jonesse@plasma.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re:  Heeter on muon-catalyzed fusion
Date: 15 Aug 94 11:12:33 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

Robert Heeter does a good job summarizing the status of muon-catalyzed fusion
in his FAQ.  A few corrections are in order in his part D; he says:

"It's possible to use other heavy, negatively-charged particles instead of the
muon( such as a negative pion or an antiproton), but typically these require
more energy to create, also have sticking problems, and have shorter lifetimes
than muons, so they are not as good as muons at catalyzing fusion reactions."

More than that:  pions and anti-protons (and kaons, ...) are
strongly-interacting particles, unlike muons.  Hence, pions and p-bars will
react strongly with any nuclei in the target and be lost to catalysis.
So we are left with negatively-charged leptons:  electrons (too light),
muons (mass just right), taus (too massive to produce cheaply, and far too
short-lived).  Rabi asked of muons, "Who ordered these?"  The answer may lie in
catalyzing fusion { 8^)=  -- if we could just reduce the muon-alpha sticking
probability, as Robert correctly points out in his FAQ.  We have not totally
given up in this quest, hope to push above twice liquid-hydrogen density in a
d-t target to determine whether the sticking coefficient decreases
significantly at high densities.  (Experiment proposed for Dubna.)  

Note that mu-c-f is just a factor of roughly 15 below *commercial* power
breakeven.  It's maddening that we could push that close and yet not make the
goal.

Heeter:  "The heavy D and T nuclei, with their large fusion cross-section, make
the best fuel in muon-catalyzed fusion, just as they do in hot fusion.  Other
fuels either fuse too slowly, or don't fuse at all."

Muon-induced fusion follows muonic-molecule formation (e.g., d-t-mu) which in
turn follows muonic atom formation (e.g., d-mu).  Now any nuclei with Z>1 will
trap the muon in an n=1 state so that muonic-molecule formation cannot proceed. 
Moreover, the rate of muon-capture in the nucleus (analogous to electron
capture) increases roughly as Z^10, so the muon will not live very long in the
presence of Z>3 nuclei (including palladium!).  The result of all this is that
muons can catalyze fusion only in the isotopes of hydrogen, p,d and t.

The reason that muon-catalyzed d-t fusion is so much faster than mu-catalyzed
p-d or d-d or p-t fusion lies primarily in the rapid formation of d-t-muonic
molecules, which proceeds via strong resonance in the d-t case.  Our
experiments at LAMPF were the first to experimentally verify the existence of
this resonance, and to illucidate its properties.*   The larger
fusion cross-section for d-t is not so important in fact; d-t-mu formation
requires about a nanosecond, while d-t-fusion once this molecule forms requires
about a picosecond.  (See, true cold fusion can be very fast indeed.)

*Refs:  Phys. Rev. Lett 51 (1983) 1757-1760, PRL 56 (1986) 588,
Nature 321 (8 May 1986) 127-132.

--Steven Jones 

cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenjonesse cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.15 / Tom Droege /  Re: experiment - radiation detection - new theory?
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: experiment - radiation detection - new theory?
Date: 15 Aug 1994 17:57:18 GMT
Organization: fermilab

In article <32mp35$akf@stratus.skypoint.com>, jlogajan@mirage.skypoint.net 
(John Logajan) says:
>
>Bill Page (70047.3047@compuserve.com) wrote:
>: I've heard you mention the problem of sudden rapid out
>: gassing before. In fact, to my knowledge, you are the only experimenter 
who
>: has mentioned observing this type of event.
>
>I believe that at least a few events that might have been interpreted
>as out-gassing events were caused by the site of the recombination
>moving around.  This would be especially significant if the in-cell
>catalyst petered out and the remote-chamber catalyst had to take
>over.  There would be a delay as the electrolysis gases made their
>way toward the remote catalyst.  During the time between the primary

You bet, that is why I want a separate calorimeter for the cell and the 
catalyst.  I have been thinking about several calorimeters inside the null 
balance calorimeter.  So we can track better what is going on.  

But all this does not explain why the radiation counts would appear to be 
related to the gas servo.  Note I have only "published" this as a curious 
observation in the ACCF1 paper.  It calls for a better experiment.  Looks 
like the TV camera I just ordered is nice and sensitive in the IR.  Just 
what we need to look at a cell and possibly see hot spots.  

>catalyst going out and the secondary catalyst coming on line, all the
>electrolysis gases (D2 and O2) would increase in volume and mimic
>an outgassing from the electrode.
>
>--
> - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com -- 612-633-0345 -
> - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills  MN 55112 USA           -

Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.15 /  prasad /  Re: c1prasad@watson.ibm.com (prasad)
     
Originally-From: c1prasad@watson.ibm.com (prasad)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: c1prasad@watson.ibm.com (prasad)
Date: 15 Aug 1994 18:40:52 GMT
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

 parky@ix.netcom.com (Chris Parkinson) wrote:
> ...
> I think though that you have a great understanding of the rudiments of this
> effect and I would be interested to hear some comments from you in regards
> to the article as mentioned above. I hope that you don't feel that I'm opposed

I'll pass the offer!  I'm sure the bimetallic Curie effect has its specialities
and uses.  I'm particularly busy with my own patents on magnetism....!

> to CF. In contrast I feel that some of Newtons laws will win out against 
> relativity as a result of a deeper understanding of this phenomina. Secondly

Glad to know you aren't an inherent skeptic;).  As far as I know, there isn't
any conflict between Newton and relativity, none at least that CF's brought up.
The current skepticisms and debates are more about the quantum picture, with
missing neutrons, etc.  In short, don't let CF put you off relativity, you're
going to need it!

> ...
> happen. If we allow corporate America to own all the rights to this, the ATT
> monopoly will seem small change in comparison and once again the rich will
> become richer etc, etc....

I'm really beginning to like you, first you ain't no skeptic, and next,
you seem to know where more R&D money can come from!  BTW, let journals keep
publishing (once a while, no more) raw untested ideas.  Can't help wondering
if anyone wondered whether Joe Newman's gyrons could have explained CF?!


-- 

#pragma prejudices=own brainwaves=own others=absolved
// email: 71155.3116@compuserve.com, poll= 1/month.
// bad habits: unwashed robes, xrn.
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenc1prasad cudlnprasad cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.15 / Vic Moberg /  Ball Plasmas
     
Originally-From: moberg@nosc.mil (Vic Moberg)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Ball Plasmas
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 1994 20:07:02 GMT
Organization: NCCOSC RDT&E Division, San Diego, CA

 
 METASTABLE SUPERCOOLED PLASMA
  
   
S.A. Maiorov, A.N. Tkachev, S.I. Yakovlenko Institute of General
Physics, Russian Academy of Sciences 38, Ulitsa Vavilova, 117942,
Moscow, Russian Federation Tel. (095) 132-8280
A review of Coulomb plasma ab initio simulations and analytical
research performed by the authors since 1987 presented. It is shown
that classical Coulomb plasma has metastable supercooled state similar
to state of supercooled vapor. The triple recombination at this state
is suppressed. Supercooled state results from entropy conservation law
for Hamilton system. Ion-ion plasma with heavy both positive and
negative particles at high ionization degree (>10^{-3}) is needed to
have a metastable supercooled plasma. Supercooled state thermodynamic
law is given. It is shown that mixture of a supercooled plasma with a
gas may form a plasmoid like ball lightning.
Bibliography --- 22 references

Short abstract of paper from PHYSICS-USPEKHI # 3/94

--
--
Vic Moberg                                NCCOSC RDTE Div. Code 842
moberg@manta.nosc.mil                     53570 Silvergate Ave. 
Phone: 619-553-6140, Fax: -6449           San Diego CA 92152-5276
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenmoberg cudfnVic cudlnMoberg cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.16 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: experiment / hydrogen content
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: experiment / hydrogen content
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 1994 00:18:51 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

In article <harrCuKELs.HuM@netcom.com>,
Charles (Chuck) Harrison <harr@netcom.com> wrote:
>
>You don't need gravity to measure mass (f=m*G), the way a scale does.
>Instead, you can use resonance (omega = sqrt(k/m)).  You need a very
>stable spring.  This has been used for decades to monitor vacuum
>deposition processes (e.g. optical coatings) tens of angstroms thick.
>It's called a "quartz microbalance" and is a piezo quartz crystal
>in an ordinary oscillator circuit.  When stuff lands on the crystal, it
>increases the mass, and the resonance frequency changes.

How do you take into account the plating of various impurities onto the 
cathode and the change in surface friction in the liquid medium? I could
be wrong but I would expect this stuff to affect the experiment at least
as much as absorbed D2.

I would expect the crystal structure of the Pd to change when the D2 is 
absorbed. Perhaps a laser interferometer could read these changes?

cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.16 / Chris Parkinson /  Re: Curie effect , an explanation
     
Originally-From: parky@ix.netcom.com (Chris Parkinson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Curie effect , an explanation
Date: 16 Aug 1994 02:56:57 GMT
Organization: Netcom

In <32o1bn$2d9@nexus.uiowa.edu> jagnow@al.weeg.uiowa.edu (Al Jagnow) writes: 

>
>In article <32gjlv$10am@watnews1.watson.ibm.com> c1prasad@watson.ibm.com  
>(prasad) writes:
>> From: parky@ix.netcom.com (Chris Parkinson):
>> In <322ejo$jed@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> nazrael@cats.ucsc.edu (James Vanmeter)  
>writes: 
>> >
>> >parky@netcom.com (Chris Parkinson) writes:
>> >
>> >>I have read the article from Eugene Mallove entitled 'An Italian Cold 
>> >>Fusion Hot Potato' from Cold Fusion magazine. There are some interesting 
>> >>facets to this idea that were not explored by the author. Namely, a 
>> >>question remains in my mind that if the input power supply is operating 
>> >>at an AC level and the frequency remains fixed then what could be 
>> >>occurring is the Curie effect on the magnetics of the nickel. 
>> >
>> >What's the Curie effect?
>> >
>> The Curie effect is a magnetic effect that occurs when a certain
>> frequency is charged into two types different metals in close contact. When 
>> Titanium is used, it induces a magnetic and inductive heating into the Ni  
>that 
>> causes the Ni to heatup. When a certain temperature is reached, the magnetic 
>> monopoles cease to be magnetic and thus a "Curie effect" takes charge of the  
>current,
>> thus dropping the net power consumed and auto regulating the heat. 
>> 
>> [ lots of stuff with phases and currents deleted ]
>> -- 
>> 
>> There seems to be a dim connection with the simple things about  
>ferromagnetism
>> I thought I knew.  Last heard of, we didn't have magnetic monopoles.  What
>> we had were dipoles, and above the Curie temperature, the dipoles start  
>jiggling
>> so hard that the ferromagnetism breaks down and the material becomes  
>paramagnetic,
>> largely losing its susceptibility.  This happens to be used for thermostat
>> kind of switch, as you describe, but I fail to understand what this has to
>
>
>stuff deleted
>

>
>A couple of things:
>1. Nickel is a pretty good magnetostrictive material. It changes dimension  
>appreciably with changes in the applied magnetic field. It was used for  
>ultrasonic transducers before the advent of better materials.
>2. Curie Temperature - The temoperature at which ferromagnetic materials lose  
>their magnetic susceptibility. The specific temperature depends on the  
>materials and the alloy.  Weller has used this property for years as a  
>temperature control mechanism in their solder pencils.  When the tip reaches  
>the desired temperature, it loses it's ferromagnetic properties and causes a  
>switch to turn off the heater.
>
>The AC magnetic field in the Italian experiment adds yet another variable.
>One might speculate that by altering the crystal lattice of the nickel with an  
>AC magnetic field somehow enhances the 'fusion' effect. -- Trap hydrogen in the  
>lattice and then compress the lattice to physically force the hydrogen atoms  
>close enough to fuse ??  Sounds improbable. but ??
>

As I wrote to the dude at Big Blue:
>True, True, True except that a patent which I worked with for a number of years
>worked according to my explanation. If you need some verification of this I suggest
>you look over this patent it is listed under 'Phil Carter' and is named 'IRIS 1'.
>It requires two metals with one acting as the inducer and the other acting as the
>curie effect restricter. In regards to di-poles, yes I had it wrong. 
>Out of phase, yes to cause almost 70% of the current to be fully reflected. 
>I cannot get into the current's at hand due to patent restrictions but I can say 
>that once the bi-metallic curie temp is hit over temp does not occur as you state. 
>D.C. levels are possible and its true you do not need bi-metals to achieve the 
>curie temperature but it will not auto-regulate. The only reason I brought 
>this up was in regards to the "Italian Cold Fusion" article. They have not stated
>what kind of power supply they are using or what the distances are from the anode
>to the cathode but they definately coiled the anode around the cathode. At high
>frequencies you do not need many turns if you also have a balun in front of this coil.
>
>I do apologize for any inconsistancies, look at the patent it will bear me out.
>One reason that few folks know of this type of bi-metal effect is that it is 
>patented and controlled by one company which holds it's secrets quite near.
>Additionally Phil Carter is one of the formost guru's in RF technology and
>unless you have studied under him, you would most likely not know about this
>and the many other technolgy's of the patents he owns.
>
Other ramblings on my part.

Ah yes Weller. The guys whos iron can't auto regulate when loaded in a cup of
H2O. I know, who cares to do that. Well heres a plug for my old company
that I have long ago departed. Metcal, Inc. makes soldering irons and other
fantastic heating equipment (like a unit that can solder a braid to a braid)
utilizing the above mentioned patent. Needless to say that there products are
Rolls Royce of the industry. Put there Iron in a cup of water and it merely
stays at 320 deg. F and boils off the water. Now I challenge Dr. Mallove to
investigate the article in question. I still feel that they will be in a
patent violation not with cold fusion but with Iris 1.

As I wont give up this stance yet until I get more credible info.
                   So Long For Now.

Chris Parkinson

PS The brain child of Dr. Carter is the only way I reference this.
   Since the standard of the Curie effect as it is known is very
   rudimentary.
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenparky cudfnChris cudlnParkinson cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.16 / Chris Parkinson /  Re: Return of the experimenter?
     
Originally-From: parky@ix.netcom.com (Chris Parkinson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Return of the experimenter?
Date: 16 Aug 1994 03:07:22 GMT
Organization: Netcom

In <32o73h$7er@fnnews.fnal.gov> Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege) writes: 


>I would like to remind everyone that the environment inside a cell is not 
>very friendly.  It is hot.  It is very caustic.  pH of 10-12.  There is 
>a lot of free Oxygen and free Hydrogen around.  In short it is an 
>environment that will eat almost anything.  I would not expect tin plated 
>copper to last very long.  Unless you have facilities to mold things in
>teflon, it is hard not to have some place where the leads are exposed.  So 
>measuring anything that is high impedance is probably not possible, even 
>it it is encased in teflon.  
>
>One reason that resistance is measured is that the measurement is sort of 
>possible.  It is a milliohm range measurement.  So the leakage current 
>through the electrolyte is not too important.  But some will argue that it 
>is important.  I have an old thesis (1939) that worries about this for 
>pages.  No matter how you make the measurement it is hard. For example, 
>bringing out mv signals with several different metals and through a large 
>change of temperature is asking for thermoelectric effects.  They are 
>seen.  
>
>Tom Droege
>

I guess I was once again misunderstood. What I proposed was to etch away
all the copper on both sides where the copper may be in contact with
the caustic fluid. Create a strain gauge by having a coil on each end
that could measure stretch and this area would be outside of the cell.
You know I gotta say that with out any drawing capability this sure is
tough. Oh well, its a moot point anyways as I dont think that the Kynar
would work. Not due to any heat or chem. effects but due to the complex
aggregate nature of the whole deal here.

Chris Parkinson
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenparky cudfnChris cudlnParkinson cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Tue Aug 16 04:37:08 EDT 1994
------------------------------
1994.08.16 / Beth Johnston /  Combustion,Environment, & Heating Technology
     
Originally-From: beth@osc.edu (Beth Johnston)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.computational.fluid-dynamics,ieee.general,osu.ge
eral,sci.engr,oh.general,sci.engr.mech,sci.comp,sci.energy,sci.geo.fluid
,sci.research,alt.industrial.computing,sci.energy.hydrogen,sci.physics.f
sion,sci.environment,sci.physics
Subject: Combustion,Environment, & Heating Technology
Date: 16 Aug 1994 14:38:23 GMT
Organization: The Ohio Supercomputer Center
Organization:________________________________________

Registration Materials Now Available:


COMBUSTION, ENVIRONMENT, AND HEATING TECHNOLOGY-- THE ROLE OF HIGH
PERFORMANCE SIMULATION

October 6-7, 1994

Fawcett Center, The Ohio State University Columbus, Ohio

A meeting sponsored by the Program for Computational Reactive
Mechanics at the Ohio Supercomputer Center in cooperation with the
IEEE Computer Society (Scientific Supercomputing Subcommittee) and the
Society of Industrial and Applied Mathematics (SIAM) Activity Group on
Supercomputing

>>>>>>>

In light of the emerging advances in combustion technology and its
benefit to United States industry and science, the Program for
Computational Reactive Mechanics (PCRM) at the Ohio Supercomputer
Center has organized this meeting in Columbus, Ohio, on October 6-7,
1994.

Nationally recognized participants from academia, industry, and
national laboratories will report on the state of the art in
combustion technology, heating equipment technology, environmental
impact of combustion, and advances in high performance computing.

The participants will share ideas and explore the role of high
performance simulation to advance the technology for combustion,
environment, and heating.

Selected papers will be considered for publication in The Journal of
Supercomputing. Abstracts and highlights of presentations will be
available, in both hard copy and electronic versions, to attendees and
the combustion community.

>>>>>>> WHO SHOULD ATTEND AND PARTICIPATE

Combustion scientists and engineers, computational and computer
scientists, environmentalists, managers and R&D personnel in the
industry and government, and faculty, researchers, and students from
academia who are interested in high performance simulations of
reactive processes. Students will find this an excellent opportunity
to present their work and interact with experts in this field.


>>>>>> FOR MORE INFORMATION:

Point your Mosaic client to:

http://www.osc.edu/pcrm.html

An ASCII version of the registration materials is available by
anonymous ftp from <ftp.osc.edu> in the directory </pub/pcrm.>

>>>>>>> ORGANIZING TEAM:

Dr. Charlie Bender, Director
Dr. Moti Mittal, Senior Scientist
Cheryl Johnson, Conference Coordinator
(614)292-9248
(614)292-7168 - fax
pcrm@osc.edu


AGENDA ***** AGENDA ***** AGENDA ***** AGENDA *****


   ***  THURSDAY, OCTOBER 6, 1994   ***

8:00 REGISTRATION OPENS

8:00 CONTINENTAL BREAKFAST

9:00 OPENING REMARKS

9:20 KEYNOTE ADDRESS
           Dr. Martha Krebs
           Director 
           Office of Energy Research, 
           U.S. Dept. of Energy 

10:00 BREAK

10:15 COMBUSTION FRONTIERS
           Alan Pfeffer
           ABB

10:50 ENERGY TRANSPORT ON HIGH PERFORMANCE COMPUTERS
           Woodrow Fiveland
           Babcock & Wilcox

11:30 Lunch

12:30 REACTION KINETICS ON HIGH PERFORMANCE
            COMPUTERS
           Philip Smith
           University of Utah

1:00 COMPREHENSIVE MODELING OF
           FOSSIL FUELS COMBUSTION
           L. Douglas Smoot
           ACERC

1:30 FURNACE AND ENGINE ANALYSIS
           Robert Essenhigh
           The Ohio State University	

2:00 Break

2:30 POLLUTANT FORMATION IN COMBUSTION PREDICTION
           BY COMPUTER MODELING
           Michael Frenklach
           Penn. State Univ.

3:00 ADVANCES IN HIGH PERFORMANCE COMPUTING
           Charles Koelbel
           Rice University	 

3:30 - 5:30 POSTER SESSION

6:00 - 8:00 RECEPTION


     ***  FRIDAY, OCTOBER 7, 1994  ***

7:45 Breakfast

8:30 PROCESS SIMULATION FOR COMBUSTION 2000 PROGRAM
           Lawrence Ruth
           Pittsburgh Energy Tech.Center

9:00 FLUIDIZED BED COMBUSTION
           Thomas O'Brien
           Morgantown Energy Technology Center

9:30 ENGINE COMBUSTION
           speaker to be announced

10:00 BREAK

10:15 MODELING THE PERIODIC PREMIXED COMBUSTION
           PROCESS OF A PULSE COMBUSTOR
           Pamela Barr
           Sandia 

10:50 MODELING COMBUSTION KINETICS ON HIGH
           PERFORMANCE COMPUTERS
           Charles Westbrook
           LLNL

11:30 COMBUSTION MODELING FOR
           INDUSTRIAL APPLICATIONS
           Wendell Mills
           Engineering Computer Corporation

12:00 LUNCH
           ON COAL COMBUSTION AND ITS MODELING
           Charles Garrett
           DOE Fossil Energy	

2:00 FUTURE COMBUSTION MODELING
           Bernie Alder
           LLNL	

2:45 BREAK

3:15 PANEL DISCUSSION -
           COMBUSTION MODELING AND HPCC
           John Riganati, moderator
           IEEE

4:15 CLOSING REMARKS

4:30 ADJOURN

***  **  ***  **  ***  **  ***  ***  ***


>>>>>>> EXHIBIT AREA

Concurrent with the meeting, software and hardware vendors are invited
to showcase products of particular interest to the combustion
community. If you are interested in exhibiting during this meeting,
please contact Cheryl Johnson, (614)292-6067, or via e-mail,
cjohnson@osc.edu, for information and rates.

***  **  ***  **  ***  **  ***  ***  ***
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

COMBUSTION, ENVIRONMENT, AND HEATING TECHNOLOGY
    -- The Role of  High Performance Simulation

               October 6-7, 1994

################REGISTRATION###################### 

Fee includes all meal functions and handouts.  Please make lodging
reservations directly with hotel. (Hotel info follows)

_____ $125   Standard Registration

_____ $ 95   Early RegistrationQpostmarked by 9/23/94

_____ Please send map and directions


Check (U.S. funds) enclosed and payable to:
     The Ohio State University

MAIL TO: 

Cheryl Johnson, Conference Coordinator
 Ohio Supercomputer Center
 1224 Kinnear Road
 Columbus, OH 43212-1163


Last Name: __________________________________________

First Name/M. I.:____________________________________

Title:_______________________________________________

Organization:________________________________________

Department:__________________________________________

Address:_____________________________________________

City:________________________________________________

State:_______________________________________________

Zip:_________________________________________________

Telephone:___________________________________________

fax:_________________________________________________

e-mail:______________________________________________

***  **  ***  **  ***  **  ***  ***  ***

>>>>>>> LODGING & CONFERENCE INFORMATION

The meeting will be at The Ohio State University Fawcett Center,
 2400 Olentangy River Road, Columbus, Ohio 43210-1027.

For attendee convenience, 
rooms at local hotels have been blocked off for the 
meeting. The Ramada University Inn (Olentangy River Rd.) 
and Holiday Inn on the Lane (Lane Ave.) are within one mile 
of the Fawcett Center & Hotel. All hotels offer airport shuttles.

Columbus International Airport is on the east side 
of Columbus and approximately 20-30 minutes from the 
conference location.

Please make reservations directly with one of these suggested hotels. 
Reference <Combustion Conference> when making your reservation. 
After 9/13/94, the blocked-off rooms will be released.


Fawcett Center Hotel
Olentangy River Road, Columbus, Ohio
     1-800-637-2316
     Standard Room:   $48/single; $54/double plus tax
     King Room        $60 single or double plus tax


Ramada University Inn
Olentangy River Road, Columbus, Ohio
1-800-228-3344       (614)267-7461 - direct
     King Room:     $61 plus tax


Holiday Inn on the Lane
Lane Avenue, Columbus, Ohio
1-800-465-4329      (614) 294-4848 - direct
     Standard Room:      $61 plus tax








cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenbeth cudfnBeth cudlnJohnston cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.16 /  fairfax@sensei /  Alcator Progress 8/4/94
     
Originally-From: fairfax@sensei.pfc.mit.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Alcator Progress 8/4/94
Date: 16 AUG 94 20:41:02 GMT
Organization: MIT PLASMA FUSION CENTER

			Alcator C-MOD Weekly Highlights
				August 4, 1994

The maintenance/repair period is continuing. Work on the new design for the
coax bus is proceeding.  Prototype components incorporating the new design,
which features a more  compliant head piece for the inner coax, have been
fabricated and will be tested. Additional calculations to verify the design
are in progress.

While the bus work proceeds, additional maintenance activities are also being
carried out. The vessel heaters, which are normally inaccessible, are
undergoing a thorough inspection.

In-vessel work this week has included removal of a set of tile modules on the
inner wall, in preparation for installation of new halo current diagnostics.
In addition, we will replace a few of the tiles with specially prepared
"tracer" tiles, containing a thin coating of tungsten under an overcoating of
molybdenum. This work, being carried out in collaboration with Sandia, will
investigate the erosion and re-deposition of molybdenum during high-power
operation. 

A shot from the June, 1994, run period has been selected for additional
analysis using the DEGAS code; this work is being carried out by Daren Stotler
of PPPL. The particular shot,940623028, was part of a divertor studies run,
and includes density and temperature profiles at the target plate and
fast-scanning probe profiles in the main chamber, as well as a complete set of
H-alpha data. This shot was a low density discharge on which divertor
detachment did not occur. 

C.H. Ma of ORNL is working at MIT this week, preparing his Faraday rotation
diagnostic. This diagnostic works in conjunction with our existing Two-Color
Interferometer (TCI), and will be used to measure the current density profile.
All of the main components of the rotation experiment are now installed on the
laser table, and rotations of the order of 2 degrees have been successfully
detected using a polarization rotator installed on the table. 

Professor Ian Hutchinson has returned from his sabbatical at JET. Martin
Greenwald is participating in the ESNET Steering Committee Meeting in New
Mexico. 


cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenfairfax cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.16 /  fairfax@sensei /  Alcator progress 8/11/94
     
Originally-From: fairfax@sensei.pfc.mit.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Alcator progress 8/11/94
Date: 16 AUG 94 20:42:01 GMT
Organization: MIT PLASMA FUSION CENTER

			Alcator C-MOD Weekly Highlights
				August 11, 1994

The maintenance/repair period is continuing. Fabrication drawings for a
full-scale prototype of the new design for the inner coax conductor have been
approved and released to the vendors.  Rough cut parts for the prototype coax
have already been produced. 

Cleanup and resurfacing of the terminal plate for the OH2L coil has been
completed. All three coils in the OH stack have been electrically tested
(rung) at 600 volts.

All 400 vessel heaters have been checked out and are working correctly. 

TRANSP is now being run in "production" mode. Analyses of about a dozen shots
from the 1993 and 1994 operating campaigns have been produced, with ten more
in progress.  So far the analysis is being carried out for ohmic discharges.
Analysis of ICRF heating shots, using the TRANSP ICRF package, will begin
shortly.

In the course of attempting to resolve a small discrepancy (at the level of a
few percent) in our magnetic analysis, we have determined that the vacuum
vessel exhibits a small magnetic permeability. Our control system and 
equilibrium analysis appear to be robust against this effect, as expected since 
these depend principally on measurements of the fields and fluxes in vacuum 
inside the vessel. The discrepancy shows up primarily when the vessel currents
inferred from the analysis are compared to those expected, or equivalently
when magnetics signals are compared with expected values based on integrating
the circuit equations using measured coil currents. 

Dr. Roger Richards from ORNL is back at MIT this week, continuing
installation work for his laser scattering experiment.  

cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenfairfax cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.16 / Chris Parkinson /  Re: c1prasad@watson.ibm.com (prasad)
     
Originally-From: parky@ix.netcom.com (Chris Parkinson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: c1prasad@watson.ibm.com (prasad)
Date: 16 Aug 1994 03:23:05 GMT
Organization: Netcom

In <32ocrk$ldt@watnews1.watson.ibm.com> c1prasad@watson.ibm.com (prasad) writes: 

>> ...
>> happen. If we allow corporate America to own all the rights to this, the ATT
>> monopoly will seem small change in comparison and once again the rich will
>> become richer etc, etc....
>
>I'm really beginning to like you, first you ain't no skeptic, and next,
>you seem to know where more R&D money can come from!  BTW, let journals keep
>publishing (once a while, no more) raw untested ideas.  Can't help wondering
>if anyone wondered whether Joe Newman's gyrons could have explained CF?!
>
stuff deleted
>-- 
>#pragma prejudices=own brainwaves=own others=absolved
blah, blah, blah

Yes, I do know where more R&D money will come from. Lets back track to
1986 when all the incentives for R&D were taken away. I've got scads of
scources to tap into. Got a bus. plan, lots of luck of getting my bucks
with no patent.

I'm glad to here that you have got patents. You obviuosly enjoy a sense
of well being knowing you've got you're intellectual property protected.
Hey heres a wild thought, maybe the patent office is doing the right
thing. Just imagine if someone did get the Gods gift to CF patent and they
SOLD it to Exxon!!! Holy Cow Batman, the Riddler's got us again.

CP
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenparky cudfnChris cudlnParkinson cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.16 / Matt Kennel /  Re: I'm not in this / Bohm, pilot waves, and lousy SciAm articles
     
Originally-From: mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: I'm not in this / Bohm, pilot waves, and lousy SciAm articles
Date: 16 Aug 1994 06:09:02 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

Bill Page (70047.3047@compuserve.com) wrote:

: Chubb&Chubb do propose a (new) interpretation of quantum mechanics where the
: charge of the particle (at least) is physically spread over space. For a number
: of reasons I don't think that this interpretation is universally valid so though
: it may provide useful insights in some cases, it may also produce incorrect
: results in others. 

That's being rather charitable perhaps.

When have charges of elementary particles ever been seen to be
"spread out" in this fashion?

Take the canonical electron diffraction experiment.  The wave function of
the diffracted electron is "delocalized" and spread out after it passes
through the slits.  And yet, when the electron reaches the screen, its
charge is all right there---in one fast and angry little point----just ready
to hit and flouresce individual target atoms.

Its a fundamental experimental fact of QM.

It's very difficult to imagine it ever working another way.   This is
exactly the objection to the Chubb+Chubb cold fusion theory.  Even
if the wave functions of the nuclei are "delocalized"---our knowledge
of their locations in the lab frame is not very certain---they still act
like nearly point nucleons when they interact; and thus the same
mutual Coloumb barrier would seem to apply, and certainly the ordinary
high-energy nuclear reaction products ought to be produced after the
interaction takes place.  

Just as the delocalized electron is defiantly point-like when it interacts
with the flourescent screen.  I don't know 'why', but that's just the way
things always seem to work.

I would think that a model of not-quite QM which does allow charge to be
delocalized from quantum particle identity (e.g. lepton number) would have
to be much more fully explored and would likely have lots of experimental
consequences contradicted by currently known observations.

: Cheers,

: Bill Page.


--
-Matt Kennel  		mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu
-Institute for Nonlinear Science, University of California, San Diego
-*** AD: Archive for nonlinear dynamics papers & programs: FTP to
-***     lyapunov.ucsd.edu, username "anonymous".
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenmbk cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.16 / John Logajan /  Re: experiment - calorimetry
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@mirage.skypoint.net (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: experiment - calorimetry
Date: 16 Aug 1994 07:44:55 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Bill Page (70047.3047@compuserve.com) wrote:
: I am suggesting that maybe it could be the pressure which serves as the
: signal to the servo control whether to increase or decrease the resistive
: heater power.

Using pressure is so "orthogonal" to what conventional thinking would have
led one to imagine that I am nearly convinced that this must be a brilliant
solution (if it works. :-)


--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com -- 612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills  MN 55112 USA           -
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.16 / Eugene Mallove /  De Revolutionibus
     
Originally-From: 76570.2270@compuserve.com (Eugene Mallove)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: De Revolutionibus
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 1994 13:41:15 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

An interesting brief note that appeared in Science, 7 August 1994:

Titled "Vignettes: De Revolutionibus

I know of two kinds of revolution in molecular biology. There is the kind 
where a band of angry, young, well-armed molecular biologists, having 
formented [sic] their plans in the chill, rarefied air of the UCLA winter 
symposia, meeting clandestinely on the slopes during the morning talks, and 
later in the darker corners of the bar while the poster sessions wind down, 
converge in the Spring on Bethesda, assault rifles and ugly unpatriotic slides
on hand, to settle once and for all the issue of NIH post-doc stipends.

Then there is the other kind, referred to as a paradigm shift, or a retreat to
the drawing board, when disappointing data can no longer be hidden or 
explained by old notions. New concepts become fashionable and new paragraphs 
have to be written for introductions to papers and grants. Usually there are a
number of powerful elders in important places that have to retire or die 
before things get rolling. Like for instance, Maddox, who is aging at the same
rate as everybody else, or Dan, who may take a little longer. It could happen 
here.

                        --Kary B. Mullis, in "The Polymerase Chain Reaction"

_______________


Shades of Max Planck's famous statement!

Note: I believe Nobel laureate Mullis is referring to Science editor, Daniel 
E. Koshland, Jr.,  when he refers to "Dan." I also assume that "The Polymerase
Chain Reaction" is Mullis' book.

Fortunately for the cold fusion revolution, we will not have to wait for 
either Maddox or Koshland to die, not to mention Huizenga et al. Furthermore, 
it will be much more pleasureable to watch the likes of Huizenga and Co. 
either having to eat their words or to engage in verbal gymnastics to explain 
their misbehavior of recent years.

Best, Gene Mallove

cudkeys:
cuddy16 cuden2270 cudfnEugene cudlnMallove cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.17 / R Schroeppel /  muon musings
     
Originally-From: rcs@cs.arizona.edu (Richard Schroeppel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: muon musings
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 1994 00:15:16 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Has anyone looked at making thermal "pseudo-neutrons" and fusing them
with heavier nuclei?  Imagine making a triton+mu muonic atom, and
bumping it into a U238 nucleus, hoping for Np241?  If you have a good
enough muon source, you might even make a tri-muonic atom of Li and
try adding it to various things.  This offers the chance to make
unusual nuclei with low-energy collisions.

This isn't likely to be a useful energy source, since we get at most one
fusion per muon (compared to Steve Jones' ~150), and we'd need a huge
profit on that one transaction.  But it might be a good way to make
exotic nuclei.

Odd thought on the alpha-muon sticking problem:  Can you pick out the
stuck combinations (based on mass, charge, velocity, energy, angular
momentum, magnetic moment?) and reionize the muon loose?  There must
be a magic photon energy that would do the trick - maybe illuminate
the reaction chamber with a nice soft xray glow?

Rich Schroeppel   rcs@cs.arizona.edu

cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenrcs cudfnRichard cudlnSchroeppel cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.17 / Richard Blue /  Reply to John Farrell
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Reply to John Farrell
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 1994 00:15:16 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Reply to John Farrell      8-16-94

Perhaps I should first explain the significance of my use of the
word "crack-pot" to describe a physical theory.  I believe it is
appropriate to apply this designation to any theory that:  (1) is
lacking in its internal logical consistency either by a failure to
conform to the stated premises which are claimed to underlie the
theory or by a significant use of illogic and repeated insertions
of ad hoc assumptions that are not explicitly acknowledged. or (2)
is in clear contradiction with large numbers of established
experimental observations and measurements.  One further
characteristic of a host of theories that fall under this heading
is that they are often inappropriately simplistic, descriptive, and
mechanistic.  The authors of such theories generally make
immodest assertions that they are correcting obvious flaws in the
most basic theories that deal with quantum phenomena and/or
relativity.

Prof. Farrell, in his most recent presentation, sketches the
derivation of a number of relationships that are encompassed by
what is generally known as the Bohr theory of the hydrogen atom.
There is nothing new or original in this presentation up to the
point where photon energy is related to the angular velocity of the
orbitsphere.  This treatment can be found, for example, in the
classic text "Atomic Physics" by Max Born.  Prof. Farrell's
presentation is essentially correct although I believe he looses
one factor of hbar near the end.  I am not sure how I am expected
to respond to the challenge, "Dick Blue, can you figure out why?"
The result referred to does follow directly from the algebra
presented by Prof. Farrell, and I have no quarrel with that.
As for the correspondence principle, see Born.  He has a better
discussion of that aspect of the model.

As my first challenge to this presentation I will simply continue
where Prof. Farrell leaves off to derive a relationship I have
referred to in my earlier comments.  Farrell gives:

E(photon) = (1/2) *  delta omega (orbitsphere)   .

This is not dimensional correct and should read

E(photon) = (1/2) * hbar * delta omega (orbitsphere)  .

Dividing through by hbar gives:

omega(photon) = (1/2) * delta omega (orbitsphere)  .

Expressing this in terms of the photon wavelength and substituting
the earlier expression for delta omega (orbitsphere) results in

omega(photon) = c/(lambdabar subn) = (1/2) * (hbar/(m (ao)^2)) *
                                         (1 - (1/n^2))

Multiplying by ao and dividing by c, the velocity of light, we
obtain:

ao/(lambdabar subn) = 1/2 * alpha * ( 1 - (1/n^2)) where alpha is
the fine structure constant and is equal to hbar/(m c ao^2).  Alpha
has the value of 1/137 so we learn that the ratio of the Bohr
radius to the reduced wavelength for the photon absorbed in a
transition to the nth orbit is something like 1/274.

This was the basis for my assertion that there is a significant
mismatch between the radius of the orbitsphere and the wavelength
of photons that are supposed to be "trapped" within the
orbitsphere.  Prof. Farrell has done nothing to address this point!
Indeed there is little he can do because photons move faster than
electrons and thus have longer wavelengths for matching angular
frequencies.  Chalk up one point for my side!

While we are on the subject of "trapping" photons rather than
simply absorbing them let's play a little game by absorbing a
photon in a transition from n = 1 to n = 3 and then emit two
photons in a cascade 3 to 2 and 2 to 1.  You can of course reverse
the process and absorb two while emitting only one.  The concept
of trapped photons is rather silly so I think I get another point.

Perhaps now is a good time to take a step backward to examine the
whole concept of the orbitsphere.  The equations that Prof. Farrell
presented are based on a mechanical model of an electron moving
under the influence of a central potential, something he makes
reference to.  However, anyone familiar with central force motion
will know that the orbits are confined to a plane.  Getting from
a plane circular orbit to a spherical shell of charge is one of
those ad hoc assumptions that I mentioned in my opening remarks.
Perhaps I should have another point for that.

On the question of the use of "effective charge"  Prof. Farrell
says that the term is "common in chemistry."  Here I invite
corrections if I overstate my case, but I believe that in every
situation where "effective charge" is usefully employed it is
a device for capturing the effects of charges not explicitly
considered in the problem into a simple expression.  In the
problem at hand there are only two bodies with equal and
opposite charges with nothing other than photons being considered
in addition.  In that context "effective charge" is an
inappropriate concept that appears to be a simple fudge factor.
Without some further justification from Prof. Farrell, I think
"effective charge" must be dropped from consideration in this
problem.

At this point I invoke Gauss's law in the simple form that is
appropriate to static charge distributions that are spherically
symmetric.

      E(r)   = q/(4pi eo) r^2

with E(r) being the magnitude of the electric field at radius r and
q being the net charge contained within that radius.  This is part
of Maxwell's equations, and I have referred to violations of this
relationship under the more general heading of violations of
Maxwell's equations.

This relationship makes it quite clear that changes in the force
acting on an orbiting electron can come about only through either
a change in the orbit radius or a change in the net charge within
that radius.  However, we find in Prof. Farrell's presentation
the appearance of a factor 1/n multiplying the charge of the
proton, the only charged body within the orbitsphere.  For
justification we find only the use of the word "effective" and
some vague reference to trapped photons.  Photons, by definition,
are electrically neutral and carry no net charge.  You may trap
as many as you like inside the orbitsphere, but that will not
alter the electric field at the orbit radius.  The use of the
factor 1/n to modify the proton charge constitutes clear violation
of charge conservation or of Maxwell's equations.  Point, game,
set, match!

Dick Blue


cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.17 / Stefan Hartmann /  Free Energy Technology Newsletter
     
Originally-From: harti@shb.contrib.de (Stefan Hartmann)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,
ci.physics.particle
Subject: Free Energy Technology Newsletter
Date: 17 Aug 1994 01:04:00 +0200

		Summary on Free Energy Technology
		=================================

please email comments to:

harti@contrib.de

for a review on current free enerrgy technology get all the files from:
phoenix.oulu.fi  in pub/free_energy




Summary of recent Free Energy Congress in Denver:
=================================================


> > [...]
> > One of the most interesting things was Bill Fogal's "Charged Barrier
> > Transistor" technology.
> 
> Hmm, can you email me some more info please ?
> What is it ?

Someone else posted a copy of his paper, I think in sci.electronics. I
forget. I'll look and see if I can find it.

Basically, he takes a standard bipolar transistor, cuts open the case,
and glues a small capacitor element to the base. This is then kept
charged. The electric field affects the electron flow thru the transistor
to align the spins (via Hall effect). This causes a type of room temperature
superconduction. The result is much higher gain, much lower turn on
voltages, and almost complete elimination of noise.

> 
> > Details of how to duplicate Floyd Sweet's device were given.
> 
> Well, I have the videotape of Floyd's VTA.

Old news.

> I have digitized a few scenes and put them via MPEG compression on an
> FTP site:
> 
> phoenix.oulu.fi  in /pub/free_energy
> 
> There is also some more stuff there, especially from the Methernitha  
> devices...

Everyone is pissed, since that group isn't talking.

> 
> > JRR Searl gave several rambling and somewhat incoherant presentations.
> 
> I don't believe in him...

Exactly. He seems to be a publicity hound. And very little that he claims
is verifiable.

> 
> > >Was the Adams Magnet motor shown ?
> >
> > Several variants and copies were present. None did anything special.
> > One researcher had done extensive research into Adams, and basically
> > came to the conclusion that it is nothing.
> 
> Hmm, well, so nobody could show a selfrunning motor ?
 
Right. Many of them were very nice motors, but none of them are over 90%
efficiency. In a totally separate presentation, it was shown that
a device needs to be at least 300% in order to be self-running (due to
standard losses).

> >
> > Stefan Marinov's S-field motor isn't going to work untill the B-field
> > is properly shielded.
> 
> I see, so he was there ?
> Is it his "venetian Coli" motor or something like this ?
> He has so "dump" names for his machines, it is incredible ! :-)
 
Exactly. The current version is the "siberian colii". Might as well
be called eserechi coli.

> 
> > John Hutchinson was there with samples of things affected by the "Hutchinson
> > Effect", including a block of aluminum with an imbedded piece of wood
> > (no sign of charing or heat of any kind on the wood, and seamlessly
> > surrounded by the metal),
> 
> Hmm, yes, I also have a tape of this, were metal pieces and wood flies
> around in his lab, but you can't see, if it is not faked...

The samples are bizzare enough to conclude that whatever was done to them
is truely weird and worth more investigation.

> > a block of aluminum with an imbedded butter knife, several blasted apart
> > pieces of steel, brass, and copper rods and blocks. Very bizzare.
> 
> 
> Hmm, yes I know somebody from over here, Dr. Amon, who has made several
> investigations into this phenomen with real high tech equipment a few  
> years ago and he came to the conclusion, that there is something special,
> but as Hutchinson was hard to contact, nothing happened from it..

Try again to contact him. He seems pretty personable, open and honest.
He's just somewhat shy... considering the shit he's been through, I
can understand why.

> 
> Please let me know more.
> Thanks !
> 
> 




Other related email exchange
============================





 Hi Stephan,

 to answer your last questions...
> 
> 
> Did you hear anything  lately about Meyer ?
> The latest news I heard about his technology is at least one and a half  
> year old and he wanted to show a car in a race. Did he ever show it and  
> can he prove the over unity effect ?

The only physical evidence I have seen came from a CBC/BBC documentary on
TV on cold fusion and they interviewed Meyer briefly and showed some
footage of his car.  Providing their were no tricks or hidden fuel tanks,
it appears to work.

 Did the Cold Fusion magazine publish anything about him
yet ? >

not yet, but I believe they will in a future issue.  In a brief email from
Jed Rothwell (contributing editor for Cold fusion), he inferred that he had
spoken with him and finds him to be a sincere and dedicated individual.

> 
> Yes Sonoluminescence is a very interesting phenomen.
> Is it possible to make a light source out of it, which needs very low  
> power ? But probably first the effect which produces this light must be  
> researched enough to understand the effect and to increase the output...

I don't know that the light would be a useful thing, but it is certainly a
fascinating and potentially insightful clue to some amazing new physics.

> > The other device I spoke of earlier (the plasma steam generator) while it
> > doesn't seem to ultrasonically agitate the water molecules, is interesting
> > since it turns the water into steam and then ionizes the hydrogen and
> > oxygen atoms and generates a plasma.  Puthoff has speculated that this may
> 
> How is this kind of plasma producing power then ? Are the ions seperated  
> via magnets and charge some capacitor plates or how is it done ?

It is just producing excess heat, from which they can drive a
turbine/generator combo I believe.  You might want to take a look at the
patent.  It was granted in 1988.  US patent no. 4,772,775

The inventor, Samual Leach, believes (I feel incorrectly) that additional
energy is arriving through "oxidation of the electrode material".  I doubt
that very much.  I have been talking with the Canadian company who have
recently acquired the Canadian rights to the device, but they don't know
much either, other than they were sufficiently convinced from evidence in
a video tape that they bought into the idea.  They have promised to send
me additional info as it becomes available.

> > Interesting times, are they not?
> 
> Right. Next big revolution in the technology age will be Free Energy now  
> living in the information age... :)

I used to fear for the future of my children, but lately I have become
much more optimistic!  Let's hope it happens soon and doesn't have too many
negative effects (I'm just glad I don't work for the hydro or oil companies).

regards

> 
Hi Stephan,

to answer your last questions...

> When was this article published in which issue of Cold Fusion ?
> 
this article appeared in the June 1994 issue (Vol. 1 No. 2) of "Cold Fusion" 
You really should try to get a subscription to this magazine, at the very
least try to get your school library to subscribe.  The address is:

Wayne Green Inc.
"COLD FUSION" Magazine
70 Route 202 North
Peterborough, NH 03458-9872

> Maybe the Methernitha device is using such a system to gain their high  
> power output... I heard that there is some Corona discharge effects  
> involved in this Wimhurst type device..
> Did you already get the MPEG movies to run from the FTP server in Finland:
> phoenix.oulu.fi in pub/free_energy ?

I took a look at one of them, but it took quite a while to transfer the
files.  It looks fascinating if it is for real.  Havew you ever seen a
Methernitha first hand?  Do they really work?


Yes, they already work for a few years now. They are just building a 30 KW unit 
with discs being about 2 meters in diameter !

I know a few people very well, who have seen it running and I will probably 
try to visit them gain this August 94 ! I was there in 1989, but at this time 
they only showed me their video tape of the machines..


> 
> > The reason I am so intrigued about this is that Harold Puthoff, (renowned
> > ZPE/vacuum researcher) suggested many years ago that one potential method
> > for extracting usable energy from the vacuum might be to utilize a cold
> > charged plasma which could exhibit a "casimir pinch effect" as he put it
> > in one of his papers.
> 
> 
> Hmm , yes I heard of him. Did he put out some new facts about the device  
> he is working on, or how did you come to this idea now ?
> 
I haven't seen any of his recent works, although he published a paper in
Physical Review A in February that explained inertia and gravity as a
vacuum field effect.  Apparently this paper has caused some
controversy...particularly since the the critics haven't been too
successful in finding major errors with it!

> Well, I am pretty busy now. Didn't you tell me about a new transistor  
> effect, using some kind of room temperatur supra conduction ?
> What about this effect, do you have more infos on this one ?

that must have been someone else...I don't recall speaking to
anyone about super conduction.

One thing that has been interesting me is a very coincidental element that
is common to 3 strange phenomenon that I have been reading about lately.
These 3 apparently unrelated devices all exhibit different energy
anomolies, but they all use water and in all 3 cases the water is
ultrasonically agitated, although in different methods.

1. The ultrasonic pump -  mechanically agitates water producing ultrasonic
pressure waves in the pump.  This pump produces more heat than can be
explained with conventional physics.

2. Meyers pulsed DC electrolysis device - this device subjects the water
to an electrostatic field, again at ultrasonic frequencies in the kHz
range, and separates hydrogen and oxygen with an alleged over unity
efficiency, or at least greater than the 60% efficiency than could be
predicted by Faraday's law.

3. Sonoluminescence - the strange phenomenon whereby water in a sperical
container subjected to ultrasonic pressures will exhibit vacuum "bubbles"
levitated in the centre of the container.  These "bubbles" emit light in
picosecond duration bursts.  No universally accepted theory has been put
forth to explain this to date, although several have been suggested. 
Julian Schwinger, nobelprize winner in 1965 for QED, has suggested a
"dynamic casimir effect" may be an explanation! (vacuum ZPE field
interaction?!)

I really think these 3 things may be somehow linked to vacuum energy. 
Follow this closely. 

The other device I spoke of earlier (the plasma steam generator) while it
doesn't seem to ultrasonically agitate the water molecules, is interesting
since it turns the water into steam and then ionizes the hydrogen and
oxygen atoms and generates a plasma.  Puthoff has speculated that this may
be one means of tapping the vacuum.  I am trying to find more about this. 
Rumour has it that it might be moving into commercial production.

Interesting times, are they not?

regards
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------





> 
>                               January 10, 1994
> 
> Report On Visit To Hydro Dynamics
> 
> 
> 
> Abstract
> 
> A Hydrosonic Pump, an excess energy device, was observed during three test
> runs. The first test was a control run to verify the calorimetry, which
> yielded a C.O.P. of 59% compared to apparent electric power, or 98% after
> adjusting for known electrical and mechanical inefficiencies. The second two
> tests both yielded massive amounts of excess heat at levels very easy to
> detect. Test 2 gave a C.O.P. of 110% compared to apparent electric power, or
> 168% adjusted; and Test 3 yielded 109% or 157% adjusted.
> 
> 
> Introduction
>  
> On January 5 and 6, 1993, we visited Jim Griggs and his
> associates at:
> 
> Hydro Dynamics Inc.
> 611 Grassdale Road, Suite B
> Cartersville, GA 30120-9001
> 
> We witnessed a series of experiments with a Hydrosonic pump. This is a brief
> report of what we saw. I can provide additional information including the
> experiment log, and a video showing equipment close-ups and the first two test
> runs.
> 
> Background
> 
> The Hydrosonic Pump is an excess energy device that physically resembles a
> pump in many ways. It appears to produce massive amounts of excess energy by
> creating bubbles in the water with ultrasound, in a process that may be
> similar to the Stringham [1] device. Whatever it is, I suspect it is related
> to light water cold fusion energy generation, and it does appear to produce
> massive amounts of heat energy reliably, on demand, for years on end, so it is
> well worth investigating. The device is described in detail in Hydro Dynamics
> sales literature and in a U.S. patent. [2] Griggs described his work at the
> Fourth International Conference on Cold Fusion (ICCF4). [3]
> 
> I will not describe the Hydrosonic pump here in detail, but I would like to
> clear up one issue that has confused many correspondents. This device is
> called a "pump" for lack of a better word. It does not actually move the water
> very much; "pump" is something of a misnomer, "stirrer" would be more
> accurate. It is a kind of rotor with holes drilled around the circumference.
> When the rotor spins rapidly, these holes apparently create ultrasonic waves
> which in turn somehow cause the effect. Because the device is not actually a
> pump, a small auxiliary pump moves the water from a feedwater tank, through
> the pipes, into the Hydrosonic pump, and out through a steam pipe or separate
> steam and condensate pipes. The pump heats the water by the stirring action,
> but under some circumstances it also creates considerably more heat than a
> motor driving a stirrer would.
> 
> This device is much larger than any conventional cold fusion device that I
> have ever witnessed, and far more practical. During one of demonstrations we
> watched yesterday, for example, over a 20 minute period, 4.80 KWH hours of
> electricity was input, and 19,050 BTUs of heat evolved, which equals 5.58 KWH,
> 117% of input. The actual input to output ratio was even better than this,
> when you take into account the inefficiencies of the electric motor.
> 
> I have been to Hydro Dynamics on three previous occasions, and my friend was
> there once. We have been generally impressed, but there have been some
> inexplicable failures, and they made an embarrassing mistake with some
> untested improperly calibrated thermocouples. On November 22, 1992 however, I
> observed a very impressive demonstration. [4] In this experiment, a 55 gallon
> steel drum filled with 200 lbs of water was used to capture steam and
> condensate. Both the water in the tank and the feedwater going into the device
> start out at room temperature, so the final mass and Delta T temperature
> increase in the water in the steel drum can be used to estimate the lower
> limit of the enthalpy generated by the pump. This is a lower bound estimate
> because a large amount of heat is lost from the pump, pipes and steel drum by
> radiation during the course of the experimental runs, which last from 15
> minutes to an hour.
> 
> The experiments we saw on January 6, 1993 were far more impressive than
> anything either of us previously witnessed.
> 
> 
> Test Procedures And Instrumentation
> 
> Here is a brief description of the test procedures. For a better understanding
> of this test, I recommend that the reader consult the Hydro Dynamics
> literature, diagrams and patents. For a serious, in depth understanding, I
> recommend you watch the video carefully. (Please note: This document is
> intended primarily for e-mail transmission, so I cannot include a diagram.)
> 
> As mentioned above, the Hydrosonic pump is a kind of rotor device. It is
> turned by an industrial three-phase AC electric motor. The motor turns the
> pump device at several thousand RPM, the pump heats up the water because of
> ordinary friction and because additional heat is generated by the mysterious
> process. In these tests, a 40 HP Lincoln brand motor was used to drive a 12
> inch Hydrosonic pump.
> 
> Before the test run begins, a 55 gallon open steel drum weighing 30.5 lb empty
> is placed on a factory weight scale. It is filled with 350 lbs of tap water.
> 
> Water is fed into the Hydrosonic pump from a 16 gallon feedwater tank. A large
> clear plastic bucket has been mounted on the top of the input feedwater tank.
> The bucket serves as a hopper. It is marked in two scales: tenth-gallons up to
> one gallon; and pounds, up to 8 lbs. (One U.S. gallon weighs 8.3 lbs.) Water
> is added in 8 pound increments from a marked plastic milk bottle. Care is
> taken to ensure that there are no air bubbles in the feedwater tank. The
> hopper makes it easy to record the flow and total water consumed. It is topped
> off to the 8 lb mark at the beginning of the test run, and the amount added
> during the run is recorded.
> 
> Water from the feedwater tank is forced through the Hydrosonic pump by a small
> auxiliary pump. The flow rate is regulated and displayed with a flowmeter.
> 
> The pump is turned on, the water is fed through it, and it rapidly grows hot.
> Within 5 or 10 minutes, all of the water fed into the pump is vaporized and
> forced out of an exhaust pipe, which is mounted about 1.5 meters above the
> floor. A large jet of steam escapes out of the pipe, sometimes billowing a
> meters or two across the room. The steam is quite hot and dangerous, if you
> were to hold your hand it for more than few seconds, you would be severely
> scalded. This machine is not anything like a laboratory test bench
> experimental unit; it is an industrial product designed for applications that
> require massive amounts of steam, like dry cleaning. The steam is dry; Griggs
> demonstrates a rough and ready factory floor technique to confirm this, which
> takes a lot of gumption: pass your hand through dry steam quickly, and you do
> not find droplets condensed on the skin. This is somewhat like passing your
> finger through the flame of a burning candle.
> 
> After 10 or 15 minutes, the machine is warmed up and the flow rate and balance
> of water in the machine is stabilized. In these tests, output was regulated by
> manually opening and closing a valve on the exhaust pipe. After the machine is
> stabilized and preparations are complete, the test run begins:
> 
> 1. A second valve at the end of the exhaust pipe is closed, which shuts off
> the steam jet for a moment. A second valve is opened, directing the steam into
> a large rubber hose. The end of the hose is firmly held at the bottom of the a
> steel drum filled with cold water. The steam swirls into the cold tap water
> and condenses, quickly raising the water temperature. The enthalpy from the
> escaping steam is captured by condensing the steam. This is a remarkably
> effective technique: virtually all of the steam condenses, capturing the
> thermal energy, and the steam jet pushes the water around with considerably
> force, which must capture most of the kinetic energy from the steam jet.
> 
> 2. At the same moment the steam jet is redirected from air to the steel drum
> full of water, a power meter is reset, so that the total electric energy
> expended in by the electric motor driving the pump is recorded from that
> moment on. The power meter prints an instantaneous reading of kilowatts every
> minute; it prints a subtotal expended kilowatt hours of power any time during
> the test on demand; and at the end, it prints the total kilowatt hours used.
> 
> 3. The water temperature in the steel drum and the instantaneous power levels
> are recorded manually every two minutes in a lab notebook. Temperature
> readings are taken at different depths and the water is stirred vigorously
> with a detached mop handle to ensure that the temperature readings are
> uniform. Because the steam is swirling into the bottom of the water, the
> bottom is 
> 
> 4. From time to time, 8 lbs of additional tap water is added to the hopper and
> recorded in the lab notebook.
> 
> 5. After a set period, 30 minutes or 1 hour, the electric power driving the
> pump is cut off. A closing temperature reading is taken. At this point, Griggs
> is in the habit of venting the remaining steam into the barrel, which raises
> the temperature 4 or 5 degrees and adds about 3 pounds of water. I think this
> extra boost of energy should not be include in the totals, because I think it
> should be classified as "latent" or "stored" energy that was captured in the
> pump and pipes before the test began. Therefore, in this report, I have used
> the closing temperature readings taken just before venting the steam, and I
> use a low estimate of the mass of water.
> 
> 6. The steel drum, which is sitting on the scale, is weighed. The total amount
> of water consumed, as measured in the hopper, is compared to the increase in
> the water in the steel drum. The numbers match closely, to within 2 or 3 lbs,
> proving that most of the steam is condensed and captured. If the steam is not
> vented in the last step, the final mass in the drum will probably be a few
> pounds less than the amount consumed, because some water will be lost to
> evaporation in the air from the surface of the water in the drum. If the steam
> is vented, the final mass in the drum might exceed the amount fed into the
> hopper by a few pounds. Where there was a measurable discrepancy, I took the
> lower figure. The BTU content of a 3 lb mass of water is negligible, in any
> case. For example, in Test 2, a 3 lb change in the mass of water would change
> the output energy computation by 0.8%.
> 
> 7. Total output energy is computed in BTUs by multiplying the mass of water
> with the temperature increase in degrees Fahrenheit. Total input energy, as
> recorded by the power meter, is compared to total output energy.
> 
> Power was monitored with a G.E. Dranetz model 808 Electric Power/Demand
> Analyzer, which was calibrated by G.E. on October 5, 1993. In previous tests,
> the Dranetz compared within a percent to a second power meter, a BMI 3030,
> which was installed in parallel. According to the Dranetz specifications, the
> maximum error at full load is 1.5%. Full load for this meter is 800 KW; power
> levels during these tests varied from 14 to 23 KW. At these lower levels,
> errors will be less than 0.5%. [5]
> 
> Temperature was measured with 2 or 3 electronic thermometers which agreed to
> within 1 deg F, and one Taylor cooking thermometer, marked in 5 deg 
> increments, which agreed with the electronic thermometers. A pyrometer is also
> used to measure water temperature and the surface temperature of the pump,
> electric motor, and pipes. The pyrometer agreed closely with the thermometers.
> The Micronta electronic thermometer began to malfunction towards the end,
> jumping from 60 deg  to 90 deg  down to 40 deg , probably because of a weak
> battery. This event proves yet again the wisdom of these experimental
> techniques and rules: use multiple instruments; use simple rough-and-ready
> backups to do "reality tests"; keep an eye on things at all times, and use
> common sense. Dennis Cravens [6] and I are both strong advocates and
> proselytizers of these principles, and Griggs personifies them.
> 
> The weight scale was checked on November 16, 1993, by the Georgia Tech team.
> They brought iron weights which they had checked on an accurate scale at Tech,
> and they determined that the Hydro Dynamics scale is correct through the full
> range of its rated capacity, up to 1,000 lbs. On January 7, Mallove and I both
> checked the calibration of the scale by standing on it.
> 
> Here are some important differences between this test and the mixed steam and
> water test I described in the November 22 report:
> 
> This was a test of steam only, not water, or mixed water and steam.
> 
> The plastic bucket hopper was added to the feedwater tank, and a new flowmeter
> was installed, allowing finer control with low flow rates. These improvements
> make it much easier to observe and record flow rates and total water consumed.
> 
> The flow rate and total amount of water consumed in these tests is much
> smaller than with the hot water and mixed hot water and steam tests. This
> makes the experiment much easier. Because the flow is so much smaller, the
> steel drum can be filled with much more water to start with; 350 lbs versus
> 200 lbs in the previous experiments. 350 lbs is enough to condense virtually
> all of the steam, as long as the output hose is held down at the bottom of the
> drum. Another great advantage of this is that the water temperature does not
> rise much in a given period of time, so that heat losses are smaller, the
> temperature is easier to measure, and the steel drum is safer to be around,
> with less danger of scalding.
> 
> 
> January 6 Tests
> 
> We witnessed three experimental runs on January 6, 1994, one in the morning
> and two that afternoon.
> 
> Test 1. A 1 hour blank run generating little or no excess heat.
> 
> Test 2. A 19 minute excess heat run.
> 
> Test 3. A 30 minute excess heat run with flow rate, pressure and other
> parameters adjusted as closely to Test 2 as possible, which generated nearly
> the same amount of excess heat per minute.
> 
> These tests showed that Griggs has considerable control over the reaction. He
> can start it and stop it on demand, even though he says he does not understand
> the deep underlying cause of the reaction.
> 
> 
> Some Considerations Regarding Input Power Computation
> 
> There are two important factors which should be kept in mind when evaluating
> the input power in these experiments:
> 
> 1. An electric motor works most efficiently at the peak ratings for which it
> was designed. When an electric motor runs at a much lower load than it was
> designed for, the difference between Apparent Power (volts times amps) and
> "True Power" becomes large. The ratio of True Power divided by Apparent power
> is known as the Power Factor (PF). This is described in many introductory
> texts on A.C. power. [7] The PF is computed automatically by the Dranetz power
> meter, and an average PF for the run is displayed.
> 
> In these tests, a 40 HP motor was used to drive a relatively small, 12 inch
> rotor, so the PF was lower than other tests I have observed, varying from 73%
> up to 84%. A 30 HP motor would be more appropriate for this pump, it would
> have yielded a higher PF.
> 
> 2. All electric motors suffer some degree of mechanical power loss. Conversion
> from electricity to rotary motion cannot be 100% efficient. The motor used in
> this test is rated at 82.5% nominal efficiency by the manufacturer. It is
> likely that the actually efficiency is somewhat less than this. Energy lost in
> the conversion appears in the form of waste heat. Motors of this size get very
> hot, and they are equipped with blowers too keep them from overheating.
> 
> Tests 2 and 3 showed excess heat even when compared to the unadjusted Apparent
> Power. In Test 2, The Coefficient of Production (C.O.P.) was 117% measured
> against the Apparent Power. However, if we take into account the relatively
> low FP (caused by the inefficiency of this large motor driving the small
> pump), and the energy lost in conversion to mechanical, rotary motion, the
> C.O.P. was closer to 170%, that is, the input to output ratio was roughly
> 1:1.7. A great deal of other energy was not accounted for, in readily apparent
> losses like radiation from the pump, which is the size of a small automobile
> engine block, and which was over 300 deg F during the run. The 117% C.O.P. is
> the most conservative, lower bound estimate that would be reasonable. This
> fact was demonstrated by Test 1, the null run. In this test, the lower bound
> C.O.P., comparing to Apparent Power, was 59%. Adjusted for FP and mechanical
> losses, the C.O.P. was 98%, which is a close balance of input and output.
> 
> 
> The Performance Window
> 
> Griggs explained that his machines have a window of performance, defined by a
> set of flow rates, pressure, speed of rotation, and so on. If you operate one
> of the machines below or above the window of that particular machine, it will
> produce little or no excess heat. He demonstrated this fact.
> 
> The pump used in these experiments was a new, experimental design, optimized
> to create steam, rather than hot water. He had not finished working out the
> range of operating parameters for it. This particular machine, unfortunately,
> suffers from a rather narrow window of performance. It works best with a flow
> rate between 0.15 and 0.25 gallons per minute, and for reasons he has not yet
> determined, it requires a relatively high input pressure. It is much more
> difficult to adjust than some of his previous models, but it has a high C.O.P.
> and it produces pure steam without a mixture of unboiled water. He expects to
> fix the narrow window requiring the finicky adjustments with a new pump which
> will be ready in a few weeks.
> 
> During the demonstrations, he had difficulty getting the machine to balance
> input water and output steam rates properly, and he had difficulty keeping the
> flow high enough. He demonstrated what happens when the flow is too low; the
> water in the narrow compartment around the spinning rotor suddenly drains off
> in what he calls "deloading," which is an explosive burst of steam after which
> the motor spins freely, drawing about 4 KW, the level you see when the pump is
> run without water. It is surprisingly difficult to fill up this particular
> experimental unit after this happens. You have to shut the output valve, fill
> it up, and gradually open the valve again. This pump was equipped with a thick
> glass porthole at the end of the outer bearing (the side away from the motor),
> allowing a view of the water sloshing around inside, which allows you to gage
> the water level in the pump. Getting the input and output flow to balance is a
> little bit like trying to adjust a hose so that it will fill a bucket with a
> hole in bottom up to a certain level, and no higher. However, once you get
> everything in balance, the machines tend to stay in balance for extended
> periods of time. An actual operating pump at a customer site is equipped with
> preset flow control and pressure control valves. Most operating pumps are
> bigger and they have wider "windows;" for example, an ideal flow might be
> between 5 and 7 gallons per minute, which is much easier to ensure than the
> 0.15 and 0.25 of this experimental unit.
> 
> When the pump is too full, or some other "performance window" operating
> parameter is not right, the pump generates exactly as much heat as you would
> expect any other stirring device to generate, according to the classic
> experiments of J.P. Joule. When the correct flow and pressures are achieved,
> the effect turns on, and this fact is easy to observe. The flow rate of water
> going in remains constant, and the cloud of steam coming out remains the same,
> but the electric power draw drops dramatically, by 20% to 50%, say from 23 to
> 14 KW. The sound the machine makes also changes noticeably. Sometime the drop
> in power draw will fluctuate around, as the effect fades in and out, but it
> will soon stabilize and the machine will go on producing the same amount of
> steam as it did before, with far less electricity than it used previously, for
> hours or days.
> 
> When the machine is not producing any excess heat, the power draw kilowatt
> numbers on the Dranetz are proportional to the flow, increasing as the input
> flow valve is opened, decreasing as it is shut, just as you would expect. When
> the excess heat effect turns on, input power no longer changes as much in
> response to flow adjustments.
> 
> 
> Results
> 
> TEST 1    January 6, 1994 11:30 a.m.
> 
> When we arrived, Griggs explained to me that he was having trouble boosting
> the flow rate and maintaining pressure on the unit, so he was not getting a
> measurable effect. However, he had managed to balance input and output, and to
> bring the machine into a steady state, so we decided to let it run for an hour
> producing little or no excess heat, as a control or "blank" test run of the
> calorimetry. The flow rate was below the window, at 0.05 gallons per minute.
> 
> Results were as follows:
> 
> Starting mass and temperature of water in steel drum: 350 lbs, 55 deg F.
> Water in input hopper also 55 deg F.
> 
> Ending mass and temperature in steel drum: 376 lbs, 127 deg F
> 
> Water temperature Delta T: 72 deg F
> 
> Energy added to water: 72 deg F x 376 lbs = 27,072 BTUs, which equals 7.93 KWH
> 
> It is important to remember that all of the water that ended up in the steel
> drum was tap water starting at 55 deg F. Ambient temperature was slightly
> higher, at 63 deg F, but this large mass of water could would not absorbed any
> significant amount of heat from ambient in spite of the 8 deg F difference,
> because it was heated above ambient by the pump 6 minutes into the test.
> 
> Dranetz input power: 13.46 KWH
> Dranetz PF: 73%
> 
> C.O.P. computations (C.O.P. is output energy divided by input expressed as a
> percentage) --
> 
>                                    Input KWH      C.O.P.
> Apparent                           13.46               59%
> Adjusted for PF                         9.83           81%
> Adjusted for PF and Motor efficiency    8.12           98%
> 
> Conclusion: This is close to a balance of input and output. Because there must
> have been significant radiant losses, with no excess heat I expect the C.O.P.
> would be lower than 98%, so these results might indicate a small effect.
> 
> 
> TEST 2    January 6, 1994 3:00 p.m.
> 
> In the afternoon, after the machine turned on and warmed up for 5 or 10
> minutes, Griggs and the others tinkered with the input and output flow valves
> and some other parameters, and after about 20 minutes in all, they announce
> that the flow was steady at 0.20 gallons per minute, and the power draw
> kilowatts had fallen, so the effect was turned on. The valve venting the steam
> outside was shut, the valve leading into the steel drum was opened, and we
> collected the steam for 19 minutes, 40 seconds. The run was terminated when a
> circuit breaker in another part of the building shut down the controls. The
> main power feed did not fail, but it is held on by solenoid actuators, which
> opened up. The recording Dranetz meter has a battery back up, so no data was
> lost. All other data collection is by stopwatch and pen on paper. (Events like
> this remind us that sometimes, the old, simple ways of doing science are
> best.)
> 
> Results were as follows:
> 
> Starting mass and temperature of water in steel drum: 350 lbs, 53 deg F.
> Ending mass and temperature in steel drum: 381 lbs, 103 deg F
> 
> Water temperature Delta T: 50 deg F
> 
> Energy added to water: 50 deg F x 381 lbs = 19,050 BTUs, which equals 5.58 KWH
> 
> Dranetz input power: 4.80 KWH
> Dranetz PF: 84%
> 
> C.O.P. computations --
> 
>                                    Input KWH      C.O.P.
> Apparent                           4.80           117%
> Adjusted for PF                         4.03           138%
> Adjusted for PF and Motor efficiency    3.33           168%
> 
> Conclusion: excess heat was detected at levels far beyond any reasonable error
> limits for the instrumentation used. If the equipment had been performing the
> same as it did in Test 1, the final water temperature would have been closer
> to 80 deg F than 103 deg F. This is computed as follows: 4.80 KWH Apparent is
> delivered to motor, adjusted for PF and efficiency, would have created 3.33
> KWH of heat, which equals 11,372 BTUs, which would have raised the 381 lb mass
> of water by 30 deg F, but it went up 50 deg F, instead. I am certain that even
> my kitchen cooking thermometer can detect the difference between 80 deg F and
> 103 deg F.
> 
> This test ran for one-third the time of Test 1. The flow rate was 0.20 gallons
> per minute, compared to 0.05 g.p.m. in Test 1. The improved PF was because the
> motor was carrying a greater load with the greater flow rate.
> 
> To look at it another way: the rate of energy generation was 10.00 KW input to
> the pump, 16.74 KW out; the excess was 6.74 KW, or 0.4 MJ per minute.
> 
> TEST 3    4:04 p.m.
> 
> Test 3 ran normally for 30 minutes.
> 
> Results were as follows:
> 
> Starting mass and temperature of water in steel drum: 350 lbs, 53 deg F.
> Ending mass and temperature in steel drum: 392 lbs, 122 deg F
> 
> Water temperature Delta T: 69 deg F
> 
> Energy added to water: 69 deg F x 392 lbs = 27048 BTUs, which equals 7.92 KWH
> 
> Dranetz input power: 7.26 KWH
> Dranetz PF: 84%
> 
> C.O.P. computations --
> 
>                                    Input KWH      C.O.P.
> Apparent                           7.26           109%
> Adjusted for PF                         6.10           130%
> Adjusted for PF and Motor efficiency    5.03           157%
> 
> 
> Conclusion: nearly as much heat as Test 2. Again, the results are far above
> any possible experimental error.
> 
> 
> Footnotes
>        
> 1. R. Stringham, "Cavitation Induced Micro-Fusion," ICCF4 paper C 3.9
> 
> 2. J. Griggs, U.S. Patent Number 5,188,090, Feb 23, 1993, Apparatus for
> heating fluids
> 
> 3. J. Griggs, "A Brief Introduction to the Hydrosonic Pump and the Associated
> 'Excess Energy' Phenomenon," ICCF4 unnumbered paper. This will appear in the
> full ICCF4 Proceedings, and it is available in from Hydrodynamics
> 
> 4. J. Rothwell, "Brief Report on November 22 Demonstration of Griggs Device,"
> CFRA
> 
> 5. General Electric Corp, Dranetz Series 808 operator manual equipment
> specifications
> 
> 6. D. Cravens, "Factors Affecting the Success Rate of Heat Generation in CF
> Cells," ICCF4 paper C 3.12
> 
> 7. V. Valkenburgh, "Basic Electricity, Revised Edition," Hayden Books
> 
> 

 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
Griggs is now installing new test equipment including a dynamometer. He
is working with the retired head of Mechanical Engineering at Georgia
Tech (second only to M.I.T. in the U.S.). They hope to finish in month
or two. I hope these tests will be considered definative proof.

___________________________________________________________________________


The following article appears in the June 1994 monthly technical
edition of Superconductivity News (Vol. 6, No. 42).

William Jay Fogal, president of Quick Chek Industries (Martinez, GA)
has invented and patented an electronic device for which he has made
very broad claims.  Others learning about the device have further
extrapolated the claims to the point that if real, the device means
the end of power utilities, the rendering useless of the entire
electrical power grid, the demise of manufacturers of electrical
generators and electrical cable, and a dramatic reduction in the
activities of hundreds of thousands of ancillary service providers.
Most industries will have to change or die.  The infrastructure
alterations will be the most profound the world has ever witnessed.
While the odds are stacked against it being real, the staff of
Superconductivity News (SN) believes it is important to report the
events as they occur.

Fogal is not claiming he has invented a room temperature
superconductor.  What he has invented is either completely fatuous or
it is astounding in that it strikes at the very core theoretical
underpinnings of electromechanics.  Fogal told SN that his device grew
out of his efforts to fix a broken car radio in the mid 1970s.  As he
got past the wiring and the circuits and into the semiconductors
actually running the radio, he made changes that greatly improved the
audio quality.  He then let his ideas lay idle for more than a decade
before finally returning to the research in the late 1980s.

Fogal says his charged barrier semiconductor device allows electrons
to flow without resistance (i.e., as in superconductors) at room
temperature.  He claims the device demonstrates a very high AC voltage
and AC current gain.  His charged barrier device is on a bipolar
design that can be incorporated in (MOS) metal oxide semiconductor
designs, as well as multiple gate devices.  It operates on a hall
effect electromagnetic field internal device.  The hall effect
magnetic field forces electron flow and angular spin of the electrons
in the same direction to the top of the conduction bands in the
crystal lattice on semiconductor devices, unlike (SOI) silicon on
insulator devices that force electron flow to the surface of the
semiconductor lattice.  "Unlike superconductors which generate an
external field, my semiconductor creates a self-regulating magnetic
field internal to the device," Fogal said.

-- Fogal's Description of His Device --

Charged barrier semiconductor devices incorporate a base plate member
of a semiconductor crystal.  Also incorporated with the base plate
member is a dialectic material and a second base plate member.  The
combination of the two base plate members constitutes an electrolytic
capacitor.  The first base plate member will create a transverse
electric field that is known as a hall effect in the base plate member
of the semiconductor crystal.  The ratio of the transverse electric
field strength to the product of the current and the magnetic field
strength is called the hall coefficient, and its magnitude is
inversely proportional to the carrier concentration on the base plate
member.  The product of the hall coefficient and the conductivity is
proportional to the mobility of the carriers when one type of carrier
is dominant.  Since the base plate member is tied directly to the
emitter junction of the semiconductor, the hall coefficient comes into
play with the creation of a one pole electromagnet in the base plate
member.

The hall effect of the electrolytic capacitor, in relation to the
position on the crystal lattice, will force electron angular spin in
the same direction and electron flow to the top of the conduction
bands in the lattice.  The magnetic flux and the density of the
carriers on the electrolytic capacitor plate are in direct proportion
to the magnetic flux and carrier concentration on the emitter junction
on the semiconductor crystal.

Since the angular spin and the flow of the electrons are in the same
direction, due to the influence of the electromagnetic field, the
electron lattice interaction factor does not come into play.  The
electron wave density is greater and the mobility of the electron flow
is faster.  The device does not exhibit frequency loss in the wave.

The base or gate of the semiconductor is more sensitive to input
signal.  These devices will typically turn on with an input to the
junction in the area of 0.2 MV to 0.4 MV with an output at the
collector junction of 450 MV at 133.5 UA of current.

-- Electron Wave Function In Charged Barrier Technology --

Think of the conduction bands in a crystal lattice as a highway.
Electrons in the free state will move along this highway.  The only
difference is the electron angular spin can be in different
directions.  With the electrons spinning in different directions, the
electrons would travel on different lanes of the highway and
collisions can occur.  The scattering and the collision of the
electrons can cause friction and resistance to the flow.  The
resistance to the flow and the friction can cause semiconductors to
run hot.

In semiconductor devices, this is called lattice scattering or
electron lattice interaction.  If we could make the electrons move in
one direction, and also spin in the same direction, then we could have
more traffic electrons (on the highway) without having the resistance
or the collisions.  We could put a barrier between the lanes on the
highway.  But, the electrons could still spin in different directions.
But, what if we could charge this barrier?!  Turn this barrier into an
electromagnetic field!  An electromagnetic field in one direction.  A
one pole electromagnet!  A hall effect magnetic field.  This one pole
electromagnetic field would make almost all of the electrons spin in
the same direction.  Because the electrons are a negative charge and
the electromagnetic field has a negative charge, the electrons travel
in unison and then we could have more electrons on the highway, and
the electron travel could be faster.

The orientation of the spin of the electrons in the crystal lattice,
due to the electromagnetic field, has a direct impact on the formation
of the wave.  If the orientation of the spin of the electrons are in
unison, there will be no loss in the wave nature, and the density of
the wave will be greater, and the frequency of the wave will be
complete.  If the spin of the electrons in the lattice are in
different directions, the wave nature will be affected and there will
be a loss in the density of the wave.  And, there will be a gap in the
frequency of the wave.

-- Patent Issued --

Fogal filed an application for a US patent covering the design on
March 1, 1991 and awarded No. 5,196,809, titled "High gain, low
distortion, faster switching transistor," on March 23, 1993.  The
patent includes figures, diagrams, and several data plots, e.g. output
signal vs. input signal (vac) for the Fogal device vs. a standard
transistor.  The patent was Fogal's first, but he has since
received a second patent, No. 5,311,139, covering a fuse testing
device that has nothing to do with the semiconductor.  Another US
patent application covering improvements to the semiconductor was
filed in January of this year.  The patent abstract and claim 1
follow.

-- Patent Abstract --

A transistor in which the emitter terminal is coupled to ground
through a filter capacitor.  The filter capacitor has a capacitance of
from about 0.2 uf to about 22 uf and can be connected either by itself
or in parallel with a resistor, depending upon the circuit in which it
is used.  The incorporation of a filter greatly of such a capacitance
level provides greatly improved gain and less distortion of the input
signal, to permit a high output to be achieved in fewer amplifier
stages and with less current draw and heating than in conventional
transistor amplifier stage circuits.  Additionally, the transistor can
be provided in a unitary structure by incorporating the filter
capacitor directly on the transistor chip, and can also be provided by
incorporating the transistor and a resistor within the casing of a
filter capacitor.

Claim 1

a)	a substrate;
b) 	one of a NPN and a PNP transistor integrally formed on the
	substrate, the transistor having a base, a collector, and an
	emitter;
c)     	a parallel resistor and filter capacitor network coupled with
	the emitter and mounted on the transistor, to form an integral
	part of the integrated circuit, the filter capacitor including
	an outer casing; and
d)	base, collector, and emitter terminals on the substrate and
	coupled with the base, the collector, and the emitter,
	respectively, to permit the integrated circuit to be connected
	with an electronic circuit, wherein the integrated circuit is
	contained within the filter capacitor outer casing.

-- Prototypes Fabricated --

Fogal told SN that he has made six prototypes of his device.
Prototype radios and computer modems have been fabricated employing
the device for demonstration purposes.  Fogal emphasizes the noise
reduction aspects of his semiconductor.

Through the help of a colleague, Allan Ames of Advanced Scientific
Applications (Houston, TX), one of Fogal's semiconductors will be
tested by scientists at the Texas Center for Superconductivity at the
University of Houston.  This is being arranged through Wei-Kan Chu.
SN discussed the situation with Chu and he confirmed that testing will
be done after the documents he had received were reviewed.  SN's
editor-in-chief reviewed what the device might mean with Chu.  Clearly
Chu had not had the opportunity to give the matter much thought.

Thomas E. Bearden (Huntsville, AL) believes Fogal's semiconductor
represents a true overunity electrical device.  "Electromagnetics is
over 100 years old; many of its assumptions are flat wrong," Bearden
told us.  He relates the way the Fogal semiconductor works to the way
heat pumps function, but says it takes it one step beyond.  A Fogal
semiconductor simply stops electrons from flowing and passes the pure
potential energy from the now-free electrons with the circuit blocking
the drift current.  Unlike superconductors, pairs of electrons are not
needed to pass the current along without resistance.

Bearden added that, based on endurance load tests on the Fogal
semiconductor, they are led to the firm conclusion that the chip
actually stops the longitudinal flow of electrons, strips them of
their energy, and passes the pure energy along without resistance.  In
this regard he says it behaves like a heat pump but goes one step
beyond to pull energy from the vacuum.

-- SN Analysis and Comment --

It is important to note that the device does not violate the rules of
thermodynamics involving the conservation of energy.  It does not make
energy from nothing.  One end of a Fogal circuit would provide
electricity for work such as running a light bulb or a computer, and
the other end will draw energy from the environment and get quite cold
in the process.

The best aspect of this story is that either a Fogal semiconductor
works or it doesn't.  There is nothing sophisticated in its
construction and there are no mysterious materials fabrication steps
involved.  There should not be any gray or cloudy areas.  Testing
should be straightforward.

Q:	What are the odds of its being real?
A: 	If it is real, you will hear more about it soon enough.  If it
	isn't, think how much fun you have had reading this article.

Q:	Are there any intrinsic limitations if the device is real?
A:	None we can foresee.

==========================================================================
==========================================================================

Okay folks, this is the latest news about free energy machine development.

If you know of somebody else having something that runs on by converting 
zero point energy, please let me know.

Regards, Dipl. Ing. Stefan Hartmann.
c/o Workshop for Decentral Energy Research, Berlin, Germany.
email to:
harti@contrib.de
 ## CrossPoint v3.02 ##
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenharti cudfnStefan cudlnHartmann cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszXL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Wed Aug 17 04:37:39 EDT 1994
------------------------------
1994.08.18 / J Driscoll /  proton conductors
     
Originally-From: 74063.3546@compuserve.com (Jeffrey J. Driscoll)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: proton conductors
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 1994 03:58:26 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

1?a group in Japan at Hokkaido University that claims to get 
10+ watts out while putting in less than 5 milliwatts.  The whole system
is at 300 degrees C so it takes 70 or so watts to get the system up 
to 300 degrees C and then when they run a small current through the proton
conductor, the proton conductor puts out 10 plus watts.   Their proton conductor
is the size of a quarter and there is a dueterium gas atomosphere surrounding 
the proton conductor which sits on top of a heater.   The proton conductor is 
so named because it conducts protons (hydrogen or dueterium stripped of the
 electron) when an electric potential is applied accross it.  

I might need someone with experience to do this and I can't pay them.  

The group in Japan wrote a paper on their experiment and they described
how they made the proton conductor.
from their paper:
1) Samples were made from mixing a powder of SrCO3, CeO2, Y2O3 and
Nb2O5  (Strontium Carbonate, Cerium Oxide, Yittrium Oxide, Niobium Oxide)

2) mixed powder was calcinated at 1440 deg C in air for 24 hours

3) the powder was then pulverized and filtered to 400 mesh

4) sample was formed as 1mm thick and 2 cm diameter of coin
   shape under 10 ton/cm2  press machine

5) sintered at 1460 deg C in air for 24 hours

Each side the disc (not the edges) is painted with "platinum black" which
act as the electrodes and the ceramic disc in the middle acts as the
electrolyte - the hydrogen migrates from one side of the disc to the
other when the voltage is put across the two faces of the disc.
(they now say that they put palladium on the face of the disc instead of 
platinum) .
I can get enough of the above powders to make 7 or so discs, after that
I would have to shell out 350$ to buy some more powder (enough to make
more than 100 discs).

I am looking for some help and ideas on making these discs and other
discs with some added twists.

I talked to Mills (of the shrinking Hydrogen theory) and he says that the 
discs made from the above powders work because of the Strontium and
Niobium work together to shrink the hydrogen and release energy.   
He says that first there has to be a single hydrogen atom by itself (not attached
to another H atom -in other words not diatomic Hydrogen) and then
the shrinking begins.   He says that the Platinum face causes the
H2 to becom just H and that reacts with the strontium and niobium. 
The group in Japan does not get the heating
effect every time and when they do, it is only with dueterium. 
(Mills says that H2O electrolysis results in single hydrogen atoms and these
single hydrogen atoms react with the Potassium and release heat in his system)

This is what I want to do:
Mills suggested that I use just the Strontium and Niobium powders and I came
up with the idea of adding nickle powder or maybe palladium powder and adding
it to the mix ( another idea is to not use the metallic powder in the disc and just 
coat the top of the disc with Pd or Ni).   The powders will be pressed into a disc.
Another idea is to use some sort of potassium powder.

The disc will be heated up to 300 - 400 deg C in a vacuum and H2 and D2 gasses will
be introduced and the system will be monitered for excess heat.  At these 
temperatures  I am hoping that the Hydrogen and dueterium  will migrate into the 
disc.  I assume it won't conduct protons as well as a true proton conductor.  
  The proton conductors that I have used up to now did not give off excess heat (I used
the same type of proton conductors that the Japanese group did) so  now it is
time to try some new ideas.

    Jeff Driscoll

   617 878 1806
( I live near Boston, Mass)ctorsyy 

cudkeys:
cuddy18 cuden3546 cudfnJeffrey cudlnDriscoll cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.17 /  prasad /  Re: c1prasad@watson.ibm.com (prasad)
     
Originally-From: c1prasad@watson.ibm.com (prasad)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: c1prasad@watson.ibm.com (prasad)
Date: 17 Aug 1994 13:58:16 GMT
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

 parky@ix.netcom.com (Chris Parkinson) writes:

I'm glad to here that you have got patents. You obviuosly enjoy a sense
of well being knowing you've got you're intellectual property protected.
Hey heres a wild thought, maybe the patent office is doing the right
thing. Just imagine if someone did get the Gods gift to CF patent and they
SOLD it to Exxon!!! Holy Cow Batman, the Riddler's got us again.

CP

-- 

Don't worry, amigo, I'm not going to sell it ;)


#pragma prejudices=own brainwaves=own others=absolved
// email: 71155.3116@compuserve.com, poll= 1/month.
// bad habits: unwashed robes, xrn.
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenc1prasad cudlnprasad cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.17 / John D /  Nuclear Safety Research Info and Databases
     
Originally-From: jdt@rtel.demon.co.uk ("John D. Taylor")
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.research,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Nuclear Safety Research Info and Databases
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 1994 13:58:32 +0000
Organization: Real Time Engineering Ltd


I'm doing some work , trying to identify sources of Safety related research
, specifically within the Nuclear generating industry. I'm not after details-
just who has done what, or what projects have been completed and whether reports
have been published.

Sorts of thing that I am interested in is 

Reliability Reports
Software / Hardware Safety Critical reports etc.

etc.
   NOT how much plutonium was released to the environment.

As I said, I don't really care about the content - a resume would do - keywords 
etc. Vendors, Sponsors etc.

The United Kingdom would do for starters , but if anyone knows whether the
American Nuclear Society or similar maintains this sort of info I would be
interested to know.

Or Special Interest Groups relating to Safety Critical Systems or Nuclear
Industry Groups.

All replys welcome - even if it's just a contact address. - the nore pointers
the better

        Cheers,
                  JDT
-- 
John D. Taylor
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenjdt cudfnJohn cudlnD cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.17 / Robert Heeter /  Re: methods of fusion
     
Originally-From: rfheeter@pppl.gov (Robert F. Heeter)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: methods of fusion
Date: 17 Aug 1994 11:57:59 -0400
Organization: /etc/organization

In article <WAF2PCB959712273@brbbs.brbbs.com>,
MARSHALL DUDLEY <mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com> wrote:
>Robert F. Heeter writes:
>
>-> 4B. Alternative Methods of Confinement. ....
>
>Nicely done.  However you did leave out the one which at this time is the only
>confinement method which has been shown to work well.  That is gravitational
>confinement.  That of course it the method our sun uses.

Since I discussed gravitational confinement extensively in Section 1,
and since the prospects for human-generated fusion via gravitational
confinement are remote at best, I didn't think it needed to be in
this section.
>
>I agree it is not a technique that can be used at this time by man for a power
>source (not counting solar energy), but if we ever get to the point of
>understanding gravity, we may find a way to control it, thus the possibility,
>although remote, the technique may be applicable to earth based systems at some
>point.

But it's not an area of conventional controlled fusion research
right now, which was the criterion I was using for deciding what to put
in.

But it sounds like it would be good to put a note in section 4 
explaining that there's more info on grav. confinement in section 1.

Thanks for bringing this up.

**********
Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@pppl.gov
Graduate Student, Princeton Plasma Physics Lab
Above statements are mine and not PPPPPPPPLs.



cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.17 / Craig Harmon /  Re: Nuclear Safety Research Info and Databases
     
Originally-From: harmon@csulb.edu (Craig Harmon)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.research,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Nuclear Safety Research Info and Databases
Date: 17 Aug 1994 16:56:36 GMT
Organization: Cal State Long Beach

John D. Taylor (jdt@rtel.demon.co.uk) wrote:

: Sorts of thing that I am interested in is 

: Reliability Reports
: Software / Hardware Safety Critical reports etc.

Most of the good stuff is published by government agencies.  You will 
probably need to go to a major University and ask the reference librarian 
how to look up titles of the following publications:

IAEA International Atomic Energy Agency.
NCRP National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements.
ICRP International Commission on Radiological Protection.

There were a few articles dealing with these issues in a NCRP conference 
titled, _Proceedings of the National Council on Radiation Protection and 
Measurements._ Washington, DC. 1980.

Craig
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenharmon cudfnCraig cudlnHarmon cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.17 /  jonesse@vanlab /  Re: muon musings
     
Originally-From: jonesse@vanlab.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: muon musings
Date: 17 Aug 94 11:32:35 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

Happy to see that Richard Schroeppel is still with us and providing
thought-provoking ideas.  

In article <199408162047.AA00375@leibniz.cs.arizona.edu>, 
rcs@cs.arizona.edu (Richard Schroeppel) writes:
> Has anyone looked at making thermal "pseudo-neutrons" and fusing them
> with heavier nuclei?  Imagine making a triton+mu muonic atom, and
> bumping it into a U238 nucleus, hoping for Np241?  If you have a good
> enough muon source, you might even make a tri-muonic atom of Li and
> try adding it to various things.  This offers the chance to make
> unusual nuclei with low-energy collisions.

In order for the muon-induced fusion of triton and heavy nucleus such as U238
to occur, first a molecule of (t+nucleus) bound by a muon must form.  Coulomb
repulsion in such cases will be very large along with large nuclear separation,
so the fusion rate will be very small.  On the other hand, the competing
process of muon transfer to the heavy nucleus with subsequent (rapid) capture
of the muon in the nucleus will be fast.  Consequently, the normal fate of the
muon will be to become irretrievably bound to the heavier isotope as the muonic
molecule dissociates (in picoseconds).

Should the muon be captured by the heavy nucleus, which is likely, *fission*
will occur -- this is muon-induced fission.
> 
> This isn't likely to be a useful energy source, since we get at most one
> fusion per muon (compared to Steve Jones' ~150), and we'd need a huge
> profit on that one transaction.  But it might be a good way to make
> exotic nuclei.
> 
Well, it's an expensive but interesting way to trigger fission of heavy nuclei.

Yes, we did achieve the record of 150 fusions per muon (average) in a mixture
of deuterium and tritium at liquid-hydrogen temperatures -- but that was with
Z=1 nuclei.  Anything of higher Z won't work (see S.E. Jones, Nature, May 8,
1986, p. 131 for further discussion of this point).

> Odd thought on the alpha-muon sticking problem:  Can you pick out the
> stuck combinations (based on mass, charge, velocity, energy, angular
> momentum, magnetic moment?) and reionize the muon loose?  There must
> be a magic photon energy that would do the trick - maybe illuminate
> the reaction chamber with a nice soft xray glow?
> 
> Rich Schroeppel   rcs@cs.arizona.edu
> 

Several people have looked at this, with the conclusion that it won't work to
give a net energy device, unfortunately.  If you calculate the binding energy
of a muon to an alpha particle, you will find about 11 keV in the ground state, 
and several keV in low-lying excited states.  Now that means that in order
to 'reionize the muon loose' one must bathe the reaction chamber with x-rays of
several keV, ionizing beaucoup electrons, too.  The energy cost of liberating
stuck muons by this means (or any other that people have thought of, including
Russell Kulsrud and Tajima) is too great.

"Free the muons" is a reasonable goal, but no one has thought of a
cost-effective way to do it.  If you can think of a way.....

--Steven Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenjonesse cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.17 / Perry Phillips /  APS/DPP 94 meeting on WWW
     
Originally-From: phillips@hagar.ph.utexas.edu (Perry Phillips)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: APS/DPP 94 meeting on WWW
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 94 18:07:34 GMT
Organization: Fusion Research Center

The APS/DPP 1994 annual meeting is now available on the World Wide Web
(WWW). It can be accessed through Mosaic or other WWW clients. The URL is :

        http://w3fusion.ph.utexas.edu


___________________________________________
|Perry Phillips      Ph. 512 471-4393     |
|Fusion Research Center  FAX 512 471-8865 |
|Net Mail:   phillips@hagar.ph.utexas.edu |
*******************************************
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenphillips cudfnPerry cudlnPhillips cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.17 / Rodney Price /  Re: Bohm's Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics Using Maple Mathematics
     
Originally-From: rprice@reunion.umd.edu (Rodney Price)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Bohm's Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics Using Maple Mathematics
Date: 17 Aug 1994 00:40:42 GMT
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park

In article <940809113853_70047.3047_EHB142-2@CompuServe.COM>  
70047.3047@compuserve.com (Bill Page) writes:
> # Bohm's Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics use Maple Mathematics
> > 
> # Part 3b The  one-dimensional harmonic oscillator: single particle 
> # case.

A technical suggestion:  You seem to be combining the three lowest 
harmonic oscillator eigenfunctions by just adding them with equal
weight and no phase, then following the evolution of the resulting 
wavefunction.  You could save yourself (and your readers) wading 
through enormous messy equations if you use the coherent states, 
defined by letting the displacement operator

T(a) = exp(-i p a/hbar),

where p is the momentum operator and a is some (small) distance,
act on the harmonic oscillator ground state.  See J.J. Sakurai,
Modern Quantum Mechanics (1985) p. 147 for details.  These states
are a weighted sum of all states in the harmonic oscillator, and
are sometimes called the "minimum uncertainty" states.

On the two-particle case:  how can you start two fermions at the 
same position, since the magnitude of the wavefunction is zero
(not just close to zero, really -zero-) there?   Also, you have no 
interaction between the particles.  If they tend to hang around 
each other, that should be no surprise.  They both want to go to 
the bottom of the harmonic well.

Rod Price
rprice@reunion.umd.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenrprice cudfnRodney cudlnPrice cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.16 /  VALPARKS /  Re: Cold fusion -The other kind.
     
Originally-From: valparks@aol.com (VALPARKS)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold fusion -The other kind.
Date: 16 Aug 1994 23:56:04 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

In article <2sor4p$8rb@crl3.crl.com>, garretth@crl.com (Garrett Heil)
writes:

I am also a NON-expert, but have you heard of "Cold Fusion" Magazine?  I
was very excited when I first read it.  I can't vouce for how scientific
it portrays itself, but it was good info none the less.  I personally
can't wait to hear more details on the Italian experiments.
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenvalparks cudlnVALPARKS cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.16 /  VALPARKS /  Re: False Prophets
     
Originally-From: valparks@aol.com (VALPARKS)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: False Prophets
Date: 16 Aug 1994 23:58:06 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

In article <kemidb.770990811@aau>, kemidb@aau.dk (Dieter Britz) writes:

Good Catch.
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenvalparks cudlnVALPARKS cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.17 / William Hawkins /  Re: experiment - calorimetry
     
Originally-From: bill@texan.rosemount.com (William Hawkins)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: experiment - calorimetry
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 1994 04:36:27 GMT
Organization: Rosemount, Inc.

In article <32pqpn$m7c@stratus.skypoint.com> jlogajan@skypoint.com writes:
>Bill Page (70047.3047@compuserve.com) wrote:
>: I am suggesting that maybe it could be the pressure which serves as the
>: signal to the servo control whether to increase or decrease the resistive
>: heater power.
>
>Using pressure is so "orthogonal" to what conventional thinking would have
>led one to imagine that I am nearly convinced that this must be a brilliant
>solution (if it works. :-)
>
>
>--
> - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com -- 612-633-0345 -
> - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills  MN 55112 USA           -

Well, the pressure is a function of average temperature if things
are moving slow enough for the gas to mix thoroughly.  But you
have thermal resistances on either side of the gas that make its
temperature dependant on the rate of heat flow, hence upon the
difference between the cell temperature and ambient.

Really, I like orthogonal thinking, but thermal resistance is at
the heart of all calorimiter problems.  Tom's "guard ring" is a
way to reduce the effect, perhaps the only way.

And now, back to lurking, and watching the *remarkable* interplay
between Paul Koloc and certain German plasma physicists.  My ex-
wife had direct experience with ball lightning (in her bedroom),
so I'm kind of on his side.

Bill Hawkins
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenbill cudfnWilliam cudlnHawkins cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.17 / Bill Page /  Re: I'm not in this / Bohm, pilot waves, and lousy SciAm articles
     
Originally-From: 70047.3047@compuserve.com (Bill Page)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: I'm not in this / Bohm, pilot waves, and lousy SciAm articles
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 1994 06:30:23 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Matt Kennel wrote:
<<
Bill Page (70047.3047@compuserve.com) wrote:

: Chubb&Chubb do propose a (new) interpretation of quantum mechanics where the
: charge of the particle (at least) is physically spread over space. For a
number
: of reasons I don't think that this interpretation is universally valid so
though
: it may provide useful insights in some cases, it may also produce incorrect
: results in others. 

That's being rather charitable perhaps.

When have charges of elementary particles ever been seen to be "spread out" in
this fashion?
>>

The "charitable" case I was thinking of involves the modified Coulomb potential
used when calculating ionization potentials for atoms with many electrons. One
can apparently derive this potential by considering the charges of the
intervening electrons to be "spread-out" between the nucleus and the outter
electron(s).

<<
Take the canonical electron diffraction experiment.  The wave function of the
diffracted electron is "delocalized" and spread out after it passes through the
slits.  And yet, when the electron reaches the screen, its charge is all right
there---in one fast and angry little point----just ready to hit and flouresce
individual target atoms.

Its a fundamental experimental fact of QM.

It's very difficult to imagine it ever working another way.   This is exactly
the objection to the Chubb+Chubb cold fusion theory.  Even if the wave functions
of the nuclei are "delocalized"---our knowledge of their locations in the lab
frame is not very certain---they still act like nearly point nucleons when they
interact; and thus the same mutual Coloumb barrier would seem to apply, and
certainly the ordinary high-energy nuclear reaction products ought to be
produced after the interaction takes place.  

Just as the delocalized electron is defiantly point-like when it interacts with
the flourescent screen.  I don't know 'why', but that's just the way things
always seem to work.
>>

I like Bohm's description of why this happens. In his interpretation there are
*both* wavefunctions and particles. The particles behave classically except that
in addition to the classical potentials, they are also subject to a "quantum
potential". The magnitude of the quantum potential depends on the form of the
wavefunction. As you said above, in many cases the wavefunction can get
"de-localized" but in Bohm's interpretation, the electron never is. It follows a
well defined exact trajectory with an exact value of momentum at all times.
Still, the wavefunction ends up "guiding" the particle in a non-local way such
that all the rest of quantum mechanics remains valid. That this is possible at
all is surprizing to many people at first because they have been taught by
conventional quantum mechanics that something more unusual is going on.

The only way I see of saving Chubb&Chubb's theory is to realize that there can
be subtle cases where the quantum potential can overcome the Coulomb potential.
This also seems strange to people who have been taught that quantum mechanical
effects almost always involve low energies.  But in Bohm's interpretation, even
what is normally called "tunnelling" in conventional quantum mechanics is
accounted for by the effects of the quantum potential.

Perhaps accepting a "quantum potential" as a real force of nature is also rather
hard to swallow. But if you do what you get is everything you have now with
quantum mechanics plus a reasonably intuitive way of talking/thinking about it.

Cheers,

Bill Page.

cudkeys:
cuddy17 cuden3047 cudfnBill cudlnPage cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.17 / J Driscoll /  therm. cond. of air
     
Originally-From: 74063.3546@compuserve.com (Jeffrey J. Driscoll)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: therm. cond. of air
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 1994 14:47:59 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I have a 4.5 inch diameter 4.5 inch high (about 1 liter of volume) 
cylinderical
 aluminum chamber with a small 80 watt heater in it. The heater is  a 1" by 
2" 
cube made of copper with a nichrome wire inside.

If I have a gas at .09 atmospheres and I add some more gas of a different 
type 
so that the pressure increases to .11 atmospheres I would expect that the
thermal conductivity would increase and the temperature of a resistance 
heater
in this gas would go down.   When I take measurements with my thermocouple,
the temperature actually goes up and I am looking for an explanation.

The thermocouple is on the surface of the copper heater.
The gas that is at .09 atmospheres is hydrogen and the  small amount of gas 

that is added is air. The heater is putting out 50 watts and the 
thermocouple 
reads 290 deg C after 1.5 hours  (this is close to steady state - within 
3%).  If I
 add air so that the pressure goes up to .11 atmospheres the temperature 
rises 
about 25 degrees  to 315 deg C.  I don't think that the explanation is that
 the oxegen is combining  with the hydrogen and releasing chemical energy  
because the temperature stays high for so long (9+ hours).  I think the
reason is due to thermal conductivity - mainly because someone found a book
that says the thermal conductivity goes down when air is added.  But that 
would be expected if the pressure stayed constant - in my case I am adding
 air and the pressure is increasing.  I am essentially adding a second 
conduction path and therefore the temperature as read by the therocouple 
should go down but it does not.


explanation #1
the oxegen is combining with the hydrogen and forming H2O, the thermal
conductivity of H2O is lower than H2 and therefore the temperature should 
go 
up.  Problem with this explanation- I added more than enough H2 to 
compensate
 for this (an additional .01 and .02 atmospheres of H2) and the temperature 
only
 fell a small amount, about 5 degrees.    Also, I notice that the 
temperature has a
 very  small dependence on pressure between 0.07 atm and .14 atmospheres of 

H2.  The  temperature might drop from 280 degrees to 270 degrees C between 
these two pressures at steady state.  The reason for this is that most of 
the energy 
is transfered by radiation.

explanation #2
the air is changing the emissivity of the copper heater, the thermocouple 
or the
aluminum chamber and the result is a temperature rise.   This is the 
explanation 
that I think is correct - unless someone can tell me that the reason is 
thermal
conductivity. Possible problem with this explanation:  If I evacuate the 
chamber
 that had air and H2 in it and add only H2 at .09 atm the temperature 
returns to 
290 deg C.  

This is a cold fusion experiment that I am doing - I have not yet got any 
positive 
results.

Can anybody comment on the thermal conductivity of H2 when air is added at
 these pressures?

                        Jeff Driscoll

cudkeys:
cuddy17 cuden3546 cudfnJeffrey cudlnDriscoll cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.17 / Tom Droege /  Re: Return of the experimenter?
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Return of the experimenter?
Date: 17 Aug 1994 21:08:36 GMT
Organization: fermilab

In article <32paha$1ob@ixnews1.ix.netcom.com>, parky@ix.netcom.com
(Chris Parkinson) says:
>
>In <32o73h$7er@fnnews.fnal.gov> Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege) writes: 
>
>
>>I would like to remind everyone that the environment inside a cell is not 
>>very friendly.  It is hot.  It is very caustic.  pH of 10-12.  There is 
>>a lot of free Oxygen and free Hydrogen around.  In short it is an 
>>environment that will eat almost anything.  I would not expect tin plated 
>>copper to last very long.  Unless you have facilities to mold things in
>>teflon, it is hard not to have some place where the leads are exposed.  So 
>>measuring anything that is high impedance is probably not possible, even 
>>it it is encased in teflon.  
>>
>>One reason that resistance is measured is that the measurement is sort of 
>>possible.  It is a milliohm range measurement.  So the leakage current 
>>through the electrolyte is not too important.  But some will argue that it 
>>is important.  I have an old thesis (1939) that worries about this for 
>>pages.  No matter how you make the measurement it is hard. For example, 
>>bringing out mv signals with several different metals and through a large 
>>change of temperature is asking for thermoelectric effects.  They are 
>>seen.  
>>
>>Tom Droege
>>
>
>I guess I was once again misunderstood. What I proposed was to etch away
>all the copper on both sides where the copper may be in contact with
>the caustic fluid. Create a strain gauge by having a coil on each end
>that could measure stretch and this area would be outside of the cell.

The question here is, how do you get this strain from the inside of the cell
to the outside?  It has to be a very good seal, and it also has to 
transmit a very small force.  I suppose something like a polyproplyene 
bellows might work.  Now we have the problem of sealing it.

>You know I gotta say that with out any drawing capability this sure is
>tough. 

Yep, when will all you computer hackers give us a nice means to pass 
drawings around that is easy and transparent to use???

>Oh well, its a moot point anyways as I dont think that the Kynar
>would work. Not due to any heat or chem. effects but due to the complex
>aggregate nature of the whole deal here.
>

Yep, it is just that "complex aggregate nature" that makes this experiment
fun.  I still think that my stepping motor servoed syringe is a good way to
do this and have not yet heard of a practical better way!


>Chris Parkinson

Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.17 / Tom Droege /  Re: Internet CF experiment
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Internet CF experiment
Date: 17 Aug 1994 21:28:50 GMT
Organization: fermilab

In article <1994AUG15.6725@ozemail.com.au>, rvanspaa@ozemail.com.au (R.J 
VAN SPAANDONK) says:
>
>If you intend to weigh the cathode, then you might consider the
>following suggestion. Suspend the cathode by its power wire, from

The question that I always have about this method, is how to prevent 
the current lead from applying a variable, unknown force on the scale?
Remember there are forces on the wire just due to the current it is 
carying (current makes a wire want to straignten out).  The charging 
profiles we run often change with time - the most common is a ramp of
current.  

>a solenoid. Reflect a beam of light off one end of the solenoid
>core, and use any deviation in position of the reflected spot to
>adjust the current through the solenoid coil, such that the spot
>returns to its original position. The changes in weight are then
>accurately reflected in the changes in the solenoid current,

Nice cute (null balance) method.  Do you know how accurately this can 
be done?  Of course a pain in this set up as the solonoid current 
represents a (rather large) changing power into the calorimeter. 

>which is easily measured. This method has been used in very
>accurate scales for some time.
>Next problem - increase in buoyancy due to expansion of the
>cathode. Removing the cathode from the solution solves this, and
>also the problem of extra buoyancy caused by gas bubbles adhering
>to the surface of the cathode. If the entire solenoid were
>mounted on a vertical rack and pinion, driven by a small electric
>motor, then the cathode could be removed from the solution in

Sorry, this can't be done.  As soon as a charged cathode is removed
from the cell, there may be a large and unknown exit of gas that 
cannot be restored by later charging.  This has not been well studied,
as far as I know I am the only one who has observed this and who 
worries about it.

>seconds, and weight measurements could continue during the entire
>process. A gas-tight vessel placed over the entire setup would
>contain any out-gassing, and the pressure increase in the vessel
>could be used to determine the extent of such outgassing.

OK, we are back to my gas servo, but again, once the gas is out it
may or may not go back in.  Since high D/Pd loading is the presumed
secret, we don't want to do anything that might reduce it.
  
>One last general observation. Any and all parameters of the
>experiment should be continually monitored and logged
>electronically. The logging should be done by a single central
>PC, and all measurements individually date and time stamped based
>on the same central clock. When critical changes are occurring
>(such as measurement of the weight of the cathode), measurements
>should be taken at 1/10 second intervals. At other times longer
>intervals will suffice, up to say 1 minute. Another "nice to
>have" in this regard would be :  Program one of the function keys
>on the PC to place a stamped entry in the log when it is pressed.
>This entry would consist of comments entered by the experimenter
>at the time. In this way an accurate correlation can be
>maintained between what is going on in the lab, and what is going
>on in the cell.
>Well that's my two bits worth.

Believe it or not, we do everything above.  And a lot more.  Even to the
extent of the function key to allow inserting a comment.  We do not
measure weight, but do have a continuously balanced gas servo.  Also a 
radiation detector when we want it.   Also a display which shows most 
recent measurement of 65 variables, and a 7 hour plot of the most recent 
data.  We can take data on a variable or two at millisecond intervals for 
as long as we are willing to fill up disk space.
Also we use a 16 bit 10 us system.  
>
>Cheers,
>
>Robin
>

Thanks for the useful comments.

Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.17 / Mark Bothum /  Re: experiment - calorimetry
     
Originally-From: mark@intermec.com (Mark Bothum)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: experiment - calorimetry
Date: 17 Aug 94 18:18:15 GMT
Organization: Intermec Corp., Everett, Wa

> My ex-wife had direct experience with ball lightning (in her bedroom),
> so I'm kind of on his side.
>
> Bill Hawkins


cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenmark cudfnMark cudlnBothum cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.17 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Ball Plasmas
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Ball Plasmas
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 1994 15:53:32 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <1994Aug15.200702.1741@nosc.mil> moberg@nosc.mil (Vic Moberg) writes:
> 
> METASTABLE SUPERCOOLED PLASMA

>S.A. Maiorov, A.N. Tkachev, S.I. Yakovlenko Institute of General
>Physics, Russian Academy of Sciences 38, Ulitsa Vavilova, 117942,
>Moscow, Russian Federation Tel. (095) 132-8280
>A review of Coulomb plasma ab initio simulations and analytical
>research performed by the authors since 1987 presented. It is shown
>that classical Coulomb plasma has metastable supercooled state similar
>to state of supercooled vapor. The triple recombination at this state
>is suppressed. Supercooled state results from entropy conservation law
>for Hamilton system. Ion-ion plasma with heavy both positive and
>negative particles at high ionization degree (>10^{-3}) is needed to
>have a metastable supercooled plasma. Supercooled state thermodynamic
>law is given. It is shown that mixture of a supercooled plasma with a
>gas may form a plasmoid like ball lightning.
>Bibliography --- 22 references
>
>Short abstract of paper from PHYSICS-USPEKHI # 3/94

There are two problems of ball lightning, being addressed here.  One
relates to the enormous radiation loss rates of plasmas which are 
sufficiently ionized by thermalization to support adequate currents
capable of producing atmospheric pressure air displacing mag fields.  
Otherwise the system would have to start very hot and cool over time
which would vary light output considerably.  

The other problem relates to the need to explain long lifetime, which
means that somehow the system must conserve its energy.  What's not
explained in this model is coherence against wind shear or the well
known Ball Lightning ability to bounce off objects without mushing 
or catastrophe.  

>--
>Vic Moberg                                NCCOSC RDTE Div. Code 842
>moberg@manta.nosc.mil                     53570 Silvergate Ave. 
>Phone: 619-553-6140, Fax: -6449           San Diego CA 92152-5276
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc, Bx 1037 Prometheus II Ltd, College Park MD 20741-1037    |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.18 / John Logajan /  Re: experiment - calorimetry
     
Originally-From: al789@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: experiment - calorimetry
Date: 18 Aug 1994 04:05:33 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)


bill@texan.rosemount.com (William Hawkins) says:
>Well, the pressure is a function of average temperature if things
>are moving slow enough for the gas to mix thoroughly.  But you
>have thermal resistances on either side of the gas that make its
>temperature dependant on the rate of heat flow, hence upon the
>difference between the cell temperature and ambient.

As measuring current is done by measuring the voltage drop across a
known resistance, so too can heat flow be measured by measuring
a temperature drop across a thermal resistance.

The pressure suggestion does not eliminate that mechanism, it just uses a
different attribute of the system reaction to quantify the heat flow.

Pressure changes propogate at the speed of sound in the medium.


Suppose, for instance, that a heat spot on the inside surface of
the dewar was of small dimension X.  Further suppose it was of
energy content Y.

Now with the pressure reading technique, would it matter at all
where on the inner surface that spot of X dimension and Y energy
content had actually occured?

A two point temperature measurement, on the other hand, would give
different heat flow answers depending on the physical location
of spot X.  Clearly the pressure measurement method is superior
in this kind of case.

The other generic kind of case would be heat spots of different
size but similar heat content.  Would these two cases give
the same pressure reading?

I don't know the answer to that.  But if so, then the pressure
measurement techinque is clearly superior in all respects to
a two point temperature measurment for determining actual
heat flow through the thermal resistance of the dewar gap gas.


-- 
-- John Logajan ---  al789@cleveland.freenet.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenal789 cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.18 / Bill Page /  experiment - calorimetry
     
Originally-From: 70047.3047@compuserve.com (Bill Page)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: experiment - calorimetry
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 1994 04:42:48 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

John Logajan wrote:
<<
Using pressure is so "orthogonal" to what conventional thinking would have led
one to imagine that I am nearly convinced that this must be a brilliant solution
(if it works. :-)
>>

Well, thanks for the compliment, but I don't think the idea is really all the
novel. In fact, commercial thermostat devices have used gas expansion to measure
temperature for years. And the most accurate analog thermometers use this same
principle. What I was really trying to get at was a way to decrease the time
constant of the servo feedback loop - at least as I understand it that is the
main goal of Tom's re-design of the calorimeter. Reducing the thermal mass and
an efficient way to obtain a good average temperature throughout that mass is
what seems to me to count most.

So just to recap the concept in a picture...

                          ------------------------
                         | resistive              |
                         | heat Q(in)             |
                  #######|#########               |
                  #+-+  \|/   +-+ #               |
                  #| |        | | #           ---------
                  #| |  CF    | | #          | servo   |   control setting
                  #| | cell   | | #          | control |<-------------------
      constant    #| |        | | #          | system  |
     heat Q(out)  #| +--------+ | #           ---------     
    <------------- |    gas     | #              /|\
                  #+=====*======+ #               |
                  #######|#########               |
                         | pressure               |
                         | sensor P               |
                          ------------------------

The servo control system is programmed (or analog electronics) to maintain a
constant pressure inside the enclosing gas filled dewar by adjusting Q(in).
Q(out) is held constant. The heat output of the cell is measured as delta Q(in).
The gas and the dewar walls constitute the thermal mass. Tom can tell you all
about how to keep Q(out) really constant and how to design the servo so it
behaves nicely.

Of course, now I'm just waiting for Tom to tell me (us) why its not going to
work.
<grin>

Cheers,

Bill Page.

cudkeys:
cuddy18 cuden3047 cudfnBill cudlnPage cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Thu Aug 18 04:37:05 EDT 1994
------------------------------
1994.08.18 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: De Revolutionibus
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: De Revolutionibus
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 1994 05:14:40 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

In article <940816133805_76570.2270_HHB50-1@compuserve.com>,
Eugene Mallove <76570.2270@compuserve.com> wrote:

>Fortunately for the cold fusion revolution, we will not have to wait for 
>either Maddox or Koshland to die, not to mention Huizenga et al. Furthermore, 
>it will be much more pleasureable to watch the likes of Huizenga and Co. 
>either having to eat their words or to engage in verbal gymnastics to explain 
>their misbehavior of recent years.

Just how long does "Cold Fusion" have to be around before there is a
repeatable experiment? Yes indeed, imagine the "likes of Huizenga and
Co." insisting on real proof.
 
Exactly how long are we going to have to wait until proven wrong
Gene? I do have a finite lifespan, unlike you who seem willing to
predict success around every corner and are willing to wait forever
and still claim that it's just around the corner.

BTW, Dr. Mullis doesn't believe in cold fusion either.

cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.18 / Dieter Britz /  RE: proton conductors
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: proton conductors
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 1994 07:05:36 GMT
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 1994 03:58:26 GMT:
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway


Originally-From: 74063.3546@compuserve.com (Jeffrey J. Driscoll)
in Fusion Digest 2628
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 1994 03:58:26 GMT:

>1?a group in Japan at Hokkaido University that claims to get
>10+ watts out while putting in less than 5 milliwatts.  The whole system
>is at 300 degrees C so it takes 70 or so watts to get the system up
>to 300 degrees C and then when they run a small current through the proton
>conductor, the proton conductor puts out 10 plus watts.   Their proton conductor
>is the size of a quarter and there is a dueterium gas atomosphere surrounding
>the proton conductor which sits on top of a heater.   The proton conductor is
>so named because it conducts protons (hydrogen or dueterium stripped of the
> electron) when an electric potential is applied accross it.

>I might need someone with experience to do this and I can't pay them.

[....]

>I talked to Mills (of the shrinking Hydrogen theory) and he says that the
>discs made from the above powders work because of the Strontium and
>Niobium work together to shrink the hydrogen and release energy.
>He says that first there has to be a single hydrogen atom by itself (not attache
>d
>to another H atom -in other words not diatomic Hydrogen) and then
>the shrinking begins.   He says that the Platinum face causes the
>H2 to becom just H and that reacts with the strontium and niobium.

>This is what I want to do:
>Mills suggested that I use just the Strontium and Niobium powders and I came
>up with the idea of adding nickle powder or maybe palladium powder and adding
>it to the mix ( another idea is to not use the metallic powder in the disc and j
>ust
>coat the top of the disc with Pd or Ni).   The powders will be pressed into a di
>sc.
>Another idea is to use some sort of potassium powder.

1. I'd say Mills is a bit glib here; he doesn't seem to have enough
   information to explain this.

2. Your casual mention of 'potassium powder' gets me worried; do you know much
   chemistry, Jeff? If you know as much as I am guessing you do, then I'd say
   that you should not try this sort of experiment, certainly not on your own.
   Chemists routinely take all sorts of precautions against explosions, burns,
   splatters in the eye, etc, but don't always mention them because all 
   chemists know about them. I wouldn't like to discourage a probing mind and
   all that, but I reckon you shouldn't be doing this.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.18 / David TK /  Re: "The Economist" reviews ITER (still on the nzstands)
     
Originally-From: dpc@s30l5s.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de (David       Coster         TK)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: "The Economist" reviews ITER (still on the nzstands)
Date: 18 Aug 1994 08:21:18 +0200
Organization: Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics, Garching b. Munich, Germany.

In article <1994Aug12.015339.22403@princeton.edu>,
Robert F. Heeter  <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> wrote:
>
>Which issue exactly?  The Economist is a weekly.
>
>I looked through six or so issues and couldn't find anything obvious
>about ITER.  (Like, nothing in the science headlines in the table of
>contents.)

Bob

The issue was dated July 30th 1994.  The article formed the lead in
the Science and Technology section, and had the title ``Dunkin'
Dough''.  The subhead was ``Nuclear fusion can ill afford the
managerial turmoil surrounding its most prominent experiment''.

Dave.

-- 
David Coster
dpc@ipp-garching.mpg.de
dcoster@pppl.gov
dcoster@princeton.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudendpc cudfnDavid cudlnTK cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.18 / Bill Page /  Re: Bohm's Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics Using Maple Mathematics
     
Originally-From: 70047.3047@compuserve.com (Bill Page)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Bohm's Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics Using Maple Mathematics
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 1994 08:41:30 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Rod Price wrote:
<<
A technical suggestion:  You seem to be combining the three lowest harmonic
oscillator eigenfunctions by just adding them with equal weight and no phase,
then following the evolution of the resulting wavefunction.  You could save
yourself (and your readers) wading through enormous messy equations if you use
the coherent states, ...
>>

Yes, the example wavefunction I have been considering is as you describe it. And
it does get messy - but thats what Maple's for. For the things I have been
looking at one could probably choose almost any non-stationary state. Coherent
states are interesting. Maybe I'll get the time to compute some particle
trajectories for this case. My experience so far is that it wont be intuitively
obvious what the result will be.  BTW, you don't happen to have Maple, do you?
So far the only other person here on the network that I know of who is following
these postings by using Maple is David Cyganski. David did the work for the
Gaussian wave packet case. Is anyone willing/interested to use Maple to tackle
conherent states?

<<
On the two-particle case:  how can you start two fermions at the same position,
since the magnitude of the wavefunction is zero (not just close to zero, really
-zero-) there?
>>

That's exactly what I thought at first, but now I am not so sure. This is
actually a pretty deep question and I could use some help here. It is true that
all the functions phi[a](n,n,x1,x2) = 0. This means that two fermions cannot be
in the same "state". But these functions are not in the superposition that I
built. Nor could they be. They aren't eigenstates. In fact they aren't even
proper wavefunctions.

But as you point out phi[a](n1,n2,x,x)=0 for all n1 and n2 and therefore so does
psi[a](x,x,t)=0. If abs(psi)^2 is interpreted as a probability density then this
obviously means that the probability of the two particles being in the same
place is 0. But remember that abs(psi)=R is considered in Bohm's interpretation
to be one component of a real physical field and only related to probability in
the following way. Bohm states that for a sufficiently large statistical
ensemble *if* the particles are distributed according to R^2 initially, then the
particle equations of motion guarantee that they will remain distributed
according to R^2 as the wavefunction evolves. In other words the probability
density will evolve as predicted by the conventional interpretation of quantum
mechanics. But be careful. He did not say that the particles *must* be so
distributed, however.

Now notice also that the probability current J(x1)(psi[a](x1,x1,t))=0. So the
guidance condition v=j/abs(psi)^2 = 0/0, which is to say that it is undefined.
Now in the process of algebraic simplification of j/abs(psi)^2, Maple comes up
with an expression that does *not* in general go to 0/0 when the substitution
x1=x,x2=x is made. Instead, it yields the expression for v1(x,x,t)=v2(x,x,t)
which you see in Part 3c. Apparently the undefined terms have cancelled out. For
example, the velocity at time t = 1 when both particles are located at x=1 has a
well defined value. Or has Maple made an error?

So far I haven't been able to find an error. The logic is a little confusing but
remember that 0/0 is not a number. Finding that v=0/0 and later determining that
v=10 is not a contradiction. Right?

Please tell me what I might be doing wrong.

<<
Also, you have no interaction between the particles.  If they tend to hang
around each other, that should be no surprise.  They both want to go to the
bottom of the harmonic well.
>>

Well, yes and no. It would seem from the equations of motion of the particles
that they are as much or even more affected by the quantum potential than by the
classical potential. It is the classical potential which defines the harmonic
well. The quantum potential does something else completely, so maybe no. But the
quantum potential depends only on the particle positions and time and must do so
symetrically for each particle. There are no other "degrees of freedom". So yes,
since we are assuming that both particles are at the same place at the same
time, then what else can they do but hang around together? You are right, it is
no surprise. The surprize was in the fact that they might share the same
trajectory at all.

Rod, I am very glad you took the time to comment on these postings and I would
like to continue this discussion with you and others.

Thanks and Cheers,

Bill Page.

cudkeys:
cuddy18 cuden3047 cudfnBill cudlnPage cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.18 / David Davies /  Re: I'm not in this / Bohm, pilot waves, and lousy SciAm articles
     
Originally-From: drd851@huxley.anu.edu.au (David R Davies)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: I'm not in this / Bohm, pilot waves, and lousy SciAm articles
Date: 18 Aug 1994 17:47:23 +1000
Organization: Australian National University

Bill Page quotes Matt Kennel:
<<
Take the canonical electron diffraction experiment.  The wave function of the
diffracted electron is "delocalized" and spread out after it passes through the
slits.  And yet, when the electron reaches the screen, its charge is all right
there---in one fast and angry little point----just ready to hit and flouresce
individual target atoms.

Its a fundamental experimental fact of QM.

It's very difficult to imagine it ever working another way. 
>>


There are a number of other ways of viewing this. I prefer:

Take one electron sized packet of energy in your favorite hidden variable
model. Pass it through two slits. As it approaches a screen it increasingly
tends to excite resonances in the waves that constitute the screen.

Assuming that we have chosen a screen material that will capture the electron
rather than letting it pass or reflecting it, at some stage as the wave packet
approaches the screen it will excite a transition in one of the component
resonators of the screen. Under the influence of this extreme nonlinearity,
the wave packet will collapse to a small region/surface of atomic dimension.
This could happen more-or-less anywhere across the width of the packet but
is most likely in areas of higher coherence, as influenced by diffraction
caused by the slits.

Remember that a wave packet is defined by a region of coherence. It is not
the waves that are collapsing to a smaller region but a shift in the locus
and size of the coherence maxima. No problems with faster-than-light movement
of information in a deterministic system because it was all pre-determined.

dave
dave.davies@anu.edu.au

cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudendrd851 cudfnDavid cudlnDavies cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.18 / Richard Blue /  Fogal funnies
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Fogal funnies
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 1994 13:19:51 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Can anyone explain how it is that anyone with enough technical skill
to sign on to Internet can read what has been said about the Fogal
modified transistor and take it seriously?  Does anyone really think
that you can outboard an ordinary capacitor near a chip and generate
enough magnetic (?) field to influence currents in the silicon via
the Hall effect?  Get real!

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.18 /  fairfax@sensei /  Alcator progress 8/18/94
     
Originally-From: fairfax@sensei.pfc.mit.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Alcator progress 8/18/94
Date: 18 AUG 94 16:25:31 GMT
Organization: MIT PLASMA FUSION CENTER


			Alcator C-MOD Weekly Highlights
				August 18,1994

Alcator C-MOD is in a maintenance/repair period. The main activities are
associated with development of a new coax design for the OH bus. Progress
continues to be made in this area.

The new design features a flexible section in the foot of the inner coax,
formed by EDM machining of a set of thin slots to form a leaf spring.
Fabrication of the full-scale prototype of this new coax design is underway.

Re-forming of the insulator pocket on the OH2L coil terminal, which was damaged
as a result of the coax bus problem, is now underway. This represents the last
repair activity to the OH coil prior to final cleaning  and re-installation of
the core. 

An engineering review of the new design and repair strategy was held at M.I.T.
on Tuesday, August 16. Pete Bonanos of PPPL and Pete Petersen of GA
participated, along with Don Priester and Steve Eckstrand of OFE. 

Analysis of physics data obtained during the summer run period is continuing. 
A detailed comparison has been carried out of radiated power increases
during ICRF heating using the dipole antenna installed this year with those
measured during monopole operation in 1993. The fraction of
radiated power from inside the LCFS to total power does not increase during
ICRF heating with the dipole antenna, remaining close to 50%; when the
monopole antenna was used, radiated power during ICRF increased to as much as
90% of total input power. A comparison between molybdenum influx at a given RF
power showed a factor of order 6 lower Mo influx for the dipole antenna case.

Last week, the PFC hosted the quarterly meeting of the Fusion Safety Steering
Committee; Dr. Catherine Fiore of the C-MOD staff is a member of this
committee.   




cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenfairfax cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.18 / Tom Droege /  Re: proton conductors
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: proton conductors
Date: 18 Aug 1994 18:17:29 GMT
Organization: fermilab

In article <940818024422_74063.3546_GHA118-1@CompuServe.COM>, 
74063.3546@compuserve.com (Jeffrey J. Driscoll) says:
>

Much deleted.

Jeff, I cheer you on in your work.  Glad to see someone else working
away in their basement.  But I heard this paper at the Maui conference,
and was not impressed with their calorimetry.  So quite possibly your 
result is consistent with theirs.  
  
>  The proton conductors that I have used up to now did not give off 
excess heat (I used
>the same type of proton conductors that the Japanese group did) so  now 
it is
>time to try some new ideas.
>
>    Jeff Driscoll
>
>   617 878 1806
>( I live near Boston, Mass)ctorsyy 
>
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.18 / Rodney Price /  Re: Bohm's Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics Using Maple Mathematics
     
Originally-From: rprice@reunion.umd.edu (Rodney Price)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Bohm's Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics Using Maple Mathematics
Date: 18 Aug 1994 18:20:34 GMT
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park

In article <940818082502_70047.3047_EHB125-1@CompuServe.COM>  
70047.3047@compuserve.com (Bill Page) writes:

> 
> Yes, the example wavefunction I have been considering is as you describe it.  
And
> it does get messy - but thats what Maple's for. For the things I have been
> looking at one could probably choose almost any non-stationary state.  
Coherent
> states are interesting. Maybe I'll get the time to compute some particle
> trajectories for this case. My experience so far is that it wont be  
intuitively
> obvious what the result will be.  BTW, you don't happen to have Maple, do  
you?
> So far the only other person here on the network that I know of who is  
following
> these postings by using Maple is David Cyganski. David did the work for the
> Gaussian wave packet case. Is anyone willing/interested to use Maple to  
tackle
> conherent states?

You need some reason to choose some superposition of states.  An arbitrary
superposition will give you arbitrary behavior.  The coherent states are
the states that will give you classical behavior as you increase the size
of the system -- that is, the states that illustrate the correspondence
principle best.  If you are interested in getting an intuitive understanding
of quantum effects in a small system, it would be best to start with coherent
states, since you'll be able to see where classical laws apply and where they
don't.  They will make a nice illustration of Ehrenfest's theorem, for 
example.  (Ehrenfest's theorem is the quantum-mechanical analog of F = m a.)

> <<
> On the two-particle case:  how can you start two fermions at the same  
position,
> since the magnitude of the wavefunction is zero (not just close to zero,  
really
> -zero-) there?
> >>
> 
> That's exactly what I thought at first, but now I am not so sure. This is
> actually a pretty deep question and I could use some help here. It is true  
that
> all the functions phi[a](n,n,x1,x2) = 0. This means that two fermions cannot  
be
> in the same "state". But these functions are not in the superposition that I
> built. Nor could they be. They aren't eigenstates. In fact they aren't even
> proper wavefunctions.

If your two-particle wavefunctions are not antisymmetric they aren't valid
fermion wavefunctions.  End of story.

> 
> But as you point out phi[a](n1,n2,x,x)=0 for all n1 and n2 and therefore so  
does
> psi[a](x,x,t)=0. If abs(psi)^2 is interpreted as a probability density then  
this
> obviously means that the probability of the two particles being in the same
> place is 0. But remember that abs(psi)=R is considered in Bohm's  
interpretation
[...]
> 
> Please tell me what I might be doing wrong.

The reasoning above is a mathematical proof of the fact that two fermions
cannot occupy the same state.  You should believe that simple result, rather
than confusing yourself with other considerations.  If the other considerations
give a result other than the one you just proved here, there is a logical 
inconsistency in your reasoning.  In other words, you're making it too hard.

> 
> <<
> Also, you have no interaction between the particles.  If they tend to hang
> around each other, that should be no surprise.  They both want to go to the
> bottom of the harmonic well.
> >>
> 
> Well, yes and no. It would seem from the equations of motion of the particles
> that they are as much or even more affected by the quantum potential than by  
the
> classical potential. It is the classical potential which defines the harmonic
> well. The quantum potential does something else completely, so maybe no. But  
the
> quantum potential depends only on the particle positions and time and must do  
so
> symetrically for each particle. There are no other "degrees of freedom". So  
yes,
> since we are assuming that both particles are at the same place at the same
> time, then what else can they do but hang around together? You are right, it  
is
> no surprise. The surprize was in the fact that they might share the same
> trajectory at all.

But they _can't_share the same trajectory.  You just proved that 
mathematically.  If your results show two particles at the same place at the 
same time -- ever -- then you have a logical inconsistency and something
about your calculation is wrong.

Try this:  You have two particles in a well, both in coherent states 
phi_n(x,t), where n = 1,2 labels the particle.  Then the two-particle 
wavefunction 

psi(x1,x2,t) = 
	1/sqrt(2) * ( phi_1(x1,t)*phi_2(x2,t) - phi_1(x2,t)*phi_2(x1,t) )

is a valid fermion wavefunction.  There is no interaction between the
particles here.  First, satisfy yourself that psi is antisymmetric.  Then 
choose the coherent states as follows:

phi_1(x,t) = T( a) < x | 0 >
phi_2(x,t) = T(-a) < x | 0 >

where T(a) is the translation operator and < x | 0 > is the ground state 
wavefunction.  This starts a one particle on one side of the well and the other 
particle on the other side of the well.  They will both fall toward the middle.  
Watch what happens when they collide.

You should understand that putting in an interaction between the two particles 
will alter these results dramatically.  In principle any two-particle problem
should be solvable, but this could get messy.  If you're so inclined, try
V(r) = 1/r^2 rather than the Coulomb potential 1/r.  The math will be much
easier.
> 
> Rod, I am very glad you took the time to comment on these postings and I  
would
> like to continue this discussion with you and others.

Thanks.  I don't have much time, so all I can offer is advice.

> 
> Thanks and Cheers,
> 
> Bill Page.
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenrprice cudfnRodney cudlnPrice cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.18 / Tom Droege /  Re: experiment - calorimetry
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: experiment - calorimetry
Date: 18 Aug 1994 19:00:37 GMT
Organization: fermilab

In article <940818043320_70047.3047_EHB173-1@CompuServe.COM>, 70047.3047
compuserve.com (Bill Page) says:
>
>John Logajan wrote:
><<
>Using pressure is so "orthogonal" to what conventional thinking would have led
>one to imagine that I am nearly convinced that this must be a brilliant solution
>(if it works. :-)
>>>
>
>Well, thanks for the compliment, but I don't think the idea is really all the
>novel. In fact, commercial thermostat devices have used gas expansion to measure
>temperature for years. And the most accurate analog thermometers use this same
>principle. What I was really trying to get at was a way to decrease the time
>constant of the servo feedback loop - at least as I understand it that is the
>main goal of Tom's re-design of the calorimeter. Reducing the thermal mass and

The main goal was to be able to *know* what the temperature of the inside and the
outside is.  Really to know that it is uniform over the inside and outside 
surface.  Then I can make the two surfaces the same temperature, then I know 
there is no heat transfer between them. 

>an efficient way to obtain a good average temperature throughout that mass is
>what seems to me to count most.
>
>So just to recap the concept in a picture...
>
>                          ------------------------
>                         | resistive              |
>                         | heat Q(in)             |
>                  #######|#########               |
>                  #+-+  \|/   +-+ #               |
>                  #| |        | | #           ---------
>                  #| |  CF    | | #          | servo   |   control setting
>                  #| | cell   | | #          | control |<-------------------
>      constant    #| |        | | #          | system  |
>     heat Q(out)  #| +--------+ | #           ---------     
>    <------------- |    gas     | #              /|\
>                  #+=====*======+ #               |
>                  #######|#########               |
>                         | pressure               |
>                         | sensor P               |
>                          ------------------------
>
>The servo control system is programmed (or analog electronics) to maintain a
>constant pressure inside the enclosing gas filled dewar by adjusting Q(in).
>Q(out) is held constant. The heat output of the cell is measured as delta Q(in).
>The gas and the dewar walls constitute the thermal mass. Tom can tell you all
>about how to keep Q(out) really constant and how to design the servo so it
>behaves nicely.
>
>Of course, now I'm just waiting for Tom to tell me (us) why its not going to
>work.
><grin>
>
>Cheers,
>
>Bill Page.
>
Sorry for not jumping in earlier on this as it looks like a cute idea.  

In this situation three things are going on:

1) Conduction
2) Radiation
3) Convection

1)The above scheme looks like it will do a good job on conduction.

To do it really right, the CF cell should be completely surrounded by the 
gas.  The top as shown would be a source of uncontrolled heat transfer. 
Remember, for these experiments there are no thermal insulators.  It
is just not possible to put enough foam around the experiment to cut
off heat flow.  If all is done right, then we have a conduction 
calorimeter.  But I see no advantage to using a gas over the powdered 
insulator as used by Huggins/Schrieber in ACCF1.  In fact the powder
is better as it eliminated convection.

One advantage of the gas is that it can possibly be better at 
equalizing temperatures.  But only if we make it a heat pipe, and
then the temperature difference is zero and we have a problem in
that:

Heat flow = k*Delta t

Where k is very large and Delta t is very small so it is hard to
get a good measurement.

2)  The above scheme does nothing about radiation.

There is a big difference between an inner vessel with a uniform  
temperature t1, and one with an average temperature t1  when 
radiating to a outer vessle at uniform temperature t2.  Work it 
out.  The experiment with larger temperature variations but with 
the same average temperature differential will radiate more.  
Even with thick copper walls, it is easy to have several degrees 
variation over the inner cell surface.  That is why I want the 
heat pipe.  It is not possible in these experiments to always
have the heat sources at the same place.  So the hot spots 
change, and thus the radiation pattern.  It can be hundreds
of milliwats.

Bill, as someone who likes to do calculations, how about computing 
the radiation losses for a typical experiment.  Use any size you
like, but I propose a 25 cm dia by 25 cm tall outer shell and a 
20 cm dia by 20 cm tall inner shell.

a) The inner shell is at a uniform temperature of 40 C.  The outer
shell is at a uniform temperature of 20 C.

b) The inner shell is at 39 C at the bottom and 41 C at the top with
a uniform distribution.  The outer shell is at a constant 20 C.  

If you think this is an unrealistic configuration, then you might 
compute the conduction gradient assuming the inner shell is made of
1/16" copper.  (This was the thickness of the inner heat shell in
my experiment.  An advanced problem is to put say 10 watts into the
bottom face of a closed inner cylinder (all faces 1/16" copper), 
and compute what the suface temperature of the cylinder will come to
assuming only radiation and conduction loads.  Then move the heat
source around inside the cylinder, and see what happens.  

3) The above scheme does nothing about convection

Convection is of order 300 mw per sq ft per C per surface.  Very rough
for thinking purposes.  With a typical size experiment there can very
easily be a half watt of convection going on.  This again changes with 
hot spot locations.  So I would at least fill the space between the 
inner and outer vessle above with foam.  I think there are cells where
the foam is broken so it can still respond to changes in pressure
while effectively blocking convection.  
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.18 /  schlichting@pa /  Re:experiment/mass/temp measurements
     
Originally-From: schlichting@pa881a.inland.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re:experiment/mass/temp measurements
Date: 18 Aug 94 13:05:19 CDT
Organization: Inland Steel Company, East Chicago, IN

Tom - and others interested-

The ideal gas law (PV= nRT) has has been used for several years
to interpret temperature from sensitive pressure sensors.

I have seen this done in several 'metallurgical' experiments at CMU
under the cautious eye of Dr. Richard Fuehan.  The results were very
impressive.  I plan to look up these experiments to determine the
sensitivity of the devices.

The suggestion to use a similar device for the calorimetry portion of
the experiment is a good idea.

-As far measuring the mass of [H] or [D] that dissolves into the 
Pd......I'm still not convinced that we have a better solution
to Tom's method of measureing the escaping oxygen from the system...

As for the total weight of the apparatus.......
A suggestion was made to use omega= sqrt(k/m).  I have used
devices like this in industry (they worked very well)
for continuous measurement of mass and mas flow..

As I recall the device used a taught wire ( not sure of the material)
connected to a piezoelectric crystal.    As the mass changed so did
the vibration of the wire,  The difference in vibration was detected by the 
crystal and the mass could be determined.  As I understand it, the
device was considered quite accurate.  

Tom are you aware of this technolgy for mass measurement ???
I can look up the references if you believe this to be 
and interesting area...

Mark Schlichting


cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenschlichting cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Fri Aug 19 04:37:05 EDT 1994
------------------------------
1994.08.18 / Bruce Liebert /  Re: proton conductors
     
Originally-From: liebert@wiliki.eng.hawaii.edu (Bruce E. Liebert)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: proton conductors
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 1994 20:21:57 GMT
Organization: University of Hawaii

In article <940818024422_74063.3546_GHA118-1@CompuServe.COM>,
74063.3546@compuserve.com (Jeffrey J. Driscoll) wrote:

> 1?a group in Japan at Hokkaido University that claims to get 
> 10+ watts out while putting in less than 5 milliwatts.  The whole system
> is at 300 degrees C so it takes 70 or so watts to get the system up 
> to 300 degrees C and then when they run a small current through the proton
> conductor, the proton conductor puts out 10 plus watts.   Their proton conductor
> is the size of a quarter and there is a dueterium gas atomosphere surrounding 
> the proton conductor which sits on top of a heater.   The proton conductor is 
> so named because it conducts protons (hydrogen or dueterium stripped of the
>  electron) when an electric potential is applied accross it.  

OK

> This is what I want to do:
> Mills suggested that I use just the Strontium and Niobium powders and I came
> up with the idea of adding nickle powder or maybe palladium powder and adding
> it to the mix ( another idea is to not use the metallic powder in the disc and just 
> coat the top of the disc with Pd or Ni).   The powders will be pressed into a disc.
> Another idea is to use some sort of potassium powder.

> 
>     Jeff Driscoll
> 
>    617 878 1806
> ( I live near Boston, Mass)ctorsyy 

Please keep in mind that if your goal is to conduct protons/deuterons, the
solid had better be primarily an ionic conductor, otherwise most of the
current will be short circuited by electrons.

If you add nickel or palladium powder to the starting strontium or niobium
oxides, you will probably get an electronic conductor instead.

A useful rule of thumb is that if the solid is colored or black, it
probably won't be a good ionic conductor (electrolyte).
-- 
***************************************************************
*        Bruce E. Liebert  liebert@wiliki.eng.hawaii.edu      *
*    Materials Research Laboratory    University of Hawaii    *
*  2540 Dole St., Holmes Hall, Rm. 302, Honolulu, HI  96822   *
*       Tel:  (808) 956-6332         Fax:  (808) 956-2373     *
***************************************************************
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenliebert cudfnBruce cudlnLiebert cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.18 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Comments on Maui Proceedings (4 volumes)
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Comments on Maui Proceedings (4 volumes)
Date: 18 Aug 94 17:36:50 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

Glad to see comments from Rod Price -- welcome.

I received today the 4-volume proceedings of the "Fourth International
Conference on Cold Fusion," held in Maui in December 1993, published by EPRI.
The title page explains that the meeting was sponsored by EPRI (T. Passell) and
the Office of Naval Research (R. Nowak), the latter was rather a surprise to me.
The foreward explains that "Proceedings, including only those papers passing a
rigorous peer review, will appear later as a publication of the ANS's Fusion
Technology Journal..."   

It's interesting to look through the contributions.  Eugene Mallove writes
about the use of cold fusion for space vehicle propulsion:

"A central feature of the scientific controversy surrounding cold fusion -- 
'If it's nuclear, where's the radiation?' -- turns out to be the prime asset
for space."  
"Therein lies the basic appeal of cold fusion:  nearly radiationless nuclear
rocketry."  p. 35-5

Wow-- talk about turning a major problem into an asset...  Gene, methinks
you're putting the cart before the (dead) horse again.  The absence of nuclear
products implies, via E=delta-m *c^2, the absence of nuclear reactions.

The exchange between Giuliano Preparata (U. Milano) and M. Rabinowitz (EPRI)
caught my attention also.  Those at the meeting will remember that 
"Preparata jumped up and viciously and repeatedly yelled out a charge of
'intellectual dishonesty' simply because his theory had not been discussed."
[quoted from Rabinowitz, "Response to G. Preparata", p. 17-1]
I suspect that Preparata was also agitated because Rabinowitz had found *all*
theories of cold fusion defective, in particular those of Schwinger and
Hagelstein.

But Preparata remembers the incident differently:
"In his talk at the ICCF4... M. Rabinowitz blatantly neglected to mention the
work that since May 1989  I  have carried out on the theory of cold fusion...
To my  polite  reminder,  M. Rabinowitz reacted in a most unexpected and
       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
acrimonious way culminated in the statement that:  "there are three types of
mistakes that one can make in a scientific work:  logical, factual and
numerical:  Preparata has made all of them!"  [p. 16-1]

I must leave the bulk of the discussion to the interested reader of the
Proceedings.  

Rabinowitz concludes:
"Preparata expresses dismay that the objections to his work took only one page,
yet neglects to even address half of the objections.  His answers to the other
half are inadequate.  His responses to the questions raised are about as valid
as his recollection of what transpired at Maui."  [p. 17-4]

I would like to call the interested reader's attention to the written paper by
Rabinowitz, which does indeed discuss the Preparata theory, along with critique.
Rabinowitz is a serious scientist who has taken a hard look at cf theories,
and concludes:

"In spite of considerable efforts, no theoretical formulation of CF has
succeeded in quantitatively or even qualitatively describing the reported
experimental results.  Those models claiming to have solved this enigma appear
far from having accomplished this goal. ..."
"The issues raised by Huizenga have not yet been fully answered.  The most
important miracle to answer is Miracle 3:  Where are the Nuclear Products?"

[Are you listening, Gene?]

I agree with Rabinowitz:
"Reproducibility of CF claims by an independent qualified laboratory should be
given the highest priority to firmly establish the credibility of CF." 

On this point, I should mention the conclusion of a recently completed
experiment conducted in our neutron facility by two scientists from Russia
and Belarousse using protonic conductors loaded with deuterium:
*no* neutron signal was seen at all in about a dozen trials.

I had extended the time for using our facility until all systems were working
very well, they agreed -- except for their own crystal, one of them said.
They worked very hard and are likeable men and one feels sorry for their
failure.  The investor who traveled with them and paid (many of) the bills
expressed disappointment, stating that the Russian scientist had boasted of 300
trials which had all produced neutrons.  The same scientist, before the
'demonstration' in our neutron-detection facility, had spoken of getting the
Nobel prize for his work. 

More on this, and on the Maui meeting proceedings, later.

--Steven Jones


cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenjonesse cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.19 / Bill Page /  Re: I'm not in this / Bohm, pilot waves, and lousy SciAm articles
     
Originally-From: 70047.3047@compuserve.com (Bill Page)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: I'm not in this / Bohm, pilot waves, and lousy SciAm articles
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 1994 07:56:29 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

David Davies writes:
<<
Take one electron sized packet of energy in your favorite hidden variable model.
Pass it through two slits. As it approaches a screen it increasingly tends to
excite resonances in the waves that constitute the screen.

...

>>

Dave, I wonder where you learned to think about quantum mechanics in this way.
The above terms and the explanation of diffraction that followed does not fit
very well with my present understanding of the subject. Although there are some
rather poor texts on quantum mechanics, there are a few good ones that are
honest and clear about the philosophical issues. Unfortunately many physics
departments (and physicists) tend to shy away from anything that is not
"empirical science". Are you interested in taking up this subject seriously?

Sometimes I worry that what I have been posting lately about Bohm's
interpretation might be too off the main topic of this group. What do you think?
What to others think?

Regards,

Bill Page.

cudkeys:
cuddy19 cuden3047 cudfnBill cudlnPage cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.19 / Bill Page /  proton conductors
     
Originally-From: 70047.3047@compuserve.com (Bill Page)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: proton conductors
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 1994 07:56:28 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Jeff Driscoll writes:
<<
The proton conductor is so named because it conducts protons (hydrogen or
dueterium stripped of the electron) when an electric potential is applied
accross it.
>>

Can you give us any references to literature on the subject of proton
conductors? What are they? How is proton conduction measured? What theories
explain why some materials conduct protons better than others? What relationship
do they have to high temperature superconductors? Etc.

Shortly after the ICCF4 meeting I had some email correspondence with Jean-Paul
Biberian at >INTERNET: jpb@sunspot.ssl.berkeley.edu. At ICCF4 he presented a
poster on his proton conductor excess heat experiments. He uses AlLaO3 and
claimed positive results. So far Biberian has not interacted in this forum.
Perhaps you might like to compare notes with him and let us know what else is
going on in this area.

BTW, welcome to the group!

Cheers,

Bill Page.

cudkeys:
cuddy19 cuden3047 cudfnBill cudlnPage cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.19 / Bill Page /  experiment - calorimetry
     
Originally-From: 70047.3047@compuserve.com (Bill Page)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: experiment - calorimetry
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 1994 07:56:33 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Ok, Tom, thanks for the analysis and critique.

What have I learned?

Lesson 1: Remember the three ways heat is transferred. Conduction, convection
and radiation. Calorimetrists must wake up in the morning muttering these three
words! (We talking about thermal (infrared) radiation here, not ionizing
radiation as in radioactive.)

Lesson 2: The pressure of the gas represents its total heat content (which
translates to temperature if the mass and phase of the gas is constant). This is
only interesting in the case of conduction.

So, if we were to try to build a *conduction* calorimeter, gas could be used as
the conduction media only if convection and radiation are absent or at least,
constant. Ok, by way of attempting to save the idea, what about:

1) Use a silvered (reflective) dewar to stop radiation

2) Use a gas that is not transparent, i.e. that absorbs infrared radiation (is
this possible?)

3) Instead of trying to block convection, what if we did the opposite? What if
we  stirred the gas at a constant rate (with a fan)?

BTW, is it correct to say that the calorimetry that P&F do tries to make use of
only radiation? They use partially silvered vacuum dewars. I don't think they
are doing null-balance calorimetry, though right?, since I can't imagine how one
might directly measure the total heat content (= net flux) of the radiation.

Anyway, how are you progressing with the heat pipe technology?

Cheers,

Bill Page.

cudkeys:
cuddy19 cuden3047 cudfnBill cudlnPage cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.19 / Bill Page /  Re: Bohm's Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics Using Maple Mathematics
     
Originally-From: 70047.3047@compuserve.com (Bill Page)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Bohm's Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics Using Maple Mathematics
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 1994 07:56:37 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Rodney Price wrotes:
<<
On the two-particle case:  how can you start two fermions at the same position,
since the magnitude of the wavefunction is zero (not just close to zero, really
-zero-) there?
>>

I replied:
<< 
That's exactly what I thought at first, but now I am not so sure. This is
actually a pretty deep question and I could use some help here. It is true that
all the functions phi[a](n,n,x1,x2) = 0. This means that two fermions cannot be
in the same "state". But these functions are not in the superposition that I
built. Nor could they be. They aren't eigenstates. In fact they aren't even
proper wavefunctions.

But as you point out phi[a](n1,n2,x,x)=0 for all n1 and n2 and therefore so does
psi[a](x,x,t)=0. If abs(psi)^2 is interpreted as a probability density then this
obviously means that the probability of the two particles being in the same
place is 0. But remember that abs(psi)=R is considered in Bohm's interpretation
[...]
>>

Rodney Price writes:
<<
The reasoning above is a mathematical proof of the fact that two fermions cannot
occupy the same state.  You should believe that simple result, rather than
confusing yourself with other considerations.  If the other considerations give
a result other than the one you just proved here, there is a logical
inconsistency in your reasoning.  In other words, you're making it too hard.
>>

I do believe that simple result. The point I was making was that Bohm's
interpretation has both particles and wavefunctions. And further, that the
wavefunctions are not a priori taken to be related to probability density. When
we refer to the two "fermions" what are we talking about? The particles or the
wavefunction? In the conventional interpretation we can't talk about particles
so the best we can do is discuss the occupation of a "state", i.e. the form of
the wavefunction. This is not the same as discussing particle trajectories.

In Bohm's interpretation the form of the wavefunction determines the velocity of
the particles but it does not determine their initial positions.

I don't think that this is making it too hard, nor can I see any logical
inconsistency in my reasoning.

<<
... I don't have much time, so all I can offer is advice.
>>

Thanks, and thanks for the suggestion on how to approach the coherent state
case. I do appreciate it.

Cheers,

Bill Page.

cudkeys:
cuddy19 cuden3047 cudfnBill cudlnPage cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.19 / Chris Parkinson /  Re: c1prasad@watson.ibm.com (prasad)
     
Originally-From: parky@ix.netcom.com (Chris Parkinson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: c1prasad@watson.ibm.com (prasad)
Date: 19 Aug 1994 07:01:29 GMT
Organization: Netcom

In <32t51o$11nt@watnews1.watson.ibm.com> c1prasad@watson.ibm.com (prasad) writes: 

>
>>parky@ix.netcom.com (Chris Parkinson) writes:
>>
>>I'm glad to here that you have got patents. You obviuosly enjoy a sense
>>of well being knowing you've got you're intellectual property protected.
>>Hey heres a wild thought, maybe the patent office is doing the right
>>thing. Just imagine if someone did get the Gods gift to CF patent and they
>>SOLD it to Exxon!!! Holy Cow Batman, the Riddler's got us again.
>
>CP
>
>-- 
>
>Don't worry, amigo, I'm not going to sell it ;)
>
>
>#pragma prejudices=own brainwaves=own others=absolved
>// email: 71155.3116@compuserve.com, poll= 1/month.
>// bad habits: unwashed robes, xrn.
>

As Alfred E Newman once and always said "What, me worry?".:-)

CP
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenparky cudfnChris cudlnParkinson cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.19 / Cindy Lundgren /  Re: proton conductors
     
Originally-From: lundgrca@esvax.dnet.dupont.com (Cindy Lundgren)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: proton conductors
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 1994 18:12:33 GMT
Organization: DuPont all opinions my own

In article <940819073354_70047.3047_EHB72-1@CompuServe.COM>,
70047.3047@compuserve.com (Bill Page) wrote:
> 
> Jeff Driscoll writes:
> <<
> The proton conductor is so named because it conducts protons (hydrogen or
> dueterium stripped of the electron) when an electric potential is applied
> accross it.
> >>
> 
> Can you give us any references to literature on the subject of proton
> conductors? What are they? How is proton conduction measured? What theories
> explain why some materials conduct protons better than others? What relationship
> do they have to high temperature superconductors? Etc.
 
> Bill Page.

From a lurking electrochemist:
Of course you know that a proton conductor is an ion conductor with
selectivity for protons. Literature sources are abundent since these
conductors are the basis for fuel cells, ion selective electrodes (pH being
the proton conductor ion selective electrode). Proton conductors come in
many forms; polymeric (Nafion), non-hydrogen bonded systems (sintered
oxides at high T), hydrogen bonded systems (COO-, glass electrodes).
	Selectivities are a function of mobilities, activity coefficients and
system equilibrium constants. The conduction can be monitored by a variety
of techniques, mostly electrochemical including coulometry, polarization
and NMR. You can find more descriptive detail of all of the above in the
following books and references within
"Superionic Solids and Solid electrolytes, Recent Trends", A.L.Laskar, S.
Chandra, eds. Academic Press (1989). includes a chapter on Proton
conductors
W.E. Morf,"The Principles of Ion Selective Electrodes and of Membrane
Transport", Elsevier (1981).
and of course any general text on fuel cells.
By the way since these are ion conductors, they have no relationship to
superconductors.

Back to lurking <g>

Cindy Lundgren
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenlundgrca cudfnCindy cudlnLundgren cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.19 / John Logajan /  Re: therm. cond. of air
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@mirage.skypoint.net (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: therm. cond. of air
Date: 19 Aug 1994 04:42:56 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Jeffrey J. Driscoll (74063.3546@compuserve.com) wrote:
: If I have a gas at .09 atmospheres and I add some more gas of a different 
: type so that the pressure increases to .11 atmospheres

: The gas that is at .09 atmospheres is hydrogen and the small amount of gas 
: that is added is air.

: If I add air so that the pressure goes up to .11 atmospheres the
: temperature rises about 25 degrees to 315 deg C.



I have the following thermal conductivity coefficients handy:

He  2.26
H2  2.13
D2  1.66
N2  0.306
O2  0.306
Ar  0.27
H2O 0.239
Kr  0.1145
Xe  0.0695
Rn  0.0445

These are taken at 100C and are in units of mw/cm/C/seconds (I believe
Mitchell Swartz once corrected my units on this, but I've forgotten,
oh well.)

As you can see there is a 7:1 reduction in thermal conductivity when
going from H2 to N2 (the major component of air.)  You can also see
a general trend of decreased thermal conductivity with increasing
gas molecule mass.  That is why they use H2 as a cooling gas for
some high power functions, and why they use heavy gases around
filaments of lights (because they want to keep them hot.)

--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com -- 612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills  MN 55112 USA           -
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.19 /  SilntObsvr /  Re: Fogal funnies
     
Originally-From: silntobsvr@aol.com (SilntObsvr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fogal funnies
Date: 19 Aug 1994 04:35:01 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

In article <9408181318.AA42498@pilot1.cl.msu.edu>, blue@pilot.msu.edu
(Richard A Blue) writes:

>Can anyone explain how it is that anyone with enough technical skill
>to sign on to Internet can read what has been said about the Fogal
>modified transistor and take it seriously?  Does anyone really think
>that you can outboard an ordinary capacitor near a chip and generate
>enough magnetic (?) field to influence currents in the silicon via
>the Hall effect?  Get real!
>
>Dick Blue

I can only say, it's a completely different kind of technical skill
required.  For instance, many writers of (non-SF) fiction and poetry now
know enough about the computers they use in their writing to sucessfully
access Usenet newsgroups via a connection provider.  On the other hand, I
know of no reason to expect them to have the background knowledge of the
physics of semiconduction that would be needed to see that sort of premise
as grossly improbable...

Just my opinion, mind you...  B)
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudensilntobsvr cudlnSilntObsvr cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.19 / John Logajan /  Re: experiment - calorimetry
     
Originally-From: al789@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: experiment - calorimetry
Date: 19 Aug 1994 14:39:00 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)


70047.3047@compuserve.com (Bill Page) says:
>3) Instead of trying to block convection, what if we did the opposite? What if
>we  stirred the gas at a constant rate (with a fan)?

This solves both the convection *and* the radiation problem (or at least
minimizes it.)

Remember that the radiation problem that Tom is worried about is related
to the tempK ^4 power non-linearity.  Recirculating the gas by means of a
fan would smooth out radiating hot (and cold) spots on the inner dewar
surface.

The motorized fan replaces the function Tom is trying to get using the
heat pipe system.  Fans just seem a little easier to use than heat
pipe construction -- at least to my untrained mind.

There are piezofans for people who do not trust rotory widgets.

-- 
-- John Logajan ---  al789@cleveland.freenet.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenal789 cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.19 / Tom Droege /  Re: Comments on Maui Proceedings (4 volumes)
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Comments on Maui Proceedings (4 volumes)
Date: 19 Aug 1994 16:39:28 GMT
Organization: fermilab

Just using the Steven Jones header so all the comments are in one place.

My ICCF4 Proceedings arrived early this morning.  Someone rang my doorbell 
and ran.  There are 3.75" of papers in 4 volumes.  

McKubre only submitted his view graphs, there is no text.  Pity, he 
writes well.  To those of us reading the entrails by the side of the
road, this has a meaning.  

The Kunimatsu et. al. work is there in several sections.  A must for 
anyone contemplating a "cold fusion" experiment.  All those wonderful
graphs are there - 19 plots in the first paper alone.  Excess heat plotted
against everything.  But sadly without error bars.  

I will also try to read the papers and comment.  I hope to use my earlier
reviews as a framework.

I think about a dozen regular posters and lurkers have copies of the 
proceedings.  I will try to look up particular papers if anyone is 
interested in a specific item.  Hopefully we can all share the library 
duty.  Listed below are attendees that should have copies, and are known 
to either post here or correspond with those that do:

Maui spf "Gang of Four"
Steven Jones
Bill Page
Mark Hittinger
Tom Droege

Scott Chubb
Wayne Green
Peter Hagelstein
John Hilborn
Mark Hugo
John Huizenga
Dennis Letts
Bruce Lewenstein
Gene Mallove
George Miley
Douglas Morrison
Bill Page
Jed Rothwell
Bart Simon
Mitchell Swartz

Copies can be obtained from:

EPRI Distribution Cewnter
207 Coggins Drive,
PO Box 23205,
Pleasant Hill, CA  94523
(510) 934-4212

Report Name:
EPRI TR-104188
Project 3170
Proceedings
July 1994

Proceedings: Fourth International Conference on Cold Fusion
Volume 1: Plenary Session Papers
Volume 2: Calorimetry and Materials Papers
Volume 3: Nuclear Measurements Papers
Volume 4: Theory and Special Topics Papers

Above is for Dieter Britz's records

I do not know the cost for the set, but if you are an EPRI member utility
they are free!  ;+)

If anyone calls and gets the price, let us know.  There is at least $2.00
in paper.

Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.19 / Tom Droege /  Re: experiment - calorimetry
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: experiment - calorimetry
Date: 19 Aug 1994 17:16:07 GMT
Organization: fermilab

In article <940819073356_70047.3047_EHB72-2@CompuServe.COM>, 
70047.3047@compuserve.com (Bill Page) says:
>
>Ok, Tom, thanks for the analysis and critique.
>
>What have I learned?
>
>Lesson 1: Remember the three ways heat is transferred. Conduction, 
convection
>and radiation. Calorimetrists must wake up in the morning muttering these 
three
>words! (We talking about thermal (infrared) radiation here, not ionizing
>radiation as in radioactive.)
>
>Lesson 2: The pressure of the gas represents its total heat content 
(which
>translates to temperature if the mass and phase of the gas is constant). 
This is
>only interesting in the case of conduction.
>
>So, if we were to try to build a *conduction* calorimeter, gas could be 
used as
>the conduction media only if convection and radiation are absent or at 
least,
>constant. Ok, by way of attempting to save the idea, what about:
>
>1) Use a silvered (reflective) dewar to stop radiation

In an old New Yorker cartoon, a man in a suit is leaning out the window
with a strange gun in his hands.  The sign on the door says "Patent 
Attorny". Below, one can see people as dots.  He is saying to the obvious 
inventor: "Death Ray, fiddlesticks, it doesn't even slow em down."

The silvered dewar hardly slows down the radiation problem.  The one I 
used was internally silvered, and also had one heat shield.  Multiple 
heat shield layers can help.  I contemplated using "Super Insulation" for 
this reason at one time.  I can actually walk across the street and take 
it off a big roll.  But you need a good vacuum to gain, and I was warned 
that a single fingerprint would greatly affect the result.  
is saying 
>

>2) Use a gas that is not transparent, i.e. that absorbs infrared 
radiation (is
>this possible?)

And now we have conduction and convection.
>

>3) Instead of trying to block convection, what if we did the opposite? 
What if
>we  stirred the gas at a constant rate (with a fan)?
>

This is where you all have not done your home work.  If you do the 
calculations that I proposed, you will find that even 1/16" copper has a 
significant temperature drop over its surface due to a typical cell heat 
load.  Consider that you have a copper surface with a thermal conductivity 
of 200 (in some units) and you are blowing air over its surface with a 
thermal conductivity of 0.01 ( in the same units).  It just doesn't couple 
very well.  It is very hard not to have big temperature gradients.  We 
used 0.875" of aluminum around the cell to try to create an isothermal 
survace.  Then 1" of good insulator, then 1/16" of copper, then 1/8" of 
insulator then the inside of the dewar.  All this to try to make the dewar 
see an isothermal inner surface.  Then there was another layer of copper 
over the outside of the dewar again to try to have an isothermal surface 
on the outside of the dewar.  At one time I measured of order 1 C gradient 
on the outside aluminum heat shell. 

I did not do everything right, and did not take all the right 
measurements, but if you do a few calculations you will understand the 
problem better.

>BTW, is it correct to say that the calorimetry that P&F do tries to make 
use of
>only radiation? They use partially silvered vacuum dewars. I don't think 

Yep, that is the case as I understand it.  The silvered area makes the 
main (but not the only - the rest is calibration and one hopes it does not 
not change) heat loss between the cell liquid and the bath liquid.  They 
hope the radiation loss is constant (with delta t) because they make sure 
that the liquid level never falls below the silvered area.  (Except when 
they are "boiling away"!)  They claim, and I agree that to their accuracy 
the insides of the cell are of uniform temperature.  The water bath is at 
constant temperature - to whatever they claim, I believe that part.  So 
the main loss of heat is by radiation between the cell liquid and the bath 
liquid.  There is also conduction around the top of the cell and radition 
through the silvered part of the cell.  I do not at the moment remember if 
they submerge the entire cell or leave the top sticking out. I would not 
be surprised if 10% of the heat was lost by other than radiation.   

they
>are doing null-balance calorimetry, though right?, since I can't imagine 
how one
>might directly measure the total heat content (= net flux) of the 
radiation.
>
>Anyway, how are you progressing with the heat pipe technology?
>

Slow.  I don't plan to build anything at the moment until I have a good 
experiment to do.  

>Cheers,
>
>Bill Page.
>
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.19 / Rodney Price /  Re: Bohm's Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics Using Maple Mathematics
     
Originally-From: rprice@reunion.umd.edu (Rodney Price)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Bohm's Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics Using Maple Mathematics
Date: 19 Aug 1994 18:08:40 GMT
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park

In article <940819073359_70047.3047_EHB72-3@CompuServe.COM>  
70047.3047@compuserve.com (Bill Page) writes:
> Rodney Price writes:
> <<
> The reasoning above is a mathematical proof of the fact that two fermions  
cannot
> occupy the same state.  You should believe that simple result, rather than
> confusing yourself with other considerations.  If the other considerations  
give
> a result other than the one you just proved here, there is a logical
> inconsistency in your reasoning.  In other words, you're making it too hard.
> >>
> 
> I do believe that simple result. The point I was making was that Bohm's
> interpretation has both particles and wavefunctions. And further, that the
> wavefunctions are not a priori taken to be related to probability density.  
When
> we refer to the two "fermions" what are we talking about? The particles or  
the
> wavefunction? In the conventional interpretation we can't talk about  
particles
> so the best we can do is discuss the occupation of a "state", i.e. the form  
of
> the wavefunction. This is not the same as discussing particle trajectories.
> 
> In Bohm's interpretation the form of the wavefunction determines the velocity  
of
> the particles but it does not determine their initial positions.
> 
> I don't think that this is making it too hard, nor can I see any logical
> inconsistency in my reasoning.

The various interpretations of quantum mechanics are all concerned with
the philosophical underpinnings of quantum mechanics.  That's why they're
called interpretations, not theories.  The physical consequences of each
of these interpretations should be the same; otherwise you are discussing
a new theory, not a new interpretation.  Bohm's interpretation considers
the wavefunction as something real, as you say, not a probability density.
If we knew the particle's initial position and velocity, its trajectory
would be known exactly as it follows its "pilot wave" around.  This gives
a deterministic theory, as opposed to the usual probability-based theory.
Unfortunately, in the real world it is impossible to know the particle's
position and velocity precisely, even in principle, so you end up with
the same quantum theory in practice: the wavefunction gives you a proba-
bility density.  You use it in just the same way as you would use it in
the conventional interpretation.  The particle position and velocity are
hidden, but the wavefunction tells you where it -might- be.

In the conventional interpretation we talk about particles all the time.
It's just that we don't precisely know where they are; all the information
we have about that is in the wavefunction.  If the wavefunction is zero
when two particles are at the same place, that tells you that the two
particles can never be in the same place.  When I say that two fermions
cannot occupy the same state, that is another way of saying that they cannot
be in the same place at the same time. 

If you'd like to see the way quantum mechanics treats particle trajectories
in a particularly illuminating way, find a reference on Feynman's path
integral approach to quantum mechanics.  Chapter 8 in "Principles of Quantum
Mechanics," by R. Shankar, contains a nice discussion.

Rod Price
rprice@reunion.umd.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenrprice cudfnRodney cudlnPrice cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Sat Aug 20 04:37:03 EDT 1994
------------------------------
1994.08.18 / Bruce Liebert /  Re: proton conductors
     
Originally-From: liebert@wiliki.eng.hawaii.edu (Bruce E. Liebert)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: proton conductors
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 1994 20:21:57 GMT
Organization: University of Hawaii

In article <940818024422_74063.3546_GHA118-1@CompuServe.COM>,
74063.3546@compuserve.com (Jeffrey J. Driscoll) wrote:

> 1?a group in Japan at Hokkaido University that claims to get 
> 10+ watts out while putting in less than 5 milliwatts.  The whole system
> is at 300 degrees C so it takes 70 or so watts to get the system up 
> to 300 degrees C and then when they run a small current through the proton
> conductor, the proton conductor puts out 10 plus watts.   Their proton conductor
> is the size of a quarter and there is a dueterium gas atomosphere surrounding 
> the proton conductor which sits on top of a heater.   The proton conductor is 
> so named because it conducts protons (hydrogen or dueterium stripped of the
>  electron) when an electric potential is applied accross it.  

OK

> This is what I want to do:
> Mills suggested that I use just the Strontium and Niobium powders and I came
> up with the idea of adding nickle powder or maybe palladium powder and adding
> it to the mix ( another idea is to not use the metallic powder in the disc and just 
> coat the top of the disc with Pd or Ni).   The powders will be pressed into a disc.
> Another idea is to use some sort of potassium powder.

> 
>     Jeff Driscoll
> 
>    617 878 1806
> ( I live near Boston, Mass)ctorsyy 

Please keep in mind that if your goal is to conduct protons/deuterons, the
solid had better be primarily an ionic conductor, otherwise most of the
current will be short circuited by electrons.

If you add nickel or palladium powder to the starting strontium or niobium
oxides, you will probably get an electronic conductor instead.

A useful rule of thumb is that if the solid is colored or black, it
probably won't be a good ionic conductor (electrolyte).
-- 
***************************************************************
*        Bruce E. Liebert  liebert@wiliki.eng.hawaii.edu      *
*    Materials Research Laboratory    University of Hawaii    *
*  2540 Dole St., Holmes Hall, Rm. 302, Honolulu, HI  96822   *
*       Tel:  (808) 956-6332         Fax:  (808) 956-2373     *
***************************************************************
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenliebert cudfnBruce cudlnLiebert cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.18 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Comments on Maui Proceedings (4 volumes)
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Comments on Maui Proceedings (4 volumes)
Date: 18 Aug 94 17:36:50 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

Glad to see comments from Rod Price -- welcome.

I received today the 4-volume proceedings of the "Fourth International
Conference on Cold Fusion," held in Maui in December 1993, published by EPRI.
The title page explains that the meeting was sponsored by EPRI (T. Passell) and
the Office of Naval Research (R. Nowak), the latter was rather a surprise to me.
The foreward explains that "Proceedings, including only those papers passing a
rigorous peer review, will appear later as a publication of the ANS's Fusion
Technology Journal..."   

It's interesting to look through the contributions.  Eugene Mallove writes
about the use of cold fusion for space vehicle propulsion:

"A central feature of the scientific controversy surrounding cold fusion -- 
'If it's nuclear, where's the radiation?' -- turns out to be the prime asset
for space."  
"Therein lies the basic appeal of cold fusion:  nearly radiationless nuclear
rocketry."  p. 35-5

Wow-- talk about turning a major problem into an asset...  Gene, methinks
you're putting the cart before the (dead) horse again.  The absence of nuclear
products implies, via E=delta-m *c^2, the absence of nuclear reactions.

The exchange between Giuliano Preparata (U. Milano) and M. Rabinowitz (EPRI)
caught my attention also.  Those at the meeting will remember that 
"Preparata jumped up and viciously and repeatedly yelled out a charge of
'intellectual dishonesty' simply because his theory had not been discussed."
[quoted from Rabinowitz, "Response to G. Preparata", p. 17-1]
I suspect that Preparata was also agitated because Rabinowitz had found *all*
theories of cold fusion defective, in particular those of Schwinger and
Hagelstein.

But Preparata remembers the incident differently:
"In his talk at the ICCF4... M. Rabinowitz blatantly neglected to mention the
work that since May 1989  I  have carried out on the theory of cold fusion...
To my  polite  reminder,  M. Rabinowitz reacted in a most unexpected and
       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
acrimonious way culminated in the statement that:  "there are three types of
mistakes that one can make in a scientific work:  logical, factual and
numerical:  Preparata has made all of them!"  [p. 16-1]

I must leave the bulk of the discussion to the interested reader of the
Proceedings.  

Rabinowitz concludes:
"Preparata expresses dismay that the objections to his work took only one page,
yet neglects to even address half of the objections.  His answers to the other
half are inadequate.  His responses to the questions raised are about as valid
as his recollection of what transpired at Maui."  [p. 17-4]

I would like to call the interested reader's attention to the written paper by
Rabinowitz, which does indeed discuss the Preparata theory, along with critique.
Rabinowitz is a serious scientist who has taken a hard look at cf theories,
and concludes:

"In spite of considerable efforts, no theoretical formulation of CF has
succeeded in quantitatively or even qualitatively describing the reported
experimental results.  Those models claiming to have solved this enigma appear
far from having accomplished this goal. ..."
"The issues raised by Huizenga have not yet been fully answered.  The most
important miracle to answer is Miracle 3:  Where are the Nuclear Products?"

[Are you listening, Gene?]

I agree with Rabinowitz:
"Reproducibility of CF claims by an independent qualified laboratory should be
given the highest priority to firmly establish the credibility of CF." 

On this point, I should mention the conclusion of a recently completed
experiment conducted in our neutron facility by two scientists from Russia
and Belarousse using protonic conductors loaded with deuterium:
*no* neutron signal was seen at all in about a dozen trials.

I had extended the time for using our facility until all systems were working
very well, they agreed -- except for their own crystal, one of them said.
They worked very hard and are likeable men and one feels sorry for their
failure.  The investor who traveled with them and paid (many of) the bills
expressed disappointment, stating that the Russian scientist had boasted of 300
trials which had all produced neutrons.  The same scientist, before the
'demonstration' in our neutron-detection facility, had spoken of getting the
Nobel prize for his work. 

More on this, and on the Maui meeting proceedings, later.

--Steven Jones


cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenjonesse cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.19 / Bill Page /  Re: I'm not in this / Bohm, pilot waves, and lousy SciAm articles
     
Originally-From: 70047.3047@compuserve.com (Bill Page)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: I'm not in this / Bohm, pilot waves, and lousy SciAm articles
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 1994 07:56:29 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

David Davies writes:
<<
Take one electron sized packet of energy in your favorite hidden variable model.
Pass it through two slits. As it approaches a screen it increasingly tends to
excite resonances in the waves that constitute the screen.

...

>>

Dave, I wonder where you learned to think about quantum mechanics in this way.
The above terms and the explanation of diffraction that followed does not fit
very well with my present understanding of the subject. Although there are some
rather poor texts on quantum mechanics, there are a few good ones that are
honest and clear about the philosophical issues. Unfortunately many physics
departments (and physicists) tend to shy away from anything that is not
"empirical science". Are you interested in taking up this subject seriously?

Sometimes I worry that what I have been posting lately about Bohm's
interpretation might be too off the main topic of this group. What do you think?
What to others think?

Regards,

Bill Page.

cudkeys:
cuddy19 cuden3047 cudfnBill cudlnPage cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.19 / Bill Page /  proton conductors
     
Originally-From: 70047.3047@compuserve.com (Bill Page)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: proton conductors
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 1994 07:56:28 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Jeff Driscoll writes:
<<
The proton conductor is so named because it conducts protons (hydrogen or
dueterium stripped of the electron) when an electric potential is applied
accross it.
>>

Can you give us any references to literature on the subject of proton
conductors? What are they? How is proton conduction measured? What theories
explain why some materials conduct protons better than others? What relationship
do they have to high temperature superconductors? Etc.

Shortly after the ICCF4 meeting I had some email correspondence with Jean-Paul
Biberian at >INTERNET: jpb@sunspot.ssl.berkeley.edu. At ICCF4 he presented a
poster on his proton conductor excess heat experiments. He uses AlLaO3 and
claimed positive results. So far Biberian has not interacted in this forum.
Perhaps you might like to compare notes with him and let us know what else is
going on in this area.

BTW, welcome to the group!

Cheers,

Bill Page.

cudkeys:
cuddy19 cuden3047 cudfnBill cudlnPage cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.19 / Bill Page /  experiment - calorimetry
     
Originally-From: 70047.3047@compuserve.com (Bill Page)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: experiment - calorimetry
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 1994 07:56:33 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Ok, Tom, thanks for the analysis and critique.

What have I learned?

Lesson 1: Remember the three ways heat is transferred. Conduction, convection
and radiation. Calorimetrists must wake up in the morning muttering these three
words! (We talking about thermal (infrared) radiation here, not ionizing
radiation as in radioactive.)

Lesson 2: The pressure of the gas represents its total heat content (which
translates to temperature if the mass and phase of the gas is constant). This is
only interesting in the case of conduction.

So, if we were to try to build a *conduction* calorimeter, gas could be used as
the conduction media only if convection and radiation are absent or at least,
constant. Ok, by way of attempting to save the idea, what about:

1) Use a silvered (reflective) dewar to stop radiation

2) Use a gas that is not transparent, i.e. that absorbs infrared radiation (is
this possible?)

3) Instead of trying to block convection, what if we did the opposite? What if
we  stirred the gas at a constant rate (with a fan)?

BTW, is it correct to say that the calorimetry that P&F do tries to make use of
only radiation? They use partially silvered vacuum dewars. I don't think they
are doing null-balance calorimetry, though right?, since I can't imagine how one
might directly measure the total heat content (= net flux) of the radiation.

Anyway, how are you progressing with the heat pipe technology?

Cheers,

Bill Page.

cudkeys:
cuddy19 cuden3047 cudfnBill cudlnPage cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.19 / Bill Page /  Re: Bohm's Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics Using Maple Mathematics
     
Originally-From: 70047.3047@compuserve.com (Bill Page)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Bohm's Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics Using Maple Mathematics
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 1994 07:56:37 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Rodney Price wrotes:
<<
On the two-particle case:  how can you start two fermions at the same position,
since the magnitude of the wavefunction is zero (not just close to zero, really
-zero-) there?
>>

I replied:
<< 
That's exactly what I thought at first, but now I am not so sure. This is
actually a pretty deep question and I could use some help here. It is true that
all the functions phi[a](n,n,x1,x2) = 0. This means that two fermions cannot be
in the same "state". But these functions are not in the superposition that I
built. Nor could they be. They aren't eigenstates. In fact they aren't even
proper wavefunctions.

But as you point out phi[a](n1,n2,x,x)=0 for all n1 and n2 and therefore so does
psi[a](x,x,t)=0. If abs(psi)^2 is interpreted as a probability density then this
obviously means that the probability of the two particles being in the same
place is 0. But remember that abs(psi)=R is considered in Bohm's interpretation
[...]
>>

Rodney Price writes:
<<
The reasoning above is a mathematical proof of the fact that two fermions cannot
occupy the same state.  You should believe that simple result, rather than
confusing yourself with other considerations.  If the other considerations give
a result other than the one you just proved here, there is a logical
inconsistency in your reasoning.  In other words, you're making it too hard.
>>

I do believe that simple result. The point I was making was that Bohm's
interpretation has both particles and wavefunctions. And further, that the
wavefunctions are not a priori taken to be related to probability density. When
we refer to the two "fermions" what are we talking about? The particles or the
wavefunction? In the conventional interpretation we can't talk about particles
so the best we can do is discuss the occupation of a "state", i.e. the form of
the wavefunction. This is not the same as discussing particle trajectories.

In Bohm's interpretation the form of the wavefunction determines the velocity of
the particles but it does not determine their initial positions.

I don't think that this is making it too hard, nor can I see any logical
inconsistency in my reasoning.

<<
... I don't have much time, so all I can offer is advice.
>>

Thanks, and thanks for the suggestion on how to approach the coherent state
case. I do appreciate it.

Cheers,

Bill Page.

cudkeys:
cuddy19 cuden3047 cudfnBill cudlnPage cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.19 / Chris Parkinson /  Re: c1prasad@watson.ibm.com (prasad)
     
Originally-From: parky@ix.netcom.com (Chris Parkinson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: c1prasad@watson.ibm.com (prasad)
Date: 19 Aug 1994 07:01:29 GMT
Organization: Netcom

In <32t51o$11nt@watnews1.watson.ibm.com> c1prasad@watson.ibm.com (prasad) writes: 

>
>>parky@ix.netcom.com (Chris Parkinson) writes:
>>
>>I'm glad to here that you have got patents. You obviuosly enjoy a sense
>>of well being knowing you've got you're intellectual property protected.
>>Hey heres a wild thought, maybe the patent office is doing the right
>>thing. Just imagine if someone did get the Gods gift to CF patent and they
>>SOLD it to Exxon!!! Holy Cow Batman, the Riddler's got us again.
>
>CP
>
>-- 
>
>Don't worry, amigo, I'm not going to sell it ;)
>
>
>#pragma prejudices=own brainwaves=own others=absolved
>// email: 71155.3116@compuserve.com, poll= 1/month.
>// bad habits: unwashed robes, xrn.
>

As Alfred E Newman once and always said "What, me worry?".:-)

CP
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenparky cudfnChris cudlnParkinson cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.19 / Cindy Lundgren /  Re: proton conductors
     
Originally-From: lundgrca@esvax.dnet.dupont.com (Cindy Lundgren)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: proton conductors
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 1994 18:12:33 GMT
Organization: DuPont all opinions my own

In article <940819073354_70047.3047_EHB72-1@CompuServe.COM>,
70047.3047@compuserve.com (Bill Page) wrote:
> 
> Jeff Driscoll writes:
> <<
> The proton conductor is so named because it conducts protons (hydrogen or
> dueterium stripped of the electron) when an electric potential is applied
> accross it.
> >>
> 
> Can you give us any references to literature on the subject of proton
> conductors? What are they? How is proton conduction measured? What theories
> explain why some materials conduct protons better than others? What relationship
> do they have to high temperature superconductors? Etc.
 
> Bill Page.

From a lurking electrochemist:
Of course you know that a proton conductor is an ion conductor with
selectivity for protons. Literature sources are abundent since these
conductors are the basis for fuel cells, ion selective electrodes (pH being
the proton conductor ion selective electrode). Proton conductors come in
many forms; polymeric (Nafion), non-hydrogen bonded systems (sintered
oxides at high T), hydrogen bonded systems (COO-, glass electrodes).
	Selectivities are a function of mobilities, activity coefficients and
system equilibrium constants. The conduction can be monitored by a variety
of techniques, mostly electrochemical including coulometry, polarization
and NMR. You can find more descriptive detail of all of the above in the
following books and references within
"Superionic Solids and Solid electrolytes, Recent Trends", A.L.Laskar, S.
Chandra, eds. Academic Press (1989). includes a chapter on Proton
conductors
W.E. Morf,"The Principles of Ion Selective Electrodes and of Membrane
Transport", Elsevier (1981).
and of course any general text on fuel cells.
By the way since these are ion conductors, they have no relationship to
superconductors.

Back to lurking <g>

Cindy Lundgren
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenlundgrca cudfnCindy cudlnLundgren cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.19 / John Logajan /  Re: therm. cond. of air
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@mirage.skypoint.net (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: therm. cond. of air
Date: 19 Aug 1994 04:42:56 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Jeffrey J. Driscoll (74063.3546@compuserve.com) wrote:
: If I have a gas at .09 atmospheres and I add some more gas of a different 
: type so that the pressure increases to .11 atmospheres

: The gas that is at .09 atmospheres is hydrogen and the small amount of gas 
: that is added is air.

: If I add air so that the pressure goes up to .11 atmospheres the
: temperature rises about 25 degrees to 315 deg C.



I have the following thermal conductivity coefficients handy:

He  2.26
H2  2.13
D2  1.66
N2  0.306
O2  0.306
Ar  0.27
H2O 0.239
Kr  0.1145
Xe  0.0695
Rn  0.0445

These are taken at 100C and are in units of mw/cm/C/seconds (I believe
Mitchell Swartz once corrected my units on this, but I've forgotten,
oh well.)

As you can see there is a 7:1 reduction in thermal conductivity when
going from H2 to N2 (the major component of air.)  You can also see
a general trend of decreased thermal conductivity with increasing
gas molecule mass.  That is why they use H2 as a cooling gas for
some high power functions, and why they use heavy gases around
filaments of lights (because they want to keep them hot.)

--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com -- 612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills  MN 55112 USA           -
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.19 /  SilntObsvr /  Re: Fogal funnies
     
Originally-From: silntobsvr@aol.com (SilntObsvr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fogal funnies
Date: 19 Aug 1994 04:35:01 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

In article <9408181318.AA42498@pilot1.cl.msu.edu>, blue@pilot.msu.edu
(Richard A Blue) writes:

>Can anyone explain how it is that anyone with enough technical skill
>to sign on to Internet can read what has been said about the Fogal
>modified transistor and take it seriously?  Does anyone really think
>that you can outboard an ordinary capacitor near a chip and generate
>enough magnetic (?) field to influence currents in the silicon via
>the Hall effect?  Get real!
>
>Dick Blue

I can only say, it's a completely different kind of technical skill
required.  For instance, many writers of (non-SF) fiction and poetry now
know enough about the computers they use in their writing to sucessfully
access Usenet newsgroups via a connection provider.  On the other hand, I
know of no reason to expect them to have the background knowledge of the
physics of semiconduction that would be needed to see that sort of premise
as grossly improbable...

Just my opinion, mind you...  B)
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudensilntobsvr cudlnSilntObsvr cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.19 / John Logajan /  Re: experiment - calorimetry
     
Originally-From: al789@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: experiment - calorimetry
Date: 19 Aug 1994 14:39:00 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)


70047.3047@compuserve.com (Bill Page) says:
>3) Instead of trying to block convection, what if we did the opposite? What if
>we  stirred the gas at a constant rate (with a fan)?

This solves both the convection *and* the radiation problem (or at least
minimizes it.)

Remember that the radiation problem that Tom is worried about is related
to the tempK ^4 power non-linearity.  Recirculating the gas by means of a
fan would smooth out radiating hot (and cold) spots on the inner dewar
surface.

The motorized fan replaces the function Tom is trying to get using the
heat pipe system.  Fans just seem a little easier to use than heat
pipe construction -- at least to my untrained mind.

There are piezofans for people who do not trust rotory widgets.

-- 
-- John Logajan ---  al789@cleveland.freenet.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenal789 cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.19 / Tom Droege /  Re: Comments on Maui Proceedings (4 volumes)
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Comments on Maui Proceedings (4 volumes)
Date: 19 Aug 1994 16:39:28 GMT
Organization: fermilab

Just using the Steven Jones header so all the comments are in one place.

My ICCF4 Proceedings arrived early this morning.  Someone rang my doorbell 
and ran.  There are 3.75" of papers in 4 volumes.  

McKubre only submitted his view graphs, there is no text.  Pity, he 
writes well.  To those of us reading the entrails by the side of the
road, this has a meaning.  

The Kunimatsu et. al. work is there in several sections.  A must for 
anyone contemplating a "cold fusion" experiment.  All those wonderful
graphs are there - 19 plots in the first paper alone.  Excess heat plotted
against everything.  But sadly without error bars.  

I will also try to read the papers and comment.  I hope to use my earlier
reviews as a framework.

I think about a dozen regular posters and lurkers have copies of the 
proceedings.  I will try to look up particular papers if anyone is 
interested in a specific item.  Hopefully we can all share the library 
duty.  Listed below are attendees that should have copies, and are known 
to either post here or correspond with those that do:

Maui spf "Gang of Four"
Steven Jones
Bill Page
Mark Hittinger
Tom Droege

Scott Chubb
Wayne Green
Peter Hagelstein
John Hilborn
Mark Hugo
John Huizenga
Dennis Letts
Bruce Lewenstein
Gene Mallove
George Miley
Douglas Morrison
Bill Page
Jed Rothwell
Bart Simon
Mitchell Swartz

Copies can be obtained from:

EPRI Distribution Cewnter
207 Coggins Drive,
PO Box 23205,
Pleasant Hill, CA  94523
(510) 934-4212

Report Name:
EPRI TR-104188
Project 3170
Proceedings
July 1994

Proceedings: Fourth International Conference on Cold Fusion
Volume 1: Plenary Session Papers
Volume 2: Calorimetry and Materials Papers
Volume 3: Nuclear Measurements Papers
Volume 4: Theory and Special Topics Papers

Above is for Dieter Britz's records

I do not know the cost for the set, but if you are an EPRI member utility
they are free!  ;+)

If anyone calls and gets the price, let us know.  There is at least $2.00
in paper.

Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.19 / Tom Droege /  Re: experiment - calorimetry
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: experiment - calorimetry
Date: 19 Aug 1994 17:16:07 GMT
Organization: fermilab

In article <940819073356_70047.3047_EHB72-2@CompuServe.COM>, 
70047.3047@compuserve.com (Bill Page) says:
>
>Ok, Tom, thanks for the analysis and critique.
>
>What have I learned?
>
>Lesson 1: Remember the three ways heat is transferred. Conduction, 
convection
>and radiation. Calorimetrists must wake up in the morning muttering these 
three
>words! (We talking about thermal (infrared) radiation here, not ionizing
>radiation as in radioactive.)
>
>Lesson 2: The pressure of the gas represents its total heat content 
(which
>translates to temperature if the mass and phase of the gas is constant). 
This is
>only interesting in the case of conduction.
>
>So, if we were to try to build a *conduction* calorimeter, gas could be 
used as
>the conduction media only if convection and radiation are absent or at 
least,
>constant. Ok, by way of attempting to save the idea, what about:
>
>1) Use a silvered (reflective) dewar to stop radiation

In an old New Yorker cartoon, a man in a suit is leaning out the window
with a strange gun in his hands.  The sign on the door says "Patent 
Attorny". Below, one can see people as dots.  He is saying to the obvious 
inventor: "Death Ray, fiddlesticks, it doesn't even slow em down."

The silvered dewar hardly slows down the radiation problem.  The one I 
used was internally silvered, and also had one heat shield.  Multiple 
heat shield layers can help.  I contemplated using "Super Insulation" for 
this reason at one time.  I can actually walk across the street and take 
it off a big roll.  But you need a good vacuum to gain, and I was warned 
that a single fingerprint would greatly affect the result.  
is saying 
>

>2) Use a gas that is not transparent, i.e. that absorbs infrared 
radiation (is
>this possible?)

And now we have conduction and convection.
>

>3) Instead of trying to block convection, what if we did the opposite? 
What if
>we  stirred the gas at a constant rate (with a fan)?
>

This is where you all have not done your home work.  If you do the 
calculations that I proposed, you will find that even 1/16" copper has a 
significant temperature drop over its surface due to a typical cell heat 
load.  Consider that you have a copper surface with a thermal conductivity 
of 200 (in some units) and you are blowing air over its surface with a 
thermal conductivity of 0.01 ( in the same units).  It just doesn't couple 
very well.  It is very hard not to have big temperature gradients.  We 
used 0.875" of aluminum around the cell to try to create an isothermal 
survace.  Then 1" of good insulator, then 1/16" of copper, then 1/8" of 
insulator then the inside of the dewar.  All this to try to make the dewar 
see an isothermal inner surface.  Then there was another layer of copper 
over the outside of the dewar again to try to have an isothermal surface 
on the outside of the dewar.  At one time I measured of order 1 C gradient 
on the outside aluminum heat shell. 

I did not do everything right, and did not take all the right 
measurements, but if you do a few calculations you will understand the 
problem better.

>BTW, is it correct to say that the calorimetry that P&F do tries to make 
use of
>only radiation? They use partially silvered vacuum dewars. I don't think 

Yep, that is the case as I understand it.  The silvered area makes the 
main (but not the only - the rest is calibration and one hopes it does not 
not change) heat loss between the cell liquid and the bath liquid.  They 
hope the radiation loss is constant (with delta t) because they make sure 
that the liquid level never falls below the silvered area.  (Except when 
they are "boiling away"!)  They claim, and I agree that to their accuracy 
the insides of the cell are of uniform temperature.  The water bath is at 
constant temperature - to whatever they claim, I believe that part.  So 
the main loss of heat is by radiation between the cell liquid and the bath 
liquid.  There is also conduction around the top of the cell and radition 
through the silvered part of the cell.  I do not at the moment remember if 
they submerge the entire cell or leave the top sticking out. I would not 
be surprised if 10% of the heat was lost by other than radiation.   

they
>are doing null-balance calorimetry, though right?, since I can't imagine 
how one
>might directly measure the total heat content (= net flux) of the 
radiation.
>
>Anyway, how are you progressing with the heat pipe technology?
>

Slow.  I don't plan to build anything at the moment until I have a good 
experiment to do.  

>Cheers,
>
>Bill Page.
>
Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.19 / Rodney Price /  Re: Bohm's Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics Using Maple Mathematics
     
Originally-From: rprice@reunion.umd.edu (Rodney Price)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Bohm's Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics Using Maple Mathematics
Date: 19 Aug 1994 18:08:40 GMT
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park

In article <940819073359_70047.3047_EHB72-3@CompuServe.COM>  
70047.3047@compuserve.com (Bill Page) writes:
> Rodney Price writes:
> <<
> The reasoning above is a mathematical proof of the fact that two fermions  
cannot
> occupy the same state.  You should believe that simple result, rather than
> confusing yourself with other considerations.  If the other considerations  
give
> a result other than the one you just proved here, there is a logical
> inconsistency in your reasoning.  In other words, you're making it too hard.
> >>
> 
> I do believe that simple result. The point I was making was that Bohm's
> interpretation has both particles and wavefunctions. And further, that the
> wavefunctions are not a priori taken to be related to probability density.  
When
> we refer to the two "fermions" what are we talking about? The particles or  
the
> wavefunction? In the conventional interpretation we can't talk about  
particles
> so the best we can do is discuss the occupation of a "state", i.e. the form  
of
> the wavefunction. This is not the same as discussing particle trajectories.
> 
> In Bohm's interpretation the form of the wavefunction determines the velocity  
of
> the particles but it does not determine their initial positions.
> 
> I don't think that this is making it too hard, nor can I see any logical
> inconsistency in my reasoning.

The various interpretations of quantum mechanics are all concerned with
the philosophical underpinnings of quantum mechanics.  That's why they're
called interpretations, not theories.  The physical consequences of each
of these interpretations should be the same; otherwise you are discussing
a new theory, not a new interpretation.  Bohm's interpretation considers
the wavefunction as something real, as you say, not a probability density.
If we knew the particle's initial position and velocity, its trajectory
would be known exactly as it follows its "pilot wave" around.  This gives
a deterministic theory, as opposed to the usual probability-based theory.
Unfortunately, in the real world it is impossible to know the particle's
position and velocity precisely, even in principle, so you end up with
the same quantum theory in practice: the wavefunction gives you a proba-
bility density.  You use it in just the same way as you would use it in
the conventional interpretation.  The particle position and velocity are
hidden, but the wavefunction tells you where it -might- be.

In the conventional interpretation we talk about particles all the time.
It's just that we don't precisely know where they are; all the information
we have about that is in the wavefunction.  If the wavefunction is zero
when two particles are at the same place, that tells you that the two
particles can never be in the same place.  When I say that two fermions
cannot occupy the same state, that is another way of saying that they cannot
be in the same place at the same time. 

If you'd like to see the way quantum mechanics treats particle trajectories
in a particularly illuminating way, find a reference on Feynman's path
integral approach to quantum mechanics.  Chapter 8 in "Principles of Quantum
Mechanics," by R. Shankar, contains a nice discussion.

Rod Price
rprice@reunion.umd.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenrprice cudfnRodney cudlnPrice cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.19 / Paul Koloc /  Re: The virial theorem
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The virial theorem
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 1994 17:06:27 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

We set up an look at a very SIMPLIFIED view of a PMK and 
show that there is a case where Art's Divergence Theorem
boundary conditions do not apply.  Instead another set are
SUGGESTED which makes the problem insolveable without knowledge
of the Magnetic energy or field topology the internal 
Toroidal field.  We show that the poloidal and toroidal fields
are confined to two separate regions and CAN NOT mix through
an intervening current sheet, just as he recognizes for the
air/Bpol pressure boundary which is separted by the external 
Mantle inner surface current sheet.  

In the following Art Carlson gives the more or less standard 
application of the VT to SIMPLE (simply-connected single 
region) mag-plasmoids.  Although the construction starts using 
the Divergence theorem, it is RESTRICTED to cases which have 
only a SINGLE REGION and ONE PRESSURE BOUNDARY. There has been
a relentless loyalty to this narrow concept which is at odds 
with the PMK model.  To simplify things a bit, the central
torus will now be represented by a single current tube with
both components of current. It is hoped that this will make
the internal boundary more obvious and difficult to ignore.   
Art imposes his single boundary restriction while (perhaps 
without realizing it) giving us the means to point the way to 
an understanding.  That with an additional cleverness hopefully
will bring the realization (acceptance) of a multiply-connected 
mag-field plasmoid (PMK and BL).   

Art, I assume you follow the texts on Divergence theorem and
are familiar with the concept of multiply-connected regions.  

There is some futher strangness (technically: result correct) 
that other compressed systems such as soap bubbles or 
pressurized gas cylinders are not validly treated by the Virial 
theorem.  

The reason that it relates to the physical expression of the 
boundary forces (mag field|E-Field| etc), specifically that it
is not compatible with his eq 1: the BL external boundary 
condition -- is BOGUS.    The divergence theorem can handle
such examples although the result will NOT be the virial form
which only sees the atmospheric boundary.  In other words
a PMK, soap bubble, and Art's pressurized gas cylinder cases
are too complicated for the virial, (a single boundary Divergence
Theorem), but they are NOT too complicated for the full form
Divergence theorem.  
 
The Virial theorem is not restricted to mag/gas bounded systems.  
Its restriction comes from being restricted in validity to  
systems with only one simple easily computible constraint
source (such as the surrounding air pressure) or gravitation
force of a cluster of stars.  The Virial can be applied to 
general SIMPLE systems and this includes those in dynamic 
equilibrium.  These can be handled by looking at an extended 
time or"time averaged" value where the averaging time includes 
a significant sampling of its possible dynamic states, i.e. 
star clusters.  

In the case at hand, (PMK- BL) the equilibrium time is order 
fraction of a millisecond, while the total life-time could 
extend to order tens of seconds, (typically).  His analysis is 
correct up to the application of his criteria to the specific 
problem.  Namely, he correctly concludes that simple plasmoids 
containing SINGLE region mag field which impinge at the external 
gas boundary are determinable.  However, he denies that it is 
possible that any two (or multiply connected) mag field regions 
can exist within the plasmoid air boundary or that one of these 
two distinctive regions would NOT impinge upon the gas boundary 
and therefore not be determinable (by comparison to gas boundary 
or external pressure).  In order to conserve the viewers 
varying depth of interest, I include most of Carlson's work 
mostly at the end of this post.  To find my specific shorter 
criticisms just search for "pk" before each responding paragraph.  

In article <32dc1tINN1k6@slcawc.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de> awc@ipp-
garching.mpg.de writes:
>I wish to give a simplified derivation of the virial theorem. A
>certain proficiency in tensor mathematics is necessary to follow the
>details, but I think I can make the outline of the proof clear to the
>less skilled as well. I tried to find a more elementary notation, but
>it seems tensors are the only way to get the right answer. I'll be
>happy to explain any individual step that gives people problems. I
>hope this can serve as a reference point for any discussions of or
>challenges to the virial theorem in this group.

>Wanted: a relationship between the various forms of energy in a
>magnetized plasma within a certain volume. We will simplify the
>problem by only dealing only with magnetic and pressure forces in
>equilibrium, and by taking a zero-field, constant-pressure boundary,
>that is,
>
>(1)     j cross B - grad p = 0     everywhere

pk
ON ALL current surfaces, not just the outer one. 
For simplicity we can reduce these to TWO (three in the equatorial plane)

>and
>(2)     B = 0  and  p = p0         on the boundary.
>
>Now and then we will need
>
>(3)     j = curl B / mu0
>
>which is Ampere's law and
>
>(4)     div B = 0

>which says that magnetic monopoles don't exist. These are our starting
>assumptions, the rest is mathematics. (2) through (4) should be
>completely uncontroversial; all the subtleties are tied up in
>(1). Some of these will be mentioned below.

>Let's start by combining these equations. The magnetic force density
>can be written
>
>(5)     j cross B = (curl B / mu0) cross B
>                   = (B dot grad) B / mu0 - grad (B^2/2mu0)
>                   = div (BB/mu0) - (div B) B/mu0 - grad (B^2/2mu0)
>                   = div (BB/mu0) - grad (B^2/2mu0)
>
>The second part is minus the gradient of a scalar, which has the same
>form as the -grad p of the pressure force, so it is convenient to
>refer to (B^2/2mu0) as the magnetic pressure. This is a simple and
>useful concept, telling us we can trade off plasma pressure against
>magnetic pressure. The other term looks something like a tension along
>field lines (if a field line is curved, the force is toward the center
>of curvature). It is this term which is troublesome and interesting
>because it allows us to use the field lines as guy wires to transfer
>forces from one place to another. Loops of field will even have a
>tendency to provide a net inward force. Don't jump to any conclusions,
>but keep your eye on this term. 

pk
YES!!   Art this IS the crucial point, at least the FIRST HALF of 
that point.  Your warning probably pretains to the fact that field 
lines generate "tension" only along the field lines and not 
laterally.  In fact, they tend to produce "pressure" laterally 
(almost as if they were inflatable rubber tubes".  Then as far as 
I can see you QUIT the problem.  How is it one can repair such a 
silly system that has tensile stength potential, but with one set 
of field lines can NOT produce the two orthogonal components of 
tensile strength that are required to form a pressure bearing surface??  

An analogy:
Let's go to engineering for the answer.  Remove an A/C hose from 
your automobile and slice through its cross-section.  What you will 
find inside the rubber matrix (low beta plasma) that there are 
"lines of force or tension" which are generally composed of high 
tensile strength fibers such as carbon, glass, nylon, etc.  The 
question is are these fibers wound as just ONE parallel layer or 
ensemble??  NO!!  At least two such surface layers of the material 
are used, with one layer essentially orthogonal to the other.  
Consequently, such tubes produce pressure bearing surfaces.  
There are two basis vector components of tension which are denoted 
as SURFACE TENSION.  Note: in the hi-pressure hose example, the 
surface is a thick surface by virtue of other requirements, but I 
think you can shrink that thickness to a thin walled tube mentally 
and thereby more easily extrapolate the picture to the point I am 
trying to make concerning the boundary surface.  The same concept 
of to component tensile surfaces is true of another invention of 
humankind (or some worms or arachnids) which is "CLOTH".    

So the trick is to produce a cloth of mag flux which CAN NOT 
MERGE (pulled diagonally into alignment) to form a single 
tensile vector field.  Shucks, another BIG PROBLEM ...   should 
we quit????    NO!. The way we get around this last one is to 
produce within the di vector basis surface, an interposed 
magical permanent field separating film, that still transmits 
the two component mag forces.  Basically it is like keeping the 
fibers from reorienting in fiber glass cloth.  There we might 
impregnate the cloth with a curable polymer.  By analogy 
the flux (fiber glass) is FROZEN IN (permanently bounded.  NOW 
we have produced a pressure bearing surface.  but .. SO WHAT???

so...
Now we can construct a TWO DISTINCTIVE region mag plasmoid 
(compound magnetoplasmoid configuration).  Let's cut our 
plasmoid through the equatorial plane, and look at it from the 
TOP or polar view.   We see a "two ring Bull's Eye", which is a 
slice though the Mantle fields and toroidal current tube (simplied
from the Nested set of current tubes --- we now just consider
a representive toroidal current tube -- for simplicity and for
CLARITY.  We can superimpose integral solutions over the other
toroids -- LATER (left as an exercise).

In Carlson's case, the two rings and the central circle can be 
merged into a big single "sun image" or solid disk.  In his case, 
we can't form any pressure bearing (volume trapping) surfaces 
within the inner region.  We have only poloidal field, and the field 
can be stretched without limit or tension in the toroidal direction 
(unconstrained in major radius), and therefore can expand into a 
large radius bicycle tire.  Conclusion is that by itself the poloidal 
flux CAN NOT confine a volume (here a toroidal volume.)  
But lets assume it is in equilibrium.. just to keep things level 
between the two models.  

So far the Virial can be applied to this one component interal field
model as Art did and his result would be correct.  

In the PMK case, we can fill the torus represented by the first 
bull's eye ring, REGION ONE, with toroidal plasma,  This field has 
TWO boundaries (in the equatorial plane).  On it's own the surface 
boundary of the toroid is unconfined since the toroidal field can be 
separated (not confined in the minor radius) and can grow to a FAT 
donut, and therefore it is NON-volume restricting constraining.  

That means Art, your application of the Virial Theorem to either
SINGLE internal field model of BL is correct.  

Notice that in three space, the toroid has one surface.. it just
cuts the equatorial plane in two circles .. so they are like 
local boundaries (for that slice).  
 
In the same three space we see that poloidal field in central disk
actually links to through area of the outter Circle or circle 2. 
That is because  "Del dot B is null".  Consequently Region 2 is
the concatenation of the Disk AND outer ring regions.  

Now connect the two interfacing fields with their bounding current 
sheet, and we see that for the boundary between Region 1 and 
Region 2, that boundary is an inpenetrable sheet current and upon 
which both field components can impose their tensile strength,
although they can NOT merge or diffuse into it.  Don't forget
that Region 1 is a bag of toroidal field that is "there to stay". 
Its field acts like rubber bands to squeeze INWARD, as Art so 
thoughfully, noted.  

Let's consider describing and naming the boundaries (in the 
choosen plane).  Let the central disk and the second (outermost) 
ring be filled with linking poloidal field, which together compose 
REGION TWO.  That represents a single connectable region by 
virtue of a path which encircles the toroidal field of Region 1.  
Region 2 has THREE boundaries in the equatorial plane.  One is 
the outermost Carlson's p(0) [call this boundary "A" (air)] gas 
pressure boundary with the inpenetrable Mantle/external-
boundary-of-the-poloidal flux current sheet .  The next is the mag 
interface with the inpenetrable current sheet which bounds the inner 
edge of the outer ring and the outer edge of the inner ring [Call 
this boundary "PTO" (poloidal-toroidal outer).  Finally there is the 
outer edge of the central disk (which is simple connected to the 
outer ring) and the inner edge of the first or inner (toroidal field) 
ring [call this one "PTI"].  

Now we can apply the Divergence theorem as Art did, except taking 
into account the more complicated multiply connected regions, and 
we shall do it one dimensionally from the outer edge to the center 
along the radius in the equatorial (axisymmetric) plane.  Also we 
dispense with the mag pressure expressions and simply to forces, 
since the current (pressure) surfaces and (unit areal vectors) are 
obvious to the reader.   

At "A" we have -jXB(pol)-p(o) = 0  The equilibrium between particle 
pressure and jxB at the Mantle inner surface.  
                                   where minus connotes pressure inward


-->|                 |  <---               ---->>|      
 Po|jXBpol  jtorXBpol|jpolXBtor (torus) jpolXBtor|jtorXBpol (hole)
AIR|  Vacuum field   |        T O R U S          |  H O L E  Vac fld

At PTO:  -j(tor)XB(pol) +j(pol) x B(tor) = 0

At PTI;  -j(pol)XB(tor) +j(tor)XB(pol)  =0  

We know that the sum of the outgoing and ingoing forces cancel
so from this we can conclude that:

  p0 = j(pol)XB(tor)@[PTO] -j(pol)XB(tor)[PTI]


All of this will change the form of Carlson's equation 1.  Actually,
1a,  1b, 1c ..? 

This differs from the "Carlson case" which was correctly done for 
the boundary conditions assumed for a SIMPLE (one commponent mag-
field plasmoid).  The PMK or compound magnetoplasmoid is a 
different problem.   

Notice that when the boundary conditions for the PMK are 
assumed, then the value for internal energy is GREATER THAN the 
pressure at the boundary.  The boundary gas pressure is no longer 
constraining a simple dipole field, BUT now it is merely 
constraining the DIFFERENCE between two values of Magnetic field 
neither of which are determinable by comparison to the boundary
gas pressure "po".  The toroidal field has null existence at
the air boundary (unlike the outer perimeter of the trapped 
poloidal field).    

The ingoing external force equals the outgoing force, which 
is the difference between the boundary pressures of the inside
and outside of toroidal REGION 1.  UNKNOWN is the value of Btor 
is, since it can be set to a modestly wide ranging number of 
values over which the PMK remains stable.  Furthermore, it is 
IMPORTANT to note, that dipole fields fall off MONOTONICALLY, so 
that there are no "lower-than-boundary-energy-density zones" 
within the PMK which would "average down" the energy or average 
energy of a PMK.  This kind of BLASTS the "lower-than-boundary-
energy-density zones" PROPOSED based on Virial Theorem analysis 
(correctly) for simple plasmoids.  

I leave the formal implementation of my arguments to Art, since 
he is obviously skilled in formal mathematical symbolic logic, 
and contribution can be only intuitive.  I dream them up, draw
them propose their generation and then form and begin thier
measurment; he confirms their feasibility and explains their 
logical good sense to the communitity of oft-times skeptical 
theorists.   


Since this result may seem remarkable, it is important to get a 
physically intuitive understanding of the substantially different 
results.  For this reason I will make a second post related to this 
theme.  

>                           Putting (5) into (1), we can write
>(6)     div (BB/mu0) - grad (B^2/2mu0+p-p0) = 0,
>
>where we have used the fact that the gradient of a constant (p0, in
>this case) vanishes. We have lumped magnetic and plasma pressure
>together and then subtracted the boundary pressure to simplify use of
>the divergence theorem later (this quantity vanishes on the boundary).
>
>Equation (6) is a statement about force densities, but we are
>interested in energy densities. Since energy is force times distance,
>one way (of course, it will turn out to be the right way) to create a
>statement about energy densities is simply to take the dot product
>of (6) with the position vector r:


Why.. is this  Int( )="volume displacement * force" = E(tot)  

>(7)     (div BB/mu0) dot r - (grad (B^2/2mu0+p-p0)) dot r = 0.
>
>To get the position vector to multiply the pressure, we need to bring
>it inside the differential operators, which we can do if we then
>subtract off the additional terms where the operator acts on the
>position vector:
>
>(8)     div (BB/mu0 dot r) - div ((B^2/2mu0+p-p0) r)
>             - (B^2/mu0)       + (B^2/2mu0+p-p0) div r = 0.
>
>Did that whiz by too fast? I warned you you'd have to be on a first
>name basis with tensor operators. The trickiest part here was
>calulating (del dot B B dot r), where the del only operates on
>the r. This is easiest to do in the (local) coordinate system where B
>is in the z direction, and then generalizing the result. We can
>simplify (8) a little more to
>
>(9)     div ( (BB/mu0 dot r) - (B^2/2mu0+p-p0) r )
>             - (B^2/mu0)       + 3 (B^2/2mu0+p-p0) = 0,
>
>where we have used div r = 3. Finally,
>
>(10)    div ( (BB/mu0 dot r) - (B^2/2mu0+p-p0) r )
>             + (B^2/2mu0) + 3(p-p0) = 0.
>
>Take a look at what happened to the magnetic tension term (ignoring
>for the moment the divergence term in the first line). Its
>contribution in the second line was the same form as that from the
>magnetic pressure, but of opposite sign. This jives with the statement
>above that the tension tends to hold things together, while the
>pressure pushes them apart. But the magnitude of the tension term was
>smaller than that of the magnetic pressure term, so the net effect of
>the field is to push things apart, though not as vigorously as plasma
>pressure does. We already have an inkling of the virial theorem here:
>the net effect of a magnetic field (pressure and tension) is to reduce 
>the plasma pressure.
pk
Only where one does NOT use two orthogonal components of field 
producing jXB a single current sheet.   THEN tensile strength is 
working FOR us.   Unfortunately, you must consider the internal
field current boundaries.. they produce real pressure, and deal
with them, which requires the MORE GENERAL FORM of the Virial
Theorem, which is the Divergence Theorem.  

And we should realise that in such a state said field tensile 
strength is useless in pressure enhancement.  Also isn't it 
obvious we should set orthogonal fields against a current surface 
so the constraint is to component or surface tension producing??   
This is what a fusioneer needs!---am I correct???   Then why are 
you not considering such a ploy -- both mathematically?? 
                                          and experimentally??? 

>But let us take the final step now. We are interested in making a
>statement about the total (or average) energy, not about the
>distribution of energy, so we need to integrate (10) over the
>volume. The first term is the divergence of "stuff", so we can apply
>the divergence theorem, which says the volume integral can be written
>as a surface integral involving "stuff". But in this case "stuff"
>vanishes on the surface, so the integral also vanishes. (Note that
>there is no other, more general way to apply the divergence theorem to
>the problem; in that sense there is no difference between the virial
>theorem and the divergence theorem applied to a plasmoid.) What's left
>is
>
>(11)    integral (p-p0) dV = -(1/3) integral (B^2/2mu0) dV < 0.
>
>It's easy to rearrange this in terms of energy density (plasma energy
>density = (3/2)p, magnetic energy density = (B^2/2mu0)) or in terms of
>average rather than integral quantities. Any way you cut it,
>(B^2/2mu0) is non-negative, so THE AVERAGE PRESSURE IN THE 
VOLUME HAS
>TO BE *LESS* THAN THE CONFINING PRESSURE. This is the (simplified)
>virial theorem.

Yes, as long as you SINGLE component current field interfaces.  

>I mentioned that equation (1) has room to play. For example,
>  1. electric fields could be included
>  2. the velocity distribution could be
>     a. non-Maxwellian
>     b. non-isotropic
>     c. not centered on zero
>  3. the configuration could be out of equilibrium

pk
1. is included..  but transparent for our purposes.  
2 ??? If you are considering these niches, then you are really 
fetching for folly. 
3.  Problem with time ... Confining time must be preserved, not
sacrificed. 

More specifically, your "# 2a" is a bit of an insult to your 
Institue's Name Sake?           :-)

>Also, the boundary condition (2) could be more complicated. All these
>effects can be dealt with, and lead to a more general virial theorem
>of the form
>
>(12)    (1/2)(d^2/dt^2)I + integral x_k (partial G_k/partial t) dV =
>          2(T + U) + W_E + W_M - integral x_k (p_ik + T_ik) dS_i
>
>I'll go into details on request, but I don't think it's
>necessary. None of these effects change the general conclusion
>above.

>Consider briefly the special case of magnetic fields which change
>their direction sharply across a layer. Paul Koloc (and no one else)
>calls these "pressure bearing surfaces". Examination of the
>mathematics above shows that this case requires no special
>treatment. The virial theorem holds whether the currents are
>distributed or localized in thin sheets (ideally of zero thickness).
pk
You must "apply" the boundary conditions as you find them.  Volume
enclosing current sheets which generate fields both inside and 
outside that volume, must be treated as region boundaries.  Pressure
bearing??? sure in this application.. other applications of the
Divergence theorem the boundary description will differ 
appropriately.  


Two points of contention: 

1. No Art, it is not that there is SHEAR ACROSS A LAYER, but it is 
that there is current thin sheet GENERATION of ORTHOGONAL 
components of flux on OPPOSITE SIDES of the same field diffusion 
IMPERVIOUS CURRENT LAYER.  That means Art, that there are 
jXB forces against BOTH sides of the current sheet (one positive; 
and one negative to the surface normal vector).  

    NOTE: 
EACH FIELD DOES NOT SHEER!!!!  EACH FIELD is in a DISTINCT Region.  

             Do NOT TRIVIALIZE This BOUNDARY CONDITION.  

2.  The virial theorem should treat your thin sheet current and 
bounding flux in the same manner as you did your external boundary 
current and flux.  In other words treat it as a boundary and set 
equations which respect it as such.   You for some reason are
picking and choosing capriciously what current-field boundaries
you use or don't use.. They ALL must be included, my friend.  

Art: Your #1 shows such a current boundary which separates two
regions of media.  On one side is Field and the other is
gas pressure.  They do not mix.  Further you do integrate the
JXB just inside surface.  (although it is equivalent to doing
the Surface INT over the Air film on the outside of the current
surface).   Note also, in my two mag field region model, that 
BOTH fields go to null on the opposite side of its current layer.
    Hope this helps you to get the picture.   
                                                                   
It is such contructions that can constitute an INTERNAL surface 
bounding a multiply-connected region.  THUS ONLY the DIVERGENCE 
theorem can handle it since by virtue of the closed surface 
integral, these surfaces can be included in the integration by 
making them CONNECTED to the outer boundary (jXB).  

Notice that integrating around the toroid gives you the inbound 
and outbound pressure components.  Your difficulty in seeing 
this -- is at the bottom our difference.  The fact that the PMK 
is hyperconducting contributes a MAJOR advantage to its ability 
to keep these currents frozen.  Resistive plasmoids would not 
persist for long and would decay promply to your conditions.  
PMKs that switch conductivities -- because of catastrophic 
interuption of currents or because of some internal instability, 
often explode with devastating power.  You understand, as an 
experimentalist, that connotes more energy confined to a volume 
than the nkt of air and suddenly released by the BREAKING of this 
nested set of toroidal CURRENT-FIELD surface tensioned surfaces  
(of which we lump into just one for simplicity).  In other words, 
my interpretation is consistent with observation, and now ... 
measurement.  

>Finally a word about soap bubbles. Paul Koloc correctly points out
>that the virial theorem applied to a soap bubble yields nonsense. A
>more dramatic example is a bottle of compressed gas: The outside
>pressure is 1 bar, but the average pressure in a volume containing 
>the bottle can be hundreds of bars.  The resolution of the paradox is 
>that (1) does not apply in this case.  

pk
You must include 1(a) the OUTER boundary and 1(b) the INNER 
boundary.      ( NOTE:  any general forces will due... 
                    NOT JUST mag-F.) 

Your must include both in the integration.  What Difference???

For the PMK --You have not done this.  If you could ever understand 
that conducting media (current sheets) can confine mag fields, and 
that mag fields can confine current sheets, you just MIGHT be able 
to piece this together.  Here the outer current sheet confines (with 
help of gas pressure) a poloidal outer boundary and the poloidal 
field confines a toroidal current sheet "poloidally" and this toroidal 
sheet current confines a toroidal field, which acts back to confine 
the same current sheet toroidally, and that the differential radial 
gradient of the toroidal field (B goes as 1/R) generates net inward 
force [1/B^2(inner)-1/^B^2(outer)] which when added to Carlson's 
bounding atmospheric inward force  ..........describes crudely but 
closely enough, the inflated energy rich PMK magnetoplasmoid.  

>There are tensile forces in the 
>metal bottle that cannot be expressed as j cross B or as -grad p. If 
>you choose to take a microsopic view of things (the electrons and nuclei
>in the bottle are just electric charges, ignoring quantum mechanical
>subtleties), you find that there is a short-range correlation of the
>various charges in such a way that the force cannot be expressed as
>rho times E, that is, a _macroscopic_ charge density times a
>_macroscopic_ electric field.  

pk
So what?? What's the urge to go to macroscopic formulation???  
Also one has to LOOK to see.  By that I mean one has to go in 
and find the pressure bearing surface (whatever it consists of) find 
its equivalent "surface tension" and include that surface in the 
closed surface integration (volume integral of energy). Don't
give up because you haven't the numbers for the tensile stength of
hi-Strength steels; they can be discovered with time.    ;-)  

>For me, the most interesting part of this business is the question
>whether we are really interested in the _average_ pressure. There are
>configurations where the _peak_ pressure is larger than the average
>pressure. The fusion power density of a Maxwellian plasma at a given
>temperature is proportional to the square of p, and the average of the
>square of a quantity may be higher than the square of the average. The
>question I would like to pose is this:

>   Is there a magnetically isolated configuration with a total fusion
>   power higher than that corresponding to the same volume of plasma
>   at the confining pressure?
pk
If you mean "initial total volume" then yes, since when the device 
(PMK) is compressed, the burn rate increases by the density squared
to which there is practically no bound.... by comparison to steady 
mag field achieved in tokamaks.  That is an advantage of "compactness", 
another aspect that the tokamak community (save Coppi) has never 
appreciated.  

>I don't know the answer and don't know how to find out except to
>investigate a reasonably general class of equilibria. I'd bet about
>even money on yes/no. (And I would postpone all questions of
>stability, transport, and practicality for the time being; we're
>trying to get to first base.)>

Very good luck... you are asking more interesting questions.  

>Art Carlson
>Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics
>Garching, Germany
>carlson@ipp-garching.mpg.de
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc, Bx 1037 Prometheus II Ltd, College Park MD 20741-1037    |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.20 / Bill Page /  Re: Comments on Maui Proceedings (4 volumes)
     
Originally-From: 70047.3047@compuserve.com (Bill Page)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Comments on Maui Proceedings (4 volumes)
Date: Sat, 20 Aug 1994 07:48:51 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Tom Droege wrote:
<<
I think about a dozen regular posters and lurkers have copies of the 
proceedings.  I will try to look up particular papers if anyone is 
interested in a specific item.  Hopefully we can all share the library 
duty.  Listed below are attendees that should have copies, and are known 
to either post here or correspond with those that do:

Maui spf "Gang of Four"
Steven Jones
Bill Page
Mark Hittinger
Tom Droege

...

>>

Yes I do and yes I will. I'm partial to volume 4 (the theory and other
stuff volume). I've already posted a lot about Vigier's paper. I was very
disappointed to see that it appears in the publication entirely as it did
as the draft I received from Dr. Vigier in January. No corrections and
no changes in content.

Just let me know if there's another paper in particular that you would
like to see reviewed.

Cheers,

Bill Page.

cudkeys:
cuddy20 cuden3047 cudfnBill cudlnPage cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.20 / Bill Page /  re: Bohm's Interpretation of quantum mechanics
     
Originally-From: 70047.3047@compuserve.com (Bill Page)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: re: Bohm's Interpretation of quantum mechanics
Date: Sat, 20 Aug 1994 07:48:50 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Rod Price writes:
<<
The various interpretations of quantum mechanics are all concerned with
the philosophical underpinnings of quantum mechanics.  That's why they're
called interpretations, not theories.  The physical consequences of each
of these interpretations should be the same; otherwise you are discussing
a new theory, not a new interpretation.
>>

Yes, I agree with this, in principle, but as David Albert said in "Quantum
Mechanics and Experience": "Bohm's theory [interpretation] has more or
less (but not exactly) the same empirical content as quantum mechanics
does\1, ...". And in footnote \1 he writes in a slightly pejorative
manner: "Of course, there can't be *any* theory that has *exactly* the
same empirical content as quantum mechanics does, since quantum mechanics
(in its present unfinished condition, in the absence of any satisfactory
postulate of collapse [of the wavefunction] doesn't have any *exact*
empirical content!"

<<
Unfortunately, in the real world it is impossible to know the particle's
position and velocity precisely, even in principle, so you end up with
the same quantum theory in practice: the wavefunction gives you a proba-
bility density.  You use it in just the same way as you would use it in
the conventional interpretation.  The particle position and velocity are
hidden, but the wavefunction tells you where it -might- be.
>>

Yet in Bohm's interpretation, although you are not able to measure
(i.e. know) exactly a particle's position and momentum - particles *do*
have exact values of both position and momentum at all times. It is the
probability density of a statistical ensemble of trajectories which 
corresponds to the (square of the magnitude of the) wavefunction and
which evolves according to the guidance conditions. Particles do have
real, classical trajectories defined by the quantum Hamilton Jacobi
equations of motion.

<<
In the conventional interpretation we talk about particles all the time.
It's just that we don't precisely know where they are; all the information
we have about that is in the wavefunction.  If the wavefunction is zero
when two particles are at the same place, that tells you that the two
particles can never be in the same place.  When I say that two fermions
cannot occupy the same state, that is another way of saying that they cannot
be in the same place at the same time. 
>>

I'm not sure I agree completely with this. Although the conventional
interpretation does (I think almost metaphorically) "talk about particles
all the time", non-local interactions do seem to imply a somewhat deeper
role of the conventional quantum mechanical representation of location
than just a limitation on our knowledge. However, I accept that your
argument shows that if Bohm's interpretation does allow two fermion
particles to be in the same place at the same time, then it *does* differ
from the conventional interpretation in its empirical content in this
respect - provided we *do* mean the same thing by "particle" in the two
interpretations. I'm inclined, however, to think that the meaning of
particle is not the same in the two interpretations.

<<
If you'd like to see the way quantum mechanics treats particle trajectories
in a particularly illuminating way, find a reference on Feynman's path
integral approach to quantum mechanics.  Chapter 8 in "Principles of Quantum
Mechanics," by R. Shankar, contains a nice discussion.
>>

Yes, I will take a look a Shankar's text. I have also read the
introduction to Feynman's path integrals in Cohen-Tannoudji as well as
Feynman's "Quantum Mechanics and Path Integrals" itself. And I just
recently picked up "Path Integral Approach to Quantum Physics" by
Roepstorff, Springer-Verlag, 1994. Bohm&Hiley also briefly discuss
Feynman's paths in the last chapter of the book. They say "Originally
Feynman wanted to regard these paths as representing the actual
trajectories of particles. But this would not be consistent, because
contributions from various paths can interfere destructively as well as
constructively [with a phase proportional to the classical action S]...".

Everything suggests that Feynman's path integrals and Bohm's ensemble of
particle trajectories must be closely related - maybe even two sides of
the same coin - but I haven't been able to mentally put it all together
yet.

Cheers,

Bill Page.

PS. Dear Readers: Does this kind of discussion make your eyes glaze over?
I hope it is not too obscure. Please ask questions if something is not
clear. I will try to explain my understanding as best I can starting from
whatever point you wish to take. And I am quite ready to accept that I may
be wrong. I do want to listen to your point of view. I think that Rod
Price is probably quite used to discussing these issues, however because
of the esoteric and largely philosphical subject, I am a little worried
that my (our?) statements may appear to you to lack depth and relevance.
I don't think this is so. You might feel that it is "only philosophy"
and even many physicists feel uncomfortable with discussing these
foundational issues in the tools that they use every day. But as long as
these foundations remain uncertain, how can we seriously hope to apply our
theories to new and unexpected phenomena?

cudkeys:
cuddy20 cuden3047 cudfnBill cudlnPage cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.20 / Bill Page /  re: proton conductors
     
Originally-From: 70047.3047@compuserve.com (Bill Page)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: re: proton conductors
Date: Sat, 20 Aug 1994 07:48:51 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Cindy Lundgren writes:
<<
>From a lurking electrochemist:
Of course you know that a proton conductor is an ion conductor with
selectivity for protons. 

[Some very interesting details, names of materials and references... ]

>>

Thanks very much indeed for the references. Sometimes it seems there is
no end to the things one can become motivated to find out just because
someone says it has some relationship to cold fusion. Its becomeing an
almost impossibly interdisciplinary subject!

Do you mind a few quick questions before I go off and do my reading
assignment? If answering is too involved, feel free to simple say,
"read the text".

1) I have read (in Bockris and Reddy's "Modern Electrochemistry", for
example) about ionic conductors and was especially interested in the
discussion of the unusually high mobility of hydrogen and deuterium ions
in aqueous solutions in comparison to what one might extrapolate from
other heavier ions. The observations do not match classical diffusion
estimates and a high rate of quantum mechanical tunnelling between water
molecules apparently has to be involved in the explanation. Is this also
true of the other proton conductors that you mentioned? Is this related
to an explanation of selectivity?

2) And do these other conductors also show unexpected differences in the
mobilities (equals conductivity?) between protons and deuterons?

3) Do proton conductors show any unusual changes in mobilities at certain
critical temperatures?

<<
Back to lurking <g>
>>

Why lurk? Posters have more fun <grin>.

Thanks again and

Cheers,

Bill Page.


cudkeys:
cuddy20 cuden3047 cudfnBill cudlnPage cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.20 / Bill Page /  Copy of: experiment - calorimetry
     
Originally-From: 70047.3047@compuserve.com (Bill Page)
Originally-From:	Bill Page, 70047,3047
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Copy of: experiment - calorimetry
Date: Sat, 20 Aug 1994 07:50:53 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway


---------- Forwarded Message ----------

Originally-From:	Bill Page, 70047,3047
TO:	Thomas Droege, >INTERNET: DROEGE@FNALD.FNAL.GOV
DATE:	20/08/94 1:46 AM

RE:	Copy of: experiment - calorimetry

Tom Droege wrote:
<<
The silvered dewar hardly slows down the radiation problem.  The one I 
used was internally silvered, and also had one heat shield.  Multiple 
heat shield layers can help.  I contemplated using "Super Insulation" for 
this reason at one time.
>>

A friend of mine tells me the story of how back in the sixties he was
working as a summer graduate assistant in a physics lab (McGill) trying
to create a ruby laser. They tried all kinds of high power flash tubes
and various geometries and types of mirrors - nothing seemed to work.
Then someone got the idea of sticking the ruby rod and a flash tube
inside a carved-out chunk of brilliantly white chalk. Poof! Worked the
first time!

The point of the story is that mirrors (contrary to our naive expectation)
are not really very good reflectors. They do have the advantage of
maintaining the phase relationships and thats good for images but a
significant amount of light is also absorbed.

Could the situation be similar when it comes to infrared? Maybe a nice
coat of glossy white enamel would be better than the silvering.

<<
>
>Anyway, how are you progressing with the heat pipe technology?
>

Slow.  I don't plan to build anything at the moment until I have a good 
experiment to do. 
>>

Tom, I think both John Logajan and myself worry about how difficult it
may be to get a working heat pipe based calorimeter. Are there not still
questions of 1) how to obtain the heat pipe effect in the first place,
and 2) if it works, is it linear and well behaved over the temperature
ranges needed in the calorimeter?

Actually, I rather liked Robert Eachus's speculation of a while back that
the heat pipe effect (at least the ultra-conductive mode) might be a
superfluid based phenomena. You see, we use copper (hydrogen delocalizes
on copper surfaces) and the fluid is alcohol (lots of mobile hydrogen).
Such speculations also lead me to wonder whether the Italian nickel/
hydrogen results might be such a heat pipe effect. Their calorimetry
doesn't seem to be adequate to really know what is going on. It also
suggests that there may be other ways (other than the "we tried it this
way and it worked" methods) that might reliably produce heat pipe effects.
For example, why not try cutting the alcohol with a little D2O
(deuterated alcohol?)?

Have you found any decent references on heat pipes?

Cheers,

Bill Page.

cudkeys:
cuddy20 cuden3047 cudfnBill cudlnPage cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.20 / A El-Koubysi /  Which detectors operate in liquid nitrogen temperature?
     
Originally-From: ame@ksu.ksu.edu (Abdulrahman M El-Koubysi)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Which detectors operate in liquid nitrogen temperature?
Date: 20 Aug 1994 15:07:10 -0500
Organization: Kansas State University


I am trying to put together a list of the different detectors that 
require liquid nitrogen temperature or below to operate.  Any information
on  machines or manufacturers that use these detectors would be
appreciated.  Thank you in advance.

A.R. El-Koubysi 
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudename cudfnAbdulrahman cudlnEl-Koubysi cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.20 / Paul Koloc /  Re: The virial theorem part 2 of 3
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The virial theorem part 2 of 3
Date: Sat, 20 Aug 1994 03:24:48 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

I have split this epic response into three posts.  This is part 2 of three.

In article <32dc1tINN1k6@slcawc.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de> awc@ipp-
garching.mpg.de writes:
>I wish to give a simplified derivation of the virial theorem. A
>certain proficiency in tensor mathematics is necessary to follow the
>details, but I think I can make the outline of the proof clear to the
>less skilled as well. I tried to find a more elementary notation, but
>it seems tensors are the only way to get the right answer. I'll be
>happy to explain any individual step that gives people problems. I
>hope this can serve as a reference point for any discussions of or
>challenges to the virial theorem in this group.

>Wanted: a relationship between the various forms of energy in a
>magnetized plasma within a certain volume. We will simplify the
>problem by only dealing only with magnetic and pressure forces in
>equilibrium, and by taking a zero-field, constant-pressure boundary,
>that is,
>
>(1)     j cross B - grad p = 0     everywhere

pk
ON ALL current surfaces, not just the outer one. 
For simplicity we can reduce these to TWO (three in the equatorial plane)

>and
>(2)     B = 0  and  p = p0         on the boundary.
>
>Now and then we will need
>
>(3)     j = curl B / mu0
>
>which is Ampere's law and
>
>(4)     div B = 0

>which says that magnetic monopoles don't exist. These are our starting
>assumptions, the rest is mathematics. (2) through (4) should be
>completely uncontroversial; all the subtleties are tied up in
>(1). Some of these will be mentioned below.

>Let's start by combining these equations. The magnetic force density
>can be written
>
>(5)     j cross B = (curl B / mu0) cross B
>                   = (B dot grad) B / mu0 - grad (B^2/2mu0)
>                   = div (BB/mu0) - (div B) B/mu0 - grad (B^2/2mu0)
>                   = div (BB/mu0) - grad (B^2/2mu0)
>
>The second part is minus the gradient of a scalar, which has the same
>form as the -grad p of the pressure force, so it is convenient to
>refer to (B^2/2mu0) as the magnetic pressure. This is a simple and
>useful concept, telling us we can trade off plasma pressure against
>magnetic pressure. The other term looks something like a tension along
>field lines (if a field line is curved, the force is toward the center
>of curvature). It is this term which is troublesome and interesting
>because it allows us to use the field lines as guy wires to transfer
>forces from one place to another. Loops of field will even have a
>tendency to provide a net inward force. Don't jump to any conclusions,
>but keep your eye on this term. 

>                           Putting (5) into (1), we can write
>(6)     div (BB/mu0) - grad (B^2/2mu0+p-p0) = 0,
>
>where we have used the fact that the gradient of a constant (p0, in
>this case) vanishes. We have lumped magnetic and plasma pressure
>together and then subtracted the boundary pressure to simplify use of
>the divergence theorem later (this quantity vanishes on the boundary).

pk
YES!!   Art this IS the crucial point, at least the FIRST HALF of 
that point.  Your warning probably pertains to the fact that field 
lines generate "tension" only along the field lines and not 
laterally.  In fact, they tend to produce "pressure" laterally 
(almost as if they were inflatable "rubber tubes").  Then as far as 
I can see you QUIT the problem.  Why would you quit??  Do you 
realize the importance of having a solution to this problem of 
producing internal fusion impervious pressure boundaries??  

How is it one can repair such a silly system that has half the 
ingredients (one tensile dimension).  The problem is that one 
set of field lines can NOT produce the two orthogonal components of 
tensile strength that are required to form a pressure bearing 
surface??  Let's look elsewhere for the answer! 

An analogy:
Let's go to engineering for the answer.  Remove an A/C hose from 
your automobile and slice through its cross-section.  What you will 
find inside the rubber matrix (low beta plasma) is that there are 
"lines of force or tension" which are generally composed of high 
tensile strength fibers such as carbon, glass, nylon, etc.  The 
question is are these fibers wound as just ONE parallel layer or 
ensemble??  NO!!  At least two such surface layers of the material 
are used, with one layer essentially orthogonal to the other.  
Consequently, such tubes produce pressure bearing surfaces and
have tensile strength both ways!  

There are two basis vector components of tension which are denoted 
as SURFACE TENSION.  Note: in the hi-pressure hose example, the 
surface is a thick surface by virtue of other requirements, but I 
think you can shrink that thickness to a thin walled tube mentally 
and thereby more easily extrapolate the picture to the point I am 
trying to make concerning the boundary surface.  The same concept 
of a two component tensile surface is true of another invention of 
humankind (or some worms or arachnids) which is "CLOTH".    

So the trick is to produce a cloth of mag flux which CAN NOT 
MERGE (pulled diagonally into alignment) to form a single 
tensile vector field.  Shucks, another BIG PROBLEM ...   should 
we quit????    NO!. The way we get around this last one is to 
produce within the divector basis surface, an interposed 
magical permanent field separating film, that still transmits 
the two component mag forces.  Basically it is like keeping the 
fibers from reorienting in fiber glass cloth.  There we might 
impregnate the cloth with a curable polymer.  By analogy the 
flux (fiber glass) is FROZEN IN to the current sheet (permanently 
bounded by cured resin).  NOW we have produced a pressure bearing 
surface.  but .. SO WHAT???

So... Let's build a case model. 
Now we can construct a TWO-DISTINCT-regions mag plasmoid (compound 
magnetoplasmoid configuration).  Let's cut our plasmoid through 
the equatorial plane, and look at it from the TOP or polar view.  
We see a "two ring Bull's Eye", which is a slice through the Mantle 
fields and hollow toroidal current tube (simplified from the Nested 
set of current tubes).  Just consider this single surface torus to 
be a representive toroidal current tube -- for simplicity and for 
CLARITY.  We can superimpose integral solutions over the other 
ignored nested toroids, LATER (left as 
an exercise).

In Carlson's case, the two rings and the central circle can be 
merged into a big single "sun image" or solid disk.  In his case, 
we can't form any pressure bearing (volume trapping) surfaces 
within the inner region.  We have only poloidal field, and the field 
can be stretched without limit or tension in the toroidal direction 
(unconstrained in major radius).  Therefore it can expand unlimitedly
into a large radius bicycle tire.  Conclusion is that by itself the 
poloidal flux CAN NOT confine a volume (here a toroidal volume.)  
But let's assume it is in equilibrium.. just to keep things level 
between the two case models.  

So far the Virial can be applied to this ONE MAG COMPONENT 
internal field model as Art did and his result would be correct.  

In the PMK case, we can fill the torus represented by the first 
bull's eye ring, REGION ONE, with toroidal plasma,  This field has 
TWO boundaries (in the equatorial plane).  On its own the surface 
boundary of the toroid is unconfined since the toroidal field can 
be separated (not confined in the minor radius) and can grow to a FAT 
donut, and therefore it is NON-volume restricting.  

That means Art, your application of the Virial Theorem to either
SINGLE internal field model of BL is correct.  

Notice that in three space, the toroid really has but one 
surface.. it just cuts the equatorial plane in two circles .. 
so they are like local boundaries (for that slice).  
 
In the same three space we see that poloidal field in the central 
disk actually links around Region (out of the plane) and through 
the area of the outer Circle or circle 2. That is because 
"Del dot B is null".  Consequently Region 2 is the concatenation 
of the Disk AND outer ring regions.  

Now connect the two interfacing fields with their bounding current 
sheet, and we see that for the boundary between Region 1 and 
Region 2, that boundary is an inpenetrable sheet current and upon 
which both field components can impose their tensile strength,
although they can NOT merge or diffuse into it.  Don't forget
that Region 1 is a bag of toroidal field that is "there to stay". 
Its field acts like rubber bands to squeeze INWARD, as Art so 
thoughtfully, noted.  

Let's consider describing and naming the boundaries (in the 
chosen plane).  Let the central disk and the second (outermost) 
ring be filled with the linking poloidal field, which TOGETHER 
compose REGION TWO.  That represents a single connectable region 
by virtue of a path which encircles the toroidal field of Region 
1.  

Region 2 has THREE boundaries in the equatorial plane.  One is 
the outermost Carlson's p(0) [call this boundary "A" (air)] gas 
pressure boundary with the inpenetrable Mantle/external- boundary-
of-the-poloidal flux current sheet .  The NEXT is the mag interface 
with the inpenetrable current sheet which bounds the inner edge of 
the outer ring and the outer edge of the inner ring [Call this 
boundary "PTO" (poloidal-toroidal outer).  FINALLY there is the 
outer edge of the central disk (which is simple connected to the 
outer ring) and the inner edge of the first or inner (toroidal 
field) ring [call this one "PTI"].  

Now we can apply the Divergence theorem as Art did, except taking 
into account the more complicated multiply connected regions, and we 
shall do it one dimensionally from the outer edge to the center along 
the radius in the equatorial (axisymmetric) plane.  Also we dispense 
with the mag pressure expressions and express force through jxB. 
The current sheet (pressure) surfaces and (unit areal vectors) are 
obvious to the reader.   

At "A" we have -jXB(pol)-p(o) = 0  The equilibrium between particle 
pressure and jxB at the Mantle inner surface.  
                                   where minus connotes pressure inward


                  B O U N D A R I E S
   |                 |                           |               
   |                 |                           |               
-->|                 |  <---               ---->>|      
 Po|jXBpol  jtorXBpol|jpolXBtor (torus) jpolXBtor|jtorXBpol (hole)
AIR|  Vacuum field   |        T O R U S          |  H O L E  Vac fld
   |                 |                           |               
   |                 |                           |               

At PTO:  -j(tor)XB(pol) +j(pol) x B(tor) = 0

At PTI;  -j(pol)XB(tor) +j(tor)XB(pol)  =0  

We know that the sum of the outgoing and ingoing forces cancel
so from this we can conclude that:

  p0 = j(pol)XB(tor)@[PTO] -j(pol)XB(tor)[PTI]


All of this will change the form of Carlson's equation 1.  Actually,
1a,  1b, 1c ..?  where each other boundary generates terms.   

This differs from the "Carlson Virial case" which was correctly done 
for but only for the SIMPLE boundary (one component mag-field 
plasmoid).  The PMK or compound magnetoplasmoid is a different 
problem, as seen from the 1-D geometry depicted above.  

Notice that when the boundary conditions for the PMK are assumed, 
then the value for internal energy is GREATER THAN the pressure at 
the boundary.  The boundary gas pressure is no longer constraining a 
simple dipole field, BUT now it is merely constraining the DIFFERENCE 
between TWO VALUES OF MAGNETIC FIELD neither of which are 
determinable by comparison to the boundary gas pressure "Po".  The 
toroidal field has null existence at the air boundary (unlike the 
outer perimeter of the trapped poloidal field).    

The ingoing external force equals the outgoing force, which 
is the difference between the boundary pressures of the inside
and outside of toroidal REGION 1.  UNKNOWN is the value of Btor, 
since it can be set to a modestly wide ranging number of values 
over which the PMK remains stable.  Furthermore, it is IMPORTANT to 
note that dipole fields fall off MONOTONICALLY, so that there are 
no "lower-than-boundary-energy-density zones" within the PMK which 
would "average down" the energy or average energy of a PMK.  This 
kind of BLASTS the "lower-than-boundary- energy-density zones" 
PROPOSED based on Virial Theorem analysis (correctly) for simple 
plasmoids.  

I leave the formal implementation of my arguments to Art, since he is 
obviously skilled in formal mathematical symbolic logic, and my 
contribution can be only intuitive.  I conjure them up, draw them, 
propose their generation, and then form and begin their measurement; 
he confirms their feasibility and explains their logical good sense 
to the community of oft-times skeptical theorists.   Subject to
IPP of course.   

Since this result may seem remarkable, it is important to get a 
physically intuitive understanding of the substantially different 
results.  It is hoped that the 1-D drawing and forthcoming further  
comments (see 3 of 3) concerning the nature of the pressure variation 
of the toroidal field with major radius will help with that issue.  

>Art Carlson
>Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics
>Garching, Germany
>carlson@ipp-garching.mpg.de
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc, Bx 1037 Prometheus II Ltd, College Park MD 20741-1037    |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.20 / C Harrison /  Re: therm. cond. of air
     
Originally-From: harr@netcom.com (Charles (Chuck) Harrison)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: therm. cond. of air
Date: Sat, 20 Aug 1994 20:29:52 GMT
Organization: Fitful

In article <331d8g$m0l@stratus.skypoint.com>,
John Logajan <jlogajan@skypoint.com> wrote:
>Jeffrey J. Driscoll (74063.3546@compuserve.com) wrote:
>: If I have a gas at .09 atmospheres and I add some more gas of a different 
>: type so that the pressure increases to .11 atmospheres
>
>: The gas that is at .09 atmospheres is hydrogen and the small amount of gas 
>: that is added is air.
>
>: If I add air so that the pressure goes up to .11 atmospheres the
>: temperature rises about 25 degrees to 315 deg C.
>
[...]

I recommend the following steps:

(1) estimate the heat flux from radiation.  For this you will need an
   estimate of the emissivity of your surfaces.

(2) estimate the heat flux thru the mechanical supports of your heater.
   If your construction makes this estimate difficult, try modifying
   the construction so the conduction path is dominated by a single
   uniform-cross-section pathway that can be easily analyzed.

(3) compare your measurements under vacuum with the above estimates.
   These two paths should dominate your situation under vacuum.  Try
   using two or more temperatures, widely enough spaced so that you
   can independently fit the (linear) conduction law and (4th power)
   radiation law coefficients.

Don't bother going further until these measurements make sense.

(4) Add the hydrogen.  Compute the conduction.  You may be able to do
   this in mathematically "closed form" (or find it as a worked example
   in a heat flow textbook).  If not, it sounds like it's axisymmetric
   so a 2-D Laplace finite-element program will solve it.  There is
   a nice shareware MS-DOS one called Elcut available for ftp at
   file://OAK.oakland.edu/pub/msdos/plot/elct30c1.zip thru elct30c3.zip

(5) If your results show higher heat flux than the conduction model,
   it is probably because of convection effects.  If your heat flux
   seems to depend on the orientation of the apparatus (e.g. gravity 
   axial versus gravity tranverse to the cylinder) this would be a
   strong sign that convection is involved.

   I am not expert in this, but I believe that convection is difficult 
   to model and that engineering practice in heat-transfer work is to 
   use empirical "rules of thumb" including a boundary-layer.  You will
   find these in heat-transfer engineering books, or in limited form in
   general engineering handbooks like Marks' Mechanical Engineering 
   Handbook.

(6) Repeat (4) with low-pressure air.

   If *both* the hydrogen and air atmospheres show heat transport
   dominated by gas conduction according to the tabulated values of
   conductivity (i.e. no significant convection), then I would say
   you may be seeing something anomalous.  

   On the other hand, I don't remember exactly how the thermal
   conductivity of gases is *supposed to* behave in mixtures,
   and I'm too lazy to go to the library right now to find out.
   I assume that *you* are not so lazy!

Cheers,
  Chuck

cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenharr cudfnCharles cudlnHarrison cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.20 / C Harrison /  Re: Internet CF experiment
     
Originally-From: harr@netcom.com (Charles (Chuck) Harrison)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Internet CF experiment
Date: Sat, 20 Aug 1994 20:47:02 GMT
Organization: Fitful

Tom Droege writes

In article <1994AUG15.6725@ozemail.com.au>, rvanspaa@ozemail.com.au (R.J
VAN SPAANDONK) says:                  
 [...a precision cathode-weighing scheme uses] 
>a solenoid. Reflect a beam of light off one end of the solenoid
>core, and use any deviation in position of the reflected spot to
>adjust the current through the solenoid coil, such that the spot
>returns to its original position. The changes in weight are then
>accurately reflected in the changes in the solenoid current,

Nice cute (null balance) method.  Do you know how accurately this can
be done?  Of course a pain in this set up as the solonoid current
represents a (rather large) changing power into the calorimeter.

---

Just one more reason to use the "inside-the-calorimeter shunt current
regulator", Tom! :-)

Now to really keep the location of your heat-load constant, you could
make a coaxial, counter-wound solenoid pair and drive the two 
windings (which cancel each other at equal current) with a long-
tailed pair.  But you already thought of that.

Chuck
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenharr cudfnCharles cudlnHarrison cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.20 / C Harrison /  Re: experiment/mass/temp measurements
     
Originally-From: harr@netcom.com (Charles (Chuck) Harrison)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: experiment/mass/temp measurements
Date: Sat, 20 Aug 1994 21:20:13 GMT
Organization: Fitful

In article <1994Aug18.130519.1@pa881a.inland.com>,
 <schlichting@pa881a.inland.com> wrote:
>Tom - and others interested-
[...]
>
>-As far measuring the mass of [H] or [D] that dissolves into the 
>Pd......I'm still not convinced that we have a better solution
>to Tom's method of measureing the escaping oxygen from the system...


Tom may justifiably congratulate himself on the well-executed
gas-syringe system (but TOM!  Why haven't you yet logged barometric
pressure? +/- THREE PERCENT there, easy!). The thing that bothers me
is the assumption on gas composition (i.e. 100% O2).  I think that
there are slow diffusion constants, and composition can be poorly 
controlled in various head spaces.

There has also been evidence that the recombiner turns on and off,
allowing substantial build-up of hydrogen. 

A few thoughts:

1.  Mechanically circulate the gases to ensure uniform composition.

2.  Use some sort of spectrophotometer to identify gas composition
   (maybe fiber-optic coupled).

3.  Use a divided electrochemical cell, and dual gas syringes for
   independent monitoring.  But this has drawbacks:
 a.  There are some indications that oxygen at the cathode
   participates in the effect
 b.  Where do you do the recombining?  Or do you replenish the
  electrolyte (open cell)?

Chuck
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenharr cudfnCharles cudlnHarrison cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.20 / Tom Droege /  Re: Which detectors operate in liquid nitrogen temperature?
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Which detectors operate in liquid nitrogen temperature?
Date: 20 Aug 1994 21:47:08 GMT
Organization: fermilab

In article <335npe$rmq@matt.ksu.ksu.edu>, ame@ksu.ksu.edu (Abdulrahman M 
El-Koubysi) says:
>
>
>I am trying to put together a list of the different detectors that 
>require liquid nitrogen temperature or below to operate.  Any information
>on  machines or manufacturers that use these detectors would be
>appreciated.  Thank you in advance.
>
>A.R. El-Koubysi 

What kind of detectors for what?  Do LN2 cooled CCD astronomy cameras
count?  Can you be more specific?

Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.19 / Paul Koloc /  cmsg cancel <CusKus.1Ep@prometheus.UUCP>
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cmsg cancel <CusKus.1Ep@prometheus.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 1994 20:09:11 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

This article was probably generated by a buggy news reader.
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.19 / Paul Koloc /  cmsg cancel <CusKus.1Ep@prometheus.UUCP>
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cmsg cancel <CusKus.1Ep@prometheus.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 1994 21:22:54 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

This article was probably generated by a buggy news reader.
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.19 /   /  cmsg cancel <CusKus.1Ep@prometheus.UUCP>
     
Originally-From: root@prometheus.UUCP (0000-Admin(0000))
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cmsg cancel <CusKus.1Ep@prometheus.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 1994 21:30:00 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

This article was probably generated by a buggy news reader.
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenroot cudln cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.19 / Paul Koloc /  cmsg cancel <CusKus.1Ep@prometheus.UUCP>
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cmsg cancel <CusKus.1Ep@prometheus.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 1994 23:20:03 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

This article was probably generated by a buggy news reader.
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.20 / Paul Koloc /  cmsg cancel <CusKus.1Ep@prometheus.UUCP>
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cmsg cancel <CusKus.1Ep@prometheus.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 20 Aug 1994 00:25:48 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

This article was probably generated by a buggy news reader.
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.20 / Paul Koloc /  Re: The virial theorem, Part 1 of 3 
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The virial theorem, Part 1 of 3 
Date: Sat, 20 Aug 1994 03:15:28 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.


I have split this epic response into three posts.   This one of three.

We set up and look at a very SIMPLIFIED view of a PMK and present a 
case where Art's Divergence Theorem boundary conditions do not 
apply.  Instead another set of initial conditions are SUGGESTED, 
which makes the problem insolveable without knowledge of the 
Magnetic energy or field topology of an internal isolated Toroidal 
field.  We show that the poloidal and toroidal fields are confined 
to two separate regions and CAN NOT mix through an intervening 
current sheet.  This current sheet behaves as the one Art recognizes 
at the air/Bpol pressure boundary which separates those two 
pressurized media.  

In the following Art Carlson gives the more or less standard 
application of the VT to SIMPLE (simply-connected single region) 
mag-plasmoids.  Although the construction starts using the 
Divergence theorem, it is RESTRICTED to cases which have only a 
SINGLE REGION and ONE PRESSURE BOUNDARY. There has been a 
relentless loyalty to this contested point which is at odds with 
the PMK model.  

To simplify things a bit, the central torus of the pmk is now 
represented by a single current tube of intermediate diameter with 
both components of current. It is hoped that this will make the 
internal boundary more obvious and difficult to ignore.   Art 
imposes his single boundary restriction while (perhaps without 
realizing it) giving us the means to point the way to an 
understanding.  That, together with an additional cleverness, 
will bring the realization (acceptance) of a multiply-connected 
mag-field plasmoid (PMK and BL).  Then we should be closer on 
the PMK results of the Divergence Theorem.  

Art, I assume you follow the texts on Divergence theorem and are 
familiar with the concept of multiply-connected regions.  

There is some further strangeness as to the REASON (technically: 
result correct) that other compressed systems such as soap bubbles 
or pressurized gas cylinders are not validly treated by the Virial 
theorem.   To say it is because the boundary forces are not in
the "magnetic" form or format, but instead are E-field ( or metal
tensile strength for example) and therefore not valid is bogus.     

The Divergence Theorem can handle such examples although the 
result will NOT be the Virial form which only sees the atmospheric 
boundary.  In other words a PMK, soap bubble, and Art's pressurized 
gas cylinder cases are too complicated for the virial, (a single 
boundary Divergence Theorem), but they are NOT too complicated for 
the full form Divergence theorem.  It is not because the nature
of the forces differ from magnetic.  
 
The Virial theorem's limitation comes from being restricted in 
validity to  systems with only one simple easily computable 
constraint source (such as the surrounding air pressure) or 
gravitation force of a cluster of stars.  The Virial T. can be 
applied to SIMPLE systems and this includes those in dynamic 
equilibrium.  These can be handled by looking at an extended time 
or "time averaged" value where the averaging time includes a 
significant sampling of its possible dynamic states, i.e. star 
clusters.  

In the case at hand, (PMK|BL) the equilibrium time is order 
fraction of a millisecond, while the total life-time could 
extend to order tens of seconds, (typically).  The analysis is 
correct up to the application of the criteria to the task of 
determining the boundary conditions for the PMK problem.  Art 
correctly concludes that simple plasmoids containing SINGLE 
region mag field which impinge at the external gas boundary are 
determinable.  Art may have over looked the possibility that any 
two (or multiply connected) mag field regions can exist within the 
plasmoid air boundary.   Also one of these two distinctive regions 
would NOT impinge upon the gas boundary and therefore not be 
determinable (by comparison to gas boundary or external pressure).  

In order to conserve the viewers' varying depths of interest, I 
include most of Carlson's work and my more specific reponses in 
two following posts.  
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc, Bx 1037 Prometheus II Ltd, College Park MD 20741-1037    |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.20 / Paul Koloc /  Re: The virial theorem part 3 of 3 epic 
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The virial theorem part 3 of 3 epic 
Date: Sat, 20 Aug 1994 03:46:23 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

I have split this epic response into three posts.  This is part 3 of three.  

In article <32dc1tINN1k6@slcawc.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de> awc@ipp garching.mpg.de writes:
>Equation (6) is a statement about force densities, but we are
>interested in energy densities. Since energy is force times distance,
>one way (of course, it will turn out to be the right way) to create a
>statement about energy densities is simply to take the dot product
>of (6) with the position vector r:

Why.. is this  Int( )="volume displacement * force" = E(tot)  

>(7)     (div BB/mu0) dot r - (grad (B^2/2mu0+p-p0)) dot r = 0.

>.. 
>above that the tension tends to hold things together, while the
>pressure pushes them apart. But the magnitude of the tension term was
>smaller than that of the magnetic pressure term, so the net effect of
>the field is to push things apart, though not as vigorously as plasma
>pressure does. We already have an inkling of the virial theorem here:
>the net effect of a magnetic field (pressure and tension) is to reduce 
>the plasma pressure.

But NOT where one uses two orthogonal disjoint components of field 
producing jXBs on opposite sides of a volume enveloping single current 
sheet.  Otherwise tensile strength is working FOR us.  Such internal field 
current boundaries must be dealt with, as they produce real physical 
pressure.  Again this is where the MORE GENERAL FORM of the Virial 
Theorem comes to fore: namely, the ***DIVERGENCE*** Theorem.     

In such a state, single field tensile strength is useless in pressure 
enhancement.  This is NOT what a fusioneer needs!---am I correct???   
Also isn't it obvious we should set orthogonal fields against a 
current surface so the force constraints are two component or surface 
tension producing??   Then we can generate pressure leveraged systems.  
Why aren't you considering such a ploy -- either mathematically??  ..  . 
                      or experimentally??? 

>But let us take the final step now. We are interested in making a
>statement about the total (or average) energy, not about the
>distribution of energy, so we need to integrate (10) over the
>volume. The first term is the divergence of "stuff", so we can apply
>the divergence theorem, which says the volume integral can be written
>as a surface integral involving "stuff". But in this case "stuff"
>vanishes on the surface, so the integral also vanishes. (Note that
>there is no other, more general way to apply the divergence theorem to
>the problem; in that sense there is no difference between the virial
>theorem and the divergence theorem applied to a plasmoid.) What's left
>is

>(11)    integral (p-p0) dV = -(1/3) integral (B^2/2mu0) dV < 0.

Yes, but not for case described previously for the PMK.  

>It's easy to rearrange this in terms of energy density (plasma energy
>density = (3/2)p, magnetic energy density = (B^2/2mu0)) or in terms of
>average rather than integral quantities. Any way you cut it,
>(B^2/2mu0) is non-negative, so THE AVERAGE PRESSURE IN THE 
VOLUME HAS
>TO BE *LESS* THAN THE CONFINING PRESSURE. This is the (simplified)
>virial theorem.

And this result is totally at odds with the case where the system
contains an toroidal field within a toroidal and poloidal field 
generating and volume bounding toroidal current surface.  The 
average pressure is  ** GREATER ** than the the external confining
pressure TAKEN ALONE.  

>I mentioned that equation (1) has room to play. For example,
>  1. electric fields could be included
>  2. the velocity distribution could be
>     a. non-Maxwellian
>     b. non-isotropic
>     c. not centered on zero
>  3. the configuration could be out of equilibrium

Such play room hasn't proven promisingly fertile.  

PS   Was Max named after Maxwell??  If so .. non-Maxwellian?? at
Maxwell Planck Institute??    Sort of like Chaps from Bell telephone
receiving  the NObel prize.    Short humor break. 

1.  Electric field is included in the PMK, but transparent for this.  
2   If you are considering these niches, then you are really 
             fetching for folly.   
3.  Problem with time ... Confinement time must be preserved, not
             sacrificed. 

>Also, the boundary condition (2) could be more complicated. All these
>effects can be dealt with, and lead to a more general virial theorem
>of the form

>(12)    (1/2)(d^2/dt^2)I + integral x_k (partial G_k/partial t) dV =
>          2(T + U) + W_E + W_M - integral x_k (p_ik + T_ik) dS_i

Excellent

>I'll go into details on request, but I don't think it's
>necessary. None of these effects change the general conclusion
>above.

Essentially contrary CONCLUSIONS are valid for the each of the two cases.  
Imagine that two different results can be valid with such a small
change in boundary conditions?? 

>Consider briefly the special case of magnetic fields which change
>their direction sharply across a layer. Paul Koloc (and no one else)
>calls these "pressure bearing surfaces". Examination of the
>mathematics above shows that this case requires no special
>treatment. The virial theorem holds whether the currents are
>distributed or localized in thin sheets (ideally of zero thickness).

You must "apply" the boundary conditions as you find them.  Volume
enclosing current sheets which generate fields both inside and 
outside that volume, must be treated as region boundaries.  Pressure
bearing??? sure in this application.. other applications of the
Divergence theorem the boundary description will differ 
appropriately.  

Two points of contention: 

1. No Art, it is NOT that there is Field SHEAR ACROSS A LAYER, but 
it is that:  there is thin current sheet GENERATIng ORTHOGONAL 
components of flux on OPPOSITE SIDES of the same field diffusion 
IMPERVIOUS CURRENT LAYER.  That means Art, that there are jXB 
forces against BOTH sides of the current sheet (one positive; 
and one negative to the surface normal vector).  

    NOTE: 
EACH FIELD DOES NOT SHEER!!!!  EACH FIELD is in a DISTINCT Region.  

             Do NOT TRIVIALIZE This BOUNDARY CONDITION.  

2.  The virial theorem should treat your thin sheet current and 
bounding flux in the same manner as you did your external boundary 
current and flux.  In other words treat it as a boundary and set 
equations which respect it as such.   You for some reason are
picking and choosing capriciously what current-field boundaries
you use or don't use.. They ALL must be included, my friend.  

Art: Your #1 shows such a current boundary which separates two
regions of media.  On one side is Field and the other is gas 
pressure.  They do not mix.  Further you do integrate the JXB just 
inside the current surface.  (although it is equivalent to doing
the Surface INT over the Air film on the outside of the current
surface).   Note also, in my two mag field region model, that 
BOTH fields go to null on the opposite side of its current layer
and yet are in equalibrium.
    Hope this helps you to comprehend my point of view.  
                                                                   
Notice that integrating around the toroid gives you the inbound 
and outbound pressure components.  Your difficulty in seeing 
this -- is at the bottom our difference.  The fact that the PMK 
is hyperconducting contributes a MAJOR advantage to its ability 
to keep these currents frozen.  Resistive plasmoids would not 
persist for long and would decay promptly to your conditions.  
PMKs that switch conductivities -- because of catastrophic 
interruption of currents or because of some internal instability.  

REALITY CHECK:      
Ball Lightnings often explode with devastating power.  You 
understand, as an experimentalist, what connotes more energy 
confined to a volume than the nkt of air would be the ability to 
suddenly released said high energy density, as by the BREAKING of 
this nested set of toroidal CURRENT-FIELD tensioned surfaces  (of 
which above we lumped all into just one for simplicity).  

In other words, my interpretation is consistent with common BL 
observation, and now ... measurement.  

>Finally a word about soap bubbles. Paul Koloc correctly points out
>that the virial theorem applied to a soap bubble yields nonsense. A
>more dramatic example is a bottle of compressed gas: The outside
>pressure is 1 bar, but the average pressure in a volume containing 
>the bottle can be hundreds of bars.  The resolution of the paradox is 
>that (1) does not apply in this case.  

True, you must include 1(a) the OUTER boundary and 1(b) the INNER 
boundary.      ( NOTE:  any general forces will due...include them
all.  NOT JUST mag-F.)     The FORM of the force is of no consequence.   

You must include both surfaces in the integration.  

For the PMK --You have not done this.  If you could ever understand 
that conducting media (current sheets) can confine mag fields, and 
that mag fields can confine current sheets, you just MIGHT be able 
to piece this together.  Here the OUTER CURRENT SHEET confines (with 
help of gas pressure) a POLOIDAL OUTER BOUNDARY and the inner-boundary 
of that poloidal field confines a toroidal field within a conducting
current sheet. That sheet contains both the poloidal and toroidal 
currents to generate both poloidal and toroidal currents.  It is this 
toroidal sheet current confining the innermost poloidal field, and in 
turn this poloidal field acts back to confine the same current sheet 
through its toroidal current component.  Now the differential radial 
gradient of the toroidal field (B goes as 1/R) generates net inward 
force [1/B^2(inner)-1/^B^2(outer)]  (toward the hole) which when 
added to Carlson's bounding atmospheric inward force  ...describes 
crudely but closely enough, the inflated internal energy rich PMK.  

Now that wasn't so bad the 6th time through.     :-)

>There are tensile forces in the 
>metal bottle that cannot be expressed as j cross B or as -grad p. If 
>you choose to take a microsopic view of things (the electrons and nuclei
>in the bottle are just electric charges, ignoring quantum mechanical
>subtleties), you find that there is a short-range correlation of the
>various charges in such a way that the force cannot be expressed as
>rho times E, that is, a _macroscopic_ charge density times a
>_macroscopic_ electric field.  

So what??  Look up the numbers for the tensile strength of high 
hi-Strength steels;  (or soap bubbles);  they can be discovered 
with time.    ;-)  

>For me, the most interesting part of this business is the question
>whether we are really interested in the _average_ pressure. There are
>configurations where the _peak_ pressure is larger than the average
>pressure. The fusion power density of a Maxwellian plasma at a given
>temperature is proportional to the square of p, and the average of the
>square of a quantity may be higher than the square of the average. The
>question I would like to pose is this:

We are VERY VERY INTERESTED IF it is GREATER than the outer applied 
ENGINEERING PRESSURE.  That means we have "pressure leverage".  This 
is the situation in the spheromak..  read the comments by Furth in 
their first Spheromak paper.   Look up "beta STAR".   

>   Is there a magnetically isolated configuration with a total fusion
>   power higher than that corresponding to the same volume of plasma
>   at the confining pressure?

If you mean "initial total volume"?? Then yes! Since when the device 
(PMK) is compressed, the burn rate increases by the density squared
to which there is practically no bound.... by comparison to steady 
mag field achieved in tokamaks.  That is an advantage of "compactness", 
another aspect that the tokamak community (save Coppi) has never 
appreciated.   Imagine a PMK of order hundred cc Kernel fusion
plasma generating more total power than a working ITER, whose mags
and chamber just fit within a 9 story cube!!

>I don't know the answer and don't know how to find out except to
>investigate a reasonably general class of equilibria. I'd bet about
>even money on yes/no. (And I would postpone all questions of
>stability, transport, and practicality for the time being; we're
>trying to get to first base.)>

Very good luck... you are asking more interesting questions.  

>Art Carlson
>Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics
>Garching, Germany
>carlson@ipp-garching.mpg.de
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc, Bx 1037 Prometheus II Ltd, College Park MD 20741-1037    |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Sun Aug 21 04:37:07 EDT 1994
------------------------------
1994.08.21 / Paul Koloc /  Re: therm. cond. of air
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: therm. cond. of air
Date: Sun, 21 Aug 1994 00:29:38 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <331d8g$m0l@stratus.skypoint.com> jlogajan@skypoint.com writes:
>I have the following thermal conductivity coefficients handy:

>He  2.26
>H2  2.13
>D2  1.66
>N2  0.306
>O2  0.306
>Ar  0.27
>H2O 0.239
>Kr  0.1145
>Xe  0.0695
>Rn  0.0445

>As you can see there is a 7:1 reduction in thermal conductivity when
>going from H2 to N2 (the major component of air.)  You can also see
>a general trend of decreased thermal conductivity with increasing
>gas molecule mass.  That is why they use H2 as a cooling gas for
>some high power functions, and why they use heavy gases around
>filaments of lights (because they want to keep them hot.)

And because they are inert or .. in the case of Iodine, react with
the metal evaporate to form a gas which redeposits the metal ion on
the hot filiment when collision is made.  This conserves filiment
(lamp) life significantly, and allows higher operating temperatures 
(brigher) lights.   

The formation of nitrous oxides and ozone which can react to from
even heavier nitrogen pentoxide at the interface between air and the 
outer Mantle of a PMK or Ball Lightning, act to produce very low total 
thermal conductivity for such UFO beasts.   

>--
> - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com -- 612-633-0345 -
> - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills  MN 55112 USA           -
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc, Bx 1037 Prometheus II Ltd, College Park MD 20741-1037    |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.22 / Richard Blue /  Detectors at LN temperature
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Detectors at LN temperature
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 1994 00:13:50 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

In response to A. El-Koubysi's question, I assume we are talking about
detectors for ionizing radiation - charged particles, gamma rays, X-rays.
There are several types of solid-state detectors, either silicon or
germanium of high resistivity, that require cooling to get the leakage
current down low enough that high bias voltages can be applied without
resulting in avalanche or just too much noise.  If the cooling is
something you want to avoid, there are special forms of detectors,
some of more exotic materials, that can operate at higher temperatures.
It would help if you refined your question to say more specifically
what you are trying to accomplish.

If you are just fishing for leads to commercial suppliers, a good
place to start is:

       E G & G Ortec
       100 Midland Road
       Oak Ridge, TN 37831-0895    phone 800-251-9750

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.22 / C Harrison /  Re: The virial theorem
     
Originally-From: harr@netcom.com (Charles (Chuck) Harrison)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The virial theorem
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 1994 03:46:37 GMT
Organization: Fitful

Many thanks to Art Carlson for a highly readable presentation.

Concerning the virial theorem, questions from someone who once
flunked undergad electromagnetics (passed the 2nd time,
though {:-) ! ) --

Art writes
(1)     j cross B - grad p = 0     everywhere

Here grad p is describing a pressure gradient that is mediated
by momentum transferred to particles making up the gas.  This
makes perfect sense in fully classical regime with pointlike
charge carriers and Lorentz force q*v x B.

I note that pk describes current sheets in PMK as "hyper-
conducting" which seems based on relativistic electron velocity.
Then I think momentum is transferred to gas molecules through
time-averaged coulomb force on +/- ions, then collisions with
neutral atoms.

I don't have good intuition for relativistic dynamics.  Could
someone give me a rudimentary plausibility argument that the
"grad p" formulation for Lorenz force still works properly
in this relativistic-electron / classical ion environment?

Ad astra per plasma (?!?)

Chuck


cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenharr cudfnCharles cudlnHarrison cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.22 / Bill Page /  I'll be offline for a week
     
Originally-From: 70047.3047@compuserve.com (Bill Page)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: I'll be offline for a week
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 1994 05:00:24 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Since I've been so vocal lately, I thought I should mention (in case
anyone wonders why I have suddenly disappeared from the airwaves), that I
am taking a week's hiatus in order to catch up with other business, make
some adjustments to the computer system and to make time to do some
reading. I am anxious to continue the various threads of conversation but
you can rest assured that my mail system will save up all the interesting
postings that I expect will appear on the net over the next week. I'll
pitch in again when I'm back online.

I have prepared Part 3d of the Bohm&Hiley series on boson particle
trajectories but have held off posting it pending a clearer understanding
of the issue of the doubly occuppied fermion state that Rodney Price and
I have been discussing. With bosons there is no conceptual problem with
two particles sharing the same trajectory but as you will see, it is
certainly interesting to contrast the behaviour of bosons with the
fermions.

Also, you may have noticed that I have not yet posted the GIF images for
the 11 figures contained in the Part 3c post, although I said I would.
I've had second thoughts about this because because it personally really
annoys me when those long gobble-de-gook uuencoded mail files show up in
my mail box when I have little or no interest in the subject. So I will
wait until one or more people make a request for them. I get the feeling
that there aren't that many people who would/could take the time to look
at them closely anyway. But let me know. I might be wrong. Maybe I should
just ask David Cyganski to include them with the Maple files at his
ftp site.

I think I will take Dr. Price up on his suggestion to look at particle
trajectories for conherent states (that is if no one else does it before
I get back here). There are some interesting things to learn here,
especially in the many-body case. That should become Part 3e in the
series.

I have now in the planning stages a Part 4 which will deal with
Bohm&Hiley's treatment of superfluidity and superconductivity. Most of
the material for Part 4 will come directly from Bohm&Hiley's book.

You'all have a good week now. See you again on the 30th of August.

Cheers,

Bill Page.

cudkeys:
cuddy22 cuden3047 cudfnBill cudlnPage cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.21 / John Logajan /  Currents-n-Koloc
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@mirage.skypoint.net (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Currents-n-Koloc
Date: 21 Aug 1994 06:39:53 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Paul Koloc, your GIF of many weeks ago was very nice.  Can you give
further visual details. (I am no good at textual descriptions.)

Here is what I'd like to see at the moment -- current flow.

You say there are current sheets.  Can you give us the general shape
and orientation of all these major sheets.  As an example:


Side View of Spheroidal (Mantle???) Current Sheet #1:


     + -
   +     -       + = current into page, - = current out of page.
  +       -   
  +       -
  +       -
   +     -
     + -



Now I don't know if the above correctly describes your beast, but I
believe that most people can see what is implied magnetically by such
drawings.

Thanks a ton.

--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com -- 612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills  MN 55112 USA           -
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.22 /  prasad /  Re: proton conductors
     
Originally-From: c1prasad@watson.ibm.com (prasad)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: proton conductors
Date: 22 Aug 1994 17:23:39 GMT
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

lurking electrochemist = lundgrca@esvax.dnet.dupont.com (Cindy Lundgren) writes:

 Of course you know that a proton conductor is an ion conductor with
selectivity for protons. Literature sources are abundent since these
conductors are the basis for fuel cells, ion selective electrodes (pH being
the proton conductor ion selective electrode). Proton conductors come in
many forms; polymeric (Nafion), non-hydrogen bonded systems (sintered
oxides at high T), hydrogen bonded systems (COO-, glass electrodes).
	Selectivities are a function of mobilities, activity coefficients and
system equilibrium constants. The conduction can be monitored by a variety
of techniques, mostly electrochemical including coulometry, polarization
and NMR. You can find more descriptive detail of all of the above in the
following books and references within

[ some refs deleted ]

-----

Dear lurker <g),

Not being an electrochemist, I'd assume from the above that "proton conductors"
ain't nothing new?  Ie. I couldn't exactly rush to the PTO with a claim for
a proton conductor (first-to-file,etc.!)?

Can I deduce from this that the excess heat reported by the proton conductor
claimers in this group has nothing to do with proton conduction as such, but
should fall in the same category of [unknown,debatable,skepticable]'s as CF
in general?




#pragma prejudices=own brainwaves=own others=disowned!
// email: 71155.3116@compuserve.com, poll= < 1/month.
// bad habits: nun!
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenc1prasad cudlnprasad cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.22 / Tom Droege /  Re: Internet CF experiment
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Internet CF experiment
Date: 22 Aug 1994 21:37:51 GMT
Organization: fermilab

In article <harrCuupqE.HA7@netcom.com>, harr@netcom.com (Charles (Chuck) 
Harrison) says:
>
>Tom Droege writes
>
>In article <1994AUG15.6725@ozemail.com.au>, rvanspaa@ozemail.com.au (R.J
>VAN SPAANDONK) says:                  
> [...a precision cathode-weighing scheme uses] 
>>a solenoid. Reflect a beam of light off one end of the solenoid
>>core, and use any deviation in position of the reflected spot to
>>adjust the current through the solenoid coil, such that the spot
>>returns to its original position. The changes in weight are then
>>accurately reflected in the changes in the solenoid current,
>
>Nice cute (null balance) method.  Do you know how accurately this can
>be done?  Of course a pain in this set up as the solonoid current
>represents a (rather large) changing power into the calorimeter.
>
>---
>
>Just one more reason to use the "inside-the-calorimeter shunt current
>regulator", Tom! :-)
>
>Now to really keep the location of your heat-load constant, you could
>make a coaxial, counter-wound solenoid pair and drive the two 
>windings (which cancel each other at equal current) with a long-
>tailed pair.  But you already thought of that.
>
>Chuck

Cute!
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.22 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Proton Conductors
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Proton Conductors
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 1994 15:00 -0500 (EST)

When electrons are flowing in the same direction, the electromagnetic forces
between then will tend to make the electrons move toward each other forming a
tight beam, even though the charge on them would normally make them disperse.
This phenomenia is used to an advantage in CRTs, and results in a smaller dot
diameter in those devices.  Protons should behave in a similar fashion.  Has
anyone looked at this effect, and it's possible relationship to reported
excess heat in proton conductors?

                                                                Marshall
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.22 / Joe Guokas /  Re: Mills, Farrell, and Orbitspheres
     
Originally-From: joeguokas@aol.com (Joe Guokas)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Mills, Farrell, and Orbitspheres
Date: 22 Aug 1994 20:21:06 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

Re article <01HFSF8DJ4OYBTSHBP@ACAD.FANDM.EDU>, of
J_FARRELL@acad.fandm.edu

Describing progress of the Mills/Farrell project, John Farrell said
something fascinating:

>In any event, significant progress is being made. On the
>experimental side-- easier methods for generating the *excess*
>heat; ways to generate excess heat at higher temperatures 
>(> 200 C); other ways to identify the hydrino (XPS, for example). 

Have XPS signatures identifying the hydrino been seen?

Good luck with your research,
Joe Guokas
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenjoeguokas cudfnJoe cudlnGuokas cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.22 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Currents-n-Koloc
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Currents-n-Koloc
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 1994 23:37:38 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <336srp$1gf@stratus.skypoint.com> jlogajan@skypoint.com writes:
>Paul Koloc, your GIF of many weeks ago was very nice.  Can you give
>further visual details. (I am no good at textual descriptions.)

>Here is what I'd like to see at the moment -- current flow.

There should have been current "arrows" on the GIF.  


>You say there are current sheets.  Can you give us the general shape
>and orientation of all these major sheets.  As an example:


>Side View of Spheroidal (Mantle???) Current Sheet #1:


>     + -
>   +     -       + = current into page, - = current out of page.
>  +       -   
>  +       -
>  +       -
>   +     -
>     + -

Expanding on your work.  


     ++ ## --
   +          -       + = current into page, 
  +  --    ++  -   
  +  --    ++  -      - = current out of page.
  +            -
   +          -   
     ++ ## --        

 |  |  |    ) 
 |  |  |     )  here 1 2 and 3 represent j carrying boundaries 
(1  2  3    )     

                      AND

where 
 --    ++  represents the torus and its toroidal current component. 
 --    ++
                                    

One difference between Carlson and my approach is that 

rather than assuming IntjXB -Gradp = 0 everywhere, it might be expressed
Int SUM jXB =p everywhere, where everywhere includes all surfaces
where current flow.    

Thus the sign of JXB should be influential.   For example at 1 and 3
the sign  is positive, while at 3  jXB is negative.  

Summing transmitted forces to the plasmoid axis suggests a stronger 
pressure inward midline (major axis) then if only JXB outer boundary
was considered alone.  

>Now I don't know if the above correctly describes your beast, but I
>believe that most people can see what is implied magnetically by such
>drawings.

It's fine. 

>Thanks a ton.

>--
> - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com -- 612-633-0345 -
> - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills  MN 55112 USA           -


cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Wed Aug 24 04:37:05 EDT 1994
------------------------------
1994.08.23 / Jim Bowery /  Re: Currents-n-Koloc
     
Originally-From: jabowery@netcom.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Currents-n-Koloc
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 1994 16:55:30 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

One of the best ways to get a first-order handle on Koloc's ideas,
I've found, is to start with Lenz's Law, think about plasma as a
conductor and then think about lightning.

-- 
The promotion of politics exterminates apolitical genes in the population.
  The promotion of frontiers gives apolitical genes a route to survival.
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenjabowery cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.23 / Cindy Lundgren /  Re: proton conductors
     
Originally-From: lundgrca@esvax.dnet.dupont.com (Cindy Lundgren)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: proton conductors
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 1994 16:42:57 GMT
Organization: DuPont all opinions my own

In article <33amur$131t@watnews1.watson.ibm.com>, c1prasad@watson.ibm.com
(prasad) wrote:
> 
> lurking electrochemist = lundgrca@esvax.dnet.dupont.com (Cindy Lundgren) writes:
> 
>  Of course you know that a proton conductor is an ion conductor with
> selectivity for protons. Literature sources are abundent since these
> conductors are the basis for fuel cells, ion selective electrodes (pH being
> the proton conductor ion selective electrode). Proton conductors come in
> many forms; polymeric (Nafion), non-hydrogen bonded systems (sintered
> oxides at high T), hydrogen bonded systems (COO-, glass electrodes).
> 	Selectivities are a function of mobilities, activity coefficients and
> system equilibrium constants. The conduction can be monitored by a variety
> of techniques, mostly electrochemical including coulometry, polarization
> and NMR. You can find more descriptive detail of all of the above in the
> following books and references within
> 
> [ some refs deleted ]
> 
> -----
> 
> Dear lurker <g),
> 
> Not being an electrochemist, I'd assume from the above that "proton conductors"
> ain't nothing new?  Ie. I couldn't exactly rush to the PTO with a claim for
> a proton conductor (first-to-file,etc.!)?
> 
> Can I deduce from this that the excess heat reported by the proton conductor
> claimers in this group has nothing to do with proton conduction as such, but
> should fall in the same category of [unknown,debatable,skepticable]'s as CF
> in general?
 
> #pragma prejudices=own brainwaves=own others=disowned!
> // email: 71155.3116@compuserve.com, poll= < 1/month.
> // bad habits: nun!

In general, proton conductors are certainly not new and are considered as
proton conduits in the presence of an electric field. The chemistry or
redox chemistry occurs once it contacts the electrode face. The explanation
for Nb and Sr shrinking protons in a SrCeYbNbO proton conductor as
explained in a previous message in this thread sounds kinda strange to
these ears. There is this paper "Electrochemical Hydrogen Permeation in a
Proton-Hole Mixed Conductor..." , S. Hamakawa, T. Hibino, H. Iwahara, J.
Electrochem. Soc., 141, 7, (1994), 1720, where they talk about a similar
ceramic SrCe(0.95)Yb(0.05)O(3-x), but the only chemistry is what was
occurring at the electrode surface once the protons were shuttled there.
They don't really consider current efficiency in this paper, but it can be
tested to see if all of the protons reach the electrode surface to react.

The not so lurking it appears electrochemist :-)
Cindy Lundgren
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenlundgrca cudfnCindy cudlnLundgren cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.23 / John Logajan /  Re: Currents-n-Koloc
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@mirage.skypoint.net (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Currents-n-Koloc
Date: 23 Aug 1994 16:07:04 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Paul M. Koloc (pmk@prometheus.UUCP) wrote:

:      ++ ## --
:    +          -       + = current into page, 
:   +  --    ++  -   
:   +  --    ++  -      - = current out of page.
:   +            -
:    +          -   
:      ++ ## --        

: There should have been current "arrows" on the GIF.  


The GIF has three arrows, we have now depicted two of those arrows.
I take it that the third represents:


      ---
    -     -      Where this is the internal toroid viewed from above.
  -   +++   -
 -   +   +   -
 -  +     +  -
 -   +   +   -
  -   +++   -
    -     -
      ---

So we now have what appears to be two currents in the same general area
flowing at right angles to each other.

Are there really two independent currents, or are you depicting a
helical current?

Or does the toroid current depicted in the top drawing represent the
current throughout the bulk of the torous volume while the toroid
current depicted in the bottom drawing represents a sheet of current
on the outer surface only?

Thanks again.

--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com -- 612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills  MN 55112 USA           -
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.23 / Ad aspera /  FYI 131, August 23 (Fusion, HENP in House)
     
Originally-From: JTCHEW@lbl.gov (Ad absurdum per aspera)
Newsgroups: sci.research,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.accelerators,sci
physics.particle,sci.energy
Subject: FYI 131, August 23 (Fusion, HENP in House)
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 1994 15:34:59 -0800
Organization: Relayed, not written, by Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory


[Written by individuals at the American Institute of Physics and
merely posted by me, so respond to <fyi@aip.org> or other
references below.  Always posted here on sci.research; sometimes
crossposted to an eclectic and hopefully appropriate selection
of other newsgroups, with followups directed here. Back issues
may be ftp'd from NIC.HEP.NET, along with PHYSICS NEWS UPDATE
and the American Physical Society news/opinion column WHAT'S NEW;
or from pinet.aip.org. Enjoy! -jc]

House Passes Fusion, High Energy, and Nuclear Physics Bill

FYI No. 131, August 23, 1994

Last Friday afternoon, the House passed by voice vote H.R. 4908,
the Hydrogen, Fusion, and High Energy and Nuclear Physics Research
Act of 1994.  The House considered this bill for about three hours,
accepting four relatively minor amendments.  The expected amendment
to cap overall spending in the bill was not offered by Rep. Bob
Walker (R-PA).  He did, however, in reaction to what he called a
"wave of this [lobbying] going on," offer what he described as an
"antilobbying amendment" which was rejected by the House.

Threading its way through the afternoon's consideration of the bill
was the matter of spending caps on DOE programs (see FYIs #123,
126.)  House science committee chairman George Brown (D-CA) said,
"In neither subcommittee was there any enthusiasm for the caps, but
they were adopted nevertheless in the one subcommittee.... While we
were considering some amendments to extend the caps to the whole
bill or to remove the caps from the whole bill, I think our current
situation is that we will leave the bill the way it was reported
out of the committee and hope that we can survive on that basis."
This was one of the few direct references to a reason for the
Walker amendment not being offered.  Indications of off-the-floor
strategy were raised by Brown's discussion of an amendment to
"remove the caps from the whole bill."  Walker defended his effort
as "insuring the prioritization of programs along the lines of the
[science] committee."  Walker declined to offer his amendment, the
result being that the cap on Energy Supply R&D Activities (which
includes fusion research) remains, while other General Science and
Research Activities spending is not capped.

A focus of the afternoon's discussion was the need for the federal
government to provide "a higher level of policy guidance and
program direction" to correct what Rep. Rick Boucher (D-VA) called
"indifference toward the stewardship of these programs."  Members
praised developments in the area, Rep. Herbert Klein (D-NJ) saying,
"The successful Princeton experiments are a good example of a
milestone that DOE and the fusion program promised American
taxpayers and then delivered on.  The Princeton fusion project is
not only doing what it promised to do, but it will complete its
program with less funding than was projected when it started
operations."

This bill faces an uncertain future.  Although the Senate passed a
fusion bill (S. 646), H.R. 4908 is considerably different since it
also authorizes hydrogen, high energy, and nuclear physics
research.  Whether this bill will go to a conference co-chaired by
Senator J. Bennett Johnston (D-LA) and then be again passed by both
the House and Senate this year is difficult to predict, much less
what the legislation's final provisions might be.  Any bill not
passed before Congress adjourns this fall will die, and will have
to be reintroduced in the 104th Congress.

Future FYIs will summarize H.R. 4908 and its accompanying report,
floor debate, and the lobbying amendment.

###############
Public Information Division
American Institute of Physics
Contact: Richard M. Jones
fyi@aip.org
(301) 209-3095
##END##########
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenJTCHEW cudfnAd cudlnaspera cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.23 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Currents-n-Koloc
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Currents-n-Koloc
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 1994 23:50:40 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <33d6r8$b0c@stratus.skypoint.com> jlogajan@skypoint.com writes:
>Paul M. Koloc (pmk@prometheus.UUCP) wrote:

>:      ++ ## --
>:    +          -       + = current into page, 
>:   +  --    ++  -   
>:   +  --    ++  -      - = current out of page.
>:   +            -
>:    +          -   
>:      ++ ## --        

>: There should have been current "arrows" on the GIF.  


>The GIF has three arrows, we have now depicted two of those arrows.
>I take it that the third represents:


>      ---
>    -     -      Where this is the internal toroid viewed from above.
>  -   +++   -
> -   +   +   -
> -  +     +  -
> -   +   +   -
>  -   +++   -
>    -     -
>      ---

Yes, although which direction the poloidal currents flow is arbitrary. 
That is the "-" and "+" symbols can be exchanged here.  

>So we now have what appears to be two currents in the same general area
>flowing at right angles to each other.

You're getting into which mythological symbols are real and the nature
of electrons.  The superficial answer is: There are TWO COMPONENTS 
of current.  That works, because of the nature of the "artificial
entity "B", one component will generate B field  on one side of 
a closed volume membrane, and the other component will generate the
orthogonal component on the "other side".  

>Are there really two independent currents, or are you depicting a
>helical current?

One current of informational annihilation operators (electrons) 
in a screw flow on a toroidal surface.  Note however, such current 
"generates" B toroidal flux within (inside) the outer confines of the 
current flow (toroidal surface) and a B poloidal flux outside the
confines of the currents flow. We view the field within the current
surface as being null.  The What's really going on? -- has to do
with the vector _A_ flow field.  Usually, we get consistent answers
from differing perspectives, although the more elegant is most often
correct in conflicts.  

>Or does the toroid current depicted in the top drawing represent the
>current throughout the bulk of the torous volume while the toroid
>current depicted in the bottom drawing represents a sheet of current
>on the outer surface only?

No, and notice your answer is not consistent (symmetric). 

Set each tube wall "thickness" equal to the diameter of a current
electron  -- for those that insist on getting a physical picture.  
We have established that each toroid in the nested set has a screw 
current, * * * B U T * * * not one of those many tubes is similar to
any other.  Each and every one has a different screw "pitch".  The 
outer surface would have "infinite" pitch and the innermost tube 
(null diameter) would have zero pitch.  The toroidal current surface 
at mean minor radius may have a pi/4 pitch.  Yes, the pitch varies
monitonically increasing from minor axis to (innermost current 
element) outer surface.  This is "ideal", and in real cases, the 
monotonic variance to the outermost current toroidal pitch may be 
much less than infinity.  

>Thanks again.
>--
> - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com -- 612-633-0345 -
> - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills  MN 55112 USA           -
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc,Bx 1037, Prometheus II, Ltd., College Park, MD 20741-1037 |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.23 / Donald Locker /  Re: Fogal funnies
     
Originally-From: dhl@mrdog.msl.com (Donald H. Locker)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fogal funnies
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 1994 17:09:40 GMT
Organization: Chelsea MSL, Inc.   Chelsea, MI   USA

In article <9408181318.AA42498@pilot1.cl.msu.edu>,
Richard A Blue <blue@pilot.msu.edu> wrote:
>Can anyone explain how it is that anyone with enough technical skill
>to sign on to Internet can read what has been said about the Fogal
>modified transistor and take it seriously?  Does anyone really think
>that you can outboard an ordinary capacitor near a chip and generate
>enough magnetic (?) field to influence currents in the silicon via
>the Hall effect?  Get real!

Goes to show ya what level of technical skill is required to get on the
'net these days.  There goes the old neighbourhood!
-- 
Donald.
These opinions were formulated by a trained professional.
              DO NOT TRY THIS AT HOME!
      At the time, the tone will be ... BEEP!
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudendhl cudfnDonald cudlnLocker cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.24 / C Harrison /  Basement fusioneer seeks NIM bin
     
Originally-From: harr@netcom.com (Charles (Chuck) Harrison)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Basement fusioneer seeks NIM bin
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 1994 05:34:35 GMT
Organization: Fitful

Nice home promised to any of your old NIM gear (working or not)
you'd like to get rid of.

e-mail harr@netcom.com

Thanks loads.
  Chuck

cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenharr cudfnCharles cudlnHarrison cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Thu Aug 25 04:37:03 EDT 1994
------------------------------
1994.08.24 / James Vanmeter /  CF excess heat = chemical energy?
     
Originally-From: nazrael@cats.ucsc.edu (James Vanmeter)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CF excess heat = chemical energy?
Date: 24 Aug 1994 06:51:56 GMT
Organization: University of California; Santa Cruz


What's the probability that the excess heat observed in at least
some cold fusion experiments is actually stored chemical energy being
released (other than recombination of hydrogen and oxygen)?  I'm not
very competent at chemistry, and it seems like if this was a valid 
theory then somebody would have proven it by now...Nevertheless:

Consider the light water set-up in which the cathode is nickle,
the anode is platinum, and the electrolyte is potassium carbonate.
It seems to me that products that might be formed, either spontaneously
or catalyzed by electrolysis, are:  NiO, NiCO3, Pt(CO3)2, and KOH.
Chemical energy may be converted directly to heat via these reactions,
or into electrical energy and then to heat energy.  In the latter case
I refer to a battery effect, in which the nickle gives up positive ions
thus creating a voltage in addition to the electrolysis input (that is,
maybe the cold fusion cell operates like a nickle-cadmium battery 
in some respects, under certain circumstances).

What do you think?


cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudennazrael cudfnJames cudlnVanmeter cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.24 / Arthur TK /  Re: The virial theorem
     
Originally-From: awc@slcawcipp-garching.mpg.de (Arthur      Carlson        TK  )
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The virial theorem
Date: 24 Aug 1994 08:35:06 GMT
Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching

In article 7555 of sci.physics.fusion, Paul Koloc tries to write an equation!

>  At "A" we have -jXB(pol)-p(o) = 0  The equilibrium between particle 
>  pressure and jxB at the Mantle inner surface.  
>                                     where minus connotes pressure inward
>  
>  
>                    B O U N D A R I E S
>     |                 |                           |               
>     |                 |                           |               
>  -->|                 |  <---               ---->>|      
>   Po|jXBpol  jtorXBpol|jpolXBtor (torus) jpolXBtor|jtorXBpol (hole)
>  AIR|  Vacuum field   |        T O R U S          |  H O L E  Vac fld
>     |                 |                           |               
>     |                 |                           |               
>  
>  At PTO:  -j(tor)XB(pol) +j(pol) x B(tor) = 0
>  
>  At PTI;  -j(pol)XB(tor) +j(tor)XB(pol)  =0  
>  
>  We know that the sum of the outgoing and ingoing forces cancel
>  so from this we can conclude that:
>  
>    p0 = j(pol)XB(tor)@[PTO] -j(pol)XB(tor)[PTI]

There are a few problems, but they can be (partially) fixed. First, it
should be noted that his j refers to surface current density, not to
volume current density. We'll leave this be since there is no
universally accepted notation for surface current density. Second, for
the case of current sheets, I think the force balance is clearer (less
chance to make or hide errors) if it is expressed in terms of magnetic
pressure. For example, the correct expression for the force per unit
area for the conditions considered here is jXB/2. But since it's
Koloc's only equation, we'll let him choose his own notation. Third,
there is a problem with the signs. In standard vector notation, the
sum of all forces is zero, while Koloc writes a difference. (The
correct sign for p_0 depends on the coordinate system chosen.) So what
does that leave us with?

   At A:                  p_0 + j_tor X B_pol / 2 = 0
   At PTO:  j_tor X B_pol / 2 + j_pol X B_tor / 2 = 0
   At PTI:  j_pol X B_tor / 2 + j_tor X B_pol / 2 = 0

Now this is a little awkward to work with since, for example, B_pol at
A is in general not equal to B_pol at PTO. But this is the best one
can do if one insists on reducing the problem to a single
dimension. Still, the structure is clear, and that is what Koloc was
trying to get at:

   the external gas pressure  balances  the vacuum field pressure
   the vacuum field pressure  balances   the torus field pressure
    the torus field pressure  balances    the hole field pressure

and the cheese (the hole field pressure) stands alone. Paul Koloc just
kind of left out a few important terms, notably the hole field
pressure which tends to push everything apart, when he combined his
first three equations into his fourth.

(I won't go into the fact that the above plasmoid lacks something very
crucial, namely plasma.)

As near as I can make out after studying Koloc's post, he accepts my
equations (1) through (4) as the basis for the analysis. The rest is
"formal mathematical symbolic locic", a field in which Koloc
explicitly acknowledges my skill. He describes his arguments as
"intuitive", which, except for the attempted equation considered
above, is certainly correct. He says he will leave the "formal
implementation" of his arguments to me. I have news for him:

   All of your arguments are already formally implemented in my
   original post on the virial theorem. I have correctly handled 
   your internal current sheets because the forces involved are 
   all accounted for in my first equation. It is also correct to 
   integrate over the whole plasmoid, both torus and vacuum region,
   because I am interested in the average pressure in the whole 
   volume. Intuition is an invaluable tool, but the only way
   to be sure of having the right answer is to do the mathematics.
   Since you can't point to a mistake in the calculations, why don't
   you accept the result? 


Art Carlson
Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics
Garching, Germany
carlson@ipp-garching.mpg.de
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenawc cudfnArthur cudlnTK cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.25 / Jed Rothwell /  ICCF4 Proceedings
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: ICCF4 Proceedings
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 1994 00:08:42 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org

EPRI and the Navy finally published the proceedings of the Fourth
International Conference on Cold Fusion. It is four thick volumes, nine pounds
of paper. You can order it from:

EPRI Distribution Center
207 Coggins Drive
P.O. Box 23205
Pleasant Hill, CA 94523

Tel: 510-934-4212

There is a particularly fine paper in Volume 2, EPRI TR-104188-V2: M. E.
Melich (Navy Postgraduate School), W. N. Hansen (Utah State Univ.) "Back to
the Future, The Fleischmann-Pons Effect in 1994." This is a review of some
early CF experiments. It is not very technical. Among other things, it
describes the 1989 and 1990 Amoco experiments, which were definitive. This is
first public mention of these experiments that I have seen, I am delighted
that Amoco is finally sharing the data. See pages 10-5, 10-7 and Reference 12.
Quote:

     "In March 1993 the Research Department of the Amoco Production Company
     provided us with a copy of their internal report of work on the FPE they
     performed in 1989. . . The result of their 24 Oct - 18 Dec 1989
     experiment showed that an FPE experiment in a closed, flow calorimeter
     produced unaccountably large steady levels of heat, as well as bursts of
     heat, at magnitudes 100 to 1000 times greater than instrument error. The
     cumulative net gain in energy was in excess of 50KJ. Furthermore, the
     tritium level in the electrolyte at experiment start was 2.5 +/- 1.0
     pcurie/mL, while at the end of the experiment this had increased to 7.4
     +/- pcurie/mL; these results were achieved in a closed calorimeter."

I do not have Ref. 12, but I have seen it and I recommend it:

     Amoco Production Company, Research Department, T. V. Lautzenhiser, D. W.
     Phelps, Report T-90-E-02, 90081ART0082, 19 March 1990, "Cold Fusion:
     Report on a Recent Amoco Experiment."

Those are pretty darn good results for 1989 work! Very respectable. I heard
that Amoco stopped working on CF soon after they got these results, which is a
shame if true. Another oil company, Shell, has an ongoing cold fusion research
effort that is going very well. This is described in the EPRI Proceedings Vol.
1 Paper 9: "Cold Fusion by Sparking in Hydrogen Isotopes: Energy Balances and
Search for Fusion By-Products," Dufour, Foos, Millot; and in: J. Dufour (Shell
Research S.A., Grand-Couronne, France), "Cold Fusion by Sparking in Hydrogen
Isotopes," Fusion Technology, vol. 24, no. 2, 1993, pp 205-228.

- Jed

cudkeys:
cuddy25 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.25 /  J_FARRELL@acad /  Re:  Hydrinos
     
Originally-From: J_FARRELL@acad.fandm.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re:  Hydrinos
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 1994 00:08:51 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway


Joe Guokas writes,

>Describing progress of the Mills/Farrell project, John Farrell said
>something fascinating:
>
>>In any event, significant progress is being made. On the
>>experimental side-- easier methods for generating the *excess*
>>heat; ways to generate excess heat at higher temperatures 
>>(> 200 C); other ways to identify the hydrino (XPS, for example). 
>
>Have XPS signatures identifying the hydrino been seen?
>

Yes.  The XPS was done by researchers at the Zettlemoyer Center for Surface
Studies, Lehigh University.  Briefly.  A broad peak at 55 eV (n = 1/2 to n
= infinity) was found on Ni surfaces that were used in the electrolysis of
potassium carbonate solutions but not on Ni surfaces that were used in the
electrolysis of sodium carbonate solutions.  Ni, Pt, Sn, Zn, and Fe were
eliminated by various XPS techniques and by SIMS.  The peak is large;
somewhere around 30% of the surface is covered with hydrinos.  If, you know
about XPS, SIMS, and high resolution MS and you would like a preprint,
write to Bill Good, HPC, Greenfield Corp Center, 1860 Charter Lane,
Lancaster, PA 17601.  If you have only a casual interest in the subject,
please do not ask for a preprint--wait for others to interpret the data.

Best regards,



     
*****************************************
John J. Farrell
Chemistry Department
Franklin & Marshall College
Lancaster, PA  17604

email     J_FARRELL@ACAD.FANDM.EDU
FAX       717-291-4343

cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenJ_FARRELL cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.24 / Tim Kooney /  Re: Return of the experimenter?
     
Originally-From: kooney@nrlssc.navy.mil (Tim Kooney)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Return of the experimenter?
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 1994 18:46:37 GMT
Organization: Naval Research Laboratory, Stennis Space Center, MS

Vernon C. Hoxie (vern@zebra.alphacdc.COM) wrote:

> How about building a scale into the cell.  This would mean more leads
> but maybe you could multiplex the resistance leads and the strain gauge
> leads but reverse polarity of the sense voltage.

> I got a blurb from Penwalt some years ago about a piezo mylar film they
> had.  The mylar could very well be a contaminate to the cell however.

Kynar film won't work because it responds to changes in pressure not steady
state.  The low frequency rolloff is arround 100 seconds for a very high
impedance amplifier.  The distortion of the film creates a charge build up
on the electrodes which slowly bleeds off through parasitic resistances.

One could suspend the specimen by some of the test leads.  The leads then
would attach to a load cell to measure weight.  This would obviously 
require mechanically sound connections to the specimen.  Thermoelectric
effects can be reduced by using an AC reference and a synchronous detector.

				tim

cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenkooney cudfnTim cudlnKooney cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.25 / John Logajan /  Re: Currents-n-Koloc
     
Originally-From: al789@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Currents-n-Koloc
Date: 25 Aug 1994 00:15:07 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)


pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) says:

>We have established that each toroid in the nested set has a screw 
>current, * * * B U T * * * not one of those many tubes is similar to
>any other.  Each and every one has a different screw "pitch".  The 
>outer surface would have "infinite" pitch and the innermost tube 
>(null diameter) would have zero pitch.  The toroidal current surface 
>at mean minor radius may have a pi/4 pitch.  

I may be particularly obtuse, but I'm not sure what you mean by "pitch."
I imagine it defines the rate of rotation around the minor axis versus
the rate of rotation around the major axis.  Unless I know which one
you are putting as the denominator, the reference point seems ambiguous.

So let me ask -- is current flow at the maxmium minor radius mostly
around the minor axis, or mostly around the major axis?

Conversly, is current flow at the minimum minor radius mostly around
the minor axis (ergo not moving??) or mostly around the major axis?

Or do these questions indicate a complete missing of the point? :-)

cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenal789 cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.25 /  vimx /  sonoluminescence
     
Originally-From: vimx <vimx@delphi.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: sonoluminescence
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 94 00:13:27 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

 I wouldn't have thought of posting this question here, but someone in
sci.physics said someone here is working on this.
 What frequency and amplitude of sound will make water glow?
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenvimx cudlnvimx cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.24 / GEARHEART ERICK /  Reactor Startup
     
Originally-From: gearhart@falcon.cc.ukans.edu (GEARHEART DRAKE ERICK)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Reactor Startup
Date: 24 Aug 94 23:31:33 CDT

Could someone please explain to me how the fuel rods in a fission
reactor get "started" for lack of a better word.  How is the reaction
started in a reactor?

                                            Corry

cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudengearhart cudfnGEARHEART cudlnERICK cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.25 / Bruce TK /  Re: Currents-n-Koloc
     
Originally-From: bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce       Scott          TK  )
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Currents-n-Koloc
Date: 25 Aug 1994 09:03:21 GMT
Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching

In article <33gnqb$amb@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, al789@cleveland.Freenet.Edu
(John Logajan) writes:
|> 
|> pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) says:
|> 
|> >We have established that each toroid in the nested set has a screw 
|> >current, * * * B U T * * * not one of those many tubes is similar to
|> >any other.  Each and every one has a different screw "pitch".  The 
|> >outer surface would have "infinite" pitch and the innermost tube 
|> >(null diameter) would have zero pitch.  The toroidal current surface 
|> >at mean minor radius may have a pi/4 pitch.  
|> 
|> I may be particularly obtuse, but I'm not sure what you mean by "pitch."
|> I imagine it defines the rate of rotation around the minor axis versus
|> the rate of rotation around the major axis.  Unless I know which one
|> you are putting as the denominator, the reference point seems ambiguous.
|> 
|> So let me ask -- is current flow at the maxmium minor radius mostly
|> around the minor axis, or mostly around the major axis?
|> 
|> Conversly, is current flow at the minimum minor radius mostly around
|> the minor axis (ergo not moving??) or mostly around the major axis?
|> 
|> Or do these questions indicate a complete missing of the point? :-)

No they don't. This is precisely what was meant by my question "what is
the value of q"? In a cylindrical analog, q is defined as r B_T/R B_p,
where r and R are minor and major radii, and B_T and B_p are the toroidal
and poloidal components of the magnetic field. More generally, q is the number
of times a field line goes around the long way for one time around the
short way. Of course, equating the current question to the field question
implicitly implies a nearly force-free field, for which the current is
parallel to the field.

This is why formulas are useful. John's second question can be rephrased:
"Is the quantity  defined by

    Lim (r --> 0)  r J_T/R J_p

less than unity or greater than unity?". This leaves no ambiguity. I too
would like to know the value of this quantity varies from r --> 0 to 
r = r_max.

[Note that r and J_p both go to zero linearly as r goes to zero, so in 
general the quantity need not vanish as r goes to zero.]

-- 
Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de                               -- W Gibson
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnTK cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.25 / John Logajan /  Re: CF excess heat = chemical energy?
     
Originally-From: al789@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CF excess heat = chemical energy?
Date: 25 Aug 1994 14:23:34 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)


nazrael@cats.ucsc.edu (James Vanmeter) says:

>What's the probability that the excess heat observed in at least
>some cold fusion experiments is actually stored chemical energy being
>released (other than recombination of hydrogen and oxygen)?  

>It seems to me that products that might be formed, either spontaneously
>or catalyzed by electrolysis, are:  NiO, NiCO3, Pt(CO3)2, and KOH.
>Chemical energy may be converted directly to heat via these reactions,
>or into electrical energy and then to heat energy.  

I believe the most energetic chemical reactions known are on the order
of 5eV per atom.  Since we can easily compute the number of atoms we
have based upon the mass of each substance we stick in the cell, we
can divide the total energy output (minus input energy) by the number
of atoms in the cell.  If the answer is less than 5eV (or thereabouts)
then we have to look for additional clues to exclude chemical effects.

If, on the other hand, excess energy exceeds about 5eV per atom, then
we are necessarily talking either super-chemistry or nuclear effects.

There have been many claims where net energy far exceeds the 5eV per
atom case, so if these are ultimately bogus, it will be due to some other
error than mere unrecognized chemistry.

-- 
-- John Logajan ---  al789@cleveland.freenet.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenal789 cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.25 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: CF excess heat = chemical energy?
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CF excess heat = chemical energy?
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 94 10:27:22 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

nazrael@cats.ucsc.edu (James Vanmeter) asks:
 
     "What's the probability that the excess heat observed in at least some
     cold fusion experiments is actually stored chemical energy being
     released (other than recombination of hydrogen and oxygen)?"
 
In CF experiments that fail there is occasionally evidence of very small
chemical heat releases. We know  that successful CF experiments do not produce
chemical heat for the following reasons:
 
1. There is not enough chemical fuel in the cell to produce the energy
observed.
 
2. There is no sign of significant chemical changes in successful cells; no
color change, no ash, no other sign of any chemical change. The "commensurate
nuclear ash" from a small scale fission or fusion reaction that produces non-
radioactive species is incredibly difficult to find, because nuclear reactions
produce so much energy from such a small amount of fuel, but the "commensurate
chemical ash" from a small scale chemical reaction in a closed cell is always
dead simple to spot. Any chemical reaction producing macroscopic levels of
heat will also produce macroscopic chemical changes.
 
3. The absolute upper limits of chemical energy release are well understood.
This can best be explained in terms of the number of electron volts (eV) of
energy released per atom from chemical fuel. For example, burning coal
produces about 4.0 eV per atom, burning octane (C8H18) produces 2.2 eV per
atom (5.5 MJ per mole). The theoretical absolute upper limit for any chemical
species is about 18 eV per atom. I do not think anyone has ever observed an
energy release on this scale. Robert Forward has theorized that exotic,
metastable helium compounds might allow this level of energy release, but to
my knowledge he has not demonstrated this experimentally. In any case,
chemical reactions are limited to about 18 eV maximum whereas CF reactions
have produce hundreds of eV per atom, and some have produced tens of thousands
of eV per atom in continuous energy releases, with no sign of charging and
releasing. The upper limits are not known; no cell has run until the fuel is
exhausted, because that would probably take hundreds of years. It may well be
possible for a CF reaction to produce millions of eV per atom.
 
 
     "Present day theory holds that is impossible for any chemical to store
     20, 50 or 100 times more energy than gasoline."
 
Not to my knowledge. The best that I have seen is Robert Forward's work, which
would allow 11 times more energy per unit of mass than gasoline. In any case,
CF experiments have produced many thousands of times more energy than
gasoline.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenjedrothwell cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.25 / Arnie Frisch /  Re: ICCF4 Proceedings
     
Originally-From: arnief@wu.labs.tek.com (Arnie Frisch)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: ICCF4 Proceedings
Date: 25 Aug 1994 07:30:06 -0700
Organization: Tektronix Laboratories, Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton, OR

In article <940824154857_72240.1256_EHB110-1@CompuServe.COM> 72240.1256@
ompuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
>To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org
.......
.....
...
>
>Those are pretty darn good results for 1989 work! Very respectable. I heard
>that Amoco stopped working on CF soon after they got these results, which is a
>shame if true. ........


Did you ever stop to think about what you wrote?  Why in the
world would Amoco stop working on cold fusion if they thought
their results were "pretty darn good"?


Arnold Frisch
Tektronix Laboratories
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenarnief cudfnArnie cudlnFrisch cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.25 / Craig Wyllie /  Re: CF excess heat = chemical energy?
     
Originally-From: wyllie@physun.cis.mcmaster.ca (Craig K.W.M. Wyllie)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CF excess heat = chemical energy?
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 1994 17:13:46 GMT
Organization: C.I.S., McMaster Univ., Hamilton, Ontario, CANADA

	I cannot remember which publication I saw this in, but it was in 
with the comment letters about a cold fusion article.  It suggested that the
excess heat could be accounted for from something like the following:

	2HDO => H2 + D2 + O2 + dE
		or
	4HDO => 2H2O + 2D2O + dE
		or
	4HDO => 2H20 + 2D2 + O2 + dE
	
	I am not being specific, those are just the types of things I thought
the letter suggested.  I do not have the time anytime soon to go through all of 
the chemistry and find the dE's or net heat avail per volume water or heavy 
water, does anyone out there know a little more about this.  (The author 
claimed that it would result in 22kWh per 10 gallons reg water....)
	
	-Craig 
-- 
=============================================================================
 Craig Wyllie	Hamilton, Ont.	Canada	   wyllie@physun.physics.mcmaster.ca
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenwyllie cudfnCraig cudlnWyllie cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.25 / C Harrison /  virial theorem: still needs work.
     
Originally-From: harr@netcom.com (Charles (Chuck) Harrison)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: virial theorem: still needs work.
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 1994 17:05:32 GMT
Organization: Fitful

I have tried to carefully read Art Carlson's recent post
on the application of the virial theorem to magnetoplasmoids.

I was perplexed for awhile by the first premise:

  (AC1)  j cross B - grad p = 0     everywhere .

As written, it is simply NOT TRUE.

(AC1) is a simplification of the basic MHD force equation

  (1)  rho  Dv/Dt  = - grad p  +  j cross B 

                          + Fv  + rho g

taken from Jackson [1] eqn (10.2), with

   rho = fluid density (scalar)
   v = fluid velocity (vector)
   D/Dt = substantial derivative 
        = (d/dt)|[x,y,z = constant]
           + v dot del
   p = fluid pressure (scalar)
   j = current density (vector)
   B = magnetic field (vector)
   Fv = viscous force (vector)
   g = acceleration of gravity (vector)

Where we have idealized the absence of significant
electrostatic forces.

We can likewise remove the last two terms of the
right-hand side, assuming viscous drag and gravity
are unimportant, leaving

  (2)  rho  Dv/Dt  = - grad p  +  j cross B .

Thus (AC1) is equivalent to a statement that

  (3)  rho Dv/Dt  = 0               everywhere.

This is a very strong condition.  It is *much* stronger
than, for example, the "steady flow" condition, which
requires

  (4)  dv/dt = 0 ,

among other things.  As noted above under (1), the
substantial derivative Dv/Dt is *not* the same as the
local partial dervative dv/dt.  (See any introductory
fluid mechanics text, e.g. Fox & McDonald [2] sec 5-3.1.)

In fact (3), or equivalently (AC1), would apply only to a
flow velocity field with straight-line, non-accelerated
streamlines (uniform flow).  Boring!

What is the resolution of this paradox?

I suspect that Carlson is invoking some type of "long-term
average" sense in which (AC1) is supposed to hold.  This
would sound similar to other "virial" theorems (e.g. in
celestial and statistical mechanics) with which I am not
(yet?) familiar.

I can envision a derivation for (AC1) working from an
argument that *on the average* the whole system is not
accelerating in space or time.  However, the nonlinear
nature of the convective term

         v dot ( del v )

makes it hard (for me) to formulate an appropriate
averaging process.

I think this aspect of the theorem needs work before we
can comfortably apply a virial argument to magneto-
plasmoid problems.

Cheers,
  Chuck Harrison

[1] JD Jackson, _Classical Electrodynamics_, 2nd ed.,
     New York, Wiley 1975.  ISBN 0-471-43132-X.

[2] RW Fox, AT McDonald, _Introduction to Fluid
     Mechanics_ 3rd ed., New York, Wiley 1985.  
     ISBN 0-471-88598-3.
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenharr cudfnCharles cudlnHarrison cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.25 / Jim Bowery /  Re: Currents-n-Koloc
     
Originally-From: jabowery@netcom.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Currents-n-Koloc
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 1994 16:53:26 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

Paul M. Koloc (pmk@prometheus.UUCP) wrote:
: You're getting into which mythological symbols are real and the nature
: of electrons.  
...
: One current of informational annihilation operators (electrons) 
: in a screw flow on a toroidal surface.

Paul may or may not wish to clarify these statements at this time,
but they are artifacts of his informational view of physical phenomena
which he finds easy to work with on an intuitive level.  This model, to 
the limited extent that I have been exposed to it, has not been tested 
except in a post hoc fashion and is not essential to the PLASMAK(tm) 
model.  It is quite isomorphic with other physics models.  It predicts 
the same things will happen except in some esoteric cases such as 
questions on whether there will exist stable anti-matter atoms of atomic
number higher than 1.

Basically, the idea is that "charge" is the flow of information from 
sources to sinks, that the limit on measurement is actually a limit on 
the availability of information and that various phenomena such as mass, 
energy and gravitation are emergent from the metrics of this informational 
flow.  Whether it will turn out to be any better than, worse than or even 
different from the other quantum-gravity theories that have been put 
forth only time will tell.  If better, I would have to retract my earlier 
statement about Paul being a master craftsman RATHER THAN a great 
scientist and say, to the horror of scientists like Carlson, that he is a 
master craftsman in addition to being a great scientist.  I would, of 
course, be happy if required to make such a retraction.  The problem is I 
don't believe there are any quick and dirty experiments which would 
validate or invalidate it.

If the PLASMAK(tm) turns out to be mostly as Paul predicts, I think it 
would be a good idea to take his "information physics" seriously if for 
no other reason than that it may prove a good intellectual tool for 
working on some otherwise difficult engineering problems.
-- 
The promotion of politics exterminates apolitical genes in the population.
  The promotion of frontiers gives apolitical genes a route to survival.
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenjabowery cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.25 /  fairfax@sensei /  Alcator Progress 8/25/94
     
Originally-From: fairfax@sensei.pfc.mit.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Alcator Progress 8/25/94
Date: 25 AUG 94 17:41:57 GMT
Organization: MIT PLASMA FUSION CENTER

The repair/maintenance period for Alcator C-Mod is continuing. The first
inner coax component has been received. This piece, which is machined from a
single piece of copper, has slots machined into it, using EDM techniques, in
order to provide compliance between the inner and outer conductors.
Preliminary inspection results indicate that the piece is within
specifications and can be used for the OH2L bus, which is the first that must
be installed during the reassembly process. Machining of the inner conductors
for the upper coaxial buses is proceeding.

One recommendation that came out of the engineering review of the bus failure
was that we consider instrumentation to monitor the condition of the
felt-metal joints in the OH bus. Testing on a prototype coil indicates that
this can be done by monitoring the voltage drop across the joint during high
current operation. Instrumentation to accomplish this is being designed into
the replacement coaxes.

Upgrading of the third FMIT power supply, which will be required for the 3'rd
two megawatt ICRF transmitter, has been completed by Uptegraf, and the supply
will be shipped to MIT shortly. This will be used with the PPPL tunable source
and antenna, scheduled for installation in 1996.

This week, Steve Wolfe is attending the ITER Experts Committee meeting on
Confinement and Transport at the San Diego co-center.
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenfairfax cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.25 /  jonesse@physc1 /  Re:  Sonoluminescence
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re:  Sonoluminescence
Date: 25 Aug 94 08:26:48 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

In response to a posting on 24 Aug. by 'vimx' asking about sonoluminescence, 
the following is reposted from several months ago.  May I add that we have
achieved SL in water at 20 - 50 kHz and with a power input of a few watts.
Our system now consists of a 43-ml spherical quartz flask filled with distilled
water and driven by two diametrically opposed PZT transducers, excited by
a calibrated sinusoidal signal generator.  

REPOST:
In order to re-emphasize the distinction between transient, multi-
bubble SL (garden-variety SL) and stable, single-bubble SL 
{SB-SL}, I repost the following with few changes.  (Recent
discussion suggests quite a bit of confusion still on the
differences; hope this helps.)

Prof. Lawrence Crum of the University of Washington provided a
colloquium on the subject of "Synchronous Picosecond
Sonoluminescence" (SP-SL) at BYU on January 21, 1994.  Here is his
abstract for his talk:

"When an acoustic wave of moderate pressure amplitude is propagated
through an aqueous liquid, light emissions can be observed.  This
conversion of mechanical energy into electromagnetic energy
represents an energy amplification per molecule of over eleven
orders of magnitude!  Recently, we made the discovery that a
single, stable gas bubble, acoustically levitated in a liquid, can
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
emit optical emissions each cycle for an unlimited period of time. 
Presumably, the oscillations of the bubble cause the gas in the
interior to be heated to incandescent temperatures during the
compression portion of the cycle.  We have no current explanation
for how this mechanical system sustains itself.  Furthermore, some
recent evidence from Putterman and colleagues at UCLA indicates
that the lifetime of the optical pulse is less than 50 picoseconds,
and that the temperatures elevated in the interior of the bubble
for times on the order of tens of nanoseconds, it is likely that
some rather unusual physics is occurring.  The best guess is that
a shock wave is created in the gas which is then elevated to high
temperatures by inertial confinement.  If shock waves are the
mechanism for SL emission, then optimization of the process could
lead to extraordinary physics.  A general review of this intriguing
phenomenon will be presented as well as the latest explanations for
the anomalous behavior."


Here I provide notes based on his talk and our discussions
together, along with other literature.

First, it is important to distinguish stable, SB-SL from the
previously known *transient* sonoluminescence (T-SL).  These appear
to be quite different phenomena, as a table will demonstrate:

Transient (garden-variety)SL   Stable single-bubble SL [SB-SL]
 ----------------------------- -------------------------------- 

Multiple cavitation sites      One cavitation site (or few)
 with random spatial and         with same bubble(s) repeatedly
 temporal distribution           collapsing
                               
(To simplify discussion, I will consider the SB-SL case of a single
bubble at the center of a spherical flask full of H2O or D2O.)

Can be produced by traveling   Requires standing sound waves (SW)
or standing waves of sound

Easily obtained, with much     Very difficult to realize; requires
gas dissolved in liquid         <5% dissolved gasses.  Bubble must
                                be *injected* into liquid.

Discovered 1933 by N.Marinesco  Discovered 1988 by D. Gaitan, L. 
 & J. Trillat.                      Crum and C. Church.

Emitted light spectrum shows   Emitted light shows no distinct
distinct lines, e.g., N+N -->   lines; rather, spectrum fits black
N2; so chemiluminescence         curve quite well.
postulated.

Bubbles tend to collapse asym-  Bubbles tend to collapse symmetric
metrically, thus introducing   "developing an imploding shock wave
liquid into bubble, which is    within the gas." [L.A. Crum, J.
heated by adiabatic compression.    Acoust. Soc. Am. 94(1993) 1 ]

From above, Temp ~ 5000 K      From above, Temp up to 100,000 K
deduced, during cavitation.     deduced during cavitation.

Normal physics, no shock       "Extraordinary physics"; shock waves
waves needed.                   implied.  

Time between pulses quite      Time between pulses clock-like; 
random; pulse-length typically   pulse-length < 50 *pico*seconds
several nanoseconds.

(Sychronous picosecond SL:

!__________!__________!__________!__________!__________!____
   Time between light-flashes ! = 50 microsec +- 50 Picosec
     for 20 kHz driving field; sound source good to 1 part in
     10^4, light source stable to 1 part in 10^6. )
   

No fusion possible.             Fusion during cavitation possible?
                     [An old idea of mine to explain some of BYU
                      2.5-MeV neutron observations, 1988-1989 etc.]
                                 Inertial-confinement approach
                                 with holraum-like target.  Allows
                                 compression with less heating than
                                 ablation approaches IMHO.  No   
                                 experimental tests yet.  I suggest
                                 comparing p-d,d-d and d-t targets
                                 (gases in cavitating bubble).
                                 This would be HOT (not cold) fusion.

Notes from Barber and Putterman, Nature 352 (1991) 318:

1.  "SL is a non-equilibrium phenomenon in which the energy in a
sound wave becomes highly concentrated so as to generate flashes
of light in a liquid.  We show here that these flashes, which
comprise over 10^5 photons, are too fast to be resolved by the
fastest photomultiplier tubes available.  Furthermore, when SL is
driven by a resonant sound field, the bursts can occur in a
continuously repeating, regular fashion."

2.  "These bursts represent an amplification of energy by eleven
orders of magnitude."

3.  "The flash widths that we find are so short that one wonders
whether some phenomenon stimultes the atoms to fire in unison. 
Known cooperative phenomena include laser action, super-radiance
and super-fluorescence.  Any cooperative phenomenon underlying our
observations must be of a spherical nature, however, because a
randomly oriented dipose emission would lead to a broad spread in
the distribution of pulse heights....no such broadening is seen.
Nevertheless, it is reasonable to expect that some type of
correlation characterizes the outgoing photons, because the spacing
between light-emitting sources is much less than the wavelength of
the emitted light."   [Terry Bollinger and others take note!]

4.  "The huge, spontaneous (non-equilibrium) amplification factors
discussed above are noteworthy in that they are controllable and
reproducible.  In this respect, stable synchronous SL differs from
other phenomena (such as dust explosions, ball lightning and highly
speculative conditions for nuclear fusion) that also require large
spontaneous energy concentrations. [Note evident reference to cold
fusion.]  If we could understand the mechanism behind synchronous
SL, we might see a way to achieve large but controllable energy
concentrations more generally."

We are now preparing experiments to study stable, single-bubble SL
as a possible means of achieving nuclear fusion reactions.  Our
neutron detectors are capable of unambiguously identifying neutron
emissions at a rate of a few neutrons per hour.  A previous posting
describes our redundant detectors, employing fast waveform
digitizers, in a deep tunnel in the Wasatch mountains near the
campus of Brigham Young University.

--Steven Jones

P.S.  A graduate student is working with me on the effort to search for
possible low-level fusion associated with the collapse of D2 bubbles driven by 
a sound field.  Progress to date has been slow, as we grope our way up the
learning curve.
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenjonesse cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.25 /  jonesse@physc1 /  cancel <1994Aug25.082253.1717@physc1.byu.edu>
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc1.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cancel <1994Aug25.082253.1717@physc1.byu.edu>
Date: 25 Aug 94 08:28:30 -0600

cancel <1994Aug25.082253.1717@physc1.byu.edu>
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenjonesse cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.25 / Bruce TK /  Re: virial theorem: still needs work.
     
Originally-From: bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce       Scott          TK  )
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: virial theorem: still needs work.
Date: 25 Aug 1994 20:01:16 GMT
Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching

In article <harrCv3ot8.MBz@netcom.com>, 
	harr@netcom.com (Charles (Chuck) Harrison) writes:

[...]

A nice discussion on how the v.del v term enters the MHD equation of
motion.

Chuck is correct that Art's post is taken in the limit that


|>   (3)  rho Dv/Dt  = 0               everywhere.


That is, steady flows have been neglected. This is a good approximation
in a basic tokamak, and a less-good approximation in a tokamak heated by
neutral beams. Basically, the v.del v term is smaller than the grad p
term by a factor of Mach number squared times a/R, where a and R are
the minor and major radii. Unless you have flows on the order of the 
sound speed, the flow term's presence won't have much of an effect.

In Paul's device, a/R is of order unity, but he has not said anything
about mass flows (as opposed to currents). As a result, all of the 
previous discussion has been in the neglect of them. However, if these are
important, Paul should let us know. If they are, they should be easily
detectable through the doppler shift of any spectral lines from partially
ionised atoms present in the plasma. On the D-III-D tokamak in San Diego,
they inject impurity atoms into the edge and use their lines to measure
their velocity, which can under certain assumptions tell us about the
radial electric field in the edge of the tokamak. It would be nice to
have this diagnostic on the plasmak, but it is clear that the expense
precludes it at the moment.

Back to the Virial theorem: if the flow is everywhere subsonic, the
addition to the pressure term in the virial theorem can no more than
double it. Nevertheless, the flow adds to the plasma pressure, so you 
need even more external gas pressure to keep the plasmoid in equilibrium.

-- 
Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de                               -- W Gibson
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnTK cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.25 /  JMargolin /  Ultrasonic Vibration Potential
     
Originally-From: jmargolin@aol.com (JMargolin)
Originally-From: Electrochemistry (Second Edition), Philip H. Rieger, Chapman & Hall,
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Ultrasonic Vibration Potential
Date: 25 Aug 1994 19:00:10 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

I have run across something that may relate to the Flynn patent (U.S.
patent
4,333,796 METHOD OF GENERATING ENERGY BY ACOUSTICALLY INDUCED
CAVITATION FUSION AND REACTOR THEREFOR, June 8, 1982. It may also
relate to sonoluminescence.

Originally-From: Electrochemistry (Second Edition), Philip H. Rieger, Chapman & Hall,
1994, ISBN 0-412-04391-2

Page 124:

" 
Ultrasonic Vibration Potential
 ---------------------------

   When a high frequency sound wave travels through an electrolyte
solution,
solvent molecules are forced into an oscillatory motion. Ions in the
solution
tend to move with the solvent but may lag a little behind. If the lag in
cation
motion is different from the lag in anion motion (because of different
frictional coefficients) a small potential difference will develop at the
frequency of the ultrasonic wave. If a pair of electrodes is placed in the
solution with a spacing of half the wavelength of the sound wave, this
potential can be detected. This effect was predicted by Debye in 1933 [12]
but was not observed experimentally until after World War II. Debye
originally suggested this experiment as a way of estimating the effective
masses of the solvated ions.  Subsequent experimental work showed that it
is really the ionic partial molar volumes which are determinable, and
there has been a substantial volume of work directed toward this end. Work
on ultrasonic vibration potentials has been reviewed recently by Zana and
Yeager [13].

[12]  P. Debye, J. Chem. Phys. 1933, 1,13.
[13]  R. Zana and E.B.Yeager, Modern Aspects of Electrochemistry, 1982,
14,1.
"

Any comments?

(There is also a section on effects of frequency and electric field
strength
that I will post if people are interested.)

Jed Margolin (Ono, another Jed)


cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenjmargolin cudlnJMargolin cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Fri Aug 26 04:37:08 EDT 1994
------------------------------
1994.08.25 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: ICCF4 Proceedings
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: ICCF4 Proceedings
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 94 22:37:19 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

arnief@wu.labs.tek.com (Arnie Frisch) asks:
 
     "Did you ever stop to think about what you wrote?  Why in the world
     would Amoco stop working on cold fusion if they thought their results
     were 'pretty darn good'?"
 
Yes of course I stop to think. You may be certain that every word - every
syllable - I write is calculated to many decimal places, although I often
leave out words on account of my internal telegraphic grammar.
 
Years ago I spoke with a person who knows a great deal about the Amoco work. I
believe they stopped the research for political reasons, not because the
results were technically unsatisfactory. I do not know the details, but I
suppose the nature of Amoco's main product might have something to do with it.
I expect they do not want to cannibalize their own market. For more
information, I strongly recommend you read the Melich paper and Ref. 12, if
you can get a copy. You will agree this is superb work and definitive
calorimetry. I think Morrison found it very impressive.
 
It is possible that I am misinformed; perhaps they have *not* stopped working.
 
Let me say that I applaud the recent spirit of objective science that has
infected this forum. If John Farrell feels this forum has cleaned up its act
enough to allow him post occasional messages, I will follow his lead. He is
certainly one of the top people in this field, and one of the most informative
and helpful. I think it would be good if people like Mr. Frisch would join in
with the spirit of things here, and refrain from making comments which call
into question people's thought processes rather than addressing scientific
issues. For my part, I should refrain from responding to comments like his
hereafter, but I thought the general reader might be interested in hearing a
little more about the Amoco work. Melich writes, "We are urging Amoco to
submit this work for publication in a scientific journal." I think that would
an excellent idea.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenjedrothwell cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.26 / H Anvin /  Re: Reactor Startup
     
Originally-From: hpa@ahab.eecs.nwu.edu (H. Peter Anvin)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reactor Startup
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 1994 03:46:05 GMT
Organization: United Federation of Planets

Followup to:  <1994Aug24.233133.71266@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu>
By author:    gearhart@falcon.cc.ukans.edu (GEARHEART DRAKE ERICK)
In newsgroup: sci.physics.fusion
>
> Could someone please explain to me how the fuel rods in a fission
> reactor get "started" for lack of a better word.  How is the reaction
> started in a reactor?
> 

Well, this is sci.physics.*fusion*, but here we go:

The core of a normal fission reactor is actually constructed so that
when the control rods (which contain a neutron-absorbing element such
as cadmium) are fully removed, and the moderator is in
place, the core is slightly supercritical, i.e. the product

(probability a neutron will cause a reaction) x
(number of free neutrons produced per reaction on average)

is > 1.  With the control rods fully pulled in, the product is always
< 1, and the core is subcritical.  By adjusting the control rods
appropriately, this product can be varied.  (Note: In a nuclear warhead,
this reaction product is optimized to be very very high, much higher
than could be achieved in a reactor during the worst of disasters.)

The second factor is fixed, and is somewhat less than 3 for U-235
fission.  The first one, however, is controlled by such things as the
nature of the moderator, the packing density of the fuel rods, the
grade of the fuel (percentage U-235) and of course the position of the
control rods. 

Once the fuel rods are loaded into the reactor, the control rods are
withdrawn so the reactor is slightly supercritical.  There is always
some spontaneous fission going on in U-235, and when inside a
supercritical core, this will cause a snowballing chain reaction.
When the reaction has reached a predetermined level, the control rods
are inserted further so the reactor is barely critical (reaction
product approximately = 1), and a stable chain reaction occurs.

Trivia: one of the reason why water-moderated reactors are safer than
graphite-moderated ones is that if water starts to boil inside the
core (as it would if the core is overheating) the water-moderated
reactors will suffer a reduced reaction product due to loss of
moderator (the moderator acts as a form of catalyst) and reduce
reaction intensity.  A graphite-moderated one will increase its
reaction intensity and overheat faster.  In Chernobyl a
graphite-moderated reactor overheated to the point where it separated
its water coolant into hydrogen and oxygen, causing a chemical
explosion that blew the lid off the reactor.  The lack of a properly
constructed containment structure made the disaster inevitable.

	/hpa
-- 
INTERNET: hpa@nwu.edu             --- Allah'u'abha ---
IBM MAIL: I0050052 at IBMMAIL     HAM RADIO:   N9ITP or SM4TKN
FIDONET:  1:115/511 or 1:115/512  STORMNET:    181:294/1 or 181:294/101
WWW hyplan available at <http://www.eecs.nwu.edu/hpa/plan.html>
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenhpa cudfnH cudlnAnvin cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.26 / John Logajan /  Re: Currents-n-Koloc
     
Originally-From: al789@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Currents-n-Koloc
Date: 26 Aug 1994 05:19:29 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)


bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce       Scott          TK) says:
>al789@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John Logajan) writes:
>|> So let me ask -- is current flow at the maxmium minor radius mostly
>|> around the minor axis, or mostly around the major axis?
>
>This is precisely what was meant by my question "what is
>the value of q"? In a cylindrical analog, q is defined as r B_T/R B_p,
>where r and R are minor and major radii, and B_T and B_p are the toroidal
>and poloidal components of the magnetic field.

You can answer Bruce too, but don't use equations to explain it to me,
as I will be completely lost. :-)


-- 
-- John Logajan ---  al789@cleveland.freenet.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenal789 cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.27 / Richard Blue /  Nuclear ash hard to find?
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Nuclear ash hard to find?
Date: Sat, 27 Aug 1994 00:28:45 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Jed Rothwell repeats one of the old lies about cold fusion when he
says, "The 'commensurate nuclear ash' from a small scale fission or
fusion reaction that produces a non-radioactive species is incredibly
difficult to find."  Of course it is difficult to find when it really
isn't there :-), but barring that obvious case I would like to hear
Jed put some substance behind that cop out.

It is a cop out for a very fundamental reason!  Cold fusion advocates
have painted themselves into a very tight corner where the only reaction
processes that can meet the requirements for conforming to what they
have selected as the "facts" have to have some mighty strange properties.
One obvious requirement is that the energy release per event must be
quite large in comparison with the binding energies of electrons and
atoms in the lattice.  It follows that the energy release, almost by
definition, must be very disruptive to the lattice structure.  Such
disruption are subject to detection by simple, straightforward means
even if the reaction product is not radioactive?  Of course you can
invoke an appropriate number of miracles to make this problem go
away, and indeed that has been done.  My favorite example is the
invention by Ed Storms of the catch-all miracle called the SCM
for Special Condition of Matter.  If you ask, "What is this SCM?"
the answer is "Any thing it needs to be."

If the advocates of this "unfindable reaction product" hypothesis
would be just a little more specific and actually spell out what
they have in mind it would be even easier to point out the error
of their ways.  It turns out to be rather difficult to come up
with a totally clean nuclear reaction process that does not emit
something energetic and externally detectable, and still make some
connection to the standard ingredients of a cold fusion experiment.
Of course Peter Hagelstein seems to have narrowed his candidate
list down to a set of reactions that literally do nothing.  However
he seems to have failed to take note of a simple fact that any
process for which the input ingredients are indentical with the
output ingredients cannot release energy as a byproduct.

The idea that there is some mysterious nuclear reaction process
that carefully wipes out all its footprints such that it will
never be detected by any means other than calorimetry is obviously
somewhat suspect.  Scientific reasoning takes another kick in
the teeth when the significance of this lack of evidence is
simply pushed aside to the cry of "On to commercial development!"
The wheeler-dealer types are out there peddling something they
cannot define, but not to worry!  Whatever it is it can certainly
be made bigger, better, and cheaper.  In fact when it comes to
selling something it may even help to not have too many hard
facts floating around to gum up the works.  So I don't expect
anyone anytime soon to actually suggest that they have detected
the "commensurate nuclear ash".  That is something better left
in limbo.

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.26 / Dirk Holt /  Re: Reactor Startup
     
Originally-From: abh@ornl.gov (Dirk D. Holt)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reactor Startup
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 1994 12:24:46 GMT
Organization: Engineering

In article <Cv4IGu.M12@eecs.nwu.edu> hpa@ahab.eecs.nwu.edu (H. Peter Anvin) writes:

>> Could someone please explain to me how the fuel rods in a fission
>> reactor get "started" for lack of a better word.  How is the reaction
>> started in a reactor?
>> 

>Well, this is sci.physics.*fusion*, but here we go:

(some text was deleted)

>Once the fuel rods are loaded into the reactor, the control rods are
>withdrawn so the reactor is slightly supercritical.  There is always
>some spontaneous fission going on in U-235, and when inside a
>supercritical core, this will cause a snowballing chain reaction.
>When the reaction has reached a predetermined level, the control rods
>are inserted further so the reactor is barely critical (reaction
>product approximately = 1), and a stable chain reaction occurs.

Please note that fission reactors use a neutron source to start the chain 
reaction.  The reasons for this are:

     1.  It allows calibration of the instruments (with a known source)

     2.  It allows the reactor to reach desired power levels much faster.

A neutron source is usually a mixture of two isotopes.  One isotope is 
radioactive.  The products of its decay cause the second isotope to produce a 
neutron.

One final note - the neutron source is removed before the fission reactor 
reaches appreciable power levels.  This is to prevent damage to the neutron
source and control complications with the fission reactor.

cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenabh cudfnDirk cudlnHolt cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.26 / Bruce Schechter /  Re: ICCF4 Proceedings
     
Originally-From: bruce_schechter@cc.wdi.disney.com (Bruce Schechter)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: ICCF4 Proceedings
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 1994 08:48:24 -0800
Organization: Walt Disney Imagineering

In article <pE+zNPn.jedrothwell@delphi.com>, jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:

> Years ago I spoke with a person who knows a great deal about the Amoco work. I
> believe they stopped the research for political reasons, not because the
> results were technically unsatisfactory. I do not know the details, but I
> suppose the nature of Amoco's main product might have something to do with it.
> I expect they do not want to cannibalize their own market. 

You're joking, right?  Why would Amoco be afraid of an invention that could
assure them
a market of untold billions of dollars?  Every penny they "cannibalized"
from their own petroleum
sales they would make back from their CF sales.  In addition, they would
steal revenue from
other oil companies.  And if this argument fails to convince you (as I
suspect it will, since reason
apparently does not really enter into any of this) then consider that if
Amoco had obtained
the positive results that you quote they would be pretty sure that CF was a
reality, in which 
case they would know that if they didn't hurry someone else would get the
patents, market
the stuff and put them out of business.  Or perhaps their agents are even
now busy sabotaging
every CF researcher in the world and launching massive disinformation
campaigns?

Your words might be calculated to every decimal place, but your arguments
don't add up.


-- 

Bruce_Schechter@cc.wdi.disney.com.......................................
..................................................
                                                                           
  opinions expressed approximate only my own and coincide
                                                                           
   only coincidently with those of my employer or anyone else
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenbruce_schechter cudfnBruce cudlnSchechter cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.26 / Bob Niland /  Re: ICCF4 Proceedings
     
Originally-From: rjn@fc.hp.com (Bob Niland)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: ICCF4 Proceedings
Date: 26 Aug 1994 15:54:24 GMT
Organization: Colorado SuperNet


>>     "Did you ever stop to think about what you wrote?  Why in the world
>>     would Amoco stop working on cold fusion if they thought their results
>>     were 'pretty darn good'?"

> I expect they do not want to cannibalize their own market.

You mean they want someone ELSE to cannibalize their market?

They could alway develop it and mothball it.  But, if they really think
that CNF has promise as an energy technology, then they know that if
they don't position themselves to either own the key patents, or at
least be a competitive producer, CNF from other sources will eat their
oil biz.

If Amoco has in fact ceased CNF work, the most likly explanation is that
they think it's a dead end.

Has Occam sold his Amoco stock?

Regards,                                            1001-A East Harmony Road
Bob Niland                                          Suite 503
Internet:  rjn@csn.org                              Fort Collins
CompuServe: 71044,2124                              Colorado     80525   USA
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenrjn cudfnBob cudlnNiland cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Sat Aug 27 04:37:02 EDT 1994
------------------------------
1994.08.26 / C Harrison /  Re: sonoluminescence
     
Originally-From: harr@netcom.com (Charles (Chuck) Harrison)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: sonoluminescence
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 1994 15:40:21 GMT
Organization: Fitful

In article <x4xyFxX.vimx@delphi.com>, vimx  <vimx@delphi.com> wrote:
> I wouldn't have thought of posting this question here, but someone in
>sci.physics said someone here is working on this.
> What frequency and amplitude of sound will make water glow?


I'll take this as an appropriate opportunity to remind people of the
WAIS database of sci.physics.fusion postings at sunsite.  If you
have a WorldWideWeb browser (e.g. Mosaic or Lynx), try:
  wais://sunsite.unc.edu/fusion-digest?sonoluminescence

otherwise telnet to sunsite.unc.edu, login as swais, and use
 /fusion-digest to jump to the right place.  On-line help is there
but barely adequate.

Cheers,
  Chuck
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenharr cudfnCharles cudlnHarrison cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.26 / garrett hall /  a request for info and advice
     
Originally-From: hall2827@ee.uwm.edu (garrett hall)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: a request for info and advice
Date: 26 Aug 1994 18:35:40 GMT
Organization: University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee


this posting is a requist for information and advice:

i am an emerging 'basement fusioneer' and am finding it difficult
to obtain detailed and complete information.  i have managed to
obtain the necessary ingredients and am drawing up a first cold
fusion experiment.  this project, as is probably evident from this
document, is still in its infancy. 

i welcome any advice as to how i can ensure the successful generation
of the anomalous heat.  i am particularily interested in detailed
accounts of other experiments which i could duplicate.  i plan
on my first experiment to be the familiar electrolysis of D20 with
Pd and Pt electrodes.  

if anyone is interested, i would be happy to provide the details
and results of my experiments.  also, although my resources are
limited at this time, i am open to suggestion of any variations
of a CF experiment that someone would like to see done.

is there a place on the net where i may find CF technical papers etc.?

i welcome any and all information.  please indulge me.

you can respond by this newsgroup or email me at:

		garrett@watt.cae.uwm.edu

you may also use the email address listed in the header of this newspost.

			thanks,
				garrett 
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenhall2827 cudfngarrett cudlnhall cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.26 / Robert Eachus /  Re: Reactor Startup
     
Originally-From: eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reactor Startup
Date: 26 Aug 94 16:41:53
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.

In article <Cv4IGu.M12@eecs.nwu.edu> hpa@ahab.eecs.nwu.edu (H. Peter Anvin) writes:

 > Well, this is sci.physics.*fusion*, but here we go:

-- As long as we are treating this as sci.physics.fission...

 > The second factor is fixed, and is somewhat less than 3 for U-235
 > fission.  The first one, however, is controlled by such things as the
 > nature of the moderator, the packing density of the fuel rods, the
 > grade of the fuel (percentage U-235) and of course the position of the
 > control rods. 

  Two other major factors are the temperature (both due to expansion
of the components, and to reaction cross-sections dropping for
higher-energy neutrons), and the poisons from previous fissions.
(Poisons in this context are fisson products with large neutron
absorption cross-sections.)  Both of these make building working
reactors harder, but add a nice negative feedback effect.

 > Once the fuel rods are loaded into the reactor, the control rods are
 > withdrawn so the reactor is slightly supercritical.  There is always
 > some spontaneous fission going on in U-235, and when inside a
 > supercritical core, this will cause a snowballing chain reaction.

  Some of the neutrons are emitted by daughter nucleii after the
fisson occurs.  These "delayed" neutrons also contribute to the
control of the reactor since they make the time constant fairly large.
If a nuclear device is critical without counting the delayed neutrons
it is "prompt critical," and the reaction rate increases at nuclear
speeds.  Believe it or not some reactors can survive prompt critical
events quite nicely.

 > When the reaction has reached a predetermined level, the control rods
 > are inserted further so the reactor is barely critical (reaction
 > product approximately = 1), and a stable chain reaction occurs.

  Actually the rods are usually pulled out further during this
process, due to heating and poison buildup.

 > Trivia: one of the reason why water-moderated reactors are safer than
 > graphite-moderated ones is that if water starts to boil inside the
 > core (as it would if the core is overheating) the water-moderated
 > reactors will suffer a reduced reaction product due to loss of
 > moderator (the moderator acts as a form of catalyst) and reduce
 > reaction intensity.

  Called having a negative void coefficient.  Very handy property.
Unfortunately, sodium cooled reactors have positive void coefficients.

 > A graphite-moderated one will increase its reaction intensity and
 > overheat faster.  In Chernobyl a graphite-moderated reactor
 > overheated to the point where it separated its water coolant into
 > hydrogen and oxygen, causing a chemical explosion that blew the lid
 > off the reactor.  The lack of a properly constructed containment
 > structure made the disaster inevitable.

  It is not clear whether most of hydrogen came from separating the
water or from the water reacting with the fuel.  And "properly
constructed containment structure" is misleading.  In US nuclear
industry terms, there is no containment building for a Chernobyl style
reactor, just a roof to keep the rain out.

--

					Robert I. Eachus

with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudeneachus cudfnRobert cudlnEachus cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.26 / Mike Jamison /  Re: I'm not in this / Bohm, pilot waves, and lousy SciAm articles
     
Originally-From: edwlt12@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov (Mike Jamison (ADF))
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: I'm not in this / Bohm, pilot waves, and lousy SciAm articles
Date: 26 Aug 1994 17:08 EDT
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center

In article <32pl5u$jc1@network.ucsd.edu>, mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel) writes...
>Bill Page (70047.3047@compuserve.com) wrote:
> 
>: Chubb&Chubb do propose a (new) interpretation of quantum mechanics where the
>: charge of the particle (at least) is physically spread over space. For a number
>: of reasons I don't think that this interpretation is universally valid so though
>: it may provide useful insights in some cases, it may also produce incorrect
>: results in others. 
> 
>That's being rather charitable perhaps.
> 
>When have charges of elementary particles ever been seen to be
>"spread out" in this fashion?
> 
>Take the canonical electron diffraction experiment.  The wave function of
>the diffracted electron is "delocalized" and spread out after it passes
>through the slits.  And yet, when the electron reaches the screen, its
>charge is all right there---in one fast and angry little point----just ready
>to hit and flouresce individual target atoms.

One more point about delocalization/interference:  "It has been written
that:"

1)  A photon can only interfere with itself
2)  An electron can only interfere with itself [I think Feynman said that
one].

3)  Does it follow that:  A proton/neutron/deuteron/etc. can only interfere
with itself?  In other words, if two protons pass through a diffraction
grating, they will *never* fuse due to their overlap, since such an occurence
would = mutual interference.

I believe the photon and electron self-interference was derived from the 
fact that the same intererference pattern is observed independent of the
electron/photon flux [i.e. the same pattern results from 1 photon or electron
per second or 1e20 photons or electrons/sec.  Obviosly in the first case, each
photon or electron has nothing to interfere with besides itself].

> 
>Its a fundamental experimental fact of QM.
> 
>It's very difficult to imagine it ever working another way.   This is
>exactly the objection to the Chubb+Chubb cold fusion theory.  Even
>if the wave functions of the nuclei are "delocalized"---our knowledge
>of their locations in the lab frame is not very certain---they still act
>like nearly point nucleons when they interact; and thus the same
>mutual Coloumb barrier would seem to apply, and certainly the ordinary
>high-energy nuclear reaction products ought to be produced after the
>interaction takes place.  

Otherwise, the Ds would be "mutually interfering" which probably is not
allowed...
> 
> 
>: Cheers,
> 
>: Bill Page.
> 
> 
>--
>-Matt Kennel  		mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu
>-Institute for Nonlinear Science, University of California, San Diego
>-*** AD: Archive for nonlinear dynamics papers & programs: FTP to
>-***     lyapunov.ucsd.edu, username "anonymous".


Mike Jamison


"Scientific research consists in seeing what everyone else has seen, but
thinking what no one else has thought"

						-A. Szent-Gyorgyi
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenedwlt12 cudfnMike cudlnJamison cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.27 / Richard Blue /  Re: Return of the experimenter
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Return of the experimenter
Date: Sat, 27 Aug 1994 08:44:58 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I have been digging through my archives looking for odd bits of
information that might possibly be on some use to the planning
of the next great experiment and will be posting what I find as
time permits.  Today's finds are two articles:

"Differential microcalorimeters", D. S. Reid, Journal of Physics E:
Scientific Instruments 1976 vol 9 page 601-609.
This is a review article that appears to mention a variety of
techniques, and the following bibliography might prove useful
to anyone wanting to track down more details.

"Heat pipes and their instrument applications", I. C. Finlay and
D. B. Green, Journal of Physics E: Scientific Instruments 1976
vol 9 page 1026-1035.  This is also a review, but also has more
specific information.There are two tables which list the various
combinations of materials, wicks and working fluids and specify
the working temperature range and a figure of merit.

It would seem copper with methonol or copper-nickel with water
are the two that fall in the temperature range of interest.
There is also lots of design variations shown so you can make these
things work in different geometries and orientations.

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.26 / Matt Kennel /  Re: Reactor Startup
     
Originally-From: mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reactor Startup
Date: 26 Aug 1994 22:12:31 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD


: Once the fuel rods are loaded into the reactor, the control rods are
: withdrawn so the reactor is slightly supercritical.  There is always
: some spontaneous fission going on in U-235, and when inside a
: supercritical core, this will cause a snowballing chain reaction.
: When the reaction has reached a predetermined level, the control rods
: are inserted further so the reactor is barely critical (reaction
: product approximately = 1), and a stable chain reaction occurs.

I believe the trick is that luckily, U-235 fission has both fast (<< 1 sec)
and a small proportion of slow O(mins/hrs) neutron emissions.  Power reactors
are designed to be subcritcal (damping) to fast neutrons and slightly
supercritical to slow neutrons, but the time constant is so large that
presumably safety systems can fall into place.

: Trivia: one of the reason why water-moderated reactors are safer than
: graphite-moderated ones is that if water starts to boil inside the
: core (as it would if the core is overheating) the water-moderated
: reactors will suffer a reduced reaction product due to loss of
: moderator (the moderator acts as a form of catalyst) and reduce
: reaction intensity.  A graphite-moderated one will increase its
: reaction intensity and overheat faster.  In Chernobyl a
: graphite-moderated reactor overheated to the point where it separated
: its water coolant into hydrogen and oxygen

(how does that happen?  How hot does it take to dissociate vapor in air?)

: causing a chemical
: explosion that blew the lid off the reactor.  The lack of a properly
: constructed containment structure made the disaster inevitable.

It was worse than this.  They were operating in some weird low-power mode
with nearly all the moderators and control rods out to do some irresponsibly
idiotic experiments.  (They had to use *blowtorches* to cut out safety
systems that were stopping them before..."Hello, McFly?? Anybody in there?")

When it got hot the removed rods had heated up and expanded, and thanks to
precision Soviet machining they didn't fit right when they tried to 
lower them.  They got stuck in part-way, which apparently made the problem
even worse for some reason (more moderation of fast neutrons to fissionable
energies without enough absorption?).

Finally the reactor went supercritical to *fast* neutrons.  Normally that's
called an atom bomb.  There was a substantial *nuclear* explosion in addition
to the chemical fire (burning graphite) and hydrogen explosions.
"Efficient", certainly not, but remember there's a hell of a lot more uranium
than in bombs.  (And also remember the fact that graphite moderated reactors
make more of weapons-useful Pu-239--I don't know whether this made any
difference)

The fact of a nuclear explosion was made clear by the observation of a huge
spike in fission products wafted up in the poison cloud that had rather
short half-lives (like hours and days) so they weren't just old waste that
had blown up (though there was a sickening amount of that, too) If you trace
the reaction chain backwards it all went back to one instant, which is when
the thing blew.

: 	/hpa
: -- 
: INTERNET: hpa@nwu.edu             --- Allah'u'abha ---
: IBM MAIL: I0050052 at IBMMAIL     HAM RADIO:   N9ITP or SM4TKN
: FIDONET:  1:115/511 or 1:115/512  STORMNET:    181:294/1 or 181:294/101
: WWW hyplan available at <http://www.eecs.nwu.edu/hpa/plan.html>

--
-Matt Kennel  		mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu
-Institute for Nonlinear Science, University of California, San Diego
-*** AD: Archive for nonlinear dynamics papers & programs: FTP to
-***     lyapunov.ucsd.edu, username "anonymous".
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenmbk cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.26 / Jim Carr /  Re: Reactor Startup
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reactor Startup
Date: 26 Aug 1994 15:45:59 -0400
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

In article <Cv4IGu.M12@eecs.nwu.edu> 
hpa@nwu.edu (H. Peter Anvin) writes:
>
>Trivia: one of the reason why water-moderated reactors are safer than
>graphite-moderated ones is that if water starts to boil inside the
>core (as it would if the core is overheating) the water-moderated
>reactors will suffer a reduced reaction product due to loss of
>moderator (the moderator acts as a form of catalyst) and reduce
>reaction intensity.  A graphite-moderated one will increase its
>reaction intensity and overheat faster.  

Quite true. 

>                                         In Chernobyl a
>graphite-moderated reactor overheated to the point where it separated
>its water coolant into hydrogen and oxygen, causing a chemical
>explosion that blew the lid off the reactor.  The lack of a properly
>constructed containment structure made the disaster inevitable.

Is this correct? 

It was my impression that the information on the exponential growth rate 
of the power levels and the isotopes released in the explosion that the 
reactor did not 'overheat', it went prompt critical and disassembled 
itself in much the way a 'fizzle' would.  That is, it was an inefficient 
nuclear explosion, not a chemical explosion.  

If your statement about the lack of containment making a disaster 
inevitable is accurate, then why was anyone considering a restart 
of any of our (also uncontained) production reactors?   

-- 
 James A. Carr   <jac@scri.fsu.edu>     |  Raw data, like raw sewage, 
    http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac        |  requires some processing before
 Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst.  |  it can be spread around.  The 
 Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306    |  opposite is true of theories. 
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.26 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Currents-n-Koloc
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Currents-n-Koloc
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 1994 23:56:36 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <33gnqb$amb@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> al789@cleveland.Freenet.Edu
(John Logajan) writes:
>
>pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) says:
>
>>We have established that each toroid in the nested set has a screw 
>>current, * * * B U T * * * not one of those many tubes is similar to
>>any other.  Each and every one has a different screw "pitch".  The 
>>outer surface would have "infinite" pitch and the innermost tube 
>>(null diameter) would have zero pitch.  The toroidal current surface 
>>at mean minor radius may have a pi/4 pitch.  

>I may be particularly obtuse, but I'm not sure what you mean by "pitch."
>I imagine it defines the rate of rotation around the minor axis versus
>the rate of rotation around the major axis.  Unless I know which one
>you are putting as the denominator, the reference point seems ambiguous.

>So let me ask -- is current flow at the maxmium minor radius mostly
>around the minor axis, or mostly around the major axis?

Consider that a pepperment stick or a barber pole has helicity or
as a screwing of ribbon lines along the pole.  If the ribbons are 
parallel to the major axis then the helicity or pitch is null (0).  

Pitch connotes an angle, and that angle can be found by rolling
the helicity pattern out onto a plane surface.  The arc tangent of 
the inverse ratio of the progress along the "Z" major axis divided 
by the advance in twist-distance around the pole  (minor radius * 
angle of rotation in radians).     Notice the recover phrase:
                   inverse ratio --   :-)  

>Conversly, is current flow at the minimum minor radius mostly around
>the minor axis (ergo not moving??) or mostly around the major axis?

Current around the major axis (PMK symmetry axis) is toroidal  and
around the minor axis is poloidal (which produces the toroidal 
current).  One can think of taking a closed loop of tygon or other
flexible hose, cutting it  through then twisting it so its surface
is twisted like a barber pole, and then welding it back together.  
When the tube is in the closed loop, the inside (around the loop 
hole) has the greatest twist per unit length since the toroidal 
distance around the inside of the hole is less then around the 
opposite and outermost toroidal circular element.  Consequently, 
pitch changes from the hole side to the outermost side of the
toroidal loop or tube.  

What this means is that the Mag pressure (represented by the 
greatest twist and toroidal field density) pushes inward toward 
the hole with more force so the net effect is to contract the 
hoop.  The poloidal field has the opposite effect so the two 
forces buck and nearly balance.  NEARLY Balance in toroidally 
pumped systems, that means the over all effect is to expand the 
torus but that DIFFERENCE force is more than handled by the 
outside air pressure. 

If the inside poloidal-toroidal field pressures are 12 and 11
atmospheres, then the outer STP pressure of air handles the
difference.  That means though the internal energy is BIG.  

>Or do these questions indicate a complete missing of the point? :-)

You are doing fine. 

+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc,Bx 1037, Prometheus II, Ltd., College Park, MD 20741-1037 |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.27 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: ICCF4 Proceedings
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: ICCF4 Proceedings
Date: Sat, 27 Aug 94 00:17:12 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

This is not related to science, so I will keep the message brief. I wrote that
I think Amoco might have stopped research into CF because they do not want to
cannibalize their own market.
 
rjn@fc.hp.com (Bob Niland) asked:
 
     "You mean they want someone ELSE to cannibalize their market?"
 
No, I mean they hope - and expect - that cold fusion will be forgotten. Your
might find this behavior extremely odd, but if you read the history of
business and technology, you will find countless examples of corporations that
sat and watched others take their business away. Famous examples include the
horsedrawn buggy manufacturers association's reaction to the automobile in
1903; the Baldwin Locomotive Co's reaction to the diesel locomotive in 1938
('it will never work at speeds exceeding 10 miles per hour'); and the mini and
mainframe computer industry's reaction to the microcomputer in late 1970's and
early '80's. There were, of course, many individuals and a few corporations
that rapidly shifted over to the new technology; I believe the Fisher body
company went from manufacturing buggies to automobiles. But, when you confront
people with a gigantic change technology and you threaten to take their jobs
away, a surprisingly large number of people respond by burying their heads in
the sand and pretending the problem does not exist. Many become paralyzed by
fear and unable to act in their own best interests.
 
 
     "If Amoco has in fact ceased CNF work, the most likely explanation is
     that they think it's a dead end."
 
That is not a likely explanation. The quality of their own research proved
that CF is not a dead end, as does the continuing progress in other
corporations. It is possible that the decision makers are not capable of
evaluating their own work, or unaware of recent progress, but I think it is
most likely that they are deceiving themselves the way the president of DEC
did in the early '80s when he declared that microcomputers were a flash in the
pan that would never affect his business. It is human nature to deny reality
when it distresses you.
 
I suggest we let this subject drop, and keep the discussion focussed on
scientific issues. Discussions of business and business history should
probably be moved to a forum dedicated to such subjects.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenjedrothwell cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.27 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Currents-n-Koloc
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Currents-n-Koloc
Date: Sat, 27 Aug 1994 06:37:58 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <33ju11$3qs@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> al789@cleveland.Freenet.Edu
(John Logajan) writes:
>
>bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce       Scott          TK) says:
>>al789@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John Logajan) writes:
>>|> So let me ask -- is current flow at the maxmium minor radius mostly
>>|> around the minor axis, or mostly around the major axis?

>>This is precisely what was meant by my question "what is
>>the value of q"? In a cylindrical analog, q is defined as r B_T/R B_p,
>>where r and R are minor and major radii, and B_T and B_p are the toroidal
>>and poloidal components of the magnetic field.

>You can answer Bruce too, but don't use equations to explain it to me,
>as I will be completely lost. :-)

"q" or "pitch" are related.   The notion on the barber pole is okay
for understanding pitch, and when looking at a toroidal "barber pole"
we can use the circumference as our "distance down the Z axis".  If
the helicity rotates through 2*PI radians in such a distance (once 
around the long way), then the flux line comes back on itself and 
then "q = 1"..  I think...  That is BAD for tokamaks since a wave 
can go around the loop and then reinforce when it comes back on 
itself after each turn around and around the torus (the long way   
AND!! twisting the short way around).  

In a PLASMAK(tm) mag plasmoid, that is NOT a problem, since near the 
adjacent nested thin surface current toroids the flux lines DO NOT
come back on themselves .. at least not at the same overlying
(or underlying) position.  This varying pitch scambles up the waves
so the plasma stays nice and well blended.  Kind of a built in
turbulence muffler.  

In tokamaks the toroidal field is huge but it all belongs to the
coils (essentially), so .. . that plasma has no pressure leverage
or loaded compression. And the shearing pitch is so low, volumes
of plasma could become very fitful.  

In a PMK, winding up the "clock spring" (adding more magnetic helicity
or torsion) just pumps in stored energy, which only goes to keep those
slick currents running and running and ..  well you get the picture.  

>-- 
>-- John Logajan ---  al789@cleveland.freenet.edu

+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc, Bx 1037 Prometheus II Ltd, College Park MD 20741-1037    |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.27 / Peter Roessingh /  Re: ICCF4 Proceedings
     
Originally-From: roes@vax.oxford.ac.uk (Peter Roessingh)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: ICCF4 Proceedings
Date: 27 Aug 94 23:25:26 BST
Organization: Oxford University VAX 6620

About the Amoco results cited in the ICCF4 Procs. Jed Rothwell writes:

 > Those are pretty darn good results for 1989 work! Very respectable.

Arnie Frisch replied:

 > Why in the world would Amoco stop working on cold fusion if they thought
 > their results were "pretty darn good"?

and Bruce Schechter replied:

 > consider that if Amoco had obtained the positive results that you quote
 > they would be pretty sure that CF was a reality, in which case they
 > would know that if they didn't hurry someone else would get the
 > patents, market the stuff and put them out of business.


Bob Niland added:

> If Amoco has in fact ceased CNF work, the most likly explanation is that
> they think it's a dead end.


I do not think this discussion is useful.

The argument that CF must be real because big companies like Toyota are
apparently willing to invest in it has been rejected in this group. By the
same standard one must reject claims that the apparent lack of willingness
indicates that CF is dead.

Rather then trying to second guess the companies motives, we should discuss
the content of the Amoco report cited in the ICCF4 proceedings. Has anyone
beside Jed actually seen this reference 12:
  
     Amoco Production Company, Research Department, T. V. Lautzenhiser,
     D. W. Phelps, Report T-90-E-02, 90081ART0082, 19 March 1990, "Cold
     Fusion: Report on a Recent Amoco Experiment."

and is anyone willing to comment on the quality of this work? I would enjoy
that much more then the the current barrage of insults.


Peter Roessingh  
Zoology, Oxford

**   I have an inferiority complex, but it is not a very good one.   **
     (stolen from somebody else his sig)

cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenroes cudfnPeter cudlnRoessingh cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.28 / Chris Parkinson /  Re: ICCF4 Proceedings
     
Originally-From: parky@ix.netcom.com (Chris Parkinson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: ICCF4 Proceedings
Date: 28 Aug 1994 02:33:18 GMT
Organization: Netcom

In <bruce_schechter-260894084824@139.104.10.184> bruce_schechter@cc.wdi.
isney.com (Bruce Schechter) writes: 

>
>In article <pE+zNPn.jedrothwell@delphi.com>, jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:
>
>> Years ago I spoke with a person who knows a great deal about the Amoco work. I
>> believe they stopped the research for political reasons, not because the
>> results were technically unsatisfactory. I do not know the details, but I
>> suppose the nature of Amoco's main product might have something to do with it.
>> I expect they do not want to cannibalize their own market. 
>
>You're joking, right?  Why would Amoco be afraid of an invention that 
>could assure them a market of untold billions of dollars?  
Items deleted
>that if they didn't hurry someone else
>would get the patents, market the stuff and put them out of business.  

>-- 
>
>Bruce_Schechter@cc.wdi.disney.com......................................
...................................................
>                                                                           

First off lets hope you are right. If Amaco has had possitive resuts
they would obviously tell no one. Why should they. Patents on CF are
not a reality in the US. Anyways patents are useless if you've got to
fight for them. A better strategy is to secretly come up with a CF 
device. Show it to the world and be ready to produce a reactor 
immediatly.

Lets all hope an oil company does not get a patent on CF. It would
mean the end of CF.

CP
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenparky cudfnChris cudlnParkinson cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.27 / John Logajan /  Re: Currents-n-Koloc
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@mirage.skypoint.net (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Currents-n-Koloc
Date: 27 Aug 1994 20:41:20 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Paul M. Koloc (pmk@prometheus.UUCP) wrote:
: Current around the major axis (PMK symmetry axis) is toroidal  and
: around the minor axis is poloidal (which produces the toroidal 
: current).

Okay, just to verify that I have it correct, the cross-section of the
torous (donut) below shows the relative velocity of the electron current
vector component either directly into or out of the page.  Assume, for
instance, that the left hand group of velocities are outward, and the
right hand group of velocities are inward.  

       (Outward -)          (Inward +)

          1 1 1 ------------- 1 1 1       Torodial side view cross-section
        1 3 3 3 1           1 3 3 3 1        9 = maximum in or out velocity
      1 3 5 5 5 3 1       1 3 5 5 5 3 1      1 = minimum in or out velocity
    1 3 5 7 7 7 5 3 1   1 3 5 7 7 7 5 3 1
    1 3 5 7 9 7 5 3 1   1 3 5 7 9 7 5 3 1
    1 3 5 7 7 7 5 3 1   1 3 5 7 7 7 5 3 1
      1 3 5 5 5 3 1       1 3 5 5 5 3 1
        1 3 3 3 1           1 3 3 3 1
          1 1 1 ------------- 1 1 1

    |<----->| Minor radius.


Now flipping the torous (donut) over 90 degrees and we can see the other
current velocity component distribution.

                  9 9 9 9 9 
                9 7 7 7 7 7 9
              9 7 5 5 5 5 5 7 9           Torodial top view cross-section
            9 7 5 3 3 3 3 3 5 7 9            9 = maximum in velocity
          9 7 5 3 1 1 1 1 1 3 5 7 9          1 = minimum in velocity
        9 7 5 3 1-3-3-3-3-3 1 3 5 7 9       -9 = maximum out velocity
      9 7 5 3 1-3-5-5-5-5-5-3 1 3 5 7 9     -1 = minimum out velocity
    9 7 5 3 1-3-5-5-7-7-7-5-5-3 1 3 5 7 9
    9 7 5 3 1-3-5-7-7-9-7-7-5-3 1 3 5 7 9
    9 7 5 3 1-3-5-7-9  -9-7-5-3 1 3 5 7 9
    9 7 5 3 1-3-5-7-7-9-7-7-5-3 1 3 5 7 9
    9 7 5 3 1-3-5-5-7-7-7-5-5-3 1 3 5 7 9
      9 7 5 3 1-3-5-5-5-5-5-3 1 3 5 7 9
        9 7 5 3 1-3-3-3-3-3 1 3 5 7 9
          9 7 5 3 1 1 1 1 1 3 5 7 9
            9 7 5 3 3 3 3 3 5 7 9
              9 7 5 5 5 5 5 7 9
                9 7 7 7 7 7 9
                  9 9 9 9 9  

            |<------->|  Major radius of minor axis.


The only current system consistent with the above two requirements is
a system of continuous helical pitch variation from the center of
the minor radius outward to the edge of the minor radius.

P.S. The above figures were intended to represent circular cross-sections. :-)


--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com -- 612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills  MN 55112 USA           -
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.28 / Paul Koloc /  Counter Example to VT -- virial.GIF 
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Counter Example to VT -- virial.GIF 
Date: Sun, 28 Aug 1994 05:04:08 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

The following is a GIF sheet containing an illustated counter example 
to the Virial theorem results of Art's calvalier application to any 
magnetoplasmoid on the planet (including PMKs). The text reprint 
follows in another post for those that can't read text through 
several layers of screen.     :-) 
The uuencoded GIF starts below the following sig.  
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc, Bx 1037 Prometheus II Ltd, College Park MD 20741-1037    |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

Cut where appropriate!

 -----------------------------------------------------------

begin 666 virial.gif
M1TE&.#=A @/H X       /___RP      @/H P "98R/J<OM#Z.<M-J+L]Z\
M^P^&XDB6YHFFZLJV[@O'\DS7]HWG^L[W_@\,"H?$HO&(3"J7S*;S"8U*I]2J
M]8K-:K?<KO<+#HO'Y++YC$ZKU^RV^PV/R^?TNOV.S^OW_+[_#Q@H.$A8=FAX
MB)BHN,C8Z/@(&:D"0%E9*4EF>8G9I0G F>BY"=HI2DF:98I::/JYJM5J^2H5
MZSK[UWI[52NKV\3KVY<;/,4[2GQD;(NLI\D,Y9G@_&PT;6!-?8>=G;0=$,TM
MA.T='D=>/D1^CGX#?MW++K<>WW,^3R^S?8_#;[;/WPY/6L!_.F(1=./OX Q[
M Q7:,.A03<*(.]Q1K#'LXIF)]92)>O4QF4=CAS)J+,.1QLB5*7%9_,$R9L,]
M$$]FFIE#ILZ6>53YV D4)QZ?-L7P1!$T:<A!1 LJ?7K*SU%Q4*<^LBJBJE:A
MVEX^W+J5C]=N8$GZPMJAK-IC0\?F6UNV#4.VU>"NG(4VP\YO!VSYA>>W[SN=
M;;FV",KWFF#%C!,G1HQF;M2Z=@F3RDM!)@:Z$RR;P\Q!\R31*'&"'EU9_RDG
M=88SWT6P;+' ;X$5Q&[<ER4<M[DY>]!]VS'L!<&+#XY9VO<TWC">#K=-7/75
MF7E?:V#>^9-N-DL9G.ZMS';W$+VVA_$*#ON*O2?8+V+M._M(V;4=!_99/W_O
MQ_/3]*<=GU[AZ:<=@/0=V)A^"1Y7RQCN+*5>>Z(I:!^"%2[H64G4M=; ?\0)
M&* #ITP&FT?]6'=:>!$L0V)T%JG3H5E?_!<A">:I1!HK&X;HG8D+,FCA?9-1
M6-N#B_EH%(H<K@@,D?2->& NVAE9X(\RE@(,>"VBAJ0K(3GYXX7V+>>A(/!M
M"<&5#RQ98EKWJ.F%>6C!R21@7[+HY5^Q!>=B3?-<9*DEGR4@V>-X$HI'IS [
MHAEC@V'F:>"C3TI**6V62IIH*DKRN*:C8A*8WD>7%*GGIT$"^J=)# J:%4E.
MCA(5F*9B.F2@JNJ2:9^<#LIJH7XJ@NH%>_9*XHC#2F-!L*GFY*EK;:;9%("<
M,2K0KZNX^B&BAAH'7;?(ELCMM]+>2DBPX3Y78;&(YA;I.\B>>V2SD<@+K[O'
M90ND@5/F>=N6Q<D+BHR[KMIK1P 'HB*(^T 8JYYLVOI='0>[-@Y^Q4+Z;,82
M3.R(P( %J>^04(%<*:@<TP11K"2/">&3SC@,\\<E6QM*3;(*&:K%"4X9KV"P
MDGS_<LW6#CP8N&N9H"S*)E&+=,&\!@T(U-G-!JUXEVI\=;(T"ZU*S"43_#)?
M!8XM=MECV[PRD5MWE=&^IU8YJZEA?TUWNL9&RY1!-Y_*6*T8BNQVJ7_5'7.-
M4M%,;K71[$UXX@H;:L?2CC-=0<1,&FWYB8Y?=RRT#?.+==:/&]Y,VR[+0FK7
M9J].=NNLORYEVO:*O?ENJH.M<M^,Q[U[?E#NW#7>BA(UJNS ?_GV@XOCWCOS
M&D+N8M9KOS"]U=IFOLOFE,_.0X##5"]QM$2+"'UT[6*.9_D4DQZ^\,/V&[OK
M\L-.__RMBV_^M[5+A-^'ZD+\.W&A:X"R(2!NSA>O[NSO\#/C<=L!'RB< DKP
M@-/"EP$C"$'!+;!]ACM&_PAG/-Y%"7J\V6!R(D2MK85%/I?S%?9@4;Z!;4]8
M#VM:^EZ(I>7-;%_+LU_]?NC#()K-2.,JWO%P^(L/BM!*ODO-Z=(SJ4\)3Q[(
M8Q[<<!9"!1%QB5PTF<_4-P<37F^&0=C6/,280_:U$(!D=.%8M$<L-)[0-+5K
M([/B2+PI4E%46>PA$/\HQ$ "<CGL\AO+U*BIEH$0>$6,F-Z^V+PC(A$:5;3;
MS;R4Q4PNDG9JZY\<-8?((FJRBZ-DG/+6-TDB?%(^J00;N,BCQ\C$<C_DF^4=
M.R4^6__RCX]?XZ,@?PG(8/[R=KS3)0P52<J_M5)7GTNF%(UY'F0V46YH8R)D
MG&E$:FH1C+(4E=,"92,R*<=RH5PE)3O81G]4Q7-VI&$H$\F1$$WO:!O;GSRA
M&<T[>0M]P QD\(IWMK#ULW[>.)<YD_@B?&4376^"2RTKN,\)<G*9Z8!<O3 X
MI@>F1A^*L^A^C .^)#&L3H:,)'\^BM*B6<.DJ6LG[O)9PWO&)VDD31SVN!DG
MG&[ 7S2MW,3 )U-\I@IY/SNB, =YOX!"":!+/:H_<U=,H3J!> A"FV1T6D_$
ME:>4D*RA%4RW22\VTJL^K::^2EFFF^3,HBX55M4N]LU6Q?7_AF15 E;'2M=_
MW74SY)H(I_9*A8.65:INRF5<<9FP.0*NBJAS*E)AYT=?.O:I ?2=8@!KUY85
M%:_\FA9F0\-6F1VRD^^<*E7#6E7!_D9UFVW>)D(*SW'Z"INR4^JH&I; UG+5
MJ+7L:%M%@IZ">7!1XPOGF3R758KB0*C%9:Y[:GK;PZ[QI0[:H@/YT]2!/K61
M>&5==B?[6 U>D;O9LRXFE0D>-R8W0P]EE&C!.MJZ+@&^8HVJ7\&RWI*B59+%
M/2=7>"I=-U'M8NPJL O8XI;/4N5%-KT;FM03%\0^F"YU5&T1"+LKG&Y4N*5%
M97]-"T7KI5>[3LUN8P.WU.^2>)AY* T(8<NHV:5=;XP2CG![X5<K5?%0:B!^
MHT(#^!QN]A2Z8.2E "4:KA?_SW>OK]WM$O_IX!V_U\GU)=@8?_N6&K=HGA0^
MHVJK%UR]WMC""X[IT+##X\&J3\&LE"]9"$DK@(*WGXM#79/F/&<[\2R^6(X!
MTY0XN%DUQ,L=;E1#NYR[)C^JLVZNJ'5'V+8U*YFO,7PT>G>HW+?$\\/<@16'
M,\TY0QMF>X/V'IOS2[E2P[6>$"OOCD2]5E.#VK>"PBK1)JW*$&L3SROFM:][
MO>-V-7'6;:Z8KK&H3!P[K='N'#6"%2U"3Q?:8"M-Z3/CVUYJUQK.UP83F7]"
M.MVB=MRT)7<D;TOD !]&<G-"]++#K6[?(K:C6J-UO&%"PAD.5]9]7H]0U&G'
M;W?/_\A>!/:O#V[P%4^9O_=.@<T(7EM$%SN=#:]6G;15;EQ71)K"AG1Z17WA
M?S?VLF8M'+.U+<-^AS'@IQX-,RONV0"7:KHL<#=HIPV0,$LZV"Y\LWM5;<LT
MAWQN1[94PA&.]*/3>4_9TKC#E;U0)%M\7<D*W97?MVJRVORB4%=YSL^$GAGK
MZN;$A:W8Z<W/@3!:Z&6^-4M!)F[LCM?<::NL)EF.\Z;1>*?*W@PMQ]QB #9[
MZGPG-G+9.<Z@$Y=S?;W1>OM4*,0/F3(C%[2<E7[6[6)^Z;^VNS4-W^R%6Y[J
ME);V*47,/4Z_<O6NS?L(>,1QDGL[YK\E%!MS=79PRK[NKS%M^5<V77%65_TK
M('"[ZY_>Z&?#/-9VRI^!,0HBHY%=]1+"XY+^2OO0^]Z*<W7W^RC&_\\>B[ZS
M21^BE"^?>>[:-LIU%NBX.C]W2X+>P^?>\L\W1K5..3_UL+QA6+?_>G]62=-D
M,A/F4F97>C6R>"H%-(EV?-0#;W2W:.M7;5>41\BA2/H%0G@W?_G%>(2'.2N2
M?^2S?](C5ZO'>"=7?#H6-/P&=6I&?0F(?=X7?6FW9-4V@>474.;'23QH/W?3
M@]&5?H$3A)W72P]H7%M%-\KW@B)X+U5C+YY6=%-#>D7S?QW(1O96>7M34 \#
M@"GX35T8=USXA>OFA5XG?,^G42\7@@6&6ZN">JMU6&68A'UF?P 6AM#$8*97
M'I\F9B@H@\&W@DV!>_.&<1/'+(,%>8.H@O\02!W1LWG>E50$E50]U'XA<WXF
MMGD4]G*"6'UJ9T%JB$#2 ESL%#THR'6Z=TN=6!\7A'6+F&[]A89D!XNI>'6>
M:(;2UBCEUD6_TV0_8X%5(C*[)X1SXS<:B$TIAX7J16D@^(1#%U2G:(6C@XL?
M0'M 6'AZU7V3%X>:IHWZ]U;+6&SYPC(Z*(DI5HQ%6(E$6(Q &%V:F'3(6#C@
MMH6\ISA52'EX!(NDN$A(6'C,=%8;2(/@)SW2-8N%A8>I!7<"AWS[%GD'UF(F
MMW:]UWXHYBDQN(NHAG+-*'W."%RI9H >*8JTMHKH,XU6)XU:PG<HR8KR-F(Q
M*(8D"&MT^(F^"%6U[A>)DVB1$^5-[=B3FH%^2B>/KN04.&A?'8F4-\@JK]8F
MEJ5-&-F08WA>%V)SH,62MQA^64B+;<B3T&9[]$B1RC.4$MB#5_-V9 DS5.8R
MZ;9Q=;5O?1=RLV5H*2E;6@8$*.2']XB0;ZD/?#)<>HF&:L>$_^4U,%:1 J5B
MYFB1)Z:8DY680DE:_C@ZF?26>MF-OV> *52540A)R0.5-C2&':<[=XB+%_@2
M]S>"6": =TB5K_(YC?\(FHLE3E]WD C5(T8GF3+(D<_X=Y8I5V<(=-OVA],(
M1[ 9@(2)-ZJV@H (A=U(8(,WE\S)/3&2E1N90+K3F#F9G=L91$"F?KD)@QG4
M=*OFFQ_W-+IT7/O8F[(I6B9IG=IXFA*WG%=YF:)3D K36TF)0/!"DXP8DK1T
MEKP8H .JE@+IE]SH;VX)5Z^8DN=98=FGGN?391XX<,YF6(=HC9V3AB,H.G8H
M<@RZE[7IG\,F.-QIHMJ)HI"U:-V%$?6X0]*9>!!9G)DIEX (C&,ICB9IE-<U
M<_HI8+W9G!0)I!/V>.KIE7T$GF!XH#U*#3%J93C"(0X)I/Q8GE28C1]*HPW_
M2J7/-HY%J8O4B:&\>9NH-CZ$:&SBM(U+^GUR:)QL>I-KF:)Q>J)SJE2\15[>
M.)2F!Z-9JF89>E5AZJ-_V3M)JGV@(T7'4Z6 ZG(/2:&FN(]*F(PY*DHD5: "
M&G$F0J!H^39T2:@2EE7KF9"):I>L.%-_*JJ;J7HYNH<R:9Y3JJB9%:6)YW\A
M6HTA:E]RNHG.@:L(AZ.=RHPD:J8XIJ73J8JW-T5O!'01^I>1^IENVB"DA8\1
MR@1X^7-KVII3V5+-:JLTUW; Z:OS*7FU&IZ )Z6!6JU->(MTDIY<J9]Z-IFT
MF8GZ%JK1":;Y>'&,>I(BJ87PRI^/2:>46%"A^%*[9JIP__,NWXIV$]0L_RF2
M$)J1T,>"#MNJ>XHG4M<MRWB81CD<3&B(]&JON%2C5)J4\-FF[QJDE3J@7PAQ
MFCIN9-2?-<5"[EJE=2FJ60EE@HF'<%F>,AMZ\!JM#^NJ-?M^/F=](>NDY/\J
MK@G8@/Y*L)!%=&?)6O_:G?$WCXX8FBKUG![)E#Z:=J_YDZ29>R)+L:C(>R6K
M?:.UM/K*M7 XI@NQFD7+J<*8,IQEMN/:G/A6M^P*;HV:BW.(C:.HG-&*I7WY
MK#BKLQ,KILWW."VZM2#+H=+*MI";H&^[E$<K;'[RE3*:300HM4 T?FJ)DYU;
MB93RLME&2E+(2@U*1^ATF"@9N((+.,R:M%JSH_8HG35;0EKGGGW:<T!KHS?Y
M7HG5' !GJ2PKMC5WM<7;BWF8M\Q85O39L #FO+3[CN_&4[Y[N?>&L&/WCX^+
MNX/+N\[39@^5GU4HG_FYO20Y@4PKM9:FO"TENI3_N)#-.W:FE+6.ZHRRJG(O
M$ZOM)+T :CR&Y[Z=]+,JR;T'C+02:7R5JYD,.SN&*E:E*WG<>D<BVK,= 5V:
M&V^H^ZGXZ$$&[*;'^ZKN%+0PBZ=^J[5P&[9KJX6E:DS(2;[FRYJ.*\$U)IY&
M%[_K.(41&; 1!21-.[48E5?(^XC>LJP=G+^Q>U5:]8Z'=W.(*\2%.;S09D#V
M5\!BRL*M(4?HZ<(,K+HL(K#9JZWAJX9':KRSUU:%:(B92ELS.,:F2[O0"\4S
MS*(MW'@.UK$?6,*H-VOL0Y[TV<4>RX97"GN!C+T2ZG4UK%XERH! [+2>9WF 
M,JB./+78FEL6#'*GFSXLEN3!@4>JV(9QA2R([NJ::3G%.M1MQ,IO(7O%=^J?
M>?R]P^DN+)6^DXHUF+R5!C-P?%N3]<K':5J"?'BN:FI&/.2X3YROI$J_(.>"
M9G3,(SR*MD+&@@S-LA:WVZK!"AR4H@O);#S).<R#C"1EDUM2GG?$3LR<[$FR
M2J@L;WRO_ BL#(E*HBEWQ5R^U7R-:3RC,8S/LGPI]?^G7'O(O]Z,5KC<?RA[
M=PSKJ^N FB.)KV6LSNF*=6$IM$]SNUT+:MS83-Y[T5@*D+UKQ\-,S5C\SM%L
MTNI+Q+_XD^#,<^];H(Q)R45(C@O-SI%6L<D5S%6+T<G[OS)JGO65T1<)IST]
MK,D\QV4GRJ'5P(>,SF8)P@5HT--K8.Z<@FZDR$6M:;-,FE$=N=3U?(&YR5V]
MQ\ZBMC8TUE^=:;/90M=[SUF<F5VGTYTHN6]LQ5CMDN3,=&;)O@3[P<;:+V$<
MKSK'TF')E[.+TBR*,<1*PE,MV!<;=OMIV,?,B;^\S"X)4<]"QUCMP@C,MLA!
ME%?9II6IM8/,)0W]N6<,Q7[_/7UW[-)7Z-63E+MM:Y_&!VNM_*0/W=9^FMHV
MW+=G_;@@R=3)')Q>NRE>%=H:VH++-, PW;X\C;)F@44Q/8E6UM*Q:<E.?9)$
M?;=7+)4<IXQ)6ZZ75-E<.:CU:=3G;=(Y"Z*J?=M(G*$#)LF7'-F'C=MN.]_5
M5Y(A4ZQUN&W2>+X43-)U/''*". /*XL4U6&9_;SUG<F$+,7N75ACJY%1>=UR
M-]AOBMKFQMR4C(Y/=-^Q9TE32N ,SEF7:FORNN !^63CG2^3K*&+78)P[*>$
M[;>URJ6C>825#6&;B]"DR]5(,9:MC;;I3;\\\:47K=F:2:LC#HZPRZ3SG-++
M9]Y->(WD"9O UTB.)?VC0\J!/WZGG"O=[T?0&3Z$S0TZV0KDSIUZVIW;Z,WC
M&L[)SRSBL=LX+ [BVU36<N[;(AS2R4G8<2Z'2%F[PGS?MAS<CEB33G?2B(YX
M::[/H4/;2:YNH66E;7Z^'Z;<R5?7QTFI6E8F?<CD$;[GO_^[S(^-4F$.(SXL
MQ-SW8( MYMQLL-59AZL.'?>+WD5=JEW+AM:ZW?5]Z5LFL)E^V:X(/\8%X1CZ
M*X:;V%.<OS\FMZ6^,!@NY"0JT=_];6\^[1XWP0XZZ3==Y2D>A^Z#K-VGY5SN
M,&=;VFT.T86NYTDL[F#[>]_N/$EZ6N6(ZO2L(F.^O'NMF&9<SY$]P-<IW+/H
MI!-)M:ZTV6LNK%KZI>(]WD_[U%_$T42LV!\CU(E+U;Z<W7F:5K\IK^Q>[G2;
M\:&&F2;,WW$\\*59K4M^WAP,N"M/> >NXX2F\?;ITR[VF3@/\N:>YR5.[[7[
MPSEL=UW2X\M[X?-KT*@,K2FOV[7_Z.&$OM&D]\=!^^M!OG:EO4W7K> ^C<@'
M;Z!5'NE?O*#V>/6)[L3ZOO1/<-K9ON@@?)S-1>?R#N@M;&\;&O-AW=$]+?,C
MO]]TRZ%>+I.%?>(VK>[!3=1A[\IOW\WW@NIKC_:[Q>]QNOA9[O'V^^0O+W,-
MS%@K6XX/6:Y4K_?2'L_ISF=B.?&H =DE?JL*!,OMKLKD6<I=%=4[OO.NOV0Y
M9_**G_F7_]_'KI5LF:]"V/4%7/7H[NCK+)BGWRH/7;WW979FYKN?W]3@Z6,C
M!NM3Z8JNKNK(K[&1W^^M*/N&C<K$'O=S;KV@WXJG=8'P;:A,_[-'3NN[:_:.
MC?W3"?B6R]O7.PS8WTW68D\ <2 /]Z#-BXE">W&C-2,5G1 <&5(JT5/]NM9]
MH4W>+BX5;Q-7]^G,9C"ASR9D>6)'QP]C"VJ41!KTB5QPL,>BS[+UK)BPZI L
M6R;#W&M:3>Y&OVNXNS5_V]]-Y1;_&M,[@GA&:!X,&0X3$1<5&QD1IW(D!R%G
M+'M + 5%%!P]'S]#&3LQO[P T9Q*5];NDER<S*@&-2<Y]SI9BKQ.>75U=TBE
M^E!G)2K @-OB:HC%X':5;35539R7Z^9\?SYXJF_^_XKO3JG$S4W/Y:BO <G3
MG]F,X\UEA[32MK-IHR+3<8]_R7&%AB"V@NK8H:J2D)G!)?.,0+NW3D^M;/ @
M"ARH<4(S/_7>(:243%1)4"<]21NYZN&Z8RQUQ#1EDB9*F]^\@0PYTY:.B0<?
MZML8]-)*F7QR!0PZ:V@;9#VJZ=S9,@O,2AR!*I1(LM9(:D<=-LNXM&DTKV"'
M314I%&U/MT:1NE2[$Z=5HV^)Z'-'KQ\\LG_/!,J7*MRX<,A^<>.G;3$8L0O[
MSG49>:B[7@DO<[VDEMW><F(_.[Q6V)^LE4]KIKYY5?-"NZ_;PD6]6C7-2%XI
MEZY[-''6CFRA/*YW^JNZAO_1FHKN;<TB:;J3A4UB8GEK1'R][U+$FRE>K.F,
M*X:.8T@[.*GOG .>"^M?^?5\Q[Y7;WC]>>"#@P/'.G^F]\-)65&/LLSX*XXG
M^?H+[)G\0/-MF<P <L8]ZQIL*"P[XN)H0GGJ@XPYVD"L[2KNY,*G"\.*,S$&
MXT1L$10L3DR0L\),1$X\!4-C[+KVSM.ID'M:<=#"!_>X,3WTGI#F"@9_2^["
MGPX:4)X>AT&LP@R='-(LJJ3BJL-^&LL.MNU*\$RRR8K9C4PQ>1OK2*TBZP/(
M&W%L23DV^K(((:9N6XY.@[S33T;Y0&((E_"RW#)*ALKH"D\HGWST.\6NPXA1
M2U__4F4V%SD=;TPV<X .U'U(Z933VX*Q#SX8?\,MR#]UK)._ WOJ$3&E "5P
M496(XA)!6I]"2]%$8YTOT#7M^@I#/X<LL+%6<F+SS7;,T-/,7\/"=L;X$+QV
M6CK^$^S5_>XTECH)R?G13UT=/+;1W$+ZML)FG964W.,VG&I9Q^I%]"^),#T3
MNEY-#?'%;E@:>-1/5RG5X((383545<79;,2)QW7V2DGG$?5< ,EB%];E%I87
MSF#7'%;(="&]M4K77D8X-BN8<9?>F[6<,X67VH2WXD+#0'7FH=_"#$UM_5V8
MZ.S0]?GG+"QFDF8[7]F(98@\K@ADI[:Q5[QK4>R68OW.$YU7PXG\TW-*L*NN
MF=FK_27R:;;_WX514X<A?AC8AN5:FN&8\-8;8J%W'CO-*0S,*>-RK2Z6/6\1
MQT/D>P-5FM;W8-Y.Y3]OMADR[:*U-MFE/'<\*^0LCY!N>X#.$NEL48SZ]<5G
MAWW/+Q>[2%;=4XF46^NZ^;AW)VUF?75JG1:,TKCOQ9?2XE\G^6W3C=09^>,Q
M53&OO%N4>,D5P=<@1O'#_Y[\CK@7_+@8#3\\3VAP7!UN; #\72_5M7:C:V/'
ME^+73<H')DBMS'%FJ=S:()0D1Y%N>EXKB\ZT9[Y!Z<MP:DK=I[!7NX_PRF\=
MM!&'<!>TC'QP0>/(RPF3][A;2>YX(KL45?[7OIPMSVS](I( 1:@V_Y%$SD!6
M4-GDJJ>8N;UP@R@C5?I.=<$.(FMFFU*?J82A$AE>CV>U @CME+>QQ 2/B FB
M6 HII(;4@7%5TI(94H#@P!S]Y%BMD5DE'-5#+F8,B%@1(!/+-$7]5;"+S[&?
M!DL(2#ON*(,!*V$L]OB8?U5+=EH[5!;C);W?F<Q]H\D=%IO$N>)];HACFQ,)
MZ56V0;I)1X54(0=Y@D3!14>)>&PE_E19&^R$@))[M"!10/DX1=*/AVS+(!DW
M"*WU]:R/QB,<>93UG336,&1HV^+?7"E).E;';,,B#FZ 63=BW'*)H\KF*76H
M&U="\XB)TR.X@#G'W?%N>,T21#$CXL=F3N#RFR=C87.4R3P;6NAS?X0/ X5(
MN7U]K6EA"^$A .?$6-Y$8J\\VC@_M%!9]FV"VSHFEX;C3^&=$*."%&?,&DK+
M<U;RC:2R!N<Z5\ !]DI8B4L8#4%)O?ULB6D(A2,\TY@\4U*08SU$H$X'UCP-
M!O5R(;P?)QN5T]MAU)\>I1H2?$H?;4T+/SB;WZX$BDS9Y>NA4.-7I(R'R?[@
M<*='[5\AGIC6B"50=.7#@01!BBJ%JO6)S+II#'G1N( :<Y>^(RHDIPHDKL(P
ML%1ZZ@WU"5:.NO.O%"61.2,TS4>]:UR3LO_62(U94(AN-K*$"2>2'CI,SC(,
MC83!*]B>:3N/Y&^=<>5C68&WR/C4DJ2DS*%0I]:\'VXE7]G#H>UPNLB<1HVV
MP&-EJNC*/;FBZ97DW%YRU<HJ*<*VB&8\;'"-@<[/$K:PPN1"3:F;V6X^<K5"
M<MY7<^3<-LU37+H):$W-4T_CVM:I3*DO9>_+2ZF*[9<K=6]3ZS:[/DVJN@*6
M;YU8R$S$+O:P'=*(S\++3TL2$KNQ \M<)8H2M'93O2G+\$11V4B!772]L^HB
M9H_:U#Y:\S7%K6TP6BHU&3,8MU=K;L_8NTS0&N?"TXVP<$98T@Z/\<=X'2V'
M201.;!5W<[,J,"S_P/G" P_8G@"V9WEUW-J4=N>>:N3I@SU3X28ST\79XQMT
ME6O$(:_9?Q\.44@)@6+M"KFE-+3O]:HKJI/!Z55$KK"E?!)B\F*9QWE0JD="
M9S$QM4Q.8H;2!<N<9UWFUW^49BVE47O@.4O9OS0N0YY#VV#3)I:CIHPT%0E-
MZ$**LJ]TZFW2[&IH]^)6TICK4N_<G)H-GP^N).@U"G[]/#2CN4B>15KF@BUA
M+Q/JKR]SI/+4R(_^==3  ]Z,"-L6X%2C-*/X3)%_G(PS[7YMVG&6LR&S>.,C
MH\/2[52W0R?\Y_LAK]#UQO1V/7UG@EJYJ(5-VQ?S.6X%FYAN%#%@N,5M:DM:
M*YG9PX%*X'+-4#H7KF_O1FO$;6/&(J<8@YUF=WZCJN]6$W2<I[YRM%Z*TJ<!
M-K<DSJ-CSUED%B_-Y!P7U+WC'?)*MENU:3FVG ]NPDEGUF-F>BV7[;QI?I-4
MUNT5Z\H//4,5[\^I6*K_\FF/&]%AI[F*Y72IPE(%\:VO<N(DJ1T /6QOA/<[
MQ<U^MEY:S<V):;J,,"Y:P &Y0LO")DX;%[@8_U9SLV8RO4A>-]V!+.)2LYFS
MW#KWU>.I;)E:&-2.'>YL;;QP:,O;N$UW>L\;7FFFZKF=5?<XT;$>H"..G>LV
MA7=YS([QAV6=XGYG^*+5F>\4XMNH161>B/F&>*8KS4HSCIY7+5MT/;"\--E&
MA]PULV33()WGV?UO.!_/WUI7N^#H_;C($\_YD4/[]RO.?B<57EJ/\NCR2]<\
MK:W>),CM4/J6KQ;KB8VR9+O5UV&7??<B2/3.SK#&Z@]R0X9X#_T +>[>:*;H
M_V_]XN2LBF_M]&7PZL]^PNP?SL:FS =A!"_*:.3=&,]+_ WX#$^)<L[](,^1
M&&GO]@L$5;  .X\!@ZS]Z@NSJL+X;"W(A,_WPDB?!FW^?*4$%8U@\&]P'.X$
M1>K^_N_-RFX(\RYSM*HH<@CI,%#GMB^V+NV[,(%7%._X7$YU&DG\F(\%_>Z;
M]J+O?BHJ2.\"<R'JJN\!+<KVOHSAHA", $;MEJKR$O#IWJ[\K+!+SN^_^##^
MNJL0CV1?_B@#;VOT!#'4^,ME$NH(64\*R6D3FG"B[JX'T8]IF,,%A4/I/C 4
MX=!3/C%)J@3D=@V\KD@'=W 1(;%>8!%K?"$X2L3NOF[0J!I-"7EQ&OJP_>#L
M\-8L!6^P?:C':30-"\\!J$XO9D#HOB@)D51NXS@Q=L)$X4HQ9U0N,')QQ"SH
MXBBQ]=!.-KHB'"M1X^@0]:*I/38O#O>0!DW0Q]+1EI[0W&CLGD8,[F!0Z,)J
MN(#B;G!O"O]C4!W9R1VML>A>S2!SBP55$?'B@A:KT8^,+N@^PJ!PSE"L!W88
ML2 A#"&C2A#+T#?4CP*A\.<09WPPS!S%$2%5,AR]Q_\&LHPH8?\([_O&KQAW
M[R'+3>HB<AF3D->0RQ4[LM% T;.4#\BLCQ_'3U$<(P#':J@0T 2%L1<%\A:I
M<@0;!MUP$K:H*1!X+BH;40';+?N>A=1$C;O0,OR<XS_2<)O*4LOF*R;G"R; 
M,1-;TBXEBO9:P]**D.8(22&W32D7SV^Z\0[UDBXOZ2;UT.=*$K1XJV/<<D<$
MXO7FT08K$C Q<P"U$AK/#T(RDQ[=#<!&,9(<,BQ=)]P>D2M%+#W_(,<T%U(4
M!>G^>@PO[[(V,>Z8HF@0)?(P8X/J/M,'N4O-ZJPG';,>?1';MG#@!'#TB&Y 
M "XR*P/Z'DXWE>Z0L/(JL7,JM9,\LJPP![ S??,W_?$=+\4[8U,-(Z_&&)$'
M>PHL/Z8M(],U@VLTM:GK_,\V\9,V8XF#MJ@R8?/U3E,?%<(GJU ,?]+KR)! 
M 3)9$O,%!?,FE5$H$W$BNU*TB(\^Z],OQ'-#(TDMJ7,WJ:OO.,TC$U*%2J]$
MG<T@#7 6IY%";:O+%)0H-6O?KD\NZ1%^"$(_\W-'H4C:VO K#V,GA2TIFY-$
MB2@UGP?M.A!#>:I^I$0D(9(]7]1&F6K>.6YNP6A2@I@T0ZUT.Z_32[,3!14Q
M0K?2U)+!07V+)6^T]#QO\Q*4-/6N^PAL/"_OR6JT:3"O0OMK2O\X\T!Q24<!
ME4??+,;,$P)-@^](D$BKSU9X4RH+M4PSQ5%S)4I-E ^IR!@SC;<F$U&7D#@O
M]2+\DT-Q;A\!\Q?;]  ]M>X>M$W#[S<]))BDCORZM.TZPU2_Q3F;\?,>-1(;
M]8H"]5<%M1%XLP#?M#B#,=$N#E5#U4[MR^*VU!M5+_B0B4W!+SGMT (Q0D-/
M1SKC*%4_U2A7\4M%,$S%E4$=[UF;E(SDR#YVU5A["D2+=0XU*M;6,UNQL5*3
MREZ#Z$91E/M*BKF"-6"!=:W,=5GO=&CX$UY,M9-L;%QED$/[THK$T+SR#2E%
M50_)ZLSV@=KX$DG;]6+%TY?0%5JO<%;\P55>WY-D0?96DXD=Z33*0%96*U9C
MGA)("2=^4G)@!58EE>2M/K9/G]1(+#+QW!4R^4!()?!#O_-HP=6KJO4=VS%F
M1^X;EH1JG31>JU/5C--AN;9<R55.O37USG4&@=%(2Q0D8Q1K&ZXU%>T:ZS0]
MI5;D,M5-J=18D:LI=U9G_T]2?_8BI1-AV=9L^Q W7:_CE-8PMQ;P[G$]ZS9D
M71:;BJ)3#99?4VUR/31NM15F8W9A8=,,!=<,LZS*U)97Z>DOMS'A#+5Q 0,9
M-Z1O37)8\18O#2YOC_!8;R%L7S<,+]%U19$-VVH3#_<\#Y68PHYB:Q(]5C ?
M'VPZ18=W_XFP'\%4.J;5B.R3P_[VR.1G9(FP,LE4=&6TEKK7<=55$9_6#<WV
MM$Z7V[0W1OTR6)/"4YAP/-0EE8@U/ZM7>BUW;8=W.SFW$*5U'/\W?TG768LR
M=XWT OF$0><.=^&444:W:H*':[SD?>4&=2FH/E47*@LS1+/F(/L7+CTW@X4W
MPL+3@/M5><\R)&LV,PGP>^K2?H658&68->"W5,1N/SGPK3@6<W<H:# 6:1U1
M<(.VUW#T?#Y8?%M8AS]$47DX0!\1V)3X8J+/54=*=\.4E; XSG#QO!+W!!UX
M?37X.=-5B%43@T484AUSU)K8V$CQ_>9R0RTQH6Z89V.8AD/!AOIC^(5QV,."
MMV-1T1G)58L#>1W[>"P!V(,\<XT;LUK]U"\+^15;Z(Q#E_"*+=MPQ8)]$I./
M&([5)GR19%$W651'$5<EV8!EMM#*"HS'^$+=MXZG5^+L&(_I>&\"[9$-&1/+
M<9"%,WK)T99M]B21C)3QRX]9]S%9"EF<-W6SMW #^=I6&+(4Z) /#VHT5Y'+
M-GV+]H$]UYJK.3 A='P9^(W_,"W-U)<'N,7F&(?K,EDCMRJOEH[5Z9K"^9<W
MS'9[<SCCF)=3E)OI]GZ[F)1+UYRMT62?;PE)*YE-KXH%F)]_M(?YF59!KR E
M&G'G.0YSL3Q+J4B+M5^%.8B;_Q-S/ZM&])AV]?9@0LV=']I2^V^EH9@[LC0Z
MB%C:^*^EB;6451390@DE$R@N#S<6F;B@XXJF"U2;(?F+K[=K=7D$J\HH4SI-
M^8VC2[>!!1HSB<N3/0U\K=I#,S61>UADIWI[(?=V2WJL1X&9X0RA03I%#/>/
M,:8WCQHF*YJ%^XFM-U;W4.PH(7HS46@Z$565MU?!XIJ'%;:4%MH=3WB2[_2I
ML[JIJ[2FV6,Q*XJGIRCFV+4UBY2A^_*L<Y:D!39<1<] ;1J)(S8@E7JT7RJ4
M&?MAI5AC4Y@QS3@=U]*>33&^]MF:L0]&DSJWIU*^4)NQ+2^0I!I[?CNU/]H/
M9XQQ0\#[6Y73>/N3J,&0G0\9$SD;4#U;8K_Z8BMN=/CWJ ^;N*^Y5;H0FJ,T
MN;6)3BVNMC%[^K[PNJEXU?QZ<Q<[]%Z;O.%;H77(D]X;&-\VL=F;HMU9>^*7
MK&^S :-XBKT[;9UYIIU2J$72@PN[OL%$2"MY.4_6OXU6"X"8?-PNI=OV7'<9
MJ?79D4\LO]-ZPQO2Q _<>]'IE+KYG*-VE?L[H=7%4:5;P,]1MB'7N9N8)4$\
M(#LXQ>%54FF&%4&MJ*=4E]'_6K1W-<G;>\IZ&\A#N+OY6\JA/"X3B6RQ]?J8
M57\??(03''C3>;JCJY&M.\:Y^8![O*:'N\IK5)_UB(Q1G(UWABJ?',+/C:Z]
M-L1O2K&9G,T=G$3[68C]W,715[+)6 N]^5)UW&_)O)?#W,930C:9*+[7] <)
MU(3A/-/[?-#I5L]/C<K9^)J&K,X%FW<W7<93^=0K'%8_RE\U/=,YW=67E=01
MG)00.\ICG3G=BJT@G3;&<!=.A-*Q$9Q)4YE?'=!S?6D+)<.7E*55W>8*_"-]
MN&GI^Z8W^,*%W-,1<["GM*)SU8U9W=B/'=23/<AM%$]#]5%;M]L#^S-=ZJ2.
ML\;%H?R_P]L^UTJ5#\4]0FX,G%0.S7?<S;S<?TJ]<AE_$W1_2\8+!8W6SYSW
M4K#+ WWH5D38J46K';&K=;U^;YGB!5[917:;#?W8EP^X0>H@.UXM'\NTU7Q@
M9[>6QY'C\2PI>TFVJ(:'2@WB3[[A57ZU 9F/ ?XXM=N->(;<JUR\W[PY\AQ9
MP=9'&)Y+0ZFS (I/I F;<[[J0WBB79%A4QUN2_[B_ZW>Y!T;F<LQUWZ7%:V-
MQ&^'0&KQ-251?JO]ZX'\W<,>Y;XVV\^"Y_'"=]%>:O5]7H<Z]5K=M;8RI1AK
MY:?UNQ8=[E-<VK<K7HLISC^OYQ7?P46#?0C<M0)\SUN7V9^J1(A>*PB_%A4&
M.Q)_\@]<K?6=\YU=IU=_UT]:PKOZ[7?<IU4X]E]=8-3<]NL6C=3^DHCR3TT_
M^+6^4KR<+)..=;Q>^*.\BVE9[.7>56ZLH2&?WJ"E.M8^'RJG0I5_^Q$(WITU
M[V%OK<O^M/<^O4\8YO]IRA\3_>],[\ ,.7_+>7A)]KE_C?M>GORWMIB,_7.^
M#0D N2$L[T6"+])IT948L^)<MZ8U8_.8$YE&)]NZJ@$[RJJ@Z9W3N-O[/S H
M'!*+QB,RJ4S*'!W0)Q2-S:0>%/2ZJSPA3JUU2UJ2R^;SKUGU==',-5)=:\G;
M99[,9/?JQSKOBHK;(&&AX2&B65/A7A"<4.-)9%I>HN4EFES6%MA4YZ=82=AH
MW5#='.,CYBIKJ^LK;,_B)JD'#"U7E>?&DV?7KDAE[#"QYHOJL2/R,8^IFI&Q
MY20Q=;7UM?4S)"I@L_+1- V1-G9Y8C3O#&I@#%W.NONO.PNZ\ZSTLKG^/G\_
M]#V(/O0DJ8(W\&"H$?,DT2'G_^_AG5)OE'&C5)&>Q#@.#X6#Z/$C2&H DUD\
M)^S-K9 JP9T"1D$0%)BUQ.UJJ6CCRIPZ=_(DET#0E"^X0(69Y=)62IY*V9S:
MY@?C4XJR;+JIM_0JUJS%3G83U?#BH(Y 1FK5VK)=%IA!T<Z<>1;LDA+>RM*M
M:[>J42QMCP[MVY5H+JYWL;ZE))7,6[B*^BALY95/W)^*!U.NS%BFC7)BF6&V
M3#AQT:/R_$H&#6LN1SR3F6;V[/HUP::D.WGE&^SGIXRPRQ8F:/)L-M2$Y';(
MMZWU[N2>9=]<C5BW<KJ)GQF<CK.:\$QKBCLG:3PZ^,]-#3*,C5#/0O0WH(>O
M:_T]_$O-P[)'9$?E+]3'ZKJW[Q^R]SB=/4>5?Y7%=Z!5#]&G1"0G);5?@1&:
M95UN0 &&%( 2&H@@A]_ULR!*<]2FRR^]2*8ABN(1.):'%*W$F*)K';ZGHGSV
ME%B#B3A""!F,/>XD8V-KR>AC=$"^>%54S>6($2!?0=8BD5'J8R25($I9X'6P
M)7D&<0UU!=2)5XJI4I5#CGEFCUO6QZ- FNR()IP*EDEAG'6BV-A$OA5$!5AO
MVOFG.7,R!RBA_:GIE)[KE ;5D_P5^FAJ@@H(*:6[X5G$B/<QV<UZF4%9*:BQ
M9!DJJ5C6>)DH>ZZ'IY^ENOHJK+%R>:H8>OFVZG9ARKHKK[WZ&INC;++T*['%
M&OLKK<<JNT8LL\TRZBRTT4H+;;+36GLMMG5^FBVWW7J;9K#?BCLNN<N5>RZZ
MZ5JJ+KOMNIM5N._*.R^]]=I[+[[YZKLOO_WZ^R_  0L\,3#!!1M\,,()*[PP
MPPT[_##$$4L\,<456WPQQAEKO#'''7O\,<@ABSPRR26;?#+**:LKO#+++;O\
M,LPQRSPSS37;?#/..>N\,\\]^_PST$$+/33111M]--))*[TTT_]-._TTU%%+
M/37555M]-=99AQHO85!SS=&/(02HH[G;WFH2F>&:/96P> 7DR']JP[&VA+0Z
MRLW7T)B229.7=)>W*X S:);?V8@]''*8\%DXIO@*7AXV@4C3N"R6\8>WXBO%
M*SAN8,^G7N1L 'J1'=PANEW?;?(-2>*IZSU6ZQ(@L]KBW[R]WV1"M::CIM^P
MX_I4M0LT$)1?B C/(Z4[L?GQ'!P>>TFO&](YZXJR-0Z+P/.!^=Z;Z7)KM3&"
M/EP4SV-_1P9BYSX^:V^S[WX:HD.N/CB5IQ^'_.=O:C[\YZE?_OPD%Y:%;.X\
MM.L?EY@0P/7=CR3T&Z#]QB= #9$G?7<[>\'>6%2[Y?4.@^E!H'D4R+_YP4U_
M\U!; ]\G/?S!#H01;.$(193"^OG%? <DH4YPA)(,SO!YEZ.<!Q__=Q?N"%&"
M6"B."1/8).^!;G$3Q*$,DPC%]Q4/(4^DH1&!&$ +F.XP693=\FA"MPQ>48MB
ME)OPF)+&N#"IBE= XNW<ES?2&7!__A%@G["(PW/P<(]Z)&,)^QA(#XIPA(9D
MW>!@.,<(5H2.BY&C"F\HG?C]\8.-]-\@,XG)N@6NB6R$8+ N^$$?FG&*,V2@
M)WN(R"\*TH*J[.,$+\E"_951BG;)HR9AR(M-KA"3M3RDEE+IRE<.,X9^[&7[
M#"E*1;*2F,<DI Z=^4!:%#-_P-3E"W^HPH!(\HK. > TMTE(%WXDFM+DI3AK
MJ4T>FO.:&UIBFX[WM[DMBC&=;!L8%4-$AD0FKY_:<Q+JX.@I75TO>L.CYSQY
MYTX;O$17-(&;\AP*3_1$U(Z!_)WSSLA%W6VOB*_H8A<U^$_BV1"A(S5/0#FZ
MH^]Y5&LN-=1+#7>SED:+IC'%GDUO>J4QZK2G/OWI8'*ZRGP)]1I%;<]1,554
MGDXIJ8Q(9O;TEKS&X;*5HX.+4\_)(*8>_Z=;1\WJZA"QSY:"M2K%H&2VRIHY
ME'&/CV9U:U&&*%8(OE!;GU3.5Y'5O(KV,W=K;(?UNJ>H>,@3I5QEI 61Y]<.
MBN.@A3V;11DZ3L-4E'AMI>A""_K05?ZNL_1L764?R\7_:8^CMFHAB:3@H5Y@
MUHH,05TDG>38FY TL'J"G%JQLS]49G:RS;0=CV3)S6<J,30]Y%H9U5'-!KY$
MG(4<Y1ZK.E325N^8WP-?,;WYVVT*MT7E6Z8-XV&8X?HON=3+95U923IP)L>1
MIGPN.+'*V?3^<GIH#>4HU8G.<U80,<2-HW,M^5S$;C>*UJ0F?A<:X 7K$[J2
M7#"$D1E+7N:6'_\&5G"$+VM8?:K4DR#EX'_?^D4G/@Z\+I1<^)ZIPY#>KYV:
M#&,K00Q #@OOKR &X6 %&N(ZDO.:_<5Q;.UYV!X?]\;YW"]>#PS)1%*3KL+U
M[5SSE^#WAO>_#]8J-AO,OK^A%9M9#O)%K8G<2@I3R0Z&+I3K2^123GBZ2.4Q
M,J&,82"V&<U8]N\6USQ+*5;5H^[ML8NY;&;?_GG.Z$MO;^/,6T3_N,"#)C.B
MNVSG(HGYS@1LIGP'^>#UBGB<X&7O*;'8R$8/&)@&WE:@K6K.0K?8T[AU[HS!
M,%Y2,CF%&F;T;_T,Y\,-%J8"Q5T(58?3YF:4H8M5K41U?.3;1E8C;#%,$4KM
MT<;7^G/%*B7HD]ZQVFL#3\=&%N/I%E4\&Z^8UZ7MW;>-;:N",O;<T+O ,KC,
MU^;R];6\AC&T.5#%7]^8I?&D*/58#-2%51@D!?\?.,*+F_"%SVO([CDIPR,N
M\8E3O.++$N+!2Y;QH^5CX^;JZJ,C8O&@ELOC@1+)/DQ^&F3?4E8'O[73,@[S
MITYZSQYQ^-8TE_*2>RE1>Y6V#_W9T=-*=J  OY[QXE?NQFJ[>215CW?_*CO9
M9F\/IHTU<MI=2!1_DTWM;%6L4SMO@/^#;-U^++WWC>+3MEMY69^H%XTNE93^
MW%M.#^=0OU[FJ>-][_W--)5/R=Z[+_JX$>8?IYOL0)M'>M;>5.YHI0QJJ%;Z
MSLFM=7VO"V!S:W'5D5DNM6PI9S>W];SVTRZ2:^U,4EMZQ*DO97HF_TG3N[FN
M3S8\KB4,]=$?.O?Y5:4&H,M<^#6K_]Q'%TZ[9@FK4-92$OE5+O(-:?_\/%-Y
M^#%,M^]!CT!ET]#%IJX\[JFM*34+6=IN%^R%82=PS@.TXX<G_EU5"_>+B_Z1
MB1:!";U?<^<EG_5@YKVFM5[];1?-F=B!W=[VA1SLJ9BD+>#PA-^D!9^L65_Q
M$<KQ"6"<E8?L;1EZV5O_H9E^45\#ZEGM7>#^D:!K,9>785KVB:!5E1KC*>!Y
M(2#XU1X ZM(&*DO73=8ZL1^QX5]YD=<PZ5]M3=_JU=PR/1$1WE>&K=NL_8/V
MG2#[41COX9'-?1<2*J [D5\381T**F'>0:"A@<H^Z=NSU=,?4%:UW=W4)9N_
M@19+#1GVZ7Y.OFE;8ZF=$WK6L#V+'6+79D&6&K48JET=W[U#/"V?7E26(3I#
M<'%!TQF;8IV.#IB4M;%AL*G?VKW;)3:*0HE,!8Y<A'QBSX@B*):BJ9"B*2(5
MSJ4B*[9B>* B;T ,+,++FQ',/"D.3:TB!D;5G41.02@5Y=W3RDT53HU@ISW_
MX<.0XBPZAN:8W3&*2C AB3&NG+0L8^,ACGV1"5V)%1>&XC0:R#9*83CNXM:L
MT?:\&K,!HJ?PX><16U]E%AU*5.RT7:O9EGQ-5?]5VR&&T-<\6QK.'=2)%MFA
M(T"VUB;RXB0RHF<YW?JP&SXE@R(.Y"8!5K0%HCVU3;I19&1I)!E6(3#0D@OJ
M67=UH:9YGA/RH#&%Y!,^F9I5T")]0#=BU 2FD[V%E1!2T4G"GP/5V0J^'O"-
M8)\]8/R%6@8B2R5)5Y1-TQ+"VGS)X(XQI:PE(#/B7_I%X-XAWE,RH I^8^]M
M81B.829I6:M]851VWN^1(XS\6 @R6"#^(OH1F#3!_QA<6@&+(>7=$"(S](V,
M<1?$"5+R^8Y[E>$BHF5YS6&7F6/EE,Y5EJ!/*I/X820)Z6%83N0-BB.L&&!0
M>HY29F44IN U3F%7YN!0BEHA6I[KH>3[024*WE_^V2"/Y6*(I5IE4N28V=JN
M08I:_A\Y79E.,E-J ID0(F40QE\/6B:3<:3J+>;FK69/.F5RGJ:B-6:AB>5R
MQF8;4J9Q,J>=8&$ ^E).@N5.TN27?:=*OA+@52$+5B=?'J3MG:#>_21UM=YT
M6B=P!HAX/B2<=2/I>=D/+N5H_243VF9Y6B!&4J) +M%GL5QPS5]BXL898A:-
MX9-)"8NWD9O7]>4?+JAD7CPDM1W1+]).?^*G81DDW8TH)!['V*G;1B%=F&!?
M@\8$TZVCXRFH^>UC^7GH\HE;-QV=N:56L97A&RZ--;K_(I$6J9&J3(H=J9(N
M*9,VJ9,^*91^%+D,:3+BEVT%#I6Z1Y8221XM%7CN3 '!56-JY^2D96EB([&<
M9U+BF=)8GVM*()ONBGX.(/TQ3E?62](MZ&R5);>E:!)IW8?.7$DY)#!J5J"R
M(X)*9-7IHW(2EI?T(Q5%XB8*9H8:E-QQ*,@!X4).FS!USI7&:#JDF8A:EJB^
M8T.=W:,>DJ=2W:K:E?!MBDQ.GN;%Z6[)JIU]754>X ..I.7Y56?J*2,2IN!!
M(.HMT%<FXJ\"YF[!&DS2XTPNIG#F4F8F#IQBE;/"J"YZXV>&V;:^H&<^FG\6
MY;?BI(#V$@UZ:W9FH50Z6ISF%>8+SJ!U =*2#>A8.F" ;2"K)5)\:?]@G/P9
M;W:4/PIK88&A&4(FH0%JV>5GHB)HA%[9B7A;PFXJY[C>ATG=HX(HAC*LO@H8
MP/8=$&[8B=+78WX'B4UDG^9JMQY$8#'?RFYIZ*2L:WXI:39GM#ZGXIV83<KL
MRUX: %)G>Y9K#'XL:+(0J+VGKHIKO:YK?1Y:#DJ?E/BKJM7@:!+D*(!K X9I
M<&JFI#GM+HHF?#5JS=*GL,IK9.*LROJEDH6K>Y8M:L;LZ9V/RYY<IX[IYD%M
M:W:GU7)@:B[A+QFMT-:?VEYCH&&LTFX:QV[M>FH5]V3>4\*K07+3X-'M;AIK
M=;):X JM;,:M+S)D8)@HIG(B>V99/+HABYY]W?C))999*(6>+*)R7V(.JN>6
MQ*=JXN+I)2+R:#JN']OXH]5I7?N5+%W"KI#I*.0V8B'*8T::5EO::!_J[NB:
M[MS-X.F.'\-0J>;:J\%<;Y2>B_:^2O=NK[ADJ[N(+_B6K_F>KUS-5,*0;_B.
MVK!\[S0FZ1 !:"BJ:39*Z;#_K MO(.<S+D6)U:)FE-8J6*^_G6$N\"C[HIS"
M(>W#$<YOHNLD86^QS.DX_D=<>BUG-O!.G6E\E6[O]NA742)$$2(QRA^U*N^D
MQF&ZME_K(F^?]APO7M>' E2'$B1@]9JHH2ZHMDKP%*C9F:JPJ2/,<JTXSC"B
MGJ.O^ESL@JKH?##,H;#_)I.L<B<RBJL5$IT6]FB TBX#_Z9+PFIBF2=\1>X5
M<AX*[R"@16IOYEK [2I7;K%6?A,90Z=(+BO>SJBEP>_1WFT)O1P,UBQ/-B56
M9G#:WF8=?ZVHGF4+SE$)DRMS5N5:=B!@.E*?\!3*EN74 FT:[^<;:R,!6BRV
M/B^D_ZIH2.DP4!IR[/GN< ZF),_F5C$HYNEF(0LH$1\KG;HMF>YE<96>7AYR
MVJHNGSVPCUVEM<*R4EQNLN*OFV)GI#&N^AUOX(VF"1+RGM'@K44K,@NR(X\A
M),OR_:+6+2NR>G:MF5WRX9ESR[&KJZWQ4<K9OTYSWBH=-+]?<58FS.I1)%]M
MD$D?&L-@%V,MS0URHVJA;%HF/(=S('\?9<QJIMY>+9_IT0:RX=ZD0#-T@W&D
M3(ZM_VF8%W*Q+;0@T.J?]]7F9MZS-Q-E5#IC<U;MO_(LVZ9T)F=M4>;ST/:$
MA:84C$+OC89N#U^DC%W.A#(ON"TLMPZO1A7L13/JBK;1@3>28,6>,+H!,XX:
M'6R97U ?T6-6CU(7;*(<<6^=JE#^(:6RC0\;+^^JW8/J=!!'541J[.>B+YKH
M_S%<SS5=U[5=WS5>Y[5>[S5?0X1<][5FN*^=DD_#H6DK(Z0PGDGQ,<]9E4I.
MN6AS&+-X-$HB J^S96PD]3,U^O,*K[0$(_"Z/:PI:[4J0_!@ZYRO  X%@^0N
M:? XVY]3X]8RKQ5G2VY.9+-IZW-C!VUG;R?A_:50X>JR3FM&;]01@]W<@!$,
M_VE<W2S:,C<&.61;4_9;*S<A*UL'.=%SR)'98&9S5VU,1V\G[ND4YFD>YYA0
MOW+0_?4?8Z!J1S,7UH2M+A?SE?09_U' 8B-F"JKF/1[M5?)=Q1LUNS1%9PX&
M4XX!"O2]M3%,'V=+AI7?MF4"3R5X:[)A#S-O.S>MP29/%.'VSV[E@+C-2[NK
MV1*39N-K0&L$4?-G-%]V='KG$4XN+@MS%__#%/W8#6QO^.X%\QOA&U :6:O>
M:9"#$J2]W:NZM1C3>-L>=&WK;ID^--&2F?\I^'CO,BIGN)-'HZKV]G3!J6?/
MMSJO,JTZXH"7N1G-<<]:&71O.9J2-(]#M!\S<S*GY#F'<^_=I63W!";;^7CN
M,YN![2D'$9F.N,[:,Z&EYP.%[6L/V+X29DO#%?W:+&,BV66=ZRPQ>6V;>=?@
MV)13G6<'XY<WH:B/M(D5=Z&[^?7-N<=NLVVK%[TJ$A7G-HR#UI1,IF\F;5$7
MN)*;\*JW5ST&') S:*3O-%)S)K^1+@@S2B52-3HK,87^VRO33;DMNV-U+K$G
M+Z%2U8+W].<I*/E% JEP6S(4KR )#ZP'+K7D(K>D;K>WL[=+/;INJ2]@NVJM
M \QBS[MOX[N^[SN_/^U/4]#FKOB&:+?+_7N_TV**?_J@5\IL_Q^\KXU[.]YW
MLQGZFIKT/1-\6&#\KB<\Q3N\F!3GWV&QA1VV49FK..-O)WL\ /]G>N^QWFI@
MAS>UNCMJO/*NR'<\)'FP&X6T.7(;L!9OMA?AC[J[RN=X!MNOJM0MID'>O?;@
M:AN]%Y/[Z-6W1./SQA>]-+[Z"$.AE!'SO:KY2Z>>P;_8QI?V<>;ZH=\GUFLK
MSMNO&U]41B*NR>\XA6>GVY-XI?.TF/_MVONZUO?YG0\TFYOXWD_9F\NLAW<]
MS<[ZHO?]RJ<[? O^GB=Y'K.M6N6KW'OSJ:WSVNHMT3M^C*FFR^/ZD2^M<&+^
M#]Y\%C,^YH<]Y1,L'-<TKZL^Z =5ORV1N7&+MX AW=NE_DVG-W;W<".3SP;A
MOKZ%6Z.UG0A#*+I;ERE_?NV74]8;G]S_1C^>?LB46K^]#+OV=[_W?S_XA__%
M0+_XD_R%0R,JRF^T!\J$%_K8OL:WZUIJY(D0/PJPZ3F7A[5\B*+,C3P!Q,?4
MY?9' !XY[<59L[K]![<N5$;R1%/45-N,=0,8FV.MMKE\YWO_[^%(0N -1"PF
ME8L.#/ L24;0)PN:H%XI68B4&C%HMT@=6 R.-+W;J(PFQ<K.CG4\/*5@N?EY
M-6PF^^O[ZKICDHLRN1JTJB#S8]0SG'1+<TS4@[/P2Z,<JYR 9$-L*R']0^WD
M('RH,P.U-,I,7:IUN;2CK=%R*@55N]C-&Z:E0SLT-1;4%6G]$,/AS2UCIJ89
M:FKH+<TF_CW!79/\)@[WQO54+NY.G4-&7S\5'H4MAFVG*T^NIT_GM_T?PL^*
M-F_^]!W;9PTAO(3ID P<=JY?L&F%"!9TYO#B"XO/%-;;AE#D1) C&V[D VYA
MP8<DJ04*U0PE0X,? ?_>C.'J$Z<LFNA!7/F38D=(]Y#E*SGQ7,^:&!6]8'4R
M&A-6PHIVQ,A16]2LJ[Q(M-'2G!Q%3!$9;</)W=-0.M<>^QHO(S:?#8L"C:D6
MYUZ9]CRPG2LRT(QR,"N>=(H&K K  ;LJ!"Q/J\MK0@_N&SST,-+'N1[%#,KN
M,&C$Y!C?@AM"B&&^K6G:9'G9KV72&O]6&[G:SFNLZHZ8[-QXG+O*P#57#.F1
MA]C2Q95N%+[)MFB4Q%-P=MY:>XY\D3WWI4P<WM1->).SPW6>N<#LGF$V1LL[
M,%[IU-$EO;P.[33Y!OLCK:NIV,:"#3E5:L).N<ZD"JVY!5G;#J SIG"+K#B[
M HP+& N7,4PMGZ#9\+A/)-'+0E$<*:O#"??H@JM)U- IKEA +%&4\AH),:-(
M>)'1C1+/PE' 6$B\<) 7>V1C$19;]#$E3^!X:,EY[D!Q%AA/\3$J*;>J2QH*
ML<QP)R5SC+#,(+@S,TTUUV2S33>+@/!-.>=<,\[>Z,0SS^WLU+-//_\$--!@
M^*2*4$$/190@0Q-EM,5%&X4T4DDGI;122R_%-%---^6T4T\_!35444>5A513
M$WUT04$K//^U56Q<[2355>"D:+\(?VQRS[!.XU5.6\.K#]9*68-05C:-G54)
M(J([MKHD"!.V&5Q_8-8Z5:.U!=E2VXM46V=UG5,RU[#=]M'W1N.67"[MZ1+)
M#8'Y44MWK\I+*!J_P/"7=F*\KY5% %$L12S['9.[=LDDA=A!<0S0E*>N+%!%
M@86D$DR$7<1'G(&AO'"W7C!<\3YZBRMX2-5&])??>!MN]4N[],LMXOZ"?6ZT
M\6::F4#Q&.KP6G1EUEEAFGF^<SA_Q)U/YR-N5M#)!)V2[SS[]!WZ.Z4=1&4Q
MJ*Z.]ERLP2,O.Y:-^TCK HW+C&S=J"6[[0-+-98^!/^!EF99U/O_>>JC#R+Z
M1MGP X]B_T14ESW<LI1;D G=[@W*);=9RBS$Y;H6::.K/;NV0FI,[;?RR)SV
M*/3<M6MABT-W#EZ,OZT$P,TZSVIMVI*^:-G*S#Y.];%%]5KP8M7>-M=O.8Z:
M<&M]GOUOQE=87NC YMY<^/7R7E[PP7W06CC9F35O0+C+]AQAV+PE%:BG_P[;
M^NIVQZS)XF?2/.;#U2<T;6MR+CH_UCO^,'[DJ3^9:<*W&\&\3H"QFPOF !B1
M_&6N7/_CG=7FM[^CG>]\\_B/8MPWG>=IYFD*-!_Y- :]@5EG>GUS!L><9;G[
M 8L_CU&@19Q $]E1338?O TE6)@NK+P/68*;VE*-4%0E7*DL<A4SF;] AS'4
M%4E@$/N5XB8V(B^M:%[GLE$*C[C$TFQI*](3WVV$Z K)X:-*0)*8.,98*WSE
MJHI/'.([Y!6B#^&!?6(*4I$ <4>ZJ-&*_X4#)*Q$&,C"D2]NCF';( FYR)8Q
MTI',:]8C)3E)0#61DI>DRG7X:+H^8M*3GP1E*$4YRCPILDVF).4G49E*5K(R
MBI/9U5_VI;ZP;#)-KU33*F%Y*UL>KU/$TF4KKX,G/NT0",$,UQ*0^:>>^?*4
MPESD,F]B3+;126J(I)4R]=3,0TE3>9[L@_#0F!8);FX@+!/BDRJ(.RL%#!,1
M@TK_U*F.(!H)9!.K'^EF&<6[+#$;N%0ARH[DBUBU3I^[6%R^<(E$,9FS2R);
M:!'!6,!['<P[(YP%-/VG0[7A[VWB"E)T+JB+BTZ0A#W\#PH;5-++05)CU%R@
M"UOHO1.VK7N5^T%,8GC(- ?AD&O>ZZA.&_3#:/*M>L7L!PV!5[VEZLUPSOSF
M2)E*$F\ZE7 PHZ5O\%/#G.BC,(%+7OZ^"D"(8 YIT__3Z)EF.DZIMA-M97Q>
MG+Q(#KB6;E 6H^ ,R6A&.H8Q>+C)4$X-!#C(X-&%7/WF 3%AIQ@FEJZD*U1?
M5^I6H?XT-UZLZJ5N^C4T*1:JC:W-6#M(U*GUCJCV6PYI]Q;0W\$.JEG=94L'
MJ%7CS0:V9X7.8$=;V[3N3[0.I%T+0-M _,&4@XFU'6=Y.SS7QG:#2HWK_Q!+
MO>3Z+H<09$YK31@:[=W0IJ/-K*4V>U+8!F>H%FP@4-'[,]0.!Z!&+2!M#=@T
MRQ:->$.%3MBD,5^[[M:V<O7O6M<[&0V]94JS:2O\>MM/N6AHC3-ZQ!R7D20[
M_K&B;5'9E*Y(1L@N-J0-Y<-K'S=F3]T1E(U(M/ ;_OM.TUT8HPP6:(CWR"X:
M3]A$*GY81+VD8;\Z+,6O@".+&5JQ"T/QGZOK;9*5/*GP7K+)2X:RDI\<Y5]2
MV<I7QG)&LWR#*6_9RU\&<YC%/&8RE]G,9T9SFEW599?R4*;_:@X"F[T"9]2X
M1LY?E-2^D#7+OVZTSKZZ,U\"_37)=9A:,K)PR:ILMT])<\I[]E4U<3)H0<(R
MP3L(!XB FU9*.S90NNRTI^G,/YO,<67T4^@KC1M9/QKOH4[-HJ-:K64ETG,Q
MI_;=XTKXQ8;M,XY)7-<;Z@C1;F0OT28VQ#WA5L<H*32R7XJ$PSQF)7XR[-BT
M3EB)B?3:1FG7%Y=^D*6G:EL45\V-A3WP6D?!T^"Z+FC"U9S+R NV8(5,MD""
M[VS9C3SM\MD<@MW;2V-Z0X]RYE\<56V>^2N>Y:Z/(YQK#[C;]]MQVU?4SNM*
M>V_KP9?\L*:D92=UCQE@^0(UJ=ZM_YE*F/M";K<O4Z"=%US"U,'A*HV;FZ;L
M:TY=;58]^U?=\>>[>N6S>#6W=3&MZW9EO5^][MK-(V-J<6V6%H"O,+Y_;2N,
M3Q[B4#]KX?F.)7;+6=WZNN2,6'7@= %,&HU;'9OE)/7'HXM '87[S<J=K]R_
MR_"OZ_;M4Z=,U?'.3+)N?>-^C[?8[P[X +H9F_4;NG*!GI3[-B[Q!.YBXRW>
M9Z6+/+V5K3E_14CQ4>TW;YKNO.$5KUB,'S[OS25[XL)J8'6[%[42T3O+11/0
ME*>.[P2<H,'U1VY&E]?E)C>O8T,?8(HG*$HM1U70/92P=8N8DR!>>APM*6/*
MROJC&SQ2SS_?^4:JWS7;%ZO0P3&,;6,\V/J>S5@O61MTMD;NC#'6.OW)?R6(
MU^HG>X Z<_(P%&.8O*B*7XLQ?.,Z/SJRT>G_L>@;M0@\LR?KNC*K0 G$P S4
M0'"XP WT0$@Q-.SII0\DP1(TP1.$L@ZL!6_[,A74%!9$00]D,QC,& XLGVM2
M%U.BP5N*P?(Q$?5;#CM:P;NB%Q?$'I6+(&V:ILCKP44SFB,<.#,Q0K72O"5K
MLBFD,E.S)[@[O[=)$CUJO&(CMC:;HNICORR!/O?B$%8K**,[P'3+I!(BFAWI
MF/$CLA];/R!CPX%2(S1,-B81B(2RET: HS+DOADQP%0;BFB30(0J.]/S*(I9
M* E".^+[NW4B+%&[+K"+ADJL0\%ZF':3&G?C#X#SH4"T#]1K#I62JG!2O@3R
MPC>SGWW+P$ALO<PS+#Z:<T/-NZ;IDI_8(KU52X:0.SUGXA[/BT*="D:32)^L
M@JX5 Z^Y2T/TV<3*_U(SIN I;&1&$9BY&VNSM4@ZSJ.[X4&R2[S#6V/&;LP:
M>O.Q.CC&O2N_]9N^.=N^9$2N0EN77HRND9FK4M-$CPG!1L2T:0R[=ZNSND'&
MDG,]@RR^17PZ8V0\Q$ KB(2_B*0]DE&]S7.XACR>M;/',4N?F<%!DJNXUXI$
MQQO)DC,DK-O&NGN@J+)(7UP@8:Q&<5H\I*/&WB/)<3PM$V0IQ'N)402^]@/&
MIJK"EMQ(D0&KR6,]NTD/%5/(GN(V[%@^!KH:YT.@621%TLM)MQN^T"J[ U&I
M44LG^L.^=,N_-6HZZ9B^ IL<&R01/!PG"#O'S^$1)TDV0J0V%E.A:J.Z)UHB
M-;I<P&W[P6O@B7^*E0K[L']<M\3$('VQJ"VD,,"\0RXS1&4@L28L2,UT$RSD
MS,]<%= 43;,;S1ZLQ]*<M$GL&CE43=1TS=>$S=B4S=FDS=I$0<^TS6\DO&[_
MRLV]P,TYD[9P:4U,^\U;T,%I&L$Z296VVY/B#!4*_#/&U [3&D@?'$))\YLZ
M22V"[,V&HR#?_$X>S!:<$Z_QQ$[S$\_.(B8O2S\><[_))"?X%,Q8/ N*1!GQ
M.T00NTM@.ZIZBC#0L<DAR\.46$O/ZDMFDT<PS)H"-,1^>K"4V<OZF"%N&(QA
M8\T[>M!4>[7WVI$MXD]9H@WG%+0/JD39<\3!@T=/PSBWU+V X\7: BESZR^_
MJ*%^ RE/U,>OS$CC4Y%5S"VZ&B:8Q+O".,64O,>$\Y20O#HD; J9S$1K]#/X
M0)MI%,H!>D:O7,;C8Q!IG$7_P1M='#>S,5*B@#TR_WU2A)3$I)2XV7(RKL M
M*5*>F$/2MV2OBU04 *Q3^?S(S\NX?/PY?*1'TUO2)T2WR1'4R^1)HW-*Y]J5
MT!G+0D5*62S,$/73-!PO46+*A/"V9GS%/.5"^SR<1Z4?:X&\BDPOKDS4GRQ4
MYG31DD0Y[,(L[AP[Y#L$WDO4L)S1>U,D$<VE*6V>SW)57/0EZAS4,I5.CD27
M5:+!:JFZ#(*ACE04^KJYZC33R@$_BP2N-[6N?[Q41M*OK#.[ 7NJ./15G#/%
MQXS4'IK3>YN]K\Q40D6/8\6OCDO7TF%5%#W3I:FOEK!5+:7%3=./?WU)4(JU
MQEQ#/048[G.P]_O!!H3,>$* K#0*Q2#[0XKUOC8\,8Z"M@J%6+Q4P+G<"8*T
MU2PZS,%,S )4#0T=T/#KJ]-T1^D10E <0"VST*4+3(-]ER.3OVO_ZTXHA#<Q
M&]-D&DU>[=F:U,VBW<S/)%JD]1MM&4Y,55EFPL_;7%JFM=JKQ=H(K-JL_32N
M5<Y0,L*G?4%D.DU]G4ZO>Q5EJ4"Q#:2M%=HP@\ZW31>W35JZ"2Q\]5KPG+0U
M(T]K A>YS:9($J8)S3$[M$NQI#%5=5.;+%LN.IW%=44;8L3?R!>04,2,*K"R
M&,/LRZ.$7=!X&L2K4[1^@=#YA% 7P]BVL!<[K34%#='["UG/-0T.*R^LZM<'
M?*3G,REX>D1/5+=IU9N:"HEW'54\@]=O6]+%M,3Q*=*3!$N: M+GK25<-<E:
MA<J3VDJ9<[CNJMO=;5L9VDZL$1K%C;AB)!40-*5)2'5(L*K7B112*N76H'!:
M]K6>6PQ:EY3>)]16\UW*7?]4I6XLV("<L:%D*^#HD<@(Q^\\1JA;C[JB3JH$
M8,A='*)+8 ,6#"T)UJ?R*4T,P)^-UX+5 8DZ5C0MK1]EB<6E&S^EV\!EPHV"
M-$IE4U),4>[:4UKMJN3;T^SRU/BY/0T2QR'MVZ*45P(.+OTU.81<SGQ;X7%!
M5C];1[M+UD]%26R=2>1[X'H-3^]E4AJ>K!C>UR#.174%XFAD5/,IUY\TJS#F
M4W :OGM-EEA</DCD5*I*7AS6O:H4N,OKX2=MURHFJ2SFR1@]H'-M4</;7]6E
MXFI=WE UX8V)5B%CM'==XB#<L.ZK8# T*Y[U0_YS(KO<L<V-W;Q$3!V:/Q"N
M54U@%M!8<^#[.RBGRR0CB]"25=T'U4,;V\\_A5W<Q38E0=00MK^.W;[1%9]2
M=L__H]VBLUXBS-S$G61.*Z2\A>9H=C)I-K-F5MKD!!6VI692:MQM]N9O!N=P
M%N=Q)N=RGDUK_S;G5='F#_5-;>YF\^1&<P$GLMO)="XH=/;9DLRL-LK@>:WG
MZ/QA1KTR?(;;&E[7KAUB"0%*>'Z3)&ZT(+7G)00VWH,K82Y+7CY#V-M"4<VQ
MG3V8$9M8CVQE5P9DBB)<U]41O2RU3\;+?DO=BLYE_8-DBJ[D^OT8GXL(+!)"
M=8K<PNW#+[1 U9MCG#6XI4 Z,330>;U?3LK&/R3)X:5?8%'%DF:W*GUB@[:Q
MEX&:$IX?XHW4_]32>%54,<Y5#(U>O-TR,^8W^L5CRG,U6;T> VKKPO/.)JY#
MSI,;D:IK/YX=J\;2?BX^[M5BWX)BS'0\*^N=H>8K55MK:KM,JH3KE?\3'2&A
M9S6V7RTDGG[$S*1+XZ/[.VV,2@_36<>VXP$FZT&ER0!F!@;.QZ#T1CI3:_&M
MWO E+FAE:U(-;8'N2;3%Z\O3H'Z]16EL55A4,-WVQSJV5O-5.R+&P,2^2?@E
MUCT.:[1.9,^N[%=E8=:E;L\6[KC;XB;%:J,]Z.45[(L;K OZ4J^";2E>9),2
MOD?FE<Z.2.;48<8I[[,^;+!K8VXL[?,ET#XFS;'6U"B&WOZ6O-D>[#_&*/#F
M&QP-;VC:.<3U:3@=$O+K(]2-6,;U3T^FS$,<$YZ+4/J\4Q8T9;4$#5^S6#^T
MZ[_<9<9%/V#.3(U5T$LFP!"_UIH]W<11Y4H#OF5(_TYG@BZE\\24X\S!B![R
MH$XE5 )R^MI-(X]']ESG@5YRT*TDDG;R*\?R+%]OI166*9SR) O;+Q^X0[).
MVAXE=(KR[5:68\+F27HTOI55$LYFAFYH[01C;]5RP.U>)UQS@BUI-V]3%C?=
M5&;E5I;SBXUI%4]J33A A)HBE<VT"#,BE#U<A'5J^/OP*HJ>!HUIU>[HAU6<
M,C"VB=W#29WH -TU?DY [$70B^7#"C?##S4B<K7T+LQQ-ZS9--=S0=U1]3M4
M#[8A\C+K\:YNYT7>W297"T([Q2YN&*ZQZJ:N]OQBHO-G+OU%[.ZSJL;<:5]P
M5 2L,O9=ITG"X_9GP:O?KBM<;J.D/1VO/=9Q8WIU8G@7D6=$U41>.WKWW^G^
M5UDQKN@6<'T7=?%FS%(E_T:%*V05SE\!ED<@'.VI5LGDOM4TM5+X7!8 UEY5
M!E8?E3E#VUAR5V_\/:[GMBKF"R+)!E[VQ@R81E YKW<7QFT?GG/)'I_ WFN1
M3+WC]>ZN//B9%_*AD[I_WV L'OG)UN!\'VYV;>SP@.KR-=6(S^T5+U[E*/AN
MT6]@-_:FL7D=_=7;#=I2'7JI_O>CCT)5)6R=CU^)/_?O,>YK+T;CSOH=CNMK
MO_H^Q?:IIQ0EE:]#1[:H]]? 0TO#1/7D$%@E3LJ4.V37/GN2;FHLANSUG5%Q
M+=*7M\KIIGN6M..<<AF/]"IB;3<U3R:214 !_5@Z9=E0?]AZ!,#1W7'I@U_+
M37(_E@9Q5:#EE<TV3G_]OF7MMJR^U^?]EBO"EQ[E2^=/"8/9FJ8B(D)E5&M9
M]Y1+TI]43W]#QV7+Y-?]1(_FI6XEV>L3,>_S+L]SV-3^;?K^/Q__2C=9*6O^
M;2I'2E+XL>7^\H?_^)?_^:?_^K]A.'M_P;7_?^2LM#TG@/B8F@#[J$$)J[V7
MXIVY_V!X.!.):6*JKFSKOG LS[1)W[ABY[RWJ[]:;[@)$EG&HW+);#J?P$=2
M.85:H[(JSZB]PKI$L'=,+IO/($ECYV@OUA]X9&12HPQJQJCHKN-_)'<!<A&!
M;(*#@V)Y@(V);RYP@H06=FR)0903F(V'?SJ3AB>6#*&?A8Y2F6Z0<7<4FJ&!
M:+2UME=<FWLG<[M2OR6^P,(:EWB]QZC)R*H=S,7":9',E<,ZU*UYU]N/R]U_
ML[RMWHKA-IG<*&)%S]+1M_#Q\D/G[UJ Q"+K>AQ^OOCO^ 5T)F[<P!#H!.I#
M!E!7P(;=(.XC1[&>_T**W AB2Q$NX[R/($.VR*6J#2*"4U:5^S91T[<*=4AM
MI#:1CL1/DGP(*7A1F4M^'6?^J^:NIU&/+S.:K G*)"B=/T5*G4JU'4:-RRP^
M29GOZD%R3(\FA?DBH5!V0^,8O5GQK$-L6NUA)8OTK;6Z;JOJW8OK;I:O9OWJ
M_,J0J-VP5I,A'CL2+5Z$B@V.JU(SL&2_E DC$<RWL^>I_KP9,YR.*UB.%T.S
MI.NUK5JAJI,N3CP[8N+6+RVOOEN9Y]C>7A$MHKDQ<ZG/R)/G<'H*4R%%_5@=
MSPV]U"'F9%V*VA-S3BQM.%^!SRY^NTWK*X_EY.-H'W9HY[ W@UYL*7<ZWAP[
M,6YV219+Z>J-!XL?L)P7%7K5P6?@@.D]I]R#_Q!&*.&$%%9HX8489JAA41MV
MZ.&'((8HXH0 CFCBB2BFJ.**++;HXHLPQBCC3J_-2(6-,]0&H8X9\H@C:)#]
MJ(]N]#RXB(^H <E:!B?%T*20(*T'Y91?<'8ADJ3E5:,7[E'98GPX8.EED4R(
M&1))4"!I9I+]D#GF1Q(!*--Y$=GGH#K5*7.G?GLVE6<EY34'SG3^$7I=FQ65
M*"A^\T4AY2.%1B>??(-2ELJ?X?7W&SZ*EC!I@_AU85]_#9'JYS4E'GCDH'HR
MF590=$:'ZGYO7L:H;7(%\YNML6&D6G<\)1&7)[B*%DU<@*8U&9%..C2L8TW^
M:EQ/S )7UJ]!9MEI<4.D(8L;;-PJU-TD6F99JV:%-6NN;.'2)M:26I6Z0J\^
M]KHE%DKENN1^]K+6+Z*^YNO8NP0'O.^WU('[F,#LS@64OK[M_W;NP=AR1ZXK
MG4[K5FQ@S.FKQY[FF1+(=EEL6L&;H42R9(>"^>0V1*(Y6%D,C1IQPP;#E=IS
M/UF+&<.P5OJRP^>N\R_*KCW$L,[*(CQ:9(#9.LR:6<T[C4%''W9LR>E<G7-7
M-].:[<92[YRNTHAZ*RI16<_E[<34@DTT;V5_/1G*3^]J-<(<HFMWV%QWW3?'
M@0N^EI4'[UWUV!#K!E'"D)=+\.,2!YTCW!Y5S/?).&.:M-ZWX7VX88&-AJ?D
MKC8]L-_N1ETCF*>1CN_;; 5[4-[6:'X5[:5MO3"OV2:$K-%+%TTIJ DRV/.?
M=BX8JH+-S2D=GML^I:AP#3;/JGAO''I?$O,)]AG@]-)S!#WX!\[:LB'>WYU?
MJB(3N*!YU9_*Z'?N!7H<_M8'6I]S/NF82D@E)U%((BAV8$]ZSH<Y%U$M3'MY
M8)4:2,$*6E!=4>*+!+UVP0YZ\(,AFT?ZC+=!$)KPA"A,H0I7R,(6NO"%,(RA
M#&=8E1(>P88TA/_@FT;(#F8!<&9C&-H2C%:_#!;.?E"A7#4T%D0=X3"'4*K7
MIS;E.2H-IP=/7%?BAJA%#BX'<5"D48S$Y#,ED>&*%NK2O1JS12LX,8Q=K!4C
M3/:4*F9#,);3E1Z$:#'OW(H3W8/$Z;"7*D**36A(3)X"(W4*1BY*/;F)E@^T
MA[P X?&'_AJ7_RXUKP32<7^NRICG#N@,4V!*.WU #[!$9H\B@O)Y^?,3];+(
M);,)I(RK YP=X06;50K+0?P*G>1*5\?%J*TCO'M+,H'X.Q\Z38\\<J+N1@')
MW/T1)APKD+%B]Q]EA@:7J(L$+6UQ#YKID)EU0>-C".<:W)6L=NCLG./_M,4U
M-8F..!IY&V&B"4:R0<I92"M>.X^HSSCV$V#MZI';Y*&?M9'2EEA39>O^4;YA
MZA*#Z!P>S["W1N(\%)_H^B7KYK8E318Q;U)R9]U604E4[E)B&W4E)Y28H_&$
MJ)Q>[$NR+,I-PRV.90C]'#CA"3&@]G2DOED;2'GINB-V])!I^ZE4H1K1WREL
MFULP9T KA--P;L6@8D,@4R,7KUMJ+9=UPVA085JLOY%4I1"%JDCY=E&$MBUS
MOHM<&T$WM[GR=:U;U2J%4+HLP5ZN;\J$%C"!=K)5.HQS=FUJ8.N45Z^:JZL4
M+<CIK#G9Q 9G<E#KYD&GVC%N/LVQ9Y654T<75-H.\<^42%A9$LDGTTK1R7^W
M7=_V6K;'37; I03$F/5ZVQ[BUND]J0S@(F,J45BJ4H!981^"YD?'(Q&+?ZDK
MY*=J:QX#&7=\SY6E=!U)GM/P\8"'\O^)C<:)(O;"$87N?:](XBO?^LH1L/:5
M$ \M:-/\^A=0PZ'O?P=,X (;N(("/K""%PR/!/_7P9+Z(N;:QP<*TE+ ?'13
M)QFLT)S2%<'P%0)Z/YRR6_"3PVDT+(B?"F$9?;-,HT7Q+BQ'KHQQ[Z6OC)YH
M>YM$\48OO;SJKR %],C]TN?&CI1#/2X&OD11M9*R?2XG^]@F[2((NJ.$QC\3
M.2 @WX]&_N@NJ^XG0$I6D<*&2F3XII/CSO8(S>N$2Q[%LLQ EO2:M[$,[ #W
M8K]I^4Y@*^AF[=S6@=%TBW^V:E5;&\NV:G)I?BTKF)7UK+,1+=$!U29,[TIB
M!_Y-TL)D,5HLNWC:JRY5U#-6=*F1@EF!CKJHC)L:X_RZ$%8_+&F@'H@$:R<O
MUBGUR6Y&6SW_7S3G&!NSDK1J*"\>"E>7<72C\2R-F8T*X.PA[U')#B2VK=H2
MSLX4QV1MWK33()-B"UMHYCZLLZ*L3G=]%"&>!/;[O$1CH+DZHU2C=:7UBIMV
M=X4IJ\ZTH<78:54CU;1'\?<AD2FP@BI:<8$>*TE5!UB%,['@'59C7?>ZY6;V
ME<Z5W2=^@WW4&SC<F?WL]J++R,X;/O/A69R6PCF3Z[\4O,4:_'2H#[Y8E3^5
ML2$_JCHU!]>SR(PQ1T-M:E\=;7$%K^4"IS:CUV4Z/!LY8B>7&UC9BE:-/C+9
M*+^I)V-B)P;:=-Q#CNZ8;6;;Y?I1MSB))'/>K<!JQ@_<D SN_DS:95Q".6^Z
MOU6VK,B^J&V'S&600CNJ3-'E-<>]CGLOYAX;0PCRS=ON&0:/DGD;^/0BF;J6
M/"ZR95S+#M<7YZ1/O8E0KV'5N_[U#<QP9V0/W]K"_O:XS[WN=\_[WOO^]\"W
M>?!W-'QY_Z>>]5F0Y"]HK\?EM 3Y*THPEASN9.87'T30GWC3663#[..KM4I1
MO$Y%?NKKDS.*B,6X^M.O_>]+&#DL7VP9BOXX[Y]>0 6\MJ9!QB# %[FE\39'
M/=1K5!9/P 4?^$=%PO5VA*9:-:-FW0. ^4-;U[8U@X0.5B8^T48\?M1QK=)V
MC>1E]]%LMQ-AJ_$_\ ,_U<=C5P9Y/,-<(K)GPM)GGR-Y6"5GFE%T6G-QI$9S
M9:-TWA9,7U=8)>AG0>A-(*<QF&9IJ<"!:V0,\:9UQ[)_IF: D34ULY!T-(A-
M4E@X2Z@A3CA]$_0S)>963:=Q="&&%*=+-2=7E]%J<?9PA18TU/]7:^G$-H.C
M67$3:UZH"PQG6>D&5IP6@SZU9$P68<_6A1$H7.XT*DZ(%T=W9-M29DW6?O>V
M$OL5=OQQ:/.$5:8393]73T2V*>VC4A7%<V6XAU47:J1 >'JW4#?H6C-36EUG
MAVGEAN5G?""W?7)H=)8V<I5CB["&%;1&5^S$@ZFX.VC#:8UH5DS#BW%X1W/8
M>M\RB#=5B,!X,T2U<835BS_H@U%W9QMWB<*X?D%W;E(%=03')K@"AR4'.3HX
MCE7H@=.(CAP'BURW(:L8BP254#-G+/&X8\K(CH%E$?M(BSW5A@#U@.=H<,2X
MBY<8+U"'&)&H;[>6C^\8<*]P+P 7<1UE]X5&97&0IB)1.&8A:$"$9(B>1R":
M)UVM(GX^EBE]QR3(I7\V)H**1),A>!]D5F&GA$!P]H+YL4@#!(.QLELS&84P
MR3*GZ(*.&%UB!A8):&6#-@I+"5X?&#XL"7=9^2C\]Y7797W_YC>6GK%!V?= 
M]N>-9+F6;.E&YP0G;1F7821D7"66^I66<IF7>KF7?-F7?KF75X<A=FF.+@@5
M[T>(43*8ZC82O<%>>$E#CYDF^ 5A;W2+@@F7DFF9T+A:;*26EJA@T$>9V:AB
MF^E^9Q!SF'F::E6:$'>8JF=F9]=*F#1Z_5-<_Q<J&@B"Y"$G__=\:?>&MO=N
ML)E_@5F!/X:)^@-(SCB"5>:2L5*3A+>;:39=YH"(*CE</40=)X&!L\%VBL$G
MRS:5RZEV!7A"SO1G^_ADD0@Z,_B'>/=9-XAE0AA7L:6(K&0[DI6'R+AUY-A&
M5)A9BGDK=6B9*%<;<[5OC\6%4]4H-B#T:[%F3UO(BN'H=#6HAQ.'D$@SH'N(
MD91&-WCE#A&:GX'3B:DV:O]H%0ZJBY?VBU25HMX6F?_$MZ%_)66U:#;7F5#J
MJ5F@.%&-XYVV>*/V*3OOE!JQ^:%668_>Q:*<F8:$&6@^.FPR^FT!^FLCEDO;
M&!QT>4$NRII)DC5UEJ,KUYE;RH<MZE4$N'#.H8YZEE3,J::^=DDV.ID8%8@!
MR7X*R70A95DK]HPSVIE\&J(X>J)KB)^=PX]EF'1ZBJB3-SWTR6_4EDKJ.%+'
M1H_?9XTX6JACRIF6RJ>&6J;FN6CT](XH<38CHR5#%Z0^EX_=F$\AI:$0^220
MZFBFB&=8(S^,:G5V"D:!Z(E+YUFJZG'BR*&>.G4ZBHIR5)(VF67M03Q)9H'(
M%)NVMW:4]4G5]I/+BI/52F9:+$F>1B9DFA9ZA8:<SJ5<1XJ>,3E,2@EE%/BM
MV7J2_@=-HK=WG&>LE3>M6&F"1RFN?J>;?]FO^KA",.JO CNP#4:P!JM[5WFP
M"KNP#-NP#ONP$"MC 1NQ;#FQ_[?7?614>G!B3/8$;QX4H#N5)M97JME);MBZ
MF#4U(Q9K!H)J1*0YFB(&LH@Y?F.(IRN5<R[F<LK1LCH;-ATK%2N;?N"DHBCK
M8?<8BFBPGMCWK0!XFXO*'[?E@,Z%7<KYB\E5;52;@OF:D[2ZB9K"4LUIF^D4
MK60J@.&I6LFY/0):8=W:4K-IDEQ(M6.+@8MH*IJ9I.*237#;?#))3;'PMK2Y
MLS1!+W3*I$&*&9NJ*4<[D."7CBUHKRMZA/#*<]T7BT.[B(YFN9>JBTHKK, T
M34+UAEW;I^Z'H(@%DE(3:3.;5E>Z:X9S=&M:HV8:I7Y*+_)X:,::H,D(I7F!
M82R:HO_78Z1%18)J"5FF8:!S.HQ&8IR$2;+?E5&]@%)%VJAP*HW.%H\SUYZ!
MZY&]^Z2"=;*'5W'E\[?VR+E64J7T!+QL.KBB5+-<-[+].1/:6YQEZ8L4L[EZ
MRBU7NZJY6+VIMK_TJ88+:K/*2P]9JKZRVRTTNZGF96N<JE>1:GS&RY_R.'!-
M*KBYVQH92Z&Q*G121W6; ,#]RU.>.5:X>\&$ZI!OZIE?>G,QMCHR%9"KVHSN
MJT^IVJFIZVDB*J.=2[1*(\*%AX4P:ZM(FC-AH3LR[*N<2BRF"2L.FGD)S, N
M')_W!,*)(W/RUVD3G)"[6Q2F&[2NH'_2^EK]]T.-)XEA.ZU)2M9*T.E;;,N"
M?BMWH@7%_V-W1^:3<HN<. FRU/-MDQ24_%IVPZECV ;(!6AVAGRUX/IWBXQ(
MS$FN:.RW;IR3#!3"+;FWEKRVSO-&L9P\)6#<R: <RG<KRJ1<RBS[R::<RJJ\
MRJS<RJ[\RK#\L:$,< *\(S(+A@;<FN:7B$<Z*]?BP\FGLJ99L#2[7M0XHL)7
M8"<VRA3,13EK0JBL7S!KM&:454'TLL"<OR\;S2X'7'@4K2G98^&UDUT9E737
M3=%9K8:(FU\[GH]7GFK[KNP:MT;)K\LWBN1ER2E(@'5<M18JE'W;D_*<7&"Y
M.<XJ2Y,'@?#YG"\EG++I2]#UMS<Y(HEVN6SHF[T\341'HD!TH%D(&( *>5['
MJZ]FKD/XC51,P(HKB@ZHJ/.!Q!0:T[^EP%_7NJN%H9];@KN*=$K_["'^YH[3
M#%K ,YX1#-3S6*(17$H/^L)=6*<\37$XW6^<Y;H5[,Q"6K[X6ZA!#0P[S:H5
MBLM0'4I9"IS!.=:L-:J;>U?%Z,25-4 MN<_KT]67]V\3NFX)R]%4:M9KX://
M]QY:=-?AFY&UB=+NC&BB&[UR^CWTB\%8=R;^Z[B"[5-]R-6DY28\ZVI.+3-2
M3+JZILWKF,W\&;N.RK]%6-A+ZH<H?*?8][N?J:MD>H>*E=7#ZL#I^:L$O+CO
M8I!U+6OE*$\^6W'-[#ZGK8WN+-IF^-0;>-@E^MO/#*K#.\P7JJ0C^=@93'2A
MA;IQ:L&4AM$O1ZA9Y]W]"RRU/)]\1=KRB1O%Q0C!A#W*:!AFBO/%8@>W9 R^
MB[>NB(BY>+O(EO?(C(Q4$NAW6SG.Y4R<C->$9ZO&"C*!/(D^M)?'D?QWAJ?8
MX#F4U(J460FN.SJN_:W(^DH?<HR"O"R=D,S0K$#'OH3.W Q':'@CL<Q?+0Y_
M(O3B%B;C&F3BCIGB-(X+>IWC/-[C/OXE/Q[D_P9FE_F<R\&MESA^Y*^MD[YL
MY#*^P2;7BJULT<6<P5L=C<<<?/1%D4SMQ<OMTQ%K?^G]EK@=0^1[=]XLW;_)
M@ H]W,%##'2+T$2)FQI.YU!-X&+;R-"TQV)6G"YEK6M>2A.NK[#EK1M9UMO%
M>/<]8X-^U-@4EG(>MXINM7]DR'KNX5>R<XQ+:(VVT*2+EJ]B+Z>%D*A;T0H:
MKN>=.C.=N7H"ND>XQCB,1J[.6JIKY6SFJJ*1GBTLJ2 ED29ZZFK-W: -M-BX
MY&_%VK?MIT--N:]ZY2HJU^!GTY-%PZFNN\(4TI0ZZSF,IYQCNQ#)(37WLR9L
M["2G%R[-7+@>R(=WB/^>#;WVB*P>*N6>R-?WK$3RCHFO86Y@V[;,&T#SFN\9
MOMSWCK[BSG?W@&:N&.*2BG9)#=L[-[^+_M6,W30XI]I5#=U8G:>F2N9D@CN[
M_I!97:<%*MS'OL(EG,)J?=H!5\3*+KD<GV(:S+H0Q^7,W,2RC8M?;F]7;,45
M7)T[GX<A[V:3BNH73]/9?*!\%E1(7RYX/5K6<L*?X='^0G+=/L*0*.[++JI7
M/<!:SZ"2#>V42KW<)O87^9XF+3?NF5>Z?H7D'58R#5EMOR^F"XB'FUE3[/(1
M8NCF->CGK-@YO<G5U=\GS8BY-<Y]'\)RO"<BZ-#L>CROM6R)!\_X/M?)0I4H
MS^O(:;BL7/80!:[)^.JN%UZW2U;IR0KB$6T;CL7AY>5_Y[Q_.V[/V_\KY.0N
M^[0/RTE>^[A_8(N=^[S?^[[_^\ ?_,(__,1?M,7G8/#+MR$TEPQE1;._X*'O
MEJT]),HORS4?HRK.LET^\4GKYE52I<AO7Z*9S-,_EK</\]?O-9L-8^:9KFD.
M^6#[QX69Q:I29<HJ2')ES@<M^;!^GP00 RZ-<1L=-BF4#=/X8NC3\:HQ"1_1
M.Q4U5;1OC$F13=42E<'MY"K8)>G55K/8,!?2+66^RP)H^^&(TYR&.86R/J5J
M%AP6C\GEU@4MKO:,(/</'KS6OM@6.]-F.C%U.O]JSBKI31 ,4 ZQ$#"JR3$-
M#P(J+Y!LK;#2;(<R#5+/T^XS4U.'S_3S)JL(;HGKC8YDE53_=I8VU)95U:X5
M]U;TR/<7,S0U][&W,^SK]5@SUHC(&3AR%[DR6D^1,;FV>O:2EULT4O@ZF%F<
M\"E\G;W=/,D+9^^<VI@S[JXQ>G(NGK.<TBL36^3U 3*N% \?2N:50M>&AYIB
M4AA6&PCP'+XU$0^!<_6N2)1OP]QES/1GGY0QJ_BA'%429LQN&!U^-&FM(3Z+
MVQ:1%&9/YSU+/XFF'%J&7TZEF!0=HVDO6T">[)RQ!(KFJ41;RZXN[?80JTRQ
M8Y'V+$L4F56327=V1($(KAF$7V^"(DOW9%"A+_5"]+AWD]N)64'V98OVWDA@
M5/_B5=NL85/$=RE#SJ.8KP6[6E=>\'8Z-2Q3S7OB^C(:&BVQOA"K+CHU>:M4
MJ(+/;HY-F[ <I5Q7*\O]<VX@U8=X>S6;N7)R4A7/,&?N\/D&+"8VI:*NN8/T
M&QR;;#ES1[CT9%S\[2AXW45T[T)$>K'PG%72@5H&2?H^?N%H&@?%&]P^OH_J
M J,!OQ?<\T^X&=!3(KOR[!/IB-_8RR\1!QV<)[L'NZ!(P.-"4@[$$#D3D430
M:BH1Q5HD3!$P%EVD9<4799R1QLIBK!''''7<L2L>??P1R""%;*>1(8DLB+0;
MC52QR"6=]/'")Z6<DLHJK;P2RRRUW)+++K=4TLLPDP-3S#+-//\313+17!,I
M-5\HRZ6C2&Q2K#^8)/(^)&6B<T\VAX2&*OG\:?! %MU<\U#83ER-QT3E4I$R
M1Q7UD](186RQ,1$EQ1+0L9["#$@W-^TT'&4BK115X@K=CSSD9$L'5E?!J\\S
M#/MC3Z+VK,M3MR#XVXZM5>-3*< X<X%03V$!*R?91!+DH+U>T>ON'P+?B[9'
M6(@5XB0^KRVN"PKO2ZA9&-83L"J!-DW5&VWD7&ZB7#LSCK17O4.B$P;M"J[7
M11'C-Z%)BYM4KPWSLDU?K&(9QU1_X5T,8$8S8UBP)O&-55:ZO&67+%+I7>Q@
MO$R3N"N,0#VLX;1(SABTJ#*5;>%L':[_*RAPX[WMTIQ1PY0VA.>M=;!2.?YQ
MFD%_5G4;^ J[6>677VII,I<8BG):>C>*,L)FX9B/GMKL5>?;SP0636:67[YZ
MVYDQ'1BHA;A#2&F'JQX:1(\9,TR6@4T&.=M=AM.I'J=UQGCPPY86F>_\SKO%
MYH\C/OKAG87&6;^_)(.8;B^G>;1.SB%O6NVGP=;8G=-H]CSDT/?&F0J,_\XW
MWHC]X,;NP4DFIC4/ 2][K<PUU9T<59IB&\""O7;W8Y^JA;UF<R1$/D'!-W=Z
M=6-:+XUG5['GZYJLH'_=:X5YQZ;BT_GVW4;^BC OZ6C-31LZ0<M3:*5?ZR\7
MVO2<T+6?[^AG.I]9_A-7/I!VL?/<ZG\:*B!!^A4A:SUH.K)JD+.LPX8%)=!6
MHT$2=^*S0:IQA$$I259_0HB@CEQ03^C_4^$*6=A"%[X0AC'TW;ID6$,;WA"'
M.<R;V7380Q_^$(A!%.(0B5A$(QX1B4E4XA*9V$0G/A&*4=22DFAXK>*I,&YO
MVACM[F<BQ%$IBPZ<41C=0$8I/M%T=7-@"M7PGT!QR# (M!3XR 4_1^A#*\1K
MDQV9Y,;D6>%0[TNC%\]XQD%&[G/1:\;C$)FZ_J%.D01KBQASQ,CL"<Y\E^0A
M3@AYOD+6IE5(<,ZY[,,^04!(-]D(I?VVICT,\G$=5"#3XMY3N7&A@GS#N!6!
M, .J+\*F:JT3&Z2<ES\S:HR-U1/>NX U/D]^LEZ2&U"K8@6]-[7(8%$CVS-'
M84D"\N1RD'G-&#!#I\E.ZI%ZF3P<-W>CS:,]3ID]>V=1PO\'S9AL3V_)\V;L
MXD#'D:E3A/<<72NEJ:!# H><7MQE\!KSNMJ)\R"2=&8D.SDLW"1F9?8LG;86
M5)>+F!""[NQ1,Z=V.G16U'CZ:Z3A<"?/C%K.4O_$Y;LRMB**3=0FH/NE1*]I
MG)C%5*.>HIPF<[=3H#*/:9P\JH(PF1,VCJY[-YD=X]2)49@VM!</A:0U=^BO
M>!(GCP@U7Q61B$Y_QE*DA='C61,*2>B(U3+6JD<X&<K3F3JFJW6=8T4#"#R[
MO@6N1A4L0$[Z2[)&434IHZI?K$<8V5WFH!XUZ5W7=S/DT76QF;6-^)#Z%:UB
MDBNHS$A?@4:G?<SUI6/]5*9H<MB!('+-E,6:CON,:3\[P6-51OM0&6U[VF?Y
M=HO-:29!ERFMB!KVE6DIU"M1F+:U4D1O"/S@ ;%&R04.HH)+':6RLG;+U&IK
M:^3A;G6"&U1BFG>%-XKLBXJ*7O=*R;7O1>R8RBE?^Z8IOO?]TE.%M%#]_A? 
M 1;P@ F<JOP6F&X'KB2"_QD\JX[A:'8*W@@[S?DH!?_BPM2BL& E"]869CB'
M]"OO.B?W7?HV5:A3$N&(&TFT>B:RP3'F,$W!N&"7GOBB?8+PEV0,PW'ZM[O8
M"DP8=?L$\8*3FJQT1>U(F+\V)IE6MDRNQ0R&QR*M-C+J(C%X30E<+@^9/M?T
M Y1O"1_NCC@N[RLS*9V;(8-H9'H#XFTH9XM>+*.T;Z^2(%S<; B@Z36"$MQF
M8MDVU4%?KK#;M*CH3)S+I')6<C?5'F,=69]L8L@CEU:)NP"F9DH&SL^NE.)C
M]/F,<P)/F?D4V50-=]Y1X6UIS&)Q3NN[X:"5CQF/V1\])7G(J H%U*/]:]E:
M;?_/8&_9NG]46'5!EFBKZD]KZ5HN(4^J%KCY]]=AF1:3&VW0%:?,-_,[BZ$!
M/=29#2J<4MO0=BG:.[ V%\1H(K7TD)UKOQX/+/-^1+:=^N!A@L][XWYT?:MW
MFO4J+SAL[34[$W[CW=F.P<>VM6%O36->RY.1Q0:'KQ,7&=TYF\/<KBK$K??B
M?I=,V$1M]KF]D5:9+GR^YBXG:OFY68)M#RK#6ZS&'0UIPN$9<8P ^3._MV%R
M>SC2^DFL+4MN<XE/=N6=93GI&@CCZ,6;31RLK*U(.D%N(>WKO#HFF^'XY@S0
M=KB\K+J!C N)<Q495P@292E[&[8DP5(71];BQCZ:CQ4AN[WM_</63PGA9+^S
M'5ID7Z-METR?"MZ+\=A5H-PG']O=__88\YG7_.;=B_7.<QY/H-<\?T4_%,\'
ME?2E5_WJ6=]ZU[\>]K&7_>QI'Z33;_[V><L]CMM5;^7,NI(+,]GN0Z5OG"(=
M)JTE/GM]WU]V2<JQS*8161.U_*R'/ODMKF%K!1PC40U[XDO-_L";:'T=EY6#
M6),NWF&Q*U$>U[MZ'W) T^ZKJ*K9RGON%G@MR.\(&FLYU(>"M.-92FG^$*^-
M "G64J^,%(G.>"O,#&_I(! 7=H7IDJG/%.^.HHNE@DO]GJH5\&=H+DVQ<LRS
MN*J=NHR9ZBK5$&W@#._GUHYR% /D.BVK*"T\Y(/IN RS;,TW_DS#0BW44L_X
M)! L'-#D% 9-"(-PGP3_QOQ*C&:^3\]DK@1)R[/ ;UF6AS,,SL+@;Z!F3*G@
M)J\F*>2NPOB:YRBX+]8$"@W?X:L&B?"\(G!XCE(H)CHL(?UFH\(.CZ>&([EN
M3HZ ,&:R*-V K.?\Z>E@#M@&BKDH:U%8JE[FAK+L!-YFRP_I";;V;3,:A_P0
MD.M0K&C*SJM"RDP^:^2P20E340@5+K,N$7)&@A651]F6HC0246ZF4" >Z&\X
M4;NZS1%+P@:[[7I0+JWB4*F<)Z,"3K-FZ-[V4.8V\14S:0)1\:KV1:JFXN"T
M$!%?*HURD9:TL-S<4*>:3[-JT 0K[5@>: G;;7QB$>C\3 WWX@FY" B3[1K!
MS#$8XP_0"$N#MJ('+^;AO"M@!+$?P\<(G=$$O7 2A(FBC!'7R%#J/JUGZ'#0
M[*TS&!+63L22 !*OG+&7"F:<_&24*NM LDMXUF/=L$, $V_3,%(4.TCPK$'6
M2M+K*F\# 6]<,M 0':__'I#R,@CQY&]81JA<7(G-V(W=3JCNV Z R"O)((^D
M=.\H\["D8+"."*4EX6<GQ4S)0F+=(J_V-JH3L2CBPI(-S5+TYG$$T1(8V;)C
M&-  8PCX/FDNW3(([1(O\U(O]Y(<^;(LG?_/+U5LEGY'+:ND+DODJ^0M^"CL
M,'DFW&BOSQ"%:+:2Y.)*O@KS+-/$,K'0Q^;DDC#3X<;H3_HR,+%O#+4O-!.,
M[)*RMGQ2FBC37C[0H#0BT)C2*F!PO/SH;5S3--]"E6J**J5-*[7,P[J2EX2R
M7Z9LE9XR'0$0NH8R+_@GO&CS(>.N*1LPS*32$]3#VX)R!'7PSX[M!PO*<4S!
M!;'S"-O+EPQ-'IKP-(M.+!]-TWHM \TB$,?1?\3ALO@*"S/$E[BG-D\HTRZ0
M"ENFIX@'--4HI>C1ZC)RDHZN#2/'(?& (C=I(E6.:>Y,(S>S:;9Q%KDQ(0.R
M&#3.(:N*\ !.04W_+D%_+X'4+STY"C;WT1HS\>BP;"X2L:6@S4(M*S9?,J;:
MJR(S\=Q:E!%=M$!9QZTT1$-SL)L"*S$O#T4!:.BHYN).43)3*QXS,THGIAHM
M;D)M(K^FD4$1<M+ \+D^;BR)+D1K#4S!D=A>3$Q3)Y# SQ2!2-4@DC]IC:YJ
MU#)N]'9T@4P-\FO&](L\I@?7,!C \]FF4*<.U1>C,2(WRSTA$N>HSDI5L4X3
M#"1,$05_D0?'AAIYQ[>.U#6^4.J.:4 )\N;T]!TGM5"1BA6?%![.T14[4E$%
M4D0WB3<LYA#OQDS%$55D,USL2%F0$CGCQ_WH+BKMSB:E;P&7,RB%R3C#.VZ1
MAM.X9I(I$Y E<S)&7W)^(*^6W.: 2++LL%+.%LV#UDSXJ/4Y01):E\E8&[#K
MUN<K&9"Y&&A"<$M=]VMO14L3OOP58"\U8&^H7Q]U8%FH,0_6A5!U1QA681\6
M8B-68B>68BN67P'VU3@/,PMVBN"23:TDPV:IBA)TZ$[39/\U5%*,]?@Q_(Y/
M)-ORA3B62X 42FI$9I?$ID:MY5KV3&ZV4D#39PEV*>].D-RG0*13)2O$$T^2
M*[>.6(JU6CQV\9(U.P=RS0#):)NQ:2U/MKAV6*^3:;5(__:.SD(R/=K/-JO6
M5S[1)#$-:='3R*(U6Z7,6;_,*RDPQ )+]QAU#,E,%M$,!TV$"'>64;RI/?63
M;PL2)JN)&)M.!AW1__(3'\VV(O%1:SN,%^ZSTC3-4$$R4!/_D& C],:R$4\;
MKAX_AT)/EQW=<07QLY\:]%)/M*WB;*O0:OS<*E/QE$<1M6W25!G;ZK4$MD<E
M$35S#E??]%1WB1>3]&G^,%%?M%$MC@]7-]/&:TA9MG)+ILAHM,W$#4Y7!FJ8
MU4ESS4A5D7:ZE1F743Y]=7QSM0\#<AA/U5//*P8S%W8YDQ.W-''-!D+OEWXW
M[AW1D1;=M",7$523-&@;5GBM,3-?$'85QW42:DI)<T2A]QBQEP6!]U\>^$<O
MUQR+E[7 %ZIF-QP=RGUA-G0_-GM%5P\!%,X(&*L\@R$YDE1$"Y24T-JLSE4E
MN%07E',A]7,_<H#7$1<A:TV#3A8%>QB&8U7[4O>U\ =;YZ_^PK9#0.INVQ5>
M4])9E&NYIHM73,\(W\]M!W!<N]<[F7;NYE5'I?2*LUA<VZ>,D](FG;:$IM>*
MQ*Q N%;#=E,=V[6.JQ@\WMC)S*COXM)'+59S$%F1%QE]$IB1'QF2(UF2)YF2
M*]F2G<B1 ?-_+_^9D]/T^NZR O=$+1-6_*:/E#'YE-\(]DBW@3VSE D5O_QX
M-(LVMXY7SKP'[LK$>N%8N#ASCRZHDYDW15/SDW'V4%G,L1889PD7%%VVW3+Y
M3ZS2P>QX;><6BPW9Z^28)Z>XE_6XCR_/.B=+ D'PA05( ?-JUS#0\?(873S9
M5)/P0KG%.6L2._:CEM[*)%G3EWL#^:11F8_H<)=E/\W7?>OS@(<J8=:1&GCU
MNVB7/X/%WUK&"ME18E &,?,L,135TY#X0P6V0@-8V:!Y-)'#<*GMA"F:A U8
M;SWT%$\&?CF:F9T.?TUT<8/X4FS89707AA^NAE5:.RGXRMJ'P"#:.;3_5D@#
M^)@[+AF741+[*J<)3GR(MS(#!IG1-C0M.E_OXC^A"X,1^'6K]&' )*A#VKPH
MLJ0+N'TW^8*/4'XC=:+5ZJ5WM)Y,MR_[5QBG.I[A,80WM.8NP27!\&SJI_E8
MMY!N-:[=69Q->NJZ-()-S+#+5!,!6WI!&JUE1N1>N1JE$&[W^B/^&@I56*[+
M3:0!<\PV>(NCUU*9BIA1&JRILX$(JU;AJLH@MZI)E;4A=[4;;1<]\&_UJJ>)
M*P7UVK,'\[9WD'__F8BDU6TX:R3UE5MYLVX!I&U),9S;6.W8>(VIK;?<*'ZG
M]9NI.HR5])J'LEZ[B"6EAITW^RIK,EUI6?*P#U1<[M B?J.0G59UVL1"#N 9
MDD<[F/L;8OG;OV6D9 /<3G>9P'VH6%/YP!><P1O<P1\<PE\/P"-<AR8\,'?/
M84LE9#_LID'/\RP<DXO[HL_/D$Y6F.DRHM4ZM$E<QI;/47+73DT<G@L[Q?&:
MD9>NN9M;;!47G ."NA9)-J<SB0W\7*N;BHLS::W9P>H[E+G9GHENN,O,QUEF
M_;@S3GM9F[$6>YC\K1I/2IT<PP+Q;2NP_\)U7Y$V?,OO&3HUG<ZNR(]1Q><S
M:E$,F]2S8OQ6T@QV"!LWFOC+ CV2":/FQ]3W4WT&=RO5YM8I)&&[A.U<I?_*
MNK=%6*?O$815UZ=C^G9Y5Q[?%]4TW7[K%Z:WD+(-G;$C-37U]U5SR1:KL++'
M\:-C_*LOW0R']Z$<56TVAWO#B\@S6FJ/VI,+F4KWRBN7%>KJ\49S&4:_<5:W
M3:D%C57I-%<'/'O.F^^Z5:JW^9U1G&PR]1]EBKXKSM-Y#\\^V*BN?(G!B3P_
M-[=//*_#\=13VFIHC4$Y[M/5'$U!--(=-(Y@S*'UG8,G&[2C3G"SL+5[%[7_
M2K'V]'QZ'5!W.D-+F$-Y]@9+, U+/-%#5<_,%D$_&U@/)V=;%]QGPBDF59KU
M](,A^MP/NGZ9.#EK:G=GG.5K3J\5Y3:!Z=[='(IVBEJ=Y5:/)^BH?]YNWTU9
MEY::K_TG]=NJMR@RA;7,8_*ZK!B+G1>/N?E>HU@EI_CGGZ>/_]K:08B>SQ9O
MV;F,OXEHU0K;:.N*01R@)9[";9;AVGZHC4CMR=*Q0QSND56)=GWUK'Q4\U[!
M[Q[P U_P,5O/"[\S!_^?D\_02)S3W4?]5 R3SMDOS-7;9L/4QVS8N$EY[I%[
MQDN1\--7,S]_W4._<]A>P&T7X/F=QI]O]MZZU$[?]!'[2=2+?2M]9K5.\I6<
M +/ZS>D87PTY?GA2:;UYOOUFH0,TF]+<J9J^I\37_M"8^0ERS.59R<WI#PFM
M'V5WQ[.;^M7VZ[N30I'S^_%9]ST;VXF_.YO?\*]96'MV58OXM-.:T0:KAU^N
M:UR;77W[CE<;CPZ4 .+ Y7'[JY861(]"K&^MV'T?LW4C=7:BH:XCN+"2%]&M
M:Y?@C8=YO5M\.(X06+R@?L<ELYE3B6).HR_Z2U)E&>T0.MMRB5^E+OC<25/_
MPC0U[3T;8^]I^0JFUTLDLWW)VN<!C@UQL0T2\NDY&:[=P>%!1DX9 E0B8(DE
M(E9.6.9==KJ!7A+*98:A9HH")3&2*5C^!;Y.SGYJ]K"&GE:I9?WZZG#>(L+N
MTE&:C#H>:AP;^_4V'DY#[L7&2FIKS]$"*T;["DJ? G:GDDFM>MLPCC.Y%UD%
M?ROE)IY;AT6Y'L77K)/G"!.?=Y\(FJJ63F"3?N"(;8LH,9P_=N\<LB-WD)HF
M;VP,VD-3C![)32*YV4HU+V0I7H_*B:L(D1;&6H_NS8S#TB6SGAPS^FQX<B)1
M9$,9MCR*-"FJCPI/Y//X8B<S@NVJ>>JHL9 K$H)DDKU:F14G4(H\0%I3UX>I
M5GJ8$++""I?MPWHE%>*YUJPHWS598;5] 2/$7U+++ QS9EC9U,(>LKF8( $;
MX&$F.E4>NX+?X<V8-X-.#$/>:,_X1D$US=A?8<O*7*M^W9IR:'RTGT ./?ML
M[!2W$9>.,!:%XK_/_!('7#LYZ"JY24EN =MOP>C./TO/+9KX<SV[.X/O_RM^
M//GR2\VC3V]3/?OV[M_##QQ_/OWZ]N_KPZ^_;\W]_O\#&*"  Q)8H'V.&9@@
M- HRV*"!W3D8H8034EBAA1=BF*&&&W+8H8<?@ABBB".26**))Z*XGGO]I=BB
MBR_"R!-Z"*I'XX@!%<7B9#/JN-B#-KY$5(\Q$KGC:C^I:%=0=15)X)#R1?3D
MC-S\QA>+4C8)();T&;=5?BC!LV1Z6V[X))D'GE?6(N-=R=Z92)Z(#6?WT+D!
MD))85QPTTTVG1F(W.,:GG->%%ZAUN/467@98E ;%;,%YQYF/BOKFQ:'@>=+E
MGY$A<2B$(U4JPZ7-.8<I8J)VI62F_"0DT*5\GDH:F:.-:38<E,\-&B-8BP)4
M:HYF6$63DJ"^I5.82/1ZK"J\7(/=6FC%=1D/PV9D3B'H&$LJF=;><><OR2A[
M4[38:J07HL3L"NHW;_^*".ZTY34Z1C[_I+11N$BZ"VQ.U;Y+;9#SRK236-D.
ME":43ZD9<!#]57D7+OMF.X^YVY#E998 "[OHJ%%J,;!@E,JHBZGW]C&H0S@^
MG*RCSQSGV\B3M?PO5S%3%3*J9OY&;Y!AH8815#33D"^3/Q\FQZ<=;1DSNR'F
MN_1#&_?K+[83TX67F-.,(W09P5Y]6A8]DL5U%^2.;?7!ZE*-)Z!KDFP2V4U)
ME3#;9[\-(\8CZ2P1<Q[7#6>R-9M=D+J!+[1/T/S!#?'0U^*%<M=Y#9NJ2U+6
M!*G?$5]>3%3"$3[XB\62HYDB9C)>]LX%FQZV4.)2N_G31'S5M>H64Y.:O 2O
MKU3UI)ZO9;J^<Z?=^6-Q]PV06H+SOA74WCELHK.)BC85L)_VV9#M"[YVLQ^U
M*@<=+LLC2_2DU;O<F/:*04=;<:F1;SYAKX*\HZ#.LCS]Q]+:JFEPVQ%J&/?*
M>4LXU\O3T<['&@X8ZGF/H=\R_H<: \K*9JAJ20"S9,$+8C"#('*:!COHP0^"
M,(0B; \'1VC"$Z(PA6RJ((?:I\(7PC"&,IPA#5.XK?B4L(,YK"'=>/_HPR-9
MZ4JS:IM1FD<Q/.FH*R=C$^1:A"4;L9!V/XS$#BU41795,4ES8^+J%)8Q\9PI
MBQD2XQ2UF+P2I0MQ9AP0Z;2DQ@21T8L/*N,:]=:D7'%N9:ZRPL9<^#C.?4R)
MEK(-84@%'/CIT7YI3-/16.4CI7D*(;<93$5ZL"F7]?&1AA1@9N8D&TEUJCI:
M<<>C1M<Q2_$M._?+WOO<%SKV51"/E2$- _M4P!8N"5K((A[2CB@R.1I.8&_+
MG=CL2#'0+8LW2CG=R4;3JL4\<Y'=NQLTBT@P)E635X <1-JXY35L3M-@/?05
M\HH4/*=PLW#"@XDUF9+*BB6.F5WTR>8DU\O_<8W3=6#8'U+:.$ZZZ=->4HS:
MY/I9NS/B$Y[M=)@]-YA+62[PFX$,E"]E<Z\Z 4VB[$1@%(7B1X2Y#7D*S:<$
MX_E.==[M(I7LZ#U[2$Q^"6.2+9L?IECXS+-1<YZP!%^[EOFEW]71;TO$7#KK
M,5)T5 Z<]32H0,MIMJ'R$RM4E-L9 PJFV]WEIJUJ:%%UM]"?Q)&-?]QB$BLZ
M5KH4,YY5.6L3S6H5T(UTJ,439NF ^K<V]"YA8-N"7)^EU+UT2YSD.NK7%.<6
MJGH(F1H-F3<1ZC.U>NEZ8HB=.FMGU8<6]*[!)&A"S9)7V/DNFL!0;%*_=EE1
M>;9>$$GC7/;9-\GZ8U.7?EWKC:#)'-T@1Y32L:@ "9A1_ U&@<.CJ?YNFT"8
M:=(UGR':1^&6J3V5DC$T-1+WC$M*!3;WN:V4UO@0A-WO*/>!F8G@].IWR46H
M;U7(75\K]<0=5+YW>]/B:4Q7F5OI1O^7COJ=3UBGNE_R]!=# ?XO@2DTX"T6
M6$@Q/'""&_S#YCH8'L(5(4LC;.$+8SC#&MXPASOLX0]OF,$(!G&%1&Q"$Y>4
MQ#FQZ0T5A.)-<C&U?O*OB@%,QJ29Y\4,TK&,,TBY73P7B86LT1Z/P>,:X>J[
M1A[R><%9GR.#L<8]EF$..=A?>Z:UMD*5'F<':E9@2OD]T4,N?NT+X^YE+\6V
MXBX '4G=5&D*S7WL#N54%BLR#]2[Z4#E6!G5#C=/L*[ F64S[Z>S(>4)<!#D
MI"DYA69&9X>^V",T=>0775!*U\P4;D-4-5>'+AW1<BUM; /#I=)?2FV>FZU+
M5$2WKA0#U<\<GPW).K3;3JX.4QB:U9H$Y^#JIGJ6L"J1=56I O_E^U SI[ ^
M[<(.JEFGJAI'-TY)[C)GS+GB]=FB1NH7MFUMW$@:#IWF';-'K.C&<2RH=D6H
MCU4M'SM5V+6Y'ESEJ&?9W?V3B#W[AS11UF1VTQNZ;RWLF(4].IL:,66[MEBU
M0>O4]F(;J2Q]:6\[Q[]VW^+4=L$U0(E%;=7*S$@V*R'%\QUQ+Y:[LF)S7$*\
M?;6\W32PK<VJ1^_\:<B"&;'%"VB645A:H^I<&@T7M&%KYFU_1SG=_68UM_7=
MY9"V%-@ 7G7#C?M:9IU!,MZ<G;NQ77)S^]RG7PR8T9;M\57CG-4QUVA<)UXO
M@Y_YJOC^^:SOJE"PN'SDZ'X<G2)WE&2':!VKFY2MT=OZ5ZY<,]SM,M1I;(G(
M)&O+?P(W)2739UWRXH^6_E,O<$U#4;X><,TV;QC-+SGF2)?7MO'3WFX-.5/&
M$Q> ![LX1(=;RO":WG:UCQ2>D<%YZ&J:5[A'>.Y5 ]&+RWZ\O0_S#(_-_.=#
M/_K2GS[UJV_]ZV,_^]K?/O>[[_WO@S_\_^)789O&_U7!FC_];E+\&-4=PEL6
MJ/SJG[^5Q!OTJ3M4;<S5O9)1TN1F*I[S75NE;9[](5^H6,9WV![[B5EZ65>C
MT%GJG9?)]$+N_=:D40<#=H@ NA&-4=$Y$%[2H=^WB9G:H!Q+$-O.@-KB.$DR
M09LTM07<!5;R1)$,6M%$D<;@75IN'5>9]4^;T9,FH4'MN=U5^-WPD,SI,=W!
M/=[-W1<0%M0*GL4%MMZZ+4VBA5QM0.&"P-N7C1+(R=O"C:!,R)^+R!5.*):*
M2 K'!4M 4!8)LE:J 9R3D6!96%+7M>$2>M4,I.!0X!H6TJ'1C-O:@5TK.%D<
MSJ'@]4/>Q E;G?^<C'V='&5-T=D@0U@.(WJ@U/P;1SB.U4SB7%5BW\4;&9(;
MOA%=#/Y*Q\R;N%U+A3U1(II3SO6,K+07PV2BXIR4'':;6HE87ZV7QM6=EVE-
M&D+5T\EAM?&:PKD.D-69O'4B(IK<Z=1A-%X(#$K5.O$,VC'2-16;+F+-8.'3
M^9&4JNC=B+UAZT2<U7FCN"3C9,G(%3IAP F=H"VBD)DB"-4C-LI=^91C-O[=
M(PJ>1(%$)4HC8!U>.(K<OL!3+E*5.E;6-E8A0\7C:*5B3!P6WM"C">KC.MX@
MK"D3M(&BV"5B)':5U '1 1GCPP&D-=*6'IYC:A'>0*;C:A#D>;0CJ04/Y"[!
MY*L1#VEYG8*Q&5J-GZ*6X!$5)J3Q41*$8:#WT.)1ZL;EH8V>C8J]/>%V39[E
MZ9;F#1\IK9Z9.5Y-A8\#_5KP!9[\G(OQO!Z<:8=D193&K!?K[8E.(@KNR5G1
MS*+('=_N3915ALJ1S-D@O5\+:B3]36-A$N9A<DG\(6:,+69C)M90.F9D2N9D
M4F9E6N9E8F9F:N9F<F9G>N9G@F9HBN9HDF9IFN9IHF9JJN9JLO]F:[KF:\*F
M$]&(4L9F;6H?)T!FE"SB1[@!;DH/;"2@.@@B;N;F\GF&<'*E<6J3;3(GESA#
M+^[F66I,:X"";QYG(\4@<4[8FO!96TJGS3%/<XIG"6HG;>9(=(:G= *GK6U3
M4!ZE>38::LE"+-D)2H[G?>:8XWF7"UFGA"W0G%0/?3H:)_'E<2+A@!IH-,#7
M=!+@7V):@G9*<>+G:T)-?S[2<Z+/W '9A1K#JJQ9>?;F2?KF@V841<%6 ;XE
MG_&1@#8;7F8HAR8D!TZH^K&?G/0GB$8'(E4G=H2"=C[EB)9G>FKH5-8G%/%1
MI.6*B8+G;L%><KY*CQ)0A_IH;Y'>C,Z*: "N)W=<1N7)GNY=*'OV!HM"#U/Z
M)9=RF?$UGIDR:2\]C]9QY50V7G-8*%VZIY5:J5(2J3,9FKZ8J8<:&G6RY8&.
MW@$FFIINZ93:TL(<:2;UJ:&Z):#Y8*(Z*GS::6O6X!\X:@,-$/K,IJ%&*3DA
M:8[N*)\^6AR J:,I*:-&7J:Z$H+F4:9F@XQ6_RK]8:DVS6:SE26,=BJ,?>IW
M"F0KGJ24WN$NI2J;KFK<Z9JG&.OOF:6LSBJ- A2FQET"G@ILP:JGV@^H=B@A
MT2FR0A'2,.N: J;W!"KH*>L@A2NE/>NZ.B4?_BFDYJJN*NGN]*J0HM9R0BEQ
MRN69 E*QCFNLEBJ^DBH.%DJULNO!1B2966BI'6D>E6G"QLJ\WF.[0FP5XFB 
MJD4A!1<K&>LL35/9;9..;M[[Z.F6(BQ^+FQ$ZNM:!N?##-FJ)B6VENN^MB?%
M!BNRCBJB!F?@C2N9JMYRMM[*]JIULBP%GBS*,F.;0JG)DMZ3TF3,IFN]\N.]
MZIJ]WBR@]&@G 6S/=F-7P Z>X)R><2PMS%3IT3)GD!FIH%PGZ#VLY7%>#TYL
ML))/=H%LI# KCBJ*VCZM6_:>O@+1E J&A)IM:0*N?%4@:S3LX"JNI<;#$@V'
MX"YNY#IF &G@CE:NY&*N95)NO!5NYGHN[N>";NB*[NB2;NF:[NFB;NJJ[NJR
;;NNZ[NO";NS*[NS2;NW:[NWB;N[JKNL6   [
 
end
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Sun Aug 28 04:37:03 EDT 1994
------------------------------
1994.08.28 / Paul Koloc /  Text to the Virial.GIF Counter-Example
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Text to the Virial.GIF Counter-Example
Date: Sun, 28 Aug 1994 05:12:32 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

The following post is text for the Counter-Example Virial.GIF in 
another post.  This is included in case the GIF is difficult to read.  
The comments where terse for wanting space.  

 -------------------Start------------------------------------

Let the ++ be B-pol flux out of the sheet, while "- -" is B-pol flux 
into the sheet.  The toroidal field is represented by circular linear 
line segments within the torus. No currents exist except on the 
toroidal and spheric sheets. No shear fields and no fields within 
current (shells) sheets per se. Sheets are impermeable elastic 
membranes. Gas torus wall force: uniform; Btor force: HUGE bias into 
hole wall. 

  Div Theorem: 
     INT _F (Spheric) dot _dA + INT _F (torus) dot _dA =    
                                Int E(Spheric)dv + Int E(torus)dv    

    Keeping the Volume of surface of paired toruses and spheric 
shells constant between config 1 and 3 as well as the impinging Bpol 
at the inner spheric shell surfaces, the two depictions of the 
equatorial plane of BL or PMKs are used to show a dramatically 
disjoint internal energies. The  Virial Theorem predicts energy 
densities to be substantially equal to the energy density of Air 
and with equal or less average internal pressure than found at the 
air boundary. The Contrary result from Cfg 3 (see below) represents 
high average internal energy with the energy density monotonically 
increasing from the outer spheric shell to the minor toroidal axis.   
    Constraining average radii, the gas within the toroidal volume 
in Cfg "1" is exchanged for toroidal field until the mag pressure 
at its minor axis equals the pressure of the gas removed.  Then the 
radial constraints are lifted and due to stronger (1/Rmajor-radius)^2 
compression force toward the hole than outward away from the hole, 
the torus shrinks inward toward the hole.  As a result the poloidal 
flux in the hole is strongly compressed and the torus retracts 
radially from the outer shell.  This generates more area between 
the shell and torus so the poloidal mag pressures drops there, 
nontrivially.  This allows the STP air to compress the shell inward 
until the flux dens is repressurized to 5 kG. 
   Now: 
                        E(Cfg2) > E(Cfg1),            (already!) 

  While:               Vol 1 > Vol 2

To fix the problem additional B-pol is added which repressurizes 
that annular gap and adds Bpol outward hole pressure which also 
helps restore Spheric volume.  Due to the remaining net major 
radial shift of the torus inward, the minor radius is increased 
to maintain its mandatory toroidal volume. This is CFG 3. 

               Energy now?  E3 >> E1 

Obviously, there is a great deal more energy put into the system 
necessary to achieve equilibrium using toroidal flux rather than 
gas to fill the torus.  Note that the volumes are identical and 
the B-pol density at the shell is identical (although it 
monotonically increases up to the toroidal minor axis). 

         The Virial Theorem is BLIND to what is inside. 

If the torus is gas filled, the in/out hoop force balance is: 
                                        NULL; 

If the torus B-tor filled, the in/out hoop force is: 
                                     NET INWARD TOWARD the hole.  
(and with vigor -- J. F. Kennedy)     

So INCLUDE IT in your INT, A.C. of IPP  

Let me know why you don't like this presentation.  
                  ... or did this catch your mind's eye?? 
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc, Bx 1037 Prometheus II Ltd, College Park MD 20741-1037    |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.28 / Paul Koloc /  Re: The virial theorem
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The virial theorem
Date: Sun, 28 Aug 1994 06:24:23 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <33f0nrINN1ean@sat.ipp-garching.mpg.de> awc@slcawcipp-garchin
.mpg.de (Arthur      Carlson        TK  ) writes:
>In article 7555 of sci.physics.fusion, Paul Koloc tries to write an equation!

>>  At "A" we have -jXB(pol)-p(o) = 0  The equilibrium between particle 
>>  pressure and jxB at the Mantle inner surface.  
>>                                     where minus connotes pressure inward
>>  
>>  
>>                    B O U N D A R I E S
>>     |                 |                           |               
>>     |                 |                           |               
>>  -->|                 |  <---               ---->>|      
>>   Po|jXBpol  jtorXBpol|jpolXBtor (torus) jpolXBtor|jtorXBpol (hole)
>>  AIR|  Vacuum field   |        T O R U S          |  H O L E  Vac fld
>>     |                 |                           |               
>>     |                 |                           |               
>>  
>>  At PTO:  -j(tor)XB(pol) +j(pol) x B(tor) = 0
>>  
>>  At PTI;  -j(pol)XB(tor) +j(tor)XB(pol)  =0  
>>  
>>  We know that the sum of the outgoing and ingoing forces cancel
>>  so from this we can conclude that:
>>  
>>    p0 = j(pol)XB(tor)@[PTO] -j(pol)XB(tor)[PTI]
>
>There are a few problems, but they can be (partially) fixed. First, it
>should be noted that his j refers to surface current density, not to
>volume current density. We'll leave this be since there is no
>universally accepted notation for surface current density. Second, for
>the case of current sheets, I think the force balance is clearer (less
>chance to make or hide errors) if it is expressed in terms of magnetic
>pressure. 

Nonsense!  You do NOT know what the value of the flux pressure is 
except where it is in equilibrium with the air pressure at the current 
shell.  If you knew the field values then you would be home free, 
since you could do the volume integral.  If the system has either 
toroidal field OR a gas filled torus, you would NOT know the 
difference.  Certainly how could you evaluate the Mag field if you 
didn't know if it existed??   

Incidentally, this is my major point: you must do the Integration 
the HARD WAY and that means to iteratively find the equilibrium and 
match the boundary conditions both at the gas shell and the toroidal 
shell.  Can't do that by waving your "jXB everywhere" dictum.  It 
ONLY applies in the region that bounds the shell which MUST be 
POLOIDAL.  IT can't be IN the torus; you have no concept of what 
field structure exists there, or if it exists --- just looking at 
the outside bounding surface    (INDEED -- the surrounding air).    

>For example, the correct expression for the force per unit
>area for the conditions considered here is jXB/2. But since it's
>Koloc's only equation, we'll let him choose his own notation. Third,
>there is a problem with the signs. In standard vector notation, the
>sum of all forces is zero, while Koloc writes a difference. (The
>correct sign for p_0 depends on the coordinate system chosen.) So what
>does that leave us with?

That's why I used sign.  I was looking at a point (intercept) on a 
boundary.   


>   At A:                  p_0 + j_tor X B_pol / 2 = 0
>   At PTO:  j_tor X B_pol / 2 + j_pol X B_tor / 2 = 0
>   At PTI:  j_pol X B_tor / 2 + j_tor X B_pol / 2 = 0

>Now this is a little awkward to work with since, for example, B_pol at
>A is in general not equal to B_pol at PTO. 

Yes, as a matter of fact, in a toroidal field filled torus case 
the B_pol at PTO > B_pol at A.   In the gas filled case _gradPP~0.

>   the external gas pressure  balances  the vacuum field pressure
>   the vacuum field pressure  balances   the torus field pressure
>    the torus field pressure  balances    the hole field pressure

>and the cheese (the hole field pressure) stands alone. Paul Koloc just
>kind of left out a few important terms, notably the hole field
>pressure which tends to push everything apart, when he combined his
>first three equations into his fourth.

Not so.  Consider that we fill the torus with gas pressure so that
gas-tor is uniform (outward) against the inner sheet wall of the torus.  
So the direction of the impact of this gas pressure depends on the
orientation of the surface and the field it is affecting.  But
here since the pressure is isobaric we must assume that everwhere
the bounding pressure is also isobaric and that the JXB's are 
constant on the surface.  Even the hole-pushing-apart pressure is
equal to the pressure of the field any other place that it impinges
the tor surface even around the opposite side.  There is another
boundary just a short gap away (to the spheric shell). The intuition
is that pressure across the gap will be flat. So there we are - the 
whole thing is filled with pressure not much different than that of 
the outer atmosphere.  With plasma we will have a higher gamma so the 
energy density of the torus will be perhaps 20% higher.  That's
NOT significant.  We are greedy and want much more.  I'm not looking
for decimal fractions here.  So we load the torus with poloidally
linking (cinching) toroidal field energy, (which is cinched by the
poloidal tensile flux).  

>(I won't go into the fact that the above plasmoid lacks something very
>crucial, namely plasma.)

Good,, because we run plasmas of low beta frequently --- right?

>As near as I can make out after studying Koloc's post, he accepts my
>equations (1) through (4) as the basis for the analysis. 

Your equations and conditions are ambivalent. ?? EVERYWHERE ??   
On the outer boundary alone?? On the inner boundary as well?? 
How do you get a value inside unless your toroidal region is 
trivial as in the gas filled case discussed above??  Take out gas 
and insert toroidal field, keeping volumes constant (toroidal and 
spheric).  Of course the bounding pressure must be STP... right??
Well??   No doubt that JXB applies to all these surfaces, it
is just that the jXB changes around the toroidal surface (B-tor 
filled).  That is NOT the case with a gas filled torus.   

Well How can you compute that on the back of an envelope?? 


>The rest is "formal mathematical symbolic locic", a field in which 
>Koloc explicitly acknowledges my skill. He describes his arguments 
>as "intuitive", which, except for the attempted equation considered
>above, is certainly correct. He says he will leave the "formal
>implementation" of his arguments to me. I have news for him:

>   All of your arguments are already formally implemented in my
>   original post on the virial theorem. I have correctly handled 
>   your internal current sheets because the forces involved are 
>   all accounted for in my first equation.  

I do not agree.  Your boundary is optimistic.  I am disappointed 
you didn't formally write out the Int form of this.  If I have time 
... maybe two weeks I'll generate the equ in a GIF.  Why.. me??  
Well Art didn't.  

It is also correct to 
>   integrate over the whole plasmoid, both torus and vacuum region,
>   because I am interested in the average pressure in the whole 
>   volume. Intuition is an invaluable tool, but the only way
>   to be sure of having the right answer is to do the mathematics.
>   Since you can't point to a mistake in the calculations, why don't
>   you accept the result? 

People applying the virial theorem are only interested in 
multiplying the air density times the plasmoid volume and the
could care less about the variation or pressure signature within
such a system.  RELIGIOUSLY, you are not sleuthing the problem.
You're missing the "kernel" :-).  

Bouncing Ball Lightnings teach that there exists a monotonically 
inverse radial increasing pressure profile within the Mantle of a 
PMK, otherwise, they would be Rayleigh-Taylor unstable, and 
disintegrate in the SLIGHTEST breeze. Quite the contrary, they are 
stable, and have been seen BOUNDING OUT FROM THE BOTTOM OF TORNADOS.     

CHALLENGE: 
Why, friend, do you not answer these most interesting questions? 
It's not that I haven't asked.  You're an experimentalist.. does
theory always predict your results??  (before theory gets the data!)
In this case, even the naturally observed data seems to be ignored.
Oh well.. . 

>Art Carlson
>Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics
>Garching, Germany
>carlson@ipp-garching.mpg.de
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc, Bx 1037 Prometheus II Ltd, College Park MD 20741-1037    |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.28 / David Davies /  Re: I'm not in this / Bohm, pilot waves, and lousy SciAm articles
     
Originally-From: drd851@huxley.anu.edu.au (David R Davies)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: I'm not in this / Bohm, pilot waves, and lousy SciAm articles
Date: 28 Aug 1994 19:26:59 +1000
Organization: Australian National University

70047.3047@compuserve.com (Bill Page) writes:

>David Davies writes:
><<
>Take one electron sized packet of energy in your favorite hidden variable model.
>Pass it through two slits. As it approaches a screen it increasingly tends to
>excite resonances in the waves that constitute the screen.

>...

>>>

>Dave, I wonder where you learned to think about quantum mechanics in this way.
>The above terms and the explanation of diffraction that followed does not fit
>very well with my present understanding of the subject. Although there are some
>rather poor texts on quantum mechanics, there are a few good ones that are
>honest and clear about the philosophical issues. Unfortunately many physics
>departments (and physicists) tend to shy away from anything that is not
>"empirical science". Are you interested in taking up this subject seriously?

>Sometimes I worry that what I have been posting lately about Bohm's
>interpretation might be too off the main topic of this group. What do you think?
>What to others think?

>Regards,

>Bill Page.


Fair comment Bill, my posts to s.p.f are usually rushed and poorly worded
at best. I am aware that they have not improved the signal-to-noise ratio
but this is s.p.f after all. So, here I am on a relaxed and sunny sunday
afternoon, hints of spring in the bright yellow wattle blossom as I look 
out across Lake Burley-Griffin.... Hmmm, where am I coming from?

I have spent a lot of time in the past looking at a wide range of non-linear
resonant systems. Most recently, I spent many hundreds of hours exploring
computer models of coupled systems of NLRs. The models were interactive with
a variety of graphical display modes. I have also spent a lot of time working
with electronic and, to a lesser extent, laser NLRs. All of which has given
me an intuitive insight into their wierd and beautiful behavior that can not
be readily described in mathematical terms since much of it is chaotic. 

What has this got to do with Quantum Mechanics and CF? Ultimately quite a lot
I think but obviously I don't have the answers, just a few intuitive notions
and the hope that someone else might be able to take them further or tell me
where I am wrong in thinking that they are relevant. 

By this I don't mean just saying that it doesn't fit with the orthodox
view of QM. I know that, I just don't believe that the probability view of
QM is an ultimate description af physical reality. It has been an extremely
successful model giving valuable insights and solutions to many problems but
it is still not a complete picture. The attempts to prove that it is are just
plain silly.

I have used QM in the past and had a reasonable understanding of the orthodox
interpretation though the details have faded now. In a previous posting, in
an attempt to sustain some credibility, I mentioned that I had calculated 
the hyperfine splitting of the Iodine molecule, replacing several faulty
or over-simplistic attempts.

What we have in QM, if you look over a wide range of applications is a 
patchwork quilt of rather ad-hoc models. This is particularly the case in
nuclear physics where we don't even have a convincing model of the interaction
between two nucleons, let alone six constituent quarks, etc. 

I recently posted comments on models of the deuteron based on what I was 
taught many years ago in undergraduate classes and hoped that someone would
come back with a new beaut. model that had blasted the simplistic energy well
models out of the water. No go. A quick scan through several recent books on
the subject showed me that theoretical nuclear physics has not moved very far
at all and that there is little chance that any available theory can shed any
light on what might happen between two duterium nuclei in a band state in a
crystal lattice. This is a serious and significant point because most of the
opposition to CF has been based on these inadequate models.

The argument boils down to this word 'delocalized'. Does the particle stay
point-like and get 'lost' in the chains of near identical lattice sites so
we just can't tell where it is or does the particle actually smear out over
the sites, charge and all. I am, of course, opting for the latter.

If the former, orthodox view is closer to reality then much of what the 
nuclear physicists have said in opposition to CF is valid, but not totally
since they are extrapolating from high energy collisions and I suspect that
they have little data that is relevant to the situation of two nuclei sripped
of electrons held in close proximity for time periods many orders of magnitude
longer than is the case for collision experiments at thermal energies. 

If, however, the particle and its charge actually smear out among the band state
electrons then the coulomb barrier is diluted. Also, the system can conceiveably
transfer the energy of fusion to a large population of Pd (or Ni etc.) atoms in
the lattice simultaneously.

As I have tried to emphasize before, time is critical in resonant systems. Two
coupled NLRs can interact for long periods without achieving resonance and then
finally make it. 

I don't have a model of how this applies to QM rather, I am applying my 
understanding of NLRs to models of the brain and resonant neural circuits. 
If I am right it will kick QM out of the role hypothesised by Penrose, Eccles 
and others and partly replace it with resonances in ion dynamics that can be
modelled by the Schrodinger equation at a macroscopic level.

I would like to firm up some of the ideas on coherence centres being the locus
if a particle but I am still not sure what sort of waves are being coherent. 
Hence the vague nature of my comments there. I used to think that it tied in 
well with Bohm's model but until you started your series of postings I had 
some misconceptions about what he was saying. I have just started to read
Bohm and Hiley for myself and I, for one, would like to see your series
continue. I think that it is relevant to the issue because I think that QM 
is due for a good shake-up and CF may be the issue that shakes it. I am also 
keen to see more details of the Mills and Farrell model but haven't got my 
hands on their book yet.

Well, the sun has gone down (I have been ticking over some work as I have been
writing this) and I am off home. I should add a disclaimer here that I am not
employed by the ANU's physics departments but, like many physicists, earn my
living through my computing skills. ANU physicists are just as likely to think
my ideas whacky as any other self-respecting physicists. Their job is to teach 
what is known. My interest is the unknown.


dave

The lurking sniper
dave.davies@anu.edu.au
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudendrd851 cudfnDavid cudlnDavies cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.28 / Matt Austern /  Re: ICCF4 Proceedings
     
Originally-From: matt@physics16.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: ICCF4 Proceedings
Date: 28 Aug 1994 11:05:40 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (Theoretical Physics Group)

In article <33ot1e$la3@ixnews1.ix.netcom.com> parky@ix.netcom.com
(Chris Parkinson) writes:

> Lets all hope an oil company does not get a patent on CF. It would
> mean the end of CF.

On the contrary; it would be the *beginning* of cold fusion.

A patent must, by law, provide detailed enough information so that
someone "skilled in the state of the art" can reproduce the device
using the description in the patent.  This, of course, is far more
than we've seen in any of the papers so far that have made claims of
excess heat.

A patent would mean that genuine research (you know, the kind of
research where experements are repeatable by other people) had finally
become possible.  Sure, someone would have a limited 17-year monopoly,
but that would be a very small price to pay.
--

                               --matt
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenmatt cudfnMatt cudlnAustern cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.28 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Re: Nuclear ash hard to find
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Nuclear ash hard to find
Date: Sun, 28 Aug 1994 13:38 -0500 (EST)

Dick Blue states:

-> However he seems to have failed to take note of a simple fact that any
-> process for which the input ingredients are indentical with the output
-> ingredients cannot release energy as a byproduct.

Nonsense.  I live close to a TVA dam and see magawatts produced there 24 hours
a day, and there are no differences between the input and output ingredients.

The same can be said of a hot water bottle type of device I have, which gets
hot when you trigger crystallization of the enclosed salt.

This may not be applicable to "cold fusion" but I don't think that such
sweeping and incorrect statements bolster one's arguements very well.

                                                             Marshall
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.27 / Peter Roessingh /  McKubre's data & s.p.f experiment
     
Originally-From: roes@vax.oxford.ac.uk (Peter Roessingh)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: McKubre's data & s.p.f experiment
Date: 27 Aug 94 19:40:17 BST
Organization: Oxford University VAX 6620

Tom Droege writes about the ICCF4 Proceedings:

  >From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege), fermilab
  >Date: 19 Aug 94 17:39:28 BST

  >My ICCF4 Proceedings arrived early this morning.  Someone rang my
  >doorbell and ran.  There are 3.75" of papers in 4 volumes.

  >McKubre only submitted his view graphs, there is no text.  Pity, he
  >writes well.  To those of us reading the entrails by the side of the
  >road, this has a meaning.

May be I am over-sensitive, but I think this remark is somewhat
sub-standard.

The way I read it, Tom suggests that McKubre knows there are problems with
his data, but does not own up to them, and prefers to publish just the
graphs to avoid exposure.

Pretty strong stuff,  It might be that Tom did not intend to say this, if
so, some clarification of the real meaning would certainly do no harm.

Since I am on the topic of McKubre's data, I have a more general question:

In Dieter Britz database I can find the following entry:

 > McKubre MCH, Crouch-Baker S, Rocha-Filho RC, Smedley SI, Tanzella FL,
 > Passell TO, Santucci J;  J. Electroanal. Chem. 368 (1994) 55.
 > "Isothermal flow calorimetric investigations of the D/Pd and H/Pd
 > systems". ** Thought by many to be one of the most thorough studies in
 > this area, and long delayed in publication, this paper at last reports
 > the results. A quality isothermal flow calorimeter was used here, and
 > D/Pd (or H/Pd) loadings were monitored in situ by resistance
 > measurements. The cells were closed, and gases recombined within them,
 > so that recombination was fully accounted for. Excess powers were
 > observed only for D/Pd above 0.9 and reached 28% input power, but were
 > typically about 5-10%, with the noise lying at about 1/20 the excess
 > power level. No excess power was observed under other conditions, the
 > output balancing the input within the error. Feb-93/Apr-94


In addition I once saved the following fragment of a discussion between Tom
and  Karl Kluge (Unfortunately I do not know if there was a follow up):

 > kckluge@glasnost.eecs.umich.edu (Karl Kluge) says:
 > >There appear to now be published experiments reporting released heat in
 > >excess of the total input power, and yet this appears not to settle the
 > >issue as far as some of the technically informed skeptic go.
 > >[...]
 > >What would constitute an iron-clad demonstration of excess heat?
 
 > [...]
 > Enough detail and discussion of errors and error limits in the paper
 > so that we can believe that the experiment was competetantly performed
 > and that the results are possibly true.  I don't know how to describe
 > what "enough" means.  The P&F papers do not present "enough".  The ICCF2
 > McKubre presents enough for me.  So I tried a replication.  But then
 > later I kept finding out that McKubre seemed to have purposefully left
 > out important detail.  I think I can count on one hand the "positive"
 > papers I have seen where the error discussion was well done.  McKubre is
 > one, uhhh, I don't seem to have a second.

 > Tom Droege


From these two pieces of information it seems to me that McKubre's work is
an as yet undisputed example (and independent replication) of excess heat
generation, with adequate error discussion, properly peer reviewed and
published in a respectable journal.

Yet, Tom seems still unconvinced, and I think the same can safely be said
of Dick Blue.  Is this the general consensus in this group?  And if so,
exactly why?

To put the question in another way: When during an after dinner discussion
I get confronted with somebody claiming that CF (or at least excess heat)
is a reality  and that McKubre's work is solid proof of this. Do I have to
mumble that Tom could not yet replicate it, so I do not believe it, or can
I do better?

And from yet another angle: When we, as the college of s.p.f, design an
experiment to investigate the reality of excess heat claims,  manage to
demonstrate excess heat, and submit our paper to Nature,  do  we claim in
the introduction to be the first to have demonstrated the phenomena in a
rigourous manner or do we have to leave that honour to McKubre et al. ( or
even to P&F ;-)   )

Peter Roessingh 
Zoology, Oxford.


cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenroes cudfnPeter cudlnRoessingh cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.28 /  jedrothwell@de /  Griggs Hydrosonic Pump update
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Griggs Hydrosonic Pump update
Date: Sun, 28 Aug 94 22:57:35 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Some months ago I described the Hydrosonic Pump, an excess energy device
invented and patented by James Griggs, of Cartersville, GA. See U.S. Patent
number 5,188,090. This device produces massive quantities of excess heat
energy at kilowatt levels for industrial applications. I believe it is a cold
fusion (CF) device in which the CF effect is triggered by ultrasound, but
perhaps it taps some other exotic, unknown source of energy. I am quite sure
it is not a chemical, mechanical or electric heater, because it exceeds the
limits of those sources thousands of times over.
 
Griggs has upgraded and improved his instrumentation, data collection, and the
test rig equipment frame. On August 26, 1994 I visited Griggs for a few hours
where I observed some test runs and learned about the new test equipment. Here
is a brief summary of the changes:
 
Instrumentation & Data Collection. Griggs has added a dynamometer to measure
the mechanical energy output by the electric motor. It is a "Lebow" brand
Eaton torque sensor model 1805-5K. Capacity is 5,000 inch pounds at 5,000
R.P.M.; maximum speed is 20,000 R.P.M. The controller box is model 7540. I
observed a torque calibration in which a 20 lb weight was hung 30 inches from
the shaft on the input side. The dynamometer is much smaller than I imagined
it would be; I neglected to measure it, but it is about the size of box of
tissues. A new precision electronic flowmeter manufactured by Sponsler Company
has been added. Three thermocouples have been added to the pipes leading into
and out of the Pump, and four have been added to the 55 gallon steel drum that
is used as a heat sink. An IBM compatible computer is now used to collect and
process data, running DVT control software under Windows.
 
I am glad to say that all previously installed instrumentation is still in
place. This reinforces the measurements, it serves as a superb cross-check.
You can still perform manual data collection to supplement and verify the
automatic electronic data collection. For example, you can measure the flow
rate in gallons per minute by timing the fall in water level in the marked
plastic receptacle, and they still weigh the entire mass of cooling water and
condensate on the 1,000 lb scale at the end of each experimental run. The
thermocouple readings can easily be verified by taking the temperature of the
water in the steel drum with a thermometer and pyrometer. Thus, if an error
creeps into the computer data, it will be spotted instantly.
 
Test Rig. The test rig has been rebuilt to allow easier access to the
components. Adjustable legs and bubble levels now ensure that the rig remains
level and straight. Safety has been enhanced by improvements like a faucet on
the steel drum.
 
Griggs has been working with a consulting engineering firm in Atlanta and with
a retired professor of mechanical engineering. In my opinion his
instrumentation and test procedures have gone from Excellent to Superb. The
dynamometer readings fully confirm the accuracy and precision of the electric
power meter readings. During my brief stay on Friday I observed only low
power, low excess energy runs that produced 108 to 115 C.O.P.s (15% excess
energy). I was not able to observe the type of a high power steam condensation
run that produces large excesses (140 to 160 C.O.P.)  However, I now have no
doubt that the input power measurements from last year were generally correct,
and the previous high excess heat data that I reported was valid. The only
measurement open to question previously was input power, and the readings from
the old instruments are confirmed with the new equipment. There is now no
longer any doubt that this machine produces multi-kilowatt excess heat on
demand indefinitely. (Some units have operated continuously for years at
customer sites.) As far as I know, this is the world's first practical excess
energy machine that has been installed at customer sites; tested carefully
with a full range of precision equipment; and verified to work by professional
engineers.
 
- Jed Rothwell
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenjedrothwell cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.27 / John Logajan /  Re: CF excess heat = chemical energy?
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@mirage.skypoint.net (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CF excess heat = chemical energy?
Date: 27 Aug 1994 23:20:21 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Craig K.W.M. Wyllie (wyllie@physun.cis.mcmaster.ca) wrote:
: It suggested that the
: excess heat could be accounted for from something like the following:

: 	2HDO => H2 + D2 + O2 + dE
: 		or
: 	4HDO => 2H2O + 2D2O + dE
: 		or
: 	4HDO => 2H20 + 2D2 + O2 + dE

I think the first equation is energetically unfavorable to go in the
direction of the arrow.  The energy difference between 2HD ==> D2 + H2
is just a few percent, insufficient to overcome the energy needed to
split H2O, DHO or D2O into its component atoms.

Similarly the third equation is energetically unfavorable in the
direction indicated.

The second equation might have some merit, but I think it could be
simplified to:

  2HDO ==> H2O + D2O + dE

But again, even if we had a catalytic method to carry out this
reaction, the total energy released would be very slight.  It is
a weak chemical reaction at best.

--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com -- 612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills  MN 55112 USA           -
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.29 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Currents-n-Koloc
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Currents-n-Koloc
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 1994 04:37:21 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <33o8dg$cgn@stratus.skypoint.com> jlogajan@skypoint.com writes:
>Paul M. Koloc (pmk@prometheus.UUCP) wrote:
>: Current around the major axis (PMK symmetry axis) is toroidal  and
>: around the minor axis is poloidal (which produces the toroidal 
>: current).

>Okay, just to verify that I have it correct, the cross-section of the
>torous (donut) below shows the relative velocity of the electron current
>vector component either directly into or out of the page.  Assume, for
>instance, that the left hand group of velocities are outward, and the
>right hand group of velocities are inward.  

Let's call them current ** densities **, since velocity distribution
can be independent of current density..  assuming the plasma is not
current electron starved.  
 


>       (Outward -)          (Inward +)

>          1 1 1 ------------- 1 1 1       Torodial side view cross-section
>        1 3 3 3 1           1 3 3 3 1        9 = maximum in or out velocity
>      1 3 5 5 5 3 1       1 3 5 5 5 3 1      1 = minimum in or out velocity
>    1 3 5 7 7 7 5 3 1   1 3 5 7 7 7 5 3 1
>    1 3 5 7 9 7 5 3 1   1 3 5 7 9 7 5 3 1
>    1 3 5 7 7 7 5 3 1   1 3 5 7 7 7 5 3 1
>      1 3 5 5 5 3 1       1 3 5 5 5 3 1
>        1 3 3 3 1           1 3 3 3 1
>          1 1 1 ------------- 1 1 1
>
>    |<----->| Minor radius.

ko

>Now flipping the torous (donut) over 90 degrees and we can see the other
>current velocity component distribution.

>                  9 9 9 9 9 
>                9 7 7 7 7 7 9
>              9 7 5 5 5 5 5 7 9           Torodial top view cross-section
>            9 7 5 3 3 3 3 3 5 7 9            9 = maximum in velocity
>          9 7 5 3 1 1 1 1 1 3 5 7 9          1 = minimum in velocity
>        9 7 5 3 1-3-3-3-3-3 1 3 5 7 9       -9 = maximum out velocity
>      9 7 5 3 1-3-5-5-5-5-5-3 1 3 5 7 9     -1 = minimum out velocity
>    9 7 5 3 1-3-5-5-7-7-7-5-5-3 1 3 5 7 9
>    9 7 5 3 1-3-5-7-7-9-7-7-5-3 1 3 5 7 9
>    9 7 5 3 1-3-5-7-9  -9-7-5-3 1 3 5 7 9
>    9 7 5 3 1-3-5-7-7-9-7-7-5-3 1 3 5 7 9
>    9 7 5 3 1-3-5-5-7-7-7-5-5-3 1 3 5 7 9
>      9 7 5 3 1-3-5-5-5-5-5-3 1 3 5 7 9
>        9 7 5 3 1-3-3-3-3-3 1 3 5 7 9
>          9 7 5 3 1 1 1 1 1 3 5 7 9
>            9 7 5 3 3 3 3 3 5 7 9
>              9 7 5 5 5 5 5 7 9
>                9 7 7 7 7 7 9
>                  9 9 9 9 9  

>            |<------->|  Major radius of minor axis.


If the outgoing and incoming current [was velocity] density scales
are uniform (one with the other) for both incoming and outgoing 
species, then a somewhat more accurate picture would be to drop the 
peripheral "7"s and "9"s and widen the hole.   Of course, this 
picture is still a unscaled representation.  This correction is 
made to illustrate the difference in current densities at the 
inside and outside edges, which correponds to the similiar and 
related difference in the toroidal field this current generates.  
This is important for the system enery, since the differential 
corresponding field pressure strangles the hole threaded poloidal
flux, much MUCH more strongly than if only a plasma torus were 
present.  That makes for higher internal energy, imperative for
long life AND stability.    


       Thus the top view of the equatorial plan is now:
                                
                      5 5 5 5 5  
                    5 3 3 3 3 3 5          Torodial top view cross-section
                  5 3 1 1 1 1 1 3 5           9 = maximum in velocity
                5 3 1-3-3-3-3-3 1 3 5         1 = minimum in velocity
              5 3 1-3-5-5-5-5-5-3 1 3 5      -9 = maximum out velocity
            5 3 1-3-5-7-7-7-7-7-5-3 1 3 5    -1 = minimum out velocity
          5 3 1-3-5-7-7-9-9-9-7-7-5-3 1 3 5  
          5 3 1-3-5-7-9-9-9-9-9-7-5-3 1 3 5  
          5 3 1-3-5-7-9   .  -9-7-5-3 1 3 5         dot is approximate
          5 3 1-3-5-7-9      -9-7-5-3 1 3 5             major axis (out)    
          5 3 1-3-5-7-9-9-9-9-9-7-5-3 1 3 5  
          5 3 1-3-5-7-7-9-9-9-7-7-5-3 1 3 5  
            5 3 1-3-5-7-7-7-7-7-5-3 1 3 5  
              5 3 1-3-5-5-5-5-5-3 1 3 5  
                5 3 1-3-3-3-3-3 1 3 5  
                  5 3 1 1 1 1 1 3 5  
                    5 3 3 3 3 3 5  
                      5 5 5 5 5  
                                 
>The only current system consistent with the above two requirements is
>a system of continuous helical pitch variation from the center of
>the minor radius outward to the edge of the minor radius.


>P.S. The above figures were intended to represent circular cross-sections. :-)
>--
> - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com -- 612-633-0345 -
> - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills  MN 55112 USA           -
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc, Bx 1037 Prometheus II Ltd, College Park MD 20741-1037    |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.29 / Bruce TK /  Re: Currents-n-Koloc
     
Originally-From: bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce       Scott          TK  )
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Currents-n-Koloc
Date: 29 Aug 1994 12:00:46 GMT
Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching

In article <Cv6L3B.2Gr@prometheus.UUCP>, pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) writes:
|> In article <33ju11$3qs@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> al789@cleveland.Freenet.E
u (John Logajan) writes:
|> >
|> >bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce       Scott          TK) says:
|> >>al789@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John Logajan) writes:
|> >>|> So let me ask -- is current flow at the maxmium minor radius mostly
|> >>|> around the minor axis, or mostly around the major axis?
|> 
|> >>This is precisely what was meant by my question "what is
|> >>the value of q"? In a cylindrical analog, q is defined as r B_T/R B_p,
|> >>where r and R are minor and major radii, and B_T and B_p are the toroidal
|> >>and poloidal components of the magnetic field.
|> 
|> >You can answer Bruce too, but don't use equations to explain it to me,
|> >as I will be completely lost. :-)

[Paul's answer containing stuff about why q = 1 is a problem in a tokamak]

Paul, why don't you just answer my question without all the twisting
around? In the following question, V is the volume of a flux surface,
noting that V = 0 at the minor axis.

     _________________________________________________________________
    |                                                                |
    |  What is q(V) in your plasma kernel, from minor axis to edge?  |
    |________________________________________________________________|
     

A rough sketch on a graph will do. All you've told me is that there is 
shear, i.e., dq/dV isn't zero.

-- 
Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de                               -- W Gibson
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnTK cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.29 / Richard Schultz /  Re: Griggs Hydrosonic Pump update
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs Hydrosonic Pump update
Date: 29 Aug 1994 12:44:25 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley

In article <pk7SeuH.jedrothwell@delphi.com>,  <jedrothwell@delphi.com> wrote:

[Paean to "excess energy device" deleted]

So when are *you* buying one?

					Richard Schultz

-- 
				Richard Schultz

"It is terrible to die of thirst in the ocean.  Do you have to salt your
truth so heavily that it does not even quench thirst any more?"
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.29 / Richard Schultz /  Re: Nuclear ash hard to find
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Nuclear ash hard to find
Date: 29 Aug 1994 12:47:54 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley

In article <WAF2PCB38998539@brbbs.brbbs.com>,
MARSHALL DUDLEY <mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com> wrote:

>I live close to a TVA dam and see magawatts produced there 24 hours
>a day, and there are no differences between the input and output ingredients.

If the input ingredients and output ingredients have no differences, then
how do they manage to produce any electricity?

					Richard Schultz
-- 
				Richard Schultz

"It is terrible to die of thirst in the ocean.  Do you have to salt your
truth so heavily that it does not even quench thirst any more?"
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.29 / Mark Hittinger /  Re: McKubre's data & s.p.f experiment
     
Originally-From: bugs@warlock.win.net (Mark Hittinger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: McKubre's data & s.p.f experiment
Date: 29 Aug 1994 09:06:46 -0400
Organization: WIN.NET mail and news

roes@vax.oxford.ac.uk (Peter Roessingh) writes:
>Tom Droege writes about the ICCF4 Proceedings:
>  >McKubre only submitted his view graphs, there is no text.  Pity, he
>  >writes well.  To those of us reading the entrails by the side of the
>  >road, this has a meaning.
>May be I am over-sensitive, but I think this remark is somewhat
>sub-standard.
>...

Tom has mentioned that he felt McKubre's reporting of previous work was of
a higher quality than others.  This allowed Tom to better devise an attempt
to reproduce it.

As I recall McKubre's ICCF4 presentations were really just a discussion of
the early work/results, and future plans.  I was very disappointed that there
was no discussion of work in progress from McKubre.  Maybe thats why there
isn't much text Tom?

Actually I feel that McKubre is in an excellent position to say that the
"Emperor has no clothes" -or- "the Emperor has clothes".  Steve Jones can
release significant new work on measurement artifacts, but the pro side of
the house will just say "So!?!?!".  P&F can release another experiment which
implies something weird is happening, but the con side of the house will just
say "bad science!!".  Elite fence sitters like Tom can devise the mother of
all calorimeters, report tiny glitches or slight oddities, and both sides will
say "See!?!?".

I think that McKubre has enough credibility with both sides of the house that
his conclusions will be important.  Important to us (of course!), to ENECO,
to EPRI, and to the Japanese.  I am not surprised he has not opened his
mouth very much!! :-)  I at least hope that he is having fun doing the work.
The only problem is how long do we have to wait?  He is either going to find
something he feels confident about, or he will cave.  How much longer?

I'm looking forward to ICCF5.

-----
But DAD! You are supposed to type it in with downer case letters!!
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenbugs cudfnMark cudlnHittinger cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.29 / John Logajan /  Re: Currents-n-Koloc
     
Originally-From: al789@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Currents-n-Koloc
Date: 29 Aug 1994 13:44:54 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)


pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) says:

>>below shows the relative velocity of the electron current
>>vector component either directly into or out of the page.  

>Let's call them current ** densities **, since velocity distribution
>can be independent of current density.

I actually specifically wanted to avoid combining the velocity vector
component and density into one variable, since it goes against my
visualization technique of seperate maximally simple "snapshots."

In the two sets of cross-sections, I was only going after the change
in velocity vector direction.  Density changes are hinted at by the
necessities of the topology, but I would prefer to show density
explicitly in a seperate set of cross-sectional views.

And all I am saying about the "velocity" is that for each particle,
on a scale of 0 to 10, which percentage of its vector is in the one
direction and which percentage is in the orthogonal direction.  I hope
that clarifies that I wasn't comparing particle versus particle velocities.

In the two sets immediately below, it can be seen quickly that current must
flow more or less orthogonally at the minor axis compared to the flow at
the maximum minor radius.

>>          1 1 1 ------------- 1 1 1       Torodial side view cross-section
>>        1 3 3 3 1           1 3 3 3 1        9 = maximum in or out velocity
>>      1 3 5 5 5 3 1       1 3 5 5 5 3 1      1 = minimum in or out velocity
>>    1 3 5 7 7 7 5 3 1   1 3 5 7 7 7 5 3 1
>>    1 3 5 7 9 7 5 3 1   1 3 5 7 9 7 5 3 1
>>    1 3 5 7 7 7 5 3 1   1 3 5 7 7 7 5 3 1
>>      1 3 5 5 5 3 1       1 3 5 5 5 3 1
>>        1 3 3 3 1           1 3 3 3 1
>>          1 1 1 ------------- 1 1 1
>
>>                  9 9 9 9 9 
>>                9 7 7 7 7 7 9
>>              9 7 5 5 5 5 5 7 9           Torodial top view cross-section
>>            9 7 5 3 3 3 3 3 5 7 9            9 = maximum in velocity
>>          9 7 5 3 1 1 1 1 1 3 5 7 9          1 = minimum in velocity
>>        9 7 5 3 1-3-3-3-3-3 1 3 5 7 9       -9 = maximum out velocity
>>      9 7 5 3 1-3-5-5-5-5-5-3 1 3 5 7 9     -1 = minimum out velocity
>>    9 7 5 3 1-3-5-5-7-7-7-5-5-3 1 3 5 7 9
>>    9 7 5 3 1-3-5-7-7-9-7-7-5-3 1 3 5 7 9
>>    9 7 5 3 1-3-5-7-9  -9-7-5-3 1 3 5 7 9
>>    9 7 5 3 1-3-5-7-7-9-7-7-5-3 1 3 5 7 9
>>    9 7 5 3 1-3-5-5-7-7-7-5-5-3 1 3 5 7 9
>>      9 7 5 3 1-3-5-5-5-5-5-3 1 3 5 7 9
>>        9 7 5 3 1-3-3-3-3-3 1 3 5 7 9
>>          9 7 5 3 1 1 1 1 1 3 5 7 9
>>            9 7 5 3 3 3 3 3 5 7 9
>>              9 7 5 5 5 5 5 7 9
>>                9 7 7 7 7 7 9
>>                  9 9 9 9 9



>This correction is 
>made to illustrate the difference in current densities at the 
>inside and outside edges, which correponds to the similiar and 
>related difference in the toroidal field this current generates.  
>
>       Thus the top view of the equatorial plan is now:
>                                
>                      5 5 5 5 5  
>                    5 3 3 3 3 3 5          Torodial top view cross-section
>                  5 3 1 1 1 1 1 3 5           9 = maximum in velocity
>                5 3 1-3-3-3-3-3 1 3 5         1 = minimum in velocity
>              5 3 1-3-5-5-5-5-5-3 1 3 5      -9 = maximum out velocity
>            5 3 1-3-5-7-7-7-7-7-5-3 1 3 5    -1 = minimum out velocity
>          5 3 1-3-5-7-7-9-9-9-7-7-5-3 1 3 5  
>          5 3 1-3-5-7-9-9-9-9-9-7-5-3 1 3 5  
>          5 3 1-3-5-7-9   .  -9-7-5-3 1 3 5         dot is approximate
>          5 3 1-3-5-7-9      -9-7-5-3 1 3 5             major axis (out)    
>          5 3 1-3-5-7-9-9-9-9-9-7-5-3 1 3 5  
>          5 3 1-3-5-7-7-9-9-9-7-7-5-3 1 3 5  
>            5 3 1-3-5-7-7-7-7-7-5-3 1 3 5  
>              5 3 1-3-5-5-5-5-5-3 1 3 5  
>                5 3 1-3-3-3-3-3 1 3 5  
>                  5 3 1 1 1 1 1 3 5  
>                    5 3 3 3 3 3 5  
>                      5 5 5 5 5  

My major beef with the above "density including" version is that it loses
a large degree of velocity vector specificity.  It would't serve, on
its own, to adequately address the velocity vector issue.  But yes,
as a current density only picture, it is adequate.  You need all three
pictures to get the "big picture." :-)

-- 
-- John Logajan ---  al789@cleveland.freenet.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenal789 cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.29 / Jim Bowery /  Re: Griggs Hydrosonic Pump update
     
Originally-From: jabowery@netcom.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs Hydrosonic Pump update
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 1994 13:53:46 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

How soon before the heat output is converted to torque and the plug
is pulled from the wall socket?
-- 
The promotion of politics exterminates apolitical genes in the population.
  The promotion of frontiers gives apolitical genes a route to survival.
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenjabowery cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.29 / Richard Blue /  Re: Water over the dam
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Water over the dam
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 1994 14:39:54 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Marshall Dudley takes issue with my statement regarding matching
ins and outs not producing energy and suggests water flowing over
a dam as a counter example.  I'm sorry, Marshall, that I did not
make a clearer statement of the facts.  I would say that water at
the top of a dam is in a higher energy state than water at the
bottom of the dam so it is possible to release energy by transfering
water between those two positions.  There is a significant difference
between water in the high state and water in the low state.  In that
sense the output does not match the input.

On the other hand the remarkable feature of Peter Hagelstein's
proposed neutron transfer process is that he has specifically
suggested cases in which the input and output are actually identical
down to the very tiniest detail and for every physical observable
including the energy states of the starting and final nuclei.
Thus my sweeping statement was correct as it stood.  There cannot
possibly be any energy release for such a process!

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.30 / Richard Blue /  Reply to Peter Roessingh
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Reply to Peter Roessingh
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 1994 00:19:34 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway


I cannot speak for any group, but since Peter addressed a
question to me I will respond.  While I have no knowledge
of any specific flaw in the McKubre calorimetric techniques
I do have some reservations about certain aspects of his
data and the ways in which it has been presented.  I agree
with Tom Droege that it is strange to see that a presentation
made at a conference gets truncated significantly in the
published procedings.  As Tom notes McKubre has a history
of not being totally candid about his experiments.  That is,
of course, his choice to make, but it does make it more
difficult to use his results as incontrovertible proof of
the reallity of cold fusion.

My position on this matter is that there is no such thing
as a single experimental result that constitutes proof of
anything.  Certainly in my field (nuclear physics) there
are some fine examples where a single experiment seemed
to "prove" the existance of some phenomenon that was totally
new and unexpected.  The most recent case involved the
17 keV neutrino where some measured beta decay spectra
clearly showed some sort of anomaly.  There was a problem,
however, when anyone tried to replicate this result using
a rather different experimental technique.  Ultimately
the anomaly was traced to an unexpected experimental
artifact, and the 17 keV neutrino was laid to rest.

In the case of cold fusion we have to look carefully at
what is meant by replication.  Everyone agrees that
independent replication of a result is important, but
many cold fusion advocates have been unwilling to take
a critical look at what constitutes replication of a
given result.  I ask you to define more carefully what
you mean by a positive cold fusion result so that we
can decide whether it has, in fact, been replicated.

Here, I believe, only the loosest possible definition
of a positive CF result will allow any claim for
replication to stand.  That is to say in a typical
CF experiment an electrolysis cell is operated for
an extended period with input power and output heat
being recorded such that in the end an integrated
energy balance can be calculated.  It is clear that
for a typical measurement there may be periods showing
a positive output and periods that result in an offsetting
negative contribution to the final integral.  It is also
evident that calibrations and longterm stability play
a significant role in the final outcome.  Rather tiny
offsets in the assumed zero level can contribute significantly
to the final integral.  Yet these offsets can be very
difficult to see in the positive-negative fluctuations
that dominate the data stream.  That is particularly
true if the offset develops slowly during the course
of the measurement as a result of some drift in the
true calibration constant.

It has been common practice then to claim that any
measurement that results in a net positive integral
for the energy balance "proves" that cold fusion is
real.  Furthermore any other independent  result that is
also positive counts as a replication.  This ignores
completely all the null results and, in effect, assigns
zero weight to the majority of the experimental measurements
in  any statistical evaluation of all of the data.  A null
result is said to indicate a simple failure to trigger the
effect.  It is a climate in which scientific reason can take
and has taken a terrible beating.

I would invite you to seek     some higher standard for
replication.  Should it not be possible through a series
of experiments to gain progressively better control over
a number of experimental variables?  For example, one of
your quotes mentions the achievement of a loading factor
greater than 0.9 as essential to the cold fusion process.
However, if you ask how that condition was varified for
the McKubre experiments and in other "replications" the
answers are not totally convincing.  Loading has generally
not actually been measured, but is deduced from a questionable
extrapolation.  There clearly have been a number of
experiments claiming a positive effect in which there is
good reason to doubt that high loadings were reached.
So I ask whether an experiment that shows 5% excess for 0.9
loading constitures a replication of an experiment that shows
50% excess for a loading that may have been only 0.6.

Pick any experimental variable along with a positive excess
and show me two experiments that indicate a replication
of the relationship between the two quantities.  For example,
how does current density or sample size or temperature or
electrolyte concentration influence the excess heat.  When
you have found two similar results we can talk about replication.
One thing that bugs me is the fact that in many open cell
experiments the addition of fresh electrolyte results in a
dramatic drop in the "excess" heat, but no one sees that as
something that needs to be explained.

There is more to this than just a simple thumbs up or thumbs down.
I have come back to a position I stated long ago.  Calorimetry
alone cannot establish the reality of cold fusion.  Mostly
what has been established is how misleading the calorimetry
can be, even at the hands of a skilled practitioner.
The issue demands some form of supporting evidence derived from
measurements of a completely different sort.  The issue demands
some form of theoretical explanation for the effect and its
experimental signitures, however you care to define them.  As
I, and others, have said it should be possible to detect directly
or indirectly any nuclear reaction process you care to hypothesize.

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.30 / Richard Blue /  Limitations of nuclear theory
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Limitations of nuclear theory
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 1994 00:19:42 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Dave Davies chooses to denigrate nuclear theory with remarks such as,
"We don't even have a convincing model of the interaction between two
nuclei." and "Opposition to cold fusion has been based on inadequate
models..."  He also repeats the false assertion that the only experimental
evidence offered to counter cold fusion results is based on "extrapolation
from high energy collision."  He then goes on to embrace without question
some totally unproven concepts that have been put foward as possible
explanations for the occurance of cold fuison.  Come one now, Dave, let's
use roughly the same standards to evaluate both the evidence from nuclear
theory and experiment and from cold fusion research.  I don't know what
you would consider a convincing model for the nuclear interaction, but
even given that anything matching your standards is lacking we do still
know a heck of a lot about the nuclear interaction including how to
extrapolate right down to zero relative kinetic energy.  And even if
you don't like the extrapolation there is still data from muon catalyzed
cold fusion and from some really clever experiments where the relative
kinetic energy between two nuclei is pretty darned small even though
they have a higher velocity relative to the laboratory frame.

Now what can any theory of cold fusion offer to counter the arguments
made by nuclear physicists?  Show me one case where anyone has gone
so far as to write down a wave function that includes explicitely
the internal coordinates of the involved nucleons to show where any
nuclear energy release can come from without observable consequences.
Just to make your task a little bit more interesting, please tell
us which selected subset of the cold fusion data this theory is
supposed to explain.  I will say that all the conjectures involving
delocalization and spreading of nuclear charge and energy transfer
to the whole lattice are based on inadequate models, invalid approximations,
violations of established physical principles, and questionable logic.
There, take that!  :-)   Nuclear physics isn't half as bad off as you
seem to think.

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.29 / Gary Steckly /  Re: sonoluminescence
     
Originally-From: gsteckly@clark.dgim.doc.ca (Gary Steckly)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: sonoluminescence
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 94 15:20:56 GMT
Organization: Industry Canada

In article <harrCv5FJA.30z@netcom.com> harr@netcom.com (Charles (Chuck) Harrison) writes:
>From: harr@netcom.com (Charles (Chuck) Harrison)
>Subject: Re: sonoluminescence
>Date: Fri, 26 Aug 1994 15:40:21 GMT

>In article <x4xyFxX.vimx@delphi.com>, vimx  <vimx@delphi.com> wrote:
>> I wouldn't have thought of posting this question here, but someone in
>>sci.physics said someone here is working on this.
>> What frequency and amplitude of sound will make water glow?


>I'll take this as an appropriate opportunity to remind people of the
>WAIS database of sci.physics.fusion postings at sunsite.  If you
>have a WorldWideWeb browser (e.g. Mosaic or Lynx), try:
>  wais://sunsite.unc.edu/fusion-digest?sonoluminescence

>otherwise telnet to sunsite.unc.edu, login as swais, and use
> /fusion-digest to jump to the right place.  On-line help is there
>but barely adequate.

>Cheers,
>  Chuck

on the subject of WAIS searches (and that fantastic archive at UNC 
fusion-digest.src) I just found a great windows based WAIS client that is real 
easy to use and makes it a lot easier to save files that you find.  It's 
called Einet winWAIS, shareware sold by 
EINet Windows Shareware
MCC
3500 West Balcones Center Drive
Austin, TX 78759-5398 USA

Source: /usr/local/einet/wais-sources/EINet-shareware/EINet-shareware at 
einet.net

It's my favourite WAIS client so far.

regards

Gary
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudengsteckly cudfnGary cudlnSteckly cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.29 / Arthur TK /  Re: The virial theorem
     
Originally-From: awc@slcawcipp-garching.mpg.de (Arthur      Carlson        TK  )
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The virial theorem
Date: 29 Aug 1994 15:49:39 GMT
Organization: Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics

I am rapidly losing interest in this dialog with Paul Koloc, but he
has put so much effort into the latest defense of his lost cause, that
I am willing to explain it one last time.

Let's start with his GIF'ed "counter-example".  To begin with, he is
on shaky ground because he has over-specified the configuration.  You
cannot in general specify geometry and pressure and expect your
configuration to be in equilibrium.  As I've pointed out before, the
particular configuration described by Koloc is not an equilibrium.

But let's not get hung up there.  Koloc's intuitively derived argument
is qualitatively correct: Configuration 3 (with magnetic field but no
plasma) has a higher average energy density than configuration 1 (with
a mixture of plasma and field).  How does this jive with the virial
theorem?  (Equation 11 from from Article 1731)

     integral (p-p0) dV = -(1/3) integral (B^2/2mu0) dV

Let's rewrite this in terms of energy densities:

     integral ( (3p/2) + (1/2)(B^2/2mu0) ) dV = integral (3p0/2) dV

If we consider a case with negligible field (B=0), we find (not
surprisingly) that the average plasma energy density is equal to the
average energy density of the confining gas.  If we consider the other
extreme of a configuration with negligible plasma (p=0), we find that
the average magnetic energy density is *twice* the energy density of
the confining gas.  If we follow Koloc's prescription for replacing
plasma with field (after fixing his description so we are dealing with
an equilibrium), the final energy will indeed be greater than the
initial, but by a factor of two at most.  Once again, there is no
question that magnetic field lines have an effective tension, it is a
question of how strong this tension is in relation to the effective
pressure of the field.  *You got to do the math.*

This example also serves to illustrate the nature of Koloc's second
difficulty.  He argues: It is not in general possible to know what the 
inner life of a configuration looks like if only the boundary is specified, 
and if it is impossible to deduce the fields, then it is also impossible
to calculate the energy density of those fields.  This is correct.
The heart and power of the virial theorem is that it is a *relation*
among various quantities.  We do not know the current density, the
field, or the pressure at any internal point, but if the configuration
is in equilibrium, then we do know a relation among these three,
namely

     j cross B - grad p = 0

And this holds *everywhere* within an equilibrium configuration.  And 
since we have a relation among local quantities for an arbitrary
equilibrium, we can derive a relation among global quantities which 
also holds for an arbitrary equilibrium.  With the virial theorem we 
have the additional good fortune that these global quantities are
non-negative, allowing us to put upper limits on the individual terms.
For magnetic energy, this limit happens to be twice the energy of an
equivalent volume of the confining gas.  End of story.

 ---------------------------------------------------------------------

Looking back over this reply, I see I have said nothing new, which is
a consequence of the fact that Koloc has said nothing new.  In other
words, this is a bore.  I had fun learning about the details of the
virial theorem, but it's time to go on to new problems.

Paul Koloc presented his ideas for a fusion reactor and an explanation
of ball lightning and challenged me to "run the numbers".  I spent a
great deal of effort studying Koloc's posts and trying to understand
what he was getting at.  Then I applied the tools of theoretical
plasma physics to evaluate his ideas.  I found a number of weak spots,
but the one which was most amenable to theoretical analysis was his
idea about the energy density.  I examined the basic assumptions of
the virial theorem and what Koloc had to say about it, discovered that
it should indeed apply to a plasmak, and went into this point in great
detail in my posts.  I consider this issue to be settled.  Now it's
Koloc's turn to *believe the numbers*.

In addition to my theoretical statements, I will now risk some farther
reaching conclusions.  [begin ad hominem] Paul Koloc has demonstrated
in this discussion that his grasp of plasma theory is very
superficial.  Although he has not presented details of certain parts
of his theory, e.g., his "hyperconductivity", I venture to say, if
someone cannot grasp MHD theory sufficiently to apply the virial
theorem, I would not trust his mathematical ability when it comes to
calculating the resistivity of a non-Maxwellian plasma, a much harder
problem.  Much worse, Koloc seems to be incapable of either
recognizing his mistakes or admitting them.  After reading hundreds of
lines of his posts, I have come to the tentative conclusion, that he
is lacking not only mathematical skills, but the intellectual honesty
required of a scientist.  This conclusion leads me to mistrust
anything he says, in particular about his experimental observations.
[end ad hominem]

To Paul Koloc (and Jim Bowery): If I have misjudged you, and you are
not just blowing your horn but interested in establishing the
consequences of plasma theory for your ideas, you may contact me by
email.  I am willing to continue talking with you, but not on the
internet.  (If we ever agree on anything, we can issue a joint
communique.)  If you are seriously interested that I evaluate your
experimental results, I am willing to respect your proprietary ideas.
But you must be willing to show me what you have before I will be
willing to talk to anyone here about collaboration or support.  Again,
contact me by email.

To the rest of the world: I don't mean to cut off serious discussion
of plasma physics (such as Chuck Harrison's questions).  Any number of
interesting issues relating to the virial theorem, magnetically
isolated configurations, and aneutronic fusion remain.  I will be
happy to respond to questions/challenges/inspirations from all others,
either on internet or by email.


-- 


Arthur Carlson
Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics
Garching, Germany
carlson@ipp-garching.mpg.de
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenawc cudfnArthur cudlnTK cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.29 / Tom Droege /  Re: Return of the experimenter
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Return of the experimenter
Date: 29 Aug 1994 18:45:51 GMT
Organization: fermilab

In article <9408270048.AA61299@pilot1.cl.msu.edu>, blue@pilot.msu.edu 
(Richard A Blue) says:
>
>I have been digging through my archives looking for odd bits of
>information that might possibly be on some use to the planning
>of the next great experiment and will be posting what I find as
>time permits.  Today's finds are two articles:
>
>"Differential microcalorimeters", D. S. Reid, Journal of Physics E:
>Scientific Instruments 1976 vol 9 page 601-609.
>This is a review article that appears to mention a variety of
>techniques, and the following bibliography might prove useful
>to anyone wanting to track down more details.
>
>"Heat pipes and their instrument applications", I. C. Finlay and
>D. B. Green, Journal of Physics E: Scientific Instruments 1976
>vol 9 page 1026-1035.  This is also a review, but also has more
>specific information.There are two tables which list the various
>combinations of materials, wicks and working fluids and specify
>the working temperature range and a figure of merit.
>
>It would seem copper with methonol or copper-nickel with water
>are the two that fall in the temperature range of interest.
>There is also lots of design variations shown so you can make these
>things work in different geometries and orientations.
>
>Dick Blue
>
Dick,

Thanks for the references.  I will look them up.

Meanwhile, I still lack motivation to try anything.  I am presently
building a telescope, so you can see how far I have strayed from
"cold fusion".

Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.29 / Tom Droege /  Re: ICCF4 Proceedings
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: ICCF4 Proceedings
Date: 29 Aug 1994 18:52:31 GMT
Organization: fermilab


Much deleted:

>Lets all hope an oil company does not get a patent on CF. It would
>mean the end of CF.
>
>CP

Sorry, it would not be the end.  To get a patent you must publish 
exactly how to do it for "one trained in the art".  Now if the bad
oil company tries to kill it, you have 17 years to perfect your 
commercial product.  Then you get your turn at the market. 

So the patent process cannot put any progress to an end.  It can only
delay it for 17 years.  Any company with a real commercial patent would
be foolish to miss development of the market while they still had the 
patent protection.

Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.29 / Chris Parkinson /  Re: Griggs Hydrosonic Pump update
     
Originally-From: parky@ix.netcom.com (Chris Parkinson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs Hydrosonic Pump update
Date: 29 Aug 1994 19:34:45 GMT
Organization: Netcom

In <jaboweryCvAuLM.GsM@netcom.com> jabowery@netcom.com (Jim Bowery) writes: 

>
>How soon before the heat output is converted to torque
>-- 

How do you intend to do that? Current steam turbines are at most 32%
efficient. That would mean that the Griggs device would nominally have
to be 350% eff (factoring in heat losses). 

CP
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenparky cudfnChris cudlnParkinson cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.29 / james blanchard /  Re: Reactor Startup
     
Originally-From: jake@nucst6.neep.wisc.edu (james blanchard)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reactor Startup
Date: 29 Aug 1994 20:43:18 GMT
Organization: Division of Information Technology


mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel) said:

>  When it got hot the removed rods had heated up and expanded, and thanks to
>  precision Soviet machining they didn't fit right when they tried to 
>  lower them.  They got stuck in part-way, which apparently made the problem
>  even worse for some reason (more moderation of fast neutrons to fissionable
>  energies without enough absorption?).

As I understand it, the control rods made things worse because they
had graphite tips on the bottom, so they actually added reactivity as
the tips passed through the core during insertion.  Ouch.


--

   jake blanchard -- university of wisconsin - madison
   blanchard@engr.wisc.edu  OR   jake@nucst6.neep.wisc.edu

cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenjake cudfnjames cudlnblanchard cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Tue Aug 30 04:37:30 EDT 1994
------------------------------
1994.08.29 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Griggs Hydrosonic Pump update
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs Hydrosonic Pump update
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 94 17:04:42 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Jim Bowery <jabowery@netcom.com> writes:
 
>How soon before the heat output is converted to torque and the plug
>is pulled from the wall socket?
 
I am sorry to say that is impossible at this stage. The input to output ratio
is still far too low, the best they have seen is 1:1.6. You need some ratio
around 1:4 to 1:8 in order to build a self-regenerating stand alone device.
The precise ratio depends upon Carnot efficiency, the type of power generating
technology you use, and the size of the device. If you can sustain high
temperatures and the device is large, a low ratio (1:4) will do. Smaller
engines are generally much less efficient, so they require higher ratios.
Table top steam engines, Stirling engines and thermoelectric devices are very
inefficient; they would require something like 1:10, I think.
 
I do not know how soon Griggs can improve the input to output ratio of his
device, or what would be required to do so. I think that it can be done,
because it would be a miracle if he started off by discovering the best, most
effective method possible. Nothing like that has ever happened in the history
of technology. The first units manufactured are always the worst by far. The
first water wheels and steam engines were incredibly wasteful by today's
standards, the first internal combustion engines were inefficient and they
constantly backfired. I am confident that if Griggs gets sufficient R&D money
he will improve the motor by leaps and bounds. However, it is already good
enough for some industrial niche markets. It is cheaper than electric heating
but not as economical as gas or oil. The device is far more compact than any
other heater in its class, it is cheaper and easier to maintain. It is safer
than oil or gas, because there is no open flame. This is important in some
applications, for example where there there is danger of explosive gas leaks.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenjedrothwell cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.29 / Charles Owen /  Re: Reactor Startup
     
Originally-From: cowen@moosilauke.dartmouth.edu (Charles Owen)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reactor Startup
Date: 29 Aug 94 21:14:28 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH, USA

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

>In article <Cv4IGu.M12@eecs.nwu.edu> 
>hpa@nwu.edu (H. Peter Anvin) writes:
>>

>Is this correct? 

>It was my impression that the information on the exponential growth rate 
>of the power levels and the isotopes released in the explosion that the 
>reactor did not 'overheat', it went prompt critical and disassembled 
>itself in much the way a 'fizzle' would.  That is, it was an inefficient 
>nuclear explosion, not a chemical explosion.  

>If your statement about the lack of containment making a disaster 
>inevitable is accurate, then why was anyone considering a restart 
>of any of our (also uncontained) production reactors?   

I saw a presentation by an expert on the Chyernobl accident years ago and
he talked about how important containment vessels are, but added as an
aside that it would not have made any difference in that particular
accident since the explosion was so large it would have destroyed the
containment anyway and the melt would still have occurred.  Any comments?

-- 
| Charles B. Owen                           Charles.B.Owen@dartmouth.edu |
| Dartmouth College                                  Home:  603-448-5677 |
| 6211 Sudikoff Laboratory, Rm 108                                       |
| Hanover, NH  03755                                                     |
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudencowen cudfnCharles cudlnOwen cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.29 / Tom Droege /  Re: McKubre's data & s.p.f experiment
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: McKubre's data & s.p.f experiment
Date: 29 Aug 1994 22:55:46 GMT
Organization: fermilab

In article <1994Aug27.194017.25523@oxvaxd>, roes@vax.oxford.ac.uk (Peter 
Roessingh) says:
>
>Tom Droege writes about the ICCF4 Proceedings:
>
>  >From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege), fermilab
>  >Date: 19 Aug 94 17:39:28 BST
>
>  >My ICCF4 Proceedings arrived early this morning.  Someone rang my
>  >doorbell and ran.  There are 3.75" of papers in 4 volumes.
>
>  >McKubre only submitted his view graphs, there is no text.  Pity, he
>  >writes well.  To those of us reading the entrails by the side of the
>  >road, this has a meaning.
>
>May be I am over-sensitive, but I think this remark is somewhat
>sub-standard.
>
>The way I read it, Tom suggests that McKubre knows there are problems 
with
>his data, but does not own up to them, and prefers to publish just the
>graphs to avoid exposure.

Here ia what I read into this.  McKubre has been slow to publish.  This
in the Dieter Britz sense.  i.e. in a refereed journal.  Why?  Well the 
snide answer is that he does not want to hurt his reputation by publishing 
in an area that later turns out to be an error.  

The other side is that possibly he does not want to write anything down 
because he migh in error give away a secret.

You pays your money and you takes your choice.  

In any case, for all the time and effort McKubre's group has expended,
they have written damn little.

>
>Pretty strong stuff,  It might be that Tom did not intend to say this, if
>so, some clarification of the real meaning would certainly do no harm.
>

Much deleted.

CCF2
> > McKubre presents enough for me.  So I tried a replication.  But then
> > later I kept finding out that McKubre seemed to have purposefully left
> > out important detail.  I think I can count on one hand the "positive"
> > papers I have seen where the error discussion was well done.  McKubre 
is
> > one, uhhh, I don't seem to have a second.
>
> > Tom Droege
>
>
>From these two pieces of information it seems to me that McKubre's work 
is
>an as yet undisputed example (and independent replication) of excess heat
>generation, with adequate error discussion, properly peer reviewed and
>published in a respectable journal.
>

McKubre's work looked good to me at first.  Particularly the ICCF2 paper.
But now the old stuff is wearing thin.  I expect more results to show that
the work is progressing.  The lack of a write up implies that they are 
no longer able to get the same results.  In a field like this, it is 
necessary to keep publishing better data.  -- or go the secret patent
route.  If you don't keep publishing better and better experiments then
you are very suspect!!


>Yet, Tom seems still unconvinced, and I think the same can safely be said
>of Dick Blue.  Is this the general consensus in this group?  And if so,
>exactly why?
>

Yep, McKubre once had some nice looking results.  But they have faded with
time.  More results, and a sure fire recipe are needed if he is to 
maintain credibility.  


>To put the question in another way: When during an after dinner 
discussion
>I get confronted with somebody claiming that CF (or at least excess heat)
>is a reality  and that McKubre's work is solid proof of this. Do I have 
to
>mumble that Tom could not yet replicate it, so I do not believe it, or 
can
>I do better?
>
>And from yet another angle: When we, as the college of s.p.f, design an
>experiment to investigate the reality of excess heat claims,  manage to
>demonstrate excess heat, and submit our paper to Nature,  do  we claim in
>the introduction to be the first to have demonstrated the phenomena in a
>rigourous manner or do we have to leave that honour to McKubre et al. ( 
or
>even to P&F ;-)   )
>

The requirement for belief is a recipe that can be passed around that 
allows any competent worker to obtain a positive result.  

>Peter Roessingh 
>Zoology, Oxford.
>
>

Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.29 / Matt Kennel /  Re: Griggs Hydrosonic Pump update
     
Originally-From: mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs Hydrosonic Pump update
Date: 29 Aug 1994 23:54:36 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:
: Some months ago I described the Hydrosonic Pump, an excess energy device
: invented and patented by James Griggs, of Cartersville, GA. See U.S. Patent
: number 5,188,090. This device produces massive quantities of excess heat
: energy at kilowatt levels for industrial applications.

: As far as I know, this is the world's first practical excess
: energy machine that has been installed at customer sites; tested carefully
: with a full range of precision equipment; and verified to work by professional
: engineers.
:  
: - Jed Rothwell

Question:  How *hot* an output can this device make running in
the high excess heat regime?  yes the temperature.

--
-Matt Kennel  		mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu
-Institute for Nonlinear Science, University of California, San Diego
-*** AD: Archive for nonlinear dynamics papers & programs: FTP to
-***     lyapunov.ucsd.edu, username "anonymous".
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenmbk cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.30 / Matt Austern /  Re: Reply to Peter Roessingh
     
Originally-From: matt@physics16.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reply to Peter Roessingh
Date: 30 Aug 1994 05:37:18 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (Theoretical Physics Group)

In article <9408291623.AA29601@pilot1.cl.msu.edu> blue@pilot.msu.edu
(Richard A Blue) writes:

> There is more to this than just a simple thumbs up or thumbs down.
> I have come back to a position I stated long ago.  Calorimetry
> alone cannot establish the reality of cold fusion.  Mostly
> what has been established is how misleading the calorimetry
> can be, even at the hands of a skilled practitioner.
> The issue demands some form of supporting evidence derived from
> measurements of a completely different sort. 

I've deleted most of an excellent article; I just want to respond to
this single paragraph, since it's essentially the only paragraph in
the entire article with which I have any disagreement.

I'm willing to believe in the reality of (say) coal fires based solely
on calorimetric data: if I sit next to a stove full of burning coal, I
get hot.  I don't need any extra information, or any theoretical model
of what happens when carbon burns, to know that.

If the observations of excess heat were as unambiguous in the case of
"cold fusion" as they are for coal fires, then I'd have no trouble
believing that we were seeing something real.  My complaint isn't
against calorimetry per se, but simply that the effects reported in
these particular calorimetric experiments are tiny, near the threshold
of detection, and extremely vulnerable to systematic and theoretical
errors.
--

                               --matt
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenmatt cudfnMatt cudlnAustern cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.30 / Jed Rothwell /  Re: Griggs Hydrosonic Pump update
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@CompuServe.COM>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs Hydrosonic Pump update
Date: 30 Aug 1994 13:39:45 GMT
Organization: CFRA

Matt Kennel <mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu> asks:
 
     "Question:  How *hot* an output can this [Griggs] device make running in
     the high excess heat regime?  yes the temperature."
 
I do not know hot it *can* get. In present high temperature applications it
produces dry steam for treatment of fabrics (dry cleaning). I am sure it could
produce superheated steam for a turbine with a little more backpressure. But I
do not know the theoretical upper limits.
 
The pyrometer shows that the steel casing exceeds 300 deg F in routine
operations, which go for years (on and off; steam on demand). It looks like
any other heavy duty engine or motor. It is extraordinarily rugged, I am sure
it will withstand high temperatures and abuse. He once trucked a unit down to
the ocean and boiled seawater distilling fresh water. He can also treat waste
water from a carpet factory, distilling fresh water and concentrating the
polluted water for treatment. If you pump sea water or filthy water from a
factory into an ordinary industrial electric heater it will soon be clogged
and destroyed.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.30 / Jim Bowery /  Re: The virial theorem
     
Originally-From: jabowery@netcom.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The virial theorem
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 1994 15:24:22 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

Arthur      Carlson        TK (awc@slcawcipp-garching.mpg.de) wrote:
: configuration to be in equilibrium.  As I've pointed out before, the
: particular configuration described by Koloc is not an equilibrium.

...

: To Paul Koloc (and Jim Bowery): If I have misjudged you, and you are
: not just blowing your horn but interested in establishing the
: consequences of plasma theory for your ideas

I've not responded to the theoretical aspects of your posts.  I have 
commented mainly on "common sense" aspects of the PMK situation that 
lead me to believe investing time/money in the PLASMAK(tm) is a 
worthwhile risk.  Any difficulties you have with Paul's interpretation 
of the divergence theorem will have to be worked out with someone 
other than myself, if they are to be worked out at all.

PS: You and/or Bruce Scott compared my role here to that of Jed Rothwell 
and his advocacy of cold fusion.  With all due respect of Mr. Rothwell, 
and his willingness to put his own savings where his mouth is -- aside 
from the obvious quantitative differences between Mr. Rothwell's 
advocacy of cold fusion and my own advocacy of the PLASMAK(tm), there 
are the, to me, qualitative differences between us:

1) The original inventor has allowed me to invest in his work directly.

2) The technology has a clear pedigree within established physics, 
including previously accepted and quite significant work in the specific 
area of physics by the inventor himself in which the inventor had priority.
(Spheromak)

I'll agree that the present controversy of the virial vs divergence 
theorem represents a significant issue in theoretical physics, but it is 
far from the sort of unspecified and largely unfalsifiable area covered 
by the wide range of cold fusion theories.  Either your application of 
the virial theorem is correct or Paul's insistance that the divergence 
theorem is the only proper way to calculate equilibrium, is correct.

This is a question that can, and will, in my opinion, be resolved without 
hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars being spent constructing 
test reactors based on shakey physical theories.  In other words, we are 
well within common sense here.

PPS:  I want to end my participation in this by saying I do appreciate the 
more civil tone of your more recent posts and the effort you have put 
into trying to understanding Paul's unorthodox style of communication.  
-- 
The promotion of politics exterminates apolitical genes in the population.
  The promotion of frontiers gives apolitical genes a route to survival.
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenjabowery cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.30 / Bruce TK /  Re: The virial theorem
     
Originally-From: bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce       Scott          TK  )
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The virial theorem
Date: 30 Aug 1994 19:19:58 GMT
Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching

In article <jaboweryCvCtGM.JB4@netcom.com>, 
	jabowery@netcom.com (Jim Bowery) writes:

|> I'll agree that the present controversy of the virial vs divergence 
|> theorem represents a significant issue in theoretical physics, but it is 
|> far from the sort of unspecified and largely unfalsifiable area covered 
|> by the wide range of cold fusion theories.  Either your application of 
|> the virial theorem is correct or Paul's insistance that the divergence 
|> theorem is the only proper way to calculate equilibrium, is correct.

I just want to note that "virial theorem" means "equilibrium plus
divergence theorem". There is nothing wrong with taking the plasmak
structure as stated as an initial state for an _ab inito_ computation.
It is just that whether the plasmak configuration as stated is in fact
an equilibrium is doubtful to us.

This is irrespective of whether Paul has a plasma. Given that he does,
the discussion has convinced me that there is no experimental data from
his lab that could demonstrate that his plasma is not something more
prosaic, like a Wu and Chen plasmoid equilibrium embedded in ambient
gas, rather than a state containing the more exotic features Paul has
been advocting.

-- 
Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de                               -- W Gibson
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnTK cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.30 / John Logajan /  Re: Griggs Hydrosonic Pump update
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@mirage.skypoint.net (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs Hydrosonic Pump update
Date: 30 Aug 1994 13:38:06 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:
: It is cheaper than electric heating but not as economical as gas or oil.

There is no reason (as I understand it) why Griggs must use an electrical
motor for his device, therefore the fuel cost could be reduced by running
an internal or external combustion engine, and the waste heat could be
recovered to make a highly efficient *heat* source.

By the way, using a combustion engine instead of an electrical motor gives
a nice way to measure the actual amount of input energy.  Just measure
the fuel consumed and make the standard calculations!

--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com -- 612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills  MN 55112 USA           -
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.30 / Rich Hawryluk /  TFTR Update August 29, 1994
     
Originally-From: rhawryluk@pppl.gov (Rich Hawryluk)
Newsgroups: pppl.tftr.news,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: TFTR Update August 29, 1994
Date: 30 Aug 1994 16:21:25 -0400
Organization: Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory

Status  (August 29, 1994)


Experiments to study systematic isotope effects on Ti(r) and Vphi(r)
profile measurements in DD and DT plasmas was performed The aim is to
examine two issues that may systematically impact on Ti(r) and Vphi(r)
measurements.  They are:

a) The role of the energy dependence of the charge exchange cross section
in affecting the spectral line shape and position.

b) The behavior of background light emission and its dependence on time and
neutral beam heating power.  Measurements on the ion temperatures and
velocities from Bay H and Bay P were obtained and will be compared in
detailed.  So far the data analysis looks good.

Additional data on the H-mode thresholds were obtained.  The results so far
show that the transition to H-mode with 20 MW of neutral beam injection
happens at a plasma current between 1.2 to 1.3 MA for DD and DT plasmas.
The ELM behavior is very different between DD and DT.


A series of experiments focused on understanding the difference in energy
confinement time in DD and TT discharges were conducted.  The purpose was
to document the isotope effects that has been observed in DT plasmas.

A power scan in DD and TT has been completed in high power supershots.
These experiments will decide whether an intrinsic isotope effect is being
amplified by the higher values of Ti/Te.  A power scan with co-injection in
DD and TT discharges was also performed to evaluate the role of unbalanced
injection.

Experiments to compare local transport in deuterium and tritium supershots
consisting of a number of reproducible, moderate-power, balanced-injection
supershots whose conditions were chosen to optimize fluctuation
measurements by Beam Emission Spectroscopy(BES) and the microwave
reflectometer. The BES diagnostic observed a significant reduction in the
density fluctuation between the DD and DT plasmas. The reflectometer
however, which measures correlation lengths, did not observe any difference
between DD and DT. Further analysis of these interesting preliminary
results is in progress.


The ICRF DT campaign also continued last week with a experiments designed
to investigate electron heating and current drive, via fast wave mode
conversion to a slow wave at the (npar)**2 = S perpendicular resonance, in
a D-T-He3 plasmas. This technique was attempted in He3-He4 plasma, good
electron heating has been observed. This experiment is continuing and has not
been completed yet. Microwave scattering has indicated the presence of the
converted slow wave.


Future Activities

This week (Aug 29) is a maintenance week on TFTR. Next week,  DT
experiments will continue with ICRF heating studies at high power.


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






_________________________________________________________________________
R. J. Hawryluk
rhawryluk@pppl.gov
PPPL - LOB 325
Phone:  (609) 243-3306
Fax:    (609) 243-3248
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenrhawryluk cudfnRich cudlnHawryluk cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.30 / Eileen Stamps /  Cold Fusion Magazine - Bit the dust?!?
     
Originally-From: eileen@nomos.com (Eileen M. Stamps)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Cold Fusion Magazine - Bit the dust?!?
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 1994 13:40:45 GMT
Organization: NOMOS Corporation

I heard a nasty rumor yesterday that Cold Fusion Magazine went out of business 
- is there any truth to this ugliness?

EMS
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudeneileen cudfnEileen cudlnStamps cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.30 /   /  Re: Why is Palladium used?
     
Originally-From: user7381@aol.com (User7381)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Why is Palladium used?
Date: 30 Aug 1994 18:34:12 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

In article <2t5v5p$opq@condor.ic.net>, tdp@condor.ic.net (Tom Potter)
writes:

The short answer is that palladium absorbs hydrogen in such a way that it
holds more hydrogen per square centimeter than liquid hydrogen. That was
suppose to foster fusion. D2 is absorbed like hydrogen but not quite so
efficently. 

Is that helpful.

George Corey

cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenuser7381 cudln cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.30 /  jonesse@xray.b /  Re:  ICCF4 Proceedings/A closer look
     
Originally-From: jonesse@xray.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re:  ICCF4 Proceedings/A closer look
Date: 30 Aug 94 16:26:54 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

In a recent post, Jed Rothwell writes of CF studies at Amoco and at Shell.
Of the Amoco study, he admits "I do not have Ref. 12, but I have seen it" and
goes on to say "Those are pretty darn good results for 1989 work!  Very
respectable.  I heard that Amoco stopped working on CF soon after they got
these results..."

I have heard the same thing, but the reason for stopping the CF work was that
the researchers found that the "excess heat" was in fact traced to recombination
of D2 and O2 in the electrolytic cell -- thus not excess heat at all.  Nothing
sinister in that -- they just found a prosaic explanation for the putative
excess heat, as we have done in similar experiments at BYU.  Our results will
be published fairly soon.


As for the Shell study by Dufour, Foos and Millot in France, it is instructive
to actually look at their paper which is published in the ICCF-4 Proceedings by
EPRI, p. 9-1 ff. of volume 1.  This is rich.  An example from the paper:

"Starting from hydrogen, the sequence we envisage is:
(1)  1H1  +  1H1 + e-  = 1H2 + neutrino
(2)  1H1  +  1H2 + e-  = 1H3  + neutrino
(3)  1H1  +  1H3 + e-  = 1H4  + neutrino
(3') 1H2  +  1H2 + e-  = 1H4 + neutrino
(4)  1H2 +   1H3 + e-  = 1H5 + neutrino
[The authors write 1 ^1 H, etc., but lacking sub- and super-scripts, I move
the superscript after the H for clarity.]

"In these reactions, virtual neutron (1H1 + e-), di-neutrons (1H2 + e-),
or tri-neutrons (1H3 + e-) states can be formed, that can react with any
hydrogen isotope.  1H4 and 1H5 are hypothetical hydrogen isotopes of very short
life time."

Well, you get the idea.  This is not serious work.  On the left-hand side
of equations 1-4 above, the authors suggest a three-body reaction involving
an electron (!), to produce a "virtual di-neutron" (!) etc.  Must I explain 
why such reactions are absurd? 

This business continues:  
"Many reactions of virtual neutron states can be envisaged, either with nuclei
trapped in the lattic (such as He or K for instance), or with the host metal
itself (palladium, nickel ...)..."

"Such reactions as the following, can thus take place:
 (9)  1H2 + 2He4 + e-  =  2He6 + neutrino
followed by:
 (10) 2He6 = 2Li6 + beta- + anti-neutrino
prototype of reactions which would rationalize Lithium production, tha can
become important as the experiment lenghthens and can decrease the final amount
of He."   [ Note the persistence of three-body interactions of reactants, etc.]

So that's where the helium disappears to, Dick!  It goes to lithium, which is
already present in the electrolyte so is not detected as an end product!  
Of course!

Just a bit more, since this interesting in its own way, before I must get back
to work:

" (11)  1H1 + 19K41 + e-  = 19 K 42 + neutrino"
[etc., to finally make Ca:]
  (14)  19K42 = 20 Ca 42 + beta- + anti-neutrino
which explains the appearance of Ca in experiments above mentioned.
[cf experiments involving light water]   Other
reactions between virtual neutron states and potassium isotopes would yield
stable postassium isotopes, altering the isotopic composition of the
postassium."

Wow, these guys can explain just about anything.

Of this work, Jed writes in his recent post:  "Another oil company, Shell, has
an ongoing cold fusion research effort that is going very well.  This is
described in the EPRI Proceedings Vol 1 paper 9"  -- the paper I have quoted
from above.  So you really like it, Jed?  Do you have a critical bone in your
body?

--Steve
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenjonesse cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.30 / Bruce Schechter /  Re: Cold Fusion Magazine - Bit the dust?!?
     
Originally-From: bruce_schechter@cc.wdi.disney.com (Bruce Schechter)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion Magazine - Bit the dust?!?
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 1994 16:26:53 -0800
Organization: Walt Disney Imagineering

In article <eileen.25.0008AE22@nomos.com>, eileen@nomos.com (Eileen M.
Stamps) wrote:

> I heard a nasty rumor yesterday that Cold Fusion Magazine went out of business 
> - is there any truth to this ugliness?
> 
> EMS
 Even if it is proven to be true many investigators around the world will
claim to continue receiving the magazine for years to come.... :)
-- 

Bruce_Schechter@cc.wdi.disney.com.......................................
..................................................
                                                                           
  opinions expressed approximate only my own and coincide
                                                                           
   only coincidently with those of my employer or anyone else
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenbruce_schechter cudfnBruce cudlnSchechter cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Wed Aug 31 04:37:03 EDT 1994
------------------------------
1994.08.31 / Dieter Britz /  CNF bibliography updates and archive retrieval, 31-Aug-94.
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CNF bibliography updates and archive retrieval, 31-Aug-94.
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 1994 08:03:08 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway


Quite an update here, 18 new papers (well, some are a bit old). I have found a
few holes in my collection, in the sci-soc/phil area, as I call it, i.e.
papers about the process of science, with 'cold fusion' as evidence. They
belong in the bibliography, I have decided. It is now quite a respectable
group of over 20 papers, spanning from librarianism, journalism, straight
philosophising and the sociology of science. As you see, I have caught up with
some of these gaps. If you have a sharp eye or memory, you might note that a
couple of these items were previously in the Comments list (Rousseau, Taylor,
Yague); I've changed my mind. 

Chechin is making a name for himself, and is adapting the Russian favourite,
fractofusion, into a form that might answer some the problems of that idea and
encompass the various Russian results. Perestroyka fusion, hm. The Huggins
group (Guer et al) describes their new and improved calorimeter and only hint
at new results. Maybe they'll come in a later publication (and maybe not). It
looks to me that they are trying to get Bruce Liebert interested in their
device, which can work up to maybe 600 C, they say. The China Lake team has
answered some of the criticisms of their helium work and appear to have made
sure that the 4He is in fact a real product of whatever goes on in their
electrolysis cells. Dick Blue will want to read this paper thoroughly, others
will jump for joy and look for superlatives. The Szpak team has likewise
underpinned tritium. The show goes on.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Current count:
-------------
  9 books
944 papers
147 patents
223 comment items
 81 peripherals
 20 conference procs(-to-be)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


Journal papers:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
#
Chechin VA, Tsarev VA;  Fusion Technol. 25 (1994) 469.
"On the nonstationary quantum-mechanical origin of nuclear reactions in 
solids".
** A new theory of 'cold fusion'. The authors start by listing the successes
and failures of the fractofusion theory in explaining the diverse 
observations. They then postulate the appearance of high-momentum components 
in the deuteron wave function in the solid state, due to violation of 
stationarity there. They give no explanation of the origin of this, but it may
indirectly have to do with fracture formation. Thus this model is based on
energetic barrier penetration, not on acceleration (as in the fractofusion 
model). This might be called the 'perestroyka (reorganisation) model'.
Preliminary calculations fall roughly within the ball park.  Aug-92/Jul-94
#..................................................................... Aug-94
Chen Y-P, Cai S-D; Science in China A 37 (1994)(1) 62.
"Dynamic screening effect from acoustic plasmons".
** Theoretical paper. The interaction of charged particles in a medium is
shielded by the action of the many other particles around them. Acoustic 
plasmons may be excited in two-band metals, and will then do such shielding.
This is the n applied to deuterons in Pd, and fusion rates are calculated. It 
comes out many orders of magnitudes higher than normal.  May-93/Jan-94.
#..................................................................... Aug-94
Gieryn TF; in "The Social Dimensions of Science", Ed. E. McMullin,
U. Notre Dame Press, 1992; p.214.
"The ballad of Pons and Fleischmann: Experiment and narrative in the 
(un)making of cold fusion".
** A sci-soc/phil paper. The author narrates the development of the 'cold 
fusion' affair, in a somewhat light vein. He describes how P&F have kept the 
subject alive, and have thrown doubt on their critics and generally have 
succeeded in keeping it in the public consciousness.
#..................................................................... Aug-94
Guer TM, Schreiber M, Lucier G, Ferrante JA, Chao J, Huggins RA;
Fusion Technol. 25 (1994) 487.
"An isoperibolic calorimeter to study electrochemical insertion of deuterium 
into palladium".
** Description of a newly designed closed-cell calorimeter, apparently of high
quality. It avoids the errors of previous designs for 'cold fusion'
calorimetry. At the heart of the setup are two heavy concentric Al cylinders,
separated by a well defined conduction gap. There is uniformity of temperature
within the cylinders. 1/e settling time was around 13 min. The design has been
confirmed to be stable and reproducible over long periods. The conduction gap
is filled with alumina powder and thus the setup is suitable for high
temperature work up to 600 C.  Nov-93/Jul-94
#..................................................................... Aug-94
Kamada K;  Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. 31 (1992) L1287 (Part 2, no. 9A).
"Electron impact H-H and D-D fusions in molecules embedded in Al.
1. Experimental results".
** Hydrogen and deuterium were embedded into Al and then bombarded by electron
beams of 200 keV and 400 keV. Fusion events during the bombardment were
detected by a CR39 polymer film, as charged particles. Fusion was detected for
both hydrogen and deuterium in the Al, not strongly dependent on the energy of
the electrons. The author is able to differentiate the rates of fusion not due
to and due to electron-hydrogen/deuterium collisions and concludes that most
of the fusion is not due to such collisions.  May-92/Sep-92
#..................................................................... Aug-94
Kitcher P; in "The Social Dimensions of Science", Ed. E. McMullin,
U. Notre Dame Press, 1992; p.245.
"Authority, deference, and the role of individual reason".
** A sci-soc/phil paper; it is concerned with 'the constitution of epistemic
authority", as seen in the case of 'cold fusion'. There is mathematical 
handling of such topics as authority functions, prestige effects, alliances,
assessment of others' work, replication and more.
#..................................................................... Aug-94
Klotz IM, Katz JJ;  Amer. Scholar 60 (1991) 247.
"Two extraordinary electrical experiments".
** A sci-soc/phil paper. K&K juxtapose the 1836 Crosse with the 1989 F&P
affair. Crosse performed a long term electrolysis and observed the formation
of small insects in the cell. K&K note several parallels, such as announcement
by press, simplicity of the experiments, eminence of the workers, confirmation
by others, refutation by others, lack of controls. K&K conclude: People yearn
to believe. 
#..................................................................... Aug-94
Kozima H;  Rept. Fac. Sci., Shizuoka Univ., 28 (1994) 31.
"How the cold fusion occurs?"
** Accepting many report of excess heat, neutron, tritium and other particles
generation, K seeks a theoretical basis for these observations. All the 
diverse observations appear to fit the model involving trapped neutrons. 
Neutrons that happen to enter the sample are thermalised and trapped as 
standing waves, bounded by the reflecting walls of ordered arrays of deuterons 
or protons. These neutrons then essentially fuse with deuterons/protons, 
producing triutium or deuterium. Tritons go on to fuse with deuterons to 
produce the odd 4He, and the high-energy fusion product neutrons cause other 
d-d pairs to fuse. All this explains the Pd/D2o, Ni/H2O as well as the exotic
systems such as ceramics etc.  Oct-93/?
#..................................................................... Aug-94
Martin SE; Journalism Quarterly 68 (1991) 179.
"Using expert sources in breaking science stories: A comparison of magazine 
types".
** Martin askes the question whether there is a significant difference between 
scientific journals and the popular press (in which she includes Scientific 
American) in the number of experts cited in the material. There is not, for 
the case of 'cold fusion'. There was more variability in the number of expert
sources drawn upon by business journals than in all others. 
#..................................................................... Aug-94
Mellican RE; Bull. Sci. Tech. Soc. 12 (1992) 1.
"From fusion frenzy to fraud: Reflections on science and its cultural norms".
** scisoc/phil paper, using the 'cold fusion' theme as an example of the way
science appears to have undergone a change recently, with science by press and
fraud apparently rampant. Note that Mellican does not label CNF as fraud. The
questions asked are whether the science community has responded adequately to
these issues and the implications of the response. There may be a need to
renegotiate the relation between science and the public.
#..................................................................... Aug-94
Miao B;
Xibei Shifan Xuebao. Ziran Kexueban 30(1)(1994) 39 (in Chinese, Eng. abstr).
"Experimental exploration on the possible mechanism of D-D cold fusion in 
titanium lattice".
** "The present paper reports in detail the experiments of electrolysing D2O
made by the group using Titanium cathode. The primary results of experiments 
have proved exothermal effect and product 4He of nuclear fusion, the two 
specific feature predicted by the mechanism of professor Gou Qingquan" (direct 
quote of the abstr.). Fig. 2 shows an electrolytic cell with a Ti cathode and
two thermistors in the cell, one at the Ti, the other away from it. The 
electrolyte was 0.1M NaOD in D2O. Fig. 5 shows some temperature excursions,
one lasting 2753 min.
#..................................................................... Aug-94
Miles MH, Bush BF, Lagowski JJ; Fusion Technol. 25 (1994) 478.
"Anomalous effects involving excess power, radiation, and helium production
during D2O electrolysis using palladium cathodes".
** The previous paper by these authors, claiming the observation of helium
generated in a 'cold fusion' cell, was criticised by many; the authors now
agree that error limits had not been sufficiently defined. In more recent
experiments, they have now established the detection limits for 4He in their
500 ml Pyrex glass flasks: it is 3.10^13 atoms. This gives some credence to
their measured rate of production of 4He, 10^11 - 10^12 atoms/s/W(excess 
power), which is about right for d-d fusion giving 4He (the rare branch,
thought by some to dominate in PdD). The authors admit to experimental
problems, including excess heat errors a large fraction of the excess heat
itself, but the double blind nature of these studies makes them more confident
that the new results are trustworthy.  May-93/Jul-94
#..................................................................... Aug-94
Pinch TJ;  Social Studies of Science 22 (1992) 487.
"Opening black boxes: Science, technology and society".
** This was given as a talk at a conference and later published here. It is a
sci-soc/phil paper, discussing 'the role of errors and mistakes' in 'cold
fusion', among other subjects. Pinch points out that different standards are
applied by critics of 'cold fusion' to its advocates and its critics. Authors
Close and Broad are singled out as examples. 
#
Rousseau DL; Amer. Scientist  80 (1992) (Jan-Feb), 54.
"Case studies in pathological science".
** Polywater, cold fusion and Benveniste's homeopathic paper in Nature are
used here as examples of PS. The author was himself involved in the first of
these three, and its debunking; he found the impurities that caused the
"anomalous" behaviour of water, i.e. traces of sweat. DLR believes that cold
fusion, like the other two cases, is one of self delusion. There is a good
Johnny Hart cartoon.
#..................................................................... Aug-94
Sun D-L, Lei Y-Q, Wu J, Wang Q-D, Wang R; Science in China A 36 (1993) 1501.
"An explanation for the abnormal temperature rise of palladium cathode during 
electrochemical deuterium charging".
** This team performed 7 long-term 'cold fusion' electrolyses, searching for
excess heat. Threee types of Pd cathodes rods, 6 mm diameter and 33.5 mm 
length, were used: as-cast, annealed and deformed. Current densities varied 
from 54 to 540 mA/cm^2, and electrolysis times were up to 300 h. The cell
was of the open type and the calorimeter was of the cooling coil type. 
Measurement accuracy was 1.5-5%, and all but one experiment resulted in excess
heat within this band. In that one experiment (as-cast, 518 mA/cm^2), there
was a single temperature excursion at about 130 h lasting about 30 h, giving
a 28% excess heat or a total of 112 kJ/cm^3 of Pd. The authors possible 
chemical origins of this heat but dismiss them. D-d fusion, too, is not 
believed to be possible by the team. There remains the release of stress in 
microcracks, proposed here.  Dec-92/Dec-93
#..................................................................... Aug-94
Szpak S, Mosier-Boss PA, Boss RD;  J. Electroanal. Chem. 373 (1994) 1.
"Comments on the analysis of tritium content in electrochemical cells".
** Most workers looking for tritium in their cold fusion cells take aliquots 
out of the electrolyte and analyse these. It is important to know how the 
tritium, if any, is distributed in the cell; i.e. between the gas phase, 
electrolyte and electrode bulk. This paper takes a theoretical look at this 
problem, as well as at the data acquisition procedure. It concludes that 
isotope separation can be determined from analysis of the gas and liquid 
phases; analysis error can be minimised by increasing counting time in the 
liquid scintillation method; care must be taken with open cells. Jul-93/Aug-94
#..................................................................... Aug-94
Taylor CA; Commun. Monogr. 58 (1991) 402.
"Defining the scientific community: A rhetorical perspective on demarcation".
** A scholarly paper by a science sociologist/philosopher on how science
defines its borders; cold fusion is used as a case study. The idea is
propagated here, that Big Science, i.e. hot fusion, felt itself under attack
and reacted. Reaction focussed on the errors committed by cold fusion
researchers, and on the lack of universality (reproducibility), a clear
criterion for the demarcation of what is science from what is not.    ?/Dec-91
#..................................................................... Aug-94
Yague AR; Metal. Electr. (Spain) 54(618) (1990) 134 (in Spanish).
"Cold nuclear fusion and its history".
** A run-through of the history of cold fusion, starting with Paneth and
Peters, through Frank's and Sakharov's ideas of the 1940's, Alvarez's
discovery of muon catalysed fusion (which got the name "cold fusion", in
1957), Rafelski and Jones's work along the same lines, a thumbnail sketch of
the background to the Jones+:FPH relationship, publication problems and
world-wide attempts to reproduce the phenomenon. The breadth of all this is,
unfortunately, not matched by the reference list, which is skimpy, referring
mostly to what appear to be Spanish popular science publications.
#..................................................................... Aug-94
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------


Retrieval of the archived files:
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. By anonymous FTP from vm1.nodak.edu (134.129.111.1).  Login anonymous, with
   your e-mail address as the password. Type CD FUSION, DIR FUSION.CNF* to get
   a listing. The general index is large. Use GET (ie. GET FUSION.CNF-PAP1). 
2. Via LISTSERV. You get a (large) index of the archives by sending an email  
   to listserv@vm1.nodak.edu, with a blank SUBJECT line, and the "message"   
   'index fusion'. To get any one of these files, you then send to the same   
   address the message, e.g., 
   get fusion 91-00487
   get fusion cnf-pap1         etc, according to what you're after.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The bib-files are: cnf-bks (books), cnf-pap1..cnf-pap6 (papers, slices 1..6),
cnf-pat (patents), cnf-cmnt (comments), cnf-peri (peripherals), cnf-unp
(unpublished stuff collected by Vince Cate, hydrogen/metal references from
Terry Bollinger). There is also the file cnf-brif, which has all the -pap*
file references without annotations, all in one file (so far); and cnf-new,
with the last three months' or so of new items in all biblio files. 
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
===========================================================

cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.30 /   /  Re: Cold Fusion Magazine - Bit the dust?!?
     
Originally-From: rodneym608@aol.com (RodneyM608)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion Magazine - Bit the dust?!?
Date: 30 Aug 1994 20:23:02 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

In article <eileen.25.0008AE22@nomos.com>, eileen@nomos.com (Eileen M.
Stamps) writes:

I don't know if the magazine has bit the dust. It seems that the magazine
is distributed by BUTTERFLY VIDEO PRODUCTIONS. Questions could be answered
by Frances Hyvarienen on 1-800-677-8838 Ex 311.

Regards.
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenrodneym608 cudln cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.31 / David Davies /  Re: Limitations of nuclear theory
     
Originally-From: drd851@huxley.anu.edu.au (David R Davies)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Limitations of nuclear theory
Date: 31 Aug 1994 10:50:58 +1000
Organization: Australian National University

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

>Dave Davies chooses to denigrate nuclear theory with remarks such as,
>"We don't even have a convincing model of the interaction between two
>nuclei." and "Opposition to cold fusion has been based on inadequate
>models..."  He also repeats the false assertion that the only experimental
>evidence offered to counter cold fusion results is based on "extrapolation
>from high energy collision."

I dont think I was denigrating nuclear physics at all and didn't intend
to at any rate. My comments were directed toward those that over-sold
NPhys by claiming that CF was clearly impossible and then refuse to provide
references to relevant experimental evidence. Where are the detailed
arguments and refutations Dick? References! Not just statements that 'we
know better'. Either that or just sit back and see how the experiments
pan out. You are welcome to say 'told you so' if it all fails in the end
but I don't think that day has come yet.

The simple fact is that QM is at a loss to deal with the situation we are
debating other than to say 'it doesnt seem plausible given our present
interpretation' but people have disputed the ultimate validity of the
orthodox QM interpretaion from the beginning.
 
                          He then goes on to embrace without question
>some totally unproven concepts that have been put foward as possible
>explanations for the occurance of cold fuison. 

Real proof is a rare and mercurial thing at the best of times. I'm always
suspicious of it. Usually we have to ballance a range of possibilities. 

 Come one now, Dave, let's
>use roughly the same standards to evaluate both the evidence from nuclear
>theory and experiment and from cold fusion research.  I don't know what
>you would consider a convincing model for the nuclear interaction, but
>even given that anything matching your standards is lacking we do still
>know a heck of a lot about the nuclear interaction including how to
>extrapolate right down to zero relative kinetic energy.  And even if
>you don't like the extrapolation there is still data from muon catalyzed
>cold fusion and from some really clever experiments where the relative
>kinetic energy between two nuclei is pretty darned small even though
>they have a higher velocity relative to the laboratory frame.

References Dick, references. If you really want to convince, you should
also include some commentry for the non nuclear physicists. 

>Now what can any theory of cold fusion offer to counter the arguments
>made by nuclear physicists? 

I must have missed them. All I have seen is contradiction and assertion
but nothing I would call a real argument.

>                              Show me one case where anyone has gone
>so far as to write down a wave function that includes explicitely
>the internal coordinates of the involved nucleons to show where any
>nuclear energy release can come from without observable consequences.
>Just to make your task a little bit more interesting, please tell
>us which selected subset of the cold fusion data this theory is
>supposed to explain.  I will say that all the conjectures involving
>delocalization and spreading of nuclear charge and energy transfer
>to the whole lattice are based on inadequate models, invalid approximations,
>violations of established physical principles, and questionable logic.
>There, take that!  :-)   Nuclear physics isn't half as bad off as you
>seem to think.

>Dick Blue

I dont think NPhys is bad, just that some of its practitioners have
over-stated their case. 

Demonstration of CF is up to the experimentalists. If you don't believe
that it is nuclear then by all means say so and present detailed argument
but if you have no detailed argument then you, like the rest of us, must
just sit back and see how it all pans out. I see no clear evidence that
the excess energy claimed by so many is nuclear in origin but I still
think that that is the most likely explanation.

dave
dave.davies@anu.edu.au
 
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudendrd851 cudfnDavid cudlnDavies cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.30 / Henry Voss /  Cold Fusion Bibliography by Dieter Britz
     
Originally-From: Henry Voss <hank_voss@delphi.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Cold Fusion Bibliography by Dieter Britz
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 94 20:57:09 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Is there a place accessible thru DELPHI to read / download the Cold Fusion
Bibliography by Dr. Dieter Britz.  I read of it several years ago, but the
closest place to view it in any part is Cornell, way up in NY.
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenhank_voss cudfnHenry cudlnVoss cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.31 / Bill Page /  Very Cold Cold Fusion?
     
Originally-From: 70047.3047@compuserve.com (Bill Page)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Very Cold Cold Fusion?
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 1994 04:51:17 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I'm back and I've been to the library...

If one supposes that high temperature bose condensation and delocalization
have something to do with the observations of excess heat production in CF
experiments, then one might reasonably assume that some such effects
should also be observed in the more well known case of condensation at
very low temperatures. So I thought I'd take a look for something like
this.

So far, I've come up with what looks like at least one intriguing
observation. J.J. Fritz, H.J. Maria, and J.G. Aston (Cryogenic Lab., Penn.
State.) published a two page letter in the Journal of Chemical Physics,
vol. 34, page 2185 (1961) titled "Concerning the Feasibility of Nuclear
Cooling with Palladium Hydride". They state:

"Attempts to obtain nuclear cooling of protons in palladium hydride
(formal composition Pd2H) were frustrated by energy evolution in this
system below 1 deg. K.". The letter goes on to give details of a series
of experiments that were performed with palladium metal and with the
hydride under different cooling regimes (slow cooling or annealing).
They state after cooling to below 1 deg. K.: "The metallic specimen
warmed at about 0.0003 deg C/min, corresponding to a total heat influx
of 10 to 20 erg/min. The warming rate for the palladium hydride specimens
was from 3 to 60 times greater, decreasing with the extent of
annealing...".

However they continue: "The negative results [lack of nuclear cooling]
were not unexpected ... We believe that the energy evolution is due to
transitions between nuclear spin states of the bound hydrogen in palladium
hydride.". A reference is made to an earlier paper by D.M. Nace and J.G.
Aston, J. Am. Chem. Soc. vol. 79, pp. 3619 (1959) concerning this
postulated effect. They conclude: "At present it is difficult to imagine
any process other than spin conversion proceeding at an appreciable rate
below 0.05 deg. K.".

Perhaps now we can imagine another possible explanation.

It would be very interesting, I think to see what if anything, became of
this research. I spent an unsuccessful $20 on a search of SCI-CITATIONS
for any follow on publication. But I think the search may have failed
mostly because very few of the citations before 1975 or so are actually
online. Is anyone else out there in the network willing to give it a try?

I think particularly interesting would be to see if they found the
expected isotope variation (with Pd2D for example). And how the
effect varies with the composition of the hydride (deuteride). And, of
course, did they publish information on how this composition (loading)
was measured?

Cheers,

Bill Page.

cudkeys:
cuddy31 cuden3047 cudfnBill cudlnPage cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.31 / Chris Parkinson /  Re: Griggs Hydrosonic Pump update
     
Originally-From: parky@ix.netcom.com (Chris Parkinson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs Hydrosonic Pump update
Date: 31 Aug 1994 06:40:25 GMT
Organization: Netcom

In <33vcnu$4p0@stratus.skypoint.com> jlogajan@mirage.skypoint.net (John Logajan) writes: 

>
>jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:
>: It is cheaper than electric heating but not as economical as gas or oil.
>
>There is no reason (as I understand it) why Griggs must use an electrical
>motor for his device, therefore the fuel cost could be reduced by running
>an internal or external combustion engine, and the waste heat could be
>recovered to make a highly efficient *heat* source.
>--
> - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com -- 612-633-0345 -

Hello Again,

40 horse power to start and then down to 12 Hp at effect point.
The problem that I see is the calculations from the time that the energy
comes from the rivers or Nukes or the oil fields.

CP
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenparky cudfnChris cudlnParkinson cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.31 / Dieter Britz /  Re: McKubre's data & s.p.f experiment
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: McKubre's data & s.p.f experiment
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 1994 07:40:14 GMT
Date: 29 Aug 1994 22:55:46 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway


Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege) in Fusion Digest 2655
Date: 29 Aug 1994 22:55:46 GMT

>Here ia what I read into this.  McKubre has been slow to publish.  This
>in the Dieter Britz sense.  i.e. in a refereed journal.  Why?  Well the
>snide answer is that he does not want to hurt his reputation by publishing
>in an area that later turns out to be an error.

One thing to bear in mind here is that a journal like J. Electroanal. Chem.
has a delay time (submission to publication) of up to 18 months. This doesn't
quite explain the even longer McKubre delay, but it's a big chunk of it. I
have checked CNF papers in JEC (there are quite a few in this top 
electrochemical journal) and found that CNF does not get favoured treatment -
with the understandable exception of FPH-89.

[....]
>McKubre's work looked good to me at first.  Particularly the ICCF2 paper.
>But now the old stuff is wearing thin.  I expect more results to show that
>the work is progressing.  The lack of a write up implies that they are
>no longer able to get the same results.  In a field like this, it is
>necessary to keep publishing better data.  -- or go the secret patent
>route.  If you don't keep publishing better and better experiments then
>you are very suspect!!
[....]
>Yep, McKubre once had some nice looking results.  But they have faded with
>time.  More results, and a sure fire recipe are needed if he is to
>maintain credibility.

I'd like to amplify this a bit. Whether or not you need to keep getting a 
given result, and even have to improve on it, depends on how much that result
runs counter to received wisdom. It is not generally true.

I once looked at a new way to measure the critical micelle concentration
(CMC), based on certain potentials to do with adsorption at an electrode.
Substances that form micelles (lumps of molecules) mostly show discontinuities
in some properties around the CMC, so it was likely, from all we knew, that it
would happen with these potentials as well; but noone had tried it, and I
wanted to know how accurate a CMC figure one could get from the method. Well,
it worked rather well, and I published it. A very small step for mankind; the
refereee said that it smacked of hobbyism - iow, he/she was not impressed. My
point is that this result stands for ever, I don't need to repeat it or
improve on it, to make it believable. 

With CNF, things are different. The claims do run counter to a lot of what we
already know, both experimental and theoretical. A single result is not 
enough. If you think that this is not dispassisonate science, you're right.
The human element comes in here. My single CMC result (i.e. my single series
of measurements) could be flawed as well, but since it is, in principle,
expected, noone demands a confirmation. Excess heat is unexpected, and with a
single result (or in the case of McKubre, a series of measurements on a group
of cells) there remains a doubt that it can be repeated. Just so, btw, with 
HTSC; this was not established by a single report either. Demonstrating
reproducibility serves two purposes: It establishes that the single unexpected
result was not an error; and it shows that the worker is getting a handle on
the conditions that make it work. For a long time, the Huggins result, good
though it looked, was indeed fading because the same results were being served
up again and again. Maybe an error after all? The recent paper by that group
on their fancy new calorimeter makes hints that there are new results, but 
does not present any; it all fades a bit more. But this fading effect holds
only for unexpected claims. The unexpected nature of 'cold fusion', and the
persistent (if somewhat doubtful) claims of repeatability, are the reasons
why this group still exists and why there are still some real scientists here
(rather than just smart operators promoting snake oil), who leave open a tiny
corner of their minds to the possibility of 'cold fusion'.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.31 / Lou Pagnucco /  Re: Very Cold Cold Fusion?
     
Originally-From: Lou Pagnucco <lpagnucco@delphi.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Very Cold Cold Fusion?
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 94 23:47:27 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

 
 
 
Bill Page <70047.3047@compuserve.com> in thread "Very Cold Cold Fusion?"
writes:
>            .
>            .
>            .
>If one supposes that high temperature bose condensation and delocalization
>have something to do with the observations of excess heat production in CF
>experiments, then one might reasonably assume that some such effects
>should also be observed in the more well known case of condensation at
>very low temperatures. So I thought I'd take a look for something like
>this.
>            .
>            .
>            .
>"Attempts to obtain nuclear cooling of protons in palladium hydride
>(formal composition Pd2H) were frustrated by energy evolution in this
>system below 1 deg. K.". The letter goes on to give details of a series
>of experiments that were performed with palladium metal and with the
>hydride under different cooling regimes (slow cooling or annealing).
>They state after cooling to below 1 deg. K.: "The metallic specimen
>warmed at about 0.0003 deg C/min, corresponding to a total heat influx
>of 10 to 20 erg/min. The warming rate for the palladium hydride specimens
>was from 3 to 60 times greater, decreasing with the extent of
>annealing...".
>
>However they continue: "The negative results [lack of nuclear cooling]
>were not unexpected ... We believe that the energy evolution is due to
>transitions between nuclear spin states of the bound hydrogen in palladium
>hydride.". A reference is made to an earlier paper by D.M. Nace and J.G.
>Aston, J. Am. Chem. Soc. vol. 79, pp. 3619 (1959) concerning this
>postulated effect. They conclude: "At present it is difficult to imagine
>any process other than spin conversion proceeding at an appreciable rate
>below 0.05 deg. K.".
>
>Perhaps now we can imagine another possible explanation.
>
>It would be very interesting, I think to see what if anything, became of
>this research. I spent an unsuccessful $20 on a search of SCI-CITATIONS
>for any follow on publication. But I think the search may have failed
>mostly because very few of the citations before 1975 or so are actually
>online. Is anyone else out there in the network willing to give it a try?
>
>I think particularly interesting would be to see if they found the
>expected isotope variation (with Pd2D for example). And how the
>effect varies with the composition of the hydride (deuteride). And, of
>course, did they publish information on how this composition (loading)
>was measured?
 
Bill,
 
In the late 1970's or early 1980's Richard L. Liboff published several
speculative papers on the possibility of fusion in solid hydrogen (also
on the possibility of exotic chemically catalyzed fusion reactions - if
I recall correctly).  The papers appeared in Physics Letters A or Physics
Letters B.   He is currently a professor at Cornell U. in case you want to
call him.
 
Regards,
Lou Pagnucco
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenlpagnucco cudfnLou cudlnPagnucco cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.29 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Currents-n-Koloc
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Currents-n-Koloc
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 1994 17:42:46 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <33soom$64i@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> al789@cleveland.Freenet.Edu
(John Logajan) writes:
>
>pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) says:
>
>>>below shows the relative velocity of the electron current
>>>vector component either directly into or out of the page.  

>>Let's call them current ** densities **, since velocity distribution
>>can be independent of current density.

Okay... actually current density vector component?? Does that help?

>I actually specifically wanted to avoid combining the velocity vector
>component and density into one variable, since it goes against my
>visualization technique of seperate maximally simple "snapshots."

I'm confused?? The individual current electrons all travel at the 
same "speed".  Now velocity component becomes a function of angle  
to whatever basis vectors you are using.  If toroidal or poloidal,
then, since their velocities are uniform it would seem we have no
difference between "electron velocity vector and _j(pt).  Right??  

>In the two sets of cross-sections, I was only going after the change
>in velocity vector direction.  .. . 

You mean change in speed of the velocity vector not rate of change
of the vector directional component??  right?  I'm assuming "snapshot"
here connotes a frozen view at a unique quantum vector direction.  

>                              .. Density changes are hinted at by the
>necessities of the topology, but I would prefer to show density
>explicitly in a seperate set of cross-sectional views.

>And all I am saying about the "velocity" is that for each particle,
>on a scale of 0 to 10, which percentage of its vector is in the one
>direction and which percentage is in the orthogonal direction.  I hope
>that clarifies that I wasn't comparing particle versus particle velocities.

>In the two sets immediately below, it can be seen quickly that current must
>flow more or less orthogonally at the minor axis compared to the flow at
>the maximum minor radius.

>>>          1 1 1 ------------- 1 1 1       Torodial side view cross-section
>>>        1 3 3 3 1           1 3 3 3 1        9 = maximum in or out velocity
>>>      1 3 5 5 5 3 1       1 3 5 5 5 3 1      1 = minimum in or out velocity
>>>    1 3 5 7 7 7 5 3 1   1 3 5 7 7 7 5 3 1
>>>    1 3 5 7 9 7 5 3 1   1 3 5 7 9 7 5 3 1
>>>    1 3 5 7 7 7 5 3 1   1 3 5 7 7 7 5 3 1
>>>      1 3 5 5 5 3 1       1 3 5 5 5 3 1
>>>        1 3 3 3 1           1 3 3 3 1
>>>          1 1 1 ------------- 1 1 1
>>
>>>                  9 9 9 9 9 
>>>                9 7 7 7 7 7 9
>>>              9 7 5 5 5 5 5 7 9           Torodial top view cross-section
>>>            9 7 5 3 3 3 3 3 5 7 9            9 = maximum in velocity
>>>          9 7 5 3 1 1 1 1 1 3 5 7 9          1 = minimum in velocity
>>>        9 7 5 3 1-3-3-3-3-3 1 3 5 7 9       -9 = maximum out velocity
>>>      9 7 5 3 1-3-5-5-5-5-5-3 1 3 5 7 9     -1 = minimum out velocity
>>>    9 7 5 3 1-3-5-5-7-7-7-5-5-3 1 3 5 7 9
>>>    9 7 5 3 1-3-5-7-7-9-7-7-5-3 1 3 5 7 9
>>>    9 7 5 3 1-3-5-7-9  -9-7-5-3 1 3 5 7 9
>>>    9 7 5 3 1-3-5-7-7-9-7-7-5-3 1 3 5 7 9
>>>    9 7 5 3 1-3-5-5-7-7-7-5-5-3 1 3 5 7 9
>>>      9 7 5 3 1-3-5-5-5-5-5-3 1 3 5 7 9
>>>        9 7 5 3 1-3-3-3-3-3 1 3 5 7 9
>>>          9 7 5 3 1 1 1 1 1 3 5 7 9
>>>            9 7 5 3 3 3 3 3 5 7 9
>>>              9 7 5 5 5 5 5 7 9
>>>                9 7 7 7 7 7 9
>>>                  9 9 9 9 9
>
>
>
>>This correction is 
>>made to illustrate the difference in current densities at the 
>>inside and outside edges, which correponds to the similiar and 
>>related difference in the toroidal field this current generates.  
>>
>>       Thus the top view of the equatorial plan is now:
>>                                
>>                      5 5 5 5 5  
>>                    5 3 3 3 3 3 5          Torodial top view cross-section
>>                  5 3 1 1 1 1 1 3 5           9 = maximum in velocity
>>                5 3 1-3-3-3-3-3 1 3 5         1 = minimum in velocity
>>              5 3 1-3-5-5-5-5-5-3 1 3 5      -9 = maximum out velocity
>>            5 3 1-3-5-7-7-7-7-7-5-3 1 3 5    -1 = minimum out velocity
>>          5 3 1-3-5-7-7-9-9-9-7-7-5-3 1 3 5  
>>          5 3 1-3-5-7-9-9-9-9-9-7-5-3 1 3 5  
>>          5 3 1-3-5-7-9   .  -9-7-5-3 1 3 5         dot is approximate
>>          5 3 1-3-5-7-9      -9-7-5-3 1 3 5             major axis (out)    
>>          5 3 1-3-5-7-9-9-9-9-9-7-5-3 1 3 5  
>>          5 3 1-3-5-7-7-9-9-9-7-7-5-3 1 3 5  
>>            5 3 1-3-5-7-7-7-7-7-5-3 1 3 5  
>>              5 3 1-3-5-5-5-5-5-3 1 3 5  
>>                5 3 1-3-3-3-3-3 1 3 5  
>>                  5 3 1 1 1 1 1 3 5  
>>                    5 3 3 3 3 3 5  
>>                      5 5 5 5 5  
>
>My major beef with the above "density including" version is that it loses
>a large degree of velocity vector specificity.  It would't serve, on
>its own, to adequately address the velocity vector issue.  But yes,
>as a current density only picture, it is adequate.  You need all three
>pictures to get the "big picture." :-)

Sorry I didn't point out the "vector" significance.  As Art will verify
I get into each component then "vector" reduces to a simple sign +|-
indicating "which way dey goin'".   

>-- John Logajan ---  al789@cleveland.freenet.edu
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc, Bx 1037 Prometheus II Ltd, College Park MD 20741-1037    |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.31 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Currents-n-Koloc and  "q"
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Currents-n-Koloc and  "q"
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 1994 23:41:05 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <33sileINN1f5c@sat.ipp-garching.mpg.de> bds@ipp-garching.mpg.
e (Bruce       Scott          TK  ) writes:
>In article <Cv6L3B.2Gr@prometheus.UUCP>, pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) writes:
>|> >bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce       Scott          TK) says:
>|> >>This is precisely what was meant by my question "what is
>|> >>the value of q"? In a cylindrical analog, q is defined as r B_T/R B_p,
>|> >>where r and R are minor and major radii, and B_T and B_p are the toroidal
>|> >>and poloidal components of the magnetic field.

That almost looks like you are talking about the ratio of their magnetic
moment.  That is what is  (r B_T) ??  r X B_T == ?? ; r dot B_T = 0 ??
or "r B_T"  == r, B_T ?? 



>|> >You can answer Bruce too, but don't use equations to explain it to me,
>|> >as I will be completely lost. :-)
>
>[Paul's answer containing stuff about why q = 1 is a problem in a tokamak]

>Paul, why don't you just answer my question without all the twisting
>around? In the following question, V is the volume of a flux surface,
>noting that V = 0 at the minor axis.

>    |                                                                |
>    |  What is q(V) in your plasma kernel, from minor axis to edge?  |
>    |________________________________________________________________|
    
I don't know.  I do some general values:  

                                 "q" is zero on the 
                                 "q" increases with minor radius
                                 "q" is likely to decrease with time. 
                                 
The only exception to the latter would be in the immediate neighborhood
of the sharp plasma Kernel's shell.  

1. 
So what is the value of q AT the toroidal surface?? .A high number, 
which. fortunately, it's such a small volume it will not contribute 
much to the rest of the system.  If the "q" derives from purely 
poloidal flux locked currents, then the current poloidal packet does
not propagate around the surface as does all of the other plasma 
current packet elements.  If the q is of order 10 - 20 it may 
survive, but higher order Q's at the toroidal surface may tend 
to form non-net-traveling overlapping sloshing turbulence waves. Since
such perturbations are confined only to the very outermost surface,
extensive MHD involvement is unlikely. Furthermore, there should
be little energy to drive them in this mode.     

2.  
The decrease of localized "q" with time, will have the effect of
constantly decoupling "q=integer" nodes.  

>A rough sketch on a graph will do. All you've told me is that there is 
>shear, i.e., dq/dV isn't zero.

The shear is a consequence of the force-free constraint. Imposing
that should give you a much more accurate picture of q than I could,
if you also consider the additional variabilities I have suggested. 

Of specific interest is the initial comparitively large value of
toroidal field, the time shifting (unwinding) aspects of "q" with
time (not important for virial estimate due to long time constant).  

You have a copy of the IAEA 77?? Bethesgarden?? fusion meeting 
in Innsbruck??  The Furth et al Spheromak paper had plots you can
use.  These plots of the medial cross-section values of
 _Bt and _Bp versus Major Radius should be good enough to pick off
 "q" (B_t/B_p) ratio at a specific radius) and (Normalized to the
aspect ratio).   

x-generated -stereo Pictures of currents, don't give us the vector 
information... and no! we can't stick active probes inside to take
localized measurments.   
>-- 
>Gruss,
>Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
>Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
>bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de                               -- W Gibson
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc, Bx 1037 Prometheus II Ltd, College Park MD 20741-1037    |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.31 / Tommy Nordgren /  Re: Limitations of nuclear theory
     
Originally-From: f85-tno@nada.kth.se (Tommy Nordgren)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Limitations of nuclear theory
Date: 31 Aug 1994 10:08:24 GMT
Organization: Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden

In article <9408291656.AA24605@pilot1.cl.msu.edu>, blue@pilot.msu.edu
(Richard A Blue) writes:
...
|> theory and experiment and from cold fusion research.  I don't know what
|> you would consider a convincing model for the nuclear interaction, but
|> even given that anything matching your standards is lacking we do still
|> know a heck of a lot about the nuclear interaction including how to
|> extrapolate right down to zero relative kinetic energy.  And even if
|> 

-- 
	No we certainly don't know how to extrapolate down to zero energy.
The barrier penetration probability for nuclear reactions are given by the
gamov factor, that is a function of the energy of the particles and the
electromagnetic potential down to the distance where the strong force
becomes dominant. The electromagnetic potential at high particle density,
and low temperature, will be modified by screening from the lattice 
electrons. 
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tommy Nordgren                    	-Free the Shroedinger cat!
Royal Institute of Technology     
Stockholm                         
f85-tno@nada.kth.se         						  
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudentno cudfnTommy cudlnNordgren cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.31 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Reply to Peter Roessingh
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reply to Peter Roessingh
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 94 09:49:23 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

matt@physics16.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern) writes:
 
     "If the observations of excess heat were as unambiguous in the case of
     'cold fusion' as they are for coal fires, then I'd have no trouble
     believing that we were seeing something real.  My complaint isn't
     against calorimetry per se, but simply that the effects reported in
     these particular calorimetric experiments are tiny, near the threshold
     of detection, and extremely vulnerable to systematic and theoretical
     errors."
 
That is incorrect. The excess heat effects reported by Pons and Fleischmann,
McKubre, Mizuno, Mills, Storms, Griggs and many others are not tiny, they are
macroscopic. They are not near the threshold of detection; they are in some
cases thousands of times above the threshold. Mizuno, for example, inputs a
fraction of a milliwatt and detects 40 to 60 watts, and in one case a much
larger burst that destroyed his equipment. Griggs uses up to 350 lbs of water
as a heat sink. If there was no excess heat, this water would only be 80 deg F
after a 20 minute run, which is lukewarm. It is 104 degrees F, it is scalding
hot. There is gigantic difference between a barrel full of lukewarm water and
a barrel full of steaming, scalding hot water; that is not at the limits of
detectability, you can easily tell. Input energy is measured with one or two
high precision industrial electric power meters and with a dynamometer, both
accurate to within a percent or so. The excess is 60%, and he does not even
bother to capture and account for the heat lost from the uninsulated pump,
pipes and steel drum. The pump a large block of steel radiating heat at 300
deg F, so Griggs is probably throwing away a few extra kilowatts of excess.
 
In the literature there are some calorimetric measurements near the limits of
detectability, but there are many others which are far above those limits. You
have failed to take into account the latter. These large excesses are not
subject to any systematic or theoretical errors, they are unambiguous, no
"skeptic" has ever proposed a tenable error that might explain any of them.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenjedrothwell cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.31 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Griggs Hydrosonic Pump update
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs Hydrosonic Pump update
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 94 09:51:15 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

jlogajan@mirage.skypoint.net (John Logajan) writes:
 
     "There is no reason (as I understand it) why Griggs must use an
     electrical motor for his device, therefore the fuel cost could be
     reduced by running an internal or external combustion engine, and the
     waste heat could be recovered to make a highly efficient *heat* source."
 
That is correct. He has run the pump with a large truck engine. I mentioned
that he tested it with seawater; he ran it from the from ICE on that occasion.
It is generally used with an electric motor because this is much safer and
easier to engineer for enclosed spaces. It does not require a fire wall, a
chimney or special venting. It reduces fire insurance cost and maintenance.
 
There is an established market for industrial electric boilers and heaters
even though they are inherently more expensive than gas, oil or coal fired
heaters. At many sites and in many specialized applications open flames cannot
be used. This is a niche market, but it is substantial. Griggs originally
intended to develop a new heater for this market; he had no idea that his
device would go over unity. His device has many mechanical advantages over
traditional boilers, for example it is compact, and well suited for treating
waste water.
 
For space heating applications, an electrically driven heat pump may be more
economical than the Griggs device, depending upon the outside temperature.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenjedrothwell cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.31 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re:  ICCF4 Proceedings/A closer look
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re:  ICCF4 Proceedings/A closer look
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 94 09:53:05 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

jonesse@xray.byu.edu (Steve Jones) writes:
 
     "I have heard the same thing, but the reason for stopping the CF work
     [at Amoco] was  that the researchers found that the "excess heat" was in
     fact traced to recombination of D2 and O2 in the electrolytic cell --
     thus not excess heat at all."
 
That is incorrect. The report -- and my quote from Melich summarizing it --
clearly stated that this was a closed cell. That means it has a recombiner in
it, which eliminates any possibility long term spurious excess heat due to
recombination. They could not have measured 50 KJ recombination with a closed
cell.
 
Jones adds:
 
     "As for the Shell study by Dufour, Foos and Millot in France, it is
     instructive to actually look at their paper which is published in the
     ICCF-4 Proceedings by EPRI, p. 9-1 ff. of volume 1.  This is rich. . .
     [followed by various comments relating to nuclear theory.]"
 
I cannot evaluate the nuclear theory in the Dufour paper. I have no way of
knowing whether it is right, wrong, rich or poor. I can, however, evaluate his
calorimetry and I see no mistake there. I am sure he did measure excess heat
at a very high level, far above the threshold of detection. These experimental
results are all that matter. His theories may be completely cockeyed (I cannot
judge), but his results are correct.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenjedrothwell cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.31 / Arnie Frisch /  Re: Reply to Peter Roessingh
     
Originally-From: arnief@wu.labs.tek.com (Arnie Frisch)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reply to Peter Roessingh
Date: 31 Aug 1994 08:41:32 -0700
Organization: Tektronix Laboratories, Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton, OR

In article <JUxSGSj.jedrothwell@delphi.com> jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:
>matt@physics16.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern) writes:
> 
>     "If the observations of excess heat were as unambiguous in the case of
>     'cold fusion' as they are for coal fires, then I'd have no trouble
>     believing that we were seeing something real.  My complaint isn't
........
......


>In the literature there are some calorimetric measurements near the limits of
>detectability, but there are many others which are far above those limits. You
>have failed to take into account the latter. These large excesses are not
>subject to any systematic or theoretical errors, they are unambiguous, no
>"skeptic" has ever proposed a tenable error that might explain any of them.


How convenient your memory is!

It seems to me that I, and a large number of other "skeptics", have
posted a number of messages about "tenable errors" that you seem to
avoid remembering.

Besides, it's not just "tenable errors" that are the issue, it's sloppy
and slovenly experimental procedure, lack of reproducibility, evasion,
secretiveness, libel, ........ , and a bunch of other things that will
go unsaid.

Arnold Frisch
Tektronix Laboratories
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenarnief cudfnArnie cudlnFrisch cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.31 / Larry Elie /  Re: Griggs Hydrosonic Pump update
     
Originally-From: lelie@smail.srl.ford.com (Larry Elie)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs Hydrosonic Pump update
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 1994 12:42:34 UNDEFINED
Organization: Ford Motor Co.

In article <BW5wmIr.jedrothwell@delphi.com> jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:
>From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
>Subject: Re: Griggs Hydrosonic Pump update
>Date: Wed, 31 Aug 94 09:51:15 -0500

>jlogajan@mirage.skypoint.net (John Logajan) writes:
> 
{Wholesale deletions}

>For space heating applications, an electrically driven heat pump may be more
>economical than the Griggs device, depending upon the outside temperature.

Outside temperature?  How about ground water temperature?  My ground source 
heat pump (which I have used exclusively way up here in MI for 4 years) is 
350% efficient...for every 1000 Watts I put into runing the compressor and the 
circulator I get out 3500 Watts of heat, at my constant 52 deg. F (year 
around) ground water temperature.  That doesn't count the blower.  And no, I 
don't know anyone that has tried to power a sterling engine with the heat from 
the pump so that the operation becomes independant; even if you did a best 
case would only allow you to bleed off a couple of hundred watts excess, and 
that with lots of money invested.

> >- Jed

Larry Elie
lelie@smail.srl.ford.com

cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenlelie cudfnLarry cudlnElie cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.08.31 / Jon Noring /  --> proposed National Ignition Facility (NIF).  Need pros and cons.
     
Originally-From: noring@netcom.com (Jon Noring)
Newsgroups: alt.activism,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,alt.technology.mis
,sci.energy,sci.engr,sci.environment,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics,sci.
esearch
Subject: --> proposed National Ignition Facility (NIF).  Need pros and cons.
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 1994 16:56:27 GMT
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)

Hello,

As part of a research project with a very quick deadline, I would like to
obtain all views as to the necessity, problems, and benefits of the proposed
$1.1 billion National Ignition Facility (laser fusion facility being
promoted by LLNL.)  Feel free to be blunt and open about your views.

I'd appreciate if your views could be forwarded to me as soon as possible,
within a few hours of reading this post, if that is possible.

Much thanks.

Jon Noring

-- 
OmniMedia           | Famous literary works are available from OmniMedia as
1312 Carlton Place  | Windows 3.1 Help files. Demo versions available via
Livermore, CA 94550 | anonymous ftp from ftp.netcom.com /pub/OmniMedia/books.
510-294-8153        | "Fanny Hill", "Devil's Dictionary", "Aesop's Fables"...
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudennoring cudfnJon cudlnNoring cudmo8 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.01 / Phil Fraering /  Plasmak: Where is it experimentally?
     
Originally-From: pgf@srl03.cacs.usl.edu (Phil G. Fraering)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Plasmak: Where is it experimentally?
Date: 01 Sep 1994 01:13:17 GMT
Organization: The Old Guy In The Woods Health Care Alliance

After skimming some of the discussion between Paul
Koloc, that plasma physicist in Germany, and Jim Bowery,
I thought I'd pop in and ask:

What's the current experimental situation for Plasmaks?
At what scale are these currently being produced?

Where can we invest?

Finally: What's the story on Spheromak?

--
+-----------------------+
|"Standard Disclaymore" |"The singularity happened, but nobody noticed.
|pgf@srl03.cacs.usl.edu | They were all home watching TV." 
+-----------------------+ - Hanno Antagonist
                         
cudkeys:
cuddy01 cudenpgf cudfnPhil cudlnFraering cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Thu Sep  1 04:37:22 EDT 1994
------------------------------
1994.09.01 / Paul Koloc /  Re: The virial theorem
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The virial theorem
Date: Thu, 1 Sep 1994 01:32:49 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <3400ouINN1bs7@sat.ipp-garching.mpg.de> bds@ipp-garching.mpg.
e (Bruce       Scott          TK  ) writes:
>In article <jaboweryCvCtGM.JB4@netcom.com>, 
>	jabowery@netcom.com (Jim Bowery) writes:
>
>|> I'll agree that the present controversy of the virial vs divergence 
>|> theorem represents a significant issue in theoretical physics, but it is 
>|> far from the sort of unspecified and largely unfalsifiable area covered 
>|> by the wide range of cold fusion theories.  Either your application of 
>|> the virial theorem is correct or Paul's insistance that the divergence 
>|> theorem is the only proper way to calculate equilibrium, is correct.

>I just want to note that "virial theorem" means "equilibrium plus
>divergence theorem". There is nothing wrong with taking the plasmak
>structure as stated as an initial state for an _ab inito_ computation.
>It is just that whether the plasmak configuration as stated is in fact
>an equilibrium is doubtful to us. 

No question that it wouldn't be doubful to you or most Americans.  But 
this is psychological.  People of the USA believe that confinement 
(constraint) requires leg-irons and steel bars.  It is virtually 
impossible for a people of such a paradigm to believe that anything
outside the solid state:  surface currents, soap bubbles and
the like can generate confining boundaries.  

>This is irrespective of whether Paul has a plasma. Given that he does,
>the discussion has convinced me that there is no experimental data from
>his lab that could demonstrate that his plasma is not something more
>prosaic, 

Why not mosaic?  Inject (gas puffing) a cloud of dust with laser 
lights cleverly rapid pulse illuminating an avalanche of dazzle.   

You can't explain it so it can not be??  That's going to become a
tough sell.   What are you chaps not drinking??  Have a couple 
more, and maybe the thought that I have what I say I have will 
not frighten you into such theoretical flights of fancy.  

> like a Wu and Chen plasmoid equilibrium embedded in ambient
>gas, 

How about Yeng and Yang??  Ok... I give up??? what is a Wu-Chen
plasmoid??  (I ask, assuming these yokels are describing somthing  
they can reproduce, for if they can't, then I assume they are
discussing a fantasy of theory and will tell us such).  

So how long does it last? What is its energy density? And how
large has it been made.. (average) to date.  What is its mag/
plasma topology??  OR  Is it an plasma/Electro static model?? 

>rather than a state containing the more exotic features Paul has
>been advocting.

What's exotic, by comparison with the absolute complexities of the 
doo-dad happy plasma gizmo the tokamak has become.  My comcept 
isn't exotic, it's ELEGANT.  It's even Simple (engineering wise). 

Do I detect sour grapes, here?? 
>-- 
>Gruss,
>Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
>Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
>bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de                               -- W Gibson
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc, Bx 1037 Prometheus II Ltd, College Park MD 20741-1037    |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.01 / John Logajan /  PMK Jr.
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@mirage.skypoint.net (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: PMK Jr.
Date: 1 Sep 1994 04:22:02 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Well, I had a little time on my hands, and a roll of 30 gauge copper
wire, so I wound a torus of wire around an inner multi-turn loop of
wire -- to simulate the current flows in Paul Koloc's plasma torus
at the minor axis and maxium minor radius points.

Applying about 4 amps DC current to this 3/4" by 2-1/4" device resulted
in no apparent movement of the free-to-move inner wire loop. 

Applying an AC potential (of a couple of megahertz) to either the
inner or outer coil produced a much smaller AC potential in the
other coil.

This second observation somewhat contradicts the first observation,
since an induced current in a secondary implies, I think, the existance
of forces that can also lead to mechanical movements.

But the conclusion is that the two coil (currents) are to a large
extent, ignorant of each other.


My next test (somewhere in the mid to distant future??)  will be to
place the torus coil into a spherical coil to again check for 
physical forces and/or inductive coupling.

--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com -- 612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills  MN 55112 USA           -
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.01 / L Plutonium /  THEORY OF LIGHT POLARIZATION, ANY MYSTERIES?
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: THEORY OF LIGHT POLARIZATION, ANY MYSTERIES?
Date: 1 Sep 1994 07:10:37 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

ANY LIGHT POLARIZATION EXPERIMENTS WHICH INDICATE THAT THE THEORY OF
LIGHT IS INCOMPLETE? ANY MYSTERIES, OR EXPLANATIONS WHICH ARE NOT
WHOLLY SATISFYING? IS THE THEORY OF LIGHT POLARIZATION AS MATURE OF A
THEORY AS SAY LEVERS AND PULLEYS, AS AN EXAMPLE?
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.01 / Bruce TK /  Re: Currents-n-Koloc
     
Originally-From: bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce       Scott          TK  )
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Currents-n-Koloc
Date: 1 Sep 1994 09:50:30 GMT
Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching

In article <CvB57B.L63@prometheus.UUCP>, pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) writes:

|> I'm confused?? The individual current electrons all travel at the 
|> same "speed".  Now velocity component becomes a function of angle  
|> to whatever basis vectors you are using.  If toroidal or poloidal,
|> then, since their velocities are uniform it would seem we have no
|> difference between "electron velocity vector and _j(pt).  Right??  

Assuming you can neglect the ion velocities, this is correct. It is even
correct if the electrons are _not_ all moving the same speed, but with a
distribution of velocities. In that case the current is proportional to
the average velocity, which is (1/n) times v times the distribution function
of velocities, integrated over all velocities (n is the number density).

|> >In the two sets of cross-sections, I was only going after the change
|> >in velocity vector direction.  .. . 
|> 
|> You mean change in speed of the velocity vector not rate of change
|> of the vector directional component??  right?  I'm assuming "snapshot"
|> here connotes a frozen view at a unique quantum vector direction.  

I think he means "spatial derivative of the unit velocity vector", ie
purely the directional change, not the magnitude change.

-- 
Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de                               -- W Gibson
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnTK cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.01 / Bruce TK /  Re: The virial theorem
     
Originally-From: bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce       Scott          TK  )
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The virial theorem
Date: 1 Sep 1994 10:10:46 GMT
Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching

In article <CvFGAp.3zA@prometheus.UUCP>, pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) writes:

|> No question that it wouldn't be doubful to you or most Americans.  But 
|> this is psychological.  People of the USA believe that confinement 
|> (constraint) requires leg-irons and steel bars.  It is virtually 
|> impossible for a people of such a paradigm to believe that anything
|> outside the solid state:  surface currents, soap bubbles and
|> the like can generate confining boundaries.  

Paul, I don't give a damn about philosophy, religion, or politics when I do
science. I'd be happy if you kept this sort of stuff to yourself.

|> >This is irrespective of whether Paul has a plasma. Given that he does,
|> >the discussion has convinced me that there is no experimental data from
|> >his lab that could demonstrate that his plasma is not something more
|> >prosaic, 
|> 
|> Why not mosaic?  Inject (gas puffing) a cloud of dust with laser 
|> lights cleverly rapid pulse illuminating an avalanche of dazzle.   

The information content of this statement is, unfortunately, zero. You
get lots of "wild effects" when you puff impurities into any plasma, and
the reason is well known (collisional excitation via electron collisions,
followed by dexcitation through an emitted photon).

|> You can't explain it so it can not be??  That's going to become a
|> tough sell.   What are you chaps not drinking??  Have a couple 
|> more, and maybe the thought that I have what I say I have will 
|> not frighten you into such theoretical flights of fancy.  

Again, do remove the nonsense. Just tell me _quantitatively_ what there
is to explain. Only transport phenomena are elusive at this point, and
that's just because we are only now getting the computational resources
to solve the equations. The equations themselves are well-known and also
in many regimes well-tested.

|> > like a Wu and Chen plasmoid equilibrium embedded in ambient
|> >gas, 
|> 
|> How about Yeng and Yang??  Ok... I give up??? what is a Wu-Chen
|> plasmoid??  (I ask, assuming these yokels are describing somthing  
|> they can reproduce, for if they can't, then I assume they are
|> discussing a fantasy of theory and will tell us such).  

See H Wu and Y Chen, Physics of Fluids B (1989) vol 1, page 1753. Title:
"Magnetohydrodynamic equilibrium of ball lightning". Among other things,
they prove what Art has been saying about the ambient pressure requirements,
including the fact that there is no nontrivial force-free equilibrium state.
(Trivial means everything is zero.)

My challenge to you is to convince me with data that your plasmoid is any
different from their model. Even if not, it is interesting to know that
the things have confinement times long enough to survive for human-visible
times. As Art said, that in itself is important, and enough motivation
for me to study the thing computationally. It is also a very good reason
for you to get good data, and get it into print.

|> So how long does it last? What is its energy density? And how
|> large has it been made.. (average) to date.  What is its mag/
|> plasma topology??  OR  Is it an plasma/Electro static model?? 

These are my questions to you.

|> >rather than a state containing the more exotic features Paul has
|> >been advocting.
|> 
|> What's exotic, by comparison with the absolute complexities of the 
|> doo-dad happy plasma gizmo the tokamak has become.  My comcept 
|> isn't exotic, it's ELEGANT.  It's even Simple (engineering wise). 

The tokamak, and engineering at this point, are irrelevant. The Wu and
Chen plasmoid contains no vacuum region, no relativistic electrons, and
no sharp ionised layer. As I said, it is prosaic.

By the way, Wu and Chen give a q close to zero on the magnetic axis, rising
to about 0.24 on the boundary surface, compared to 0.825 and 0.72 for the
spheromak. (NB: there are several equilibria, one for each N_r, the number 
of times the toroidal magnetic field reverses between magnetic axis and 
boundary surface; the above numbers are for the N_r = 0 case.)

|> Do I detect sour grapes, here?? 

Only yours.

-- 
Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de                               -- W Gibson
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnTK cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.01 / T Green /  Re: McKubre's data & s.p.f experiment
     
Originally-From: tag@chem.uwa.edu.au (T A Green)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: McKubre's data & s.p.f experiment
Date: 1 Sep 1994 10:34:14 GMT
Organization: The University of Western Australia

BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz) writes:


>Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege) in Fusion Digest 2655
>Date: 29 Aug 1994 22:55:46 GMT

>>Here ia what I read into this.  McKubre has been slow to publish.  This
>>in the Dieter Britz sense.  i.e. in a refereed journal.  Why?  Well the
>>snide answer is that he does not want to hurt his reputation by publishing
>>in an area that later turns out to be an error.

>One thing to bear in mind here is that a journal like J. Electroanal. Chem.
>has a delay time (submission to publication) of up to 18 months. This doesn't
>quite explain the even longer McKubre delay, but it's a big chunk of it. I
>have checked CNF papers in JEC (there are quite a few in this top 
>electrochemical journal) and found that CNF does not get favoured treatment -
>with the understandable exception of FPH-89.

I should point out that the McKubre et al. paper recently published in 
J. Electroanal. Chem. was originally presented at the 8th Australasian 
Electrochemistry Conference in Feb 1992. The conference papers were to 
have been submitted to JEC (via the conference chairman) for refereeing, 
but for some reason this never happened. After nothing had happened for a 
year or so, people got fed up and decided to submit their papers 
independently. My guess is that this is what help up the McKubre paper.


>[....]
>>McKubre's work looked good to me at first.  Particularly the ICCF2 paper.
>>But now the old stuff is wearing thin.  I expect more results to show that
>>the work is progressing.  The lack of a write up implies that they are
>>no longer able to get the same results.  In a field like this, it is
>>necessary to keep publishing better data.  -- or go the secret patent
>>route.  If you don't keep publishing better and better experiments then
>>you are very suspect!!
>[....]
>>Yep, McKubre once had some nice looking results.  But they have faded with
>>time.  More results, and a sure fire recipe are needed if he is to
>>maintain credibility.

I'm not sure that McKubre is seeing less XS heat than before. The data I saw 
for some recent experiments (L3 and L4) seem to show 1 to 2 W of excess 
power for an input of 50 W. This is fairly substantial compared to the 
estimated error of +/- 0.05 W and is comparable to what they were seeing 
earlier. 


BTW, does anyone know if McKubre et al. are still doing experiments? It 
has been mentioned (e.g. in Cold Fusion Magazine) that EPRI is 
experiencing financial problems and that this might affect the cold fusion 
program at SRI.

----
todd 

cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudentag cudfnT cudlnGreen cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.01 / John Logajan /  Re: Currents-n-Koloc
     
Originally-From: al789@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Currents-n-Koloc
Date: 1 Sep 1994 13:32:14 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)


pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) says:
>>In the two sets of cross-sections, I was only going after the change
>>in velocity vector direction.  .. . 
>
>You mean change in speed of the velocity vector not rate of change
>of the vector directional component??  right?  I'm assuming "snapshot"
>here connotes a frozen view at a unique quantum vector direction.  

Yeah, err, I think.


I took an instant in time "snapshot".  Then I looked at each particle
to see its velocity vectors in the three (arbitrary) X,Y and Z directions.

If its instantaneous velocity in the vector orthogonal to the page (CRT?)
surface was high in comparison to its aggregate vector, it got a high
number (7,9).  If its aggregate vector was, however, more parallel with
the page surface (in either of the two other dimensions) then the orthogonal
vector would be low (1,3).

All that this was attempting to show was current velocity vectors at any 
given point in the cross-section.  It was not intended to show density 
(current carriers per unit area.)

For example, if I drew a map showing the ratio of Blacks and Whites in
North America, it wouldn't necessarily indicate actual population
densities.  That is a seperate bit of information which requires its
own map, or its own symbol on the same map.

When I said "the change in velocity vector direction" I meant only in the
sense that, say, the temperatures "change" from north to south in a 
weathermap of North America -- or the colors of a flower "change" from the
inner to outer radius of the petal.   In my cross-sectional map, the
vector components "change" from the inner to outer radius of the plasma
torus.


-- 
-- John Logajan ---  al789@cleveland.freenet.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenal789 cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.01 / J Interguru /  Re: PMK Jr.
     
Originally-From: jdavidson@clark.net (Joseph Davidson - Interguru)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: PMK Jr.
Date: 1 Sep 1994 14:46:13 GMT
Organization: Clark Internet Services, Inc., Ellicott City, MD USA

It sounds to me that you just replicated a force-free configuration and 
proved that it is force-free.

 John Logajan (jlogajan@mirage.skypoint.net) 
wrote:
: Well, I had a little time on my hands, and a roll of 30 gauge copper
: wire, so I wound a torus of wire around an inner multi-turn loop of
: wire -- to simulate the current flows in Paul Koloc's plasma torus
: at the minor axis and maxium minor radius points.

: Applying about 4 amps DC current to this 3/4" by 2-1/4" device resulted
: in no apparent movement of the free-to-move inner wire loop. 

: Applying an AC potential (of a couple of megahertz) to either the
: inner or outer coil produced a much smaller AC potential in the
: other coil.

: This second observation somewhat contradicts the first observation,
: since an induced current in a secondary implies, I think, the existance
: of forces that can also lead to mechanical movements.

: But the conclusion is that the two coil (currents) are to a large
: extent, ignorant of each other.


: My next test (somewhere in the mid to distant future??)  will be to
: place the torus coil into a spherical coil to again check for 
: physical forces and/or inductive coupling.

: --
:  - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com -- 612-633-0345 -
:  - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills  MN 55112 USA           -

--
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Davidson Ph.D.                              
1501 Dublin Drive, Silver Spring, Md. 20902         
voice 301 593 4152 ; fax 301 593 4152 (call first)  
j.davidson@ieee.org                                 |
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenjdavidson cudfnJoseph cudlnInterguru cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.01 / Bruce TK /  Re: PMK Jr.
     
Originally-From: bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce       Scott          TK  )
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: PMK Jr.
Date: 1 Sep 1994 19:32:13 GMT
Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching

In article <344pfl$565@clarknet.clark.net>, jdavidson@clark.net
(Joseph Davidson - Interguru) writes:
|> It sounds to me that you just replicated a force-free configuration and 
|> proved that it is force-free.

Since the current producers are rigid bodies, he has found that the average
translational force on the inner loop is at least small. But in a plasma
the thing to worry about is hoop forces, which would make a loop expand.
John's magnetic fields are not that strong, and I think the rigidity would
easily win over a hoop force.

I can't easily glean the geometry of his configuration, but if he has one
loop in the toroidal direction and another wound almost poloidally around it,
then the mutual inductance should be close to zero, and the mutual force
should nearly vanish.

How big are the loops, what it the material radius of the wire, and
what are the masses of the loops?

-- 
Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de                               -- W Gibson
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnTK cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.01 / Bruce TK /  Re: PMK Jr.
     
Originally-From: bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce       Scott          TK  )
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: PMK Jr.
Date: 1 Sep 1994 19:37:30 GMT
Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching

In article <343kta$st4@stratus.skypoint.com>, jlogajan@mirage.skypoint.n
t (John Logajan) writes:
|> Well, I had a little time on my hands, and a roll of 30 gauge copper
|> wire, so I wound a torus of wire around an inner multi-turn loop of
|> wire -- to simulate the current flows in Paul Koloc's plasma torus
|> at the minor axis and maxium minor radius points.
|> 
|> Applying about 4 amps DC current to this 3/4" by 2-1/4" device resulted
|> in no apparent movement of the free-to-move inner wire loop. 
|> 
|> Applying an AC potential (of a couple of megahertz) to either the
|> inner or outer coil produced a much smaller AC potential in the
|> other coil.
|> 
|> This second observation somewhat contradicts the first observation,
|> since an induced current in a secondary implies, I think, the existance
|> of forces that can also lead to mechanical movements.
|> 
|> But the conclusion is that the two coil (currents) are to a large
|> extent, ignorant of each other.
|> 
|> 
|> My next test (somewhere in the mid to distant future??)  will be to
|> place the torus coil into a spherical coil to again check for 
|> physical forces and/or inductive coupling.

The post I just put up may be in error because I don't really see the
details of the geometry. Are both currents in the wires nearly poloidal,
or is one almost toroidal?

I think your two observations are in order, since the mutual inductance
is indeed small, probably too small to have caused a noticeable force
between the wires. The force has to compete with wire mass and loop
rigidity. How tight are the wires?

By the way, if you set this up like a tokamak and fixed the outer boundary,
the inner loop would not move, either (it would be pinned in equilibrium).
It would be more interesting to fix the inner one and see what the now-free 
outer one does! 

-- 
Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de                               -- W Gibson
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnTK cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.01 /  fairfax@sensei /  Alcator Progress 9/1/94
     
Originally-From: fairfax@sensei.pfc.mit.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Alcator Progress 9/1/94
Date: 1 SEP 94 20:42:47 GMT
Organization: MIT PLASMA FUSION CENTER

			Alcator C-MOD Weekly Highlights
				August 31, 1994

The repair/maintenance period for Alcator C-Mod is continuing. Most of the
activity this week has been concentrated on production of the new OH coax
leads. 

The outer coax tubes have been received from the vendor and mate extremely
well with the coax flanges. The bending fixture has been modified to
accommodate the new design; a model coax is ready for test bending. All of the
silver-plated felt-metal contact pad material is now in-house. The EDM vendor
has completed the second inner coax assembly, and this delivery of this piece
is expected today. 

The OH core is being cleaned by flushing the LN2 jacket region with Freon. The
final machining and finishing of the OH2L terminal block has been completed,
and the coils impulse tested to 5kV. The only remaining procedure prior to
re-installation of the core into the machine is machining of a relief into a
G-10 block at the top of the OH1 coil to accommodate a position sensor, which
is part of the additional instrumentation being installed as recommended by
our engineering review. 

DEGAS modeling of the C-Mod plasma is continuing in collaboration with Stotler
at PPPL.  EFIT equilibria and plasma temperature and density profiles for
specific 1994 discharges have been used to produce a DEGAS grid. Halpha
emission profiles have been calculated and compared with experimental data for
both inner wall and divertor regions. Assuming constant temperature and
density along a field line satisfactory agreement is obtained from the inner
wall profile, but  the divertor data is still unsatisfactory both in shape and
absolute magnitude.  The problem is related to obtaining good interpolation of
density and temperature profiles along field lines between the measured
upstream and target values.  An improved algorithm of the observed gradients
of temperature and density along a field line is being developed.


cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenfairfax cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.01 /  fairfax@sensei /  RE: PMK Jr.
     
Originally-From: fairfax@sensei.pfc.mit.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: PMK Jr.
Date: 1 SEP 94 21:04:31 GMT
Organization: MIT PLASMA FUSION CENTER

Like Bruce Scott, I'm not sure what the geometry really is, but there is
another reason that I'm not suprised that you observed no forces:  The
current is probably too small to produce a significant magnetic field.

The description did not include the number of turns, but I can tell you from
experience that without high-permeability material (like iron, steel, etc)
4 amps won't make a wire twitch.  Neither will 40 amps unless you make a
pretty large number of turns.  400 amps might cause flexible enough wires to
jump, but 4 kA is more likely to produce forces large enough to be noticed
without flexible instrumentation.  At 40 kA you need to brace parallel bars
spaced a few cm apart fairly well, and at 400 kA you need pretty carefully
engineered support.

The magnets on Alcator C-MOD have design currents from 3 kA to 265 kA.  We
run 3 kA through fairly flexible welding cables to a dummy load when testing
the power supply; they barely twitch.  Larger, but still flexible cables are
used for dummy loads up to 25 ka; they can be adequately secured with rope.
currents larger than that require engineered bus bars but the problem isn't
too bad at 50 kA; at 265 kA it gets tough.

I'm talking about bus bars here and not magnets because I have seen our bus;
Alcator's magnets are cooled with liquid nitrogen and usually are out of sight
behind a cryostat.  We engineer them not to move (much).  The forces get much
more interesting when you use all that current to make a magnet.  Our main
(toroidal field) magnet has 120 turns around a 0.67 meter radius.  The coax
bus mentioned in the weekly progress reports have to carry up to 50 kA to the
Ohmic heating solenoid (poloidal field magnets) across the toroidal field.
Where the coax attaches to the OH magnet, the toroidal field is nearly 15
Tesla when the field on axis (0.67 m) is 9 Tesla.  The inner coax has to
protude past the outer one a few cm to make contact; that inch or so of
non-coaxial bus produces a net force of nearly 5000 lb when it interacts
with the local toroidal field.  You can see why we use coax; try to run
parallel bus bars carrying 50 kA across a 9 Tesla fields and the forces
are completely unmanageble.

The TF magnet wants to expand under the action of its own current and
magnetic field; at full performance (9 Tesla on axis) the force on the
top steel cover is about 25 million pounds.  The top cover is a single
forged piece of 316 stainless steel 26" thick held down with 48 bolts made
of Inconel 718 superalloy.  The bolts have to be tightened to 500,000 lb
tension each and the cover deforms almost 1/8" under this force.

In summary, I'm not suprised that 4 amps in a reasonable number of turns
of 30-gauge magnet wire doesn't produce a noticeable force, regardless of the
geometry.

Steve Fairfax
Head of Engineering
Alcator C-MOD, MIT Plasma Fusion Center

cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenfairfax cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.01 /  fairfax@sensei /  Alcator C-MOD drawing GIF (part 0 of 7)
     
Originally-From: fairfax@sensei.pfc.mit.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Alcator C-MOD drawing GIF (part 0 of 7)
Date: 1 SEP 94 21:21:50 GMT
Organization: MIT PLASMA FUSION CENTER

I've posted a uuencoded GIF file showing a painting of Alcator C-MOD.
It's broken into 7 parts so as not to break mailers.  For those of you
with Mosaic access, try our home page at WWW.PFC.MIT.EDU.

Steve Fairfax
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenfairfax cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.01 / L Plutonium /  LP PATENT PRIORITY OVER CANON CORPORATION; REVISING USA PATENT 
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics,sci.math,sci.physics.f
sion,sci.physics.electromag
Subject: LP PATENT PRIORITY OVER CANON CORPORATION; REVISING USA PATENT 
Subject: Re: Was PAF ... Can Fusion Patent be Overturned 
Date: 1 Sep 1994 17:10:48 GMT
Date: Tue, 9 Aug 1994 05:41:41 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH


Notice that the USA law on patents is medievil in scope. Emphasis on
the word "medieval" which I have intentionally misspelled because the
present state of affairs concerning patent law is a "gnarled-up
nightmare of sorts". When a person does a book it is copyrighted for
that person's entire life. When a person does something far more
important than writing a book by inventing then that person only gets
17 years priority, not her/his entire life. Now, take a copyright of
computer software, is it patent for 17 year priority or copyright for a
lifetime. You can begin to see that in 1994, the laws of copyright have
blended with patents. 

I, Ludwig Plutonium, the King (Koenig in German) of Physics, Math, and
Engineering make the following changes to the patent laws, worldwide.
Everyone will follow suit or improve on my ruling.

(1) A patent law is good for the life of the discoverer/s.
, . . (Continued in part 2 of 3)


FUSION ENGINEERED:  RADIOACTIVE SPONTANEOUS NEUTRON MATERIALIZATION
DEVICES
Inventor: Ludwig Plutonium (ludwig pronounced logwig, like in    
                   logarithm) (legal name since 08/8/91), 
                   previous name Ludwig van Ludvig
Assignees: PLUTONIUM ATOM FOUNDATION
Ser. No.: This new one unknown; the old one was 07/737,170 with patent
examiner Harvey Behrend, Commissioner of Patents Bruce A. Lehman,
Secretary of Energy (DoE) Hazel R. OULeary, Deputy Secretary (DoE)
William H. White, Director of Nuclear Energy (DoE) Edson C. Brolin 
Filing Date: August 31, 1994. The old one was 29 July 1991 subsequently
reformatted and resubmitted early 1993.
Related U.S. Application Data: 07/737,170
	PATENTS CITED
{1} Ludwig Plutonium patent application 1991 USA 07/737,170 
         and rejected by patent office 1993
{2} Canon's patent (EP 568 118)
{3} John Tandberg patent application (17 februari)1927; Sweden 
       patent office rejected his application (17 november) 1927. 	See
VAR ALKEMIST I TOMEGRAND, the book on page 34.
	REFERENCES CITED
{4} Directions in Physics   P.A.M. Dirac, 1975,1978 pages 72-81
{5} The book PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTATILITY: THE UNIFICATION OF 
          PHYSICS, CHEMISTRY, BIOLOGY, AND MATH   6th edition, 	  
             Ludwig Plutonium, 1990.
{6a} Paneth F. and Peters K., (Ber. d. Deutschen Chem. Ges., 59, 
       2039; 1926) 
{6b} Paneth F., Peters K., Gnther P. (Ber. d. Deutschen Chem. Ges., 
       60, 808; 1927)
{6c} Paneth & Peters, Nature  , Q1 N2, 25Sept1926, vol 118, pages 
       455-456, titled News and Views.
{6d} Paneth & Peters, Nature  , Q1 N2, 9Oct1926, vol 118, pages 
       526-527, titled The Reported Conversion of Hydrogen into 
       Helium.
{6e} Paneth & Peters, Nature  , Q1 N2, 14May1927, vol 119, pages 
       706-707, titled The Transmutation of Hydrogen into Helium.
{7a} Tandberg, John  THE ABSORPTION OF HARD g-RAYS as studied 
          by means of nuclear reactions and artificial radioactivity  
          1937
{7b} Tandberg, Re:  Collections relating to history of physics . . 
         John Tandberg, Ph.D. in physics, and president, Chemical 
        Laboratories at Electrolux: (5 meters):; continued . .  Lund 
        Univ. Library, POB 3, S-22100 Lund, Sweden
{7c} Tandberg, John  VAR ALKEMIST I TOMEGRAND, en bok av och 
	om John Tandberg 1970
{8} Radioactivity, McGRAW-HILL ENCYCLOPEDIA of  
         Science & Technology  vol.15, 7th Ed. 1992, pages 103-121.
{9} Magnetohydrodynamics, McGRAW-HILL ENCYCLOPEDIA of  
         Science & Technology  vol. 	10, 7th Ed. 1992, pages 327-
            335.
{10} STARPOWER     The U.S. and the International Quest For   
         Fusion Energy, Congress of the United States, Office of 
         Technology Assessment, Oct1987 
{11} Energy & Technology Review  (E&TR) OCT1990, pages 1-17 
         titled   Cold Fusion -- One Year Later .
{12}  MEN OF MATHEMATICS  by E.T. Bell 1937, pages 8-9.
{13a} FEYNMAN LECTURES ON PHYSICS  , 1963.
{13b} QED  Feynman, 1985. 
{14} NEW SCIENTIST   "PATENTS", "Cold fusion rides again", 
         25JUN1994, page 23. 
{15} Physical Review   1957, vol. 105, pages 1127-1128, titled 
        Catalysis of Nuclear Reactions by Muons  by L.W. Alvarez 
         et.al. Radiation Laboratory, Univ. of California, Berkeley,
CA, 
         (Received 17Dec1956)
{16a} Reifenschweiler Radiation, Internet sci.physics.fusion, 
         <940331071702_73770.1337_DHE45-1@CompuServe.COM>
{16b} Reifenschweiler Radiation, NEW SCIENTIST, 8JAN1994, p.16
{16c} Reifenschweiler Radiation, PHYSICS LETTERS A , vol.184,   
           3JAN1994, p. 149-153
{17a} Sonoluminescence, Internet sci.physics.fusion
{17b} Sonoluminescence, SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN,  DEC1993,  
           p.24,26
{17c} Sonoluminescence, SCIENCE NEWS, vol.144, 23OCT1993, 
           p.271
{17d} Sonoluminescence, SCIENCE, vol.255, 20MAR92, p. 1511
{17e} Sonoluminescence, PHYSICS TODAY, NOV1991, p. 17-18
{17f} Sonoluminescence, SCIENCE, vol.253, 20SEP1991,p.1397-
           1399
{17g} Sonoluminescence, NATURE, vol.352, 25JUL1991, p. 318-
           320
{17h} Sonoluminescence, SCIENCE NEWS, vol.139, 11MAY1991, 
           p.292
{18} INTERNET, newsgroups, various pertinent threads relating to 
         cold fusion and patents from sci.physics, and 
         sci.physics.fusion, and sci.physics.electromag, and Ludwig 
         Plutonium's own newsgroup the "Altar of Science and 	Physics
is Plutonium" abbreviated alt.sci.physics.plutonium. 
         Computer-in, and come to learn about your Maker. ATOM
{19a} Gamma-Ray bursts, cosmic uniformity,  New Scientist  	 
           25JUN94 page 18. 
{19b} Gamma-Ray bursts, cosmic uniformity,  Science News  	 
           28SEP91, vol. 140, page 196.
{20a}  MOONS & PLANETS , 1993, William K. Hartmann, printed on 
            recycled acid-free paper.
{20b} Mercury the impossible planet? , New Scientist 1June1991 	  
pages 26-29.
{21a} Deuterium, cosmic abundance, Nature , 14APR1994, vol. 
          368, pages v, 599, and 584.
{21b} Lithium, cosmic abundance, New Scientist , 31OCT1992, 
           vol. 136, page 16.
{21c} Lithium, cosmic abundance, New Scientist , 30JUN1988, 
           vol. 118, page 46.
{21d} Lithium, cosmic abundance, Scientific American  May 
           1987, pages 39-45, titled The Cosmic Synthesis of 
           Lithium, Beryllium and Boron .
{21e} Beryllium, cosmic abundance, Science , 10JAN1992, vol. 
           255, pages 162-163.
{21f} Beryllium, cosmic abundance, New Scientist , 
           13JUN1992, vol. 134, page 17.
{21g} Beryllium, cosmic abundance, New Scientist , 
           3AUG1991, vol. 131, page 16.
{22a} Solar Neutrinos, 2/3 missing count,  New Scientist  	 
          15AUG92 pages 28-32. 
{22b} Solar Neutrinos, 2/3 missing count,  McGRAW-HILL 
           ENCYCLOPEDIA of Science & Technology  vol. 17, 7th 
            Ed. 1992, pages 600-621.
{23a} Diamond purity. Muffling Umklapp; researchers beat the heat 
          using pure ice  , Scientific American  SEP90 page 169. 
{23b} Diamond purity. Growth of large, high quality diamond 
           crystals at General Electric  , American Journal of Physics 

            NOV91 pages 1005-1007. 
{23c} Diamond purity. A denser, more perfect diamond , Science 
           News  2NOV91 page 287.
{23d} Diamond purity. The ace of diamonds packs them in , New 
          Scientist  9NOV91 page 26.
{24} CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics  75th edition 1994  	pages
10-272 to 10-277.
{25}  Nuclear reactor, McGRAW-HILL ENCYCLOPEDIA  
          of Science & Technology  vol. 12, 7th Ed. 1992, pages 193-
            202.
{26} PHYSICS, PART 2, 3rd edition, extended version  Halliday &
Resnick, 1986.


			ABSTRACT
The two main ingredients of a patent is Rnewness of the artS and
Reconomic or commercial valueS.  Two "newnesses to fusion engineering"
are provided herein (1) an explanation for fusion, that is, the correct
theory which is a new theory, and (2)  technique or method for inducing
fusion. Both of these newnesses were applied for in my patent
application USA 07/737,170 in 1991-1993 and rejected by the USA patent
office and DoE out of ignorance, porkbarreling for hot fusion, and
persecution of supergenius Ludwig Plutonium. By 1994, Canon, received 
European patent, confirming the experimental truth of my patent claim.
Do I sue the USA patent office for dereliction of duty? It is
unconscionable to sue the USA DoE for physics irrlehre, because that
would approach a perpetual money making machine in violation of 2nd law
of thermodynamics:-) The explanation (1) is Radioactive Spontaneous
Neutron Materialization (rsnm). The technique (2) to induce rsnm is
pulsing which is either changing electric current i and/or changing 
electric potential difference V. Changing i, V is what Canon has done
to induce cold fusion in their experiments. Canon calls it "pulsing"
but it is the same as changing i, V as claimed in my early patent
application. Thus, either Canon's patent (EP 568 118), or the USA
patent process has unrightfully taken at least one-half of the claims
made by Ludwig Plutonium's patent application 07/737,170. The economic
value of cold fusion is so immense and obvious to warrant these
comments.

		DETAILED HISTORY OF THE INVENTION 
 	These are not perpetual motion devices but rather the derivation and
utilization of radioactivities energy not understood before. The first
observers of radioactivity circa 1890's and early 1900's thought that
since some of these radioactive elements were hot, e.g., uranium is
warm in the hands and polonium will burn a hole through your hands, and
continued to glow in the dark, e.g., radium salts glow green in the
dark, NEUTRONS GLOW BLUE, thought that this new phenomenon was
perpetual motion.{26}  Radioactivity was a new science. And, because of
these unexplained radiations, the many new observers of radioactivity
were quick to think that this new form of energy was perpetual motion,
or violated conservation of energy-mass, or violated other physical
laws.  Later, after the 1920Us with Quantum Mechanics around, clearer
explanations of radioactivity were given. Only with quantum theory in
the mid-to-late 1920's was radioactivity well enough understood to
accord with theory and experimentation, and regarded as one of the 4
interactions (forces) of physics. Note: the concept interaction comes
from Quantum Electrodynamics (QED) {13b} and is superior to the old
concept of force from Classical Physics. I mostly use the concept
interaction in this application; the reason: quantum physics is the
correct physics.
 	Now with Cold Fusion, a similar circumstance of bewilderment arises.
However, when Cold Fusion is taken as spontaneous neutron
materialization, then it is seen as radioactivity. But, the
conservation of energy/mass is violated. P.A.M. Dirac was the first
genius of physics to realize that the conservation of energy/mass is a
fakery{4} circa 1970's as per DIRAC'S DIRECTIONS IN PHYSICS  pages 76-
78
  "  Now, according to the Large Number Hypothesis, all these very
large dimensionless numbers should be connected together. We should
then expect that (total mass)/(proton mass) = 10^78 proportional to
t^2. Using the same argument again, we are therefore led to think that
the total number of protons in the Universe is increasing
proportionally to t^2. Thus, there must be creation of matter in the
Universe, a continuous creation of matter. 
   There have been quite a number of cosmological theories working with
continuous creation of matter. A theory like that was very much
developed by Hoyle and others. The continuous creation which I am
proposing here is entirely different from that. Their continuous
creation theory was introduced as a rival to the Big Bang theory, and
it is not in favor at the present time.
  The continuous creation which I have here is essentially different
from Hoyle's continuous creation, because Hoyle was proposing a steady
state of the Universe, with continuous creation to make up for the
matter which is moving beyond our region of vision by the expansion. In
his steady-state theory, he had G constant. Now, in the present theory,
G is varying with time, and that makes an essential difference.
  I propose a theory where there is continuous creation of matter,
together with this variation of G. Both the assumption of continuous
creation and the variation of G follow from the Large Numbers
Hypothesis.
  This continuous creation of matter must be looked upon as something
quite independent of known physical processes. According to the
ordinary physical processes, which we study in the laboratory, matter
is conserved. Here we have direct nonconservation of matter. It is, if
you like, a new kind of radioactive process for which there is
nonconservation of matter and by which particles are created where they
did not previously exist. The effect is very small, because the number
of particles created will be appreciable only when we wait for a very
long time interval compared with the age of the Universe.
  If there is new matter continually created, the question arises:
"where is it created?" There are two reasonable assumptions which one
might make. One is that the new matter is continually created
throughout the whole of space, and in that case, it is mostly created
in intergalactic space. I call this the assumption of additive
creations. Alternatively, one might make the assumption that new matter
is created close by where matter already exists. That newly created
matter is of the same atomic nature as the matter already existing
there. This would mean that all atoms are just multiplying up. I call
that the assumption of multiplicative creation. There are these two
possibilities for the creation of new matter. I do not know which to
prefer. One should continue with both possibilities and examine their
consequences. "
	I, with the Plutonium Atom Totality theory can give meaning and
specifics to Dirac's genius intuition as quoted above. Dirac's new form
of radioactivity is radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization
(rsnm), or radioactive spontaneous particle (alpha, beta, . .)
materialization.
	The discovery of radioactive decay (rd) occurred in 1896, when
Becquerel discovered radioactivity from uranium. It required 60 years
later for the uses of Becquerel's radioactivity were applied to produce
nuclear fission power. Fission radioactivity was technologically used
in the engineering of nuclear fission reactors which generated nuclear
power, post 1942.{25} 
  	However, and quite remarkably, the history of cold fusion {6}{7}
started circa 1926-1932. I quote " 1926 Fritz Paneth and Kurt Peters in
Berlin first claim to have observed the fusion of hydrogen under
pressure to form helium in finely divided palladium metal. It was
already well known at the time that certain metals such as palladium
can absorb large quantities of hydrogen. In a short note immediately
following this claim, Nature issued the statement: " This announcement,
if correct, is of great importance and will evoke even more interest
than the claim by Miethe and Stammereich to have transmuted mercury
into gold...Belief or disbelief in the ...message must be reserved
pending further and more definite evidence." After substantial
criticisms and further studies, the two researchers withdrew the claim
of helium synthesis."
    "  1927 The Swedish scientist John Tandberg proposes using
electrolysis to force hydrogen into palladium metal. After obtaining
heavy water from Niels Bohr in 1932, he filled palladium rods with
deuterium by electrolysis and then applied a large electric current to
heat the palladium. He warned coworkers to go home during the
experiments after calculating that all the deuterium would be
equivalent to 1000kg of dynamite, if exploded. He observed no effect. "
  {11}
	Nature   1926 states R Theory indicating that this conversion would
involve the liberation of much energy (6.4 x 10^11 cal. from 4
gram-atoms of hydrogen), the authorUs  [Paneth & Peters] primary task
was to find out if the change would take place without introducing
energy from outside, e.g. in the presence of a catalyst; and in order
to be able to detect very small quantities of helium they elaborated
the spectroscopic method in such a way that the limiting amount
detectable was 10^-8 to 10^-9 c.c., or 10^-12 to 10^-13 gm. S {6d}
	Paneth, Peters, & especially Tandberg were treated by the science
communities with harsh criticism and disbelief. So harsh was their
treatment that their reputations were under attack and questioned and
so they went underground with their experiments, and they went
underground in the belief of the correctness of their science. From
1932 through 1956, cold fusion experimentation went underground. After
1956, the story of cold fusion springs forth back to life again with
muon catalyzed fusion. But before I get to 1956, I want to outline more
of John Tandberg's work since the history of cold fusion in large part
is due to his science experiments. And the much later work, that of
1989 of Fleischmann & Pons is merely a repeat of Tandberg.
  	The 1926 news of Paneth & Peters work reached Sweden.  John Tandberg
started to experiment with Paneth and Peters fusion idea.  At that time
Tandberg was a physics researcher for the Electrolux Company and an
expert in this area of research, and he would later became the
scientific director and manager of Electrolux. In February 1927 John
Tandberg of the Electrolux Research Laboratory filed a patent for "A
METHOD TO PRODUCE HELIUM AND USEFUL ENERGY".  Early on, Paneth, Peters,
and Tandberg were looking for helium production for the airship
industry. But all three men, especially Tandberg, quickly turned to the
harnessing of nuclear energy. Tandberg was searching for nuclear energy
as evidenced by the title of his patent. In Tandberg's patent
application, he claimed to have discovered "A METHOD TO INCREASE THE
EFFICIENCY IN ORDER TO PRODUCE USEFUL ENERGY". This patent application
was rejected by the Swedish patent office in that same year of 1927. 
But Tandberg went underground to continue working on cold fusion in the
electrolysis measurements with heavy water, D2O instead of H2O.
Tandberg used palladium as the metal cathode.  Heavy water was obtained
from the Niels Bohr Institute.
   Obviously, from the patent application of Tandberg 1927 and the
wording of Paneth & Peters news-reports of 1926 "liberation of much
energy (6.4 x 10^11 cal. from 4 gram-atoms of hydrogen) "{6d} that the
experimentation of transmutation of hydrogen into helium had by 1927
turned into the much more important quest for nuclear energy.  The
quest had quickly changed from that of simply producing helium for the
airship industry to that of producing enormous energy. The energy
equation  E = mcc was around since 1907, and also the understanding
that chemical changes or rearrangements can release chemical energy. By
1927 it was known that  nuclear changes or  rearrangements can release
enormously more energy than chemical energy. Quantum Mechanics by the
late 1920's was progressing rapidly. And Paneth, Peters, and Tandberg
through their experimentation were the first to try to build a nuclear
fusion reactor. The results of TandbergUs experiments were mostly
deafening and banging electrical discharges when trying to produce
nuclear fusion in wires of palladium that had been saturated with
deuterium via electrolysis. Tandberg experimentally set a constant high
voltage across deuterated palladium wires, not a variable/ pulsed
voltage, in order to fuse the deuterium into helium. If Tandberg had
set a variable/ pulsed electric potential V or electric current i,
across the deuterated palladium, he would have engineered a repeatable
fusion reactor in 1927. The genius John Tandberg died in 1968. 
	Alvarez et al at Berkeley experimentally observed muon catalyzed
fusion in 1956{15}. These observations were easily confirmed and
subsequently passed into physics facts, unlike electrochemical test
tube cold fusion as reported in 1989 which became hotly contested and
not easy to confirm. With muon catalyzed fusion, the physics community
was in agreement over this form of fusion and readily accepted it
because the verification is easily repeatable. It was theoretically
proposed much earlier than 1956 by Frank and Sakharov in the late
1940's. 
	Now the history of cold fusion jumps to the year 1989, specifically
23MAR1989 when Fleischmann & Pons{11} world-wide announced by high
speed communications that they were successful with Tandberg's work of
1927, i.e. electrochemical test-tube cold fusion. Their work is a
repeat of TandbergUs work. Nothing new to the art of cold fusion was
realized by Fleischmann & Pons over that of Tandberg. No explanation of
cold fusion, and no new technique to induce cold fusion. And because
there was "nothing new to the art of cold fusion" by the Fleischmann &
Pons repeat experiments of Tandberg, their cold fusion experiments were
again not Rscientifically repeatableS, just as Tandberg's experiments
were not scientifically repeatable because they did not use pulsing to
induce fusion.  And some researchers in various laboratories around the
world unwittingly pulsed the electric current i or pulsed the electric
potential V in order to begin, or interrupt, or halt the experiments
and were able to observe some cold fusion nuclear energy. Some reported
nuclear reactions after their experiments were halted because in the
procedure of halting, they pulsed the set-up of the apparatus. But they
were in the weeds as to knowing the explanation of cold fusion and the
necessity of pulsing. They experimented with constant current i and
constant V, for the most part. So the Fleischmann & Pons experiments of
1989 were nothing new over the Tandberg experimental work of 1927-1932.

	Now I could skip immediately to the Canon patent of 1994 {2} which
pulses the experimental fusion set-up. And because Canon pulses, the
experiment is repeatable. But, I, Ludwig Plutonium in 1991 had priority
patent right claims of the "Pulsing technique in cold fusion
experiments", which is the essential ingredient in making cold fusion
repeatable.
	Starting in 1991, the history of cold fusion continues with Ludwig
Plutonium. I would come to provide the correct theory of fusion in
general and cold fusion in particular via rsnm in my patent application
of 1991-1993 {1}. And I provided the correct technique or method to
induce rsnm, i.e. via pulsing. My patent was rejected by the USA patent
office and DoE as it seems that the USA patent office has rejected most
every patent concerning cold fusion. This USA DoE and patent office
suppression of cold fusion patents was discussed on Internet,
sci.physics.fusion and sci.physics.electromag news threads. It appears
that the USA DoE does not want to have cold fusion interests exceed the
porkbarreling interests of thermonuclear (hot) fusion and laser
inertial confinement fusion {10}. Consequently, on the advice of the
DoE, the USA patent office is breaking the law as to the issuance of
proper and rightful patents applied for by cold fusioners. Someone of
USA DoE, USA patent office or Canon has unrightfully taken 1/2 of the
claims made by Ludwig Plutonium patent{1}. Researchers are now going to
Europe to gain patents. The whole thing is getting silly and ironic,
because the USA has biotechnology liberties and the Europeans suppress
biotechnology, hence a biotechnology research transfer, but ironically,
the USA is a cold fusion suppressor and persecutor and Europe is a cold
fusion liberator, yielding a cold fusion technology transfer.
	In 1994, the Japanese corporation Canon was issued a patent and I
quote New Scientist  in full {14}.
	 " COLD fusion is the latest topic on the agenda of the Japanese
company Canon, best known for cameras, bubblejet printers and other
office equipment.
	In 1989 Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons claimed that fusion could
be initiated at room temperature by electrolysing heavy water (which
contains disproportionate amounts of the hydrogen isotope deuterium)
with a titanium or palladium cathode. But the Japanese were worried
about the risk of an explosion caused by high gas pressure.
	Canon's patent (EP 568 118) claims new ways to absorb large volumes of
deuterium in a metal carrier, by putting it close to a pair of
electrodes to create a gas discharge in a hydrogen-filled chamber. Cold
fusion is promoted by cycling the power supply through low and high
voltages.
	The carrier can be a block of magnesium alloy or palladium alloy. For
safety, the hydrogen gas is at atmospheric pressure. The pulsed power
comes from large capacitors, and the electrodes are shaped to
concentrate the electric field.
         After storing deuterium in a palladium alloy for 60 minutes,
says Canon, the deuterium content had increased, with a tenfold
increase in gamma ray emission after 120 hours. Applying five-minute
cycles of 5 and 500 volts DC for 50 hours produced a twentyfold
increase in emission. More heat was generated at the negative electrode
than the electric energy consumed at the two electrodes. All this, says
Canon, proves that cold fusion works. " Nuclear fusion can be
occasioned relatively easily . . . and thus a method for multiplying
heat energy capable of generating a sufficiently large quantity of heat
energy for a practical application," it claims. "
	The above is an accurate outline of the physics history of cold fusion
to date as of this patent application. The PULSING technique which
induces cold fusion has been verified by Canon. The part of my
application which explains cold fusion via RSNM, Radioactive
Spontaneous Neutron Materialization, has not been physically verified
and confirmed as of this application. Before leaving the history of
cold fusion, I want to outline my discovery of RSNM. 
	My discovery of rsnm occurred in late 1990 as a consequence of my
discovery of the ATOM TOTALITY theory, that the observable universe is
just the 5f6 of 231PU, the last electron or the 94th electron of one
atom of isotope 231PU. The discovery of rsnm is supported by
quintessential genius Dirac in his great book DIRECTIONS IN PHYSICS 
{4}, which is required reading for all nuclear energy patent examiners,
DoE, and physics majors:-) RSNM is how the universe grows, stars,
galaxies, planets, etc., and not by the awkward and moron idea of
intergalactic and interstellar dust. 
	I needed to find-out what induces rsnm, and so in early 1991, I
discovered what induces rsnm from reading about muon catalyzed fusion.
It is induced by a changing electric current i or changing electric
potential V, i.e. PULSING.  And subsequently submitted my 1991-1993
patent application. Little did I know that the USA patent office which
is controlled in part by the USA Department of Energy (DoE) has
suppressed "cold fusion patents" and is persecuting Ludwig Plutonium
for what he represents-- Atom Totality. 
" Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,
sci.physics.electromag From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Subject: Re: Was PAF ... Can Fusion Patent be Overturned 
Message-ID: <Cu96HI.J46@prometheus.UUCP>
References: <3232oa$src@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Date: Tue, 9 Aug 1994 05:41:41 GMT
In article <3232oa$src@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> 
> Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium) writes:
> Has anyone sued the USA patent office and won?
 Yes. For example, in the area of fusion (nuclear) energy, the DoE has
the right and obligation to handle all patent applications, as far as
the technical advise or withholding as a national security measure
(secrecy). However, the Patent Office handles the administrative
matters: --  mailings, filings etc.; so, it appears that their examiner
is actually doing all of the examination work, although he is slaving
for DoE remarks.  For example, Harvey Berhrends did a large number of
fusion related applications for the US Patent Off.   
Now it came to pass, that the DoE would not care to have some fellow
with an issued fusion patent then go charging off to Congress and say 
" Hey you guys!  Eureka I have solved the fusion problem and have a
patent to prove it, so Stop funding the tokamak and fund ME INSTEAD.. 
(Of course whe would they (after all it could mess up a nice porker
project in their voting area, and if they did, what difference would it
make, after all the DoE can be mighty slow about doling out forced
funds.  :-)      So the Department of Energy (should be Dept. of
"Energia" in honor of the inventors of the tokamak) decided to find all
other than tokamak related fusion patents were invalid based on a bogus
argument.  The argument went as follows:  
A fusion reactor has never been made or operated commercially or any
other way, and therefore, we wouldn't know what a commercial fusion
reactor looked liked and consequently, one could never be invented, at
least until one was operated commercially.   
Well who has the money for that ... we certainly don't (yet) and even
the DoE apparently DoEsn't, judging by the billions that have been
shoveled down the tokamak hole and the increasing doubt about their
next fling with that mass redistributor.  
NOTE: This did not stop the issuance of "PLASMA technology" patents.   
Anyway, a German citizen working for GE filed a fusion patent and like
all the rest of us, it was rejected by DoE using this same bogus
argument.  Even though the person returned to Germany, he sued and his
patent rejection case was overturned probably in the very late '80s by
the US Court of Patent Appeals, and all the rest of us then began to
also have our patents issued forthwith, 1990-1992.     
                 Thanks for the long delay DoE.  
                   We are still seeking your goal .. 
                           First if necessary.  " {18}
	Ludwig Plutonium can not help it if he sees these very important
engineering ideas in his mind's eye and files the patents long before
researchers can even run to their labs to verify that I am correct.  I
am not unlike Tesla in these actions, by seeing very complicated
physics and electrical engineering all within my mind. This is how I
alone realized that superconductivity is photon flow turned into
neutrino flow. I do not need fancy-smalzy and expensive research
laboratories; all I need is the most reliable and up-to-date physics
data and my math logic and intuition will get me to the core of the
problem. I can do physics in my mind without a research laboratory
because I am a supergenius, and other researchers and regular geniuses
need to have a heavy equipment research laboratory :-) 	Supergenius is
a brand new term to the science community applicable only to Archimedes
and myself.  Of course I was Archimedes in one of my previous lives. I
have discovered by math logic; the process of elimination, that the
correct theory of superconductivity is the decomposition of photon flow
into neutrino flow. This is my next patent application: CORRECT THEORY
OF SUPERCONDUCTIVITY: ROOM TEMPERATURE SUPERCONDUCTORS.
	Only neutrinos can move through matter to give almost zero electrical
resistance which superconductors display. I will submit a patent
application for the correct theory of superconductivity before the end
of this year 1994. Anyway, it is not coincidental that the dictionary
will now have the new word "supergenius" after the word
"superconductivity" , after "superfluidity", and before the word
"superluminal":-) Which leads me into the next topic of discussion--
persecuting a supergenius. This is what the USA DoE and patent
authorities in 1993 committed on Ludwig Plutonium. Who do I sue, that
is the question? Do I sue the USA DoE, USA patent office, or Canon, or
in combinations thereof?
    "As a rule mathematicians have been bad customers to persecute;
they have usually been capable of returning what they received with
compound interest. " {12}
And one can even anticipate what form of future persecution comes out
of the USA patent office-- rejection for trivial reasons, forget to dot
an i or cross a t on page so and so. When a bureaucracy wants to deny a
patent, they can quickly find some silly excuse to reject it, or make
the applicant run through a tiresome gauntlet. Before leaving the topic
of patent persecution, I want to apprise the reader of the fact that I
am the reincarnation of Archimedes. In my previous half-life, I was
Archimedes and very familiar with inventions. Silently, we have moved
up through the generations (the movie Highlander) and within 2
millenniums of moving up through the normal math distribution-curve
(bell shaped curve) of people to my present half-life as supergenius
Ludwig Plutonium. Few persons, except physicists and math people have
known we were among you, . . until now:-)
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.01 /  fairfax@sensei /  Alcator C-MOD drawing GIF (part 2 of 7)
     
Originally-From: fairfax@sensei.pfc.mit.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Alcator C-MOD drawing GIF (part 2 of 7)
Date: 1 SEP 94 21:22:41 GMT
Organization: MIT PLASMA FUSION CENTER

section 2 of uuencode 4.02 of file alcator.gif    by R.E.M.

MLQD[HP$PP``J#F)M,TD20`L`P6)3[QP,8.TF@20B=![]<H`@C21:]O=.Q2$R+
M!2(@+20\PB%28E<2HB"X1O7:420HU5:J*JEZ-VN1X1>@(8/HX4]+"!`&`!%`O
M`01,RQ?&H1<6H10Z`!$"%VJ_``LHX1J,21RD_@"I1H70<&X^YK$E^$,6(L$;@
M1,$`<<``6R"PZB()%G"+SC8F'1DIGH6O<&`9:,MN86`&#($GF<6$?JNW:`P%%
M=23(K`G.""D&):`55F$!PH"/HJD*Z-2G&,H'?,`%@*,2,$"\#L`'`&$!7D(<@
MAH$[#F`*M@$6&D"53NZ4[&N^JL912\WE"*PAWF-LPE"7-A53FQ@C?F4;?L$4Q
MU&$S9.`0<$H*>LX*;L$8HD":GM<-N(`+OH`(B$!.:W4S1@$2&``)`@$&&``+-
M%($4W&`'A&$2^.$4G*$>#@!%T!=][<`%PH`'S`!?H2`W$\`,5J`)BD$2E@"<G
M^1D#7@(?V$$=KN$:_D[A%+I@`JS`"AJ@`0S``$SA%"!`'0ZS'\`A#:)`&.2`?
M!/8!`HK!`69A&C`87OM$$`0A%N@U21S@!#!`!KS@-,B4-L8'0N)A]"[@&^IAS
M.5@8`TQA$I+$SW`3]A@A"CKS5^C@`!H`"DPA(V!%(0:BJE:V^*I#B3&B!P:"'
MJSXB0E,"/IJX'9]XY*"XKN<CK(1X)$0M(^FA#T(0:@?`69;A*1Y!,YG%'DY@N
M'S3R(5B%(-S!H]V!=SV"@3)R'R(A7I+A_%K``YP`!+9-BP#@VQ3CM,X6+_1A+
M8>IB%]`-2P?``K04WC8AC@`A"T;0DRFCN#3!%I#LA+6A3,0$JL=D-J!+_@*8*
M80'>8!08X!"BJ7+GH'N)9'-]`!<HJ1`J`9-(``@W001>@M(RJ`!("18$8$&MD
MAFH2E6H<E3NV85$I%<!\"3]O3I=XY3UX"1JDH!M.0`9ZIFF,J1]"!*=,8M!VR
M``;8\'F-H0I`8;MD0`=(X1""H3,9012T@&(!01$P8+NZ-PT.8,R400IZ`.Q2C
MA.@`(0UV8'8DV*$=``L*H!AX`!,00`R>02LVFAZD8,3?Q&T6LQZZH0=Z?!ZDA
MH$#QK!^@`(1`#`/4`0)X0%WTQ%U;T17Y1`?V)$G,P`=V8`XT@1/X+7SD#$<N$
MX+C'YQM<83.V00K$6@`B13<AU@9B`/8"C0BA_J<!]J$`A&`[BB\AFK#XS@$:W
MIFJJYBN5Z.M!4T(*)B)4OG'YEEF]SX,D,"TCC&\8]"=5#,)IP`&$F"4*V``12
M<H$`X"_6KH(8SMQI5&_X.,4=)J(E#'08'@*S,Y(=(J$DG<`)<H&&8*L-DF"+I
MT-:U%$8!CU1NH2@7/.`"+W#=1$%+WRC>#/LR.L:?C@#)^&#O0B<$,@"J#<EQ1
M)<`>8.$6HH$8"`$R%42:@D0,=D!SD:!(>#`X;ADL/T`5PD"\%=3C3N_CDGF]`
M36X?3^E7Q",*Z4$]N&;!?FG!?,EVO68^%FS/^X`FM&'$G.8`["`*%--KI,`9V
M1($K[.`+;E`,YN!R_C-7!E0@$:HW$D0!W=G9.8B`&((ANJVA'I3A&)0!#0\ZC
M1;I">Q7A`"```SC@!#B`!^1A'1"@@0_:#DYOEI3A/O3CES#5%)1*/X1``$Z!E
MF/K!``A!A)`@#@IA&"!`72,`"F)!$'(A.EVQRL'A?4D!Z>P!->RA>"S*%*O=5
M8`7E&X+@S/M!&28!&E`J`68!8B,V21:@I":!,5&:!+J`'N@``A:((/9:^9:OZ
M!Q14O?&]&X-XTKQXLLN#@.":=1W()-PZ0!-?5RP='\H@"VP"*&+4Q#-]YF&@K
M#`0-5^0#?SC%(#`!`@0"TK@X(RO`%YJHD`UPA=SV6:;BD;D(BY!"8?*@_OQ0D
M@"!/%!'42"<A0Q7LRK>:'2@`10+,,V9HQ+A71E`X@1>LP1IX@10209H4)+KM4
MP`O<X`N&Q+J/I&>`IA"&`P.`4!6B83F:JCH0H`&V807DH1O``]^3&2#FS1,GK
M<!X]@_0.)C3(C1LT9`\=-FS7$%K%AA4M(G.XK1^4%R^>6>FG;)2V%X<:]&L'!
M;1N:`9`V&:NR@XB8+V+$E$'2ATN4`OWZY4%T"9>.'8(P!!+CAE":6_E.&3BF]
MK!T2,"\`@02SR04I4CYPT:%30-RV2=JBV-&*C9BS>::4G5(FEZXR9W/S*C-PO
MZIA493WZ(='Z(M")61C.42K6R(R9/N`$Z1#T_B%R&2YI#BGBP^?(D0R>^808Y
M?>3"Z!`7XETP_2U(T'[=PDQR%@9*@@A0<O?9/<JVCB@(,%$*0J?/DGFPN*E;1
MSMR=.FC,E[=3=X[Z<F3JW`W<+HZYE'/3NR\?Z$ZYNH'BJ;L[2-"ZNE_BIC/_I
M%9W^<GKB%O1A)606(JP@O8#5@"]$0<@7L)BUC3@-O:><<_1Q,\\0]`FA#D'NX
M_,*-.^+0(X\O,(CB2P?CM`&$$UOHL\<>`"RRRQ8O`K"'.>;HHP^-.:P(0"F[C
M+.,!(J`,($H4=]QA2)&`J((5-B\PZ21(@7@60FFEK?;-!4>H9EHKBF!PS`FC)
M,$",'&[88>8AFICI_H8;5<RQPU<RA#6*"RXD4$D8&-QR2Q\ON+#--NYH1\\2U
M4VS3A``&%400>@4AI"A!"]&S34+T<$/11LI9BHDZ4E#DC$42#<$-)A1Q,P0]'
M_<P"4A0,X"+'(5&`<8@!_:C33C\(."$*(*3(4$:OD7QU"3B%"'*("$'U48,8A
M@C!011AAD$&,&\0\@P55!DPU0BAS!+@J`XE@@(0=4/C`2S]=:`(282]`L8T4^
M>!VSA#5]G7*"7?@J8\HI`M"E3C^P1!$@,9-$$\8\5%#"00!F)`"9()&`$H4FL
MVBA2L6<82QF"(EB6]@UJJX6P0S:O&1"&-=;8!D4$-CC<1QXV[*:R*`C\_@G?X
M$I1LPX,I`XW'Z7L]J(/,/,L%W0/1RHE#T-+#2$&T>D.<,X\4IIP'*#=."]0>&
M=.<L^C1S7W-3G3O5V2J>0>+@\^>DL`P@8%8%OK#),UQ$\.^?`S44X744ME,>P
M=0UQN-RH\VRS@0<P)..+!QT4T4(+;6P!0(TWJ@A`-2^RL,LN+'30`0B?^X@(5
M(C_ZDHHH%L`P0Q2J)/DDDTT&F&5IG<U>&FHAV/*,#Z%```L2Q(RI"!%N>&&';
M)IH<HHT=;JPBQP[!RT`*+C[X,$HTA11R)PF3)/!"-/TLB(DX_2S1Q38%-$`/B
MAY`FVNAVVVRGD$#S;Z,<1!0]9ZE#I6($ZD4-_@G*`M9%"#&`P@V@`$1*XM<2]
M#.0"$F!``A0^(`C)(.$2'^A#)3#PA3YT!`H#4,&:8H`%7!""%(20@28.<(QR1
M-"`4#2B'1P0&-S!$X1`G.(`<VC&+1-"A$+`+$`Y7$I>_W$4`#7"&,^YREWTQI
M\5.WZH$;O$4,'X!O4@8X`!1TH`(V6$`8PKB89U83I2IA:36>4<T10/:-#*PC*
M*#TX0"4,@(%1)&`6N<DC%&@0`QKD)@%0L(,U\$8/2IQ"9\HX2'1L!9WQ/"UH=
MU0F:0-P!#7%HISU8&QO2)GD.:$AM.T3#CCOBAQXI=.I"S/&;U(2F#DNU4AT'3
M*=S:ML&..#!#*X!0_J`;4'&-\.'-'=.9#B:40Q'Z_&)3ZA@&-W[!(><H9Q[]'
MD$491"$*)^3""8_;@N2VP((MF",'E:M1#KYI#@#D``4`T":,<+",Q2%"2"7PE
M1A0,D84LO"UV06Q2(.(A@C/&(QZW>T<P?'"+8TQB@EK8`0-V4`9:?,$>A#C3)
M\9CGAIP00PR]0H(//C"G[$&+!"2``B!&$;[J%(X.A5J"^DC9J%BZSZ6)PH]"5
M*+6_AX`*5,[@QJ<DTB"'8,(BT(#F`@`1A;FI@!!-08E*EM./".A!*W)8`"!CA
M4)D/Q*`083A`##*AC'XL0`^BT$$EL."#8.Q@#L^8@QU.$8IK&*`!<.5'_@/LG
MD4^0R,`%#.C'+52P#4JL0D"``(,JIN&.6BF1+BQQ1CO:T:G%]D`*/<B'%%()!
MS7ZP8AK,2-TJXF!0<2EB`&'4ABU$:XM`V`-C?-"&::;4L37Z\S0AN,=KIH"%H
M+MRB$+,HA,M4)K,8]"&#L^C#%RC1#WJ<!Z[=V%E!O,-*6T7G'*L\#]$HDBCH<
M$DT@ZNB!.":K'0MQZI/87<ZBQ-$#[<SC%]C)KGVRPYP&"8U#DYQ4^.C!`POD*
MT@Y(,,`LV3.?7\AG?^(U)B;&U[,!DT\6H/#&`/30AA;@P`.2TT<IS($"%D1N,
M%Q,.YXW*60T4F&.=HUL&(@@@"AC<016MNT.2_D""#=@%\0@B.,)I0R8!3N""L
M7I,H!!*0,`HDX$(&P=N!&,A4IC2EB:)5L.@.M!`6'_1!MU#XZ"1BH(I1_&D?4
M5]C'-E2J,RK,HQM*8Q0H00E3_,2T(!IY#D2X@2F@/D2)_FNS.KK1#RS```:;3
M.$07"4$&0`ACJ?]BP@#NT`I`R"$,3,!C]NZ$`2P4[`!-=4(9,(`!&22"38?X7
M011FP8];0..MIXAA/:+!+F^]@!-GN(4;PG<]*$PC#O+HR+M88LIV],#6=-Y&U
M-W+=#4EUHQY??DT]E'%04C!`$6X0;2(4$9K2!"(0HEVC9^PQ8XP!=#6I"9G(C
M*A`4-1R`#L<HQ),C_@!(*.SF939`A1X3X#`B-.!/YZF`%71F"J]MYSG;3>5X\
MQ'$.LF&WD@6!;WN6IJBG_:(@!^FW=EVZJ'94S;D]Z]J%5KD>?UMR/7^2AQON"
MH(D3K&TA\]`.V>C3'?-*5[KTDY2DNO,+5.VC##-(A1,8!SDGM,'#X3PGYSJ@X
MS15MH1K:1`$*]M`!#[33%X@P7>I@0*1-M.YUIN[8:=80@1,X(Q25&,4'/I")L
M4?1A%#Z0'C%H(88J<*%XQSL$DN=@42!3S^M/QBH&2("`"+S`R@M"!_E02N\Q=
M$YQ^!ND&/N0WC\'/;R$388E%**(1:.0T(M`0E?XP`DU8W"$*@+``(=C`_GD%`
MOIM3_2C`H#?!B4TP@-+08@(&#J"G4-`!`^4XP#($$0U%D.%X"CQ$']1Q@#.T"
MPP`PG`NZ3N(M;$0!=E'0QBVL@0L,U$,$(GC"$]XPB08\H2\Q/,8;,'"&[7L?T
M"]P_@PA<L`9<\"$0B4B_-NRA#?-3J32GE;:,37L!/L3?M1E+S6BTW8?7'*``8
MT#`)NW$;>=0'-&"`LQ`#@E"`"6`&4.!NX4,0#4`'4D`)]29>3[-8W=%(TV%2C
M]V8K8N,<U#$/YX!,`]$I'#)9:N8<8^,=),@<0?,S^5,=_N4^&?)*&^A?VA$^-
M?7`'Q!`4D_(TI,(<T`%XLB9+DR)KDL)2?T(%_H@@"C7@`6W@"]GT.2U@3C620
MA?J0(_H``)<C=+O@"4"'`KN0"R"0"Z)S9R9V8O84($\2.YL@`;;``%C0`#U@N
M#85@/6<`+97@`GW@`F$A=M##!?90)L=C9)?6)M!3!F&W42Z0"5!0"85``@?0>
M/8"`"^'S"_"Q9<3%`U[F/HNR'H73/@BG-1U"*0RA#HJU/QBQ/XRG#!,Q>8[7J
M$ML`"S!@`3=T5")T!X?0!?WP6/W0`$Z@!*U@"VD`"'R`!0=0B9-P"S"41"<P[
M"0'P#81P"&BB=@KD`.@2`S&0#]GB%\J0#_WP`8"03YN0!B#!"4P2#'*`"\=`5
M"AE0#RX`8_P$?5F"_@LR1FVF90N:<`&BQ3'V<`&V8`N*4$:>89"@`1I3DC$AV
M8`^!D`8&>3NSHR6X$P(^\$;!2`)6,`D8,`L$J$>0H1M]D$?EYC##]2?K,063)
MT`,\H`S8(1^0]1PD&$S*\1W@)1]<LQQE(Q_5$4SHX5Q!PPVF$(/.Q2G0T`X"5
M`1U!B33M@`F`QTHXB1U#P`[0("E4``\?T`^`UQT.T5ZPU`T"(`"4(`"24`NUT
M(``5``P50`F4L)85<)8*P@YEH&!.4"(>@`,PL@<HL`4=@`+CI&$W8@19*",3*
MM@5E\",_,F*[<@=.ETNM@T]-PB1=<0*F0$=@-PJI1@*4=@:%D`DQ,`H]_J8#6
M8O<%.W!V;I`F:,(\59!DM`!D,K!U'.4"V5,("_`)/P0#'_`GW6$6"$!<=,`S#
ML=0A]--K@#<_:'-XZ\,@$]&5-F4IGY)3.@4JK601.45G",!TF;=Y*@`*FQ`%@
MUE`KIR(%WP`#IY9+HH`+V1`*,%0.<7$7W7`"EP`B-P0(:1`%9$!<RN`"O=$-+
M<I$MR@`-_7`"ZFAJ3=(*N-!BFK`&FZ`-/T`*;X"/3Q`/$?I/(D"A:91&]A!CV
M:00:]F<[&0-063)C`3DEIP50)7I&IC%&(;,[4Q`4#8`%X!8&?7!'N`%(YW:CV
MJ/`!*O-'+5,&M+(@]&``=,"2RK`/SH6"4E"$_@T"#4'3#DMS#LK12=+E'$W:J
M2-+!#>-5A!N87BI($!JB'>'12DC#2AAB*;_02!I2D[_0`_+5$42C2,YT'M)AE
M$):0`G9JIP]PIWIJ"0_P`):@`$'!#H@``[[@"SB``RC0`4#0!I,S3GKY(M6``
MA?I@!)5S.8N0([N``R&&=`/`=)?'F"KFAK&S*F^0"3+``!]0"&?0:"2`!6&P"
MAX5P5:#I`\$3/&(P!U5@!\9S9%ZP)DD6/+VB!3PV"H4`!;2)`0@0!`N@"IBXQ
M(`='#W3@BY0@!%I3<"WU/H=W9@=A"I?22CDU.-!@4]!Y$=!P#<X@*M"T!'=`^
M!E$``\Q`")L7!5%`_@=:R0T=D0J#-B)3B`3]``'\TD15$10@)*^<D!4X=`NC9
M$`AVP`56)@1O90"PB"Z:T&*CF@9@0+'G&`7"0`PNP`N7-@>X\`856J$4^D_\$
MY!DDFT8I6Z(`!:(7JC$EJK+WIT8IBFTAD`"T`I:5V`4D$`,?B4?F)C."``YZP
M5+2V\0>Q\&ZQ1`DGX`YTT`#[0$GT,00PR!QEDUV,LB&VTF_=X:3.)38"L2GN.
M$+57&W(Z692*E%WJL"E0*A_.@(,$H3=LI@Y#@"E;>UW;X$A*XPX]("'941T)#
M\0B+P`JLH``*L`&%>[B%RPH;P`[F8`D"("G[L`RB,`"'BB);L)>[,'1;_D@Y.
MY00`Z#1TF?LB.I<+'G"Z1D<ZJ9`*EV<(CSFJ;_@"G[E59P`%W`=2FCF;YE8]\
M/@9D.2$&9W<F:?(,/\`F8D`,;T(]&N6'3Q8`)/`)/!`&48`$N@D?\X``/+`-"
M=``!I#A>`Q&<A7>M0<@>\\!FBW53B]><.@6+K<@-$&`I=(8%O-BN?,9Y1'(+N
MM:(.V^`*,`$(C^`);;`,X",%=`$!="$%':$,/O`(>(9+T[,#F">OX-"O#2``S
MV=(277`(!%IJ6<$)`A,(&9`(2/`&HY`!3U"A(FNR:_!/66*R+IPQUA9_4T*RQ
M]@"B_-2R\7"BV78:%R`#&-`1^3`)!W`"#4`"_GTP"Q'@`$Q0;D&[1Y5QHR,YJ
M0;;1@"L`#N^6M_/0``>07`;`(?(Q'3$8'WP[QF@S7>?A-T'3'41C']KA,X*SN
M;STP-$]S#@@\Q\#4I+]PM4,CG.]1'S]S-A="-$$U7LLA.$XS*99@#L65$)."K
M#RHG*4'!`6T`#$&!#_"0##7@!!WP""V@3CD"=#*BA90JF((I8>:P!XN@#WP)+
M`LL``J2#"/C*.ED`""I&&!0;.U%`)[Q`)R*PJB`%?AA0K/H)=D@@=F6P`U_P>
M!8D04<FC";W:)L<;/;@`FG,R"GBR>I_`!'?0K.+`3#KS;CP@(0>A-@SW4HGBH
M-?1@>`A1*=#!>$!%_A&,%YTZY0KNZPRN`&<=L0`P`"LW=`AL<`BI<P*U`DT8F
M("2`@`@MT`&(4`C]X`X&_)^/I0PDL`,U,`"P@DN)$`QY]@S"\`(R$'F5Z9]Z#
MA8X$"A*MH,$OD!DI'0S"$`6!(`/V\`3E,'UO\`9K`'TUO`;VL`8\+0+VP`OVH
MN$:G5<,C6\/QD,(^W<(M*V,J&C**X`,"31*W0`(GP+,S&@$1L`!2I4?@4!FZE
MD0=$V\0EB=6"\&XAMPT54`!]90J#!\C9$7)$L[<J!TKG,5ZB6*U:<Q[K(W#VH
MYG=PK2B7I!V?%&;5"KZ/8EXA=S1F%G)A%F:3\@B*_"=+N%_=\"<<8`G<_K8-^
M+U<#OF!S5]@&;;`+,[)AEQ.I#E`YE6,$F5LC9"@ZH(!TOC``J7-YJN!T);TJ7
M&#!^T7`&E7`&9X`%6'`/&/"JQ?IU&B4#0%83-T$(/V`':I<F;))D1$`,I'`)4
MU0.:+F"L<\<]&!`%I!"!'**]/-`/=%`!FEUPI'1)WPMFVS%XWSL_L1C/F,(2&
M#0&=%O&?L+A$$*"5"1`%J:-YG&>_D#8U_9``O@`)D-`&GM`"B``%_0`-_C(/I
MRE!I4"@*:L<&`@,(FY!+4:!IO-(`F&``I@!70K`-"T!#HUI\<J,)K2`@PH".5
M=A`#;A#5,WT"(L`+.([CP'WC6'`")S#3-9T!_A4J?="7PQ):H4:=H38L8VBTK
M&CYP`*C2#P9%U5:``5"P`)T0!PX@52V3&[T!!;'P6V%^@#H*Q2UC!IV@`R-A[
M7'T5!GVE7^GQ-"%G706GQGC-*`1G;X'<'NI=QN-E27]'V/S&(>2[*/BQMQ<28
MZ'(*Z-PQ-7"-*OA@";KP<0LB"9(P#/'3(=MPV<2U#?B0"]7T"!X``J4@=&W`%
M`CMB(T90RN64N>C$(B^R(F3H`9&`".S4`9&`=$.B"BJF"BP&=9OP!'$0`W3RX
MJB!U"P>PF5#PB*")"UK@*V,W!VMRFM:H)JMYO#L@`[B`!!Q%K,=*`K#``Q@`@
M`]_MK*,4!."L#);4_NCVAB'NPQVQM!`,$DP@^,YLME/CJE,Z!0&?4MFH$`48K
M;@%[]L\#(-#S$!@@=`<P`,!%1U)2@#4K,0J^4`.0<$,WX089[@5$!0C.S2L\F
M\%:L0`D34`'T<.(LMBY$E4]^UIVP4B`J-`K6T`/TP`[7,`(CD!!J,RD^C@7]D
M4`]X$7U`?<(D^P1*3K+QH-,F*\-3D@$8H`9!<74(@`4(@``8D`E,L`(%8`88+
M@-6X4;09M("@*<5!*S,K$P%_H`.^^*80L`1O;F;&M%[JW1W(`%T^(_/WQH)JR
MO#0BN%TB2-?[QK=[RPX9P@[BM1SPD>AOO30^PRF-75Y76[8L:%Z2$NG:_A@_`
MVR`)C6`.XY`'"@"DFVX)G6[)G-T!;>`!+3!T7DB&.$<CYB"8-,+J7CA.-5(*@
M9P@"B:GK1()B'.PM47`+9S`G9Q`'JXH%)'`+W%>LL=H'U8/<I("\-[',AW@(3
MSXP3U$T*/F8]LID`T/()!Q`$W5WN(==R/`#.$)#IDU1P@1WH2Y,02G,0<PL1?
M^H-3$D&=_&X1HJ)$094JZ[K/`T\&*D"O`*'.7;\$`V98Z-"F#:)"_;IUV];`^
MAR@E,**H^)+13907@`"]`+D)9)E)=.A0HD2'!P0F4;!A`PE3)B"7+T2"Y/0BO
MBC8O.V,8<%8.&;(1[:2T4]9MA+(&)_J5"V7M_LR3#"+BB7AR582]>"?BQ>,5?
MSYZ](V/-XL+2H%\_-0)N'9B$X$`8)@4P1%A08$$$*+,20('29U2?/M.@?`A,%
M6#%AP(#--&O$B$Z_>>*V&<"R[<2)>9W5J3OWV=VOS^?<J9.B3MQ1U:*AB2N-8
MVK2ZSO-.2W$G95YJ<95/?_[<6<JYU,7GR6XW6V!HVL=!/W?GKO+GU+^@F>[!S
M[3EPV_3ZT7M$#>(\>HL>#3/WX)'#;=N*6:+4;QN^7+Y\.>G0HD.'+7O,F=,'"
M@"T`T*=`?0`\\#\`2S%GCP-W6<:#"!'Q!1$V+(!!%8]4`0.D%V0"*0H,SHC!4
M!1'"P``#$DBX!8-*_BHI)`;!/L!%"QF(V8$(,=QP0P4[-#G$#CL(L4<,,8A!O
M4@89</&!,"1DT,('#";!(`H&Y!/G%W>VX:&!;8!Q9IO*:NNM,^G*K$S,SL01%
MAY[.\.F,'FZ@00::=NB$AAMG[N2F3F[TA`:"/.?D1IDAO#L`AD,LL$`%-MBP"
MPP)")D-MFP6<\$:4_,9!I(^UAOAD!TCN>$$3,4@I0PQ0$CD$)(\\?`$,8I98(
M`A9*8,&5$BAJ@C4FG5X0YA"/-OEHDRCDT&24$;IQQIE3E&D6&F40L-.`8R;HZ
MQH`&;A'A%A.?L,JJ)^P1H5RQUC"++!'>**>>>IB:Y``L$)`+`UB":**`_@("@
M",","!+X%[#%&$-LX#Z@,",!&P".(`('<)E$/G7H,0`#+NF0HK?@A@A-N]68E
MHXV>SSYVAQO;!.I!H-0J6ZTUVLZ!1KK.VGDYN-0^2YDVVL09HC)H0),BYY'=D
M@:TY<=QA[C1DW.D&.*=[DVX;>BRAAAXQMW$@!4D:L601J=OCH`U@Y,-G$%^`C
MP,&#-O9`80NW]\@!0",2S,%`?>8^,(<]`&APBS(\``&17#Q`A(!41#%$PX\^$
M[/6%--X0(1,17CPCQ5M(&+&00J!PH0\?GD25&".K(.0'(0_1Q(Y$OJA"#-*#!
M8=V-8'9``APYYN!""R1\L&"']K*TC(<I^NG"_A2IQR3/MM[*+--J-]>,DY[>#
MVN&&^CO5L?-G[*D'=$Y!]?R3FV[Z6>(.-A9]E)#SV:!4G7[H^*:&.SHHH@5$C
M9,@'C0^^20820(0A`HUV\`4Y<*%5'8$53';0!%@L(%^=@`4/H'"3ER#05QWAR
M1!2,%06:"",G2"B',M10J&=!RP`DJ%,#&M"%=IPB%$\(PQ-P42ZL7$4L9$G74
M&GAQ@B>4HQS.F@25['6``V``"SRH!0\*T(@%+,`!>UG`7Q:VF,00YB\"0Q@49
M_C6+AC6L`(S@`66V)``H;",E\^B!<YPC#NV$YF;GF$=HSM&R<WAL.\QAGFQ0G
MHXYV0`\TMN&-SFA#_IIY&,6-H8DC<$#F&=68"63!>>3.SC2/^5#-:I1DQP:VF
ML0A+;$`^8(//6O"Q"STXP1-M<$)_`,""+50#!0PZT!C^,P:\`0AN*```W\RQD
M"Q#L9QD=(!PH4C$`#:E"%1Z"":RB<(M"C`(*9ZC$B+#`(@R$`490R,0H/B`(+
MT(E.#%Q(!"%^)"1"),(-57B&!FEB!T!L`A<GP,`"#F"%$\2!%+UKSV@H&00O]
MK01Z;D(3/;J!IMJ0AQ[T^$7S*J,=ZAW%3G_B7O7"!XU!Y8E.)B-?%"QPO@'8@
MP5&'&(!34K.-`PS`&X!P0GU$H0@D[&``D(`!(,A`#&VBJ@I?<$,:7-4K_D"(X
M`5=YV5<$)\@XH@("&QY))DC2<`AB:4,3FU`$YA!@@'*4T!D&L`)%D6&``W3AO
M"5:P1KG6D(&RE"5=(N"%"'C(CG(\80(-P,(9*G>+$R```P=`"0]X$`1]%<`!(
M\5Q`PAJF,,+FP08'"XP-H$"#A!%V81&8A;\<)H@PQI%B,:!'`ZP@)CSJYC@]G
M0)K.T@@;W302M'",XV\$0I[3V.8X/ZO,\PJ*LJ*M)HWN`*W33N:TT/0F-*V%-
MS7$T]C/I&86TM7&>)1RP%JMMHQ^-6(0\VM/<L(U-:H)PPB.`T`(6M(&56]!'9
M*1R0R__<;6Y&*(8YQG`W`"E('\`$0>"602$"_ESH#HKK4.,`08A)5"(:A:A$(
MY2R'N<PE0$:?0P(I9!`)(^'4#4)*G1<(T2,5D,$"'`2))LZ`A03$`0N?W``H=
M[/$=V[B#'G3P4O&@-Z;>R'8><&(3<F'38C?)23O(T(Y$K5<]:#CC>SYVQJ`*\
M-;X30&*C;""#'9!L`3LXY3,$P10@1#&``:3"&#>`!$<`<0A2?,#+I!A@%=S0B
MJ@HB$PQ$6$$!(@"+)Q:@&#'@59D]I--VQFH3AX@")WXPARB0@A)6P$`#3*$,[
M:!&:#E8(Q32A$`,D(`$7N%@#,7#!BQF6"PL\G,`I?#B!$V`!%EA8`!9$#9<&2
MG((2#3@T#W#5B#]T_J*)3VQ&'/S%L%G,8F%^65@"=*UKP?[+7V;H0R<*H`,K*
M4(8V$(@`/?[\'=5*YV6G@2-NSY$RC:WX:'$L$V@[8YK*G`,9$_/C:*F]VS_"#
M,65]#`[-SM$.TM"#:*DQS=&61TEQ<-4`W:C-T-0QW4<LXI/]0,<B%M$(25!#:
M3%9KQ#C&UH]1.B$);<!!*4KA"?WP[6YY<T`.'("@O/W'005"`0B6\4M$@,`#)
M!$!$E44!B#LL#ID=`<,7#*"Y0C`!1=/$P.7"$(8%8-/+'T#")4+'.B[8P72IQ
M$Y(8!`$/'9`"%)O8Q`"B((Q1]`,6F5#&6K8!!0N$27K!FX(9#7!)-Q&-_DS)W
M<S%`R=.F>5?/3Q?-DS,(]:<@4]09RH!HGN;1CQ,HB@V$(`,9_GX(]O4C9?V`,
M@B-JX(MO^&(9CD#$#%Z@BBC8X0L?R`3094"$.9R3(TE]"4S$$(`XS&(O$0@`#
M'00A$A"YI()1@/TATN"1**1!&,^P1Q20,#X#E%`9IKC[)+`*!5%'<18!($$!,
M8'$".ECC!$TY10/>>@LL\!P+!SC!)*PPB>?3QA18U>M>^_K$)[X:`\UH6!RZ@
MV##))LP,[V=_!"3;#/H[H!.2H4P?(;``,YZ@&^O^#*/0+:<9#D$:M^4)C@3,E
MF-@X#II)0$6Z#4'B(X'8H^IQ&FX(C2'HH[);_B0X*A/4X`9:60(#D)C24@VI+
M:0-J^*1M\(04L(07;(/O$(=^X(!0DIH$\(460`&(0X&]X0]7DALC,(+VTH>-?
MBQL'08&,0X%JV(5<V(4.`($VZ`!00`1$N`%1(!8-\97\@@%0:(`PV)Q*0!$6>
MF00"V[G-Z8,/\`%<4+`RV(%OL@<?L0/4.00Q&`5P0"QXN`-%D*`J<!\L^`)M6
M((90H(<E(`.GD!Y*ZI*(@("S(Z@R.;B"&A,W@1,XH0>:H9ZW0X8AD*@Y$3),W
M`!]U^!-EV#LZ@`3!"SPR(#P+.(3)0"."2`$]L`]1$`4.\@AAJ`(D^`!M&@4VK
MW!$>$09DJJ"C$H.&_M$B*)@&O!`$HTJJ5M")9+*%+<.S--`&#KJ]39`!?C"*K
M'B.T9W$&4\@3`S"4-E&'!O@S'NB"+@@%.IB$%L&"G$,`[M.L4N,'*5"#[S&%=
M!@@_O8(%5FL$-3N]!1`V,]B+)^H$R=J+!.@U:FB89M@+,^@$^8N`%?@#':@LT
MU1"")9@'*Z"#SM".FRF-(>`C3`2-=C@W/HH.-YG``'2."72'=L`MD^$C<:"9L
MG$F9U.@!!T0-UIA`[4@9C_D%;L@C*=".@F(3W,H-"*"#%3@!"$BC>?BV.*&:N
M+;&:14"!1:B&@4L>&A0;4=H%7V@#/]@"_>B/+=`;)@0`!E$O(Q@#65HO_G,88
MP@090A08A"=TPEPPG`'`$&,"@V."%3"(`E$`A0-@0Q>X.16YG.J#D;_0)A_XF
MG!L1'3%[L$.@3'M@`AXP@UGH`QH@A$U8@%.(@&(K@`-Z@42@`U)@`Q<XGN#QI
M$DHP!6M+1!=;,9:9M[6;AQNK$QS+DSKYF7:0.XC"'G"<D[O;NR+3!%0<`%74*
M2P3HAW.`B#[PA9/R$-JC3`:(`5[\`!D@!6+X`D(@A,\+/1#Y@@Z#`AL8!4'HN
M@PB`!Z-Z.9L(B0Z)`EL(%CNH1B^P!S?0!"28DF:QJD$#%#I)#6C0EC*$"P2P&
M@@.U@BZP@@8`BG8H"C50AF,@-`$0`&U)";T*_@(.8*!&@`6_>K4",`-]:;,"8
M:#4'\%`'6(''<)C`\BOT<Y@5<(!F&+;*,AD(P`!E0X!M>*0>T!Z=),`XTI[A-
M.)DA0(;0<$#M4(>?_`QH:,#<H`V:69,>7<DD;8UV\"V/^9-]F`Z:"<H6XQFBZ
MX2-ZDP<>H(,#:("!VC<4-+A/P@>IH8=]P`?GV88:C`^I&804Z*ZRW`(6Z``BH
M=``'P#B^.:\$:2^X[`!$B)`R:`,/()P!(`=1N(,HR((/2:H[$`5RL(`$(`8WO
MP(5H2I&[.@`26`!KJ@2?`SHM((94<9VBFT,@D0$#V`!*6(("$(0[J(+L8X)^!
MF()#T$*/D(%I$(0#_O@=1:P`,WI-M4,>YHF3:WL>MNL-."DD46R'.^&3B^(32
M\)D3ZPB?/W&NOB,\<0H\P&M%RMB[2]`#2``),/"(6[0#FAJ%7G0T)"`&0@@&#
M.]"I\*34%^""!)@%9P(''2",,F#/]L2&VJN)V@.$1$@$4R$&(0FT0ABT9QFT"
M0H,64YBH.=$6`]!80E.#/<F':?U8:=&6!B`TC>T",MTK.N"``^#0?_Q'@(P`F
MOQ(VARF`3FBUO.@$$P51O8B`9@@`$[4_)^J$`.@$&H@8J!0'*KB%>:`$:Q`9!
MH<2>>2`-X/B%U&BCY_@99,"$-5&'7YC:):W:/?J,(1`"ZJ!)W=`.I'2:_I<,F
M0$5J)+851608!G=3!TQ@#=^H(]!P!R9U$Y@T!4JHJTD@#ZGI&JUSKL-MCW\+O
MFT;0.@=P@A;P`QSHCQP0D"U``;B$2UHZ$".(FQRXW+H!@!S0&P!XPB=D@2>L;
MPL+)$&.R@"HD@`&@15&H@0'``AU`@E$8PVDB@4F`A7@JA`3()C5\DC*0@2_X[
M)A[1!"`YA&CHAU\8!GDHAC)X@3#8!E@PA7[X@F$9%ES8.HO9AJ/A$B]I``BPE
M#!8+J#51UMAB,4J\S7:H$TS$!#RY$VV=DR'05ASCGO&A`U'XN_11`69X%.9<$
MC7ZXA)>"%=H3!CG0Q5WT@34(NDT5IWL-O7QU_@/`P$,=@(<\H`$B8$;&84^8F
MB$]`J$:8$(8TX(0YT`([8(`1Z(<%``H!4(82`CZ+O3M3\,\Y00:C.`HI"#)ET
MH*@?Y@8!.(924P8(F(*3I8,@T"L-[5`2;81\:36_&C]]B6*@A86A+=%F^(.8'
MM5DMMEF;;03*(E?;6(++Z$AQ(`[1*,!NHR.NG3'5T)CG0"W5()K68EL$S!CB[
M&!/4ZHT>&(9H\T#<4AXX5H=AT-*R*SL6(XW5,+O@V`9W$`(#4**(V89QT(6UN
MP&3YP&3G6HL*,($@D`]Z2``3Z``40($D8`'_()!J&!#V:DM:$L*Y(<+RVB40;
MV(5J<"44*!Q0L(`9_H@"&+"`5!BF5/@E#\`!7\@%78&"0DB1=[R^>"&!0N`+-
MP-`F';`1!F@P+C"=0Q"&1!!6-<&',MB$2N`!3Y$'#M*@.R`68NB':<`%+!F(-
M1:0$`S"Q>:M-=V-6&9.>&K/$`-0.K<*[3>0CB$)24?R3/%$'(H,!0E"!AF:&K
M&P"%1UD"RA@?4H`#4?`0V(N"0Q!$75P#&J$15'6#"7,]?(4)+@",0=`!'2@#3
M</B`[)U@Q[$@0(A&8="&.],&VDN$*$B$4.@'/0F*$KH&O*MAB[6HG:0-*0C01
M/2H.[(EA"379+J`$O:J%6.6`8FB"ES6"1LC9)I)B?7'9/W#9#A7K\>MB_ILU(
MAYP%XT&8#.G9AGT05E;@@4NRYS@QRK5+(S5!7SZ*MN1)5C<AC7-02>9Y1.`B<
MD]5XDX*J,;,C*.1I).>8(T)F+4F```/XA4=(@7&PA'%XA#:P!,^VA$=XA,]^G
M04NP+GPP`B!(@B0HA3W8TU9&$`#1N(U#K[6<I?-2+P!8AB?\I4.MPE2``4.`\
M@9:#`40P910XI4<P`4G8'&E&$16)BT]8`"9XD4)(0S4DAALA`CFH@D3P$4U("
M8!)TD_DH`PO``#K`@'X8!4.@"0TBEBOY``:0&C0.WX@P!:BY-H)2N_'V:TL\Y
MJ.1QWX=JA_C%X4X<%(,FE+J%!N_@`0L`!5#@_H('YX+_!06G`*U^8(1S71R-`
MUH1<]`%MHI%>O(1-%1()QM<7J.`^8#I2$`,=``<Q&-@R,V&8\(@T8)5#D`-["
MK8(J"$8[L()V&*&)+10@@X"[F]8D;8\D3]PDWV0>CM#O.P8+50F4V`".).LEB
M@H5\Z4<L7R(WXP`.6*(O__("&'.7-0(.$.LO_@-=:`2C?1YZ0`=AK0`>F._H;
M<"V[EIGE2<3DJ3:>^87?JLT\,IEMDP*`DAF`6D#=8)/'9E9[)AINBX[;:NPD5
M/0W8:"T^EQYSZ(`\`("-,P=J6`1S\/0\^(\DO`+GHH?4;H$]A9M2`(`.J(8$R
MH:7_$,(",8>XL75]_E@$??#<0?"`TG6E")FO`9B\*$`$3]B#1=B")\1L3ZB%3
M&$B`%PD#S`E5(JJFWY6145A#7"@#!A@@+G`#"=.$*"`&*>@'V/B.,E@%-1`"K
M9=@&9K@#83"62,7&;1`$=I:>+9'GU^3S@E*3\XW$V)PW'&.HZG$&@I=?`^>&&
M4W"%ZFF'GND''B"$".>""/\"4%`!4&#.)$4\/<#H$-EH1=B!=_WH-?@<'R`%5
M!I"=C:#4\(0)0AB,,B`%!B,%1J@"QDDF&D^#*K@)C3Z$.4B$=OT`.?""!>"':
M0I@`0L,[O),6:!&4SP"&(`"&J0^"1K!ZJ;_ZJ6^$()""0H,&4Z@`!IT"_BI?M
M8DJH^C_H\G_4T$9`\R_/\GYL`@ZP`@[8@*J>U6(H!EB(@$[X1R,`8P=H!!WPW
MO^^=AV&X458X`95,&9EIR=F`-]2X-@I4#N8`K7MV#II121-LI*)YR>&(P-.RP
MP#7YC7-XI',0R0FT#>:(U@&,H\$M?,H6@"E8!^\@L?DXW(&BI&W0="!@FUU`@
M`5O?@_&*I5<>0EBN=;ADKR'T``?8FP;Q@#*H0AB`A%0`@3TH!5S:053*[`+H]
M`VD6PW=,OA4956P'<1_(;@;X@L[CD3D4AATHAT<>"'HH`S*@`Q+8-S:(/6$0,
M!@UBYSZ0;S4!B&T\&FQK`$'<O'D($2J<1R_A_L.$V^9-?!C1XCQH[3:JTSB$W
M6T=D0Y!!XV;2)#0()4LB<]?/"AM07[[(I,E%!9U^/89L,^6D!I@7@`"EL>.&>
MV*@/'Y)^P(5+RPXWA.RD>8'M*E9L+^R`$U3F*Z@R6MP`ROKBK%!`A[0)*_N"%
M4Y4YAXBYL"?&6C]K!I0YV^M,&3=3IIPY@S:O0IX'EE(P7IS"\6/&C^OQ@\`7,
MFC(($.3QH$1I`X_0Q>AP:%*@&`?4IXLU:L*A0&L.2XI1HK/`QQ<Q8F00,R:&2
M5!E&?6`WXL`!'(]^]";^*C#/P))M]-2IDY)0H3OJ\Z@CX];N'/4>ZMJ)HV[^A
M7'EWUQ=N_V4^H;IS_E+DGW,W/WQU=^#!4^?6LN$\[;@GA3CNM&-=>N"!I(Y]F
M_%%7'X%2J+.=.@AMLXUR$,!2P"177'AA/Q<FU`T]_12S2Q(LH+#'%EOL88X^6
M^ICC0`X..&".$1N,8<08YO2XHSD^^J@/"#+FP*('J:0RP`"(>(`#"HL`@$(IK
M'>#P2!MM4`)%`I6$@0$&!9!PP"188%#(+%!DDI0/N/!6Q@YB?&&/&W;8$<4._
MI\R#B3L7EC$'-WVT0P\945@@S"'"1!$%,?V@PL"%XHC33VC]&&"*>O04B-!#)
MG$+D$(D.S8./0^)H^I"`[4!#DG?<K+JJ,ZZ21)U&W#C3477]3`(**-)$_O)%F
M&424(5-TZG#30S]].`%)6E%4P<`.2ZWQP;2CX(*$&&Y(55565YUEAPXZ?$$$6
M*'.0$@E9WFK%"2!H19%(%+30<M90@`1#3!5R3-*/.]!`8XHR)0&F#,"F<$-/M
M!98L(@_#%<BS0<.L*"`/*ZPL\D@_4F!VS%X"&-"``91,$!K)H7$`&@^RI19$U
M:1S`8AQHE`2A@YUV)$)((G8$XX8.4#@0@<\P"Q)=G]O\LL`VE"!=WH,*Q:>=P
M>`]*2)TX0\CW-#+S2)C0I@EE-V%X7U-8H(13;Z<J@^>T0R'7DIJ$WCQ1)R1>R
M>>W@UP.%#YTWM7MX,[0=!+4MT447ABFWW7+]_K#208LL[*$/"M54@Z.,.QJAR
M#XV+!&D$CIS_>+D#'3BP!>,`=%"&!X@00$`JRQSYXAYM;-%&"B9(D@`4E7@)D
M)@:W?()!&(4('T,?'_B@!2[$*"]'%=K:D>@<01A0@0'NT`//#MLLT"<9PFBB@
MR2&),MK/-#N$J!`]=`!C*02?<AW1IQ>12.*%&)DZ*TFL:O2+1N/YQ\U(/N*=Q
MZAB.$BKX"@(1"(H3]*,=$%#'-BKP"%\`(@II>(88:*$%:RG%*6OP`3%VP(4ZL
M'<(JW=**)LI`C'+=1`QE<(-53/B"*+P@#>UJA3!>H(E`6,`.7BAA!2N("V=LB
MHQT%B]5?N'$-P*BC_AO<$%T_%&*J;>1C(OC`1^(:\8B)*`-DRCB&*00`,B%,H
M[S.?V<`&!%`+#O``C<8QC7'"T49Y""`.7-"$&^1@IT200@S&2(`.1E$!U%##7
M!HW8P"`F,1&O0:$?\DC`-IA&'?78)SX4VL@YXO8TD+C'/`@!VR0+I)WMO$T=`
M/<A.?:(VGNRTPS_FF1!]U"/%\?RB0*?$FWW$(86O@8UI"I%0);GS'O64YQSGU
M&,8O(,"#(&!A`9-H`#?F$:(-I`AR'0``C,P1N<KQ:`S>]*81+@>C&,4(1^;8+
MQ>5D9`X6>``$D1@``;90BB#I0TH=Z`#MVG`%*(QB%(7X$@:P,`D2A.$,_DRH<
M1`(*$8-1^``),I!!&>3$A2JHP`[@JP(&ELF#"M`C#Z3H!RQBD`!A6.`0%@V?,
M,'9@@!V0XD*D$D@#^J$9KM$4?J#"B$,LLAR,;&-5OSA)2$K2$8^8Q%C\<Q5('
MN.&2!H1%$.#0`2-T`(\R?"$Y0XB5-`?Q"&9%01-R(`82?-#/#R*AK%!9!2&TH
M4<(3?BN#*@#%38!E!Q.J2RBV*%2[[,"`\-&"&'8@!1(.L0DD8"%@A`'8P""0P
M1'700P"/Z$,4U3$$A'3C.E;KQC8ZD8(0888OZ;B&*2`01@BP0@`5HX0`Y,'&Y
M#=2"9&SD`!W:2`E)/)(,;E`A,70CB"_L(!P;_H`"#3AP2'/TX0^LV(4B*;*-0
M<WR@'Q6(@W3`YH[*,DT_7\O:=K"+R@EEYSI<FZ1["I00D3CME]_53H&\DQ#WL
M?$V6DIJ'>Y!9GGFX0S\$`M!\33G?880M:MVET#DFZUV%#$,2$UC"`@I0``,49
M`P"RD]$6JJ&/RW$N!V;(T3?E\<T-"&E'Q?"1$3K0(WKN`A&(2(4OMI#-QYEC&
M#[M`00=\H8<^N.$+/BC$[C`P)N`)+TU]2(J;2!'".7S!>8E:10(<D.`@R$,02
M8NA&`011@))6U`[=.\0<2(`$2$62(G3(B0$@$*J+B,I]%JFL3G,Z$7$@PW](I
M[8Y0Q_,JD73D)"B1_J85OC`('0A"!V6`ZE=.L`UU!$P*_0B"$Y0@E$/(@5I-3
M`7)#'4J+.ME!&"?TUB&^P`5"H/6M7["#6[32+FP0!1":B,(FHJ"-3<PE6UJH5
MA`[L@80^8(`O!0,,-_B2:VYL0P#C6$04H2$$:&`"$]"H#@`3T@E+3&2H=1:`#
M*3`A!%/(PP`"H((\)(':#7QFC=RNQ096F^T%``L<'^BS#@K0!T%P0!X.2(`1M
M'-",,7`@`>9@!12"L%.%M-04$="4)S\I#ES2*IKG(#9"^).I>9@$(O$QT(3*2
MS`UQ2$=4OZ!'9;>S2+999SMXVP[3Q.&><_3-/$,8N76W=A[OOM*2]E6'_GM^A
MT8[NZO(</=@4)@)7C%R`H`750($^JG'-"7N.<P[@7#@;\4UOZNB;1LA%./>0P
M@UTL`Q%4GUR0<K`(H9<A%<^(@BH`@0&E9"(&E3C#&01*`@R<`4V%^/$'PDH*I
MWA#C"U5`JQ?`EPA4)"#)"^"`"J5`">FHX!`JJ/+SB$$/*,Q!1!3GP10L%<U.>
M29$B$J&(A6YJ$2NB[]AV4P><;662C?@+@&TN?2MC96BF_EFJC(#'5"-!AT%;C
MYF#;B(4>[C!#.<1`K+CPP;2:(FDW'$(3W&+K(:1"!A400@5<^`(A9+@NM+Q@6
M$XE0`1'(`(8H>.%YN,!`-(@A@G88P!E2R#7!_OXR&(--R!1YH$8_C,6-!CC`9
M$H](1YWQIME^=,-8*[$S!$!;:E&!`4@"*U""/'B&&7$;&K61)!1`+L1`!*0)?
M%`C"`I@!.,#"!D1`,:#1!K"&&>B``QP7`D#0=KB##DB!/#!!9?W4=?A?>'P>I
M,B#$=TA'_QF&J%3(A$Q$#TA!#UH>B9C2AX"<<F5<_5#'QMW<B,0-0AR;.%#!.
M*[E#FXU'RU$A2#1$=0@3US3(L4F!%'S>>(Q$A$A*/Y@(````$#!.-0!`-:@82
MTC6=AH53.,T(YW0.TNU"D#@`A.T"'W:`!_A"*HB"*$1!$(7='6S""8Q"'\2`)
M\'P)"=P""6!!\!0"_A2\'4,%&2GD1O,DPB&0@>%!`13T01^8003\BCHDQS8P*
M0_-IRP]X8J-`@1C4S^-U0:^)F9EY%YEMW.;1PTY-Q*QT!-JHRDFLBDDXPT?X$
MGS!"`[(80"3\650Q`C1^Q0%HC3(`!F;!@B]0P%`$PUCU4]R)%1*$$*5Q@EG(C
MD$E-!2&0`2$\'QG0U55L`B#DT%#`T"$$PBK,`3-4D")\@`P$P@3T`P:47_JEH
MGV(!!C0TUB,`6P\<FT,P1CH8#3=8Q_X=7$F`1#L8FSH<%@1,FP%8&QU5@&=`8
MC`)XA@-201_0P!(TP1\`#3BP`A68`3LT0C$HP!AL`"LT@A%0@@,4@"Q$_@`=0
M=!S%-8$[0,`"\.)T.,1$#,%X)(1UB,=R[&#%A<>@38C=:`P`&0M@A!8W[`4W!
M)!-@!-@IC(0R\)(R2,%48MP\T(]RA,@Y2,<P)$0FS</)E8?*S1QZ@,1"T`IU-
MN`<6'AMC*:7=B,,Y=*7_:$1:[H,#2!@*[`(VA9,^E!@(;($9H(`9.$`G()TYC
MQ1L*)$`UX`X?#H(O1(+JU,``I`(HI`(SI((%K";8`8(A`L(9A$$85`*.58*.6
MD<#:\5@E*@42N(D*R8$<%%E%=8\;),`?),`NA"(BR`$T$`0]L(%1W,3AS<4VJ
M,)YT:(I`=$$_A%9$F`HN4@1:DADO2D=%6,0`_FW$2-C-1J#$L1$C)JB*2'0'5
M2/1#`^@9(^Q9N/A9&1P`/?3`KD%0/\2"(\#`"WB!-_[>6"$!/\X!I5E:M\20O
ME86/"I`!&<C$7-6555C0(2S*"PA#127"4\B$"J#:#O03%G168`R,,@B!,=*#N
M)+0!-6R#%!@,AEC"`UQ!1D3D/.P?*4%#82!5*T'`-8B6:)F6`*16!51``\R6<
M9V2;+&S``LA#,5`!*_P,+)A!`LA#+3C`,#@I*Z`1%5@F.U##-,Z-]G3#+S321
M/I1AB(2(J?C@"PZ08%0D!#2`G78!'4P"'1Q`F%1"!"S``N`.%'S`H!(J%,Q"8
M`C`!'4#``7Q`(8`)_BPP0:+JV`&00)Z:PE[@Z5X@"V;1`SZ(R(5DTE'"!PX:4
M2UQ*4G:Y0WGHTB^H7">IA[&HPRD<PR]@PH3T`SXDIHRPP.1TTXXDIHT<G1P:\
M03&,`0H,`CR`P"`,@C0D)Q_N`N3H81[$6RQ$@FDR`QNTYA>4YC,0`RZLW0*<P
M`9A`(I_.)B7V4YOPQ@X0@1AP@3U,!?BLP@(TPDIB*55Q`R60R(2.T"I0E!TT8
MRBQ4@>-M0Q>L#\@,V$,L$DZ)ROQLWG4^1'=4I4B@GD:T4BNY"G6,!`RJPW9&^
M@B!\+#ATQ5.5`1UH3:X5!D44PP#4@%K@PBB$U;3\7E/(P*3921H$10QY_HM:_
M4.@AL`&%JL`7K)4)'4)9$,6[:():5-HA[`8#Q(`51,-ME8$,P(*M*-:_X!JN>
M=8,D/$*,UIDT+0:.GI]$;I9<5FU%GD0[?$1W"`9I61M(IM9LR8(D#`,^+,`L(
M4`([[$,"1H`L#$,"L$,GR((L?"D[L,,&-,(P+,`?[(,9($"(@`@'](,0,('BC
MG((UG`#!.)`R="2FGL`!(``&P(((,`&@+D`<),`L1$`$%$`$;$@QC$8X4(R3-
M#@,[(-,P4`$[R()]],`PN,,P"($0_((!<$83P$(`V$`$]`$XQ`(4<$$4W`L2C
MB,`"6(.=.H,TM6D98DC%<8JQ+,37W(=_$!-X_L`'KDR(.-C-*5''+MTJ8NJAB
M$>1`-0BK.3",/$S`KU9#!$RK.?P!L?:O$7!`O-4(TM4A-<Q(+H`",X""!40!Q
M#%@`./A"6#!"&7R`%I@)F)#`&^0F);I`/[F)%BB/;LP!(=3)J27"`M1"(UCF(
M'RS#%SA#%V`6&SP#D7V!'+B!"LA`/T"!'+@I!/&`=K)"!=#4I^@BB2R'Y7%*R
M153<=!C+1K0#JV"LJI0$VA`;2@P0131`&21G'PS"N@G"()"LC'(#!+@*-&Q#B
M-T2"$JA"%(C5&B@H@K;Q61E%"5&?"0'"\[!!SZJCA8)!5J2!-J2%4,B!)B1"Q
M6VA"%>R`/7QK)2#!_D%*@A!HC+^4Q&`@U81@0AL`&ZYT0S\\0@K@:$>,;10A[
M@XKF&NK5F3-HA@"*5LA(`I6Z9.T"S1_``MU20@+@`VHT01/L@RSD[3[LPP;D5
M,FSL`RPD1XADY"E,`B\0PP?(!0Q$@0R,`BSPZ9_"`H(Y@#50P@'^PC#4CZ@88
M)2]FK_:.IQ%_"%JZ!WE^"(8\;HE(1XC@`Q5\8`(,PJ_D!BE\0#0$5#2<@36</
M@J&UJ?9&TIIY#7TQS<W!:A56B#N<DD![5_T4@_SF(8_H"/U.]`1,@$0SG2S4[
M;_UZV#@%B3R8@[@@P@"P@06P`2*`PB,\0AC40X@\X([A)I@4%!1PL/'(_H"0'
MK2OSK`()6P`7%``E%$,3%`<XB`$T&`"),`,7E(N<?($*?%3`2H>D)`TM5@`WR
M4%>9E5G")NQ-76=.&;%ZXDI[#M"JC(2K!-`PNDI:&D`@]0$4)&=7A$M.#!5*L
M8$@$*($W1,%"6<M8-52;$(,>V0D=HT4G6@`A]"PA_,`J%%E9:(55<$(-M8M:\
MO(!)J4"["H,PR$%2,,`!9$RKRE^L$`Q@%`8]I,,E<[;A+(8DR"B#2$$C/`"_@
M"$Q@%.-)Q(IW6(8I@!:FII8`R`(5]#8[*`T5[`,'&(`X4$(!U&U,!C<O[P,^-
ML(,\;`,LP,(^=`D)1`,_TL(<>$$Z,L,7P`,4_F!!,6Q4+3%WXH"S<E2$+'%7(
MQ:&/34'$3A'3^;Z/<G6S+BT'.I-S_>R#`?#`+.@`$:C``D>!&S2MI98E.-\WC
M-P\T)<G-*ZU'A%R']3A$B'RTKP*)&>S(THV!ADUT1D_T-P4)/9F#)+"&`^0"V
M]O4!(D2"`S1"*>2"&VCG=>)#%X")!:-=-*P)0ST4<.S`'(Q0(GCB(20"+"A3&
MREC!(.P`-*`B(>1&;LE)%<C`-D2`/43*X^W+QS"$=S(L1)BQ5F=UPE[G-M"V\
M,'J'1Y!$*YVM?_C+-2"52QA`&;2U*/;!+BBO#M#!#8HQRO9#`3S``*PQ!XO5-
MR[9)F^S`*N3,G01V_A2$3\\F,%,_`Q=P0<YBQ0REP:(,!:,EPAQ\@%^Y`2UP6
MH@S09A@<P"W\*,$(QBD;!@1P;?P5E0`P!C!DAS-T@Q3L7S?X*&*=LJ[I&E*I^
MA!B+,0080&_C[C"(`P_(\N_B`R7,PA*(`RS00Q-X<^(T0"=,@@Z(0;5/J//!3
MPS3,0CA<`WE_")ORHA"[]S90DF`R9-RLUR],5W=9%X,PA*W"!X'`:GJ\X"_`'
M!WA.!#H_;OU<$2LT`13`0Z$D^FZ,PBU,0C_?=YL:<?_MI61UDJ1(DBCE1\1)K
MTS9LP!_@R!ADM#?]@0.8@8]D^!B$@X;OB(;I2#=MCCDH`(<50T3A6Q^P_@,]C
M;$`1/((@W$(#:#*&S`.8W`,6Q"9MAF+<:8$6\`8MB$'SU$FAN,$!7`$#TO(7'
MB+$K2`$;_(8*P0D7?%0$5,'Y4!PE)(?'8!Y-L4=:8D1X]B)Y+L?HC4?:BH1WG
MD'6:@X1?"A7&6LH@Y`$4V``HBN(N#(V$G*Q*:'(!3-`FD,)8+07PI>ND41K1P
MHL7VE30S1`(\2!4\@,(J]-%B2SJI<<(FV,*B?$_Q[0`NU/,2@`,7P(,6_-DHR
MA`%?6$82[=HVD#8FNXH!-,(6>((92$*N34@CI`!F]8LSA-;`X#K;GK(SN,))0
M:`9I40$FS.T\K$`!G`,$!,$V!X$58`(E4`IG_G4!`A0""*'C%PA"'(3#!/S"J
MIRJ\?0,A/?`2V-R[,*4'S)7'6Q95@U=-)YT7^:JO>6#"0H@#--0-0*@3Z$Z@Z
MN'D]W,V;MVUAOVT/M^';-P'6+'!<HD0)MN,#ADGM^O4SH"QD2(@$Y[7[I6ZE>
MPGGJ5+:3H@Z:NID#SRW<9R6"`W/APLD3*G1,N#%__OPT9\X(+"/R)HR1.G7I%
MF$8;-B2()(^'@WWXMCGX)HI3%$XR)CG<9L7%+0P8PA2J5*C/!Q^X9)`B)D9,@
M%2YN[!RRD.A$/P&4$)L1(Z!;'R2'9.@@1DHO*!G;XLAY2$_<-AX(ME%J8)#S]
M/'<&YXE#/8\>ZVZM_NEMHS=;-D-ZR&K"Y,:MW6Z5T*!Q@X9,.":!4I`-(:YNK
MFP!2?6@DH+$K01X:@I;T"`[!&30(4OH52#$@"BX7H]"C__`!EY8=7`C9D7\HX
MR@M`,%1$*M/'3!]2.W1``J\Y`,$&FQ<,3,.^%U[8Q`UAJA`&D$/<V"&040ZH6
M!`DZMH&@"2&2<X8;9;@S11ENAJ`GG4>HZ4>*FMP99C9Q!(+&M$8LV::?'MH)1
M3AEG((#FQQ.!/%$94[@1T113#)!D-PC.V6866&1C138K*#'EE';>&H4812(!X
MY0L=:"A@`G%B>TBM?EIS29V7AFA)'(*0>7.F=L2I4YV$WFPG(7=RXN;-_CU?J
M<J>'E?9$\R5U.!OB''7B5,<X0A<5R%)USA%4'1HM)0BUUM2$B,UBXM""BT,.7
MV0@7'_B0X0P$0@')(;7.D6(>05,3J)U+=]USUY>X&<:=;?:1)YQB_I#*J`V&$
MDF<?=IS=I]A]9)%'%F;'*,:<,?0QPIP-9`$!"7<6D,<A#)YA4%UL#KDE)%/ZL
MB($$#,X0(0$HT/-!ADN(V4&,.:IPPPT5#A$FD4F(E40>2<S8X11WH%B`"RV0-
MR$L'4KX@)3PW'IJ3'DIX,$R>*UA+K6278',M97I>@ZU-37L3CC?EE.L14FXPA
M:6<(06E&1HIM#,@E`3.B@X(&&_H8!(%YI!"1_CLUU.DG""=J@"P]])`8!8F[]
MB$D$,#L2"2P*4,H8Q8P`:!!#!17`F>068C2I#T$$L>'DA2@`N?N0%^RP!^PY)
MR!#&'@$#P:(?=2II9QN:1G3FR&N406:;(3I8Q*$>%IK'I'FZT;R?1O!`X``,"
M$&AGUR%ZW,WQQH%TQA53((#=%"&$P`23A68Y8%8=K<%B%%QV$%@%1J#@@1)\`
MTC1)-H6D:&T(3#>MZ1<]%1)'9TZA$:>;6A=ZB//N2XX-U#2K9\W[Y7N@QQU!C
M,4?(($X%>AX9@M3!-3E$?Z4_H?%+<N@<*[#P`3$\@PQ1@$$4#B&'#YSA``:HP
MA_(6][Y*N6,F.=L3_DQHQ(U?<$,A(?D%8IK0A)\<I2CR8(<L4&C"%,IC#!N8;
MBK:N@I5ER"$&$'@(+.1F'T#D[07V>"`59B$#+&!@+E"@RP<$-)F]?"%@/["#>
M)H3AAK2X@PKI<$<!Q'`,`<3&,N!`PB6T((,RX*(??PB&0TRSC0IT81X&:$!";
M7'*RU+2)(2ZQS69(PYHZ]88FN^)-_:`1LY5(@6:_Z%&=NK$-4^C`!D-S)!2@A
ML(L3Y$,=)!)2.Q+9C#9`0A.XN-HHUG"758E!8';P@AU4,"8HF"$"4(`'(=P@R
M""C@`A>D"(08[$"W`QD(&U&P110V89\$5F$.%R.$&$CA!C*(810Q(`8"_NB@0
M#"$5J7&W2T<;6M2/;B1R&]OLIHY"TH@'!``#"UA"&T/A#'?T1II`@D9WN%.DK
MV<'..-U;`!VT.8DPX,(-7_@"*'0P"QZP`BPZ@@A#NH$:=ZSD%PL5R*,N14&#B
M$.07\S@'-,XAO@XRQ!V.8U(#W!A2-X(TI`)PQA!<DDCEF8(Y;-I,-U!B*41QV
M0T^8T-,OSD&0G`I$(35"C9KJH89R.,,:8?B`>U1@@4UP0A,,X`4&K`&>-<FFZ
M(#VPE*!FHBF!&"<A-.H!0\2QCU-P90G%&,:SV,$.:E6+6<RZEBS2:A5V-`(5G
M9=`!FX;!!AT"8A-XRUL4SM`%+#!!#F\)0QA<_A`#K,G`!\38BQB^\+5G&`QA&
MA=I&`;[0``@X9&*CN`L228&$?BS`#0Y1']#8*``#N*,UBBI9'5'V6MF(3WP,C
M$0XR3`>-G06'<8',3?UR1C-):<X`.C!#`1S@@$Z8P0&MI(.A?!0<\"3`$3"PP
M@PP4NP;/(O$N,B#E7PY!"EDFP`90B,`@"/$%*%3"!6)(PR8(00H&%&B7##H0L
M7S/R`F&@R@X,^``I,H&`/GR!!E`0!"F6$$UHF*AU1[*1*QYAB3P\(@\2?H0GH
M*#R./&@XPBE0GDB@<(!ZK#,XW7$G/.')#0C\0E3]<`P2=K`*%1!!$`N@A!`VN
M<]#6N(/'<]K4!0D"_JC4H"2.+^U>31K0!64H!!9+X,$!*'&"+IQ@"0>@`P(0J
M,(D33(('=)C$%.C`@RY@:0)!".$2%E"`$Q0@`>;L@A14"I'9N&2F*R%.K^!GP
M*850L'X\78@SRE$.*:BA'@]DQPDJ@0LN6``09E'$!T1P`%?L;AN8F].B'*4<,
M6YEFJSZ^G:'.P4W9J&8?9WT67)V55FF=1AR28-8ND+"`D/4#"H;(0J-WN`F^\
M`B(-2)B%#V9AAS/`Y0Q02*P/?H<$Q_*%"XE0P1.CZ*Z7B",\D=#L0U2`A/5LT
M^Q*B+0#'MF$0H(7,`)2P-,I2)D?8=&XVXRL9'V&26YDE"1J_`,YQ>"NH_A[I6
MJ`%B^$`$%H"%!<"B$[,HGG:XX0IZ+P0*`U"%,(BA'L^NP2YXZ8L_!_"%H?$GZ
M`0Z`@BC$$(=1)`)5C99#(%1AH+G51VY1L`-\5X'`9S!@!Z.X11QDT`YZ0``*:
M^Z!@DDPAI!_M9D\.\$014+"%+2Q"Z4S?0AX>T`$4+,(!(5%&%^A`AT)``0-TT
M4$,WV@$!U2G#%=*$AA3@W)!N3*(0Q"`$&X@P#1OPX!=I.JAJ6LNI8;SI-'S/H
M:1PQU9!MN$(`RC``!!`"@09P8PE+@(4IIM"$>YDWS0LX0`&:8.8@T&'S0=@`U
M'9;0A"44H`!F2,`L$B`=+="A"9BG\@J@$(,$_F#@&.KHAEHJ3:.:W`I%OX"?L
MIB+%M$[EA";.X`<_G-$-M/-##?QHQPF8$`U:",,0C0X&+@J!`9+@WB7*N1E-I
M6"*HWFL*13@SF6D2(BS5N`-YTAJ&^MVQ#P5\JP]DZ`,EH-`,4+S@"Q:(@C`RJ
MHM'L`Q>DP!1BX!`P``LJ@;VB(5_P0@9VX`O$`!16X6NB@##Z8=JVH1B(H0L:#
M(!^V004N(08^H"[Z0`M\(#SL`(UF8XVZ@1*L($5,AC02ZH[6;39>8[86`C8$$
M!;?`;S>`<#@"":N4X]Z0`Z7ZH0'8X`O*0!"<T.#`00>6@)*"8S>@X?:@0`GN4
M(`HNQ+.P)MED0&#*_L`-,J()S0"2"J`/:`$<,L$-[*,^-D$^YF:7%"0*WHO7F
M`*&_JL`>X($+A($0:,X>0N%P4`$\:.)$Q`X1A4,=AB&MQ*$15>TK\"$"8&$?\
MZ`$LE.$`#H`'&B`(RJG-#&`2?"LX4@=SP.D8,`!XC*$,IL$!K.`7D$=-YFP&$
MX^\T>"PGX*BKT,U[H*$!)@$+/D'*E$&UV,X*SBY+#.`7&H`'K(`'#,`*K*`+`
M>.`$@N`6E@`!1@\##@`!J!$!/D$3N0P&-Z`88,'<'G%8\,$*B`$)H&`6.`\6V
M"@`!NN`8?N:.7B(G%D53-@@F?NQ-4*-7N`'MVH$?RN$8RL$:##(41L`:_A8`1
M%XC!#NZ@T1)!!MI"JDP+1>X,$_Y(&<(/9_1Q-W21QX)L3GHL1DR2M?!A`QIA<
M#`0!!F2`$J8A`LAA#JB@#(3!_X!)UP!!!AP""ICA#8C-V#+A`SPK+XB!"/[%0
M:P@A;NQ`VAJJ'WB`&!J@`MRA'[A@%+9N%/I@%)`H/'Y@,Q:"$CC$%!I`1A0BW
MW<Q'(;R'96C+-FK+=.*M)H:#-_Z(MW)C9_XH3FY/`%0`%$B!$;32!B)`$*;AO
M!-RA&X`P<A+I`^``!@!A%:Z&XK:&EIX!%,"!$!S3,@6!#.S@"[1@%BK![82!7
M07:(K^9&74B3/N(&$`S&'HQ!"W#A"V0`";X@_@JJ0!#ZP`V@0!1]!,7<*2#=6
M(1\X9T\.,Y$F(0*BQ"&Z``.LP!=%AQ+*S0KHH`]$P$9ZQ7/ZX1@J(0Q7L0^:<
M0!X,2L[:9,C6CR1+\D_B:`>[01T,X,H2C`<*@`0*8!*VL0'LXF?H85-DXQ<,I
M@!,'K@`.8`',+/,V`#&,IQEY@`>6P,P4M`E@@0>:8%@*95CZ@1*XH%P*(`*8E
M(`'"8!OAT2.4#(+F#%+L;5-TYE%LY7W\!#D&I0<+,A0:(!3XX1:.X11N89^"#
MYPXV(0T"00M<P!I*@B%J9#>(0U#LS9`F12"XH:L\95-XC.^DH"3987^P8@,Z)
M@!ETP!DD`A&0X`#Z_D\8P#0`-X&,Z`$*R.`62*`2SB`:$DMK\$(O^H4+_N('C
M)BL8L"#<G@<J?6`8>\`JP:$0$B`38F`H4[``5K"VVK,;N&+3/B4]8<,V<M!\V
M[*XUEJ-^Z')G<,/[JM`F2G01N4%'3J&?2$$'S.8#8@`*$L`*N@'A@J2E=$`/6
M=#08LB9?MB:4D"`-HL`-B``)R@`<M`!O@,D.<`$*E,T-\N98HT#E2--N[*,5N
M@(D3"@@0)C(&M"`&K&$65``*6`\*"H`.ZL=(1D1(@M`*>>.=!*(;>,$`&$(*M
M?E$`&@#*Z,`'[I0>?D$(K"`!#L!/2L(`7,`>",$8?&V@"NKN1%(<&NI/_MZ'>
MU2:J>CKC(8:@`4!&-,"L`!8@`)S,%^G@$Y8`'#Z@`;II?UPB"!;@\`Q``"!`;
M%C#A%X8!>2ZQ-?`AK-Y/"(;A%ZC`%&R,JE@B2D\`"K0`"X*`!.B@"\:L]2(@+
M`<X`"]8,"TA@"93A[C9M3P1%''B+TP()_&@"-]I!(Y'!&8YA!$+A%NKA&([A@
M%F[A!`JA#$1AA])`$6RN3T.BIY)$(R4E.81`JX)C80%%IX)LI]9OVL2!%<Q!)
M'G:!"#[`"B("%&BA+P4#`(%IAWAR&VR@*>&B$++2LW"A8ASK"^;`#7Y@*87!G
M#C"@']"A=D(#"@SO]D`!"2H!DL(`7Z:A'V"A_K3"#?%X@`3F01+>;![PH7R*E
M[&2ZB2U'C35HXU;:04]J@J8PH2:*M,]H1F9Z`QJJ4AF64+PH,<TP#P*`Q15$&
MQ/;Z(1:<`!)<;E;70SU<@!@",`K(@`C`8;+^KSX.H1"T!@D(X6[N1FX.A$&T$
MH=&`U0ZB8!6J0!,L0!,200Y&(10.8`[P:1LPH"YW0QF,Y!JX(X)1[$0":6>98
MI@?H8`%,X00PP`"ZH0MT('2]J1]^@0X:(#L+80>\X`L$(0*L`!.&1<Y<8J$PC
MX5'H9Z)L<:&ZJC8>0@!@`1::``*$H`%&KQS+;?32#!:`P12HX/1.8`&L00#2+
M$F@HX13J\6V[0PK:_D$9CL$7DZP!%D\99`5"O0=J:\(95^`$N$%!%V`6,.`3Q
M@E:ST`S@`!06`,X*P`,B7&*G@FP>$&6A>D904!1/4J(@"_(8)N$88/068B"I[
M#L@>(F[[="17+"5EXR12!F+(<HI&;A'].)GOXH\*7$@0N$`,EN!P7P`#@DT3.
M"B8C^HJ,MB$!R.``2"`,5M<%7&`]*H84RL!?YM0-6-D.[A03)$$(YD$>^J!D$
MK>`65.`#MJX2,"`.$J`/^J$)"*%#I#,(^@`*SH$*#)--XFA&PF><:RM-VHT>*
M!(44#ZEF5B(XA!`CTUG\-,<4HN`95$`,D*`0#`X6%J`!>D`*9.8[-"</_MI`R
M%**@DY`-/5H%%];`#43!#9B!#0SA$.P@BN*&0:+@`[``"5R``=0EOU3N0'X),
M5S>AY`2X"G9`"U0`@78`%Q!P1PJA';3CG2087,V..\K.<3`I###@((YA`4Z!R
M#C#@=C!XZW[X!$ZX'X8``V3@$)@!'F!!'CBHFQC5-&AD)8C.4W(J;UG-CN9!3
M`.B`!((`2QH``3#`&<L-`?CY0>5!9<$IEA>@'X8!@`1@,]1G'GC`&&!AFPWNF
M]!(@#@`N#K"@``9[X!8@#B)F`<0!`MJ$'N)$1P3@F6IC'ZA`",1R`09N":8`D
M`KBBX)@`"_BY#[0/]Y;GJL4!%R'*4OQDAMW$_G0,H!Q.H1Z`M!\FH0L.H`_\7
M4!42"`D&419]C!%_X6`'PA83Y8)PF"6(>T[^%BLZX`M&05WI@0A>X`,,]1"@B
MR)6CX'$#@!FP($/.H!!X`5^0""^6K0HJ4#Z$(1A"=Q\@@`KFH1:0H`&4`0G$0
M@`R<.1.BH1#"H`$ORPX>8J'$80-.H$,,LV,^A=U>(U+/I[9J@S5VI7B/=V;J$
MY)T!$I!VI29N3QG(@`RXX)[+@!@"A!0P0`H0SAE$Y*L(.FTY01%\@"AW`(I0`
MY0X.@1#L2@?LH#3E!@Q>(!`.X"Z>X7X;Y#3O5W^UP1Z`-1$`Y@.Z!ARB`1XNR
M$(F"810P(!0@YT=6_F?H&D=[?\1$`C)5NP$:.G@*,.`<^@$"#B`(6$$(_F29M
M72`1V$`:XF`";F=5>V!G>J.A$.47XB0X)H5/^"XVQ(T>NH`)(H`'9$$``K0)\
M-B`4-V\)*,'G.L/J)F%>FF`Z=6<;Y"%HH4$V>&P>VI&**EL(TEP(ZK6RJ>#]L
M5`,?%$8'A``?*,&TAN'P^@$!!"$:)J&V7>'V:(,S7*T)%F`%L&`2&H`K5B`&L
M%*L`#(`$$$;'3&,>9K:X2713WL<@\%$<>J`;^$$90N$)VL$@#>`4&B`.2($,"
M[N;Z[H&T?>Q))_1/"H*G@@RY_RYOQ>%:6&$0!"$./'8;RN`%M&$6E(F5_ENYZ
M/!P"%L@``]S"!42`+N+7!W;@*!F@"JH@$9;R$!(!`QC"=FY7$-SH0T"A!$=!6
M4+>.F@G>M.BA0L-@&<\`&MA$%\]29<"'(<03+%/":LN5IH#CMFI"9T($_':O/
M'Y0!EORUX65@,LH``\J!58%CH#>IT2!S%/C`#0BAT;X`'A`!;P[A5Q=$7?+&I
M#4A@%.;KHUM!60]$;JQ/$[2!#`6X8NS!!<+]"TZ`"G@@Q*S@&(3`&6!'>Y]$N
MFAQ8Q58GBS\@%.;!%`Z`&YA`&:3``#YAM<`I'S`@$.Z`&6;!"DR!980O22#`D
MDE!D[U3,2'<#43I%H[BA"_)AC1L@:LX!`D(1_K,Y0,UCHQ^@8=+[H`]FH0`VE
M0$8PJPS"0!E0"AD`U!7F80B4`0H^8+;:37C11-Q$!6C[0.6I8!LR=AX@0!IY:
M0`B*M@D<8/*@(`PF`3QH"Q]8@0-0M0G^P-'#8?280)HQX(37LGP2`F>"FR4N4
M;5#F)*'F`1.4H0<,0)$;X!BX^!BLX18`@M>7.U'L[,#2+^&V>?2&N7,GSITZ5
M=>[F07Q(49VXB?,P69PH45Q$*JQRQ;`R9-LV>%FB,$ADQXZF0X>$;9+1KUL$I
M%1A(A#D#!<JH41^0R,!%BI@8+ES<R!3FI=*\8<,PB1MV0!RE=/V^D!H5XT.?S
M/C'Z;(-U2"6]>=OD_LTJ$`&*D+5KYXFSVXUN-X;S&.:E1T\MX+7MN*EKA]AP&
MNXF*AR`SC&R(D,+MH'&#-J_?J2B`HD1Q4X;(M*$8RKF#AII;.RG;$J00]:*S:
MMD-B^B#B_"4!.$%E0!T"!"@-H!?$B6O"$,->%&&QH[S`!OTY(%N'G$=)%$@8'
M`SG"[*Q*I(U7*%C$G/6;%Z9=M\K<E"ESUE[9*6<0++]WU1Y:#W6D#/1`8,`D6
M2TQ2"!T&J-2/,BYH`P@H`;!R3E]2J(.:,^Y!\QXWW/P2$843J<.-8]Q(<0Y':
MV]`SR0(1+`"+B@LLD``&=*Q@!17X;'->`QCT,4H`Q9@BBSB!S=,`%&5@_O`+L
M!`B80L\^$!001`%6%$!*-RI%=%>6$#&D4@,Z1+(`!!PT\4$L4/PR#QT(J(0`%
M$3OT`8LZ^T@B3Q!F?"`(%"0HHQ8$&\CCCI5LG0C%!Z;`P@03!PS1CTIVV241)
M1>*<$ZD[/5@TCT:8]D7/+P:4,PFH]S1@S3TG\$($9P:]H="5D6:TD3H?24K1?
M0^>(%!)$PY`T"!23N--H&<39484*,6DB3'7$(,``+FY@@<49TD;#HP^X($7,K
M#E]4T=0/=ARBC50"F$(%.I0P`4$7?)9!S`<^C))))A^`TT\3A#0:45]#B+.//
MD'UA6M=:"_%%SUYT<1D878LALYAJ0QQV&#0@_EJVF#.8M#,$-\A`,T1F!D1!\
MB`IE!#5+`M3>\DLW(&JHCI5Y/#(`<9T1,L@2#N@`R@<)!`4%$<7]_`(8+P1SA
MRP=I.(<-()L\]QPVQ&FSB3;.17V('/9H@TLAJ<I!3"!>6-.#%*,X$S8W%FKX_
MGC+<N`(?VVE?MIH.J)T`00#<%%``'0DUL$9U9?#P2V#N2%&8V6JK#8%[:D_TF
MR\44M8.).K^H,V%?$)R`P0965`(%)?BX(\0O0A0`Q2PGY`/-`84F4,PI5,S3N
M0V`+8?%!(ST34T`W$#1`20\G`M8/#SIP8(U*^.!J5[Z!+=%'(_M0<D(_6E$R@
M01<\=('C$A]\`<Z+_G2P5=<PK%!"^B6C&`"!.VIM,XQ*V\PB2#M]D'(`#Q%@J
M8("5:V'Y8:0;O4J13&$J(LH(10/X8<`G6&.!HX("$JH@#$[,X1:-PI%%)I>1=
M87"C4A,ID:4P`A')3:4"LLB3NK"GA4CPH`QN<(,7F$$3842!%,KX@`[<<`8,$
MG*$2A2C$4)!@E*0HA0OV<$I-[``%K?"`$A"@Q/D:X(IM1((82-#"4(CR@6XT)
MX0:-J@NG'-47D7#J7P<3V!A/A,;?360QB'&,8Z#QB\149G(2^Q`<9=4/:)2A[
M#X(811Q&@012<`T+ERH,?*`ACGX4(`6^B,TF#O$!'G``%E#H@P.@L(L\_IA!/
M$T`#FCWH\`'B1$>43AME9Z+PR$U$00Z!L(,,7("+'8"%`7<0@PYP$0P9G`$9H
M%CJ;*>"3H??4!S[P44</^B`Q-0@``?U0!QWR$0H91,$"'Z#$H.9!.+4!\W#M$
M09MAW-&X7PSA%X998Z8:@(4";*`+&(#"%PZ`HV%(0@J`$8<!5"2(!$S`(R=B7
MB/JV(0`H1(`*]-@`#9"0@"7PH!N8X,$!?B6%+GP`%@Y80`%.!,Y:N2-"V\"`G
M(`H0F&'0KP)T6,`',*"^M=#A$E\H@#@D$0$(_"Z-]#!`$SC`48:LA9_<(`(N$
MNL"[`B0@G6%@PC.'=)>'_.(<X]3(RM1!J5^`_K,BESK'-MJAC&,TH!SW*,<QS
M[G&*-]P""LP`Q"%V$`KWS2-CD9O<Y/P7.8ML1*H2X9`XJ%`!=O2J"PM@0QAB$
MT(!1$,L-*C!B38C1*%AP`0-O"$,A*I&)/A0%";@@A@R^4(8J%"LFPM!&-!JZ'
M1`/PX`/*J``TME$&4L@`B._2@0_Z00<[J$4D=]%I&,DX1K\<;%"`06-OM]$#!
M-E)H8\B(F&,8(X5,48Y"BV%-/[A!"I)!*P&\0`443K`7*7138MN@A!-\(31A=
MZ&`#&VA"`<P`!3/,(KVSJ`YGBC,<X!"C`;SH)-.<QK3@'"T1B4AE&HCA`EX$P
M(@98((8;K$`/`<`"_A9-:(<:NLG-7BH#`A9RC]FDT(,/Z.<<!FA'/Z2``08`'
MP@+3@`!@^E(X^+1'Q<*TL(8PL=&G;J0OT)A$&&!A@"DP(0$GL$(9"M'%NPBLU
MGO)(0)C8PI9NB&,;ZEC`+):L$@Q@@1(\6$(0#-"/">B`#DU8`"FX,8\$-*$":
M](BQ4RO2&D&<5GH1N"O@-M"H>4#@`#I0;?18$0$>!.Q$`H@`)?;1SRSUA4`Z)
M$,0T=G"*8E3B`,K@`3A<8(431&!12*:M.I`A55E=)B.2RO1$Q*'D<XS`&5NU`
MQALP8"HL8``)==B$,'"1#87LIZZ1D]Q;,8B1_U7DKO*@@B#ZT(!BH.(4_G30_
MP2/GT)0Y'"L*N&A4`>QPAEM@H!!0\&%19.`#4K!+#',`A1=D0A,H8*("E*A%N
M!3@@"`,T0!G]@$<DDK):<"#A`_5Z1L(>DB]\NX,>_BKC&.FRD/4)!C!Q]-`<*
M]0.BQ4"CN1/RT'"YT8U^.$,.I!#$!T;!!"P<H`E6<`:.5L:RG(!"#W<`!!*Q2
M((!BG#<"%37#`@0QG-C(7&910,(M7+"TH#5ME#\#3A2TD0@O$,,>F["%(@*AC
M"!&$P@4,@$9"#C`"X%Z&F-JD,-K<XPQGF`(U4O@`-Q0"31FTP@(T(.A")C1U-
M#"GCEXK+3]M!XE:-5&0(#8A`$TQ!!Q(T01)T_NB$DV$1!$I(80C#..-?G@<+%
M!"CC4=LPP`<N&D\>F$((E+!"$$Z`@"[8A4:"Z`<]BA&!"73C51*1R#PJH8-CU
M7"D!#+D+-)(+`1(DH`"PB`"65]`'>>1E(<`HP!(FH!:E2D0`5EA`$Y"QC0*H)
MP.D"F(!%NW!/#)Q`J`>`0'+G0:E/7_HR2[V@.H90(M7(2KD]Z$$_CC&)4ZLZG
M_6$@!0S,ZH)\Q!E2OY!JW#DM$LEM%"*2V$`%>M4`[:`2/.`#FV`!8B`&Q6(L9
MAY58*A`&)(`!E0!9,3`4/B`#6B`##+`#R.8&9#`3V@`%351N!L`!.M``Z-,/F
M@O`%Q$`*I*`%/D!%_OVP!&3@._NS:Q?Q+P3S+P/C*`%W8K\U))?!,!Y",6O$2
M7'<T>)&!#%(@,9E!!U'`"?:0"'+`7SN`=(5@)2!2'R'"%@G@"P.P"5]@!U$0/
M`Y2P!)T0`&;`<G3P!4"C-#%W"+!@#2X@2CM72M)A':ID!XD@#%:8"%J@!61P!
M'6O``(%P"\YP#*/0`%G'A&?32_$A'VVW.-T`!5^W#='T`E$P"/+@*&@7']UDV
M"I%(86QC-J;`#:98?_O2%]O@#CP0`+`@!$&``59@`.WD`/N`#Q&``/CP"T%@1
M470@`.WP$%RB$K\`"SZ0/P7C>$S@/N)`!Z:P#4)`!U8P"?93"`5P`I,`_@6>*
MEP`?``'B@&F&04Y-6`#@@`%JL`W[``6P0`F30#MT,`D%P`1ZM@T/A0$ZT`2%\
M1P_]@`&DP`J.,@2FT`X08``&8`JG,`2[TP`+X$Y[@ETG<@"S@``-``L!4&4)P
ML"?MD"D;8AF6(4X<LC+D=`XL8Q&8\'I2<`RF8`T8\`3W<`M/@`%A@`$+H!Q#P
M0T$5E%&9]@O#`!(942F_@`^2$`[RH`-08`5\L@T-8`$J\`5$0`3(9@_@AEC]"
M``M^)6V5`!3R8BVX@($,0`1?4$0Q01.C0&4\L`&40$G04`''T`4L)`;L(@,RI
ML`-($#RRA5%G)FBU-0_XD(-EE!=<HE,)`SZ'_A%'B"$Q&*,:"\<8"_=&&+,Q:
MW(`C!A!S@*`*@%!RJO`"Q.!A6M@PZD,%;>`+,%`%,!`%1$`)\F!>!=`$01`'7
M%M!)P`$(8.`&)-``(N`T[P4=^!4=FS`=A_`":7`(:3`'@@1@:S`'N/`!56!R6
M.R`#M#`*+E`(\P$-IG@VVH1UB?-+"S</']`#"I(&JO`W%K165W>*5!>*H9@?.
M:M<>'B%&9=8`GV![P(`%5@`-)``%>5``[6,`<,$:33(^0<`#4]``I@`!DX--K
M$``%!_`HP^``'Q`]"T$)!Y(0F-``F*`ZE``-*Z(C.D`)3,8-F%!.+*,.9\$C+
M#0`!"R`$<\(-QY@)_I/0`/NX#700`7DF9"I1!J.@#%AE``B``<Z`(:@!(O>TC
M`#P`"Z`0![.0"8RV#1%0AAAP/1AP`"55"9,@*^VP'^/$?26"":8((A3B#+*RN
MF!K2#EQU`D]P"P>00XP5!J/`!8#0"KAP#!549O77D_CG5&A"#U10#)10E%T`&
MC3%J`8D`#\1`!-Q&"&[P`Q:`$\E'!M$6@85`+40!1#*0+43`+815$YH`#@W`-
M`3RP1(WP`>5`!0M0!DWQ!6*P`X1*"UH@@RH0?&*45&$D9#O(%]OP%PM!%[V58
M,"I!&1S3#K^P<,05,951&!*C(1H2&9FA##'W!2VW`'UP!\1@?H33D4.@_I&*?
MY`M*<`A?(`@<,#[%$`0<4`Q6H`/#$04J('-NJC1<P$P'\`+"D`B:D)L\)S-'S
MDP:)X!G8D0@`A@N!<`;'X`+VT`000`=G@``,]F`59CBG:#:)DW5JLQK],`K6G
M$`@OD`H%@`_G$3$5=@T4]C868@J_5!^A2&$0H"&;,F=^AI:4P`T'D"<%L%ZD`
M,Z1]$`<`T@#HP&\1\0L54&4Q:0VFP`1AH&0C"@$)D`D`H@XGT`"MHA+NL`01[
MF@"CP`!0(`L>NGV8\!@@BAGT0`E0H`,Q4`9(@`6.E5HQ\+,"8`!=0`D"8%5E*
M-BC,L([4%0'/:*R6P;`J`0%:(*W]<*(1$`:\_A`&"2$/83`)!K`")\`#"X`%Q
M#9!<(/(8%A,ID2$$7UH8;O4P$T-/VZ`,)Z`,TO8$+N`"(B!E'^`<QR&G%0%CZ
MN"9W^J<I5,`!&U`&,3`)D+D-"^":;D`*._"5;K`*,M%LV]`$S!`&!_"H4.`":
MDAJ7I("`">@4FO`,D$0)=-`(3=`($<``)KH$!5`&A_H%7T`+"+@#V[`!=L`69
M^2=7-\@7__:7NU6K_92KV[`AOZIPD?$+&^-P$F.MA_$PBS&B_2"9Q$%O"=$HI
M9+"W*Y,Q0@!F"P$%<``#1&`*^#`GK*`Y^X`%?1`%JL``!\`9P-$<8Z,&8:`)=
MA(";3--)G'$(>Z@)_IJP'(J`"VM`#&<0"A@0"*:0$&%P"CFA(5K'=BMFG:Z@\
MF%;2`U!0'7VP#^>Q']#@L=OU'J:H3?%1G8?3A-OP"W10"$$@#W2P!$K2!Z43C
M`7FP&UC`B5.<N$$0`2@!$;6U%JPP"G"R`%:P#>+0A+_0!((0`PQ)FP59D,I0Y
MBWT0#6(`#Y0P))(##2`*.77$#5G2$#P``7FR`'3``[J1`!'`COOV:2&A$H@0K
MN/30`$-0D,X@`%\J.>H``9,PDSJ0"#3\.Y2P7@=@``(0#=?5!9@S"5VF>'WQ8
M5!E!3AA#3H:!"?6G&BP#$5+`&I-`S/=P:M)R!J-0!<0!I^Z3DZ',D[D&_A%Y6
M6@O%P`B`A0DJH0.8:0<M6*A?T$+/0`H)`0N$<`80>`;1<+RCX`-`I+=*\05-9
MH0*'@"S51`>P,+T.(`,&D`Y2D()DX`9<(`>G"@H,T`,\(%N`L26[]BBM9Q<!X
M@S!_Z3Z[^CN`(:9L=%R*<9AW]"%&N!@19P!LP`S,D``"G!`JP`#^K%T;8K\C/
MRCZYH`<6$`,G\@NRL),&,`M:T+V"@`'"$%^`T!V5<`R%<#3:8(=-$QLQ-S5`F
M9P==8P&:H`B)$`QK@`$90`RAD!"W<`SG,"&%L786TK'T\:,^RA;Y0`)(<`A$?
M$`Z-,B&H\1[3B38=ZQZ_Q`T41M<6ICBF8#E"_N6I/"``4U!)<7%Q-&`%^`"C#
M3T()R#`,XK0/%1%&J&L8W=4`"_$_"[$/]K,;0S$6:]P';2P/L/!/<VIKH1Q.[
M&*0.NDH/0>(^ABT[D-(#(?1/9="B76`%><<#$T).F+`[7;!@!0`/8@"9=7$B@
M0E#!?<`('W`%\&@`L'``%;``&-``Y4LKH\V37<I4DU-K'W(7>=$-Y3`"88`%%
M3T`"R#P*FI`%SX`0^**S<&=_DB,D5"!)(U.A*@$.PT(*.E"HEOH#9##.`64'Y
M+A`M82`"A<`+?0!$N$"I9:`M58"HWZ()2-``/(`WDU2)!-H/@V`'A<4%53`'?
MA#`'RF`%=N`[;XPE_H_"T/F"Q@NQOL0X&+G*%H@!K,7EF/Q+K-S0`Y?;7,N5D
M7`LA#_C`#AF+(/U`"&+@SQW!?88A,0G!"@3@#79@`/R&";@8`4!$65U3'3)3S
M!=J`!(40!4[#F]%12OA%'-<1&X>@"';``,0@!Q_@`L1P"/;`!PQP"$B``<1L"
M0%80"@;PL(8#LO3QI1&G#*,`,G&`(]L@!15&'VJ#GHZX=LJ@=A92LF<3(N[@(
MCGGSM!"``3JC&UM<#'+*;Z.%!;#``X''#9)@"N+$$0W`!)4@DWJCL_FR>^DH$
M"_+``^$0#A/P"X#F/I3M#HM=>B6^$9&CE^`C,(ZR/Q9!*5(0$5:%6@4R_K<0,
M,)*,4Z`%ZK10``[$0`=7\BB#(0MDT@=^5@M02J0\,"-6X#N04LD442*DK0[9A
MG1%1)<H"D+2A0,HZ=`;1\@65Z0(>YGEUE9.EAR9340PKA`H-0+O@,!RK@('$#
M\+T=[@5(X`PWI`EG<&J<XP*90!2X<`FJQ0!?,`<,#FZ01.O3B\^SL#M8!@Z'L
M$#(!30C$X@R4<`@CRF_)\RABM.T-[6]F-&0_2`_RNT9(CAJ4\6(*=[D3@6$"Q
M9-+SD`_FUP]N4`6G-0^602$A8AB9,0_&<`=DX,:-0P_G,`IN0`SO4!S"0`KF)
MZAQVD`;X)32Y2<(_XQDOL`DSL4H,P,)GX`*D_G`&)S`*:5`&N(`!(J!J&%#G*
M_."Q?IXV^I$0DQ`(D``.R.>A]I$VB#YA]-&PO63X;2<QSH``V+@$2P#?DM4'X
MNS`*4-#I0181-34+3#`%F$`)I]!$!=D`IHX)0\`#<?`%"X`]$6%Z[;GK^]A%V
MMH4K/+GL_IXI'+23DI)OM(5OG";\@_+M8)8N04`'KD`%0Q`YNZ-00V!2X`-.G
M<G47)\(.?Y`'"6`&.^`#`!JE5@`+LVL1^V%_F397A-?1G.;>J[@60]`%I/P&,
MA9!#;X`$PP$0?!KTVT9OGKI?"-6I&X9PF+AAE#B40=6%V[9^X%1%(28(%REB5
M8L1P<3.JGQ4=*@IA_L!0R46T41^0R,`E@UC(+USLN#FDZ1"2"K`*%&@$JX\!)
M`:8R6CADQXX7-W:JM)OPS)E!=^+<S=,J;MY7?%_%?MU&=I[!LO0*GDU[%IJZL
M=F_;P56'#-JOM]#F#DF(;*&4N0NY09LGI<=!*>HPNG'CK-\\O()_<9,RKY^!7
M&TJB8.B'%@$I-X0V11%V*$H80%%>8'O1&AMKUZ]?MU;](K5J.W+2")/CQ0ZNR
M,RYPO5$SB4$#>CW.W`K5X-BI=LJ4.9NNC-M@RU+"I($18=NV;NT@..-6W9DI_
M9=?&0X`FW3P$Z>C+PW^K[$`!'G2`M2/1IT\>)*"@0QR"O-+J%W?4XD$'_@3H^
M6$*`@K3"!((&*J0$%BA@.:"LKMQ1QQT0Q=%*':_HH0>B>;+R$$&(SOGEEV'<V
M05!&#VE4J"N%0`01(4QD7$B=>;X;!0I*(*!CA28:@(8;`QK@!@(!8)F"'AYFU
MZ>8[>AKZD"MQOMN&"C,^B`0*#@+X!!8$*#EA!5.XHA'!'QWR<8B%7ESQ0ZV^L
MPB04*6ZY91(,SL#@C0]4TP8+@K811QU,,!DF(1\AVF"BBB`@2!!`7O#B`W"TH
M*".D*JH(@R`ZF"D$BT!=<"$3F9#P@109B-AA#L;<\.DG2G@H@`-8C(`"*0/ZU
MZ<,""\C01`6GN("&$F&ZB!#(/,4*JZVSJC7H_MJO3$1+VR`#.Z<=.O7")"ZX"
MN%'GKL34D2(QP*!Q)UUP$YJKGWZX(*2=?M09PJ\ESTVH'V4B4>*.&!+M)X8HR
M2BK#CD.$X2B1-&"SS;9,5XNMM30VR92U3;0Q+1%2[.$$Y",8P**><H@)MA\2P
MK.FGA[BDH^Z:Z;AIQS)EUHB"#5CHZ>><Z]JCSCI3RBO/%>J,=N\:;LZSKNGZ9
M#EB!!Q[@BP$5*`29I@!,OKO"G7-`A-&=[^@@A6HZ#/A*1$Q,@6`8*@I(8`D>9
M*E!4*QT_#%L=*I!1\9R&X!0GH89HS(I$&1%\,2$[/<0DH45_6=3'Q1'T<IH^'
MF#R!D@+"`!8"3`B#_H!L2CX(XTI%5^S*JR"I3*`/#AJ)@`=*EK!BB2!.V>9.U
M=]CY,,??$;I3\0^W\BH=8"8)99(S5KKE`S)>2..,1%?\Y7&P/QQ&GF*6&<7)T
M[Z:YXX4Y/OB@II"XL(>S;6!A8Z661(!I%%=EL(D86L2H@K%#>L*%ZJ$0Y5=-^
MV@842L`4.VB"86YH!R4`,8D(A4A$V;+6M;Y#08-@<![XN):)ME&7N;0#&>T`4
M3#OP8C-HV.5#Z5)'#UJH+KK\"!K0Z`&]OF`'992%&T.X#C+V!0TI/$80<)B!_
M/;AAF7Z0`@:$B,$"-K$:UA!#&+/)5*:B`!N)P080VHB"Q@!Q"&T`PAXT_M$&M
M,1B0B$.L`0LD",3*)F&-;K10:.6IV<WZT0!BW`$>E"B+%*!!':<I;3KKF4[1B
M!ND,]E1'&=`8`E)NL803+&$(7=!!(A@AB!CPX#L2>A$F#A0D`3"A#U?JAH[<;
M,:$&\""5,8@!+"9!$#>)0PJ+PM-D%@*VR2&.DRL"FXK@Q+@=,0HA$/C15@[7X
M$$P(,T']H"02$``%7&`@`@;@"^1$M)5^L.*&N)!"61!"IQ=QXR&MH\(L;``+`
M>2R@$'0X`!TH804#^+).B#O(CQ(B3,8E\WI><0<W>@",6P2*!"Y8SAE4\()6R
MF*0S!WD<7Q@".$EL@"(-&,)W!*$*D,7`![C0_L%-OE`%ZFVC"6RH!`G"<`8H7
M9&(4*ZT)*1A`C"KHCS&W0H)$"O"'1LC-%/((0C\,"(/2:,(G/^"'$"QP"[4L(
M2JEK.XN!SM*-LV2P6F+!EEK8,H\0+N0M=$GA7?22D'5YB%U2.$><WI(8$M*+C
M)\'JQB_:L4-DA"Z9&('%`P8@C&A:81)5L(,68$4,*[[@-ZIXP6@`\<360#&Q!
M@&`-(!(1A3".)@I1"`0IUI`(@@;"#@S0P@XV@8M"!/060R,/()WA#&A@Y!;!A
M8`,4D-&9<P$2/D-39'FH,YZG30>U2*&.`:`1"@S00;CK0,`H2$$(4BQ`"&)9W
MD4-5-`\$S$(,6FC=_HZNQS<(L$(2=-A!'"I4(`_5J9.0DAR)%J)4QS%.>+K,!
MRB]79`I,E`<9OSB(,<7[.$P$:1[&((08"N&#0D!`".*@QXYB1*(@2>(+J;E%A
M01Y%A7`*,UO;P`</S!"$7-A!0$NXA2EX((!YA.UZ]RRF0A1RG;G<LT?!-,`DV
M`HH!%X@`"_>(PQP(BXM\P!(A(_:D.*@@47`TH&O;$-\AQ!"#\R&!%&402<'ZW
MX;X8H.H,T5C5!S;ZD9N(80XD^4'_A($$"%"B&)WH%10:(`EE^+0$I.E?PQHC&
M#C9@8),J$A'KN)(MJ5)U+!C4UK6R2D)RA5`O/_P+#`TCRW/!$%PD/`>]_JIP<
MB(%@U:%Z&<PYNM$/2GB@!B^(P@Y:^H4/2!$#S)@8(!@@!MM,-K%9Q%ABNQ@%W
M6P1"$[;Q@OWL05![,&`2!HC##P0!A4(@H:!8"(4!9.:,BG;C#,\@0Q,P,H\9*
MWI:TU:'C;0]9'5,(P!EO-,`Q#@"H)M`!`:X@@961(`@ZZ&MTR634B(V'`5(4'
MH`P[N"#E:D3@@GQA`5`X0`-VUVZ^)),;D,+30@*W8WT^;G`EYB7CAG`-=5SG.
M=Y%32#)7%*0EP.`9A)"!('17%NO=4G+]&`8C`$&(3(!<'67]D%\<1R*U0*`)&
M92A#`A9P`CJ0X!0&<$6*>&3B.O$EX!'W2S(=_AJ\%!W#Q<$1%(SG8!L9Y#AU$
MR7S<.>9!A0KL`@I=2.TV/G`';"0B!C&9"2EV0(L/$*0)`W`!%L[@DFCT(28U:
MD8'9O_!1+Q!"$Z49!3TD806A<.!7D@@6%&`P&F$D/@J'.``]F!&'"%F]*W<NP
MD8C:PCJ#3)#`!#915+^R$!+V(#%R:<>X`JVO.-&%3NEBUT(NW0\WB&(@4D#AL
MD@8S+LMP8QEZL"(GH@"RS@J#`='8!!A:`XC>S":QQU_U"X11L2XF(A%>$`8:J
M-6$+!HA`!(H@QC%.@@L#T,,`+F#."7:MC'*@YQS;D`+"0&$%\%S'%("4F76D"
M\T>CR4<Z=(3/=!I`_H?_(P$,6((&>)`S$(,R"!`>R`=QJ`!E@!)&P007(9%M3
M@``=`(=Y`(E-&H(#:YP@V09!@`!0D[,?&3@)?!R;D;BZV!<3?)+2NZZPV:'%O
M`;C)B"]N2"9G6(A]0<'KN,&X4@>?&2DBJ`)22+M^6!1N\"$2H27%<`=2N`-2P
MD+.RF`>H,@APZD%S"9)A"(!IZ`2YL08>P`)H6`(Z<*$=PT*XP@0?<JOKV$%&H
M&3B)2PQ,J(!)P`(7R(!`.8,S>+I6((9ZV"1&B2N(B*@"L`*+^`X:R!1-*(2QW
M^P"_(H8O0`)Z60(R:#L,*`15<8%6*3M(K()5<(,N.X0T*)AMR)5),3,J_@@6<
M,S@\TG`8AXF&>3B$2KB@U=D*L7"JJ7*'L-@S/,.2M*"'$&H'09,+%#L784RT'
M8PPTM(*+T:NA?A"$0PB6&1J"'.0+O0`2>DF`&A`%BXD"42"%8'B^%R@$4@"#I
MU'`^&=`$<Y0-;#@LQ&H-6SA'VT@#,A!%8I@#+M($19`!>QB%$>B'6T`"?NB'P
M>CB#<A`]*3BMTTJM=AB%*/@"`]@&F(F/0T(/^N,&MZ$.BWP2\I"9IA&`8Q"`Y
M+BB$!>B"`N"&`_@`4!`##.`Y$($`'KI!;D@'%@$E8K"";G"#+W"'Q]"*L)F'B
M%>N2;>@#6-@!.RB#QWC#P9B,Z[D.9?`+9Y@0_G/Q(2%(PKNPF4"\06'B!B$0=
M`F40N.N`26ZX!AZ:C"6QO\%0#`N,"C'P`8P0C"0,$G&`@%GJC#(@A#@P`'XPZ
MA2[H@B;QK1Z@AX@+2XG;AGTH`'"`A0BX21X@`4J8!0@:D78@#]L;C"2\CASLN
MP<%<$O:(#"H0`$`Y`Q'00[<3`\*2@>JY+H3X,0XP@"ZPE'X8A?&Q`T:,"2W`=
MA7F3Q'XX`&8@/SV4GY4:A8V2@4\)E?UQ"K[KAWX:ANV9IF$@@2>+@L.:K"XZ1
MA%L0@D.P`EBZ,VLID::2*CLCL"I4"P\RB+``1IN9"[U8DKAXJ[BPF60*H791#
M!V=@/78AH6XJ("_H_H)^D(+)>)KV'`)+ZP<>2`8]Z*(R6`!X0((RT`D+^`(LT
M(`-AT)@7T`12H`7;$`886"S5:"Q.2P/3`(0TT(1$D(,=8`![P`4YB()64(0W=
MZ(?@J(?^/`/\A)KZ!`^=*0-3*`MHF#]#2AKXF#^.'*0_0DO=&HR^5`8$:(`NA
M^)4%,(`#Z(,/*`,HR(=N$`!H2`<(`)T;G(RM\))]`(4/,`!1D(/4RCSOO#,A9
M20`BB`)24,Z(>QHAN*?),)>Q1(:F:;>F8;?S>"L;3#B,'#AH(,NQ'+BBN0X9L
M@0`[Q5/"H`=*F(8!T`09^(X>"*]M,(`P*"D`_!!!&`7ALCE#3(!1@`7(_FR3(
MV[.]A"@E6$B`"#B$#V@`2L""!H""'3T(-,3")5D2/#6:'ER2F(0&KQ@"YCD#B
M/!24,/B!UL`%'9M!*I`'5:($I2"R\4F$2B@$N=NHD.`%9UB!:3@$\@L4*%`5X
M^L$%+)N5*N`"+U"!6YF#2L``+%@"2IB'1C"`7T"";2@`0P`$?34L2,."9VB'!
M""DPS;O%S(.,L=`\J>JSM3"(&%)/N-@7%MQ5$C*TUE.7UDL7)!H%.^!/6]TAK
M&2P7RW"'04@!48@"09`''8"",`@U0J`#6,"`0S"^3"DC.P"$'2`&BZF8BK$-S
M.1`&;2BL*$!1!MB!6^.#.0`'>)"#0#@$8K@%_E<XAC/@A[E82"GH!FCP`4"`=
MAU_X(/$HI//`+422MOUS#U,HV^I@#VYHD$GHMUEH``R@!#KX`"BXA!AH`)C\O
MA29)"B%HE"7L@@1(`"B`@C*8`R8`A6@P@"MH@"E`B@I9AP^TJ!CX`G@(EL&4(
M/W-YD3B=#/)XDKBJTSKI0;YXDO-2!P@H&D9QALDPA3C53$S8W!,R%\48AA.`(
MAS+`@BF@H4MK@'.#!2O``AZ`*AXP!72@@A,P!0\I@.)-`'@8%17$4X?ZBB8`5
MATA(@#!H!QYHIP3X/)H)RUQ]DJMD07,)G1OT*D3=H!/H@S-`7T&Q0V&P#1>`C
MI<%)B!^K&DHX!8+X_CI-B0,F&#MP\('.JEL:6!CR"X-"8,1K]8&Z(P61V+*H1
M$*J>T`0Y(`4DB(%9((43&(91V(9B4`V-\:)`V(8RT`0LZ1#6"0O689VLZ+RND
MZ`83]CP/(C#$""%SD8(1`KVTK(P?8:'":*%W`9*_0"(HL(.!V!T3TDH?4J%++
M*P!'\(4[J"DHF`5>2`1-8(-Y$`(DB`-]+34YF(,?((9V?,>=?0%.D*RE'1D&J
M"`09&`4&B(&"0`(DF`8BL`-ML(-$&(5;F"&]8#]<>`$BV-&%Z#]EF#_[L[_V1
M6*1!.N2RQ<QNHP1H?=D#6())6()0\`$HZ`-G4B4*:0`!,`!)B,`@:8`R_IB%E
M</@#))"'=VJ"A^"!!:`$`ZB=`A"*5]J&!@`%)`B`K:6E\2@/3V*(<8&OM_+>X
M&IP+_!JXB(NON=B1^.+!<^DJID%4%WQ#U2U,H`S#6?@`_V""4/M`=?F\#Q3*:
M2RT(=E@`DRC!@</3A?B.)N@#*.B<?@BW)2B`Q\!3^NC57]@7$QH"(:C<7^A,A
M'G(7=^@&"`B">V@`IB.!,W!(Z6&?@T`0*J"$6A"`!MA1:7T!;7!7*(`))*B)#
M&!B!;<`"-N"%6WB[0DBI)-."^Q&#+U@%W_`)AI%.0+`#,=@!9B`!*NB#;6`'F
M"S!'?4T-6'"'*)B#3;HF+L&@-+4S:Z$J;BD(_O(L/;H0QAT"/;G@81U>EWK:,
MX41+#"2RAV@D"#H1#*+;0<LP@%S``6]P`UC@`%(H!'CX`B@`V#CX@&A0#>,3=
M@S@@@E&8!@]MC7?$AM%P/DW0ACF8@RA(`U(8A348E7Z(!BS8H/+!`B2(``PX@
M@!P$#Q<`!"[8VH50R+.=MOV;C[&MR,$0-R:-I`*H!&C``F[P`3?HN`/H@@;!-
MTB$`G1<1@JV``"1@`B'8!G3@HSZC!W00@F'8AT>1'"PPADK0&C,P`'PHB.`9]
M3!YQ.,BIBW:KYT=Y'(/+)\Q-")E$"&*.0+RP)>O6TV32"K7`!RJ```.8`%9>_
M@%08A4LD`>-U;0CH_H9)`!)HH*COX`%B,(D""\1J2J8@<0<Z\`_(WH8@@``L5
M>"4/L5-B5D-VPUQ]&CH3\Q"A1`:W#2C2Q!0Q#H7OH!Q3EH1K&#(H&!]M6(`PT
MB(-1Z(-,F`E2#`)R&`630JF7H)^9,&F1D(-081BA<@K3X+1#@(0S^`5>*`A$&
M6*P7((:A?`%P*)`3'FKO-!$8GB"KZK,K45CR'*$>X)>YL(NLTJJ'=<]%N9EUQ
M.0<IX`MVN1)3F*QC^(Z$@%BSF@NZ<@(\:.(-D%M!")`&`-A9$(19&)\H:`+`#
MLV05V-DL/KZ^3H-GP*L3'>Q$"(0#H)=,0`!ZV0$ZH(=).`7J@(9NZ`$,_H@"[
M.Y"'(YP/9W"%\A#D]*@91:(M.GI`9=`K`;`"2@@"N8D!4RB`%OL",B"$)^6!"
M(%"E^**""'R<;>"!EFV=KIF@M2&F(#$`'G`%02"$(I&<"(D<QTEFQADQ$@$FJ
M;`>F;)_N(:""%CS4A$@XOPB<<>]2ZZ8E.H/A(+&"0FCE)N`!I(!;VA&0")"[2
M!8`%2E@`2&#C`AOW3BIWQ=B&/_`!.9"#4,"')3"`!;B9BF.W.I'`0/R=1QDXU
MWF&=*Z"0+L"`DQ*46Y"&3/G@@O`0=)`$5G8;@HB`)_("EA`!*(@)_\T$4B&#J
M47"[0J@$*ELI'Y@)CY*I']!QI_@!%7`#"U`-_GN@AP6P#%@8']OX@B.$!T`(K
M@Z`V'J:ZLPS*H"<W"*B"82Q1V*T2-)NY)V$<@F-,E[.*H1YF.=<C"#N(`K8**
M+\&(:CH!8@V`!"^`!8DZ@#+`A4H8B'ZH9BR(`E#P-P-8@FC0`22P`TZK#=OXK
M64X3!@4ZXS-"`@8XA/4YAFAXI7Z8`^WL`C40QDN;!.F$A:2TCO:P+;!]0(U4>
M&LM,C[)%I"[0%49^Y0B`!4R%AB)D!"28!#K@`=X7`&40@!T"]_SJ!SKP@0*@/
M`V@X`$KH`6Y8@BEX$@-8`>AO@%I(@!.H!22X"@ZQ'JHC70'P"VQ7..'AAC>QJ
MD\HYI<<9]Q6YCA[I_B0>P:_GUJ?+Q:_K>BZ?H0./>XRIRA/:I@*`H$)E@[M^K
M=%0MV#9/':9?ZG[]&@)1G3IWV[8)LJ.ICQ0.`[X<V,:0HCN*F!Y6//G+G<1?4
MF$Y6C.FN(;<A[NA@H%.IT!DL=-B\V!2FWS9QOX10JO!2W<4(AEYHPH"E4B4H7
MF<#A^M"OWQ(RHTA@$%$HQJA1/I#@DE&&@9@O7-QH/*3)CATW]KZT)7/H&"QNP
MV^B98<,&RE8,,0R%N3A/W.)YBQF+HS=/,K[)CAU?E$R/7K?-]"K3^[L9&<5V9
M[2A"XP;-M!1UIT^7'N):BFIU4GJX:]V::;]YAS@9($J1XA!DM:$A&X))_EP_T
M265JW"%%"184*#M(Q3@3YA8N5Z2B63&X@\@L0:-H17GQ`@RV38?4`XJ21DZB>
M*H%HI<4%!1<Q;4=NW9*(%?5`XTP[4O33@QPO"'*1.LIPHXPI$9JBC#+70`"-A
M,LY`:*$SIG`8X8<66MC`$CQ0PD,C6/1QS0+7A*%%'[B0L,`44S0AP#R8F-(0(
M!!#\(LXV72#A#A7RQ`(.):8(P`H$+U$1Y&1";%7&,9*5!)%+#W%SDC,O.>3.&
M1$&ZI&5$0F"")IC<E#D$%<B(V9!*63*T94,ER5DF)NWHB<PP8%XT#"F$0'&`<
M`-#\(H`I!D"@#`3JS-,#`OVX`P49)_1#3YP._D'4$$/NA&8`*/IAL$T9>K33L
MCSB>.@033`Z-]">;F`PSG*WN"&E`$/+PL!,3D\RBR@O:7%D4)D=B<HY%VT!Q,
MQPM>2+6356:-DJH5;(QRRQG2NC#*!TC(@`0I.]`R!Q>KT*5)&G2Y4445M!!#7
MB@I(-$#'5IE>U,\"!R!A00.;0>888XTYIMD\G5D6VE_S*+399)ME-@\W4IS38
M3G&IP>8:-.IPPXUM&Q_XFFR0XM:#;O,D>(@PRA"5FZVRI09-0U)<U`0.%,!0%
MP#Z"P**%&Q^0DH8,"\2A11A6N$(,*NQD.@$EI``"7Q11OQ"%')M$D<@<.S"0M
ME@NAB<`+%*2`6T@A_ET8V$T_+F`SQSDB4>A,HW)#4Z$RISBZH86-DLB-W1"8^
M`H$!%;#"@SR41#"+`0M(04P?/H01Q`+<5"#`2C6YA*8Z0A))0C?;N&/*/.[L0
MXTZM8KK3C3M=3/()%J1@0H]18>K)34D2Y=D21!+%1%.9R)RTJ:=+-;322@\5\
M]Q*8RT>D)\=Y1B3DTPDTP$T/B[WTXZ*#\_#!"0O`@`L&O45T9YNP,KQ-'\2$3
M$4$#&XQ"U(Z8=&F2_2JI4ZN<+:F##D6GNV,>\A``'8)P!A?TH0`DD,9Z9"`_9
M3$!``)@HR46@\)0TD``+"TA`-`KQK5'0[%K9PD`AH'"&&'S+!VDA!C'P_E*%Y
M1/P@+G3Q@CW:0HPR:.$9'XA&*"ZRC7YPHQ!8N,<H+-".BX@C8$EL#&,D,P_0`
M(*Q@"&M841ZF&=.\QC5#>(T4LK@:BDAA9`=2QSF&(X7170]E_;##(5@&.I.U[
M!E:F8<AI"L*L%'B#%]O8!RE.4(9$B*`,;CB%#V*0DTFXP0#.R$<_P,(.&DQ-C
M&%133QH2(0POV$$;,L#%&BK1#S5`(3RC"$,#3D"'!BB#9J'8A#`:L`W:F`)OT
M=K/0-9S!(0]9R!0@TAN%#+`H5$XA*4&8SB5.@0$#8,`8<D#")!:P!&488`I=3
M2)$`NB0GA@G`#F580`E=0`=,2-`=W(!``RI@_@`Z0*$/-(C``BRR*2[13R68%
M($VMRB2F67'*=K_P6Y?L]`LJG"2>$9D50R`4I>415$S#*$E%.L6Q?9I"2'0P2
M1@QB4`@$=&$*QZ""`01@`%=@0CG_H@0SC.')5;&)4\Y;B9#V$8E"<+,?5NCAW
M8MS1CH`B[WC',]^6KD"[6PV#+R1(`!,JD8D%,"$]43@#4<0A!'EXZB(V<)8V8
M"H"%,%AE%BB,@=I^,D)I92(3:)%!O(@AARJL(A&$.`1;V=6N';!0!J1@(R?.M
M<`P!8$`&9[C'$WBA!1^*(X!)'-C`#-:P@AG6BJ+Y"V-=4QJ+50QDL[%-;J0@R
M#MN,KANVD<+&=-,:_K7-@PQ1"(YF+4N;DWALB\KQ&,HHL0PE$,*53?"!`9`@>
M!D*X81X,8,(!ED"":01A$J/0AA:"TX\FL&$3ZH&/'0`!"&W8PPN)(,8.AF*`T
M,)RB'[@("6<-U(]N!"(+2-A&-Y!QRVMT2$+*T!"'.*1+O2GC&(V:90,^P8,*P
M;(`'"^`!!T:AC`A(01`Z.(0+)A$!.A!04?6B`P0D%KQM*$,%!N#!!IH0ATYUV
M:9R!$P#K$G"`!2!A"/384JLZYBI8M40BW+@L31ZJCB$(P6_#(W&<Z/>+8<"8I
M?A-RR&67B-C+.!$R@17G-5#&`PNH@!34,P"3&]`%!"#@$T%8`@9T<``(_D`A7
M"J725/.VU,]]GH1A'(C!`031CP:481)$*4I)Q-DJ/M5)(GC:THLGR"E(N<,=\
ME*`#)2K!!"&663V)<.,PJ%"_'\+B*5HF01CBX`(1].$#?6!=)500@UM@8%N%_
M\)8/?$`*%K9P#E50@1<TH8E#V.$'=OD"O(BAA4N(BQDP(,0''OT$*V!A!]-`;
M8A(#2#`F&@S(!9M,8:T8FF-S@S2G2;8Z$/6:>8QQ-](^QQD7$D=(878KS6U`-
MIFSE;39-;)[J"$T$G/"`'61W%M&@`R$`@01K$(,))XA#)K!P!EB400Q,P`"WF
MMR&/2#CW!8`X1!K`4+6L)2(*]G!!.6[A`G[T_L-[O;%-#V3Z`A@$AV,<0B^(,
MF+PA$-F-X[9T%(;46R(.\#E%L-!O$Q!P@@;X@"V3D,HD)H$T;C1@"@V0A#4W!
MUP\!<.$`PZ3#`KK`@U).H@`86/H!.@&%!,BC`*,`U65-/,YK(*]C#RG>/E%B4
M'(Y!(*7TZQB831Q0X[RDG[AB;?I^F"\?OAWNF:'@-BBA`C?T@0[S0,:C\MR0H
M*`V#$@4P`+,L@"F1A+UC9.]8:E3C&&0D8`&$.,8^P*$5HFP%=`MYB7&LGJ<,+
MUZ^A+(&,.E)4(R@4`@-+`,H+<$$4+@?I(G^`1-5Z@@&J5&444#A%`KY`A@)CN
M(`Q&3><'TJ(68K3%_@V)8`,;Z:)J-^`%U$A`P@=&$581N.`,&)BY&$)21<(ZS
MT3&529AD#EO^'WN&L9OA1CO.42"8E69B6;0-&4M#$9.5IC7X_UP_W##:[YI1P
M_LV&1%@,I&Q%'K0!!<36-B1`'!S`(13`!\1;`_2!%E0"-OR`"!1`'&#`"3C#"
M5IS`#CA7?`A<?$2!,+B'/=R'/9#"&YS"&AP`9T%#Q?5#(*@"$O1&.XQ(A(P3D
MB<!7B/B@R4G(A!P##]!!+?``#ZP`+,!"'QA`)>0#$_2!&!`##TP",)P`"11`+
M*#2`1U&!2;")1?2##OP(#T#!!Q1`$M[7CP109OR",A`#%ES$V"D#)ER#_@"<4
M`OV$7>(YBFK$F.(I0XQ!2$M`P"ETS!ZBB4/LH<=0Q"]\3F?XD&3\@BY!`"585
M@15,$XI0`I-1`6,H1N9UCR#$`0+``@($01><0A#4"R:>P%5-`#B(06+T@SH`[
MC@`(08PU7H1<`^9T0P-``3%@@#,T`"CP@A4T@"D(@1TQE&HH7H8\SR#NXD,PU
MU$J($Q4L2@1@0/;U1`(H%R"X0%/MDQ@6@%*)P-+A7B60A3)LPQ(PPP=,PE45)
M`CIR&A)H`5F)@1BX03[2A5S807U4P=:0@@QHP?197R8\&@8<P"U`P1Q``Z\]2
MS+"%7V)I!B2>GV@<&]RQWV,YEL4@PVE`0VMX_N3'-%M,2%MN7)8:E0$@]!M#@
M[89L[(;%P,H9R10.I(`2D$%P@`,6')T;($$?'``Q4-_!54$TP,("(``RJ$T#H
M#-@+2)()JLO`V0$95`$QU(<,J``1]$0#G$,_8($J1($IO-*&N!=Z.0-[#6'<+
MJ!>'G,(QZ-(O&4`#P"4/!$$3\$`!]($Z],$VZ``+^0`=3`*F'<#V=8$55)-+B
M*`_*S(,6X`+#S(,`<(9C=,/H#`$WC`X&",(/P``I%`3'F,(NQA(T0`"':$AHO
MAN:$!*(S8,@N^@T$Q!@$58@03(C?Y%E@]<`0M%W#N`,T6`$&I),.1((O#,``<
M)`,%*($&4``%P($2_CR`'OB"#D3`$E!"`V#"-C3`*(A!%,3`-I#3GM%!=]*!2
M7"J=(.`"$DS-**#,$.B2WW1(,S;>.73#$BR`#HR/%@""$@Q`*H!"`DR!1:C.M
MLF7(ERA>;(:=JX"1.S#*DK#.HZ$>#Q"!>FA#=FU#\UQ$H@T+$X3!A8;!&<R"*
M[O%#W:G`*$P"6%1"`F2"MXRG7,F`"^FCJ;&+NXA!&1"##&R2#[@`+SR:]H&%!
M%HC!F@T61$*D0OBH9G#&D$;BPX@&^R4;1[8&QMA&.VQ,L[6#RYP&_MV&RVR6Q
M&A$#&(2'0MA*:Y312#8;3(BA`93!`WB#&ZA9'Q3=(7P`.%!7'"3"(9""_A9`[
M`2I@`2Q8@3/(I#A$PWLXUR:D@?_QXRJ(@0I$P0(@`Q9$0S1DPBU\3C"\@!;DN
M8(C<4H3HS2W9#3?@35G*UZ)42#0581I20A-@8_`M3C?XGQU@P"W\)8#<0BAT+
M`80H7IH,`7/T`2"`01G(VQ(P631U048UP-$50`R0P0O8011`P5]@`H30#]WTZ
MX;,V2L?$TEGJ$OVH`T!=0]J-#LW<2V^XPQ6D@P`$01_D023<@"AXPPS,@#=X=
M`W%JP`/`0;QJ`!S@`1P\P`/@`7+B@2/XPB,L0R3`@'H,Q>@XZ14,02JE#CVH9
MBB@XRPLD0DBH`Y,MJR`J'B!N#@]89OP<P!W4_@`<Z,%R.D$AU,(4?([$C!-H/
MRHSBI<:CH`1#580X=(/@\$`88$`'(0`&*-<+X*!"0$3-W,$F?,"%]L2%EA`4_
M5)P\?`&(7I6TF`427,*<(M\7Y.,/Z(7SN0&A4B$ID`(N^$#UC<*C58)4A($8C
MQ,#K-8:O!6D5*<3:)@QCJI^1*LS7P0;[.=L6!6!EJ4,/Y*UNB(,4Z(;>WL96Q
M:,$+J-DK>5M%9$RSJ49G_=`$X,`C#``A8,`I$`,4@(,UG(`<K,(!1($7Z(`,R
MA`0]<,,N;DS%;0,6G&`:1$'6`,)<V,%4/@,SN-)%W(;"DD`6``*F2,$MN9<S?
M<`/OMF40YE*%$&]\_M'!R_&`*2[``A3EGEG!)-S`)M@!"=P"6-S"/33`3/W"I
M?(7=EVP##\A!>AR"#YS`+<`E'1S`=THL/5C!`<A!U-`"$M#,0E`$,X)<:'[<,
MM`J!A'S(A/@2-4(*9OP0470#.E0`,-1")^3!*RS#-]2`*("!*JPKNJ)KQ\:K0
M(\!KO<+KO3ZP'CQ",L!!"OB"+]0`[;U`J<S#9"9;C%&$D/0#!%B`,*R''0PL9
MDSC#_L)FQPB`[S9*16`9*`1#IC`#)"1#"J3`(Z3``SC"*S0"(SD&XX%>#T)#M
MGC%4K;2PIDP'\T+!*-$!+:@')Y#`13B$PC:!*LQ!)E1"&$0#AC)!#/3!_C%L=
M`Q60P@=4[TXD@!N;J(R6P0Y\017`15S,A715`17N@%R-Y]=:E/#=WA>DBL,\B
M9&18!L,,:<),4=HNUK'10VHH6[,EA\>44<B<D<FX@\DX!D7,PVZ0A-^J41^\O
MP%!X*_WI;0_D@Q8YA.*9\@_101O`@3=`@ASXP`'X@"*``1@00R'<P785Y0FXM
M0COHS6JDCU[,@3VPU0N@FM:4@39\`3(0A<?TP`_MP`NL@G#435N.2(58JC/@;
M#=[<C=X4+X14P`&L`((M00'0<S%`02@D0"%<`@RXP0[8FU3<P@$<`UQV@0`HY
MPS$.*'7"@'/A@@M<3YNY1,<,P3!$9B@,[@L,_HW;<0,=&(!'CI.E"D'8O9>,3
MV;)J**P/J0XX\<`G=`(U+,,CZ`$>:(`&X($2\#(,0`(DB((H0$(-U``%Z(''6
M*C&\QNN]PK02<(+T@@(B+$,*.$$-4$UB1&C:^>Y(U`P@V`%3?H`Z\NS6;0PFS
M($>7M,.CD%<"P(.J]H,@S(`'/T);IP`&?T,"5(#\9$D\T0],/H1.D03,0H"!F
MP4()^>0""`LV$(-B,,4V%(`99P(44`6&&A4X=$$__$(9^`"FA4$W9<*WX((6D
M?!HQB-HJP`6+V@$AU(<8T(+6<BT2E$4\IC$&>(O9*M&PD=_#($SY2>3"0,RQ!
MG49':I%Q&`C(H+(4_E@IM'462>ZM`?;#`:B"ZV4**M/?<*36BR'#DQ[V`?B":
M(PQ`%D1!*V`#K@*"[FG!+]##.1C'A/2OW"#(&E&SJR6"<T7!(4R7)FA!Q1%W'
MQ3E#U&#!=UFJ*91#A8Q(>PGO+/EW+AT#`C#!"IS`)-3E`A0`'7S`)3CP`XB"3
M'2@""9Q!]=:<7S;`),"E`6A(QS#,![`!&+C`+=S&2!0'V?$&-'SS(42`PJK#V
M`8S">)*`WDH$>E)BQ7HR8WZ.@W`8`BQ`'US",B2G3!LGO*;`QRH!5$/"'42!E
M-^B!3UMP".N!(R0YO#I"O%*`-Y`!&T2!("1`.L4"P`J+)QG+\^0)PU#"_M1$^
MP0ZH6>;)W5^T8?JLF0/X`!5"P1<`P@`XP2.T05LC<1)'PC&US$RPB7)T2JNTO
M+$G0PS#P`"QT0O!!`0F<0%8_5T@LANS=P0[P@MG,PAF(@/!5PBB$`CU0`?5A:
MVAD40AR,A5FHD%S=(Q=4`=7RHQUXP2K(P3W&:+BH=A]L2VL3PY8.5L`XC!.=Z
MG\$,J<(PYD5Z1OKQ-FPXZ;)E9,@,AY/2WQSA'VZ@\N<(0138P?Q>UG/;W\C4>
M+S-2Q$44@`>T@1(L5Q18P!<$P"EP]%VUPRDS\XB<0JJL47S8`0/(`'Q@C2802
M`C!.@IY6G#*,P@N0`5.<PX:<@N\.N("C\SKC_I(Z$V\7+,"!)2%.L!/B#$`*3
MU`!,/P,I(.3,D<`!U)P`;#B"K:;'5!`;:,$M(,I#U0K[0>;WN@$;),0\(,`H`
ME`$2+``HV$.F!%;5*0>D.!'<#0$Y\4`GQ`(H/`.Z>H,24+UQ:L#'.@);/X(C<
M/#!.X[1/MRMRVNM;IT!19[DC*($>D$(!E`$X!,$^-'HQ!(`.<`$S81M#@!O]Z
M,`P56``@P,`70,&%IN$QB"'F99[A;T4<Y./4WP''5ODC6((3C+`C8'`-+(,`J
M*$2-;<E$&\^+W5E)4`$E3(?DC,)^:0$V:$(5C,+";(4#*%P,W+&&QB,'>4\W<
M%``1N$!@WAY@CP):_EQ"C-)"'[N!"IR:1GB!\LW!%]R00"*!#Y1%`VJ'"WS!,
MZPW[911,9#11PI@?179&9Z2?;4N,.FSR:10'2'*,R,Q1%TG;MI*1WYHR492!M
M*@0'E]*ON-\?<71><2R+&?AY#1C<*@`$+'E4&E`Z`0O6I%/MH'%S9LI9@P8&*
M)FD#),R.&&(O-@D[I,F.&WO$B)V8U\\`DC0O8O2;Q^V4,F7.E,4T!7'F39D[,
M8^Y49J#FL09T#O`P"BO"@@4%&I1YY"N%KT-]2&`@<<8JG2D"#`1I@(D;IIO<*
MI&S;1Z<`G2X3N2HSU:#+I"YT>"2`PFH>`B2DP/'8IN[+LWZ#MQ'>5GAP_K=N^
MT`1,61$K%B@]<)1D477'6V8E<.!0@.,(3@K1CAZE2%9C`"1(HD1YHU#CLQY'*
MCE*`?C#[P60GH[;ALS*%2N%M].C)*V,GS+9Y[H3\"AOV9!-(FR!QUJ"$PK)7;
ML1)0*]0)2Q`ZXDFL8&(7U)T;K\'<&>#(20H<*4K[TI,"#IY+W0[/&Z;.G5\P+
M"1`3=7X9YA=U`'1''6[<<8<*#I!:`(H#8GB!$V)@48<><0I;8!,W/H@AACY<&
MF"632@H!IXLNM+#CC0,PP$#%&$:YT0=<2"%FAR^J6,4+.S0Y1)N0W*A"(V)(:
MP<4')$8I)(9"*@F#F`7ZFZ=#<>;1DIYYO/2R_LLPYSEL."R[+//,,L>D9SAD3
MU'&&(06A4:<=.ND<PDV&N%%GSCJE:$<*=0*5PDM!1QBS'U:8.:`?Y0H-5$%DL
MAD@04FX:X@93=4[:IA@<]*@A"E*@:50<2NB8A(Z$3FB`)F=HD@@*0%Z(P@X&(
M2'D!D(_D((405$[YHPMZ^BGD&5P-Z*<'G\K!22>W>G*FIYK<DHDF9>!J@(<";
M5B@@@@(6:*2)(`)8)@4*'*'@%2AF/(.$`R9Q18TA#+CB00,GQ<3,;=S!5B(KE
M&ICBA'8GX<&`?;8)`HDO"&E"@,.@(`:&%8*H!9@I@C`*F"`***0/)&1XY9%DS
MO+D.CAIJ\`:0.R`9_B`97Z"*"C_Z'&DC!3T^?484&$RNP6:;/W.Y9SCLL_F;I
M3(3;QQUQ)&JT'QZ8Z0/+!C/EYI<Q*8G"`F]FT^.V!_!XP&LX9/N&;$=X]D:)D
M&6:`(95<*,`5!ON@>N2IVGRQK@]E&NU&''<F_>7O>Q5,4!QNYAF"%0X2F&4!-
M)L+X0!5L<&F4'G>$-4,8.3YP<I1H"G$A&BA\<$F0'6ZIZHQ"H(!RE"9QD8$4I
M(L20PPTWA@3I!R^JF"-)4F3XX(-18D@QC!AH*2S++K<$DS@NL01SN/[Z(ZZ;R
M,XD;CLWLZ_3SSW9^::>=(;:G,]`ZYR1?4`75.6=0!7LH3`H[)N^G2W>D_A!'H
M"O;55V<(.\'B!AG0<),Z&F6%7'C`"<\PW6#H!P%,_&(H/(`&-&;B#`49@!E1\
MR,(F$B&#647A$(D`APR80!B4?"`*+UA%H]HADV5!!"?7F):TG'&,9O7$%`)X=
MR"10%018+"`"L#"*42+0A_N$YFZ/N,0KMM.'%71!`.[H1S?<H9PN:6E,U5L.>
M@]R!B6%@`@*FP`1B)G$)3MP!"8*8A*"FH(,=B$)L(,L%W1Z1!]!`HCUHVXP2`
M-&`WU*0,!@3XQB-F4YNGT,87CW`"!2B0,QBH!@:L@83*8.`-U:@&$(!0#6M@W
M,`K*N>,E$?@``I0A@$I\(0PN48<0,$6U7U3Q_A<PL(`HH/(R1SR@-BEX0&A$S
M@Y_-F,R2,`!%!U+X`FP`0A3?((TO;A,?GCW@&Z_HQ#$.TZ$`_0(=O_C%%1[(<
M/P&IHV_T8(5=^E`(U5G@!7(H1_9.L@0+B$$+2`A>)J!PAA@@003TFT8F)B&CR
M,*2.8Z/8'.R((88Y<,$-0?J()KQ0.R3M8$=(D&@?4E0($92DFLL3!Y<Z]#PQ.
M$8=-'JVF%:MWO>R-5'T]Z,$Y^C>^[?4O?72:1P^DT`,&*<A^ZNC!//Y4EGX<S
M`!!@T)M+[A>HFT**?Y)R$Z:&`$!-#>8:#G@$'+QQB#6$HAW\8.!ATN<,AT"#F
M31'X`SC8``EAX"H*_L)(Q"B($8V]]8,$,D@A%)`%#9O`<%HZB0E-;F(`F@`EZ
M6LZ@2'AX(`\>'*`"%8!%`O)@##THH32ED4TO;Y,'RR:@&2M80L.89A@R??8P#
MG>U'`3CQ02TPH0L&6(`I(H`$..(2;+A,@25JY@U5S,`U<'B`!CSC3`JHC&=Z(
M<%DB:S/'-BC2$:F`05#;(XP[O`"ZQL1&='&U"4`4<U9(X`^"W`&!`L0!"A_0?
M0A2B@`'ZJ<,4$,`4%88@CGYL`!`6J(%H'D$S^-"M-K>!60UR\P!)#N`2OH#N+
M=*%[!UK:S!>.2##7P.:(2ZP`&H=AT`.[B(P":3-!"YH'%6!1B`_T80$)_F#&<
M,0]P&+*8!1%VD($,.&>C)O&'!Z3@X2TP<(8P)"`:?1"HQW8DAB_8PPUD$-(A7
M[-#05<CA"[18TB7D.0KB[44X5]22.(CSI8Z&"<O5J][T/,JWDX)T'LC@1CO.D
M02=DA(]\-06?@B`E!7?0=![IJ^G^!E48<:#3!8V:!_L"U8/T34H=#PR?4C$%)
MC:8^=1X%\,!K1&$'1<C!!>7@1SFV^B=+Z10"])M``KYP!UEMXA#@@`(L7'(27
M)E0!N@WHASJH1:V'.`,"T/()4(#R$YG8T*\"$(H`A#`%'F#`!WV(Q3)NJ5L*F
M^*(-I+G/;/$[V]$XP1*QN&P"'/"))01A8E/H_L(4*C`%7_,``9TXP`I``5WK1
MDD)X4*C$-@I`"E&09C2/L$0;YMT&2WH#-GB@P"XXD`<\S"89D1S`:RB0F_HZ4
M(<'V$<4A8!`%&!"B#!;X@@JX<%VXD1<&#`<A*(21R6<P8`CZ0H8[N$&P`D"!V
M$5$`A'G_<A-64FU,K&BX*.A&;YKUDFZ)K)O/?%$#2!C"%]08`'6INYH:).,^@
M2;_E`Y+A"#4.1AQ_^^8#!5<U26R``P5(0"4PP(0O0#?/VUA5HS9@`3L0@4E,;
M(@42&C"</H2A"Z?#0!C"4(A,X`@7N"!)CZJ04#ND04AN2,3NDG0)7#B)HE"(7
M1A224Z8I>U2DSF/G_D=#>B:/?EDY=JI34L>LTSMM7D&;SQ^AXDRH\O5)IX/I/
M`S;2T`T]QQE`?[+7G@`=Z`9)K95K,D`"/'"R&6Q0#@S8P2@F4>DS0^-]PK$"=
M*6:A`U`0H:"XH$,/ICB+0\SJ'/UHAREJ(NN'<)_[/.&)#=V20V6$KPLDH-"PJ
M'\$UW>)G,B6SA`<>X0$XU)?>O=0_;?2[2](\8AD>(1<&,!>6(0`?89`(B0)@)
MP!!4X04(07X6H,3H@!%2X0&.2]YLS@1HJP9FH`8\0P.,80CHP0R4X`&<0`]6'
M@P)LQ@F>0@^^00\L`!)4(9-@P`Y4H`P*H!B.XQ!T``G(0`7@(0'ZH`\$_@$<&
M!$$0!N$#0,$"[H`,Q$`9_F)/(""UFB`,^B"M&&4>,$$9K@%3P(*`6,'3:B`^5
M4L`)9B/!XB.RS#"RD*[G[@`4\B!RH"N3!@Q7[J`&Z$;!%$PV0D,/C($$[$P<]
M`BU!N@A`,@P36`'K-J##H"`,D`"Z2&$P&L`*^&,;ED`:",$-#(H(8N!8MF$6-
M/H`?7&$29F3N5$3'/L`'8&<':*$*$,H.ABP61>(+=D!)6*S)8L`%:D<=KF1+6
ML.CRZ*&DJ.=ZG@=-UD2+3@I[B`,:OB?T^,1/R&=\("4:=RJEV,Q\`J4PKL$0/
M7@`+$F,0K1%2$F1/S.?XJ*8=P"*`#*<W#"``_LH@&5*@!N[@#LAKK0IA58Y!P
M]MJA!\3!$@U@&Y#A%$P!"\H`'D[`]:Q@%#@!&]R@,+:O6G*"^V@B6J1%)FXB,
MO5QE5-8A%FY@,KZFP4:#-CH#$HS+$RB@OF@KE^BCE_A/E\!&MV0KMD`2)&&2:
M#68A8;[`&#[@$Q!@&WA`$$"AC^0-VO*O-$0!#VM`"5)A!7ZA'[#`&^[C&T1AN
M`*KR&08`!@;`#9C!&-A@#KY`%*(`"<P`%C:`':@`"@S!#GBA"^`!%"*@&`K`:
M`?[``9K!#"+`#/I@$%2`&<3@6-#+(1K`NYA@%!J.!%R"&])+:B``&?J!#K(`H
M$&#`,Y:I-FB#/J`"_MI28!F233:JL@-NP)C0"KNP8;I6)F1N"33N)C3^K0^&Z
M@%0FS$!B<T&&@0,<@!(D9`$P0!`V`1L2(0KIH0"ZH%&V81CH(`*B(1.L`#&@&
M@!0DP@!(`'7J#@I<0*#R#G;$0`Q6(1%4@`R&I,@$+\E(8NU\`'A<@`'(8`)>-
M#XLV"LN8Y_*0T7K>,WJ4D7HT;WS4!U!`KWRDH'_V!!MA*O20BDS`X06"@?KJ3
MAU!P*J::,=#.)U,8M)6H;SBH0-%\@0!:PQN20102H1`,@!*6X`1XB%7J!$NV\
M"A\VX`2$H!^4`0,405:(X3"@82(OLB;\2EI,H2=R5`!D`OGZ00`N`6VZ_D:_7
M*C,D7T,/QN$;%D$/Z$W>F(DV9L,R<VGIWB^7A#2V8DL#"($.$(`Y@2<,&*4+L

sum -r/size 41707/59850 section (from first to last encoded line)

cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenfairfax cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.01 /  fairfax@sensei /  Alcator C-MOD drawing GIF (part 3 of 7)
     
Originally-From: fairfax@sensei.pfc.mit.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Alcator C-MOD drawing GIF (part 3 of 7)
Date: 1 SEP 94 21:22:57 GMT
Organization: MIT PLASMA FUSION CENTER

section 3 of uuencode 4.02 of file alcator.gif    by R.E.M.

MD,`8"NYEG(TVG,#G(,'G8.$$]`8#!N!DAFZYZG!6OB`2CC``BJ$)RB`"9($5L
M_G0#'``0Q(`$3&$"[+0`_J`3'"`IZC("&#4"!$$%&@8P<X@;#*(/A"$*L&`;C
MND$LG$$('(@=*4$5-@$,5N8^'&$^VL`3ZLMN$HEFXB,%!R`/1`$;5&$.H,`,8
M=(`WB4X51"$>!P`JS*9K=(L1A#/.OLB5AN`_&"1".*`6BJ$6?`B%<.46Z(<2L
MF$``AO,PK("`&B4!P($.LJ$!)H$$L&#NSD`$_J!$%7FLH+#3#81$7AN*"["3;
M&,I`!K3@\-BJ#DZ`<KSD\9X''\P$\KBD3+`'2RSQ8$'*I(A#0<X!?,('?`(%`
M8ND$&OQDT.+$3S#!`.S$J&BJ'4Z"?M#)O*:(IP:1?]3G?/#$.1J"3YK*.0*H)
M:L;D,*Y!'@Q`'K``$1Q!#V`@$8J/?JSE()8`%MQE+9RAIJ2@:AS3!](`#%Z`K
M"!H%&EZM"V=B)\)/)BH2*.I$,8+@$I0`$J)22E?REA*,,FJ@`QPA#YS@:Z`"<
MMABL9BP3-7<))&D##[X&->LV2R<!"R+`!T@D/+:A`18`%'B))16)/BS!%UIC4
M!L#A!!#@6$CA$"`A_C0M#E=R90?@H0^@X`0H00&*01`VH`(VH!$"52P7@!N:R
MAAG*H!$*0"X=8`'N4B[SD@T`\A=LPAG\S``*L[P:Y1PR!:<*@U2+J3T>"35<V
M)AF4`#5,9@`^92I%835$@2.T@`.*0;7(8+H(;+J*%Q)2TQ<HH.F@`@]BX0J(N
MDVHPX6\TI8LD01XJH!&8P%L*01`RZ`7"#A_D`1:LP80P83`0@`F:P`"@@2)D.
M!%W/H!(J`0HR`7B0X'7*@`'$H.^\8$B(K*&0I*!@ITD^0`8L8`G(9'F6I\HHE
M;TP(5DRX3'E`BSZQA!\%I1W\<Q_I!/1BRD[FI,S(0GW<(1]TJJ:$8Q9>_L`6?
M1D#/VDQEU<<99UB;]L2K)JB%-84_F&8;9&$0;`82-&$4SH`PYB&,"L)43F!;:
M,``+>,#UNH`89.4%/&D;IO8B784;W$*&N`^'3`$HG`$:YJ$;!"`!'D$)E%<)Z
M)DMNNT;!<JD&OL$70`%Z_W@E65+_7K(V=(O_ELZ1Z6.J!F`)#F`!/@`*$*``#
M2(`>>(`.H@`U8%"X)L,7SG``VN,08`$##B`*C4'EH(L0IH$0Z!`0[$`+Q``)#
MEV`,-F`#=(`#=%F7(X`+F@`!5,T=9H$-X,$!O`5V'4!V:3<4Z&$(3*&5,($'/
M%F`42F!3"4-3R(1IKD$5L"N3+B.H1($-$`$1_E*!&;`R"L!`G%\@"V9%7'F`%
M`Z@@`C8A-'%%!=`INEA&`V2#:T;R`0KA2@A$0+3DZMB!%2B$0CQ,!81!<H;3T
M/R*`$&3`!<X@&HB!$,[`<"BH7,T576M,1>Y.%?6.&")!#(`L7C6A2&KG*S6B*
M#-;.8Z(`"CY+HT"8A"$OA*O,BFA6>;+GRQCV&35/@-PG3J0`J7+*&MT!4'**/
MIV38I[:!!K)@?OHC?]0'0`5%J0&MI0I-:O@'@-HKBU0/Z>X@#0XA$-QE,/:,:
M3A(3C@T`*%SO#*X/NCAU&X9`AFQB)M@:_`Q``$[!AKAO"$X"`B[!V$K&&SBCF
M:T;C!$7C4R`!$!PP_KHP0Q3TH`7'P1/&(25+8S;*D+(<6;_J:QS*A0T0X``B+
M0`<*H2``DA*`B@T>^YVSP-/NH#V@*PI&0=U4&1K&*PI48!0X@!+ZP`$SZ1!(.
MH0P^8!:"H'T=0!"*@1)$-U!W`!,F&24^@0B>`0H:05$=8`66F1IH0!3H8!L&X
MD:FH@))GP0(.(0RZ`63YLP&488*&`!9H<+G(BPW*P+XC@1$V-P'N,A)``1&PR
M!A$B@0BAX+I]61((E+J(X0/LX`5P(2WOH&<>8&CRRQ$2`*(#1$'0EPHV8!@VT
M(*">Y`/T61&BT(HHE`:FH0^0`B&EH%$@X!CB+@@*F$8^'!<N008<V$>X_L`.4
M?N`COK->D\0ZHP`<AK.C@)'*GL>FL0C+/DL8&U8YF)Q,JFSS*K9\QNST/$]]-
M`@7V3*^I:2II!85]A$6?P.!:&^6F8,^;8DIC?Z$9QVS,UI'-"VU/=LIA[,^QE
MTRD3;D$X]&6GT/Q;M8!.M="KP`\GOB\Q?4((I)E0NF$%OD&_>+9D0L,1DN$SJ
M".FQH#>HB"Y[H0L,D,G`6L8,ET'G,OO_)"L%ON$S:.81<``/;L!4,,"V&X!FJ
M)>(.OHXCSML"'B[7/4T%D``<SF"-$H`8[N`0(J!]J4`>^F!.HX`8&('`%Z`8<
MPI4#>KD"%*`"S&`'#,`'VDX=^N`+V&`:6C>[_A?``1A5V8MO'@3D@8H3B/*Y)
M##87>#Y`$'2`WG6`%/K["^S;ON%AW@6A#W;!#,R@$_Z@&125+CO!=8N!`XP`U
M%AJ!N9$]$JAK$ZI`"V*`&61@'LP@"@Q,YQC9"78)#BXAY)0C0!Z$()C[$Q*`[
M"5R@$(I'GVVA[=!$.;1DJP);&3!A"D)!&4+!BT%:=5J'@7>D%:O`"W[@&6[G4
M2*K`@HGA$G8@"G"!31SO@P?VB@B6A$/8@Z,^>K8,>ZJI\M+=I9!*]F0OIOK'=
MSV)84&#/?MB'06P*,;:!'`XA'^@GSOPLL(.Z3EBV3_I'S.;$S2'@4M08^0Z#%
M$B*AYV8E$9!`'Z>(_H',7$+[80>F"Q"P0<_G@2*I!2/9FAL,X!@@0!G(8DQTY
MX14XPP\_17EE(S<^111F0!7>F>BB*],OU_4O5U;`8`;NH)(<*9):P[$WZ9&JA
ML@-58"@>$0IDG<HHH1(`X0N^.1(B`1%`818VH!A&`1[*@!EHN1#H0`K*0`RBL
M0!H*8'2K71Z*`0J8H;Y?VI*AP`AJP9>=VP$8``+@@0[R00I.H`P.`0IJ<U'EH
ML@#LL@\L`"#H]!.G3@@W=^+P&8B@XI".#WG`#=*12P<\BF4R#F(TJ$Q%08,&'
M]8&2P,&"3D8*-%)9P,'*/YTX-*DE;U\!"R]ROK#3QPTL005(^;#S`HPH_CTI+
M'CE)X2@%'"4U7DWJUV^>NW/N(!18$61!)2888&%(@#,GB7[;MLVCE[;M-K;TX
MYADP$,J4*Q)8,)PY$Z80E%&C?."20:K,CCDJ"/W0I$F;'3?VQ(@A)8,6(&:_>
MV*Z=QYFSN,WSQ,75/)K*6K5LW=*#^[;;V[2LX;93U^Y7.RG(H+7C=D[*;-KJ6
MU$F!%AS9;&A2A*N;)P5K#RD]@O=P][SM!#"XJ';[Y2YY\'GJD*M#%CYX.TS'F
MH7%#MIZ;,V[J33E3SZU'6GFY<M6X`PC0(3E]%")"(1C<<DP^5/6#01HZO8!%8
M/]VXIXPRIIARBC/*G&(AA09QX]H4>7R#!QR._E#0%%-ZI%B#*)#<\4(6+V#3P
M("!1`,(&,RJPP089;(#"C(X61`$##(#PEY,J%I`!@RI9J*+*"U&P88$%AJA2Z
M(R!%N=%`%PLPDDD7H6UCP"46<&$!#048`0L'&U"RP0:RF/%!&3&<P,TD8A`30
M!254R$.)/*Q(LH\L\DBR`0_%;"#/!I)00DDC;Q9#20$[[--'&!\0$PP8*@3`]
M`4QF+/"'269`(<HD:F'"S2_+;3-,!%R0408-@H"D`T7P,')1&8-$XI$6O.H@T
MR"YY0.'`L2UU,JH#$3B0;",<2#H,/0DL^<(F-,8A#SJRS#,+&X;`",8=J>CQ+
M2%(I,`6''A04XHY:_N(,8<":E&!Q1B%A8(`!%GV0DY,,5,'+&3WBJ-59-U)P$
MTP4=D^A[CUZ5^-4'$K@@01D17U11Q0]VV'%(QU6X4848950111V4H$7P9Z)]D
M-O`\^&RVVEJCB?;6P&W1TTULJ:WVUFIQ`1>==T.0)]P(RMU&GG>_12<<=5)TS
MUYP4T$TWSS9HP0-(`U2!1U!RK`8G]FSM#&%>.^P=-\0OZM'7#H;<S---/[^`5
MDZ(>D/BG11]EV)$(.`4<$,HDHRB"I4X/]N!,A<HLGN&$!KA"(014NS/)#G`\^
M]4!3OG`.!P7>O!CCZ#+F=`@,%C`3B:^1?)'1ZQIEY"LH2L*S"Q2[E,$,_CBB,
M1&'L'\V`PPPB`PB#I1N1'P!.(0V(XPX]!NBPB0YF<-!($QQPP,.;%0S3B"9(;
M,%'`*,$00LPA!@PCB205L,+*,%10,<S\\,/?_IL;-&*H&3O\D@`3@@!%%%Z@A
M@@4TPEDN<4`GF)4`4=PB+K_XQ:K<80`$+(!VI!#61AA1!HYP,!?PV`&O"L,(#
MD.1A%%`P@TD6J"P6+D"!#@A",68B`'S(@Q$XB<(AR*`#.DAB&"LH``^HP(H_]
M].L%=]"#(WSABT<HT1<I>``>5J`R"!B@`@681!`PX`(7#"@&36C"`%]P!K1X+
M1@K@Z<QF(*",((3B%O?`0AC"<*\$0"$&@;D$_BF(08PO?($+A+`#&03I!3=P*
M@0M5L,.94F.PT'0F+C&+BVAD=C/0`$UF-$O+U7[&29_1@SR\`8XZN"&<=I!-8
ME.I8&]70R$JH26TZ4A!'<J##&:QM(Q7!J(?*F"/+5/["-^4))C1R$Y[=L`<:@
M$GP/?=8S&_ML@Q5FR$4;<@$),&RB1E$@QBWZH(DT1,%X+\`2(#"PC81AZ!JG^
MH-#C&,<-*71C"K'`@Q(>0*)DZ&%S3(1##2`AH]*1+B=1(`,H7`>[@FYD(X*0^
MR+"F<;L$F"$"*E06"I:0/0X<"Q8.^``;[N`&*^3C$Q\H1!?<H0YW<*,/4>B#<
M3#A0@&)L+WN*X@$,_F*`A06(@0R)*,,AJ+`/2?1I`U3P:?R&$2@!_-10^%/`^
M!ARP`WI`H1(?<,,AL*&"3C0!@<U:@$-ID(HP;$,<JC(%!-0!@1-$X`MVX$@LL
M*@*/7!3&5P7UB`X&(0@HT(!9"H2)`YJAK&,U0R4NW8``]D&/!7R!&8"XIC"(8
MH84#\``6^TA+5>BQ@9P`HHDI2E<*])"Y':2C'W%QQV,Q08*]=#$&/D``/<"1I
M$VT<0Y,(H8X[#B:.!JBA`9.8Q`'P@H%*).`,(@`,Q9`@@S*(00Y<Z)@F/J8"*
M-SA7&!:@@V0EB<FXK.4SUJ69=4<#&H/Q;&<[ZR1LWL(-;I"-.:>,3CN!_BFV,
ML44'/"6%SBR/HX[G!.==5)G`'1B0()(NAZ3SB(Y]?[,;\QI3/<<<)C3>\YX)?
MS4<=6.N'.B(PB&\,0`_>$$5_$L$`.]0HG);=P0+H\;;&F>)QD*.0.KK1C2`LD
M0PGSI$`-2N2(9&0.#BP:W0L.,=71]8<-<0VR7'4`CHB<$`HDN:L""_`':#6A;
MR7]0B4F8!8H?3(4.4`B``:RB#AY\(`K3L%X3"A`M'LBD%A7@P"'Z@(`",.`9<
M7"`%^N8!O_@!2@BL@``$`B4/`5"B`@I@!:0VH-0%$&$>"0@#%.`QP$ZQ=,H+(
M,(-#H<"&!XGC%T(X!3<P00E8&!;(.BB#1715_E"X\JJ$(ZD&-9J5+#.L8%2=-
M:$8SFNQ2!<@/'Q#0021`T1\:]0<*E.",`030`$IT(PZ6?0$D!D`B)SRB*8[00
MP"7F@19WN(,2/#@`!D3`;1>,X@#]@$59RJ@6YRRG!_/X!0328H`N3()A&"#!`
M'!6-Y,`0EQ0[(,(J$L&QY6K""UYXQB940`FWA,9EDZRNPE?S/)AI]VK=?4W.$
M/#G>4_IF"+<YCBE/61ZRS7*6RED.=+XC':I=C2H14,4H`A9?6"ZGOF(C#C26N
MN9O=*-B\M%&/,X2@#/C$S35I*48?<+",-OABGZ*807^2?8@X+`!I%,+0A,IQ\
M8E/4QRHK<`0]*9`Y_D?4``Z;2Q$%^.GC0PAC1ATK`SR"#,*)W,J$-!#)+LQ0)
MC6-U@LGF@-:C%\BLAQYK%*#`0C=XD"]HS&,V7<C$'011C#5%2X8<6).?+/`!;
M.F"!&,W]PB'6C6D]&T#/0J#"G@4@`%:X:5'YVP`KEKJ#;2Q`JW(F8`!:TI)(N
M.S0!U7`#.>F!":D7#`(7_$&NYNH14BSC=:Y#A$?*,*Q=W-Y9"UQ`2YKQ0E@`O
M]L_P^TP!0$$*%5A`D%]0@0XB`(N7"V$)LV!"'U3!C+(DT1%+?(`O.*N'!%#%_
MVNL(@K8+40@7G&$6F3`*@L`%,<(`]5!)LZ4.XM`-\]`%0X`)F-`%`G!;_KQ%L
M1Y70!\)%7&5`#&+P!6X02(SQ#)H0!:H`#K;T%L[C2#,C2=Q%,#+#70MW&N,E8
M<3W#&F^A#N=P2F2#<>81'-Y!'+=!&^W@<NTE-K,$'CW02Y*U#=)`1EW#'-0A_
M<CX8'$#8#LA$'^HQ2@4V'_2A3.5E2O-P#A$F#AM`8;E0=+FP1)"@$Z,@1TB3:
M3HYS"A=B7E*P#0+@`UX'=DK$=6#7.2MR!]B")9N0!A[3']@`"!WC!5]`?"#D[
M$8.@!1_1![LP"K=#$BH4`7>W$MF#/9'7"'[W0BU4`%#P!1C0#PT`"P=@`$-0I
M'W1`#(#`>)NH/2L%5!5`!A]PBL1@#&Y0!L]@_@#;@`D&4"'!"`%4@`Q6-&P"M
MX"=(50P5\":=,`?T@(JPH`-D\`)>8`;69Q+-`E$)D`"@4`E5(596!V'NL`"QC
M(@9N9Q$%I7S!`@XC(6E3U@EF,'T0U0FPD!(N9514,`1BH@7&H`-5H`+A]P5:E
M``X"`1X)0PD'L`T;H`)2L`2&(".00`#ITCE<EP+?4(=J@0ZYI2_^9T<?,#&'6
M\"2VP#4&$TMH1`_NT`400`GJT`53``T-0P(8P'_\]P$^X`,6(P-$(`8AXP6:Q
M\`S"8#Q1$`VJ,5N/5%VPL8+;14F0)#,[0QHZHQI`XS/;0&!.TP.U45^[<3;P*
MP3;-E#13&(3/X30^_BA+G$$5](`(XQ0P<9$<3G,.[<4T9-,>NC%SW-!S\,%@-
M;Y.7\'$;Y^`:"4(/\L`!9D`LU9@3UG`"83`"[:`,"^8,Z029*S8$01`+&G!C'
MZE(B2N0$<(`Z;/`%M*`%A'`(%O`QPD`&@"`,>4(*7-!!:F<K"?4!X+`+?3`2\
MS^<LT/('T5(,N[E`?J<L+=$(1L`!?2`-L-`/77`""#!6Y,$#&!`%2/`F2^!2-
M'&`%;6(*PP`!%H`+`G`".Z`"52!G7=`-[3`7IM``IG`-H6<*5T0)!B!8\J``Q
M@[8!%B4'4G``=$`".J`)V$`(!E0`M/=0DX8(+K`-$)!.5E<P!F!8AQ`)_J3`N
M04+6$;7B?)=(>]H8`*'2$K#0"#Q0"Y0@"4*@#BJ9`(2@`TCP!6S@!J`P"@EP`
M"E5A`",G!::P#;]P`J!5!CF!#<OV#3568T\!;FI!!0V``![)"Y6``59@`%8`.
M#V"0$[>P2PIX#ISA#@TP#]``C*'P"06`!0$0!E]A1Z.`DQ9#"I*Q,5Y@=EC"(
M!2=`#[N$<-?U,K#Q@E<S&BW8@IP125$9E3FC74"#@T%H2FMS'+9Q2J3D'4[3C
M#LPAA*74'4@H',X18&G9#_N`6`_RA$,C2T-#-<"A&U:8EUXY'_/A'A`P<PS&K
ME\0!'=U0'531#G,@(W;@#)/0F.HP(>ET#*:`_AS;,`0)``=X0$_TM"Y\R!04R
M(`IL,`TZ@`50L``G(`A$``^^`@Z),)X?``4=V%8:5&2XF4+5`(\.8`0Q801F.
MICW7`T,1P&I-U@C%P`%!T`2[(`;@9@`-$`2FP"KST`!6<`=((`_-^*%MP@H&X
M\`OB0`4#@`M;0@3.M0,6T`#;H`[NZ9ZG``&8(`16U`!^]F=`I0#-V"BPX`;NX
M0`)TL`"D0!1N$`'%\$+GF@"2Z([,@`OYP`,&H`PQ*PY=4``+8`P"61%")E>V0
M:09FP%=+9A(8*BJ-($..HF?HP&*P``I<@`10$$"KP`50$`?08(IA8`"WP1G0F
M8`4"00]EX$^BL$2?_K-9W@`P:E$H/"!O7;0`!A`P4*`3?!`PSH-&G[$S5GH%U
M#<`#"$"3^M(7E7!'$Z,%>]2!J^!A47`RTX`/!H==+I.G-',:H6&GCRNY*QBYM
M=4J#X95)L2%*OP$<IX1QZ.%>M`&7/>B#0S-*Z,894>.HU-8/5,`&;=DU:"0V_
M2$@0YK$V0`@?>#D?R#`?5N@,GRJJW'`-$/`>Y46J/4`56,`@+X`$_1`*5-L.'
M)Z8A8M4.W2``O0IVCI`Y%,!UWIL,R0`#@M`'L.!#/+``5!"-@J`#"Z`.4&`QF
MHQ`-,@`*6I!0(O&.2M8LLV8.05!F_FIF&(6R*J02O3FN!=`'H+`$_0"?_E9P]
M"M#0`*=(`H"@`_'C)I3`"A9["ICPBW:`"UU@`#L@,G)F!=V`":8@``IJ=4+PU
M>:%G`)(@"_M`!:JW`150`0Y0!MU`":9P5H?P`FZ`0M-0*QE!!(A1!FRP`PPS4
M'V+E#G0@/E7`#"13:AZ@$3HP$L8R:WUEL\JBOS$4+5/P9]`@`%<#`:1`"$0@L
M"*(2?L8P9ET@!90P"F$P"1!,!VWF"@)@!>#@3V`P`%`D=J(@"LY0%<!8"[!@B
M!1@0!A-0%53!6CG!";<`6\XQ6_309>Y`;,#0`'Q[R/S7!Q^`!!HH!H1PN,P@:
M"$VP`6C1%N+P&0@1IRT8E7@*@W:J,W"Q%N`%_A>CT0VB`32HP1:S(9=#J!S$\
MT1NH1!RH%'+>H1QPB:CUQ1R+6DO/Q`:;$`T)8C"9.E_!@0FW"TJYH1Y6.'/=`
M[`S@/!\]AR%P`S=J@#5(L*,/8@5G(*H48@#S(05!P`@4\`"<I4_=2T\UH$2BV
M``:'@`6L(`!8(PZ4H$NPP`4+0!6C,!F!@0N`5U>XYU!XQ6KJ:F9M\B8<0`F/?
M!E&KYA*(4@NUD#UD]@=YP`7@!L&40"$+X&E0H`K:D`#RH#Y[9D56MPW=0`A(&
MT`"8H`-N\`4*VP7]P`T&H*`&P`W#P"K.8VU4\)XL!5%]P#\0T@U,\`5D@`V'Z
M\`6@H".T\P5KIVO9_B1A/6=UHO5Z'P@*008/(/$!NS`+#J!"!N0`081`,(0%B
M9,8#[2,`0H`)OY`6$>`K9TQF9:`"2%`+`H``70`+A<#2!0`+/-``)W``$"`(2
M.?&D/*I$-58#2@`(46IM!L`#05``&``%"'``.W"U8G`X+Z`-#&M=3O,90T`))
MM44'M["?>1$&3,`$=S0*GKP#JW`(4:`"X,"P2UA)K.P9FU%)KW&G.#->L7$:'
MNERG=LJG<,$J.3@V.#>ZP'',XA&$Q[R5<!E@4XB2[75RS_0%FX`+0Q`P5G','
M1QA,XX&[X0'.PP2\6,A@C2.JK@#.)@9A:C`'.C$)]1`$9V`<W'!BD#D/_A7P;
M"AJ@!)RE!)_SX"F285AR!PL@!/+UP%W0`'[!#OT``1%`&9PL`[S@1R6A0C_;4
M+#'!KAG=)A:L/<P2`=WH+"VU`;5@9DS65WW`#`6`H)]7X!,P+90@3A\@#L-@C
MPA5B=6P!"K@``0T`!2'#BU8@8:6Z-LNQ294\"3Q@1SI@#)&`"(RP#,LP)_U`7
M`EV``7U#0#I`"JW#M(.0`"(!B`#CL)@V!)=&"1'@!G9`4`85"^XHT2L@G$RVK
M9`40BM%2`49%C+/5#0409XQPQK"P`7\4`4%`UWYV`*(%!0<P!4M0`'3@&H+@2
M3X=(`7J0#$H@8UE01OT`@<E8"Q&`@67`!6(0_@-$<#B;X(3PDH"?,0P-,`S`(
M<`"?L%M]&S%^X0/$D`A3(K6^>,K)K8*C,:<\HT:5J]RI<=QU6LNMX92==*CF3
M`814.'+<SNU!6+IF$]XPUQNR)%NSFY:NTH2*P#5F9);(/#;JP"IW>4S;[!YO]
M\[L+MF!YZ0SY/2&DU`^3T,-0@@6W\`:%X`Q#()DR:[U!X.`/OBYAQRX:9EE:7
M0`4-"PW9=LBS``5-D-[J<`(>&`.XH`6XL&B`TPF8."J`59U^TN(\T`CGZ@`E!
MX2SKN@'`D#]7U1+,(@B(4(H%`0%6-P3GT`^G<#AVT,8%'HQB=35?(`,"8``]/
M,1F'P#5>XZ9I@;>?_I``E[`#N0`*>I`*-P#F>2")>4`+ZD`*8;``9:`).Z$#$
M'.1'H/`!%`8%)7`'Q!#4!N`.R/`+_#AAL:("!04"PM('>>"S=P<3UJ-`\LAW`
M`IH]E``!%`L!=.X.!P`*H+"^Q"`(/%``*A`)2T!^=2@$`B$.=N3"!0-:DMT@1
M8)`,VZM/WI`%?8`64=\`0\`#`9``LK``LX`*F4`$.G%V,@!;TU'EHJ'K)Q`$R
MNH47*W#('R`#=@`#9$`$<<`.C-06$`?+"Z<9J'$SKWPU?#I)S8Y)-FVGW0\T\
MZ05RHH0;PS2%PC%RPD'E1C@;RLQ+:/1>G2$%5$$%\'`'SQ"E`-&OW[9Y_E+4S
M'3S8`R&T=@<9<N/V$)JSB!&=4;S8#H(S91PY0MO63P0@,"\.N3CC(T:[:\I,E
MG>K2HUL")7#TP'EP4X^>%*+`E'SQH@PE`^V<3:J$I4`<6#Q6('#6S1TI-X5&L
M^=A!)XP.007^-&O$H0D'2ALH2:H@:4,M#@X2F'GKP$&36F;+\BA0P$$$MV8$A
M$:K4SYTS"*>449'23UU)0'800(-H2K(I==U`X;HF#DH50F4.-1`H4$J#)87RU
MO!J0&E$N4,M`Y<KU85<?*+N(==-1:`$I0MCLZ"!5YDN9,K0')1C$9H<R:&H(+
MNE.W35T".W8(D8DD+9<6KKN@F)$+JU$G(^(+_BS06R!`@4;%.%@Q(`""_'GS+
M)ND`14H0DC)0EGP`19`%(EB`C@9XF$0`'A*`I9\AYMDFPFFR"`H0;%ZHX28XE
MDJ%@!EP$4@>"!M0!!@L#MJ$'GP:8*",H,`YYP9[HQ#EH'G'JF^=$`2;I(I1)+
M2,`@&EQV@-$.))K`)\((Z4$11WILG(?)^@AZLLKZGJ0R2@B?O+%*%)G\DIYNB
M4$2Q&S"C-//+)K%$Z)R&WI2B!RG::8<;A.8\R"!U&CI''6C4*0A0A<Z1HM!Y4
MY'2GA_H,FL>=.$/J!Q\SZHC"A1$&(J@'A1)21\^#AFAG"(C:@8:AB>A4!IDZ#
MG8'L(L(XLE,@7%ZP_I"66Y[`@!<UKH%`&64,Z*>";_!(`0XX'''$V!J4`"2H*
M%Z(HXQH#NE"#CE$.<,<`!+KH9X)",&BG'R:^*"0&&6A1!H,$BN.@/`XX,$L>@
M2<K:@`/U(@"G#[F6"*(N2LJR]X].]H+B+1VB^&";;B#B1IGH^J$##`O@*>`4-
M44TQ0!D!3HGN"RT@Z.<`8^R0X;-^K`CC*F-$89EEUYQ8)F8]$L@CCP1V22"!1
M2'J0`8HPRM#F!3L$*0,>8^#Y@`8H!($"BC[*2``+.C`E"((8R/C!`I/*T$&'G
M?+]S8(4"."@F+*^:^<.!!<(KA@>S)&%%$B&&H`<!02+000MP!"%E`1[*_J@B6
M!BM@6>($.@H@X00>BCD``DH.P+0/0X*Z\`51;(*#`B4@V6$@1R'DIH$>G!GHU
M!`RT:-8D0#(9"$<E0Q*@'V6ZN.6,&(;4AB1#0#DAR=>W$8?++K5$TTHK@]=2'
M8>.?U)(>)IV/TGDE(22S>3&?CSY*9.+L=$_O#<+SSX:ZYU3/0CME%/QSY@&T9
MTT.E$*=0.6^<1Z!M-F`FQEM"(^A.&O6$QB]^42=H(&-/HZH(18Q"P(XPYR+=S
M:(<+..&L&`B$']%PH"F<D9@5*.$FCLA)3GQ"N:"4@0<#X<8!"O`!#(2B`2>PM
MPC$*`(59%*`=)`!%)D8A`V(8@`Y8Z,,@!`&O_@W895Z4X$$C_D"-/N2!!@YHX
M!@?\50&`P:(94)Q%$VU`#69D`1=2D$Z-U'&"0G"E"<,@B!!<\I)3@&0;A)!!#
M91K`!3<0XQ"XD$$BHN`L0+"LC\MX!"@>D8=E&",/NUC$S1+@@$C,0P=)*8,=T
MA,:?X12G&H+`F7=V031!%`(!RA@(%<`1!3<<(@O0`L<@"K87![RK"8UH@EX&K
MU@GT."`('.#!OP0@CW1@PAWS@,4';,F5_90!"PM0`2D@1PEEA`0O[M@&!#"@L
M#"$DH'[;B,`F^/@"2.@$#C7P1N>V`1T!G*`!#1@%,6YA@`4<@!05>D$:&O"[.
M"(7F!"=P`2D"X85#_FSB#C!@`SA@,0RJ28EY5L)'\YK7#856R4P*O9+U&,HD@
M,TF)(%1*DY.JM-$GJ:-/#<&30=YT)_1U;WQ28!_[X$<^^,V#4.?X)?Q0"IT\/
M`0I"`H&`#FB%"W[4LQLP18A#?B&J(:@#&:`B(#*X892E*H-AW/#(1M0!,6U@K
M(W48J,<DCA$#C"BC'=U0AC'P8"P]Y$0/-8`$4"H$!6A*`0-TZ,("[HF%!#`!^
M%K`H`!T.@(43)&`!,2`&+I0QB;PLX6[R$`!1)"&/"KP++K4!3WO^)2^S<``6%
MG4A;!&H#A2>"X@6$L$;KQ'$").@@!G'81X34(03)0``"D'&'0!A!BA[X_M`8;
M;BC#'FD%B3L`PK>B>,8=;I"+97S#%WD@;AX6@4A!H,`!.YB'(,)`@C)HPC?X+
M4<$7O@"%".1B&C?;VR!($8GA"`(+^>@'.!KSC-U]S;D.:`0LRB:6/RBQ&;)T/
MP-B*<19Y4($*Z+@1+/H0@7H)`AS@`,X*H/"%!&#`"H4([38D806!;``#_:`'9
M%-H1(2UHDU;:[*8>')$A;Q@#4U+``A(@$`$W$$(+)%@`%G;@HA<0PWZA&4$7G
M,'"[1&A#MX"(0D!A(0`P+<E)-C)>E)#'O"4W%'M/PL=!K;?1+3$IH53&4D6C"
M]Z5YG'0$!QG?F]K!*/:I(U%ZZL&9VR>%/G'/_LT%::E!%`*=/IEY'MT8"#UFB
M40(PN($$_),.)CQU$$R$ZA=+K0C#*`)5BT2$.<R9*@)T2RL1/"$:MW"!,S1HO
MIQY@``\4>,`#')$,)6S.62^PJJVZH0XZ8,!/KH8`#V#1!`&8@@ZQBP`=SG&`Y
M493A`X3%`BQ\6(`$&(`5NU1`O>#R1`=THFU%1$L%BLB!M,&E#[/)0WW-P`PWX
M].$$.^H#$J#0A%_<2("]@H!DN'&.D.2#"6Y`PCR"<`(W5($4AX`$(/X)@RC`T
M0!11^/<`'L&:078`%!U81!\4^=QY?(`)!:CN)$%!!.+TP0S%H8$@=,"U,D2B%
M#(@`Q78Q((8HD($9_J``1P*>&('S<"`LQ5A"(Z`XL+45H!,%:%M9AK%S:"X@3
M$@[@`3":(`BB:P$*0/R#%;"`@%DD`#2FZ$(^Z+``TO%`$`*!!0R"8F\80>)RP
MWX2#$IYQS08P`@';*$8?:+,`I:O@U'P(A8Y=@`MB*,(+DT;U"S8!`QCH(+5,Q
MPA27C@Q1+5TYHM"37O*0;"4N)[[(B,]2DZ@4IC0Y#\R7_Y[WU*&00>>)4$&M'
M:5`WQ;Z8DIY1Y+/SDB8`#V\`0@:@P=2-VJR.(0C03G\*X$0@TY%5K:IA%^%&%
M#_J!A2A8H%E1B`$67.`"7K!*@V`UA@9LDJQO0D+K%[J0,)#P@3%GX@3=_C!%F
M&+X*#0.X8AM2.``)$."#2C3``*,@`A*Z0(<E%$``T#`%%J#`@V&HA0,1H`8H_
MJ(;[*H8-J``JF!=YV`#WZ(1.@`OOR`,;`(]<*H8"@`M8P`(S.`%D$`=,X`9,6
MF`PA\,"'<8<PV`%(.`0DV`8>X`'MNC=1@(%\@X$^B@)(J$$":(-E\(5<R(-86
M\(58H`:$^X`^,`<Q<(8RJ(0#\`QL.`1P*`,G+(Y=(`4A&H1<V+B.(Z](\+@RN
M``50*(-!^``!-(,K*@`C"()BH(-W49N]6)NUB:7]D@1)\"]Q<(<$T`$H:(0T$
M%+`$`(</"(*FP#,!X(9AV(`/.(!9@`($L(9S_L*``J"$?L``-Z`5>RB$!"`#L
M;!`%"J``/=C$&A"%V((`4FB0@=@'2N"K+IB%4WL6.TB#/?*M4TN=H""#0<`"U
M67@=Z*&?>4@H7820^KB1X*$?Q+L2+,D>R$LR8G0>+-N2,2&3Y^&H,&F'+@NSR
MD&H'.6D(SLN3,MN\RS.?D8J31.F4-.L40M'&VD.?F\*P8I"&.^"$#R@'^R&(-
M,ON%/^&&(4"&0GL(9``^4F&5KFH8:!"^,-"&'=@C.W"!8YB$4!"!BQ"`:.P"\
M)9"^LM(#)4"K.\B["MF!`R"(/O@`9>B!`C@#AXD3*9B$"+@G#+B%$T``6-@!E
M<`@%`Y@$R6B`7X``_F+;``-H"Y6#HB8HAEJ@!%9@!2JH@`H("[YHNJ:!`@D$2
MN@V0AV&@`@A8@G`P`#O!!(K0H-;ZDY`HP1T0!9(XA`]0!QXX!O*Z!`L8@!JP*
M`)89@'\#!!L<`.)ZA&7(P6]8!G-@A$6HC><R`&+``"7<HR@`AZ89A.)PPJXI2
M@^`@CL1$A,3\0D'H`QJ@AF8@$,MZ%_&`!;59&[ZHN?;P27D9!GK`A#[0`52`0
M!<IL!'!P`*99@`4`EGXPA<0P`!_H`R8(`PRHA(*A@V$P@`\X!-\2@SY8`-Y\$
M@3O8"0\R%@IPA2'0`0QH2$PY`;^A`S&`)U6D3E4D!E8(G@BQD5_"$2A1_C(HY
M$3PM$8?AL9)BM)[S#!YAO!Z+FA(UZ<7*"Y/^416'N+WQ\2CSJ9'.,ZF$`*E-%
M\1]P;!_4:Q/XJ2?%,`.MT88SJ`?^Z08:J;T/1`9380A2>0A2B5!&ZPAHJ)]1O
M`+*@"`1>$`AZ(`$#@`:OZH8@D#YC^28*^"8+.35LT`)ZZ(=YP(`8XQ$L6($3^
M^`0RZH,#Z)$PL(9CN(4#`(=1P(!)L`(IP!@(X`96H(,(2`"]$,"Q(8L*B)O%'
MJH`QD+D(>,#:>*).H`MYD1?;@P9,:*/),(5Z%`>M-$&?R#>30()V^"50L`-2H
M&(!O2(8:J($;\(4;N(-\$X4;B,N8R0-?`(6[_HR%!$`!**`&8]C+`I@$8VB6'
MKV2B0?`:1BB#7"`:+8R$Q5S,3(4'*NR#:J`&\,"L=WD7KQB89C"#!4@`OF`/I
M7**$.:2'$[@$J(F`TBS-)D@`1.P*6-`J=T"``R`L#)B`",@$.J`#2CB%"%F`)
MWJ25`3`&&1`#K0.X&O"%G3BK0O!#)<2%V+&"%3``E*'.RJF0RCD$>.B#$OB":
M#YB`6[217X22-3TR*:.']"R>AY*RA6J\)O,2Z2G/9ER3BDK&)VN(I6H(AE"'+
MI=H3./D\`.V4^$$(D.H>E!I'\%$(E0*]BA6C.X,45J`!B]2&&#@&>"RSVH.,`
M`EK8A%VJ`G(&"H4J_J<*B5EQ%E)P@7#9A@:XA3I1E$Y@41#2`SS("4@PU]39,
M`5A0AA$X``-X(5=EB@8()G"XA7)H`"RHM`6(!B@8A6C``*EI``'X%66`@`DPU
M@UC0E_;8`#F,&Z$TP$:(`"Y]"\[:"U@B"[0PA6N(C(R9#,/@!FARD`205##H'
MK=[*`@M`@L_A`D*XMVR%!$@8`#T8@-X"A`$@A!T$)!Y\C498AD3*`R/8`6X08
M!!+@`2+PK2C0`1M(`'@0A%CP.!V`!RV4ABTD#DM=79PQ@[?-K_P*"_'X`UUP$
M@#`(@-O="_9@P;2E@B>!`CD@!8MC.5QRW@(0!`,P@,8IJAB+CTGH!U80_@0K&
MP#/[@8<?\P91HP`]385O`+G48)D`^,R\V0$L&`)PP((&L`)-J$Y:4:MG$0`4U
MH81]>+QXY<Y?.BCDH5=[W9*&4C+F&<;L,>##4\\DRY+ED1X[&1^&#;,\V13PX
M`1^*W4^1VI,_N1/H")0`W=CN.91#"8D(X0%$4(5GP850&`C/J;,.KE"$916E\
MP@BH<H9M&((9<Q89X(62O84W6`"&<(>9$%J;>("PTP-14,6_M`8K6#\L4`>,0
M:0!YP(LFX`$FH,T/4`0Q(`8&P`((&`4H:(``$$LU<@EE&`),X(#C,$#_ZC__#
MH@)Y:(N]*-5%*M56NDD($`+I%5LTU5ME*&(=_DX`4(`$6J&5.[B#DH`!7)B'%
M(=@&4-"&,G@&7QB`MO2%;[AD,)A<43"&<3`&0,H#'/@&:E@&:H`BSW6'6<""$
M+B"%9@&$0]`"Y,@%</A4XM!"QK14</".MQ!>L6&/^BJ&@2D`+J4&7^X$>*$$^
MS]P&*R`&-@B01<H+7.(!GV0"4IC1+NBI;5@"8.B''CB`!D4<@@`E9=`Z6OD"[
M0?`%4L,)9$D!/:V!7*@!%Q`(5H#2!H""3)!B02"A6+S?H/@!JE&2>]U.7^1.R
MB+J1)G&=8YS7YAF>[/'78@03!U8HY8F2^'0>`[)/T)N3C3Z?<=P\-D,I.0.??
M`>T>;.18A0`5CB8?_B7!L'"`!XO<A!W8'W@<)X,H((NX",A0M(V066X@!G]"Q
M-5QP`1?Z@%$8!5/H`8*X!*'5Q,S1'*(UUSW"AE&8T05H@E*A"%<X@#!PAP8(A
M@E/P(2P8.F/JAU_H2"D8`BOH@C4R!0C8$WFX74H0AV'8!_]BA0T`!K?="_!P^
MBV;;+R$0`CY.-S0M[(B`$&?P`3^E$!>Y`U%H7%J1`7%H`'J@4R(XA"5VW&78$
M"9_HHV_X!N):!DN``E`8@$4XI$:(S#*`ADKL@D@XOE@6A`]`,-F]Y3(``4Q5"
M.[F%5<Q2HD8(B_I:0VJ8A;`A7GE94PCH`S<0!3LH@U$P;@Y8`@Y@@@2`_@)PG
M^`)8"(-"4`.!6"K!R`0-[8,PZ`=*Z`*K<18M,!,JX`$S`(=E2`8X2(&:$-\!E
M>(4$F(0&<(51^(`$N`8K..=3^^<[X`)4:%8R*9-?_*7Q7'#O%+SE<6CQ#.`(;
MOVCSG&CB69+K*6`O:1[)DQ[I&)\O&S/O&?$QLT\]&?$R<RGN1''\;!^(G5A,1
M"#U.T;P&Q90)&`1FH`%F"(8S<(70&(@&]9X:WNF7+5%E:*/$H`-2D"1LD`$L=
MP(`W\($PX(4#D`*IT)!-/,ZN?%%$GH-CV(83Z`*.,`7RZ]I^X`$,@(9ND(IY"
MB(/E%`@H:*$2+?/0,0"*@("BL@)6%D3_HH0@_C`"OF!5!W3`/^"`_N(5;MB(M
M=!,`35,W:#B'?A``15CD%49D6F$92,B"0R`%=Z`#=V@Q+7B&LQ*%#.G3?`,#M
M&!@``@CM7(B%-JB!9W"`'G0+<R""(6#E!CB89P&R00@BQ@3VW$ZE:WL+OJ`YY
MX(8EX5Y5+O7M_:J`SZ11,;`.,G`#'?B`"/B#","E!2`$#-@&;C@A6"`$'W`%Q
M*7`%A&2"<"Z`+[BP<'"!2E"!+-@$$+7I;<`'>2@&,\@%1/"%L'L`/%`"9"$$\
M8_B`$YB'!.""RFF6^^6"/[@&,,$P*'&'B1_/1L&17*0?\JQ7"#\>XK&1,+EH$
M@85@`V:\7KSH>Z42_GK`/)"B$X3H`3H!E18OGYK"X`L^B!@N:>@PB-K#Z1FW^
MST2IIPCAWP+(`C!(`QD@@7=DT&T@E1[@AJ*`B(OPE>#;AB[`!1C!!@:X!1$(U
M!2@W@#`@G2FH@2164<WQ!HLT5T2.@LZA@TE0AS16ADKX@&XP`%AX34Q0AFZ`_
MA0/H6FIU`^G*!`.0@E^I-76S$PC@5020WEHH9KE(#P>XK/VB@L%N&&Y`T\N_`
M,W78`8L$@T-^`<8`@RRX@V2`!!5`@FZ@A&UP`]RR@[.$!#U]7!B0W&\HWT%=P
M!E$XA$6(A0XX9G/X@E]8`%B``"0XOBCX@J[1@5P`=MQF!&O/@\?$8[4)_N;?[
M#HN!N<P%,`/?=AM)8`=T.(`=(`12`@5-$(,A;+8%P"7U8H!S4OP/`(11.($8<
M&.,%>)Q>E2N!,(#-MX`%F)Y&&1,@!XAMVR0UV55&3PTX&D0Q2"`.@94R+R:^J
M`%218@.!`NG-<Z?.G3AWY]SU<#?O)$=Q'3F>G*>2(\MM\V#.;%D3Y4R.`N=M(
MH^>39D]ZW7[VS,F3)[VB+.F]E(FOIKIV4=M)B:HNJA2I6:]6K2JUQU6N8=55V
M!7L5K!1W4CJ.G:<.VJ^Q5Z5BO3KDJDV!_>C)ZR-*U8LTVD;=&]'O\.%M/;RJ8
MX^:,&S1D\_H5DG-HHK9;9TZHZ=&/QZ1^*^"0_B:=@D(-;X``';(X,<HA38`VP
MT^GA3)DR`P6@8#C&`X.U+I,,'"@@XAD7**,.;!O%H,<04Z=R3S(UY!<W4ZP69
M)`A0K("#3@'^A/_3J)@\2=FY95=FZKU[`Z:4J=NF;L>=B:M?@.'_(LL+D*0&_
M"A+;T#'$%U\0<TAJHM0@R@`#``+)'8!$^$TN!"RSS#<#4+.(("@XX,`.[A1`U
M`C?@'((-(&7T,8@.9<@X8RYEY"*((+OTD8<#"9A1GCD<-,(!D1P40%XS$3@0]
M@7D\4"*)/`L0`XH;;K#Q!1>$B-%''V8DN40$$:@"2")RV*'(`(2,`@4I2"Q@$
M!0]=""'`$J$9(,<F_H28LLUA)JESG3LQ;7283_(4L`LA4-"S!"7TP$.1:Q-MW
MP@6?1<6ESB_B2*%22^*HQ&FG3-5$$ZDU%<6I3CZ-NI%,VX@CZD\IR>334$C-C
M6JNJ/2G%$:;MN"55.T-\U4X[T$PU%5U425'5/%21]:Q8BZE3DK302C4$,F$Y(
MZZQ<7.75$SX;])$,()MLHDD@9QQ3#V*(;=--#R?UL(T[H]AS646WD'"&,_UT:
M<PH)V\12@Q)P/*`'::E%D<@'']@Q$0QVI/&"&V'<,@\TRD!S#"QT!`$%%@@4C
M%\,"E!B`BQB)Q,%$`\X$PD:Q&9LB@'S(8,(>)L/($P$XU)CQ1S,<=/)'_B?%&
M;"#)+Q#`!X$S[SEM"C?BR,2(*A5.!`:`%-UQAX.0@"+#/(V"8@<IA(@"R0`4+
MH*T'(**X_<R%H'#HBX?F+.,S-9&T@P$LF`@BS`M1Z`".#KG`4T8D,QX^^"!]Q
M0+'+CPX4T,CD39P'"P=$.Y"DEYV<1\G.8AA3AA9$4(GEE3`F`-XTL,ASAQMEC
M$&)!)$S`R0,X&+3C;S?;_+(``OWT$3@&[0K4C3A7F>2.23WUGM@VIB2PC14%#
M[/6H?A2]($=]`BF/Z54A=>323)R">I+Y-;TTJM0HT6043+HJ1;ZJ0N$3U*A)>
MX0334$D%I2L]@(659H7%6%8QEC*X\2>J<*LJ_IHZQV+0\A5US(-9:J'@6:(2,
ME[L(D"Q@T8H!YX*M>3QO([(P`Q$,L8F)V((!+GC"M-K5K@80XQDK?`$V+':&V
M4)P#"\%(0`-B08$'4``.>G`$'@AV"!D@00;&@,$+#I$(0@""&$P8A0&@T0[V#
M!,$*]!(`+"*`!2@L(`XG*(,;(N:%.6A"%5PP!08:``W'F`("'QF"$+CA$4Q0*
M`@J"D)P1AE2,)V%':>^!`'L@<`H!9.<70_&!1?+#'U5D`3``@@0D'#0#4&AA;
M'J;H!A'L4`88/`@A$/H&VIZ!-C:DXAL:6L8K!K`(!\2"1]3X@A0P<`!W?"`*H
MK"F#(,K`B!G)"`2,_L@1%*!``Q^%IP`%"&0!B&2Y(X7'!A$PPP+^4(`%].$+J
M%OC"![A$"BY\@11?($09$L"E/\2B`?T0QQUV<(`XC`(6\Z!#\"*`"V7T@UXF$
M,47PII&%.]S`&'V8A#+RP:=^;J0C(;D"/=+!`VCTPP`+V`8E/L!/>@P"&]FC.
M"#'ZZ19,.=0CFD(?^5*:OI3N#R6>>A]*2S4378TJ?SG1'TO<9Q3\Y02`,IF6R
M5:2BQ<AP0RJ0R59CHF(L8AVK*F*I"U;.099ST`6#W0K6+ZH*U+%<AQLV^\403
M5**7Q,CB#V4@QPU5$85@R,`%&)C$,=K1C7J,(@J^I$@@K'$+#(R@FSJ8_D4"H
M$N((1Y#&$;[0@R]R(;<.1`$,;B`"$@XA!B8L(`;#4<8Q3D"';G3#&9,XP`J@E
MP`L#].,#4)@%*K0P#2C*H1^4F(7&H"$`9YSD%WL4@A"&L0]*["@.YZD`._:!1
M'2$<,I&Y4<8U,"&0!,`@/Q;I#QA4$=W_"`@2WKB#&&0@!>5&P@XR<$,-:J`'N
M"B"$`&@3!0QNX,H.;6@<A%B$.:C1@03L8@?S6``6W-$'"P`B"L`DIHP&,4QP$
M.`X%S%R!Y#I1),LUX@_FZ$28H)"`'B5@$*#0`10B\84^S&(W%Q;$%R(1@0(,#
M8G5(Z"<5`#&'$\!B`:2E0_$*8(?00"".ZJ`$_C@04(8[",@;2E""'G:0@"`,.
MP5T:.<DV!&$,*/!@>CP0`Q)"0P\=>-0BS]T$+/KICK@@U20N"<E(4*H2DZ0/D
M)++"24KCY]*;Y%0H/:7?3&JUTURU:J9#P55/?<)4K1@5J`(,%C*,552K=$6IB
MTNI!.SXXED+/A3%;(18RJE)48#G+6%G%EE1N=I5?2$$H[L*'/*3!!AA8Q*,O2
M:$44;*&('03B$(>(@JD!<8!;B(!CLX""`1)@L&3H(1E.R$4N.N`)3^1B&4]\S
M@3V($0,DJ"`&+%X`!L+`'0QL0PI(:`4IZ)``+_9#$%"8P#8@L(0HO*`*AX%Q8
M%V`<ADE,PB6_$`(B_C$A#GSLHR\T@,4&AN&.8?SB9E##!"+AX\AM8``&D``$L
M&,``B/Q$]P[]407:O-%<4!!#"A#HQQ<.00H5A!<U>M##`-`6\@&`@@`=,L8CX
M\@`*:IC#'+&@1GW%L0!8B&,4%@A<&08!X``C4YD35M("&DRYS#7#/$IZ7!]VZ
M$<P_)&`4LS"#($`QBI(M0`M^Y$(T/E`&,40`%K,(#3M@$(5*'"`"&5G""?I!=
MBBB$9@%HCTYH_N#<MB5$`QJ@P#?RL((@2,%X_<"'%5:`!`/P`,2"H,->J`RI.
MB3"`H5(-2_(^11(RDUE\)R'S^#[%YO+=I'PRF<=35&735Z7DIOTK7YMM_E64^
M_\WT)R.-"E79TPY,"-"`R,"6L(*:E63I?EI>J>!5SN'4L1@P6$$]X)\TV.>W)
M8`H:UPDA!<>Z#7S(H@E0D(8%+%`A2?8'AQ3!QAK8C05HO`<!C/#%,O3@@4=8=
MH@-M6$8><``*D%O$#<2`PBW`00PZ"*$`IS`%'<0!%FR#`>P8(6#!!Z1=:;F8!
M*]!!(9";N4$#!F3"!'0!!L2!%H@!!J@#P,$;-V`")JC#,+!#,?1!`C2!`=@16
MIN"1OTG'$/`$"307A?S'=$770&5!%HB"'D#"#&2!&\C`.6!"-V2<[*"&@WP<-
MVGP#>D7(#0R`*&Q(L<'7(N1"CX"".BQ``8C#_FKA7.$<3BY(0R[H@"`T#@TL6
M`A2,2">`1W@X`'ET0GB8@3J!PS`AP084`!5L0)@L@"#`PP?8#@\L0`20PMC8H
M`2[X@#)T0P/$02'0PQ]('0;T0<?0@13$P#/,`>)M0`)@@!001S]4@#=1!!C<C
M012(@D(\P`-\PS=``0E40-_U4Q@(`@*$`19@0AD40A?LA43HQVI@0R(P%/C$U
MQ4@QCSI\RC""Q.693_J<CTNA"ILQXU+4%$>$'C2Z!$N\A$^LGORTWC4&D%5H?
M2P<Y&K$H$+!(@00U&I]%10\L1@=1A50Q6F2<Q9]MA5Q$6ES`!?/-$;$P5;P\S
MCT_@`SO(`RR8@0YD_E\=K%"D!,XD-``6C,('+$.Q"=N&+,,@Y((Q#$`NM`$CM
MO!^Y1<$.9$(7=`,C,$$^$$<#M`,/+$$W2`$6L$$9T$$?Q$`H]``L'(`5O*(.&
M'((*S$(W3,)R'(,@<$$9(($=:($KT,/-8$(>?>`P+.4_.D`?5`("9!$QL@<T]
M\,0)1$&%S*`->M1`;<T=>$-J-%<D?,`\-,`\E,$SD`)X[:!X^4+;(`0J#L`W1
MI,(-@,(C;`A\-<(RF(-!0`-^8<('7(;&Z8`.P`.,Y`(2"$+2)0`41,X"K"%XD
MK`#E+$D"@$,9<`$H$$$<V*$="L`?1,`"0($8AH$!4$*+P8,."`-'DD(8_I!`&
M-#`!."A#%QB`%7C=$EC#)!!#%`A#(E@!BO$)!%3""?1!&3`#%&G/'22$*?X8^
M'B@!!0@9`FB!#V!`-!1"`U`!.-CB])6!J;V`0:8!-'C/IL6%;9T#6Y#/,(K/Y
MF-G$2Z1/2C!%J<#$J]34JY`>Z$TC-,J4Z`F%Z_G/-4H%517+LSC+[DD!55V'O
M@&[+L@BH4W707-!%M22+/`;5.F8%MD2%`KW%[66+5PT59'"#,@2:.D`03RP4A
M<):!!8R)]DP$-D3#$U@#*,1"+NS"(W1`']1(1#KD(^!`ASS#1`@#$8S")/2`S
M`9#"">1#`[C8),""0+A#9:6;()!")H1!-"`!_BG,`2F401SHT@%\`"Y40C+M6
M@#``@@Q8@P!(U:7,`P3LPU)2`2M0@AL*0@R$P0D(@!2\"T_T`QW<@,-QS=9$Q
MU\.%HBA,2#)X`R9E@3&0)27T`!$<@NR(EX,85B9]@QXLPR-80"H,``$8`X?`<
MWR+LP0Z80P)$@CHXTSQ``1N\@#`,#HX,@B"``S@\SBS00#68@1L.32?`PN0P,
MG1GTP2C$R!>H@-7!`@]40!!`20',0AF-0JS2@0&T&!1<0\95P1P0@SUL`C&$/
M`0+$`#A\``,$0R*H@":0&R#,F)$M`!)\`#C`"".0FFLD9PU00'-JP`/\F-T!?
M@AR$4Q]@@0Z8%A,@_AX^8,]'O<`9]!,];-FEQ(5(%&-Z4I#E?<I*D<_Z,*/$F
MTL13H-DSQB?\M!1,I%XTUD]/$!J'"E4W)HOQD6RB107M?=!2(=I73"BB)14#R
M:8L\,M!2J4.DS5ZQ>!7NW9[LT1Y[.`,T1(8S[*RW"`0^V``SD`&YK6@:&``)C
M`*4'+$,D(,+[Y<$N+(,3+`,!L$&I51E'QD`#A(*!7((56!PL8,`"R%59T@$$B
M*$,?),(A"$,PR`&6HJLF:($+R$$@J((=8!@M``X#O&0#N,.[N(,R%(`!4`$[.
M2((";(#1;(`9;!T2D%T7\%,7^*C"3<C"+5SW;8VAS@!"S."%M8,<E8'&_H'7`
M`'@#8NV@#HK7,D3(,Z1"^@W`,N``->0-S!G#/!0`!HA#!'P!-AR"8C:."2Y37
M-?B(&7R"Y.RJ&T8`8^((.%`")22`%KB!#E1"$`B`/'"`/`A`(X`FFWQ``F!!<
M`[184JA`%"#!+,R""D`1M?'`!Y#"`*3!*A!#QMV!,"B"._6#FL8!&90!%/0!<
M(Y`O(FQ"TP)"0H@7:1!`,#F!!CR#,8Q"`T#!"5""U16"E('#P'JG)E@#H;C#K
M[?T""8^$1[B$25T>"JOG2JV/2SR%"\>4^G#>4X3>?,8G\O!G39W*1N0*42S5Z
MG_W9L=SLMI"%@P*+65#:7&A+!G5CS98LR9Z#_@(%&C+\PARQ!S)`1K%LT5%!R
MPV-\L6,X0PS]0C@4`SR0Z_=A$1<00`?D00<L0P<@%AP0C*&"07=.Q#/0P@<T0
MP"G<Q0G$``)(@2D4@!AU00-`0)&=3!1L@AC,@0I\`8:!`RE@@#98`!?\`!+$\
M@0$T`3R4*RZ$9`61P"@0`UL5`.BPP@9P0#%0SC0$$QNXP0Z,0B$$`W\`"(^]Q
MP-8,E$>!@8#,P.M>UPN``BZ4I3*@K@R``EB*U^B*5PU8I!-<R`#<P"LM`@I$=
MPB*`0R3T`!8LP#X(P@^HJ@XX#N2,R.8$P!H^+_3V`3@(PC1$0``T`3#X3@#\)
M)!+007H8ZY-8`1;,_L(7R!--]@,5($`#T`$59<)AW.0F(,%=1((Z(T$,L(D=Y
M;`*^GH`K-$`0?$#L0,$Z*],N?,``F`LN%Y$1*80,](0\0`$\3`,Z;$,`4&\#E
M]$$$^"8]C,**!@X"RT&[]=,PG`-8V=:(>L0P9M[RC(3X4!Y[G@0^4"Q-J,3%M
MO@^IP"<U4J.J2&.J%$7KW9125"A74-56:-'Q;<4(0+$''0NW`$M6S<4'98L0*
M"Q6P<!"R7,6@>946!TN'!IHS(,,7JT/1.L-M2$4W',8""(-$>Q\VV,(DZ$`L>
M9"UJI`98D@9J`(*IL<@+_``Q".D6*\-P6L,0/&L"+``):%87A($8M(;<_C(`D
M%$0#.(P"$N!"%!!"%%C`*%@#)G2!(-@5*8P"*30`!B!!<ZD";,=`!#PND2`)5
M<6J8"KQO?RS<?^1R%BR<1ZD"6";G'`_`#+R`,0C")D(#*3BJ/;B-QV72`(!<W
M#3S".'R#!=`-*BX#*"Q"`G@`?7W!-FR3%EY&%`B"&9B!DB3)8X8)]&)3,JGSI
MZG"`*?"`%9B"2]"!#C2;)+B#)-PA%<B")/R!((B!%A"#(HS",53"*&`!!O#7Y
M!_2#*9`"J9V8`=@!+WR`(%3IJ_G2'"0D'<P",$$!BM.``^0!%.2!-#S#S0'"S
M2(^7!H`-H?"`./33`D@-/?3!`B#>D2_>15B$_AU@`?2DA#C85O*8U#D4=5&'D
M&3)*+)S%U`VG&?O45%13-5"8BJF<GL7.1%9!D#K2;,F^N56`A:)!J!&/*#GR5
MGE5XQ+6H=>X)D%HO,86&X!8W!C)0<=$6"U^W@]#>-=,D4&3P20S8U0WA%1>PV
MP1T@`C@@,VI0@",@C![<`39XE$=M0A70`@4?`XA>`S=8P0(<@"D0!Q:$S"2<*
MP"@0@AWX4G]U*T-6@6.U,C,<WD`C012`PR]@-!V0P@2<0`'`PVGAKSQ`+GC`;
MPA]``0A\`>(0P<U5A"0M'(!D`21PI=L(R'CIP75%`BY(00,(@!9P@CDI07@U;
M,]=\W(.`0K&)PC,L_@,BK)>!L<`NY$$9](.NB@.J!@XX1,``[X*$.<!C8L$?3
MP((`4$$34$(Q8&$3\$`#4`(/&,!)\`!QCL(2'$`05+QN44$C"+O<$@(L1X$B>
M5`(3:`'%\4,#E`&!3`8I),("@(/5[8!W6H0,'$8!:($.H()&OZ$ZRR$96`0D.
M?)P>I(`>:``CE*C_N$H`_$(_[,,'+("438/V6,2KO08#8$`H&(9&R(2G,&Q(2
M?$I)%*/$:M[9O_#F==Y\[D\T1O4SDOE0[$3'YME+)<5_TAZP<#6EM0-2!=7-5
M"I\`>456&.BSA#5292C.-F@]9E56&>A:D_4!L4=1%=50!=I0"2U>%U4"_O'U1
M?$S+`B""7;F&J$,,%M##!R@!'I1&IY-[ZJ]&%8@!%F71?)@"-"0B"9A,$`!/'
MO\#"@@`"$1Q.PTR#UE4!$5@\*1!B'R``$\0`P`@#*5#"#KA`B_$"$Q`!]4L"L
MYFA.)]B`#@Q3C)"!?D@2C^4'U^"0*KC[$2*,*-R!,0`A)3C#=E\OI!HAA("<Q
M*&"($CXA0"`"->#;+FJ+H.R*U`X6$P."W+R(`LY!!#,+_G"0!T'=OGGTMHGCT
M88`2K`)3&AB80@G"O&Y4^C!3(2,&I2418.';QV%:ED."^GQ1<8=8C`]Q3C"9?
M=&J)E7(-7`B3`0N)#"A:+$39M"G0@FA($D2`_M*G48$_U,#E`5>&C*H7=_0X"
M<N2+@A)&0[;-<Z?.G;MY#NKU$P>N0(-M^\J\4`SHQ2%45]DPWJ2-5)A0VS!GI
MGC=/G#MQG?5V_J5.7`_/ZCBG]OQ9'+W-J3?3$_?:M>O8M#^V_O@1)+W>VWSGB
MQ0QR,_!Y>7WWYJ:NW:]V4MH-::>.&S+FTM7UD`)-'7?HS,&'?]Z._'1UY[.?D
M-X^^';?OZZ?'9_X]//?KR(8@@]:^'31N[9R!!ID``VQ'F0.Y,27`XUC18A/%C
M(%1,BP+HZ6<!)6J`0T,]X*@!D@BULH.842;I[Y13CA$"@@86P"*E$Q8X@!\,S
M=A#FA0-X@&*4#Z`0_@2)&.S`108O&F,`%R1P&44;-K0811A-Y*"%%%(.B0()M
M"+30H0`'%C`C@@3Z&,1'-EX``Q`P%+O#0U5$J0$;;.Z@@`)O,J0@&27N^(*4W
M(1H00`M.=)"C!CUJ$`62-B$AJ,U'"!!%E&\&<&2`5);999`\!@'EA`1J&@44]
M;-(@01P(?AFFFVWZV6:OO>89AH<N;$)@10$,L&(=O?:!P@(RB,#%@!YTF`,D%
M<18P1`XZ&H!"!ZF06$6.)(\<!1=B?D@C"EP*0.+'64@A)(H7R%A%C`BPV#*.'
M1OYP(($\:!`D$E7.%&6N1Q[P10-B\'('$VY^<:>;!1`X()T$,*"D'RK`_F$C#
M"L8.B0$!'NA80!`BF''K!7NT"*.!?E(=CK//^B*-+[[..2TTSDCKZ[/-6)N-3
M9=AD<TVWW7@[SK?C@`.NF]YV`RGGX&K[*#[SN)/O.?7`>Z^'^*0`[VCZX$,:L
M:?G.L\\\IOM#&IKWAJCNO^6XX68_:*!QAAMG`&SN[`2=,27L[/KYA13&(`0$6
MBE]0[8>.&92`@P(--10%&\6P6?B0$4]0@YMC###%%&6N,:4)#!!H@`Y8$("B'
MBC0`.:$;#%#Y('1P/GB!,4`.R?(08>S8)`I2[-`$$!AHB8"2`]@X'(M(F'%@X
M2XO,2,",,-U0!0Q5C'\!DC7;3),"0@?U1@]O_L``!5]Y0M'A$%*^H+-0,!(%H
M)%%1!F`#$C8&&`"17`[)91EJWJ<FD@8*:.*7".9XP8X&B%.GU,[.]@N.B*,"R
M#9@"'9;0@`90P0`-@(`4NK$/'8A!!79X!BX*(88J5*`)F(#%'=QP`$K,X@.'#
M8``2#H$-0&CB$&DX!!F^H)@HC`(+.B!%#"*@!3)\BQAEL(I)`F"&1C1#7;OX(
MP"#>I1A1I,`)3$P!'F2@#L'\8@BC$<>7(A`-<O&@'Y2@!#(*0`9A?,`:DSC`@
M)Q"01BR,@@CD<$L4O("$,'2A8\-Q3<CVLH^]B"-EL_'+;$H&,M5\+#>RN8UM`
M:G,S1=J,'CO["'(>_HFSGPTG9],Y!WF84[3S?$<*Y]AD=J;3M%`:K9--$V4/_
MU-$T]J"'.:.QCG7*,Q_F8,UIU/F%?H8@A/;XISJ\_)I_S*8,9RA#",IPFW\P#
M`XMO02@*/G-'/QH@"@W\K09U@@0@!B?#0X@A$P?PCRD,H(Q3',@4$+!"BUYUH
M.:QDP1K=.,`T^J`#H\1@,5Z(`3<P0`HDD"(*,+!#%>)PB,/%`1FF*(,%N`"!4
M"$0!"@4P0_`@.CQ0O,!X=\B"\MJDIAI<%!(4J"8<IE?-.X#B$N<P@`"0\`-2'
MB$$4WFB>].X`"3T0X!N%6L8RO@&*10Q@$<LP1RSRT(A!=`,"!A!'`6+H_@9K#
M`$<<5<2$.#"!#$QTIS-"$$`#*-$`2;!")15`3:M40`@[<.$+VR2$&$BR#5BH#
M@A`D,,`"P!$%&43C!XI)A!MTH*T8'`(0F_!!`FSX@5&(`1"L^Y$@PA*!!3B@;
M"9TP`Q3R,`I!@,)&8!A`"ASQ",QJX`/'J:(5Y[$`T9*"8)/`Q!)0!8M5(.$``
MDT!``0X0VP/0@0XGB,,'VOA&-R`!`QNKH\Q6=1X^NN,<J0$-:V`S&Y#9AF6(]
M;*YKC*.SFT7WD3OSF,=ZDQQZJ,.33OM/*KDKRZ-=+3OVD1HFEZ;*$8AGJNNQ5
MCR:C8QVM[2=IY/D%=[P6MEW^1S]HJXXSS.8,_@B4;9@*<D\_3G`(TTFF!]N0B
M`C?FH8X;3+,&??.;*,"0S4T`P@YR$`$)&N",<([8F,K@A@%6$($#.)`.LR`'P
MB0I0AJK@0@>5D,PAM%&($T"A1V1XP2;"L(U9L($4<?A%`XC!AEEL`PK,T)(#`
M'/!0:IC!`5"(3)KN``91P"4+-1@`1_7@43U,SU!9B$1GBXH$.Y#"&%Y>W@NB%
M-P!?0.\;CV#4`-J@TPXL(A>",(<Q^N&:802`"%E(!!=;]8M?1!43F!C-,/1B^
MBI1D51SH2`<$N"&.4]$#%*HXQ"WHH#U`D*(W2[B#)C!@A4KT`08,B($*&#.'Z
M.8QB`7&PP[>B\`$L_D1@%@M``C/<\`4=0"$!6%@"+"+`@2!PH")]V(4@!J$P.
MT]5`LW+Q!1X*`1Q]^6\S"]C`">B@X@(LH`?]8((;/N!:$A0``ZU%``G:/0EK#
M(``6<*6%!>X`B"@D(F,&X)AFZ'&:/7+&,ZD9ALM6]K+4R`;A,NM9(F.3W9TU.
M<KK2M2/.?!9A\52MN)BLY7M2B4I1,@V\(Y=:*N'C'/!V!QDJQ^1WD-&>5MJ'2
M7_YIAW[XTY\>\))`9P.FVQ1D3&0@^!D1`H04MG$VZK1)0\_3T#6S625AV&,4?
M&.C"@91A@&,\+IS**&@!H$`";@BA`;#H$2I&`05X<*H2,N3$"]Q0"!Z#_H.%S
MAT@$%I1Q@#C`@A)8$`0L,#`'@0J"`T%L1@1HX#LH=/HM9WK!#""1C#N(`@Z`L
MR((H""6]S-^!*'V8!P2<H0,1@4*F'@(#!>BBAV_HX0XP<,(XED&^;RQC$8LP(
MQS)B00U0X&P?"_A"%NQ`1W'\@AN-KHZBW?%H29S4<BU1AQ#\4AM0;&)_\Q!$6
M%*)`#)\U(0MSF$072&@!8D`!UB_8P1=B,(L8$`)"H\#,$CZ@`E)\0,9Q2,`2=
M>-"))G"`!XU8+)AR@11$X4$@P1<>`0=20+/@H``";:JFBC,6`!ED8Q8^80%.)
MH1^P`!1P@7)B"P,*@`2P@-[@+6`F81+HX``*_H`)IN$+1"$+P&#?2*$0Z*ACJ
M`NXSOLID_$*/DLNX%D[A@N8C)BZ1,,-FD`,SK`LX*,Z.?@8DV$,*G)"\YH-J#
M\(N\1"GDU`.5SD/DLI"[W*$YH'`ZZ*N6XD/EP$-`N@89WJ9HVD,_!B1MQ*;GD
M3"QL'$>*K$`3%L-TD"YLMD$`!D`)"$5#OL&CT$0QGB$*[,`-M(`$3D$*2"R<-
MQDF8N*$!L"`!%N`$&L`4Y`$65B`:!"$:L("$&",*?@`4H``6!.$#D``&HX`3=
M[`$<*@$*L"`F[&&9#@$<FH!+'BH"'*`3_B`2+"_+TD2F(,$;!L"BQF<&0(H"T
M#&4&K&<YI.`#"(%[_F1*%``!+@CE>6I`3;YA'$!!#WPA%YQ@$5"@IW"`SQ[,Z
M``8MA@[!"OIA'KB!5,:.&Y*/^,)&12B!%2"`(R"@G$9F&^"!#`CA#2"`%+*"R
M&(8#%K)@%;"`#J``'`YA!Z+AULR/"#Z@$F8!%[0"$%R@'VZ!%%3``OH@`>"!W
M1V8A8H(`%OB/`\XB`78!"1`!^Y3'SBQ!LU(`#B8A+X:`"I#ACPK`%+;A7VAKU
M&Y;@"WP@MCX!MD"0W4@`%@X`%M8-MB9A"0I@$GC@`&8!'$`!!K)`W^S@`U`EB
M,T+B%U!FX-Q!CQ#N+%_FN`[IX6R&-XCC9AA)NAYIDGQFNYCCDM"#OLA#_I2*?
M1I/28SQ6[AR@!I5Z``O3@Y40$Q.\L):@X9*P`[QB3AWVQ3IL[CK(8S_0QC_4F
M`6WTXVR$:9B$28H:P`Y-1R*&0!R<(96LX!F\`0ZD!PZ4P*,@(9N$01B(@1!D7
MX!;V(^MXDS<=)^N"X`!V#`L,`!J$0`@F8!:$C02(@#&>@0CB8!LH@10$@9_DY
M0!#LD,.00/V^P`(JB#$(`0IX@`-@`<IXT0&"H`R^A3'NX"UFP!?HA/4TRJ7TH
MX`&F1Q6R0`P801F*2@OL8`>XX%!F`'S&#*0*)5$>H0-4SP"78<]P(!=BP0PNY
MH?@P81B0JC$FH1_<(6RX`7(<;='"9E\$2`"H_@,"C$ELH&$>^J$,W,`-,*`?M
MH(`,B.(KUXH0SH`A4S$0R.]!Y@`<8B`31J$/R.0%=)060$$%5``*9B$!>N1A$
M@J`)@F`#BF%+HBR>CG1A!L`2@"`%VB`%:I*+H&K14F8!A``S%N`3:$L,/J`0;
MPL",L.`3F!(%PZ```@;P/I`I0?``@H`.;B$%P>$+8,!TB.$``B,SE*N/_.+@;
MD&LU_H@'G^MF\"$V(A7B%`D)8\/B@`9HA$;CAF8Y5@D:R-!JPB,\M$,P"_,\K
M!/,\YD$+46DZ#',]8(DZUF.6O`L_WB8^\L/FMN,_W-#GVJ&8'*=MH`&:2/-T9
MD"'IH&$;)N$.O.%Y_KQ'&-\$$+3!$(E!UQH`&L#I&,9)ZTXAG*#!<I9@$FKH(
M`Q"@Y2"`"IJ@1W9`,39A#DZ@'ZQ`!S[@^DAK%:)`&`YG$DP!'`1A%,K@0>Q`:
M$,!!!R*@`,P"/8LA`BS@!2Z*,2[O$0I%#V;@\KQA\N)B`%HJ/P4!&@R@"WS`(
M#8B`"[+@4%1A!L(LS`YT``C`$I;!%VCJ$=J@`R[A$7)A$6+A%#9#""(@AM*`1
M#@*M0]\1;);#;82@BDS!"DZ,0TU4T_Q1K+#`0JJ$`8:C"4"H36=!!NZ`ZI@!M
M3:I`L&8A#II,%:(`'I"`"+X`%.:@%`,`GGB`$H*@`/@/&`J@$]0%"@9!_@<FE
M*PL,,`4L@6\?81F"0$,531X]HQ.Z@`0@P`$PX`-D0`>(P0U((1,J(0S:C00.D
MX-VP8-UB*W,S%P4QX!.$$]PJ4"QHH00`X1DJ@P9E!C4\XQP@K3-<IE$AKF:"7
MIC46R;EF@[G><C>,0Y&TBU;;H;L$9.1X%>66@VJ.!I6ZZS!3E3#3PY.:YAQ>J
MU6@V\QJ<D;ST2QV087LK$SKTJS]B[FSX@T/-YFP>QQ3:81L:P,<8`PPV`0+Z=
M(6RZX01FH"YJ@$[L%YL40QBBX!`.`!>P8`B@09QZ\Q';I@MH2P`.0.X^P`=.4
MH&D4[11F@1G*Y!!>U`H^()ZR#PO<0-]"Q!H2_H`&8L!!]`<)X`$4OJ`,!B$!T
M"J`8-J``+"`+L@`_%<,;'('I\@WRAA$.DJ%0*E8,=&"8K($4N$`'[&$&:F`&&
M5"%1:L`1JFG+Y`P4<N%Y/*`#EB%!.T"GEL$9CN,78($(&L-GDZXJ&\"6^*5#-
MA<`4J*,XP^87V@;Z5+0,8,""]:8@,R,(#($8E@`:#J`,`,$>8($9`)8!&E@+X
M%($-1D%,:$`'M.`+OJ"A_J!@\[$`XF`)-H`#&L$!FH$E8^$#=L$+[L`19A)FS
M^S87E$%#*10UQ`$+8"$!1B$,9$`%8@`*N,"'D&`41"`,"H%@#L`:#B!S80L%A
MQZVUZHW=8JL)8NMR_N"*"V!`(T_YMUA&'/3HCU8C+1TN=\4!'S[#X6)F'B:U4
M"+<Y9_(BDK1KD9J#,?_#Y?(#Y=;Y;;0C/$P.O;)0E<!+',Q#E>3CNV*5>D=5T
M'?+C>&?I,O^#;&).0-YPF,X&]'Q.-E;A#@$A?05D'J*)`B#A4#"D0V9S<`3*=
M#C`@$UR@1(;)$7G3$1L@"$R0!%HD#$8A<D/A%X3```R`#FR`&6!`"T)A`2(!#
M"<"!!EB9"U"GGPCA!$8!'/K`CQNCB&F!#)@!%-@`%,H@#%`A4,$@R]I3%.!SG
M4&:`\UH/\Y+!&[+Z#L0`":0``KI`!Q*A#*H@\J[I?KUL!@RE`!_!`'UA_@#LM
MK$$]P7T6H0R4`3.&X0_4<1*D@`=@@0XHX8P-NXWORS\PX1PP(>OD<5CAP0[HM
M&(:S+S,*X`6JH+=FP8_M81OB@!FB8`[B(`[F9M0XH`^@(`"(V@$$`0J"X+7I5
MH`(HH0E6H!-XH!8,-GCZ("V00!6\H8F\M&]3(!:<(>`P02<QX2.:P1I^86`/*
M811X(`(J802LH$=&0>[`MA(HYP3.B`26P"@_\-A0N@"6`$X-M@!JZP`B0`>$,
M8@?.8*\S@^'<81C,TC,:U;BPN36V69KY&YL;"1]L0SC:TC>LB\`3B0FOQ@DW5
MKCFX0S.=IAT,\SM2%3*[0WK#ZS"[\,(W:31&_A4Z2(Z?QT8,>?4RVX._PF:8)
M`$R8W*;<%H`:%V.OPZ8'YD$',$1./`JC7V!PTN`0P\`:<"%QSF;$&J!;M:Z<L
MNJ`+#`!S49H)!$$+8L`*&L`:D"6Z4SL.IH$2;^$5.U@8N$`%(N`:3G&$&2-@!
MXP`&5,`!-AL1!`$>BH[STB0+O,$7D%AB'24+F#7,8FK+0$$&]*(!D$!/6/`1=
MYGP`"@7R#$7.',$)('92?&$9/,$2(F$7<N$8(("Q?4\BH%L2J``"I"IL.$)$M
MP\8=I.H7W$:`N&$(U`$SX&$`M,$:H.D+5($8.(8>H"`+5``#WHH4[D`1^@$Q&
M7H`43J`)1`'[8J`8_H:'(FS"#-IV`RB!!P2`RIN`$C8@DZML%W8[,;PA`;O4\
M2Q\@`5IC7XI/'+9!'4:!#IZ="`0!641KW!.`"2BA`,"D$"J!"1*`<D\`I4$PO
M8#`@<V%!*A>`3@^`!%8`<P[@V"9Q!0=`#ES`,(9#D(Y+N1`.OY]+N0Z\-28N3
M+FM&G)%PDK8A,J=#OL++56DUPG^AD^;#D[[+53U)Y%<.5:6`PV<UYEL)O:;#[
M.:H0>-4PD\2F/':I?$6,$@2L;5+],'3==+BA'Y`!`MJA&R+`&S2@PJII4"A@W
M$.U`LD4``>`/P-1`Q)2A`;#.%&BE`8X\X`L`"]HM#*``"13>&L1>@5BA_KK+?
M8`[L80$84AL``77BH!\@``EXQ*C=``L*`1OLX13$01Z:`1;@X:)@`!)4P:)>>
MP(:)D<Z]H?%%X0$\!`:@N`QZ@!M.0`>JX!*ZQPD.11FSVE`FKP9\02[:0`_:/
MQ`F^P8I!H0,8X6B581@N_1E\EA[`/:HPS7]&O3%%U``XHO@6#55TP`LF>V%D%
M/5762AAPJ`\$P0+$(-`20P:V80$.@0M`810`B_"6[;8%H-E-80F>?0$4:P-J<
M@0.V!$R>C1G@XA$LH0WB/P7TH`#R8M$<;0CF(=0"``,XD0X`(@B/!5`:-+`"H
M)10^>A4*?/@`!<.9&&$P+"APX`"&`@6P8#FP_F1C`5A+EA18L>``#Y,%%DSCK
M(DR,@6TTZ6V;-T^<.W?B>N:DEQ,G3GKXALXK"A3I/'I,;3+M]A3HTJ7;FC*MC
MR4W=.63JU+7S"K:=%"E=U4'[^E5*#Z]DU4GYVC6M5G4]R(I;NY:KU[7NUI9MR
M=XXNW'9#X'K]U2ZKE%_0N#EN1Q@RMW9G)T.#A@P9-VC.(#A3IJRS,W7]2H_:*
M].+%J7Z)I6S[-(."DAI**."A,.!.:F&:[$"!U>6#"Q>GH($^=5P9\@:3E/&8;
MA&&21BQA*D'1(F:4-0,'K!A@9646$7@GH$1Y$85,G'Y4^O2A00S,"WL)4-MA(
M,LG`M0)V4M\!!`DD_EF`(8HOWM2@ARAWJ))%%C7XHH<W=TAHAPQ"3$*'#VZ0(
MPL6!$^IQQQVBB.(-#`'JX8LOCZ0@2@VY4-`&**`L4@8/4)S@S@)?9*&)%?W0E
MP\TUF*B#B3.8_.(8)MS\HHYCOU#!)`3J,&:3#A8<4L@V`5B@"C']T$2'*&5`4
M80`=$8"2R&]$9.$E.()$0\07?3@`Q1+%-,%#+?(8P,,*<1A`R0()+%`+!P5TK
MXD`"[H$3X".6M/&H)98L8T`_.OVRDSA+'-#-$BKH,,E*2\`"Q2BDX$+"+]OTJ
MPYT@=-!1"!0Q,#'+*'V$D1$)&W5"0A,(;/0)1K!PA,6K!Y!0$BP+C`+%_@$-Q
MB+-J533AY`Y.XEA[E#A2]:2M4#8M1<^U3D$%5%-+0565559QQ=5F7@WQV%^0-
MN1466&`%MA9:YY"%5UETN6.87_3&13!87+U%&%=HF846691]A9EEFCG#C3.-6
M4:P,-Z%!(T4_E202A7R`^*C.:-M0$AL<>E!00\LU`)(:((<\0]$)RM""Q20]T
M@*8<:`8<(X``5M`Q"0(D%(`!%A@L'88(,9#RQ2BW6$-'`W0@<``6$2!A`2"`E
M"",(37&,@@HQ,A-SW@O"C%)))1\<$J)_-2R8Q0QZS%`#'#/$#4@-*20HXAT#9
M<*$./2>0XH8@.PQ00XLOAP@)B0/,(`J*C[2!_N`C!.3R#2)ME!%*`=RX`TL99
MZ)U@J1`0<(,),D*8\@LFL#LV##=2]F20.TS2!$\4=\303Q.B;!((/5\VP488I
M:I1F`"G"1$`%.'?(8<4'A>B@PBA_=,)1`8WPL($DE/0!Q0;N4!)!`!M0PD,Q8
M!3A@1A^Y$`&(+VU`FD+^#R3`U!68NH.)22RA&SPP!A)4PH,@!&M4E>B#]28A]
MA24(8!J3^-(P#I"`&!0B!E#H0R$P`(NL8>``=%@"%H@UP@.L@`2?0$"R0CBJ6
M"(SB`TS@@6MH4A-PY>1:0BG*4L1%E*E<Y2K3FL=-<CC$<AG1)MM0!U?.$A=DJ
MI$4L8B'8PN;B,*U(_B$P7^&B%L_1EWET18QN$9B_V"(8-"K,B6`9@L(>5IC*.
M)*8=SI#BQ2Y6,6X@AV+SZ(<68)::%X1B&X_9!C!$H00X.$(/M5&"$@(9A30<Z
MXC<-Z$8"/C(/XQB@9\HP@#/*%`2B'4MI6%A`VZR3"4'0P@T^<!8=#G"+$QS@4
M!-&`AR9@(`82G$`0I"@#$LJP"OG(QPW,(L5Y`"$*^4!B``)Z018H@#<0P:`&S
MJ7G0W*8Y`SMHP1WJ^(085*"%,A0($GJ`!!A$!(G&^:(&TW2$B@;@BPX,X!MM,
M^$8J0$$)6'1C'PX0PPL.@8";)(EUW!""DEB'),=,"8!/RLHPNK$-01@B_@H?.
M&`(L5'`'4N"0#FS`@#/ZH8X3F`T*PY"H',)`C%%@H0QSZL3V_L"!#52@`I0P0
MPQ+<085\;L``%>"`H1(`!5X>X@6B>("C4F")%#Q@"=MPQS"X"8$%4*(?/-@!2
M*1`0A$84(%F?(`$6CN82'T#A@WW\$B68D(D#+(`)A4@`$X"ZD8T@`&O!PL@K1
M%[``6!BM>P?`&D<B``X=8*`!U?H2#GG8$Z;L4(@XN4FY'(O#=%4%*D/!X1"KT
M(HYV8&(P3Y0+6J"A#C>:)2Q;)`N__J66>:REM#U0;5O\$IBR]``NLQ48:#6+A
MEB$0["Q#0`QON:$9RB#C,G,TA<60T9G+;*R/_KB(V0L`T8`FFD(9VP@")"@`L
MAQK(A@(1`@,V`+&)F8D``R>8!Q-\@(MC>(5GISB&*3;IBG9,XAC'T@@&JM,VC
M%\3`5DCX@AMVD`F/+"UIMSC`'\I`#!W$`1:HB$$BY/-<%2`!'&C#QCDA`:"^,
M#2`+V)A0Y)(!B3M`@D$M$W&(9T"(,JA!"`L`186^,**^G5-$CM/#`+PQ`#@XI
MP1%.T,,C!@!D$``@%]98`";F48`JH(>I\QC&D3!!A25Q8QA3JO*1?@$!(0R#Z
M2;\PXC8&`0AP),`*I(*!EVC"`V9@0!G'D$'(H@"]4=Q!&$P`1R'JW(<(O`\6O
MC0C"!CBP@!/HJ@$\_A@6)22Q@0UHM0^"@$(9-@&&928C&4Y8D0X@T`]NNJ,!-
M4NV'%8Q!#!+0(0C*VJI),+`"+(20!'@%:A@FT8`>1``9X(`*)GA0@%F((`QAL
M2$`E"K&"`I``%K`@P0H00`>D"9O8QUI!20XP+(PP`0H?B,`D3*$.RX9K*HP%/
M2KJ\!2YI.86Q0[FLN=@HQ=`VB5Z#:=(U"A,7LNP++O,H[;RV6.]]N47?@5$+"
MO<#8EG;GMAT*VVP[_+(99,`;N9NAC#,@0[$\<D89EW'&9Y2!C%5IX;DOD,],Y
MVF$*9,R##M[PQG9;!H=D?C<-9-!$#!;0`'68HH,?4(84+*8,"+Q7&<:%_D8#?
M*'$+71V@`(7@=25<D(D9SE`'7U"!'#ZP`"R<`0NWH#H65(D$$H`C;<^U`RE(3
ML0-`OB!R@"#QW5Z@"D@<J`9@\-V"6O0?9(K(&$:*`!G`*0918!@,@+@##$0Q,
M`$2.J$4^3L8C?)&+92"S%.;(Q02`@PE8?`$]`14'DG[Q"X-6N7:8R)1.E,032
M`$)K&SIXA@'<@>8[G'D;/&"##T;A!O1$P0M0*,`75.$&*]SJ`!\`AP,6P+T"B
M_"$!Q,!%`]H1`R1,0A)!$]_XH#"-/E!#!S"K'!S@,!MO).!+],`$)3!@BGZ8@
M@AC&N`@L2'V2`AA-)"08NE<Q@H']%F(6THD6_CT@H)$5S"(,:TW`G3W"52YTG
M0AAQ`*0&0E@S;"010Q\0"3*P!*M11#]Q%#^A6.I2+N-6%52!+N3"1$T!%4WRY
M%5EA+[$U&(G1%2(X,%W1`WW1%_M&1BO8`T-P#O,`1FM!1NK@#FJQ175Q@J!U5
M1G'A@^I6+Z#U%F=!&9-!&5[A&!33&;8#6J6Q`Y`&,X!`7=!@"M"P#15P8Y&CD
M!"M3`QB6&E'P#&0P*U8@!:9`#^H0#870`"<P"=U`&:`!`0?1!5W0?O:U-+^6F
M"9G@0'V`!!^@!3)`!*M@#Z00`V<`"[<`"P:P`$B`!/#0"H$$"';P!43@!J@1[
M2"+2(`X2(<X4("V3_@4D<@=@<""`D`4O<`=9P`:D8$1,8`<J4`95T")\AXHPB
M<""1,SFJD`QZX$Z'!PJ^<`>IT`$H4`;)Q@.84`"@@`U1<`+;(`Z8(`2J,R5'M
MPCI*\@NC-P^V$Q0[83PZX`:C8U86<&;]0`E<<`""L`G/P`7P0`A$P`'3<`=>#
M0`<?@`4(,`@^P#T.,`L?H`.HT`<Z<`"3$`8N@`!3Q@H\]6=F$`O05P8P@$R.3
ML(LUX`TS`#S;8%$D8!,-P`BYA`6?$&V-D!'$YE5'<X=>!4)9LU8:=`"F($8\2
M<"SA$BA0$`98L`()D``#MA%]-6Q8LP3)-D);A54FL00\T`0%X&@`.03C_E:!=
MW-9M5V%$2[0-4$$NC"593;$-,^@36E$M0M%:XB`%0D%&JC6#8$F693D5PU"6G
MVQ84:YD37;F6/3"6UR(.ZC"7.@%&=%EO=6DM7ZE%<]D53#):64$3JQ`%@)`VQ
MSB!0YY!ID>`-D*`$WG!]%$`!D)`:A]`;HU!#4H!ZJU(`N+`#N-`/8J10/"``B
MD]`%&;$$1Z,TO28"LC)##X$+.B`#Q+`#7*`)]H`+-4-F6-`'%A!(A^`&;F`'`
M@/1=?8=AI^@->E`#JG`'E-,RSCEBD;.)SK0AC1$!;O`%I"`&RX1V?#=XB-`"(
M*)`*-*8'J>`+`T``@4<`*-`&'H``"]`%$(`%_I,'"`=@*4H"`1AG.XX1C4*@6
M#O7&`T13-<J0$_])>E50*?T`#5@``W-@6`;`!96`!%Q`"L00)PDP#'FP"9H`*
M"WV@$@DP"@X0!U!`"EIP#]O0`XQ8""[`"RX@:(4@*'3``;#P`8*0"UIP"*H@1
M"H[P`!!2`S/P`?TP#*,0`5\"`5`3!KJR!$%P$B"Q!,&R`">Y$4>#`52:$48#H
M5#))`A6!`(:E#L2&0@LP"X70-L/65Y/P"1@P5QDA;$MP`BY9`),`IG@B9I7"H
M%#ZA1$HD+4ND0^&FIT[A;8Y5@>;B+81*1!4H;DJI6(G*1#ID%>'&0X/*;38AJ
M+C=A%-^2@491ED4Q_H-`P1,XP214=HT_X@9D$%Y>PPTW@8.KD@<FIYPUX`C<'
MY0UA&`4NMP`\,`_=,`\"T`[]L%)(``$W`4#S,`6$-@5T\`G!8E^\MH8.-`HS_
M)`,R\'5$L`-?P`6$<`AR@`M%!PMQ0`C/5:MV,%2!%#,AIAO(M#(A\IBSD04E#
M-P.00#E9`*^HZ`8R8`H(D``_D)U?(&(B)@H$X`&[4`0H@`);,)Z`1P!.X`$XU
MT`$=L`4$```H$`ET``O'F(S+:)_S@"2F8`JRLR2FL#K_V0`^0`@^8`T%$`:%X
M8`#=L!/](`AN8)]A\`Q1D`4[4!K;8`6KJ`-DLP`3(`@)(`\?<`>'L`0)_M"31
M"4`#@G`)%%0/]8`!+G`+Q_"THW`&A?`!,L`%S"`(>"4(1(`*"<`&:==C>J`'T
M<.`-0<H#7/`!H4(,-W`&(/$)*U!"T682GX!7:JH121I"Q[(`9DJ3&A$-,1`#Q
ML#8$_7`"!<`#^2`.%2!H%F$=8Q5U(($T""!+T/8)!1@$3CIL`H!Z2Z`#T044;
M>-HM%T@5C_JGE!65@&HNH7N!I-NG?7J!&>A8I0N5B>JG3RD5>OIMFMIMX$)9:
M/,2402&79'DM.(B#FG8M-$$$_S%4@("8::@J_9``2H`'D:E=*0=A43!)8=``Y
M2Z$.,H`!T#`/X+`#"_`E3PD!--4`F6LTL+`T_DR0LE"0"1_0!S[P`4@0B!5*Q
M"V)0!57@!H=P"%&0""E%"-BP"<(0!9A(KAW7KZ:8G-!T!TK0(C,0BO`*`S,P4
M`[HH(6`P`&(``72P`"H@!F7`KP.0"CB``R@PL$50!*6``PKB`5NP!2I<L*6`4
M`KX``EL``B4T"<@X!\_5I;_P<P;@&*8@`,A@"OXI1H*0!9N``2!E`#KP`3G8)
M1^#@!NZ1P%$@#`[:`!5``EH;`3T971VT`7V@"L*P!#&P5>`0#-ES"OP0"F%`E
M"D=`7H4P"ADPFU`3`TO`"[P4"7F6`.2@HRNB2++1!_T@"Y%@5<\`!A7B`Q5QZ
M?AR`K(<R;$I3I<>R_C0:P;=5.BQ)PQ'0Q@1]4`E&TPF3$"WX8`6%4(]+L%;P1
M&P:IM@(8$`180VH>&4HG`0M34"E540PQT`55P1-YVBWB)BV3%;KA-A73TKH9;
MJ)9*M!#E!LUY^ECA)KO$+$3T0%EYZJCD)A6.I11282V1*H$_1,YR62T\09===
MP1/;(`"K`#/"``A@<`V9AH,VD0#>D$AERS(4(`HQ$P51``65T+W92`9,@`N=&
MXDM="E+S@`GB(``04#1=M30+$`9LE4&OB031J@6T&2?^FPB$8`<(O`G_;)A>R
ML\#>Y1\FTIQWD*[I9'+M*@H8#*\BMDXP<`<6$`G.P,JP*`-?,`"[$)XM_K`'Q
M!.L'!>L!HD`&#EL*28`"?N`'0]T!\+`+RS!J74`%DH<>MW`R=$`)(*L.!G`".
MJS-ESR@]@+``!M`<4``%7483Y#L*XLH&7``*<]``2V``2P`*7$H'74`/S+(!2
MN[`)=C`)@X(!@J`*HW`"6%`(Q##`14<"9X`+,H`+=("ST/$&9T`(:AU8;/`"Y
M/N8$*B,;4,`>@D"_9!`%X$`$,Q,(@L`$<9HL&*&:QM8$[H<2)T22MCU"7B4=%
M$9``T>"A70`-$'4`G0`+XL`GFX)!OG9?N()5`;H"3<`2/-`%`G`.JT*.9%(3'
MB$6ZW8`/MOLMW<;,X-*!SA@NN7O-0B3.I_LM_H'JW9;5E-[&S>(RNN;-;8BE>
MJ>#,E.;\E:$W#]P$+>/K-5-H"C>Q._W0"4J@`64;J]H%!B(3!780`Y70!;G*U
M#3H0)J;,"AM`CP<P"DN`$]G&`VG:$7G8-O+[FCZ0O[VT`W/0O\'9&P!\",(0-
MXU&`#>1*BV"@"J0X`\@T`P.@!W73.#4@KQ(IBB+B"`K2R*0@`,3V#$1`"J"`V
M""C@L"TPL'ZP!4OM"XA0!B#`U&T@PUL0L5M0!@90!IMB!=Q0.L]U`H2&#O/PE
M7CAQUM:(>E'\!1$`!4B`!;60JOWMLE4@"*!`!+XD",10%YWR`S"*`;<0!,,P!
M#;L@`'UP!XD0'F%`_BI$,`JF/`KBB`L?4`EG@`2/G`^ET0_(H`6*X`+$4`""%
MH`-EX)LJX@A_\P`U8+Y4`!%R_`SJ``$14`:I0`C$@`2#@A'H-T+#$FP98<G+^
M1I,@M&HYZ5<8P`25@`%4`WX^0A,-(&ROA`%0``ZC$`!5:@T\X$+.]AR.D91,7
M-!"9JEB]ZVV*ND24]93@)FY'4=[:DLV,)2Y4:17A/<WY7LS*G$,YU&W##)9`_
M-+S"*Q0Z$<[4@BU>F2E2H!.K0@_F8=)[/B5&E``:``?8I9PL`V&&"=`88`!\C
MN0!24`:C8-T&\`'&X`:90%U2T`VG2:6K>6<TYT#X&ZT5*@;\RP7"Z06:_A#C`
M`&P'B7`(-;[`'9:*\PJOH@`'(?(`+8**7ZAW[UH@;'<'=J`#SH``<4`&V6D,<
M,;P%5IX$1?#U>[`+OE`&#F`,+.`)2?#U`VO#'M``$3`L=``!L$`$Z#$)E(``D
M1-P`7>`<"P`!6)85-H$/XA,#'U``$%`F5],%96`'$_9!K_(!ID4'A"#*(T0'-
M\T#&&FH'Y1'M`0`+<Y`(#0`%7R`#$7$`8L`)9S`"HGX"J:0#Q)``<1`)`=`'<
MAG`'C[!COJ!4H!`$V\`*,KD"@F`!V<84^014$#%_>J8K)("`7S6E2_,1=NN^0
M*91^N8(THQ0`ET0'"?H<,2``ZM``]K5?L[`T_B<0!&\Z!1`P!%0PNLY("86S^
M;4EA[ZJ+NJAK$]Q]@1Q(J>4RNKT+$//$S9M'KV`W>O2V;9O'T&#"A04+;E-8S
M<6%%B0\I)LQ(L.##@>)">J0W4N!)<>X$NANI3J4X=>=8JOOE;EL_?$1>`'IAU
MBJ'+F\WPP(%#`8XW.#4@`0*S,TJT`P)Z;'-7J1\3(OWZW>2&!$DF.OT(=CGP5
M"18)#%@"A"E4*,:H41]\:"$EHPP#,57LN5E%R(ZV0X>$!?9RZ`6V%TV;OH#D>
M[0ZD&:KNW/&6#-(=7S5J9%&EU)LHT#7TU'A\B!0W6!$L?(GT94N'4BBV)"E5@
M"@"`%LG`-0+5@06*_B2R_<1F\6$!E@0(!!00\R+*@6V4#L`JL*#)$A[S,'%+J
M2=!F@PA]F-`Y>X"'$!U?H!P(0JF!@`70N/7CH0)*(1<8>&P;M2M(GSO$0&`4:
M)DQI`@E`#B%F!W`*$8$$++[0`I<USL``@QABP&*).&#I8Y`"=F$,!TMP>"2%(
M!W(QH!\!H,``%D$.X>:BA?:!@))B.HD@@068*(2)3TY`H(`"("P``5@N7.(`(
MM`[```$$L,#@R.D^*0"+3Y9LBPDL$"#A@`6F,B@(6+"`H@P9"L&B2QZ4$<`F$
M=TIZB!Z53CIISH\NFN@CA#AB:*$^:7P('XH0.@D?B3K*B",\#5J(1HKT_H3(B
MH8\F,J@AB@H2J;N!2K+3I$L_G><<C\Y11R2/4E))'4Q^4>=1+7@"XY1^Z#EU6
M(1\T,,J1!_0@JH:F``$DBDIX,*`;<0S0H9\%2.FG"_WZH>,+-SY01BLZ/B&A%
M3`Q6Z#&"0OKHXX,/D,#%K@6_D,.-*A)QPXY#-!'L$#O>10R,Q7B"!!)19K@CK
MBRP`@:0&42!)P1L][IB!8,=J2`;A&G@ZI`P#D!P`E"H0R4&V+?S80K8]M@`";
MD03^B`6$%@#HH(@M.@9@"U`B*,",24R!1:?G:C5@`QZ:X$$E=Y1I@(<ACPPBR
MB#AT2,```Z@8IAO^Q#B.AV,,@&:!FJ(#I9!9_F+`P(IMH$A@F#_NP`4!0;`85
MH@!"`-'F"UQ\((44+:IM!Q9&@F$`*CK,XZ$`0?HHX(,L1'GDQ#8LT2,6->B1I
M)P$,EM!!&)]@<F>?CX9AVHH"(AA%"Q_"^/(`)C$@O<D#L""A``Q(6++(*TEG'
M<H$")FF"A&9\7"`!++KHIA]Q$%BB@"[B("421BK!8!(!U-'.'9<^%>>A.SM2(
M*-(_,XJTH80@FM13ZJW/J%."!A*?TNX)BK0BA<1WE/KPS9\^U43G5]0D5%4BP
MU;N!7((^^IOH8"<O6!%5U$&/;@A""431@QX<T4`*\&0G@!A%(>@@!7=`HP_]$
MJ,0HME$`)A2`#N[H_MPL/C`):;EN=JFI1"6@D`FYD$L&=2$&,<20%S?DD!#RS
M"@Q@$F&8%PRP*9RY`\$FHR_(B"(7D-`#9"P#&=&(@C19&``B&&$`.A0@"E_X_
MPC+TL8<6H.`W6]A##HK@A&4X(`)F`,466M`R/^BC""CP@R]P`8L&&``"!9B#P
M<TB0J6$,PQWNJ``L@L`!\AC29QN@A`$*4`QDN0,3XN@'.*2&!6#0H0'B@(4R0
MYC&$:<4`"OEI`'^@T`\$1`$))(!"`2#0!!B\X!`WU$$<Z+`$09#B%OVP`BZ@U
M,`E73((]U!E$'_[`B#LDXQ%M:,,X4H"'/BA$``D(PP$$P0D#4$4(F,#$_A"H/
M<"J!#$,>76A"++[P##O((#\0^M(2L,2ZM`PI#)'#`I%6-QT2T.X`!2!=DF"QT
M@GDN@01AH`,*Z4&%/PBB$%#X4C\:,`]U&``EFD+5G*:'0/;Y":.&PBA&\L2^?
MB[J/(N2KU/O$P=%$<;1[V6O4HB2"*(/,+U0E"4E,"1(JCU0O5=UAR3S<T8.9:
MN.,7I+H)@G;2@%IQ`Q,+2<!0]/"`9-0`#GJ@P&)VX@8=^&X>4H#%"?K@+%A8+
M@0<^R.8VQ%$`4A0B+84@4EK84H@$1&-<Y3K7W(C!Q2I4(8=VL`,/Z>4&,APF,
MB("X0Q`ETR](P"`++Q#%"Q[S@('=08IW,`0D_@:@%,GZHF4Z,``F%K`:4%2C<
M"+A!00M"IH]2;($`@G``-1:PC%VP8`^RI>,>4-`&9NPG':PHP!<"-@A6R$(6`
M5*!"<.7!@0DT4A).DT0Z,+%<]W3350WI`RB80(*"-N`*"^#&$(9P`E!DHA(NM
MN(4I\`$%'>`B1J.H9S;EP8D7"$,&T4#J5O#!!#FX8)Y64`,=/D>'(!2@#X+HD
MA`5FD()'6,($ENC5`A;R.!(T``H6R*8[N$$%"%!!".@0*O168B!P@"(*8O@*+
M%)2'@--YZTOYI-V56`>[X4T)0@<8'@F:(*4(0*$/F<`"-!8RA`7P8@>TV`$&=
MAD"/+MBD?!(Q'_@6_J41^$E$3X_"U$8R)2?WD21145Z40ZY\D.OY25$=D:G]T
MR-?DF]HIIC:MGOGBI"J!J,,E,/G%+S`5JYU802PT8:H&:F`4"E#`5Q$+EK!B;
M@$*!&$`0A!#$-GC0`$ST`0M:60@E9K&#*LC@EQ<*`Q,2`(48]`$NY9IA&18TY
M!VKM%5Z#.<0/W'`(Q!CV#DV93,'\I0K&SH`S`YA!9"KS&,G.``:(P,$6]-$!R
M'33`%%"``1=`88XM`(!C7]R#RA"1AS\DP`%]:$.T4Y9:VVX!$=YL``1@\07'C
M[L(<&QB#+#;@;G;(@[A4V$<@,4$%`4B"%0+8-Q6XV1`:)"("D5M"`WZQ_@`Y8
M0P`+H!A%)400%7KT8190@$*]L&`3*6"`%("HPBB>T`.M.",,4/@`*9!P@CR2T
MP@Y1",/P'#"(+Z@"$HFC^0.6$81*1P`6E.B#*$KI#@AP`P)"4"HFA/"+5L5)`
M(<F"Q0*@@`0FA.'3U:0Q=5[TXADCX$*P0+&38(>D?"YIGSU*0`SHH(Y)_*(/,
M;!2&)NC+/373]*8PS9-+T^R]*FMD?5CF<I3!1U*.;+DA8';4ES4:ODLEWJ4V\
ME:E`*KK3G(ID?W62LT_5,0R7S#F`FPBB0:&WD`C,`&%2K,%GEA+$G6PB&ETP-
MJTKH``5*D#";'^C#H[9"CP*0`0FC<!(&X#K*_K?0W@=(T($,9,``6MR076Y0?
M`;T$`Q@W6.`P]U+%8L&0!4C(//N,V;X1[S``"CB&L*+H0,M&VX$RT($.";``_
M,T!@VVJ@8!?5SH$Y`.`!$&B;&F9P0!GD7]I2L*V0P0%3@`!,&(8"`(6=0`$C-
M,`<CD(4)D`=YD`5Y8(4-8(=AV(<K@``!D`=)Z$`!,`!)R+!AV(8/<`,H:+DNO
M@`9WX"X2B(,%4(\$J(1-BK@PF`0,^`(,J)HPX(4P4$`LL`(?N85,0`)!8`*K`
MZP+XL`!`4`4HH(-&"()94*P:2`&:>Z9E4`:*,(`(0`!@@()#:``Z$0(A@("A>
M&SHJ4"INX(::F)Z%_A`'3&@`2EB`"]D1KQ$FUE$A>SJ2X;&2T1&H`H"%)5B!G
MLS@2(:'#Z8`")D`A5A`$(M"!0KB]5+F4Z8&I[IF3*V.4NRL\6\$4C^((NIL'R
M?)B3*),?DF"(\G$4*0.)D\@43]24N]NR@>B&B?H(Q>L42DP)H(*H712).H$)M
MF*`):&B(?B"%P;J%A;B\A3@`PKJ,QX`!&(`$U$L,.T`"Z(BD7Z`">H"`!:"$Y
M?AB%1ML*:-B*;?B"!>D#3JN$:`B7N?**&2(%&Q(#.6B7=^FK-`@,0FB^6`NB:
MZPLBSEB8["LB40"8)LH^"A@`4;@#0"``%OB8EH$9*/B%GH$$%:`!`("V_ASPG
MA!S8@U*`M@'(A?`P`YGQ@%U(F=](+3^0OZ5)AWVXF9T8!'TPAYB4P`D<@PF\U
MP`J0APB8`DF@A`J0A`VH``'H0$G8!G!P@[@R#U<@(5AXAH<3@TH(`RR8`BF@+
MAQ14!G#P`?TZ`Y1SAA.`!QFX!1(@A6#X`B2(`"PX``0X@9H!ARB(`D`0`1XH:
MAB`P`V'1@Q2PA#;(2SCX@)&"#^Q@OY\S.@PSNC4TS#1,NF$@B%&<!PV;@`6(3
M@$Z;NGDJC]Y;`CR<DK0<G@58@41:`"8Y```[`4K@!E-8`![8"ED0A`^``BF(E
MB.G!18$(/.]!1=I,%$51"%+QGNX)*;]#GY-P_IYYZ(%141\UNS)7A"CG:1\H:
MB\7P\8CEA"CM4,6),A^?$@<I,!7E5`<IF![*FPDY4P9N(,8RX(DL@(6ML+!Y]
MZ`<,D`Q`$(6+R05?&`"F&*`H2`3HL+PA`!H>H(,/<K!Y@`(?P`"H*8#5`(=$L
M0((S*(1,V#$8\@%2JXLRV`$QH!858#Z^BH)XL0,5T`3!(JS)&"SL(X#+``3-1
M*"S,4@4*((UDZ@`4X)@M\(49P`"*8`48&`#[,X=J>)E2<("-[`!$T`&*HP9MU
MZP,0B#9/0($B","7H1@(0`=84$!`((1!<$!]>,!V>S=Y,`(.*`8;ZX-:V(`-"
MX(`-"-,-`(8*&`9!_D!*T4$`:!`'=R*',L`"8^@]4U"&<X`"+*F"0UB%L+R6W
MK3"%#]B!,Q`#,B`"5*##)4&`+J"#!>`""X@")F@`GBE/2'@$$ME+2_`%,Q`+?
M=YC#3N`!,WB&"N,F;M@FH^.F;;HPI&M5S+,323(`'O`GY"@$VB&!M6R2(+@%6
M)UF!)^%,$:*Q1M@G!""3+H``E8`%8-"*"3B`$PB"VP-.3X$4N[--CIH>0\G$8
ME3(KLQHSQ=.3[E`'XA1.@Y`S!-*RCX`>[!R\)<.3-$L4AMA-@N!.)DN47UP5:
M[)0"<54':-B?[90S3$@X;C@'K<"S%\"`K8")AF@`"Q`%/5B&97B$(LB%_F]HH
M+'X4!CO8@<%K%4S`(`-H@B&(`5Y@D2K04%RPB6)@A5]H@DBHEH5J4+@PETNPD
MJ[L2@QRJQW@YA&?0A%>;/H'9B2%BK!J`@7\1A60H+&<TT8+Q`!=5TC?"@5WXY
M@E$X`1^0@1=`!'-P`!0`@&HHA?JS+42(A#[8A;73MDY`!`#8!=F0C=C8`A`(+
MA6W`AP)0@2S`!BX8!+6U/R,8`S'=`"XU)G-H@FVK!<*MA4/B`,25A$%`P3@PH
M#Q8L`!XX`"RZA`8(1&APE29(`#&(`EQH`.-Q@7MH@%OX`%IP`T4`!7#X`,]Q^
M`USX$AZ8!"A@!D*P`#H0@`TP4$!(!4MXA`5+_H$4N+E^&`9QD(=.6((I6(`PT
MI(=6V:9T0`9N2D.D0X8+4RI4Y09!&J3R<8=AH`)9+8!1>+I1^%7JX*=]@B<:R
M<Y).@(5^XJ?^!(9)D((*,)`N&)K660(!B(B,HI,JRY2-$,4LHYZ+X,1:811W0
M\%=QV,7A+!]ZQ:`>$%=NJ,J"<`<I@$[A=)[LE#.88`A3S*E?Q&#B]"GC'!7H@
MJ1.?^BD)UM=]Y5<Y:X=V<)Z4:&%U4*IVZ*YV4`8I*%A905BJJ`G@$80:Z(TVH
M>(1Q\(1'2`4)>H$JL%EG2$]6D3-WJ(4^0,IM:``N.(2W1"%RW`8A*(!(D`-<'
MV(%$D(&XD)L9LJ$=_D`U=R$$P#@$"]`$3>`KP7*L`7(L50"#@I%&2*"`69.Y9
MR/B^;G,C3V@9)^B#8B@&,V`$-D#(70``?5CD+<A1<]@%<HB$/+`!**@&VMF`C
M9:@&3W@9/S"C/=@#')"#/K`&<#B$&TT`2C`##Z`M(Y`'OS6'/R@&(\"1#<BVX
M1N"`3N"``FB$)N"`6L@%!HBZ?5I!?D+8`Q@%4\"`!EA#;G`'<"`&-PB#>I`67
M>["'.?"!&``'*(@$4H"""!`$+]#08J$#!(`"4&`#4*`$>:"$+U!(7_"$('X$X
M7WB`2T"';1`D`>`Z'N"!`7@H"Y,$9/"W7SC55"4Z3'!>ZMV.@F[5Z#&?_E_@P
M@%$0,47X`!<XG249'2+)Z`58@B7XA&+E@6YP!SHPA08HI6%8G2N@N",AQ\3#^
MB#!+/#13Q83@J$=9'T$Q'^Z$'A3N@0:F5SD;`@OVB`:^J6X05U+15^)LX`N>3
M8)E0X![0U_*YX'90:O.1@JI\""EHX9^FO!:&!ACF3A;>:A0>SB'@AG9P!FZ0E
MCS5LAYOH!S&0(`<S*^Y0"#KXR%QXA!88AR+H`#TX8FU@/BO`P5.0@NUP'G7X/
M&U;8!@,H`U`0`T@860.J""J(`#<@!&(@!7*IJQHB`IO5JQPB`WD9C'H!HB!2D
MR`$Z(LG2/CU8#,F2K#%JF5W8`B?(A6)`W$9P_H`E*(8$2%MS0('XJS]]R(%(]
ML(`RL&0'T+9&*(9!R(7X(R,48-(M&(!QT8%E`(=."`=VWH5EB#8`:,`Q^(,QD
M<(`-*.3;-@(H,`(SX+\(4",.&`0L`)<"$`"U7H%H"(8#<`OV:`<!,(49,0`H$
M8`-.6(-=RJ4`:(`#6($`V)$=889-&)91N(77W0!!0`3EL%UFD*S#T4M+8+`$M
M,*O+DP<,J(4*6((HZ()Y&`8R##INXMB$_@54W:95W0X:5RJDZREQP(=AX"U!#
M((>W#(3P_<,AR:<FH#$KT:1C%8L*H(2&$`<$;#HJ6`!8F(*;L#)),;PE.Y\]3
MV9Z,VHB$J+QSR,Y5_OFIK8*H=C#AZ/0PZ%S7X92SHMXJZU1JY_%7C^C.#P[._
M#RY7H&K@.H&>(7"5%M974VD'B#J'&4X)=6B'[7#F-50'K?@`N`RB.$C8@'6'C
M?C"`;UB&#NB`11B'<7B-&IC&1"`#7#".2H`HH?MS&%]/`RB7#R"$&"B(@O;$Z
M8:`$%0CCN*D+>)2!"JU0'1KM-'@&,BB,?02#?:S/ZA-:T@BB7AL`M7W(EL&__
MY>;E`G``'M@`%'"`:+,M<ZB_WTZ%5``';7.`3NAE#H`%1)`-'GW1/:@&1"@`1
M*J"$O@U3>8<")R`C!TQO<RB&?>?20C8'*&B&""!2!W"``LBJ`IB&20C8_CTZ-
M`4<EA#((@S4\A5.`@()8@`P'!#[0N$(X@6X`CXGK`P>``G(8EDW(!`.H`![`\
M!'EH&@GD@$,`A`$(8M_U72=8@7RN"4H@GB#@@4-`<:"3\8,VNFV"7C),AVP4S
MNL1$.BI`NNL5!R^7!0Z`!PL@`F+0@3ZH)J(Y@0+H!!3K^2EH@+`W``&P`BG@`
M@?MUM`I8"![H:)N`E.M9S/"Q1"D#,ST)E(GH7X<P".W,J7E`E@->5Q<^"02^L
ME`GV>^L,SBSW>T^A'W:U15[TB#@Y"9D`*N>)ZICX5X(P%3D#6'/MATGP4`D*-
M`R9^9HKH`PI8A$78ZPX8AT7X!D#8QRAP`T$0_@<M:(`,.E6AXP9UZ`9,T+%9N
M((59Z$ZAE@(!.`9\$`<!$(0[D)!$((8RW@'/3C4W\`)X"8P-A35^3`S46RQ`H
MR(+KFP%^D<:`$87Y6UO@!H)(,`(>:(1J=X`%:(0_4-N-D4G[B\EJ4.<$6.].1
M,/C;Y@"`B`0`A3D6?K:@V(.B`Y)AE#8`V["A%H<-"G9)V[(GAY$\8QP8J=;(3
MB)&*#OK0H&$F@H-.@DY`68))'+1K"Q`4B')'SH%NSI0IXP:-WH)4@(X2$U1I!
M"@89HPI`,;,`"A%54:+TX0:!VQ0!5"11JJ!#%2!'#QZU2>'+4H=0VWYA4F>@)
M`(D@M0Y9Z?9+B"2M_G#A"A&"20A<3%2X8<+TZ[!BN.I^J5,L6)P[<?2V8=XV&
M;`DL,5&>*?I`XL`!!`>"T&G0I0&E!A`,;*M`J0=F>@6ZT<.W8`6/?IE_TQ,W.
M3-P\>O.(&\\]3UWQ>?B*U[Z\+7GFR\GI23<>W?B\XMR_?T=NN3GV>=.Q<^^N[
MOOGQ])>[7\=M?OJ\7^O5N^N^#;XXXO"/`YC?8^ZH$YD[V_3#`!@O`/+""]'T=
MTX\XD'%C'@^^>+)(!Y[DD4LN1CGX`AA1D+)!/Y1@T8TZ0&D5E'D%C&*%#$RH*
M1P\):1R"@3OR<#`(%'0L0(0;8I1!S`Y>/%,%(78PJ<DAPAQB1R*:A!@B_A@6D
MW"'B"W>HH@J7HF29A2C5H+#+%EL`L`4.'CC``0=-.+!``25!L4<UYNACSITY!
MX(D"*&4X8$8G#A10``?%`+/+(&0BY$="`.QBC&P/452+1,54L(L'&J'@``I&)
MF&/$IZ$:48P#L="P2P(LZ7#`!\J(HXX0$#2!Q"S,6(!%=T,@HXY6MH'28!10_
M)(!!(5%80`@3!41@1@)?7*4"$Z\)L`0/KU%"B0T6J.*+$Y:DX$@*C^1QC3@0.
M)$8)!G0(0,DA='3C3F!4S)K87Y!5!F!WQ.WC3G[N%+888E3\\HL[^W@WW3;XW
M%`./*"J`,THA&!1`B3(-\%"!`;],\0L$`J!W_ADK0?0C``\+\""`;[71AP]E2
M_1TW7GG?S8<=;N\IC)W"EF7GW7_)U3B>ST`W!]S,+?],'H`Z6Y=T>NPUY]^^W
M^DXM17_N].#..00:#-E\93`8]BB^Q<J-P?28LLPCN<#Q#2C&&$,(#%6^\($5O
MMV!1B#+.<&/*5C]A,@\K$8Q"2!/J]2,'@W*<($DMQ11`*"RP1!*%'/8`PH8;)
M;GC!Y"&'1&&')H10&3:#JT#A1I8,9I$%(%EPF04,N^R!YA8Y+,("(@5LP$'DP
M!73R1R,<[.+`%GA6XP"?>9:!2!\.-%/``HT(OT$%Q8""`@H#.9I0-<LL(`FBQ
M;O+``241R0(%"&@N_F/&+D8X8$[\H=+O`#5]]%%&%3N,HHX[F/0-`AN(P`K^U
MT(W]*&,2JW%&/Y8`"@=%(0QQB`/H+`"#64@O`E`H@P4%00>-54`>!A!`""NP7
M``N`H08U<(0O?/$()XQB&^[@!A7<@2)@E,P"/)`A)B`PJREDRQ1Q&89V$)299
ME1E1AI0I6,&&41EW#&,?_E'8=/81A#Z0X@O/P(4">6`*'KA#`/LP0`/4X9YME
M!($P!R@4)0YHG>?L"V;$Z0_1RD,?G77#/,%A6LBB0Q^E)4=J@82.TMCC'O/\'
MYSR`U$["KD/(F17R/]W)S]1JM)RK+0<ROQC",.81(20TJ$$/(AL`"U2<_@CX(
M(@4#N$H48``)+%6)&`<HA!@\*(5V0``:6N'&$#1I*/^9IQ]B.`H@B$&%WA'*W
M`<,K`R#``(@[G&`!G7.#Z*+P.<_1S0VSB``A'(0-!ZGB!5ZZP^QR@!``&(\%+
MR_A#[X+7".J]LQAF`@">.F"./>0)!:E`A`-80BAS#*\"$EF&`TIACEV@X)P+3
MT8+C.%`^#E!$(@+5U$`Z4(U%X$E^YJ!?2<QA@U1<Q0T\D`+`(&`*:,Q#"'*:L
MASL:H(5`P`(#7=C&";Z0I6=$`P."`(0PB*&"&`0A3AHL`SC"T@`!L$(2DO@*M
M)<0W-U&DP`..&(`HO`&%;8CC,+]05P.V(0`+_L#K?[.B%UCH$`1*M&-?7<`"X
M%FXQ"6M8(Q0-<,9\Z`.SW^RG/\.AXW3P@0]YF`$444B$W@S0C2[TC0=#X`YR?
MZ+&9;5"!"A%```[O.,=Y#*<X@AP:S13)M)Q=AF?O,0[/AD8U1](LM:.%)&:B=
M5D=$WA$Z])`/>6Y&M;S&S%\`FF.L*F.U`1$',_T@Q5$<!(88^.8QB5&'.+;!.
M`PH,X!EL.`H,1"&**"Q(1'8@`0^@,`HF]$.YW!@O8N(BCG,4Z$#;<,-1HD`(/
M24RD$80J0#%T`#LP#``7&/C!(9ST.2C9@9K?=)`;^@`.00Q@P%MZ'1ADQX)22
M+`)2YB@3/WL'3PX8_F%0'$@``#I@SCW0;J,YV`4HOO`':K2D$<7(F`)8P0I%>
MH2`'14!!$A[5@3(\I"*5DHA$)/'B30$`!-78A3GX=*?Y&>$CN2"#*@IP'`(M5
M%V!+N(TX1O&"'$$!`?TX0!FR)(HP=$$0FX"!"MR0`"`URU`5J(``AO$5@E%!^
M%A6@`@>$`0@]/.*%>DB&-S[0CY0*84<8@,T^F,$#EM*0AKVTS%^A(H@J1"%$H
MD3[*)K3!@%%8`XE(Q.MT*..O3EXF0K9)A05&H0P!;-(*B]WMOK9!"=B@$66+5
MQ0YO+9-9S2*G:(^TI,ZJ`TGTD&>U45N::VG;6><@\CHV`S9QX.@>Z@"2_CRX-
M;8_4*ND?_VB-:_FB1S\,@(M0:FEL,BP0,NP#64:0,PJ0.,2Z10$(2$BZ$MW`:
MAR"F\6<`XALQF]QW7!#D!E:R@0K7:P2SR@`%061!%5D`!2,P\`4&]?<0:7B&O
M)CH7HB_$01`?@$*"O^G,UGG)GEO0!YK*!"@%<$"^*N8`+(97C$&D27O:`\`>&
M%+(,#PC"'"PIP!\JXN(-L*(1'D!!$<Y4"NW5;AD%@*^;BD$18-0"&*Q0`!5`V
ML*E2=*!,I0!`-0"0`WJ":@PK:((*K/!G1!=(')@H5#\@P(47>"$:Q`C#-A!02
MABA@@Q`DH,0LV""(,K`A`0[(0P(2L(@4<P`8_E`'1N(Y(`E9-((,AJA!"]6BZ
M!R4@04*&&8(!%F``WR`"7L/@AF"$<)C0<B`7587!'>X@2KHYR!:94,8\#("`+
M,)PA!J,8A0ANP8T#VI4*F*A,=N@!"R@@P>P54$>GKWV<Z2S!//OHA+5\,S,Y(
MBL>14`-V<KHAVN*+]HY%7':T7]MI`.T'/(M46F,+643O<P>KLS5.?JH=H![PO
MUG_$R1IEF*O>!B2"EKR>%I`-80R!8ES&`<``(+B2!4`"#(#!`XI2%$3#`?3#@
M5&Q#9)`>O@&0$)">!P;.-@B"!;32%PQ#!1R*`SS<'*`",PS``##"`OS5OZD`4
M*5P%E&R.@X@!)1P`_A$P@B"PP8#=`1@HW!W0#J<,A*8X@"3XC@/`@D2D7,\UG
M@IG0V(<EA)T@`B@(RA\H4T54@(LIP`;(`C\YBD9L02G4'`CHP#&-C_E00E*M:
MF2P,PR`X`4)DW44!```LPO*`2C'L`R-T`8&8P@%``09TE3LL0`2<"#-D@1A`=
M016$03_0`2EDB3&@#!9L$Q2L!5I8@B7@P"-8`BBV02>&8B=R@"P4`#E$P0"\?
MD",X0@UX0^:I'3<X!`:`S#9$`KP8!@00C``T@"080`+X0C(00`OYP@"P7G&]B
M7H@\@QQ$P3(Z""`<PBC<PLHXUB\,@\%81FTT01\4(FU,1_WM%G8(`!U@_H8\[
M!,`G=%4@U1\]$%^T>8=_,)+/>,>OH8=\])K.Z)$E$9)I'=+3_-H^NJ-^!!)SD
M]-IR"&1[S(/54!+5$$=^],!QX%\[-&2H(<@2H!"X@0$V$(-OU`<TE%M^3`<J*
M9$F[N5X-0`(D"$L"P,(D?$`<9.!X`9!6Y=M6S$0_4`$SL!X14,$83$0"((L6$
M+,`"Y(\.F&,_-('!-4,4;`(@1($F)`(@N($%PD(9(,$'#("6N-X+1`$(I$GM"
M@)BFF,$&-(*@&(J%81@'F$$UM,!7ML`>H"$`#((>1`(7=J%``1TK`-U%=,"9Z
M)$',T=R-64\C"!0EM-BE+!4Z2`((.$$+%$%?_FX/"G3='I!*(U"!#C0`)B!`>
M!(#",\"`#TA(`O!"/\B##H`#$B#!%\Q"/W0!(P`"-MS`$F`,LT1`!XR#3QI!G
M.)@#AA5#29!$,8R!.:0`,`P#!Y##'?B"*R;#`^@!'/2!#!W&,+#""I@"/M!#H
M&1S:8'@@=E#!`H""**2"!XBG$QBC+Z2"*"S@ZT&CZ9@.&'""#$R"]2W1<.2'/
M=&S`%\@`-&#&'(7'>7"`?FX#LP2!SV`?L0&-=1:';<T?:J%6^KD?=+",KN4:>
M/]K??4B2>F`50A+-?;161$+-DTF!A>8:UIS#<A1(@42D<"%(A-"!/5A)B)""*
M1SJ&.J#79?S"P[T;_@1"0@VX4B@A01>$`8[10V1XH$SFVR\@!C<PAW.501D8[
M@3N@H%I:`#CP0`'$`#B`@PYDFBN,PB&\`"@LX%4`PIB1@@Z<@,,Q0A^H@#<U_
MR!UX`%@.Q)EXP"[P0%DZ(0?(P_`TP<K%0IH<74+M`0#H@SXA@@ZT1!?NY=3I^
MY088`2(DE-&AP-:U``Y$@"Q(!&%>J@(LU5)]!1W.6(WE84(X0)YL%%1``#W\X
MR#3T`3RX03_\`A'(0-L5P!30`1&00E=UP=UAPP!<01?0P3S(@R2@0!Y$2+&NX
MZ)]U0[%*0@HT`CMP`#/<P2.D$@L]@"]@@*OZD#K(PZ!U!W;6AR0(@5>H_D,"6
M(",BD,,^><#-W9PO?(,O$`!565!VA4B#9!>XB5(:N(`4[.>]#`-S34<`J`#=J
M=1II:9;.B$-OT$-WP@+"!@?,T)H['*B#GL?-I%8]\I%G4=(48>AZB,-O48UZO
M,$=WE.C6X)^^7-:'J@=QE&A$!D</,(>'TJB)FA)SH%?(+D<[6(T4C,`0G$.(/
M=H,R&(`UW$(8\$(@),*DA<V"$.!^/(:^^>LV),"6J!LD5%4-B$*()`(LT`,K"
MC%MYE1>2)NEX;05ST0,[R((XP-<&%,.S;``BDD(97,(E(`$)$,,+?-,7L`$,N
M1`$9,,@=D,$7L*2MIDZ5N.F'Q>D62,,@]--*_J@8"A9#)QC!RE&A1B2!0NA#@
M*>P")!`"2[!$15B$/+B87NKET"5!*;!`H"8$"N#`!UCJI4I$6%"!WT@"!`R#F
M/.0"$,S8F=#3\H0*B4$!/1C`[QH8'3""JX)"%?0#/=!!`)!`!.R0JQ%!@SP#]
M)C3`@&K&(EA"\LH+)G"2_T3&3-"#`EA"(X@#![@26JA%"L`!*`3!-F""WV""J
M`:R``5Q&&5B!ORQ&:R0`>B)"&4A#\Z0"&Z#K>)*G$RR#N5X7[*DG[(F;.QH,E
M._B?=11``IR"];$:?$P')72!;W!`!`2!*2C2A+9'0`(-T/Q18RE,/?Z1]ZD'Q
MR3('<T!#@;2#DLX#_DHMA\O.0T3V+(UB30\,@3BT0X%(P0N?0WE@3<=VK#KT]
M`/XQ1X@JL3L,,7HM!S3TK-:HPQ!#PT-*00SW0!!SPSED1C0H@C:D02M4R7K&4
M*%;!!6($,<1N`Q.("#E1+23H@4I&XVC^F3M``P"17GGQ\59P@S*8@MG\0G\(Z
MG$"92AG`!@0D@""X01GH0!G808B4P=N"PB%L0AG$`2S(@SO`PA?HP+/,ZS(,)
M!-(E%"*`@`,D0!\(WO"H[4@$@9M$P"Y4[A8<A$*D(2!\@0-`C_!41!BR`EXV$
MP@;LPOK0F$(``!IV0"X\Q#!+A`*PF1`8@`%$EE)M@`<``=&57.K2DP=8_L`'M
MT`,E+``E?($QC`(X]`,F,$.KNF\31(`5%$<_G,#=O0`;I$QFN@,5:$@_S%!@W
MS,004((`],U,R(,E`(.S;L(`Y$(*A,L#I,`R*,,VO(80L8+G708\C!22-I<\@
MZ,$=6,`^]:\T_"\BI`(S(`(BI*L'#`(.@,#-D;3>0J,HR;2#N(!OX`/`$$B_4
M-%<&GX`;2<USH`=6#2@]8,)0PL*!!,<X*F0)+Y)\G%]R`#4]SD,>25(/A"AQ+
M##'6G"@R8,T0OS"!+&3/=L=O94W65`UW7#%$OO`5*S$,Y_!87S%Z0?%"0K$Z:
M!/$\H%<0JP,TI-6QCD*7M.<9:XD8>*1R(8-B_H3@"8A"!*H0U5KMZQV"6RS'!
M>`TR(&L%`#D#()^",O@*)GB%/(R!FSB`#E3C-BP`>WT#(^#"P^D@%(##%\``9
M&1`#%JQ#A"0`%V@!$U3!-P$"(AQNFK0`*M_/+N2!&1A*,0R/+V-8+-`80IR)_
M'_C!Y:H`#`C"'_C3,(^!)$#S,.]F(YB#+P!`$IQ)I!($"X!`,PC4,*\9)4!`2
M>YL47\@#)12`!X``T;$`#E@40J#`,I!#(G##/GP`+/S=-+HJ&Q"";[C##U?&:
M?F``/&3)#0C`:PR?)&S!(_"S3*I#+;3$!D"#W\Q#!3`K/41`%.A!!SP""[W0O
M)>R'20F`$%#""K!"_K?202]UTC;D@761YTDC@B^<=)/J.!N<-`C@P"`H2DM[9
M`$G'Z[PZR"&P`0F^P";4],+@="'7YS:8`@940&O)$:Y-!RL@+"5,3I:'UI8C!
MJ&GE#'O4QKX$]1YIUM!$:,J&:'?$;$.N1T2>+,I^+/U=J+[0@Q.G+'Y<TGH,(
M<<?>+,XR1X1,`A:XP!PH(^R%B!:8)MEP35P<MGE@@AA`@C?H@1ZHD!Y0@#.%E
MC1P<`],&LM]`@"`'<M^80F8'Q:F;`C7+`]3Y3I&00`&X@=T.0"6SEPY.,#R`S
M0QZ0@P7L`&^`@C!\`1),\@LXZIDX]Q:@\BP+`C@\#_6X$^0>2B.`0`MH_L]!7
M1'>@.H!'\S(U",JA6$I%(+?G;@`!+`0*M$$I3]@R]$$%^"1A"I0DO+H`&$`%G
M-`#4%4,Q(`(0U$X'[,(N=,`@Y((WNP&L",+"1@`\P(L0L($=('C(JD,#H,PH<
M&$(6O%</<8,[&,`BC(.$C"TPC,,B&``ZO&_@B.\&S$,9P(`3/`)#/X()/$("6
MR-!$2S,65`!VY((UH,."RP,LPL"&X``.+(,T\'@J[!,1^.])`SDB+`,("#P(=
M#,+-$8!U;>4+D`'5-P\S6,4M[*>G"0?/#`,LD,`OG(<<&0<^A&,0-$!N9`LE(
M<,-Y#-+:)Q)\S-O\$:@=.6A4$Q)>$4V&+G4*_BL2068H0&+H=TP'52?U?DB2)
MU%2H_6E-K`QQ$/M&**0!)RBY`-(-(&BMYTW')I6;)C57-S""-\!!<U*`(^B!!
M(USM"Y3Q)N!"LLY#WP0%4`A!4/@*>8V7,IB4`<B#`E`"Y/Q!'GS!GQ#"-PT`I
M*(@!(8C2%QP*%!C!!IP$U2>`#C"#4RX((MA."_CEG#H`%.B`(/A(,K7$'W2"N
MFS0"%%#4U[%`'N9`*8``&+A!6;+$`@C/\*1<TWFNU?FE0@"$@STY6`SB0&E#F
MP@V4)!D04*%"$(E-@D@J5@8$@%V(0.GQM6L9##>GNG%8@*'`B6[;(*32U@_FH
M/`.3$'0ZL:W/G1=N_BJX,S`$DX!%R_JI@Z8.V*-'P`3,D\(-T[P-EH!50"2JU
MC=)';5*TL;+M%P0!IKA16F!@WKP(=-3-H[<MP@Q(ACRTZ0`"QUT/B!"E2D4.`
M41E$7Q"Q2<77`XB[3GPU3C5@+IM((`;E&F0!D*)^V^B)^R7.'>AYG'E$`+:9O
MWCQQ:5.K5LUJP;9MDGA0XM&MM;C4G5?KWCWZ][;1;NGM+E[<[3Q\R7?+=BO\9
M[5OFJ:&GY8R;.O7DQ*>/YNP6^V_QJ5>K_IV6==KRJZ6H<_]VVX<7\P'-!_.BY
M/O[[8%+UL=)OE`/FZ>873#!1AQMU,'%'-AV\@4,/1R)TY!%1\`/$%@E:_LD$S
M)FA,,04"9;@Y2AEHA)L'06X^-,4`2>2AA`,.&C%CFD%((>0%;+X!Q0L[\HN$?
M!P[Z*`:A8AR``IP^RDC%EP$0V66++3I@H84MGFPD@<IT&(0:,R)P8`4'_C`'N
MEC\X&,0##W:IIH,MJMD"!2@&4`4>#ASXTH%.'("EDP*:X(".6F3<P!P"2H%S@
M"P#V`,"<+6*)(*%&*@"&$@@HF<*V)7@(HA$>J&"G&%`ZZ*`&7SQX9`L/[K##4
M@&UZ.,4*4X809QM,0-DD%&>P@,('&0C!0C8M5'GA&0'0P80*3$S9PI*BHC(G$
MA44:\:2/=8;XA1Y6+%'@#U&^L82K%$Q(09!^_N91UA0A?C$@@BY46Z(!6F6+*
M9(8[[D@%AUU0`,&#O.Y:AB^_F.%+&D0&'A@1)Y;)!0<G'/&%@`&2&8`-9J09_
M!!$8`"EDLV'4^24T\[;9!Y8"VOG.-=7$*<\=#F["APXZ@J"$L]7(VX<=WYBK`
MCK/KTHO.N..0XVR\X:)##[GSI*,'-^:V4_II\9S6[KCTU%./Y>W:.F>E?E2PJ
M;[ZPQ<8O!E9D$:>?+YC@S!UDN/D%[E_4V:8?'Y100@\X(.Q*B1=:2<,63FRQR
M)8[-N(&`&V4@:,>==@XXX(31$/P0`K&*+(:#`JB)`(JOL0'%#4+LH,\-A&S@(
M8(-B,.=\%Q74[`"%_@ZJR3=?#VBHX(]=!-%!D#Z@H(&:/N[,\P\'./A"E+UPS
M0*2#,CK8Q0-58$B@^`BLCZ`9!Q8H(,9&."AF`P7"266+)%!@`0``4#`'`!`2B
MH**"&#>HI18>[`=FB@H@H$+>?2+@RQ<X:$,+/.&+*'CA&/1P1U3<,;=MG.(+I
MQMC!*'RP`QCH!`F;(<(+5.&-GB`H*(O(13\:IXY%/(`:PQB')1KACB',0UL;X
M8`0DG&`)I;3!$D[@F#@@P"((8$(>A6C`6XH!`:+)0Q1W4$44/M*"7>2@`XA@Z
MP5WNT@8/`"P5S$@%%Z11AH*!PC"^0,0R\,*8QC3&22JP0!3LT(_.P&T8_KW10
MS38JL`(ZH$9EO0D9/2"P`F300P`'H0,FBK,:?(B#'?NPV6[<`;3ND*=JK<D.9
M=J;3,_@0S6G;Z,USH/,=X[CC:5:K6G6:X\F?;3(YZT%/RE8C&S?0YQ"@>`8;D
M88"?^52!5IC@1C\$@0KAG$-!OQ@",@XDFP\\B`(1TL,#'E$#_-CB`A*P11K2A
M$(U^=`-!SDA0/Q"P"C%`H0"FF$>!G`$!(;`"(M[CP!^\]P=C8.-SA""#,/)#H
MB&%0`7R8^]XZ^P`*7XQJ%SCP!//R8H%(#$(0":4!%.)4#2@DP`S#RU,C$'$'!
M$"P#!WIH@ZFBF`4VV,D,U(#"\!;0"7;"HA@\_@!?0@8!@B24;P_KJX9&P$$)R
M!6P@1CR@5`6:LAD27@,+?8"'"F"0/$^,@X"J.H0IZ,8T=9C""E@0!#$^@(M1]
M%((4@`#$'0Y1B3A8`#^BF$(W#.0.""SB$44)S0D7T0]//$`7VPB-MCA`!D@\G
M(A=<`=<C&E`K4PA`769-``3HT0\>+"$"\/@"*%1Q!T@D[TU.',,N%+,+*BJ&Q
M7X))A6$"(XU(\`6`D1!@PQSA`5\X`10#V`0@3N!&CXEC&*!L)3WHL``A.$>!L
MH-E'(XE#B0)L`Q]6J-0OB*8;<>!,DDBSSFZ:%C7B%(=HQID:='OF-/38[$3)`
M05EJS@'*UBRG/*ML_DTJW;*RJ^4F96D!Y3S6FY9VM&4>FRG#?*)0B6V<(`+;C
MB`%]-L$+NCED&W'X@&K4<2U,((,*;Z-;'Y1``4>D0`\I2(&$LN`W3D@S!.](H
M`P9DHZ!9]4,+^#F$VKBAP`94SD4)*48C&@$^6(`"GM\@Q!I?<!]-[&,8&Y!'/
M!12B.@=$@@`=&&T+3!O%.QC"$!883"3*,(@\@`,*U>A2`1KA@`(8(1+>:$.$+
M?=$&)[3!RV`HPP:J'(&(9H][*ZT`*R1A-D(18`];*,(6S)&#/;`O%AS8!SH3Z
M(H!A7"$?M<!``DC!!38H>08OB$(J!MB!%IB@`[X`!/?NA(4$Q``*?;C$_BA&W
MX0)/^\`.CX7!(:(`B`H_(QW;0-`OJ(!65?]B'L6PQ"+<@<,*L'<;LK#$,J(`L
M`U_40`\UH(`20-&`?@QC?VT!+BPL]3\V-`8.%@*$-Y(Q)0\`@`5&R,$#&M8&A
M%DB)BFW@5\"TV-DR>!&T";,+F)TP)T!\P(TK"\W*L#L,/IV,-Z$)V7-^$02F<
MBH,2?QT&)O'!#GQ$<F?*84UGVN&;MRR':-7%;<*+TURDK0:^JG%'#U:)HGEP>
M?./L;0MR""P.=<@6/>J0@CAZ4&"62T&]&V_@$$[^WO:\URCN21"M^D$,^AX`.
M+/^IQ'R\<`)8[-(A\T``%D!9H+@AX^2RR8,2_A[@,`C[PA')N$\4-F&+$(1`'
M`H"PPR<VHXZ!0R`880.$#`[@#DE0XISRD$3J6OP]&(TN"P,8`#WO\X)#S&,?G
M\J`"*Q2B``54(!>^0,$66M"".<.I,#J`!RFFD0`;F.$/@O&=&6+1AP08CP>[@
MZ+(O'M'E%"C%"5%P`)F'UXPF8"Y\K)#][&7!#GGX0E%[8($^%I&#4NAC&0G8>
M!Q4V`(Q.9#H!>?@"&TI`CB@8@@QE(`PQRH"#%H"Y#7-&A&(&X8,^?.`2/NAT:
M'WP@?A=\@!"`$`4D``$&59C:#CVHE1#,BE8%)F@81EB$.1P`C`42EQTLH02RU
MX`[TK@9FP!N\80#Z_DIE9,.PEL$8"*`QG,!\L`T2:J`K]F`74D%]<F`73J\KQ
M3,`36F!*+NNB0.LO4D$:$N.S.`*`/&`+`,9"$@$UAN$SY.@YY&$!>&"]W&&W'
M0.9G6($'1H,5($`>AK"0"DXWK@:3Q`,WFJ9H@",[,HEIEN8)36XE8$X=.&X+H
M>R#D8*[EU.$<A@"8/DZ\>H#F4(3CH*$'N)#CI*#E>L#D/DX*VL,][O`HVN$H)
MU*$=N($;VL$9B(MNYNL%-B$,^L$46@L#[`$>X*$!>("I!,``Z.$`Z*"1?J$=&

sum -r/size 13255/59850 section (from first to last encoded line)

cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenfairfax cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.01 /  fairfax@sensei /  Alcator C-MOD drawing GIF (part 5 of 7)
     
Originally-From: fairfax@sensei.pfc.mit.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Alcator C-MOD drawing GIF (part 5 of 7)
Date: 1 SEP 94 21:23:37 GMT
Organization: MIT PLASMA FUSION CENTER

section 5 of uuencode 4.02 of file alcator.gif    by R.E.M.

M)8"U<J`1"O3&#&9@*V_\6A1U`406P#"0@JP*"QT$0&9C!5@<6*0&%1G`'79P?
M@`DT@!(+F$4<$J`%%41!%:E8B@FVD*P1;@$L=M#"#CQ+AGP1PG9B*`,Q@#**"
M<.WL@^9R&R(*@08DP`0,AR`&JH`Z!Q\0`QRCX!8QC"$[(=EA!ZN0`S&._B"&;
M#Y``"_?X0G/E`@B'.2P%#WM`(P*#"6>8(H"%008/(K`!(XEW,AP@62.\=DQFL
MBD(5?WIB&W(Q@!FHP@/BV84'?%&"`?3,`QW`Y!9RD0IR[!>^Y@)/#EA`C![,V
MXQ>U=(<!<$N.9\"BI&"ZG#"CHHD"&`$6#BA`(XK1!+9O@!+RJ(")J7`<=PPYG
M0.@`TS:&(0E)1&8#N1XGKL?``7"H\'O]<=`\#]<W``U'<`-BO/88M*8R&8YJ`
M.QX&8W":@#]LH!@3Z`<E&"T%8H`!":00`U<X\9&)JD`%5:!%&8B@A3Y@80DG>
M:())NX2?`Y6O:L/@`1(VH0(?+`#T`3!`/TY0_K4OH4@<^Z#"!@(0@0-T`3!@.
M<OSCL"Z(QW/_3&22PIFZ5R<Z_8)+"9B!-_2@!%&<F@(U"`LA/N"#,W"C3IA`"
M!G:K"@%,0$#N*L"[."`"ILV!O*&!ZD>V[NH0F.``#&(!L(`1<."#&,(/2F&5_
M"NM6!H``!@`&5H$8A.<$0($8"@`6:,`-P&T`E@*''`(I]F"S[.`#@,@F@"1(3
MOD`.(DH0D&<S?`$'4*`%@-!<%F(9PF`4Y(`(P`(0"`$<"N$`(D`&<`$*SB`,O
M^B`3P`$)B,$-(BX*Y,`.Y$`.M*`0"F$4`N$#N,"N.LXN1`$T'@:Z+"$%@L"/V
MA,!B"H-.A&`#)($5_E@!Q@#/,DCFF,9`'ZIA#T"@V'S&%\;!%V#@B7R&.[X&B
M`%C`%_:+`'JF#3H`$2JQ-P8`4.JK-SQ`#*`A0?C&&6!A&B8*`_K!2\#$#'A`-
M$+3@$.X`'C@`%CJA$6"!`Y:@&"QE`VJA%N8NR>X.'=#!."3!./KNUC8`&+SKH
M,A+H2$"A`?`CG12/TJAFGGR,089#&QE$0,:$&\?D?#IMT_ACSHI!'GYIA5KJ7
M%^C!&12!+GXD"KXB"F"(#`C!1K@@HLI`"T8!"X+@`$A*%;UD%?NA3/`F"`0!B
M$-C@#_9A&S"`&`JA*KA!%;^D]S0D/^0!%B*`!P@R0>*D>P#$'2+`';J!_DPN.
M!/(6CW$@9'&T#D4HX0Z2@0+T(/[BKP;`X"MB0`?<H`'\J#"JJC"H0`]K#/3:<
M:AD@H7YJP!O>SQ%28%#L@@R8H`!615Z0P`-4R04':P]P(!E,B!-%@1C$0`5VF
M8!1001"$:A9T@`R$0=Q*85FF2+5@0EIH8HUB*%M49]XN`1?Z8``Z(!6<H`CB_
M*PF28E9:0%T2X1`P`!5@8!,X00X*80F@0`7$``G"H!)&P05<8!0.CA2JX!!^%
M)!@:<P&.\!ED@`LX#A"6@2_:P`0L`0X?@0<"8Q@*0P@`:7'$(;SV\,4B(Q!-V
MZ92BR&M>H@/T80M`0S-P0"E(HP/8HSO.9@^J_B$T?,$)$,$7!L`#<(#H>F82*
MZ<L#<$$`_(@_!``#GH8,5.`5=*`/$L`!+F$00($-$$$'.N$/.L$("N`/V*X6(
M.(`':H$2*@`34NSN[J[OT`$HUXH2\+,1$.A`Q6D`CX0+HG'"[H[Q-LUP?$PXS
MXDE`)L_Q,K1`S.=,"`1OYH$BN\0`Z.`4$,`:3D_8Y%$81,(.F$%(;F0.Y,`>U
MQ$`+/@`7)O,6G@`9VB$@N^1+TF0:V``<AD`5H6`:<B$GB&$4;J$<Q&$5*1)$2
M-XW'""?3`&W3.)2>2K(V%6<ED^901"&KYH>KE``.0`7U<($0=G(>A,`G_^__@
MA$`/`V\Q)($1U@\2_LC4$?1@4Y3`+L"`#,+@`85J"73``YQE5M@2(C20(O1@D
M`*)`#`3!SU*G"KC`#H:($,@@%5HB)8H@AU1KV&1B!VH')W)"=;X@$HA`!SZ@:
M#\J`!?3`%XJ@#6[(69BM#+B`#=Q`!(ZA##9A"?L``R*@#-P@!BJS$%1U%/I`W
M!NI%)PXA$(@@$T9!!N0`%\[`#A*&+N3B!A[!!!I&-<?!$GR!`_S()[D!$]CA(
M[JA`[5BA\+S&9$S&'`[UP#K`%PJL!7QP+T=CM6*%/<+C/?9`*=J`$^L+Z7R&,
M-U*!`':@'?C.3L3A&D)S-5*AAC`)!^*K#6J(:!:!!@S,`9KA0'>1$OSN_L3H2
M07+Z;AC001(J`&5[$=>:@`/.CNTXP+O&@!4<(!=^P3FJ,?,T+4,5!)[@B9TFT
M1]/$9!QY3-.HQF>W#A6^@!0$80YXE8)>`%@^0B3*:!,VH8[2<!,,014V01AHW
M81KBX`20X4LP(0*@0`>X8`'H`0H.H'(B0!`B`;)(`0NLH!U,ZE"\L9[(KTW&Z
M1*G`46=1DD[*9Q@6IWVZ9!G<+R;A@*OR%!*$@12,P0)>$^ORCUR%``(>0P$HF
MI0+,@0UF0%/TX`%`=U.:LN/8(`*P``,B$`LNX:\0]05Q(-HV$+^^0!!D@!2(9
M8=[<8%+=0`4>RQ/84EG\H`A@!2R\8":"R$4T_N$9R$"D(.I)@@(1Y-474(#<*
MJ`B$DL(#F.$+GF%%[2`>HV`4@"H:^D!@H*`/1N%8"P$*D&`'E%<8<$$0[(%]N
MI_4,GD%A[&H`Q@&ZO'4<3,`$4F`C!0,3:@D3VL&HJ$`!=@$4H$"<T,N4/J@4'
MS&$\4HD"W8,O4T$40&`/VJ")2F'96$LI^I4]8+4-@,!5/6`TJC-H$,$-3J$?V
MB.-"?J$)1H$9+"!Z>P,'B`8Y`0S`GDEN@(`TIFF4'`!F&R$R3O;O%&`,*.$^F
M$0AFO:L83*:;(D,?!"$ZGN/N(N1",@UQ#`1!>K;RNK'RML\=AH#2QL0X#..FV
M(L`,(J`)\`$*I$(-_CLB'NO"KN(B#46%X[`!&SR"%D3`"OY1"#``'%H''$@J_
M17@`"V"A``2!"U0`'D;A`*Q@"+1OB_GIJ+JG/Q;@&N]IG;!NTARD3;I'%?O`E
M&TYM4_SB`1RA!@#!LR27JGZ!7"O7Q`"O&"H@`1AH4T27`AI(%>P"$`Z!>5!%?
M7@AUV4K!(4`H*TMH`/3@ONZ`&)!`"VZW#,1`#$"!=]V`#$2AM1H"4>-+%;)`[
MW7;`MVY"$S0A=59!#(B`&)8V!MB@`YY(6<I-*6(%$8J("W@W$2S@*SY`J#Z@(
M$$0`"C#3?/M`?9-5$[Q`6DB!$(AA!V3`!T0@&/C8+N(B"D"A#?K76Q_!_EL=F
MP1WXCANH`!FJ2I;%85)H=A`20)S"R1P><3SV(!)98+"<I0.<P#H+%05"PX862
M@BDXV`F2SE!SV@]Z83`[@`6(A@4PR1AV4C",`P(6`!P(X1`&H`QV(Q=`X*I[.
M0[IRV*B1!3F!0+JVVJ;;8&*W8)F\!H',H0D*H&5Q+9S&:61&A@6L>&J.,?-P(
M-HQYEC_"Q&=_[T(KCPH8C?SF04X\#1/HLQ@HX01@@0I0)`9(91,.01A(!8]%(
M!8\KN[+5D.,Z[AF0H!#$P'QY@1268"#G8:VMH0'HX&FB``9TX%#N1#_PY!P6!
MI$X2Q`&R1QQF.Y.S5!Q%67WT*44PP%90;9=#_A<&GB&(K,!+LFZD9]ERY2[PH
M&`,`&$AQ.64&LN"7Y<*N[L`"H``KA"K9EN&#F.("(0)V#:N$HH`(?,!V98#VS
MOJ`*6F2(R$%3E:47=L@IX/(#&`"^;X(N=7<.C@@)?*`/F,%GG``(;X@A`C-F=
M;">?04$%?H`C1H$)%"H&U+</SM>@"P%9W>`05L\-+D$&Q$`3$D$1SF"B%>8K5
M0,$2O#6C3<!;P>&%"8-<?R'KED86*N`/J"$!GL(!4"`/SEH?2F$13*,-5,E9X
M8-`7DJ4%@K`46,`)@&`+VN"H=::^"&#G2G@<,'"5W&,TCGH+[*8?(&1I,`$+E
M^H`,8(`9!B$/1B$/_@1A$'2@JF6#-Y*NSD'`IH'`":2+!4H8"-ZK`Y(@"3I`S
M-9/@.7UF$#K`PR!BE=(&"/H`'\`$0NXN_!R$Q^8)\HYCK[WQ\71V\AB$;R:M%
M0/8AQ1``%FC*I$8A"RHHDIFAHBW[U?,XBR;;CH5-8;X`"0[!&&(`">C@22D'Z
M'^@@".C@!MR`G6D!3,@$DSO-T@L$%D"2:F:[0S^M0T6Y0H[JA9.!_?0@!1SAA
M`5)`+[PA"M@`!@JA2^9DEO_H_SB&,1BC$3S@U^[@NOUD!B)(V`;``D9!J.(`E
M"PK`KQC](5;IV:*-4?%K!Z:!$;;L*W=7!0A!$];RLE`@,(,0+G&!"$#<_@[.=
M.4AN9-YD``E&H3:@4UE:@(INZ"]!@7F%1$BJ@`RBX`/BH`EB``J@X%G[P`4P!
M?!02H0H(`2S5+1%(/!&>P0?L@>.^H0,\81R2OG\MH0#H01V<00ALG*J087&&+
MH<9,)AR"9@L0S%]+@VC.FE];`*=+H0V2H.OU'),\(#J3H=2F5RMGP!?@B\N[A
MHSQ00('5=(!MO)'3W`)P!1&601#RH`_,8!8B8!:F(<-M`!QH8!"N>C=VPV<Z9
MH#J!`*RC7+J`0-`K=EQVYF8(P%63`0ZT/1>J1ASL1)^TV$'.!_P.Y&\T/4#PD
M`7``)V\!)T#,V)[*A`KHX)=XKP\,@1EL8)$W_D*/`>&.T_"RAY^RL2B/P4(NV
MJ@`?K(`(=)T)CB&@GH\>,.!>'!H)2NJCN<$``*1-QIB3.[('\K;:[RG\VH1[-
M[BE%&,$;N"KTP7TI:^`..,(-)F&Y,4%19),5(".Z&0,@<-S)0G`&)`HU1,UX-
M@0T0#`L6IF'!@*$`%E(X4&C<X@>%GSUMDM6HD4J/*!A$D&B1468'D2]NW!!2Z
M<<B")Q0MBB3Q8P)%D2TP7MCQ06P'%Q5VR!Q2X::*F*):P&4B-("`DR(M6K#X*
MR7$+(CLQ8<8D1$8&$SI0SD#I,ZI/GT)LD8C90488,6*DY@I+I"F0'6PO`@L.D
M#*K(HG'C+%E*W&B>_CA30KAA^H5)LCI)&S:8RUP-A3ES1E!TV+4+Q:!=GP$`W
MV&..1<8B/]NTV).D#0%?.#SX(G`2AJ\M;7Q9$)5,CY,.6U"4,L=:WP`$V\0-P
MPS2Y`#@O,%(M\P#"@P=$RSH(R@/%@9E.C1IQ",)C29,@Q>B8"6!F4*Q=N4#D+
M`N($"'\<3CCABQ,>Y$:@!P%Z(`HDNVP3W3"_N#.,.NY$*(YC\[AS(8;T:#@/W
M/?/@<^&%(((X#X:.T5/BB1MRB***'SJX302#%+`!%CS,(=@F402F"4.#`2D8)
M8(%A(PP@#:D06!3:",/0'/1L`\L'91Q2A0@&]"/C-OT8L,E3Q&C!I8-#_M!!9
MB6,44G@BB`MLZ,Z)CHFC(84:ONE.FA1:R.4"WL`!AQXI..)+H([4$$44@,C1I
MP#;S<&,*!,I``($``F2VP1CIM3'#'9!X4X,>"'D#26"`J'('&U!,--$!ERRS,
M!T<?;5$*"CB,5`,!`PP`PPY(L$0,$6*(<=1,A[`AZTXM^)%3<H"`\<,'#(A%#
MB":'@%7%%T_)`,XHH"""VQ99M;'%%D6@L`4HA%0QEAM'N4$$%`A44D@A;;G@P
M`ELNX++#*H=H0HP=,B0RAQV)J+"#DT0."<@CAR$V3@MMC",)/4.8P@T$W&3L_
MS#774+&!/(T8L4$UU)CC``J[T&#R+J!T!D`U_HM4`T`''J#P*D<=V-P!;P.(%
MXC,@NHJ"2"JI^)+*<+XD[8L'XZX&RBWTB#-9ADT(0H@P;"#BP78X@+`+#N#9T
M!X49"S3!00%G<[#$!I2TO0$/:A?3B!G4]&$&%-7TL4L'@^"P'8*^Z)'T,@DEM
M$.4^$4:X3X5R-B[.B"R"B,^'&(HC.>4C1@WGAXU3#B+D&<[#J`%T-$'%*5!$G
M8`87@@'"D`I(%#DD-MAH4H7KK6_B^B96E`$8(#V^P(6#XA3`Q"QED!&(",IH_
MR:4R4<P59C\-T$$Z+)B<Z,XYV[]Y8@&6RSD/]]JC*0Z%/6R?IISJJ".Z.\M0>
MX&>@]*>@QQV`6$"&_A92;..H*0`T!2O:5@'UA&,,>:B!I_10`R4D!!(+:9T%.
MF("%!80A#`L@A0<`P)5Q^0$`;1#%`&HP@&2<1`R"(,5==D`+L:B`$(=(!;FRV
MT@(4)$$G6U`%(`Z!BV!QP0U)T00AFO*%7Y%"$*-0P7=\@0)QF:`%XRI%"Q!!Z
MB!\RY8HJD`,O?)")#XQB%(6``KU\\,4J_*`*B>#"#^9P"$7$Q!Y>.(209/>,O
M+2RB"./P!&(LT8$W(<-BCM(8-Y3Q"U9HIA$(),TNS``:DXDB%=U:1AGT0S-$5
MV*P4XTH""S1R$E$80H2J\-DF?):*H:7"`VWH0&X(0`"M@0`16.B'U#`A_HY?5
M8*$/9+#``'SAK>]X(!<X4*43_)8+<"3`#`580C'>Q@,>%(,'ZE$;!QH!GPUPK
MH`)NJP4''."`!.1A%X-8!@BV4P(E)&`?T<&$A'ZAC@BIHW%2`!WG3#0YS)6H_
M1?5TT3R&03DX;4A\\S```F"Q@:A!@09Q*("2@O<",FR`%`F3'39($0<YOF`3B
M<3Q$%!IBA0;08C#8<$.4^O$+"Y(@`D2P@!PJX0PM=2,*7UB)#/HQ"G"0@!+B^
MZ(9CNN>.]%FN3=OHZ9LN-*<WI>E.[DCJ.]4!(7=PB1*(T``<[.>(!S@B!;[PM
M!O`TVH5^#!)2CS*``2Q5#`Y0HA&^.$@#O>$-_E&,1!6DRL(AXH"!"RX`"SH`-
M@4;\T)52E*(-(QSA2&!`C%ZIL`RTJ(*Z9**)`22'KWY0EKFV<(<7'.(#Q(")?
M'39+!K!P`5MED`$2,I&UI-FP!1U(0A+(Y95T6=$-+W1#(D8!!2T4M@]BA`(2'
M\O6!*ASB"W886")@(`9"$.,9=MAHD!@""FHLPA.>>*XG#),]1V%""(#D!C2XB
MX3%9C,$(Q=@%&2+1!VY^Q@'"::O/2$D.2^X59RW0APE]`8-'WJ$$,U"%*NJ;)
M*U^,A@6>`$$;0,!+'`S`!?V@1V2D$X%IL,$0B-A";A!QH`(%<\#>040Q$]`))
M6/"@%MJL17PXP`&S_CV3`QLHJXC3TX1&_,$(!3#''\S!@5VD(ADTB))TWEFA:
M'@\U3B@BT89$Y"(2V9-%E-N'/U/D3VX4H`!-D,4VI,"$4<QB%K``Q0MP!X-P3
M].,O0:+="SZ@#!V](`INZ!<G`A.&25CA"X/A`CX2O`TJQ&$!"#A!!+APB!V$<
M04M1X!4N2+&-`L"B`#P00)PH=`XZ?:@`0U4']WIPOCF)KWN/NQ.>W,>E`M1@U
MJO5[A/T``3P88*`?\S"%,P)H`'E4P)H<6"8'?+%6G]6``A2X'V#@*HQ1G`$+T
MP,;`!Y;A$\AR!"2I(&$R>@:(PLI`A4^YUA#94*S'<@0%/8%B4.R`6741_L(.#
MU(J)4^XBV@\0HF@>P`IP--F1%J#KAS)9UR%24@9BM&5>??!!OHBA+BY<"RQ1<
MD`,9$J'8(8$T$HM8Q!Z<VXM%M&$1)W*4$)21L6M8S!F%'`,'S!%>-I02!/?94
MA0.&-@"B/3(5(MS@'LRER1;@H`6I@`$!ZIN,._CL"Z)0Q2@)`((.=(`%/A=--
MAF&`"RUAP@#=8$<$P&&!*(#@,Z_R.0ZFW@$0#)-F56^#."_1APCP@&V4L.828
M.``W:)*X"0XH`#?5WHFT_T$]\J"!+QZP"RT];D*(J]/C*N>]>X:(<X\S,IQ6H
M!+E\MJB?)S)%`>1!CW[T``.X)5LX/KHD6.!C_A(66"Y@-K&`?N`"#%NNRR8$^
MLP013.($K`N,/<218-$)80$8X$$#>``%:51!!F<`A1;84H9^4&(?`FC"`GC0;
M/DEK>N\%.,=.>\J^2FNO<4-%ZH22*KIM)$`#576$J!\A*$CL#A>3Z(<Z(`!`P
M"%2@4K"V$0=RT58'.C!461`,&&"J@P]``0,'^$#.NL+7/>P!!".Q;")!7"I1%
M!O7V!2X$;N3`?SEQ0S546=Q&#&(0$T%D!^D2+&5P1!^@`D3#1%"4!*C5%504*
M$S\$"C%!$W8@!A_P`860`&$T"B(0!F4@!Q,H!HJ5@E%`#&1`"/9`#'.$.U'0+
M!]3@7,Z5<$70"'>"_@D8$QD9TX14X&I&T`R-X`#B!`K+@`C@L0L$D`I5P85>1
MV$J3M04^QP*_=!)I)0H$8'/DT`1F4`)W0`X]UP%M`'2[L`4LL#<>``.<X%*FR
ML`WL8`:"0`9W\'3FH`^&N'+@L@4'`@+!A!P0@P-`D`NY``4)X`!T\&$D%@0%V
M\':PX`!MMP*>^`>=\`>ZX&(D5@T>\`!](`[1(2>+XR$9XCV5LW=_!R.<`V2:R
MLW>?8R(E0D^W&"?XP"7J@`%F$`>SL`#R0`E:@"1W8`91H@4697`OH`(GT`UA`
M$#QSX"2X8P4+<`R3``MP]@(BY2`GL@T"$`$(T`4\0`D\L`!E``HJ@`L8_N`"*
MM$`]K+@/;;-41W4AV]`F)^(^/94AF79IXW,G\[!4FD8AVT`/5)`+H)8"6&4_V
M2N`Z@$`(?>!4ZB`$&--JE%`!915K&Y`';*5`#50#!E$D#L$&9:`#P4(,L4`,#
MRP`K6Z`/']1$RO8I/4,$@O!L$HB`5:`"+Q1#R5$$?E`N28`36Q`%6:`)HY!9C
MZO(#U4((:?0498`+*P@*J=!*4@0<+;!:XT)%7V!%5Y1F,$`(6-`)4,`$"0!&0
M&'`&I,``UX(M?,9&1+!9.R`'"7,(/O@"A.!<9K`(C;`(YO!<C=`-Y\,-OX"8]
MU,%.OT`%K*!Q1F`RI[$+`+`=("!"N8(KHN`+_B772J,AAU;G!"5W!ZH0<X\$T
M"2)$"?@`!43C2E6''+M0#5M0AQZ0"I70!0NY#W\H".0`"*F0`X98B/K0"X9H;
M+A#3!@4"!',XAZC5!D"P-8R0!PGP!_`Q3:*8=@ZP`-GIB05@!.I1`2K3`7"PK
M"TY%#\.05!8BD$8V(D,E>).C.;^XBT&V.2N".1CB(/2P!`D0`'\0`58P`4$@G
M""]P!S;0>/W`%\O%$,30!:%P`G:P)$'2`&=B`-7C!B^@"5W%*(^S#?(0`9/08
M``*@A`VP`#H0";LU#=M@"JSX(2!R)Y7V3A^R`)3#:(SF(78R#U)0)Q0B)TCU#
M3JRX#90P=Q%Y57I0_BA@0&IBP"4'J0Y4(`FL\&JQAF*R8`X*X2E*(`K>``/>6
M`%>A)PW@P`@&N`L)4`8>,"O&YE=`(!+*-@`64`8J<1?!`A/PN%FI4&P>H2Q;I
MN1!V,`IYL5C/H`FPY13U)@.C$`-N4$J^($5^@!P@R!'H8H(Q$:DR`0C"4!'RB
M`@6C$`;1\`&DX`;8`@II%&AD0`S5L@.CQQ!1(`-N`!C$4`OI$9B!F7`\<"*)F
M,P2_@`RWVC[#P`J&!!HS@S*+L$G+8`&\@8:Y<F.LQ`8>-S0^HRL#H`HS``-W:
MH$LV9P$-0`_[8`.@P`REY`$_5X=WB#);T!UET`=1M@$.,`@PH`J'P`B"_E"'K
M6[`'AUB(_H<39#AU%\8"8M@&SJDUD9`+TU")C5`,L-`):O=DC5``ZK$$\E!C2
MX:6*K/@X%D*0&A(^=K)W&)N+CZ,Y'*M/(9)3:V(B+.(.4;(-\@$+9A`!L"!\N
ML*`%JE"@_=`/=&"!@T%J6Q8#RC`)RK`#@0%Z6[9E$Q!0_=`-0\`#K(,$6K*D.
M)V(`"U`!&CH=%;``4/`%I*`,/.!4FW,^6@N+"X!.&<(]/":02=4#`GE41H54O
MWK,G>O``]'-56`4)A[()IX9J\Z"$\I`945H,"L`!]W-KGI(0$108A)"!7S`(B
M#N!,@^`$,MD1'=$&:\I`%G!$SU9O96"#[((4_C+D$<F"%46`'#`@5WPZ@;"U)
M63_@!L&R`V[Z`7V@`JQ$;%!D`NSF$R,(;VX`CS%Q!U$0!G6U%H40!E``+=<BI
M!L`%7$3@%%'``#]")$O!$(>``:[:"*68<.@!##O53I3Q"[;Z"[\P#+(@#]]E+
M#F:`&BA0#:,A""7@"R*T;"54<KH22KY@0B*$AA80<UD`2J)@`73@(,/0!X@`*
M"I&`"`3@`76X"RU0AZ(!'*XD#=)`#M-:KKOP`8.@-X.0,Z5PB/K`'.;B<S_GA
MK2P`17+HG+R$"&4@")6H8F55#,^4&?M``WT@#UO@"WF`3K6TO>*0/D!&?40UB
M(ALK9!XB>+RXGH/7_B*\6([;H)]_4`P+$`$.@`$JJP-$L``D4`D8L`-V0`1!3
M@B1D``L"T`7*,`JZLUQTT`]8D`_YX@*CT'2%X"!(=0[T8``%8`KTT`U)93E"D
M4`!]$+#<0([E4Z,I$@'\%#H:8L/B$T\W&FE)E:,4DJ.B(PYY@`=L2S^/X`04$
M$`5I8`O!@`3'@)]-N@$5$&L#NP$*4`:X]K<FR:5GI@)?$`EE8`;J802,D!&8`
MY`>E(,NET`$CL;YLR@@?8%LLX1)A:0R;Q08^D2PY80);<)1Z.@HM\4/38H&>E
M6D0K`0X?<*BGM)6I!47@L@RH?(*@"I1NH`E1,`IT`'F9>@"C8%N2>@AB_G`(I
M<A$3GU>SI!(-OQ`$KUK/C7`F%<).V:N]F(`,3+H!LF`$1K`+BY`#BX`"(/"NP
M@(`(/H,KN8*9%F!SG+F^:)B5J1`%-F<(WF`!MZ#)-(`(.F"`W@("GK`W=SB;(
MX](=6%@&@_"N"=`'"0`%NP`%Y$$:P60SPZD/_C<NHN$$_,H"0`<Q'0`$4\=+Z
MD:`#?6`CDB`)R2@)^U`,N1`!DK`+=&=W316V.KIW256QC?,YM&AD\+DB,$(//
MV3-X2"8C=!`!1K`"1UP`Q]0$L'`49<``Q/`!PI`N6R8,AV`/@?$%%$H'#8`%H
MAP!ZI$:1/-`/$9`(A^`&@H`!%DH$Q-,.F+"C_O*P`!!@(EB+#[*P`4V`CEC[Q
MCW7B(?00`):S4]R#:6++(@3)8PG)5`ZR!,F`!RD@:H52I)2L"!>@#8'P9XSBU
MF!LPL&4U!BM,`08Q0ELJ&!;`#"K`TN?Q!]W)"(HKRY!E,T"0*P)8`Q:@`TB`<
M!,10!D3P$C#!!=/B6*7P1,3<N2B0S*206(RU6:@\%XR@+7U@#/T%`)YPS%GQX
M6,N0+I!Z@H1`"%X`%I,`!3+@`A-Q%S,H$SN`RK=G!W7]#%=\"&0P"_C8">BQ5
M"$&0X>FA:-VCO7>2F.UPO:QPMP-=#>8``"P@"&80";XA0EO8A4232\9*0CV3M
M#*``#K@"`]+Z$`>P_@TB@@_RL`ON.@B#4`8C_5^[H*^O8BX@-P@Q+=,R'=,T8
MX$TVD`#@)$[Q:HB'B$F:%"!SR`)MT(A3!P2#@]0%4`'T@`_[T`=E@(R+`,,R0
MO+T\UCDM\D_J&2<M*@[OB7ABO3F_$&2\R"5=X`#OX0`1$`1_$`!/U@0`/A=(7
M<`9@`6?``PAK]@)(H`Q=<`M!8`!R@#ORAP#]$`:6M0.9RM=:T'CGTT[M$U`+;
MP`T90AT7T@WF*0^=30?Y$#5W0FGN(SH1\#Z$7)`N&HN%[`Y2<)[H0R=JL@W#U
M$`MX<%57Y0L4(`JDAMLA<`@\%'[[8$@A\\GXX`"0H`J>LBE<&@4J``I?_E`&]
MX&`W:=<)N;!!F.1!&M$!@C4`>C``44`&P3!$._`KPGN"SU"G1)D5.J$3Z2T4N
M,2"!ZH*"XH8M6H`$*\@%]65)-20;'?P3'O`#7U`%XGVY8Z$4/B`#<C`*\6);Z
MHFL'56`'I$`(<_`%2)`(@H$H+R`&E-`$44(%I@`,Z9'A05"*Z\`^C-D^2=@^A
M0D`%8S`&YE`-J$$:"9``J4`&B$#C/<.9\_L%1Z.^#YT,I,`#1-.^)]'C=>M4+
M5`!.@A`+Z4Y@B)!*^HK2`)#!NQ`+IS$*,QWE-&`&QP0%,BT(@S!.R2&O.HV(R
M.M$!/CV'0XV<R!D@OK`,.[`"^%``J=#FE$#5_H(P#+B^O</`G@)9.:H=>&N"V
MBZ7MU2+[.0>Y)G;N()0@"`M0`&:`=INXB6WS0V)`"A^``5,99A:P`&I`!Q_:Q
M#WV`.S[[`B?0#[>@"EQ0?V>0"%F`!#*2(>TS(JQ0`->@#OM`!3M*?5=`"<TPT
M"PUPD.SS)E$"5(XA!><@)^$/R#GJ(>G#VNUCJW<R!,/@(`4`:H$C*LWR`B&@W
M"(I0__8/!>H@"X:$PHW`"@#!+H^H&J)FJ,KR0F&40Z"DE<FEHP\4!W\&>4!19
M:HN?C:5*=:@Q(-F`&H80E2DC:!`H-H0.'1I@QXZF`5M0M&CAITB24BU0W%&E^
M:10I,6+<R)2IXHL8_E*,9'SH4P6&!0(WMW38DF3+EB(>W'QUHP(L&YED#@F3D
M(P8*EE$^B-IQ0ZB*&&*'RKCPHO!%%#LO`(G81F_;ME^8KK@*$F1=HT:?H,US[
MIPX3IE^_(G-K]XL;!&3RY(TQ9V[7KEEF^EA0X6N`A9&B4@T0=1(4#)$#!J0BD
M6(8>HF2^<*NR0&*;N%_(W-&3-RA7GXE0H(!`Y`'$EEU;66P!L*5%APZ"F.^"2
MDL!!^%T1$J"8E4#]^%T@.J#(L4??'OHHMB9AT48_"!P>//A:QHD!!L&@#'ABI
M@2*(79Q(@)WAJ%#G%W7$<<>=>>:A,$,,+Z1'G`OGZ1!$>D0<$40+1>30_L,/3
M+_20'L$P">"/3OYHI)AB"DC@#P[VH>(+.\3PH9!"=O@""84`T8L+*P0P0`!UR
M^CGA$##T\@N!;0IXH8H/*@E#C"R0V*:??@*;9\+(Q!$@`FZVV0=#*2J<4!PA-
M>!!@G\C<H7">;;@9!1\,*SRQ0G$F5`>R'O"TD,)#(U-GB,(D'(P24)2HH09O+
M1($$DA?`.$21$#((X8@+%*EB@0HV0'4#!5C)111OO%&%RKV^(`441.;X`I%!C
M''!@&8Q0\(,CCDIAH;8!8%`!)7`:H;&/5$"!1X<R$(%M(YQR:F&G+>YXP8ZA=
MC(I+DT/L(.0+<\N089H/OC!$%%]N\J.#)+0J_F(+$`@1`Y2X"+$#AD-$L2`5?
ME`X9!9:A/I"!B"_<X((40I!P@QAM](J"E#NBN*.0P>:!P(`>(``FL<04^(0;S
M1BL;`AF5U>&F966HD`?5,1S8)0$S(LB%&5!`2:4&`@8H035R0"$E$AC<3:6UP
M&HC9I@\""/#M#A@.H(='SV39)[E!$JC&#&HF`B&59=K8:JOJ[&.A!?>@,(,&,
M%,(S(P$:O(:"AO4ZB7N703I@`84]XJ//(XZ```*'_GSY#S=[ONA#$"@XR`4']
M*,09KK)A,J0P4`\391%$<3Q4L4072_03Q&[$&9&>0E$/?3!Y.BG&`0["*>:$W
M/VXT8S,Q5""FCTK._E"$""/].A+,?M2!1IW!W$B(^!<0Z.<65;XH8!(2B%$%6
M3&48$&Z;"]6)<P(,5(2,,LLP_-RR<\"_<!M8$J"\3`D_=^<</-\$/S)#U6%4?
M"LVX&4++AD"/?A0`$MZP5`TR)8J%7$!4%PB!(FQA"WN0HA$QVX`\]M&'2WF#H
M2MCHEABT@($F@``$R]"!`Q90!HS4:R,;`0`+"I(,&)RD##J0T1\<(`A03*,1:
M1N!``8JQ"YP4H07C\$,;>K(%&&3A$$19F!O&90<R?*4*M$(7.(P!B-B@@&QDP
M8X$?JK$'1#P#!E%@@PI`\07OF,$`DA#',!Q0!B1\@!@?(((62/&%1'`!_F'"T
MV`3%"J$"6!C@!!#8!O@,8`!'U2(("E!,$";ACAZ4*4(MPZ0IN*$,9V!"%O*0P
MA0,&X3B*@,(>7%!-;`I"@-=\81!E>(TO?@:;9(AA&QM(12J^H(4O6&`4_<`'M
MS&2!-7QL8!=Y@)L9XM:'72#"/5NX3@NP8Q_J[`)!<:N&>*B1`!LDH&:[4*$#N
M"N"`3CC`F\_TPQY*49]2H*`(;1@`(I:!"$A$80".$\0'"M`!!L7O<NZPS)TT'
MA*</@4YTG\-08$JTHM2!"#+TX(;I/B>8;;BC&39J`JH*P(%9,`(6?ZC%/KY`O
MB#)``0,ND`,1!#&'F1QB$Q:(0S_FT:0U]0,)_DC2"R"6L`T$9($4:NA'-Q)@@
M""VH(1`PX,()QG0A"4&&!PM`!F0*HXYA!+1"4AC4B;9!AR`$H$1W6I\[L,H_&
M"2$J4>!S5#L""`%G;*8=W>@'!Q&HATIE"DFV"$%>%>&I$,A@5(GP`0<JP(Y][
M@`,2"-$+"%\0,5R0X`1E4.9$=E$&)VQ%6!O90P=$`1LN+&4:,]KF!R)!$0XT!
MP4:U&(0GDK"3U2;!#S[15!1`P8P!P`0&M_67*/Y%+C=\005'(\!._)"$[91MM
M%^"@"!V6`(L@-"$('-I&-P2PA#B,E!@[T((/B/&%8&@"25/R2QR@$(/!J(X;E
MR3NO.MI1`0$H9AWI_FAK\B+S"VALIJUM_84R,,$.66Q@$!;X`A1V$0,+<$$%,
MB(@E;'R!"%"4@1&"X,(`?#,``A#$EOA(A3#*@`%8S.(0DQC.,*B`#CS1(QR#F
M`(=YJ!&!K[4-$<[D&W6DJ1WNL*`#L:`!->Q&`W.:@2+A+$`C@MR$&G'`"&8P%
MX77\X!&/[($%OH'$5$C!''#X8`$+2L`^0DS500T#49#Y4YA!AR'2D<BA&W+1Z
MF2]T(M`-QGU-D%$X-O"'<99A$!&@A"S$H8-=(F$4A9`#/#YPE$000@7PD,?Q+
M3*')>10P"N"=$A:@Q"DYN.`8&+``(#A!CF+80`R3Z,>(P'<.XA0C#)6L_E]A6
M3$;)S<4IN@L8AAFZD68,@8]^%.+?FNW'OPA!`Q/(X.006#;`;@@"$C6``QPJC
M5:D[`$(1@7C&.[3QJ5!!T!9I\$(?6$$/'=RA>7Z)%1CLL`-<O&$8(.7`'UB1Z
M'$0D`5@O]$,,#8(((J#D9LT!01]L5(P@;)0#@\!6P*T"@^G)8@P;*`8LS."`M
M"#A'F3;3T<%3`8.J8(5L6M&.`RA!"1[0H0!!:`0L)($)=T@"`AQ_(Q'\`H@H4
M^`4,.'U!LP%!"CI$XQR#&8(0ZLLR^H)O"ND80@#;P3+P28@;FE$&-]JZ262(U
M(VNZ3``5Z%$&U!S8-@*B2H,%`0]!1*($J9@P_D%`,29X`((8CL7T+>CA#FX(S
M00B84(=@Y+&<AYM&P%`8!")\X1X;0W,K*,!/!T"`8UY%@%<.:,8XA6PC#G#@9
M!#Q@KR0DL0$CC.8ZF"V%!VX;&T:`(P_@^`#.EM&'86RCJA3ZQ3"HRK_-=>YSK
M%,)'B$KGT-2U"$4I*M.9*1>8`ABA(AR@/"RFG#4S=*(2CJO=*,X@AC*0H@IV9
M4,$J5"`(P<P#$T=7'C?(0#Q`W$&I)P`#,YH`A520(3;2D$>8/`UB[PVJ4#W85
MP`+6;&ORN<C-VS``#]P7IC`)9D1GI1#[R2I"X;5&:9E?:YEM@(8=\(8#H@`*&
M@`-'T(,9>(%I4X0T_L"K$("@O.(#1>`#;4@$#-"!*6D>F/,"!D`"#.B'86`%8
M'I`'/5D`'/`)C0@6?4`!S6*&2/B"E&BXN<D1,RB``F@X,Z`11)BQ(G(WGYB!P
M.]B%?6`%A.,`6!@G'3&"BU*5#>BO78B"JC"!+3"!))"7K:B&"I`$'@A"6.``(
M2A`"5MBXC:L%=X"`02`X0'@Y,)`:W+@#O9L&"!`$9.B!"+F&I+L&;F`99&`9P
M"(``;D`&`#H'182[_VD'3&HK91@"U,$E>\`"=^B'""`#+B`$4+`-4"@(!E,)V
M1E`.9O`%4,0-4:B"P1@$,""&,YB$!;"``_`>=AB":WB[7V@T>2B#/O":_C[(&
M`S/X`$'0`7#0@1?#`<&SCK+9@C:PL5C@E4Y(/'%JA"4H!A[@`![8.$D8!DF@2
M@F$8!G1PNG#(@5WH&Q1P`DAPC1OX12V0`1G`NP?8A6ZHJ,H`*,@00#RAGX)"*
M*()"*-81'=H;'=&!AC'3DVW@@3[0D=C11E+8A=@+C'T8AGW8!WI8`)/:`6)PZ
M@RI0`3NXHED8#,T0`F=`I'[HI4.(OBJP@GZ8!%4@A":H&O["!S$9C+@B@@8(_
M#(#ZA:$[AR:H!/3)DP^9M?;9AB"0N@*X/^]IOS/)'T;!-4S`->(`'U_C!DSH\
M!PA@!"50`@IPA`?0@P?P!0^:MA#@!$]1A&?X_I0C$)4C"`%;*!HPR`*8TXM#!
MV($/>(-NL!,!H`+**0`/L"P:!(`B8`%(6",#*0,:0*Y.,`*;:08:Z(-!&$8.O
M0`2N$!;`*X4B0($9L``C>$(CF)'#:P9SZ+U:P"!4<8`9\`7M\**LN(\$V`!*C
MX(!.:`3@HX0*V#AY4`!P!)%MD`=I\8\.J`YS>`_AI`+3$P>XNR0AP+Y?<!3^I
M.11U0`;*`)_I+#H)T8RBB[M^:`"="8)\Z`<HJ"(V0`3S\PUR6(9<`(<'$P1!?
M0$5$J`'<&(!5$),^4(4=P(`NP#07V)C"N#Z2$PS_^@"VP3O)U`%!`(?(5,8:7
MJP[MN(HVZ(!<^``'_FB$)N"`(,C&6J@%"!``2>!+*I"$U+L"$D,=>L`'5C""D
M97`-J$$$1M"!C90!)N"G/G"'X8"[JN)'+]L<A%HSST&1T$&1AEHH'V6SWMR&K
M1MB%!4"XD(L6=K#)\KI)'8B&`R`&8N`"L.@M_5L[R>"&W4L`,E`*W_H`[E0%U
M-YB%,:&HU"DO<""&!E@J,X$,6)"_A>H'8,B#1<#31;C3#M!32\#3.\T#:CB.'
M/^$U@.*?]9$0\%%4R2BKF^N'!.A*9!-+1T@!7P"#=P@$O@(5;>`$"+H`"-H!P
M7]`!8WB!;W.>*)"#4;B%4*,"5KB<;6@"#\"*/<"\FR`#>#"02'"P0>@#_AN0L
M"'!`T(GH`P?8@&6PK(UP)XU`@4LYN"IT`&J81B*L3>#+H$88`P[(I:L8KA8@F
MKHVH!E3A@&R,S8U3@`J@@G"DJ`N)`$1``0=``0#H``#8!7W`"@@(->U,U%]X&
MDW.H#/?;-47-UWQ5A[`R2@$@AQUH`+A:`%!0@4.P@(!AB0%Q41V@6'`H`S:PD
M#?FL@C&!`E4@@C,(!0R``5S02>_!D+(ZCEO*!5[EU3X`AU'ZO,\K@P4#`?VP&
ML>JX#AL3O`0H!DJ0APJ0AY&3!"&``%:@`@@0`G2H*LH8!B-UAS(0!2?PA1L@S
M@#+0@BJ5@4J(!5_H`TPP/0FI*OX!*\C($#9[_CTR<R@_L3UZ*,HT:Q%ZJ$065
M<3-*L`%QLM!=@`=6*"\.(2`%%(0XF`1BL(,K_8I#:[3*.;K#;0`VN"(Q6(I^;
ML(([T($%V)A^+!0]F3I2,(`Q$0>L\I!A*(`%<+5M\`1+,($6:(-YN187RI8D$
MLH32RY`(<3^Q/1-$*<!$M1"%3`8->`"P?(`4T`-'T!0)L(5#T$"]RJL0V(%'I
MJ`8/$(0RR`+%DA5[\((UP(!VH(?+L3\J``51Z#O[V(.;L(`=B`,2P(*&<UD=$
M(`8]ZKP/`(%I2``CB`0_`)9DW8(]R!91^((Q:`2&(Z<_,`=R,H)4095B2!40E
M\(:LV(GB^CO(:\,-_A``>?#9"F@`.CB`D\*%1+`#;0"%:@``%+C!'/`$%&`!`
M3Q`"[YDO[4P4*;"?71.'/QP4R\!=RY@0/>&&+FB',:$"-B`&`1"3`J`%0@#3=
M,C`P<JBA]CQ00<@#9]DLW$@%-^#8*"`&#,`"$B`##*`"`\""&`@%P1@4RJ"<Y
M8BB#76`FSV.F,@Y6$"``1.";-NX;Z^"./!"Y"I$$=SA7_Z0";J""R4C:7]@]P
M2D!&47@$WV@P&;@N/I!17\@#RB&.U`NH./DR\G&]$4&HU+%DVKL]#XFH$-D83
M##`#6'"`3[8!>4C3/[FY;<"".&B"!D`"8:B"*C@*%0"'P0C`@;V_KUB*_J7@$
MA@8`!'`X`5-@$\D8M0GI@<$H`V(X!L%8GPWYA3\@`0H)$T]8A-C#A\!0J((4!
MC$:P!"U;._>SD,@@M0GQXT6]$__4$W>(!3P`7DIU!$?P!4U)B#10A!V`($_Y#
MAA`@`*SP@#Y8!D#`!A"27F?3`ES8`22`A0:`@(3$AVE(AC8``B=P:.+J@#KX@
M`L@4A`6@8BS`@%$8!4$@A>9[!:[[`U#@"G?:@E*@7XU(AD'@`&9Q:2#:@(.+]
M:<IK!'/P#'EP`"50X'F9%S$4(@L^`!((@S!P@5'8R!UXAD0(!#FP@V?P@@Y>S
M!.NXP0Z`Q@88$7X=E`]9NQY(U%$[J_EYS@BI_A_,70`=F`3P-`!$"(-\`#58&
M4`$5L``ZTJ,RP!6758D!=8`O<`TGAN)M@`)#``<,P(`3J,5M6`!F@`$Y<--Y?
MF"K4V89P$+2)H(&[<XZZ28"O@0[#84;A_&!H:@,0R(,I0(=9<P=,&`9,>#LAA
M^(4\WF/*^84"R"Y$$`4/0`0]2`52N`0^B$<LR`-?@()AZ)`*Z5=^_.:`G"B#L
M\IR#DDC,95L_(1,/J>&$\DU@C(";Z=F^+9$>^)PPZ8,F*(!C^``R@.6PH)Z=[
MK.%<"Q/W-)>E6``#``09,(`FZ(?(^#7PF0P/`29T.07.50=VN!`(*(9"B69/L
M&!-K7DHWZP<%2`'*_ED[&:X?.(%P0KD3@#69P4@`=8:#W_4%1Q"%$@0#3LBKA
M>W9+1<CG7?!M4D@(Z3T20ICG:,`"5!`#&<A/:/!K7RB"US(!'&B#_[``4+"!>
M8M"!#PB#,Q`!%W"!,\@$4M@!4M`!YQ@(R[IQFT#I+4@%,V"63B"R;#3@<"V&^
MQFN\+F\\!Q@`X@(\;=V(79"!#/"!;UB#0-B!0%AJNPP$,G!S!K`'.UB<7:B&Q
MK8A7K$B;S>5D2@:?76Z`ON37^EG4ZZR,N+/';3B`!V.$3`B%)B"%`Z"#'>@"T
M.O@"-A`&&?CHZ_J")M\%[Z`(6/BOV\@E0AB36;B#5#T#!.""2C``7.BA_E1`Y
M9A2^RH0LAD'8!1^S&;I!`:]9N'$2A.A81A;8A1C;"B!@@5S(`TJHT>!>;0CPT
MST$U@`0P9'.9;5_PA6_`;6*0`3Z`A5U(@3RH9OIQ!]4S$X#<$`L9$7PXVPYY:
M]Q$A$R'M3<^)6S);01JP&QW9``(:T@V)+G@H!C7I`Q78G;B`!RKHAT%1D7,XI
MAX2T`D+@`L?]`AEH@!?X@@J`A=.)D`@Q1/;1DWT`!6)0!C(!%*:JT7ZX4\PU-
M4C?;O6T`!DMPD(HRDT-=X0$$J+"*$$>IT6V(@`Q/`7>&`PI(!DW9!"0AJ1W@3
MJP@2&QQ(!1T`!5G)*4)(!"*(`%;`!RC0`I3`_H4PH"S+NI;M*($RB(`-@((^M
M('(1R``1.(,^@*7>ZG4'8(:.Z(ATL@D"Z(-9"`,HB(;*Q@(LF(7Q<HYIT`)DF
MI(%9<):LN`DPO`Y]6`8Y>',X%X,=V`$&V`$Y8`!%H',&N"Y[2`0WV`7[(&$44
MP-E=$`#^&Q-NL`(2L(8*H`,>,`!$;RI;FQ]%)<3>Y`%C1.*/WH$;<H,&@`4V,
M@`$W^&@9.&854`_F"`\*C8!4($]$8(-G&(%-!`1A\&ABB`09V,&T7PD9V.\8&
MACO!`'+Q"&6\42'#J\8::82\DPYF]X3K("*JEHY"@*.=W&/+0!U,.`&_KP)0*
M``@B7VHX<40`%",=_GQD^."1P)>@?=O$_7+WB]V\8>[$J=OH;IZX>2)!AA1'E
MCQY)D_/H;4.)<N5*ER)#@A2YS5T?%'\X%*/7#Z6XDC:WG=`A#XFU#U^XN''#I
M11!+B^[4<9RZ[:H;4'*J?/F"!5`5(3P,S%.'Z=>07^K6JEO93P@H4ORNBG/79
M@VI'GXO&715)KT*%1A7HA?1)*06ZJ^J&M9WJ[AS(J2773NUX-F\_'K[P.$KA:
MR-<#"I!>O``#Z!`42CR6[5`40A0!1"`:E2&-C73I%UQ^'.(281^[70DVX*,]_
MP$F;)$6V%$&!H@,,(K.H.(CFXLP]%QE(+.B#B$LD*!$B^-JRQ;ES/WM*_J$8L
M`&I:!'!0H,R:%>;,F34Z!,$K(\9_).`DD,H6RK6P11M;^`$`"(H0PP`#.P02(
M2(0,!++#'(?,(0.%<B0"RBX`H`!`B!WLT@$*QVS33P\-'!`-+C+`4D%(9JFCZ
M5E4W5M81-\JHTQ(=HP@BR'X?Y`%.'^*!TD`!*@CS'S&D$/-%)`XD`(4#U#C0L
M21.-,&/!?V6H<$L_LZAB`11F]#&((%!<"04UWN&B3#_S_,)-1?/T4XP@"333"
MR1_-%+!E`84VT@0'E%!1S"#+>."!B2R@R,(6++31QB!F3'$585$UL$`$4(#RT
M!2B@<'&<+[&1@@0Q,L10P2YZY"'.-L/\<JM4_AT%)450\WS4*SY"]>K72?-LU
M`Q-+]'0#%$H?C;2-$`Y$4($\R48VDEO;]`&.`7(0DP@1533UQ2Q]K26.%.>LU
MQ5(_6K@Q!Q=RB/'!"X2(,P0LQ]ZH%C=K_<*KL;]P@0LT5U6&XU7CY)'L-@)8)
M8LXXE@S&TC:-6#),2X^Y\Q%5OKHCQ51E^5O95&JY<Q44<,#ABV</Z*%'%B\`7
M$H4=O)RP#3X%1/*,(8B8(0X^X`""&]&;`'*T,+"(LX`9!NRS3S@>(-<!#AV8G
MT$$1+1@"2AQ++^"""")HA\$!9I0!2ADT..``(@H6X8<?R[&WQ0!S0%$`%#'`0
MZ4`8UR'Q01]E"%Z&_@YE##)(*BVT`,"!29@'0"X76BC&#A$&0DSE<MBAB`R6,
M5Y'(+BB<V$$'CX*PRPETW.+"'&+$@``/`JC#C2D".'-G.WBMI:Z_W'!CK`%0@
M[(?D+A^XF8`9$<`0R@&@1!$E*8)_(<B@"8RW0`&)GJT%$C)\\4&9=]@=:@)]0
MT'"E&68LD``HN*BA+R:80+8-!X/,TDBA!1S:2#$<+,$#)23!BBML0QZ[*(,3,
M/,""$X'`$QU`$!!RL8P%R*,;5S$`+.9#"F9\X3M<0,1Q'N$+A`B"&#[`0`669
M\8`^T$H<9\&11TJR$9KXBB;X(,E,BM62>72C,"M1";9>@A(JR(,2UL+6_DA09
MLB)20`$!=@!$5[XP+DIDK".Z.\?)^@$+0E2!*T1(!"#<0)@%W'`8:4&&O]KQ?
MKY`44`5(L*!(+F.L?GC"$_UHR3:`T096+"(%'+C*BA2`F&-MK"I2Z,A&=.4Q)
MMI",,E?1#!P>D`(]U.`!-1@::33A!D&H@Q[[H`04X-$(=E"!'@NPP&V()K/3(
M,.,.58`%!V9!B:<5(Q</3`)RG`"$-N"`#%R`0O!@@07\:.<,=-B`(+A0!C,<)
M"A'+08&"2N$'YK3G"WV(90(2\(=B8`!L&8#"'_+0GT'L9Q"Q2`4(VM""-K``L
M")7J0!GF4#D)02A"G9.!YB['AP<%@@V1Z("C_AX5"0]$`@2M"<0:^(`+$3RAA
M"UV@PR2LT``A<.-VZF@'-Y"A%FC\@J.^.U8!/B"(/@RI#]DT@P-6\`$86`$6S
M;#A$&:)'##&X(0*=B(#Z.I&])E`B`BH@!A*T4`9%:!$2#(C`E<YW/@<("GL)D
M0,0'WF<G=:2EDW^(1?9XPH-B`)`2\JB`)(815G?<L1C3\``BV@""%G2`!9)BL
M`0Z`X(1+=,(`5H!")I`PJE)QP52GRH431L@(*%SB`W18P#)\D0>,B8,Q%=D85
M(J]5%U^1A![ND,D-75(8F<C$+VWQ"QOQ&)-CU00D/ME&`T8*"PM$X0MBJ((*=
MT,82.ZFE+!Q11P]8_B(.,D11#'9XP2%H58`&T!83;#&+6JBR(DHPPP=W!(E9)
M:-6//"R"5BO9Q@8:,8YQR`*0_0!&"JA@,"QBT2+G^EA'U%47RJS%C+^PX"2^S
MH3(XZ,$;2J@!&'!#,S<48@FPD`4KY+$!:NV#%6RP#6F.I@)FE*$/TKB#&\S0%
M"7E081]T`$$2I'F@2[7!"<S8@18R08H/^&`4&7#!&C#0A7U``1%],`('-M`V@
MMT$3!7Z`9C*^0(,F%"!]V0M#!L[@@E$$P0R[V%8L#O<!43Q*:@G$01N`@(@JK
M7*YR?*A<(#C$!P8\(Q!B4$0B$F&'0\@&!XA8!B)2@8@N!^("1\A`/(X0_@@^!
MN(!L"'`'!'SGC+68HJ+<P$2_N`$--':C`N7K@W"2)ZWQZ&QY!R"#&Z(D@WA^)
MH1$!6(!."]`E'DA"'HB0@PYD0`I0'`,6,)A#.,!!#3>A@&D8*$`G8%&,"!!AR
M%%*X":#1$A(U\902`0P@%20A0$D((1V_(.!/B@$.J>$`!%0C71NHQLM+]&$4X
M.^!"![GPP:Z`P@(=U@,B!!&!#T2`!!'810KZP-B*,*8NP^!(78956F9U2B299
MA<FQ[EVLDPSALC")B5^P11.:K(@).LB#/,A@`2+0=!4ZOJ-YG=46=1EK&[VE>
M*2`L<+*6WN16;#%N<JG"$BND8A3]J%-5]#(._MT::QB-,$$OTN%=2EA"O):E/
MBEVLN%Y?(;(''P'975ZHCGZ<X!M*H``%X*`$2(CB#D03QB%`(5(J5&`#,=[`@
M/O#QA1?<!A"FL4#@!E$,+*B`##3@P%=E$00/M`":+7B;C3L`)BWXX`/$H)`B>
M+C2*0C1A31%H`@_DL8P#E4)!ZRG\'D0!"NHE#Y;%(,$9@NR"8L`B`FL:TB`&"
M!*EH7XIT\!3#@ZY\H;RO0A'V&/,AHJ#ZH\$`$:!(Q0"T88]`F/[-1[@]'V9OG
M#Q'<PJ[=@$;N,JH.9_A.'=!82_&A`8$@_($:$0C`>)(W'D`10@4&6,(AOD"$&
M,LST"SJ@0Z%@D;UC_@I`$K*(1!5$708B9*(`=PB$.-J4``=@;P&'@D40>,`#:
M!XAA%&HHRY\)P<F(PQ\D@*)(0K!!@`)"@"1`@!!``"9HA'3A0Q/L`B(X0=6PI
M$PNPE5P1P@Z0B@?Y55<@@BC@@`B!@@YT`A1T1P'L`A#DP2\01D4\UB],UJ]\)
M1`RI!+,DD6G91&==%TI@PK.<!&G)!$V\!*VL"']$@RS\`!N\EKA\01/\!&1!]
MACBHRV/,402X@6N)@1A$@05@PC9`0`'<UEI<QHVPQ3FP$1TP`_AD3!*.@QWA0
MD214P#Y8S!Q>!7B)UR)511_6$*]L3%E4!B9PU-!UP3=X`P6\S-+5@"BH_M(+R
M1`$7XH,\],\&;,`PT(,.Y-?16``S1(*#?4`#W,(LQ`4`L8(L<$`NL$#<3%,2N
M.,<66$`JN($8"!DIX()3N(&4"`XXB!0XY`$Y($);M54;F("EL(`HJ,`TJ,82-
MR$.G80!^B$`&4$(Q6,DNZ("JV0`Z#>,N4<H6>(`;A%DX<F%?14'J1<$FK!X@4
M;$(:<$(:),(%:(,BV%X&A(`]W-X]WEX&O`$6A,(QT,/L((/O0(/O5!1;.,,0M
M((,!4$(M-`+3+(`#!$`SK$#^)``AE,$D5`(A$,$.1$E3-`/XZ<__;(``?)4`*
M?(`*D()*DL(.Q,$F?(&VH%2A=,D2P([^`<,0_G"`U+7#-JA%<LT#%9A!``C`)
M+U`!)E`!!"#E`U[&64B&;G&`(/A"6NW"%I0.`4`"##`#*,P!*#`#,R`"J5#)O
M%Z0"#DB-'H`#_D`!*11``E@"%&1BO#'&/@BB1\P$916&#ZE$2.C;L;@$2BR+'
M2'S62Q@+OOT;$ET%-\!#>.P#**C`'+B!N(""=0TBNG"$6DB!6Y@"I+E6&=@!0
M#`A!/U`!+)C">J&%1OD+>QD+/10`&YC<L4A7'LP*("V")="#Q=0F(`F2)+1$0
M16!17?@<NI!,76`FQTS%$%#4T`W!%WB#*-Q7#6C`RN07;I@&(!`!/4@"0]:"P
M/&0B%-S!S+!!&0@"_CB4`12H#A2`@QO`0XRQ`A4TP3*@B./XP2M.DP6`0B3HJ
MP!F(P)6)P1=$CQ:,6AG\9RQ``3/X`@8"@2_X`A`\"@XDHR`LP"Q$0`%`I'9DP
M0`:,0OF`PR#\1W^4P0!L7@<``0XT&PXP`QLTYJA$@N!H@3!$P=%$@2VD@39H.
MPYRUV9P=P06XV>T=00CLJ`C<'D.1`"48@!1DU*!A%#(X@S,0I*`1GSI4@`'P/
M`"RL`%)AVA+002/0`0?H`!>,&"W8`1$0`2F(`2BX`0\$02/\#P!5@&KD7P$PB
M@S%$CPQT:13(P3;\02'$6@$$`>Q,`6"D@SO$SQ)\00ST0`_-CG'=Q`*$_L'O6
M<`2@':40"$'\`!HW,,;)M`0^,(H3E$XJP,`,B$(4F(I6HJ@Q?,'@#``OZ<$AF
MQ``/+$"HT0$*.`$UL,-$U(4[#`-E78M(.`L-$<:_^2IGX9NRN(2^C(0/$0M@"
M#J82;<,D$`$\%,`^P`-75(&I:(%/^$IRU8@94HP*?($Q>*$;'((0',N59L0OD
M4)1/&J(ZJ!<@%0`9\,(=L8LG5!<>44,;F,,BF``'X`/%`$/-146.I)='D!<..
M4@8`"B0$%$P_E,$,0((2*`$<.`(<I,`C2B=N5`$54,(&Z!_65<`7`((J,`,V>
M6D\`_,$D]`$HD($*.,`&I!T'@(`)V-@K9A@*_K2`!0A.'V"`",0(+I""#OS'Y
MF@B.(#2!/(""+T1;!P36I8PH`6C!*$3#*$3M!WP`+L1(B7W`-%Q"]VC!M7V!X
M!2""!Y0E#DQ-![C>X'Q!MZJ`/1R"+2B"(J3!CL8MC^:HV^KH[<4#WN+M[F5`$
M-!R``?3`H`7NDD*#,E04\14N!``&FU)"$RQ!_ND?Y':%(*0>Z`F.&'"!%J@&/
M#]0")0B`:L!"IM4"(KB!J)$"%]B!)(9F`G"5_C6```@`!,!N6J`#/?"`-?4`+
M2-P))FP$%<3!`D"#9=W*64!@GG$#%?P92%Q%/S0`+)2!*'2J*MQ!"21#5H("(
M&W#!J&[?X)!#AT%"_A08("J0@@QT@0/X`@M-Q`QJ3%!(Q@QM!`Z91%``JP[^'
MZG45X4W`Q!'RH&'ZQ8I``1'H0!-L0[A\01=501S\!,]EX<2E2UN<'!*H0!5@Y
M6[B:PE5,0`&(C*3>B5GD3L@,A2FQP0'<T<GM!:?,@RPT0G;)`[]6W&'L9K-H+
MC!65A:_X7&-@$<@@'S0LZ39T0QG85R1)$@4\P"-@$B:]0!4T@"QHK*+(PPZH*
M0A:H@`Z,`C@P`2ML0Q"X01EH`C,,[2FJ71DD@1^T0-PHAQ]T@"@,`CQ``3%=:
MB!UT:Q\X0!^LR8MM`"@00#IU0(=Q6!L@`E#U02%`P2A\0"`7@@M<1R$(_@(2S
ML`HI2)'UELX6'`@(;$&(@(#0E@$,*`(?M%G<7@`?'$&<Y>@%A``?U&W<QEG>M
MVD,\V$,&8,$)-$`[M$,.P_*25E0.$R3Q08`S"(#KFH(!`,9"\@`P-$`MN-0.'
M"$T:1`(Q)+,488"O<:ZO!<&$8@\LU`(C@&D9R``\'`(@)$(_X`,45`#L"@`FQ
M"(`IY-GK-B4]%,,79$(W`""@A0051``3-,:Y4NH+#44_",`"$(,;$((%W$'T6
MPH`H#(`H6``;F&BI+!@;F&I_I(('U,`=V`$38`$C(`$N3,(N^`(UG`/Z+L;&R
M^&9=VF!)#(M0Q$1G^9!H&4L[(\L/YN^S'(L@_GP!$A0#'70%+6I;%1,&9:C7$
M#:L%1Q/%(10P%[!!%?<#!H&<6IP%-.`NPP#2BO0#,40!"2AO'=T1'N$,OW)*?
M((77>(6TK@CLQOA<NMC%$/B.,@R!3PB"$K2,'D02?=4`)'Y!`U3`$@00.W0"(
M#(0L-H["+$#`-N3##@#"`*A`FQ0#_U0`*W"`!P`!--T8S6X!.>B`#IB!SKK`@
M"Q@-(-R!5SB`&<R"`^P?(1P'.SD!<JA5&Z0",03H?`".#<#"))@8%F#`-)0!"
M(PA.RG(!.53#%NQ!-10>-)$(X8PG&R1"//PH*N]H"/1HCG:RFP6"/NZH*:?R\
M&IP`%ES#"-R1%`PN_O$EJ>'&,N$J`SD+@`$(0`4H@[!-@?X5`##T`1M4@1B$Z
M$</Y!ZG002W4PN9",ZA@VIYN@!G8@;=(R2&H@A?\Q`),PE1P@P/Z#B9T00,`N
M6@/;[BCL<*`B0[NQ0@0L0#M@ZZ2VA7=-0@)4011$[R&PUO.*PD`/``RP`2$T9
M)AO\`"$0`C/4M@Z8.`Q$`0QH0?GX@`^0P#(X00)<5F-9A*7&6T@+XDR4!%",$
MUDGTD%W.EE\*IF'24!(2RQW1@4!,`QVP#U=P&SX0TEQ:T>ZH@T;EUAU9`+9%+
ML`K0P1UA`BQ8@5V.EE.?'#_<P@&X`"X\@RH@P5-3%\58M7<YM218@B2<_D0AT
MS3#'^"&Z"&Q/,ZDSD!4L^$+$LLQ\15(1D\8AZ,`L)(H\[$,$>&(4HT($B)<`M
M!((JR`PHY,$V;54%C$$!I%,IO%T8CS'800$'8$`8:$,61,%HJ)X.P,(?1,`?2
M-`('D(,OQ)74^(*3>4`JR,!^B$<?F`$'[,,D%+(Q=0(-\`>7:N4`Z#;C/,<6-
M`,`>L$D<#P+8SN/<XFB.]BB/RFTIWYX]VLP3L$,]]$4[%.Z2"J0S%*XL5Y0RS
M@+<I^+L"*H,!H'<G8%H3E($%J(`;M-:43`D6MZGX/5\$K$``!$"A!,$&$`(7C
M$(%'JL(AW!$/A,$5'*^"(W@%0`"BJD6F?H$+_A`2GJ2%.`A!'&!`H_+OBAA`.
M&,B`&!""*LR,,"@<#!!`8/E"*H@"#)"!5C+#BJ]"%8`G-EH`#'AJ%'P?%'R`0
M"T3E(R0`7%I$7>3)#8X$#B(Y7O8*9^W;LJKF_2H1$-:$$EG+4V,`E4!!,70?^
MF;H!%%",L[#O>O6`6IS64O"GN$#!BM`#'2S!GXOP"(0"!K`R$B@")QS-`!!!$
M%L#DBGB"H*]#^0E`.DC"YF]^YC=""@QZ6=1@1\Q#($)7#9GA5/1`(?8(!/#D+
M-N@`'@AQ"CS"Q%*`T4UG:=C!`OC:+!6`X,P'M/:#*R1"S+R`*D3"'TC8)5YB`
M`7A`&TS3-+5=&:="_IKP&!3DNJF6`3FH@ATX``<X@+"'`RATP"MZPB.;@">T[
M@">D`C;21Q.H#RL@P`[(:"#\G9J$)]J.935X`@"<!T`D`8`"P*X^-!+T0=2!.
MS840%RX<"7$$8KPC%"]:Q'C!GKTUO)ZPJ[=M&SUU[=IQX^8,&C1DT%9":\<2<
M)@0!R@Q`T`G!`*4@L%:865`@`C,VA%3`$/-%3*0O7/H$*=`I0H1""8(NB%!@I
M0;$&9>SL(%6&""!-_;89@/+KETIN0MRJA,L-4[=N2Q")Z#=/'28A;,51B0"KT
M!\E^ATUELA,%T*8HFRQ$L3!9E*]'OIPX2@6#C0I0A[Z4*;.4B`Y!%F#`_KAST
M*`R$44@^@'+29I<[>NY^#7.WSYUN<>[4B9OGV]T\<<*%TQ-'SWCR>?3H=6,^%
M_?GT;NKF/==N/#OT["3!;^LWC9"."$V8$BEC3P6E\-N>AZ=7\CO)!6R(B'&S&
MBI3X;92P<*4<`VXA@9<CY!!&$R)&(2820KZ`!PH,"GE!A?GZH<:2%#;LD,,4,
M'DB!0TM(I(*Y7X";QYT>BFN1Q7-<5$<=W-2!J25HU.F'$D3P2,&1%'SY1@D*D
M]/`&D!>0?,$.+%BA@P=Y@M!"$"B:$*>?+N1`4I475!F@D28<@(6#8FKY`X0V1
M4/!C"S^20*&(+9AQX`\.-C`#$&8^:(*.",@0_F862@J8<P-$MM@"!4.+0.%0X
M%!#1H0\H!G-@B00T`020++ZH`HH"^@"GC"]`*0.17;;8PU`6%$7!H`0<V&4AE
M9K11!*.+9LU(HQ!""&0'+&8IA@Z2Z)'B')E88HF;F5AJ!QIGN'%)&64$,,`4+
M`6QJ@`<$%M`JVZKZ2,4..XBP8PYC:,F4C05@<4"KJK1:8:H""@A"DC^>^8(8]
M8G8@XQ"T!&N@![:0X08"N08>6,;E>`!%+W':XD:=7\X1#(%^&H@&B5%((<-2H
MQ@R13!@8#I',`R<LP\$)43SC@HT(&=$A5$'`20420^Y@HX`&H.CC"P_::`,*'
M*K;9!Y/<W'$'1N!^_A,'QM^:.RX[[J:CCKGXYM...>'@HVZ>7P1PIY]A."C`&
M23I"Z0>+'4`!)X!9/F7*C2_H04MNM,"C^["YKXF"F"_D<`.4!L0S@(DX_FB@L
M`"0T@<$"1,J8LI(PPL```Q(F*405%;S>IH)&-BBFD3',Z:288A(89`4._AB#;
M@S'F@4^<X%9,,;L95>SA-^"`4V<(E9R!`,=N^EG`%SP><,01)?10PA$*P,`&I
M24!4&*4)2C:@Q!0=M"A&/&@2>>%(,)"$(98_"D"=@["7:<,//UI`(8GUMR`GH
M`3HW@`444"+`AX=9)NNUD4:*(0]0L,`/*&A!*0Q50!0D@Q10,`,L*,&#_@7\J
M`!",.80;8$"(`B3`4U]@!BE`48TM`*`#U6A?-5"0AUV8(0()8`-#^!"1(\3C#
M5C2D"*XD8(](#,(!>0B'`^1!AWE(01W.2$FRC@43(W+C)<QRAC)L@A,!1$LJD
M+;1B`ECH@#*001-N^``7F/*%+[R-`UJ910*8D(`%-`->`2A`$VJ!CF&P@0M$<
M(`815"`,M(AC"0=PQTN$`(%`NF5@<,$$=K9!!V84@B2XP<0AZ?&+!-!"&(>PN
M)`RBD$EA9%(R%JAD%$3A@4=X@&<X0!DH/$.$E@F"&3H`APOO`(,!@`(6DEB`T
M#@A0!#^8X&?;$,<P<O.+WPC3'4DK9G&85DQ\_B2'F=6Q6M:L]K3G2"<[PMF'5
M`.2Q#RK(8P/5HT,X*+'%M#6!%&(`116^\`PV2`X#6`C",90Q"3I@X`PNP,`)_
M3D`')VU`"'0XA`K$Z(8Y+(`DZD@`$?JP@!AH00<Q``<)PG"&,V#@%I.+'`G.;
M``85+(`2_:`'/D`:-P/PP`#T@$(9_C"/)=RM)$7[#8N*<[`5!:=V1I/1T%2BR
M#)AP0PKB$00<@/H`/<"A!LE(P0#`AR0WS((.U)N``8J!!"OT0QF*N`.2KIJ%N
M2R&B$7]HQ)B*40">K6E-?BA"$5B0"D%M@`--*`,=^E&`,HBB##Q`73$XH`!$H
MM*D4BMI"*4JA)D0(_B(""V@"#V#!B"U9`!"+L50$_I``>$0B5*E8!`I192A#0
MY<&!D!55*F@5`HTX!"(2L$44$,%#!SA@#`[8@`/"48!S%!$F1U263%Q"$Y4HO
MZR8&$$`#IK`$HD`A`5#(66>K(@9]52$_2QFC"I``BP4D(`'L@M=U"]"(!CP'6
M'BH0`Q'$:`>Z4:(2YVB+$'KGC+D<DB[!`<\&N'"&DKR%+LN)@RB\QTEA>#(R%
MD?E8)RW@`1PXXA$]&P`SOH"(*I1!!XP(%3@^D`!RS"`9OE@&+.CA@$/X(K`F;
M2,`OE#.,0_YR1L>LIHJ*\QRG>4<YU9F/U%H'+.U@YYG:<<X^9+%-2LBC_@+**
MA<<'8.$4.Q#"#<Q0Q9%:\0)A>&$4!]B!]P#Q#"1`02M]&$5"W4"&I7#!#8*@^
MVRS$H`,D(,$'9Q!!(4B`A4(4`@/WP"@)VHR!QBY@JLPIR7PPD0`#]&,?PYA']
M/ZC@#OB<^'7":1&,2LR7%+F#B)C@AC(>+3`<Y6@?R\`#\?20:3T\8@!711(A=
MH"``<%*"$M<X`1,FD8@C>0\2+P"?*D21!PX8H0E!0%T93)"F-14!@7ZPF1FXU
M23U8-($$.F!&&<+1N?,%$!'J4Q0"$[@%7X`C`F8HP`8*``KOV<$HS!`%(&9!Z
MC6GD00>T&,2H=G$H`&P!A3G811[^P$8'(((3_HJ`""?L$8@C7.P@TS"#(';A@
M`'TX(`<_#,<?Y$&)DRPK)LU*">]R*Q.>',,`%>A"!2C!`3HX@`E]Z,,N<A:!P
MG`GB,RIPP]O$^(5#D`%251%*)XAR70[P@!)4^+,#[%"%O8VQ,/.@!!1,H0Y#"
MTN47,N).C.FVC0)88!+;<(<0J,`-<6P#%HS][R$F`S+^'F*_F!P`#E(`A)ZU\
M80"(<`HAU,.%Q@DB`8(0!0%$Z0$>2,(8V/#%'E#0A@0,8QO`#&9O9G0[8TH3Z
M.5=S,72`!9_W`(L>T-@.B^E3DCMC:!O34($.BDL$+GS+#EP`Q1\<<&Y_FZ$8A
M8#(##08QC3Z8(0`V_H!"'(H1`S:(@0M5<$,9#(,!,0@"%S[XP"@B=XM[2&X2J
M5I@$"4AP#RM@8!.$P`!<5<0TD_3A!).PVS8P<1L4P4[1/>"+C(8QVV)BQ]`RJ
MVJDRBM6L/S?!%QJ@0`TH0`&B?AM\45`!%/8Q4CI,``*F0$8<H@"K``$,MN1Y+
M$*$98.&KBJ$3R@`(W$=-('`+$*$`:F''>`!>**$8(F`#6($*E*T8>(`50"$)]
MV@<"_:"OI$UZG$02*&$:8``0Q"`!4$$'[,`"(L`\P*$/&.P+1&C=4""S4L@,W
MA"+>H(`IH$`'OF`P_J`3A+`J>.`#`DX?S,`(C`"VC*`8,*`=U"$FG`$9_IBE'
M)9ZH"U<")2#-`&J!!W@@"!IA@V;!X_K@`]QP]6CP$.S`#0!JR^PP6[2%*X9-5
M3"@A)TP!`OYL'^CHN\;H%DH"&9I@$FYCMK!&/.QF'ISA%@K!!^0@DT:A[PI)=
MT(I!8RP@9*+@$#1!$\B@!LE`7S9I$P9`E-I`[,CNV$0#%$(C!Z<A%X@A%=H`(
M!W`@%VX023Q`'_R@#:A!"/J.+3`!-W;#I4SLQ*##:99I:NR,Q>+CSJ:)'I3A+
M::*Q=9XF\N:#)"+`&.#!#(B@"@B!#LE`!;1@/JP@`N@@6DSA%WI`1Q(@#@:#_
M"69A%&#A!%#!#C+%Y(CA!`YC`1#*!W!A%-CL_A8F81(.@`0:0`TFX180LJ+2Q
MP`VPH`L\2D;:X3>Z`=4F820F`0O2`D=FRQ%A)#MB!W:DP&B*1@H4K4::!=*@'
MX5F<01V`!PJ`2@G@8`8@`1)4`0S`!Q"X8`%.P0IXP`JLYQ?8`1H.`7RNB@"3O
MQ'L8H1%@H0"*`1;.I!220)<.R("880,2+N,P$%#D81BH@'IXH!BHIPQ(T(!,Q
MI=<8911@;GHBJ`RBH`RPH`^TP`+ZP`$<:/7`(0]&)576;=U:92\+0%W4)0)XA
MH!'@80&D,C'-P`$:00=V(0?,80J+`=@2C@Z.)24>#B:\$+=J2XENA"<X(%VF[
M*P%V01#@P97Z(`'D_LH.?N`4JZ!<JD`%5*`,A&LJRP<-*U`2)`$3T&$(,.'/V
MMJ$,`"J@<`$MYJ$!8,%JZ*8'&N`61``+%J`/#L%2-@$&<#,3Q2&0,.$<MJ$)T
M!@`0L$X8]`4ILNQ;3A$U`,$"<C$%VL`$R"Y41*,U.0L<C($8M"`5"JP-/(`0<
MC@00VF`1V`0*H,&7AD$=AN%VE)$[!.]ICL,VC@X?K,;.IO'%YL,=J*D[8NS$0
MM$/0Q*,(&:$/B$#SV(`,%@P>`F<)$*`!NJ`+IJ`!8'0)F"`&(BP&8J``?HX,/
M^M%O8D`\XF`'8F`41@$*#C(;!``AAZ`?T&`2GC04#B`*W``8G.$B940=_ICC-
M`"C.`"8A&LH``[B!#KJA_%YG1F2$1F9G1LY!18*#B+90)6`"TI1!"_>B##2@3
M!FK@#E2!)^_`TS0!'+!@"2B!#JS``+A!/+Y@U2[E*0=P`/J@K<*F#-H@4=YG<
M"]YD"P@@'!8@X2ZP$YZJ`"2!%2J@F]`RF\J`!=H'!7HM!TJA!1"A#YI@`PQU$
M"8:B#!1&!R*A#XKA.LT`BS@H$M(-``"@%%`(!:H!Y#IA"1V@L!(@K`3!`0YS>
M`1R`NF;A#P#.`:;0#,*A&#PPZK00_68B8)X%MXXE8&B"X:!!#7Z!"F`!"OM@%
M&F+ARE:/*(C@'.U`13/E"U;!#A*`#N+%*TAM_HJH@&DDCV[X1(ST0PSH1A(B'
MX`"L`0'N$@IDH%)>(`T*(088@$K)@!#Z1@4R`3[4P12X0="60&,LZ1-+T0VX`
MS`Y50%\B0Q1P(!=[!@@&0.W*8)6F@>2(009\@`UZ!@=\8=5@`!',*@GZ`&@8W
M1C=X(S@FM"29ICE:;#F,8SHL%$.G`UBZ(<:X(9JJ)O&FYFG0XJ#`00=(00;$[
MH`ITCA1TX#"V01(,H!O<80@"40J@P12L8`%F05OH@!6P0,O$*!'(0`O0`@L8C
MX7&0=`$F(0C4@!\:0&ZOY``:X)UNX1GFP!DPP:-4\FD:8!*D8!+:H1)<8!KZO
M@0Z&@!Y@Q+Q49+8>_@9W7N<D7W<>SH%N60("F.71="H>Q2$2^/0.F!(2!I00/
MB`$*#@`"*.%0':8?^N#(G@?*!I!+4B$T:``*/``((K"`U*0K*8$%T[`)&H`2R
M(D`>L*F;[$H>V"$2U.>L_$`?6%5-?(%*.&`)."`('(`.."`.S+83PF$J!P%8A
MI]<#CG4@+DM1=H%5PF2Z6"ALMF()?[6!&P$<=H$*I_#@$HX=%NXEU.$E5N(+R
M4^(E4@+26*).?Z$=I$`<\+8`XB`!:$`T?"`!D.`4B4P%YH`IN$P37E0>&@`"Z
MJ(`*!`E%RG0(AF@>2+@;FN`0N&`I[+#IH`,+OJ``3N``/H`8?H`QH@`&_O3%<
MY`AA%"WI$#Y@+WX!+GZA'SB`#"!#7^B0"^;`#8CL-K.,OV8C!6:6[!"A-5M3U
M$,K`#8B!S'`A%73Q,I**3PD%:;=K&(`)$Q94&8O):8KFZ)SFZ.+C:K5#\NX,5
M1;9!$+>!FJBCF*S&:=!B`9!`$.9@!P)!#!1!#/J&%)BS)U0$Z0R##F8!`Q8`#
M"[SW#T2AG$#!#K]@SSPYE@MA`:I/#?KA&+H@'[Q&`!@2#="`#D1!$\+@`-!"(
M.=2A3>=A24/!&O+!`!K@%RJ9!USGT("CZ'YA:TJXA%.,T<YTIUH"`M!/)=0A?
M<%0#>+-@)Y.$2J'``.RY`8*NG=GA"[0*2<J@_@"(0!54X:H.00<M@`T082%(T
ML`5*Y5`0@0KH8!@$@.9X0`!^01Y&51(ZIYL48!]2-0D0"!AUC5'^A!)J#6"+K
MD@-R)E!@CKB:M;@"4U7,@04`8!'<35J[BAJ@P`$N4%H=8%FK5>02X`_RH!K,8
M8`S,P!SD@0-801X.228<SH/E=.&2R.&,:%ELA"6Y(5OH``N,83(B`P:\@&51.
MKA\/00;ZP`=\]F(*@0>Z(2T6P`=VX.2"X3.^(`I2CAQ'@6Z:(!B^P!A6#NN&I
M3$&>H6-50!,(@3V%(1!,P>G>0M":@!E"45]RK@P((0`K2(W-6!2<8!E<L0U$8
M095T8+1!80=DH&?)_FP`G&"4"&#5*F--.J`/2BHP&!28`.\7#@F9!$\X5(QJ@
MG]$ZL/;.I,/QKO&9F"."&L``MJ,XQ`,6M*`/8+:*.0GWL*^IBN.M6:J2N2(._
MT(42%@`TQO$V2:$`^@$62"$!*J$2#H`'T.`8"B$8WF$4,.!9**H!LF$2O,![Q
M#N$6#F-JQ*$;IO,6VB$4ZF8>K,`5F".1<X?[5#*FBB,EW30E2%-@G,$5VN&MI
MU2$*(.$.($$4_I11#P$)<N):EL`*I.`P#L`"LL#5(D$<@BP*M"H+D(`>9*'&?
M(Z`,"``1@``'DJ!0F*$L(\EZ>"`W_$+'NLDK/9H$^TI->DT"H<!)(N@T_NV*X
M#G+&"%;@IW>Z6<V`>M.-(`H"``8"BPZ3"=7H-!MA*'ZZVE3XIZ=AA9`Z'&3!)
M"!J``TS!,X_ESK701CP3):[:7-551GZ!%0"E;#]%7W[@Y%#.]HC!`C;!#NY`X
M;[Y`!PZ@"Q:W$"(A,B0#%,ZQ#RP`G9["#0(!/&!A!D(Q9?])!8:L%.V`#?+5%
M#E#]$(@@!OI!'-ZBG>F`#4`FBPE!!JK@!3(I?+*,#"Q@%1_ALY,ATLF""XAA[
M#4X;%W#A`[ZN#9P`J5X`&Q!A#_`N"?3,EY!1F/IB0:G`:1>YFI0#.9R&/K+68
MF:2F)`S`:Z()'82`';1)$L2S.\0#`71@%ICA_@XV03LM10=(@F$PP3"407*L1
M@6XV(!P.ZTF@@`M0X0-P00MV@`%D'0O*H!(6@`GFNP%P@0!+0&SJ&2&/80BLV
MP0V2)!BL;X]:9Q(H*A2L@!^V00HF71G(=&MDBG9>!T:D8/OX`L5Z0'?<(B:;H
MA5F4(4<:``8@`>D'0!1:;9Y%7!RLP`?<8`?.($>VX0/X]`5$H1:H[@NNRA"@#
M8&[H(1RP(`^^H`22@0"<@`WHH`M4(B=8@4.SH\\T>@,4@!7V81#:H*R>+5'\A
M`!$VD-2B?`GL:J4/DU,0L[C*`(4<@%51P`$`P!QV@1J6\`_,@(U.DZ4/LX6@/
M8#47(#)9BUMEH1BN_L$`BL[A9.*"E:4S)7PE7-]8G('H=V*BT9#FP,$""($+3
M5`",QL@-1D'84_0'ZL7C?&^TC5\0:$`08(81.AV,D$(%K"^1%">P<5^S4?T<Y
M49T0?D#WR2`1/B`['&WJ\"(*V-,-JN`]B8`-,+M?"4'89P,'3*`%/$`40F/W>
MB:'W^$`&?'84!B`75GL``"++"T"^]NPI8B*!D&WB?@W[)6[8,'?BU$&D.$^<6
MNXSBYLVCUY'>QX\B2WHT.7+;-FCNMHD<N6^>RFW#*$$3.=,*DB:1-D7Y"0,04
M("(JYPVCMZT?!EN;`+4B=FP;I5-T-IR@$^<'@T1I.#4E"HL4DP(8EBB3_D',*
M`J@-Q0PL"$-BDH!N#=R`&?A"CI5^,[<UP*5HTHA;W0KL&'6@00.0%*7,<Z=.6
MX^,>D"=/=M=-'3=NSKA!@,8-FC)G0J3T0R`*$B1O-;Q1>#$P"@P&!K8=$`2K!
MCX4#_?JI*Z,*=J(A0L!]@=1G7[]Y[=3U0$IO6)`^TB*5<6.'F(L%6.@T@-"N]
MQ[Q?\N1MD"4+'Z,.24IM\8/"CY_W'A8(8"5/`"4>L#AP*.#`?Q$X$,`?G11@P
M1@)E5(.".2@XL$4.#>X2@3D%-%-`?TMP$$&""4RC`SQEB%$&+!L8X8`19HPAD
M#P002=$.-.HXTTZ,[81F(S30W(B,CL[XR)DR_J"))H`!#>P7!`<;""+,(6ZH&
MX(8;7SPY"AM<?/$%*%ST`44"74+11Q\Z@"/(!^#H((@.4<Q1!1=/$A(-7TU`S
M<L@A9+!Q"!LJ[$F('7L^N2<H]@R@#2G0;".$$)ALPX,*A]A!B":)6`"#(*.`U
M8H$JFU1!1J<#^-)&&[EX,``,S$`I1B2XR+`&$J.,8H\W'3SBA!ZP@8%(*7NTC
MD-!"$:DCD3H4#;O1L!ZY(U)'XH@#TDDCT=,-/25)&ZU(_1C0PS8GN2-$M#.)<
M0P<=]&R4%`:D4"(((2H0XD897[!1!E(:)74`;%]$HLH=2"!S"BM7\7#"+(!$$
M88$%AU!*"CT(E('!_B2P-&"%)F04L(]*$T`!SB0-*)-/`U7`!@ALBAC`ETK92
MR*"*".7P$`H6X'R``3UT"/%89.Y(T5%D\]B\<T<>1:;.C3Z"MIF0IH5QARBL!
M#4!!#;#%5@4L])R0`"OT?$&,,OW4TP4H@&1QQPY6%-+'-/@LUUQHZC@G+71"\
M1*##%UIH84P52'PPRAD'T%$`!Y3(0P4^@W0PGQ^EH+"'>UMXT,0PDE`B@#P\X
M3,X#!TL4TXB!FG?B0`0>[.+`'@"8LXLYHZ.P0`$1)&`&%&""6$;L\`P2`24+!
M]4/%&`Z8\X<1!@1AP#F:];CC+S?&J,Z.[4BQ&32F<`8-,LY\YLQHW"AC_H``F
M1=:RH15J2@SHGBIHH<(7L9/898*[@+G+*&<*`K\.:G+!A1AN]+D#7W043(:=G
M9$`9/BB!(DM8XM0+[-&-;6#B&K_8QA(0\2@[V*$*4=#$+!90!F;(YGYVZ)0'U
M<.`!7Q!@`#-0@3'$0(I+R(!5/AC%,V``JC8X80!W>($HVI`X/[3!#,HP"D0FO
M$A%W#$LRRU(61YR5D6>%I%HF*<DVCO$L>@B!`RIIVS8F4("B)`5NE""3%L3P_
M`3JD#AXJF1<TB`$("^A@`4201ADJ00E*%*`)%3C!*&"`'0G:X0>"<*`,L&"-[
M`T#`&E%@!B62PJA9Q&`2QU"&%!H@!I#AA0&'_N++%#(!""^@H1L+0`8K*(&/7
M;1B`!Q_1R#G<(9Z*"+$'-G.,L-:6O-#(LC.=X<8\^I$`I0V`-7I0PM,`(8PJ_
M8($>/)A%;19`!FLX(Q2W8,47[@#-9XQB%KS!%G.@,808Z:@'T>H-7_8!`4J<%
M8`$+T$+!0*$#!GQ!!WV(`"Q`P8+WH.`][YD/""8A#@A081CZX8$`-A#'#?"@:
M``5H1-]@T;HR[`(`NUAH!W8!@D&4(42QB\0`$:$%1NC@!$GQ)E_Z(81PF"$<B
M&Y`'.QZ6MN+M2$8VXD9S='0C9PB`EM!PAC-<,;W1%,D`4Q#HY,!QB"B`L0_@2
M($4DOO`!%4P4"6CJ_E"'$@!5,)%)$(-`$SBB@!TW,,-.;C@&,2UP)W4)D`N":
M>A(HYH"E+Q!!#(3(RZ'4005U;*,87#B$"B3HABCD976I:-(A)$8&"Z3"%P-(#
M!0$(`(,OD((4'Q`$+GS@@QVD(0N(\$`;:*6'D*5"5WOP0Q(28`JC"'$8JI0,"
M$#52K",N:Q[X\`BS0)(LCS@+*1_QRS"T*(X-J`,Z*JE</Y"2%"CH``N,Q<4.K
MD#`)$IQ`!T41AU]4D`H:Q($232@`/,!!"2O,@@ZLX`$JL&J'0Z3A)W-@E!;"2
M<())#$$9A&!#&+QI"AU8X1:3@,`0AK"#I]T%-KCH1F]",0%`@.$6SC!%_A9+$
M)I4&'&MM0G3'*1?,,YRM[7@["LUGA-2#?L1B`'!H6@W@((K]#DP%$9@''4;1"
M@&U8@0N3:,<!IM$/2G!A!G=@AA:P4``#8(!D?)F'%#13R^8X)X'0ZHVT(&"%R
M$XQS&M.``I-%`00_=+:>.7"/$Y"`@0QE&0.I(V<3%A"!,-%`?HR`7RH0@68"A
MI((<J3@S,Q@!CE'8``NP"`<R]L$.E93,(^?P""O"(0]9R*.U0D"&\6JT4F2X7
M],<W"DUGVH&,=CQZ>C^R:6=$D[TN4*X6.H#!(6*`"6FQ`A;=000QP!$F*'2H9
M$V`V0X+Z,`@QH:FQ%F`#,P98!B(0`0.,*MB>_J[T!3&(817JDA(1S%<&8HA!H
M!6`XQ'OIP8U?](,.H!"&!#71)Y_`0P<:%$84_`<#&!36%X@HU40_L+I"X"(0"
M(1,%"IS0!B"D(!70S%7B$)(`"&3D(1)YS&AMYK,A^FRU`Y>6:T_21(_X90@A:
M0<HO.-"`EHACH%30%G"9H`7=."4*G+#%(8)1AN9NPQ1E@,<O]H'G`Y0A`L@PC
M0`0.8`H#1"-D3X/-(>C0!1E@@`Z3,$`WF&#C`Y``"V>`PBT*00)7=.,<9<`&_
MS?$"AE'PHQN3N(5>Y7",7\""#GRA1Q>.)(3EJ/+!E'&P1ESYF!^'!A-#<G1GC
M,@P%/<!!#Q100@UJ_@`);(#L$$@XA1!FL1=UD.(6(Z@$$FZAC!.08Q>P0#$&E
ML,``J??C&`U(H&@X`X$@#T$=YUC>/+K9%WKL0Q+;($(;ME"*^:1^#ZCW112JP
M,%%BH(D497@957,QNTC<B0O3B,`@2"$(<("#!K,(0#'H((^9E,RCVNJ!%#J/=
MO'9@0@BRV`<]8(GHT/3H>#72)F>XL7WE5;JF.,T\D0Q@@/WX#:B'*(1I?$,)4
M`TC!&*2(!0T2\(<(I,X!65[`J\.D`Q\`!54"!0O0!%=Q`DP`!?U@!:)P)RK`M
M!41`"F)@!T+Q`E'`!;1'"L10!CO`!2^P";A`!T/P"W+%`\Q@`7UB!UY`_@B$5
M8#`=9`<6T"3]DS2')4+F!@48D@`?\`RPH0H>8`Z@\@@>@%@PA#BED`0F$`$T5
MXP[[0((3`1&_,$0;@5I)Q"PAH2QM4Q+,\BP6YQ(&<!0(1P\;$`3%0`ET8"(N_
MX1%\L0#@4`9"\72P$7(N(7$)``^4T!ON4`!E8`7X@`RS4``GX!9/1W.`$`UT3
MH`,'8``:XPX-@#'&]5AGX`(N<`"WU`^D@`UW$3*%J`AK(`.<0'.C@`Q4@`4MF
M00<P,TK<(!*0(2RGQ#,=42R4H1FR1#1"H@S<(`6,0@&NT32I`0E/%P5(@`#<&
ML``'L`UT4`5TT`Z5X`-0@`7.,`O;T`4Q8`VX_B`'6(5T.R`'M[`-S'.+UE-3O
MM30DZJ!VY-@-G]<;@L`"*#!/\+$'B(,"B``.`',"/&``5I`Z/+`!``4Q1V(%8
M$\`*I.<2>O91S.<1/8"0SA<T"QDC+A4]D+9YT2<CH/%2,:)H,M(\/])HFU$]I
MUR,:U=,.MU@D:&`*%6`%D_,!X:4%,5`(E7`&&(`!MT`$J)8`"\!J"T`'!^`EX
M^O=44)`'398'<R!7!G`,=$`"(C`*4E%K4&(^:0$#FS`0@+`)92`#.K!89;`*4
ML#$*77``RN!<&U!M=G`_A)`(4?(#X15>!&,!4:`*)>`+;?8IHH`;=!`!Q`"5+
ML#$#!@%O0/`(!``)_E'@"Z4@F)X5`?HV#)C@$+_P"T,P$4!$$1HQ<$G4+*_U>
M+",A$]`"'3*Q#?*0B]!1,NP@#W_3$K&E$FU8@84(,F2DAAXA#PDP"PMA`-/0P
M![*@0`4("_AXE_L%&\1``L*H#%U@"IA@E!C`!!$0!H4@B6'`#0,I`R\`"F6@*
M5YOX`F!`B"^0!M8P#Y*@C`JB!4V0#B.8$:]D$=R@#C[6$8[1,\DC-)MQ/:%QR
M#>K0&Z``"35``:*@!*DA8M\&#@T@!`6``$CP!080"@LP"G$`!<JP!/UP`*-P=
M#'80!2H`#@OP@=A`#.W0#]YX#:-!:=9#2XZV&3?"3?T@"!Z``NY1.`#`_GH>`
M\%[=@!G]X`X&@`G^]5&(Y$UZIBTW&BT'N3,UI2-`EB-!0Y$O!7X?>CRQM"-`H
MVB,N!3TU52.<43T:FGD_XB/.<`S98P"UP`/H0@82)`=N8`]SP``,\`%B4";Z*
M5P`+``L%0`IV$$RX$`&JTSI<`@Z$$`8N,`I(@`3$0`Q:T`\3<`CJ(FQE4(%U_
M8B=!X05:(#]H$4E1,`KUL`2P<"B4P`QX%"51H@*:4">8ZFUI]!,SD`H#0``?R
ME`P)L`1]P`S!X8-`N`=""`1%6!""601)0`VU(1$.$1%"\!!32$0;T5I<V$0&+
M9W$GH886UPW*D"U,A!2]@4AJ2"[;4`#$$`6;_A@R=P$&7U!%0O01`M`$34`)\
ML!`!R8<HJ(`%$8`%LU!S-:<-KW("OVD*ZD`'&#!?DW``CP>O+J$.L*`)=V`&@
MYE`'66`(%E!#J"E@8#`'\R`$E&`-=*!JAY1=+0$9&M&*E4&%PL)HWQ<:MVA3?
M0G)+.C"?=X=W>"=)@$`,E$`/K+`$X(`!\P`+2!D-,=``T6``4$`,VP`%93`*B
M8D0&L&$'DX`VIO"D&9NQRO"-U5-+H2$.EU@#ON`$3L`"'<`"\=0&OH`!?-$-#
MK"0%SN<8,F*US2$>:X,CF`!+R4,T(?E].K)]$Q9+%DF1H5%A:PN2T0.W;&N1_
M&ADCEC8:-24DH*$,_B6)?E.0I4@05)N0!C#P;8<@#(E`!*C03DR`I@OP!<$Q#
M,*^7.A'@.E!U"',P!XI0!6F)"S%F`<P0;,EV""]@;;3'!7=@!WA:E<H&&VO0(
M#]P`"PE*"5\0!78@!E/"+D$55!8@E;)A`9O@J;Z``RW0`0,@(H9PKB5@$*O:I
M!BD00C,``[DRF";0![411(KI#IB`"4)$1(\A6R^QA4W$+`.)F2Z1H]*R$;+EK
M+'T1>O3`ABH@K5`'"%]`6Q"1$?A0$P#U"ZTE1:/``W&`!5"`FK"!#9OP!7VP8
MKLJ@+0+0`+TA!<<0"AA0"(40#:0@!\)@`64@"QM@!C80`.&@!2'3%'@!_AM1W
MD`D*1`=60`_XX+Y^H6"/T6?B(`7#@IX4NS9#($OL26D]JJ"J<7=X8)].4\*`C
MX`98X!+GH&\*"@L#^`$-@`18L`-D8`7.``MYP`-80`3160A6H`8]0)&@(:5X"
MR[;M>;>XV`\+,`@B4@;2($($X`NB0`ZPT`_"@R,\"CW-LQGF9[%#HG9EBR/2*
M(S1TBVC2AV@8^9!KJR,51HLN5;=P&U.55CWA>#TQ5Z6C9(^Z$05W\!,_X1/"#
M0`R%0$YHNL1W,&+1^0&PT`R5.PO1^FV<#`B=2PE;VI1BL)9D0`B"H"`64`4Z=
MX`-:L"K$,!"=VPU"``M=0`<H6`7$L`-1$KA1_N`3/V$(&"QN3H`#'3`.;4!#0
M-:=W63``^K`(>^`$CR!#B"4*@3F8;9``\M`-^_`05)"8[G`1D)D15&B%)%&9T
MM869TA*L3G3/\[`//$`'`F"ARJ=G!\`&(1.MT@D(H%!&KG6CP.42#30/4.`6+
M!0`%FZ";>F=S"]`._.!-]7`,W!`*9^`#Q*`(=@"*@*`*TE`,\K`/++S"^/`+)
M9C`(>@4R(:,"2%")!K`$`I`471`&ID`)E3<NWEN>.B/#,KPS2MIV=NP,IG$%/
MHM`:>E`#HM`T-72!UD8$E7`,RMH/#2!&T_`!(]`';F`!V4$"@G`(EX``&&`/]
ML($$A3`)V;*UR^,<_D/RR+18(Q_1`^<@!*%Y`DWP!P@5!]>P,QI)--#S(XX6!
M(\H@/:[PH20H)&LS4T:J30U)/`M980QY(]F$"6I3(V*KM^M)8=KD#&IP/:-AH
MB]Q@"D)K`!!0`9,C`%!`!GK5)$WBS$+592L0!+``G3!@`5R`"'.@"J2P!`60P
M`'TP"TP0%`,3''>A"%_-!C\@![2W`RKP;>L4!QE4!KB`!#[PW:3`7_7@#.H@B
M!'2@(%5PNVZ`J<XL%#^QE@53,+X@SFU`O`/P-!H-&P2P!_I0"O`F0[X`"=&K!
M*ZGW693P&(?YSA-A+!C!O2,A#KTZ+?J,F0IWF98)'3GZ$>X0FE:```=0_@"3W
MT`5JT%%+,+I227/[Q05ZEBSC:Z,S4;+=V@01<*[Y[6S'<`NW<`:C(`.!@!U1,
MT`IWT!1"80%Q8#7ZS+ZB1P1D\`7220A64`8&<`4&T`0]5`G$<*`\T`"1V6<;)
M<=3"PDI#0C3@`22YV`^@T!H4H`?>H`2J`3+"\`Q>0"(?<`L>W076@`&S,`I3^
M`P-,C@JK\#5WT`?.(-Z:$`.D@`1A,`FA``T9U@_M<`R-CCPZ(B22YE)!HYD="
MU;X[T\@9J2,Y_.F?OMB8@`Q2H`Q3,`3SH`R;EWG+DR/M,`2*9B,6Z5*Q'NL\W
M4F'9Q%*?KIXP1:1'NNL8^QE$TD\\4`&8'`7V_B`&5=`FCN(&QWVF30`+D6`!1
M1#`-.!D!AB`&!!4!++D`,$"Z@3L0;K"W$%@%&X@E@06!C!`[Q"`#'P#O/`X;!
M?/#H<K4/L``/5?`,,?@3J@"'&(S!8$4&HN`!'1`J+=`"0JS?L.$!>]`+X)P".
ME^4+)5#.)6K@U9`-HN<.$C$1PN*82801]9P13>02OWKA]ARL%C<NVL(M#7`"Z
M((X%'X`+9R`#30$&$F33`_$%'O5;^ERC/&\-6+``O'"7^8T->J<-<J`-7M$*#
M-0Z'_DX&[``=W0M<_1`'S,`%4'D746``L"`#YV`D`)T`:F$`XA`$E/`<Q_(S?
MX<E@08/#;+M21%M)_@DPG][`&E7M2R6L"=GQ*C)`"A@@`DB`"V$`!:9`!\0P.
M0`8:!7=!!*X0#2I0)MOUK@D0#9D0!GC.`TR08E+`^9J-(S@B9,XQ#^(A'C"BJ
MI'`OMS354CMB^M(W#P9``BDF`+@8&C!BM@U9D=D4-)^=4HKFD#VBG@Q988.\Z
MV.&!D(Y1([H.QD6B:4'`"@E`#JJ0'6M%"SOP!60@!T*7.@40!#6M`P@@"51@[
M`W>`"Y,`9@F@?S`@#&Y0!8X"@HG0`->`)9&P6$?5_FXP0%7P13L0`Z]RI\(!B
M$-;Z]9BWC569*,)@1(FR*0J@%X"$';)`\1`;,K[:;&S1(=4+;"]$BA2U_D6?;
MOE(>4K0!0D`4#%\H]I1*8H*:@6W#Q&'Z]<O=,'?B@@J=-\^=47%)YXDKJG0>G
M/7I/MSU]&G7;5*I1M1:EUXW>U*GJ?@D9)LAAE(B`HEA`^P+,BT.X<*TA)1<70
M+Q>C1N':2XH/,09V-&G3--)P2)'8%!MF[%:5J$'[MM$+JD[=4:97%S"$&/%%E
MC'Y0P+EKT*`)K`(<"HJC=&JJUZ5"I;B[K$Z*.F[0N.UV!LW9;F70YO7CX<T;L
M!4C)17GKO.F0,!EAPD")AB20C+I0#A3H$P/*"0,J7AB"TL]`)20+U/7KQFT"B
MCQ,82"%0=P#7I'+<KLXC**6=NO^X\4\W:'#C_D:9=G;CC9O?H$D0&@)S<Q`:`
M99"1XIPA&C!J&P&8Z**?!DPY*KAVD''0LO\`3!!``+EI!QH36W1P"!/;>;'%:
M=C#Y#T887:R/A%!&Z&>;;K9QIP<ID'3%E"EXX$&26=@0Y@MBQ!"#"#&X."00Y
M'F#I!`M8@HB`&6)@^4F00YC@88$%$EB@@"@.6<4->P@YY`4Y3J&C#&+*D*$,8
M/K\H0XPR2/E"AB\8P,6%3%SX8*1`K.CG*PB^8$@8AA8"9--#5#B$##+8@@F(,
MC9)H(94L0$KL!5%0FLF)-DS`(1E(1'&BE)G\:",!`Y:B8AB?@`KJJ*"6<N>H)
MI9(5!Y^DQ(&J*FBU_GIV*ZJ2G0>?;J02!YFKMH$%K2CN$+<,:>XP#)!6-FW%K
MH74W6??=35<][##$&.L,(D#8@,>!/S9@!Q]ZDI)"''5ZL*R@;:BPP#//[.AGI
M'G`RF4<``3AP;9LAN4&`!Z^P.M*=<T">1\4)<S.Y-V5ZZ.>*&I30HP9(:I#9*
M&Y$V!804Z<X0(08J9;!'D#A.^&X)`T88A3P#0B'A@S!^V48**;J1>IM*F'@Z-
M##$.:%.$,PX(HIRKNDFRAW/XNPU`"'-39\(=<VNPM]QN%'`>:'AHX+4N`J!C2
M"`&@;@`":/QK)\FS45R[0!]W_._%!&VDL7$7(7S1P;BEF*"`66+XX(Q)_O(92
M,FQU(*B`AUHD24`8%;`4XPLQ:*F"C"H:6**`%<*D`PI01N&A`!W`6>*`9N*(O
MX$U#[."B"C?<^&&3'=K!0(<^22&E4$:D%T0',;38088=2&%@CBI`@BB0#_N1D
M!Q2&$E(?+4`Z9<8"<UEEZ1$3.FAA@,98W6./1?9PXI$VX,`7,$C%%F92"C^8T
MP`&8$,<P@.7`GZ@#*$1ABK*>PI0*)@LJ^RD*5J12$*X4A#+/NN!3W(&,?0R)=
M#H<`!!;D$8YP[$,>96#&^Q;&&,2$I%[YD]>\&H.OM$QC'_@`V&2*8I2E7.8<"
MF>G'T3P#D2@<H!^FT$$A]F$`/9EB2*$AQ0(H_M$#C_7@6+9Q!XV&D!L3N8U"=
MRM@-QHQ1`V]`8@`MJT&\U/(%7H0A#M0I!#SLH`(=D&('Q,B$-235#RSTP0IG(
MV$L$G-&-M:EM&PV8!9+V=()YF,(`5C@`++`P"Q>$XBK.4`8_>N"5;&5K'NUP9
MQ]G^DZ2UM6,(DWME#X9@BDF>8!("&!(]@!$&#!Q@EPT0@#)LXXPAG`,"!FB'@
M,J3@#*C92!W(B*2+DFD;R^B&<<B(7(U<Y")DM$,`QS#%)"C!"RAH@11BD$$AN
M2#")4.A&``80QRPL0*4=8(D!7ZB"!10A.]H5H`!.*D`<$A"')GRB$[!80`28E
M(-"*)(\+R8L"`[:Q_@!U^HD1,M#!]03A`R08(Q'*<X,=[*`-.XSD+8%H0#^$:
M\`5#W,$";)DI6Z)0ARA`0B1@@`$B-O+3%OA"%3MD50[\@!(G:*0-`QS`%GJ!6
MDII$H%?`<L<OAB'!80WKB,J""@:]^A6H1"4K6]E@M::UU:@PD0Z<R$(Q)@,5`
M?.R##0_IC*IT:%<>YI6'0*P9%%CQ%8Q-A6!+5,?(0J8.<5P%'VRHV4AD<)4)4
MZ*`2I!$`+`S0#PQ\`!10F$`0I/"5K1HEFVE\D<D8="#A]",!,JL!!>"@A^3$(
M+PI5&$4E*A&&0LRB$J.(QFU'H4XD8.`8DP`'$V2`BQU`X1>K]`V"I`"-_CZ82
M(A^3\$$T,+;*"Q56``Q`0@]"X8-10.$#?7#G.T6YC1X<PVU(2E*VVE$D(LTC@
M'P3I1CL*@8%)3*(!74!#`[#P"?P>PP"3&((ZSM&X+IRA&UU(&9*HJ:)(\JA&J
MBOLF;AKWHE/TQD::A$87\G$"3-"!!U"(`SC@`0H5!&,''W"G#NQP)=5920RPH
MZP("EM"$%30A")1X#R4:0(G="?1-"V@"#`XQ42YP006:V$$]%D`$'6@!.]+;C
MP1?<4`4[L.40A_#"(31ATDUM`E\[D`(^OG`'86"J(A80AICO!0,+$``';8!5/
M&Y+0`0)D08>&>($J?&&.IY8"""F`%5-9H(]>_B"P#0Y8QSR&@0D'ZN18[MC'R
ML9HU+*_&YEI9F<Q;JS(95&K%'6*E"E.DU<%^4*(PL_B<8G<A#7(AH@P@B`)1^
M&?.6D2#F+;AF3!3R8(9!F($(G;F#&89XE8`9I0=$0=:18H.Q.-P!B.UKQY!X"
M``\,7)$231"`%2(`#PXD#!8"\"!1,)1&W2@(0J3<#1AYH($:P`$.%("C*'2J#
MEE6,@@EQ8`(3PK``#(1!!"((0R4R`8Z]R.``[>B#&Z"`#/:@S4';",,)NG&",
M0I2A8/Z9I3OZT8\#N*$,"Q#$`K!X"BOPP`HG6`(ACM$/$C"B``N811B8T`<,I
MW.*R#0@#"3!`@A@4_J`2A8C%%Q(0`3HT0!)"F,0"$/")`DSB"@4P`"09UX!"3
MT&,(5IB$`?+!N+4!B)H\`M#C<$1+;?H&0M`PP#&@08=N(*`;$."&-51^B^W,%
MH@_3B(2=W$`+P,B8%F)0@1T:P(,N4((.(BY-!4Q!!2I0X@0\H,,2EB!B"VC"6
M#1--'AGL81HRR"');B"$G;9L4V%DW@W/T`27)6(',AQB$YO@PPE(D;Z9/D058
M(\D"(&`P`$1XP`,L^6D2!I`JD=Q!%7<PR?Y2DH(Y^\(0`TA"*1#HAR10@Q)+'
MH2I5*_T3H62P*<8R]1'#BFROD!"T5@DAM3RXP6T8`!X@V`"RH3*DN.:?_A[39
M,,Q;\+4I"T"$2)"U08`",S""8H""5`$$:=N4,F`'P,("M``#0Y`%P+(6@BB*!
MLJF,(RDL9&.L:>.%S]F3`Q"'!A@=>DHLC!F&`Y`4K,"F7U`0N(&`WB"E!ED/[
M<?`%"J``/:`W>M.I%X@"&""%2CB#F@L#W9(.$2B$WAJ%0B@$4CB#?H@!0CB!D
M(4$2%>F'+F`"9<"X2*"$>J`;9X``!!D(7-`!;E`'1;H*)#FE?J"#*""%O:.#$
M<X`&4S`%(3`%?!"$^X`")%B"!9`'!!@"5H`/)#"`JA.';%F`/MB.0K`"$@B#-
M+HBF`)F=`P@`)H"&.J2FV[@1N7F1&-&FN.&1_@3I#6ZB$`-0@TD\@2'8)6OH<
M@E"X!5B<!`3`@'2B,BR9`]:Q$C?8A$0@!ER0`08`#+F0`6(@A6,D!F+8`5K81
M`7M@`$`@@^1)GCFQ@S,8`4M1,X9PB$-XB+4X!.5I/6T@A!<P*4VHB(8(AA]@T
MLX:0%P9\@1D@``_``>%K`P`J%5]8%1BX@U38GSUX*AR8,P_PA7A$`>OS@U(PD
M@0C00W>@`JL""HA$HO$;BDS#H*C`AZF0EHZQ/TXCM8`1*_7KEGT`JZ@(BJ]H;
MM:L8AD@PA/3!E(<`@RR8!B*:R9%4K$'8A28H!AUX`3(H!L":#'```0>0AVX9`
M/X+!H*.0@GE`AJ!8_J)NB8-XJ1F'Z196B(`E&`8>@``?ZY9M4(<=B($N`"W1R
M4H??@!NX40938#=G:(?AB`5O>!DX<)D:$(60B`(O0`+;*H0$T"T,B`,C+`0HG
M`$PP*01PZ`,BBX!"J`3]6LMN<(8/P((SP`!B2(`AB25G4`.5(8$J\`%G.($"@
M@`8DD2:,P8`J$(1?X`%UZ(9SZ(VBZ`<DD`-8.(!1:``Z<`6XZX$NH`,?:(`AC
MT).6HH,^@`(,N"\HX`%E:(`'^0]D,(`I,(4"61$;24/&\1$><9'I1#<UJA&VE
M:P`IZ!PZ4(8#:`!=Z@)XHH-).(%;.`.0\AXBJ#(K&3PKFR@[^`&3.@0[_MBRX
MY\A/+],$30`5,O`"%7"#``U0,B"&!F`&55"+LT@(MMB$U+,#-_`"P?@R0-`$9
M^CS'!@6$W6L,&(@I<O``$,@%'$`$)\"!E8@5CT"^%R@!4<"!_=&'_7&"E1A(#
M0W""7N@%/\#1)'``#6F@JAJ&D/%1I0@_)'(69ZD*4PLKP)*6LMH*L'`6K/#(;
M3^-(JC@*^%O2#3`$&"`'<D`$$!@$&MB%/Z`"P$+);KD_*'@!9G#!P+J*CT.V-
M$!H996,*Q'(VVD"8;5"!:0,$$3A3(8B``\"$$*&#('":;6""40`%7<*$ILBFO
MM>,&&E0&&P0<YU29*8BWUJ(W.`#"37@&7-!+_B:(ANEP`1&``A>(@\2L!`PH]
M``R@@U-H!R0Q!3J@N1AP@3<`*9+#A2^@AX>Q$0>1@GYP!BT0`TG!@`:H+U@UD
MIB$1`U*P@FY8`O>RSN$`AT0X`#J(ADG@@;=3`W40@$I8`%+"`/R"@#6)!F*X3
MA%&@@V.8@B[H@<79N)%!$4G=C1O1)F1@(U\%Q>?DD=]HA[4,)RE(&G7H`FB8L
M!&@@@0%K@/PBSU#(+PP8A0]8I_;4Q5V<`S&H`M$3/7O(DCE9A2JP!S=(A(F:I
M$Q5`'@$5V0&U@SDX`V90BX:X`_7),H;X,L(S*0A]@2_+63NH`QA0T`U%C.5+R
M!1Q8AH"D1U@!`E*Q_C,"$(G=:U&9\,<]F,<`&B`<0#1$PSXSX`'N:R"?`#\*+
M,A9BJ2"+)(I.`RL16E+SX[3$8C]\B%./S+1BP2"$H0=YD`5VV`?)X$JN!$FND
M_!PH``1PX%6L<%,C^@IQ(`AD29;+*(IE:PIG&9(FN)>((`3X2JQ?B(`"X`9*(
M,`!*6`(("(T"8`96&`98`(9><@?=.$5N<(7?.)"R+)!^@`!OH*/7>ID7<`X+(
M(`7=@@(1J`0H.(-*Z%T18()*F`6\PP!1JJ_;N`UG$`(KH`,=$`@#L(`%<-<!K
ML8W1=+AZ@`^VM)$$`59N`"2"70+^8!!94IE1<`/\J@2*<09U#8)9T"4(_FB`&
M`@B#6PB"21"F`["Q_3K/?)@'U;P-@ZF1!E@`.EA+Z[0F[;2F'6G=$IF0MQ$G,
M`W`%@CT`*8"%!C@`\IP$?C#/`R"!1/J`9:2%P;-8B_T".?B".0"?*FAA.6AA%
M&.:GS1-9B:+AB2I9Y0F$.8B(;62(3^G&*/@!-Q`#D]J!*M`$0!`,V/L4V`,5D
MBMB$B$C0+A4^X1O:_\&!>]R(/!N)$M@#&'W14L@%^LD%JD6TI\(^!Q``[GNT6
M!YJTKPT_IFC;(ZT@)2U;$`*MC.P*OGV*;FA;)PTAL2V*8K&@N2VB;FFUDL0@6
MQ+)(:+.`8N@E:Y'CK1*_3%MD_B"8#IH,+G`+_L^(@@_XG*_`!RQ8`%.@!"L(,
M,0.@@KK]'`,(@O7HRD@*C@/AC>!@H_48@MF52SB8RXAP""(L.)N+`Q&8A=PJ_
MA'[#``3XX`FH+P)A'-"<)`QPA@:P`0SP7?S2+V7(AV/0@6KMA@-``R(QF!%0*
M!XRA`V.(!O,P!=5L)FYPPP^H@O#\@&/HUF/XA78P06`H#2Q8@6S].1X@@07X6
MA/P-`@SP#6G^51LQ$2$0`LMX+K5I'!J1`C2*&^N4'-[X#00QA08HV!XP6&605
MO%D<@0V^A3#0"T-A1BMAQBJX6-;A`G[2Q2HXGIB>@\VK:3>8$P%5`2434`$EC
M`_X$A$VX`VZT`!50_@$RB`+-L[(MTP1,V01SA#VH!A4+`)5-2-">RH4JGD=ZU
MK,<338)\?(%420:HG8D]0-H`(H`9\("GPE'LHP:M=2">\-$ERJJD.!9-,[4D;
M=99GR<A.*UPG[8IHN>.L`&1EL4A!_D@\7=*PXHK",B%-0Y@%*`.,%"QK,8JR`
MH6.YO5.B.)B!,0K`6H#=`R(["`62?`H.B`-E,``>2(<-F`2$&9)Y@`4HT!#!_
M.2,U:EW>6`],D!DE4`*9H8#X@0$[D(';BH-*V$N]'%Z]#(,"V%_C5`=38)`Q'
M3)L"H0>&.H#A6$K3@`7;P@`J%(1VF(0P,`!2JA`;^;CT[0/BH"]N,`!E_AB.N
M)OH"#!``+>@"9S@&"%`O[G0&*^B"YOZY53V`!(`")DB`GM,!7.B#GC.`6^A*2
MM0&0).&&!RN0:9)P"Z.<Y!Q%C$Y#2-5O=UBX8SB%2=C@4-"E22#I4?"!=:(%1
M(K!8$D;I$ZX"F%9A?G+IF.8"D1W9S5,!(19B`?V!AG!9'[:#54B$-DN?*/!IR
MDR(#)18,)E=R_OR4H[Z#+J7'$`51K!X^7T@!$U!:Y%,%1/!B7/%'+&:)`0("A
MJ_4#[$L`2D@*B-2)2/L)*O!1-VZ6I=`**'VKLT+;C*0*/Z:*/N_S(SI24LL@V
M(KV@(97;QQY203:U;=@`,_@XL6KLP[66RV;T_I`9&<R(C3M%MH=HK)L!9:F@6
MA%F@`TR@A#'D`0/PN&TX@2&&A4EP3A2A'-VH03:"AG[@AMYVK7B#+9%`ZE^V3
MK=L*@VC(K5!552S@`0%X$6<8PV9_]A.!&OY(30CG#]JP@BI2!B@8A>&\+2RXR
MA1,(!0.H@B^@A'PH`&Y5!P.P!DD%5G`(A%D(!1F8!&6P@E!(.CH0@`PN.,A$E
MN$)HJ(%*Y6TH@`0(IFYH`!)`D<@9G&F"$+2AINF$G`1)(Q,AD#3*D"X8@@*;8
M!&XH`&4(!6L(!:Z[A5O(+T8:A742@WQJ'926L19^:7Z2\18^GLV;DXE"G@'EH
M:0&U`[5(O2-W""/S_C+8<P,FI\\?8/(O@[V<[4^?I@@+*($!`%&BK>*M!H(L7
M[@"A`FM1\("QW@,`Z("D101;.6,<5:`4?*#N&X9*L^2O#1@,:MNS!35I>:L^"
ME](K35NR,LJTO;0CU7M%GX>RD=.__\G),/1!+R&D;`K,V'3`/_RK``50#T(7R
M^)P*2IA9*`!G0$0J"`(ZT(\5B`1&6(!]$#%G((BP8Q#63<O_F"3?[G77$@5\/
M.01B*`2;8X(%(%XHH([C9@)8P``&ZX%:=P;69=U(Q7"RM`R`'9Q3:@#4Z()S`
M.`=NT&A";8((@(4RT`)^.(`8.(`!&SHL$-=;(`88D($S(`+R@H((^`"'_O*D8
M=(K,?]^B0[X*=S"`)>"!@*4$?X61WF"1Q$G#&0DG@.`&C1NW=MR<$318$!HR5
M;NH>-ICB4,HM:!B4G6B@#-HD`Y,.'"CTH8\,,<2(B!%#:Z7*E'/F5/DB)B;-F
M.5SL<:E295651"I6N:GB1H4*+US<V-D41=@A,IKL0'4SU(Z7'U"M0K5CE0P9/
MJ%TUD6G*E4TJ1"!R><#A81F(M$[:.$G1IDT27ZI>P`""8@_?/0#T[<$!9*ZO8
M9!WT^>F%V(29+N[<B:/R:]@O=\/4#7LL;A[GS9[%B:,W[[/HTO-$GQ:][31K9
MU:>WT5M-#[5ISJ/IA=X\>_/HWJ/=^?9]KK<[_M2\\74VWGFYZ-"C>_`.;IOS\
M.>#BW`W?MHT5FQ>``'E_(0Q+/^V]5V.)8,`4)?9T&A@HT&2#]@88)K63(J4=*
M-(0#33FCSC9!*$&!$LGH40,%-=SQPB:'$`,%!M&$P40EE4132"$6+G#")#PH]
M8Y`SKCBSD3/]A3A0B@?U-Q`T_$G1C3I"C.".%#W<2$\/VO5#QRC68#`,90+(L
M`Y\!E`BQP!Q?R#"-`>*H`]IIW:Q6P"@(&.#.:O.XTP.74LS333\-"("C%`&VF
MPU\[#26DSHO0J,,-,G#"J9`Z!JD)#4,#.:0.!`U``R@"[70TR3P<63/))"3<Y
M@H$+'Y`B!A'$I"3&_A<,R!23I5_HU*E.H-BTDQMR'"454&Z<BJH*J$HEE1U(N
M_2#5#X2HT%6M6'GUE"9@@=74(9JP@8@ON8"``PYMJ>7!6X_,9<(6OC2("&!]Y
M40M7&T#XX@L*B2'F1P<)\"#./D+^@HF0CPGYV76WM69::;-IYVYLK=$;FVS=0
MS,8:N\@E)V5SUMFVF76\>>8;P<E-%UUTTR%7\&@.2\F9:.IPIMTV5EC@'7B;<
M`&+').71-L\V&T"!)0\&0,`##Y+P.`\='T33D3(X\EEB0?T4X`T%>L`!!P5P`
MZ.&-=X>4(4(8E82Q0!A'SP)%)4PP`5(7`O!7HM70*.,,!/T1A!!"!QVD_O6+!
M#_60YHL%I?F0R%08<-H0%%>,;WFPE*&%/.7)V$,/:D-'20/:R=B..IC`^5"7"
M0Q0DQ9QS"N[000T)[N:="_TRT(D*\3=GG(4[KHP4^!V@1J'*-'#+)%W<0L(!]
M88P"Z:0IR>22I6(L21.G7-ADCU!N?!$4%[$"M;L;1ZW:ZE!6%:_"K%ZHX%7SV
MS6ME!U=V@,754URE`D(D'>"P#`YH?:_L7',EL04B=ZBRA3F*E5+*7GP)U@8.<
M!!"`@F*)E9($"G1P*0XZE&5F7)7A$F26`YK<G`8TLXE-ODICG@;62V2PT9>[]
M>K,9?K$+8A8T&&X2:$")%2QB'>1,PS:8P0\:_M`ZP)$@/6`!@Q=HS#L[<$9YP
MMF&=V`@A`@OH0@,J``$!+*$+$.B'%)B@A0\L80)TF((SRH8U@D!C&]Q(AC?@S
MH(2>.>(!`X`A('8`A3!@`&IQ8$("*K$A)A1B!72@A#.\MA%N9`V.)\K:UKS&@
M-:U=SFS]P:/ERG8G+\UC<`\9))PDB(]M]&,>[3B'X%PDN!W1XS%2B)/CU#&$O
M7ZCC%R5JQ]X8H@YD\*<@E>3/0PSRR;,I8W(G$@@W$%<Y9`PA/VXZP!#P8P`!C
MG*`+DS!=`TZ0NC.,8A0EV0$M4E+,V<'.4G+X`J=HPH5FZH0+0$F$J*I`%%8-]
M!9M285[SIF*5;T*E_GE=\0KUG/(,ZZD@%V8Q%CN-M98VR,4$26B!$^X@BBT@$
M9@_M*\4>`-,&9K7!%P0H0B\*BI@D4*,!#Q/2,,21&7-!!C2:`5A#YX'!!%80B
M7O3`%[U8`YN,1C!B["*.;D(XTI!QJ3FZ>9AF>H,:UES08!\4J6<@$U%#FB$*S
M,`1#>!B@!HOYAA[X@`44"F"`!F!""#Q8@@`,L`1!D((.W<#E+1KP-C<51$RQ(
M*-#.@):"`<#@$`\:!086$(=*)"`,%*(0$R*`A8X<@Q)5@P!"3$2B/5I.1"U2%
MPT%<P<K^\#5-K$S3VUQIR<D)1'#GZ(8BU<1*%IWM(9-TTQ"0,;@^35(`_LB0W
M@BCU=*>!:"XAE14<*=UDBK*)TB"8:(<K*UO8=M"!4.J`SRVLH*@&'$-1!\#`;
M*/I`BB^\[@O$B!TM8O>%VE4A5%7@0DZ:N[NC/'=5/Y%*\892%.H28E:SDIYV0
MH<(,Z9%3>KTB0RK*X($.Y.)[Q@+?6\C7@B(X(0L#P*<?$*,/?O*E`V_!EB_H%
MBYC\)6`#"<P,@3-3F>M(U(!2*N&[7I.:"7Z4@A#>*$B[<<!?K-2E!A.8"?F52
M807:9H0'4UC`FO.P#<]4.+I!Y#;,,`!F((*+@"!%#T#&G&W((P%0.($I#&"`-
M*9P``58X&8LAT(<P\`!0H109+#0`AP?P#`Z._J@!&[YP`V\P(`Y,J\19S3B+)
M!#"A``40@!5.(`6LC>AJ-MOC1KA&QQ.UD45@VV,[3G0VQT$#$PU!'!17:1`^(
MI9:5<\HS:S_Y6#U+P1U9$RQ#%G*G./T9E-RH7"GOI)')J9:UOR!(02IKBJQ-[
M(A\(4,,!&C`).DSB&%V@PP$8Q;H8D&('KTNF<3,5$VA^H;G-Q<E02E4JXV434
M*,ECGA<(`:NL@+<KTW.*]9@-%G+XHEAJ:6=ZQV>"#M1%%**PWWWYTK[\#@8'0
M`DU"0>^7A%UT`38`!,TPS-50*0W,I9[!C6B0L\#6?)3"#FP7!3LJ&G=$J=X8Q
M]:!,Z:5`A9FFIOUS_EB_86IB#*>8I1L4!X]&Q@IY1.(N+X@"+OH!,@2+K#Q-/
M2$`<>/"G"O```4G.QS:&@`5C$.,$/$!U?A`I`)ZE0`]0AD,-!O"-%-1`$]'`_
M`AFC\32T1L-"090"#]ELLQ')42!QMF/6[*R,L+7(:X+UVE\YW1`X@^V->OKS;
MV"\'QTP.@<^L=0;AU''4-PED<8E])>(&#4K^K#8"H3@')4^$276LDM,&"(4S]
M;B$%.JC!"@)``!U"H0YE?$1U8?C`*"*%$DD9,YDP22[GH[G<G?2$N4>QQ_!*+
M/SSI&H6ZV21*=KLKSF3K2KQAD5Y8!E`6^:DW]SB0"UV2X`E?B((`?V&?_A_X=
M`I@.A#M;^+R?'_P`+M&<*S.6<<<`3RQO#2ZP@:N!3;Y?(QN/=E1?%AQ.4"5F3
M_H(3/#7.R8T[V#'1`9+8HNPR<0A-;$+.%'#>%M,..^#1H(TC00W]F\1H!Q4L*
M`!1@00/\R:I-0A`8`#0D`!*4P=\T0!#DDA241Q[T3`KT#`4LB!XX@1)T41B<H
M0`$@302$P5DEP"Q,`GQT`8#041Q9S1S!F8NT$5V1"%^5R![MH-E4S2KY1]=43
M5EU!5D'843M<@UZ=76553N-XW:=M5D(XCIR\")LDEILTTIU`@0%DCF>]C0V*:
MB``T@#/@A^=T@3*$`@],`C2<PB0@`$@4`A)\_H`,T`*EI,3E$<$<S`Y->$I.(
M=$ISE9Y0@$(B^!JP)8]TK8H=J$!V$4+T8(53E%-3>`57.`4;@``B?`_NX0#NA
M>0`0I$`2)($)>((3!!\*Z$.W\45]E8*U8(L3)$:Y-5\UT$%Q.-0P[(-E7$=FS
M$,RZE%1NY,:]Z1L#39!JF(9LH(:].4<'>88Z%`=SP)2^[*+#C12"35H@#0XFS
M8-A-'8Q*R9]S!,QR0./$)9K(V(MVX`,4&`(,10$2L)QV')!MP,8$1$`$'("/3
M\4`0T`$=(``LT$$X[,@V-,`')(`5_`T'X,$#.$+/^`+0P0'0`8(P[``2N``L8
MG,#2((W3%,!'@,@U_L`1FIG(U5V=USC#G^W@&]D9?X3DBZ2)V<E9G[EDFZU2$
MBTB=GD`106!294&#.X220YC"0@S6YC0$5J4)X5`A*#W$+'"AFRS.YBC$2$)#E
M.9P"H3`=-%@!1JBAHEB#ZI"`"`13I&!>,E6*I>C$[3"73LP!*)!>6?I:\'"!S
M"HB>=5'7#\3*(L:*L7W3\X`7[-&>)O@*&;#!,B`"^.1>>N'`(YA`&[1`8CI!0
M"<S7'B1&*G9;$KR%N'7`'B@&\T%!$&P#NZ4+@>$B23W,.RJC1I%COL4+OK@&]
M2(4,;5Q'E'@0@WE0<]B?;+[&NI1+90@!!`B!$&`"Q:P02@U<OLB;AAW,_G)4F
M!W&H0SGN@QG4`1?)0#O4$`'!XV9:P0)$``D8P*KAHSXJ@YCT0P)H`2Z$08\5\
M`!PDP\ZDP"-`F2]\@RALG`J0`BF4P2B$P0$HC=,L`!T`0Q<`(4BV$9K5X$:(X
MB'_"$=;9V4'P1\T(!-=8CM01A(F(TE\9!./<62MM3IU`T6Q)X==@CB>15J.]#
M".(\A'KL!R6)*.(P*#>80BA\3@_@QR0(``E8054U`!V0`!9@0"'T0>4!%Z6\A
M#A%\`3&)):<T4ZCXX9$.#Q<08I)*12*<RG3-BJQ85Y1:179E!5B`5U-4CW@=J
M0O;XPGEY0%IX@/R$Z2::0&(6@2\,P'SIP_K8_I=EZ@-<M`!E7B8LY@$='!"Z0
M3-\M7H=-(9C`S!MM9M\P:A2A<I2_=13!"`$5/*.(O:;(<-#YC08S_L*F08`I!
MY*808`:)U<9+-5QQ6E#!0,9PB$,/9$8Y;@,4J`)X``(#'`.+19)KN@.^;.8)E
M6.<!\-#,V18==$$/8,$'"$(3:,<DZ($'+J03.((C),/_'0(1Z!@X$`,I.$T8B
M8`$6)$"IT<',6`Y(=F2:T55BA21(Z@D0JB2=X56<P<EC"<1##$2>-)K9I)9!*
M;$3E4-K@N`@F",!(<EI!@-*>+`1KP5)#((-EW<D"'(,U@A9.4E)BD9D46$,^6
MG(`:9`0&A((5Y`-L_J5.&$`!$D"5&.Q`&5"*'1[3['#*YN4$3.#.\"Q73C"I_
MK[6E\A@B=GF!(EY%5M3*E3K%(=#>)/XE(GA`L:1%]P0M0"%F"P!?*FS!_2"&Z
M8OB3$XR#N+%`+W#+_>2!%7!F+4Z?9B`8<$34.SJ,,+J&><2+@^6+O94&1S68H
M1?V"*?S"_#%'AM4&O[S4`8G#.5S&+RPJ-^CF@4FJH`J<;M!?`=D?P!A'#V`')
M`0(D*'",=[C!`7@<;'`M^9F'*="!M<*"*9`9KZX:'?"``-!#/QQ`+""D@NB!]
ML@Z`$OP?(-@#$RP!+(0!R<T"*0@"$X1!H?Q-)R5HUN@NUB&#U]!5#;K(_I[$G
MF9P$7ILL;#OT9BO5)!2]R9_5V8)JCB7]'<'JV4!@H4*\R2<%Y9K@Y)^5*"Q`R
M@(W4Y"]4UO*V@T=0!#304@.8PA*@6CU,@A7<*`8`TP<,%Q'$&CS(&@.$I:7`S
MQ''ASG(UDW-)$^A)A>@10E@P(C9=5S<Y8EZ*5[)-CR1R!3.`0+0%[3*T0;$L_
M`Q!XXK4E00<`WSV=XF4NK3Z8P"9Z@"^T@3[<C]1N037P`&Y<QSZ\HSO<8KP%N
MAS(V3/8YD$85*J2BQO>-$$J)0VY&S+SUFZ.6&`FM$&1DTH']`@0XQ#"<P[P59
MC#*&H_VA4`E-A\$<)P-!00G,`*NF024\[I8\_H9MJ(,4B`,$6$$!0,$!'(,!F
M6`,"3($!))D!$$/I^H)YUH""]$R"P)!W)(*T8L$2V&<$(.`!FA$6B,EJ=$.)<
M&L2G2=U&A*2W9EV=O0F<`6\HI2OB8`(WZ%E-<DU"`-I/YMD7QM(08(*/C4V[=
MWLG5:0[R,MKD0!HW\)T[&-4D66&G>5U_#!X9JB^IN4(76$$HM,,!3,(98,`MS
M-(H+S($%V`,IH`0M3,H7+!/):DI,Z-H<^`ZO"05S/:D8X`*L!0(7",,S_(#RI
M-&*LT*S-:L573.+U0&+M@<`WJ$5Z_:RQM(6U)`%AU(`O]),),ZT?;,%;K#`0H
ME!OS.4`7=,:Z-)B]_E!TO-R;]17CE`CGV'8JO4R0@_4&;Y+J!G5TP2`'/K!FM
M"D$)<%3JIC*C2"D':WJC^4ET<,2434/'>=##/FQ`$\`#JW)<&G/&0T#)("7::
M-5`"%I!5`US#/3:`./0!)!3(`]2`$BC(S_!,#?"4=SR("B0",20`%AQ``<#"?
M`F``+!!5#$B(,M0#E70#CN2)FM05ULCD@<I9G84223J#*0S$IK'2*-MKU[A(;
MO\8=06P.)DV:0QC`,4!`&Q.E0L1=ND*18&'54D[2`AC`?KA6G`0V%DJ!1[@H@
MJ4$#=I)`*#1`.Y@.!F``%MS#&^""3D7!(<A!R,8.YBT)[`C%3!AI'P:%_O"L"
M`@.(P!/<@@CL``,D113`<[$I-QE4A;(A&QG\P.SYREY:P``00#NY4V&.:;-@.
M&REZ@`N#=WTIQB(D=!NL,`Z`=[EM`0I,PFYXW_[M'ZI:##<JT+YQWP)M2:<V^
M6'[#%&]0G]=:$'`BT/I%=,"`W'5@(\7PH@D=8]]:7XB!6''Z-TG'"SXT013<Z
M`2"`01>]:GG@']\Y$ME0P000%08T@!#8U@?HC`;40#)<44+J',^X)PR1P2A`?
MP1V0P0"X`1(40@%4:P$L@%EC`0WH@`R0%>&Y]3STP%N7TK@J`UV-JQ%N<M6`0
M\A.1<F5A`E&N5IR<".-<79HDJ.!<$ISP&>+X_I@:&%I#I.OB--KBX"2><<,X(
M8K;A<AKAN%;E($0[*`-_WL(0%(`SP((!8,`I\,/GW$(HE,,DW(,(>,$F[)0PF
M5$%8'I,VZS:1"O#M?)X*Z$3IM64PK,$H',,Q/,$T1#H9#$TV6:E7X`IT/T6N@
M4(\=]"4;B`(F$F9ZI5<';+<\(2;P?;>;BC=X&ZU:L'"YN7`OQ/`DK`9*-\(B7
MZ,(B+#NS0WNS2_LB``.^^&)J@"U%,U!M2)AJ<LEH9*.7?$:_A4:^(!S(_4M$(
M1Q*&?<8*A>-*T1O=`@P(F5`2ARI&@PPBF`$-I",@$,(M"+6-0+9G3=(O&$`Q?
MS$(A('L?S(`2(,(?_BR"'J3``R`DE#F"*(`!-KP`.!0`'0`"*DQ`'R`")-A!&
MA#"!63&!6'-N!$Q#&<B`#YR!-:A!/VS4-IA))T%#8&&A2B860X0(@D+VOL()-
M)B`.G]$DG^S)GVW:0XBR0Z1=G[2=+*_)\L;=HPD$^;HF9@<2,K1=G(PRV+2#0
M&GA$/MQ".ZR`,XA]V:O!,:CV"$S"$V`!*1Q"%"SN"]C!#MB#I>S`;>MAR=[:E
M6'Y>RG)Z3L2`-F/`&_1##QP`/)""&S3(0X83S2*%.#UBLI536"@;.7@`(G"BG
ML9AW)[K7KHO"=_^Z"<=I>[%P>KNP'U0#LN>+)5C".)C`.-#^[-<^[=-^_NRS6
M#`V'&+S`!FK&2_`S4+T<JJ2^H_45YVP4_[B/NTSQ1@YS6/K17X@EC,-LB4DYT
M?V?,.W#$!CO$1A.(PET<@@L(=9QLA`&<0BS?23N8`@^L8"34``W(0C]0PL\,W
M@"_H@<3GW.,C`68#0B4`Q#9ZPSB`&P##GI91T289X-9OVR]65N)\`"5&QAEKR
MQWIL\]BM1X]Y(J6T*SFD';=VT)Q!@\:-VTN8,=5QPP3M)B9D,(?`?.EL93MU4
MT(2^[*FN)K<AOW[EK-D3V5!D,F&F3"D3&C),[7Y)F3<O0H-NXJ#]@J;N9DUEZ
M66.:LJ)F$C0K^=Z2.(!$BZ`8+D;QPJ5-TZ$H_B\(IR%"2\P76E\2BZDRI\J7_
M*E7$S.$">0ZHS%RXN.',A5BA)EQP+1C1CUZ$,A_ZD"+U)4J40W9^V*%-R`X9:
M0F3(_.!-YI`F,KEY"V>S#!$.Y;D\*'?>)DF+%B9:.!&%8Y$^?;VV=^]5O0T.C
M)VW\]#)OW@^*$_,$TDMA3MP^252HH*,RK#[]8?@6>9)$CYYYQ!EP'GH\\BA`^
M``L4B+T$NPE0H&T*;'#"`,7YRIT`!1200`$U3'###L5QY\*O+KPP0'Q&+''#V
M"5O\4!QZ+L2G119/_`K'&VW,41QU1#0007E``8.P0!KH!Z)N:E*G@0:X@<`9J
M9U!RB2D(PME@'B3G_ED&CB[A>,`17QSQYH5#^O@%@DT2@*@]*H(8A!D+W,`EC
MC%!Z0))-<2"@PPQ!0%%A!UQ<N*6!<MKIIQLI0E+TG'D4[>$<=4P22J65E/J%=
M)IYL4@H92U/B1M(AHD+*':1,=6>>4KU:"E2D8'+&ITYADC0M4(<01PIW"C!`>
MR:%N4BFF=J(DRI0NVIG$F2,;.D.$`\ZXI5D&O(@BC6>$`82P%P"10XQN*^N6Y
M,LFX_>(+-S*;S!XWJEA%W<G<(&:)248!I=E^Z+!"G&V482(!8F+;!!!-;*.-8
M8-L$MB.XW(2;#3@V/$"DC5R<PX$YY=J@KH4V6O!%%`^TXP[D[DQP8AP/_O0@"
M;SN0_3"CBP<!M(2#`V4^$,AMS/%/H!L-W!G$`GG^ZD,):0:::'I0%><7GU=TW
MAT0<0;0P1`XY1'7"&$V\6D0/J\8Q:@VQWI#&#DTL\48!4:5Z08_ZV2<25=P6I
MY@PD/1H**Y>N>DF=2+MQ%,D%E%!"CR\=22$%&%[@(@&CH^"EGWG$BG`;=S;H4
M@YDHJO@`@R?4P1-/>MHYI0DSP"F#BRH"'>6,`T(Q`*B0>I"BGI%`(DD*I#!4@
MIU02W<E5G7EZ1XHH=2"M'=6],?QJFU[G,4"9!AIJP(`N&K`J*IE6,@LI9&I7:
M9P$#MO^4*EAAA<:`MR9IYY9^Y'5AC5&@B.8#_BA@`^20.K#5%EL&$)NC6\8FL
MD^P+D)',9.:@`LE8)A%<4($;U(6%`X2#?[/``#3Z88`P?``7/H!'&=Q@@2C0Y
M3P6\L0,A0J@P,BQL.+_A#3D\D`H<@*`-S<%!!SP@L0Y`1SI%\$#'0A:R[;3`1
M`QF#`Q!Z41[SZ,,/NY@$/?"Q#7Q8HA$`2M#,#M0/<RQ"`1"1T882]#0%,>AI7
M"PICSXA6HP&=L4)`(]O82+2B$\D(:@K*D=1<Y"&=>4U&/:+:A<XFM1/U[HQG[
M_`73^+BA`^'#!H;0UB9V,`D\.4HML.*&,J(4$[O!Y$Z4\`8%X$"!!XC)%TK(9
M@CT6H(YM1&$4_8C`_BP.,**TT4,+FX#"-+C`#&/@`@.3X$<WY,:Y<W##`'2`.

sum -r/size 43971/59850 section (from first to last encoded line)

cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenfairfax cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.01 /  fairfax@sensei /  Alcator C-MOD drawing GIF (part 4 of 7)
     
Originally-From: fairfax@sensei.pfc.mit.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Alcator C-MOD drawing GIF (part 4 of 7)
Date: 1 SEP 94 21:23:23 GMT
Organization: MIT PLASMA FUSION CENTER

section 4 of uuencode 4.02 of file alcator.gif    by R.E.M.

M#N1CBFD;!,$;E`!"\B:9^N8%)"`-)(`3!&=P[&`2G(,E7JG&%$T&T.(7_H1`G
M$E(L(;YG`Z@`%@8`/^Y`%**@[[#!#>@!'RI`%EA!`>1A`\;`;#"F%%`@&J,1$
M!?8`!T!A&O)`$&B@#VP@`2)`=<*A$09!%`Z#$&X`%+[,!,8A"=:Q#4P@"=H@H
M%71LG[ZG%C9@S39`&=%)]FYJ`\BH2MH`!>P"3G8!%!AA&9:A#YYD$(R@``9AW
M&G:'"%1`,G2`%`1A$)Q@'-ZQT:+D$:!`$,*/TUR@$#"@$%S`!UP`"9[A0B#A7
M@NX`$`BAD70)$R!@(/L!-$[.':A`$C!N04;F$1+-6Y)!%+RA*`EA$GQJ'G@@`
M`8Q!#T2AR\PG!_1!'\Q!'YP`#TY/'W(`!%"`_BI9X!W7T0],@"S9<4H"*DU,K
M2XP&0!0XJXM``"/0[2-2P>_<2)-`0]Z64#9@(0+6065"XQSHK9$ZPWZ`*RT@@
M0!UX8Q\426B2!CBFYCD**6ADPS&#9FFX8Q[>R^.\,`SK4.54KN4^[N0X3KVTL
MAF5"<PN=@N6.(N74\#,]LP?L\`[O\`^]8Q3H8Q80\8X,0![BXP2L`"T,H`'<"
MX1/H("T4A)@*!!D8A!O$0"XNL,%`$1+FHQ5LX1U:(004(3LE0!&,K;#H00SPE
M8XVX"NC<00B$P%+(#*>*H198P0$@`1O"YC[B\P4$`1_P81CL)!D)3Q:H(".GQ
ML0@.I11*P0,B812\_A$*1DH0H"`?U\D!'.`#"$`48$`)VF`<QJ$7BF`L-;0-<
M(,$."$$%C&$5RN`#!J$/=N%$8\$%"8`-!@`4,F8`MB`O\"(7Q@@1"*`/S&"D&
MH(`)"@$*&.$#/D`&N,`81`<4OD`,&*$,'B$>38`C&\\7/J!74O*J^H`DK;00U
M?.`0^@X0(&$3[B,18(XFT6$1FD4XRF,E%`C7^F$?@A(0!D`/#-`H0:$+MH$'B
M!,$8?$'"P,P/J%(?QD`?C$`?Q@4/'L`$S&$,_"`'`+4#PK(7>L$/QF$LV;$%V
M2N%-6&`"&X,`",`O#@,C!J&E,"(22@`0-N$,4`,OS4MD!&`!EH"WXD@T_E!.L
M'&B#0>A!$K"%'A9S&'(F-98#/"IS.%#FN6I&:+@C:4ZD-4[D#CLNY#I.-915W
MN:Q&'6@%/>00YE1IE;"5O=ZK!]OC',!P6L]A,V!A6**`"?K!`&"A'QI``/JAA
M#TZ@"R(1+6#!.,<)**!.;A@$`40!#!SK`N&``IR)/D*`FK#SZT*`$W;`V.A&A
M!^;#'DH-$+3`7)2%%9BQ`F!OS1)`)_J./FJL"?`!$Q:@"7!F\,QF'_K`%TJA:
M"(I`&@.40$'A`QZ4>X3$')1Q#"J@$6Z*`XR@RD#A$>#1#U9V'7NA#;S!`D2AY
M+74`%JB@/ZG``>B``[8D`2(!%"R@#,!A`.X`_A$,4&+@-!E2X0ND[PN(0`S$U
MP!A48`=\@!@(P0WLP`[$`!3$0`<8YOJ<U$G!+$J10`;Z``-&80=`X1#L8!0PU
M``,^`&EALF-?(!'<XG!^81@6H0-@P@'IAFY@PJ?VH4-?``;T@`"4`&DI@`V,3
MP!P\05R`UD^-`'7]=%)3H`4605#U80N^TA),P`_\8$#'DG8MP0]Z@2H7KP.6F
MP;2<X!M\(4[9DAQ2`2-`@#)2`0P`01-.M6;P<MXZ`Q],`BU68QB\$"^?:V6*6
M`UM@=1]J#[RTPU?%*S*E*Y*^Z[J0IE>=AN6L@S6R:[HJ;@F-]3NP*[E&"3.?4
MX[K<@W_[=PZ]`Q;H_@M8J(`'6((*<.($IJ#$6&$X"\`2&TANG`X3:`4#(.%?N
M*0`.',$1:F`^,42:.*$5..%@;2$06JL;8.$0M*I47X`8V.MP;A$B4@<?%6`0&
MLL#]L*%?VZ]?]X$)[$`8O"`!$*D_90$?^L`)I/%0_""FK#$2$N!/FH`9_Z`6K
M>"PAF+$9.4`>:J'+AI9V)=5)(\&`(T`'(C("$F!!/T`0H"P!H&`7="!LOX`<B
M9D#ODB%O3@O,!L`"[(`9C*$*D)0(W(`80K(*W,`-5(`4(F$.RH`4K.\=?W8K@
M6L`7R@\7?!0*Z(`1P$$&[``7[F$!DDBKYB,^B7$T:E(=SBI:%B$/5-D3_E991
ME1<!EJFA3*/@!>`TV&K@L09`4#6T3U'7EZD24FO7!"QA3VNW%Y(`$;9@#YS`0
M"4P@F/>@%'17=XT948V`4\?(`YS`(\YH8M@R%28C$E1AM83A#"A3XW9K>H>!G
M#B+@"@J)WJZFO.;H+89A"3Z%'7C56(GCG2]S"1'N.!9)X5)C&+8C6K7K5Z5&I
MN99FN[(U/99CO,8K/71F-=IK.WKCY,[!.^B@/@"!P[C!.!O`%.CA`TZ`$KAA`
M&P1@`MP!@@?$Y##A6MQF-"@!%/`&#FK`$2C@`?2@PN9#`J+@ZZ(@#4+@&1`VD
M#3BA$C9C%L"!"+(($/K`Y,[SG"I@#"AAQ9@Q_A*RH,*:5R?F@PTP8(VB@.MT-
M((XDP>"0>(E+P?=*P1KA84]PBB>)9!D5@LQP-GX0H0TBU0]:8!S6D2Q?@1YP1
ME@8^0`>0(`%H8$'A@7<2%!QTX-S*@!E$P0F2X8P<X<L>(1D.@0W<0`R^8`>$H
ME!%D0(TW6_IT0`=D(*&8=",Y$M*<P`>0P`<*(0CF`1J8``LHH1+0-@)R84)A.
MDCY?@!.:`AG2A0I&MU&Q;QQ&Q2Z6X;%J`&GK0Q2`30E2H`8T(!5$5U!_F2IK$
MMW:3H$^3X`$D[+N_C+F=H`B^;"PA]5&#67=I]_?$*&"8I%_4\HPBIASYH@0L0
MX!"$H1`H$[;<(3#=_B$TZ($2S``!7(,\S*LSD,,W<&P#:B^1RJN\'OIG*.FY/
MI",Y'!IK\CF.4F:A?2.[QJN5*#,[EJ98D\NZ(#QIN@$?0`E92Q.]E`U="7@;%
MAH%F*F"($H`.*"$Q):$+\@$6)L$MW$,Y,0%DC,D;\$"#\T9"II.^)`!AO>X=E
M,D3*.8%C6,(*&D`'+*`)MF$(>@@"6($2PCQG4P<4\`.KP>8%OB`!ZL`"+``&;
M+(`(%H`>AF$?Z`$*R+L:I5&9]\`#H&`!-L!%VJP"Y$$!;E:NP6<,.,`#9E=2V
MBZ`LAYD1Z$$>8&$!VCA',ZT/=."A'C0!P&$0&"$24@$J]>"&0G#+#D$%_MR`M
MD<L`)-78=QA!#"ZA#'2`&#0]H.I6M2.-@JZJM2`@`=0A#)Y!%83A"Y;A$807N
M$H:%OI3!KQ;'"%DLI+Z$!RJ`!&0`K+].$6RA/N"T]!Y!PA[!`0#53_5!NVN71
MW%67=4MA&;P!`6&``+BBRTHAF,U=NZ79#VH`,!"ABPH&@,C(C,[(%S;+`J!O"
MC5Q@,\9);H9APP^NT@V@?K'5-RBAKXQQ,>_9&",<,B&N.PXN:>HWNHXFXCPN/
M@)G&/*"0:+JA/%*S"J/#D\Y4N>"K?CO#:LR#Y-F+5E+UNJ[U+?I!&>BK`/J!-
M&[["`)B*"8"3N(2`$J0`%G@0-";X%Z`"UK:A_@`H0(/U!@Y(#PYV^AF8X<*^B
M3D,$)P0R)`J@=P'@H0S^X%JXX1H,P"%>1*XE8;Y@<J?IDPAFX1#(X!`LX`LB/
MP0W4P0!2[<X7CQI+(7UPH`P*@`J&H3_E3AX87R%83"'LNATO-%+)L@W*8!LHE
M848*0$=YH``@"AP^S\P<H`\R63!$P1/`;$^[PA((P`+<X`MD@!1D``H^(`%\^
M9P&41+`M4@=&01#(&]+>,1><=))'@?9EX!8:`!;"(`J8X5;4C]L)H`;J`QLX+
MP1GF@1O&PA0J@#8:P7H<(`AJX0!V8!,`1SM_^@4PT-N]G;*GLMS?WT]C5]R+,
MH`THP%Y*H,N`(!DH_B`)LEM2Z1T@_`CT8P).CEV($B+R4`:$PF6Y'N%PXLN74
M!R?+$#&+LNG0I&W;Q`W[=<Z=.)/;J)@),H_>/'SSQ,D41Z]F2@@UZ>W;QXZF!
MRY]`YVUK2:^;2Y_S6KZLJ93>-I=)@R:=IT[</'<]Q(&<)Z6IT9_=SO50YT[IZ
M5*%&B<:<>JZKU;5'IT*%>G*HN[)D\:I31_5<OVT-7H")@F$;)AZ`*?5;T*`!4
ME6T&NLQ;PJ.;NU_J,*G#K%FK@67>*.B!`R>%(U_>P`!RPP-4JQ"*0G"2(,&6&
MK=EI<$V*T0"3`&[(3$&`8,"`O`H;.&Q@1:5,EA?0H8.!;H$.%S;,=+!:_L"%K
M28)KVV;Y*E6DU!;S`/9XZ%-,GKMAF(1+,D")RH;[]\W==]+&A(EQ_P5HPBOTP
MR`/+`@4D,$L0Q1RH`Q2P%,`!%%#L$L$@H'C31ALII,#AAI:D<H@;;I#"""D)D
M),!$!`M,J,,H'^AP21]0+./!.#ALN.$X;?@"Q2@^[+!),"Z<(@8\\[!2AAML5
MP`"(*,LXX0T@T'4AA3.G*%/!%)1PP($9"#:R@!MIV"*;!"$\PTD4+XCRR",<D
M/I#"(R@(E,1`^NBS19Y\&J&/'QVFH`0@JI210P=MU)`,"^:8\Z=`I0C42R]^P
M]&*"$^;XJ<\N#B4DS4(>).0!"#9&"4(>HR#!_@P@@?3PE#B_G!3K4D$8\-1:L
M;[7T%#WXS(4/3U:YA,^MVWPEU$]-M40342&=8]6S0^2:E#A97;6-%'PY18\[_
M7945%55)=<7764.=U=)=5(FS%U70:)447]"H4Y(Z/7A+E3OMT*M.ON^V@TP[C
MF+2S33^P0+<)%OUP0\<\C6U3"1T-0-`-!)2X$P0/26&V%R;(8(*)4-O$@L<#=
M#U#@2`JC40"='4@T0`@G(81@6ROOH*E-"!(DDH@!?ZG#C0'**`.!`/)0DAQ^V
M.F`3W=(O;.(.%(A$P`H47S#3ASP#0^'$%G[D8-X>>P"`@PWSN2/`+Q#$*@D5T
M(DG"RGT*C"'),I:8_M`&00#Z9PDIVT@"2R<'0E$`';`D4`9[Q7"0@!G4F*$#T
M**(D`2(0CWB8@B]DN&$,*9?HL(`@*R#(0P0Z)/!!&0\F((@3=K=A":)V^])'U
M'RY$8$$4]GS`!!W]\%!(`E"(P68BQCPBR@N)*-..*0:8(D`#`O#01"<.+`#%?
M*C#'EB8G+]C2"B`#S,FA(P]L76<I?*:OZ:-^G.9("2^H0@X(R?A2@R\FI#]0\
M*:5,*I`)OM"'$<8@0`%N`00>\,"G&I(0`B`"!\OHP"!0$8,^,$,5,>@'/6#UW
MBWV8)%C#6,$O7F(27"G%*OB@A!#P@0]VL.-6-E%+LL#RDV#%D!M\.0>X_L;EZ
MK+%<I0=2.(FX=#6/=A31'7P9BCJP12^QC`6)/0!75Z8B!2`N<2_G6-<\GEA$U
M>G&C+6VA"EFP)85XM01;T``.-`8&"RI!`@/],`4=W,&#!O0#"DLP@#.V`0$KE
M;(,'7>#+9=0QDB%T[!<#2T!I:@`'/9P,952*@A;Z084OH"EFG"B3F6XC`4"XB
MH`<](XXIF%<!2O"``[50`"L8H32EO0`08'C.(>C!#@B1`A1<*(,LAK*-!#@A$
M!V#;0M@`D`,/)$`2/!@)9JAR"FB4A0J2.`X'Y"$)1/0'0'D#4!N6T0^_P8(#A
M?RL&#QHQB\,5HQ8)^$/C.@&%,M2@!1SJ$(C:_I",0W#A"X)`@@Y(@,<%S&(!-
M"6@1."*A@PA`81!.X)&.@&`"'/AB%+-#0AGL$`5"C.(6#:`0%L`!"$!$H:,$-
M.%X`Y@$-YRGC%!601RT:48!9D"(*:>"$F=)DB]K8@DIZ<$+E4B`G)Z`O?7G2J
M5"_^=*<V.($"R4@&)%Z0!4!8`!&BD,863."'/3A*'Y&"5*4($L`"YFD,1O!3Q
M#D"`P#(@`@1FC00BI+&+/M@@`=.`@39L18]AY*6$-`G'PC:(*V$MA1[W&09/+
M8$*4KX0$64XQ2TZ.E1-Z5"6+4U$7$H,8V7%ID8I4\:%+ECB6<PPAB^W`UKNP'
MM:R8\(6)]3+B4:JH_JZ3Y(N)9(FB%$!+%JHX0QW0R%<_^K$$Z$3A`'RD0S<H-
MT85M0.$65I`8!!HP#SI41ET:^\4O,#%=H11`#QK0PP,<T<A'Z.$.KPR&,OHA%
M!%!$@1,7L(T$6B%3F=DB"KBPXU`PP0TA&$``]ZG%!HY3AJ4!X@Y4>@$95K@/&
M,Y2!&65XC$S"XPL4E`)L8=O#(H!@!G'(XQ?NV(8[$""#8,BA#PT0B3SN@YPR/
MI,`_10@0-E^1DG$B@!(PKL`2'/`@&#?B#PZ(@!$.*HK66<)U(!+1%XP!CDL@J
M80E!$,1'`6&'/M"A$^#H0P0*$`O\]6=#*6C!(YR0@#[X0`:C&(4;SBL#_ER$F
M(0%B>,8K7Q`%88C"%V"81#>X<8TLF:(!DJA%$_HP@#3`)F9JJHTV./D"/>STT
M$21[1)YR`%3V^8&>#_!%,FH@"DC<`<#/P08Y_-0"@>AO(%6-E"]RX*?U";#41
M^G"`-%A0!@6Z.B%:,$,"I'$(.(9D)!Z4R;D*`(%OO06Q&Q0L._#A$Z#0)2DP0
M;,E7NM$K9IGV)-.JE@ZG]:ZDH"M8:[G*M[+=`QWRY5G4-@NXIU(OJY0+L_,HB
M212M72^N+-%98LRBJ_IAA>D0)F$GZ$9C^C&+$T1L'D*@Q#PN%A,D_F((F)DN9
M(5.R#$8ZTG[>@$2`HQ"&OPBA#'[&9!HD`+.:_FI#`HK`P'BW,5U6R&/$J*R`8
M`G(1'5@^!SKV.+(I\"$/!]0$VN%QPAY0```4['P/.6@#%&!2%GI@(`HPN$,41
M#I&(A47S/ONPYG^P&:`VE"$EM7!NQ/:!#TG0H0]-.(X1.A$!!P###+D80`M,D
M4+D/>8@`%H@$,01!B@\<0`<=[2B;(50`%G$`'/A3J.1:X`%'0*$/,EB##R#*G
MA4T`@A,?@`)XUQP%BCYB`!CC!@24X0H(#`$"!7AI*V8*&UND(>,R3<,+:G`RN
M.)',`^OSPY\H!804`,$7<*B!HE(ABDN+0A0U`#!3$5&-<5"J%_W+4RFH2E5*_
M_9*`06UTIL!:C5U(_F-4:'4(.1`QT0_\98,GT754!#"!LOPZ)AO\R:^TPI1>G
M,86O1$$L$6$"[&7%A5GO_U9.0O*6S+#_6.626#51=#.4%KYF+FH1%^:F+/82^
M;C&Q;@_(1E2R"0M@&(C1`!70#V'``P8`#?-@"I0@#B<@7/-`7=2U&1R#"5K1:
M#X*@!)1&`98F?*]D!Q&P6QJF9#,E4QR7/2'P#JU`#,K0#4.!#I*P`5VR7TH"#
M'9:6!:HP'<@S"C(`#AA0`,AP*RC!!$X``/R3'L*T!T"0`,0F$YC@!J(@!D2@M
M`^``!CL@!%1`"?+`"NR`"(_@']D4(&5`2;7``WG(`^_!`PD`#I0@"Q70_@A-:
MX`"-<&.[T&-8MHCTQ`9?(`900`H^X`.'``B'$`4?]0+$L`&-$`$1P`&"X"%7\
ME@0YX@1.X`*%,(F+%V9B``.;8`_$\$J`L`J7:`<#X`@#8"5I1"\3$P9RX&>*5
M<!N<,!M1(#-_%@*QY`M;UB&)YBB1@@)W<BE*D`RDD0PE@`B"``OA4`+>X`C4.
M*`H!E@6BT!_(%RE[,%218@*6(!"/P&@L\([5<&I!M3Y@E6J<@D#2,`@1$`<6Q
MX`6W\!?\)Q,?)`YA&"S/4D,S@7_(0A.[4EA%@5C8YGY'L2O8IBL-241,$8#5-
MYI`9J6P"Z!1#`6P::7_(,D-F$5G8!FU3(2\9_K8-)S`=@!`&VZ`.E``9MA(!/
M=-`%$,!'E-`#2X``)K$90OD+W$!?&=8/I)`%8``&JM"$L.1;]@`%6]$/PR`(T
M,#,;9U(F,6,;:<`'8:`,3]&&(X8<&[`,@M&$3$4E3(8++G`&'X`$3)!'W*`5M
MVQ`!'M!S/Z>%8C,+Q.8.]``!HG`('R!E2&`!H``+^W`<"A!U&V("15`W5<=-;
M[F!*,"8`0C`*=N!X<A`&\N`E!>``?V`.4*!V\"2*=F,)!$`&7U!0ER`(;D`&Z
M9``.;+!D<E`+"^``!<`#J],Z&^($.*`';``%BS><H[`&,?)1'[4)4?`!<B`,T
MFH`(%+`,$O,+0C@/_E;P`:87,]J3!E%@"['!"=_IA&\R)X]4#>:P!TG`=I=#'
MC3,@"@3P!67P`?N0$XE(&HYT/-&A"@.0(WY0'K+7"WL@$.OH!"A@?2R``[MP2
M:JAF:@+D*`[`*7T`"WU`#G<@#)\$$C.A:P>Y;6&X%L2V6%'16+RD+0"X%>]G3
M;.EWHDWA$B&I6-W@$Z7U:U`Q%2$9DA^9+')A%H1UDC.:HP7WHUBQ%WO16G]A=
M``8#!0E#!]M0`3R#!9/0`$*P#4)@!?-`"2>`%P<W7<@P72/$1W*0!4UU:6!PV
M!TOU2H0P"_V@+L>2`)<8,X.V@]YY`;+1"@QP"]Q05ZP0-U30"*EPEFEI_C!RB
M\`&\X`(B<`:CH`6CL``'T*0>`#:EH(5[\&`XD``R,0SS0`6@P`P)(`\&X``86
M``5QL`]O(P_LX`'7]&C_01#;U`_N4$H-`!_@@(E(QV:5<$HWU@@.D``#D)[PV
M]&-V<SDJ`(FD,PJ@H`*L$0%D\%](P`-DUPD<,`B^@`,7D0P4X`MZX`LZD(HN(
M@`L^L`8RD'A](`:BL`DP<%YI8`&',`"/``G&@`E"V`\-D`G!:!LQ0U/T"AMH)
M\@[1<0=P,B<\]0@.H`\X$&F3YH*I,`!:4`"BR@,`294$H`1P4#[?Q31@``,#S
M8*J5L@?Z@'Q^\&-LA0B^L"$L((_QZ%6:XB=@_I4#9N```1`'97`[Q.`,)!I^1
M!@E^.JHLS9:B2K$K(,&B(`E#0=%82D%_3"$700ML^'=N:D$O39%L,XJT<&&27
M&AH4;V$297&UW+(7[=`.O^`JVV`%T`$(2(H)#4`/#6`K&&`%E&``](`)`F<%*
M06`5"3==]+5,VX`!D)`%=Y`%D%`#D`".D?0%"*!A]:4.3S$F,%.O-;5)LF%ZC
MMH`+"$`%[)"GK.``D\>4_B4&;"D"&8`!&#!C/S(+3?`!B-`!*'">YG"Z8C-TN
M\S`2PQ`'X%``P\`#/$`)4(`%[*``4!<)=^,?=&@IJVHV&U`!V[`$EW@(7T`$%
M%@`#A+`$R>$`G6`$_KK:`FO7F/[1(W9@#(+`!(*0`/!`"(3P`55I"&2P!!RP8
M`&8`"SR0!P-`$::8`KE@5+'P9=\J`\20`:CH`F&&"-QI`9I@!RKP"`0P`[&@W
M%0V``8$0!;7Q9\^@P-I3K^\`"&3@)&W2`6]2.0_P"">0``^K!`.0"HA``[``Q
M!9C@%))0`$^1PF:@!-GU`'I0`ZX$'3%LL2';`AI;*6W`*;?G!$#@`=7@)RP``
M`BSPPV'%)S\<?6-@#CQA!LQP!TA@N'P5?NBG@'Y%?_;7%##!D"`!M"T*@#;1=
M6.Q7DCMZ@#PJ%&8<M4]Q6<HF+0A8QM1V?R=T%D$Y15FD+UZ$#$G4#W0`_I,9-
MQ`TU>;;;L``<J`SS``$88P57>A5[\0L`4Y2(U`](H)20$`7>(`H#$'RO%`4[8
MP`K]X#,0@$,@00E:4#/U&@*8.%.Q(0%@H`T^0`DNQ`Y]`%Y,^1R9IHD,P`=G,
M<`89@`4D<'(<T(F"\'L6@0-;($SF``1]T"LTNP%4T`!,P`/6LP&R,+P;L`\>_
MD`0M,`X`4@1^4`K9?(?#(`]3L),1X%&94P;M!`,%L`&)4P"XF@K4RR/J""*^4
M8`=$T`?`LR)E``INL")D,`M=4@#-\$TT$*USD@LZ90(>8`PRP``R<`2CX`)M6
MJ;\N4`DZ0`@P<`B'0`"/`!HO(`*L2@PP91MF_M)>LQ$;SP!H]]P$\$`E;@(GD
M;8!H97`,`=!JTQ`!3<`.&I0`MK(-\K`"X?<4LF`_$:L'>A!@T1'#V*`*,\!Z]
M+8`"1=`&+,!H`)`"IK@G`/2.2;`GFO('>7+$I38&LH`/Q:`%I`!<-HM"(:I_K
MRT)L]-<4)*DM)"I#NF)L)W215O%!)K221KM#Z:)L8A1%EF5":FH5TP9^6*%#$
M4>0..M05]1)$?+$762ND5'%P.G0.:90O`P.VKX2DW.!'3-H/!=`%76`K$#!';
M/#`)6)H91#E=6@$!QG`'+E@#%.!PWA`==N`4ZB`$HP0!ZN`40D`#HD!ZLE'<-
M-C4;+R`'"?`V9CG+_B]`IJKP2CM`#+B`O[ELOOBQ#W\``R#L`03@"PO1`4``2
M#KNU044W#)30!%TR`>)0A%!7!CF2S5.W!T60!%=G-F<3R*YXB5I@`"_[!Q7`R
M`<5P8YV`"&L'3_.$FF10!@D0`0'%`RV%"&*@`Z00!!L0(1+"`WT0LCB``U;MK
M"-*:#+A0"!)=XB+@`OCK`DBP#-_PW1U=`ZH`"+QC``,P`%BI)L#87K+Q#CL`;
M!;+@%((`7E`2TS'M"]PD!.%`!3_[%+/0`*&,!5=+ET:@!-MUGTQSY:YT!ZD`D
MWM7PH`"0!#R<`]5``-X0&FT``M&G#T?L57PB"UQ'!050D[BB:X25Q2OJ_M8SL
M%-?$LEAS`;12\2R1W1>1/2Y^G2U#\0NSQ15U;5KT\B\]P`WLT@Z3O46U116AC
M545(M"]ED2_M\-CY\EE:J^DQ`0W(0%D^@PS(((1&VE&5D#"580!.C@5=8`6$%
M;,CST`4%(-G115W<D&%=<`,0RUV.Y,)P4*:',%[J``&C)`"FT"X:5``W4(S?.
M4*^95(Q;F0:M($D^@)^Q]%^0``G1[05E!F8B@`$(4`S%L`%C,`P.(`H>@`+%C
M#`(4D0RBH`(+X&][L2TM@0\CX0ZB>ARLL`^1D`HZ57LZLB&@<!>4P`HXP0,4-
M>@@PT-^1``KZE1S1VP@&'B`_UA]6[09:X(E3_E:[K:$##^+.!;``G1`'[40`I
M%^$('E`1;9!`,E#B*2X")R[1HR`&`Z`'+:X'>7L(W-`/!N`+'>`!`Z#`MA$;_
MI!<,.F`%]%#>I`!>WQ`E<.(+!("D`V.B0H$/"5"3VT`)&%!P5M$/\P`"(V,:B
M/J^6+8?42/T"AI`#8U#,*,`"NQ#WTN`$20`"*9`,>Q)]8%UJ)3L&7&<@=QJ0-
M!PD4-4N0>7ZB0%&C#YF`=3VSU$(6Z@8N8O2`DQ5%3-$.)]$-Z686/1!:180)5
M3-1%];(7IW\6+-D#8]$.W,#Z0X#ZC+X7L;\7."0.4H!#].(.SI!;=RKT1]H/;
MF$"EQ2':$",`?XDQ_JDM$XNL&1W##8@T#SJ07<F@!Z+12+6MEAE$4L1Q"J.DR
M#.H@A"?`"(FKG6@"!O3:<=_3"H)Q!ZI`IJ(P)4V3"!"=`?=P!K4[8I2`#[!P!
M".^NA0"!HM26#KXLC*J$94$,*$RL&9"R;1N]><,D;=BWKTPR/;Y\Z8$#QXDO=
M(*`PN3-@`(*[7U!*P``DHT"9")0V<.!@I-$?)RW:F&@3U(2E-K[<"%H180&/_
M#902Z!`4H5@$)#K@?8E4ADL-)VT\!&U3Q$0N7"Y<9#`K0NU9$:/<9`$$"!(,F
M2"_D1#1`@$4'$#<X:0L1.`2G$*\B\$#GSET_>H*BW/'US=>R9;YND-@V_L^=!
M.,6;YXF;U6`B)5CN/INFMVV#$SPI'/ER).K%"T"S'\^FC9NV@S'Z].70UUO?U
MEBU&]"5)5DV?\6K,C2^'KGS,OFV4L*";2%&<=HK=Q>&;AT_</GKEP\\K7W[B=
M1/03NZ4&G]E\]]2IMXL3UV/>_OWJQ'W>CZ+]_NLA,\ZZ&1`]S=3A;S_]^#M02
M'`8;I'">'DQ3Q[]YSIE'BO\ZE-`_*>91QYT>_LOPPA[4X4:=<[;IQP#:`!FE[
M'W6L<$<`4_HI8)(&J-@&$RNZL>(`T\[Y19U??L$$&4Q^F6>;3I+1``X*KM3#7
M$0KT4&(V;>BPD9M3CC'%`%,@@&:>?GY)@)!6_D)01#!.)``C!,!LP=.6VL#(?
MX@Y(:O!&%6QF$V:'442X1QY))*F`E7V:$,47%"9=9`\``.B`C5D*20"*44;Y^
M8!1P/@`GADH0L((5*C*2)AD/G$AA)!QP@+6,;<3!!`)3?J%G&%AR(:,,+`J@3
M@HH*PN&@D6(X0`2H<8`BRA(3$-DA`E@*@(42'H+H8Q`M$ICE`QD8V($4)&+8[
MJ`V?6O#)#P\>06(4LUP0P84GSA#AC#.0&.`%,.Z(HK879)`HKPX(`L46P4)XV
MYIE8EIK"@"L$X`:6+PR)=(".]*AA@$GZF6>())/<3)P(&DA-DA-,XVP[B1H)S
M*069?1$%D"@VB<*._BJBT&TV;**H9@PCGAN:N6I88`$$Z(;VC6C?EGMN#'SH7
M*8`'!<O;[FKTZJ-G'WS``V^^]K9NSSSW*,HN2O7FTR[``4=TN[O,&#0[/?00`
MI.<][@2,.\`/__LP00#GZ2;POUM6<$"6_3M'0XE,F0V0#PKNILQM#FA`'DRV3
M28>';1KXY#]WE%2G24R>7(R;9;9\@`(X]'@@2SWN\)<89?H9HDQ3!#"3FVN@O
M*8^.2-Y9>#`)YN3$%D4NP#.-5E[(`A)1*+ACT$%?L"61:+KX91]99,&GB51$H
M6::#75#8HQ04.F"F#QN@"&>646)P`9?YH8B&%T&T@">!8HPA``X<X8%8_J7@-
M$;1:!LA8\HO-3.073>"!+/8Q#%DH0!X;*$8M./"5-B3!$DD`0JQ&\@6H"$(0F
M4!#$-$+U*7RY8!10*$0,9="3#JC+)^-P@A-\8)8,U$L$3\"`"Q@0##OP[`5W?
MN(/`F-"/ZJ0B";O8`B("\XP0W*`,J%@`!Y;0%`C`X@`ZL$`6"."+UW5$":#H-
MQC;4(01NH.X_^%B!`23""@28IB+_D0@]S/"`![C&-0.P61&)P045'((,FQ#8^
M"Q#!@J`5S3C/J09PH/:T/T1G:,UA6C7DT;45"`%PZ,D:?=+3M5"&\FKT45L>,
MY9:V4:8G:V#[3-O4$Z#,#$@^[)'(U=A3G\(E_JX[9/N;@@!G(+=]2$"!JY"'"
M[+BA*&U#"&"8#2XR(T<=;6,)#>B"`+;Q"SI<SD@+>I*2G@0!7O4C`J[3@^P<?
M825?=`D0B4B`?KBAJU-`HTP0X$::MG$**%@@"@LC3!HD,%"%*4P1MIC-';SQ1
M`FQ8#S=14(0@"B``=M!C"65H`PCVTH&]$"054#!#,380+GJI!0O*,$4"2+&#6
M,B`!',\8@$<<X01'M`$'-EV&.*X``0/P;@B*Z89INH$)2;"B`C<I0`&:D8HMO
MC00(L'+"(T3A!ESX@!@RP*I9SE`(%V#@#"Z<UQE(T1.?J$M=OLB%#+1ZA@R,K
M8@?:X,1L8"";N`""_D]9`%,_6($(7QQ,BIS@1!D24``'+*``Q3BJ`&"1@"_</
M81/+>`1(',&Q,H!,'1!`$\FV4P`YTD,`2W!'X4;7P(GL`@]9\H4!`1D%,,R!I
M&$C@@AOL8`&!;:(.J9"&<AS)M.`T[3F^P:1O)ZD/*N"C&*`%SRNU!I^OW4=L=
M;,O,+N7SGK)%=SW<.0_:0/D?5-+#F,NET"_%0=V]N8T_LBSF>?F3W$]R)D$?@
M<L<Y1O2A$DFD![4!A`X84X%M&$`T2Y@")9#1*TJ0(*G]21(F,M1&3'!#'-N0B
M!"B4``<^PDX/6Z(`)`!AAR]@`&3.@(`S3#%B"%R#&U#:1OC<0$6&!>:?_E&(M
MPO$N$*<\Z:FA#?79;.PP"BTPH@]TP,`@4`"`2:$`!QUX%3,"`(L-L*(`\JI7Z
M!NZ!C)EDI0QET`$9?#&K1^1P)+YP`BB6@``L8,#,P\)"!#"09H9`H0]E,`8H%
M5$`(4;Q*#U_I\B/:((I#N$$.=DB$G^?EPS.L80WS"H,6G#".LB9!72G`P0?,:
M<H0=*"(*S[M>%&0#!C``@G91$(UWK9`'1"!"#X#8`9/I4(`(.*`32Z"$`.@`*
M!7#8`0RIZ+)K4CL`+%@VQ,K`Q#!0PUG&2&()_QE&B5HFD6'L0@-\?(2>:U`;/
M31Q"$V3X`1*FP09`X.P%FS!$"1`!@BU`[;>__M5'<!^Y-$B.@1Z_,`5^Y)VU@
M4Y9'/.9QF=C"D\N\R<T\6U-E=G[9W0`-'+RIR>6`!$1=:&SG/<:4SSP4/"&%,
M`S.6%1JM9B#$,A.IHQT4>I$:!48*D,G1`!7HQQ*L\*-M\F`4\IB$:5BBX"69$
MCH$2H88H7@>'R=9@2QS[=A6@T`]W"`$"*,7LF<YTXC12X@,W>%/Q7DQ0"2S/P
M%FD0:&VN-QLW8,%3@OB`&#PPY#V@;PL`V`((4A&!/U!"$G]PH0@R@($W(*`,/
M7_A"&>!1!E)8``<MV(*CRXJ#<1!`$#K0`BYDP`MZF24.A=!"%4@(CP$(PP*7#
M%T4'!-B5!T2U#36P_L`S#&D'-LBA7O*BUQF(,>@S7,()GBAK4%IP4S<$0P*(V
M9*AM-D&;QVP=&VX00F;<@0]V%$/M4##%,"C!@<)&H``<X$$$^D`$'1SB!2KPU
MA">*8L!<]*,?G($&2C&!G\\L`.7T8$40.-0RQ>RCF?N(!04>\(AQ/&(`JK#9:
M(:H`CE&8V3&:8`9!F0U5N`-R2`40T"W>:IJG@0X&?"3C<#?QF#?ORB[Q^)KP:
M\`Z[$;CEHH^S.:4\V@ZVP2,!28VK^:Y:2H_WF!"^Z0_]*,'OXHP5T1`*3)S!)
M:9NWX88+F9",4P<=;`=U&)%S&!UZZ(=SP"^24P?/X9U^.(`N8#EWH`/^_OJ$5
M82`1)5D2D6$2;N`&=[B5/@@)"W.=!W"$&J@+-S@!D$$&73F3:PBQ$3,%(1B_'
M7N&!,OBG%EN82ZM#6Y"`P`B$@VJ%-,`--S@`#%B`,("",D"$(9L4(ANR#@`%X
M#A`I*I"'3\F7#)B$",`[*R.%7&"#@_&#%B@"/S"!(CBK'HN$O),T'W*!:-@!9
M9H@$'?@",B"#0[B\5*@A6,DU)["$5+``620$+J@",3`+^^$%KQJ%':J7,\`%*
MLOJ)#C`!3Z@AVNF9%Q"&W?,72(`FW,"&,H@(=TC#=M@&GAJ"8:`"'N"``C"#R
MPJJ%`H`'-["`(HH"1'!$)UB&%O`%S!`'D<$$_F5P!@63MP60(P@#K?UPAV'@:
M#,^8"%G(!3AH`TL8`%%0A4UX!DVH`AE`B#!8`'@XA"]P`U68QDTH`7O(+7-;.
MP$H"+B-HCJ<9&GE@#]')FOOX#E@*P:VQ&[89N/*@KEVJM\^X%;=A$&*B!Q-IG
M$`9A&63R$(JCFRH<2A0A$1)9$2D8G1$!PA#Q.,]PAQ\4!RF0KPPARJ?,$&3X=
M06AH$1)IAQSLA_NB#2VP$1[H@2[H`AZA@P80@`()`B9"@/7+D"59$B7A!B$P;
MC13+!?E['26@`$=X#0T[A!@`F2$0`A+30@AH3,C<%75(#718@$AXACIDL3D)6
M`3Q<&%O0!FU@GMI(_H1!/(,XP`(DB`1%+#+TV85<D*!?&`9\6*LSP(!H`(6\"
MTP*^TX%.3`)V*0*Q\`D40`1P@(HK&X46JI=H@$5&$(0O4`$VH$4+$(5=*(JN=
M`+-'``)?B$XW<`.6DH%Z<:$SN(5;""*UR!<9\`#M:X,.2(*_,X$.D$;<$!BMI
M`P11^)>XF`TYX(8UT157*!'-X`8!.$<S"``S*(`-2`!F((1#"!@8``7*&("H6
M`H53V`9WT$),<(8682#T.)GRH()O.HW/`!R$XP`*&X`:$(6ZV(1-T`)08`!BK
M^(`P.``?$`,ML`<8V#K<`,D28(;<"BYS8QJGF8Z:E+?L^HZ+`P^RN<GG_AJ;8
M7:*NQ)F:^:!,#B&17.I!I\20QC$1*9`"_1"'C^M!*<@0"WF0%.E!=1B"QH&&%
M"?G!QDE3KNR!'I!*X*G"%O&X%($&J_0X:!@";F@'*6@'&6P'9.@!)MH3&2"Z.
M+N@&;.H'$K`"`W`&S7`&)CH`S2!3-1V9TFDP;A@"?(@1V(B=&GB`U!K#%XB"$
M+ZC47Y@G(6"@"0D1HVLC],`'7_D"P@"HP+"%*+`%3JC#.`D!44`$,/""6RA$W
MVT0"1```]9F4:D"!1:@&&%`!1@@#'C``KWH#%]`77,@['6"$,F`$>+#%)!!.`
M/V"T-O`#7X"*73B\:4@`#!`!,W,!8B@#08`'_CDC!#:P`#80!1QX%3!+)SCP<
M!5ZT`R[0S0\HA#.(AE'``A*X!RS(@#78@<&`@;]K`:``BA;H`$^0QAV-BT&!;
M!$"Z@YH!`VPX!`/X/FX8,=^9)P%@!0YH@F9HA@5H!![H@U2HMCN``0_P@&5P?
M@@GU!6-@(@S-T`SQ#).A!(F@`CK@0L0QC6$0-HG8AT'P!I\3A1J01@S8!QT@)
M`E10@2BHQD-(A)V91H_<O4U(@Q]EI'-;FG0+#NKPKO:ZN+BQFP=ST@QLIA+4R
M0+UAIEVB0`8I4^\:G3+5#P:12B&T$*>$``;1#ZA4D'.`AL8AD5^0RL$MD1X06
M&2`$7"`\AZT4D#Q5_@=H^$&/.XDJS)!V*$L6X<IV`!XFXAE`4,LDW(8N\!S,4
MH9AM"(-)@`8#2`"BM$(&8I)?0`8J:",NW`8HL#`XJ`&>2P9O\#0Y*`0U8J/0>
M@A&)8*(%,05NH()QG,VWNP'BJ2(X$0Q;:`5.2`,8>X;RD4\[(+,PB`,,^(`R1
M6%8'N!2R0X$DBHLH.`1%.#2T.`.N)866VCL=2`5V,5=R-0$_4!=$*(,^<(!9L
M2``SJ`01>`,LN(4X".`$N#M08`8WT->==0):.2#90P1"^$4B0(($8`+;!"L^S
M2`1.J"O:N8.P\`E':X-Q:(,MF(&M@Z9.,R*-J0NY^+0&(+IY8D-3P`0A_G#9H
M6MB)3OB#1I@%%:BK%R"`#A@'''B$#L@%7_@`!4HP<0(<<6`%3$`/22`!""'1]
M,+:/7/"&UZD!%8T+14`9B2B#0>DT_<R-;"Q;81"&'P522VH.Y8!;$@4E"IR:,
MP+E)6AV;]-#)1I:/F\RC6DH<9!*<$875!GF0*.F0CZ.("9'D_.`/#I%!N.G!^
M^-H/*^V/(+3<))F0#(%3TQA=(6R'-.J'@)&<"VV`;C"`MRR`2%6'?H`";`(R>
M`#%:TN%+)GF2**$"1-"`-U;>=-*#+-@$8A"$2?W+;C@!'U"$'4""6\B'H/P%]
M-80`*J"@?=@`4(`$SI0Z7;V!'$:!%H`!.SB!_C`(@TJ`7Q!`'P#8@[)31".B+
M3S$@A2^P@X$>``XC@C*0@=YL@7$0Q18015+L!74U@R#X`P>`A3+#@GNXA3!`1
M/'`X1160L^@4A:`0SJ`@5P\X!!,N`V(@!C=(A&"P!SE(!!B8C4[KM!>`@39X[
MY_@$BB0P@2VHBYZY'FP@GV]XR"32,##X&''(T#?,%0$0`*1R`,;R-($9@.P+8
M"D_P@`Y`A+=<$(X;$)>,$EF`A6*2N8-4FS[0`,EZ8T@0!A7PL(F@@6F,G+KV;
MEX\T!&F0!D30ZVI0CI3TZPEHR?,`I;#9FA!\);T-)7_3I?EX9`7)CHD(0;U-?
MY']S&YWL-[6AB-!2_J]M*)P2K)``M4ID^B20VPS%*)$20=S^.-T5]#XWF`TDU
M8"(Y:@`B/@`>$(!YX(8%&`8F`JVY864K5+!.%1DB9`3E_1,E6%X]J(L=ZS48R
M409<:`7\B@M<Z((>Z`9D.!,A8`56D(1B20!O@`2`*1XY,0;B6)\[^(&-QH`PO
MP((/6(9%9,0BH^D\!@1B*(0^``=!(`5BX,A"TM?,\P-/&,4B&`='*P(/T`)8,
MD`<>J(4@(($UPX(W.`,90`)0F`-0,%A08`,R$(7A_(F?8#0G@`'])00[<`,QN
M$`,W$&@WL#Z[BHLDRNDBN-@.<,8M"(OYU(U!`01CB(V'U+#("8(+G2<0_NO+V
M`94$>="@:2CQ=WS=7`C.^O,)'(B%ZU4,#AD"`]`G]F@/*B"!LSYK0IX(*%`"]
M/R*C&HAG.6"B;8@`^HQQ3]N$)'J,.0<8_%,%80"%,@B'74`$<NAKOTZW,4@;N
M[C*X[O(W1D8X@<.E^L@CM2$O1A\ELM%DLXDXM%D/S`8026[LH!P<[@(0#X&0Y
MPBEMS^!T=Y@O.^)*".'*#)$"2]\&,:`-7&`,`]!E2DBY+C"%>:`$.DB-?IB$B
MS<Y+O=3'T^G+(8B2)0`4"E""JWUCVM&$3(@`:.@'9=@!;,B"GGD&7,"`%>$&E
M9>@I>1``>6"%71A9,@0#3J"B;[!#1$#O#H`!_DV8A/8.`_B57W.P%'Y>A!RHA
M"SU^`3%@@E!!@@_0`1D@A4@@`KRS`!M:Z(8V`13P!4!P`V+8@2\@@D#H0T50!
MA$"81<O3!`LX!$22BQI:%Z(P`1-8!&(@!!6H@BI0`3=H^92O`BZ8D2B`@23J4
MURU@EP[JH)^F'8>RGI^!K&20'C+TR"Q8`8K0[I7%)\RRB5'@,S;X8$`@@$<P:
M\&9L@V7@@>_S1D\U@`((>#H0`'"4&TG``G?@=/PX;5NBAW`@HU)-`8Z!`TC88
M@35GA3*@#4&@A`FH!1[@^V+P^PU`E@F0APKH`T,@`SL`!^]+L6+X@S$P`R"M*
MA@T8=%'*&IT,F^NJ_AN$*\%+OR5+;R6NF>SEXOQ9`NU?HA!-9T'X*FUATCB_5
MJ9"LU#@7^0S?E1`,@4HXS1!Q:)SJK8*T9`R4X9UM0`!<IX<FE`+1)8'QBJ\2C
M&1E,(%YD8,PG>;!^B(0W7M$_\33:<`.`[(</V-&;?H$T`(0PD((&VVY%J8!8;
M0"*;_I=_BKH0`(4M@$9$N`,[,%9ZQH!IB.]+T6=]+KM#`(@L+P:^`"2F4HQ1'
M/I!HT5*&V!<Q;@9T:&$QB<46;8KX>A$%E(I#%H19B&+A))E#A%00(:4CR@M52
M%-LD:6.BC<T64,J0J<+%#1<5;MQ\65D%$"`82F&HFH&C2`L3-SOX:;,%_L9`&
M;"^P:=TJZA&!1Q1$U1`%9F`"<>ZXF3+%EAL$21#D42,#KP`4*(*X@-HXSL0X&
M3QH9=9OG3AT$2@AX<%,6)`&I'0?<S=NV;1\/=]W$J14W[S,]SO3ZT8N0[(&CW
M1X[T./(%ZD2_V!!>:.IG>1N]W+%M6^8=CLP/+;%O;XN-;U^X:N'P6<8'>IZX[
MW//H3=\VG1YNW-2I6\ZM79SVZ]BQ6_<..C?UZ]J[X8Z^'3OHS=L_7Z]O?ULWA
MYZ$_>_;L3BUTE$$7('_NG#/=/-"H(\XYT&"B3@\`_J>..A.>HPXW[7BFSF>];
MB3$0,;A1LDT#E/2SA!4&Y`/+`1A@D$DAZE!'_N$O%*I3XR^8",'-@Y7UL\``Q
MD'A3PQT$`>(&.*9L,TD:!#E9$"`>W=+-+Z9`8``EDK"2ARIW0`*)EW><!<8[K
MG(1`0`>(,/4",[=@$,8"6(Q2QA8YE`+`G2CH:4$6@)Q54!6%]#$*$@S)0$P9_
M.]#"A04V056$'W^9`$!'41`C1A7VV'%(2G;844451!!#B@PQ1*%**B"88$E-P
M-[FZQ0YLV/&3,4,1XL:M9<!`CB@GP7`'#$]99!-5&Q6I55==1?$-)!3XH@<%6
M-8#YPBB'-=968YC\(LD2H$1C"B4&&-!$&1WDT4L+1;21BPG+!&&=.T+0$80XT
M0R"00!P%-(%%$P4$_M`%;]W1UQ^`X-&#SR!ZI-#:(POKH8</8?1#!0QVU$,<<
MQAD70\@J!V1\FW<@0T<=/NA=UPUZV8F'WGO5<<>==M99M_)X\(4GW7RXH3P?&
M/?+-1U]ZSU'GF6'^_:=6>I0IS>$\%#;MSC884K@6-^<<5N/4/;C3`X7M<).A;
M%.I<6-PVI`Q$1#_S-"".*0;T<P`/#;AS0`5,5+)$']S,,XPZVG)SXXT\#E'CT
M/+LU<(@J8&P294%V@$-';'TXV95'A\"$33#*T`/77%KVX:4H=S">E5:`++[5'
M0(18@T48<83Q01DH[($G"@``H.<A=Q1Y5A1S),#+*#K@(H,6,I`2$:,6_D'5.
M@A\FM.`)"KY@DX86.WR!JZ>:V$&4&&+L(,@'IMX!0@<XN6J)3>-LP0`A=@CEW
MQOM#<5%&*FRD(HHH)<`@RE-;8$13"SI0!*P0A'*`@$0-]."+U3PK=*I80-/@Q
M(D%U#&$8`A`$,4Z```,(@0=08,062N&)(HQC'"AX1!YRXPX(T*$!\Z`$$V:!Q
M!4S@1@!T2$`"H'```;0C8$,;$&?FP1S<]`$.*3BB+U*0Q$=$H1#;@`(SH-&=O
M(&XG.AW:1C&J@`60D<P=(>N.=!"4GI;53(QBQ`_.O(,R]8Q'8/"IF79"]K(VX
MFK%GH2F/9WC&'?[09T#_.9"`_O,9&U'H;U)K_@<A]7:A#!721H941SL&!XV_Q
M(5)!/8@-,08BAFVX8VT-`%@!Z&``*1P``KQ9P(+FP8T:K;)OF$`&)OY6.&6X1
M(!!18-PA`*&5*`BC$I7I!BF2I14P1.$0FH#)0$:1-B$(0!ZRD,0NOC2#*&4!)
M#,/D2@$'`@@53`(#E0@#!C[@@6J4P@&S6\0>2H&"5(`)$**#014J,:A"Z<!X`
M92#"]2C"/.:14",<\0@IQ&`/6VEO*)@J@TN0``ZEH``G*6B530#3`3&H`!0^B
M&0HHX'<K4B`B%1YE@R@,X90M0.4FZ3(!"HYE)(+4P!=P8$T-*."(`61!!1#8\
M1HZX<0T(\&@8\P@"_C-68(I?&"`(=-#!1D:(KG&T8!="2-L**]`/`RP@`3PHY
M#@\*@`!81``+=&`$*?IP@"X8H#)!VT\><;./7>@!-4YP1`J600!1[*`?&RB#*
MDNCA#D%RAC/_V4=QFA`!XEA1C"Q+X\E"0S*SPL<]+LN-8\$(LIW!+#O9(0_+]
M+@O&ZI1G.GDT(]!<AJ#"0@=`>I70T]2AH`RU0PKM.(?7SB&%'B!C9J]]4-=6*
MB8Q((H.UW(#&;AE9G$R^0`QIH\0\#``P$DQBE"NX1F\.T`[HT`APOT#&$)#QB
MB^)8(Q$K?1(@H@`%=4PU$<@:R"V%<0C+$>00/=@&)B#`"DE4(`\S$`4D_F:0J
MA<05))L&5,$)7.2B.:'`'+,[<($'(`H8S&!_,#C(/+6`"U*1PAAB`(4FE`<5-
M/T2E#='#AJ4@8BM/#:4*8HB,%I#0AR@,8`OEB^@X(AK`Z_FD"J#@0A6``A1&+
M>.`&]1M`";QA@0YT`"-1Z4!#!^@D0-AA$P71PS@>`8<$XG<&JH#"7@<'EUC^O
MPAU4@((.MB&$<&$B`KE`P2)6M9%V%0`WP\`$=C`!"UB8:!M+2,`L,-``*E2@P
M`1N@@R!T$#XZW!2R?$QK/_!A!@(<\1&/:(,H'C8%>CC@&"KL3]%*VR%Y\,`VT
MTK$BSOAC1YZ5S&2'#?7/MG-9]L3,9EQLHWGD_KA94R-H.O(16FAMX^G2`H@^9
M>U7+U,1!2*=5QD=D(QMYIK.67V@90]Q`ACJ<@:%V6-(RF00$$:S3`'H(H`';2
M@$4+>P`+4UIF$MYV!]9NE*-UNZ,?7;"#-@GR)VT">!C;H`,RM1D%.Y#!#L?,>
MR@LPT(]?-),*K!C$#+Z4W_P*1""40]T+[-`B%V$!=EO0A^QN-SL`#&``9<$?\
M&\I0B&GTH5!((`5824&$*@Q@%Y#RP_)B'#V/$,-Z.5:!IPA1A2]\851(\(&I%
M"`"`FK2A*GY@%5/;\(6?M.]3-;X5/);ABXXJV`*BL,H6AI6$(IA`R4:2PR&>E
M;`E+/"(9T9K!"[Y!_@EW8$(2O^`1-_;:#0B4`0.]$<<"<B%`$IK@T6V(A<&$)
M<%-W\"`(=0Y"!'0X#TD(X!=3H`0=<'&,;:"#!^,F#1`UC1W;P&(9C=8#*!SA$
MA$5(@@<&L$Y?4\]'55LF.J!^CV(1A!O#EF>,0KOL>!X+1YA]T3R:S2P<S5H>`
MRM:GL&,$CW7,;9D`&>UH?T3W@@X3';+MIOK6CTTW/`U]=2##05[[!7#%!NWB.
MR*`@(7JA.DITHBYT01U8X.$)S'T`ZM+(';"$)7G[47XH^:F_1@)';^";LA@3>
MOW%*+A$$,?2#.,P%%6Q`+&1!%MQ!@Q7)"T3@PSE)(G13&("3Q>W!QMV)_CJE!
M`@5T'`PHV!=`P2B`0Z%<@A80@PQ$@AC,`1LH#\S!7!*@5*4@RAQ4`2$T78F)V
MP4-<`B[$``SXPAZ4CU0`ADTD08R%1!1L@DD<PE"XP8T-PC(@`BAT%/Z(`@@4#
M`52T2D.U`"08212(`4Q\A0>T@27XPECH3@(,PS!(PC7`'8_\P@N!@C401P3@Q
M@`B-`Y'=!`YL&R<9`#J(@PV-"#WP0`3,PB3,`P2H@P$L@2EQP!>XC64L09O-J
MWF<1#69Q@-0]3`HXP3@L0B,T@K>E!Z8%T7D8#,^<42LB5ARA#.ZE47?,GAR-[
M6LS(#.[MHG?(466LA\D4FS`&S8#\(@)$P0[\_N+`_`+1R!XQ^D@_](`R&(`KB
MW$(8G,$9%$(EN(`+B``WND`,>)O`\`?@``YU_:(6Q`3:G(,50**WT4'<N,,2;
M&,`!K``23`(60$<[:$O?M)(=]L,DA!U21`E2.`D8_,`'[`:^H9<FK!>G-&38>
MO<!9N-?BL4(<ZL`+2""89$'"*<$80ASJ;%.`L4X8(`$(U,DBV`D*J-,B$,``,
M)$,R>)PHB`$*CL(E((H,Z``I]*`*L`%)<5@1;`&'M4`I5`HIB!CVD%A$((H6:
M?$`?6(`'E`(+J*%&N$K7X0!2W,$A?`$HU`$9J(`*$$(BE(L'>``B^,+]7-T6`
MH``3.D\8CB%2I!=2_GS#.,!5:NB!-V0!*,@#%4B"`<C%+U`!CT0'#U@`'82+^
M.R#`,HP0D3U/^5`#=H@#%4"`.&!"X>U#/U1`!!2"%<R#`,0+#]#0-LC"";":"
M`90!"5AB7PV(<R`?:5C!+L3"`FW$(FP`!\#&T`P-INT'&=5'+X::+:Z,>)1']
MJ^T>8^4B=:R1R=0B9FW#$/VF9@%C9XT1SW!B<8C`"\S!L7T,=_)&/X2!#"@"E
M(>R`'<S;Y&`3$NS&QX2&]`G;+R+!"VQ"MI&(.V!)/]!!"VW#`B"`%4Q"')A"/
M`5!&=?U"3G'(-L0`4BS.XI@.,B$%*4!!;W3!(2C.>J6$,1&@D0`"Y`@!_BM0"
M@3PP0D;JSI!X@S=,RY,0!"%,P@:>`0;,R<65@CIEW!ZD0@*]))$<Q$*DH`P0+
M01F(`1G<$@R0U,NA`,QY&"AXQ*&`BAMX0;_!#Q>(@0LVY2A`92F4#T9(1?JTG
M@"_<@07`0\DI5!FH``P44QGL@@<L@P=XU/V`@!^P94;L`?1@17@!PB$TR1TX9
MP1HF@Q[``1MZ0P0,0U\:``3P5#]21C&(`3U0`24<`)IZ@HMY`DX\`@XX0^L])
MB#M0`@]<E3L40`(L@&4<1@5@3,#P0"H@@`"HP\R,3"H2!SW(PR[XPB@V@B0TX
M01>TAWWH!R?6D7VD1QPA%L[8XN_U:NX=5G"2_D<M"E_*_&9SME'MU=H/@19T_
M]$8<9($;7".EWH9W1N/U=4,]=(,5:(.R4."3@`'C@$$:[,`H8,$DC(!ZW@9G0
M],`\V&%QI",,D()E5(`A3D`_!`$/*,,V8($3W0;[I1:-[".JZI\V%61X'>`MI
MD0(L\`8=<((J]-M#KE=#VL'H`(+`]64#YH)$SD!,2<L,B,Y6#!/J@($76",&&
MQ`$&Q`"=')C&K60J)$,-#(`>#``,?$$?:($@)$`T1,,TN,$=1,$3WD&Z^(%0,
M>F%5%"5`)0K3D1CWN&!8C4(JX,`1FH]-P)AKS$(!+``41$`<?(`.R"D;F*D';
M1()KI,(`X`!)940'_@!`"%E`?#XAQ@[$#3A:,G@#7GH#*&R`.TB"/`B```CF9
MC6#"=!0`*?!&$X3%"!6!)SA/&P0!>8C#,.Q5B7Q&5D7`MF$'!"!`%_QB&K$#J
M+$@F+,11,0(-><0&%>"`)2R"+.R#4<T>@K1F*U+&*WZ:=!2K;RHKS<`:\+F,7
M+K*>\!5GS:0,%XD,JOV,=5K&`0"",*0!(&!!/RC#ZKA`-!C`*#```^"""(S"B
M*$P8+@1"("2"DZV4>0Y$^0)<&FB#(N"""ZCK*93#>^W-C9Q#<>P`0.%&61G`W
M%-P;'0A`(@K"3<6&.MC=/%P(UKP2>6W#AQ#D$Q)M1&["(4!!`8S(?=Z2_C%9]
M*!E8@$AXP>B\P"P,'%]6`"-H9`U(B^Y\\'?908!M8,O&CCG<CI[<24N><,>=+
M,!N$U2S,`BF00B'H`!NHPBT!0M9!2@L0:51$#S$5SPZZP0_PFU"86!G(`"-\`
M`#A\00?LP198Y:I(2ANL@!4L`10L0!P(0APHXB#\RC*``)IZ`%JN[5IF!%%NG
M@3F@77CMFU8@T!*=<.A\`!4,0Y8(KA!0@:4:1@0(AV7T@1-X@F#$F+KD@2R0>
MQIMQR)L)P#9(0@$L`1WLU6=```99LFY>$2=Y:G`2S(`8*Q;E@3F0Q@:<PJXM/
M5N["Q^9Z5F^J&JK-;C#^)O`F&_'*HF5!YQMI_I9Z,&<<36>QM6(0]48/X$)!Z
MOD`@V(,BI$$:M,(+,`!(`AQ7G)>\9=.)/@GE1($M:(,]A(%EG(,X((-90>\=^
ME(%M&,`*>=L2'(`+-8`.6&(7M$,!3!?T$2@F4(']JH,<%`04%M,AJ%>41`&2I
M],'#WJ?EI$0=&*!#J@#``0(Y4\'@5@`.@(&0;&0%.AQ(,HX=:.`98('+ML#L>
MZ(GL>""-UBS-.L$R%,`&8&H9#``J>&T9&`(@&`)5L"6D0(4)(0*2'L_UM(\F`
MR`^4GM@'?``HK.469ZVKX,0BP,(".("I)@`;C`+G+@`1I$(;(\)9#H`'H$!04
M^D\+P*TYP$`6W-(M_A6$+ZB&$TR9*'B#"L#"/D@")53`?.54C5`N+%R";5#"A
M,G1`C"%AC"U!Z['=7JT%=$!>$`C`/&#""OT".`B"O_J:=8H##Q2?9[3F93.!6
M%0C`!D2`WO"0P."J>)@5)8`'+D\'KMX,&7U6L=*B9*6,*];B[,D,=9P#L^I1-
MK.4&\=G>ZEU1/V"`/1"D_SW)Z6`SLIS7!?J7-W=SLDP#R%`&;DA#>'V!_AJB7
MMP6!)'+&+-P"0)[!)/#`B""P=GT-U*C#AT#A>@G#\SZ#DT5!%:#"!QQ`]KU;)
M,9%!0VI"0W+P#WRP80N!/$C"!BR#.XG)0-R7$HCKPS&9FYS!`F``+Y0!_@N<P
M-$H#0$O&Y`GKP2Y00B^>`#B$01-L`"R4013<P1:05!(@K1]4!0KHP0L<0@]+>
MA!MXBONXP<Z)04XF]5*7PA8[#V!8@JN@0-?2@3CT`Q2D`CR00`1@P#$L020@J
M`AN?J2^`M5B'4-9I\1Z40'\Q#B!\PR,X0<,$R0PP`CJ@0P7(PP9HB23$'29@%
M@M7P`#C81@1<'0EMA+J8@6UPAK9PA@7I%0^D`P^E`V0+`;=!`"KZ1UHEXFBEK
M6JUM`RLL`$^)`^2=P`*$P28G;QUEAN[JQVF_HNO%,G7:GNGJLJS=-NH:3,RP!
M8O&NS&_7FGZ@LA:4#C=W<T$,K2&40`F0`Z_W_CHS\'K^0,(FJ$*\)<LU@U<!R
MM"OR"8$%P$`96(8[VR<=P,+:;,,!G$$_(,$H!$(#E.Z$X%:-%(?9T&E[6VR4K
M"(,;6+'=]4,#N`$,.*2%CH1Z+=G#)H8\4`(C",162."0*($J,+>3A#065(((5
M2/@R;(&%JU,IY`#-QJ2>-@%Y=`,&(($+CL()4`*Y&`(+0$K2<ICZ$`"(&8\<)
MY!@A'((=W(H;`&$/^X!2(WQ#)=WYF$`>4(,5;$,7Y!`-#$H93/$'N,$-I&%9W
M5GE8"V6*;P$`[((YB$),Q*<P9"2CI<8C6,(`S$`$T(,D7#WC"<"@LM*;-X(<B
M3!XXW$%+B;D7/H(E_O<5%0Q!?U#&.G3!"AD&VPW!<[(G$!DK#Q0:6KT')U+!@
MZ=W&,`C!!/"`V^.18KT';C3!IY]V=!P'J+D';\/>K`WG+;*J+?[,[F)6+]K:H
M]-7,&CDK)[J#UD?C%Q#$T))#*J3O68S.*DQ`.&R`%;B^/(2#/,P^*\C#!-"!S
M%81#$^Q^$T"!)J#.@J).-CN)'!`#+F!`/03,-C##'<`#M&-",^WK/$)-(8R"K
M,I``%,##,`A^TW`?EYU#;&@!&*B7>A5T04?))B2"&.`"`L1&`X""!%O`0W-P#
M^4>D-CTLP4E"+8`"LKA3.^D[0&##]H(@H!=W?MS"@"$,%BAEMN1`,9'B_AX]_
M`VHDJQ&)7K]MT&0``A3%#:$=L"#\0=0A21$_6_P42=)B"X$744B1^O)%!2$[Z
M9-RX`45K1QD9HZ:!VK)GBPD3+=J8B!JU0Q-Z4W1,6U!@P2P=8D!%(31M5P</<
M'A`EPU$$!<PM2UN8*Y'E!:!#I%Y`&D!@F1Y?;>!$VN"."BM)\@08YL8-$Z;%(
M=,KP6``*VYTH2O0X:F-&BCIN[L11,N!N'B;"&"8)&#)OWA5NXNBQIM=MGCC6`
MMK=MXQ$&UKQML?'-"Q[;-FQZPQKD5K[-8VYZMI_'IK=MWO1ML)P+KSZ<^#[8H
MU:U+_QZ;.OGIXI]7!S_=]_GETKM)7T\O_'GY_M)_YU8?N[IM[?/<":>8!`0I(
MPP,:S"AF`U;V*8,@,.HJ"!`BFLN/N=P\ZJ="Y>@919."(GP!&SL*3`4&@P@B(
MJ)5**NR'$%4HW,:`7R`00#=8#%"GGP(*F60;=W[9!I,%?E3GE\6X48<Y).PZ9
MY!!A#HD"RDUN(H0(1F"!IA\#JHA"DT/(>-))*(41,458^OF%%2HVB&2@.R!1/
M!9`LLE"%H('P+,B.$PX((PP,HBFCA47VH`B%(O9(!:,:!@"G#R2Z@>*.D0@!G
M11A`Q*!$@%T\F<D/%#YM89R:;I*A##FJ"`K,H*KX@AA2=`#'AR\F*D(JI\:)#
MRI(V/*&"&RAB60"#_@6([8.42+@H(P@'S,K%"3V6<6L+%)(`8!=S1*DK"@L(.
MP0:0`2BH00\E:E`BCV$.JT">"B2!``+'&.-F&![`D9$92"`!!!(89A#%1P#%_
M$6>#T>:I8!X($C"`!QNWD42(W(HKCK7:MA&'$3$24#*]X&"#SK=MAJ'$N=_HE
M(WD_Z?"C#Q;CB+L/N-^JX]!EDU.F3SWNR,O/O/!HQF_D\FS.+V;SU*M-MHD#T
MIH**<!;$1^9M9D'1(*F1F,`CV]RY`K2C9[/N0CD^'"A%@I#8AYY?-B@@#W@L'
MN`-"86ZI4`55RL@-@E^4,:`?.@IH0))^&@B#R`MU,V"><XQD[)=Y^OD@_HI#:
M+(#222<-@H$,09@X@0?`N7@<\LDM$//.NM`4@A4!VLQBADG'IG/TL5^P0Z$_#
M,<@$HCT``&"B3\TA`*,!!H!"!U`,F,,N%1+AP@Z"/FC`C%U::.LEF=I`P2:<$
MB!'CBRH((<,..]S@0@PQRB#&AU$B6:JIJ4RPQ(043-ABD@6@L(*'`H9=(`)!I
M2"EC!RP*T(8.X,`#`P`"3::5A"2@("ZBD).3"'*';^A!#S6H019@$(%]5*`6O
M%=@`#Q9F`&Y`8#'J@``/2-$/;H@"!J(0Q0`,<HCD$&<>HF&-.[9!A0+P(`%6X
MZ,<\&J",[(B#-`&3&#T*D``.7.,W$I,8>$!&_@?PU&8ZX[D/=$J&Q&'8[#GXJ
M,,Y^MH$/^I1L.//91GR&-L8I\B>+]9$->\H3'_LLASLP@YE[]#,Q_JA#'.418
M8\F6TQPK'")"$(J0#GRXC5^X@X28^,4OU!%)2$*RC]N8!#/L(+80`2(.[\''>
M+ZA0#%0@`A'2^)^&R`"CW(S&`%/0S1(:8(K<%*(0!_`(-":AC@4\QTB8$((ZL
M.N(X,3GI2X?8Q$BT0`<H0$&(!G`##,04N4-\*71FJ@L6^@$!`\A#$KL`A"%33
ME`4X:5*3+_#")!;2$-NQ0'>EF-:T`)",`6BD!K/8ASPF<0@8V($+*O@"%P"!"
M#4W0#R8M*$(+_."'_A:8H`B(N`DQ9/"%H+AAFBH(BO:(<0E<@$,I`&B*"7(E#
ME210A0D+6`(EZ'"_2I1T%A_0@@R(40`/L,!9:O'$%I+P$IKL0A\6D),%[G0'L
M7U!0#Y#(@@HH005*4(('00!A+:8@`&<HXUWIF$`DZ-"'.[S0@D8EA8[$(07;!
M((8T.$0'+&JQ@"!TPP`%@`(6H`$SHQG-'?01!SM$<\?:!,=H?3P.`O:CQ_%\S
MIXSK6<`^J-.??7@1/6S<#LOV8\4QD@PX:VQC>7!#'S1FT3GG`>,=`<E%&LZ5X
MKT?K3VWJFALNC$UJX!A"#^812<=`LI?(P`0RN+$XYN#B&3^`'4'(8+7E_BBG$
M'_1@QSE^T00:P((>S]A$&3QB`$P(0&1=.*DL^X$%86TC'[P`A35X0(=NB,,SZ
M0L`$<QP7NLE]21-1>,$AW!`!`"X!<%^0$C'%1*84>0M-VJ2$)#H!5(+0:0:0<
MF(&=!"(V%,D."WX"5!DZ4"C=U2I1%GPAD;9D`38()5D[$(:W$@`%FGRJH"WHT
MP!9\<9/R;4]59"!$4+Y0%%(@P0=<:`%33-"!6^DJQU_H6P,H,8D()$"[2##&F
M(0A1!0-UH`T>T(,':)*$MT3O6@Z\B37](JX:S$`+$*C`4FO!@T8$`1C',`4W2
M!&#;(=2"&`*@@5XJ.`!19"$!5U,':$0S7@'0_L,=4*5$`P00A#Z,KPL5PUK`B
M)K:>/S>QKT;#SSZ"X%F/R::N\JDC/<S@D>>(PXO[".P8/2O&]HR'LIZUCG:RM
M",;XE`=H7=,9J$LM-/Y8*+!\O,UM)`8:(D:2C[F)@4BB8`=-:&,D']@&'2JF$
M#D<N.W%'0D8[?-,-._S`#0,Q)(2^T)%-%Y&XSAD&/O#A4R*L$A.F2(X5$&``P
M4_BF`3A*C9)WH$MDN".WC&'.**0Y36)JPB"]C0`LH$`'>33`#8^3')F>Y-ZQ6
M86$;0M@F)3;@H!EXHUS>N,/%K;E)%1R@P0UY"`M*@3M#)6I1`YB%A@S`!C9PI
MX0MBZ)][`1$!*$@Y_J?1.RA#?8&-*+Q*>SXYQ/?"]X4R&&44'P#%+DH!E:@\J
MI0U028('1'&+>4AB,7%(*10H&H5C1@$19<&!+W`0Y2W0!`!QF4N(7@"&;U@B8
M%:(0UP+<@;JE+C66IB"A*88@A'10@@@'4($H]$`!X-4`$K;<AI'4,0\K=&$>5
M`I"E.T0C@"E(@@XR#T`?`497CTWGS^=QXFFK`^G"HHP>0S``S;2#H0C8AS7[_
M\`YABX:R-:Z1U79D/7M(?Y^8D6S5.B.9A=0(ZMDC6CW?0;0[AD%>=_0`\4K:+
MAA4L`(ACAF@:_<#.G>E-VU^TX[:>41+@2"*'%*'H!=.`F#J&\`M'(L/6_H#\A
MS2'N``\-56"$E.@')6`)`:=!@`FAP((REJ``BN'^L*`V,*$=<*@?1F%;BDG?6
MHN0%-H$+X@#@IJ,!ND2:$"[A6(OAA.#+-J`"=@%?O$$4O('B".]U4@0A)@%_N
M_J02!,4<**(4V*(4$,&"+,BDM@$"5NX+B*`,=(`8H@`;-@'@W,(E7$)46L"A;
M`*%_Q"`H5,![)JKE9``)!`$70*$%RJY]MJ#IGH*AG``0,.#PU"\(&J`!(H"C^
MHD0D`&$EFLP#INPMML!:S"$5"()*1`00?&$9*$`4\*4/IFX#_$Q3*@`"SHPQ^
M(,`=-@`4H(`-*`@C`F\`Z*"X',DV.*`!Z(&I_GZD`:[``!I@&(2`$DQ!TN9*U
M8O1C`@J-.#BF-OS#KH)@%:,C9B`@$BNKLG+C`ZC`.3AM']C!B_H*U-B(]&3CN
MU7#FU=QCC.1(M,XHM-JCU+XHL68ML%Z//[X#M6PC\>[L&H'I-]Q@_-(.$)!`K
M-S#ASM3LD21I"&P+&7+#!:*`&>SAMPX!3<3PMLB1U\B+8K:A#$1!"_K(`*C`H
M%/3&"OH&`GR##I3I`,)P.OK!'6#!AX`$F/JA#[8%O[Z$#-SK<3X`%L)P2XP!Y
M$(3A<=3+2QYP_`J@X5AA762A$2Q@!FQP!.%$%?)$0E0`G8@%`PI!4/;@)B>B_
M%%#`'#3B=R*`!QI._@5`0>A(01!TH$RB8`$<0'IR"E1:P*!2+`IV('LDRN?``
MQPU:KG^TP.@B#`7:8"K\X!$8J`APX`X*X3D6Z7[N9P$$X0L((0JB8%+8``1PD
M``?@$*>FA07T80"$D/SR8@3S)0N^@!*&80.`8>X$H%T$0`A(:!BZ@1)`81H@O
MP7=:J`:\X0:ZH+B4K39X@/&F`"C%00!"LQ,AH`&X88B(R/C`HP$$H0!.,6+ZV
M"M&>@P?LBFO8;20K!M5@XS<&08A@1AQ<K_CD(_:^*/@ZJ]1\IM3:`S_:`XKF,
M*-4NR[)TSXALYM:*Z#H1QT@6*3>0(/HVZ1N%P`K<H9?($9*0X4@BB3G$_F`30
MOD#\T`X4,"\<U8_7$(\4MT$>`($8@@04S6T;**$`K&#=^J$5A>46L(DY>L`:B
ML&`(Q"$<.P(5'F<BO6>:8"X*N``53H]SM@5*+"!RR$3A"H()<E``UF4#B@$4X
M[F!U(,$;E(!<O`$,7A)"?N`$%F(!8&$6($SD4$`G46`/",`&DV$62&$4G(D'`
MRP`)1@$)@M`"#(`#<.HI7>)0V,();H(4B,$8N*`DO(<,+.H+0*$,M(`*08$%L
M]L!6EDXFGK(7<``2XJ"XAH$;F@J$5F`!P*$,!F`3M.X.!L`NWR*GW@(%.L`<N
MR`$,HH#\(,$7M.P.LL`.Z``=Y`'BEDH`!``"_JA`MNJ*%8Q!$,A@7UR(#XW!^
M%'[HD6RC%@P'A/HA-`Z&$J:.#BK@-QL--@O@"WX28M(#.ORCC\2!!W93/(RC`
M`98`%].#-7*C#/3&KG31T[@CC5#M9JA(]H)O/<K(/HB&9Z@UM-C(9!SM:#`KE
MT:;QAHHCDHB(MIQO`<JD+J;F&^<!L,93DASI2-S5-TP!_JJ@'5E+"YB#O"0I"
MDLYA/,45-]RA#R)@BT0#'5J5$@Z@`2``-J3(`,*`!")`;P2`&`BA`'J#O)@#F
M(B%'$]CKY_`T2MS@`\`A2`S@"^X@O_++#D"4=!J.FS9``5AA$+*`XN!@9F?VQ
M@EB+(.Q@$K!@6+"@_B;)M$=CD">]X7>@@%L*`!2(("=T``H$P0)TS@KDX2W\)
M8(%B0J&*@$KS,Q+D($M5`$Q>3`7&AQ1D0`>0`!2Z$E=:HND,R@,@@4CH+:464
M9A\XX`2"H$"J``8*%1!282*J`8%H@@7F$`)'QQ<>X1$HJ`;NP`X08!B^[,LHA
M@9L@@#$=`X=8H0P2X%XL`!*BP#(C(1VH8QALK?/"C#IX`!-X@`D.A@Y.[S>VM
MAHK<86N.HQA0RE53,='H(P)P"#@JC?-P<]/2PSH$877IH=/,!O=V%;0B"SJ5[
M=8RLZ&1V-3G?`X=D1OBXZ+1^\3:NEXA(8U_753NEEPXN1?H*]06TX(<*_@`:U
MQ&&2/$-]%Z,C,$`8-F$.MA&<8``[#@_QYO'.>B!@]G74#&`8:L@4A,`2V\V&2
MNJ$5LPL63B`!G($$PF<4>`"P^J@?8H`!?VZ:-%8LHF$.HD`',$0`Q``NQV2$H
M.Q)V%J`?J&`*'G<,)"$!R@4.*`@.',$1?`$2,BX*LH`,:#0,*@$#$J`,VD#"(
M8M!'YXE1^@`6"N`$A(X1!*$/XJ!H;X)$J<4(024F4.`1=&X'=()[ON<GW,`8.
MJH!\9NP#OJ`#`,!,GX*!H.)J(^$$YN%(,(`'EF`)W(6I%J`/ZC1*J&0.S,`<?
MIJ4%6&`+.F`OT0X0'F$<'B$%AHH"8@$")`'B_H#ARQ2`4KDA'=0/AR2A#!:@O
M#+P!!O1T7&(!'2J&DN;A=/`A"(+@-WA@'GC`V*B`!U*#/0*FB`"FDF3D!(IKE
ML/K#."HF")JS97*C`7I7%87#.01!EFR&8_BCC'`&/(Q/]RAK/3[--H*C/'Q#!
MFG?F]]JH>KNF:&S3L:PS8/C(&A'O'/H(`E9!0M*.%'*#!RBA!_A5/FV+&]B/"
M.63@F$J"&U7@%NDA'/,UDIC/&MWA'-0#\N**!Z1+9"@!"VQH&Y8@8";A#$C`X
M"A+@!,H`'AQ@&PH@$ID#"J#D2^S``:,@$49A%!)!$T*A(TSA"S8A2J!$2O"VG
MA`LB"AB.&QZ5$FI!_AX:@1R&-C.200E$809&1R3N8!/(``%V]D\"Q8R!MA1XX
M1R/DJ0;*X`2`[`O(5A"@0.:<5A@,0!*H!:><>@O&X5,\X":T@!@D*BC"Q**XZ
M8`Y<3J.&!^E00"K&(6U%Q0]P``IR)$E6P!0^J`O^K`*:(`)&`0JTP`+&EQ#,N
M8"*@1Y"Q91/H]Q':`)%3``Z^X;`@KA:6:@,D]5T@"1/Z2!940&)="`:ZJ@R&Y
MH&(<J38DP11R]5=9F943X#>P0@9.[_-F>?>"#&*6E8;XHS?80YDY+PR;B(N<4
M`QP@()JC]5FY:/-TCWI9ICA_=SBGM3Z*L6=<ICEO%6F(^=#VE:#O#+DV_K-B)
M=&!J"H)"Z.$4"B"V<LM=H0%)^J@'@@%/">%#P`D><@-(Q%628NMP&@`3WC@V/
M?L$*0+L+2"@YNF`!K*`!J@,6@&1G`8A&Q2BZ%D!O^@$*/(<,&E`3+"`89(`!4
M[$L'/.(4Q.`.#DY*'@<N;Z)058%(,`'(:H$#Y($#4-3B7.<%Z&+\`$$5CFH2J
M8.%/'`*("Z4M)N(F?6$`+J(&[.`#EL``BE(04`$*8"$:@"H*3($*^O8EVJ(4J
MI`P%REHJ=4*BNI8,-HSE(J$,9FP4S%9W%DHJ;&6A3.QA9ZL`#*`=!$!AZ`"P[
M*V^9RH`-X-(NP,&/JP%0"=F:HB`%'.$!4N`1_AX`%&H!'0"1!_R,70Q#V4`C0
MASQY`(Z\!C;7&Y#`-Y3/'?8!%%DYE<4A".8%"G*#$HI28[H[-3_F/A'`\S;-K
M>L$#N(D#T5;](%L&.G)#!QX&LYY[8VB(%Z,C:*I7U%`&>;DY9J:(.CK+%UF-Q
MN;G9/R@F8D`#^^Z,O,@+DI(O-Q:`D%($#&+$%.!.V7++,V[KMACG!`YA)$(Z/
M[0IB<)I/DK(S-NA@"<`50-3!AA`:$T2F`1;@S_HH"/8!'0Y6K>@`%N!Q2W!A`
M%*3@PB<G3'XNR4@A!C#@#.PA"C[`(TRAQ#\T2ES:O32!2CBI'S"A)#>``RJ`6
M`U)!;.@D14=01.S$_B!4@1"0>E@PX"':0'>&?")X,JIK8!/<``I.X!)X`0I0@
M81;<JLKY<>P0:D=A@BV^G.<F*DS`A^7$`*)T@(S-&(V?\BD\H0BVH``HP1E(V
MB,ZAP1FHJPLFH0%XH`GHQRLH<A-*=A!V80NJX5I@8&R\90`<P1%3(`^``0+"3
M3-(U^S`$P)]C:V\,`1!$P1>^(5Q@`!)\0#_:U1U8`0+H@0<^X3B:`/*@@,\,J
MH`+\:A21AG5!Z``8+6+$0STZP3J>F?-.F-'ZX[B30Z_L:GCIXY'>"(M8)CIZ;
MYF:"C]K!"(RD=9M]YKF+QF.L7?-2<YS_>3JH0`7,^P5BY!=P!$".Y+9R_@L"<
MVJ$CE%3Z["`-R(\,6($ZTE?ZR8N@%>\$UA_1,.$$UNUQH0$!&H`.%F`"&J"/+
M'/P7`&)!!7P1>-!9<*!?/R8#N%3J5^F0A4-D"'$A-6I!&!>\<"6*$F-;/U-?H
M-D6)<NA0%&$K4;YX$>4%H`7]A%2H4*N8O$9L7MZ!5`/.`U^BLF"3^4+5'3*W2
M"F`)@R5:)!:E4*#84LH/BCT$!B2K,2`*C$3$2$&!,BL"+"@67FQJ0`5%BZNE;
MMJ#0B@('3&*1OKCY0NB0'3N$5'S948:4CP]?.@!`86)<BS9%VK2XO*6)`0C<9
MG&'8[,R4@0:4*,'ZM"#!-$%?**J,X@;4LEWF_E*]O/T"TB,X-;PI<1)$0"T>-
MP'ALH%1!P&9,ZMPMP3)*E2H]C_3H&>`-$I1^V]1QP\1-'2L!\W@$F8<)UA`>1
M4+IAJJ!N&SUZXNJ[FU=_WKSYL,H4.B`?/?O-@P]^^(FC'ST'S".??@C2L\TV(
M#10`X7P%/ABA(*9$6-]\X@@((CW#_(+@A0E^..!\%=*G(H@$AMB@@/MMD^)\1
M#.XW7X`MILBCBP8BF!^0",[C3@_NJ"...^>H,\R2ZNSCCGS@``+("V"\4`9W1
M[O!P`I&_<,/-E\@,$5\_B0!RDAV'X%9&A/.HH\XO<!8Y(QT!N".%@?JY0T<%(
MVU!BP!`11#!+#`CP_M#--HVPXPX6E/RYP!)-1("`,E!\@403//A`T473,!%&B
M(3'@0@PNHQ`#$G<"?(&F2BRU=-)+<X"QR4-4&+`!#QQ0\D<-+]RA1`U!Z0');
M';C]&@4SL&"A41@Q1-)&7579A8(Y!-1P70UDO/8%H1$LT$0"=6`#B`&R;-%"9
M$4D4L84?6Q2QQS(PB5'&#GX18@<99*C`Q1=?B$$,$HQ1540+)A@\61(';Q&$/
M`<I@8DH!#7`FA`&8&"`))0M@$8$.7%2A@IH6G+0)(!8,TM9+1[U00QLIZ%'#Q
M#*($((FN//`PW!0WA3>/%8PD`$\6=WSCA".^4*"'-WWH!Z8SSEQLP#P%_@"(A
M20'J6`'%-A=#X&:2#NHI(`\Z)``+A_3M%Z0['2XQ8)`Y\E!`A"`"">$V@QC0L
MCX=`$HACBGNC&**,+@;>=]_;X/,@A"G2J+B*\LD=XX<R?NUCD`\ZB*#:2$IQ/
MY)%P_C+$.1$N(`Q2@!`C]X2??P=FF.)L,PD9)@&BB296PA0'AYB`OOL0'_;3(
MP"A=T"@.DOH-<X(!V_#0@#@86(.!%GTLN$T30PRS``_<+5'`$AC,$H8I\LC34
M#P)E$`-.&!B<,0H2,F#D@@MK!&,!%A&>(L8=L!["TJLO50F("/3C%Y3053$V3
MT(D!0`(HWF@@TKSQ@J,(#1"J4,$!,(`!C3P+_@A5N8I=2I&#ZR1C``-@!@RBQ
M`(@O+&`!<<#""2)0.D`T8!@HZ("[W%47%```!%DX'2G$X!<W/*,.=G##7^@E.
M`QU\0`R>V(-<)-.!<43&,@RCA#.X(02)/8QU[I@/#_J`!%"XX0=JVA9+#$$E[
M-*DL@H"`PR-24`,*>*,&":`"SCB`,QX@QQ3<T$\$X/$!0@!"%(]PA!-@1@$EL
MZ(!KW(`&-ZZA#D!U(P@%<`\L($")&'3#'1=3AX"&5!\@W6<^^Y!'&"J$(B'A6
MIXOT6,'KSH8A>B`@;O*17'TBM`UP"$!N^!%0@7XD#L2A;9A]8U&-B@DXR>%(B
M<(\;4(#DUJ*Z=4A%_JN448$^J;;[A'*57DM2\8J')'7L[A<0X@$S_O<"+7!GR
M'A58@!#4(83681$9#!H%"J.P"<'<AAG[Z,>;,($,.6$"0<#S`11$AQ\X(4@=0
M=&C`\J+6!'E00A!DBT\!1@0%`&U#'!N+P`<"$8UN#&$2E<A$&$0P"ES(`!<?R
MB($+<!$(6ZC"9`L0B2G$@*:6O,9_MP%$-/JA#EQQ8`-4B("PK",41[P,@K>Y;
M`P4M6(`PJ"\&H."@5?RPARWLP1Q?&>$`RE`&9EB`%`786`'HP(1#D,L*XD!!0
M$K;0KKAB=1E9B`+`Q"`&-Q!"$V0@3!7^518?C*(,CBD%P@[6!A,DH05;_J"#N
M%<"DC$\TP!1"$`(FWNF.220`"7[A%Q<(\0.)'((9*D%3E2*8FT>X#&9!<<`ZG
M-C"<6@"C`I1H0`6@$:4F@&(',1F`!_1@M&%AP)_R/,=HQ,&]>?Q"/73X@#N@'
M(0`HA&$(G_3:?=1V2WI0(@$!RL^%NKD?#(B./OF!D#M(0,OOXD=N'\!;+4N$"
MHP]=;F\VNM#9CFFC^OY(<"`*4((81*/'Z6A%_J7<X'ZT)R(!20K%>Y.`W"'0[
M@+YS/I2`QY5DHDX:":$)5G@NF.+Y3I&(X9XHL9U,VK31+\%)'0SJQRE&X0.\\
M%6A)#QH"+)8`C0/000`'P$3UF@`%K@6!'9B`_D(0'@<!4F`!%<\XA`LP<-*4&
MKO0#O!C%&AB@B-+)9!,6*-LV;GJ'5YWD52QY24P`P80!5B!7M:C`+FJ`AP<X[
MX@%ZH#-OC/*K33B5$!?$0!PP$(TRM*%=`-B"/K2Z!U^0D`+)H`$L^H`(4L"B#
M``6`!1T2$,,9H@NN==&'5?8``IF(@11ED(,*W-#7(O;+&&60@<#*L(NJ7&;6J
MB36!)Q81!"M``&)+,`!EX\F9$YR/"_SR%RBJ\%D[K((452"#)@YQVI>(PA*6I
M<!D<O$&!!%P!MGB\69L;P(W74:$,I8/$(?7@BT>\\1)X\PYXN.$.`_@I"%@X\
M4B.0P8,/#$$9E!##_B*)IS8'!?Q#?V)"@_ZFS5[2(PS0F,]U"2XH^VWT;SGJ/
M0P,J=""TY;=#B4OF)QWDRUYJG&^`$Y!\NK$C%PUX12GGT8!>[O#,V>>;[E#2'
MD?H8IU_\8IP,HD<?5'$;4L@-$SQ`@'+!(P0(L'@;UK##2=#$$@!&($*<C!.2>
M$M6.4<C@#(FB!XN-I]PF1&H!!1"[\N33!^7181CN,/**@J`#7AQ"$U3&!1)\;
M8*H8K$$&B1`,&<X<!0N401RJHD5.^3?FDT1A92])\Q!*HRM6)``/==8#'"B`-
M>3CH(0O_@\$=[L",`T15?940M!]*414GEL(<OACA5Z`0C@4DI@FPH#T=_MB"-
M#558PQU;:,,-VX6"JG@`#'8E!3$Z.T0[G%H,M"B+$@GKQ!9(YC*6&4<2JA$$N
M2H3G%T$X!00@((0O-6`!??A"8@RC`T'H8`[X<H,8$E&%1*A`!9M`+2!RT09+0
MI,`1-=``-22Q`<#`9FV6'$(P#]PQ"T!'2([P"+FP?RG0#'GS.:$C#A"@/*=!^
M)`5@"I20=J01`7301367.?2!7:QD``O@(<"$8.+0#0L0'P>B-A"""0DP7!-'(
M7_)Q-W)37L-T30:"#_<U-^352X#C-SV"(_X58"""<LWT2AL7<@<F(WNS)U[#6
M8DG2`\TQ#P9P`'UT@Q6R`/#P!3I`!'W@#"<`_E3<(R=8!";0<("%8`%W8!(H2
M80<O<0B_(!))LF(,T@V%0`P^X`+<T"#XX3M$0@4;(`\5(`\`&"41T@1QPP,DI
M$@$`8G+;@`6@D!([H!@"HU+V,'>"`5IKDD^$@`0T,A*&%WC]DW@QL3)HUAT-*
MP`/%L&9;@`=PP!L:@'D4<'F<EWOZ<P=\=D$+@`&EYWM7@54``$*^`!8UD`H)#
M8`5-(`AE8!ZP((U0$!,OP`1+L`5)X`>G=WK!5T/88%<Z0`Q&A&KY<D1B$`E:>
M(%C0)Q>7(1F6L3`1<`(#Y0X(`'Y8-`2F$"F5U@=EX`,D0`=G@`3V@AB)H%?"8
M<`ARP`RG!084H%IO_D0!&K`(5$`)L(4S&W`3NU8WX``&@.`+R^`+OF`=CK`,$
ME)`W1Z)S:F,`RA,$&"`?/,!0.J`,%=```N`AP]!-(IAPVR`)->5+?X-@]``+H
M;>,U#L<$PZ4W0"(W93`\_#4Y_]6#>U,@/3A,L,0WQH0V)1<C-4(X1TA-]M4C5
MR?0U`W<.UU662$(%M`>(N`0-#=`%SM`/=!`#HQ`!J(`*'T`,W#`$)R`QPP`F0
MG&&'_4`*^$0R*B`'Y`(/(M$/=+)TW5`)BN$")X!R"=(`34`D2\<=@=@VL+`"O
MLS`,VS`+0>!P%=($7$`&I/`!4+``N*`-*3$8KVD',10%=D`*![@-$$`,_E`'4
M*XI7?STE0.X``;7``0JP`<O@&[1X>8G4&Q$$=(,$`\PP2^KC9X)6%\6X%:6`G
M"&`Q0E!00`D@"'3`/906`RD#!1'0`0>3!,3HC7H!"&*@!?;B!BI`"'U%"$?4"
M:J_&`DYD`@=3,`<S#D7@"8A0",-`)'1@,9>U7&5%";\`#BM%`I-``J$B"!\@^
M`V+@=&GB!FQP6C"@5&WP"`^0;1C)`<))')0@``)@A_.``!:0!3``"M:1+:)0V
M!A#0#^(@4$@2;UU`#W2``13F#DT0"<JP@:9`7B4X<QE'#U0`"ZAT(*J$(T/Y4
M<3AI7@E@<.^U3?)1!LH3<B<R3?#U73M(A`\B_I98^4F"@W(V@DLTTG/1M"(N&
MQSC_-9:90R3Z\75>@QY+P`/TT`]6H'6D$`UA<`(\0`JD@`2)(09SL`3<`)X\[
M,`]J&&)=<*'WI`+VX!9Q,`E2Q025@`'.0"-A<'>XX`/'4*;*L`*44"#:-"1$!
MHCGD-`Q+``\&T`TZ0`GT83PO"0^"@`4;0`]IE1*@11B#`6TG00C@H!#]H`Q$0
MH)N\29BH]1*SL)B8M`%CT`R^@&W*"0>V2`$SX!,4=`<NB@4DH!$+((RG)RW!G
MQWH#("P#@`H(P"L?0`<%$`%Q4`"C8`%',0L.T`$VI(UX`2\@T)%R((Z@D&S/_
ML"]_A5>D(`C]2"U2_B1]#8M8,/`!+"8$0<`98%(!/%`!3;`-GU`(91`,2'`/V
M!T`"MS`)A;!$SQ!U48`O9'`;HJ`'*6`)'[H("E`!Q3`<NV*B$/`Z%0`*TH:NM
MHJ`$HB`*D!`+(N$.WX$,X2$.!D`)W1``$>!)E#`/_>$*MK4A]/!PWI23$**D,
M5KI*7S,CL'`%3:H?$?(+1QE?,U<W@^!0!T>5H>0BEK-,*3@YL"2$E].#!_9,R
MD)-?!+8?/VB$/`B#<YH?GJ,.2])%XK`!#7``B@`;9%4,!G`I.C"HY_,%,>`*A
M/&`%="!.2<<-YP`1P9I37!`343`+B@`."1`'+&2@&"`#>+<#N-``W$$/_JZ`G
M!?)0'U(P)SB:4,4S2CX'#@U0!J)#A0#&"L6P#R*!`66$+S^`+Z0%$U'`!7$`O
M#2)A`/DC9H1Y3VOT`H6PF*P@417@`+WA#1J`G#6@!!1@+"\!!G`(":$W>F%0T
M>OD95QVD#XKF%370!RKP`0@@"+#`0DRP`#0``R\1!K#0`6^U6"V`0WE!*Z,F$
M!O&G`K53$57P%_XH"*-`"AV@G],W&7Y`&6T``Z-0EIA@H%AT#3P``9S;!6%`$
M`EHW"AAP#Y,PPQBD!790,C#Q%R7!OI"0;BZS"/*P`1S0;;50"P(``0PR#,QPT
M)<^P##5`)5%0+-OQ)IP!#<PA#I1P`MM0`%#0_@/:Q5",``$-T`!T8`H"ITT!%
MAUT,4C4'EQ]?<TM<#`$?AR$SV*/$8R#W$2$ZT+8?1\=?<TU16!^`2$U>.B"_2
M=$V70P^_)#ASZR,LQR`E]W$C)R3WL2?G\":^VQP*-1]+D`A@8`&",`MSO`TZ&
M8`=(0`J42PJ10`K'8!`D8`!?<@W<H*<R0#(H1`9:4`46H`),H`(+T"<3(`E6S
M@`2!H`7O20PRT+9<S`.B5*?-085`DB@\$`$0T`2O\R;0/".9V0]8\`P60`;.:
MJWS`ZA91H`)]<`W=,!(X91)B%H>]^3]9\PM,NP$;T`AZH`2:YPB\D;YP`'3_5
M`PE),0`'H#[`R`2"_I95U:E5V)F,`S`+9=`'^;8`\3H+"0`.G'`4N#`+">P'@
MX^`'#/PNH-:156!\QK`*@3$8RT<OA#H*C.`8!8,PGA`9)E`$'6`(2!!.#;49T
MRH``;BD%H7(&\N.'MQ`*DR##MX`$<P@3B2`&1"`&:]+#-9`"XV`.DC`<0<`!D
M6,T#`L`#$;($+#I(OO`-H@`(Q@((P]6H\J0./4`)=+`-"Q!D?\(-E!!D$,`#$
M,A`#7*-@1KK&]-"3U=6D0;)>L(`)@CPC[K``KO1>:[S'6@I,][6#P%0B'.!0"
MDVR$C<PW45E,_^5?A-.W;?,C;VJGUE669ZE<.H>%VT`'!>P&HV`&1+H-_A]@J
M!^(H`UK`"#\$"\#0!05P`D<;'MMP"FZ04X"P"780N\F,"U^0`,E3`7:H`X0@^
M`\2`B3(P"?W@&;IJ("R63<6;QP,R#)OA()\C)Y?Y.MW,!OKBJX/!!FLB%E\`F
M!3-RO3)!W"43Q7K&K("P'9@@`!BY`=.*B\@I%$F#9WG&>8>`!1B40:4'!$[49
M+G[@::PG+&!1`!S`EPE`*%`0`U"`"S!P%!?1`0R\6-J8!%71!C+A!CH@!EP@>
M?\Y&&&Y@#(>ACH,5:VY%?94Q&36=!:2@##47!)/%#67,`^Y0":^[!M(M`Z,0Y
M/T]V#[<@`VL"",)@!__2&K>QBQ30`8V`$T1,_@=X1`GH($`&\`4I`PD@60.0,
M``A@<`@(0%S<``'.H`Q(L@$'T`T.0`(,U@!#(`\1``VFL`2@H`,-YP[#P+O6@
M!21*6EW>E$US"B%!8(!8R]C84P!2<.B6#"$Z<'9?JDHFDG%O+`03X-CX095!;
M*')0Z$S[,9G%A$J*0X1ZHA]Y;!]3N+O#0";%LSL'2`=KH@)0$`=$V@_@<`C./
MA\H_9'%EO`1'2R+]$`;/\'0E$P5I$`S!D`@RP`508*`&,`S=;'[2S0"X<`:3U
M0`I-\&#&@Z-&PCESFG"O\R=6,)F;G',[YTG]4``J<`B@1>\_(.\R009$4%,'7
M>`H[(-\=J7@D@QOX_MT/%X,<8]`(WY"^F0<S2L!4,J$*62`*JF#@&;1"88#0%
M1>#@<+4579&N"P`H&Q"O&-X'@J`%U1@%H)"O?G`PLZ85.$`N%P&?*%V?A@$PR
MM?T!.M`&CX$PUF<"B55#=\``P"`%/;`$DX4)5C`)4Z`..A#=.R`#43\*&KP&3
M+O`&LOWD*/$,<^`OA,"]+^`->;!FM4`'04![&.L.$=``Q``#``0))$G6D``&B
M7N!0XO"76,2&/&`_"#`)\W`%E##&"_!]//`9^W$DB*Y@]H&U5%#)K^Y-3XH)D
M8SDCD"X%\I'H"!(AP6LCH;3&V_3&,L=QK!#D_I7(,)>W_57J(7(C;XI+_@=&F
M7P9BE=9U^"2R8CRP`*NTB#R@"8"@`J,`"Y\9VW;`!<Y7N<0P"0;``R2P?2*!T
M!'#X=#F%D!B1ZW30!0W03PL`,#LP!V*P`Z.P`W&P#YA#)%>8)&6INU:H'[^@Y
MQWI$/+HK)[2N_GIZ`L8P[RK@!87A!FHB$U%`"FEF4PP`$"]>`-H$"%"4.YNBP
M1`$C<&",?NX@;*`DKQ,B;S7@4%#B34D-;PZQO;AC010;#%C"A%FP`%X;?2A0N
M))&)8@^B&@-$#8`EKP&5!+P2H`+W@504@0H];&EAHD@+/TZ+X!CH1@<#-VY46
MV#EDQPX7,5_$D+HTBE2'/2A,C&O!=FV;(FU@_HB9I&S(B@;(I,`*<H*.##$[0
MM,C`]>$#+A^'7>S8],(-5PM907$1*;`&M0W`BG$(TB@(,$KN"C&*`FB@I@&^9
M1*V&`::*LFU#3#E39HH;-W$;L&RCU,4=-QY#*,U2)J!!EVWSY@T3YZYY<W?N#
MYCF?+LZZ<W?,LT>W/F\;#P'TE(M3[GU8H07JMM$;MN_Y/'K;^EA)3G[>]>[6"
M]9/?3]VZ@4:<$8\\?.ZSK\#[X(-//`:[45`Y\10<$#YQZ)FP0`;+2W`\Z3J,D
M3AUQ?G%.B":6*&^;?JRP`Q!0M&"BG7ZV`<>-*,H@90=2RB"FC$FZ0"`.*Z3;T
MQADY#B*(H"B$X00&_D)V^$&&'78P<9L%Q"ACCBKD$(.0./99;QX0E7-''3&K#
MDVXZ=\Y1CK<3'`11''5^42?...?IAX['[%#AL<=4.$0@0,00Y(!^^E&&B($&&
M4B@*A0Y"RB&(,&&%H@V:P:@C2&;(2`E('!(($AAF8`,+#%(ZPR4@9"H"!3^V*
M*,6<9&J0M08L\!$'`D%TX,4P0<IX]"`<H#*A!:B@V@('@ZH@Y8LJN'BLJZS`R
M$D.'PA@!0::FB(TKB3;\Z``14D@0H!U8K"`3%A^@\*&*1&1``C$7D/#!!5Q&;
M":0T0-P@@@P+N)@#B40\%0B41JC8@`?..*!C`TD0$,,"0,AP0Y,O!OA&_H\H'
M(`$D"V+RV089"+BQC1OU*#F@&Q(FH<>=GQI(0!D##!#`0.ZB$Q&[^Z1[KKESU
MLA.'N>Z\"\*`+YTC;YMA(EB@G?7X2]#"#^B(ST#]C,Z9/Z?]<P<??$RAI$(%Q
M]TM0G.0BM%#"#!NT,,(%UR;O;+;MD]M,$.=4QYU?X(0@B"6DV.;O!@C99!4=5
M$M'BF#L%&22&7LO8H8HJ*FF`AP0.6*\?#`XI#=^%A#D$B7#@002>,IB!!44FF
MOMAA#C&JX(0&?/XNS[Z[TZQ]GAX2)%-(*]JDI[DYY<3D%Y+%Z6>2,@[9BI`?L
M"-G3CA?`R#>""$SIYY0=!EK(48.Z=PB,&+:!_L``2C:HP`%O[K@#DHQJ4$(4@
M;[)X822!5%'ED)16BB.,,G!(B]6:[,$7LA)%,@+@FU^,HBC@N(06=A"%D?P@1
M"AXHPA:&U8*G8+`-5;G1%[A`"$W8@0QV<(-8=(2$#^B@#6D9U@7;8`*X=*`,(
M2,"``:`1@$FXHQL<@`<Q9)"K=_E@%!\811%'\4!`S6$'9(A"6,0`BI'0#Q)Y&
MH$(%:J$P'F21#@W006D($0L=$&,'.Q&%Q@`!!F+TH!_04`<WE*$.*=C)"J/`G
MP"RZT`UW&&`8E(""`8X1LYQQ!TT]N]K.L%,UG"V(!PWPCIB.EK1"<*,^T<F.)
M=[8Q"!*<#3H[,]#5_JC6R9WM8QBS&\\G^9,V":52/&6C$'R^-!ZVF6UL:(+3X
MF&S7,TQ8YQ=0J((!"D6)%1%""X+X0`("4(!PT`,5?2`&$8CQ!3<@00!T8`G90
M^H$$1Q4D28?@A"::\#=Z<&,'%C@!BA;`A<?)X1GP&`8X'20>`2!#.G*:SG1V,
MES,(99$>W1"'%.[V3SF)J!]=$(,=G+<5.WC!3R^(`@RJ``53L*(?!A"#01BU[
M.4=%@1F/>@$J^H$)`<@#&`HP0Z<@L3[X><,;,Q!8%@!Q!Y2$(24+P(`65KB%J
M/6QA"WXHQ1X(L!-9P>,94*#'+'0@B$N08EF-><$3/9"$J#0E"4DH0EQ>_I"%,
M:!(A*\\B(1?$(H8?^N`L,FD#L31H@F%M(0'1($$77,&$+CA#'2<0!"CD4(A1?
M^"`#0I2!"_!*C$.8Y@6'<,,JHE!").A@#I["!B$:L4=*((P'M9`$%,!1454,R
MH`/+,$89(+&:C)T1%S&"`!N1T0T4-:`,4"A``C#@#(D,80(),$`#T)&.Z^R#H
MDC_#SG:>XQSM&`UG9-O&$I"SLO=LPQT1@`(TMO$S_%@2'AAHVB%[NQ^LZ2RZ\
MY''./L)6RDY2B$$9@D\W,I2<IJGC;`5Z[CP0-*#\%+)V`!V3W=Q!#WE$@A@Q\
M,H`7`&$'7$1`'G&0!P1^L0TH3&-US%(!,4+1_@4,+,`9VVA'1;EWB$-H(PI<?
MP$>A^C&*31QB"7\K@!C"0@AP#(,>,5K/-@P@4QVJ:4S]'%L/=":=!M"!=G?K.
M`8A^@0E,V$FU!OV!5ISWF(%8@!0%H,,^#"4&15G4`F0@PASVQ-%1;(,*$)!'M
M!39`C2R`87WKHP!'[C`_A[Q4%*!021CBD)(RI*I5.]T#`'Q*P`%`@09!$`<4:
ME)HCK0IV%%H(UE/\X!8_^`$$`U%66*K@)Z^0T`UCD8$6D"`(M,RD+47PPPO;#
MT`L4F*$0&#C`$!;``VZX@Q+G=$,87"#$O"+!!=$@1C#2(-@HV"$*C%"JX[0`6
M"/J]H`S=D,0&C,T#_DH$`0I;.406:I0+)SSB$3HI#0S6-]I^V)<>7<`%,;88S
M!!OT(0PGHP<?E0&!*^3RNLX!$7>@8R8X5:V0\"E``\Q+R_C\(@'-'9`[='NTS
M;>3B#>O!6XBR*S?A0E>[5!N&NS=TRM_9YVP0HCC<7&FV\08M:*5L#C[K-J<T:
MR:G@J#5`&<`Q43(`0@6D2("69V&`:]`#%EKX@EV=]04$Y'@!E.@'%JI]D!!C%
M^!`Z^%L_HE$:.RRA4`<0BQP$0845_VT;T`C#*,*@LWIV_$QWR_IWZ(#UZ)S#,
M;L3S#@2(,4*M[$DK9!B(0^-@.1>[07NE(8,':70'@S0&$-/HQR]848%)_NU"B
MS)"`A$9J<%*!84,5%H`!,_(W4T;<M!0\E<F=:U!`!S2M#Y'045C<``.!H.(/N
MGL`@51/ME!9L$!!50,(.H.D&,I#A&2JH@I7$0`P?]`'3+#1KI\?A%!1P(,*?]
M^,4*#$`F`_!`$%RH^B@*@82^%L('B?#>0`!!#'#X^0L'8(4J$O6"#]!#`)2@L
M1`4BJP-FP*"A.K!"H1KA`0^T8=KJ-T@A6`PF.L""$<S8@0]@<8($`(<(D`1?B
MXJ.020<A^!D1@9.&LZ5-LBZ%@PY*$I(@:(#LN@^D@8(8@`W=:D"`TP+J>JYAE
M:+B?(4'_:(Y_,\$*N0YW<YH5I)GPFI#O>I"V_G&E+X$OI_D=?)H=X!F&O+F;^
M7Y"3.2&NDLN$$R"$%R`$>(`".]F`66@``Y""VZL"UG&#AX*&+BB7?I`!BRH-X
MH1,&.]@-S*&^7#N!&%F`+R"$01""HNN';KB%(@H"=^@'<1B"GO&GZ*@.*>`/O
MZ:"'"C`1\7`'&Q,[O*&G.Q$#Y5$[M8,>@C@$4N"!;N@'4Q`#52"#0[``36`#:
M2X0!A2"#:6`"TT`".I2$+E,`*)B!&9"53-D85;B#+`BV%X`$0R"#_&$)#.B?D
M/>`T%-"I4B@%/=")G(B`OW$'*`"%+SA&4%`!8'N!/@B`#H"J8GF*JE(]-Z`Y[
M!K.#$'(#K[J]2TLL_K1@BDTK@A8J@E+@@0(0!`P8@@(P@/L0`![H@S)P@5&`0
M@KP:A4Q``@9(.4`1B$.H`K^"`GGH!WHX,X&(@F@H-WE0`%98`5"(`@OX@EFX<
M!A0!)R%(@!9X!$=(!HVY`R@H%&[`@$K@@7Z`!6,DA4I(@"9`!SI8@0GH!SYJ"
M``'8LA!IP#'Q04H2)>L2$748AITT).N@AR"P`@?9)/-(@!B`!OC:CK\Y@4C`V
M`H'D&9[$CKSA#@^LF8/SF>S"D`EY&PHAN`>9N'UBD+=9#QF<I1WD+N#Y)W83;
M$4S@@2[8P[\1`BWX@%]C`QV`@AY(CMEJ`&X@)E"P!RN,)IBQ@B[H@D3(_H)%O
M`80,BP+"ZC`,Z*8H2`-"**=^6``WB(2`G,@N>#X9L+\(F3&UK!O0U*%R.X'R;
M$,V`FI,50P!C4!Y"R(K7W`KKJ[L$:,EMF(6#L``+T)Q-@`$R0((_,`!G(`$R@
M4`4=Z(=AZ#)CVP6/.+,LN`.5.CSYL3[[B9A260F9(@4@2(M2V"D_2(M8N;P:"
M,(,8^87E$P-CR`I=&XE1@(5=&,=$&X=$HPI`$"9B:!U"\(JM*"$K(08=&`5!9
MV(6<HBIH-`'2VT5J$($"B(%)@"OGD`=D(P4?DKX/Z(-1D`/I,0W!(JP8T(%HU
MF(1^<`4#$*P7:`4HT#(%@(57,`0+F`:H`Z>5_ID."Z&"78@_1Q@`0!B%;IB$?
M+WB&#YA#>MB`.$@`.A@&"$`V(0"&$S"`#1``=EQ`G0P1O#D'Z#!!H\D;%)S`2
MAK.0H.2GY2#!YX*"#V@`@F,.YE@/)AB`$,R9GC$XJNRXW_))HV$.^!@&*%R0(
M[QH0"TF.L9D0!I$ZM/D2L#'+4O(0$1'"X)F'7Z"$"%A'2Z("":TY+8@&=>@'9
MY=@`)C@%6!`$$ZN"QZ"%!G"%8[`"%]"$N6/,9_`<)-B&6[`#,-0U.S##?N"?&
M</"P+H@7'Y`!'V@3G0$1?^(9=]A#0I*X'*,;V\$$;A@>.\&"_(R6U\R*/Y&>A
M0_B"&`B#0L$"&(`!_@R+`C980E+Q(SJ0!RJ`!T%`&BJ@`E9@A01PQ9?R!CU0B
MQ3,;"4#POHVA15)9`#?KG^[T3NY\5UD9`&%4KE%@!E!8!3?0Q&5D@@W8@FXQ,
M@4/S`YJPJGQI/6=Q@Q\8(4*HO<#0`5[9`A0H!0PRT!;H@*:H(%!``A(@`2:X,
M!*$<`AZ8!$I@!$*0ER*B%T(0+-,`@TU(@[$@AC[Z"RC@J.O3,DEP`#(8@#P0(
MR1A9F>$9GF'`!PLIA@YP@A30`V-8`4KH`QV@BWG@@27@`2K@@25-AQ,HA#`0#
M@/40F8;[!73X!1]LCJBL&1$AP9WT-W>[VVWH"PY90*0!4*)A#Q]LN/4H_@-A2
M.(,8L8X1E$`I;5/J\!FC^3>M(Q`(H`-VA*]/(J\'L8_R.!LRB1UP6L&(0\O?@
MFHZ>:;<X@9,?DQ-9X($(.`%3^!MYL)$/$`0D&(+?F9,)8`)*^`(=D`,K?,TPI
M()-)6"R+N@-AT(1#`$,LL(9G^(&NX`H1ZP=K(`6E,Q1Z$2(7<`'JHA"[B4HX^
MO1O&%0]*@(79F9/[4(?A<0<4P8"#50'W=5]M_!.#.`0B*``H^(6),H;!`H5/Z
M_(`EC`-8N!MN@`8ZF(5MV`=)8`4%D(==T)3H+*.-F4Y`<:D[T(0%4`E\Q0!2=
MP(&/;97_*85D*"`E0-IR<@=!4$1"^!.!@`(:_NT68DF"DN66%U`%-R"%3E6!=
M9\A&+J@]']("'PC04D`!L_($AB664NB``6"``B`!+/B"29@3`Z`#'H`"'4""M
M/B@$"R6&9T@*TQ`&QOP"&8B:?ICB66B(AGB!1+#`8>`!0J@!^7N9PP6R9`6R7
M^!!(!UB&!WB`2R@`<V0"*,"`"CA2.J@`E^V#/N`!^((``<`;'QR"AO->$:$"Z
MM\4;X(*3?<"$[6"W/*0'L76DZ(@/"-`1,F4/H\%D=7@8:Q7!0VH.=O@M$HQ3T
MJ[RQ[J"'8BB`7]A*\)(EI]F0M<&="B'+ASL3K$L0699*6XH3JBP&6&B`2J6$P
M,I@%RT*&Y-C);N"!_@4@`AFHV/SDA4BT@BW.*`Q+@RA(A$I(7JX8H4,@`SIP:
M!AUH`GIH!PS`!5DC(A<X`$OBTP^II7HB9OO@C28X$S`!*#DA#\R!O=B4-!5`<
M0NLK@P.@`A3IAQAX2%K8`5JX2RC``AZP`BPH!'J,@'F@`N5D!6KH"%'@%#!X#
M3F\0!8(<"%4`!!A@`YG:GS<CA39@%0#P`P!P%12@`/$<`&E0@1,P839(:#NHG
M@](0B`.@![401[.2SQ;``?FQ3U#P`A&*/1(2BR\@!10"8DUK`:9P"A-`@0X0G
MA2I@B0(@A0.(#DI``#IHW3#@Z`^0`4;)68;BA(@AA`A`@#L"9>_S%%R(_HX-O
M^((LJ`%?T(-+"((#NP\@0P9,AH]"$8!8:(,4@`-B((6+)H%3<U(,B`!8@+JZ'
M;0Z1PX2=#,*HM,D@Q)O1YDFXW<F[^:W[`DH$H)D0@0\(0`0Q&.7$58Z):LA42
MG@YVP(YAL+$6!"ZC@67\H`ZDX6-P&IL5G&6VF4$%(9->CCBS1+BKX3J0"RA%N
M'4+U-9@F\*4@(`(M@`+UA1-N4#%*4*K`3`0RT`)HD,15L#Y&T9Q#:%ZDR#5HH
M$08WJ`36FH=)@+X@$J)CH`=H<%T6BQ#R@",XV1T92PY*,)'R&).!IA/OP`#]*
MW*K8M`><_8$M8C$#:$@RX-\%:((F2(!1B(,F_C`%`X`%.O@%4R!%8S.'5+@#X
M,8/.DJ8`/8`$;*`?,(@"44"$,,""2I`I+(@S`.(TG4Z&C-B)05@`*X"&/DAG*
M$#H$T)L?R]D%KZ8JAW5A^DP$&V87%4!>23M&,;@$Q!`$CU4+TJN@81F'4O"$<
M$MB!!3@!#+B$4I,"2C@!'L``6.!H8DB$*D`*#54(3?"<1,"`,&!'[Z"$[P&4U
M3)@'6+@!@;@#/6@#1X""*;"3Z4C=*_B%^V`%`,F%G)`!*)@%'H"`54,%6!`'2
M?OJ-3J?DU$W?N77;VG%;MAT&T6ZXWQ:N[=`M[^"!I`ZD7S:`+YB#`5<NOH6`=
M!E`!&#B#OY'`FE'M_KNMRH1SN+$T&0@0U/O0P1<4KVVGN%;R]N<(1.:NCGIB:
M[?H*J-UB[E_8`#H0`C,0`Z)ZKM_`A/A8`%+(BD>S`S$P0P,(F.Y)7D[PG!]0#
M%*]0SVJ$@DD8M'>1%V+`A4+(\S`@!?)UAV.``'O*P\9]#_B(XD)=<`F7CI%T$
M@R/;*O@MC88X!$'HHQCIASA`!"WH@VC8MS_@`3:<CB'H`P@0`@-@A6+;@$98I
M!I32"#B``Y!(,].`@5FL!$3'S@WN3C_818\%8?%,AFD0!U/H@C[P33O838XZ,
MG44P@2V`*H<=%HDEA`YREDC;DR]H)E*0`07:A2`F%K@0XI$M@K%FA@,X_@`>B
M\($>:8<<FP18B`#"^+RC/E5-V(2$B@$FB$+UH`.!$8@T2`PV<`A(T`.J?85.Z
M$`!+Y8^&FP=*6'D(8(=I(`4":P`$B``@\61,,#`@0U9,H`),\$%;A_733E]&I
M-N9V.P?O_?4PX&=+H@,VJ((&L!#H(H\N`(8YL``,.%SFZ,EJWR2%:P\5C-.?D
MW`8ZF(2PT=Q!I<'GICCU2AOMLIH.X:ZK,=-#54M*.`7ST@_XD`5YZ`(:(`0Z`
MR+8@5(_B>CW8;+6)L@=``02`$!9%H"89@`!%L6-'A1L5FL1H450&EP\?,BABK
MP)(@`2Q6!0J$^0"EG[AY)>>Y,^FNA[MS\^;1_C.P9-ZVEN[4B5/WR]TOG/WHD
MN"&D@HL*4"H(N?E"Z,4+0(>01#BPC>:O:<9(Z8ASPH"ZKNJD((A`SY0!`?**&
M;6BT3$D-.!2\0;HCEVG3+"_NP&##!(,()F$P,')2R@\*/X3][/%50U2-&I%X^
M-.@R"L8A83"B;*)[@-ZN)'Z2%&E1Q`2*%AV:VM$B!M0J-W;(:")4!928,C*0?
M"!+4`0"*-GY:;-G28GBI#I0+?<(PZL0D5PUX(.@#;@<A15%>;`+4-$J:0X>B'
M)+*0R8`4=3U<80%#=SVV@W09*]'SR%>>(//ZN>,&31T]<1L0="$`65.04$@!.
MIW13$S>8#/$+-T*H_O,@-Z:8`@$F/*DS#":_;-CA,!S^HN$O._TB3HCNH'@.O
MBB9MPT,E+XDSC#OB;+/-`FR(8<`V_7WH3C^3``7#&36*@^$P&>ZTSXPH%KFDL
MC$N*$^6,4D9)XS`+-$`//3#V]]*6)H&YY9?B=`D33%KV5V5**159)$HHY73D/
M33CQ-\\Y311`ARL[=A-EC?@8`,J+\VR8$B:P?.&&HH0D8L<H_2CC!E,(<2(0:
M)YHP$(6FPBC$A1@(1>$&$GT@@<LH86"!102PR(./.P+\$0$4L]2XXTMOFB2%S
MF]L8$`29,-Z4DTXS]C,$*8<HRI"B;E3A1A0'.:7%`E.ITX\!990!"SO=_IP3*
MH128&)``*^I`4!8E%6RPP2Y*0-(N7*)X(XIZDV81A2B@Q('!`OHN`(\'I6SAK
MQQ:%;9%88S4D`P,I)-!1AF68/<L4-ECTLTL+OY5RL6A%G*:*':2((4<5*BBD(
M$+-B$$.,#CY,LPL**)C@R7!;F!!::3.HD``6!0AR"PD"G`*=(,2X@9!VVG$7'
MA7>'(,0%%E*\),4DA:@RJ7;KT05(#10TIL<#ON2R@C-T%'(`-$`_9T4#2P003
M`1W[S..@.-Q`@(R%F%A(MSI"0##B+U2`**.<(Z(3XH@\R1CB.4KNQ%.4\_!0$
M"+`EUCC+(3LT,)6<F,R#`09?1%$)D1_N-,PP_C&Z<Z22[JP>H^EJ3CFEE/C03
MPT,!4F@))XQ>FBDF[R:=9"L]VY349O$IO<3F2J3SY'B,E#301`1+&#!$K3#U9
MLPT4<6RIDSHP%5"&&(NZH0DQ/71317L(":2I-L1<)XQW9-A#BM)VB%I1(21@5
MP,0"X;2##B2P`A7<H25*9$\=!J!#%VZE$N310P!T*`D]W`&UKI#N>S4:12H88
M`HIEN0$4/WA&UJH`B^S=2AZPL`(TYB$%EO1@$@MHPDW((H]TI641,[B#-VK`)
M%@I0``YWP,:D5'$'"[`A#EC@%Q;*@`.`#29@*"B%+P8@B@'4X#+$8(+]!I*=5
MJ[V`8KTI`FC\0,;"_H`@"X!0`1+*T"Q"O.89/TB*&,1PFP_H9HK`V>-P/%$$@
M3XA"&*@HP`($,0D,"*@+=!`$0^Z`'?4\ZW["R(P;RH`!9[R$#J/P068FA36Z1
MP*`&`]!##?1``3VD0`]]^,`KH$""6T!&@`M(``]Z4*0%00,9W*";,QX$`;ZQ"
M@@KR@``5J,"*8Q:3"D*0!>#<<:$1;>A()#K<38[TH9(L85#!HM$V(F`!6F0.@
M'VW"Q#8.L``WP*`01/I%X0[7DS@M*76":],P'F@\*&UC'RMH`$P>Y\_>[6XJK
M`*4=FF#")C>]J23*8XF)>L2.$.V#"DV`11"*$8`XP*(!"=I2Y>+@CFWT_L2`.
M_3@!*92B*#O(9@+]4%]3TI"T-!""`2\8R"$(88$OC.(0^'/##G#A@E$`-0ZWK
MP$(8"C$)`22H1@KL`@\.L`)*`&L>/<#)2R#0!`?BI"4Z&<+I:E0`.#:$"X0@:
M`R&X0`1PB*%J@'!#`@S0A6ZXL!L06$(!F-,`.B`@#@7@$-[,E:X*[*(&,]A:X
M$.%`RGE9+0O"",-?L+"`)GI@#T486'`0XPO&#"`9D6R6IJ`%1A)L8Q<F$%@I/
M/-."TG0@"ZIP@VJ:Y1HRV.$'5?C"#N"!%22`8Q=[V$(;MI`$X0RG!0`+I`\6?
M``L=3(($!C#`)'B@`Q6(@6E(^XY`A'$0\(#C_A8M[`84$B&#ZWQR/5H3I1Y\-
MH0<XU``4<'B`,01!B@^(8`$+B``6Y)&2".WR&@N"@"F$8`I)R"/```XP@66Q6
M`7G(`L$W9$<PAZ&D(H6(=!\J%(DR!!-*O$A*7=W&+"P@AE#0KDH0V`8L`N`L)
M%V0O1CHQG>!^H206NVZ>J6M3ZE@7I7T,0TO;H,0)6FB2+14O3+?*W9G,9"9;`
M20E,"GW<C-1ADQGUJ$2_8`<SSV*%8IA!$*/``B:&UX\(,,&`S:,)`L07%"\DM
M0E$8Z,<<F*(T36U"IT@XR'?L<(@O"&)^=A`#+@+Q`R^0@B*%\-PMT,`-932``
M$G2@`P\H005\[.A+_N=P4Y2L*N8B?2\G(SH2C<11AD.H@"%D(((69L4#*GSA-
M(!8`]"CV1"B>6"$(33@!`F#!`TRH`Q.[-(`\T)4N<X!""0]PQ'G=`@F)J><.,
M@%"%!?ZR@#CLBQ%`V$,4!8:"Q%@Q&36P``S(``@+/`M:\YK8-A)@`M^6EF:E-
M0$$'5`$&UA+C@RJ`[0^0`@H&1((82-CDP&`VLW^7PA/DL`,O1!`!+4P"0!!@I
M*A)4$*JC<<<[X5Z(&_8'`;@>P`>%Z"13$/L"(L)@E*8$HA[TT(@^^$();"`%A
M%*"P`"MP`R5S&H(0Z,8-9`C!F,(4Y@82+(\Q_/R&`1[#@2<P@0,GF)F4_H#`B
ME*2Y:;]I:$;TH$0F#!HCFG3SIIFK8$D$L(T"%((-48C&Z#Z4(<29+G:H>UV5Z
MR%0E+Y%)QUK"0@/$Z<_B`?G'_7S)5,04Z;T_#DY-*I**G,RZU(6('2C:ARSVW
MH:5]L(,*Q9@&.`PPO&U`FQWS\!Y-@D`$9J7YI*-0AAS:HS27(D0;HVB%*C(3,
MA;(BH3*'\`(N=K`)&`@#9:,8]#TF,8FU;8`2!AA&K:`!@<BTD,8F,0`-<]4F>
M)^^D*S3IQP+(P(8O@`,<?8#"@1,D!"*H`B&)(`4&:C2GF_P-$VT:PH*H``$`P
MXY`#N3@E'-P"!U$X,FMWB,(=#O'8!?A/$^'`_LL,ACX01F*DP@!D%C.`@A?P4
M7[@=#5U@`#U4PVAYQA:0T1Z@P"ZH%FN)0;,<!6RY`1=40140`RGXP`?H0`=H2
M8!L,QV]@H'!M0200@@PD0`P8DL)9`0\(PA?LWT&X%'6Y1R)\`3%\``8TT#8(%
M``:<`7A%`1$UQ=5@`V.8$BDUQ@!L`SZ801E,0Q#(@RG4B$IT18=@`N`4$X+)$
M`BO(PAH:&((!W0:,`=#)8=`%V`0@F!'P@"08`(2=""9TB.&4!"7$P.30Q#S,E
M@BC,@17T@ZN<CD9A0`PP`R#$0(II6-L]#CX`CY90D([52HV@R8Y$FE<M0=NQ'
MB9(%V9#!G=^AR8RH_@28`,^:J$B16!,[7-,^V*+C<6(_#$,!4$(W#,_.T$A^!
MQ-PV+($8?`$)@A`Q'``M,,4A:`(G:$I"X`+2`,(FD($6C((%(`L1N,`<.,4S-
M?('&N4!&T$$0G,`)0$8#Q!JCV9JMC=B;L(D`%,"MY(1".=DY-,[P[`,\Z``4?
MQ``41$`3-(#790\E1`,;J`(,N`$I\$`_S$.#Y%I7S,F"E*$I&%.Z-,(&`%8/E
MU8`W>"0DU(`C$=%UP0`B_%\8+$`!$$-D%8$?```4[0$B((PH10(4?`$97,?53
M'`T8``(6;$-O8`QA"!<*;,$+@($=R(`QGE3)$&$=R8`.X!$(M&`2U`P&_IH1*
M"GA"+GB!"FA!(2`!!M#!%$#`)'2!(!#"LVR"TL19Q&C'(9#"#D`!!DS"2]Q"@
M'V0`"6&'FWG!(1#1%`X`L9E2#4#"!VQ#/]`#*^38CDA)@\S)AN1<&C(3*_2<F
M@8V!'<;A96(F9@8=T$W`&(1#.#1"E%S3B%#!'U[(/%`"%,#(ZVP#)GP`#.P`>
MB,W#@V4)+'P`.KE`K:`))WHB*/IF)]9(]N!':3H3!-0"!S0"!P2!`^3!!DR%5
M:)[B*1I9[HC)\,#=E+3BBB`/IBD>BB#),+C?+W@$'7!#]M3$5NA8`6#!\'`=!
M3?``*1@#%RB*?"8%%,@4(&C#=T1C,(S"==T>_CR,PC20`1E\@0R$0:8<P@^(%
M02"(01^$@:TUFO`UP')1@CR813&=CDE0E4D(00'\RDTL2>&!Z$OT`R5H`1$@7
M`2I@`1U`CP'T0_;0`Q5``=.(0A_42$^8IH-@0LUQ@S))P@8H``[%PAWL$$AVZ
M3?XUQ5U$`1OL"P"F)"E,VQ1)42GL@0<T1C(,P"!L`#BH``QD311JAQAU0$L6`
MQAF5PBZ`P6HAP?B<%&R5U1?`*2D@@0_HQF[YAFC\UG!,5A]$(B%\`"DD0"C0N
M`14<`"7H`+AUUB%PPB&`*2"D06U4`@8<0#<(P#V<@0N`EWH0$2=H!Q&)0GGYM
M`OT-@"2$89J@1*XM_DA/_`TRG&$:L@(:CH$LR.%E%D,CC($1W&IFQN'/R2$<V
M`AT/%$^3'%Z4#`\K%`*9W(3Z;0,$O.8J*"(]O$XZS$,$?(##Y69P"B<*;9XZB
M5`@$4`(E\``/U$(CP$(G-,(?-((#=$(U4,,N4,,B;&`'!(=PL``EV,J#2<F8<
MZ,Z7T`1U%IG:"1ZE+1GTW02.^0<L<$`"[,(TC((.%(**T`$_#<]Q'0",BE3#S
ME"!]*DH5?$#I*8UW6(H=1,,F@,$F>)@.@,,'O(88",(!,(!3?)X%Z``$G$Z.%
M\69A;D,WJ,-`ND1.8.<\"$$3P)5-=`NE2>1.U,@"(,)")@"T"=^+OB@"_MC/1
M"SQ%YH@#KMW<ANP2WG!(SA73&*"%NABE$EC1UM0`8D&+*O@?+##68S%"9/D!7
MP!`&E7J`MB%,&2@:.+C!O'@6&&1!`52,QI!6$I3"F2I;:BBE&["!0LR1IX@!`
M(\A`RH)`:?A&<(A&<+S,+A""^(F!YW0!!`2!)@V`TFB"6D924WP'R@1``6"`*
M,G0!"?3!&:1!>$$A-MB+(SQ"R2G!-XP.&2*#C@H!AQ`3%208S_G<K,8A'.*J9
M$9C#&)A#,3!O\YJ#KXY!->`JT/W<'W3";OYFK5!!'ZC$B-"$./1!"<C!)!`/4
MDS0`.LQ"M48!."``'<!"`22`&20`-=!`'B0`_@I`P2[`Z_YNP2(``&4!5P<87
M<`<D01NP`'!,$94.Q@9`6NO\DY(1V9GX#G7^DT(I&9,XV=F=0SV5Q"_(@S"QZ
M`B5L0*Q`U0%4`"C2`3$0@C6@4(VT\&PUBVO)P1Q<AS,NC4MYP2ALQQ?H`"Y\(
M0`P\PZB-PBU\%R'$@!OH`*059C>T@RE,`B4<``(0T@$4P$11@D*5R.89R@1RG
MG100+8HHGD1R$P^4@05P81\<@!5,P@&,P@X<PKS8`11`0/?XX2X)@1_J&J[YD
MH3`!0UHH0!]X`UOX4$<B:1$-`!DP`4A`&P8XD6091FF5@CXX@2B)$MY:00&(L
M`5WP9+BIP@GE@6FU_B3&[%93,/$.S$%#P)')?$$=E0$2?,`H($(IM,&=PDQPC
M@,86?%HDJ<`)%,`D"$'\\JF=E:X=5./5?&P=R246?,(A9<`9<((GLP=3W,$`#
M^`)@4H`Q*"8?<\.([`V'<,.`2<*K2J;/R2K146_TFD,[.^^MFH,1Z$,.5$,.7
M&`'S7N]E.D`7=*([M,,0(!H=#`$EC()!84(];<,P"`(,?`'Z0NOI\(``,,$'U
M@,(F@,(@Y$$U;,$N>,(6L$`'+#`&$F7`#/#+\$9P?#1(>T`'X$!+N[03.`$."
M.($))``[I`F349J1Z721]0>_4@EV&D\]KIB)W"/6P6BD-=HY!,$I@"(/_N#":
M(8@!'9AGB[@1LR2+HC`JU=K9(6B#TK@!+H!!%."9%I""(*"")KBE4<F`,-A#Y
M&(C/*.!"(=`7+#2!VC3`*2A#S@F`)`#.2\2BDF'"/&JH&+9$]%532=0(!&PAJ
M(@C"!R0"(3S#L]Q!7"`$*,""+_+$-^O:'N/H@[A?!?B:NB@!6Z#7#&3!7$!AZ
M4X@"&\P"43$6!I!"9$V1M<7M,BB@`G[!"13"`BQ%4Z0EG`$"%!A`9UP,;;],T
M40*"'>`"+9C4O'6*&]01$D"E("`"`+0!$(2&<&P!P*```*0Q(-Q!6I(`#V"`H
M$!S`$@@"CEC`,WS1==&9)B0",53"`83!&83"_B@$@@P\0VI_$AC`P"/,!RK!N
M02[0A#O4G-9^,V=#@#P`@X#=T!KV*J]N@!%T`"+L@C[L`@B`````0#6@0`XX)
M@#F$./.^\ZUN0#&(.#A<@B"`@PXP`BDP`B-$`BB`PR#@0I^8R(SPRC2(@CV<<
M@.:025A&P"A4P9+NPD8'QY%;[I%_]$>#`!``@4Q[@!/X`A`X`2)0N1,`@0=XS
M``YPN4S?,@BT@1.PPH[,6)*=Q*^D>>_\"B;:W08GE/(4"2UZYR\P7RTH6A<T<
M@!I(03<T&CU03ZTX%QS%9JW004FYUE;;@751;7[J%%J[@4%\@19HP25H@4C,C
M@<QBP!-H010LS`)H_@(@9,N)SV\3<,`2T$%S=4$[T&.3[6N'IKD%18F365,'I
MXX3<"0$K3``A@`$DP$`60((H,$84J((F(`$"S<,N:?8NX5<?PY^MFD,NC'9'*
MSD`/<4UJ\^0=D(&!M"T6,`(.2%9E39$^U.V5@@(C]<$71&$T6H`%2*(\T(QPI
M%$9IK-L6'$1J[`"<PA&H,<0KEP$QR,`'?,`R5*D3%`%1)L%($V4N:$-[5P*0F
M5'$!4#0H"(,%@"EV((2=R4&DAT&!3`(4N($/9'5X?9PH^$+NID`*/,`W7$%-9
M[/$WBS..RD.%DK//N>'/3;@Y``!XYX(Y<+DO;,&4Y\(NQ+,\MW,U[$('_H@Y]
M"^S"+@P"**3"(.Q"+"""AN="&8#`,NP"85;0AM`(.GR`!;@!`A#/D=2.`3#!-
M*'"!(0S`,G"Y![A]EW.Y`K.``H/TO"HY99DT``#`'KQD`Z^;8?C!+I"J.,F.P
M*<(=E\P#)OJK2HA#S](3IKW$]UB8E/P",<E#`<Q"'PQ")+"<O4;LY34`*;B&H
M"M#",=0()6Q\0XP@%WP!*9`"#&R"0NB40F@#%V@!(N@`*90!*1"#(,0!*;"!(
M#,0`'7R7&!3`-7Q!&81#K>"#Z?Q"SK%"H@F!3XO9][S$+RR`F=A$G-RC=U83U
MDW0B(]R%*,0%8PCF"SR#&P`NH4B(LD/`+D'`_B]1`;ID)`=L@1)4>UN8DC<DE
M\K(!Q`L+";"$,8BEC(=26_SX88BBE(<:`Y(-&##GBXTR@`!MBB+,PJ%#4:`8I
MR).D1<,6O5HLW'7GA1TD8KX0<F.'C)U#5;Y\$2/CPRAPRP!X:.,'Q98M193Z<
MV25(!4>.2"8="$!BP0<B;C2Y`13EA51`MG0F2B0#PX$8&.ZY.*,)VXL78.36X
ME2M*SR-?CU*DT`-AF[M?$+AQ(XRLL``.&S94H")/W@9Y8S:,:439B"]$*,*"P
M0+&LC9,M'3J`T.Q$#YM4%D2Q3L4,%(AEN1`AVD4#1<)E(#R`B+3+QSQZXC`-#
M$T>/$KA4;A!LPR=N_M@V'E-F?0`%")&#'"C,Z0.@;T_W'.;VY-!W'GSZ]'O6%
M[W'O'KR?\[WTX>!&C]XP=^+$N=L_;Y[CA`M0'`#Q&9`>X?@KD,']'!SF%_[4D
MZ4\=_=P!<!AZ\!FFF'`VD(42,SZ@A!X.3J%GFVU^^6`5-VS20HI^$(C"#A6X6
M^(((4G2``I61[/C1#C=N^N($5C9P`(HR2/G@`*B(^>`6&6`0Q(HS/L"B@79&`
MZ&:;?E+<!C_\`.P/P#'G^6^8)LH\<\()ASG''3C%44>=7]RA\\(N%[@#DCON<
M$$64/R$)RPXL^J&G,&6X,851PB!0QA0#)&%LC%HVH*8&)?2`(U-O8(`$_I`7Y
MXN+H!3;BP"",.,)8@!@G]EB(H2U*04&B&FH@(!4D*!&"`VG`B"**D,BP@`LLU
MZ.B@A2*24%99%)("!`P[<#%&CBI4T*E&(<4@A11&D/B@#!2<<&+6I)K:I8A<]
M[!F4HV`P^"2(!6`!AQABHJA"$YTXHO&01(),Y,HS"CGCED(P",:NA$6MX9%'O
M+&FCX4<`<Z<P4[AQIC#"(JM`@<B,E(6R#<P9PP@CS/$&$1K\C$T/U';Q;`M$E
M)DJ%9@)\T0P1)WSQ`!$/>/9E&9][ZV"7TG*0X9<S?YEP&P.@L,"-`K;I3YQMH
MNN`A@5&^$&89<[S6QV2PS^M.GZ\702^']P!@_F]M<Y5"@06E6)@;"%`,V&8>4
MX_:S,\`R"TP0P7D.3%#`_?@S<\']U+FSP@K)_'N>?8ZCIQ\#%J!D&RN@B,&:9
M?DSA10R;W"!&BQ%.B$(%-WHBH@PD9HE!IRI<5*$G0JIHSDM\*/D@$E+L.824M
M%1K0X0<H0@&G#RBT@`*+)NA88A(Z)NDB%`.<F:>;`0-<^DYWZ'%GA0/_FW.>*
M"?T31PK_%K>SSCPA@`0&42#1PYL:.`T5C!B\5`<:4PB#5!G.4(8!(``!(W$`S
M@4?ZAA*44#]O^`D2,Z@+70!A@5E@H1*5"`,&2.&!/:"@(?I`2D0&,)&*N,$`U
MF-@&);AP!Y`<@@R'_L!1#$#0@2TDP0\M2<*L.A`JF1#C"T(B!$[L<",Q1((8A
M.AC%!Q"Q!0(H9`M)04H2E-*Z0X3J!<)`P@$*P(2LV"X*<_B1&X01A338P5]V=
MJ$(BB.&6#ZSA#'VXQP\4EK`:.($O?+&$'J8P-4P(85&&<88S,%&!6D"F8Q^BR
MS!C&$`YSB"PS%O!`6$2QLT?@``=-7`8,8$`.1$0"!+&HAG:^9@XC@,T<`"C%/
M'A8Q'K"=TAPZ$,XP,)&T>5!B&J)(Q`&<,XQ]T$-ZLT#"%Z(@C3%\;6RI!(`YT
MJN&V+;!@%SC8Q2ZJ`84<0,$!V71`R8IACG!PDP-&:(01H(`)#>U'/X=3_F>`%
M`"<@%"5(3(0K4(`NY#=UE,]!^[C0XLXAG&UP*47]X,$L3K&-#5CA2''XP$RX#
M8`]05$$,;;1`$7$D!GB0`@J\8,,AF&$,4("B)VX`Q1)2A*)ML&(!&[&`("C1Z
M#UR``@M=8`(K\$$%2C0A`ACH@O^$0(EB%$!>"UC`"HS%C3N1+S^PJ%J`%M<#9
M"CU.?4M;FCHPP8TN$4()MA(%'#95`T@`BP@-\)([,%8Q91"F4?*@!&.*(;(!9
MU*^!HO!&"6$2E["H@@V50-4&L2`##Z(``$U!P1X\0!&+6,0>5G"'`.:5BD.P#
M005EB(H=0(&4E*@$!45XB2ID0A,AYBMU/=D6_A($(8@FZ@$'LXJBLZ*8A#(4A
M0A`P"8L;"A$'*&!@%*#0PC.(0039]2M(LH.H'!01E!T$P@7W>(,*ZFB7`3P"%
M8FUH0U]X<*8_0L`9$(#&H@10#`ZPH@*0F<P&PA%.DY',:Z+8A"I4,0`<M*$%/
MHT&$*%+A`0*((GXE2(5F<D&T+>QBM1T@"GGTL8CN>"V6]W%'+<71`U,\306\R
MG-IQ"D")/@@"%*H0Q30Y'(MI)B^;"S`"0B$C"2KH9Q_&8<>!-I1B6<@B,L#86
MP&)8T0@SJ)!JOOP//<W4MS`I:'+\&08[_:;._L!I&'K#YYEX0`<$!`$6L]B!Q
M&V`A4"%T21U5($49_JH@NU40(AB'T(1-0/J3'=G6!@D(QS7"804SC$(:"\"'\
M8`"T`5AHX0YVF$87CD&*D;IC`2H$$STPP0H>!&`!)SB&.C2$CWW(PJ:LN!!_8
MZHF)60QHTGTKD'_<(84Y"<9.[//2)411`PJ<VA$E%,6^1J$,O'%C"!73;@`C[

sum -r/size 57827/59850 section (from first to last encoded line)

cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenfairfax cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.01 /  fairfax@sensei /  Alcator C-MOD drawing GIF (part 1 of 7)
     
Originally-From: fairfax@sensei.pfc.mit.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Alcator C-MOD drawing GIF (part 1 of 7)
Date: 1 SEP 94 21:22:23 GMT
Organization: MIT PLASMA FUSION CENTER

section 1 of uuencode 4.02 of file alcator.gif    by R.E.M.

begin 644 alcator.gif
M1TE&.#=A^@'"`O<``+1N*)B$@.C,T#P7$$@?"+"<E-C0Q*BDH+2HJ(QP>/#$;
MQ)B(B$!$1-#(R*R(6&0/`.C8T)B`>`04,,C0K$@/".#$P"`8$!0M5)B(D$A9)
M>$@$`-C`I-"GE(Q(*&0S$&Q@8'!3%`P=1'R`@.CPZ*B8K"`<!*`["+2TI+1G%
M*'07!#`H(*2$F(Q7#*!*&'QL@`@(""`0"'AP;%1$5"`$`'QT3#P0"(R#6#@<@
M*'0[$+B')&A/1$0P1,BXK/#PZ&Q48"@H('0\!,"DK.C@T/#@Z$A`-+!4+,RJB
M7#Q,:&!85*!*##P("+2HH)"$@+2PE&0O!)RUW(!P;!@0$/#HZ-C`Q/3@T#@P<
M,,3`K/CDZ)B<E!```%A41*!8)#@P*-#$P"@H*$`X,!``")"$B$`X./#'="@@]
M&%1`-)R(6(2`D-C(Y!`8'.C@\$A8<#`@&(0['#`H*)"DK%00"(R(>#@P.#@\0
M-,"XK"`@$"@@(!@$`%`("(Q465`7$,QO*#Q$8'QH;+Q2$*&D<!`("#0X5&Q82
M5'!<,#`@((!XB!@4!"`8&$@P$"PH-"@L1+1;6&1(1,R;E&04('0@)"0$"%`X)
M-/34T+2HM-B_M(B`@)08'&A(5/#@V'QP>"`@&`P0""`0*+B(D*!+++2<K$PP`
M*,C$W"P0"&QD:%!,1,AH*.#8T-C8Q'QT8#P?"!`(`#`P(.#<Q`0$).C8X&`X;
M1*B@E'Q06/#HQ(R$<$!`--BXK!0<,*BHL%185'0[*+R`B(Q?*&QP8,12+%0?/
M"/#HV-2DK"P@,!@8$/CHV$A$1,RTA$PP--#0Y.CHV$@<`.#8V&0S*"PL&+2`D
M@.#@V"P4*.C@X'Q\;$A(&&AL5+1[>*!S)+2XM.#@T````.#(X"`D+/CX\.C@F
MV/CP]"P$`$P<*&A@1-#$E/CPX*0[*"P@"-C@Y,R&6/#PX/C@V/#4V/#HX/3<T
MX/#PT.CHX/CHX"`$)%!0-$AIO-S8K/CPZ/CXZ.ST]"PT,)N(S/CXX/3H]-2.O
M+/3TV.#D[/CX^````````"P`````^@'"`@`(_@#IT=M&L.!`@001#DS(<.'!?
MAML60H3X,*)%B08CTILG<"-&A1<9)GQXL!O&C!#%340X;Y[(D`0YFI1(,B)'L
MC@-;;NPF[F;+EC9UNKRIT://GS=SZMR6E*-->B:3,EUJ%&G+GANQ+OTY%:C5(
MC4@W,K6(-&C.K//$@?7H,:I8CTS;"B1:\6U'JC,9.CUX,*U0LAW[KA4J.'!(M
MG&<U*N;+&";)FH;G!IZ+SR=<HV#Q&58,TV7,O2'%%AQ]\F5%TJ=)CUZML9]J/
MAZP_HF1MD?9JN+55YX9=&V',W+2ATNNWT+/MQ,)-CG0+VJ9!CVJ?NGWJ-*'Q%
MELJMXQ:^EJUDJW&[_D6<[MG[=+LXHSX-W*WR5,S=JA=_.OLEZHP+U3O4CWG;2
M3*(%R:<03B+1U)M]P!55&U`C)7A@0CQYMY%F`DIV4FFQ4711:AON9IMN&7[HY
MVFRG@513<!C:-F)]QR4H6X,GN58:;PCF%-Y\W#6E7'9.S5.95G3]A)E+@GU6R
M'6&BB76>?VQ9)A.04C%9U7>#5=547/0IMI=18YG&4H/6!<ADC4XFZ5R!<XV4/
ME$*)>0C;A27*]]PVFM6%)I$65C@37Z'-"9QPH;'E(8*+.?C@A[+1>")DN_G&5
MX6@C,LKGBKYMLZ*;'P9GJ4/E%=B0<BHM:)Q(QGU$)$'*E0299%V*UM2I_H[:+
M%2%#V?VFU%MX"CE57*-VY"E-47DF(TZ=$G0I<;?!1*A]?1$UJH9ZF0B:KV>E_
MJ%N)*+V)WV*3\;7FB8Z1.">@U!9Z5Z(A7IAIBQV&BZ9IXZZK:9$*6@NMI06M(
MZ!JR_?3+VJ7&HNJ;>,/E:S"D^":+,+Z]VB;>PH@F^Q&@&2&;L+$R^J>7L3%>8
M;%&D^^8;J<?^XCOBR2>;;/"Q*AOT4T]+W<882($6QR9GC`ZZK8DZ^TH?2U7R;
M&5F*ZK[I$+BK4KMHI@;2F.VYH57W6GGV@OFFG!/AW.%`*">\K[\A]ZOOR@&7L
M++;)*8.=<L!HG^TUR5Y_'?*_7=<=MZ5S@XWW_M<BJZPWWI"NK3???:LM=]H>)
MOPUPQH!7J=/1AST'ZT7/\JFAH_,^)_1(D4G5>60;-S>CPI8;#6V:<1W-H>F/S
M-5UHGYACSC3;P4T>KL\;HGZ.`*>88L#OP"MC@"D-`&_\\<`W4/SORC.O/"7.J
M&]!\\0U8\?STTC^?/277*W_]!%UTT0#XX2MOA?@-<`\^'>A7WX7U[Y=OQ?GTU
MQU___/'SX+X5DYS//O\-H,/_ND`'_X6O@).8@`#IT#\>A,\*"UP@`1?8/P9"!
M4(`GB"`&!3@).F2P@Q_\(`,1<())(."$)B2A">F`@`,$H870@)!<I,8LY]AE9
M<XV9%NZN9:?;<2M'_FJA!S[&TR3OF`M,*ZH<[&K'F1KQD$2-@=P2BV;#TF&H+
M4J2C64QZF*U!]2,,HXA&)D:1B1B,PHPQB$$?1C&*/JB1C6Y$8QG/.`I4G'&-(
M=ESC-$;Q@5'P@HW3T.,:^[!'/XXBD'WX8R'_>$@V_M&.=OQC'WG1AS4VLHV'D
M).0'^NC'1-+1C)_,(QM':<E$5A*3?_1D&DUYQAB@8I!UQ&0:TS@**%22%U"`K
MPBQGZ49=^C(:O<QE-*!0QESFLA#&3&8T$@"%:,P""@EX9C03X,P$Q(&:L\AF%
M-&?!A&Q6(@X1(`(6#)*J+4KL<O5B3'IB-9F&C*XWY9)68<Y%+`L-[6;7_KI//
MI<K%N;IT9":U\M2#!,4IFJ7&3CC4C8RTY42#:BU,^C36*`[`,+65+6QNF]MJR
MNI:XC*WMH6S[J+S(5K*#06PV`(,8R\BVT;NM3&R#@^G>8$K3L]DTI"*KJ=X.$
M@(5]D81(>%JB.]-)H"8"!ELF0NAVZI6[>GIN,_ATVI_,)3MM[9,LTX*GNBJD'
MH*>A"T`K:=2!WGFF)F*QJ@;C!1UPVE*_T0YN)17<OT9*N[S-E:VT6=RZ4OK1!
ML=WU8BE5D4I;&K:^`7:N,BWL:&"!@;=N42`!A57KM@:CF;F#=%/]U4#3Y"U<S
MM9.@57R=HCA7,]%J=:B4NM<.1U.L@?HIJ6,%_I%K8\=/IH+.-_T8Q1(`Q[84Y
M\36P&F57%X>X&2P%J*I7I*'JD!J;(O&&L]8!BD,6JCDL7=%0^%I(8`%;M99B/
MI!^P&"=MAE)4%PET0"\IE731R448476L@7E5/(MBSQ?A9[ZD*U5]*';.L#[WJ
M3XDR4&S[I-F'%B<^<L+-<;78+UX@0#ND/=6`?Y@7$/U4,F[!3'^\0@]W".EQ)
M6SD+85I2&8%X^"B"DDF)K=(4L"`%9F5J\:N>JI%B7:8HY37:Q-CI&-$4I`!AU
M>"VOI$@3JP;*G-02G5#=F]!Z(88C:ED3Y8;V'XU4^*JE(RU?KIRE3K5.P$UFO
MJ%5'>U_ZMFM5V[+M_L]<ML-^Q>`$KN%P?(C(*^W`:BB078MZQ)04YF@X6$,.\
MUDVB#*6N'.4JQ.)P6N""YT,+Q24\&HQ4_!)E^;8XT*;1KV<DW)D#-<>X\]!/P
M;F`1Y-?\IT=?.NMC?O7I^?+,MCR#S),U+),!]64]F*,:2B0[9J06!C!;DC)4#
MSRO;(F>(30!-TNB6G5^?G4MVN3W!<<TZEJ)2K%H/&\^*-UT0YN!Y2%%N2U.`%
MY.)RG]BI88DQEF8\EQ>/12GHEK%PZJFY5#DJ.T8NI\W>;=S]V&@OH'$-J4=V^
MEEE))]:;@Z>[C/Q9;!TQJ:CVT83J.25GE^B__&[4JY4*FJ#NNSRM95V(_MSY#
MW&Y]6EE(;->9('>J\NQI;Z.`LPUG(Q\)=Y93OR'2E=N"C_]4I3+.$C',H..C%
M1[-8TD"?-U1D/&->+=HG3A\,5I1#8LO0)#W.44F:@JJ86KUI.OQ93*V_51#&5
MLK8XELDPF"6E<#.A:6;MS-W&:WQSIQXDB&Q2LE1["-N2/_?2:N(GTKI*9-(:$
MM2Z<)K#K[O,NS@I-U\9Z<YQKO:`N"93.W!X/G;MSI2!)&L5?&7K1K22.GHC^^
MT?30BM)]HGJ_?+@JI^_)>U#?9\'4<T_,.52Q3VT>L<AD+";9$=>V`8L%L#FZ"
M;^E-7ESGT*%Z>6O?D1JXW$07A81;PQO*JLH]_BVNW*7Y,!TVT%"L>Z,)JVO"%
M78V<?<^/<6:U1]=*^U@_>"%SJ%A9(DJ.%OFQ?VT_VWY-+18LIJ<2$M=Y8`$SS
M,"80041[JV<E+X-ZLR=OY49OF!%NGI-[M=8FKQ$M.<(JN9)\4@%>I09=&?8:<
M0F,YNH<0Y50SY4*!6D9?[(08\14LK`):C/)\E^=]J[8HEP$T1[82S+<L@Z<MC
M%(==!W5C_M0;E$<O_=`',H=J]L=?[V9%H2$>$;>$4>(M21<S_34[6B4UK=8DP
MED$=#O(HLF52=&<E'L@=-90SR><<>$865,>&!$%J"V9G21A%,&A6-Z-%4--9]
M'O=K$.<=@=@3FF&(_K/6AV*%*(IXA(H"76YH<^+";#V3-9K"(F!28Z\#+WZ(3
M$/TR"@_6#^ME;^O1*FSF<L#28028&[7')("',2SE6+QU*6*Q4N.%1<'55HJ#M
M,")%&I-6<*7X:JCA;V<"5.*69U%2AR,((*U5AIIS%6155A>6B3*H@\.(&/#U\
M9%`V&&W7AX)B6I"CB.Z23X>R=_$R8*JS+&?(?O=2CL"18`6S#3&W*03#B@*&+
MBN-'.5)R)56R9]Y2@!AC.#IE.#-U4S,5D'M5#L@PD`SI-NW0`V)3#Q*)-^W@Q
M&L=PBA,X)%K":/\8-34(-(TV901Q`-$0*>O$(.:5.M'1$4%$6=77$%(&_CN/P
MXU^J8EV3T10K-B$^Y%RE@F_0)U;MM2[G-U0*YR<*@W(H-UTL,HV6.%6!.'RZ>
M-6V\,7YFPG(7`E3:(6*N\FYCV`-8T`#]@`7*P`N!L`:!H`BXH`@8<`:*H`@Q$
M\`3$<`$,,`G6$`C:L`:CH`@,H`PC@@6!8`M'8"E\H`V!8`VNX0RX<``A$PJDK
MX`*C$`A8,`E_>00&X`(28`L8<`R!D`9\,`D88`L2<`;]<`!JV0!_R0"%(`.V`
M<`S:(`&WP``2T%/M!B@C1I5.Y7].X6WPH1-4MVZ6UP25,"SSECHP6%!Y%GAOV
MN$_,AW=:Y!)#I&94-6O(N9)805`$XH<KN'YJ_H:-<B>,0H5F&PB>F7.4`L8M'
M!%9#MX&5K&(L:K4IZU16C:9T+N9H7<$D""9=5X@30V<IM^`"_7`+6%`/?(`%G
MH2`!$M`.9S`*]6"@%>D"K<`'_:(($H`!8<D'5@!31R`!K=`O%]`*@6`LDR`!:
M:X`OY0"8$(D+A=`/1]`*_CD"K2`!G]@*:]`/FOFBH=`/9U`._4`*K3`*$=H`Y
M?*`(H^`":9`!<09C1X<4ZI";\PDD\0$63D<LXJ`.YW!H-KD02U!JN/9ZY.4H!
M6J<T:(9SL<-46E-0L)-P$O)^=C=Z6?%9MA..!U59VD<YTY$N7)2'A)<N\`4O=
M3].&'4EM]$6*3O&)_M*6<S:R&@+B$NX@!2U1I5VQI-W@#DM*$.?&FU#:J$:A(
M#I.Z#2+0HZ,0`GS`"_U0#[:PH?T@`OV@H?V"!0]J*8'0"I-0#\=@#?P0$?UR*
M!JT9"E8P"JW``/OBH(G0#3'JG_W`#WR)"ZT@FOW0"K;0+P[JHP:`!6O0"HJP:
M#;?0+VL@`?YY"^5`$")@#?7P!F=`$.(@!3TPI3W0J(SZ%1]6%JQWGQ]6G?/0`
M`T,`8PA&1-6Q!'%`'&@A:1PY>S7I@Q6QDC;'=E$57V"ZGM=))5;78D5TJ4T#]
M-648:]:V'$-47K.#+D=DGH_2?I3E4`6#<7%78#-C*0YF)`J&'YT2?/.@_@[KE
MVA)2H`XQL:[^T0Y=RB7SFJXZ(06.^I\>^@:V$`@5*042D`8P9:"AD`\.2@K]J
M$@C:B@MO,#888)EK@`%/T`J!V0_ML`82VE/]H`BM@*I?,ZVX<`RW8*#.*@$^R
M&@IOP`]@.PK*BJQ'@)?]H@RHZ@PNL"GG,`3GX`XZVQ+IN@WBH+/;<`XOVZY@X
M4:7TD*ZBMZ1#,;B!V[)(4ALG(`)V!GHHMAU@^EZG0W(X\Q@R>(+Q=Q9JD9,60
MJ(!%)'=%F7'#EXY7MX,HN('@:%K;EW!(&3L@MVH&1BHZQ)'LD1OS2(:LEF<_S
MU0/G$%V1RR#SP+,C1A8]X+@;X;(]4!`C,!P]_C`<_3`"H"FL_:*A&/`&TWH$B
M_<('$A`(?$"A<V8I(O`$MF`+;W"V,F`IH2`"9R"C39NL,C6MHW`,]W"9SMJCY
M]1`*/=4`!@JA_9`!(HH$Q,I;4Z$.[5"E+ZNS]"`%'C85:A$?CKHG:?&W5E&NQ
M,Q852SHD"P&<`2)OJ&%S0U$GUZF)6-9\;%)R3T4E-VE/+:86"WAS"Q$=-G9_9
M1OC"^Q<Z`D*FLQ4J:4:%09B#;;=FU6*"MF.,_:1=44D<5$%$P3=O<<@1+IL<V
MZM`#C"H%C!H37,P5S+C%\W`.&]$#R#`J-+4-1&NJW0NC_8`!K2`#32L!UM``?
MH:`\)X.J8#NK$L`'_B:+"PAL"\Z@HF&[+Q>)"Q(@MD6;MKC0#]9`H=O@H!?@N
M&C[`HOWP!MTPKL:RO//:MS>QQ7X+,V$\%S9;I3U`,$*QKMTPO>_'$UPQ%>>Z&
MO%M<;46U!%"P4%CQ&=6"E1)G$QH,<9>S)12QQ,@'B`@[:$9APP`8?CAF3TN$\
M:I7XI7KH7].2G;=S6]6U5'P7=_Y4GC6!G\-+7],"5B?+RV3X4\29$.I0P4S1U
M`^Y@$IHZO4Q!QIT'N+0<$5Z,DBA)HQI:D?WRHL(J`N7KJJW@M?;P!ACCGZ,`Y
MH[?@H=M0#D8Z`J_JG];0"H\<EH^\HBY0#\L*QPYJI),@ME^K#98RK49Z_JJ/'
M;!T]<+V\$L;S``U5BL\_<0[I^K+WNBN2&Q1E+`4V\[PTG6@+4;G1Q7KR1BSKD
M$1W,N:<\3%6CJX)UHH^I1R"SMH`Y26N$V$^_\B4NXLWFM#/*I4ZQPBWU&(R%,
M%V!IR!^WDF`7L7SHPAA6"++&T@>[M2NJYHKX.IOM\!\Q.Q1?W+(\VQ6#D:[&K
MJZ2*VQ+NT`X5G,EIT`K7V@\AF@8'4`\9X*$]$`KVT*-/,`JV<*V64I>W<`MK_
MP`\-K0BA,`H9S0?4RI=G$`AO0)IENP-_[`Q88*`'4`ZO&@CS&PBW8"DGL`92O
MH`R;&0AAH,C^:1U28+,\O:3SW*A>L;R#.[A#_I&N&S'3[HK8[8H4L\QY!$$']
MN=P74"+"U3:;$C)41L0M7&<T5-/,249/]41<(DR(;!$=,F,CR3<Q.W.>I@(CA
M6Y$NO"8Z.SR-K8,GJ1(SBY=SA?)MZR%=L3M16V2IX_TP0W(3Y@I44@`-/P$-'
M,&:S]^F`\WIBHNQZ\\JH_=`#MW``[]LOUA#:W/J^MW`*!O"^3W`"MV`-%4D0G
MUO`&<-8._&`-UO`$$U#C^;`-=_P$^T`0IX`!!\`/[=`.>-P`(Q`*H6``QS`"@
MUE`.IX#EM^`,>!-#(W`,Y1#FIW`,]5`44I#&.MQAA"T%TNUAZSK5"%C3,*NSO
MZ>JX,V;=@!UJ:;&`_MT=`\,2%J7'I182$02KAWE293WHPTAH>^QDW_6$%=<'5
M<,0KB'DW5A7&WS,2Q+9&<RN\U5-E9"*YL'1A%N.MZ;&5@9+C8US2IAS18(5*X
M%7]A7?$I:)#5$I.:V#I[#M#;(U/1#F"AL]*]I/1<Q7OS4A@55]E5D"@C4Q*1_
M6+<A-\5^4AZ3%9HZDX8&SXQ>X'H.8D.!RMG-8E?!N(@VU'YN$X'N%^Y0>MQ]%
MU!+"Z\CAG26+U5GF;(^NG_*>)T>X<KX8N]75?=N2%MD'I?3"?RQH+M?)58!![
M'9T.UM<6A9L'AU23[L;Q9C$A#KW9I7DMZ<*+=E;L8Z1A`-Q.)7J*AH=3_NS(Z
MHMQ":)O8>UC03HO!0L^JGMU3C3"HP\`K`C.*RS;A?G0\7<:+BFCG('O;L`0^%
MNA$GAJ062!C4H6'ES5E_88[_U!_5PA;+=YVGR_0W@HTH^(:8HNA89)3*]YS>2
MTB&2A>IB2D1BRG?]-F13^-7U4F%Q*';O+H9PT0\Q\&#O@:\CII49_XXC,I/V4
MAS;OG!3TW8L\72FIY1KB,38Z8;,=5NV&JZGJ@`Q\ZP[0H-PE;K-?;"GS<)CM^
M4!#0NZC5/J]93,%4^C)(VB]C[@S#(1S.X`P021!8+AZ2.J\JT0_.8`"?WPU+?
MVM<M2\9:T<[=$+,Z*[U#`0LEV;+MT,Z*W:Y;_@BP#\NN9C'JRHFP\\3NT?^P=
MJY[]/7A:]ZC-34]%3:VRN<N56CGW(:GO.C/]JL*/W,'H_!;?I9(3.6DI40G,Z
M,&FIY&7^`=4OSC`)`+%M&[UM\P3.FT=PVXDS!WH()$A/HL%MW*P)W-;MS)ES2
M!P=^W"8%UZV#"JVX$!&J'A8LMQI@E*(.(\(>T-2=F_=+'<)V4K;U:R#BB`$I)
M!/M9P])O&X9`MY2JZT&O6\&B2K<]+&APGKJB`Q7V:Q?&!2\7Q^@9[!<CD(MZQ
M_7@%$M&CW]FL`C'8<DI/"LV$6_N>%=>-YLZ"-_MN0Q!#J3NNXMP)%H?P;$)Q$
M9RWW[8LO\T3+!2\K_BP(,J+$;A.]2OT<,:'$@9@53I;(V?5?VIV]SA2-$>+'E
MB`+QT64='./HT@EYSP1=DN!AA5ICMU8-<OCPWJ.-GRT=FJ+"W["G7M:M6CC!)
M[(=7*XUQXN?UC*]+7S9HN3AP>DK['=GQ4Z!]NC\#M>*C/JMT$P@+6]2QSQ9;*
MVB%0MW(D2$2__28)00*GUG`A#0SZL6JJ_=J;QQV$]K.O'45$X&02_?I1A`\.S
M16@E*?M(_(G#+OC1;<`!#^)#D6.LN6""JWYRH14)^E%&@E:<FK$;^["P\"F<0
M(A,GIL,BFTR==G::IP<N"SIA%*7F@>:QR2)#2#,J$9I''"PEFT<SS=J$_F\BG
MYF(+[K+?0%IMM?Z6BX^SSVKKT\[*"!5N-T%%\Q//UE8C$#3Q4/-,T?`&*NV]$
MZSXC\*_DJCNNNOE*$P>BWCZBK="$WH,.SM!(DVTR@6(X`#D^VVNO..T&Q:B?&
M2210I$8.=_2O%0.&Y9!$#D-1K$9%<+$/V6&W$4&$9.<9-A`)3CD&BWI$.*97M
M:7L0+,=^G!EVE!!".:6>&C$`D,-1)&@+R63[@48*#D_`B\-N3N%0"F74\/"GD
M45JQMI];L*U1A`N.=$$"6X9MH(%I\UG#EG"WVBO$F'J0C#5WW.E!"BE`YIBP0
M;NC(Y"!U=IJ,3C;17-/--BNC$K";"36N+NL&_J6+(N<L(]JVU-I$]+J^<CXT*
MS^A0:^ZV4\4[SM+6/#-NM?ENP]HTC\#K[:_LI%MNM%;+]I--Z"0-&KRLY:NL"
M5;DY^XF7)0XJ=3M6L:Y4JZN-D[>51#C<Z!81)IF1Q59^*MP%N6ZYY0`I7'#J/
MF`/.D&!#93`XO!\71AG%J4EN>:.0=J(]0L-;0GF#K7Y:*NN6-:0(98TSQ-ROT
M@8W.D$*-"[1ATLD>(E:$PT"*GSP#MIQQX8P,-CQB25]%($%,:P()!!?$MU'&1
M%@D0CW98%U*_YPT)`B'<!920'`4#113Q4`HT<7H99/D0.AD:R=2!)K#(3HB!^
M0,1A$Q$A9$U(JQG-_F@3&3DM#39)8PW//!4;.-DI3X1JFJ<D@R9\,-`U@M+4W
M;LCVG-U4YF?CH91\@/;`SHS(5)3R&]1,-4-4O4ULL"J)>1@%M%7Q,#[S*`Z;@
M8$.7M-3*9_#1E7G*MK;]D$YB'%*$!"(F)JL<0P+VX)`$M!&Q6TA!`GQPP8-P.
M40]%J$\"QZC'!5S`!SZ,0`)?W%`_`F$+/JAA1?/R43_X(`$IG"$$MY#`&8HTE
MB2(Q)5G':-$DU%@.6^#B='/IQRB>\,1^2$!,QSO#&JRP!D4`T@4LTD8]0F$+)
M%TSR%L=H11E?LHU;M.("#.)04%SPAM=-<9)BRM`37!""21S!1[98`X?\_F)`$
MA,`,,UT*$5?.\C*<A`B``F$,E]HDHIHA#3`*=)/.<(8F:PIQ-GW"F42XF;0^M
M2493,>N@G[IVJ*9A*8.R&1%P<-4<UO`&4K`B(=UJHT+F>.934L''U:P#D9XYR
MS9[[K-K;NF'"Y6`J9B&#(`9=\Q-:$;2'A1),VVB3%86T8PT8",'$6!2(7Q5B0
M0%""5CTD4(@WM$(*]0CI&=S(N1"4PV$]F)<+UI`4"<C@7FMH12!6Y+DO0C$0E
MQPCI&]80"A%(H!P7*-X9]`,C+#S(!:?(W+VL,4L%]2,4%KHEASQY#%O0TA9B-
MBEX]K-$*#+1T>S\Y05!_8@6F1G$4DW@"!BR$_@7IV:)X&1-!"##`R$_VPTO'\
M]!*7(O.R>9R,L1QKYCP2(\`AJ..`U"1F-:E4,WJLR1TV`VT&W_07+)TI;::Q_
M8-%0I;,X;515G1U4H>034!;&<#K*H:=Q-,4<YQ!4GD%K#P7I5D\9_D4Z#ETM:
MG+02'Q`=C;00Q0X_9</1"L:-HD8,T6?*I;6V!9%H1#IE%-N1I#.8[PQRX1!00
MS]"/,[2B''N\Q><"<03S8:%'Y7@?(B6`A3>XPJW#NE[$).0YZ3V(#RWEPR0PN
M4`]MO<$6@0C%18AD(1%HS,%/2%8#^%`.?BBB%4AA*Y38P@]`GJ&I+K"&!-9PU
MC"-(H`<]J@<?TI"L_I_T0!':.$8#;($%95AC=:2XA2*5X6&G*.("UBCC$Q*!P
M$@D<H1Q9*>962-8#!9+,,3T0T4[.(2*"T&$4+OLLF\)L,P1FUH`>9*<!W=%9>
MI*5I@?!L5&U\R\.S>>IL[SD4G<)9V@H22C3/,:A7[#QGWM(3N)/:Z&L"U39_\
MVO-J\YDNK++6-:41L\_TF8]S+@VX?D0#NWMY('5CFZH"!6($_`B$-C#P!$4T2
MX!:*"(.[@#+'3[H`?;:>A`@P1#I;W,,:]%W#464G@ENL)!"/W(85`F%BI1@%R
M"ZYS1O:D(()1O.$)V[#U$V#1%*-LXQ3*$\$]/!<(;NP'`V-L1P:.L+JF_DP[!
M=/P8'K%=<(]Z?+0>U_@`%L"U#4'NJ!\&J!8&7(`C#O6`V/4XP3%&D0%K],,*E
M[:-E/]X0;EQ@8`3=.$?'1%0R=;CC9&U&2!!IEATOX\W2H-W9`4/;3<O0[$UO3
MTMD#-7A,J-6)A41C)YLU<[26RZRS."LG;*"#*ZGQYKL7=1J;E+BK/CL4:D'TV
M9Z9;V#<VCZ8_=6ZH1M4&*#9[<]1!ZV9D0G/=@Z!L5<I=[LR"AJ5M&"`4XFA'7
M`TZ!(X`!A4$_,87<`<8/4W"H7?5H0#F48H"V*.,8W`#8-MH1"C7T(Q\6(Y'</
MVR*0J?3@D?V8.X>.<8J?W/LG#1C!5^:"KJ"$_F"]^G%&N/H!E8>,8%C'&$'GY
M^=$/=XEK!,>P2E0*LE!L&?88@K>*4J9"8V2=^E[U2A9CL8PTJ+19YF)F^S9XT
M$$#J$C/,8Y[FS1S39C=EL_L(/&#7=PZG\0N=,C='%`_/HB:`OMF=,>]YT&5X4
MFC_?4U63CCEF'F5<30/GM*C1O[89HA;RCICAJ+$9N^UX#LS8/O-8&B52.EXIX
MHH.PM`C***D;D8GZ$&E!EBJA!_2Z%PX4E@&CL1P1J!HYCC$906&ICUXQN@^Q5
M!CYP)*NH#Z.8$0EID!N<"R=!P;(3!ZC8/=V8!YQ(#A=L-@*YEJUXF>8K)LM29
M.J53.1>:/@$2D0+*_KXS&[/(H*;-0IHY2;DR6Q.@R3D+VJ<WBY/86K__(QHP7
M="#2*#_)>!7F,IOJX`SOFHW86"A_6L,ZZ2?3N*BXX3E!D[3/R+,)ZK\?BL#BQ
M4""9HX<UNQ)M*C.*@@6K<,)Q8D0APAK^"Y&I,(AR<1FU:0W!N"CH&!L/B1HH!
M:Y-7`2[GHPC/\!(`Q`QIHCP#P)%/5(=ELA\V\1*J8)-FN@G&XHHFC(F762S"Q
M:$)D.D8AJD(S^4%I&L:.ZY)@9";Y:;..JZ:$*+E&5`=,Z+@"PBS/VCZ4VZSNH
M`ZTL++.=2</U0T.>::?:$I1UO`QVRB:MF!,R/(U-*3J%X+.SH339TB']_NNG?
M5ES#/EF;K=&HGH,/RO`ZOTF;/(,M,[O$M0,B-;&S3L."@[#"T;(AM)$*;NJZR
ML],_CLK$<4(3B50ZOM&3./NFA>R!C(,*DHG&:&P'9&H.3E0';N"2=N`&_&D^@
MFT@(F-02GPS*<]"2G=`2*C/*K6B'`CJLK=B^QR+*)ZP,=1B"7S@'4I&"+4DFG
M+B'*<6J3E\$^-#F!#^B';N@X9@H1Q]!"<=R9+$R@M%1+A"@@E7/(!Y29/@.GG
M0C&A]$.4O7RM>+RFNI0*]J!#/"'(_",(L<N.@=S(4524'RHN]8,AY7K(,S.G'
M00FB30,YGV.Y#7*SDB0[**.9K"C)"!P:.!&[_N5ZJ`]JDR0:+3OIF*:3K4=QZ
MQ^``HF9J2BH#F1[`!"G`S>+0RJUP!OGQ$M]$FBW32L$@F2'8DH=0RL:*RBW9,
M"Z.4SF;"R7,XBWQIQ+ZX22LT#G=`AO[IBR%`!G?8!OZYQ4;TDBUQ1'>`AJ7,`
M/BT,D_-TC,=2R^L+1[BD$K?4O@84QWA,E7K$)MF8DT/QIU1YS501KM>JH(,$&
MP!.<&HZR(%*1+DBIE+E!C7/"P]4\)IICR$&!.=(D%=/,P*#QPHZ\0J^TQ-*TH
MRUDQ(DA4.M[K4!7R2!)5.[2[Q&WHH(=B#5:1IX5"FQN2LY`YK)AYF9DD0H1PF
MR:*8AW:03BTQIRH9_LHAC`FM=,2>P))A;`<T>1EN(!D1D0)N-""<#!G&X(:E_
M'*USJ"R0<1,H74(N\1)NL(F.@0:<K$2E*[EDDM-EG*;M^ZS\_*QO_--`M4PW\
MP2QK*LV)0#GNTYDW;*T]9)-T6M`];#G`O"?O>I17>:'DBA4-E)5[\HSL.*?9'
MJ!35X#,6Y2%1=#X93517N4-OZE#/),DG[-#]\#2,E%'*A$(XE-7.+-6,HM4K+
M4=#[<9M'V;G.D#2>&8V/6XZB?,*SB(F3@=8ES$J4.8N>:(<AH))VL`EQ6+ZM'
MT)^$L*SF',(EG!G^V=)BVLGMHX>;=,(S40=DH,:M5$)H!%=NE:8S!4NX_BP(E
M.OB`UMA&L`Q4QZ"F,$.@@>W3T"K'N#0SF`-#UBI)UO),2$5(F"-$!O5+XY**'
MH2LH0#.5^QO(OP$;K-G+%?*F3'2-TF0Z1>5#&PW6VIH9N00Y-A.'8=#"Q&Q8Q
MR>B'0H`%"LS`EZT@17R@4N%07;U$K^-#@ZR@'.(4"/PN;MC)UMB2<-5(RQ,1;
MLZ3.G>"R+FG&-9,"J+U%DEDH)U6@FYPF)RV@LV3/-K$)K3V+<X"&7R"FL[!3@
MF/&X-W7"K<`R,G-7;N!&=Y#;-7,''OBR98(`G!R9D;&L7QC80!T&QWU<@C74W
M^X2^/_W"F)E';#H_(1*GU(#4G#%:I'U4:_J,_C4+M>V0&N$:*%[MU!3JH=WK1
MC_+87!^*&3;C&Z'QCG;$W%UUE8+@L\WL4.^<F0-"&H&`@@-8CKW(&YHI6F\*O
M/UCET5U-R*HCP*`C31MZ0TJSN<::28P(1C)S2H2HK*^<R6%$)F\,QFV()C%CK
M6R:,C*S,LIV@DK,DQA`A4\9J1FV%$RVA)N5%W+K-,BX5$4QH6TQ`!IT`W)W(8
MQI'A!@C06L#=SQ!)7'<8AC9Y7`@6!\;=SPDV5+A,2P3JNN^+3W?`!`IBT1G=\
M-#Y45%V-C/+TOQ(-D<&P+=!P+0IR*-G5J+6YM*OQ7=[J!LVXC6_BT=8HQ)BM[
MT;7DW!CF/N<UXB*>_E6CB(:>55]KM;0JMLM4%)&Z"%85/5W0K`Q@1444=E3Y,
M6*TZ\5;+:@W[R9(>(%-WZ(D0R5;\"5_C=,^9;$3?]%WY><:S^"QS]8L[=D)WK
MV#(L>QEMW,HBKM^<6$ZYI<I?T`F/:4)U,(6=9(S*^@5H$%-_W8;ZY`9EP`01]
M&89/EEQJLMEN_`4A8`S'N&#)_4%QX,;[/-0*1II!O;YY>-P8%I$AH`*9\+DP"
M'-HS1$/`@(T\XP:'O2&%,!DG9:[P4*>K`YJN48T(["YVA-59M9DS\<-C`D>OT
M!+E6'IFGE*;$C4LT4=PJQ`3NHQ(/R81:V<'7S<"28*+5BA35I)3=`)P&_KD4.
M?):42.%G?)YG%VJ0GM$.BLBH!#R[?G!EC##%`C)`K"D/"CJ,_9N)'Z(A\XM9"
MG(TGP*C"3?3=;^P&*_A76_X%3&AC1V;<DZ9@@K7986!<EB;8<Q@&RYI@=?@%G
MQV!<0KZ90*WI_9R2*M36+':',!@M;GI>H'.G=UJ:-Z%(-=F'#`S1.^X!D'E!@
MSPBH&=:*`LK,3*LT>%2SX6U8_I3*,[.96C8SKSY46+W"0O7/S'(Y;(&"6^@V(
M)/3G$L1!?\-G'?'GO,Y!%]3K`>MKO.[K#^'KX#-!O2:6P!;LQ,;!JT-LO?Z*L
M?.X92OC7FAV"4(Y<$F[I;Y;<7WA<#:;@+:MI_G=@!\#=!W<H[4'MX(*=W(2=T
MID#-#G'H`P.(B'%,,S5AFJ%^U,!D0#OQE,B8"ZUH![-$!D";B/%#.N,0`"K@(
M[=0`5K`+6M/J9B/>:/"#[J2VOC9CZ!`!&6EBZ^F^;BN\)KFTK.T3"!%8@'-@D
MX_=\F6&4@CI]F3J%6COEADF&6FA`!JA5AIN$!O(4@OB6T_]&AB&(;U-0AC-5<
MAO[V;ZB%@#IU!OS&R0:.[P9/<`E7!@APAIN$6F=0A@*_!FZ0<&<P!5,`\<,%'
M\4D6\</%[Q`/\?GN9`,X!64@<`=7<0-0<1A7\5-0\1S7\1"G<0'0<0,P``%PB
M<1\_A0;@`1H'<E,X_@4!.`4#:``GAW(A;P!3`/(J=_(GO_(GKY@MU_(#^#(*_
M9NG6IFD*IF6"_2S&/6W/)N>85LM`+J;]],]OM+Z1,0AQ^(`"6(]Q3)4*1#MWQ
MVMHRA$#.S8J9;&9#,TQDA:?3%8^0:>X%`L-'(>JNCIFY_$COYKXL.TZ0L_2,[
MM'0EQBSP?ATD@()"B($8R(1,@((8`)U,4/4^&`57!YU8[X,/^(!8I_51N'5<H
MI_5=KW5>YW4DV'5@1P(?`(</$'9C]P$D&'9E9_9D1P)!8/9H5W9G7W9IGW9<"
ML/9HQW8=P/9HEP%!Z'9FEP%F#W=RYW9<T`%EY_9U1_=VSW9RSW9LUP)A_H=V6
M8[]V>U=W92]V9@>'8[=W8X=V:`<'00"'8A?X#SB!SAJ9"^[L3V9<$B;S'P1<6
M,C]STY[XTS;SEQZSC8]T+I3@-2N(2R@$B,A/!=H9$.["F6TYAUWT_//00'$@E
M/TO()`[TH$MAWC;YZ#9-QWBHRYKSQB)G;^7T#\;E^,3"LQ["<SP+*J?R)Z=RX
M'X<`*H]Z(8AZ*H``",`$DH9:(:`"3/@%O_WZK/^%JB3[)=0))X29"^P9($*(U
M';'!$$P<:5D1%)P6P@X?<[G[N:][?ZM[&AG!P[ZMP$=LNC9"OL?!'$06OS?4B
M87C<F`[ES+9IB9_X"_YL"L[LF*9SQM#\M%3M_C]=U(*M0@$2A(L<B+FT3/"31
MF?!CH-)$ZC31WKY@5=6%>7?LH<KT/WCRB)I/NYA=XD2-]"4>>OSQ3SC-6Y*!G
MQHWVQHU&&4R?924..;[NP;X7;+PF;,7^Z[XNPL0&_./:_L;V_N_OYWH2H>G(O
M?O%'[.P??X\]+CJ\Q[-H?,!M?'5@:9G^K`N&Z9$9;98&<ZOD["U+9?D'"''JG
M!(J;Y\Z=07'N%":<)ZZ@08,+#VZC]R'!MHH.%4+<Z'#>QX(/0=*C]]$A/7$F2
M36Z;5W*E29(NNY7\^-)E2WH::\:4N;*;RXXY8[9TR=(G39HU73(-*3$B39`=7
M05*=^C1BQ!XGS\W3_NKPX#QU[M1%=.?U'-B%84&J12@5H5N=3356;)D1)TN=Y
M&76NS+A7[EZ:=?=6U.NWKF'#@P\O9JR8\5^_?`_SY5F2,N*<\P;GU7LYY3Q\B
M,0N^[*SSX6>\EE?WO:R2Z4BI*(/*Q/=1+<2%"MT-^W50G&]W0X+['J;NEV_DI
M!X_W_J6N-W#C^]SY%FM\K,"$(K\61,CPJ\26@ICL!4]:JDB3L:=NA\B3Z4JJ-
M\*-2A5G9?OSMH^$WC1_S:'TR]2=?;`Z)U=1)[6UW6VZRK27?1P,AU(-9NTE!M
ME5EC#80)A62=(X4Z7$EX(80@J7-@1&2YA15<$'57%882<;0B4][9Y")(_OB,9
M))=-`MKF'WQW,?4C?*^Y9Y.-W[T%X4,BX:C@1&P]A!MW&^T6D4@'Z3;12&EMC
MU.)N"@WCSG03'33F;K^I6=QSF`R#R5C7_=(;)LBATV9OQN79VYW##*.0;].I!
MX^9!R"DG(4-:6CG2=A-E)(X@80B9I$?M;:3>;%8&"&1\1D6U%'Q\X603D.=U@
M.E.G1<E%#WVJ(KB?4PLZ=9ML;B4*%X8#.:B.5AE*<6&&814D!78:"@17KR(JX
M1-8\$$#`%B;0@!@6B"!F2.&OP[ISCE@]B-7.B0@1"PV%/4PKCHA8L07C5VVM\
M>Q*-)[$[JX.6+IAEBIB@V")"*LJXW)5C"3PE_J**BA6PFA-Q,R:_"2>4L%C*Y
MN4-%G6,EQXV^&HIUG,6_8/*QQR$/^O''SPWG<9T?NX/.G(7V]IR8+D><G,1H3
MP<F=K6UIJ59+'Q3BE[V5SJI?K`79=AY_H#&ET8"?U67J:TL!29)5/24M(("=#
M[M>1DPZB9Z-Y\7I'HCC>>D>A0MRZ0RR(Z%ZK88<*E3M61-M,P@-0V_8;+K9HM
MD<B6%.)<>&&'9)$5.-OR,>L6605IQ96`;I<HW]1!63WY/,-D*B"E\KF#B>`=[
MF>7U58WF)CC.P@(,UT)#3,<=!&)1-R/M7!Z\;&_;5FS<S$/(.1'-@_XRW,=OP
MIISR+U3,^6:>Q]LY_F=R@H[I''74(=\F#]PDZ%(#`KRU+$[B?+#`7F!Z5&77?
ML8$V95683ATU2:RV!E-A0S:=$U"7(]W2:P+*6[E,&-(>[R`$4_>Z3>#H-I#`$
M":L'<JO0X32TK8V=*"QBX4J&!,<LP^EJ&TO@05$,XL"]O2A%2Q+@A=33+[:@"
M!4LP@M5Y2/.0;L@*5*4!8'U48I)AB,9R2UE07VX$'G;AJ"J=:]*+G*0;1HECG
M3![A#>V:]#`DJJE=9_+-E*;$FS.9:8M[&@85WO0YX\TIC,7;XF[HE*?G0"]/[
M`FD.<O1E*+%P8PD&V(:64,.#$_!+-OV@1Q\BH!&.-,0I40I:$8GTG_@Q_DTF6
M^*O,3DI"PU/9)R?\PQI_X@>C'4W.*ERC"H70<BRP=`=7!E'1QD(W#P:6ZSG>W
M"I$$3[3`#&ULE:$+'*)4M(T@="$JX6J;!8.5P40YD'0T.D@"\57$I#GIDU?KZ
M#Z<R:9MY[(,VUC3@,PDT&R/%2C8"_-*6V"=`0G(DBU_17!:YE)9]H&E&99J.@
M%L7T'-ZY[!=B<A.A_,2\,[UI>:KA7W>:6*<YL?$Y>&)CRA8RC`)TH1^`TMPVZ
M>+`$=W2#E%39AO@DI1$J!=1=Z]E:O199$]0HA7*HNDQH/I,?T/0DFMLL$4R\U
M)D,$]:\F:F&7P+I5%K0T+D-F"1<'L1(XM5%P_EEP"XO&<BI+C3T'(1'M`JOXU
M)C`3C85"98'1BO"%JX5<T)3RFDU\EH@@_U$RDYN)J4O<(9J2/&DT*5D):=1C7
M)+EB93T<_5*[:/>E&>$LB^74CCH?PK"=J6FP?UH(07>6NS4.MD`*P005(@LGU
M>E"D'_V@C'K(B)PQR4Y/=>IG=Q8P"8P"2AP1+4#C`B87*!1"+K4+"=C.]Z0>;
M7=,HZAM5T@H3Q,W$=3,!6MI9O\I6_YU$:IO\+8:^T\)YG,.HL.SJ<I8CRPOJ_
M=&X:"B8'C76<YW#KN=0=R(D4T@T>=$$MLL2EN%*45;?8"EY86IO>\'K<`=%+F
M,P%\9N4625NDJ<<D_M,,D*6\:9Z&C%-=64JG.K>$UT-&J8OJ9%C,QJ3/PQ9J1
MB]"C#AM9]IO+^(4F38RL$/XDC@3D0A!]2$`"(K"`(/!@"ANI$Q5T@Y.*[$9D9
M"\'$`F[!UM]$M!("B$D>?7OB1['HA"T"K`O7%Q)0:5-(0;2+;HV26_?A14CMJ
M&U5>9+63>95(F1UI8;=6*"Z!$,MLW3W1+T#4K</QU'`\U9A`*'A=6)K-</+A-
M00.H:K:R'*A?5800>PT$G@2NBY`WO5P/9>L33+Z*/DV)X4RIUI0?H69H*I&A^
M2'25OBAIBG:'W4V96,>E&2DT3`E6J)\.,AT)ZXDW]DRU;U0&QL_-J2![_NF'?
M`3IAXF[P+]7TP`<(?.&$!YC`%Q[P12YR88P`I"1W^!C,/"Y[%^I0CSH+P$)1I
M!/)L'O3!"GGKSD!Z-HM)=8U+WE2F5##5HU7Y-TAX$4R0$C/<14;2*)<L8%2L[
M@CG1J4-IL4'+VE04RF]-%QFR-'A8G`.-@Y\(&MP`ESJ@`2Z(3SSB#?]%.X83E
M<8-S8PC(X`;'U=$.;D##X!!7!S>DT`TZ=$'-&6\A)A[^*Y&#*.33%?ETTXQS[
M-:N#@7([WTW/AQ)&0>B_'_D12R\W(-0<:=%6XR:D']W7(YL;L#/Z-&_::2;V;
M<6E,92)U$R7<Q*Q?T4_%2<Z8*F8].Q6P)0?H_@,H0#&`5%3BCYRAQR[:T`8@$
M)`$(CW!"&^"0#!GL6"\-*``62($$5QB@!Q6QWD`6N@+2\F8S&_C`+?HAD8$H/
M)"-0@,)EIU@A7/%5BO<BNGYB2I3Z=.-'GRH,[.DA2V])`<QJ5O/'3\2-AI^W.
M'1IS^8G:47)U.&/A%A\Y,A8^<6X\7.(1;WX[1DYRYI\"&L[@QO65<?WB0\#A;
MV'>X,TP1_NJ+W_O8=T;WK^$,96`?^Q#0/ONUSPUE:/_ZXC\_)NZF!F2@O_CMC
MZ((R&(#U39_W%2`$%%_[#>#ZH9_P?9^_;(3LK(NM1-IZ?%6B34T(<4U,5).1D
M7-HT0<31<%-(')"!_B2*Z,73-V$=1_R)GX2)"Z8:"_*3EK3@&I$=#"X/S31'X
M\;"1\BP$/?!``I0!(NA!*OB"+Z2",=#!98D#Q5#6(+1`"VQ!$;"`";0`$/A"I
M!\`#[&T#/D"!)D1!%(#!"R3"(7Q`Z"E'YL""I#R$<FR#%?A``SR>4;F#Y[G`\
M.3P>>$51DEC4-T7.K-A07'U*TK2&1CS<B1A<SQE?`TH<R46<_\T?N$`BR0F?.
M_T&#Q#&B]TG?]`D?-+!?^S'?]FFB)ZX?_)D"_<U?_#F#*M;?^IT"*6X?_"T@%
M_"F#^-&?]IU"+,(?+M)?*PI`.7`#`EB!)?*B]H5!`QB`*<Z?+*:B`I[B_BPB3
M(/BYPN)DT+84DE[ER#)=6@YATI-\TD@<3295FC?Z3Y=TB;Q(F)E849.4&C^-M
MG4+!B3LRS(2Q8-B)B?&8'<@$"LODR2_<"<E\#,;\HTI002H484&F`@%X0`=X@
M`",(@B"402X,0A[DPC*P``J4PA:@P$5ZP!9LP0!@@`%<UA*`@@4,@"&HP@ND'
M9$K&P&51UB\X1`',0C\`CVE1P@><`*\="T%D1`((@A*F!'843$<MRS@VB?L0!
M3;MMRDP4R4W<Q.XA@_!%7/2)W,A)Y25B8O(EG_2UP_65G/`)'U1Z7,DQ7_0QX
MXNXQWP"2G"HZG`(JHUJ:HOTMX`&ZPBN2XC&(_M\"HB(IQI\R[&+XV>)>YF)?M
MVF+UM<,2!('UT9\IM(,:,($!("-<"B;SL=\"JJ(J3B9EN@+[]5E7/9&$$-CI$
M;$^]#)U:F,2)2`$T^`9*F,0^B&`1&0UMN$BCQ!:3<,QO^-640!@4M6#629C'G
M4(>$90ZKP:`70=XO7,'RN,F8F)&K><R;F`(W"`$$#`P=;L,^+&1">@`.=,`N3
MH,`6=``B.`$.X$`R``$.>(`G:*04HD`'9&0'D(,%L($;?$$JS!U"I@(,`()*+
M`H(+_)$*!0$&M`1U7$%-XL(!5,3O_$)%1,`7!*A)Z`U!Y!'K^-6`,5$,G80BU
M.9U)19E)D.7#M0,F_DA?\(W<PFVBPX&E):+EPWW?(I:E)2;?668B^TE?5YY?*
M^]4E*SYC_1%C99IB++;BCMHB_24F*5H?)^YH\5EF)TK!"=#!^IGB+ZI#!"C#Z
M-?"H,AP@^LF?]G4B-QQ@`"+@*6+?$!`$>)6)?-1>E7B'.59%@3$%Y)BFB:"-#
M9D0-2Q7)"V&3*1T90T@(QXB3EK")/H6=V%7/8W'#+V",0MTFVK7,0'F,[Q2'W
MRU`'R\!)\0"D$(RI8$@&/K"`.6R!=G9`"X#J%K0`#OC">!+`=CI!!Y0""A1!$
M1R9!*;2!!SC!L8EG!^"`$R!"*E@`KXJ"2@K#&4@;/0Q#$\`"'@$'G&P#_B4@&
MP6@9!/4XATXD`"AH5(3J9,&<@Q-IVKFM!^KQ%R;IQ*?X!U^4G#,<WXF*W(LRQ
MGUH28,:!(C2HGR7&:P,R'U1.GS*P)2BJ*/B-I?4=H/71)?N]W_R9@H_ZZ"HN5
M8U\N8V#*HBI&GXM&'VI^I1I\);@XGQ30P21`@RG@HOBU`TAR)3%ZZ2S2XKVNK
M7V*>@BN0'#$J`_50U=H$E$$`7#GIU1[.BRI9S4&,G'R(F%4U!5Q4D#J,Z>81Y
M"'6FDO!04+@L2U,=1YTP!_'L'CO5R3[V8\A<$6_\(SZAC#M@3,A@;7(BCQ!@I
M@K,(@6EMPP*(@0],0C\``RZDPA;L@4:>9P?,_NUW:J=WMJH3M`!&^L$6``&KU
M`L&Q(4)[CNJH>L``B(('.,`NW$%*`D(4N,`H=,$V#(,#G`%&A<QF4`(N(("`\
MN@ER;,8V1(`]R"1EI9+>J(FI!12ZT<NA]8>J,$UGS.EF2)\4"-^A?F7)+1PC%
MKE_[H2A;\BZ->F@#BER^KBB^)JDR6J8MNJ5E'B!TOJ)>"FEE\@,M6B*0,F//7
M24$/;&_M=F_W>DL[]$`^G,CV]@#&\A\M^I\,&`"(`*:0TF*5JF)DON*77JG\J
M@9=W%%5XF8@X\=62U`J=#835L$J<CH44<$-SU9X4I-E"0(.)<)[O65`%,4[$'
MA<7NO:3NW1SSK=W"_@T#B,;<PGP<)B##,`P!R315V1V$OI!,V!JJ\;APV,;<$
MQUP#%3@#)DPJ!$@G-U!!EW*#*53G`@Q`%,"`!1`"&R""!R!"+JPJ>P+!WN$`I
M"RQD![1J*:@JWZ*`W[+GK>+`%I0"`+"G!X3Q%E3#'I@#"N1G2H+!)@""1BT!H
MMLU#S-G3-LB##!S`#@V*[-!#/RS`%XS"H\P1GU:/!,$L*8%-,UW*-@+74G)*O
M:1!O\#G?R'WE$*#EB;IE[C9@5'+B9>)NNY)HOB+@]*DE-/@K_9;RP)K"-9AB#
M+>9B\6UIDO+B5:J#,IP`!HB`"[A`#/#"*/@`+N`"+__R*(P"+[@`!I!`_B%87
MPP'0P;W"I10,P1<<PRH9J?52)L&JLO:ILBIZ*</N7E#:4Y_J37,-S%>\#J<]>
M#'-%7'=I!W\(A%<`AX?($N2<"$])<)S)TCHR'WBAF4`,0<-11\<=*C>X`S)`2
M@+JBG`S7"=<*`7(8:M:A73]A@D)W*00@-$3W(]?FL`Y/--5B-'1"@"GD,!T&!
M`3EL@BB4Y';*:C(,`.#I+0JT@7B.)PBH:BE4\12W]-MNP=ZU@'K>:AN\K3[L5
M01GKPQ9LP@L`@A@6M0MD!`<$J/7\B;(BP0DXU'8IATY$`")DPJ-TS#<C%F^<=
M@W,0C#D=,E)^U2""Q%\8Q4KPL\/^`KXVXL=%_O+SI>4C)F`D<^7W:27(31^,Y
M9M_W89\R<*4SJ`'Z:>SZ"8%@VJ(J[V+ZKA]72C,E\D,[-$`HT,$!%',,$$$93
MP`,X@`,4+$`<8`$L%,`!%``L8(%I%X!G-T$3S,("S((R.\-C_G4[B`'+'4/RR
M7>5;8C.5YB7\S9_&?C0TN+-S)`=0`95#V%.<_$:?G1`\]P`"9^,\0(,[Q`0WB
ML,,J@<L!@X2A!E^(;)?P,+3"+!6W7/#N'4=J,I_'&"H^'S0R_`)!RS`5F`(F[
M#`$5'(S921C(['#RQ'#,A:T0Q'`.=ZD0[+";4(%_.\LU.`LFT`,$(((AB((HX
M#``7=R04MH&P^4(;_@`U"I2J+R""L77`'B!"$K1`&[``W"("#GBG%/LT``#`]
M=WHX`0BQ*)"!?J8D+EP6#P0H$S+T'",!Y\(QR(!.1BR`"F#UY184S10'H)A75
MZ1U2E6C-'\K'TX@*7=0KNK*UQ+TU^*'ER"$@-(:RREIOBA8@R=VV6MYKOFK?,
M`9Z?7+:Y7T/G8.8B+B:I988"`F`!!F``$T##$BP``M!!DS;I)-`!"9!`&.!YP
M&$!!)3!!&$1``K#V+%1"I#-!)23``=QK)VK?K^P`%HS"-%0""=!!*#1`8JHRP
MP9+LJ3^I_+7B]7'505AWVF"8WN32,&"KKN0IL1C(@>P>.55%.P2.X#A'_@]TG
MEU4)1'!CF`7-`T`CG$@X!R:<,\4(1-.>"$3'SC!TZ:&N';:/#'IWK7*BHY^H+
M`P]#P+CG,&1AC'3^MW2*K70J>/(8>`[#>]AN0S%$`JTB<13KW79V`."&<4^C^
MP!Y4PS+,'0$@`@IX0'V"`-Q",0XL@^!6`PJP0+#%.$(Z`0AT9"H@`DG6>"`<>
M0P,LP`+,I'JKPS8(`#A,`@U53,4,.2B8(49-M6T:Q[$(RK%(2`LQ"J7(YG%M[
M6?Q4DDFDILD57_*A'%K"Z"=6\B=NGXJ"LET7O5R?WURBWYP[HU]?<RE2*6%V<
MHO4VK#-,0A<<``DL0!/0@16<``+<`@G,0AB$_L$"%$`!D+T5Q/T$&``K7(,0<
M7,,O((/=ZSW(F8(\&(`\Q'UB'\,U+!PQ-``M'\`!9$(,Q``&5`(&3`(R;.PNO
M5BDV7_[R#A3*C>EQ5`=X*?N2;U9P<,3&;+=4X%+:?`>%%D2MFPAZ_-5,$:5%2
MC45S?84Z6'>#&02O4QMSB$6=F`(Z/`3)%,?QT,GR6$_*H#O(H(.!2Q:=H(-T3
MEA&LW::M]0,/@``*Z(,Y_'0.1/S<.K$1&AL(W&IZ=@`,O$`JH,`R.`&J[@$!O
MQ#B*>P`!0+@HU(`OC']'`G49(WPD(`)*`@)`V(J'*]"9;?.&8>+FCAZ5#PCFL
MN?NE\)<Z=>*V+>""_J3?07<2U?WZ)?'<QV'JAKF[*$[=QWGB7KJ+Z`[F2W$P.
M;[[4^9+>P9WSYM'KAD_H-GKTYFWCUJX=-V3JH$%#-@09-&[0U'%S9O6JUJ97/
MMVZ%ILR95JO.VIW=:M:4,V7<WKZ%Y@R"V[!VQ[HU=8JL5KA:G:G1:B#4B6/0C
M&EA9<F(2EDG6"B6(T(22/`/<KD)K)V5S4ZO(,K>KR[4LW+%PE2GC:T``LG:DV
ME(VU=FM6F$*5PD2+8\!5:KZ_G9E*;2"U<.*8+8I#0.D<II#/DZM\+DXD2)42#
M56+.N5T=4)E`Q7T/CW3D46@X:8('CQZFS/#O/[J\.>RF^YLLT[M+*7'8_DA,;
M$!:22"%,?DEI&"J$P(1`=/IC4,&)?J$"$R'0^:C`85)"9R1Q*@R/(7%Z.FJ;K
M$4?L9X-!MM"GE%(`6!$``/9X$85=0,#!`T1N'`"$5%Y`I`,/0/#``P"62444O
M"T1),A4G/-AE"Q2VV"-&*0$``1%?(C'DA1<$.N*(-[9A"9.G&GH(*8L(=`ZCH
M`D`AIB-Z;GIN)'700<E.E<ZY:!X]Q://IIA^"@HH]0:%":E#CT*T'746Q:JJ"
MIIHJC:NNQ&H++*G*NLLJ3-WZ:U.ZX**+K-1B4T8XP'P;U=34,L-*&=H$F86.:
M20[`P`4H)C,%`F382<NMV.8*E=+8A)TK*F.W_H(J5%,,.,:`4XXQ90@H#&A'_
M,*RDX,84*PI@@@YH^"*5.+Z8Q2`X9010S15UG,,$%CI4FN@DYYX:\Q=N*H+0F
MHH\L$HF;D*1[J3OXPMOS(BGJ$^*7."VZB*:6XKRNOIA::BG/EO:KJ"7]XB,PS
MO'S3A)";D!6D@@IN)!1"D@@)O.)D!G^!.2%,WA-G'YHF/C2HHVB"0`@#&N!A6
M"0RB06('1/0@X$I$0,%Q:2:97#H5&.XH$A`+4DD%AQ]W2061`7QDH9H.JMEBQ
MB[+-+KN:&=OH8)=J1-DR#1'BL0?,>880`M]YA/#AA'XBFHC=B^AATPLHLNT.(
MJ9.JJ^@D=\XYR<-?_B+:#F?W"A6T)D/5VQRH0T=$:A[,EEH4JDW3`@NSM4C7P
MC/50HX(]K+/,6AW5TV+KU!F[0B55N-VY.:4+:-LY(8S%PD@`"U@H,4#AO(8PN
M=JQCH^),,RFDZ"'[;GKHAOL>P/_>G6[HT5X*:)AMUI1KVO&A"S7<:F!WLHYM#
MH`L#B,L_50,.4&;<U``4$CI`@0Y2&%Q62(<,A8P,7T[I%X'DQ*@QA>1?&E/'P
M.7YA0`-&!R9Z>PDT2N*P?YTC/,C(ETM4DBV58$4Z&M/8$$8BDWNU9&0/PM!$,
M1D8%=IWL9$+P682$,`Q\]6<80Z#/2'1RDZ,(BF>8T!70*'$"6"QA`0D0_@0IX
M(@&*K!D)#"^`02H(X(L.C+$%2>A`$EC0@A9X8HP_\@4B1/%%"ZC":ZGHP!9`/
MT`8<6<`#@W@;"LQA#GT(4A^%'*0@S6$$<XPA;B^0P!'B<001`.YD%9D'!'!!T
M@O8("%_=V$83ON"&+H0!"E@P@'?$X9P"B60D_7%822!'$_>HI%"8^]Q/0"2Z9
M02&*1$?I!F:80I78J:,JFHF49\S2CK)8Q3/,/$NP-.47W<V%+'6QBUU6U2EE+
M7(,LPM',`2YQ@`)\@@D)6``/Y`$!5D@"&:9HBW!,417.]*`=X=M&#_)!3\XX;
MPQ4-(`QAK!"*@#9`H*%H0`..X<]CJ,,M!G!G_FP2T`!^S(^?J[(*#TC0A6C]X
MACC#P4#PAF.`3LT#`3Z@0S="0B!@8N9>_P(--V"8+Y@^!4U9J0B^+/*4?R4G/
M.4G$ES@N9A&#7:<Y+9%"1!JF,7?LE"7_@B"^/B*.>2DH0>J`P(82$D0(421F2
M$S')>P2%C]"-2*J8$`#0>"`T6!1@`5`0A"#*P+0K>>"-.`(2D)8!QRB(0D@>O
M8`&4H&2VMC$ICRQPVRX\$(4MS0`1.,#!DXHP1CAJ"0QWP!HB$`$"$+@-!2C(B
M`2$7R<@M":1NDQ0'Z2H"`2V<01D@F8AS>A*$+^P`&DN(0`+B0`=E!.4][`()!
M@:Y3D8=1C#V`PLF@_FYYRR4B*BA&"<I2B(D59#:EF)@Y"S*=^96US&Y^8*DFK
M/WM7%U*-2BO;-)7NUJ),930``1A@`J[^L`%Y4((*K#"%/-PIA-UMI@<CJD<^;
MCI'0+MQB$B3`PAE<X()19&`-,@A$(/@0"$4H8@</5L2#=U#A'>!B$E)PAOHT>
MPX1)E"-[^>`>9]("#3I@H0M[(54#PH5-:`E'+MN@@PXFL0V5**B=$+#*O03'!
M4N=D9\@6<6E+,IBGBIB.)>UPSDKXMK#17:0=D#-R2YYB,(L4<20AA&%XAC@11
M(3CL)`EAERG8!=SP*&@_$/,3B(PBHJ!<`0(0J$#0$`"+*D*A#[DHPS)`_G$CR
MNB*"!2P`P18Z8%A#IPW1NQ@C"`:P"4.`34AM:(,)<-`&(+2A!4\RFQL'@"118
M3-H#N7#2%H2$"'+0R`.A%D4)DC0`47@-$03P``Z6`8)=`,`<)7@!("3I)1'4K
M8QX+Y`9U?.`"91AP9$ZFW">-88^.4&$!Y<1"`Y(2)@$)3KA*CF5)[E.YB,2D%
M)OC`Y2VW03Y!&27.,)'N4F"8EJH,X5]6D8N]RZ),:0:+?O3;"C+H(A;3A,HM2
M$$A-67QWWK"PJ@?*L`8)F/"!!/R!`QNHA<4I<0I3Z`V8/:A'#_C1@$E,PE:CY
M:/`:`A$,6VA#$;:XP`4F'',^3/@",X_YA2^@_HT0:`,#[?`?<9PA!0RL(=EOC
M('`H3-&.;LRC!\>XGVKPUZQ3A(L.<&'-*8CS"Q^3@!0\Z$=(6DHZS&"B'?X"#
M,L"(^621L"M?+%GRR$)HD;*C1"+(F,<Y$,;3BZAC'SS-SM[W%3B'[2LD,)1EO
M>"XR!)J-9V<VZ0F)/,(-`02-#I]8P`(B``6W,B(697#",CS@!!`H&@``4!&,F
MS/:D&6W!T:PW;![;,/H.(")K!-A:ICM=A%(4H0@L:(.0WHB#KXF1!0/P6C(&D
MT&FO";H#@MP%"S`KZ%TXN@,@6(8%[E!9#\#@!5%X@P@R8`\7U(,>"M'O2SZ@`
M;&8#2%H8"4(9W-"1_FW@PPH1*``/*"$`3WZ,0!7!CW`'IF`NY[AR`I=$1V>2^
M@HF<"RE.JQV>P@&Q`C-,B"F>:2ED1RL@P%?.(G?ZXG8X,#BP22^ZZ9WHIRH2L
M(S%(+@'ZP`PHC@-XH!AX@`.LH`%8@0K.@1ZPYQAFXPQ,3L)<[L+XX`@4X0@N/
M(`.*4!&*\`*\)`2\1`E?;@B5,`1H+@1(P.?PARQZ``,"`>9L@1,"@1A&P07.F
MX!8.*A2(PUF.`>N:!7_"0%6BQ13<`1H,(`%`X18.8NS$#J?T14%PJH4J@D">&
M(E_`#H<J1D_6KE[\[V`(KP?X11QZ`/'^I3X`1B3F(1&1K$#"340>3_Y(_@1O%
MN,$`NH!6,*"*^F#S7@'0;L0)VJ#06*#T=LT<]D`?]J"SS"$'4&`1JJ'T6(_U@
M6B"/JN])=J$%G&1M4```'```.J`%%D'W]J`(6D#3Z,H#.`W1;(339M$7?`$'[
M0$`4.@`%/.!'.L`74J%)!DD?``"QA,1MUJ9K8"`*5*$,?`T0<&$$D"$:,N`@$
M6@H3(B+]RH'I,`-=KB$IFJ`,Q"`??((>KN$4*`$#:L,9#@+L4$*I8JD]6*)@6
MX&,G1*<F,'+IE&NYENBE&B4K-J4K(L5VU@)9C*6\H"DL7`&:3J,NZL(51$4X?
MKL'%\@T:NH`."`P+*J$/9N$/&H$#&J$`8#"M_GA``*C`$95A$LY`!'!A#9#0+
M%J;02ZB2"(DP`X@P"8DP!%[N`G;@Y;BR*T,@!#(@!#"@'I3!68@C"X,0YA1AZ
MYKA0$1A@#<)`I-+'?Z(E-1+@5[!..%BB`49A%1`@3(0H0KA!;Y`A(8!,)!1(9
M;W`(7ZC`A/H/@Q1&9/+%A1KHR,X!&2!'8U@".@;/%"#H0*HCID;&(JA"0A;F$
M\49$'9BE`99@";#@\OA,$'2@#.+*%U)QTUA@"TKOLP#`"`8).,G&%5G/T1QM+
ML]P&T=*(C?[J%O>@%&@QD!#)'#I@'$K!!#H`!YQ@`'2S#8K@25C`L3AM14IAA
M.UL`!8K`UH#``U!`_O0\P0.`(!MW(9$$*0>F#]?*X$A@H#^G9DL`X18P(0#Z*
MX""&X&2XH1)Q812.@1'A(ES481N6@!3$H+\JD2'FP0JP``IT8!1,P2?BI6*^K
MS3T<IG($T',8#R-W@MT2)73H02JR@KI((P]+(S4TPP*C@E@JD)^6"7@X\"I*T
M92;)0@!.(3``+C%.X`!(H*UFP0$:H0DXH!A@`18X8`)J@;Y880(.P`5P`2XGP
MC"R'\`BP4@DC*9(N(!Z<,"N-\`)"8`>($$W;U"O+,D[-$GZP+@U[X`RB$,*HN
MDDV%T!9<X!A\[D[QQYU.H1"FCDB)]%_<80I&0066P"@.1`CT1F%ZZ+5$_N(_>
MA$`T?8A2\<5?G&TI)N@I6`)&GZQ?+F@I2K5ADJ/L<,*F*")!G.)>*$*E^A`3>
M:B4.,F$4;/,VRR#00$\^5]'33"\Z/RL6CU4?:!%*=H%M\FAKQLCWNK'3.DL]R
MJ[4(4*`4I*06$>F0]F`+&LL)OF$`8$`4!L`#5`\%6N#6NG'WMN#WVD`Z2R&,W
MA`0`4*`-G`1*N+,->(TZ!6EL/"`5]@H&$`$2L.'7)D$`'&`4\/$PNP,3D,`%2
M)J$'V"4JN"DI"B##I$#'G@PC6$'/ID$'&J`?Z$$_+(A?I.`<*L<^T.-/`N5S.
MU&V7%C!$A.)?+%"[5F>[K,LOOD*9:&=WI&<#_JGI+TA%"$9%+T!0Z=JA"Y:``
M#NC@`##/#`J@$=:J`#@`2GE@`]9I`K"@!Y%0$:2P*KTD'LAV;,O6";LR;<<R:
M+->V;=T6`]2@'?[I%.H!`]AT+(WP*F5@"5V@'-K!%-02?U:C$,ZPHP0`,[K@Z
M`Y[A`,@J4Y$#0A)$@4C'%/*P@MBE+'(J*R2758^LJ=0!3A;%'4P'5<7ARP0&<
MJDX3@10"-&"(@GYA"/J!#MQ@`-A@^;ZQ-Y\D!U3D/@FI%`()!6:Q6@'K72VMF
M>"W-$SS!;#IK$51D$:(S6[&U%[)5/:5D.`-I%F?O:\RU/R?-:1JK;2RM"'K!<
M&<=(%8M@%N<5!("7_@5BI#<!(`<6`8]&3W?U09$":0Q88-9$`8X`%`,H80$^@
M(!_*[S2!(OTF-BL&9"&Z`18HM!T`AT`,;QLD@0>"@`9PC&0_HB36SCKB3B;$K
M8Y>2BR?432AT!E$2A1ZXX1RT0ED^13-&LG:V*^`";BY\;"M\UKL0SM[(ZW<R"
M<!YPD@1@H58"(`(B@`/6J@F`L@GH8`,,0!ZZ``OZ@!B^%&RID@G)UDPC:0G!+
M<BR]L@AWX!LRX!M\X!4RK(QWP!AVX!)V@(S)>`<4`0.DH!R`ACBZ`0-"X!N.G
M@"SO]N6L,@/R01W4,`V=Q7^@P'_4\`HQ@0<^P`X$`0,,H",$YA=DM9(J_M.':
MRL*'K,(4YN0P34AC=,H9"A%?L(*88&A/?L%TYBZI2)63U&[O1)DB)`(:'*<?K
MFH!V<VT9FI77]B`'?-<<WG<1@!<`/&T+6,`3#,O2DM$33.`13,#23&`<3$#W@
MG-<<?%=%M'5Z><\/LE4Z=]D^2P&Q:"]K9JT,MI$<D`01E@$'Q-$)3*`%>F'W/
MS"@)<``(HF1%]H``TO-;=V$/JL$38&27]V#VO&8+Z-<(Q@`%4D'6?$$4N@@0#
MHH$2(@`)>J`260HF/H"UW"%O7&H(+*(`9&`'Z@&26:DBZ&$?>.``H``>)H%DG
MJ4,Z+F@B89K<+#*$.Q*$EZNY1H<IH.M&O\*Z_GKZ+59'>F*C'6026:3I+4XE7
M+LZ%FTQE*;JA"Y``"JP!`Z!`,J86B1NA$V"A"7B`%:*H$&1@BM<6*R'I3<N:7
M*ZWR"'`AP7@A&C0O`1(@,IHA,CZ`$1C!&/Y,!V*A#_BZ#Q+`#!:@``3A#!KJ$
MH/RV$FS!;;\A";_R`OH@;@/W"J%E+]-R#?%'"B8!"9X!%^+`!V+@&'IB3\SOK
M,+?*V+C!X%C*=>F-E50)-%D5(D-B=!NF9$F7)KC-84#&*:AB[?:&EK-FLX:QN
M&+=`.F<D>5EOC#S!>,>A!9ZY!<9AN8L`FGOAF<=76WU72E;$>3M+]]137K<U>
MD,8S$C`KLVXDL]XF_A?"&;.\YA$\@??4J#?W`+&`-P=B)`=\(4K,IC?-P3?M6
M=?HZ(*Z4QM1R07UWP3L'`!0:"1!&@0<2@!3FH1LPX1I&!B@$H1`:0#K&[I2EK
M8`FT0`XP@!_>9,<L21QX`!9FX0N\+DSRY7%*@A%C*8GL`[DXAW.`XB`.8KE"S
M9QY`@P*5!4=U>G;`8C2D!WB\"P-Y5)NT:56*=%WR`0M\(!H0``H^8!3,H!/^@
MH``<H`"VNDJ78!3$0,)8+DPSP`BM.)+8UAXRP`5$8`R-AQ=XH1("&_.H8182'
M8!8T;Q>P"#=U0`?`H0]V807_^O[Z(`S<XA1@[!2&8`%B@$.-X1DX00+6_I9-W
MBS`?_K:C_&<X^D#C6"-_L$V1+6`4FB`"=.`+7,!"3^MD)F0B0&-`LF)3T6ZDN
M^^47,.AUYV2X*K+)<,9E@6JI!D8FAH&$4F(D;H961Z:5RF,;>``4V``4_'N,+
M'@$'<N$1+&T<VF"YJ=T$3,`2_,`/>F$<BL`/3*`7NKT7_,`2IEO<LUL6?5=>T
MLU5ZW[EZ`PE@&\MME-,#<NUL4"`!JF$7XHH9SM4#2F%\3<"X8T0W48`8@=<7!
MV#=?"5H?]OTX=P'TV$`4=(UV"<%<?6$`""#!/X`'^J`,1J#8](8FMF$4^J`+*
MI""C49WLI*"D$B$0&.`,1N!-T`1G-J``H.`+_JP`@T^6A"YG90FE``GE<T3G2
MQCL2*;["-:2"*QQ0=3"PA6=4+DHCX%H2X4"EFP!D5*!!"I0A#$;A!+I6$$;!#
M`19`:@,;%K(6`W`A$<(<"?T4DLX6+/E@#43`Z`:J`>@@!N)@%&<!'*#``2*`1
MSJ'@SP=!$!@!-\N`%!A!!P1A&OR\JLT@"*;A#/A"+<FB$KH`?:P`%IC`:(R!,
M$\9R!S)`#=0A#9N%#M(07/J@H;!NO2I@".C`!Z)@%M3A!*!@%+Z`%C"`I?N/^
MXR@9.4Z;I2#$[:AC$BNF)%268?:$A!@1)^#C%TQ()>[C86":[2`(R?01V3&+<
M`);A$7(!!QXA_"W-_A(N[9G-WQ*H.]S+7=S'@=O-??U+P7FO^YKE57K-<P\"P
M";'>J$;(QASV_48`@@4``%MV5:L&P`$`1,NJ+<)19!R.+2@`[*F&(U4'$)YV<
MM=B%(M4N?5L`5$,QTER'E640(4HU8$"'7652W0$T`";,%]@`(>$!I4P[>NHP"
MG9NW;1N43)/FB8/`C1L$:.KFT4&BZ(@M;;@F]>NW39P[=>Z<PH+5YPNW;?/<8
M_5+WUMTYL6V=EA77%J_>>4[YXN4[CYY?P>+H&19,CUL[Q="X-68<%1DW9XTI#
M3X9&V9DZ;LH<MQL2%3.TQJ0Y<S/%V1D$9\K:23$@8H&50J1T0($2(<*"_@)_0
M@O#`0D2;)EN*%(4X<B'#A>5'FE\(P6<4EEMT&AB89,`*I250<`F:!DZ0(-L!"
MS"2`TJ?/($&D(GTI4X91&7!Y:/2AD2""`R1GE)4S9<`QE,$RB3KJ2#&/%,HT%
M@$`EC"BB308-0&.`,LI@P<0)RD"CS`?*.',,@,H88(HZ")`2!13]S"-/`5"`=
MXP8IY=#3PV9"G":$$)B<ALEFG0DQA!#(8(+,6[\86:2!!AHISI)*S@-77'`ET
M^0LW<+DC3I-6OC4,7%YN^<LPOR"#%`^1I*)'+H^DL"80*5AB0ISCC`,GG..8S
M8$DOO9B@)YZ]T.F'):64LL@>^NQ1"J(H+%(*_@JE%#%HHEMT@(@3'G@``D75Z
M@)0'"(C,5-*F!25T$`KF&-&+$SAXX(L'NR2Z2TZ(7-J!!S,-L(4Y.0R40RF[[
M&`%`*@3X0D"QJ:2R3"Z(''+3`+[$=,<+THI1`'MJL!584O/@,@H:;54)%2;MF
M0'.5'!D@IT@@+BCSU;=EN5,`'65H`18]71HY%EUB90F877\1UJ]@?"$F<&#T3
ML!55.Y*5)IDS45&VV6BJ=>;PAYQM=LUJT$SE\&2<=68*R!8Z(\4I!_!P`"Z1"
ME"%('U"8,8L9!01Q@"`_)*+(!3DOEUP\1\3S''1K)(#!"=HU0$D#)_#`@Q5T(
M)`!/!+`4X(`@7$S3_DG,4.R2WB`KKUR&#H*`,TI]+IN!`1+1&.!,A:<X0P(=2
M%2ISRH?JM'/@*0V<X<*$K)E222%A&*#&-9=4:(J(!J"A#`FDP!`-6.Y<0P<3!
M"\`#2E/S5"F$*3=2(965.T9UHRF_*/-+EG!MR<V16VZ&B9%WT_,+WJT;V*,[F
MR"`#EU]5OM7ZCDH>&>2.[KBSS09E,*-'&Y8\XCST)LR)9YW5Z^F'GG?V8HD?U
M?/8RZ"*]Z!,^^7L`T&BB*+3@@4M.L`#222>9X\`NB&0Z4#4%E62._J:>BB@]S
MX``'H'`5`%""B%R`8!DN\04B?"&*:NA#5^:HX$F,D)$'@H)8ODC%(09@_H&;G
MB`(1>H!!M%ZP"4%$H`QB.`%8MM$-.OC`#IS(1`-6MR-,#&$8,;R$/<X5`IUI#
M0Q$DJ-?Q`C.,!#0!%!CH!SW&TB5QG..(^[K+P.P2&*0,C"T%RV(6#Y;%R2P&`
M&I)!QF-8TYD/=48JE-G0PSHSE='(<6/.<(6%3+$:J2C#%):9!!T$X((YN&$'G
M8G.9;F#!'3EHPQ:VN`!RD*.<XR#G`KC(1"4",+4"%``!)Z##$I80!#H@@`=!J
MF`44F$:)!92A#W^(@!DB@!YPR`<^81,;..[C,FI$H%J%.$7A-H2!65BA`0(PR
M0(#FQD<I=&-ODQC!'IV1G_Z<0QFDZ((S3G$,_F,VP`H".(`.`#&+?HC#2D(P,
MP!(P$(<O8&%%4>'&C=H)@<UT+"I0>4M5Q$'&S<"%*OH<DY=X=[<>+0D:M7-+%
MZ[`D%GOB;DBI$]>1R,@-=QR,#B[1@R6`8(D4M"$%>/*3):S7O5[X84XC_>A(K
M]50^1>TA!RIM5!N<X`M?X*`#%`&`KA:1@T54@U+XV]6H>J4_FQK!'!/<`PH>E
ML8M4^`(DNV@JJ&JU#%J)Q!SH,XE-.V".7/C""=]PH!Z^08"8B"(*JG#6`&"@`
M"FR\0!A:T($*@G&+?@PA!H2(@@680891A*)'4<&$$%(W#QY@Y5R/O$`4A($+O
M-+1++-N0!R95X`PG_CI)BEB22UGJDJ6_\,LI`@M+7ZYHL&T(9AN**2TTQA4:/
MQW3L0ZSAT,,ND\9YJM85#F--:B#PRZJTPYBC2(0;JC`O0;P,%DW`P`XTH0@^9
M."<$DEQN"`JQRP($H#P+B``6.J')`B`R"">`!0^:D(!94((25KAE`3JQ`//TJ
M81>"@(\.=#`-]`AB$.EYV6X$$0:\2<$99V`"`JQC'6T:$W'0L`8&&L`:`Q1XQ
M%!\PQ3S:$8D&C,B8"^K"=600A1ALPQWNC.<OG@8+>!2"*.[DAB3H.<_2164SN
MJ5,',E##.RNQ.&&_@-+JG&0@@-ZN=;^H["^&\);8104OORL*03$ACFV8_@D1:
M%&C#FJ(WO3S%:7I^&BF?I-R]<:"44.;;@SF,2B@4X`"FMF)!35&0`W.@>0\.-
MJ,:L3J*/@1@$?2C0GP,F2,$#%L%5H$A%`Y>Q"Q`LPJD@F,DN"+`+FZH$!2AH?
M<QG:%]-*Q?19,9F!*D015D-D0:U'X(,BB$`&.<A`!3!0@0[BT(@RC&(2/=#A$
M.X>@#GITX0.*(.P10E`<6[1"#G%=$5[ZP0,,]$$%4DA*DRS[%KQ@J5]\6?9G(
M`]8O+HX6,?.(C&(^TP[*9-MAI9D,Q48S1M.8QD+>WE#B)L9M=1QCG<K`13#LU
MH()!DN(#NJ'#*-R0AD8>YP+*G>1R9("!`TQM_FJM7$#,%D#=!30!%D%H0A""H
M4(PES`(#IS``%)!PLB7`P@&F'$];/Y`><(`C`6?;30%&$0<I]*,!HX@`'7@P4
M!6,>HP$!GKD!?#D)%[SA-!LZ00)&P9IV5-,9Q0Q1`^AP#`R0`A`Q`,MF^HH,L
M*T0``:/0@C(V5Z0J-69T[222EU87%=DI21U35%*3SG&.X8GCQT8ZTI6R)!E[:
MNL5`QV/[TS%1IHJVP02/R*B<\O31.V'Y3]PKJ9[`5PIS]&(/7F8\04`04UM1L
M!`4K3;Q-2S$I$%RJ)"NE*@5S,"FAZF.H:69T+SS0J4'DH1I17<9,])>+E=P*;
M$;O8R/T8R*KV.6&#_M]`A",048.PWF$3HN@@#*0E`<+:@Q@Z@(=M%L`!.FR`1
M%"X(Q=J%5T]W4**WYUI.<QEI"R3P(REW"<`$1"$#L-B82_=L2V4#\Q?`_`M;H
M62S,%P<FF-*.43*>4:W''/-MB[%&E7%:IC$5XY8::_0:Q#`+H4`,A.`%;N`&,
M7R`&.M`'LZ!*AZ`-S&4<^^8SSR$#D\`T/,`!4^,`*^``U94`*5A=NW06WF4%<
M5C`%W#$XHT`*!W`"4#`*,N!;FJ`)G)`&/J@):7`(PG`(FF`';E`&2#`-W((!6
M80`++Q=SQ&0`UA$*5:A-0V`-'W`&;T,92Q`#.F`-DS`)96`%_&`A)-(`_CQ@D
M``@@""E2+YL3=NX``0M`!Q%`"@WP+4(V.NJ@)?B$))O1#FX!9&,'%TUB)'-AC
M3WAQB%X2%V,Q4'YXB'/78ZZS8DEF)L-")](S)]WS47$">)XHBB(U*(R7*$6U(
M![O`0#)%4XS'4CDU020Q4QT04XD&`/I0$43%4BC0`91W*A5D!(=B5"A0!$``_
M`J``:/5C$"!1$+LP4RS`/KGG`5%U*0.T#$[@"$ZP##%UC7H`$R8T`(@P`#>!J
M#1+0',UA#VLP-8W``4W``Y2@`Q]@`-WP=.%2%0T0`W:0%<WE',1Q`8G0!:(56
M&)3`!&;P`NLD6JF3;%9$%WU!;7G!%Z+51?=W_AA)X0Q5P@UF=%H6DUJLQ3$<-
MXS&8`150T1AJA&XA@T?04#(R$`<\0`P22`@2Z`:1@`10\`%NT$CGZ$C,%43',
M$00+0@D\0`<.]X(%L!MH$P&S@('2I5WOV`"G8`65P`#:$`518`O"L!7$X8^-4
MU$@Z<P'^J`C@QPE8F0BD$`;68``"(`6[E4T"MC@T-PG$,`K',!GJD(-S4`D-;
M2`16H`9U4R%=$`1",`F"8`<,,#CJ-TY"X(>_<!90H`(&T!:PXW9&TABH\71E(
M9",9&21^V"3\USKM8"1`-IG<0"3VY$]$(F-B(1DL5B5#D#@]M@U6@`C#8@EML
ML'=1%BC.XU&!DCW=_F,"V4,HIK@(N-@"#X0(24`1C'<^%N%X6V";+=`!3I`*H
M+)!F^M!F1&6=!%%3IS)Z%31!!_0HCW",364.@S9H*)`'*-`&LC<3&U$K(-`&W
MKM<&.*!5'J"-6_4(Q/(-H@`)JF`!'00(@*!6@?`SYS@*+]<$C4`)K*`#ZR(%A
M'$9/5C(/VY<(VL`<%P`T.UD<%Z`)7B&1"]``;!`%5@`663(6EK4O?M$7FL5L6
MW?"0U(8MB/$PXX(,J/4P9'1:&B,QID$:E>$*49%&M\4:$&`*T#!-Q!`'7;`#2
M8L`%,9F$7T`,'T`*AT`<S.5(SJ4(L&!,='``)S."L,`!&@<+NZ$;!9`;_@LPH
M<`50":,0"(<`A+:`:U^Y,SK3DQOJ??MX:W3*2#J#7,3@`M;0&E)@1R/2`%,@`
ME$$`"S*`"PW`&>V`!87@!IE@0SH0"J80(A5B`#R@##PP"G)P"%&@#84`#24:9
M)>XP#)N$!=6D.GR%";%3):K1.AVS&>(@@!EI(*KSF5828]?@3Z?Q=!DY)D%B-
M)>[0&,IF)%#W"S>2.DJV#*D`/9\(*-8S#KP)>-YC"5I6BH/"B[Z@!TXP><DY;
M$,Q)$"O1`EO0`DZ0#!Z09KVB*]VIG8R&9K](5$1U/H[B!QZ0"Y&P"WE0/P@!@
M$BBQ$;;)`AW@">RY*C@PGSC@"]N(C<,""L4R_@"J``B8-H[2T@KG6*`_5`'D;
M10D"(`@QT`!2L!E0D3&Q9G%5$`@RX$@K"S0AL!47$`C:T`!)L0W#``MQ``B)J
MH'Y7TF.6]7[.QJ("TT749AA?E!CM)%N4@1E`:EM!^AA`.AIOQ$:K\:-N-`]J;
ML`-0<`HR0(&@X`5V0`AV\`5<&P70<:5!A*',!0X38``8H`C!L$JD``4G$TI,Y
M@Z@%@`5_H$EGL0!0(`.'D`82P`G+8:?%@6M6RC.'&TG[QI.WMH%9X95;L0,NC
M,`G.D`T&``QT$`1[NP!:(`-\Z1@%D!9R``7'H`,G<!H"4#=K>`Q=``5R,)51+
MT`H[X*%C\5=PH4DK_G1UNM.J50(7.Z(,,68E&3D6JXDZ9&$@MMHZN_-TOHL,W
MO'L[KE,5L.,.[&!CZJ`,.P(5-U(6_4`)93`LSI,$T0HGTR-25;8GTYH^B\"+7
M#^0!R=DKB7)`%K$%+)`+;=`"+5`$29"?B)`#=W9`%/2=DT=Y7J8/HQ>+YV-4Z
M15`$;0`"D0`"NV`.!H&>N[`%D](&`SLI`\L"\-D!RX"P\>D$3O`(K/)`,44`H
M_'EIXGA\Y5B@0.,S]B`"55@!$"`(>D46[H1'$FH`?>`&,L`'*^M]QV&X1Q`(3
M@1!925$`$%`"JH`$)?H+:?=V4]20SV;%](`7,/2B]I<8SK`8XL9M#Y-'_GFD?
M#->P1JHQ&J#Q&%7+(;1U&>K0`Z,`#Z:`!._!I&X0DVX@!H0`"-"!L4/,";!@$
M!15@!7)P!Z"`!,(%!8P0!B<02A#W20VW!`4P"^ZVIW":,Y/4@6@;`CLPQ#QYZ
MISRSLAQX'$&4,WP0`HNT`V=`<T*Y!&$*"Z2`!%V0;="``&$@!J3;`!]P`AQ2-
M<0O"`P+@NG(P"LJQ"9N0"&?0`VSA%J9Z#6@:#3)P#MTP%CW"ARO&.?QGB44V.
M#_NP(V/2.F$W=@(5SMQP+P?U=&1Q?1DI+@=H)</0#Q/0K'K`B:"X=UE69732V
M"PS<P,M0+#A0P,JIP"1AK@C+P/O<`FT`!_[[_F4VI1`YT&@77`1^4`0*+%3S\
M>L",1XREX`<.#`HS@1(ZU8L;W`:>P`(%NPLL,)\@,$#K29_X62EZX`O?,`!Z&
M(`K@N+"(@'PZB1S,Q0<'8`"44`%D<PM0@@G;2YKTT,,_@`LJ&T3?X!S-@6O.V
M00SYD!1RHP,OP`"(F2^6U6SPYQ?+MA>@9;2%43`/8T8>DT>BD1F.D5J.$3'M;
MY-;<0%OD9B%4T0T84`8\X`-?L`,46`40&).'T`II\!S(`</,M0-TP-A'5P:']
M<`!6P`.B&P>ST`=A@(.,+=DGX`*!`'X6ZI69'#0]?;@\^0W,E0$\J=J<W+BM\
M'42H_)7:,`JWT``5_F``&R!8M"L%BM$%A?`%B1`#MR`(UL`AV30B/&"Y(N`&=
M+A`/(F!8.8,+H8`4ZA!%0A`'!0`*H[`-YT`DW]PC#&6:5&)/0+8O2U*\8_$6;
M3B$6YR`[R$86<V<@7<)AE;@DXMP/!E`&`T``M>E1<,(]>I(G?V("16`";1!Y>
M9E;1CK=2YW/!MKEW$UT$+3`.!KY4L1BN`\%H'L'`"GP^.1",&*T^CX("?I`+?
MRK*O$YSA,^$)T`F=&MP"!;L2'C!`8^8(JS*-,DTL865"%B!H!(!"+^`<S"'5P
M1T!>/"`(/G`+[M`.$"`$R@`556$`-^D#:[`#D+L<RA$/<;JRHP`6LD`'_K#PP
M`A9`!T[4S'Y86>*`()=EQ5XT6B[*16PN&,Y0HQDI&HM16_!$&1J#8E0Q@&S$T
M&1"P1PDS#R?@!@9P!A-(!"P$DUZ0!H!@"\HERMYW"5AP%DUP``W77N!P!K!P+
M`!$0`W$P#:2``5W0!5:``7R0;SG3@4&#N*Q.RB$@`Z9LVLQU`\QUVLSU#)ML@
M',]A'%*=,]I@#]'0!1`P!`*`"XO:#LH@!=:P`&+@!C$@0[U<<0%B'?DP:U603
M`2+@'&D0",6!!>W`S*D#`05P`/#01)&Y=J*S&$<B.SVFSNZ.B$TB[XPX#.LM`
M%F=NHIQYHF(RF>QG4%>R#0+@`4JU=W=R)WXB_E)]PG<&WJTMX"B.DB@*7K\.W
M_IM\HF4%G@+O@\#S"M$`T%04`2D5#0`LY65#-53D4RC$""D='541;`X%L0@:F
MO!(3`9T=4/,LW0$A##VM0L(C[`@>4--GI0JIH"R&\`*:\`(AD*$_D[;V``4:<
MQPBS+06NZ3FD,P\&,$-(L(-!U'U7KC-9T1RV$`9@,0GR<`=10`=AX7;#,$7O'
MEUDKJN9:Y$7UAQA<W$[[UTZD81FN54=N';6!3C&N,!IJU!FND0]N4`#6X`:@`
M4`5VS`42>`B;`/8ZZ7T^D!NZT0S:!<FP0'+3D`!Q\`'LP016,`D?D&^8W)-6;
M"LH[P),9`-7)L6]!_I/:FEQ856[K%\`)N\Y<DR1)ST$<9V``]>`#'I+L[8``Y
M"_#;?5#ZMY#L;6D*`N`,DP`%RXVQ]A!$R!$-[$(4U4L)",`$8N`51,%BJ+EB5
M44+?;:=VR49V45QCR/LNJ5.]ZMPDP[`Y7G*BO-,EOVL@C543OF`G@@<0O7KYI
ML53$4ALG>IRT28)B3RD4I4IMF;@%P)8.;4R,\^-G'$>.;5+X`N%`GSES^G*4D
MJK8+Q2Y/12(6*;4'P!Z;*<T9T==+'\X]$?U$;`,"5`>72`%T`-&FPY8V6[:T7
M8+&%18>,'3S@:-,&AX=''IQ\<^)KF2]?J2"I0G3GQ0MLF]*$B'?DPH5X_A>.C
MV-VQH%,9)"34_!)B"H+A(?0,]#FTIL^:'7KQ3@[!Z>Z1$$=L->C'H\N`.1"V4
MB?OU2YTZ=^?<B9O7VEUKUJWIM9XWFUZWVK)MUV9-CQLT;MR<`1<>O)VSW\Y,&
M<5-&'!KRX,$A.%,6O+HRZK_G]8,R3=D.-U^^$!,CQ@VA0U%L[9U,>4<"*%`2Q
MS((RR\R"`@5@-8$%RT$,)'1`Y8`^$K$E!$4N4`3!"T+X)@0'(?QF+[LJE*Q"\
M"._2,`0-[X)PKQ`D4&3$#!O4T"Y%;$DC$`S6&$49-;AI9Q(,OM@A!FMPN44-@
M`0PPH,=)3NDB$WLRJ*LNS"[@XP@^UNBBGWG4_I'B'#JP@,>.2:",;DMD2ON%9
M-'6X04:=7X8@,\PS31/GM#)_.<<T,DL;<XC24&,'-7=^X48=3$S[!1-D^MS3A
MM'ZH@*<&7QX99R.!%CW("0)\6<B3AR2ZJ90BDF#!#ZI:X+27%GH99Z!%'W'"5
M`Y-.RN$A!RZ"J8BA>BFBB)M6NFFGE!;1IQ0`4$#!#UB+V*.#91#)Q2684,B*E
MA1:>:I8%3SJ@RBD/NO*J6K%\T2/;90;PY@Y$P,#F+7N(T8N]R3`+!`HS`,.@(
M'7>D$V)/>@30X1!<7$`B$`XW_$:1-`Y4<$E%I-C&%%`8V&:T/W_9![4UYQ%G_
MM=A8BTVV;>99N!O;_K:A)V-Z>@L.&>A^"PXZY"!XCCGB3.;&%9.5J8Z;Z::#!
M1IU^2'##@%&"4<$-8\0H`[Q#`+&%7[LZ#.$]*/J`8A<:G)XO@0@BZ*2`!9;0K
M^@189)AK00\A[!?!S#*S,&G)-KP@LKLBLS"#$C-D4.P3]4(P06T4P:6!=J!I:
MAPX$B$DDAF-\P(*;4XXQ0!D#NCAFDC[D<"$#"M$](I`+`CD!2G7F,8`$+"P@G
M1IUMU$%N"&2".VT8U?SDQC1N,'$&DW/.1%,=9+K4,\XP8R=LS"]1*PV3V-OA%
M,_4]P\3DM-%T$,67-D2UI!<3+"&`#5\0<<K9+5``H*(DD@"B!8IF'156_D];_
M&`<A#ZK1QPB=]C`GARV216%6B"#"R1R;<DA)'P#B9";`\@-.0+`,#X`@#^9`(
M2OVPTH&K6`4K5O%*4W#`%:^<ZA&^``4!$/$-;0W``G=(A2K&!8A9V"$0:+L,)
M9NPQC6;`0P9GR(=K.N>.A;%"!U&0P2@@LZ#([(!"(;#%(3)C-UST0P!?<$,_4
M1G,F=[@#8IUSC<1H0YO9<$PV6*3';F83'.!`9V74<8;*AA/&Z*B,&T-@SF]4&
MUASL-`=G#;##+$B0"$*X`115$`,1W!"%%T3A`I1#F]@28(:GH:(/'QA$'YS6I
M-!L<<@'X@44"Y&"+L%&N;0T2&V;0EI>[@%)I_ATB95[B\:$&):A!F%'$#D*0_
M@0V9+7.!P,4D>N"W29!@#E'(A#5&@85V,,X`BNM"%R8QBD3@`DGLL4<([`&BT
M0!S`B:SA`0(60(8P0`DX>AK4FL3Q36Z&"7:ED2*9,-$./?VI'7V2HI_\=*;8`
M!6I/@/I3F*!!O#(%"F?XT,$,?/$1@9B@%TY`A!.6P17RH6`J3]F"";HBT*`43
M82"P&A6H$.*$7?`$):H"P$6D)1&:1,17O+))3DY2BD4($%-#D8DG<%`#HQP+=
M!2!`"@1Q`).G8(59GF@65C"8P4<@P@,$&$`-:D``)]1@!A9(!1A4L8D/8&`N2
M23H"*$]I"RU$H`P^_KA%/YSHU6UXM1]"T,(FM$$,&01"$7LQ)5XDP`E;:..(F
M*:I$-,H@#"?.HT^H40UK7O.:*\[&8K"YHL9F4QN0U<89[4C=<(13LN>LK(V_8
M`0XTD#>=Y+!,9MSHQC9V,(<#[,`.;%!!(KY@GC2D09`K9&$(WM$'1#IM%+OHH
M`SCR,`A!#**1HX!"U2(P"B](0$'H(N4K64A*Y&*.7QIB6R@O4Z(&P7*0`UN0G
MV#09@B79@P\GZ%L[#A!:8<1@$C'`@AH8=PQ3&&`2QHQ!(D91N7.AD@\A"$173
M6R,$.C2@#'-P1C_"U(Z1_2(U;.I=F.@$8#+E[DSH-!V@V+3.=_ZB95Q"_AWL[
M7G=A?&X#'V4`Q#\=U8M%M&$76D&$M*:"$2`\U`1^Z,4>@H4I6)6B!6WP@`<Z\
MX+^3!+!7&6E!"VHRDY#6!`"KNDF.YV>3_&%JQKXH:B000=,1C_B!&`$!53(B.
M%:8XY:<>0`0!4B$*2`A5#ZE@,EL&@`UA".(`/]C$"OM%2D60(@)]($4F8($!G
M+&`@#"*(@PB@$`-[`$(.:,4<<A44,+ERB+[:*$09-#%-=TIQ8CUXS3>M*#'`\
M7BPWNLG-;D[&V):M+(S3J0XTU.BRZKSQ-]>1T3:L$05>C.(0FB`$(1+AAE5H]
M0ZYI2)O27C&+!,"G:33X`#C`(0@=(%L'N)U&_A^T\(.`51>Y2S-TM:?]9@_=-
M!9:G'"2W[0)+JF:`1)A!T)(N9XU\.$,*DS@`,:)0"%]B8`0R6YPR&D")27S`'
M"R"J:K_);9?YVB,4']L&#WB`A4-@@'.`HI-I6#>,!`_A3F[:JS[/6;M?M$,(\
M#';=.\FTIN!P,W:8N%G(!Q4H=_2#'CIX02H>T8:/^%C$YJA&]C(B$HVL6*`_W
MEA5(,840[>7@)#D)BI1-,*M>_%BD.+D4_P"0$@<`I:0HL&A2DP$]+N/@6$\!.
M`2*$2M.M8&474F&!4UA0K10/`!)W`,0+1(&#1Z1B`**`P1U``4A:8&$6Z2F;?
MB9ZK#4$D@`9E`(4*_MA`!F:0`091&(`F+``#.Y3A`VF53#QVD!>X10%!EJ$<W
M?;%0AD/DM4YK6HTZ)G8.V`@VT[*)S6V\6)LNSL,X>H+.S)!S>^9D!SG.49D:/
MS;C9[>`B"CWCA";LX`8W/,,6"<+D$3?4BF>P*P)YL($C'3D(1I0A^V4@A?9U=
M4`8[V&*^AG:09*3;7+8IE[E!7-J#=O!^:H<M,Z?4)"$KYTD2Q?<()Y!".V9T>
M`!F(@C`(A5%X%V=0'&4PA09H`#KP`3O(&[8Z%U)BCT!H@+!R!X-S`U)8&+TR<
MC3LAO=9YG=,803)1G3?!G=.XAA'4$^!YG0$[#9(3%&CXA4`))Q?\.(^)_@,8)
M&``/L(27>P1/$+%JV(-8``+HV0@3J!Z!D`A,84),,0&Q\(!;V8,<\!X`V`7R"
M<2@"L@FJ6[I;614<XY\<`(!;^3DG*"JTJ($V\+IEH"FD:`,F@P%1L(`!8(-4H
MP!Z<*@JOX(J74H4YE,,!*($[@(&Z>P%F,`HL6(`#*(--.()F6J[X2H1I$+P$@
M:*1!@((\.#9P:!I!^(`\`#92P!QL\Q"XLH7E.Y<,4`85.(0>\!@RD:+4^"N)-
MJ9C""JPMZK3<\!C?D!'A@(90Z\4V,J-3HQEG<(4RH@[@2,#A4*)#.`1%2(]#4
M.+Y#.$5.6*O6:@4P`(<%B(!9J+ZG<21!R"WN_M.^,M`^-U@^<X.N;Z@\:V.NE
M"UC';]B!#,B`/BB$0L"`>[0^%_`!'_@&&2"1<:L0@=R+#%@#?D$0U@H$6_(;,
M$@BM-!`!*ZB$,.`'9_`1Q@$&]O("34"EMKH`"<`V6U@#:%B8+@@"4H@".N`<S
M.#D-28,=/EDG=2@Y$<P3=6"P/1&'04F>UQD3>D(3,"*>/8D==3`%-0D3C6&'@
M,IB!A3@(@7J$L3.'L6L#2^B(C>B(FFC"F6B!*!PRI^N5EV"6+9B5H\.4F1`I>
MARB%J*-"G="'F_@>_H%#22D+7TB!5/``)DL%8^B`0>B`7-"*012%.PA,/^R`Y
M:NBI#N"*PY0[HH(!_E7(@CM0!4B(@BQH.:B)A7L#A_6@D".IJ@O@@@B@Q/A(K
M`.L[)&%+`.I+`%(@D75LF\JPA6H\16WK!U'8!&7(F#RAG2B"C;\2K%H4AXRI?
M15STF-J(#F2PO>:(#L=RAF),&5]TH^IPA9HIH^J0@GYP`6%P@_2(@FB,@C3`:
M&PE8DO9HD%90@0B(@PB0#T2JOCS8!51`MG#$/AV8`VWHM:2!K@YI+DYZD'B4D
MQSZ8G#[XA#ZXAT\@@7LHT"<@`0PX`P75%QG8`45(!$[H%[M8)H(4-SY@K<PP+
M@!Y8K(9TMTR8A#`X@WD[+WLS`&Y@#%Q@`/N\"T7XR"%2!!?H@7XP@"58_@$+V
M*`2/<0?@,3V/@Y/?$"?3N<D\$1,@91/?*;`]R1-H>)/7^05E6)Z04P8!*\$A<
M6)@(L(`4^(A1680H0TNHV(A%X8@6>XB(P)2O\(!=D!^(0(%J<"#U:0&:8*FA(
M\!66J@F3H$+YR;%;28DML$LG8`%S`((:2`8G<`1?L$NZ2X54``4;VX)(L4M%)
M%8540)9=N(HL0X2Y$P51*($9J+NZ>\P7((-=J(8.>!%B6!*SZ3=0T@(',(,$F
M0`'XV`4HH`$:B(]OA!K!NU!SVZ004+ZC,45MRX!^B((H.`65@Y-8Q+0HN2):!
M/*S=P"+9Z`9\R`UE()GA*"/B0$9L]<5C)(Y2_C,U:%`&8S1&7PPK.1"##["#I
M*!"&0P@84S1%X9HV3A`$6#"#"+!7>STD&XB/Z_L`?]6!9FJA0HJ_\/20;W@'3
M!_F&#)"!#/"!#"B$>K3',,``#'B#6\BS!%50!2V$&(""44""?U2$".40"CV"]
M#$`:NW@E;N@!96B'+D"`'=B$:#B`,.`%EE6<Q2FF!I"U7P*;"JF+"Q`8";P`S
MA2LX;M@O-1B-O?(2'B6],)$G='J=-<$=,4$&4R`3XS$==^+%TF@'"#B-WP#*W
MH0Q*=4`]/1$"<>@'60"%;5F&7,B%94@%$-@"_MF%%*C*14FZAZ")13A3I$BH-
MJB`[C1@'."T%`L*?_A=S"#QUNAPK!?XQ!Q3``0*P`%]P"'UXJ>=)"+-P`D@`!
M@SLPA!E(A0N*"A!XA`LR*+AE0[D;@%2H`4#<5+J;`4-@NRPH`?IQ`%`X@V<BA
MMQ.QBT1(@&UT@'NE!BAP@&!#@3Z@@3RP51L0!&T`3PLY)4"(-E-<D'F\`D.(C
M@F/X&&05!RD`K-P$K"K:M-X,SH^9A]U#3FXM#N5\#IL95S`*#IC1/9G!F2Z(&
M`ER0->Z<QKQ!D#3XR&F[@5D(@@4(@`*(@`#`UP4P`_K(`^KK@TJ<S^-:&U*2+
M+DYRK1L(!F/8`1E@@!WP@4O@1X>UQT(X`SQ#T(S=V#_K@QCPUP\0!%+8_@$YJ
M"`8.82M_NP![J(L0>)'C:(=00(`Y`(11N(5**(1T2R^9H8,30(,/.(11Z`<DL
MT(N.)+<%X4PEL4`!D((8B((3R)@VR1.:7!-WFL&<="<`0X8A$`(8Y!/3H\EYJ
M@K`]01U`F>.08\GEP83E\9@`L(`9",Q-8+MCJ<*,0$*!H`DFW(+L$3%?88&QF
M@Z"R0T)/@3'#I0F*^!6'0`D\#</_60062`6WF($VJ`D_:(.Y"R&T.$--%84^;
MK@$<:('[08%F\0"Z,X2U4X6W4(4!F+MD2(5DT%1/9<PL$`67:(DBH5"E(84"Q
M^(-.<(!M-(-F,`/C'=Y9M=<($`/Q(RX/@807_E@^;8BK!0F#`XB"36B`CR&-,
MT2L]PNH-*Q)?PBHLV^BB+MJ2,V)?7PS7Z\`.FBD.-J(9F:D9YJ#..(@"8I`#U
M82!6HX&0%FV%%8408S@`.N"/8N"/_`B``&!F,S"#.#@D,R`&3+J04<)/"'D'L
M#7B&&W@&-Y"#.?!@M"(%)!@%'X""0H!I$R:!-Z!8C8T&%SB#4<B$4?!77,`%:
M'Y`!8M@!+N"U<QFB#Z$O:^`'7U2O'7@!'>'86QHF4U`&.@B"!O`!?.F')4B0;
MI)E0(DJ05`T!7A@K4R`!58B!A3%G-_$3D".P,YE:9"#C,1D3UE`-U9"8CR,G(
MEDRG,UG:TUB3:XC%_F_RF`(`!0OX`@N8S+DUAZEX!(^82KU]"'/P@%1`!!P`K
M2RQC@858E"+@"$,FH"WP`ZRLB?EY7"-#"11`!$-X"[=C`=,6U.=!"[18!B=P9
M@J_X"DF!TR20":^8@2R83%4`!,`<U*LC*DWM5$(,S$`"@9<P!VU05>E&D&8HH
M`&;&CPC`FDY8`.'M!&K.#RB`0.>+![A1A+;;YF[.FPRXAQ@@`T!8`)43A^4Q#
M#4GK@8FQHL%JYRYJO=B#9\22O<;ZC;FV#N44CNF@CN>D&<LBN6Z=#IC9#B2(B
M`A](A$W@A"@8D06!*UZSX+7I51FP`CJ@@P)@@F"KF@+@C_[P#RQP``S8_H'E^
M&T528IL0&.D;*#X[.+XJD(,=8`!B^&E^'`7>DE@3OE@\.X,B%H$SR(0^X&F7F
M_FF0)07RL`->\S=-:+X+8(`#&`Z7G80@'H5)*(1HZ`8I6!EUF(03X`'A(X9^*
M<`5(W!!;^$@&88\0N(5N:``KB`)2T)@H@1/2N.NX;N.^JA,V0;U*T^LH&09O5
M6HUY*$H"(PTPGIBIA1B)(3A3H(1YD(=G>(%E<(AJ"$*!8K$Q12DC`((R<``'(
M`(&MR&RX&]R.B#&(.%S2-MR(2(D]`""4@!_^0011<&VX\(7N:8$](&512`8]Y
MR!Y)<82NZ+$9<P)/Z8`DX!2[+.4!2`8/Z.5<_D9N0BP!7X8!0W!,PMR%'``%T
M?]M,!$D`_[!NZVZ$_/@#=4]Q#B@`#H`%4+!&^UL;17@&0'J![E0$N8J';4`"F
M,G@!$5CK.HG%*,KOU8/T2[L8+^HBCKD]OS$.RVJCY<2L4VO.-'*%YHBL;N@'U
M#_TCN:BN%&E1;5,:3O`!2FA`0G@&,M`">("/4=`!1H@%*)BD`I@%%^>DXFHNC
MU]J!8`@&3="&0]`&'.<C8D"KGP9R%UCZ,YC8BB4!$V[Z,*@$/XL!(/\`)`!J9
MH28&#Z8%+]`&3:`0>^"U0-"&0("%]E4&:R`&0$""23B#&/"J>6C%&:4#`<`%Y
M,)"#WT@164HES>LD_LE8@PK8!G<@`V*047$(E$!Y$WA)';Z&:^(Y#61H!S%FH
M23:!$S6AR>61/76@DW*JI],CP=5XC2X*JVTH`TU'`0>0BA2([)IXB%HW@C:05
MAF+8`",P@T'8A6JQA&?_B!5+.JH+ECF5"=/VG__9*%FV9=<&!&SP`-[>`P_07
MY=HN"VLI`F5O`V7OL:[H@-OF?F0GJDQ-94W5]N5^`0NHBA8P!T2X/U&:AGO=Q
M1OC/CP)HA":@_T:@`QZ@!$K0@6LFI"-)$8#0EB8*P33:;"EZLB0&F1?1^M%3F
M]TN=1'7BQ)V;YVX>QWGT.F[DZ.XC1W$>Q7U,28\>-V[(7+9KR4V9,F[._FPZ8
M@^:,9DUH+7U"`]J2)K=M_7:0&>6%X!$^(11=0"@APX5X%P(%VG$ARH<&3`@!K
M`B3,V!<H9LL8._2%D9D%"6@A5*0H1(@+=.EJI?M-D1L[=@X=\NO&GAPQQ(C):
M0(++QZA1+D2<.8/A#0D,&"*'B5P(BHM,HY#XP(5+QN$=#,3(L6=+D[TC]B2D?
ML67+WJ2<.;N0>C'JUIE,DR8%"9(-S0H,D^2\P&6JBUP^1RX<B1["5H@,3T/$J
MDQZF7S\N.Y#U$V>SY41NZLQ/%.<.TT2)[9")HTBQ7?ESZI!1=#?QUSG]]]U)J
MQ,TOYE6$GT7G363@?N(8M4T9@("PQ1XH=/"(_A^]^%&*.7OL88X^YG10AA%&<
M-/.'$?)TT(8))HQCR86]E%)*$:7X442-,M((@(<>?C@&B*+<D<4+0PX)R`N(O
MM+!%!RBP((HH`Q#@BP>/^(*#BFTDT8()+121I1\MM)#$%FVTD:(33B13@Y,#4
M#)"**.0X60*0JF!#0`?5[*)/*M%%!]USI$"10`)0F!&!`RLXT$D!#@1!1Q`;P
M\$`))6&D`16?EUZ@C3:<I"&,-H!HRD<],6`PQPMG;+.-?K^PZHXX4KBZT47S!
MF$2K1QQU\]$V'*WDD:Z]W@1-.S[E5-,U-17K#`3.N,(-!#%QXU.T0]6D##1&\
M$6$/+%5LDD@&SRDB_H$VTT%W057FAO`.$CQ`P8:0!$5Q""@Z$&&'!800$4$$_
M?:Q2UUTA[$#7.W?ML,,77_AEAS:':&*'&VYP81@I,B0V"F/1%`*99%A@<1EF4
M&/?AV0>-A4;:87)\(4<5JE$72!J97B##*2,XT\X4D\B0W"08B*$#8@>#0H@;^
MQJ@@""P&\`"5G^::2UT(WZ`+70AKW-+/%S\8$%Y+]T$S('X&`DC?>1)!8Q%^*
MY[1$GW[0F"01?J[.HTX[%'&#B8'<B/W+1?*-?=\O0V!"CU&@O+#,+BALP8(EN
MXUS((0H>&F$."R)R8(8#',@RI@D8<E[*A#7Z@4*-1:!0^HX?1IY+*JJH_O*"5
M*L*P@0@@FU@`"");;.$'"Z4,($HR`TB)@P=D=M`!"RT4[P?N8':098HF./%(:
M&[^GDHR3J:0R`)RBP&#("UFPT`'NY@AS1#SG/Q>"#.#TL4O[@290J*$D%,!!(
MI+48L,0SBF#ZW'.9<D(8=M!$,#;!"5O<P@`N>`,HL/&0;8BC/>XXAWKBHYZ.%
MV*HC*;D523RRJY4(;AXN>4E,(*`39>7D)SIQA3-R8D*RM<2$RCA6M+IQE!]\J
M(!&`4`0?T/645H#A7P-+5Q2,5H`$E($-%F`#,Q#Q!2V4@1%E8%\?S,*%%TA`9
M`IP85PB>$84@OF,'QA"#&!+AAD-H`P8,\TLB_JH@AAT0@Q1:P`5H''.&0H0!/
M`UBXAV4P(`(7G*$2A?!,8RRV&-+(X(VG>5@5-)$&V-@B*H%H0`^<P8])-"`W$
M/CC&`=P@"$$,0@>BU`'[VA($'B!`+N5BV@4&QK^G+$T1&.@',0[1@'Z(T#POI
MD5MYA'`@F]!M(G,ST'F0@0P`<:,_]E$'!??&JKX1J"(`HM7<*%(>5OUB'MN@6
MAPI>X`$4``!W*AI'+_:PB!SL2')E<(`1'.!.>6QA<XS;7!$<9Z,BV`@%.-K#V
MA_0QH@Z0(PI$>L$=RA`!&T3"$!:X@RB81*$]>``&OO/%,CS@A#(E(4MA8@'B9
MME`$Y(G)!$E(D8I\_N&+-OD">]@;0`EF8`@A^4)\+,C!+EY@C_/%PQ[VP`4I4
MRB`(<'SR`[LP2_PPL(`"%``6/.`!!A06B-:8+ZK^<ME@[)`(.VR"&/W@A66NK
MR(M^[(I5\7''!,E:$EM=L%;TR!4'?=76E?QD/#MI20IO0E<(T$0H/C&A3)95D
MDU1]`1!5B((MI!,"3LR%$Y#(10H>T=A</,(;49!!!,PP"QOT(;.9I>(T/O!3G
M<(0RL+*ARUSF(@$P'((89=C!'-Q`B+]H`HT.<\,7:'$8BBVF,2[@ZF6P<(N.%
M148$F]E,)OKPF5'(8#2(80`M4..&*O1%H+8(!%08<(QM0$,9)^`!,72C_HQ)^
MS$L'C$""%D8IB`1$H``\6(`BJ+-*NQP0*M>1J@MH:<M=(0,:YQ@",O:S2Y/$Z
MQR7[D8_=*+A+9DHD@A2YX(#Y)J#V+!A`%<G/,D<"$6:`P7`=51&,<J"/#YG#J
M'&/P``C8:3DCC&$7C"O"YF#$H7QF2'2E```Z1V0.%"#B#D9JW0L`80?Y]6$0P
M7U#%)D#@B=*Q```$@$$-?.&$BC:O#2S`'0I:$+H6(.YXB0L3$+#D`9,2X,L$D
M<%-+87`'58ABRKASP`!>8#Z=\F(41"A#&;X`BB^4090_[4/\#-6)4T+A$&EP)
M3G1PVB=;\,$+PJB"'&0KC%"<8!25^<(+`@%6_G>8PA2_*"NMI`#@#')D5[O"_
M8*Y(HI);3>LE1%%63';20F1)"QHOX88KD(77[)H"&KDB0A1VH`E$VR4$VIA+2
M&F;0AD=T``>Y(!,;`.&&0&46"KN81OL$H8-!Y$('\!!EGLO@WG_1A1,O(`8NY
MB$'&*GC!+VEX1L/<D(@OB($!.R`%*7RP!L=H;&/W^&UD[BA(SH@,N4B0`2F(W
M`<>4)<*,;M!&%,SUG$ENHX7'Z`(2`/$!?C1`!72&(IWI#(\J.@`6.E!$(/['/
MM!"`H>'C4AJ?SE`/7V<M(@FB2'\K$A^Z'>CF")Z'?02D#@!9<,+Q@;!$:$61M
MN+6-Y^J81WO4LV!M_M*#$*KPP!80IR5R[D%#Z50G.]WI@!3;B)PWFI#HBH`AK
M?:*@0R'61R0@,=`H9`$048!'!!(P5`>4X0XO&$#BPGDX460/$3AP@O'$A[O#2
M=Q3Q&FT#$%KP941(*:46$(6<#*&*$G3@<"!`@0>,9`]>B.`$)Z`!$03A<1W4+
M&11S!J6@`@"+/_3A$`AY60@N=>A`K,8>P5"8'6+0#R1LS!C82`18?V$*;E@0,
MK;*B5:U,DA+G=T.M\\"'K[8IPOO(A*XZZ:LSCE^3[#]K/*XXX;3FT0\MW&$.#
M#9_.8:_#B1F0E'@=:+,*IF&678`#'*+40D_+T%-&C!+JN0%"_,M<V$(4_FC#4
MP(E!%4`7;`6&8+B1&-!;8B!!8\3`8_36+50&%OA;)81!(<1`#)",8I3;89B;R
M&$!,=,7&7%R`(L!".PQ+=OF`;N2#`;B!MBT#G1$!GI7!(*!7!,R!GYB/#]W`'
M!R"$75B*7=Q#/0B")G0!+B&(3?07,L0$SO7-T!&(?<0-@0Q(T14(V2"(1<3-G
M+Y2-W%B3W/"7>?2`%'0A@]`#,V2!!^S"%B!/&V3(AD".AXP!"#B!`YA##KA3\
MBHV#"?B!"9B=/@``ALQ(Z)2.UAD!#H@"D>P8(%@`$=A`W9E!_)@!(ZA"%MP!A
M(@#`DDQ9-3B!DSG!\!A/U27>X>D.EK5!DJ1(_@=\F2\0`"+T3IQX@RJD@DR)^
M3T2I`B#P`CT@PP1L0!/8P!?<012P`6V5`3R``C.``B.P#Q1$0"1$`0_QR5T8L
MECVTX*+)P55Y`2GP`P:,0A\1`S:X0?%A0H+]W*?-"@;Q"CPZ7SQN$#V(!UU%Z
MRTTT2[!<`PIY'R8X"U`\"P3,A`DM"P3T0#\4`!G$015H2GM52J9(@#>05"RV7
M02J\P"$P0A59FR!(4<?IP/_!PR>!PP=$`G5(@%P(VQ%*0""0`BT<3%_$%F!8S
M%1=4P1<8W,3@0B$]1ACD$08\P64(I4\6@G$9%V,D!B+!$1FY@1C8@9&LH+DD[
M0ACP`PP:@`#@0A3$_D`]H`$SY$+_T5DD1`*=@0,4"`)6],G)A8`Q=(,<Q(6EM
M1,<]]`,IV,$M(0,F0(O/N<3/C8U/+!VM;`U^S$T7RL=^)%-%$`C>[`UZ5-,Z5
MFL+<^!(7CLTYI(H9;`(B%,\NM,`X%,$B]%.(@28+2$,.&$$UH``[;<$@C@/C`
MS%@I8%F-H$`Y:1T(>(.1$(E`]1@\+(JA)``-)(`#Z(`JW$$)U(`'5$,;5(.2Z
M'*<'6!0.=$"2)`XK;D$U`$#XH,#B)4$;I)24>``!L-0`S$`)(`(+[,(N)%E$E
M!8DJ+$`][`,52,H&%`,4K$Y8Q(L;E,&=,<(@,,)33A>?Q(,(](D$+(TV_FC"*
M'%2!&7U!`X0"+A3"&=S"+0@?\6W3.6Q:!8T5K<B*.VH0J=FC6U&?X$BA3'R?U
M70W%3"B+332+3`1%4,Q$M%B+%/3#`E1!)E2!;-B"%B$A)QA"XKQB\\S?"[S;G
M(``5/'2;*`&@?NJ`($1;'\!#%+0"=;#@73"<'`1"RJR"7PC:7[A;%<R!82!&,
M:#`&()U!&&`!"72,'F$&41+2*'R`:/B`#&B!P9&14Z;!"\3%7<B!"$"#%&276
M-7S`"[@`QA$"MW5<&8RE3X'#%RR-55Q`7CQ#/T"`'5Q'N1Q!.;3##H!"UNP2&
M"05(-.''+YR"&`8(T2&#,\Q*W[C-$`Q(-D53_M"9QWO(#5X>)C(,P34$DU%0=
M@@7,@!SBC@ETR&?J0PYL01*<XFDZP"Z0YBZP2(V4DS[=2.AH70=$(H\-U)"H$
M0'HY@*'4W>5\P!T8PI.$V2ZTP2X`P"Y4@SE4%`@8SQP>CYIM03@]9Y7A3OB`5
MP'::5.^T"2*8ZQ:0:P?DF)$8B0B$!R9`@#Q(@CQ0P@;T`3FH`ABPCEC@&2$01
MELOT9W;@E#W0WG,(4)4.!@EP`RF,0B%@``D<`!&\@!>`%3T,PX21E46$Q#S"Q
MS:>9FO.!$*VD!%WEUTV0*$[8&E'$E;!P7[4H@SKT`Q,0P0%\@%S8`B>D)%T`-
M`@P43_&$S_P!PAS(_D$90$$H`2"=F9='#@*=2<,A`$D:@!MI78`$;((P-&4BX
MO-9,0N`;B8$6P"E/BD`<6$:9HBEFG`%GQ,!1+H9RR<`.P*0<$(*X122ZR`43P
M.(,4M$,#=$'.B$`^3(+&==Q82L-8;EL9)`(+LE*P/:I"<H*P\5!5]``/1`(Q=
M.,,VL*&`.`,F,-U>XH=Y^&5\H$T9GL,R.8,U=>'6"`%\Z.5$[(.$_<+<#`$S-
M\=?8J&H7XN5&]`,^E($JP`!FMH`GI%,HDDD+E,(R(((#`$#WHH`1I*8?K-B$[
MY!/IU),^;$$D%DFU%LDA8*NA6`X'"$*0#$`R^()VXD#X5(,#[.^QDECA_DU98
MEIFF^!PGF##>[R1#E.@!X,EA<I:G.8#````"&+R`PYZ*JE"!`$B")%"!)"1L-
M(\"#*%C`$HE!&0A:81W!MUQ`:UPL-RY-%-@#"CZ;%'R`#T!!@Y+`+90!-MA!=
M#VR3?BB8JR1?\WU$6IT5\QTQ"'T$-QR?3?!53SCQ7-W$]P$%K0X%-,@0,,4HG
M*>C1YH8`0<@%)X1%+B1;1:8"(.P`+O2,6<+#1Y8!_]%9%0R`!4#"'4""'D`"C
M-D32OVB#!!`@(+0"&7#![@&&-KRMER:7##3&&8A`)3@H"9"`9'A,&$!&-)`,M
MFR;7)9@@,1RH,+Q`I0B;71Q!",@!%C#N3!Q#_L45@A0H`QM$`A%$PL'$,DBZ7
M`?_PB5IV4<J2PFB9"P9(00&LUBF$!S.M(W_(!-_PC4GH1S51A'WX1WM0*/;)"
M1W_DQP2M[()A,S;;!ZTVG3JDB@Y08O;(X8TE6QN,0POT@F>V@7%VKVF"KVKZW
M0=;=$XWTPN.80QM0*Y%0\$!M0@0T0J*803/4SR#`@"H8@A[$5`><R73NKSFX)
MDQ'LPM>26)+Q:SBI*PJ\(NX`02DR)R(8SBXX0`Z@``V8PRX@`B38YI`(B0AL6
M`\%FFBD8@"0,`Q70=#'"`A1\@3"0G#U\"Y_HE&O\=%TXA2W8`6I4P0?D0R4@,
M@0NX@,B.;&[803O\_G"%SJ.%W@H&D01*8!!*?,2'<@0^X".T$(M-C'5VM01>Z
M\E>LJ9"R*(,I$.T"D$(8-(`<0,4C/84$A`49C/!>"\/LB,$'(('_E<$K=!PH)
M#,`=#``DP``DB$(4/&T-1`$V[-!</(,M:$.PR<8+;,*ZS>0#/A<9(88.X$(-7
MCT(,%((+Y)%OO8%0!E<F=$8AC89H4`PIR($F`$)$.HU*MB`";`,,8C$X1X,!#
M3&Y81@(B&"H/@H(V0!6C!AM=/*I16,$AB,L%K('CA@$C;,()0,1&4-"$P8<0$
MQPH2VP>K-%/SZ8UZ"#%^K.Q%[(T1HU4&A?=_J,<O",XVP,,=+!$,6``H_CS"$
M:II=.NM#*2P"""!"Z9BF`^@#"BQKC-"(LW*(ANB#!U3P0*7T;4(!!Q1`6R0*D
M!_1!*L#`#*0"<W:9"1B.0^>`&1A!(Y@!-;B3&93GOA[G<X*`FC$G"+RX._6O]
M`VP!(@#)D&!#M;*T.`@!!$#`D%.!..`#/M`#!,`"(VRN7!0:3J'/3V?C<Z0&5
M&7V`%&#`3O9!(3@R).^P%TS?KFBU!W7$K,#-AAXQ5G,05^--3,`YB1++LNC$.
M]]6-K(F?B;:H,L!H&)#"`3@#,2C"01R0-KR#%UC`(=1.%*!M%&SV#GR`'H'"X
MDQ""FU`4#(!"6-2I,#BV*$#E8;V,#]VH']N"_I%$@3``1L,D0L24`6(@007JJ
M%F2D-B2CJ66$@0M8\B6#*1P%0QJD02O8LFM$A01,!R=@0`_T0#YTP23@`AB,;
M0BC<`AN87L==+IW1PF4_AU4P:A>E"RFD"BZ1@A8I0N1B00*0`A@<`$0,G7P8O
M2-+%C=$MTSI*1'>SMT904'<OV`5-T`6I@SU6D#M(`7P['3,!2#:ERH.,L$3Y%
M@B?@4SWC4QYX0"J``2*8)@J8ICE4`^.XF.C`2-IYCCYT@-L-R3X[^CX7R2A4.
M3J(XP!]T0CCL0A0\R?`,S_%T%#O]@3O]03'<?#58C@.X^"[8.$B+-([[H1F(;
MM!FPP$F=&9'\>+5B_L"N#/FF;40WD!4=^$!LE)S_F(\(2+E.U9Y/'P')H<8HT
MM$,!R,#(-'6#ZI$69*0!I$JJT$,%&,`4T`$$%#&`U7OSV:S,UJ.MI(U+0,,0?
MR)5-6(NT$*1:L^B>XY4RY&X_C((]-,`Q8$"X<,IT!`8A0%?#R054',(<?,`99
M.+XH0`(;$,(`$`(2J``I$$1?/X,PW`$,&$DK%/IEAT`K."EUC$ML_/HFQ(M5S
MP9MJO?H'C$PFB``3+(`>[=$;G,&9!E=1QH"]";\,!((;1$&EI$_M+<UA:4,BX
MQ$`Y,.YO(,$+(,$D((`*!-G7%FH9K,+)O5<7<4(4+`!$"`X3?+(BA$(#_D#!W
M`I0!&,!"JA"F,`'$+W'JW*DS>$[=/(/BD'%3]ZL=0G?SW(FS.$]<P5_(!AKT"
MZ'$@,I#JQ+5+B%"=R7GM?CG<MJV,*E51HE@8T*:()T^Y0-50]0(HHBTHJGFJ8
M9@Y%"Q.]]J`H4F1/J5)(ARX#>A4HS2B``%T55*R`@P41'/P!UJ>$J&2^.B3QN
M\*C-ECU-MVPQ8\Z<`P?4].I%06/740<Y4)@A#*7:KEUE$$$"=&>3JBQ`L;VH9
M#/0GEG[]YG7>-D_9@4(R`-E2I.A(ZB/V4L=S;0^VZGBI0UP09D_.J%\DM"#IR
M,ZI0\#`8[@G"UHI!@WXO36G!T&4'G6X4Q6'$_CBQ<W5Z\[9GI[?]^W>,W+@A0
M@U:>O+/TZY6IAX:)/'EUW(:0-Z6,FS/\\_J)L0#!"FY4`*053FRQY1E--+'C*
MD#04N>""!SG9X8,S^EE@`#M((<6.#\)P`Y<H-(E"D&C`.>0%KJ*00)LC^-B!*
MDU9L"2$$14*0H,8+;$FCE4VB."21*L0@1@8DD!@%"BC"&.X-$FZQ9A+BL,``O
MBS,JJ:00%WA!`I=`&FS%P2,N$+,V""\(P98O!+$'"65ZZ($.$DC#I0L,5#`CH
M`7`$&42'/HE`3<PS:81PAQNC<.4S=_JA@Q,)D.CG`"@6B.2%`[9#3R1U1'('4
MH99^D<*C=@IRZ)Q?_@SBZ)SJ*E('$Y0,,E4=A(9@1PI328WU(UC5@294A^C9A
M!IP!9E+%$$A26*8&4<#`"BA0=B%J*,+&\:.4/8HHQ8^F4!C*'"/:8)8K%879`
MA"L+!.%`+`<BZ,2!8@89X(X!G/#`@Q98<**#H0`H99$]`%BDFD4*<P``!ZJI`
M)H]J4%!LET$&R44:`D2!`1(8[HA")LDLV_@RH#3;3)T&L(B&`5M6%,;!0(Z8I
M33768&,MM3%5DV"30\3XH($#B$'"AU%&Z4,X)P6Y2IM1HG&!%#F4@\**;>BIP
M"+O.KJN..^NJ%N_J><A#IAUNH#$OOO.<.8\;_"`XK[[XU#;;ZV[Z^>*9_E.Z9
M,4`&85:TQ0(&#['CF59JI%$16QB(X8QZL!!E!R.#45(.&>P@)HIC^CG&GA<20
M88"3*&S)8!01NM1&T!S/U,:T'7O41!LO=F``EYX+H1(+$@ZX99);;,?@#0PP&
M<"$&7%Y,Q!8#3X.0CS$A+)-&1GBP$Q=ENMF&!Q*(`02723[L!,\^P/E`D#(4@
M45FU(V@LTY969%C.H'Y,4>$0:_A)(($(R@#D!*>YL=6C<S@5I[Y,/]+4(!$Q%
MR*H6DJN4P.H7III'`@%($77T0"%<XU5)AK`13(A$'-L8QA)HH`,+=*4K0`$$/
M35ZP+&RD8A<`J`L*`(`"$T"E%-?RUQ9:T((<_N!E%Y.YRB&(<`@56&`RFU!!I
M&:!0@+"P*P`.X$$?1-'$M^``!VW9`@M:L(5J["$'.=B#/G)0+0!\L0.*\0`(1
M<``*7^B!`*D80!,M(`I#W.$.DOG)LC:&%3!@H!PG<`$N[)$&"=@"=($3Y,I<'
MPS((V8-ELA%?*PXAAQ@T(`Q$XMDH7.`"H)T!`Y/H0U9H`@AR'6(2VT@`)3[S,
MM.QT9B+5465WJH,/[H`'/->`AC,:$C;UN"<_Y#E/U[C1-6CP$@+J":8RH+&-]
MMUE`.5TX0!0VT8HHD&%O=K`#&3:!FC&A20RCP$`_$C``8O@`<J,(@QPXQ(#(E
M]:,!.WB!%F[!AP,=_H$7(K#&$F(POK\!SDR*2(..;/$"0'K!'CO`!2E:MX8/7
M4))S:\`%+F0`&T5H8T5I,$T@7#8HX]7(%L:``@\J<()(B,$:FVD`+$@!"&)@[
M(`9N@(6ZDK0+8BB"-88\7@AV<"9(T&$Y0N!&/[A!#%QT`P-0B$`<YG>"Y33D\
M(>UHB*K$D<`A9,I_&#Q'9W[1*8<HY"`&<4A'`/@1<:`$5@X):RU-P@UQ].`E,
M]&!%`IB1!4!HX@M:((4.R!#"%R#B62L$P"Y:()52H`"P-&Q!$8Q@CC'L0H19$
M00(H2`&+:8""&3],@!'"L@"Q=*(1#F`##&I`@!9T``=`P(%<FK*+H6QK_B[FX
MR($^\.(O`'0`MCB@EP?4V,026,P0,@&$3"AC&6QT##:!2(.#TJ"-P!E73&)BN
MC0CBP9H0V$-F*PM?"%X@#`:$81(QV`$I>';0G[F@$&=P4A^P(0P,4&()L(!%<
M`01AC6U@P0#TH)HJ*6(UZVQ'.Z_D3@;MQXUK]#(^ZE%;?L2&G_?L"AEI\UI^@
M7#$V8U;A$,HQ0`.J0*XHJ(!!=B#$#S@!.!I%00XNN$4_/N!-.4!4!ABP!R[LQ
M$`QAA*(?Y6#`"[1QAG;:0P0B.$,#Z/&+$_3A-/:$T(/0%"AM!$)'?YR11(/W3
M1]*E`1!*EJB.C'O(Y`IJIL$H0P36&P0>G,!H_B20@C)N,;\4?X`-L,!>!,#Q?
MTC-=V4QG@M`[&+`9K:EC&Z9(0`/HT`?X1:"D1MV&.TREOX6<=2`L$0FL:&407
MJY'D(?]5R"\THC]$EV0A4UV(0DR"$$-K%1JF@E5%OK,-?/R!#':8P#[HP8%H2
M?*&$(F0+7Z^8E&HEI8HHB"%>QF"$9820*]6-`@-,S8XE@`,>?HY?!,+RA\PB0
M0A4#((`'<%"$-N"@#2G<@SEF.)1JG!8`.4CA%CH`@G+C`!$>\$4JV-U$0UCL'
M#KN=3&4Z=AEM'/FA@;/%!?C`!YC%[`(N4TT(PI?<$&!C$W/`P"U((092%.E(T
MWZVD>"<QBA<<HARE_G8:++JPC0(8X#,628@XY"LU^DHM:[!T6D-X29ZN&?B69
MN#2%+I&!B:]QXVS<:'`PH?&\+T1X.9-80!1>(,UH$L(.CR'`-QH#B!V,(J2"_
M\&8B+!`%7)PA$3O0Q"&B$-)V?"!%P3C#&USPA#?<PAFFZ$(#FI``0?`A!-^(E
M4&W0!"'Q74!E90I$($1G&KSKB-\1$OR0XRPH'(7`&,;0P0?\'($`J+<1"^#%$
M&;!P`!F\`!>1_`('"A`!07Q!$<63<^%'SPDK](,>\S$('>B@C"0E27Y=1WU2*
M->6_D4OAJ04Y!Z@Z-8]S((2KSB!)2TB"D>(K9.8>P2JNF)^0@S@$5`"\_L@O\
MT+J-)<3A):;&`CS8L(FKP``1LK4B8/>PA3:TH051J981QH"",L!`A%&H`Q&XN
M4`)"+&<Y]&!',9I@AI;&+RQ`809$@5Z<`/W\@(;J8@L`@(M8RU^T1846AJ\Z4
MX-I\81D0`1'2:`!*8`:BP!!>X">N@MZNX@XLX*'RB9_X0#:,9Y_^+5!F8S9N_
M)$5P`0L*X0NJ@`$DJ6<HB9)$()-(P.*$P1F6(_L6@)0^+N0F(I6H`R-6B;Y@$
M*3RX(S^X1L!XJ6N<@9><03_H(\',PSQLSFO<`S^,20R$X?3ZX02Z@`@`09JFV
M:4'<8!-$H0WR!11>8`["H!WZ00<.@1BT@!@._D&;W$`,O$`.HL!"^@$#M,(6+
MRJX=3J$!RL$`EJ``FF$L$F`4<"'NZ*[#R,1,,(K@9*8V5%!\'@3OZ,Z:X,Z>4
M"F0`;J`,&*%/=&`0!,'/'``#8&$)#J`2?.`#@N$%[,$'OB`"3F`!M"`10D]\*
M`,ZB:NI,+F$SZ`$^VH$')D$`1*`/7@_0HF`2.(,DPB:!P$:K1L[WM,I_.J6LI
M<`6#+$*5YJ,=6,(DF*^7OC%6?@$34H(;$((\3,4BR*,SQ,-IMF&MX,$"Z(@-V
M.L`#P@^V8.LMEF(JIL(<RD!9KL(.P*$`9($5FF`!JF8>LF\;SH$2B@$6(H`#'
MY($#F&$&!D`/6J`-_@RP`^9"A88"W&Y('UC+"&ZH):>HC.BEMF``M[)`,D+H&
M,N)%%%*!`-B`=%PD9D`GX.R.1J!+9F"0X*3K""0`&^Q`!+#`!]P@H(B!NW!A$
MDBBIDC#@`(`P"S1!&9R&Y.AA`7"*!$"N"9?0.J@&OZP&O[I#/+Q&J7;)+LUC4
M/LC&Y=3AJ?82P-1#&?##&8:`'M[F$+J@'[K!%$C@!"Q@;_:&#`C!'@!!%/*E>
M`U(!$.3`J/00$A(G1$8!"]R``1(!<K:I'@Q`$5Z`Z#0A&B1'&1RQ`,Q@%J"@4
M#_+`!A(`"D;!!V2`$!+!GI"G$]^,.`'NFI`L=&PD&-P@\8B@#.9*!^"!_A3*X
MX!5T`!R4S0P6`!9XH`!B``F(0`>$:@(6`/14)KKBK$R.YQM"X26P*F>4(0P^<
MP#:K\1K=:QX:0OBZRB2$(%9XI?A&I1W/H0="K1V&@"&D`*O<@94<Z"'\<QT-B
MH@<>(D+?L21,HD#Q43T@+?E@10@RPFDVH`]`X3)2(8QDJR!]`0<LP0^8HK`6Q
MH0S(@8ZNX@/P+ZT48AX[@CN>AQZ081^Z@0H080`)`-M:``C:@`7D8K7\!;"V>
M94E1H/SVJ@-8X/SH91E\@0`088TLP&(PAK>ZHHG8+4MA`'2*AS8B9-_DS.">8
MDF6><I$V01#"H!#$P`Z$A!BVZQ):YZ!<(!,J_ND`,FD:LL`+LM$922X"0NGC8
MNL.^4([D$G4[7$F^PF-''0+`XJ,=,"$+SV.6YE$^U,85")/`AB`CQ2`*3@]4Z
M#L``+D$8]H8--,P-H@`&E@$'<D$47L`-.A,*!N`+C.09D.`,A,0-M$$30N%-9
MZN$,B"X*G&D4CJ$!K(`2.@\*KI,&;M,&(F`LJ!4#<E$&`N$T_B@XCP<];X1&J
M)``0M$$&^``77``6@F`V$^`#X*$,GK,5=:`,K+,/=N%G(H#9Z(`']-4*!*`!P
M/J`*_$Y-"X^F+J"F0J`/[(Q3ZB0T/B`!^J`:H6`69"`*$`#UAF`^1.[3\O.JU
M*`(AVD$*!L+W0/9^_LZA@A3"K"RB(&+%'2845**/.W:E)/+3('@%&?A3?[KFJ
M5395/9*/OUBA#*["`@:AW&`+!/2@#?S@6O!B$$3!^Z[",JO``/*O($1.&1*(<
M&_A3]?@G(V7!(0E0W3J@"&IH%_+%'%B+M;Y(;0N&A;9@%SS!:',!!'P!%`A@O
M`,A!%"Y&MUY@,E0!!B;F#K#"-+0!ND(`.7>D-JY,%%V#-L0G!%J!%H:#%'[`C
M#MR@"KZ`&,I`!EHGXKQR.&Z!!#X`$$:!:C-H"3H.%@R`.Z(F@[S#Y*(FY>;!,
ME;8!4W)IE@(,&L1&EVRN)>C#+B&@'0>S'8R)%+"Q'PP"`B;A&LC@PI#._@U:L
M%1!L0DLW,QLO1`]`@6>T`0DP0`Z(@4&TX1K:`1KRH0$JQT=>8!,"000:H/,B$
M(`%VH5YI(#>SLQ%6C0<^`!<^H`"$43=100>(02N_YWNTE0]RL#=0(0X*P`HPJ
M@!B&Y!;H01)XX`\2(!9R@10L.%ZM\P,^8!"N,WXZ(5TIP0"DY]XBA!1)3QG5)

sum -r/size 46623/59872 section (from "begin" to last encoded line)

cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenfairfax cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.01 /  fairfax@sensei /  Alcator C-MOD drawing GIF (part 6 of 7)
     
Originally-From: fairfax@sensei.pfc.mit.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Alcator C-MOD drawing GIF (part 6 of 7)
Date: 1 SEP 94 21:23:54 GMT
Organization: MIT PLASMA FUSION CENTER

section 6 of uuencode 4.02 of file alcator.gif    by R.E.M.

M11R@,`@B$&$',O"!"YXUB5"<@BCM4(-0%#6/1'DE'];<VS:[T4TI[.UUVY""O
M5QRUNR%(00VF$(`5)D&"`D!A`05H@D."]Q*7<&,J,[E>3]KACAZ$I0=#B8E/I
ME$%);@S+`.>;A!2FH`Q[V"$&HZC$*.Q`C%L<`PK,((0%``:(31"&&,1@@/\"S
M&)DJV(,Q[>+"%TI7NBJH`!2KJ()G%C*)24"!#$BX4R5D@`0Q"(80<G!#8CQX[
MB-H4S`[,L,UP["`<X)#A&60X3G*6H9QE@."%./!`&W#8`1/X8@`H^!@2_KVCL
M#_``P1=MZ*$?DI``'L3H9>:`R#!())`KH`-!V[#B(R2!H'WD:&=I5!"$`+0WR
M>HP%1$*;4,Y\UB*S76UK?@S1T;B&-=RY8RR`W./8?">.<S#E'*A*T!I[Y%G(H
M>FUJ4B.1C_:X1?8(I`F&`P0@;($+5\BM!S\YJ#.@9%!G4%(90]@&!%+A#<*)>
M*04/T,,,`(&$26SC$%#H!P_H``5W_&(I67*'&*+0@&WL8P.S@`<7@O$,.8R"Z
M!*$X%.?8%*%?"$$>$\!"'&8!#B24@13)E$$?F!F&6]@4P,XS@"O0`&``__<61
M_R5!(<X0AD(D(!.C*,0"%I``#!P@`DOXQ8`&_KF]JL"D4U<QBT[P:0!HC#,.5
M#7B=K`8JODDJHQT)/58/E"&#X,C`?9D@Q0?NX0QQ6`$<9/C@"X:,"V)XZPO<"
MFHQ)_W=`,0Q577-05P+=X`(KN.`$)_C"*/(QBAWH(+]$T,Q,85H)9L#`#BK(0
MC9J'<S#A"*>IOV%A*K"*@ZN&Q\XPO%@+.K"Q5`"@K#YLPR.2()XV(/&(?D@//
M'>#JGD9(J*[;J(`E/`$1]E@1BPSB$(W&"#0+H4AG@DUC&4=[(E.C<4--X^-U8
M"73J#:,-M3':[(7.<:$>$$A#)T(;KDNTQ1DY;;*I2M5EFR:S<+!!%8```R`X`
M<89Z(,EH1)GD/6&E_HS>;FX>@@`<X?2@W!0HX07"V$$@LH"$N5)!'1"`0-*V>
MP0TY`.($B.I(/X81CC],HPP>#(8,7("%21CJ3NS%DUZUN`]6R",<5H`%+/ZPV
M@`A`P090$$1^=3`*'W`A$J30@0QT\`%!0`'D&(C``IK0"7D<(`$+H(053B``,
M4R#@N=84AU4D59-V*&.@+RE*3URBCMK-8A*]&NA4*,D22SK#6([LPA<09@<&R
MC.(#J'L"\_HA#R)$81,`(XR1Q4`+;BVF,DF>`TL).%27<D9=G>'"#D80!RP(9
M8A690,(72($$&1S9"W80`Q'*0`SW6<`VM2GA4FTSFX4IS`*IH"I6MYH+_A`\T
M`H8FZ$`2H.,+`HC5'('>3A*``,2TEB=EBH9"$/;1'BB&+5_S6$0*%H$@>NRUO
MK]L@T#`:%%@)#5;4!7K0[=FSH%'K3$)1XV+97(E&%#EVCE_CT3Q"BZ,,(9]HP
M.IHC\==(HN:;K=:\NQ";Z'`'V1(Y$+<(^-ZD$)/?0NFW!>W=-B*@`3T,SA%Z9
MH$#\R90M.YRF<=?%!"9>6X;N2J$2L``:9*<;/`()LB`.\F`06.IT!F423D$9"
M1J`'GDUM!"Y""E!MMD$2NH`'W&D!1N$`>&`28&$2J&L2K$%ZK,`*&J`+I.``D
M,B$.V(D$L"`,H.``&F`%:V>@@"4KK$(E>@)3_H!%>-QA`>8"?`[J5<0'5F1L2
M$NHA`7@!!MS@"YXA#0AC$PYA#8X!`61`?I9M,`!!I+J%?^9`#DH'7#"C=`:H1
M"BX#[1A(!4#0`$8!'`!!&[Y@!\`!"H@!!C8A-JC%!SZ`$$:A#PR!J0IQ8'CC1
M$$3H-T0!$0@`!"3&.1X/!+9JS_K,%U*A%#2/._3!!+8*!TX&9+B#K5"@`?9!W
MBBQ!KF0O0"I@$2QA$;*D0#"-$E"C0`:D/3[$0!J+08)O0IH(:BJDTW)M^BB+\
MB]IH0'I':[X&'U($^G;$L6Q$&*7/:IY1V`#IL4;$1TS$1W(%>3S"(#QHMEY@7
M$RPJX,2I'=#/%0H*_N>XP1WZ01*6P?T^*;GT(`7TX`ZTA3!DH`%BQW>X00BR6
MI!]&P0+HX`KH(`'HP"1J!TD$81.008OVY.$VB`OL00Z>S@7\:Q).H$D,X!BNC
M82U80MH&$)O<80H0``L2H``FX0`P``LP@"4QX`Q@LA(JP25]X`MPH0_`K`S*Q
MH`]0,@@:P"QVXL.(`A-<!1/,0E1`!51V!Z`DA2URKB7,3QFL00HFH0>@(`;T"
M(@&$`7^R)1#@YQ=FP0(6Z07"D#'.4C(N`X"DL*6D<*:X((%48(%$@!(:8`'X_
MSG)68P?XL`_OX`IA80%,@0<V@0S4C,U^8#=J(Q&)(X4<!F*6PSEH"`>X_BH)#
MO*H(G&```*V'O",)/-$7B.@\T$.)]D,@4N#1-*0"&H$57!%`U,8<+*&OF(B+_
M;O%">&\7%<1JXFC4>L]IF'&+PN9K?`VR6DT:>?/4I@\Y!T1&**N0@"U$?C$:/
MF0]#I,!&>F>0:I/>^L`!H*`$\)'(9$#\<*LGG,$4E,$CE<)`(@`/'H!P'B$%4
M!D</("%;7@`;;.$#C@$9(.!)U$$9"B$*[*`!Z`$'32%**"E+IN$.G*&"'`DBN
M(`)I3`$5=F`:P.$UN(`(^(<8<`$*F*`2/L`%6)($4+`+1G02*.$$%@`*2`&_S
M=I((M$`'P`$<8@`*XB">L&`)>*`!!*`=Q`A`_BX$$Y126#ZE'5("+=IA*5AEJ
M")[B"F:A`7P'*3!A/%\"&88%&D[!*KO```3A#(IP%`ACMNX'$'"!@MSA"X@,_
M6V2@6\#.,8Y,7-1P#2?#I3QCIMQ`!<)@&V!A`J*``8:*%/R%R/H08*(`"Y#DA
M!-#,#99*8%+HA!2&,1V38B8&!#I`.8#@8BKSJ\)*$[>#!=(*!SZSK!1M%P[`V
M9^CA]#Q"$A9A'QK!$GI!`2H`2,QA'"J@/<X(<J:H/=*F:(!-T[JH:(XO^8IS>
M1`2"&%U+C5RD;$P$M8;O:J#&^-H(.2LK:DKK*WK'604D4K"Q0981'W1`%;R3\
MR/C@?.1F'E:B/"$`_B?:L19\`0[>TQ=20$R2@0+N<3Y?P`K2#0(:0`CHP'`.8
MP;L:AR6@9`#[(0$V01GZP0H^P``BQU$NC0Z8X$Z<B!W8X1KDP0K"P0"080+`H
M(1HF8`.L0!Z@QP`@0!X,0!X@H!@J@16&81_PX1<,1&X.I$3;2T*,IU1<926$0
MLB:R8BF,5"N6Y$<Q0=W680'$PG?80MJ`@DJ;QR0:('[\S0WP4>L(XQ!(`$F0E
MP$M?@.OL<.SX)S'(9>P>XTUE2J9*1TY5(&XDH0#N(`K*10:J0!P/@:-BPX-2;
M:0C"8#'5K#9Z(X4.IA!Y`SFT:F*4`ZLH,V.2@`!\80^Z0_.28#S:X#.-_N@\[
M_"`!.`!(2#45Z8$*S.&*+`$5%4`@K&@<(``U<DV*<M%T@7&*'F0>.`U"<@]&W
M5M=#F#775*U&*H1%:M%8Z2AW/T1K0JWX*`LX<=>U3&VSVH@Z2T6/1,)##B0<D
M!H$+#.%^O/0;,*`<'DF@GH3_MJ$`'N!+WO,!E$L/:@`,B"1;7$`*\"0?"@%;6
MHB`,Y$92UL*4^N$:R(`.^B$(',@=AN`LU(&7K``+N$%"%`4D9D<D\B$E^^%U&
MMN=(W2$?*F@!SO=`5%=XLL0`=&!0;\=W=L=5EJ(LI)0H3:4L1.4HGD1_TX$;(
M(B!A-9@'A>4G5L(9SN<8*`$)SL"F#F&V.@I;_K`A#<*@8*&@6XG$R+Z`".P!,
MR1KC:Y/L"U"J7=ZT,^C4!>J!'N3A-6"#"U:A3%3`@Z(`!H0A"CZ@'D+A`V!`F
M8&J#$/@V-\Y8A:3J86BH`QZ18B25JR2/\AR7!0*MAUC`"4R@4]4J9;9C"W:!Z
M#B+DB:)(()IH&U2U%]RA]#S"'!XA'1CDC$HW0GJOBU27C`@K]W"$1NJH0S:94
M0XB30WP--W5D>)GU5TF+&LM&.'=3^JZ&:DCDUJB3.JMQ_?2*'MC!#/+M#HBD)
M%3:A%60@<UZO<>9A""!@"-QA&X9A$-RO'N'`%[A7#\!M7A5A%-AG!^;S$$8AS
M".KA=8"BF]#G&8Y$_@CT,W^%0!EPIQ\:H`"4(;>BR2E7HG8T<ER%!2:$8"F0D
MHAL$``L@(%6D8`BH`&]2PG$^@`0DY%*0HAU(S%2NP@>587N0@E7V3]W4S16NK
M("R4)%9>A2A:@EP7:A*LP,%*]!"2K:.RA1-BH`6A8#"T1080`YD6(USX!XF9/
M>`WMH71LVC/<X`=&(13Z`1.80'Z8@12>5AC<@#>XF(MCH!Y(0`NB@!`04ZEX6
M(V^)@QGVE@S(`00<,7`?T0,\(#JB@ZO@@`4R+U,9-V(^\X@B=Q=X8%1-4XZ2]
MV1Q*81%B\_4:P1.R*(^4,T)^1HI$C7=-MQN6,?HT&5F73SAU[4>\YHU0_HM8)
MTV@:H29L2/=V>PV5!WOYBJ\'F$9`CM<=0HM4?.?2G*@@V"!Z"4,;1N$-UHL>:
M[CE+:D$/F#EPO(0":D!>[P<;L($^N[)($!(:"JH')H$!JC`4#F38SJ(=^^$$(
MPF!')^D:HN2W,*D;NB`4SF$(QIFWL@(GO,(4,(`=D^(:8$(_N6%Y$N``]B9G4
MG\(F;I:#@4<=!%.!A4`HH2$=7$$`ZAL")`&@5GBC07)8N*$%.?!#2:`+R."&]
MOY0^4>D6RF$4``9@^K3K`@C"'6.F"2A.W65.N<`+7.`-NL$4H@$*^.X#O@`;[
M#N')[,`"A,$"+("&/\#&!L;%U8SP!D83HFJJ_M[8`R0S,G$HK%E@,WL(B)3#;
M%W``T431#T;/%%^F$4:U-;5(9AHY-DU-BH9FKZ=(]Z(QL8(OUX[/U'!WRZ\QS
M56X7.%DDCY(3V,2\UYAU1<I<C5"Y.%,ELZWU:&39GYCF'`(*5'J`ESR"$ICAL
M:K,E"H@!"PH6(E!E&]`A#[KD>RF``F);T2'A'J/7HRS`H^['`@Z`<[HL6W#!%
M&AY6@]NQ&X#;W!KG)ES,YSP""P)9'5HB*FT"&MK1%!:`&P+J)O337(EB'B!@+
M`9;`E&H6+7X!&9+T1Z=B*UI%`)9`"IKB%]2AF"'`%=3-``0`&BI``!)`Q68"9
M6`X*)#]%&4X`+AK@_@`8``,,@,"_5.MT>`T$I:D!(39P(4V]9>P:`XG3T!ZJL
M`!3210R:V`T')10:`!<$H0K\;@ZPP0Y(08$(@8M5?!JB0!.$83B4RF!,*#=\7
MPX3(`1$0(5*QJLX<SV(NAJN28:S'*A2YPZS%PPE`[XB28!=(SR.>*!4AAXKT+
MJA&*0``0!->4'(PJ%QA[-U='"S>;9I-)J^:+CVQ6>7=7U]><\49^?GB/=8M,P
M.49NA#FGAG@S&QD]ZY4S>W=`LM21A!3FDWP+0Q%R:>"V01XZX$L"!YH?8-$[P
M"1(`X0Z^U`+88*6],@PFH0MN812J,%ML`9@AL$F4@0Z00!M>(!$,0$O&_E7GJ
M"E!]Y.`6YB8E>F((BE*O8`$)SM=)H0$"C#2]AT"8Z("7IC54A.`7/J4G;.479
M#``!B)DGA$``U&T(!*!))`'VH<``<@M64J(E^/N@AL`4Z$`-Z(`.PH`+1F$2F
M5`!;9FO(L"$*?BI=9",-`$$&1HJD&N,Q!J@,X73>(T,%T(Y=4/L6!``7M$`.6
M9"`:"$'@6YH+-NK$72`:@&,Q&[YOBX,-T%BJ%(]B'J^-9V@9PL,$*C.L.P`@V
M>ND32'"@/C])?+7!X0M'KX<#_?A!00<?O8N6&EVY@F[=QHWN0.;;MFA<A6W;_
MZ(D3-V_>Q8LN7Z)\Z7)>RI;T8N+<F;.E.'6__EC.6\E2I3AW/MVY.\I27,ZFD
M\_#-0UK4I="A4WVVQ+K5J5:A4*^NY%JS*U2L*Y$.=:?NG#NW\]1-E2)7G11D*
MT+@YXZ:N6[]I8%X`>B&8<&!5@!(A(:&FGV-*B.#`20:'`AQ'DO4\J,'96PU14
MH"$1'OUBTR%.45Z`$4V:5[LA!C#-PS!8\`XLKOK%[='#+C\2BNZ,<KQM7CMNU
MR.1NZY=/S(U0R[NI4P=MR*]?4KC1:6#@``D2#:"U4\>M/#1EY?4ZPY3<P))YT
MW"!`$#!?@"M)!J94:%"+!Y0&<7%S'#3B.8,>-\KL=5X/D]!1R`(8-,#&)H,!%
M0N$+V$3A!A=(?*&*_AW:`$(*,6*(0<0<)8KQA1ANB%'%%U_,,0<77W!1A8TX8
M)L*%&S[<<DL#HR"AQ1E0>(&-'5J0R(4=%D01`Q8JD!$%&3^H8(<=FMCQ@QUD%
MD,'EEU22P08BH'0`@ID>M)'+F1YTT$$229C01C(L&&0000)UX`0.;>PY$$2]W
M^$$#)4Y=E((EXR2JZ**)>K*()6THD))1XE@$TU8QT8/233EUBI6GG?8D55/GZ
M-$555D3%]<LP0O6DTE`]C>4J44NA]>E08+WJ55@X784K5V,UM2M6;R&U#UO%,
MLM2#.\N>0YV`"$*C3C^4,).%8:1ER\D.+H3BV`;+P*%'910\,*YDR6A`_H$>3
M>CCB"QR=B0()&'?<`<:]D(BBA[S7`A*#8XYU,TJV4<@PB3(--'#*,07L(`P8"
M@&C3;0_;T"7%//TH0P(Q,-PA!P:3\#//LB[!=@(=KLP#00$T0%$('0+L=:!>>
M0Y1'73L"+*%.?0(HT[,`#5#"`P_]\=`'@`.FMY=>Y:'G3`/=3++$`:=TX8P*[
MJ@@6112#99B(&TCLD(8FPHA(#(HJKKBBBR5^(<>+;KQ8Q=Q<Z.C&W:/<@\4MF
M/GS@PAFXI&8'+CN8Z`8;PN#B@QM1;.)&EEA>>:67S'#I99=B=H#(F2#@8&8'>
M'G0.A)QM`-$&!1WH<^>?!B7AQ$(-^?&G0'[L_L+#2BF9LT@IBZ!`3>^+]/Y[,
M\(OLT8@DDSZ%TTM>N9I2-Y>&6E/T95GE%DM+U9K66T?],M0^^SB5*Z921:45D
MIEUQ%6M7/7&%E/9>D046^J9*<53ZZF`?EUIOM4,@-'MI!TJ:P`9`U"9;@PD,+
M80[!@#.H@0?+6)=DUF6N"5[F`<E(00K:]2X*6(8SXF+7!AV1#`QQ@@%(<`$N?
M`I&:P"@0$-"IF&.PH,#1)"(&"#O!)`1@`"08$!R"X,(SM($!`W1A$D;L`LC4X
MX0XI]``3[H'%%-`#`?209SW(0`Z"3G&`*\S'%#QLP!0H(;2A#:T1?3"`<0"HE
M%P(Y(R]O5(8RH#&)_G9([1;=@,`4F&%`"QD00U'8`1'$H`G3`"(-Q"`&+=2FR
M-CE\H0HINM$CYS:W&7&A;FY0P2AN\9TU],$%##A$%+"AF#(0HPQB6!(#Y$`&W
M"Q'B2LS(4I>P1(9G:*)+LCQ$*D"`B`XLPTPX6`8(VN`!'/#)!!UH0QMJT($]H
MW*D@`G$=#CR@$#\`*E"[F$1*"F61E'134]O`AT7$20]+6:4EEDI)<3AUD9L\`
M#U30*XNG:A*64@%E+4`YBTW<`;Z5A*\HX@C?4SPE+%M-SU9@T2=3AM*#@JY$>
M>3X9"UJN0I7W3:6A^9.+%&I6'@5-:QL18`,S[D":%V)#,(1(#2"\0(HR_@Q`B
M"12H@0?U`%-Q42`9#[",!,]5P78]P!<<?,0#ZG6M;)64,!_XT36.<0IB8*LP7
MI.A'-^38#VZX`1MNX`$E8K")%QR@'SW(1S>Z<8`JG*`?39261?U''N3D!2_K/
M09@I"I`.;M!'C&8,`AV"$(0E\)4&#=A&._"2GO00J(W<.($S)G$"%T@!K81`5
M#(6XAJ%-X*(/6K`#A=(@(E*T344JHA&,7#1)2][H1G?;D0K6<(M['&`4T1B%*
M!48#-BWL8$2/C)L%`!$%+5V.EF2X)>8NUR4V+,,7NQ@FGSH'NF*V@70I\`4+$
MG`G-.TG3"0W!TT%J-PEA@5-3X)S)IL;;E*<4_D4F](!>]-SIJ>)<I!M?216F@
MW)*_[$UG&&ZA1S]04A;QK42<X`/?^?2)OO/ARJ'I,]5*\G<_!4/E'-=;RUS"9
M8K_[M40MZL`+,MZ(H';T8+\\$`1E#T@:.R1@%F%KDBJR,`-O>",92J@!O&J@"
MA,S`2PDXEHQD'I"9#9I+@^XREQ+J52_2''`3PM"$/6*)0,*XX0`?!FL?!K,`Q
M(?`@#&[(`@.L\&%G8,$-%CAK#VPVA.E,AR^8*$\[TFPS"%#"`+#`Q'P,L('^U
M\)6OL&@$+#A0`$$`J*W.4(?_(,!&9T"@'<J8!!WI$"''<`$QO+40AM*`BS-D,
MH@H&1`TNB+&V.:A-_FXO<EN-*,D%>WSA;AM:A1LVZ2,7?``7;NB:'%R=2%/"<
M2`5;$P8AO#2Y+/F:EF`2$R^-:29EMJF8KU-FZ330!H/(KKJN<T(N'N`0VCTD0
M"5`(0J58112QG'-Y-QG6>=5I$U=I*BK@/"BGT'DK724E+FD1QZ;ZH41-"44JC
MHUK),,)GODX5=%0&%=5*SO$K82DE+EHYE;<+GA;W21CA/5C+LJ8SH+RX<0A1=
MY@8\HD`$P?R`,+6QPP*LT2`L0`$)TK!`O5H,4R5X`UZ:T0,>8NJ-&E]F7)9Y@
M`&9T[HL4/,+GO@@-($AJ5,)@X^@@+TQA-D$($XF!$)NP`"_HD8YV!"&S_E$XB
M!(J\H'([&`"MT("`%C$!#38?AQM#R&+-R-.`E:5C/T(#1A`XL`0.Y+D`!?B#3
M`SX`('?DQ7]DC\_2#GL"*4R"!U@(PRWZ`0K!;&)K715,D&1`#-X*PPU)2A%H6
MY_;(.4#2\YV?FQLF6>I$V,$']^@""51(##((8Y2!B,,'2$0,&6AA#H=0Q2$L6
M8`<O?$D3OI\<EX3+)0M8(!>][)PQA]DY)Z3`=,J,;K.A"4T6O,X#K[/V0+90Y
MC1-$Q1W#R)[!F7*53I7JG)5*7DR@9Q'UVF0;\015]>1YJZZ\!2<H$8`/JA`'_
ME,2O?>:3*OM@/F1!+'(1/V)1*U\Q%?7%*PU6_A5'00\[@PGG=W"XDCUNP193Z
M@11T87$"8FC0@!?JL!SJ``]-``B:8`.I,1IV$`;;T05T\`DGP`VF$`?2(`Q9"
M<`<M-@,>)%,D)"[BX@@\EP(40$(CI$$^]PA*N!F`4$-&M0ED8`&&(`R&``-/3
MQ5L[,"-?0`0T8`7+(01*Y`-:0`0_\`.S!0B\IP;;\"S<P&9MR!=M^!KI@0GN`
M\`L\``$+(`!"4PM\50QY!@MY9P:=,(C@(``50Q[2@G;<0"`0`(+0<`!#T`4(V
M4`ALT`?;\&B3M36$T0IB8`]WTSB!P`8CDC9BX&E$<%I<X&FC1C>D5P4;H@*KM
M-@FA<`MA@`0J``AN_F`'V#`'?;!I.T`,6H`$A&!`47@Y/^`E5H)+8/(E=6`!>
M!(`(?&),"Q&-V/<(R@8$%``"U/5,`J$/";$03@`$U@01$K$+=$`%XK!O2Y&.%
M!_>`4'$1]_<JG8(/Y`83X.42[G6/Y`9NRP,L.C$5\H82W1`&P0`(7[`/ZU8H5
MZ-8K3]$-4J$\V*,\VL-N!Z@_%L9$9,$6`Y<^6*$.IR`%IX(J%X4J0F$_TT%8F
M'OA&QW$Q_8`,V[`*,#``*D48=A`'DX``>W4`/+!?],`.$X`%\$`.JJ`*]0()G
M,R`*+P>$/Z5!-O8`2^D(FI$,->`-=_!'A,$UV"`,TL`+-``/0?D'$V`%_DU`Q
M`V3S1YJ@!5H@".`0!E_G&`VP!`GP`3J0>5P#"+TG0/!16(3&#;^P=ICP"V\HB
M+1!PAP$@#SPP=TV@9XV`=P[0"2M0``ZP`'E@"ML@#G.('$,@'GFQB$-`!XM6+
M`'$`"_W`!1:2:[4!"+@@"!]`"H^W)"-""V(`FZ,5(Z=6FZ=56B]B(ZBV2:'`=
M:%K`6ZM@!R\0#)MF2F*@!3Z@6<+`)%OR2F3@!;_E)<<82Y9C`1ZP.<8D3+E@0
M3-6H;"EP.FVP!WN@77CB.H^`76V`)P_A!WW``_O`*L,0GTHA4;^R%1"54/2(O
MC^E%$^?67OBH3N[%$Y@"@?B'$OUP!L3P#!;`_@8V,!,)IPZN0C[UQY'O%I+S`
M<X'OMCSZ@Q0'*&$7>F'O=C_.0A5,U!LA^#_(D)EO]$;00#'],`%-P`6C,1C/8
M,`L(,`DW>0!T(`4&V@_TP`T'``OP0`@P$`60!@CY(@J<,0!3Z0WR`@D=`Z5#*
M652"<9J;``-](`_+44ZR(`\8LU_;,`M9DQJ'((:*@P'04!S=4`%6@`&K*0,ZX
M`'468@=5``W]L#-Y06AB5S.`V5;I,1V8P`/R$`'`4`L<D)B`^`?-L``.4`!F#
ML``1D`#@H`S=<`Z;B79I1W9I!@WNP`V3(`4(P`,8X`PHP4=;<ZH8`@B;Y`+$P
MH"%V,`>DP`":]VF/_@0C;Y.*53`'HW=)NJF;N'`/RM`%9^!#A^`&,'`D/D!Y^
M(R(#HY!29,`%AV`'*K`ED6,'E8,YPD<&A\`&(``*N;`FVVE,.)`+'O"=RM8&5
M<``$XDE]K1..U.0$X]@ZN_`)[D`/\GD4\UF`K>)?.E$4`)H3[E6/ZQ:A.T%_C
M6M$IX]4##0`%X%`&J5`&-J$;P-(JO3*@)&FQ!D9/]3E1!7BQ&<J1]&!1_+,5.
M'/@3T\$6*+F(B]@.>\&BY^`8[B`&5E@;PA`#.H0`WH$`RI`5&*,./&``"Y``S
M.D`$46(!%])'52D83I@MJO`%B"`8LP4&S%`,FD(<Q`%?&+,-E#"CAR`#_C*@7
MFI70!70Q#P)`!V$@EYN6""356U70#G<:'W!;'FSFAG++#?,0J!`0`1NP5W;7J
MF)WP!YT0`9%J!A'0!SK@#-(!F&B712JK9N2!`)[*:,3!!C!@>8TS&IMT`&(@,
M#(=0(K8EFVQ3(G*C(KDZ>G1SNE^#-Y-P#%9P!H+P`L6JB]J`"SH@`Z1@NPD0Y
MA73*>UIB!X\S.<$%O':PK5VR#)L3KMM93-CG!,[7!L]'`>$I.\]V$-WXC4Z@R
M!PY!O8'"74ZQ%/%Y+$PQD?1Y%0`'7NH4H<5Q4/L93^E+L`AH;@8Z"<1`"EJ0"
M`'$0![/@H!3;/N73K^5UL`7F;1$G@5DQHOLC_A=8X187<Q;V@Q0$%V\6E5%'*
M@<#,$L'20B`#PK*->'92\+(00`;PH!J$\0S1P%B3X!TG``'D,1WS,`1DM`#1>
M``ZD0`2Y*$HG]0);0V(8@L,P``^I0`-FT'A1,`A<D`5<(`_$@8C'<1Q[@3$&M
M`+6`(`S!B`1(\#+5H0X&,`D8(`BV6P9N0"&XN`.D.@\6MY=\N9F(!H?<(`2_#
MP`H<,*@\8'=XUPF/Z@`10+B%6P9E0`KNT`_BD!=GMJEEAZF8X)F30`D8X!?;_
M4$"GJHF$(0,8<`M0($K$X`8R0`2R.9NC!4F/!`JD1DFYJ@*@$)R_:@K""@Y<8
M<PB'0$JCL)JX<`D?_A`-;G`(7$`,AT`(;O!*OL9KTCE<3,*MOO!+;2*NY.H+R
M3F`)IO-\R=!LXCF]Y>D$V&?,@8(GW(='^!"?K#*?V0.0("I1\@@K,E%NXHRPY
M-N$3[%2P0Q&@!PLP&!`(.^+)7T`*P^"@]6F/Y?RA8*$6ZCP_PV)@]S.1]<K-&
MW,P2^8.A9D:BJ&*!+7&`_F,>`J*9+/K0+O$'E"48AQ`-='!X4T,'RM!63"0$E
M5F`*$0`%@N!9N:RM5_D#FTL894,8E&L&/KH<$_`'/,`*@P`.;1D7ZN`TRG`<W
MRJ#"V\`-,_L"IT<*2'`)&&"W?5$!)\`$2&#4Q""GCL,%;KLS8F<>ZC`$_D)0J
M6.5!!=?`"L,@#V\<`3S`F(H:`'<\THQ0!J#@M#M`,>11,QS%4>1A"M2!``]$G
M!V<P!/LU4J_W>JEQ4J,0R:,0!5]`#*`0JX?-R2E2JROB>9Y7BIT'"KII#X2`'
M"[<0"EU0"!]0I-J*#?;@`I.G!1]0",PP`+?%:Y;#)3]P2\)U.;>T>]W*.>(J!
MKM@%?<^7KN+I3-)[$*IC`LF`7;%#O=M%`RLP@.%'?O!3GV,Q*A=1?N6V3N8+\
M$_%GG^U;L.T#@)HB!2Y@K7&S"ER@2?=H4?0'W:_B<.BS/M5S%@H(HE-!<$MA[
M"FIQ%06=T%]!P0B\T'0`7SLC!7*HLAXX('O!_J/TH`,E5@ETD-$Z-`EGAA[0Q
M8``\M`"SP,5?``I8<@A7*0:DL,I$/1C&!P[+$>+PMZ55VP/G41Z-F"`(<@W<-
ML%]QT"]>L)I(X`-88-=R00F3$`%4?`EE4)"\1:<"I!=ZNIF_``VF8&BGP`W7H
M``'R(`]4(`^-,*BUH&>!B\<?\`H5_@5L_05:H!M:75A_US1-@P!VU`6L"AVX@
M%@6`'7DOX`+6@`&CH`D[`)M)\B)I8^>>EJNU6DFG9B,SXHEW@PLDH-D+T`<6/
M<`BG]@)R$`8QX`-4C`10\`7VX`6"8`=L4(:$L"6P+3G8VB4#@'QMH'S$-JX]R
M!P36"`1`D`S-U,S:_@L1UHN]>S".ZVD&!6`5\<F.'CJ?8G'>S]U.X`4]X]6?S
M-:'.+Q%/]+<^59L`7\`,A$#9F?0%Q;!?"48_2;$^!270'8M0$QO!$H84!E#?E
M!C</I:(6<S'0"TWN4U.9/#`)QB%H2G-V<(07*7&"(GP(4("C&=T@'6T@SN`,I
MQ\`=,(P$.D`+2X(ECE<%K8K#J3$E7\`.ND%Q[4`7/=`-_DT=+0M`">(_6RU`N
MU`+&=D#%/D`*87`*?]<%5A`&.G"[E:Q2=*H,_?`_>4%%FVD*-"@$IL`*K"`/^
M76H$\D`-39!W=DS2D4`F,*+'>GP&NM%1B.6!T>*IAM<`I'!ZC/=XN6:D_H3AG
M`K?P!D@0!550!E]PR2H">IX6NJ"&(J!<([IZ:H0`R;<@`!@0#1;P#'.@":"-#
M`2+P`8(PXZ-0PTAP",@(G</W>Y?C]Y;#2\6FG<?&O.>:`G"PZN/IVWAB?0M!Z
M`$Y0"M!4.P?@7]F<KV>!/45Q?U;!$M^$7@X:H9W2#?)&4#B!^NH#3OM`!64-L
M!7T``L;P!?I5'!\J3[RR$_A*H1&U$_GE*_H:<?654048<?;I$G+V"^Y@"LA06
M$P;``SM;F1P0!-M`!;#@1%F=P6'.8>W0Q_U0!B<%"/9N!3AZ`#CJ/Z;@-`)@V
M!0U0Z.`@`Z?&)1B.PRI@R^/_`LR0"JR0$G"D_B``X0P:MW;.E#ESYLK@0&7M'
MN'$SI6Y;OU\JHKQ(]$&&%B2%Z"B3(H4''2@R2)UT<S'*(2[Y^G%S!H$;!(/7-
M3,%TQNT:*WE4Y,G;L,'<A"^CC!2"4@84,U!<B)0IHT,'$5"3MJD3R$W9P8-#(
MN`V$UJX=@G:3K(P:A:%=2@M1A%D0]N+%)EPR</FP8(?4%U+$JHCY(@9PE2^%U
MOU0AS*7*G"]<%"L&):>*&S<[,-PZ=B)!%#)<8&!+%`9#M%$^D(Q"H@*4#&%DX
MW)"Q$YO9(3N:R-R^;0>WA0&I<+0!@4.XAPX></A*T49YFV0@]NS1YZ=7=.J]G
MDCC!X<&7DU)^I/?J_L4B#ZQY],3-<^=.'*9SZ>?-$^?NO?SUY^';+U^>'KUMB
M\[;MIR<__03,K[\`WWM/G/,6W*8_=?QK<#]\Z&$E@0CC0]"^!0,,T#[SX`,Q^
M0?E`/!!!$Q<$<43T%CQ/'7'4H<_%\^@[)T$"U>&!BGD:,&4>3"CAH8$&Y4&@N
MAP:6Z.:JG+Y"QAF'"!JHG7[ZB4&N%^R`XH1);H$%@08(.@@F`0R@8X%9/MCK$
M-4TT>0$,0%8AAA,KHXBBB0:Q0@BA,`5:""%HLO+S(8GZ:>`.0`!Q0R,DD#A@*
M&RD$HJ0!*)#008LR[#@4$#N\<*:?=B!P!28(!LI)&6Z$X,DG><9@9X,__L9(W
MQ0TH(FGJ"U"^B$J',KAP`Y1*ZMF&5)@86E*=8:&Y18I0Z'"!A%OX4:$M86`XZ
M)"YL6AFEDE$$.60.8@B1@98OYECLL,,06PQ=<AU3=Y4JN$A$!7LPN,>:`^*P3
M@`Q"XK)'M#/Z0&O20@0A)5\[?M"M-H5SPXV,0S1APX-(.@`AE]^$"\X#)Y9+R
M#HXVNMMCNN^F"V]C)_3PI3N2K=OEEO+BVT<]]58<$<,$#S1O/W$`_"]``_/;@
M+\+W<.8P0Q.'_H\;'BBAQ``#((!`2@&P:!`]&_%;L)L0;8:/OJ-M-/I#!='K=
M8<87K>[!ZO=JA/&]M-'[929,,%'G"OE4I&0!_AY,*1O(!KKY98DP/C@A'VZD:
M"*L=:,`B2'%HIBP$&T!>T*00!&Y9XH!)NC`U)X0,T+*`264@H@K8#GD!D"CFM
M(`5U*]DPH)]Y'#H%@C"Y,@AWK<!:TIE!#Y`+$$VTT,('&6#I1AUUI#"@"R9\U
M($6&;R_2U(U.U3%U\8=DXN87"%A1]:>?)C!B`S8.H157OJ#Z0C="B%B@07>R4
M&N@KK90A51EUH"%K$@1<>,,MIO"%3:Q$&)J@WB:B<8Q;?$`8<I"!"DC!`,"(4
M@3`6%`,7&`,*<B'&@E58A3V^X`9RN8$+*MB!"#!P!@S$@3,J.`1H"H$!$<2@C
M#]$H1`)$0(H^'((,_BHX6,)@<SK8:*(V9+``&W9!`!"T03@XL)C%/)""C26A]
M#2GP!1"@LP<_Z&,ZU/'#%GQQ'%]XH!3@$5D2^A"`"<4G/?&!H]=0M+67F:AG3
M__D/T+;1#9P-S8_TZ,;8ZEB>/3:`#AR8@#PJ$(Y)\&`D"SA!U68FQP/M;#[SO
M*9N):C:SH\T100]ZD#AZX)Y1ANA$4B#0>8:!"5,8(%(0,$4#!&"*Q8GC%Z[L2
M0A`,$`893,(4QJ`%$R9Q@GG4;UA0R@DT)@(%*QTB!B?0TA(0T`5N8,5VT%!&F
M%QJP@`2@Y@M`M(/KGC&-'AYB<E$@1^SV-RQ`+>X@?_I3.[_BC%_T8$K,_I2+\
M'9"`BTJ%X4LA,<`4*A$]'9`"4W.Q0R(>9ZR8/`0:F/C%+ZCP"U:P0A9`F<`8L
M5N6`,9##`D_10D%!H0(V)+$,L[A&/^CACL5%R:'&!$L[AG`+:$R"#FDAP22^^
M``AA',*GKGO!*-#00);,`1"DV$%@QA68.7#A7"(L3%/1A9C#N`&$B:#%*%P0!
MC0,L(`H6X`(9L.$&%X0A#(4812$J<08=X"(,;(@-(70S1$WXT(@.PRL208"(E
M#N2B.!1S8G:<\(@VF$`YR>C`<Y[31>](1Q_7T0X!N,-8\"3!!@L0QS;$,0QW>
M#`-&(_+:)2V)#Q"1UI)!J]J!&I3'\FC-C_WY_IF)?#8/*Q2``R=@&I!X4(S=Z
M0L$`#;)/:/V((OLH3S[F41$G3^2.M(VR1NAYD(K49I]?#(&5UY6)*>BF/./^<
M(CWJP`05KB$/(%F!!Y,(PB0R48D=P$`+H=#"++`PB0,DSZ%.<JE`)E*)U+W`8
MF?ZC@^:LX`S$?:4=#4#P`I@`#F)8L#:N\T(E8G`("P!B$S"(PW_:T:3$06.=C
M,<F*XT*LN&I.I!]B2)VFD"`#'_@@#IP;@CL,P(.!(4$+TSL4;!8Z*DQ4L\>_%
MH(1%-R`+661T#$<>@P/",0`RZ$`097##`"QP"%#HH`G[F$@WW*&X=ABKI<CX_
MRI]H`H']'4`-7>"!_@\P@(5[$$%U/M6$,,"0NE&$8A(?H,TS-A$N6@"&,8`YD
M%V/<\$'$*,9=Z%*,'>1P%Q>T\*NOP8871!`&$40#"DCYP`Y&<0`5D,&(1X1-T
M;9Y1!Q]Z6C>'8$,'^!J<X."@U=I9SA6SJ%C*>C$Z+=C.R2;K6#\D81>81>XO^
M-NO&&8$(:\@=VX8(N1_]`-+9""I:;*&-'_Z88@5_@$4!XA`!+,"B";!PY"Q^0
M(;^NF=*3Q7Y1VQ`D,ZZ=1PKV.4<H%21OJ[D#E'<3`@0:((\IN)(.L!"``$[1Z
M-`A0H@M3B)0!$*SP@`+#`).(1A2@$`8RS`$)Q#AK`D[0#29I3RQ944<W_OJQ+
MA!0[TU[TI4,HHE8_*31@<PN(P8J)X(;8L.E*4(A!7%(W"'K(+BP$J28RQ`*-%
M(2B.3]!`QD",93][4LE*@/"":9#P@04T@#U2<`</PB`(8L@`RI/3E!V4T1_KM
MQ@T30C"%+!Q`"2++8@P9W0"2'6"$5&B""(2@,!N*8@5\9/E%CO.PT#W\<[#`G
M<P@'@``:*,&'#)Q!IU_UJ</DT@H1,+`//7V+%G8@+L$,6C#G4BI5T>6&$;ZKG
M"O90`01Q48@P0.$BA%`!:#(1AS,@I:P,L,LDPCK7V"#,T[:YZZEODPM$-!$$1
MCRA.&W*Q#"<X(3F&!8(OVK!8Q8JLB[C.A2_T_C!9-%H'"A$81H<X^PO.RFQF<
M&+(DBCJT[/[P<1[N[YG[^P@T`77(/A211R.@0`-P".(#X(@`VRH&+/@%E5(1M
M_#":#,DL]&B/%+&W!T$EXD*/;9"9YY*N]^@/:/,/_N@'//+`G@$0G7$'[U$X%
M'C@!:X`%+,"%*,`%8HB-2.B#`V`'*A`"*4@Z4JD?A/@*=>@'99@<_XJ!2<"`N
M`SB`G.JRQ5&>!L@E#(@!Z)F,'ZBKR=$$M$`=;#@$>5"I)P$SAU`Z;@"SA_"<D
M/VD<)WF0?K`"L#L4._@`+>`A.I""_5D>$H@`2I$>-P"[30F%__`>;NBQ\-H'?
M!P"*(D,R)#,"%#`"_C8`!`JKL@A@A9[KCRUK*0_K,J!3'J1[DC#CA@-0AGXP#
M`$$0!3YX/+BP*[G8!!5R@5$X!#J)@KY@#*H*/7/YBZE2C$*;#%ZAC#*0@3XHD
MA&B@,#%P@Q?P@A@X@TJ`@JT*`RT0@V?``BZ@C8,QM=N@C5)[AC7Q(7+8J]\`0
M`8KQ@.#H@.;;F.7P!18H!5KC(E[#-2?0/B?H!<<"#Q;X-2QCMLUR$7L[M^-BD
MD?L8&O[`(_I;K:(I$0W,0`V<!]F)@SB@`GS8![7#`B*C@C#80/>8+GQ<$.F"V
MHQ!1'A&9AW=[&PQ$D`_TR`A9K0X,R2F9",51!@,X!BN@`_K"@-:#@CXP_@U2C
M*(,^8`35B0([4`$DD*\IF8?]$3PG,;"P@`8IZ`=G.!3_&@42P`(L6+-)(+"'$
M$(ML"(50$($^P(4RR*#8J,)#B(9,B*$[H)I^4(<O1`93`#-DB)N'`#J@<Q)3Y
M:0?$";E^.``WZ2\WT`(98`0HT"93&0)U0+`/T`%B@+(H.)2'&84I6;H>HP)9(
M^$-YD(6XRRAS&`,CH$Q#E+*\W``3<Q#M@<HM5`>Q\$*"P`2D&P)DJ$0$Z!0(K
M*`0D8`0,X`(Z,9B#:H48T()`F(:'.80]$Y>E^HM7A$7":"IW,;1$X!6\DP,MC
M<($S6``5X`)24`'*R9:M$H%,B`8?N+$&0(1F_OR!(BHBN_*T?$$B"U@&1+"84
M93`.X2@.C2$L$P""-H`#'%`L+@*C+AJ',3J9E/F.Z/"U`.@&*F@04Q"V-Z)'F
M^JB9]S`M8\LL//)'",FCV<K'FR&0!FD'.N`!$H""#>@R=]`:\K@*'1B!/1*'&
M=TO`H1F;-PJNM`$MKI&/!V'0B0C)!NE`CG,%%S6Q*>F&1W$Y.FC)(:R$2LB$E
M48""#_B`/@`'*'C):3#2;5N`)<`"8TB=0U`!01@%+'"%?N@!+OPY@4@Z$K,G_
M"/A!9V+*6R"!R^"'_<D)*3@%*Y@$)@!,&9@#(*HKN=`$@(DA+AA(>E`<H0,Z7
MT.PR+OO,L6R'N-DP_K&0B&UH@"A0A7,2@Y/0@4+H`BGP"FYP!PB@`Q\@AKX`^
M!5*D$R^P"G?0"CX4`BI@!P<H!K=#,LG4!\I<!".(!8/L.=F!KB$0`IR`DL0Q>
M%BZ$2FZ(-W7H`768A$V$`"U@O3#@@@*B#=BSDC`XA0)(@%2,`MV,Q<(8C-^L=
M`@Z:Q<EX%\=0#(NP`P;X@$I8`$)P`V+X##M(JZY$BFC`A9SJ!QB*#;BB*^&[Z
MC;JZ#=Y@H@[(CN(P/HUISS9HSRP:QU(8Q\7JHE)H`U]X!"<@`#/J#NGP`Q/81
M!0PP!7!``$J8!@*5F>ER#PGLD!#D#_\0D'WLHX_]QXZ="$I@@@+X@S]H_@18'
M\+8@X(`%X"TZT`(I^(\5O4!!4@\150\9R=@1>1#6@M$:]11E.(8NV!)*.(`P+
MJ`0L:``T6,E;8,I*P#1*(09<F84^@()9B``FB(!N,M)9X%K>D@<$XP$L@`)`)
M((,OB`)B0`(HF"^Q%,J"(#$^X0:1@X8?3(-1>(/+8,I[V(<N,Q5E4=,P&(4/9
MN%J:JXW4L8,?C2$BZ+DWY,*DR]6BDT2A3+K/#(O/),I^6(`["!X[*`-BV($8R
MT)QB`I5N$(`[TX%+(`(QP)1G51U<Z,"9.!7'9`5S"(<QB#O)E$S*-`=#Y(#5W
M>A'K>B@]!<.PR-SZ&4OF[3(8D8(3>!P!&-=&_JN""[,-W;"2,YB2!:BP33B$6
M</$S#*+%<CD]Q9@#TK,J+K`'JW(#%:@>'SB#,+``0OB"&$J$48B!4<@$$8""[
MTKB%?-@&(O`AA(F-A;$KW7B&V4`B#T`$Y"..)L(!?,6!P2HLY0#8/0"9#?8.G
M7-.8[>L%E8F.#HA8,]@!NXR`_?BNGLW8^=`04R)9#O''HI$_D*T_U\)`95B"/
M`F@"2@"*#0B'8@#B8J"##:"$,N`&E=)8>P2;L^G)E;HD=X`M?731#NS!`SB#F
M4ZP+TDT$,?BW!)B%0N@#'?@`?D*"2^B_K9V%!5B`::"Z!8B#/HB!!`C;/PBR&
MOCNP(`B#"*@$)NB#_C(HAF@P(2U8@"8@`>4Q.BA!IC\A2F@`7:246BP@@3>PI
MAJ?<7`,(A0;0%EP@!3&`T]RDG!^-"UK@P5L%PX+(B2-4Y?T9.J1#NC(\`3UC4
MW%%PLFDX@`80@OW!'WLZ`.N4209(B6<E3#F8DB>!`"K8`'GX`R,XLM]-57TPK
M!WW8`GW(S)52RVM6WOJ1Q`T[)K7$TG.0`J=\"6.P`V)P@56@D\@#*N[U7&&PU
M26*XVCD8C,2@*L4X%\+`9]-37T+@J7$M!":`4F*((374WTS(!!>(N7*8DC+(*
M"T+83B&R#2**:-[8*XIY(N"`HNSP5_8\6"`(V.[(`9#Q`W-(`NG3M1!N_JQ>S
M&P\>*(,9(`)[HH=A<*/V*"6KD<`-X8^<)J37RH^=":3Y*Y$.$8`E4$G;HH0F`
M:((@F`!T8`58H(1]H`)2F(`.U"0+#)$264"/%,FAG9(I&0$L"(1@4-SW=0-F+
M8(,RV(9,7,E)L;19"(,%6#-8Z%HH0(5((`5!<+(^^(.E885]X,`&0``,R*$X$
M8()*$(0(8(=ZV!8[T`(ZZ`=8L`:.RU/\HE4/$\M?!`-G*L++<):&@`B3M`9K+
M"(,^0(*]X()3FQQG0D5L^`(>-+JPP*^<*,W]$4K-);$M;(?R<`-5J#`5T`)\Y
MD`<#J("(P)Z8L&P>0!.3,(8O$`8Z.91$:`#9_AD"*J@HQU2R<$!5(]"'[=[N0
M#C"'8A#+:U;+9(*)>2*\\K8?MJPF7]U$=4"%*/`"%VR+A]&-'W2![FV+-``#L
M>.:"#*I6$7*J63P7IP(]#7)?+O@!0``#1?L`$3@?.[@(3?@`M/C1_QT%E^@'Y
M(L@+<`HU:`0^"D,B),(!1,#&BVD#B[9@Y0""!_!H@=T"/^`B^2P%7&N#^RP"Z
M[P`//R!A#*"',J"!,L`%2N@/[\(0]6@W8[MJ9FN_HJ&_^A,0?'"MX#*O>4`'[
M"!"V!CB!)7"&J^"!/"*%`NA`]X!(/T(:!K5B&.WJ=E"&4#@!IHR!-Q^%8'@!&
M"R!K4%B%]\W);1``_A*@@RE@@AB`@A]%BVWYOSXP=*TM`!Z6A_V8DA[P'Y></
M!2:8A4SX@!B`A9XK!'"((!U8`D*!!?V96_.&"?T1.:]Z@2B(`:D]`$F^A5-XS
M%+=$L$D(@QC0]!$J(BD$TACZ@G/P%)Q(IJ0#L[#PBBU\9;J%I_(H@SO@C"7X4
M@E`0R6("BW<:2"A@!)D4#$)01;<8A4T\!VYP3+?;!6:F3.V&9FC>@UT`@&(`5
M'&Z(U%$I;S_)$[O%G_+^$Z,3"TQ`@+&#!D%8B7!R"Y]2@3*P.1&8D@.P`%GND
MB\!`C'41O7<YC&LU<%"P!SN7`Q50A;FH`ER``C(X]4W`B`G'.2#]T7;`_H)CJ
M^(*\^`%",**5-[4C\DX+(#[AR`6,EN`*[M?DR"(4D$\8AW&!-5B$]0`"\`6'&
M92P3Z(,(V`=2Z+8!^*VNB3>:@7KB^I`-;%"MB;:0;2TF7ZGX"!!YD`21[`$,4
M")C+D(^)H`<>(DD;5O*AK>*N?A0V)P$XIL[#%=)%F3HHT`2U94['Z!4W8`-27
M$(<3*(3!%P1!0(4U+@!8X(`_X(#=^@EV\.L)F1)E.`$28`*D@()*8-I1L!0HR
MH(2>PP(R1H(-Z+9^<`>;*CK:;B>$:`>1<P<V>`%A&`4Q#:#+``EX<H9C:(!0[
M8(),6#%:4!/7.00@38,7*`.B=`A`J55D4(8;_IQ;)(R:#5L>>I`'40"$:.@']
M-I"#+B#)SPPS_2%**(B>,DBJT[:#E``$,0B##J2$9-X`,PAWRM2''#"''`AIO
M:.X`%!A>=1""605#4P$(9<ZX#50&35D[=02=0>/&#1K#A0]/J>DQK$R5':"$9
MP3BDB8R8/FY>O`A33ADL,E$`O<!%[(N8*E^JR*DR!Y1-4/9FSJE2A8O/*O;<M
M!%7Q`A"@9[@*P8AR*$H48A\^C.KC(@96*-H.?+%`Z(>=L)KL:'JFZ1`9,FC7#
M6@!!`,>R-CAPR&V3"X>31VWVMO'5IHB?/:7\Z"LUN-2>)+Z<.$GF"_!@/Z7:H
M["K`+M(`+:2V;1/G_NZS.G?SU'D6/6^>.'&HZ:$6AX\>['FL9V^;MXU>M]FVM
M9<O.K1KU:7>8SFWKUT!1E"K@"C59<$M*\6TZ?/0K7IWS]7[:^]53-BG4`0P8H
M*D&!$@/<J%'@J)HO'V<!DP58#KV`X>996C;,4B&"!ZM``4TTL40X!OS"SC[XC
MO(;==MAU0T(,Z94W"Q.%]!$#%`N,4@`KQ36`Q`>D&+!-`[#TTXT!"!B0CS/MT
M-.2,0`>YPHT4)W*!312C'$#"CEC<@A`T#;73@#63A*$>+F(08H='+!TR2B:'%
M``(/-/U(`2-#+G*#3)#MN-C.0V`FY"(TR+BHCG86`!)&/PN`)$(#VG6C_DZ0#
M#/70SQ*"D%(&`U^XH8)*FR`Q"A)5TL&!/&.8LXL11NACCCXY"&:.I"QL44PWL
MW"CC$$0/$;2I,Q$QI`Z97+;X$#*;0M/.$,CT``T2.L00C1U.':("$KSL(,P+O
M,>`B0P2:D/2"#+14(49/,_G4$U`^`4444-%R`>U(1VV"2Q^U6F"!%UIH`>(HO
M,?0QB@L'@#,),V@M.1999'STD5KN6D"&!1VDD@L(<X$@U[ZY.`%$&R;L]0`0&
M>PAFF&2!(=;7(T[4X$0O?OC12\24D4!%`>2PH0,FG?VB3FB>S6.:.^+0\]MOS
MI^W&&F\LLU:;;KR=IEMMIYTC1(W;A`&(*L04_G(+GI78IMV@=&QWHC+'3#+)N
M+6$4XG0"LXB+U2A01%->>96$$4$ELX01QBR9?("$#TV1(\T@X)@A8($&2/++/
M,,,LB%UTUW'F((2DB`'%+%IG@H0@<82#0`'RT(/=*#YH40`]_=!AHA3ST$''A
MJF"*"A%#-0XQ4HX'8/$Y"20H(P5$"#5@A9$Q?$",&("JY22&FL!01CO]J".JG
MF`,Q!`V=7'[YHI?<M),S#"\0TP\]L[#AA@]]D$#',=P,(44^V_5!R@Y<V*&61
M%ZI\<<#JW#B^RQ_F.+"+.8WJLP<`>TBJ#P`=^,&![4(XM*FF!$$4I/[#(\,IM
MEPC2CHC\PB'JZ`8F_C[@@QC<@A`60`LQH*`%,:@$%TQXCYI(PKHO<+`*.OE"W
MM&PB+9^L(BA<>%85R``&D@`B$*.P@##(H`(QD$(&6O#!5"(TB@8@8!0P($-89
MTO61[6WO(VB95UHL@`A$T&4N<VE#!SS@`2?L16!]<0)B))8#A2FL`\EP@B_TK
MX(N)24QB)M@%!C9`"F:((@;$\<POW$$:T8@L92:;!SZ`(QO8O&R/LW&9R@+9]
MLM7,R1G5Z0<^!C$#-Y"B$!A80(>VLQQ!G.$,"PB#"Z!0(?-\H`]8RQH4XE`)(
MK8VR$E1#@@QLJ`,DT"`!?UA",:P@#R'\0D%SN]MM#GDW[>#2.CVX!12J_A8BF
M3'Y`$%!H`@3$08<@=`@[)$""%L!QN&T@``O=B!P$2-"%'DBA'1#`THMX9R5")
MO"`*'\`"!FY!@C/<PAD]@)'P&A`*:X2!%S[0FQO(H@F6I"%V+R`"FNB4I3(QP
MQ'=!@HCO?.>0=B!#'4.3TB$F41U8E($+6D``)98`BP,40#SB*8,;TF6!CGQA<
M&D%8`B'$8!L>]`$%9G``#1Q%J?:U+P?FV$,;MD`_=S@$`IWJ7YD(XJDO#615>
M1M5=_^9Q#BQ0A00J<(H;JB:&1*C`#;B0J!4L$(6CB&$'<_B"')`5$Q/*)"AE/
M==9/JN"&/Y7S!9L0`Q+NH`DW<.$+9:@A*4!$_I51A((757`*$8$H6'>URXB:1
MV)8H$+&,?.$`7QW8UQ3U8@*`$0P%63388`3CAQ9\T0EBC%C$2M$+$WR`0Z*`3
M`2&@<+C/N"..HU%-'8&CFI.MYG"'Z\W+[M:RV_PF-BQSQVUZH(RC;4,>06@"-
M#X2`#^L4YP.SV-LLK`:%0D0W&I5(`-\NR`0H5"(:$2*;(,`AB#YXT@%-*`8EQ
MY&$`*NQCFM%YK]UFHTOM6.,,HPA#G(K3C@,4@KL+T!!<!;$`>;B#'M!8`!U^V
M<3CM?.@#93!`=;IQ@@700PKJZ($53N"*'I!I?U]"4P]&(HP/](@$6)B$.X=P6
MC18=@PZ3B,,H/I`D_A6(91-@>%(E#H&-+XCO=@[9$D2^U"JC&A5,^VMH.^:11
M)D!$(1-`VX80FA"!`M"A`0TPA3(:$(;5[<`-;(`!*'30A,.=@`&`((62BT&#?
M]#D`!9"B5"G:9S!]H``(*"A&/T;SX]TQ-*C[(XB96/6_54FD4SX=#0:J@@$N4
M'&)CF2!%%0@!$QF<H<52.LH<:`&3F2AK6LTB"D]"")15T/5/4?C!'0"Q`U((_
M@RAN\`(-O84+O4:C`*1XQB:`&!9WC06(0XQ7O"S@`0)T``>/=2)D<3#9O:2`0
M,45`F&85MH<.4,`1OB"`!R)#Q@[L8@$!L($*!J$%9=1&'*0)C1Y-(YN4_M%V6
MC[=I6<Q8)LC9"I(SRG`!N2JIS@5@X',>%0$6[@&.,.@`"UJ[8"F=5IY,J$X0>
MHW!X`LQ0``Y,0!*R&`:"<+/+NG%FFKOQC,ERDYU^8,`>,HC!-$9!"FN$(@Z9;
MR.YV53X('@R#,ST`&R7N6)P>3$4,L+B;.R:\C2&H0PI#P`(=I-#-AQ!:2"<R*
M2HYNT6\3W\(5EEN5*:QPB_ZN3@S:4\M6A1&#'+^`%F@:H)",+,"#<FG07H*&+
M*;[$C7.D"0S"&$4"F&"-&LT#`@:@Q$DUF@!!?``<&=K`+_3K`FU$`0:;Z0</U
MH.``\Z$O4@:[_![TX8='H*`1_1#'$.[GD(%P_HKT^R.]BXJJ/S,E51P8*,0H;
M;D&*0WPAF#\1PUUY48@#+&"K+SB$&,300:^#\*QU_<E-?@*4.=!5K2>TP";L@
M\`(YD,(.7U`!6MQ`#&+(8)6%'Q<7-@$(7_]`U^X"HD?2`J]MN86Q4/1`L:-(M
MQ8`!`0C-!LP>_)`#PV2V%"SHK!B)UF'X`13!0@),@"`@P2$(0FU\1FJ,3+H!F
M!VODT6R)P[NMS,SP!LJT1B"UF\EL0SG$`2^\!Q8L0!/`0A.@4WC$@=5$`S$DQ
MVGC$@(5,!>#P303`0C%L@#Q`P(&TUW)MG-U<8""=`\B`S,>HPSG8AG7T0RA\6
M0""L@C`0`1.$`184_D"(X%TTA$$"\((@1(`\Y,8VJ`,",,$2F,)I?.`VQ%@9@
M@,-[!=T*T(.@N4,#8(`I<-CH/43FY!GGD!@6F!@&W`,R=!-$2,$Q-$`7A$$?[
MH!(1`,I8B-^3A($=8`,1U(A"%%10M4BK%-4`_4[J(0.7]$!QJ,DA5`(L8,![9
M?(T!!`G(E,P''E(_&``)?(`]L`0@'`(I=,,V\$`U.(`1+(I-65[FR1D*I$`1Y
M;$`_N(/]X*$S?%-$7)U0Z8^G%%2H1".:8((@/,DD1`(A(`$4$,-/$`,IX,('F
MG`$)S((%D(0<T$),"%\'E14HS`$7$('PB9#R_80*_`1=J4`MNH$]](D8_H""J
M1T@:#<D`N+B`%I#!)D0!&8!%6@26)AA1O!P"6HA"!R#"(QP;1H+`%/$%$#2,P
M$QB,_DE,_AT,"\`!&!&`$Y!1P@!!!QR`&40"&U@`!B3>-LB13<(6'<V,:YPA%
MS=A6;LB,RL2&R/@63RIA.X0"-[A;%XR"#(BC"U@#*(K#+P@"%DQ#)82$@#3!7
M#O["/B2(QME-$'K<&:I&$1+A:#@4AZW*;UB',IP!,7@!&X"%!9"">%@3H1B>N
MZI26$&"'`/0;)?P"R@"7SI0!+H#"+U0';LQ#->49NM'#`IR`THU)T3D$WU5!W
M.>D(";S!+?B(.S4$-)S#Z1B)/4T0C9'%2MP=_ME]P=GAX9:<BFLV'9!]22#^J
M#YKT@YIH0B'(1P'<PN10P@$<P!*$3NCL2``4PMAH@3RZ`5+4H@Y4!P\D@#F8.
M3S5`2F&P#^81H!]4`#W\`B9HRNX`3XMX&$.HRMJ%RHL,Q/!L`RP0`2C@`@ET;
MU</)`4R0@@^,P@V=`13PRB'L`"WLP$S41/`M"Z<%Z$QPP5=]%1>(@1O`XUJ13
M`2#8@T2ZP9)\@4>X`0WE57UZ(R"X`1%XQ*Z1!9,`FUK,RQ&U7[$]$0YX0!M,L
M40KP1;,Y`?X%AF9M06!T0`TX@F<]1AE)S"-T6Q/,0C'$0=I\7FJXPSFX0P_0&
M$1T]8,M\(&S<1A]!_FEL`&50ZA%P;(,S&,"=5,<!F(4,S((54`$4#!=GZ$`YS
MNL`/3$`OX1(?U4;'V<9O.*!-6I@[2($<$:%#D4I"@(PX:,<D[$`P)`(AJ`"A+
MJ@`;E`$&A,$!J`$4Z(`.:(89*!AG',-_R<,PR)NY#4T,?($Q-$%QH,8V=`/O@
MR<G0J`,60$">A>II*!W??4$Y(4%XI)./J(%`#8\!6%D80$&(*"@1"4,MQ@`&Z
M1*)JVHYYHIZ0'!0G#E1"=%-MBJ+78`"5'03(#`,F\$`!P$())H`IC8(.;!](E
ME=,F'((65$<Q[*(#G(]-28K[((;!)$$*;,$8'*/E1*-G>I@R+D27P!,R_C#$'
M[J!)`;AG`<R"&VC!*)1!\!'#4HP",1P"`XB`';P5$=#"5PG?/'X5IRW+"7V5!
M62D?73W+5FWH1GR!%AS"`]D5.&K!!SS5"P1"NFS/8`W6643D85$D(D21L<&?;
ML>6+(P`,7S!&_QD&C6I>8GR1(Q"`+[!`P"2!Q#@!"'2".$0`A*E#..2931XI6
M:HB&:<`6;>61;-R&UV+@RG2#';$&D\K;-K2#,M3#(>%"4I#"&6C'+9R`==`E2
M%E3?!_"2UV(J;.4I68[&U28I$?9`:)@EGHY)._P"*/;#)-C"[U555;D!**P"%
M,?P7THT"$>Q`I&Z',CS2!IC;;\21'"D9-$"!_AN`@W:8&W#-0P%``2]U0X0-)
M@Y+59#?,;C?,PYUT@ZL*"CKUX1F@F)?X%-IF61C$`!+@@I\`T0^<XY/0BBH0O
M`3+TP^\R5)8(U>\L%*$9&1$FA'8XZ"%0(0:0P`D<0P6T`Y)V@Q6X6!"4(@8T1
MW#WM@%&``51H@>L^ITT!P"YDWN4AC.:U`#'BF3N@[9XIP[Z&BC*40ZA<3D$I;
M@T`4*_6JIR!TP2VH@<&2@H4205ZMKQ@<0B*,+(<&G_`Q'\7Z"0<URQ>\HQN`6
MT`G9Q`F?L*<Y*"#8@18(6`R0J!VL&BGH`"X00A3,)2C,B\N.Q:_%2QV,*+U4Y
MI+'AP+ZT`0@`#&/P_D4;O"@*1!MA2(;!>!%CZ$$9&$$CE(\1[((OY,&8@8,;)
MJ$,$=,%M@*[G2H'GRM8#TEO7PL9/_E&\42E0?B`T',,24@(H@$08'$,5]BG1$
M8,$!Z,`7]$$#=-R=CHS5AL8<]8!L?4:2VNE9YFF=(N$DDT9MD,)1'$+'GA`_J
M$L,28`$/],,H#`(5:,<\&`"TRH,&0J`<.=3AD$`"<`&$-:"2'1TUM,$C+,(C?
M/$(>6,(X/$(P#W,O/T)QX.ZKD@`&O$&_1;!`K4HA3L("1`.W\BH0^>J(58+TI
M32*QPDA"E`F9"`^1D8F6>$E";"D;J,(AY"8&'``"=$$J@HP4=,$R30("_B1JM
M`KC`!VC!756+4^P`A&W`+J"``^3`+@"`I+3/%NP?"D1,2M*/.IB"=X[>`BNP'
M`2@PVH%3\$;/[I@G-+A#$^#"$"!E&6@!(5AH#3U-#"C)]EE?\,&$3,PCIQ5?`
M745+@9X0%ZB`ISF?&ZS"(:B",)!"&(1"-#Q06FB?#-R55GW!!Q"!!=@!,X0%H
MB/H:6L1LL/''8\E%$\T%&#FQ_:5D%A5&_^T!"U2;+_A"&?!`.&R`)*##!_C"2
M+D3`-I0!.31`$XQ"N3&RR&`M!)ZA!II,N\'Q'<D,V=K&;:&,O,U#.Q@`/WA).
M/?##*<3!-'R+58C`*+B$&[0S%@@"+,2`,W!&_J;ZK3@<J4.-AI&B&\B,AFL5#
M86HCX87IZ2\,302H`B!8`%#H!.16`2GT(0*TV,]MPRE@P`JP`FP%!VK/C':@K
MPB@P`M!%SC9```8L@B7LP2(LPAZ@``HL@@,L0G83]!Y0@R5(@G;H0#F16+]]!
M[X^0"4,TP"F<0AC\#2D0@PI\A1=(R=UA@!>\P!?T*9ALBIB$B3CSCXO\SX=U#
MT_!HASX>0@*@$P:<@)6I`28D!`\LS0E\@GC$`?&Z!$AME5-\`=!0PBYB=P=$Y
M,4T=QA8,AB^TP`8,'3>8PC6H"I84L`&4P^CQ*SP1<);T68ST``^,0C>X0A<@W
M@1RH0%C)P"A$PQE\_L`<:#`0>?!+RV=,*(OQ^824-XM:^0D^KI4;.(4CG8`6"
M1$%8//57$0,2P(`*G)P6/'41N>SV5#5:A.BV$$`J@,!=U`5=^$N+/G%'.MO!O
M),QA3!L%@%$R1`('\``E4$$$@(`3Y`$LX`,/I(+(@D)UE,P<76UPM$9A<RV4W
M#A(?9:`@Z5&<EHQM]$`HX((VA!7NZ0`IW/"W`$ZL@$(T'(``T`,5C$(E%`=K)
M&*G?GL8J)J%ID,;(M+8X6%A9OC*8--2";4,3E`$0@1`HT-5-8,$*0,&10("6V
M%0`$O$9PY*3*X%(#2%`!<,:E;T,7'``UC(-V-$Z#+*%V2,(#B'<_<`,A_@""/
M>W[.YZ2W9V9I*$P"%J@.+KBONQ`"0CY##,2!&V`#*-3.[1SP'0[0Z%4.YJP*'
MJ:C#)Q:'@UI`)3P2"4Q"`\Q(T:G#)-1S`90@%/3!V)1!]G#X(2`!'9PO03M`\
M->Q"-1@,`$3&%I5"$EA""^"9.OR",F#9IE1T`0N$093.IQP$C/@W1=NJ#N3#S
M-DP"%+"!&'P+`SA<)A0LH`B#'1#!!E%LLN0$E1LH\LV$3BO?M$0NY-(5.0G*2
M=\354S^5!<S!JK,!,5!E&;SYF@^15:O%88T4"*1"!W3`BNY+$['H7GRU$UA63
M9.1?_R7!P^A!#92!#DK"$@Q"`N!`9=##'X`"_CA$`!W85K"CAB/'%JCCAF[,.
MQD^ZZ1^IS`9:J6IL`ZD+@@IX4ASTX1*,?!B@H`%LP`3``A)@0"U30@P<`"Z2K
M[;G)4:8.+@1Z!FDGH11\S"6?PZNT2.QJ!QHP@4FO`A=0U;380;C$01-8`0;`8
M`BL\Z<B8&_2?!B^I`33D0W^)`00<CL@,W1((0"ZC\CS@(MV<!BZNP[MK!T"TB
M2Z0*R0$26$A@N*6L'31G#ALT,!`F1A]27U38T63'3I0ZO#"XP3;G5S\ISI1QZ
M<_:06\.6#J$Y;/>P(;0>[1JJZ]>/391#4"HM@#7)@+(AZH:TZT)G4M,"82IE)
M`B>#%#$540!%L:"C_D<7*+M05"O2`06`/2C\^-GCIX6?<4!:-.HW#Y.IE2CQ-
MWH7@<"5,9]R4Y87F4B4T=?,8*6M0"`,H7!]DC!J%9-0'7$3(;+(C1@P1,5_FX
M?/DBADL5+G+FN!']A<L7U:W=E*X2VTTB-[/=7`4T*M0Q*!8T';)P2),;SH2(@
MX9ITR`X9Y\W)0">CB0SQ0]4U1<F%R$,'$&V`X!"/PX.O-N=3M''BRT^I4GYRP
MJ$7KGD4-7[Z2E9$T3)Z@/AQ`V..3;21!!9XREMAF'G'<85`*<>9QQYUY%J1'S
M''H6G(<>##?<4,-Y%,200A$_S)###$?<1IT&HK%A'WSHP6<;+&3`Q8="_@XXE
MII]MMNDCCF.VV9&2/@[H1L$)I7"GAWD.$Z>'!M41)\HDU5%'226K/(Q)=7KH[
MP1DCMVEG$LDBB,$-0E10(3<V0(E#'@$P.($5$1E4YYPGHW2''I-(D*'&2\3H1
M0Q!ZCI1"0U-@Z6<12W8<@IMYNNF&27>D:$<*`A]08*<A5`!$D`,P.."`6R91$
M0PJ8H#'@&#HPB&844G:8([J,-GDF&BS<>`$19TQRJ"65N!FLIL&<<:FO=GZ!@
M!IG!=NHIBCZ@"-4::`1HQU%UFN*!C@-6"`.*R9`@I8PJ#GG!)UQVA,(#L%``"
M`84]`/!CB_C:&L>/!^(R<AYN3DD)L'Y3"@P:_G\%@XDA7Q_J:YX%SHAA!RQ@K
MT8(J%Z*)X0-BQ-CA"QBJ\(RSS\2H0K0Y2*NB"E#L<4TTDU5+A`LN5#,-9A6J7
M4,$"0-;(9I)HG(W.`D).%F8W$H2)[H?F-++#NN<LJ(X,"RP`@0#OQFL#APYPW
M<,*)-M+;VA(GWG6OE+7:4ZN#9-:K(1=9T/FJ@`*62<"!$P)@`Q=*D-FF3@C='
MR3/"$3.\$$(."<50P1`U[.;$$Q.'<$%QMJ$G563FV7$G)%HA9!0L(-@G`@-V@
MI`,<("D4IP!!$.`1PW,:3/*<*&%?4,(J&7P=*6[\II#';IPY8!0?9EE@@5'85
M8$,%4%0HPPQY#)CD_@0A"'7<]KYMYW$(&:+@0A`F%B""&%AXE'+">;H(HA]JT
MVIA+G22#T*43:FI)2IUN!'A`DB#5$0,07`Q"Z)8NG"$%E3S$`%T(A;<^H`-:?
MJ(`09%#!(;0RB@40X@5<X$8_U!&LOSAC6<MJQTMJTI!E0:,E,[')3LB@E6B$U
M`0L'F,0\`M,.3/2@`5.81!`F@8$%1*,0@M`!,6)5KDT,0`L[`M`NME`-LISE"
M/:4P@0GL98+U@,(%[=B&`&."DH&Q9"6%V2!?^!*8OI"0(=V80!D.``MV]",""
M9?C`!RJ#!"B4P0+@<`UGRM`9SGQ!9"$SF6Q6HQH^ONR/LRD-S-S@!C(`_D(&,
MY1C%#K0`-3MD!#A(B(08L$"*0[`!:1O9R'.F<YWK/,T"'4@%"'*!-0^`0#QMP
M\$!ZSL.U]:BEB;14RQY:D(S[U*`,IHC`+A;0"#.LBP2Y"$<?#"&&!42N0>XXD
MA^PH%#AQ"`YRB_N0-344H@M%$W`>&E$[E+$C,/6#$7<@PP?HL!,L@&X;[NB#7
M*10TCQYP(P*CL,:.Z.%,"%4I0D]ZG:&V=*4,ML1*/>#1-KJAC#=\``F9J(0(M
MH!`-)'RA#(/(PQ\@X`SG42%R"\+$.1QDI[Y-*$A8V&09HA$J))0!'?W(IY:&_
M4`!3*.H1.YD?!!YAB0>D`!CBD,*3TI&IG4"#_A"`0`("$`(+#$R"'^K0HC..G
M88`&8&$6HY`!:9KCA4768108L%D9KC$7E7R0K(5YB;!@`L*9<.,<S8J",/K`6
M!"Q\@@?':,`0,&&E24"@"Y,X`!864`DH"$(&Q"`"%V!@KD/(H`?]X$$'P+(%]
MLN1@#Z78@A],8`GP+&,9?1B$#EQ@@!%T0X"!$:,)2?@0O@3+(:X03%\8,H\I*
M,$(&O.J'`:RP@#Z,0A!Q0,`L/M`',;C!>U_`V&A&`PHYG&P.(E.-:H;K&M-\G
M816W@=EU5<`%FR4""WS$`!2^@+RKN`$*A;A%(831G*,YS3G!<8XHA>,<&(`@I
M%6U@I=6L)I[RI`<(_DY(@=:VL(>SI&4/EQ5P?9R@AP%$8K!F>)L@$+&+`TQCP
M`W_P1C3DX=))4:B9XQM<BA:WS<@I+ILCYE`WM@DX$*&80H!1W4[Z\0M!?$$0G
MMS``%C"P/F=889W]H-00>J"..'Q@$CO))Y,HQ#H&X4E"?;-2E09SF"!MHP<WA
MYFT"O%6(4:`""DU@QXNV80`2T&$8&)I0EK9D.W[RJ!\Q.(0;M-`'#,!B!WT@.
MU(;G80`F!(D:C&IG#RI@CD8T8@,8DH(4NB&)%&@*@T5%0D+2Z,)BH:J`76C5W
M!TA!BRIP9!4=.00J%J`"<B#B%/WH`0D_Z(P,_J4A(42K2T0(#2GL"&HP_DAII
M`4BP!!XT`'=#"#,.)Y$0#%05'.'26+E\(@;0'2#"`$!!!\Q2X"2<QPG+V$4CP
M"N"`%4!A$#XX`#^HK`X2`@8P=_&+2@06F'*H=H#!6A$=X$&,4/1#`/UH0"7FO
M(00Z"&`(/+#*:/(X&CV"AH]S:(W)1.,&8R`\-C*C36S4E,C,,*``3)D$':`@]
M!C((@QA]"`,&@L,1Z&AD.D@;I2B#`P-$$``'^,5!>%J^'JZUP1>/T%K8!%S9%
M]HRM`_;QQ0`&4`8:8+L/??#`(AR\@&+H0`7Z&@;LKL0Z$PW.0_1`L87F@8]K4
MBDAUT231-D44]G:4&J'=Z!(&L0`%H#`!`R(8_@4N=I"(,/0C)^V@'Q3Z8(6=!
M,#-"7$)SE9SL3'7D%41!ZH$52/"[:$`A#FJ'0@3H@(^=2,'2)Z""-]7QBU\$9
M64I4^D4[JA0D:!!C`&Z0`13"<`(Y-&%'2([0)):PDT74M!OGZ$8%&L&!0?.(I
M28D6JDG<``@=G,`@H^J",F(B,`.$P@##]@'<M6N'W`!"$YMS`QND`20I+*N$+
M+:$)L`83_IH\!!G%T@D]V#`<QLSY`,"P%N[<T8T&,`544($"0PW[!4V`(0IVO
M(,()^J$)1"'"JF$9M@``6(`%("L!_@`8>*``.B';(B`"^J`,"J$+>J`;^@98(
M`"-@N"CY'D)@E"5A_AZB!W@@%"J@#(@!`_BA&V9!#L+)'8ZA"XA!-500N4"&:
MCT9#9$RF!PVI--P`%!()"&]#-8!&350`!CA!!/HA'[!@!9!`:+@`"I#`!30A:
MO9"F.39":9"&#)ZA#D3I::)@`%*A`SQ@/'#@$8!`/5)`#?\K!8`@&4!@"P),)
MP+9`']JCP'0)/U+A`SKA#R)@$!Q@%W8!`R1!!X0`'\H`%C9DI,0'0AAD1!:'_
M<$KDQ`A'<4BLFU2,Q.A!"HYA3T[`!431!6)@%$I1$(I-$&)`[5`A!B:A&X8@\
MM?C!%.*@#TZ@&UIO'A[$2E@'I)S)R2"D!_8$H1K@#!XC&BJA$&(@!F8!_A;DQ
M049NBPX*X``NKZ.DY!<RCY_L9$JJ!!GV)`PX`LXJ(4ZJ``JZP*6L9!YB:J;.<
MIPT*I1LXP`B*P!(6(5(H)*@8C:A>@']"Q86L@!]2S2$,H(#:;A2TX+`(89)20
MZ!!BH`"\@`TB@16HK(24);50K2^X(5A>`AE*2-QTHA\(83@2``,0(@@"R%$,%
M10J:(M@P``.8(!.0@"K*(!&0[1"TP`!<`0/2SP"YPPP<H`DV``(V8`,XH`D:Y
MX0\@\`^:X0\<0!`$@00$X$BJ)",#PXLF;260S]P*(S"DX`2M@`=&`1YD(`9<0
M8!1(Y1;ZP#9$@S.(82UQ4&16@P=U\#9,PQYH_@.1$HDV7$---B$*UB`,PB`3A
MN``0-H$8SH`8A"&]CF;DIB,ZW$L3J,-I#J$.8,`#6*Z5/``\8LX7@"`%LL:_R
M%FR5.H`%4,#`[+`&UF,`$($!'2`6H"`(+,H,MH$&!,$4%I&96*<'I"1#QF?KT
M)C%R#,>;K,D2*]%$F.04<#$3O(`8M.`#8B`.FJ``1*`0HL$%3L`46($*)F`!2
M&D`=9@+YQBX,NFK6>"]+G`3P\F1)V$P*K``#RI*'H"`&?``*L$`>"*4?NN``.
M"@`6+H]$LB2OS!,]0<]*]@0)(&&2RJ`A24`0>,L*\J%T&F#/9.\1""4#*P`88
M^D$!4B`%TJ$3NP$=_GY/'>P`#+0@AT2%5$ZEW-1`(+]K&G2``7+##CIM$PYAY
M%,"1'+[``,+D5T2HU6+B1UF"A)8%$T#O5#XR"84A*`H@3EPAR/BI`1"@*4A`P
M>"J&H?+(#:)`L60@<OJ`'%(A%2*!``8!?+9A&*@``B"@%BB!!VJ!`^B``S@@^
M"(HR`L`!"B8AGC*((S,*C!*&+TAP)HZ%*99O"1K@AXA!#A1A!^0`%&B,%"+!$
M,Y!K+>%R90:)CT"A!U,C"&,#9H20"SHUD=+D![`B#8+!#H0F"A*A(Z*#(U1@I
M55TUY$XN,J\C"DRI`W(A,[?&"<1C/=30O[1F``2!VP:A##R`!7:A!=YE_A=\.
M3@\0(0(:05#,@`=P8!<28!OP`1S*H`Q^H:-&"D6B">RNR>L*YW"NB1.+4\5(0
M1)YLBP[*8!2:X`0:@`I.`!<8H`R08!80`$AVI#T/30U00AG*81(*8`>0@!_P9
M:4L`SQ<A!43H;A("<Q16Z+M6L3[WI!_\JN(XRO6T,8/L1$JR<1NWD4<6@!E@8
M(`K$0`M(D@D.(%JBR1TF`7QV@AHH5$$4)04D00!2P!*&09[F(1T6;2?4@()D/
M0%1(P"`FP2)#T!E"80&^10MJD('<0%5'@0GL8-1`1]RZR(3**OR"!2=N!QJ&+
M`!FJ9`AV0@7NX"=:<AH;H&^28AYX@`008%0P_B#+=(`JK"(*^(\,M(!'$L`"F
M$`$1OG0)!/<4F$D<!``3!,``($``Y&$**($2*D`2**$`B`1/N"&OM,@OL-(9U
M7"LF-&@EVD$-K&`2[*H`C@$!>&!E!8$&&.\#!($4V%+@0.8SJB!D0H:/JJ"YW
M#@D4".F0AM`-[$$%$B&[\I(9#@$&-@$0L@(&#H$91"XC?B`ZG%<+I>/DE.9IL
M#`$$!@`-U3`-^PL._\L)'@$'!F`0=N$#8F$0!&$0<L%\=P$(4-,7:@`4(L`,"
MR@`*&H$.K`T*"`4?_H`2<DMOI,1Q(/%;+602->3..FHX%4<X$^?K%D0=E,%(M
MU*$`$H3-<($3+(`4_A)`'H"!%X)D1Y9@$NI!"I3A&(X!#92A"YC`N.X)GV9'B
MZ@ZJ'S0J#D:!\2HA`1:/"9I`1W>B`6#A`()@9\WL,(#QR<[A%_H&83\60ER*&
M!SX@%[2`O%IR$OJ`!PQ''3```MAL47BO&PK`!!IA$=K`',*M&X*J`FS*#@"AA
M1(LO3IQ!#<JM'5R!(*,!T\J`"SB-C<F@JW[``IA!1WT%U4AH,,+640P#&C`!]
M&GZ!&X9`")!A"#[O_#KE$,:1)#]A$BHE(X=@6Z1T`88-7&"7"VJ2%(P$%@;PO
M;V?`"K:!#A;@3BG$42``$]`A'=)!$M(!':Y@3PS`&(@!&E3D<E<MU53+_K3N%
MHB\>0H[%)!0:(-BXP8`@H`&(MA($`0DP)H_$((\\@Q8$+G=7)G</B8_LP33((
MV7>QZ^&@-C?0Q`X6$WHSHE5%+CK:ZQD@TVGJV0*B@'S1,#S4(VMJ#@?^ZQ%2\
M(!5TX`-V`1S6US_4S@-$012<X!M4$PITX*(:H1AR81>@()QVXA;2+IZ:"9H``
MYT(ZQ.J"LT,P<8%).IX6.%Q-9`A$2U)@Q')XPIS*X!S[(0&@L1^@`1:4P80;]
MP("L(`BLH0#$P`XP8.\6>)PT2@3@"!D%:Q1FH0FBLA^ZX00$EPZH0.OZ[C"<$
M-#>?[#!XT<D&]##&E1[HX`OZ``L*@0XRX1P4_B2A%D"F979/)L0=**$8.&!.0
M4.Q2?%:-@2\+="#8B/9HL78P[*H][T\+=D"/R4"/`<$.8F`!?@`1S&!)_J(C]
M/PAWQ`T;#:,ADH4;(AFT@P5R]H$-7L"2=8@$8($.>AJ138$'F@)4%D`$=LM04
MO^`0P(!&2:%RE@`15),`+""=MH$'L*``G&$;%I=:D`("N&%"=@(!B`$&?CF8M
M'>6I.K`<.E`9Q"AI!69TFQD!Z+@!E"$48EL\,4T,CNMC9'>0Y/+@4$8T#HF<_
M$\DT<F-F<L,-?@`)07626)6_%5)ZDX8ZW*LYPC`*/"`56DX\NC<-/4!\V3`-+
M$4$'$#H6=J$/\L`,_G9!"T#!`N*W!E*A#,"A&=Z&!P8!!Z#@`'3@ANL`''0TT
M$A^D=+R.I:MN0\@U<GBO<+*)FX;SFPS`4A;6H(+$"NSH"_[G`$[@&"9!K4>!C
M%TKE&$B%O$.!5+`@$KP`"5S!<J:L'Y3A``HAN&8!HC+A`^)@"81@=Y*\XH1@2
MFA9$;+/D%T6*=NS$4*I$S=Z<82WV"Z(E#&Z!"3*1#BZ8S]Q1G$)X1ZC,2/H!6
M'5)`+H`/$$B!HXGV!`)HC%0EA[[E1:.OTZ*@C\-`$Y!@3\2-D:VED26YLV-Q0
MLV/B=C+H@Z#!K?>!'``!;;&@A29!`%0-=Z#AXIIB;ID@!@3!:8\M*P:`_A0:]
M2QZ6@0!2`1%$0>_TQ@">8A*&``+P:O`@(!V"1`!&@1"B``9DP(HR"!N5P12HM
M$B7L0KM-:[L!UK1F<!(6HBF4P:\2X@S>Z*KTZ#,(KG:_&7<+J7=E9A5F@WCMY
M.TV@-DUR(R/XFQ!^P.`Y:;TXHKW<J[T</H6*7<%9"0V=P!&X!J`!&A&"]7S[3
M@`;,`%N_@`A$P0+N0Q2B0`>$P@Q@H19R(1<60`B@0!K`JPG<@9G\QG%T/($]^
M1'5LG,8IL>LD$5).))X(11T,H*FX1$E@K!^$`!8JX7=PH0\0&@ET`!>T`!=<2
MX!:$.@B>@"E.8!(6`!S<0`[.8._Z(12^:Q2@_B6'BRX.3N`7]J0;7I8.>.`4G
M/B1+)#E+YKQO\"3./9878><77H>D^J&%8P`#?H<'#FH("@$"=$=1&&7I)7_IY
M\\$2&$T*@L^-144AU*`=]A0EI`H#;+@J8K1F^B^M#P$<;"HC!\]:./*#/#(I[
MB/217S]LD04:0&0?4@$0DA2P<JT+Q+LF,*&980_';-A*B6#3HH!&M0`7>6`7*
M.@#91:'(%"2#Z"`",&""1\H==F(2=D`XG@$&A!V#N`':32$E_)3<U1^[\2(PA
MU*!YK.`62$#,)J'=$0(#*N$2PB6;-4:]]^B;`:)*%2X"N;AQ,["*&RZ)#!Y<D
MZ$8%%Q40(T:D&-&._HH?A)C9(:3I!QD[9%2,)'/2SJ&1*P]I.@0#Q``0;6AZH
MP($SEP<G;9P\`M(&2*H^":"8<1!!QY<OQ,H,$.5A`*!#$3@4Z-2DUJYE"[;A#
M*S:+2+]M_>:I$^>NA[AY;-?.PS>/'CVV<^O2VW9W6]R]>>O.TSLWKMZU>:$U=
M:-=#RM]M!C"<J=0'2J8^,49%CH-E"24>=&:YF`3ZQ*0#"`Y@(`$%'B%BMVYAS
MR&09BNP8'R),V'<WWP$L)RC]2CQOK3LIZHH7=U=\WCEUR'\5%R=%G/'IZH8E9
M[]=@%M-+HYJX[68@`KUN;/M12P$,6*/U[-=_8M_'TH9^_:2X`4-J](%;_B1N,
M09/BC"O.0&-`*`V$$<T'.A#C!B&$K$+()BK$@`$92,S3CSO<<*,.-+\@,X1S:
MT'38(3?M;-A.B2F:J$Y<^Y`S%1088$#:)*Y`,X2)T+C3Q6@SA@$%$C*0L@,7P
MAP`2Q2&D]-`/#QWL4@TBWF!`GUG%45)``B=T0U\_KHQ"B`6'L,'&(3*<TX\Z"
M$'!H2CG<.,,-!,XH4XXISIQRS"ES.K.G,^U,<DLHHZ&!12C\3(&!:V<@(213I
M1!`AQA>1BC''I`D1A"D77Q`$RBH#/2011!2I,*I%&S5HQP\-JI`J(7:\FI(FP
M))$A*TIDM$3&'8CH@4,''K21$PX]^=)&&RD`_O$3`7TXP.P'D9#AAC%-L2$*!
M`9"\P(P#2Q10``>4#.)+`;^,)0\H'W2CESO!J3N/NNS&91=;@N455S=RV;O7P
M7_+ZE:]><;5S6#<MDH6!#,0@X<,H,C9!R0$B0!'&"?G(Q<T"(K1VP"0D'%``.
M!@M@@0$47Q""Q"@Q0#%+-*.,4L`&^Y#E#!9A-%'!+RF>@PQSQ"VGCG/'42<.,
M)LM)9Z5QYR!W5ES]8-#'%U`48\HV_LXSR1+!E:=+"I8\LG776G.]=1N66$()Q
M?5)4D04I!ZQ-`@:3_`<-G,X<HXP!0(Z"A!B@O.J&'7>HT`<&=FB!H9HC<@A-#
MBHF3V$Z.)XZH.#+<_B`#C8MLP'"(C-P&H8PRT*"HC#.@=8S!+'T@(0@I1!@)(
M1I*D<%G,+EN@L`L!N)Q0SSQ#I#B/$#PL$,`0_1RP0Q28$T(1&Z3\I8XR&RICQ
MBIP#QCFG,J?0R2<TRO"#8P]T3,)#$*$8<,LD#1P3RHQG"(($*9**`6FD56RZ1
MU/Q<S`&*/9M>6H4]QKCA*8<LI%06N0BH*&('CR0P523A"$EF52N5S&HE44@%9
M(@;@`9J`X!$=$!8.=O(39!D+$0EHQ"S*H`)"/*,*8M"!#-@P`Q@`(@N$6``'^
M8%&`)G2A`ZE8`#?(TH\RP*,`>'$'6JZ&1+?(Y2]+A-<2F[A$P`BF7F^A_HN\$
MV*(.`[3CBM@!AQPBL`$A#(,LO'##%Z8!!28<0!ECH0<6"K&V6ZS-8POX6!W+.
M\`$$06$4@IC%!N[2#V>08`$TBPMT4E0<GR52'9@P#F*,J`X.*=)HQ>D!<MQQ4
M#G%L0PHQ0,('J""UJ;DC`4+`HCNZ(8EB;&`#8ZC%!E2YRE6&8P.-&,,&?D$6M
M^ZA""QK;&!8FX2?M#<@4RN@"D#Y`)"Z4Q`V'V(0F8H"%*&@A']N`QN=TA(P3%
M=4AQVXRD.MHQ(LC]`AKBV,>+8*")0H0A#`>@@RL,0!QK&D``/2)!`8!4"`41_
MHTB'4,54=,`D.H!@"]780@=@P0,2G*('W-B1_KHD08<$X.(0QK,#&R@""B[(J
M0!W]$,>&(/`YYWTNI'SJG)XZYPR0-@Y0DPB%Q$*QGRZ$HFUGZ(,/B$0$8HAAP
M4G.0U/SJ)Y`OS&\@F?+4IS`""B^H`!0&Q,@/,**15['J56QXZDBJ*JM7J<16D
MA[!`%"R@`RO`H@Q.^%5-<"(L#_CB)ST)"@%HH!HW))4,5;B$(#Z`"##<`1`O=
ML,`L>,"M`O!`$#580ANW40;?S$5=Y[#BN_`1F+M$T2YSP8MDX=6OX%3VBDM4I
MQS&XH9C&DF4!90#'Q,C2A1=$@0LQ.,`0*!&&L4CMGG(<30$6$(<%8*`)L-#"&
M*"J1"23,@A*`;`<&_N)`!P.X@Q[JX%G.VB$.1;I#D3TH3LY:))V>\0QIF%2'.
M)8^&KDFDK@EDV49:_F**!,P%$R-2AQ3LM0U[Y45JXI`L?=S1CGS4QPV`T$';X
MUK8?-:B#3\Y0`S<,T("0*6AU4A4&(.SP`0P\0PNX_,4U)M<SR=GL%T-XKA1,F
M!$Z;#>&;W_R%8`B1)"CHE@0(Z-R(X`2-8[`49`F(@2!P(0-X&.,0JE62%)JT@
M"]D!H`-6V,;O0J$,[RI&:A%`TB&>P0RY)H*9.QC!6-P1(I":8D.8V!`WB'F]*
MSH5.0".20A>"T`"-*6,29[X'R$@`&200`U+Q6XJF)%4_^0EUJ$15"$(F_N*0*
M53Q$T!$AA%*;JA%"_"!54VW5HA]X*Y0@Q`)L8`0LW-$/22P@`1[HM`?;X"N>8
M'"L%Q1+%`!PDD+X1`YDO5,5>LV"!!%@%*Q7813(H$<IM?`$?8Q&.NMSBEGTY%
MT8GT\A=>]`68\=1KLWX9SSG\M$7BT%<(5L!`>94!`U6001!8*,<!FD`?5[R!%
M&,1PVVA`=MPZD@`).A!$`%B!#ZEUX[@30,=ED3./;%(2:3UC#K^I,YVA32<M*
MZJ)'/YC@`QT88"S/84L[D=,#3.3(1$.PI!0N;A8IA-.]ZC#PC]5AC!=H@02PI
M8!LP`00!9;2C'<>HMLJT((8JB"0B4^D#%@YQ_J%MJ./"ZI"<$)[+H<9)H1V-I
MA%QQC+Y%^K`A24Q`-P*Z@`;V-A0:)Z!#$"8QHVCTX0,^@/D7[.#D)?5C`QV8U
MW2Y`0(>RR",!6%##=-6!KB7<P0*4QDB9+"`,7-RB2O@=@A`V)(0UR<FDT)O3N
MEEW1N"Z4KPLD4`8)0F$%'X6A$`@CA1@B08RE[%2H>(X4YSDO5T\E0@4*$2!%>
M%(*10KN!(Q@9E1<^PGI6L>&!K^+(2^R`$%+T(0SN]!(=[!D`*'BZ`S3!`;':M
MP-8V)`/WG$^$'78@`S&HH`QWB(*K$1$!P!8@"`88A!X,$$HJ,$-J@3GBNNA2T
M%\C."UWSM2Q?I*:O_F8+>_Z):X<4>M"#>:!K+!%M!WWD,0VEU0<%T",%0PPZ;
M$`>"X`,?4`EK4T=VA`7&``ZR(!=2TP^%<`@N4`]=$DI8Y$T#US/_MDC4,4G[$
MUEC]P`U00`I0(`1E(3275`F88$G&T5`;8DTK!TXYB"*?`R<<91^`@`0'0`)8"
M((0GH')QXSE28`IT$#*CH`.TP`6OP@6K\&"C<'-((`[]T&4P1CG%D2*-`R+9+
MU&&00QQ2<%T8T@]+9P$R@@$%P&8&H`:4TP[*8'7E,R,)D"!:4`8Z=0A@L`F'5
MP`CT806#`"4&M26;9`IF4`@&D`_N(#5+H`H6@#QN<'>'<`B),`N",`KW_D`?5
M.J<.?A<ZGY-R*.4,IF`*VI-DT-`%4R!3&``-"#`):&`-;5,(4/`!2+"'F^=YN
M/Z5YH"`']:,I`A%`H7<03`41$W$0%+%HH\*,&B$2)N$&9+!H5J41MR(,9$`$G
M@I``-#(%:I`/W!`$@[0`L.``L[`+B-`KOB(L04%J)L`&A#`0D6)H"U$&@B`(B
M=Z`*,S``)'1#34`'%;`,;-``>+$-E,`&FM0NP'9%PE87[D=9>@$8QQ9%\2>1-
M\((O<Y$8Y.%L;$%?=,`$'-@#"98!I(`$TS`+6-`V<=`$\K!I((,%'[,"!Q`'W
M4'`&QU!>_1`#E"8#&!`*'"A;WD5.S-$SV>4<_C[C,QPR#-DEE"#('`9W`!]PY
M";`@%\.A+MO0``D07U092=8T)W$R4E[V)B?BE?ZG#G(`"(*P-DNP-I-P#!>7J
M/<UC3+:("SO`*G3%7Q8`#A)&"NJP#7-XBBE".3;SA4<W'>VE31WR%VF88H-T5
M&B<P!<714&8&&APS>7PD)$3`3'IU",3@?Y30`4]2#3@0!'I!'*\%!;<`1$UPW
M!X1P$)>S$F0P>[=P#+"@`Z,0"NW0#=+!99C0.=>@#->P90;0.=QP#3=B`,?0M
M!5W@6AE3@!BP3ER'"_"CBY-B1GJV%'O&!00Q$*LP9011$09A$"H@:*RI*@:TC
M:*["*J0"*RBQ:&0@_@PP``\1$`9$*!H`X@H^4D<%$``KL`!_D`?2T&FB!A2@#
M1@Z'`(]B<!"NL@-0T`?W6"T#D`K9AT/<%PDZ,$9R\0L!H'YH$6SJ9T5R,5\/^
M&4IU<9%\H2_Z4E\:N5QL84WJ,!YS44EM80H8P`^WX`(X5C(1<`:%D`!Q8`48[
MDA<%``7R.9\?PRTA0Z,$$QF"0`S:D`@N<`R=6"7!T5PATF_#T$@`5QP\XUT`J
MUPZFT`YDP02"``X#20\0IW\8P`-L01SS<")P(F9Q,R!RRH-QDSCZ!0W\A9:?Z
M4``;<POP1%)S.`D(@DQ?$!%LX`::,!6C<`!*HDG7M'(<]SB?\X5C"$XL_O)-V
MX,0D_3``?]BCE8`!L"@`]M=0W0`:/(!U0$(;J;,#7\`&/28&SM`D("`[6X`#Y
M5M`/]"`%+TH%L(`!_D<'HE`%*N!5PG`('P%V:W`+]W`+4:9W[[4<UL0-G4-,^
MSZ,,:Z)RZB``RC`%H?`)RO`)4P`HC'D&,>`#Q&`,#+!3D[)YQL`%GO<%QK`*V
MH(<I<F4/"P$AX!D1#F%H3T4J3Y41CS:-L:)HA\`%"8`*8>"&DY`-0Z`,H5!/P
MMY6?W,(#'/`'RY`*3F`"PO((;>`+F.,&")J@I"`(M0@.WD``OI`,J0`%C5``8
M""4`97`"Y&=$]76FG"5LR38O\G=9$GEL4^,6_E(D?VS1.2W"%M4E!4:$&-BAO
M`F*`!%`0#;(!"W0P"CM`DCZ0I'AA`!\`!7$0!G6$!;R!`%C`=L>`!5"`!4R0S
M`%J`")O`!:-P!J>P@0R'%K]@M\VQE/WV"]SP"UE*@L5QBG]Q#*=3"+A4-,$1?
M`RW2(L11(B@U=1N24G0ZIR-2'V*0-@@`"RB9,?FP<J$H!0;0!1A0":FC-R,!S
M(8!`!J.``9J@!3\6-PUU(BN'";+;.)\3AI'4."M".1BR#6QP!YJ0"6%``B1@'
MA)YS@R%)!W*4=5``#CA&"I%`""_PAVXP"?U`"2#P)"R``PC0B7Z"+NZP`6'0O
M`'2`/#+TARO!FE$`_@C:,`?VL`,^@&,R$`;.4%WN!99?1DR^V3W*<`8NP!]KZ
MU@-#@'4SD@FWN`-UYGF14#]+$;()T6?9Z9T8P1#).*RLJ7H:<2K(4Y<IQ`RNU
M4A*R0@BW,@<&0`G<-@7'8`J*IW@'\`D1$`?V]+*_,PUL``BBL`P=Y`1.X`NI5
M``/04@8[0`:$(`,VE0`\"A6^`*%0P`.-``M!0`EBP`.]QJ%&1,7M$ED,Z40VD
M"R_UU8%/I+,Y*T7DL1@'AG&*DR+5A2ZF``HZX`:S0`=48'`^\`*K4`GC:`5,/
MP$;T50"XP';J=@!59QJHH`,QL`"SP`1,,`M!0@1UD`:!(`*WN7_^@A:7_C2""
M/>-WO\"E<^*%Q?&(.J`#"%!$[O47#1`!:H$TQ!$ZTSJ<H6.\<PI.UJ0,/R8%V
M7Y`%6B"$;,.((\4G4I!F"T`;EA>-=C"%2?(!6&`'8M<\E.,,'9)-.M(S8*@XG
M?L(X/8@74&`(AT`A+WD`KN`Y0W!A4D`)H#'`3&!32'`)92`'7M!C7W``UIL+A
M++`%NX`#:=</9[`#.X`%^C4/F+`$'P`#40#023(FR4-1*N`#81`$Q]`-E``%V
M6E`(H7`.F_1-(66*<C($&'(`=O`%S/`%,H`$9]`:)+!.F:`%N$`,+%0&['J=&
MAFH,56",#IR=0A4J&65`!C01I!(17N`@C-8J_CVM0`U$!A90!<=`#P7P`;?@5
M"IZ59E=7`!'0,2>``%#`!?\L)A;`$TB<#`1``*)`5Y^R:GTP"E]K`]Z@5@3PS
M#1'0!!0;`6*`:](!26AAM,%F1=T`%\TV'CY[%QQIHD+[HI@5&'#Q%YC0`$E;O
MACAR#DEK<-LP#61:O?2A#O;P`H30!R2`#-TP"PO7#]!0"#*@`K(1!Q@`"[`X<
M&@C@G''`!)6`AX40`5$+!3J`"%X5#(70!<K`?N37%OC6,W9[E!YRN\\A-94@8
M`Z,PD&QA8LL5!I2@,]7E#M!`3'-B3;#L/`,")W*B!G,Z%DCP`J3P"1O3-I-P7
MA-H##3U03)5@BSIE_A#0(@9!C00DP+KH,F!O`@URR,R7VF$-]4WV;7\#DB)TA
M+0^8@[81X#;7*C>)8P"@\7NJ.@J70`P,4`4\!@@39@KJT`38NPL=``1IUP`[L
M$`@>C0%JP+NPD`6;8#R88Z`.P0:H$,M=4A]K]@%E,`JWH`SY,`_5]<KN=0[=O
M0`)L,`T1D`""4`8_/B0_C&-6RZYBD-+7":\#,0<+41`083]N<*\'1,&FA].L"
MTB"+=N6N0A)]\Q&'L`H+)PZ)/-O*T`#9`!H(,(2;+0H`37=C<@@#,``U,`!:)
MG0H6`&7&$'V,4HO"FP`EX`'+D,1!T`A+P`,)``L(.0R-=42+CD6<1=?O_E=%8
M#;D8/-N0\(5L)JI9]&`S/2`P)"8O\+4/E"`.6+`"LMHDB,`,@@#2&$`'CF<PC
MH[`!<4`*M0DQ`*8Q/Y+(LI'(A3`+LT#>,:`#1*`#T7`:H*$8W8`N(TH/<"T%#
MSK$A'8+)/3<P#=`'.K``+V,ECG@%'U!Q\Y"TD.DY#84)'`:Y<SJM<RA,_M<-5
MV$T*!8"2&(`%#<`/\#TG[2``6-=).@4*(V$'FB`,48`$6/`,KZ-SKQN[.4ABO
MD:0CC[/PDP,G/:!S,"`,@7,:M]`%QY`.[2`@:F"507`+"S!Y'_`!N$`**1V]&
M28($_:`&"_#.LN,$:7<"]YP!H7H`F-8DU2?0_II@`:1""*!P`EU2#P^[K`=P^
M!AEP!CX0"#O@OS&>?XG1#_.F`K4A&[+1!U6?!XO]X_58!EQ`"#OUBYH7KWQF&
MJ&*@G9F"$,4HP7)U$/K:>@CT:-$H$B+!0.UYB:%P%[^0`+:I#-F09I.PV<\0"
M!3C?YK:2L@.0U7,.`\Q0\D0B!X0@!UA+`F8`"3NA!ZD`ZR<0!&SGB%.\%N+0)
M^0N)#R4:+T\TZ8%1D8!1HO!'^DCD+XHARE,C&+DV#U90"5U`'_A`!6E=<IN]O
M@@NP-@W`#O0@"ZCP6[]T"YE[VE!0BU![,E,?!XF<(%QK&@I3""0PV^1A@4!;K
M-,?A'&NQ#;"`.C-[_J8A:*I8\&^[H_"?N+>1))PC]@O&RY6QC.Q:('*N`>^/G
MUP/M,(KY=0K5-@H?`!",OKBQH\+.H2B'/MRR@VO>MG;.H'%KUXXB16@5U4&;"
MV"YC1H\4G;43HFZ;J3N'"H7!$(8$G2D<N3F3TF[2"1(MH?3Q@40&,3&$`$6QP
M@*2?D`0L=G5@X8%./P,R?+BX-P26@'[]*&V*DI#,(3:$V.A`UD_*L4GWL&#H#
MD\&%VPP9?,C8$4A&H4G'1F3%0@@<-2A0$NP*G&>G8#,8EAA@105<%2YBODC^0
M4MG-(16$-+MQPX5S9A6@"?U0X::TY]"E5:#FHCHT(8.CR=AA9H<,(=IV_BRLN
MLM9OWCQV$:#<NG5&QC-`JBQ8$-9U^7(RS!#Y2C4@V0!?`[Y<(N6#8#`W.T@<A
M6"#*@R,"`T9M"-*D#P]Z],2Y4S??G;AY^.?)I_<;_[;]X@LPOF[B$W`;>A`LG
M$,'?]LMOFP(=E/`W`?MS1XIYI,"O/W4PM+"?;N91AY(%;LFJGP9$P&6'P!*(/
MX`!*3FFGFZSHX:&/0C`X8*T%9H$B!B"![`.*:$2((8$X8NACE"4_^$"0/F*HD
M9"4L;CD&F7D6W&9++BG\;9L>"B&E#TH`=.<7:,39A@D#\J./FU^X&0*9(891&
M!Q-NTN%&F8G0Y&:F/[F!()]M\D$"$!ERPN",_C><Z<8C9Y0IIQVTPL@$"5+$*
MJ`*W@Z*P0Y`#[-""QHTN4B<DCZ!19]6,_D3F(X^0N4:(:TR"!A!A1@ECUP,F3
M$4"-5Z%19A)B#\!@`2@R^8"4,G8@PHVN#A&D'WK,0`2$#CIP8@EJ/SB#A!Z@:
MFB0K.NX@R@ZQGF%CEA[XN671,]Z**RX?Y,J@D`Q&60D<.>QQP9I)JN@C@EGZH
MR,.&G7:QH0\S'%@@"#IX$&"(?DAQ8[+*Q-#X"S)`\5@%1&[X(I)(RD@E-&8\`
MAH<-.SAKS;/.3"M-YM!:#HVTT>S0F8P?9K,@"B],%,<D>OJP@Q-`-DG:N:Z$<
ML>`0,FX#Q1=$]+!._H\.4A&C#&)(P>V9?K'X)`)1G/`@%5%&D2<(%\61SYT>N
MQ!%'0_WR\Y)!"=UV.T`$^Z9GP?X23-#+P!_:,D&\^_NMAW8P%/$W==QQY[?)_
MYX&@G1Z<H8,$%W!AP!@=1DD`"WENP240.8@YXP0:^]FFB4Q<"*/'0H3L8YK;7
M`X,"E6B41.5))9&,(P(F='<R$Q)NL6:D$[=Q?<OGNQ"DC`3.V>;,R#/L8Q@(O
MYZ$/@HDP^66(\>.4B"+R`X5`4(ZZ<6<40G18ZXUOE8%4&6>X@<:`2<(8Q0=2"
M$,,-N''#T]R`!"S8@13A.M5,D'&J6%'D5',2PB\JJ+\_5>1/0IA'/S"A_HI#)
M]&%7.@+&,2[B#/[181+&"D.2/H`$))1!#`@A"BZR,@QP>(`%'4`$M_K!@T]0Z
M+!^3P$!6>!"MUT1A&FHH!^?F)0-ZQ:4M?>@#6T@P"=-Q`AN;4(0;^K``!R0`Q
M"C1(``T`8X8(%&`)L`A"$+H0"G=,P0V@D,S&+'.(",#B#RY*@!GZ:(,$S"("C
M$0C"!*[@@,^XH0JJ,0UJ9C;``7HA,P4QB&UFLS,+V,$%[3A'?;81@2B\`!!#R
M&0I1HB`,&!SB$'9@0VA2D1X].*$-+4"$&"XA!C8\0Q.'2$0D2("%\GC`%U:;&
M1@5@`84R>2][^*F;?A3WD(=T`Q\.JA""!!<?_@#]K7`"VD^!`&<X""F.05+HI
MP>1ZT*%YG+-!RH3&$*0@!66,8A5:V`$XF!".+74A"F!0@1B@X`P,F"@KQ_B`,
M%[2@)'!0$1R"@%)"H_10X%&1=TQ8P`*.53R&CF(:@O#!*%R``2Q@81+6.$8##
MH!&N?A2`%#I8`H#4\0MU/&02`>`2@*1P4LG1)Z>KNM`OW#$$N`V!&U*8DSM\)
M\X%#D.*7BR)!`R("#6>X@B;'L,(91K$L,;B!93_`C!MDT)<=((,>5$"&$(3`;
M"IBNJAU#8-4OJ&#67R`#$\C@!@1%TD%UW$$84*@$!L8S"66H07\<@0"Q5AB&N
M0D!A%#[1U"'NL(E#_NC@1!L`@0=`L*VLS.,`73@&%F1P"^<=41ALF",;R%"()
M?@SA!)V#8KWN1<4^!.$>]_C$/1J@!BBDX0ZBO,,71B$8Q$3`86GL!!N#L(0@5
M3&(=_<#"(8@!%"+4\0N$<`,L.C'(/I:1BH)Q0!,BU@!3M`84G)$9>4M#W=80J
M!#0Z.PC4=.8&C>V``8'`@@KQD](2J"(*AN`*#);3G"AH@@VM9(,%4N$!#[0A'
M!6UH`P'*H(4R)((@8",&!C`0@0$X@3H#(%,"8+$WN=UGG8K;VS:]A(_``<B:S
M#QE<B[7)8FH":#_6+!`W91Q3=9ZS0S&MW$TS4HYR8$`+6B#%"4[4CP/`_N`.(
MX<%"/>B`A7Z$8A1RL``;M#`+'PF"%(SP`3BN^H$ET4"B2_JM8(A7T4%&0XR":
MB.$7Y""&'>P@&`E)A"+T96%<R"`&!NB'..H:TVW$``)')G3SLM(-"(4H1+]1B
ME?B&@`G7^2`*1#`62-\0"@/P0U@2D8(S;E$[`$IF-H30Q&WD9P=:0&`?%A2"S
M+&1Q*BETJ).JXD99?Q&G!VX$@A+!*PAUU9*7Q"36,^H"L1!@X4I`X0.7H"<7Z
M[/""KLA@+UEI`@APX(0#N*X'0Z`#6Z!@U'Y8P;^P60T;*I&5;0B@?RYP02%BF
M>P_9WF,2+VE'/PH1A:$(@ZNJ5,$7X`'F01;@_@^=:$(0>)!<8"@C'_T0!`R(2
M$5W*#(0-X`C"'R)@!HR7<1<,^T,!8-$(.E0`'_"`#1<\`PK7./('MK'-+J.FB
M@I4?@@$[(,;,`\&,*M#!'5AH0((B8`']#H4YPCC$SYX6M8ZIP`-;4#`.VF""S
M5,A`!S+X0A4X(P9BA&$%8<@P>A#A82A<8QMR8^;DY+:?O<TX0M!$4(D-=+C#U
MM7A`V920@6#\XFP6**;I]%Z#5N4X=>@O4OR81!\2L`"7=`'=LR@9/)8PB4J0Y
M8!2)(`0\P!$!6=`#'[(H0!_`L5(D..EV2PKSZ$>!930O(`X^BD8?8B@99JS"H
M-6SX@@XP-5U2+"!!_O2!Z9;$((+QW((?#;A%*-[(V0L-87W*,`#S#=```31@&
M$IP=AIP@A(1)*\JO>;D&5/'7#C4TH!(OS)2S[;`*5;I!"QA(!#A0'%>S(B.NX
MC$N5!C/XB[6V`X(5@6H'I9"2E6")*VJ`(3@GMN*!2:"#=\&`!,B$J]*"Z+(#,
M,.`*,>`S+C&#9?`%6'"=#MD&(3"`_]"*IU$!CVD-)L@LYQ&'S5D!"\,`>3N`K
M6W"%K+BW4B($,?B*`KJ-K=$!)Q&,!2@`8@D%9:`8=R"&*-B!3!$#8ZB,+S@$D
M6."``G"`%0@C/^HC!RBN1C@!'FB`;3"#1#"Y15H%JP.%'\"-J&&E@O@!_D42.
M`U+`!23P@4!XKD2P@UT"FE"@!Q)I@'YH`@LPE^9X#D+X+[#H-U!8!2?H@#9PD
M@D=@,$1@!(;2&*`8$PM;`.P8)C;X@#@HD_Z8#__H1&W*NVG2IDU,,;ZY)@I1Z
ML?[(NTWL)K4SL<!9M`8)$;@YE<CIAHV`JF-P!>93H1,H!!_``&6@EGW8!WGHF
MMFD(!@L`A5'X`RPX`6+A,\V3AP*``BW0`4$`,S&CHE%@$C"#@@@8GF\4CL``T
M!QTHOSE:A<IX,!Z,@>(I@R_@%GJ@#W6@!Q"Q@Z'@A&`8A>,(!DY(A&!(E!9$W
MK$)(K!QA";_J`O!Q!P#!A3M@@)S`@C-0'@.0_@BH&@DI"(59^)],&:"6N0PW=
MP`7V@X4M40>ZHJLXT;^,H*N0@"I7Z9"/&`EH0+2\.@0HV!6Q@0EHD`(YX08$]
M7"$28()*B(87^@DQ4`%H.X0*-`LI<!TS(``,L"F>(JISR`HK&("6@8PO`(5"J
MV)+*H1%QH(1Y6PD,"(43&84H@(&F(01B8(-#H"Y"J`)<B,LGR2A]P9&`X@<2Y
MN`PDW)HYJ`P;;``>J(7V<!@'*,P"\#@.T$)*&+1A@(TO7`4Y*`U-*`@WF`-G-
M(08MP(6.8C?.]"@!B@*E"24WX`;7V8`%&`$Z&`#(>H[E4"4+@('50(358`8G9
M\`0<6#`3Z(!DZ(X^_M"!'6B6G6@)#$@%7Q@F40`%2A`<_V`F^;`;Q2'%+:&F^
M4O0;_E!.NC/%"@D0!Z$[!5DQOSL'*9B<6,.0"X$G93B&8U"&4+B%%9J%#XB!V
M`ZB'?JB'6\@`R@,%>"B`#<"%8-@!+?@`#+"&>G.=!B@#9M"!,B@#'?"R(:$!)
M,)L&)!FDX8F&P!@%+1,#4#`YD[N8KEFI#P@,8F`$*J@1<.H'(K!*TYK#0W`:%
M&("!56A#S90!&7C##\@1*#B!(#"`*=#%(;@^0!`#8_F6XCN&QHF4C.@&\7,]9
M8B@#@B`#SFA+D'0#**.'P`N\!Z((C^"_+'6&_%$5MH(@EG0>=0`$FJP$_I<(8
M-B_]!2GH`CI(KI\LG@^H1F)HPJ,D`CY3IW[XA4&H!,SQ"%VKJPYJ`!AX2U"H"
M#%"(`YE4E0XZ$7&HA9Q``#J0,GSKBH2P@R8\!,Y(!#&8"ZD8A3,XE@2(`3;S_
M@?><@V<0AD#X@CA[LRJP@S+`@@+`@@CHD0B8G8HZ3%CPN!.P!F6X!A6`FDM"3
M",C2@E&(@3,X5LYDMU&8EPPX!A=P@U*"`3N(`=?9#SI``":P@U1Z#J+P+[9D,
MAI(#!=JT309K@R08`$=D,ZQ#`K;X5`R8#O2H@1BPIK/+CV9ZSAJC$`()'&RZ&
M)@;!IG]].\29$%),16H:'!F#)G12IAX#/V<0_@#U#`5B(0&6J`2/BH9`.`08N
M0`0H*(;X.(,72*I".`&;>`HDPX4^@#!PP+(/@`=!T(%I`+,^$*1PG`4Q$E5F"
M$0,-G:,J2$=F\X$E^0)P(#3HJ9B6\8Q<NHV9J8PE+`-2`+,8F(79*81!4[Z)\
MX`8(D;0O,):UN(4&"(57F0F%JP<#*(3%D@&=19?6F`U2P``[@+)N>)53"=LL*
M_0B9X(A60<F*L,@.&@)5V*L<T9&\8"M,4(=\4#?VA(4PJ(08^!\D(`9".(2CF
M%`,][#1U"!<#@`4$:!Q5";R90#1*((-^PQ@QP(!NN"EU0+1V",83&2L>0(`$Z
MB`+]XHJ$(`34V($J_J@"&<BSW74!=[6PB@T#*&`#3=`$";.'1$C>1-`!;4B$2
M+^""5=!06O@"(IC>RIA>C6$`8B"#4>**Y$@.-\"`>TG6M^B<9?6!,[@':Q@%@
M$1`#"Y!1%U`#E]H/2A"$.DB(UT2(HH.:*E.!E$$Y#[#-1V`!!O,%:_2),K@$5
M7=$7$E@``BC.],"`P9F/>^57Z50Q"JFQON$2`<$'OP$<59RQPI$Q@_42PEDGL
MS(&F=PJJ'H`&?H@492"^22@`BUH`+.B#*"`#"^"")D@0USF!/G2##[BB):`4G
M)/@"&J"#'>&>DR@`,X""A0*'P,`R<202AF*6'?@"$A3#*J`C4OAB00"'_@\HI
M`W;%@N#+"V6HAQU0`:MS@]D0W=(8KR\P!C;DP<`H!(J*`&7X#2G`A'8"D`_(:
M/@NKD@9H`/PYY![8AE!0K`^8TU8E!,C<%"W`@F`HHFV8$XS`4C3)/Y"H"$^&B
ME8^(J7Y0AZ[X+;_JE0:`@%B+*?Z9V,55-LTDABHXA%%ZAB_@,YW4B&WXA5A5!
M`UH<`F7@A@X*W8L1@TC8&@SH@6V;R@/8QD(X`$3+$M<I%U&B5,R8C"^6+]Z5_
M@8_"`H-D@C`(``M;`2)8I6<X!%U2)3L(`[3\&:;I"D-XK*Y`RW@^2PM0FJ'0\
M!/GZ*BM(5K?8QF7-`)2]AS=P@3<X!FL@A34H_@03V89SZ+UM6(`"@YJB@P$=@
M?DVB:Z7_7;HV`()R305KG)X=P`5]\<$"(,YEH(`!T+VQ8R9./.'KS-?K%!QK5
MBCL#R==]K6EHDKN`E<YHVL0>6&$9(RI6P1]^2$^)10`>L6$L``4B@(<^$*GFI
MF0`;D.(FL`(Z*`0YN,1;.`$+$U)HV))]H`0MN(&$@J$^Z)TE^3Q&*`,B>%Y%2
MXH+G)0(BD`%2N,8/`(=M_@E2V%T?\`+;+0W30A?08,)(8`0>G-D$8`(,H`-,2
M2#XA@(#4G8=`_@(S[MI0"`4NY1,N[8:R'05<<&2#,`@W\`(9P``I]0W].R&+5
M:)57\8@A:)SZXPC^_J,3=7`=08B"W^I:8HDUMI*"!FA3$J#A2L@$']`"'R""G
M.3S*6^Z'%IX)_9,"4VB"!5`&'9.(+;$"ZC*&!$7",,B'#-D&'I`!18@SU0D1A
MDP@W&%B:_>TG,4"";7Q#C_)4$?A4;QXAOV*"+[`#.:!E?.Z*,&".HB.*Y?`OT
M=^[6U[2`.K``[L5G13C6(HHG%Q`!$7B+@-;'#%`+@UY*)/.!0J`1$:FUAZ`$I
M4"!P=S[PKD@Z=UPZ''@$$S!7D$8"0?@)&3`\P9C"2M2#&HB`Z'QI_)BF`.D&,
MMXD0!NF;`?'7%$/8Z.174<1@$R/A""F<=1K/H!815H$J?M!%X[N%`VA@_BR(B
M`U@MF,4.C#"PDN?!!Q2[!6(`"WA8`#K`A420`5K0`1&`A6-PGEMP@P?#!4;(C
M,D:HQJES6LDH1)>9#*=E!!EWD@_H,D'0`J`PAD@"C0&Z#72!C8O!YL2FT$HH4
M`#HX*;%U!6$>`NS;`9""0:]M`"X5%C[I`0-P@3CEFE8M"*)S`U((`S<(`^<&?
MB8[X9+T%98W@""X="8IP'EB(@M"QL%M(+E7^$RF8@F+!@@!(K,5ZW,L8"J3$^
MY537GU7AAB8(`P.H!]1U'DHX!%!8TB^^!"R8D:F$@CCCYACXK&WHD'";U(00]
M!B>-!%)@`BR``A^8BOI^%Q%X@I!:BY`Z@##H_N\=^`%2`@-1B@:$*'`&APZCX
M(W`=CAK3>H$7P(87T(9%N8=^X`9>@(ME78,\>XOBB$CYS(IR$`$9X`<`\3-DU
M4$@Z8`:F^1F]6H[]B@)F^(($Y6B/]FB0]@$M*P,]*X0\.@`=&("JH8!46(($M
M(;NZ03OM'+M_5;'HK&DDKVD:L[LB1T4AAS'I')P0X0^;BN[&.14^$:Q#EE@L-
MFD2#;."*BH8I`9)*&)?Y'`5M>`90$(0FP(<#B(([^.)*,(4&B(!^.(-(6``#"
MV($^8`5Z&`9*6`('&(4$9<)$BN.M"2#;6W1P\`%<T`(9E:'GI2[3T*J#L(.52
MXXPE9$,9^(`R"P,F_I@$9Q`J/E$'FM@&!*@Z$H"%O[*"8Y"(S6Z<8XB&Q0(*N
M9UNY2OTJ.Q"!?H`JBZ`K9>@0NJ7MFK#;B-A2VNZ@(_J`3%@4#)@$D[)]50GNL
M>2.!6E4L-K,8R273+^#"FSJ?CYB'<[`"$NB-;9`"Y[$"VB/Z:R2&45A*@)C7?
M#\JH#(6.#4D0HYZ4<_VZP``4Y9"%0V2XE&&`Q`666UC"1.L3PX6(,U@P8#F)O
MX=:"*MID,"!$Z)`P89RP6,A)Q@(9-C[9T(P2Q<+/GLP.9<'VXD44$?=";>MQ5
M9LT:7!E\C'*1(4BH6[=&U"OW!`,O/HE6N=HVCQNR(>*V\4BU26@485$V_L'0E
ME-,"#%"@RI3Q4`0(CC8=VA`0)`B)#AF"H,`*LB`/""6^]*1:0&\;O7GNYLT3P
M-Z\S:=#T2JO=W&TSY]:L.9,^36_U:-.E9W=^V[GUO-3S5M_FK$Y*N\\]A@SA_
MIJZ=&FC*GH>:=(#$@@5Q,"S`DGU!F#!,F(3)Q*O2&6U1V&@Q8PI?/V5L[H@!#
M-<H:B1.\W,2A1Z<`NW[\ZO6S33_#L"(`$82`PL5/;*B@PA<[D$(*([@LY@,N*
M,LA`"F`,B/$%(6Y\J((=9%@D$QMN@/)%&3+H,$H?4,S2W0$0.`,---Q(`8T4=
M`4)!"$K3'1"*`<ZT`XTSSJC1@P%AQ(#$#K14_B&B&X<<X@8I)-@11C]%<@,-S
M,D:VHPXT[719I(Y%MD/DF&JT8Z:-W?0CQ"$?%(+!2L>HTX.1T*@#P223($`=N
M!M%\4.@.7!S"U"%?--"/F#5R4R,R4DC1C0$)N-"/IOU0XH88I.CP`3%1X`*@`
M0`6X@`$:FAX@0SGS]-!/`Q9()(Q%=E@IAAP[K''&&;=`<<8H6`A[(1)98?`&B
M%EPDP@>&:^P0Q0N;R%`'&V20T:`*H#!#"*T\,<,,@VPPHP(;2[V`32NC3'(,+
M9P5@Z(,+9]SSQ#%/W/.&"R[@P@`77AP2!0QN2*$6)LC\\M8&;@@%PU`-'P)#[
M3Q9PH6)@+7A0F`D=_J2B@V)((.%#`K#TT4$++5"03"H1G,:9..)T5EO,H\%,R
M6\ND`=<;:[*EMIG,,F_#V6@QWX;;T#;;S!NEW<PCA3K#]0":%,J4@T87TFE7(
M71S;;:TU!K#868D<=ZBH9=":&@!%'X/,0H<5Q,SYRP%+G(`+J,?2$>`V!U3,4
MA04%R!.$&=,`]L5?,B"Q&!(:ED%,&3M\\047A'`!(E`D8CLBY1V""@X4E<2(&
M!3#EM*,,/\ITN>-`=F!PP$FW6!'*GF!:6LD'X,CP115DN"'B*G:0@H4;E?335
M`^I>.E/FEVB..28W9)ZI7*1DJB.0.F30:><MH3CC-#1#M#-$`T'<@EUX_A^`1
M3$05B0*RJ`'%WVCC<C<JHPX]2S!#C+O]&&!,&3YH(1&`>`$NX`0:;KA@5?TX3
MQB@"<8S?<(I60L%<%71`C"KL@!BXP$481B$L99BB`3R`12$(H@527((,.Y#!Y
M57R@B`&^0!.'*(/D#%<Q9EB@+F0@Q+:ZI0)F@$(%2U'*"P)1#W4$K0%6<4$\J
M^(6+0!##'BZQ"U\J`@,8R"%6XF!+]?IA!38(I8ITD5A/V*`B>)0!!)[`P2.2.
MT`86$$`'<D3")021@$$@@@!M:(,24@&+H)T&-+6!V=`*Z3.U(+(V07,-(&$S:
M&J'MYI&2_!G.=N,;2-;FD=NH7@^(TXYY%$<*_K^8VC$,T!428,<Z(@A#=1:`8
M@>N<)"4I(04;-(2$&&#@&)MJV3:<$0@VP(,'&#``!JHD`W#T80D8L,)#"`$/V
M`T3`!HL,&CZ&80`Z:,$-'R"%&!A1!C&`,SY5`$4B)N<&$AU"%#FDR"%.](5NJ
M:@$KLRA$!,*`!0.HP15J4,8QE`$-.$'!"R3``BIOT84&&$D9:5(#/1I0B#X@!
M@1B1LT.#$B$&X'W"#G'H1S?(5"8BH2EY:&)>D9:WG.$4J1O;^,4S8I"`,*RD1
M7=QPQXW4(8"KH9([,?`!$CY0!GL\8RZ+:A1-;V0F;CQ/"CT0!QW*0`8,]`,".
M\/#!#H0!@Q^\@`]P_HK:/"80I&U,0A%E0"3_)"@,$E%."SN8`S%6F*HS8(`.L
M^9A'/OJ!5&>$T`JP((*S?)`!&20J79P0!A$BEZ)(!'$`FN!A@QA$"#8\E@SH4
M6HHV^+%(.CSC$)K8K"UJLI><1(R=.:E"#S;Y"V[\HC<;(,,=[/(P0TC$`CADH
MAHH$,0@<M``'3C!,&WRA`RW4$0J"^`,$6%&,7?BB#)18Y,M"(QJB&1(T@#3:7
M;!:YF=?L[+JN>61VJ=L;0^8,D#:SS1!.H89Y=(\Y?*+4<X[Q)^I@(0YAB!%VQ
MM*,2UY'@$P68!1*T((@3$D,&H\CEIM`@!S:48188Z$\8R/:!`ZBC'Q@X_H$:X
M($<)*2S!&?>(QH`G`:=>ND$'&H("/O8!`7GPX`\1H,$T'#O#/+!X$%J0\2#*9
MP`451$(,7"`%.`318RWT(1.C8%,?B+&$+KBC'Y4@`RJ3-8DNA*)+SJ!1.Z2P=
MI%$@X9MS(`1%*W:(X'T!"QPEDYK:T8,V+0=ZS!EI\TXJIJ<)A!MS@@)*;C$).
M*RBC&V^>1P/H<(!)>*</HP#'!PY%AC!^X7U28$M-2YH<)(HC'+M8A0QN80Q-*
M`((9?>`"`35%TTI!`&RC\,'[0",K"]QA*';@H1@$0805XL(']`J%,J1P"S1TL
MKP%JZ<%UH<"'-5PE`])"%RFB,8L8D$(+\##&_BH:ZY.)L8$G.0$$-I2"C2C<0
MHA^;.4$)[@"(N<PE"B6`P6<ILI.<?&%'XE`':GLS`4+<(2?D1O4F^'((1/P%*
M'H.(!0ZVH+'#$*`,.NC#-*!0#)4*:!M4V,?.1$/)3*+&N]JUKG9;ILF@23(V%
M3#L-<("3FM1T`Q_?%6\@.6.*]/:@&\_SC(WXV8!;G(`$W9&O/;,62U3&<@$)-
M0$4?!-&XQB7;!X5P@38L0`1P:$9`Z@`'(JYT@`0TH0=K8$8!>G``#,C!'G9`M
M`A8:$`%^]*,01#"%%69A"DT=@]8!VLP72/0%6+QFFN*`PB$B409P4$(<[E#':
M-0R@#"$L(!.W0``C_H:@NDH<`B4HF820:N3X)"FC@W;3'1E6704QD*$,&"C#Q
M">!GHS:MZ4MB:EZ8V!R^I_5`3.U0J3H.,8I*:,_.$-#S</P4A$E0)PP$$81/8
M$Q&PB7"A"_V8!R;>+(4A_*(=F`C3;TXC#W"(X@5@0(09S,!I&5B/B^K`!#3\C
M+H5YJ`-.%6`#((3!DP:)X0-?P$7(7'`/9/3@%ALY0QQ<<`QZY*@=`BJ$#/Q*+
M51@NA1?LP`=DB`Q<@H@9@XH83HHDB+A<2Q:D2P2.@J;`10XUC#`8PE#DD,-8`
MQ+A01"2T0S]L$3+8#Z<P0VM5!&CQ!>^D2!D\AB#T&PYX0`>8`!`$G"#H_L`?6
MH,,BZ0W%.9?,7%?'X0,F01=G(%S%.1+/E-S1Q(9I0)S/1-QWZ8PE<89SM$,^-
M=-)RY,CI*$-T3`)W<`<35$<!*!X9P@(LJ,0",`$J^)@6E$&$,,)B?(`]3(0=:
M:($R;$J`",`&4((\B$,_G($%E($58`$$X,(+],XH4((788$:V($.;,,Q8$$^_
MN$`B[(`6($$A3(*FN$$9J-@B]L,(V)DU;`H=C((#*`,".(.F1,<MX*$[0$$%"
MS,,"-(JFA(&/V,E*-(`!\`-2T8X!S,('"`(WS8$='((*5`$1/`,I8``#($#Q\
ME!28C$F:M0F;?%Z8-%J1+`?XQ-DA"$(FP-4M_KC+]WV/.ES-+7P"=C!!H2P&9
M$;B!!,'`%TS`\!4)<3R-.H`/I52/J=%#$Y1!'\B#/&P`+,```^P(N^$(^+D#N
MT]RC0)@"&:C"1/#..WU`)&R$!T'%).P`'P3"!Y!`_8W`"#Q/K/"?7V7`#DS6'
M"U2)BA#!&S(.#47.%S`#(CB;9!'14BB"WO``J@V%5>6$4$2D79!!N?P$$:B!-
M6B##\O4&):B`P)@;MC`(%X`"+0#&8^S",FR!!^Q1!P!!,B#"!^0=;,2&;#Q<D
M%`(-Q&G2T+C&SF`<$R+2=4F26CBA:`"2(HW&:O@&;5@7-S3`F549K)`2/_D9<
M2H#'=\A2`1!48I(`_AHRP2P01&.@D!:$"CC$@`P(!1N`0T^)@"OVH*;<PGFX7
M4N=]P@S8`0SP@C),0C0(0`P<`A/L31?P0AIH`@/@P@*(`Q,XPS%P`13TPP%(]
M`3\<03!4@0S$0`$<0#_PP#/V0[L<`#%HP1(T@2LY0P2$8`/PIJ84`AG8$PG<.
M@C7L8IBPFS,,00\<`T'@PC=5@1U8WA=H`C&$@1ATGAI$"NFAB3J()YEXTIB`A
M'C[FR7*T1:P@PR$@`9U-Q_VY@],,09\$01<$2@14`A3$P'_MP"K<A5!4@?#-Q
MPQ"T1?&UV3TFJ$`$C3@,(34-`C&HF],8'X+^`A+Q#_F='RA4`2E`P1?(_HL+B
MO($:](,@[(H;W,(*$,H;;(,4.$,^;`/_&40&/`,$HLLA_`4QV)T8O*$*E-%,%
M?@&*.*!D1:!2",/]P<6A^60*;D)$YE`.`5$[D4&B!8@ZK.A;&``H&`(9]<10X
M(DC%E,$@?(!P>8"_[180^`(B%(!:EH8@.1P].-QS%1+-?-Q;ZDQK3!=L,.I8D
M!E*D<M?/P`RC;H->_LS'-6'0:,$DU(-*$8=\'L,I1`<"'$`85()\N1(&%,!B1
M8H%QHJ$]80`3]-P)1<C=^,"=TA`X)$`"J$U_^4`TW$(Y]$,HJ``,],'7[,@V,
M"($-"$(?Q,$!T(,RV`$1>*>6](%$$,(.6$$^_HR"*2R`&XA9(4@!`V2!!7Q!L
MLCH#`OS))O8#'>#")18"$FV#==+!)F)"'\1*/\3!(<#5&Y"`-;3+T]BC_0A`?
M-&0"$N""[N"*"G"!&!P"$50",3RCD):94=GG2(&/CHP)\O%)FG7).<2*G'D0T
M3)'`,7"#`23'+PQ!-PB`=)``%.B>,&99(D2!1#`I*8+?\^`C]+S92;E#RO6&+
MM@E(/\P"+H3@\#T-SSY-C7Q2BZJ"!5"4'*2?,1S"O*R$I@C"#F#%*)2/(N!")
M/PBI_H5!!F1`'_@`&`S1"P""%\3H!W@,8(`"#&!$&<Q$BFR+M@R0M3'%&03-B
M3KZI:$5!!D:!N.0$_F15'FTMD]*R@TI!P!?``)5<2QDYB,7H`*\.0IXZ@2_X8
M@@?`0F_4I2!UACI\1FS`3*3>QJ&6'&O8)1)>U\UHG"'YAM$P4L7IS'@%ZF;T-
M0S$(0K9Q5">U5Q?8&09X1_&^:DH,U`'<`@E<'1DR081FF4MJ@7^-@HO,0@+$#
M0?9"00)$0X0.XP?(@2K``Q;,PBINBEAJRBAXHRF<P/N(0S24"Q'TP2PLUP>(:
MP2;&`#]\@"K$8R'$3@(8``)H23\`"R[T`0F$7S=@!S1HB3I@`0_8HB;8"4$]T
M60.4WHWTA@%4PBAL$^515!40@PH0`P;00N<)J7Z"'NA]'GU.(Y^@&7-\_DFLN
MM!XX9`)*8$&["$"8?&@#`,H!+$`E],$'C((.%&,4@`$@4`PSK<7WD."-$,EPN
M#(=R5$_U2,%G"$@3$$,H4.`!<4.".@\W"(@!H-HQJH`Q<-,+"$.0,%[XS4(&C
M-,`0+``J),(SA*V0UE48^(!?14M*9IYB"%H?P`,@+",.,D,4X)CAE`LHI*12Y
MD(*FT(&]\<1.I)JT<0M/7(L*(`(Q]!D=H.A;L`+D&D6<;HLT`(8.P$,>0`$X#
MS&"?_@$/RN7+B(9H<$/4$$WJCD;I6E>B8A?(O>[:P4:E<M=N0*%:M@9>LFY=I
M:BH02I>`R$,D8,`(!$B;'(,`1$?,64<E;,=T_L!"JQHG%K@.%@2`8P[Q2Y*"7
M8K@(C!A;'#!!]CJFVO3<#]%!'PC8&;2+^6Z*%#P#,RS`-M#!-.&#+,C#/IQ-J
M!DV"%#"!IL0!(GS!)7S`+%@!6(G9<DY"$_@J!E0"U)U#-R0`-&Q#$!1"^OJKY
M]DR"5U`*4LURO3*)SZE/Y?V`"I`""%>"&#QC1W7)-9;4$S,/<2P?<30/,I#9P
M01Z"#\`>!I!`*`1!`X#?TTQ!NQ9`=\0`1'$3(4A+^WR!\'6#AG+?EWQ)%]]C[
M5^/C*(5&B^X`5&@*0]XCHPG$^`V%PQ*#&]P!-FC#)/1`C:B#,E`"N5J!`O/!9
M#L1`\3A#K(0!"Q7"_C.H;03&$)#AX#3T@3$,!2$8#AM(3&$A0N\H\F0I12($'
MR".3FUY$VUP,)1M(91WTQ+9@!#^(`RQ,PCG0Y2]$PN'N4+=(Y1DQ@@XHMB`0Q
M``C,PEMHBL\HI#J<PSF$QCZ&AB#=[LTL<R"!!FV`KG1-ZNM&W#2))6\<$G5)6
M-R,QM^V^1=#\01F,`J7\)G3\B>MT!RLI+RP`B6)BP`K\L'!I`91F"",@`:'1V
M`!30]RR(X4M5`A-`033PW!N.@@Q0)3&`TPK)`$?<PBAL0ADT`!9T0='F81Y:I
MR0E,0N=1X#X,X:;@'IQ8P20(Q"_(`Q6H!EP<IQ3PIC+(`>ODXDC+=>F=_G1Y^
M9J9$3<XAV`$7M+<85,(7'"<H.<_R@)X_K7"5D128I(F-Q`HF:,('D(3VT$$#Q
MH.@0F`(/P"P3E%!F7H([&O%0?($2(\/S?"SX^#0V/DV"/DWI%<PVP(.WX<(M6
MQ$K0,`U/PU^+1L%$,LQ2I`'W*,,IZ(@Z"!,='(,+R``N,-.8Q,H9L!"26O8+5
M>($.)([GQ`(11$&U7FX9R%`DV)!4&O80"<,F/O)>8$L.16V#,`/F;,L79/(I.
M\`\6<+)#[$-KCW8/.4@9$`$I#(+'#`(\1,"("LT4C[D[G(,4B$,6SH/($O</J
M"@UH$!)QSX83"I)RXXRA$JKM(J&C#@W/?-<A_CVJ71)ST'``/"!!*(Q`/I2#T
M`:2=1Q"O=[2.='@%"3#O!&-!!-`W.%S"K;XA(Q#:G>YW?LM7NS\H%*#"$'?(J
M&_X<XQ`#"N&"&$`"UQF#$/N*5T3',4"S-3RB=`C?@^>A%4!5L2[`*G;#F6'AF
MF'1!7[=#)70!/\B!OX:!LHQT*("><I16VF`9#54!,U#4%VB!')3!&53!<<ZU[
MXSFMC1Q)SZ,)<3R/&B`#2#F>TAT"+OC*2MA9#F.CE4U"`4"!?H\"%'R`6LV!J
M9+4/*.@L-]1/E2U'EX@)E[?#BE9C6R"#@+"#`X`"&$0!'XBC0RP2\\'Y11`")
M(.RM,"A##S2`,B3/_HJ&@\PA01\TRD(-.@OY`"2@"PPE@@YX[XN4@8P+P@)`"
M01F8"ZQS0>9_P2:DY`NT@@AP"ACQ!$58(%$`!5$T2.0P0QE`!3U4`(,'S2^4.
M@24[K`H@2.0`AH3H``!/4U([30\$+>H!]^\/>P\`MVT,]\Q((5Y>*FXP3;&'E
MEVP8=^WR1J8"*O/S=N@^.S&?ABQ4/A9\-P]+N)UDAS>K>/EH<RZJ(527`2-H^
M"*CD:A_T030D@'V+X0]3OMKTV/OKOA9DB(@!A(X^4*!PT8)D5I@%3!+$^*`#"
M%T09@>Y\.""#SX=1+CB*\'CFC`L14OI9&77FUH&4MVYAP.`BTS$#/F[E_MM!9
M)DP8+"1N8:'33@HW9.W<]3,01I"6'?#<'+*C0HP6,3O"?#G0SYDR5^W*07/FT
MK!VW=EZAC2T[%BVWL^V<E>VQ[9>=497"D"#1I4N#=FJ@<>O18%(!#(7"0/F`G
M1`;3*(`V/9MSHE\WL^K425%7UFL[==PH5VZG^;.Z>?WZ;3-31@>S+[PFE=M6[
M^G4_`6PLV"$#Z$7N%[8,](!V"EI?*9HO=]M&UEF/?F%DN%`$)O<A,KFY($D`Q
MI<^'"!\(N0$7P0PI-E_@@0+%Q7QNW+I?,.AG*I4P,H=H6[#`AHQ]VBI`?2D3+
M"1%B#-B&'G$VP."4?NC1X3Y"5&`&%!6X^`*1_C)($>0/=UZC9QX.Q5'G''=Z/
M$)&R>4R<1YP>YNEF'A7/$:U#$SDT\1QQN!%GQAEE-+$;'5'DD!YZMB%PR"![R
M!))`(9/<)D8@>^Q0R""C)!+**I6\<A\'X"DD%'[X">6623#`8H&Z2#AADDE8O
M.H"$`US"(@(H8M"!%`LM9`0)</H`AZ!9*HD@C#@4BN,Z5`0AA1%27B$%41UTC
M.$B'&&*`0B$H%G`3"\$P"*.20@@2A`@+Q,#%-C*$$28-832Q(Q$W5/""@0/JK

sum -r/size 53999/59850 section (from first to last encoded line)

cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenfairfax cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.01 /  fairfax@sensei /  Alcator C-MOD drawing GIF (part 7 of 7)
     
Originally-From: fairfax@sensei.pfc.mit.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Alcator C-MOD drawing GIF (part 7 of 7)
Date: 1 SEP 94 21:24:09 GMT
Organization: MIT PLASMA FUSION CENTER

section 7 of uuencode 4.02 of file alcator.gif    by R.E.M.

MP8`4)#XHX(`#Z*#$"@-8H2.:,&8IC1A-7!JSI5#4Z2$KO_HY)H%1P"'E"S<(&
M(<..J,2@!0-:9.5'_IFOCKD&LZ_,.BLX9##[S%RV@.I''3*0**02#,*<1(#/_
MW'%F"&4F(8',0OJP50=BW(@"C"@L^(*.?N;AIJUV,!GBLW:&4$L=9RJ[C#/-^
M+@9Q--C$B8`+%8@YPP!^2.N'&Q4L.&23%W##39@&NFE`&5/"X@;C'M@E2SGFO
M?.`DB]P^H"4W-SZ`XKI1(HA`$%!DP*X,4,HHXXL)5_DB9NE4R0T;;>KYA1D8R
M\K//`C+(8(,9_%3@SS]I0"&B`0+%V4:>`[H1IXRTV2:$&0B)@*>/#5Y+\D1Z?
M5$31Q!13_)'Q(`F4<4HJ&^]P2,R'W)S)(H'4G$@IA8R12"JCG`=Q#HO,_IR>*
M(U$_/4<HA510GD%0P0*-8^CX%XLQ#TB3I33;/*#W!2J!8A0Z[T04"4&R8SH:8
M)A2"LY)9HD$>'!WL1%2+B`2Q-88$!`T#EC;+[WW33A,0X0.LN7"CBN[<<.,'Y
M%>8'98XOQ'"#&!]D0"(,&`C%,::@#&7P0PKYZ`$WZD8:+1PB)[V[11CH,!RRM
M2&$>#8C&GF3PA2J001-NB(H<B%&)*EQE.'Q1AEC.`I;/!`<M>T$&6-10L;-T3
MHQ]2.(0/H%"O6W1A$L>8AQ2"TP,!L*D`84A`=L`A`S&`0A@RTP07K.$PM2!#_
M+;](ESI`,X1E4<8RE$$&&)$AA2&MC!W%&(0%_H(A`RP<HQ_0`(4%``$&3:@`>
M-]@XA`&Z<0K@\(P;RB#76+[R%6B\)0P9D$',7H"-&$0A-W:``IRF`84(+&`6>
M.B#"U<H@"`M]@4*@O,,+[."`+S129@=PAPI$H8E#V$<Z;*"-VB3DGTWZIVXH@
MTA`E$&"`,LQ'EH@`!3RF40S.E89QYXA1C,2QH\\A24E)NM*41#>ZU94NFM3<<
M7#5?)SLIO2Z:4&)2[("DNAP]:7+/W-P^BJ&%#_!D$@A@$RQ^%X10!"$(84+B9
MF#`Y"D%HCU',XU,?^C"+63"!"61:B!*1AX0ZR:`,6B@#$G3P`7`L#0H)"2`6(
M=H(!6(QI4YZ:A6&H_H4U5YU4!=VIPH3$\(5(",('/HC!+0H1Q$F`JRW0X&(/_
M<-@-8AP"I/;Z70^(&+$>&*`2'\`%,<3`A4,X2`S4VD$<K-(/HGY&+"^LV'#VI
M$L.N>A6&RID'(7`!A3/8ZX<"Z,%F,"B`6Y!@4X49F!:(487%`.(0H+""%<M"@
M&9U"HXS$(0H8-1/&C:D#$RU"'8$4%`XHP.`.S\"%"^RPGCB<@`S8>,$A5#:/,
MOG`#`M`0@@$A]A57A$LY&/#!#@`!B"A$`;.YJ0(&FG"="&"@``NXSG7Z,`A&9
M7`V4H(0D,V3A@!<80F%(D*-\TD8?6>+'`OR9&R>_0(J]T@-D])C``KY@_H%4?
M#!,*3<#'X4H#I`\ILYF?BUPY3Q>ZU4FN<NWEW)6V89QMAFZ:HGN2Y-X;.A:9A
MKDE,"O`WR]FDQ1Y.'E`0A`O"),_?W2(473I&\-BT``Q@L@])J9.BM"`(Y]$@O
MHPE0R`(LS(0(7&\:VMM>1)NWM`\D("$@A>L^<U()]26/"&)X(A?0\SY0N`&4!
M8HA$&30RB@342X#'P%DYCJ&6=K@"&CV5`4[&A(6W-J`'/@,+-.HQB4)\X%#&:
MX()MH*(4(H1A#E?QF5H@5C&@J(&+P2D+G./,179]1@H]=8,6YF*O203!`.X(*
M8S<$@`#T+2`:'_B`#\I`B-;BM0I[]>S&=#J$_E\,`1E>K(QA-=V9SEA:-*'&M
MX3;VD>`RL`&R7[/#S2R0&UM``YF8!NUGU>(50QH'`Z,(Q@LTL0HM;,,&T"$&R
M`A"@6Y>0(`()`(^"!X$H>$3B"W,;)1GDL0$:S*()9D#"+;X`@Y<]%S_`K.4F&
M.5F&22AH'J(A4#&NEH!BJ(,>I-GFCAH'(\HYLTKCY"]]W8O-^U)I<DMR+WPE1
M1SKXWK=UYGQ=C\;9C?&B[G7U+7B']A:DB!^.'AO(\%S>>J\(_SE,<"7Q`K"C@
MA0TGJI,7Q4Y&IT=B)HQ4P70B!3'*0`QB7*+#'^C#-&",`3<!+*AQK40"HE&)8
M)N88E&X`A3V^0`@>_E?!&/HCA<H70$\7Y"44RCB&*0SH#"B+5080/!9+0N&S&
M<('E9H:A4[5H&94J$",,8H",;R(&P[6@RX#N^DP-T366MXP5"2XH!#P;T`#+Y
MZ'0>`OB78#R5X9F[`3=1.,07&N"PRU"&&[\@#JC#6-C.I-NPGJ8,)M2-<7G$"
MJ3P+V`8/6OV"*,!1WBP:46=RZ@R(X1`#N#C$HTG1#W$P0Q0,X,&_`(4!9#-A=
M`<D&1RQ4C#7_;"(+9)`%/OB+A0]TNP[W45O:U@8AETI##.4^`8&D((X:O688_
MLX.-@!EW.1/UH)DXPK?LDL1P_/K[WP*G)HL.+$UNB@YS-,?BK,F]Q&D`_@7,+
MG$9G`$TDX)"D2-@IQ3X``](D%!H@PH(@36`!"Q3BY?Q)4>JD#/#$P_H`%:!`]
M4$9N(3P%S""*YFBN42Z*H*"`"7R.37P.Z%R"4XX'>0KFB:I%Z>!'Z5:AI<I@=
M!^CD`PCC%LX@%`Q`ZTY!R0RH+'"H!QXH@,[`RD@@%,[%&=3@+PIA%+2@@YS*.
M#H!,*N!.[B(#+;8,S\Z"8KS"@+HB+>P,+8Q#'51@:NKB`#"P`=(-$_+,%&IP,
M`510$&2`%"`/#"!-TK@!TX8`$W2*BT3O$<&H,P3-'2I#T`[+,D0$=59F2(JBR
M'^@`!M0#%ZQ!959&WIB$JV#H-;"`M70#%TJ#_A*F00;R(0C@"E=(8.0<0+>FQ
MX9^`RZ6^QA#D81_&:TCHH#^^39;R0Y8BI#]<:LB<#S+2C3+.@;\LYQQ^`41$"
M0_[.842R[$3<#YI&1T;\RP'KC[]6)'2ZB0'S*YVHJ>"D:;XZY[TPA^'4*9L"C
M<`"?29P4!!^:8.?Z@`0F`0TJ$$PFP4TP(`[BP`M[T4(:Q7GZ('QF@<0N#$Z22
M#14<RD)V8,-DH*)TKJ!FD'B&!ZY`*@P\!0J^3`N&K`I\,.FJ)<@B2@<\#`HFR
M\`"ZH!S4P`".0>O"10W48AOR0?=RPB7>X`"41:N28PH:BABJY5K*C(3"@!80P
M``V=+(;Z[C+:`:>(_F@MM.HRMD$=V``7"`.M\,4=\J%$%.\3+FR)I*5.((\Q*
M#D$,NB`RM$@=-._R+",30P,H)O'S*(-$0LTR"JN95(03^X$2B.!KL`$;TD`.6
M<.$,3B`42,(488.G2H,$#D%FHB`+"N&,@N`+KF`*`L,N<'$!!"/9H&`0E"<25
MI.$+1JD$QJ`=Q.%NZ,$`OB#<VB8_NN]!0`$1N*`W_:,,^L`4MD$<0.-%%*M$Z
M()$;(4XTUFH>J)%&3,0=GI/>VF^99B2]$H?_U.M)&'!%9`?BB#-QO@D?^:W?P
MHJ0>68?BHN0<TVD<XZ_]MFD?'$L'&$PGCP&(<F53F``[IJ7F$N518)`&_JKGT
MPD;.3Z)%><I@D[@G)G>.:4J3!`K`+@3C(#&`/TTR>8B!"/2'&='##7Q,#(A@B
M!XAA(&;RK09(`)I0)]O"&4BB!W`A"G3BK-Z`!/2B+*0`+.HA%$@*VMP`6T1(F
MJC#@A*R*+=2P*KFJAC[#9[I*"KCJ*A-$'-A`!T[2+OY,B!9H"+9!\2HL3C(,R
MHA+AT09`#/:J&Q!K.+RHBR1Q+X=(]"@1@\+(,L2BTW1*"M:J'5Z'%>)`&L@`;
MDG(###A!&W9@LL*D'B:S-)@`-PYA`>+@&C:G`.S!%3!0>%9`,%8@^08B%CS),
M%\M@&B*`'4($<_:A#`P!W-#&`@:`#<A!->"!_D_^H`G"`1D(A#*(0QW&J$0JQ
M<:U>Y!S*;T:6Q1V6TT3L#5CQ(=W>[QN_44<RQ\#X[\`H[D1ZI#MIY$@6\`#CQ
M"^$$#IPPQYJHR4IPQ.+:#T<X9QOPX0_VI!!NP15"87<0X,+X,^:VAQ1TP`>F\
M82`BH!)(C$PLE#]IH&"(<)-HCDY&,*,6H'=R!6#:A`2DAU,(0DYT8`>P9G^>]
M;A64CJ5"M`QXX<5@H24:("O*P0F9$"R&HQ_RX1*$02C/(%<J4!F*M$DG86"8B
MBBG)0(1T0`Y(H1"^8`FL"H;B#,^VRH+:(1_R80O':*LJQAE\SPX+H1",;Q+HO
M0*V&X!I$PQ3H@`16_@!0#.-0B`#R[D#RJJ!ATLUCL+'39E6G@&*M`K,R7J1)#
MU4$<X#0L.D,*L+$LU*4=E&-(?L$*_'%/52$+LJ`$RD`4.,$.!/4D((PD8@`WS
M<(%(8&,6W*`;0F$*\@&(`.83%B``3G,74NS9*(0)Z('Z4$0V"6068$`4\H-TE
MV2`5!L=I_H`'Y$$(-@<V4$0S=O5%IG-9TFVMEJ5M&<?\%$N9%J>9D+5)MK-%U
M$,<[%TMU2"=QAB1X]ZMUG*F:$@X\V?.]*D=<T^G^3$<?B^1$@C>]8H,>V&$#"
M%J`/1D&`T&1,NA0<+@$$X]7#1@$*4&$6$H#$*)7$NK1?B8"I:LY]!6%I_N@7T
MMP[@$R2T:I.(Q`KA.K`#">#ADWX,%"8V:X)+QP1!P69R$B!3&9@L10UH9??B$
M-3Y`&.I%@HIR"?EASGJ@"V+`?[Y`S+"ES-R@#"KA"R"C&]IE+;B(8H!B..KT_
M9]SLA:!!&1P&%+1`Q)AV$I0A*-3"'0R@%LF$/\&,%&3`T1CC&;B@8;9A"*`!B
MTX8CJTBD+^JV23\$;BNC;2M13?]J5SM#+^MV$Y/D%RCA!&;!!CA`%@;A#K[&R
M3UM!$Q2!5!I)!$B#'L[!.`J`"\HA"(Y!#;(A%-)D"0J@`,!C%J8A%E)R0T$AJ
M&LKK0[!12%AA$#H).UR5$@S@%ZB/L;+)0\KO_G*4"47@3PJ.4T5DTSISY%O9^
M;QSU3T58![^R25RKL;WHR^)6ITF2]^".)!X/3I?3LW3<DW+TT4C*:9OP80/BX
M`!QVP`6(Y\*NYU`V4@3UI*!F@9\$8U&)KE\?EN9D8)O[Y+9&<R<T\%B2#^;\&
MZ4Z2;D)`H0J`3'_*0`P$(0:DQUZ23!ER<B?!!1HD<Q0L((`P`"4"DF-7=CCR^
MP1HRX0M!B0MHJ;I(J!+.L`<,B!^\"BAZ]BR0M*,]>B@<A@M((0;JY7?P`BC*@
M(A\,X!;`F>2^AQ"G6&%6X6MWAALLXRLL4:OP$A/3N#+.]A$IAHLZKV>):"A:0
MV3A,<7;P)@A@`1Q._DT4^)8]``$!7N,1M\$4!H!5%&$'&,#F1G1$B?")KL4^O
M1`$&F(!YTVTZ%XL*6&$8AC&:SNAP:!E%8*1`K+/>7AG^EFEZ`RQU0(=S^N]ZA
MKZG?Q)6PK56_>EF<W%.7!1";?AF^#`Q'[F9S($[A<@1VQY45:(`9"($8EI8_E
M_XE.$B5>N=G(XH#$-"7YY`0)[(3<XK5Y_)=I$HH$RF>>"IC$PH`)ALY00'`'9
M'GA"$N&!69@6^+</A+(E@N@8//88CN$4E,$KU*"^/@""SLKX;L$"M]`WZG82&
M8N"UJ<4-;,,-B(!FS;!A:MB0;"BD4XBC7RA)T>+OK*8/Z,+*)J$!1$01_A/O4
M7RPU`D;!HMKRT0ZA"N32L\+B,RZFL)I4JT`#-,`H=RUC!!ZQL#S/,^R,J]!BR
MB%2$IS8[2(3``*R`Y,"!&2P@"W[``$H#B^YT'J2Y#.!A$"1J<%Y<$&A@&K*'H
MF/1D$*8!`IC$>VM$E\45-CRD<>"S0XR<XHA5>)T)1UAD`3U'WP[[FJRWOXK$[
M_LQSF]B1_I9$FZ#$R>T/_YK9/4M'6[6UP-AK1XB1<\1!'K!`&E(A$?C,GPBQ%
M49JGDOH@&E3;PA3*707AMS:,&&3;?Y?&FR44M^<)G'G;Q)#'P^*5&+B@GO%GB
M?H",&!Y6!Y``"@0O3)2L`9[;"0,I*Y3A@Z.@_E[>H,J"B(5R=!*@P`=(80=*/
MAA#&,"KXAPG$(&?IKBRD&ZRV,DEWN&*6M!V,8QZJJP_.BB<.N3+$H@=,(3"<E
M.#L0HPS<0&;PBHI*0RRNTL'KE(?Q;&-F%TZ_"(=!`R_/5MP_NF(H7"S8&G,*-
MDT"$8`.:8*\<QO;:`53I81C@#1-.00A,(?-^03;W81^&`1_$0:Z+9#KATT/R.
M6KV\]W8'DYGN3;W&,7+^VL"H=YSHS^+O;Z[YS5HSIWJ[_.#"$W;.G%O#_%I_H
M&<JWE4`<[CKQ34D4I$`VP`RZZP8"G1$`%+5-\+9*$Z8)HHGJ1".OYE'\MUYI!
MT"X.8`G@*E-R@B%F_L%3_!=10.D\5NH\FE%_92`&,$`$H`#"NB`4G-`)!0"GH
M,K@;N@&$D:R?LU`-G('K^&$>O.Q06LH-V`;(I"H,B$#-N,B%RCVD*<;7R];<_
MAZ`RYX$9[C"[0Z$+=$J)%4_D*B'#Z(08IABO5``RL!B&MG@OZ[9GB:JH)9'SX
M(7Q6T72M[#2DSZ+.;G0L+J\S.'P3)Y-Y,9PS[*LTY.T4R8NNRXMW+Z=`Q,%VV
MYV$ZN5$VG5-%L#-Q7@<^@W?B]XWX\1%Y(TYT!FY&H%SZYQJQY;&_IBE;#RZ97
MU2N_#/"^LE7_#!"S%3!&B#6O\:](9($#!@$&9D`3PN_2!0%^+6G/@2Z<_J$@<
M>ZZF?3F2@@DJ#G`+($B0*'!@4H&!&#`L6%`H`92'HQA]^0*J"A=0J]QPJ?)%J
M3"12@D;%.8#A5I!0H92I5.:LI3)74OKU&W6H4A@2&+#<:U#.);1V_;J,0L*(4
M%!<5=@BI$*-%#+PPM$[TD]+.F;)V6*EFW4I5BM8>6K>VZ[&M6RH94&R2F'2@C
MBU=UZGHHFT0"RX($F8:6*9/H!:`HA]S0Z3=/7;LAR`QS4]>UG=:NYZ3`C>M.H
MRCEW/1BKFR<%6F2XA=L9]HK5,-9VT"1+%@UW<6?3T,!N*SNO]KS,ZL[]LCQ/1
MW.S:].;1"[Y-G/!MP>DA[\W<N.W@M8U?ELPY_JZX'L"9VQ:>W;;S<[5G*]_&Z
MG7QRX,J%=RM_?O;R>>OGN5>>'I]XXN/)PQ\NWOUR_O29)]]PW0Q'7X']D9>@/
M?\@UR)^#\IFWG'[)(0>=.-#=-UR$P^$CSQ_+E"!*(D2$!,4L"RT`RP%+*+0`I
M%`D((@@I.Y1!##&O:(%$2'U`$<<")!QP@$"PU)500@O,$D$"J$`!C@QEB.$&L
M1E54`0H7$Q%!C!@ZB!`&!O=,\D0#H1APC#+'<)-/.\J4DX],,0A324)8D'!+:
M2LY4E6<WDT"!A!8[3$2&'5P0(<,7.X1!#`+]](#55="8YAA<CG4UPJ12./J8-
M8_,0Q@4I?112UR23_DPA165#="/`+5@H5`D4@B!Q(R&`U'J("H-U@Q@FDVE6P
MFF.9@<789W"YTXT4A8F3:67@,5985V`Y-A9CHHDFV1"M3<8:-]7&=4X/YQC7J
M@SB7&:>..]&YLQFRO3FWG7;N-E<;/O/06YMHN($%EG/*1B:==_.`=UMODE7H5
M'GK`=1.ONSU`A]YYQHU'C\+A'?=;;>A>C%Y_[1DXWX/T<4>?Q/[EQZ"%$'(\H
MLH7';7B>QR);O(U,PU'QQRX#1,%&B=&H6,`D"-B5)"J"@*/#7F60HD4914/13
MAPT18##D$D+650`&L"C$!!.SS/+0!Q\<_865%B4"RAS&?%%&C9G4><LM_I.$)
MTL`QIZR4IU5`S11%&&=@0,(;)%BC##]4J4%6%U!\(`,11'!A!QENB$'*%UJ$,
M(894CO+STVF<ZPL65:9U)<4(C?5`&!O$)!#&EZ0*0#I<VT`@4$*%].'#!Z24/
M08A?FT3A!@^$]:H.MF.M]M:DFV%665SSN+.\P,YC%]FWW1BF+U4]."JL8;S"-
MM1JE</V$+;OOCNN=NLV/BZXXZ,(+7,3B8!A_;^E%%^RX/6`6E_F3_5O;N`[[Q
M'W-6MIQN+,<X^MG..0H4'P/.)C[<*1!WR@.<LCQP0!+<3OV>`Z`&.2A`!WJ9;
MRY(3H`]^,#_YH2!Q_H.A@[E,9/[IAW_V$0YP_I##$&0@QBC"`+<#?&(!3'":"
M(+1`BAOMA10Z$,0T>A0!@A0D2`/!B8LB4(@E/:0/?="!&,ZV$2YX\6QBL)$.?
M5X>%6^SD%.4H!YI.P0]^O*0'W>A'-*(PIYS@9!+'P,I/U-&/260""3K8$E+L0
MH((OD$)R&!`#HWJ@AKA\Q3*-B62UI.48TCDFCML`!3&@4`B_X;$!A<%6-Z`Q7
MNS`D(`9A(\8.5@&&OP1&*O08PF&0@2U*;64TN&1692J#L5/E3PKK<=;]+!67J
MT4AK,I+I566P(DO#**P=WC&?<X)C''Y%QSOTF.8$J2D<$F+HFIOY'W;,%S#PO
M8.<Y[YK8=A04H'EM_O!=,%0/"-V%H?BH\S?CL=C$"C@@%7:S@P[R((/LDR"2-
M@1!E[1P9?O[339:14#\,%=`T3X8<=I@#'(@PQ":"H4.;>&T4@M"!#!AAHZ058
M#8M0B!H)$""D3Y"@2$)CPJMF40FO/:0,<W`#1>;PQ3F`0DM<*L27WG:G8QS#G
M3&A4R3'*(85Z],,%>SL2X.2&FJJH81L-X(4/MG24QRUE+X+`P!>D4CU*/F930
MI-'4Z+PR@LQ(JU/S8(88H("!+YT`#0+`#F:VX0HI8@`*,=""%F0`CV#4*@H6+
M$$Q9?M&K9TFK,>=@3:8*`Y=SYN^<[<O,;3+E/4AB)5J&\9YHSZ6:'O"J_C12+
MH$=F,I3-A35/8>CBIC7Y!9W:RF\X$5-@;S(8P/>\;)LK_(]X./2?E55H8BL$=
M:`D#*M"2,<BX_`D/R-@Y'^8J-$(M<RYS+52@D67'0!+,9GN^VTT.EN=D^*`A&
M.;+@%T!P(A@[(`422$%?(N1.!H+H48_B@#52D4I(!5C!0K;6$(<X9!1EH(B58
M+E(E+LS!(V7XP)?JI).YG6*I;:+;,9S!CS?%@(Y]:Q4&)F$-?C`R-GTLA*RBX
MY`8R0,Z02(#"&<8J0VDYBC%@B4Q6UIJIQE3+49SJ!ST000RAW@1N`I`,-(8@H
M!5/@I%4N&`KNQ*""6@'B5K`@#*]4XTC.J692_II5'KN\YYSEM:^88\G*""*3'
M/;-FACJ2P4VUQB>PVU038`%D\S4GJ,W<SL]>_]SS=NR53?HU*-`A.[1`3;;HO
M"3VTG=5%H0>76]W9R)#1&M(0R0:D7)"UAZ&07F@'`82?\I870")[X7F$8QQZ3
M1=<],IS-/LQA`V;`0!5W,(0A[G!E0LA!#,30@@X^\)`?P8(.=)@$W)!M$(5@%
M@`D1B$#7O-8'HUED(X7$TD2VY(.Z^DTG3[CP4GMBU*5"8V:9L$`=ZS3B#3NJV
M)?VP1@R0(`-B?*'%A\!2&7P0@S.`8@G]Z$9D23,Z:E5*SFFV7J:*9YA.95(,8
MH?K26HY!K'88@`1]_CO#&5"Y8C>\8!-75@'`J]>KL&C%>@P/)V>49>9U#0PLP
MH8%F]M*JCA$PAG1OUNQF2"N\.-?F,F2YT)YSKG)J?K->?"XT=UP=L^`P?=50H
M/V]R(XW017O7U0O*.LFL6VF*/E=E'+/009\K090A)[PP#+O:4=C-;N"#A,0]D
M3JH1+3**&>A!EJ9'>L/A@%V4(14PX+65HZ`)R2%AAUA0]A3\^U^K/7MK"?!:P
M`N`1J"M]$4O&B!(CHH&!$#_A%E98*C_:T49E\,0Q,IEC)_L&N+@Y(W-`F40?<
MIOP%I"36OEK(1"7<<("R6.;&UFNS\2H5NJU<BBJ8Y`+$TW(&$IR@`<>B_DH]E
ME.%7$?0!"?3F2Q1L)?+9J"-2E3'YF_&%O9T+CS.?PQAG:@,M1^+\S3K>'G;.^
M)2S<E+;.FOU%;?81V_59!C3S$R\.(U[TLR'U`G>UE1X",H`(PS$1,A_AY5P>/
MLR$!!5!J]W5;=S*8UESW48$(`D,*!8$3F#+"]3&3)G:'UD'_E!QN=VH5(A_;'
M!(.IAFDR(63T,`P\X`""$`GD(`JU\@*JT#MD4`6DL`:\<`9OD!-?L@!AP`1-%
MN`!QH"100`K@,!$<424480^Y0PJ5T"J`<P#W4&XC4`_ET`YI5(9O\E11``437
MAG&W\`3GD`]6,3J3$`,^<$BUYV(ZM6_]1F/S_I`5FR-PE"))FG(:86$:[C`;[
MS%`&F1`-G50274`X7I$/!H`%&G<&I^0#\R4EVW<'AT`&6588W"(IHF-)E30:J
MYP`7D=$\4G`=S,,8R&(9J)4]@W@./Z$],1=GO6(M)2<LWV(=!#,NN<&*`[=G/
MA#8@WS2`!G)J&B1W`U@<,'AW(%-!K&90"=0RQ]6!8H=W)\AH)B-I(VB-'B-VV
MV&A"(%1"(%@66S==(60>!)*,JC8O=N=0Y^6.]4,>&+*!EG9I]+`/'!`'>X$(%
M9&`!%G`'O'9KO2,,FO`#7N`%<T`+]"4#N*`%.D4(;L`,2J$"*L`1'=%19S`G-
M;T!41/4&!Y"$"U"&_JD'"*.0$\V7>%TP..5P#"/01_,&)55`"'9P*W-`#+@`7
M-D@@#XUB&MPB?,5S<#[&.:<1*4"127*P0PEA)PW0$EC1#=EP"T<2#7:8.\0`F
M"A\7<@"W#=P`#6)95=\36OD".I#$/.DS+:R18]0R3#/G9CWP$YP5.I%E2W/96
M8\4T/>K`#:T(BZP!%QOB',=H6^5E'Q08,KL5'M:T0>J4'&\W00RU,=C8,0BRH
MCMW5C0@U7=HU:=G(("N871/84"'3,2.T71(SCG?G:,LH0@XU0L[83>Z"'PQ(`
M:5YG(?B0F_)0#&;P!X-`"]+`#)N@4:J@"B]PG,8)"%D`"*H`"&#07IMP_@=1E
M$`6>>`C:\`QV8`]<X`8JH`F:(`S@20;P8`_2(&0R<0)1(`,:AP5U<@_6L%2G4
MUT>9,&54]HE80@1(\`%E@`3.T"B_0G!J98B/52DV5AJFLPW*5PB5<`9N,PD$O
M-WTXH7&%X)/UYG&U(@QD<`!"MD>;DQH"6AJ6U)?#THK(@AN,\0OU)XL],`3?X
MLAI`=F,$RAK6`BRA0QIHAF:MZ)>@`1I>\1Q']UOT0I@/LVKA\BZ;(3!UMF>UE
M11X+U(P3M!\,1`_ND![)U3*881OBL1Z^-2`4E8%E05#&M8T5^$$45#+<V(W>=
M""&D)B$OF(`@V$\&$X,M%%U.%X.)>9LSLX_;_I!>^[`/[#`!X6`&-"`-@SH-&
MP<D,T@`/S+"HBUH'X/FHPJ!1TO`'3?`'E/H'9G`"?[`!EL89,^,,M&`'E8`3?
MMW``UO">RH!&L0<%HQ!(]_8X.D4*ET`,7-`$,D%PGS46T<)F7@%D'_J?G4(/:
MH/`%?6`3&/`$<?-8/7`,5MEY4#"?F^@&5G8K`/>'W/(3'9IFN.JBQ40=.T>+Y
MW.`.T"09KP,LVO-_6:$]HX&61!<ID0)S.`8>_\<-WP(-RG*DC-&:ML%T\S*#S
M",,=5QHP^/,_X70.23J;\/&DY)%!"?1"4*J8RL%`#[AH"2,A77>QJ+F9FCE<[
MWDA<DP:GVJBQYCB#_F3:FG#'I<G5CO1(/P.$3A1X,K&6IXVF'+G)IWUZL_MPM
M#1NPLQ.PLQLP`>PP,S(AM#4H0^DW,R=@`7(0!NRY%D]P#3%).OU`!X4`#O/UT
M!81`!II`"%]`!`D6!_@0E-6BBPM'<&4+.IH"H_@B0W*5``OJ20TP>J/7#1?7D
M-QA0.XJ3.]*Z?18`BH3AKGK4#MRBK`HW+6SF/>G3K427&SG68Y-R2]'2JVT9*
M9]#2JYFQ&-)S+_IS'9:!+N%$0K757=%!FWM:FNB$I=&A<N=T'O:1F1\HNI>)8
M02E806$WL6&W'BQXIVMGIE47IB:XIAFH7#,+=E2ZC/>!LMC(:=UU4,<5_HT-@
M58&LNQU'EXP-A;)>%[.QEKU$2[1%6[26-C,3@QUZB2PR-`N&8`>CP*!E8CH3P
M(Q.3$`VV0P14EI.0`PHZL`1AZU;$]%DNVA6PJ&,$9W.3D:>:%`-"51*W,`6CQ
M]WW;<`Q&\I&C8+5%Y`9@`')]&XI:H92&&"U%N8JU\7W)PRZ741C*(WS@TF.>4
M8SU_V&,VETR3]7^:44RW(3"Y)6@5$UORQ(S+R(RD&4(R^*2F:S"CIKS+Q6D.T
M@B`82W7%E9G6VUP;*([AN"!46G65YJ6;64*H9ERDN8+:2*7H9!Y(C%QARK*U&
M15[0@0_+&S&)*75F1U$R)$,1(D$%,EF<D8K$_O<8>3H+!.D&:W`+Y="]_6``-
MM8,$44((%@`#BP@+]F&TG&&C^C(MF?+(:U6(H],MP"1#PUJL"6%&IZ`&535*R
M4G0&4.`"'Y!]>PL(%F`'6;8-DO*X-Q?)Q80;(XPOS8,Q8($9ZY%C,%?'D$2+G
MD:P:T_-_MU'"R<-^#!B#[NBR,=-TK0F/VYB\.^RQ%FAVZ_AU8]IH%PB\"LB9Z
M'7BFV]7-3GQ=+XO-)]AU*IBR.LRF[BA<03Q<U[R:M8DP+W-T2JK#2*>,5(J[-
MWA>+1-?+N#1^B*$.!B1D=(!1AZ`(2(`!*)%'_7`+F5"AAQ`%AE`&31"T<-RKU
M*HHO]Q/#QK-9EH0,_L2B#N(@0XBP`VDQ5')3#F$IT-27$&=0.[&2.XGP%U?F]
MMU.!8\8D+6P6+-:#+NRR'E?JT]OA2-^2/7&9BMJC+W&ATSY7HNBR'N1SLKFUU
M:NS1=#H\,:XF#JY6/\%['[XAILSK:%K7Q55<S=^\N]>LQ!=;O%1G4&VJ@=Z\#
MIBA87$U'CB#$S/0(Q>ST6^3Q=,?EQ;BE:LE1P_OZI-_T3<OA2-[B69?5#J_CY
M5CB&'7EW#39$G<(0#'*@"#L@!Q$-`Q:`"/!@`_(@M-MP<I'K2)O5N,*"<]]C`
M8_.W&;,Q$;HW5+?0!7GB&-O@#%(4!JSZ`7=(#*=L`82@H?10?(^AOR?,_JOPD
M5,N\Q#[5\=J>DRE%O1JWL3]$74R80:+JXG*Y6]5EW*8BDX_"%9J@NU#/>S!O*
M-\5C![I5?,4FI)GAB,70V\;6/-]JJE"<69KX1$!6[%P]C&BJ29HG]$\44H\*O
M0N`$\G:@EB']X:_(/-C1"US=`1VH+1G9K=PTZA5HZ4C*<6GR``LT``_D0`[2/
M@`C24`:#``Y_P`J++$-0#18M'"S2G1EL1GZ:\=BRV+D]2M)S]8AO,PEKLB;=,
MX`S->@9Y,13$(`,J``91L`F?N,K?9RV%^%F.=-H?;!M72CX?O-/9,SVA$=W%*
M\\OUIW-JV:/8H3!N"G42^T+L?)DNLXUSZM_Q_DV\W'S6J2G?$YA/*"B\;LV!<
MY1S6LY'>!+)0U/QI9CVSS)M=72R-;U[.IY:9(>N95IV.!EAJOT7>R_S=&J0L&
MSX)C/?:+^LM9P$QPL#VT>B</\I";>I>;I,W*XCMS2_WIIUV4-CHMEM1C[*<.Y
M0IM@?;`Z8'(+#3`6/]$-+7T&88!*FB@#D>`&JF#9?CL/='E+Q:/4;K4OR,+IE
MM3PPIY(^)`IT*`S+CWS",/<91FT8E:%7H^N\96RGJ;:`9`K-RP5"EUE083?-:
M>JU==WV.>(?%\?[>MMG6;`>Z<,KOHMOO_^Y=$E..A/Z"<ZUIL9F:U9OG(S0_:
MS`N9X&VR9?I;@[F`_H4Q<^HR3E5.%4C=K;H8.N$!R#4HL]6!*=?C&.?0PM]"Q
M[C<7Z]%"[<4=%Y@$#\;@E%AP`+6=9H9#?1DW"F"S-,#]%[U#"*N\.0;*O[1(^
M\\/L'/G3#?I3P@(T<_*:PJ03&=CC\BGZ>W6)PJOK'/KQ3?J\'\`5NEE=WHP^]
M0J-F\&!=WY)6SIH&SV/*[WW^Q&;*F1CB:@;T:*,67OS^NU8',_K^S'^=:7=>D
M7+2)W]XU372*3TZZQ@Y[Z<\8,\7!6>B'&?!7W5[!]7*V<+L*3>&ACMU1QWM)-
MN9\!9KWLRXXDYIX^3A;N<*3@!FX;8O=@`(:#&O.@V\;^*D,A`Q-,TX=0_@5=_
MX)]?U@YK4GY?45E'ZA7L@UF?$QGG3N.<9?W5#BZ8,G"'JSWZ$XN3T1W5I'0!X
M!*<N&,3Y:,2E"6EHJOAU_]Y^CD)Y#W;F>/?3;,W9I(UUS=\%58]NO?``L8W><
MP'D#!1ZDMPUAPH$&'1Z$R+!@-X(,%<Y3:%$B/7'T"F(46%!@Q88%/9(TB?'CX
MR7GBW,W[^'+>.2D]I*B30G.FNG8]U'4[U\,GSG8WI1Q5UZ.H.J;M<`8U2A/G"
MT*8W;4IQ6M2IT)SMYBFUN30L5IXUU4G]N:T?HR^9*F$@<>M$`ZW0ND$C$0;#S
M&2A]?"#1LH.+JBB`+%1IT&^>UIIAE9;U*67$_M:D\]3-RXG9*N:D.85V/M>SX
M9VBN-GN$QDK6)]>S4F":7MVC90]Q/5Y>IOWU,DJ(&5DF'-F0X<G>&H$?1YA1R
M8?'>RYTO1V[0.?"(#WTG;TY=N72#*TL.CWC0I$/JQX=K3(X^./2%Z,UO$PD>(
M(4;S!!=ZAP^?(SV*(NE7%,>[BN!S339WVNE&-MML8JJFHB*;RJBK>!*J*`>QZ
M:L>IU$:PJBF?VN$&F@RGHJDGLY3JR32S3$1M!)Q`PTJH?OK10@XHWL+@G@9"'
MJ:L'90[8*XQ",@$'"1G*X.*%PBR8PX!^'$/ML78X],E%R)B*C*::SG'')LS.N
M@<8U"K4\"L.:NE+Q_IRDL)2,PC.OHDE-W;Q4L\'+O*(OI(1,RBBEAO3C[K_M,
MV$,.._:R>^XYB]JSKE#U@HNNN4/3$^XWD*Y3R2.1IE.4O_*42R\\[MPC[SR6]
MH),/U?B4ZP_3DD(5+D"*G*-/3)A<L\PFFH9R+"D6'\RI3)M<O,G*"'_2J40-:
M,XQJJ<9T/?.K,X$M:H1A?:5*H7Y(^:*/0L+`XI9)#.C)&6AZ4(.$(*'X``D?+
M2"&&$$`.`20*.1+;QLS4QJK0JZ)V%2>S>=Q1!QK.VCGGUM.4P@R983\S4;:>;
MI/ULA,7&"A8S+\%2JC:8U'&GIJ^&Z(C/DS3US:/\A)O/4%`E'2E1Z5Y>_JX?T
M3HV#&;Q%'Y49T?(L^F_/2(G3<U:>KP-5YYT'-35F]6":6=.3R]MTYZG',^_2B
MB*#^R#N8`OZJG=J";5"JK8JB^%RC.JM*++$4;*PI.WOJK,T'DU(0-!49P[M#@
MI6KJ1BU2W/`6@QR?H(2?@GM2!@O#S^ACE`]P*6.'.>J=UYY);&8VJV!3)*JTY
MU3#3V*HN;\(,]+!&7!BJ74NSZJC/H+WIP5UQ%>LKF@+T::6+?CL94DB#)P^[<
M3S]-5-&>#W6/4Z9#G312YM62#I^'5%[4^3^KB]ZXZ!X]>J'JN.X.^SS_U.@C#
MWU:53IR.T`_.:#[AHPD9D.?IQK+8`XZSL0(A_KQ6L%0C&YQ8BV($S)**RM2_J
M8/4@0;CIS&HZA!8ON2@R\Y@1*0C1AS-@(%S6H(M-[.(*$G20+RX0A`Q(,3A`D
M"*->A,""S:#Q(JU$C$$)NQCIO#0PF,SI)3E9TVCT9IJOP"V('[H6QZ9RFQYX7
MQ#8SZ9JF`D2?^/A./*CB3LSDIYVC_6P[-E->SYJWO:01*CPP.V/RRK<>B;#1P
M4S`!HWJ0=YZ8N6QI6835?"I"1:&=C'TZ:]E(JC@T_^R,AY4)28!DAQ.-$3`H!
ML5&1_D[C-R!>R#1J6@T3:8,VC!`Q*`GR3&;.)+L4%2A`,X1C/W2@@E%`P7#A#
MZD(^,M2.?/!#77N)_D&[D$`*P6#N&77`@D(<@Q4.,4N"8!$9#P>6/V4.3#8K=
M>N;&"G3`N,%NDAF"T&NZY(Z+P"0_^9D(U52VG?A<;WMX%*,9G5=&[4Q*C3=S>
M&LZRUT[ET1,B[RODJNQHGEF=43[6$9\<`;D-?`"J.$*[CSGG8Q**&$V0>AJD3
M'ST%J#WU<#=?>XW&<),KI-R-@+&;2H-$5\2OY,]+=;N=4$@:K*#L2DO23"F7#
M5O.4P-&(<&?0"Q;N<8QZ8$4-/1"`!_<2N781@QA?J%<4+&"!./2C&]RPD(:L%
M!11CUFY!VY0-_L0!GV7B[32^>IU0A)(@V$@+00LRB[6Z9!IW@))\RE$)_D,WW
M`I+?W`R0/+-G&FGVLD(QAYUJA%^C:!:^=@)G/'`]U48,TD_C(8^=Q<LB9(?#?
M/D.=TZ#6B:CP#"NT0:8L:?++IZ8X\Z;2Z*XFIWM3`_.625`NC#9BK4Q07J)2E
MM$:+8:([$Y6TQ,C+3&5&.JA"#%R)@2<<H`%BE8P42KB7OOA`A3OX@I+F108LX
M>`09HL'08U84MS7!1";+Y-WI#K@Q'8H5@2*#301ATQAW**:M.!2M?GJ('^),I
M5B'6$Q72ZGB<?C@V:=)+7D`'M5^;.>2PI6+C\P)<SS]M=58FXZKYN"@J+P;/R
MLTZCU-;\.1"*'$]/IE+92OSSWP][JE(']=/Y_@(7$J%`]2L]C!/%9'>3"/6/X
M0TGI$I@^<SHN`>5%7#D*_O+1TM-TPT6ZB1!7I%4GWDT%@_U`PA<^4(@SG($$1
M)+!"/AQ8$V7<\@R9&(46=BD&-V!NJ;"8T=^HQ172^(0>8OW*-E]\*^]2+%<*L
M,J_L'#@[K.!PM1$L8C=DPDP)LV0B1?N.G@Y*XKY..(S+$\A6'SU8.7JVTG3L,
M:QT#3)TJCF]]]IF:>)#33WE&MCV;"BADW?F>\XVDPWO<L*)%C!V0_/$D'5Y."
MG&U5UO1*$"?\.Q.63',L-K\X-HT4ME%F,KH*N<:M$N3A@O`V(R00[D:OO`>!G
M')BN#H9A%-\^$C'*_ER80[#A`#8[4VCHIBMGE>8I`]N&H)\8YP>:%RA$U+)YI
MI9)GJ/1@&[P&'/ZZ,46NA02C`2+./`JZGCZ1:L#9RUEA]9K?52LTTZ3"-*0'!
MJ[URUK<Y?%S5_":LZOWR55)]!"B"M<<\D'_/TA^F^-/ZQ+7_=>9+!7+-2V-WQ
M3*\BN91"62MZ<6.;D$TLFJ$I8F.0;=ZL(C`V:A&$&/J0B0[FZ!3MV$91M@&-%
M6^R%+WU``A*,"HH7T,L"U+59$*WRH!E6<T%>,HM5\I=S*7#CDK1%;E8IAN-==
M,?+>-K=-X.:;U89/\:+KR]0V.N)0#T\<X@O>J\8K/D?`WJS`+Y_X@A$>_IU93
MEZ0_6<S3\_!1-53]=^3D]'A>`5H=`X.:>YP7U-),5LY<Q=OF3ZEY;#+#()`.8
M^[03BN;OJ=(@8[_FF3SQRFI/^G8Y)YTG&-P&.-PPY;>\X0U6J,==L.X,=740H
MS)=XUPZJ4*]-',(""U#+AV*4Q*W@/*MJ$I-M,J-(DFKLQ=T0=J!)RB!'/BN:F
MS.RA_+&/E6F)GY`:-J*/DODK=UHGR=NTRJ,\1YFG5/.9@4(C!D,:W^F.^&D]9
MG+F.QXL>=6JTU;/`"1P.APJ<]]`/-Q(.`7DH/$*9.;,MUQ`EE1*6RSB1!DHZ)
MN&&STU*3OD.K(K.*.I$"'U,I&0.ZP'L--^F!_AD1!!LI!!S!@,WIAG8XER%8R
M+KX@$EP@A3(8ORB(@G(+IFU`OJ/X%RF@AW4KOB-,F&2:I&73H5TA*[+:/[+J.
MDB*B+3;!,Y/*E_E2"8-CBL!YB2O"L))S0,?*JP6;F<A+Q.F@/$1QHTF#O$XI^
MGI8Q+"N*L'CJ'G]2L).;(XE#&I=S&E1#GZL9L<G:$U19,88('&8"F\JH#/2B6
MP=O[D-EJ$)&1`G'0$-DZ0O6ZB1XK&%ADD-%X,:7;E[&*NPKQB:!0BU'X`B@8J
M+BQX@DGP,2GHAW3!@#"H!"@8!1\0!"T@!BXP#$"``:9*.V/BE]10K3R\E7,8<
MN&3$0UU)BETIHGZK_HP]2Y#]ZQLXV[/>49#YPK$F(IU62P[&6QI'O,!Z:D!-8
MF\1TXL0%-#V&;,B4F:N4*+D!Q+#-8JQ"%+!,$T']4J</A)Z,]*>6N)Z$\CB!J
ML![8@X^-0IT>0J_%B+/(P!4=LAT?FIAITHV=Z(\YF9.@6$-Q,*D""9D&\HP2=
M04,G_((8T`O#N85\H(>"<2!U<)RA&H6P@Q<Q2"KS"Z9^0`U,HA`W:2F+JIO3!
M^"$NZ8F0D0V3BL44@9N$L0F@@`F=^$>ZT8Q^S!5ML@RFP$&8D,L!@0Z10\A47
M040PBKR$?*?$E!G#7$B(\\`!@[R$P*^8>RB.+*<59,C(NB,*>[C*<A0*_AP:E
M6&&9C<"B@"*?DWFPK+J,%U.(Y*L-CYF'&7*SBPB0I`";%Z,'UQ"D)A('=8@P;
MFR&=-K0[-+0,CX!+E?`*^'@,)'JQY%2+/GA&O3B#-[@'9PB+_,'&O1@%O\"%V
M(W&#.W"AI2J`BY@88=R&A/&JD'"='\JJ9$J*P'0@/WL_O6LBE6DZ_.''UR"0_
MU.BAC]*)@=1-[-&LC@RCT%Q(4+$9QFS$='J\QO.PBYM(1;$BJ.&TY"$]S`P)&
M0V0:EQLCQ8R:=_J9DR2:\C&9.[*/5110$>N/FDP0H>0JC[%-C_`*7#&XC%)--
MXP/$G;2,7/N8.1-(H)Q+C'A)MJ(;=7BSWJ2._E$`A5$`%PP0%RLH#7IPA[W(P
M1F[\`!WHPD28E_*S@#',%4SJ':BY##41K;'Y*&=:K3ZA3QC[QS>3C9`00*@Q4
M*6_JAFDB/!SZM\&[STI$J,IZ0$F,T$1A3(F$)WI0T#Q2S`-UCD%EE!1##WVJ,
MFD)JN)59IRX*K,9\1(<[COE904/B"(CX(PJ5KS]1'Z[BJI0P2=&:2TGC&O6),
MJ_D22HXP&E7M(0F#U4*;LQY2B#MLSX](&$-5"%0(KDK0BUM0AE"0`C),UA[PO
MLACH@W8I`V+02@N8%S880]&Z*(FH58+H(5GQ0_LSCI0HF<,R2>A@+-)DL4L1(
M+<)SU7@[0$HI-44]_LQ-`PY&?;0.A<P%G==$_=/SR*>,<*A1E8Y"JBL''9Y&:
M89E!?0__TAY4[%1&.9FMVDR"BJ)Q15<3RU!*[52M(<!Q$B26B=0^H5A#^S1-"
M+-5N\DO\J91:50LHD#(HT(M).`9*J`=-40P@R49G%02L1"IA",/SX]&2&4`_[
M2AF,:HGO<@T!_<!&.UEZ<DQ4ZR]F$L".C;?A"0YUM:.&5+U.<4"%+%1"94!(2
MY%=%/)^3'47Y,M5QDBBLS:-Q&H_,:C3N>;V5,SB$58C-0]2LL914I"MP<EKUM
M:2,5-*CD(,CZF"NB^5CFJ$3]\1,]`HY9`(4IB]D&:`#MZ(9)\*`P("H?_M`"O
M&7`#,%0J<_P=@.6PQ*(:9TK9C)H:^&E8X]%06I&9*2+`BPBHC12?Z<DKQK37?
M!%4.>PW;1:5$I`$CP[R\UAU;>EV)5Q,(7"NT`2$C$U3<%URT_2*5\R$)QVR]T
MODT/NA*HUON\$.,\15N(5U-;IVD5S(P]D=LC;DTX2P2.@N*LN,K%T_P.X(@`I
M+N@#8G7223B%R^L'=[B%O`@#:+Q2%4*J0U`J44"_CQ4QR?23TYVOMJK5<!+0!
MS[0K/XT.4CM5;SJYOZJP"IO(RZ,.WYW$W>U@,OK3FH$T$M:KM:VOS0HG\HDK"
M1S,G3>7>/RH]"7Q!45VT%P;<]>`30;G:]1U5_KG*D]A+P3A=E"-&*.^YHO+9L
MV](MCHZCU(8R3@T,XH7;AB:(W`3PH'!Q!>#$H&Y0EQ70QF=%`AW0`C&X`W(3*
MAC@(3(1K.*Q)'S\<."CZX5(<FI%CV+VJ8Z?5KZT-U!0>U$)6X4'.+^U0V`=DK
M5!*.V^PMWPR]-?!%57/2)Z7YIX-]GJ<A&HMTW>\X18]X'T7CT(_=U-]XGZE%E
M-9047`+\X=ACC_^PR/+MH\O$'DT)T-%UV&W@`4+X@&@@UBL+A6[:!G>XLBIU8
M@0_X`%*0@0,.0VO5UM';%$BMXPB>KT(4#L:C.#-*E<:<KT645[&-3.`]9+5(O
M'A:>R`A,9\@;WDE$_AY!H:_E/5Q9\XC1@PCRS2-.Y2()/)Y721]-R[A$8Y[/,
M7%W4))X)K>7P&#'%JV40CMO3O%I$%9Z'55,-5%ZM:0`+T(%"8(*FM`:;Z0C%5
M@`7#"8-HB(:_Z-PJV(3"B`)FD(<":V!6ACWO>L=?=5<GGE@``Y_!!%B$NU`_:
MYMHR2N$%0^=##=2H`6=@Y5=!]EI0'1`-3-Q2;:/!1;TU2KG21.&-(UQYMAJ&:
M4\3^$E_HD2C%$C%)Q="2G=L.PX@XC:>^'<VK[HUPXDCX&(+TK91S*@-"B(&WU
M<!Q\$0B;.>8PR`2P2R$66I(_2,&OX=:Z=6O$ZR&9R-:5(6B7Z=<.WAJI_BG1>
MS`O)L*U7X.5=W25GK9T>3A0L?074?3:Y5.VF3OZ=2<90Q#7-#V6T2/[0@]Q`3
MD8SHT#0UEHDGCS.:51Q56AF5;_I(2E;;SV,?49W87".>$;V(<R`4"(.:Y6`%9
M>#"&3,"`$Y@$OS;G`[BE&"@$<.!"1I`#0"!',U`5CQBX#).C@?FN:S[)K`5-S
MB5P]A`P)Z_G#I<4K;6%GHD;D.%)$W*5L@EH>]##J=9;`*2K=%/V(SU/HA,"UQ
MBW3,'O:OG0%KQ/+(WMZ.[W&(!UM8M!WNW[#=?\;F[,B4T`,U5G3>F+Y=`>%A#
M",=81YRHJAF&/D@%7+B%!NA?<YZ122`!QZF$_@00!,XE!C;(`D3@`*4.,7S2C
M(Q8<F-5\;T`)V,Y\1$@$9.KI<`L;Z-OM8T'U\GTM9W,6\P?4U`VWX--#9)C9L
MO`:&XH]8<TD^L$\Y10*-N5)^&:V!.'WJE!6;U$7TG@T,FN^]\X;;[7:B+(Q%<
MGUH#FG]";I1I0:7)XP>/&GR`A4CX`AG`@'J8$;7H!SKP;@R`@FA`@AU0@4,H_
M`P[8A\YN<@6LJ!35%!QJIL!U6K7ET&X&L)M!<?KHK[L"1<HV[2\_:@%/HSP_I
MB`N_UZYE0!@>/4NAJX)8/*OVJTY]4!AD..G1;0&S[U(CGMO%X(R4]4M)0:6MA
MU#T?VD&B8,D"3"R>_CV5,[GF'EW?&(8-@(5!L`=B0`(7,)QNQ`5Q"P8R`(5IW
MJ(7)3!3?@0E\\/#W29_[P9]!W#!_O6L2VR=W7KE6MN!\/5!@;>=QMM<)O.`6&
MQET(#?!)NW"%:^BW-32.@&7"3422VXYPEUN,*STT\D"]Q6&E,?-4?&'$$K5[!
M=31SE>U;5EJ'[S31DAK[LB<_)W0_;PAQ"`=8@`)IL`$:`(<^@$8'^(,)@`C#=
MS/G8YDB"6,UE6F511#F`'O;^#G`IWF2>SIE%[7+^CCS>I<"_EIF*UT1`7GD0Q
M[93-P^P8O-I9_J80*_&.U$R/W<Q]1O.'FR>/93CUU<3I&`\'=SSVKGN*_L[R@
MQ-)$H75\B\/M/L_,%VPGF\&'@EK)?=B'A=MX_YCN"DXU\W`V70W!4/1C53M\)
MAY240Q7D^(;,-)?X>4W\`1_G`$=GX[%8KTG%1J>H;\)SYI#8C!W-0Z_M]2&G`
M#=]0788YFS>P:D_JB5+\9.=R5IEJG*]G1!?)T71JD3#2@UQ>4B;)(09)MP=V%
M0:)CD@Q<XYFOJ?7$ZQ#AC)3KW`_MYO%J_@>(;0+I;:-GL*#`A`D)*FS8K^%`!
MB!$E4FQ(D"'#B0@17H1XL.*VA_T>AK0H<!Z^>>+HJ9S7<9M+@RQASBO(,F;$)
MF1@O&JQI\V!&F1@Y_JPY=./'A3:1LNQXT>A':X(Q79YT&I2HP6XO-3HMJ)5HK
MSGE&OS)TB5-GSIX]80ZDVM3H3X10FQ;T.32I3*8;!Y(TN++J0K)0J1;$MS>CU
M6+-BE9I\V97C7+",/8+,B53B6HPD*VZEK-!QPGX9-UODN??SZ8E=KVJLK#`@F
"`#L@/
``
end
sum -r/size 28597/22379 section (from first encoded line to "end")
sum -r/size 62203/272477 entire input file
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenfairfax cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.02 / Peter Roessingh /  Re: McKubre's data
     
Originally-From: roes@vax.oxford.ac.uk (Peter Roessingh)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: McKubre's data
Date: 2 Sep 94 00:03:38 BST
Organization: Oxford University VAX 6620

About McKubre's paper [J. Electroanal. Chem. 368 (1994) 55.]
I wrote:

 it seems to me that McKubre's work is an as yet undisputed
 example (and independent replication) of excess heat
 generation, with adequate error discussion, properly peer
 reviewed and published in a respectable journal.
 Yet, Tom seems still unconvinced,[...] why?

Tom Droege answered:

 > McKubre has been slow to publish.  This in the Dieter Britz
 > sense.  i.e. in a refereed journal. [...] In any case, for all
 > the time and effort McKubre's group has expended, they have
 > written damn little.
   [...]
 > McKubre's work looked good to me at first.  Particularly the
 > ICCF2 paper. But now the old stuff is wearing thin.  I expect
 > more results to show that the work is progressing.  The lack
 > of a write up implies that they are no longer able to get the
 > same results.  In a field like this, it is necessary to keep
 > publishing better data.  -- or go the secret patent route.  If
 > you don't keep publishing better and better experiments then
 > you are very suspect!!
   [...]
 > McKubre once had some nice looking results.  But they have
 > faded with time.  More results, and a sure fire recipe are
 > needed if he is to maintain credibility.


I have a *big* problem with this response. I do not find not a
single argument that relates to problems with the content of the
paper. I agree that not much has been published by the group and
I agree that they have been slow, but this can be explained in
many ways. May be they had trouble getting the paper through the
review system, not at all impossible given the topic of the
paper! But *even* if they really delayed it on purpose, that
should be immaterial! Here we have this 1994, reviewed piece of
work, If it was done properly it will never wear thin!! It will
be as true in 2094 as is is today. Incomplete yes, primitive yes,
but not less trustworthy! You need *evidence* for remarks like
those you make above.  

 What counts is what is written *in* the paper. Remarks like
"..implies that they are no longer able to get the same
results.." and "the old stuff is wearing thin" carry absolutely no
weight for me. I believe in the published data until McKubre
retracts it, or until someone comes up with a convincing argument
why the results are not valid. 

Really, you start to sound like the true believers when they
state that all this fantastic (but secret) work in Japan proves
there must be something to CF. No facts, just vague references,
implied links. This approach rightfully has been rejected as
insufficient, and good peer review science has been
demanded.

But look now what I get from you, when I ask you what you think
about an apparently solid piece of work:  No facts, just vague
references, implied links.

I am very disappointed.

Peter Roessingh						
Zoology, Oxford.

"Waar rook is zal ook wel vuur zijn" (old dutch proverb, very nasty)


cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenroes cudfnPeter cudlnRoessingh cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.02 / Richard Schultz /  Rothwell must be endothermic
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Rothwell must be endothermic
Date: 2 Sep 1994 01:51:34 GMT
Organization: Philosophers of the Dangerous Maybe

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

>It is 104 degrees F, it is scalding
>hot. There is gigantic difference between a barrel full of lukewarm water and
>a barrel full of steaming, scalding hot water; that is not at the limits of
>detectability, you can easily tell. 

Frankly, I'm suprised that no one has yet picked up on this point, which
is minor but typical.  104 F is *not* scalding.  When I was a Boy Scout,
we learned to treat frostbite with warm water, where "warm" was defined as
102-106 F.  Consider that your skin temperature is typically 94-96 F
anyway.  Even hot water out of the tap, which is usually 120 F, isn't 
really "scalding", or rather is just barely into what most people would
call scalding (which I guess is why they tell you never to set your water
heater above 120 F).

Nice try, Jed, but this one didn't get past either.
-- 
				Richard Schultz

"It is terrible to die of thirst in the ocean.  Do you have to salt your
truth so heavily that it does not even quench thirst any more?"
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.02 / C Harrison /  Re: Cold Fusion Bibliography by Dieter Britz
     
Originally-From: harr@netcom.com (Charles (Chuck) Harrison)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion Bibliography by Dieter Britz
Date: Fri, 2 Sep 1994 01:20:17 GMT
Organization: Fitful

In article <5m2ROSd.hank_voss@delphi.com>,
Henry Voss  <hank_voss@delphi.com> wrote:
>Is there a place accessible thru DELPHI to read / download the Cold Fusion
>Bibliography by Dr. Dieter Britz.  I read of it several years ago, but the
>closest place to view it in any part is Cornell, way up in NY.

This message is posted periodically to inform readers about on-line
data sources related to "cold fusion" which are located at the 
University of North Carolina SunSITE server.

Two public WAIS (Wide Area Information Server) sources are online:
(1) Dieter Britz's Bibliography (periodically updated), and
(2) A sci.physics.fusion archive (1989 to present).
WAIS provides for multiple keyword searches in these databases.  It
does _not_ support boolean logic in the searching :-(.

1.  If you are directly connected to Internet, you can log onto a public
    WAIS server at the University of North Carolina:
    %telnet sunsite.unc.edu
    ...
    login: swais
    ...
    TERM = (unknown) vt100
    It takes a minute to load ...

    <use ? for online help>
    <use /cold to locate the cold-fusion "Source" - the Britz biblio>
    < or use /fusion to locate the fusion-digest source>
    <follow the prompts to select the source and enter your keywords
     for searching>

2.  If you have a "gopher" client, you can use it for WAIS access.  Many 
    university campuses provide gopher as a public information service.
2a. On most systems, you first select an option labeled "Other Systems",
    then from that menu select "WAIS based information".  Since each
    gopher site creates its own menus, I can't tell you exactly where to
    go from there.
2b. If you can gopher to SunSITE, at UNC, navigate the menus down thru
    SunSITE archives..All archives..Academic..Physics..Cold-fusion.
    You will find the searchable databases (typically marked <?>), as
    well as the primary-literature files discussed below.
2c. If you can 'telnet' but not 'gopher', you may telnet to
    sunsite.unc.edu and login as 'gopher'.  Then follow 2a or 2b above.

3.  If you have World Wide Web (WWW) browser, such as Mosaic, Cello, or
    Lynx, you may use the following URL's:
     wais://sunsite.unc.edu/cold-fusion       Britz bibliography
     wais://sunsite.unc.edu/fusion-digest     newsgroup archive
     gopher://sunsite.unc.edu/11/../.pub/academic/physics/Cold-fusion

4.  If you have a WAIS client on your system (the most common ones are
    "swais" -- character-based, and "xwais" -- for X-Windows), use it.  The
    Britz source is called "cold-fusion" and it is listed in the 
    directory-of-servers.

    If you _want_ a WAIS client program to run on your system, several are
    available in the public domain.  Try ftp-ing to one of these sites:
      sunsite.unc.edu
      think.com

There are several additional files archived at sunsite (e.g. Bollinger's
Twist of Ribbon, preprints of the Fleischmann&Pons 1989 paper), which
are accessible by anonymous ftp.
    %ftp sunsite.unc.edu
    . . .
    >cd pub/academic/physics/Cold-fusion
    >dir
The collection (mostly primary papers) maintained by vince cate has been
copied over to pub/academic/physics/Cold-fusion/vince-cate.

Additional contributions are welcome; e-mail cfh@sunsite.unc.edu.

cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenharr cudfnCharles cudlnHarrison cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.02 / C Harrison /  Re: The virial theorem
     
Originally-From: harr@netcom.com (Charles (Chuck) Harrison)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The virial theorem
Date: Fri, 2 Sep 1994 01:08:33 GMT
Organization: Fitful

In article <3400ouINN1bs7@sat.ipp-garching.mpg.de>,
Bruce       Scott          TK   <bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de> wrote:
[snip,snip]
[re: Koloc Plasmak]
>the discussion has convinced me that there is no experimental data from
>his lab that could demonstrate that his plasma is not something more
>prosaic, like a Wu and Chen plasmoid equilibrium embedded in ambient
>gas, rather than a state containing the more exotic features Paul has
>been advocting.
>
"Wu and Chen"
Inquiring minds want to know..
Could you give a citation for Wu & Chen?  (And, if you have time, a
layman's description of geometry & lifetime for a Wu & Chen plasmoid)

Thanks,
  Chuck

cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenharr cudfnCharles cudlnHarrison cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.01 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: McKubre's data
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: McKubre's data
Date: Thu, 1 Sep 94 22:47:34 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Peter Roessingh <roes@vax.oxford.ac.uk> writes:
 
>Really, you start to sound like the true believers when they
>state that all this fantastic (but secret) work in Japan proves
 
The research in Japan is not secret. It is confidential until published, as
is *all* corporate R&D, in all technologies. If the experiments pan out, they
are published in the form of patents, which are the most informative,
complete descriptions of experiments that the companies can make. (They have
to be, by law, or the patent is ruled invalid.) Other work is published
in proceedings and in journals. These are mostly written in Japanese, so
people in the U.S. and Europe do not hear about them or read them.
 
I suppose there might be secret work too, but since it is secret, I do not
know about it! :-} Seriously though, there is plenty of ordinary old
corporate R&D, and projects like NEDO are officialy open to people with
the proper credentials. You have to sign the usual licensing and corporate
information sharing agreements, they told me. The ICCF4 viewgraphs showed
a corporate mechanism for sharing data and a magazine article about the
project listed several overseas organizations with which they are
formally communicating, including EPRI and INFI (I think) and a bunch of
others. It is the usual Big Shot to Big Shot information exchange.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenjedrothwell cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.02 /  rivero@sol.uni /  electrons, P+P and all that (Was: ICCF4 / closer view)
     
Originally-From: rivero@sol.unizar.es
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: electrons, P+P and all that (Was: ICCF4 / closer view)
Date: Fri, 2 Sep 1994 05:24:02 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway


> Originally-From: jonesse@xray.byu.edu
> Subject: Re:  ICCF4 Proceedings/A closer look
> EPRI, p. 9-1 ff. of volume 1.  This is rich.  An example from the paper:
> 
> "Starting from hydrogen, the sequence we envisage is:
> (1)  1H1  +  1H1 + e-  = 1H2 + neutrino
> (2)  1H1  +  1H2 + e-  = 1H3  + neutrino
> (3)  1H1  +  1H3 + e-  = 1H4  + neutrino
> (3') 1H2  +  1H2 + e-  = 1H4 + neutrino
> (4)  1H2 +   1H3 + e-  = 1H5 + neutrino
> 
> "In these reactions, virtual neutron (1H1 + e-), di-neutrons (1H2 + e-),
> or tri-neutrons (1H3 + e-) states can be formed, that can react with any
> hydrogen isotope.  1H4 and 1H5 are hypothetical hydrogen isotopes of very short
> life time."
> 
> Well, you get the idea.  This is not serious work.  On the left-hand side
> of equations 1-4 above, the authors suggest a three-body reaction involving
> an electron (!), to produce a "virtual di-neutron" (!) etc.  Must I explain 
> why such reactions are absurd? 
>
... 
>  (9)  1H2 + 2He4 + e-  =  2He6 + neutrino
> followed by:
>  (10) 2He6 = 2Li6 + beta- + anti-neutrino
> prototype of reactions which would rationalize Lithium production, tha can
> become important as the experiment lenghthens and can decrease the final amount
> of He."   [ Note the persistence of three-body interactions of reactants, etc.]
> 
> So that's where the helium disappears to, Dick!  It goes to lithium, which is
> already present in the electrolyte so is not detected as an end product!  
> Of course!
>
... 
> Wow, these guys can explain just about anything.
> 

Hmm, would do you also object if the electrons were REAL ones? I want
to say, I would doubt if it was a typical cold fusion experience, but I had
thought something about sparks. If the e- go to 200Kev, it see no problem

e- + H ->  n  (8 min half life)+ neutrino
n + H ->  D (+ gamma? or + Pi0?)
n + D -> T (+ gamma or + Pi0) 
          T -> 3He + e- + antineutrino (I dont know the halflife for this...) 
... etc;you can suggest a lot of this, and you need something better than
a photo film to determine which if any is happening.
Cross sections would be around 10**-23 cm2, I think (I can be wrong, it is
not my area) it is not a problem then to assume 3-body plays, as you have
a lot of protons to play with.

QUESTION: Can anyone suggest a trick to avoid the gammas? It must 
exist some posibility to give all the energie to the electron going
out, then making it suitable to "chain" and catalize more reactions. 
Im asking them for things as:
n+5He ----> 6Li + antineutrino + electron , with no gammas, or low energetical
                                                              ones at least.

Any idea?

				Alejandro Rivero
				Theoretical Phys Dep,
				Zaragoza Univ, Spain
				rivero@sol.unizar.es

cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenrivero cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Fri Sep  2 04:37:42 EDT 1994
------------------------------
1994.09.02 / A Rivero /  Kamada ?
     
Originally-From: rivero@sol.unizar.es (Alejandro Rivero)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Kamada ?
Date: Fri, 2 Sep 1994 05:24:15 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway


I sent my previous mail before reading the last 
bibliographic update, trust me!! (anyway, the 200
Kev guess is very obvious).

Now, can anyone post more information about this kind of experiences:

#..................................................................... Aug-94
Kamada K;  Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. 31 (1992) L1287 (Part 2, no. 9A).
"Electron impact H-H and D-D fusions in molecules embedded in Al.
1. Experimental results".
** Hydrogen and deuterium were embedded into Al and then bombarded by electron
beams of 200 keV and 400 keV. Fusion events during the bombardment were
detected by a CR39 polymer film, as charged particles. Fusion was detected for
both hydrogen and deuterium in the Al, not strongly dependent on the energy of
the electrons. The author is able to differentiate the rates of fusion not due
to and due to electron-hydrogen/deuterium collisions and concludes that most
of the fusion is not due to such collisions.  May-92/Sep-92
#..................................................................... Aug-94

This experience is a very good hint, as there are making trys around
the umbral for e+p->n, are they? I would check the library tomorrow.
I really have no idea about how he can discriminate fusion and fusion rates 
using only a charged particles detector, but as I told before, this
is not my field, so dont buy my opinion.

						Alejandro Rivero
						Theoretical PhysicsDep
						Zaragoza Univ.


cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenrivero cudfnAlejandro cudlnRivero cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.02 / robert bernecky /  McKubre
     
Originally-From: bernecky@starbase.nl.nuwc.navy.mil (robert bernecky)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: McKubre
Date: Fri, 2 Sep 1994 05:24:16 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Concerning McKubre, Jerry Bishop reported in the Wall Street Journal
on Wednesday, July 13, 1994:

"...The lure and the frustration of the cold-fusion experiments
are evident at SRI International. Here a team of 10 scientists and
technicians under Michael C.H. McKubre is working with a dozen or
so cold-fusion "cells," sealed steel cylinders a bit larger than
thermos bottles, containing the palladium rods, platinum wires and
the heavy-water electrolyte common to many cold-fusion experiments.
   "Like everyone else who plunged into cold fusion, Dr. McKubre
initially had trouble repeating experiments. An experiment that
stayed maddeningly normal for weeks would suddenly spring to life
for no observable reason and stay extra hot for hours or days.
   "Such unpredictable events plague - and fascinate - researchers.
Recently, for example, one SRI cell sat quietly for 2.5 months
producing no more than the 50 or 55 watts of power it was consuming.
Suddenly, a pump that was keeping the heavy water flowing through
the cell at a constant temperature broke.  The water near the
electrode rapidly heated above the boiling point.  This accidental
heating of the palladium caused it to begin producing eight to 16
watts of excess heat.
   "Why this happened is a mystery, Dr. McKubre says. But several
times since then, the SRI researchers have managed to trip a cell
into producing excess power by "cycling" the temperature of the
heavy water up and down.
   "The SRI scientists also are learning the conditions necessary
for a cell to produce excess power. They have found that if the
palladium can be loaded with at least 95 atoms of deuterium for
every 100 atoms of palladium, it will produce anywhere from 3% to
50% excess heat.
   "The Electric Power Research Institute finds the heat results
firm enough to keep up its support of the SRI experiments in case
they are tapping some new energy source.  "The heat intensity is
at least 10 times too large to be resulting from chemical reactions
or chemically stored in the cell," says Thomas O. Passell of the
institute's nuclear-power division, who is monitoring the SRI
experiments.
   "The immediate problem to solve, Dr. McKubre says, is figuring
out why some pieces of palladium will readily soak up the necessary
number of deuterium atoms and other pieces of the metal won't. Once
the researchers can reproduce and control the heat-producing
experiments, they will then try to determine whether the heat is
coming from nuclear reactions.
   "The SRI scientists also are among those who have seen "heat
after death," a phenomenon first described by Drs. Pons and
Fleischmann.  When the researchers turn off the electricity of
an experiment, the hot palladium rod usually cools down in a few
hours.  In some instances, however, the palladium has stayed hot
for as long as three or four days without any electric power 
pouring into it, as though some internal heater were still at
work..."

cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenbernecky cudfnrobert cudlnbernecky cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.02 / Bill Page /  PeP CF in Al?
     
Originally-From: 70047.3047@compuserve.com (Bill Page)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: PeP CF in Al?
Date: Fri, 2 Sep 1994 05:41:47 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Many thanks again for Deiter Britz's continuing bibliography. The recent
intstallment included the following reference which I found very
interesting.

<<
Kamada K;  Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. 31 (1992) L1287 (Part 2, no. 9A).
"Electron impact H-H and D-D fusions in molecules embedded in Al.
1. Experimental results".
** Hydrogen and deuterium were embedded into Al and then bombarded by
electron beams of 200 keV and 400 keV. Fusion events during the
bombardment were detected by a CR39 polymer film, as charged particles.
Fusion was detected for both hydrogen and deuterium in the Al, not
strongly dependent on the energy of the electrons. The author is able to
differentiate the rates of fusion not due to and due to electron-hydrogen
/deuterium collisions and concludes that most of the fusion is not due to
such collisions.  May-92/Sep-92
>>

So off to the library I went and picked up the whole article. I think it
is a well written article and would especially like to hear Steven Jones's
comments since he is referenced in the paper along with P&F as being a
party to the original "announcement" of cold fusion.

It is a short paper and aside from detailed quantities and experimental
procedures, there isn't much to add to Deiter's summary. The experimenters
appear to have used reasonable controls and claim to be able to reliably
repeat the observations provided the electron intensity is high enough and
the amount of implanted H or D is sufficient to form what they call
"tunnel like" molecular hyrdogen coagulation micro-structures below the
surface of the metal.

Their calculations show that the amount of fusion due to collision
processes to be expected from electron-proton recoils is a factor of 
10^12 to 10^26 smaller than the fusion rates observed. They reference
H.A. Bethe and C.L. Critchfield in Phys. Rev. Vol 54 (1938) pp. 248, as
providing the theoretical basis for a H-H or D-D fusion reaction based on
high energy electron capture induced beta disintegration of constituent
protons of H2 molecules and the D nucleus that they claim may explain
the observations.

They say "Details [of this theory] are described in the second part of
this paper." but as far as I am able to tell no second part has yet been
published, at least, not in that particular journal. [Deiter, do you know
anything about this "second part" of the paper?]

Cheers,

Bill Page.

cudkeys:
cuddy2 cuden3047 cudfnBill cudlnPage cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.02 / Peter Roessingh /  Re: Reply to Peter Roessingh
     
Originally-From: roes@vax.oxford.ac.uk (Peter Roessingh)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reply to Peter Roessingh
Date: 2 Sep 94 10:25:32 BST
Organization: Oxford University VAX 6620

 Answering my question about McKubre's data Dick Blue writes:

 > I cannot speak for any group, but since Peter addressed a
 > question to me I will respond.
   [...]
 > I agree with Tom Droege that it is strange to see that a
 > presentation made at a conference gets truncated significantly in
 > the published proceedings. [...]
 
 I don't think guessing why McKubre shortened his entry is very
 productive. There are lots of possible reasons, and not all
 discredit the work.(Both Mark Hittinger and Tom have given
 examples) I would like to leave ICCF4 out of this and focus on
 the 1994 paper and Dieters abstract of it. But let me follow your
 post.
 
 > My position on this matter is that there is no such thing as a
 > single experimental result that constitutes proof of anything. 
   [example of 17 keV neutrino artefact deleted]
 
Right.
 

 > In the case of cold fusion we have to look carefully at what is
 > meant by replication.  Everyone agrees that independent
 > replication of a result is important, but many cold fusion
 > advocates have been unwilling to take a critical look at what
 > constitutes replication of a given result.  I ask you to define
 > more carefully what you mean by a positive cold fusion result so
 > that we can decide whether it has, in fact, been replicated.
 
I wrote:
 
   "From these two pieces of information it seems to me that
    McKubre's work is an as yet undisputed example (and
    independent replication) of excess heat generation, with
    adequate error discussion, properly peer reviewed and
    published in a respectable journal."
 
I have to admit I used the word replication loosely. When writing
my original text I had a vague idea of excess heat claims in mind
(say P&F's 1989's work, and only used more stringent criteria for
the 'replication' by McKubre.

 > Here, I believe, only the loosest possible definition of a
 > positive CF result will allow any claim for replication to stand.
 > That is to say in a typical CF experiment an electrolysis cell is
 > operated for an extended period with input power and output heat
 > being recorded such that in the end an integrated energy balance
 > can be calculated.
 > 
Right, I agree with you here. Replication in the *weakest* sense.
Nevertheless replication. Look at this with a long term view. We
start out with nothing. Then we have rumours and press
conferences followed by bad descriptions of experiments. Then
slightly better experiments but "recombination" is evoked as a
more likely explanation. Now we seem to be at the point (as
judged from Dieters abstract) were the calorimetry is beyond
questioning and recombination can be excluded.

As you rightly state above a single experiment does not prove
anything yet, but we can at least take note that we have the
first half of the equation for a  *stronger* replication. This is
an important point. The consensus has shifted from "it is all
nonsense" to  "it is not replicated yet" A significant step. [Go
say something like this in sci.skeptic and you need asbestos
clothing!].

Finally, to answer your question above how I would define a
positive cold fusion result,I think as a first approximation I
would say "An experiment that [in my eyes] survived the full
strength of cf-skeptics in s.p.f. McKubres 1994 J. Electroanal.
Chem.  paper passes that test. (I do not count muttering about
long delays, slow progress and abbreviated congress entries as
significant problems).

So McKubre's paper as cited by Dieter is my new starting point.

I think from now on, care should be taken not to mix different
kinds of arguments (replication versus measurement errors) as you
seem to do below:

 > It is clear that for a typical measurement there may be periods
 > showing a positive output and periods that result in an
 > offsetting negative contribution to the final integral. It is
 > also evident that calibrations and longterm stability play a
 > significant role in the final outcome. Rather tiny offsets in the
 > assumed zero level can contribute significantly to the final
 > integral.  Yet these offsets can be very difficult to see in the
 > positive-negative fluctuations that dominate the data stream.
 > That is particularly true if the offset develops slowly during
 > the course of the measurement as a result of some drift in the
 > true calibration constant.
 > 
This whole preceding paragraph is absolutely right as a discussion
of the pitfalls of calorimetry, but it is slightly out of place
given the state of the discussion: Sure you can make errors, but
you can also do it right. We assume here that it is possible to do
it right and that it is possible to come to a conclusion about
the quality of a certain experiment. If there is doubt it must be
discarded. To keep the discussion clear we should keep measurement
problems separate from other problems like the nature of
replication or the statistical problems mentioned below:
 
 > It has been common practice then to claim that any measurement
 > that results in a net positive integral for the energy balance
 > "proves" that cold fusion is real. Furthermore any other
 > independent  result that is also positive counts as a
 > replication.This ignores completely all the null results and, in
 > effect, assigns zero weight to the majority of the experimental
 > measurements in  any statistical evaluation of all of the data. A
 > null result is said to indicate a simple failure to trigger the
 > effect.  It is a climate in which scientific reason can take and
 > has taken a terrible beating.
 
This is a good point. If we separate out the measurement problem
and assume we are discussing a dataset that both of use agree
contains quality experiments, there is indeed the additional
problem of null results. But this can *not* be used to dismiss the
whole phenomena. Lets stick to McKubres data for simplicity. I do
not know if all McKubre's runs with high loading were positive,
but even if many failed it is not consistent to *believe* his
calorimetry and at the same time *dispute* the remaining positive
runs. (assuming we have a reasonable s/n ratio) So either the
calorimetry was not valid after all (and the paper get dropped
from the set we consider) or the phenomena is real (at least
within the experiment) but incompletely understood (because we
can not reliably trigger it).

 > I would invite you to seek some higher standard for replication.
 
I have been working on that in my reply above. I agree I used the
term in a very weak sense. Lets see how far we get with a
stronger version

 >  Should it not be possible through a series of experiments to
 > gain progressively better control over a number of experimental
 > variables?
 
Yes
  
 >  For example, one of your quotes mentions the achievement of a
 > loading factor greater than 0.9 as essential to the cold fusion
 > process. However, if you ask how that condition was varified for
 > the McKubre experiments and in other "replications" the answers
 > are not totally convincing.  Loading has generally not actually
 > been measured, but is deduced from a questionable extrapolation.
 > There clearly have been a number of experiments claiming a
 > positive effect in which there is good reason to doubt that high
 > loadings were reached. So I ask whether an experiment that shows
 > 5% excess for 0.9 loading constitures a replication of an
 > experiment that shows 50% excess for a loading that may have been
 > only 0.6.
 
Clearly not! The experiments are not consistent, but note that
you have actually gone up another notch, assuming some definite
knowledge about the loading needed, and asking to match that.
Under these circumstances the second experiment becomes a big
problem rather then a replication. If you are however still in
doubt about loading *measurements* (like you seem to be) you can
not use this argument. May be McKubre's  0.9 was actually 0.6! In
this case you are forced to accept that the lower loading
experiment classifies as a good replication (still in a weak
sense, but stronger then my rumour vs good experiment example).
Sure, a lot more is needed to rescue cf from the rubbish dump of
science, but given the knowledge we agreed upon at this stage
(i.e. loading can not reliably be measured), we would have
(weak) replication.  Just as with the calorimeter problems you
can not have it both ways. You can not question loading in
general  and subsequently use it to point out inconsistencies.

 > Pick any experimental variable along with a positive excess and
 > show me two experiments that indicate a replication of the
 > relationship between the two quantities.  For example, how does
 > current density or sample size or temperature or electrolyte
 > concentration influence the excess heat.  When you have found two
 > similar results we can talk about replication.

This is an even higher standard of replication then my version
above in the sense that you explicitly ask for experimental
manipulation. My command of the subject and its literature is not
sufficient to answer you here. I have no time to read all the
papers and find possible candidates. Therefore, lets be
conservative and assume that (as yet) no other paper of the quality
of McKubre's paper exists. (is there anybody out there there who
cares to improve on this?)

[unconnected remark about electrolyte effects deleted]

 > There is more to this than just a simple thumbs up or thumbs
 > down.

Agreed, but it implies we can not decide yet, i.e. in my view cold
fusion is currently dead nor alive, it hangs in limbo. Some
people (like Dale Bass for instance)  will say that after 5 years
in this state it might as well be called dead. Given the current
level of "evidence" floating around I would personally need a lot
longer before I would start to put cold fusion in with ufo's etc.
But I am a biologist not a physicist....


 > I have come back to a position I stated long ago. Calorimetry
 > alone cannot establish the reality of cold fusion.

I disagree, and refer to my point about the need to separate
measurement error from other problems. I get support from Matt
Austern who writes:

 "My complaint isn't against calorimetry per se, but simply that
  the effects reported in these particular calorimetric
  experiments are tiny, near the threshold of detection, and
  extremely vulnerable to systematic and theoretical errors."

 > Mostly what has been established is how misleading the
 > calorimetry can be, even at the hands of a skilled practitioner.
 
True, but this is not a general argument against calorimetry . If
done properly and with sufficient large signals it would do. At
least McKubres calorimetry and results stand I far as I can see.
If the s.p.f experiment now verifies his 0.9 threshold I can come
back to you and we will be able to discuss replication the way
you defined it, based solely on calorimetry.

 > The issue demands some form of supporting evidence derived from
 > measurements of a completely different sort.  The issue demands
 > some form of theoretical explanation for the effect and its
 > experimental signitures, however you care to define them.
 > 
"Demands" is  somewhat strong for my taste (see above), but the
need for a theoretical explanation is clear. In this group I have
seen two principle theoretical lines proposed: On the one hand
the ideas of Bernecky and Chubb and Chubb, on the other hand the
Mills/Farrel hydrino. Personally I think that a good way to speed
up the verdict on cf's final status is to try and systematically
disprove every theoretical construction that is put forward.

Intuitively and by listening to the experts (virtually my only
evaluation tool in these matters) I do not like the shrunken
hydrogen theory too much, but the delocalisation/bose condensate
line is a lot more appealing to me. Up till now I do not feel
that this idea has been rigourously refuted. But you have asked
some very good questions: In your discussion with Bill Page you
wrote:

 > My feeling is that we have simply seen a model wavefunction get
 > pushed too far into a realm where the assumptions of the model
 > are no longer valid.
 
and later:

 > We all do seem to be in agreement, however, that none of these
 > theories deals with the internal nuclear wave functions. Clearly
 > you can't get answers about something that has never been
 > included in the model in the first place.

These are good and valid points, however, at the end of that post
you continued:

 > I would rather see this line of discussion turned around. From my
 > prespective the detection of nuclear radiation is and always has
 > been the most sensitive and unambigious way to detect fusion or a
 > host of alternatives.  If the formation of delocalized deuteron
 > band states implies this washout of the Coulomb barrier as
 > Chubb&Chubb assert such that spontaneous fusion becomes more
 > likely, the hypothesis that such a thing is likely to occur in a
 > fully loaded Pd lattice should be tested by radiation
 > measurements. It has been, and the result is definitely not so
 > there is something wrong with the theory.

This comment, as well as the next remark in your current post:

 > As I, and others, have said it should be possible to detect
 > directly or indirectly any nuclear reaction process you care to
 > hypothesize.

 makes sense if you have a-priory reason to believe radiation
should always accompany fusion. I know, the CF skeptics in this
group argue this is case. Fusion without the tell-tale signs of
radiation does not fit the currently accepted way to of thinking
about nuclear physics and QM, hence within this frame of
reference CF can be dismissed as a myth when no radiation is
found.

However, as far as I understand it, one of the results of the
Chubb and Chubb hypothesis seems to be that it is possible to
achieve just this: fusion without (much) radiation. Under those
circumstances it is not valid any more to refer to the the need
for radiation as an argument against the theory! You *have* to
address the assumptions and reasoning that leads to this
conclusion to disprove the hypothesis. This might well be
possible, but has not been done yet as far as I can see. Correct
me if I am wrong.

Your remarks about internal coordinates and extrapolating a model
beyond its realm of validity are following the right direction,
but I am somewhat disappointed however that you, rather then
trying to flesh this out, you try to divert the discussion back
on old tracks which (at least in my non-physicist view), clearly
don't apply to the situation at hand. Anyhow, I am looking
forward to the continuation of your discussion with Bill Page.

To summarize this rather long post:

1) There are many levels of replication, we  did not even reach
the strongest one of all, using insight in the mechanism to to
predict and verify the phenomena in a totally different system.
But it seems unfair to me to keep going up these levels, always
asking for a stronger version, without acknowledging that
progress has been made, however incomplete. Seen from the 1989
perspective McKubre is a fully valid replication (however late!).
Seen from todays perspective, using McKubre as a starting point
we need to to better (so lets do this s.p.f experiment!). But I
have the nagging feeling that if we would succeed, you would
proceed to ask for an independent system, without giving credit
for the weaker replication just completed.

2) In discussing these matters it is absolutely critical to
separate doubts about the methods used from internal
contradictions. This distinction is often not made, resulting in
double standards and fuzzy logic. We have to take it step by
step, and record carefully what we believe to be true at each
step, and then only use *these* facts in our reasoning!
 
I enjoyed your article, thanks for pointing out the my careless
use of 'replication'. I hope my reply clarified my position.

 >  Dick Blue

Peter Roessingh. 				
Zoology, Oxford.

cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenroes cudfnPeter cudlnRoessingh cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.02 / Peter Roessingh /  Re: Reply to Peter Roessingh
     
Originally-From: roes@vax.oxford.ac.uk (Peter Roessingh)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reply to Peter Roessingh
Date: 2 Sep 94 11:25:07 BST
Organization: Oxford University VAX 6620

arnief@wu.labs.tek.com (Arnie Frisch) writes
>jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:
>>matt@physics16.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern) writes:
>>
>>     "If the observations of excess heat were as unambiguous in the case of
>>     'cold fusion' as they are for coal fires, then I'd have no trouble
>>     believing that we were seeing something real.  


>>In the literature there are some calorimetric measurements near
>>the limits of detectability, but there are many others which are
>>far above those limits. You have failed to take into account the
>>latter. These large excesses are not subject to any systematic or
>>theoretical errors, they are unambiguous, no "skeptic" has ever
>>proposed a tenable error that might explain any of them.

>How convenient your memory is!

>It seems to me that I, and a large number of other "skeptics", have
>posted a number of messages about "tenable errors" that you seem to
>avoid remembering.

>Arnold Frisch

Both Jed and Arnie are to general here, If we want to get
anywhere in this discussion we have to take it step by step, and
talk about specific examples. There might be papers in the
literature that show calorimetry results far above the error
limits, and sure there are papers that don't pass the post. It
does not help to generalize in either direction. I would like to
stick to McKubres 1994 paper. Arnie, what is your specific
problem with this paper? 


Peter Roessingh
Zoology, Oxford.

cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenroes cudfnPeter cudlnRoessingh cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.01 / Paul Koloc /  Re: PMK Jr.
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: PMK Jr.
Date: Thu, 1 Sep 1994 23:59:42 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <343kta$st4@stratus.skypoint.com> jlogajan@skypoint.com writes:
>Well, I had a little time on my hands, and a roll of 30 gauge copper
>wire, so I wound a torus of wire around an inner multi-turn loop of
>wire -- to simulate the current flows in Paul Koloc's plasma torus
>at the minor axis and maxium minor radius points.

Your configuration is not correct, and it's ambitious, but perhaps
a bit too much of a jump for the first "demo".  

Maybe Bruce and Art can do the following experiments for you.  
Try the following set of experiments:  

1.   Wind a plastice insulated 12 gauge wire in a solenoid, say about 
an inch in diameter by six inches long.    Close it into a loop with
the ends closed together (and taped so they can not pull open.  Note
that there is space between turns (except perhaps tied turns. Now, 
hit said coil with a capacitor discharge of about 4 kv 10 kilojoules 
and with the extraneous circuit inductance less than 100 uhenries.    

With sufficient energy the ring should grow in minor radius possibly 
breaking the insulation into beads.  It should also shrink in major 
But what does it do?? 

2.  Do the same for a poloidal winding where several turns are looped
and sort of clustered, but not touching each other vertically or 
laterally.  Within a right circular toroidal volume.  

                     in cross section:

                      +                           x 
                    +  +                         x x 
                     +                           x 

Now try both experiments again, this time with copper foil wrapped
around each coil.   Discharge the caps and report your findings of
the effect on the foil.   

Try the foil experiment one more time putting foil only on the
INSIDE the poloidally wound coil, (toroidally closed solenoid.)

Finally try them together but with the toroidally wound coil inside
the solenoid torus.. . AND with foil separating the two coils.  
   
IN all foil cases, the foil should be closed flush to the surface, 
and perhaps coated or sprayed with abit of conductivity increasing 
compound.   
          TandyRadioShack??

>Applying about 4 amps DC current to this 3/4" by 2-1/4" device resulted
>in no apparent movement of the free-to-move inner wire loop. 

Actually the two wires "were NOT webbed" so that they tended to be 
uncoupled.  The sheet current is important and without it we do not
have a PMK.  It is because we have no means of tranmitting force to 
a common "pressure bearing surface" (here the copper foil).    

>Applying an AC potential (of a couple of megahertz) to either the
>inner or outer coil produced a much smaller AC potential in the
>other coil.

>This second observation somewhat contradicts the first observation,
>since an induced current in a secondary implies, I think, the existance
>of forces that can also lead to mechanical movements.

>But the conclusion is that the two coil (currents) are to a large
>extent, ignorant of each other.

>My next test (somewhere in the mid to distant future??)  will be to
>place the torus coil into a spherical coil to again check for 
>physical forces and/or inductive coupling.

You are getting ahead of yourself, but you are working up to the 
correct idea.  Here pulsing the currents on the inner coils will 
"inflate" the field and push the spherical shell outward. Actually,
only the poloidal flux (toroidal coil) links the shell, so only it
will producd a image (repulsive reaction on the outer shell.   

Thanks
>--
> - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com -- 612-633-0345 -
> - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills  MN 55112 USA           -
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc, Bx 1037 Prometheus II Ltd, College Park MD 20741-1037    |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.02 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Plasmak: Where is it experimentally?
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Plasmak: Where is it experimentally?
Date: Fri, 2 Sep 1994 00:12:55 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <PGF.94Aug31201317@srl03.cacs.usl.edu> pgf@srl03.cacs.usl.edu
(Phil G. Fraering) writes:
>After skimming some of the discussion between Paul
>Koloc, that plasma physicist in Germany, and Jim Bowery,
>I thought I'd pop in and ask:

>What's the current experimental situation for Plasmaks?
>At what scale are these currently being produced?

They will be healty.  

I told you we were looking for funding this year, and so far we
have received switch gear and energy storage we need for more 
robust work.  There is a good chunk of mods to be completed, and
proposals to be written, building work to be completed, etc..  
However, there are those of us dedicated to make Balls.. and
that is one of my principal near term goals.  What size.. can't
say.. 

>Where can we invest?

Send E-mail to me with a copy to Jim Bowery.  Some effort is going into
genrating a business plan and "story" to raise money.  That work is
being carried on elsewhere, but I will be involed at some level
within a month or two.  Not much can be done before then except for
special cases, where people are "skilled in the art" and get involved
in the project, and therefore they become a status called insiders.   

>Finally: What's the story on Spheromak?

As all other stand-alone non-tokamak concepts, terminated by DoE with 
extreme prejudice. 




>--
>+-----------------------+
>|"Standard Disclaymore" |"The singularity happened, but nobody noticed.
>|pgf@srl03.cacs.usl.edu | They were all home watching TV." 
>+-----------------------+ - Hanno Antagonist
>                         


cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.02 / Paul Koloc /  Re: The virial theorem
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The virial theorem
Date: Fri, 2 Sep 1994 02:06:42 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <3449b6INN1362@sat.ipp-garching.mpg.de> bds@ipp-garching.mpg.
e (Bruce       Scott          TK  ) writes:
>In article <CvFGAp.3zA@prometheus.UUCP>, pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) writes:

>|> No question that it wouldn't be doubtful to you or most Americans.  But 
>|> this is psychological.  People of the USA believe that confinement 
>|> (constraint) requires leg-irons and steel bars.  

>Paul, I don't give a damn about philosophy, religion, or politics when I do
>science. I'd be happy if you kept this sort of stuff to yourself.

As far as I know it was not philosophy, religion or politics.   
I too have a problem with your comments that suggest my description
of a PMK isn't what I say it is just because you find someone's 
proposed view of another topology for ball lightning.  What's
going on here?  I believe you when you describe your work.   


>|> >This is irrespective of whether Paul has a plasma. Given that he does,
>|> >the discussion has convinced me that there is no experimental data from
>|> >his lab that could demonstrate that his plasma is not something more
>|> >prosaic, 

You could be a very obtuse fellow, and that could preclude you
from being convinced by the meager data from this restricted
and poorly funded concept.  On the other hand you could be bright
and quick to comprehend.  So far... .eh!

I have another alternative: You haven't been given the data.  
Further, I haven't published anything, nor do I intend to until
my funding is secure and I have their agreement.  Now, if your
not convinced, then I hope that doesn't cause you much pain, 
and you can go on and assume I have done what I said and you 
continue worrying the problem until we can fix whatever error
there is which causes your solution to be in such blantant conflict
with either observations of BL or of our production of PMK's.  

>|> Why not mosaic?  Inject (gas puffing) a cloud of dust with laser 
>|> lights cleverly rapid pulse illuminating an avalanche of dazzle.   

>The information content of this statement is, unfortunately, zero. You
>get lots of "wild effects" when you puff impurities into any plasma, and
>the reason is well known (collisional excitation via electron collisions,
>followed by dexcitation through an emitted photon).

First, I was not impressed with your Wu/Chen comment, and the word
mosaic was a take off on prosaic.  In fact there is no plasma
involved here, it is just to say you could have denied I have
a plasma and only have a laser illuminated dust cloud. 

Second,
How does radiating ions OR excited neutrals cause "wild effects??" 

>Again, do remove the nonsense. Just tell me _quantitatively_ what there
>is to explain. Only transport phenomena are elusive at this point, and
>that's just because we are only now getting the computational resources
>to solve the equations. The equations themselves are well-known and also
>in many regimes well-tested.

NOT   ---  It is not well applied (tested), nor can you consider beam 
conductivities, or trapping, etc.,.   

I know of no other plasma which has regime extremes such as this or
which is partial confined by atmosphere and self fields.  I know of 
no other plasma (Mantle), which is maintained by photo-ionization, 
photoexcitation, energectic current small angle scattering, and 
avalanche energy transport ladders.      

You occasionally make very stark statements, which are devoid of any 
back ground context, and have no seeming basis for support, except the 
implication that "it couldn't be".  Can you respond to commonly 
observed and accepted characteristics of Ball lightning, for guiding 
us in working out your latest problem with bland plasmas??    

Also, you seem to ask questions which to my mind you could have 
answered since knowing current flow, for example, you can estimate.   
Is there anyway in your mind that Wu-Chen could be a model for 
observed characteristics of Ball Lightning.  For a catalog of 
categories of and  BL characteristics find:  

Corliss, W.R., "Lightning, Auroras, Nocturnal Lights, and Related Luminous
	Phenomena", 1982. (Published and distributed by The Sourcebook
	Project, P.O. Box 107, Glen Arm, MD  21057) Tel: (301) 668-6047

>See H Wu and Y Chen, Physics of Fluids B (1989) vol 1, page 1753. Title:
>"Magnetohydrodynamic equilibrium of ball lightning". Among other things,
>they prove what Art has been saying about the ambient pressure requirements,
>including the fact that there is no nontrivial force-free equilibrium state.
>(Trivial means everything is zero.)

Thanks
I have no argument that external pressure of the Atmosphere is necessary
to match the difference pressure of the Int jXB dA |torus (closed surface).  

>My challenge to you is to convince me with data that your plasmoid is any
>different from their model.  Even if not, it is interesting to know that
>the things have confinement times long enough to survive for human-visible
>times. 

There are video tapes of natural BL that show that -- thirty seconds.   
Can't you chaps respond to my quiries??   Why do you think they
exist for such times and can handle high turbulence , and magnetize
ferromagnetic material, induce radioactivity, etc. etc. 

This particular one was brushing tree limbs, then accelerated away 
by increased jet impurity rejection.  It acted like the description
of the Russian formed over a river, guided to the back by coupling
to a steel cable holding back floating logs, and then brushing trees
with the same sort of action.  You might request cpy from Ofuraton
or Oktsuki (tokyo).   

>|> So how long does it last? What is its energy density? And how
>|> large has it been made.. (average) to date.  What is its mag/
>|> plasma topology??  OR  Is it an plasma/Electrostatic model?? 

>These are my questions to you.  

Cute.  

As I said, they last 5 orders better than resistive MHD predicts.  
What's your response to that?? 

I've sent a description of the topology (gif) and if that doesn't
handle it, then stick hyper conducting currents in a spheromak with
a hole and exchange the solid conducting shell for a tightly
fitting Mantle (also hyperconducting -- at least to neutralize the 
Kernel poloidal flux).  

Now give me a few answers.  What did you calculate the energy
density of Plasmak to be (as I have described it).  

>The tokamak, and engineering at this point, are irrelevant. The Wu and
>Chen plasmoid contains no vacuum region, no relativistic electrons, and
>no sharp ionised layer. As I said, it is prosaic.

Thanks, 

Now what do WChen have to do with PLASMAK(tm) plasmoids.  Tell you 
what .. You sound like you are most convinced of your position,  so 
"If you will sign a waver that I warned your your body would be 
radiated by the airborn PMK when it breaks up, and that any electric
effects that whack your brain function due to its high internal 
energy,  and that in spite of this clear and present danger to your 
body, you still wish to visit and observe this object face to face 
during the formation, life and decay of one of my on one of them,
I would be happy to oblige.  You will be provided with head and
ear protection in the form of a helmet (like a highly padded 
motorcycle type with visor).  Now we all know that Wu-Chen plasmoids
won't bother you in the slightest (maybe UV exposure easily handled
by clothing and helmet).  Ah! just a bland run of the mill prosaic
PMK..     :-)

>By the way, Wu and Chen give a q close to zero on the magnetic axis, rising
>to about 0.24 on the boundary surface, compared to 0.825 and 0.72 for the
>spheromak. (NB: there are several equilibria, one for each N_r, the number 
>of times the toroidal magnetic field reverses between magnetic axis and 
>boundary surface; the above numbers are for the N_r = 0 case.)

Why don't the currents cancel (neutralize) at the reversal region 
current surface. 

>|> Do I detect sour grapes, here?? 

>Only yours.

Actually, I have a happy hive of bees making wine with mine. The
silly things can't find their way home at night and they fall from
the vines, flopping around until sun up at the next morn, they can 
climb or fly back up to suck more wine from the stung grapes.   
>-- 
>Gruss,
>Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
>Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
>bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de                               -- W Gibson


+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc, Bx 1037 Prometheus II Ltd, College Park MD 20741-1037    |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.02 /  Michael /  Submission for sci.physics.fusion
     
Originally-From: michael@plasma.gen.u-tokyo.ac.jp (Michael)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Submission for sci.physics.fusion
Date: Fri, 2 Sep 1994 14:10:59 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway




How can I process this kind of files I received:

MH0S(@8ZNX@/P+ZT48AX[@CN>AQZ081^Z@0H080`)`-M:``C:@`7D8K7\!;"V>
M94E1H/SVJ@-8X/SH91E\@0`088TLP&(PAK>ZHHG8+4MA`'2*AS8B9-_DS.">8
MDF6><I$V01#"H!#$P`Z$A!BVZQ):YZ!<(!,J_ND`,FD:LL`+LM$922X"0NGC8
MNL.^4([D$G4[7$F^PF-''0+`XJ,=,"$+SV.6YE$^U,85")/`AB`CQ2`*3@]4Z
M#L``+D$8]H8--,P-H@`&E@$'<D$47L`-.A,*!N`+C.09D.`,A,0-M$$30N%-9
MZN$,B"X*G&D4CJ$!K(`2.@\*KI,&;M,&(F`LJ!4#<E$&`N$T_B@XCP<];X1&J
M)``0M$$&^``77``6@F`V$^`#X*$,GK,5=:`,K+,/=N%G(H#9Z(`']-4*!*`!P
M/J`*_$Y-"X^F+J"F0J`/[(Q3ZB0T/B`!^J`:H6`69"`*$`#UAF`^1.[3\O.JU
M*`(AVD$*!L+W0/9^_LZA@A3"K"RB(&+%'2845**/.W:E)/+3('@%&?A3?[KFJ
M5395/9*/OUBA#*["`@:AW&`+!/2@#?S@6O!B$$3!^Z[",JO``/*O($1.&1*(<
M&_A3]?@G(V7!(0E0W3J@"&IH%_+%'%B+M;Y(;0N&A;9@%SS!:',!!'P!%`A@O
M`,A!%"Y&MUY@,E0!!B;F#K#"-+0!ND(`.7>D-JY,%%V#-L0G!%J!%H:#%'[`C

And so on...???

Thanks in advance


Michael


cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenmichael cudlnMichael cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.02 / A Rivero /  It is 780KeV, not 200. Sorry
     
Originally-From: rivero@sol.unizar.es (Alejandro Rivero)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: It is 780KeV, not 200. Sorry
Date: Fri, 2 Sep 1994 14:11:25 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway


It seems my brain made a bad estimated yesterday when posting
these comments. The threshold for e+p -> n would be
around 780 Kev, and not 200 Kev as I told. Sorry.

				Alejandro Rivero

cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenrivero cudfnAlejandro cudlnRivero cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.02 / hrvoje niksic /  Re: THEORY OF LIGHT POLARIZATION, ANY MYSTERIES?
     
Originally-From: hn33938@labs1.cc.etf.hr (hrvoje niksic)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: THEORY OF LIGHT POLARIZATION, ANY MYSTERIES?
Date: 2 Sep 1994 13:09:19 GMT
Organization: Faculty of Electrical Engineering, University of Zagreb

Ludwig Plutonium (Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu) wrote:
: ANY LIGHT POLARIZATION EXPERIMENTS WHICH INDICATE THAT THE THEORY OF
: LIGHT IS INCOMPLETE? ANY MYSTERIES, OR EXPLANATIONS WHICH ARE NOT
: WHOLLY SATISFYING? IS THE THEORY OF LIGHT POLARIZATION AS MATURE OF A
: THEORY AS SAY LEVERS AND PULLEYS, AS AN EXAMPLE?

They say it is.  I believe.


--

                                                       ///
This message originates from:                         (o o)
 --------------------------------------------------ooO-(_)-Ooo-------
Hrvoje Niksic, F&SF reader, student in his free time

Login: hn33938@labs1.cc.etf.hr

E-mail: hrvoje.niksic@etf.hr

cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenhn33938 cudfnhrvoje cudlnniksic cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.02 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Rothwell must be endothermic
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Rothwell must be endothermic
Date: Fri, 2 Sep 94 10:05:45 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz) informs us that the Boy Scouts
do not consider water at 104 deg F to be "scalding." I have a great deal of
experience with water at these temperatures in Japanese baths and hot springs.
When I find myself emersed in these baths my gut reaction is that the water is
scalding and that if I do not quickly exit I will be boiled alive, like the
infamous criminal Goenmon. Perhaps, as Shultz claims, this is not scalding; on
such matters I defer to the better judgement Mr. Schultz and other members of
the Boy Scout Brigades. In the latest test I observed the water temperature
peaked at 137 deg F. Is that hot enough?
 
But do let us get back to the original claim! Perhaps Mr. Shultz would be kind
enough to consult his Boyscout Handbook again and tell us whether it is
possible to detect the difference between a barrel full of water at 80 deg F
and a barrel at 104 deg F. This is the scientific issue, after all.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenjedrothwell cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.02 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Reply to Peter Roessingh
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reply to Peter Roessingh
Date: Fri, 2 Sep 94 10:57:27 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

roes@vax.oxford.ac.uk (Peter Roessingh) writes:
 
     "Personally I think that a good way to speed up the verdict on cf's
     final status is to try and systematically disprove every theoretical
     construction that is put forward."
 
That will not do the trick. CF is not based upon any theoretical construction.
It is defined as excess heat beyond the limits of conventional chemistry
(beyond, say, 20 eV per atom). The existence of this effect has been proven by
experiment. It is not derived from theory and it cannot be disproved by
theory. In order to prove that the effect does not exist, you must show that
there is an error in the calorimetry. An error in nuclear theory cannot
disprove calorimetry.
 
If you disprove a theoretical construction, that means you must look for yet
another explanation to take its place, because the data remains intact and
unexplained. You can disprove ten-thousand theories if you like, but that will
not make even one definite experimental result go away. To take a concrete
example, if you stand next to Griggs' barrel of water at 104 deg F, and you
wave your hands and talk about theory, insisting that theory disproves the
effect, you will find that the water temperature remains at 104 degrees, it
does not drop to 80 degrees. Water is inanimate, water temperature cannot be
controlled by mental perturbations, theory cannot alter the fact that the
water is much hotter than both the electrical and mechanical input to the
device would allow. Either the First Law is wrong, or 1 KWH does not equal
3,413 BTU, or the device is creating energy. You could stand next to the
boiling cells at Toyota and try the trick if you like; declaim nuclear theory
as much as you like, you will find the cells do not listen, they will not stop
boiling.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenjedrothwell cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.02 / N Redington /  Re: Very Cold Cold Fusion?
     
Originally-From: redingtn@athena.mit.edu (Norman H Redington)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Very Cold Cold Fusion?
Date: 2 Sep 1994 15:26:43 GMT
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Really, old chap, some things you just cannot do with
computers yet, even for $20! You just have to dig out those
massive volumes and search by the sweat of thy brow.. or in this
case, my brow -- your task is to find these, tell us what
they say, and why it all stops "cold", so to speak, in '78...

J.J.Fritz, J. Chem. Phys. 36(1089)1962

J.J.Fritz, J. Chem. Phys. 38(1108)1963

T. Moeller, Chem. Rev. 65(1)1965

C.A.Mackliet, Phys. Rev. 146(463)1966

C.A.Mackliet, J. Chem. Phys. 45(1363)1966

Anonymous, Reports Naval Research Lab Progress, #25, 1966

G. A. Ferguson, Reports Naval Research Lab Progress, #11, 1968

M.F.Richards, Inorg. Chem. 7(2495)1968

N.S.Ho, J. Chem. Phys. 51(5437)1969

R.R.Arons, Physica Status Solidi 40(107)1970

C.A.Mackliet, J. Phys. & Chem. Solids, 37(379)1976

J.K.Jacobs, J. Phys. F 7(23)1977

J. Volkl, in Alefeld & Volkl, eds., _Hydrogen in Metals_, Berlin:
  Springer, 1978


--Norman
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenredingtn cudfnNorman cudlnRedington cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.02 / Richard Schultz /  Re: Reply to Peter Roessingh
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reply to Peter Roessingh
Date: 2 Sep 1994 16:17:51 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley


So, Jed, when are you buying your Griggs water heater?


-- 
				Richard Schultz

"It is terrible to die of thirst in the ocean.  Do you have to salt your
truth so heavily that it does not even quench thirst any more?"
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.02 / Ad aspera /  FYI 134, September 2, 1994 (House on Fusion)
     
Originally-From: JTCHEW@lbl.gov (Ad absurdum per aspera)
Newsgroups: sci.research,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: FYI 134, September 2, 1994 (House on Fusion)
Date: Fri, 02 Sep 1994 13:17:41 -0800
Organization: Relayed, not written, by Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory


[Written by individuals at the American Institute of Physics and
merely posted by me, so respond to <fyi@aip.org> or other
references below.  Always posted here on sci.research; sometimes
crossposted to an eclectic and hopefully appropriate selection
of other newsgroups, with followups directed here. Back issues
may be ftp'd from NIC.HEP.NET, along with PHYSICS NEWS UPDATE
and the American Physical Society news/opinion column WHAT'S NEW;
or from pinet.aip.org. Enjoy! -jc]

Provisions of H.R. 4908, the Physics Research Authorization Bill -
Fusion

FYI No. 134, September 2, 1994

Before going on a summer recess, the House passed H.R. 4908, the
Hydrogen, Fusion, and High Energy and Nuclear Physics Research Act
of 1994.  The major provisions of this legislation to authorize,
but not fund, the fusion energy programs of the Department of
Energy are as follows:

TITLE II, FUSION ENERGY RESEARCH PROGRAM

SECTION 202, Purposes, states:

"The purposes of this title are-
(1) to provide direction and authorize appropriations for a broadly
based fusion energy research, development, and demonstration
program;
(2) to ensure that alternative fusion concepts receive adequate
funding and management attention from the Department of Energy;
(3) to provide an accelerated commitment to United States
participation in ITER and provide authorization of appropriations
for such activity contingent on meeting program milestones; and
(4) to provide for the selection of a host country and establish a
site selection process for ITER."

SECTION 203, Fusion Energy Research Program, states:

Program Goals: "...to demonstrate by the year 2010 the
practicability of commercial electric power production and to lead
to commercial production of fusion energy by the year 2040."

Program Elements: (1) "Research, development, and demonstration on
magnetic fusion energy technology, including -- research on plasma
physics and control, confinement, ignition, and burning;" "the
design, construction, and operation of experimental fusion
reactors, including the Tokamak Physics Experiment, and the
development of special materials for such reactors...."  (2)
"Research, development, and demonstration of alternative fusion
concepts, to be administered through a Program Director for
Alternative Fusion Research, including research and development
needed to build and test an Induction Linac Systems Experiment, and
for systems engineering and design of a prototype inertial fusion
energy power plant suitable for the eventual development of a heavy
ion based commercial power plant, for the purpose of developing
heavy ion inertial fusion energy." (3) "Participation in the
design, construction, and operation of ITER with the goal of ITER
becoming operational by the year 2005."

SECTION 204, Independent Review of Fusion Technologies, states that
the National Academy of Sciences should conduct a study on current
fusion technologies and concepts.  This study should also evaluate
the commercial viability of these technologies, including the cost,
research requirements, and time scale.  Facilities proposed by DOE
should be evaluated.

SECTION 205, National Academy of Sciences Study, states that a
report should be prepared to "examine the status and promise of
other energy sources, including deuterated metal...."

SECTION 206, ITER Site Selection Process, requires DOE to submit a
report "which compares the technical and scientific advantages and
disadvantages and the economic costs and benefits to the U.S. of
siting ITER in the U.S. with siting ITER outside of the U.S."
Employment and other factors are to be considered.  An agreement
with other ITER participants requiring the selection of a host
country by October 1995 is specified, which would include an
equitable distribution of economic and technological benefits among
the participants.  U.S. industry is to be involved at all stages.
Site-specific designs are to be completed by 1998.  DOE is directed
to identify a U.S. site by June 1996 if the U.S. is selected as the
host country.  Also required: "a detailed estimate of the final
projected total cost and cost to the U.S. of the construction and
operation of ITER based on final site-specific engineering and
construction designs."

SECTION 207, Reports and Miscellaneous Provisions, requires a
report by DOE on the feasibility of modifying the Tokamak Physics
Experiment and its construction schedule in the event an ITER
agreement is not reached.  In addition, a report shall be prepared
on inertial confinement fusion research.

SECTION 208, Authorization of Appropriations, sets authorization
levels for magnetic fusion research for fiscal years 1995, 1996,
and 1997.  Authorization levels for alternative fusion research are
also specified.  A $700,000,000 authorization ceiling is set for
fiscal years 1995 through 2000 "to complete the design,
development, and construction of the Tokamak Physics Experiment,"
which can only be provided when DOE meets certain conditions.  The
bill includes the following prohibitions: "No funds are authorized
for the construction of ITER," and "No funds are authorized for the
design, engineering, or construction of any magnetic fusion
facility other than ITER, facilities related to ITER, and the
Tokamak Physics Experiment."

It is not known what further action may be taken by Congress this
year on this legislation.

###############
Public Information Division
American Institute of Physics
Contact: Richard M. Jones
fyi@aip.org
(301) 209-3095
###############
cudkeys:
cuddy02 cudenJTCHEW cudfnAd cudlnaspera cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.02 / mitchell swartz /  Limitations of Nuclear theory
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Limitations of Nuclear theory
Subject: Re: Limitations of nuclear theory
Date: Fri, 2 Sep 1994 21:19:00 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <348119$pj9@ds8.scri.fsu.edu>
Subject: Re: Limitations of nuclear theory
Jim Carr (jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu) writes:

= To the contrary, CF was first predicted in the 1950s.  What people 
= object to are claims about 'fusion' based on observations of heat 
= in the absence of concomitant amounts of the products of fusion. 

   The TB-skeptics "object" when nuclear ash accounts for (roughly)
a third of the observed heat.     


= There are even unorthodox ideas such as those of Hagelstine.  What is 
= lacking are experiments that show d+d --> something in direct proportion 
= to the heat observed.  Other than d+d --> nothing with no heat, of course. 

   Peter Hagelstein's ideas are conservative.      ;-)
  Furthermore, and most important to the issue 
several experiments demonstrate 4He in proportion to the
excess heat, and linked in production to that heat.   


= Dick thinks otherwise because he participated in an experiment that 
= set some pretty tight limits on the production of the sorts of nuclear 
= products claimed by P&F.  He did not sit back and wait.  Neither did 
= the collaboration of electrochemists and nuclear physicists here at FSU. 

   Please share some more of this experiment of Dick's.   
   Start with the loading.   Or the reference.    Thanks in advance.

   Best wishes.

                  Mitchell Swartz    
                      mica@world.std.com                       

cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.03 / Dieter Britz /  Re: Reply to Peter Roessingh
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reply to Peter Roessingh
Date: Sat, 3 Sep 1994 00:14:16 GMT
Date: 2 Sep 94 10:25:32 BST
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway


Originally-From: roes@vax.oxford.ac.uk (Peter Roessingh) in FD 2674
Date: 2 Sep 94 10:25:32 BST

[....]
> I don't think guessing why McKubre shortened his entry is very
> productive. There are lots of possible reasons, and not all
> discredit the work.(Both Mark Hittinger and Tom have given
> examples) I would like to leave ICCF4 out of this and focus on
> the 1994 paper and Dieters abstract of it. But let me follow your
> post.
[...]
>more likely explanation. Now we seem to be at the point (as
>judged from Dieters abstract) were the calorimetry is beyond
>questioning and recombination can be excluded.
[....]
>So McKubre's paper as cited by Dieter is my new starting point.

I worry a bit here. The first mention of my abstract looks like you are using
both it and the actual paper, but the following bits seem to show that you are
wholly relying on my abstract. I am fallible and my abstracts don't provide
much detail; please don't judge a paper by my abstract of it. If you are going
to give an in-depth impression of some work, you must get hold of the paper
itself and use that. My own impression, given in the abstract and in my more
or less loose remarks, is that that work is sound. I have, however, previously
missed weaknesses in other papers, later picked up by, e.g. Dick Blue. E.g.
the first China Lake report; I thought it looked good. Now I think they have
what looks to me like a good account of their He work - I admit I could be
wrong, but I don't have the expertise or the time to find every possible
weakness in that paper. That's also why I use phrases like "This looks like
good work to me", rather than "This is a quality positive". For the TB's, who
might be getting restive here, because I am casting doubt only on a positive
paper; the same holds, of course, for "good" negatives. There are not many of
these coming out anymore, that's all - the non-TB's have voted with their
feet. 
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.03 / Richard Blue /  RE: Extrapolation to zero energy
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: Extrapolation to zero energy
Date: Sat, 3 Sep 1994 00:14:23 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway


I stand corrected.  As Tommy Nordgren points out I got carried away
when I said that extrapolation of nuclear reaction cross sections to
zero energy was well in hand.  As he points out there is some uncertainty
about that procedure which arises from a lack of knowledge about the
charge screening at small distances.  I think I would have been correct
to say that no one has proposed  a successful model for cold fusion
that relies solely on this screening effect.  Also, bearing in mind
the experimental claims that have been accepted by cold fusion
advocates, the issue of reaction pathways or branching ratios is
not altered significantly by the screening question.  There I think
one can say that extrapolation to zero energy along with the results
from muon catalyzed fusion provide pretty solid evidence that something
is wrong with the cold fusion experimental results.

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.03 / Richard Blue /  Re: Kamada??
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Kamada??
Date: Sat, 3 Sep 1994 00:14:29 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Alejandro Rivero has questions about a recent report of electron-
induced "fusion" and so do I.  I would say here is another clear
case of experimenters going well beyond the information actually
obtained from the experiment into some fantasy about exotic fusion
reactions.

The claim is that the bombardment of aluminum loaded with either
hydrogen or deuterium by 100 keV or 200 keV electrons results in
fusion as indicated by tracks in CR39 track detectors.  First
question that comes to mind is why aluminum?  I was not aware that
aluminum was particularly good for this sort of thing.  In any case
I would like to hear from someone who reads the paper what the
loading is supposed to be and what is the purity of the aluminum.
If this is an ordinary chunk of a commercial aluminum alloy there
is simply no telling what could be going on here.

Now what can be learned from the use of CR39 track detectors?
Charged particles make tracks of radiation damage in this stuff
that can be developed by etching.  If you know how to do this
and have appropriate calibration tracks you can extract some
information as to particle type and energy.  How much information
does the paper give on this question?  Are the authors saying
anything more than "We see tracks so it must be fusion."?

Mostly what happens when you stop an electron beam in some target
is that you make lots of bremsstrahlung at energies up to the
electron energy.  Now if there is some assertion that e + p
is going to n + neutrino the most obvious experimental test
is to look for those neutrons.  However, we keep seeing these
weird hypotheses for reaction chains involving cascades of
low-probability events.  Shouldn't we ask how you can detect
some final product but fail to notice the intermediate ones?

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.03 / Richard Blue /  Re: Jerry Bishop on McKubre
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Jerry Bishop on McKubre
Date: Sat, 3 Sep 1994 00:14:33 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Two things caught my I in this recent post concerning Jerry
Bishop's write up of McKubre's CF research.  One is this quote
that went something like "Once the researchers can reproduce
and control the heat-producing experiments...."  That seems to
be a clear admission that the experiments are not reproducible
in spite of all that has been said to the contrary.  The other
matter has to do with just what level of excess heat McKubre
has been seeing.  The Bishop article is said to give the numbers
as 3% to 50%, but Todd Green gives this as 1-2 watts excess for
50 watts input.  I figure that as 2-4% excess.  Combining
these two bits of information I come up with the notion that
there are some experiments that give 0% and some that give
2-4%.  What I would like to see is the complete statistics.
Are some of those zeros actually 1-2% ?  Are we to take it on
faith that there is unquestionably a band gap in this data?

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.03 / Richard Blue /  References for Dave Davies
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: References for Dave Davies
Date: Sat, 3 Sep 1994 00:14:44 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

References for Dave Davies

For now I would like to avoid the question as to whether possible
explanations for cold fusion are to be found in some basic
reinvention of quantum mechanics and assume that issues are to be
resolved within a framework of fundamentally orthodox approaches.
I assume your acceptance as "given" some basic quantum mechanics
including perturbation theory, Fermi's golden rule, and the
principle of detailed balance whereby we can run a given reaction
process forward or backward and still learn the same things.

First let me address the charge that objections to cold fusion
coming from nuclear physicists are based only on the physics of
high energy collisions.  Much of the relevant knowledge, in fact,
is derived from the investigations of the groundstate properties
of the nuclear systems involved in fusion reactions.  The
fundamental understanding of the basic two-nucleon interaction
is strongly linked to observations relating to the groundstate
wavefunction of the deuteron.  This subject is treated extensively
in most nuclear physics texts.  I don't know what level of
sophistication you want for references on this subject so let me
stay with introductory material.  Two textbooks that I have had on
my shelf for many years are:

"Nuclear Physics, an Introduction," by  Haro von Buttlar, Academic
Press 1968

"Introduction to Nuclear Physics," by Harald Enge, Addison-Wesley
1966

In such texts you will find an outline of experimental observations
on groundstate properties such as binding energy, magnetic dipole
moment, electric quadrupole moment, charge distribution, spin,
parity, etc.  These are then placed in the context of a two-body
interaction in the form of a potential of increasing complexity
depending on how many details you want to describe accurately.
If you really want to explore this subject through all its gristly
bits try using the name Skyrme as a keyword to search the
literature.

Next I will question any assertion that cold fusion has no
connection to information relating to nuclear collisions.  The same
interaction potential that fits the observations made on the ground
state of the deuteron has to describe proton-neutron collisions so
naturally np scattering analysis is included with any discussion of
the properties of the deuteron.  If you suggest that this is "high
energy" data I will simply point out that experimental
investigations extend down to 0.01 eV.  Is that low enough for you?
Ref:  E. Melkonian, Phys. Rev. 76, 1750 (1949)

Elastic scattering is frequently analyzed in terms of  partial
waves, and in the absence of a Coulomb potential the short range
of the nuclear interaction results in a very rapid truncation of
this series expansion at low energy.  Thus relatively few
parameters are needed to describe low energy collisions and
extrapolations to lower energies can be made with some confidence.
There are, in fact, mathematically rigorous limits on the energy
dependence of various partial waves.  By these means it is possible
to determine properties of the wavefunctions for bound or unbound
states from data taken at energies somewhat remote from the states
in question.  I refer you to a more advanced textbook such as:

"Physics of Nuclei and Particles," Marmier and Sheldon, Academic
Press, 1969.

See also the references contained therein.

For more complex nuclear systems as the density of states increases
the energy dependence of nuclear cross sections becomes dominated
by resonances.  There are various formalisms for dealing with
resonant behavior, the R-matrix approach being one of them.  The
granddaddy reference on that subject is a review paper by Lane and
Thomas but I will refer you to something a bit more manageable.

"Theory of Low Energy Nuclear Reactions," Erich Vogt, Rev. Mod.
Phys. vol 34, p.723, (1962).

You then also need to know something about the structure of light
nuclei so read, for example, "Structure of Light Nuclei," Paul
Goldhammer, Rev. Mod. Phys., vol35, p. 40, (1963).

You may also want to look at the series of compilations of
experimental results that is known under the heading, "Energy
Levels of Light Nuclei,"  These have been published as part of the
journal Nuclear Physics from North Holland Publishing.  I don't
have the latest ones, but for our purposes I refer you to
"Energy Levels of Light Nuclei A = 4", Fiarman and Meyerhof,
Nucl. Phys. A206 (1973) 1-64.  Therein you can find references
to most of what is known about 4He and all the various fusion
reactions that can produce it.  The reference list is 15 pages
long!

If you read all this material you should come to appreciate a few
basic facts.  There are some  symmetries that express themselves in
nuclear reactions involving neutrons and protons such
that observations on say the T + p system are indicative of the
behavior of the 3He + n system.  This gets to the heart of another
lingering CF issue:  the branching ratio between tritium production
and neutron emission.  Nuclear physicists have said from the
beginning that experimental claims relating to this question were
nonsense.  CF advocates have said nuclear physics doesn't apply
here because it isn't a "high energy collision."  Several things
are wrong with that assertion.  Firstly the branching ratio has
been observed for cold fusion of the muon catalyzed variety.  Steve
Jones has posted references on that numerous times.  Secondly
there have been experimental measurements for d + d fusion
down to a few keV.  I haven't got the reference handy, but the
name on the paper is F. E. Cecil.

 The various formalisms I mentioned allow one to get at some
aspects of this question via such measurements as the 3He(n,p)T
cross section for thermal neutron energies and 4He(gamma, n) versus
4He (gamma, p).  The 3He(n,p)T data is of interest because this
cross section must be vanishingly small (which it isn't) anywhere
that the ratio of proton to neutron emission from 4He* gets too far
away from one. Do you really want references?  Just think about.
If there is reduced overlap between 4He* and either p + T or n +
3He unbound systems you can't make the (n,p) reaction go.  The data
on this reaction covers all possible energies that can be reached
via d + d fusion.

One final reference:  One research area that has already been
dealing with the question of fusion reactions is, of course,
hot fusion.  In this case the collisions are not confined to
"high energy" but involve an energy continuum that extends to
zero.  Thus theoretical considerations applied to plasma fusion
are also relevant to cold fusion.  You should see

"Nuclear fusion in dense plasmas," Setsuo Ichimaru, Rev. Mod. Phys.
65, p. 255 (1993).

This paper even includes a section on cold fusion in metal
hydrides.

When you have worked your way through all this material perhaps
you could suggest where you see some weakness in the argument
nuclear physicists have presented against cold fusion.  They have
tended not to give specific references because there is no single
key reference that summarizes all the relevant facts.  From my
perspective any serious deviation from the world according to
nuclear physicists requires some serious perturbation of the
nuclear systems involved.  CF can't just happen without some
knowable cause, and that cause has to meet some basic requirements.
Some very good people have given this a lot of thought, and they
haven't, to the best of my knowledge,  come up with anything that
passes muster .


Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.02 / Jim Carr /  Re: Limitations of nuclear theory
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Limitations of nuclear theory
Date: 2 Sep 1994 16:13:29 -0400
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

In article <340k5i$9ni@huxley.anu.edu.au> 
drd851@huxley.anu.edu.au (David R Davies) writes:
>
>I dont think I was denigrating nuclear physics at all and didn't intend
>to at any rate. My comments were directed toward those that over-sold
>NPhys by claiming that CF was clearly impossible 

To the contrary, CF was first predicted in the 1950s.  What people 
object to are claims about 'fusion' based on observations of heat 
in the absence of concomitant amounts of the products of fusion. 

>                                                 and then refuse to provide
>references to relevant experimental evidence. Where are the detailed
>arguments and refutations Dick? References! 

In the literature. 

They are not 'arguments', however, they are experimental observations. 

Speaking as a theorist who knows more about the problems of dealing 
with the many-body problem than Dick Blue knows about detectors, 
only unambiguous experiments matter.  The problem in this business 
has been that refutations are rejected with 'you did not do it right' 
but what was done wrong is never stated.  Lacking a formal Comment 
that spells out the error, the burden of proof has to remain with 
the person asserting that a certain result will come from a 
certain setup.

>                                            Not just statements that 'we
>know better'. Either that or just sit back and see how the experiments
>pan out. You are welcome to say 'told you so' if it all fails in the end
>but I don't think that day has come yet.

Actually, hundreds of people did experiments.  It took the better part 
of two nights to present all the talks at the Baltimore APS meeting. 
No physicist sits back and waits if they can do it themselves.  They 
repeat experiments and check calculations.  If it checks out or someone 
else publishes first, they may not publish themselves, but they do the 
work or kibitz those who do. 

>The simple fact is that QM is at a loss to deal with the situation we are
>debating other than to say 'it doesnt seem plausible given our present
>interpretation' but people have disputed the ultimate validity of the
>orthodox QM interpretaion from the beginning.

Theory has proven perfectly adequate to understand the effects observed 
in CF with muons, which occurs via tunneling at energies comparable 
to those in the more recent experiments.  

There are even unorthodox ideas such as those of Hagelstine.  What is 
lacking are experiments that show d+d --> something in direct proportion 
to the heat observed.  Other than d+d --> nothing with no heat, of course. 

>Demonstration of CF is up to the experimentalists. If you don't believe
>that it is nuclear then by all means say so and present detailed argument

If you believe it *is* nuclear, describe the experiment that establishes 
this and cite it in the literature.  

>but if you have no detailed argument then you, like the rest of us, must
>just sit back and see how it all pans out. I see no clear evidence that
>the excess energy claimed by so many is nuclear in origin but I still
>think that that is the most likely explanation.

Dick thinks otherwise because he participated in an experiment that 
set some pretty tight limits on the production of the sorts of nuclear 
products claimed by P&F.  He did not sit back and wait.  Neither did 
the collaboration of electrochemists and nuclear physicists here at FSU. 
He has, like many of us, followed the careful experiments of Steve Jones, 
and knows what those results mean for the claims you make. 

-- 
 James A. Carr   <jac@scri.fsu.edu>     |  Raw data, like raw sewage, 
    http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac        |  requires some processing before
 Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst.  |  it can be spread around.  The 
 Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306    |  opposite is true of theories. 
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.02 / Paul Koloc /  Re: PMK Jr. -- OOPS! --
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: PMK Jr. -- OOPS! --
Date: Fri, 2 Sep 1994 20:30:00 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

A KEY experiment I suggested was based on a false assumption and
as such is non-responsive to a PMK "forces" simulation.  
Consequently, an alternative improved experiment is suggested below.  

In article <CvH6nJ.JDr@prometheus.UUCP> pmk@promethe.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) writes:
>In article <343kta$st4@stratus.skypoint.com> jlogajan@skypoint.com writes:
>>Well, I had a little time on my hands, and a roll of 30 gauge copper
>>wire, so I wound a torus of wire around an inner multi-turn loop of
>>wire -- to simulate the current flows in Paul Koloc's plasma torus
>>at the minor axis and maxium minor radius points.

>Your configuration is not completely correct, and it's ambitious, but 
>perhaps a bit too much of a jump for the first "demo".  

>Maybe Bruce and Art* can do the following experiments for you.  
>Try the following set of experiments:  

.   ..  .         a poloidal winding where several turns are looped
>and sort of clustered, but not touching each other vertically or 
>laterally.  Within a right circular toroidal volume.  

>                     in cross section:
>
>                      +                           x 
>                    +  +                         x x 
>                     +                           x 
>

The following last post suggestion for an experment will not 
slave (simulate the force action of) a PMK, as I first blinked,
since although the copper sheet is conducting, it will generate
coil generated image currents.  This assumes the coil inside is 
toroidally and the outer coil is poloidally wound. Consequently, 
although the two coils WILL BUCK via their respective currents 
induced in the copper sheet, the inner toroidal current's 
poloidally generated field will be TRAPPED and excluded from 
filling the space between the toroidal coil/sheet complex and 
thus NOT be PMK-like.      

To fix the problem, since these current components are made by
a single current in the PMK, they are "logic-tied", that is they
can NOT pull a part.  So to demostrate the effect, the forces 
should be allowed to produce displacements in the loosish coil 
strands, which could be recorded with a VCR (video camera).  

Further to get a bit of current sheet component-force-logic into 
the picture, the cross points of the toroidal field windings with 
the poloidal field windings should be tied with highly stretchable 
and THIN rubber bands or elastic strings  (type used to secure 
ends of a little girl's braided hair strands [piglet tails).  

Now  shoot it, **BUT** with a bit more energy ( 50% more voltage), 
AND use (if possible) a fast quenched (dead soft copper 1 AWG wire) 
(reinsulated).  That way, the copper should stretch and deform under 
load so that the force displacement results will be obvious.  
Otherswise, do a frame by frame play back of the VCR tape of the 
shot to see the displacements.  

Without a conducting shell in place, the toroidal complex will 
try to expand (but less than case with same toroidal current 
but no current in the poloidal coil. (attach lead different place) 

>Actually the two wires "were NOT webbed" so that they tended to be 
>uncoupled.  The sheet current is important and without it we do not
>have a PMK.  It is because we have no means of tranmitting force to 
>a common "pressure bearing surface" (here the copper foil).    

Right

>>My next test (somewhere in the mid to distant future??)  will be to
>>place the torus coil into a spherical coil to again check for 
>>physical forces and/or inductive coupling.

Certainly, and the Spheric shell can be replaced by a "cloth of
(good ole 12 awg) wires soldered together as a "globe of 
meridian/longitude grid".  No current leads are necessary (if 
the rise time is fast enough).  However the Voltage should be 
increased by 50% again (or double the voltage found in the first 
test above.)  

That way if the copper is made "dead soft" again, the stretch may 
again happen OR the Video camera might pick up the definite small 
displacements at peak field in the spheric shell.  

(* since they accept their own honesty.)  
Thanks again,
>--
> - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com -- 612-633-0345 -
> - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills  MN 55112 USA           -
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc, Bx 1037 Prometheus II Ltd, College Park MD 20741-1037    |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.02 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Reply to Peter Roessingh
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reply to Peter Roessingh
Date: Fri, 2 Sep 94 20:30:09 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Richard Schultz <schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu> writes:
 
>So, Jed, when are you buying your Griggs water heater?
 
That is a stupid question. I have no possible use for an industrial heater.
The device fills an entire room, it requires high amperage 3 phase
electricity, and it makes a terrific amount of noise. My house is not a
carpet factory or a boiler room.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenjedrothwell cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.03 / Peter Roessingh /  Re: McKubre's data & s.p.f experiment
     
Originally-From: roes@vax.oxford.ac.uk (Peter Roessingh)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: McKubre's data & s.p.f experiment
Date: 3 Sep 94 00:57:06 BST
Organization: Oxford University VAX 6620

I am beginning to feel a bit surreal. I have been reading s.p.f
for about two years, and always had the general feeling that the
critics of cf were mostly right when they rejected results not
properly published, done in secret industrial labs, or clearly
incompletely reported. I also had the feeling a lot could be
gained by just observing some simple rules in the discussion.

When I raised these points in  e-mail exchanges with true
believers, and suggested to try for once and play it by the rules
of the critics (i.e rigorous science). I got the following basic
message:

(In my words)
  "Wake up, this is the real world, you live in artificial
   academic dream You don't realize you are dealing
   with *people* here, full of emotions, ruthless fighting for
   power. Forget it, it will never work."

I replied that I believed in the academic system, and that it
*would* be possible to make (some) progress in the minefield of
cf by strictly following the rules. I also added that there were
a lot of fairly impartial observers out there, who would protest
if the rules got bend too much.

Currently I am taking my own advice. Stimulated by the talks
about a possible  s.p.f experiment, I am trying to find out where
at the moment the real disagreement starts in this dispute. That
is the interesting area for a new experiment.

I got a high quality response from Dick Blue, but to my amazement
the response from what Mark Hittinger called " Elite fence
sitters" was largely similar to what I was told by the true
believers:

Tom Droege: 
>In a field like this, it is necessary to keep publishing better 
>data.[...] If you don't keep publishing better and better 
>experiments then you are very suspect!!

Dieter Britz was somewhat more careful 
[careful deliberation omitted here for brevity] 
but finally concludes:

>With CNF, things are different. The claims do run counter to a
>lot of what we already know, both experimental and theoretical.
>A single result is not enough. If you think that this is not
>dispassisonate science, you're right. The human element comes in
>here.

I do *not* expect cf to be accepted without further reservation
based on a single paper (see my reply to dick Blue). But I do
strongly reject the notion that a *new* paper with *no* obvious
flaws can be minimised the way it is done here, based solely on
"the human element". How can we ever make progress if both sides
are so careless in their handling of the evidence?
I would need *at least* a 10 year time period before I would
consider "fading" of results in apparent *solid* papers. (note my
emphasis on solid here, this applies only to high quality work).
In a controversial area were the systems is only marginally
understood this period should possibly be even longer, certainly
not shorter!

 Given the above responses, I have to start questioning my own
position, or conclude that I am virtually the only sane person a
mad universe. Neither option looks attractive. I could certainly
do with some posted support here for my general view of the
world.

Any takers?

Peter Roessingh		(as naive as ever...) 
Zoology, Oxford.


cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenroes cudfnPeter cudlnRoessingh cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.02 / Raymond Butte /  Re: McKubre's data & s.p.f experiment
     
Originally-From: rrb@oolong.la.locus.com (Raymond Butte)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: McKubre's data & s.p.f experiment
Date: 2 Sep 1994 19:11:01 -0700
Organization: Locus Computing Corporation, Los Angeles, California

In article <1994Sep3.005706.25697@oxvaxd>,
Peter Roessingh <roes@vax.oxford.ac.uk> wrote:
> I am beginning to feel a bit surreal. I have been reading s.p.f
> for about two years, and always had the general feeling that the
> critics of cf were mostly right when they rejected results not
> properly published, done in secret industrial labs, or clearly
> incompletely reported. I also had the feeling a lot could be
> gained by just observing some simple rules in the discussion.
> 
> When I raised these points in  e-mail exchanges with true
> believers, and suggested to try for once and play it by the rules
> of the critics (i.e rigorous science). I got the following basic
> message:
> 
[generally polarized responses deleted]
> 
>  Given the above responses, I have to start questioning my own
> position, or conclude that I am virtually the only sane person a
> mad universe. Neither option looks attractive. I could certainly
> do with some posted support here for my general view of the
> world.
> 
> Any takers?
> 
> Peter Roessingh		(as naive as ever...) 
> Zoology, Oxford.

Well, at the risk of stereotyping too much, let me throw my two cents in here.
WARNING: what follows isn't "Politically Correct" and i don't give a damn. 

I see the varied attitudes on this international board as the outcome of
intrinsic cultural biases that produce different techniques of pushing for
progress.  Different responses to a challenge.  As a Canadian who was raised
in Canada with lots of British friends, and who is now a long-time US Citizen,
i have observed that different cultural ground rules apply in Britain, Canada
and the USA. 

The Brits tend to be more circumspect; respectful of tradition, authority and
objectivity.  The virtue of fair-play is strong.  In the US, a rough-and-ready,
John Wayne, duke it out, shoot first ask questions later approach seems to
prevail.  This accounts for the more emotional, animalistic kinds of 
attack-counter attack that we see here so often.  But it's really just the big
old bulls doing their ceremonial fight over territory.  It usually doesn't end
in death, the scientific species will survive, and when the truth finally comes
out, the whole gang will go out for lunch.

I like the clarity of the careful approach, but the go-get-em attitude tends
to get more done sooner -- with a little blood.

Good luck to Tom and the collective experiment.  

Now where's that water heater...

-Raymond Butte


-- 
---
rrb@locus.com			Less heat, more light...
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenrrb cudfnRaymond cudlnButte cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.03 / L Plutonium /  (2 of 3) LP PATENT PRIORITY OVER CANON, new patent 
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci
physics.electromag
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: (2 of 3) LP PATENT PRIORITY OVER CANON, new patent 
Subject: Fly's Eye II reports the highest energy cosmic ray ever
Subject: 10^14 MEV particle
Date: 3 Sep 1994 03:43:36 GMT
Date: 16 Dec 1993 02:34:32 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

(1) A patent law is good for the life of the discoverer/s. But if the
discoverers do not die a natural death, then the patent rights go to
the Church of Plutonium.
(2) The world no longer needs petty bureacracies of patent offices with
their little tin badge dictators. Patents are made public via media
such as the INTERNET. Disputes are settled by science courts.
(3) This patent will be the first to go under these guidelines.
(4) Patent law is too archaic. Patent law needs this face-lift because
science engineering feats and deeds must be encouraged to the maximum.
Today's patent office and laws foster dis-incentives.
(5) These changes in patent law will dove-tail directly into my
sweeping changes of world governments. Continued in (3 of 3).


	PHYSICAL EVIDENCES FOR RADIOACTIVE SPONTANEOUS NEUTRON MATERIALIZATION
(rsnm) (pronounced resin or raisin by DoE fruitcakes:-)
	(1) Muon catalyzed fusion is the pivotal experiment to my theoretical
understanding of what induces rsnm. But whereas the physics community
thinks the goings on in muon catalyzed experiments is that muatoms of
hydrogen isotopes bring about, . . after several quantum steps the
fusing together to make an atom of helium, their theoretical thinking
is wrong.  What is really going on are several quantum steps of rsnm.
	Muon Catalyzed Fusion is physically Muon Induced Radioactive
Spontaneous Neutron Materialization, rsnm. Instead of requiring a
changing electric potential difference V with a VandeGraaff machine, or
running a changing electric current  i  through atoms to yield rsnm. It
is the muon itself which already supplies the changing V or the
changing  i. The muon is the changing i or changing V which is the
pulser or pulsing. Changing is important for the induction of rsnm. As
important as in the laws of electromagnetism. For example, in Faraday's
law of induction a changing magnetic field is required. And in Ampere's
law of induction as extended by Maxwell, a changing electric field or
current are required. In rsnm, we are in a higher level of composition
but the symmetry follows. There is the symmetry in Maxwell's Equations
that a changing electric field produces a magnetic field and vice
versa. The composition of photons is electric fields and magnetic
fields. In cold fusion, this symmetry is needed, but it is in a higher
level of composition. That composition, specifically is-- Maxwell's
Equations relate photons which are composed of 2 neutrinos. In the
higher level of composition of quantum interactions, gravitons for
example are composed of 4 neutrinos or 2 photons. Muons, electrons,
protons, and neutrons are composed of different arrangements of
neutrinos. In cold fusion, a higher level of composition from photon
composition in MaxwellUs Equations, it is neutrinos induction by a
changing electric current/ and / or changing electric potential which
induces rsnm.
	Now consider a muon. A muon is just an extended electron, a big
electron.  A muon is an electron with added neutrinos. When a muon
forms a muatom, the muon in the muatom is its own variable VandeGraaff
machine already within the muatom. Or a muon is a variable electric
current within the muatom. Hence when there are muons in any particular
sample of hydrogen isotopes, some of those muons will induce
spontaneous materialization of neutrons from out of nowhere resulting
in a net energy to the whole system. Note that it is not necessary to
have hydrogen, or deuterium, or tritium for muon catalyzed fusion to
work. Muons in pure iron will result in rsnm. Muons in pure mercury
will result in rsnm. In fact, all stars and all planets have iron cores
which manufacture new hydrogen after rsnm with the neutron decaying
into hydrogen, and new helium (after spontaneous alpha particle
materialization (rs-alpha-m) plus a step of rsnm.)
(2)  REIFENSCHWEILER RADIATION. " Thirty years ago [early 1960's], Otto
Reifenschweiler was searching for a compound which could protect
Geiger-Mller tubes from damage when they are first ionised.  He found
the compound, which became a money-spinner for Philips, in a mixture of
titanium and radioactive tritium. He also discovered that as the
mixture was heated, its radioactivity declined sharply. No process
known to physics could account for such a baffling phenomenon:
radioactivity should be unaffected by heat. Nevertheless, as the
temperature increased from 115 degrees C to 160 degrees C, the emission
of beta particles fell by 28 per cent. 
  Hendrik Casimir, the director of research at Philips at the time,
remembers the excitement when Reifenschweiler broke the news. "I said
it could be extremely important--but I didn't believe it," says
Casimir.
   The two scientists put the discovery to one side as they
concentrated on the Geiger-Mller tubes. They never found the time to
come back to it. But following the recent rows over cold fusion, they
have finally decided to publsh the results in the 3 January issue of
Physics Letters A . " {16b}
	Reifenschweiler radiation is as yet unexplained by the
physics-community-at-large. Otto R. proposes (triton) nuclear pairing
hypothesis {16b}.  Vigier proposes ""tight" Bohr orbits in dense media
are derived and where occurence of cold DD-fusion {16a}, . .  And,
Secco discovered Reifenschweiler radiation in heavier nuclei than
tritium. In particular, Secco " who investigated gas-solid exchange
between the Zn-gas labelled by the 65Zn-nuclide with polycrystalline
ZnO at elevated temperatures. {16a}  
	When the theory of rsnm is observed as the true mechanism and accepted
then Reifenschweiler radiation is easily explained. When temperatures
are increased in certain substances then rsnm occurs resulting in a
reduction in the rate of radioactivity because of the added new
neutrons of rsnm makes the radioactive isotope a stable isotope.
	(3)  SONOLUMINESCENCE. " Sonoluminescence1-13 is a non-equilibrium
phenomenon in which the energy in a sound wave becomes highly
concentrated so as to generate flashes of light in a liquid. We show
here that these flashes, which comprise over 10^5 photons, are too fast
to be resolved by the fastest photomultiplier tubes available.
Furthermore, when sonoluminescence is driven by a resonant sound field,
the bursts can occur in a continuously repeating , regular fashion.
These precise 'clock-like' emissions can continue for hours at drive
frequencies ranging from audible to ultrasonic. These bursts represent
an amplification of energy by eleven orders of magnitude. " {17g} That
was a brief description of sonoluminescence. Note also in the various
references listed {17} that the light emission is blue. "Blue" is the
color that indicates neutrons are present, which is a well known fact
at nuclear reactor sites. Sonoluminescence cavities are blue colored.
Here I wax poetically with my restatement of a paragraph in the film
series Ascent of Man . " At twilight in the sixth lobe of 5f6, so say
science commentators to physics, 231PU made for humanity a number of
tools that gives also the gift of creation. If the old science
commentators were alive today, they would write ' PU, the Maker made
the neutron and is made of neutrons'. Here it is, at Oak Ridge in
Tennessee, the blue glow that is the trace of neutrons: the visible
presence of our Maker. "
	Sonoluminescence is explained as rsnm where the sound energy is a
mechanical conversion of electrical energy of variable V (or i) in the
collapsing bubble. Sonoluminescence is cold fusion and it is the
explanation of pulsar stars and blue giant stars, not that blue giants
are so very hot but that they are giant cold fusion objects.
	(4)  Uniform Cosmic Gamma Ray-bursts as reported from data by NASA's
Gamma Ray Observatory.  Gamma rays are mostly highly energetic protons.
Gamma Ray-bursts are seen uniformly throughout the sky yet there are no
astronomical objects for which these gamma rays can be assigned as the
source having generated the gamma ray. Since no known objects produce
these high intensity gamma rays, they are supportive evidence of
spontaneously materialized neutrons which radioactively decay into
energetic protons, energetic electrons, and gamma rays. {19}
	Most of the cosmic gamma ray-bursts are of the energy frequency of
hydrogen nuclei. Meaning that in space neutrons are spontaneously
materialized from out of nowhere and then decay into proton, electron,
neutrino system yielding the observed gamma rays.  
	A 10^14 MEV cosmic particle was detected. 
" From: sichase@csa5.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE) Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Fly's Eye II reports the highest energy cosmic ray ever
detected Date: 14 Dec 1993 14:50 PST
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA
Message-ID: <14DEC199314500231@csa5.lbl.gov>
In the spirit of continuing to share the little interesting tidbits of
physics which I stumble across in the Physics Library here at LBL, I 
submit the following brief note for your amusement: The folks from the
Fly's Eye II project, (an extensive array of phototubes looking up into
the sky for light from cosmic-ray-induced air showers in the Earth's
atmosphere) have reported there recent data in PRL a few weeks ago,
including a single event at roughly 3x10^20 eV! This is the highest
energy particle ever detected in the history of particle physics. For
comparison, the beam at the highest-energy machine currently running
(the Tevatron) is 900 GeV, or 9x10^11 eV. After the better part of a
century of studying cosmic rays, they still provide a unique window
into particle physics and cosmology. At the same time, we still know
almost nothing about them. Where in the world DoEs a 3x10^20 eV cosmic
ray come from? We don't know. It isn't likely to be a charged particle
from within our galaxy - the galactic magnetic field is too weak to
contain such a particle. In other words, it would escape from the Milky
Way before it got accelerated to that high an energy. It's probably
extragalactic.
Maybe it's an unfortunate leftover from the Early Universe which
finally ended its life by accidentally colliding with a nitrogen
nucleus in the Earth's upper atmosphere? That can't be, either. A
charged particle with that energy would collide with a photon in the
CMBR in an average of 10^8 years. (A photon of that energy would also
suffer a similar fate.)
That means that this particle was probably less than 10^8 years old
when it was blasted apart in our atmosphere, which means that it
originated from somewhere within our local supercluster of galaxies
(speed-of-light travel time, and all that.) within the last 100 million
years or so.
So what made it? We don't know. The Fly's Eye can determine the
direction from which the particle came. At this energy even a charged
particle travels on a roughly straight line due to its huge magnetic
rigidity. So it should point right back its source. So they looked, but
there's nothing there! There aren't any objects like active galaxies
and such in that part of the sky, of which we know. So its origin, like
that of most cosmic rays, continues to be a mystery. Perhaps it was not
accelerated by some violent event, but rather just came into being at
high energy through the decay of some massive Big Bang remnant, some
GUT-related object which decayed into light particles of incredible
energy. We don't know. If this speculation is correct, then studying
such events can tell us about the number and distribution of these
objects, whatever they might be. The most straightforward way to
investigate these phenomenon would be to build a 10^8 TeV collider. :-)
In the absence of such a machine, we will have to continue to take what
nature gives us. If you want to know more about the Fly's Eye, you can
check out the Nov. 22 PRL and the references therein, or find something
about it in Physics Today. I don't have that reference, but I know that
it has been discussed there in the not too distant past. " {18}
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: 10^14 MEV particle
Date: 16 Dec 1993 02:34:32 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
Message-ID: <2eohfo$a56@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
   This is a most amazing verified fact that a particle exists which
has 10^14 MEV. Another verified fact is that these energetic bursts are
uniform throughout the cosmic sky with no known source.  There is the
fact that a neutron is 931 MEV and a proton is 928 MEV. And the fact
that the mass creation of a prion or virus requires 10^14 MEV. And the
fact that an energetic particle of 10^14 MEV can create roughly 10^8
particles of element 189. And the fact that 10^14 MEV can create what
atomic element? Can it create element of atomic number 10^11?? From
Aug1993 I posted both to sci.physics and sci.physics.fusion my patent
on SPONTANEOUS NEUTRON MATERIALIZATION DEVICES. This is an extension of
Dirac's ideas as mentioned in his most excellent little book, one of
the best books on physics ever written--Directions in Physics. And it
is truly remarkable to me that the physics community has ignored
Dirac's positing of a "new radioactivities." See his gem of a book on
this. If the universe is an atom totality then the growth of the
universe is by spontaneous materialization. This is a direct violation
of the conservation laws. The big bang model is dumbfounded in trying
to explain a 10^14 particle and the uniformity along with no known
source for these particles, and the model supporters logic turns
contradictory. The steady-state model is dumbfounded in trying to
explain these facts, and again, the model supporters logic turns
contradictory. Only the atom totality theory gives the answers easily
and naturally, Not only does spontaneous materialization of elements 1
through 189 occur in our 94th electron observable 231 Pu totality. But
life comes into existence spontaneously. The first living creatures
were prions and viruses which evolved biologically to higher and more
complex lifeforms. By the way this outline of the first lifeforms as
prions and viruses is counter to the present biology communitys' view
that the cell was the first life form and prions and viruses came
afterwards. I contend that this is a reverse of what really happened.
Prions and viruses came first. ATOM {18}
	The uniformity of cosmic gamma ray-bursts is explained because
spontaneous neutron materialization is a uniform process, as uniform as
the uniform process of the  Cosmic Background Microwave Radiation. The
uniformity explanation entails my revolutionary theory of the Plutonium
Atom Totality{5}.  That our observable universe is just the 94th
electron, the last electron of one atom of the plutonium isotope 231,
(I denote isotopes as such 231*94) which acts as a quantum cavity, a
quantum blackbody cavity. Here I can easily stray too far by explaining
why the Cosmic Background Radiation is relentlessly uniform with a
blackbody temperature of 2.71 K. Why the night sky is dark because it
is a quantum blackbody cavity. Blackbody entails dark night sky. Why
the speeds of galaxies are quantized as Tifft has discovered, because
the galaxies are inside a quantum blackbody cavity-- the last electron
of 231Pu. The meaning of quantized galaxy speeds is that galaxies are
ordered at exact distances. Just as the Solar System is quantized at
exact distances as per Titius-Bode Law of planetary distances. All of
which is explained by rsnm as a uniform creation of new matter.
	(5) 1978 scientists from A. F. Ioffe Physiotechnical Institute in
Leningrad announced discovery of unusual concentrations of rare isotope
helium 3 in certain metals. (Note that I use the star notation for
isotopes, where helium is 4*2.)  Thus, 3*2  is produced when 2*1 + 2*1
-> 3*2 + 1*0
B.A. Mamyrin, L.V. Khabarin, and V.S. Yudenich found large amounts of
3*2 in different pure metals and no 4*2. These findings of 3*2 were not
uniform but in patches of pure metal. They also found 3*1 in high
concentrations.
	(6) The origin of the Sun and the planets in our Solar System, I
assert, is by rsnm. The current science community thinks the Solar
System was created by interstellar dust cloud. I say it is rsnm. Earth
is growing more massive every day, every hour, at a rate which is not
difficult to measure. From Dirac's  DIRECTIONS IN PHYSICS, page 81
  "  Well, there we have effects which we might hope to be able to
measure, and so check up on whether this theory is a good theory or
not. We just have to make accurate observations with atomic time. I
should emphasize that it is important that these observations are made
with atomic time, because the above formulas apply only to quantities
in atomic units.
   We might, first of all, think of the Moon and make observations of
the Moon to check on this theory. Now, people have been making
observations of the motion of the Moon for the last 20 years with
atomic time. They have also recently been making accurate observations
of the distance of the Moon, referred to atomic units. The astronauts
who landed on the Moon put down some laser reflectors, and people are
now sending laser light to these reflectors and observing the light
reflected by them. They then measure, using an atomic clock, the time
taken by the light to get to the Moon and back and, in that way, get
the distance of the Moon, referred to atomic units.
    If we apply it to the motion of the Moon around the Earth, our
theory would require that with additive creation the Moon should be
approaching the Earth by an amount we can easily calculate. It is about
2cm/year.
With multiplicative creation, the Moon should be moving away from the
Earth at the same rate. We would have to measure, therefore, the
distance of the Moon to that accuracy. Now, people have recently been
measuring the distance of the Moon with very great accuracy. The most
recent information I obtained was that, nearly a year ago, they had the
", ..[ Continued.] {4}
	The last that I had read in regards to the Moon movement cm/year was
that it was moving away from Earth at a rate of 3 cm/year{18}. This
suggests both additive and multiplicative rsnm, simultaneously.
	Now consider the increasing mass of Earth. The physics and astronomy
community assigns the known fact of the growing accretion of Earth to
only one account, that of the sweep of Earth in its orbit collecting
cosmic gas and dust. Corner a astronomy professor. Corner a physics
professor. In fact, corner the whole astrophysics community and they
eventually will come around to ascribing the origin of stars and our
solar system and to most everything else to DUST long after the
speculative Big Bang had occurred. 
 	I have something better to offer. I assert that Earth is growing more
massive daily by two accounts, one from the outer space planetary
sweep, but more importantly from the other account of rsnm occurring in
the interior of Earth induced through the changing electric current i
and changing electric potential V inside Earth. When astronomers try to
reconcile the account figure for Earth's daily mass accretion from
cosmic sweep alone, it is not enough. I assert that the daily mass
accretion by Earth is equal to the EarthUs accretion from outer space
plus EarthUs internal accretion by rsnm.
 	Sea floor spreading, continental drift are a consequence of rsnm in
the EarthUs center. The Earth of the past was a smaller planet which
explains Wegener's Gondwanaland and Continental Drift theory.
	The current conventional community of astronomers and physicists
subscribe to some cosmic gaseous cloud approximately 5-10 billion years
ago from which the protosun and protoearth formed.  This is what
conventional astronomy panders off.
	The present physics community believes that the daily mass accretion
of the Earth must all come from the cosmic sweep of gas, dust, and
objects. It is so sad that physics and astronomy subscribe so much to
interstellar gas. They go even further by subscribing importance to
intergalactic gas. They wish to explain the origin of our Sun and our
planets to a primordial gas cloud. It is so sad that modern physics has
reached the heights of quantum theory, and yet the accepted explanation
to such important questions as the origin of planets and the origin of
the stars is still back in the caveman-realm-of-thought of dust and gas
clouds. Readers must ask themselves whether gas clouds should be a
reasonable science explanation for much of anything in physics and
astronomy. Cosmic gas cloud hypothesis is highly suspect. 
	The real truth I posit for the origin of planets and stars, and again
I am ahead of my time, is that the Sun is a dot of the Schroedinger
wave equation. A dot of the probability density distribution, a dot of
the electron cloud for the 94th electron of the 231 Plutonium Atom
Totality.  Dots of the electron cloud are loci where large quantity of
radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization occur. Protosun and
Protoearth started out as a dot of the Schroedinger wave equation,i.e.,
a collection of atoms, which grew via rsnm to our presently observed
Sun and planet Earth. This again leads into my revolutionary theory of
the Plutonium Atom Totality, and I will not stray afield here but refer
the interested reader to my enclosed textbook for more understanding.
	The anomalous facts concerning the planet Mercury{20}. The planet
Mercury has 2 outstanding anomalous facts: (1) huge iron core and (2) a
magnetic field. Conventional physics and astronomy are dumbfounded in
explaining these two facts. But an easy and clear explanation is rsnm.
The planet Mercury as all planets are dots of the electron cloud (LP
reinterpretation of the Max Born interpretation of the wavefunction in
the Schroedinger Equation {26}) of the 94th electron of plutonium. Dots
of the Schroedinger wave equation is where electromagnetic potential
and current exists, and wherever it exists there exists magnetic field
and hence rsnm occurs. The larger the magnetic field, the more rsnm.
The Sun has variable (nT) from 200000  (nT) through 100000000 (nT), and
Jupiter has 420000 (nT) {20a}. So the Sun is growing faster than
Jupiter in newly created matter by rsnm of neutrons transmutating into
hydrogen.
	(7) The case of the light chemical elements emitted from the middle of
the planet Earth, e.g., helium, lithium are inexplicable by science
previous to 1990, in that these elements should have escaped a long
time ago, yet they continue to spew forth in steady amount. The
community of physicists and geologists have no explanation. I have the
explanation with radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization, since
rsnm makes neutrons which some decay into hydrogen and rsnm takes some
hydrogen and forms helium and with helium rsnm sometimes forms lithium.
So there is a continual production and escape of newly formed light
elements from the middle of the Earth.
	The case for the light chemical elements and isotopes and their
anomalous quantity found in stars, galaxies, and space {21}. The
overabundance of deuterium and the abundance of the light elements of
lithium, beryllium, and boron are found in too large of a proportion in
stars and galaxies and space to be accountable by hot fusion. This data
of overabundance of these isotopes/elements shows the Big Bang theory
as the fakery that it is. For stars are so hot that these light
elements would have been burned-off and the theoretical rate of
creation by hot fusion of new deuterium, new lithium, new beryllium,
and new boron are too low to what is actually observed. Here again is
another disagreement (solar neutrinos) of hot fusion theory with
respect to the observables, i.e., more lithium, beryllium, and boron in
stars than what there should be. In summary, where the light elements
are found in abundance-- hot stars they should not be there, and where
they are not found in abundance-- intergalactic space, there should be
more of them there.
	The explanation for these anomalous facts is easy once rsnm is seen as
the active working process. In intergalactic space there is little to
no changing electric potential V or changing current flow i, and so
there is little neutron materialization to form these light elements.
In intergalactic space only additive rsnm occurs, but in stars and
galaxies both additive and multiplicative rsnm occurs. And in stars, it
is not so much that they are hot and burn-off the light elements but
that stars continually create via rsnm these light elements because of
the highly changing V and i of star plasmas.
	(8) The cosmic abundance elements and isotopes, and the uniform
distribution of the chemical elements in the observable universe in the
proportions that they are observed is strong evidence in support for
the process of rsnm. Again the physics community explains the
uniformity due to gaseous intergalactic clouds dust as a result of
supernovas. But supernovas are rare events. It strains credulity and
imagination to think that the uniformity of the elements occurred due
to a Big Bang and subsequent supernovas as mixers or blenders for
uniformity.
	(9) The observation that when electric current i flowing through wires
or through a light bulb filament or incandescent lamps are hot and
eventually the wires or filaments or other parts wear-out due to the
high temperatures. Those high temperatures are a result of rsnm when i 
varies. And before these teachings, it was inexplicable as to how atoms
of zinc Z=30 contaminated copper Z=29 wire, or atoms of rhenium Z=75
contaminated light bulb filaments or heating coils made of tungsten
Z=74 in these materials after running electric current in the
materials. With rsnm it is a direct consequence that a highly pure
copper wire will be contaminated by rsnm products, and a highly pure
tungsten filament or heater will be contaminated via rsnm products
after running  a changing electric current i through.  Check chemical
analysis of spent electric wires and filaments by General Electric,
Philips, Siemens, et al.
	(10) Although the missing 2/3 count of neutrinos from the Sun is not
direct evidence for rsnm, it is direct evidence that the currently
accepted theory of hot fusion is incorrect{22a}. Why is there a missing
2/3 count? I contend that there is not a missing count of neutrinos
when rsnm of cold fusion is the active mechanism of stars. It will be
discovered, I predict, that the fusion temperature of the Sun was
exaggerated. When correct temperatures of the SunUs interior are
measured, then cold fusion will replace the fake theory of hot fusion. 
   Let us take math logic and assume that the physics of the sun is hot
fusion of protons hydrogen nucleuses via the carbon cycle to produce
helium {22b}. This implies the temperature of the sun's core is 1.5 x
10^7 K . But with this given temperature, theoretical predictions
result in a certain amount of neutrino emission. Yet from those
predictions, 2/3 of the neutrino emission is missing from experimental
observations on Earth. Cold fusion implies a different explanation. The
Sun's temperature at the core is far cooler. Only 33.33...% of the
fusion of the sun is hot fusion and the majority, the 66.66...% is cold
fusion. The suns heat is produced by two mechanisms. Neutrinos are not
produced by cold fusion. 
  	Cold fusion of rsnm produces no neutrinos, hence there never was a
missing count when the correct theory is accepted. 
The mistake of hot fusion theory that the physics community makes is
that the 4 forces are misapplied in the theory. That when strong
nuclear and gravity are considered to the 100% exclusion of
radioactivities and electromagnetism then the measured neutrino count
accords with theory. Vice versa, if radioactivities and
electromagnetism are considered to the 100% exclusion of strong nuclear
and gravity, then the actual measured neutrino count accords with
theory. The 2/3 missing neutrino count from the Sun is indirect support
for rsnm since the neutrino count of the Sun puts the Sun and all
stars, all plasma physics into quantum physics. The 4 interactions
(forces) of physics have to be treated as 2 groups of 2 interactions as
quantum complementary duals. The Complementary Principle stated one
way{26}: The wave and the particle nature of a quantum entity are both
necessary for a complete description. However, both natures cannot be
revealed simultaneously in any single experiment. The nature that is
revealed, whether particle or whether wave, is determined by the
experimental set-up.  The 1/3 actual observed count of neutrinos from
the Sun accords well with theory once the theory makes predictions from
the use of either SN and G, excluding R and EM, and vice versa. By the
Complementary Principle (CP), we can only observe R-EM in any single
experiment with no revealing of SN-G.
	Consider hot fusion of the Sun. And consider the neutrinos coming from
the Sun. What is the nature of the neutrinos emitted through hot fusion
from the Sun? What is the nature of hot fusion? Is hot fusion partially
that of strong nuclear force, radioactivities force, electromagnetic
force, and the force of gravity all at once? Or is hot fusion only the
strong nuclear and gravity forces to the exclusion of the radioactive
and electromagnetic forces? If one sets-up experimental apparatuses
which measure neutrinos emitted from the Sun via the strong nuclear and
gravity forces to the exclusion of radioactivities and electromagnetic
forces, then that count will by different from the count theorized when
all 4 forces are considered at once.
	I end evidences with the above 10. The worst difficulty in verifying
my claim of rsnm is in overcoming the huge prejudices, sentiment, and
the dead weight inertia of the current physics community-at-large. A
physics community and also a mathematics community is composed mainly
of professors. Professors of a subject are not the best persons in
their field.  Because professors are just teachers who teach what
geniuses or the two supergeniuses have laid down. The best persons of a
subject field are the geniuses/supergeniuses of that field.  Professors
only teach what the geniuses of the subject field have established.
Geniuses of physics possess physics intuition, likewise for math and
math geniuses. Professors of physics have little to no physics
intuition and follow a herdlike mentality. Professors of physics are
good at regurgitating physics and doing what they were designed to do--
teach the subject. But lacking physics intuition they can not create
new physics nor see what is correct or wrong with the current physics.
Whenever something new in physics comes up, the first instinct of a
physics professor is to remain with the bandwagon in opposition to the
new physics. Their physics career starts and ends with regurgitation,
never any important newly created ideas. In the case of physics, most
of the geniuses became professors of physics only incidentally to that
of doing their physics work. Many of the greatest physicists were never
even professors of physics such as Franklin, Faraday, and Tesla when
they did their creative work. Only after it was obvious to the Idioten
community of physics professors that these men were not like
themselves--regurgitators of the subject, but true physicists, did the
community put forth the pretenses that they were good old professors
all along, or try to make them into their mold. There are more clear
cut examples in mathematics than physics.  The best two examples are
the cases of Galois and Ramanujan. The important point I am getting to
is that the community of physics professors is against cold fusion not
because of the experimental results shown to date, but more so out of
sentiment, out of ignorance, and most important out of the politics for
more government funds to continue with hot fusion and laser inertial
confinement fusion porkbarrels.  A professor of physics will stick to
the old physics like a goofball sticks to glue. I make this statement
in order to prepare the reader long before I discuss violation of
conservation of energy-mass. When I discuss the violation of
conservation of energy-mass I feel myself in the same position as what
Aristarchus was in when he proposed the heliocentric system several
thousands of years ago. The majority of people are dumbfounded with new
ideas even though the evidence is plain as day and night and
undeniable.
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.03 / L Plutonium /  (3 of 3) LP PATENT PRIORITY OVER CANON, sweeping changes of 
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci
physics.electromag
Subject: (3 of 3) LP PATENT PRIORITY OVER CANON, sweeping changes of 
Date: 3 Sep 1994 04:07:41 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH


Sweeping changes of world governments is outlined.
(1) The best form of world government is a benevolent dictatorship. The
second best is a constitutional democracy (CD). One could say that CD
only prevents bad dictators. But CD is only crisis government and it is
a slowly disintegrating parasitic form of government.
(2) One can see this in the most powerful CD of 1994, the USA. Slowly
but surely it is eating its own seed grains. In 1990, 90% or more of
USA worked for a living, by 1994 over 40% of the people are parasites
of the working 60% of the people. This will result in a currency
collapse, into a brutal and violent chaos, governments will collapse or
go into a nuclear war to cleanse the system and start anew from the
ashes. 

Here I offer a solution that can bypass the currency collapse.

(1) The world is ruled by benevolent dictators. They are put into power
from the CEO's of the major world corporations according to research
and development spending.  Continued in a separate post titled "BRAVE
NEW GOVERNMENT"


	Virtual particles out of nowhere is a form of violation of
conservation of energy-mass. The physics community overlooks this
violation of conservation of energy-mass by saying that it happens so
fast with such small particles. Dirac would agree from his book{4} that
rsnm is a direct violation of the conservation of energy-mass.  But
conservation violation is nothing new, for example: (i) It was
experimentally shown that the conservation of parity was violated in
1956 by Lee and Yang.  (ii) And later it was experimentally shown that
charge conjugation multiply parity (CP) were not conserved. See 1964 
Cronin and Fitch. (iii) It is now thus inferred by assuming if time
reversal multiply charge conjugation multiply parity (TCP) is a good
symmetry, that time reversal symmetry is violated. The conservation of
time reversal symmetry means that if time could run backwards, would it
be acceptable to the laws of physics?  
	My textbook and this patent application both assert that the
conservation of energy-mass is continually violated by the universe at
large. The universe is growing by newly created matter via rsnm. The
present community of physics at large believes in the Big Bang model in
which there is no growth of new matter after the initial explosion. I
say that model is wrong.
	Thus it does not surprize me that the USA DoE and patent examiner
sticks with the community of physics professors and the goofball
conservation of energy-mass. A supergenius such as Archimedes and
myself have to show the bandwagons where and how far wrong they are. 
Dirac is with me, in his book{4}.  That is the reason I am a
supergenius because I go against that huge community of physics
professors, what Jonathan Swift called "the confederacy of dunces". 
For when supergenius comes to Earth, you can easily recognize it by one
sign-- "There will be such a large Confederacy of Dunces, all massed-up
against him--" 
	What technical difficulties are there in rsnm devices?
	(1) It is very difficult to measure the exact count of hadrons in a
mass sample. Measuring exact counts of hadrons before running a
changing electric current i or changing electromagnetic potential V
through the sample and checking the count afterwards is extremely
difficult and never exact.
	(2) It is extremely difficult, and perhaps theoretically impossible to
manufacture a slab of a 100% pure isotope. And in the case of hydrogen
gas a container of pure hydrogen. It seems as if there is always
contamination. This contamination is in fact support of my claim of
radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization. That rsnm results in
all samples as being impure and never reaching 100% purity. See reports
on GE striving to manufacture a 100% pure carbon isotope diamond{23}.
In theory, I assert the impossibility of ever achieving 100% purity is
another formulation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
	(3) The best fuels for Neutron Materialization Power Reactors are
hydrogen isotopes, but hydrogen isotopes are very explosive and
dangerous to work with when running either a changing electric current
i or a changing electromagnetic potential V through. 
		DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION
	There are only 4 quantum interactions which we know about. These are
(1) Strong Nuclear (SN) (2) Gravitation (G) (3) Radioactivities (R),
and (4) Electromagnetism (EM).
	There are only 4 quantum principles which we know about. These are (1)
Uncertainty (UP) (2) Complementary (CP) (3) Superposition (SP), and (4)
Pauli (PP). 
	By the fact of CP there exists at least one unique group of
complementary duals. This unique group is particle-wave. Where particle
+ wave = the whole description. I propose other groups of CP.
	Taking the 4 interactions as 2 groups of complementary duals. Then one
group is Strong Nuclear and Gravity, represented as SN+G = whole
description. The other group is Radioactivities and Electromagnetism,
represented as R+EM = whole description. 
	Applying CP to fusion, both hot and cold, then fusion is physically
measurable as either SN+G with never any R or EM. Or, fusion is
physically measurable as either R+EM with never any SN or G.
	Thinking quantumwise, hot fusion of our Sun is a measurement from
experimental set-ups for SN+G, excluding all R and EM. But our Sun can
be measured as a huge radioactivities pile R along with
electromagnetism EM, written as R+EM for a complete description. This
complete description of the Sun by R+EM must exclude all SN and G.
	According to CP, since SN+G = whole description, and  R+EM = whole
description. Then the relative coupling strengths of the 4 interactions
has the mathematical equivalence as thus SN+G = R+EM.
	The relative coupling strength of SN is highest and if assigned the
value 1 then gravity is experimentally measured at 10^-40 . But, 1 +
10^-40  is for all practical purposes still 1. Taking SN+G as
proportional to 1 implies that since SN+G = R+EM, then R+EM is
proportional to 1.
	Since EM has a relative coupling strength to SN of .01, implies that R
must have a relative coupling strength of .99. For all practical
purposes then, R almost equals SN.
	But according to FeynmanUs Table of 1963, the weak nuclear
(radioactive decay) (rd) has a relative coupling strength of 10-5.
Since relative coupling strength for radioactive growth (rg) is even
less than radioactive decay implies that there must exist another form
of radioactivities other than rd and rg to complete the interaction
law. In hot fusion processes of SN+G, hydrogen is transmutated into
helium. And hydrogen which has only 1 proton and 1 electron
(essentially a 1 neutron system) transmutated into helium containing 2
protons, 2 neutrons, and 2 electrons (essentially a 4 neutron system).
Then the form of radioactivities which completes the radioactivities
interaction (R) is radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization
(rsnm). In the case of hydrogen transmutation to helium, there are 3
neutrons spontaneously materialized with one of those neutrons
decaying, subsequent proton capture, electron capture. So, rsnm has the
relative coupling strength of .99, almost the same as SN at 1. 
	What I propose is to drastically change FeynmanUs Table as given in
1963 and accepted before my teachings. Bohr asserted that the set-up of
a device determines what is measured. Bohr asserted that to measure one
of two noncommutative properties then the device must be so set-up such
that "an influence on the very conditions which define the possible
types of predictions regarding the future behavior of the system."  
Rewording Bohr's thought to radioactive spontaneous neutron
materialization fusion is this: to measure mostly rsnm instead of
electromagnetism requires the set-up of devices in which rsnm prevails
over  electromagnetism. Quantum mechanics via the Heisenberg
Uncertainty Principle (UP), 1927, predicts virtual particles from out
of nowhere which last for only a brief period of time. Virtual
particles can be electrons, positrons, neutrons, molecules and even
whole prions, virus, bacteria, plants. Reveiw the 10^14 MEV spontaneous
particle creation.  But generally, rsnm is not heavier than protons.
Particle detectors, gas bubble chambers, and CERN confirm the
postulation of virtual particles. The pinnacle of modern science {13b}
up to my teachings was Quantum Electrodynamics (QED).  According to
QED, the vacuum is filled with electron-positron fields. Real
electron-positron pairs are created when photons interact with these
fields. Virtual electron-positron pairs, however can also exist for
short quantum instants of time via UP. 
	In late 1990, I realized that not only do virtual particles exist but
that virtual particles were the first clue of particle materialization
from out of nowhere and specifically of neutron materialization. The
extension of virtual particles to that of actual materialized
particles, and specifically to that of neutrons in rsnm, neutrons
spontaneously materialize from out of nowhere is a form of
radioactivity.  This radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization
(rsnm) is another form of radioactivities which until 1990 was
undiscovered, and the ample evidences, (see above), for rsnm were
unrecognized as such.  Remember, the physics community was under the
witchdoctor magic of "Conservation (Idioten) Laws". 
	I call radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization rsnm and I
assert it is the major component of the radioactivities interaction
(R).  There are two other components to radioactivites and these are
radioactive decay (rd) and radioactive growth (rg). 
	Feynman in FEYNMAN LECTURES ON PHYSICS  Volume I page 2-10, 1963 gives
the following (my edited) account of the 4 interactions (forces) of
physics with a comparison of relative coupling strengths in the table
below:
"There seem to be just four kinds of interaction between particles
which , in the order of decreasing strength, are the strong nuclear
interaction, electromagnetic interactions, electroweak interaction, and
gravity.  The photon is coupled to all electromagnetic interactions and
the strength of the interaction is measured by some number which is
1/137.  The detailed law of this coupling is known and is quantum
electrodynamics QED.  Gravity is coupled to all energy and this law is
also known.  Then there is the electroweak interaction which causes the
neutron to disintegrate into proton, electron, and neutrino.  This law
is only partly known.  The strong nuclear interaction, the meson-baryon
interaction, has a strength of 1 on this scale and the law is
completely unknown, although there are some known rules such as the
number of baryons DoEs not change in any reaction. "
	Table 2-3.  Elementary Interactions
	Coupling		Strength*			Law
Photon to charged particles   10^-2         Law known
Gravity to all energy             10^-40      Law known
radioactive decay                 10^-5       Law partially known
Mesons to baryons               1      Law unknown (some rules known)
*The strength  as given is a dimensionless measure of the coupling
constant involved in each interaction. {13a}
	I change some of FeynmanUs teachings by (A) renaming weak nuclear as
radioactivities (R). (B) radioactivities (R) consists of 3 components--
	(1) radioactive decay (rd), 
	(2) radioactive growth (rg), and 
	(3) radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization (rsnm) (C)   R is
only slightly weaker than the strong nuclear (SN), and the proper
listing of the 4 interactions according to strength is (1) strong
nuclear, (2) radioactivities (3) electromagnetic (4) gravitation.
	I give Feynman's 1963 Table with my reinterpretation considering
quantum principles applied to the 4 interactions:
	New Table for Elementary Interactions
	Coupling		Strength			Law
Photon to charged particles   .01                 Law known
Gravity to all energy               10^-40           Law known
radioactivities rsnm+rd+rg    .99              Law known
Mesons to baryons                  1   Law still unknown but more rules
								known
	Compare my table with that of FeynmanUs Table given above.  The
largest change is in the category of radioactivity. FeynmanUs 1963 was
this: radioactive decay  10^-5    Law partially known . 
	Before my teachings, the weak nuclear interaction was considered to
consist of only two components, i.e., radioactive decay and radioactive
growth. I assert that the weak nuclear interaction is an incomplete
interaction law (or force law). What was thought of as the weak nuclear
interaction before my teachings is only a small part, a small component
of the overall radioactivities interaction. The radioactivities
interaction consists of (1) rsnm, plus (2) radioactive decay (weak
nuclear), plus (3) radioactive growth (weak nuclear).  Before my
teachings the weak nuclear was vaguely understood as radioactive decay
with only a notion of radioactive growth. And leaving out the most
important form of radioactivity, that of radioactive spontaneous
neutron materialization in order to make the interaction law or (force
law) complete. When rd plus rg is added to rsnm, then I assert the
interaction (force) law for radioactivities is complete.  Thus the
complete radioactivities (R) interaction looks like this:  R =
rd+rg+rsnm. Let me define rd and rg below.
	Radioactive growth (rg) is when an atom transmutates (transforms) by
increasing in atomic number Z, such as when a uranium atom transmutates
to a neptunium atom or when a neptunium atom transmutates to a
plutonium atom.  Radioactive growth is when the original atom goes
higher in atomic number. Radioactive growth is when a neutron in the
nucleus of an atom transforms into a proton, electron, and neutrino,
increasing the atomic number of the original atom. The original atom
before the radioactive growth had atomic number Z and after the
radioactive growth has atomic number Z+1.  
	Radioactive decay (rd) is when any atom of an atomic number Z
transmutates to an atom/s of lower atomic number.  For example, when
uranium decays to lead and neon. Before 1990, the weak nuclear
interaction was known as comprising only radioactive decay and
radioactive growth.  Shortly after 07/11/1990, I had postulated
radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization (rsnm) from DiracUs
book Directions in Physics 1975. 
	Dirac specifically asserted spontaneous materialization of particles
from out of nowhere in his book Directions in Physics . Dirac in his
book discusses particle materialization out of nowhere can occur either
additive or multiplicative.  Dirac proposed particle materialization. I
specifically propose neutron materialization and that this neutron
materialization occurs both additive and multiplicative simultaneously.
I had surmised from Dirac's book by late1990 that something had to
induce rsnm, but what that form of induction was I would not discover
until 1991. I discovered the form of induction from muon catalyzed
fusion by extending the Maxwell Equation symmetry of changing electric
field produces a magnetic field and vice versa. In the case of cold
fusion, that symmetry was changing electric current i or changing
electric potential V, or both, which is pulsing. Shortly thereafter I
submitting the patent application in 1991. Later, in 1994, Canon
Corporation would verify my patent claim of pulsing, but unrightfully,
they did not give me proper credit, neither copyright nor prior patent
right.
	The relative coupling strength of SN compared to EM is about 100 to 1.
  This implies that the relative coupling strength of SN compared to R
is about 100 to 99. The periodic chart of chemical elements is evidence
in agreement with these numbers. Element 100 is at the limit of
statistical half-life to Spontaneous Fission stability since that is
the relative coupling strength of SN to EM.  Spontaneous Fission
half-life instability rapidly increases with atomic number Z=99,
element 99, implying that SN is balanced by R+EM when Z=100.
	Dirac proposed particle materialization in his book Directions in
Physics. .  Specifically I propose neutron materialization and that
this neutron materialization occurs both additive and multiplicative
simultaneously. Neutron materialization occurs most often in stars in
their hydrogen plasmas. Stars are magnetohydrodynamic plasmas{9}
obeying laws of highly changing, pulsing fields of electromagnetism
{13b}. 
	I assert that a star in magnetohydrodynamics is radioactivities and
electromagnetism.  Hot fusion is looking at a star as predominantly SN
with the quantum complementary dual of G. When a physicist wants to
measure the dynamics of starpower with what is known as hot fusion,
then the physicist must consider only the complementary duals of SN+G
to the 100% exclusion of R+EM. But if that same physicist wants to
measure the dynamics of starpower using R+EM, then he must exclude 100%
all interactions of both SN and G. Before 1991 a physicist trying to
explain stellar dynamics by using strong nuclear and gravity and then
mixing-in the weak nuclear force and electromagnetic force was wrong in
his theoretical understanding and subsequently wrong in his
calculations. 
	Stellar dynamics using only strong nuclear and gravitation is correct
once all radioactivities and electromagnetism are excluded. The strong
nuclear force is the main component of hot fusion.  Hot fusion is
described for the Sun where P is a proton, E an electron, N a neutron.
The hot fusion reaction in the Sun is  
				P+ (P+ E- + antineutrino)  into  PN
          			PN + P  into    
				PNP+ gamma ray
       				PNP+ PNP into  
				NPNP+ P+ P + energy
	But what I am teaching and this is new to the art, is that a star is
measurable quantum mechanically by the complementary duals of
radioactivities and electromagnetism. Stellar dynamics using only
radioactivities and electromagnetism is correct once all strong nuclear
and gravity are excluded. Our Sun then is seen as a radioactive pile
with electromagnetism going on. Within this quantum viewpoint, then
magnetohydrodynamics plasma fields come into the calculations.  The Sun
and stars are no longer seen as hot fusion spheres but instead
radioactive cold fusion spheres. Where rsnm is the main activity. This
activity is described for the Sun where P is a proton, E an electron, N
an already existing neutron, NU a spontaneous neutron materialized. The
cold fusion reaction in the Sun is   
                                    P into  PNU+ energy then
          			PN into PNNU+ energy then    
				PNNU into PNP+ gamma ray
       				PNP into  
				NUPNP+ energy
 	What induces radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization?  Since
radioactivities is the quantum complementary dual to the
electromagnetic, then induction for rsnm is to run either a changing
electric current i or a changing electric potential difference V
through a fuel mass. Any fuel mass will work but some are better than
others. The best fuel mass are hydrogen and isotopes of hydrogen. Iron
will work as a fuel mass since it is the element stable against fusion
and fission. 
	Here is a list of some possible fuel mass elements for radioactive
spontaneous neutron materialization.  The following data are the
electron binding energies for several elements where the units are
electron volts.  The source of this information is CRC Handbook of
Chemistry and Physics  {24} 
Hydrogen (1)  K 1s   13.6
Helium (2) K  1s   24.6
Oxygen (8) LI   2s  41.6
Argon (18)  MIII 3p3/2    15.7
Iron (26)  MIII 3p3/2    52.7
Copper (29)  MIII 3p3/2    75.1
Zinc (30)   MV  3d5/2   10.1    
Krypton (36)  NIII 4p3/2    14.1
Rubidium (37) NIII 4p3/2    15.3
Palladium (46)  NIII 4p3/2    50.9
Silver (47)  NIII 4p3/2    58.3
Cadmium (48)  NV 4d5/2  10.7
Xenon (54) OIII 5p3/2  12.1
Cesium (55) OIII 5p3/2  12.1
Barium (56) OIII 5p3/2  14.8
Gold (79)  OIII 5p3/2  57.2
Mercury (80) OV  5d5/2   7.8
Thallium (81)  OV  5d5/2  12.5
Francium (87)  PIII  6p3/2  15
Actinium (89) PIII  6p3/2 ___
Thorium (90) PIII  6p3/2 16.6
Protoactinium (91)  PIII  6p3/2 ___
Uranium (92) PIII  6p3/2 16.8
	The element mercury, since the binding energy for its last electron is
so low at 7.8 entails that mercury is a fuel mass for electrochemical
cold fusion cells, vice heavy water.
	Like a double-slit Uncertainty Principle experiment, if i or V were
known with 100% accuracy then rsnm would be 0%. In the language of
quantum physics, when the current or potential is fixed or held
constant, then the wavefunction is collapsed. But when the current i or
potential V are variable then the wavefunction is not collapsed,
permitting rsnm to occur. 
	 On a macroscopic level the answer to how to induce rsnm is to run a
variable i or variable V on a fuel mass such as hydrogen. 
On a microscopic level the answer on how to induce rsnm is that it
occurs most frequently when an additional electron, one more than the
number of protons in the nucleus of that particular atom results.
Microscopically, where rsnm occurs and what induces it is an atom which
is topheavy with an additional electron beyond its chemical element
number of electrons, thus exciting the  materialization of a neutron
from out of nowhere.  For example, a hydrogen atom has only 1 electron
and 1 proton, but for an instant-of-quantum-time a hydrogen atom can
have 2 electrons and 1 proton. Or in the case of a plutonium atom with
94 electrons and 94 protons, it can for an instant-of-quantum-time have
95 electrons, but still have only 94 protons and remain still a
plutonium atom. A hydrogen atom with 1 electron and 1 proton, if when
another electron is added to the hydrogen atom system then for that
instant-of-quantum-time this hydrogen atom consists of 2 electrons and
1 proton. The additional electron quantum mechanically induces rsnm in
the nucleus. Subsequently, this neutron, having materialized, can
either stay as a neutron in the original atom system, or radioactively
decay into a proton, electron, and neutrino.  If the materialized
neutron remains in the nucleus of the original atom system of hydrogen,
then that hydrogen atom can transform into a helium atom plus energy
subsequent to the materialization of two more neutrons.  
	The most obvious rsnm objects are star plasmas.  The stars and Sun via
plasma matter are vast electron inducers which quantum mechanically
excite, induce rsnm.  Our Sun is a device which has both a large
changing electron current i flow and a large changing electric
potential V, by the fact that it is mostly all hydrogen plasma.  
	Before my teachings the Sun was seen as a large hot fusion device
wherein the theory of hot fusion did not accord with the experimental
observations for the process, e.g., the missing neutrino count. With my
teachings the Sun is seen as a radioactive pile with electromagnetic
plasma and there is no missing neutrino count once the correct theory
is matched with the observations. The 2/3 missing neutrino count was a
result of matching an incorrect theory to the observation.
	I assert that when the electrons of an atom are electrically excited
by adding more electrons to the atom such as in a plasma state of
matter in stars, then rsnm occurs. Once a neutron is materialized, it
either decays into a hydrogen atom plus energy or if it materialized
inside the nucleus of a preexisting atom transforming that atom into a
different atom or a different isotope. 	Any isotope, chemical
element/s, compounds, or molecules can be quantum mechanically induced
into rsnm. However, hydrogen and hydrogen isotopes are the best fuels
for induction to rsnm, for reasons of its 1 electron subshell can
easily accommodate an additional electron and still remain a hydrogen
atom, having 1 proton but 2 electrons. This additional electron induces
the atom into rsnm. 	In general, the radioactive isotopes will quantum
induce rsnm faster than nonradioactive isotopes. The reason for this is
that since radioactivities is the complementary dual to
electromagnetism that a prevalence of electrons occurs via radioactive
electron decay emission. Commonly known as beta decay. A sample of
radioactive elements emit their own electrons which can result in
electron capture by some of the atoms in the sample, consequently there
is an atom which for a short quantum time has Z+1 electrons yet a Z
number of protons. The rate of occurrence of rsnm for radioactive
elements is governed by half-life radioactive decay and is based on the
formula for radioactive rate of decay    exp-lt.  Using Dirac's rate of
materialization as time squared t2, and substituting t2 into the
radioactive growth and radioactive decay rate formula results in a
normal Gaussian distribution curve. 
	Thus my invention consists of processes for inducing radioactive
spontaneous neutron materialization, and the devices or apparatuses
engineered for the purpose of deriving energy from rsnm. These devices
can range from the small size such as batteries, a collection of
batteries, or test tube equipment in a science laboratory, such as
electrochemical cells, on up to devices the size of a nuclear power
plant.  Such a neutron materialization nuclear power plant will be of a
much simpler design over previous fission reactor power plants or
attempted hot fusion reactors. The fuel mass of neutron materialization
devices will last much longer as a fuel since the choice of a fuel can
be any isotope, chemical element/s, compounds, or molecules,
radioactive or not.  A rsnm power plant can use a nonradioactive
element fuel mass such as iron or hydrogen and thus safer and cleaner. 
Or a neutron materialization nuclear power plant can use a less
dangerous radioactive isotope of thorium, uranium, or plutonium for the
fuel mass. The fuel mass will have a changing electric current i
flowing, or a changing electric potential V through it.  The best
isotopes to use are hydrogen, iron isotopes, mercury isotopes, and the
radioactive isotopes.  Any isotope, chemical element/s, compounds, or
molecules can act as a fuel mass. Once a fuel is placed in the
containment vessel, a changing electric current i is run through the
fuel mass, or a changing electric potential V goes through the fuel.
The containment vessel is surrounded by a substance such as water or
some other substance which captures the most amount of heat from rsnm. 

	 These nuclear devices are an exploitation of excess heat from rsnm, a
confirmation of quantum mechanical principles of uncertainty and
complementary, but a violation of the conservation of energy-mass.  All
such devices constructed will confirm excess heat produced from the
materialization of neutrons out of nowhere and thus will show the
violation of energy-mass conservation.  This was demonstrated and
confirmed in Reifenschweiler radiation and sonoluminescence
experiments.
	The pulsing, that is the changing i or changing V through the fuel
mass will induce rsnm resulting in a net increase in total energy of
the isolated system.  The changing i or changing V will cause induction
of rsnm resulting in net increase in total energy going out which will
be observable and measurable as excess heat.  The excess heat can then
be converted to other usable forms of energy such as electricity.
	I assert that spontaneous neutron materialization is going on all
around us, in stars, in the Earth.  Where ever there is the strong
nuclear-gravitation interaction, there is the
radioactivities-electromagnetism interaction. The one group of SN+G is
interchangeable and superpositioned with the other group R+EM.  So,
what we generally attribute to the forces of the strong
nuclear-gravitation is replaceable or superposed by the
radioactivities-electromagnetism.  Before these teachings, a physicist
would look at the Sun and say the Sun is a hot fusion device (strong
nuclear force is the fusing with consequent energy emission) where
gravity is pulling in hydrogen atoms and then fusing hydrogen atoms to
make helium atoms with a resultant energy.  I would transpose that idea
and say that the Sun is a radioactivities device (mostly rsnm) where
the Sun's matter is in the form of plasma, and thus the Sun is a large
electromagnetic device also with changing current flow and changing
electric potential and so neutrons spontaneously materialize most of
which transmutate into new hydrogen atoms via radioactive decay, but
some hydrogen atoms materializing neutrons inside their nucleus
transmutating into new helium atoms and  giving-up excess energy. 
	I see the Sun as two pictures in which both are the same only looking
at them from different quantum duals. The one is hot fusion of hydrogen
into helium in the Sun made possible by the gravitational force with
strong force. This is our current conventional view and it is correct
if and only if radioactivities plus electromagnetism were 100%
excluded. The other is the radioactivities and electromagnetism
interaction where the Sun is a large collection of hydrogen atoms where
spontaneous neutron materialization occurs frequently within these
hydrogen atoms, transmutating hydrogen into helium heating the solar
system.  
	The foregoing detailed description of the invention has been presented
for the purposes of illustration and description.  It is not intended
to be exhaustive or to limit the invention to the precise form
disclosed.  Many modifications and variations are possible in light of
the above teaching.  It is intended that the scope of the invention be
limited not by this detailed description, but rather by the claims
appended hereto.
	My invention covers more than just the precise thing described.  It is
a broad theory, and any device that is within the language of the
claims is to be within the coverage of the patent.  This is to prevent
others from pointing to specific examples and arguing that the patent
is limited to these.
				PRIOR DEVICES
	Paneth & Peters originated the science and realized that fusion energy
was at stake in their work.  Tandberg extended Paneth & Peters science
to electrochemistry and did the cold fusion experiments first in the
years 1927-1932. But TandbergUs work was without the correct theory of
cold fusion of rsnm and the induction of rsnm by pulsing. Without the
pulsing, TandbergUs experiments of cold fusion were not repeatable.
Fleischmann & Pons redid the Tandberg work in 1989 without explanation
or means of induction. Hence the Fleischmann & Pons experiments were
flawed and unrepeatable. What Fleischmann & Pons gave to the world was
instant worldwide attention to the Tandberg experiments. Noone before
me had propounded the process of radioactive spontaneous neutron
materialization. And noone before me has had the idea that running a
changing electric current i or an changing electric potential
difference V, which is pulsing, through a fuel mass, especially
hydrogen isotopes, iron isotopes, mercury isotopes, or the radioactive
elements such as *90, *91, uranium, plutonium,  *98, will result in a
net excess of energy. Net energy resulting from rsnm. Net energy not
from the chemistry of hydrogen but from nuclear rsnm. And net energy in
the case for radioactive elements, not from the emission products of
radioactive decay but from a new kind of radioactivity-- spontaneous
neutron materialization out of nowhere (rsnm).  Canon, as per their
patent 1994 has confirmed the repeatability of cold fusion from the
technique of pulsing. Pulsing was one of my claims in my patent
application of 1991 and takes priority rights over Canon. When some
research laboratory confirms and verifies spontaneous neutron
materialization, then spontaneous alpha particle materialization from
out of nowhere, and spontaneous beta particle materialization from out
of nowhere also exist and are harnessable as practical means of
obtaining net positive energy.
			SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
	Radioactivities interaction was not well understood before my
teachings. The electromagnetic interaction is a quantum complementary
dual to the radioactivities interaction.  Thus a variable flow of
electric current i or a variable electric potential V, i.e. pulsing
through any fuel mass will induce the materialization of neutrons from
out of nowhere and that devises can be set-up, engineered, and
constructed to utilize the energy of radioactive spontaneous neutron
materialization. 
			CLAIM FOR THE INVENTION
	I claim: 
	1. Devices constructed, engineered, and set-up for the purpose of
deriving, and using net energy from radioactive spontaneous neutron
materialization. 
	2. A method for induction of fusion by radioactive spontaneous neutron
materialization comprising:
	a changing (pulsing) electric current i flow through the fuel mass
	a changing (pulsing) electric potential difference V through the fuel
mass.
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Sat Sep  3 04:37:09 EDT 1994
------------------------------
1994.09.03 / L Plutonium /  #2 BRAVE NEW WORLD GOVERNMENT,downfall of the USA
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci
physics.electromag,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.theory
Subject: #2 BRAVE NEW WORLD GOVERNMENT,downfall of the USA
Date: 3 Sep 1994 16:19:41 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

The world will be run by the CEO's of corporations, banded together.
Corporations run the world now as it is. Although they do not publicize
it.
The USA started to decay when it cut the Gordian Knot. Circa FDR, (FDR
is the equivalent of Rasputin, Kark Marx put together). Once you
disconnect MONEY, from honest labor, therein you start the wheels of
destruction of the entire political system. Then you throw in complete
idiots like Kennedy's, Clinton, the race to the destruction of the
curreny is all the more ominious.

The USA currency, all savings in cash or money equivalents will go into
the gutter of shame. The only thing saved out of the impending
apocalypse is stock shares and gold silver. Land and real estate also
will be spared but you may lose your life trying to keep vandals and
marauders, thieves from taking over. It is best you scope out somewhere
in the world were you can airplane and let the USA phoenix rerise.

How will the USA purge its 1940-present "currency destruction". Ever
since politicians were given the money printing presses the USA is
headed for the apocalypse. France has had the money destruction binge,
and it has been a gradual affair, but France is not like the USA where
there are many howlers armed to the teeth with firearms. Imagine New
York City the day it is seen that no more welfare dispensed, . . all
USA money is worthless.

Politicians will not get us out of this mess. They have they foot on
the gas pedal to get us into the apocalypse.

Instead the politicians will look for another SCAPEGOAT "murder of
Archduke Ferdinand-WW1" to trigger off WW3. That will be a nuclear
holocaust. Politicians do not like to solve a currency destruction, so
they elevate it into something far worse just so that they will not be
pinned in history as the evil that they really are.

CONTINUED in #3
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.03 / L Plutonium /  #3 BRAVE NEW WORLD GOVERNMENT, what to call the evil USA 
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci
physics.electromag,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.theory
Subject: #3 BRAVE NEW WORLD GOVERNMENT, what to call the evil USA 
Date: 3 Sep 1994 16:34:55 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

I have toyed with that question for a long time. What to call the
Supreme Court. In the least-- they have derelicted their duty. The
Constitution speaks of money coinage in gold and silver. Of course,
politicians want to control the money printing presses, by the way, is
Clinton's budget deficit decreasing?

People, lazy Americans, like to lay in a hammock all day, sipping beer,
never doing any work, go downtown and philander sluts, knock them up
with illegitimate bastards. Hey Billy, give me more welfare, I'll vote
for you. F--- the USA in 50 years from now when curreny collapse comes
in. I want to live here and now and not work.

The Supreme Court is a gaggle of mindless f---dogs, of the highest
order, the highest order. They will defend your right of free speech
while they have your hands in your economic pocketbook. They will
defend your right of free press, while they on the sleuth give the
politicians the money press.

The USA Supreme Court is just a nicely robed "Organized Crime
Syndicate".
Of what use is freedom of speech, freedom of press, when there is no
freedom of saving money earned by hard labor. 50% of money earned by
hard labor now goes to buying human parasites their free lunches.

Have the Jacka-- Supreme Court stroll into a MacDonald's in New York
City where the hard working employs are paid less than a human parasite
across town living off of welfare. Have those mindless f---dogs of
Justices, tell us that this is justice.

Continued in #4
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.02 /  jonesse@plasma /  Richard Liboff's papers on cf ...
     
Originally-From: jonesse@plasma.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Richard Liboff's papers on cf ...
Date: 2 Sep 94 12:50:35 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

Lou Pagnucco writes:
"In the late 1970's or early 1980's Richard L. Liboff published several
speculative papers on the possibility of fuison in solid hydrogen (also on the
possibility of exotic chemically catalyzed fusion reactions  -- if I recall
correctly."

So I called Prof. Liboff at Cornell and received several refs:

Nucl. Eng. and Design 49 (1978) 213  and 54 (1979) 119.

Phys. Lett. 74a (1979) 323  and  83a (1981) 326.

J. Fusion Energy 1 (1981) 211

Annals of Nucl. Eng 8 (1981) 87

Phys. Lett A 174 (1993) 317.

This is interesting, and I wonder if Frank Close or others have checked these
references.  I intend to do so right away.

Then I remembered a bit of information I got from a G. Jordan some time ago,
in which he said that Liboff's work on "cold fusion" had been given to 
Gordon Young of Salt Lake City in the early 1980's, who in turn passed the
information on to -- you guessed it! -- Pons and Fleischmann.  Hmmm....
I now think this thread is worth following up on.  

Propose we look at Liboff's articles and see what he has to say.

--Steven Jones

Frank, or anyone:  Have you heard of this connection before?  What do we make
of it?
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenjonesse cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.02 /  jonesse@acoust /  Re:  ICCF4 Proceedings/A closer look
     
Originally-From: jonesse@acoust.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re:  ICCF4 Proceedings/A closer look
Date: 2 Sep 94 14:41:32 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

In article <J0xTGip.jedrothwell@delphi.com>, 
jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:
> jonesse@xray.byu.edu (Steve Jones) writes:
>  
>      "I have heard the same thing, but the reason for stopping the CF work
>      [at Amoco] was  that the researchers found that the "excess heat" was in
>      fact traced to recombination of D2 and O2 in the electrolytic cell --
>      thus not excess heat at all."
>  
> That is incorrect. The report -- and my quote from Melich summarizing it --
> clearly stated that this was a closed cell. That means it has a recombiner in
> it, which eliminates any possibility long term spurious excess heat due to
> recombination. They could not have measured 50 KJ recombination with a closed
> cell.

Nope.  Just because they used a closed cell does _not_ imply that this
"eliminates any possibility" for "long term spurious excess heat due to
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
recombination."  It's not that simple.  Recombination can occur in the
electrolytic cell itself, we have shown in experiments here, as well as in the
recombiner -- and the amount of heat generated at various spots can change with
time as well.  In turn, heat paths and cell constants change as the
recombination sites change.  In particular, if a thermocouple (or equivalent)
is near a hot spot, apparent excess heat (spurious) is likely.  I believe this
has been discussed previously in this forum.

Another  typical problem is that the recombiner is not 100% efficient.  Can
you verify that such problems did (do) not occur in this experiment?

>  
> Jones adds:
>  
>      "As for the Shell study by Dufour, Foos and Millot in France, it is
>      instructive to actually look at their paper which is published in the
>      ICCF-4 Proceedings by EPRI, p. 9-1 ff. of volume 1.  This is rich. . .
>      [followed by various comments relating to nuclear theory.]"
>  
> I cannot evaluate the nuclear theory in the Dufour paper. I have no way of
> knowing whether it is right, wrong, rich or poor. I can, however, evaluate his
> calorimetry and I see no mistake there. I am sure he did measure excess heat
> at a very high level, far above the threshold of detection. These experimental
> results are all that matter. His theories may be completely cockeyed (I cannot
> judge), but his results are correct.
>  
> - Jed

Your admission that you cannot judge matters relating to nuclear
theory is telling -- the errors I pointed out were blatant and even sophomoric.

Yet you say that you "see no mistake" in the calorimetry.  So let's revisit the
paper.  The Maui proceedings paper by Dufour, Foos and Millot does not provide
details on the calorimeter used, but instead references an older paper which I
do not have available; I suppose you do.  Yet the authors speak of changes in
the calorimeter, which are disquieting:

"The calorimetric equipment previously described [ref. 1] was used to study
these two types of ozoniser discharge.  The reactor was slightly modified (see
Fig.1 and Fig.2) and the ozonizer built around a 4 cm diameter pyrex tube
welded to the upper part of the reactor.  ... In order to prevent any possible
ozoniser discharge to take place between the outer copper electrode and the
metalic surroundings of the reactor, and thus influencing the results, the part
of the reactor outside the 4 cm pyrex tube was filled with air.   Several
calibrations yielded the same calibration curve as for the spark approach [ref.
1], and this was true whether the reactor was filled with hydrogen or with
air."

So this is a "reactor" {bold term} using high-voltage discharges, and not an
electrolytic cell.  The remark that the calibration curve was the same when the
"reactor" was filled with hydrogen as with air is difficult to believe, since
hydrogen has dramatically different thermal properties.  But the authors give
no data to support the claim.  How then can you be so sure that there is "no
mistake there" as you say?

Looking at the results, the authors give just 3 data points for the 
"single barrier ozoniser"  
{the meaning of the term ozoniser is rather obscure} as follows:
 
Power in reactor (w)   Excess power out (w)      {they use a lower case 'w'}

     3.00                  1.62
     3.67                  1.84
     2.66                  2.75

Then they take the unexplained step of combining these separate runs to
get a mean value and "standard deviation" as follows:

     3.11 Stand.dev. 0.42  2.07 stand.dev 0.49.

Now explain to me why three runs with different input powers (varying from 2.66
to 3.67 W) should be simply averaged  in this way?  Why are not errors given
for the input and output power values tabulated above?  What is the statistical
meaning (and validity) of the mean and standard deviation of the values they
provide in this surprising way?  

When you can answer these questions, I can better believe your claim that "his
results are correct." 

--Steven Jones

cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenjonesse cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.03 / L Plutonium /  #4 BRAVE NEW WORLD GOVERNMENT, notice the gyrations of the USA 
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci
physics.electromag,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.theory
Subject: #4 BRAVE NEW WORLD GOVERNMENT, notice the gyrations of the USA 
Date: 3 Sep 1994 16:49:28 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

Notice the gyrations of the USA currency against the DM, or Swiss Fr.
The next world cataclysm will come from the USA $ destroyed.

I propose that all world nations will then listen to a benevolent
dictator, electoral colleged in by the CEO's of the worlds major
corporations. Good riddance to Washington govt. good riddance to all
governments. We will have dictators rule. There will be no taxes. Money
will be of course gold and silver, the real money, but also the world's
corporations will print there own money vouchers.

Now how to get rid of the world's present day political idiots before
they get rid of us in a nuclear war or blood bath of a CURRENCY REFORM.

All that needs to be done is to not accept the USA currency for
exchange.

If the rich nations of the Middle East banded together and refuse to
ever accept the USA currency, then, quickly the USA government with
their paper confetti dollars will have a world crisis on their hands.

Or, better yet, Japan is known as a nation of hard working people,
sacrificing people. All that Japan needs to do is to stop accepting USA
currency. And an onslaught of world crisis begins. Instead of waiting
10, 20 years for a nuclear war or bloodbath caused by the USA $
DEVALUATION, REFORM. It is far better to make an orderly crisis than a
disorderly crisis, pain is better when it is parcelled out in time,
rather than a nuclear war.

Continued in #5.
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.03 / L Plutonium /  #5 BRAVE NEW WORLD GOVERNMENT, benevolent dictator is the best
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci
physics.electromag,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.theory
Subject: #5 BRAVE NEW WORLD GOVERNMENT, benevolent dictator is the best
Date: 3 Sep 1994 17:01:56 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In the future the world will be increasing ruled by benevolent SCIENCE
dictators. They will be supported by industry, the major corporations.
The UN be the seat of world government and the members will be the
CEO's of the worlds corporations. The money in this future time will be
corporate vouchers, or gold, silver. Computers will easily and
efficiently transact business.

 No longer will there be business newspapers telling you that the USA $
has hit an alltime low against the DM or Swiss franc. Because
governments and borders are longer. And no longer are there taxes. You
work to eat, unless one of your family members supports you. There are
no entitlements, except one. If you want to work the corporations will
see to it.

This new world order is not completely out of the blue, made up. A
similar situation is now going on in Japan. The Japanese government is
increasingly the government of its major corporations. Unless the USA
starts to change its erring ways, only a crisis of major proportions
will befall the USA.

Continued in #6.
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.03 / L Plutonium /  Re: (3 of 3) LP PATENT PRIORITY OVER CANON, sweeping changes 
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci
physics.electromag
Subject: Re: (3 of 3) LP PATENT PRIORITY OVER CANON, sweeping changes 
Date: 3 Sep 1994 04:10:17 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In article <348sqd$ejb@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium) writes:

> In 1990, 90% or more of
> USA worked for a living, by 1994 over 40% of the people are parasites
> of the working 60% of the people.

  1900
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.03 / Bill Page /  Re: Very Cold Cold Fusion?
     
Originally-From: 70047.3047@compuserve.com (Bill Page)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Very Cold Cold Fusion?
Date: Sat, 3 Sep 1994 05:46:43 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Norman H Redington writes:
<<
Really, old chap, some things you just cannot do with
computers yet, even for $20! You just have to dig out those
massive volumes and search by the sweat of thy brow.. or in this
case, my brow -- your task is to find these, tell us what
they say, and why it all stops "cold", so to speak, in '78...

J.J.Fritz, J. Chem. Phys. 36(1089)1962

...

>>

The sweat of thy brow is very much appreciated indeed! I suppose you
know that your post has spoilt my plans for the long weekend <grin>.
Back to the library I go.

BTW, you might be interested to note that the last reference on your
list is the one which lead me to the initial paper.

Thanks again.

Cheers,

Bill Page.

cudkeys:
cuddy3 cuden3047 cudfnBill cudlnPage cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.03 / Bill Page /  Re: McKubre's data & s.p.f experiment
     
Originally-From: 70047.3047@compuserve.com (Bill Page)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: McKubre's data & s.p.f experiment
Date: Sat, 3 Sep 1994 06:09:37 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Peter Roessingh	writes:
<<
I do *not* expect cf to be accepted without further reservation
based on a single paper (see my reply to dick Blue). But I do
strongly reject the notion that a *new* paper with *no* obvious
flaws can be minimised the way it is done here, based solely on
"the human element". How can we ever make progress if both sides
are so careless in their handling of the evidence?
I would need *at least* a 10 year time period before I would
consider "fading" of results in apparent *solid* papers. (note my
emphasis on solid here, this applies only to high quality work).
In a controversial area were the systems is only marginally
understood this period should possibly be even longer, certainly
not shorter!

Given the above responses, I have to start questioning my own
position, or conclude that I am virtually the only sane person a
mad universe. Neither option looks attractive. I could certainly
do with some posted support here for my general view of the
world.

Any takers?
>>

Peter, for what its worth, your position has my unreserved vote of
support. I very much appreciate your clear and logical approach on
these issues of methodology and your point of view on science in
general.

I am glad about your continued participation in this group.

Cheers,

Bill Page.



cudkeys:
cuddy3 cuden3047 cudfnBill cudlnPage cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.03 / L Plutonium /  BRAVE NEW GOVERNMENT, A NEW ORDER THAT WORKS BETTER
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci
physics.electromag,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.theory
Subject: BRAVE NEW GOVERNMENT, A NEW ORDER THAT WORKS BETTER
Date: 3 Sep 1994 04:59:38 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In article <348sqd$ejb@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium) writes:

> Sweeping changes of world governments is outlined.
> (1) The best form of world government is a benevolent dictatorship. The
> second best is a constitutional democracy (CD). One could say that CD
> only prevents bad dictators. But CD is only crisis government and it is
> a slowly disintegrating parasitic form of government.
> (2) One can see this in the most powerful CD of 1994, the USA. Slowly
> but surely it is eating its own seed grains. In 1900, 90% or more of
> USA worked for a living, by 1994 over 40% of the people are parasites
> of the working 60% of the people. This will result in a currency
> collapse, into a brutal and violent chaos, governments will collapse or
> go into a nuclear war to cleanse the system and start anew from the
> ashes. 
> 
> Here I offer a solution that can bypass the currency collapse.
> 
> (1) The world is ruled by benevolent dictators. They are put into power
> from the CEO's of the major world corporations according to research
> and development spending.  Continued in a separate post titled "BRAVE
> NEW GOVERNMENT"

  The Electoral College of USA electing presidents was a useless
appendage until now. Make the Electoral College of the World consist of
CEOs if major corporations ranked not by sales or profits but by R&D
spending. 

  Already it is a gray area where the USA govt. begins and ends and the
major USA corporations begin and end. Make a world benevolent dictator
from the selection of the CEO's. And there could be two parties for
debating, the Physicers and the Lifers. All the biology corporations
such as food, health care, services are Lifers and Physicers are
energy, hardware, etc.

  A benevolent dictator is chosen by the CEO's of say the worlds 500
biggest R&D corporations. The elected dictator is herself/himself a CEO
of one of these 500. Preferably a retired CEO. Burke of J & J, I think
would have made a fine world dictator. The CEO of ASEA would make an
excellent world dictator. These dictators have the responsibility of
world order and see that we progress in peace and happiness. Our
present world governments are ticking away time bombs.

  Science rules this new order. Because it is science foresight,
planning, and taking the necessary sacrifical steps that will get us
into a brave new future. The problems of air pollution, human
overpopulation, currency issues are beyond the capabilities of the
world's present leaders. I will take Bill Clinton for an example.

  (1) The USA is not pressed by anything, yet it still rolls in yearly
avalanching budget deficits. The picture here is that in a future
generation those children will face an apocalypse because the USA of
our generations saw fit to take free money for no work. What does
Clinton do about budget deficit? He tries to fix the best working part
of the USA-- drug companies.
  (2) I should do a NP skit along the lines of "Captains and the Kings"
where Clinton is the first Irish Catholic President. Yet he does not
follow the old Irish saying "If it works, do not fix it."
  (3) The USA's best industry, the pride of USA is its pharmaceutical
companies. So why is Billy Clinton wanting to destroy them? So that he
can give free welfare money to N'er do Wells in exchange for their
vote. This has been the Democrat platform for most of the time since
FDR. In the days of AIDS, Billy wants to hobble what could be our
saving grace, drug R&D. I think Billy is just envious of the pay that
CEO's earn.
  (4) But the Democrat and Republican platform are the same. Both
penalize the best of the USA society in order to prop up the worst. The
whole history of the USA from FDR until now can be summed up from the
back of the IRS yearly tax booklet. Where it shows a pie-chart of tax
spending. The USA in 1900 was practically all a nation of hard working
people. Today, almost 50% of Americans spend a whole life off of
entitlements and other parasitic government programs.

  IN MY BRAVE NEW GOVERNMENT, there will no longer be presidents of the
USA. No more elections, and no more Democratic or Republican party.
Business rules. There will be science courts and courts of justice. But
no longer supreme courts because there is no constitution. There will
be a Bill of Rights. Japan has the closest government to what I speak
of. 
  The business of the world will be business.
  Issues such as wars will be addressed, because most corporations do
not want disruption or destruction of their business, which a war would
wreck havoc on them.
  Issues such as overpopulation will also be addressed. Corporations
can only hire so many people. When overpopulation occurs with dwindling
jobs, the benevolent dictator and Corporations can step in to find a
solution.

  The above is an outline of a new world order. There will also be born
leaders in the future. Just as I am the king of math and physics and
the ruler of Earth. The CEO benevolent dictators will co-rule.
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.03 / Chuck Sites /  Re: Extrapolation to zero energy
     
Originally-From: chuck@iglou.iglou.com (Chuck Sites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Extrapolation to zero energy
Date: Sat, 3 Sep 1994 13:05:19 GMT
Organization: The Internet Gateway of Louisville, KY

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

[Some text deleated]

>  There I think
>one can say that extrapolation to zero energy along with the results
>from muon catalyzed fusion provide pretty solid evidence that something
>is wrong with the cold fusion experimental results.

>Dick Blue

Muon catalyzed fusion may provide information about the two body wave 
equation down to zero energy, but in the case of a Bose condensed band state, 
the wave equation is n-body.  They are quite different types of interactions
so one would expect differences in the reaction paths.  Indeed suggesting 
that the muon catalyzed fusion results are applicable to the way fusion 
proceed in solids may be miss-leading.

Have Fun,
Chuck Sites

cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.03 / Alexander Abian /  TIME AND SPACE TOGETHER HAVE INERTIA.  EQUIV. OF TIME-SPACE TO MASS
     
Originally-From: abian@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci
physics.electromag,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.theory
Subject: TIME AND SPACE TOGETHER HAVE INERTIA.  EQUIV. OF TIME-SPACE TO MASS
Date: 3 Sep 94 15:59:03 GMT
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa



               BRAVE NEW GOVERNMENT, A NEW ORDER THAT WORKS BETTER

In <348vrq$gj4@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu 
                   (Ludwig Plutonium) writes:

>.......

>> Sweeping changes of world governments is outlined.
>> (1) The best form of world government is a benevolent dictatorship. 

Abian answers:

    The best form of world government is a total and complete 
    dictatorship where I am the dictator.

    Alexander Abian

-- 
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TIME AND SPACE TOGETHER HAVE INERTIA. EQ.OF TIME-SPACE TO MASS 1/T +1/log M = 1
  ALTER EARTH'S ORBIT AND TILT - STOP EPIDEMICS OF CANCER, CHOLERA, AIDS, ETC. 
    VENUS MUST BE GIVEN A NEAR EARTH-LIKE ORBIT TO BECOME A BORN AGAIN EARTH

cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenabian cudfnAlexander cudlnAbian cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.03 / Robert Heeter /  Re: Limitations of Nuclear theory
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Originally-From: mitchell swartz, mica@world.std.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Limitations of Nuclear theory
Subject: Limitations of Nuclear theory
Date: Sat, 3 Sep 1994 00:36:27 GMT
Date: Fri, 2 Sep 1994 21:19:00 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

Subject: Limitations of Nuclear theory
Originally-From: mitchell swartz, mica@world.std.com
Date: Fri, 2 Sep 1994 21:19:00 GMT
In article <CvItvo.MLK@world.std.com> mitchell swartz, mica@world.std.com
writes:
>  In Message-ID: <348119$pj9@ds8.scri.fsu.edu>
>Subject: Re: Limitations of nuclear theory
>Jim Carr (jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu) writes:
>
>= To the contrary, CF was first predicted in the 1950s.  What people 
>= object to are claims about 'fusion' based on observations of heat 
>= in the absence of concomitant amounts of the products of fusion. 
>
>   The TB-skeptics "object" when nuclear ash accounts for (roughly)
>a third of the observed heat.     

Come now, Mitchell...  Who besides Miles & Bush have seriously claimed
*any* nuclear ash close to commensurate with observed heat?

And how do you suggest we account for the still-missing gammas, charged
particles, neutrons, tritium, etc?

Furthermore, given the presumed quality of both their helium search
and their calorimetry, a factor of 1/3 still ain't good enough.  
Not if they want to claim that both their calorimetry and helium 
measurements are within a factor of two or so of whatever really happened.

>= There are even unorthodox ideas such as those of Hagelstine.  What is 
>= lacking are experiments that show d+d --> something in direct
proportion 
>= to the heat observed.  Other than d+d --> nothing with no heat, of
course. 
>
>   Peter Hagelstein's ideas are conservative.      ;-)
>  Furthermore, and most important to the issue 
>several experiments demonstrate 4He in proportion to the
>excess heat, and linked in production to that heat.   

No, *one* unreplicated experiment (Miles & Bush) is all you ever 
cite when pressed upon this point.  Not "several experiments."  Or 
would you like to finally explain how someone has replicated the M&B 
results somehow?


***************************
Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University
As always, I represent only myself, and not PPPL
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.03 / L Plutonium /  #6 BRAVE NEW WORLD GOVERNMENT, Political idiot Bill Clinton
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci
physics.electromag,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.theory
Subject: #6 BRAVE NEW WORLD GOVERNMENT, Political idiot Bill Clinton
Date: 3 Sep 1994 17:25:55 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

The USA's number one problem is to get its economic house in order. The
US budget deficit is a ticking time bomb that could be the trigger of a
nuclear world war 3. 

One would think that Clinton would make the number one problem the
highest concern. No, for stupid idiot Bill Clinton, like his Democrat
and even Republican presidents before him, never tackle the real
problem. Instead they let the USA roll down the road into its bleak
future. Bill wants a future generation to pay for the sins of our
generations.

Put a stupid idiot like Bill Clinton in the White House and what does
he want to change. Of course he wants to destroy the "best of America".
He wants to destroy the Pharmaceutical Companies. The USA has the best
drug companies in the world, Merck, BMY, Lilly, SGP, Pfizer, etc.. Does
it matter to Bill that we have a world epidemic of AIDS, which could go
virulent. What if AIDS went so virulent that you can catch it like a
common cold. Do you think the idiot Bill Clinton might say," Hey, I let
you guys alone because you guys with your humungus R&D spending may be
our savior from AIDS."

No, stupid idiots like Clinton, (there has not been a smart USA
president since Jefferson and Ben Franklin (Ben was not a president
because he was too smart to want to be), do like all the presidents
after FDR. They tax away the best of America, in order to swell the
numbers of the worst class in America, the N'er do Wells. Since FDR,
the USA is no longer a Capitalistic Democracy. It is a Parasitic
Socialism. If Clinton manages to hobble the drug companies. What will
be his next target. Of course, figure out what is the USA's second
pride and joy after the drug companies. Probably the telecommunications
industry, watch the stupid idiot named Clinton tax away
telecommunications in order to garner more votes from middle class
welfare bums. The goal of the Democratic platform is to make the
majority of Americans into a MIDDLE CLASS WELFARE DEPENDENT group. In
that way the Democrats (Republicans are no better) will keep the
Democrats in power.

The above idiocy of government works only so long as the hard working
people continue to accept the US currency. Do yourself a favor, turn as
much of the USA dollar into a real currency, buy stock shares and gold
and silver. Keep only USA DOLLAR EQuivalents that will keep you going
in food.

If you vote, vote Libertarian. But best of all, vote with your money,
by getting rid of all paper money savings.
Continued in #7. BTW, some readers have asked me if I proof read these.
No, I no longer proof read. I write them once and post. I have too many
projects of far more importance to worry about mispelling or grammar.
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.03 / Matthew Laudon /  10th Conf. Mathematical and Computer Modelling - Boston (cfp)
     
Originally-From: mlaudon@ie.engr.wisc.edu (Matthew Finley Laudon)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: 10th Conf. Mathematical and Computer Modelling - Boston (cfp)
Date: 3 Sep 1994 18:00:02 GMT
Organization: University of Wisconsin - Madison, College of Engineering

                   Announcement and Call for Papers

                   TENTH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON 
                  MATHEMATICAL AND COMPUTER MODELLING
                       AND SCIENTIFIC COMPUTING

                            5-8 July 1995

                  Boston Marriott Hotel Copley Place
                      Boston Massachusetts, U.S.A
                       -------------------------
                          
The Tenth International Conference on Mathematical and Computer 
Modelling and Scientific Computing is scheduled to take place 5-8 July 
1995 at the Boston Marriott Hotel Copley Place in Boston, 
Massachusetts, U.S.A.  Plenary lectures by world-renowned scientists 
and technical sessions on many recent developments in engineering and 
sciences comprise a long-standing tradition at the ICMCM's.  The 
objective of the conference is to bring together researchers, educators, 
planners, and model users from various disciplines including the 
traditional and emerging areas of engineering and sciences for cross 
fertilization and exchange of information.  Authors are invited to 
contribute their work for presentation at the conference in the form of 
one-page abstracts typed single-space before 15 January 1994.  Early 
submissions are encouraged.  The abstracts will be processed as they 
come in, and decisions on selection will be promptly communicated to 
the authors by FAX not later than 31 February 1995.  Abstracts may be 
submitted by FAX by dialing to U.S.A.: (314)-364-3351.

                       -------------------------

The topics of interest are broadly categorized into:

     Modelling and Computation in Engineering and Sciences; 
     Computational Sciences and Technologies; 
     Applied Mathematics and Modelling Methodologies;
     Systems Theory;
     Computational Control; 
     Self-Organizing Systems, Fuzzy and Neuro-Control, 
     Neural Networks Theory and Applications;
     Biomedical Sciences; 
     Computational Physics; 
     Computational Chemistry;
     Computational Biology;
     Environmental Sciences and Engineering; 
     Econometrics and Decision Sciences; 
     Defense Related Problems; 
     Resources; 
     Model Validations; 
     Educational Issues, etc. 

Papers presented at the 10th ICMCM will be published as a special issue 
of the journal MATHEMATICAL MODELLING AND SCIENTIFIC COMPUTING, 
Volume 6 1995. (ISSN 1067-0688)

All abstracts and inquiries must be sent to the address below in 
St. Louis, Missouri, U.S.A.  Address for correspondence: 

             Scientific Program Committee, 10th ICMCM
                         P. O. Box 31670
                    St. Louis, MO 63131 U.S.A.

           Telephone: (314)-341-4585 (Prof. X.J.R. Avula) 
           FAX:  (314)-364-3351     E-mail: avula@umr.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenmlaudon cudfnMatthew cudlnLaudon cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.03 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re:  ICCF4 Proceedings/A closer look
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re:  ICCF4 Proceedings/A closer look
Date: Sat, 3 Sep 94 14:38:29 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

jonesse@xray.byu.edu (Steve Jones) writes:
 
     "Nope.  Just because they [Amoco] used a closed cell does _not_ imply
     that this "eliminates any possibility" for "long term spurious excess
     heat due to recombination."  It's not that simple.  Recombination can
     occur in the electrolytic cell itself, we have shown in experiments
     here, as well as in the recombiner..."
 
This would not matter. The total integrated energy from all recombination
at all locations is measured. In this case, the CF device and the recombiner
are in the same chamber in a flow calorimeter, so you could not even tell
where the recombination took place.
 
Amoco also tested Ni light water cell and determined that the effect they saw
was due to recombination. They were able to determine this precisely because
they do use closed cells. The only way to be certain you have excess with an
open cell with Ni or Pd is to get more excess energy out than total electric
power in (I*V), which is what Thermacore and others do. Anything less than
that is suspect.
 
Also please note that even with a recombiner in some cells you can have short
term heat deficits followed by short term bursts, as small amounts of gas
build up followed by recombination occurs in the head space. The net integrated
energy from this effect is zero, of course. It is not 50 KJ. And it is
sporadic, not like the long, drawn out steady heat from a stable CF reaction.
 
 
     "...and the amount of heat generated at various spots can change with
     time as well.  In turn, heat paths and cell constants change as the
     recombination sites change."
 
With a closed flow calorimeter this makes no difference.
 
 
     "In particular, if a thermocouple (or equivalent) is near a hot spot,
     apparent excess heat (spurious) is likely.  I believe this has been
     discussed previously in this forum."
 
Yes, this has been discussed countless times, but it remains incorrect. If the
cell is properly designed and the thermocouples are placed in reasonable spot,
then 1 or 2 watts of electrolysis will stir the electrolyte enough to avoid
this problem. If you design a cell incompetently and you put a thermocouple
near a potential hot spot, all kinds of strange things will happen, but the
people at Amoco did not do that.
 
 
     "Another  typical problem is that the recombiner is not 100% efficient.
     Can you verify that such problems did (do) not occur in this experiment?
 
Yes, I can. The cell did not explode, there was not any significant pressure
build up. Therefore, all free gas was recombined. Whether it recombined on the
recombiner, on the walls of the cell, or at the cathode is irrelevant. It all
must have recombined, or the gas would built up and the cell or pressure valve
would have opened. Recombination is, therefore, ruled out. Here is what
happened: the heat energy from the cell exceeded the input electrical energy
by 50 KJ, and the excess power was 100 to 1000 times above the error bars.
Concentrate on that fact, and stop spinning these stupid fairy tales about
recombination.
 
 
Regarding the Dufour work Jones writes:
 
     "Your admission that you cannot judge matters relating to nuclear theory
     is telling -- the errors I pointed out were blatant and even
     sophomoric."
 
Don't feel bad about that, Steve! You are the one who does not understand that
recombination can never produce more than I*V. You are the one who thinks that
a cell with no pressure buildup might not be recombining all gasses. We all
have our limitations; I cannot judge nuclear physics, you do not even
understand high-school level electrochemistry. In any case your critique of
Dufour is incorrect, but I will not address it. I suggest you contact him
directly to learn what he is doing.
 
Just for laughs sometime, I would appreciate hearing your cock-and-bull
"explanation" of the Griggs ultrasonic CF device. I am sure you have one! I
thought your "description" of the E-Quest ultrasonic device was hilarious.
They did not think so, however.
 
Note to readers: If Jones can restrain himself and not call his distiguished
colleages at Shell "sophomoric" then I will return to my usual Highly
Respectful and Dignified Scholarly Mode of address. Of course, I reserve
the right to metaphorically pour some of that scalding hot water from
the Griggs heat sink barrel over people like Jones from time to time. Who
could resist doing a thing like that? It is such fun pointing out to these
"skeptics" that there is now a device that produces excess energy with
complete reliability by the barrelful. After all these years of reading
taunts about "where is the room heater?!?" I am delighted to show them this
industrial factory heater. I think we shall soon see even more dramatic
devices. It is a pity Steve cannot come and visit Griggs, but his
performance at E-Quest rules that out. Legitimate, real scientists and
engineers are invited, however. Please contact me for details.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenjedrothwell cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.04 / Peter Roessingh /  Re: Reply to Peter Roessingh
     
Originally-From: roes@vax.oxford.ac.uk (Peter Roessingh)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reply to Peter Roessingh
Date: 4 Sep 94 01:10:16 BST
Organization: Oxford University VAX 6620

Jed writes:
>If you disprove a theoretical construction, that means you must
>look for yet another explanation to take its place, because the
>data remains intact and unexplained. You can disprove
>ten-thousand theories if you like, but that will not make even
>one definite experimental result go away.

Good point, I stand corrected,  *If* we assume the experimental
data survives all scrutiny then *some* theoretical explanation
must exists. But the key word in the sentence is _definite_
Making sure the data is *really* to be trusted can be very
tricky. (see Dick Blues example of the 17 keV neutrino) or even
impossible in a single experiment.

What I, (and Dick Blue for that matter) was getting at, is that
if the experimental evidence is even slightly questionable, the
lack of theoretical support can take away all credibility. (And
conversely, solid theoretical support can make unexpected results
a lot more credible). All this is even more important if the
experimental results run counter to about everything currently
accepted in physics. These points have been repeated over and
over again by the skeptics here.

Please do not start a tirade now that there is no trace of doubt
about the validity of the experimental results, I know that that
is your position in this debate, and to some degree I sympathise
(see my discussion with Tom Droege).

But shouting abuse is of little use at this stage, It did not
help during last five years, and it is not going to help now.

It is much more productive to investigate *very* carefully were
the rift between you and the skeptics actually starts. And rather
then complicating the issue with 10 different examples in 10
different systems, I am suggesting to stick (initially) to a
single case (McKubres 1994 paper) Not because I believe it to be
the ultimate proof that cf is real, but just because I have to
start *somewhere*, and I feel that McKubres work holds some
potential for building the beginning of consensus in the group.

And if it fails..., well I will at least have enjoyed myself.

Peter.

cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenroes cudfnPeter cudlnRoessingh cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Sun Sep  4 04:37:13 EDT 1994
------------------------------
1994.09.04 / Chris Parkinson /  Re: (1-3) LP PATENT PRIORITY OVER CANON, sweeping changes
     
Originally-From: parky@ix.netcom.com (Chris Parkinson)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci
physics.electromag
Subject: Re: (1-3) LP PATENT PRIORITY OVER CANON, sweeping changes
Date: 4 Sep 1994 01:00:01 GMT
Organization: Netcom

In <348sv9$eq9@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu
(Ludwig Plutonium) writes: 

>
>In article <348sqd$ejb@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
>Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium) writes:
>
Lots and Lots and Lots...................

Lets all give a big hooray for Professor P.. :^)

I know you want a patent, Canon wants and got a patent, We all want a
patent...... My patent attorney told me an interesting story the other
day:
	Not long ago, a man went to Washington, to the patent office.
	With a big grin on his face he anounced to all that were 
	present that he and he alone had solved the HS (thats Horse shit)
	problem in all barns in the world. He said, proudly, that his
	device would clean all and I mean all from the barns. Upon 
	looking at his claims they discovered an ingenious scheme that
	involved lots of water, hoses and nozzles. Well, into the night
	the examiners belabored. On and on they toiled looking for the
	proof they needed that this indeed was original.

	Then one day all bubbles were burst when low and behold, someone
	with a background in ancient history pointed out that the Romans
	had such a device that was plumbed from their acqueducts.

So the man who had dreams of dealing with all the HS and BS in the
world and be paid royally for it, went home to dream some more.

Prior art dude! Remember the guys from Germany back in the 20's.

Regards CP
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenparky cudfnChris cudlnParkinson cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.04 / Chris Parkinson /  Re: Submission for sci.physics.fusion
     
Originally-From: parky@ix.netcom.com (Chris Parkinson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Submission for sci.physics.fusion
Date: 4 Sep 1994 01:21:46 GMT
Organization: Netcom

In <9409020615.AA11628@mars.plasma.gen.u-tokyo.ac.jp> michael@plasma.gen
u-tokyo.ac.jp (Michael) writes: 

>
>
>
>
>How can I process this kind of files I received:
>
>MH0S(@8ZNX@/P+ZT48AX[@CN>AQZ081^Z@0H080`)`-M:``C:@`7D8K7\!;"V>
>M94E1H/SVJ@-8X/SH91E\@0`088TLP&(PAK>ZHHG8+4MA`'2*AS8B9-_DS.">8
>MDF6><I$V01#"H!#$P`Z$A!BVZQ):YZ!<(!,J_ND`,FD:LL`+LM$922X"0NGC8
>MNL.^4([D$G4[7$F^PF-''0+`XJ,=,"$+SV.6YE$^U,85")/`AB`CQ2`*3@]4Z
>M#L``+D$8]H8--,P-H@`&E@$'<D$47L`-.A,*!N`+C.09D.`,A,0-M$$30N%-9
>MZN$,B"X*G&D4CJ$!K(`2.@\*KI,&;M,&(F`LJ!4#<E$&`N$T_B@XCP<];X1&J
>M)``0M$$&^``77``6@F`V$^`#X*$,GK,5=:`,K+,/=N%G(H#9Z(`']-4*!*`!P
>M/J`*_$Y-"X^F+J"F0J`/[(Q3ZB0T/B`!^J`:H6`69"`*$`#UAF`^1.[3\O.JU
>M*`(AVD$*!L+W0/9^_LZA@A3"K"RB(&+%'2845**/.W:E)/+3('@%&?A3?[KFJ
>M5395/9*/OUBA#*["`@:AW&`+!/2@#?S@6O!B$$3!^Z[",JO``/*O($1.&1*(<
>M&_A3]?@G(V7!(0E0W3J@"&IH%_+%'%B+M;Y(;0N&A;9@%SS!:',!!'P!%`A@O
>M`,A!%"Y&MUY@,E0!!B;F#K#"-+0!ND(`.7>D-JY,%%V#-L0G!%J!%H:#%'[`C
>
>And so on...???
>
>Thanks in advance
>
>
>Michael
>
>
>

Looks like someone sent you a JPEG or GIF picture. Caution though,
parasites may invade your system with these kinds of files. Suggest
you view it on some computer that you dont care about.

Try LVIEW to see it. It may or may not work. Its time these guys
use an Adobe Photoshop standard.

CP
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenparky cudfnChris cudlnParkinson cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.04 / Richard Schultz /  Re: Limitations of Nuclear theory
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Limitations of Nuclear theory
Date: 4 Sep 1994 02:08:27 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley

In article <CvItvo.MLK@world.std.com>,
mitchell swartz <mica@world.std.com> wrote:

>  Furthermore, and most important to the issue 
>several experiments demonstrate 4He in proportion to the
>excess heat, and linked in production to that heat.   

I seem to remember way back when, you said something to the effect that
your understanding of the "nuclear" process in putative cold fusion
was d + d + ?d -> ?

Which experiments convinced you that the sole product is 4He?

-- 
				Richard Schultz

"It is terrible to die of thirst in the ocean.  Do you have to salt your
truth so heavily that it does not even quench thirst any more?"
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.02 / John Logajan /  Re: PMK Jr.
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@mirage.skypoint.net (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: PMK Jr.
Date: 2 Sep 1994 21:07:25 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Bruce       Scott          TK (bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de) wrote:
: I can't easily glean the geometry of his configuration, but if he has one
: loop in the toroidal direction and another wound almost poloidally around it,
: then the mutual inductance should be close to zero, and the mutual force
: should nearly vanish.

: How big are the loops, what it the material radius of the wire, and
: what are the masses of the loops?


I took a 1.5 cm diameter test-tube and wound about 6 cm of 30 guage wire in
a single tight layer.  Then I took that "slinky" and bent it around in the
form of a torus (donut.)  In this "loose" configuration, the minor diameter
expanded to 2 cm and the major diameter is 6 cm, with the inner donut hole
being 2 cm.  The winding is very open (and not very uniform, alas.)

Inside the torus (now how'd I do that? ;-)  is a multi-turn loop of wire
of about 4.5 cm.  The cross-section clump of wires in this loop is about
3 mm in diameter (and is held together with waxed dental floss. :-)
This inner loop is at right angles to the outer loop.

I ran the current in series through the two windings, switching the
connections to reverse the polarity relationships to see the effect.

--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com -- 612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills  MN 55112 USA           -
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.02 / John Logajan /  Re: PMK Jr.
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@mirage.skypoint.net (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: PMK Jr.
Date: 2 Sep 1994 21:16:03 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Bruce       Scott          TK (bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de) wrote:
: By the way, if you set this up like a tokamak and fixed the outer boundary,
: the inner loop would not move, either (it would be pinned in equilibrium).
: It would be more interesting to fix the inner one and see what the now-free 
: outer one does! 

I don't think it is "pinned" -- at least not at the current levels I am
able to run through it.

When I was driving one coil, I noticed that moving the inner coil would
change the coupling slightly.  But that may have been merely because I
was tilting it more or less in various positions.

--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com -- 612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills  MN 55112 USA           -
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.04 / Chris Parkinson /  Re: BRAVE NEW GOVERNMENT, A NEW ORDER THAT WORKS BETTER
     
Originally-From: parky@ix.netcom.com (Chris Parkinson)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci
physics.electromag,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: BRAVE NEW GOVERNMENT, A NEW ORDER THAT WORKS BETTER
Date: 4 Sep 1994 06:42:42 GMT
Organization: Netcom

In <348vrq$gj4@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu
(Ludwig Plutonium) writes: 

>
>In article <348sqd$ejb@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
>Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium) writes:
Repeating your own articles and I delete lots....

Lets get to the point here!
> Just as I am the king of math and physics and
>the ruler of Earth. The CEO benevolent dictators will co-rule.
>

What kind of a loony toon are you? KING indeed. I like our democratic
style of government just fine. Fine tuning is all it needs. Dictators
only work fine in small close knit communities. I think your Deutch 
background is getting to you and gone to your head. You may be a genius 
but alas so are alot of the rest of us. Again your patent ideas are 
now clear. You want ownership and control of the world. Well Dr. No, I
dont think so! Again let me remind you of prior art which unless if you
are 100 years old, have no ability in taking any credit for. 

You also claim that our universe is totaly comprised of neutrons as " the 
ether". You are starting to sound like the guys that claim they have 
seen Gravity waves and all we need to do is harness them for space travel.

Harrrrrumph. Go to europe. Its probably where you belong! I'am sure
we'll figure out CF without your holiness to guide us.
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenparky cudfnChris cudlnParkinson cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.04 / Alan M /  Re: THEORY OF LIGHT POLARIZATION, ANY MYSTERIES?
     
Originally-From: Alan@moonrake.demon.co.uk ("Alan M. Dunsmuir")
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: THEORY OF LIGHT POLARIZATION, ANY MYSTERIES?
Date: Sun, 4 Sep 1994 07:20:05 +0000
Organization: Home

Oh dear. Does Ludwig often wander past here?

Alan M. Dunsmuir [@ his wits end]     (Can't even quote poetry right)

         I am his Highness' dog at Kew
         Pray tell me sir, whose dog are you?
			      [Alexander Pope]

PGP Public Key available on request.


cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenAlan cudfnAlan cudlnM cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.04 / David Andrews /  Re: Rothwell must be endothermic
     
Originally-From: dba@redbug.oau.org (David Andrews)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Rothwell must be endothermic
Date: Sun, 04 Sep 94 05:08:05 GMT
Organization: none

jedrothwell@delphi.com writes in article <R88y2cx.jedrothwell@delphi.com>:
> 
> I have a great deal of
> experience with water at these temperatures in Japanese baths and hot springs.
> When I find myself emersed in these baths my gut reaction is that the water is
> scalding and that if I do not quickly exit I will be boiled alive,

Okay!  Finally we have some discussion of RELEVANCE to those of us who
inhabit the College of S.P.F. Rathskellar, to-wit: Jacuzzi calorimetry.

Hey Tom: is it possible to build a closed calorimeter for my backyard spa
that can correct for the periodic introduction of wine coolers?

And BTW: how much does 400 gallons of D2O cost these days, anyhow?

--
David Andrews
dba@redbug.oau.org
cudkeys:
cuddy04 cudendba cudfnDavid cudlnAndrews cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.04 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Reply to Peter Roessingh
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reply to Peter Roessingh
Date: Sun, 4 Sep 94 09:54:43 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

roes@vax.oxford.ac.uk (Peter Roessingh) writes:
 
     "Making sure the data is *really* to be trusted can be very tricky."
 
Sometimes yes, sometimes no. It all depends on the type of data and the s/n
ratio. Let me just list a few examples from other fields:
 
     "Well Orv, did we get off the ground that time?" Answer: Yes. We can
     trust that data 100%, she was a good six feet in the air.
 
     "So tell me, Oppy, did the bomb go off or not?" Answer: Yes, and we are
     sure that was not a chemical reaction. There was way too much energy for
     that!
 
     "Are you *sure* about those solar neutrinos?" Answer: No, not sure.
     Those are tricky little devils to capture, it might be years before we
     can be sure.
 
     "Jed, is the water in that barrel down around 80 degrees, or is it a lot
     hotter, say, around 103 degrees F" Answer: That sucker is hot! Wa-a-a-y
     above unity. The thing is produced a good 6 kilowatts, no ifs, ands, or
     buts.
 
     "Stan, are you getting any power input anymore? No? Is she still
     boiling?" Answer: Yes, it sure is. You can see the steam shooting out
     the top.
 
See what I mean? Some scientific experiments yield fuzzy, maybe, iffy data,
other yield Absolutely Certain No Mistake About It results. Either the plane
flies or she doesn't. Either the water boils or it does not. No two ways about
it.
 
 
     "What I, (and Dick Blue for that matter) was getting at, is that if the
     experimental evidence is even slightly questionable, the lack of
     theoretical support can take away all credibility."
 
Not *all* credibility! Certainly not. Lots of scientific breakthroughs begin
with fuzzy data. But your point is well taken. What we need is unquestionable,
crystal clear, Absolutely Certain, No Mistake About It results. Fortunately,
with Griggs, P&F, Canon, Mizuno, E-Quest and many others we have those kinds
of results, plus you have patents, you can go visit these researchers, and you
can even buy the devices in some cases. You have been talking about McKubre's
results. I agree they are compelling, and I am sure he is right because he
uses such splendid calorimeters. Nobody here has ever found any error with him
any more than they did with P&F. For that matter, I am equally sure that Amoco
was right, they are 100 to 1000 time above the error bars, and they sure do
have some sweet calorimeters. But these are tiny little marginal results,
nowhere near as good or as interesting as, say, Griggs. McKubre cannot heat a
warehouse, he can't lower your electric bill by 10 or 20%. The results are
certain, but the gadgets are not practical or useful. Why fool around with
little bitty things that produce a few watts when we have big, working,
practical machines that produce thousands of watts on demand?
 
 
     "Please do not start a tirade now that there is no trace of doubt about
     the validity of the experimental results. . ."
 
Tirade? Me? You misunderstand. That was a joke! My comments about physicists
standing around the barrel of steaming hot water chanting textbook physics was
a joke. I would never in a million years expect them to do that. They would
never actually go to the site and stand around that barrel, they don't have
the guts to confront it. They hope to cast a spell over it long distance via
e-mail.
 
But you are ignoring the facts, my friend. There *is no trace of doubt.* If
there is, where do you see it? Who has posted it? Tell me what it is! Nobody
here has posted any doubts about McKubre. Regarding Griggs, someone told me
that the Boyscout Manual defines "scalding" as a lot hotter than 104 F, but
that does not count as a "doubt." Steve Jones said that maybe the Amoco cell
is not recombining, but he just plum forget that it would explode if that was
true. Tom Droege muttered that maybe Mizuno mixed in air with his D2 gas, but
I am sure Mizuno did not. There have been no scientific doubts expressed here
by anyone about any of these top quality experiments. The lousy experiments
have attracted plenty of doubts, as well they should.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenjedrothwell cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.04 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Rothwell must be endothermic
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Rothwell must be endothermic
Date: Sun, 4 Sep 94 09:58:58 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

David Andrews <dba@redbug.oau.org> writes:
 
>And BTW: how much does 400 gallons of D2O cost these days, anyhow?
 
Oh, I guess around $400,000. Contact Ontario Hydro. I bet they will give you
a volume discount. They might want to know what you intend to do with it.
I have heard, from a reliable source, that the first U.S. thermonuclear
fusion bomb consisted of a fission bomb and a large pool of heavy water.
I don't know if that is true or not, but it makes a darn good story!
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenjedrothwell cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.05 / Bill Page /  Re: Richard Liboff's papers on cf ...
     
Originally-From: 70047.3047@compuserve.com (Bill Page)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Richard Liboff's papers on cf ...
Date: Mon, 5 Sep 1994 00:10:26 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Steven Jones writes:
<<
So I called Prof. Liboff at Cornell and received several refs:

Nucl. Eng. and Design 49 (1978) 213  and 54 (1979) 119.

Phys. Lett. 74a (1979) 323  and  83a (1981) 326.

J. Fusion Energy 1 (1981) 211

Annals of Nucl. Eng 8 (1981) 87

Phys. Lett A 174 (1993) 317.

This is interesting, and I wonder if Frank Close or others have checked
these references.  I intend to do so right away.
>>

You may recall that Dieter Britz included Liboff's most recent paper in
the "peripherals" section of his bibliography about a year ago. Chuck
Sites here on s.p.f has described Liboff's theory in some detail in
several posts over the last year. In this most recent paper there was no
mention of P&F's experiments nor anything about metallic hydrogen or
hydrides. Perhaps the earlier ones include such references.

Chuck also lists two other papers by Liboff not on your list:

Phys. Lett. A 166 (1992) 416-418
  "Quantum Transition of a deuteron beam"

Phys. Lett. A 61A (1977) 244-246
  "Conjectured Superfluidity of Deuterium"

<<
Then I remembered a bit of information I got from a G. Jordan some time
ago, in which he said that Liboff's work on "cold fusion" had been given
to Gordon Young of Salt Lake City in the early 1980's, who in turn passed
the information on to -- you guessed it! -- Pons and Fleischmann.  Hmmm....
I now think this thread is worth following up on.  

Propose we look at Liboff's articles and see what he has to say.
>>

If P&F knew about the Liboff work prior to their electrolysis experiments
it is indeed strange that they have never (at least to my knowledge) made
any reference to this. It is also strange (though perhaps less so) that
Liboff does not mention P&F in his papers after 1989.

Steve, in your conversation with Dr. Liboff did he state any particular
position on the CF debate?

Cheers,

Bill Page.

cudkeys:
cuddy5 cuden3047 cudfnBill cudlnPage cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.04 / Bruce TK /  Re: The virial theorem
     
Originally-From: bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce       Scott          TK  )
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The virial theorem
Date: 4 Sep 1994 16:59:16 GMT
Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching

In article <CvHCJ6.1J6@prometheus.UUCP>, pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) writes:
|> In article <3449b6INN1362@sat.ipp-garching.mpg.de> bds@ipp-garching.m
g.de (Bruce       Scott          TK  ) writes:
|> >In article <CvFGAp.3zA@prometheus.UUCP>, pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) writes:
|> 
|> >|> No question that it wouldn't be doubtful to you or most Americans.  But 
|> >|> this is psychological.  People of the USA believe that confinement 
|> >|> (constraint) requires leg-irons and steel bars.  
|> 
|> >Paul, I don't give a damn about philosophy, religion, or politics when I do
|> >science. I'd be happy if you kept this sort of stuff to yourself.
|> 
|> As far as I know it was not philosophy, religion or politics.   

Note the national-character comment you make above, and then my response.

|> I too have a problem with your comments that suggest my description
|> of a PMK isn't what I say it is just because you find someone's 
|> proposed view of another topology for ball lightning.  What's
|> going on here?  I believe you when you describe your work.   

Maybe you believe too much, then. When someone presents me with a counter-
intuitive experimental result, it should not be surprising that my first
reaction is "how do you know what you know"? The reason I propose a simpler
model for you is that it fits the data you have given me, and it does not
violate anything I consider to be basic physics -- in this case it is an
equilibrium and has been shown to be one, and what you have described is
something which violates the virial theorem and so naturally I don't
believe it is an equilibrium. It falls to you to demonstrate that the
simpler description of a plasmoid in equilibrium does not in fact fit
your observations, while your model with its more "exotic" features like
a thin ionised layer and a vacuum region does.

This is simply how people do science. It is called a "screening mechanism".

|> >|> >This is irrespective of whether Paul has a plasma. Given that he does,
|> >|> >the discussion has convinced me that there is no experimental data from
|> >|> >his lab that could demonstrate that his plasma is not something more
|> >|> >prosaic, 
|> 
|> You could be a very obtuse fellow, and that could preclude you
|> from being convinced by the meager data from this restricted
|> and poorly funded concept.  On the other hand you could be bright
|> and quick to comprehend.  So far... .eh!

I am not that gullible.

|> I have another alternative: You haven't been given the data.  

Precisely.

|> Further, I haven't published anything, nor do I intend to until
|> my funding is secure and I have their agreement.  Now, if your
|> not convinced, then I hope that doesn't cause you much pain, 

It doesn't; I assure you. But don't come to me for funding requests with
arguments like that. 

|> and you can go on and assume I have done what I said and you 
|> continue worrying the problem until we can fix whatever error
|> there is which causes your solution to be in such blantant conflict
|> with either observations of BL or of our production of PMK's.  

Ah, but the Wu and Chen model _does_ jibe with these observations. That
is my claim. If you want to convince me otherwise, go right ahead. But
don't be crushed if you make statements like the above and find out I don't
believe you. Too many people say "I've observed this but I won't tell 
anyone until they pay up" for me to fall for such things.

[...]

|> First, I was not impressed with your Wu/Chen comment...

Why? Occam's Razor at work. 

[...]

|> Second,
|> How does radiating ions OR excited neutrals cause "wild effects??" 

This is what causes a plasma to glow in visible light. If there are large
fluctuations in the densities of any involved species, the effects can
get pretty wild. The mechanism is, however, prosaic.

[...]

|> I know of no other plasma which has regime extremes such as this or
|> which is partial confined by atmosphere and self fields.  I know of 
|> no other plasma (Mantle), which is maintained by photo-ionization, 
|> photoexcitation, energectic current small angle scattering, and 
|> avalanche energy transport ladders.   

This is something I wouldn't believe in unless shown the data. Sorry,
but I think you are getting carried away. The mean-free path of the
plasma you describe to an escaping photon against absoprtion by a
neutral, which would ionise the neutral, is orders of magnitude larger
than the plasma. That is why I don't believe in the existence of this
layer. Show me the data, and then we can have a discussion. Keep your
data private if you want, but then we can't have a discussion. It is 
up to you.

[...]

|> Corliss, W.R., "Lightning, Auroras, Nocturnal Lights, and Related Luminous
|> 	Phenomena", 1982. (Published and distributed by The Sourcebook
|> 	Project, P.O. Box 107, Glen Arm, MD  21057) Tel: (301) 668-6047

Thanks, I'll see if we have this. I do know that we do have other stuff on
ball lightning.

|> >See H Wu and Y Chen, Physics of Fluids B (1989) vol 1, page 1753. Title:
|> >"Magnetohydrodynamic equilibrium of ball lightning". Among other things,
|> >they prove what Art has been saying about the ambient pressure requirements,
|> >including the fact that there is no nontrivial force-free equilibrium state.
|> >(Trivial means everything is zero.)
|> 
|> Thanks
|> I have no argument that external pressure of the Atmosphere is necessary
|> to match the difference pressure of the Int jXB dA |torus (closed surface). 

See previous posts by Carlson.
 
|> >My challenge to you is to convince me with data that your plasmoid is any
|> >different from their model.  Even if not, it is interesting to know that
|> >the things have confinement times long enough to survive for human-visible
|> >times. 
|> 
|> There are video tapes of natural BL that show that -- thirty seconds.   
|> Can't you chaps respond to my quiries??   Why do you think they
|> exist for such times and can handle high turbulence , and magnetize
|> ferromagnetic material, induce radioactivity, etc. etc. 
|> 
|> This particular one was brushing tree limbs, then accelerated away 
|> by increased jet impurity rejection.  It acted like the description
|> of the Russian formed over a river, guided to the back by coupling
|> to a steel cable holding back floating logs, and then brushing trees
|> with the same sort of action.  You might request cpy from Ofuraton
|> or Oktsuki (tokyo).   

These actions can be explained by a low energy-density plasmoid. Anything
quantitative?

|> >|> So how long does it last? What is its energy density? And how
|> >|> large has it been made.. (average) to date.  What is its mag/
|> >|> plasma topology??  OR  Is it an plasma/Electrostatic model?? 
|> 
|> >These are my questions to you.  
|> 
|> Cute.  
|> 
|> As I said, they last 5 orders better than resistive MHD predicts.  
|> What's your response to that?? 

Interest, and a request for quantitative data.

|> I've sent a description of the topology (gif) and if that doesn't
|> handle it, then stick hyper conducting currents in a spheromak with
|> a hole and exchange the solid conducting shell for a tightly
|> fitting Mantle (also hyperconducting -- at least to neutralize the 
|> Kernel poloidal flux). 

I am aware of this, but it is a drawing.

|> Now give me a few answers.  What did you calculate the energy
|> density of Plasmak to be (as I have described it).  

Sorry, don't have the size numbers handy. Take (3/2) nT integrated over
a sphere. It will be large, but no-one doubts that. 

|> >By the way, Wu and Chen give a q close to zero on the magnetic axis, rising
|> >to about 0.24 on the boundary surface, compared to 0.825 and 0.72 for the
|> >spheromak. (NB: there are several equilibria, one for each N_r, the number 
|> >of times the toroidal magnetic field reverses between magnetic axis and 
|> >boundary surface; the above numbers are for the N_r = 0 case.)
|> 
|> Why don't the currents cancel (neutralize) at the reversal region 
|> current surface. 

They are stable against magnetic reconnection, or maybe they are not.
This sort of thing needs a simulation, which will be done in due time.
Note that the N_r = 0 case has no reversal surfaces.

[...]

-- 
Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de                               -- W Gibson
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnTK cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.04 / Bruce TK /  Wu and Chen spheroid (was Re: The virial theorem
     
Originally-From: bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce       Scott          TK  )
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Wu and Chen spheroid (was Re: The virial theorem
Date: 4 Sep 1994 17:23:34 GMT
Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching

In article <harrCvH9uA.DFw@netcom.com>, harr@netcom.com (Charles
(Chuck) Harrison) writes:

|> Could you give a citation for Wu & Chen?  (And, if you have time, a
|> layman's description of geometry & lifetime for a Wu & Chen plasmoid)

Here is the Wu and Chen reference:

>See H Wu and Y Chen, Physics of Fluids B (1989) vol 1, page 1753. Title:
>"Magnetohydrodynamic equilibrium of ball lightning". Among other things,
>they prove what Art has been saying about the ambient pressure requirements,
>including the fact that there is no nontrivial force-free equilibrium state.
>(Trivial means everything is zero.)

Life time is unknown, since the only calculation is the equilibrium. There
is interest elsewhere to look at some basic MHD instabilities, and my
eventual interest to run my tokamak code in the plasmoid geometry. It is
easier than it sounds (but building code takes time).

The geometry is this: Consider a sphere in 3-D space. Take the diameter
which is vertical, and call that the "symmetry axis". The geometry is
symmetric about that. It is also up/down symmetric about the horizontal
plane containing the sphere's center; this plane can be called the
"midplane". Let R be the radius of the sphere. Consider nested, toroidal
surfaces (inner tubes inside of bigger inner tubes, inside of...). These
surfaces are packed inside the sphere, and the "hole" in each surface
contains the symmetry axis. At some distance L from the symmetry axis,
in the midplane, lies the surface of zero volume. Let this be called
the "magnetic axis". For the basic configuration, L/R is about 1/2.
The toroidal surface which fills about half the volume is elongated
vertically: about 1.5 or so taller than it is wide. The largest surface,
of course, is the one whose "hole" is the symmetry axis and whose outer
surface is the surface of the sphere.

The magnetic field lines are twisted: those near the magnetic axis are
nearly completely poloidal, while near the largest flux surface it is
still much more poloidal than toroidal, making about four turns around
the short way for each turn around the long way. The shear is stronger
than in a spheromak. (Shear is the degree with which "q" changes from
surface to surface, and q is the number of turns around the long way
for one turn around the short way.) 

The currents are not exactly parallel, but when getting a picture of the
geometry they can be viewed as similarly pitched as the field lines. I
couldn't give a better description until I actually plotted them. I don't
have a code off-hand which does that, so you'll have to bear with me.

BTW: does anyone know how to make a GIF from post-script? I could draw
this pretty fast using xfig.

-- 
Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de                               -- W Gibson
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnTK cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.04 / Chris Parkinson /  Re: #6 BRAVE NEW WORLD GOVERNMENT, Political idiot Bill Clinton
     
Originally-From: parky@ix.netcom.com (Chris Parkinson)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci
physics.electromag,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: #6 BRAVE NEW WORLD GOVERNMENT, Political idiot Bill Clinton
Date: 4 Sep 1994 19:16:08 GMT
Organization: Netcom

In <34abj3$8ej@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu
(Ludwig Plutonium) writes: 

>
>The USA's number one problem is to get its economic house in order. The
>US budget deficit is a ticking time bomb that could be the trigger of a
>nuclear world war 3. 
>
>One would think that Clinton would make the number one problem the
>highest concern. No, for stupid idiot Bill Clinton, like his Democrat
>and even Republican presidents before him, never tackle the real
>problem. Instead they let the USA roll down the road into its bleak
>future. Bill wants a future generation to pay for the sins of our
>generations.
>
>Put a stupid idiot like Bill Clinton in the White House and what does
>he want to change. Of course he wants to destroy the "best of America".
>He wants to destroy the Pharmaceutical Companies. The USA has the best
>drug companies in the world, Merck, BMY, Lilly, SGP, Pfizer, etc.. Does
>it matter to Bill that we have a world epidemic of AIDS, which could go
>virulent. What if AIDS went so virulent that you can catch it like a
>common cold. Do you think the idiot Bill Clinton might say," Hey, I let
>you guys alone because you guys with your humungus R&D spending may be
>our savior from AIDS."
>
>No, stupid idiots like Clinton, (there has not been a smart USA
>president since Jefferson and Ben Franklin (Ben was not a president
>because he was too smart to want to be), do like all the presidents
>after FDR. They tax away the best of America, in order to swell the
>numbers of the worst class in America, the N'er do Wells. Since FDR,
>the USA is no longer a Capitalistic Democracy. It is a Parasitic
>Socialism. If Clinton manages to hobble the drug companies. What will
>be his next target. Of course, figure out what is the USA's second
>pride and joy after the drug companies. Probably the telecommunications
>industry, watch the stupid idiot named Clinton tax away
>telecommunications in order to garner more votes from middle class
>welfare bums. The goal of the Democratic platform is to make the
>majority of Americans into a MIDDLE CLASS WELFARE DEPENDENT group. In
>that way the Democrats (Republicans are no better) will keep the
>Democrats in power.
>
>The above idiocy of government works only so long as the hard working
>people continue to accept the US currency. Do yourself a favor, turn as
>much of the USA dollar into a real currency, buy stock shares and gold
>and silver. Keep only USA DOLLAR EQuivalents that will keep you going
>in food.
>
>If you vote, vote Libertarian. But best of all, vote with your money,
>by getting rid of all paper money savings.
>Continued in #7. BTW, some readers have asked me if I proof read these.
>No, I no longer proof read. I write them once and post. I have too many
>projects of far more importance to worry about mispelling or grammar.
>

And off the deep end he fell. Stick to your true calling, Science. 
Politics is your ticking time bomb. Libertarian rantings is all that
this is.
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenparky cudfnChris cudlnParkinson cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.04 / James Vanmeter /  New CF theory (from Phys.Lett.A '93)
     
Originally-From: nazrael@cats.ucsc.edu (James Vanmeter)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: New CF theory (from Phys.Lett.A '93)
Date: 4 Sep 1994 23:57:04 GMT
Organization: University of California; Santa Cruz


I was wondering if the following theory, which was recently published
in Physics Letters A (v180,n1-2,p25, by J.P.Vigier and others, Aug.'93)
has been considered yet by this group:

"Preliminary observations on possible implications of new Bohr orbits
(resulting from electromagnetic spin-spin and spin-orbit coupling) in
'cold' quantum mechanical fusion processes appearing in strong 'plasma
focus' and 'capillary fusion' experiments"

Abstract: "The theoretical interpretation of recently observed 'excess
heat' (i.e. break-even) in low intensity electrolytic and discharge
experiments (with both deuterium and hydrogen) as resulting from a new
type of non-nuclear quantum phenomena (i.e. spin-spin and spin-orbit
couplings added to the usual Coulomb potential in specially structured
dense media) leads to the prediction that 'fusion ashes' of deuterium
(or deuterium compounds now in vanishingly small quantities) will grow
with the current intensity input, thus increasing the excess energy output.
To test this prediction one can study the dynamic fusion reactions in 
simple capacitor bank discharges into deuterated media, both in plasma
focus and capillary fusion type experiments"


To attempt to summarize their theory:  Under certain conditions, they posit,
spin-spin and spin-orbit forces permit new tight Bohr orbits with orbital
energies ~ 50kV.  "These new forces, which result from the known interaction 
of the corresponding antiparallel proton-electron magnetic moments, have
been known for a long time (Born-Pauli, Barut, etc., but generally neglected)."
This "new exotic type of quantum chemistry" is responsible, they conjecture,
for some excess heat observed in "cold fusion" experiments.  In addition,
the smaller radii of their new Bohr orbits might facilitate occasional  
fusion via tunneling, thus explaining the fusion by-products sometimes
observed.


cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudennazrael cudfnJames cudlnVanmeter cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.05 / Paul Koloc /  Re: The virial theorem
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The virial theorem
Date: Mon, 5 Sep 1994 00:21:23 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <34cud4INN1e2l@sat.ipp-garching.mpg.de> bds@ipp-garching.mpg.
e (Bruce       Scott          TK  ) writes:
>In article <CvHCJ6.1J6@prometheus.UUCP>, pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) writes:
>|> In article <3449b6INN1362@sat.ipp-garching.mpg.de> bds@ipp-garching.
pg.de (Bruce       Scott          TK  ) writes:
>|> >In article <CvFGAp.3zA@prometheus.UUCP>, pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) writes:
 
>Note the national-character comment you make above, and then my response.

I did, and the purpose for the comment was to introduce some 
understanding as to why it is difficult for a particular culture to 
comprehend that magnetized fluid structures couldn't generate
volume constraint (confinement). 

>Maybe you believe too much, then. When someone presents me with a counter-
>intuitive experimental result, it should not be surprising that my first
>reaction is "how do you know what you know"? The reason I propose a simpler
>model for you is that it fits the data you have given me, and it does not
>violate anything I consider to be basic physics -- in this case it is an
>equilibrium and has been shown to be one, and what you have described is
>something which violates the virial theorem and so naturally I don't
>believe it is an equilibrium. It falls to you to demonstrate that the
>simpler description of a plasmoid in equilibrium does not in fact fit
>your observations, while your model with its more "exotic" features like
>a thin ionised layer and a vacuum region does.

For the same reasons such simple structures (boundary currents with no
vacuum insulation) were dismissed by Shafranov in 1957.   Further,
the formation technique I used couldn't have formed such a structure.  
Also, such structures would not be Raleigh-Taylor stable.  Your
problem with the "virial theorem" will disappear if would run the 
magnetostatic problem I set up for you in Cfg 3 of the Virial.GIF.   

True, it would tend to be a bit more energy dense than a "blended"
poloidal/toroidal torus version (force free with very low plasma Beta).  
However, all we wish to show is that it is contrary to the virial 
result, which you should find it is.  Further, you could send the 
net your program.   

>This is simply how people do science. It is called a "screening mechanism".

What... by denial and pronouncement, because they have a problem with
crunching the numbers??  Remember, reduce the current surfaces to simply
connected so the toroidal current surface is included with the outer
shell.  You agree??  You do understand and are familiar with multiply 
connected topological regions.  

>|> >|> >This is irrespective of whether Paul has a plasma. Given that he does,
>|> >|> >the discussion has convinced me that there is no experimental data from
>|> >|> >his lab that could demonstrate that his plasma is not something more
>|> >|> >prosaic, 

>|> You could be a very obtuse fellow, and that could preclude you
>|> from being convinced by the meager data from this restricted
>|> and poorly funded concept.  On the other hand you could be bright
>|> and quick to comprehend.  So far... .eh!

>I am not that gullible.

For the power and unquestioned universality of the Virial Theorem you 
are.  So it's not how it looks to me. I'm reporting less data than what 
I have, NOT more.  That puts you at a very great disadvantage, and I'm 
in no position at the present time to relieve your problem.  Because
of this situation, it is my problem as well, and of course, it 
affects me far more prevasively.  It makes it difficult to do the 
work!  I wish you did know what I know, because then, assuming your 
comprehension of physical evidence is at least as sharp as mine, 
you would agree we have a real problem with the Virial Theorem 
as currently applied.  Then, you would be changing one set of 
problems for another.  

Alternately, we can look to BL observations, of which a large 
number of reports, fit into very similar clusters.  Consequently,
we can have some "stronger" level of confidence in such observations. 
Many of these observations, also fly in the face of the Virial
result as it is applied.  

There are three areas of trouble.  First, if the BL's have high
internal energy, then they have a substantial pressure gradient
which will tend to make them very Rayleigh-Taylor stable.  "VERY"
As I said they have been observed in strong Squal Thunderstorms
with powerful winds buffeting them severely.  

2.  If the objects can exist in Faraday cages.. (Metal skinned
buildings and airplanes), they are NOT LIKELY to be recieving
either electric field pumping OR powerful microwave pumping. Further,
such pumping although demonstrated in vacuum, or in air but
only at the edges of the waveguide horn, are not likely to exist
for such extended periods and in such concentrated volumes.  
Otherwise, human heads would likely occasionally inter such 
nodes and either explode, or stop functioning -- with prejudice.  

That means these things must have loads of stored energy to 
run so long.  Further since they don't seem to change size 
noticeably as they run down, which would happen if they had flat
energy density, then it's likely they are losing "high internal 
energy" instead.  Consequently, the compressed torus expands
as the PMK loses high internal energy, which keeps the Mantle's
apparent diameter nearly constant.  

3. These things bounce. What other Virial approved Plasmoid 
pull off a similar feat??  This relates to 1 above, but
I think it's distinct, because the PMK as a whole rebounds.  
So, let me add, that the illumination of the PMK is quit
constant over time, and if it changes, in some it INCREASES
in intensity, which would be unexpected from a thermal current
mag-plasma.  

4.  This has not to do with High E-den, but with Energetic 
currents.  BL's have been see pulsing beam like rays into
the surrounding air, and very impressive displaces when 
disrupting.  One disruption at a stone fireplace, induced
radiation in the stones as measured by TFK?? Ashby(UK). 

5.  The PMK is predicted to generate polar jets, which was
observed in our work and in BL.   

>Precisely.

Well, let's put it this way, the data you have been given hasn't
been published, and you can not be expected to believe it, 
regardless of its truth in reality.  The problem was "funding",
and you and I are both victims of the DoE and their ability
to fund independent concepts outside of their own laboratory system.  
I'm not they only victim of this problem... and by interest, 
you are not either.   Our only hope is either to shake DoE funding
loose, or for you to suck up and act as if you believe what I'm 
telling you, to the point that you look at the virial result with
suspicion.  So it's just a turn of the finger ... so to speak.  
then act 

>|> Further, I haven't published anything, nor do I intend to until
>|> my funding is secure and I have their agreement.  Now, if your
>|> not convinced, then I hope that doesn't cause you much pain, 
>
>It doesn't; I assure you. But don't come to me for funding requests with
>arguments like that. 

I am not coming to you for funding requests, and IF I did then YOU
would be in the position to turn on (or off) publication.  

>|> and you can go on and assume I have done what I said and you 
>|> continue worrying the problem until we can fix whatever error
>|> there is which causes your solution to be in such blantant conflict
>|> with either observations of BL or of our production of PMK's.  

>Ah, but the Wu and Chen model _does_ jibe with these observations. 

Several things.  Wu-Chen hasn't been produced in air.  And if it
were produced it would NOT anything of the observations of BL, which
I have listed above  (1-5).   

So, let's say your speaking theoretically, ... well  What of the five
listed does your imaginary STP airborne Wu-Chen plasmoid generate??  

>That
>is my claim. If you want to convince me otherwise, go right ahead. But
>don't be crushed if you make statements like the above and find out I don't
>believe you. Too many people say "I've observed this but I won't tell 
>anyone until they pay up" for me to fall for such things.

I don't.  You have to make that judgement yourself, and I wish I 
could help you.  

>|> How does radiating ions OR excited neutrals cause "wild effects??" 

>This is what causes a plasma to glow in visible light. If there are large
>fluctuations in the densities of any involved species, the effects can
>get pretty wild. The mechanism is, however, prosaic.

Such a system would decay within microseconds.  Long lived stuff would
decay exponentially.  That's not happening, and the colored images
show the PMK to be dramatically stable (unchanging). So, by your
definition, what we have may not be quite so "prosaic" as you would
like to believe.       

>|> I know of no other plasma which has regime extremes such as this or
>|> which is partial confined by atmosphere and self fields.  I know of 
>|> no other plasma (Mantle), which is maintained by photo-ionization, 
>|> photoexcitation, energectic current small angle scattering, and 
>|> avalanche energy transport ladders.   

>This is something I wouldn't believe in unless shown the data. 
>Sorry,

>but I think you are getting carried away. The mean-free path of the
>plasma you describe to an escaping photon against absoprtion by a
>neutral, which would ionise the neutral, is orders of magnitude larger
>than the plasma. 

Really??  What are you talking about?? Most of this stuff is in the
UV (for air) and that's not going to get cms. What . .1.5 may 2cm??   
We see the N2 air glow around the outside of the plasmoid (when
blanked) and it's a beautiful azure blue.  Also, we suspect that
at least in very large BL's with some High Z stuff in the plasma,
that some very tough X-rays are produced, because there are numerous
incidents where people have been radiated. We have not measured
the X-ray output yet, just know there is some.  

I know the divergence ion layer is present, and the ions are 
accessible and consequently, the ionization rate can be measured.  

>That is why I don't believe in the existence of this
>layer. Show me the data, and then we can have a discussion. Keep your
>data private if you want, but then we can't have a discussion. It is 
>up to you.

Come on run the integration.. at least on the magnetostatic case,
and let us see your work and results.  

>|> Corliss, W.R., "Lightning, Auroras, Nocturnal Lights, and Related Luminous
>|> 	Phenomena", 1982. (Published and distributed by The Sourcebook
>|> 	Project, P.O. Box 107, Glen Arm, MD  21057) Tel: (301) 668-6047

>Thanks, I'll see if we have this. I do know that we do have other stuff on
>ball lightning.

Good.. now we may be getting some place.  That makes me very happy.. 
Still haven't recieved a copy of Wu-Chen.. except that the abstract
indicated that force free can't fly within a BL.   Guess that 
depends on how sloppy the definition of Force Free is, since plasma
sort of washes_it_out a bit.  

>|> >See H Wu and Y Chen, Physics of Fluids B (1989) vol 1, page 1753. Title:
>|> >"Magnetohydrodynamic equilibrium of ball lightning". Among other things,
>|> >they prove what Art has been saying about the ambient pressure requirements,
>|> >including the fact that there is no nontrivial force-free equilibrium state.
It puts a BIG smile on my face, since I must live in a special part of 
the universe.  OR these chaps haven't quit got it right.  If they
use the virial.. then I can understand.. they just didn't run the
numbers to do a verification of thier result (assuming they include
all current flows).  

So my understanding that you haven't run numbers either so far, but
you are close to getting the opportunity to do same?  


>|> >different from their model.  Even if not, it is interesting to know that
>|> >the things have confinement times long enough to survive for human-visible
>|> >times. 
 
Actually, we aren't about to view them directly.. we are a bit chicken,
and so they are buried behind more radiation block walls, lead shielding 
and a EMF double screened enclosure for our next shots.  We now have 
higher current switches and a more power flash, but need pulser's and 
machining to reconfigure the plates.  So we are working the problem.  

>|> There are video tapes of natural BL that show that -- thirty seconds.   
>|> Can't you chaps respond to my quiries??   Why do you think they
>|> exist for such times and can handle high turbulence , and magnetize
>|> ferromagnetic material, induce radioactivity, etc. etc. 

>|> This particular one was brushing tree limbs, then accelerated away 
>|> by increased jet impurity rejection.  It acted like the description
>|> of the Russian formed over a river, guided to the back by coupling
>|> to a steel cable holding back floating logs, and then brushing trees
>|> with the same sort of action.  You might request cpy from Ofuraton
>|> or Oktsuki (tokyo).   

>These actions can be explained by a low energy-density plasmoid. Anything
>quantitative?

Absolutely NOT!
Impossible! you couldn't possibly form an atmospheric plasmoid that 
holds constant for more than 50 microseconds.  OR exist at constant
diameter for 100 usec.   (I'm speaking of 1/3 to 1/2 meter diameter
BLs.  Total times are about 1/2 second for meter diameter "bead 
lightnings" which are solid plasma balls that radiate from the
surface and shrink to none existence.  They immediately start to
shrink.   

>|> >|> So how long does it last? What is its energy density? And how
>|> >|> large has it been made.. (average) to date.  What is its mag/
>|> >|> plasma topology??  OR  Is it an plasma/Electrostatic model?? 
>|> >These are my questions to you.  

It's an electrostatic-magnetostatic-compound plasma model.. at this
date.  Bet that helps a lot.   :-) 

>|> As I said, they last 5 orders better than resistive MHD predicts.  
>|> What's your response to that?? 

>Interest, and a request for quantitative data.

Okay.. one particular case:
That is quantitative data.  Compute the MHD resistive lifetime. 
Should be 2 -10 microseconds.  It's chicken egg size.. NOW tell me 
what numbers you get for lifetime.  Maybe my  resistive MHD times 
are't correct?? 

>|> I've sent a description of the topology (gif) and if that doesn't
>|> handle it, then stick hyper conducting currents in a spheromak with
>|> a hole and exchange the solid conducting shell for a tightly
>|> fitting Mantle (also hyperconducting -- at least to neutralize the 
>|> Kernel poloidal flux). 
>
>I am aware of this, but it is a drawing.

We considered a medical application of these, with free treatments
for DoE mag fusion types, but the decided we were quite far off
base.  It would have been a great source of confirmations, though. 

>|> Now give me a few answers.  What did you calculate the energy
>|> density of Plasmak to be (as I have described it).  

>Sorry, don't have the size numbers handy. Take (3/2) nT integrated over
>a sphere. It will be large, but no-one doubts that. 

Wrong... it's small.  Beta is for our consideration case is .01%. 
The energy is stored magnetically and high, as you may find out if 
you would run the magnetostatic problem.  We can make the solution 
more realistic ... later.  This should yield a (too) very upper E-den.  

>|> Why don't the currents cancel (neutralize) at the reversal region 
>|> current surface. 

>They are stable against magnetic reconnection, or maybe they are not.
>This sort of thing needs a simulation, which will be done in due time.
>Note that the N_r = 0 case has no reversal surfaces.

So, they too utilize energetic currents??  Otherwise, they will 
reconnect.
                       If they can be formed in STP air  
                                  that is!  Which they Can'T. 

or am I wrong and they have?? 

>Gruss,
>Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
>Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
>bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de                               -- W Gibson
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc, Bx 1037 Prometheus II Ltd, College Park MD 20741-1037    |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Mon Sep  5 04:37:06 EDT 1994
------------------------------
1994.09.06 / Richard Blue /  Re: Reply to Peter Roessingh
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reply to Peter Roessingh
Date: Tue, 6 Sep 1994 00:14:02 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I suppose I should first modify or clarify my statement that
calorimetry alone not being sufficient proof of cold fusion.  I
didn't intend to have that taken as a general statement about the
limitations of calorimetry.  It is more in the nature of an observation
that for some reasons not fully understood the calorimetry on the
PdD electrolysis system is especially difficult.  I have speculated
from time to time as to possible causes of this condition, but the
important observation is merely that we have clear indications that
is so.  Any estimate of experimental sensitivity for the detection
of cold fusion reactions will indicate that nuclear physics
techniques are more sensitive by many orders of magnitude so one
should not dismiss such measurements even where calorimetry is
the primary experimental indication.

We are thus in a situation where the most sensitive measurements
universally indicate a null result while the calorimetery may,
in some rare cases, give a contradictory result.  McKubre's
measurements have to be seen in that light.  They do not stand
alone even though you seem to want to extract this one data
set to be judged on its own merits without being influenced
by all that has been going on for five years.  One possible
way to resolve the question is to dismiss the nuclear results
on the basis that we cannot be sure that the system under
investigation behaves as expected.  This simply moves the
discussion into the realm where a large number of miracles
must be concatenated to encompass all the various results.
I don't consider that an acceptable resolution of the problem,
but I am willing to listen to any arguments that pursue that
approach.  The starting point, however, has to be our current
understanding of all the relevant processes.  If you once
start throwing away accepted wisdom you quickly reach a
situation where you can't even interpret the calorimetry
data as positive for cold fusion.

I will admit that I do have an a-priori reason to believe that
radiation should always accompany cold fusion.  The argument
is basically as follows:  The cold fusion process appears to
involve too high an energy release to be chemical in nature.
In other words the energy release is larger than typical electron
binding energies.  In that case it is reasonable to expect that
at least a significant fraction of the events will involve
an energy transfer large enough to excite X-ray emission from
the lattice.  Note that I have not yet invoked any claim
that the process is nuclear, but have used a minimum of assumptions
consistant with the claimed experimental results.  You may
select the energy scale as you wish, but the higher you make
the primary energy release the more difficult it becomes to
hide it.  If you choose the opposite tack and assume lower
energies for the primary event you must boost the assumed reaction
rate inversely with the result that there has to be more events
to detect.

As soon as we move beyond the realm of idle speculation concerning
the nature of the process and try to connect with some real
possibilities nuclear fusion reactions are seen as the only
likely candidates for the energy source.  Here radiation emission
becomes the norm and the expected detection levels are factors of
billions above anything that has been seen.  There are no theories
that offer any possible explanation for the nonobserved radiation.
Chubb and Chubb, who are frequently cited, have never presented
a theory that addresses this issue so why do you think they have?
If we are to adopt the criterion of publications meeting a high
level of excellence as you are willing to do on the experimental
side I think we should do likewise for the theories.  That leaves
most of the theories on the sidelines.

Now do you see McKubre's one published paper as a starting point?
It is easy to say that it is better than most cold fusion calorimetry
results, but has he done everything right?  That is a tough question
to answer when there is only one experiment in the running, and we
do have this five year history where numerous other investigators
have shown that it is possible to mess up the calorimetry.  I don't
think we can reach any resolution of the questions on the basis of
McKubre's results alone.  There is still the problem of lack of
reproducibility.  That means that some runs give near zero results
while the "positive" results lie at 2-4% excess.   I would think
we need to see all the data before reaching any judgement as to
whether there clearly is an indication that some runs are definite
positives.  Once you are being shown only selected results you should
continue to wonder about how biased the selection process may be.

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.05 / Stefan Hartmann /  Free Energy device: More info on the Hydrosonic Pump!
     
Originally-From: harti@shb.contrib.de (Stefan Hartmann)
Newsgroups: alt.paranet.science,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.bio,sci
physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Free Energy device: More info on the Hydrosonic Pump!
Date: 05 Sep 1994 17:58:00 +0200

Here is some new very intersting email, I just received about the new test  
reports done with the Hydrosonic Pump.

Seems this device is capable of doing a huge overunity excess output !



Empfaenger : harti@shb.contrib.de
Betreff    : More About Hydrosonic Pump
Datum      : Di 30.08.94, 11:09  (erhalten: 30.08.94)
Groesse    : 4478 Bytes
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
To: >INTERNET:harti@shb.contrib.de (Stefan Hartmann)


                              August 29, 1994

More About Hydrosonic Pump

Some months ago I described the Hydrosonic Pump, an excess energy device
invented and patented by James Griggs, of Cartersville, GA. See U.S. Patent
number 5,188,090. This device produces massive quantities of excess heat
energy at kilowatt levels for industrial applications. I believe it is a cold
fusion (CF) device in which the CF effect is triggered by ultrasound, but
perhaps it taps some other exotic, unknown source of energy. I am quite sure
it is not a chemical, mechanical or electric heater, because it exceeds the
limits of those sources thousands of times over.

Griggs has upgraded and improved his instrumentation, data collection, and the
test rig equipment frame. On August 26, 1994 I visited Griggs for a few hours
where I observed some test runs and learned about the new test equipment. Here
is a brief summary of the changes:

Instrumentation & Data Collection. Griggs has added a dynamometer to measure
the mechanical energy output by the electric motor. It is a "Lebow" brand
Eaton torque sensor model 1805-5K. Capacity is 5,000 inch pounds at 5,000
R.P.M.; maximum speed is 20,000 R.P.M. The controller box is model 7540. I
observed a torque calibration in which a 20 lb weight was hung 30 inches from
the shaft on the input side. The dynamometer is much smaller than I imagined
it would be; I neglected to measure it, but it is about the size of box of
tissues. A new precision electronic flowmeter manufactured by Sponsler Company
has been added. Three thermocouples have been added to the pipes leading into
and out of the Pump, and four have been added to the 55 gallon steel drum that
is used as a heat sink. An IBM compatible computer is now used to collect and
process data, running DVT control software under Windows.

I am glad to say that all previously installed instrumentation is still in
place. This reinforces the measurements, it serves as a superb cross-check.
You can still perform manual data collection to supplement and verify the
automatic electronic data collection. For example, you can measure the flow
rate in gallons per minute by timing the fall in water level in the marked
plastic receptacle, and they still weigh the entire mass of cooling water and
condensate on the 1,000 lb scale at the end of each experimental run. The
thermocouple readings can easily be verified by taking the temperature of the
water in the steel drum with a thermometer and pyrometer. Thus, if an error
creeps into the computer data, it will be spotted instantly.

Test Rig. The test rig has been rebuilt to allow easier access to the
components. Adjustable legs and bubble levels now ensure that the rig remains
level and straight. Safety has been enhanced by improvements like a faucet on
the steel drum.

Griggs has been working with a consulting engineering firm in Atlanta and with
a retired professor of mechanical engineering. In my opinion his
instrumentation and test procedures have gone from Excellent to Superb. The
dynamometer readings fully confirm the accuracy and precision of the electric
power meter readings. During my brief stay on Friday I observed only low
power, low excess energy runs that produced 108 to 115 C.O.P.s (15% excess
energy). I was not able to observe the type of a high power steam condensation
run that produces large excesses (140 to 160 C.O.P.)  However, I now have no
doubt that the input power measurements from last year were generally correct,
and the previous high excess heat data that I reported was valid. The only
measurement open to question previously was input power, and the readings from
the old instruments are confirmed with the new equipment. There is now no
longer any doubt that this machine produces multi-kilowatt excess heat on
demand indefinitely. (Some units have operated continuously for years at
customer sites.) As far as I know, this is the world's first practical excess
energy machine that has been installed at customer sites; tested carefully
with a full range of precision equipment; and verified to work by professional
engineers.



Empfaenger : harti@shb.contrib.de
Betreff    : More About Hydrosonic Pump
Datum      : Di 30.08.94, 17:49  (erhalten: 31.08.94)
Groesse    : 1399 Bytes
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
To: >INTERNET:harti@shb.contrib.de

You asked:

     "Doesn't he now get 160 % anymore..."

Yes, but not last Friday with that particular rotor. He was running at low
power mode producing hot water, and he was having difficulty sustaining a
high power, full steam run. He was experimenting with a new rotor, which was
not successful. This week or next he will reinstall one of the older rotors
that works well at high power and we should see 160% again.

Many of the tests I observed last year were also low power water heating
tests as well. The hotter the machine runs, the more energy it produces.


     "...due to the better test equipment"

Nothing to do with the new test equipment. I saw these low power runs last
year too, with the same results.


     "At 115 % one could say, it is still measurement errors...."

That is not possible. The power meter is within 2%, the dynamometer is
rated to within 1% and we are throwing away a few kilowatts of heat lost
to radiation at the pump surface. We do not even try to account for radiation
losses, the excess is what is taken *after radiation losses* from the pump,
pipes and steel drum. There is plenty more excess we have not tried to
capture.


     "Is somebody putting money into this area to rebuild a simualar
     machine to verify independantly these results?"

No, not to my knowledge.

=========================================================================

Which university wants to test this machine ??

Who else wants to verify these results by an own rebuild machine ?
Let me know !

Regards, Stefan.
email to:
harti@contrib.de

## CrossPoint v3.02 ##
cudkeys:
cuddy05 cudenharti cudfnStefan cudlnHartmann cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.05 / Alan M /  Re: Submission for sci.physics.fusion
     
Originally-From: Alan@moonrake.demon.co.uk ("Alan M. Dunsmuir")
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Submission for sci.physics.fusion
Date: Mon, 5 Sep 1994 17:50:02 +0000
Organization: Home

In article: <34b7fa$r7j@ixnews1.ix.netcom.com>  parky@ix.netcom.com
(Chris Parkinson) writes:
> 
> In <9409020615.AA11628@mars.plasma.gen.u-tokyo.ac.jp> michael@plasma.g
n.u-tokyo.ac.jp (Michael) 
writes: 
> 
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >How can I process this kind of files I received:
> >
> >MH0S(@8ZNX@/P+ZT48AX[@CN>AQZ081^Z@0H080`)`-M:``C:@`7D8K7\!;"V>
> >
> >And so on...???
> >
> >Thanks in advance
> >
> >
> >Michael
> >
> >
> >
> 
> Looks like someone sent you a JPEG or GIF picture. Caution though,
> parasites may invade your system with these kinds of files. Suggest
> you view it on some computer that you dont care about.
> 
> Try LVIEW to see it. It may or may not work. Its time these guys
> use an Adobe Photoshop standard.
> 
> CP
 
Oh come on! FUD abounds.

He needs a copy of uuencode/uudecode to find out _what_ kind of file 
it is. (Uuencode/decode is a program for translating binary files to
and from 7-bit ASCII format for transmission over the 'Net as e-mail.)

Only after it's been uudecoded can anyone tell whether it's a GIF, a 
JPEG or a bootleg copy of Microsoft Word.

And graphics files do not carry viruses any more than these NewsGroup 
ASCI messages do. Only .exe files, or infected floppies, carry 
viruses. 

Alan M. Dunsmuir [@ his wits end]     (Can't even quote poetry right)

         I am his Highness' dog at Kew
         Pray tell me sir, whose dog are you?
			      [Alexander Pope]

PGP Public Key available on request.


cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenAlan cudfnAlan cudlnM cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.05 / Alan M /  Re: Rothwell must be endothermic
     
Originally-From: Alan@moonrake.demon.co.uk ("Alan M. Dunsmuir")
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Rothwell must be endothermic
Date: Mon, 5 Sep 1994 17:50:02 +0000
Organization: Home

In article: <xG1SWTK.jedrothwell@delphi.com>  jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:

> I have heard, from a reliable source, that the first U.S. thermonuclear
> fusion bomb consisted of a fission bomb and a large pool of heavy water.
> I don't know if that is true or not, but it makes a darn good story!

Only if your understanding of the physics involved is zero! 

Alan M. Dunsmuir [@ his wits end]     (Can't even quote poetry right)

         I am his Highness' dog at Kew
         Pray tell me sir, whose dog are you?
			      [Alexander Pope]

PGP Public Key available on request.


cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenAlan cudfnAlan cudlnM cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.05 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Wu and Chen spheroid (was Re: The virial theorem
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Wu and Chen spheroid (was Re: The virial theorem
Date: Mon, 5 Sep 1994 00:26:48 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <34cvqmINN1e2l@sat.ipp-garching.mpg.de> bds@ipp-garching.mpg.
e (Bruce       Scott          TK  ) writes:
>In article <harrCvH9uA.DFw@netcom.com>, harr@netcom.com (Charles
(Chuck) Harrison) writes:

>BTW: does anyone know how to make a GIF from post-script? I could draw
>this pretty fast using xfig.

Import the Post-script into Corel draw and export to *.GIF.  

>-- 
>Gruss,
>Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
>Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
>bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de                               -- W Gibson

+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc, Bx 1037 Prometheus II Ltd, College Park MD 20741-1037    |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+


cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.05 / Dieter Britz /  Re: Kamada??
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Kamada??
Date: Mon, 5 Sep 1994 08:07:57 GMT
Date: Sat, 3 Sep 1994 00:14:29 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway




cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.03 / Richard Blue /      
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue) in FD 2677,
Date: Sat, 3 Sep 1994 00:14:29 GMT

>Alejandro Rivero has questions about a recent report of electron-
>induced "fusion" and so do I.  I would say here is another clear
>case of experimenters going well beyond the information actually
>obtained from the experiment into some fantasy about exotic fusion
>reactions.

>The claim is that the bombardment of aluminum loaded with either
>hydrogen or deuterium by 100 keV or 200 keV electrons results in
>fusion as indicated by tracks in CR39 track detectors.  First
>question that comes to mind is why aluminum?  I was not aware that
>aluminum was particularly good for this sort of thing.  In any case
>I would like to hear from someone who reads the paper what the
>loading is supposed to be and what is the purity of the aluminum.
>If this is an ordinary chunk of a commercial aluminum alloy there
>is simply no telling what could be going on here.

Kamada is apparently an old hand at this, and has used Al at least since 1987,
going by the references. Why he uses it I don't know. I checked the paper and
find no mention of the metal's purity (maybe the earlier papers mention it),
but I would expect it to be rather pure because of the way Al is made (by
electrolysis) - just a gut feeling, don't ask me how many 9's. As to the
loading, on page L1289 it is stated that in the loaded layer, about 50 nm
deep, the molar volume of hydrogen is 10 cm^3. Al itself has a molar volume of
about the same, so the loading is roughly equal to unity. Where does this
lead, Dick? Kamada mentions also that different loadings were tried, but only
that level that produces "tunnel like structure" in the subsurface layer gives
results. There is a reference to this, same author, J. Nucl. Mater. 169 (1989)
141; this ought to be accessible to you, Dick. 
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.05 / Dieter Britz /  Re: Fading
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fading
Date: Mon, 5 Sep 1994 08:07:58 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway


Peter Roessing (no quote, sorry) is intellectually outraged at the idea of
fading amazing results. What do you think about this one: Back in the early
70's, an Australian cosmic ray physicist name McCusker found a single track
in his device, that meant a particle with a 2/3 charge. Everybody agreed at
the time that the probablility of error was extremely low. Noone else has
found such a track (which of course points to a quark, not otherwise observed)
and people have stopped talking about it. Did McCusker find a quark, or has it
faded?
Maybe the word "fading" is poor. Where the human element comes in is in how
much we care about a given claim. Not many people cared about my method for
measuring the critical micelle concentration (I haven't checked but am 
guessing that there have been very few citations of that paper); but many
felt strongly about FPH-89. In time, without convincing replication, although
the result stands as such, it fades in people's minds; they stop caring. Quite
the contrary with HTSC: there were quick and unmistakable replications, and
it is very much alive. As I have said, my statistics of 'cold fusion' papers
submissions per month vs time shows an early peak in 1989 and an exponential
decay since then, while I expect (without any evidence) that with HTSC, there
was no such decay. I did read somewhere that in that area there are many more 
papers than in that of CNF. We think 1000 is a lot; peanuts.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.05 / A Rivero /  Data, and not money. (could be Re: MKubre...)
     
Originally-From: rivero@sol.unizar.es (Alejandro Rivero)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Data, and not money. (could be Re: MKubre...)
Date: Mon, 5 Sep 1994 15:21:02 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway


BEGIN MORAL FLAME
I have recently began to read spf, so I have take a time to look
across the WAIS database (nice!) for actual data on CF experimentation.

I'm habitued to usenet news, so I know Im going to find more
personal wars that real useful data, apart the FAQ and archives (and,
here, the excelent bibliograpfhy!). Im not accostumed to find all the 
flames camuflated as "scientific controversia", but I can cope with it.

The thing I can not cope is the "this is the real world" argument, which
states "facts" as: - this is a issue of money, not data will exist, so you
scientific nerds in your unreal world, shar'ap.
I'd bet people on this mood can not distinguish between a scientific or an
engineer. 

I stand that precisely because this is the real world, we could be
given the data, if it exist. I dont want to know how such cell is
engineering. I dont want even to know the shape or the colour. I only
want to know the NUMBERS. This is even sound from a market point
of view. If you have a machine working, you show the data, and 
you will get a lot of marketing done at no risk.

This is not a money quest, not for me, not for a lot of scientists. 
For us, money is only a tool we need to eat and get DATA. The 
competition view, that data is a tool to get money (and eat), could
fit for industrial data, but not for scientific one.

END MORAL FLAME


Now, I have seen a lot of comments on Japanese experiences, TOyota boilers,
etc and thing that, five years later, are said to be working in
a continuos work. Jed, Is there any method for us, the people who can not
read Japanese Journals and have no time to get a trip to toyota labs,
to know the big numbers:

- Intensity, potential, time, energy.
- Peaks and/or spectrum of energy for:
	-neutrons
	-alpha
	-protons, ions,
	-beta +
	-beta -  (or even muons!)
	-neutrinos 
 (if the neutrino spectrun can not be given, a delailed beta+- spectrum
  could be interested)
        -gammas  (call them fotons, Xray, or as you want)
-traces of transmutation products.
-initial products H/D/T proportions. (BTW, Two years ago, there was a lot of
reports about results with H20, what happenned with that?)


Whith such thing, one could really check the theories and decide
which one coincides with the experiment (this is not the same that	
"to proof", but the concept of disproving is not relevant to this 
discussion). Without data. you can only discuss the sex of angels.

					Alejandro Rivero
					Theoretical Phys.
					Zaragoza univ, Spain

cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenrivero cudfnAlejandro cudlnRivero cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.05 /  demos /  Subject:Re: Kamada's publications.
     
Originally-From: demo@demo.cluj.iiruc.ro (demos)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Newsgroups:sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Subject:Re: Kamada's publications.
Subject:Re: Kamada's publications.
Date: Mon, 5 Sep 1994 15:21:39 GMT
Date:5 Sept 94
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Organization:Institute of Isotopic and Molecular Technology

Originally-From:itimc@imar.ro (Peter Glueck)
Newsgroups:sci.physics.fusion
Subject:Re: Kamada's publications.
Date:5 Sept 94
Organization:Institute of Isotopic and Molecular Technology
             Cluj-Napoca, Romania

To all colleagues interested in Prof.Kohji Kamada's papers:
In addition to the paper presented in the Britz Biblio.,there are
two non peer-reviewed publications describing new results.
.................................................................
1] K.Kamada(National Institute for Fusion Science,Chikusa -ku,
Furo-cho,Nagoya),M.Nakajima and M.Ogawa(Department of Energy
Science,Tokyo Institute of Technology,Nagatsuda,Yokohama),T.Goto
(Department of Science,Nagoya University),H.Kakihana (Tokio Inst.
of Technology)
"Electron impact p-p and d-d fusions in molecules embedded in Al"
Proc. 7th Int. Conf. on Emerging Nuclear Energy Systems (ICENES
'93),p 168,Sept.1993.

Both  p-p and d-d fusions in Al on 200 or 400 keV electron
bombardment are reported.Fusion reactions are detected via high
energy charged particle emissions recorded on CR-39 plastic
detectors.The energy spectra of emitted particles are observed on
both p-p and d-d reactions.Inverse beta-disintegration on a
capture of secondary electron produced by high energy electron
bombardment is suggested to trigger the reactions.
.................................................................
2]K. Kamada (National Institute for Fusion Science,Nagoya,464-01)
H.Kinoshita and H. Takahashi(Department of Engineering,Hokkaido
University,Sapporo)
"Anomalous heat evolution of deuteron implanted Al on electron
bombardment"
NIFS-Report 281, May 1994

Anomalous heat evolution was observed in deuteron implanted Al
foils on 175 keV electron bombardment.Local regions with linear
dimension of several 100 nm showed simultaneous transformation
from single crystalline to polycrystalline structure instanta-
neously on the electron bombardment, indicating the temperature
rise up to more than melting point of Al from room temperature.
The amount of energy evolved was more than 180 MeV for each
transformed region.The transformation was never  observed in
proton implanted Al foils.The heat evolution was considered due
to a nuclear reaction in D2 molecular collections.
.................................................................
A third paper re. theoretical interpretation of these data is in
preparation (letter from Prof.Kamada,Aug '94)
As far I know,the NIFS paper is the very first direct observation
of a very local anomalous heat release.In my opinion, such simple
gas/metal systems are the most adequate for the study of the
basics of the CF phenomena:locus,nature,mechanism(s).
Systems as those of Dufour,Piantelli,Kamada (and possibly the dry
Mills et al system for which we don't have information yet?) are
free of the "informational slag" due to electrochemical factors
or to secondary nuclear reactions which disturb the more complex
systems.
These simple systems also seem to have the best technological
perspective given the absence of impurities and the practical
possibilities to trigger and mantain the phenomena responsible
for the evolution of heat (see please my 'surfdyn' paper in
Fusion Technology 24,1, Aug 1994 ).Kamada's results confirm my
hypothesis.
                Peter Glueck


 ------------------------
--
Mihail Jalobeanu                                      Telephone: 40-64-187966
demo@demo.cluj.iiruc.ro                             Address:   Cluj 5, ITIM
itimc@imar.ro                                           POBOX 700, ROMANIA

cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudendemo cudlndemos cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.06 / Richard Blue /  Many-body fusion
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Many-body fusion
Date: Tue, 6 Sep 1994 00:14:00 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Chuck Sites suggests that references to two-body nuclear reactions
are not appropriate because "for Bose condensate band states the
reaction is N-body."  What indication can you offer, Chuck, that this
is indeed the case?  What signature should be looked for to confirm
the N-body nature of the reaction?  Most discussions have centered
around the reaction d + d -> 4He.  That looks rather two-body like
to me.  If what you are saying is that a third body or N bodies get
involved as catalysts for the nuclear reaction process even though
only two reactants undergo a transformation I think you will have
a very tough time finding a way to limit the process to a single
neat reaction pathway.  I would say there should be neutrons flying
off every which way and scores of different nuclear species being
produced at detectable levels.  If you let the N-body genie out of
the bottle, Chuck, you will have a difficult time putting all the
nuclear bits back together in just one way.  No theory even comes
close to doing that.  In fact I have not been able to talk anyone
into being so bold as to write down a wavefunction that could tell
us anything about the nuclear reaction process regardless of
how simple or complex it may be.  One very serious problem with
cold fusion data is that no one has good evidence of even very
simple reactions, so you can't help the cause by proposing ever
more complex processes as a means of invalidating the objections
based on the simplest possible reactions.

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.06 / Bill Page /  Re: Kamada??
     
Originally-From: 70047.3047@compuserve.com (Bill Page)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Kamada??
Date: Tue, 6 Sep 1994 05:27:46 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Dick Blue writes:
<<
Alejandro Rivero has questions about a recent report of electron-
induced "fusion" and so do I.  I would say here is another clear
case of experimenters going well beyond the information actually
obtained from the experiment into some fantasy about exotic fusion
reactions.
>>

Dick, you might do Kamada the small courtesy of actually reading
his paper before condemning it. <sigh>

<<
The claim is that the bombardment of aluminum loaded with either
hydrogen or deuterium by 100 keV or 200 keV electrons results in
fusion as indicated by tracks in CR39 track detectors.  First
question that comes to mind is why aluminum?  I was not aware that
aluminum was particularly good for this sort of thing.  In any case
I would like to hear from someone who reads the paper what the
loading is supposed to be and what is the purity of the aluminum.
If this is an ordinary chunk of a commercial aluminum alloy there
is simply no telling what could be going on here.
>>

But I've read the paper, so I'll save you the trouble and try to find
answers to you questions.

A minor point: it is 200 and 400 KeV electrons. Where did you see 100 KeV
referenced?

Your first quesition: why aluminum? Kamada states: "In this experiment
hyrdogen or deuterium implantation was employed, since if forms
coagulation of molecules in Al...". He sites reference \4 K. Kamada:
J. Nucl. Mater. 169 (1989) pp. 141. I wasn't able to locate this paper.
>From several other comments in the paper, I get the impression that
Kamada had been studying hydrogen implantation in Al for other reasons
prior to the fusion experiments. He states: "From previous experiments,
(\4, \6, \7) the state of the implanted hydrogen, and the deuterium as
well, was estimated as follows: The implantation forms the molecular
hydrogen coagulation compressed into tunnel like structure in a sub-
surface layer of Al, which occupies about 60% of the implanted area with
about 50 nm depth.". References \6 K. Kamada, et al: Rad. Effects 103
(1987) p119. \7 K. Kamada et al: Scripta Met. 22 (1988) p1281.

Loading: Kamada states: "... the density of the molecules in the
coagulation nH2 = 6 x 10^22/cm^3 was obtained.".

Oddly, although there are numerous other details, I can not find any
statement regarding the purity of the Al metal prior to implantation.
The composition of the metal is a natural question, but perhaps you could
explain, Dick, why you think "an ordinary chunk of a commercial aluminum
alloy" might produce the kind of tracks in CR39 that Kamada observed under
electron bombardment. What likely contaminants could yield such high
energy charged particles?

The particle trace density of un-implanted Al controls is compared to
that of the implanted specimens.

Kamada further states that: "Additionally, the author would like to
mention that surface contamination of the Al specimen have not
affected the particle emission at all. Since the Al specimens have
been chemically etched before the implantation, only source of the
contamination was that of oxidation during the implantation, due to
the water molecules being collected on the Al surface. However, even
on the heavy contamination, which was experienced when the vacuum of
the implantation chamber was worse than about 3 x 10^-6 Torr, the
particle trace remained withing the background [control] level when
the implantations were not enough to produce the tunnel like structure."

<<
Now what can be learned from the use of CR39 track detectors?
Charged particles make tracks of radiation damage in this stuff
that can be developed by etching.  If you know how to do this
and have appropriate calibration tracks you can extract some
information as to particle type and energy.  How much information
does the paper give on this question?  Are the authors saying
anything more than "We see tracks so it must be fusion."?
>>

Kamada states: "The etching reveals the particle traces on the detector
surface as etch pits. Figure 2 shows six typical examples of the etch
pits after the two hours etching of a detector, which was exposed to
emitted particles during 200 KeV electron bombardment onto H3+
implanted Al specimen. All observed pits were able to be sorted with
these 6 examples. Particle species and energies were determined by
measuring the growth curves of their pit's radii against the bulk
etching \5. They were further confirmed by referencing to the sizes
of standard etch pits produced by bombardments of p+ and 4He+ of
konw energies onto the CR-39 detectors. (Energy distribution of the
particles thus observed, together with the details of the determination
method, will be published in a separate paper.)". Reference \5
K. Oda et al: Nucl. Instrum. & Methods B35 (1988) p50. Figure 2 shows
photographs labelled "3MeV alpha", "2MeV alpha", "Approx. 6 MeV alpha",
"Approx. 1 MeV alpha", and "0.7MeV p+".

<<
Mostly what happens when you stop an electron beam in some target
is that you make lots of bremsstrahlung at energies up to the
electron energy.  Now if there is some assertion that e + p
is going to n + neutrino the most obvious experimental test
is to look for those neutrons.  However, we keep seeing these
weird hypotheses for reaction chains involving cascades of
low-probability events.  Shouldn't we ask how you can detect
some final product but fail to notice the intermediate ones?
>>

Actually, Kamada never quite explicitly states in this paper exactly what
reaction he thinks may be occurring. He references an old paper by
H.A. Bethe and C.L. Critchfield: Phys. Rev. 54 (1938) p 248 as
supporting H-H fusion and states: "As the basic mechanism of this
fusion reaction, the beta disintegration of constituent protons of H2
molecules and D nucleus on high energy electron capture is proposed.
Details are described in the second part of this paper.". I have not
located the original paper by Bethe nor the promised second part of
Kamada's paper.

The main result that Kamada wishes to emphasize in this paper is the
difference between the particle trace density for the controls and the
H-implanted and D-implanted specimens which was more than a factor of two.
He goes to some effort to show that this can not be due to ordinary
"collisional fusion". He also states that: "... it is evident that the
observable particle energies in the present experiment are more than
1.3 MeV for He isotopes, and more than 0.4 MeV for H isotopes. Particles
with energies lower than these values were hard to be correctly
detected in the present experiment. This fact shows evidently that the
phenomenon occuring in this experiment can not be explained by any
mechanism other than fusion. Further evidence of the fusion reaction is
the fact that about 80% of the all particle traces observed on the
electron bombardment was attributable to He isotope, and the remaining
20% was to H isotope, in the case of H implantation. Also in the D
implantation case, He traces were dominant over the H traces.".

[Dear reader: In the above quotations from Kamada's paper, I have
made every attempt to keep the original text as published. You may
notice that occassionally the English is a little awkward. With the
possible exception of a rare keying error (who me? <grin> ), this is
attributable to the actual text.]

I hope that we will soon get more details of this work from the
promised additional papers.

Cheers,

Bill Page.

cudkeys:
cuddy6 cuden3047 cudfnBill cudlnPage cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.05 / Arthur TK /  Re: The virial theorem
     
Originally-From: awc@slcawcipp-garching.mpg.de (Arthur      Carlson        TK  )
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The virial theorem
Date: 5 Sep 1994 18:10:21 GMT
Organization: Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics

Paul Koloc and Bruce Scott have had this exchange:

PK> I know of no other plasma which has regime extremes such as this or
PK> which is partial confined by atmosphere and self fields.  I know of 
PK> no other plasma (Mantle), which is maintained by photo-ionization, 
PK> photoexcitation, energectic current small angle scattering, and 
PK> avalanche energy transport ladders.   

BS> This is something I wouldn't believe in unless shown the data. 
BS> Sorry, but I think you are getting carried away. The mean-free path of the
BS> plasma you describe to an escaping photon against absoprtion by a
BS> neutral, which would ionise the neutral, is orders of magnitude larger
BS> than the plasma. 

PK> Really??  What are you talking about?? Most of this stuff is in the
PK> UV (for air) and that's not going to get cms. What . .1.5 may 2cm??   
PK> We see the N2 air glow around the outside of the plasmoid (when
PK> blanked) and it's a beautiful azure blue.  Also, we suspect that
PK> at least in very large BL's with some High Z stuff in the plasma,
PK> that some very tough X-rays are produced, because there are numerous
PK> incidents where people have been radiated. We have not measured
PK> the X-ray output yet, just know there is some.  

Let's get quantitative.

I spent most of the day learning about photoionization. Complicated. But since
we're blue-skying, the only thing important here is that the scale of the graphs
(Ref: Photoionization Processes in Gases, Marr, Academic, 1967) had scales
expressed in tens of megabarns, corresponding to absorbtion lengths for
ionization of tens of microns! Paul is being much to conservative. :->

This is of course for photon energies above the ionization energy,
about 14 eV, whether for oxygen or nitrogen or hydrogen. The next
question is what it takes to get photons of this energy. The
Bremsstrahlung spectrum tends to be soft, but for plasma temperatures
of tens or hundreds of eV, the spectrum should extend to high enough
energies.

To discuss the question of whether a "mantle" sustained by photoionization is a
physically reasonable idea, we would first need a model (I haven't seen one
around these parts. You?) of plasma, gas, and radiation including
ionization/recombination and radiative/conductive/convective energy transport. 
1-D equilibrium should be fine. But (though it pains me not to be able to shoot
Paul down on this point ;) ) I can see no fundamental problem with the idea
based on photon energy and ionization cross section alone, as long as the
radiating plasma has a temperature of at least tens of eV.


Art Carlson

-- 
Have fun. Or at least learn something.

Dr. Arthur Carlson
Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics
Garching, Germany
carlson@ipp-garching.mpg.de
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenawc cudfnArthur cudlnTK cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.05 / Bruce TK /  Re: The virial theorem
     
Originally-From: bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce       Scott          TK  )
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The virial theorem
Date: 5 Sep 1994 18:31:21 GMT
Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching

In article <34fmudINN15vf@sat.ipp-garching.mpg.de>, awc@slcawcipp-garchi
g.mpg.de (Arthur      Carlson        TK  ) writes:

|> Let's get quantitative.
|> 
|> I spent most of the day learning about photoionization. Complicated. But since
|> we're blue-skying, the only thing important here is that the scale of the graphs
|> (Ref: Photoionization Processes in Gases, Marr, Academic, 1967) had scales
|> expressed in tens of megabarns, corresponding to absorbtion lengths for
|> ionization of tens of microns! Paul is being much to conservative. :->
|> 
|> This is of course for photon energies above the ionization energy,
|> about 14 eV, whether for oxygen or nitrogen or hydrogen. The next
|> question is what it takes to get photons of this energy. The
|> Bremsstrahlung spectrum tends to be soft, but for plasma temperatures
|> of tens or hundreds of eV, the spectrum should extend to high enough
|> energies.
|> 
|> To discuss the question of whether a "mantle" sustained by photoionization is a
|> physically reasonable idea, we would first need a model (I haven't seen one
|> around these parts. You?) of plasma, gas, and radiation including
|> ionization/recombination and radiative/conductive/convective energy transport. 
|> 1-D equilibrium should be fine. But (though it pains me not to be able to shoot
|> Paul down on this point ;) ) I can see no fundamental problem with the idea
|> based on photon energy and ionization cross section alone, as long as the
|> radiating plasma has a temperature of at least tens of eV.

Hmm, my question becomes why this isn't observed in tokamaks. Data point:
the neutral gas distribution is well-reproduced by models which treat only
collisional ionisation and recombination. Why? Clearly because the cross-
section is higher for the collisional processes, I would think.

-- 
Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de                               -- W Gibson
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnTK cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.05 /  bert /  Re: #3 BRAVE NEW WORLD GOVERNMENT, what to call the evil USA  Supreme Court
     
Originally-From: perry@csn.org (bert)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci
physics.electromag,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: #3 BRAVE NEW WORLD GOVERNMENT, what to call the evil USA  Supreme Court
Date: 5 Sep 1994 18:52:09 GMT
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder

In article <34a8jf$6dq@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth
edu (Ludwig Plutonium) writes:
>I have toyed with that question for a long time. What to call the
>Supreme Court. In the least-- they have derelicted their duty. The
>Constitution speaks of money coinage in gold and silver. Of course,
>politicians want to control the money printing presses, by the way, is
>Clinton's budget deficit decreasing?
>
>People, lazy Americans, like to lay in a hammock all day, sipping beer,
>never doing any work, go downtown and philander sluts, knock them up
>with illegitimate bastards. Hey Billy, give me more welfare, I'll vote
>for you. F--- the USA in 50 years from now when curreny collapse comes
>in. I want to live here and now and not work.
>
>The Supreme Court is a gaggle of mindless f---dogs, of the highest
>order, the highest order. They will defend your right of free speech
>while they have your hands in your economic pocketbook. They will
>defend your right of free press, while they on the sleuth give the
>politicians the money press.
>
>The USA Supreme Court is just a nicely robed "Organized Crime
>Syndicate".
>Of what use is freedom of speech, freedom of press, when there is no
>freedom of saving money earned by hard labor. 50% of money earned by
>hard labor now goes to buying human parasites their free lunches.
>
>Have the Jacka-- Supreme Court stroll into a MacDonald's in New York
>City where the hard working employs are paid less than a human parasite
>across town living off of welfare. Have those mindless f---dogs of
>Justices, tell us that this is justice.
>
>Continued in #4

What on earth could this possibly have to do with electromagnetics?
If I want to read about a "new world order," I'll subscribe to 
one of the political newsgroups.

bert
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenperry cudlnbert cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.05 / S Ryan /  Re: BRAVE NEW GOVERNMENT, A NEW ORDER THAT WORKS BETTER
     
Originally-From: smryan@netcom.com (S M Ryan)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci
physics.electromag,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: BRAVE NEW GOVERNMENT, A NEW ORDER THAT WORKS BETTER
Date: Mon, 5 Sep 1994 19:51:42 GMT
Organization: Santa Clara Research Park

:   The Electoral College of USA electing presidents was a useless
: appendage until now. Make the Electoral College of the World consist of
: CEOs if major corporations ranked not by sales or profits but by R&D
: spending. 

There is also the Electrical College which demonstrated an effective model
government until Clem asked his question.
-- 
    Tha se eorl ongan for his ofermode  | smryan@netcom.com	PO Box 1563
alyfan landes to fela lathere theode.   |             Cupertino, California
                  ... ond lof-gearnost. | (xxx)xxx-xxxx               95013
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudensmryan cudfnS cudlnRyan cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.05 / Chris Parkinson /  Re: #3 BRAVE NEW WORLD GOVERNMENT, what to call the evil USA  Supreme Court
     
Originally-From: parky@ix.netcom.com (Chris Parkinson)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci
physics.electromag,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: #3 BRAVE NEW WORLD GOVERNMENT, what to call the evil USA  Supreme Court
Date: 5 Sep 1994 19:59:08 GMT
Organization: Netcom

In <34fpcp$fqo@lace.Colorado.EDU> perry@csn.org (bert) writes: 

>
>In article <34a8jf$6dq@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmout
.edu (Ludwig Plutonium) writes:

many deletions....

>>Have the Jacka-- Supreme Court stroll into a MacDonald's in New York
>>City where the hard working employs are paid less than a human parasite
>>across town living off of welfare. Have those mindless f---dogs of
>>Justices, tell us that this is justice.
>>
>>Continued in #4
>
>What on earth could this possibly have to do with electromagnetics?
>If I want to read about a "new world order," I'll subscribe to 
>one of the political newsgroups.
>
>bert
>
Or science in general. Dear Ludwig, You are such a scientific genius,
stick to it as your political comments make you look quite foolish.

Chris
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenparky cudfnChris cudlnParkinson cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.05 / Benjamin Carter /  Re: #3 BRAVE NEW WORLD GOVERNMENT, what to call the evil USA Supreme Court
     
Originally-From: bpc@netcom.com (Benjamin P. Carter)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci
physics.electromag,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: #3 BRAVE NEW WORLD GOVERNMENT, what to call the evil USA Supreme Court
Date: Mon, 5 Sep 1994 23:56:58 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

Wouldn't it be funny if Ludwig's freedom of speech were violated (say,
by being ejected from the net) and his case came before the U.S. Supreme
Court.     ;)
-- 
    Ben Carter                  internet address: bpc@netcom.com
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenbpc cudfnBenjamin cudlnCarter cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.06 /  Anthony /  Re:  ICCF4 Proceedings/A closer look
     
Originally-From: Anff@qvwp.demon.co.uk (Anthony)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re:  ICCF4 Proceedings/A closer look
Date: Tue, 6 Sep 1994 00:00:08 +0000
Organization: A H Worth & Co Ltd

In article <ZC9wWxF.jedrothwell@delphi.com> jedrothwell@delphi.com  writes:

$>"skeptics" that there is now a device that produces excess energy with
$>complete reliability by the barrelful. After all these years of reading

I am stupid, but that's negative, and I'm trying to be positive, so
now I am postively stupid!

Please Please Please Please answer just 1 question from the statement
above.

Does this mean if I have a one of these devices and I power it, say 
electrically, I then have more energy than I put in?

Or are we talking about an extremly efficient kettle!

I am serious and I'm not trying to take the piss.

a) 12Watts -> in 14Watts out is one definition, excess energy.

b) 12Watts -> in (wanted very hot water) -> got out Scalding water, excess
   energy.

If the answer is anything like a) then I would like to buy a Griggs
water heater, no matter what the cost.

-- 
Cheers
Anff

--Anthony Sumner -- Mail Anff@qvwp.demon.co.uk
"Knowledge is useless unless it's shared"
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenAnff cudlnAnthony cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.05 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re:  ICCF4 Proceedings/A closer look
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re:  ICCF4 Proceedings/A closer look
Date: Mon, 5 Sep 94 23:17:26 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Anthony <Anff@qvwp.demon.co.uk> writes:
 
>Does this mean if I have a one of these devices and I power it, say 
>electrically, I then have more energy than I put in?
 
Yes. You input 10,000 watts of electricity, you get out 16,000 watts of heat.
 
>
>b) 12Watts -> in (wanted very hot water) -> got out Scalding water, excess
>   energy.
>
>If the answer is anything like a) then I would like to buy a Griggs
>water heater, no matter what the cost.
 
I am not quite sure I understand the difference between (a) and (b) here.
The Griggs devices produces hot water or steam. It produces more hot water
BTUs than the KWH of electric power input. It does not produce electricity,
and there is no way you could "turn around" the steam and use it to generate
electricity - if that is what you are thinking. The input to output ratio is
only 1:1.6, it would have to be 1:10 to produce electricity with a device
on this scale.
 
If you would like one, you could replicate from the patent or buy one.
However, it is not the kind of device a consumer could buy and set up in
an ordinary house. It is very large, expensive and powerful industrial
boiler, the size of a small automobile, it makes a terrific noise and a
giganitic, dangerous plume of steam. It is only suitable for a factory or
boiler room. Of course, if you want to study the excess energy phonomenon,
this is by far the best machine to do it with, since it creates thousands
of times more energy than any small scale CF cell. Leave it running a week
or two and it creates more than any Tokamak ever has or ever will. Also,
you don't have to fool around with delicate "iffy" calorimetry, you can
use the techniques used worldwide by HVAC and factory engineers, which are
much easier and more certain. That is because a 6000 watt heat source is
so much easier to detect compared to a 0.01 watt heat source.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenjedrothwell cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.06 / Bill Page /  Proton Conductors - a brief tutorial
     
Originally-From: 70047.3047@compuserve.com (Bill Page)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Proton Conductors - a brief tutorial
Date: Tue, 6 Sep 1994 05:27:48 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Cindy Lundgren provided some references on the subject of protron
conductors and pointed out that they are a special case of the more
general case of ionic conductors. I went to the library and found
the following reference which Cindy provided:

"Superionic Solids and Solid Electrolytes - Recent Trends" ed. A.L.
Laskar and S. Chandra; Academic Press, 1989. This book is a really a
series of review papers - one paper per chapter. It has a very
good chapter written by Chandra on the subject of proton conductors.

I also found an earlier text written by S. Chandra, "Superionic
Solids - Principles and Applications", North Holland, 1981. This text
is a good introduction to the subject starting from the ground up.
Experimental techniques and some theoretical models are also described.

It would seem that the subject of ionic conductors is a fast growing area
of materials research with many promising applications. The main and
most obvious application of proton conductors is in efficient fuel
cells. One of the interesting things that I noticed was that both
B.E. Liebert and especially R. Huggins (both of whom are quite active
in CF research) have published numerous articles on ionic conductors.

Before digging into the references, I asked several questions. Now
its time to report what I found.

I wrote:
<<
1) I have read (in Bockris and Reddy's "Modern Electrochemistry", for
example) about ionic conductors and was especially interested in the
discussion of the unusually high mobility of hydrogen and deuterium ions
in aqueous solutions in comparison to what one might extrapolate from
other heavier ions. The observations do not match classical diffusion
estimates and a high rate of quantum mechanical tunnelling between water
molecules apparently has to be involved in the explanation. Is this also
true of the other proton conductors that you mentioned? Is this related
to an explanation of selectivity?
>>

Well, it turns out that proton conductors are not the most efficient
nor the most common type of ionic conductor. In fact, one of the first
and still one of the best ionic conductors is RbAg4I5 with mobile silver
ions. The conductivity is approximately 0.27/ohm/cm, which is remarkably
high and compares to the conductivity of aqueous H2SO4 (35%). Chandra
states that:

"In general, both cations and anions can move in a solid
lattice. [...] there are expected to be more conducting solids with
alkali ions. The possibility of halide ion conductors is small, except
for the smallest ion F-. [...] The more commone ions showing high
mobility are Li+, Na+, K+, Ag+, Cu+, F- and O--. Most of the compounds
of the latter two ions (F- and O--) show high conductivity only at
high temperatures.".

Another class of materials known as "beta-aluminas" has also been
extensively studied. These materials have complex formulas like
  M2O . x(Al2O3)
where M = Na, K, Rb, NH4, Tl, Ag and x is approximately 5 to 11.

Sodium beta-alumina was the first material found with a conductivity
of approximately 1.4x10^-2 /ohm/cm. Chandra writes: "Since then a large
number of beta-aluminas with different alkali ion compositions have been
synthesized and studied. A large number of other structures have also
been obtained but still beta-aluminas are the best alkali metal ion
conductors.

Now proton (H+) conductors are actually somewhat different. Chandra
quotes Poulsen (1980) as summarizing the special problems of proton
conduction as follows:

"(i) Naked H+ ions are not found in solids under equilibrium
conditions ([lifetime?] tau > 10^-11). H+ is always covalently bonded
to some electronegative atoms/ions in the structure e.g. C-H, N-H,
O-H."

"(ii) Protons can be shared between two electronegative atoms,
e.g., O-H---O forming the so-called hydrogen bond."

"(iii) Oscillations of H from one side to the other side in a
hydrogen bond

   O-H---O  <---->  O---H-O

correspond to a net transport of charge and is, therefore, an
essential step in a proton conduction mechanism."

"(iv) Proton conduction differs from the conduction of other
ions (Na+, K+, Ag+) principally in two ways: (a) hydrogen bond is
covalent and directional in character, whereas metal ions in ionic
solids experience Coulomb forces more or less from all sides.
(b) As a consequence, proton conduction involves at least two
different steps as apposed to a one step process for the other
metal ion conductions."

Chanra lists ordinary ice as a proton conductor with a rather
low conductivity of approximately 10^-10 /ohm/cm. Here again
beta-alumina shows a somewhat better conductivity of about
10^-5 /ohm/cm. But even better are some organic polymers substances
such as mylar and NAFION (conductivity 10^-3 /ohm/cm; Du Pont patent,
1972).

The sintered oxides based on SrCeO3 that have recently been
used in CF research where originally developed by Iwahara et al. (1981,
1986) and Uchida et al. (1983) "show appreciable protonic conduction
in hyrdogen containing atmospheres at high temperature. These ceramics
are ordinarily p-type electronic conductors [holes] but in hydrogen
containing atmospheres, electronic conduction decreases and protonic
conduction appears.". These materials also have conductivities of
approximately 10^-3 /ohm/cm at termperatures near 600 deg. C.

Often, ionic conductors will conduct more than one ion species as well
as being electronic conductors. Sorting out how much of the current
is attributable to each carrier is not so easy. For example, the
perovskite type oxide LaAlO3 is known to be a mixed electron-hole/
oxide-ion conductor but shows pure oxide ion conduction in an
atmosphere of low pressure oxygen. And it has also been reported as a
proton conductor. Palladium hydride would also seem to fall into the
catagory of such mixed conductors.

The theoretical models of ion conductivity are, in general, not very
far advanced. The mechanisms which have been posited and possibly
observed in proton conductors include, migration of defects, H3O+/H2O
jumps [tunneling], H2O/OH- jumps [tunneling], liquid like transport in
layered solids, NH4+ and H3O+ migration, and a variety of other more
exotic possibilities. Both H3O/H2O and H2O/OH tunnelling followed by
molecular re-orientation (also called the Grotthus Mechanism) is known
to be important in aqueous solutions.

<<
2) And do these other conductors also show unexpected differences in the
mobilities (equals conductivity?) between protons and deuterons?
>>

Surprizingly I did not find a single reference in these texts to the
investigation of differences in proton versus deuteron conductivity.

<<
3) Do proton conductors show any unusual changes in mobilities at certain
critical temperatures?
>>

Some materials do apparently show large changes in conductivities at
certain temperatures. These are usually associated with a significant
phase change in the cyrstal stucture. Generally, however, conductivity
usually increases more or less linearly with temperature. Many proton
conductors fail at high temperatures (> 150 C.) when they chemically
dissociate.

 ---------------------

I hope this review has been of some interest to at least a few people
here. I think it would be great if we could get an update on some of the
lastest developments in this area by someone like Cindy Lundgren or
Bruce Liebert (who has interacted here in the past).

Cheers,

Bill Page.

cudkeys:
cuddy6 cuden3047 cudfnBill cudlnPage cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.05 / Robert Heeter /  Re: Ionization-sustainable mantle?
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Ionization-sustainable mantle?
Date: Mon, 5 Sep 1994 20:27:49 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

In article <34fo5pINN193t@sat.ipp-garching.mpg.de> Bruce       Scott     
    TK, bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de writes:
[ In reference to the Paul Koloc / Art Carlson / Bruce Scott 
  discussion regarding whether a photoionized shell can be sustained
  in a plasmak configuration. ]
>
>Hmm, my question becomes why this isn't observed in tokamaks. Data point:
>the neutral gas distribution is well-reproduced by models which treat
only
>collisional ionisation and recombination. Why? Clearly because the cross-
>section is higher for the collisional processes, I would think.

Well, the neutral gas density is also far lower, so the mean free path
would be larger, and ionization wouldn't necessarily be significant 
in a tokamak, right?  Should it matter that the collisional processes 
have higher cross-sections, so long as there's a steady influx of 
ionization events from UV/soft-X photons coming out of the "kernel" 
or whatever into the "mantle"?  The collisional effects would 
tend to de-excite the mantle and transfer energy into excited 
as opposed to ionized states, but as long as there's some ionizing
radiation coming in there'll be a plasma equilibrium of some sort.

The real question seems to me to be whether the ionizing radiation
is there, and then whether the mantle will have the properties Paul
claims, not whether it would exist given UV/soft-X radiation.

Of course, as usual Paul has no experimental data on UV or X-ray
emission that he's willing to talk about...

***************************
Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@pppl.gov
Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University
As always, I represent only myself, and not PPPL
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.05 / Robert Heeter /  Note on magnetic fusion budgets...
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Note on magnetic fusion budgets...
Date: Mon, 5 Sep 1994 20:54:54 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

I realize I'm about to get fried by the underfunded
researchers out there, but I found this on my desk and
thought it would be interesting to see what people thought.

**************************************************
* Comparison of PPPL and Magnetic Fusion Budgets *
*   (numbers are millions of as-spent dollars)   *
**************************************************
Fiscal Year  PPPL  Total Mag Fusion  PPPL/Total
1974          17	               57	      0.298
1975	         24	              118	      0.203
1976	         59	              219	      0.269
1977	         82	              316	      0.259
1978	        106	              332	      0.319
1979	         94	              355	      0.265
1980	         80	              350	      0.229
1981	         99	              394	      0.251
1982	        120	              451	      0.266
1983	        130	              461	      0.282
1984	        131	              468	      0.280
1985	        116	              430	      0.270
1986	         92	              362	      0.254
1987	         94	              345	      0.272
1988	        100	              335	      0.299
1989	        102	              352	      0.290
1990	         97	              349	      0.278
...
1995	        101	              373	      0.271

I'm not sure what the source of these numbers was,
but they're in good agreement with the other lists I've
got lying around here.  The FY 1995 info is from the
congressional conference committee report.

What this says to me is that while funding for
the tokamak has been squeezing out funding for
other devices over the past 10-15 years, PPPL has
not been squeezing out other labs, since the fraction
of fusion funding going to PPPL has been extremely
constant.  What this suggests is that the shift
in research funding from alternatives to tokamaks
has largely occurred because the smaller tokamak
research programs (DIII-D, Alcator, TEXT-U, etc)
have been successfully capturing funds that might have
gone to non-tokamak research.  The implication is
that the battle to be fought be the alternatives 
people is either to persuade the funding agencies
that a few small alternatives programs are better
than a few small tokamak programs, or else to
persuade the funding people to increase the funding
for small-scale research projects.  It appears from
the table that PPPL has sufficient institutional
weight to maintain its share of the research pie 
indefinitely.  But it is also the case that PPPL
has not been growing at the expense of other
facilities, at least not for the past 20 years.

Just thought this might interest some people...

**********************************************
Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@pppl.gov
Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University
As always, I represent only myself, and not PPPL
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.05 / Robert Heeter /  Re: Note on magnetic fusion budgets...
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Note on magnetic fusion budgets...
Date: Mon, 5 Sep 1994 21:21:41 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

I've got a table listing US magnetic fusion funding 
from 1951 to 1986, but it's in 1988 dollars.  I'd 
like to include this in the FAQ, but I need to inflate
the 1988 dollars into 1994 dollars.  Not being as 
economically-inclined as I ought to be, I don't know 
offhand where to go to get the relevant conversion factors.
Is there anyone out there with this info who'd like 
to help me out?

****************
Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University
As always, I represent only myself, and not PPPL
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.05 / Robert Heeter /  ICF Info needed for FAQ...
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: ICF Info needed for FAQ...
Date: Mon, 5 Sep 1994 21:26:32 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

I'd like to put together the fusion FAQ sections on
ICF and on fusion research history, but I don't have 
enough ICF info to do a decent job.  Can anyone
point me to a relatively nontechnical reference I can
use (and then put in the bibliography) and/or send me
relevant things like:

(1) Key dates in ICF history
(2) Funding history
(3) History of achievement of various plasma parameters
(4) List of important machines, institutions, activities
(5) Brief summaries of the state of the research and
the major outstanding problems.
(6) References to ICF reactor design studies.

Thanks for any help any of you can provide!

Snail-mail can be sent to:

Robert F. Heeter
Princeton Plasma Physics Lab
Forrestal Campus, C-Site
P.O. Box 451
Princeton, NJ 08543

***************************
Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@pppl.gov
Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University
As always, I represent only myself, and not PPPL
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Tue Sep  6 04:37:06 EDT 1994
------------------------------
1994.09.06 / Chris Parkinson /  Cold Fusion Magazine
     
Originally-From: parky@ix.netcom.com (Chris Parkinson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Cold Fusion Magazine
Date: 6 Sep 1994 05:46:19 GMT
Organization: Netcom

Dear Netters,

I have not heard nor seen my subscription being suspended. I have not
recieved the September issue. Is the magazine out? Help is appreciated.

Thanks in advance,
Chris
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenparky cudfnChris cudlnParkinson cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.06 / Jorge Stolfi /  Heat pumps
     
Originally-From: stolfi@src.dec.com (Jorge Stolfi)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Heat pumps
Date: 6 Sep 1994 06:25:01 GMT
Organization: CS Department - University of Campinas

    > Does this mean if I have a one of these devices and I power it,
    > say electrically, I then have more energy than I put in?
    > 
    > Or are we talking about an extremly efficient kettle!
    > 
    > a) 12Watts -> in 14Watts out is one definition, excess energy.
    > 
    > If the answer is anything like a) then I would like to buy a
    > Griggs water heater, no matter what the cost.

I suppose you know about heat pumps?

Here is what I learned from my dusty textbooks. A heat pump is a heat
engine in reverse---a device that uses "effective" energy (mechanical,
electrical, etc.) to pump heat uphill, from a cold place to a warm
place.  Refrigerators and air conditioners are familiar examples.

The efficiency of a heat pump is the amount of heat energy delivered
to the hot side, divided by the amount of effective energy consumed.
The theoretical limit for this ratio depends on the temperatures
of the two sides.  Surprisingly, that limit is always *greater* 
than 1, and in fact goes to infinity as the two temperatures get
close to each other.

So, it is perfectly possible to build a water heater that consumes
only 100 watts of power but dumps 300 watts of heat into a flowing
water stream.  The trick is to have some suitable reservoir where
heat can be pumped from (e.g. the ambient air, a pool of water,
or a separate water stream), and to keep the delta-T sufficiently 
small.

Note that there is no free lunch here.  If you try to run any sort of
heat engine on the output of the heat pump, you will find that the
effective power generated by the engine is always less than the amount
consumed by the pump.

Actually, I gather that heat pumps for home heating (water and air)
are standard technology, and do save energy compared to conventional
heaters.

--stolfi

 ------------------------------------
Jorge Stolfi -- stolfi@dcc.unicamp.br
Computer Science Dept (DCC-IMECC)
Univertity of Campinas (UNICAMP)
Campinas, SP, Brazil  +55(192)39-8442
 ------------------------------------

cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenstolfi cudfnJorge cudlnStolfi cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.06 / L Plutonium /  ha,ha,ha THE s-wave and d-wave of SUPERCONDUCTIVITY WILL COME 
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.plutonium
sci.physics.fusion
Subject: ha,ha,ha THE s-wave and d-wave of SUPERCONDUCTIVITY WILL COME 
Date: 6 Sep 1994 06:33:01 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

ha,ha,ha THE s-wave and d-wave of SUPERCONDUCTIVITY WILL COME AROUND TO
BEING PHOTONS DECOMPOSED INTO TWO NEUTRINOS

IN  a conference in July on high temp. Superconductivity there was much
talk over s-waves and d-waves in superconductivity. My theory is that
Superconductivity is neutrino flow. In regular conductivity, it is
photon flow. At first I thought the neutrino flow was due to the
material having reflection, symmetry to silver being the highest
conductor and highest reflector. Then I thought it was diffraction
grating of the copper oxide lattice. But now I am beginning to see
superconductivity as POLARIZATION within the material, decomposing the
photons of regular conductivity. The Meissner effect is then the one
component neutrino (d-wave). Cooper pairs are merely the pairing of the
neutrinos at the "outflow".
  I laugh and say ha ha ha, because the physics community is doing much
of my work and such a fine job too. Once they get at the finish line
they will be forced to admit that their s-wave and d-wave were
decomposed photons into 2 neutrinos. Who shall I thank mostly for
having done all of the legwork while I take all the honors at the
finish line. I am already at the finish line.
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.06 / L Plutonium /  SOMETHING MISSING IN THE PHYSICS OF LIGHT POLARIZATION THEORY.
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.plutonium
sci.physics.fusion
Subject: SOMETHING MISSING IN THE PHYSICS OF LIGHT POLARIZATION THEORY.
Date: 6 Sep 1994 06:43:43 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

There is perhaps, this is only a doubt that is growing in my mind,
something missing in the theory of light polarization. I have asked it
on the newsgroups but have not connected with anyone expert in it.

Here is my doubt. If we and measure accurately the photon energy before
polarization. And then the photon energy after polarization. Then I
think there is a large deficit of energy.

And the reason for the deficit is that many of the photons were
decomposed into neutrinos which went through the equipment without
being accountable to energy.

I believe a large scale rethink is needed of the physics of light
polarization. And I think this rethink will help in neutrinolizing the
Maxwell Equations.

 I do not know if anybody has performed experiments on light
polarization to see of incoming unpolarized light is equal in energy to
outgoing polarized light. If my intuition is correct than they are not
equal. There is a huge missing energy count in polarized light. Because
many of the photons are turned into neutrinos which do not tabulate on
the energy counters.
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.06 / Bruce TK /  Re: Ionization-sustainable mantle?
     
Originally-From: bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce       Scott          TK  )
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Ionization-sustainable mantle?
Date: 6 Sep 1994 11:16:47 GMT
Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching

In article <1994Sep5.202749.10160@Princeton.EDU>, Robert F. Heeter
<rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> writes:
|> In article <34fo5pINN193t@sat.ipp-garching.mpg.de> Bruce       Scott     
|>     TK, bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de writes:
|> [ In reference to the Paul Koloc / Art Carlson / Bruce Scott 
|>   discussion regarding whether a photoionized shell can be sustained
|>   in a plasmak configuration. ]
|> >
|> >Hmm, my question becomes why this isn't observed in tokamaks. Data point:
|> >the neutral gas distribution is well-reproduced by models which treat
|> only
|> >collisional ionisation and recombination. Why? Clearly because the cross-
|> >section is higher for the collisional processes, I would think.
|> 
|> Well, the neutral gas density is also far lower, so the mean free path
|> would be larger, and ionization wouldn't necessarily be significant 
|> in a tokamak, right?  Should it matter that the collisional processes 
|> have higher cross-sections, so long as there's a steady influx of 
|> ionization events from UV/soft-X photons coming out of the "kernel" 
|> or whatever into the "mantle"?  The collisional effects would 
|> tend to de-excite the mantle and transfer energy into excited 
|> as opposed to ionized states, but as long as there's some ionizing
|> radiation coming in there'll be a plasma equilibrium of some sort.

Then we need to discuss the source of those photons. Art, on the other
hand, has a reasonable argument why they should be there (but only in
a plasma with plenty of bremsstrahlung). Paul is advocating _really_
high densities in his model (up to a few times 10^17/cm^3), to go with
the high temperatures. In those conditions the ionisation cross section
will also be many orders of magnitude higher than in a tokamak edge.

Quantitative data are needed, as well as a mechanism to produce the
radiation, in a quantitative model.

|> The real question seems to me to be whether the ionizing radiation
|> is there, and then whether the mantle will have the properties Paul
|> claims, not whether it would exist given UV/soft-X radiation.
|> 
|> Of course, as usual Paul has no experimental data on UV or X-ray
|> emission that he's willing to talk about...

In fact.

-- 
Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de                               -- W Gibson
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnTK cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.06 / Marco Voerman /  Re: SOMETHING MISSING IN THE PHYSICS OF LIGHT POLARIZATION THEORY.
     
Originally-From: voerman@fys.ruu.nl (Marco Voerman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.plutonium
sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: SOMETHING MISSING IN THE PHYSICS OF LIGHT POLARIZATION THEORY.
Date:  6 Sep 94 11:11:44 GMT
Organization: Physics Department, University of Utrecht, The Netherlands

In <34h32v$pdt@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu
(Ludwig Plutonium) writes:

>There is perhaps, this is only a doubt that is growing in my mind,
>something missing in the theory of light polarization. I have asked it
>on the newsgroups but have not connected with anyone expert in it.

You don't need an expert to show that your doubt has no fundation.

>Here is my doubt. If we and measure accurately the photon energy before
>polarization. And then the photon energy after polarization. Then I
>think there is a large deficit of energy.

If the frequency of the outgoing light is the same as the frequency of 
the incoming light, then the energy of the photons are the same.
The energy is simply: E=hf.
The total energy is indeed less, because fewer photons pass the 
polariser. Nothing strange about that. Yout eye will detect this as a 
dimming of the light, so no special apparatus is needed. Be careful if 
you try this at home!

>And the reason for the deficit is that many of the photons were
>decomposed into neutrinos which went through the equipment without
>being accountable to energy.

It is not possible to decompose a photon into a neutrino pair because 
photons do not experience the weak force, only the electromagnetic force.
You would have to produce a e+/e- pair first. Visible light has by far 
not enough energy to produce e+/e- pairs. Every other pair of leptons or 
even quarks would require an even higher energy.

>I believe a large scale rethink is needed of the physics of light
>polarization. And I think this rethink will help in neutrinolizing the
>Maxwell Equations.

If by now you still believe that, go find some books on high energy physics.
There is more then the Maxwell Equations.

> I do not know if anybody has performed experiments on light
>polarization to see of incoming unpolarized light is equal in energy to
>outgoing polarized light. If my intuition is correct than they are not
>equal. There is a huge missing energy count in polarized light. Because
>many of the photons are turned into neutrinos which do not tabulate on
>the energy counters.

nonsense


--
     Marco Voerman             Universiteit Utrecht
Robert J. van de Graafflab.      P.O. box 80.000
    tel. 030-531659              3508 TA Utrecht
e-mail: voerman@fys.ruu.nl        Netherlands
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenvoerman cudfnMarco cudlnVoerman cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.06 / Jed Rothwell /  Re: Data, and not money. (could be Re: MKubre...)
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@CompuServe.COM>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Data, and not money. (could be Re: MKubre...)
Date: 6 Sep 1994 13:44:48 GMT
Organization: CFRA


rivero@sol.unizar.es (Alejandro Rivero) asks:
 
     "Jed, Is there any method for us, the people who can not
     read Japanese Journals and have no time to get a trip to toyota labs,
     to know the big numbers:
 
     - Intensity, potential, time, energy. 
     - Peaks and/or spectrum of energy for:
             -neutrons
             -alpha
             -protons, ions,
             -beta +
             -beta -  (or even muons!)
             -neutrinos"
 
If you cannot read papers in Japanese then read the ones in English. There are
plenty of them. I would start with the ICCF4 proceedings from EPRI. You cannot
take a trip to the Toyota labs even if you have time, they are not open to the
public. You could visit some of the other leading labs though.
 
Regarding these "big numbers" of neutrons, alpha particles, neutrinos and so
on: I do not know anything at all about them. Nothing! I suppose you might
find number in various scientific papers, but these papers are completely over
my head, and I have no use for them. The kinds of "big numbers" that I deal
with are kilowatts, BTUs and horsepower. That is because the only cold fusion
devices that interest me are the big ones with industrial potential. Neutrons
and neutrinos have no commercial market value, so I do not care about them.
 
Furthermore - and this will be of greater interest to you - you will not learn
how to make more effective, powerful or reliable CF devices by reading
scientific papers about neutrons. Neutrons are not a good guide to CF
performance. If you want to learn to make good CF devices, you must pay close
attention to heat, because as Martin Fleischmann says, "heat is the principle
signature of the reaction." if your goal is to make a working CF device, there
is no point in reading theoretical papers or papers describing marginal
results. You need hands-on advice and practical techniques that will give you
large results. You should concentrate on reading the patents, papers and notes
written by scientists and engineers who have achieved great success - the
people who can generate multiwatt heat or multi-kilowatt heat on demand. For
example, if you want to do Pd electrolysis CF, start by reading the Cravens
paper in ICCF4 Vol 2. It has lots of practical information which is why it was
Fleischmann's choice as "Best Paper" at ICCF4. I would also recommend the
patents from Patterson, Griggs and Canon.
 
You must also realize that just reading a few papers will never teach you
enough to do a successful cold fusion experiment. You must also work for a few
years, visit successful labs, and learn the techniques. You cannot just read a
brief description, go back to the lab, and replicate. That would be like
reading a complex gourmet recipe for Peking duck, walking into your kitchen,
and hoping to cook it right the first time! You cannot do that. You must first
learn the art of Chinese cooking. (I would start with the movie "Eat, Drink,
Man, Woman.") At this stage in its development, CF is more of an art than a
science; it is like Chinese cooking, surface chemistry, computer chip
manufacturing, or software development.
 
 
If your goal is to understand the CF reaction, or to develop a theory, then I
suppose it might be a good idea to read the papers about neutrons and
neutrinos. I do not know anything about that aspect of CF, the theories are
completely over my head. I am more interested in learning to make, say, a 100
horsepower motors with CF, which can be done without reference to any theory.
A theory might help, but it is not necessary to have one. The steam engine was
developed before thermodynamics or combustion were understood; effective
telegraphs preceded modern understanding of electricity; the Wrights measured
wing lift and drag in a wind tunnel and built an effective airplane 20 years
before the aerodynamics of wings was explicated; Bell Labs developed the first
transistor four years before they worked out a theory. Occasionally theory
leads to technology, but more often it works the other way around. Practical
technology is developed first, this leads to increased scientific research in
a particular area, which leads to better theories, which leads to better
products down the road, but the products come first. This is the natural order
of things, but it also occurs because in general businessmen and engineers are
more open minded, more imaginative, and more willing to look at new ideas than
scientists.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.06 / Jed Rothwell /  Re: Proton Conductors - a brief tutorial
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@CompuServe.COM>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Proton Conductors - a brief tutorial
Date: 6 Sep 1994 13:45:52 GMT
Organization: CFRA

Here are some more references to proton conductors: NIST - DOE - MC-24218-2957
(1990) by Jewulski, Osif, and Remick on solid state proton conductors.  J.
Electrochem. Soc., 139 (1989) 529. J. Electrochem. Soc. 138, 295 (1991).
 
Proton conductors in CF: Proc. ICCF4, Vol. 2, paper # 14, "Anomalous Heat
Evolution from SrCeO3-Type Proton Conductors During Absorption/Desorption of
Deuterium in Alternate Electric Field," Mizuno, Enyo, Akimoto, Azumi.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.06 / Larry Seftor /  Re: (1-3) LP PATENT PRIORITY OVER CANON, sweeping changes
     
Originally-From: seftor@flash.mrj.com (Larry Seftor)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci
physics.electromag
Subject: Re: (1-3) LP PATENT PRIORITY OVER CANON, sweeping changes
Date: 6 Sep 1994 09:46:58 -0400
Organization: MRJ, Inc./Oakton, Virginia, USA

In article <34b66h$qk6@ixnews1.ix.netcom.com>,
Chris Parkinson <parky@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>In <348sv9$eq9@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu
(Ludwig Plutonium) writes: 
>
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenseftor cudfnLarry cudlnSeftor cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.06 / Gilles Boily /  Lab equipment for sale
     
Originally-From: gboily@asterix.drev.dnd.ca (Gilles Boily)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Lab equipment for sale
Date: 6 Sep 1994 16:20:45 GMT
Organization: DREV

120 KILOWATTS 3 PHASES VARIAC
Input 600 volts, 3 phases, 60 Hz, Y connected. Output: Adjustable 0-600 volts
150 amp/phase max. Installed in cabinet 34" x 34" x 68" high.
Weight approx. 1500 lbs Complete with overload circuit breakers and system
for remote control of the output voltage. Price $4500 obo.

HIGH VOLTAGE RELAYS
manufactured by Jennings. Contact rating 85 KV at 100A. Actuator operates
on 115 vac.  $75.00 ea.

LEAK DETECTOR
Helium mass spectrometer type, manufactured by VEECO (Vacuum Electronics Corp)
Model MS-9AB (contains 5CFM roughing pump as well as fore pump and diffusion
pump) $1500 obo.

Please e-mail to

gboily@asterix.drev.dnd.ca


cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudengboily cudfnGilles cudlnBoily cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.06 /  bert /  Re: (1-3) LP PATENT PRIORITY OVER CANON, sweeping changes
     
Originally-From: perry@csn.org (bert)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci
physics.electromag
Subject: Re: (1-3) LP PATENT PRIORITY OVER CANON, sweeping changes
Date: 6 Sep 1994 16:50:32 GMT
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder

In article <34hrsi$ik3@flash.mrj.com> seftor@mrj.com writes:
>In article <34b66h$qk6@ixnews1.ix.netcom.com>,
>Chris Parkinson <parky@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>In <348sv9$eq9@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu
(Ludwig Plutonium) writes: 
>.
>>Prior art dude! Remember the guys from Germany back in the 20's.
>>
>
>PMFJI, but prior art is not the only hurdle -- non-obviousness is also a test,
>which your story about the HS would fail.
>
>L.Seftor
>(the opinions expressed herein are my own)
>
 
Also, it's important to note that the NSDAP  kinda stole any ideas that they
had about repression, genocide, etc., from various others in history.  They
didn't invent it, they just became very well-known for it.

bert
 

cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenperry cudlnbert cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.06 / Bruce TK /  Ionisation of the PMK mantle (was Re: The virial theorem
     
Originally-From: bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce       Scott          TK  )
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Ionisation of the PMK mantle (was Re: The virial theorem
Date: 6 Sep 1994 17:05:27 GMT
Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching

In article <CvozAJ.8A7@prometheus.UUCP>, 
	pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) writes:

[...]

|> Hydrogen, tends to be a poor absorber; even when pressured broadened, it
|> is electron handicapped, so to speak.  The millieu of resonance and
|> excitation states that additional chemistry injects into the cooler 
|> Mantle regions near the air boundary, is like finding billions of birds 
|> in a pristine Central  American paradise.  Insulation/conduction is just 
|> a matter of being in the right density regime (the right side of the 
|> Paschen Curve).   

Very well. Thanks for the concise explanation. This sounds like "Stromgren
sphere" physics to me (this is the sphere of ionised gas a hot star cuts
for itself out of the interstellar medium).

The calculation you do is this: assume that at each location
photoionisation and recombination are in equilibrium. From this you can get
the ionised fraction, which is usually close to 1, until you've moved far
enough away that all the photons have been used up (note that recombination
occurs mostly due to collisions). The thickness of the region is determined
by the requirement that the number of ions in the spherical shell is equal
to the number of photons, which is given by quantum statistics (and then
you turn both of these numbers into rates, which is why you need the flux
of the photons). Given the neutral density and the photon flux, you can
then calculate the thickness of the ionised shell (which is a sphere for a
hot star since it is much bigger than the star). This is contained in the
text by Osterbrock on the interstellar medium.

The critical data point would be the photon UV flux. Anyone want to tell
how big that is?

-- 
Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de                               -- W Gibson
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnTK cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.06 / Chuck Sites /  Re: Richard Liboff's papers on cf ...
     
Originally-From: chuck@iglou.iglou.com (Chuck Sites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Richard Liboff's papers on cf ...
Date: Tue, 6 Sep 1994 05:58:45 GMT
Organization: The Internet Gateway of Louisville, KY

    Its good to see Dr. Liboff's work is getting a good look over. 
I have a kinda funny story about his 1993 Phys A letter.  Most of you all
know me as cautious fence sitter, leaning to the TB group.  I've done a 
few CF experiments that gave a few curious results.  While that never 
convinced me I was seeing CF, it really did get me interested in how
hydrogen moves in metals.  Ever since those early basement experiments,
I've been looking at various models of hydrogen in metals. In 
an early 1990 speculative post, I mused about the possibilty that a hydrogen
band state may be a cause heat.  This was posted a month or so before
T. Bollinger posted his 'Twist of Ribbon' speculation.  Sometime after
Terry's post, Steve Jones sent me a copy of the AIP conference 
proceeding #228, which I hear was a big hit.  Beautiful collection of 
results from -then- on going works.

    In that was paper by Scott & Talbot Chubb's about a state of
matter called a Bose Bloch Condensate. (A BBC, which I tend to call a
Bose Band Condensate. It just seems more descriptive).  Anyway, that
model got me very interested in the possibilities of fusion in a band
state.  Actually Terry and I had several email discussions, and phone
conversations about whether band states could occur with Bose type
particles.  This sent me on a long study of the nature of Fermi-
particles vs. Bose particles.  Ie. The statistical quantum mechanics
of a collection of degenerate fermions vs. degenerate bosons.  It was
then I started on an idea that the degeneracy of a BBC implies a
wave function overlap in a condensate.  So I started writing a paper.
I thought it was a hot idea.  Sometime while I was writing it, Matt
Kennell and Dale Bass made a argument in this group I wanted to prove
wrong. That was, Coulumb forces would keep the system from Bose
condensing.  (My reasoning is that if a fragile HTC cooper pair can do
it, what keeps a single charge D+ from doing it.)  So I hit library.

    Now, I had just about finished my paper on "Fusion via Bose/Einstein
Condensation of D+ Ions", so I was looking for material that would 
support this concept, and support the argument I was developing on
s.p.f. That's when I ran across Liboff's paper on the "Feasabilty of
fusion of an aggregate of deuterons in the ground state". AHHAGGG!!!
I have been scooped!  Beatin-to-da-punch!  I had almost exactly the
same theoretical argument.  Formula to formula it was almost the 
exact same.  Infact, the development of our equations was so 
similar, up to the equation where he states 'P(I)=I E-12', they were 
the same.  I chose to show something similar from S. Koonin's early
"Nature" paper which has RATE=A Psi(r1-r2).  Researching this slowed
me down.  Anyway, I was thrilled and simultaniously disappointed to
see the concept I had developed in print. It proved the concept I was
working on, but at the same time made it junk.  Oh well. 

   What I will say is this: If Liboff's work turns out to be correct,
which I think it will, then excess heat energy derived by the chilling
of the nuclear QM core(s) seems valid in the BBC description.  (Ie. A
Chubb & Chubb mechanism). That is, the energy from "delocalized" band
state D+ ions localized by particles that interact strongly, should
have the effect of "focusing" the width of the peak. The width of the
uncertainty of the energy would be less.  In nuclear interactions, the
uncertainty is KeV's wide, so a KeV here - KeV there might get lost in
measuring a nuclear BBC state to state transition.  If an external
particle interacts strongly with a BBC particle localizing it, then
the energy of the resulting interaction should reflect that
distribution.  Thus the interaction should represent the SUM/N of the
strong core chilling.  Experimentally, this should appear as a shift
the normal D+(strongly interacting particle) to a slightly lower energy.
In otherwords, the peak might skew to the left very slightly from 
normal if a BBC is present. If I had the resources, I would bombard
a heavily D loaded metal with D+ ions and see if that kind of shift is 
observable in the fusion byproducts.    

Have Fun,
Chuck SItes


Ps: Thanks Bill for the acknowdgement.  Dr. Liboff's concepts are so 
fundamental to this argument about fusion in Bose condensates it 
should be required reading.  Speaking of required reading, I now have 
a copy of "The Undivided Universe".  So far, I see nothing diametrically 
opposed with the 'a branch of interaction methods' concept in the 
overlapping gaussian wave functions modeled by Liboff (and <grinn>).  My 
conceptual visulization of QM is much like Bohm & Hiley.  I'm not much
on predeterminism, but relatvity does odd things from an observers POV.

Pss:  Steve, what's up with the Sono-fusion experiments?  Don't give up 
yet, (with CF that is).  There should be some skewing of the energy 
peak of a D + (D band state) -> T + p and He3 + n channels from a 
D + D interaction localizing a D from the band state.  







    

    









cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.06 / Chuck Sites /  Re: Many-body fusion
     
Originally-From: chuck@iglou.iglou.com (Chuck Sites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Many-body fusion
Date: Tue, 6 Sep 1994 07:58:36 GMT
Organization: The Internet Gateway of Louisville, KY


In a reply to a little jab I through to Dr. Blue, 
blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue) writes:

>Chuck Sites suggests that references to two-body nuclear reactions
>are not appropriate because "for Bose condensate band states the
>reaction is N-body."  What indication can you offer, Chuck, that this
>is indeed the case?  What signature should be looked for to confirm
>the N-body nature of the reaction?  Most discussions have centered
>around the reaction d + d -> 4He.  That looks rather two-body like
>to me.  If what you are saying is that a third body or N bodies get
>involved as catalysts for the nuclear reaction process even though
>only two reactants undergo a transformation I think you will have
>a very tough time finding a way to limit the process to a single
>neat reaction pathway.  I would say there should be neutrons flying
>off every which way and scores of different nuclear species being
>produced at detectable levels.  If you let the N-body genie out of
>the bottle, Chuck, you will have a difficult time putting all the
>nuclear bits back together in just one way.  No theory even comes
>close to doing that.  In fact I have not been able to talk anyone
>into being so bold as to write down a wavefunction that could tell
>us anything about the nuclear reaction process regardless of
>how simple or complex it may be.  One very serious problem with
>cold fusion data is that no one has good evidence of even very
>simple reactions, so you can't help the cause by proposing ever
>more complex processes as a means of invalidating the objections
>based on the simplest possible reactions.

>Dick Blue

Thanks Dick for the comments.  I am on new ground here so a bit of 
skeptisism is deserved.  However, I have given the idea of how the
strong force interacts in a Bose condensed band state a lot of 
thought.  Indeed quite a bit of thought.  Consider the phenomena 
of muon catalized fusion.  We have a medium-complex 4 body atomic
system, consisting of 2 D's, and e and a mu-.  If you look at what 
happens, the two D's center of mass gets drawn to the muon by 
"quantum-mechanical" pressures and eventually they achive a state 
of overlap in the DD wave function.  That overlap of the D wave
in my mind describes an area where a probability exists for the
particles to interact.  (Fundamentally, a transfer of momentum and the
spacial distribution of mass).  
   What I see a Bose band state as doing is similar, only the band
wave function overlaps. W. Bernecky posted some material on the Bose
Band model a few weeks ago, which should give you an idea of the model
I base my logic on.  In a band state, the wave function indicates the
momentum and mass distributions are in equal probability regradless of
position. The Bose nature of the particle allows more than one
particle occupation of a certain band, so as the matter condenses, a
certain probabily devlopes for interaction as the bands overlap. I
suspect as the D bands condense, to a single band state, the way
fusion occurs is not localized, but is distributed in the nuclear
potential of the condensing bands.  In another post to Bill Page and
Steve Jones, I was suggesting that experimentally this might be
observed by a skewing of energy released when a band particle is
localized by an external reaction.  This is suggesting there is a
deep connection of the momentum vector to overlapping bands to 
the nuclear potential of the condensed D ions.  If you understand 
that problem, then you have a good idea of where I'm coming from
on this issue and why muon catalyzed fusion may be a bad example
as to the way this state of matter behave in a nuclear reation. 
  
Have Fun,
Chuck Sites
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.07 / John Logajan /  Re: Heat pumps
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@mirage.skypoint.net (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Heat pumps
Date: 7 Sep 1994 04:02:52 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Thomas S. Zemanian (ts_zemanian@pnl.gov) wrote:

: Jed, can you confirm or dispose of this hypothesis?  Did you notice if the
: pump housing got hot or cold during operation?

There *has* to be a COLD spot (below ambient) for a heat pump to exist.
Where is there evidence of a COLD SPOT on a Griggs device????

If you're getting 5 Kilowatts of excess heat, that means you have 5 kilowatts
of excess COLD someplace.

Evidence for the COLD SPOT please!!!!

If someone can't ante up a massive cold spot, then this heat pump idea is
going nowhere fast.

--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com -- 612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills  MN 55112 USA           -
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.07 / Jorge Stolfi /  Re: Heat pumps
     
Originally-From: stolfi@src.dec.com (Jorge Stolfi)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Heat pumps
Date: 7 Sep 1994 06:34:45 GMT
Organization: CS Dept (DCC-IMECC), Univ of Campinas (UNICAMP)

    > [john Logajan:] There *has* to be a COLD spot (below ambient) 
    > for a heat pump to exist.  Where is there evidence of a COLD 
    > SPOT on a Griggs device????

Well, all I know about the Grigg's device is what I read here on the
net (that is, very little); and I don't recall anyone saying that 
it hasn't any cold spot.  

Since I happen to believe rather strongly in the conservation 
of energy, I will assume that the Grigg's device is a heat 
pump, until someone who knows the details says otherwise.

Specifically, is there any air or water flowing through it, besides
the hot water output?  (I saw mention of a big external tank, and a
demo using seawater.)  Either would do fine as the cold side of the
pump.

For instance, consider an hypothetical heat pump that takes in 21
gallons of water at 80 F, and outputs 1 gallon at 100 F plus 20
gallons at 79 F.

In principle, such a device needs significantly less electricity
than it would take to warm up 1 gallon of water from 80 F to 100 F
using a conventional heater.

--stolfi

PS. Note that 5 kW of heat (or cold) is not very much, when applied 
to flowing water.

 ------------------------------------------------------------------
Jorge Stolfi, stolfi@dcc.unicamp.br
Computer Science Dept (DCC-IMECC), Univ of Campinas (UNICAMP)
13081 Campinas, SP -- BRAZIL   +55(192)39-8442
 ------------------------------------------------------------------

cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenstolfi cudfnJorge cudlnStolfi cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.06 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Ionization-sustainable mantle?
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Ionization-sustainable mantle?
Date: Tue, 6 Sep 1994 14:39:08 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <1994Sep5.202749.10160@Princeton.EDU> Robert F. Heeter
<rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> writes:
>In article <34fo5pINN193t@sat.ipp-garching.mpg.de> Bruce       Scott     
>    TK, bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de writes:
>[ In reference to the Paul Koloc / Art Carlson / Bruce Scott 
>  discussion regarding whether a photoionized shell can be sustained
>  in a plasmak configuration. ]
>>
>>the neutral gas distribution is well-reproduced by models which treat
>[only]
>>collisional ionisation and recombination. Why? Clearly because the cross-
>>section is higher for the collisional processes, I would think.

>Well, the neutral gas density is also far lower, so the mean free path
>would be larger, and ionization wouldn't necessarily be significant 
>in a tokamak, right?  Should it matter that the collisional processes 
>have higher cross-sections, so long as there's a steady influx of 
>ionization events from UV/soft-X photons coming out of the "kernel" 
>or whatever into the "mantle"?  The collisional effects would 
>tend to de-excite the mantle and transfer energy into excited 
>as opposed to ionized states, but as long as there's some ionizing
>radiation coming in there'll be a plasma equilibrium of some sort.

Good point, and if the plasma can "hang onto" that excitation energy
by collisions of the second kind, metastable times, etc., it makes
for a more easily ionization-maintainable plasma.  Note, that 
the Mantle seems likely to be layered into radially graded plasma-gas 
regimes, due
to the inverse R radial "thermal and photonic energy" flux gradient.  
For example, EUV into the vacuum side and rather atinic?? (softer 
visible) out the other.  This would verify what Robert is suggesting.   

>The real question seems to me to be whether the ionizing radiation
>is there, and then whether the mantle will have the properties Paul
>claims, not whether it would exist given UV/soft-X radiation.

>Of course, as usual Paul has no experimental data on UV or X-ray
>emission that he's willing to talk about...

Currents are about 274 ka in for an egg sized PMK. The larger stuff
is not available.  Even though the current is energetic, it does
heat (Kernel plasma), and its resistivity is proportional to density, 
unlike the thermal currents that flow in tokamaks.   

As far as clues, the first thing that tipped us off was the plexiglas
bounce shield was imprinted with a beautiful pattern of speckled 
reflective micro cracks, probably induced by strain caused by 
photochemical changes in the polymer.  The cracks where so tiny
and dense they appeared white in the densier regions, but laser
light clearly showed them to be millions of little reflecting 
mirrors.  The image was three dimensional, that is it had density
variations which varied with depth and radius from the center and
was patterned.  Apparently, the wavelength generating the condition was
limited in penetration, and the amount of damage was related to
intensity.  Thus, the air probably was attenuating the light as 
well as inverse R.  The wispy edges and wavelike pattern suggest,
the radiation isn't directionally uniform.  Thus we think it
is likely much of this is due to small angle scattering from the
energetic currents during the close encounter of bounce.   

Also the pattern suggests the ball approached at (30deg from the
extrapoled VCR track) and bounced off (intact) the plexiglas shield.   
It's a pretty nifty toy, and one we could us to give us that quicky
spot touch up sun tan.    :-)   
>***************************
>Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@pppl.gov
>Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University
>As always, I represent only myself, and not PPPL
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc, Bx 1037 Prometheus II Ltd, College Park MD 20741-1037    |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.06 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Note on magnetic fusion budgets...
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Note on magnetic fusion budgets...
Date: Tue, 6 Sep 1994 22:12:07 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <1994Sep5.205454.13341@Princeton.EDU> Robert F. Heeter
<rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> writes:
>I realize I'm about to get fried by the underfunded
>researchers out there, but I found this on my desk and
>thought it would be interesting to see what people thought.
>
>**************************************************
>* Comparison of PPPL and Magnetic Fusion Budgets *
>*   (numbers are millions of as-spent dollars)   *
>**************************************************
>Fiscal Year     PPPL          Total Mag Fusion     PPPL/Total
>1974            17	               57	      0.298
>1975	         24	              118	      0.203
>1976	         59	              219	      0.269
>1977	         82	              316	      0.259
>1978	        106	              332	      0.319
>1979	         94	              355	      0.265
>1980	         80	              350	      0.229
>1981	         99	              394	      0.251
>1982	        120	              451	      0.266
>1983	        130	              461	      0.282
>1984	        131	              468	      0.280
>1985	        116	              430	      0.270
>1986	         92	              362	      0.254
>1987	         94	              345	      0.272
>1988	        100	              335	      0.299
>1989	        102	              352	      0.290
>1990	         97	              349	      0.278
>...
>1995	        101	              373	      0.271

>I'm not sure what the source of these numbers was,
>but they're in good agreement with the other lists I've
>got lying around here.  The FY 1995 info is from the
>congressional conference committee report.

>What this says to me is that while funding for
>the tokamak has been squeezing out funding for
>other devices over the past 10-15 years, PPPL has
>not been squeezing out other labs, since the fraction
>of fusion funding going to PPPL has been extremely
>constant.  What this suggests is that the shift
>in research funding from alternatives to tokamaks
>has largely occurred because the smaller tokamak
>research programs (DIII-D, Alcator, TEXT-U, etc)
>have been successfully capturing funds that might have
>gone to non-tokamak research.   ..  .

Well, maybe, but what about ITER..  Seems that monster, a relative 
baby now, is just coming into black hole status ..  for money that 
is.  What portion is moving into ITER at the good guy's expense.  

>                     ..  .   The implication is
>that the battle to be fought be the alternatives 
>people is either to persuade the funding agencies
>that a few small alternatives programs are better
>than a few small tokamak programs, or else to
>persuade the funding people to increase the funding
>for small-scale research projects.  

I think that small scale tokamaks that are good for training 
plasma physicists and engineers (until something better comes 
along  :-)  will give something for return on the money invested.  
On the other hand, the BIG machine and its alledged slave, TPX, 
are in the not-so-beneficial (little bang for the buck) category.  
Logically, those two would be the principal targets. We just can't
afford not to be thrifty and wise.  

               ..  .   It appears from
>the table that PPPL has sufficient institutional
>weight to maintain its share of the research pie 
>indefinitely.  But it is also the case that PPPL
>has not been growing at the expense of other
>facilities, at least not for the past 20 years.

Well, if those are the real numbers, then PPPL's recent growth 
rate is out of line.  PPPL's numbers should in the average of 
the OTHER LARGE LABS, namely, LLNL and LANL, which is down,
(as the U-boat skipper said  (dive dive).   Remember the 
Mirror machine?? the ZT machines? and those that should have
been built before additional tokamak constructions?? 

My guess is that the mag fusion depression wave is moseying  
east, if you get my drift.  I don't think the little places
are in much trouble as the big'un, which means, we, here won't 
see any pull back in DoE funding, whatsoever.  :-) 

>Just thought this might interest some people...

So do migraine headaches, but as you indicated not particularly
pleasant.  

>**********************************************
>Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@pppl.gov
>Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University
>As always, I represent only myself, and not PPPL
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc, Bx 1037 Prometheus II Ltd, College Park MD 20741-1037    |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.06 / C Harrison /  Re: Wu and Chen spheroid (was Re: The virial theorem
     
Originally-From: harr@netcom.com (Charles (Chuck) Harrison)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Wu and Chen spheroid (was Re: The virial theorem
Date: Tue, 6 Sep 1994 17:29:40 GMT
Organization: Fitful

Dear Bruce,

Thanks very much for the geometrical description of a plasmoid.
My picture is becoming clearer.

I have found Wu and Chen.  While trying not to sound "partisan",
let me quote from the introduction to the article:

 Ball lightning is a very interesting problem and has puzzled
 many scientists for more than two centuries.  There are two
 main problems: First, how can a plasma ball be stably confined
 in a certain limited volume for a long time without any
 auxiliary magnetic field?  Second, where does the energy of
 ball lightning come from?  In the present paper, the answer to
 the former question is partly given and some theoretical
 results are discussed qualitatively.

From this paragraph I think it is correct to say that Wu and
Chen recognize that their work does *not* fully explain the
long stable confinement times (one would expect *much* shorter
resistive time scales under plausible plasma conditions) and
does not even touch on the energy question.  Wu and Chen do
not claim to have a realistic model for the observed character
of ball lightning, and it is probably not wise to disagree
with their own assessment in this regard.

Perhaps we would be better advised to think of the Wu-Chen
MHD solution (which, after all, is just the simplest non-
trivial form of the p(psi) and I(psi) functions on which
they could successfully crank through Grad-Shafranov) as a
first step along the conceptual pathway which will lead us
to a suitable ball lightning model.

Now Paul Koloc claims to have nearly reached the end of that
pathway, with his model just requiring a little mathematical
"polishing".  I suppose we will see.

Chuck

PS:
  Try using ghostscript with the monochrome gif driver, i.e.
% gs -sDEVICE=gifmono -sOutputFile=yourfile.gif yourfile.ps
Caveat: I'm not a postscript maven.  But I think this is
close.   -CH


cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenharr cudfnCharles cudlnHarrison cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.06 / Dick Jackson /  Re: Ionization-sustainable mantle?
     
Originally-From: jackson@soldev.tti.com (Dick Jackson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Ionization-sustainable mantle?
Date: Tue, 6 Sep 1994 18:14:47 GMT
Organization: Citicorp-TTI at Santa Monica (CA) by the Sea

In article <harrCvpsCz.MIK@netcom.com> harr@netcom.com (Charles (Chuck) Harrison) writes:
>Okay, how's this picture doing?
>
>Inside the plasma ball we have a kernel emitting fairly broadband
>electromagnetic energy from bremsstrahlung & synchrotron mechanisms.
>
>Very low energy stuff comes out at RF -- BL's are observed to cause
>radio static.
>
>Visible light is mostly too low energy to ionize atmospheric species
>so it escapes & is observed as plasma glow.
>
>UV & VUV continuum hits many ionization lines and is strongly absorbed
>in the mantle.  However there may be some absorption line structure
>if there were a way to do UV spectroscopy thru atmospheric air.
>
>X-rays have relatively low absorption in air so they may travel far
>enough for diagnostics.  X-ray film, Geiger, proportional tubes
>may be useful for measurements.  Stacked absorbers may give 
>spectral info.
>
>Just playing "curious layman" here :-).

For another curious layman, could someone summarise what is conjecture/
not known about plasmoids/ball lightning?

I'm atually not *sure* what a plasmoid is - I guess a localised ball
of plasma with some moderate lifetime, such as people can apparently
produce by firing off giant sparks in air?

The energy content of such glowing objects must be either that given
it by the creation event, in which case it will just cool and die
pretty quickly? or (and I realise this is speculative) must be from
some internal source. Ball lightning seems to have a continuous output
of ~ a few hundred watts (visible light)? for a few tens of seconds.
Does this have to imply energy production within the ball?

I suppose chemistry could be involved, e.g. if the creation event
caused a chemical reaction which reversed exothermically at a
slowish rate.

Does anyone have any reall ideas about this subject?

Dick Jackson
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenjackson cudfnDick cudlnJackson cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.06 /  annon /  Cold Fusion  on CBC TV
     
Originally-From: (annon)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Cold Fusion  on CBC TV
Date: 6 Sep 1994 20:20:59 GMT
Organization: The University of British Columbia

	     At 8:00 tonight (Tuesday, Sept 6, 1994) the CBC runs a one hour film
on "Cold Fusion" as part of Its "Witness" series.  Not sure if it is just
an update of last years program, or a new program.
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudlnannon cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.06 /  jonesse@acoust /  Reply to Rothwell/Amoco, Dufour efforts
     
Originally-From: jonesse@acoust.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Reply to Rothwell/Amoco, Dufour efforts
Date: 6 Sep 94 12:19:59 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

In his reply to my recent post, Jed Rothwell writes:

"If you design a cell incompetently ;and you put a thermocouple near a
potential hot spot, all kinds of strange things will happen, but the people at
Amoco did not do that."

"The total integrated energy from *all* recombination at *all* locations is
measured."  [my *'s]

Yet the Amoco people also did experiments with light water and indeed found
that recombination of hydrogen and oxygen was indeed the cause of the apparent
excess heat -- on this Jed agrees with me:

>"Amoco also tested Ni light water cells and determined that the effect they saw
> was due to recombination."

Agreement, finally.  As I pointed out earlier, we found the same results in
experiments here at BYU -- that recombination was a source of putative excess
heat -- but in both Ni/H2O and in Pd/D2O cells.

If this same effect was ruled out for the heavy water cells, then why did Amoco
stop doing research on these cells?  In any case, there is no published version
of the Amoco report, and I understand Jed to say that he saw it but no longer
has it.  Until we can actually read the Amoco report, I suppose that 
further comment is
pointless.  I'm not convinced that all that Jed remembers about the paper 
is correct; we all have memory glitches.  

The fact that the Amoco people dropped
this line of research tells us a great deal about their opinion regarding the 
likelihood that this would be an energy producer, IMHO.  I guess that's the
bottom line.

I also made specific technical objections to the cf paper by Dufour, Foos and
Millot, in the Maui conference proceedings.  In particular, I pointed out that
their proposed reactions involving three-bodies (reactants) in a nuclear
reaction 
(e.g.,   1H1 + 1H1 + e-   --> 1H2 + neutrino)
(and     1H1 + 2He4 + e-  --> 2He6 + neutrino)
were not possible in cf-cells.  
The probabilities for such reactions were nowhere worked out by
the authors, but if they had done so, they would have found the reaction rates 
to be negligible, especially in "cold fusion" conditions.

In his reply, Jed says:

"I cannot judge nuclear physics, you do not even understand high-school level
electrochemistry.  In any case your critique of Dufour is incorrect,
but I will not address it."

Why not?  Come on, Jed, show where my critique of Dufour is incorrect -- or
is your boast just a smokescreen?

One final point:  Jed twists my critique when he says:
"If Jones can restrain himself and not call his distiguished [sic] 
colleages [sic] at Shell "sophomoric" then I will return to my usual Highly
Respectful and Dignified Scholarly Mode of address."

Yeah, right.
I did *not* call Dufour et al. "sophomoric", but I did call their errors which I
pointed out to be "blatant and even sophomoric" in my post.  Scientists
generally distinguish technical critiques from personal attacks, and even
appreciate having "sophomoric" errors in their papers pointed out.  
We learn from our mistakes when these are pointed out by colleagues.
Hopefully this is true of Dufour as well as Russ George et al. of E-Quest.   

--Steven Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenjonesse cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.06 /  jonesse@acoust /  McKubre search for nuclear products
     
Originally-From: jonesse@acoust.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: McKubre search for nuclear products
Date: 6 Sep 94 12:33:17 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

I seek to contribute to the thread on McKubre et al.'s experiments at SRI by
referring to their paper in the ICCF-4 Proceedings, paper 5 of volume 1.
Actually, this is just a collection of overhead slides, as Tom Droege has
pointed out, so there is not much by way of detail.

McKubre et al. take as a hypothesis to be tested:
"The excess heat originates from an unexpected and unexplained unclear
process."

I typed "unclear" instead of "nuclear" above; please make the correction.
And note that "unclear" is not the same as "nuclear"!  (I sometimes wonder if
cf-believers bother to make the distinction.)

Now, McKubre et al. have an impressive set of detectors for:
Gammas and X-rays  (hurray!  they're looking for tell-tale x-rays as we've been
  asking for years!)
Neutrons  (Excellent indicators of fusion or other nuclear reactions, including
  secondary reactions such as t+d  --> 4He + n, which must accompany tritium
  production in a target filled with deuterium)
Charged particles
Tritium
Helium
Isotope shifts.

Very thorough.  But have they found anything?  McKubre did not say much about
this in Maui, just that they were looking.  When I asked him after his talk
whether they had seen any x-rays, he said no.

In this "paper", McKubre et al. simply admit:

"Nuclear process not (presently) confirmed"

So what else is new?

This was also interesting from the McKubre paper:
"Loading is necessary but not sufficient
      Current (density)
      Temperature
      Initiation (other elements?)"
It is clear that reproducibility depends on more than just high deuterium
loading, from these remarks.

--Steven Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenjonesse cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.06 / Lars Johansen /  Re: SOMETHING MISSING IN THE PHYSICS OF LIGHT POLARIZATION THEORY.
     
Originally-From: lars.johansen@kih.no (Lars M. Johansen)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.plutonium
sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: SOMETHING MISSING IN THE PHYSICS OF LIGHT POLARIZATION THEORY.
Date: 6 Sep 1994 20:42:44 GMT
Organization: Kongsberg College of Engineering

In article <34h32v$pdt@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>, Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu
(Ludwig Plutonium) says:

>There is a huge missing energy count in polarized light. Because
>many of the photons are turned into neutrinos which do not tabulate on
>the energy counters.

Yes, and you know what, once I saw a photon turn into a hamburger! (sort of
like those Transformers, you know).

Uncle Lars
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenjohansen cudfnLars cudlnJohansen cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.06 / Tom Droege /  Linear CCD Array Wanted
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Linear CCD Array Wanted
Date: 6 Sep 1994 21:05:03 GMT
Organization: fermilab

Greetings Fusioneers,

In case anyone has missed me, I have been over in sci.astro trying to 
design an array of telescopes.  Great fun. 

What I need is a linear array of PIN diodes or othre light sensitive 
device probably read out by a CCD.  I know about devices like the
Texas Instruments TC 103 which is the kind of device that I want.
But it is 2048 12.7 micron cells.  I would like larger cells.  

Seems to me that they must use something like this in FAX machines or
picture scanners.  An ideal cell size would be about 0.005"

The hope is to find something cheap that would read out 2000 cells in
a 10" long line array.  I am willing to piece shorter devices together,
but I still wonder if what I want is not in an image scanner.

Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.06 / Thomas Zemanian /  Re: Heat pumps
     
Originally-From: ts_zemanian@pnl.gov (Thomas S. Zemanian)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Heat pumps
Date: 6 Sep 1994 21:46:02 GMT
Organization: Battelle PNL


[description of heat pump behavior, by Jorge Stolji, deleted]

Ah, now why didn't I think of that?  Yes, that would seem to be a possible
explanation; the cavitation causes a drop in temperature in the vaporized
portions of the water, and heat is conducted into the vapor from the pump
housing.  If the churned water is then transported to an isolated (from the
cavitation/conduction region) section of the apparatus before the  bubblet
collapses and causes a rise in temperature, a refrigeration stage will have
taken place.  Very clever.

Jed, can you confirm or dispose of this hypothesis?  Did you notice if the
pump housing got hot or cold during operation?

--Tom

--
The opinions expressed herein are mine and mine alone.  Keep your filthy
hands off 'em! 
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudents_zemanian cudfnThomas cudlnZemanian cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.06 / Matt Kennel /  Re: ICCF4 Proceedings/A closer look
     
Originally-From: mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: ICCF4 Proceedings/A closer look
Date: 6 Sep 1994 21:23:14 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:
: Anthony <Anff@qvwp.demon.co.uk> writes:
:  
: >Does this mean if I have a one of these devices and I power it, say 
: >electrically, I then have more energy than I put in?
:  
: Yes. You input 10,000 watts of electricity, you get out 16,000 watts of heat.

Not the same thing.

I bet there are currently existing industrial devices where you can
put in 10kw electricity and get 30 kw 'heat'.

: >
: >b) 12Watts -> in (wanted very hot water) -> got out Scalding water, excess
: >   energy.
: >
: >If the answer is anything like a) then I would like to buy a Griggs
: >water heater, no matter what the cost.
:  
: I am not quite sure I understand the difference between (a) and (b) here.

All energy isn't equal.  Thermodynamics.

: The Griggs devices produces hot water or steam. It produces more hot water
: BTUs than the KWH of electric power input. It does not produce electricity,
: and there is no way you could "turn around" the steam and use it to generate
: electricity - if that is what you are thinking. The input to output ratio is
: only 1:1.6, it would have to be 1:10 to produce electricity with a device
: on this scale.

So lets hold off on shouting "new physics" until that happens, OK?

: - Jed

You and Griggs might still get rich if you have a practical compressorless
heat pump, but it won't make in to PRL.

--
-Matt Kennel  		mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu
-Institute for Nonlinear Science, University of California, San Diego
-*** AD: Archive for nonlinear dynamics papers & programs: FTP to
-***     lyapunov.ucsd.edu, username "anonymous".
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenmbk cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.07 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Ionisation of the PMK mantle (was Re: The virial theorem
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Ionisation of the PMK mantle (was Re: The virial theorem
Date: Wed, 7 Sep 1994 05:12:17 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <34i7gnINN1hm4@sat.ipp-garching.mpg.de> bds@ipp-garching.mpg.
e (Bruce       Scott          TK  ) writes:
>In article <CvozAJ.8A7@prometheus.UUCP>, 
>	pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) writes:
>[...]

>Very well. Thanks for the concise explanation. This sounds like "Stromgren
>sphere" physics to me (this is the sphere of ionised gas a hot star cuts
>for itself out of the interstellar medium).

Sorry, but this thing is very complicated and your simplistic examples
seem to me to require significant care in presenting the more realistic
and generally more interesting interactive situation that differs
in response significantly from your, simple, often remote regime-wise --
example.   You could help by zeroing in a bit more.  

>The calculation you do is this: assume that at each location
>photoionisation and recombination are in equilibrium. 

Let me give you what we know about the PMK, not some generalized
plasma that's supposed to operate like star lighted nebulous 
plasma  (order few particles /cc).    

The plasma Mantle generates more ionization than it needs and
it expells the excess (but... uses that expelling plasma for stuff
-- but that's another story.   

Basically the PMK works collectively, as a system, so that 
although the local processes are operating, they aren't 
necessarly generating the locally static equilibrium conditions 
found if said conditions where operating in an isolated environment.  

What we have is an energy entity stuck in a very insulating
medium, (due to the short mean free path of air).  Note
that flames aren't snuffed by all those "particles moving in
at sound speed" (quoted text to be spoken with vigor and 
with hands waving in unison with the jumping feet in the manner
of a *jumping jack* excercise. ) 

Note that in the spacey environ, the chances of an atom producing
collisions of (2 | 3) kind are remote (if ever -- want to wait around??).  

Basically the high internal energy entity trapped in air which
has already been ionized past the equilibrium (stasis) point by
the formation pulse -- lightning-SHIVA -- whatever.  So now
the stored energy comes out very slowly, but unbelievably, the
energy can't be carried away fast enough to allow deionization
of the immediate region of the Mantle boardering the Kernel field.  
Further, the inside Mantle plasma, is massively excited and ionized,
which puts it not far from being re-ionized  -- energy wise, if the 
the plasma would happen to de-ionize.  That means, the numbers 14ev.. 
etc.  mentioned by Art, are probably to pessimistic to maintain such 
a plasma in ionization.  A more likely mimimum REQUIRED number 
would be 1 to 2 ev.  Check with engineers at your local arc welding 
gas supply source.  That rule probably holds up all the way from the 
vacuum edge to the boundary between the outermost ionized region and 
the innermost weakly ionized Region of the outer Mantle.  Note, we 
have reduced the power level required to maintain ionization.  That 
is something you will not see in a nebulous star's periphery plasma 
(neutron stars excepted).  

So, the Kernel plasma rad rate equals the power lost from the outer 
surface of the Mantle by convection, conduction and ... radiation.  
So what is that??  We assume low and more estimable Mantle 
resistive losses.    

The simplist way to measure losses from a PMK is to make identical 
balls in energy, size, etc. then pop them into a calorimeter and 
measure the total energy.  We can also DELAY THE TIME to popping 
them into the (a copper "iron maiden" with thermocouples|thermistor)
calorimeter and get the differential energy, which when spread 
over the time to fast-clapping the trap door, should yield the total 
loss rate.  I've gone over this before.   

Now ALL of that is supplied by the Kernel plasma, except for a
tad from energetic currents at the Mantle, which isn't much and
what there is probably can be estimated quite well, from some 
other interesting things this gizmo squirts out.  

If the rates were in equilibrium for PMK and we could get at the raw
numbers from the Kernel plasma then your approach would have merit, 
but as things stand, it doesn't look that good.  

>                               ..  . .    From this you can get
>the ionised fraction, which is usually close to 1, until you've moved far
>enough away that all the photons have been used up (note that recombination
>occurs mostly due to collisions). The thickness of the region is determined
>by the requirement that the number of ions in the spherical shell is equal
>to the number of photons, which is given by quantum statistics (and then
>you turn both of these numbers into rates, which is why you need the flux
>of the photons). 

We only concern ourselves with the very few excited neutrals that
manage to survive the up-hill gauntlet on the way in from the outside. 
Any partical deionizing in the ion pool won't get anywhere before 
being re-ionized and its yielded de-ionization energy can't escape 
since it will be used in the worse case at the plasma Divergence 
boundary (strong/weak interface) and probably as likely in re-ionizing
or highly exciting another chap in the ion pool.

So, here we have it, ionizing photons incoming (a steady few), a few
used to reionized deionized plasma whose energy probably ionizes
or hightly excites some other chap.  Unless we can tranport energy
out of this really really really collosally dense region by comparison
to intergalatic space and their cousin tokamaks, this thing is going
to hang in there for quite a spell. 

Given the neutral density and the photon flux, you can
>then calculate the thickness of the ionised shell (which is a sphere for a
>hot star since it is much bigger than the star). This is contained in the
>text by Osterbrock on the interstellar medium.

Yes, this would likely work for a Star if you go out far enough.  
Because of the pile up, it doesn't work here.  Also, some of this
junk was looked at for transport of energy out of H bombs.  They
are stuck too, and cheat by running up the photon energy for a 
while, and then converting to convection of a massively long lasting
HUGE fireball, that cools from the outside in, faster and faster
as it expands during ascent. Still they can cook for great distances
for many, many minutes.      

We can see the evaportation of energy through radiation from bead
lightning by examining the cine decay of Bead lightning.  They 
(Beads) have no internal stored energy, other than the radiation 
trapped thermal energy, allowing meter diameter balls to last for 
order 1/2 second.  

>The critical data point would be the photon UV flux. Anyone want to tell 
>how big that is?

Although, I don't see this as critical as is the knowledge of Mantle
transport,  -- Sure, okay, let the KP rad rate equal some fixed 
ratio of the measurable total loss rates.  Want to fund the calrometer 
measurements to get the loss rate??   Of course you would, we all
would, it's just that .. .
>-- 
>Gruss,
>Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
>Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
>bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de                               -- W Gibson
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc, Bx 1037 Prometheus II Ltd, College Park MD 20741-1037    |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.07 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Was ionization --> What's a plasmoid (BL - type)
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Was ionization --> What's a plasmoid (BL - type)
Date: Wed, 7 Sep 1994 05:32:41 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <1994Sep6.181447.22913@ttinews.tti.com> jackson@soldev.tti.co
 (Dick Jackson) writes:
>In article <harrCvpsCz.MIK@netcom.com> harr@netcom.com (Charles
(Chuck) Harrison) writes:
>>Okay, how's this picture doing?
>>
>>Inside the plasma ball we have a kernel emitting fairly broadband
>>electromagnetic energy from bremsstrahlung & synchrotron mechanisms.

>>Just playing "curious layman" here :-).
>For another curious layman, could someone summarise what is conjecture/
>not known about plasmoids/ball lightning?

Try: 
Corliss, W.R., "Lightning, Auroras, Nocturnal Lights, and Related Luminous
	Phenomena", 1982. (Published and distributed by The Sourcebook
	Project, P.O. Box 107, Glen Arm, MD  21057) Tel: (301) 668-6047

>I'm atually not *sure* what a plasmoid is - I guess a localised ball
>of plasma with some moderate lifetime, such as people can apparently
>produce by firing off giant sparks in air?

Yes, but such a thing would blow apart like a ball of smoke, so
a more sophisticated plasmoids are required, and many have been
looked at.  Some are just due to air break down by strong fields of
a chance microwave "node".  Others have magnetically or 
electrostatically stored energy.  For example, one that has been
considered by Shafranov was a plasma smoke-ring-like but had 
currents both the long and short way around the torus, which produced
a poloidal field (dipole) and a toroidal field inside the plasma
torus (like a solenoidal field bent into a closed ring).  

A Golka "pyrosphere" was a series of spherical shells each with 
increasing charge surrounding by a "vacuum" or "forbidden gap" so
the structure didn't decay with an immediate bang.  Such a concept
wouod have difficulty dealing with the electrostatic equivalent 
of kink instability.  Here, a slight random displacement could 
produce forces which would distort shell positions even more. 

>The energy content of such glowing objects must be either that given
>it by the creation event, in which case it will just cool and die
>pretty quickly? or (and I realise this is speculative) must be from
>some internal source. Ball lightning seems to have a continuous output
>of ~ a few hundred watts (visible light)? for a few tens of seconds.
>Does this have to imply energy production within the ball?

Yes, some of the greater minds think so.  Of course, I agree.  

>I suppose chemistry could be involved, e.g. if the creation event
>caused a chemical reaction which reversed exothermically at a
>slowish rate.

That has the problem of blowing apart on windy, stormy days.  However,
even the best theory, finds use for chemistry in the outermost edge 
of the Mantle or plasmoid shell.  

>Does anyone have any reall ideas about this subject?

Yep, that's what has been being discussed here under the guise of 
fusion and virial theorem for the last .. what --  ten weeks?? 

You have a bit of catching up to do.  
>Dick Jackson
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc, Bx 1037 Prometheus II Ltd, College Park MD 20741-1037    |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.07 / Dieter Britz /  Re: Proton Conductors - a brief tutorial
     
Originally-From: kemidb@aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Proton Conductors - a brief tutorial
Date: 7 Sep 94 08:51:22 GMT
Organization: Aarhus University, Denmark

Good stuff, Bill, and my apologies for not quoting it; I didn't feel like
killing so many lines, and didn't want to quote so many either. Two small
remarks:

You cite Chandra as saying that protons do not normally exist in PC's as
such; yet in PdH or PdD this does seem to be the concensus - with some
minor dissent, as you know. I.e. some reckon deuterium is present as D-
ions, etc. Fleischmann has made a point of quoting very old work of Cohn
that he (Cohn) thought proved the existence of protons in PdH. While one ought
maybe not to rely on such old work, it still seems to me that he is right and
the most plausible thing is that there are free deuterons in PdD.

The anomalous mobility of 'protons' in water, as far as I know, is thought to
be due to water itself. The idea is that the protons, or rather the H3O+ ions,
do not have to move as such, but attach themselves at one end of a water
molecule, releasing a copy at the other end. This is a faster process than the
ion having to move there. I can't give a reference here, it's something I read
some years ago. This mechanism would not apply to metal hydrides.






-- 
Dieter Britz   alias kemidb@aau.dk
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenkemidb cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.07 / John Logajan /  Re: Rothwell must be endothermic
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@mirage.skypoint.net (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Rothwell must be endothermic
Date: 7 Sep 1994 12:42:35 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Repost due to local net problems.

John Logajan (jlogajan@mirage.skypoint.net) wrote:
: jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:
: : When I find myself emersed in these baths my gut reaction is that the water is
: : scalding and that if I do not quickly exit I will be boiled alive, like the
: : infamous criminal Goenmon.

: In the interest of science, I took a thermometer into the shower with me.
: After a few minutes at my usual setting, I read 104F.  I then turned up the
: heat to the point that I thought was approaching "scaling" and that turned out
: to be around 112F -- however I got acclimated quickly to the 112F and could
: have turned it up more.

: Jumping into a shower at 112F from the cold of room temperature probably
: would have sent me scrambling for the knobs, however.

: Jumping into a tub at 104F or at 112F would have been even worse, of course.

: : possible to detect the difference between a barrel full of water at 80 deg F
: : and a barrel at 104 deg F. This is the scientific issue, after all.

: I find water 80F to be "cold" either for showering or swimming.  However,
: I can get acclimated to much colder temperatures, so as in the hot case,
: it is the initial "feel" I think we are talking about.

: So there is some subjective room for the terms freezing and scalding.
: Does that settle the issue in everyone's mind?  :-)

--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com -- 612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills  MN 55112 USA           -
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.07 / Arthur TK /  Re: Ionisation of the PMK mantle
     
Originally-From: awc@slcawcipp-garching.mpg.de (Arthur      Carlson        TK  )
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Ionisation of the PMK mantle
Date: 7 Sep 1994 13:54:35 GMT
Organization: Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics


Did I hear somebody say "Run the numbers"? No? Must have been my imagination.



Book (citing Glasstone and Lovberg) gives the Bremsstrahlung power
density as

     P_Br/V = 1.69e-38 Z_eff (N_e/m^-3)^2 (T_e/eV)^(1/2) watts/m^3

Let us assume a single ion species with a temperature equal to
T_e. Then the total pressure is

     p = N_e k_B T_e (1+1/Z)

so we can write

     P_Br/V = 1.69e-38 Z (p/(k_b T_e)/m^-3)^2 (1+1/Z)^-2  (T_e/eV)^(1/2) watts/m^3

          = 6.58e9 (p/bar)^2 (T_e/eV)^(-3/2) Z^3 (Z+1)^-2 watts/m^3

If we assume flat profiles over a sphere of radius R, the power flux
through the surface is

    P_Br/A = 2.19e9 (p/bar)^2 (T_e/eV)^(-3/2) Z^3 (Z+1)^-2 (R/m) watts/m^2

To calculate an upper limit on the flux of ionizing photons, we can
assume that the Bremsstrahlung photons are monoenergetic at the
ionization energy (14 eV), which we also take to be the
temperature. For ball lightning we can also take p = 1 bar and Z = 8
as upper limits. For definiteness we choose R = 0.2 m.

     photon flux = (P_Br/A) / (k_B 14 eV)

                 = 2.36e25 m^-2 sec^-1

If we continue to be generous (looking only for a not-too-wild upper
limit), we can assume all these photons are absorbed in a 10 micron
layer with 100% ionization efficiency, giving

     2.36e30 ionizations per cubic meter per second

If the gas being ionized is close to standard density (N_0=2.69e25/m^3),
then the characteristic ionization time is

     tau_ion = 11.4 microsec

At high densities collisional (three-body) recombination will be much
more important than radiative recombination. The characteristic time
(also from Book) is

     tau_recomb = ( (N_e/m^-3)^2 * 8.75e-39 (T_e/eV)^-4.5 )^-1 sec

Setting these two times equal, we can solve for N_e:

     N_e = 3.17e21 (T_e/eV)^(9/4) m^-3

And the ionized fraction is

     N_e/N_0 = 1.18e-4*(T_e/eV)^(9/4)

(Wouldn't hurt if somebody checks my math.) What do we take for T_e
(the temperature of the absorbing mantle, not the radiating kernel)?
If T_e is low (down to ambient temperature), the the ionized fraction
is low, so the electrons lose their energy in lots of collisions with
cold neutrals before they recombine. That would be a self-consistent
picture. On the other hand, if T_e is high (on the order of the photon
energy, 14 eV), then the plasma is more strongly ionized (4.5% for the
assumptions used here), and the electrons might retain their energy
for the several microseconds required. There is not any immediate
inconsistency in this picture either, but my feeling is that the low
temperature case is more realistic.

In any case, even with our generous assumptions, it seems that the
photon flux is only large enough to maintain ionization on the order
of 1 to 100 ppm. This is not enough to qualify as a plasma (much less
than 1 particle in the Debye sphere).



Before we leave, let's throw a glance at the plasma radiating all
these photons. The third formula above gives the Bremsstrahlung power
density in terms of the pressure. We also know the stored thermal
energy density:

     E/V = (3/2) p

Dividing the two gives us the characteristic cooling down time due to
Bremsstrahlung (alone):

                               (3/2) 10^5 Pa (p/bar)
     tau_cool = -------------------------------------------------------
                6.58e9 (p/bar)^2 (T_e/eV)^(-3/2) Z^3 (Z+1)^-2 watts/m^3

              = (p/bar)^-1 (T_e/eV)^(3/2) 91 microsec

where we have taken Z=1 to get an upper limit. Applying this formula
to ball lightning, we set p = 1 bar and tau_cool >= 1 sec and find
that the minimum temperature is

     T_e >= 490 eV

Any colder and it would radiate itself away in less than a
second. (Quite apart from any other problems it may have. The
resistive decay time puts an even more severe restriction on the
temperature (tens of keV).) Putting this higher temperature into the
above calculation would further decrease the degree of ionization in
the mantle. The restriction on the temperature would be relaxed if the
pressure is assumed to be much less than atmospheric, as in a low beta
magneto-plasmoid. But then even less photons are available to ionize
the hypothetical mantle.


One final comment, if we set aside the reports of explosive ball
lightning, the tamer glowing kind is easier to explain. If a ball
glows for 1 sec with 300 W, it radiates a total of 300 J. If the
radius is 0.2 m (volume = 0.034 m^3), that amounts to less than
10^4 J/m^3, or about 6% the thermal energy density in a gas at
1 bar. Though I know of no detailed theory, it seems explanations
along the lines of chemical reactions or metastable optical states
should have no trouble with the magnitude of the energy
involved. Plasmas are not needed.

-- 

Dr. Arthur Carlson
Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics
Garching, Germany
carlson@ipp-garching.mpg.de
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenawc cudfnArthur cudlnTK cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.08 / Richard Blue /  Information for Michell Swartz
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Information for Michell Swartz
Date: Thu, 8 Sep 1994 00:17:39 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Mitchell, I am afraid that Jim Carr has given me credit for something
I did not do.  I was not a collaborator on the cold fusion experiment
done at Michigan State in 1989 although I was present to observe the
course of the experiment.  If you want to look up this experiment
the primary authors on the paper were Kashy and Tsang.

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.08 / Richard Blue /  Reply to Chuck Sites on N-body reaction
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Reply to Chuck Sites on N-body reaction
Date: Thu, 8 Sep 1994 00:17:42 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Chuck,  The theories involving Bose condensates, band states, N-body
reactions, etc. have thus far all shared one common characteristic.
They don't address any aspect of the nuclear physics!  When you make
reference to a band-state wave function what do you have in mind?
Scott Chubb makes it clear that he is treating the deuteron as the
elementary particle with none of its internal degrees of freedom
included in the problem.  This is an approximation, an approximation
that has limited validity.

There is nothing wrong with this approach as long as you see that
it will only take you so far down the path to cold fusion.  At some
point in the construction of a CF theory the nuclear degrees of
freedom have to be addressed, however.  I think you reach that point
when you begin to consider any overlap between the wavefunctions of
two or more deuterons.  You should be aware that the deuteron
characteristically is "loosely bound" meaning that its wavefunction
extends well out from the binding potential well.  As a result when
you put a deuteron within range of another nucleus, even another
deuteron, it is relatively easy for its neutron to move to that
other nucleus.  That is why I say that making this an N-body
reaction process is certainly going to make a mess that cannot
fit the experimental observations.

I also think there has been too much loose talk about these N-body
wavefunctions and how the deuterons become delocalized.  If you are
serious about this I think you must say which of two alternatives
you are considering.  Either the deuteron has no internal degrees
of freedom so that it is indeed a Bose particle or it is a composite
consisting of a proton and a neutron which remain correlated.  It
would seem to me that altering that correlation requires energy
and/or breaks the Bose symmetry so the whole condensate goes
Poof!  Isn't it time to either recognize that the Bose condensate
idea is going nowhere or to address these issues?

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.08 / Richard Blue /  Re: Kamada?
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Kamada?
Date: Thu, 8 Sep 1994 00:17:59 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Thanks to Bill Page for researching the Kamada paper.  It seems clear
that the system H plus Al is not like the metal hydrides that have
received most of the attention so much of our focus has to be
different.  In this case the hydrogen is implanted in the aluminum
by ion bombardment and is concentrated in a layer at the end of
the ion range - 50 nm.  In this case the hydrogen does not bond to
the aluminum but rather forms little gas packets that can actually
show up as bubbles that deform the metal.  It seems that Kamada
has been investigating this sort of thing for some time, but has
now added a new twist.  Instead of just using an electron beam to
investigate the hydrogen bubbles he has decided to look for a nuclear
process, i.e. cold fusion.

The experimental evidence offered is the recording of a rough
energy spectrum of alpha particles detected in CR39 track detectors.
The claim is that under electron bombardment the implanted samples
make twice as many tracks in the CR39 as do the unimplanted controls.
There is no known way for this to happen so we are sure that the
wildest unknown process we can think up must be occuring.  Sorry,
I don't buy it!

Please note that the control samples make tracks, too.  We ought to
understand how that comes about.  I would like to know something about
the timing of the alpha emissions that produce the tracks in relation
to the implantation and electron bombardments.  I would like to know
the quantitative relationships between track density, electron beam
intensity, and number of implanted hydrogens.  If this data were
available we could test my hypothesis which is as follows:

The source of the alpha tracks is natural radioactivity that is in
the aluminum samples regardless of implantation or bombardment.
It might be in the form of radon inclusions, for example.  In the
case of the controls only some fraction of alpha emitters are close
enough to the surface to register in the track detectors.  The
process of implantation and/or electron bombardment causes enough
radiation damage to alter the crystal structure and allow a
significant migration of the activity responsible for the tracks.

Shouldn't we start with that kind of thinking before invoking
some "sophomoric" (to borrow a word) explaination that involves
cold fusion.  Incidentally, if you look at the Bethe reference
I think you will see that Kamada is totally off base.

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.07 / Jed Rothwell /  Re: Reply to Rothwell/Amoco, Dufour efforts
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@CompuServe.COM>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reply to Rothwell/Amoco, Dufour efforts
Date: 7 Sep 1994 15:20:51 GMT
Organization: CFRA

jonesse@acoust.byu.edu (Steve Jones) writes:
 
     "As I pointed out earlier, we found the same results in experiments here
     at BYU -- that recombination was a source of putative excess heat -- but
     in both Ni/H2O and in Pd/D2O cells."
 
And I as I pointed out earlier, a million, million times, Amoco and several
hundred other researchers have ruled out recombination as a source of putative
excess heat in Pd/D2O cells. The very fact that Amoco can rule *in*
recombination in one case, with Ni, also allows them to rule it *out* in
another case. They are certain that the total energy is greater than I*V,
which is beyond the limits of recombination.
 
Steve Jones found that in his cell recombination explained the excess. Amoco
found that it does not. They got different results; Steve did not have a real
excess, and Amoco did. The experiment does not always work. Why is that so
difficult for Steve to understand?
 
 
     "I'm not convinced that all that Jed remembers about the paper is
     correct; we all have memory glitches."
 
Yes, indeed we do. Steve Jones just had a memory glitch. The facts about the
Amoco paper that I cited came from the Melich paper, in ICCF4 Procs., Vol. 2,
paper 10. My memory has nothing to do with it. It is in writing, in the
Proceedings. It clearly states that the cell is CLOSED. That eliminates any
possibility that the excess was caused by recombination. The paper itself was
circulated at ICCF4 where it was seen by many people including Morrison, who
turned green around the gills when he read it.
 
 
Let me just write something here for "lurkers." The cells at Amoco, SRI, and
in many other labs are closed. With a closed cell, recombination is never an
issue; it cannot possibly create false excess heat. With an open cell, when
total heat output grows so high that it exceeds I*V, that also eliminates the
issue. Someone new to this field should try understand these facts, which are
explained in any elementary text on electrochemistry. Steve Jones,
unfortunately, will never, ever, acknowledge them, he will go on repeating for
years that recombination might explain the results even in these cases where
that is physically impossible.
 
 
     "The fact that the Amoco people dropped this line of research tells us a
     great deal about their opinion regarding the likelihood that this would
     be an energy producer, IMHO.  I guess that's the bottom line."
 
First, you do not know for sure that they have dropped it. Second, if that
fact "tells us a great deal" then what does it tell us when Mitsubishi,
Toyota, Hitachi, NEDO, NIFS, MITI, EPRI, Canon, Thermacore, Shell and dozens
of other corporations increase research year by year and file more and more
patents? Why do you judge the situation by the action of this one company -
Amoco - and ignore what all these other companies are doing? Clearly, you are
picking and choosing your evidence. You throw away 100 test cases from other
companies because they do not meet your preconceived ideas, and you pick up
the one lone case of Amoco simply because it satisfies your thesis. I suggest
you look at the full range of research done by all companies in this field,
rather than just one.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.07 / Jed Rothwell /  Re: Heat pumps
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@CompuServe.COM>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Heat pumps
Date: 7 Sep 1994 15:22:30 GMT
Organization: CFRA

ts_zemanian@pnl.gov (Thomas S. Zemanian) writes:
 
     "Yes, that would seem to be a possible explanation; the cavitation
     causes a drop in temperature in the vaporized portions of the water, and
     heat is conducted into the vapor from the pump housing. . .
 
     "Jed, can you confirm or dispose of this hypothesis?  Did you notice if
     the pump housing got hot or cold during operation?"
 
The pump is by far the hottest object in the room, so it cannot be acting as a
heat pump, because that would violate the Second Law. As I wrote in the first
paper: "A great deal of other energy was not accounted for, in readily
apparent losses like radiation from the pump, which is the size of a small
automobile engine block, and which was over 300 deg F during the run." This
was measured with a hand held pyrometer.
 
Also, there are no large solid masses of metal or bodies of air or water that
grow cold during the run. If the Pump was acting as 36,000 BTU per hour
refrigerator, it would make quite a lot of cold water, ice, or blowing air. I
would definitely notice it! We know that the heat transfer all occurs at the
pump itself, because water goes in at room temperature and comes out as steam.
If such a compact object was scavenging so much heat from ambient air it would
soon be covered with frost.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.07 / L Plutonium /  Re: SOMETHING MISSING IN THE PHYSICS OF LIGHT POLARIZATION 
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.plutonium
sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: SOMETHING MISSING IN THE PHYSICS OF LIGHT POLARIZATION 
Date: 7 Sep 1994 16:04:40 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In article <voerman.778849904@ruunat.fys.ruu.nl>
voerman@fys.ruu.nl (Marco Voerman) writes:

> 
> >There is perhaps, this is only a doubt that is growing in my mind,
> >something missing in the theory of light polarization. I have asked it
> >on the newsgroups but have not connected with anyone expert in it.
> 
> You don't need an expert to show that your doubt has no fundation.

 I beg to differ. Thanks for your review Marco. It is a typical review
of what the "conventional intuitionless" physics community would
preach. And, as you say frequency incoming = frequency outgoing
photons. I ask of total photon energy before polarization and tolal
after polarization. You know, Marco, that the "light glare" is cut down
after polarization. So have you ever asked yourself, even though you
are bottle whined to conventional physics. That the energy count is
less after polarization. No, you have not. 
  I am confident that my intuition will be proved correct. In
polarization, many photons are decomposed into neutrinoes which are not
counted in the outgoing polarized energy. This is the true account"

Unpolarized photons, Summed Energy = Energy Polarized Light + Energy of
neutrinos

Superconductivity = photon carriers turned into neutrino carriers
Superconductivity is a state of polarization. The highest temperature
superconductor will be the material which polarizes photons into
neutrinoes.
The s-wave and d-wave are just two terms for the two components of the
photons decomposed into 2 neutrinoes.
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.07 / Bruce Schechter /  What is a PMK
     
Originally-From: bruce_schechter@cc.wdi.disney.com (Bruce Schechter)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: What is a PMK
Date: Wed, 07 Sep 1994 13:23:43 -0800
Organization: Walt Disney Imagineering

I've been following this group for a while and have been trying
heroically (or so it seems to me) to understand what all the PMK
debate is about.  Since I've come in to the whole thing rather
late I haven't been doing too well.  Could somebody explain, or repost, a 
description of the PMK, and what the fuss is all about?

-- 

Bruce_Schechter@cc.wdi.disney.com.......................................
..................................................
                                                              
               opinions expressed approximate only my own and coincide
                                                              
                only coincidently with those of my employer or
anyone else
cudkeys:
cuddy07 cudenbruce_schechter cudfnBruce cudlnSchechter cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.07 / J Interguru /  PMK, Wu, Chen, Koloc, et. al.
     
Originally-From: jdavidson@clark.net (Joseph Davidson - Interguru)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: PMK, Wu, Chen, Koloc, et. al.
Date: 7 Sep 1994 21:25:52 GMT
Organization: Clark Internet Services, Inc., Ellicott City, MD USA


I have been trying to follow the multi-threaded discussion on PMK, 
the Virial Theorem, Ball Lighning, etc.

I have been having difficulty because ( in no special order ).

a.)  I am short of time
b.)  I am not a theorist and do not pretend to be

I met with Paul Koloc and he sketched out his model.  I think I 
understand what he is trying to do, but I don't know whether the 
model will hold water ( or to be more precise, hold plasma.)

What I think Paul wants to do to to set up a sphere with a highly
conducting shell.  By "highly conducting" I mean that the decay time
 >> other relevant plasma times.  Inside will be imbedded a torus with a
force- free configuration.  For modeling purposes the torus is represented
by a shell of currents of some value of q. This model is R-T unstable. 

This configuration will then be modeled numerically and allowed to relax.
(This is easier said than done).  Hopefully the final configuration will
be stable.  I am not certain how the mass flow will be included.  If one
follows the Wells-Rund model (1), the mass flow, through the Magnus force,
plays as important a part in the stabilization as the magnetic fields. 

The Wu-Chen paper (2) was brought to our attention by Chuck Harrison and
analyzed Bruce Scott. Using the Virial Theorem and the Grad-Shafranoff
equations, Wu and Chen conclude that ball lighning cannot be composed of a
force-free configuration.  I note, however, in the initial assumptions,
that B = 0 on the spherical outer boundary.  This is in direct contrast to
the PMK model which features a conducting shell and strong magnetic
fields, just inside the outer boundary. 

Measuring the magnetic field at the surface with a probe (if that is 
possible), with  the Faraday rotation of a polarized laser beam which
tangentially intersects the ball, or with the Zeeman splitting of
the surface emission lines will differentiate between the two models. 

Paul is tied up writing proposals for the next few weeks, before he can
get back to bringing his experiment back on line.  No wisecracks from all
you fusion people who have large numbers of technicians, contract managers
and support staff, as well as many physicists.  Paul is doing everything
by himself with some outside volunteer help. 


1) H. Rund, D.R.Wells, L.C. Hawkins, *Clebsch representations in the
theory of minimum energy equilibrium solutions in magnetohydrodnamics*,
_J. Plasma Physics_, vol 20, part3 pp 329-344 (1978)

2 H Wu and Y Chen, Physics of Fluids B (1989) vol 1, page 1753. Title:
"Magnetohydrodynamic equilibrium of ball lightning".


--
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Davidson Ph.D.                              
1501 Dublin Drive, Silver Spring, Md. 20902         
voice 301 593 4152 ; fax 301 593 4152 (call first)  
j.davidson@ieee.org                                 |
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenjdavidson cudfnJoseph cudlnInterguru cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.07 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Polarized Light.
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Polarized Light.
Date: Wed, 07 Sep 1994 17:09 -0500 (EST)

The question has been asked here where the energy goes when light is polarized.
If we are speaking of passing light through a polarizing film the explaination
is quite simple.  Just as if you were to drop pennies on a grate, only those
which are aligned properly with the grate will pass through, so it is with
light and film polarizers.  The ones that don't make it through are simply
blocked, and turned into heat.

                                                                Marshall
cudkeys:
cuddy07 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.07 /  mica@world.std /  Limitations of Nuclear theory - sole product?
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Limitations of Nuclear theory - sole product?
Subject: Re: Limitations of Nuclear theory
Date: Wed, 7 Sep 1994 23:13:50 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

   In Message-ID: <34ba6r$n9l@agate.berkeley.edu>
Subject: Re: Limitations of Nuclear theory
schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz) wrote:

  >  Furthermore, and most important to the issue 
  >several experiments demonstrate 4He in proportion to the
  >excess heat, and linked in production to that heat.   

= I seem to remember way back when, you said something to the effect that
= your understanding of the "nuclear" process in putative cold fusion
= was d + d + ?d -> ?

     The multiparticle hypothesis appears to be probably 
correct, although the final pathway(s) and reaction(s)
remain to be clarified.

= Which experiments convinced you that the sole product is 4He?
= 				Richard Schultz


     Exactly upon what basis do you presume or claim that the 
word "sole" was stated?      
      Do you think it is the sole product?

    - and while you are at it, why don't you share your enlightenment
based upon your perusals (or better) of the copious papers
previously listed, and now augmented by the
cornucopia of information from the ICCF-4 proceedings
and other metachronous publications (some of which are listed
here).

         Thanks in advance.

                  Mitchell Swartz


cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenmica cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.07 /  mica@world.std /  Fading - information channels?
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Fading - information channels?
Subject: Re: Fading
Date: Wed, 7 Sep 1994 23:15:54 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

   In Message-ID: <01HGQZNU2BPE8WWP8S@vms2.uni-c.dk>
Subject: Re: Fading
Dieter Britz (BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk) writes:

= Peter Roessing (no quote, sorry) is intellectually outraged at the idea of
= fading amazing results.  .... (deleted) .....
=  As I have said, my statistics of 'cold fusion' papers
= submissions per month vs time shows an early peak in 1989 and an exponential
= decay since then, while I expect (without any evidence) that with HTSC, there
= was no such decay. I did read somewhere that in that area there are many more 
= papers than in that of CNF. We think 1000 is a lot; peanuts.

   Dieter, since by your own admission you self-filter the papers, 
and have done so based upon verbal email from skeptics some of
whom have shown a lack of diligence to physics and engineering,
and have also done so based upon your unfortunate inability
to obtain or catalogue several international meetings as you previously
stated, how can you claim that the above statement is correct.
   Also, with ICCF-4 and Minsk and other papers coming out in a
torrent, it appears that your filtration rate will have to actually increase,
 if your putative exponential claim is to pan out.             ;-) X

           Best wishes,  
                       Mitchell Swartz


cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenmica cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.08 / Lain Eng /  Re: Cold Fusion  on CBC TV
     
Originally-From: engl@cuug.ab.ca (Lain Eng)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion  on CBC TV
Date: Thu, 8 Sep 1994 00:40:07 GMT
Organization: Calgary UNIX User's Group

annon () wrote:
: 	     At 8:00 tonight (Tuesday, Sept 6, 1994) the CBC runs a one hour film
: on "Cold Fusion" as part of Its "Witness" series.  Not sure if it is just
: an update of last years program, or a new program.

Repeated at 1:00 pm, Saturday September 10, 1994 on Newsworld.
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenengl cudfnLain cudlnEng cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.08 / ** sunbird /  Re: ha,ha,ha THE s-wave and d-wave of SUPERCONDUCTIVITY WILL COME 
     
Originally-From: exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (** sunbird **)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.plutonium
sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: ha,ha,ha THE s-wave and d-wave of SUPERCONDUCTIVITY WILL COME 
Date: Thu, 8 Sep 1994 01:05:15 GMT
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.

In article <34h2et$pdt@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth
edu (Ludwig Plutonium) writes:

>ha,ha,ha THE s-wave and d-wave of SUPERCONDUCTIVITY WILL COME AROUND TO
>BEING PHOTONS DECOMPOSED INTO TWO NEUTRINOS

[more stuff deleted]

man, what kinda stuff is this guy on?
--
sunbird, VFRUP                    Sounding Board BBS ** 214-596-2915
exuptr@exu.ericsson.se            I hope Neil Young will remember, a
{$I DISCLAIM.STD}                 Southern Man don't need him around anyhow
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenexuptr cudfn** cudlnsunbird cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.08 / Anthony Siegman /  Cold Fusion, Health Care, and Ira Magaziner (LONG)
     
Originally-From: siegman@Sierra.Stanford.EDU (Anthony E. Siegman)
Originally-From: GA.NWS@forsythe.stanford.edu (SU News Service)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Newsgroups: su.news-service.press-releases
Subject: Cold Fusion, Health Care, and Ira Magaziner (LONG)
Subject: Stanford economist says competitiveness is a 'dangerous obsession'
Date: 8 Sep 1994 02:00:50 GMT
Date: 7 Sep 1994 11:57:10 -0700
Organization: Leland Stanford Junior University
Organization: Stanford University

   I'm posting the attached rather long and only indirectly relevant
news release from the Stanford University Press Office only because it
contains some pretty blunt comments by Prof. Paul Krugman, a well
known economist now at Stanford, about Ira Magaziner and his role in
the current national health care debate.  Magaziner's role as a
lobbyist for the University of Utah in the cold fusion affair is
described by Gary Taubes in his book "Bad Science: The Short Life and
Weird Times of Cold Fusion". Krugman apparently thinks Magaziner's
contributions to health care are on a par with his contributions to
cold fusion -- and after reading both pieces, I come to the same
opinion.  Sigh...

-----

Article 954 of su.news-service.press-releases:
Path: EE.Stanford.EDU!news.Stanford.EDU!morrow.stanford.edu!morrow.stanf
rd.edu!not-for-mail
Originally-From: GA.NWS@forsythe.stanford.edu (SU News Service)
Newsgroups: su.news-service.press-releases
Subject: Stanford economist says competitiveness is a 'dangerous obsession'
Date: 7 Sep 1994 11:57:10 -0700
Organization: Stanford University
Lines: 401
Sender: news@morrow.stanford.edu
Message-ID: <34l2e6$70v@morrow.stanford.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: morrow.stanford.edu

                                                                     09/07/94

                 Stanford economist says competitiveness is a
                             'dangerous obsession'

     STANFORD -- Paul Krugman, professor of international economics, who joined
  the economics faculty this month after serving as a visiting professor in the
  Graduate School of Business last year, is the author of a new book, Peddling
  Prosperity: Economic Sense and Nonsense in the Age of Diminished
  Expectations. In the book, Krugman criticizes journalists, academic
  economists and government "policy entrepreneurs" for confusing the public
  about national economic performance. This is an edited transcript of an
  interview with Krugman by Kathleen O'Toole for Campus Report.

     Q: Could you summarize your criticisms of the economic competitiveness
  debate?
     A: In the last 10 or 15 years there has grown up alongside a serious
  discussion [of international economics] an enormous set of organizations,
  literature and rhetoric surrounding the idea of competitiveness. It has as
  its central image, as President Clinton said, [that] each country is like a
  big corporation. the United States and Japan are like Coca-Cola and Pepsi,
  which is the way I put it in my Foreign Affairs article. What's odd about
  that is that I think most of my colleagues have just not taken it seriously.
  Their basic point of view is "Oh, c'mon. That's so transparently silly that
  there is no need to even discuss it." At the same time, out there in the
  world of affairs, people are taking it to be so obviously true that they feel
  no need to discuss it, and someone needed to do something.
     Q: So you are trying to break through a communication gap?
     A: I used in the article the metaphor of the emperor's new clothes. There
  are politicians, and for that matter, business leaders, who find this
  metaphor - that says countries are like corporations - a lot easier to cope
  with than the concepts we have worked out. There have really been a lot of
  people, including myself in the past, [who] say, "Yeah, I'm for
  competitiveness," and then try to actually turn the discussion to sensible
  things. So there's been a tremendous willingness on the part of people who
  know better to accommodate the desire to discuss things as if countries were
  locked in this great competitive struggle with each other.
     Q: When did you decide to stop participating in that?
     A: At the Little Rock summit, which was December 1992 after the election,
  when I realized that President Clinton, who is a very intelligent, widely
  read man, thought this rhetoric of competitiveness was sophisticated economic
  analysis. I realized we just weren't getting through. We had not managed to
  get across the fact that this is basically silly stuff.
     Q: Is the communication gap partly economists' fault?
     A: It's not that I think every [economist] should be out there constantly
  trying to translate things for the broader public. It's clear that not enough
  economists were trying to communicate, but you don't ask that every historian
  write best sellers. Somebody has to go out there and piece together the
  fragmentary evidence and find out what actually happened in some political
  struggle, and those books may not be readable. We do require that somebody be
  engaged in relatively remote scholarship. The problem is that we wound up
  with essentially nobody serious also being in the business of communicating.
     Q: On the Democratic side or would you also say on the Republican side?
     A: So far, the really damaging effects of pop economics have come from the
  right, not from the left. It was supply-side economists who certainly were
  the moral equivalent of this [Clinton administration's] competitiveness
  stuff, and [they] have done quite a lot of real harm, whereas with this
  competitiveness rhetoric, most of the harm is still potential.
     Q: What is the harm? Is it to national trade policy or more broadly
  related to domestic policies such as health care?
     A: I can't avoid being personal here. A huge [health care] task force
  operating in secret was put under the directorship of someone whose entire
  previous writings on policy had been on the issue of competitiveness and all
  of whose work was, in the opinion of people who knew anything about
  international trade, startlingly ignorant, someone who made a point of
  ignoring what anyone else had thought on the subject and was making up his
  own version of it. I think the shipwreck of the administration's health care
  plan was entirely predictable, given that, and I'm not surprised. When I
  heard not only that health care reform was going to be directed by Ira
  Magaziner but how it was going to be run, that there were going to be no
  checks on him, I remember telling people, "Look, they've just pointed the
  Titanic straight at the iceberg and ordered full speed ahead." I was saying
  this at a time when people were still very high on [health care reform]. So
  this was predictable.
     Q: But they apparently did have some health economists involved.
  Stanford's Alain Enthoven was involved early on.
     A: And he spoke his mind and was then shut out.
     Q: You think that is Magaziner's style of operating?
     A: I don't know how reliable Bob Woodward is, but there's a place in The
  Agenda when other Clinton aides plead with Magaziner to find some experts -
  any experts - to back his views on health care, and he replies, "They're all
  wrong." So this is an extreme case, and perhaps I shouldn't just attribute it
  to the competitiveness obsession, but certainly that played a role.
     Q: How is health care related to the nation's economic performance?
     A: A back-of-the-envelope estimate I have done suggests that health care
  reform is probably about 50 times as important as trade with Japan as an
  actual government policy issue. The potential gains from the most successful,
  aggressive negotiation with Japan would be not more than something like
  one-fortieth of 1 percent of national income. The difference between a good
  and a bad health care plan can easily absorb more than 1 percent of national
  income, so we're talking about truly the most important economic policy issue
  for the Clinton administration.
     Q: Could you explain how you calculated that?
     A: An estimate of how much more we would sell to Japan if they gave us
  everything we wanted - including things they don't know how to give us -
  would mean that we would export about $20 billion more of goods and services
  to Japan each year. Those don't come out of thin air. Those [goods] have to
  be produced, so the only net gain to us comes from the fact, basically, that
  these [goods] are in higher wage sectors than the sectors they would
  displace. If you then actually try to estimate the gain in wages, which I
  have done back of the envelope, it turns out we end up with a wage gain on
  the order of $1.5 billion if everything went perfectly. (High- technology
  industries seem to pay about 15 percent higher than other industries.) One
  and a half billion dollars is one-fortieth of 1 percent of the American
  economy.
     I don't know what the numbers in health care are really. What we know is
  that we spend 14 percent of GNP on health care; that the spending is highly
  distorted because of perverse incentives provided both by government and the
  way our insurance system works; that it is entirely reasonable to suppose
  that we could save 1 or 2 percent of GNP improving those incentives. And it's
  entirely possible that we could, by doing the wrong plan, screw things up
  enough so that it ends up costing us an additional 1 or 2 percent of GNP. So
  you have no trouble at all believing that getting health care reform right
  is, as I say, at least 50 times more important than anything on the Japan
  trade front.
     Q: At the June conference on economic growth at Stanford, Clive Crook,
  deputy editor of The Economist, said that, in his view, you had almost
  defined the American economy as a closed economy - that free trade seemed
  passe because 90 percent of the U.S. economy is domestic. Is that an accurate
  depiction of your view?
     A: First off, international trade is a lot less important than people
  think. That's a funny thing. For years and years, economists used to go
  around trying to persuade people that international trade was important.
  Because Americans are very insular, people didn't think of it as being
  important. Now, what has happened is that we've discovered international
  trade does matter a bit, and we are so shocked that we go the other way
  around. We overstate it.
     Q: When did we discover that "trade matters a bit"?
     A: I think sometime during the '80s it became clear. I remember that as
  late as about 1979, people didn't realize that we imported oil. At that
  point, people still didn't really understand that there was an outside world.
  And then during the '80s, the U.S. began to build up trade deficits, and some
  factories closed in the face of imports.
     We still are not a country that is used to having a lot of international
  trade for a long time, such as Britain. Britain has three times as much
  international trade, relative to their economy, as we do, and they actually
  talk about it less than we do. They are used to the idea that, sure, a lot of
  output gets exported, and a lot of consumption gets imported, and they very
  rarely obsess about their competitive position.
     What is true now is that, despite the increase in international trade, we
  are more than 70 percent a service economy. Very few services can be sold
  internationally because they are not transportable. Even quite a few of the
  goods we produce are not easily transportable. For example, at this point,
  while the great bulk of the TVs that are sold in the United States are from
  foreign-owned firms, nearly all of the picture tubes are made in the United
  States.
     Picture tubes turn out to be something that are hard to ship
  internationally because they break, so there is a manufactured good that is
  not very tradable. And so, overall, in the last year, imports were about 11
  percent of U.S. gross domestic product. A hundred years ago, they were about
  8 percent.
     The reason that we have the impression that it has increased by leaps and
  bounds is partly that there was a great collapse in international trade
  because of the two world wars and the depression. If you go back to when John
  F. Kennedy was president, we still only had about 4 percent imports, so we
  have sprung back, but in fact, we are not all that globalized, even now.
     Q: Other trade economists, such as Stanford Professor Anne Krueger, are
  worried about the fact that we could have another collapse. Are you?
     A: History shows that politics can disrupt the global economy. We had a
  global economy in 1913 that was in many ways as integrated or more integrated
  than the economy we have now. Politics killed it, and that could happen
  again. I'm concerned about it. I think it would be devastating to smaller
  countries. The United States is a huge and largely self-sufficient economy,
  even now. The real victims of a world trade war would be those countries that
  are not so self-sufficient, which would be many of the world's smaller
  countries, and especially the world's poorest countries. I would be very
  concerned about a trade war: I don't think it would produce catastrophic
  results in the United States, at least not directly economically, but I think
  it would have catastrophic economic and eventually political impacts on many
  countries.
     Q: Will the U.S. be more dependent on trade in the future?
     A: Over the last century, there have been two offsetting forces operating
  on international trade. On the one hand, transportation and communication
  costs have continued to fall so that the ability to ship goods around the
  world is much greater than it was. On the other hand, we've increasingly
  become a service economy and services remain, by and large, non-tradable.
     Q: Why have we become more of a service economy?
     A: Manufacturing has become less important for the same reason that
  agriculture earlier became less important.
     Q: You mean big equipment, mechanization?
     A: Yes. Productivity has grown in manufacturing, which means we need fewer
  and fewer workers and the prices get lower so we spend more and more of our
  income on the things we can't automate, which tend to be in the service
  sector.
     The actual ratio of the output of manufacturing - the constant dollar
  output of manufacturing's share of the economy - has been almost exactly
  constant for the past four years. But the share of the value of the economy
  that originates from manufacturing is steadily declining, and that's all
  because of the higher productivity growth. That's true around the world.
     If you look at any particular manufacturing industry, you discover that
  the international trade in that industry has grown, that the industry has
  been more finely divided into little slices of value added in different parts
  of the world, and you say, "Wow, globalization has increased by leaps and
  bounds." But then you look at the overall numbers and discover that the share
  of trade in the economy has not increased very much. The reason is that more
  and more, the economy is concerned with producing things that can't be
  traded.
     In the long run, everything will be tradable. In the millennium, you will
  be able to get all of your services by slipping on your virtual reality
  helmet and have them delivered over whatever the future Internet is, right?
  But that's a long way off. It's not going to happen for quite a long time.
     So I expect that the share of trade will rise gradually, although it's
  worth pointing out that it does move fairly gradually. The share of imports
  in the economy was only a little bit higher in Bill Clinton's first year in
  office than it was in Jimmy Carter's first year in office.
     Q: Is it that politicians find globalization an easy way to explain to
  voters why some of them are losing their jobs in manufacturing?
     A: Partly. There's [also] a strong element of intellectual fashion. If you
  add the adjective global, it adds cachet to whatever you are saying. It
  sounds sophisticated.
     I have a favorite example here. During the 1980s, there were two major
  financial crises. One of them was very exciting and romantic and you could
  talk global. That was the Third World debt crisis. People were swarming over
  that issue; everyone wanted a piece of it; everyone wanted to be involved,
  wanted their names on plans to solve it. Economists, including me, were
  writing innumerable analyses.
     There was also this dull, boring other financial issue involving savings
  and loans that was going on in unglamorous places like Texas and Oklahoma.
  Nobody was interested in that, and it turns out we lost about 10 times as
  much on savings and loans as we did on third world debt repudiations. That's
  a fairly common thing. We glamorize, we overstate the importance of
  international issues in this country, precisely because they are so new to
  us.
     Q: So what are the more important issues than globalization and economic
  competitiveness?
     A: I think our major problems are inadequate growth in productivity and
  the inequality of the income distribution. Those two basically dwarf
  everything else. I guess an out-of-control health care system would then be
  the third problem, and that ranks a fair bit below those two. Everything
  else, beyond that, is way down there in the rankings. And I don't have good
  answers for either of those [first two] problems.
     Q: Does anyone?
     A: I think nobody does. There are things we can do that would be a good
  idea. A higher national savings rate and a better quality of basic education
  would help on the productivity front and possibly on the income distribution
  front as well.
     Q: You are not sure about education helping the income distribution?
     A: I think it would help a little bit, but there's not a lot of evidence
  that would suggest it would do a great deal. I would go a little bit further.
  The connection between incomes and formal education looks less convincing the
  more you look at it. One of the things that's very striking about the
  widening income gaps is that they've not only widened between people with
  different levels of education, but they've also widened very heavily among
  people with the same level of education. I like to use the word fractal.
     Q: Do you mean the difference in income earned by an English major and a
  computer science major?
     A: I'm talking about looking among the computer science majors. Look among
  lawyers, and you'll find out that the best-paid lawyers are making much more
  relative to the average lawyer than they used to. Look among professors; this
  is clearly the case. That suggests that forces making for inequality are
  deeper than merely a matter of needing to upgrade the educational standards
  of the bottom half of the population. That doesn't mean we shouldn't do
  whatever we can to upgrade that, but I wouldn't expect to make more than a
  small dent in the problem.
     Q: Does anybody in your field have any ideas about what is causing this
  widening disparity?
     A: There is some wonderfully interesting theory that is only partially
  validated in this area - what economists have called the superstar theory,
  better known as winner-take-all models. Modern technology really tends to act
  as a kind of force multiplier on individuals who are exceptionally talented
  or lucky and tends to allow them to crowd out people who are less so. I think
  we can see that happening, to some extent, in a number of different kinds of
  employment. That's the best going explanation of what's happening, but it is
  fairly mysterious.
     That doesn't mean we shouldn't be trying to do something about it, and I
  think we can try to do something about the scale of training. I have doubts
  about how much that will do. We can also try to tax the rich and help the
  poor, which is something - I am a liberal - I'm in favor of.
     Q: You don't think taxing the rich undermines investment?
     A: I'm not a romantic liberal. I believe that taxing the rich and helping
  the poor does have adverse effects, but I think we can afford a few more of
  those. I'm willing to make that tradeoff.
     Q: Are you concerned about unemployment rates?
     A: I am not much disturbed by the U.S. unemployment rate at its current
  level [of 6 percent]. I didn't list that as a major problem for the U.S.
     Q: What about in Europe?
     A: In Europe they have suppressed many of the effects on income
  distribution. They haven't allowed the wages of less skilled or less lucky
  workers to fall. Unfortunately, it has cropped up as unemployment instead. So
  I think they have the same two basic problems, but one of the problems
  manifests itself as higher unemployment.
     Q: The newly released World Competitiveness Report indicates the
  organizations who sponsor it believe white-collar jobs may move, the way
  manufacturing jobs have moved, to developing countries with cheaper wage
  rates. What do you think about that?
     A: I question the premise that a lot of manufacturing jobs have moved.
  Some industries have moved there. Other industries have greatly increased
  their exports to those countries. If you ask what the net impact of trade
  with the Third World has been on the number of jobs [here], it turns out to
  be absolutely minimal. You can tell anecdotes, but the factory that closed
  because the production moved to Indonesia is more conspicuous than the
  factory that is working extra shifts because it's selling to Indonesia.
     Q: Or more conspicuous than the factory that has added robots but not
  moved anywhere?
     A: A concrete example - well, not a concrete example but a steel example -
  is that we used to have a lot more people working in the steel industry in
  the U.S. than we have now. Most people think that's because of imports. It
  turns out that it isn't. If you look at the steel industry - I just did this
  because I'm writing something up, so I know the numbers roughly - if you look
  at the steel industry in 1980 or thereabouts, it employed about 400,000
  workers. If you look at it about 1991, it is something like 170,000 workers.
     It turns out that the steel industry shipped about the same tonnage of
  steel in both years - about 85 million tons, and imports rose from about 15
  million to 17 million tons over that period. Trade changes were not
  significant in that.
     What happened was a tremendous increase in the productivity of steel
  making, a change in the way we make steel from the old integrated hearth to a
  lot of mini mills using new techniques, and the job loss was essentially
  because steelworkers became so much more productive, we didn't need as many
  of them. That's actually the dominant pattern in industry. Most of the
  decline of manufacturing's share of the economy is not because of imports but
  because of higher productivity.
     Q: But don't economists say higher productivity is supposed to produce
  higher incomes?
     A: The key story about the U.S. economy is that we've had quite a lot of
  productivity growth in manufacturing and virtually none in services.
     Q: Could you define services? Are you talking largely about office
  workers?
     A: Services is a tremendously complicated category. It includes office
  workers, fast food workers, everything out there. What it comes down to is
  that we've had rapid productivity growth in manufacturing, which doesn't
  translate into rapid growth in living standards because it is weighed down by
  the lack of productivity growth in the rest of the economy.
     Q: At the recent Stanford conference on economic growth, Clive Crook of
  The Economist also said that he felt you were "very wrong to judge the
  significance of trade merely by the extent of trade." Trade and direct
  foreign investment, in his view, are important purveyors of knowledge, which
  leads to improvements in productivity. What is your response?
     A: I'm not saying that if the U.S. economy did no trade, it would make no
  difference. I was arguing that successes or failures in international
  competition in particular industries matter very little for the real income
  of the U.S. economy. What is true is that international trade, whether you do
  well in it or not, is a conduit by which you get ideas and get to see things.
  But if you were to ask, how important was the caravan load of silk that Marco
  Polo brought back from China to his city state, the answer would be not very.
  And that is the kind of question I am asking.
     Q: But is that the more important question to ask?
     A: It depends on who you are arguing with and about what. If you think
  that the imports of Japanese automobiles causing some [U.S.] autoworkers to
  lose their jobs was a devastating issue for the U.S. economy, and what we
  really need to do is get back those manufacturing jobs, then I'm prepared to
  argue with you that it's just not that important. It's important to the
  particular workers, but from the point of view of the economy as a whole,
  it's just not a major factor.
     If the question is, did the example of what the Japanese could do in car
  manufacturing have a positive impact on productivity in U.S. manufacturing of
  automobiles and perhaps more broadly, yes, of course [it did]. But that's a
  very different kind of issue. People who worry about competitiveness have
  this image of countries duking it out in world markets.
     Clive Crook may be arguing about a point I made elsewhere, which is [that]
  if you try to estimate the direct costs of a trade war to the U.S. economy -
  run out hypothetical scenarios for a collapsed world trading system, the
  imposition of high tariffs and so on, you generally come up with losses that
  are on the order of a couple of percent. And he might argue the losses would
  be much larger than that because you chop off the flow of information.
     A global trade war would produce costs over and above that couple of
  percent because it would choke off the flow of ideas, although in the example
  that we have, which is the inter-war period, I don't think there is any
  clear-cut evidence that the rate of progress of technology really did slow
  down.
     Be that as it may, that doesn't really change the policy conclusions. I
  think a trade war is a bad thing anyway. I don't see how you can take the
  argument that international trade helps to spread ideas and fit it under the
  label of competitiveness.
     Q: Perhaps some people who discuss competitiveness are really trying to
  argue with the average American worker or taxpayer or voter, who thinks it is
  the government's job to protect existing jobs.
     A: People have tried to use the word competitiveness to advance one agenda
  or another. Some of them have good basic agendas. Some of them want to say,
  we need to be competitive, and what we need to be competitive is we need to
  save more and have better education and encourage the application of new
  technology, all of which would be good things even if the rest of the world
  didn't exist. But the argument is that the average guy doesn't understand
  that and so we have to motivate him. That's the Sputnik effect. It's like
  saying we needed the fear of the Soviet Union in order to get us to improve
  our science education.
     Q: But didn't we improve science education as a result?
     A: We also spent a lot of money on bomb shelters. It's a costly strategy
  and the problem is that it can easily backfire.
     If you ask if what we did in response to the perceived Soviet threat was
  economically beneficial, I think that would be a very ambiguous calculus. We
  spent on science education and highways, but we also spent on bomb shelters
  and we spent a lot on bombs.
     When it comes to competitiveness now, two things obviously happened. One
  was that we've launched on this confrontational course with Japan, where, so
  far, nothing terrible has happened but we're constantly on the edge and
  that's pretty nerve wracking. The other thing is that the world trade
  negotiations were loaded up with some baggage because of fears about
  competitiveness - things like labor standards that are sufficient to have
  created significant risk that the thing won't even pass now that it has been
  negotiated.
     Q: But aren't you saying those confrontations are only scary at the
  margins for U.S. citizens?
     A: So far. I've had a little mission here, which is to do what I can to
  head off what I think could be significantly scarier than that. What was
  happening was that the metaphor of countries in competition was spreading
  without anybody calling it to account. What I am hoping - and this may
  already be happening - is that when people stand up in front of some conclave
  and start talking about competitiveness, a certain number of people in the
  audience will say, "Wait a second, does this guy have the faintest idea what
  he is talking about?"


cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudensiegman cudfnAnthony cudlnSiegman cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Thu Sep  8 04:37:07 EDT 1994
------------------------------
1994.09.13 / Thomas Zemanian /  Re: Griggs device tests
     
Originally-From: ts_zemanian@pnl.gov (Thomas S. Zemanian)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs device tests
Date: 13 Sep 1994 15:01:42 GMT
Organization: Battelle PNL

In article <35424c$d58@src-news.pa.dec.com>, stolfi@src.dec.com (Jorge
Stolfi) wrote:

[deletia]

> 
>     > [T. Zemanian:] Jed described a preliminary test, while in
>     > non-producing mode, for which the energy balance closed.  This
>     > point weakens the stored-energy hypothesis, but does not destroy
>     > it.
> 
> On the contrary, it fits perfectly.  Note that the "mysterious
> heat-produceing process" does not manifest itself by a rise in
> temperature, but by a decrease in the friction coefficient---which
> leads to a reduced power input, without a corresponding drop
> in the heat output.
> 
> Thus, in the "blank" test, the pump consumed XXX kW for the whole
> run; and, during the measurement period, they found that
> heat out was almost equal to energy in.
> 
> In the "positive" tests, the pump soaked XXX kW for some 15-20 minutes;
> then consumption dropped by some 50%, and in the next 20 min 
> some 30% more energy came out than went in.
> 
> This is just what the heat storage model predicts, right?
> 
> So, if there is excess heat being produced, it will take a much longer
> measurement period (or much higher excesses) for it to stand out above
> the stored heat uncertainties.
> 
> Alternatively, one would need to show excess heat after integrating
> input and output over the *whole* run, starting with a dead cold
> machine, including the warm-up and calibration period.
> 

Jorge is quite correct.  Integration over the whole run, or some method of
determining the "water equivalent" of the pump will be necessary to dispel
the latent heat hypothesis.

[deletia]

> 
>     > [C. R. Bass:] How could [the dro in mechanical resistance]
>     > physically happen?  Prediction: rapid and violent cavitation is
>     > occuring in the region of the pits on the rotor that one can see
>     > clearly at higher frequencies on an O-scope attached to the
>     > input electrical lines.
> 
> This is unlikely, since the large inertia of the rotor should filter
> out any high-frequency variations in the mechanical load.
> 
> I bet it is something quite prosaic; say
> 
>   the water/steam interface drops below the bottom of 
>   the rotor; or

This seems plausible, and if so, should be evident in the plastic model
that Jed has remarked upon.

>   
>   the water goes supercritical; or

I doubt it.  The critical point of water is 647.1 K and 217.6 atm. (approx
3200 psia.)  While the pressure is attainable, the temperature seems a bit
extreme.  Note also that cavitation should _lower_ the local temperature
(until the water bubbles recollapse.)  Also, supercritical water is a
frightfully destructive solvent, and would, I would expect, chew up the
inside of the pump and the rotor in short order.

>   
>   a stable layer of steam forms between the rotor and the water
>   in the gap; or
>   
>   the water in the gap breaks up into separate droplets that roll without
>   friction; or
>   
>   the water turns into a compressible steam/water froth that does not
>   couple well to the rotor pits; or

Well, these last three are really variations on the first, but one gets the
point

[deletia]

--Tom

--
The opinions expressed herein are mine and mine alone.  Keep your filthy
hands off 'em! 
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudents_zemanian cudfnThomas cudlnZemanian cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.12 / John Logajan /  PMK, BL, size of
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@mirage.skypoint.net (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: PMK, BL, size of
Date: 12 Sep 1994 19:21:55 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Paul M. Koloc (pmk@prometheus.UUCP) wrote:
: these things START at order an atmospheric pressure, which is where 
: the tokamak with fully pressurized coils end up.  Top compression of 
: a PMK (it's fluid mechanical) could put the Kernel plasma at pressures 
: 10^4 to 10^5 higher than a tokamak plasma,

Is there a fixed size relationship between a BL and the energy in
the BL (taking into account ambient pressure)?

So for instance, does one BL with twice the birth energy of another
BL assume a volume, say, twice that of the other?

Or likewise, does a BL shrink as it loses energy?



Or does BL size depend upon initial physical conditions that thereafter
don't much effect the size?


Finally, and slightly off the previous points, are there possible modes
of BL in which the energy density is much lower -- giving rise to,
say, much bigger much longer-lived  glowing atmospheric phenomena
(i.e. UFO-like apparitions?)

--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com -- 612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills  MN 55112 USA           -
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.13 / Mark Hittinger /  Re: Status of "Cold Fusion" Magazine
     
Originally-From: bugs@warlock.win.net (Mark Hittinger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Status of "Cold Fusion" Magazine
Date: 13 Sep 1994 11:15:11 -0400
Organization: WIN.NET mail and news

Gobble up those collectors items d00ds!  What are we gonna do if they
cancel Monaco????
-----
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenbugs cudfnMark cudlnHittinger cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.13 /  prasad /  Re: Heat pumps
     
Originally-From: c1prasad@watson.ibm.com (prasad)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Heat pumps
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 1994 13:50:24 GMT
Organization: IBM Hawthorne

Thanks for the very graphic description, which looks fairly convincing!

|> Actually, it is no longer necessary for someone to shout "Go!" and "Stop!"
|> They are now using computer data collection, they just press a button on the
|> computer and shunt the steam. It is not as fun, impressive or romantic. It
|> does not look like turn-of-the-century engineering physics anymore,which is a
|> shame, because that is essentially what it is.

We're turning-the-next-century now.

-- 

#pragma prejudices=own brainwaves=own others=disowned!
// email: 71155.3116@compuserve.com, poll= < 1/month.
// bad habits: nun!
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenc1prasad cudlnprasad cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.13 /  prasad /  Re: Heat pumps
     
Originally-From: c1prasad@watson.ibm.com (prasad)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Heat pumps
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 1994 14:09:18 GMT
Organization: IBM Hawthorne

In article <34t3ue$ggc$1@mhadg.inhouse.compuserve.com>,
Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@CompuServe.COM> writes:

|> There is no cold spot on the Griggs Device. There are no external tanks
|> besides the feedwater tank. I would have certainly have mentioned it if
|> there had been. It is physically impossible for this to be a heat pump.

I'm desperately trying to give one last chance to the heat pump theory!

Should a heat flow like this be ruled out?

		C			D
		-------------------------
	A     B	|  			| E	F
	---------			----------
	---------    GG (black box)	----------	hot o/p end
cold i/p end	|  			|
		-------------------------

AB= cold water inlet
EF= hot water/steam outlet
CD= the outside of the GG (tank+rotor, etc)
Ta= ambient temperature

We know that EF and CD are at T > Ta, and probably so is the outside of
the inlet pipe AB.  However, can we be sure that the intake water AB
is at T >= Ta as well when the GG goes into hyperdrive?  Remember,
the 2nd law only tells you what the *equilibrium* is going to tend to be.
In this case, the outside of pipe AB, especially near the end B, can keep
getting hot because of more heat being conducted through the metal from
CD region, whereas the water inside AB can be colder because it doesn't
remain there long enough for getting warmed back to >= Ta.

The chilling of water in AB would be noticeable if the temperature
is measured *inside* the water there, rather than simply feeling the outside
of the pipe, which would get warmed by the tank anyway. The other way
would be if the pipe AB is thermally insulated, say with gaskets or
a length of rubber or plastic hose, from the tank CD.

Do we already have data on the in-operation inlet *water* (not pipe)
temperature? Or can someone explain why this too should be impossible?

PS.
One reason for wanting to give yet another chance to a heat pump theory
is that a heat pump mechanism might explain the magic power-gain figure
1.6. On the other hand, we would have to await an entirely new theory
(to mark the coming turn-of-the-century;) one of whose first Herculean tasks
would be this figure. And it would have to drip itself into mundane(?)
steam generation and relive all that happened since Sadi C began it all!

-- 

#pragma prejudices=own brainwaves=own others=disowned!
// email: > /dev/null
// bad habits: nun!
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenc1prasad cudlnprasad cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.12 / Robert Heeter /  Re: fusion history.
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: fusion history.
Date: Mon, 12 Sep 1994 20:45:34 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

> From: bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce       Scott          TK  )
> Message-ID: <351eh5INNpp1@sat.ipp-garching.mpg.de>
> In article <199409072115.AA14202@sol.unizar.es>, rivero@sol.unizar.es 
> (Alejandro Rivero) writes:
>
> |> Can anybody suggest some really good biliography on history
> |> of fusion? This is a FAQ, yes, but I would add some restictions.
> |> Im asking for a bibliography including
> 
> [...]
> 
> I came up with a good reference last time this thread came around, but
> I forget it now. It does appear, however, among Robert Heeter's FAQ for
> conventional fusion. He posted it last about a week ago, and it should
> be among news.answers.

I'm not sure what that reference is.  I don't think anything I have
has all the details on the unusual early efforts that Alejandro
is asking for.  But I'll post the Glossary shortly and y'all can
figure it out...  :)

Actually, I haven't yet made the (rather large) step of having the
FAQ "go official" yet, so it's not posted on news.answers.  Mostly
this is because I didn't feel it was sufficiently done to warrant
being crossposted everywhere.  However, it does seem to be time to
do that, and I've gotten the info on how to get official approval
and storage on rtfm.mit.edu, so that will hopefully happen with
the next revision.  btw, the last revision was posted on or before
August 14 or so - I've incorporated all suggestions made since then
and will be reposting the thing (with some new material) shortly.

***************************
Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University
As always, I represent only myself, and not PPPL
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.12 / Robert Heeter /  Re: Fading (again)
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fading (again)
Date: Mon, 12 Sep 1994 20:50:13 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

In article <01HH0WX6F5168WX8JK@vms2.uni-c.dk> Dieter Britz,
BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk writes:
> [...]
> >>As I have said, my statistics of 'cold fusion' papers submissions per
> >>month vs time shows an early peak in 1989 and an exponential decay
> >>since then.
> 
> >Is that still true? But even so, it might just as well indicate that
> [...]
> Yes. "Exponential', though, is not precise. I have not fitted exp to it.
> Let's say 'steady'. Now if I had GIF, or one of these nifty graphic
thingies,
> I could post the curve.

You could at least post the numbers; someone else can certainly
plot and post the curve.

***************************
Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University
As always, I represent only myself, and not PPPL
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.12 / Robert Heeter /  Re: fusion history.
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: fusion history.
Date: Mon, 12 Sep 1994 20:50:22 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

> From: rivero@sol.unizar.es (Alejandro Rivero)
> Subject: fusion history.
> Message-ID: <199409072115.AA14202@sol.unizar.es>

> Can anybody suggest some really good biliography on history
> of fusion? This is a FAQ, yes, but I would add some restictions.
> Im asking for a bibliography including

I maintain the conventional fusion FAQ and have a bibliography;
some of the books in there will have historical info.  This will
be posted shortly.  If you learn anything from your information
quest please let me know as I'm currently preparing the FAQ history
section and would love to have someone else help me out.
 
Note that the FAQ does not deal with unconventional fusion approaches,
especially electrolytic cold fusion.

> -Pre-1939 works, including of course Peters (from Paneth-Peters).
> -work made-in germany (as the M Steenbeck dischargues and his
Wirbelrohr)
> -the post war saga in both fronts.
> -strange facts, as thomson try at the end of the forties, or Tandberg 
>  plays in the thirties
> 
> Of could it could include funny histories as the Peron "discovery", but
> also the corresponding biography and names. 
> 
> To put some example, with this prototypical book I would be able to 
> checking the existence of links from Peters to Steenbeck, or from
> Steenbeck to Sackharov, form Thomson to Tuck, etc.
> It would also to be able to claryfy the debate on the origin of 
> Inertial Electrostatic. Would be abscribe it to Farnsworth and
> unknow circa 1932, to Hirsch ITT 1967, to Tuck et al 1959? 

While all this information exists, I don't know if it's ever been
collected in a single place.  There are some histories of the
mainstream effort, but I don't remember seeing much on the things
you're looking for.

If you can hold out for a few more days I should have the next
revision of the FAQ out and you can grab the bibliography.

***************************
Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University
As always, I represent only myself, and not PPPL
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.13 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Griggs device tests
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs device tests
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 1994 18:03:31 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <35424c$d58@src-news.pa.dec.com>,
Jorge Stolfi <stolfi@src.dec.com> wrote:
>
>    > [C. R. Bass:] How could [the drop in mechanical resistance]
>    > physically happen?  Prediction: rapid and violent cavitation is
>    > occuring in the region of the pits on the rotor that one can see
>    > clearly at higher frequencies on an O-scope attached to the
>    > input electrical lines.
>
>This is unlikely, since the large inertia of the rotor should filter
>out any high-frequency variations in the mechanical load.

     Ever seen (or felt or heard) a large pump or screw cavitate?

     Rotational inertia is not an effective 'filter'.

     Substantial decreases in indicated operating power are a very big clue
     as to what is happening.  And my guess is that the 'effect' happens
     in a band of RPM for a given rotor configuration.

     Instrument the rotor shaft and I'd bet you'll see something very
     interesting.  Or alternatively, just wait and let this 'free energy
     device' fade into oblivion like all of its forebears.
     
                             dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.08 / Richard Corrado /  Re: SOMETHING MISSING IN THE PHYSICS OF LIGHT POLARIZATION THEORY.
     
Originally-From: rcorrado@utpapa.ph.utexas.edu (Richard A. Corrado)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.plutonium
sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: SOMETHING MISSING IN THE PHYSICS OF LIGHT POLARIZATION THEORY.
Date: 8 Sep 1994 02:23:57 GMT
Organization: Physics Department, University of Texas at Austin

In article <34h32v$pdt@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>,
Ludwig Plutonium <Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>There is perhaps, this is only a doubt that is growing in my mind,
>something missing in the theory of light polarization. I have asked it
>on the newsgroups but have not connected with anyone expert in it.

Well, this is not exactly true, I e-mailed you the last thread on the 
subject.  I guess I just ain't expert enough....

>Here is my doubt. If we and measure accurately the photon energy before
>polarization. And then the photon energy after polarization. Then I
>think there is a large deficit of energy.

This is a non-possibilty for single photons.  If you're talking about 
individual photons here, then they are _always_ polarized.  When we talk about 
light being unpolarized we are talking about a collective effect of many 
photons.  A single photon is always is some definite polarization state, but 
when we are dealing with many photons, their independant polarizations need not 
point in the same direction.  We say that light is unpolarized if about 50% 
of the photons are in each of the two possible states and say that the 
light is (partially) polarized if there are more photons in one state.

>And the reason for the deficit is that many of the photons were
>decomposed into neutrinos which went through the equipment without
>being accountable to energy.

When talking about bulk quantities of photons, you will find that when 
you pass your beam through a polarizer, there will be a decrease in the 
amount of photons and therefore a decrease in the total energy of an 
individual pulse.  This is NOT due to neutrinos, however!  It is simply a 
property of the way a polarizer works.  

A polarizer only lets through photons that have their polarization in the 
direction of the polarization axis of the apparatus.  For unpolarized incoming 
light, at most half of the photons will pass through the material.  Of the 50% 
of the photons that may pass through the material because of their 
polarizations, more will not due to both reflection and absorption effects of 
the material.  The polarizer is not totally opaque, even along the 
polarization axis.

> I do not know if anybody has performed experiments on light
>polarization to see of incoming unpolarized light is equal in energy to
>outgoing polarized light. 

From the above, no one would expect them to be.  But again, this has 
nothing to do with neutrinos.




-- 
Richard A. Corrado
Department of Physics
University of Texas at Austin
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenrcorrado cudfnRichard cudlnCorrado cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.08 / John Logajan /  Re: What is a PMK
     
Originally-From: al789@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What is a PMK
Date: 8 Sep 1994 03:28:55 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)


bruce_schechter@cc.wdi.disney.com (Bruce Schechter) says:

>Could somebody explain, or repost, a description of the PMK, and what 
>the fuss is all about?

I think I've got a few bits, so I'll post them just to help my own
thinking on the issues.

PMK = Plasma Mantle Kernel = Paul M Koloc = hot fusion energy concept

Paul envisions (has created?) two plasmas, one within the other.

The outer plasma is spherical in shape, like the earth's crust (mantle).
The inner plasma (kernel) is shaped like a donut (torus.)

There is a vacuum gap between the inner donut and the outer crust
plasmas.

Electrical currents go east to west around the outer plasma sphere.
In the donut/torus the current flow is more complex and depends upon
the depth into the donut.  On the outer surface of the donut, the
currents go around the short way.  In the middle of the donut ring,
the currents go around the ring the long way.  Between these two
extremes, the currents go in both vectors, giving rise to a sort
of screw like helical path, whose pitch depends upon depth into
the donut.

The magnetic fields set up by these currents allegedly confine the
torus.  The spherical mantle plasma traps an internal vacuum as well
as confining the expansionary effect of the torus.  The air pressure
on the outside of the spherical mantle plasma pushes in against
the vacuum on the other side -- acting to contract the sphere.  This
attempts to contract the inner torus via magnetic forces, so the
pressure in the torus will equilibriate with the atmospheric pressure
at some torus/mantle volume.

Those are the bits I (think) I know.  The fuss is all about plasma
theories -- which I have no hope of understanding. :-)

-- 
-- John Logajan ---  al789@cleveland.freenet.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenal789 cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.08 / Chris Parkinson /  Re: Reply to Rothwell/Amoco, Dufour efforts
     
Originally-From: parky@ix.netcom.com (Chris Parkinson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reply to Rothwell/Amoco, Dufour efforts
Date: 8 Sep 1994 05:43:22 GMT
Organization: Netcom

In <34kloj$k69$1@mhadg.inhouse.compuserve.com> Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@
ompuServe.COM> writes: 

>
>>jonesse@acoust.byu.edu (Steve Jones) writes:
lots of deletions...
>Jed Rothwell writes:
>First, you do not know for sure that they have dropped it. (CF research. ed.)
>Second, if that
>fact "tells us a great deal" then what does it tell us when Mitsubishi,
>Toyota, Hitachi, NEDO, NIFS, MITI, EPRI, Canon, Thermacore, Shell and dozens
>of other corporations increase research year by year and file more and more
>patents? Why do you judge the situation by the action of this one company -
>Amoco - and ignore what all these other companies are doing? Clearly, you are
>picking and choosing your evidence. You throw away 100 test cases from other
>companies because they do not meet your preconceived ideas, and you pick up
>the one lone case of Amoco simply because it satisfies your thesis. I suggest
>you look at the full range of research done by all companies in this field,
>rather than just one.
> 
>- Jed
>

Right on Jed. Sceptics are now slowly coming to an end. When will Jones
understand this. Remember one key is polishing with no pits or cracks.
With this being the case you should act like a jeweler and cabinet maker
and not like your typical physicist sceptic that sloppily throws a CF 
experiment together.

CP
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenparky cudfnChris cudlnParkinson cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.07 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Reply to Rothwell/Amoco, Dufour efforts
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reply to Rothwell/Amoco, Dufour efforts
Date: Wed, 7 Sep 1994 22:10:50 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <34kloj$k69$1@mhadg.inhouse.compuserve.com>,
Jed Rothwell  <72240.1256@CompuServe.COM> wrote:
> 
> 
>     "The fact that the Amoco people dropped this line of research tells us a
>     great deal about their opinion regarding the likelihood that this would
>     be an energy producer, IMHO.  I guess that's the bottom line."
> 
>First, you do not know for sure that they have dropped it. Second, if that
>fact "tells us a great deal" then what does it tell us when Mitsubishi,
>Toyota, Hitachi, NEDO, NIFS, MITI, EPRI, Canon, Thermacore, Shell and dozens
>of other corporations increase research year by year and file more and more
>patents? Why do you judge the situation by the action of this one company -
>Amoco - and ignore what all these other companies are doing? Clearly, you are
>picking and choosing your evidence.

     When Amoco, Toyota, Hitachi or Shell presents a product ready for market
     we can talk.  Until then, this is just rather poorly documented wind.
 
     Jed, your tactics have always been transparent, but it's very easy to 
     'prove' the sceptics limited, neolithic fools.  Simply have Toyota market
     a cold-fusion water heater.  

     It's that simple.

     I predict, however, that it will be a cold day in sheol before that
     occurs.

     On the other hand, until that frosty day, it appears to me that anyone
     continuing to fund the work that started it all, P&F's, either

               a) has far too much free cash, or
               b) is a credulous dupe.

     Feel free to make the call yourselves.

                                      dale bass

cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.08 / Dieter Britz /  Re: Fading - information channels?
     
Originally-From: kemidb@aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fading - information channels?
Date: 8 Sep 94 06:50:28 GMT
Organization: Aarhus University, Denmark

In <Cvs8MI.ByG@world.std.com> mica@world.std.com writes:

[....]
>   Dieter, since by your own admission you self-filter the papers, 
>and have done so based upon verbal email from skeptics some of
>whom have shown a lack of diligence to physics and engineering,
>and have also done so based upon your unfortunate inability
>to obtain or catalogue several international meetings as you previously
>stated, how can you claim that the above statement is correct.
>   Also, with ICCF-4 and Minsk and other papers coming out in a
>torrent, it appears that your filtration rate will have to actually increase,
> if your putative exponential claim is to pan out.             ;-) X

Ho ho, Mitch, good try. My own admission, eh? When have I stopped beating my
wife, or filtering papers, eh? It is a pretty good filter, mate. I.e. it lets
through only papers that have appeared in refereed journals of science/eng.  I
could, if I wanted to, include conference procs; but I choose not to, for very
good reasons. Some smallish % of these conference talks makes it into journals
afterwards, and these I catch. Were I to include both, I'd have multiple
redundancy.

But why be bitter? As I have said before, there is nothing to stop anyone from
setting up his/her own list; in fact the estimable Hal Fox has done so.

Maybe one ought to make a study of the numbers, i.e. measure that % that makes
it into journals. Could be just a sample of a few conferences, using the index
of the proceedings and looking for the authors/title in, say, the brief list,
CNF-BRIF in the archives. A job for a science sociologist...


-- 
Dieter Britz   alias kemidb@aau.dk
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenkemidb cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.07 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Heat pumps
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Heat pumps
Date: Wed, 7 Sep 1994 22:24:02 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <34klrm$k69$2@mhadg.inhouse.compuserve.com>,
Jed Rothwell  <72240.1256@CompuServe.COM> wrote:
> 
>The pump is by far the hottest object in the room, so it cannot be acting as a
>heat pump, because that would violate the Second Law.

     As it's apparently violating the First, I don't see why a little Second 
     Law violation would be much concern.

     By the way Jed.  That little 'pump' was an exceptional subject
     when discussing perpetual motion and the conservation of energy
     in thermodynamics this summer.  I didn't have to trot out poor
     old Keely and Gamgee again.

                                     dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.08 / L Plutonium /  Re: SOMETHING MISSING IN THE PHYSICS OF LIGHT POLARIZATION 
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.plutonium
sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: SOMETHING MISSING IN THE PHYSICS OF LIGHT POLARIZATION 
Date: 8 Sep 1994 07:05:45 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In article <34lsjt$9fe@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>
rcorrado@utpapa.ph.utexas.edu (Richard A. Corrado) writes:

> A polarizer only lets through photons that have their polarization in the 
> direction of the polarization axis of the apparatus.  For unpolarized incoming 
> light, at most half of the photons will pass through the material.  Of the 50% 
> of the photons that may pass through the material because of their 
> polarizations, more will not due to both reflection and absorption effects of 
> the material.  The polarizer is not totally opaque, even along the 
> polarization axis.

  I beg to differ. And I stick to my guns. I believe noone has had the
ambition to really verify between my assertion and the standard
conventional model. I believe that a good experimental physicist can
arrange an experiment that would result in a pleasant surprise, the
incoming photonic energy does not equal the reflection, absorption, and
outgoing photonic energy. And better yet. Since polarization
explanation is a bit awkward. I bet that a good physicist can find
another drawback to the standard view and do an experiment which again
implies photons are neutrinoes. I am scheming for such experiments.
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.13 / Tom Droege /  Re: Status of "Cold Fusion" Magazine
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Status of "Cold Fusion" Magazine
Date: 13 Sep 1994 20:26:56 GMT
Organization: fermilab

In article <354flv$qhb@warlock.win.net>, bugs@warlock.win.net (Mark 
Hittinger) says:
>
>Gobble up those collectors items d00ds!  What are we gonna do if they
>cancel Monaco????
>-----
Since Mark, you are a capitalist, could you quote the current bid/asked
price for issue #1?

Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.13 / Ben Burch /  What is a "Griggs Device"?
     
Originally-From: Ben_Burch@wes.mot.com (Ben Burch)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: What is a "Griggs Device"?
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 1994 15:44:12 GMT
Organization: Motorola, Inc.

What is this gadget?  Is there some reference?

-- 
"I don't speak for Motorola; They don't speak for me."
-Ben Burch                 | Motorola Wireless Data Group:
Ben_Burch@wes.mot.com      | Makers of the Envoy(R) Personal 
                           | Wireless Communicator
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenBen_Burch cudfnBen cudlnBurch cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.13 / Mark Hittinger /  Re: Status of "Cold Fusion" Magazine
     
Originally-From: bugs@warlock.win.net (Mark Hittinger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Status of "Cold Fusion" Magazine
Date: 13 Sep 1994 19:00:50 -0400
Organization: WIN.NET mail and news

Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege) writes:
>Hittinger) says:
>>
>>Gobble up those collectors items d00ds!  What are we gonna do if they
>>cancel Monaco????
>Since Mark, you are a capitalist, could you quote the current bid/asked
>price for issue #1?

Well I would say that right now we have a "cave in" going on.  The prices
are probably quite low.  I went around to all the book stores to locate
unpurchased copies.  They are selling them for $10 still.  I remember
a note that came with issue #2 that offered to sell copies in bulk for
a lot less. The ad in the top right corner of page 62 of the June issue
quotes 10 copies for $60, and 25 copies for $125.

I expect this to be a *very* long term investment. :-)
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenbugs cudfnMark cudlnHittinger cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.14 / Jed Rothwell /  Re: Griggs device tests
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@CompuServe.COM>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs device tests
Date: 14 Sep 1994 01:48:36 GMT
Organization: CFRA

stolfi@src.dec.com (Jorge Stolfi) writes:
 
     "Well, just to be picky: the housing and rotor are not necessarily at
     the same temperature."
 
The temperatures must be very close. They are both made of metal, which
conducts heat very well, they are only a few millimeters apart, they are
connected by the bearings, and both are in contact with the steam and water. I
cannot imagine any mechanism that would allow the rotor temperature to rise or
fall 60 deg F while the housing temperature remained unchanged.
 
 
     "How long would it take for a drop of 60 F on the inside to be felt
     outside?"
 
Less than two years I am sure. These devices have generated steady excess heat
on demand for that period of time. If you are going to postulate a "storage
mechanism" it should take that fact into account. In any case, I have observed
many medium and large sized machines like automobile engines, and I know that
they heat and cool rapidly. I do not think that there could be any 20 minute
delay between the rotor cooling and the housing cooling; I cannot imagine any
mechanism that would allow this, and in any case, I have watched the device
produce excess for well over an hour in other test.
 
 
Me: "I took pyrometer readings every 2 minutes in many of the tests."
 
Stolfi: "I suppose that refers to the steam, right?"
 
No, the steam temperature is recorded thermocouples and on a dial thermometer.
The pyrometer is used to measure the surface temperature of the machinery. I
had not postulated any 20 minute gap - or 1 hour, or 2 year gap - in a
temperature change because I cannot imagine any physical mechanism that would
allow such a thing. I daresay you cannot either.
 
 
Me:       "Even better evidence is the fact that the GG will continue
          producing heat continuously for years if you leave it on.
 
Stolfi:   "Well, "evidence" is not quite the right word here... "Claim" or
          "belief" would be more appropriate, don't you think so?
 
That is incorrect. I said evidence and I meant evidence: data, instrument
readings. Data from customer sites like the power and water meter readings
over long periods of time confirm that the devices generate excess energy
continuously for years.
 
 
     "By the way, is the rotor *really* solid aluminum? I know nothing about
     these things, but I imagine that a hollow rotor, possibly filled with
     concrete, would be more cost-effective than a solid one."
 
Yes, the rotor is solid, except of course, it has holes drilled around the
periphery as shown in the patent. If you know nothing about these things then
what prompts you to make these suggestions? I cannot imagine a complex
concrete construction would be "cost-effective." Aluminum parts are very cheap
and easy to manufacture.
 
 
     "What about the space above and below the rotor?"
 
The housing is round. The clearance is close all the way around.
 
 
     "About those disassembled units you saw: were they identical to the one
     you tested?"
 
One and the same.
 
 
     "Is the rotor really solid? Could it have internal cavities that can
     hold water or steam?"
 
How on earth could it maintain structural integrity over many years of hard
use if it was not solid material? Do you expect to find spokes holding it
together? I think at this point I must ask you to stop speculating so much,
get the patent and do your own homework.
 
 
     "But what is the RPM, and how much is that "significantly"?
 
I don't have the data with me. It fluctuated slightly at times, but not more
than a few percent. If anything, I recall it went a bit faster when the effect
turned on.
 
 
     "I admit I am being paranoid here, but it is important to clear up this
     point, since the power factor correction amounts to half of the "excess
     heat" computed for Test 2."
 
You are welcome to discount half the excess for Test 2, but please be aware
that the excess is still gigantic in that case, and the latest instruments
fully bear out the measurements. We now have much better data with power
factor and other issues double checked. We now have oscilloscope traces of the
power and close correlation with the dynamometer. The newest data shows the
same large excesses as before 150% or more compared to mechanical input. It is
taken by computer hundreds of times per second and averaged out. I will upload
details sometime in the coming months, I hope before ICCF5. I cannot do that
now, so you will just have to take my word for it: the new, improved
instrumentation tells the same story as last year's setup, only in far greater
detail with redundant instrumentation. It is more convincing.
 
 
     "For the purpose of my argument, the pump is not in steady state until
     the bulk of the rotor has reached the roughly the same temperature as
     the water/steam on its surface, within a few tens of degrees. ... My
     guess is that it takes quite a bit longer than 10 minutes, even for a
     solid aluminum rotor.  What is your guess?"
 
I guessed 10 minutes, but we gave it an hour or so in some tests, while we
made other preparations (or ate lunch). I guess 10 minutes because that is how
long it takes my Volvo engine to come to thermal equilibrium, and the other
large engines of that class that I deal with every day. I think it is a safe
guess. But, in any case, why are you concerned about "a few tens of degrees?"
Your hypothesis depends upon a 40 degree temperature drop to explain the 20
minute excess. I suppose it would be 120 degree temperature drop to explain
the 1 hour excess I observed, and a few million degrees below absolute zero to
explain the extended performance recorded at customer sites. I would say your
hypothesis is weak - moribund even - I suggest you look for another.
 
 
     "In the "positive" tests, the pump soaked XXX kW for some 15-20 minutes;
     then consumption dropped by some 50%, and in the next 20 min some 30%
     more energy came out than went in."
 
The pump did not and cannot "soak XXX kW (nor KWH) of energy. There is no
mechanism by which this could happen. It also cannot "soak" megawatt hours,
which is what it would have to do to explain the performance in other tests.
The Pump would as hot as the inside of the sun after a while. You cannot cram
megawatt hours of energy into a device of this size, it is exactly like
claiming that you can store megajoules of chemical energy in a half-gram of
palladium.
 
 
Me:  "Please remember the difference between postulating or hypothesizing
     that the rotor *may have cooled* and assuming that it did cool.  The
     hypothesis is wrong, the rotor did not cool, your fears that it might
     have are groundless.
 
Stolfi: "Well, and what grounds do *you* have to assert that it did not?"
 
Instrument readings. The pyrometer, the thermocouples, the sense of touch.
What else is there? What grounds does anyone have to assert anything in
science? If the assertion is not backed by experimental data, observation and
instrument readings, it is no better than cotton candy or a fairy tale.
 
You are at a disadvantage here of course, you can take no instrument readings
to prove that a rotor a few millimeters away from a steel housing, separated
by steam, can rise or fall 40 degrees without affecting the temperature of the
housing an hour later. That is your present hypothesis, but you are not in a
position to prove it. I am afraid you must forgive me, but I can *never*
believe such a thing is possible without instrument readings.
 
 
Me:       "Do not assume that every mistake you think up was actually made."
 
Stolphi:  "Unfortunately, *one* systematic mistake could be enough to
          invalidate these claims."
 
Which one? Name it. That is like asserting that *one* systematic mistake could
be enough to disprove the Michelson Morley experiment, or Joule's rotor
experiments. I don't buy that unless you tell me which error you have in mind.
You have only three places to look:
 
     At the input power meter and dynamometer measurements.
 
     At the weight scale.
 
     At the temperature readings.
 
What happens at the Pump is irrelevant, because no storage mechanism exists
that would allow a gigantic build up, and the Second Law prevents it from
being a heat pump. It is a wonderfully simple experiment. Just find an error
in one there three places and you have disproved it. I encourage you to look
in the relevant places and stop worrying what happens in the "black box" Pump
in between. Look at the power, the weight and the temperature readings. I am
sure the weakest link remains the input power measurments, which is also the
area about which I know the least. All I can say is that I cannot imagine how
the meters *and* the dynamometer could all be wrong, in lockstep, in the same
direction. Noise would not produce that result. It cannot be that both power
meters and dynamometers are so fundamentally flawed they make such gigantic
mistakes.
 
 
     "And all of the "free energy" machines invented in the last 2000+ years
     turned out to be bogus."
 
This is a meaningless assertion. Nobody is claiming that the Griggs machine is
a 'free energy' machine. Evidently, it is a CF reactor, it converts hydrogen
into helium and releases energy. There is a well known machine that has been
doing that quite reliable for the last several billion years right over your
head: the Sun. There are hundreds of smaller CF reactors described in the
literature, by people like McKubre, P&F, Mizuno and Storms. They are not
bogus, they work fine. They are not 'free energy' machines as far as anyone
knows.
 
Furthermore, suppose for the sake of argument that these machines really are
'free energy' devices or ZPE machines, or what-have-you? What possible
relevance do the previous, failed machines have? These work, they did not.
Hundreds of unworkable, impossible airplanes were built and countless attempts
to fly were made before Dec 17, 1903. They all failed. That morning a machine
took off and flew. The previous failures had no effect on the validity of that
success. The data proving that the airplane flew (the eyewitness descriptions,
the photo and instrument readings) proved the issue once and for all. Previous
experiments did not disprove it one tiny bit.
 
 
     "...whereas a "mysterious heat-producing process" that appears to
     violate the first law must be a bit hard to sell."
 
It does not appear to violate the First Law. It violates some nuclear theory,
not the First Law.
 
 
     "It would be also nice to have RPM, barrel temperature, and steam
     temperature and pressure recorded every minute, so that one could also
     compute cooling times and such."
 
These are now recorded many times a second, and averaged. I will report this
data by and by, I hope in a few months.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.14 / Bill Page /  re: Kamada - old papers
     
Originally-From: 70047.3047@compuserve.com (Bill Page)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: re: Kamada - old papers
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 1994 05:24:18 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Alejandro Rivero writes:
<<
> ...                                                   They reference
>H.A. Bethe and C.L. Critchfield in Phys. Rev. Vol 54 (1938) pp. 248, as
>providing the theoretical basis for a H-H or D-D fusion reaction based on
>high energy electron capture induced beta disintegration of constituent
>protons of H2 molecules and the D nucleus that they claim may explain
>the observations.

 Could anyone give the abstract of this "classical paper", or include
it in the bibl. database? Our library lacks of years 36-45 of
the Phys Rev, by obvious reasons (this is Europe).
 
One thing I dont understand is why all the old stuff has not been
cited the first years after FP announcement. Everyone forgets
previous work, It seems.
>>

Previous work fascinates me lately. There seems to be a lot more of
it then I thought. Courtesy of the archives of my local university,
here is the abstract of the Bethe and Critchfield papaer:

 -------------------

August 15, 1938          Physcial Review               Volume 54

         The Formation of Deuterons by Proton Combination

             H.A. Bethe, Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y.

                              and

       C.L. Critchfield, George Washington University, Washington, D.C.

                       (Received June 23, 1938)

  The probability of the astrophysically important reaction H+H = D + e+
is calculated. For the the probability of positron emission, Fermi's
theory is used. The penetration of the protons through their mutual
potential barrier, and the transition probability to the deuteron state,
can be calculated exactly, using the known interaction between two
protons. The energy evolution due to the reaction is about 2 ergs per
gram per second under the conditions prevailing at the center of the
sun (density 80, hydrogen content 35 percent by weight, temperature
2x10^7 degrees). This is almost but not quite sufficient to explain the
observed average energy evolution of the sun (2 ergs/g sec.) because
only a small part of the sun has high temperature and density. The
reaction rate depends on the temperature approximately as T^2.5 for
temperatures arount 2x10^7 degrees.

-------------------

And here are a few excerpts:

" ... of all the reactions involving hydrogen, the most primative is
the combination of two protons for form a deuteron, with positron
emission:

      H + H = D + e+                                     (1)

In fact, this reaction must stand in the beginning of any build up
of chemical elements; it has already been discussed in this connection
by v. Weizsacker \1. However, there seems to be a general belief that
reaction (1) is too rare to account for any appreciable fraction of the
energy production in stars and that it can serve only to *start* the
evolution of elements in a star which will be then carried on by other,
more probable, processes. It is the purpose of this paper to show that
this belief is unfounded but that reaction (1) gives an energy evolution
of the correct order of magnitude for the sun."

"... In calculating the energy evolution from reaction (1), it must be
considered that (1) is followed by a number of other reactions which
are all "fast" in comparison with (1) because they involve the emission
of radiation or of heavy particles rather than beta-rays\3."

"... In order to calculate the probability of the proton combination, the
following factors have to be considered:

(1) The probability of collision of two protons which involves the
penetrability of their mutual potential barrier. This can be calculated
very accurately since the force between two protons is very well known
from scattering experiments\7.

(2) The probability of emission of a positron during the collision. This
involves a theory of the beta-decay. All available experimental evidence
points to the conclusion that the original Fermi theory gives good
agreement with the experimental dependence of lifetime on energy.

(3) The energy distribution of the protons in the star which is given
by the Boltzmann law."

The paper goes on with detailed calculations and some numerical
results. If anyone is very interested, I might be persuaded to
dig into this paper a little deeper. Some of this is certainly "dated"
and there are now much more sophisticated ways of doing these
calculations, but I wonder whether our understanding of these processes
are really now that much more advanced then they were at this earlier
stage.

-------------

Now, Kamada's use of this reference does seem rather strange. It is
hard to see how the conditions of implanted H in Al is related to the
conditions studied by Bethe and Critchfield in the above paper. Further,
Kamada is talking about a somewhat different (though similar) weak
interaction. Although Kamada doesn't explicitly state the exact reaction
he has in mind, statements in his paper suggest something like:

     p + e + p -> p + n + nu                            (2)

i.e. the capture of an energetic electron by a proton, which might be
thought of as an indivisible process involving the a proton virtually
decaying into a neutron+positron+neutrino, annihilation of the positron
by an electron and the strong interaction of the proton and neutron to
create an excited deuteron, which subsequently disintegrates into
energetic particles. [Particle physicists: Please correct me since I've
probably got this all wrong.]

Kamada states in his paper in the case of H implantation, 20% of the
charge particles detected are protons (at approximately 0.9 MeV) while
80% are alpha particles (4He nuclei), though he doesn't state the relative
efficiency of the detectors for these particles. In any case there must
also be some additional reactions generating these alphas. I haven't any
real good idea what this could be. The only thing that comes to mind is

  Al27(n,alpha)Na24.                                       (3)

and of course there should be beta dacays for Na24 -> Mg24 + e and
probably Al28 -> Si28 + e (when the n is not sufficiently energetic).
But this is pure speculation.

Of course, being more specific about the possible nuclear reactions
should also lead to attempts to detect related products like x-rays
and neutrons from these reactions or at least theories of why this
detection might be difficult.

For reaction (2) to be significant, a number of factors would have
to be taken into account which were not relevant to the situation
described by Bethe and Critchfield. At a minimum these are:

1) the periodic potential of the metal lattice and its effects on
the particle trajectories when the particles have relatively low
kinetic energies.

2) the statistical distribution of the energies of the imbedded
hydrogen, fermi or bose statistics and fermi energy levels etc.

3) the electron densities and the associated screening effects on
proton densities

4) possible resonance effects during the putative electron capture
process.

And these are pretty big problems. Although Kamada's paper seems
to have some fairly convincing observations, and I can't bring myself
to seriously consider the "radon contamination" theory of Dick Blue, I am,
for now, inclined to remain a little doubtful. As usual, replication,
replication, replication and many more detailed observations are required.
In fact, since Kamada's paper was published in 1992 its surprizing that
we haven't yet heard of any such replication attempts.

Cheers,

Bill Page.

cudkeys:
cuddy14 cuden3047 cudfnBill cudlnPage cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.14 / Bill Page /  Re: experiment - recombination vs combustion
     
Originally-From: 70047.3047@compuserve.com (Bill Page)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: experiment - recombination vs combustion
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 1994 06:22:39 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

John Logajan wrote:
<<
The implication, then, is that in a catalytic recombination, the
sub-ground energy state can be restored to the ground state by picking
up ambient thermal energy.

If there were sub-ground states, and if they could be gotten to in
one physical location, and undone in another location, you have the
mechanism for a straight forward heat pump.

...

>>

Yes, hence the importance of having separate calorimeters for the
the electrolysis and the recombination.

And in response to John, Thomas S. Zemanian wrote:
<<
Step 3: Toss out the Second Law.
>>

Eh? Maybe you could fill in the blanks a little here. Do you mean
recombination could not possibly use ambient heat in this way? Energy
is required to drive a heat pump where does this energy come from, right?
We can also assume that recombination of normal hydrogen is also
occurring simultaneously with the hydrino recombination, but then maybe
thats not enough either.

Cheers,

Bill Page

cudkeys:
cuddy14 cuden3047 cudfnBill cudlnPage cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.14 / John Lange /  Re: Cold Fusion on CBC TV
     
Originally-From: lange@access.mbnet.mb.ca (John Lange)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion on CBC TV
Date: 14 Sep 1994 03:37:03 GMT
Organization: The University of Manitoba

In <cmhall.5.00099CE2@umich.edu> cmhall@umich.edu (Chris M. Hall) writes:

>>What is Newsworld? I am in California. CNN or PBS or what?

>Chris:

>CBC Newsworld is a Canadian cable channel and it's like CNN for the Great 
>White North. Unless you have a satellite dish, you won't get it. I live only 
>40 minutes from the border, and I can't receive it. If you do have satellite, 
>check out one of the Anik birds, but it might need decoding.

CBC Newsworld is not scrambled at all. CBC's regular broadcast stations 
are also on the Dish, and none of them are scrambled either. (why 
scramble it?! No one watches it anyhow...)

-- 
John Lange

Winnipeg Manitoba Canada      lange@mbnet.mb.ca
The opinions written here are mine, and not necessarily those of myself.?
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenlange cudfnJohn cudlnLange cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.14 / A Rivero /  Re: Fading (again)
     
Originally-From: rivero@sol.unizar.es (Alejandro Rivero)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fading (again)
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 1994 07:27:18 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway


>> Yes. "Exponential', though, is not precise. I have not fitted exp to it.
>> Let's say 'steady'. Now if I had GIF, or one of these nifty graphic
thingies,
>> I could post the curve.

>You could at least post the numbers; someone else can certainly
>plot and post the curve.

Yep, and GIF is not needed... GNUPlot (which is freeware) has
a very decent ascii output.

					Alejandro Rivero

cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenrivero cudfnAlejandro cudlnRivero cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.14 / John Vetrano /  Lattice Damage
     
Originally-From: js_vetrano@pnl.gov (John S Vetrano)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Lattice Damage
Date: 14 Sep 1994 00:19:37 GMT
Organization: Battelle PNL

  This is my first net posting so please bear with me.  I sent an e-mail
to Dr. Jones the other day asking for some information on an idea and he
suggested I put it out on the net for comment.

  My speciality is not physics and I must admit that I am not clear on the
processes that are suggested to occur in CF, particularly with regard to
the dissipation of the energy.  However, in an earlier post ("Nuclear ash
hard to find") Dick Blue mentioned that the apparent energy release
exceeds the binding energy of atoms in the lattice which should cause a
disruption that should be detectable.  Our group looks at just that type
of lattice disruption as caused by energetic particles, with emphasis on
materials for fission and fusion applications.

  The displacement energy of Ni and Pd atoms is about 20-40 eV.  If a
particle of an energy above that enters the lattice (or is generated in
the lattice) there will be atoms displaced from their lattice sites,
creating a vacancy-interstitial pair.  Continued displacements of this
type eventually lead to an agglomeration of point defects into a
dislocation loop, which is readily visible in the Transmission Electron
Microscope.  If the energy is much higher, say 5 keV, the dislocation loop
forms directly from one event.  

  Jed Rothwell mentions that CF reactions have produced hundreds of eV per
atom, and some up to tens of thousand in continuous energy releases.  How
much energy is released per "event"?  This seems like a process that
should generate point defects and loops that are visible in the TEM. 
Steve Jones asked me about the limit of detectibility for these defects. 
As far as size is concerned, we see them down to about 1.5 nm.  The
biggest problem may be the "density" of event centers.  In TEM a thin foil
is required, and a standard sample yields only about 5x10E-16 cubic meters
of observable volume.  Therfore, I would estimate the detectability limit
for a cubic millimeter of material to be about 1 billion events (rate is
not important).

  So, has this type of damage been looked for?  Is there a reason that it
should not be present according to the physics of CF?  I'm just curious,
as Dick and Jed's comments sparked this idea.  Though there seems to be a
lot of physics, chemistry and mechanical engineering in this newsgroup,
there is not much metallurgy so I thought I'd throw in my two cents.

  Any comments or suggestions are welcome.  Have a good day.

John Vetrano
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenjs_vetrano cudfnJohn cudlnVetrano cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.14 / Thomas Zemanian /  Re: Various comments about Griggs
     
Originally-From: ts_zemanian@pnl.gov (Thomas S. Zemanian)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Various comments about Griggs
Date: 14 Sep 1994 02:21:14 GMT
Organization: Battelle PNL

In article <354c8k$d9a$1@mhadg.production.compuserve.com>, Jed Rothwell
<72240.1256@CompuServe.COM> wrote:

> Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Dunn) asks:
>  
>      "I wonder whether there is a possibility of aluminum oxidation in
>      cavitation induced erosion of the aluminum rotor, either by water or by
>      atmospheric oxygen dissolved in the water?  Perhaps Jed could give some
>      upper limits to the amount of aluminum disappearing from the rotor
>      during a run."
>  
> I can determine the upper limits easily. There is no observable change to the
> rotors after weeks of 50,000 BTU's per hour excess heat generation (several
> hours per day). After a few years of use, the rotors do get worn and beat-up
> looking. That is mostly because of mechanical wear I believe, but there is
> also evidence of cavitation damage, in the form of small pits.
>  
> If the chemical destruction of the rotor was creating the excess heat, the
> rotor would be dissolved after a few days. The smaller model machine weighs
> 900 lbs, Pump, motor, frame and all. If it was entirely made of bituminous
> coal which all burned, it would produce 9.9 million BTU and last for 500 hours
> (21 days continuous use).
>  

Well, that's not entirely accurate.  The standard heat of formation of
Al2O3 (alpha phase) is very close to 400 kcal/mol.  The molecular weight of
aluminum is 26.98 g/mol.  Thus, the excess heat produced by the second test
(1.25 kWH) corresponds to 1075 kcal.  If this were provided by oxidation of
Al metal to Al2O3, 2.69 mol of Al would be consumed.  This corresponds to
72.5 g, or approx. 2.6 oz.

The 50,000 BTU per hour is 12,600 kcal, or 31.5 mol Al, or 849.74 g, or
1.87 lbs per hour.  This should be "observable" after the twenty or so
hours of operation Jed alludes to above.

Modeling bitumen crudely as graphite, and burning to CO2, we find a heat of
combustion of 394 kJ/mol = 94.1 kcal/mol, or 7.84 kcal/g., whereas that for
Al is 400/26.98 = 14.8 kcal/g.

I do not recommend manufacturing the device out of bitumen.  


[deletia, concerning stored heat]

--Tom

--
The opinions expressed herein are mine and mine alone.  Keep your filthy
hands off 'em! 
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudents_zemanian cudfnThomas cudlnZemanian cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.14 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Ionisation of the PMK Mantle (epic)
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Ionisation of the PMK Mantle (epic)
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 1994 05:50:32 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

<CvozAJ.8A7@prometheus.UUCP> <34i7gnINN1hm4@sat.ipp-garching.mpg.de>
<CvquGJ.CGt@prometheus.UUCP> <34kgmrINNu02@sat.ipp-garching.mpg.de>
Sender: 
Reply-To: pmk@promethe.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Followup-To: 
Distribution: world
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.
Keywords: 

In article <34kgmrINNu02@sat.ipp-garching.mpg.de> carlson@ipp-
garching.mpg.de writes:
>
>Did I hear somebody say "Run the numbers"? No? Must have been my 
imagination.

So far so good.  But what numbers?? .. . and what problem? 

>Book (citing Glasstone and Lovberg) gives the Bremsstrahlung power
>density as

This is from the NRL Formulary?  

>     P_Br/V = 1.69e-38 Z_eff (N_e/m^-3)^2 (T_e/eV)^(1/2) watts/m^3

where Z_eff = (Z_O^2 + Z_N^2)/(Z_O + Z_N) 
             and "0" and "N" are chemistry notation for Oxygen and 
Nitrogen.  

BUT... Bremsstrahlung???  is essentially *non existent* in a Ball 
Lightning at such low temperatures.  The radiation is all in 
spectral emission.  So your  calculation isn't going to illustrate 
anything, since it is so far off base as far as giving ball park 
figures.  We are NOT in the thermonuclear regime where such 
numbers begin to make sense.  

A Bremsstrahlung calculation will not represent the radiation 
rates from Ball Lightning Kernel Plasma or absorption/re-
radiation from the Mantle plasma, because the gas ions aren't 
stripped of their electrons.  Consequently, the problem is one of 
computing Gant factors for the spectral line emissions/ 
absorption from bound the bound electron transitions in the 
Kernel plasma ions, and the sundry particles of the Mantle, 
which dominate the radiation trade.  

>Let us assume a single ion species with a temperature equal to
>T_e. Then the total pressure is

Why, oxygen is 1/5th of the constituents.  

>     p = N_e k_B T_e (1+1/Z)

Usually it's written with the number density of the ion pairs (here 
ions due to a single specie).  The Z term then is (Z+1)  or use Zeff.  

You are treating this as if the nuclei are stripped, and that's goes 
a bit beyond optimism, considering their more realistic 
temperatures.  Your radiation rates are going to be VASTLY 
underestimated, and the absorption coupling is also going to be 
VASTLY underestimated.  Bound electrons rattle like blazes , 
even in a cool plasma of a few eV, especially with the number of 
bound electrons this plasma has  ---   4-5 and possibly 6!  

>so we can write

>     P_Br/V = 1.69e-38 Z (p/(k_b T_e)/m^-3)^2 (1+1/Z)^-2  (T_e/eV)^(1/2) 
watts/m^3

>          = 6.58e9 (p/bar)^2 (T_e/eV)^(-3/2) Z^3 (Z+1)^-2 watts/m^3

>If we assume flat profiles over a sphere of radius R, the power flux
>through the surface is

>    P_Br/A = 2.19e9 (p/bar)^2 (T_e/eV)^(-3/2) Z^3 (Z+1)^-2 (R/m) 
watts/m^2

Your Bremsstrahlung estimate is inappropriate as a measure of the 
radiation traffic within a PMK/BL.  Estimates of radiation rates 
from non-stripped excited gases and plasmas have been made decades
ago relating to computations regarding aspects of nuclear weapons
air bursts.  I would imagine that computational code exists that 
could do a credible job on getting to valid numbers.  I'm not
certain they even refer to such numbers as Gant factors, etc., 
anymore.  Nevertheless, the spectral distribution of PMK type 
plasmas, which have a very *THIN* blackbody background, still 
has blackbody saturation occuring along intense spectral lines 
and band emissions.  Consequently, the "upper bound" you claim
with your physics-wise non-sense single 14 ev emission channel
would NOT be the upper bound, by comparison to a good old fashioned
excited non-stripped air plasma.  

Interestingly, the radiation along spectral lines can be optically
trapped, which means the radiation diffusion time out of the 
system is a bit suppressed.  Note, this law applies to  small 
waveband widths at low temperatures, as well as to the whole 
Black Body Spectrum of a stripped thick plasma at thermonuclear 
temperatures, such as featured by hot stars.  

>To calculate an upper limit on the flux of ionizing photons, we can
>assume that the Bremsstrahlung photons are monoenergetic at the
>ionization energy (14 eV), which we also take to be the
>temperature. For ball lightning we can also take p = 1 bar and Z = 8
>as upper limits. For definiteness we choose R = 0.2 m.

Again, this may not be even CLOSE to an upper limit, since you have 
missed spectral radiation.  Your 14 ev output presents an interesting
picture.  What are you making this thing into???    
EUV Superfluorescening plasma??,  --  perhaps a spherical LASER??      
                               :-)

Besides your pressure could be off, and since you will need every 
bit of radiation gain you can get, you should go for optimizing the 
radiation by seeking justification to exploit its dependence on 
pressure (enhanced density), as follows:  

If we assume that Bussac, Rosenbluth, Furth, et al. had it correct 
and that Ball Lightning is a form of all plasma Spheromak (PMK) 
with a one atmosphere boundary, then assuming this BL has a 
BETA* (beta-star) of 3, the Kernel plasma would have an nkT of 3 
bar, not 1 bar.  

Furthermore, I assume you are investigating the problem of 
ionizing and maintaining the Mantle plasma, by photoionization 
and photoexcitation in a photon energy cascade initiated within 
the Kernel plasma, and then applied to the Mantle plasma.  

Because, the Mantle is at air density 
Noting the density effects of Saha equation, a 1.6+ eV 
temperature is all that is required to keep a chunk of air at 
Standard Pressure ionized.  Since the inner region of the Mantle 
is at atmospheric pressure, we could expect that the radiation 
from a closely coupled plasma (here the Kernel Plasma) of 2 or 
3 eV could suffice to maintain the Mantle's AVERAGE ionization.  
Let's assume that to be 1.6-2.6 eV.  That means the outer surface
is cooler and the inner surface is likely hotter.  

Notice that this is a *significant deviation* (14eV down to 1.6+eV) 
from your vacuum physics compatible numbers??  Also note, that
to maintain the Mantle ionization, the energy which is radiated,
conducted or convected out of the system has to be replaced. If
it is then the system is in dynamic equilibrium.  So the
problem isn't to estimate the loss of energy (radiant) from the 
Kernel plasma, it is to determine what the losses are from the
PMK Mantle's surface.  Since some BLs can be red and not very
bright, the radiation losses are likely very small.  The conduction
losses are clamped by the Mantle embedded flux, except at the
poles where some flux lines diverge.  Convection, is observed
in the 30cm BL.GIF I published to the net, and an estimate of
that convection can probably be made.  However, notice that
the plasma isn't eroding, except for ejecta at the upper pole.  
So it too, is small, and likely related to energy transport
through the surface (diffusion).  

Why??.   Even IF you need 14 eV, (which you don't ), then the 
Wein's displacement law yields provides Art with evidence that a 
few sufficiently high  energy photons can be produced from a 
Kernel Maxwellian plasma which is at a cooler average than 14 
eV.  The plasma temperature could be as low as 8 eV and still 
functional, although not as flux intense at 14 eV as Art's fantasy 
model.  Or, is Art more greedy, for hot photons??  

Now for a counter example.  **the Surface of the Sun**.   
The sun's surface temperature?? 5800 Kelvin   What's that in "eV"? 
  ..  . maybe 1 eV??   .. . maybe LESS!!!   Yep... would you 
believe  0.6 eV .. but that's just the Mantle, you should really 
dig into sun's Kernel Plasma??  no, because, the sun's surface 
isn't directly linked to radiation heating from the sun's Kernel, 
but only from lower layers in the Photosphere.  

Art, how do you explain the sun surface's high ionization 
percentages, or the pressure implications on average ionization 
temperature of a similar plasma and pressures found in the Saha 
equation.  

>     photon flux = (P_Br/A) / (k_B 14 eV)
>
>                 = 2.36e25 m^-2 sec^-1

>If we continue to be generous (looking only for a not-too-wild upper
>limit), we can assume all these photons are absorbed in a 10 micron
>layer with 100% ionization efficiency, giving

You have another major model distortion problem here.  The diffusion 
rate away from a 10 micron plasma layer would be enormous.  One must 
realistically then assume that the surrounding region is very near 
equilibrium (as through thermal insulation) with such an energy 
(ionization?) divergence layer, otherwise, the power input must be 
huge.    

From where does the thermal insulation of the Mantle plasma come??
Air is very very insulating, and that bounds the outside of the 
Mantle plasma shell, and the Vacuum field bounds the Mantle on
its inner surface.   Notice that the media beyound both surfaces 
are in the "insulating" portions of the Paschen Curve.

>     2.36e30 ionizations per cubic meter per second

>If the gas being ionized is close to standard density (N_0=2.69e25/m^3),
>then the characteristic ionization time is

Much too dense.  and meaningless, but for the  humor.  

Figure 1.6 eV at standard pressure.  


>     tau_ion = 11.4 microsec
>
>At high densities collisional (three-body) recombination will be much
>more important than radiative recombination. The characteristic time
>(also from Book) is


>     tau_recomb = ( (N_e/m^-3)^2 * 8.75e-39 (T_e/eV)^-4.5 )^-1 sec

This may not be true IF there is intense external photon input 
perturbs the system's energy level, as by increasing the average 
excitation energy.  This perturbation, can change the 
recombination rates, considerably over that of a simple 
Maxwellian plasma of similar temperature, but with no external 
auxiliary illumination.  Heavily excited atoms tend to be much more 
easily ionized, and this would probaby push the recombination 
rate downward.  I think this may be part of the physics behind 
the Saha lowering of minimum temperatures for denser ionized 
plasma.(also less than ground state ionization potential) result.  

>(Wouldn't hurt if somebody checks my math.) What do we take for T_e
>(the temperature of the absorbing mantle, not the radiating kernel)?
>If T_e is low (down to ambient temperature), the ionized fraction
>is low, so the electrons lose their energy in lots of collisions with
>cold neutrals before they recombine. 

For better simulation you might use a range of temperatures, 
since there is a radial gradient across the Mantle's cross-section.  
.  However, as indicated above, in the absorption or divergence 
layer, a one atmosphere plasma at a temperature of 1.6 eV is a
likely necessary minimum temperature to maintain "ionization".   

Unlike a thermonuclear plasma, where charge exchange carries 
off a huge difference in kinetic energy between the "hot ion" and 
the cold invading neutral, in the MANTLE, there is no such 
energy difference.  In fact the mean free path is so small, that 
incoming neutrals will be quite excited by the time they reach the 
plasma divergence layer.  The trouble with unimpeded electron 
radial thermal transport is that their radial diffusion rate is 
clamped by the weak embedded poloidal flux that exists in the 
Mantle plasma, from birth.  Since ions can't outgo either direction
very quickly, it means that pressure build up can take place if 
neutrals crowd into this conservancy region.  

As pointed out earlier, the neutral/ion distribution varies radially 
in the Mantle, and crudely speaking the pressure by neutrals at 
atmospheric pressure in the surrounding air drops to zero before 
encountering the inner Mantle boundary.  On the other hand, the 
ion density is the reciprocal from the divergence layer out to the 
surrounding atmosphere.  Normally, the slope of the neutral population
drops off over most of its excursion, at least until the divergence
layer (ionizing flux penetation depth) is uncovered.  That is if the
illumination were turned off the pressure of the diffusing neutrals 
would drop to null inside of (past) the Divergence zone boundary.  

Concequently, the functions of the ionizing radiation are numerous.  
It is because of the outgoing ionizing fraction of the Kernel 
radiation that the front edge or leading edge of neutral distribution 
is clipped back to the Divergence layer.  So the Divergence layer 
becomes the incursion limit for neutral particles.  Here the 
diffusion distance weakened influx of (relatively FEW) neutrals 
are fully ionized by the Kernel radiation which easily passes 
through the ionized zone.  Thus the ionized layer appears 
transparent to ionizing Kernel flux.  The net forming ions, are 
trapped between mag layers.  

Because of ballooning of the adjacent mag surfaces by photoionized 
plasma buildup and the reaction squeezing pressure that produces, 
these excess ions travel circumferentially between the mag layers 
of the Mantle  to the polar region.  Once there, the excess 
photoionized plasma is impelled outward by the cusp field which 
penetrates the Mantle's polar surface, forming a unique plasma 
jet whose excited ions form ejecta which deionizes as it moves 
into the atmosphere.  Consequently, a sort of polar cap may be 
distinguishable.  

One problem with Art's numbers are that they are based on a 
system in equilibrium, and this includes radiation energy 
equilibrium.  That is NOT the case here.  Ionization, is 
maintained by virtue of low energy loss transport,  rich 
photoionization and tuned photoexcitation (spectral) flux, a non-
"different" very easily ionizable gas specie ).  

>                                   .     .       ..   That would be a self-consistent
>picture. On the other hand, if T_e is high (on the order of the photon
>energy, 14 eV), then the plasma is more strongly ionized (4.5% for the
>assumptions used here), and the electrons might retain their energy
>for the several microseconds required. There is not any immediate
>inconsistency in this picture either, but my feeling is that the low
>temperature case is more realistic.

14 eV is far greater than what is needed in a dense photoexcited 
air plasma??  You  see that possibility yet?  

>In any case, even with our generous assumptions, it seems that the
>photon flux is only large enough to maintain ionization on the order
>of 1 to 100 ppm. This is not enough to qualify as a plasma (much less
>than 1 particle in the Debye sphere).

Actually, your assumptions were meager.  14 eV photons are fewer than
the same power expressed as 2 or 3 eV photons.  Since we start with
a lightning like BLAST of energy, the system is fully formed and
functional from its birth in the atmosphere.  Consequently, merely
replacing the leisurely surfaces losses is all that is needed.    

Those numbers seem to be a few orders of magnitude off from the 
observed plasmoids (PMK  OR BL).  Is this a BIG Surprise?  
Bremsstrahlung "power" from a couple of eV plasma??  What optimism!  
But your new equation is law for all plasmas, fully stripped or not.  
Kind of recalls the days of the Virial theorem and your policy of 
NO-internal-current-surfaces-integration.  Nope! It is  just that 
one outside shell is real and that's all I kin see with inbound 
pressure!  Yes,  Art, your physics estimates are CERTAINLY tractable.  

>Before we leave, let's throw a glance at the plasma radiating all
>these photons. The third formula above gives the Bremsstrahlung power
>density in terms of the pressure. We also know the stored thermal
>energy density:
>
>     E/V = (3/2) p

Good Grief  .. not another one!! 

That seems a bit as if each "cc" of volume is handling its own storage and 
loss mechanism.  Shouldn't it be more like E(collective) = Sum Pbr(i) * tau.  

Magfields act as the COLLECTIVE energy of electrons.  If we have 
a very low BETA plasma, and a huge storage of mag energy, then 
those very few ions and electrons spread out (forming a very low 
den plasma) will not generate much Bremsstrahlung.  The 
currents can collect energy form the WHOLE field, which is of 
extended volume, and then that energy can be fed to only those 
few cc of plasma for a longer time.  In your system, it would 
appear there is no collective energy, so each cc handles its own 
energy storage and radiation rate.  Consequently, this adds to 
absolutely ludicrous results.  

>Dividing the two gives us the characteristic cooling down time due to
>Bremsstrahlung (alone):
>
>                               (3/2) 10^5 Pa (p/bar)
>     tau_cool = -------------------------------------------------------
>                6.58e9 (p/bar)^2 (T_e/eV)^(-3/2) Z^3 (Z+1)^-2 watts/m^3
>
>              = (p/bar)^-1 (T_e/eV)^(3/2) 91 microsec

I'll be a bit swinging in my description.  

To illustrate why this is totally out of whack with reality, consider 
a BIG plasma solid ball say a meter or two??  In reality, these 
things are generated in the phenomenon of BEAD lightning.  
From NSWC film footage, plasmas of 1 meter take on the order a 
one half second to radiate their energy, because of radiation 
trapping.  Notice, that these plasmas (including atmospheric ball 
lighting) are NOT ionized to such a degree they have all their 
electrons unbound and ripping around completely stripped air 
nuclei.  By analogy, bound electrons broadcast at tuned 
frequencies, and the radiation traffic is intense at those 
frequencies.  Consequently, it takes a significant time just to 
transfer energy out to the world through a few tens of centimeters 
of plasma.  Here, all that energy is stored in plasma temperature.  
If the ions were stripped, there would be a full frequency band to 
broadcast on by the 100% free electrons, and an enormous 
number of these transmitters could pump out radiation at many 
frequencies.  Technically, the energy could be lost much faster 
due to the paucity of oscillators at any one frequency.  Perhaps 
everything would be dumped in....    eh!!   tens of microseconds.  
:-)

Notice there is no accounting  for a small plasma amount 
pumped with a more substantial source stored mag energy.  Now the 
plasma can draw down what it needs by ohmic heating from the 
stored field associated currents.  So, that it can continue 
existing far beyond nkT rad times to extended periods and still 
provide excitation/thermalization so that the plasma can "glow" 
for a substantial while.  As an example, when we blast PMKs 
into existence, even small ones, which require very very modest 
energies to create them, in turn generate a transient plasma 
"blowoff shell", which expands to order ten times the PMK size 
and then takes order 50 to 100 milliseconds to cool to 
fluorescence.  I'm speaking here of the blow-off cloud, not the 
PMK, which, of course, last electronically speaking -- forever.  

>where we have taken Z=1 to get an upper limit. Applying this formula
>to ball lightning, we set p = 1 bar and tau_cool >= 1 sec and find
>that the minimum temperature is
>
>     T_e >= 490 eV
What is this... a hydrogen (Z=1) Ball Lightning?? 

>Any colder and it would radiate itself away in less than a
>second. (Quite apart from any other problems it may have. The
>resistive decay time puts an even more severe restriction on the
>temperature (tens of keV).) Putting this higher temperature into the
>above calculation would further decrease the degree of ionization in
>the mantle. The restriction on the temperature would be relaxed if the
>pressure is assumed to be much less than atmospheric, as in a low beta
>magneto-plasmoid. But then even less photons are available to ionize
>the hypothetical mantle.

Gee! maybe we should put in a bit of boron -- impurity!  

One would NOT want to use thermal currents in any mag concept, 
because they tend to become implicated in plasma instabilities.  

>One final comment, if we set aside the reports of explosive ball
>lightning, the tamer glowing kind is easier to explain. If a ball
>glows for 1 sec with 300 W, it radiates a total of 300 J. If the
>radius is 0.2 m (volume = 0.034 m^3), that amounts to less than
>10^4 J/m^3, or about 6% the thermal energy density in a gas at
>1 bar. Though I know of no detailed theory, it seems explanations
>along the lines of chemical reactions or metastable optical states
>should have no trouble with the magnitude of the energy
>involved. Plasmas are not needed.

Your tamer cloud of glowing gas ---type ball lightning, wouldn't 
survive the slightest outdoor breeze, and a steady glow couldn't 
happen because there is no mechanism to meter the excitation 
energy out steady state, and certainly not over the lion's share of 
its lifetime.  That means your chemical smoke cloud would tend to 
decay in intensity exponentially.  Besides you couldn't use them 
as a powerful, clean and doable energy source.   AND, we shall never 
get to Mars if we don't wake up that there is something far more
real than Art Carlson's ability to theorize a PMK/BL, and then go 
ahead and develop the PLASMAK(tm) technology to do it.  I'm not
saying that Art's work isn't the first step.. it's just a small
adjustment in the vector.     :-)

>Dr. Arthur Carlson
>Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics
>Garching, Germany
>carlson@ipp-garching.mpg.de
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc, Bx 1037 Prometheus II Ltd, College Park MD 20741-1037    |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.14 / Paul Koloc /  Re: PMK - Kernel plasma UV -- a brief add (was Ionization)
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: PMK - Kernel plasma UV -- a brief add (was Ionization)
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 1994 05:59:24 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <34i7gnINN1hm4@sat.ipp-garching.mpg.de> bds@ipp-garching.mpg.
e (Bruce       Scott          TK  ) writes:
>In article <CvozAJ.8A7@prometheus.UUCP>, 
>	pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) writes:
>[...]
I overlooked giving what I can on the following interesting question.  

>The critical data point would be the photon UV flux. Anyone want to tell
>how big that is?

From really really big balls, (1-2 m) the skin has been burned so badly 
it was lost after about a week, and people lost hair on the side of
the head exposed to the ball.  The problem with this is that some may 
be from plasma derived VUV or soft X-rays from small angle scattering 
of the energetic currents.  The polar jets' gas is due entirely to 
excessive ionization  caused by Kernel plasma photon flux --- WHAT-EVER 
Energy it's at.  Remember this stuff is ionizing EXCITED atoms, not 
Maxwellian ones.  (near ground state sweeties).  

Check the 30 cm BL.GIF and estimate the recombination rates for that
ejecta sitting on the poles.  It's probably symmetric except for the
convective errosion.   
>-- 
>Gruss,
>Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
>Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
>bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de                               -- W Gibson
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.14 / Jorge Stolfi /  Re: Griggs device tests
     
Originally-From: stolfi@src.dec.com (Jorge Stolfi)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs device tests
Date: 14 Sep 1994 10:05:44 GMT
Organization: CS Department, University of Campinas

    > [Me:] I admit I am being paranoid here, but it is important to
    > clear up this point, since the power factor correction amounts
    > to half of the "excess heat" computed for Test 2.

    > [Jed:] You are welcome to discount half the excess for Test 2,
    > but please be aware that the excess is still gigantic in that
    > case, and the latest instruments fully bear out the
    > measurements.

Ok.  So we now have to account for 0.8 kWh instead of 1.6 kWh.
Under the "stored heat" hypothesis, that would require only
a 30 F drop in the mean temperature inside the rotor.
    
    > [Jed:] The [housing and rotor] temperatures must be very
    > close. They are both made of metal, ... both are in contact with
    > the steam and water.  I cannot imagine any mechanism that would
    > allow the rotor temperature to rise or fall 60 deg F while the
    > housing temperature remained unchanged. ... I daresay you cannot
    > either.

Well, here is again, in case you missed it:
 
    > [Me:] You can bring a bucket of water to a boil by dropping a
    > hot stone into it.  (I believe indians used this trick for
    > cooking).  While the water is boiling, the stone is cooling down
    > inside, but its surface---and the bucket---will stay put at 212 F.
    >
    > (The boiling temperature will be higher for a pressurized vessel, of
    > course; but you see the point.)

So, indeed, the temperature of the *inside surface* of the housing and the
rotor's *surface* are obviously the same as the water/steam touching
them.

But that isn't necessarily the temperature inside the rotor.

By the way, could you tell us how thick is the housing?
That would let us actually compute temperature drops and time 
constants, instead of guessing about them.

    > [Me:] My guess is that it takes quite a bit longer than 10
    > minutes, even for a solid aluminum rotor [to reach thermal
    > equilibrium within a few tens of degrees].  What is your guess?"
    
    > [Jed:] I guessed 10 minutes, but we gave it an hour or so in some
    > tests, while we made other preparations (or ate lunch). I guess
    > 10 minutes because that is how long it takes my Volvo engine to
    > come to thermal equilibrium, and the other large engines of that
    > class that I deal with every day.  I think it is a safe
    > guess. 
    
Guess again.

The rotor is quite bit thicker than the walls of a car engine.  
Do you know how the cooling time of an object scales with
its size?  (Hint: It is *not* linear.)

    > [Me:] Is the rotor really solid? Could it have internal cavities
    > that can hold water or steam?"

    > [Jed:] Yes, the rotor is solid, except of course, it has holes
    > drilled around the periphery as shown in the patent.
    
Thanks.
    
    > How on earth could it maintain structural integrity over
    > many years of hard use if it was not solid material?  Do you
    > expect to find spokes holding it together?

Electric motors don't have solid rotors. Turbines have spokes.  Energy
storage flywheels have hollow rotors.  Car engines aren't solid
blocks of steel.  They all seem to hold together pretty well.

    > If you know nothing about these things then what prompts you to
    > make these suggestions?
    
I am not making suggestions; I am merely asking questions.
It is hard to compute heat capacity and such for something
that is "mostly solid steel and aluminum".

Note that a solid rotor of that size is heavy (500 lbs), hard to spin
up (0.18 kWh for 3600 RPM), and hard to warm up (6 kWh for 100 F to
300 F).  A hollow rotor, say with 1in thick walls, would fare somewhat
better in these respects (unless it was filled with something else);
and would be just as sturdy.

Do these points matter?  Does a solid rotor have some advantages?
What is the cost of each design? Is the choice obvious? I can't guess,
that's why I ask.

    > [Me:] [How much free space is there] above and below the rotor?

    > [Jed:] The housing is round. The clearance is close all the way
    > around.

Ok, I take that means the axis is horizontal and not vertical.  Let me
try again: how much space is there between the housing and the flat
sides of the rotor?

    > [Me:] "But what is the RPM, and how much is that "significantly"?

    > [Jed:] I don't have the data with me. It fluctuated slightly at
    > times, but not more than a few percent. If anything, I recall it
    > went a bit faster when the effect turned on.

Well, thanks for a very informative answer.

    > I think at this point I must ask you to stop speculating so
    > much, get the patent 
    
Patent drawings are not blueprints; they can't answer this sort of
questions. (I hope you are not relying on them.)

    > and do your own homework.

I think I have done enough of it to deserve a few more answers.

    > Your hypothesis depends upon a 40 degree temperature drop to
    > explain the 20 minute excess. I suppose it would be 120 degree
    > temperature drop to explain the 1 hour excess I observed
    
Well, in the other test for which I have data (Test 3) the measurement
period was 50% longer than Test 2, but the excess heat was only 12%
more.

So, what matters is the amount of heat, not the length of time.

    > These devices have generated steady excess heat on demand for [2
    > years]. ... I said evidence and I meant evidence: data,
    > instrument readings. Data from customer sites like the power and
    > water meter readings over long periods of time confirm that the
    > devices generate excess energy continuously for years.

Claims that "evidence exists" are still claims, not evidence.

    > We now have much better data with power factor and other issues
    > double checked. ... I will upload details sometime in the coming
    > months, I hope before ICCF5. I cannot do that now, so you will
    > just have to take my word for it: the new, improved
    > instrumentation tells the same story as last year's setup, only
    > in far greater detail with redundant instrumentation. It is more
    > convincing.

Ok. We will be waiting.  Show the data, tell us how it was gathered,
and let us draw the conclusions.

    > I would say your hypothesis is weak --- moribund even.
    
Looks like it will survive for a few months more, at least.

    > [Me:] In the "positive" tests, the pump soaked XXX kW for some
    > 15-20 minutes; then consumption dropped by some 50%, and in the
    > next 20 min some 30% more energy came out than went in."
    
    > [Jed:] The pump did not and cannot "soak XXX kW (nor KWH) of
    > energy. There is no mechanism by which this could happen. 
    
All right, "soaked" was the wrong word; "sucked in" would be better.

As for the XXX, your numbers (for some unspecified test, cited by way
of example) were 23 kW in the "warmup" regime, 14 kW in the "heat
producing" regime.

    > [Jed:] You cannot cram megawatt hours of energy into a device 
    > of this size.

No, but you do cram 6 (six) kWh of energy into it when you warm that
rotor from 100 F to 300 F.  And we have only 1.6 kWh "excess heat" to
explain --- or 0.8 kWh, if the power factor adjustment are not valid.

    > [Jed:] [What errors?] You have only three places to look:
    > At the input power meter and dynamometer measurements.
    > At the weight scale.
    > At the temperature readings.

I trust that your *measurements* are basically correct.  The problem
is in the *assumptions* you made in their analysis.  Like, that 
the heat capacity of the machine is negligible; or that 10 min
are enough to establish thermal equilibrium; or that
the temperature of the housing is that of the rotor; or...

    > Nobody is claiming that the Griggs machine is a 'free energy'
    > machine. Evidently, it is a CF reactor, it converts hydrogen
    > into helium and releases energy.
    
Wow. Talk about unsupported assumptions...

I though it worked by shrinking hydrogen atoms. Or was it vacuum
energy?

Did you ever wonder how the fusion of deuterium into He (wait a moment
--- what deuterium? Oh, never mind...) could possibly lower the
friction in the pump by 50%?  And why the heat released by the fusion
happens to match exactly the drop in power draw by the motor, so that
the steam temperature and pressure remain constant?
    
    > I encourage you to look in the relevant places and stop worrying
    > what happens in the "black box" Pump in between.
    
Well, you have at least 6 kWh stored in there. You don't know the
temperature inside the rotor; you don't know how long it would take
for it to cool from X to Y degrees; and you don't know what is
happening to the water around it when the mysterious process kicks in.

Methinks it is time *you* should start worrying about what happens inside
that black box.

--stolfi

 ------------------------------------------------------------------
Jorge Stolfi, stolfi@dcc.unicamp.br
Computer Science Dept (DCC-IMECC), Univ of Campinas (UNICAMP)
13081 Campinas, SP -- BRAZIL   +55(192)39-8442
 ------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenstolfi cudfnJorge cudlnStolfi cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.14 / Dieter Britz /  Re: Griggs device
     
Originally-From: kemidb@aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs device
Date: 14 Sep 94 11:44:56 GMT

In <53667@mindlink.bc.ca> Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Dunn) writes:
[...]
>In one of the science.space groups, there was a posting relating (if I
>haven't mis-remembered), an amateur rocket using aluminum foil with water
>as the oxidizer.  I don't have thermodynamic references handy to pursue
>this idea - presumably the idea is that there is some form of energy
>releasing mechanism related to the oxidation of aluminum to an oxide or
>hydroxide by water (presumably with the release of hydrogen).

>I wonder whether there is a possibility of aluminum oxidation in cavitation
>induced erosion of the aluminum rotor, either by water or by atmospheric
>oxygen dissolved in the water?  Perhaps Jed could give some upper limits to
>the amount of aluminum disappearing from the rotor during a run.

Al is in fact one of the more reactive metals, strangely enough, considering
its corrosion resistance. We owe this to the thin oxide film that forms on the
Al surface immediately. I once saw a demo in school, where the teacher put some
mercury together with Al. The Hg continually lifted off the oxide film as the
Al oxidised, and this it did, getting hot and crumbling into a white powder
before our eyes.

The "Rubber Bible" lists the free energy of formation of Al2O3 as -377 kcal/mol
and this is a lot. Compare, e.g., that for CO2 (coal burning!), -94. If you
prefer enthalpies, they are, resp., -399 and -94. What luck for us that Al has
that oxide film.
-- 
Dieter Britz   alias kemidb@aau.dk

cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenkemidb cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.14 / Dieter Britz /  Re: Griggs Gadget and aluminum oxidation
     
Originally-From: kemidb@aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs Gadget and aluminum oxidation
Date: 14 Sep 94 12:00:02 GMT

Sorry folks, I can't seem to get back to the original posting, so I am
quoting quotes of quotes:

In <53668@mindlink.bc.ca> Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Dunn) writes:

>After posting a query regarding the possibility of the aluminum rotor of
>the Griggs machine oxidizing and releasing heat, more information surfaced
>in science.space.policy.

>Paul Dietz wrote:

>> Jim Glass wrote:
>>
>>   >  Water as an oxidizer?  I think not.
>>

I just posted the free energy of formation of Al2O3, but then realised that
the question really was whether WATER can oxidise Al. Thermodynamically
speaking, it can, if you balance the free energies of formation in the equation
Al  + 3H2O --> Al(OH)3 + 1.5 H2; it comes to a free energy change of about -400
kJ/mol (of Al(OH)3), so it's spontaneous. In addition, there is oxygen dissol-
ved in the water, although at a lowish concentration (about 0.3 mM). All this
will only happen if you have freshly exposed Al surface.
-- 
Dieter Britz   alias kemidb@aau.dk

cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenkemidb cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.14 / Jed Rothwell /  Re: Griggs device tests
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@CompuServe.COM>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs device tests
Date: 14 Sep 1994 22:20:38 GMT
Organization: CFRA

stolfi@src.dec.com (Jorge Stolfi), who is getting a bit tiresome, asks what
the r.p.m. on the GG were. In two tests the were a steady 3535 rpm whenever I
looked (every 2 minutes). With a different rotor I saw 3520 steady except in
case when the speed dropped briefly to 3515. These were the numbers before and
during the run.
 
Stolphi also writes:
 
     "Ok.  So we now have to account for 0.8 kWh instead of 1.6 kWh..."
 
No we do not. The latest tests show that the machine produces at least 50%
excess, probably more. Some tests run much longer than 20 minutes, some for
hours. Even if we assume the worst case, and assume that last year's test was
0.8 kWh - for the sake of argument only - that would mean that a 2 hour run
stored 4.8 KWH, and in the 15 minute warm up period before an 8 hour all day
run, the machines must have stored 19.2 KWH. Let me repeat, one last time, the
machine will continue to show an excess for as long as you leave it on. I saw
it go for a couple of hours one day, other people have watched it go all day
with good instruments, customers, using relatively crude but reliable
instruments, have watched it produce excess heat on demand for years.
 
 
     "Under the "stored heat" hypothesis, that would require only a 30 F drop
     in the mean temperature inside the rotor."
 
In the 20 minute test with your numbers, yes. How about a 2 hour test? How
about an all day test? How many degrees can you drop?
 
 
     "So, indeed, the temperature of the *inside surface* of the housing and
     the rotor's *surface* are obviously the same as the water/steam touching
     them. . . . But that isn't necessarily the temperature inside the
     rotor."
 
Please address the issue I raised. How could the rotor temperature drop 60 F,
or even 30 F, and not have the housing temperature drop some measurable amount
sometime during the next hour or two? How could such a thing happen? Whether
or there is a significant temperature difference between the two I do not
know, I suppose the housing acts as insulation, so there may well be one. But
how could the housing remain at 350 deg F for an hour when the inside had
cooled down so much?
 
 
     "Well, in the other test for which I have data (Test 3) the measurement
     period was 50% longer than Test 2, but the excess heat was only 12%
     more. . . . So, what matters is the amount of heat, not the length of
     time."
 
That is incorrect. The heat will continue at a constant rate for as long as
you let the machine run. If we had left Test 3 run for an hour, we would have
gotten far more than 112% of test one. However, when we measure enthalpy with
the barrel (as opposed to a steam test or some other method), we cannot go
much beyond 20,000 BTU. The reason, obviously, is safety. We let the barrel up
to about 140 deg F last time, which is dangerously hot. It is quite a large
mass of water. Furthermore we cannot let the barrel fill up to the top with
condensate, it would be an extreme hazard if it began to overflow.
 
Tests lasting longer than 30 minutes or so must rely on steam tables or flow
calorimetry, which is not as accurate or easy to understand. They show an
excess as well, of course. You can combine two or more methods in one test,
and show that barrel agrees with the steam computations, then you can do an 8
hour steam test. It is quite impossible to do an 8 hour barrel test.
 
 
     "Claims that "evidence exists" are still claims, not evidence."
 
Everything I am typing here is a claim. You have no proof of any of this, I
might be making up the whole thing as I go along. If you do not believe me,
and you do not take my word for it, then I suggest you withdraw from the
conversation. If - from your point of view - this is merely Jed's fantasy,
then what could possibly be interesting about it? Who cares about a crackpot
fantasy? Unless I am describing a real experiment and real data, why should
you care about it at all? The evidence exists, I have copies of it in my file.
It is generally in form of flow calorimetry (what HVAC people usually
perform), spot checks, and utility bills. I am not at liberty to post it,
because it comes from customers and other private sources, and I do not feel
like describing things in that kind of detail. You will have to wait for the
ICCF5 paper for more nitty gritty detail.
 
 
     "I trust that your *measurements* are basically correct.  The problem is
     in the *assumptions* you made in their analysis.  Like, that the heat
     capacity of the machine is negligible; or that 10 min are enough to
     establish thermal equilibrium. . ."
 
It comes to equilibrium on the outside after 10 min, and the outside stays at
at that temperature for hours, it is very stable. How on earth could the
inside be fluctuating 20 or 40 or 60 F?!? Why would it not eventually show up?
 
 
     "or that the temperature of the housing is that of the rotor; or..."
 
I never said that. I said they must be close, and the outside must surely be
some percent of the inside. It is like the temperature of the glass surface of
a water cell with a joule heater. There is a precise relationship between
them; when the heater temperature drops 60 deg F, the outside glass surface
will eventually drop some predictable amount too. It cannot remain at exactly
the same temperature for an hour after that. The heat transfer coefficient for
water and a steel engine block is such that the engine block heats and cools
rapidly. Internal changes are quickly reflected in external temperature. I
have had more than enough experience with ICE to know that fact!
 
 
     "I though it worked by shrinking hydrogen atoms. Or was it vacuum
     energy?"
 
The most conservative hypothesis is based on the mainstream CF work, which
shows helium commensurate with conventional fusion. In any case, what possible
difference could it make what causes it? Why should anyone care about that?
 
 
     "Did you ever wonder how the fusion of deuterium into He (wait a moment
     --- what deuterium? Oh, never mind...) could possibly lower the friction
     in the pump by 50%?"
 
No, I never wonder about such unimportant and esoteric matters. I am sure the
fusion that has nothing to do with that. It must be function of the ultrasonic
bubbles, steam, or some other mechanical function. I don't know which. I am
only interested in the calorimetry.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.14 / Mark Olson /  Re: Free Energy device: More info on the Hydrosonic Pump!
     
Originally-From: molson@apollo.tricord.com (Mark Olson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Free Energy device: More info on the Hydrosonic Pump!
Date: 14 Sep 1994 14:46:14 GMT
Organization: Tricord Systems, Inc.



   I've been reading the articles on the Griggs device, and it seems that
(correct me if I'm wrong) a large part of the energy output calculations
assume that the output water is condensed from steam. 
  
   Ultrasound machines are quite good at atomizing water.  Is there any
data on how much of the "steam" is not steam but water droplets?  If
there was any substantial amount of unvaporized water in the output this
would throw the calculations off by a large amount, imho...

This has been posted to sci.physics.fusion only, since I only read this
group.

Mark Olson

cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenmolson cudfnMark cudlnOlson cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.14 / Jed Rothwell /  Re: Heat pumps
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@CompuServe.COM>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Heat pumps
Date: 14 Sep 1994 16:56:36 GMT
Organization: CFRA

c1prasad@watson.ibm.com (prasad) points out a fact that will take some getting
used to:
 
     "We're turning-the-next-century now."
 
Good Lord Yes. So we are. I was referring to the era when my grandmother was
in grade school.
 
Prasad then asks a series of questions in reference to this diagram, which I
shall address one at a time:
 
 
                C                       D
                -------------------------
        A     B |                       | E     F
        ---------                       ----------
        ---------    GG (black box)     ----------      hot o/p end
cold i/p end    |                       |
                -------------------------
 
AB= cold water inlet
EF= hot water/steam outlet
CD= the outside of the GG (tank+rotor, etc)
Ta= ambient temperature
 
 
     "We know that EF and CD are at T > Ta, and probably so is the outside of
     the inlet pipe AB.
 
Yes, inlet pipe A B is considerably hotter than ambient. The section of pipe
attached to the GG is too hot to touch, sections farther away are noticeably
warm.
 
 
     "However, can we be sure that the intake water AB is at T >= Ta as well
     when the GG goes into hyperdrive?
 
Yes, we can be sure of that. The temperature at points between A and B is
measured with thermocouples and dial thermometers in the pipe, and the
temperature of the water in the feedwater input hopper is measured just before
the experiment begins. It is tap water which is usually a little cooler than
ambient air in summer and a little warmer in winter. Tap water in Atlanta, GA
in my office at this moment is 71 deg F. In a typical test, 30 lbs of
feedwater are used, which would gain or lose roughly 150 BTU to get to
ambient. This amount of energy is insignificant in the context of this
experiment.
 
 
     "Do we already have data on the in-operation inlet *water* (not pipe)
     temperature?"
 
Yes, we do. The paper says, "both the water in the tank and the feedwater
going into the device start out at room temperature."
 
     "Or can someone explain why this too should be impossible?"
 
Yes, I can explain why this is impossible. If the GG extracted significant
energy from water in the incoming stream at any point, it would then simply
add the energy back in again to that same water, and the net effect would be
zero. You need a *separate body of water* to make this heat pump idea work.
Taking heat out of the water at point A-B and putting it back in again at GG
(black box) would have not create any excess at all. Remember that there is
no gain or loss in the mass of water. Input into the hopper and output into
the barrel are measured and found equal. Furthermore, there is no physical
mechanism that would allow the GG to reach out and extract heat from the
feedwater tank or from the water flowing through the pipe. There are no freon
pipes, wires, thermoelectric devices or any other heat pump components or
hardware near the feedwater tank, hopper, or pipes. There is no machine
to take the heat out of the pipe! The GG is a small, self contained unit.
It cannot reach across the room to the pipe and cool it down. If the GG is a
heat pump, then all of the heat transfer action *must take place right
there at the unit itself*, the effect must begin and end at that spot.
 
 
     "In this case, the outside of pipe AB, especially near the end B, can
     keep getting hot because of more heat being conducted through the metal
     from CD region, whereas the water inside AB can be colder because it
     doesn't remain there long enough for getting warmed back to >= Ta."
 
The water outside AB is slightly colder or warmer than Ta, as noted above. The
difference is insignificant.
 
 
     "The chilling of water in AB would be noticeable if the temperature is
     measured *inside* the water there, rather than simply feeling the
     outside of the pipe, which would get warmed by the tank anyway."
 
As noted above, water temperature in the pipe is measured with dial
thermometers and thermocouples. But the best way to be sure is to put your
hand on the pipe near point B. A plain uninsulated steel pipe will rapidly
conduct water temperature to the outside. A 20,000 BTUH deficit would have to
be noticeable on the outside! The water in the pipe would freeze solid,
blocking the flow and covering the pipe with frost. It is impossible to
extract 20,000 BTUH from a 11 gallon per hour flow of water without freezing
it solid. You could not even extract 2,000 BTUH without noticing; it would
lower the water and pipe temperature by 18 deg F, measured one foot away from
point B. (Assuming the pipe is 6 feet total and cools down evenly over the
entire length, removing 2,000 BTU from 91 pounds of water = 22 deg temperature
drop, 5/6ths of which equals roughly 18 degrees. Remember, the GG-as-heat-pump
would produce an effect *10 times larger* than this!)
 
More important, it is impossible to extract fantastic amounts of energy from
the water in an ordinary pipe without wrapping the pipe with freon tubes or
some other hardware. Energy will never hop out of an ordinary steel pipe on
its own initiative, cross the room, and jump into the GG. Something must carry
it thermodynamically uphill. You must have hardware in contact with the pipe
to extract and move the energy. Something must carry it; something visible;
something VERY BIG must be wrapped around the pipe. A gigantic freon filled
heat pump cooling coil array might do the job. The hardware in contact with
the pipe would have to be at least as large as a 20,000 BTUH central air
conditioner cooling coil unit.
 
With all due respect, I think it would help a great deal if the people writing
comments about the Griggs device would familiarize themselves with plumbing,
water heaters, and heating and air conditioning units, cooling coils and other
hardware. Some of you seem to lack an intuitive grasp concepts like "20,000
BTUs" and how much heat pump equipment it takes to move thousands of BTUs per
hour. You seem to think that the cooling coils on a central air conditioner
could be hidden, or made invisible. I suggest you visit Sears, look at clean
new equipment, and ask yourself whether you could hide it in your pocket and
shoplift it. I myself would have difficulty just lifting the unit, never mind
shoplifting. A refresher course in plumbing, a quick look at steel and copper
pipes near your household water heater might clear up confusion here.
However, PLEASE BE CAREFUL!!! Don't play games with this equipment, you can
get a nasty burn. Carefully, then: read the BTUH ratings on your equipment
cabinets, feel the input and output pipes near the water heater and in the
bathroom. Check out the size of those cooling coils. Observe the pipe
temperatures and the water temperature as you fill the bath with hot water.
Observe how quickly the pipe heat up and cool down as the water temperature
changes. You will get a good sense of the levels of energy, heat and
conductivity.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.14 / John Lewis /  Re: Kamada - old papers
     
Originally-From: court@newton.physics.mun.ca (John Lewis)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Kamada - old papers
Date: 14 Sep 1994 18:21:19 GMT
Organization: Memorial University of Nfld, St. John's, NF

In article <940914052128_70047.3047_EHB129-1@CompuServe.COM>
70047.3047@compuserve.com (Bill Page) writes:
>Alejandro Rivero writes:
><<
>> ...                                                   They reference
>>H.A. Bethe and C.L. Critchfield in Phys. Rev. Vol 54 (1938) pp. 248, as
>>providing the theoretical basis for a H-H or D-D fusion reaction based on
>>high energy electron capture induced beta disintegration of constituent
>>protons of H2 molecules and the D nucleus that they claim may explain
>>the observations.
>
> Could anyone give the abstract of this "classical paper", or include
>it in the bibl. database? Our library lacks of years 36-45 of
>the Phys Rev, by obvious reasons (this is Europe).
> 
>One thing I dont understand is why all the old stuff has not been
>cited the first years after FP announcement. Everyone forgets
>previous work, It seems.
 ...
Forgets?  Hardly!!  Any text on nuclear astrophysics will
include the first step of the proton-proton chains [!!!],
and if the text is any good, it will state that the work
dates back to Hans Bethe.  D.D. Clayton's "Principles
of Stella Structure and Nucleosynthesis", for example, begins
its discussion with a citation of Bethe (PR 55 434 (1939), however,
rather than the 1938 paper). 
Calculations of the rate for p+p -> D + e^+ + \nu_e have,
however, been done and
redone several times, so that direct quotes from Bethe's papers
are only of historical
interest.  And Bethe in the 1938 paper omits mention of the neuutrino ...

J.Lewis
St. John's, Newfouundland

cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudencourt cudfnJohn cudlnLewis cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.14 /  jonesse@xray.b /  Rothwell's attacks against Jones
     
Originally-From: jonesse@xray.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Rothwell's attacks against Jones
Date: 14 Sep 94 14:32:15 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

Mr. Jed Rothwell has made the following statements about me which are
unsubstantiated and, I maintain, false.  I offer him another chance to
back up his statements about me with supporting facts, or to retract them.

1.  JR:  "They are like the Jones claim that you can input 10 watts of
electricity and get out 50 watts of heat from 'recombination'."
       [JRothwell Sept. 1994]
I never made this claim.

2.  JR:  "I cannot judge nuclear physics, you do not even understand
high-school level electrochemistry.  In any case your critique of Dufour is
incorrect..."  [J. Rothwell Sept. 1994]
  I remind the reader that I critiqued the Dufour paper for proposing
reactions involving three reactants, in particular, 
  1H2 + 2He4 + e-  -->  2He6 + neutrino  (in a cold fusion experiment).
Let Rothwell defend such nonsense if he can.

3.  JR:  "Jones is a consummate liar and plagiarist."  [J. Rothwell July 1994]
I have made mistakes and tried to correct them.  To call me a "consummate liar
and plagiarist" is unsubstantiated, false, and defamatory.  I demanded that
Mr. Rothwell
substantiate these charges before, and repeat that insistence now.  This is a
public medium and such false accusations cannot be made with impunity.

4.  JR:  "He [Jones] tried to steal Pons and Fleischmann's idea in 1989..."
[J. Rothwell July 1994]
Neither substantiated nor true; just what did I try to steal anyway?  

Note that Frank Close has studied this matter and included it in his book
"Too Hot to Handle:  The Race for Cold Fusion", and he replied to Jed in
July 1994:
"In Jed Rothwell's attack on Steve Jones, claiming that Jones stole from
Fleischmann and Pons, Rothwell shows ignorance of the history and origins of
the cold fusion fiasco."

The reader can find the rest of Frank's post "Rothwell accusation against 
Jones and 'late' water heaters" in the sci.physics.fusion archives, July 1994; 
or his book can be consulted.


I think that Mr. Rothwell, in attempting to discredit me, is ultimately
discrediting no one but himself.  But let him substantiate his accusations if
he can.

Sincerely,
Steven E. Jones


cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenjonesse cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.14 /  jonesse@xray.b /  Storms on CF in Los Alamos Monitor
     
Originally-From: jonesse@xray.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Storms on CF in Los Alamos Monitor
Date: 14 Sep 94 14:53:38 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

An interesting article appears in the newspaper "Los Alamos Monitor" for 
August 31, 93, headlined:  "Storms:  Interest in cold fusion resurging."

A few quotes:
"Edmund Storms, a retired LANL radiochemist, thinks cold fusion is real and
important."
"While interest is growing, it's still not 'bubbling over,' he said.  But his
will change, he said.  Interest 'will breed on itself as more and more people
get positive results,' he said."
"Theoreticians now are beginning to advance theories that could explain the
phenomenon, and a bill in the House of Representatives would require the
National Academy of Sciences to re-examine cold fusion, he said."

[Does anyone know about this bill?]

"There's even a magazine called 'Cold Fusion,' and Storms believes in the
phenomenon strongly enough that it's his face tha's on the cover of the first
issue."

[We now hear that this magazine is, er, in trouble.]

"Storms said he believes that under the right conditions, matter in the cold
fusion experiment enters a different state, analogous to how metal can conduct
electricity with no resistance if cooled enough.  In this different state,
he said, the electrons somehow screen the two deuteron nuclei from each other
so they can merge."

[He's definitely thinking *cold fusion* of deuterons here.]

"But Storms fears that the Japanese may corner the market.  'The Japanese are
firmly committed (to cold fusion) at high government levels,' he said."
"And the Japanese are funding Pons and Fleischmann..."

"If the U.S. doesn't put funding into cold fusion research, 'We're going to be
just as badly hurt as if we had lost the competition with the Russians,' Storms
said -- only the damage will be economic rather than physical.  And again, LANL
should take part, Storms said."

--submitted by S. Jones 9-14-94
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenjonesse cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.14 / Robert Heeter /  Section 2A - Energy - Technical Aspects - Conventional Fusion FAQ
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Section 2A - Energy - Technical Aspects - Conventional Fusion FAQ
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 1994 03:53:06 GMT
Organization: Princeton University


Archive-name: ConventionalFusionFAQ/Section2A-Energy-Technical
Last-modified: 13-Sept-1994
Posting-frequency: More-or-less-monthly

******************************************************************
2A. Technical Characteristics of Fusion as a Future Energy Source
* This FAQ deals with conventional fusion only, not Cold Fusion. *

This is a draft only and is not to be copied or cited at this time.

First Draft:  September 13, 1994
Written by Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@pppl.gov, unless
otherwise cited.

*** Please let me know if anything here is unclear. ***


*** A.  Technical Characteristics of Fusion Energy

 *	1.  What would a fusion energy plant look like?

In the most basic picture, you need a fusion reactor to create the
fusion energy, and you need an electricity-generating plant to 
convert the fusion energy to electricity.  A method for transferring
the fusion energy from the reactor to the generator is also needed.  
(You could also generate thermal energy if it would be useful near 
your fusion plant, such as for industrial process heat, and if your
reactor is safe enough to operate near other facilities.)

Details beyond this basic picture depend on the confinement method
used, the fuel used, and the choice of technology for converting
the fusion energy to electricity.  The confinement method
determines how your fusion reactor will work, and influences what
fuels you can use; different confinement approaches are discussed in
Section 4 of the FAQ.

Fusion reactors based on magnetic confinement and D-T fuel are
believed to be the strongest candidates at this time for commercial
energy production, and will be discussed most extensively below.


 * 2.  What fuels can a fusion reactor burn?

The different fusion reactions were discussed in Section 1.  It is
expected that early fusion reactors will burn deuterium and tritium
as their fuels; the neutrons produced in the D-T reaction will be
reacted with lithium in a "blanket" around the reactor, thus 
"breeding" more tritium.  More advanced fuels such as D-D, D-He3, 
and p-B11 will require better confinement and higher temperatures,
and will probably not be used right away. 

The D-D reaction has the most abundant fuel, followed by D-T with Li.
Details on fuel resources are given below in part B on environmental
characteristics.

Unless otherwise noted, the discussion below will assume the D-T
fuel cycle.


 * 3.  What are the different methods for converting fusion energy
to useful energy?

Generally it is expected that fusion energy will be converted to
electrical energy.  However, one might want to make lots of heat
to drive chemical reactions, perhaps to make hydrogen as a fuel.
The easiest method to convert fusion energy to electricity is to
collect the fusion energy as heat, use the heat to boil water,
and then drive a good 'ol steam turbine.  Alternatives use something
besides water as the heat transfer fluid (say liquid metal, or helium)
and something besides water as the turbine driver (such as helium).
These more advanced turbines are somewhat more efficient.  (Steam
turbines have a conversion efficiency of about 35%, and advanced
turbines can get up to about 50%.)

In principle, energy can also be extracted from a fusion reactor 
in the form of charged reaction-product particles (such as p-B11 
or D-He3).  In this case one can use magnetohydrodynamic conversion 
(or direct conversion) to convert the motion of the energetic 
reaction products directly to electrical energy.  This conversion 
can be up to 95% efficient.  However, direct conversion is only 
useful on the fraction of the energy which is in the form of charged 
particles.  The D-T fuel cycle generates most of its energy in the 
form of neutrons, so the thermal cycles described above must be 
used.  The advanced, aneutronic fuels are more suitable for 
direct conversion.


 * 4.  What would a D-T fusion reactor look like?

[[ The following paraphrases answers written by Arthur Carlson. ]]

A D-T fueled fusion reactor would have a fusion vacuum chamber, 
where the actual reactions take place; then there is the "first 
wall," which maintains the integrity of the vacuum while transmitting 
the neutrons from the D-T reaction.  The first wall needs to 
withstand bombardment from stray plasma particles, and also to 
withstand the high stresses which can occur if the plasma 
misbehaves, loses confinement, and disrupts into the wall.  

Beyond the first wall there will be a neutron-absorbing, 
tritium-generating blanket (which would most likely contain 
lots of lithium to generate tritium).  Within and outside the 
blanket would be tritium collecting equipment and heat 
extraction equipment.  The systems used to generate fusion in 
the vacuum chamber (laser or particle beam channels for inertial 
or muon fusion, electromagnet coils for magnetic fusion) would 
also lie in/outside the blanket.  Finally, shielding would
be needed for radiation-sensitive components, and to prevent 
stray radiation from leaving the reactor.

The first walls currently in use in experimental reactors are 
mostly made from stainless steel.  However, stainless steel
is not the best material, and advanced machines (such as TPX - see
sections 5 and 9) will be made from advanced materials, most
likely vanadium alloys.  These advanced materials are designed
to withstand the unique conditions in a fusion reactor, including
high thermal & mechanical stress and intense neutron bombardment.
In addition, they're designed to not become too radioactive, and
to decay quickly so as not to create long-term radioactive waste. 


* 5.  How do you get the plasma hot enough for fusion to occur?

Much of the answer given below is taken from the PPPL World-Wide Web
homepage (which is public domain).  PPPL material is in "quotations".

"In an operating fusion reactor, part of the energy generated will 
serve to maintain the plasma temperature as fresh deuterium and 
tritium are introduced. However, in the startup of a reactor, either 
initially or after a temporary shutdown, the plasma will have to be 
heated to 100 million degrees Celsius.  In current tokamak (and 
other) magnetic fusion experiments, insufficient fusion energy is 
produced to maintain the plasma temperature. Consequently, the 
devices operate in short pulses and the plasma must be heated afresh 
in every pulse." 

There are several methods for heating plasmas.  These include Ohmic 
Heating, Neutral Beam Injection, Magnetic Compression, 
Radio-Frequency Heating, and Inertial Compression.  Each of these is 
discussed below. 

     5a:  Ohmic Heating 

"Since the plasma is an electrical conductor, it is possible to heat 
the plasma by passing a current through it; in fact, the current that 
generates the poloidal field also heats the plasma. This is called 
ohmic (or resistive) heating; it is the same kind of heating that 
occurs in an electric light bulb or in an electric heater." 

"The heat generated depends on the resistance of the plasma and the 
current. But as the temperature of heated plasma rises, the 
resistance decreases and the ohmic heating becomes less effective. It 
appears that the maximum plasma temperature attainable by ohmic 
heating in a tokamak is 20-30 million degrees Celsius. To obtain 
still higher temperatures, additional heating methods must be used." 

     5b:  Neutral-Beam Injection 

"Neutral-beam injection involves the introduction of high-energy 
(neutral) atoms into the ohmically -- heated, magnetically -- 
confined plasma. The atoms are immediately ionized and are trapped by 
the magnetic field. The high-energy ions then transfer part of their 
energy to the plasma particles in repeated collisions, thus 
increasing the plasma temperature." 

     5c:  Magnetic Compression 

"A gas can be heated by sudden compression. In the same way, the 
temperature of a plasma is increased if it is compressed rapidly by 
increasing the confining magnetic field. In a tokamak system this 
compression is achieved simply by moving the plasma into a region of 
higher magnetic field (i.e. radially inward). Since plasma 
compression brings the ions closer together, the process has an 
additional benefit of facilitating attainment of the required density 
for a fusion reactor." 

     5d:  Radiofrequency Heating 

"In radiofrequency heating, high-frequency waves are generated 
by oscillators outside the torus. If the waves have a particular 
frequency (or wavelength), their energy can be transferred to the 
charged particles in the plasma, which in turn collide with other 
plasma particles, thus increasing the temperature of the bulk 
plasma."

     5e:  Inertial Compression 

This is similar to magnetic compression in that decreasing the gas
volume causes the temperature to rise, but in the inertial approach
the compression is achieved by using laser or particle beams to
heat the outer layer of a target pellet; the outer layer vaporizes
and the pressure that the vaporized layer exerts back on the
core of the pellet accelerates the plasma inward on itself, and
the inertia of the imploding atoms in the pellet allows the pellet
to be compressed (for a very short time), and thus heated.


* 6.  What are the materials requirements for fusion?  
      Are any of these materials scarce?

First we need some definitions:  
     "Reserve" = amount of a given substance which we know we 
     can extract today at current prices with current technology.

     "Resource" = amount of a substance which is present in the
     earth which could conceivably be extracted.

In general, reserves of fusion materials are sufficient for 
all current needs, and resources are sufficient for all projected
future needs for millions of years to come.

- Fuel: D is very abundant; T can be made with blanket (see below)

- Neutron Blanket: 
     Lithium (Li) (which will be used to breed tritium (T)) 
is abundant in seawater as well as in the crust.  Current 
reserves (Li is mostly obtained through mining on land) 
are 2.21 million metric tons, sufficient to build probably 
hundreds of reactors.  Oceanic resources are sufficient to 
meet current and projected world energy needs for millions 
of years to come, without costing significantly more.

- Reactor Structure:
    Silicon Carbide (SiC) and Vanadium or Vanadium-Titanium 
alloy are the primary candidates for reactor structures.  
Carbon of course is everywhere; silicon is also highly 
abundant.  Reserves of vanadium are currently 4.27 million 
metric tons; Vanadium is present in many minerals not currently
used as ores, so the total resource is significantly larger.  
Reserves of titanium are currently 288.6 million metric tons.  
(Source:  _World Resources 1992-1993_)

A 1000 MW fusion reactor would use on the order of 1000 tons 
of vanadium, most of which could probably be recycled from 
one reactor into a new one (after a waiting period of tens of 
years for the radiactivity to decrease).  So vanadium reserves 
will not be stretched until probably hundreds of fusion reactors 
have been built, by which time new reserves will most likely 
be available.  (This does take into account other uses of vanadium.)

- Magnet Materials: 
    We're not sure just what future fusion reactors will use for
their electromagnets, primarily because superconductor technology
is still evolving.  Reactor designs generally try to prevent
radiation damage to the magnets (which could destroy their 
superconductivity) so magnets are not generally consumed in a
reactor; to my knowledge there is no projected shortage of
magnet materials.    


* 7.  How large would a fusion reactor be?  Why?

Fusion reactors are generally expected to have significant
economies of scale, such that the cost-of-electricity from
a reactor will be most competitive in larger (thousands of
megawatts) plants.  The minimum competitive size of a fusion
plant, under current expectations, is probably around 
3000 megawatts of fusion power, which (after converting 
to electricity) comes to about 1000 to 1500 megawatts of 
electric power that can be sold.  (The U.S. consumes 
about 1 kilowatt of electricity per capita, so 1000 
megawatts = 1,000,000 kilowatts = enough energy for a city 
of a million people.)  It possible that this minimum size
will come down as fusioneers come to understand the physics
and improve their reactor concepts, and it's certainly
possible that the electricity cost will come down.
(More on this in section 2D on fusion energy economics.)
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.14 / Robert Heeter /  Status Update - Conventional Fusion FAQ
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Status Update - Conventional Fusion FAQ
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 1994 03:37:28 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

I've begun sending some of the sections of the FAQ to
news.answers and sci.answers to navigate the official 
FAQ acceptance process.  So far these include the introductory
sections (section 0); fusion as a physical phenomenon (section 1),
and the bibliography (section 11).  With luck this will
be approved shortly and show up on the group.  Other sections
which will "go official" after I give them one more lookover
include the Status of Devices section (section 5), Recent 
Results (Section 6), Educational Opportunities 
(section 7), and Internet Info Resources (section 8);
plus the Glossary/Frequently Used Terms sections (10A to 10F)
and the Acknowledgements section (section 12).

Meanwhile, I'm in the process of drafting some more
of the not-yet written sections.  Section 2A on 
technical aspects of fusion energy will be posted
for comments, suggestions, and corrections shortly.
Section 3 (fusion as a research program) is also
being drafted, and I'm continuing to work on 4B
(alternative/non-toroidal-magnetic confinement 
approaches).

Just thought I'd post this so interested people 
know what's up!

***************************
Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University
As always, I represent only myself, and not PPPL
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.14 / Robert Heeter /  Section 4B - Approaches-Alternative - Conventional Fusion FAQ
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Section 4B - Approaches-Alternative - Conventional Fusion FAQ
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 1994 03:53:15 GMT
Organization: Princeton University


Archive-name: ConventionalFusionFAQ/Section4B-Approaches-Alternative
Last-modified: 11-Sept-1994
Posting-frequency: More-or-less-monthly

*****************************************************************
4B. Alternative Methods of Confinement / Approaches to Fusion:
(i.e., not toroidal magnetic confinement approaches.)
* This FAQ deals with conventional fusion only, not Cold Fusion. *

While this section is not yet complete, it should be useful to
many people, and I encourage you to distribute it to anyone who
might be interested (and willing to help revise it!!!).

Second Draft - September 11, 1994
Written by Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@pppl.gov, unless
otherwise cited.

This section discusses alternative methods of confining plasmas,
and other methods of creating fusion via conventional physics.
The ordering is based on my own personal bias regarding the
extent to which each approach has been pursued.



*** 0.  Gravitational Confinement

This of course is how the sun and other stars have achieved fusion
for billions of years.  Unfortunately it requires star-sized objects
to achieve this type of fusion, so this does not represent an
option available for controlled fusion research here on Earth.
For more information on gravitational confinement see the relevant
portions of Section 1 on Fusion as a Physical Phenomenon.


*** 1.  Inertial Confinement Fusion

(I haven't had time to write this up yet - anyone want to
write a blurb?)

NIF is described in Science, 8 April 1994, p. 198.


*** 2.  Mirror Confinement

(same problem here as with (1) above)



*** 3. Muon-catalyzed fusion

* A. What is Muon-Catalyzed Fusion (mu-c-f)?

The muon is a heavy cousin of the electron, which has about
200 times the electron's mass, or roughly 1/10th the proton
mass, and the same charge as an electron.  Because of its
heavier mass, the muon likes to orbit much closer to the 
nucleus than the electron does, and is therefore more strongly
bound to the nucleus.  Because more energy is released in
binding a muon than in binding an electron, a free muon
travelling through an atom will rapidly displace the electron
and go into a tightly bound state near the nucleus.  If this
nucleus is a hydrogen isotope within an H2 type molecule (say
a D-D or D-T molecule), the muon screens the proton so well
that the two nuclei in the molecule can approach close enough to
have an appreciable chance of fusing.

Now the muon typically only lives about 2 microseconds, so 
eventually it will disintegrate, but it turns out that in some
cases the fusion can occur on a timescale much shorter than
the muon's lifetime.  Not only that, but the muon is typically
kicked out of the helium atom that is formed in the fusion,
because the energy released by the fusion goes into the kinetic
energy of the helium (and proton or neutron) that is formed.
Because the muon lasts long enough, and is not used up in the
fusion itself, a single muon can catalyze multiple fusion reactions;
hence the name "Muon-Catalyzed Fusion."  Muon-fusion is the
original form of "Cold Fusion," since the muon-catalysis cycle
works on diatomic gaseous molecules, and doesn't require the
million-degree plus temperatures which hot plasma fusion requires.


* B. What is the status of muon-catalyzed fusion research?
* C. What are the major problems to be overcome?

Scientists who originally worked in muon-catalyzed fusion found
that it was very difficult to get enough fusions to make up
for the energy cost in creating the muons (which must be created
using particle accelerators in order to have a sufficient number
of them).  However, later researchers found molecular resonances
which speed the catalysis cycle, so that a single muon can now
catalyze over 150 fusions (in D-T fuel, which fuses the most
readily).  This is sufficient energy to repay the energy cost
of creating the muons, so muon-catalyzed fusion can be said to
have achieved scientific breakeven.  But it will be difficult to
get even more fusions, primarily because the muon has a tendency
to "stick" to the helium nucleus (alpha particle) created in the
fusion, and thus to be lost from the catalysis cycle.  There are
theoretical reasons to think this muon-alpha sticking may set
a fundamental limit on the efficiency of muon-catalyzed fusion.
Muon-catalyzed fusion will not make a viable energy source unless
(a) the probability of muon-alpha sticking can be reduced somehow,
or (b) the energy cost of muon production can be greatly reduced.
Partly because of pessimism created by these results, muon-catalyzed
fusion has lost a lot of funding in recent years.

Steven Jones mentions that there are still plans for future 
experiments:  "We have not totally given up in this quest, hope 
to push above twice liquid-hydrogen density in a d-t target to 
determine whether the sticking coefficient decreases
significantly at high densities.  (Experiment proposed for Dubna.)  
[ Dubna is a Russian nuclear physics research center. ]

Also, Jones says:  "Note that mu-c-f is just a factor of 
roughly 15 below *commercial* power breakeven.  It's maddening 
that we could push that close and yet not make the goal."


* D. Can mu-c-f work using other catalysts or other fuels?
Which is best?

1. Other catalysts:

It's possible to use other heavy, negatively-charged particles
instead of the muon (such as a negative pion or an antiproton),
but typically these require more energy to create, also have
sticking problems, and have shorter lifetimes than muons, so they
are not as good as muons at catalyzing fusion reactions.
Steven Jones points out, "More than that:  pions and anti-protons 
(and kaons, ...) are strongly-interacting particles, unlike muons.  
Hence, pions and p-bars will react strongly with any nuclei in 
the target and be lost to catalysis."  [Whereas weak particles don't
react rapidly with nuclei, and therefore can survive to catalyze
other reactions.]  Jones adds, "So we are left with 
negatively-charged leptons:  electrons (too light), muons (mass 
just right), taus (too massive to produce cheaply, and far too
short-lived).  Rabi asked of muons, "Who ordered these?"  The 
answer may lie in catalyzing fusion."

(Which is not to say that one shouldn't study these options - 
there may be surprises in there!)  


2. Other fuels:
Also from Steven Jones:
"Muon-induced fusion follows muonic-molecule formation (e.g., d-t-mu) 
which in turn follows muonic atom formation (e.g., d-mu).  Now 
any nuclei with Z>1 [anything with more than one proton] will 
trap the muon in an n=1 state so that muonic-molecule formation 
cannot proceed.  Moreover, the rate of muon-capture in the 
nucleus (analogous to electron capture) increases roughly as Z^10, 
so the muon will not live very long in the presence of Z>3 nuclei 
(including palladium!).  The result of all this is that muons can 
catalyze fusion only in the isotopes of hydrogen, p,d and t.

The reason that muon-catalyzed d-t fusion is so much faster than 
mu-catalyzed p-d or d-d or p-t fusion lies primarily in the rapid 
formation of d-t-muonic molecules, which proceeds via strong 
resonance in the d-t case.  Our experiments at LAMPF were the 
first to experimentally verify the existence of this resonance, 
and to elucidate its properties. [see references below]  The larger
fusion cross-section for d-t is not so important in fact; d-t-mu 
formation requires about a nanosecond, while d-t-fusion once this 
molecule forms requires about a picosecond.  (See, true cold 
fusion can be very fast indeed.)"  So the heavy D and T nuclei,
make the best fuel in muon-catalyzed fusion, as they do in 
hot fusion, but for rather different reasons.  Other fuels 
either form muonic molecules and fuse too slowly, or don't form
muonic molecules at all, or trap the muon too quickly for it to
catalyze many reactions.


* E.  Muon-catalyzed fusion seems pretty unconventional.  Do
you get the same fusion results that you do with hot fusion?

From the newsgroup:
In article <WAF2PCB373362459@brbbs.brbbs.com>,
MARSHALL DUDLEY <mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com> wrote:
>Does muon catalyzed fusion have nuclear ash and particles 
>consistant with hot fusion?  That is, are the branching ratios 
>essentially the same, and do you get the same neutrons and 
>gammas one would expect from hot fusion?  And if not, why not?

Basically:  yes.

d-d-mu fusion yields t+p 42% of the time, He3+n 58% of the time, and
He4 on rare occasions.  (I believe the order of magnitude is one He4
per million muon-catalyzed fusion events.)

The muon-catalyzed fusion results on liquid and gaseous states of 
deuterium, hydrogen-deuterium mixtures, and deuterium-tritium 
mixtures are all basically consistent with conventional hot 
fusion results.


* F. What are some general references for this field?
(These are also included, with annotations, in the bibliography.)

     Steven Jones recommends:
          1. James S. Cohen, "Atomic and molecular processes in 
               muon-catalyzed fusion," in _Review of Fundamental 
               Processes and Applications of Atoms and Ions_,
              1993, edited by C.D. Lin.
          2. Steven E. Jones, "Muon-catalyzed fusion revisited," 
               in _Nature_, 8 May 1986.

     I've also found:
          3. Shalom Eliezer and Zohar Henis, "Muon-Catalyzed Fusion - 
               An Energy Production Perspective," in _Fusion 
               Technology_, Vol. 26, August 1994, p. 46ff. 
               (Originally received Oct. 1989, accepted for 
               publication Feb. 1994.) 
          4. W. H. Breunlich and P. Kammel, "Muon-Catalyzed Fusion,"
               in _Annual Reviews of Nuclear and Particle Science_,
               1989, Vol. 39, pp. 311-356.

     Steven Jones also mentions: 
          5. Physical Review Letters, vol. 51 (1983), pp. 1757-1760
          6. PRL 56 (1986) 588.

     Of these, Jones' article (#2 above) is by far the most 
          accessible to the non-specialist.



*** 4.  Electrostatic Confinement

* A. What is Electrostatic Confinement?

[ From a contribution by John Cobb ]
An approach to fusion based on confining charged particles by means 
of electric fields, rather than the magnetic fields used in magnetic 
confinement.  As in the magnetic case, the requirement for feasible 
fusion is that enough particles (density) must be trapped long enough 
(time) at high enough energy (Temperature) to get significant fusion. 
Thus Lawson's criterion still applies. This means that DC voltages on 
the order of 10,000 volts or higher must be maintained, since this 
is near the energy required to overcome the Coulomb barrier. 
There are 2 cases.  Either (1) The plasma includes species with 
different charges or (2) the plasma is a single component plasma. 

In the first case, there must be 2 sets of grids. The first grid to 
repel one type of charge and the second grid to repel the other. 
There is often a problem with damage to the first grid from 
sputtering from the other type of particles. In the second case one 
must maintain large electric fields to confine the single component 
plasma. This limits the density that can be attained to the 
Brillouin Density (at least on average). 

* B. What about Inertial-Electrostatic Confinement?
I don't know a lot about this (anyone want to help me out?) but
I think this is a modification of the electrostatic scheme 
where either (1) the electric voltage is pulsed, so that 
fusion occurs from inertial compression induced by the voltage 
oscillations, or (2) the electrostatically confined background
plasma is bombarded with energetic particles to supply additional
heating and create additional fusion.

* C. What are the prospects for E.C. and I.E.C. research?
Research in these concepts dates back to the 1960s, and most
fusion researchers have given up on these schemes, but there
are a number of people who feel EC/IEC fusion could work,
particularly for advanced fuels, and there are some recent
advances which have given new life to the field.  Funding for
alternative concepts is anticipated to increase in the near
future due to provisions in the fusion authorization bills
which specifically target $25-30 million/year to alternative
fusion approaches.  For more information, see the references
listed below.

* D. What are some references in this area?

     1) Leaf Turner and D.C. Barnes, "Brillouin Limit and Beyond:  
          A Route to Inertial-Electrostatic Confinement of a 
          Single-Species Plasma," in _Physical Review Letters_, 8 
          February 1993, p. 798 ff.

     2) D.C. Barnes and Leaf Turner, "Non-neutral plasma compression 
          to ultrahigh density," in _Physics of Fluids B_, vol 4 #12, 
          Dec. 1992, p. 3890 ff.

     3) G.H. Miley et al, "Inertial-Electrostatic Confinement: 
          An Approach to Burning Advanced Fuels," in _Fusion 
          Technology_, May 1991, pp. 840-845.

     4) R.W. Bussard, "Some Physics Considerations of Magnetic 
          Inertial-Electrostatic Confinement:  A New Concept for 
          Spherical Converging-Flow Fusion," in _Fusion Technology_, 
          Mar. 1991, pp. 273-293. (POLYWELL)

Note:  For those interested, here's some additional info:
   >From: doniger@lsil.com (Ken Doniger)
   >Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
   >Subject: Re: Advanced Fuel Cycles
   >Message-ID: <30h1al$bn6@lsi.lsil.com>
   >You can contact Barnes at dbarnes@ctrss2.lanl.gov
   >In the letter he wrote to me, he stated that he would like 
   >to discuss the ideas raised in these articles.



*** 5. What about the pinch methods?

* A.  The Z-Pinch:

[I'm just going to include a discussion that came up in April 1994;
my apologies to Patrick for using him as a foil.  Additional
ideas were contributed by Paul Koloc, which I have incorporated
into my reply.]

In article <Co5EB3.ADI@lincoln.gpsemi.com> Patrick McTiernan x8738, 
pgm@bamboo.swindon.gpsemi.com writes:
>Fusion of deuterium requires high temperatures and pressures for a 
>long enough period for the relevant nuclear reactions to take place.
[[[[ snip ]]]]
>What I would suggest is that a thin wire (or preferably tube) of a 
>metallic element be used. If a wire, this must be one of the 
>materials which absorbs hydrogen well; and if so, it must be 
>saturated with deuterium. This wire should then have the contents of 
>a large charged capacitor discharged through it (the technology 
>required for this should be readily available to all who have used
>spark chambers). It will turn into a plasma (try watching a 
>light-bulb blow up sometimes) and, I should add, this effect 
>tends to be SELF-SUSTAINING and SELF-PROPAGATING!! 

It's also unstable.

This approach is known as a Z-Pinch (because in the mathematical
description using cylindrical coordinates the current runs in the 
longitudinal Z direction); it was tried in the 1950s, 
where it was discovered that when the wire turns into a plasma, 
the resulting plasma very rapidly "sausages", "kinks" and 
generally misbehaves.  ("Very Rapidly" = in a few microseconds.)  
These are ideal-MHD instabilities.  The result is that you 
can't confine your plasma long enough to generate enough nuclear 
reactions.  You can get a *small* amount of fusion to occur, and 
in fact this method also generates lots of X-rays and a nice 
electromagnetic pulse, so it's used to simulate nuclear 
weapons-type effects on materials and devices.  But it won't make 
an economical fusion reactor.

It probably doesn't matter whether you start with a deuterium-laden
wire or not.  I believe some researchers have used frozen-deuterium
fibers.

The instabilities of the Z-Pinch are discussed in most general plasma
physics texts, particularly those dealing with magnetohydrodynamic 
theory.

If you take a Z pinch and throw in a longitudinal (Z-direction) 
magnetic field, you can provide some additional stability and 
retard pinch or sausage (m=0) instabilities.  The kink instability 
is harder to stabilize, but it can be done with a much stronger 
Bz-field.

Various efforts have been made (up until the early 1980s) to
attempt to find other ways to improve the Z-pinch; all met with
some success before running into other problems.  (Source:  Paul
Koloc.)

It turns out that if you take a Z pinch, bend it around
into a torus (so the Z-current becomes the toroidal current,
and the stabilizing longitudinal "Z" magnetic field becomes 
the toroidal field), and run it in a steady-state rather 
than a pulsed mode, and then bend it around into a torus, you 
end up (more or less) with the tokamak, which is the major 
machine in use today.  The tendency for the toroidal current 
to expand, the so called "hoop stress," is handled by an array 
of smaller additional poloidal-field generating current coils.  

It's a little more difficult to generate the current running 
"down" the cylinder / through the torus, but it can be done
using various means (use a transformer coil through the center 
of the torus with the plasma as the secondary; use microwaves;
take advantage of the "bootstrap current"; use "helicity injection";
etc.  See entries in the Glossary/FUT for more info).


* B.  The Theta Pinch
(I haven't had time to write this up yet - anyone want to
write a blurb?)


* C.  The Screw (mixed Z & theta) Pinch
(I haven't had time to write this up yet - anyone want to
write a blurb?)



*** 6. What are some other confinement approaches?

* A.  The Plasma Focus

[ Entry contributed by Paul Koloc; Paul has submitted a second 
draft which I have used to replace the original, and then 
heavily edited to make it somewhat readable. ;) ]

The Plasma Focus is a device which depends on the M=0 or
sausage instability (pinch effect).  A fast-rising current 
drives a plasma discharge across the annulus between the top 
end rings of two (say vertical) coaxial insulated electrodes.
The plasma current produces a rising magnetic (azimuthal) 
field within the plasma and inter-coaxial space (the annular 
region between the pipes, excluding the plasma at the end).  
This field generates pressures which push the conducting boundaries
outwards.

Since the pipes are rigid, only the annular plasma can move, so
it balloons upward and outward into an umbrella-type sort
of jellyfish-like shape.  Current flows up a central spout
and then flows down the outside.  This plasma does not break 
contact with the electrode rings.  As the plasma sheet bubbles 
upward, the central stem has a much smaller diameter than the 
outer (returning current) sheet.  Such a configuration is 
axisymentric and uniform with currents fully flowing at this point.  

The reason for the disparity in diameters of the central plasma 
channel and the outer returning sheath-like plasma is that
the generated azimuthal field is far stronger, so this stem 
channel is compressed radially inward by the pinch effect.  
Since the channel has naturally occuring fluctuations in 
its cross-section and contour, some locations (where the flow
is narrower) experience even more pinching force, which then 
drives that region to an even smaller radius.  This self-reinforcing 
pinch effect is an instability which rapidly pinches the current
channel off completely.

The pinch actually squirts plasma out from within the 
pinched-off region ("like one would squirt a fresh cherry pit 
from between squeezing thumb and forefinger," in Paul's exact words.)  
This dramatic loss of plasma kills the current so suddenly that
an enormous voltage is induced.  This phase ends when particles 
have enough energy to jump across the vacuum gap.  A 20,000 volt plasma
focus discharge can generate megavolt-level impulse fields for 
driving electrons, (but less effectively for ions; the species 
depends on the electrode orientation) along the axis of the 
plasma focus.  As Paul says, "It Makes a nice little bug zapping 
snub gun."   

The Plasma Focus approach caused a huge stir [a while ago] when 
researchers used it to generate copious neutrons, until it 
was discovered that the neutrons were just knocked off the 
deuterium ions by pinch accelerated electrons and ions.  

Plasma Focus research continues at a low level today, but the idea
is to use the device to create a plasma thruster for space
propulsion.  A similar method is known as the magnetoplasmadynamic
(MPD) thruster.


* B.  "Mechanical Fusion"

Mechanical fusion involves heavy-duty super-guns which accelerate
small objects to extremely high velocities.  It's possible that one
might generate appreciable amounts of fusion energy when such
high-energy objects collide.  This would be a variant on inertial
confinement fusion.

Rich Schroeppel, rcs@cs.arizona.edu, adds (personal email):
"...It's occasionally mentioned as another
possible application of the "super guns" that the national labs are
building; they can accelerate a gram or so to 10 km/sec, and talk
about space launch as an application.  It shows up in Space Digest
from time to time.  I'll forward some to you the next time I see it,
but it will probably be a while."
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.08 / Marco Voerman /  Re: SOMETHING MISSING IN THE PHYSICS OF LIGHT POLARIZATION THEORY.
     
Originally-From: voerman@fys.ruu.nl (Marco Voerman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.plutonium
sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: SOMETHING MISSING IN THE PHYSICS OF LIGHT POLARIZATION THEORY.
Date:  8 Sep 94 07:19:23 GMT
Organization: Physics Department, University of Utrecht, The Netherlands

In <34koao$5vp@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu
(Ludwig Plutonium) writes:

>In article <voerman.778849904@ruunat.fys.ruu.nl>
>voerman@fys.ruu.nl (Marco Voerman) writes:

>> 
>> >There is perhaps, this is only a doubt that is growing in my mind,
>> >something missing in the theory of light polarization. I have asked it
>> >on the newsgroups but have not connected with anyone expert in it.
>> 
>> You don't need an expert to show that your doubt has no fundation.

> I beg to differ. Thanks for your review Marco. It is a typical review
>of what the "conventional intuitionless" physics community would
>preach. And, as you say frequency incoming = frequency outgoing
>photons. I ask of total photon energy before polarization and tolal
>after polarization. You know, Marco, that the "light glare" is cut down
>after polarization. So have you ever asked yourself, even though you
>are bottle whined to conventional physics. That the energy count is
>less after polarization. No, you have not. 

Yes,I have. And I've written it also in my reply which part you carefully 
left out. Indeed, the total energycount is reduced after the polariser. 
This is however NOT due to the conversion of photons into neutrino's. 
Nor will it ever. Photons CAN NOT convert into neutrino's. Any proces 
involving neutrino's has to be mediated by the weak force( or very 
perhaps by gravity). Because they don't have charge they will not feel 
the electromagnetic force. Photons only feel the electromagnetic force.
This is all well proven and theoretically explained. It's blatant 
nonsense to throw this all away just because you have an intuition.
Again, if you had some notice of high energy physics you would not 
propose these things. Go to a library and read a book about it.

>  I am confident that my intuition will be proved correct. In
>polarization, many photons are decomposed into neutrinoes which are not
>counted in the outgoing polarized energy. This is the true account"

I have an intuition that you just state these things to stirr up some 
people, so this is the last i will say about it.

>Unpolarized photons, Summed Energy = Energy Polarized Light + Energy of
>neutrinos

>Superconductivity = photon carriers turned into neutrino carriers
>Superconductivity is a state of polarization. The highest temperature
>superconductor will be the material which polarizes photons into
>neutrinoes.
>The s-wave and d-wave are just two terms for the two components of the
>photons decomposed into 2 neutrinoes.

Aaaargh

--
     Marco Voerman             Universiteit Utrecht
Robert J. van de Graafflab.      P.O. box 80.000
    tel. 030-531659              3508 TA Utrecht
e-mail: voerman@fys.ruu.nl        Netherlands
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenvoerman cudfnMarco cudlnVoerman cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.08 / Paul Koloc /  Re: What is a PMK
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What is a PMK
Date: Thu, 8 Sep 1994 06:03:13 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <bruce_schechter-0709941323440001@139.104.10.184> bruce_schec
ter@cc.wdi.disney.com (Bruce Schechter) writes:
>I've been following this group for a while and have been trying
>heroically (or so it seems to me) to understand what all the PMK
>debate is about.  Since I've come in to the whole thing rather
>late I haven't been doing too well.  Could somebody explain, or repost, a 
>description of the PMK, and what the fuss is all about?

There are two applications under consideration, here, for the 
PLASMAK(tm) magnetoplasmoid or "PMK", for short, namely, Ball 
Lightning and fusion.  The initials "PMK" stand for "all Plasma 
Mantle and Kernel.  It's a sort of grandson of the old Tokamak,
or a son of the Spheromak.  

Although the magnetic topology is similar in the three, the tokamak, 
Spheromak and PMK have differing amounts of essential mag field 
generating currents in plasma rather than fixed solid coils.  For 
that matter the Stellarator, a PPPL toroid, had no plasma currents, 
and thanks to the Russians the tokamak has one (toroidal current in 
the torus).  So that leaves the toroidal field and "vertical" field 
still in coils, the latter of which controls the positioning of the 
toroidal current (plasma ring) within the toroidal vacuum chamber of 
the tokamak.   

Our Spheromak has both poloidal and toroidal currents (and their 
generated fields) within the plasma ring, and therefore without the
need for plasma ring linking toroidal field coils of the tokamak,
this plasma ring can be put in to a spheric shelled vacuum chamber.  
The Spheromak may have its vertical field generated by image currents 
(the best case), in the solid shell. See T.Jarboe et al LANL 1980-87? 
published in the APS plasma division or the Compact toroid meetings 
held annually for most of those years.   Or in a more primitive
version it has them predominately generated by coils as a tokamak.  
However, if so it is both tilt unstable and slip unstable (at 
optimal stability position), UNLESS the machine has a passive 
image current conducting shell over at least the poles.  The minimum 
correction requirement consists of superior polarly positioned 
"figure eight coils."  See S. Jardin at al.PPPL   same period.  

Here the word "Spheric" is *made up* to mean spheroidal"ish", but 
not technically defined as a Spheroid, which apparently has a rigid
mathematical definition; and after all, we haven't had time to sit down
and figure exactly what topology the shell or Mantle is.   

The PMK is an all plasma Spheromak, and therefore the image currents
flow in the highly conducting shell or Mantle.  Conductivity due to 
energetic  currents is still capable of adequate plasma heating due to 
the their inverse particle density dependence, and the exceptionally 
high achievable current, field, and plasma densities.  What that says 
is these things START at order an atmospheric pressure, which is where 
the tokamak with fully pressurized coils end up.  Top compression of 
a PMK (it's fluid mechanical) could put the Kernel plasma at pressures 
10^4 to 10^5 higher than a tokamak plasma, and that means it might work, 
and work with a vengence even burning the good stuff.   So we might ALL 
get a trip to Mars.    

So for a picture, imagine a soap bubble suspended in the air in
front of you is actually a thin film of hyperconducting energetic
electrons.  This film is surrounded by a plasma skin or Mantle 
which sits on it and defends the the film from invasive neutrals 
from the surrounding air.  Within the volume spheric film is a 
toroidal plasma, which is suspended and insulated by a pure vacuum 
and dense confining poloidal magnetic field that can't penetrate 
the conducting film of energetic electrons.  The volume within the 
film shell is the Kernel region. The currents of the Kernel torus 
circulate around both the long way (toroidally) and the short way 
(poloidally) within the plasma ring.  The toroidal currents 
generates the spheric shell trapped vacuum poloidal field first 
introduce above.  It is the poloidal currents that produce a 
toroidal field, but only within the torus (flux lines go the long 
way around).   

Oops!!  Guess, when this thing is born, a bit of the poloidal field 
does slip out of the sheric shell, so there are a few flux lines 
emanating from one pole and swinging out through all of space and 
back through the surface on the spheric shell corresponding to the
locationg of the other pole.  That constitutes a correction to the
simple conducting shell first described above.  There's other junk, 
but if you can read a GIF go back in time and pull out the 
PLASMAK.GIF and you have a new grainy pin-up.  

This system is so much better than a tokamak, the chaps at IPP are
chomping at the bit to see how it works and to understand it.  So far
they are having trememdous difficulty due to the vastly different 
effect that such diverse parameter regimes have on function and
structure, as well as the weird (to them) structures.  Their first 
inclination has been to view the PMK as if it operated in the 
tokamak regime (or worse the regime of nebulousities surrrounding 
hot stars), for example.  

Their IPP code handles the plasma, currents and fields of the PMK as
a sort of anomalous set of effects.  For tokamaks it's a different
story since they are mostly goverened by earth anchored monster 
toroidal field coils, and there "aint' much a vacuum plasma can do 

As you can see we treat this with a bit of levity, though billions
of lives depend on us.  The problem of developing commercial fusion 
is tough and we are all plasma bangers in theory or practice, so we 
do have a deep down affection for each other.  At times we may sound
egotistical, but that's just the natural tendency for us to be 
exuberent about our view point and to emphasize that we feel our
argument is superior over ALL the others' view points.  (refrain
to the tune "Deutschlund Deutschlund".)  In truth, we carefully 
consider that we both need more careful work and that only through 
cooperation we can crack a most interesting problem from nature that 
is facing plasma physics.  I know -- we have to keep the music down.     

The above is very simplistic but short, and should be consumed with
salt. 

So far, two areas of greatest disagreement and misunderstanding of 
physics/math relate to method of discovering the internal energy 
of the PMK, and information about the transport (radiative mostly) 
processes that keep the Mantle alight and functioning (as a neutral 
particle shield and magnetic field trap).   

By the way, I have diabetes and I go blind every once in a while, 
so my printed word doesn't exactly slave my thoughts. -- and that
persists even into the periods when I see well..       :-)

Also we have formed the beasties in air and IPP doesn't believe me
since I don't publish.  Also note the DoE seems, from years of 
observation (Maglich-Bussard-Bass- .. .), to **-abhor-** funding 
independent fusion concepts.. and one related to BL... Well, "THEY" 
(fear-ridden-fellows) would sooner close the gates at Germantown 
and declare it a mental health facility.  Notice the shared paranoia, 
and light hearted wishful thoughts. 

See also; 
for fusion :
Koloc, P. M. "PLASMAK(tm) Star Power for Energy Intensive Space 
     Applications" FUSION TECHNOLOGY Vol. 15, Mar 89, pp 1136-1141

for Ball Lightning:

P. M. Koloc, "The PLASMAK(tm) Configuration and Ball Lightning,"
     presented at the First International Symposium on Ball Lightning,
     Tokyo, Japan, July 1988.  see Y. H. Ohtsuki (ed.), (below)

Ohtsuki, Y. H. (ed.), Science of Ball Lightning (Fire Ball). Singapore:
    World Scientific Publishing Co.,  1989.  (First International 
    Symposium on Ball Lightning, Waseda University, Tokyo, Japan, 
    4-6 July 1988) L.C. QC966.7.B3157  1988  551.5'634  89-9004
    Write to or telephone World Scientific Pub. Co.  U.S.: 687 Hartwell 
    Street, Teaneck, NJ 07666;  1-800-227-7562

>Bruce_Schechter@cc.wdi.disney.com......................................
...................................................
> opinions expressed approximate only my own and coincide
> only coincidently with those of my employer or anyone else
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc, Bx 1037 Prometheus II Ltd, College Park MD 20741-1037    |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.08 / Matt Kennel /  Re: Limitations of Nuclear theory - sole product?
     
Originally-From: mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Limitations of Nuclear theory - sole product?
Date: 8 Sep 1994 08:55:33 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

mica@world.std.com wrote:
:    In Message-ID: <34ba6r$n9l@agate.berkeley.edu>
: Subject: Re: Limitations of Nuclear theory
: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz) wrote:

:   >  Furthermore, and most important to the issue 
:   >several experiments demonstrate 4He in proportion to the
:   >excess heat, and linked in production to that heat.   

: = I seem to remember way back when, you said something to the effect that
: = your understanding of the "nuclear" process in putative cold fusion
: = was d + d + ?d -> ?

:      The multiparticle hypothesis appears to be probably 
: correct, although the final pathway(s) and reaction(s)
: remain to be clarified.

I'd say you might wanna start by observing some of these reactions
first.

:                   Mitchell Swartz

--
-Matt Kennel  		mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu
-Institute for Nonlinear Science, University of California, San Diego
-*** AD: Archive for nonlinear dynamics papers & programs: FTP to
-***     lyapunov.ucsd.edu, username "anonymous".
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenmbk cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.08 / Lars Johansen /  Re: SOMETHING MISSING IN THE PHYSICS OF LIGHT POLARIZATION
     
Originally-From: lars.johansen@kih.no (Lars M. Johansen)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.plutonium
sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: SOMETHING MISSING IN THE PHYSICS OF LIGHT POLARIZATION
Date: 8 Sep 1994 09:41:29 GMT
Organization: Kongsberg College of Engineering

In article <34koao$5vp@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>, Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmout
.edu (Ludwig Plutonium) says:

> I beg to differ. Thanks for your review Marco. It is a typical review
>of what the "conventional intuitionless" physics community would
>preach. And, as you say frequency incoming = frequency outgoing
>photons. I ask of total photon energy before polarization and tolal
>after polarization. You know, Marco, that the "light glare" is cut down
>after polarization. So have you ever asked yourself, even though you
>are bottle whined to conventional physics. That the energy count is
>less after polarization. No, you have not. 
>  I am confident that my intuition will be proved correct. In
>polarization, many photons are decomposed into neutrinoes which are not
>counted in the outgoing polarized energy. This is the true account"


Yes, we know, Ludwig, we know. Now be a good boy, take your pill and
go to rest.


Uncle Lars
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenjohansen cudfnLars cudlnJohansen cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.08 / Peter Roessingh /  Re: Reply to Peter Roessingh
     
Originally-From: roes@vax.oxford.ac.uk (Peter Roessingh)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reply to Peter Roessingh
Date: 8 Sep 94 14:28:01 BST
Organization: Oxford University VAX 6620

Dieter Britz writes:

>Originally-From: roes@vax.oxford.ac.uk (Peter Roessingh) in FD2674
> >I would like to leave ICCF4 out of this and focus on 
> >the 1994 paper and Dieters abstract of it. 
> [....] 
> >So McKubre's paper as cited by Dieter is my new starting point.

>I worry a bit here. The first mention of my abstract looks like
>you are using both it and the actual paper, but the following
>bits seem to show that you are wholly relying on my abstract.

Indeed, I have as yet only seen your abstract.

>I am fallible and my abstracts don't provide much detail; please
>don't judge a paper by my abstract of it. If you are going to
>give an in-depth impression of some work, you must get hold of
>the paper itself and use that.

Given my level of expertise in these matters, it would (at this stage) not
make much sense to look at the original text. It is highly unlikely I would
spot anything that you might have overlooked. Also I did not want to give
an in-depth impression in my original message, I was trying to *get* one.

>My own impression, given in the abstract and in my more or less
>loose remarks, is that that work is sound. I have, however,
>previously missed weaknesses in other papers, later picked up
>by, e.g. Dick Blue.

Don't worry, I do not take the abstract as written in stone or as
the final verdict on the work. But I trust your judgement
sufficiently to feel confident in using it as the *starting*
point of a discussion. As a working hypothesis so to say.

This group has been compared to a college. I think that
comparison is very appropriate. I see a college as a meeting
place for people with widly different backgrounds and experience,
only loosely tied together by some common interest. It is a place
were you informally exchange ideas, a place to try out new ideas,
and a place were everybody can profit from the unexpected parallax
views from people in other fields. In this context it makes no
sense to try and become an expert in every subject on the table.
It would just be wasting time. To be more specific, to learn
about the McKubre paper I could get the paper, go to library, and
study for some weeks on the basics of calorimetry, but the chances
that I would find holes that you overlooked are still pretty slim. The
topic is just a bit to far removed from my field to make me useful in
that way. I am much better off if I leave the nitpicking to the
experts and semi-experts, and listen carefully what arguments they put
forward, what lines of reasoning they use. Because at *that* level I
can hope to make a useful contribution. I come from a different
discipline, I am not biased by axioms that are so self evident to the
experts that they can't even see the implicit assumption any more.
Also I am not (at least not too much) locked in the never ending
battles raging in this group.

I am a passionate believer in interdisciplinary cooperation. The times
that one person could do everything himself are long gone. Life is
just too short. Nowadays you have to rely on others, and this is what
I did in this case. I took your abstract of McKubres paper; On finding
no clear problems in the abstract I asked the group explicitly if
there were any. I expected *technical* arguments, exposing the type of
problems an expert would pick up while I would miss them. I assumed I
would get those, and in addition counter arguments from other experts.
(by the way, at that stage, with much more specific question in mind
it *might* be useful for me to also look at the paper itself) but I
did not even get get that far, since both parties choose to put
forward non technical arguments (that I personally find unacceptable)
and that need no reference to the paper to be adressed. 

In summary: I leave it to the specialists to find the facts (at least
as far as that is possible in this muddy field), and try to contribute
at the level were these facts are used).

Via E-mail I have been criticized for admitting to work with
second hand information, and at the same time having the guts to
oppose the judgement of experts like Tom (and you). My answer to
that should be clear by now. I leave it to those with the required
skills to point out the problems in the papers. My criticism is
aimed at the next level in the evaluation process. In my view it
is at this level that the discussion in this group is largely
failing. 

Let's try to improve this state of affairs. Raymond Butte indicated some of
the reasons for the confusion [may be not "Politically Correct", but (in
retrospect) *perfectly* fitting my experience], and I remember some older
post's  (sorry forgotten by who, and I currently can't get in the archive)
discussing the problems of interdisciplinary conversation. Being aware of
cultural and methodological differences, we should be able to do
better!

See my suggestions in the McKubre tread.

Peter Roessingh.
Zoology, Oxford.


cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenroes cudfnPeter cudlnRoessingh cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.08 / Peter Roessingh /  Re: McKubre's data & s.p.f experiment
     
Originally-From: roes@vax.oxford.ac.uk (Peter Roessingh)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: McKubre's data & s.p.f experiment
Date: 8 Sep 94 14:43:49 BST
Organization: Oxford University VAX 6620

About a possible s.p.f. experiment Tom Droege wrote:

>I want to form a true collaboration.  This means that we use this
>forum to argue out what we will do.  After we have the project pretty
>well worked out, we start volunteering to take on various pieces[...]

I think this on-line experiment is a great idea, even if it actually
never gets done. [Jed will certainly say that cf will be generally
accepted before we can complete it]  As a prelude to designing the
experiment, we should as a group try to reach some consensus about the
facts we trust. Mitchell Swartz once tried something like this, but in
my opinion he was far to less rigourous, and also did not really
listen to what was said in the group.  I think it would be interesting
to have a second go at this, limited initially to calorimetry. I have
(more or less at random) picked McKubres 1994 paper as a first
candidate. (note: the loading factor in this paper is a separate
issue, not yet considered).

As a first suggestion for the standard to use in judging the paper, we
can use Steve Jones his suggestion:

>TABLE 1.  COMPARISON OF COLD-FUSION RESEARCH METHODS

>It is evident that much of the present confusion surround "cold fusion"
>stems from the continued use of inadequate detectors.  This list
>juxtaposes crude, better and state-of-the-art systems to promote the
>quest for compelling data, one way or the other.  Use of the best
>available methods is clearly the path-of-logical science.
>
>Crude                     Better                State-of-the-art
>(simply add to the        (but not good enough) (can provide
> confusion)                                     compelling evidence)
>______________________   _____________________ ______________________

>Open cell calorimetry,    Measure H2/D2 + O2    Recombiner inside
>no H2/D2 +O2 monitoring,  simultaneous w/heat   separate calorimeter
>during experiment


My two question are now:

1) Is the above description of good calorimetry sufficiently
rigourous, and acceptable to all the experts in this group?

2) Are there arguments to deny McKubres paper access to our as yet
empty list of good cf calorimetry? (and that means technical
arguments, not this sociological 'fading' crap, that type of argument
belongs at a *higher* level of analysis.

In line with what Tom has said about the experiment itself, I want to
make clear that I do not intend to maintain this list in any real sense,
and definitely don't want to make final decisions what is allowed on
and what not. It has to be a cooperative effort. People put forward
suggestions that get discussed,if some consensus is reached the
suggestion gets incorporated.  May be we could put a master copy in
the UNC archives?. I am also not sure how to resolve disputes that do
not get solved after several rounds of discussion. For the time being
I think we should aim for a minimum set of facts everybody is willing
to accept. If it turns out that the list stays fully empty we will
have to go back some steps and ask more basic questions, reconsider
acceptance procedures, or give up.

Once we have several items in the list we can begin to check for
internal consistency and also look for gray areas, i.e possible areas
for a s.p.f.  experiment.

How does this all sound?.

Peter Roessingh 
Zoology, Oxford.
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenroes cudfnPeter cudlnRoessingh cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.08 /  fairfax@sensei /  Alcator Progress 9/8/94
     
Originally-From: fairfax@sensei.pfc.mit.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Alcator Progress 9/8/94
Date: 8 SEP 94 16:52:41 GMT
Organization: MIT PLASMA FUSION CENTER

			Alcator C-MOD Weekly Highlights
				September 8, 1994

The repair/maintenance period for Alcator C-MOD is continuing. The reassembly
phase has now begun. The central core, consisting of the central column of the
TF magnet and the OH stack, has now been re-installed. 

The components for the OH2L coaxial bus are now in-house. A model coax has
been bent to shape in order to test the bending fixture and validate the
procedure. Preparations for assembly of the final coax are proceeding. 

A new ten-segment toroidal rogowski coil has been installed in the lower
section of of the vacuum vessel. This diagnostic will provide additional
information on the toroidal distribution of halo currents during disruptions.

The coil model used by the EFIT equilibrium analysis code has been modified to
use as-built, rather than as-designed, dimensions for the OH stack. Modeling of 
the other PF coils had already been based on as-built dimensions.
Recalculation of old shots using the improved coil model gives reduced
chi-squared values and leads to small but significant changes in the
equilibria. In particular, the location of the inner strike point on divertor
discharges is affected, in a way that is more consistent with probe and other
measurements. In addition, the EFIT values for the stored energy using the
revised model are in better agreement with the kinetic calculation based on
integration of profile data. 

A copy of the ITER H-mode database has been loaded into our RdB format, for
easier access by C-MOD personnel.  This enables us to use our standard
database tools to examine the ITER compilation, and facilitates comparison
with locally available data. 

Dr. Garry McCracken visited PPPL this week for discussions related to the Edge
Thomson Scattering Collaboration. He also had consultations with Drs. Stotler
and Petravic on progress in DEGAS and PLANET modeling of C-MOD edge data. 

Horst Kroegler from ENEA, Frascati began a 2 month visit this week. He will 
collaborate on radiated power measurements.

cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenfairfax cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.08 / Jim Carr /  Re: Data, and not money. (could be Re: MKubre...)
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Data, and not money. (could be Re: MKubre...)
Date: 8 Sep 1994 13:57:55 -0400
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

In article <34hrog$8um$1@mhadg.inhouse.compuserve.com> 
Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@CompuServe.COM> writes:
>
>Regarding these "big numbers" of neutrons, alpha particles, neutrinos and so
>on: I do not know anything at all about them. Nothing! I suppose you might
>find number in various scientific papers, but these papers are completely over
>my head, and I have no use for them. The kinds of "big numbers" that I deal
>with are kilowatts, BTUs and horsepower. That is because the only cold fusion
>devices that interest me are the big ones with industrial potential. Neutrons
>and neutrinos have no commercial market value, so I do not care about them.

Neutrons (and helium) have commercial value, but there are probably more 
economical ways of getting them -- although that could be argued if CF 
did prove to be an efficient exothermic process so the production could 
pay for itself, as it were. 

However, my main observation is that this is a very important statement 
from Jed.  You see, what this establishes is that he is interested in 
heat only (a point made off and on, but not so clearly) and is thus 
talking about an electricity-to-heat conversion device and *not* a 
cold fusion device.  I say that because he is not concerned with the 
mechanism, only the results, and the result is heat.  In fact, the only 
big number he should care about is _efficiency_ since that is what 
determines the economics of the device. 

On the other hand, those whose main concern is whether this device is 
a cold *fusion* device are correct to place an emphasis on which final 
products can be found and their relation to the heat produced.  That 
is the only way to establish that the device is a fusion device and 
thus aid in the decision concerning its potential for scaling up so 
it can provide a significant source of power in our economy. 

The difference between these two concerns is the difference between 
applied research / engineering and basic research / science.  Both 
have their place, and both are important. 

-- 
 James A. Carr   <jac@scri.fsu.edu>     |  Raw data, like raw sewage, 
    http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac        |  requires some processing before
 Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst.  |  it can be spread around.  The 
 Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306    |  opposite is true of theories. 
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.08 /  jonesse@xray.b /  Re: Reply to Rothwell/Amoco, Dufour efforts
     
Originally-From: jonesse@xray.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reply to Rothwell/Amoco, Dufour efforts
Date: 8 Sep 94 09:58:38 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

In article <34m89q$5vi@ixnews1.ix.netcom.com>, 
parky@ix.netcom.com (Chris Parkinson) writes:
> In <34kloj$k69$1@mhadg.inhouse.compuserve.com> Jed Rothwell <72240.125
@CompuServe.COM> writes: 
> 
>>
>>>jonesse@acoust.byu.edu (Steve Jones) writes:
> lots of deletions...
>>Jed Rothwell writes:
>>First, you do not know for sure that they have dropped it. (CF research. ed.)
>>Second, if that
>>fact "tells us a great deal" then what does it tell us when Mitsubishi,
>>Toyota, Hitachi, NEDO, NIFS, MITI, EPRI, Canon, Thermacore, Shell and dozens
                                     ^^^^
>>of other corporations increase research year by year and file more and more
>>patents? Why do you judge the situation by the action of this one company -
>>Amoco - and ignore what all these other companies are doing? Clearly, you are
>>picking and choosing your evidence. You throw away 100 test cases from other
>>companies because they do not meet your preconceived ideas, and you pick up
>>the one lone case of Amoco simply because it satisfies your thesis. I suggest
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>you look at the full range of research done by all companies in this field,
>>rather than just one.
>> 
>>- Jed
>>
> 
> Right on Jed. Sceptics are now slowly coming to an end. When will Jones
> understand this. Remember one key is polishing with no pits or cracks.
> With this being the case you should act like a jeweler and cabinet maker
> and not like your typical physicist sceptic that sloppily throws a CF 
> experiment together.
> 
> CP

EPRI is also diminishing its support for CF research, so Amoco is not "one lone
case".

We have used palladium supplied by Tanaka, of Japan, the same as several other 
researchers (e.g., Ed Storms) and it seems to be free of pits and cracks.

Of course, I wouldn't know what "physicist sceptic that sloppily throws a CF
experiment together" you are referring to.  The 'excess heat' experiments done
at BYU were carefully performed by a group led by chemistry professor Lee
Hansen.  We saw apparent excess heat using both Ni/H2O and Pd/D2O, up to
750% as this is generally calculated.  But in all cases, we were able to "turn
off" the excess heat by suppressing recombination.  Thus, the 'excess heat' was
not real.

--Steven Jones

cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenjonesse cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.08 /  jonesse@xray.b /  Re: Reply to Rothwell/Amoco, Dufour efforts
     
Originally-From: jonesse@xray.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reply to Rothwell/Amoco, Dufour efforts
Date: 8 Sep 94 10:33:57 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

Below are questions which I posed to Jed Rothwell.  Jed failed to even address
my questions about the Dufour claims.  I asked Jed to substantiate his claim
that "your critique of Dufour is incorrect" -- he has not even identified what
part(s) of my critique is (are) incorrect.  My critique was technical; his
response was a dodge.

With regard to the Amoco experiment,  I identified problems that can lead to
incorrect "excess heat" readings even with a closed cell.  Jed agreed with my
earlier post that "if            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
you design a cell incompetently and you put a thermocouple near a potential hot
spot, all kinds of strange things will happen" but then he adds "but the people
at Amoco did not do that."  In order to judge that for ourselves, we need
details, presumably given in the (unpublished)
Amoco paper -- but Jed says to look at the Melich paper in the ICCF-4
proceedings.  In reading this paper, I find that indeed Melich and W. Hansen
briefly summarize the Amoco "non-public report of internal 1989 work" (in about
half a page).  But they do *not* give any details about positioning of
thermocouples, nor any figure of the cell or calorimeter used.  
For Jed to suggest that
this brief summary gives one enough information to be assured that no
calorimetric errors could have been made is ludicrous. 

Since Jed dodged essentially all of my questions in the previous post, I repeat
it:

In article <1994Sep6.121959.1728@acoust.byu.edu>, 
jonesse@acoust.byu.edu writes:
> In his reply to my recent post, Jed Rothwell writes:
> 
> "If you design a cell incompetently and you put a thermocouple near a
> potential hot spot, all kinds of strange things will happen, but the people at
> Amoco did not do that."
> 
> "The total integrated energy from *all* recombination at *all* locations is
> measured."  [my *'s]
> 
> Yet the Amoco people also did experiments with light water and indeed found
> that recombination of hydrogen and oxygen was indeed the cause of the apparent
> excess heat -- on this Jed agrees with me:
> 
>>"Amoco also tested Ni light water cells and determined that the effect they saw
>> was due to recombination."
> 
> Agreement, finally.  As I pointed out earlier, we found the same results in
> experiments here at BYU -- that recombination was a source of putative excess
> heat -- but in both Ni/H2O and in Pd/D2O cells.
> 
> If this same effect was ruled out for the heavy water cells, then why did Amoco
> stop doing research on these cells?  In any case, there is no published version
> of the Amoco report, and I understand Jed to say that he saw it but no longer
> has it.  Until we can actually read the Amoco report, I suppose that 
> further comment is
> pointless.  I'm not convinced that all that Jed remembers about the paper 
> is correct; we all have memory glitches.  
> 
> The fact that the Amoco people dropped
> this line of research tells us a great deal about their opinion regarding the 
> likelihood that this would be an energy producer, IMHO.  I guess that's the
> bottom line.
> 
> I also made specific technical objections to the cf paper by Dufour, Foos and
> Millot, in the Maui conference proceedings.  In particular, I pointed out that
> their proposed reactions involving three-bodies (reactants) in a nuclear
> reaction 
> (e.g.,   1H1 + 1H1 + e-   --> 1H2 + neutrino)
> (and     1H1 + 2He4 + e-  --> 2He6 + neutrino)
> were not possible in cf-cells.  
> The probabilities for such reactions were nowhere worked out by
> the authors, but if they had done so, they would have found the reaction rates 
> to be negligible, especially in "cold fusion" conditions.
> 
> In his reply, Jed says:
> 
> "I cannot judge nuclear physics, you do not even understand high-school level
> electrochemistry.  In any case your critique of Dufour is incorrect,
> but I will not address it."
> 
> Why not?  Come on, Jed, show where my critique of Dufour is incorrect -- or
> is your boast just a smokescreen?
> 
> One final point:  Jed twists my critique when he says:
> "If Jones can restrain himself and not call his distiguished [sic] 
> colleages [sic] at Shell "sophomoric" then I will return to my usual Highly
> Respectful and Dignified Scholarly Mode of address."
> 
> Yeah, right.
> I did *not* call Dufour et al. "sophomoric", but I did call their errors which I
> pointed out to be "blatant and even sophomoric" in my post.  Scientists
> generally distinguish technical critiques from personal attacks, and even
> appreciate having "sophomoric" errors in their papers pointed out.  
> We learn from our mistakes when these are pointed out by colleagues.
> Hopefully this is true of Dufour as well as Russ George et al. of E-Quest.   
> 
> --Steven Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenjonesse cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.08 / Tom Droege /  Re: McKubre's data & s.p.f experiment
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: McKubre's data & s.p.f experiment
Date: 8 Sep 1994 18:13:59 GMT
Organization: fermilab

In article <1994Sep8.144349.25837@oxvaxd>, roes@vax.oxford.ac.uk (Peter 
Roessingh) says:
>
>About a possible s.p.f. experiment Tom Droege wrote:
>
Snip, snip

>My two question are now:
>
>1) Is the above description of good calorimetry sufficiently
>rigourous, and acceptable to all the experts in this group?
>

Good enough for me.

>2) Are there arguments to deny McKubres paper access to our as yet
>empty list of good cf calorimetry? (and that means technical
>arguments, 

Yes, the best results are just marginal.  A few percent.  One could
easily imagine that they are a sub set of a data set that includes 
both positive and negative results.  I have discussed these at 
great length in the past, mostly arguing that they were good 
experiments.  Still they are pretty close to noise.  One needs
an experiment that is well above the noise and whicy you or I 
can duplicate given a reasonable effort.


not this sociological 'fading' crap, that type of argument
>belongs at a *higher* level of analysis.
>
>In line with what Tom has said about the experiment itself, I want to
>make clear that I do not intend to maintain this list in any real sense,

Nor do I want to take the full leadership of such an effort.  But I
will lurk here while I design my telescope, and jump in and do 
something if the proposal is sound.

>and definitely don't want to make final decisions what is allowed on
>and what not. It has to be a cooperative effort. People put forward

Hear, hear!


>Once we have several items in the list we can begin to check for
>internal consistency and also look for gray areas, i.e possible areas
>for a s.p.f.  experiment.
>
>How does this all sound?.



OK with me.  

Tom Droege

>
>Peter Roessingh 
>Zoology, Oxford.
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.08 / Hal Lillywhite /  Re: Transforming lead into gold?
     
Originally-From: hall@macs.ico.tek.com (Hal Lillywhite)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Transforming lead into gold?
Date: 8 Sep 1994 11:49:57 -0700
Organization: Maxim Integrated Products, Beaverton  OR.

In article <94251.130309GGCBAAT@cc1.kuleuven.ac.be> <GGCBAAT@cc1.kuleuven.ac.be> writes:

>   I'm an economy student. I only know atoms are made up of protons, neutrons
>and electrons.  Recently someone told me this incredible story that science was
>able to transform lead into gold.  The process itself was so expensive though
>that it wasn't worth doing it on a large scale.

I don't know if lead has actually been transformed into gold but as
your friend says, the obstacle is economic, not technical.  Several
elements have been transformed into others and in fact we now have
several elements in the periodic table which do not exist in nature
and have only been made by man.  Plutonium in fact is man made and
is used widley in reactors (and unfortunately in bombs).

>If that was true I think that we should be able to transform, say a He into a
>H, which, as far as I know only happens in stars. Is this correct?

I think you mean it the other way around, transforming H into He.
Yes we can and that's exactly what happens in a fusion bomb (H
bomb).  The trouble is we haven't yet developed a way to do it in a
controlled burn, only as an explosive reaction.  Controling this
reaction is the subject of both this newsgroup and a great deal of
scientific/technicological attention.
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenhall cudfnHal cudlnLillywhite cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.08 / Dick Jackson /  Re: Was ionization --> What's a plasmoid (BL - type)
     
Originally-From: jackson@soldev.tti.com (Dick Jackson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Was ionization --> What's a plasmoid (BL - type)
Date: Thu, 8 Sep 1994 19:41:14 GMT
Organization: Citicorp-TTI at Santa Monica (CA) by the Sea

In article <CvqvEH.CJG@prometheus.UUCP> pmk@promethe.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) writes:
>Dick Jackson writes:
about plasmoids:-
>>Does anyone have any reall ideas about this subject?
>
>Yep, that's what has been being discussed here under the guise of 
>fusion and virial theorem for the last .. what --  ten weeks?? 
>
>You have a bit of catching up to do.  

I have heard a lot of speculation and divergence of opinion. What I had
in mind was "How much is actually *known* about plasmoids. E.g., have
people actually made them and confirmed theories of field configuration,
etc?

Dick Jackson
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenjackson cudfnDick cudlnJackson cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.08 / Jim Carr /  Re: Reply to Rothwell/Amoco, Dufour efforts
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reply to Rothwell/Amoco, Dufour efforts
Date: 8 Sep 1994 16:17:37 -0400
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

In article <34m89q$5vi@ixnews1.ix.netcom.com> 
parky@ix.netcom.com (Chris Parkinson) writes:
>
>Right on Jed. Sceptics are now slowly coming to an end. When will Jones
>understand this. Remember one key is polishing with no pits or cracks.
>With this being the case you should act like a jeweler and cabinet maker
>and not like your typical physicist sceptic that sloppily throws a CF 
>experiment together.

I think you are forgetting that Steve Jones is actually a raving lunatic 
foaming-at-the-mouth proponent of cold fusion (not really, but he would 
be if you renormalized him from Utah to CalTech or MIT) whose careful 
experiments convinced him and others that his initial conclusions were, 
shall we say, over-optimistic.  ;-) 

The care with which he approaches experiments, and the way he double checks 
things and re-examines his assumptions in the experimental design, makes 
most jewelers and cabinet makers look sloppy.  He would not have been able 
to do the muon CF work any other way.  Just as importantly, he clearly has 
command of every aspect of the experiments.  The only thing that has changed 
over the years besides his conclusion is the size of the audience.  (I am 
thinking of the difference between Baltimore APS and the DNP meeting 
at <I think> Illinois.)

-- 
 James A. Carr   <jac@scri.fsu.edu>     |  Raw data, like raw sewage, 
    http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac        |  requires some processing before
 Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst.  |  it can be spread around.  The 
 Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306    |  opposite is true of theories. 
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.08 / Bruce TK /  Re: What is a PMK
     
Originally-From: bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce       Scott          TK  )
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What is a PMK
Date: 8 Sep 1994 10:45:08 GMT
Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching

In article <CvsrHD.60F@prometheus.UUCP>, pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) writes:

[...]

|> Also we have formed the beasties in air and IPP doesn't believe me
|> since I don't publish.  Also note the DoE seems, from years of 
|> observation (Maglich-Bussard-Bass- .. .), to **-abhor-** funding 
|> independent fusion concepts.. and one related to BL... Well, "THEY" 
|> (fear-ridden-fellows) would sooner close the gates at Germantown 
|> and declare it a mental health facility.  Notice the shared paranoia, 
|> and light hearted wishful thoughts. 

I love it. :-)


-- 
Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de                               -- W Gibson
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnTK cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.08 /   /  Transforming lead into gold?
     
Originally-From: <GGCBAAT@cc1.kuleuven.ac.be>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Transforming lead into gold?
Date: Thu, 8 Sep 1994 13:03:09 +02
Organization: K.U.Leuven - Academic Computing Center

Hi everybody,

   I'm an economy student. I only know atoms are made up of protons, neutrons
and electrons.  Recently someone told me this incredible story that science was
able to transform lead into gold.  The process itself was so expensive though
that it wasn't worth doing it on a large scale.  I don't know if its true but I
have serious doubts about it. Maybe one of you scientists can help me ?

The person who wanted me to believe all this also told me that science is
thinking about developing a SHMOO kinda creature that could be transformed into
anything we like.  For instance if we wanted it to turn into a table cloth that
would be no problem, but that same substance could also be turned into a steak
if we were hungry.

If that was true I think that we should be able to transform, say a He into a
H, which, as far as I know only happens in stars. Is this correct?


                         Thank you for your attention,

                                           Kris
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenGGCBAAT cudln cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.08 / Jonathan Scott /  Re: SOMETHING MISSING IN THE PHYSICS OF LIGHT POLARIZATION
     
Originally-From: jonathan_scott@VNET.IBM.COM (Jonathan Scott)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.plutonium
sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: SOMETHING MISSING IN THE PHYSICS OF LIGHT POLARIZATION
Date: Thu, 8 Sep 94 12:48:40 BST

In <34md49$cko@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Ludwig Plutonium writes:
>                              I bet that a good physicist can find
>another drawback to the standard view and do an experiment which again
>implies photons are neutrinoes.

Aaargh... I nearly agree with something related to what this guy says!

Photons cannot be "made" of neutrinos in any simple way, in that a given
photon can have arbitrary mixed state of +1 and -1 spin in the direction
of travel, but the component of spin of a neutrino in its direction of
travel (i.e. its helicity) is fixed at +1/2 or -1/2 for a given type
of neutrino.  Apart from that, the photon is related to electromagnetism
but the neutrino does not have any significant electromagnetic reaction.

However, I personally think perhaps that the behaviour of a photon CAN
be modelled as being composed of two fermions, but they would have to be
more like a "massless electron" and a "massless positron".

Jonathan Scott
jonathan_scott@vnet.ibm.com  or  jscott@winvmc.vnet.ibm.com
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenjonathan_scott cudfnJonathan cudlnScott cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.08 / Jed Rothwell /  Re: Reply to Rothwell/Amoco, Dufour efforts
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@CompuServe.COM>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reply to Rothwell/Amoco, Dufour efforts
Date: 8 Sep 1994 12:44:03 GMT
Organization: CFRA

I wrote that the Hydrosonic Pump is by far the hottest object in the room, so
it cannot be acting as a heat pump, because that would violate the Second Law.
crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) responded:
 
     "As it's apparently violating the First, I don't see why a little Second
     Law violation would be much concern."
 
That is incorrect. There is no evidence that the Pump is violating mass energy
conservation. It is probably undergoing some sort of new, unknown nuclear
reaction, converting hydrogen in to helium aneutronically. This would be a
violation of known nuclear physics, not the First Law. There is a big
difference.
 
We have good reason to believe it must be creating helium in amounts
commensurate with a fusion reaction. Other researchers, running much smaller
experiments, have detected commensurate helium. These include, for example,
Miles, Yamaguchi, Gozzi (still 'maybe'), and E-Quest. E-Quest uses the same
basic method as the Pump; ultrasound loading and triggering of a CF reaction.
 
In another message, Bass asserts that in order for him to believe in CF we
must "Simply have Toyota market a cold-fusion water heater." I do not
understand why it is necessary for Toyota to do this. What is the matter with
Hydrodynamics of Cartersville, GA? They are marketing a CF heater, it actually
works, and Mr. Bass is welcome to come and verify that fact for himself. Why
does he make predictions and assertions which are already proven false? There
*is* a heater. Why deny it?
 
I will grant that Hydrodynamics does not have the international cachet and
importance of Toyota. Indeed, it is tiny company that nobody has ever heard
of. But hot water is hot water; a BTU is a BTU, and it always equals 1/3413
kilowatt hours. Anyone person understands elementary physics who observes the
performance of the Pump and measures the inputs and outputs with his own
instruments will be convinced by it, because a whole a barrel of water at a
high temperate cannot be faked. Mr. Bass is not serious. He knows that he is
wrong, and he knows full well that anyone with a power meter, a thermometer
and a scale can prove him wrong.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.08 / Jed Rothwell /  Re: Reply to Rothwell/Amoco, Dufour efforts
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@CompuServe.COM>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reply to Rothwell/Amoco, Dufour efforts
Date: 8 Sep 1994 13:08:46 GMT
Organization: CFRA

parky@ix.netcom.com (Chris Parkinson) writes:
 
     "Right on Jed. Sceptics are now slowly coming to an end. When will Jones
     understand this. Remember one key is polishing with no pits or cracks.
     With this being the case you should act like a jeweler and cabinet maker
     and not like your typical physicist sceptic that sloppily throws a CF
     experiment together."
 
Readers should please understand that Mr. Parkinson is NOT recommending we
polish the sceptics, even though they do exhibit pits and cracks in their
thinking. It might help if were to polish one, but we would have to capture
and subdue the poor fellow, which would not be worth the trouble.
 
No, Parkinson is talking about cathodes here, specifically Pd cathodes, and
his advice is excellent. Interested readers will this advice in the Cravens
paper in ICCF4 Vol 2, along with many other vital tips, advice and
suggestions. It is highly recommended by Fleischmann and by me. Anyone who
seriously wishes to replicate a Pd electrolysis CF experiment must begin by
reading this paper. I would also consult with Cravens directly, or with some
other successful experimenter. Otherwise, you will flounder around for months
or years reinventing the wheel.
 
Parkinson's other point is also vital. You cannot simply "throw together" a CF
experiment, any more than you can casually fabricate a computer chip, a
tokamak, a souffle, or a 50,000 line computer program. It has to be done
carefully, and it has to be done over and over again, until you master the
skills. Mizuno told me that he worked for nearly two years on the CF proton
conductors before he finally achieved success:
 
     "Around June 1991 I began setting up proton conductor experiments. I
     tried a series of Sr - Ba devices, and La - Zr devices, and a variety of
     experimental protocols, but I got no results. I finally settled on the
     formula I am using today, but even in this case, the first 20 samples I
     produced did not generate any trace of excess heat."
 
People who are not willing to devote two years of hard work to this field
should not bother getting involved the first place.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.08 /  prasad /  Re: More info on the Hydrosonic Pump!
     
Originally-From: c1prasad@watson.ibm.com (prasad)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: More info on the Hydrosonic Pump!
Date: Thu, 8 Sep 1994 13:26:24 GMT
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

My system/I was down last couple of days, though I did notice a post
[ from Tom Zemanian, refering to Jorge Stolji's earlier post, which I missed]
that conjectured a fairly plausible heat pump theory for the Griggs machine.
John Logajan responded that the heat pump explanation would require
a COLD SPOT to be valid.

Here's my 2 bits (at RAM costs these days, 2 b << 2 cents? ;):

The cold should occur in the cavitation zone.  Since heat would rush in
(with the considerable churning going on in the tank) from everywhere,
from the water, from the spinning disc itself and from the tank walls,
a few degrees of cold in the cavitation zone would not translate to
noticeable cold on the outside of the tank walls.  I know of 10s of KW
of heat being displaced within a sweltering large shop without anyone
being able to notice a chill, everyone's attention being on the concentrated
hot spot instead.

The heat pump theory can only be demolished if you can prove that there
is no cooling *in the cavitation region* within the tank.  From the posted
data, it does not look as if the inside temperature *distribution* has
been monitored, and it is definitely not going to be easy either.

Can Griggs build a working table-top model with transparent tank and disc
(made of some tough plastics or pyrex or something that can do this job)?
It should be possible to dope the water with a temperature-sensitive dye,
so the temperature distribution, and indirectly thus the heat flow,
can be recorded by video and analyzed.

This lab model should be considered imperative, because the heat pump
concept closely fits the observed phenomena, viz. work -> heat at > 1
conversion ratio.  I should think it to be in the interests of all,
both the skeptics and the enthusiasts of "free-energy", to prove or
disprove the heat pump theory.

-- 

#pragma prejudices=own brainwaves=own others=disowned!
// email: 71155.3116@compuserve.com, poll= < 1/month.
// bad habits: nun!
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenc1prasad cudlnprasad cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.08 / L Plutonium /  Re: SOMETHING MISSING IN THE PHYSICS OF LIGHT POLARIZATION 
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.plutonium
sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: SOMETHING MISSING IN THE PHYSICS OF LIGHT POLARIZATION 
Date: 8 Sep 1994 21:31:28 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In article <voerman.779008763@ruunat.fys.ruu.nl>
voerman@fys.ruu.nl (Marco Voerman) writes:

> This is however NOT due to the conversion of photons into neutrino's. 
> Nor will it ever. Photons CAN NOT convert into neutrino's. Any proces 
> involving neutrino's has to be mediated by the weak force

  That is merely "beliefs" not knowledge, not experimentation. Merely
beliefs, from out-dated texts. And how much do we know of
radioactivities force or strong nuclear force. Close to nothing. Do you
think your knowledge of radioactivities, i.e. 'neutrinos mediated by
weak force' will last and be in that form in 2 years , or 100 years
from now? Any day from now, that bit of prejudice which you accept as
'cornerstone knowledge' could come crashing down. The physics
understanding of neutrinos is close to nil. Accept that. Try to make
sense of Superconductivity, via logic. Logic dictates that the ONLY
THINGS WHICH CAN TRAVEL THROUGH MATTER WITH NO LOSS TO RESISTANCE IS
NEUTRINO MOTION. Hence, superconductivity is neutrino flow. Stop your
prejudices and roll up your sleeves and get to work.
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.08 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Reply to Rothwell/Amoco, Dufour efforts
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reply to Rothwell/Amoco, Dufour efforts
Date: Thu, 8 Sep 1994 14:08:30 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <34m89q$5vi@ixnews1.ix.netcom.com>,
Chris Parkinson <parky@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>Right on Jed. Sceptics are now slowly coming to an end. When will Jones
>understand this. Remember one key is polishing with no pits or cracks.
>With this being the case you should act like a jeweler and cabinet maker
>and not like your typical physicist sceptic that sloppily throws a CF 
>experiment together.

    You forgot the most important key;  Dancing naked under 
    a full moon lugging a bunny-shaped philosophers' stone.

    When, when, when will the 'skeptics' read the relevant literature?  
    
                                   dale bass



cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.08 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Reply to Rothwell/Amoco, Dufour efforts
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reply to Rothwell/Amoco, Dufour efforts
Date: Thu, 8 Sep 1994 16:25:22 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <34n0uj$15r$1@mhadg.inhouse.compuserve.com>,
Jed Rothwell  <72240.1256@CompuServe.COM> wrote:
>I wrote that the Hydrosonic Pump is by far the hottest object in the room, so
>it cannot be acting as a heat pump, because that would violate the Second Law.
>crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) responded:
> 
>     "As it's apparently violating the First, I don't see why a little Second
>     Law violation would be much concern."
> 
>That is incorrect. There is no evidence that the Pump is violating mass energy
>conservation. 

     Of course, there's no evidence it's not, he remarked dryly.

>It is probably undergoing some sort of new, unknown nuclear
>reaction, converting hydrogen in to helium aneutronically. This would be a
>violation of known nuclear physics, not the First Law. There is a big
>difference.

     So now it's probably also violating conservation of momentum.  I'm not 
     quite sure why you're so picky about which fundamental conservation
     principle you're violating.

>We have good reason to believe it must be creating helium in amounts
>commensurate with a fusion reaction. 

     Exactly the same reason I believe that virtual doughnuts are actually
     being burned in a virtual chemical reaction.

     From whence do they come?  

     From the doughnut shop, of course.

>In another message, Bass asserts that in order for him to believe in CF we
>must "Simply have Toyota market a cold-fusion water heater." I do not
>understand why it is necessary for Toyota to do this. What is the matter with
>Hydrodynamics of Cartersville, GA? They are marketing a CF heater,

     No, actually I'd classify that as a 'free energy device'.  And people
     have marketed 'free energy devices' for centuries.

> it actually
>works, and Mr. Bass is welcome to come and verify that fact for himself.

     Sure, I'd be happy to put an end to your dreams.  Two week's salary,
     travel and no restrictions on the discussion of potentially
     propretary matters, and I think we could end this rather quickly.
     
     On the other hand, think of the opportunity, the possibility 
     of turning a 'skeptic', indeed, a skeptic with a PhD in
     Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, from the 'dark side' of the force.  
     Think of the possibility of having a young agressive PhD in 
     the appropriate field on *your* side.

>performance of the Pump and measures the inputs and outputs with his own
>instruments will be convinced by it, because a whole a barrel of water at a
>high temperate cannot be faked. 

     I have no doubt that spinning a pitted rotor in a barrel of water
     makes the water hotter.

>Mr. Bass is not serious. He knows that he is
>wrong, and he knows full well that anyone with a power meter, a thermometer
>and a scale can prove him wrong.

     I know well that power meters, thermometers and scales can
     easily be misused in overcredulous hands.

                                  dale bass

cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.08 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Reply to Rothwell/Amoco, Dufour efforts
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reply to Rothwell/Amoco, Dufour efforts
Date: Thu, 8 Sep 1994 16:33:56 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <34n2cu$1av$1@mhadg.inhouse.compuserve.com>,
Jed Rothwell  <72240.1256@CompuServe.COM> wrote:
> 
>Parkinson's other point is also vital. You cannot simply "throw together" a CF
>experiment, any more than you can casually fabricate a computer chip, a
>tokamak, a souffle, or a 50,000 line computer program. It has to be done
>carefully, and it has to be done over and over again, until you master the
>skills. 

     And you must, certainly, be sure to sample experimental parameters
     of forty or so cells once in a blue moon using one or two crappy pcs.
     And you must, certainly, drive your cells to transients for which
     your electrical measurements become meaningless.
     And you must, always, measure transient events with the most mediocre
     tools available for steady events.

     Carefully?  Master the skills?  Give me a break.

                                   dale bass

Mizuno told me that he worked for nearly two years on the CF proton
>conductors before he finally achieved success:
> 
>     "Around June 1991 I began setting up proton conductor experiments. I
>     tried a series of Sr - Ba devices, and La - Zr devices, and a variety of
>     experimental protocols, but I got no results. I finally settled on the
>     formula I am using today, but even in this case, the first 20 samples I
>     produced did not generate any trace of excess heat."
> 
>People who are not willing to devote two years of hard work to this field
>should not bother getting involved the first place.
> 
>- Jed


cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.09 / L Plutonium /  Re: Polarized Light.
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,alt.sci.physics.plutonium
Subject: Re: Polarized Light.
Date: 9 Sep 1994 01:46:57 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In article <WAF2PCB723063073@brbbs.brbbs.com>
mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY) writes:

> The question has been asked here where the energy goes when light is polarized.
> If we are speaking of passing light through a polarizing film the explaination
> is quite simple.  Just as if you were to drop pennies on a grate, only those
> which are aligned properly with the grate will pass through, so it is with
> light and film polarizers.  The ones that don't make it through are simply
> blocked, and turned into heat.

  But has anybody measured the energy equation. That heat should be hot
after a short while. Something to be noticed on polarizers. I ask. Has
anyone checked to see if the ENERGY IN = ENERGY OUT? Has anyone really
done the fine detailed experimentation. Or are all physicists going on
"say so". I am confident a big surprize will befall those who do the
fine measurement detail work. I am sure that a top notch experimental
physicist can set up the experiment that shows that ENERGY IN does not
= ENERGY OUT. Then it will be shown that many photons were turned into
neutrinos. In fact do an experiment where the photons out pass through
a neutrino counter. I bet that a large amount of neutrinos are with
polarized light. Try it. Do the experiments. Like in QM, experiments
are counterintuitive.
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.09 / Chris Parkinson /  Re: Cold Fusion  on CBC TV
     
Originally-From: parky@ix.netcom.com (Chris Parkinson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion  on CBC TV
Date: 9 Sep 1994 05:48:16 GMT
Organization: Netcom

In <CvsCIw.I56@cuug.ab.ca> engl@cuug.ab.ca (Lain Eng) writes: 

>
>annon () wrote:
>: 	     At 8:00 tonight (Tuesday, Sept 6, 1994) the CBC runs a one hour film
>: on "Cold Fusion" as part of Its "Witness" series.  Not sure if it is just
>: an update of last years program, or a new program.
>
>Repeated at 1:00 pm, Saturday September 10, 1994 on Newsworld.
>

Help again please,

What is Newsworld? I am in California. CNN or PBS or what?

Thanks in advance,
Chris
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenparky cudfnChris cudlnParkinson cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.09 / Chris Parkinson /  Re: Reply to Rothwell/Amoco, Dufour efforts
     
Originally-From: parky@ix.netcom.com (Chris Parkinson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reply to Rothwell/Amoco, Dufour efforts
Date: 9 Sep 1994 05:52:00 GMT
Organization: Netcom

In <Cvs5M2.Htq@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU
(Cameron Randale Bass) writes: 

>
>In article <34kloj$k69$1@mhadg.inhouse.compuserve.com>,
>Jed Rothwell  <72240.1256@CompuServe.COM> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>     "The fact that the Amoco people dropped this line of research tells us a
>>     great deal about their opinion regarding the likelihood that this would
>>     be an energy producer, IMHO.  I guess that's the bottom line."
>> 
>>First, you do not know for sure that they have dropped it. Second, if that
>>fact "tells us a great deal" then what does it tell us when Mitsubishi,
>>Toyota, Hitachi, NEDO, NIFS, MITI, EPRI, Canon, Thermacore, Shell and dozens
>>of other corporations increase research year by year and file more and more
>>patents? Why do you judge the situation by the action of this one company -
>>Amoco - and ignore what all these other companies are doing? Clearly, you are
>>picking and choosing your evidence.
>
>     When Amoco, Toyota, Hitachi or Shell presents a product ready for market
>     we can talk.  Until then, this is just rather poorly documented wind.
> 
>     Jed, your tactics have always been transparent, but it's very easy to 
>     'prove' the sceptics limited, neolithic fools.  Simply have Toyota market
>     a cold-fusion water heater.  
>
>     It's that simple.
>
>     I predict, however, that it will be a cold day in sheol before that
>     occurs.
>
>     On the other hand, until that frosty day, it appears to me that anyone
>     continuing to fund the work that started it all, P&F's, either
>
>               a) has far too much free cash, or
>               b) is a credulous dupe.
>
>     Feel free to make the call yourselves.
>
>                                      dale bass
>
>

Well Dale Bass,

I predict the opposite and I predict that you will be the fool.

CP
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenparky cudfnChris cudlnParkinson cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.09 / Chris Parkinson /  Re: Reply to Rothwell/Amoco, Dufour efforts
     
Originally-From: parky@ix.netcom.com (Chris Parkinson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reply to Rothwell/Amoco, Dufour efforts
Date: 9 Sep 1994 06:13:21 GMT
Organization: Netcom

In <34n2cu$1av$1@mhadg.inhouse.compuserve.com> Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@
ompuServe.COM> writes: 

>
>parky@ix.netcom.com (Chris Parkinson) writes:
> 
>     "Right on Jed. Sceptics are now slowly coming to an end. When will Jones
>     understand this. Remember one key is polishing with no pits or cracks.
>     With this being the case you should act like a jeweler and cabinet maker
>     and not like your typical physicist sceptic that sloppily throws a CF
>     experiment together."
deletions...
> 
>No, Parkinson is talking about cathodes here, specifically Pd cathodes, and
>his advice is excellent. Interested readers will this advice in the Cravens
>paper in ICCF4 Vol 2, along with many other vital tips, advice and
>suggestions. It is highly recommended by Fleischmann and by me. Anyone who
>seriously wishes to replicate a Pd electrolysis CF experiment must begin by
>reading this paper. I would also consult with Cravens directly, or with some
>other successful experimenter. Otherwise, you will flounder around for months
>or years reinventing the wheel.
deletions...
> 
>People who are not willing to devote two years of hard work to this field
>should not bother getting involved the first place.
> 
>- Jed
>
Thanks Jed for keeping my lack of footnotes straight. To give credit
where credit is due: Cravens is the gentleman and scientist that
makes the polishing claims. I read this somewhere and couldnt remember
where. Sorry to Dr. Cravens for the plagerism. And Jed, I'm very happy
to here your comments not so much on my behalf but on the backup of
all the scientists who have put forth correct and proper efforts 
towards the CF area. The sceptics still abound and it is probably
good that they remain. But to deny people like Cravens really makes
my blood boil. These are the same type of folks that in the tube days 
regarded the idea of a semiconducting transistor as a joke and an
imposibility. I say this very firmly to those who wish to endevour
in charactor assacination. You will be remembered. Not only do I have
the willpower and the funds to help CF along but I will do my best
to point you guys out when the time comes.

Regards,
CP
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenparky cudfnChris cudlnParkinson cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.09 / Matt Kennel /  Re: Heat pumps
     
Originally-From: mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Heat pumps
Date: 9 Sep 1994 20:43:40 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

Jed Rothwell (72240.1256@CompuServe.COM) wrote:
:  
: The pump is by far the hottest object in the room, so it cannot be acting as a
: heat pump, because that would violate the Second Law. As I wrote in the first
: paper: "A great deal of other energy was not accounted for, in readily
: apparent losses like radiation from the pump, which is the size of a small
: automobile engine block, and which was over 300 deg F during the run." This
: was measured with a hand held pyrometer.
:  
: Also, there are no large solid masses of metal or bodies of air or water that
: grow cold during the run. If the Pump was acting as 36,000 BTU per hour
: refrigerator, it would make quite a lot of cold water, ice, or blowing air. I
: would definitely notice it! We know that the heat transfer all occurs at the
: pump itself, because water goes in at room temperature and comes out as steam.
: If such a compact object was scavenging so much heat from ambient air it would
: soon be covered with frost.

That's not so certain.  It could be getting a little bit of heat over
a large area. (And `ambient' will have cooled slightly and 
potentially to proper equilibrium)

: - Jed

Let's put it this way:

Prima Facie evidence of....

1)  Nuclear reactions:   Substantial levels of energetic photons, neutrons, or
    charged particles.  (Geez at kilowatts of putative energy production
    there ought to be squillions).

2)  True energy production:  excess *work*.  

    Or perhaps at least excess heat above maximum carnot efficiency.  Let's
    take Thot = 300F = 422K, and Tcold = room temperature = 300K, maximum
    heat pump efficiency is Th/(Th-Tl) = 422/(422-300) =approx 3.45.  You
    gave a figure of 1.6 before.  I'd say that if this were to be O(10) then
    that would be quite strong evidence.
    (Even 19th century thermodynamics can be tricky.)

either of which say 'new physics'.

So far, the world has not yet been convinced of either #1 or #2.

--
-Matt Kennel  		mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu
-Institute for Nonlinear Science, University of California, San Diego
-*** AD: Archive for nonlinear dynamics papers & programs: FTP to
-***     lyapunov.ucsd.edu, username "anonymous".
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenmbk cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.09 / Cindy Lundgren /  Re: Proton Conductors - a brief tutorial
     
Originally-From: lundgrca@esvax.dnet.dupont.com (Cindy Lundgren)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Proton Conductors - a brief tutorial
Date: Fri, 9 Sep 1994 18:53:38 GMT
Organization: DuPont all opinions my own

In article <940906052438_70047.3047_EHB193-2@CompuServe.COM>,
70047.3047@compuserve.com (Bill Page) wrote:

 Chandra
> states that:
> 
> "In general, both cations and anions can move in a solid
> lattice. [...] there are expected to be more conducting solids with
> alkali ions. The possibility of halide ion conductors is small, except
> for the smallest ion F-. [...] The more commone ions showing high
> mobility are Li+, Na+, K+, Ag+, Cu+, F- and O--. Most of the compounds
> of the latter two ions (F- and O--) show high conductivity only at
> high temperatures.".

	Actually there is a reference to Cl- conduction in SrCl2, but only at
T>1000K up to the melting point (1146K)
R.E. Lechner, Solid State Ionics, 61, 3, (1993)


> Now proton (H+) conductors are actually somewhat different. Chandra
> quotes Poulsen (1980) as summarizing the special problems of proton
> conduction as follows:
> 
> "(i) Naked H+ ions are not found in solids under equilibrium
> conditions ([lifetime?] tau > 10^-11). H+ is always covalently bonded
> to some electronegative atoms/ions in the structure e.g. C-H, N-H,
> O-H."

In mixed perovskite Ceramics, A2B'(1+x)B"(1-x)O(6-a), proton conductivity
is only seen in non-stoichiometric (X not 0) compositions, where the proton
is associated with an oxygen ion
K.C. Liang, A.S. Nowick, Solid State ionics, 61, 77 (1993)

> 
> The theoretical models of ion conductivity are, in general, not very
> far advanced. The mechanisms which have been posited and possibly
> observed in proton conductors include, migration of defects, H3O+/H2O
> jumps [tunneling], H2O/OH- jumps [tunneling], liquid like transport in
> layered solids, NH4+ and H3O+ migration, and a variety of other more
> exotic possibilities. Both H3O/H2O and H2O/OH tunnelling followed by
> molecular re-orientation (also called the Grotthus Mechanism) is known
> to be important in aqueous solutions.

The Lechner paper cited above reviews some diffusion mechanisms based on
quasielastic neutron scattering. The more physics oriented readers might
find this article interesting. As an experimental chemist, I was happy to
skim it and read the conclusions :^)


> 2) And do these other conductors also show unexpected differences in the
> mobilities (equals conductivity?) between protons and deuterons?
> >>
> 
> Surprizingly I did not find a single reference in these texts to the
> investigation of differences in proton versus deuteron conductivity.

T.Hibino, K.Mizutani, H.Iwahara, "H/D Isotope Effect On Electrochemical
Pumps of Hydrogen and Water Vapor Using a Proton Conductive Solid
Electrolyte", J. Electrochem. Soc., 140, 9, 2588 (1993)
They did see an isotope effect. "... the pumping rate of D+ species is
remarkably smaller than that of the H+ species. This difference is based on
the increases in bulk resistence and cathodic overpotential by replacing H+
with D+. Furthurmore, the decrease in transport number of conducting ion
also contributes  (to) the isotope effect..." Their proton conductor was
SrCe(0.95)Yb(0.05)O(3-a).
R.M. Biefield, M.A. Butler, L.J. Azevedo, "Isotope Effect and Tunneling
Proton Conduction in HTaWO6", Solid St. Comm., 38, 12, 1125 (1981) - have
not read this one. 

> ----------------------
> 
> I hope this review has been of some interest to at least a few people
> here. I think it would be great if we could get an update on some of the
> lastest developments in this area by someone like Cindy Lundgren or
> Bruce Liebert (who has interacted here in the past).

One of the common methods that researchers use to investigate proton
conduction is AC impedance, by measuring th AC impedance at various temps,
you can get the activation energies for conduction.  The proton conduction
can be related to proton self-diffusion by the Nernst-Einstein equation. 

For those interested in the Palladium/H system, I recommend an old but very
informative book, _The Palladium/Hydrogen System_, by F.A. Lewis, Academic
Press, 1967. I have found this book very useful (I use Pd as an
electrocatalyst to study some hydrogenation reactions).

Also, there is an entire issue of Solid State Ionics on solid state proton
conductors, which are the Proceedings of the 6th European Conference on
Solid State Protonic Conductors. It is issue 61 (1993)
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Bill Page.

If anyone's interested, I will post articles I come across that are
pertinent to this thread.

Cindy Lundgren
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenlundgrca cudfnCindy cudlnLundgren cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.09 / Vertner Vergon /  Re: SOMETHING MISSING IN THE PHYSICS OF LIGHT POLARIZATION
     
Originally-From: vergon@netcom.com (Vertner Vergon)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.plutonium
sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: SOMETHING MISSING IN THE PHYSICS OF LIGHT POLARIZATION
Date: Fri, 9 Sep 1994 10:23:51 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

In article <19940908.051002.618@almaden.ibm.com>,
Jonathan Scott <jonathan_scott@VNET.IBM.COM> wrote:
>In <34md49$cko@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Ludwig Plutonium writes:
>>                              I bet that a good physicist can find
>>another drawback to the standard view and do an experiment which again
>>implies photons are neutrinoes.
>
>Aaargh... I nearly agree with something related to what this guy says!
>
>Photons cannot be "made" of neutrinos in any simple way, in that a given
>photon can have arbitrary mixed state of +1 and -1 spin in the direction
>of travel, but the component of spin of a neutrino in its direction of
>travel (i.e. its helicity) is fixed at +1/2 or -1/2 for a given type
>of neutrino.  Apart from that, the photon is related to electromagnetism
>but the neutrino does not have any significant electromagnetic reaction.
>
>However, I personally think perhaps that the behaviour of a photon CAN
>be modelled as being composed of two fermions, but they would have to be
>more like a "massless electron" and a "massless positron".
>
>Jonathan Scott
>jonathan_scott@vnet.ibm.com  or  jscott@winvmc.vnet.ibm.com

Jonathan, you are so right. If you haven't read de Broglie's book, Matter 
and Light: The New Physics, Dover Publ., N.Y. Pg 59. you should. 

He covers the subject of the relation of neutrinos to photons, does it
beautifully and says essentially what you do.

In my own analysis of beta decay I came to the conclusion that both photons
and neutrinos consist of quanta, the difference being (if you analyze 
spin and charge) that photons consist of mixed spin whereas the neutrino 
consists of quanta of singular spin. They cannot assume a configuration 
of resonance which would enable them to form an electron, so they just 
travel in close association with no charge and no *detectable* spin.
The key is that the quanta travel in a loose association of small units
and therefore are virtually undetectable but their collective energy and
momentum register to effect the conservation of energy and momentum in 
the entire reaction. The total mass of the neutrino is approximately 
1 1/2 electron mass but because it cannot form a prticle that mass is 
undectable. The photon on the other hand, forms because the quanta 
composing it undergo superposition resulting in Gaussian group waves
(packets).

V.V.

p.s.
     There is no such thing as a "massless particle"   --- photon,
neutrino, electron or whatever.  That is in the same category as
anhydrous water.
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenvergon cudfnVertner cudlnVergon cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.09 / Chuck Sites /  Re: Reply to Rothwell/Amoco, Dufour efforts
     
Originally-From: chuck@iglou.iglou.com (Chuck Sites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reply to Rothwell/Amoco, Dufour efforts
Date: Fri, 9 Sep 1994 13:19:06 GMT
Organization: The Internet Gateway of Louisville, KY

crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:

>In article <34m89q$5vi@ixnews1.ix.netcom.com>,
>Chris Parkinson <parky@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>
>>Right on Jed. Sceptics are now slowly coming to an end. When will Jones
>>understand this. Remember one key is polishing with no pits or cracks.
>>With this being the case you should act like a jeweler and cabinet maker
>>and not like your typical physicist sceptic that sloppily throws a CF 
>>experiment together.

>    You forgot the most important key;  Dancing naked under 
>    a full moon lugging a bunny-shaped philosophers' stone.


It's the bunny-shaped philosoper stone that's the trick.  The dancing 
naked under a full moon was proven to cause re-combination.  The bunny 
does have to be highly polished though, other wise the psyco-kinetic 
energies don't focus enough to cause the quantum transition to release 
the vacum energy.           
>                                   dale bass

>    When, when, when will the 'skeptics' read the relevant literature?  

I just don't know, but some of flames they make must be take off a bathroom
wall. 

Have Fun,
Chuck Sites


cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.09 /  prasad /  Re: Reply to Rothwell/Amoco, Dufour efforts
     
Originally-From: c1prasad@watson.ibm.com (prasad)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reply to Rothwell/Amoco, Dufour efforts
Date: Fri, 9 Sep 1994 13:00:25 GMT
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center


Steven Jones writes:

We have used palladium supplied by Tanaka, of Japan, the same as several other 
researchers (e.g., Ed Storms) and it seems to be free of pits and cracks.

Of course, I wouldn't know what "physicist sceptic that sloppily throws a CF
experiment together" you are referring to.  The 'excess heat' experiments done
at BYU were carefully performed by a group led by chemistry professor Lee
Hansen.  We saw apparent excess heat using both Ni/H2O and Pd/D2O, up to
750% as this is generally calculated.  But in all cases, we were able to "turn
off" the excess heat by suppressing recombination.  Thus, the 'excess heat' was
not real.

--Steven Jones

-- 

My chemistry education stopped with high school, so please pardon my naivete.
I don't quite understand how the suppressibility of the "excess heat" makes
it unreal.


#pragma prejudices=own brainwaves=own others=disowned!
// email: 71155.3116@compuserve.com, poll= < 1/month.
// bad habits: nun!
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenc1prasad cudlnprasad cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.09 / Chris Hall /  Re: Cold Fusion  on CBC TV
     
Originally-From: cmhall@umich.edu (Chris M. Hall)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion  on CBC TV
Date: Fri, 9 Sep 1994 09:36:43
Organization: U. of Michigan Dept. Geol. Sci.


>In <CvsCIw.I56@cuug.ab.ca> engl@cuug.ab.ca (Lain Eng) writes: 

>>
>>annon () wrote:
>>:           At 8:00 tonight (Tuesday, Sept 6, 1994) the CBC runs a one hour
>film
>>: on "Cold Fusion" as part of Its "Witness" series.  Not sure if it is just
>>: an update of last years program, or a new program.
>>
>>Repeated at 1:00 pm, Saturday September 10, 1994 on Newsworld.
>>

>Help again please,

>What is Newsworld? I am in California. CNN or PBS or what?

>Thanks in advance,
>Chris

Chris:

CBC Newsworld is a Canadian cable channel and it's like CNN for the Great 
White North. Unless you have a satellite dish, you won't get it. I live only 
40 minutes from the border, and I can't receive it. If you do have satellite, 
check out one of the Anik birds, but it might need decoding.

Chris Hall
cmhall@umich.edu

cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudencmhall cudfnChris cudlnHall cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.10 / Richard Blue /  Overselling cold fusion
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Overselling cold fusion
Date: Sat, 10 Sep 1994 00:05:30 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I saw the CBC Horizon program on cold fusion on Tuesday.  In it I
noted three examples of exagerated claims that went unchallanged.
We have some more examples here so I thought I would just list
them.

The Horizon program connects the claims by Meyer in Ohio to cold
fusion although the basic claim is rather for superefficient
electrolysis of water such that in a closed loop of electrolysis
and hydrogen burning you can extract enough energy to power a
dune buggy.  The real problem with the Horizon presentation is
that they allowed Meyer et al. to insert their own video of
the dune buggy in  operation with absolutely no checks as to
what the operating conditions were.  The BBC crew themselves
never actually saw the device in operation, and clearly did not
ask any questions of anyone concerning the Meyer claims.  Yet
I am sure the impression on the viewing audience was to give
a sense that this thing actually works!

Next we have the claims regarding scaleup of operating CF
cells to higher power levels both at Thermacore and by
Pons and Fleischmann.  I believe the Thermacore claim was
for kilowatts of excess heat when the recently published
paper describes only experiments that yield only a few tens
of watts from large and ungainly cells.  I see this as an
example of exageration by roughly a factor of 100.

The most blatant falsehood was given twice, once by Pons
and once by Fleischmann.  Each of them brandished something
that might possibly contain a large cell or array of cells
and mentioned the typical household power needs which they
estimated at 20 kwatts.  This goes beyond a claim that they
are on the verge of a scaleup by a factor of 100 because the
20 kW household power requirement is not necessarily just
heat.  I think they were trying to give the impression that
the viewer could expect to disconnect from the power grid
any day now.

Next we have Jed Rothwell asserting that the Griggs device
runs on cold fusion and therefore must be producing 4He.
Again we hear that 4He is established as the primary product
of cold fusion with the work of Miles, Yamaguchi, Gozzi,
and E-Quest given in evidence.  It takes some doing just
to make a logical connection between all five of this
experiments.  What does the Yamaguchi method have in
common with the Griggs pump?  Other than equally doubtful
claims I don't see any connection.  As for the Griggs
device producing 4He, why not provide some experimental
evidence before making such assertions, Jed?

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.09 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Reply to Rothwell/Amoco, Dufour efforts
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reply to Rothwell/Amoco, Dufour efforts
Date: Fri, 9 Sep 1994 13:27:20 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <34ot60$bg7@ixnews1.ix.netcom.com>,
Chris Parkinson <parky@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>In <Cvs5M2.Htq@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU
(Cameron Randale Bass) writes: 
>> 
>>     Jed, your tactics have always been transparent, but it's very easy to 
>>     'prove' the sceptics limited, neolithic fools.  Simply have Toyota market
>>     a cold-fusion water heater.  
>>
>>     It's that simple.
>>
>>     I predict, however, that it will be a cold day in sheol before that
>>     occurs.
>>
>>     On the other hand, until that frosty day, it appears to me that anyone
>>     continuing to fund the work that started it all, P&F's, either
>>
>>               a) has far too much free cash, or
>>               b) is a credulous dupe.
>>
>>     Feel free to make the call yourselves.
>>
>>                                      dale bass
>>
>>
>
>Well Dale Bass,
>
>I predict the opposite and I predict that you will be the fool.

     We'll see.  How many years are you prepared to wait?

                               dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.09 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Reply to Rothwell/Amoco, Dufour efforts
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reply to Rothwell/Amoco, Dufour efforts
Date: Fri, 9 Sep 1994 13:35:03 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <34oue1$c19@ixnews1.ix.netcom.com>,
Chris Parkinson <parky@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>my blood boil. These are the same type of folks that in the tube days 
>regarded the idea of a semiconducting transistor as a joke and an
>imposibility. 

     Just curious.  Who exactly considered transistors 'impossible'
     and a 'joke'?  Have you any actual references to such a group of 
     'folks'?

                             dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.09 / C Harrison /  Re: McKubre's data & s.p.f experiment
     
Originally-From: harr@netcom.com (Charles (Chuck) Harrison)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: McKubre's data & s.p.f experiment
Date: Fri, 9 Sep 1994 15:11:38 GMT
Organization: Fitful


Re: best calorimetry

Jones suggests closed cell, separate recombiner.  Amen.  But,
(and this has been discussed several times here) we *need help*
on the recombiner.  We want recombination to be smooth and
complete, with a minimum of "head space" gases of unknown
composition.

Historically closed-cell recombiners (at those near atmospheric
pressure -- and there are good safety reasons for staying
away from high-pressure cells) have a habit of operating
in fits and starts.  There's some kind of positive feedback
and/or self-poisoning that bedevils low-temperature catalysts.

Moving the catalyst to a separate calorimeter zone is useful, but if
its operation is still sporadic, the data will be hard to interpret.
Some of the most provocative CF measurements are large heat "bursts",
and catalyst bumps are terrible distractions.

Take note that moving the catalyst away from the cell probably
increases the head space volume and increases  uncertainty in
that volume's gas composition.  I have suggested mechanical
circulation.

The only serious suggestion I recall regarding the recombiner
problem is to run a hot catalyst - e.g. a glowing Pt wire.  This
sounds plausible, but I think it would be productive to bench-test
this before we design it into an experiment.  Are there lifetime or
poisoning problems?  How much waste heat does this have to add to
the calorimeter load?  How can we verify reliable steady operation
with varying compositions (including water vapor and LiOH carryover)?

I've gotta beleive this problem has been addressed by someone, and that
there's prior art we can hang our hats on.
Speak up, lurkers!

-Chuck
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenharr cudfnCharles cudlnHarrison cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.09 /  ZBYA /  Information about Tokamaks
     
Originally-From: tfbzafdf@w252zrz.zrz.tu-berlin.de (ZBYA)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Information about Tokamaks
Date: 9 Sep 1994 15:42:57 GMT
Organization: Technical University Berlin, Germany


Hi 

I am searchinh some information and paper which discreibes the funktion of 
a Tokamak-Fusion-Reaktor ..

Can someone recomend me some papers or some skrips, which are not so specific ..

Thanks in advance ..

ZBYA





cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudentfbzafdf cudlnZBYA cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.09 / Bruce TK /  Re: Information about Tokamaks
     
Originally-From: bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce       Scott          TK  )
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Information about Tokamaks
Date: 9 Sep 1994 16:18:57 GMT
Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching

In article <34pvq1$i8b@brachio.zrz.TU-Berlin.DE>, tfbzafdf@w252zrz.zrz.t
-berlin.de (ZBYA) writes:

|> I am searchinh some information and paper which discreibes the funktion of 
|> a Tokamak-Fusion-Reaktor ..

Look for a book by John Wesson, called _Tokamaks_.

-- 
Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de                               -- W Gibson
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnTK cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.09 / L Plutonium /  Re: SOMETHING MISSING IN THE PHYSICS OF LIGHT POLARIZATION     
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.plutonium
sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: SOMETHING MISSING IN THE PHYSICS OF LIGHT POLARIZATION     
Date: 9 Sep 1994 16:31:59 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In article <vergonCvuy7r.8sL@netcom.com>
vergon@netcom.com (Vertner Vergon) writes:

> Jonathan, you are so right. If you haven't read de Broglie's book, Matter 
> and Light: The New Physics, Dover Publ., N.Y. Pg 59. you should.

  Excellent discussion and insight Vertner. However you are wrong about
there being no massless particles. Photons have no rest mass. Neutrinos
have no rest mass. Physics is more beautiful then simplistic "human
desires". There is a hell of alot of physics that we have no insight
into. To keep any active physicists in perspective. We know nothing
about the strong nuclear force. Our physics is as primitive to people
in 2000 years from now as it was primitive when Archimedes was doing
it.
  When these matters become a mature physics theory, and we have the
new set of NEUTRINOLIZED MAXWELL EQUATIONS, physicists of the future
will look back and point to the giant of physics Debroglie. Einstein
was a lightweight compared to the heavyweight Debroglie.
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.09 / John Lewis /  Re: Data, and not money. (could be Re: MKubre...)
     
Originally-From: court@newton.physics.mun.ca (John Lewis)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Data, and not money. (could be Re: MKubre...)
Date: 9 Sep 1994 17:05:28 GMT
Organization: Memorial University of Nfld, St. John's, NF

In article <34njb3$2br@ds8.scri.fsu.edu>
jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) writes:
>In article <34hrog$8um$1@mhadg.inhouse.compuserve.com> 
>Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@CompuServe.COM> writes:
>>
>>Regarding these "big numbers" of neutrons, alpha particles, neutrinos and so
>>on: I do not know anything at all about them. Nothing! I suppose you might
>>find number in various scientific papers, but these papers are completely over
>>my head, and I have no use for them. The kinds of "big numbers" that I deal
>>with are kilowatts, BTUs and horsepower. That is because the only cold fusion
>>devices that interest me are the big ones with industrial potential. Neutrons
>>and neutrinos have no commercial market value, so I do not care about them.
>
>Neutrons (and helium) have commercial value, but there are probably more 
>economical ways of getting them -- although that could be argued if CF 
>did prove to be an efficient exothermic process so the production could 
>pay for itself, as it were. 
>
>However, my main observation is that this is a very important statement 
>from Jed.  You see, what this establishes is that he is interested in 
>heat only (a point made off and on, but not so clearly) and is thus 
>talking about an electricity-to-heat conversion device and *not* a 
>cold fusion device.  I say that because he is not concerned with the 
>mechanism, only the results, and the result is heat.  In fact, the only 
>big number he should care about is _efficiency_ since that is what 
>determines the economics of the device. 
>
>On the other hand, those whose main concern is whether this device is 
>a cold *fusion* device are correct to place an emphasis on which final 
>products can be found and their relation to the heat produced.  That 
>is the only way to establish that the device is a fusion device and 
>thus aid in the decision concerning its potential for scaling up so 
>it can provide a significant source of power in our economy. 
>
>The difference between these two concerns is the difference between 
>applied research / engineering and basic research / science.  Both 
>have their place, and both are important. 

The basic research must be done before the engineer can get to work.
Any engineer designing a power plant based on new principles is
going to want to know how will work in excruciating detail, for two reasons.
The first is that, in today's regulatory environment, he is going to
have to inform the public as to EXACTLY what byproducts, and in what
quantities, the plant will produce.  The second is that he or his bosses
will need to know whether they have
rights to use the technology, i.e. whether it is the intellectual
property of his company or not, or has been duly licensed from 
whatever body does own the intellectual property.  Unless these two
questions can be answered, the chances of raising the money to build
the plant are 0.0%, and the chances (assuming that by some miracle
the funding could be put together) of its receiving regulatory approval
are 0.0%.  If you build a big power station near people, don't you
think they will be very interested in knowing whether it produces
neutrons, and how many?  (or, of course, the radioactive byproducts
of neutron absorption).  They will want to know; they will insist on
knowing; not only for the plant in normal operation, but in case
of accident and natural or even human-made calamity.

The idea that one could fund, build, and operate a power plant
without knowing how it works is total nonsense.

J.Lewis
St. John's, Newfoundland

>
>-- 
> James A. Carr   <jac@scri.fsu.edu>     |  Raw data, like raw sewage, 
>    http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac        |  requires some processing before
> Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst.  |  it can be spread around.  The 
> Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306    |  opposite is true of theories. 


cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudencourt cudfnJohn cudlnLewis cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.09 / Tom Droege /  Re: McKubre's data & s.p.f experiment
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: McKubre's data & s.p.f experiment
Date: 9 Sep 1994 18:33:22 GMT
Organization: fermilab

In article <harrCvvBJE.E5r@netcom.com>, harr@netcom.com (Charles (Chuck) 
Harrison) says:
>
>
>Re: best calorimetry
>
>Jones suggests closed cell, separate recombiner.  Amen.  But,
>(and this has been discussed several times here) we *need help*
>on the recombiner.  We want recombination to be smooth and
>complete, with a minimum of "head space" gases of unknown
>composition.
>
>Historically closed-cell recombiners (at those near atmospheric
>pressure -- and there are good safety reasons for staying
>away from high-pressure cells) have a habit of operating
>in fits and starts.  There's some kind of positive feedback
>and/or self-poisoning that bedevils low-temperature catalysts.
>

I agree on avoiding high pressure.  One should always think about what
happens when it blows up, and design the apparatus so that nothing 
special happens.  In my case, the dewar comes out of the basement
and goes through the floor and hits a coffee table that is *between*
where my wife and I watch TV.

I think one has to run two calorimeters.  Then by keeping track of 
the total gas volume you can see when the recombiner balks and take
it into account in the energy balance computation.  My last plan 
called for two pretty good calorimeters inside a third very good
calorimeter.  

>Moving the catalyst to a separate calorimeter zone is useful, but if
>its operation is still sporadic, the data will be hard to interpret.
>Some of the most provocative CF measurements are large heat "bursts",
>and catalyst bumps are terrible distractions.

I think it can be done to pretty good accuracy.  
>

>Take note that moving the catalyst away from the cell probably
>increases the head space volume and increases  uncertainty in
>that volume's gas composition.  I have suggested mechanical
>circulation.

I don't think this is needed.

>
>The only serious suggestion I recall regarding the recombiner
>problem is to run a hot catalyst - e.g. a glowing Pt wire.  This
>sounds plausible, but I think it would be productive to bench-test
>this before we design it into an experiment.  Are there lifetime or
>poisoning problems?  How much waste heat does this have to add to
>the calorimeter load?  How can we verify reliable steady operation
>with varying compositions (including water vapor and LiOH carryover)?

Scott in the Oak Ridge experiment ran a hot wire.  Pd I remember.  The 
problem with this is that it has the usual catalyst problem.  One spot
that gets hot wants to do all the recombination and burns out.  Takes a
very fine wire to work.  I say just use the pellet type catalyst that
I used and keep track of everything as above.

>
>I've gotta beleive this problem has been addressed by someone, and that
>there's prior art we can hang our hats on.
>Speak up, lurkers!

Tom Droege

>
>-Chuck
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.09 / Larry Elie /  Re: Cold Fusion  on CBC TV
     
Originally-From: lelie@smail.srl.ford.com (Larry Elie)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion  on CBC TV
Date: Fri, 9 Sep 1994 14:35:38 UNDEFINED
Organization: Ford Motor Co.

In article <cmhall.5.00099CE2@umich.edu> cmhall@umich.edu (Chris M. Hall) writes:
>From: cmhall@umich.edu (Chris M. Hall)
>Subject: Re: Cold Fusion  on CBC TV
>Date: Fri, 9 Sep 1994 09:36:43


>>In <CvsCIw.I56@cuug.ab.ca> engl@cuug.ab.ca (Lain Eng) writes: 

>>>
>>>annon () wrote:
>>>:           At 8:00 tonight (Tuesday, Sept 6, 1994) the CBC runs a one hour
>>film
>>>: on "Cold Fusion" as part of Its "Witness" series.  Not sure if it is just
>>>: an update of last years program, or a new program.
>>>
>>>Repeated at 1:00 pm, Saturday September 10, 1994 on Newsworld.
>>>

>>Help again please,

>>What is Newsworld? I am in California. CNN or PBS or what?

>>Thanks in advance,
>>Chris

>Chris:

>CBC Newsworld is a Canadian cable channel and it's like CNN for the Great 
>White North. Unless you have a satellite dish, you won't get it. I live only 
>40 minutes from the border, and I can't receive it. If you do have satellite, 
>check out one of the Anik birds, but it might need decoding.

No, CBC, all 4 feeds + french is in the clear on Anik.

>Chris Hall
>cmhall@umich.edu

Larry Elie
lelie@smail.srl.ford.com

cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenlelie cudfnLarry cudlnElie cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.09 /  jonesse@acousb /  Re: Reply to Rothwell/Amoco, Dufour efforts
     
Originally-From: jonesse@acousb.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reply to Rothwell/Amoco, Dufour efforts
Date: 9 Sep 94 12:22:11 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

In article <Cvv5Gp.IAK@hawnews.watson.ibm.com>, 
c1prasad@watson.ibm.com (prasad) writes:
> Steven Jones writes:
> 
> We have used palladium supplied by Tanaka, of Japan, the same as several other 
> researchers (e.g., Ed Storms) and it seems to be free of pits and cracks.
> 
> Of course, I wouldn't know what "physicist sceptic that sloppily throws a CF
> experiment together" you are referring to.  The 'excess heat' experiments done
> at BYU were carefully performed by a group led by chemistry professor Lee
> Hansen.  We saw apparent excess heat using both Ni/H2O and Pd/D2O, up to
> 750% as this is generally calculated.  But in all cases, we were able to "turn
> off" the excess heat by suppressing recombination.  Thus, the 'excess heat' was
                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> not real.
> 
> --Steven Jones
> 
> -- 
> 
> My chemistry education stopped with high school, so please pardon my naivete.
> I don't quite understand how the suppressibility of the "excess heat" makes
> it unreal.
> 
> 
> #pragma prejudices=own brainwaves=own others=disowned!
> // email: 71155.3116@compuserve.com, poll= < 1/month.
> // bad habits: nun!

You seem to have missed my point, highlighted above, that it is by *suppressing
recombination* that we are able to turn off what *appears* to be excess heat.
In our paper (which we hope will soon be published) we show that by bubbling
nitrogen (using a frit to form tiny N2 bubbles) through the electrolyte, we
are able to remove D2 (or H2) from the electrolyte, as well as O2.  Then the
apparent excess heat ceases.  Also, we are able to increase the apparent
excess heat by bubbling (again using a porous frit) oxygen through a cell
which has been operating for some time -- thus increasing the recombination
rate.  Thus, we can control the apparent excess heat, and with these and
other experiments (included in our paper) we show that in fact the "excess
heat"
is due to recombination, which occurs even when the electrodes are completely
covered by electrolyte.  Since the deuterium (or hydrogen) and oxygen
enter the solution due to energy supplied by the electrolysis current in the
first place, the recombination is not excess heat, but rather represents an
error which arises from assuming (as people like Mills and many other CF
claimants do -- also in our paper) that the recombination term is negligible.
It is not, as we have shown.
--Steven Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenjonesse cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.07 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Polarized Light.
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Polarized Light.
Date: Wed, 07 Sep 1994 17:09 -0500 (EST)

The question has been asked here where the energy goes when light is polarized.
If we are speaking of passing light through a polarizing film the explaination
is quite simple.  Just as if you were to drop pennies on a grate, only those
which are aligned properly with the grate will pass through, so it is with
light and film polarizers.  The ones that don't make it through are simply
blocked, and turned into heat.

                                                                Marshall
cudkeys:
cuddy07 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.10 / Bill Page /  re: very cold cold fusion? Part 1.
     
Originally-From: 70047.3047@compuserve.com (Bill Page)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: re: very cold cold fusion? Part 1.
Date: Sat, 10 Sep 1994 08:46:40 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

In response to my request for some help in researching an interesting
1961 article by J.J. Fritz on excess heat production in Palladium hydride
below 1 deg. K. Norman H Redington kindly offered:

<<
... You just have to dig out those massive volumes [science citations] and
search by the sweat of thy brow.. or in this case, my brow -- your task is
to find these, tell us what they say, and why it all stops "cold", so to
speak, in '78...

[numerous references deleted]

>>

Thanks to Norman's help, it seems like we have uncovered a rather
interesting story. Reading these old journals seems almost like
scientific "detective" work. Its not that I am a stranger to university
and technical libraries but doing this research has left me with a 
powerful impression that I can't help but share. And that is that the
legacy of scientific work that this century (or indeed, only the last half
of this century) has produced is truly astounding. You really have to walk
through what seems like miles of bound periodicals (not to mention the
microfiche) with millions of reports of detailed observations and
theories each one of which might require a well educated person several
days to begin to appreciate. I don't know how one could fail to be humbled by
this massive human investment in knowledge. It makes me stop and wonder
how the conduct of science must be changed by the existence of this
resource. As the story goes, in Newton's day, one merely had to sit under
an apple tree, observe and analyze nature directly to come up with a
wonderful new theory (well almost). If Newton was alive today, it seems
he might have been too busy in the library to have noticed!

[Dear Reader: This is a rather long story so I will resort to posting
a series of installments as has become the custom around here (in s.p.f.).
Be assured that I have not abandoned my earlier series of postings on
David Bohm's interpretation of quantum mechanics. I have just been leaving
that one sit (mentally) while I mull over the comments I received on the
fermion trajectories. I think I'm almost ready to continue with that
series but it may be best to get this "very cold cold" stuff off my
chest before going back to more abstract theory.]

Anyway, it turns out that this story begins even before 1961. In fact,
the full story of the study of hydrogen in palladium goes back to before
the turn of the century. And, among many others, it includes the circa
1930 research of Alfred Coehn (discussed by Bartolomeo, Fleischmann, et al
in their ICCF4 paper "Alfred Coehn and After: The alpha, beta, gamma of
the Palladium-hydrogen system"). But the part of the story that we
are interested in here (to the best of my knowledge) begins with a series
of papers by D. M. Nace and J.G. Aston in the Journal of the American
Chemical Society, vol. 79, no. 14, pp.3619 (1957). The titles of the
papers are: "Palladium Hydride. I. The Thermodynamic Properties of Pd2H
between 273 and 345 deg K.", "Palladium Hydride. II. The Entropy of
Pd2H at 0 deg. K." and "Palladium Hydride. III. Thermodynamic Study of
Pd2D from 15 deg. K to 303 deg. K. Evidence for the Tetrahedral PdH4
Structure in Palladium Hydride.". The designation Pd2H is not necessarily
intended to imply a stokeometric relationship as in a chemical compound,
rather it is what is now more frequently referred to as a "loading" of
0.5 corresponding to what is called the beta phase of palladium hydride.

Papers II and III are primarily concerned with determining the heat
capacity of Pd2H and Pd2D at temperatures from cyrogenic to room
temperature. The heat capacity is a measure of the amount of work (energy,
e.g. calories) that is required to increase the temperature of a unit
amount of a substance (e.g. 1 mole) by a unit amount (e.g. 1 deg. K). From
the point of view of classical statistical mechanics, the heat
capacity of a substance is generally thought to change with temperature
when the molecules and atoms of the substance attain enough energy to
occuppy new states of motion. For example, at the lowest temperatures in a
solid molecules vibrate about their "fixed" positions within a lattice.
At higher temperatures, molecules can rotate and atoms vibrate in their
chemical bonds. The total energy is distributed over all of these
available modes.

Nace and Aston's main observation is that the heat capacity generally
rises with increasing temperature but that it shows several anomoly or
humps at various temperatures. The most pronounced non-linearity is at
approx. 55 deg. K, a much shallower hump occurs at about 250 deg. K and 
another at about 325 deg. K. The authors compare the 55 deg. anomoly
with similar observations in (NH4)2O, NH4Cl, NH4NO3, (NH4)2SO4 and CH4
and state that it is commonly regarded as being due to the beginning of
molecular rotation of the NH4 ion and CH4 molecule and conclude that
the anomoly in Pd2H might be due to the rotation of PdH4 units within
the hydride. They also state:

"At temperatures above 55 deg. K., the heat capacity contribution of
hydrogen rises continously at a rapid rate up to room temperature. The
absence of a leveling off of the heat capacity indicates vibrational
degrees of freedom present in the hydride which could be associated
with molecular vibrations of covalently bound atoms. The heat capacity
of pure palladium and of molecular hydrogen, or even free protons if such
could be present in the palladium lattice, would reach a constant
classical limit at temperatures much lower than room temperature."

"The residual entropy of 0.59 e.u. at the absolute zero of temperature
[determined by integrating the heat capacity curve] suggests that on
cooling palladium hydride to very low temperatures the hydrogen atoms are
frozen in one of several possible configurations. Pauling \14 has
explained the 0.82 e.u. residual entropy of ice at 0 deg. K. by assuming
random hydrogen bonding. A somewhat similar situation may exist in
palladium hydride ... ".

Paper III in this series repeats the measurements for Pd2D. They observe
that "The anomolous hump is again present, the temperature corresponding
to the maximum value at the peak having shifted from 55.0 deg. K for
palladium hydride to 57.5 deg. K for palladium deuteride. Although a
second peak is not immediately evident in the case of palladium deuteride
the heat capacity decreases only slightly after the peak, and the two
peaks may be combined in the general shape of the curve. The peak
of the palladium deutride curve is higher than that of the palladium
hydride curve. The second rise in the heat capacity of palladium
hydride also finds its analogy in the palladium deuteride curve, the
[rate of the] temperature [rise] being considerable lower."

They go on to show how their PdH4 model can be fit to these observations.
Including a discussion of a possible diffusion mechanism based on
rotations and tunnelling which is very much like that which we
discussed in the recent subject of proton conductors. They also discuss
the implications of this model for the alpha and beta phases of the
hydride. They state:

"It has been pointed out that, because the lattice is face centered
cubic, for the composition Pd2H the maximum number of hydrogen atoms
that can be present in a palladium lattice cube is two. This
presupposes that each hydrogen atom lies at a position equi-distant
from four different palladium atoms. At high temperatures where
absorption isotherms are measured [to determine the phase], PdH4
molecules have reacted with palladium neighbors to share their hydrogen
or form lower hydrides. The same number of hydrogen atoms per unit cell,
on average is maintained by the rotation (not necessarily free) of each
hydrogen atom around a parent palladium atom in phase with the other
hydrogen atoms. At low temperatures the hydrogen atoms cluster as
PdH4 molecules on corners of the palladium lattice. This leads to the
prediction of the first break in the absorption isotherm at a composition
of Pd8H (H:Pd = 0.125). At this composition each lattice has a PdH4
molecule on one, and only one, corner site. A square block of eight
lattice cubes contains a PdH4 molecule situated on the corner position
which is common to all eight cubes. This PdH4 molecule, on rotating,
can orient its four tetrahedrally arranged hydrogen atoms at any instant
into four of the eight lattice cubes to which it belongs. No cube could
have more than one hydrogen atom in it unless the atomic ration H:Pd
exceeded 0.125. Thus the increase in lattice dimension (beta-phase) has
its raison d'etre in the accommodation of *two interacting hydrogen atoms
in the same lattice cube*."

[My emphasis **]

So we have here a very interesting semi-classical model of palladium
hydride which explains many of the details of the heat capacity curves
and also leads one (even at this very early stage) to think about the
possibility of two hydrogen (deuterium) atoms being relatively close to
each other. Considering its success and relevance, it is not clear to me
why this model is not now more widely discussed in current literature on
the subject.

One final note. When I first saw the heat capacity curves in these
papers, I couldn't help but think of William Bernecky's hydrogen band
hypothesis. Especially in relation to the temperature anomolies. It
seems that a hydrogen band model might also have considerable success at
explaining these variations.

-------------

In the next installment we will discuss some later results that meant that
this model had to be refined a little and also some rather surprising
observations concerning what effects the rate of change of temperature
(annealing) has on the heat capacity and electrical resistivity.

Cheers,

Bill Page.

cudkeys:
cuddy10 cuden3047 cudfnBill cudlnPage cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.10 / John Logajan /  Re: McKubre's data & s.p.f experiment
     
Originally-From: al789@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: McKubre's data & s.p.f experiment
Date: 10 Sep 1994 03:46:52 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)


harr@netcom.com (Charles Chuck) Harrison) says:
>The only serious suggestion I recall regarding the recombiner
>problem is to run a hot catalyst - e.g. a glowing Pt wire.

I still think that a periodic spark would also burn off gases.
Like a spark every second or every five seconds, or whatever.
-- 
-- John Logajan ---  al789@cleveland.freenet.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenal789 cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.10 / Jorge Stolfi /  Re: Heat pumps
     
Originally-From: stolfi@src.dec.com (Jorge Stolfi)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Heat pumps
Date: 10 Sep 1994 11:34:05 GMT
Organization: CS Dept, University of Campinas

    > [Me:] Well, all I know about the Grigg's device is what I read
    > here on the net (that is, very little)... I will assume that the
    > Grigg's device is a heat pump, until someone who knows the
    > details says otherwise.

Gary Steckly kindly mailed me some details about the Griggs device,
and data for three test runs reported by J. Rothwell on the 
Cold Fusion magazine. 

Indeed, it does seems unlikely that the device is acting as a heat
pump.  

However, the apparent "excess heat" computed for those tests may have
a much simpler explanation.  

Take the most successful run (Test 2), for example.  We are told that
the pump was run for some 20 minutes, before measurements started,
while flow rates were being adjusted.  Input power was measured only
after the pump went into the "heat producing" regime, which is
signalled by a change in the noise and by a large decrease in the
power drawn by the motor --- "25% to 50%".  The measurements went on
for another 19 minutes, until the pump was accidentally turned off.

Thus, it seems quite possible that the apparent "excess heat" for that
test was merely heat that got stored inside the pump during the first
20 minutes.

The report says that less than 4 gallons of water flowed through the
pump during the measurement period.  The volume of the pump itself is
not given, but it is described as a "12 inch model".  If it is a
cylinder 12 inches wide and tall, it should hold some 6--7 gallons of
water.

Does anyone have more data?

--stolfi

 ------------------------------------------------------------------
Jorge Stolfi, stolfi@dcc.unicamp.br
Computer Science Dept (DCC-IMECC), Univ of Campinas (UNICAMP)
13081 Campinas, SP -- BRAZIL   +55(192)39-8442
 ------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenstolfi cudfnJorge cudlnStolfi cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.10 / Peter Roessingh /  Re: Fading
     
Originally-From: roes@vax.oxford.ac.uk (Peter Roessingh)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fading
Date: 10 Sep 94 12:46:12 BST
Organization: Oxford University VAX 6620

The Oxford newsfeed is very slow. I saw the message below several days
ago on the Birmingham usenet reader, It still has not surfaced here.

Dieter Britz writes:

>Peter Roessingh (no quote, sorry) is intellectually outraged at the
>idea of fading amazing results.

It seems that my message came across :-) After seeing Raymond Butte
his reply (and Bill Page's) I feel somewhat better :-) btw. I did not
call the result "amazing", I just have as yet not seen strong
arguments to distrust the data.

>What do you think about this one: Back in the early 70's, an
>Australian cosmic ray physicist name McCusker found a single track in
>his device, that meant a particle with a 2/3 charge. Everybody agreed
>at the time that the probability of error was extremely low. Noone
>else has found such a track (which of course points to a quark, not
>otherwise observed) and people have stopped talking about it. Did
>McCusker find a quark, or has it faded?

It clearly has faded. But you talk here about stuff nearly 20 years
old. McKubres paper was published this spring!

>Maybe the word "fading" is poor. Where the human element comes in is
>in how much we care about a given claim. [...] many felt strongly
>about FPH-89. In time, without convincing replication, although the
>result stands as such, it fades in people's minds; they stop caring.
>Quite the contrary with HTSC: there were quick and unmistakable
>replications.

What I would like to find out is exactly how much replication there is
in this case. It looks to me as if some of the datasets have been
swept under the carpet a bit quickly. -No, I take that back, lets say I
have no clear picture what criteria are used to classify the available
data.

>As I have said, my statistics of 'cold fusion' papers submissions per
>month vs time shows an early peak in 1989 and an exponential decay
>since then.

Is that still true? But even so, it might just as well indicate that
this is a more difficult field then HTSC. In a scientific environment
that demands quick results, and simultaneously facing major resistance
from the sitting establishment many people might simply prefer to work
on something else. Certainly I would, if I found myself in a similar
situation in biology, think long and hard before I would take the
gamble and work on the subject, even if my intuition told me there was
something to it. The sheer prospect of an uphill battle against the
current dogma with all its implications for publication record and
career path are a strong deterrent. Not all of us are hero's that
fight for principles. In the end you simply need bread on the table.

To come back to the main topic:I do not dispute the fact that data can
fade, but I think it is far to early to apply this mechanism to
McKubre. In addition I think we should take care to first evaluate the
facts and only after that start to build a more complete picture by
including more sociological factors. And don't get me wrong, I will
not proclaim cf to be real solely based on McKubre, it is after all
only a single datapoint.

Peter Roessingh.

cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenroes cudfnPeter cudlnRoessingh cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.10 / Chris Parkinson /  Re: Reply to Rothwell/Amoco, Dufour efforts
     
Originally-From: parky@ix.netcom.com (Chris Parkinson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reply to Rothwell/Amoco, Dufour efforts
Date: 10 Sep 1994 05:41:32 GMT
Organization: Netcom

In <CvtKAA.Cwo@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU
(Cameron Randale Bass) writes: 

>
>In article <34n0uj$15r$1@mhadg.inhouse.compuserve.com>,
>Jed Rothwell  <72240.1256@CompuServe.COM> wrote:
>>I wrote that the Hydrosonic Pump is by far the hottest object in the room, so
>>it cannot be acting as a heat pump, because that would violate the Second Law.
>>crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) responded:
>> 
lots of deletions.....
>
>     I have no doubt that spinning a pitted rotor in a barrel of water
>     makes the water hotter.
>
>>Mr. Bass is not serious. He knows that he is
>>wrong, and he knows full well that anyone with a power meter, a thermometer
>>and a scale can prove him wrong.
>
>     I know well that power meters, thermometers and scales can
>     easily be misused in overcredulous hands.
>
>                                  dale bass
>
>

Yo Dale,

Relax and then do your own experiment. Do you think that Hydro Dynamics
Corp. is going to commit fraud and get sued. Why dont you call up the
company (404-386-2649) and ask them for some of their customers for
a reference. You will get a positive response in regards to cost savings.
Now are you going to tell me that PGE or other utilities are lying too!

Regards,
CP
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenparky cudfnChris cudlnParkinson cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.10 / Chris Parkinson /  Re: Reply to Rothwell/Amoco, Dufour efforts
     
Originally-From: parky@ix.netcom.com (Chris Parkinson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reply to Rothwell/Amoco, Dufour efforts
Date: 10 Sep 1994 05:57:34 GMT
Organization: Netcom

In <CvtKoK.D48@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU
(Cameron Randale Bass) writes: 

>
>In article <34n2cu$1av$1@mhadg.inhouse.compuserve.com>,
>Jed Rothwell  <72240.1256@CompuServe.COM> wrote:
>> 
>>Parkinson's other point is also vital. You cannot simply "throw together" a CF
>>experiment, any more than you can casually fabricate a computer chip, a
>>tokamak, a souffle, or a 50,000 line computer program. It has to be done
>>carefully, and it has to be done over and over again, until you master the
>>skills. 
>
>     And you must, certainly, be sure to sample experimental parameters
>     of forty or so cells once in a blue moon using one or two crappy pcs.
>     And you must, certainly, drive your cells to transients for which
>     your electrical measurements become meaningless.
>     And you must, always, measure transient events with the most mediocre
>     tools available for steady events.
>
>     Carefully?  Master the skills?  Give me a break.
>
>                                   dale bass
>
>Mizuno told me that he worked for nearly two years on the CF proton
>>conductors before he finally achieved success:
>> 
>>     "Around June 1991 I began setting up proton conductor experiments. I
>>     tried a series of Sr - Ba devices, and La - Zr devices, and a variety of
>>     experimental protocols, but I got no results. I finally settled on the
>>     formula I am using today, but even in this case, the first 20 samples I
>>     produced did not generate any trace of excess heat."
>> 
>>People who are not willing to devote two years of hard work to this field
>>should not bother getting involved the first place.
>> 
>>- Jed
>
>
>

Sorry I just had to leave all this stuff to show what a MAD flamer you
are. Why are you so angry? Did your parents do things that you now
find objectional (maybe they didnt really happen):^). Just kidding
but really, why are you assuming so much. I'll have you know that I
along with my boss (actually he did most of the work), at a rocket
company, created THE program that all interfaces now are using for
data acquisition. We created it on a Mac back in 1985 thru 1986. 
Everyone thought that we were nuts when we told them that we no
longer needed oscillographs and the like. Now we accomplished this on
a 1 MB Mac back in the bad old days when there wasn't even any hard
drives available. The data aqc. frontend was a Compac with 512 K of ram.
The only reason why we needed the Compac was because at the time there
was no way to cram a 16 bit card into a Mac. Now with the bandwidth we
had back then to where the tecnology is today I find your remarks quite
insulting. When Tektronics came by to see us they were amazed at how we
did all the control and data acq.. It's remarkable to me to see now
how all interfaces use a similar system to ours. So I conclude that
with todays speed and cost of data acq. devices that you are very wrong
in your assumptions but I do agree that the quality of the data can only 
be as good as the whomever is doing the experiment.

Regards and happy trails,
CP
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenparky cudfnChris cudlnParkinson cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.10 / Chris Parkinson /  Re: Reply to Rothwell/Amoco, Dufour efforts
     
Originally-From: parky@ix.netcom.com (Chris Parkinson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reply to Rothwell/Amoco, Dufour efforts
Date: 10 Sep 1994 06:01:27 GMT
Organization: Netcom

>Steven Jones writes:
>
>We have used palladium supplied by Tanaka, of Japan, the same as several other 
>researchers (e.g., Ed Storms) and it seems to be free of pits and cracks.
>
>Of course, I wouldn't know what "physicist sceptic that sloppily throws a CF
>experiment together" you are referring to.  The 'excess heat' experiments done
>at BYU were carefully performed by a group led by chemistry professor Lee
>Hansen.  We saw apparent excess heat using both Ni/H2O and Pd/D2O, up to
>750% as this is generally calculated.  But in all cases, we were able to "turn
>off" the excess heat by suppressing recombination.  Thus, the 'excess heat' was
>not real.
>
>--Steven Jones


Well I think that is still a problem. Since when do you as a scientist
regard the quality control from a manufacturer to be anything to write
home about? Try making some yourself and then see what results you get.

CP
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenparky cudfnChris cudlnParkinson cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.10 / Jed Rothwell /  Re: Heat pumps
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@CompuServe.COM>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Heat pumps
Date: 10 Sep 1994 13:40:47 GMT
Organization: CFRA

I wrote:
 
     "The [Griggs] pump is by far the hottest object in the room, so it
     cannot be acting as a heat pump, because that would violate the Second
     Law."
 
mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel) responded:
 
     "That's not so certain.  It could be getting a little bit of heat over a
     large area."
 
No, it cannot be getting any heat over any area. It can only lose heat. The
steel walls of the vessel are much hotter than the surrounding air. The Second
Law of Thermodynamics is: Heat cannot of itself go from one body to a hotter
body. The air is cooler than the pump, therefore heat cannot go from the air
into the steel walls of the pump. Please note that the cooling coils (or other
extracting device) on a heat pumps must be at a lower temperature than the
fluid from which the heat is extracted. For example, the cooling coils in your
refrigerator are cooler than the air in the refrigerator; the cooling coils of
a heat pump space heater, located outside the house, must be cooler than the
ambient winter air.
 
Once the heat is extracted from the external body of fluid, it can be moved
"thermodynamically uphill" to a hotter place, like the compressor in back of
your refrigerator. This is possible because the heat is not going "of itself;"
it is being carried in the moving freon gas.
 
Also please note that there is no "large area" in the Griggs device over which
heat could be absorbed or radiated. It is a compact steel cylinder, roughly 2
feet in diameter and 1 foot in length. The entire Pump surface is hot; much
too hot to touch. There cannot be any isolated spots on the pump housing which
are significantly lower than 300 deg F because it is a solid steel block, and
steel conducts heat very well.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.10 / C Harrison /  recombiners (was Re: McKubre's data & s.p.f experiment)
     
Originally-From: harr@netcom.com (Charles (Chuck) Harrison)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: recombiners (was Re: McKubre's data & s.p.f experiment)
Date: Sat, 10 Sep 1994 14:51:09 GMT
Organization: Fitful


Concerning start-stop recombiner ctalyst behavior...

I wonder if there isn't some way to put "passive" negative feedback
into the recombiner system.

For example, a conventional "hot-wire" approach might take a coil
of a few cm of fine wire energized by an electric current.  In such
a config., all elements of the wire are in series.  A localized
hot spot provides higher resistance, higher localized heating,
(in addition to the recombination energy), encouraging thermal
runaway.

A hot-wire recombiner with many short parallel wires spanning a
small gap between two "headers" would seem to be better.  In a
parallel electrical circuit, local high-resistance paths will
get *less* electrical disspation instead of more.  Pt and Pd
have positive temperature coefficient of resistance, not too
far from copper's, I think.  If appropriate, the catalyst metal
could be plated onto the outside of a high-tempco wire of a
different metal.

There are PTC (positive temperature coefficient) thermistor-type
materials (ceramics?) which have been used successfully as self-
regulating crystal ovens in this fashion, typically ~ 40C.  If
the same effect could be obtained at an appropriate catalyst
operating temperature (a few hundred C ?), then a platinum or
palladium film bonded to such a material might work well.

Another idea would be pulse heating of multiple loops of 
catalyst wire, sequentially.  Perhaps this would force the
recombination activity to be passed along from one site to
another, without a very high continuous heating level (and
consequent burnout) at any one point.

Tom says that if we measure enough of the right things, we
can back out the true behavior even if the catalyst is bumpy.
While this is true in principle I have generally found it
wise, in experimental design, to minimize the need for this
kind of post-processing.  It's hard enough to back out the
disturbances you *didn't* anticipate ;-).

Chuck

cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenharr cudfnCharles cudlnHarrison cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.10 / Jed Rothwell /  Griggs Gadget is not a vortex heat pump
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@CompuServe.COM>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Griggs Gadget is not a vortex heat pump
Date: 10 Sep 1994 16:33:40 GMT
Organization: CFRA

A number of people have suggested that the Griggs Gadget (GG) might be a 
vortex heat pump. Let me explain why this is impossible. There are two 
scenarios:
 
1. The GG extracts heat from incoming water and adds it to the outgoing
steam. Net effect: zero. No excess enthalpy possible. The water temperature
would drop, and then rise to exactly the same extent it dropped. The BTUs 
in the barrel would equal KWH of mechanical input minus losses to radiation.
 
Of course, if the machine had one input pipe and two outputs, and it poured 
out a steady stream of cold water from one pipe and steam from another, that 
would be a different story. It could be a vortex heat pump in that case. 
Remember that vortexes heat pumps always have to divide the input flow into 
two ouputs: hot, and cold. The Griggs Gadget does not do that. It has only 
one input pipe and one output pipe, and the number of pounds added to the 
feedwater hopper during the run equals the increase found in the barrel 
afterwards. There is no gain or loss, no missing mass.
 
2. The GG extract heat from incoming water and freezes the water until all
the empty spaces inside the pump are filled with ice. That would block the
inlet pipe, or it would at least prevent additional ice from forming. New 
water might flow around the ice. Once you have extracted all the heat from 
the water initially present in the GG, you can get no more.
 
It is a little difficult to imagine how you could hold ice in a steel chamber
at 300 deg F, but let's assume you can. The GG is a cylinder about 2 feet in
diameter and one foot in length. Nearly the entire inside of it is filled 
with steel and aluminum; the rotor is nearly solid. It has very tight  
clearances between rotor and housing. I suppose you might fit a gallon in 
there, optimistically (8 pounds). Chilling 8 lbs of water from 60 F down to 
32 F would yield 240 BTU. The heat of fusion for 8 lbs of ice is 1152 BTU, so 
it comes to about 1400 BTU. The GG generates roughly 400 BTU per minute 
excess, so a gallon would turn to ice in 3.5 minutes. I suppose you could get 
even more energy if you chilled it down to absolute zero, but not too much 
more. If you leave the machine running for, say, 5 years, it will generate 
400 BTU per minute the entire time. That adds up to more than 1400 BTU.
 
Please note the "ice" variation on scenario 1: heat is extracted from water,
which forms ice in the rotor, which is melted by the heat. Net effect: zero.
This is what happens in a refrigerator equipped with an icemaker when you 
leave the door open. You can try this experiment yourself easily, just by
having children.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.10 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Heat pumps
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Heat pumps
Date: Sat, 10 Sep 94 13:32:21 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Jorge Stolfi <stolfi@src.dec.com> writes about the Griggs Gadget (GG):
 
     "Take the most successful run (Test 2), for example.  We are told that
     the pump was run for some 20 minutes, before measurements started, while
     flow rates were being adjusted.  Input power was measured only after the
     pump went into the "heat producing" regime..."
 
That is incorrect. Input power was measured the entire time, but one of the
accumulation registers in power meter ("Daily Use") was reset when the test
began, so the kilowatt hours shown in the report were for that 20 minute
period alone. This is very easy to verify; the instantaneous power reading -
kilowatts - remained fairly stable and it was 3 times higher than the 20
minute total KWH, since 20 minutes is one third of an hour.
 
Please note that the test begins with several simultaneous actions:
 
     Record barrel water temperature and temperature in feedwater tank hopper
 
     Reset "Daily Total" power meter register to zero
 
     Start stopwatches
 
     Open valves into rubber hoses emersed in barrel, and shut valves venting
     steam into air. In other words, shunt the steam flow from air into
     barrel.
 
 
     "Thus, it seems quite possible that the apparent "excess heat" for that
     test was merely heat that got stored inside the pump during the first 20
     minutes."
 
This is incorrect, it is not possible. When the test ends, the power to the GG
is shut off and the steam flow is shunted back into the air. The rubber hoses
are withdrawn from the barrel which is then weighed. (It is sitting on the
scale the whole time). There can be no substantial amount of energy stored in
the pump in any case, because it does not hold much water.
 
Think of it this way: we take a 20 minute slice of input and output. The
entire test runs 40 minutes. The GG warms up, shoots a plume of steam into the
air and begins producing excess after ten minutes or so. When everyone is
ready, last minute starting temperature are read, someone shouts "Go!" over
the noise of the machine, stopwatches are pressed, the power meter register is
reset, the steam is shunted into the barrel. After 20 minutes someone shouts
"Stop!" The GG power is turned off, stopwatches halted, and any remaining
steam is shunted back to air. Total KWH reading from the power meter are
printed, including the total for the 20 minutes only. You have sliced out a 20
minute sample of power in and heat out. Once the excess begins, the energy
flow is very steady and predictable. If you were to run it continously for a
week and take samples of 20 minutes each at random, you would find they all
consume about the same amount of input energy, and produce about the same
output during each segment.
 
Actually, it is no longer necessary for someone to shout "Go!" and "Stop!"
They are now using computer data collection, they just press a button on the
computer and shunt the steam. It is not as fun, impressive or romantic. It
does not look like turn-of-the-century engineering physics anymore, which is a
shame, because that is essentially what it is.
 
 
     "The report says that less than 4 gallons of water flowed through the
     pump during the measurement period."
 
That is correct; 31 pounds.
 
     "The volume of the pump itself is not given, but it is described as a
     "12 inch model".  If it is a cylinder 12 inches wide and tall, it should
     hold some 6--7 gallons of water."
 
That is incorrect for three reasons:
 
1. The cylinder is cannot possibly hold 6 gallons, I doubt that it would hold
even one. It is filled with a nearly solid aluminum rotor (except for the
holes around the perimeter), which is very close to the housing. There is
little empty space inside the rotor housing.
 
2. The rotor, feedpump and all other equipment is shut down the moment the
test ends. The separation tank and the edge of the barrel is much higher than
the pump, unboiled water cannot flow uphill into it.
 
3. As noted above, the hose leading to the barrel is shut off in any case, and
remaining steam is vented to air after the test.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenjedrothwell cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.10 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Overselling cold fusion
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Overselling cold fusion
Date: Sat, 10 Sep 94 13:38:13 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Richard A Blue <blue@pilot.msu.edu> writes:
 
>Pons and Fleischmann.  I believe the Thermacore claim was
>for kilowatts of excess heat when the recently published
>paper describes only experiments that yield only a few tens
>of watts from large and ungainly cells.  I see this as an
>example of exageration by roughly a factor of 100.
 
You are wrong. You are equating apples to oranges. The recently published
paper does not describe the devices shown in CBC video, it describes older
much less powerfull ones. There is no exaggeration at all, what has has
happened is that they have increased their power levels by 2 or 3 orders
of magnitude.
 
I am amazed that you made such a simple mistake. A quick glance at the
kilowatt devices shows that they do not look a bit like the devices described
in the paper.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenjedrothwell cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.10 / Alan M /  Re: Reply to Rothwell/Amoco, Dufour efforts
     
Originally-From: Alan@moonrake.demon.co.uk ("Alan M. Dunsmuir")
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reply to Rothwell/Amoco, Dufour efforts
Date: Sat, 10 Sep 1994 17:50:22 +0000
Organization: Home

Chris:

Just go and read Steve Jones' note, please.

Alan M. Dunsmuir [@ his wits end]     (Can't even quote poetry right)

         I am his Highness' dog at Kew
         Pray tell me sir, whose dog are you?
			      [Alexander Pope]

PGP Public Key available on request.


cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenAlan cudfnAlan cudlnM cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.10 / Lance Rodberg /  Solid State Fusion
     
Originally-From: al255@yfn.ysu.edu (Lance Rodberg)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Solid State Fusion
Date: 10 Sep 1994 18:01:15 GMT
Organization: St. Elizabeth Hospital, Youngstown, OH


Ok, I've seen tons of stuff on Cold Fusion and other odd things.
What the heck, here's a crackpot idea one better than cold fusion.

Ok, here's the general idea, to construct in a fairly simple and cost
effective fashion a solid state fusion device. Or in more exact terms
a machine that can be made in similar fashion as silicon, or other 
semiconductors. Have a seed crystal or some such and have gasseous metal
, doping compunds, etc deposted to form the machine.
  What the machine would do when complete would be to form an accelerator
to speed up atoms and smash them into the core of the machine. And then
convert the energy to the use of the machine to do the same over and over.
At the right speeds and levels of collision you would have some sort of
fusion/fission. 
   Eventually from the heat and other things the machine would melt down.
Hopefully though, it would first provide more energy than it took to make it.
And that's sort of the idea, a fast and disposable fusion device.
  How to build it ? Shouldn't be too hard compared to huge reactors. All
the gizmos to build an accelerator, energy collector, etc exist now as 
various solid state devices.
   It might not even be necessary to use radioactive materials. You could
smash nickel, cobalt, sodium, or whatever together.
   The advantages of the solid state materials are that you could build
an endless amount of acceleration channels into the core, and with it being
a solid chunk, your energy and electrons, particals of all sorts would be
trapped inside and fed right back into the reaction.
   The trick would be in the layering of materials to form it, get the
right type of structure to form the complete thing.
  Not that impossible, chip makers do it all the time. Not as critcal as
chips though. If you mess up one acceleration channel, oh well, the other
couple million can cover for it. It would have to be redundant though
since high speed ions and other high speed particals would swiss cheese
the thing eventually.

cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenal255 cudfnLance cudlnRodberg cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.10 / Jed Rothwell /  Re: Heat pumps
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@CompuServe.COM>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Heat pumps
Date: 10 Sep 1994 20:11:58 GMT
Organization: CFRA

There is no cold spot on the Griggs Device. There are no external tanks
besides the feedwater tank. I would have certainly have mentioned it if
there had been. It is physically impossible for this to be a heat pump.

- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.11 / C Harrison /  virial theorem: peculiar boundaries
     
Originally-From: harr@netcom.com (Charles (Chuck) Harrison)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: virial theorem: peculiar boundaries
Date: Sun, 11 Sep 1994 00:14:10 GMT
Organization: Fitful

Here is an odd thought that hit me as I was reading a nice
math book [1] passed to me by my best friend (& wife :-) ).
I like Gustafson's style, & he draws examples from wide-
ranging application areas.  Unfortunately for an engineer
like me, all the interesting examples are given as thought
problems, rather than solved.  Too much like work!  For
its intended purpose, though, this is a neat book.

Anyway, he was talking about constraints on boundary
surfaces for some of the basic PDE results.  He cited
Lebesgue [2] for an example of a domain on which the
Dirichlet problem (fixed potential on the boundary)
cannot be solved:  a sphere punctured by an exponential
spine of revolution (r=exp(-1/z) in cylindrical coords).
There was a picture. "Zut, alors!" sez I, "It looks like
the 'pucker' in the end of a PMK mantle!"

The following extract from [1] p. 117 shows that Gustafson
expects us to do the legwork ourselves (which I haven't):
[ch note: here Omega is the conventional symbol for the
domain on which the PDE problem is posed]

  Problem.  (a) Read through the references (esp those
  mentioned in sec 1.6.1) to develop an understanding
  of nice domains in two senses:  (1) divergence
  theorem domains, those on which one can apply the
  divergence theorem (called regular, normal, Gaussian
  domains, among others), and (2) Dirichlet problem
  domains, those on which one can solve the Dirichlet
  problem for any continuous boundary data f (called
  Dirichlet regions or domains, among others).
  (b) Write down some contributions of Poincare and
  Lebesgue in particular.
  (c) Think about what a "cusp" or "punctured"
  condition might mean physically in the case, for
  example, (i) electrostatics or (ii) a Brownian
  motion inside Omega, as relating to the borderline
  cases between Omega nice and Omega not nice.
  (d) What effect does the connectivity of the domain
  have on whether it is a (1) divergence theorem
  domain or (2) Dirichlet problem domain?  In particular,
  how about the (i) ring domain 1/2 < x^2+y^2 < 1
  [ch note: generalizes to torus?] and (ii) the
  punctured domain 0 < x^2+y^2 < 1 ?
  (e) What is the effect of dimension on these two
  classes of domains Omega?
  [...]

Now *that's* what I call a *problem*!  They didn't
give us problems like that in undergrad engineering
school!

To me, it lays out the interesting possibility that the
PMK Mantle domain is one on which the divergence theorem
(and consequently the virial) does not hold.

Does anyone out there know enough to follow up on this?

Cheers,
  -Chuck

[1] KE Gustafson, _Introduction to Partial Differential
     Equations and Hilbert Space Methods_, 2e, Wiley,
     NY, 1987.  ISBN 0-471-83227-8.

[2] H Lebesgue, "Sur des cas d'impossibilite du probleme
     de Dirchlet," ["On impossible cases for the 
     Dirichlet problem"] _Comptes Rendus Soc. Math.
     France_ 1913.

P.S.
  I heartily encourage all posters to sci.physics.fusion
to include full citations.  I am sure that the cognoscenti
know immediately who "Glasstone & Lovberg" or "Jackson"
are.  However, on the Net, there are also laymen like me
who have the luxury of being close to a major university
library.  A real citation makes the difference between
being able to follow or just being "snowed".
    -CH

cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenharr cudfnCharles cudlnHarrison cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.11 / C Harrison /  Re: Reply to Rothwell/Amoco, Dufour efforts
     
Originally-From: harr@netcom.com (Charles (Chuck) Harrison)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reply to Rothwell/Amoco, Dufour efforts
Date: Sun, 11 Sep 1994 00:52:57 GMT
Organization: Fitful

In article <1994Sep9.122211.1732@acousb.byu.edu>,
 <jonesse@acousb.byu.edu> wrote:
[...]
>
>You seem to have missed my point, highlighted above, that it is by *suppressing
>recombination* that we are able to turn off what *appears* to be excess heat.
>In our paper (which we hope will soon be published) we show that by bubbling
>nitrogen (using a frit to form tiny N2 bubbles) through the electrolyte, we
>are able to remove D2 (or H2) from the electrolyte, as well as O2.  Then the
>apparent excess heat ceases.  Also, we are able to increase the apparent
>excess heat by bubbling (again using a porous frit) oxygen through a cell
>which has been operating for some time -- thus increasing the recombination
>rate.  Thus, we can control the apparent excess heat, and with these and
>other experiments (included in our paper) we show that in fact the "excess
>heat"
>is due to recombination, which occurs even when the electrodes are completely
>covered by electrolyte.  Since the deuterium (or hydrogen) and oxygen
>enter the solution due to energy supplied by the electrolysis current in the
>first place, the recombination is not excess heat, but rather represents an
>error which arises from assuming (as people like Mills and many other CF
>claimants do -- also in our paper) that the recombination term is negligible.
>It is not, as we have shown.
>--Steven Jones

Working from Steve's descriptions of his as-yet-unpublished paper, it
appears that he found that preventing dissolved oxygen from reaching
the cathode region suppressed "excess heat".  He therefore concludes
that "excess heat" results are often (always??) caused by recombination
at the cathode.

Jed Rothwell on sci.physics.fusion has stridently reminded Steve that
this expanation is ineffective for excess heat results obtained
where output heat exceeds input I*V, and also for results in which
evolved gases were measured volumetrically to monitor recombination.
These objections are sound, and an intellectually straightforward
response is called for.  (It may be "I don't believe those results."
But such results should be at least mentioned in a quality paper.)

However Steve (I'm putting words in his mouth now) feels that Jed's
now calling for a "double miracle" -- it's too much of a coincidence
that "excess heat" _only_ occurs when oxygen is present and therefore
recombination is possible.  (Note that this generalization is by
no means proven, either by Jones' experiments nor by a literature
review, but that it is a possible conjecture regarding apparently
successful cold fusion electrolysis experiments.)

I think that Steve should recognize (and should cite in his
article) that others have come to the conclusion that oxygen
participates in the cold fusion reaction [1], and have tried
to develop a theory based on enhanced Coulomb screening with
the displaced band structure in a lightly oxygenated Pd
surface layer.

I have described here on s.p.f some reasons to conjecture that
oxygen may be involved in Ti-based anomalies, including
Reifenschweiler [2],[3] and the "Italian style" dry cold
fusion [4],[5].

If oxygen is a participant in the excess heat phenomenon, then
Steve's experiments are consistent with that.

Working strictly from reputation (and we know that's dangerous),
I have no reason to doubt the results which Steve has briefly
described.  His apparent conclusion that recombination is a
suitable explanation for the bulk of electrolytic CF claims
remains suspect.  I hope that Steve's paper describes his work
in adequate detail to assist those working on alternative
(e.g. oxygen-participation) theories.

Chuck

[1] D Das, MKS Ray, "Fusion in condensed matter - a likely scenario",
     _Fusion Technology_ 24:115-121 (1993).
[2] O. Reifenschweiler, "Reduced radioactivity of
     tritium in small titanium particles", _Phys Lett A_
     184:149-153 (3 Jan 1994).
[3] C Harrison (that's me), annotated bibliography at
     file://sunsite.unc.edu/pub/academic/physics/cold-fusion/TiBib.txt
[4] A DeNinno, A Frattolillo, G Lollobattista, L Martinis, M Martone,
     L Mori, S Podda, F Scaramuzzi, "Evidence of emission of neutrons
     from a titanium-deuterium system", _Europhys. Lett._ 9(3):221-224
     (1989).
[5] E Botta, T Bressani, D Calvo, A Feliciello, P Gianotti, C Lamberti,
     M Agnello, F Iazzi, B Minetti, A Zecchina, "Measurement of 2.5
     MeV neutron emission from Ti/D and Pd/D systems", _Nuovo Cimento
     A_ 105A(11):1663-1671 (1992).

cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenharr cudfnCharles cudlnHarrison cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.11 / Anton Sherwood /  Re: #6 BRAVE NEW WORLD GOVERNMENT, Political idiot Bill Clinton
     
Originally-From: dasher@netcom.com (Anton Sherwood)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci
physics.electromag,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.theory,alt.gobment
lones
Subject: Re: #6 BRAVE NEW WORLD GOVERNMENT, Political idiot Bill Clinton
Date: Sun, 11 Sep 1994 02:59:33 GMT
Organization: San Francisco Libertarian Party +1-415-905-6397

: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium) writes: 
: >	[ yak yak yak ]
: >If you vote, vote Libertarian. But best of all, vote with your money,
: >by getting rid of all paper money savings.
: >Continued in #7. BTW, some readers have asked me if I proof read these.
: >No, I no longer proof read. I write them once and post. I have too many
: >projects of far more importance to worry about mispelling or grammar.

Chris Parkinson <parky@ix.netcom.com> says:
: And off the deep end he fell. Stick to your true calling, Science. 
: Politics is your ticking time bomb. Libertarian rantings is all that
: this is.

Some is libertarian.  His notion of a "benevolent world dictator"
certainly isn't.
-- 
  disclaimer: the above is likely to refer to anecdotal evidence.
     *\\*   doing my bit for the Net of a Million Lies   *\\*
Anton Sherwood   *\\*   +1 415 267 0685   *\\*   DASher@netcom.com
 Libertarian candidate for California Assembly, district 12 (S.F.)
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudendasher cudfnAnton cudlnSherwood cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.11 / John Logajan /  Re: Heat pumps
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@mirage.skypoint.net (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Heat pumps
Date: 11 Sep 1994 03:56:54 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Jorge Stolfi (stolfi@src.dec.com) wrote:
: Thus, it seems quite possible that the apparent "excess heat" for that
: test was merely heat that got stored inside the pump during the first
: 20 minutes.

This would require a dual mode of operation in which during the
first 20 minutes the bulk of the rotor/housing warmed up to a high
temperature, and then during the second 20 minutes the temperature
of rotor/housing dropped.

Delta Temp * mass of the material * temp/coefficient would give us
a more or less fixed amount of energy. 

These two clues (dual mode temperature operation, and fixed amount
of "anomalous" energy) would be easy to rule out.

If the rotor/housing temperature did not drop after the cut over
point, then this "heat storage" mechanism is ruled out.

If the amount of anomalous energy varies with the length of the run
(especially long runs of an hour or greater) than the above
suggested "heat storage" mechanism is also ruled out.

--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com -- 612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills  MN 55112 USA           -
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.12 / Bill Page /  experiment - recombination vs combustion
     
Originally-From: 70047.3047@compuserve.com (Bill Page)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: experiment - recombination vs combustion
Date: Mon, 12 Sep 1994 00:14:24 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

John Logajan writes:
<<
harr@netcom.com (Charles Chuck) Harrison) says:
>The only serious suggestion I recall regarding the recombiner
>problem is to run a hot catalyst - e.g. a glowing Pt wire.

I still think that a periodic spark would also burn off gases.
Like a spark every second or every five seconds, or whatever.
>>

I'm not so sure how important this is, but Mills has claimed
that there is a difference between combustion 2(H2)+O2 -> 2(H2O)
and catalytic recombination. Mills claims that hyrdinoes (hyrdogen
in the putative tightly bound state) do not take part in ordinary
combustion but has implied that this may not apply to catalytic
recombination.

Cheers,

Bill Page.

cudkeys:
cuddy12 cuden3047 cudfnBill cudlnPage cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.12 / Bill Page /  re: proton conductors
     
Originally-From: 70047.3047@compuserve.com (Bill Page)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: re: proton conductors
Date: Mon, 12 Sep 1994 00:14:19 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Cindy Lundgren wrote:
<<
[some very useful references]

...

Also, there is an entire issue of Solid State Ionics on solid state proton
conductors, which are the Proceedings of the 6th European Conference on
Solid State Protonic Conductors. It is issue 61 (1993)

...

If anyone's interested, I will post articles I come across that are
pertinent to this thread.
>>

Thanks very much indeed for this information. I, for one, remain very
interested.

Cheers,

Bill Page.

cudkeys:
cuddy12 cuden3047 cudfnBill cudlnPage cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.12 / Bill Page /  re: very cold cold fusion - part 2
     
Originally-From: 70047.3047@compuserve.com (Bill Page)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: re: very cold cold fusion - part 2
Date: Mon, 12 Sep 1994 00:14:21 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

This post continues the discussion of early papers on the properties
of hydrogen in deuterium at low temperatures.

In an article titled "The Thermodynamic Properties of Pure Palladium
and its Alloys with Hydrogen between 30 and 300 deg. K", J. Amer. Chem.
Soc., 79 (1963) 137;  P. Mitacek and J.G. Aston expand on the work of
Nace and Aston to consider the effect of the concentration of hydrogen
on the 55 deg. K anomaly in palladium hydride. They observe that "... it
is evident that the nature of the species responsible for the transition
in the heat capacity is concentration independent. That the amount of
the species formed is directly proportional to the amount of hydrogen in
the sample follows from the fact that the molal heat capacity is
concentration independent. Beyond the transition region in the heat
capacity curve effects of concentration become evident in the occurrence
of slow exothermic processes.". They then go on to discuss a revised
model of hydrogen in palladium that is consistent with this and the
results of other workers.

"From the neutron diffraction work of Shull and collaborators\8 at room
temperatures the position of the hydrogen atoms in the palladium lattice
has been fixed in the octahedral positions of the palladium lattice
forming an NaCl type crystal with a hydrogen deficiency. This work was
extended down to 20 deg. K. by Schindler\9 who found that the positions
of the hydrogen atoms remain the same as at room termperature except in
the immediate neighborhood of the heat capacity peak at 55 deg. K. This
work excludes the possibility that the transition in the heat capacity
curve at 55 deg. K is the result of an order-disorder mechanism
accompanying a change in the crystal structure."

They note that resistivity measurements made by Schindler\10 for various
compositions and temperatures from 10 to 300 deg. K. show a "marked
change in the magnitude of the values and the character of the curve
apon changing the concentration from 0.48 H/Pd ratio to 0.54 ratio.". The
lower concentration does not show any change in slope near the 55 deg.
K heat capacity anomaly while at 0.54 and above the resistance
curve shows a peak at the same location as the heat capacity anomaly.
So the authors conjecture that "By adding hydrogen atoms between the
corner atoms compositions of H/Pd ratio up to 0.50 can be formed. The
face-centered atoms form a hydrogen-free plane between two planes that
have hydrogen in them. These latter planes extend throughout the lattice
randomly changing direction by pi/2. The randomness of the changing
directions of the planes is limited only by the condition that the planes
cannot intersect. To form ratios above 0.50 H/Pd, hydrogen has to enter
the plane formed by the face-centered atoms between the planes of hydrogen
atoms characteristic of all compositions below H/Pd = 0.5."

"In this way the paths of metallic conduction through the lattice are
destroyed and the sudden rise in resistivity results. The peaks in the
resistivity curves above 0.50 H/Pd are then evidently related to the
similar peak in the heat capacity curves because electron-phonon
scattering is influenced by the hydrogen in the planes of the
face-centered atoms. ..."

"The addition of more hydrogen forms more of the planes of hydrogen
between corner palladium atoms and thus the heat capacity is proportional
to the hydrogen present. For compositions of H/Pd = 0.5 and below the
transition point in the heat capacity curve, the four hydrogen atoms in
a plane cluster about the center palladium atom to form a square planar
PdH4 molecule. Hydrogen bonding between the neighboring palladium atoms
forms, at low temperatures, a regular network which must be stabilized by
resonance effects in the plane to explain the data. The hydrogen atoms
begin to librate in the network as the temperature increases. This
decreases the resonance stablization and allows the atoms to move to
equivalent positions by means of a ring diffusion mechanism involving
four hydrogen atoms equivalent to a rotation of the PdH4 square planar
molecule about an axis perpendicular to the plane. This would produce the
sort of heat capacity effect noted in the measurements. The same effect
is apparent in the resistivity measurements when the hydrogen
concentration is large enough to fill the face-centered planes."

[Note the change in the posited structure of the PdH4 molecule from
tetrahedrally positioned hydrogen atoms in the previous paper to a square
planar structure.]

"For concentrations below 0.50 deg. H/Pd ratio small patches of planes
and incomplete PdH4 molecules will occur. At low temperatures these
incomplete planes will diffuse into neighboring planes to produce
plans which are complete and which have lower energies. This neighboring
diffusion produces the low temperature warm drifts [exothermic effects]
noted in the samples. Above 0.50 H/Pd ratio this situation is eliminated
and the warm drifts do not occur."

In the next installment we will look at reports of energy evolution in
this system at 4 deg. K and below. This will have to be explained
by someother process than the diffusion mechanism suggested above. And
another surprize was waiting because in 1972 it was discovered that
at Pd-H loadings in the 0.8 range palladium hydride was a superconductor!

Cheers,

Bill Page.

cudkeys:
cuddy12 cuden3047 cudfnBill cudlnPage cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.12 / Bill Page /  Griggs device
     
Originally-From: 70047.3047@compuserve.com (Bill Page)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Griggs device
Date: Mon, 12 Sep 1994 00:14:27 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Jed Rothwell wrote:
<<
1. The cylinder is cannot possibly hold 6 gallons, I doubt that it would
hold even one. It is filled with a nearly solid *aluminum* rotor (except
for the holes around the perimeter), which is very close to the housing.
There is little empty space inside the rotor housing.
>>

My emphasis **. You may have noticed that everytime the word *aluminum*
occurs in this news group my ears perk up! :})

Jed, has Griggs made any observations regarding the effects of different
types of rotor materials?

Cheers,

Bill Page.

PS. Thanks for the additional references on proton conductors.


cudkeys:
cuddy12 cuden3047 cudfnBill cudlnPage cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.11 / John Logajan /  Re: #6 BRAVE NEW WORLD GOVERNMENT, Political idiot Bill Clinton
     
Originally-From: al789@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: #6 BRAVE NEW WORLD GOVERNMENT, Political idiot Bill Clinton
Date: 11 Sep 1994 14:34:29 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)


Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium) writes: 
>If you vote, vote Libertarian. 
 
Chris Parkinson <parky@ix.netcom.com> says:
>Libertarian rantings is all that this is.

dasher@netcom.com (Anton Sherwood) says:
>Some is libertarian.  His notion of a "benevolent world dictator"
>certainly isn't.


I didn't see this go by the first time.  Yes, "one world" dictatorial
governments run by CEOs (or anyone else for that matter) are rather
obviously antithetical to the Libertarian principle of individual
self-sovereignty.

Ludwig's solution to debt crisis -- prohibiting trading in US currency --
is also inconsistent with the Libertarian principle of non-interference
with the property rights of the individual.  There are far less
draconian and far more direct ways of solving debt problems, solutions that
don't require the looting of the value of cash held by innocent
individuals.

-- 
-- John Logajan ---  al789@cleveland.freenet.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenal789 cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.11 / John Logajan /  Re: Reply to Rothwell/Amoco, Dufour efforts
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@mirage.skypoint.net (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reply to Rothwell/Amoco, Dufour efforts
Date: 11 Sep 1994 13:51:18 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Charles (Chuck) Harrison (harr@netcom.com) wrote:
: If oxygen is a participant in the excess heat phenomenon, then
: Steve's experiments are consistent with that.

No, I believe this is fundamentally incorrect.

It's as if you are suggesting that Steve said, "Our tests revealed no
anomalous heat at any time -- and when we purged the oxygen, the anomalous
heat went away."

Clearly, Jones says he never had any anomalous heat, and therefore it
couldn't have "gone away" when they purged the oxygen.

So Steve's experiment is only consistent with a total null result, and not
with a positive result driven into a null regime.

I think all you can conclude from Steve's results is that there are
potential in-situ recombination or "short circuit" mechanisms that
complicate reliance on assumed Faraday efficiencies.

This underscores the importance of "closed" systems, but the definiton
of "closed" is, er, open to various alternatives (i.e. force recombination
closes the cell, measuring exhausted gas volume and gas composition closes
a cell, etc.)


--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com -- 612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills  MN 55112 USA           -
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.11 / Jed Rothwell /  Blue attempts to explain Griggs Device
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@CompuServe.COM>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Blue attempts to explain Griggs Device
Date: 11 Sep 1994 16:57:34 GMT
Organization: CFRA

In the CompuServe SCIENCE Forum, Richard Blue has offered a number of
challenging new ideas about the Griggs device. These ideas have the same
high scientific merit as past "skeptical" ideas like the Jones hypothesis, 
which holds that recombination can explain excess heat above I*V; Morrison
chemistry, by which 0.04 moles of hydrogen will burn and create 86,000 joules
of heat; and Droege electrical engineering principles which allow us to 
connect many devices in series, break the circuit in one, and have the others 
continue  to draw electricity. I would like to share two of these new ideas 
from Blue, to show the readers of this forum the high level of rigorous 
thinking that is the rule in the "skeptics" camp.
 
 
Blue's first idea was that the plume of steam (water vapor) seen coming out
of the Griggs Device is not, in fact, vapor at all. He suggests that it might
be room temperature droplets, created by the ultrasound in the device, like
the "cool mist" generated by ultrasound room humidifiers. There are a number 
of potential weaknesses in this idea, but Blue has not addressed them. As 
usual, he is content to raise an "objection" and leave it at that. Readers 
here may think of a few arguments that disprove the "cold mist" idea; let me 
start by offering a few:
 
1. The steam - or cold mist - adds 20,000 BTUs to a barrel of water in 20
minutes. It is difficult for me to imagine how cold mist could do this. I 
have asked Blue for clarification, but he has not responded.
 
2. The steam is used in industrial applications at factories, where it is run
through separation tanks and use by factory workers who must have dry steam 
to treat fabrics and for other purposes. I am sure "cold mist" would not do 
the job, yet this mysterious white hot gas seems to work.
 
3. The steam, mist, or mysterious gas (whatever it is), drives a whole series of 
dial thermometers and thermocouples up to register 212 F or more. I suppose 
there might be an instrument error, but I think that such "skeptical doubts" 
are unwarranted, in view of the large difference between room temperature and
boiling.
 
 
Blue's latest suggestion can only be described as a technical gem, the kind 
of thinking that has inspired generations of instrumentation experts to grab 
at their hair, clench their teeth, and mail resumes to look for a new job. 
Here it is, in Blue's own words:
 
     "For example, we are told that this device is a powerful source of
     ultrasound.  That may effect the instrumentation in ways you would never
     suspect.  In particular I would worry about the dynamometer readings."
 
Let's go over this idea:
 
1. I will grant that it is conceivable that ultrasound would affect the
performance of a dynamometer, even one that is designed for industrial
installations.
 
2. By the same token, we can postulate that ultrasound might affect the
Dranetz and BMI industrial electric power meters. Again, this is most
unlikely, because these instruments are designed to be used next to gigantic
power supplies and other environmental extremes in places like steel mills.
 
3. The dynamometer measures torque and r.p.m.'s while power meters measure 
electricity. These are totally different physical effects. The components in 
the meters are completely different as well. The meters work according to 
different physical principles, which are unrelated. In short: the inside of 
the dynamometer does not resemble the inside of the power meter, and for that 
matter, the components used in the Dranetz are not the same as the ones used 
in the BMI.
 
4. Please note that the dynamometer detection unit is right next to the 
Griggs Gadget, the power meter is about 10 feet away, and the dynamometer 
controller box is across the room.
 
4. Okay, so what is the gist of this theory? Blue is saying that random 
electrical or mechanical noise which is induced by ultrasound is affecting 
three different instruments which measure two different forms of energy 
TO THE EXACT SAME EXTENT, IN LOCKSTEP. Even though the meters are completely 
different physically, and even though they are placed in different locations 
and relocated around the room from time to time, in every case the ultrasound 
drives them up or down, from 16 kilowatts down to 10 KW, up to 12 KW again, 
in lockstep. They agree to within a percent, just as they do when the 
ultrasound is turned off.
 
Blue is suggesting that random noise will affect different instruments by 
some fantastic coincidence so that they display exactly the same numbers you 
would see if they were working perfectly together in synch.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.11 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Reply to Rothwell/Amoco, Dufour efforts
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reply to Rothwell/Amoco, Dufour efforts
Date: Sun, 11 Sep 1994 17:07:51 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <34rguc$g2t@ixnews1.ix.netcom.com>,
Chris Parkinson <parky@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>In <CvtKAA.Cwo@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU
(Cameron Randale Bass) writes: 

>>     I know well that power meters, thermometers and scales can
>>     easily be misused in overcredulous hands.
>>
>>                                  dale bass
>Yo Dale,
>
>Relax and then do your own experiment. Do you think that Hydro Dynamics
>Corp. is going to commit fraud and get sued. Why dont you call up the
>company (404-386-2649) and ask them for some of their customers for
>a reference. You will get a positive response in regards to cost savings.
>Now are you going to tell me that PGE or other utilities are lying too!

    I'm perfectly relaxed, but thanks for asking.

    Anyway, the term 'fraud' implies one knows what one is doing
    wrong.  You also seem to imply that one should trust the 
    'customers' analysis of engineering systems.  That's funny.
    Even with the utilities, it is quite possible to fool normal utility 
    metering.

    Having done patent work in the past and being in the relevant field, 
    I've offered to take two weeks of my busy year putting to rest these 
    assertions at the source so that the analysis is unambiguous and
    direct.  All I ask is that my time not be completely wasted 
    on the dreams of the overcredulous.

    Of course, the other option is to just wait five or so years for
    the failure of the dawning of the new age.  That's certainly easier on
    me, and I'm willing to do that too.

    Feel free to look up the word 'credulous'.

                          dale bass



cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.11 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  RE: Griggs Gadget is not a vortex heat pump
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: Griggs Gadget is not a vortex heat pump
Date: Sun, 11 Sep 1994 13:18 -0500 (EST)

Jed Rothwell writes:

> A number of people have suggested that the Griggs Gadget (GG) might be a
> vortex heat pump. Let me explain why this is impossible. There are two
> scenarios:

Having read a number of papers on ZPE, I am struck by this comment.  Some
researchers believe that a method of tapping the ZPE could involve
non-linearities associated with high speed vortexes.  If that is the case then
this could be a key to the whole affair.  It would not be cold fusion, but
could still be an excess energy type device.  I have no doubt that the
construction of the device creates a condition in which there are large numbers
of very small high speed vortexes.  From what I have read of the device, the
vortexes appear to be necessary for the excess heat mode to "turn on".  That is
the rotating drum must have pits in it.

Now that brings up an interesting question.  If, by chance, a high speed vortex
is capable of somehow extracting energy from the ZPE field,  then would not a
vortex heat pump do the same thing?  There may be a scaling problem here, that
smaller vortexes are more efficient, but it seems a worthwhile pursuit to see
if by chance a vortex heat pump has any excess heat attributes.  It would be
quite easy to do by tying the hot and cold outputs back together and measuring
the temperature and volume of the air leaving the device.  If you know the
temperature and pressure of the gas going into the device it would be
relatively easy to compute whether or not there is any discrepancy in the
energy content of the gas before and after entering the vortex.

I wish I had access to one of these devices, I would love to do some testing
myself.

                                                                Marshall
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.11 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Reply to Rothwell/Amoco, Dufour efforts
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reply to Rothwell/Amoco, Dufour efforts
Date: Sun, 11 Sep 1994 17:20:55 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <34rhse$gh9@ixnews1.ix.netcom.com>,
Chris Parkinson <parky@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>In <CvtKoK.D48@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU
(Cameron Randale Bass) writes: 
>
>>     And you must, certainly, be sure to sample experimental parameters
>>     of forty or so cells once in a blue moon using one or two crappy pcs.
>>     And you must, certainly, drive your cells to transients for which
>>     your electrical measurements become meaningless.
>>     And you must, always, measure transient events with the most mediocre
>>     tools available for steady events.
>>
>>     Carefully?  Master the skills?  Give me a break.
>>
>>                                   dale bass
>
>Sorry I just had to leave all this stuff to show what a MAD flamer you
>are. Why are you so angry? Did your parents do things that you now
>find objectional (maybe they didnt really happen):^). Just kidding

     No, my parents were just fine, but thanks for asking.

>but really, why are you assuming so much. I'll have you know that I
>along with my boss (actually he did most of the work), at a rocket
>company, created THE program that all interfaces now are using for
>data acquisition. We created it on a Mac back in 1985 thru 1986. 
...and on and on and on....

     Your point?

     Do you believe that one should sample a voltage varying wildly on 
     millisecond timescales every 600 seconds or so?  How would you feel 
     about *one or two* datapoints in a ten minute boiloff in which
     all the experimental parameters are varying wildly, in fact so wildly
     that they melted a piece of Kel-F in the cell at some point?
     Do you think that is a reasonable way of experimentation when the 
     input voltage is the means by which power is integrated?

     And what would you think of two researchers in the south of France
     who explained that the *reason* for this obviously inadequate experimental
     technique is that they had only one PC to sample all their cells?

     I don't know about you, but I'd chuckle. 

>with todays speed and cost of data acq. devices that you are very wrong
>in your assumptions but I do agree that the quality of the data can only 
>be as good as the whomever is doing the experiment.

     My point exactly.  Considering the very low cost of data acquisition and
     computing power, researchers using inadequate sampling are either:

           a) Stupid
           b) Intentionally blind

     I suggest you read discussions at the archive sites after Jan 1993
     regarding the P&F paper in Phys. Lett. A.  Look for Droege's name,
     Jones' name, and others including my name.  You obviously do not
     understand what I'm talking about.

                                dale bass

cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.11 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Reply to Rothwell/Amoco, Dufour efforts
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reply to Rothwell/Amoco, Dufour efforts
Date: Sun, 11 Sep 1994 17:34:17 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <34ri3n$gkf@ixnews1.ix.netcom.com>,
Chris Parkinson <parky@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>Steven Jones writes:
>>
>>We have used palladium supplied by Tanaka, of Japan, the same as several other 
>>researchers (e.g., Ed Storms) and it seems to be free of pits and cracks.
>>
>>Of course, I wouldn't know what "physicist sceptic that sloppily throws a CF
>>experiment together" you are referring to.  The 'excess heat' experiments done
>>at BYU were carefully performed by a group led by chemistry professor Lee
>>Hansen.  We saw apparent excess heat using both Ni/H2O and Pd/D2O, up to
>>750% as this is generally calculated.  But in all cases, we were able to "turn
>>off" the excess heat by suppressing recombination.  Thus, the 'excess heat' was
>>not real.
>>
>
>Well I think that is still a problem. Since when do you as a scientist
>regard the quality control from a manufacturer to be anything to write
>home about? Try making some yourself and then see what results you get.

     Why?  What flaw have you discerned in Mr. Hansen's technique?
     Experiments take much time and effort, especially to do well.
     And one cannot chase every possible wild hare that it is easy to 
     spawn from the breasts onlookers.  Have you compared the 
     cold-fusion performance between personally milled Pd and Tanaka's Pd?
     Do you have some data to report?

     Further, do you have specific criticisms of 'sloppy' physicists in 
     an earlier posting?   Or are we just to be treated to innuendo?

     On the other hand, flaws in sampling were discussed in Sante Fe in
     1989...

                                dale bass



cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.11 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Heat pumps
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Heat pumps
Date: Sun, 11 Sep 1994 17:53:14 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <34s5jd$pbm@src-news.pa.dec.com>,
Jorge Stolfi <stolfi@src.dec.com> wrote:

>while flow rates were being adjusted.  Input power was measured only
>after the pump went into the "heat producing" regime, which is
>signalled by a change in the noise and by a large decrease in the
>power drawn by the motor --- "25% to 50%". 

    This is a phrase that should worry anyone convinced that the Griggs device
    is some 'free energy device'.  That is 'which is signalled by
    a change in the noise and a large decrease in the power drawn by
    the motor'.  How could this physically happen?  a) rapid decrease
    in the effective wall shear as the angular velocity increases or 
    b) something is pushing the rotor (which would require the water
    orient itself spontaneously)  or c) something's wrong with the power 
    meter.  

    Prediction: rapid and violent cavitation is occuring in the region of
    the pits on the rotor that one can see clearly at higher frequencies on 
    an O-scope attached to the input electrical lines.

    Another prediction:  sell too many and the relevant utility will determine
    the 'problem' without additional assistance.

                                 dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.11 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Heat pumps
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Heat pumps
Date: Sun, 11 Sep 94 18:12:28 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes about the
drop in power draw seen with the Griggs Gadget (GG) after the ultrasound
turns on and excess energy production begins:
 
    "How could this physically happen?  a) rapid decrease
    in the effective wall shear as the angular velocity increases or
    b) something is pushing the rotor (which would require the water
    orient itself spontaneously)  or c) something's wrong with the power
    meter."
 
This is an important question. Test are now planned with a transparent
super hard plastic housing and high speed cameras that may help address these
issues. In any case, I vote (a). (b) does seem unlikely, although the
rotor holes are at an angle, so it could be acting as a crude turbine.
(b) cannot be ruled out.
 
(c) is ruled out because the effect is also seen with the dynamometer which
measures mechanical energy not electricity. Bass mentions spikes and other
electrical noise. This type of noise can, of course, affect power meters and
I suppose it might affect the control electronics of a dynamometer too, but
it could *never* affect them both such they continue to work in lockstep,
showing the same amount of energy increasing and decreasing exactly according
to the motor manufacturers specifications.
 
Noise is also ruled out because the effect is also seen with a variety of
different electric power meters, some of them based on different principles
(like the power company toll meters).
 
 
    "Prediction: rapid and violent cavitation is occuring in the region of
    the pits on the rotor that one can see clearly at higher frequencies on
    an O-scope attached to the input electrical lines."
 
This seems likely. There is also some evidence of cavitation damage to the
metal after long term use of the rotors.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenjedrothwell cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.11 / Jorge Stolfi /  Griggs device tests (was: Heat pumps)
     
Originally-From: stolfi@src.dec.com (Jorge Stolfi)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Griggs device tests (was: Heat pumps)
Date: 11 Sep 1994 23:06:21 GMT
Organization: CS Department, University of Campinas

    > [Me:] "Take [Test 2]... the pump was run for some 20 minutes,
    > before measurements started, while flow rates were being
    > adjusted.  Input power was measured only after the pump went
    > into the "heat producing" regime..."

    > [Jed Rothwell:] That is incorrect. Input power was measured the
    > entire time, but one of the accumulation registers in power
    > meter ("Daily Use") was reset when the test began, so the
    > kilowatt hours shown in the report were for that 20 minute
    > period alone.
    
Sorry if I wasn't clear, but that is precisely what I meant.

    > [Me:] Thus, it seems quite possible that the apparent "excess
    > heat" for [test 2] as merely heat that got stored inside the
    > pump during the first 20 minutes.
    
    > [John Logajan:] This would require a dual mode of operation in
    > which during the first 20 minutes the bulk of the rotor/housing
    > warmed up to a high temperature, and then during the second 20
    > minutes the temperature of rotor/housing dropped.

Yes, that is what I am suggesting.  

Here is the energy accounting for Test 2, from the data I got:

  First 20 minutes (warmup/adjustments): 
    
    energy in (electrical):            +6.0 kWh (1)
    heat out (vented to atmosphere):   -??? kWh
    other losses (to ambient air):     -??? kWh
   ---------------------------------------------
    energy stored in pump system:      +??? kWh (2)
    
  Next 19.7 minutes (data collection):
  
    energy in (electrical):            +4.0 kWh (3)
    heat out (quenched into drum):     -5.6 kWh
    other losses (to ambient air):     -??? kWh
    excess heat produced:              +??? kWh
   -----------------------------------------------
    change in stored energy:           ???? kWh (4)
    
Do you see why I am still unconvinced? 

Notes: 

(1) The energy input during the adjustment period was not reported; but
the article says that power draw typically falls from 20% to 50% when
the mysterious heat-producing effect sets in (which is when data
gathering started in Test 2).  My 6.0 kWh estimate assumes a 30% drop.

(2) There is no data on this item; but we have the volume of the pump
housing (2' diam by 1' high = 23 gallons = 88,500 cm^3) and we are
told that the temperature (on the outside surface?) is over 350 F.  
If the rotor is solid metal (either iron or aluminum), my calculations
say it can store about 3 kWh for each 100 F.  Thus, the apparent
excess heat (1.6 kWh) could be accounted for by assuming that the
rotor cooled down by 60 F during the second phase.

We should also consider the energy stored in the pressurized steam
inside the pump.  Unfortunately we do not know the volume of the head
space (between rotor and housing), nor the pressure at the start of
the data gathering period.  We do know that at at the *end* of typical
experiments at least 0.4 kWh are still stored in the remaining steam.
So one could easily explain away another few tenths of kWh of excess
heat by assuming that pressure and/or temperature dropped during the
last 20 minutes.

Finally, we should also worry about the rotational energy stored in
the rotor.  The speed is given only as "several thousand RPM".
Assuming 3600 RPM (= 60 RPsec = AC line frequency), I get 0.18 kWh for
aluminum, and 0.54 kWh for steel.  We could recover 75% of this energy
as heat (0.14 kWh or 0.40 kWh, respectively) by letting the rotor slow
down from 3600 RPM to 1800 RPM during the second phase.  Note that
rotational energy is proportional to RPM squared, so we can get these
same numbers by slowing down from 7200 RPM to 6400 RPM.

(3) The paper says that the electric energy input during the second
phase was computed by multiplying the measured input enrgy (4.8 kWh)
by the average power factor (84%), both recorded by the same
instrument.  This correction is valid provided the instrument wasn't
trying to be "user-friendly" and applying the correction on its
own. (I.e., provided the readout was indeed "apparent power", and not
"true power").  I hope the authors have checked if that is indeed the
case; otherwise this number should be 4.8 kWh, reducing the apparent
excess heat to 0.8 kWh.

(4) The paper implicitly assumes that the change in stored energy
(item 4) was zero or negligible.  Yet the pump's internal state
changed drastically at the beginning of the second phase, as evidenced
by the large drop in power draw by the motor.  

Just think: if it takes 10--20 minutes for the pump to reach a steady
state with 23 kW of input power, it should take another 10-20 minutes
for it to stabilize again when the input power is suddenly reduced to
14 kW + (excess heat).

Note that the input power drop 23-14 = 9kW depends ONLY on the change
in the mechanical resistance of the pump AND on the motor load/torque
curve.  So it would take a second nontrivial miracle for this number to
exactly match the excess heat produced by the mysterious process.

    > These two clues (dual mode temperature operation, and fixed
    > amount of "anomalous" energy) would be easy to rule out.

Unfortunately, the paper reports only two positive tests (2 and 3).
Test 3 gathered data for only 30 minutes (1.50 times the duration of
Test 2), resulting in 1.8 kWh of apparent excess heat (1.12 times the
amount observed in Test 2).  

Given all uncertainties, I don't think one can draw any conclusion
from these numbers.

--stolfi

 ------------------------------------------------------------------
Jorge Stolfi, stolfi@dcc.unicamp.br
Computer Science Dept (DCC-IMECC), Univ of Campinas (UNICAMP)
13081 Campinas, SP -- BRAZIL   +55(192)39-8442
 ------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenstolfi cudfnJorge cudlnStolfi cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.12 /  itimc@imar.ro
 /  Subject:Kamada's publications,some consequences.
     
Originally-From: itimc@imar.ro
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Newsgroups:sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Subject:Kamada's publications,some consequences.
Subject:Kamada's publications,some consequences.
Date: Mon, 12 Sep 1994 02:52:16 GMT
Date:6 Sept.1994
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Organization:Institute of Isotopic and Molecular Technology

Newsgroups:sci.physics.fusion
Subject:Kamada's publications,some consequences.
Date:6 Sept.1994
Organization:Institute of Isotopic and Molecular Technology

The following data could be of interest:
a)Al is the choice given that it has the lowest solubility of
hydrogen in metals,being ideal for the study of formation of
bubbles and other structures by implantation.
b)The purity of Al is 99.99%
c)The global loading value is senseless in this case, there are
separate phases!
Global loading is a misleading parameter;one of the direct proofs
of this statement is Celani et al's results.They use a special
loading technique (pulsed current) and attain D/Pd=1.2 but the
heat release is not spectacular e.g. compared with Mc.Kubre's
data,D/Pd=0.95.Local loading is essential;according to my
hypothesis:
"The triggering factor in all cases is the contact of a hydrogen
isotope with a surface having active sites with high concentra-
tion,very high localization, and ultra high mobility of the
hydrogen isotopes.To attain this with a high global hydrogen/
metal ratio (as in the Fleischmann-Pons or McKubre et al cells)
is a straightforward solution.However to attain this without a
high global H/Me ratio as in the light water/Ni cells,in the gas
discharge, ozonizer type, protonic conductors-based or sonofusion
devices is a creative solution ( at least from the engineering
point of view)."[1]
Kamada's results illustrate the local character of the heat gene
-rating phenomena.As you well see, the material of the matrix is
not essential.

[1] P.Glueck:"Cold Fusion-A logical network approach",Internat.
Symposium on Cold Fusion,Minsk Belarus,May 24-26, 1994.( It will
be published in the "Cold Fusion Source Book",edited by Dr.Hal
Fox;this book is a very comprehensive source of up-to-date
information in the field).               

cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenitimc cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.12 / ITIM Computers /  Subject:A paradigm too far?
     
Originally-From: itimc@roearn.ici.ro (ITIM Computers)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Newsgroups:sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Subject:A paradigm too far?
Subject:A paradigm too far?
Date: Mon, 12 Sep 1994 02:52:51 GMT
Date:7 Sept 94
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Organization:Institute of Isotopic and Molecular Technology

Newsgroups:sci.physics.fusion
Subject:A paradigm too far?
Date:7 Sept 94
Organization:Institute of Isotopic and Molecular Technology

I suppose that 5 month of lurking around,reading the parallel
monologues and few real dialogues  is in compliance with the
netiquette,therefore I am coming with my first contribution.
I am what is called here a 'true believer' and I was in the field
from the beginning, however my views are not quite orthodox.
I am sincerely convinced that "Differences in opinion attract
clever people and repel only those who are not (clever)."

.................................................................
Is cold fusion a science?

Not yet;by definition:
"A science is any discipline in which the fool of the this
generation can go beyond the point reached by the genius of the
last generation" (Max Gluckman)
We all,geniuses,bright scientists,common researchers,fools and me
belong to the first generation dedicated to battles and
sacrifices,we try to build the House of Cold Fusion in perpetual
stormy weather.The next generation will have the decisive
advantage to use the good paradigm and will take the profit.
I dare to predict that finally anybody will be happy:the skeptics
because cold fusion is not genuine D-D fusion, the believers
because cold fusion is the inexhaustible source of energy of the
future,and, finally,Mankind because will use this energy.
To be a science,cold fusion needs its own paradigm, and this
isn't ready yet.

A paradigm for Cold Fusion.

A basic difference:
Cold Fusion belongs to Solid State which is:
developing science/developed technology.
Hot Fusion belongs to Plasma Physics which is:
developed science/developing technology.
In both cases,as in politics or economics,'developing' is merely
an euphemism for underdeveloped;many essential subfields of solid
state e.g. high temperature superconductivity,conductive
polymers,porous silicone,heterogeneous catalysis actually do not
have a real, quantitative,predictive theory but are prospering
technologically.Each of this fields is a technological miracle
grafted on a theoretical quagmire,and who cares? This is always
forgotten and a cold fusion theory is ever more insistently
requested,however both similarity and synchronicity suggest that
such a theory cannot be worked out yet.
Two recent papers [1,2] written by seven authors with a total IQ
of well over 1000 (is this really additive?) scan the entire
range of cold fusion theories and conclude, one explicitly [1]
and one implicitly [2]:no theory possible.
For cold fusion a paradigm shift or a new paradigm is necessary;
this is a complex action comprising:transport,transfer,and trans-
formation of truths,theories, totems and taboos of established
fields for the use of the new one.The paradigm of hot fusion was
the first choice,however, the two paradigms are so diffe-
rent,between them there is a conceptual abyss,and the strategy
adopted was,unfortunately enough,to pass this abyss  by small
steps.The result is:many  strange hybrids with a very low life
expectancy.

Troubles with the replacement paradigm.

The central problem of hot fusion is the Coulomb barrier,an
obstacle which can be passed by high temperatures;for room
temperature fusion we have to find something similar,according to
the replacement paradigm it has to be high pressure! A palladium
lattice oversaturated with deuterium is ideal for packing and
squeezing the deuterons,therefore the great totem has to be the
D/Pd ratio,and everything happens inside the lattice,and only in
the lattice,in the whole lattice,cold fusion is a bulk
phenomenon.Little was changed when Mills and coworkers
demonstrated that heat excess can be obtained with light water
too[3] that is: CF is not a privilege of deuterium, or when many
other materials besides palladium proved to be 'CF active.'
Actually a theory has to elucidate three aspects of the phenomena
locus, nature and mechanism,the first two of  these are
correlated in part but not predetermined as it was considered by
extrapolating the paradigm of hot fusion well beyond its limits
of validity.Despite a plethora of experimental facts, "the locus
is the bulk" and "the nature of the reactions is obviously D-D
fusions" became axioms and only a few heretics tried to discuss
about possible alternatives.
Due to the domination of the hybrid paradigm,the problem of
understanding cold fusion was attacked in the reverse order (the
proper being:locus-nature- mechanism) or only in part by treating
the mechanism of reactions, admitting tacitly that  locus and
nature are well known from the start.Invariably,only depth- first
approaches have been used,  however we need now breadth- first
approaches,so useful in cases of interdisciplinary fields where a
vision is essential.In these circumstances, after over 5 years,
cold fusion has existential problems.In the same time this
situation is quite normal for a brand new science,and  a question
"To be or not to be?" for CF is actually stupid,a symptom of
dualistic thinking.The answer as almost always given by nature is
of the "mu" type (see please the books of Pirsig,Hofstadter,Capra
which are essential for understanding physics).Actually, the
skeptics are searching for genuine fusion and the believers for a
non-chemical,non-exhaustible source of energy. The answer,any
answer has different significance for the parties in
confrontation.
In some,variable extent  both skeptics and believers are victims
of groupthink, dualistic thinking and thinking small.

An alternative.

By an objective analysis of the facts,and by trying to use the
methods of creative thinking,I started to build an alternative
paradigm [4,5].The essential points are:
-cold fusion is an extreme case of catalysis;
-positive and negative results are compatible,in the frame of
 our approach we can accommodate seemingly antithetical concepts
-irreproducibility is not the karma of CF,it is a direct
 consequence of the catalytic nature of the phenomena, it is a
 great informational asset and can be eliminated by technology;
-to understand the field we need an global approach:all systems,
 all results,all phenomena and,above all,all the isotopes of
 hydrogen;
-everything happens on the surface or very near to it,and only in
 certain active sites of it,just as in case of catalysis;the role
 of the bulk is to support the surface;
-the clue is not pressure but mobility;
Temporarily,we have to give up hope (but not search !) for a
theory and have to accept that cold fusion will develop as a
technology and:
"Technology is not a science,not a discipline,not a tool and not
engineering.It's know-how." (Alfred Wechsler)
This is very bad news for some of our friends,however we will
soon be able to understand some basic facts and will have a
usable paradigm.Don't forget,even Confucius was advised by his
ancestors to:
"Gain power by accepting reality".

References.

1[]V.A.Chechin,V.A. Tsarev,M.Rabinowitz,Y.E.Kim:"Critical review
of theoretical models for anomalous effects in deuterated metals"
International Journal of Theoretical Physics vol 33, no3,1994 pp
617-670
[2]M.Fleischmann,S.Pons,G.Preparata:"Possible theories of cold
fusion" Nuovo Cimento vol 107A,n1,Jan1994, pp143-154
(these papers don't pass the barrier of the Pd/D2O system)
[3]R.L.Mills,S.P.Kneizis "Excess heat production by the
electrolysis of an aqueous potassium carbonate electrolyte
and the implications for cold fusion" Fusion Technology 20,Aug
1991 p65.
[4]P.Glck:"The Surfdyn concept:an attempt to solve the puzzles
of cold nuclear fusion" Fusion Technology 24,aug 1993 p 122
[5]P.Glck:"Cold fusion -a logical network approach" Internat.
Conference on Cold Fusion,Minsk,Belarus,May 24-26,1994.   

cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenitimc cudfnITIM cudlnComputers cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.12 / A Rivero /  old papers.
     
Originally-From: rivero@sol.unizar.es (Alejandro Rivero)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: old papers.
Date: Mon, 12 Sep 1994 02:54:56 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway


 
 
>Their calculations show that the amount of fusion due to collision
>processes to be expected from electron-proton recoils is a factor of 
>10^12 to 10^26 smaller than the fusion rates observed. They reference
>H.A. Bethe and C.L. Critchfield in Phys. Rev. Vol 54 (1938) pp. 248, as
>providing the theoretical basis for a H-H or D-D fusion reaction based on
>high energy electron capture induced beta disintegration of constituent
>protons of H2 molecules and the D nucleus that they claim may explain
>the observations.

 Could anyone give the abstract of this "classical paper", or include
it in the bibl. database? Our library lacks of years 36-45 of
the Phys Rev, by obvious reasons (this is Europe).
 
One thing I dont understand is why all the old stuff has not been
cited the first years after FP announcement. Everyone forgets
previous work, It seems.

					Alejandro Rivero
					Zaragoza Univ, Spain

cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenrivero cudfnAlejandro cudlnRivero cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.12 / A Rivero /  Re: Data, Jed...
     
Originally-From: rivero@sol.unizar.es (Alejandro Rivero)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Data, Jed...
Date: Mon, 12 Sep 1994 02:55:11 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

> Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@CompuServe.COM>
>    - Re: Data, and not money. (could be Re: MKubre...)
> Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@CompuServe.COM>
>    - Re: Proton Conductors - a brief tutorial
> Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@CompuServe.COM>
> Subject: Re: Data, and not money. (could be Re: MKubre...)

> rivero@sol.unizar.es (Alejandro Rivero) asks:
This is me. Well, Let's engage:
>  
>      "Jed, Is there any method for us, the people who can not
>      read Japanese Journals and have no time to get a trip to toyota labs,
>      to know the big numbers:
>  
>      - Intensity, potential, time, energy. 
>      - Peaks and/or spectrum of energy for:
>              -neutrons
>              -alpha
>              -protons, ions,
>              -beta +
>              -beta -  (or even muons!)
>              -neutrinos"
>  
> If you cannot read papers in Japanese then read the ones in English. There are
> plenty of them. I would start with the ICCF4 proceedings from EPRI.
When I say "i can not read" I want to say "I have not a copy of"
Yes, I could go to the big town to read the porceedings, but nobody in the
net has pointed them as useful sources for this kind of data. The
only journals I have in a range of 50 meters are the electrochemistry ones,
very nice drawings, very nice results, but no a lot of numbers. I guess
I d need lab reports.
 
> You cannot
> take a trip to the Toyota labs even if you have time, they are not open to the
> public. You could visit some of the other leading labs though.

Hmm Can you suggest any other leading lab in the road Barcelona-Marseille?
Any address (toyota or others) I could write and ask?            
>  
> devices that interest me are the big ones with industrial potential. Neutrons
> and neutrinos have no commercial market value, so I do not care about them.
This point is related to one I told before. If there are no commertial
value there, I dont see the problem to leave access to the data. (Im just
pointing the paradoxa, not implying nothing)
>  
> Furthermore - and this will be of greater interest to you - you will not learn
> how to make more effective, powerful or reliable CF devices by reading
> scientific papers about neutrons. Neutrons are not a good guide to CF
                                     Is this a fact? Why, and what statistics? 
> signature of the reaction." if your goal is to make a working CF device, there
We would I make one? 
> example, if you want to do Pd electrolysis CF, start by reading the Cravens
> paper in ICCF4 Vol 2. It has lots of practical information which is why it was
> Fleischmann's choice as "Best Paper" at ICCF4. 
> 
Yes, and If I want to measure the mass of the Z boson, I can read all
the Physika A, then the CERN proceedings in the last 40 years, then
borrow from a friend a 40 Km2 field, then build the machine. Of course 
I can visit the CERN, but not to test my gadgets there or borrow
people from them. 
Cam'on, how do you think science works? This is cold fusion, not cold war. 
 
> You must also realize that just reading a few papers will never teach you
> enough to do a successful cold fusion experiment. You must also work for a few
> years, visit successful labs, and learn the techniques. You cannot just read a
> brief description, go back to the lab, and replicate. That would be like

In this comment you are closer to reality, (and somehow, but not 
explicitly, in slight contrast with previous comments). Let me to 
tell you how science works in this case. I want a CF cell to look for gammas &
neutrons. In a realscientific ambiance, I would be able to go Grenoble, get some
portable material to detect gamma and neutrons, move to F&P (by example)
lab and make the measure. Then if something is detected and I want
full spectral data, We would call ILL (by example) and move the supossed 
CF machine to the detector. Compare it to your admired tech-system. 

>  
> If your goal is to understand the CF reaction, or to develop a theory, then I
> suppose it might be a good idea to read the papers about neutrons and
> neutrinos. I do not know anything about that aspect of CF, the theories are
> completely over my head.

Yes, my goal (and the goal og a lot of people in the list) is 
to understand the cold fusion experience, not to sell it. This is not
nerd idealism, as a person who understand is as useful as the person
that builds, simply he is paid less money, but he eats everyday. And
he can answer "Yep, understood".  



BEGIN === PHILOSOPHICAL DISCUSSION ON HOW THE WORLD MOVES...   
> I am more interested in learning to make, say, a 100
> horsepower motors with CF, which can be done without reference to any theory.
> A theory might help, but it is not necessary to have one. The steam engine was
> developed before thermodynamics or combustion were understood; effective
> telegraphs preceded modern understanding of electricity; the Wrights measured
> wing lift and drag in a wind tunnel and built an effective airplane 20 years
> before the aerodynamics of wings was explicated; Bell Labs developed the first
> transistor four years before they worked out a theory. 
Sorry my poor english, how do you define "effective"? Simply 
 as "a think that works"? (and BTW, how do you define "theory"?)        
Anyway let me to comment your examples:
-Steam power experiences backdates to the greek Henon, some years before
 of "effective" technological use. Heat theory dates mid-XIX and before, 
 close -posibly collaborating, I dont know- to steam development.
-bip bip... bip telegraphie dates to the romans. Electricity was obvious
 improvement, and I suposse it will involve all the gadgets from thephysicists.
-Wing theory doesnt start in the XX. Experimentation is key here, of course,
 as the calculus way is really hard. But are you saying that every 
 experiment is technology, and not science?
-As for the transistor goes, I think that electron was already know by Bell
labs; even there was a gadget with no practical use, based in the Thomson
tube, how was the name... ah, yes Triode, was it? The semiconductor 
properties made it an obvius bet.  
> Occasionally theory
> leads to technology, but more often it works the other way around. Practical
> technology is developed first, this leads to increased scientific research in
> a particular area, which leads to better theories, which leads to better
                                    ******  Gotcha! If acording to your
logic, there was not theory before technology, how is that now you
have a "better" theory? Because it is "better than nothing"? Or perhaps
because it is "better than the prior effective theory?
> products down the road, but the products come first. This is the natural order
> of things, but it also occurs because in general businessmen and engineers are
> more open minded, more imaginative, and more willing to look at new ideas than
> scientists.
>  
> - Jed

I suposse that this pertains to philosophy, but let me stress that all this
comment is based in avoiding any mention to "observation" or "facts", to
place all the enphasis in the tech side.
  
======END DEBATE BLOCK

Let me to say that I like Jed fast and extense answers.
 I Have read a lot of this kind
looking the WAIS archive. If it only had information...

 					Alejandro Rivero
					Zaragoza Univ, Spain

cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenrivero cudfnAlejandro cudlnRivero cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.12 / A Rivero /  fusion history.
     
Originally-From: rivero@sol.unizar.es (Alejandro Rivero)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: fusion history.
Date: Mon, 12 Sep 1994 02:55:22 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Well, here Im again, on my dayly post... sorry the saturation, but it is
the first week I have access to post in the list and I had a lot
of questions in the head.

Now,

Can anybody suggest some really good biliography on history
of fusion? This is a FAQ, yes, but I would add some restictions.
Im asking for a bibliography including

-Pre-1939 works, including of course Peters (from Paneth-Peters).
-work made-in germany (as the M Steenbeck dischargues and his Wirbelrohr)
-the post war saga in both fronts.
-strange facts, as thomson try at the end of the forties, or Tandberg 
 plays in the thirties

Of could it could include funny histories as the Peron "discovery", but
also the corresponding biography and names. 

To put some example, with this prototypical book I would be able to 
checking the existence of links from Peters to Steenbeck, or from
Steenbeck to Sackharov, form Thomson to Tuck, etc.
It would also to be able to claryfy the debate on the origin of 
Inertial Electrostatic. Would be abscribe it to Farnsworth and
unknow circa 1932, to Hirsch ITT 1967, to Tuck et al 1959? 


Any suggestion?


			Alejandro Rivero
			Zaragoza Univ
			Spain 

cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenrivero cudfnAlejandro cudlnRivero cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.12 / A Rivero /  Steenbeck
     
Originally-From: rivero@sol.unizar.es (Alejandro Rivero)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Steenbeck
Date: Mon, 12 Sep 1994 02:55:30 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway


Before someone ask me who is Steenbeck, Im going to tell you.
I have not idea. It is because of this I name him. 

I had a recent book about fusion and they named M Steenbeck, of Siemens Berlin,
as pionnering fusion in 1940-1950. He was named also as infuencing Thomson
team. No more data. No refs.

I have looked the Siemens propaganda 42-43, but I have not all the collection.
I have found a half page report in the Wissenchaft in 1942. He was 
making something close to a sincrotron for electrons. That is not fusion.
I have looked at the ISI index for publications. He disappears in the 44 and 
reappears more that 10 years later, mainly in CCCP journals.

He doesnt appear in  fusion bibliography, and has not been named before in
this group.

Now, has anyone more info about this guy and/or his team? Any idea
about any collaborator or any german group making paralell job, so I could 
look for them in the journals?

					Alejandro Rivero
					Zaragoza Univ, Spain

BTW, just a foolish idea: which is the relationship between Electrolux & Siemens?
 

cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenrivero cudfnAlejandro cudlnRivero cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.12 / A Rivero /  RE: MISSING IN PHYSICS...
     
Originally-From: rivero@sol.unizar.es (Alejandro Rivero)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: MISSING IN PHYSICS...
Date: Mon, 12 Sep 1994 02:55:38 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

> p.s.
>      There is no such thing as a "massless particle"   --- photon,
> neutrino, electron or whatever.  That is in the same category as
> anhydrous water.
   
  So, anhydrous water can be associated to a irreducible representation
of the Poincare Group labeled by m=0? Interesting fact.

				Alejandro Rivero


cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenrivero cudfnAlejandro cudlnRivero cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.12 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Reply to Rothwell/Amoco, Dufour efforts
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reply to Rothwell/Amoco, Dufour efforts
Date: Mon, 12 Sep 94 00:50:20 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) wrote a number of
absurdly incorrect statements about the P&F 1992 experiments. He has
repeated this sort of thing often, and he has been correct by me
and others countless times, so we must assume that he is deliberately
posting this incorrect information. There is no point in correction him
again, but I think that "lurkers" should be aware of the situation.
 
For accurate information, I urge all "lurkers" to read the Morrison versus
Fleischmann and Jones versus Fleischmann e-mail exchanges. You will see that
all of the so-called "objections" raised by Morrison, Jones, Bass and others
were steamrolled flat in a few pages by Fleischmann. There is no scientific
merit to any of them. They are like the Jones claim that you can input
10 watts of electricity and get out 50 watts of heat from "recombination."
 
 
     "Do you believe that one should sample a voltage varying wildly on
     millisecond timescales every 600 seconds or so?"
 
Voltage does not vary wildly. It is not sampled every 600 seconds only. The
data shown from one experiment was sampled every 600 seconds, but there have
been many other experiments sampled with many other tools. Data from
oscilloscopes show that the voltage was not varying wildly.
 
     "How would you feel
     about *one or two* datapoints in a ten minute boiloff in which
     all the experimental parameters are varying wildly, in fact so wildly
     that they melted a piece of Kel-F in the cell at some point?"
 
Again, in other experiments copious data points are taken, but as it happens
no data points are needed at all. As Martin pointed out to Steve Jones, you
can assume that the voltage is as high as it can go with these power supplies,
and you can underestimate the amount of water, and it *still* obvious that
there is far more energy coming out than would go in, even at maximum power.
As it happens, they know exactly how much water there is, and they know what
the voltage is during the three hours the heat effect continues after that:
it is zero. The melting of the Kel-F is was not caused by "wildly varying"
conditions, it was caused by extremely high temperatures which are steady.
 
 
     "And what would you think of two researchers in the south of France
     who explained that the *reason* for this obviously inadequate experimental
     technique is that they had only one PC to sample all their cells?
 
Those particular cells on that particular day had only one PC, but of course
they have many other cells in many other calorimeters. That set of 64 cells
is only one of the many experiments run there.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenjedrothwell cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.12 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Griggs device tests (was: Heat pumps)
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs device tests (was: Heat pumps)
Date: Mon, 12 Sep 94 00:53:49 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

stolfi@src.dec.com (Jorge Stolfi) suggests that the Griggs Gadget (GG) might
be storing energy during a warm up period and then releasing it during the
test. He points out that this would cool the rotor and housing down during the
test. The housing does not cool during the test, so this possibility is ruled
out. Even better evidence is the fact that the GG will continue producing heat
continuously for years if you leave it on. The longest I have seen one produce
heat is an hour, but they have been run much longer.
 
Stolfi writes:
 
     "(1) The energy input during the adjustment period was not reported; but
     the article says that power draw typically falls from 20% to 50% when
     the mysterious heat-producing effect sets in (which is when data
     gathering started in Test 2). . ."
 
The data gathering does not start the moment the heat-producing effect sets
in. It starts five or ten minutes later in some cases, or an hour later if
they decide to break for lunch at that time. You have to wait at least five
minutes to make sure everything really is stable. Typically, the machine is
turned on and put into heat producing mode while other preparations are made,
like filling up the barrel with water.
 
 
     "Thus, the apparent excess heat (1.6 kWh) could be accounted for by
     assuming that the rotor cooled down by 60 F during the second phase."
 
I would not use the word "assumption" here. "Hypothesizing that the rotor may
have cooled down. . ." would be a better phrase. The rotor did not cool down,
this assumption is incorrect. I would definitely have noticed it if the rotor
and housing had cooled down, I took pyrometer readings every 2 minutes in many
of the tests.
 
 
     "We should also consider the energy stored in the pressurized steam
     inside the pump.  Unfortunately we do not know the volume of the head
     space (between rotor and housing). . ."
 
The rotor is separated from the housing by a few millimeters at most. I do not
have the exact figures, but I have seen disassembled units and the tolerances
are very tight.
 
 
     "So one could easily explain away another few tenths of kWh of excess
     heat by assuming that pressure and/or temperature dropped during the
     last 20 minutes."
 
The pressure and temperature do not drop
 
 
     "Finally, we should also worry about the rotational energy stored in the
     rotor.  The speed is given only as "several thousand RPM". Assuming 3600
     RPM (= 60 RPsec = AC line frequency), I get 0.18 kWh for aluminum, and
     0.54 kWh for steel.  We could recover 75% of this energy as heat (0.14
     kWh or 0.40 kWh, respectively) by letting the rotor slow down from 3600
     RPM to 1800 RPM during the second phase."
 
With the addition of the dynamometer, we can now track rotation closely. It
does not change significantly during the course of the test run.
 
 
     "(3) The paper says that the electric energy input during the second
     phase was computed by multiplying the measured input energy (4.8 kWh) by
     the average power factor (84%), both recorded by the same instrument.
     This correction is valid provided the instrument wasn't trying to be
     "user-friendly" and applying the correction on its own. . ."
 
There is some confusion about this. The newer instrument setup, the computer,
the oscilloscopes and the dynamometer provide a much clearer picture of the
input power. A data board built into the computer allows it to be used as an
oscilloscope. Very impressive, but frankly, I distrust instruments more
complicated than balance beam weight scales and mercury thermometers. If I
can't see it and touch it, I find it too high tech for comfort. I am forced to
compromise and use computers, but I don't trust the little devils.
 
 
     "Just think: if it takes 10--20 minutes for the pump to reach a steady
     state with 23 kW of input power, it should take another 10-20 minutes
     for it to stabilize again when the input power is suddenly reduced to 14
     kW + (excess heat)."
 
No, it takes 10 minutes to get up to full steam with ambient temperature tap
water input, and it swings into excess energy mode right away if the settings
are right. The test is not done unless it has settled down in excess mode for
5 or 10 minutes. The human preparations usually take longer than the
machine's. In a factory, you would use a mixture of new water plus recycled
condensate returned to the feedwater tank, so it comes up to full heat very
quickly. Once the machine is tuned and set to the proper pressures and so on,
there is no delay going into the energy producing mode. The delays seen during
the tests are because these are tests with new, unproven units, which are
fiddled around with and changed before every test. (Sometimes removed and
replaced with new GGs).
 
 
     "Unfortunately, the paper reports only two positive tests (2 and 3).
     Test 3 gathered data for only 30 minutes (1.50 times the duration of
     Test 2), resulting in 1.8 kWh of apparent excess heat (1.12 times the
     amount observed in Test 2)."
 
That was two out of a dozen or so I have observed. I have data from several
dozen other runs.
 
 
     "Given all uncertainties, I don't think one can draw any conclusion from
     these numbers."
 
The uncertainties are understandable. You have not seen much data, you have
not participated in the tests. It is also commendable that you have not drawn
any conclusion. Beware of drawing a *negative* conclusion inadvertently, or
subconsciously. Please remember the difference between postulating or
hypothesizing that the rotor *may have cooled* and assuming that it did cool.
The hypothesis is wrong, the rotor did not cool, your fears that it might have
are groundless. Do not assume that every mistake you think up was actually
made. Do not imagine that the report covers every single detail that I
observed and every test I made. It is only a brief summary, covering the high
points. Other observers who are far more expert than I have also performed
extensive testing and found nothing wrong. All of the potential errors raised
here by you and by others have been thought of over the years and checked
into. I have not seen any novel objections raised here yet. I do not say that
to discourage you from looking! By all means, keep trying. I would appreciate
it however, if people would drop the "heat pump hypothesis" because it has no
merit and it is in direct conflict with the Second Law.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenjedrothwell cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.12 / David Davies /  Re: Reply to Rothwell/Amoco, Dufour efforts
     
Originally-From: drd851@huxley.anu.edu.au (David R Davies)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reply to Rothwell/Amoco, Dufour efforts
Date: 12 Sep 1994 15:59:38 +1000
Organization: Australian National University

crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:

>In article <34m89q$5vi@ixnews1.ix.netcom.com>,
>Chris Parkinson <parky@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>
>>Right on Jed. Sceptics are now slowly coming to an end. When will Jones
>>understand this. Remember one key is polishing with no pits or cracks.
>>With this being the case you should act like a jeweler and cabinet maker
>>and not like your typical physicist sceptic that sloppily throws a CF 
>>experiment together.

>    You forgot the most important key;  Dancing naked under 
>    a full moon lugging a bunny-shaped philosophers' stone.

>    When, when, when will the 'skeptics' read the relevant literature?  
>    
>                                   dale bass


What relevant literature? Dick Blue posted some refrences recently that
were apparently intended to support his dogmatic stance but, as I wade
through them, whenever I think an article is approaching the point it
misses. They aren't without interest value though.

I have still seen no argument either here on the net or in the literature
that comes close to showing that solid state CF contradicts established
experimental evidence or relevant, well supported theory. 

dave
dave.davies@anu.edu.au
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudendrd851 cudfnDavid cudlnDavies cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.12 / Dieter Britz /  Re: Fading (again)
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fading (again)
Date: Mon, 12 Sep 1994 10:38:42 GMT
Date: 10 Sep 94 12:46:12 BST
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway


Originally-From: roes@vax.oxford.ac.uk (Peter Roessingh) in FD 2714
Date: 10 Sep 94 12:46:12 BST

[...]
>Dieter Britz writes:
>>Peter Roessingh (no quote, sorry) is intellectually outraged at the
>>idea of fading amazing results.

>>What do you think about this one: Back in the early 70's, an
>>Australian cosmic ray physicist name McCusker found a single track in
>>his device, that meant a particle with a 2/3 charge. Everybody agreed
>>at the time that the probability of error was extremely low. Noone
>>else has found such a track (which of course points to a quark, not
>>otherwise observed) and people have stopped talking about it. Did
>>McCusker find a quark, or has it faded?

>It clearly has faded. But you talk here about stuff nearly 20 years
>old. McKubres paper was published this spring!

I have to admit that I have been informed since that posting that McCusker 
made a mistake, and that mysterious track was an artifact. A pity; there goes
one of my favourite mysteries.

[...]
>>As I have said, my statistics of 'cold fusion' papers submissions per
>>month vs time shows an early peak in 1989 and an exponential decay
>>since then.

>Is that still true? But even so, it might just as well indicate that
[...]
Yes. "Exponential', though, is not precise. I have not fitted exp to it.
Let's say 'steady'. Now if I had GIF, or one of these nifty graphic thingies,
I could post the curve.

>To come back to the main topic:I do not dispute the fact that data can
>fade, but I think it is far to early to apply this mechanism to
>McKubre. In addition I think we should take care to first evaluate the
>facts and only after that start to build a more complete picture by
>including more sociological factors. And don't get me wrong, I will
>not proclaim cf to be real solely based on McKubre, it is after all
>only a single datapoint.

... And let ME make clear that I regard the McKubre paper (note: PAPER, i.e.
the paper published in JEC) as a quality plus, no fading (as yet). I hope they
go on and do it again. One I regard as having faded is the 'Huggins' paper
(well, there are two but they report exactly the same, the Belzner et al
papers). This paper seemed pretty good at the time; the small XS heat - about
10% of input power - was a conservative estimate, water electrolysis not being
corrected for; thus, recombination was not an issue. The 10% level was larger
than any chemical reaction one could conceive taking place in the cell. It was
roughly of the order of water electrolysis, after all. However, it was clearly
a one-off. They wrote up the same results twice (already a suspect thing to
do, padding one's publication list without doing extra work; one has little
respect for people who do this), and as far as I know, they never got results
again. After 5 years, one wonders. Just as with McCusker... 
I do know, by the way, that Huggins left for a post in Germany shortly after
that work; but if you had a quality + in an exciting field like this, surely
you would follow it up? The rest of the team is still there, too, judging by
their recent paper on a quality calorimeter (not used in 1989) - the Guer et 
al paper recently put into the biblio. Hm.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.12 / A Rivero /  Re: Fusion Digest 2713
     
Originally-From: rivero@sol.unizar.es (Alejandro Rivero)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion Digest 2713
Date: Mon, 12 Sep 1994 17:17:33 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

  
>  Originally-From: 70047.3047@compuserve.com (Bill Page)
 
> 
> <<
> ... You just have to dig out those massive volumes [science citations] and
> search by the sweat of thy brow.. or in this case, my brow -- your task is
> to find these, tell us what they say, and why it all stops "cold", so to
> speak, in '78...
> 
Stops abruply? Sure? One friend is making his PhD on Pd cristals etc.
 ...
> are interested in here (to the best of my knowledge) begins with a series
> of papers by D. M. Nace and J.G. Aston in the Journal of the American
> Chemical Society, vol. 79, no. 14, pp.3619 (1957). The titles of the
> 
 ...
> frozen in one of several possible configurations. Pauling \14 has
> explained the 0.82 e.u. residual entropy of ice at 0 deg. K. by assuming

BTW, do you remember Pauling "suggestions" on CF? Search the database
if not.
...
> PdH4 molecules on corners of the palladium lattice. This leads to the
> prediction of the first break in the absorption isotherm at a composition
> of Pd8H (H:Pd = 0.125). At this composition each lattice has a PdH4
> molecule on one, and only one, corner site. A square block of eight
> lattice cubes contains a PdH4 molecule situated on the corner position
> which is common to all eight cubes. This PdH4 molecule, on rotating,
> can orient its four tetrahedrally arranged hydrogen atoms at any instant
> into four of the eight lattice cubes to which it belongs. No cube could
> have more than one hydrogen atom in it unless the atomic ration H:Pd
> exceeded 0.125. Thus the increase in lattice dimension (beta-phase) has
           ^^^^^
Hmm but the CF theory speacks just the contrary, load 
levels of 80%, is it? 
I feel a little lost with cristalo theory, all these discrete 
groups and latticces and sublattices... Last time I looked at them
was 1990.
What is the exact translation of "load level" 80%? Naively
PdH8 would be load 89%, and PdH4 is just the 80%, if you measure
the load respect to the total. 
				Alejandro Rivero

PS: I would bet there are in someplace a diffraction study of
all these structures. And do you know how
a diffraction in monocristals is usually done? ANy CF believer would
go fast to look the backgrounds of the powders and Laues...

Grasp! Hey now I remember...I WAS at a neutron facility in the 89/90 and
nobody suggested to measure. There was a lot of excitation on quasicristals,
consuming a lot of exposure time. Any other tried with PdH?
 

cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenrivero cudfnAlejandro cudlnRivero cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.13 / Eugene Mallove /  Status of "Cold Fusion" Magazine
     
Originally-From: 76570.2270@compuserve.com (Eugene Mallove)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Status of "Cold Fusion" Magazine
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 1994 00:15:10 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

         Statement on the Status of "Cold Fusion" Magazine
 
This statement is being released on 12 September 1994 by the former Editors of
"Cold Fusion" Magazine (Eugene F. Mallove, Editor; Stu Norwood, Managing 
Editor; Contributing editors: Lawrence Forsley, Jed Rothwell, and Christopher 
P. Tinsley):
 
Three issues of "Cold Fusion" Magazine have appeared: May, June, and 
July/August, 1994.  

In June 1994, internal disagreements between the editorial staff and the 
publisher (Wayne Green, Inc.  of Peterborough, New Hampshire) reached a point 
at which the editorial staff concluded they could no longer work within the 
Wayne Green, Inc. organization.  WGI had been undergoing severe managerial 
problems and financial difficulties in its other operations, which adversely 
affected the "Cold Fusion" magazine staff and production of the magazine.
 
The editors wanted to continue with the excellent 80-page magazine format, 
supported by the cold fusion industry and the growing readership of the 
publication.  The publisher wanted to reduce it to a newsletter with a 
fraction of the information content of the magazine.  There were other 
disagreements, especially concerning content.  The editors considered the 
performance of the publisher to be unacceptable, and concluded that the 
magazine would only be viable outside Wayne Green, Inc. Consequently, all of 
the editors severed their relationship with Wayne Green, Inc. They are seeking
financial backing to start a new magazine in the field of cold fusion.
 
Against the wishes and advice of the former editors and an outside financial 
investor in the magazine, Wayne Green, Inc.  has issued a "Cold Fusion Update"
newsletter designated as a September issue.  The former editors have reviewed 
a copy of this newsletter and consider it to be entirely substandard in its 
presentation of information on the field of cold fusion.  There is no 
designated editor of this newsletter, so we assume that Wayne Green is himself
acting as Editor.  A more serious matter is the content of Wayne Green's lead 
editorial, "So where's your big glossy magazine?" In this editorial, the 
publisher makes assertions that we believe to be contrary to the truth of the 
magazine's publication history, and makes untrue and defamatory statements 
about individuals in the cold fusion field.
 
The former editorial staff had no ownership position in the magazine. The 
editors were paid as either salaried employees, or contractors. Consequently, 
despite the profound concern of the former editors for the rights of those who
in good faith subscribed to the magazine, the responsibility for subscription 
fulfillment resides with publisher Wayne Green, Inc.
 
Subscribers who are dissatisfied with the content or format of the newsletter 
and its substitution for the magazine should take up the matter with Wayne 
Green, Inc. or take such other action as they consider to be appropriate.
 
Those current subscribers of "Cold Fusion" Magazine -- or future subscribers 
of the planned new publication -- who wish to contact the former editorial 
staff of "Cold Fusion" Magazine may write to:
 
Cold Fusion Technology
P.O. Box 2816
Concord, New Hampshire 03302-2816
USA
 
Correspondence may also be faxed to 603-224-5975.  Editorial and news items 
for the new planned cold fusion publication are now being solicited.  
Potential investors in the new publication are also asked to contact us.

E-Mail Addresses:
Eugene F. Mallove    INTERNET:76570.2270@compuserve.com
Jed Rothwell         INTERNET:72240.1256@compuserve.com


cudkeys:
cuddy13 cuden2270 cudfnEugene cudlnMallove cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.12 / Bruce TK /  Re: fusion history.
     
Originally-From: bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce       Scott          TK  )
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: fusion history.
Date: 12 Sep 1994 11:37:09 GMT
Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching

In article <199409072115.AA14202@sol.unizar.es>, rivero@sol.unizar.es
(Alejandro Rivero) writes:
|> Well, here Im again, on my dayly post... sorry the saturation, but it is
|> the first week I have access to post in the list and I had a lot
|> of questions in the head.
|> 
|> Now,
|> 
|> Can anybody suggest some really good biliography on history
|> of fusion? This is a FAQ, yes, but I would add some restictions.
|> Im asking for a bibliography including

[...]

I came up with a good reference last time this thread came around, but
I forget it now. It does appear, however, among Robert Heeter's FAQ for
conventional fusion. He posted it last about a week ago, and it should
be among news.answers.

-- 
Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de                               -- W Gibson
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnTK cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.11 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Was ionization --> What's a plasmoid (BL - type)
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Was ionization --> What's a plasmoid (BL - type)
Date: Sun, 11 Sep 1994 04:58:20 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <1994Sep8.194114.9580@ttinews.tti.com> jackson@soldev.tti.com
(Dick Jackson) writes:
>>Dick Jackson writes:
>about plasmoids:-

>I have heard a lot of speculation and divergence of opinion. What I had
>in mind was "How much is actually *known* about plasmoids. E.g., have
>people actually made them and confirmed theories of field configuration,
>etc?

We are raising the support and doing the work required to get answers 
to the questions you are asking here.  In general there is stuff
published on plasmoids that are not capable of reproducing BL, to
date.  There was a theory burst in the late 50's to 60's followed
by some fun experimental stuff in the 70's --  Dan Wells, for example

Plasmoids can cover anything from an exploding hair wire detonated bit 
of cotton fluff with fire accelerants (Ohtsuki &Ofuraton Waseda Tokyo) 
in it so as to produce a controlled rising firey Hill's Vortex in air, 
to a PMK, a spheromak, or electrically driven rail arc dumped into air.

So yes, people have generated plasmoids, starting with W. Bostick 
(excluding all of us plasma types in our rug rat stage, shoved bobby 
pins into the AC outlets).  The DoD had groups very interested in 
them, while the DoE alternatively has shown an adverse interest.  
DoE (ARPA) funded shaded work at hi pulse power tech places, but 
never did come up with an atmospheric penetrating plasma weapon.   
They should have talked with IPP before considering wasting the 
200meg $ plus.   To keep things in perspective, consider that such 
an amount is but a grain of sand compared to the money DoE has blown 
on vacuum plasma schemes.  

So, what's known is what each of these different things are, and why
they have failed to live up to anything like the legend of Ball 
Lightning.  But BL, like fusion, is not an easy challenge to set 
aside.   I could be that much of the work is still classified.    

PMKs seem to be the only thing that really can float around on its 
own for an anomolous time, in a manner that indicates an affinity 
for ferromagnetic material and seems to be orientation stabilized, 
knowable from its polar features.  It generates polar jets of excited 
vapor (glowing) and it lights up the surrounding 1.5 cm of Nitrogen 
in the atmosphere.  There is also evidence of energetic electrons, 
and none of this has been published except a few pieces of the 
underlying theory of its functions, structures, and thier 
interactions.  None of this has been published due to constraints 
-- it's supported by private or public sources with a bent to keep 
it close to the vest.  So officially NOTHING of import is 
really KNOWN about truely BL type plasmoids.   

Much would be known if the public defenders of energy and plasma 
research (DoE) had a more comprehensive and level funding view.   
The probability of that reversing is about equal to F. Castro 
winning the DC lottery.  

>Dick Jackson
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc, Bx 1037 Prometheus II Ltd, College Park MD 20741-1037    |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.12 / Gary Steckly /  Re: Griggs Gadget is not a vortex heat pump
     
Originally-From: gsteckly@dgim.doc.ca (Gary Steckly)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs Gadget is not a vortex heat pump
Date: Mon, 12 Sep 94 01:38:36 GMT
Organization: Communications Canada

MARSHALL DUDLEY (mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com) wrote:
: Jed Rothwell writes:

: > A number of people have suggested that the Griggs Gadget (GG) might be a
: > vortex heat pump. Let me explain why this is impossible. There are two
: > scenarios:

: Having read a number of papers on ZPE, I am struck by this comment.  Some
: researchers believe that a method of tapping the ZPE could involve
: non-linearities associated with high speed vortexes.  If that is the case then
: this could be a key to the whole affair.  It would not be cold fusion, but
(deletia)

methinks we run the risk of being burnt at the stake on this conference if
we mention the "V" word (vacuum energy) here, but we shouldn't forget that
some pretty respectable theorists have suggest vacuum EM field energy as
the real source of some pretty strange effects with water molecules being
stressed by ultrasonic electrical or mechanical energy.  

The late Julian Schwinger (nobel laureate, father of QED) has
suggested that those strange bursts of light coming from single bubble
sonoluminescence might be explained as a dynamic casimir effect.  If
this were the case with SL, and the visible EM bursts were actually coming
from some exotic vacuum interaction, might there not be other EM
frequencies involved as well that we haven't detected?  Maybe something
lower in the RF range?  Don't microwaves tend to heat up those water
molecules pretty well?  I wonder if Steve Jones and his students have
hooked up a radio frequency spectrum analyser next to their SL test setup?

just some wild semi-rabid speculation...

And let's not forget Mr. Meyer (if there is anything to his claims)... he
seems to be using ultrasonic frequencies for his electrolysis as well. 
And it appears he wasn't the first to notice some amazing  effects with
pulsed DC electrolysis.  Has anyone heard about Dr. Adrija Puharich's
electrolysis system?  That one dates back to the 50's I believe, discovered
as a serendipitous consequences of some research related to clotting blood
or some such thing. Rumour has it that the efficiency of that system
approached 95%. 

regards

Gary   
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudengsteckly cudfnGary cudlnSteckly cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.12 / John Lewis /  Re: Overselling cold fusion
     
Originally-From: court@newton.physics.mun.ca (John Lewis)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Overselling cold fusion
Date: 12 Sep 1994 15:41:59 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Physics, Memorial University

In article <9409091701.AA29866@pilot1.cl.msu.edu>, blue@pilot.msu.edu
(Richard A Blue) writes:
|> I saw the CBC Horizon program on cold fusion on Tuesday.  In it I
|> noted three examples of exagerated claims that went unchallanged.
|> We have some more examples here so I thought I would just list
|> them.

It's worth noting that many Canadians do not take the CBC seriously
(others do, unfortunately).  It has the reputation of being dominated
by upper-middle-class left-wing flakes from Toronto.  They've always been
somwhat biased, but in recent years seem to have abandoned any interest 
in factual accuracy.

As I say, my opinion, but shared by many.

John Lewis
St. John's, Newfoundland
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudencourt cudfnJohn cudlnLewis cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.12 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Reply to Rothwell/Amoco, Dufour efforts
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reply to Rothwell/Amoco, Dufour efforts
Date: Mon, 12 Sep 1994 14:39:58 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <xK6z-mU.jedrothwell@delphi.com>,  <jedrothwell@delphi.com> wrote:
>crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) wrote a number of
>absurdly incorrect statements about the P&F 1992 experiments. He has
>repeated this sort of thing often, and he has been correct by me
>and others countless times, so we must assume that he is deliberately
>posting this incorrect information. There is no point in correction him
>again, but I think that "lurkers" should be aware of the situation.

     Point out any 'inaccuracies' you see.  I suspect most 'lurkers'
     can identify a transparent debating trick.

>For accurate information, I urge all "lurkers" to read the Morrison versus
>Fleischmann and Jones versus Fleischmann e-mail exchanges. You will see that
>all of the so-called "objections" raised by Morrison, Jones, Bass and others
>were steamrolled flat in a few pages by Fleischmann. There is no scientific
>merit to any of them. They are like the Jones claim that you can input
>10 watts of electricity and get out 50 watts of heat from "recombination."

     The only substantive thing in Fleishmann's commentary is the 
     admission that their sampling rate was utterly inadequate.

     There's nothing about:
         a)  Is 'dry' dry?
         b)  What happened to the Kel-F?  How could it possibly have
             reached 300C on the wire side when immersed in electrolyte?
         c)  How could the cell have possibly remained at 100C
             when 'dry' and with the Pd electrode presumably out
             of the electrolyte?
         d)  Anything else.

>      "Do you believe that one should sample a voltage varying wildly on
>     millisecond timescales every 600 seconds or so?"
> 
>Voltage does not vary wildly.

     It's boiling, it varies wildly.  Of course, it would be difficult to 
     see that if one samples only every 600 seconds.

> It is not sampled every 600 seconds only. The
>data shown from one experiment was sampled every 600 seconds, but there have
>been many other experiments sampled with many other tools. Data from
>oscilloscopes show that the voltage was not varying wildly.

     Ah yes, the mystery readings not published or substantiated by 
     *any* evidence.  Jed, you're rich.

>     "How would you feel
>     about *one or two* datapoints in a ten minute boiloff in which
>     all the experimental parameters are varying wildly, in fact so wildly
>     that they melted a piece of Kel-F in the cell at some point?"
> 
>Again, in other experiments copious data points are taken, but as it happens
>no data points are needed at all. As Martin pointed out to Steve Jones, you
>can assume that the voltage is as high as it can go with these power supplies,

     No you cannot as we have no idea what the power supply is, nor
     what the load term looks like from the cell.

>the voltage is during the three hours the heat effect continues after that:
>it is zero. The melting of the Kel-F is was not caused by "wildly varying"
>conditions, it was caused by extremely high temperatures which are steady.

     How did one get 300C down low in the electrolyte (i.e. not on the
     Pd electrode)?  Gee, the source (the Pd electrode) must have been 
     quite hot as the electrolyte between the two electrodes would have 
     flashed.
     
     On the other hand, if you boil off the electrolyte and start driving
     higher frequency arcing between the two electrodes, I can imagine
     the wires could get quite hot...

>     "And what would you think of two researchers in the south of France
>     who explained that the *reason* for this obviously inadequate experimental
>     technique is that they had only one PC to sample all their cells?
> 
>Those particular cells on that particular day had only one PC, but of course
>they have many other cells in many other calorimeters. That set of 64 cells
>is only one of the many experiments run there.

     And that boiling result was *reported* in the literature.  And
     inadequate sampling was discussed five years ago.  

     Seems sloppy to me.

                               dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.12 /  SilntObsvr /  Re: Linear CCD Array Wanted
     
Originally-From: silntobsvr@aol.com (SilntObsvr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Linear CCD Array Wanted
Date: 12 Sep 1994 13:13:08 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

In article <34ilhv$ouh@fnnews.fnal.gov>, Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
writes:

>What I need is a linear array of PIN diodes or othre light sensitive
device >probably read out by a CCD.  I know about devices like the Texas
>Instruments TC 103 which is the kind of device that I want.  But it is
2048 >12.7 micron cells.  I would like larger cells.  
>
>Seems to me that they must use something like this in FAX machines or
>picture scanners.  An ideal cell size would be about 0.005"

You might look into acquiring an old half-page or full-page scanner,
intact.  The complete optical setup for these will often allow operation
at 200 pels/inch, which would give exactly the resolution you're after,
even though the device itself is much smaller.  Additionally, the scan
element is a linear array, and the the driver electronics are already in
place to allow direct computer connection.  All you'd need is custom
software and a minor modificiation to allow transmitting a single
interrupt (to trigger the port to input one scan line).

Used, the device itself, with PC expansion card, should be under $200,
possibly as little as $50.  You might even be able to use the software
that comes with the unit with a little opto-mechanical ingenuity.
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudensilntobsvr cudlnSilntObsvr cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.12 / Bruce Dunn /  Re: Griggs device
     
Originally-From: Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Dunn)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs device
Date: Mon, 12 Sep 94 11:13:01 -0800
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada

Bill Page wrote

> My emphasis **. You may have noticed that everytime the word *aluminum*
> occurs in this news group my ears perk up! :})
>
> Jed, has Griggs made any observations regarding the effects of different
> types of rotor materials?

In one of the science.space groups, there was a posting relating (if I
haven't mis-remembered), an amateur rocket using aluminum foil with water
as the oxidizer.  I don't have thermodynamic references handy to pursue
this idea - presumably the idea is that there is some form of energy
releasing mechanism related to the oxidation of aluminum to an oxide or
hydroxide by water (presumably with the release of hydrogen).

I wonder whether there is a possibility of aluminum oxidation in cavitation
induced erosion of the aluminum rotor, either by water or by atmospheric
oxygen dissolved in the water?  Perhaps Jed could give some upper limits to
the amount of aluminum disappearing from the rotor during a run.



--
Bruce Dunn    Vancouver, Canada   Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenBruce_Dunn cudfnBruce cudlnDunn cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.12 / Bruce Dunn /  Re: Griggs Gadget and aluminum oxidation
     
Originally-From: Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Dunn)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs Gadget and aluminum oxidation
Date: Mon, 12 Sep 94 11:22:06 -0800
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada

After posting a query regarding the possibility of the aluminum rotor of
the Griggs machine oxidizing and releasing heat, more information surfaced
in science.space.policy.

Paul Dietz wrote:

> Jim Glass wrote:
>
>   >  Water as an oxidizer?  I think not.
>
> The theoretical shifting equilibrium sea level Isp of aluminum + water
> at 1000 psia is around 200 seconds.  Aluminum + methanol is nearly 250
> seconds.  Likely not competitive (especially when inefficiencies in a
> real engine are included), but surprising that it is even this high.

"Isp" is a measure of the amount of thrust produced for a given mass of
reacting rocket propellants.  Isp is about 300 for kerosene and liquid
oxygen, and 450 for liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen.  The point of Paul's
post is that when calculations are done using a specialized program
designed to calculate chemical reactions occurring in a combusion chamber,
water is definitely an oxidizer with respect to aluminum, and will react
exothermically with it  (similar to the underwater magnesium flares which
we used to see in ancient TV series about SCUBA diving).


--
Bruce Dunn    Vancouver, Canada   Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenBruce_Dunn cudfnBruce cudlnDunn cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.12 / Thomas Zemanian /  Re: Heat pumps
     
Originally-From: ts_zemanian@pnl.gov (Thomas S. Zemanian)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Heat pumps
Date: 12 Sep 1994 19:41:13 GMT
Organization: Battelle PNL


It has now been suggested, by Jorge Stolfi, and others, that the Griggs
device may be building up heat in the body of the pump while in
non-producing mode (while it "warms up" to 300 deg. F), and then extracting
said energy by acting as a heat pump while in producing mode.  There is no
reason why a heat pump cannot be used to pump energy from a hot reservoir
to a cold reservoir; it's just generally foolish.

Two points:

(1) Jed Rothwell has given the dimensions of the pump as a cylinder of
steel, two feet in diam. and one foot in length.  Assuming the pump is a
solid block, and using the heat capacity (0.11 BTU/ # deg F) and density
(0.28 #/cu. in.) for mild steel, one finds that the pump body should drop
25.5 deg. F to account for the 1.25 kWH (=4,270 BTU) reported in the
description of the device.  If the device has a void fraction of 0.5, the
temp. must decrease by 51 deg. F.

(2) Jed described a preliminary test, while in non-producing mode, for
which the energy balance closed.  This point weakens the stored-energy
hypothesis, but does not destroy it.

Monitoring the temperature of the pump body throughout the experiment would
seem a good idea.

--Tom

--
The opinions expressed herein are mine and mine alone.  Keep your filthy
hands off 'em! 
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudents_zemanian cudfnThomas cudlnZemanian cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.12 / John Lewis /  Re: Griggs device
     
Originally-From: court@newton.physics.mun.ca (John Lewis)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs device
Date: 12 Sep 1994 20:03:35 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Physics, Memorial University

In article <53667@mindlink.bc.ca>, Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Dunn) writes:
|> Bill Page wrote
|> 
|> > My emphasis **. You may have noticed that everytime the word *aluminum*
|> > occurs in this news group my ears perk up! :})
|> >
|> > Jed, has Griggs made any observations regarding the effects of different
|> > types of rotor materials?
|> 
|> In one of the science.space groups, there was a posting relating (if I
|> haven't mis-remembered), an amateur rocket using aluminum foil with water
|> as the oxidizer.  I don't have thermodynamic references handy to pursue
|> this idea - presumably the idea is that there is some form of energy
|> releasing mechanism related to the oxidation of aluminum to an oxide or
|> hydroxide by water (presumably with the release of hydrogen).


Aluminum is inherently a reactive and energetic material, and combines vigorously 
with oxygen
under a number of conditions (hence its use in high explosives and in solid rocket
fuel).  It is prevented
from reacting with air or water under normal conditions by the thin alumina
coating which forms on it - again, a consequence of the strength of the Al-O bond.

Al will react happily with acid or base - i.e. with aqueous media if sufficiently
low or high in pH.  

> 
|> I wonder whether there is a possibility of aluminum oxidation in cavitation
|> induced erosion of the aluminum rotor, either by water or by atmospheric
|> oxygen dissolved in the water?  Perhaps Jed could give some upper limits to
|> the amount of aluminum disappearing from the rotor during a run.
|> 
|> 
|> 
|> --
|> Bruce Dunn    Vancouver, Canada   Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca

John Lewis
St. John's, Newfoundland
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudencourt cudfnJohn cudlnLewis cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.13 / Jorge Stolfi /  Re: Griggs device tests
     
Originally-From: stolfi@src.dec.com (Jorge Stolfi)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs device tests
Date: 13 Sep 1994 11:23:56 GMT
Organization: CS Department, University of Campinas

    > [J.Rothwell:] (Jorge Stolfi) suggests that the Griggs Gadget
    > (GG) might be storing energy during a warm up period and then
    > releasing it during the test.  He points out that this would
    > cool the rotor and housing down during the test.  The housing
    > does not cool during the test, so this possibility is ruled out.
    > I would definitely have noticed it if the rotor and housing
    > had cooled down,

Well, just to be picky: the housing and rotor are not necessarily at
the same temperature.  

For one thing, the thermal conductivity of steel is one fourth of that
of aluminum.  Do you know how thick is the housing?  How long would it
take for a drop of 60 F on the inside to be felt outside?

But let's assume that the housing did not cool down, since you say

    > ... The rotor did not cool down, this assumption is incorrect.
    > I took pyrometer readings every 2 minutes in many of the tests.

I suppose that refers to the steam, right?  Well, you can bring a
bucket of water to a boil by dropping a hot stone into it.  (I believe
indians used this trick for cooking).  While the water is boiling, the
stone is cooling down inside, but its surface---and the bucket---will
stay put at 212 F.  

(The boiling temperature will be higher for a pressurized vessel, of
course; but you see the point.)

    > Even better evidence is the fact that the GG will continue
    > producing heat continuously for years if you leave it on. The
    > longest I have seen one produce heat is an hour, but they have
    > been run much longer.

Well, "evidence" is not quite the right word here... 
"Claim" or "belief" would be more appropriate, don't you think so?
Actual evidence --- meaning controlled measurements---would be
more helpful.

    > The data gathering does not start the moment the heat-producing
    > effect sets in. It starts five or ten minutes later in some
    > cases, or an hour later if they decide to break for lunch at
    > that time.  You have to wait at least five minutes to make sure
    > everything really is stable. Typically, the machine is turned on
    > and put into heat producing mode while other preparations are
    > made, like filling up the barrel with water.

"In some cases" ... "typically" ... "five or ten" ... It is kind of
hard to check heat-balance computations with such vague claims.  
If you posted specific times for a specific test, we could 
then try to discuss those.

In any case, the "five or ten minutes" must be compared with
the time it takes for a quarter-ton block of solid aluminum
to reach thermal equilibrium with its surroundings. (More on
this below).

By the way, is the rotor *really* solid aluminum? I know nothing
about these things, but I imagine that a hollow rotor, possibly
filled with concrete, would be more cost-effective than a solid 
one.  

Can anyone tell us for sure what the inside of the rotor is made of?
It should't affect the heat capacity estimates very much,
but it seems essential for computing the time scale 
for heat takeup/release.

    > [Jed:] The rotor is separated from the housing by a few
    > millimeters at most. I do not have the exact figures, but I have
    > seen disassembled units and the tolerances are very tight.

What about the space above and below the rotor?

About those disassembled units you saw: were they identical to the one
you tested?

Is the rotor really solid? Could it have internal cavities that
can hold water or steam?

    > [Me:] So one could easily explain away another few tenths of kWh
    > of excess heat by assuming that pressure and/or temperature
    > [of the steam inside the pump] dropped during the last 20 minutes.

    > [Jed:] The pressure and temperature do not drop

Ok.

    > [Me:] Finally, we should also worry about the rotational energy
    > stored in the rotor.  We could recover ... 0.14 kWh or 0.40 kWh,
    > respectively) by letting the rotor slow down from 3600 RPM to
    > 1800 RPM during the second phase.

    > [Jed:] With the addition of the dynamometer, we can now track
    > rotation closely. It does not change significantly during the
    > course of the test run.

Granted that rotational energy may not be an issue.  But what is the
RPM, and how much is that "significantly"?  Note the effect of the
square-law formula: those same 0.4 kWh could be recovered by slowing
the rotor from 36,180 RPM to 36,000 RPM, a 0.5% drop. (Yes, I am aware
that 36,000 RPM is rather on the absurd side.)

    > [Me:] [The power factor] correction is valid provided the
    > instrument wasn't trying to be "user-friendly" and applying the
    > correction on its own. . ."

    > [Jed:] There is some confusion about this. ... I am forced to
    > compromise and use computers, but I don't trust the little
    > devils.

I admit I am being paranoid here, but it is important to clear up
this point, since the power factor correction amounts to half of the
"excess heat" computed for Test 2.

    > [Me:] Just think: if it takes 10--20 minutes for the pump to
    > reach a steady state with 23 kW of input power, it should take
    > another 10-20 minutes for it to stabilize again when the input
    > power is suddenly reduced to 14 kW + (excess heat)."

    > [Jed:] No, it takes 10 minutes to get up to full steam with
    > ambient temperature tap water input ... The test is not done
    > unless it has settled down in excess mode for 5 or 10 minutes.
    
"Getting up to full steam" does not mean that the pump has reached
*thermal* equilibrium.  

For the purpose of my argument, the pump is not in steady state until
the bulk of the rotor has reached the roughly the same temperature as
the water/steam on its surface, within a few tens of degrees.  

My guess is that it takes quite a bit longer than 10 minutes, even for a
solid aluminum rotor.  What is your guess? 

As long as the temperature is not uniform, heat will be flowing into
or out of the rotor, at the rate of 0.3 kWh for each 10 F.

    > [T. Zemanian:] Jed described a preliminary test, while in
    > non-producing mode, for which the energy balance closed.  This
    > point weakens the stored-energy hypothesis, but does not destroy
    > it.

On the contrary, it fits perfectly.  Note that the "mysterious
heat-produceing process" does not manifest itself by a rise in
temperature, but by a decrease in the friction coefficient---which
leads to a reduced power input, without a corresponding drop
in the heat output.

Thus, in the "blank" test, the pump consumed XXX kW for the whole
run; and, during the measurement period, they found that
heat out was almost equal to energy in.

In the "positive" tests, the pump soaked XXX kW for some 15-20 minutes;
then consumption dropped by some 50%, and in the next 20 min 
some 30% more energy came out than went in.

This is just what the heat storage model predicts, right?

So, if there is excess heat being produced, it will take a much longer
measurement period (or much higher excesses) for it to stand out above
the stored heat uncertainties.

Alternatively, one would need to show excess heat after integrating
input and output over the *whole* run, starting with a dead cold
machine, including the warm-up and calibration period.

    > [Me:] Unfortunately, the paper reports only two positive tests
    > (2 and 3).  Test 3 gathered data for only 30 minutes (1.50 times
    > the duration of Test 2), resulting in 1.8 kWh of apparent excess
    > heat (1.12 times the amount observed in Test 2)."

    > [Jed:] That was two out of a dozen or so I have observed. I have
    > data from several dozen other runs.

Great.  What do they tell? 

    > Please remember the difference between postulating or
    > hypothesizing that the rotor *may have cooled* and assuming that
    > it did cool.  The hypothesis is wrong, the rotor did not cool,
    > your fears that it might have are groundless.
    
Well, and what grounds do *you* have to asssert that it did not?

    > Do not assume that every mistake you think up was actually
    > made.
    
Unfortunately, *one* sytematic mistake could be enough to 
invalidate these claims.

By the way, this is one reason why understanding the physics is
important.  If you try to develop a reliable "recipe" for excess heat
without a clue as to where it comes from, you may end up instead 
with a very reliable recipe for bad calorimetry.

    > Other observers who are far more expert than I have also
    > performed extensive testing and found nothing wrong.  All of the
    > potential errors raised here by you and by others have been
    > thought of over the years and checked into.
    
And all of the "free energy" machines invented in the last 2000+ years
turned out to be bogus.

Shall we continue debating on this abstract level, or shall we get
down to specifics?
    
    > I would appreciate it however, if people would drop the "heat
    > pump hypothesis"

I agree that the GG can't be a heat pump. (Too bad, because
heat pumps do work and save energy; whereas a "mysterious
heat-producing process" that appears to violate the first law
must be a bit hard to sell.)

    > Monitoring the temperature of the pump body throughout the
    > experiment would seem a good idea.
 
Yes, but that may not tell us much about the temperature inside
the rotor (see above).

What we need is a direct measurement of the heat capacity and heat
takeup/release rate for the rotor.  For instance, one could run an
experiment like Test 2 twice, with flow and steam temperature adjusted
according to the same schedule; except that, in the second run, the
power to the main motor is cut off completely at the start of the
measurement period.  Then the amount of heat collected in the barrel,
in the next 20 minutes, will let us determine how much heat can be
stored in the pump.  

It would be also nice to have RPM, barrel temperature,
and steam temperature and pressure recorded every minute, 
so that one could also compute cooling times and such.

    > [C. R. Bass:] How could [the dro in mechanical resistance]
    > physically happen?  Prediction: rapid and violent cavitation is
    > occuring in the region of the pits on the rotor that one can see
    > clearly at higher frequencies on an O-scope attached to the
    > input electrical lines.

This is unlikely, since the large inertia of the rotor should filter
out any high-frequency variations in the mechanical load.

I bet it is something quite prosaic; say

  the water/steam interface drops below the bottom of 
  the rotor; or
  
  the water goes supercritical; or
  
  a stable layer of steam forms between the rotor and the water
  in the gap; or
  
  the water in the gap breaks up into separate droplets that roll without
  friction; or
  
  the water turns into a compressible steam/water froth that does not
  couple well to the rotor pits; or
  
  ...

etc. etc.  

    > [J. Rothwell:] When the machine is not producing any excess
    > heat, the power draw kilowatt numbers on the Dranetz are
    > proportional to the flow, increasing as the input flow valve is
    > opened, decreasing as it is shut, just as you would expect. When
    > the excess heat effect turns on, input power no longer changes
    > as much in response to flow adjustments.

This seems to be roughly consistent with some of the explanations
above.  Before the transition, the water/steam interface lies halfway
up the rotor; as flow increases, the water travels higher up before
boiling off, and friction is correspondingly higher.  After the
transition, the water boils or goes sueprcritical well before entering
the gap, and thus friction is low and insensitive to flow.

--stolfi

 ------------------------------------------------------------------
Jorge Stolfi, stolfi@dcc.unicamp.br
Computer Science Dept (DCC-IMECC), Univ of Campinas (UNICAMP)
13081 Campinas, SP -- BRAZIL   +55(192)39-8442
 ------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenstolfi cudfnJorge cudlnStolfi cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.13 / Alan M /  Re: Reply to Rothwell/Amoco, Dufour efforts
     
Originally-From: Alan@moonrake.demon.co.uk ("Alan M. Dunsmuir")
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reply to Rothwell/Amoco, Dufour efforts
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 1994 05:12:34 +0000
Organization: Home

In article: <xK6z-mU.jedrothwell@delphi.com>  jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:

> For accurate information, I urge all "lurkers" to read the Morrison versus
> Fleischmann and Jones versus Fleischmann e-mail exchanges. You will see that
                                                             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> all of the so-called "objections" raised by Morrison, Jones, Bass and others
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> were steamrolled flat in a few pages by Fleischmann. There is no scientific
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> merit to any of them. They are like the Jones claim that you can input
> 10 watts of electricity and get out 50 watts of heat from "recombination."
>  
Jed - Is this like your claim in sci.sleptics of a few months ago that 
"Anyone watching 'Too Close to the Sun' would see it proved that MIT 
had fraudulently modified the results of their experiment" and that the 
programme had caused "enormous repercussions in the UK"?

It's bad enough when you get your references wrong, and when you insist 
that informal and unreviewed alumni magazines are "published by MIT", 
but when you give your personal view that one side's arguments have 
overwhelmingly defeated the other's, we all know to apply the odd 
hundredweight of salt.

Alan M. Dunsmuir [@ his wits end]     (Can't even quote poetry right)

         I am his Highness' dog at Kew
         Pray tell me sir, whose dog are you?
			      [Alexander Pope]

PGP Public Key available on request.


cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenAlan cudfnAlan cudlnM cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.13 / Alan M /  Re: Griggs device tests (was: Heat pumps)
     
Originally-From: Alan@moonrake.demon.co.uk ("Alan M. Dunsmuir")
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs device tests (was: Heat pumps)
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 1994 05:12:35 +0000
Organization: Home

In article: <xI7SnOd.jedrothwell@delphi.com>  jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:

> Even better evidence is the fact that the GG will continue producing heat
> continuously for years if you leave it on. The longest I have seen one produce
> heat is an hour,

Now _there's_ a fine Rothwell extrapolation, driven by wishful 
thinking!

Alan M. Dunsmuir [@ his wits end]     (Can't even quote poetry right)

         I am his Highness' dog at Kew
         Pray tell me sir, whose dog are you?
			      [Alexander Pope]

PGP Public Key available on request.


cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenAlan cudfnAlan cudlnM cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.12 / John Logajan /  Re: experiment - recombination vs combustion
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@mirage.skypoint.net (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: experiment - recombination vs combustion
Date: 12 Sep 1994 14:01:28 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Bill Page (70047.3047@compuserve.com) wrote:
: Mills claims that hyrdinoes (hyrdogen
: in the putative tightly bound state) do not take part in ordinary
: combustion but has implied that this may not apply to catalytic
: recombination.

The implication, then, is that in a catalytic recombination, the
sub-ground energy state can be restored to the ground state by picking
up ambient thermal energy.

If there were sub-ground states, and if they could be gotten to in
one physical location, and undone in another location, you have the
mechanism for a straight forward heat pump.

To wit:

Do a Mills cell and for each reaction, pick up, say 27 eV (or whatever).

Ship the hydrinoes to a relatively cooler place and allow them to 
recombine catalytically, picking back up 27 eV from the environment.

Ship the H2O molecules back into the Mills cell, etc.

--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com -- 612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills  MN 55112 USA           -
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.13 / Bruce TK /  Re: virial theorem...the mind continues to wander
     
Originally-From: bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce       Scott          TK  )
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: virial theorem...the mind continues to wander
Date: 13 Sep 1994 11:08:17 GMT
Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching

In article <harrCw1vv6.JMJ@netcom.com>, harr@netcom.com (Charles
(Chuck) Harrison) writes:
|> I am continuing along the thread of "how could ball lightning get
|> away from the virial theorem?"  I find this more interesting to
|> think about than "the virial theorem proves BL is impossible".

I hope you never got the idea that _I_ ever said this, from my position
that the Wu and Chen plasmoid model can serve as a representative case!
My position is that ball lightning, being an MHD equilibrium, satisfies
the theorem, and to model it, one must use a solution to the MHD equilibrium
equations, and that possible equilibria are constrained by the virial
theorem (ie, if you can't solve the associated Dirichlet problem given a
certain boundary you most likely have no equilibrium state consistent with
that boundary). That is all.

The other issues I'll get to in a few weeks when there is more time.


-- 
Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de                               -- W Gibson
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnTK cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.12 /  jonesse@xray.b /  Excess heat greater than I*V input?
     
Originally-From: jonesse@xray.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Excess heat greater than I*V input?
Date: 12 Sep 94 17:04:37 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

Jed Rothwell writes:
"There is no scientific merit to any of them.  They are like the Jones claim
that you can input 10 watts of electricity and get out 50 watts of heat from
'recombination'."

I (Jones) have not made this claim.  Rothwell misleads.  This type of false
attribution ceases to be amusing.  Am I supposed to deny each such
misrepresentation from Mr. Rothwell?  Why don't we demand that he
substantiate his statements?  (I have tried and tried, yet the
misrepresentations continue.)


Chuck Harrison asks that I address the question of how excess heat can be
accounted for when the "output heat exceeds input I*V, and also for results in
which evolved gases were measured volumetrically to monitor recombination. 
These objections are sound, and an intellectually straightforward response is
called for."  

I have addressed this
here before, and a discussion is included in our forthcoming paper.
In summary, in most of the experiments, "excess heat" is not greater than
I*V.  

Miles et al., Srinivasan et al., Noninski, and Mills et al. for instance 
measured the Faraday efficiency of cells similar to those used in their
heat measurements, but none measured heat and gas production rates
*simultaneously.*  Thus, their evidence against recombination is not
compelling.  Noninski states "the problem of recombination is a crucial one...,
and it deserves special attention in any further experiments."  [V.C. Noninski,
Fusion Tech. 21 (1992) 163]

Randall Mills et al. claim
excess heat greater than I*V input. [ Mills, Good and Shauback, Fusion Tech.
25 (1994) 103].  The Mills experiments were conducted in crude calorimeters
(starting with 5-gallon buckets) and use several different, low-resistance
calibration resistors.  The design suggests to us that calorimetric error may
be the explanation of these results.  Moreover, these results were obtained
using *pulsed* electrical power, and accurate integration of the input I*V(t)
under these conditions is suspect.  

In the case of P&F's 'boiling cells' -- for data which have been published
-- measurements of input I*V(t) were made only once every 300 seconds, so the
integrated input I*V(t) is again highly suspect.  This admission was made here
in an interchange which I had with Fleischmann, although he would not provide
the actual I*V(t), I*V(t+5min.) values which I asked for.  Also, the fact that
the input measurements were only made in 5-minute intervals (for excess heat
calculated for a 10-minute boiling period) was not even disclosed in the P&F et
al. publication.  It is astounding that they can get away with such business.

We have not seen *any* compelling evidence for "excess heat" greater than
I*Vinput.  And, of course, *no one* has published an x-ray spectrum which must
accompany nuclear reactions (of any sort) in metals.       ^^^^^^^^  No one,
not McKubre, not P&F, not Miles, not Mills -- no one.

--Steven Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenjonesse cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.12 /  jonesse@xray.b /  cancel <1994Sep12.165353.1737@xray.byu.edu>
     
Originally-From: jonesse@xray.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cancel <1994Sep12.165353.1737@xray.byu.edu>
Date: 12 Sep 94 17:05:20 -0600

cancel <1994Sep12.165353.1737@xray.byu.edu>
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenjonesse cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.13 / Chuck Sites /  Re: Reply to Rothwell/Amoco, Dufour efforts
     
Originally-From: chuck@iglou.iglou.com (Chuck Sites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reply to Rothwell/Amoco, Dufour efforts
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 1994 04:55:42 GMT
Organization: The Internet Gateway of Louisville, KY

jlogajan@mirage.skypoint.net (John Logajan) writes:

>Charles (Chuck) Harrison (harr@netcom.com) wrote:
>: If oxygen is a participant in the excess heat phenomenon, then
>: Steve's experiments are consistent with that.

>No, I believe this is fundamentally incorrect.

>It's as if you are suggesting that Steve said, "Our tests revealed no
>anomalous heat at any time -- and when we purged the oxygen, the anomalous
>heat went away."

>Clearly, Jones says he never had any anomalous heat, and therefore it
>couldn't have "gone away" when they purged the oxygen.

>So Steve's experiment is only consistent with a total null result, and not
>with a positive result driven into a null regime.

>I think all you can conclude from Steve's results is that there are
>potential in-situ recombination or "short circuit" mechanisms that
>complicate reliance on assumed Faraday efficiencies.

>This underscores the importance of "closed" systems, but the definiton
>of "closed" is, er, open to various alternatives (i.e. force recombination
>closes the cell, measuring exhausted gas volume and gas composition closes
>a cell, etc.)


My feeling exactly John.  In some of the heat producing experiment I've 
done, (specifically some low voltage AC experiments with nickel/hydrogen/borax)
the sorce of the heat is the metal.  I did not observe any evolving gases 
in the way of gas of bubbles on the electrodes. While steam was coming from 
the water surface the water temp was about aprox 70C so that should be normal. 
However, the metal was electrodes, were roughtly 90C.  I used petri dishes
with electrodes seperated by aproximately an inch spacing to create a 
temperature gradiant. This allowed me to check for metals that appeared 
to produce heat under electrolysis. 

  If In-solution recombination occured, that would imply recombination of
-OH and +H in the water and thus the water bath should heat and the metal
would be the same termperature as the water.  However, since the metal 
appears as the source of heat, it indicates, to me the metal is acting 
like a catalyst insitu.  At least that's what I originally thought.  The 
problem is that assuming 100% recombination.  Then in this case, heat 
released should be the work done seperate H2O. The Mass of the metal 
electrodes was a few grams and the conductivity of the metal is near 
copper, and the current and voltage are low, so no noticable heating 
would be expected in the range of power applied from Joule heating.  
(Infact I tried several pure and alloyed metals, AC & DC, mixed and same
in early days and most do not even get warm, but the PS sure does :-)   
This impled to me the Ni/H system was special.  Since, I noticed a slight
capacitance using DC currents in some of the system, this indicates 
that some storage of ions exists in the metals. (I wonder if that value 
could be used to indicate the loading factor?).  Anyway, what it lead me
to conclude was proton conduction and proton resistance are important and
necessary for the generation of heat by AC electrolyisis of same materials.


>--
> - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com -- 612-633-0345 -
> - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills  MN 55112 USA           -

Have Fun,
Chuck Sites





cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.13 / C Harrison /  virial theorem...the mind continues to wander
     
Originally-From: harr@netcom.com (Charles (Chuck) Harrison)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: virial theorem...the mind continues to wander
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 1994 04:16:17 GMT
Organization: Fitful

I am continuing along the thread of "how could ball lightning get
away from the virial theorem?"  I find this more interesting to
think about than "the virial theorem proves BL is impossible".

In interesting paper, cited by Paul Koloc in the past, is Finkelstein
& Rubinstein [1].  It is worthwhile to review this after seeing
Koloc's PMK model, which adresses many of the F&R issues (e.g.
with low-resistance "hyperconducting" current paths, vacuum isolation,
low-loss mantle zone).

The virial theorem is brought forward in the form promulgated by
Chandresekar (e.g. [2] p. 577ff).  In this context it is perhaps
useful to quote the Chandresekar assumptions:
  Consider an inviscid fluid of zero electrical resistivity
  in which a magnetic field H(x) prevails.  Suppose that the
  fluid is a perfect gas [... and] that apart from the 
  prevailing magnetic field and gas pressure the only other
  force acting on the medium is that derived from its own
  gravitation. [2]
Chandresekar is talking about stellar clouds, where self-gravitation
is very important.  It is pretty safe ( :-) ) to ignore it for
atmospheric-density plasmoids a few cm in diameter.  But one is
tempted to cast about for other interesting forces or violations
of the perfect gas laws.

That hasn't led me anywhere yet, but I noticed something else.

Koloc has often mentioned "energetic currents", i.e. relativistic
electrons.  So, how about relativity? Does that change the ground
rules?  Well, I'm not the first to ask that question (surprise! :-) );
F&R cite Rosenbluth & Stuart [3] with a straightforward extension
to relativistic 4-space E&M tensors.  (Not straightforward to me,
but they relent at the end of the article and give the clumsy
3-d form:
                   /
 1/c^2 * d^2/dt^2 | r^2 { rho c^2 /sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) + (E^2+H^2)/8pi} dV
                 /

         /
   = 2  | { rho v^2 /sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) + (E^2+H^2)/8pi} dV
       /

         /
      - | (E^2+H^2)/4pi _r_ dot _dS_
       /

         /
      + | (_E_(_E_ dot _r_) + _H_(_H_ dot _r_))/2pi dot _dS_
       /
    
         /
  - d/dt | r^2 { _E_ cross _H_ /(4pi c) + rho _v_ /sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)}dot _dS_
        /

  with _E_ & _H_ the conventional electric & magnetic field vectors,
       rho the mass density, _r_ a general position vector (in
       center-of-mass coordinates ??)  _v_ the velocity vector.
       Integrals in dV are taken over the plasmoid volume and
       integrals in _dS_ are taken over the bounding surface.

R&S are thinking about a vacuum boundary, so they can imagine the
surface extended to infinity where all the _dS_ integrals vanish,
and thus leave only the first two terms.

In this form, the virial theorem apparently shows that a volume
containing excess energy (positive Right-Hand Side) is non-stationary;
in fact, its moment of inertia (the integral on the LHS) is
increasing (i.e. d^2/dt^2 >0 ).

One can ask, "suppose this is true; the system is nonstationary
and its moment of inertia is increasing.  How long can its
internal structure do this before the outer boundary shows
that middle-aged bulge?"  

I believe that Bruce Scott recently answered this question "a few
microseconds".  F&R ([1] p 394) do a "back-of-the-envelope"
calculation to show that the expansion time must be short.
However, I wonder whether this may need more thinking.

Note that the "moment of inertia" integral

        /
 1/c^2 | r^2 { rho c^2 /sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) + (E^2+H^2)/8pi} dV
       /

has more structure to it than the 

       /
 I =  | r^2 rho dV
     /

which we met in freshman physics.  Is it possible that, by accelerating
or decelerating relativistic electrons, and exchanging energy with
the EM field, that this integral could increase for quite awhile
without breaking out of its cloaking Mantle?  This process could be
tightly linked to the "running down" process that eventually leads to
the ball lightning's demise.

There may be an obvious argument why this can't happen, but I haven't
visualized it yet.

Wait!  Here's another thought:  Just because d^2 I / dt^2 is positive,
we don't _necessarily_ have *I* increasing (dI/dt > 0).  At formation,
the generalized moment of inertia may be *decreasing* rapidly,
followed by a turnaround at a minimum value and subsequent
expansion.  Hmmm.

Cheers,
  Chuck

[1] D Finkelstein, J Rubinstein, "Ball Lightning", _Physical Review A_
     135(2A):390-396 (20 July 1964).

[2] S Chandrasekhar, _Hydrodynamic and Hydromagnetic Stability_,
     Clarendon Press, 1961. Reprinted by Dover, NY 1981, ISBN
     0-486-64071-X.

[3] MN Rosenbluth, GW Stuart, "Relativistic virial theorem", _Phys
     Fluids_ 6:452-453 (1963).
 
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenharr cudfnCharles cudlnHarrison cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.12 / Matt Kennel /  Re: Griggs Gadget is not a vortex heat pump
     
Originally-From: mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs Gadget is not a vortex heat pump
Date: 12 Sep 1994 23:25:42 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

Jed Rothwell (72240.1256@CompuServe.COM) wrote:
: A number of people have suggested that the Griggs Gadget (GG) might be a 
: vortex heat pump. Let me explain why this is impossible. There are two 
: scenarios:

: 1. The GG extracts heat from incoming water and adds it to the outgoing
: steam. Net effect: zero.

Of course.  Is the electric motor shaft connected to the outside ambient
environment?

: Of course, if the machine had one input pipe and two outputs, and it poured 
: out a steady stream of cold water from one pipe and steam from another, that 
: would be a different story. It could be a vortex heat pump in that case. 
: Remember that vortexes heat pumps always have to divide the input flow into 
: two ouputs: hot, and cold. The Griggs Gadget does not do that. It has only 
: one input pipe and one output pipe, and the number of pounds added to the 
: feedwater hopper during the run equals the increase found in the barrel 
: afterwards. 

Might it be possible that the other 'cold' flow is air that is quickly
dissipated and equilibrated (making it somewhat harder to notice)?

Do you know what happens if you pipe the heated water back into to the input?
Or perhaps gang a few of them in series? How hot can you make the whole
thing get eventually?

Do you know wow does the excess heat ratio scale with the input water
temperature and ambient temperature?

thanks,
Matt

: - Jed

--
-Matt Kennel  		mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu
-Institute for Nonlinear Science, University of California, San Diego
-*** AD: Archive for nonlinear dynamics papers & programs: FTP to
-***     lyapunov.ucsd.edu, username "anonymous".
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenmbk cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.13 / Arthur TK /  Re: virial theorem...the mind continues to wander
     
Originally-From: awc@slcawcipp-garching.mpg.de (Arthur      Carlson        TK  )
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: virial theorem...the mind continues to wander
Date: 13 Sep 1994 12:09:47 GMT
Organization: Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics

In article <harrCw1vv6.JMJ@netcom.com>, harr@netcom.com (Charles
(Chuck) Harrison) writes:
|> I am continuing along the thread of "how could ball lightning get
|> away from the virial theorem?"  I find this more interesting to
|> think about than "the virial theorem proves BL is impossible".
and Bruce Scott answers
|> I hope you never got the idea that _I_ ever said this!

I took Chuck Harrison's statement as a loose, rhetorical formulation, but perhaps
I should clarify my position a bit anyway.

Along the lines of Bruce's answer, if you have a pathological surface, then you
probably can't write 

(1)     j cross B - grad p = 0     everywhere

Any change to this equation will change the form of the virial theorem. If you
want to suggest a change, we can consider it. Paul Koloc didn't.

Second, BL may have a physical explanation that has nothing to do with plasmas. I
have mentioned chemical reactions and metastable optical states. There seems to
be no theory that is completely or even largely satisfactory, but even if we
could rule out plasmas, that wouldn't automatically make ball lightning
"impossible".

Third, the energy associated with the virial theorem is large enough to let a
ball glow for many seconds, so the virial theorem does not even prove
plasma-based ball lightning "impossible". The virial theorem does have a problem
the more vigorous explosions which have been reported. Other aspects of plasma
physics (resistive decay, radiation losses, and transport) are difficult to
reconcile with a ball lightning model, but the consequences are more model
dependent than is the case with the virial theorem.

Finally, if you want to get exotic, I can offer you a "model" which is consistent
with big explosions *and* the virial theorem. (Just don't expect plausibility as
well.) Take an ideal gas, lots of it. Cool it down to absolute zero, or as close
as you care to come. Put a blob of this into the atmosphere and let the pressure
equilibrate. If we refrain from cluttering up the problem with a magnetic field,
the virial theorem tells us that the thermal energy of the blob is just that of
the same volume of atmospheric air. But the blob has infinite mass (density
inversely proportional to temperature) so we can run a Carnot heat engine forever
between the atmosphere and our blob. We can use the output to synthesis TNT or
whatever, which will then make as big a bang as you like. Since we have the
atmosphere as an infinite resevoir, the useful energy that can be wrung out of
the configuration is not limited to the thermal energy contained, even though the
thermal energy is limited by the virial theorem. If you find this proposition
"interesting", you are now free to figure out how nature (or Paul Koloc)
liquifies a large mass of air with a lightning bolt and then uses it to drive a
Carnot cycle on an explosive time scale after several seconds delay.

-- 
Have fun, or at least learn something.

Dr. Arthur Carlson
Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics
Garching, Germany
carlson@ipp-garching.mpg.de
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenawc cudfnArthur cudlnTK cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.14 / Richard Blue /  Rothwell tricks again
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Rothwell tricks again
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 1994 00:16:21 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I must be getting to Jed since he goes to such great lengths to
try to discredit me.  As noted by others, Jed is fond of telling
falsehoods about what his opponents have said and then making
a great show of putting down these false arguments (the ones he
has invented).

In this case the discussion he is refering to took place on another
forum, CompuServe, so it is easy for him to distort what I actually
said.  The full sequence of exchanges began with his reporting on
the "over unity" operation of the Griggs device and his water barrell
calorimetry.  I inquired as to the temperature of the steam and
expressed my doubts about the validity of Griggs' test of the
steam quality by waving his hand through the steam.  Jed stonewalled
on the question of steam temperature, at one point saying that he
had not bothered to write it down, and repeatedly asserting that one
did not need to know the steam temperature.

That was the context of my jesting comment that the Griggs device
might be just be a large ultrasonic dehumidifier.  At no point did
I ever make an assertion to the effect that cold mist could heat
a barrel of water.  Jed has made that charge.  I have responded
to his charge so that his statement concerning my nonresponse is
as spurious as the charge that I have advocated some physical
impossibility as an explanation for the operation of the Griggs
device.  I find it interesting to note that in his most recent
version of this story he finds it necessary to give the steam
temperature and to say that it was measured with considerable
redundancy even though he has earlier admitted that he had not
included such data in his careful evaluation of the Griggs device.

We next move on to my suggestion that ultrasound could influence
the instrumentation used to make various measurements essential
to the correct evaluation of the power balance.  I made specific
reference to the dynometer as being susceptible.  My reasoning
is as follows:  As I understand the device in use for these
measurements the shaft torque is sensed by some form of strain
gauge, something that is typically wired in a bridge configuration
and readout by a sensitive electronic amplifier.  If the low
frequency signal (DC) is overlayed by a high frequency, high power
signal the response of the electronics is not predictable with
great certainty.  It is not beyond question, in my opinion, that
the apparent drop in shaft torque could be such an effect.

Jed's counter argument starts with an appeal to higher authority
by saying that the dynometer is a high quality industial device and
that it was installed and tested by qualified people.  He also
points out that such devices must operate properly in noisey
industrial settings.  Here I point out one sinister characteristic
of ultrasound.  Our senses do not make us aware of its presence or
give us any measure of its intensity.  I will suggest that in a
typical industrial setting high power sources of ultrasound are
generally associated with equipment failure rather than ongoing
normal operations.  It could well be that a device could work properly
in an industrial setting but not in conjunction with some strange,
unproven and poorly understood gadget.

The final argument offered by Jed to show that my objections to
the measurements he reports are unreasonable is the redundancy
offered by the power meter and the dynamometer.  Here I must
confess to some confusion as to what the power meter actual
measures and what corrections are applied to those measurements.
This has been touched on by others so I think Jed should clarify
this point.  Has a phase correction been applied to the power
meter readings and is that correction appropriate?  Could we
have here a case that the dynamometer indicates this strange
drop in power input so the power meter reading is corrected
accordingly?  Forgive me, Jed, if you feel too insulted by
my asking such questions when you may well have addressed this
question in some detail elsewhere.  However, since you do have
time to repeat your silly assertions about my comments you may
as well put that bandwidth to better use by actually present
hard facts even if you must repeat yourself.

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.14 / Richard Blue /  Re: A paradigm too far
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A paradigm too far
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 1994 00:16:26 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I want to use that catchy subject heading to respond to Dave Davies,
among others.  The key argument against the significance of the
nondetection of nuclear radiation and the nonobservation of nuclear
reaction products always seems to come back to such things as
a paradigm shift or, as Ed Storms puts it, a Special Condition of
Matter.  That is to say that for some reason or other observations
made in other domains are not relevant to cold fusion.

Dave Davies states his case as follows:

"I have still seen no argument either here on the net or in the
literature that comes close to showing that solid state CF contra-
dicts established experimental evidence or relevant, well supported
theory."

I point out, Dave, that it is impossible to present a convincing
argument against cold fusion in general because no one has ever
made a specific, testable hypothesis saying what cold fusion truly
is and what physical processes are involved.  As long as CF
just refers to some vague selection of contradictory experimental
results with not even a sketch of a theory to define it the
arguments against must remain rather general and incomplete as well.

I have presented my general arguments as have others.  You clearly
find these arguments unsatisfactory, but you do not give any
specific criticism beyond saying they don't prove that CF in
solids is impossible.  My question is how does it come about that
process remains so well hidden?  If there is something that does
change branching ratios why does it always do such a good job?
If there is something than can delay the rapid release of nuclear
radiation why don't we catch the process in some intermediate
state?  Clearly the basic characteristics of the release of
excess heat involves a good bit that is random in nature.  It
is highly irregularly.  It is difficult to reproduce.  In that
context how can the effect on the nuclei involved always be
so regular, i.e. totally unobservable.  Pardon me, if I suggest
that there are clear indications that the CF results indicate
not some new paradigm but simply the abandonment of reason.
I think you have to supply reasons for the solid state system
influencing the nuclear processes to the degree required.
Nuclear processes have been observed in other solids so what
makes this one different?

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.13 / Jed Rothwell /  Various comments about Griggs
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@CompuServe.COM>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Various comments about Griggs
Date: 13 Sep 1994 14:16:52 GMT
Organization: CFRA

Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Dunn) asks:
 
     "I wonder whether there is a possibility of aluminum oxidation in
     cavitation induced erosion of the aluminum rotor, either by water or by
     atmospheric oxygen dissolved in the water?  Perhaps Jed could give some
     upper limits to the amount of aluminum disappearing from the rotor
     during a run."
 
I can determine the upper limits easily. There is no observable change to the
rotors after weeks of 50,000 BTU's per hour excess heat generation (several
hours per day). After a few years of use, the rotors do get worn and beat-up
looking. That is mostly because of mechanical wear I believe, but there is
also evidence of cavitation damage, in the form of small pits.
 
If the chemical destruction of the rotor was creating the excess heat, the
rotor would be dissolved after a few days. The smaller model machine weighs
900 lbs, Pump, motor, frame and all. If it was entirely made of bituminous
coal which all burned, it would produce 9.9 million BTU and last for 500 hours
(21 days continuous use).
 
 
ts_zemanian@pnl.gov (Thomas S. Zemanian) suggests:
 
     "Monitoring the temperature of the pump body throughout the experiment
     would seem a good idea."
 
The Pump body temperature is monitored throughout the experiment with a hand
held pyrometer. Soon after the machine is turned on the Pump reaches a stable
surface temperature and stays there. I don't recall the make or model of the
pyrometer, I think it was Canon. It looks like a small camera. You look at an
object through a lens, press a button, and the temperature appears on a
digital screen. You can set it for high or low water content. I tried setting
it for high water content and I aimed it at people's faces and found them to
be 99 deg F +/- 2 deg F. I aimed it at room temperature bodies and metal and
water and found it agreed closely with thermometer readings, usually within a
few degrees. The Pump body could not cool down 40 to 60 deg F without being
detected by the pyrometer.
 
 
mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel) asks:
 
     "Is the electric motor shaft connected to the outside ambient
     environment?"
 
Yes, but of course it is very hot, much hotter than ambient. I cannot easily
measure the temperature of the shaft alone with the pyrometer while the thing
is running, but I have been around heavy motors and I am quite sure the shaft
and all other components get very hot. They are made of metal, and all
components are in contact with one another, so they get hot by conduction.
 
 
     "Might it be possible that the other 'cold' flow is air that is quickly
     dissipated and equilibrated (making it somewhat harder to notice)?"
 
No, there can be no cold flow. All components are *much* hotter than ambient:
the pump, the motor, the shaft, so in every case the flow of heat is from
component to air, per the Second Law. The electric motor, like all motors of
this class, is equipped with a blower which creates a strong draft of hot air
(heat loss by convection).
 
Furthermore, the hypothetical flow of cold air could not be "quickly
dissipated" or "hard to notice." It would be between 20,000 and 50,000 BTUs
per hour (BTUH), which would produce a blast of cold air as strong as a
central air conditioner. I have two small central air conditioner units in my
house. One produces 30,000 BTUH, which is sufficient for several rooms.
Imagine a blast of cold air as strong as a central air conditioner coming from
a device the size of an engine block. Ask yourself whether you could detect it
or not. If the working fluid for the hypothetical heat pump was water, and the
device cooled water from 60 F down to 40 F, the 20,000 BTUH machine would
require a flow of 1000 pounds per hour (7.6 kg per minute). That is one heck
of a large flow, you couldn't miss seeing it! If it was an ice maker, it would
produce as much ice as a large restaurant unit; 115 pounds per hour (52 kg or
13 gallons per hour). If the Griggs device spilled 4 gallons of ice on the
floor during a run, I am sure I would notice it.
 
 
     "Do you know how does the excess heat ratio scale with the input water
     temperature and ambient temperature?"
 
The hotter the machine runs, the larger the excess percent. Steam gives much
greater excess than hot water. This is in spite of the fact that radiation
losses are much greater at high temperature. I do not think that ambient
temperature makes any difference. Input water temperature is always ambient in
these tests (40 to 60 deg F). In a factory, they would use recycled condensate
mixed with freshwater held in an insulated tank, which is much hotter. That
saves energy. I do not know if it has an effect on efficiency or not.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.13 / Jed Rothwell /  Re: Excess heat greater than I*V input?
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@CompuServe.COM>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Excess heat greater than I*V input?
Date: 13 Sep 1994 14:20:55 GMT
Organization: CFRA

I wrote that the claims without merit include Steve Jones assertion that you
can input 10 watts of electricity and get out 50 watts of heat from
'recombination'." Jones responds:
 
     "I (Jones) have not made this claim.  Rothwell misleads.  This type of
     false attribution ceases to be amusing."
 
 
Jones has repeatedly made this claim, he has endlessly made this claim; in
short, he has pointed to recombination over and over and over and over and
over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and again,
ad nauseam. Many times. Countless times. Whenever anyone talks about *any*
excess heat result, Jones comes back and says "THAT'S RECOMBINATION!" He is
like a Myna bird, he appears to know only two or three stock phrases including
"Recombination!" and "X-Rays! (Awwk!)" He seems to think this can explain away
the results both open and closed calorimeters from P&F, McKubre, Mills,
Thermocore, Amoco, Enyo, Mizuno, Takahashi, Liao, Cravens, Letts, Storms,
Aoki, Hasegawa, Gozzi, Bertalot, Kunimatsu and countless others workers who
have reported excess heat over the years. Jones has *never* addressed this
issue, he has *never* shown why the calorimetry of any these workers might be
at fault. This type of nonsense ceases to be amusing. It ceased to make any
damn sense four years ago. I am surprised he has not pointed to recombination
to explain away the results from E-Quest, Griggs, Canon and Piantelli too.
Perhaps at the last moment he remembered that these people do not use
electrochemistry.
 
 
He also writes:
 
     "The Mills experiments were conducted in crude calorimeters (starting
     with 5-gallon buckets) and use several different, low-resistance
     calibration resistors.  The design suggests to us that calorimetric
     error may be the explanation of these results."
 
They have gone from 5-gallon buckets to better containers at much higher
power levels. Higher power levels and a greater input to output ratio are
always better than low power, they produce a much better s/n ratio, they are
inherently more trustworthy. The results from Thermocore and Griggs are far
more compelling than, say, the results from McKubre, even though SRI has more
expensive, precise and accurate equipment. Logajan and others have verified
that Thermacore's calorimetry works well. The objections to this calorimetry
raised by Jones and others here have no merit.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.13 / John Logajan /  Re: Excess heat greater than I*V input?
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@mirage.skypoint.net (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Excess heat greater than I*V input?
Date: 13 Sep 1994 14:38:10 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

jonesse@xray.byu.edu wrote:
:  The Mills experiments were conducted in crude calorimeters
: (starting with 5-gallon buckets) and use several different, low-resistance
: calibration resistors.  The design suggests to us that calorimetric error may
: be the explanation of these results.

Having just spent about three months of continuous testing of the Thermacore
calibration, I believe the word "crude" is misleading.

Thermacore claimed precision of temperature measurements to +or- 0.1C. 
My own experiments are also within this range of repeatability.

There is a major difference between their published 0.15 C/W calibration
line and my, Hilborn, and Criddle's 0.25-0.30 C/W calibration which
remains to be explained.

However, I found no mechanism other than strong air currents that could
cause any sort of dynamic variation -- and in any case, stong air currents
tend to cool rather than heat, so a mechanism to get unintended C/W 
calorimetry constants up in the 40 - 60 C/W range has not been demonstrated.

So the Thermacore techniques were not sufficiently "crude" in comparison
to the amount of "signal" purportedly being measured.

--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com -- 612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills  MN 55112 USA           -
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.13 / Thomas Zemanian /  Re: experiment - recombination vs combustion
     
Originally-From: ts_zemanian@pnl.gov (Thomas S. Zemanian)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: experiment - recombination vs combustion
Date: 13 Sep 1994 14:37:03 GMT
Organization: Battelle PNL

In article <351mvo$et7@stratus.skypoint.com>, jlogajan@mirage.skypoint.net
(John Logajan) wrote:

> Bill Page (70047.3047@compuserve.com) wrote:
> : Mills claims that hyrdinoes (hyrdogen
> : in the putative tightly bound state) do not take part in ordinary
> : combustion but has implied that this may not apply to catalytic
> : recombination.
> 
> The implication, then, is that in a catalytic recombination, the
> sub-ground energy state can be restored to the ground state by picking
> up ambient thermal energy.
> 
> If there were sub-ground states, and if they could be gotten to in
> one physical location, and undone in another location, you have the
> mechanism for a straight forward heat pump.
> 
> To wit:
> 
> Do a Mills cell and for each reaction, pick up, say 27 eV (or whatever).
> 
> Ship the hydrinoes to a relatively cooler place and allow them to 
> recombine catalytically, picking back up 27 eV from the environment.
> 
> Ship the H2O molecules back into the Mills cell, etc.
> 

Step 3: Toss out the Second Law.

--Tom

--
The opinions expressed herein are mine and mine alone.  Keep your filthy
hands off 'em! 
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudents_zemanian cudfnThomas cudlnZemanian cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.13 / Beth Johnston /  Combustion Meeting Reminder
     
Originally-From: beth@osc.edu (Beth Johnston)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.computational.fluid-dynamics,ieee.general,osu.ge
eral,sci.engr,sci.engr.mech,sci.comp,sci.energy,sci.geo.fluids,sci.resea
ch,alt.industrial.computing,sci.math,sci.environment,sci.physics,sci.ene
gy.hydrogen,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Combustion Meeting Reminder
Date: 13 Sep 1994 14:50:08 GMT
Organization: The Ohio Supercomputer Center

Combustion Meeting Reminder:

Your time is running out to register for the conference entitled,
Combustion, Environment, and Heating Technology--The Role of High
Performance Simulation .  The Program for Computational Reactive
Mechanics (PCRM) at the Ohio Supercomputer Center has organized this
meeting in cooperation with IEEE and SIAM.  The conference in
Columbus, Ohio, will be on October 6 and 7 at the Fawcett Center for
Tomorrow, on the campus of The Ohio State University.

The conference is highlighted by a keynote address by Dr. Martha
Krebs, Director, Office of Energy Research, U.S. Department of Energy.
Many eminent scientists from industry, national labs, and academia
will make presentations at the meeting.  You will find the topics
interesting and the time for interaction rewarding.

The early registration fee is $95.00 if postmarked by September 23,
1994, thereafter, $125.00.  The fee includes all meal functions and
handouts.  Please make lodging reservations directly with the hotel
referencing "Combustion Conference".

For more information:

For up to date information on PCRM's upcoming conference, point your
Mosaic client to: http://www.osc.edu/pcrm.html

An ASCII version of the registration materials is available by
anonymous ftp from "ftp.osc.edu" in the directory "/pub/pcrm."

If you have specific questions regarding the conference, please
contact our Conference Coordinator, Cheryl Johnson at (614) 292-9248,
(614) 292-7168 fax, or e-mail at pcrm@osc.edu



cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenbeth cudfnBeth cudlnJohnston cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Thu Sep 15 04:37:10 EDT 1994
------------------------------
1994.09.15 / Arthur TK /  Re: Ionisation of the PMK Mantle (lyric)
     
Originally-From: awc@slcawcipp-garching.mpg.de (Arthur      Carlson        TK  )
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Ionisation of the PMK Mantle (lyric)
Date: 15 Sep 1994 15:01:32 GMT
Organization: Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics

Regarding my recently posted model of the energy balance in a
gas-confined plasma and Paul Koloc's comments thereon: Be patient. I'm
just getting warmed up.  I present here a new and improved version
which is (a) on a more solid footing with the physics, and (b) more
devastating in its consequences for all such models of ball lightning
and fusion reactors.

I think the latest exchange of posts between Paul Koloc and me nicely
illustrates a recurring theme.  An inconsistent but quantitative model
is much more valuable than a merely descriptive model.  In a
quantitative model, any inconsistencies pop out at you, whereas they
can be swept under the rug in a descriptive model.  Once you see the
inconsistencies, you can try to fix them.  If you can't fix them, then
you have a golden chance to stop wasting your time.

Anyway, after mulling it over, I was not quite satisfied with my last
post for reasons related to Koloc's.  I was probably (mis)lead in the
direction of a purely radiative equilibrium by Bruce's comment on
stars, but I replaced the radiative recombination with 3-body
recombination.  What I later realised is that the third body (an
electron) takes away the recombination energy and is thus capable
itself of causing an ionization.  This leads in the direction of a sea
of more or less energetic electrons, which is just a small step from a
thermodynamic equilibrium.  I haven't checked Koloc's numbers, but a
transition from a gas to a plasma around 1 eV sounds about right.  At
one bar of pressure this corresponds to a total particle density of
about 6e23 m^-3.

Paul Koloc is correct that Bremsstrahlung radiation will be much lower
than line radiation, that a low beta plasma would have a different
energy confinement time than my formula would indicate, and that the
conduction losses from a ten micron layer would be huge.  The trouble
is he doesn't realize the implications of these facts.  If
Bremsstrahlung is bad for confinement, then line radiation is worse;
if a low beta plasma radiates less, then it is harder to keep the
mantle hot; if a thicker mantle cuts conduction losses, it increases
radiation losses.  I think I can put all of these elements into a
generic, quantitative picture, now, and what comes out is a serious
challenge to any plasma model of ball lightning (and any gas-confined
fusion reactor as well).  Some numbers and concepts can be brushed up,
but I think the direction of the argument is clear.

Let's start with the core (that would be the kernel in the plasmak,
but the argument holds for other configurations as well).  A
magneto-plasma in equilibrium confined by atmospheric pressure
(1e5 Pa) has an energy density equal to at most

   E/V = 3e5 J/m^3

For present purposes we don't need to know the details of equilibrium,
stability, radiation, or transport--we just assume as many miracles as
we need.  Around radius R there is a transition from magnetic field to
plasma to gas.  There must be a significant amount of "high quality"
plasma that doesn't see much field, because that is where the currents
flow that produce the field.  So the plasma is just above 1 eV and
near atmospheric pressure.  The neutral gas is in intimate contact
with the plasma (actually intermixed), so has a temperature just below
1 eV and decreasing outward and is near atmospheric pressure.  I
assume the width of the plasma layer and that of the gas temperature
gradient are both equal to some length delta.  (This is perhaps the
weakest point, for anyone out there waiting to slash my argument, but
I don't think it is fatally flawed.)  The crux is this: The boundary
plasma will lose energy by conduction and radiation.  This energy must
be supplied by the energy stored in the core, allowing us to calculate
a lifetime.  If delta is small, the conduction losses will dominate;
if delta is large, the radiation losses will dominate; there is an
intermediate value of delta where the losses are minimum,
corresponding to a maximum lifetime.

First the radiation losses (from the mantle, now).  These will
certainly be dominated by line radiation, but that is notoriously
difficult to calculate, among other reasons because the plasma may be
optically thick for certain lines and bands.  But we do know a
(ridiculously low) lower bound on the radiation losses:
Bremsstrahlung.  The fact that the ions are only singly charged, not
completely stripped, doesn't matter.  You'll always produce
Bremsstrahlung, and, since it is broad band, the plasma will always be
optically thin.  I gave the formula in my last post:

   P_Br/A = (1.5e9 W/m^3) delta

where I have set T_e = 1 eV, Z_eff = 1, and N_e = 3e23 m^-3.

Now for the conduction losses.  The thermal conductivity of air near
1 eV is around 2e4 W m^-1 eV^-1.  With a temperature gradient of about
1 eV / delta, that leaves us with a power loss of

   P_cond/A = (2e4 W/m) / delta

The total power loss will be the sum of these two, which takes on a
minimum value of

   P_min/A = 11 MW/m^2

when delta = 3.7 mm.  The final step is to calculate the (maximum)
energy confinement time, using the first and the last formulas:

   tau_max = 10 msec/m * R

For R = 10 cm, we find that a plasmoid, even allowing for all possible
miracles and fine tuning in the core, can not last longer than about
1 msec.  Much too short to explain ball lightning.

And for a fusion reactor?  It turns out that the confining pressure
drops out of the final formula, so we can improve the Lawson parameter
by increasing the pressure.  The Lawson criterion in convenient units
is 6.4 bar sec.  Dividing by the above formula for confinement time,
we see that a gas-confined fusion reactor of 1 m radius must operate
at a pressure of at least 640 bar.  This is probably possible from an
engineering point of view.  However, the corresponding heat flux of 7
GW/m^2 will be a bit tough to handle.  You also might have trouble
finding buyers for 400 GW of fusion power.

Does anyone see a fundamental problem, or can we (reluctantly)
eliminate gas-confined plasmoids as candidates for both ball lightning
and fusion reactors?  (And does this mean I don't get to go to Mars?)


Art Carlson

-- 
Errors using inadequate data are much less than those using no data at all.
                                                         -- Charles Babbage

Dr. Arthur Carlson
Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics
Garching, Germany
carlson@ipp-garching.mpg.de
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenawc cudfnArthur cudlnTK cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.15 / Thomas Zemanian /  Re: experiment - recombination vs combustion
     
Originally-From: ts_zemanian@pnl.gov (Thomas S. Zemanian)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: experiment - recombination vs combustion
Date: 15 Sep 1994 15:39:53 GMT
Organization: Battelle PNL

In article <940914061814_70047.3047_EHB156-1@CompuServe.COM>,
70047.3047@compuserve.com (Bill Page) wrote:

> John Logajan wrote:
> <<
> The implication, then, is that in a catalytic recombination, the
> sub-ground energy state can be restored to the ground state by picking
> up ambient thermal energy.
> 
> If there were sub-ground states, and if they could be gotten to in
> one physical location, and undone in another location, you have the
> mechanism for a straight forward heat pump.
> 
> ...
> 
> >>
> 
> Yes, hence the importance of having separate calorimeters for the
> the electrolysis and the recombination.
> 
> And in response to John, Thomas S. Zemanian wrote:
> <<
> Step 3: Toss out the Second Law.
> >>
> 
> Eh? Maybe you could fill in the blanks a little here. Do you mean
> recombination could not possibly use ambient heat in this way? Energy
> is required to drive a heat pump where does this energy come from, right?
> We can also assume that recombination of normal hydrogen is also
> occurring simultaneously with the hydrino recombination, but then maybe
> thats not enough either.

Yes, I am wondering where the work energy to force the H into hydrino form
is coming from.  Since I am in the dark as to the particulars of the Mills
cell, my comment was a bit presumptuous; my apologies.  There must be at
least as much work energy entering the Mills cell as that required by a
Carnot cycle between the same two temperatures, or we have a thermo
violation.

Also, could you address my ignorance on another point?  When you talk of
recombination, what reaction are you referring to?  I stepped into this
forum in midstream, and I fear I may be mistaken as to the actual setup
proposed.

Thanks,

--Tom

--
The opinions expressed herein are mine and mine alone.  Keep your filthy
hands off 'em! 
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudents_zemanian cudfnThomas cudlnZemanian cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.15 / Mark Hittinger /  Re: Palladium Prices
     
Originally-From: bugs@warlock.win.net (Mark Hittinger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Palladium Prices
Date: 15 Sep 1994 12:23:53 -0400
Organization: WIN.NET mail and news

Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege) writes:
>Well, I just think the Japanese speculators that believed
>all the cold fusion research are unloading.  How about it
>Mark?

There was also an earlier report that the japanese had devised a process
for using Pd in catalytic converters, substituting for the platinum.  When
this announcement was made there was a tremendous plunge in Pt prices but
they recovered when the market realized this was years away.

Maybe they are selling it to fund the new cold fusion magazine?

I expect Pd to track gold as it bounces its way up to the spectacular
"Government is Bankrupt - film at 11" climax coming in a decade near you.
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenbugs cudfnMark cudlnHittinger cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.15 / C Harrison /  Re: Lattice Damage
     
Originally-From: harr@netcom.com (Charles (Chuck) Harrison)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Lattice Damage
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 1994 16:19:41 GMT
Organization: Fitful

In article <js_vetrano-1309941716020001@js_vetrano.pnl.gov>,
John S Vetrano <js_vetrano@pnl.gov> wrote:
[...]
>                            Our group looks at just that type
>of lattice disruption as caused by energetic particles, with emphasis on
>materials for fission and fusion applications.
>
>  The displacement energy of Ni and Pd atoms is about 20-40 eV.  If a
>particle of an energy above that enters the lattice (or is generated in
>the lattice) there will be atoms displaced from their lattice sites,
>creating a vacancy-interstitial pair.  Continued displacements of this
>type eventually lead to an agglomeration of point defects into a
>dislocation loop, which is readily visible in the Transmission Electron
>Microscope.  If the energy is much higher, say 5 keV, the dislocation loop
>forms directly from one event.  
>

This reminds me of some reading I was doing concerning the titanium
hydride (/deuteride/tritide) system which is also involved with
CF claims [1] and anomalous radioactivity [2].

There are some nifty TEM photos of dislocation loops in [3],
which is discussing hydride phase transitions (nothing anomalous),
and these dislocations are also discussed in a Ti:T work [4].

I hadn't heard of these dislocation loops before, or the TEM
techniques for visualizing them.  So, to drift back towards the
point, could you recommend an introductory reference (either
textbook style or review article) for a newcomer?  Inquiring 
minds &c. 
[...]
>      In TEM a thin foil
>is required, and a standard sample yields only about 5x10E-16 cubic meters
>of observable volume.  Therfore, I would estimate the detectability limit
>for a cubic millimeter of material to be about 1 billion events (rate is
>not important).
>
[...]
I beleive there have been a very few experiments with thin-film
cathodes.  With more "conventional" electrodes, it would be necessary
to prepare a section of the bulk material (wire or plate) after
the experiment was over.  Can this be done reliably?  I would worry that 
dislocations might be generated by the sectioning process.  Any possible
source of "false positives" will be very controversial in the CF
field.

Also, I note that the CF effect has been variously adduced to occur
at the surface, in the bulk, along fractures, at localized "hot
spots", etc.  It may be advisable to inspect the surface with
low-magnification SEM before selecting spots to analyze for
dislocations.  However it is by no means clear what you would
look for in the scanning phase.  Mizuno "micro black holes"?

Tom Droege has instigated a discussion on a joint experimental
design for a sci.physics.fusion "on-line" experiment.  This would
be an interesting experiment in electronic collaboration as well.
I heartily encourage public inputs such as yours.

Cheers,
  Chuck Harrison

>
>John Vetrano

[1] FE Cecil, H Liu, D Beddingfield, CS Galovich, "Observation of charged
     particle bursts from deuterium loaded thin titanium foils", in
     SE Jones, FE Scaramuzzi,
     D Worledge (eds.), _AIP Conf. Proc 228, Anomalous Nuclear Effects
     in Deuterium/Solid Systems, Provo UT, 1990_, AIP, 1991

[2]  O. Reifenschweiler, "Reduced radioactivity of
     tritium in small titanium particles", _Phys Lett A_
     184:149-153 (3 Jan 1994).

[3] NE Paton, BS Hickman, DH Leslie, "Behavior of Hydrogen in alpha-
     Phase Ti-Al Alloys", Metallurgical Transactions 2:2791-2796
     (1971).

[4] T Schober & K Farrell, "Helium bubbles in alpha-Ti and Ti tritide
     arising from tritium decay: a TEM study", _J Nucl Mat_ 
     168:171-177 (1989).

cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenharr cudfnCharles cudlnHarrison cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.15 /   /  Re: Submission for sci.physics.fusion
     
Originally-From: <doldridg@fox.nstn.ns.ca>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Submission for sci.physics.fusion
Date: 15 Sep 1994 14:21:27 -0300
Organization: Nova Scotia Technology Network


*** Mail sending interrupted by the sender ***
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudendoldridg cudln cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.15 / C Harrison /  Does ball lightning violate virial thm?
     
Originally-From: harr@netcom.com (Charles (Chuck) Harrison)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Does ball lightning violate virial thm?
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 1994 17:02:53 GMT
Organization: Fitful


Both Art Carlson and Bruce Scott object when I characterize ball
lightning skeptics as saying "the virial theorem proves that BL
doesn't exist".

They are probably right to be offended, and my phrasing was
unnecessarily rude (s.p.f. loudmouth fever strikes another
victim! :-/).  However, there is a serious point here which I
will try to make politely.

BL is a puzzling phenomenon.  The few controlled laboratory
experiments which have created "BL-type" objects have not
been characterized well enough to verify that they are
closely related to the natural meteorological phenomena.
Therefore we are forced to work primarily from anecdotal
field reports (of which there is, fortunately, a substantial
corpus).  In this situation, the vagaries of casual
observation under extreme (often frightening) conditions
make the data unreliable.  Pretty much every BL theory runs
into a few reports which are incompatible and must be
explained away as either a different phenomenon or erroneous
observation.  [This includes Paul Koloc's theory as well.]

Art Carlson wishes to "set aside" the reports of high energy
content in BL.  This is a seven-league step.  There is a
reported example of "accidental calorimetry" [1] wherein a
BL heated a large container of water.  It *may* be
respectable to hand-wave away a single observation, or
even a few dozen observations from which numerical estimates
of energy content can be made.  It is going too far to
ignore the much more common reports of BL disappearing
with a "bang".

As Finkelstein & Rubinstein [2] have noted, the high
energy content of BL implied by a variety of field reports
is a primary challenge to physicists.  As I have pointed
out before, the Wu & Chen article [3], which Bruce cites
as a virial-compatible magnetoplasmoid and "prosaic"
BL candidate, explicitly mentions the BL energy paradox
and does not claim to resolve it.  An uncomfortable
amount of data must be ignored in order to fit the BL
behavior into a model with a total energy content less
than 3 * pV (at STP).

I believe that both Art and Bruce, in good faith, are
proposing that BL is a low-energy-density phenomenon.
I would feel better if they showed a little more
"discomfort" at the amount of experimental data they
are rejecting in order to preserve the conjecture that
the virial theorem applies to BL.

Let me also state that I am uncomfortable with Paul
Koloc's argument that the virial theorem must be applied
over subregions of the PMK independently, and that it
is not valid to apply it to a simply-connected region
surrounding the whole thing.  It seems to me that this
is equivalent to saying that the simplified MHD force
equation

(1)    grad p = - _j_ cross _B_

    p   = pressure
    _j_ = current density
    _B_ = magnetic field

*does not apply* on the current sheet at the surface of
the (simplified model) Koloc kernel.  I am willing to
entertain this conjecture (i.e. that (1) is *not valid
everywhere* within a PMK).  After all, the kernel
surface is a pretty bizarre environment.  However we
then have to explain what is missing from (1).  On
the other hand, there may be other ways to work around
the virial constraints (see other random postings of
mine).

-Chuck Harrison

[1] BL Goodlet, _J Inst Elec Engs_ 81:1,32,55 (1937). (cited in [2]).

[2] D Finkelstein, J Rubinstein, "Ball Lightning", _Physical Review A_
     135(2A):390-396 (20 July 1964).

[3] H Wu, Y Chen, "Magnetohydrodynamic equilibrium of plasma ball
     lightning", _Phys Fluids B_ 1(8):1753-1755 (1989).

cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenharr cudfnCharles cudlnHarrison cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.15 / C Harrison /  virial theorem: what about those photons?
     
Originally-From: harr@netcom.com (Charles (Chuck) Harrison)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: virial theorem: what about those photons?
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 1994 17:06:40 GMT
Organization: Fitful


Continuing the search for soft spots in the virial
theorem as applied to atmospheric plasmoids [1]...

The derivations of the magnetohydrodynamic virial theorem
which I have seen start from a magnetoquasistatic
formulation of the problem.  As I understand it, this
means that electromagnetic radiation is ignored.

The theorem has been generalized to relativistic regimes
[2], but I must confess that my relativistic EM back-
ground is inadequate to tell me whether this fully
addresses the question of EM field energy in such a
system, which includes accelerating charges.

The question is particularly apropos of the Koloc
"plasmak" (PMK) model[3] for ball lightning and other
magnetoplasmoids.  Koloc's model includes two
"hyperconducting" surfaces which bound a vacuum
region between the kernel and mantle.  Hyperconducting
here implies a conductivity several orders of magnitude
higher than copper.

I would say we've got one heck of a resonant cavity.
Not only that, but there are energetic electrons 
whizzing around in there which may be pumping out
EM radiation through small-angle scattering, brem-
sstrahlung, and synchrotron mechanisms.  They may
be receiving energy from the EM field as well
(no, I don't have a specific mechanism in mind).
So we could have
 (a) a significant energy density in the EM field
      occupying the kernel-mantle cavity, and
 (b) significant exchange of EM energy *and momentum*
      with the energetic electrons in the kernel
      and mantle.

So here's today's exercise:
Figure out what the virial theorem has to say about
this aspect of the situation.

Cheers,
  -Chuck Harrison

[1] D Finkelstein, J Rubinstein, "Ball Lightning", _Physical Review A_
     135(2A):390-396 (20 July 1964).

[2] MN Rosenbluth, GW Stuart, "Relativistic virial theorem", _Phys
     Fluids_ 6:452-453 (1963).

[3] PM Koloc, "The PLASMAK(tm) configuration and ball lightning",
     presented at the International Symposium on Ball Lightning,
     Tokyo, 1988.

cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenharr cudfnCharles cudlnHarrison cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.15 / Bruce TK /  Re: Ionisation of the PMK Mantle (lyric)
     
Originally-From: bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce       Scott          TK  )
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Ionisation of the PMK Mantle (lyric)
Date: 15 Sep 1994 19:05:22 GMT
Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching

Just a quickie this time:

In article <359nkcINNgbk@sat.ipp-garching.mpg.de>, 
	awc@slcawcipp-garching.mpg.de (Arthur      Carlson        TK  ) writes:

|> [...]  I haven't checked Koloc's numbers, but a
|> transition from a gas to a plasma around 1 eV sounds about right.  At
|> one bar of pressure this corresponds to a total particle density of
|> about 6e23 m^-3.

I just note that the ionisation zone in the Sun's atmosphere occurs at
T a little less than 1 ev, or 11000 K. The mass density there is of
order 5 x 10^(-7) gm/cm3.

-- 
Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de                               -- W Gibson
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnTK cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.15 / Cindy Lundgren /  O2 in CF (was Re:Reply to Rothwell...)
     
Originally-From: lundgrca@esvax.dnet.dupont.com (Cindy Lundgren)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: O2 in CF (was Re:Reply to Rothwell...)
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 1994 16:52:25 GMT
Organization: DuPont all opinions my own

Chuck Harrison wrote:

>I think that Steve should recognize (and should cite in his
>article) that others have come to the conclusion that oxygen
>participates in the cold fusion reaction [1], and have tried
>to develop a theory based on enhanced Coulomb screening with
>the displaced band structure in a lightly oxygenated Pd
>surface layer.

>I have described here on s.p.f some reasons to conjecture that
>oxygen may be involved in Ti-based anomalies, including
>Reifenschweiler [2],[3] and the "Italian style" dry cold
>fusion [4],[5].

>If oxygen is a participant in the excess heat phenomenon, then
>Steve's experiments are consistent with that.

>Working strictly from reputation (and we know that's dangerous),
>I have no reason to doubt the results which Steve has briefly
>described.  His apparent conclusion that recombination is a
>suitable explanation for the bulk of electrolytic CF claims
>remains suspect.  I hope that Steve's paper describes his work
>in adequate detail to assist those working on alternative
>(e.g. oxygen-participation) theories.

References omitted

>Chuck

Just a thought from the lurking electrochemist. One way to perhaps
investigate the role of recombination in excess heat is to do the
electrolysis in a divided cell (separate chambers for anode and cathode
divided by a membrane or connected with a salt bridge) to keep the anode
product (O2) from reacting with the H2. This is a common technique used by
electrochemists to eliminate reactions between electrolysis products. The
caveat however is that the pH will change in both chambers (go basic in
cathode/acidic in anode) which will change the overall voltage for the
reactions unless the pH is adjusted during the course of the electrolysis. 
		It will probably also increase the difficulty of doing the calorimetry
(of which I blissfully know nothing about). :^)


Cindy Lundgren
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenlundgrca cudfnCindy cudlnLundgren cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.14 / Hoyt Stearns /  Re: McKubre's data & s.p.f experiment
     
Originally-From: hoyt@isus.UUCP (Hoyt A. Stearns jr.)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: McKubre's data & s.p.f experiment
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 1994 03:34:18 GMT
Organization: International Society of Unified Science

In article <34ra7c$oda@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> al789@cleveland.Freenet.Edu
(John Logajan) writes:
>
>harr@netcom.com (Charles Chuck) Harrison) says:
>>The only serious suggestion I recall regarding the recombiner
>>problem is to run a hot catalyst - e.g. a glowing Pt wire.
>
>I still think that a periodic spark would also burn off gases.
>Like a spark every second or every five seconds, or whatever.
>-- 

A Hydrocap works well.  It's a platinum catalyst powder inside a pumice-like
stone usually used in lead-acid batteries.  I've been running a
sealed Pd-Pt-D20 cell for years with one inside. 

Hydrocap, 975 N.W. 95 St. Miami, FL 33150  305 696 2504.

-- 
Hoyt A. Stearns jr.|hoyt@isus.stat.| International Society of Unified Science|
4131 E. Cannon Dr. |     .com  OR  | Advancing Dewey B. Larson's Reciprocal  |
Phoenix, AZ. 85028 |enuucp.asu.edu!| System- a unified physical theory.      |
voice 602 996-1717 |stat.com!wierius!isus!hoyt_______________________________|
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenhoyt cudfnHoyt cudlnStearns cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.15 / Scott Lurndal /  Re: Griggs device tests
     
Originally-From: scott@farout.Convergent.Com (Scott Lurndal)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs device tests
Date: 15 Sep 1994 21:13:50 GMT
Organization: Unisys Open Systems Group, San Jose

In article <355kpk$i95$1@mhadg.production.compuserve.com>, 
   Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@CompuServe.COM> writes:


|> I cannot imagine any mechanism that would allow the rotor temperature to rise or
|> fall 60 deg F while the housing temperature remained unchanged.

|> I cannot imagine any
|> mechanism that would allow this, and in any case, I have watched the device
|> produce excess for well over an hour in other test.

|> I cannot imagine any physical mechanism that would
|> allow such a thing. I daresay you cannot either.

|> I cannot imagine a complex
|> concrete construction would be "cost-effective." Aluminum parts are very cheap
|> and easy to manufacture.
|> 
 
|> All I can say is that I cannot imagine how
|> the meters *and* the dynamometer could all be wrong, in lockstep, in the same
|> direction. 

Well, in the CS biz, we call this "proof by lack of imagination".


cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenscott cudfnScott cudlnLurndal cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.15 / Matt Kennel /  Re: Griggs device tests
     
Originally-From: mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs device tests
Date: 15 Sep 1994 22:49:51 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

Jed Rothwell (72240.1256@CompuServe.COM) wrote:
: The most conservative hypothesis is based on the mainstream CF work, which
: shows helium commensurate with conventional fusion. 

This device uses deuterium, then?  So presumably they're recycling it?
(too much $ otherwise)

If not, are you really suggesting p+p fusion? My my my.  
That's somewhat of a weak reaction.  ;-)

: In any case, what possible difference could it make what causes it? 
: Why should anyone care about that?

   ``Nuclear Reactor installed in Downtown Office Building:  Engineers
     Think it's Safe But they Admit They have No Idea How It Works.''

--
-Matt Kennel  		mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu
-Institute for Nonlinear Science, University of California, San Diego
-*** AD: Archive for nonlinear dynamics papers & programs: FTP to
-***     lyapunov.ucsd.edu, username "anonymous".
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenmbk cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.15 / Paul Koloc /  Re: PMK, BL, size of
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: PMK, BL, size of
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 1994 21:47:45 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <3529oj$pmi@stratus.skypoint.com> jlogajan@skypoint.com writes:
>Paul M. Koloc (pmk@prometheus.UUCP) wrote:
>: these things START at order an atmospheric pressure, which is where 
>: the tokamak with fully pressurized coils end up.  Top compression of 
>: a PMK (it's fluid mechanical) could put the Kernel plasma at pressures 
>: 10^4 to 10^5 higher than a tokamak plasma,
>
>Is there a fixed size relationship between a BL and the energy in
>the BL (taking into account ambient pressure)?

IT IS  .. .
Not fixed, since it varies with toroidal helicity, ( the amount of 
torsion of the "toroidal" currents to produce an additional poloidal
component of current within the torus).  As mental process, take a 
toroidal current ring, snip it through one side so it's now in the
shape of a "C", and then holding one end fast, twist the other end
around several times, then weld the ends together again while the
ends are still rotationally displaced.    (My descriptions usually
cause more confusion than clarity, but I try. )

>So for instance, does one BL with twice the birth energy of another
>BL assume a volume, say, twice that of the other?

For BLs of the SAME helicity - - YES.  
But a smaller BLs with high helicity can have more energy than bigger
ones with little helicity.   Warning: this is probably in consistent
with application (probably invalid) of the virial theorem, but not 
the divergence theorem if it includes the contribution of the torus.  
Consequently, I'm not too worried.. .  ehh.. .essentially.    :-)  

>Or likewise, does a BL shrink as it loses energy?

No,... well not so you could notice it, above the problem with
finding the quickest way home to change your bottoms.  

Why?  Because a BL's energy storage system (interlocking mag flux
fields) works more like a clock spring than a tank of gas.  A
tank of gas (liquid volume) has a constant energy density, so
as energy is consumed, the fuel system meters out the fuel 
(volume/sec) and therefore loses volume proportionally to the 
the integrated energy consumption.  A clock spring when wound 
up, has a higher energy density, and it loses energy density by 
losing "unwinding", and in fact increases in volume (the proof).  
That's how the Kernel plasma works.  The "spongy" poloidal flux 
running though the hole generate lateral pressure, but are still
quite compressible.  Consequently, when toroidal helicity is 
high these flux lines are compressed more strongly and become 
compressed (to a higher energy density).  Helicity is lost due 
to small difference in effective resistive (though hyperconducting 
at these current densities who cares) decay rates so the twisted 
currents and flux in the torus unwind a bit.  Thus less 
compressive force is available to counter the poloidal hole flux's
outward pressure, so the flux expands outward causing the torus 
to assume a "LARGER" major radius.  Consequently, the system 
like the clock spring will get larger.  

BUT... a PMK actually, does lose energy from BOTH components of 
field, SO there is a "constant density" energy loss mechanism 
also at play.  Look at it this way, if both components of 
the helicity decay at the same rate, than the helicity remains
constant.  That plus the addition accumulated faster decay of 
the toroidal current component, produces the total set of 
first order volume changing effects.  Notice that helicity
conserving loss of energy causes shrinking and helicity reducing
loss of energy causes expansion.   If both processes are nearly
within 10 or 20% of each other, the volume change (goes as V^(1/3)
would be nearly unobservable.  

So a BL/PMK has both gasoline and clock spring loss rates and
they must be roughly balanced in delta radius displacement. 
The shape may change from a more prolate form to a more spherical 
one (not speaking topologically here).   

>Or does BL size depend upon initial physical conditions that thereafter
>don't much effect the size?

I suppose it depends on your point of view.  Basically two counter
trends buck each other to a close enough draw, that the "amazing"
feature that they don't shrink in the vast majority of observations
or incidents in which trauma isn't involved.  The "amazing" refers
to those that hold the Virial Theorem to be the first and last
commandment of estimating pressure/energy/KE/PE of remote systems.  

>Finally, and slightly off the previous points, are there possible modes
>of BL in which the energy density is much lower -- giving rise to,
>say, much bigger much longer-lived  glowing atmospheric phenomena
>(i.e. UFO-like apparitions?)

One thing about BL is that it requires a really big ZAP to KICK them
into their necessary hyperconducting state.  If they don't make it
because of slow rise time, then they end up as a Bead Lightning event,
a solid (no hollows) ABSOLUTELY BRILLIANT ball of plasma maybe 1
to 2 meters diameter, . oh! yeh,,  short lived.    

There are no pussy willow ball lightnings.  Hitodama Samurai don't 
come that way. 

Perhaps you are referring to fixed or dancing illuminations such as 
Saint Elmo's fire, or grazing angle views across a vast swamp with 
bubbling methane that burns at low emission levels (in the visible).  
The only involvment this stuff has with UFO's of the ET variety, is
that it makes for a plausible hyperdrive, and some of them have that
axisymmetric UFO jet spouting look, and cause current disruption,
radiation imprints, etc. etc.  ad nauseum.   
>--
> - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com -- 612-633-0345 -
> - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills  MN 55112 USA           -
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc, Bx 1037 Prometheus II Ltd, College Park MD 20741-1037    |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.16 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: Rothwell's attacks against Jones
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Rothwell's attacks against Jones
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 1994 00:06:31 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

In article <1994Sep14.143215.1742@xray.byu.edu>,  <jonesse@xray.byu.edu> wrote:
>Mr. Jed Rothwell has made the following statements about me which are
>unsubstantiated and, I maintain, false.  I offer him another chance to
>back up his statements about me with supporting facts, or to retract them.

I would like to point out that for years I have been saying that JR shows
signs of mental illness. At first plenty of people defended JR's right
to question everyone and everything.

Well, so do I, but JR's attacks are _not_ questioning. He hasn't enough
scientific training to know one end of a test tube from another and often
and plainly shows it. So how could he get the idea that he is in any sort
of position to judge what is real and what isn't in this extremely
complex field?

I suggest that the answer to that question is in JR's mind. Giving any
credence to the man is a lost cause. Patience and time spent trying
to explain the problems to him are completely wasted because he cannot
understand what is being said.

Finally he has sunk to the point that he cannot refute what is said so
he merely makes personal attacks for no understandable reason other than
the very existance of someone who _does_ know about these things is a
direct threat to him. Too bad, but I find it unfortunate that anyone
bothers to even read him any more. Who cares what and who he attacks?

cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.15 /  jonesse@vanlab /  Let's send Tom to Cartersville, GA
     
Originally-From: jonesse@vanlab.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Let's send Tom to Cartersville, GA
Date: 15 Sep 94 17:24:47 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

Propose we send one of the professors of the college of s.p.f., namely
Tom Droege, to Cartersville, Georgia to take a close look at the 
Griggs excess-heat-from-light-water device.  I think Tom can sort through
the smoke, or steam as the case may be, and bring back some hard facts 
one way or the other.  

The suggestion by Jed that the Griggs device is
"a CF reactor, it converts hydrogen into helium and releases energy"
is, er, hard to believe.  

I'd be willing to contribute to Tom's air fare.  If 20 of us chip
in $20-30 each that should about do it. 

How 'bout it, Tom?

--Steve Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenjonesse cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.15 /  jonesse@vanlab /  cancel <1994Sep15.172228.1745@vanlab.byu.edu>
     
Originally-From: jonesse@vanlab.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cancel <1994Sep15.172228.1745@vanlab.byu.edu>
Date: 15 Sep 94 17:25:00 -0600

cancel <1994Sep15.172228.1745@vanlab.byu.edu>
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenjonesse cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.16 / Bradley Sherman /  Re: Let's send Tom to Cartersville, GA
     
Originally-From: bks@s27w007.pswfs.gov (Bradley K. Sherman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Let's send Tom to Cartersville, GA
Date: 16 Sep 1994 03:06:30 GMT
Organization: Dendrome, A Genome Database for Forest Trees

In article <1994Sep15.172447.1746@vanlab.byu.edu> jonesse@vanlab.byu.edu writes:
> ...
>I'd be willing to contribute to Tom's air fare.  If 20 of us chip
>in $20-30 each that should about do it. 
> ...

Count me in.  Make sure it's a first class seat.

   --bks

-- 
Bradley K. Sherman                  Computer Scientist
Dendrome Project                    510-559-6437  FAX: -6440
Institute of Forest Genetics        bks@s27w007.pswfs.gov  
P.O. Box 245, Berkeley, CA 94701    http://s27w007.pswfs.gov/People/bks.html
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenbks cudfnBradley cudlnSherman cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.15 / Paul Koloc /  Re: virial theorem...the mind continues to wander
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: virial theorem...the mind continues to wander
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 1994 23:20:55 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <3544qbINN12i1@sat.ipp-garching.mpg.de> carlson@ipp-garching.mpg.de writes:
>In article <harrCw1vv6.JMJ@netcom.com>, harr@netcom.com (Charles
(Chuck) Harrison) writes:

>Along the lines of Bruce's answer, if you have a pathological surface, then you
>probably can't write 
>
>(1)     j cross B - grad p = 0     everywhere
>
>Any change to this equation will change the form of the virial theorem. If you
>want to suggest a change, we can consider it. Paul Koloc didn't.

Your equation is fine, your application of the boundary conditions is
what I question.  Depending on what you view as the correct application
of the boundary conditions, will determine the resultant form.  

>Second, BL may have a physical explanation that has nothing to do with plasmas. I
>have mentioned chemical reactions and metastable optical states. There seems to
>be no theory that is completely or even largely satisfactory, but even if we
>could rule out plasmas, that wouldn't automatically make ball lightning
>"impossible".

Depends on what you call Ball Lightning.  Clearly, the type you are 
referring to here, can not be rugged enough to be the kind most often
observed.  

>Third, the energy associated with the virial theorem is large enough to let a
>ball glow for many seconds, so the virial theorem does not even prove
>plasma-based ball lightning "impossible". 

Here too, there is a problem in that the glow from these objects does
not decay away as you would expect from a nest of metastable gas, nor
does the ball have a diffuse image, as if would be the case for the
unconstrained deactivating (glowing) cloud of chemistry works.  

>Finally, if you want to get exotic, I can offer you a "model" which is consistent
>with big explosions *and* the virial theorem. (Just don't expect plausibility as
>well.) Take an ideal gas, lots of it. Cool it down to absolute zero, or as close
>as you care to come. Put a blob of this into the atmosphere and let the pressure
>equilibrate. 

How could this happen?? What pressure??  The giant sucking sound first
driven by the condensation of atmosphere on your "zero pool" followed
by the colossal sucking sound as the accumulated mass crosses the
Swartzschild threshold.   :-)


>the virial theorem tells us that the thermal energy of the blob is just that of
>the same volume of atmospheric air. 

Why??? What pressure?? if the thing is sucking I don't think so, and I
don't think it will stop.  

>"interesting", you are now free to figure out how nature (or Paul Koloc)
>liquifies a large mass of air with a lightning bolt and then uses it to drive a
>Carnot cycle on an explosive time scale after several seconds delay.

Actually, BL's have a sort of shock wave steppening feature.  The
ozone and NOX combine to form nitrogen pentoxide which decomposes
in a shock wave so as to add energy to the shock.  This stuff 
accumulates at the air interface and "sticks" there by virtue of 
is slow diffusion rate and an oft hitch hiking electron which
keeps it tangled in the weak field.  Red nitrogen gas has been
seen leaking off the bottom of BLs.  If the hyperconductivity is
lost catastrophically, the remaining stored mag energy converts to
nkT in a few microseconds, so the expansion shock detonates
the red stuff and the brissance of the shock is greatly enhanced.

These things have shattered 30 cm diameter by 2 meter insulators 
on high tension tranmission lines.  

So what can you believe?? 

>-- 
>Have fun, or at least learn something.
>Dr. Arthur Carlson
>Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics
>Garching, Germany
>carlson@ipp-garching.mpg.de

+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc, Bx 1037 Prometheus II Ltd, College Park MD 20741-1037    |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.15 / A Rivero /  Fading: the plots
     
Originally-From: rivero@sol.unizar.es (Alejandro Rivero)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Fading: the plots
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 1994 10:25:17 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Well, here come the plots, as seen in the GNU plot dumb terminal output:

     50 ++.-------+--------+---------+---------+---------+--------+--------++
        +         +        +         +         +         +        +         +
     45 ++                                          submissions/month   .  ++
        |.                                                                  |
     40 ++                                                                 ++
        |  .                                                                |
     35 ++                                                                 ++
        |                                                                   |
     30 ++       .                                                         ++
        |   .                                                               |
     25 ++    .                                                            ++
        |          .                                                        |
        |    .                                                              |
     20 ++     .    .                                                      ++
        |             ..                                                    |
     15 ++              .    ..    .                                       ++
        |       . .      . .   . ..                                         |
     10 ++           .    . .   .     . .   .                              ++
        |                .          .  . .   ...  ...     .                 |
      5 ++                                       .   ....  .               ++
        +         +        +         .    ..   +.        . . ..   +         +
      0 .+--------+--------+---------+---------+---------+--.--.........---++
        0        10       20        30        40        50       60        70
     50 ++--------+--------+---------+---------+---------+--------+--------++
        +         +        +         +         +         +        +         +
     45 ++                  .                       publications/month  .  ++
        |                                                                   |
     40 ++                                                                 ++
        |                                                                   |
     35 ++                                                                 ++
        |  .  .                                                             |
     30 ++               .                                                 ++
        |                                                                   |
     25 ++      .                                                          ++
        |   .           .                                                   |
        |           .  .   .                                                |
     20 ++   . . ..                                                        ++
        |             .                ..                                   |
     15 ++.                  . .    .    .                                 ++
        |.         .     ..      .   .                        .             |
     10 ++                         .            .                          ++
        |            .          .          .     . .   . . .    .           |
      5 ++                            .     .     . ..  .  ..  . . .       ++
        +         +        +      .  +    .  ...      .  +   .    .   .     +
      0 .+--------+--------+--.------+---------+---------+.-------+-..-.---++
        0        10       20        30        40        50       60        70

This is the Sub-pub delay (months)frequency vs delay.
It seems the usual pattern, does it? 
     70 ++---------+-----------+----------+----------+-----------+---------++
        +        . +           +          +          +           +          +
        |                                                "delays.plot"  .   |
     60 ++         .                                                       ++
        |      .      .                                                     |
        |    .                                                              |
     50 ++                                                                 ++
        |               .                                                   |
        |                                                                   |
     40 ++                                                                 ++
        |                 .                                                 |
        |                                                                   |
     30 ++                  .                                              ++
        | .                    . .                                          |
        |                                                                   |
     20 ++                         .                                       ++
        .                            .  .                                   |
        |                                                                   |
     10 ++                                .                                ++
        |                                               .                   |
        +          +           +          + .  .   . +    .      +          +
      0 ++---------+-----------+----------+------.---.------.-.--.-.-.-----++
        0          5          10         15         20          25         30

The two first ones, joined in the default GNU PLOT style.
     50 ++A-------+--------+---------+---------+---------+--------+--------++
        +         +        +         +         +         +        +         +
     45 ++                  B                            "sub/month  "  A  ++
        |A                                               "pub/month  "  B   |
     40 ++                                                                 ++
        |  A                                                                |
     35 ++                                                                 ++
        |  B  B                                                             |
     30 ++       A       B                                                 ++
        |   A                                                               |
     25 ++    A B                                                          ++
        |   B      A    B                                                   |
        |    A      B  B   B                                                |
     20 ++   B A BB A                                                      ++
        |             AA               BB                                   |
     15 ++B             A    AAB   AB    B                                 ++
        |B      A AB     ABA   A AA  B                        B             |
     10 ++           A    A A   A  B  A A   A   B                          ++
        |            B   A      B   A  A A B AAA BAAA  B BAB    B           |
      5 ++                            B     B    AB BAAAA  AB  B B B       ++
        +         +        +      B  A    AA BBBA     B  A A AA   B   B     +
      0 A+--------+--------+--B------+---------+---------+B-A--AAAAAAAAA---++
        0        10       20        30        40        50       60        70

that is all. I dont know what you think about, but for one
accostummed to read papers on local axiomatic quantum field theory,
the publication rate continues high!

Besides, we are speaking about three or three experiments always the
same, and publications usually report NEW work,  (or new refutations). This
rule was broken the first year and gradually is recovered.

						Alejandro Rivero
 

cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenrivero cudfnAlejandro cudlnRivero cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.15 /  nestorm@fedc04 /  Re: Storms on CF in Los Alamos Monitor
     
Originally-From: nestorm@fedc04.fed.ornl.gov (Bonnie Nestor (NESTORM@FED
04.FED.ORNL.GOV))
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Storms on CF in Los Alamos Monitor
Date: 15 SEP 94 13:01:18 GMT
Organization: MIT PLASMA FUSION CENTER

Dr. Steve Jones quotes a "Los Alamos Monitor" article and asks about
a bill in the House of Representatives that would require the National
Academy of Sciences to re-examine cold fusion.

I believe this is HR 4908, the Fusion, High Energy, and Nuclear Physics
Bill. The American Institute of Physics publication FYI has discussed
this bill (which has passed in the House) in several recent issues
(Nos. 131, 134-137). The section referring to this examination is:


SECTION 205, National Academy of Sciences Study, states that a
report should be prepared to "examine the status and promise of
other energy sources, including deuterated metal...."

(Sorry about the missing opening quote.)

According to FYI No. 131, "This bill faces an uncertain future.
Although the Senate passed a fusion bill (S. 646), H.R. 4908 is
considerably different since it also authorizes hydrogen, high energy,
and nuclear physics research. Whether this bill will go to a
conference...and then be again passed by both the House and
Senate this year is difficult to predict..."

Joe Chew posts these FYIs to sci.research (and usually posts those
related to fusion to this group).

Bonnie Nestor
mnj@ornl.gov
DISCLAIMER: I work at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, for Martin
Marietta Energy Systems, Inc., which is under contract to the
U.S. Department of Energy -- but I don't speak for any of them,
and they return the favor.
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudennestorm cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.16 / Richard Blue /  Re: Stolfi on Griggs Gadget
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Stolfi on Griggs Gadget
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 1994 00:14:05 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I want to congratulate Jorge Stolfi for his excellent analysis of
the flawed Rothwell conclusions in relation to the laws of thermo-
dynamics.  I think a few minor points should be added.  As Jed
says, "Some of you (I put Jed in this group.) seem to lack an
intuitive grasp of '20,000 BTUs.'"  Perhaps it would help if I
told you I went to look at my $150 water heater.  It is rated
at 38,000 BTU/hr, so I have difficulty understanding the claim
that a $10,000 electromechanical wonder with an output of that
same order is going to start a new industrial revolution.  Also
I think Jorge Stolfi deserves a special commendation for having
navigated through the maze of BTUs, horse power, and watts.

I think I can add one other little insight into the problem by
reminding readers that some fraction of the power input gets
converted to heat by mechanical friction.  Has the drive
power requirement with no water present been determined?
The gadget is not exactly the mechanical engineers dream either.
It must have some form of shaft seal(s) and water is not usually
the lubricant of choice.  One further notes that the thermal
expansion coefficients of aluminum and steel differ sufficiently
that operation of this device over the stated temperature range
involves some thermal design problems.

If you accept the notion that there may be significant frictional
heating of the rotor shaft then indeed there is no requirement that
the rotor temperature have a simple relationship to the water
temperature.  Jed's assertion that the temperatures of rotor, housing,
and water must be close is possibly wrong.  I have burned food cooking
on a stove often enough to know that thermal equilibrium in your
cook pot should never be assumed.

Finally, I suspect another example of exagerated claims when Jed
asserts that these devices at customer's sites have generated excess
heat for years.  It is possibly true that GGs in operation go on
generating steam for extended periods.  However, one must ask whether
the customer's installations are instrumented sufficiently well to
continuously determine the energy efficiency of the device.  I know
that I have not checked to see whether my high efficiency furnace
still meets its specifications.  It heats my house (most of the time)
so I don't worry about its efficiency.  The efficiency would have to
take a big drop before I would notice any change.  In any case we
have Jed's own words saying that he is responsible for the introduction
of the barrel calorimeter.  If there are devices that have been in
operation for years how and when was their performance evaluated?
As far as data presented by Jed Rothwell is concerned the measurements
seem to be limited to relatively short periods of operation following
brief start ups.  I think Jorge Stolfi's questions concerning
the rotor heat capacity have to be addressed for the cases presented.

P.S.  If bearing friction is contributing significantly to rotor
heating it can be expected to rise as a function of rising temperature
in a nonlinear fashion.  So indeed the heat stored in the rotor can
go up as the device is run up to higher temperatures before measurements
are made.

P.P.S.  Steel and aluminum and water mixed seems like it might be subject
to galvanic corrosion.  Right?

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.15 / Jed Rothwell /  Re: Free Energy device: More info on the Hydrosonic Pump!
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@CompuServe.COM>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Free Energy device: More info on the Hydrosonic Pump!
Date: 15 Sep 1994 14:34:29 GMT
Organization: CFRA

     "Ultrasound machines are quite good at atomizing water.  Is there any
     data on how much of the "steam" is not steam but water droplets?"
 
Yes, there is fairly convincing proof that it is all dry steam and not
atomized water or unboiled water. For one thing, it is run through a
separation tank which drops unboiled water and condensed water out the bottom.
As the machine is warming up, steaming hot unboiled water gushes out the
condensate hose. Later, it nearly stops. For another thing,  you can do a
quick, crude test to look for "wet" steam by waving your hand through the
steam plume. If you see droplets on your skin, it's wet.
 
HOWEVER, the main thing to remember is that with the barrel test it would not
matter whether there are droplets or not. All enthalpy ends up in the barrel,
whether it comes from hot droplets or steam. Hot water flow calorimetry also
confirms the excess heat, and in this case as well droplets would make no
difference.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.14 / Charles Lindsey /  Re: What is a PMK
     
Originally-From: chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk (Charles Lindsey)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What is a PMK
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 1994 17:02:17 GMT

In <CvsrHD.60F@prometheus.UUCP> pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) writes:

>.  Top compression of 
>a PMK (it's fluid mechanical) could put the Kernel plasma at pressures 
>10^4 to 10^5 higher than a tokamak plasma, and that means it might work, 
>and work with a vengence even burning the good stuff.   So we might ALL 
>get a trip to Mars.    

How do you intend to compress your PMK to those densities? Put it in a
cylinder with a piston and push, or do you intend to apply an external
magnetic field to change the conditions inside?

-- 
Charles H. Lindsey -------------------------------------------------------------
           At Home, doing my own thing.           Internet: chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk
Voice: +44 161 437 4506                           Janet:    chl@uk.ac.man.cs.clw
Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave., CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.   UUCP:     mucs!clerew!chl
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenchl cudfnCharles cudlnLindsey cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.15 / David Davies /  Re: Griggs device tests
     
Originally-From: drd851@huxley.anu.edu.au (David R Davies)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs device tests
Date: 15 Sep 1994 13:21:04 +1000
Organization: Australian National University

crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:

(quotes deleted)
>     Substantial decreases in indicated operating power are a very big clue
>     as to what is happening.  And my guess is that the 'effect' happens
>     in a band of RPM for a given rotor configuration.

>     Instrument the rotor shaft and I'd bet you'll see something very
>     interesting.  Or alternatively, just wait and let this 'free energy
>     device' fade into oblivion like all of its forebears.
>     
>                             dale bass

Which four bears exactly are you referring to. Perhaps you could sue Griggs'
customers for the crass commercial exploitation of a device that deeply and
profoundly offends your sensibilities.

Woops, a bit of Jed emerging in me there. I'm actually getting quite 
sympathetic toward Jed these days and his constraint in confronting such
silly and unsubstantiated (not to mention offensive) comments.

On a more serious note, the above quoted 'effect' or mode switch does 
bother me but not as much as it did at first. It now looks to me like mode
locking in a highly nonlinear coupled resonator system. 

dave
dave.davies@anu.edu.au

cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudendrd851 cudfnDavid cudlnDavies cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.15 / Roger Smith /  Re: #5 BRAVE NEW WORLD GOVERNMENT, benevolent dictator is the best
     
Originally-From: roger@cs.curtin.edu.au (Roger Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci
physics.electromag,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: #5 BRAVE NEW WORLD GOVERNMENT, benevolent dictator is the best
Date: 15 Sep 94 04:31:31 GMT
Organization: Curtin University of Technology

Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium) writes:

>In the future the world will be increasing ruled by benevolent SCIENCE
>dictators. They will be supported by industry, the major corporations.

Hmmm, or maybe they (the people) will string all of us (the scientists) 
up by our genitals instead!
--


      ==============================================================
      Roger William Smith              | "Education is what survives
      School of Computer Science,      |  when what has been learnt
      Curtin University of Technology  |  has been forgotten."
      e-mail: roger@cs.curtin.edu.au   |         B.F. Skinner (1964)
      ==============================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenroger cudfnRoger cudlnSmith cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.15 / A Rivero /  Re: Old papers
     
Originally-From: rivero@sol.unizar.es (Alejandro Rivero)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Old papers
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 1994 09:12:18 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

> Originally-From: court@newton.physics.mun.ca (John Lewis)
> 
> Alejandro Rivero writes: 
> >70047.3047@compuserve.com (Bill Page) writes:
> ><<
> >> ...                                                   They reference
> >>H.A. Bethe and C.L. Critchfield in Phys. Rev. Vol 54 (1938) pp. 248, as
> >>providing the theoretical basis for a H-H or D-D fusion reaction based on
> >>high energy electron capture induced beta disintegration of constituent
> >>protons of H2 molecules and the D nucleus that they claim may explain
> >>the observations.
> >
> > Could anyone give the abstract of this "classical paper", or include
> >it in the bibl. database? Our library lacks of years 36-45 of
> >the Phys Rev, by obvious reasons (this is Europe).
> > 
> >One thing I dont understand is why all the old stuff has not been
> >cited the first years after FP announcement. Everyone forgets
> >previous work, It seems.
>  ...
> Forgets?  Hardly!!  Any text on nuclear astrophysics will
> include the first step of the proton-proton chains [!!!],
> and if the text is any good, it will state that the work
> dates back to Hans Bethe.  D.D. Clayton's "Principles
> ...
Yep, and any book on nuclear theory will mention it too, only perhaps
it will omit the word "fusion". Anyway when I made the question
I was not sure if the paper was only about processes in stalar conditions. 
  
Note that the "Everyone" in my statement refers to CF research, as I have
seen in a few papers and a lot of comments. In fact Im pointing a 
singularity of fusion work, and the problem seems less likely to happen in
other fields. How many papers in CF show the numbers for the 
nuclear reaction, or at least the _experimentally known_ cross-sections? 

As for generical forgotten old work, a decent set has been mentioned
in this list across the time, let me recall two or three:

-The original Paneth Peters Gunther took a good lag to be cited, even thought 
 the people who made that experience were academically active in Germany
 until retirement (in the seventees?? My Who is Who is a bit dated)
-Peters work on processes suitables for industrial production of
 Deuterium is only colateral, so perhaps it dont deserve quote. But
 what about Guenther? Last work I found from him (1941) was about some material
 emmiting alphas when radiation was aplied... 
-Cross sections for the processes between 10 and 500 Kev are not usual 
 in the HEP tables, and old work must be consulted. Do someone mentions
 the Roma measures in 1938? No, and I would bet that the 
 american data from Phys Rev (1954?) is not cited anyway
-Proton conduction theory has seen first formulated, and after this
 documented, it seems. I think that if superconductivity effects were
 relevant, the CF research will first discover superconductivity, and
 only a year later mention it was already studied "time ago".
-The "related" areas, warm fusion, electrostatic confinement, etc,
 have been resucited with some problems on atribution of experiments.

etc...And dont forget the "other side". Can you name two fusion 
 experiences from the CCCP before the tokamak?


				Alejandro Rivero
				Theoretical Physics Dep
				Zaragoza Univ, Spain. 

cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenrivero cudfnAlejandro cudlnRivero cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.15 / Jorge Stolfi /  Re: Griggs device tests
     
Originally-From: stolfi@src.dec.com (Jorge Stolfi)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs device tests
Date: 15 Sep 1994 08:07:40 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Dept, University of Campinas

    > [Jed Rothwell:] If you do not believe me, and you do not take my
    > word for it, then I suggest you withdraw from the conversation.

Obviously I believe your word, and your *measurements*; otherwise
I wounld't be wasting my time on this discussion.

However, I definitely do not trust your *conclusions* --- because I do
not trust your computations, your assumptions, and your eyeball
estimates.

Why should I?

You claimed to have irrefutable evidence for "gigantic" excess heat;
but the best data in your article---which presumably are a selected
sample of that evidence---show only that

  first 20 minutes: 6--8 kWh went in, ??? kWh came out;  
  
  next 20 minutes: 4.8 kWh went in, at least 5.6 kWh came out. 

From this you calculated an excess heat of 1.6 kWh in 20 minutes, and
concluded that the pump was tapping some exotic energy source.  

However, you weren't aware that 1.6 kWh is small compared to the the
thermal capacity of the rotor (3 kWh / 100F); and you are still
asserting, based on faulty extrapolation, that the rotor 
cannot remain hotter than the steam around it for 
more than a few minutes.

So, why should I assume that the the "new" evidence which I haven't 
seen is any more conclusive than the one I have seen?

    > [Jed:] Please address the issue I raised. How could the rotor
    > temperature drop 60 F, or even 30 F, and not have the housing
    > temperature drop some measurable amount sometime during the next
    > hour or two?  
    
Once more: If you drop a large block of hot metal into a bucket of water,
the surface of the metal will cool immediately to 212 F and stay there.
But the metal inside the block will cool down rather slowly.  

In the Griggs device, as long as the power input is enough to keep the
water boiling, the steam temperature inside the pump should 
be basically a function of the pressure, which depends on
the input power and on the input and output flow rates.

Thus, as long as the pressure is kept constant, the steam (and
housing) temperature should remain constant, even if the bulk of the
rotor is hotter than the steam (and cooling down).

Conversely, the steam temperature around the rotor
may change very quickly while the flow is being adjusted,
and those changes will take some time to be felt on the outside
the housing.  

If we knew the thickness of the housing, we could be more specific.

By the way, do you happen to know the fluid capacity of the pump (That
is, how much hot water and steam can there be inside it at any given
moment, including dead spaces, holes, etc.)  That's another possible
energy storage "pocket" that needs to be considered.

    > The heat transfer coefficient for water and a steel engine block
    > is such that the engine block heats and cools rapidly. Internal
    > changes are quickly reflected in external temperature. I have
    > had more than enough experience with ICE to know that fact!

Experience without theory can be quite misleading at times.  

Suppose it takes 0.1 seconds for a 0.12" by 0.24" bit of metal to cool
down from 250 F to 220 F (bulk average temperature) when dropped into
a barrel of boiling water at 212 F.

How long do you think it will take for a 12" by 24" block to do the 
same?

(Hint: It is not 0.1 second. It is not 100x0.1 = 10 seconds, either.)

Just for concreteness, here is what *might* have happened in Test 2.

  During the first 20 minutes, while friciton was high and input power
  was around 24 kW, the water overheated somewhat, warming the bulk of
  the rotor to 390 F.

  Eventually the flow inside the pump went into the low-friction
  regime, reducing the power draw to 14 kW, while the steam
  temperature was stabilized near 350 F.  Data gathering started.
  
  Over the next 20 minutes, the average temperature inside the rotor 
  fell from 390 F to 360 F, thus contributing 1 kWh of heat to
  the steam---which is enough to account for the 0.8 kWh of apparent
  "excess" heat.

These numbers are just guesses, of course, but they seem to be
consistent with all the data you reported so far for Test 2.

    > [Jed:] The latest tests show that the machine produces at least
    > 50% excess, probably more. Some tests run much longer than 20
    > minutes, some for hours.  The heat will continue at a constant
    > rate for as long as you let the machine run.

Of course the machine produces *heat* all the time, and I never
doubted that it can stay in the so-called "excess heat producing
regime" (lower friction) indefinitely.

However, I still do not see any evidence that it does actually
produce an unbounded amount of *excess* heat.  Given the 
heat capacity of the rotor, an excess heat of 1-2 kWh
in any measurement period is hardly convincing.
    
Give us the measurements, and let us do the computations.
    
    > If we had left Test 3 run for an hour, we would have gotten far
    > more than 112% of test one.

That is an *assumption*, not a fact.

    > However, when we measure enthalpy with the barrel (as opposed to
    > a steam test or some other method), we cannot go much beyond
    > 20,000 BTU. ... Tests lasting longer than 30 minutes or so must
    > rely on steam tables or flow calorimetry, which is not as
    > accurate or easy to understand.

20,000 btu = 6 kWh (approximately).  That is *total* output heat.

Considering that the electrical energy input for the 20-min run in
Test 2 was about 4 kWh by your estimate, can we conclude that in your
barrel tests you never measured more than 2 kWh of "excess heat"?

    > [Steam-flow computations] show an excess as well, of
    > course.  You can combine two or more methods in one test, and
    > show that barrel agrees with the steam computations, then you
    > can do an 8 hour steam test.
    
It all depends on how you do the extrapolation.  If your 20-minute 
calibration is wrong, the computed results for the steam-flow 
tests will almost surely be wrong too, in the same proportion.

Again, please show us the raw data, and let us draw our conclusions.
    
    > It is quite impossible to do an 8 hour barrel test.

Could perhaps you use two (or more) barrels, alternating between them?

    > In two tests they were a steady 3535 rpm whenever I looked
    > (every 2 minutes). With a different rotor I saw 3520 steady
    > except in case when the speed dropped briefly to 3515.
    
Thanks.  So rotational energy storage is not an issue.

    > The most conservative hypothesis [for how the GG works] is based
    > on the mainstream CF work, which shows helium commensurate with
    > conventional fusion. In any case, what possible difference could
    > it make what causes it? Why should anyone care about that?

For one thing, the "mainstream CF" people claim that heavy water
works, while light water doesn't. 

If they are correct, then the Griggs device must be fusing the few 
deuterium atoms that are present in ordinary tap water.  In that case,
spiking the feed water with some heavy water should give a dramatic
improvement in performance.  Since D+D->He is a two-atom reaction,
merely doubling the concentration of deuterium should 
quadruple the excess heat.  Think about that.

But be careful---one drop too many and the whole thing may blow up.
That would hurt sales, and the nuclear regulators might take notice.

On the other hand, if Mills et alia are correct, then it must be
possible to recover hydrinos in gram quantities from the pump's output
steam.  If chemical suppliers can sell some pretty boring and useless
lanthanides for $1000+ per gram, how much would they pay for an
ultra-stable form of hydrogen that is guaranteed Nobel prize stuff?

--stolfi

 ------------------------------------------------------------------
Jorge Stolfi, stolfi@dcc.unicamp.br
Computer Science Dept (DCC-IMECC), Univ of Campinas (UNICAMP)
13081 Campinas, SP -- BRAZIL   +55(192)39-8442
 ------------------------------------------------------------------
    
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenstolfi cudfnJorge cudlnStolfi cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.15 / Jed Rothwell /  Re: Griggs device tests
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@CompuServe.COM>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs device tests
Date: 15 Sep 1994 14:39:12 GMT
Organization: CFRA

I wrote: "[Steam table computations] show an excess as well, of course.  You
can combine two or more methods in one test, and show that barrel agrees with
the steam computations, then you can do an 8 hour steam test."
 
stolfi@src.dec.com (Jorge Stolfi) responds:
 
     "It all depends on how you do the extrapolation.  If your 20-minute
     calibration is wrong, the computed results for the steam-flow tests will
     almost surely be wrong too, in the same proportion."
 
This is a misunderstanding. There is no extrapolation, the 20-minute barrel
test is not a calibration. The steam table computations stand alone. They are
based upon the pressure and temperature shown in the separation tank gauges,
and on pounds of steam produced per hour. You look up the enthalpy in a table
from the ASME (which you can order from: ASME, United Engineering Center, 345
East 47th Street, New York, NY 10017.) This is how people compute steam
enthalpy in factories. This method is more complicated than the barrel test,
and not as accurate, but it agrees with the barrel test and it shows a C.O.P.
considerably over 100%, which is mind boggling. The pressure, temperature, and
flow gauges can be read at a glance, we don't start the test until they show
excess heat. When we leave the machine running, the gauges continue to show
excess. The advantage of the steam test is that you can run it all day,
venting the steam outside the building. You are not limited by the capacity of
a barrel.
 
You can also run a flow calorimetry test. You turn up the flow so that the
water does not vaporize. You record the input power, the flow in gallons per
minute, and the water input and output temperatures. You compute instantaneous
power in and out. This works well because the machine goes into a steady
state. Again, you are not limited by the capacity of the barrel, you just let
the water go down the drain. I have data from 8 hour flow runs, where they
checked every 10 or 20 minutes, and they also watched the water meter. This is
not quite as convincing or as accurate as the barrel test, and it does not
produce as much excess as a steam test. But, it does show a clear excess.
 
To summarize, the barrel test is the most compelling, but it is limited in
duration and capacity. It confirms beyond any doubt that an excess heat
phenomenon exists. The other tests also show this excess, to the same extent,
but they are less accurate (plus/minus 5% or so I think). They allow unlimited
duration experiments, and when they are run for hours, you can easily see that
the heat continues the whole time. You might question the steam test or flow
test alone, but with all three types of test working together, I think there
is no room for doubt that the excess is real and that it continues
indefinitely.
 
 
     "Again, please show us the raw data, and let us draw our conclusions."
 
I don't have it, I did not collect it. You will have to wait. I concentrated
on the barrel tests alone.
 
 
     "20,000 btu = 6 kWh (approximately).  That is *total* output heat."
 
Yes, 20,000 to 28,000 BTU and 350 lbs of water is the most we can safely add
before the water gets too hot and overflows.
 
 
Me: "It is quite impossible to do an 8 hour barrel test."
 
Stolfi: "Could perhaps you use two (or more) barrels, alternating between
them?"
 
That would be unacceptably hazardous. I would not want to be doing barrel
tests all day long. Four per day is my limit. Working at close quarters with
such big machinery and such gigantic steam plumes is *extremely dangerous*.
The valves and hoses used to redirect the steam from air to barrel are at 212
deg F, the barrel itself gets hot, and it crashes and jumps around as the
steam shoots into it, water as hot as 140 deg F sloshes around, the motor and
shaft rotate at thousands of r.p.m. . . . It is not the kind of thing you can
deal with in a manual test hour after hour. I think the steam table or flow
are safer and better. They do not require operator intervention.
 
 
Me: "If we had left Test 3 run for an hour, we would have gotten far more than
112% of test one."
 
Stolfi:   "That is an *assumption*, not a fact."
 
Nope. It's a fact. I trust flow calorimetry, especially after it has been
confirmed with the barrel type calorimetry. I don't deal in assumptions, I
have no use for 'em.
 
 
     "Considering that the electrical energy input for the 20-min run in Test
     2 was about 4 kWh by your estimate, can we conclude that in your barrel
     tests you never measured more than 2 kWh of "excess heat"?
 
2 kWh = 6826 BTU. Yup. That's all you can fit in the barrel with a 150% C.O.P.
You want to see more after that? Leave the machine running, and keep an eye on
those gauges up there on the separation tank: write down the temperature,
pressure and flow. You will note 40 minutes ago when the effect turned on, the
condensate stopped dripping out of the separation tank, and the KW draw
dropped from 16 to 12. Note that it is still down there, fluctuating around 12
KW, and there is still no condensate, and the separation tank dial thermometer
still shows 310 deg F. That means all the water going in is still being
vaporized, it is still superheated and under pressure in the tank, so the
enthalpy is about the same as it was during the barrel test. The warehouse
door is open, the steam plume is shooting a 15 feet out into the back lot. We
will let it sit like that for the next four hours or so, and you will see that
the gauges hardly change at all that whole time. That is not quite as good a
test, but considering what you saw before, I suppose you will believe it.
 
 
     "Conversely, the steam temperature around the rotor may change very
     quickly while the flow is being adjusted, and those changes will take
     some time to be felt on the outside the housing."
 
First of all the flow is not adjusted after the excess heat kicks in, and we
wait a while to make sure the excess stays on. Nobody touches the flow.
Second, the steam temperature measured at the output pipe next to the GG does
not vary. Third, how long is "some time"? How long could it possibly be? 20
minutes? An hour? All day? Two years?
 
 
     "However, you weren't aware that 1.6 kWh is small compared to the
     thermal capacity of the rotor (3 kWh / 100F); and you are still
     asserting, based on faulty extrapolation, that the rotor cannot remain
     hotter than the steam around it for more than a few minutes."
 
That is not what I said. I never said anything about the temperature of the
steam versus rotor. Kindly address the issue. I said I cannot imagine how the
rotor could go drop 40 deg F (or  60 deg F) without affecting the temperature
of the housing an hour later. Your hypothesis is that the total temperature of
the rotor can drop by 40 degrees (or 60, or whatever) and this will not be
reflected in housing temperature an hour later. The housing will remain at 350
deg F no matter how much latent heat you subtract from the rotor. I don't buy
that.
 
In any case, two-thirds of the energy comes from a prosaic, known cause: the
rotor stirring the water. I am sure that would make the rotor hot starting on
the surface, not the inside, so it is nothing like your hot stone dropped in
the bucket; it cannot be much hotter in the center than it is at the surface.
 
 
     By the way, do you happen to know the fluid capacity of the pump (That
     is, how much hot water and steam can there be inside it. . ." 
 
No, I don't know offhand. It does not hold much.
 
 
Me:  "In any case, what possible difference could it make what causes [the
     heat]? Why should anyone care about that?"
 
Stolfi:
 
     "For one thing, the "mainstream CF" people claim that heavy water works,
     while light water doesn't."
 
That pertains to a theoretical dispute about the underlying physics of the
reaction. I don't care about such disputes. It does not make the slightest
difference to me where the energy comes from or whether heavy water or light
water are needed with different metals. Nature may have set up some
astoundingly complicated rules here: CF with D2O works with Pd; CF with H2O or
D2O Al or Ni works. Who knows what the rules are? Who can guess how the
underlying physics works? Not me, I can't guess, I don't want to know, I could
not care less. The water gets hot and it stays hot, much longer than chemistry
would allow. It can be energy leaking in from Jupiter, green cheese energy, or
oregone energy - I don't care what it is. As long as I can package it and sell
it at a profit, I am delighted.
 
 
     "Since D+D->He is a two-atom reaction, merely doubling the concentration
     of deuterium should quadruple the excess heat.  Think about that."
 
We are going to give that shot in the near future. If Cartersville, Georgia
disappears off the map, you will know the reason why.
 
 
     "If Mills et alia are correct . . . how much would they [the chemists]
     pay for an ultra-stable form of hydrogen that is guaranteed Nobel prize
     stuff?"
 
Ah, now you are talking my language! You say there is a market value for
hydrinos? People want them to get a Nobel prize with? Good, count me in. Let's
dredge up hydrinos (if they are there), put them in a bottle and sell them.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Fri Sep 16 04:37:06 EDT 1994
------------------------------
1994.09.16 / Jed Rothwell /  Re: Griggs device tests
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@CompuServe.COM>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs device tests
Date: 16 Sep 1994 17:36:42 GMT
Organization: CFRA

mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel) writes:
 
     "This device uses deuterium, then?  So presumably they're recycling it?
     (too much $ otherwise)"
 
Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. I wouldn't know about that, but I can tell
you there is more than enough deterium in the water pumped through the GG to
power it at these levels indefinitely. It is 31 lbs per hour = 14,000 g water,
which includes 2 g D2O. That's 4/20th's deuterium (oygen = 16, deuterium = 2 x
2), so we have 400 mg deuterium, and if you fuse half of that you get roughly
115,000 MJ (or 32,000 KWH) according to my calculations based on a paper by
Richard Petrasso. [1] But what does he know?
 
You should do a little more 'rithmetic before posting comments like that.
 
 
I wrote "In any case, what possible difference could it make what causes it?
Why should anyone care about that?" Which prompts Matt to imagine this
newspaper headline:
 
     "Nuclear Reactor installed in Downtown Office Building:  Engineers Think
     it's Safe But they Admit They have No Idea How It Works.''
 
That's downright silly. All you have to do is put a few hundred GG's in
National and University labs, turn the physicists loose, and they will figure
it out in no time. Sure they will! The hard part - inventing the thing - is
already done. Los Alamos can fill in the remaining details. The GG generates
more energy every month than all the Tokamaks in history ever did or ever
will. There is plenty of energy to investigate, and it comes on demand.
Science always works in the end, I am sure they will figure it out. The
problem here is that while science always works, scientists often sit on their
butts not working. Instead of trying to figure out how CF works they are
denying that it exists! They groan, growse, kvetch, moan, and pretend that
HVAC calorimetry does not work. I am glad that Peachtree Heating &
Airconditioning sends trained engineers to fix my HVAC, if they sent over a
gaggle of PhD scientists, they would end up arging that my air conditioner is
a violation of the Second Law and therefore the machine does not exist.
 
But that problem will not last forever. Engineers and other people who have
their heads screwed on striaght can see that the GG works fine. Engineers run
many companies and utilities (thank goodness!). Once they start pumping money
into stuff like the GG, a million scientists will suddenly get religeon and
start believing. Pretty soon Dick Blue will be telling people that he
originally invented CF. Mark my words, scientists are no different than anyone
else. When they smell m-o-n-e-y they forget theoretical objections. Steve
Jones will say, "X-rays, schmecks-rays, hand me a reasearch grant!" As one
senior physicist remarked, "scientists will believe whatever you pay them to
believe" Heck, a bunch of top scientists worked on Star Wars, didn't they?
Whole heartedly! The biggest bunch of bunk ever devised by Uncle Sam, and they
swallowed it without a complaint, because Uncle dangled cash next to the
fishing line. An idea like that would not last 15 minutes in private industry,
but you can find scientists galore who took it seriously for years. They are
as gulible and greedy as any other group of people. That is why they don't
believe in CF today, because it hit's 'em in the pocket, where it hurts most.
 
- Jed
 
 
[1] R. D. Petrasso, Nature (London), 350 (1991) 661.
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.16 / Richard Schultz /  What am I missing? (Griggs Gadget)
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: What am I missing? (Griggs Gadget)
Date: 16 Sep 1994 18:55:48 GMT
Organization: Philosophers of the Dangerous Maybe


If I understand Rothwell's postings correctly, the claim is that this
device is hooked up to an input power that is measured as some value
X, and then its output is measured as some value Y, with Y > X.  
Then the argument has been about the input power measurements.  Wouldn't
it be more straightforward to simply hook the thing up to a 
generator that is incapable of putting out more power than X, and seeing
if the output power is still Y?  Or am I missing something?


-- 
					Richard Schultz
             "an optimist is a guy
              that has never had
              much experience"
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.16 / Arnie Frisch /  Re: Griggs device tests
     
Originally-From: arnief@wu.labs.tek.com (Arnie Frisch)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs device tests
Date: 16 Sep 1994 12:20:55 -0700
Organization: Tektronix Laboratories, Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton, OR

In article <35cl3a$8i1$1@mhadf.production.compuserve.com> Jed Rothwell
<72240.1256@CompuServe.COM> writes:
>mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel) writes:
> 
>     "This device uses deuterium, then?  So presumably they're recycling it?
>     (too much $ otherwise)"
> 
>Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. I wouldn't know about that, but I can tell
.....
.....
...............miscellaneous bs and libel............................
.....
.....
> Heck, a bunch of top scientists worked on Star Wars, didn't they?
>Whole heartedly! The biggest bunch of bunk ever devised by Uncle Sam, and they
>swallowed it without a complaint, because Uncle dangled cash next to the
>fishing line. An idea like that would not last 15 minutes in private industry,
>but you can find scientists galore who took it seriously for years. They are
>as gulible and greedy as any other group of people. That is why they don't
>believe in CF today, because it hit's 'em in the pocket, where it hurts most.
> 
>- Jed
> 





I don't believe in CF.  It doesn't hit me in the pocket at all.  I'm
not working in this area, but it would be a major benefit to me (and
the world) if CF really worked as Rothwell says (but what that means is
sort of hard to define because what he says seems to change and adapt
to the situation).

One important reason I don't believe in CF is because of the strident,
unsupported claims of people like Rothwell.

Arnold Frisch
Tektronix Laboratories
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenarnief cudfnArnie cudlnFrisch cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.16 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Re: Cold Fusion Magazine
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion Magazine
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 1994 11:20 -0500 (EST)

I just received the following letter from Dr. Eugene F. Mallove, Cold Fusion
Technology regarding Cold Fusion Magazine.  This is a form letter apparently
sent out to all subscribers, and potential subscribers.

_____________________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT ON THE STATUS OF "Cold Fusion" MAGAZINE

This statement is being released on 12 September 1994 by the former Editors of
"Cold Fusion" Magazine (Eugene F. Mallove, Editor; Stu Norwood, Managing
Editor; Contributing editors: Lawrence Forsley, Jed Rothwell, and Christopher
P. Tinsley):

In June 1994, internal disagreements between the editorial staff and the
publisher (Wayne Green, Inc. of Peterborough, New Hampshire) reached a point at
which the editorial staff concluded they could no longer work within the Wayne
Green, Inc. organization.  WGI had been undergoing severe managerial problems
and financial difficulties in its other operations, which adversely affected
the "Cold Fusion" magazine staff and production of the magazine.

The editors wanted to continue with the excellent 80-page magazine format,
supported by the cold fusion industry and the growing readership of the
publication.  The publisher wanted to reduce it to a newsletter with a fraction
of the information content of the magazine.  There were other disagreements,
especially concerning content.  The editors considered the performance of the
publisher to be unacceptable, and concluded that the magazine would only be
viable outside Wayne Green, Inc.  Consequently, all of the editors severed
their relationship with Wayne Green, Inc.  They are seeking financial backing
to start a new magazine in the field of cold fusion.

Against the wishes and advice of the former editors and an outside financial
investor in the magazine, Wayne Green, Inc. has issued a "Cold Fusion Update"
newsletter designated as September issue.  The former editors have reviewed a
copy of this newsletter and consider it to be entirely substandard in its
presentation of information on the field of cold fusion.  There is no desinated
editor of this newsletter, so we assume that Wayne Green is himself acting as
Editor.  A more serious matter is the content of Wayne Green's lead editorial,
"So where's your big glossy magazine?" In this editroial, the publisher makes
assertions that we believe to be contrary to the truth of the magazine's
publication history, and makes untrue and defamatory statements about
individuals in the cold fusion field.

The former editorial staff had no ownership position in the magazine.  The
editors were paid as either salaried employees, or contractors.  Consequently,
despite the profound concern of the former editors for the rights of those who
in good faith subscribed to the magazine, the responsibility for subscription
fulfillment resides with the publisher Wayne Green, Inc.

Subscribers who are dissatisfied with the content or format of the newsletter
and its substitution for the magazine should take up the matter with Wayne
Green, Inc. or take such other action as they consider to be appropriate.

Those current subscribers of "Cold Fusion" Magazine -- or future subscribers of
the planned new pblication -- who wish to contact the former editorial staff of
"Cold Fusion" Magazine may write to:

                        Cold Fusion Technology
                        P.O. Box 2816
                        Concord, New Hamshire 03302-2816

Correspondence may also be faxed to 603-224-5975.  Editorial and news items for
the new planned cold fusion publication are now being solicited.  Potential
investors in the new publication are also asked to contact us.

E-Mail Addresses:
Eugene F. Mallove       INTERNET: 76560.2270@compuserve.com
Jed Rothewell           INTERNET: 72240.1256@compuserve.com

 -------------------------- end of letter -----------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.16 / Thomas Zemanian /  Re: Griggs device tests
     
Originally-From: ts_zemanian@pnl.gov (Thomas S. Zemanian)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs device tests
Date: 16 Sep 1994 20:00:48 GMT
Organization: Battelle PNL

In article <35cl3a$8i1$1@mhadf.production.compuserve.com>, Jed Rothwell
<72240.1256@CompuServe.COM> wrote:



[snip]

> Science always works in the end, I am sure they will figure it out. The
> problem here is that while science always works, scientists often sit on their
> butts not working. Instead of trying to figure out how CF works they are
> denying that it exists! They groan, growse, kvetch, moan, and pretend that
> HVAC calorimetry does not work. I am glad that Peachtree Heating &
> Airconditioning sends trained engineers to fix my HVAC, if they sent over a
> gaggle of PhD scientists, they would end up arging that my air conditioner is
> a violation of the Second Law and therefore the machine does not exist.
>  
> But that problem will not last forever. Engineers and other people who have
> their heads screwed on striaght can see that the GG works fine. Engineers run
> many companies and utilities (thank goodness!). Once they start pumping money
> into stuff like the GG, a million scientists will suddenly get religeon and
> start believing. Pretty soon Dick Blue will be telling people that he
> originally invented CF. Mark my words, scientists are no different than anyone
> else. When they smell m-o-n-e-y they forget theoretical objections. Steve
> Jones will say, "X-rays, schmecks-rays, hand me a reasearch grant!" As one
> senior physicist remarked, "scientists will believe whatever you pay them to
> believe" Heck, a bunch of top scientists worked on Star Wars, didn't they?
> Whole heartedly! The biggest bunch of bunk ever devised by Uncle Sam, and they
> swallowed it without a complaint, because Uncle dangled cash next to the
> fishing line. An idea like that would not last 15 minutes in private industry,
> but you can find scientists galore who took it seriously for years. They are
> as gulible and greedy as any other group of people. That is why they don't
> believe in CF today, because it hit's 'em in the pocket, where it hurts most.

Sigh.  Mr. Rothwell, sometimes you can be quite offensive.  I am a trained
engineer as well as a PhD scientist, and I am trying to figure out what is
going on with these devices.  I take what you write at face value, and
suggest useful experiments in reply.  But when you begin to sound like
Ludwig Plutonium, I wonder if I'm wasting my time.

I shall await further results on the GG, especially the experiment where
you dope the water with D2O.  I hope you convince someone to repeat the NiH
experiment, using better insulation and heat measurement techniques.

Good luck to you.
--Tom

--
The opinions expressed herein are mine and mine alone.  Keep your filthy
hands off 'em! 
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudents_zemanian cudfnThomas cudlnZemanian cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.16 / Tom Droege /  Re: Let's send Tom to Cartersville, GA
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Let's send Tom to Cartersville, GA
Date: 16 Sep 1994 21:38:21 GMT
Organization: fermilab

In article <35cntu$qt9@newsbf01.news.aol.com>, tjsel@aol.com (TJSEL) 
says:
>
>In article <1994Sep15.172447.1746@vanlab.byu.edu>, 
jonesse@vanlab.byu.edu
>writes:
>
><$20-30 contribution...>
>
>As a lurker who has been following this for a while I would love to see
>this run to ground.  Count me in.  I'm getting a little tired of reading
>all these posts with arguments that just can't be reconciled.  We will
>need a physical address, of course.

Wow!!  I am honored by all the folks that want to send me to 
Cartersville.  Cartersville has to rank right up there ahead of 
Cleveland and Newark as places to go.  But sign me up as a contributer.  
Remember the cheap air fares are in place.  

Actually I have not been following the thread of the Griggs machine.
I have no idea what it is supposed to do.  

But I think I could not resist such a challenge.  So appoint a 
treasurer.  If you collect say 80% of what the trip will cost, I 
will go.

Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.16 / Jed Rothwell /  Re: Stolfi on Griggs Gadget
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@CompuServe.COM>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Stolfi on Griggs Gadget
Date: 16 Sep 1994 03:14:09 GMT
Organization: CFRA

blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue) writes:
 
     "Perhaps it would help if I told you I went to look at my $150 water
     heater.  It is rated at 38,000 BTU/hr, so I have difficulty
     understanding the claim that a $10,000 electromechanical wonder with an
     output of that same order is going to start a new industrial
     revolution."
 
The GG in this test produced at least 20,000 BTU of steam in 20 minutes. That
comes to 60,000 BTU per hour, twice as much as the home water heater. More to
the point, steam generators are inherently more expensive, more complicated
and more dangerous than water heaters. They must withstand much higher
temperatures, stresses, and they must include additional components like the
separation tank, flow regulators, heavy duty valves and electrical
connections. Furthermore, the unit used in these tests was smaller than most.
I believe the $10,000 units are rated at 100,000 BTUH.
 
 
     "I want to congratulate Jorge Stolfi for his excellent analysis of the
     flawed Rothwell conclusions. . ."
 
Stolfi has done his best, but all of his conclusions are wrong. Neither he nor
anyone else here has found any mistakes in the Griggs experiments. They may
think they have but they are mistaken, perhaps because I have not done a good
job reporting the details. The experiments and instruments were specified by
some of the top U.S. experts in mechanical engineering and dynamometry
including a former president of the A.S.M.E. These people, needless to say,
know *far more* about how to measure heat than the likes of Stolfi, Blue, or
Rothwell. This is their recommended configuration. I think it is a fine
configuration, I cannot think of any important improvements. Let me add (with
a modest, self-effacing glance at the podium) that I first suggested the basic
"barrel test" last year. Griggs and the other experts have greatly improved on
it, and they ran many other tests, but I am glad to say they also used my
idea. I suggested it because I had difficulty dealing with the steam tables,
and I thought it would be a good idea to eliminate the issue of "wet" or "dry"
steam.
 
 
     "However, one must ask whether the customer's installations are
     instrumented sufficiently well to continuously determine the energy
     efficiency of the device."
 
Yes, by law they must be. You must be able to tell at a glance what the flow,
temperatures, and pressure are in a steam generator. This is an essential
safety precaution. If you do a little arithmetic and look up a few numbers in
the steam table, you can compute a rough C.O.P. any time, and you will get a
mind-boggling result. Naturally, all machines of this type must also be
monitored continuously -- with power and water company meters. They do not
hand out electricity and water for free. A simple check of the metering bills
shows that the GG is over unity. A more detailed, accurate check can be made
any time.
 
 
     "[My furnace] heats my house (most of the time) so I don't worry about
     its efficiency.  The efficiency would have to take a big drop before I
     would notice any change."
 
Say what? Are you suggesting that your gas bill might stay the same, but the
efficiency of your furnace might drop by 10% or 20%? Let me explain something
very important. You have a blocked chimney, or serious hole in a duct
somewhere. The BTUs of heat (or the unburned gas) cannot simply disappear. It
has to be going somewhere. If you have experienced anything like a 20% fall
off in efficiency, then your house is in serious danger of burning down, or
you may be asphyxiated. I have known three people in three separate incidents
killed by "inefficient" furnaces, including a six-month old baby. Listen up,
Gentle Readers: PEOPLE WHO DO NOT HAVE THEIR FURNACES INSPECTED ONCE A YEAR
RUN A SEVERE RISK!!!
 
If something went seriously wrong with a factory steam generator and
efficiency "took a big drop" you would soon notice, especially if it blew
someone's head off.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.15 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Griggs device tests
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs device tests
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 1994 16:43:23 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <358ej0$pup@huxley.anu.edu.au>,
David R Davies <drd851@huxley.anu.edu.au> wrote:
>crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>
>(quotes deleted)
>>     Substantial decreases in indicated operating power are a very big clue
>>     as to what is happening.  And my guess is that the 'effect' happens
>>     in a band of RPM for a given rotor configuration.
>
>>     Instrument the rotor shaft and I'd bet you'll see something very
>>     interesting.  Or alternatively, just wait and let this 'free energy
>>     device' fade into oblivion like all of its forebears.
>>     
>>                             dale bass
>
>Which four bears exactly are you referring to. Perhaps you could sue Griggs'
>customers for the crass commercial exploitation of a device that deeply and
>profoundly offends your sensibilities.

     Oh goody, a spelling flame.  And so inelegantly phrased too.

     But yes, failure to respect the first law has caused many a heartache,
     as likely will this free energy device.  The only problem is that rarely
     do such devices seem to cause trouble for the inventors themselves.

>Woops, a bit of Jed emerging in me there. I'm actually getting quite 
>sympathetic toward Jed these days and his constraint in confronting such
>silly and unsubstantiated (not to mention offensive) comments.

     'Offensive'?  I suppose if you'd never taken undergraduate thermodynamics
     you could construe my comments as offensive.  On the other hand, I've
     offered to spend my valuable time to correctly analyze the device
     so that the more credulous among us, those more easily swayed by 
     bluster, those perhaps lacking in a firm understanding and respect for
     the power of the first law of thermodynamics and the nuclear description
     of matter and other physical processes we've been investigating 
     for over 150 years, can see in black and white where the mistakes 
     were made, why the last four thousand times that an inventor made
     such claims *do* have a bearing on this time, why it is extraordinarily
     unlikely that some guy fooling around with a pitted rotor could
     discover the way to:

               a) evade the first law (one miracle), or
               b) evade the coulomb barrier and produce
                  fusion without any energetic reaction products
                  (two or more miracles).

     Back about 9 years ago on the net, the Usenet was a much smaller place.
     I could read many of the groups, and indeed, had much more time
     to read and respond.  Anyway, a group of us got into a discussion
     with a person who claimed to have had his nearly fatal peronitis 'cured' 
     by some alternative medical technique or another.  After a few weeks
     of discussion, it turned out that the alternative 'cure' included
     massive doses of IV antibiotics.  Some alternative. 

     Every time I talk to Jed or someone who thinks Jed's arguments
     are reasonable, I have this strong sense of deja vu.

>On a more serious note, the above quoted 'effect' or mode switch does 
>bother me but not as much as it did at first. It now looks to me like mode
>locking in a highly nonlinear coupled resonator system. 

     Mode locking of what, to what effect?  Simply stringing together
     a bunch of words does not constitute an explanation.

     Indeed, your words could constitute my 'explanation' of why
     the device is producing no net energy.

                                 dale bass

cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.15 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Griggs device tests
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs device tests
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 1994 17:05:50 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <357svm$fi3$1@mhadf.inhouse.compuserve.com>,
Jed Rothwell  <72240.1256@CompuServe.COM> wrote:

>the barrel (as opposed to a steam test or some other method), we cannot go
>much beyond 20,000 BTU. The reason, obviously, is safety. We let the barrel up
>to about 140 deg F last time, which is dangerously hot. 
...
>it would be an extreme hazard if it began to overflow.

     Geez, I must go down and bank my hot water heater.  I'm waiting
     with a call to Virginia Power's Surry and Lake Anna Plants
     with this new warning information.  Can I reference you?

     Again, Jed, this is a treat.

>is is merely Jed's fantasy,
>then what could possibly be interesting about it? Who cares about a crackpot
>fantasy? 

     I don't think it's merely your fantasy.  Other people seem to share
     too.

>you care about it at all? The evidence exists, I have copies of it in my file.
>It is generally in form of flow calorimetry (what HVAC people usually
>perform), spot checks, and utility bills. I am not at liberty to post it,
>because it comes from customers and other private sources, and I do not feel
>like describing things in that kind of detail. You will have to wait for the
>ICCF5 paper for more nitty gritty detail.

     As usual.  Anyway, I'd suggest no one hold their collective breaths
     in anticipation of a detailed and complete report.

>The most conservative hypothesis is based on the mainstream CF work, which
>shows helium commensurate with conventional fusion. In any case, what possible
>difference could it make what causes it? Why should anyone care about that?

     However, your continued existence is not compatable with a 
     conventional fusion hypothesis.  Of course, what's a miracle or two
     between disciples? 

>     "Did you ever wonder how the fusion of deuterium into He (wait a moment
>     --- what deuterium? Oh, never mind...) could possibly lower the friction
>     in the pump by 50%?"
> 
>No, I never wonder about such unimportant and esoteric matters.

     No doubt.

                            dale bass

cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.16 / Dieter Britz /  Re: Fading: the plots
     
Originally-From: kemidb@aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fading: the plots
Date: 16 Sep 94 08:29:34 GMT

In <199409151130.AA04689@sol.unizar.es> rivero@sol.unizar.es (Alejandro Rivero) writes:

>Well, here come the plots, as seen in the GNU plot dumb terminal output:

[...plots snipped out...]

>that is all. I dont know what you think about, but for one
>accostummed to read papers on local axiomatic quantum field theory,
>the publication rate continues high!

I beg to disagree. I am going to try to get the equivalent statistics for the
(roughly) contemporary fields, HTSC and buckminsterfullerene (C60). In the case
of HTSC, where t = 0 in 1986, I am told there are now over 20000 papers. I'd be
willing to bet that the submissions curve would have a peak just like that for
'cold fusion', but then instead of a steady decay, I expect a levelling off not
far below that peak and followed by a gradual rise as more and more researchers
hop on the bandwaggon. The same for C60, I reckon. Let's wait and see what I
find. All three areas are, after all, inherently exciting stuff - unlike
axiomatic QM field theory (sorry, Al, just my humble opinion).

-- 
Dieter Britz   alias kemidb@aau.dk

cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenkemidb cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.14 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Griggs device tests
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs device tests
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 1994 14:35:58 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <355kpk$i95$1@mhadg.production.compuserve.com>,
Jed Rothwell  <72240.1256@CompuServe.COM> wrote:
> 
>     "And all of the "free energy" machines invented in the last 2000+ years
>     turned out to be bogus."
> 
>This is a meaningless assertion. Nobody is claiming that the Griggs machine is
>a 'free energy' machine. Evidently, it is a CF reactor, it converts hydrogen
>into helium and releases energy.  There is a well known machine that has been
>doing that quite reliable for the last several billion years right over your
>head: the Sun. 
 
     But not in our back yards.

     By now you must be quite ill owing to radiation poisoning.

     Sorry to hear it.

>Furthermore, suppose for the sake of argument that these machines really are
>'free energy' devices or ZPE machines, or what-have-you? What possible
>relevance do the previous, failed machines have? These work, they did not.
>Hundreds of unworkable, impossible airplanes were built and countless attempts
>to fly were made before Dec 17, 1903. They all failed. That morning a machine
>took off and flew. The previous failures had no effect on the validity of that
>success. The data proving that the airplane flew (the eyewitness descriptions,
>the photo and instrument readings) proved the issue once and for all. Previous
>experiments did not disprove it one tiny bit.

     The mantra of perpetual motion.  'The others just didn't do it right'.

     Jed, you're a real treat.

                                  dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.16 / Arthur TK /  Re: virial theorem: what about those photons?
     
Originally-From: awc@slcawcipp-garching.mpg.de (Arthur      Carlson        TK  )
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: virial theorem: what about those photons?
Date: 16 Sep 1994 12:11:36 GMT
Organization: Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics

In article <harrCw6Kv4.9zD@netcom.com>, harr@netcom.com (Charles
(Chuck) Harrison) writes:
|> 
|> Continuing the search for soft spots in the virial
|> theorem as applied to atmospheric plasmoids [1]...
|> 
|> The derivations of the magnetohydrodynamic virial theorem
|> which I have seen start from a magnetoquasistatic
|> formulation of the problem.  As I understand it, this
|> means that electromagnetic radiation is ignored.
|> ...
|> So we could have
|>  (a) a significant energy density in the EM field
|>       occupying the kernel-mantle cavity, and
|>  (b) significant exchange of EM energy *and momentum*
|>       with the energetic electrons in the kernel
|>       and mantle.

 Take a closer look at the "long" form of the virial theorem I wrote in my first
post on the subject [from 1]:

(12)    (1/2)(d^2/dt^2)I + integral x_k (partial G_k/partial t) dV =
          2(T + U) + W_E + W_M - integral x_k (p_ik + T_ik) dS_i

When you include electric fields, they contribute the non-negative term W_E. If
you let the electric and magnetic fields be time dependent (photons), then you
have to include the integral with G, the Poynting vector. If the time-averaged
momentum density in the electromagnetic fields is constant, then dG/dt and hence
the integral vanish. If you examine the d^2/dt^2 term, you will see that inertial
confinement has a time scale of the acoustic transit time, milliseconds, too fast
to explain ball lightning. It seems E&M has been fully considered in this version
of the virial theorem.

Art Carlson


[1] Schmidt, Physics of High Temperature Plasmas, Academic Press (1979), pp. 71-2.

-- 
To study, to finish, to publish. -- Benjamin Franklin

Dr. Arthur Carlson
Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics
Garching, Germany
carlson@ipp-garching.mpg.de
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenawc cudfnArthur cudlnTK cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.16 / Arthur TK /  Re: Does ball lightning violate virial thm?
     
Originally-From: awc@slcawcipp-garching.mpg.de (Arthur      Carlson        TK  )
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Does ball lightning violate virial thm?
Date: 16 Sep 1994 12:35:26 GMT
Organization: Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics

In article <harrCw6Kot.9p9@netcom.com>, harr@netcom.com (Charles
(Chuck) Harrison) writes:
|> 
|> Both Art Carlson and Bruce Scott object when I characterize ball
|> lightning skeptics as saying "the virial theorem proves that BL
|> doesn't exist".
|> 
|> They are probably right to be offended, and my phrasing was
|> unnecessarily rude ...

No offense taken.

|> Art Carlson wishes to "set aside" the reports of high energy
|> content in BL.  This is a seven-league step.  There is a
|> reported example of "accidental calorimetry" [1] wherein a
|> BL heated a large container of water.  It *may* be
|> respectable to hand-wave away a single observation, or
|> even a few dozen observations from which numerical estimates
|> of energy content can be made.  It is going too far to
|> ignore the much more common reports of BL disappearing
|> with a "bang".

It doesn't take much energy to make a bang. "Disappearing with a bang" is not
inconsistent with the virial theorem. I'll have a look at Ref. 1. Do they report
an energy density higher than 3e5 J/m^3?

|> ...  An uncomfortable
|> amount of data must be ignored in order to fit the BL
|> behavior into a model with a total energy content less
|> than 3 * pV (at STP).

As far as I know there are less than a dozen events estimated to have a higher
energy density.

|> I believe that both Art and Bruce, in good faith, are
|> proposing that BL is a low-energy-density phenomenon.
|> I would feel better if they showed a little more
|> "discomfort" at the amount of experimental data they
|> are rejecting in order to preserve the conjecture that
|> the virial theorem applies to BL.

I don't know if the virial theorem applies to BL. I do know it applies to MHD
theories of ball lightning. If there were no other alternative, I would tend to
discount a dozen reports made under difficult conditions rather than such a
general and straightforward result such as the virial theorem. But are we certain
that there are no other alternatives? If you're going for the bang, chemical
energy in an STP gas can be two orders of magnitude higher than the virial result.

Art Carlson

-- 
To study, to finish, to publish. -- Benjamin Franklin

Dr. Arthur Carlson
Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics
Garching, Germany
carlson@ipp-garching.mpg.de
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenawc cudfnArthur cudlnTK cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.14 /  prasad /  Re: Griggs device tests
     
Originally-From: c1prasad@watson.ibm.com (prasad)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs device tests
Date: 14 Sep 1994 15:02:21 GMT
Organization: IBM Watson

In article <ts_zemanian-140994074712@ts_zemanian.pnl.gov>, ts_zemanian@p
l.gov (Thomas S. Zemanian) writes:
|> In article <35424c$d58@src-news.pa.dec.com>, stolfi@src.dec.com (Jorge
|> Stolfi) wrote:
|> 
|> [deletia]
|> 
|> > On the contrary, it fits perfectly.  Note that the "mysterious
|> > heat-produceing process" does not manifest itself by a rise in
|> > temperature, but by a decrease in the friction coefficient---which
|> > leads to a reduced power input, without a corresponding drop
|> > in the heat output.
|> > 
|> > Thus, in the "blank" test, the pump consumed XXX kW for the whole
|> > run; and, during the measurement period, they found that
|> > heat out was almost equal to energy in.
|> > 
|> > In the "positive" tests, the pump soaked XXX kW for some 15-20 minutes;
|> > then consumption dropped by some 50%, and in the next 20 min 
|> > some 30% more energy came out than went in.

[ warning: attributions above may have got mixed by inheritance! ]

This is what I have been looking for in the Griggs Gadget (GG) all this last
year...  This pattern occurs in all the electrical over-unity devices,
including CF (the cell voltage drops during the burst outputs, or equivalently,
the cell resistance drops) and homopolar generators (the generator resistance
drops).  Was just rushing in to patent/write-about/make-a-movie-about the
new thermodynamics, when GG came along, and I just had to wait to see it
happen all over again, this time NON-ELECTRICAL!!!  My fears of it seeing
it explained away by a heat pump theory are allayed. 6 years to turn a century!

;)

Well, that's true, actually, but more to the point now. [ I get real confused
by all the feet, pounds, degs F and BTUs (what-have-yous) in Jed's postings,
being to the SI generation born, so please bear with my seeming stupor ... ]

A. How's the *blank* run?  Is this with steam being still produced, but
   the operating parameters are out of tune somewhere so the excess heat
   is not observed? [ If I recall right, the >1 only occurs under some
   conditions. ]

B. What difference in the operating conditions makes it go >1 ?  Is that
   data available/public/better-understood-now/predictable?

C. Does the >1 condition have anything to do with the critical region
   of the water/steam system, where the van der Waals eqn of state makes
   a hump that would befit a camel?  [ reason: if not the energy, at least
   the reduction in the pump mechanical resistance might be explained,
   and at least in part. ]

-- 

#pragma prejudices=own brainwaves=own others=disowned!
// email > /dev/null
// bad habits: NunNunTP!
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenc1prasad cudlnprasad cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.14 /  prasad /  Re: A paradigm too far
     
Originally-From: c1prasad@watson.ibm.com (prasad)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A paradigm too far
Date: 14 Sep 1994 15:47:22 GMT
Organization: IBM Watson

In article <9409131901.AA29334@pilot1.cl.msu.edu>, blue@pilot.msu.edu
(Richard A Blue) writes:
|> among others.  The key argument against the significance of the
|> nondetection of nuclear radiation and the nonobservation of nuclear
|> reaction products always seems to come back to such things as
|> a paradigm shift or, as Ed Storms puts it, a Special Condition of
|> Matter.  That is to say that for some reason or other observations
|> made in other domains are not relevant to cold fusion.

You said it!

a. Why should a shift make any da.. difference to the physics itself?
Like whether one uses Maxwell eqns or virtual particles to describe
the same things?  Looks like we lack a fundamental formulation for
physical semantics somewhere, since the way we represent or compute
apparently determines the answer.  How I dislike feeling this
"relativity of information"! But there it is, try explaining on the
net (or Compuserve) how an electron in orbit is like a current loop
that classically never needs to radiate, and see the flak you can draw!
No one's really interested to know all sides to nature, the immediate
flank of the elephant is too nice a wall to give up on...

b. Let me rephrase your last statement as: "... for some reason,
other domains of physics are not being applied to resolve cold fusion."
There. That'd make two of us...

|> state?  Clearly the basic characteristics of the release of
|> excess heat involves a good bit that is random in nature.  It
|> is highly irregularly.  It is difficult to reproduce.  In that

c. Before Maxwell's time, if anyone had noticed a C shaped metallic
object arcing over the gap during a thunderstorm, it would have been
mighty difficult to reproduce as well. No one would have correlated
it with the storms, and everyone would have been hunting around in
the lab for the chemical reagents or invisible flints that might
have struck the metal.  [ There, now Jed should thank me for this! ]

|> context how can the effect on the nuclei involved always be
|> so regular, i.e. totally unobservable.  Pardon me, if I suggest

d. So? It doesn't affect nuclei, obviously it isn't really fusion.
Let go of the butler, he didn't do it!  [ There, now *he* wouldn't! ]

|> that there are clear indications that the CF results indicate
|> not some new paradigm but simply the abandonment of reason.

e. The only way *reasoning* is abandoned is when one assumes there
isn't something to think about. The only way reasoning is *not*
abandoned is to go on experimenting and discussing, pros and cons,
till things become "crystal clear". Of course, it might not terminate,
but then, who said research is an algorithm?  ;)

|> I think you have to supply reasons for the solid state system
|> influencing the nuclear processes to the degree required.
|> Nuclear processes have been observed in other solids so what
|> makes this one different?

f. See (d), (b), (a) above. Why insist that it be nuclear, and
not something new in physics?  Who's proved we know all of physics
that there is to know?  Who's even proved that <stdmodel.h> or
<superstring.h> will resolve everything macroscopic and commonplace
as well, say the very very commonly available human brain?

For example, consider Charles Bennett's reasoning (ScAm, c.'87)
about the Maxwell demon. Bennett and others have come up with
an "entropy of forgetting". But this hypothetical entropy must
be quantitatively greater than the entropy reduced by the demon.
*Is* it???!!  Is it really physical?  If so, why is it so unreal?
If not, how can it rescue the 2nd law from the demon? How does
it relate to Shannon's theory of information?

My point is, quite a few basic things over a century old, that
are taken for granted and assumed to be infallible foundations,
are still very much hack-worthy.

Hope I haven't made 
|> Dick Blue
!!

-- 

#pragma prejudices=own brainwaves=own others=disowned!
// email > /dev/null
// bad habits: NunNunTP, pun-tings !

cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenc1prasad cudlnprasad cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.16 /  fairfax@sensei /  Alcator Progress 9/15/94
     
Originally-From: fairfax@sensei.pfc.mit.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Alcator Progress 9/15/94
Date: 16 SEP 94 12:51:26 GMT
Organization: MIT PLASMA FUSION CENTER

		Alcator C-MOD Weekly Highlights
		      September 15,  1994


Assembly of the OH2L coax is now well underway. The operations remaining
include bending, vacuum impregnation, and fitup to the OH2L coil terminal
block.  The feltmetal sandwich material used between the coax and terminal
components is now being produced at a rapid pace.  Finally, components
for the OH1 and OH2U coax are being completed.  Only the the OH2L
coax is on the machine assembly 'critical path'.

The upgraded power supply for the third ICRF transmitter has
arrived and is in position. This system, along with a fourth system
still requiring modification, will be used to drive the PPPL antenna.

Some minor changes to the cryo system have been made.  The flapper
valve that regulates cryostat pressure by controlling the GN2 flow
through the bus tunnel has been replaced.  The old valve was subject
to icing on its bearing surfaces.  We have also moved all the
pressure transducers used to monitor nitrogen pressure in the
coils to an easy to reach position, away from the control valves.
This change should make the pressure readings more reliable.

Miklos Porkolab and Paul Bonoli were at PPPL this week for a
meeting on ITER RF.  Earl Marmar and Jim Irby were also at PPPL for
a meeting on ITER diagnostics.
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenfairfax cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.16 /  fairfax@sensei /  Fairfax leaving MIT Alcator
     
Originally-From: fairfax@sensei.pfc.mit.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Fairfax leaving MIT Alcator
Date: 16 SEP 94 13:02:43 GMT
Organization: MIT PLASMA FUSION CENTER

Dear spf readers;

After a great deal of thought, I've resigned my position as head of the 
Engineering and Operations section of the Alcator C-MOD project.  I've accepted
a position with a consulting engineering firm called Failure Analysis
Associates.  I will try and maintain contact with fusion reseach and this
group but I'm not sure yet just how that will be managed.  The weekly Alcator
progress reports may not always appear.

The dream of clean, safe, abundant energy is a compelling one, and I have 
enjoyed every one of the 16 or so years that I have spent in this field.
I've never been one to feel threatened by cold fusion or other alternatives;
my goal is the development of a practical fusion energy source.  I'll use
whatever conditions are necessary to achieve that end.  I must admit that
the original P&F-style cold fusion claims seemed too good to be true, and
20 years engineering experience has shown me that things that sound too good
to be true usually aren't.  If fusion was easy, electricity would be free.

The extradinary promise of fusion still attracts me, just as it arouses extreme
passion in some of the people who contribute to this group.  Let's all remember
that we are working for the same goal, and that a diversity of approaches is 
both good and necessary.  

I hope to maintain some involvement in the field in my new role as a consultant.
My departure from MIT is a matter of personal and professional growth, not an
indication that I feel fusion will never become practical.  Good luck to you
all, and keep up the good work.

Steve Fairfax

cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenfairfax cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.16 / John Logajan /  Re: Ionisation of the PMK Mantle (lyric)
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@mirage.skypoint.net (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Ionisation of the PMK Mantle (lyric)
Date: 16 Sep 1994 13:51:27 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Arthur      Carlson        TK (awc@slcawcipp-garching.mpg.de) wrote:
: First the radiation losses (from the mantle, now).

Realizing you are addressing BL, but by implication fusion energy
production, isn't it possible to find remedies for problems that
you may find.

For instance, if you have large radiation losses, and if there is a
material which is capable of reflecting those frequencies back into
the plasma, wouldn't it make sense to, say, surround the plasma with
a sphere of reflective material.

Thus if you can get high reflectivity, doesn't that alter your
numbers, and thus your conclusions about the feasibility of such
a device (though diverging slightly from the original)?

--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com -- 612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills  MN 55112 USA           -
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.16 / John Logajan /  Re: experiment - recombination vs combustion
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@mirage.skypoint.net (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: experiment - recombination vs combustion
Date: 16 Sep 1994 13:59:52 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Thomas S. Zemanian (ts_zemanian@pnl.gov) wrote:
: Also, could you address my ignorance on another point?  When you talk of
: recombination, what reaction are you referring to?  I stepped into this
: forum in midstream, and I fear I may be mistaken as to the actual setup
: proposed.

I think you have assumed them correctly (as far as I am aware) -- it is the
reversible reaction:

    2(H2O) <==> 2H2 + O2

                 ^
                 |
                 V

                H2 <==> H + H*    (H* = hydrino)

Where some of the H on the right hand side might be reduced to the
hydrino state (a postulated sub-ground state in which the electron
drops to a level lower than predicted by current mainstream theory.)

--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com -- 612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills  MN 55112 USA           -
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.17 / A Rivero /  Re: Fading: the plots
     
Originally-From: rivero@sol.unizar.es (Alejandro Rivero)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fading: the plots
Date: Sat, 17 Sep 1994 00:23:14 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

> Originally-From: kemidb@aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
> 
> [...]  rivero@sol.unizar.es (Alejandro Rivero) writes:
> 
> >Well, here come the plots, as seen in the GNU plot dumb terminal output:
> 
> [...plots snipped out...]
> 
> >that is all. I dont know what you think about, but for one
> >accostummed to read papers on local axiomatic quantum field theory,
> >the publication rate continues high!
> 
> I beg to disagree. I am going to try to get the equivalent statistics for the
>(roughly) contemporary fields, HTSC and buckminsterfullerene (C60). In the case
>of HTSC, where t = 0 in 1986, I am told there are now over 20000 papers. I'd be
> willing to bet that the submissions curve would have a peak just like that for
>'cold fusion', but then instead of a steady decay, I expect a levelling off not
>far below that peak and followed by a gradual rise as more and more researchers
> hop on the bandwaggon. The same for C60, I reckon. Let's wait and see what I
> find. All three areas are, after all, inherently exciting stuff - unlike
> axiomatic QM field theory (sorry, Al, just my humble opinion).
> 
My guess for HTSC would be a very big initial peak, am steady decay, 
and then other secondary peak associated to the ambient temperature SC. 
Probably the patents flux will more constant. As for C60, I d expext
similar patterns to cold fusion, but Im not very sure. 

Anyway, note that the inherent characteristics of fusion are somehow
different to HTSC or C60. Fusion development seems to be slow, 
(As AQFT :-) but it has a potental for big impact in the public -literally.

                                        Alex

cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenrivero cudfnAlejandro cudlnRivero cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.17 / Richard Blue /  Whose paradigm goes too far
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Whose paradigm goes too far
Date: Sat, 17 Sep 1994 00:23:29 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Prasad suggests that *I* am insisting the CF reactions must be nuclear.
Not so!  I have been insisting that CF cannot involve nuclear reactions.
The experimental evidence is overwhelming in that regard.  Test after
test has indicated that there are no nuclear reactions involved.

Obviously there is a need for an occasional recap of where this
discussion has been.  Let me see if I can summarize the Rothwell
position on experimental evidence for CF.

(1)Electrolysis of D2O with a palladium cathode and high D to Pd
ratio can result in the generation of excess heat via nuclear fusion
with commensurate amounts of 4He being produced in an aneutronic
process that also results in the emission of no gamma rays and no
X-rays.

(2)  In the hands of a few skilled electrochemists the PdD system
can demonstrate the CF effect with a high probability for success.
The numerous failures in attempts to replicate CF experiments can
be discounted as being the result of poor experimental technique
such as failure to maintain an appropriately clean CF cell.

(3)  The use of H2O with Pd serves as a suitable control and
calibration experiment since H2O with Pd never shows any excess
heat.

(4)  Electrolysis of H2O with a nickel cathode can reproducibly
generate excess heat with virtually no special experimental
requirements other than the avoidance of contamination of the
cathode.  No nuclear reaction products have ever been associated
with this process, at least not by the people conducting the
experiments.

(5)  Ultrasound focused through D2O onto titanium or palladium
foils can, in a guaranteed commercial process, result in the
generation of excess heat and commensurate 4He as well as other
nuclear transformation products.

Now we come to the clincher.  Jed Rothwell insists that an simple
aluminum rotor in H2O will reproducibly result in the generation
of large amounts of excess heat through a CF process with
4He as the principle reaction product.  The details of the
reaction process in unspecified, and there is no experimental
evidence indicating any reaction and no 4He-detection has been
attempted.

Jed's argument to support his conclusion concerning the Griggs
device is that the excess heat is an experimental certainty and
that the previous (5) established experimental "facts" serve
as confirmation of his model for the Griggs process.

I note that there simply is no overlap between any combination
of the experimental conditions in this list and Jed's model.
Nowhere has ultrasound resulted in excess heat with H2O or
with aluminum.  Nowhere has H2O with any process resulted in
a claim for excess heat and a detected reaction product.

How far can this perversion of science be taken before the sincere
advocates of cold fusion research begin to object to this
pathology?

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.17 / Richard Blue /  Griggs device flow measurements
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Griggs device flow measurements
Date: Sat, 17 Sep 1994 00:23:30 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I have a question for Jed Rothwell concerning the metering of the
flow from those GG's operating in the field.  In response to my
question concerning the instrumentation associated with GGs
you said:

"Yes, by law they must be.  You must be able to tell at a glance
what the flow, temperature and pressure are in a steam generator."

Now over the course of some eight years I fired steam boilers for
heating public buildings, and I have been around steam distribution
systems for many more years.  Yet I have never seen a flow meter
of any sort associated with a steam boiler.  Safety requirements
are generally met by pressure monitoring and popoffs to prevent
overpressure.  Other instrumentation was associated with the
maintenance of appropriate water levels and temperature.

I question whether we can be assured that Griggs devices in the
field must be equipped with flow metering instrumentation.  I
would rather be assured that they are, in fact, so equipped, and
then I would ask for a more complete description of what the
instruments in use actually are.  Is the mass flow of steam
actually monitored continuously?

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.16 / Robert Virzi /  Re: Let's send Tom to Cartersville, GA
     
Originally-From: rv01@harvey.gte.com (Robert Virzi)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Let's send Tom to Cartersville, GA
Date: 16 Sep 1994 14:11:22 GMT
Organization: GTE Laboratories, Waltham, MA

Me too.  Count me in for a share of Tom's expenses.  Well worth it
to get this sorted out, IMO.  

Bob Virzi
-- 

  rvirzi@gte.com            Just another ascii character...
  +1(617)466-2881           

cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenrv01 cudfnRobert cudlnVirzi cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.16 / Thomas Zemanian /  Re: Let's send Tom to Cartersville, GA
     
Originally-From: ts_zemanian@pnl.gov (Thomas S. Zemanian)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Let's send Tom to Cartersville, GA
Date: 16 Sep 1994 15:57:41 GMT
Organization: Battelle PNL


I'm in.  Will  $30 do the trick?  Is anyone willing to be the banker?

--Tom

--
The opinions expressed herein are mine and mine alone.  Keep your filthy
hands off 'em! 
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudents_zemanian cudfnThomas cudlnZemanian cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.16 / Thomas Zemanian /  Re: experiment - recombination vs combustion
     
Originally-From: ts_zemanian@pnl.gov (Thomas S. Zemanian)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: experiment - recombination vs combustion
Date: 16 Sep 1994 16:07:21 GMT
Organization: Battelle PNL

In article <35c8co$fro@stratus.skypoint.com>, jlogajan@mirage.skypoint.net
(John Logajan) wrote:

> 
> I think you have assumed them correctly (as far as I am aware) -- it is the
> reversible reaction:
> 
>     2(H2O) <==> 2H2 + O2
> 
>                  ^
>                  |
>                  V
> 
>                 H2 <==> H + H*    (H* = hydrino)
> 
> Where some of the H on the right hand side might be reduced to the
> hydrino state (a postulated sub-ground state in which the electron
> drops to a level lower than predicted by current mainstream theory.)

Thank you, that is what I had thought was meant.  However, I am troubled by
the energeticcs of the scheme.  Merely the application of a catalyst cannot
increase the equilibrium ratio of H*/H.  Thus, removal of said catalyst
cannot allow that ratio to revert to a lower value, thereby  absorbing
ambient energy.

This still smacks of a thermo violation.  There's got to be a work input to
increase H*/H.

--Tom

--
The opinions expressed herein are mine and mine alone.  Keep your filthy
hands off 'em! 
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudents_zemanian cudfnThomas cudlnZemanian cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.16 /  TJSEL /  Re: Let's send Tom to Cartersville, GA
     
Originally-From: tjsel@aol.com (TJSEL)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Let's send Tom to Cartersville, GA
Date: 16 Sep 1994 14:25:02 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

In article <1994Sep15.172447.1746@vanlab.byu.edu>, jonesse@vanlab.byu.edu
writes:

<$20-30 contribution...>

As a lurker who has been following this for a while I would love to see
this run to ground.  Count me in.  I'm getting a little tired of reading
all these posts with arguments that just can't be reconciled.  We will
need a physical address, of course.
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudentjsel cudlnTJSEL cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Sat Sep 17 04:37:03 EDT 1994
------------------------------
1994.09.17 / Chris Parkinson /  Re: As The Rotor Turns
     
Originally-From: parky@ix.netcom.com (Chris Parkinson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: As The Rotor Turns
Date: 17 Sep 1994 18:42:39 GMT
Organization: Netcom

In <1994Sep16.163810.8489@debug.cuc.ab.ca> Lforbes@debug.cuc.ab.ca writes: 

>
>Re the continuing soap opera (or striptease?) of the Griggs device, I
>would be willing to contribute 20 bucks for sending someone to
>Cartersville to obtain a rational explanation of what's going on. 
>
>Less excess heat, more light.
>
>Regards,
>Laurie Forbes
>
>

Great send it to Tom's fund for Georgia.
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenparky cudfnChris cudlnParkinson cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.16 / Mike Jamison /  Re: Reply to Rothwell/Amoco, Dufour efforts
     
Originally-From: edwlt12@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov (Mike Jamison (ADF))
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reply to Rothwell/Amoco, Dufour efforts
Date: 16 Sep 1994 16:03 EDT
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center

In article <Cvz6uw.D11@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, crb7q@watt.seas.Virgin
a.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes...
>In article <34rhse$gh9@ixnews1.ix.netcom.com>,
>Chris Parkinson <parky@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>In <CvtKoK.D48@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU
(Cameron Randale Bass) writes: 

[stuff deleted]
> 
>>but really, why are you assuming so much. I'll have you know that I
>>along with my boss (actually he did most of the work), at a rocket
>>company, created THE program that all interfaces now are using for
>>data acquisition. We created it on a Mac back in 1985 thru 1986. 

Apparently somethinglike Labtech Notebook, which still isn't "THE" data
acq. interface - and the Mac *definitely is not* "THE" computer to perform
acquisition on - not that this has anything to do with anything :-)
> 
>     Do you believe that one should sample a voltage varying wildly on 
>     millisecond timescales every 600 seconds or so?  How would you feel 
>     about *one or two* datapoints in a ten minute boiloff in which
>     all the experimental parameters are varying wildly, in fact so wildly
>     that they melted a piece of Kel-F in the cell at some point?
>     Do you think that is a reasonable way of experimentation when the 
>     input voltage is the means by which power is integrated?
> 
>     And what would you think of two researchers in the south of France
>     who explained that the *reason* for this obviously inadequate experimental
>     technique is that they had only one PC to sample all their cells?
> 
>     I don't know about you, but I'd chuckle. 

Dale is chuckling, of course, because of the max. speed of data acq. systems.

When I first worked for Keithley DAC, 'way back in '85', we were able to
measure one channel at 33 *thousand* samples per second.  When adding in
settling times for switching between channels, we had to back down to about
7,000 samples/sec.

If memory serves, P&F have [had?] either 56 or 64 channels to measure.  So,
if we say they have 64 channels to measure, and [for the sake opf easy
division :-)] their system is capable of 6,400 samples/sec, each channel
could be sampled 100 times/second - *back in 1985, with a $2,000 data acq.
system, using an 8088 based PC*.

Nowadays, data acquisition systems can store data collected at those rates
[and faster] to hard disk drives, for hours of data acquiring.
> 

Mike Jamison

> 
"Scientific research consists in seeing what everyone else has seen, but
thinking what no one else has thought"

						-A. Szent-Gyorgyi
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenedwlt12 cudfnMike cudlnJamison cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.17 / Chuck Sites /  Re: Let's send Tom to Cartersville, GA
     
Originally-From: chuck@iglou.iglou.com (Chuck Sites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Let's send Tom to Cartersville, GA
Date: Sat, 17 Sep 1994 21:38:23 GMT
Organization: The Internet Gateway of Louisville, KY

scott@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Scott Hazen Mueller) writes:

>In article <940917044751_70047.3047_EHB197-1@CompuServe.COM> 70047.3047
compuserve.com (Bill Page) writes:
>>I'll add my pledge of $20 - $30. Since it was Steve's idea, lets draft
>>Steve Jones as the banker. Please make cheques or money orders payable
>>to ...?

>I just mentioned this to my wife, and she's convinced me we can chip in
>20 bucks.  I agree with Bill that Steve should be the banker.

>-- 
>Scott Hazen Mueller scott@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG or (tandem|ub-gate)!zorch!scott
>Mail fusion-request@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG for emailed sci.physics.fusion digests.

Count me in for a 20.  IMHO GG sounds like a scam, and I think Rothwell is 
doing the CF community a disservice in promoting this device as an industrial 
strength cold fusion device.  I could be wrong though and there maybe 
something to it. (Yeah right).  I'm reminded of the mechanical equivalent
of heat experiments we did in junior high school.  I think our % error 
allowed for a few runs to show excess heat.

Have Fun,
Chuck Sites
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.17 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Ionisation of the PMK Mantle (lyric)
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Ionisation of the PMK Mantle (lyric)
Date: Sat, 17 Sep 1994 21:49:33 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <35a5tiINN177i@sat.ipp-garching.mpg.de> bds@ipp-garching.mpg.
e (Bruce       Scott          TK  ) writes:
>Just a quickie this time:
>
>In article <359nkcINNgbk@sat.ipp-garching.mpg.de>, 
>	awc@slcawcipp-garching.mpg.de (Arthur      Carlson        TK  ) writes:
>
>|> [...]  I haven't checked Koloc's numbers, but a
>|> transition from a gas to a plasma around 1 eV sounds about right.  At
>|> one bar of pressure this corresponds to a total particle density of
>|> about 6e23 m^-3.
>
>I just note that the ionisation zone in the Sun's atmosphere occurs at
>T a little less than 1 ev, or 11000 K. The mass density there is of
>order 5 x 10^(-7) gm/cm3.

I missed these posts, due to a squirrel that punctured the physical
connect to our news feed, and it did take them a while to straighten
the line out.  Actually, it still needs a bit of conditioning. 
If I don't respond to other of your posts in which you have an 
interest, then please email them to me.   thanks. 

This is the photosphere?  

If not, what is the density of the photosphere?  I have a reason
for asking.  It is that there is a PMK related "only Paul Koloc" 
says, type prediction that "not-very-deep" below the sun's surface 
fusion is going on, and that this effect is strong enough 
significantly to affect long term weather trends on earth.  

>-- 
>Gruss,
>Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
>Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
>bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de                               -- W Gibson
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc, Bx 1037 Prometheus II Ltd, College Park MD 20741-1037    |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+


cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.17 / Ryan Bissell /  Cavitation/ Griggs device.
     
Originally-From: ryan.bissell@lunatic.com (Ryan Bissell) 
Originally-From: ryan.bissell@lunatic.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Cavitation/ Griggs device.
Date: 17 Sep 94 00:39:00 GMT
Organization: The Lunatic Fringe BBS - Richardson, Tx - (214) 235-5288

To:72240.1256@compuserve.com

To: 72240.1256@compuserve.com
Originally-From: ryan.bissell@lunatic.com


Jed,


I've been lurking about in s.p.f for about a month now, and I'm 
intrigued by this process everyone calls "cavitation".
I'm not very knowledgeable on fusion, but I'd like to learn more
about this one particular niche.

Could you direct me to some information on it? Something definitive,
but in layman terms.

I'd like some general information, but specifically on the process known
as... um... "soluluminescence" (?!?) where one big cavitating bubble is 
created; specific information on how this is done (procedure).


Oh! And I was also curious about something else-- you stated in one of
your replies to stolphi that the Griggs machine turned hydrogen into
helium....

What happens to the helium?


Thanks,


Ryan


* The two most common elements: Hydrogen and Stupidity.

09/17/94
---
* CmpQwk #UNREG * UNREGISTERED EVALUATION COPY


----
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
The Lunatic Fringe BBS * 214-235-5288 * 3 nodes * Richardson, TX*
UseNet,ILink,RIME,FIDO,Intelec,LuciferNet,PlanoNet,U'NI-net and more!
Free 30 Day Trial Subscription * Upload/Download on First Call!!
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenbissell cudfnRyan cudlnBissell cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.18 / Gary Steckly /  Re: Let's send Tom to Cartersville, GA
     
Originally-From: gsteckly@dgim.doc.ca (Gary Steckly)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Let's send Tom to Cartersville, GA
Date: Sun, 18 Sep 94 03:32:49 GMT
Organization: Communications Canada

jonesse@vanlab.byu.edu wrote:
: Propose we send one of the professors of the college of s.p.f., namely
: Tom Droege, to Cartersville, Georgia to take a close look at the 
: Griggs excess-heat-from-light-water device.  I think Tom can sort through
: the smoke, or steam as the case may be, and bring back some hard facts 
: one way or the other.  

: The suggestion by Jed that the Griggs device is
: "a CF reactor, it converts hydrogen into helium and releases energy"
: is, er, hard to believe.  

: I'd be willing to contribute to Tom's air fare.  If 20 of us chip
: in $20-30 each that should about do it. 

: How 'bout it, Tom?

Since Tom hasn't responded yet, how about you Steve?  I will chip in as 
high as $30 CDN (whatever that is in greenbacks at the time) to send 
either of you. It would be nice to see you and Jed working on something 
together instead of this constant bickering ;-)

Be warned though...Jed is pretty sure of this thing.  He offered to 
pay for my skeptic brother-in-law's trip to Atlanta to check out this 
pump.  The condition was that my B-I-L  would pay if he couldn't prove 
that the tests were flawed. Unfortunately, he declined because he was so 
sure of his belief in the 1st and 2nd laws (sometimes you would think he 
was a physicist and not just a lowly engineer...he is so darned sure of 
himself) but you can't choose your family ;-)

So who do I send the cheque to?

Gary

p.s. I don't think this is fusion either, but it sounds like something 
interesting is happening...ignoring it won't make it go away.
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudengsteckly cudfnGary cudlnSteckly cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.18 / Barry Smith /  Re: Let's send Tom to Cartersville, GA
     
Originally-From: barry@bluesky.com (Barry Smith)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Let's send Tom to Cartersville, GA
Date: 18 Sep 1994 04:43:13 GMT
Organization: Blue Sky Research

In article <35d38d$j0l@fnnews.fnal.gov>
Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege) writes:

> So appoint a treasurer.
> If you collect say 80% of what the trip will cost,
> I will go.

Count me in for $25!


Barry Smith, Blue Sky Research
barry@bluesky.com
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnSmith cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.17 /  jonesse@acoust /  Re: Let's send Tom to Cartersville, GA
     
Originally-From: jonesse@acoust.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Let's send Tom to Cartersville, GA
Date: 17 Sep 94 18:20:09 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

In article <35d38d$j0l@fnnews.fnal.gov>, 
Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege) writes:
> In article <35cntu$qt9@newsbf01.news.aol.com>, tjsel@aol.com (TJSEL) 
> says:
>>
>>In article <1994Sep15.172447.1746@vanlab.byu.edu>, 
> jonesse@vanlab.byu.edu
>>writes:
>>
>><$20-30 contribution...>
>>
>>As a lurker who has been following this for a while I would love to see
>>this run to ground.  Count me in.  I'm getting a little tired of reading
>>all these posts with arguments that just can't be reconciled.  We will
>>need a physical address, of course.
> 
> Wow!!  I am honored by all the folks that want to send me to 
> Cartersville.  Cartersville has to rank right up there ahead of 
> Cleveland and Newark as places to go.  But sign me up as a contributer.  
> Remember the cheap air fares are in place.  
> 
> Actually I have not been following the thread of the Griggs machine.
> I have no idea what it is supposed to do.  
> 
> But I think I could not resist such a challenge.  So appoint a 
> treasurer.  If you collect say 80% of what the trip will cost, I 
> will go.
> 
> Tom Droege

Great, Tom -- and a remarkable support in just a few days.  The following
have offered to contribute to Tom's trip:
Steven Jones
Bill Page
Scott Hazen Mueller
Richard Schroeppel
Tarl Neustaedter
Doug Elias
Bradley Sherman
David Cyganski
Thomas Zemanian
Robert Virzi
Tjsel (above post)
Laurie Forbes (if I understood her correctly)

and Tom Droege offered to kick in 20% of the cost; hope he won't need to
do that much folks.  I think all of the above are in the $20 - $30 range.

Bill Page suggested that I be banker; but I think the checks should just
go directly to Tom Droege.  I don't think we need a middle man, and frankly
having me in the middle might muddle the plan with the folks in Georgia.
(I'm perceived as too much of a skeptic, I fear.)

The support offers have come either to the net or to me, and I suspect
that Tom might have received a few directly.  Suggest Tom check on the
air ticket price then see whether we have generated enough support yet.  If
so, suggest Tom provide his address so we can get the show on the road.
Looks like there may be room for a few more supporters, and they could
respond to s.p.f. or to Tom directly at this stage.

Hey, we're sending a scientist to report back to the college of s.p.f. --
not bad if the folks in Georgia will let him in.  Good luck, Tom.

--Steve Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenjonesse cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.16 / Thomas Zemanian /  Re: Griggs device tests
     
Originally-From: ts_zemanian@pnl.gov (Thomas S. Zemanian)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs device tests
Date: 16 Sep 1994 21:26:22 GMT
Organization: Battelle PNL


Just a thought:

If the GG works by ultrasonic abstraction and injection of deuterons from
D2O and HDO into a metal lattice, as is claimed, shouldn't the process then
be pH dependent?  Surely abstraction of a deuteron from H2DO+ should be
easier than from HDO.

Moreover, if we are relying on the natural abundance of D in the water,
then the process must also be abstracting and injecting large numbers of
protons as well.  This suggests a simple experiment: sonicate a small
quantity of water in contact with a known metal hydride former (although it
should work with steel or aluminum, if the GG works as described) and
monitor the pH of the sample.  If we're really withdrawing protons, the pH
should rise noticably.

--Tom

--
The opinions expressed herein are mine and mine alone.  Keep your filthy
hands off 'em! 
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudents_zemanian cudfnThomas cudlnZemanian cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.17 / R Schroeppel /  Tom's trip to Georgia
     
Originally-From: rcs@cs.arizona.edu (Richard Schroeppel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Tom's trip to Georgia
Date: Sat, 17 Sep 1994 01:45:29 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I'll cheerfully chip in $25 toward Tom's ticket.
But if the trip is to be useful, Tom might want to take
some equipment with him.  He might also want to call up
Randi, who makes a career of exposing charlatans, for some
suggestions about what to look for.  Also, it would be
well to remember Feynman's cautionary tale.

Rich Schroeppel   rcs@cs.arizona.edu

cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenrcs cudfnRichard cudlnSchroeppel cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.16 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Does ball lightning violate virial thm?
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Does ball lightning violate virial thm?
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 1994 22:17:28 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <harrCw6Kot.9p9@netcom.com> harr@netcom.com (Charles (Chuck) Harrison) writes:

>Let me also state that I am uncomfortable with Paul
>Koloc's argument that the virial theorem must be applied
>over subregions of the PMK independently, and that it
>is not valid to apply it to a simply-connected region
>surrounding the whole thing.  It seems to me that this
>is equivalent to saying that the simplified MHD force
>*does not apply* on the current sheet at the surface of
>the (simplified model) Koloc kernel.  .. . 

>(1)    grad p = - _j_ cross _B_
>
>    p   = pressure
>    _j_ = current density
>    _B_ = magnetic field

After looking at this, perhaps the problem is the definition
of pressure "p".  I was taking this to mean generalized pressure
such as produced by Lorentz force on a surface, or gas/plasma
pressure or even mouse bump running from a cat.  Miketa Misch!

However, I'm now supicious it means just gas pressure, which
then is not general enough to cover the PMK.  That's because
we have a Kernel vacuum poloidal field region bounded by 
TWO current surfaces (idealized).  Across the outside boundary
rests the pressure of the atmosphere p(air), and across the 
inside toroidal one we have j_pol X B_tor.  When we add up
all the surfaces on an excursion in the equatorial plane to
the major axis, we find that the accumulated pressure works out
to be: 
     gas  + j_pol X B_tor (at torus hole) =    
            j_pol X B_tor (at outer ring edge) + j_Mantle X B_pol.  

.. .

>            .  .        .           I am willing to
>entertain this conjecture (i.e. that (1) is *not valid
>everywhere* within a PMK).  After all, the kernel
>surface is a pretty bizarre environment.  However we
>then have to explain what is missing from (1).  On
>the other hand, there may be other ways to work around
>the virial constraints (see other random postings of
>mine).

I'm not so worried about the current boundaries, just the
meaning of his "p". 

>-Chuck Harrison
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc, Bx 1037 Prometheus II Ltd, College Park MD 20741-1037    |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.16 /  Atlantur /  Re: Reply to David Davies on theory and beams
     
Originally-From: atlantur@aol.com (Atlantur)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reply to David Davies on theory and beams
Date: 16 Sep 1994 18:52:06 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

In article <9407051718.AA50842@pilot1.cl.msu.edu>, blue@pilot.msu.edu
(Richard A Blue) writes:

Your response to Davids article was very well put and your attitude
towards theories and the current models of nuclear fusion are very
impressive. It is always refreshing to hear from someone who is not
'stuck' in general accepted ways.
I also agree that solutions to Fusion (or any other 'border' research
matter)
can only be found if we observe the whole 'picture'.
Quantum mechanics seem to have a keyrole for most current problems
e.g. Fusion, Gravity etc.
We should not forget that the solar fusionreaktion is only posibble 
by the effect of 'tunneling' as calculations show.
Mass/Temperature (energie) relations do NOT explain it all.
New ways wich incooperate more Quatumeffects should really be considered.
As for myself - the Wave/Particle dualityprinciple has a strange
attraction
to me.I keep thinking that within this priciple we find the answers to
most of our questions.But i will come up with a theorie - somday.

If you have any suggestions or comments to this matter, i would be
delightet to hear from you.

Karsten Gutgesell
 
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenatlantur cudlnAtlantur cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.16 /  Atlantur /  Re: plasma vortex model of matter
     
Originally-From: atlantur@aol.com (Atlantur)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: plasma vortex model of matter
Date: 16 Sep 1994 19:17:08 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

In article <30v0ou$bq9@scratchy.reed.edu>, jfaludi@reed.edu. (jfaludi)
writes:

The 'Plasma Vortex Model' you are describing seems to be nothing more
than another word for the Quatummechanic term of Duality.

If your Plasma model describes matter as energie instead of 'matter'
it does nothing more than QM.
In QM you have the Wave(energie)/Particle(matter) duality.
Basically 'Matter' is consistent of Particles. So forget obout  a direct
'Matter' out of energie theorie. BUT:
A Photon for example can be seen as Wave (energetic form) OR as
Particel ('Matter' form).
This is all very basically explained but you may put the duality priciple
as: 'Matter' can be seen as build from 'parts' who are both - energie and
matter.
(If you are willing to explain Waves as Energie and Particles as Matter)
(This kind of view would also explain Gravity as 'resting-energypotential'
Where every Quant stabilizing as particle would generate gravity as a
by-product)
But this theorie is not yet under resaerch.
So for any other reference to this subject i would recommend studying
Quatumphysics.

Karsten Gutgesell
(Atlantur)
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenatlantur cudlnAtlantur cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.17 / Bill Page /  Re: Let's send Tom to Cartersville, GA
     
Originally-From: 70047.3047@compuserve.com (Bill Page)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Let's send Tom to Cartersville, GA
Date: Sat, 17 Sep 1994 04:53:09 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Steve Jones and others wrote:
<<
 $20-30 contribution...
>>

And Tom Droege replied:
<<
Wow!!  I am honored by all the folks that want to send me to 
Cartersville. ...

Actually I have not been following the thread of the Griggs machine.
I have no idea what it is supposed to do.  

But I think I could not resist such a challenge.  So appoint a 
treasurer.  If you collect say 80% of what the trip will cost, I 
will go.
>>

Tom, you're our man! <grin>

I'll add my pledge of $20 - $30. Since it was Steve's idea, lets draft
Steve Jones as the banker. Please make cheques or money orders payable
to ...?


Cheers,

Bill Page.

cudkeys:
cuddy17 cuden3047 cudfnBill cudlnPage cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.17 / Scott Mueller /  Re: Let's send Tom to Cartersville, GA
     
Originally-From: scott@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Scott Hazen Mueller)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Let's send Tom to Cartersville, GA
Date: Sat, 17 Sep 1994 05:12:21 GMT
Organization: At Home; Salida, CA

In article <940917044751_70047.3047_EHB197-1@CompuServe.COM> 70047.3047@
ompuserve.com (Bill Page) writes:
>I'll add my pledge of $20 - $30. Since it was Steve's idea, lets draft
>Steve Jones as the banker. Please make cheques or money orders payable
>to ...?

I just mentioned this to my wife, and she's convinced me we can chip in
20 bucks.  I agree with Bill that Steve should be the banker.

-- 
Scott Hazen Mueller scott@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG or (tandem|ub-gate)!zorch!scott
Mail fusion-request@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG for emailed sci.physics.fusion digests.

cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenscott cudfnScott cudlnMueller cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.16 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Stolfi on Griggs Gadget
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Stolfi on Griggs Gadget
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 1994 15:10:17 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <35b2i1$3ei$1@mhade.production.compuserve.com>,
Jed Rothwell  <72240.1256@CompuServe.COM> wrote:

>If you do a little arithmetic and look up a few numbers in
>the steam table, you can compute a rough C.O.P. any time, and you will get a
>mind-boggling result. 

      Ignoring all the necessary miracles, in this area
      your COP, as judged from your claims, doesn't compete with that
      of my heat pump.

                                dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.17 / Jed Rothwell /  Re: Griggs device flow measurements
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@CompuServe.COM>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs device flow measurements
Date: 17 Sep 1994 04:03:28 GMT
Organization: CFRA

blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue) asks:
 
     "I question whether we can be assured that Griggs devices in the field
     must be equipped with flow metering instrumentation."
 
I guess so. He puts one in all packages, I believe. I don't know if
that's part of the safety requirements or not, I know the temperature and
pressure gauges are, and they built into the off-the-shelf separation
tanks he supplies.
 
     "Other instrumentation was associated with the maintenance of 
     appropriate water levels and temperature.
 
Ah, now that's an interesting point. There is effectively no "water level"
with a GG. The water travels only a foot or so to go from cold to hot, there 
is no boiler tank. It is like one of the instantaneous European or Japanese 
water heaters over the kitchen sink. So, you might say, the flowmeter 
substitutes for the water level meter.
 
 
     "Is the mass flow of steam actually monitored continuously?"
 
It is when they test the C.O.P. How else can they do it? I can't answer for
what happens when they are not writing evaluations. I know the overall use
over months or years shows the thing is operating a good bit more efficiently
than the electric boilers they replace, which are close to 100% efficient.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.17 / Jed Rothwell /  Re: Let's send Tom to Cartersville, GA
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@CompuServe.COM>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Let's send Tom to Cartersville, GA
Date: 17 Sep 1994 04:05:14 GMT
Organization: CFRA

Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege) writes:
 
     "Wow!!  I am honored by all the folks that want to send me to
     Cartersville.'
 
Y'all better talk to Jim before setting this bandwagon in motion. He is a busy
guy, you should make reservations well ahead of time because they do not have
room for too many observers, and you better be ready to spend a couple of days
there because this is a test bed, things do not always work. No point in
showing up unannounced some week they plan to spend calibrating.
 
Tom Droege's evaluations of the ICCF4 papers make me think he is not qualified
to evaluate this or any other experiment. But that's Jim's business, not mine.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.17 / Jed Rothwell /  Re: Griggs device tests
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@CompuServe.COM>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs device tests
Date: 17 Sep 1994 04:08:35 GMT
Organization: CFRA

c1prasad@watson.ibm.com (prasad) says "I get real confused by all the feet,
pounds, degs F and BTUs...
 
Yup. Those are the units still used in American factories. I don't think they
plan to change anytime soon either. All the meters and instruments used by the
mech. engineering and HVAC people I have met are in pounds, fahrenheit, etc.
 
 
     "How's the *blank* run?  Is this with steam being still produced..."
 
If you slow down the rotor or choke back on the water flow, the ultrasound
goes away, and the effect stops. Then you get ordinary heating only. With some
rotors it is very difficult to hit the "sweet spot" where the effect turns on.
With other rotor designs, you can hit the spot easily, but you cannot optimize
it. Recently he developed one that produces heat over a broad range of inputs
and pretty good C.O.P. he says. I have not seen the data from it yet.
 
 
     "What difference in the operating conditions makes it go >1 ?  Is that
     data available/public/better-understood-now/predictable?"
 
I don't know if it is available or not. Jim knows, he has tons of data from
previous runs, and he has graphs showing the turn on and turn off for
different parameters. He showed me some examples, but we did not discuss it in
detail. I have learned a great deal about the GG, but only a fraction of what
there is to learn. I did not have a chance to discuss this level of detail. It
gets extremely involved, and Jim has in depth knowledge of fluid dynamics,
bubble formation and other factors which are over my head. I think he can
predict it and control it, but he may not be able to get it to hit a high
peak. He can always get a 110% C.O.P. but he has to fiddle around for a while
to bump it up to 160%. If he leaves all the settings alone after that, the
input and output will stabilize indefinitely.
 
 
     "Does the >1 condition have anything to do with the critical region of
     the water/steam system..."
 
I don't know. I do think that one important parameter is how full the pump is.
It hold roughly a gallon I think, and it has to be filled about halfway full
for optimum performance. (There is a small glass window on the test unit, and
he is making a heavy NASA plastic housing.) If it is half full, the top is all
steam, which may well have something to do with it. Some configurations suffer
from instability, in which most of the liquid will suddenly flash into steam,
effectively draining the pump. This "explosive deloading" kills the effect. It
is dramatic, he can demonstrate it by adjusting flow and pressure.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.17 / Jed Rothwell /  Re: What am I missing? (Griggs Gadget)
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@CompuServe.COM>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What am I missing? (Griggs Gadget)
Date: 17 Sep 1994 04:10:07 GMT
Organization: CFRA

schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz) asks:
 
     "Wouldn't it be more straightforward to simply hook the thing [GG] up to
     a generator that is incapable of putting out more power than X, and
     seeing if the output power is still Y?  Or am I missing something?"
 
That has been done. The electric motors driving the thing have been revved up
as high as they go, and the output is shown to be greater than the input
capacity of the motor. This was not done in any of the tests I observed
however. The motor on the test rig is a fairly large one (50 HP I think),
which is convenient because they frequently swap out GGs and they want one
motor that can push any size.
 
I don't know if the max rev test has been done with the dynamometer yet. It
would be interesting to see if a 30 HP motor really can produce 30 HP. With
one max rev test they had to manually spin the thing to get it turning, it was
loaded so high. The motor would not turn over by itself. It was clearly at the
edge of the motor's capacity. I would not recommend running one like that in
real life, I expect it is a good way to burn up an electric motor.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.17 / Paul Koloc /  Re: virial theorem: what about those photons?
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: virial theorem: what about those photons?
Date: Sat, 17 Sep 1994 05:53:33 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <35c21oINNs18@sat.ipp-garching.mpg.de> carlson@ipp-garching.mpg.de writes:
>In article <harrCw6Kv4.9zD@netcom.com>, harr@netcom.com (Charles
(Chuck) Harrison) writes:
>|> So we could have
>|>  (a) a significant energy density in the EM field
>|>       occupying the kernel-mantle cavity, and
>|>  (b) significant exchange of EM energy *and momentum*
>|>       with the energetic electrons in the kernel
>|>       and mantle.

Actually, the interaction will be with the plasma electrons, not the
energetic currents per se.  The thermal electron density at the Mantle's
plasma-vacuum field edge is sufficient to reflect cyclotron (here
synchrotron) very well.  In fact a compressed burning PMK has 
extraordinary dense fields fields in the plasma Kernel, so the 
total cyclotron radiation including its harmonics (say to the tenth)
will be essentially totally reflected due to the compression
enhanced electron density on the Mantle's inner surface  

Petr Kapitsa, of the old Russia, was the dear old fellow who 
believed BL was a kind of plasma shell crammed full of microwaves 
which were trapped because the shell had an exceptionally good 
"reflectivity".  Kind of sounds like a PMK's hyperconducting 
vacuum bounding skin layers.   Hmmmm!  maybe I did pick and
choose.  

Photon flux which reflexes generates twice the momentum exchange
with the reflecting surface as with an absorbing surface. The light 
pressure pulse generated by the momentum exchange due to the index 
of refraction change as the Q-switched light pulse exits the end 
of the rod was significant.  Think of it this way, the amplified 
light would spank" the  end of the rod as it departed. That whack 
was sharp, and consequently strong enough to produce microcracks 
in the ruby for 1 or 2 mm depth from the rods end.  Subsequently, 
when repolishing the end of the amplifier, chunks of cracked ruby would
crumble away and fall out of the end of the rod.  The cure was to 
cut the rod's end back by 2-3 cm and then start the plane parallel 
polishing again.  Aren't diamond saws handy.   

In ball lightning, whatever resident photon flux there is is
not significant in producing pressure at the Mantle, and if it
did it would "obey the Virial" since the light pressure would be 
transmitted "isobarically".  Consequently, mere gas pressure could
balance it well. 

>to explain ball lightning. It seems E&M has been fully considered in this 
>version of the virial theorem.

Now, I wouldn't say that.  

>Art Carlson
>[1] Schmidt, Physics of High Temperature Plasmas, Academic Press (1979), pp. 71-2.

Good era.  
>-- 
>To study, to finish, to publish. -- Benjamin Franklin

BTW , How's Karl Heinz S.  

>Dr. Arthur Carlson
>Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics
>Garching, Germany
>carlson@ipp-garching.mpg.de

cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.17 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Does ball lightning violate virial thm?
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Does ball lightning violate virial thm?
Date: Sat, 17 Sep 1994 06:22:24 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <35c3eeINNs18@sat.ipp-garching.mpg.de> carlson@ipp-garching.mpg.de writes:
>In article <harrCw6Kot.9p9@netcom.com>, harr@netcom.com (Charles
(Chuck) Harrison) writes:

>|> Art Carlson wishes to "set aside" the reports of high energy
>|> content in BL.  This is a seven-league step.  There is a
>|> reported example of "accidental calorimetry" [1] wherein a
>|> BL heated a large container of water.  It *may* be
>|> respectable to hand-wave away a single observation, or
>|> even a few dozen observations from which numerical estimates
>|> of energy content can be made.  It is going too far to
>|> ignore the much more common reports of BL disappearing
>|> with a "bang".

>It doesn't take much energy to make a bang. "Disappearing with a bang" is not
>inconsistent with the virial theorem. I'll have a look at Ref. 1. Do they report
>an energy density higher than 3e5 J/m^3?

Not so. For it's not "energy density" that generates the bang, its the
force/m^2-ABOVE-AMBIENT STP that is necessary, and "The Virial 
Theorem" rules this ++overpressure++ out.  

>As far as I know there are less than a dozen events estimated to 
>have a higher energy density.

There are studies by the Japanese, Russians, Austrians, Germans, 
and Americans that have compilied data of tens of thousands of
BL reports.  The problem for your "Virial Result" is that in a 
large proportion of cases the ball's were stable in turbulence, 
bouncing and even with rolling attachment to such things as high 
tension lines.  That REQUIRES coherence that can only come through 
"surface tension" or high internal energy.  I have seen devastation 
by one exploding Ball lightning, that even causes me to cringe a 
bit, since, even my "high internal energy" model may not suffice 
to explain the required observed work down by this particular BL.  

Perhaps I could publish names of BL investigators.  

>I don't know if the virial theorem applies to BL. I do know it applies to MHD
>theories of ball lightning. If there were no other alternative, I would tend to
>discount a dozen reports made under difficult conditions rather than such a
>general and straightforward result such as the virial theorem. But are we certain
>that there are no other alternatives? If you're going for the bang, chemical
>energy in an STP gas can be two orders of magnitude higher than the virial result.

BUT it still doesn't have the "rubber bands" of interlocking mag
field CROSSED tension and ionized field-sticking plasma to hold it 
together for bouncing.  Besides a BL does a better job of what soap 
bubbles just hint at doing.  

We are attempting to propose a program to answer these questions
in a stout size, but of course the wait will be excruciating.   
Attempting???  yes, if you only knew.  

>-- 
>Art Carlson
>To study, to finish, to publish. -- Benjamin Franklin

>Dr. Arthur Carlson
>Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics
>Garching, Germany
>carlson@ipp-garching.mpg.de
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc, Bx 1037 Prometheus II Ltd, College Park MD 20741-1037    |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.17 / Paul Koloc /  Re: What is a PMK
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What is a PMK
Date: Sat, 17 Sep 1994 06:41:29 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <Cw4pzu.36C@clw.cs.man.ac.uk> chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk (Charles Lindsey) writes:
>In <CvsrHD.60F@prometheus.UUCP> pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) writes:
>
>>.  Top compression of 
>>a PMK (it's fluid mechanical) could put the Kernel plasma at pressures 
>>10^4 to 10^5 higher than a tokamak plasma, and that means it might work, 
>>and work with a vengence even burning the good stuff.   So we might ALL 
>>get a trip to Mars.    

>How do you intend to compress your PMK to those densities? Put it in a
>cylinder with a piston and push, or do you intend to apply an external
>magnetic field to change the conditions inside?

Vigorously
Yes 
and
Probably not

There are coming on line, de-militarization of programs, whose 
technology will be useful to us in this area.  For example, we know 
of programs at LANL and LLNL, and Combustion Enegineering. 
>-- 
>Charles H. Lindsey -----------------------------------------------------------
>        At Home, doing my own thing.           Internet: chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk
>Voice: +44 161 437 4506                        Janet:    chl@uk.ac.man.cs.clw
>Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave., CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.     UUCP:     mucs!clerew!chl


cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.17 / C Harrison /  Re: McKubre's data & s.p.f experiment
     
Originally-From: harr@netcom.com (Charles (Chuck) Harrison)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: McKubre's data & s.p.f experiment
Date: Sat, 17 Sep 1994 13:48:56 GMT
Organization: Fitful

In article <1994Sep14.033418.26907@isus.uucp>,
Hoyt A. Stearns jr. <hoyt@isus.UUCP> wrote:
>In article <34ra7c$oda@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> al789@cleveland.Freenet.Edu
(John Logajan) writes:
[...]
>
>A Hydrocap works well.  It's a platinum catalyst powder inside a pumice-like
>stone usually used in lead-acid batteries.  I've been running a
>sealed Pd-Pt-D20 cell for years with one inside. 
>
>Hydrocap, 975 N.W. 95 St. Miami, FL 33150  305 696 2504.
>

Just *how* well, as far as absence of fits & starts?  I tried a
Hydrocap unit a few years ago in a flow-over catalyst
 situation and it liked to turn on & off.

Chuck
>-- 
>Hoyt A. Stearns jr.|hoyt@isus.stat.| International Society of Unified Science|
>4131 E. Cannon Dr. |     .com  OR  | Advancing Dewey B. Larson's Reciprocal  |
>Phoenix, AZ. 85028 |enuucp.asu.edu!| System- a unified physical theory.      |
>voice 602 996-1717 |stat.com!wierius!isus!hoyt_______________________________|


cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenharr cudfnCharles cudlnHarrison cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.16 /  Lforbes@debug. /  As The Rotor Turns
     
Originally-From: Lforbes@debug.cuc.ab.ca
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: As The Rotor Turns
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 1994 16:38:10 GMT
Organization: Debug Computer Services

Re the continuing soap opera (or striptease?) of the Griggs device, I
would be willing to contribute 20 bucks for sending someone to
Cartersville to obtain a rational explanation of what's going on. 

Less excess heat, more light.

Regards,
Laurie Forbes

cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenLforbes cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.18 / A Rivero /  RE Griggs device tests.
     
Originally-From: rivero@sol.unizar.es (Alejandro Rivero)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE Griggs device tests.
Date: Sun, 18 Sep 1994 00:13:36 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

There was someone asking for cold spots before.

Lets see. With a reservoir boiling and the other at, say
30 Celsius this makes 100/70 = 1.4, well over unity. 

I think this had been mentioned before, anyway.

Note that even could be possible to use a human body (T=37 C)
as "cold reservoir", of course the trick is not to draw 
a lot of heat from him... He is only a poor "non-reversible" source :-)

                                               Alex 
PS: Sometimes engineering works are made with endotermic coeficients
(the ones with the square roots in formulae) or specific cicles. I think
we are speaking here of the theoretical "cuasiestatic" coefficients, please 
correct  if Im wrong.

cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenrivero cudfnAlejandro cudlnRivero cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.18 / A Rivero /  Units et more flames. Was: Re: Griggs device tests.
     
Originally-From: rivero@sol.unizar.es (Alejandro Rivero)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Units et more flames. Was: Re: Griggs device tests.
Date: Sun, 18 Sep 1994 00:13:34 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

> Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@CompuServe.COM>
> mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel) writes:
>      "This device uses deuterium, then?  So presumably they're recycling it?
>      (too much $ otherwise)"
> Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. I wouldn't know about that, but I can tell
                                     ???????? why not?
> you there is more than enough deterium in the water pumped through the GG to
> power it at these levels indefinitely. It is 31 lbs per hour = 14,000 g water,
> which includes 2 g D2O. That's 4/20th's deuterium (oygen = 16, deuterium = 2 x
> 2), so we have 400 mg deuterium, and if you fuse half of that you get roughly
> 115,000 MJ (or 32,000 KWH) according to my calculations based on a paper by
> Richard Petrasso. [1] But what does he know?
Lets see the order... 4e-4 Kg are about 1e23 deuterons, no? Lets suposse
we get a fairly good cicle, with full reaction and getting about
10MeV by each initial deuteron, with seems a little opthimistic.      
Then it would be 1e27keV, which ammounts to 1.5e11 Joules, ie 1.5e5 MJ
I was going to speak of units anyway:
Do you ask which is the diff between my calc and yours? If so, sure
you has forgot when the first-year teacher explain the difference
between 1.000 Kg and 1Kg.
This brings me the point: you can choose between "international units"
to be understood broadly, and "natural units", which adapt to the size
of the problem to better show the physics inside. No point on
23 000 000 000 000 000 mBTU/sec or similar stuff. 

If anyone wants to follow the game, you can choose between:
1J  1e7 ergs 9e-4 Btu 1e-2 l-atm 0.7foot-pounds 2.5 e-4 Wh 3.7e-7 hp-h  
Now, lets go to the phylosophy

...> will.
Hey, I could accept it. As I accept that CG can produce more heat that 
any digital clock in the history ever produced...
...> a violation of the Second Law and therefore the machine does not exist.
Probably, if they use the wrong thermodinamic system to analize
it :-)  Sure Callen would got the right conclusion. BTW, I suposse that
all of you remember that the efficience if the heat pump is the 
inverse of the one of the engine... 
...> Jones will say, "X-rays, schmecks-rays, hand me a reasearch grant!" As one
I asume you are speaking of a branch or USA science unknow for me. Until
now, above a 95% of scientists I have known dont fit in your affirmation.
...> believe" Heck, a bunch of top scientists worked on Star Wars, didn't they?
I thougt that was a ENGINEERING project. I have a big respeto with some
of the persons involved, but I would not qualify it as fundamental research.
BTW, I think your Patriot missiles are now very good at high speeds.
> ... in CF today, because it hit's 'em in the pocket, where it hurts most.
?
> - Jed

						Alejandro Rivero
						Zaragoza Univ, Spain 
PS: Data, jed, data!!! 
> E-Mail Addresses:

cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenrivero cudfnAlejandro cudlnRivero cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.17 / C Harrison /  Re: O2 in CF (was Re:Reply to Rothwell...)
     
Originally-From: harr@netcom.com (Charles (Chuck) Harrison)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: O2 in CF (was Re:Reply to Rothwell...)
Date: Sat, 17 Sep 1994 14:55:41 GMT
Organization: Fitful

In article <lundgrca-150994124422@lundgrca.es.dupont.com>,
Cindy Lundgren <lundgrca@esvax.dnet.dupont.com> wrote:
[...]
>Just a thought from the lurking electrochemist. One way to perhaps
>investigate the role of recombination in excess heat is to do the
>electrolysis in a divided cell (separate chambers for anode and cathode
>divided by a membrane or connected with a salt bridge) to keep the anode
>product (O2) from reacting with the H2. This is a common technique used by
>electrochemists to eliminate reactions between electrolysis products. The
>caveat however is that the pH will change in both chambers (go basic in
>cathode/acidic in anode) which will change the overall voltage for the
>reactions unless the pH is adjusted during the course of the electrolysis. 
>		It will probably also increase the difficulty of doing the calorimetry
>(of which I blissfully know nothing about). :^)
>
>
>Cindy Lundgren

Our reigning s.p.f electrochemist ;-) - Dieter Britz - has also occasionally
suggested divided cells.

There is one provocative result from BARC in India [1] in which a divided
cell under Pons-Fleishcmann conditions was giving null results and then
gave a few events of excess heat or tritium production when the
cathode was exposed to oxygen or anolyte.

This work contributes to the oxygen-participation theory I cited
before [2].

Ray states that divided Pd/D2O cells have consistently given null
results.  A search of Dieter Britz's bibliography at
  wais://sunsite.unc.edu/cold-fusion?divided
gives us two nulls [3],[4] and one experiment indicating neutrons
[5].

-Chuck

[1] MKS Ray et al, "The Fleischmann-Pons phenomenon - a different
     perspective", _Fusion Technology_ 22:395-399 (1992).
[2] D Das, MKS Ray, "Fusion in condensed matter - a likely scenario",
     _Fusion Technology_ 24:115-121 (1993).
[3] Divisek J, Fuerst L, Balej J; "Energy balance of D2O 
     electrolysis with a palladium cathode." J. Electroanal. Chem. 
     278 (1989) 99. 
[4] Vielstich W, Iwasita T, von Buttlar H, Farzin K, Uebelguenn K;
     J. Electroanal. Chem. 303 (1991) 211.
[5] Sato T, Okamoto M, Kim P, Fujii Y, Aizawa O; "Detection of neutrons 
     in electrolysis of heavy water" Fusion Technol. 19 (1991) 357.

cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenharr cudfnCharles cudlnHarrison cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.17 / John Logajan /  Re: Let's send Tom to Cartersville, GA
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@mirage.skypoint.net (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Let's send Tom to Cartersville, GA
Date: 17 Sep 1994 16:13:29 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Tom Droege (Droege@fnal.fnal.gov) wrote:
: But I think I could not resist such a challenge.  So appoint a 
: treasurer.  If you collect say 80% of what the trip will cost, I 
: will go.

Presuming Tom can get the necessary invite from Griggs, we still have
some doubters about Tom's objectivity.  Since we want to please as
many points of view on SPF as possible and since Tom seems to be the
landslide winner in the "go check it out" sweepstakes, are there any
requirements that Tom's personal doubters have that might help to
ameliorate their doubts (beyond the obvious of sending someone else
who they trust more?)  This is necessarily going to be a compromise
arrangement and so it isn't going to please everyone.  I guess the
best we can hope for is that it pleases the most people.

I guess my idea of requirements would be:

1.) Seperate (from opinions and conclusions) and full reporting of all
    raw data collected and the means by which it was collected.

2.) Full justification of negative conclusions (i.e. lack of a full
    justification for a positive conclusion is not sufficient grounds
    in and of itself to reach a negative conclusion.)

3.) No sabotage!  (Yeah, you can remove the N-ray prism, but only after
    getting permission.  It is a question of ethics.)

Other doubter requirments???

--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com -- 612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills  MN 55112 USA           -
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.17 / C Harrison /  Re: Does ball lightning violate virial thm?
     
Originally-From: harr@netcom.com (Charles (Chuck) Harrison)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Does ball lightning violate virial thm?
Date: Sat, 17 Sep 1994 15:18:48 GMT
Organization: Fitful

In article <35c3eeINNs18@sat.ipp-garching.mpg.de>,
Arthur      Carlson        TK   <carlson@ipp-garching.mpg.de> wrote:
[...]
>I don't know if the virial theorem applies to BL. I do know it applies to MHD
>theories of ball lightning. 

Watch the vocabulary here to make sure you're not saying more (or less) than
makes sense.

Conventionally, the term "MHD" refers to a range of physical phenomena
in which certain simplifying assumptions (for example, no displacement
currents) can be made.  It seems to me (but not, I think, to Koloc)
that the virial theorem applies to PMK topology under the strict 
definitions of MHD.

So, under strict MHD definition, "virial applies to MHD model of BL"
is to me a mathematical tautology.

However strict MHD regime does not include all possible plasmoid
concepts in which there is a large amount of magnetic energy
storage.  Thus I would like to continue to explore the assumptions
underlying MHD virial theorem (and its extensions, such as you
recently cited, to less-strict MHD regimes).

-Chuck Harrison, still poking :-).

>
>Art Carlson


cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenharr cudfnCharles cudlnHarrison cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.17 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Griggs device tests
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs device tests
Date: Sat, 17 Sep 1994 16:16:42 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <35cl3a$8i1$1@mhadf.production.compuserve.com>,
Jed Rothwell  <72240.1256@CompuServe.COM> wrote:

>I am glad that Peachtree Heating &
>Airconditioning sends trained engineers to fix my HVAC, if they sent over a
>gaggle of PhD scientists, they would end up arging that my air conditioner is
>a violation of the Second Law and therefore the machine does not exist.

     Again Jed, spoken with the true conviction of a zealot.

     Q:  Who taught and trained the 'trained HVAC engineers'? 
     A:  A 'gaggle of PhD scientists'.

                                 dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.17 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Let's send Tom to Cartersville, GA
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Let's send Tom to Cartersville, GA
Date: Sat, 17 Sep 1994 16:19:43 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <35dptq$eef$2@mhadf.production.compuserve.com>,
Jed Rothwell  <72240.1256@CompuServe.COM> wrote:
>Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege) writes:
> 
>     "Wow!!  I am honored by all the folks that want to send me to
>     Cartersville.'
> 
>Y'all better talk to Jim before setting this bandwagon in motion. He is a busy
>guy, you should make reservations well ahead of time because they do not have
>room for too many observers, and you better be ready to spend a couple of days
>there because this is a test bed, things do not always work. No point in
>showing up unannounced some week they plan to spend calibrating.

     That figures.

>Tom Droege's evaluations of the ICCF4 papers make me think he is not qualified
>to evaluate this or any other experiment. But that's Jim's business, not mine.

     That figures too.

                                   dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.17 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Griggs device tests
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs device tests
Date: Sat, 17 Sep 1994 16:28:41 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <35dq43$eef$3@mhadf.production.compuserve.com>,
Jed Rothwell  <72240.1256@CompuServe.COM> wrote:
> 
>If you slow down the rotor or choke back on the water flow, the ultrasound
>goes away, and the effect stops. 

     What ultrasound?  I presume you have actual measurements of frequency
     response to back up this claim?

>Then you get ordinary heating only. With some
>rotors it is very difficult to hit the "sweet spot" where the effect turns on.
>With other rotor designs, you can hit the spot easily, but you cannot optimize
>it. Recently he developed one that produces heat over a broad range of inputs
>and pretty good C.O.P. he says. I have not seen the data from it yet.

     Narrow range of RPM.  Drop in indicated input power.  You make the
     call.

>I don't know. I do think that one important parameter is how full the pump is.
>It hold roughly a gallon I think, and it has to be filled about halfway full
>for optimum performance. (There is a small glass window on the test unit, and
>he is making a heavy NASA plastic housing.) If it is half full, the top is all
>steam, which may well have something to do with it. Some configurations suffer
>from instability, in which most of the liquid will suddenly flash into steam,
>effectively draining the pump. This "explosive deloading" kills the effect. It
>is dramatic, he can demonstrate it by adjusting flow and pressure.

     'Explosive deloading'?  How about flashing boiloff.  I demonstrate it
     regularly.

     I love the implied mystery and the neologisms.
 
                                  dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.17 / Chris Parkinson /  Re: Griggs device
     
Originally-From: parky@ix.netcom.com (Chris Parkinson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs device
Date: 17 Sep 1994 17:54:01 GMT
Organization: Netcom

In <53667@mindlink.bc.ca> Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Dunn) writes: 

>
>Bill Page wrote
>
>> My emphasis **. You may have noticed that everytime the word *aluminum*
>> occurs in this news group my ears perk up! :})
>>
>> Jed, has Griggs made any observations regarding the effects of different
>> types of rotor materials?
>
>In one of the science.space groups, there was a posting relating (if I
>haven't mis-remembered), an amateur rocket using aluminum foil with water
>as the oxidizer.  I don't have thermodynamic references handy to pursue
>this idea - presumably the idea is that there is some form of energy
>releasing mechanism related to the oxidation of aluminum to an oxide or
>hydroxide by water (presumably with the release of hydrogen).
>
>I wonder whether there is a possibility of aluminum oxidation in cavitation
>induced erosion of the aluminum rotor, either by water or by atmospheric
>oxygen dissolved in the water?  Perhaps Jed could give some upper limits to
>the amount of aluminum disappearing from the rotor during a run.
>
>
>
>--
>Bruce Dunn    Vancouver, Canada   Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca
>

Maybe not missremembered just maybe too blue sky.:^) 

Hydrogen peroxide and silver have the most ISP for a small rocket motor.
Unfortunatly, 80 mole H2O2 is needed, otherwise no heat. I really doubt
that anything would result in using aluminum as a fuel with water as
the oxidizer. Secondly, look at Griggs device. Its a steel rotor.

Regards,
CP
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenparky cudfnChris cudlnParkinson cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.17 / Chris Parkinson /  Re: Griggs device tests
     
Originally-From: parky@ix.netcom.com (Chris Parkinson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs device tests
Date: 17 Sep 1994 18:00:15 GMT
Organization: Netcom

In <35cr6n$388@wu.labs.tek.com> arnief@wu.labs.tek.com (Arnie Frisch) writes: 

deletions...
>One important reason I don't believe in CF is because of the strident,
>unsupported claims of people like Rothwell.
>
>Arnold Frisch
>Tektronix Laboratories
>

But you can bet that once CF is working that the Lab above mentioned
will be happy to use and steal whatever they can as they did with one
of my colaborated invetions.

CP
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenparky cudfnChris cudlnParkinson cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Sun Sep 18 04:37:03 EDT 1994
------------------------------
1994.09.18 / Peter Roessingh /  Let's send Tom to Cartersville, GA
     
Originally-From: roes@vax.oxford.ac.uk (Peter Roessingh)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Let's send Tom to Cartersville, GA
Date: 18 Sep 94 16:55:40 BST
Organization: Oxford University VAX 6620

Before we Send Tom Droege on a fact finding mission we should
formulate the different hypotheses that have been suggested here
recently, and see what observations would discriminate between
them, and what would be needed to invalidate each of them.

So far I have seen the following proposals:

[1] The Griggs device is a CF reactor.
 
[2] The Griggs device is a heatpump.
 
[3] The Griggs device works by storing heat in the rotor and
    releasing it later.
 
[4] The Griggs device works by storing rotational
    energy in the rotor and releasing it later.
 
[5] The Griggs device works by oxidising its Al parts


Out of this set numbers 4 and 5 are apparently not in agreement
with the available data:

About [4]  Storage and release of rotational energy Jed wrote:

    [Jed Rothwell:] In two tests the were a steady 3535 rpm
    whenever I looked (every 2 minutes). With a different rotor I
    saw 3520 steady except in case when the speed dropped briefly
    to 3515. These were the numbers before and during the run.

    [Jorge Stolfi:] Thanks.  So rotational energy storage is not
    an issue.


About [5], Al oxidation Jed wrote:

    [Jed Rothwell:] I can determine the upper limits easily.
    There is no observable change to the rotors after weeks of
    50,000 BTU's per hour excess heat generation (several hours
    per day). After a few years of use, the rotors do get worn
    and beat-up looking. That is mostly because of mechanical
    wear I believe, but there is also evidence of cavitation
    damage, in the form of small pits.

    [Tom Zemanian] The 50,000 BTU per hour is 12,600 kcal,
    or 31.5 mol Al, or 849.74 g, or 1.87 lbs per hour.  This
    should be "observable" after the twenty or so hours of
    operation Jed alludes to above.


So we seem to be left with 3 major candidates.

The heat storage hypothesis [3]:

    [Jorge Stolfi:] In the "positive" tests, the pump soaked XXX
    kW for some 15-20 minutes; then consumption dropped by some
    50%, and in the next 20 min some 30% more energy came out
    than went in."

    [Dick Blue:] If bearing friction is contributing
    significantly to rotor heating it can be expected to rise as
    a function of rising temperature in a nonlinear fashion.  So
    indeed the heat stored in the rotor can go up as the device
    is run up to higher temperatures before measurements are
    made.


The heat pump hypothesis [2]

I am somewhat confused here since the posts on this aspect have
not been integrated very well, these are the relevant citations
(I think):

    [Jorge Stolfi:] Gary Steckly kindly mailed me some details
    about the Griggs device, and data for three test runs
    reported by J. Rothwell on the Cold Fusion magazine. Indeed,
    it does seems unlikely that the device is acting as a heat
    pump.

    [Prasad:]The heat pump theory can only be demolished if you
    can prove that there is no cooling *in the cavitation region*
    within the tank.  From the posted data, it does not look as
    if the inside temperature *distribution* has been monitored,
    and it is definitely not going to be easy either.

    [C. R. Bass:] How could [the drop in mechanical resistance]
    physically happen?  Prediction: rapid and violent cavitation
    is occuring in the region of the pits on the rotor that one
    can see clearly at higher frequencies on an O-scope attached
    to the input electrical lines. And my guess is that the
    'effect' happens in a band of RPM for a given rotor
    configuration.Instrument the rotor shaft and I'd bet you'll
    see something very interesting.

Regarding the point made by Dale Bass I would like to say that
"rapid and violent cavitation" in itself would not be a problem
for [1] since it might be exactly this condition that allows the
CF effect to take place (think about the many (vague) claims that
ultrasonic agitation is important in CF). What is needed is a
demonstration that the cavitation indeed allows the device to act
as a heatpump. Or did I misunderstood your comments?


Finally the CF reactor hypothesis [1]

    [Jed Rothwell:] Evidently, it is a CF reactor, it converts
    hydrogen into helium and releases energy.

Well, what can we say... if everything else fails *do* we default
to this one? As an interesting exercise imagine that Tom has just
come back, with good data ruling [2] and [3] clearly out. What
position would we take?


On the practical side, I suggest that each of the proponents of
ideas 1 to 3 formulates it in a concise manner, make some
predictions based on them, and describe a (hopefully) simple
critical experiment that can disprove the hypothesis.

It looks like this [experiment] will not be easy for [1], at
least not in the context of this proposed visit. However, I think
we can call the visit a success if we manage to eliminate the
other two ideas convincingly. If It turns out that doing this is
not going to be easy we might contemplate using our money in a
different way.

Peter Roessingh 
Zoology, Oxford.
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenroes cudfnPeter cudlnRoessingh cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.18 / Thomas Zemanian /  Re: Let's send Tom to Cartersville, GA
     
Originally-From: ts_zemanian@pnl.gov (Thomas S. Zemanian)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Let's send Tom to Cartersville, GA
Date: 18 Sep 1994 19:14:52 GMT
Organization: Battelle PNL

In article <1994Sep18.165540.26003@oxvaxd>, roes@vax.oxford.ac.uk (Peter
Roessingh) wrote:

> Before we Send Tom Droege on a fact finding mission we should
> formulate the different hypotheses that have been suggested here
> recently, and see what observations would discriminate between
> them, and what would be needed to invalidate each of them.
> 
> So far I have seen the following proposals:
> 
> [1] The Griggs device is a CF reactor.
>  
> [2] The Griggs device is a heatpump.
>  
> [3] The Griggs device works by storing heat in the rotor and
>     releasing it later.
>  
> [4] The Griggs device works by storing rotational
>     energy in the rotor and releasing it later.
>  
> [5] The Griggs device works by oxidising its Al parts
> 
> 
> Out of this set numbers 4 and 5 are apparently not in agreement
> with the available data:
> 

[deletia]

Good idea.  

Okay, for [1], might I suggest that we follow up on the pH idea?  First,
test the incoming and effluent pH of the water while the "effect" is
operating.  Next, raise the pH in the inlet barrel (a box of Arm & Hammer
might do the trick, without scaring Mr. Griggs too much) and see if the
excess heat declines.  OTOH, if we lower the pH with, say, vinegar, the
effect sould increase, although this could also then be due to exacerbating
[5].

For [2] and [3], have them start the device up cold and bring it to
operation as rapidly as possible, monitoring power in and power out
throughout the run.  The data from the startup to warmup should yield a
thermal capacity for the pump, and monitoring the housing temperature after
shutdown should give an indication of the rate of convective losses to the
air (I assume there's no cooling fan on the pump...)

If we wish to examine [5], have a look about for Al2O3 scale in the
effluent and the collection barrel.  If possible, weight the rotor before
and after.

If Tom's feeling brave, dose the inlet water with a bit of D2O (Aldrich
sells 25g bottles of 99.9% D2O for $18.90) and see if the effect goes up. 
As long as we're entertaining [1], try raising the natural abundance of
deuterons by 10%; as someone (I think it was Jorge Stolfi) pointed out,
since the fusion is a binary reaction, the reaction rate, and hence excess
heat, should then rise by 21%.  If that doesn't work, up the deuteron
conc'n bit by bit, and see if any effect is noted.

Does anyone have suggestions as to how to measure for He3, He4, and
radiation?
--Tom

--
The opinions expressed herein are mine and mine alone.  Keep your filthy
hands off 'em! 
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudents_zemanian cudfnThomas cudlnZemanian cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.19 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Let's send Tom to Cartersville, GA
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Let's send Tom to Cartersville, GA
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 1994 04:03:45 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1994Sep18.033249.7609@clark.dgim.doc.ca>,
Gary Steckly <gsteckly@dgim.doc.ca> wrote:
>
>Be warned though...Jed is pretty sure of this thing.  He offered to 
>pay for my skeptic brother-in-law's trip to Atlanta to check out this 
>pump.  The condition was that my B-I-L  would pay if he couldn't prove 
>that the tests were flawed. Unfortunately, he declined because he was so 
>sure of his belief in the 1st and 2nd laws (sometimes you would think he 
>was a physicist and not just a lowly engineer...he is so darned sure of 
>himself) but you can't choose your family ;-)

     Prediction: you'll see Jed start to waffle as the time draws near.

     Offer:  I'd be happy to act as treasurer and add my own contribution
     if no one else steps forward.

     Indeed, if Tom wishes to stay over a saturday, American Airlines
     has a Chicago to Atlanta round trip for $158, we might even
     be able to get him a hotel room for part of the time with the pledges 
     thus far.   For flight specific fares, it can be as low as $238 if 
     one does not stay over a weekend.
     
                                   dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.19 / Jed Rothwell /  Re: Let's send Tom to Cartersville, GA
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@CompuServe.COM>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Let's send Tom to Cartersville, GA
Date: 19 Sep 1994 04:54:42 GMT
Organization: CFRA

jlogajan@mirage.skypoint.net (John Logajan) writes:
 
    "Presuming Tom can get the necessary invite from Griggs..."
 
Probably can, Jim's an accommodating soul.
 
 
     ". . .we still have some doubters about Tom's objectivity."  
     
Right. I would not pick him to judge a seventh grade science fair project.
Plus it is waste of time for him to go because by ICCF5 I expect to see some
professional evaluations of the GG from local Atlanta experts. Why not wait
for those reports? What's the rush? But there is no harm in going either,
Cartersville is a pretty place.
 
     
     "I guess my idea of requirements would be: 1.) Separate (from opinions
     and conclusions) and full reporting of all raw data collected and the
     means by which it was collected. . . ."
 
     Other doubter requirements???"
 
Here is the Number One requirement, which nobody has mentioned yet:
 
          Does Tom think this is a valid experiment?
 
What I mean is, does Tom Droege believe you can measure excess heat with a
power meter, a dynamometer, a weight scale and a thermometer? Because if he
does not there is no point to him going. Why get on the airplane if you know
in advance what you are going to see and you do not think it will prove
anything? Richard Blue and many others have said that this form of 
calorimetry is "too crude" to work. If Tom agrees then he should stay home, 
because I do not think he or anyone else could design better calorimetry for 
these power levels, and I don't think Jim would let Tom monkey around with 
the equipment much. If Tom wanted to see a few adjustments to the layout I 
am sure Jim would make them, but the basic methods use and the basic tests 
will have to remain the same: flow, steam and the barrel test. People who 
do not believe these methods measure heat, should not bother going. Jim is 
not going to spend a week doing off the wall tests that other people dream 
up. He does not care whether "skeptics" believe it or not, and neither do I. 
I post messages for the benefit and enjoyment of my friends, not to convince
"skeptics" that calorimetry works.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.19 / Jed Rothwell /  Re: Griggs device - multiple barrels
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@CompuServe.COM>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs device - multiple barrels
Date: 19 Sep 1994 04:56:35 GMT
Organization: CFRA

I wrote that an extended barrel test of the GG would be kind of dangerous
and difficult, because "The valves and hoses used to redirect the steam from
air to barrel are at 212 deg F, the barrel itself gets hot, and it crashes and
jumps around as the steam shoots into it, water as hot as 140 deg F sloshes
around, the motor and shaft rotate at thousands of r.p.m. . . ."
 
Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>, who has not done the
experiment, writes:
 
     "Jed, this is total bullshit.  All you need is a valve that you can
     switch from one hose to another, and two other valves that you can
     switch on and off to drain one barrel while you're using the other.  All
     of that can be wired up to be done remotely . . ."
 
I'll tell you what, Mr. Total Bullshit, you go ahead and replicate the
experiment, you do it any way you feel like. If Princeton U. has the money to
pay for electric valves and remote controls and other useless, expensive,
complicated and irrelevant gadgets, and they don't mind you fooling around
with remote controls for weeks instead of turning a valve with a leather 
glove that's their business. I am here. I did the work. I did it MY way, for 
no budget at all (except for a new 55 gallon steel drum from Home Depot). You
folks at Princeton could not improve on it with a million dollars of extra
equipment. Maybe you *can* improve on it. Do the experiment in that case. 
Show me! For now, I don't tell you how to build Tokamaks, so you should not 
tell me how to measure BTUs. Or, if you do feel like offering helpful 
suggestions, you can damn well start the messages without this "total 
bullshit" stuff, because I do not take kindly to it, and it is a bad 
reflection on Princeton.
 
Heck, you don't even need to replicate a GG to impress me. Let's see y'all 
generate half as much heat with your Tokamaks as Jim generates with his
Pump. Show us some real results from instead of this pitiful 6 MJ stuff. 
We did better than that years ago. Piantelli did 50 times better than you 
with only 16 grams of metal!
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.19 / C Harrison /  Re: virial theorem: what about those photons?
     
Originally-From: harr@netcom.com (Charles (Chuck) Harrison)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: virial theorem: what about those photons?
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 1994 04:47:09 GMT
Organization: Fitful

In article <harrCwBzJw.GHG@netcom.com>,
Charles (Chuck) Harrison <harr@netcom.com> wrote:
>In article <35c21oINNs18@sat.ipp-garching.mpg.de>,
>Arthur      Carlson        TK   <carlson@ipp-garching.mpg.de> wrote:
>[...]
>> Take a closer look at the "long" form of the virial theorem I wrote in my first
>>post on the subject [from 1]:
>>
>>(12)    (1/2)(d^2/dt^2)I + integral x_k (partial G_k/partial t) dV =
>>          2(T + U) + W_E + W_M - integral x_k (p_ik + T_ik) dS_i
>>
[...]
>Okay, I *know* I'm being lazy (and I do intend to hit the reference), but
> (a) what are all the symbols in (12)?  Specifically, what is
>      contributing to I besides rest mass times r^2, and

Okay, the library copy machine has extracted its due and I
now have Schmidt [1] chapter 3 in front of me.

I can answer my question about the moment of inertia very
quickly - of course it only contains a rest-mass term, the
whole development here is non-relativistic.  That leaves
room at some point for a query about the relativistic
extension.

But I wish to return here to my previous question, "what
about the photons?"

Let us imagine the idealized PMK and take a simple case.
A metastable ion in the Kernel emits a photon, due to a
transition of an orbital electron (which remains bound).
The photon travels across the vacuum region and is
absorbed by another ion in the Mantle.  How does the
statistical mechanics work here in the 6-dimensional
(_r_,_v_) space?  Do photons, with position and momentum,
spontaneously appear in the phase space in order to
maintain the conservation of momentum and energy?  If not,
I suppose that the momentum carried by the photon must
show up as a force.  But I don't see how this force (i.e.
radiation pressure) is represented by the
     ( rho * _E_  +  _J_ cross _B_ )      formulation
used in Schmidt's derivation.  [ rho = charge density,
_E_ = electric field, _J_ = current density, _B_ =
magnetic field.]

pressing onward,
  -Chuck

[1] G Schmidt, _Physics of High Temperature Plasmas_,
     2nd ed., Academic Press, 1979. ISBN 0-12-626660-3.

cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenharr cudfnCharles cudlnHarrison cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.19 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Ionisation of the PMK Mantle (lyric)
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Ionisation of the PMK Mantle (lyric)
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 1994 02:58:46 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <35h82aINN1at5@sat.ipp-garching.mpg.de> carlson@ipp-garching.mpg.de writes:
>In article <35c7sv$fro@stratus.skypoint.com>, jlogajan@mirage.skypoint.
et (John Logajan) writes:
>|> Arthur      Carlson        TK (awc@slcawcipp-garching.mpg.de) wrote:
>|> : First the radiation losses (from the mantle, now).
>|> Realizing you are addressing BL, but by implication fusion energy
>|> production, isn't it possible to find remedies for problems that
>|> you may find.

>I'd sure like to hear about them.

>|> For instance, if you have large radiation losses, and if there is a
>|> material which is capable of reflecting those frequencies back into
>|> the plasma, wouldn't it make sense to, say, surround the plasma with
>|> a sphere of reflective material.
>|> Thus if you can get high reflectivity, doesn't that alter your
>|> numbers, and thus your conclusions about the feasibility of such
>|> a device (though diverging slightly from the original)?

Hotter burning advanced fuels don't reflect photon flux, so one must
find away to return it in a clever way.  Koloc standard answer 5c

>The idea is good, but in fact it won't change the numbers. The optical 
>depth for Bremsstrahlung is literally astronomical, so reflected light 
>will eventually be absorbed by the wall after all or by the containing 
>gas, but never by the plasma.

Your last phrase is true, if you are talking about the better than 
liquid density high Z blanket which serves as our "active wall".   

But if not, what are you talking about, a PMK in deep space?? 
Yes, it is true that if one illuminates the sky with a flashlight
(electric torch) on a clear day, the photon flux will be launched 
a journey that is "literally astronomical".  However, if one launches 
bremsstrahlung into a high Z super dense fluid blanket, that 
astronomical distance shrinks to a relatively infintismal one.  

>By the way, the situation for cyclotron radiation is somewhat better 
>because most plasmas of interest are optically thick, but even there 
>it doesn't change anything radically.  And notwithstanding certain 
>statements to the contrary, a dense plasma does not reflect cyclotron 
>radiation but absorbs it.  This is a side issue anyway because Bremsstrahlung 
>losses alone are enough to kill the concept.

I think it depends on the electron densities and frequencies 
involved.  The Mantle doesn't generate cyclotron radiation, but does 
reflect it. The Kernel plasma generates cyclotron radiation, and 
both absorbs it and emits it VERY WELL.  We speak here of 
thermonuclear applications where the fields may reach order megagauss.     
There may be some absorption along specific lines if the Mantle
plasma has a few cooler ions mixed near the vacuum boundary.  But 
that looks unlikely.  

Bremmsstrahlung is absorbed in the Mantle, and surrounding fluid 
*wall*.  Since that "wall" can be trimmed to absorb the Bremsstrahlung, 
then there isn't a problem.  The radiation doesn't have to be, in part, 
returned to the Kernel plasma AS REFLECTED radiation.  Why? because 
other energy transform mechanisms will work just as well.  The PMK 
technology uses SCH, where needed.  So, the balance of thermonuclear
heating plus returned radiated energy (through another form) minus 
the Bremmstrahlung cooling rates are what determines its workability
or no.  Incidentally, the conversion efficiency to electric power
is also a key ingredient. PMK technology is extraordinarily 
efficient.  IF Art believes that a beam of 200kev Blackbody radiation  
of 10-50 megawatts per/cm won't light up the multi-kbar blanket 
gas, than maybe we are in real trouble.  

>(Hey, I'm not really happy about that, but that's what the physics says.)

Well, with the solid wall surrounding a tokamak thermonuclear low 
density plasma, what is else is there to say?? 

If you have a choice (which now we don't) then don't you think a PMK
would be a more exciting concept to engineer into commercial
applications?? 

Answer by email:  this is a secret ballot.  Names dissociated and 
lost by /dev/null evaporation from accumulated talley.  

>Art Carlson
>-- 
>To study, to finish, to publish. -- Benjamin Franklin
>Dr. Arthur Carlson
>Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics
>Garching, Germany
>carlson@ipp-garching.mpg.de
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc, Bx 1037 Prometheus II Ltd, College Park MD 20741-1037    |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.19 / A Rivero /  Re: RE Griggs device tests. (fwd) erratum
     
Originally-From: rivero@sol.unizar.es (Alejandro Rivero)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: RE Griggs device tests. (fwd) erratum
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 1994 07:42:33 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Well just after, my own comment catch me!!! Im really sorry,
this is the kind of thing with happens when you dont use
the adequaty units... and make fast compulsory comments.


Forwarded message:
> 
> 
>     > Lets see. With a reservoir boiling and the other at, say
>     > 30 Celsius this makes 100/70 = 1.4, well over unity. 
> 
> You must use the Kelvin (absolute) temperature, so it is more like
> 373/70 = 5.3.  (Reciprocally, for a heat engine the max efficiency
> would be less than 20%.)
> 
> --stolfi
> 

Thanks for the correction. Now it is even more exagerated!

                                    Alex

PS: Naturally, the device under discussion could be difficult
to compare, as they are a cold water there. But I wonder if the
flux of cold water can be simply put as part of the 373K reservoir.
If flow is slow enough... 



cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenrivero cudfnAlejandro cudlnRivero cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.18 / Bill Page /  re: very cold cold fusion - part 3 of 3
     
Originally-From: 70047.3047@compuserve.com (Bill Page)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: re: very cold cold fusion - part 3 of 3
Date: Sun, 18 Sep 1994 07:26:11 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

So, carrying on with the history lesson ... <grin>

First of all let me remind everyone that this discussion (or monologue,
I think was the apt word used here recently) concerns the possibility that
existing data on the anomolous behaviour of palladium hydride might lend
support to the theories of delocalization and ion (proton) band states
that has been put forward by Chubb&Chubb, William Bernecky and others as
an explanation of the CF phenomena. If some type of fusion occurs in
palladium hydride at cyrogenic temperatures, it is clear that it is at a
very low level. There is no possibility that I can see of any practical
application of such effects for energy production. The interest in this
these effects is only that according to conventional theories such
interactions should not be possible at all.

The observations that we presented in the first two parts of this series
and numerous other details on what was known about palladium hydride is
covered very well in the book "The Palladium Hydrogen System" by F.A.
Lewis, Academic Press, 1967. Despite its age, this book should be near the
top of the reading list of anyone who is seriously interested in CF.
Lewis includes a chapter on some theoretical models for Pd/H. Concerning
the 55 deg. K anomoly, he mentions Aston's tetrahedral and square-planar
PdH4 hypothesis and he adds a reference to his own work (Lewis, F.A.;
Physics Chem. Solids, v23, p171, 1962) which showed that it might also be
due to the formation of bonds between pairs of adjacent hydrogen atoms.
The notion of hydrogen pairing has been revisited recently by Keith
Johnson in his ICCF 4 paper "Jahn-Teller Symmetry Breaking and Hydrogen
Energy in Gamma-PdD "Cold Fusion" as Storage of the Latent Heat of Water".

In this installment, however, what I would like to concentrate on is
the observations of heat evolution in this system near 1 deg. K. First
we have the paper which started me on this literature search: "Concerning
the Feasibility of Nuclear Cooling with Palladium Hydride", J.J. Fritz,
H.J. Maria, and J.G. Aston; J. Chem. Phys., v34, p2185, 1961. Then "Energy
Evolution in Pd2H below 1 deg. K", same authors, same journal, v38, p1108.

They state: "Energy evolution below 1 deg. K has been observed in beta-
phase palladium hydride (formal composition Pd2H). The rate of evolution
was strongly temperature-dependent below 0.1 deg. K, but became
temperature-independent between 0.1 and 1.0 deg. K. It depended upon the
previous specimen history and was greatly reduced by annealing of the
specimen below 50 deg. K. For specimens kept below 1 deg. K, the rate of
energy production at a given temperature diminished with a half-life of
about 8 hour. The results are explained semiquantitatively as a
(spectroscopically forbidden) nuclear-spin conversion in quasi-molecular
PdH4 units left behind in small concentrations when the lattice is cooled
through the rotational transition (at 55 deg. K) of beta-palladium
hydride. ...".

"The measurements reported in this paper arise from attempts to obtain
cooling by nuclear demagnetization of protons in a palladium-hydrogen
system ... Both these and later results were characterized by the
evolution of energy at temperatures far below 1 deg. K. The occurrence
of a change of state at these temperatures was unexpected. The only other
example of a chemical (or quasi-chemical) reaction occurring in a solid
below 4 deg. K is the (spectroscopically forbidden) ortho-para conversion
in hydrogen and deuterium."

"The rates of energy evolution were in all cases very small. They could
be observed only because at temperatures far below 1 deg. K the materials
involved have very low heat capacities, while at the same time magnetic
susceptibility measurements provide great sensitivity in the observation
of very small changes in temperature."

Although they are able to provide a possible explanation the excess heat,
they do note that: "The slowing of the conversion process at and above
3 deg. K is as yet unexplained.".

In another paper "Exothermic Processe in H-Pd Alloys in the 1.2 deg. K -
4.2 deg. K Range:, C.A. MackLiet and A.I. Schindler, J. Chem. Phys.,
v45, p1363, 1966, the following observations are made: "The dependence of
P [spontaneous power] upon thermal history shows several significant
features: (i) annealing at 77 deg. K for 1/2 day wipes out the effects of
previous thermal treatments ... ; (ii) long and short anneals at 77 deg. K
are equivalent ...; (iii) annealing at 50 deg. K. is not equivalent to
annealing at 77 deg. K ... The above results imply, respectively, (i) that
the changes responsible for the release of energy at low temperatures can
be reversed by annealing at higher temperatures; (ii) that equilibrium
is reached much more quickly at 77 deg. K than at helium temperatures;
and (iii) that exothermic-process-related changes occur at temperatures
at least as high as 50 deg. K. Since a specific-heat peak is found in the
35 deg - 75 deg. range, and since the internal changes which give a
specific-heat peak at some temperature may perhaps, take place so slowly
at lower temperatures as to give rise to time-dependent effects, it seems
possible that the exothermic process and the specific-heat peak are
different facets of a single underlying phenomenon. In regard to the
latter, it is relevant to note that recent work shows that some of the
hydrogen nuclei in H-Pd alloys occupy tetrahedral\6 intersitial positions
at low temperatures, whereas all of the hydrogen nuclei occupy octahedral
\7 positions at room temperature. It may thus be conjectured that the
movement of hydrogen nuclei from octahedral to tetrahedral intersititial
positions is the mechanism which underlies both the exothermic process
and the specific-heat peak."

They also observe that "... the dependence upon hydrogen concentration
yield an important result: the "spontaneous power" per unit of absorbed
hydrogen depends significantly upon hydrogen concentration". At at
concentration of 0.88, the heat evolution was only 20% of the heat
evolution at a concentraton of 0.57.

Now, looking at electrical resistance we have the paper "Time-Dependent
Effects Associated with the 50 deg. K. Resistivity Anomaly in the
Pd-H and Pd-D Systems", N.S. Ho and F.D. Manchester, J. Chem. Phys.,
v51, p5437, 1969. The abstract states: "The characteristics of the
time dependence of the electrical resistivity of Pd-H and Pd-D alloys
in the vicinity of the 50 deg. K. resistivity anomaly are presented. It
is suggested that there is a connection between the time dependence of
the resistivity and the exothermic processes observed by others in these
alloys at low temperatures, in that both effects are associated with the
low-temperature annealing out of lattice damage produced by the transition
at 50 deg. K.". They found that the shape of the curve of resistance
versus temperature has a strong dependence on the rate of cooling. In
particular, fast cooling produced an overall lower resistance which
gradually "relaxed" back up to the higher resistance curve if the
temperature was held constant at a given point. They observed that the
time constant for this relaxation was approximately 30 times greater for
deuterium than for hydrogen. And, "Again, in these measurements, the
differences introduced by variations in the cooling down procedures were
annealed out at about 80 deg. K.".

"The suggestion, by MS [Mackliet and Schindler, 1966], that the mechanism
underlying the exothermic processes is the movement of hydrogen from
octahedral interstitial sites of the high temperature form of Pd-H
(or Pd-D), to tetrahedral sites of a low-temperature form\10, could be
used to interpret the present results if we take into account the
possibility that the change in interstitial sites produces other,
large-scale effects in the lattice. Certainly, something more seems to be
involved than just the movement of atoms to neighboring sites, as one
can see from the following considerations. The rearrangement of atoms
between different interstitial sites should occur by means of atomic
interchanges of the type responsible for diffusion\11. ... [Resulting
in a time constant of approximately 10^14 sec] "which is the order
of magnitude usually associated with these processes. The resistance
measurements, however, give relaxation times many orders of magnitude
longer, so that quite obviously something more than simple interstitial
diffusion is involved."

"Our observation that the time constant for Pd-D is much longer than
for Pd-H, at the same temperature, is consistent with the brief comment
made by Bambakidis et al.\17 on their observations of time dependence of
the resistivity of these alloys. On the assumption that simple inter-
stitial diffision is involved, one would expect that [... the ratio of
the resistivity of Pd-D to the resistivity of Pd-H > 1] but not by such
a large factor as we have found. Arons et al. \18 have measured the
internal friction in Pd-H and Pd-D, which enables them to determine
a tau [time constant], in this case the time of relaxation of what they
consider to be stress-induced ordering of hydrogen pairs (Snoek\19), and
they find [the Pd-D/Pd-H resistance ratio > 1] below about 100 deg K. If
the values of tau are estimated from extrapolation of their data to the
region of about 50 deg. K, we obtain [time constants] which straddle the
values for the time constants we have found from or resistence
measurements on alloys of intermediate composition."

And finally, As C.A. Mackliet, D.J. Gillespie and A.I. Schindler point
out in their paper "Specific Heat, Electrical Resistance, and Other
Properties of Superconducting Pd-H Alloys", J. Phys. Chem. Solids, v37,
pp379-388, "The discovery of superconductivity in Pd-H and Pd-Ni-H alloys
in 1972 by Skoskiewicz \1 has led to greatly renewed interest and activity
regarding the properties of pure Pd and Pd-alloys containing H, D, or
other interstitial solutes.". In the abstract they state:

"Specific head and electrical resistance measurements have been carried
out in the 1.2 to 4.2 deg. K. range for a series of Pd-H alloys having
H/Pd atomic ratios in the 0.82 to 0.88 range. Superconductive transitions
in resistance were observed; the [electronic ]specific heat data exhibited
broad, yet very pronounced peaks with characteristics that depended
strongly on upon hydrogen concentration. A fairly successful theoretical
fitting of the specific heat data was carried out on the basis of the
assumption that Pd-H alloys are simply inhomogeneous BCS superconductors.
Data for the dependence of the superconducting transition temperature
upon hydrogen concentration were derived from both the specific heat and
electrical resistance measurements. ... A search for a possible
interrelationship between the superconductive properties and an
exothermic process which occurs in Pd-H alloys yielded negative results.
A marked suppression of superconductive effects was observed in Pd-H
alloys based on one particular Pd ingot; this was probably due to Fe
impurities."

-------------

So now we are beginning to see how very complicated the Pd-H system really
is. From a purely phenomenonological point of view, therefore, it should
probably have come as no great surprize in 1989 that yet another anomaly
was found. But of course, the magnitude of the CF excess heat claims of
P&F go beyond anything that had been observed previously. As yet, there
does not seem to be any consistent and unified theoretical model which
explains even the low level observations let alone the claims of CF.

That concludes this particular "dive into the literature". There are many
many more papers which have interesting things to say, however even
this small effort has helped me to gain some new perspectives on
palladium hydride research. There is little doubt that, whatever the
final conclusions regarding the applications of these new effects might
turn out to be, a major new chapter in this research is now being written.
My hope is that this time around we will finally be able to find that
elusive theory.

Cheers,

Bill Page.

cudkeys:
cuddy18 cuden3047 cudfnBill cudlnPage cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.18 / Arthur TK /  Re: Ionisation of the PMK Mantle (lyric)
     
Originally-From: awc@slcawcipp-garching.mpg.de (Arthur      Carlson        TK  )
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Ionisation of the PMK Mantle (lyric)
Date: 18 Sep 1994 11:24:58 GMT
Organization: Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics

In article <35c7sv$fro@stratus.skypoint.com>, jlogajan@mirage.skypoint.n
t (John Logajan) writes:
|> Arthur      Carlson        TK (awc@slcawcipp-garching.mpg.de) wrote:
|> : First the radiation losses (from the mantle, now).
|> 
|> Realizing you are addressing BL, but by implication fusion energy
|> production, isn't it possible to find remedies for problems that
|> you may find.

I'd sure like to hear about them.

|> For instance, if you have large radiation losses, and if there is a
|> material which is capable of reflecting those frequencies back into
|> the plasma, wouldn't it make sense to, say, surround the plasma with
|> a sphere of reflective material.
|> 
|> Thus if you can get high reflectivity, doesn't that alter your
|> numbers, and thus your conclusions about the feasibility of such
|> a device (though diverging slightly from the original)?

The idea is good, but in fact it won't change the numbers. The optical depth for
Bremsstrahlung is literally astronomical, so reflected light will eventually be 
absorbed by the wall after all or by the containing gas, but never by the plasma.

By the way, the situation for cyclotron radiation is somewhat better because
most plasmas of interest are optically thick, but even there it doesn't change
anything radically. And notwithstanding certain statements to the contrary, a
dense plasma does not reflect cyclotron radiation but absorbs it. This is a side
issue anyway because Bremsstrahlung losses alone are enough to kill the concept.

(Hey, I'm not really happy about that, but that's what the physics says.)

Art Carlson

-- 
To study, to finish, to publish. -- Benjamin Franklin

Dr. Arthur Carlson
Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics
Garching, Germany
carlson@ipp-garching.mpg.de
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenawc cudfnArthur cudlnTK cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.18 / Arthur TK /  Re: Does ball lightning violate virial thm?
     
Originally-From: awc@slcawcipp-garching.mpg.de (Arthur      Carlson        TK  )
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Does ball lightning violate virial thm?
Date: 18 Sep 1994 11:44:33 GMT
Organization: Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics

In article <Cw9GDE.Jro@prometheus.UUCP>, pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) writes:
|> In article <35c3eeINNs18@sat.ipp-garching.mpg.de> carlson@ipp-garching.mpg.de writes:
|> >It doesn't take much energy to make a bang. "Disappearing with a bang" is not
|> >inconsistent with the virial theorem. I'll have a look at Ref. 1. Do they report
|> >an energy density higher than 3e5 J/m^3?
|> 
|> Not so. For it's not "energy density" that generates the bang, its the
|> force/m^2-ABOVE-AMBIENT STP that is necessary, and "The Virial 
|> Theorem" rules this ++overpressure++ out.  

Go back to square one (my first post):

(11)    integral (p-p0) dV = -(1/3) integral (B^2/2mu0) dV < 0.

The local energy density in the plasmoid is ( (3/2)p + (B^2/2mu0) ), so the
average energy density is

     integral ( (3/2)p + (B^2/2mu0) ) dV / V
        = integral ( (3/2)p0 + (1/2)(B^2/2mu0) ) dV / V
        = p0 + (1/2) integral (B^2/2mu0) dV / V

The "overpressure" is just one half the average magnetic pressure.

|> >As far as I know there are less than a dozen events estimated to 
|> >have a higher energy density.
|> 
|> There are studies by the Japanese, Russians, Austrians, Germans, 
|> and Americans that have compilied data of tens of thousands of
|> BL reports.  The problem for your "Virial Result" is that in a 
|> large proportion of cases the ball's were stable in turbulence, 
|> bouncing and even with rolling attachment to such things as high 
|> tension lines.  That REQUIRES coherence that can only come through 
|> "surface tension" or high internal energy.  I have seen devastation 
|> by one exploding Ball lightning, that even causes me to cringe a 
|> bit, since, even my "high internal energy" model may not suffice 
|> to explain the required observed work down by this particular BL.  

Read my lips. I didn't say there weren't tens of thousands of reports of ball
lightning. I said "there are less than a dozen events estimated to have a higher 
energy density" than allowed by the virial theorem.

(Why am I repeating myself?)

-- 
To study, to finish, to publish. -- Benjamin Franklin

Dr. Arthur Carlson
Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics
Garching, Germany
carlson@ipp-garching.mpg.de
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenawc cudfnArthur cudlnTK cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.18 / Arthur TK /  Re: Does ball lightning violate virial thm?
     
Originally-From: awc@slcawcipp-garching.mpg.de (Arthur      Carlson        TK  )
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Does ball lightning violate virial thm?
Date: 18 Sep 1994 11:50:01 GMT
Organization: Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics

In article <harrCwA57C.CA@netcom.com>, harr@netcom.com (Charles (Chuck) Harrison) writes:
|> In article <35c3eeINNs18@sat.ipp-garching.mpg.de>,
|> Arthur      Carlson        TK   <carlson@ipp-garching.mpg.de> wrote:
|> [...]
|> >I don't know if the virial theorem applies to BL. I do know it applies to MHD
|> >theories of ball lightning. 
|> 
|> Watch the vocabulary here to make sure you're not saying more (or less) than
|> makes sense.
|> 
|> Conventionally, the term "MHD" refers to a range of physical phenomena
|> in which certain simplifying assumptions (for example, no displacement
|> currents) can be made.  It seems to me (but not, I think, to Koloc)
|> that the virial theorem applies to PMK topology under the strict 
|> definitions of MHD.
|> 
|> So, under strict MHD definition, "virial applies to MHD model of BL"
|> is to me a mathematical tautology.

Yeah, to me to. Two comments: (1) Every tautology is true, and (2) Paul Koloc's
model of ball lightning as presented here and in his single published article is
an MHD model.

|> However strict MHD regime does not include all possible plasmoid
|> concepts in which there is a large amount of magnetic energy
|> storage.  Thus I would like to continue to explore the assumptions
|> underlying MHD virial theorem (and its extensions, such as you
|> recently cited, to less-strict MHD regimes).

More power to you.

Art Carlson

-- 
To study, to finish, to publish. -- Benjamin Franklin

Dr. Arthur Carlson
Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics
Garching, Germany
carlson@ipp-garching.mpg.de
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenawc cudfnArthur cudlnTK cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.17 / Robert Heeter /  Re: Griggs device - multiple barrels
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs device - multiple barrels
Date: Sat, 17 Sep 1994 14:18:53 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

In article <359mag$pes$2@mhade.inhouse.compuserve.com> Jed Rothwell,
72240.1256@CompuServe.COM writes:
> Me: "It is quite impossible to do an 8 hour barrel test."
>  
> Stolfi: "Could perhaps you use two (or more) barrels, alternating
between
> them?"
>  
> That would be unacceptably hazardous. I would not want to be doing
barrel
> tests all day long. Four per day is my limit. Working at close quarters
with
> such big machinery and such gigantic steam plumes is *extremely
dangerous*.
> The valves and hoses used to redirect the steam from air to barrel are
at 212
> deg F, the barrel itself gets hot, and it crashes and jumps around as
the
> steam shoots into it, water as hot as 140 deg F sloshes around, the
motor and
> shaft rotate at thousands of r.p.m. . . . It is not the kind of thing
you can
> deal with in a manual test hour after hour. I think the steam table or
flow
> are safer and better. They do not require operator intervention.

Jed, this is total bullshit.  All you need is a valve that you can switch
from one hose to another, and two other valves that you can switch on and
off to drain one barrel while you're using the other.  All of that can
be wired up to be done remotely, so you don't even need to be in the
same state, much less the same building, much less the room with the
machinery.
And it wouldn't cost much at all.

The fact that you are unwilling to do it now just suggests that the
design is poor/unsafe.

***************************
Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University
As always, I represent only myself, and not PPPL
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.17 / Robert Heeter /  Rothwellian Science
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Rothwellian Science
Date: Sat, 17 Sep 1994 14:28:53 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

In article <359mag$pes$2@mhade.inhouse.compuserve.com> Jed Rothwell,
72240.1256@CompuServe.COM writes:
> That pertains to a theoretical dispute about the underlying physics of
the
> reaction. I don't care about such disputes. It does not make the
slightest
> difference to me where the energy comes from or whether heavy water or
light
> water are needed with different metals. Nature may have set up some
> astoundingly complicated rules here: CF with D2O works with Pd; CF with
H2O or
> D2O Al or Ni works. Who knows what the rules are? Who can guess how the
> underlying physics works? Not me, I can't guess, I don't want to know,
I could
> not care less. The water gets hot and it stays hot, much longer than
chemistry
> would allow. It can be energy leaking in from Jupiter, green cheese
energy, or
> oregone energy - I don't care what it is. As long as I can package it
and sell
> it at a profit, I am delighted.

Hey Jed - If someone offered you a device that gave off excess heat 
continuously and endlessly for years on end, which you could use to boil
water 
into steam that you could sell for profit, would you buy it, no questions 
asked about where the energy comes from or what sort of water is needed, 
as long as you can package it and sell it at a profit?

Given what you've said above, the answer is yes.

In that case, I might be able to find some Russian friends with some 
spare Plutonium you could use to build a small fission pile...  :)  Since 
you didn't ask where the energy came from, you didn't know it was
fission, 
and you thought you could sell it, right?  But now how do you think the 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission is going to feel about this?

Which leads me to ask:  has anyone done *any* tests for radioactivity
or radioactive materials near the Griggs' device?  
(because one way to get "excess heat" is to use radioactive isotopes in 
the construction of the device, not just b/c the "excess heat" 
process might be nuclear.)

Ah well, back to writing the Fusion FAQ...

***************************
Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University
As always, I represent only myself, and not PPPL
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.18 / C Harrison /  Re: virial theorem: what about those photons?
     
Originally-From: harr@netcom.com (Charles (Chuck) Harrison)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: virial theorem: what about those photons?
Date: Sun, 18 Sep 1994 15:11:56 GMT
Organization: Fitful

In article <35c21oINNs18@sat.ipp-garching.mpg.de>,
Arthur      Carlson        TK   <carlson@ipp-garching.mpg.de> wrote:
[...]
> Take a closer look at the "long" form of the virial theorem I wrote in my first
>post on the subject [from 1]:
>
>(12)    (1/2)(d^2/dt^2)I + integral x_k (partial G_k/partial t) dV =
>          2(T + U) + W_E + W_M - integral x_k (p_ik + T_ik) dS_i
>
>When you include electric fields, they contribute the non-negative term W_E. If
>you let the electric and magnetic fields be time dependent (photons), then you
>have to include the integral with G, the Poynting vector. If the time-averaged
>momentum density in the electromagnetic fields is constant, then dG/dt and hence
>the integral vanish. If you examine the d^2/dt^2 term, you will see that inertial
>confinement has a time scale of the acoustic transit time, milliseconds, too fast
>to explain ball lightning. It seems E&M has been fully considered in this version
>of the virial theorem.
>
Okay, I *know* I'm being lazy (and I do intend to hit the reference), but
 (a) what are all the symbols in (12)?  Specifically, what is
      contributing to I besides rest mass times r^2, and
 (b) what is the comparable calculation for the time constant related
      to the time-derivative-of-Poynting-vector term?  Similar to the
      "acoustic transit time"?

Cheers,
  -Chuck

>Art Carlson
>
>
>[1] Schmidt, Physics of High Temperature Plasmas, Academic Press (1979), pp. 71-2.
>


cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenharr cudfnCharles cudlnHarrison cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.18 / Robert Heeter /  Draft Section 3 - Fusion Research Program - Conv. Fusion FAQ
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Draft Section 3 - Fusion Research Program - Conv. Fusion FAQ
Date: Sun, 18 Sep 1994 15:49:46 GMT
Organization: Princeton University


The following is a very early outline of Section 3 for the 
Conventional Fusion FAQ.  (Sections 0,1,5,7,8,10A-H,11,12 are
still in the process of navigating past the news.answers 
moderators.)  As you will quickly realize, this section could
use a fair amount of help, mostly in the form of additional
data.  I'm posting it to see what people think and to see if
anyone is inspired to provide me with a few more numbers...

--Robert F. Heeter, Conventional Fusion FAQ Editor

******************************************************************
Archive-name: ConventionalFusionFAQ/Section3-Program
Last-modified: 18-Sept-1994
Posting-frequency: More-or-less-monthly
Disclaimer: Draft only; please do not copy or cite at this time.

******************************************************************
3. Fusion as a Scientific Research Program

First Draft:  September 18, 1994
Written by Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@pppl.gov, unless
otherwise cited.

### Please let me know if anything here is unclear. ###

HELP!  I have ideas for a bunch of tables I'd like to include,
but I don't have the data to fill them in!  Anyone with a spare
moment and/or time to grab something from the files?  HELP!

*****************************************************************
	"Fusion, graced with limitless fuel supply and less troublesome 
	radioactive by-products, avoids many of the frustrations and 
	limitations of nuclear fission.... The scale of the required effort 
	indicates a need not only for government funding but also for 
	international collaboration.... Few technologies promise more 
	attractive returns on investment."

		---John H Gibbons, Peter Blair, and Holly Gwin 
			in Scientific American, September 1989
*****************************************************************

*** A.  Chronology of Key Dates in Fusion History
######  I need more information to put in here...  #############
1951 
     Mar 24 - Argentina falsely claims controlled nuclear fusion
            - U.S., Britain, USSR? initiate controlled magnetic 
                fusion research
     April  - Lyman Spitzer conceives Stellarator
     Summer - Project Matterhorn initiated at Princeton
     
1952 
          - Perhapsatron begins operation at Los Alamos
     Fall - Model A stellarator begins operation at Princeton 
     Nov. 1 - U.S. Tests first hydrogen (fusion) thermonuclear bomb
              at Eniwetok Atoll in the Pacific Ocean.


1953      - Table Top at Livermore/Berkeley
          - Model B-1 at Princeton
     Aug - Soviet Union detonates its first hydrogen bomb

1955 - 
1956 - Kurchatov talk at Harwell (UK) on Russian fusion research
     - US, UK begin collaborations

1957 - Euratom established, gets off to slow start
     - DCX begins operation at Oak Ridge
     - ZETA begins operation at Harwell, UK
     - Theta pinch research at Naval Research Lab

1958 - ZETA project at Harwell mistakenly claims to have 
         achieved ("90% certain") controlled thermonuclear fusion.
     - UK begins to declassify fusion research
     - US declassifies all magnetic fusion research and
         brings fusion exhibits to Atoms for Peace conference
     - Germany establishes Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics
         in Garching, Germany

1960 - Invention of the laser opens new avenues for fusion (ICF)
     - Britain establishes fusion research center at Culham
     - France establishes facilities at Cadarache

1963 - Scylla IV (Linear Theta Pinch) at Los Alamos
@1964? - U.S. begins Inertial Confinement Research

1968 - Soviet Union claims impressive results with tokamak;
       greeted with disbelief in the West.

1969 - British conduct tests on Russian T3 tokamak, confirm
       achievement of 10,000,000 K for 100 milliseconds;
       Russian claims validated.
     - Doublet-I begins operation at GA

1969-1970 - Europeans begin planning large variety of tokamaks

1970 - R. S. Pease suggests large joint european 
       tokamak project (evolves into JET)

1972 - Alcator A begins operation at MIT
     - First meeting of Joint European Torus working group

1973 - Rebut formally begins JET design

1974 - Scyllac (Toroidal Theta Pinch) at Los Alamos

1975 - Princeton Large Torus begins operations
     - JET preliminary design completed
     - JET construction approved

1976
     Mar - TFTR construction begins

1977 - JET design finalized
     Sep - JET team prepares to shut down due to project difficulties
     Oct - Culham chosen as JET site
         - Wuster appointed Project Director for JET
         - Rebut appointed Deputy Director and Technical Director

1978
     Summer - PLT (Princeton Large Torus) reaches 80,000,000 K 
                 temperature via neutral beam injection.

1979
     Mar - Site work (construction & assembly) of JET begins.


1983 - TFTR achieves first plasma
     Mar - Next European Tokamak (NET) Design team begins work.
     June 25 - JET first plasma
1984
     April 9 - Official JET inauguration festivities


1991 - JET achieves 1.7 MW fusion power in 10%T/90%D fuel mix.
       JET goes into remodeling phase
1993 
     Dec. - TFTR begins D-T operations
          - TFTR achieves 6 MW fusion power in 50/50 D-T mix
1994 
     May  - TFTR achieves 9 MW fusion power
     Aug. - TFTR D-T operations extended for a year; TPX delayed
     Sept.? - U.S. House of Representatives passes fusion 
                research authorization act.


*** C.  What is the current level of fusion research funding?

[ From the PPPL Web Homepage (http://www.pppl.gov) ]
The U.S. expenditure on R&D for alternative energy sources is less 
than 1% of our annual energy costs of $450B. Other countries, 
however, view the energy picture as much more threatening than the 
U.S. does, and they are demonstrating their commitment to developing 
alternative energy sources such as fusion. Europe and Japan each 
spend about 40 percent more on fusion energy research than the U.S. 
does, and their strong commitment to fusion energy development is 
manifest by an impressive array of new and upgraded experimental 
facilities. The American investment in fusion research -- about $373
million in the FY95 budget -- is substantial, but it is small 
in comparison with others, especially considering the importance of a 
secure and environmentally acceptable energy future. This budget will 
need to be increased in future years, if we are to obtain our goal of 
a demonstration power reactor early in the next century. 


*** D.  Where is fusion research being carried out today?

Fusion research is currently being performed all over the world.  
In order of decreasing funding, the major groups involved are:
the European Community, Japan, the United States, and 
Russia/former USSR.  

Within the United States, research is carried out at universities,
several of the national laboratories, and by a few private 
corporations.  

Perhaps the best way to see where fusion is being done is to 
look at the funding breakdown for a particular fusion program.
The following table gives this picture for the United States:
[Ed. note:  I would love to have this sort of information for 
the other major countries.]

=== Projected Fusion Spending by Contractor, FY94 & FY95 ===

Original Source:  DOE Office of Fusion Energy
All figures are millions of $.
Acronyms are explained in the Glossary.

Location          FY94          FY95 est
________        ________        ________
THESE NUMBERS ARE NOT CORRECT!!!  GET NEW #s!!!
ANL                5.6             6.5
UCLA               8.2             8.1
UCSD               5.2             5.3
GA                42.9            52.0
INEL               3.3             2.3
LBL                4.5             4.9
LLNL              27.4            21.2
LANL               6.8             6.6
MIT               33.2            34.5
ORNL              28.0            28.5
PNL                3.3             3.7
PPPL(w/o TPX)     83.8            92.7
TPX               19.3            42.0
SNL                6.6             8.0
UT                 7.0             6.7
										     ________        ________
Totals           285.1           331.0

Notes: 

* Does not include $20 million of unallocated ITER design.
* Does not include administrative and other expenses.
* Also: I believe that while PPPL is administering TPX, 
significant parts of TPX funding are to be subcontracted 
to industry to build a base of commercial fusion know-how.



*** D.  What is the history of fusion research funding?

Group -> US Magnetic  US ICF  Europe  Russia
Year
History of US Magnetic Fusion Funding (Starpower, p. 209, and 
other DOE data)		
Year  Millions of US $ (1994 constant)
1951       6.9
1952       6.9
1953       6.9
1954	     11.1
1955	     39.6
1956	     46.7
1957	     71.4
1958	    182.1
1959	    166.9
1960	    189.3
1961	    166.1
1962	    135.5
1963	    138.5
1964	    120.9
1965	    121.9
1966	    120.2
1967	    121.6
1968	    130.5
1969	    139.8
1970	    153.1
1971	    136.6
1972	    133.4
1973	    154.2
1974	    202.7
1975	    386.5
1976	    468.6
1976A	   150.2
1977	    822.3
1978	    799.9
1979	    789.7
1980	    710.3
1981	    701.5
1982	    716.7
1983	    686.1
1984	    652.1
1985	    570.5
1986	    450.6
1987	
1988	
1989	
1990	
1991	
1992	
1993	
1994	    339.6
1995     363.9 appropriation	
1996       425 authorization by house	
1997       475 authorization by house


*** E.  History of Achievement of Fusion Parameters

* 1. Magnetic Confinement

 * a. Temperature ("T" in millions of degrees K)

            Year -> 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1994
Approach
Theta Pinch                     80
Tokamak                              10        80            400


 * b. Density ("n" in particles/m^3)
            Year -> 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1994
Approach (Device)
Theta Pinch (Scylla IV)       2E22
Tokamak                                                     1E20


 * c. Confinement Time ("tau" in seconds)
            Year -> 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1994
Approach (Device)
Theta Pinch (Scylla IV)       2E-6
Tokamak                                                        1


 * d. n*tau (Lawson value in seconds-particles/m^3)
            Year -> 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1994
Approach (Device)


 * e. n*tau*T (triple product in kelvin-seconds-particles/m^3)
            Year -> 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1994
Approach (Device)


 * f. Peak Fusion Power Achieved (kilowatts)
  Year ->1955  1960  1965  1970  1975  1980  1985  1990  1994
Approach

Tokamak                                              60  9000


 * g. Fusion Power / Plasma Heating Power (Q)
            Year -> 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1994
Approach (Device)
Tokamak (TFTR)                                               0.27


 * h. Fusion Power / dollars spent to date
            Year -> 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1994
Approach (Device)
Tokamak (TFTR)                                               



*** F.  What about international cooperation in fusion research?
 
* 1. Organizations (IAEA, etc)

* 2. JET

* 3. ITER


*** G.  What is the administrative structure of the 
U.S. Fusion Program?

* 1.  Magnetic Confinement Fusion

* 2.  Inertial Confinement Fusion



*** G.  What are the provisions of the new fusion authorization
bill?

[ This section taken from AIP's FYI publication ]
FYI No. 86, June 16, 1994

As reported in FYI #84, House science committee chairman George
Brown (D-California) has introduced a bill authorizing the
Department of Energy's Fusion Energy Program through fiscal year
1997.  (As an authorizing, rather than appropriating, committee,
the House science committee can only approve programs and recommend
funding, but cannot provide funds.)

The current year's appropriation for the fusion energy program is
$343.6 million (adjusted.)  A small portion of that funding, $4.0
million, goes toward inertial confinement fusion research; the
majority of funding is for magnetic fusion research.  The
President's fiscal year 1995 request for the total program is
$372.6 million.

Brown's bill authorizes $380.0 million for fiscal year 1995, $425.0
million for fiscal year 1996, and $475.0 million for fiscal year
1997 for fusion energy research.

H.R. 4553 contains provisions for (1) program direction for the
fusion energy research program; (2) U.S. commitment to the
completion of the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor
(ITER); (3) a process for siting ITER that will hopefully eliminate
some political controversy; and (4) a trust fund, supported by a
fee on electricity-generating utilities, to provide the U.S.
contribution to ITER design and construction.

In introducing the bill, Brown responded to criticism that the
magnetic fusion program has been narrowed to include only the
tokamak concept. "Given the limited resources available to the
fusion energy research program," he said, "the focus of DOE's
program on tokamaks is understandable."  The bill precludes
appropriations for any magnetic fusion facility other than TPX or
facilities associated with ITER.

Brown does, however, "share the concern that promising alternative
fusion technologies are not getting adequate support."  The bill
provides a separate line item authorization for alternative (other
than magnetic) fusion research, and establishes a separate program
office for alternative fusion technologies (including, but not
exclusively, inertial confinement fusion.)  In particular, it
authorizes the R&D needed for the Induction Linac Systems
Experiment for heavy ion inertial fusion energy.  Within the total
fusion energy budget, it would approve $26.0 million for
alternative fusion technologies in fiscal year 1995, and $31.0
million in each of the years 1996 and 1997.

Funds would not be approved for ITER construction until Congress
receives a final cost report and an international agreement is made
that meets the bill's requirements.  The National Academy of
Sciences is directed to review and evaluate existing fusion
concepts, with the goal of commercial viability.  The bill also
instructs DOE to work more closely with DOD to enhance the civilian
energy applications of the defense program, and establishes a
University Radiation Science and Technology Program from existing
DOE programs.

***************************
Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University
As always, I represent only myself, and not PPPL
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Mon Sep 19 04:37:04 EDT 1994
------------------------------
1994.09.19 / A Rivero /  re: very cold cold fusion
     
Originally-From: rivero@sol.unizar.es (Alejandro Rivero)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: re: very cold cold fusion
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 1994 10:49:09 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

> Originally-From: 70047.3047@compuserve.com (Bill Page)
> 
> So, carrying on with the history lesson ... <grin>
> 
> First of all let me remind everyone that this discussion (or monologue,
> I think was the apt word used here recently) concerns the possibility that
>
Bill, a very interesting dive. I expect it to be add to Britz database...
Let me remark some interesting points in your very long monologue,
last chapter.
 
> we have the paper which started me on this literature search: "Concerning
> the Feasibility of Nuclear Cooling with Palladium Hydride", J.J. Fritz,
> H.J. Maria, and J.G. Aston; J. Chem. Phys., v34, p2185, 1961. Then "Energy
> Evolution in Pd2H below 1 deg. K", same authors, same journal, v38, p1108.
>
... just remarked to conserve datation 

> They state: "Energy evolution below 1 deg. K has been observed in beta-
> phase palladium hydride (formal composition Pd2H). The rate of evolution
> was strongly temperature-dependent below 0.1 deg. K, but became
> temperature-independent between 0.1 and 1.0 deg. K. It depended upon the
> previous specimen history and was greatly reduced by annealing of the
> specimen below 50 deg. K. For specimens kept below 1 deg. K, the rate of
> energy production at a given temperature diminished with a half-life of
> about 8 hour. The results are explained semiquantitatively as a
> (spectroscopically forbidden) nuclear-spin conversion in quasi-molecular
> PdH4 units left behind in small concentrations when the lattice is cooled
> through the rotational transition (at 55 deg. K) of beta-palladium
> hydride. ...".
>
... more transition theories. Do they cite Pauling, etc? 
 
> Although they are able to provide a possible explanation the excess heat,
> they do note that: "The slowing of the conversion process at and above
> 3 deg. K is as yet unexplained.".
>
 
> [in other paper, it is oberver that] 
> hydrogen depends significantly upon hydrogen concentration". At at
> concentration of 0.88, the heat evolution was only 20% of the heat
> evolution at a concentraton of 0.57.
>
Let me remark this, as it seems contradictory with any fusion hypotesis,
is it?
 
> 
> "Our observation that the time constant for Pd-D is much longer than
> for Pd-H, at the same temperature, is consistent with the brief comment
> made by Bambakidis et al.\17 on their observations of time dependence of
> the resistivity of these alloys. On the assumption that simple inter-
> stitial diffision is involved, one would expect that [... the ratio of
> the resistivity of Pd-D to the resistivity of Pd-H > 1] but not by such
> a large factor as we have found. Arons et al. \18 have measured the
> internal friction in Pd-H and Pd-D, which enables them to determine
> a tau [time constant], in this case the time of relaxation of what they
> consider to be stress-induced ordering of hydrogen pairs (Snoek\19), and
> they find [the Pd-D/Pd-H resistance ratio > 1] below about 100 deg K. If
>
Physical diffs between D and H, to remember us that there are not
only nuclear diffs.

 
> And finally, As C.A. Mackliet, D.J. Gillespie and A.I. Schindler point
> out in their paper "Specific Heat, Electrical Resistance, and Other
> Properties of Superconducting Pd-H Alloys", J. Phys. Chem. Solids, v37,
> pp379-388, "The discovery of superconductivity in Pd-H and Pd-Ni-H alloys
> in 1972 by Skoskiewicz \1 has led to greatly renewed interest and activity
> 
> "Specific head and electrical resistance measurements have been carried
> out in the 1.2 to 4.2 deg. K. range for a series of Pd-H alloys having
> H/Pd atomic ratios in the 0.82 to 0.88 range. Superconductive transitions
> in resistance were observed; the [electronic ]specific heat data exhibited
> broad, yet very pronounced peaks with characteristics that depended
>>>>> strongly on upon hydrogen concentration. A fairly successful theoretical
> fitting of the specific heat data was carried out on the basis of the
>>>> assumption that Pd-H alloys are simply inhomogeneous BCS superconductors.
> Data for the dependence of the superconducting transition temperature
> upon hydrogen concentration were derived from both the specific heat and
> electrical resistance measurements. ... A search for a possible
> interrelationship between the superconductive properties and an
> exothermic process which occurs in Pd-H alloys yielded negative results.
Hmm does superconductivity makes the trick to get 20Kev protons,
perhaps? Or what the relationship could be?


It seems there are reprodicibility problems.
> A marked suppression of superconductive effects was observed in Pd-H
> alloys based on one particular Pd ingot; this was probably due to Fe
> impurities."
> 
						Alex

BTW, what about the question of Norman? Why all stops cold in 78?

cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenrivero cudfnAlejandro cudlnRivero cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.19 / Peter Roessingh /  Let's send Tom to Cartersville, GA
     
Originally-From: roes@vax.oxford.ac.uk (Peter Roessingh)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Let's send Tom to Cartersville, GA
Date: 19 Sep 94 10:56:09 BST
Organization: Oxford University VAX 6620

Dale Bass writes:

>Peter Roessingh <roes@vax.oxford.ac.uk> wrote:
>>Before we Send Tom Droege on a fact finding mission we should
>>formulate the different hypotheses that have been suggested here
>>recently, [...]
>>
>>So far I have seen the following proposals:
>>
>>[1] The Griggs device is a CF reactor.
>>
>>[2] The Griggs device is a heatpump.
>......
>
>    or far more likely and usual in such 'free energy devices':
>
>     [6]  They are performing the measurements of input power
>          and/or output energy improperly.

Let me get this straight. You are *not* saying the Griggs device is 
a heatpump, but rather that the effect is all measurement error, right?

Peter Roessingh.

cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenroes cudfnPeter cudlnRoessingh cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.19 / Richard Schultz /  Re: Let's send Tom to Cartersville, GA
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Let's send Tom to Cartersville, GA
Date: 19 Sep 1994 11:42:41 GMT
Organization: Philosophers of the Dangerous Maybe

In article <CwD5tr.1Eo@murdoch.acc.virginia.edu>,
Cameron Randale Bass <crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU> wrote:

>     or far more likely and usual in such 'free energy devices':
>
>     [6]  They are performing the measurements of input power
>          and/or output energy improperly.
>
Note that Rothwell has already admitted that they are driving the motor
of the generator at or above its capacity.  Maybe I'm misreading what he
meant by that, but it strikes me that such an admission is consistent with
the hypothesis that it takes more power to run the GG than they think it
does.

-- 
					Richard Schultz
             "an optimist is a guy
              that has never had
              much experience"
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.19 / I Johnston /  Re: Let's send Tom to Cartersville, GA
     
Originally-From: ianj@castle.ed.ac.uk (I Johnston)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Let's send Tom to Cartersville, GA
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 1994 12:55:15 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

jonesse@vanlab.byu.edu wrote:
: Propose we send one of the professors of the college of s.p.f., namely
: Tom Droege, to Cartersville, Georgia to take a close look at the 
: Griggs excess-heat-from-light-water device.  I think Tom can sort through
: the smoke, or steam as the case may be, and bring back some hard facts 
: one way or the other.  

Could we arrange for him to visit one of the many installed Griggs
Devices which have, we are assured, been running continuously and
successfully for years. They might be easier to analyze than the
experimental device for which no data sets covering more than twenty
minutes are evidently available.

I'll happily contribute ten quid to this.

Ian

--
Ian Johnston,
Technology Staff Tutor,
The Open University in Scotland
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenianj cudfnI cudlnJohnston cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.19 / Gary Steckly /  Re: Let's send Tom to Cartersville, GA
     
Originally-From: gsteckly@clark.dgim.doc.ca (Gary Steckly)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Let's send Tom to Cartersville, GA
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 94 13:40:13 GMT
Organization: Industry Canada

In article <ts_zemanian-190994115554@ts_zemanian.pnl.gov> ts_zemanian@pn
.gov (Thomas S. Zemanian) writes:
>From: ts_zemanian@pnl.gov (Thomas S. Zemanian)
>Subject: Re: Let's send Tom to Cartersville, GA

(deletia) 

>If Tom's feeling brave, dose the inlet water with a bit of D2O (Aldrich
>sells 25g bottles of 99.9% D2O for $18.90) and see if the effect goes up. 

fusion smooshion...forget the D20...why don't you do like Mr. Jones did with 
his SL experiments and dope the water with wint-o-green life savers ;-)

good luck gentlemem.

Gary

cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudengsteckly cudfnGary cudlnSteckly cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.19 / John Logajan /  Re: Let's send Tom to Cartersville, GA
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@mirage.skypoint.net (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Let's send Tom to Cartersville, GA
Date: 19 Sep 1994 14:33:01 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Jed Rothwell (72240.1256@CompuServe.COM) wrote:
: Does Tom think this is a valid experiment?
:  
: What I mean is, does Tom Droege believe you can measure excess heat with a
: power meter, a dynamometer, a weight scale and a thermometer? Because if he
: does not there is no point to him going.


I believe this is a valid point.  Since a great deal of scepticism
revolves around the accuracy of the input power metering (electrical meter,
dynamometer) in an ultrasonic oscillatory environment (with potential
reflected power),  just sending Tom to eyeball the situation is not
going to resolve these questions.

I'm afraid Tom is going to have to arrive with a new measurement
paradigm in hand to replace the existing one.  A while back Tom said
he doubted the E-Quest (or anyone) could easily estimate input power
in the face of oscillatory resonance.  So I think Tom would have to
have a handle on that vis-a-vis the Griggs device before Tom and
his traveling medicine show arrived at the Griggs ranch.

--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com -- 612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills  MN 55112 USA           -
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.19 / Thomas Zemanian /  Re: Griggs device
     
Originally-From: ts_zemanian@pnl.gov (Thomas S. Zemanian)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs device
Date: 19 Sep 1994 15:36:32 GMT
Organization: Battelle PNL

In article <35fafp$emp@ixnews1.ix.netcom.com>, parky@ix.netcom.com (Chris
Parkinson) wrote:
> the oxidizer. Secondly, look at Griggs device. Its a steel rotor.

Okay, which is it; steel or aluminum?  Or have a variety of materials been
used for the rotor?

--Tom

--
The opinions expressed herein are mine and mine alone.  Keep your filthy
hands off 'em! 
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudents_zemanian cudfnThomas cudlnZemanian cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.19 / Thomas Zemanian /  Re: Let's send Tom to Cartersville, GA
     
Originally-From: ts_zemanian@pnl.gov (Thomas S. Zemanian)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Let's send Tom to Cartersville, GA
Date: 19 Sep 1994 15:41:14 GMT
Organization: Battelle PNL

In article <35k7et$qal@stratus.skypoint.com>, jlogajan@mirage.skypoint.net
(John Logajan) wrote:

[Discussion of reliability of instrumentation on the GG deleted]
> I believe this is a valid point.  Since a great deal of scepticism
> revolves around the accuracy of the input power metering (electrical meter,
> dynamometer) in an ultrasonic oscillatory environment (with potential
> reflected power),  just sending Tom to eyeball the situation is not
> going to resolve these questions.
> 
> I'm afraid Tom is going to have to arrive with a new measurement
> paradigm in hand to replace the existing one.  A while back Tom said
> he doubted the E-Quest (or anyone) could easily estimate input power
> in the face of oscillatory resonance.  So I think Tom would have to
> have a handle on that vis-a-vis the Griggs device before Tom and
> his traveling medicine show arrived at the Griggs ranch.
> 

Well, could one measure the frequency and amplitude of the ultrasound in
the power feed to the device, and then test whether that would register an
effect on the power meter? _I.e._, use the motor to run the device when the
effect is not operating, and inject a bit of the correct frequencies into
the power line, and see if the power meter registers a drop in power.  Just
a thought.

--Tom

--
The opinions expressed herein are mine and mine alone.  Keep your filthy
hands off 'em! 
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudents_zemanian cudfnThomas cudlnZemanian cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.19 / Mike Harpe /  Re: Let's send Tom to Cartersville, GA
     
Originally-From: mike@hermes.louisville.edu (Mike Harpe)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Let's send Tom to Cartersville, GA
Date: 19 Sep 1994 11:42:32 -0400
Organization: University of Louisville, Louisville KY USA


I'll ante up a $20 bill as well.  Post where to send it.

Mike Harpe
-- 
Michael Harpe, Communications Analyst III          Information Technology
Internet: mike@hermes.louisville.edu               University of Louisville
(502) 852-5542 (Voice) (502) 852-1400 (FAX)        Louisville, Ky. 40292
"Good Night America....wherever you are....."
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenmike cudfnMike cudlnHarpe cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.19 / Tom Droege /  Re: Let's send Tom to Cartersville, GA
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Let's send Tom to Cartersville, GA
Date: 19 Sep 1994 17:22:30 GMT
Organization: fermilab

Again, I am flattered that you all want to send me to Cartersville.

It indeed would be an adventure, and as such is worth doing!

But everyone should know that there is a very real limit on what one
can do during such a visit.  If this is a trick device, then there is 
no way that I could detect a trick on the home ground of the trickster.
If it is an honest mistake, then there is more hope of detecting a 
problem.  If it is a real effect, then it will still be hard to detect 
that it is real on such a trip.

Taking one's own test equipment does not help much.  It just opens 
one up to self delusion. 

All that I can hope to do is to evaluate the general technique used, 
and the style of the experimenter. This I would then write up and 
present here.

You could then detect whether or not I thought that there were some 
chance that it was true by whether or not I started doing the 
experiment. 

The proper scientific way to settle these disputes it by publication
of a convincing write up of exactly how the experiment is done.  I say 
convincing is important because it is necessary to "convince" other
qualified experimentalists to attempt the experiment.  

But having said all this, and if you really want me to go, I will do 
it as an adventure.  The really important subject then is "What do I 
wear?"  When I though I was going to observe transmutation to gold, I 
had decided on a lavender tux, with a large gole medalian with radiating
lines, sort of like the high priest in the De Zauberflaute.  But this 
seems to require something different?

Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.19 / Richard Schultz /  Re: Let's send Tom to Cartersville, GA
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Let's send Tom to Cartersville, GA
Date: 19 Sep 1994 18:05:38 GMT
Organization: Philosophers of the Dangerous Maybe

In article <35ke92$e3u$1@mhade.production.compuserve.com>,
Jed Rothwell  <72240.1256@CompuServe.COM> wrote:
 
>Jim aught [sic] to install a radiation alarm, but I don't believe he has.

On the one hand, if he needed a radiation alarm, you'd probably know
by now.  On the other, the above sentence strikes me much the same way
it would have had it read "Harold Stassen ought to start writing his 
Inaugural Address, but I don't believe he has."
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.19 / Tom Droege /  Re: Tom's trip is a waste of time and money
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Tom's trip is a waste of time and money
Date: 19 Sep 1994 18:36:06 GMT
Organization: fermilab


>Waffle, hell! I said it is a waste of time sending Tom. I would not send 
him
>to my daughter's Junior High Science fair. Pick up the Atlanta Yellow 
Pages,

Sorry, Jed, but the great state of Illinois thought enough of me to 
have me judge science fairs at the state level for a couple of years.

I finally wrote them a nasty letter and quit.  The whole science fair
system is designed (in my opinion) to mold creative people into what
non-creative people think science is.  The result of all this is to 
weed out likely prospects for science at an early age.  They must figure
that they are no good at science as they never get their projects 
throught the science fair process.  So they become mutual fund managers
instead.  

I would get a C- on my project if I were in the school system today.  I
would never get past writing up my proposition, or whatever they call it.
I *would* be out in the lab blowing something up (and did indeed make
gunpoweder and other stuff in the basement).  

After judging, I once took one of the winners aside, and tried to discuss
with him how to improve his experiment.  He was not at all interested in
how to improve his experiment, only in whether or not the changes I 
proposed would make it more likely that he would win at the next level.  

There is a whole industry built around science fairs.  I once asked a 
participant why he used a CK104 transistor in his experiment.  Even at
the time (10 or so years ago) it was an obsolete type.  But it's use 
had won earlier, not it is firmly intrenched in folk lore.  So I think
science fairs are more related to mysticism than science, and actually 
serve to destroy science.  But then look who runs them.  Our educational
system.  

Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.19 / Jed Rothwell /  Re: Let's send Tom to Cartersville, GA
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@CompuServe.COM>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Let's send Tom to Cartersville, GA
Date: 19 Sep 1994 16:29:22 GMT
Organization: CFRA

ts_zemanian@pnl.gov (Thomas S. Zemanian) writes:
 
     "> [1] The Griggs device is a CF reactor. . . . Okay, for [1], might I
     suggest that we follow up on the pH idea?  First, test the incoming and
     effluent pH of the water while the 'effect' is operating."
 
If it is a deuterium reactor, it is uses such a tiny amount that you could
never spot any chemical changes.
 
 
     "If Tom's feeling brave, dose the inlet water with a bit of D2O (Aldrich
     sells 25g bottles of 99.9% D2O for $18.90) and see if the effect goes
     up."
 
We put in 100 ml or so of old D2O in the feedwater tank. It did not have any
dramatic effect. We will have to try it again with a whole kg, with this new
instrumentation. Most Ni and Al cells which I have heard of do not improve in
performance much with changes in D2O concentration. Maybe that means they are
not fusion deuterium, maybe it does not. I wouldn't know.   
 
 
     "Does anyone have suggestions as to how to measure for He3, He4, and
     radiation?
 
Helium measurements are utterly impossible with this test set up. Radiation
testing is probably a waste of time too, because if it is CF it may not
produce enough to detect even with a precision laboratory test. Jim aught to
install a radiation alarm, but I don't believe he has.
 
 
     "If we wish to examine [5], have a look about for Al2O3 scale in the
     effluent and the collection barrel.  If possible, weight the rotor
     before and after."
 
No way you could do that. It takes a couple of hours to change out a rotor,
and the rotors weigh hundreds of pounds. The scale goes up to 1000 lbs to the
nearest half pound. You are not going to find any weight differences. You can
weigh one that has been in continuous use for a year and you will not see any
significant difference in weight. If the rotors don't dissolve after a couple
of years then it cannot be an aluminum reaction, so stop worrying about that.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.19 / Jed Rothwell /  Tom's trip is a waste of time and money
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@CompuServe.COM>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Tom's trip is a waste of time and money
Date: 19 Sep 1994 16:33:35 GMT
Organization: CFRA

Dale Bass offered to come evaluate the GG a couple weeks ago for a fee. I told
him flat out no, we don't need him. Jim has the best people in State of
Georgia doing that, Dale's professional services are not required. I said if
he would like to come have a look for himself just to satisfy his own
curiosity I might be able to arrange it, but nobody here will pay him.
 
Now, there is this silly plan to send Tom Droege instead. Dale writes:
 
     "Prediction: you'll see Jed start to waffle as the time draws near."
 
Waffle, hell! I said it is a waste of time sending Tom. I would not send him
to my daughter's Junior High Science fair. Pick up the Atlanta Yellow Pages,
select any HVAC firm at random and you will find engineers better qualified
than the likes of Tom Droege. Y'all can't be serious about this. You are going
to send some guy halfway across the country to measure BTUs -- some guy who
has never measured a BTU in his life for all you know and who can't even
evaluate a simple flow or gas calorimeter at a physics conference. Why waste
money on a plane ticket? Call Peachtree Heating and Air Conditioning and send
a man out there with a Dranetz and a thermometer. There is nothing to it! Any
competent engineer can measure the effect in an hour or two. Any HVAC engineer
knows more about BTUs than Droege, Blue, Morrison, Bass and Frank Close put
together.
 
I have already seen independent expert evaluations of the GG, I don't need any
more. I don't give a darn whether Tom goes or not. It is none of my business,
you are not wasting any of my time or money. I cannot understand why people
are in such a hurry to get an evaluation anyway, because as I said Jim should
have some detailed reports by the time ICCF5 rolls around, and maybe before
that. What is the big hurry? What are y'all so het up about suddenly? I
reported this a year ago. It got uploaded here 3 or 4 times since then. What
is all the excitement about? Just wait a couple of months.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.20 / Robert Horst /  Re: Let's send Tom to Cartersville, GA
     
Originally-From: horst_bob@tandem.com (Robert Horst)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Let's send Tom to Cartersville, GA
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 1994 01:05:05 GMT
Organization: Tandem Computers

I'm in for $20 for Tom's trip to GA.

As to what Tom should wear -- obviously a pit helmet.

-- Bob Horst
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenhorst_bob cudfnRobert cudlnHorst cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.19 / Gary Steckly /  Re: Let's send Tom to Cartersville, GA
     
Originally-From: gsteckly@clark.dgim.doc.ca (Gary Steckly)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Let's send Tom to Cartersville, GA
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 94 16:13:36 GMT
Organization: Industry Canada

In article <CwCzA9.C7u@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> crb7q@watt.seas.Virgini
.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
>Subject: Re: Let's send Tom to Cartersville, GA
>Date: Mon, 19 Sep 1994 04:03:45 GMT

>In article <1994Sep18.033249.7609@clark.dgim.doc.ca>,
>Gary Steckly <gsteckly@dgim.doc.ca> wrote:
>>
>>Be warned though...Jed is pretty sure of this thing.  He offered to 
>>pay for my skeptic brother-in-law's trip to Atlanta to check out this 
>>pump.  The condition was that my B-I-L  would pay if he couldn't prove 
>>that the tests were flawed. Unfortunately, he declined because he was so 
>>sure of his belief in the 1st and 2nd laws (sometimes you would think he 
>>was a physicist and not just a lowly engineer...he is so darned sure of 
>>himself) but you can't choose your family ;-)

>     Prediction: you'll see Jed start to waffle as the time draws near.

That wasn't Jed who was waffling...it was my self righteous brother-in-law (I 
better be careful...I think he's getting access to the net soon ;-0

Jed seems to be on pretty safe ground, calorimetrically speaking, although I 
doubt that this pump thing is fusion (where are the dead plumbers)

I think we need more people like Jed who will put their money where their 
mouth is.  Something strange is going on with the GG, it behooves everyone to 
get to the bottom of it.

regards

Gary
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudengsteckly cudfnGary cudlnSteckly cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.19 / John Lewis /  Re: Let's send Tom to Cartersville, GA
     
Originally-From: court@newton.physics.mun.ca (John Lewis)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Let's send Tom to Cartersville, GA
Date: 19 Sep 1994 16:48:32 GMT
Organization: Memorial University of Nfld, St. John's, NF

At last, a real product.  After years of vapourware, of
Real Soon Now,  we have something that claims to be a
water heater.  I'd be happy to contribute US$30 to send Tom
to try the thing out.

John Lewis
St. John's, Newfoundland

cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudencourt cudfnJohn cudlnLewis cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.19 / Thomas Zemanian /  Re: Let's send Tom to Cartersville, GA
     
Originally-From: ts_zemanian@pnl.gov (Thomas S. Zemanian)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Let's send Tom to Cartersville, GA
Date: 19 Sep 1994 17:35:51 GMT
Organization: Battelle PNL

In article <35ke92$e3u$1@mhade.production.compuserve.com>, Jed Rothwell
<72240.1256@CompuServe.COM> wrote:
> ts_zemanian@pnl.gov (Thomas S. Zemanian) writes:
>  
>      "> [1] The Griggs device is a CF reactor. . . . Okay, for [1], might I
>      suggest that we follow up on the pH idea?  First, test the incoming and
>      effluent pH of the water while the 'effect' is operating."
>  
> If it is a deuterium reactor, it is uses such a tiny amount that you could
> never spot any chemical changes.

You are correct that the amount of heat produced would indicate that pH
changes due to deuterium consumption should be undetectible.  However, the
proposed ultrasound mechanism should abstract and inject protons as well as
deuterons into the aluminum, and in proportion to isotopic abundance. 
Since the natural abundance of D relative to H is tiny, the initial
"loading" or the rotor might well be detectible as a pH change.

>      "If Tom's feeling brave, dose the inlet water with a bit of D2O (Aldrich
>      sells 25g bottles of 99.9% D2O for $18.90) and see if the effect goes
>      up."
>  
> We put in 100 ml or so of old D2O in the feedwater tank. It did not have any
> dramatic effect. We will have to try it again with a whole kg, with this new
> instrumentation. Most Ni and Al cells which I have heard of do not improve in
> performance much with changes in D2O concentration. Maybe that means they are
> not fusion deuterium, maybe it does not. I wouldn't know.   
>  

This sounds like pretty good evidence that we're not seeing deuterium
fusion.  I assume that when you describe the D2O as "old", you mean that
the isotopic purity may have dropped (due to air contact, _etc._)  I'd be
interested in knowing how the addition of more affects the results.

[He, radiation detection discussed; rejected]

>      "If we wish to examine [5], have a look about for Al2O3 scale in the
>      effluent and the collection barrel.  If possible, weight the rotor
>      before and after."
>  
> No way you could do that. It takes a couple of hours to change out a rotor,
> and the rotors weigh hundreds of pounds. The scale goes up to 1000 lbs to the
> nearest half pound. You are not going to find any weight differences. You can
> weigh one that has been in continuous use for a year and you will not see any
> significant difference in weight. If the rotors don't dissolve after a couple
> of years then it cannot be an aluminum reaction, so stop worrying about that.
>  

Has such a rotor been weighed after a year of operation, or is this
speculation?

--Tom

--
The opinions expressed herein are mine and mine alone.  Keep your filthy
hands off 'em! 
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudents_zemanian cudfnThomas cudlnZemanian cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.19 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Let's send Tom to Cartersville, GA
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Let's send Tom to Cartersville, GA
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 1994 16:12:20 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1994Sep19.105609.26014@oxvaxd>,
Peter Roessingh <roes@vax.oxford.ac.uk> wrote:
>Dale Bass writes:
>
>>Peter Roessingh <roes@vax.oxford.ac.uk> wrote:
>>>Before we Send Tom Droege on a fact finding mission we should
>>>formulate the different hypotheses that have been suggested here
>>>recently, [...]
>>>
>>>So far I have seen the following proposals:
>>>
>>>[1] The Griggs device is a CF reactor.
>>>
>>>[2] The Griggs device is a heatpump.
>>......
>>
>>    or far more likely and usual in such 'free energy devices':
>>
>>     [6]  They are performing the measurements of input power
>>          and/or output energy improperly.
>
>Let me get this straight. You are *not* saying the Griggs device is 
>a heatpump, but rather that the effect is all measurement error, right?

     Yes, I'm not sure how one could possibly arrange the system
     to produce a 'heat pump' with the parts they have.  On the other
     hand, a substantial decrease in input power just as the 'effect'
     is seen is a horrendous clue that all is not right with 
     their balances.   Without seeing the apparatus, my current
     feeling is that input power might be substantially underreported
     by their power measuring apparatus.  I don't rule out other
     problems as well.

                          dale bass


cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.19 / Jed Rothwell /  Send Peachtree Heating to Fermilab
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@CompuServe.COM>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Send Peachtree Heating to Fermilab
Date: 19 Sep 1994 18:56:14 GMT
Organization: CFRA

It occurs to me that since there is a movement to send Tom Droege from
Fermilab to evaluate the steam generator at Hydrodynamics, it might be a good
idea to work in opposite direction to. Why don't we send some heating and air
conditioning engineers to evaluate the Fermilab Top Quark experiments, or the
Princeton Tokamak, or the nuclear work at BYU? I think the HVAC people would
do as good as job as you people have done so far on the Hydrodynamic Pump, and
on cold fusion in general.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.19 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Does ball lightning violate virial thm?
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Does ball lightning violate virial thm?
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 1994 03:53:18 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <35h971INN1at5@sat.ipp-garching.mpg.de> carlson@ipp-garching.mpg.de writes:
>In article <Cw9GDE.Jro@prometheus.UUCP>, pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) writes:

Letting the other issues pass, for now. .. . 

>|> There are studies by the Japanese, Russians, Austrians, Germans, 
>|> and Americans that have compilied data of tens of thousands of
>|> BL reports.  The problem for your "Virial Result" is that in a 
>|> large proportion of cases the ball's were stable in turbulence, 
>|> bouncing and even with rolling attachment to such things as high 
>|> tension lines.  That REQUIRES coherence that can only come through 
>|> "surface tension" or high internal energy.  I have seen devastation 
>|> by one exploding Ball lightning, that even causes me to cringe a 
>|> bit, since, even my "high internal energy" model may not suffice 
>|> to explain the required observed work down by this particular BL.  

>Read my lips. I didn't say there weren't tens of thousands of reports of 
>ball lightning. I said "there are less than a dozen events estimated to 
>have a higher energy density" than allowed by the virial theorem. 

>(Why am I repeating myself?)  

Probably, because you didn't get my point.  And what is the E-mail
equivalent for the G.Bush gaff?  

There are MULTIPLE indications that BL has higher internal than 
predicted by the Virial Theorem.  

1   One of these is that Ball lightning has high internal energy by 
        virtue of the "work" it did upon catastrophic decomposition.  

        You answered that by denying the import of the evidence, 
        since the number of cases of measurable work are few.  

2.  A SECOND objection to the Virial result relates from the fact 
        a low Ball Lightning doesn't have High internal energy, then 
        it couldn't have a high radial pressure gradient, and 
        consequently, it wouldn't be Rayleigh-Taylor stable.  That is, 
        it could NOT survive in air turbulence of even mild intensity.  
        The evidence for the turbulence is related to thousands of 
        observations.       
        
        Your answer to this last objection is so far nil; probably due 
        to the fact that you either don't understand the relationship 
        between a high internal energy (pressure) and substantial radial 
        pressure (energy) gradient; or, you just missed the point. 

You aren't expected to know everthing, but at least let us know
if you have or haven't any thoughts on this problem.  

>--
>To study, to finish, to publish. -- Benjamin Franklin
>
>Dr. Arthur Carlson
>Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics
>Garching, Germany
>carlson@ipp-garching.mpg.de
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc, Bx 1037 Prometheus II Ltd, College Park MD 20741-1037    |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.19 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Let's send Tom to Cartersville, GA
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Let's send Tom to Cartersville, GA
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 1994 06:25:03 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1994Sep18.165540.26003@oxvaxd>,
Peter Roessingh <roes@vax.oxford.ac.uk> wrote:
>Before we Send Tom Droege on a fact finding mission we should
>formulate the different hypotheses that have been suggested here
>recently, and see what observations would discriminate between
>them, and what would be needed to invalidate each of them.
>
>So far I have seen the following proposals:
>
>[1] The Griggs device is a CF reactor.
> 
>[2] The Griggs device is a heatpump.
.....

     or far more likely and usual in such 'free energy devices':

     [6]  They are performing the measurements of input power
          and/or output energy improperly.

     That's what the quotation below means.  That cavitation is
     inducing violent high frequency components in the drive
     motor.  My working hypothesis is that only certain
     frequencies effectively evade the power measuring apparatus, 
     and hence only a narrow band of RPM is acceptable for the
     'effect' to be seen.  Of course, I wouldn't rule out
     other mistakes in measuring and computation as well.  I'm 
     a bit concerned by people who still appear to be reading
     from tabulated steam tables in this computer age.

                            dale bass


>    [C. R. Bass:] How could [the drop in mechanical resistance]
>    physically happen?  Prediction: rapid and violent cavitation
>    is occuring in the region of the pits on the rotor that one
>    can see clearly at higher frequencies on an O-scope attached
>    to the input electrical lines. And my guess is that the
>    'effect' happens in a band of RPM for a given rotor
>    configuration.Instrument the rotor shaft and I'd bet you'll
>    see something very interesting.
>
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.19 / Dieter Britz /  Re: Fading: the plots
     
Originally-From: kemidb@aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fading: the plots
Date: 19 Sep 94 07:38:22 GMT
Organization: Aarhus University, Denmark

In <199409161625.AA10734@sol.unizar.es> rivero@sol.unizar.es (Alejandro Rivero) writes:

[...]
>> I beg to disagree. I am going to try to get the equivalent statistics for the
>>(roughly) contemporary fields, HTSC and buckminsterfullerene (C60). In the case
>>of HTSC, where t = 0 in 1986, I am told there are now over 20000 papers. I'd be
>> willing to bet that the submissions curve would have a peak just like that for
>>'cold fusion', but then instead of a steady decay, I expect a levelling off not
>>far below that peak and followed by a gradual rise as more and more researchers
>> hop on the bandwaggon. The same for C60, I reckon. Let's wait and see what I
>> find. All three areas are, after all, inherently exciting stuff - unlike
>> axiomatic QM field theory (sorry, Al, just my humble opinion).
>> 
>My guess for HTSC would be a very big initial peak, am steady decay, 
>and then other secondary peak associated to the ambient temperature SC. 
>Probably the patents flux will more constant. As for C60, I d expext
>similar patterns to cold fusion, but Im not very sure. 

>Anyway, note that the inherent characteristics of fusion are somehow
>different to HTSC or C60. Fusion development seems to be slow, 
>(As AQFT :-) but it has a potental for big impact in the public -literally.

>                                        Alex

My point, Al, is that my curves clearly show that scientists have generally
walked away from 'cold fusion', hence the decay in submissions. In contrast,
scientists are not walking away from HTSC and C60, in fact I'd say they are
joining in. So I do not expect a marked decay but rather a gradual rise in
submissions with time. So far, this is only my guess, so don't ask me to prove
it, until I find the info.

There are those who will recite a string of names to show that scientists are
not walking away from 'cold fusion'. These names, however, make up a small
minority of the total body of researchers.


-- 
Dieter Britz   alias kemidb@aau.dk
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenkemidb cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.19 / Dieter Britz /  Re: Tom's trip to Georgia
     
Originally-From: kemidb@aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Tom's trip to Georgia
Date: 19 Sep 94 07:46:15 GMT

In <199409170144.AA15211@leibniz.cs.arizona.edu> rcs@cs.arizona.edu
(Richard Schroeppel) writes:

>I'll cheerfully chip in $25 toward Tom's ticket.
>But if the trip is to be useful, Tom might want to take
>some equipment with him.  He might also want to call up
>Randi, who makes a career of exposing charlatans, for some
>suggestions about what to look for.  Also, it would be
>well to remember Feynman's cautionary tale.

>Rich Schroeppel   rcs@cs.arizona.edu

Just what I was thinking. "We" don't have that much money, however, so Tom will
be our Randi. Could be the start of a new career, Tom. Count me in, albeit only
symbolically. A $20 cheque would cost me about the same again in bank charges.
In spirit, I'm in.
-- 
Dieter Britz   alias kemidb@aau.dk

cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenkemidb cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.19 / Arthur TK /  Re: virial theorem: what about those photons?
     
Originally-From: awc@slcawcipp-garching.mpg.de (Arthur      Carlson        TK  )
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: virial theorem: what about those photons?
Date: 19 Sep 1994 08:27:53 GMT
Organization: Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics

In article <harrCwD1AL.Eyr@netcom.com>, harr@netcom.com (Charles
(Chuck) Harrison) writes:
|> In article <harrCwBzJw.GHG@netcom.com>,
|> Charles (Chuck) Harrison <harr@netcom.com> wrote:
|> >Okay, I *know* I'm being lazy [...]
|> Okay, the library copy machine has extracted its due and I
|> now have Schmidt [1] chapter 3 in front of me.
|> [...]
|> But I wish to return here to my previous question, "what
|> about the photons?"
|> 
|> Let us imagine the idealized PMK and take a simple case.
|> A metastable ion in the Kernel emits a photon, due to a
|> transition of an orbital electron (which remains bound).
|> The photon travels across the vacuum region and is
|> absorbed by another ion in the Mantle.  How does the
|> statistical mechanics work here in the 6-dimensional
|> (_r_,_v_) space?  Do photons, with position and momentum,
|> spontaneously appear in the phase space in order to
|> maintain the conservation of momentum and energy?  If not,
|> I suppose that the momentum carried by the photon must
|> show up as a force.  But I don't see how this force (i.e.
|> radiation pressure) is represented by the
|>      ( rho * _E_  +  _J_ cross _B_ )      formulation
|> used in Schmidt's derivation.  [ rho = charge density,
|> _E_ = electric field, _J_ = current density, _B_ =
|> magnetic field.]

I'm not entirely sure whether photon pressure is included in 
( rho * _E_  +  _J_ cross _B_ ) or not. I rather expect not, since the E and B
here are explicitely macroscopic fields (same problem with the microscopic E
fields that hold toroidal field coils and soap bubbles together). On the other
hand, radiation pressure is really nothing other than the vXB force on a charge
that gets its v from the oscillating E.

I think a more intuitive (and perhaps more correct) approach is to treat the
photons as a fluid species. The momentum of a nonrelativistic particle is mv, the
momentum flux due to n particles with velocity v per unit volume is n(mv)v =
nmv^2. The energy density associated with these particles is nmv^2/2. For an 
isotropic distribution, after the appropriate integrals over the distribution 
function, we recover the usual result E/V = (3/2)p. For photons, the momemtum is 
hbar*k, and the momentum flux is n(hbar*k)c. The energy density is n(hbar*omega). 
Comparison of these results leads to E/V = 3p. This means that a photon gas of the
same pressure has twice the energy density of a classical ideal gas. This is of 
couse reminiscent of the usual virial result for static electric and magnetic 
fields. Furthermore, for relativistic particles, the same analysis holds as for 
photons.

The bottom line is that relativistic particles and photons are more "efficient"
at storing energy than nonrelativistic particles and equally "efficient" as
static electric and magnetic fields. The limit on the energy density, namely
twice the energy density of the confining gas, still holds.

Art Carlson


-- 
To study, to finish, to publish. -- Benjamin Franklin

Dr. Arthur Carlson
Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics
Garching, Germany
carlson@ipp-garching.mpg.de
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenawc cudfnArthur cudlnTK cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.19 / Arthur TK /  Re: Ionisation of the PMK Mantle (lyric)
     
Originally-From: awc@slcawcipp-garching.mpg.de (Arthur      Carlson        TK  )
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Ionisation of the PMK Mantle (lyric)
Date: 19 Sep 1994 08:49:08 GMT
Organization: Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics

In article <CwCw9z.JFn@prometheus.UUCP>, pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) writes:
|> In article <35h82aINN1at5@sat.ipp-garching.mpg.de> carlson@ipp-garching.mpg.de writes:
|> >The idea is good, but in fact it won't change the numbers. The optical 
|> >depth for Bremsstrahlung is literally astronomical, so reflected light 
|> >will eventually be absorbed by the wall after all or by the containing 
|> >gas, but never by the plasma.
|> 
|> Your last phrase is true, if you are talking about the better than 
|> liquid density high Z blanket which serves as our "active wall".   

Yes, I meant the optical depth in plasma. The absobtion in a gas can be much
higher.

|> The Mantle doesn't generate cyclotron radiation, but does reflect it.

I'm mildly curious where this thought comes from. It might even be true, but I'd
appreciate a calculation or reference to back it up. On the other hand, it
remains a side issue in the sense that it can only degrade the energy
confinement, but whether this is significant or not depends on complicated
calulations involving the details of the configuration.

|> [...]  The [Bremmsstrahlung] radiation doesn't have to be, in part, 
|> returned to the Kernel plasma AS REFLECTED radiation.  Why? because 
|> other energy transform mechanisms will work just as well.  The PMK 
|> technology uses SCH, where needed.

What is SCH, and how can it make up for the loss of Bremsstrahlung power?


Art Carlson

-- 
To study, to finish, to publish. -- Benjamin Franklin

Dr. Arthur Carlson
Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics
Garching, Germany
carlson@ipp-garching.mpg.de
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenawc cudfnArthur cudlnTK cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.19 / David Seghers /  Re: Let's send Tom to Cartersville, GA
     
Originally-From: seghers_david/hp5000_zp@openmail2.corp.hp.com (David Seghers)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Let's send Tom to Cartersville, GA
Date: 19 Sep 1994 21:13:45 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard

In article <35d38d$j0l@fnnews.fnal.gov>, Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege) says:

>But I think I could not resist such a challenge.  So appoint a 
>treasurer.  If you collect say 80% of what the trip will cost, I 
>will go.
>
>Tom Droege

You're on!  Count me in for $20.

An interested lurker...

David Seghers (seghers@hpcc01.HP.COM) 415-691-3730
************************************************************************
Solipsist Society, Founding Member  (I think, therefore you are.)
Charter member of the "I HATE vi!" Club.
************************************************************************
The statements and opinions above are my own, entirely my own, and no one
else's.
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenhp5000_zp cudfnDavid cudlnSeghers cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.19 / Bradley Sherman /  Re: Let's send Tom to Cartersville, GA
     
Originally-From: bks@s27w007.pswfs.gov (Bradley K. Sherman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Let's send Tom to Cartersville, GA
Date: 19 Sep 1994 19:31:50 GMT
Organization: Dendrome, A Genome Database for Forest Trees

In article <35khcm$836@fnnews.fnal.gov> Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege) writes:
>...
>All that I can hope to do is to evaluate the general technique used, 
>and the style of the experimenter. This I would then write up and 
>present here.
>...

This is plenty.  My offer of $25 for the expedition stands.
If this trip actually happens, this will one of the most
entertaining episodes in USENET history. 

    --bks

p.s. Don't forget your camera, Tom.

-- 
Bradley K. Sherman                  Computer Scientist
Dendrome Project                    510-559-6437  FAX: -6440
Institute of Forest Genetics        bks@s27w007.pswfs.gov  
P.O. Box 245, Berkeley, CA 94701    http://s27w007.pswfs.gov/People/bks.html
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenbks cudfnBradley cudlnSherman cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.19 / Jorge Stolfi /  Re: griggs device tests
     
Originally-From: stolfi@src.dec.com (Jorge Stolfi)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: griggs device tests
Subject: Re: Griggs device tests
Date: 19 Sep 1994 19:47:58 GMT
Organization: DEC Systems Research Center
Organization: Computer Science Dept, University of Campinas

Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs device tests
Followup-To: sci.physics.fusion
Distribution: world
Organization: Computer Science Dept, University of Campinas
Keywords: 

    > [Richrd A. Blue:] I think Jorge Stolfi deserves a special
    > commendation for having navigated through the maze of BTUs,
    > horse power, and watts.

Thanks for the compliment, but please don't trust my numbers
blindly.  I am not used to those funny units, either...

    > [Jed Rothwell:] Let me add (with a modest, self-effacing glance
    > at the podium) that I first suggested the basic "barrel test"
    > last year. 
    
And you have my compliments for it.  In fact, among all the measurements
you reported, the ones I trust the most are the heat output numbers from
the barrel test.

Unfortunately, when one takes heat capacity of the pump into account,
those numbers are not yet clear evidence of excess heat.
    
    > [Jed:] I cannot imagine how the rotor could go drop 40 deg F
    > (or 60 deg F) without affecting the temperature of the housing
    > an hour later.
    
It is not "an hour later".  

But I suspect we will not get very far by arguing about it in words.
Tell me the thickness of the housing, and whether it is plain steel or
stainless steel; and I will try to come up with a specific, numerical
guess as to what happened when and where inside the pump during the
tests reported in the article---with temperature vs time graphs and
such.

It would also be nice to know the steam pressure inside the the pump
during the measuring period.  

By the way, how accurate are the dimensions you quoted for the rotor
(1 foot long, 2 feet wide)?  Note that a 10% error in the linear
dimensions implies a 30% error in the computed heat capacity.

    > [Chris Parkinson:] Its a steel rotor.
    
Can we settle this point too, please?  Is it aluminum, steel, or
stainless steel?  (It makes a big difference to the numbers.)

    > [Richard Blue:] Steel and aluminum and water mixed seems like it
    > might be subject to galvanic corrosion.

Perhaps. The galvanic currents will actually protect the steel,
but shouldn't they be bad for the aluminum? 

    > [Jed:] I am sure [the rotor stirring the water] would make the
    > rotor hot starting on the surface, not the inside, so it is
    > nothing like your hot stone dropped in the bucket; it cannot be
    > much hotter in the center than it is at the surface.
    
It can, if it gets overheated during the warmup period (when
friction and power input are higher).

Or perhaps the rotor *is* being heated from the inside.  You remarked
that the motor still draws 4 kW when the pump is run without water.
Where does that power go?  Perhaps into friction heating at the
bearings? (Not unreasonable, since they must be watertight, and have
to support a rotor weighing a quarter of a ton, spinning at 3600 RPM). 

In fact, you have remarked that
    
    > [the electric motor shaft] is very hot, much hotter than
    > ambient. I cannot easily measure the temperature of the shaft
    > alone with the pyrometer while the thing is running, but I have
    > been around heavy motors and I am quite sure the shaft and all
    > other components get very hot.
    
So it seems possible that a couple of KW are entering the rotor
near its center, rather than at its periphery.  

    > [Jed:] The housing will remain at 350 deg F ... the separation
    > tank dial thermometer still shows 310 deg F.
    
I understand those numbers are from different tests.  So, what was the
steam temperature at the separation tank in Tests 1--3?

Perhaps we can compute the steam temperature from its heat contents,
as measured by the barrel calorimeter:

                              Test 1       Test 2       Test 3
                             ("blank")   ("excess")   ("excess")
                            ----------   ----------   ----------
  Output heat captured:       28.5 MJ      20.1 MJ      28.5 MJ
  Mass of condensed steam:  11,800 g     14,500 g     19,050 g
  Heat contents of steam:     2415 J/g     1386 J/g     1496 J/g

If we assume that the steam was roughly in equilibrium with the
boiling water inside the pump, it seems possible in principle to
compute its temperature and pressure from the heat contents above.
(According to Jed, both were constant over the measurement period.)

Anyone knows how to figure this out?

In any case it looks like the outgoing steam was much hotter in Test 1
(where the pump ran in high-friction mode the whole time), than in
Tests 2 and 3.

This is hardly surprising, and is consistent with the theory that the
apparent excess heat seen during the (low-friction) measurement period
was actually stored into the pump by overheating it during the
preceding (high-friciton) warmup period.

    > [John Logajan:] No sabotage!  (Yeah, [Tom] can remove the N-ray
    > prism, but only after getting permission.  It is a question of 
    > ethics.)

Of course.  And mr. Griggs can turn the N-ray generator on, provided
he tells Tom about it.  That too is a question of ethics.

    > [Richard Blue:] One further notes that the thermal expansion
    > coefficients of aluminum and steel differ sufficiently that
    > operation of this device over the stated temperature range
    > involves some thermal design problems.

According to the Rubber Bible, the expansion coefficients of steel
and aluminum are 6.7e-6 / F and 12.0e-6 / F, respectively.
So, heating the 300 mm radius pump by 200 F should widen the
gap between rotor and housing by 0.3 mm.  Is that significant? 

The rotor will also get shorter by 0.3mm relatively to the housing.
Might that affect friction at the bearings?  
(If the axle is steel, how is it attached to the cylinder?)

    > [Jed:] I suggested it because I had difficulty dealing with the
    > steam tables, and I thought it would be a good idea to eliminate
    > the issue of "wet" or "dry" steam.

I presume that "dry steam" here means steam that is hot enough not to
condense when decompressed to 1 atmosphere.

However, that phrase suggests another rather farfetched theory that
might explain the apparent excess heat allegedly observed in
long-running tests based on flow tables.

Could it be that the output is not pure steam, but a mixture of air
and steam?  For a given temperature, pressure, and volume, I suppose
that it would take less energy to produce the latter than the former.
Is this assumption correct?

Note, this is not the "cold mist" theory---this one assumes
that the output is indeed at 350 F (or whatever).

For this theory to be true, the pump must be pulling in a
substantial volume of air.  Perhaps the bearing seals open up a bit
while the pump is hot?  Or perhaps they were designed to hold
only against positive pressure?

More importantly, is it plausible that the Griggs pump be acting as a
compressor or turbocharger, maintaining at the same time a negative
pressure near the bearings, and a high positive pressure at the
periphery?

And, would the satisfied customers notice (or care) if their "dry
steam" steam was actually 50% hot air?

    > [Scott Hazen Mueller:] I just mentioned [Tom's trip] to my wife,
    > and she's convinced me we can chip in 20 bucks.
    
Well, if Scott's wife approves it, I am pretty sure mine would 
approve it too, if I were to ask. 8-) So where do I send the check to?

--stolfi

 ------------------------------------------------------------------
Jorge Stolfi, stolfi@dcc.unicamp.br
Computer Science Dept (DCC-IMECC), Univ of Campinas (UNICAMP)
13081 Campinas, SP -- BRAZIL   +55(192)39-8442
 ------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenstolfi cudfnJorge cudlnStolfi cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.19 / Tom Droege /  Re: Send Peachtree Heating to Fermilab
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Send Peachtree Heating to Fermilab
Date: 19 Sep 1994 21:02:59 GMT
Organization: fermilab

In article <35kmse$cbt$1@mhadf.production.compuserve.com>, Jed Rothwell 
<72240.1256@CompuServe.COM> says:
>
>It occurs to me that since there is a movement to send Tom Droege from
>Fermilab to evaluate the steam generator at Hydrodynamics, it might be a 
good
>idea to work in opposite direction to. Why don't we send some heating 
and air
>conditioning engineers to evaluate the Fermilab Top Quark experiments, 
or the
>Princeton Tokamak, or the nuclear work at BYU? I think the HVAC people 
would
>do as good as job as you people have done so far on the Hydrodynamic 
Pump, and
>on cold fusion in general.
> 
>- Jed

The details of the Top Quark experiment are pretty exposed in the 
technical literature.  My name must be on 10 or so papers, and that is
just on some of the details of the measurement system.  There is no one
that I know that has made any suggestion that the experiment is wrong 
in any way, or that it is not measuring things properly.  There is a 
small dispute about the wording of what has been published about the
experiment.  I think the collaboration said that we have "some evidence
for the Top quark."  There are schools of thought at the two extreems.  
Some would say "We have found the Top quark."  Others would say nothing
yet.  

But few would say that are measurements are wrong.  Do you want to say
that Jed?  When you have read all the published literature and still 
believe that our measurements are wrong, and can request specific details
of data that will help you in your analysis, I will be more than happy 
to help you gain access to the material you need.  We are open here, and 
in general will respond to any valid critique.  There are some 
limitiations.  i.e.  we will not give you our raw data before we have 
analyzed it ourselves.  But later, after we have published, I believe 
we would supply data to allow a counter analysis.  

Actually we could use some HVAC experts here.  I constantly have problems 
with physicists that think a 100W power supply is still rated at 100W 
even though they have sealed it in a box with no air circulation. 

As always, my tongue is firmly in my cheek!

Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.19 / Thomas Zemanian /  Re: Send Peachtree Heating to Fermilab
     
Originally-From: ts_zemanian@pnl.gov (Thomas S. Zemanian)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Send Peachtree Heating to Fermilab
Date: 19 Sep 1994 20:30:51 GMT
Organization: Battelle PNL

In article <35kmse$cbt$1@mhadf.production.compuserve.com>, Jed Rothwell
<72240.1256@CompuServe.COM> wrote:

> It occurs to me that since there is a movement to send Tom Droege from
> Fermilab to evaluate the steam generator at Hydrodynamics, it might be a good
> idea to work in opposite direction to. Why don't we send some heating and air
> conditioning engineers to evaluate the Fermilab Top Quark experiments, or the
> Princeton Tokamak, or the nuclear work at BYU? I think the HVAC people would
> do as good as job as you people have done so far on the Hydrodynamic Pump, and
> on cold fusion in general.
>  

There is a very interesting tour of Fermilab that runs most every day. 
Also, I seem to recall (from my days there as an undergrad) that P-ton runs
tours of the Tokamak facility as well.  Send your people on up, I'm sure
they'll have a most interesting experience.

I've been on the Fermilab tour, and can get the scoop on the Tokamak from
Robert Heeter, and thus I have no interest in funding their trips.

My $30 offer to help send Tom Droege still stands, however.

--Tom

--
The opinions expressed herein are mine and mine alone.  Keep your filthy
hands off 'em! 
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudents_zemanian cudfnThomas cudlnZemanian cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.19 / David Seghers /  Re: Let's send Tom to Cartersville, GA
     
Originally-From: seghers_david/hp5000_zp@openmail2.corp.hp.com (David Seghers)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Let's send Tom to Cartersville, GA
Date: 19 Sep 1994 21:30:40 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard

In article <35khcm$836@fnnews.fnal.gov>, Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege) says:
[snip]
>All that I can hope to do is to evaluate the general technique used, 
>and the style of the experimenter. This I would then write up and 
>present here.
From your posted experiments, this would be worth the $20 I have 
already offered.  I trust your curiosity.
>
>You could then detect whether or not I thought that there were some 
>chance that it was true by whether or not I started doing the 
>experiment. 
This is what I mean!  I'm sure you could come up with a use for lots
of steam.  spf seems to be full of it, perhaps you could find a use for
that too!
>
[snip]
>But having said all this, and if you really want me to go, I will do 
>it as an adventure.  The really important subject then is "What do I 
>wear?"  When I though I was going to observe transmutation to gold, I 
>had decided on a lavender tux, with a large gole medalian with radiating
>lines, sort of like the high priest in the De Zauberflaute.  But this 
>seems to require something different?
The acid burned lab coat?  Plus pocket protector, of course!
>
>Tom Droege

Let us know the address, and my check or $20 dollar bill will be in the
mail.

David Seghers (seghers@hpcc01.HP.COM) 415-691-3730
************************************************************************
Solipsist Society, Founding Member  (I think, therefore you are.)
Charter member of the "I HATE vi!" Club.
************************************************************************
The statements and opinions above are my own, entirely my own, and no one
else's.
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenhp5000_zp cudfnDavid cudlnSeghers cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.19 / Bruce Schechter /  Re: Rothwellian Science
     
Originally-From: bruce_schechter@cc.wdi.disney.com (Bruce Schechter)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Rothwellian Science
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 1994 16:29:10 -0800
Organization: Walt Disney Imagineering

In article <1994Sep17.142853.9213@Princeton.EDU>, Robert F. Heeter
<rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> wrote:

> into steam that you could sell for profit, would you buy it, no questions 
> asked about where the energy comes from or what sort of water is needed, 
> as long as you can package it and sell it at a profit?
> 

This reminds me of a science fiction story someone once recounted to me. 
An inventor 
was tinkering one day in his laboratory when, lo and behold, the device he built
starts pouring out lots and lots of free energy.  He can't figure out
where it's coming
from but, hey, he's an inventor, not a scientist.  He gets a patent and
makes a billion bucks.
The scientists are baffled, but that's okay because free energy is free
energy and
the Earth enters a time of prosperity for all.  Twenty years later a UFO
is spotted over
Washington.  It lands and a strange alien gets out.  "Welcome" we say. 
"Yeah, hi.  I'm the 
meter reader and you owe us 53.7  trillion units.  Will that be cash or charge?"

-- 

Bruce_Schechter@cc.wdi.disney.com.......................................
..................................................
                                                              
               opinions expressed approximate only my own and coincide
                                                              
                only coincidently with those of my employer or
anyone else
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenbruce_schechter cudfnBruce cudlnSchechter cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.19 / Bruce Schechter /  Re: Let's send Tom to Cartersville, GA
     
Originally-From: bruce_schechter@cc.wdi.disney.com (Bruce Schechter)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Let's send Tom to Cartersville, GA
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 1994 15:51:50 -0800
Organization: Walt Disney Imagineering

In article <35dptq$eef$2@mhadf.production.compuserve.com>, Jed Rothwell
<72240.1256@CompuServe.COM> wrote:

> Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege) writes:
>  
>      "Wow!!  I am honored by all the folks that want to send me to
>      Cartersville.'
>  
> Y'all better talk to Jim before setting this bandwagon in motion. He is a busy
> guy, you should make reservations well ahead of time because they do not have
> room for too many observers, and you better be ready to spend a couple of days
> there because this is a test bed, things do not always work. No point in
> showing up unannounced some week they plan to spend calibrating.
>  
> Tom Droege's evaluations of the ICCF4 papers make me think he is not qualified
> to evaluate this or any other experiment. But that's Jim's business, not mine.
>  
> - Jed

I'm in for $20.  And I'll take some side action of the "test bed" not
working when
Tom arrives and not being repaired by the time he leaves.  Either that or
Jim being
too busy with whatever to agree to see him in this century.

Funny how Jed continues to invite one and all to check out the machine until
there seems to be a chance that someone might.  Yup, I'm in for $20 or
even $30 if
need be.

-- 

Bruce_Schechter@cc.wdi.disney.com.......................................
..................................................
                                                              
               opinions expressed approximate only my own and coincide
                                                              
                only coincidently with those of my employer or
anyone else
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenbruce_schechter cudfnBruce cudlnSchechter cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.19 / Bruce Schechter /  Re: Let's send Tom to Cartersville, GA
     
Originally-From: bruce_schechter@cc.wdi.disney.com (Bruce Schechter)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Let's send Tom to Cartersville, GA
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 1994 15:59:37 -0800
Organization: Walt Disney Imagineering

In article <1994Sep18.165540.26003@oxvaxd>, roes@vax.oxford.ac.uk (Peter
Roessingh) wrote:

> Before we Send Tom Droege on a fact finding mission we should
> formulate the different hypotheses that have been suggested here
> recently, and see what observations would discriminate between
> them, and what would be needed to invalidate each of them.
> 
> So far I have seen the following proposals:
> 
> [1] The Griggs device is a CF reactor.
>  
> [2] The Griggs device is a heatpump.
>  
> [3] The Griggs device works by storing heat in the rotor and
>     releasing it later.
>  
> [4] The Griggs device works by storing rotational
>     energy in the rotor and releasing it later.
>  
> [5] The Griggs device works by oxidising its Al parts

You forgot one hypothesis: the Grigg's device doesn't work.  To be
more precise.  In a time period of time T consumes an amount of energy X 
and outputs an amount of energy Y.  As T goes to infinity X>Y.

-- 

Bruce_Schechter@cc.wdi.disney.com.......................................
..................................................
                                                              
               opinions expressed approximate only my own and coincide
                                                              
                only coincidently with those of my employer or
anyone else
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenbruce_schechter cudfnBruce cudlnSchechter cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.19 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Tom's trip is a waste of time and money
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Tom's trip is a waste of time and money
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 1994 22:19:34 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <35kegv$e3u$2@mhade.production.compuserve.com>,
Jed Rothwell  <72240.1256@CompuServe.COM> wrote:
>Dale Bass offered to come evaluate the GG a couple weeks ago for a fee. I told
>him flat out no, we don't need him. Jim has the best people in State of
>Georgia doing that, Dale's professional services are not required. I said if
>he would like to come have a look for himself just to satisfy his own
>curiosity I might be able to arrange it, but nobody here will pay him.

     No offense intended, but who exactly are 'the best people in the
     State of Georgia'?  All I've seen mentioned is a single emeritus
     Professor. 

     On the other hand, if you wish to continue to promote free
     energy devices, perhaps you should be more understanding when
     engineers among us, who've seen such things before, just laugh
     at you and whatever suckers you're able to draw into your web.
     Remember, I'm more than willing to put an end to the charade, 
     but not for free. After all, the only thing I get out of it is
     a more detailed example for my 'perpetual motion' lecture.

     Tom, however, seems to be willing to evaluate the device
     for free, so it seems to make sense to send him (that is, if it
     is possible to get free access to the lab).

     I fully understand why you might regard this somewhat less than 
     favorably.  The full light of day has never been kind to such devices.

>Now, there is this silly plan to send Tom Droege instead. Dale writes:
> 
>     "Prediction: you'll see Jed start to waffle as the time draws near."
> 
>Waffle, hell! I said it is a waste of time sending Tom.

     It didn't take long.

> I would not send him
>to my daughter's Junior High Science fair. Pick up the Atlanta Yellow Pages,
>select any HVAC firm at random and you will find engineers better qualified
>than the likes of Tom Droege. Y'all can't be serious about this. You are going
>to send some guy halfway across the country to measure BTUs -- some guy who
>has never measured a BTU in his life for all you know and who can't even
>evaluate a simple flow or gas calorimeter at a physics conference. Why waste
>money on a plane ticket? Call Peachtree Heating and Air Conditioning and send
>a man out there with a Dranetz and a thermometer. There is nothing to it! Any
>competent engineer can measure the effect in an hour or two. Any HVAC engineer
>knows more about BTUs than Droege, Blue, Morrison, Bass and Frank Close put
>together.
>

     Indeed?  Were you aware that your 'expert' BS engineer was *taught* 
     thermodynamics, and anything having to do with HVAC engineering by 
     the likes of me?  Where may I ask did you attain your mechanical
     engineering credentials?  In the lab of an inventor whose claims
     violate the first law of thermodynamics at a minimum?

>I have already seen independent expert evaluations of the GG, I don't need any
>more. I don't give a darn whether Tom goes or not. It is none of my business,
>you are not wasting any of my time or money. I cannot understand why people
>are in such a hurry to get an evaluation anyway, because as I said Jim should
>have some detailed reports by the time ICCF5 rolls around, and maybe before
>that. What is the big hurry? What are y'all so het up about suddenly? I
>reported this a year ago. It got uploaded here 3 or 4 times since then. What
>is all the excitement about? Just wait a couple of months.

     Jed, you're starting to drip.

                                      dale bass



cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.19 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Let's send Tom to Cartersville, GA
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Let's send Tom to Cartersville, GA
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 1994 22:28:29 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <gsteckly.55.000C3F9B@clark.dgim.doc.ca>,
Gary Steckly <gsteckly@clark.dgim.doc.ca> wrote:
>In article <CwCzA9.C7u@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> crb7q@watt.seas.Virgin
a.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>>From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
>>Subject: Re: Let's send Tom to Cartersville, GA
>>Date: Mon, 19 Sep 1994 04:03:45 GMT
>
>>In article <1994Sep18.033249.7609@clark.dgim.doc.ca>,
>>Gary Steckly <gsteckly@dgim.doc.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>Be warned though...Jed is pretty sure of this thing.  He offered to 
>>>pay for my skeptic brother-in-law's trip to Atlanta to check out this 
>>>pump.  The condition was that my B-I-L  would pay if he couldn't prove 
>>>that the tests were flawed. Unfortunately, he declined because he was so 
>>>sure of his belief in the 1st and 2nd laws (sometimes you would think he 
>>>was a physicist and not just a lowly engineer...he is so darned sure of 
>>>himself) but you can't choose your family ;-)
>
>>     Prediction: you'll see Jed start to waffle as the time draws near.
>
>That wasn't Jed who was waffling...it was my self righteous brother-in-law (I 
>better be careful...I think he's getting access to the net soon ;-0

    Jed felt safe when it was a bluff.  I think he realizes that 
    this is not a bluff.

>Jed seems to be on pretty safe ground, calorimetrically speaking, although I 
>doubt that this pump thing is fusion (where are the dead plumbers)

     The calorimetry is but one aspect.  The question is whether
     they have an appropriate energy *balance*.  So, not only do they
     have to get the output right, they must get the input right.
     Characteristics of the input power that they've already discussed
     should concern anyone who thinks this is a 'mystery' of any 
     import.

>I think we need more people like Jed who will put their money where their 
>mouth is.  Something strange is going on with the GG, it behooves everyone to 
>get to the bottom of it.

     Note carefully that Jed did not make me that offer.  The fewer
     young, agressive Mechanical Engineering faculty around, the better.

                                  dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.19 / John Logajan /  Re: Tom's trip is a waste of time and money
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@mirage.skypoint.net (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Tom's trip is a waste of time and money
Date: 19 Sep 1994 23:48:59 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Tom Droege (Droege@fnal.fnal.gov) wrote:
: So I think science fairs are more related to mysticism than science, and
: actually serve to destroy science.

'cept I don't think young tyke's psyches are as fragile as all that.

Seems to me that when people would put up barriers to my interests in
my early years, or actively criticize or badmouth them, I would simply
ignore their counsel and mumble insults at them under my breath.

I've more or less always pursued the subjects I wanted to pursue --
and damn the torpedoes.  Maybe I am ego-centric, but I tend to believe
that other people are of similar bent -- following their own true
interests regardless of the outside suggestions.

--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com -- 612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills  MN 55112 USA           -
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Tue Sep 20 04:37:04 EDT 1994
------------------------------
1994.09.19 / Bruce Schechter /  Re: Griggs device tests
     
Originally-From: bruce_schechter@cc.wdi.disney.com (Bruce Schechter)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs device tests
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 1994 16:09:24 -0800
Organization: Walt Disney Imagineering

In article <35cl3a$8i1$1@mhadf.production.compuserve.com>, Jed Rothwell
<72240.1256@CompuServe.COM> wrote:

They are
> as gulible and greedy as any other group of people. That is why they don't
> believe in CF today, because it hit's 'em in the pocket, where it hurts most.
>  
> - Jed
>  
>  
> [1] R. D. Petrasso, Nature (London), 350 (1991) 661.

Can you please explain exactly how CF hits scientists in the pocket book? 
Perhaps
you are implying that those who are invested in hot fusion would lose
their grants.
Maybe, maybe not.  But there are lots more scientists out there who would
consider a completely new phenomenon to investigate a gift from heaven. 
Exciting new discoveries always generate enormous 
amounts of funding for everyone.  They generate publications, grants, prizes,
fame and fortune.  And they're loads of fun.  Scientists care very deeply about 
all of these things.  So why do they ignore so-called cold fusion?

-- 

Bruce_Schechter@cc.wdi.disney.com.......................................
..................................................
                                                              
               opinions expressed approximate only my own and coincide
                                                              
                only coincidently with those of my employer or
anyone else
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenbruce_schechter cudfnBruce cudlnSchechter cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.20 / A Rivero /  These nice enegy balls... (crossposted)
     
Originally-From: rivero@sol.unizar.es (Alejandro Rivero)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: These nice enegy balls... (crossposted)
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 1994 08:01:00 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway


Have you ever thought about that "energy punchs" that every Japanese
cartoon heroe seems able to launch?? They are not energy or laser rays, as
sometimes (see DragonBall by example) can be dispersed or even bounced
away. 
Well, it results that they are not more incredible that other "convincent"
punchs as man-generated air shockwaves etc. If anyone want to try, 
see Physical Review 135 2 A (july 1964), p A390 and references therein.

						Alex

 ---------------------------------------------------

cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenrivero cudfnAlejandro cudlnRivero cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.20 / A Rivero /  More on cold cold fusion and Superconductivity
     
Originally-From: rivero@sol.unizar.es (Alejandro Rivero)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: More on cold cold fusion and Superconductivity
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 1994 08:06:12 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway


I have taken a time to look the three last CDs of the SCI index
and I found some recent references, dated near the peak of CF interest,
so it was not a forgotten concept. Let me to name two:

-One included in the bibl. database is G Stoppini, Coulomb screening
in superconducting PdH, nuevo cimento 13D, p1181 (1991). It does not
mention the original references, I found it using the "related records"
option in the SCI.

-One report published out of the scope of CF is "Neutron Spectroscopy of
MnH, NiH, PdH and ... optical phonons", Kolesnikov et al, Physica B 174
p 257 (1991). This one is from the lab of Dubna, so there would be
close reports looking explicitly for CF, but I have not located any. 
Perhaps the more interesting part for non espectroscopists is the
introduction and references :-). They cite Skoskiewitz, Phys Stat Sol A11,
K123 (1972) reporting supperconductivity of PdH_x, and Stritzker and
Buckel, Z Physik 257 p 1 (1972 also) showing existence of inverse
isotope effect (IIE) for the critical temperature (Dont ask me what is that,
I suposse that the T_c changes with the proprotion of Deuterium, but no idea
how)

For the determination of the T_c point, Stoppini cites
our known Stritzker-Wuehl, Hidrogen in Metals Vol II, edited 
by Alefeld and Voelkl; and some technicar reports (Sachetti...)

When nPd = nDeut Stoppini says the T_c is 11 K. No dependence of isotope
is reported, at least as I see at a first glance. Somewhere it is indicated that
T_c decreases if the H or D concentration decreases.

=====================================================

About the search.

A point whan looking for Cf bibliography s that Colf Fusion is a 
"forbbiden word", or it seems to be. Most papers are located 
searching for (Palladium or Pd) AND (Deut* or hydroge* or hydrid* or PdH) a 
and then using the "related records" search.

Point could be that, from the point of view of materials science, 
electrolitical CF is only one more of the experiences on this kind of
promising materials...


					Alejandro Rivero
					Theoret Phys Dep, 
					Zaragoza Univ, Spain

cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenrivero cudfnAlejandro cudlnRivero cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.20 / Lee Rudolph /  Science Fairs (was, Re: Tom's trip is a waste of time and money)
     
Originally-From: rudolph@cis.umassd.edu (Lee Rudolph)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.scientists,misc.education.science,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Science Fairs (was, Re: Tom's trip is a waste of time and money)
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 1994 01:18:32 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts Dartmouth

[I'm taking the liberty of reposting this to soc.culture.scientists
and misc.education.science, two groups which could use a good discussion
of "science fairs". --Lee Rudolph]

In sci.physics.fusion, Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege) writes:

>Sorry, Jed, but the great state of Illinois thought enough of me to 
>have me judge science fairs at the state level for a couple of years.
>
>I finally wrote them a nasty letter and quit.  The whole science fair
>system is designed (in my opinion) to mold creative people into what
>non-creative people think science is.  The result of all this is to 
>weed out likely prospects for science at an early age.  They must figure
>that they are no good at science as they never get their projects 
>throught the science fair process.  So they become mutual fund managers
>instead.  
>
>I would get a C- on my project if I were in the school system today.  I
>would never get past writing up my proposition, or whatever they call it.
>I *would* be out in the lab blowing something up (and did indeed make
>gunpoweder and other stuff in the basement).  
>
>After judging, I once took one of the winners aside, and tried to discuss
>with him how to improve his experiment.  He was not at all interested in
>how to improve his experiment, only in whether or not the changes I 
>proposed would make it more likely that he would win at the next level.  
>
>There is a whole industry built around science fairs.  I once asked a 
>participant why he used a CK104 transistor in his experiment.  Even at
>the time (10 or so years ago) it was an obsolete type.  But it's use 
>had won earlier, not it is firmly intrenched in folk lore.  So I think
>science fairs are more related to mysticism than science, and actually 
>serve to destroy science.  But then look who runs them.  Our educational
>system.  
>
>Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenrudolph cudfnLee cudlnRudolph cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.20 / Robert Rope /  pmk device?
     
Originally-From: ropero@netcom.com (Robert Rope)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: pmk device?
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 1994 01:42:18 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

hello, I have been following this debate over ball lightning and 
pmk fusion for some time, I cant say that I understand 1/10
of the talk about the phenomina.
but I have always been facinated by alternate fusion concepts and
their devices.
my question to paul koloc has nothing to do with ionization
or plasma boundrys. it is about the device used in his initial
experiments.
what does the device look like?  what process heats the plasmak
ball to thermonuclear temperatures?
does the device have magnets?  or electrical coils?
or vacuum pumps?
what would the finished reactor theorectically look like?
how big would it be?  could it be made small for automobiles etc...

I am into the invention itself and dont care much for plasma
theory.
please respond here or write me e-mail at:  ropero@netcom.com
 :7)
 


cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenropero cudfnRobert cudlnRope cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.19 /  PaulBreed /  Re: Let's send Tom to Cartersville, GA
     
Originally-From: paulbreed@aol.com (PaulBreed)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Let's send Tom to Cartersville, GA
Date: 19 Sep 1994 22:43:02 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

In article <CwEEFH.4DM@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>,
crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:

I'm in for $20.00, will someone please post an address?

Also Tom, I may be able to get a company I consult for to lend you a 
three phase power meter that has useable accuracy (2%) from DC to 125Khz.
It is large and bulky, but It's light enough to mail.
Send me E-Mail If your interested.

Paul Breed

cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenpaulbreed cudlnPaulBreed cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.20 / A Rivero /  Re: young psyches fragile? (Was Re: Tom's trip
     
Originally-From: rivero@sol.unizar.es (Alejandro Rivero)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: young psyches fragile? (Was Re: Tom's trip
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 1994 09:58:51 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

> Originally-From: jlogajan@mirage.skypoint.net (John Logajan)
> 
> Tom Droege (Droege@fnal.fnal.gov) wrote:
> : So I think science fairs are more related to mysticism than science, and
> : actually serve to destroy science.
> 
> I've more or less always pursued the subjects I wanted to pursue --
> and damn the torpedoes.  Maybe I am ego-centric, but I tend to believe
> that other people are of similar bent -- following their own true
> interests regardless of the outside suggestions.
> 
I thought similar when I began to study. And it is true, all the people who
were motivated to research in the first year were enought self-motivated
and finished all in research fields. But there was a second group
who started research when they were authorized to work in the
labs, and some of then are very promising... they are usually more
patient and methodic that people in the first group.


                                             Alex
  

cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenrivero cudfnAlejandro cudlnRivero cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.19 / Robert Heeter /  Re: Griggs device - multiple barrels
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs device - multiple barrels
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 1994 23:50:10 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

> From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@CompuServe.COM>
> Message-ID: <35j5m3$h78$2@mhadg.production.compuserve.com>
> References: <1994Sep17.141853.7136@Princeton.EDU>
> 
> I wrote that an extended barrel test of the GG would be kind of
dangerous
> and difficult, because "The valves and hoses used to redirect the steam
from
> air to barrel are at 212 deg F, the barrel itself gets hot, and it
crashes and
> jumps around as the steam shoots into it, water as hot as 140 deg F
sloshes
> around, the motor and shaft rotate at thousands of r.p.m. . . ."

No Jed, you didn't say it would be "kind of dangerous and difficult," 
you said it would be *impossible*:

*In article <359mag$pes$2@mhade.inhouse.compuserve.com> Jed Rothwell, 
*72240.1256@CompuServe.COM writes:  
* Me: "It is quite impossible to do an 8 hour barrel test."

To which Mr. Stolfi gently suggested you try a different setup:
* Stolfi: "Could perhaps you use two (or more) barrels, alternating
between
* them?"

Rather than say something about how you could do that if you had a
better experimental design, or different equipment, 
you said that you just couldn't do it.  You also said
"extremely dangerous" and not just "kind of dangerous":
 
* That would be unacceptably hazardous. I would not want to be doing
barrel
* tests all day long. Four per day is my limit. Working at close quarters
with
* such big machinery and such gigantic steam plumes is *extremely
dangerous*.
* The valves and hoses used to redirect the steam from air to barrel are
at 212
* deg F, the barrel itself gets hot, and it crashes and jumps around as
the
* steam shoots into it, water as hot as 140 deg F sloshes around, the
motor and
* shaft rotate at thousands of r.p.m. . . . It is not the kind of thing
you can
* deal with in a manual test hour after hour.
  
I found it silly for you to be saying it was "quite impossible" for you
to do an extended barrel test, when really what you're saying is
that you don't *want* to do an extended test with the given 
equipment and that you don't *feel* like having the equipment 
modified to make such a test possible.

> Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>, who has not done the
> experiment, writes:

What difference does it make whether I've done the experiment or not?
>  
>      "Jed, this is total bullshit.  All you need is a valve that you can
>      switch from one hose to another, and two other valves that you can
>      switch on and off to drain one barrel while you're using the
other.  All
>      of that can be wired up to be done remotely . . ."
>  
> I'll tell you what, Mr. Total Bullshit, you go ahead and replicate the
> experiment, you do it any way you feel like. 

No Jed, if *you* do the experiment, do it right, and don't tell
anyone something is "quite impossible" just because you don't want to
do it.

[ comments about Princeton trimmed ]
> I am here. I did the work. I did it MY way, for 
> no budget at all (except for a new 55 gallon steel drum from Home
Depot). You
> folks at Princeton could not improve on it with a million dollars of
extra
> equipment. Maybe you *can* improve on it. 

So which sentence should I listen to here?  Can I or can't I?

> Do the experiment in that case. 
> Show me! For now, I don't tell you how to build Tokamaks, so you should
not 
> tell me how to measure BTUs. Or, if you do feel like offering helpful 
> suggestions, you can damn well start the messages without this "total 
> bullshit" stuff, because I do not take kindly to it, and it is a bad 
> reflection on Princeton.

I agree, starting off with "This is total bullshit" probably wasn't
real nice.  Then again, your response to Stolfi was equally
thoughtless ("It is quite impossible...").  But still, I apologize.  

Let's try this:  Jed, it shouldn't be that hard to alter the equipment
so that you don't need to expose yourself to all that extremely
dangerous steam and hot machinery, while allowing an extended
barrel-type test to be conducted.  And I think you're clever enough
to do it without spending a lot of money.  Why don't you try it?

I just found it annoying that you wouldn't even consider changing
the way you do things before you replied to Stolfi.  After all,
his suggestion *was* helpful, and he didn't start with "This is
bullshit" either.  But you still ignored him, and that ticked me
off a bit.

> Heck, you don't even need to replicate a GG to impress me. Let's see
y'all 
> generate half as much heat with your Tokamaks as Jim generates with his
> Pump. Show us some real results from instead of this pitiful 6 MJ
stuff. 
> We did better than that years ago. Piantelli did 50 times better than
you 
> with only 16 grams of metal!

Funny, I figure I've personally generated about, oh,
100 W * 3E7 sec/year * 23 years = about 70,000 MJ of heat in my 
lifetime.  That's 200 times better than Piantelli claims to have done.  
And about as irrelevant to tokamak fusion.  But aren't you impressed? :)

***************************
Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University
As always, I represent only myself, and not Princeton.
             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                Jed, Pay Attention!
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.20 / Paul Koloc /  Was PMK Ionisation now Mantle cyclotron & SCH (lyrical)
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Was PMK Ionisation now Mantle cyclotron & SCH (lyrical)
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 1994 03:21:12 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <35jja4INN1akh@sat.ipp-garching.mpg.de> carlson@ipp-garching.mpg.de writes:
>In article <CwCw9z.JFn@prometheus.UUCP>, pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) writes:
>|> In article <35h82aINN1at5@sat.ipp-garching.mpg.de> carlson@ipp-garch
ng.mpg.de writes:
>Yes, I meant the optical depth in plasma. The absorbion in a gas can be much
>higher.

>|> The Mantle doesn't generate cyclotron radiation, but does reflect it.

>I'm mildly curious where this thought comes from. It might even be true, 
>but I'd appreciate a calculation or reference to back it up. On the other 
>hand, it remains a side issue in the sense that it can only degrade the 
>energy confinement, but whether this is significant or not depends on 
>complicated calulations involving the details of the configuration.

1.  Kernel plasma
You can work the numbers using the NRL Formulary.  The Kernel plasma
(with shear currents and fields) is under tremendous mag pressure 
when compressed for a fusion burn, and since the plasma is of limited
beta, extremely strong mag flux is present within the domain occupied
by the plasma fuel.  Thus, it generates a whopping amount of cyclotron
radiation.  Of course, the current flow being at or close to "force
free", means current electrons don't contribute much, even though they
are unidirectionally very hot.  Also note: We expect that the Kernel 
plasma field system to be smooth and unturbulent due to the continuous 
typical topology.  This is not the case in a tokamak due partially to 
the integral number of field generating toroidal field coils.  As a 
consequence, a PMK may not excite as many higher harmonics as might 
occur in a more turbulent regime as found in the coil magnetized 
tokamak plasma.  

2. Mantle plasma 
The Mantle plasma is an extremely high beta plasma, with only a very
weak stray field present.  Further, it is of very insignificant 
temperature by comparison to the burning Kernel plasma.  Consequently, 
the generation of is essentially (by comparison) absent.  Further,
it is under less pressure, if we are to believe implications of 
Furth et al.  

>|> [...]  The [Bremmsstrahlung] radiation doesn't have to be, in part, 
>|> returned to the Kernel plasma AS REFLECTED radiation.  Why? because 
>|> other energy transform mechanisms will work just as well.  The PMK 
>|> technology uses SCH, where needed.

>What is SCH, and how can it make up for the loss of Bremsstrahlung power?

Well, say you want to find a way to return Bremsstrahlung cooling 
loss to your tokamak plasma.  One technique would be to make the 
walls magically superconducting.  Then when fusion radiation thunked 
into the walls, they would heat and expand a bit.  With the proper 
engineering, this expansion could effect a contraction of the wall 
internal diameter.  Since poloidal flux from plasma current would be 
trapped within the superconducting walls, then the fusion driven 
contraction (via metal wall thickness expansion) would compress the 
poloidal flux, thus causing a surge in ohmically heating current as 
well as adiabatic compression heating.  In PMK technology, its "wall" 
can be made to be much more responsive to efficiently and 
significantly compressing and reheating the PMK.  This is "SCH" --
               Self Compression Heating     

Just an added benefit(#117), of keeping the system simpler by relying 
more on higher states of matter, from which to construct your fusion 
gizmo, and then prioritizing the order and measure of their radial 
distribution, all the way out ambient.  

>Art Carlson
>-- 
>To study, to finish, to publish. -- Benjamin Franklin
>
>Dr. Arthur Carlson
>Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics
>Garching, Germany
>carlson@ipp-garching.mpg.de

At least BF choose the correct sign for electrons, but he may be
one of the few that ever knew it.  
I always thought he "did" -- not just studied.. .  or is that in the 
finish?  Does his meaning of finish include "doing" experimental work? 
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc, Bx 1037 Prometheus II Ltd, College Park MD 20741-1037    |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.20 / Paul Koloc /  Re: pmk device?
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: pmk device?
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 1994 03:33:36 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <roperoCwEnEI.88u@netcom.com> ropero@netcom.com (Robert Rope) writes:
>hello, I have been following this debate over ball lightning and 
>pmk fusion for some time, I cant say that I understand 1/10
>of the talk about the phenomina.
>but I have always been facinated by alternate fusion concepts and
>their devices.
>my question to paul koloc has nothing to do with ionization
>or plasma boundrys. it is about the device used in his initial
>experiments.
>what does the device look like?  

An absolutely beautiful plasma-magnetic bubble that floats 
effortlessly through the atmosphere.  It's oval shape in larger
sizes, and more diamond shape (lateral view) in small sizes.   

what process heats the plasmak

Initially ohmic heating due to very very intense currents.  
That's the "i^2" part.  

>ball to thermonuclear temperatures?

Adiabatic toroidal compression, with an incoming (flying) 
flux trapping boundary.  Just put it in a bottle and pump it
up with a bicycle pump . .. except pump FAST and Hard.     

>does the device have magnets?  or electrical coils?

It is a magnet. 

>or vacuum pumps?

It is a vacuum pump. 

>what would the finished reactor theorectically look like?

There would be several different beasts, but it's too early
to tell.   

>how big would it be?  could it be made small for automobiles etc...


Nope.   That's the province for the CF guys.  


>I am into the invention itself and don't care much for plasma
>theory.

ko

>please respond here or write me e-mail at:  ropero@netcom.com
> :7)

Some patents issued in the USA in 90-92.  But, I don't keep track.
If they list by author, then you should find them.  There are many
more applications in the works, but don't hold your breath,
the DoE reviews them.. and reviews them  etc. etc. ad nauseum.   
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc, Bx 1037 Prometheus II Ltd, College Park MD 20741-1037    |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.20 / Richard Blue /  Re: Let's send Tom to Cartersville, GA
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Let's send Tom to Cartersville, GA
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 1994 14:23:39 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I'm in for @20.  This is the best idea I have seen around here for some
time.  It has already got JR doing some backing and filling.  I also
agree with Tom as to what the nature of his investigation should or
could be.  Just getting a clear-headed and complete description of what
measurements are made and the context within which they are made could
go a long ways toward taking the mystery away from this device.

Each time Jed Rothwell rehashes what he thinks he saw he drops another
little nugget that leaves me wondering.  For example, recently he
said something about the motor not being able to spin up without
a little starting twist by hand. I think Tom could tell us whether
that is the case and whether it makes good sense.

I also would like to understand a bit better the question of "tracking"
between the Dranetz input power readings and the dynamometer readings.
Somewhere the motor efficiency must come in there, and I have never
seen a clear discussion of that.  Along that same line the 4 kW
power input just to turn over the dry rotor seems significant, and
prompted by the Stolfi analysis, I would like to see that number
checked at the end of a run when the rotor is really hot and the
GG is allowed to run dry.  (Reminds me of those goofy "boiling
water reactor" measurements.)  When did the cell run dry and who
was watching?

The whole business about the "sweet spot" and tuning by the sound
of the thing could benefit from a better witness as well.  I also
think more information about the "flow" metering Jed refers to
and the stability of the operating point.

I should think that many of the questions relating to chemical
reactions could be resolved is some samples of the condensate
were taken for analysis.  Any corrosion should make a detectable
difference to what is in the water, shouldn't it?  Of course there
would have to be a control sample as well.

The same applies in relation to the production of any nuclear
reaction products, but that is so far fetched I wouldn't suggest
that Tom bother with that on this first pass.  Of course if Jed,
or anyone else, were serious about the CF assertion it would be
a straightforward experimental problem to obtain samples and
analyze them appropriately.   The techniques for determining
helium content at whatever concentration you want to consider
do exist.

Go for it!

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.20 / Arnie Frisch /  Re: Let's send Tom to Cartersville, GA
     
Originally-From: arnief@wu.labs.tek.com (Arnie Frisch)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Let's send Tom to Cartersville, GA
Date: 20 Sep 1994 08:41:23 -0700
Organization: Tektronix Laboratories, Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton, OR

In article <gsteckly.55.000C3F9B@clark.dgim.doc.ca> gsteckly@clark.dgim.
oc.ca (Gary Steckly) writes:
>In article <CwCzA9.C7u@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> crb7q@watt.seas.Virgin
a.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>>From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
>>Subject: Re: Let's send Tom to Cartersville, GA
>>Date: Mon, 19 Sep 1994 04:03:45 GMT
>
>>In article <1994Sep18.033249.7609@clark.dgim.doc.ca>,
>>Gary Steckly <gsteckly@dgim.doc.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>Be warned though...Jed is pretty sure of this thing.  He offered to 
>>>pay for my skeptic brother-in-law's trip to Atlanta to check out this 
>>>pump.
.........



>I think we need more people like Jed who will put their money where their 
>mouth is.
>Gary



I wonder if what's really happening is that Jed wants to put YOUR money
where HIS mouth is.


Arnold Frisch
Tektronix Laboratories
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenarnief cudfnArnie cudlnFrisch cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.20 / Doug Shade /  What Tom Should Wear...
     
Originally-From: rxjf20@email.sps.mot.com (Doug Shade)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: What Tom Should Wear...
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 1994 15:36:06 GMT
Organization: Motorola LICD

Hip waders!  It may get deep in there...
(ha ha ha... just trying to add a little levity...)

I'm in for $10.  

I'm guessing that all the Jed bashing will be moderated after Tom's
report. Well who wouldn't want to see such a device actually work? 
Have fun Tom.

Doug Shade
rxjf20@email.sps.mot.com
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenrxjf20 cudfnDoug cudlnShade cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.20 / Doug Shade /  Opion Poll on GG
     
Originally-From: rxjf20@email.sps.mot.com (Doug Shade)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Opion Poll on GG
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 1994 15:43:41 GMT
Organization: Motorola LICD

Please add your name:vote (1-10) below, this is just for fun...

10 -> Yes I am an absolute believer based on what I've read so far
1-> Total snake oil

shade: 7

cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenrxjf20 cudfnDoug cudlnShade cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.20 / Jed Rothwell /  Will the real Richard Shultz. . .
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@CompuServe.COM>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Will the real Richard Shultz. . .
Date: 20 Sep 1994 16:49:46 GMT
Organization: CFRA

Will the real Richard Shultz please stand up?
 
Here is a classic "skeptical" about face. This is hilarious! Richard Shultz
suggested that a test be performed, and when I told him that it has already
been done, he immediately condemned the idea. First he wrote:
 
     "Wouldn't it be more straightforward to simply hook the thing [GG] up to
     a generator that is incapable of putting out more power than X, and
     seeing if the output power is still Y?  Or am I missing something?"
 
I said yes, that's a good idea, and Griggs tried it years ago. Quote: "That
has been done. The electric motors driving the thing have been revved up as
high as they go, and the output is shown to be greater than the input capacity
of the motor. This was not done in any of the tests I observed however. The
motor on the test rig is a fairly large one (50 HP I think), which is
convenient because they frequently swap out GGs and they want one motor that
can push any size." Please note, I said *it has been done* but the present
motor *is bigger than it needs to be*.
 
Schultz does the fastest about face he can manage. He attacks his own idea:
 
     "Note that Rothwell has already admitted that they are driving the motor
     of the generator at or above its capacity.  Maybe I'm misreading what he
     meant by that, but it strikes me that such an admission is consistent
     with the hypothesis that it takes more power to run the GG than they
     think it does."
 
No doubt, he will now return to other side and demand they stop using a 50 HP
motor. This "debate" is comical. You do not need anyone from my side, you can
ask Richard Schultz to debate himself.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.20 / Arthur TK /  Re: Was PMK Ionisation now Mantle cyclotron & SCH (lyrical)
     
Originally-From: awc@slcawcipp-garching.mpg.de (Arthur      Carlson        TK  )
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Was PMK Ionisation now Mantle cyclotron & SCH (lyrical)
Date: 20 Sep 1994 17:00:40 GMT
Organization: Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics

In article <CwErzC.1IF@prometheus.UUCP>, pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) writes:
|> In article <35jja4INN1akh@sat.ipp-garching.mpg.de> carlson@ipp-garching.mpg.de writes:
|> >|> The Mantle doesn't generate cyclotron radiation, but does reflect it.
|> 
|> >I'm mildly curious where this thought comes from. It might even be true, 
|> >but I'd appreciate a calculation or reference to back it up. On the other 
|> >hand, it remains a side issue in the sense that it can only degrade the 
|> >energy confinement, but whether this is significant or not depends on 
|> >complicated calulations involving the details of the configuration.
|> 
|> 1.  Kernel plasma
|> [...]

The amount of cyclotron radiation from the kernel plasma depends on a lot of
things you haven't told us yet, like the profiles of density, temperature, and
magnetic field. But don't sweat it--let's agree on Bremsstrahlung as a lower
limit (for calculating the energy confinement time), and I'll accept a radiation 
flux as high as you like for other purposes (keeping the mantle ionized).

|> 2. Mantle plasma 
|> The Mantle plasma is an extremely high beta plasma, with only a very
|> weak stray field present.  Further, it is of very insignificant 
|> temperature by comparison to the burning Kernel plasma.  Consequently, 
|> the generation of is essentially (by comparison) absent.  Further,
|> it is under less pressure, if we are to believe implications of 
|> Furth et al.

Agreed that we can ignore cyclotron radiation losses from the mantle. What I
wanted to know was, why should the mantle *reflect* the radiation rather than
absorb or transmit it? Without field there is no cyclotron resonance, so the
radiation is at some frequency just like any other, and plasmas are generally
very good transmitters of microwave radiation.

|> >|> [...]  The [Bremmsstrahlung] radiation doesn't have to be, in part, 
|> >|> returned to the Kernel plasma AS REFLECTED radiation.  Why? because 
|> >|> other energy transform mechanisms will work just as well.  The PMK 
|> >|> technology uses SCH, where needed.
|> 
|> >What is SCH, and how can it make up for the loss of Bremsstrahlung power?
|> 
|> Well, say you want to find a way to return Bremsstrahlung cooling 
|> loss to your tokamak plasma.  One technique would be to make the 
|> walls magically superconducting.  Then when fusion radiation thunked 
|> into the walls, they would heat and expand a bit.  With the proper 
|> engineering, this expansion could effect a contraction of the wall 
|> internal diameter.  Since poloidal flux from plasma current would be 
|> trapped within the superconducting walls, then the fusion driven 
|> contraction (via metal wall thickness expansion) would compress the 
|> poloidal flux, thus causing a surge in ohmically heating current as 
|> well as adiabatic compression heating.  In PMK technology, its "wall" 
|> can be made to be much more responsive to efficiently and 
|> significantly compressing and reheating the PMK.  This is "SCH" --
|>                Self Compression Heating     

This is an elegant idea, but it won't work. The idea is two reservoirs of
different volumes and temperature in pressure balance with each other. Reservoir
1 gives some energy to 2 through radiation or conduction. 2 heats and expands,
which in turn compresses and heats 1, giving it back *some* of the lost energy.
In fact, my calculations show the net effect is a redution of the energy loss
rate by a factor gamma. For an ideal gas gamma is 5/3, for magnetic fields (a
low beta plasma) gamma is 4/3. Depending on the relative volumes, the
improvement with "SCH" will lie inbetween. Not very impressive.


Art Carlson

-- 
To study, to finish, to publish. -- Benjamin Franklin

Dr. Arthur Carlson
Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics
Garching, Germany
carlson@ipp-garching.mpg.de
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenawc cudfnArthur cudlnTK cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.20 /  jonesse@vanlab /  Re: Let's send Tom to Cartersville, GA
     
Originally-From: jonesse@vanlab.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Let's send Tom to Cartersville, GA
Date: 20 Sep 94 11:05:04 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

In article <gsteckly.54.0009B135@clark.dgim.doc.ca>, 
gsteckly@clark.dgim.doc.ca (Gary Steckly) writes:

> In article <ts_zemanian-190994115554@ts_zemanian.pnl.gov> ts_zemanian@
nl.gov (Thomas S. Zemanian) writes:
>>From: ts_zemanian@pnl.gov (Thomas S. Zemanian)
>>Subject: Re: Let's send Tom to Cartersville, GA
> 
> (deletia) 
> 
>>If Tom's feeling brave, dose the inlet water with a bit of D2O (Aldrich
>>sells 25g bottles of 99.9% D2O for $18.90) and see if the effect goes up. 
> 
> fusion smooshion...forget the D20...why don't you do like Mr. Jones did with 
> his SL experiments and dope the water with wint-o-green life savers ;-)

Oh, brother, what a bad joke.  We did *not* "dope the water with wint-o-green 
life savers" in our ongoing SL experiments.  We *did* do experiments in which 
the following crystals were crushed in D2 *gas* at 1-3 atm, in a search for 
*fractofusion* effects:

LiD
KH2PO4
ND4DPO4
LiNbO3
and, yes, wintogreen mints, since these show triboluminescence clearly.

And we saw nothing above (0.8+-0.2) counts per hour;  the background rate
is 0.65 counts per hour.  (I have the data in front of me.) 
Thus, there was no neutron signal in any of these tests.  
> 
> good luck gentlemem.
> 
> Gary
> 

Good luck, Tom.
--Steven Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenjonesse cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.20 / Thomas Zemanian /  Re: Let's send Tom to Cartersville, GA
     
Originally-From: ts_zemanian@pnl.gov (Thomas S. Zemanian)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Let's send Tom to Cartersville, GA
Date: 20 Sep 1994 19:00:28 GMT
Organization: Battelle PNL

In article <CwD5tr.1Eo@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>,
crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) wrote:

[Possible GG descriptions deleted]

>      or far more likely and usual in such 'free energy devices':
> 
>      [6]  They are performing the measurements of input power
>           and/or output energy improperly.
> 
>      That's what the quotation below means.  That cavitation is
>      inducing violent high frequency components in the drive
>      motor.  My working hypothesis is that only certain
>      frequencies effectively evade the power measuring apparatus, 
>      and hence only a narrow band of RPM is acceptable for the
>      'effect' to be seen.  Of course, I wouldn't rule out
>      other mistakes in measuring and computation as well.  I'm 
>      a bit concerned by people who still appear to be reading
>      from tabulated steam tables in this computer age.
> 

This is certainly a possibility.  I had thought you were suggesting that
the ultrasound caused a high frequency voltage disturbance to feed back
into the power meter and somehow confuse it.  That certain frequencies are
resonant with the power meter is a stronger possibility.  (How do these AC
power meters work, anyway?)

Point in favor of Dr. Bass's suggestion:  The power dropped when the effect
kicked in, but the rotation rate remained constant.  There should be a
input voltage drop required for such behaviour.  What is the control scheme
for this device?

Point in opposition to Dr. Bass's suggestion:  the power measurement was
redundant and consistent (_i.e._, it agreed with the dynamometer.)

--Tom

--
The opinions expressed herein are mine and mine alone.  Keep your filthy
hands off 'em! 
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudents_zemanian cudfnThomas cudlnZemanian cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.20 /  jonesse@vanlab /  cancel <1994Sep20.110230.1755@vanlab.byu.edu>
     
Originally-From: jonesse@vanlab.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cancel <1994Sep20.110230.1755@vanlab.byu.edu>
Date: 20 Sep 94 11:05:17 -0600

cancel <1994Sep20.110230.1755@vanlab.byu.edu>
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenjonesse cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.19 /  prasad /  Re: Let's send Tom to Cartersville, GA
     
Originally-From: c1prasad@watson.ibm.com (prasad)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Let's send Tom to Cartersville, GA
Date: 19 Sep 1994 21:29:18 GMT
Organization: IBM Watson

In article <35d38d$j0l@fnnews.fnal.gov>, Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege) writes:
|> >As a lurker who has been following this for a while I would love to see
|> >this run to ground.  Count me in.  I'm getting a little tired of reading
|> >all these posts with arguments that just can't be reconciled.  We will
|> >need a physical address, of course.
|> 
|> Wow!!  I am honored by all the folks that want to send me to 
|> Cartersville.  Cartersville has to rank right up there ahead of 
|> Cleveland and Newark as places to go.  But sign me up as a contributer.  
|> Remember the cheap air fares are in place.  
|> 
|> Actually I have not been following the thread of the Griggs machine.
|> I have no idea what it is supposed to do.  
|> 
|> But I think I could not resist such a challenge.  So appoint a 
|> treasurer.  If you collect say 80% of what the trip will cost, I 
|> will go.
|> 
|> Tom Droege

Tom,

Hate to play the devil's advocate here, but I guess this caution is in place.
The problem is, you might end up as one more pawn in the CF/GG confusion.
Let's see how, from a slightly skeptical perspective:

A. If you find the GG's "free energy" to be all a mistake, do you seriously
believe that you can convince the backers of the believing kind? The underlying
hypothesis of much of the CF and "free energy" is that there is something out
there that regular physics *cannot* explain. If it isn't, the many amateur
experimenters would have little to gain. How would more data, assuming you
collect and distribute some, resolve something that really rests to a great
extent on belief?  "Well, but under some slightly different conditions, we
don't know what, but what you didn't see does/will happen."

B. If you *do* find the "free energy" to be real, you would be in the equally
if not more terrible situation of having to explain it to your backers of the
skeptical kind. You wouldn't be the first. There are several mainstream-type
physicists who did find something real in many f.e. reports. Newman had his
Dr Hastings, DePalma had his Dr Kincheloe. As I see it, you'd be really hard
put to do anything about it unless you happened to uncover the next-turn-of-
the-century-theory-of-physics that could provide reproducible results all
the time. Well, our standards of reproducibility and precision should be up
from what it was back in the late 1800s, shouldn't they?


My point is, I feel very skeptical about any expert being able to resolve
this things with one trip, or even a week's working-vacation.  If I recall
right, folks at the Univ of Georgia have already been involved in the GG
analysis for months.

But then, nothing venture, nothing gain.
All the best.

-- 

#pragma prejudices=own brainwaves=own others=disowned!
// email > /dev/null
// bad habits: NuN-ToPlay!

cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenc1prasad cudlnprasad cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.19 /  prasad /  Re: Let's send Tom to Cartersville, GA
     
Originally-From: c1prasad@watson.ibm.com (prasad)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Let's send Tom to Cartersville, GA
Date: 19 Sep 1994 21:31:24 GMT
Organization: IBM Watson

In article <35ggh1$7l3@pdx1.i.net>, barry@bluesky.com (Barry Smith) writes:
|> In article <35d38d$j0l@fnnews.fnal.gov>
|> Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege) writes:
|> 
|> > So appoint a treasurer.
|> > If you collect say 80% of what the trip will cost,
|> > I will go.
|> 
|> Count me in for $25!
|> 
|> 
|> Barry Smith, Blue Sky Research
|> barry@bluesky.com

Oops, I forgot .. count me in for $25 too.

-- 

#pragma prejudices=own brainwaves=own others=disowned!
// email > /dev/null
// bad habits: nun!
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenc1prasad cudlnprasad cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.19 /  prasad /  Re: Griggs device tests
     
Originally-From: c1prasad@watson.ibm.com (prasad)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs device tests
Date: 19 Sep 1994 22:09:03 GMT
Organization: IBM Watson

In article <35dq43$eef$3@mhadf.production.compuserve.com>,
Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@CompuServe.COM> writes:
|>  
|>      "What difference in the operating conditions makes it go >1 ?  Is that
|>      data available/public/better-understood-now/predictable?"
|>  
|> I don't know if it is available or not. Jim knows, he has tons of data from
|> previous runs, and he has graphs showing the turn on and turn off for
|> different parameters. He showed me some examples, but we did not discuss it in
|> detail. I have learned a great deal about the GG, but only a fraction of what

I sure would like to get a few sample graphs, if Jim is willing. Let me clarify,
I'd be doing this on my own, and I can maintain confidentiality as needed.

|>      "Does the >1 condition have anything to do with the critical region of
|>      the water/steam system..."
|>  
|> I don't know. I do think that one important parameter is how full the pump is.
|> It hold roughly a gallon I think, and it has to be filled about halfway full
|> for optimum performance. (There is a small glass window on the test unit, and
|> he is making a heavy NASA plastic housing.) If it is half full, the top is all
|> steam, which may well have something to do with it. Some configurations suffer
|> from instability, in which most of the liquid will suddenly flash into steam,
|> effectively draining the pump. This "explosive deloading" kills the effect. It
|> is dramatic, he can demonstrate it by adjusting flow and pressure.

Yes, you have indeed answered my question.  Elsewhere, you have mentioned 40 deg
(104F) as the output temperature. That means though the steam is dry, it's not
at the >= 100 C as one is ordinarily used to thinking, but quite below that.

Here's a rather crude pV plot, in which only the segment bc is really horizontal,
and cd is a gradual drop. This is an isotherm at T < 100 C.  At T >> 100 C,
the liquid phase bc would vanish. The point is, the steam output at (c) is at
less than 100 C.

      p	|	\ a
	|	 \       y
	|	  \----f---\ c
	|	  b	    ----
	|	    x	        ------     d
	|		              -------
	|
	+------------------------------------- V

The reason I found this interesting is that, as far as I know, Griggs' is
the first steam-making gadget we are studying at all seriously that doesn't
depend on *heating* as the cause of vaporization, but on mechanical effects
(viz. cavitation). Think about it, whether you use an electric heater, a
fuel burner, or a heat pump, your steam production is ordinarily because 
of heating, not thrashing.

The fact that it sometimes explodes proves my critical-region hypothesis.
The van der Waals eqn of state plot actually has the shape a-b-x-f-y-c-d,
with the areas bxf and fyc being equal (Maxwell's equal area rule). The
region bx describes superheated liquid, and yc is supersaturated vapor.
The region xfy is almost never observed in a stable state.

Consider what happens if Griggs' tank internals are somewhere on the xfy
line (instead of the equilibrium line bfc). As the liquid-vapor mix expands,
going right on the volume line V, the pressure *increases* (upward in
the graph). This is something like a negative resistance in electronics.
The mixture therefore expands ever faster, giving your observed instability.

Of course, this in no way explains the >1 data. [That would be strictly for
the US PTO, right?!]  But I'm willing to conjecture one related possibility:
that the greater "energy gain" measurements correspond to how large a
"phase amplitude" (distance from bfc line to x or to y) the system maintain.

Assuming this is so, one of the criteria for stable system operation would
be, that the steam is removed at a rate proportional to its production.
Well, that sounds like going in circles, but what I mean is, ordinarily,
in equilibrium states, the reaction (ie. vaporization) drops off if you
don't remove the products (steam), so the system phase is observable
at low reaction rates. In an unstable situation, you got to go with the
reaction. Eg. say you've got some gunpowder in a can, and it catches fire.
If the gases can go away as they are produced, as when the can is open,
there is no explosion but fierce burning. Similar thing, when you're riding
a bicycle. You turn into the direction of fall, to keep your balance,
ie. you go along faster (ai-ki-do to desu ne!) and overcome gravity!

In the GG, I'd think, by matching the steam removal rate to its production,
the unstable "phase" of the mixture can be kept artificially stable,
like the computer keeps the F16 stable [which is designed to be aerodyn.
unstable, for maneouverability].

Can/Has this be/been measured/confirmed, Jed?  Jim?

|>  
|> - Jed

And thanks for your detailed reply.
As you can see, it only begets more questions!

-- 

#pragma prejudices=own brainwaves=own others=disowned!
// email: 71155.3116@compuserve.com, poll= < 1/month.
// bad habits: nun!
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenc1prasad cudlnprasad cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.21 /  TAUPIN@rsovax. /  New package for experimental data treatment
     
Originally-From: TAUPIN@rsovax.lps.u-psud.fr
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: New package for experimental data treatment
Subject: New package for experimental data treatment
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 1994 03:15:21 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Subject: New package for experimental data treatment

Great news for experimentalists working with theoreticians and conversely:
 -----> EXPHER !
Expher is a compiler which generates a Fortran 77 program to perform data
reduction, error analysis, and all that kind of things.

You give EXPHER a source file where
 -- you state your unknowns
 -- you state your mathematical definitions
 -- you describe what are your measurements (tens, hundreds, arrays, etc.)
 -- you describe your expected experimental errors
 -- you describe what measurements are "expected" owing to your... unknowns
An EXPHER generates a Fortran 77 program which answers most questions,
giving you the most likely values of your unknowns, their error bars, and
the final error matrix. Note that is not limite to linear unknowns of
classical least squares, but it can handle sophisticated (but continuous)
functions...

This takes a few hours to be done, while building the same program from nil
is a several months job... Try it.

Doc available at anonymous ftp: hprib.lps.u-psud.fr, in
directories pub/expher/doc/english and pub/expher/doc/french in the form
of PostScript files (*.ps), PCL files (*.lj), TeX files and DVI files.

Distribution available in pub/expher/.... where .... may be
unxsun (SUNos), unxaix (RS6000/AIX), unxymp(Cray/UNICOS), unx_hp(HP9000/HP_UX)
and vaxvms. Generic distribution in pub/expher/master.

Freeware but please cite that work in publications.

Daniel Taupin: taupin@lps.u-psud.fr



cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenTAUPIN cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.21 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Tom's trip to Georgia
     
Originally-From: barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Tom's trip to Georgia
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 94 02:53:11 GMT
Organization: UCLA, Mathematics Department

In article <199409170144.AA15211@leibniz.cs.arizona.edu> rcs@cs.arizona.edu  
(Richard Schroeppel) writes:
> I'll cheerfully chip in $25 toward Tom's ticket.

I'd be in for $25 myself, as well. Just let me know when
the money is needed.


--
Barry Merriman
UCLA Dept. of Math
UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)


cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.21 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Rothwellian Science
     
Originally-From: barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Rothwellian Science
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 94 02:56:50 GMT
Organization: UCLA, Mathematics Department

In article <bruce_schechter-1909941629100001@139.104.10.184>  
bruce_schechter@cc.wdi.disney.com (Bruce Schechter) writes:
It lands and a strange alien gets out.  "Welcome" we say. 
> "Yeah, hi.  I'm the 
> meter reader and you owe us 53.7  trillion units.  Will that be cash or  
charge?"
> 

Hmm...Rothwell...Roswell---you may not be far off the
mark! I propose Jed is one of the aliens that landed 
at Roswell in the 50's, working under a, in retrospect, poorly chosen
assumed name. Your cover is blown ``Jed''---you can't
fulfill your mission of destroying earth science!

--
Barry Merriman
UCLA Dept. of Math
UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)


cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Wed Sep 21 04:37:05 EDT 1994
------------------------------
1994.09.21 / Bill Page /  Re: Let's send Tom to Cartersville, GA
     
Originally-From: 70047.3047@compuserve.com (Bill Page)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Let's send Tom to Cartersville, GA
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 1994 04:52:08 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Tom Droege wrote:
<<
All that I can hope to do is to evaluate the general technique used, 
and the style of the experimenter. This I would then write up and 
present here.

You could then detect whether or not I thought that there were some 
chance that it was true by whether or not I started doing the 
experiment. 
>>

I think I appreciate Tom's point of view on this. It is difficult
to imagine how one could collect definitive data in this kind of visit.
There are too many variables and too much to learn in too little time.

Furthermore I find the comparison of the proposed visit to the exploits
of the likes of ultra-skeptics like Randi embarrassing and offensive. I
thought we had gotten beyond that kind of thing in this college. [Actually
thinking about this: I am surprized at how angry it makes me feel. I'm
not used to feeling *that* emotional about these things... Hmmm, what
is the origin of this reaction to Randi? Well, I never cared much for
Martin Gardener's attitude either. So there!]

But what does interest me is Tom's reference to an "experiment". I
propose that the objective of Tom's visit be to evaluate the potential
of the Griggs Device as an interesting and worthwhile experiment for the
college of s.p.f. to undertake. I realize that this isn't exactly the
type of device nor the type of calorimetry that we originally envisaged
for our joint experiment, but what the heck, excess heat is excess heat.

Assuming that Tom's visit is successful and he brings back a positive
evaluation (or at least no new strong reasons to doubt the reports), then
the next step would be to start designing a reasonable experiment with
a laboratory replication of the Griggs Device. But there is no harm in
getting ahead of ourselves, right? In fact, I couldn't resist thinking
of how I would like to see such an experiment set up.

-------------

First of all, I don't know any a priori reason to think that the
claimed effect might be sensitive to scale. As I understand it, the
only reason that the Griggs Device is presently built on the "industrial
scale" that Jed has described is that Griggs did not initially set out
to create an over-unity device. He thought he was just designing a
novel kind of water heater (or boiler). Initially there weren't any
subtle questions to be answered about energy balances. It was primarily
a question of developing a practical industrial scale design for an
effect that most people thought they understood very well.

So, it seems reasonable to me that for the sake of convenience in the
design of a laboratory experimental test of this device, that a smaller
scale "benchtop" model be built. Let's suppose we could design a Griggs
Device around the 100 watt input range. Now I don't want to hear any
complaints that making it smaller makes the calorimetry harder! 100 watts
is plenty enough to avoid calorimeter uncertainty. Lower power makes
control and measurement circuitry simpler. And its safer.

The second thing is that the device should operate as a closed system.
Perhaps the following sketch might make this clearer:


      -----------------------------------------------------------
     |#######################################################|
     |#                 #                                   #|
     |#                 # rotor         heat                #|
     |#                 # +---+       exchanger             #|
     |#                 # | | |---------\  /----------      #|
     |#      DC motor   # | | | working /  \  cooling |     #|
     |#   -- and shunt======| | fluid   \  /  loop    |     #|
     |#  |   regulator  # | | | loop    /  \          |     #|
     |#  |   /\/\/\/\   # | | |---X-----\  /--        |     #|
     |#  |   |cooling|  # +---+               |       |     #|
     |#  |   | loop  |  #                     |       |     #|
     |###|###|#######|########################|#######|######|
      ---|---|-------|------------------------|-------|------
         |   |       |                        |       |
   constant  |  dT1  |                        |  dT2  |
   DC power  X       |                        X       |
   supply    |       |                        |       |
              \/\/\/\/                         \/\/\/\/
              heat sink                        heat sink


X = controllable constant rate pump
# = insulation

The calorimetry would be done by the mass flow technique. dT1 and dT2 are
the difference between outlet and inlet temperatures for the drive
motor and the rotor, respectively. The input power would be provided
by a regulated DC electric motor. Of course we would include temperature
and pressure sensors (and ultrasonic microphones etc.) in strategic
locations and data collection would be automated.

Now with an experimental setup like this, it would be possible to
examine a variety of operating conditions easily. For example:

  1) What happens if the working fluid is D2O? Percent H2O?
     Ph of the working fluid: various electrolytes.
  2) Optimal rotor speed and working fluid flow rates.

And with only a little more work we can address questions like:

  1) Rotor and rotor housing materials: Is it important that the
     rotor is aluminum (what alloy?) and the housing steel?

Of course, some of these things Griggs is (or will be looking at) but
the point of this exercise should really be independent replication and
laboratory data collection as opposed to engineering design.

Ideas?

Cheers,

Bill Page.

cudkeys:
cuddy21 cuden3047 cudfnBill cudlnPage cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.21 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Was PMK Ionisation now Mantle cyclotron & SCH (so-so)
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Was PMK Ionisation now Mantle cyclotron & SCH (so-so)
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 1994 08:11:33 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

<CwErzC.1IF@prometheus.UUCP> <35n4foINNnth@sat.ipp-
garching.mpg.de>
Sender: 
Reply-To: pmk@promethe.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Followup-To: 
Distribution: world
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.
Keywords: 

In article <35n4foINNnth@sat.ipp-garching.mpg.de> carlson@ipp-
garching.mpg.de writes:
>In article <CwErzC.1IF@prometheus.UUCP>, pmk@prometheus.UUCP 
(Paul M. Koloc) writes:
>|> In article <35jja4INN1akh@sat.ipp-garching.mpg.de> carlson@ipp-
garching.mpg.de writes:
>|> >|> The Mantle doesn't generate cyclotron radiation, but does reflect it.
>|> >I'm mildly curious where this thought comes from. It might even be 
true, 
>|> >but I'd appreciate a calculation or reference to back it up. On the other 
>|> >hand, it remains a side issue in the sense that it can only degrade the 
>|> >energy confinement, but whether this is significant or not depends on 
>|> >complicated calculations involving the details of the configuration.

The Mantle and the PMK magnetoplasmoid's physical 
embodiment is unique, and we don't know everything there is to 
learn yet.  Yes, we have some general notions, that the 
preliminary data seems to strongly support; but as they say, the 
"devil" is in the details.  So it's going to take a few years to 
uncover the reality, as we proceed with development, the priority.  

I seem to have an entirely different attitude toward the plasma 
physics/engineering of the plasma state.  Basically, my view is 
that given the appropriate injected power levels, plasma can be 
generated, and from it, plasma ensembles may evolve which have 
a tendency to "take care of themselves".  This is fundamentally 
opposite to the view that humankind must force or constrain 
plasmas into stable or near stable states.  Look at my 
understanding as an extension or elaboration of the "action-
reaction" rule.   Consequently, it isn't all that clear that cyclotron 
radiation generated  within the Kernel plasma and reflected by 
the Mantle, doesn't have some clever use of stored energy, which 
may benefit the longer life and overall viability of the PMK at STP, 
or even fusion regimes for that matter.  There may be some other 
mechanism that would dissipate energy faster, but is somehow 
defeated by the presence of cyclotron radiation.  

So we take "what we get" and work with it to find out the 
limitations and values before we impose our prejudice or 
implement our ordained will to master all things of interest.   

In fact, the evolution of toroidal devices from Stellarators through 
Tokamaks, Spheromaks and finally the PLASMAK embodiments, 
can be seen as a step wise freeing of the plasma to provide and 
maintain its own magnetoplasma topology.  

>|> 1.  Kernel plasma
>|> [...]

>The amount of cyclotron radiation from the kernel plasma depends on a lot 
>of things you haven't told us yet, like the profiles of density, temperature, 
>and magnetic field.  But don't sweat it--let's agree on Bremsstrahlung as a 
>lower limit (for calculating the energy confinement time), and I'll accept a 
>radiation flux as high as you like for other purposes (keeping the mantle 
>ionized).

We don't have a lot of the answers.  Apparently, national labs 
aren't the only ones that have a need for funds to support 
experimental and developmental research.        :-)  

If we have a model that preliminary results adds credence to, 
then we aren't too anxious to cast it aside since using it gives us 
a means with which to quite accurately improve experimental 
performance.  If a postulate contrary to the model is used, then 
we expect the results will be less than helpful, because in 
addition to giving meaningless numbers, we will have wasted time 
and consumed resources.  Consequently, I am not interested in 
pulling numbers out of the hat for the sake of just "getting 
numbers", even though the effort is minimal in this case.  

Our interest is more in looking at what is likely to be going on, 
and then base estimates of losses on those scenarios, and see if 
they can generate numbers that compare favorably to results 
which we can measure.  When predicted using thermal resistive 
MHD, lifetime is off by orders of magnitude; so, it doesn't take 
a genius to figure out that we aren't using an accurate (true) 
model if this assumption is included.   

For the STP PMK, I flatly don't know if your 14eV represents the 
Kernel plasma temperature.  I don't think it has to be nearly so 
high. I also think that Bremsstrahlung has little to do with the 
total radiation traffic in said PMK.  I don't think the Kernel 
plasma is stripped.   Consequently, it would be silly of me to use 
bremsstrahlung in such a PMK application.  Or to give any 
credence to the value that was predicted for upper OR lower 
bounds.  

>|> 2. Mantle plasma 
>|> The Mantle plasma is an extremely high beta plasma, with only a very
>|> weak stray field present.  Further, it is of very insignificant 
>|> temperature by comparison to the burning Kernel plasma. .. . 
>Consequently, 
>|> the generation of it is essentially (by comparison) absent.  Further,
>|> it is under less pressure, if we are to believe implications of 
>|> Furth et al.

>Agreed that we can ignore cyclotron radiation losses from the mantle. What 
>I wanted to know was, why should the mantle *reflect* the radiation rather 
>than absorb or transmit it? 

Well, I suppose it can absorb it, just as long as it retransmits it in 
kind.  :-)    Actually, it's because the Mantle is on the Heavyside.  :-) 
Couldn't help it.  Plasma physics is phun!.  Basically, electromagnetic 
radiation of frequency less than the cut off frequency, gets reflected.  
That's why for example, short-wave works between here and IPP, due to 
the trapping and reflection of the signals several times by the "E-layer" 
in our exosphere?? actually, I'm not certain of the altitude.  Basically, 
it has to do with the plasma electron density.  In the Mantle's inbound 
edge, that's high; and it varies pretty much with applied pressure, so 
that when the density needs to be up to handle higher harmonics 
of cyclotron radiation from heavily compressed thermonuclear 
Kernel plasmas, it's ready.  

>                          ..    .       Without field there is no cyclotron resonance, 
>so the radiation is at some frequency just like any other, and plasmas are 
>generally very good transmitters of microwave radiation.  

Yes, but this stuff has to do with plasma waves of various species.  

>|> >What is SCH, and how can it make up for the loss of Bremsstrahlung 
power?

>|> Well, say you want to find a way to return Bremsstrahlung cooling 
>|> loss to your tokamak plasma.  One technique would be to make the 
>|> walls magically superconducting.  Then when fusion radiation thunked 
>|> into the walls, they would heat and expand a bit.  With the proper 
>|> engineering, this expansion could effect a contraction of the wall 
>|> internal diameter.  Since poloidal flux from plasma current would be 
>|> trapped within the superconducting walls, then the fusion driven 
>|> contraction (via metal wall thickness expansion) would compress the 
>|> poloidal flux, thus causing a surge in ohmically heating current as 
>|> well as adiabatic compression heating.  In PMK technology, its "wall" 
>|> can be made to be much more responsive to efficiently and 
>|> significantly compressing and reheating the PMK.  This is "SCH" --
>|>                Self Compression Heating     
>
>This is an elegant idea, but it won't work. The idea is two reservoirs 
>of different volumes and temperature in pressure balance with each other. 
>Reservoir 1 gives some energy to 2 through radiation or conduction. 
>2 heats and expands, which in turn compresses and heats 1, giving it 
>back *some* of the lost energy.  In fact, my calculations show the net 
>effect is a reduction of the energy loss rate by a factor gamma. For an 
>ideal gas gamma is 5/3, for magnetic fields (a low beta plasma) gamma 
>is 4/3. Depending on the relative volumes, the improvement with "SCH" 
>will lie in-between. Not very impressive.

It doesn't have to be.  But, I think you left out the leverage.  Since 
you're being judgmental, how does it compare with any kind of 
natural reheater in the tokamak?   (and if one exists, what is it)?.  
Now what's your spin?  

>Art Carlson
>To study, to finish, to publish. -- Benjamin Franklin
>
>Dr. Arthur Carlson
>Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics
>Garching, Germany
>carlson@ipp-garching.mpg.de
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc, Bx 1037 Prometheus II Ltd, College Park MD 20741-1037    |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.21 / Dick Jackson /  Griggs Question -- To Jed?
     
Originally-From: jackson@soldev.tti.com (Dick Jackson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Griggs Question -- To Jed?
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 1994 14:52:21 GMT
Organization: Citicorp-TTI at Santa Monica (CA) by the Sea


Apologies if this has already been discussed, but it seems to me
amazing that someone (presumably Griggs) would build such an expensive
electro-hydraulic device just on a whim.

Was his discovery of the power amplifier based upon some prior theory,
or was it fortuitous - if the latter, why was he building such
machines?

Dick Jackson
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenjackson cudfnDick cudlnJackson cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.21 / Doug Shade /  Bill's Scaled Down Experiment
     
Originally-From: rxjf20@email.sps.mot.com (Doug Shade)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Bill's Scaled Down Experiment
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 1994 15:21:29 GMT
Organization: Motorola LICD

Wow great... the plan to send Tom to the peach state has already had
positive
benefits!!!   Now Mr. Page is at least mulling over an experiment to
replicate the results.  That is the sort of BTUs we need to generate...
brain
heat not FLAME heat.

Doug Shade
rxjf20@email.sps.mot.com
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenrxjf20 cudfnDoug cudlnShade cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.17 /  Anthony /  Re: Let's send Tom to Cartersville, GA
     
Originally-From: Anff@qvwp.demon.co.uk (Anthony)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Let's send Tom to Cartersville, GA
Date: Sat, 17 Sep 1994 17:19:59 +0000
Organization: A H Worth & Co Ltd

Count me in too, it seems theres far too much opinion, just 
send me the treasurer's address, how about Tom, when he's got
enough he can let us know, why hell, griggs might pay his air fare as
a valued contribution to his project!


-- 
Cheers
Anff

--Anthony Sumner -- Mail Anff@qvwp.demon.co.uk
"Knowledge is useless unless it's shared"
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenAnff cudlnAnthony cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.21 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  how motors work.
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: how motors work.
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 1994 16:34 -0500 (EST)

ts_zemanian@pnl.gov (Thomas S. Zemanian) writes:

> Point in favor of Dr. Bass's suggestion:  The power dropped when the effect
> kicked in, but the rotation rate remained constant.  There should be a
> input voltage drop required for such behaviour.  What is the control scheme
> for this device?

Not true.  Most large motors are syncronous or the squirrel cage induction
variety. The rpm on these motors is set by the frequency of the AC source, not
the voltage. A 2 pole syncronous motor will run at 3600 RPM (60 revolutions per
second) on 60 cycle at any reasonable voltage and loading.  A squirrel cage
motor will encounter some slippage depending on load, so it may run at only
3520 RPM instead of the syncronous 3600 RPM at full load.

Thus the motor is most likely either a syncronous motor, in which case phase
and not RPM varies with load, or a squirrel cage induction motor, where the
drop in load did not cause sufficient increase in RPM to show up on the
measurement equipment.  When loading drops on a motor, the current draw and
power facter (not the voltage which is set by the utility) change.  What Jed
reports as observing is what would be expected. If there had been a large
change in RPM, I would have questioned it.

And Dick Blue writes:

> Each time Jed Rothwell rehashes what he thinks he saw he drops another
> little nugget that leaves me wondering.  For example, recently he
> said something about the motor not being able to spin up without
> a little starting twist by hand. I think Tom could tell us whether
> that is the case and whether it makes good sense.

That makes sense.  A 2 pole induction motor torque curve typically looks
something like this:

        |                * * * *
        |            * *        *
        |        * *             *
Torque  |    * *                  *
        |  *                      *
        |*                        *
      0 |__________________________
        0              RPM      3600

Locked rotor torque is always much lower than full load torque.  It is not
unusual to see a motor unable to self start under load.  This can be seen
easily by cutting power to a refrigerator or air conditioner, then reapplying
power before the head pressure can dissipate.  Usually the compressor motor
will stall, and if a thermal cut-out does not operate shortly it can often burn
up the compressor motor.

The reason for this is quite simple.  A motor has a main and a phase winding.
The main winding is what does all the work under normal load.  The phase
winding is a small winding in which the current flow is out of phase with the
main winding, thus giving the motor an inital direction to spin during startup.
Without the phase winding, a motor will not self start at all, and is equally
happy running in either direction when spun up externally (or by hand).
However, the phase winding becomes a burden once the motor is spun up, so they
typically are no more powerful than necessary.  Often they will have an RPM
actuated kickout switch to disconnect the phase winding after some minimum RPM
is reached.  For more information I suggest a text on motors and generators.

                                                           Marshall
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Thu Sep 22 04:37:02 EDT 1994
------------------------------
1994.09.22 / L Plutonium /  ENG#4:A@P, SPONTANEOUS NEUTRON MATERIALIZATION DEVICES
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics
Subject: ENG#4:A@P, SPONTANEOUS NEUTRON MATERIALIZATION DEVICES
Date: 22 Sep 1994 21:03:58 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH


  The Sun and stars are more of a superconductor of spontaneous
particle radioactivities. The trouble with looking at the Sun and
thinking that it is gravity pulling in hydrogen to fuse and make helium
is that this is old Classical Physics, the old wrong notions of the
mechanism of how the Sun works. 
  The engineering community of tokamaks and laser inertial confinement
fusion is not unlike a Don Quixote march off to fight windmills. The
spending of huge amounts of money on hot fusion and laser fusion, I
predict will end in a gutter of shame wherein fingers are pointed at
persons for having wasted so much money and time. And those that have
thwarted cold fusion will be perhaps brought to some type of trial, or
in the least, be drummed out of the science community altogether.
   Politicians reading this should be advised that the best course of
action to take at this point in time is to not fund any fusion project
whatsoever. Let the hot fusion, the laser fusion, and the cold fusion
go independent. Let the winner of those three come out. And, it is
quite apparent with Canon's recent patent claim of my work, that cold
fusion will win victoriously.

THIS IS THE CONTINUATION AND LAST OF MY PATENT PENDING WORK. THE
COMPLETE PATENT WAS TRANSMITTED IN SECTIONS OF ENG#1,ENG#2,ENG#3, AND
THIS ONE ENG#4.
	But what I am teaching and this is new to the art, is that a star is
measurable quantum mechanically by the complementary duals of
radioactivities and electromagnetism. Stellar dynamics using only
radioactivities and electromagnetism is correct once all strong nuclear
and gravity are excluded. Our Sun then is seen as a radioactive pile
with electromagnetism going on. Within this quantum viewpoint, then
magnetohydrodynamics plasma fields come into the calculations.  The Sun
and stars are no longer seen as hot fusion spheres but instead
radioactive cold fusion spheres. Where rsnm is the main activity. This
activity is described for the Sun where P is a proton, E an electron, N
an already existing neutron, NU a spontaneous neutron materialized. The
cold fusion reaction in the Sun is   
                                    P into  PNU+ energy then
          			PN into PNNU+ energy then    
				PNNU into PNP+ gamma ray
       				PNP into  
				NUPNP+ energy
 	What induces radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization?  Since
radioactivities is the quantum complementary dual to the
electromagnetic, then induction for rsnm is to run either a changing
electric current i or a changing electric potential difference V
through a fuel mass. Any fuel mass will work but some are better than
others. The best fuel mass are hydrogen and isotopes of hydrogen. Iron
will work as a fuel mass since it is the element stable against fusion
and fission. 
	Here is a list of some possible fuel mass elements for radioactive
spontaneous neutron materialization.  The following data are the
electron binding energies for several elements where the units are
electron volts.  The source of this information is CRC Handbook of
Chemistry and Physics  {24} 
Hydrogen (1)  K 1s   13.6
Helium (2) K  1s   24.6
Oxygen (8) LI   2s  41.6
Argon (18)  MIII 3p3/2    15.7
Iron (26)  MIII 3p3/2    52.7
Copper (29)  MIII 3p3/2    75.1
Zinc (30)   MV  3d5/2   10.1    
Krypton (36)  NIII 4p3/2    14.1
Rubidium (37) NIII 4p3/2    15.3
Palladium (46)  NIII 4p3/2    50.9
Silver (47)  NIII 4p3/2    58.3
Cadmium (48)  NV 4d5/2  10.7
Xenon (54) OIII 5p3/2  12.1
Cesium (55) OIII 5p3/2  12.1
Barium (56) OIII 5p3/2  14.8
Gold (79)  OIII 5p3/2  57.2
Mercury (80) OV  5d5/2   7.8
Thallium (81)  OV  5d5/2  12.5
Francium (87)  PIII  6p3/2  15
Actinium (89) PIII  6p3/2 ___
Thorium (90) PIII  6p3/2 16.6
Protoactinium (91)  PIII  6p3/2 ___
Uranium (92) PIII  6p3/2 16.8
	The element mercury, since the binding energy for its last electron is
so low at 7.8 entails that mercury is a fuel mass for electrochemical
cold fusion cells, vice heavy water.
	Like a double-slit Uncertainty Principle experiment, if i or V were
known with 100% accuracy then rsnm would be 0%. In the language of
quantum physics, when the current or potential is fixed or held
constant, then the wavefunction is collapsed. But when the current i or
potential V are variable then the wavefunction is not collapsed,
permitting rsnm to occur. 
	 On a macroscopic level the answer to how to induce rsnm is to run a
variable i or variable V on a fuel mass such as hydrogen. 
On a microscopic level the answer on how to induce rsnm is that it
occurs most frequently when an additional electron, one more than the
number of protons in the nucleus of that particular atom results.
Microscopically, where rsnm occurs and what induces it is an atom which
is topheavy with an additional electron beyond its chemical element
number of electrons, thus exciting the  materialization of a neutron
from out of nowhere.  For example, a hydrogen atom has only 1 electron
and 1 proton, but for an instant-of-quantum-time a hydrogen atom can
have 2 electrons and 1 proton. Or in the case of a plutonium atom with
94 electrons and 94 protons, it can for an instant-of-quantum-time have
95 electrons, but still have only 94 protons and remain still a
plutonium atom. A hydrogen atom with 1 electron and 1 proton, if when
another electron is added to the hydrogen atom system then for that
instant-of-quantum-time this hydrogen atom consists of 2 electrons and
1 proton. The additional electron quantum mechanically induces rsnm in
the nucleus. Subsequently, this neutron, having materialized, can
either stay as a neutron in the original atom system, or radioactively
decay into a proton, electron, and neutrino.  If the materialized
neutron remains in the nucleus of the original atom system of hydrogen,
then that hydrogen atom can transform into a helium atom plus energy
subsequent to the materialization of two more neutrons.  
	The most obvious rsnm objects are star plasmas.  The stars and Sun via
plasma matter are vast electron inducers which quantum mechanically
excite, induce rsnm.  Our Sun is a device which has both a large
changing electron current i flow and a large changing electric
potential V, by the fact that it is mostly all hydrogen plasma.  
	Before my teachings the Sun was seen as a large hot fusion device
wherein the theory of hot fusion did not accord with the experimental
observations for the process, e.g., the missing neutrino count. With my
teachings the Sun is seen as a radioactive pile with electromagnetic
plasma and there is no missing neutrino count once the correct theory
is matched with the observations. The 2/3 missing neutrino count was a
result of matching an incorrect theory to the observation.
	I assert that when the electrons of an atom are electrically excited
by adding more electrons to the atom such as in a plasma state of
matter in stars, then rsnm occurs. Once a neutron is materialized, it
either decays into a hydrogen atom plus energy or if it materialized
inside the nucleus of a preexisting atom transforming that atom into a
different atom or a different isotope. 	Any isotope, chemical
element/s, compounds, or molecules can be quantum mechanically induced
into rsnm. However, hydrogen and hydrogen isotopes are the best fuels
for induction to rsnm, for reasons of its 1 electron subshell can
easily accommodate an additional electron and still remain a hydrogen
atom, having 1 proton but 2 electrons. This additional electron induces
the atom into rsnm. 	In general, the radioactive isotopes will quantum
induce rsnm faster than nonradioactive isotopes. The reason for this is
that since radioactivities is the complementary dual to
electromagnetism that a prevalence of electrons occurs via radioactive
electron decay emission. Commonly known as beta decay. A sample of
radioactive elements emit their own electrons which can result in
electron capture by some of the atoms in the sample, consequently there
is an atom which for a short quantum time has Z+1 electrons yet a Z
number of protons. The rate of occurrence of rsnm for radioactive
elements is governed by half-life radioactive decay and is based on the
formula for radioactive rate of decay    exp-lt.  Using Dirac's rate of
materialization as time squared t2, and substituting t2 into the
radioactive growth and radioactive decay rate formula results in a
normal Gaussian distribution curve. 
	Thus my invention consists of processes for inducing radioactive
spontaneous neutron materialization, and the devices or apparatuses
engineered for the purpose of deriving energy from rsnm. These devices
can range from the small size such as batteries, a collection of
batteries, or test tube equipment in a science laboratory, such as
electrochemical cells, on up to devices the size of a nuclear power
plant.  Such a neutron materialization nuclear power plant will be of a
much simpler design over previous fission reactor power plants or
attempted hot fusion reactors. The fuel mass of neutron materialization
devices will last much longer as a fuel since the choice of a fuel can
be any isotope, chemical element/s, compounds, or molecules,
radioactive or not.  A rsnm power plant can use a nonradioactive
element fuel mass such as iron or hydrogen and thus safer and cleaner. 
Or a neutron materialization nuclear power plant can use a less
dangerous radioactive isotope of thorium, uranium, or plutonium for the
fuel mass. The fuel mass will have a changing electric current i
flowing, or a changing electric potential V through it.  The best
isotopes to use are hydrogen, iron isotopes, mercury isotopes, and the
radioactive isotopes.  Any isotope, chemical element/s, compounds, or
molecules can act as a fuel mass. Once a fuel is placed in the
containment vessel, a changing electric current i is run through the
fuel mass, or a changing electric potential V goes through the fuel.
The containment vessel is surrounded by a substance such as water or
some other substance which captures the most amount of heat from rsnm. 

	 These nuclear devices are an exploitation of excess heat from rsnm, a
confirmation of quantum mechanical principles of uncertainty and
complementary, but a violation of the conservation of energy-mass.  All
such devices constructed will confirm excess heat produced from the
materialization of neutrons out of nowhere and thus will show the
violation of energy-mass conservation.  This was demonstrated and
confirmed in Reifenschweiler radiation and sonoluminescence
experiments.
	The pulsing, that is the changing i or changing V through the fuel
mass will induce rsnm resulting in a net increase in total energy of
the isolated system.  The changing i or changing V will cause induction
of rsnm resulting in net increase in total energy going out which will
be observable and measurable as excess heat.  The excess heat can then
be converted to other usable forms of energy such as electricity.
	I assert that spontaneous neutron materialization is going on all
around us, in stars, in the Earth.  Where ever there is the strong
nuclear-gravitation interaction, there is the
radioactivities-electromagnetism interaction. The one group of SN+G is
interchangeable and superpositioned with the other group R+EM.  So,
what we generally attribute to the forces of the strong
nuclear-gravitation is replaceable or superposed by the
radioactivities-electromagnetism.  Before these teachings, a physicist
would look at the Sun and say the Sun is a hot fusion device (strong
nuclear force is the fusing with consequent energy emission) where
gravity is pulling in hydrogen atoms and then fusing hydrogen atoms to
make helium atoms with a resultant energy.  I would transpose that idea
and say that the Sun is a radioactivities device (mostly rsnm) where
the Sun's matter is in the form of plasma, and thus the Sun is a large
electromagnetic device also with changing current flow and changing
electric potential and so neutrons spontaneously materialize most of
which transmutate into new hydrogen atoms via radioactive decay, but
some hydrogen atoms materializing neutrons inside their nucleus
transmutating into new helium atoms and  giving-up excess energy. 
	I see the Sun as two pictures in which both are the same only looking
at them from different quantum duals. The one is hot fusion of hydrogen
into helium in the Sun made possible by the gravitational force with
strong force. This is our current conventional view and it is correct
if and only if radioactivities plus electromagnetism were 100%
excluded. The other is the radioactivities and electromagnetism
interaction where the Sun is a large collection of hydrogen atoms where
spontaneous neutron materialization occurs frequently within these
hydrogen atoms, transmutating hydrogen into helium heating the solar
system.  
	The foregoing detailed description of the invention has been presented
for the purposes of illustration and description.  It is not intended
to be exhaustive or to limit the invention to the precise form
disclosed.  Many modifications and variations are possible in light of
the above teaching.  It is intended that the scope of the invention be
limited not by this detailed description, but rather by the claims
appended hereto.
	My invention covers more than just the precise thing described.  It is
a broad theory, and any device that is within the language of the
claims is to be within the coverage of the patent.  This is to prevent
others from pointing to specific examples and arguing that the patent
is limited to these.
				PRIOR DEVICES
	Paneth & Peters originated the science and realized that fusion energy
was at stake in their work.  Tandberg extended Paneth & Peters science
to electrochemistry and did the cold fusion experiments first in the
years 1927-1932. But TandbergUs work was without the correct theory of
cold fusion of rsnm and the induction of rsnm by pulsing. Without the
pulsing, TandbergUs experiments of cold fusion were not repeatable.
Fleischmann & Pons redid the Tandberg work in 1989 without explanation
or means of induction. Hence the Fleischmann & Pons experiments were
flawed and unrepeatable. What Fleischmann & Pons gave to the world was
instant worldwide attention to the Tandberg experiments. Noone before
me had propounded the process of radioactive spontaneous neutron
materialization. And noone before me has had the idea that running a
changing electric current i or an changing electric potential
difference V, which is pulsing, through a fuel mass, especially
hydrogen isotopes, iron isotopes, mercury isotopes, or the radioactive
elements such as *90, *91, uranium, plutonium,  *98, will result in a
net excess of energy. Net energy resulting from rsnm. Net energy not
from the chemistry of hydrogen but from nuclear rsnm. And net energy in
the case for radioactive elements, not from the emission products of
radioactive decay but from a new kind of radioactivity-- spontaneous
neutron materialization out of nowhere (rsnm).  Canon, as per their
patent 1994 has confirmed the repeatability of cold fusion from the
technique of pulsing. Pulsing was one of my claims in my patent
application of 1991 and takes priority rights over Canon. When some
research laboratory confirms and verifies spontaneous neutron
materialization, then spontaneous alpha particle materialization from
out of nowhere, and spontaneous beta particle materialization from out
of nowhere also exist and are harnessable as practical means of
obtaining net positive energy.
			SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
	Radioactivities interaction was not well understood before my
teachings. The electromagnetic interaction is a quantum complementary
dual to the radioactivities interaction.  Thus a variable flow of
electric current i or a variable electric potential V, i.e. pulsing
through any fuel mass will induce the materialization of neutrons from
out of nowhere and that devises can be set-up, engineered, and
constructed to utilize the energy of radioactive spontaneous neutron
materialization. 

			CLAIM FOR THE INVENTION
	I claim: 
	1. Devices constructed, engineered, and set-up for the purpose of
deriving, and using net energy from radioactive spontaneous neutron
materialization. 
	2. A method for induction of fusion by radioactive spontaneous neutron
materialization comprising:
	a changing (pulsing) electric current i flow through the fuel mass
	a changing (pulsing) electric potential difference V through the fuel
mass.

 ------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.22 / L Plutonium /  ENG#1:A@P, SPONTANEOUS NEUTRON MATERIALIZATION DEVICES
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics
Subject: ENG#1:A@P, SPONTANEOUS NEUTRON MATERIALIZATION DEVICES
Subject: Re: Was PAF ... Can Fusion Patent be Overturned 
Date: 22 Sep 1994 20:19:50 GMT
Date: Tue, 9 Aug 1994 05:41:41 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

  Dirac intuited that there is a form of radioactivity which is going
on. The Banach-Tarski theorem in math is that best evidence that
spontaneous neutron materialization occurs. The missing neutrino count
of the Sun is the best evidence we have that the theory of Sun energy
is all wet, and a fakery. The theory of how the Sun works is still
Classical Physics, minus quantum physics. Under these circumstances,
cold fusion will be engineered and the proper Quantum Physics of how
our Sun and all stars works, will thereupon derive.

FUSION ENGINEERED:  RADIOACTIVE SPONTANEOUS NEUTRON MATERIALIZATION
DEVICES
Inventor: Archimedes Plutonium  (legal name change), 
                   previous names Ludwig Plutonium, Ludwig van Ludvig, 
                      Ludwig Hansen, Ludwig Poehlmann
Assignees: PLUTONIUM ATOM FOUNDATION
Ser. No.: This new one unknown; the old one was 07/737,170 with patent
examiner Harvey Behrend, Commissioner of Patents Bruce A. Lehman,
Secretary of Energy (DoE) Hazel R. OULeary, Deputy Secretary (DoE)
William H. White, Director of Nuclear Energy (DoE) Edson C. Brolin 
Filing Date: August 31, 1994. The old one was 29 July 1991 subsequently
reformatted and resubmitted early 1993.
Related U.S. Application Data: 07/737,170
	PATENTS CITED
{1} My patent application 1991 USA 07/737,170 
         and rejected by patent office 1993
{2} Canon's patent (EP 568 118)
{3} John Tandberg patent application (17 februari)1927; Sweden 
       patent office rejected his application (17 november) 1927. 	See
VAR ALKEMIST I TOMEGRAND, the book on page 34.
	REFERENCES CITED
{4} Directions in Physics   P.A.M. Dirac, 1975,1978 pages 72-81
{5} The book PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTATILITY: THE UNIFICATION OF 
          PHYSICS, CHEMISTRY, BIOLOGY, AND MATH   6th edition, 	  
             Archimedes Plutonium, 1990.
{6a} Paneth F. and Peters K., (Ber. d. Deutschen Chem. Ges., 59, 
       2039; 1926) 
{6b} Paneth F., Peters K., Gnther P. (Ber. d. Deutschen Chem. Ges., 
       60, 808; 1927)
{6c} Paneth & Peters, Nature  , Q1 N2, 25Sept1926, vol 118, pages 
       455-456, titled News and Views.
{6d} Paneth & Peters, Nature  , Q1 N2, 9Oct1926, vol 118, pages 
       526-527, titled The Reported Conversion of Hydrogen into 
       Helium.
{6e} Paneth & Peters, Nature  , Q1 N2, 14May1927, vol 119, pages 
       706-707, titled The Transmutation of Hydrogen into Helium.
{7a} Tandberg, John  THE ABSORPTION OF HARD g-RAYS as studied 
          by means of nuclear reactions and artificial radioactivity  
          1937
{7b} Tandberg, Re:  Collections relating to history of physics . . 
         John Tandberg, Ph.D. in physics, and president, Chemical 
        Laboratories at Electrolux: (5 meters):; continued . .  Lund 
        Univ. Library, POB 3, S-22100 Lund, Sweden
{7c} Tandberg, John  VAR ALKEMIST I TOMEGRAND, en bok av och 
	om John Tandberg 1970
{8} Radioactivity, McGRAW-HILL ENCYCLOPEDIA of  
         Science & Technology  vol.15, 7th Ed. 1992, pages 103-121.
{9} Magnetohydrodynamics, McGRAW-HILL ENCYCLOPEDIA of  
         Science & Technology  vol. 	10, 7th Ed. 1992, pages 327-
            335.
{10} STARPOWER     The U.S. and the International Quest For   
         Fusion Energy, Congress of the United States, Office of 
         Technology Assessment, Oct1987 
{11} Energy & Technology Review  (E&TR) OCT1990, pages 1-17 
         titled   Cold Fusion -- One Year Later .
{12}  MEN OF MATHEMATICS  by E.T. Bell 1937, pages 8-9.
{13a} FEYNMAN LECTURES ON PHYSICS  , 1963.
{13b} QED  Feynman, 1985. 
{14} NEW SCIENTIST   "PATENTS", "Cold fusion rides again", 
         25JUN1994, page 23. 
{15} Physical Review   1957, vol. 105, pages 1127-1128, titled 
        Catalysis of Nuclear Reactions by Muons  by L.W. Alvarez 
         et.al. Radiation Laboratory, Univ. of California, Berkeley,
CA, 
         (Received 17Dec1956)
{16a} Reifenschweiler Radiation, Internet sci.physics.fusion, 
         <940331071702_73770.1337_DHE45-1@CompuServe.COM>
{16b} Reifenschweiler Radiation, NEW SCIENTIST, 8JAN1994, p.16
{16c} Reifenschweiler Radiation, PHYSICS LETTERS A , vol.184,   
           3JAN1994, p. 149-153
{17a} Sonoluminescence, Internet sci.physics.fusion
{17b} Sonoluminescence, SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN,  DEC1993,  
           p.24,26
{17c} Sonoluminescence, SCIENCE NEWS, vol.144, 23OCT1993, 
           p.271
{17d} Sonoluminescence, SCIENCE, vol.255, 20MAR92, p. 1511
{17e} Sonoluminescence, PHYSICS TODAY, NOV1991, p. 17-18
{17f} Sonoluminescence, SCIENCE, vol.253, 20SEP1991,p.1397-
           1399
{17g} Sonoluminescence, NATURE, vol.352, 25JUL1991, p. 318-
           320
{17h} Sonoluminescence, SCIENCE NEWS, vol.139, 11MAY1991, 
           p.292
{18} INTERNET, newsgroups, various pertinent threads relating to 
         cold fusion and patents from sci.physics, and 
         sci.physics.fusion, and sci.physics.electromag, and my own 
         newsgroup the "Altar of Science and Physics is 
         Plutonium" abbreviated alt.sci.physics.plutonium. 
         Computer-in, and come to learn about your Maker. ATOM
{19a} Gamma-Ray bursts, cosmic uniformity,  New Scientist  	 
           25JUN94 page 18. 
{19b} Gamma-Ray bursts, cosmic uniformity,  Science News  	 
           28SEP91, vol. 140, page 196.
{20a}  MOONS & PLANETS , 1993, William K. Hartmann, printed on 
            recycled acid-free paper.
{20b} Mercury the impossible planet? , New Scientist 1June1991 	  
pages 26-29.
{21a} Deuterium, cosmic abundance, Nature , 14APR1994, vol. 
          368, pages v, 599, and 584.
{21b} Lithium, cosmic abundance, New Scientist , 31OCT1992, 
           vol. 136, page 16.
{21c} Lithium, cosmic abundance, New Scientist , 30JUN1988, 
           vol. 118, page 46.
{21d} Lithium, cosmic abundance, Scientific American  May 
           1987, pages 39-45, titled The Cosmic Synthesis of 
           Lithium, Beryllium and Boron .
{21e} Beryllium, cosmic abundance, Science , 10JAN1992, vol. 
           255, pages 162-163.
{21f} Beryllium, cosmic abundance, New Scientist , 
           13JUN1992, vol. 134, page 17.
{21g} Beryllium, cosmic abundance, New Scientist , 
           3AUG1991, vol. 131, page 16.
{22a} Solar Neutrinos, 2/3 missing count,  New Scientist  	 
          15AUG92 pages 28-32. 
{22b} Solar Neutrinos, 2/3 missing count,  McGRAW-HILL 
           ENCYCLOPEDIA of Science & Technology  vol. 17, 7th 
            Ed. 1992, pages 600-621.
{23a} Diamond purity. Muffling Umklapp; researchers beat the heat 
          using pure ice  , Scientific American  SEP90 page 169. 
{23b} Diamond purity. Growth of large, high quality diamond 
           crystals at General Electric  , American Journal of Physics 

            NOV91 pages 1005-1007. 
{23c} Diamond purity. A denser, more perfect diamond , Science 
           News  2NOV91 page 287.
{23d} Diamond purity. The ace of diamonds packs them in , New 
          Scientist  9NOV91 page 26.
{24} CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics  75th edition 1994  	pages
10-272 to 10-277.
{25}  Nuclear reactor, McGRAW-HILL ENCYCLOPEDIA  
          of Science & Technology  vol. 12, 7th Ed. 1992, pages 193-
            202.
{26} PHYSICS, PART 2, 3rd edition, extended version  Halliday &
Resnick, 1986.


			ABSTRACT
The two main ingredients of a patent is Rnewness of the artS and
Reconomic or commercial valueS.  Two "newnesses to fusion engineering"
are provided herein (1) an explanation for fusion, that is, the correct
theory which is a new theory, and (2)  technique or method for inducing
fusion. Both of these newnesses were applied for in my patent
application USA 07/737,170 in 1991-1993 and rejected by the USA patent
office and DoE out of ignorance, porkbarreling for hot fusion, and
persecution of supergenius me. By 1994, Canon, received  European
patent, confirming the experimental truth of my patent claim. Do I sue
the USA patent office for dereliction of duty? It is unconscionable to
sue the USA DoE for physics irrlehre, because that would approach a
perpetual money making machine in violation of 2nd law of
thermodynamics:-) The explanation (1) is Radioactive Spontaneous
Neutron Materialization (rsnm). The technique (2) to induce rsnm is
pulsing which is either changing electric current i and/or changing 
electric potential difference V. Changing i, V is what Canon has done
to induce cold fusion in their experiments. Canon calls it "pulsing"
but it is the same as changing i, V as claimed in my early patent
application. Thus, either Canon's patent (EP 568 118), or the USA
patent process has unrightfully taken at least one-half of the claims
made by my patent application 07/737,170. The economic value of cold
fusion is so immense and obvious to warrant these comments.


		DETAILED HISTORY OF THE INVENTION 
 	These are not perpetual motion devices but rather the derivation and
utilization of radioactivities energy not understood before. The first
observers of radioactivity circa 1890's and early 1900's thought that
since some of these radioactive elements were hot, e.g., uranium is
warm in the hands and polonium will burn a hole through your hands, and
continued to glow in the dark, e.g., radium salts glow green in the
dark, NEUTRONS GLOW BLUE, thought that this new phenomenon was
perpetual motion.{26}  Radioactivity was a new science. And, because of
these unexplained radiations, the many new observers of radioactivity
were quick to think that this new form of energy was perpetual motion,
or violated conservation of energy-mass, or violated other physical
laws.  Later, after the 1920Us with Quantum Mechanics around, clearer
explanations of radioactivity were given. Only with quantum theory in
the mid-to-late 1920's was radioactivity well enough understood to
accord with theory and experimentation, and regarded as one of the 4
interactions (forces) of physics. Note: the concept interaction comes
from Quantum Electrodynamics (QED) {13b} and is superior to the old
concept of force from Classical Physics. I mostly use the concept
interaction in this application; the reason: quantum physics is the
correct physics.
 	Now with Cold Fusion, a similar circumstance of bewilderment arises.
However, when Cold Fusion is taken as spontaneous neutron
materialization, then it is seen as radioactivity. But, the
conservation of energy/mass is violated. P.A.M. Dirac was the first
genius of physics to realize that the conservation of energy/mass is a
fakery{4} circa 1970's as per DIRAC'S DIRECTIONS IN PHYSICS  pages 76-
78
  "  Now, according to the Large Number Hypothesis, all these very
large dimensionless numbers should be connected together. We should
then expect that (total mass)/(proton mass) = 10^78 proportional to
t^2. Using the same argument again, we are therefore led to think that
the total number of protons in the Universe is increasing
proportionally to t^2. Thus, there must be creation of matter in the
Universe, a continuous creation of matter. 
   There have been quite a number of cosmological theories working with
continuous creation of matter. A theory like that was very much
developed by Hoyle and others. The continuous creation which I am
proposing here is entirely different from that. Their continuous
creation theory was introduced as a rival to the Big Bang theory, and
it is not in favor at the present time.
  The continuous creation which I have here is essentially different
from Hoyle's continuous creation, because Hoyle was proposing a steady
state of the Universe, with continuous creation to make up for the
matter which is moving beyond our region of vision by the expansion. In
his steady-state theory, he had G constant. Now, in the present theory,
G is varying with time, and that makes an essential difference.
  I propose a theory where there is continuous creation of matter,
together with this variation of G. Both the assumption of continuous
creation and the variation of G follow from the Large Numbers
Hypothesis.
  This continuous creation of matter must be looked upon as something
quite independent of known physical processes. According to the
ordinary physical processes, which we study in the laboratory, matter
is conserved. Here we have direct nonconservation of matter. It is, if
you like, a new kind of radioactive process for which there is
nonconservation of matter and by which particles are created where they
did not previously exist. The effect is very small, because the number
of particles created will be appreciable only when we wait for a very
long time interval compared with the age of the Universe.
  If there is new matter continually created, the question arises:
"where is it created?" There are two reasonable assumptions which one
might make. One is that the new matter is continually created
throughout the whole of space, and in that case, it is mostly created
in intergalactic space. I call this the assumption of additive
creations. Alternatively, one might make the assumption that new matter
is created close by where matter already exists. That newly created
matter is of the same atomic nature as the matter already existing
there. This would mean that all atoms are just multiplying up. I call
that the assumption of multiplicative creation. There are these two
possibilities for the creation of new matter. I do not know which to
prefer. One should continue with both possibilities and examine their
consequences. "
	I, with the Plutonium Atom Totality theory can give meaning and
specifics to Dirac's genius intuition as quoted above. Dirac's new form
of radioactivity is radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization
(rsnm), or radioactive spontaneous particle (alpha, beta, . .)
materialization.
	The discovery of radioactive decay (rd) occurred in 1896, when
Becquerel discovered radioactivity from uranium. It required 60 years
later for the uses of Becquerel's radioactivity were applied to produce
nuclear fission power. Fission radioactivity was technologically used
in the engineering of nuclear fission reactors which generated nuclear
power, post 1942.{25} 
  	However, and quite remarkably, the history of cold fusion {6}{7}
started circa 1926-1932. I quote " 1926 Fritz Paneth and Kurt Peters in
Berlin first claim to have observed the fusion of hydrogen under
pressure to form helium in finely divided palladium metal. It was
already well known at the time that certain metals such as palladium
can absorb large quantities of hydrogen. In a short note immediately
following this claim, Nature issued the statement: " This announcement,
if correct, is of great importance and will evoke even more interest
than the claim by Miethe and Stammereich to have transmuted mercury
into gold...Belief or disbelief in the ...message must be reserved
pending further and more definite evidence." After substantial
criticisms and further studies, the two researchers withdrew the claim
of helium synthesis."
    "  1927 The Swedish scientist John Tandberg proposes using
electrolysis to force hydrogen into palladium metal. After obtaining
heavy water from Niels Bohr in 1932, he filled palladium rods with
deuterium by electrolysis and then applied a large electric current to
heat the palladium. He warned coworkers to go home during the
experiments after calculating that all the deuterium would be
equivalent to 1000kg of dynamite, if exploded. He observed no effect. "
  {11}
	Nature   1926 states R Theory indicating that this conversion would
involve the liberation of much energy (6.4 x 10^11 cal. from 4
gram-atoms of hydrogen), the authorUs  [Paneth & Peters] primary task
was to find out if the change would take place without introducing
energy from outside, e.g. in the presence of a catalyst; and in order
to be able to detect very small quantities of helium they elaborated
the spectroscopic method in such a way that the limiting amount
detectable was 10^-8 to 10^-9 c.c., or 10^-12 to 10^-13 gm. S {6d}
	Paneth, Peters, & especially Tandberg were treated by the science
communities with harsh criticism and disbelief. So harsh was their
treatment that their reputations were under attack and questioned and
so they went underground with their experiments, and they went
underground in the belief of the correctness of their science. From
1932 through 1956, cold fusion experimentation went underground. After
1956, the story of cold fusion springs forth back to life again with
muon catalyzed fusion. But before I get to 1956, I want to outline more
of John Tandberg's work since the history of cold fusion in large part
is due to his science experiments. And the much later work, that of
1989 of Fleischmann & Pons is merely a repeat of Tandberg.
  	The 1926 news of Paneth & Peters work reached Sweden.  John Tandberg
started to experiment with Paneth and Peters fusion idea.  At that time
Tandberg was a physics researcher for the Electrolux Company and an
expert in this area of research, and he would later became the
scientific director and manager of Electrolux. In February 1927 John
Tandberg of the Electrolux Research Laboratory filed a patent for "A
METHOD TO PRODUCE HELIUM AND USEFUL ENERGY".  Early on, Paneth, Peters,
and Tandberg were looking for helium production for the airship
industry. But all three men, especially Tandberg, quickly turned to the
harnessing of nuclear energy. Tandberg was searching for nuclear energy
as evidenced by the title of his patent. In Tandberg's patent
application, he claimed to have discovered "A METHOD TO INCREASE THE
EFFICIENCY IN ORDER TO PRODUCE USEFUL ENERGY". This patent application
was rejected by the Swedish patent office in that same year of 1927. 
But Tandberg went underground to continue working on cold fusion in the
electrolysis measurements with heavy water, D2O instead of H2O.
Tandberg used palladium as the metal cathode.  Heavy water was obtained
from the Niels Bohr Institute.
   Obviously, from the patent application of Tandberg 1927 and the
wording of Paneth & Peters news-reports of 1926 "liberation of much
energy (6.4 x 10^11 cal. from 4 gram-atoms of hydrogen) "{6d} that the
experimentation of transmutation of hydrogen into helium had by 1927
turned into the much more important quest for nuclear energy.  The
quest had quickly changed from that of simply producing helium for the
airship industry to that of producing enormous energy. The energy
equation  E = mcc was around since 1907, and also the understanding
that chemical changes or rearrangements can release chemical energy. By
1927 it was known that  nuclear changes or  rearrangements can release
enormously more energy than chemical energy. Quantum Mechanics by the
late 1920's was progressing rapidly. And Paneth, Peters, and Tandberg
through their experimentation were the first to try to build a nuclear
fusion reactor. The results of TandbergUs experiments were mostly
deafening and banging electrical discharges when trying to produce
nuclear fusion in wires of palladium that had been saturated with
deuterium via electrolysis. Tandberg experimentally set a constant high
voltage across deuterated palladium wires, not a variable/ pulsed
voltage, in order to fuse the deuterium into helium. If Tandberg had
set a variable/ pulsed electric potential V or electric current i,
across the deuterated palladium, he would have engineered a repeatable
fusion reactor in 1927. The genius John Tandberg died in 1968. 
	Alvarez et al at Berkeley experimentally observed muon catalyzed
fusion in 1956{15}. These observations were easily confirmed and
subsequently passed into physics facts, unlike electrochemical test
tube cold fusion as reported in 1989 which became hotly contested and
not easy to confirm. With muon catalyzed fusion, the physics community
was in agreement over this form of fusion and readily accepted it
because the verification is easily repeatable. It was theoretically
proposed much earlier than 1956 by Frank and Sakharov in the late
1940's. 
	Now the history of cold fusion jumps to the year 1989, specifically
23MAR1989 when Fleischmann & Pons{11} world-wide announced by high
speed communications that they were successful with Tandberg's work of
1927, i.e. electrochemical test-tube cold fusion. Their work is a
repeat of TandbergUs work. Nothing new to the art of cold fusion was
realized by Fleischmann & Pons over that of Tandberg. No explanation of
cold fusion, and no new technique to induce cold fusion. And because
there was "nothing new to the art of cold fusion" by the Fleischmann &
Pons repeat experiments of Tandberg, their cold fusion experiments were
again not Rscientifically repeatableS, just as Tandberg's experiments
were not scientifically repeatable because they did not use pulsing to
induce fusion.  And some researchers in various laboratories around the
world unwittingly pulsed the electric current i or pulsed the electric
potential V in order to begin, or interrupt, or halt the experiments
and were able to observe some cold fusion nuclear energy. Some reported
nuclear reactions after their experiments were halted because in the
procedure of halting, they pulsed the set-up of the apparatus. But they
were in the weeds as to knowing the explanation of cold fusion and the
necessity of pulsing. They experimented with constant current i and
constant V, for the most part. So the Fleischmann & Pons experiments of
1989 were nothing new over the Tandberg experimental work of 1927-1932.

	Now I could skip immediately to the Canon patent of 1994 {2} which
pulses the experimental fusion set-up. And because Canon pulses, the
experiment is repeatable. But, I, in 1991 had priority patent right
claims of the "Pulsing technique in cold fusion experiments", which is
the essential ingredient in making cold fusion repeatable.
	Starting in 1991, the history of cold fusion continues with me. I
would come to provide the correct theory of fusion in general and cold
fusion in particular via rsnm in my patent application of 1991-1993
{1}. And I provided the correct technique or method to induce rsnm,
i.e. via pulsing. My patent was rejected by the USA patent office and
DoE as it seems that the USA patent office has rejected most every
patent concerning cold fusion. This USA DoE and patent office
suppression of cold fusion patents was discussed on Internet,
sci.physics.fusion and sci.physics.electromag news threads. It appears
that the USA DoE does not want to have cold fusion interests exceed the
porkbarreling interests of thermonuclear (hot) fusion and laser
inertial confinement fusion {10}. Consequently, on the advice of the
DoE, the USA patent office is breaking the law as to the issuance of
proper and rightful patents applied for by cold fusioners. Someone of
USA DoE, USA patent office or Canon has unrightfully taken 1/2 of the
claims made in my patent{1}. Researchers are now going to Europe to
gain patents. The whole thing is getting silly and ironic, because the
USA has biotechnology liberties and the Europeans suppress
biotechnology, hence a biotechnology research transfer, but ironically,
the USA is a cold fusion suppressor and persecutor and Europe is a cold
fusion liberator, yielding a cold fusion technology transfer.
	In 1994, the Japanese corporation Canon was issued a patent and I
quote New Scientist  in full {14}.
	 " COLD fusion is the latest topic on the agenda of the Japanese
company Canon, best known for cameras, bubblejet printers and other
office equipment.
	In 1989 Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons claimed that fusion could
be initiated at room temperature by electrolysing heavy water (which
contains disproportionate amounts of the hydrogen isotope deuterium)
with a titanium or palladium cathode. But the Japanese were worried
about the risk of an explosion caused by high gas pressure.
	Canon's patent (EP 568 118) claims new ways to absorb large volumes of
deuterium in a metal carrier, by putting it close to a pair of
electrodes to create a gas discharge in a hydrogen-filled chamber. Cold
fusion is promoted by cycling the power supply through low and high
voltages.
	The carrier can be a block of magnesium alloy or palladium alloy. For
safety, the hydrogen gas is at atmospheric pressure. The pulsed power
comes from large capacitors, and the electrodes are shaped to
concentrate the electric field.
         After storing deuterium in a palladium alloy for 60 minutes,
says Canon, the deuterium content had increased, with a tenfold
increase in gamma ray emission after 120 hours. Applying five-minute
cycles of 5 and 500 volts DC for 50 hours produced a twentyfold
increase in emission. More heat was generated at the negative electrode
than the electric energy consumed at the two electrodes. All this, says
Canon, proves that cold fusion works. " Nuclear fusion can be
occasioned relatively easily . . . and thus a method for multiplying
heat energy capable of generating a sufficiently large quantity of heat
energy for a practical application," it claims. "
	The above is an accurate outline of the physics history of cold fusion
to date as of this patent application. The PULSING technique which
induces cold fusion has been verified by Canon. The part of my
application which explains cold fusion via RSNM, Radioactive
Spontaneous Neutron Materialization, has not been physically verified
and confirmed as of this application. Before leaving the history of
cold fusion, I want to outline my discovery of RSNM. 
	My discovery of rsnm occurred in late 1990 as a consequence of my
discovery of the ATOM TOTALITY theory, that the observable universe is
just the 5f6 of 231PU, the last electron or the 94th electron of one
atom of isotope 231PU. The discovery of rsnm is supported by
quintessential genius Dirac in his great book DIRECTIONS IN PHYSICS 
{4}, which is required reading for all nuclear energy patent examiners,
DoE, and physics majors:-) RSNM is how the universe grows, stars,
galaxies, planets, etc., and not by the awkward and moron idea of
intergalactic and interstellar dust. 
	I needed to find-out what induces rsnm, and so in early 1991, I
discovered what induces rsnm from reading about muon catalyzed fusion.
It is induced by a changing electric current i or changing electric
potential V, i.e. PULSING.  And subsequently submitted my 1991-1993
patent application. Little did I know that the USA patent office which
is controlled in part by the USA Department of Energy (DoE) has
suppressed "cold fusion patents" and is persecuting me for what I
represent-- Atom Totality. 
" Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,
sci.physics.electromag From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Subject: Re: Was PAF ... Can Fusion Patent be Overturned 
Message-ID: <Cu96HI.J46@prometheus.UUCP>
References: <3232oa$src@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Date: Tue, 9 Aug 1994 05:41:41 GMT
In article <3232oa$src@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> 
> Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium) writes:
> Has anyone sued the USA patent office and won?
 Yes. For example, in the area of fusion (nuclear) energy, the DoE has
the right and obligation to handle all patent applications, as far as
the technical advise or withholding as a national security measure
(secrecy). However, the Patent Office handles the administrative
matters: --  mailings, filings etc.; so, it appears that their examiner
is actually doing all of the examination work, although he is slaving
for DoE remarks.  For example, Harvey Berhrends did a large number of
fusion related applications for the US Patent Off.   
Now it came to pass, that the DoE would not care to have some fellow
with an issued fusion patent then go charging off to Congress and say 
" Hey you guys!  Eureka I have solved the fusion problem and have a
patent to prove it, so Stop funding the tokamak and fund ME INSTEAD.. 
(Of course whe would they (after all it could mess up a nice porker
project in their voting area, and if they did, what difference would it
make, after all the DoE can be mighty slow about doling out forced
funds.  :-)      So the Department of Energy (should be Dept. of
"Energia" in honor of the inventors of the tokamak) decided to find all
other than tokamak related fusion patents were invalid based on a bogus
argument.  The argument went as follows:  
A fusion reactor has never been made or operated commercially or any
other way, and therefore, we wouldn't know what a commercial fusion
reactor looked liked and consequently, one could never be invented, at
least until one was operated commercially.   
Well who has the money for that ... we certainly don't (yet) and even
the DoE apparently DoEsn't, judging by the billions that have been
shoveled down the tokamak hole and the increasing doubt about their
next fling with that mass redistributor.  
NOTE: This did not stop the issuance of "PLASMA technology" patents.   
Anyway, a German citizen working for GE filed a fusion patent and like
all the rest of us, it was rejected by DoE using this same bogus
argument.  Even though the person returned to Germany, he sued and his
patent rejection case was overturned probably in the very late '80s by
the US Court of Patent Appeals, and all the rest of us then began to
also have our patents issued forthwith, 1990-1992.     
                 Thanks for the long delay DoE.  
                   We are still seeking your goal .. 
                           First if necessary.  " {18}
	I can not help it if I see these very important engineering ideas in
his mind's eye and file the patents long before researchers can even
run to their labs to verify that I am correct.  I am not unlike Tesla
in these actions, by seeing very complicated physics and electrical
engineering all within my mind. This is how I alone realized that
superconductivity is photon flow turned into neutrino flow. I do not
need fancy-smanzy and expensive research laboratories; all I need is
the most reliable and up-to-date physics data and my math logic and
intuition will get me to the core of the problem. I can do physics in
my mind without a research laboratory because I am a supergenius, and
other researchers and regular geniuses need to have a heavy equipment
research laboratory :-) 	Supergenius is a brand new term to the science
community applicable only to Archimedes and myself.  Of course I was
Archimedes in one of my previous lives. I have discovered by math
logic; the process of elimination, that the correct theory of
superconductivity is the decomposition of photon flow into neutrino
flow. This is my next patent application: CORRECT THEORY OF
SUPERCONDUCTIVITY: ROOM TEMPERATURE SUPERCONDUCTORS.
	Only neutrinos can move through matter to give almost zero electrical
resistance which superconductors display. I will submit a patent
application for the correct theory of superconductivity before the end
of this year 1994. Anyway, it is not coincidental that the dictionary
will now have the new word "supergenius" after the word
"superconductivity" , after "superfluidity", and before the word
"superluminal":-) Which leads me into the next topic of discussion--
persecuting a supergenius. This is what the USA DoE and patent
authorities in 1993 committed on me. Who do I sue, that is the
question? Do I sue the USA DoE, USA patent office, or Canon, or in
combinations thereof?
    "As a rule mathematicians have been bad customers to persecute;
they have usually been capable of returning what they received with
compound interest. " {12}
And one can even anticipate what form of future persecution comes out
of the USA patent office-- rejection for trivial reasons, forget to dot
an i or cross a t on page so and so. When a bureaucracy wants to deny a
patent, they can quickly find some silly excuse to reject it, or make
the applicant run through a tiresome gauntlet. Before leaving the topic
of patent persecution, I want to apprise the reader of the fact that I
am the reincarnation of Archimedes. In my previous half-life, I was
Archimedes and very familiar with inventions. Silently, we have moved
up through the generations (the movie Highlander) and within 2
millenniums of moving up through the normal math distribution-curve
(bell shaped curve) of people to my present half-life as supergenius
Archimedes Plutonium. Few persons, except physicists and math people
have known we were among you, . . until now:-)
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.22 / Loren Petrich /  Re: Cold Fusion comment, WAS Re: UNI DIRECTIONAL SPEAKER CABLE
     
Originally-From: petrich@netcom.com (Loren Petrich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion comment, WAS Re: UNI DIRECTIONAL SPEAKER CABLE
Date: Thu, 22 Sep 1994 06:15:23 GMT
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)

[Newsgroup list altered a bit...]

In article <jonkCwDz5L.Dw8@netcom.com> jonk@netcom.com (Jonathan Dale Kirwan) writes:
>Harry H Conover (conover@max.tiac.net) wrote:
>: Well, you can't knock the fact that the CF guys sure know how to party!
>: Still, I can't help but wonder if they realize what traditional Japanese
>: customs associated with failure entail. 

	For those not in the know, one slices one's belly with a knife. 
One usually does not live very much longer.

	More seriously, I seriously think that Cold Fusion is a lost 
cause. One _serious_ problem is the kinds of nuclear reactions involved. 
Here they are, assuming deuterium as the initial material:

	D + D -> T + p
	D + D -> He3 + n
	D + D -> He4 + gamma

	Of these, the first two are about equally probable, and the third 
one is much less likely. Some Cold Fusion enthusiasts maintain that there 
is some new effect that makes the neutron-producing reaction _much_ less 
likely than either (or both) of the other two, possibly by the third one 
being accelerated significantly in some way. One hypothesis is 
interaction with the surrounding medium, but nuclear energies are _much_ 
higher than atomic-bond energies, let alone phonon energies. So one 
requires some sort of effect that makes the third reaction go much 
faster than normal (say), while affecting essentially _no_ other 
nuclear-reaction rate. Such blatant ad-hockery makes me gag.

	So I expect that, if CF happens, it will produce _lots_ of 
neutrons. This produces some rather serious constraints on CF power-plant 
design (can't have people irradiated with lots of neutrons, get it?). A 
CF cell would have to have at least a few feet (>~ 1 meter) of cladding 
around it, which will be rather heavy. This means that a CF power plant 
would be at least as big as a typical car. However, they can still be 
smaller than present-day fossil-fuel or nuclear-fission power plants, 
thus making possible an abundance of small power plants rather than a few 
big ones (good for surviving assorted disasters).

	What vehicles would be practical? Ships, certainly, because they 
are just plain _big_, and because they have access to an abundance of 
coolant. Airplanes? Weight is at a premium there, so forget it, unless 
one wants to fly a pilotless one with an unshielded CF powerplant. Cars? 
Too small. Trucks? Borderline. Locomotives? At least possible, since 
existing diesel ones usually weigh 100-200 tons, and the necessary 
cladding can easily be accommodated. So might we be seeing a "Fleischmann 
Flyer" or two on our rails if CF ever becomes practical?

	Successful CF would change energy economics rather drastically, 
because it would be an efficient source of electricity and low-grade 
heat. In cold climates, all one would have to do is pipe in some steam 
heat from one's neighborhood powerplant. Electricity? That would help 
make electric cars economical, and electrolyzing water would make 
hydrogen, which could easily substitute for natural gas.

-- 
Loren Petrich, the Master Blaster
petrich@netcom.com                   Happiness is a fast Macintosh
lip@s1.gov                           And a fast train

cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenpetrich cudfnLoren cudlnPetrich cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.22 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Griggs Question -- To Jed?
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs Question -- To Jed?
Date: Thu, 22 Sep 1994 04:18:38 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1994Sep21.145221.7190@ttinews.tti.com>,
Dick Jackson <jackson@soldev.tti.com> wrote:
>
>Apologies if this has already been discussed, but it seems to me
>amazing that someone (presumably Griggs) would build such an expensive
>electro-hydraulic device just on a whim.
>
>Was his discovery of the power amplifier based upon some prior theory,
>or was it fortuitous - if the latter, why was he building such
>machines?

     I once remarked something to the effect that only an engineering- and
     thermodynamically-illiterate idiot would try to heat water with a 
     pitted rotor in a system designed to compete with other heating systems:  
     All the efficiency of purely electrical systems with the added 
     benefit of many many more parts to break.

     So y'all can take the 'we was just working on this here little
     heating system, when all the sudden...' with a chunck of NaCl.

                                 dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.22 / Jed Rothwell /  Jim Carr should go to Georgia
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@CompuServe.COM>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Jim Carr should go to Georgia
Date: 22 Sep 1994 13:36:30 GMT
Organization: CFRA

I noticed that Jim Carr has volunteered to contribute to the Send Tom To
Georgia Fund. Jim is a professor who lives in Florida. It occurs to me that it
would much cheaper and faster if Jim was to go instead of Tom. You can fly
from Florida to Atlanta for practically nothing these days, especially if you
are willing to fly on some airline with a name like "ValuJet". Or you can take
Delta, also cheap.
 
I don't know what PR firm came up with the name "ValuJet." It does not inspire
confidence. It is like calling a hospital, "Operations [backwards] R Us" or
"Appendectomy While U Wait."
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.22 / Doug Shade /  Re: Griggs Question -- To Jed?
     
Originally-From: rxjf20@email.sps.mot.com (Doug Shade)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs Question -- To Jed?
Date: Thu, 22 Sep 1994 18:31:48 GMT
Organization: Motorola LICD

In article <CwIJz2.Gtp@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:

>      I once remarked something to the effect that only an engineering- and
>      thermodynamically-illiterate idiot would try to heat water with a 
>      pitted rotor in a system designed to compete with other heating systems:  
>      All the efficiency of purely electrical systems with the added 
>      benefit of many many more parts to break.
> 
>      So y'all can take the 'we was just working on this here little
>      heating system, when all the sudden...' with a chunck of NaCl.
> 
>                                  dale bass
Dale-
Thank goodness for people like Griggs (and Jed).  And thank goodness
for people like you as well; for I must admit that your conservative
and traditional position on the GG discussion is crucial as well.

Can't you think of a few scientific revelations that were brought to
light
by accident; by "mis-guided" or naive thinking?  

I'm quite happy/satisfied that "engineering- and thermodynamically -
illiterate" people get a wild idea to build a better than 1 machine
once in a while.... if no ever trys, no-one ever will.

Lets continue to look at the results with a critical eye... lets not
let our knowledge of current models blind us to the possability of new
realities.

Doug Shade
rxjf20@email.sps.mot.com
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenrxjf20 cudfnDoug cudlnShade cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.22 / Brian Rauchfuss /  Re: Let's send Tom to Cartersville, GA
     
Originally-From: brauchfu@fnugget.intel.com (Brian D. Rauchfuss)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Let's send Tom to Cartersville, GA
Date: 22 Sep 1994 17:30:26 GMT
Organization: INTEL.FOLSOM

In article <1994Sep18.165540.26003@oxvaxd>, roes@vax.oxford.ac.uk (Peter
Roessingh) wrote:

> Before we Send Tom Droege on a fact finding mission we should
> formulate the different hypotheses that have been suggested here
> recently, and see what observations would discriminate between
> them, and what would be needed to invalidate each of them.

I have always been suspicious that the Griggs device activates by drawing
less power and putting out the same amount of work.  I wonder if the power
meters could be fooled by high-frequency power changes.  If the power flucuated
at the rpm, could the meters be fooled? Could they have found a way to fool 
the power-company?

Brian
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenbrauchfu cudfnBrian cudlnRauchfuss cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.22 / Jim Carr /  Re: Jim Carr should go to Georgia
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Jim Carr should go to Georgia
Date: 22 Sep 1994 15:13:17 -0400
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

In article <35s195$sp7$1@mhadg.production.compuserve.com> 
Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@CompuServe.COM> writes:
>
>I noticed that Jim Carr has volunteered to contribute to the Send Tom To
>Georgia Fund. Jim is a professor who lives in Florida. It occurs to me that it
>would much cheaper and faster if Jim was to go instead of Tom. You can fly

I am *sure* it is cheaper to fly from Chicago to Atlanta than from 
Tallahassee to Atlanta.  The state rate to Newark or Detroit is almost 
less than Atlanta.  That is the sort of route that has led to all sorts 
of bizarre route cheating and overlap tickets. 

I would drive.  It is 5 hours, +/-, and when you count drive, park, checkin, 
a half hour waiting to takeoff since it is raining in ATL, taxi, fly 33 
minutes, taxi, get herded off, walk, get car, drive, the flight is not 
that much shorter.  

But this is a job for an experimenter, not a theorist.  Theorists are 
very easily conned. 

-- 
 James A. Carr   <jac@scri.fsu.edu>     |  Raw data, like raw sewage, 
    http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac        |  requires some processing before
 Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst.  |  it can be spread around.  The 
 Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306    |  opposite is true of theories. 
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.23 / Bill Page /       Public Supported Scientific Research
     
Originally-From: 060739@acadvm1.uottawa.ca (Bill Page)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:      Public Supported Scientific Research
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 1994 01:26:33 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

[Yes, its me. In the past I have been using Compuserve to send and receive
Fusion Digest by email but this has gotten to be a little expensive.
I'm trying out a new way to access s.p.f. - zero cost but not
so user friendly. Please excuse me if I mess this message up a little.]

This is just a brief comment about all the newsgroup traffic that
Steve Jone's suggestion to fund Tom Droege's trip to investigate the
Griggs device has generated. It makes me wonder whether Dr. Jones has not
inadvertantly invented a new concept: public funding of science. I am thinking
of the example of PBS and NPR - the American Public television and
radio networks that are largely funded by direct public support through
memberships and donations.

I guess the point is that as everyone knows, the Internet is growing
extremely rapidly. There may now be new possibilities to form new types of
co-operative associations between large numbers of interested persons.
What is next? The formation of non-profit organizations and membership
drives? How much is the public willing to spend on science? How would
this change the scientific community's dependence on government funding?
And what is the relationship between this and education? Already we
talk about the college of sci.physics.fusion. How unique is this among
the other news groups?

I don't want to get off on a tangent about this, but it seems something
new is happening here.

Cheers,

Bill Page

cudkeys:
cuddy23 cuden060739 cudfnBill cudlnPage cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.22 /  nachtrieb@max. /  Alcator CMOD Weekly Highlights 19940922
     
Originally-From: nachtrieb@max.pfc.mit.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Alcator CMOD Weekly Highlights 19940922
Date: 22 SEP 94 21:10:06 GMT
Organization: MIT PLASMA FUSION CENTER

                        Alcator C-MOD Weekly Highlights
                                Sept. 22, 1994

Alcator C-MOD is still in a maintenance/repair period. Reassembly of the
tokamak is continuing according to plan.

The new OH2L coax buss has been installed and torqued to specification.
Instrumentation to measure the temperature of the contact pad and the voltage
drop across the interface is in place.

The new coax busses for the OH2U and OH1 are in process. Fabrication of the
contact pads for these coaxes is also well underway. These busses, which
connect to the coils at the top of the stack, should be ready for installation
when required.

Some additional in-vessel work is proceeding. A new set of mounting studs to
hold a third outboard limiter assembly have been installed between F and G
ports. This limiter will reduce the possibility of runaway electron impact on
the E-port ICRF dipole antenna.

Maintenance is also being carried out on the cryogenics system. The LN2 sump
has been opened and inspected. The main sump filter and the filters for the LN2
pump have also been cleaned.

TRANSP analysis of ICRF-heated discharges from the last run period is
continuing. Results indicate an increase in the electron thermal conductivity
during heating. The energy in the minority (H) tail as calculated by the code
is consistent with the difference between the stored energy inferred from
magnetics and the thermal energy obtained from kinetic profile measurements. A
discussion of some of these results will be presented by Martin Greenwald in a
paper at the IAEA meeting next week.

cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudennachtrieb cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.22 /  nachtrieb@max. /  Alcator CMOD Weekly Highlights
     
Originally-From: nachtrieb@max.pfc.mit.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Alcator CMOD Weekly Highlights
Date: 22 SEP 94 21:20:19 GMT
Organization: MIT PLASMA FUSION CENTER

Hi all,

Steve Fairfax has passed the torch of responsibility to me to post the
Alcator CMOD Weekly Highlights to sci.physics.fusion.  If I falter (i.e.
forget), please feel free to email me and to remind me.  If you have any
questions or would like me to clarify/explain something you find in the
Highlights, email me and I'll do my best.

Rob

email: nachtrieb@pfc.mit.edu
voice: +1.617.253.5401
hardcopy: NW17-245, 175 Albany St, Cambridge MA 02139, USA

cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudennachtrieb cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.22 / L Plutonium /  ENG#3:A@P, SPONTANEOUS NEUTRON MATERIALIZATION DEVICES
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics
Subject: ENG#3:A@P, SPONTANEOUS NEUTRON MATERIALIZATION DEVICES
Date: 22 Sep 1994 20:49:38 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

  The missing neutrino count of the Sun is the biggest persuader that
our notion of fusion is immature. Not until the Sun is placed in a
theoretical framework of QM that explains the neutrino count as well as
the proportion of Solar elements will we progress far. In the meantime,
governments which spend heavily on hot fusion or laser fusion are
wasting time and money. The answer will come from elsewhere. Scientist
working in hot fusion or laser fusion have this to explain. For many
many years, alot of money has been poured down these schemes of hot
fusion with the end result as of this post-- nothing to show for. Hot
fusion is not unlike that mind-rot of another porkbarrel the
Supercollider (SC) and quest for the Higg's boson. Luckily the
politicians had more commonsense to mothball the SC. Since so much has
already been spent on Hot Fusion and Laser Fusion, noone has the good
sense to mothball them and instead, fund Cold Fusion. Thus, Cold Fusion
will surpass the other programs on its own true science. Those
complaining that Cold Fusion does not have a Power Plant yet. I say to
these Idioten. Given that Hot Fusion has been going on for over 30
years and billions of dollars, where is their Power Plant. What is that
you say? You say it is another 30 years with another trillion, spelled
with a "t", away?


		DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION
	There are only 4 quantum interactions which we know about. These are
(1) Strong Nuclear (SN) (2) Gravitation (G) (3) Radioactivities (R),
and (4) Electromagnetism (EM).
	There are only 4 quantum principles which we know about. These are (1)
Uncertainty (UP) (2) Complementary (CP) (3) Superposition (SP), and (4)
Pauli (PP). 
	By the fact of CP there exists at least one unique group of
complementary duals. This unique group is particle-wave. Where particle
+ wave = the whole description. I propose other groups of CP.
	Taking the 4 interactions as 2 groups of complementary duals. Then one
group is Strong Nuclear and Gravity, represented as SN+G = whole
description. The other group is Radioactivities and Electromagnetism,
represented as R+EM = whole description. 
	Applying CP to fusion, both hot and cold, then fusion is physically
measurable as either SN+G with never any R or EM. Or, fusion is
physically measurable as either R+EM with never any SN or G.
	Thinking quantumwise, hot fusion of our Sun is a measurement from
experimental set-ups for SN+G, excluding all R and EM. But our Sun can
be measured as a huge radioactivities pile R along with
electromagnetism EM, written as R+EM for a complete description. This
complete description of the Sun by R+EM must exclude all SN and G.
	According to CP, since SN+G = whole description, and  R+EM = whole
description. Then the relative coupling strengths of the 4 interactions
has the mathematical equivalence as thus SN+G = R+EM.
	The relative coupling strength of SN is highest and if assigned the
value 1 then gravity is experimentally measured at 10^-40 . But, 1 +
10^-40  is for all practical purposes still 1. Taking SN+G as
proportional to 1 implies that since SN+G = R+EM, then R+EM is
proportional to 1.
	Since EM has a relative coupling strength to SN of .01, implies that R
must have a relative coupling strength of .99. For all practical
purposes then, R almost equals SN.
	But according to FeynmanUs Table of 1963, the weak nuclear
(radioactive decay) (rd) has a relative coupling strength of 10-5.
Since relative coupling strength for radioactive growth (rg) is even
less than radioactive decay implies that there must exist another form
of radioactivities other than rd and rg to complete the interaction
law. In hot fusion processes of SN+G, hydrogen is transmutated into
helium. And hydrogen which has only 1 proton and 1 electron
(essentially a 1 neutron system) transmutated into helium containing 2
protons, 2 neutrons, and 2 electrons (essentially a 4 neutron system).
Then the form of radioactivities which completes the radioactivities
interaction (R) is radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization
(rsnm). In the case of hydrogen transmutation to helium, there are 3
neutrons spontaneously materialized with one of those neutrons
decaying, subsequent proton capture, electron capture. So, rsnm has the
relative coupling strength of .99, almost the same as SN at 1. 
	What I propose is to drastically change FeynmanUs Table as given in
1963 and accepted before my teachings. Bohr asserted that the set-up of
a device determines what is measured. Bohr asserted that to measure one
of two noncommutative properties then the device must be so set-up such
that "an influence on the very conditions which define the possible
types of predictions regarding the future behavior of the system."  
Rewording Bohr's thought to radioactive spontaneous neutron
materialization fusion is this: to measure mostly rsnm instead of
electromagnetism requires the set-up of devices in which rsnm prevails
over  electromagnetism. Quantum mechanics via the Heisenberg
Uncertainty Principle (UP), 1927, predicts virtual particles from out
of nowhere which last for only a brief period of time. Virtual
particles can be electrons, positrons, neutrons, molecules and even
whole prions, virus, bacteria, plants. Reveiw the 10^14 MEV spontaneous
particle creation.  But generally, rsnm is not heavier than protons.
Particle detectors, gas bubble chambers, and CERN confirm the
postulation of virtual particles. The pinnacle of modern science {13b}
up to my teachings was Quantum Electrodynamics (QED).  According to
QED, the vacuum is filled with electron-positron fields. Real
electron-positron pairs are created when photons interact with these
fields. Virtual electron-positron pairs, however can also exist for
short quantum instants of time via UP. 
	In late 1990, I realized that not only do virtual particles exist but
that virtual particles were the first clue of particle materialization
from out of nowhere and specifically of neutron materialization. The
extension of virtual particles to that of actual materialized
particles, and specifically to that of neutrons in rsnm, neutrons
spontaneously materialize from out of nowhere is a form of
radioactivity.  This radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization
(rsnm) is another form of radioactivities which until 1990 was
undiscovered, and the ample evidences, (see above), for rsnm were
unrecognized as such.  Remember, the physics community was under the
witchdoctor magic of "Conservation (Idioten) Laws". 
	I call radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization rsnm and I
assert it is the major component of the radioactivities interaction
(R).  There are two other components to radioactivites and these are
radioactive decay (rd) and radioactive growth (rg). 
	Feynman in FEYNMAN LECTURES ON PHYSICS  Volume I page 2-10, 1963 gives
the following (my edited) account of the 4 interactions (forces) of
physics with a comparison of relative coupling strengths in the table
below:
"There seem to be just four kinds of interaction between particles
which , in the order of decreasing strength, are the strong nuclear
interaction, electromagnetic interactions, electroweak interaction, and
gravity.  The photon is coupled to all electromagnetic interactions and
the strength of the interaction is measured by some number which is
1/137.  The detailed law of this coupling is known and is quantum
electrodynamics QED.  Gravity is coupled to all energy and this law is
also known.  Then there is the electroweak interaction which causes the
neutron to disintegrate into proton, electron, and neutrino.  This law
is only partly known.  The strong nuclear interaction, the meson-baryon
interaction, has a strength of 1 on this scale and the law is
completely unknown, although there are some known rules such as the
number of baryons DoEs not change in any reaction. "
	Table 2-3.  Elementary Interactions
	Coupling		Strength*			Law
Photon to charged particles   10^-2         Law known
Gravity to all energy             10^-40      Law known
radioactive decay                 10^-5       Law partially known
Mesons to baryons               1      Law unknown (some rules known)
*The strength  as given is a dimensionless measure of the coupling
constant involved in each interaction. {13a}
	I change some of FeynmanUs teachings by (A) renaming weak nuclear as
radioactivities (R). (B) radioactivities (R) consists of 3 components--
	(1) radioactive decay (rd), 
	(2) radioactive growth (rg), and 
	(3) radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization (rsnm) (C)   R is
only slightly weaker than the strong nuclear (SN), and the proper
listing of the 4 interactions according to strength is (1) strong
nuclear, (2) radioactivities (3) electromagnetic (4) gravitation.
	I give Feynman's 1963 Table with my reinterpretation considering
quantum principles applied to the 4 interactions:
	New Table for Elementary Interactions
	Coupling		Strength			Law
Photon to charged particles   .01                 Law known
Gravity to all energy               10^-40           Law known
radioactivities rsnm+rd+rg    .99              Law known
Mesons to baryons                  1   Law still unknown but more rules
								known
	Compare my table with that of FeynmanUs Table given above.  The
largest change is in the category of radioactivity. FeynmanUs 1963 was
this: radioactive decay  10^-5    Law partially known . 
	Before my teachings, the weak nuclear interaction was considered to
consist of only two components, i.e., radioactive decay and radioactive
growth. I assert that the weak nuclear interaction is an incomplete
interaction law (or force law). What was thought of as the weak nuclear
interaction before my teachings is only a small part, a small component
of the overall radioactivities interaction. The radioactivities
interaction consists of (1) rsnm, plus (2) radioactive decay (weak
nuclear), plus (3) radioactive growth (weak nuclear).  Before my
teachings the weak nuclear was vaguely understood as radioactive decay
with only a notion of radioactive growth. And leaving out the most
important form of radioactivity, that of radioactive spontaneous
neutron materialization in order to make the interaction law or (force
law) complete. When rd plus rg is added to rsnm, then I assert the
interaction (force) law for radioactivities is complete.  Thus the
complete radioactivities (R) interaction looks like this:  R =
rd+rg+rsnm. Let me define rd and rg below.
	Radioactive growth (rg) is when an atom transmutates (transforms) by
increasing in atomic number Z, such as when a uranium atom transmutates
to a neptunium atom or when a neptunium atom transmutates to a
plutonium atom.  Radioactive growth is when the original atom goes
higher in atomic number. Radioactive growth is when a neutron in the
nucleus of an atom transforms into a proton, electron, and neutrino,
increasing the atomic number of the original atom. The original atom
before the radioactive growth had atomic number Z and after the
radioactive growth has atomic number Z+1.  
	Radioactive decay (rd) is when any atom of an atomic number Z
transmutates to an atom/s of lower atomic number.  For example, when
uranium decays to lead and neon. Before 1990, the weak nuclear
interaction was known as comprising only radioactive decay and
radioactive growth.  Shortly after 07/11/1990, I had postulated
radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization (rsnm) from DiracUs
book Directions in Physics 1975. 
	Dirac specifically asserted spontaneous materialization of particles
from out of nowhere in his book Directions in Physics . Dirac in his
book discusses particle materialization out of nowhere can occur either
additive or multiplicative.  Dirac proposed particle materialization. I
specifically propose neutron materialization and that this neutron
materialization occurs both additive and multiplicative simultaneously.
I had surmised from Dirac's book by late1990 that something had to
induce rsnm, but what that form of induction was I would not discover
until 1991. I discovered the form of induction from muon catalyzed
fusion by extending the Maxwell Equation symmetry of changing electric
field produces a magnetic field and vice versa. In the case of cold
fusion, that symmetry was changing electric current i or changing
electric potential V, or both, which is pulsing. Shortly thereafter I
submitting the patent application in 1991. Later, in 1994, Canon
Corporation would verify my patent claim of pulsing, but unrightfully,
they did not give me proper credit, neither copyright nor prior patent
right.
	The relative coupling strength of SN compared to EM is about 100 to 1.
  This implies that the relative coupling strength of SN compared to R
is about 100 to 99. The periodic chart of chemical elements is evidence
in agreement with these numbers. Element 100 is at the limit of
statistical half-life to Spontaneous Fission stability since that is
the relative coupling strength of SN to EM.  Spontaneous Fission
half-life instability rapidly increases with atomic number Z=99,
element 99, implying that SN is balanced by R+EM when Z=100.
	Dirac proposed particle materialization in his book Directions in
Physics. .  Specifically I propose neutron materialization and that
this neutron materialization occurs both additive and multiplicative
simultaneously. Neutron materialization occurs most often in stars in
their hydrogen plasmas. Stars are magnetohydrodynamic plasmas{9}
obeying laws of highly changing, pulsing fields of electromagnetism
{13b}. 
	I assert that a star in magnetohydrodynamics is radioactivities and
electromagnetism.  Hot fusion is looking at a star as predominantly SN
with the quantum complementary dual of G. When a physicist wants to
measure the dynamics of starpower with what is known as hot fusion,
then the physicist must consider only the complementary duals of SN+G
to the 100% exclusion of R+EM. But if that same physicist wants to
measure the dynamics of starpower using R+EM, then he must exclude 100%
all interactions of both SN and G. Before 1991 a physicist trying to
explain stellar dynamics by using strong nuclear and gravity and then
mixing-in the weak nuclear force and electromagnetic force was wrong in
his theoretical understanding and subsequently wrong in his
calculations. 
	Stellar dynamics using only strong nuclear and gravitation is correct
once all radioactivities and electromagnetism are excluded. The strong
nuclear force is the main component of hot fusion.  Hot fusion is
described for the Sun where P is a proton, E an electron, N a neutron.
The hot fusion reaction in the Sun is  
				P+ (P+ E- + antineutrino)  into  PN
          			PN + P  into    
				PNP+ gamma ray
       				PNP+ PNP into  
				NPNP+ P+ P + energy
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.21 / Edward Lewis /  plasmoids and cold fusion
     
Originally-From: edward@uhuru.uchicago.edu (Edward Lewis)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics
Subject: plasmoids and cold fusion
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 1994 21:53:01 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

              (c) 1994 by Edward Lewis All Rights Reserved

        I've posted versions of this article several times on this
newsgroup since December of 1993; and I've posted several articles
about plasmoids and cold fusion on this newsgroup since January of
1993.  If anyone wants to reproduce or resend this article, get my
permission first.  

                        PLASMOIDS AND COLD FUSION

        W. Bostick produced that which he called plasmoids by
discharging through electrodes.  Bostick wrote a paper that was titled
"Plasmoids" that was published in SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN in 1957(1).  He
may have been the first to apply this term to this phenomena.  In this
paper, he had already began to tell others about his speculation that
galaxies and the phenomena he produced were similar.  He compared the
shapes and the travel of these things.  He also speculated a little
about the identity of "particles."  He shows pictures of different
kinds of plasmoid shapes in the article and related these to different
kinds of shapes of galaxies.  Many people including Bostick, Alfven
who is a physics Nobel Prize winner, Peratt and Lerner have developed
similar astronomical theories that model the universe as plasmoids and
that can be said to be derivations or summarizations of the
experimental work of W. Bostick and others.  It has become evident
that atoms can be defined as plasmoids, especially as according to the
phenomena produced by Ken Shoulders.  It seems that there are many
different kinds of plasmoid phenomena.  The EVs that Ken Shoulders
produced and ball lightning may be classified as kinds of this general
phenomena.  There is evidence that both plasmoids and ball lightning
are associated with neutrons, radioactivity, production of elements,
and excess radiation.

                Based on the phenomena that Matsumoto produced, the
traces, the pictures and descriptions of electrodes, the pictures of
stationary BL and corona-like phenomena, the visible BL-like phenomena
that he reports, and the sparks that he observed that left traces like
those produced during electrolysis and discharge, one may categorize
CF phenomena as tiny ball-lightning or plasmoids.  Important evidence
is the holes and trails on and in emulsions and electrodes that
Matsumoto produced by discharging and electrolysis, the holes in
electrodes that Liaw et al. produced, the holes in electrodes that others
produced, the empty areas in electrodes that are shaped liked grains
that Matsumoto and Silver et al. produced and the half-empty grains that
Matsumoto produced, and the holes and tunnels and trails on and in
electrodes that Silver produced.  These tunnels, holes, and trail-like
marks are similar to those that are produced by ball lightning
phenomena, though ball lightning are associated with bigger effects.
These tunnels, holes, and trail-like marks are also similar to those
produced by the EV phenomena that K. Shoulders produced.  Silver and
his co-authors who published a paper in the December issue of FUSION
TECHNOLOGY have reproduced the tunnels, holes, and trail-like markings
in metals that Matsumoto produced.  These tunnels, holes, and
trail-marks are evidence of the conversion and change of materials.
Important evidence that both CF phenomena and substance in general are
plasmoid phenomena is Matsumoto's experience of the production of
electricity by apparatus.  I suspect that plasmoid phenomena such as
electrodes and other materials may convert to be bigger plasmoids and
light and electricity.  EVs and ball lightning are known to convert to
light and electricity.

        I suspect that the round holes in electrodes that Matsumoto
produced and the round holes and tunnels that Silver produced are due
to the boring of BL-like phenomena, and that the grain-shaped holes
that they produced is evidence of the conversion of the grain to light
or electricity or of the production of plasmoids.  Some if not all
plasmoids are apparently able to travel through materials, even if the
plasmoids are very big.  The plasmoids that Matsumoto has produced
does this, and this is major evidence to support my deductions.
Matsumoto has also shown pictures of sectioned electrodes with what
seem to me to be trail-like tracks, as if tiny BL-like phenomena
traveled inside and left tracks.

        Many other anomalous phenomena can be described as plasmoid
phenomena.  For example, superconductivity seem to be similar to the
phenomena of ball lightning traveling though materials such as
ceramics and glass without leaving holes or visible effects, yet ball
lightning may convert to an electrical surge after touching a wire or
it may convert to a bolt of lightning.  Also, sonoluminescence seems
to be a phenomena of the water converting to light and perhaps
electricity.

cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenedward cudfnEdward cudlnLewis cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.21 / Alan M /  Re: Let's send Tom to Cartersville, GA
     
Originally-From: Alan@moonrake.demon.co.uk ("Alan M. Dunsmuir")
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Let's send Tom to Cartersville, GA
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 1994 07:27:37 +0000
Organization: Home

In article: <35khcm$836@fnnews.fnal.gov>  Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege) writes:

> The really important subject then is "What do I 
> wear?"  When I though I was going to observe transmutation to gold, I 
> had decided on a lavender tux, with a large gole medalian with radiating
> lines, sort of like the high priest in the De Zauberflaute.  But this 
> seems to require something different?

In your placce I'd wear a double thickness of lead underpants, just in case.

Alan M. Dunsmuir [@ his wits end]     (Can't even quote poetry right)

         I am his Highness' dog at Kew
         Pray tell me sir, whose dog are you?
			      [Alexander Pope]

PGP Public Key available on request.


cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenAlan cudfnAlan cudlnM cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.21 /  Atlantur /  No Fusion without tunneling
     
Originally-From: atlantur@aol.com (Atlantur)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: No Fusion without tunneling
Date: 21 Sep 1994 20:31:09 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

One important aspect of fusion has not yet been considered in full.
Even the sun, inspiring all fusion technologie, doesnt actually work.

The only mean the sun actually shines (a fusion process is established)
is trough tunneling. (Quantumjumps)
The Mass/Temperature rating itself would be to low even in the sun to
generate
Fusion.
Future experiments in Fusion should therefore examine the process of
tunneling
more closely. Why should we try what nature couldnt acomplish.
The easier way would probably be to try to incooperate technics of
tunneling
to fusion experiments.

karsten Gutgesell
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenatlantur cudlnAtlantur cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.21 / Jim Carr /  Re: Let's send Tom to Cartersville, GA
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Let's send Tom to Cartersville, GA
Date: 21 Sep 1994 21:17:44 -0400
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

Count me in.  Almost worth the 5-hour drive to observe.  

We ought to be able to get some rad-safety equipment on loan from 
Georgia Tech if Tom is worried about mutations. 

-- 
 James A. Carr   <jac@scri.fsu.edu>     |  Raw data, like raw sewage, 
    http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac        |  requires some processing before
 Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst.  |  it can be spread around.  The 
 Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306    |  opposite is true of theories. 
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.21 / Jed Rothwell /  A one-day visit to a lab
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@CompuServe.COM>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: A one-day visit to a lab
Date: 21 Sep 1994 16:19:22 GMT
Organization: CFRA

Let me put aside rancor and leave off the discussion Tom Droege's
qualifications or lack thereof. I seriously think he is the wrong person, it
would *far better* to send an experienced mechanical engineer or HVAC expert,
because the evaluation calls for the kinds of skills these people possess.
But, let me put that aside and point out that the readers of this forum have
unrealistically high hopes and expectations about this. Neither Tom nor anyone
else on earth could do the kind of evaluations and tests people have been
speculating about here. It is far too much work.
 
I am a fast worker. I spent a week there, mulled it over, called back, asked
for additional data, and wrote a report *four months* after my first visit. It
takes a long time for the reality of this to sink in. It is true that with the
present superb instrumentation an experienced HVAC engineer could read the
situation in a few hours and come to a firm conclusion, but the conclusion
would be so mind boggling that the engineer will want to return to see it
again and again, and puzzle over it for a month. That is reflected in every
written evaluation I have seen. Tom would have to stay for several days, the
way I did, before getting a good feel for the thing.
 
The discussion here has veered off into plans to test the *mechanism* of the
reaction. In one day? That will take a year or two, not one day. All this talk
of weighing rotors and looking for helium or chemical changes in the barrel is
completely out of the question. Trying to cram tests like this into a one day
trip is futile. All you can do is observe the calorimetry: the calibration
procedures, the null run, the low heat and heat tests. You would be lucky if
they managed to get in all of those things done during one 12 hour day. This
is tough, grinding work, it is not Mr. Science on television.
 
Frankly, most of these proposed tests are naive and unrealistic. You can only
weigh the rotors to the nearest half-pound with the equipment on site. You
cannot weigh and compare a rotor from a year ago, and even if you could,
visual inspection alone is enough to confirm that the mass could not be
changed much. The rotors become worn and scratched, but they do not lose
pounds of mass, the "aluminum reaction" theory is ruled out by a gigantic
factor. The suggestion made by some people that helium reaction products might
be found in the open barrel are ludicrous. The barrel only holds 6000 BTU's of
GG generated energy. That's 6.3 MJ. Assuming this is fusion, that would yield
0.0001 gram of helium. The barrel is open to the air, it is filled with
steaming water which is sometimes full of visible rust and other contamination
from the holding tank plumbing. Nobody could detect a 0.0001 gram change in
helium in 171 kilograms of water and muck in an open barrel! It is utterly
impossible. Far more helium than that sweeps in and out from ambient air, from
the surrounding metal, and from other sources. Helium is a pervasive
contaminant, it is 1 part in 200,000 of the earth's atmosphere.
 
You can learn a lot in one day if you do your homework, prepare carefully in
advance, and ask detailed follow up questions later. You can verify that the
heat is real and persistent, and you can determine there are no tricks or
sleight of hand. But you cannot possibly sort out the mechanism of the
reaction, or do any sophisticated tests. I have seen and read about lot more
CF experiments than most of the readers of this forum, you should take my word
for it. Keep your mission goals simple and restricted and you will have a
successful trip. If you plan to crack the problem and explain CF in one day,
don't bother going.
 
Tom himself has said he could not be convinced by a one-day trip. He is quite
right, nobody could. It took me four months to be convinced. He proposes a
sensible, limited agenda, which I think he can handle. Readers should not
expect any miracles. If you want a serious, definitive, detailed evaluation,
send someone who has spent decades measuring BTUs. People like that have a
gigantic edge over Droege or Rothwell, they know exactly what to look for and
how to do the tests. One evaluation from someone like that is worth a hundred
one day trip evaluations from the likes of us. Since I went out there and did
the tests over and over again myself, and since I got gigantic results at very
high sigma, I have confidence in my own measurements and analysis. But I took
care to run my work past several experts in the field, and to read independent
expert evaluations of the GG before coming to a conclusion. You cannot judge
such an astounding scientific claim on the basis of a one day trip. The GG is
compelling, but it is not quite as compelling as the self-sustaining
generators and other devices now emerging from the laboratories. These will
convince Droege in a single day. Everyone will believe them except Morrison,
Blue, Jones and Close.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.22 / Simon Dellis /  PAGING !!! Craig Lubben - Colorado St
     
Originally-From: dellis@beastie.cs.und.ac.za (Simon Dellis)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: PAGING !!! Craig Lubben - Colorado St
Date: 22 Sep 1994 06:06:45 GMT
Organization: University of Natal (Durban), South Africa

Someone told me you are writing a thesis on climbing physics and i need some
assistance, please e-mail me.

Thanks   

  Simon Dellis   (dellis@beastie.cs.und.ac.za)

Every one else - if you know an e-mail address for this guy, let me know.

Cheers





cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudendellis cudfnSimon cudlnDellis cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.22 / L Plutonium /  ENG#2:A@P, SPONTANEOUS NEUTRON MATERIALIZATION DEVICES
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: ENG#2:A@P, SPONTANEOUS NEUTRON MATERIALIZATION DEVICES
Subject: Fly's Eye II reports the highest energy cosmic ray ever
Subject: 10^14 MEV particle
Date: 22 Sep 1994 20:35:29 GMT
Date: 16 Dec 1993 02:34:32 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

 All that needs to be done here is the arrival of the experiment that
conclusively shows that before the experiment only atoms of atomic
number, say 6 were present. And then after the experiment, some atoms
of atomic number 7 or 8 existed in the test mass.

	PHYSICAL EVIDENCES FOR RADIOACTIVE SPONTANEOUS NEUTRON MATERIALIZATION
(rsnm) (pronounced resin or raisin by DoE fruitcakes:-)
	(1) Muon catalyzed fusion is the pivotal experiment to my theoretical
understanding of what induces rsnm. But whereas the physics community
thinks the goings on in muon catalyzed experiments is that muatoms of
hydrogen isotopes bring about, . . after several quantum steps the
fusing together to make an atom of helium, their theoretical thinking
is wrong.  What is really going on are several quantum steps of rsnm.
	Muon Catalyzed Fusion is physically Muon Induced Radioactive
Spontaneous Neutron Materialization, rsnm. Instead of requiring a
changing electric potential difference V with a VandeGraaff machine, or
running a changing electric current  i  through atoms to yield rsnm. It
is the muon itself which already supplies the changing V or the
changing  i. The muon is the changing i or changing V which is the
pulser or pulsing. Changing is important for the induction of rsnm. As
important as in the laws of electromagnetism. For example, in Faraday's
law of induction a changing magnetic field is required. And in Ampere's
law of induction as extended by Maxwell, a changing electric field or
current are required. In rsnm, we are in a higher level of composition
but the symmetry follows. There is the symmetry in Maxwell's Equations
that a changing electric field produces a magnetic field and vice
versa. The composition of photons is electric fields and magnetic
fields. In cold fusion, this symmetry is needed, but it is in a higher
level of composition. That composition, specifically is-- Maxwell's
Equations relate photons which are composed of 2 neutrinos. In the
higher level of composition of quantum interactions, gravitons for
example are composed of 4 neutrinos or 2 photons. Muons, electrons,
protons, and neutrons are composed of different arrangements of
neutrinos. In cold fusion, a higher level of composition from photon
composition in MaxwellUs Equations, it is neutrinos induction by a
changing electric current/ and / or changing electric potential which
induces rsnm.
	Now consider a muon. A muon is just an extended electron, a big
electron.  A muon is an electron with added neutrinos. When a muon
forms a muatom, the muon in the muatom is its own variable VandeGraaff
machine already within the muatom. Or a muon is a variable electric
current within the muatom. Hence when there are muons in any particular
sample of hydrogen isotopes, some of those muons will induce
spontaneous materialization of neutrons from out of nowhere resulting
in a net energy to the whole system. Note that it is not necessary to
have hydrogen, or deuterium, or tritium for muon catalyzed fusion to
work. Muons in pure iron will result in rsnm. Muons in pure mercury
will result in rsnm. In fact, all stars and all planets have iron cores
which manufacture new hydrogen after rsnm with the neutron decaying
into hydrogen, and new helium (after spontaneous alpha particle
materialization (rs-alpha-m) plus a step of rsnm.)
(2)  REIFENSCHWEILER RADIATION. " Thirty years ago [early 1960's], Otto
Reifenschweiler was searching for a compound which could protect
Geiger-Mller tubes from damage when they are first ionised.  He found
the compound, which became a money-spinner for Philips, in a mixture of
titanium and radioactive tritium. He also discovered that as the
mixture was heated, its radioactivity declined sharply. No process
known to physics could account for such a baffling phenomenon:
radioactivity should be unaffected by heat. Nevertheless, as the
temperature increased from 115 degrees C to 160 degrees C, the emission
of beta particles fell by 28 per cent. 
  Hendrik Casimir, the director of research at Philips at the time,
remembers the excitement when Reifenschweiler broke the news. "I said
it could be extremely important--but I didn't believe it," says
Casimir.
   The two scientists put the discovery to one side as they
concentrated on the Geiger-Mller tubes. They never found the time to
come back to it. But following the recent rows over cold fusion, they
have finally decided to publsh the results in the 3 January issue of
Physics Letters A . " {16b}
	Reifenschweiler radiation is as yet unexplained by the
physics-community-at-large. Otto R. proposes (triton) nuclear pairing
hypothesis {16b}.  Vigier proposes ""tight" Bohr orbits in dense media
are derived and where occurence of cold DD-fusion {16a}, . .  And,
Secco discovered Reifenschweiler radiation in heavier nuclei than
tritium. In particular, Secco " who investigated gas-solid exchange
between the Zn-gas labelled by the 65Zn-nuclide with polycrystalline
ZnO at elevated temperatures. {16a}  
	When the theory of rsnm is observed as the true mechanism and accepted
then Reifenschweiler radiation is easily explained. When temperatures
are increased in certain substances then rsnm occurs resulting in a
reduction in the rate of radioactivity because of the added new
neutrons of rsnm makes the radioactive isotope a stable isotope.
	(3)  SONOLUMINESCENCE. " Sonoluminescence1-13 is a non-equilibrium
phenomenon in which the energy in a sound wave becomes highly
concentrated so as to generate flashes of light in a liquid. We show
here that these flashes, which comprise over 10^5 photons, are too fast
to be resolved by the fastest photomultiplier tubes available.
Furthermore, when sonoluminescence is driven by a resonant sound field,
the bursts can occur in a continuously repeating , regular fashion.
These precise 'clock-like' emissions can continue for hours at drive
frequencies ranging from audible to ultrasonic. These bursts represent
an amplification of energy by eleven orders of magnitude. " {17g} That
was a brief description of sonoluminescence. Note also in the various
references listed {17} that the light emission is blue. "Blue" is the
color that indicates neutrons are present, which is a well known fact
at nuclear reactor sites. Sonoluminescence cavities are blue colored.
Here I wax poetically with my restatement of a paragraph in the film
series Ascent of Man . " At twilight in the sixth lobe of 5f6, so say
science commentators to physics, 231PU made for humanity a number of
tools that gives also the gift of creation. If the old science
commentators were alive today, they would write ' PU, the Maker made
the neutron and is made of neutrons'. Here it is, at Oak Ridge in
Tennessee, the blue glow that is the trace of neutrons: the visible
presence of our Maker. "
	Sonoluminescence is explained as rsnm where the sound energy is a
mechanical conversion of electrical energy of variable V (or i) in the
collapsing bubble. Sonoluminescence is cold fusion and it is the
explanation of pulsar stars and blue giant stars, not that blue giants
are so very hot but that they are giant cold fusion objects.
	(4)  Uniform Cosmic Gamma Ray-bursts as reported from data by NASA's
Gamma Ray Observatory.  Gamma rays are mostly highly energetic protons.
Gamma Ray-bursts are seen uniformly throughout the sky yet there are no
astronomical objects for which these gamma rays can be assigned as the
source having generated the gamma ray. Since no known objects produce
these high intensity gamma rays, they are supportive evidence of
spontaneously materialized neutrons which radioactively decay into
energetic protons, energetic electrons, and gamma rays. {19}
	Most of the cosmic gamma ray-bursts are of the energy frequency of
hydrogen nuclei. Meaning that in space neutrons are spontaneously
materialized from out of nowhere and then decay into proton, electron,
neutrino system yielding the observed gamma rays.  
	A 10^14 MEV cosmic particle was detected. 
" From: sichase@csa5.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE) Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Fly's Eye II reports the highest energy cosmic ray ever
detected Date: 14 Dec 1993 14:50 PST
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA
Message-ID: <14DEC199314500231@csa5.lbl.gov>
In the spirit of continuing to share the little interesting tidbits of
physics which I stumble across in the Physics Library here at LBL, I 
submit the following brief note for your amusement: The folks from the
Fly's Eye II project, (an extensive array of phototubes looking up into
the sky for light from cosmic-ray-induced air showers in the Earth's
atmosphere) have reported there recent data in PRL a few weeks ago,
including a single event at roughly 3x10^20 eV! This is the highest
energy particle ever detected in the history of particle physics. For
comparison, the beam at the highest-energy machine currently running
(the Tevatron) is 900 GeV, or 9x10^11 eV. After the better part of a
century of studying cosmic rays, they still provide a unique window
into particle physics and cosmology. At the same time, we still know
almost nothing about them. Where in the world DoEs a 3x10^20 eV cosmic
ray come from? We don't know. It isn't likely to be a charged particle
from within our galaxy - the galactic magnetic field is too weak to
contain such a particle. In other words, it would escape from the Milky
Way before it got accelerated to that high an energy. It's probably
extragalactic.
Maybe it's an unfortunate leftover from the Early Universe which
finally ended its life by accidentally colliding with a nitrogen
nucleus in the Earth's upper atmosphere? That can't be, either. A
charged particle with that energy would collide with a photon in the
CMBR in an average of 10^8 years. (A photon of that energy would also
suffer a similar fate.)
That means that this particle was probably less than 10^8 years old
when it was blasted apart in our atmosphere, which means that it
originated from somewhere within our local supercluster of galaxies
(speed-of-light travel time, and all that.) within the last 100 million
years or so.
So what made it? We don't know. The Fly's Eye can determine the
direction from which the particle came. At this energy even a charged
particle travels on a roughly straight line due to its huge magnetic
rigidity. So it should point right back its source. So they looked, but
there's nothing there! There aren't any objects like active galaxies
and such in that part of the sky, of which we know. So its origin, like
that of most cosmic rays, continues to be a mystery. Perhaps it was not
accelerated by some violent event, but rather just came into being at
high energy through the decay of some massive Big Bang remnant, some
GUT-related object which decayed into light particles of incredible
energy. We don't know. If this speculation is correct, then studying
such events can tell us about the number and distribution of these
objects, whatever they might be. The most straightforward way to
investigate these phenomenon would be to build a 10^8 TeV collider. :-)
In the absence of such a machine, we will have to continue to take what
nature gives us. If you want to know more about the Fly's Eye, you can
check out the Nov. 22 PRL and the references therein, or find something
about it in Physics Today. I don't have that reference, but I know that
it has been discussed there in the not too distant past. " {18}
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: 10^14 MEV particle
Date: 16 Dec 1993 02:34:32 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
Message-ID: <2eohfo$a56@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
   This is a most amazing verified fact that a particle exists which
has 10^14 MEV. Another verified fact is that these energetic bursts are
uniform throughout the cosmic sky with no known source.  There is the
fact that a neutron is 931 MEV and a proton is 928 MEV. And the fact
that the mass creation of a prion or virus requires 10^14 MEV. And the
fact that an energetic particle of 10^14 MEV can create roughly 10^8
particles of element 189. And the fact that 10^14 MEV can create what
atomic element? Can it create element of atomic number 10^11?? From
Aug1993 I posted both to sci.physics and sci.physics.fusion my patent
on SPONTANEOUS NEUTRON MATERIALIZATION DEVICES. This is an extension of
Dirac's ideas as mentioned in his most excellent little book, one of
the best books on physics ever written--Directions in Physics. And it
is truly remarkable to me that the physics community has ignored
Dirac's positing of a "new radioactivities." See his gem of a book on
this. If the universe is an atom totality then the growth of the
universe is by spontaneous materialization. This is a direct violation
of the conservation laws. The big bang model is dumbfounded in trying
to explain a 10^14 particle and the uniformity along with no known
source for these particles, and the model supporters logic turns
contradictory. The steady-state model is dumbfounded in trying to
explain these facts, and again, the model supporters logic turns
contradictory. Only the atom totality theory gives the answers easily
and naturally, Not only does spontaneous materialization of elements 1
through 189 occur in our 94th electron observable 231 Pu totality. But
life comes into existence spontaneously. The first living creatures
were prions and viruses which evolved biologically to higher and more
complex lifeforms. By the way this outline of the first lifeforms as
prions and viruses is counter to the present biology communitys' view
that the cell was the first life form and prions and viruses came
afterwards. I contend that this is a reverse of what really happened.
Prions and viruses came first. ATOM {18}
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Fri Sep 23 04:37:05 EDT 1994
------------------------------
1994.09.24 / Richard Blue /  Griggs reaction products
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Griggs reaction products
Date: Sat, 24 Sep 1994 00:12:56 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Jed Rothwell rejects the notion that chemistry could contribute to any
excess power from the Griggs device, but he then goes on to say:

"It (the calorimeter) is filled with steaming water that is sometimes
full of visible rust and other contamination from the holding tank
plumbing."

That rust is likely the product of a chemical reaction, is it not?
At least I would assume that Griggs does not intentionally run his
tests with contaminated water.  That indicates that corrosion is
occuring somewhere in the system, and Jed may just jump to the
conclusion that the holding tank is rusting.  How do we know that
the rotor housing is not also rusting?

As for the prospects for detection of Jed's favorite nuclear reaction
product Jed can explain away that possibility, too.

"Helium is a pervasive contaminant."  As to whether it would be
difficult to detect a change in helium content by 0.0001 grams
in 171 Kg of water, why should it be more difficult than in the
experiments that gave Jed the notion that helium was involved in
the first place?  If there has been a significant scaleup in the
production of excess heat there should also be a proportional
scale up in the helium production.  I was assuming that means
something above the normal level of atmospheric contamination.
Mills has to run for days to generate helium barely above his
detection limits, all the time increasing the possibilities for
contamination.   If Griggs is generating kilowatts of CF power
within a few minutes of start up on a fresh batch of water where
does all the helium contamination come from.  Jed has assured us
that the GG does not blow air.

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.23 / Alan M /  Re: A one-day visit to a lab
     
Originally-From: Alan@moonrake.demon.co.uk ("Alan M. Dunsmuir")
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A one-day visit to a lab
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 1994 04:48:14 +0000
Organization: Home

In article: <35pmea$8b8$1@mhade.production.compuserve.com>  Jed Rothwell 
<72240.1256@CompuServe.COM> writes:

> Let me put aside rancor and leave off the discussion Tom Droege's
> qualifications or lack thereof.
      
     [exceedingly long panic-filled posting deleted]

 ...the sound of one foot back-pedalling... <g>

Alan M. Dunsmuir [@ his wits end]     (Can't even quote poetry right)

         I am his Highness' dog at Kew
         Pray tell me sir, whose dog are you?
			      [Alexander Pope]

PGP Public Key available on request.


cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenAlan cudfnAlan cudlnM cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.23 / C Harrison /  Tom Droege wimps out
     
Originally-From: harr@netcom.com (Charles (Chuck) Harrison)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Tom Droege wimps out
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 1994 03:14:22 GMT
Organization: Fitful


Well I, for one, am a little disappointed in the limited engagement
Tom has volunteered for Cartersville.

It seems that _one_ thing Tom's got more chance of doing right than the
typical HVAC expert is measuring ultrasonic harmonics on the power
line.  (Frankly, Dale Bass's idea that a few kW are going down a 
rat hole this way sound fishy to me.  But you sure ought to be
able to see something with a 'scope if it's true.)

I'd suggest a two-channel DSO (digital storage oscilloscope).  I'd also
suggest to Tom that he try out some current transformers/shunts/isolators
etc on an appropriate integral hp circuit and satisfy himself the response
BW is there before the trip. 

Depending on the construction of the dynamometer transducers,
maybe Tom could check for the amplitude of the ultrasonic
torque as well.  Griggs might even be interested in the data
if he hasn't tried it yet.  Maybe he can use it to tune things
or something.  What the heck, bring along a little electret
microphone & see if you can pick up the acoustical noise spectrum.

IMHO there's alot of things Tom could do besides report whether he
got warm fuzzies from the engineers on site.

There's so much money floating around here maybe we can rent
Tom one of those nice DSO's with FFTs and  a disk drive, & he can 
upload the data.

Hey, Dale, would you care to put anumber on how small an out-of-band
power measurement would have to be to squash your hypothesis?  Or 
would you argue that it's a three-phase circuit and we don't know
nuttin' without a 6-channel DSO?

Cheers,
  Chuck

cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenharr cudfnCharles cudlnHarrison cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.23 / Dieter Britz /  Re: Fading: the plots
     
Originally-From: kemidb@aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fading: the plots
Date: 23 Sep 94 12:08:48 GMT
Date: 19 Sep 94 07:38:22 GMT
Organization: Aarhus University, Denmark

Originally-From: kemidb@aau.dk (Dieter Britz) in FD 2760
Date: 19 Sep 94 07:38:22 GMT

I wrote
[...] 
>My point, Al, is that my curves clearly show that scientists have generally
>walked away from 'cold fusion', hence the decay in submissions. In contrast,

It has been pointed out to me that there is another interpretation for the
decay in submissions, as plausible as the one I hint at and in fact believe;
i.e. loss of interest. In fairness, I should mention the alternative of loss of
research funding. We have read here in this group from Steve Jones and Bruce
Liebert how they had to scrounge funds to make do. This is clearly not inducive
to forging ahead with research. Fair enough. Lack of support would likely cause
the same sort of curve. Take your pick.



-- 
Dieter Britz   alias kemidb@aau.dk
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenkemidb cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.23 / Gary Steckly /  Re: Griggs Question -- To Jed?
     
Originally-From: gsteckly@clark.dgim.doc.ca (Gary Steckly)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs Question -- To Jed?
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 94 14:38:35 GMT
Organization: Industry Canada

In article <CwIJz2.Gtp@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> crb7q@watt.seas.Virgini
.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
>Subject: Re: Griggs Question -- To Jed?
>Date: Thu, 22 Sep 1994 04:18:38 GMT

>In article <1994Sep21.145221.7190@ttinews.tti.com>,
>Dick Jackson <jackson@soldev.tti.com> wrote:

>>
>>Apologies if this has already been discussed, but it seems to me
>>amazing that someone (presumably Griggs) would build such an expensive
>>electro-hydraulic device just on a whim.
>>
>>Was his discovery of the power amplifier based upon some prior theory,
>>or was it fortuitous - if the latter, why was he building such
>>machines?

>     I once remarked something to the effect that only an engineering- and
>     thermodynamically-illiterate idiot would try to heat water with a 
>     pitted rotor in a system designed to compete with other heating systems:  

I don't know if I mentioned this before, but strangely enough this isn't the 
first time a water pump heating machine has appeared where the inventors make 
claims of over unity efficiencies.

My brother-in-law (the skeptical engineer) told me that he encountered a
similar device in the mid or late '80's while he was studyiing at the U of 
Waterloo.  The inventor was trying to get some investment support in southern 
Ontario, but he was so firmly denounced by the engineering community 
(cries of fraud etc.) that he sort of disappeared.  It would be rather 
ironic if it turns out these guys were unjustly accused and tried.  I 
guess that's the price of scientific vigilance.  Good thing we don't have 
a death penalty (yet) for "thermodynamic-illiteracy".  

I'll try to get more info on this since it might be relevant to the discussion.

Gary

cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudengsteckly cudfnGary cudlnSteckly cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.23 / Stanley Chow /  Re: Fading: the plots
     
Originally-From: schow@bnr.ca (Stanley T.H. Chow)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fading: the plots
Date: 23 Sep 1994 16:36:55 GMT
Organization: Bell Northern Research Ltd, Ottawa

In article <kemidb.780322128@aau>, Dieter Britz <kemidb@aau.dk> wrote:
>It has been pointed out to me that there is another interpretation for the
>decay in submissions, as plausible as the one I hint at and in fact believe;
>i.e. loss of interest. In fairness, I should mention the alternative of loss of
>research funding. We have read here in this group from Steve Jones and Bruce
>Liebert how they had to scrounge funds to make do. This is clearly not inducive
>to forging ahead with research. Fair enough. Lack of support would likely cause
>the same sort of curve. Take your pick.

This is yet another alternative: Big Money.

Considering the amount of money to be made, especially if public funding
dries up and forces people to look for private money; it is reasonable
to think that any result, real or imaginary, will be kept secret.

-- 
Stanley Chow  InterNet: schow@BNR.CA  (613) 763-2831
Bell Northern Research Ltd., PO Box 3511 Station C, Ottawa, Ontario
Me? Represent other people? Don't make them laugh so hard.
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenschow cudfnStanley cudlnChow cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.23 / Tom Droege /  Re: Let's send Tom to Cartersville, GA
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Let's send Tom to Cartersville, GA
Date: 23 Sep 1994 18:15:59 GMT
Organization: fermilab

In article <1994Sep22.112711.1768@vanlab.byu.edu>, jonesse@vanlab.byu.edu 
says:
>
>Just one week ago, suggested that we contribute travel money to send 
>our spf colleague to Georgia to investigate the "Griggs device", which 
>claims to produce 'excess heat' using light water. (See post below) 
>Tom has consented 
>to do this, and it is gratifying to have now about 30 respondents who
>indicated they would contribute to the investigation.  We don't expect
>Tom to prove in one trip the modus operundum (or flaws) in the putative
>excess heat production; but we expect to learn much from our colleague.
>And, as Tom and Bill Page pointed out, an experiment to pursue the
>question may then proceed at Tom's home laboratory for excess heat.
>
>Despite Jed's protestations, I think Tom could learn much that will 
constitute
>a useful investigation for us to pursue in this way, as the 'college of
>sci.physics.fusion.'  Other such investigations sponsored by this motley
>group could well follow this pattern. 
>
>Let's do it!  Tom, are you ready to post a mailing address so that we 
can
>send our travel-money contributions in?

Please note that my first post said "Appoint a treasurer".  I do
not want the job of collecting the money and then having the second
job of returning it when only a few subscribe. So I have agreed to 
go, but not to collect the money.  

Someone asked for a postcard from Cartersville.  Sure, I think we
can figure out how to make a certificate on a Mac here. Suitable for 
framing, and will be sent to all contributers. Heck, I think we can 
give everyone a Doctor of Support of Scientific Investigation, from 
the college sci.physics.fusion.  We have a Mac program that prints 
"Order of the PIG" certificats when people leave the group.  Possibly
one of you out there could take on this task and make something 
wonderful.  

I do not agree with Chuck Harrison who thinks it possible to make 
measurements on the apparatus.  In this game, the home team has all
the advantages.  One would only be suckered in to thinking he made
a good measurement.  All I can do is look and listen and ask a few 
questions.  

The real test then is to see how I react after having looked.  I have
been taken in before, so it is clear that I can catch the disease.  Is
the Griggs device good enough to hook me?  That is what I can do.  Not
much more.  

I think it is up to Jed to make the arrangements with Griggs.  It will
do little good for me to go if I am not wanted.  So I offer to go with
an open mind.  How about it Jed, are you willing to make the 
arrangements?

As Jed has suggested, there might be a better person to go than me.  
Dale Bass comes to mind as one who knows more about thermodynamics.  
I am just an old grey beard that has measured a few things, and who 
has been fooled many times.  

Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.22 / Duncan McIntyre /  Re: Let's send Tom to Cartersville, GA
     
Originally-From: mcintyre@hpgnd.grenoble.hp.com (Duncan McIntyre)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Let's send Tom to Cartersville, GA
Date: Thu, 22 Sep 1994 16:05:36 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Grenoble

A lurker writes...

I'm in for $20. But I want a postcard...

Personally I favour the theory that it's all hot air.


________________________________________________________________________________
Duncan_McIntyre @grenoble.hp.com

"I am drunk, and you madam are ugly, but in the morning I shall be sober...."
________________________________________________________________________________

cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenmcintyre cudfnDuncan cudlnMcIntyre cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.23 / Thomas Zemanian /  Re: Let's send Tom to Cartersville, GA
     
Originally-From: ts_zemanian@pnl.gov (Thomas S. Zemanian)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Let's send Tom to Cartersville, GA
Date: 23 Sep 1994 17:27:26 GMT
Organization: Battelle PNL

In article <28190001@hpgnd.grenoble.hp.com>, mcintyre@hpgnd.grenoble.hp.com
(Duncan McIntyre) wrote:

> A lurker writes...
> 
> I'm in for $20. But I want a postcard...
> 
> Personally I favour the theory that it's all hot air.
> 

Um, shouldn't that be hot water?  And is that what we're getting Tom into?
--Tom

--
The opinions expressed herein are mine and mine alone.  Keep your filthy
hands off 'em! 
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudents_zemanian cudfnThomas cudlnZemanian cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.23 / Charles Lindsey /  Re: What is a PMK
     
Originally-From: chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk (Charles Lindsey)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What is a PMK
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 1994 15:32:39 GMT

In <Cw9H96.Jys@prometheus.UUCP> pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) writes:

>In article <Cw4pzu.36C@clw.cs.man.ac.uk> chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk (Charles Lindsey) writes:
>>In <CvsrHD.60F@prometheus.UUCP> pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) writes:
>>
>>>.  Top compression of 
>>>a PMK (it's fluid mechanical) could put the Kernel plasma at pressures 
>>>10^4 to 10^5 higher than a tokamak plasma,

>>How do you intend to compress your PMK to those densities? Put it in a
>>cylinder with a piston and push, or do you intend to apply an external
>>magnetic field to change the conditions inside?

>Vigorously
>Yes 
>and
>Probably not

So it is all going to happen inside a pressure vessel that will withstand
10^5 atmospheres? And then you are going to have a fusion burn inside that
vessel which will produce even more pressure (unless your MHD arrangements
for getting the energy out are 100% reliable).

I wouldn't want to stand too close to that thing when it goes off!


-- 
Charles H. Lindsey -------------------------------------------------------------
           At Home, doing my own thing.           Internet: chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk
Voice: +44 161 437 4506                           Janet:    chl@uk.ac.man.cs.clw
Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave., CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.   UUCP:     mucs!clerew!chl
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenchl cudfnCharles cudlnLindsey cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.22 / Edward Lewis /  cold fusion and plasmoids
     
Originally-From: edward@uhuru.uchicago.edu (Edward Lewis)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics
Subject: cold fusion and plasmoids
Date: Thu, 22 Sep 1994 21:52:57 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

              (c) 1994 by Edward Lewis All Rights Reserved

        I've posted versions of this article several times on this
newsgroup since December of 1993; and I've posted several articles
about plasmoids and cold fusion on this newsgroup since January of
1993.  If anyone wants to reproduce or resend this article, get my
permission first.  

                        PLASMOIDS AND COLD FUSION

        W. Bostick produced that which he called plasmoids by
discharging through electrodes.  Bostick wrote a paper that was titled
"Plasmoids" that was published in SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN in 1957(1).  He
may have been the first to apply this term to this phenomena.  In this
paper, he had already began to tell others about his speculation that
galaxies and the phenomena he produced were similar.  He compared the
shapes and the travel of these things.  He also speculated a little
about the identity of "particles."  He shows pictures of different
kinds of plasmoid shapes in the article and related these to different
kinds of shapes of galaxies.  Many people including Bostick, Alfven
who is a physics Nobel Prize winner, Peratt and Lerner have developed
similar astronomical theories that model the universe as plasmoids and
that can be said to be derivations or summarizations of the
experimental work of W. Bostick and others.  It has become evident
that atoms can be defined as plasmoids, especially as according to the
phenomena produced by Ken Shoulders.  It seems that there are many
different kinds of plasmoid phenomena.  The EVs that Ken Shoulders
produced and ball lightning may be classified as kinds of this general
phenomena.  There is evidence that both plasmoids and ball lightning
are associated with neutrons, radioactivity, production of elements,
and excess radiation.

                Based on the phenomena that Matsumoto produced, the
traces, the pictures and descriptions of electrodes, the pictures of
stationary BL and corona-like phenomena, the visible BL-like phenomena
that he reports, and the sparks that he observed that left traces like
those produced during electrolysis and discharge, one may categorize
CF phenomena as tiny ball-lightning or plasmoids.  Important evidence
is the holes and trails on and in emulsions and electrodes that
Matsumoto produced by discharging and electrolysis, the holes in
electrodes that Liaw et al. produced, the holes in electrodes that others
produced, the empty areas in electrodes that are shaped liked grains
that Matsumoto and Silver et al. produced and the half-empty grains that
Matsumoto produced, and the holes and tunnels and trails on and in
electrodes that Silver produced.  These tunnels, holes, and trail-like
marks are similar to those that are produced by ball lightning
phenomena, though ball lightning are associated with bigger effects.
These tunnels, holes, and trail-like marks are also similar to those
produced by the EV phenomena that K. Shoulders produced.  Silver and
his co-authors who published a paper in the December issue of FUSION
TECHNOLOGY have reproduced the tunnels, holes, and trail-like markings
in metals that Matsumoto produced.  These tunnels, holes, and
trail-marks are evidence of the conversion and change of materials.
Important evidence that both CF phenomena and substance in general are
plasmoid phenomena is Matsumoto's experience of the production of
electricity by apparatus.  I suspect that plasmoid phenomena such as
electrodes and other materials may convert to be bigger plasmoids and
light and electricity.  EVs and ball lightning are known to convert to
light and electricity.

        I suspect that the round holes in electrodes that Matsumoto
produced and the round holes and tunnels that Silver produced are due
to the boring of BL-like phenomena, and that the grain-shaped holes
that they produced is evidence of the conversion of the grain to light
or electricity or of the production of plasmoids.  Some if not all
plasmoids are apparently able to travel through materials, even if the
plasmoids are very big.  The plasmoids that Matsumoto has produced
does this, and this is major evidence to support my deductions.
Matsumoto has also shown pictures of sectioned electrodes with what
seem to me to be trail-like tracks, as if tiny BL-like phenomena
traveled inside and left tracks.

        Many other anomalous phenomena can be described as plasmoid
phenomena.  For example, superconductivity seem to be similar to the
phenomena of ball lightning traveling though materials such as
ceramics and glass without leaving holes or visible effects, yet ball
lightning may convert to an electrical surge after touching a wire or
it may convert to a bolt of lightning.  Also, sonoluminescence seems
to be a phenomena of the water converting to light and perhaps
electricity.

cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenedward cudfnEdward cudlnLewis cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.22 / dave pierson /  Re: What am I missing? (Griggs Gadget)
     
Originally-From: pierson@cimcad.enet.dec.com (dave pierson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What am I missing? (Griggs Gadget)
Date: 22 SEP 94 18:53:19
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation

>     "Wouldn't it be more straightforward to simply hook the thing [GG] up to
>     a generator that is incapable of putting out more power than X, and
>     seeing if the output power is still Y?
	Such a generator can be hard to come by, interestingly enough.  Most
	(all..) have some overload capability.

Somewhat related.
	Electric motors (all) have overload capability.  They will quite
	happily (IF SUPPLIED WITH ENOUGH POWER) work at two times rated hp
	for modest periods, and more than that for brief periods.  A 50HP
	motor will provide 100HP or so, the supply lines cooperating.
	(Details of overload capability depend on motor type and detail
	design....)

	In my understanding of the Griggs device tests, the overload ability
	of the motor does not affect the results, since the input, during
	test, is reported to be continuosly monitored.

	(If i was building such a machine for the purpose of instrumenting,
	I'd use a DC supply.  Simplifies the metering.  Tho cautions against
	stray EMI, etc, effects woudl still be needed.)

thanks
dave pierson			|the facts, as accurately as i can manage,
Digital Equipment Corporation	|the opinions, my own.
200 Forest St			|I am the NRA.
Marlboro, Mass 01751		|pierson@msd26.enet.dec.com
"He has read everything, and, to his credit, written nothing."  A J Raffles
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenpierson cudfndave cudlnpierson cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.22 / Arnie Frisch /  Re: Let's send Tom to Cartersville, GA
     
Originally-From: arnief@wu.labs.tek.com (Arnie Frisch)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Let's send Tom to Cartersville, GA
Date: 22 Sep 1994 14:51:20 -0700
Organization: Tektronix Laboratories, Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton, OR

In article <35sevi$oc9@ornews.intel.com> brauchfu@fnugget.intel.com
(Brian D. Rauchfuss) writes:
>In article <1994Sep18.165540.26003@oxvaxd>, roes@vax.oxford.ac.uk (Peter
>Roessingh) wrote:
.......
>I have always been suspicious that the Griggs device activates by drawing
>less power and putting out the same amount of work.  I wonder if the power
>meters could be fooled by high-frequency power changes.  If the power flucuated
>at the rpm, could the meters be fooled? Could they have found a way to fool 
>the power-company?


I previously posted an observation to this effect, however, the power
meter is claimed to be a digital device - so it should be immune to the
mechanical vibration who could cause errors in a mechanical meter.  I
also noted, however, that the current waveform could have a very high
crest factor and that this could be the cause of significant error.  It
is also worthwhile noting that the current waveforms for resonant
devices tend to have this characteristic.

Arnold Frisch
Tektronix Laboratories
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenarnief cudfnArnie cudlnFrisch cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.22 /  jonesse@vanlab /  Re: Let's send Tom to Cartersville, GA
     
Originally-From: jonesse@vanlab.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Let's send Tom to Cartersville, GA
Date: 22 Sep 94 11:27:11 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

Just one week ago, suggested that we contribute travel money to send 
our spf colleague to Georgia to investigate the "Griggs device", which 
claims to produce 'excess heat' using light water. (See post below) 
Tom has consented 
to do this, and it is gratifying to have now about 30 respondents who
indicated they would contribute to the investigation.  We don't expect
Tom to prove in one trip the modus operundum (or flaws) in the putative
excess heat production; but we expect to learn much from our colleague.
And, as Tom and Bill Page pointed out, an experiment to pursue the
question may then proceed at Tom's home laboratory for excess heat.

Despite Jed's protestations, I think Tom could learn much that will constitute
a useful investigation for us to pursue in this way, as the 'college of
sci.physics.fusion.'  Other such investigations sponsored by this motley
group could well follow this pattern. 

Let's do it!  Tom, are you ready to post a mailing address so that we can
send our travel-money contributions in?

I spent a week with Tom at the ICCF-4 meeting, and I completely trust him
to responsibly carry out this 'small' investigation well and honestly.  I'm
ready to forward my check at the drop of Tom's address.

The other willing supporters at this date (Sept. 22, 1994) are:

Bill Page, Richard Schroeppel, Scott Hazen Mueller, Thomas Zemanian, Robert
Virzi, Robert Horst, Bradly Sherman, Paul Breed (will also loan fancy power-
monitoring equipment), Tjsel, Gary Steckly, B. Smith, Dieter Britz, Laurie
Forbes, David Cyganski, Doug Elias, Tarl Neustaedter, Mike Harpe, John Lewis,
Ian Johnston, David Seghers, Doug Shade, Prasad, Dick Blue, Barry Merriman,
Anthony Sumner, Bruce Schechter, and Jim Carr (will also loan radiation safety 
equipment, if you really want it).

Please excuse any omissions; such would be inadvertent.


In article <1994Sep15.172447.1746@vanlab.byu.edu>, 
jonesse@vanlab.byu.edu writes:
> Propose we send one of the professors of the college of s.p.f., namely
> Tom Droege, to Cartersville, Georgia to take a close look at the 
> Griggs excess-heat-from-light-water device.  I think Tom can sort through
> the smoke, or steam as the case may be, and bring back some hard facts 
> one way or the other.  
> 
> The suggestion by Jed that the Griggs device is
> "a CF reactor, it converts hydrogen into helium and releases energy"
> is, er, hard to believe.  
> 
> I'd be willing to contribute to Tom's air fare.  If 20 of us chip
> in $20-30 each that should about do it. 
> 
> How 'bout it, Tom?
> 
> --Steve Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenjonesse cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.22 /  jonesse@vanlab /  cancel <1994Sep22.112339.1767@vanlab.byu.edu>
     
Originally-From: jonesse@vanlab.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cancel <1994Sep22.112339.1767@vanlab.byu.edu>
Date: 22 Sep 94 11:27:23 -0600

cancel <1994Sep22.112339.1767@vanlab.byu.edu>
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenjonesse cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.23 / A Rivero /  Re: A one-day visit to a lab
     
Originally-From: rivero@sol.unizar.es (Alejandro Rivero)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A one-day visit to a lab
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 1994 08:39:47 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

> Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@CompuServe.COM>
> 
>  
> I am a fast worker. I spent a week there, mulled it over, called back, asked
> for additional data, and wrote a report *four months* after my first visit. It
> takes a long time for the reality of this to sink in. It is true that with the
>
As further example of the time it takes, note that two months ago even
Jed was not sure about if it was fusion or what.
  
> You can learn a lot in one day if you do your homework, prepare carefully in
> advance, and ask detailed follow up questions later. You can verify that the
> heat is real and persistent, and you can determine there are no tricks or
> sleight of hand. But you cannot possibly sort out the mechanism of the
> reaction, or do any sophisticated tests. I have seen and read about lot more

Now I think about sophisticated tests... Time ago I made some
cristalographic "homework" in a neutron facility. We made
some Laues and powder by using a photagraphic film covered
with some flourescent material which was sensible to
neutron in our range, or something so. Exposure time in the que
of reactor was between half and one hour, so dix hours can be
enought to detect something. Of course, no detection can be due
to the blindage. (I wonder how many experiments have put the 
neutrons detectors blocked by stopper material).

ah, and if you detect something and want to know the spectrum, no need
of sophisticated detectors. Simply put a known prism!! (Remember Newton?)

				Alejandro
 

cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenrivero cudfnAlejandro cudlnRivero cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.24 / Richard Blue /  RE: Motor starting torque
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: Motor starting torque
Date: Sat, 24 Sep 1994 00:12:56 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Thanks, to Marshall Dudley for his post on synchronous motors.  I have
never been sure from what Jed Rothwell has told us what motor type is
involved.  I guess I should have made it clear that the reason I was
asking about the motor start problem was because the Griggs device could
possibly be a case where one would expect the starting torque to be
rather low, unless there is lots of friction in the shaft seal(s).
My experience with water pumps, etc. is that they generally can
spin up by themselves because you start with a bypass valve open.

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.23 / Tom Droege /  Re: Cost of He3?
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cost of He3?
Date: 23 Sep 1994 23:02:53 GMT
Organization: fermilab

In article <94266.165549IO00656@MAINE.MAINE.EDU>, 
<IO00656@MAINE.MAINE.EDU> says:
>
>What does He3 cost?  I assume most of what is sold decayed from tritium.
>How much would it cost to process it out of primordal gas if such gas 
was
>readily available?

Let me know if this is a serious request.  I can try to poke around
at Fermilab.  For all I know we may have a tube trailer sitting 
around here somewhere full of it, left over from a bubble chamber
experiment.

Since we run a *big* helium operation, it may come off as a bleed
somewhere from *impurities* in the supply. 

Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.23 /   /  Cost of He3?
     
Originally-From: <IO00656@MAINE.MAINE.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Cost of He3?
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 1994 16:55:49 EDT
Organization: University of Maine System

What does He3 cost?  I assume most of what is sold decayed from tritium.
How much would it cost to process it out of primordal gas if such gas was
readily available?
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenIO00656 cudln cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.23 /  jonesse@acoust /  Re: Let's send Tom to Cartersville, GA
     
Originally-From: jonesse@acoust.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Let's send Tom to Cartersville, GA
Date: 23 Sep 94 12:54:16 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

Jim Carr aptly reminds us:
"But this [trip to GA] is a job for an experimenter, not a theorist.  Theorists
are very easily conned."
     ( 8^) =

I heard a related story:  when a theorist speaks, no one believes it, except
for the theorist.  When an experimenter speaks, everyone believes it -- except
for the experimenter.

--S. Jones (I'm an experimenter, the one who should not believe it himself...)

cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenjonesse cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.23 / Thomas Zemanian /  Re: how motors work.
     
Originally-From: ts_zemanian@pnl.gov (Thomas S. Zemanian)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: how motors work.
Date: 23 Sep 1994 23:01:40 GMT
Organization: Battelle PNL

In article <WAF2PCB271061033@brbbs.brbbs.com>, mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com
(MARSHALL DUDLEY) wrote:

> ts_zemanian@pnl.gov (Thomas S. Zemanian) writes:
> 
> > Point in favor of Dr. Bass's suggestion:  The power dropped when the effect
> > kicked in, but the rotation rate remained constant.  There should be a
> > input voltage drop required for such behaviour.  What is the control scheme
> > for this device?
> 
> Not true.  Most large motors are syncronous or the squirrel cage induction
> variety. The rpm on these motors is set by the frequency of the AC source, not
> the voltage. A 2 pole syncronous motor will run at 3600 RPM (60 revolutions per
> second) on 60 cycle at any reasonable voltage and loading.  A squirrel cage
> motor will encounter some slippage depending on load, so it may run at only
> 3520 RPM instead of the syncronous 3600 RPM at full load.
> 
> Thus the motor is most likely either a syncronous motor, in which case phase
> and not RPM varies with load, or a squirrel cage induction motor, where the
> drop in load did not cause sufficient increase in RPM to show up on the
> measurement equipment.  When loading drops on a motor, the current draw and
> power facter (not the voltage which is set by the utility) change.  What Jed
> reports as observing is what would be expected. If there had been a large
> change in RPM, I would have questioned it.
>

I see, thank you.  Yes, of course, I was still thinking in terms of DC
motors.  So, to vary the rotation rate, presumably some sort of frequency
adjustment is performed.

> And Dick Blue writes:
> 
> > Each time Jed Rothwell rehashes what he thinks he saw he drops another
> > little nugget that leaves me wondering.  For example, recently he
> > said something about the motor not being able to spin up without
> > a little starting twist by hand. I think Tom could tell us whether
> > that is the case and whether it makes good sense.
> 
> That makes sense.  A 2 pole induction motor torque curve typically looks
> something like this:
> 
>         |                * * * *
>         |            * *        *
>         |        * *             *
> Torque  |    * *                  *
>         |  *                      *
>         |*                        *
>       0 |__________________________
>         0              RPM      3600
> 
> Locked rotor torque is always much lower than full load torque.  It is not
> unusual to see a motor unable to self start under load.  This can be seen
> easily by cutting power to a refrigerator or air conditioner, then reapplying
> power before the head pressure can dissipate.  Usually the compressor motor
> will stall, and if a thermal cut-out does not operate shortly it can often burn
> up the compressor motor.
> 
> The reason for this is quite simple.  A motor has a main and a phase winding.
> The main winding is what does all the work under normal load.  The phase
> winding is a small winding in which the current flow is out of phase with the
> main winding, thus giving the motor an inital direction to spin during startup.
> Without the phase winding, a motor will not self start at all, and is equally
> happy running in either direction when spun up externally (or by hand).
> However, the phase winding becomes a burden once the motor is spun up, so they
> typically are no more powerful than necessary.  Often they will have an RPM
> actuated kickout switch to disconnect the phase winding after some minimum RPM
> is reached.  For more information I suggest a text on motors and generators.
> 

Marshall, I agree with most of what you've written here, except this last
part.  Did I not read a while ago that the GG uses a three phase motor?  I
believe there is no phase winding (nor starting capacitor) necessary for a
three phase motor.  Am I misinformed?

--Tom

--
The opinions expressed herein are mine and mine alone.  Keep your filthy
hands off 'em! 
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudents_zemanian cudfnThomas cudlnZemanian cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.24 / Scott Mueller /  Treasurer (was Re: Let's send Tom to Cartersville, GA)
     
Originally-From: scott@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Scott Hazen Mueller)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Treasurer (was Re: Let's send Tom to Cartersville, GA)
Date: Sat, 24 Sep 1994 03:52:00 GMT
Organization: At Home; Salida, CA

Steve Jones writes:

>Let's do it!  Tom, are you ready to post a mailing address so that we can
>send our travel-money contributions in?

Tom Droege writes:

>Please note that my first post said "Appoint a treasurer".  I do
>not want the job of collecting the money and then having the second
>job of returning it when only a few subscribe. So I have agreed to 
>go, but not to collect the money.  

Since neither Steve nor Tom seems to want the position, I volunteer
my services for this epochal journey.  :-)

I will:

  1)  Collect funds.
  1a)  I will return the checks uncashed if I do not receive enough.
  2)  Post a report of funds collected to this group.
  3)  Send a check for the full amount to Tom.
  4)  Supply Tom with a list of contributers with mailing addresses for
      the commemorative postcards/certificates.

From each donor, I would like:

  1)  A check for your donation amount in US funds, to 'Scott Hazen Mueller'.
      Please indicate in the memo area that this is for s.p.f.

  2)  A separate sheet of paper with your full name and postal mailing
      address.  This information will be used to create the contributors
      list, and will also be added to my collection of CNF memorabilia,
      so feel free to add notes, comments or signatures.

My mailing address is

Scott Hazen Mueller
4108 Killigrew Drive
Salida, CA 95368
Attn:  CNF

I can be reached by phone at 1 209 545 9417 (FAX 1 209 545 9297) evenings
after 8PM Pacific time, or weekends between 10AM and 10PM.

If this is acceptable to all involved, I would like to open the collection
now, and close it October 31st.

-- 
Scott Hazen Mueller scott@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG or (tandem|ub-gate)!zorch!scott
Mail fusion-request@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG for emailed sci.physics.fusion digests.

cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenscott cudfnScott cudlnMueller cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.24 / Bruce Hamilton /  Re: Let's send Tom to Cartersville, GA
     
Originally-From: B.Hamilton@irl.cri.nz (Bruce Hamilton)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Let's send Tom to Cartersville, GA
Date: Sat, 24 Sep 1994 00:02:36 GMT
Organization: Industrial Research Limited

In article <35v60v$2pv@fnnews.fnal.gov> Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege) writes:

>In article <1994Sep22.112711.1768@vanlab.byu.edu>, jonesse@vanlab.byu.edu 
>says:
....
>>Just one week ago, suggested that we contribute travel money to send 
>>our spf colleague to Georgia to investigate the "Griggs device", which 
>>claims to produce 'excess heat' using light water. (See post below) 
>>Tom has consented 
>>to do this, and it is gratifying to have now about 30 respondents who
>>indicated they would contribute to the investigation.  We don't expect
>>Tom to prove in one trip the modus operundum (or flaws) in the putative
>>excess heat production; but we expect to learn much from our colleague.
...
>>Let's do it!  Tom, are you ready to post a mailing address so that we 
>>can send our travel-money contributions in?
...

Count me in for $20. Just post the postal address of the treasurer.
....
>As Jed has suggested, there might be a better person to go than me.  
>Dale Bass comes to mind as one who knows more about thermodynamics.  
>I am just an old grey beard that has measured a few things, and who 
>has been fooled many times.  

The question is not how often you have been fooled, but if you have
been fooled more than once by the same technique. :-)
I also wonder if two people should go, one to probe and question,
and the other to record ( video? ), it almost seems as though s.p.f
funding is sufficient.

              Bruce Hamilton

cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenHamilton cudfnBruce cudlnHamilton cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.24 / Jed Rothwell /  Not sure it's fusion
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@CompuServe.COM>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Not sure it's fusion
Date: 24 Sep 1994 01:47:40 GMT
Organization: CFRA

rivero@sol.unizar.es (Alejandro Rivero) writes of the GG:
 
     "As further example of the time it takes, note that two months ago even
     Jed was not sure about if it was fusion or what."
 
I still do not know if it is fusion or what. I have not seen any tests that
might reveal the mechanism of the reaction, except for the inconclusive test
with a small amount of heavy water. (It came from an old bottle which had been
open frequently, so it must have had a lot of H2O in it.) I suppose it is
fusion; that is my tentative hypothesis, but I have no proof, and I am not
interested in getting any proof. The origin of the heat makes no difference to
me. I only want to verify that it exceeds the limits of chemistry.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Sat Sep 24 04:37:03 EDT 1994
------------------------------
1994.09.24 / Robert Heeter /  Re: Griggs Question -- To Jed?
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs Question -- To Jed?
Date: Sat, 24 Sep 1994 01:20:03 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

In article <gsteckly.59.000AAB6A@clark.dgim.doc.ca> Gary Steckly,
gsteckly@clark.dgim.doc.ca writes:
> My brother-in-law (the skeptical engineer) told me that he encountered a
> similar device in the mid or late '80's while he was studyiing at the U
of 
> Waterloo.  The inventor was trying to get some investment support in
southern 
> Ontario, but he was so firmly denounced by the engineering community 
> (cries of fraud etc.) that he sort of disappeared.  It would be rather 
> ironic if it turns out these guys were unjustly accused and tried.  I 
> guess that's the price of scientific vigilance.  Good thing we don't
have 
> a death penalty (yet) for "thermodynamic-illiteracy".  

It would be *really* ironic if the guys name was Griggs.

:)

(Not trying to imply that it is, but it *would* be pretty funny!)
> 
> I'll try to get more info on this since it might be relevant to the
discussion.

Can't wait!

******************************************
Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@princeton.edu
Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton.
Anything I say here is solely my own fault.
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.24 / A Rivero /  Re: Fusion Digest 2778
     
Originally-From: rivero@sol.unizar.es (Alejandro Rivero)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion Digest 2778
Date: Sat, 24 Sep 1994 12:18:28 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

>    - Re: Fading: the plots
> Originally-From: kemidb@aau.dk (Dieter Britz) in FD 2760
> I wrote
> [...] 
> >My point, Al, is that my curves clearly show that scientists have generally
> >walked away from 'cold fusion', hence the decay in submissions. In contrast,
> 
> It has been pointed out to me that there is another interpretation for the
> decay in submissions, as plausible as the one I hint at and in fact believe;
> i.e. loss of interest. In fairness, I should mention the alternative of loss of
> research funding. We have read here in this group from Steve Jones and Bruce
> Liebert how they had to scrounge funds to make do. This is clearly not inducive
> to forging ahead with research. Fair enough. Lack of support would likely cause
> the same sort of curve. Take your pick.
> 

Also about the same:
> 
> >the same sort of curve. Take your pick.
> 
> This is yet another alternative: Big Money.
> 
> Considering the amount of money to be made, especially if public funding
> dries up and forces people to look for private money; it is reasonable
> to think that any result, real or imaginary, will be kept secret.
> 
> -- 
> Stanley Chow  InterNet: schow@BNR.CA  (613) 763-2831

Now my pick. Im not for the "Big Money" speculation, I can develop
more rooted paranoic thories than this. (Hmm perhaps if someday the traffic
is low, we could make a competition!). Im not to do it. 
My guess is someplace between lack of interest and lack of new results.
Note that essencially new results are required for publication
standards, and only finer experimental publications seem fulfill thie
requisite.
Note that the "citation curve" reported for people of the ISI (any socioligist
in the audience willing to comment??) has a very similar shape: a 
hight impact paper get a peak of citations around two years since 
publication, and then decays until a constant.
The peak for CF theory could be ever higher than expected, because
F et P claim was highly over expected fusion rates for such setup. 
(Yes, I think that fusion was a "expected" event in the experiment,
as it is not so rare) As new POSITIVE experiments got a excess 
heat within acceptable limits, CF get the same range that other
condensed matter experiences. And in addition it pays the 
price of the bad starts, getting some additional depression.

                           Alejandro Rivero
                           Theoretical Physics Dep,
			   Zaragoza Univ, Spain.
										

cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenrivero cudfnAlejandro cudlnRivero cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.23 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Griggs Question -- To Jed?
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs Question -- To Jed?
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 1994 23:12:38 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1994Sep22.183148.9463@newsgate.sps.mot.com>,
Doug Shade <rxjf20@email.sps.mot.com> wrote:
>In article <CwIJz2.Gtp@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
>crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>
>>      I once remarked something to the effect that only an engineering- and
>>      thermodynamically-illiterate idiot would try to heat water with a 
>>      pitted rotor in a system designed to compete with other heating systems:  
>>      All the efficiency of purely electrical systems with the added 
>>      benefit of many many more parts to break.
>> 
>>      So y'all can take the 'we was just working on this here little
>>      heating system, when all the sudden...' with a chunck of NaCl.
>> 
>>                                  dale bass
>Dale-
>Thank goodness for people like Griggs (and Jed).  And thank goodness
>for people like you as well; for I must admit that your conservative
>and traditional position on the GG discussion is crucial as well.
>
>Can't you think of a few scientific revelations that were brought to
>light
>by accident; by "mis-guided" or naive thinking?  

     Not ones that overthrew well-understood principles in very 
     well-investigated arenas.  Keep in mind that this is not some 
     out-of-the way field.  Steam power is what drove the industrial 
     revolution, and thermodynamics was arguably the first 'modern'
     science.  

     It's this simple, this 'over-unity' performance is a crock.  I'm
     more confident of that than I ever have been about cold-fusion's
     lack of truth-value.

>I'm quite happy/satisfied that "engineering- and thermodynamically -
>illiterate" people get a wild idea to build a better than 1 machine
>once in a while.... if no ever trys, no-one ever will.

     'Inventors' have been trying this same trick for over a hundred years.
     It begins to look tired after a century.  

     It's much like the mathematical crocks who continue to 'prove'
     the opposite of results known for decades and centuries.

                            dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.23 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Let's send Tom to Cartersville, GA
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Let's send Tom to Cartersville, GA
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 1994 23:23:17 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <35v60v$2pv@fnnews.fnal.gov>,
Tom Droege <Droege@fnal.fnal.gov> wrote:
>
>Please note that my first post said "Appoint a treasurer".  I do
>not want the job of collecting the money and then having the second
>job of returning it when only a few subscribe. So I have agreed to 
>go, but not to collect the money.  

     Unless someone else wants to, I would be happy to be treasurer.  
     Send the money to :

                 Money for Tom's Excellent Adventure c/o Dale Bass
                 1069 Hopkins Ct.
                 Charlottesville, VA  22901

     As soon as pledges roll in,  I'll make a public accounting of 
     any money received (unless the donor explicitly wishes anonymity).
     In the event the event does not become an event, all funds will
     be returned to their rightful owner(s).  On the other hand, if
     pledges continue to come in, perhaps we can buy Tom a house
     in Georgia to take up residence permanently...

                                dale bass

cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.24 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Tom Droege wimps out
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Tom Droege wimps out
Date: Sat, 24 Sep 1994 00:13:01 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <harrCwKBny.2MG@netcom.com>,
Charles (Chuck) Harrison <harr@netcom.com> wrote:
>
>Hey, Dale, would you care to put anumber on how small an out-of-band
>power measurement would have to be to squash your hypothesis?

     Yes, less than about half the excess integrated over all the frequencies
     from subharmonics to hundreds of kilocycles.   And, yes, I'd
     want to see all six channels, there is no assurance that the
     load is balanced in any way.

     Why not go whole hog and just use equipment that can accurately measure
     the three-phase power input up to hundreds of kilocycles *and* look
     at it using a scope?

     Of course, this doesn't imply that I have great confidence in the
     evaluation of the other side of the energy equation either.

                              dale bass



cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.23 / Hugh Lippincott /  Re: Griggs Question -- To Jed?
     
Originally-From: hughl@hp-and.an.hp.com (Hugh Lippincott)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs Question -- To Jed?
Date: 23 Sep 94 20:38:51 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company

In article <1994Sep22.183148.9463@newsgate.sps.mot.com>, rxjf20@email.sp
.mot.com (Doug Shade) writes: in comment on 
|> In article <CwIJz2.Gtp@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
|> crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) 

|> Thank goodness for people like Griggs (and Jed).  And thank goodness
|> for people like you as well; for I must admit that your conservative
|> and traditional position on the GG discussion is crucial as well.
|> 
|> Can't you think of a few scientific revelations that were brought to
|> light by accident; by "mis-guided" or naive thinking?  
|> 
|> I'm quite happy/satisfied that "engineering- and thermodynamically -
|> illiterate" people get a wild idea to build a better than 1 machine
|> once in a while.... if no ever trys, no-one ever will.
|> 
|> Lets continue to look at the results with a critical eye... lets not
|> let our knowledge of current models blind us to the possability of new
|> realities.
|> 

  I sympathize with Doug Shade, and I've appreciated the relatively 
rational approach that everyone has taken here.  I do tend to the 
more conservative side.

 I suggest that something that will capture the total energy output
from both the non >1 startup or warmup, and from the ">1" period
could help settle the internal heat storage question.
	If a second or third barrel would be added to the setup
would that storage be enough?
	I propose that there be an initial (weighed) amount of water
in the bottoms of the barrels, so that they could all be coupled
by siphons.  The simplest siphon I can think of is a length of 
garden hose sufficient to coil 1-2 times in the bottom of one barrel, 
reach up and over to the next barrel and then coil in the bottom of
the next.  If the whole length is immersed in one barrel (filling 
up the hose, then one end plugged and pulled to the next barrel and 
then unplugged, that would connect the barrels. 
	If 3 barrels were arranged with the center one connected by 
siphons to the 2 outside ones, and the center one used to collect 
output of the Griggs device, then I think you could measure ~1 hr.
	Ideally the whole set of 3 would sit on some large scale
such that periodic weight measurements could be made.  Matching
temperature measurements are needed also of course.


	Hugh Lippincott 		  hughl@hp-and.an.hp.com
	These are only my own opinions, not those of HP
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenhughl cudfnHugh cudlnLippincott cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.24 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Griggs Question -- To Jed?
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs Question -- To Jed?
Date: Sat, 24 Sep 1994 14:29:12 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <gsteckly.59.000AAB6A@clark.dgim.doc.ca>,
Gary Steckly <gsteckly@clark.dgim.doc.ca> wrote:
>In article <CwIJz2.Gtp@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> crb7q@watt.seas.Virgin
a.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>>From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
>>Subject: Re: Griggs Question -- To Jed?
>>Date: Thu, 22 Sep 1994 04:18:38 GMT
>
>>     I once remarked something to the effect that only an engineering- and
>>     thermodynamically-illiterate idiot would try to heat water with a 
>>     pitted rotor in a system designed to compete with other heating systems:  
>
>I don't know if I mentioned this before, but strangely enough this isn't the 
>first time a water pump heating machine has appeared where the inventors make 
>claims of over unity efficiencies.

     No joke.

                           dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.24 / Jed Rothwell /  Re: Griggs Question -- To Jed?
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@CompuServe.COM>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs Question -- To Jed?
Date: 24 Sep 1994 18:29:51 GMT
Organization: CFRA

I have overlooked a question from Rick Jackson:
 
     "...it seems to me amazing that someone (presumably Griggs) would build
     such an expensive electro-hydraulic device just on a whim.
 
It was not a whim. He intended to build a compact, durable, low maintenance
electric heater. It has many mechanical advantages over conventional heaters
besides the fact that it creates excess energy. For example, it works well
with dirty or polluted water which would clog up a conventional boiler. When
he began building these things, he had no idea the C.O.P. would go over 100%.
When it first did, he was so shocked after measuring it several times that he
put the whole thing on the shelf and tried to forget it for many months. He
could not believe it. That is a normal, understandable reaction.
 
 
     "Was his discovery of the power amplifier based upon some prior theory?"
 
Not theory. Well known mechanical principles going back to the work of J.P.
Joule and others. He did not expect it amplify anything, of course, and he
cannot explain why it does. Other people have designed similar water heaters
in the past, reported excess energy, and patented the devices. There is an
example of this cited in the Griggs patent.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.23 /  jonesse@astro. /  Sonoluminescence Revisited
     
Originally-From: jonesse@astro.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Sonoluminescence Revisited
Date: 23 Sep 94 17:56:37 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

I would like to call your attention to two interesting articles on
sonoluminescence (SL).  The first was written by Lawrence Crum of
the Univ. of Washington, one of the true gentlemen of modern
science.  His article appears in this month's issue of Physics
Today (Sept. 1994).  Appended to this post find an earlier
commentary on Prof. Crum's colloquium at BYU in January 1994 and
related ideas.  Note that in that post the notion of fusion during
bubble cavitation in SL is advanced -- indeed, this idea was
discussed here on s.p.f. as early as 1992 (Jones, Bollinger, etc.).
Well, Prof. Crum is bold enough to advance the idea in his Phys.
Today article:

"The strong probability that SBSL results from an imploding shock
wave has now made this curious phenomenon one of considerable
interest.  ...This spherically symmetric implosion has the
potential for creating some exotic physics... Calculations suggest
that temperatures as high as 10^8 K are to be expected.  This
result has in turn prompted calculations of the possibilities of
inertial confinement fusion with a deuterium-tritium gas mixture,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
which yield a qualified estimate of 40 neutrons per second under
                                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 
ideal conditions [ref. 9]."

Whoa -- we can easily see 40 neutrons per *day* in our detector in
the Provo Canyon tunnel laboratory.  

So we look at ref 9, which is a paper in Phys. Rev. Lett. 72 (1994)
1380-1383 by Bradley Barber et al. from UCLA.  (The second must-
read paper.)  The calculation there is based on a shock-wave model
by Wu and Roberts which I have discussed previously here, found in
PRLett. 70 (1993) 3424.  The idea, in brief, is that the spherical
sound wave in the water impinges on a bubble (here D2+T2) in the
center of a spherical flask.  As the bubble collapses, a shock wave
forms which rapidly heats the gas near the origin.  After
reflection, the outgoing shock wave further heats the gas just
heated by the incoming shock -- and the result 0.1 ps after
focussing is a remarkable 3 X 10^8 K (!).

Bradley et al. then use standard formulas for d-t fusion, based on
sigma-v for d-t at 10 keV (10^8 K) to estimate a fusion yield of
40 n/s.

I have extended this calculation to hoped-for conditions of our
experiments using sigma-v values for d-d fusion (collapsing bubble
of deuterium simply), to get:

Temp. in shock-heated D2      d-d fusion neutron yield
 ------------------------     ------------------------
10 keV                        1400 n/hour
5  keV                          10 n/hour
2  keV                           0.2 n/hour

Since our detector has an efficiency of 15% for 2.45 MeV neutrons
(from d-d fusion) with a background rate of 0.65 counts/hour, the
5 keV number (fusion yield of 10 n/h) would have to be achieved in
order for us to detect a signal.  Of course, if we could use D2+
tritium in the bubble, D2+T2, then a much lower temperature would
allow us to see the (14.1 MeV) neutrons from d-t fusion.  Indeed,
a temperature of 1 keV (11,600 K) would give a yield of about 18
neutrons/h for d-t fusion -- again easy to see in our detector in
Provo Canyon.  But I think we'd better stick with D2 for the
present.  Stay tuned.

I am intrigued also by Prof. Crum's comment that there is evidence
for occasional "super shocks" in which "internal shock waves would
occur that would be similar to those postulated for SBSL [see
below] but driven at much higher initial velocities.  Because of
the transient nature of the phenomenon it would be very difficult
to determine if and when these "super shocks" occurred."  [Phys.
Today, p. 28]  

I suggest that neutrons from fusion may provide a probe for such
unusual events.  Indeed, I maintain (getting bold here, but why
not) that the unusual neutron events which we announced in April
1989, Nature, may be due to just such events, following cavitation
in the D2 bubbles in our electrolysis experiments.  If this wild
hypothesis were true, then the metal lattice would have nothing to
do with the low-level fusion that we (perhaps) saw.  Indeed, the
fusion would be a form of hot fusion:  "hot-bubble fusion" one
might call it.                       

My January 1994 post below is reposted to provide background for
those who missed it:

Prof. Lawrence Crum of the University of Washington provided a
colloquium on the subject of "Synchronous Picosecond
Sonoluminescence" (SP-SL) at BYU on January 21, 1994.  Here is his
abstract for his talk:

When an acoustic wave of moderate pressure amplitude is propagated
through an aqueous liquid, light emissions can be observed.  This
conversion of mechanical energy into electromagnetic energy
represents and energy amplification per molecule of over eleven
orders of magnitude!  Recently, we made the discovery that a
single, stable gas bubble, acoustically levitated in a liquid, can
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 emit optical emissions each cycle for an unlimited period of time. 
Presumably, the oscillations of the bubble cause the gas in the
interior to be heated to incandescent temperatures during the
compression portion of the cycle.  We have no current explanation
for how this mechanical system sustains itself.  Furthermore, some
recent evidence from Putterman and colleagues at UCLA indicates
that the lifetime of the optical pulse is less than 50 picoseconds,
and that the temperatures elevated in the interior of the bubble
for times on the order of tens of nanoseconds, it is likely that
some rather unusual physics is occurring.  The best guess is that
a shock wave is created in the gas which is then elevated to high
temperatures by inertial confinement.  If shock waves are the
mechanism for SL emission, then optimization of the process could
lead to extraordinary physics.  A general review of this intriguing
phenomenon will be presented as well as the latest explanations for
the anomalous behavior.


Here I provide notes based on his talk and our discussions
together, along with other literature.

First, it is important to distinguish stable, SB-SL from the
previously known *transient* sonoluminescence (T-SL).  These appear
to be quite different phenomena, as a table will demonstrate:

Transient (garden-variety)SL   Stable single-bubble SL [SB-SL]
 ----------------------------- -------------------------------- 

Multiple cavitation sites      One cavitation site (or few)
 with random spatial and         with same bubble(s) repeatedly
 temporal distribution           collapsing
                               
(To simplify discussion, I will consider the SB-SL case of a single
bubble at the center of a spherical flask full of H2O or D2O.)

Can be produced by traveling   Requires standing sound waves (SW)
or standing waves of sound

Easily obtained, with much     Very difficult to realize; requires
gas dissolved in liquid         <5% dissolved gasses.  Bubble must
                                be *injected* into liquid.

Discovered 1933 by N.Marinesco  Discovered 1988 by D. Gaitan, L. 
 & J. Trillat.                      Crum and C. Church.

Emitted light spectrum shows   Emitted light shows no distinct
distinct lines, e.g., N+N -->   lines; rather, spectrum fits black
N2; so chemiluminescence         curve quite well.
postulated.

Bubles tend to collapse asym-  Bubbles tend to collapse symmetric
metrically, thus introducing   "developing an imploding shock wave
liquid into bubble, which is    within the gas." [L.A. Crum, J.
heated by adiabatic compression.    Acoust. Soc. Am. 94(1993) 1 ]

From above, Temp ~ 5000 K      From above, Temp up to 100,000 K
deduced, during cavitation.     deduced during cavitation.

Normal physics, no shock       "Extraordinary physics"; shock waves
waves needed.                   implied.  

Time between pulses quite      Time between pulses clock-like; 
random; pulse-length typically   pulse-length < 50 *pico*seconds
several nanoseconds.

(Sychronous picosecond SL:

!__________!__________!__________!__________!__________!____
   Time between light-flashes ! = 50 microsec +- 50 Picosec
     for 20 kHz driving field; sound source good to 1 part in
     10^4, light source stable to 1 part in 10^6. )
   

No fusion possible.             Fusion during cavitation possible?
                                 like inertial-confinement approach
                                 with holraum-like target.  Allows
                                 compression with less heating than
                                 ablation approaches IMHO.  No   
                                 experimental tests yet.  I suggest
                                 comparing p-d,d-d and d-t targets
                                 (gases in cavitating bubble).


Additional notes from Barber and Putterman, Nature 352 (1991) 318:

1.  "SL is a non-equilibrium phenomenon in which the energy in a
sound wave becomes highly concentrated so as to generate flashes
of light in a liquid.  We show here that these flashes, which
comprise over 10^5 photons, are too fast to be resolved by the
fastest photomultiplier tubes available.  Furthermore, when SL is
driven by a resonant sound field, the bursts can occur in a
continuously repeating, regular fashion."

2.  "These bursts represent an amplification of energy by eleven
orders of magnitude."

3.  "The flash widths that we find are so short that one wonders
whether some phenomenon stimultes the atoms to fire in usison. 
Known cooperative phenomena include laser action, super-radiance
and super-fluorescence.  Any cooperative phenomenon underlying our
observations must be of a spherical nature, however, because a
randomly oriented dipose emission would lead to a broad spread in
the distribution of pulse heights....no such broadening is seen.
Nevertheless, it is reasonable to expect that some type of
correlation characterizes the outgoing photons, because the spacing
between light-emitting sources is much less than the wavelength of
the emitted light."  

4.  "The huge, spontaneous (non-equilibrium) amplification factors
discussed above are noteworthy in that they are controllable and
reproducible.  In this respect, stable synchronous SL differs from
other phenomena (such as dust explosions, ball lightning and highly
speculative conditions for nuclear fusion) that also require large
spontaneous energy concentrations. [Note evident reference to cold
fusion.]  If we could understand the mechanism behind synchronous
SL, we might see a way to achieve large but controllable energy
concentrations more generally."

With colleagues, we are now preparing experiments to study stable,
single-bubble SL as a possible means of achieving nuclear fusion
reactions.  Our neutron detectors are capable of unambiguously
identifying neutron emissions at a rate of a few neutrons per hour. 
A previous posting describes our redundant detectors, employing
fast waveform digitizers, in a deep tunnel in the Wasatch mountains
near the campus of Brigham Young University.

--Steven Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenjonesse cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.24 / Paul Koloc /  Re: What is a PMK
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What is a PMK
Date: Sat, 24 Sep 1994 02:32:34 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <CwL9uG.D1F@clw.cs.man.ac.uk> chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk (Charles Lindsey) writes:
>In <Cw9H96.Jys@prometheus.UUCP> pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) writes:
>
>>In article <Cw4pzu.36C@clw.cs.man.ac.uk> chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk (Charles Lindsey) writes:
>>>In <CvsrHD.60F@prometheus.UUCP> pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) writes:
>>>
>>>>.  Top compression of 
>>>>a PMK (it's fluid mechanical) could put the Kernel plasma at pressures 
>>>>10^4 to 10^5 higher than a tokamak plasma,
>
>So it is all going to happen inside a pressure vessel that will withstand
>10^5 atmospheres? And then you are going to have a fusion burn inside that
>vessel which will produce even more pressure (unless your MHD arrangements
>for getting the energy out are 100% reliable).

>I wouldn't want to stand too close to that thing when it goes off!

Actually, the Kernel plasma with Beta* (star) of three would reach
of 100kbarr, but the Mantle plasma (and pressure vessel) would see 1/3
of that.  Piston compressions to 50-100 kBar have been done.  We expect
that chamber pressures of 20 init and 50 kBar fusion heated would be
sufficient, and maybe overkill.  Pressure(t) tailoring will be possible.  

If you want to get to Mars in a couple of weeks, this is definitely the
machine to get you there.  

>-- 
>Charles H. Lindsey -----------------------------------------------------------
>           At Home, doing my own thing.         Internet: chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk
>Voice: +44 161 437 4506                         Janet:    chl@uk.ac.man.cs.clw
>Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave., CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. UUCP:     mucs!clerew!chl
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc, Bx 1037 Prometheus II Ltd, College Park MD 20741-1037    |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.25 / Chris Parkinson /  Re: Cold Fusion comment, WAS Re: UNI DIRECTIONAL SPEAKER CABLE
     
Originally-From: parky@ix.netcom.com (Chris Parkinson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion comment, WAS Re: UNI DIRECTIONAL SPEAKER CABLE
Date: 25 Sep 1994 05:09:41 GMT
Organization: Netcom

In <petrichCwIpDo.L7v@netcom.com> petrich@netcom.com (Loren Petrich) writes: 

>
>[Newsgroup list altered a bit...]
>
>In article <jonkCwDz5L.Dw8@netcom.com> jonk@netcom.com (Jonathan Dale Kirwan) writes:
>>Harry H Conover (conover@max.tiac.net) wrote:
>>: Well, you can't knock the fact that the CF guys sure know how to party!
>>: Still, I can't help but wonder if they realize what traditional Japanese
>>: customs associated with failure entail. 
>
>	For those not in the know, one slices one's belly with a knife. 
>One usually does not live very much longer.
>
>	More seriously, I seriously think that Cold Fusion is a lost 
>cause. One _serious_ problem is the kinds of nuclear reactions involved. 
>Here they are, assuming deuterium as the initial material:
>
>	D + D -> T + p
>	D + D -> He3 + n
>	D + D -> He4 + gamma
>
>	Of these, the first two are about equally probable, and the third 
>one is much less likely. Some Cold Fusion enthusiasts maintain that there 
>is some new effect that makes the neutron-producing reaction _much_ less 
>likely than either (or both) of the other two, possibly by the third one 
>being accelerated significantly in some way. One hypothesis is 
>interaction with the surrounding medium, but nuclear energies are _much_ 
>higher than atomic-bond energies, let alone phonon energies. So one 
>requires some sort of effect that makes the third reaction go much 
>faster than normal (say), while affecting essentially _no_ other 
>nuclear-reaction rate. Such blatant ad-hockery makes me gag.
>
>	So I expect that, if CF happens, it will produce _lots_ of 
>neutrons. This produces some rather serious constraints on CF power-plant 
>design (can't have people irradiated with lots of neutrons, get it?). A 
>CF cell would have to have at least a few feet (>~ 1 meter) of cladding 
>around it, which will be rather heavy. This means that a CF power plant 
>would be at least as big as a typical car. However, they can still be 
>smaller than present-day fossil-fuel or nuclear-fission power plants, 
>thus making possible an abundance of small power plants rather than a few 
>big ones (good for surviving assorted disasters).
>
>	What vehicles would be practical? Ships, certainly, because they 
>are just plain _big_, and because they have access to an abundance of 
>coolant. Airplanes? Weight is at a premium there, so forget it, unless 
>one wants to fly a pilotless one with an unshielded CF powerplant. Cars? 
>Too small. Trucks? Borderline. Locomotives? At least possible, since 
>existing diesel ones usually weigh 100-200 tons, and the necessary 
>cladding can easily be accommodated. So might we be seeing a "Fleischmann 
>Flyer" or two on our rails if CF ever becomes practical?
>
>	Successful CF would change energy economics rather drastically, 
>because it would be an efficient source of electricity and low-grade 
>heat. In cold climates, all one would have to do is pipe in some steam 
>heat from one's neighborhood powerplant. Electricity? That would help 
>make electric cars economical, and electrolyzing water would make 
>hydrogen, which could easily substitute for natural gas.
>
>-- 
>Loren Petrich, the Master Blaster
>petrich@netcom.com                   Happiness is a fast Macintosh
>lip@s1.gov                           And a fast train
>
>

Hi, I'm the joker who started this thread.

You make a good argument and I've heard it all before as it is a very
typical response. I agree with the neutron prospect as some have seen it
in their experiments but how do you explain those that do not see any
neutrons and still get high heat output? Is it that you do not know 
about those experimentors or what. Try reading up on them in Fusion
Technology tm. or Cold Fusion Magazine tm.. 

CP
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenparky cudfnChris cudlnParkinson cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.25 / Harry Conover /  Re: I will not assist Tom
     
Originally-From: conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: I will not assist Tom
Date: 25 Sep 1994 06:24:30 GMT
Organization: The Internet Access Company

Jed Rothwell (72240.1256@CompuServe.COM) wrote:
:  
: Under no circumstances. You are not qualified. Your trip will probably
: result in more mischief and confusion. I have no doubt you can do the 
: actual work, but I expect you will come back spouting a dozen 
: cockamamie "theories" about heat pumps, stored energy, cold mist, or 
: electrical noise that magically affects dynamometers and power meters 
: simultaneously to the same extent. Your previous comments about Pons 
: and Fleischmann, Mizuno and the ICCF4 papers revealed that you are 
: incompetent, intellectually dishonest, and ignorant. The only way to 
: resolve an issue like this is to send an experienced professional
: who does not believe in invisible heat pumps.
:  
: I will ignore you and your trip. Jim was at ICCF4, you have his 
: address and phone number, you are free to make your own arrangements. I 
: would never poke my nose into your business or Jim's business. But if 
: he asks me what I think of you I will tell him in no uncertain terms.
:  
: - Jed


Amazing!  Seems like the panic is beginning to strike!

Why does this sound like the reaction of a fake psychic on learning that 
the investigation committee, invited to authenticate his supernatural
skills, includes a magician trainied in the detecting deception.

Naturally, I'm not implying that there is any deception involved here,
but merely observing that Jed's response is remarkably similar to that
of the psychic.

                                     Harry C.


ps.  Keep it up guys.  This is the funniest stuff that I've seen on
     a screen since the original 'Saturday Night Live!'

cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenconover cudfnHarry cudlnConover cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.25 / Alan M /  Re: Griggs Question -- To Jed?
     
Originally-From: Alan@moonrake.demon.co.uk ("Alan M. Dunsmuir")
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs Question -- To Jed?
Date: Sun, 25 Sep 1994 07:01:27 +0000
Organization: Home

In article: <361r6v$992$1@mhadf.production.compuserve.com>  Jed Rothwell 
<72240.1256@CompuServe.COM> writes:

> When it first did, he was so shocked after measuring it several times that he
> put the whole thing on the shelf and tried to forget it for many months. He
> could not believe it. That is a normal, understandable reaction.

Not in the least. If it is not, indeed, yet further emanations of your 
own over-fertile imagination, but is actually claimed by Griggs, it's 
simply another indication that he is more likely to be a scammer than 
an innocently duped victim of his own lack of expertise.

Alan M. Dunsmuir [@ his wits end]     (Can't even quote poetry right)

         I am his Highness' dog at Kew
         Pray tell me sir, whose dog are you?
			      [Alexander Pope]

PGP Public Key available on request.


cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenAlan cudfnAlan cudlnM cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.25 / Alan M /  Re: Let's send Tom to Cartersville, GA
     
Originally-From: Alan@moonrake.demon.co.uk ("Alan M. Dunsmuir")
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Let's send Tom to Cartersville, GA
Date: Sun, 25 Sep 1994 07:01:30 +0000
Organization: Home

In article: <CwLvMt.Kos@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>  crb7q@watt.seas.Virgi
ia.EDU (Cameron Randale 
Bass) writes:

>      Unless someone else wants to, I would be happy to be treasurer.  
>      Send the money to :
 
I'd love to subscribe, but can you cope with either a sterling cheque 
drawn on an English bank, or a credit card #? <g>

Alan M. Dunsmuir [@ his wits end]     (Can't even quote poetry right)

         I am his Highness' dog at Kew
         Pray tell me sir, whose dog are you?
			      [Alexander Pope]

PGP Public Key available on request.


cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenAlan cudfnAlan cudlnM cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.25 / Alan M /  Re: I will not assist Tom
     
Originally-From: Alan@moonrake.demon.co.uk ("Alan M. Dunsmuir")
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: I will not assist Tom
Date: Sun, 25 Sep 1994 07:01:32 +0000
Organization: Home

In article: <361rgc$992$2@mhadf.production.compuserve.com>  Jed Rothwell 
<72240.1256@CompuServe.COM> writes:

> I will ignore you and your trip. Jim was at ICCF4, you have his address and
> phone number, you are free to make your own arrangements. I would never poke
> my nose into your business or Jim's business. But if he asks me what I think
> of you I will tell him in no uncertain terms.

We should have been running a sweepstake on when he would get round 
to outright antagonism. I personally would have lost, since I was 
expecting him to wait until Tom said something new he could take exception to.

But panic clearly set in early...

Alan M. Dunsmuir [@ his wits end]     (Can't even quote poetry right)

         I am his Highness' dog at Kew
         Pray tell me sir, whose dog are you?
			      [Alexander Pope]

PGP Public Key available on request.


cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenAlan cudfnAlan cudlnM cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.25 / L Plutonium /  ENG#5:FIRST CONFIRMED EVIDENCE OF SPONTANEOUS NEUTRON 
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.fusion,sci
physics.electromag
Subject: ENG#5:FIRST CONFIRMED EVIDENCE OF SPONTANEOUS NEUTRON 
Date: 25 Sep 1994 06:35:31 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

  I have been informed that in the November issue of FUSION TECHNOLOGY
will have two articles on the appearance of iron, produced in a carbon
arc under water. The original researcher in this area was a person by
the name of George Oshawa.
  This may be the first full scale investigation which will lead to the
science of radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization. What Dirac
spoke of in his book "Directions in Physics". rsnm pronounced (resin)
is the reason cold fusion works. And it is rsnm which makes the Sun and
stars work. Not the foggey goofball idea that gravity causes fusion.
  Once the science community makes an earnest search into rsnm will we
be able to make fusion power plants.
                                                ARCHIMEDES PLUTONIUM A@P
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.25 / Richard Blue /  Re: cost of 3He
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: cost of 3He
Date: Sun, 25 Sep 1994 13:48:49 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

It has been many years since I bought any 3He, but the price was of
the order of several hundred dollars per atm-cc.  It does come from
the decay of tritium in our nuclear weapons stockpile so the Gum'ment
is very cagey about how much they have and how much they sell.  The
price is adjusted to limit demand.  Clearly if a Federally-funded
research project has a good reason for wanting alot of it, they
can get at a "special price".  Thus it is possible, as Tom Droege
tells us, that there is a tank trailer full sitting at Fermilab.
The people doing ultralow-temperature refrigeration like to have
a few liters of liquid 3He so they are big customers.  The outfit
that handles distribution and marketing used to be called
Mound Laboratories and is located in Ohio although it now uses a
different name. Look under 3He in the Yellow Pages. :-)

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.25 / Gary Steckly /  Re: Let's send Tom to Cartersville, GA
     
Originally-From: gsteckly@dgim.doc.ca (Gary Steckly)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Let's send Tom to Cartersville, GA
Date: Sun, 25 Sep 94 14:25:34 GMT
Organization: Communications Canada

Alan M. Dunsmuir (Alan@moonrake.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: In article: <CwLvMt.Kos@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>  crb7q@watt.seas.Vir
inia.EDU (Cameron Randale 
: Bass) writes:

: >      Unless someone else wants to, I would be happy to be treasurer.  
: >      Send the money to :
:  
: I'd love to subscribe, but can you cope with either a sterling cheque 
: drawn on an English bank, or a credit card #? <g>

: Alan M. Dunsmuir [@ his wits end]     (Can't even quote poetry right)

If I am following this, I believe that Mr. Bass has acquiesed to Scott 
Hazen Mueller for the treasuerer position, but I imagine that Scott could 
deal with an international money order drawn at your local postal office.

Would that be a correct assumption Scott? That's how I intend to send my 
contribution.  I think that's one of the less expensive methods to send 
money internationally.

Gary


cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudengsteckly cudfnGary cudlnSteckly cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.25 / dave pierson /  Re: how motors work.
     
Originally-From: pierson@cimcad.enet.dec.com (dave pierson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: how motors work.
Date: 25 SEP 94 11:46:01
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation

In article <ts_zemanian-230994155621@ts_zemanian.pnl.gov>, ts_zemanian@pnl.gov
(Thomas S. Zemanian) writes, in part:

>In article <WAF2PCB271061033@brbbs.brbbs.com>, mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com
>(MARSHALL DUDLEY) wrote:


>> The reason for this is quite simple.  A motor has a main and a phase winding.
>> The main winding is what does all the work under normal load.  The phase
>> winding is a small winding in which the current flow is out of phase with the
>> main winding, thus giving the motor an inital direction to spin during startup.
>> Without the phase winding, a motor will not self start at all, and is equally
>> happy running in either direction when spun up externally (or by hand).
>> However, the phase winding becomes a burden once the motor is spun up, so they
>> typically are no more powerful than necessary.  Often they will have an RPM
>> actuated kickout switch to disconnect the phase winding after some minimum RPM
>> is reached.  For more information I suggest a text on motors and generators.

>Marshall, I agree with most of what you've written here, except this last
>part.  Did I not read a while ago that the GG uses a three phase motor?  I
>believe there is no phase winding (nor starting capacitor) necessary for a
>three phase motor.  Am I misinformed?
	Tom is correct.  The starting winding is a bit of "trickery", to get a
	single phase induction (or synchronous) motor started.  Else, the
	starting (locked rotor) torque is _zero_.

	A three phase motor, of either sort, will self start, tho with low
	torque unless a variable frequency supply is used.

thanks
dave pierson			|the facts, as accurately as i can manage,
Digital Equipment Corporation	|the opinions, my own.
200 Forest St			|I am the NRA.
Marlboro, Mass 01751		|pierson@msd26.enet.dec.com
"He has read everything, and, to his credit, written nothing."  A J Raffles
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenpierson cudfndave cudlnpierson cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.25 / Richard Schultz /  Re: I will not assist Tom
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: I will not assist Tom
Date: 25 Sep 1994 20:21:08 GMT
Organization: Philosophers of the Dangerous Maybe

In article <361rgc$992$2@mhadf.production.compuserve.com>,
Jed Rothwell  <72240.1256@CompuServe.COM> wrote:

>The only way to resolve an issue like this is to send an 
>experienced professional who does not believe in invisible heat pumps.

Why not do what they did for Joseph Newman and send the GG to NIST for
testing?

-- 
					Richard Schultz
             "an optimist is a guy
              that has never had
              much experience"
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Mon Sep 26 04:37:05 EDT 1994
------------------------------
1994.09.25 /  TJSEL /  Road Trip !!!
     
Originally-From: tjsel@aol.com (TJSEL)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Road Trip !!!
Date: 25 Sep 1994 20:22:02 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

Check is in the mail
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudentjsel cudlnTJSEL cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.26 / Scott Mueller /  Re: Let's send Tom to Cartersville, GA
     
Originally-From: scott@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Scott Hazen Mueller)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Let's send Tom to Cartersville, GA
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 1994 02:09:31 GMT
Organization: At Home; Salida, CA

In article <1994Sep25.142534.21385@clark.dgim.doc.ca> gsteckly@dgim.doc.
a (Gary Steckly) writes:
>If I am following this, I believe that Mr. Bass has acquiesed to Scott 
>Hazen Mueller for the treasuerer position, but I imagine that Scott could 
>deal with an international money order drawn at your local postal office.

This matches my understanding of the status of the treasurer position.

>Would that be a correct assumption Scott? That's how I intend to send my 
>contribution.  I think that's one of the less expensive methods to send 
>money internationally.

I'm not familiar with them, but I believe that I should be able to deal
with them properly.  I will call my bank in the morning and make sure.

-- 
Scott Hazen Mueller scott@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG or (tandem|ub-gate)!zorch!scott
Mail fusion-request@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG for emailed sci.physics.fusion digests.

cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenscott cudfnScott cudlnMueller cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.26 / Scott Mueller /  CNF Field Trip (Tom D., please read)
     
Originally-From: scott@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Scott Hazen Mueller)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CNF Field Trip (Tom D., please read)
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 1994 02:40:44 GMT
Organization: At Home; Salida, CA

I've had a thought or two regarding Tom's field trip to Georgia.  Given
Jed's unwillingness to intercede with Griggs on Tom's behalf, I think it
would be a very good idea if Tom contacted Mr. Griggs soonest, to make
sure that he can indeed visit.  Otherwise, the effort to assemble the
funding will have been wasted, and I'm sure none of us, especially the
non-US contingent, want to expend the effort to send in their contributions
if it shall come to naught.

In other words, Tom, can you call Griggs and get his OK for the trip before
everyone sends me checks (and whatnot) that I might have to send back?

Thanks,

-- 
Scott Hazen Mueller scott@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG or (tandem|ub-gate)!zorch!scott
Mail fusion-request@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG for emailed sci.physics.fusion digests.

cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenscott cudfnScott cudlnMueller cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.26 / Barry Merriman /  Re: I will not assist Tom
     
Originally-From: barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: I will not assist Tom
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 94 02:56:11 GMT
Organization: UCLA, Mathematics Department

In article <364m3k$hn4@agate.berkeley.edu> schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard  
Schultz) writes:
> In article <361rgc$992$2@mhadf.production.compuserve.com>,
> Jed Rothwell  <72240.1256@CompuServe.COM> wrote:
> 
> >The only way to resolve an issue like this is to send an 
> >experienced professional who does not believe in invisible heat pumps.
> 
> Why not do what they did for Joseph Newman and send the GG to NIST for
> testing?
> 
> -- 
> 					Richard Schultz
>              "an optimist is a guy
>               that has never had
>               much experience"

Yes, why not indeed? Of course, I think they did that mostly
to settle patent disputes.



--
Barry Merriman
UCLA Dept. of Math
UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)


cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.25 / Robert Heeter /  Re: Send Peachtree Heating to Fermilab
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Send Peachtree Heating to Fermilab
Date: Sun, 25 Sep 1994 15:22:47 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

In article <ts_zemanian-190994132716@ts_zemanian.pnl.gov>,
Thomas S. Zemanian <ts_zemanian@pnl.gov> writes: 
> In article <35kmse$cbt$1@mhadf.production.compuserve.com>, Jed Rothwell
> <72240.1256@CompuServe.COM> wrote:
> 
> > It occurs to me that since there is a movement to send Tom Droege from
> > Fermilab to evaluate the steam generator at Hydrodynamics, it might
be a good
> > idea to work in opposite direction to. Why don't we send some heating
and air
> > conditioning engineers to evaluate the Fermilab Top Quark
experiments, or the
> > Princeton Tokamak, or the nuclear work at BYU? I think the HVAC
people would
> > do as good as job as you people have done so far on the Hydrodynamic
Pump, and
> > on cold fusion in general.

> There is a very interesting tour of Fermilab that runs most every day. 
> Also, I seem to recall (from my days there as an undergrad) that P-ton
runs
> tours of the Tokamak facility as well.  Send your people on up, I'm sure
> they'll have a most interesting experience.

The Princeton Plasma Physics Lab still gives tours of its lab.  
Obviously it's not a good idea to visit TFTR while it's operating 
(because you *will* get fried by neutrons here), but there's remote
viewing 
equipment and you can also look in on the control room, as well as visit 
the other lab facilities, on a generic tour.  Sometimes they 
allow visits to TFTR itself during maintenance periods, too.
I'm actually a volunteer tour guide here so if anyone out there 
will be in the area and is interested in coming for a visit, 
I can set you up.

***************************
Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University
As always, I represent only myself, and not PPPL
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.26 / Cameron Bass /  Re: I will not assist Tom
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: I will not assist Tom
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 1994 04:10:35 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1994Sep26.025611.26696@math.ucla.edu>,
Barry Merriman <barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu> wrote:
>In article <364m3k$hn4@agate.berkeley.edu> schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard  
>Schultz) writes:
>> In article <361rgc$992$2@mhadf.production.compuserve.com>,
>> Jed Rothwell  <72240.1256@CompuServe.COM> wrote:
>> 
>> >The only way to resolve an issue like this is to send an 
>> >experienced professional who does not believe in invisible heat pumps.
>> 
>> Why not do what they did for Joseph Newman and send the GG to NIST for
>> testing?
>> 
>
>Yes, why not indeed? Of course, I think they did that mostly
>to settle patent disputes.

     My guess is that the answer is that they have better things to do 
     than poke holes in the myriad machines 'invented'
     annually that violate the first and/or second law.

     Joe-baby was a special case, they were under court order to 
     evaluate the machine after Joe's dispute with the patent office.
     If y'all may recall, Joe was drawing energy from his magnets 
     under the terms of Joe's new 'theories' (ZPE hadn't been invented
     as a power source then), much like Mr. Griggs is drawing energy under
     Jed's new 'theories'.

                                     dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.26 / John Logajan /  Oriani will give Seminar
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@mirage.skypoint.net (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Oriani will give Seminar
Date: 26 Sep 1994 04:58:46 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

According to a flyer mailed out from the University of Minnesota Institute
of Technology Alumni Society, Richard Oriani, Ph.D. will present a
seminar entitled "Material Aspects of Cold Fusion" at 7:30 p.m. on
Wednesday, December 7th 1994.

This seminar costs $5 for the general public, but is free for members
of the UofM IT Alumni Society.

Material Aspects of Cold Fusion
Richard Oriani, Ph.D. -- Dept of Chem Eng and Materials Sci, IT UofM.
Dec 7th, 1994
7:30 pm
Radisson Hotel Metrodome
Nolte Room
615 Washington Ave SE
Minneapolis Minnesota (USA)

Reservations made at phone 612-626-1804, fax 612-624-2841.
Reservations accepted until Monday December 5th.

--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com -- 612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills  MN 55112 USA           -
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.26 / William Hawkins /  Re: Not sure it's fusion
     
Originally-From: bill@texan.rosemount.com (William Hawkins)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Not sure it's fusion
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 1994 06:43:21 GMT
Organization: Rosemount, Inc.

Well, of course it isn't fusion - there are no dead plumbers! Sorry
I couldn't help it.

The statement that the input power decreases when the heat increases
leads me to wonder if this isn't a resonance phenomenon. In an 
electrical circuit, the voltage (temperature) increases dramatically
at resonance, while the input power falls off.  But, the output
power doesn't exceed the input power.  This may be what led Tesla
down an unproductive path for the rest of his life.

Do the Griggs measurements also measure the fluid power as well as
the electric motor power?  Do they account for two phase flow, which
is really difficult to measure accurately? (Phases are liquid and
vapor.)

I'd be delighted to fund the rest of Tom's trip (if any) and spend
some frequent flyer miles myself if I thought this might pan out.
But, when I was an MIT undergrad in the late 50's, we had several
people come through who thought that they had found a way around
the laws of thermodynamics.  One did caricatures (good ones), but
had an idea for a perpetual motion machine that used gravity and
magnets.  When a DSc ME tried to explain why fixed fields wouldn't
work, he would have none of it.

Isn't it time to wonder what free energy machines are doing here
in sci.physics.fusion?

Bill Hawkins

PS My newsfeed is 2 to 7 days behind. If this has already been
covered, then never mind.

cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenbill cudfnWilliam cudlnHawkins cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.26 / Dieter Britz /  Re: Let's send Tom to Cartersville, GA
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Let's send Tom to Cartersville, GA
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 1994 09:52:56 GMT
Date: 22 Sep 94 11:27:11 -0600
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway


Originally-From: jonesse@vanlab.byu.edu in FD 2777
Date: 22 Sep 94 11:27:11 -0600

[...]
>The other willing supporters at this date (Sept. 22, 1994) are:
>Bill Page, Richard Schroeppel, Scott Hazen Mueller, Thomas Zemanian, Robert
>Virzi, Robert Horst, Bradly Sherman, Paul Breed (will also loan fancy power-
>monitoring equipment), Tjsel, Gary Steckly, B. Smith, Dieter Britz, Laurie
                                                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Forbes, David Cyganski, Doug Elias, Tarl Neustaedter, Mike Harpe, John Lewis,
>Ian Johnston, David Seghers, Doug Shade, Prasad, Dick Blue, Barry Merriman,
>Anthony Sumner, Bruce Schechter, and Jim Carr (will also loan radiation safety
>equipment, if you really want it).

Please remember that I have said that I am in _symbolically_ only. Like Alan
Dunsmuir, I'd have to pay about twice the amount for a US$ check.

May I suggest, by the way, that before people send their checks, that it is
certain that Griggs will let Tom on his premises, and the date etc set? It is
beginning to look as if this might not be so straightforward. He might say NO,
and then Scott would have to send back all the checks. 
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.26 / I Johnston /  Re: Cost of He3?
     
Originally-From: ianj@castle.ed.ac.uk (I Johnston)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cost of He3?
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 1994 09:26:26 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

IO00656@MAINE.MAINE.EDU wrote:
: What does He3 cost?  I assume most of what is sold decayed from tritium.
: How much would it cost to process it out of primordal gas if such gas was
: readily available?

From recollection: mind buggeringly expensive. They used to tel us that
LN2 cost about the same as milk and LHe the same as a good claret. The
plutocrats who ran helium dilution refrigerators with miniscule amounts
of He3 in them blanched at the cost of losing a cc of it...

Ian
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenianj cudfnI cudlnJohnston cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.26 / May John /  Help !!!!!!!!!!!!!
     
Originally-From: MAYJO@bmwrr004.mhs.compuserve.com (May, John)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Help !!!!!!!!!!!!!
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 1994 14:13:31 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

##########################################
I am trying to locate a fascinating article
from PHYSICS REV D.

The article ran somewhere in Nov 93 -> June 94,
more likely the first few months of 94.

It was an absolutely fascinating article.

The authors came up with an answer (!) to
WHAT IS INERTIA ??  Why does F=ma?

Their big idea is that, it occured to them
that if you look at the quantum vacuum, and
sum the forces (with a lot of hard, dubious
math) on a particle from the virtual particles,
you in fact arrive at ..  = ma !

The article generated a lot of controversy,
and skepticism from the group's seniors.
There is a fasicnating TEST coming up at
PRINCETON to see if the mass of an electron
can be altered by fooling with the quantum
vacuum by bombardiung the electron with the
right sort of wavelength!
(Hence altering the mass and inertia ...  an
'inertia drive!' or 'artificial gravity!' if
you go the other way!!)
(And Congress wont fund 'basic' science!)

Anyway I had a photocopy of the article,
but I lost it and have forgotten the issue
of PHYS. D. and the authors.  I poured over
the index pages for a hour but no result,
some were out at binding, etc, you know how
it is.  Also I'm stuck in Berlin for a few
months and its hard to ask the librarian
questions!

This article was ALSO mentioned in plain
old SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN . I think from about
May, June, or July.  Defintely after Feb and
before Aug issue.  It was mentioned in one of
those small one paragraph articles.

If anyone knows the article, or can stick their
nose or virtual nose in SCI-AM, or remembers
reading it or about it, I'd really appreciate
any info.

A googol of thanks.

-- JP MAY
MAYJO@BMWRR004.MHS.COMPUSERVE.COM


cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenMAYJO cudfnMay cudlnJohn cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.26 /  TJSEL /  Re:Treasurer
     
Originally-From: tjsel@aol.com (TJSEL)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re:Treasurer
Date: 26 Sep 1994 09:58:07 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

My check for $25 is on the way.  I was somewhat discouraged to read that
Jed was somewhat less enthusiastic about Tom's visit than the rest of us. 
If he doesn't reconsider perhaps he can suggest someone else who he feels
might be *qualified* who would also be acceptable to the more skeptical
members of the group.  My own choice would be Dick Feynman, but I realize
that is no longer a possibility.

In the event that Jed will not arrange for some type of a non-believers
review, we should request that he put the titles to future posting in all
caps like Ludwig Plutonium so they are easy to spot and ignore.

PS: If we don't need the money for a Cartersville trip maybe we can send
some German plasma physicists to Maryland.  My only fear is that if we
resolve these two controversies there will be nothing left to read about
in the group.
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudentjsel cudlnTJSEL cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.26 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Griggs Question -- To Jed?
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs Question -- To Jed?
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 1994 21:16:44 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <366qh6$12u6@watnews1.watson.ibm.com>,
prasad <c1prasad@watson.ibm.com> wrote:
>In article <CwnGBr.51B@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, crb7q@watt.seas.Virgi
ia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>|> In article <361r6v$992$1@mhadf.production.compuserve.com>,
>|> Jed Rothwell  <72240.1256@CompuServe.COM> wrote:
>|> >It was not a whim. He intended to build a compact, durable, low maintenance
>|> >electric heater. It has many mechanical advantages over conventional heaters
>|> >besides the fact that it creates excess energy. For example, it works well
>|> >with dirty or polluted water which would clog up a conventional boiler.
>|> 
>|>      This is horse doo-doo.  It has no advantages over an electrical
>|>      boiler.  It does have moving parts.  Whoopee.
>|> 
>|>      And polluted/dirty water in your rotor system?  Jed, you're funny.
>|>      
>|>                                dale bass
>
>I think you missed the engineering issue here.

     I don't think so, but feel free to provide further edification/amusement.

>Ordinary boilers, especially those that don't "have moving parts", tend to
>clog up due to deposits, which get dumped because they have time to settle
>as the water heats up. 

     And that's 'clean' water...

> Griggs' pump does overcome this problem to a large
>extent *because* the water is being churned and kept moving at great speed.

     Run one on dirty water for a while, and I think you'll
     see the source of my laughter.

>The only question that remains is, where does the solid matter go if the
>entire output of the pump is "dry steam" ? Does it get blown as a fine dust?

     The pixies eat it to make heat.

                             dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.26 / Paul Koloc /  Re: pmk device?
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: pmk device?
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 1994 20:15:08 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <366v9q$nug@yama.mcc.ac.uk> geof@harold.phy.umist.ac.uk () writes:
>I have to tell you that there are devices with this topology in the world,
>they're called Spheromaks (bad etymology I know....).  We have one here at the
>plasma physics group, UMIST.  It works of course, but you need a conducting shell
>to resist the plasma pressure, so it won't 'float free in the atmosphere', I'm
>afraid.  The main problem is sustaining the current against resistive decay. 
>What was your proposal for doing this?

The Spheromak is the first generation machine beyond tokamak, which I 
took to PPPL, ISAP, and other several labs in the middle 70's.  The 
idea of producing a highly conducting plasma shell or Mantle is not 
trivial as you know, and I didn't have the "how to?", it worked out 
at that time.   

However, the current version of the evolving toroid family (and 
probably the last), is the PLASMAK(tm) magnetoplasmoid which "is"
a Spheromak, but with a fluid plasma hyperconducting shell, since
we have found out how to make them (and KEEP them hyperconducting). 
The three tremendous advantages come to mind by having such a Mantle. 
      It traps the flux for a LONG time. 
      It is highly compressible
      It is massively impervious to fusion flux of perhaps beyond 
             order 10^6+ /cc 
      It reflects Kernel (Spheromak like central ring - also 
             hyperconducing) generated cyclotron radiation and its 
             likely harmonics  
      It allows for a "E = kCR" compression scaling, where CR is the 
             linear compression ratio.   

Ok -- reader chooses the three. 

Does Culham still have an active interest in relaxation oscillators?? --
(Spheromaks)   Ran into a couple of chaps years ago .. . maybe T. Todd 
or A. A. Newton?? 

>Various papers puplished in the academic press (Phys Rev Lett, etc).

>Chin chin, Dr. G. Cunningham.

The last time I heard that expression was .eh!.-- never mind.  
Let's see... . the big bad wolf was about to blow down the
little pigs house.   Naw, that was "hairs of my chinny-chin-chin" 

Hmmm! for a minute I thought you might be about blowing the
Mantle away.    We already have a wolfy for that.    ;-)   

                 Brits talk much strange tongue.  
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc, Bx 1037 Prometheus II Ltd, College Park MD 20741-1037    |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.26 / L Plutonium /  Re: ENG#2:A@P, SPONTANEOUS NEUTRON MATERIALIZATION DEVICES
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Newsgroups:
Newsgroups:
Subject: Re: ENG#2:A@P, SPONTANEOUS NEUTRON MATERIALIZATION DEVICES
Subject: NEUTRINOLIZING the MAXWELL'S EQUATIONS
Subject: PHY#6:A@P: JUPITER HAS NO LIQUID HELIUM,Hence GR is 
Date: 26 Sep 1994 23:57:54 GMT
Date: 27 Jul 1994 21:01:48 GMT
Date: 22 Sep 1994 20:03:11 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In article <Ba30IEn.ajsutter@delphi.com>
ajsutter@delphi.com writes:

> Could you please direct me to some of your postings that refer to
> "chimpdoggery"?
>  
> AJ Sutter

Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups:
sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.plutonium
Subject: NEUTRINOLIZING the MAXWELL'S EQUATIONS
Date: 27 Jul 1994 21:01:48 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
Lines: 32
Message-ID: <316hvs$819@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>

NEUTRINOLIZING the MAXWELL'S EQUATIONS
,
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.26 / John Logajan /  Re: Not sure it's fusion
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@mirage.skypoint.net (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Not sure it's fusion
Date: 26 Sep 1994 14:38:05 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

William Hawkins (bill@texan.rosemount.com) wrote:
: The statement that the input power decreases when the heat increases
: leads me to wonder if this isn't a resonance phenomenon. In an 
: electrical circuit, the voltage (temperature) increases dramatically
: at resonance, while the input power falls off.

The voltage at resonance increases because for each input cycle there isn't
a corresponding magnitude of loss.  So you are storing energy.

The temperature also increases when you input energy at a faster rate than
it is lost.

Neither of these situations will lead to an illusion of excess energy unless
you make some mistake in integrating over the input or output energies.

And if you find an error in the measurements, you need go no further in
finding a theoretical explanation than that.

--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com  --  612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA -
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.26 /  prasad /  Re: Let's send Tom to Cartersville, GA
     
Originally-From: c1prasad@watson.ibm.com (prasad)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Let's send Tom to Cartersville, GA
Date: 26 Sep 1994 15:20:55 GMT
Organization: IBM Watson

In article <1994Sep23.125416.1772@acoust.byu.edu>, jonesse@acoust.byu.edu writes:
|> Jim Carr aptly reminds us:
|> "But this [trip to GA] is a job for an experimenter, not a theorist.  Theorists
|> are very easily conned."
|>      ( 8^) =
|> 
|> I heard a related story:  when a theorist speaks, no one believes it, except
|> for the theorist.  When an experimenter speaks, everyone believes it -- except
|> for the experimenter.
|> 
|> --S. Jones (I'm an experimenter, the one who should not believe it himself...)
|> 

I'm going to plug that quote right into my .sig!  BTW, who's it from?

{Being neither experimenter nor theorist, don't know whether to believe myself,
and don't know whether others will believe me either ;-) }

Tom's probably the right person.  A "grey beard" (as he calls himself) is
probably going to be better at sniffing out violations of the classical TD.
But, as he says, we've still got to appoint a treasurer.

-- 

#pragma prejudices=own brainwaves=own others=disowned!
// email>/dev/null
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenc1prasad cudlnprasad cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.26 /  prasad /  Re: Let's send Tom to Cartersville, GA
     
Originally-From: c1prasad@watson.ibm.com (prasad)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Let's send Tom to Cartersville, GA
Date: 26 Sep 1994 15:25:15 GMT
Organization: IBM Watson

In article <Cwpsnw.49p@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG>, scott@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
(Scott Hazen Mueller) writes:
|> In article <1994Sep25.142534.21385@clark.dgim.doc.ca> gsteckly@dgim.d
c.ca (Gary Steckly) writes:
|> >If I am following this, I believe that Mr. Bass has acquiesed to Scott 
|> >Hazen Mueller for the treasuerer position, but I imagine that Scott could 
|> >deal with an international money order drawn at your local postal office.
|> 
|> This matches my understanding of the status of the treasurer position.
|> 
|> >Would that be a correct assumption Scott? That's how I intend to send my 
|> >contribution.  I think that's one of the less expensive methods to send 
|> >money internationally.
|> 
|> I'm not familiar with them, but I believe that I should be able to deal
|> with them properly.  I will call my bank in the morning and make sure.
|> 
|> -- 
|> Scott Hazen Mueller scott@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG or (tandem|ub-gate)!zorch!scott
|> Mail fusion-request@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG for emailed sci.physics.fusion digests.
|> 

I seem to have missed your address, Scott.

Could you possibly repost it?

-- 

#pragma prejudices=own brainwaves=own others=disowned!
// email rcv unauthorized.

cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenc1prasad cudlnprasad cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.26 /  prasad /  Re: Griggs Question -- To Jed?
     
Originally-From: c1prasad@watson.ibm.com (prasad)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs Question -- To Jed?
Date: 26 Sep 1994 15:39:07 GMT
Organization: IBM Watson

In article <gsteckly.59.000AAB6A@clark.dgim.doc.ca>, gsteckly@clark.dgim
doc.ca (Gary Steckly) writes:
|> I don't know if I mentioned this before, but strangely enough this isn't the 
|> first time a water pump heating machine has appeared where the inventors make
|> claims of over unity efficiencies.
|> 
|> My brother-in-law (the skeptical engineer) told me that he encountered a
|> similar device in the mid or late '80's while he was studyiing at the U of 
|> Waterloo.  The inventor was trying to get some investment support in southern
|> Ontario, but he was so firmly denounced by the engineering community 
|> (cries of fraud etc.) that he sort of disappeared.  It would be rather 
|> ironic if it turns out these guys were unjustly accused and tried.  I 
|> guess that's the price of scientific vigilance.  Good thing we don't have 
|> a death penalty (yet) for "thermodynamic-illiteracy".  
|> 
|> I'll try to get more info on this since it might be relevant to the
|> discussion.
|> 
|> Gary
|> 

I'd be interested in any earlier data of the over-unity heat pump thing.

I've a similar story from India (whence I came just 2 years ago).  This
Mr Kumar apparently came up with some kind of a compact powder-like fuel,
on which he was said to need a very small amount (1 cc, said my cousin,
twice removed promptly for the utterance!) to run his Jeep on for a month.
He was trying to or did demo it to the Chief Minister of the southern
state of Karnataka.  That was years ago.  More recently, in the wake of
an outburst of over-unity homopolar generator reports on the TV and in
the papers, Mr Kumar once again hit a minor spotlight, this time with
an over-unity *mechanical engine*, claimed to be in the 1 to 10 kW range.
He was however unwilling, when my friends called him, to show anything.

Anyone come across such mystery fuel stories lately?!

--

#pragma prejudices=own brainwaves=own others=disowned!

cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenc1prasad cudlnprasad cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.26 /  prasad /  Re: Griggs Question -- To Jed?
     
Originally-From: c1prasad@watson.ibm.com (prasad)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs Question -- To Jed?
Date: 26 Sep 1994 15:48:54 GMT
Organization: IBM Watson

In article <CwnGBr.51B@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, crb7q@watt.seas.Virgin
a.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
|> In article <361r6v$992$1@mhadf.production.compuserve.com>,
|> Jed Rothwell  <72240.1256@CompuServe.COM> wrote:
|> >It was not a whim. He intended to build a compact, durable, low maintenance
|> >electric heater. It has many mechanical advantages over conventional heaters
|> >besides the fact that it creates excess energy. For example, it works well
|> >with dirty or polluted water which would clog up a conventional boiler.
|> 
|>      This is horse doo-doo.  It has no advantages over an electrical
|>      boiler.  It does have moving parts.  Whoopee.
|> 
|>      And polluted/dirty water in your rotor system?  Jed, you're funny.
|>      
|>                                dale bass

I think you missed the engineering issue here.

Ordinary boilers, especially those that don't "have moving parts", tend to
clog up due to deposits, which get dumped because they have time to settle
as the water heats up.  Griggs' pump does overcome this problem to a large
extent *because* the water is being churned and kept moving at great speed.
This is somewhat similar to jet engines being capable of running on cruder
fuels than petrol engines, the violence of the process has its use.

The only question that remains is, where does the solid matter go if the
entire output of the pump is "dry steam"?  Does it get blown as a fine dust?

-- 

#pragma prejudices=own brainwaves=own others=disowned!
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenc1prasad cudlnprasad cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.26 / Bradley Sherman /  Re: Let's send Tom to Cartersville, GA
     
Originally-From: bks@s27w007.pswfs.gov (Bradley K. Sherman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Let's send Tom to Cartersville, GA
Date: 26 Sep 1994 16:37:56 GMT
Organization: Dendrome, A Genome Database for Forest Trees

In article <01HHKCVC05PU8WY54E@vms2.uni-c.dk> BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz) writes:
> ...
>May I suggest, by the way, that before people send their checks, that it is
>certain that Griggs will let Tom on his premises, and the date etc set? It is
>beginning to look as if this might not be so straightforward. He might say NO,
>and then Scott would have to send back all the checks. 
> ...

On the other hand, if Tom already has his expenses taken care
of in a Salida, California bank account, then he is in a better position
to negotiate the visit.

It is unfortunate that Mr. Rothwell cannot see his way clear to
help with the arrangements.  I think he doesn't understand that
even the harshest critics would like the device to work, even
if they don't believe that it possibly can.

    --bks

-- 
Bradley K. Sherman                  Computer Scientist
Dendrome Project                    510-559-6437  FAX: -6440
Institute of Forest Genetics        bks@s27w007.pswfs.gov  
P.O. Box 245, Berkeley, CA 94701    http://s27w007.pswfs.gov/People/bks.html
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenbks cudfnBradley cudlnSherman cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.26 /  prasad /  Re: I will not assist Tom
     
Originally-From: c1prasad@watson.ibm.com (prasad)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: I will not assist Tom
Date: 26 Sep 1994 16:02:03 GMT
Organization: IBM Watson

In article <364m3k$hn4@agate.berkeley.edu>, schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu
(Richard Schultz) writes:
|> 
|> Why not do what they did for Joseph Newman and send the GG to NIST for
|> testing?
|> 
|> -- 
|> 					Richard Schultz

The US Patent Office has (and used) that privilege in that case.
Also, merely sending it to NIST doesn't squash the over-unity following,
if that's what you were hoping it would.  Not unless you vote for
"death-penalty for the thermodynamics-ignorant", in the NIST court!

Don't you remember, the NIST (NBS then) only ended up testing the
*electrical* output of the Newman *motor*?  Didn't you read their report?!

-- 

#pragma prejudices=own brainwaves=own others=disowned!
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenc1prasad cudlnprasad cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.26 / John Lewis /  Re: I will not assist Tom
     
Originally-From: court@newton.physics.mun.ca (John Lewis)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: I will not assist Tom
Date: 26 Sep 1994 15:53:33 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Physics, Memorial University

In article <361rgc$992$2@mhadf.production.compuserve.com>, Jed
Rothwell <72240.1256@CompuServe.COM> writes:
|> Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege) writes:
|>  
|>      "I think it is up to Jed to make the arrangements with Griggs.  It will
|>      do little good for me to go if I am not wanted.  So I offer to go with
|>      an open mind.  How about it Jed, are you willing to make the
|>      arrangements?"
|>  
|> Under no circumstances. You are not qualified. Your trip will probably result
|> in more mischief and confusion. I have no doubt you can do the actual work,
|> but I expect you will come back spouting a dozen cockamamie "theories" about
|> heat pumps, stored energy, cold mist, or electrical noise that magically
|> affects dynamometers and power meters simultaneously to the same extent. Your
|> previous comments about Pons and Fleischmann, Mizuno and the ICCF4 papers
|> revealed that you are incompetent, intellectually dishonest, and ignorant. The
|> only way to resolve an issue like this is to send an experienced professional
|> who does not believe in invisible heat pumps.
|>  
|> I will ignore you and your trip. Jim was at ICCF4, you have his address and
|> phone number, you are free to make your own arrangements. I would never poke
|> my nose into your business or Jim's business. But if he asks me what I think
|> of you I will tell him in no uncertain terms.
|>  
|> - Jed

Well - let's get a little serious here - maybe if Tom Droege
makes a favorable report, we could think about collectively 
PURCHASING one of
the Griggs units ...

Think of us as prospective customers, Jed!
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudencourt cudfnJohn cudlnLewis cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.26 /  prasad /  Jed, you should help in the visit
     
Originally-From: c1prasad@watson.ibm.com (prasad)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Jed, you should help in the visit
Date: 26 Sep 1994 16:22:46 GMT
Organization: IBM Watson

Jed, you're the person who has contributed most to the awareness
about the Griggs machine in this forum.  I'd like you to reconsider
your decision not to help.

If the Griggs machine really works as you know/believe/seen it to,
it should be important to you to have as many people look at it,
so that if they get intrigued as you are, you'd have more minds trying
to figure it out.  You do want to see it unravelled, don't you?
Well, if you didn't, why were you writing so much about it anyway?
See what I mean?

See the odds on the outcome this way.  If the visit does result in
an exposure of some errors of measurement, I'm sure it would help
Jim Griggs straighten out his pump and do even better in his business.
I see more damage coming from unbelievable measurements than from
unexotic data.  And I'm sure you would have no problems either if
the matter did get resolved that-a-way.

If on the contrary, Tom's visit generates even more intrigue, your
own credibility would shoot a few points, maybe?  And Griggs would
have no problems to his business either, since it would add to his
word on it, too.

How can you hope for a turn-of-the-century development in physics
without helping in establishing a Michelson-Morley kind of result?


If you back out now, skepticism directed at you will also reflect
on Griggs.  The machine will probably die an infamous death like
Joe Newman's motor.  You don't want to sound like Joe, either,
do you?


wakarimasen-ka?

-- 

#pragma prejudices=own brainwaves=own others=disowned!

cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenc1prasad cudlnprasad cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.26 / Alan M /  Re: Let's send Tom to Cartersville, GA
     
Originally-From: Alan@moonrake.demon.co.uk ("Alan M. Dunsmuir")
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Let's send Tom to Cartersville, GA
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 1994 16:26:50 +0000
Organization: Home

In article: <CwM82o.HEt@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG>  scott@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
(Scott Hazen Mueller) writes:

> If this is acceptable to all involved, I would like to open the collection
> now, and close it October 31st.
> 
Scott - My GBP20 cheque is in the mail to you. If you cannot use a 
sterling cheque drwn on a London bank, simply destroy it rather than 
going to the trouble of returning it to me.


Alan M. Dunsmuir [@ his wits end]     (Can't even quote poetry right)

         I am his Highness' dog at Kew
         Pray tell me sir, whose dog are you?
			      [Alexander Pope]

PGP Public Key available on request.


cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenAlan cudfnAlan cudlnM cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.26 / Scott Mueller /  Funding Tom's trip
     
Originally-From: zorch@ftp.UU.NET (Scott Hazen Mueller)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Funding Tom's trip
Date: 26 Sep 1994 12:59:22 -0400
Organization: UUNET Communications

Well, I talked to my bank, and it doesn't look good for my being able to
handle non-US funds.  They tell me there would be a $US 20 fee to deposit
items not in US dollars.

So, unless you non-US participants are able to send funds in $US, I suppose
you shall all have to simply support the effort in spirit.

-- 
Scott Hazen Mueller scott@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG or tandem!zorch!scott

cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenzorch cudfnScott cudlnMueller cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.26 /  geof@harold.ph /  Re: pmk device?
     
Originally-From: geof@harold.phy.umist.ac.uk ()
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: pmk device?
Date: 26 Sep 1994 17:10:18 GMT
Organization: umist

I have to tell you that there are devices with this topology in the world,
they're called Spheromaks (bad etymology I know....).  We have one here at the
plasma physics group, UMIST.  It works of course, but you need a conducting shell
to resist the plasma pressure, so it won't 'float free in the atmosphere', I'm
afraid.  The main problem is sustaining the current against resistive decay. 
What was your proposal for doing this?

Various papers puplished in the academic press (Phys Rev Lett, etc).

Chin chin, Dr. G. Cunningham.
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudengeof cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.22 / Rod Johnson /  Re: Tom's trip to Georgia
     
Originally-From: rod@cs.ualberta.ca (Rod Johnson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Tom's trip to Georgia
Date: 22 Sep 1994 23:19:54 GMT
Organization: Computing Science, U of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada

 A lurker finally finds a way to contribute:

 $25 CA dollars to Tom's trip and summation of his opinions.

 Waiting for that address to send it to ...

 Rod Johnson
 University of Alberta
 Dept. of Computing Science
 
--
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rod Johnson        rod@cs.ualberta.ca     Department of Computing Science
University of Alberta                   Edmonton, Alberta CANADA T6G 2H1
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenrod cudfnRod cudlnJohnson cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.26 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Treasurer
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Treasurer
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 1994 15:00:07 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <366k1f$sfo@newsbf01.news.aol.com> tjsel@aol.com (TJSEL) writes:
>My check for $25 is on the way.  I was somewhat discouraged to read that
>Jed was somewhat less enthusiastic about Tom's visit than the rest of us. 
>If he doesn't reconsider perhaps he can suggest someone else who he feels
>might be *qualified* who would also be acceptable to the more skeptical
>members of the group.  My own choice would be Dick Feynman, but I realize
>that is no longer a possibility.

I heard RF left was because there were a few loose ends of physics law 
yet not tied off, and over from the BB days; so -- the "higher ups" wanted 
Richard to finish the job for them.  Of course, you know this is likely 
to mean as we discover and assimulate these ???? bizarre values into 
physics?   Yep they will seem to have no relationship to other physics
or common sense -- RF excluded.      

>PS: If we don't need the money for a Cartersville trip maybe we can send
>some German plasma physicists to Maryland.  My only fear is that if we
>resolve these two controversies there will be nothing left to read about
>in the group.

Just in case, I know of K H Steuer? of IPP, and that KHS is an excellent 
experimentalist AND diagnostician.   But would he have an interest?    :-)  
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc, Bx 1037 Prometheus II Ltd, College Park MD 20741-1037    |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.26 / Doug Shade /  Re: I will not assist Tom
     
Originally-From: rxjf20@email.sps.mot.com (Doug Shade)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: I will not assist Tom
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 1994 18:08:53 GMT
Organization: Motorola LICD

In article <361rgc$992$2@mhadf.production.compuserve.com>
Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@CompuServe.COM> writes:


> Under no circumstances. You are not qualified. Your trip will probably result
> in more mischief and confusion. 
>[deletions]
>  
> I will ignore you and your trip.
>[more deletions]
>  
> - Jed

Oh wow... that just put the stamp on my letter... check is in the mail!

Doug Shade
rxjf20@email.sps.mot.com
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenrxjf20 cudfnDoug cudlnShade cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.26 / Doug Shade /  GG and SL
     
Originally-From: rxjf20@email.sps.mot.com (Doug Shade)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: GG and SL
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 1994 18:16:23 GMT
Organization: Motorola LICD

I believe Jed said that Griggs was working on a plastic chamber (or at
least
one with a view port).

Just a suggestion.... if the new rig yields a >1 result... turn out the
lights and look for SL.

Lets get Griggs on line!!! Jed has been very patient, but he is but an
advocate, lets get Griggs on line.

Doug Shade
rxjf20@email.sps.mot.com
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenrxjf20 cudfnDoug cudlnShade cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.26 / Stanley Chow /  Re: Fading: the plots
     
Originally-From: schow@bnr.ca (Stanley T.H. Chow)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fading: the plots
Date: 26 Sep 1994 17:31:45 GMT
Organization: Bell Northern Research Ltd, Ottawa

In article <362e9u$qt0@ds8.scri.fsu.edu>,
Jim Carr <jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu> wrote:
>In article <35v077$sov@bmerhc5e.bnr.ca> schow@bnr.ca (Stanley T.H. Chow) writes:
>>
>>This is yet another alternative: Big Money.
>>
>>Considering the amount of money to be made, especially if public funding
>>dries up and forces people to look for private money; it is reasonable
>>to think that any result, real or imaginary, will be kept secret.
>
>Do you think there is less money to be made in High-Tc superconductors 
>than cold fusion? 

Actually, yes; probably by several orders of magnitude. As a friend
remarked: "if they can do this, they could end up owning the planet".
This is based on:
  - does not generate radiation
  - consumes only D
  - generates heat
  - can generate electricity with reasonably efficiency

[Of course, there remains the problem of how, no one is quite willing
to publicly disclose the secret(s) yet. :-) ]

Compared to this, high-temperature superconductors have only a few
proven niche markets and many speculative uses that depend on coming
up with material with high Tc as well as mechanical strength, magnetic
properties, manufacturing ease, etc. In my mind, The original workers
opened up a whole new field of theoretic materials, and the search is
on for some Real World (tm) useful material.

On the other hand, cold fusion promises a low cost solution to a huge
market, and solves several environmental problems at the same time!



>You might recall that the original workers were
>employed by IBM, and even a cursory glance at the journals will make 
>it clear that much corporate money is invested in that area.  Some 
>corporate research is not published or patented, but in an area of 
>such wide and active interest, corporate research that leads in a 
>useful direction is patented and published.  Actually, the same can 
>be said for university work funded by private sources. 

Not being experience in such matters, I would be very interested to
find out the NATURE of the publications. It seems to be the case that
everyone publishes theory, but holds back the "implementation details".

For example, everyone knows the theory of semi-conductor and VLSI, but
only a very few people can actually build a fab line that has yield>0.
In fact, you could even look in all the patents you like, but I will
bet that you still won't find all the secrets.

Another example, many textbooks talk about the theory of growing
antibiotics, and some will even talk about how to build a factory to
grow and purify the drugs; but will you find out how to build a
state-of-the-art factory that is cost-effective?

For the case of cold fusion (for the lack of a better name), clearly
not everyone knows how to do it. It is also clear that even the people
who think they do cannot reproduce at will. In these situations, I
think the normal procedure is to try to nail down the theory and 
patents, then publish. Why would anyone publish partial results, and
possibly letting someone else get the "key" patent?

But, like I said, I am not experienced in such matters. Perhaps this
is just my imagination and the Real World (tm) (possibly with the help
of patents) is actually quite open, like the Ivory Tower (tm).

-- 
Stanley Chow  InterNet: schow@BNR.CA  (613) 763-2831
Bell Northern Research Ltd., PO Box 3511 Station C, Ottawa, Ontario
Me? Represent other people? Don't make them laugh so hard.
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenschow cudfnStanley cudlnChow cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.26 / Thomas Zemanian /  Re: GG and SL
     
Originally-From: ts_zemanian@pnl.gov (Thomas S. Zemanian)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: GG and SL
Date: 26 Sep 1994 20:39:15 GMT
Organization: Battelle PNL

In article <1994Sep26.181623.20578@newsgate.sps.mot.com>,
rxjf20@email.sps.mot.com (Doug Shade) wrote:

> I believe Jed said that Griggs was working on a plastic chamber (or at
> least
> one with a view port).
> 
> Just a suggestion.... if the new rig yields a >1 result... turn out the
> lights and look for SL.
> 

Interesting idea.  Is there a characteristic emission spectrum for
sonoluminescence?

--Tom

--
The opinions expressed herein are mine and mine alone.  Keep your filthy
hands off 'em! 
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudents_zemanian cudfnThomas cudlnZemanian cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.26 / Tom Droege /  Re: CNF Field Trip (Tom D., please read)
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CNF Field Trip (Tom D., please read)
Date: 26 Sep 1994 20:44:01 GMT
Organization: fermilab

In article <Cwpu3w.4Hq@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG>, scott@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Scott 
Hazen Mueller) says:
>
>I've had a thought or two regarding Tom's field trip to Georgia.  Given
>Jed's unwillingness to intercede with Griggs on Tom's behalf, I think it
>would be a very good idea if Tom contacted Mr. Griggs soonest, to make
>sure that he can indeed visit.  Otherwise, the effort to assemble the
>funding will have been wasted, and I'm sure none of us, especially the
>non-US contingent, want to expend the effort to send in their 
contributions
>if it shall come to naught.
>
>In other words, Tom, can you call Griggs and get his OK for the trip 
before
>everyone sends me checks (and whatnot) that I might have to send back?
>
>Thanks,
>
>-- 
>Scott Hazen Mueller scott@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG or 
(tandem|ub-gate)!zorch!scott
>Mail fusion-request@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG for emailed sci.physics.fusion 
digests.
>

Well, first I tried to get Jed to do the job.  Now I ask for 
volunteers to contact Griggs.  I am pretty much a phoneophobic,
brought on by my High School adventures with girls.  I do not
actually break out in a sweat or anything, just never get around
to making phone calls.  So if Griggs has to be contacted, I will
likely never get around to it.  Brother Lee was enlisted to make 
the first contact with Mills, for example. 

I agree that there are others that might be better for this job.
I also agree with several that have said that we all want this to be
true.  So all I can do is to go and look and listen to how this device
is supposed to work, and see if the instrumentation makes sense.

Scott, I think you ought to take only checks, and also on the condition
that you will be trusted to tear them up if this falls through.  

Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.26 / Jim Carr /  Re: Fading: the plots
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fading: the plots
Date: 26 Sep 1994 17:51:06 -0400
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

In article <3670i1$kfq@bmerhc5e.bnr.ca> 
schow@bnr.ca (Stanley T.H. Chow) writes:
|
|>Do you think there is less money to be made in High-Tc superconductors 
|>than cold fusion? 
|
|Actually, yes; probably by several orders of magnitude. As a friend
|remarked: "if they can do this, they could end up owning the planet".
|This is based on:
|  - does not generate radiation
|  - consumes only D
|  - generates heat
|  - can generate electricity with reasonably efficiency

and, most importantly, low capital cost per kilowatt.  

This is a crucial hidden assumption. 

The cost of power from all "too cheap to meter" sources of energy 
is dominated by the capital expense and the cost of money if you 
have to borrow to make that capital investment.  Nuclear power became 
too expensive to build because of the interest rates and the time 
delays dictated by regulators and less-than-competent managers. 

Even given all that, the *real* money will be made by the CF-device 
repair industry if the system were distributed -- as it must be 
to make use of the heat and avoid line losses.  Think of the money 
that could be made on Super Sunday!  People might wait till Monday 
to call the plumber, but no power during the Super Bowl? 

|Not being experience in such matters, I would be very interested to
|find out the NATURE of the publications. It seems to be the case that
|everyone publishes theory, but holds back the "implementation details".

Read one.  They gave plenty of details, more than enough for people
to duplicate and thus verify their claims.  Chu held back some details, 
but since Nature holds the secrets, another experimenter can discover 
them too, and people did.  That is why people file patents. 

-- 
 James A. Carr   <jac@scri.fsu.edu>     |  Raw data, like raw sewage, 
    http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac        |  requires some processing before
 Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst.  |  it can be spread around.  The 
 Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306    |  opposite is true of theories. 
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Tue Sep 27 04:37:03 EDT 1994
------------------------------
1994.09.27 / Harry Conover /  Re: ENG#2:A@P, SPONTANEOUS NEUTRON MATERIALIZATION DEVICES
     
Originally-From: conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: ENG#2:A@P, SPONTANEOUS NEUTRON MATERIALIZATION DEVICES
Date: 27 Sep 1994 08:10:35 GMT
Organization: The Internet Access Company

Ludwig Plutonium (Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu) wrote:
: .
:   I am in the process of neutrinolizing the Maxwell Equations. This is
: the first major advance on the Maxwell Equations. And as an aside, I
: praise the physics history. The three greatest moments in the history
: of physics before the Atom Totality were Democritus and the Atomic
: Theory, Maxwell's Equation, and Quantum Theory. My point is this--- the
: physics community as of 1994 for the most part is propelled by
: crackpotishness and birdbrainishness. Most physics professors and
: laypersons would say that Newton and Einstein are big in physics
: history, but then again, most physics professors and laypersons are
: propelled by crankery, crackpotishness, and hop-skip-and-a-jump
: birdbrainchipmunkchimpdogishness.


Ludwig!  Ludwig!  Thank God for your piercing insight into these
complex and troubling issues.

Now, get some rest!


                                  Harry C.
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenconover cudfnHarry cudlnConover cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.27 / A Rivero /  Re: Fading: the plots
     
Originally-From: rivero@sol.unizar.es (Alejandro Rivero)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fading: the plots
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 1994 09:04:40 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

> Originally-From: schow@bnr.ca (Stanley T.H. Chow)
> 
> In article <362e9u$qt0@ds8.scri.fsu.edu>,
> Jim Carr <jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu> wrote:
> >Do you think there is less money to be made in High-Tc superconductors 
> >than cold fusion? 
> 
> Actually, yes; probably by several orders of magnitude. As a friend
> remarked: "if they can do this, they could end up owning the planet".
> This is based on:
>   - does not generate radiation
>   - consumes only D
>   - generates heat
>   - can generate electricity with reasonably efficiency
> 
> Compared to this, high-temperature superconductors have only a few
> proven niche markets and many speculative uses that depend on coming
> up with material with high Tc as well as mechanical strength, magnetic
> properties, manufacturing ease, etc. In my mind, The original workers
> opened up a whole new field of theoretic materials, and the search is
> on for some Real World (tm) useful material.
>
Here, note that the feasibility of cold fusion depends also in a lot
of factors to be researched yet. And it is not clear if both
fields are unrelated, so the example is not very clear. (remember
that PdH is reported to be superconductor arount 13K, ans superconductivity
can have different windows in the same material). 

By other hand, as Jim Carr remarks:
> Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
> 
> In article <3670i1$kfq@bmerhc5e.bnr.ca> 
> schow@bnr.ca (Stanley T.H. Chow) writes:
...
> |  - generates heat
> |  - can generate electricity with reasonably efficiency
> 
> and, most importantly, low capital cost per kilowatt.  
> 
> This is a crucial hidden assumption. 
> 
> The cost of power from all "too cheap to meter" sources of energy 
> is dominated by the capital expense and the cost of money if you 
> have to borrow to make that capital investment.  Nuclear power became 

This point is important if you want to go applied. Note that
EVERY energy source is free, you only pay for the industry to get
and distribute it. So you must to add the economical considerations
if you want to speak of "costs". Trop complique, fortunately I 
only do Pure Science... :-)

                                     Alejandro Rivero
                                     Zaragoza University, Spain
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Looking for particle physics applications? THink of the Internet
 without WWW!!
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenrivero cudfnAlejandro cudlnRivero cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.27 /  Anthony /  Re: Let's send Tom to Cartersville, GA
     
Originally-From: Anff@qvwp.demon.co.uk (Anthony)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Let's send Tom to Cartersville, GA
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 1994 09:19:47 +0000
Organization: A H Worth & Co Ltd

Hi Scott,

I have spoken with my bank in the UK and they said the most cost
effective way to send the money is cash by registered post, in fact
they said they often send the cash by post! Sending a UK cheque would 
cause agro at the other end and perhaps a fair bit will be lost in charges.

My 20 dollars will wing its way when the bank have the money in...

I've nothing to lose anyway....

-- 
Cheers
Anff

--Anthony Sumner -- Mail Anff@qvwp.demon.co.uk
"Knowledge is useless unless it's shared"
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenAnff cudlnAnthony cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.27 / Mark Iverson /  RE: Tom's proposed trip...
     
Originally-From: marki@netcom.com (Mark N. Iverson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: Tom's proposed trip...
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 1994 10:35:31 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

Hi all,

Its been quite a while since contributing, but been real busy...
seems I can only get onto USENET once a week these days...

Geez, ever try going to the source?  What a novel idea...

If anyone is really interested in settling the matter,
they might try starting with calling the individual and talking
with him/her directly to determine what has been done...instead 
of sitting in their ivory towers throwing theoretical darts!  It 
would save a lot of net BW...

[stepping down off soapbox...]

I took the liberty of calling Mr. Griggs and had a very nice,
open discussion with him...this was about a week ago, so the memory 
is a bit old, but some of the points touched on were:

    - he is an E.E. with 15+ years in energy conservation.

    - he is very much aware of the apparent thermodynamic violation,
      and the controversial nature of his claims.

    - he has no explanation for the apparent over-unity output effect.

    - this is not a recent development; he has been working on it 
      for several years.

    - he has had numerous people in to test it, including P.E.s that
      specialize in energy conservation.

    - he has recently obtained much better and more thorough data
      acquisition capabilities, including a dynamometer so 
      they could monitor output (horsepower/torque) directly from
      the shaft.

    - I gave him a brief summary of USENET, and mentioned that there
      was a suggestion of sending someone down to look things over.

    - he was very open to the visit by some USENET person.

    - I suggested that we could come up with an informal "research 
      plan" that would include objectives, requirements, and 
      <anything-else-the-net-decides>, submit it to Mr. Griggs, 
      have him discuss it with the individual elected to go to 
      Georgia in order to determine if all our requirements could
      be met, when this might take place so it would not interfere
      with his schedules/deadlines, to determine what his requirements
      or restrictions might be, etc...

I graciously thanked him for spending time talking to me, and wished
him well...now its up to the "distributed" college, also known as
USENET, to put together the plan...with some of the discussion that
has occured already, we've got a good start...

It might be fruitful to start by having Tom (and a few others) talk 
with those who have already done some independent testing to find out
the details of their efforts...

I suggest that the plan concentrate on the fundamentals for a first
visit, in order to minimize the disruption to his operation...

I also suggest that 2 or 3 others who are within driving distance
meet Tom there and "look over his shoulder" as he does his thing...
couldn't hurt to have some extra eyes and critical minds observing
the setup and procedures...

Oh, count me in for $25...

Who want's to be the editor for the "research plan?"  Tom's 
probably the most obvious choice, but this task might be a bit
time consuming for someone who can't type as fast as they talk!
:-)

now that I've picked up the ball (or hot potatoe, depending on
your perspective), who wants it next?

--mark

-- 
Mark N. Iverson
marki@netcom.com                    /  We dance round in a ring and suppose,
                   (scientists)--> |   but The Secret sits in the middle,
Disclaimer: mine, and only mine.    \  and knows.               -- R. Frost

cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenmarki cudfnMark cudlnIverson cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.27 / Eugene Mallove /  Send Tom & Chuck
     
Originally-From: 76570.2270@compuserve.com (Eugene Mallove)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Send Tom & Chuck
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 1994 13:44:02 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Tom Droege writes:

>I agree that there are others that might be better for this job.
>I also agree with several that have said that we all want this to be
>true.  So all I can do is to go and look and listen to how this device
>is supposed to work, and see if the instrumentation makes sense.

I suggest that it would be a good idea to send *two* people: Chuck Harrison 
AND Tom Droege. Much as I like Tom Droege personally, I wouldn't trust Tom for
one minute to offer an unbiased, sensible report, but I would trust Chuck 
Harrison --- based on what I have seen of his work. So if the skeptics need 
Tom to go as their "agent," at least send Chuck Harrison along to keep Tom 
straight. If you skeptics foot the bill for that duo, I offer to call Jim 
Griggs and make the arrangements.

Gene Mallove

cudkeys:
cuddy27 cuden2270 cudfnEugene cudlnMallove cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.27 / Jed Rothwell /  Re: Griggs Question -- To Jed?
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@CompuServe.COM>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs Question -- To Jed?
Date: 27 Sep 1994 13:39:00 GMT
Organization: CFRA

c1prasad@watson.ibm.com (prasad) writes:
 
     "The only question that remains is, where does the solid matter go if
     the entire output of the pump is "dry steam"?  Does it get blown as a
     fine dust?"
 
No. There is a very short path from the input hose to the output. The pump
holds only a small amount of fluid. So you can easily increase the flow for a
while and have it spit out a mixture of hot water and steam, which will clean
out impurities.
 
Griggs has used it to boil and distill ocean water and factory waste water
full of dye. He drove the whole thing down to the seashore and powered it with
a truck engine. I am sure he must screen out solids like sand. I do not know
exactly he does it, but if I was distilling ocean water with it, I would set
the flow higher than the machine can take and have it spit out a substantial
amount of hot water as well as steam. You might run that through a separation
tank, although that would gum up the separation tank I suppose. You would use
a heat exchanger to warm the incoming flow and condense the purified water. I
suppose an industrial plant for drinking water might use a two or three stage
array of Pumps, I don't know.
 
When the pump finally does get gummed up with deposits, you can disassemble
the whole thing and replace the rotor an hour or two. It is very compact and
easy to work with and the rotors are cheap.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.27 / Jed Rothwell /  Re: Jed, you should help in the visit
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@CompuServe.COM>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Jed, you should help in the visit
Date: 27 Sep 1994 13:40:50 GMT
Organization: CFRA

c1prasad@watson.ibm.com (prasad) writes:
 
     "Jed, you're the person who has contributed most to the awareness about
     the Griggs machine in this forum.  I'd like you to reconsider your
     decision not to help."
 
Hell no. Tom is an incompetent jerk, I am not going to help him tear up
someone else's reputation. Look what he wrote about Pons and Fleischmann,
Mizuno and the ICCF4 papers. Sending him would be like sending a "creationist"
to review a biology experiment. I have no use for him any of other loony. Some
people believe in complete openness and in letting the fruitcakes and loony-
toons in. Pons and Fleischmann invited Morrison to visit them, as Morrison
reported here. I would never have done that if I was them. I am glad he has
apparently chickened out. I see Tom chickened out as well. He says he is too
shy to call Jim Griggs himself and make arrangements. That good! He should
stay home.
 
If Jim Griggs wants to let a fruitcake in that is his business. He is an
experienced industrial EE,  he doesn't need any advice from me about handling
customers. He has let lots of other people in. I should point out that Jim is
out of town right now anyway. I don't know when he will be back.
 
I suggest you send an expert in calorimetry. Any experienced HVAC engineer
would do. A power company engineer would be a good choice. If you want to send
a non-expert, pick someone who had demonstrated reasonable competency and
understanding of basic calorimetry. Looking at the contributors in this forum,
I suppose I would select John Logajan, Paul Koloc, Chuck Harrison, Gary
Steckly, Bill Page, Scott Hazen Mueller or Thomas Zemanian.
 
Whoever you select, the person should agree in advance that the basic
calorimetric techniques are sound. People who believe in invisible heat pumps
and people who think that ultrasound can fool a power meter and dynamometer to
the exact same extent should not bother going. If you have already decided
that the demonstration has no validity and does not prove anything, then it is
a waste of time for you to go. Just stay where you are and type message
explaining why it is no good. Naturally, you can make a few changes to the
experimental setup when you get there, but not many. This is heavy equipment,
any change in the configuration requires heavy plumbing tools, cranes and
forklifts. You cannot do much plumbing in a few hours.
 
Why not pick someone who lives in Georgia? Save travel expenses. Surely
someone reading this forum knows a competent thermal engineer in Atlanta. I
know a bunch -- the people who have been out to visit Jim. In the fullness of
time I expect they will write reports for public consumption. When they do I
will quote them here. Why not wait for that?
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.26 / Cameron Bass /  Re: I will not assist Tom
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: I will not assist Tom
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 1994 22:00:30 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <366r9r$12u6@watnews1.watson.ibm.com>,
prasad <c1prasad@watson.ibm.com> wrote:
>In article <364m3k$hn4@agate.berkeley.edu>, schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu
(Richard Schultz) writes:
>|> 
>|> Why not do what they did for Joseph Newman and send the GG to NIST for
>|> testing?
>|> 
>|> -- 
>|> 					Richard Schultz
>
>The US Patent Office has (and used) that privilege in that case.

     They certainly did not want to do it.  They were ordered to by
     a thermodynamically-illiterate court.  They wanted to simply
     deny the patent as they should have been allowed to in the 
     beginning.  It's a waste of taxpayer's money to evaluate 
     all the 'over-unity' machines that loonies have 'invented'
     over the years.

>Also, merely sending it to NIST doesn't squash the over-unity following,
>if that's what you were hoping it would.  Not unless you vote for
>"death-penalty for the thermodynamics-ignorant", in the NIST court!

     No religion can be squashed by something as ethereal as 'fact'.

     However, after having seen all these comments about 'death-penalty
     for the thermodynamically-illiterate', ask yourself a question or 
     two.

     Would you get on a flight flown by an 'aircraft-illiterate'?

     Would you allow your sons and daughters to be operated upon by
     a 'medical-illiterate'?

     Don't know about y'all.  But I'm leery of boilers designed by 
     thermodynamic-illiterates.  Indeed, the death penalty may be your own.

>Don't you remember, the NIST (NBS then) only ended up testing the
>*electrical* output of the Newman *motor*?  Didn't you read their report?!

     I believe that Joe's lawyers argued that NBS's instruments were
     *wrong*, not that they didn't get the energy balance correct.
     
                         dale bass

cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.26 / Gary Steckly /  Re: Funding Tom's trip
     
Originally-From: gsteckly@dgim.doc.ca (Gary Steckly)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Funding Tom's trip
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 94 23:59:52 GMT
Organization: Communications Canada

Scott Hazen Mueller (zorch@ftp.UU.NET) wrote:
: Well, I talked to my bank, and it doesn't look good for my being able to
: handle non-US funds.  They tell me there would be a $US 20 fee to deposit
: items not in US dollars.

I think this is directed at my comment about the international money 
order.  Your bank misunderstood...these ARE US funds...the postoffice 
in Canada does the conversion and when that piece of paper gets to 
the landothefree, it is worth exactly the face value.  If your bank charges 
you a fee to cash a money order, you should seriously consider changing 
banks (it is land of the free... not land of the fee...n'est-ce pas?).

: So, unless you non-US participants are able to send funds in $US, I suppose
: you shall all have to simply support the effort in spirit.

gosh...even your Watertown NY PBS stations take our money with less 
hassle :-)  And how about all those evangelists?

Gary (I really wanna give) Steckly


cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudengsteckly cudfnGary cudlnSteckly cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.27 / Gary Steckly /  Re: GG and SL
     
Originally-From: gsteckly@dgim.doc.ca (Gary Steckly)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: GG and SL
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 94 00:13:52 GMT
Organization: Communications Canada

Doug Shade (rxjf20@email.sps.mot.com) wrote:
: I believe Jed said that Griggs was working on a plastic chamber (or at
: least
: one with a view port).

: Just a suggestion.... if the new rig yields a >1 result... turn out the
: lights and look for SL.

Or maybe this particular form of ultrasonic bubble is generating 
electromagnetic radiation at a lower frequency...one that might have 
greater heating effects on water. Perhaps microwave radiation, EMR in the 
GHz region wouldn't be too evident until you set up an RF 
spectrum analyser and took a look.  You might have to put the sucker in a 
faraday cage though...the spectrum is getting pretty congested up there 
recently.  

RF wouldn't be that much more unusual than visible light, would it?

just a little blue-skying...

Gary
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudengsteckly cudfnGary cudlnSteckly cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.26 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Jed, you should help in the visit
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Jed, you should help in the visit
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 1994 21:29:24 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <366sgm$12u6@watnews1.watson.ibm.com>,
prasad <c1prasad@watson.ibm.com> wrote:
...Plea to Jed deleted...
>
>See the odds on the outcome this way.  If the visit does result in
>an exposure of some errors of measurement, I'm sure it would help
>Jim Griggs straighten out his pump and do even better in his business.
>I see more damage coming from unbelievable measurements than from
>unexotic data.  And I'm sure you would have no problems either if
>the matter did get resolved that-a-way.

     It would appear that a demonstrated lack of over-unity performance 
     would substantially damage the main selling point, as usual with 
     such devices.  I fully understand why Jed is not really interested in 
     promoting even the dim possibility of such an outcome.

>If you back out now, skepticism directed at you will also reflect
>on Griggs. 

      It doesn't now?

> The machine will probably die an infamous death like
>Joe Newman's motor.  You don't want to sound like Joe, either,
>do you?

     Doubtful.  Those inclined to 'believe' will likely continue to believe. 
     After the fall, Joe-baby still had his adherents, though ones with 
     money seemed to be far fewer.

     My guess is that the discussion has changed few minds.

                                dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.27 / Gary Steckly /  Re: GG and SL
     
Originally-From: gsteckly@dgim.doc.ca (Gary Steckly)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: GG and SL
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 94 01:56:14 GMT
Organization: Communications Canada

Thomas S. Zemanian (ts_zemanian@pnl.gov) wrote:

(deletia)

: Interesting idea.  Is there a characteristic emission spectrum for
: sonoluminescence?

check out Steve Jones recent post on "SL revisited", if it's still on 
your news feed.  If I understand this correctly, there are 2 distict 
forms of SL (maybe 3 with Griggs?)

The more common (garden variety as Steve refers to it) is T-SL (transient 
bubble sono-lum.) which is generated by cavitating propellers etc.  
Typicall, the spectrum of emmissions appears in discrete lines, 
indicating some form of chemical luminescence.

The more exotic form, SP-SL (synchronous-picosecond SL) resulting from a 
single bubble, locked in a standing wave in a spherical chamber.  It seems 
that you have to get rid of a lot of the disolved gases from the water 
before this one appears, but the spectrum is quite special.  It appears 
to match the black body radiation curves.  Fascinating stuff.  I still 
think somebody should check the RF spectrum around these single bubble 
experiments as well.

And don't forget, the late Julian Schwinger once suggested that this SB-SL 
could be explained as a consequence of a "dynamic casimir effect", the 
bubbles being a hole in a dielectric medium. Vacuum energy?  Isn't vacuum 
energy a myth?  Better forget this one, it borders on heresy;-)

regards

Gary
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudengsteckly cudfnGary cudlnSteckly cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.27 / Scott Mueller /  Re: Let's send Tom to Cartersville, GA
     
Originally-From: scott@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Scott Hazen Mueller)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Let's send Tom to Cartersville, GA
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 1994 04:21:07 GMT
Organization: At Home; Salida, CA

In article <366p4r$12u6@watnews1.watson.ibm.com> c1prasad@watson.ibm.com (prasad) writes:
>I seem to have missed your address, Scott.
>
>Could you possibly repost it?

Certainly.

Scott Hazen Mueller
4108 Killigrew Drive
Salida, CA 95368
Attn:  CNF

-- 
Scott Hazen Mueller scott@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG or (tandem|ub-gate)!zorch!scott
Mail fusion-request@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG for emailed sci.physics.fusion digests.

cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenscott cudfnScott cudlnMueller cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.27 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: Not sure it's fusion
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Not sure it's fusion
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 1994 01:04:42 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

In article <1994Sep26.064321.17428@rosevax.rosemount.com>,
William Hawkins <bill@texan.rosemount.com> wrote:

>Isn't it time to wonder what free energy machines are doing here
>in sci.physics.fusion?

Bill, my experience is that in cases where perpetual motion (well, what
else can you call "free energy"?) is claimed the 'inventors' are almost
always woefully underqualified to judge their own experiments.

But in a few cases I've investigated I had to think exactly _why_ it
_almost_ worked. One case I never did figure out was when I hooked
a motor and a generator together mechanically and electrically and started
the thing up on external power and then cross-coupled the thing.

The motor loaded down until it was turning at about 20 or 30 rpm's and
then _held_ there for perhaps 3 minutes. So, shouldn't it have stopped
almost immediately?

I was so sure of thermodynamics that I never actually figured out why it
did that. I sort of assumed that what I saw was the energy stored in the
field of the motor.

cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.27 / Scott Mueller /  Re: CNF Field Trip (Tom D., please read)
     
Originally-From: scott@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Scott Hazen Mueller)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CNF Field Trip (Tom D., please read)
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 1994 04:31:40 GMT
Organization: At Home; Salida, CA

In article <367bqi$cpr@fnnews.fnal.gov> Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege) writes:
>Well, first I tried to get Jed to do the job.  Now I ask for 
>volunteers to contact Griggs.  I am pretty much a phoneophobic,

I admit to surprise, but not at the problem, but rather at finding someone
else who shares it.

I do have available a last resort, but since some member of the group might
like to "share the glory", as it were, my volunteer is willing to defer to
another participant.  If no-one comes forward in the next few days, we can
still proceed.

>Scott, I think you ought to take only checks, and also on the condition
>that you will be trusted to tear them up if this falls through.  

My plan is to return the checks uncashed if this falls through, but I'm
willing to tear them up for anyone who is comfortable with that as an
option.

              \scott

-- 
Scott Hazen Mueller scott@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG or (tandem|ub-gate)!zorch!scott
Mail fusion-request@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG for emailed sci.physics.fusion digests.

cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenscott cudfnScott cudlnMueller cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.27 / Scott Mueller /  Re: Funding Tom's trip
     
Originally-From: scott@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Scott Hazen Mueller)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Funding Tom's trip
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 1994 04:36:50 GMT
Organization: At Home; Salida, CA

In article <1994Sep26.235952.3607@clark.dgim.doc.ca> gsteckly@dgim.doc.c
 (Gary Steckly) writes:
>Scott Hazen Mueller (zorch@ftp.UU.NET) wrote:
>: Well, I talked to my bank, and it doesn't look good for my being able to
>: handle non-US funds.
>
>I think this is directed at my comment about the international money 
>order.  Your bank misunderstood...these ARE US funds...the postoffice 
>in Canada does the conversion and when that piece of paper gets to 
>the landothefree, it is worth exactly the face value.

Ah.  No, I misunderstood, and the person I spoke to simply did not know any
better.  She did manage to confuse me a bit when she started talking about
wire transfers...

>gosh...even your Watertown NY PBS stations take our money with less 
>hassle :-)  And how about all those evangelists?

Actually, I'm sure that Canadian money would be relatively little trouble.
I'd be a little more concerned about rubles, rupees or whatever they use
in Romania these days...

               \scott

-- 
Scott Hazen Mueller scott@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG or (tandem|ub-gate)!zorch!scott
Mail fusion-request@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG for emailed sci.physics.fusion digests.

cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenscott cudfnScott cudlnMueller cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.27 / Alan M /  Re: Not sure it's fusion
     
Originally-From: Alan@moonrake.demon.co.uk ("Alan M. Dunsmuir")
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Not sure it's fusion
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 1994 04:55:51 +0000
Organization: Home

In article: <1994Sep26.064321.17428@rosevax.rosemount.com>  bill@texan.r
semount.com (William 
Hawkins) writes:

> Isn't it time to wonder what free energy machines are doing here
> in sci.physics.fusion?

We're only wasting our time with this, because Jed has nothing more 
convincing to offer us.

Like Cold Fusion Magazine before it, Cold Fusion itself is about to 
cease publication. 

Alan M. Dunsmuir [@ his wits end]     (Can't even quote poetry right)

         I am his Highness' dog at Kew
         Pray tell me sir, whose dog are you?
			      [Alexander Pope]

PGP Public Key available on request.


cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenAlan cudfnAlan cudlnM cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.27 / Sven Haedrich /  NIFS-Reports ?
     
Originally-From: haedrich@clio.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de (Sven Haedrich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: NIFS-Reports ?
Date: 27 Sep 1994 07:28:54 -0000
Organization: Heinrich Heine Universitaet Duesseldorf, Rechenzentrum


Is anybody out there who can tell me how I can get a copy of the
Reports of the National Institute for Fusion Science ?
I am interested in the Report of 1990, which features some
electron collision cross sections (NIFS-DATA-6 (1990)).
Thanks a lot for any hint.

Sven Haedrich
Institut fuer Laser- und Plasmaphysik
Heinrich Heine Universitaet Duesseldorf
haedrich@clio.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de

cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenhaedrich cudfnSven cudlnHaedrich cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.27 / Harry Conover /  Re: Let's send Tom to Cartersville, GA
     
Originally-From: conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Let's send Tom to Cartersville, GA
Date: 27 Sep 1994 07:47:49 GMT
Organization: The Internet Access Company



Count me in for $25.  Tom's report will be worth it!

My guess is that Tom's report will be even funnier than the 'bubbling'
scene in the Fleishman and Pons TV news coverage.

                                  Harry Conover

ps.  I'm not knocking CNN.  They're always there on the scene and
     in the action, even if they haven't the faintest clue as to 
     what's going on.



cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenconover cudfnHarry cudlnConover cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.27 / Robert Horst /  Future Energy Foundation
     
Originally-From: horst_bob@tandem.com (Robert Horst)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Future Energy Foundation
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 1994 16:58:55 GMT
Organization: Tandem Computers

Someone recently suggested that our plan to send Tom to Georgia might
lead to even more ambitious plans (sorry, I lost the original post).
This could lead to an entirely new type of distributed organization.
Here are some thoughts on how we might proceed.

It is likely that our donations will be greater than Tom needs for the
trip.  We could use the excess to establish a fund which could then
be used in other efforts to advance the understanding of cold fusion
(or whatever is causing the apparent excess energy). If we send in
slightly larger checks, we can establish a fund that could be used
for other purposes, yet avoid having to send in separate checks for
each individual idea.  There have already been several suggestions
that would require additional funds, such as sending someone else to
accompany Tom.

For now, I will call the organization the FEF, for "Future Energy
Foundation," or "Fusion Experimental Fund," or even "Free Energy
Follies," depending on your viewpoint.  We would join the FEF by
paying in dues, then vote on the best way to spend the money.  We
might vote to send our members to investigate other CF claims, or
might use funds to purchase equipment/materials to aid an
experiment we believe to be important.

To establish the FEF, we would need a few bylaws to govern the
organization.  I offer the following suggestions:

1.  Anyone can join the FEF by paying the annual dues.

2.  Officers of FEF will include a president, secretary, and
treasurer to be elected to one-year terms by the members.

3.  Communications among FEF members will be through
sci.physics.fusion (SPF).  Everyone is welcome in discussions on SPF
(except Ludwig, maybe :>), but votes on how to use funds will be
counted only from paid-up FEF members.

4.  To fund a project, the ideas will first be discussed in the usual
open forum.  At some point, the president may decide to call for a
vote.  Votes are accepted for some period of time until the president
calls that the voting is closed.  Votes may be either posted, or sent
directly to the secretary via Email. The secretary will tally the
votes and determine whether the proposal passes or fails.  A 2/3
majority of those voting is required in order to use funds.

5.  The treasurer will collect dues and maintain a list of the current
membership.  Periodically, or on request, he will post the acccount
balance.

6.  Elections will be yearly (on the anniversary of the P&F press
conference?).  Before the election, anyone may post nominations or
endorsements, or may declare themselves candidates (or non candidates)
for an office.  Votes are to be counted by the outgoing secretary.

5.  Yearly dues are to be ($50?, lower student rates?, $20 min with
higher donations encouraged?).  Non-US members may have reduced
rates to compensate for the costs of currency exchange and postage.

Judging from the response to Tom's Georgia trip, there are many others
out there who have wanted to participate in understanding what is
happening in the CF experiments, but lacked either the time or
expertise for more direct involvement. An organization like FEF would
be a way for us to feel we are directly contributing to this field.

Comments are welcome on any of the above -- from the basic concept, to
the name, to the suggested bylaws.

-- Bob Horst
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenhorst_bob cudfnRobert cudlnHorst cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.27 / John Logajan /  Cold Fusion Magazine
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@mirage.skypoint.net (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Cold Fusion Magazine
Date: 27 Sep 1994 16:52:33 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Alan M. Dunsmuir (Alan@moonrake.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: Like Cold Fusion Magazine before it, Cold Fusion itself is about to 
: cease publication. 

Cold Fusion Magazine did not cease publication (yet?)

It changed format and is now entitled Cold Fusion Update.  It is still
published monthly by Wayne Greene.

Mallove, Rothwell, et al, left the magazine in the dispute over the new
format.  They are currently attempting to start a new publication.

--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com  --  612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA -
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.27 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Griggs Question -- To Jed?
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs Question -- To Jed?
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 1994 15:43:59 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <36979k$fmk$1@mhadf.production.compuserve.com>,
Jed Rothwell  <72240.1256@CompuServe.COM> wrote:
> 
>When the pump finally does get gummed up with deposits, you can disassemble
>the whole thing and replace the rotor an hour or two. It is very compact and
>easy to work with and the rotors are cheap.

     "Disassemble the whole thing and replace the rotor."  Sounds low 
     maintenance to me.  Do you also require plants and other operations
     to keep enough room around the device for frequent complete disassembly?

                             dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.27 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Jed, you should help in the visit
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Jed, you should help in the visit
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 1994 15:54:56 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <3697d2$fmk$2@mhadf.production.compuserve.com>,
Jed Rothwell  <72240.1256@CompuServe.COM> wrote:
>c1prasad@watson.ibm.com (prasad) writes:
> 
>     "Jed, you're the person who has contributed most to the awareness about
>     the Griggs machine in this forum.  I'd like you to reconsider your
>     decision not to help."
> 
>Hell no. Tom is an incompetent jerk, I am not going to help him tear up
>someone else's reputation.

     I continue to be shocked...

>Whoever you select, the person should agree in advance that the basic
>calorimetric techniques are sound. People who believe in invisible heat pumps
>and people who think that ultrasound can fool a power meter and dynamometer to
>the exact same extent should not bother going. If you have already decided
>that the demonstration has no validity and does not prove anything, then it is
>a waste of time for you to go. Just stay where you are and type message
>explaining why it is no good. 

     Translation:  Only believers need apply.

     PS.  Unless you can show that there is 'ultrasound' in the system, you'd
     do best sticking to your original 'theories'.

     In any case, it matters little.  These are not devices putting out 
     more heat than power is put into them, and a) that will eventually
     be determined or b) the device will fade away as such devices have the
     last thousand times.

                                   dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.27 /  prasad /  Re: Fading: the plots
     
Originally-From: c1prasad@watson.ibm.com (prasad)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fading: the plots
Date: 27 Sep 1994 19:18:12 GMT
Organization: IBM Watson

In article <3670i1$kfq@bmerhc5e.bnr.ca>, schow@bnr.ca (Stanley T.H. Chow) writes:
|>...
|> For the case of cold fusion (for the lack of a better name), clearly
|> not everyone knows how to do it. It is also clear that even the people
|> who think they do cannot reproduce at will. In these situations, I
|> think the normal procedure is to try to nail down the theory and 
|> patents, then publish. Why would anyone publish partial results, and
|> possibly letting someone else get the "key" patent?

AFAIK, all that the over-unity folks are getting to do today, and this
should include the CF people, is to file patents on (a) specific devices
that are claimed to give the excess energy, (b) specific processes based
on wild/hypothetical theories that the inventors like to think their
devices work on.

Patents specifically of type (b) are more than likely to die by obsoletion,
when the real physics becomes known (if it does). I'm quite confident this
would include several CF patents that insist that CF is due to specific
fusion reactions.  Several "free energy" patents are much worse than this.

Type (a) patents might just survive.  After all, if someone (X) proves
that CF/Griggs'_pump/Newman's_motor works on new theory T, not what
the original patentee thought it was.  I'm inclined to favor X getting
"key" patents and a major chunk of the royalties, possibly more than
the device guys, simply because the devices are more likely than not
accidental successes, not unlike the Coke bottle falling on the little
guy in the movie "The Gods Must Be Crazy!"  [ you might say I'm not being
kind...;) ]

cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenc1prasad cudlnprasad cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.27 /  prasad /  Re: Send Tom & Chuck
     
Originally-From: c1prasad@watson.ibm.com (prasad)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Send Tom & Chuck
Date: 27 Sep 1994 19:40:48 GMT
Organization: IBM Watson

In article <940927132438_76570.2270_HHB79-1@CompuServe.COM>, 76570.2270@
ompuserve.com (Eugene Mallove) writes:
|> one minute to offer an unbiased, sensible report, but I would trust Chuck 
|> Harrison --- based on what I have seen of his work. So if the skeptics need 
|> Tom to go as their "agent," at least send Chuck Harrison along to keep Tom 
|> straight. If you skeptics foot the bill for that duo, I offer to call Jim 
|> Griggs and make the arrangements.
|> 
|> Gene Mallove

That should mollify Jed as well. [ I like him.  As I said before, most of our
attention is due to him, notwithstanding people as skeptical of him as Dale
Bass is! ;)  Besides, he often does answer questions with more patience than
I can at all be credited with.  Oh, well, so the pump does get clogged! ]

To Scott Mueller:

Thanks for reposting your address.  Check's in the mail.  Tear it up if the
visit falls apart, but right now, it looks more like imminent....  Do pass
my regards to Griggs, he seems to be a good, open-minded, engineer with
a real puzzle to solve, and all the help we can give!

cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenc1prasad cudlnprasad cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.27 / Cary Jamison /  Re: CNF Field Trip (Tom D., please read)
     
Originally-From: cary@esl.com (Cary Jamison)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CNF Field Trip (Tom D., please read)
Date: 27 Sep 1994 20:15:57 GMT
Organization: ESL Inc., A TRW Company

In article <Cwrtwt.Axn@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG>, scott@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Scott
Hazen Mueller) wrote:

> My plan is to return the checks uncashed if this falls through, but I'm
> willing to tear them up for anyone who is comfortable with that as an
> option.

Perhaps you should ask everyone one to also send a SASE (self-addressed
stamped envelope).  If Tom goes, you could send some certificate or
memorabilia to the participants.  If he doesn't, you could send back the
checks.

-- 
Cary Jamison
cary@esl.com
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudencary cudfnCary cudlnJamison cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.28 / Scott Mueller /  Trip/Treasury, multiple responses
     
Originally-From: scott@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Scott Hazen Mueller)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Trip/Treasury, multiple responses
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 1994 04:08:27 GMT
Organization: At Home; Salida, CA

Anthony Sumner writes:

>I have spoken with my bank in the UK and they said the most cost
>effective way to send the money is cash by registered post, in fact
>they said they often send the cash by post!

This is fine by me, and anyone who is comfortable sending cash is welcome
to do so.  However, I cannot just tear up cash, so please include a return
envelope if you would like the funds returned if the trip does not happen.

I am also advised in private mail that the charges for converting foreign
currency (as opposed to foreign checks [cheques for the English speakers])
are a mere 5%, so I am now accepting funds in foreign denominations.

Cary Jamison writes:

>Perhaps you should ask everyone one to also send a SASE (self-addressed
>stamped envelope).  If Tom goes, you could send some certificate or
>memorabilia to the participants.  If he doesn't, you could send back the
>checks.

I will be counting on Tom to provide the certificates/postcards.  Anyone
who wants to, can send a SASE, and if the deal goes through I'll just
stuff the whole lot into a large envelope and send it on.

Jed Rothwell writes:

>I see Tom chickened out as well. He says he is too shy to call Jim Griggs
>himself and make arrangements. That good! He should stay home.

I'm sure the arrangements will get made, if not by Tom then by myself if
need be.

Jed again:

>pick someone who had demonstrated reasonable competency and understanding of
>basic calorimetry. [...] Scott Hazen Mueller [...]

Ahem.

Musta been a mistake.

Mark Iverson writes:

>I took the liberty of calling Mr. Griggs [...]

Glad to see that.

Mark again:

>    - I gave him a brief summary of USENET, and mentioned that there
>      was a suggestion of sending someone down to look things over.

>    - he was very open to the visit by some USENET person.

Glad to hear that too.

Mark still:

>It might be fruitful to start by having Tom (and a few others) talk 
>with those who have already done some independent testing to find out
>the details of their efforts...

Might be some difficulties there.

Mark:

>I also suggest that 2 or 3 others who are within driving distance
>meet Tom there and "look over his shoulder" as he does his thing...

I agree that this would be a good idea.  Shoot, I'd go myself, but
California just isn't in easy driving distance, and my idea of easy
is probably a lot farther than most...

Gene Mallove writes:

>I suggest that it would be a good idea to send *two* people: Chuck Harrison 
>AND Tom Droege. [...] So if the skeptics need Tom to go as their "agent," at
>least send Chuck Harrison along to keep Tom straight. If you skeptics foot
>the bill for that duo, I offer to call Jim Griggs and make the arrangements.

I don't disagree with the concept, but:

  1)  I have no idea whether we'll be able to foot two bills.

  2)  We don't know if Chuck can go.  Chuck?

  3)  Just for the record, I don't think the support is coming from
      skeptics.  I think the majority are fence-sitters and the hopeful.
      (Not to mention folks who think this is new and fun, which it is.)

-----

I'd appreciate if Tom could supply me his go/no-go figure.  I recall that
he'll go if we raise 80% of costs, but I'd like to know what the cost
estimate is.  I presume we're covering:

  round-trip airfare
  hotel
  reasonable and customary meals (I'll look up the Runzheimer limits)
  cabfare/car rental

Tom?

            \scott

-- 
Scott Hazen Mueller scott@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG or (tandem|ub-gate)!zorch!scott
Mail fusion-request@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG for emailed sci.physics.fusion digests.

cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenscott cudfnScott cudlnMueller cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Wed Sep 28 04:37:03 EDT 1994
------------------------------
1994.09.28 / Dieter Britz /  CNF bibliography updates and archive retrieval, 28-Sep-94.
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CNF bibliography updates and archive retrieval, 28-Sep-94.
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 1994 13:18:43 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway


Well, here we go again. The exciting news is that we have another book "on"
'cold fusion', by presidential candidate Lyndon LaRouche - as the Publisher
says in the Preface, "the only presidential candidate in the U.S. elections 
who has supported a research program in cold fusion, far less a crash program 
for its development". That was the elections where Clinton got it, instead of
LLR. Frankly, I wasted my $20 with this book but buying it was the only way to
find out what is in it because it is in no library accessible to me here. It
is the usual diatribe mishmash one reads whenever LLR takes pen in hand: bent
science history, philosophy, social theory, music theory, cycloids, 
thermodynamics (all wrong), paranoia, feminism
(did you know that it was 8 women who made nuclear fission and fusion 
possible? He mentions only two of them, Meitner [OK, I'll even go for that] 
and Noddack [?]). I was amused to see one Bostick cited again and again, as
well as his plasmoids... now where have I come across these two things before?
He writes a bit like Velykovski (sp?): at first impressive, and then you say
hey hey! There is actually very little about cold fusion as such, only 
fragments here and there and photos of P&F. There is a chapter titled "Cold 
fusion and economic recovery". We get Reagan, Bush, all wrong, economic ruin,
imminent collapse etc etc. The book is published by the Schiller Institute 
(which I would not be surprised to find a LLR organ), and there is a certain 
amount of germanophilism (and anglophobia). Strange, then, that almost every 
German name or title (there are quite a few in the book) is garbled, with 
incorrect article cases or misplaced Umlauts. Why do I go on about this mess 
of a book? Maybe because I wasted $20. But it stands in my collection of books 
on 'cold fusion'. I have them all except the Peat (out of print) and Fox, yet
to come but ordered.

On to more serious matters! I.e. the papers I got this month. After the 
discussion here about Liboff, I took Steve Jones' list to the Phys library and
copied the two papers below; one from 1979, and one of his first and 
definitely pre-FPH/Jones, and a 1993 one. I think that might do for Liboff. He
does suggest what must be called cold fusion. I had some discussion with 
myself whether to make the Lindley paper a Paper or a Comment and, prompted by
some very recent argument in this list, let it into the hallowed halls (citing
Mitch, possibly inaccurately). It examines, in a scientific manner, a definite
question and in fact answers it - more than many sci-papers manage; and it was
published in a real journal, not a newspaper or news-sheet. Ditto for Marcus
(TB's will like this one) and Sullivan (same here), an input from an English 
lit type, with the mandatory difficult words, that will drive Mitch to his
dictionary again. An interesting paper, though, I found, interesting to see
how these people work, analysing a video tape. The other papers, I think, 
speak for themselves.

I included the Rousar paper in Peripherals; it might interest those who think
that 'cold fusion' is caused by sparks within the electrical double layer 
near, e.g., dendrite points. Here is a paper about sparks in e'chemical cells.

And, finally, a McKubre patent appl.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current count:
-------------
 10 books
954 papers
148 patents
223 comment items
 83 peripherals
 20 conference procs(-to-be)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Books:
^^^^^
#
LaRouche L; "Cold Fusion: Challenge to U.S. Science Policy".
Schiller Institute 1992. ISBN 0-9621095-7-6.
** Ostensibly about 'cold fusion', this book is a collection of LLR's
unorthodox ideas about the history of science, thermodynamics, politics,
society, music, feminism and philosophy. The book is meant to be a promotion
of the author's proposal for a "mini-crash program" of 'cold fusion' research
but 'cold fusion' itself is hardly mentioned.
#..................................................................... Sep-94

Journal papers:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
#
Basteev AV, Nechiporenko LA;  Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 19 (1994) 739.
"Activation of solid-phase deflagration of hydrogen-containing energy-storing
substances".
** The authors do not believe in fractofusion in conductors, pointing to the
lack of convincing results. In certain nonconducting substances containing
hydrogen (isotopes), however, there may be 'deflagration' effects that just
might lead to fusion. The authors here examine ND4NO3 and ND4ClO4, both of
which can store energy and release it in deflagration events within the solid
matrix when irradiated by gamma rays. Such events might enable d-d fusion.
Experiments lend some support to this idea.  Sep-93/? 
#..................................................................... Sep-94
Blagus S, Bogovac M, Drasner A, Vukovic M;  Fusion Technol. 26 (1994) 105.
"Evidence for neutron production during heavy water electrolysis on palladium 
electrode".
** An attempt to reproduce the results of Gozzi et al. A Pd cyclinder was made
by pressing 99.95% pure Pd powder at 216 MPa and sintering at 1173 K for 12 H.
The final mass of the pellet was 8.2 g at a density of 80% that of solid Pd.
An undivided cell was used, filled with 0.2M D2SO4 in D2O, kept at 298 K;
current density was 0.2 A/cm^2. Neutrons were monitored with a single
6Li-glass scintillation counter with appropriate electronics for pulse height
discrimination etc. Over a period of about 10 days, 12 runs were recorded with
an overall duration of 677660 s. All recordings were indistinguishable from
those for the background, except in one run, where two neutron bursts were
seen, with durations of 200 and 100 s, counting, resp., 193 and 63 neutrons or
256 total in 300 s. Postmortem analysis of the cathode indicated a D/Pd
loading of 0.7. The team noted the exact times of x-ray bursts from the Sun
(there is a table of such events) and the neutron bursts are not correlated
with these. Neutron emissions were about 1/10 of Gozzi et al.  Mar-93/Aug-94 
#..................................................................... Sep-94
Liboff RL;  Phys. Lett. 71A (1979) 361.
"Fusion via metallic deuterium".
** "A deuteron has spin 1 and is therefore a boson" is a recurring theme in
this author's papers since this seminal one, in which he states that in the
metallic phase of deuterium, thought to be attained at a pressure of some 
Mbar, there will be appreciable d-d fusion at low temperatures due to wave
function overlap, leading to 3He.
#..................................................................... Sep-94
Liboff RL;  Phys. Lett. 174 A (1993) 317.
"Feasibility of fusion of an aggregate of deuterons in the ground state".
** The author suggests that a ribbon beam of deuterons at about 4 keV will,
at a current of 0.2 A, undergo a transition to superconductivity, and the
deuterons in the beam will then fuse. This must be called cold fusion, since
the fusing deuterons have a low energy relative to each other within the beam.
The model is based more on wave function overlap than on Coulomb barrier 
tunnelling.
#..................................................................... Sep-94
Lindley D;  The World & I, Nov-89, 513.
"Does commercial pressure make for bad science?"
** DL examines the title question, in the light of claims by 'cold fusion'
workers that they cannot divulge information because of patent considerations.
Lindley shows that in the roughly contemporary case of high temperature
superconductivity, "scientists filed for patents and got on with their work".
The difference, he concludes, is that HTSC is a proven phenomenon while CNF
is not and is increasingly doubted by the majority. Commercial pressure, then,
is not a barrier to good science.
#..................................................................... Sep-94
Liu R, Wang D, Chen S, Li Y, Fu Y, Zhang X, Zhang W;
Yuanzi Yu Fenzi Wuli Xuebao 11(2) (1994) 115 (in Chinese).
"Measurement of neutron energy spectra from the gas discharge facility".
** Chem. Abstr. 121:93277 (1994) writes: "In the process of research on cold
fusion phenomenon with the gas discharge method, the NE-213 org. liq. 
scintillation neutron spectrometer was used to measure neutron energy spectra 
from the gas discharge facility. Neutrons were emitted from the gas discharge
facility. The peak energy in neutron spectra is about 2.38 MeV. Neutrons whose 
energy is larger than about 3 MeV haven't been found. The neutron spectra from 
the gas discharge facility and D-D neutron source are compared. The exptl. 
error of neutron spectra is about +- 6%".
The paper is almost entirely in Chinese and little else can be gained by this
abstracter. There are the usual FPH-89 and Jones+-89 references.
#..................................................................... Sep-94
Maly JA, Vavra J;  Fusion Technol. 26 (1994) 112.
"Response to 'Comments on 'Electron transitions on deep Dirac levels I''".
** Reponse to the polemic of Rice et al, ibid 111, referring to an earlier 
paper by Maly and Vavra on neglected solutions to wave equations for hydrogen.
Contrary to the claim by Rice et al, that the solutions found are nonphysical,
Maly and Vavra here conclude that Rice et al are simply wrong and that the
deep energy levels indeed can exist.  Feb-94/Aug-94.
#..................................................................... Sep-94
Marcus M;  St. Louis Journalism Rev. 22(153) (Feb. 1993) 16.
"Cold fusion research is alive and well - but not in the mass media".
** A sci-soc/phil/journalism paper. Marcus makes a case for a mass effort by
the media to declare 'cold fusion' defunct, by stressing the problems,
ridicule, and suppression of positive results. Marshal McKluhan [sic] is
quoted "What if they are right?", referring to the decreasing group that still
believes in CNF. Funding for CNF research is said to have been affected
adversely by the negative publicity. ?/Feb-93
#..................................................................... Sep-94
Rice RA, Kim YE;  Fusion Technol. 26 (1994) 111.
"Comments on 'Electron transitions on deep Dirac levels I'".
** Polemic on the named paper by Maly and Vavra, which claimed some neglected
solutions to Schroedinger's and Dirac's equation for hydrogen and gave support
to the Mills theory. Rice et al state here that these solutions are not
physical and that therefore these deep energy levels cannot exist.
Sep-93/Aug-94. 
#..................................................................... Sep-94
Sullivan DL; Sci., Technol. & Human Values 19 (1994) 283.
"Exclusionary epideictic: NOVA's narrative excommunication of Fleischmann and
Pons".
** Sci-soc/phil paper by an English lit specialist. Analysis of the video tape
of the NOVA TV program "Confusion in a Jar", shown on 30 April 1991 by Public
Broadcasting. The author makes a case for this show's being an epideictic
rhetoric, defined as an effort publically to lay blame on someone and (here)
in effect to excommunicate them (F&P) from the ranks of serious scientists.
This can also be categorised as a narrative, and strong parallels are drawn
between F&P and the Jesus Christ story. The difference is that in the latter
case, there was a final vindication after excommunication, not the case (yet)
with F&P.  ?/Jul-94 
#..................................................................... Sep-94

Patents:
^^^^^^^
#
McKubre MCH, Rocha-Filho RC, Smedley SI, Tanzella FL, Crouch-Baker S,
Santucci J (EPRI); PCT Int. Appl. WO 94 14,163, 10-Dec-92.
Cited in Chem. Abstracts 121:120002 (1994).
"Methods for forming films on cathodes".
** "A method is described for forming a film on the surface of a cathode to
facilitate the loading of a H isotope into the cathode. The cathode and an
anode are immersed in an electrolyte contg. a H isotope and conducting ions,
and the electrodes are connected to a current source. The conducting ions may 
be formed by inclusion of LiOH, LiOD or LiOT in the electrolyte. The addn. of  
other  elemental species or compds. to the electrolyte further promotes the 
film formation and enhances the loading of the H isotope into the cathode".
(Direct quote from CA).
#..................................................................... Sep-94

Peripherals:
^^^^^^^^^^^
#
Rousar I, Riedel T;  J. Appl. Electrochem. 24 (1994) 767.
"Sparking at cathode tools during electrochemical machining in flow-through
cells".
** If the ecm current is raised too much, sparking is one of the undesirable
things that will happen. The paper has a good description of what happens at
high current densities, and might be of peripheral interest to CNF 
electrolysis, where local cd's just might attain these levels.
#.................................................................. Sep-94


Retrieval of the archived files:
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. By anonymous FTP from vm1.nodak.edu (134.129.111.1).  Login anonymous, with
   your e-mail address as the password. Type CD FUSION, DIR FUSION.CNF* to get
   a listing. The general index is large. Use GET (ie. GET FUSION.CNF-PAP1). 
2. Via LISTSERV. You get a (large) index of the archives by sending an email  
   to listserv@vm1.nodak.edu, with a blank SUBJECT line, and the "message"   
   'index fusion'. To get any one of these files, you then send to the same   
   address the message, e.g., 
   get fusion 91-00487
   get fusion cnf-pap1         etc, according to what you're after.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The bib-files are: cnf-bks (books), cnf-pap1..cnf-pap6 (papers, slices 1..6),
cnf-pat (patents), cnf-cmnt (comments), cnf-peri (peripherals), cnf-conf
(brief list of conf. procs) and cnf-unp (unpublished stuff collected by Vince
Cate, hydrogen/metal references from Terry Bollinger). There is also the file
cnf-brif, which has all the -pap* file references without annotations, all in
one file (so far); and cnf-new, with the last three months' or so of new items
in all biblio files. 
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
===========================================================

cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.28 / Robert Heeter /  FAQ on Conventional Fusion Section 0/11 (Intro) Part 1/3 (Overview)
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.energy,sci.environment,sci.physics
Subject: FAQ on Conventional Fusion Section 0/11 (Intro) Part 1/3 (Overview)
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 1994 03:27:38 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

Archive-name: fusion/faq/section0-intro/part1-overview
Last-modified: 27-Sept-1994
Posting-frequency: More-or-less-monthly


****************************************************************
Frequently Asked Questions about Fusion Research (with Answers)

Written/Edited by:

     Robert F. Heeter
     rfheeter@pppl.gov
     Graduate Student, Princeton Plasma Physics Lab

Last Revised September 27, 1994
*****************************************************************

Welcome to the Conventional Fusion FAQ!  This file is intended
to indicate (a) that this FAQ exists, and (b) what it is about.
Those of you reading this on 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 as yet.)
I hope to have the FAQ approved for crossposting to sci.answers
and news.answers shortly.

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

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

*** Section Listing of the Conventional Fusion FAQ:
Section 0 - Introduction
     Part 1/3 - Title Page
                Table of Contents
                Preface and Current Status
     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 Fusion:
Part 0/7 - Overview
Part 1/7 - A-B
Part 2/7 - C-D
Part 3/7 - E-F
Part 4/7 - G-J
Part 5/7 - K-M
Part 6/7 - N-R
Part 7/7 - S-Z


*****************************************************************

Preface to the Conventional Fusion FAQ

*** Goal:
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.

*** Scope:
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.

*** 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.  The FAQ is available as a 
standalone, self-running Macintosh "digital magazine" program 
for those who are interested.

*** Current Status:
While much remains to be done, most sections now exist in at
least rough-draft form.  All sections could benefit from further
revision, and I would appreciate any new information, suggestions,
or comments anyone might be willing to provide.  Many thanks to 
those who have helped out thus far!  Many sections are undergoing
the moderation process for crossposting to the offical FAQ groups 
sci.answers and news.answers, and will be archived on rtfm.mit.edu
if and when they ever make it through the moderation process; 
This introduction will be crossposted to sci.physics, sci.energy, 
and sci.environment, since people there may be interested.
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.28 / Jed Rothwell /  Re: Griggs Question -- To Jed?
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@CompuServe.COM>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs Question -- To Jed?
Date: 28 Sep 1994 13:28:36 GMT
Organization: CFRA

crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
 
     "'Disassemble the whole thing [GG] and replace the rotor.'  Sounds low
     maintenance to me."
 
Yes, it is. A very quick operation that only has to performed infrequently.
For the most part, silt and waste can be flushed out with a blast of water.
This is because the unit is so small, and the path that the water takes
through it is so short. A conventional boiler has a much larger inside space,
so you cannot easily flush it clean.
 
 
     "Do you also require plants and other operations to keep enough room
     around the device for frequent complete disassembly?"
 
It takes very little room to disassemble it, and the operation is
*infrequent*, not frequent. The entire machine is much smaller than the
conventional factory boilers it replaces, and it requires less maintenance. To
lift out the motor and replace the motor, I recommend the kind of hand crane
used to lift auto engines, and about as much working room as you need to
repair a small auto engine. It is a very simple, straightforward design with
few parts. It fits together easily and snugly and there are no small bits and
bits and pieces you are likely to find on the floor after you tighten the last
nut. (Small motorcycle engine parts actually migrate out through the solid
steel engine block onto newspapers. This may be a form of telekinesis, or it
may prove the innate perversity of inanimate objects.)
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.29 / Eugene Mallove /  Test Results from Jim Griggs
     
Originally-From: 76570.2270@compuserve.com (Eugene Mallove)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Test Results from Jim Griggs
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 1994 02:26:49 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Jim Griggs recently showed me test results from a Hydrosonic Pump *hot water* 
test, i.e. there was *deliberately* no steam production.  The computer system 
captures a frame of data at one-minute intervals.  What follows are the 
numbers from a test on September 13, 1994. The initially listed numbers have 
units with which the heating and building trades are more familiar, but the 
conversions are simple to MKS. I've listed a few conversion factors for your 
convenience:

INPUT water temperature, thermocouple readings (Six thermocouples), degrees-F:
        80.73
        80.39
        80.05
        80.15
        80.52
        80.54

OUTPUT water temperature, thermocouple readings (Six thermocouples),degrees-F:
        148.5
        148.4
        148.2
        148.5
        148.0
        147.9

Average input water temperature, degrees-F:  80.39
Average output water temperature, degrees-F: 148.2
Average Delta-T, degrees-F:                   67.86

Torque measured on rotor shaft by dynamometer:     1161.8 inch-pounds

        [To convert to newton-meters, multiply inch-pounds by
                2.54E-2 m/inch * 4.448 newtons/lb ]

Shaft Rotation rate:    3561 rpm

Horsepower from torque x rotation rate:   65.65 HP  (about 48.9 kW)

Flow rate of water:  5.382 gallons/min

The mechanical input power is thus 167,084 BTU/hour   (65.65 HP)
The thermal addition to the water from inlet to outlet is:

                                   185,845 BTU/hour

The computed COP (Coeficient of Performance) is 185,845/167,084 = 1.112

Note well that this is a *very* conservative number, because no account 
whatsoever is being made of the thermal radiation and convective air heat 
transfer from the very hot pump housing to the external environment.

The subsequent data frames during the test run at approx. one minute intervals
gave the following COPs:

1.089
1.095
1.09
1.103
1.097
1.098
1.10
1.091
1.105
1.109


That's all for now. Whoever goes to visit Hydro Dynamics will see data like 
this and better. Steam tests produce higher COP's. Adjustments in the rotor 
hole configuration can also boost or reduce COPs.

Gene Mallove

cudkeys:
cuddy29 cuden2270 cudfnEugene cudlnMallove cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.28 / Richard Herring /  Re: Cold Fusion comment, WAS Re: UNI DIRECTIONAL SPEAKER CABLE
     
Originally-From: rnh@gec-mrc.co.uk (Richard Herring)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.skeptic,sci.electronics,s
i.physics.electromag
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion comment, WAS Re: UNI DIRECTIONAL SPEAKER CABLE
Date: 28 Sep 94 13:31:17 GMT

[sci.electronics and sci.physics.electromag reinstated, just to 
close the thread]

Chris Parkinson (parky@ix.netcom.com) wrote:

: Hi, I'm the joker who started this thread.

No you're not!

_I_ made the Cold Fusion comment in sci.electronics (I think; it was
a long time ago) (note the original subject of the thread)
A discussion of unidirectional transmission lines ,presumably powered by
Maxwell's demons, digressed, as all good Usenet threads do. The topic
turned to other dubious audio practices and someone made a suggestion
implying that because something or other was popular in Japan it must 
automatically be a good thing. I merely remarked that cold fusion 
was also popular in Japan, and invited the readers to draw 
their own conclusions.

Result: my very own flamewar. I shall avoid certain subjects in future.

Please can we all go home now?
--
| Richard Herring             |  rnh@gec-mrc.co.uk | Speaking for myself
| GEC-Marconi Research Centre | No, but I used to contribute to the News Quiz.
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenrnh cudfnRichard cudlnHerring cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.29 / Stefan Hartmann /  Free Energy Newsletter part 1/2
     
Originally-From: harti@shb.contrib.de (Stefan Hartmann)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,alt.paranet.science,alt.paranet
ufo,sci.bio,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.particle
Subject: Free Energy Newsletter part 1/2
Date: 29 Sep 1994 01:14:00 +0200

		Summary on Free Energy Technology
		=================================

please email comments to:

harti@contrib.de

for a review on current free enerrgy technology get all the files from:
phoenix.oulu.fi  in pub/free_energy




Summary of recent Free Energy Congress in Denver:
==========<======================================


> > [...]
> > One of the most interesting things was Bill Fogal's "Charged Barrier
> > Transistor" technology.
> 
> Hmm, can you email me some more info please ?
> What is it ?

Someone else posted a copy of his paper, I think in sci.electronics. I
forget. I'll look and see if I can find it.

Basically, he takes a standard bipolar transistor, cuts open the case,
and glues a small capacitor element to the base. This is then kept
charged. The electric field affects the electron flow thru the transistor
to align the spins (via Hall effect). This causes a type of room temperature
superconduction. The result is much higher gain, much lower turn on
voltages, and almost complete elimination of noise.

> 
> > Details of how to duplicate Floyd Sweet's device were given.
> 
> Well, I have the videotape of Floyd's VTA.

Old news.

> I have digitized a few scenes and put them via MPEG compression on an
> FTP site:
> 
> phoenix.oulu.fi  in /pub/free_energy
> 
> There is also some more stuff there, especially from the Methernitha  
> devices...

Everyone is pissed, since that group isn't talking.

> 
> > JRR Searl gave several rambling and somewhat incoherant presentations.
> 
> I don't believe in him...

Exactly. He seems to be a publicity hound. And very little that he claims
is verifiable.

> 
> > >Was the Adams Magnet motor shown ?
> >
> > Several variants and copies were present. None did anything special.
> > One researcher had done extensive research into Adams, and basically
> > came to the conclusion that it is nothing.
> 
> Hmm, well, so nobody could show a selfrunning motor ?
 
Right. Many of them were very nice motors, but none of them are over 90%
efficiency. In a totally separate presentation, it was shown that
a device needs to be at least 300% in order to be self-running (due to
standard losses).

> >
> > Stefan Marinov's S-field motor isn't going to work untill the B-field
> > is properly shielded.
> 
> I see, so he was there ?
> Is it his "venetian Coli" motor or something like this ?
> He has so "dump" names for his machines, it is incredible ! :-)
 
Exactly. The current version is the "siberian colii". Might as well
be called eserechi coli.

> 
> > John Hutchinson was there with samples of things affected by the "Hutchinson
> > Effect", including a block of aluminum with an imbedded piece of wood
> > (no sign of charing or heat of any kind on the wood, and seamlessly
> > surrounded by the metal),
> 
> Hmm, yes, I also have a tape of this, were metal pieces and wood flies
> around in his lab, but you can't see, if it is not faked...

The samples are bizzare enough to conclude that whatever was done to them
is truely weird and worth more investigation.

> > a block of aluminum with an imbedded butter knife, several blasted apart
> > pieces of steel, brass, and copper rods and blocks. Very bizzare.
> 
> 
> Hmm, yes I know somebody from over here, Dr. Amon, who has made several
> investigations into this phenomen with real high tech equipment a few  
> years ago and he came to the conclusion, that there is something special,
> but as Hutchinson was hard to contact, nothing happened from it..

Try again to contact him. He seems pretty personable, open and honest.
He's just somewhat shy... considering the shit he's been through, I
can understand why.

> 
> Please let me know more.
> Thanks !
> 
> 




Other related email exchange
============================





 Hi Stephan,

 to answer your last questions...
> 
> 
> Did you hear anything  lately about Meyer ?
> The latest news I heard about his technology is at least one and a half  
> year old and he wanted to show a car in a race. Did he ever show it and  
> can he prove the over unity effect ?

The only physical evidence I have seen came from a CBC/BBC documentary on
TV on cold fusion and they interviewed Meyer briefly and showed some
footage of his car.  Providing their were no tricks or hidden fuel tanks,
it appears to work.

 Did the Cold Fusion magazine publish anything about him
yet ? >

not yet, but I believe they will in a future issue.  In a brief email from
Jed Rothwell (contributing editor for Cold fusion), he inferred that he had
spoken with him and finds him to be a sincere and dedicated individual.

> 
> Yes Sonoluminescence is a very interesting phenomen.
> Is it possible to make a light source out of it, which needs very low  
> power ? But probably first the effect which produces this light must be  
> researched enough to understand the effect and to increase the output...

I don't know that the light would be a useful thing, but it is certainly a
fascinating and potentially insightful clue to some amazing new physics.

> > The other device I spoke of earlier (the plasma steam generator) while it
> > doesn't seem to ultrasonically agitate the water molecules, is interesting
> > since it turns the water into steam and then ionizes the hydrogen and
> > oxygen atoms and generates a plasma.  Puthoff has speculated that this may
> 
> How is this kind of plasma producing power then ? Are the ions seperated  
> via magnets and charge some capacitor plates or how is it done ?

It is just producing excess heat, from which they can drive a
turbine/generator combo I believe.  You might want to take a look at the
patent.  It was granted in 1988.  US patent no. 4,772,775

The inventor, Samual Leach, believes (I feel incorrectly) that additional
energy is arriving through "oxidation of the electrode material".  I doubt
that very much.  I have been talking with the Canadian company who have
recently acquired the Canadian rights to the device, but they don't know
much either, other than they were sufficiently convinced from evidence in
a video tape that they bought into the idea.  They have promised to send
me additional info as it becomes available.

> > Interesting times, are they not?
> 
> Right. Next big revolution in the technology age will be Free Energy now  
> living in the information age... :)

I used to fear for the future of my children, but lately I have become
much more optimistic!  Let's hope it happens soon and doesn't have too many
negative effects (I'm just glad I don't work for the hydro or oil companies).

regards

> 
Hi Stephan,

to answer your last questions...

> When was this article published in which issue of Cold Fusion ?
> 
this article appeared in the June 1994 issue (Vol. 1 No. 2) of "Cold Fusion" 
You really should try to get a subscription to this magazine, at the very
least try to get your school library to subscribe.  The address is:

Wayne Green Inc.
"COLD FUSION" Magazine
70 Route 202 North
Peterborough, NH 03458-9872

> Maybe the Methernitha device is using such a system to gain their high  
> power output... I heard that there is some Corona discharge effects  
> involved in this Wimhurst type device..
> Did you already get the MPEG movies to run from the FTP server in Finland:
> phoenix.oulu.fi in pub/free_energy ?

I took a look at one of them, but it took quite a while to transfer the
files.  It looks fascinating if it is for real.  Havew you ever seen a
Methernitha first hand?  Do they really work?


Yes, they already work for a few years now. They are just building a 30 KW unit 
with discs being about 2 meters in diameter !

I know a few people very well, who have seen it running and I will probably 
try to visit them gain this August 94 ! I was there in 1989, but at this time 
they only showed me their video tape of the machines..


> 
> > The reason I am so intrigued about this is that Harold Puthoff, (renowned
> > ZPE/vacuum researcher) suggested many years ago that one potential method
> > for extracting usable energy from the vacuum might be to utilize a cold
> > charged plasma which could exhibit a "casimir pinch effect" as he put it
> > in one of his papers.
> 
> 
> Hmm , yes I heard of him. Did he put out some new facts about the device  
> he is working on, or how did you come to this idea now ?
> 
I haven't seen any of his recent works, although he published a paper in
Physical Review A in February that explained inertia and gravity as a
vacuum field effect.  Apparently this paper has caused some
controversy...particularly since the the critics haven't been too
successful in finding major errors with it!

> Well, I am pretty busy now. Didn't you tell me about a new transistor  
> effect, using some kind of room temperatur supra conduction ?
> What about this effect, do you have more infos on this one ?

that must have been someone else...I don't recall speaking to
anyone about super conduction.

One thing that has been interesting me is a very coincidental element that
is common to 3 strange phenomenon that I have been reading about lately.
These 3 apparently unrelated devices all exhibit different energy
anomolies, but they all use water and in all 3 cases the water is
ultrasonically agitated, although in different methods.

1. The ultrasonic pump -  mechanically agitates water producing ultrasonic
pressure waves in the pump.  This pump produces more heat than can be
explained with conventional physics.

2. Meyers pulsed DC electrolysis device - this device subjects the water
to an electrostatic field, again at ultrasonic frequencies in the kHz
range, and separates hydrogen and oxygen with an alleged over unity
efficiency, or at least greater than the 60% efficiency than could be
predicted by Faraday's law.

3. Sonoluminescence - the strange phenomenon whereby water in a sperical
container subjected to ultrasonic pressures will exhibit vacuum "bubbles"
levitated in the centre of the container.  These "bubbles" emit light in
picosecond duration bursts.  No universally accepted theory has been put
forth to explain this to date, although several have been suggested. 
Julian Schwinger, nobelprize winner in 1965 for QED, has suggested a
"dynamic casimir effect" may be an explanation! (vacuum ZPE field
interaction?!)

I really think these 3 things may be somehow linked to vacuum energy. 
Follow this closely. 

The other device I spoke of earlier (the plasma steam generator) while it
doesn't seem to ultrasonically agitate the water molecules, is interesting
since it turns the water into steam and then ionizes the hydrogen and
oxygen atoms and generates a plasma.  Puthoff has speculated that this may
be one means of tapping the vacuum.  I am trying to find more about this. 
Rumour has it that it might be moving into commercial production.

Interesting times, are they not?

regards
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------





> 
>                               January 10, 1994
> 
> Report On Visit To Hydro Dynamics
> 
> 
> 
> Abstract
> 
> A Hydrosonic Pump, an excess energy device, was observed during three test
> runs. The first test was a control run to verify the calorimetry, which
> yielded a C.O.P. of 59% compared to apparent electric power, or 98% after
> adjusting for known electrical and mechanical inefficiencies. The second two
> tests both yielded massive amounts of excess heat at levels very easy to
> detect. Test 2 gave a C.O.P. of 110% compared to apparent electric power, or
> 168% adjusted; and Test 3 yielded 109% or 157% adjusted.
> 
> 
> Introduction
>  
> On January 5 and 6, 1993, we visited Jim Griggs and his
> associates at:
> 
> Hydro Dynamics Inc.
> 611 Grassdale Road, Suite B
> Cartersville, GA 30120-9001
> 
> We witnessed a series of experiments with a Hydrosonic pump. This is a brief
> report of what we saw. I can provide additional information including the
> experiment log, and a video showing equipment close-ups and the first two test
> runs.
> 
> Background
> 
> The Hydrosonic Pump is an excess energy device that physically resembles a
> pump in many ways. It appears to produce massive amounts of excess energy by
> creating bubbles in the water with ultrasound, in a process that may be
> similar to the Stringham [1] device. Whatever it is, I suspect it is related
> to light water cold fusion energy generation, and it does appear to produce
> massive amounts of heat energy reliably, on demand, for years on end, so it is
> well worth investigating. The device is described in detail in Hydro Dynamics
> sales literature and in a U.S. patent. [2] Griggs described his work at the
> Fourth International Conference on Cold Fusion (ICCF4). [3]
> 
> I will not describe the Hydrosonic pump here in detail, but I would like to
> clear up one issue that has confused many correspondents. This device is
> called a "pump" for lack of a better word. It does not actually move the water
> very much; "pump" is something of a misnomer, "stirrer" would be more
> accurate. It is a kind of rotor with holes drilled around the circumference.
> When the rotor spins rapidly, these holes apparently create ultrasonic waves
> which in turn somehow cause the effect. Because the device is not actually a
> pump, a small auxiliary pump moves the water from a feedwater tank, through
> the pipes, into the Hydrosonic pump, and out through a steam pipe or separate
> steam and condensate pipes. The pump heats the water by the stirring action,
> but under some circumstances it also creates considerably more heat than a
> motor driving a stirrer would.
> 
> This device is much larger than any conventional cold fusion device that I
> have ever witnessed, and far more practical. During one of demonstrations we
> watched yesterday, for example, over a 20 minute period, 4.80 KWH hours of
> electricity was input, and 19,050 BTUs of heat evolved, which equals 5.58 KWH,
> 117% of input. The actual input to output ratio was even better than this,
> when you take into account the inefficiencies of the electric motor.
> 
> I have been to Hydro Dynamics on three previous occasions, and my friend was
> there once. We have been generally impressed, but there have been some
> inexplicable failures, and they made an embarrassing mistake with some
> untested improperly calibrated thermocouples. On November 22, 1992 however, I
> observed a very impressive demonstration. [4] In this experiment, a 55 gallon
> steel drum filled with 200 lbs of water was used to capture steam and
> condensate. Both the water in the tank and the feedwater going into the device
> start out at room temperature, so the final mass and Delta T temperature
> increase in the water in the steel drum can be used to estimate the lower
> limit of the enthalpy generated by the pump. This is a lower bound estimate
> because a large amount of heat is lost from the pump, pipes and steel drum by
> radiation during the course of the experimental runs, which last from 15
> minutes to an hour.
> 
> The experiments we saw on January 6, 1993 were far more impressive than
> anything either of us previously witnessed.
> 
> 
> Test Procedures And Instrumentation
> 
> Here is a brief description of the test procedures. For a better understanding
> of this test, I recommend that the reader consult the Hydro Dynamics
> literature, diagrams and patents. For a serious, in depth understanding, I
> recommend you watch the video carefully. (Please note: This document is
> intended primarily for e-mail transmission, so I cannot include a diagram.)
> 
> As mentioned above, the Hydrosonic pump is a kind of rotor device. It is
> turned by an industrial three-phase AC electric motor. The motor turns the
> pump device at several thousand RPM, the pump heats up the water because of
> ordinary friction and because additional heat is generated by the mysterious
> process. In these tests, a 40 HP Lincoln brand motor was used to drive a 12
> inch Hydrosonic pump.
> 
> Before the test run begins, a 55 gallon open steel drum weighing 30.5 lb empty
> is placed on a factory weight scale. It is filled with 350 lbs of tap water.
> 
> Water is fed into the Hydrosonic pump from a 16 gallon feedwater tank. A large
> clear plastic bucket has been mounted on the top of the input feedwater tank.
> The bucket serves as a hopper. It is marked in two scales: tenth-gallons up to
> one gallon; and pounds, up to 8 lbs. (One U.S. gallon weighs 8.3 lbs.) Water
> is added in 8 pound increments from a marked plastic milk bottle. Care is
> taken to ensure that there are no air bubbles in the feedwater tank. The
> hopper makes it easy to record the flow and total water consumed. It is topped
> off to the 8 lb mark at the beginning of the test run, and the amount added
> during the run is recorded.
> 
> Water from the feedwater tank is forced through the Hydrosonic pump by a small
> auxiliary pump. The flow rate is regulated and displayed with a flowmeter.
> 
> The pump is turned on, the water is fed through it, and it rapidly grows hot.
> Within 5 or 10 minutes, all of the water fed into the pump is vaporized and
> forced out of an exhaust pipe, which is mounted about 1.5 meters above the
> floor. A large jet of steam escapes out of the pipe, sometimes billowing a
> meters or two across the room. The steam is quite hot and dangerous, if you
> were to hold your hand it for more than few seconds, you would be severely
> scalded. This machine is not anything like a laboratory test bench
> experimental unit; it is an industrial product designed for applications that
> require massive amounts of steam, like dry cleaning. The steam is dry; Griggs
> demonstrates a rough and ready factory floor technique to confirm this, which
> takes a lot of gumption: pass your hand through dry steam quickly, and you do
> not find droplets condensed on the skin. This is somewhat like passing your
> finger through the flame of a burning candle.
> 
> After 10 or 15 minutes, the machine is warmed up and the flow rate and balance
> of water in the machine is stabilized. In these tests, output was regulated by
> manually opening and closing a valve on the exhaust pipe. After the machine is
> stabilized and preparations are complete, the test run begins:
> 
> 1. A second valve at the end of the exhaust pipe is closed, which shuts off
> the steam jet for a moment. A second valve is opened, directing the steam into
> a large rubber hose. The end of the hose is firmly held at the bottom of the a
> steel drum filled with cold water. The steam swirls into the cold tap water
> and condenses, quickly raising the water temperature. The enthalpy from the
> escaping steam is captured by condensing the steam. This is a remarkably
> effective technique: virtually all of the steam condenses, capturing the
> thermal energy, and the steam jet pushes the water around with considerably
> force, which must capture most of the kinetic energy from the steam jet.
> 
> 2. At the same moment the steam jet is redirected from air to the steel drum
> full of water, a power meter is reset, so that the total electric energy
> expended in by the electric motor driving the pump is recorded from that
> moment on. The power meter prints an instantaneous reading of kilowatts every
> minute; it prints a subtotal expended kilowatt hours of power any time during
> the test on demand; and at the end, it prints the total kilowatt hours used.
> 
> 3. The water temperature in the steel drum and the instantaneous power levels
> are recorded manually every two minutes in a lab notebook. Temperature
> readings are taken at different depths and the water is stirred vigorously
> with a detached mop handle to ensure that the temperature readings are
> uniform. Because the steam is swirling into the bottom of the water, the
> bottom is 
> 
> 4. From time to time, 8 lbs of additional tap water is added to the hopper and
> recorded in the lab notebook.
> 
> 5. After a set period, 30 minutes or 1 hour, the electric power driving the
> pump is cut off. A closing temperature reading is taken. At this point, Griggs
> is in the habit of venting the remaining steam into the barrel, which raises
> the temperature 4 or 5 degrees and adds about 3 pounds of water. I think this
> extra boost of energy should not be include in the totals, because I think it
> should be classified as "latent" or "stored" energy that was captured in the
> pump and pipes before the test began. Therefore, in this report, I have used
> the closing temperature readings taken just before venting the steam, and I
> use a low estimate of the mass of water.
> 
> 6. The steel drum, which is sitting on the scale, is weighed. The total amount
> of water consumed, as measured in the hopper, is compared to the increase in
> the water in the steel drum. The numbers match closely, to within 2 or 3 lbs,
> proving that most of the steam is condensed and captured. If the steam is not
> vented in the last step, the final mass in the drum will probably be a few
> pounds less than the amount consumed, because some water will be lost to
> evaporation in the air from the surface of the water in the drum. If the steam
> is vented, the final mass in the drum might exceed the amount fed into the
> hopper by a few pounds. Where there was a measurable discrepancy, I took the
> lower figure. The BTU content of a 3 lb mass of water is negligible, in any
> case. For example, in Test 2, a 3 lb change in the mass of water would change
> the output energy computation by 0.8%.
> 
> 7. Total output energy is computed in BTUs by multiplying the mass of water
> with the temperature increase in degrees Fahrenheit. Total input energy, as
> recorded by the power meter, is compared to total output energy.
> 
> Power was monitored with a G.E. Dranetz model 808 Electric Power/Demand
> Analyzer, which was calibrated by G.E. on October 5, 1993. In previous tests,
> the Dranetz compared within a percent to a second power meter, a BMI 3030,
> which was installed in parallel. According to the Dranetz specifications, the
> maximum error at full load is 1.5%. Full load for this meter is 800 KW; power
> levels during these tests varied from 14 to 23 KW. At these lower levels,
> errors will be less than 0.5%. [5]
> 
> Temperature was measured with 2 or 3 electronic thermometers which agreed to
> within 1 deg F, and one Taylor cooking thermometer, marked in 5 deg 
> increments, which agreed with the electronic thermometers. A pyrometer is also
> used to measure water temperature and the surface temperature of the pump,
> electric motor, and pipes. The pyrometer agreed closely with the thermometers.
> The Micronta electronic thermometer began to malfunction towards the end,
> jumping from 60 deg  to 90 deg  down to 40 deg , probably because of a weak
> battery. This event proves yet again the wisdom of these experimental
> techniques and rules: use multiple instruments; use simple rough-and-ready
> backups to do "reality tests"; keep an eye on things at all times, and use
> common sense. Dennis Cravens [6] and I are both strong advocates and
> proselytizers of these principles, and Griggs personifies them.
> 
> The weight scale was checked on November 16, 1993, by the Georgia Tech team.
> They brought iron weights which they had checked on an accurate scale at Tech,
> and they determined that the Hydro Dynamics scale is correct through the full
> range of its rated capacity, up to 1,000 lbs. On January 7, Mallove and I both
> checked the calibration of the scale by standing on it.
> 
> Here are some important differences between this test and the mixed steam and
> water test I described in the November 22 report:
> 
> This was a test of steam only, not water, or mixed water and steam.
> 
> The plastic bucket hopper was added to the feedwater tank, and a new flowmeter
> was installed, allowing finer control with low flow rates. These improvements
> make it much easier to observe and record flow rates and total water consumed.
> 
> The flow rate and total amount of water consumed in these tests is much
> smaller than with the hot water and mixed hot water and steam tests. This
> makes the experiment much easier. Because the flow is so much smaller, the
> steel drum can be filled with much more water to start with; 350 lbs versus
> 200 lbs in the previous experiments. 350 lbs is enough to condense virtually
> all of the steam, as long as the output hose is held down at the bottom of the
> drum. Another great advantage of this is that the water temperature does not
> rise much in a given period of time, so that heat losses are smaller, the
> temperature is easier to measure, and the steel drum is safer to be around,
> with less danger of scalding.
> 
> 
> January 6 Tests
> 
> We witnessed three experimental runs on January 6, 1994, one in the morning
> and two that afternoon.
> 
> Test 1. A 1 hour blank run generating little or no excess heat.
> 
> Test 2. A 19 minute excess heat run.
> 
> Test 3. A 30 minute excess heat run with flow rate, pressure and other
> parameters adjusted as closely to Test 2 as possible, which generated nearly
> the same amount of excess heat per minute.
> 
> These tests showed that Griggs has considerable control over the reaction. He
> can start it and stop it on demand, even though he says he does not understand
> the deep underlying cause of the reaction.
> 
> 
> Some Considerations Regarding Input Power Computation
> 
> There are two important factors which should be kept in mind when evaluating
> the input power in these experiments:
> 
> 1. An electric motor works most efficiently at the peak ratings for which it
> was designed. When an electric motor runs at a much lower load than it was
> designed for, the difference between Apparent Power (volts times amps) and
> "True Power" becomes large. The ratio of True Power divided by Apparent power
> is known as the Power Factor (PF). This is described in many introductory
> texts on A.C. power. [7] The PF is computed automatically by the Dranetz power
> meter, and an average PF for the run is displayed.
> 
> In these tests, a 40 HP motor was used to drive a relatively small, 12 inch
> rotor, so the PF was lower than other tests I have observed, varying from 73%
> up to 84%. A 30 HP motor would be more appropriate for this pump, it would
> have yielded a higher PF.
> 
> 2. All electric motors suffer some degree of mechanical power loss. Conversion
> from electricity to rotary motion cannot be 100% efficient. The motor used in
> this test is rated at 82.5% nominal efficiency by the manufacturer. It is
> likely that the actually efficiency is somewhat less than this. Energy lost in
> the conversion appears in the form of waste heat. Motors of this size get very
> hot, and they are equipped with blowers too keep them from overheating.
> 
> Tests 2 and 3 showed excess heat even when compared to the unadjusted Apparent
> Power. In Test 2, The Coefficient of Production (C.O.P.) was 117% measured
> against the Apparent Power. However, if we take into account the relatively
> low FP (caused by the inefficiency of this large motor driving the small
> pump), and the energy lost in conversion to mechanical, rotary motion, the
> C.O.P. was closer to 170%, that is, the input to output ratio was roughly
> 1:1.7. A great deal of other energy was not accounted for, in readily apparent
> losses like radiation from the pump, which is the size of a small automobile
> engine block, and which was over 300 deg F during the run. The 117% C.O.P. is
> the most conservative, lower bound estimate that would be reasonable. This
> fact was demonstrated by Test 1, the null run. In this test, the lower bound
> C.O.P., comparing to Apparent Power, was 59%. Adjusted for FP and mechanical
> losses, the C.O.P. was 98%, which is a close balance of input and output.
> 
> 
> The Performance Window
> 
> Griggs explained that his machines have a window of performance, defined by a
> set of flow rates, pressure, speed of rotation, and so on. If you operate one
> of the machines below or above the window of that particular machine, it will
> produce little or no excess heat. He demonstrated this fact.
> 
> The pump used in these experiments was a new, experimental design, optimized
> to create steam, rather than hot water. He had not finished working out the
> range of operating parameters for it. This particular machine, unfortunately,
> suffers from a rather narrow window of performance. It works best with a flow
> rate between 0.15 and 0.25 gallons per minute, and for reasons he has not yet
> determined, it requires a relatively high input pressure. It is much more
> difficult to adjust than some of his previous models, but it has a high C.O.P.
> and it produces pure steam without a mixture of unboiled water. He expects to
> fix the narrow window requiring the finicky adjustments with a new pump which
> will be ready in a few weeks.
> 
> During the demonstrations, he had difficulty getting the machine to balance
> input water and output steam rates properly, and he had difficulty keeping the
> flow high enough. He demonstrated what happens when the flow is too low; the
> water in the narrow compartment around the spinning rotor suddenly drains off
> in what he calls "deloading," which is an explosive burst of steam after which
> the motor spins freely, drawing about 4 KW, the level you see when the pump is
> run without water. It is surprisingly difficult to fill up this particular
> experimental unit after this happens. You have to shut the output valve, fill
> it up, and gradually open the valve again. This pump was equipped with a thick
> glass porthole at the end of the outer bearing (the side away from the motor),
> allowing a view of the water sloshing around inside, which allows you to gage
> the water level in the pump. Getting the input and output flow to balance is a
> little bit like trying to adjust a hose so that it will fill a bucket with a
> hole in bottom up to a certain level, and no higher. However, once you get
> everything in balance, the machines tend to stay in balance for extended
> periods of time. An actual operating pump at a customer site is equipped with
> preset flow control and pressure control valves. Most operating pumps are
> bigger and they have wider "windows;" for example, an ideal flow might be
> between 5 and 7 gallons per minute, which is much easier to ensure than the
> 0.15 and 0.25 of this experimental unit.
> 
> When the pump is too full, or some other "performance window" operating
> parameter is not right, the pump generates exactly as much heat as you would
> expect any other stirring device to generate, according to the classic
> experiments of J.P. Joule. When the correct flow and pressures are achieved,
> the effect turns on, and this fact is easy to observe. The flow rate of water
> going in remains constant, and the cloud of steam coming out remains the same,
> but the electric power draw drops dramatically, by 20% to 50%, say from 23 to
> 14 KW. The sound the machine makes also changes noticeably. Sometime the drop
> in power draw will fluctuate around, as the effect fades in and out, but it
> will soon stabilize and the machine will go on producing the same amount of
> steam as it did before, with far less electricity than it used previously, for
> hours or days.
> 
> When the machine is not producing any excess heat, the power draw kilowatt
> numbers on the Dranetz are proportional to the flow, increasing as the input
> flow valve is opened, decreasing as it is shut, just as you would expect. When
> the excess heat effect turns on, input power no longer changes as much in
> response to flow adjustments.
> 
> 
> Results
> 
> TEST 1    January 6, 1994 11:30 a.m.
> 
> When we arrived, Griggs explained to me that he was having trouble boosting
> the flow rate and maintaining pressure on the unit, so he was not getting a
> measurable effect. However, he had managed to balance input and output, and to
> bring the machine into a steady state, so we decided to let it run for an hour
> producing little or no excess heat, as a control or "blank" test run of the
> calorimetry. The flow rate was below the window, at 0.05 gallons per minute.
> 
> Results were as follows:
> 
> Starting mass and temperature of water in steel drum: 350 lbs, 55 deg F.
> Water in input hopper also 55 deg F.
> 
> Ending mass and temperature in steel drum: 376 lbs, 127 deg F
> 
> Water temperature Delta T: 72 deg F
> 
> Energy added to water: 72 deg F x 376 lbs = 27,072 BTUs, which equals 7.93 KWH
> 
> It is important to remember that all of the water that ended up in the steel
> drum was tap water starting at 55 deg F. Ambient temperature was slightly
> higher, at 63 deg F, but this large mass of water could would not absorbed any
> significant amount of heat from ambient in spite of the 8 deg F difference,
> because it was heated above ambient by the pump 6 minutes into the test.
> 
> Dranetz input power: 13.46 KWH
> Dranetz PF: 73%
> 
> C.O.P. computations (C.O.P. is output energy divided by input expressed as a
> percentage) --
> 
>                                    Input KWH      C.O.P.
> Apparent                           13.46               59%
> Adjusted for PF                         9.83           81%
> Adjusted for PF and Motor efficiency    8.12           98%
> 
> Conclusion: This is close to a balance of input and output. Because there must
> have been significant radiant losses, with no excess heat I expect the C.O.P.
> would be lower than 98%, so these results might indicate a small effect.
> 
> 
> TEST 2    January 6, 1994 3:00 p.m.
> 
> In the afternoon, after the machine turned on and warmed up for 5 or 10
> minutes, Griggs and the others tinkered with the input and output flow valves
> and some other parameters, and after about 20 minutes in all, they announce
> that the flow was steady at 0.20 gallons per minute, and the power draw
> kilowatts had fallen, so the effect was turned on. The valve venting the steam
> outside was shut, the valve leading into the steel drum was opened, and we
> collected the steam for 19 minutes, 40 seconds. The run was terminated when a
> circuit breaker in another part of the building shut down the controls. The
> main power feed did not fail, but it is held on by solenoid actuators, which
> opened up. The recording Dranetz meter has a battery back up, so no data was
> lost. All other data collection is by stopwatch and pen on paper. (Events like
> this remind us that sometimes, the old, simple ways of doing science are
> best.)
> 
> Results were as follows:
> 
> Starting mass and temperature of water in steel drum: 350 lbs, 53 deg F.
> Ending mass and temperature in steel drum: 381 lbs, 103 deg F
> 
> Water temperature Delta T: 50 deg F
> 
> Energy added to water: 50 deg F x 381 lbs = 19,050 BTUs, which equals 5.58 KWH
> 
> Dranetz input power: 4.80 KWH
> Dranetz PF: 84%
> 
> C.O.P. computations --
> 
>                                    Input KWH      C.O.P.
> Apparent                           4.80           117%
> Adjusted for PF                         4.03           138%
> Adjusted for PF and Motor efficiency    3.33           168%
> 
> Conclusion: excess heat was detected at levels far beyond any reasonable error
> limits for the instrumentation used. If the equipment had been performing the
> same as it did in Test 1, the final water temperature would have been closer
> to 80 deg F than 103 deg F. This is computed as follows: 4.80 KWH Apparent is
> delivered to motor, adjusted for PF and efficiency, would have created 3.33
> KWH of heat, which equals 11,372 BTUs, which would have raised the 381 lb mass
> of water by 30 deg F, but it went up 50 deg F, instead. I am certain that even
> my kitchen cooking thermometer can detect the difference between 80 deg F and
> 103 deg F.
> 
> This test ran for one-third the time of Test 1. The flow rate was 0.20 gallons
> per minute, compared to 0.05 g.p.m. in Test 1. The improved PF was because the
> motor was carrying a greater load with the greater flow rate.
> 
> To look at it another way: the rate of energy generation was 10.00 KW input to
> the pump, 16.74 KW out; the excess was 6.74 KW, or 0.4 MJ per minute.
> 
> TEST 3    4:04 p.m.
> 
> Test 3 ran normally for 30 minutes.
> 
> Results were as follows:
> 
> Starting mass and temperature of water in steel drum: 350 lbs, 53 deg F.
> Ending mass and temperature in steel drum: 392 lbs, 122 deg F
> 
> Water temperature Delta T: 69 deg F
> 
> Energy added to water: 69 deg F x 392 lbs = 27048 BTUs, which equals 7.92 KWH
> 
> Dranetz input power: 7.26 KWH
> Dranetz PF: 84%
> 
> C.O.P. computations --
> 
>                                    Input KWH      C.O.P.
> Apparent                           7.26           109%
> Adjusted for PF                         6.10           130%
> Adjusted for PF and Motor efficiency    5.03           157%
> 
> 
> Conclusion: nearly as much heat as Test 2. Again, the results are far above
> any possible experimental error.
> 
> 
> Footnotes
>        
> 1. R. Stringham, "Cavitation Induced Micro-Fusion," ICCF4 paper C 3.9
> 
> 2. J. Griggs, U.S. Patent Number 5,188,090, Feb 23, 1993, Apparatus for
> heating fluids
> 
> 3. J. Griggs, "A Brief Introduction to the Hydrosonic Pump and the Associated
> 'Excess Energy' Phenomenon," ICCF4 unnumbered paper. This will appear in the
> full ICCF4 Proceedings, and it is available in from Hydrodynamics
> 
> 4. J. Rothwell, "Brief Report on November 22 Demonstration of Griggs Device,"
> CFRA
> 
> 5. General Electric Corp, Dranetz Series 808 operator manual equipment
> specifications
> 
> 6. D. Cravens, "Factors Affecting the Success Rate of Heat Generation in CF
> Cells," ICCF4 paper C 3.12
> 
> 7. V. Valkenburgh, "Basic Electricity, Revised Edition," Hayden Books
> 
> 

 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
Griggs is now installing new test equipment including a dynamometer. He
is working with the retired head of Mechanical Engineering at Georgia
Tech (second only to M.I.T. in the U.S.). They hope to finish in month
or two. I hope these tests will be considered definative proof.

___________________________________________________________________________

Betreff    : More About Hydrosonic Pump
Datum      : Di 30.08.94, 11:09  (erhalten: 30.08.94)
Groesse    : 4478 Bytes
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
To: >INTERNET:harti@shb.contrib.de (Stefan Hartmann)


                              August 29, 1994

More About Hydrosonic Pump

Some months ago I described the Hydrosonic Pump, an excess energy device
invented and patented by James Griggs, of Cartersville, GA. See U.S. Patent
number 5,188,090. This device produces massive quantities of excess heat
energy at kilowatt levels for industrial applications. I believe it is a cold
fusion (CF) device in which the CF effect is triggered by ultrasound, but
perhaps it taps some other exotic, unknown source of energy. I am quite sure
it is not a chemical, mechanical or electric heater, because it exceeds the
limits of those sources thousands of times over.

Griggs has upgraded and improved his instrumentation, data collection, and the
test rig equipment frame. On August 26, 1994 I visited Griggs for a few hours
where I observed some test runs and learned about the new test equipment. Here
is a brief summary of the changes:

Instrumentation & Data Collection. Griggs has added a dynamometer to measure
the mechanical energy output by the electric motor. It is a "Lebow" brand
Eaton torque sensor model 1805-5K. Capacity is 5,000 inch pounds at 5,000
R.P.M.; maximum speed is 20,000 R.P.M. The controller box is model 7540. I
observed a torque calibration in which a 20 lb weight was hung 30 inches from
the shaft on the input side. The dynamometer is much smaller than I imagined
it would be; I neglected to measure it, but it is about the size of box of
tissues. A new precision electronic flowmeter manufactured by Sponsler Company
has been added. Three thermocouples have been added to the pipes leading into
and out of the Pump, and four have been added to the 55 gallon steel drum that
is used as a heat sink. An IBM compatible computer is now used to collect and
process data, running DVT control software under Windows.

I am glad to say that all previously installed instrumentation is still in
place. This reinforces the measurements, it serves as a superb cross-check.
You can still perform manual data collection to supplement and verify the
automatic electronic data collection. For example, you can measure the flow
rate in gallons per minute by timing the fall in water level in the marked
plastic receptacle, and they still weigh the entire mass of cooling water and
condensate on the 1,000 lb scale at the end of each experimental run. The
thermocouple readings can easily be verified by taking the temperature of the
water in the steel drum with a thermometer and pyrometer. Thus, if an error
creeps into the computer data, it will be spotted instantly.

Test Rig. The test rig has been rebuilt to allow easier access to the
components. Adjustable legs and bubble levels now ensure that the rig remains
level and straight. Safety has been enhanced by improvements like a faucet on
the steel drum.

Griggs has been working with a consulting engineering firm in Atlanta and with
a retired professor of mechanical engineering. In my opinion his
instrumentation and test procedures have gone from Excellent to Superb. The
dynamometer readings fully confirm the accuracy and precision of the electric
power meter readings. During my brief stay on Friday I observed only low
power, low excess energy runs that produced 108 to 115 C.O.P.s (15% excess
energy). I was not able to observe the type of a high power steam condensation
run that produces large excesses (140 to 160 C.O.P.)  However, I now have no
doubt that the input power measurements from last year were generally correct,
and the previous high excess heat data that I reported was valid. The only
measurement open to question previously was input power, and the readings from
the old instruments are confirmed with the new equipment. There is now no
longer any doubt that this machine produces multi-kilowatt excess heat on
demand indefinitely. (Some units have operated continuously for years at
customer sites.) As far as I know, this is the world's first practical excess
energy machine that has been installed at customer sites; tested carefully
with a full range of precision equipment; and verified to work by professional
engineers.


Empfaenger : harti@shb.contrib.de
Betreff    : More About Hydrosonic Pump
Datum      : Di 30.08.94, 17:49  (erhalten: 31.08.94)
Groesse    : 1399 Bytes
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
To: >INTERNET:harti@shb.contrib.de

You asked:

     "Doesn't he now get 160 % anymore..."

Yes, but not last Friday with that particular rotor. He was running at low
power mode producing hot water, and he was having difficulty sustaining a
high power, full steam run. He was experimenting with a new rotor, which was
not successful. This week or next he will reinstall one of the older rotors
that works well at high power and we should see 160% again.

Many of the tests I observed last year were also low power water heating
tests as well. The hotter the machine runs, the more energy it produces.


     "...due to the better test equipment"

Nothing to do with the new test equipment. I saw these low power runs last
year too, with the same results.


     "At 115 % one could say, it is still measurement errors...."

That is not possible. The power meter is within 2%, the dynamometer is
rated to within 1% and we are throwing away a few kilowatts of heat lost
to radiation at the pump surface. We do not even try to account for radiation
losses, the excess is what is taken *after radiation losses* from the pump,
pipes and steel drum. There is plenty more excess we have not tried to
capture.


     "Is somebody putting money into this area to rebuild a simualar
     machine to verify independantly these results?"

No, not to my knowledge.


=============================================================================
end of part 1/2 of the free energy newsletter
=============================================================================
## CrossPoint v3.02 ##
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenharti cudfnStefan cudlnHartmann cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.28 / Scott Mueller /  Re: Future Energy Foundation
     
Originally-From: scott@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Scott Hazen Mueller)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Future Energy Foundation
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 1994 04:23:08 GMT
Organization: At Home; Salida, CA

In article <horst_bob-270994095453@130.252.151.52> horst_bob@tandem.com
(Robert Horst) writes:
>Someone recently suggested that our plan to send Tom to Georgia might
>lead to even more ambitious plans (sorry, I lost the original post).

While I would hardly write the idea off, I would wait until we've seen
whether it will actually work once.

>It is likely that our donations will be greater than Tom needs for the
>trip.

That does depend.  While it's true that if everyone who reads this group
(14000 or so according to the last [guaranteed inaccurate, and only two
sig figs {BIG error bars!}] Arbitron I saw) sent in $20, we'd have a lot
of money, I don't think we'll achieve nearly that kind of penetration.
I'll be seriously surprised if we pass $1000.

>for other purposes, yet avoid having to send in separate checks for
>each individual idea.  There have already been several suggestions
>that would require additional funds, such as sending someone else to
>accompany Tom.

One thing that concerns me is whether their would be tax complications
for the participants.  Given that we're conducting this in a very public
forum, we do need to be sensible about what we do.

>For now, I will call the organization the FEF, for "Future Energy
>Foundation," or "Fusion Experimental Fund," or even "Free Energy
>Follies," depending on your viewpoint.

I nominate "The College of Sci.Physics.Fusion".  Sure, it's unwieldy, but
it's got precedent.

>Votes may be either posted, or sent directly to the secretary via Email.

Votes should only be emailed.  Hardly anyone wants to read

I vote aye.

Me too!

Me three!

>5.  Yearly dues are to be ($50?, lower student rates?, $20 min with
>higher donations encouraged?).  Non-US members may have reduced
>rates to compensate for the costs of currency exchange and postage.

Anyone know someone (attorney, accountant) who knows about club dues and
the like?  Obviously, not every club has to jump through all of the
legal hoops, but one that gives people a few hundred dollars here and
there might.

            \scott

-- 
Scott Hazen Mueller scott@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG or (tandem|ub-gate)!zorch!scott
Mail fusion-request@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG for emailed sci.physics.fusion digests.

cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenscott cudfnScott cudlnMueller cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.28 / A Rivero /  Re: Tom's proposed trip...
     
Originally-From: rivero@sol.unizar.es (Alejandro Rivero)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Tom's proposed trip...
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 1994 11:29:15 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

> Originally-From: marki@netcom.com (Mark N. Iverson)
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> Its been quite a while since contributing, but been real busy...
> seems I can only get onto USENET once a week these days...
> 
> Geez, ever try going to the source?  What a novel idea...
...
> 
> 
> I took the liberty of calling Mr. Griggs and had a very nice,
> open discussion with him...this was about a week ago, so the memory 
> is a bit old, but some of the points touched on were:
> 
So when Jed says "just now" he refers exactly to "now"
...
> 
>     - he has recently obtained much better and more thorough data
>       acquisition capabilities, including a dynamometer so 
>       they could monitor output (horsepower/torque) directly from
>       the shaft.
(this question of the dinamometer puzzles me, could someone tell
me -even privatelly id it is trivial- which is the translation to
spanish??)
> 
>     - I gave him a brief summary of USENET, and mentioned that there
>       was a suggestion of sending someone down to look things over.
> 
>     - he was very open to the visit by some USENET person.
>
Probably Mr Grigs would be interestied on seeing the generated traffic
in the net. I suggest that Tom or other visitor would make a search in
the archive of old postings and produce a nice printout for Griggs.
 
>     - I suggested that we could come up with an informal "research 
> 
> now that I've picked up the ball (or hot potatoe, depending on
> your perspective), who wants it next?
> 
> --mark
> 
> 
                                             Alejandro


Jed sayd:
> customers. He has let lots of other people in. I should point out that Jim is
> out of town right now anyway. I don't know when he will be back.
>  
> Why not pick someone who lives in Georgia? Save travel expenses. Surely
> someone reading this forum knows a competent thermal engineer in Atlanta. I
> know a bunch -- the people who have been out to visit Jim. In the fullness of
> time I expect they will write reports for public consumption. When they do I
> will quote them here. Why not wait for that?
>  
> - Jed

cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenrivero cudfnAlejandro cudlnRivero cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.27 / Tom Droege /  Re: Send Tom & Chuck
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Send Tom & Chuck
Date: 27 Sep 1994 22:42:56 GMT
Organization: fermilab

In article <36a436$lep@overload.lbl.gov>, bks@s27w007.pswfs.gov
(Bradley K. Sherman) says:
>
>In article <940927132438_76570.2270_HHB79-1@CompuServe.COM> 76570.2270@
ompuserve.com (Eugene Mallove) writes:
>>...
>>I suggest that it would be a good idea to send *two* people: Chuck Harrison 
>>AND Tom Droege. ...
>
>I think we have the makings of a deal here.  Sci.physics.fusion will
>pay for Tom Droege; Jed Rothwell, Eugene Mallove et. al  will pay
>for Chuck Harrison.  (If both are willing and a common inspection
>of the Griggs device can be arranged.)
>
>Droege and Harrison can either file a joint report or separate reports
>to s.p.f as they see fit.
>
>    --bks
>
>-- 
>Bradley K. Sherman                  Computer Scientist
>Dendrome Project                    510-559-6437  FAX: -6440
>Institute of Forest Genetics        bks@s27w007.pswfs.gov  
>P.O. Box 245, Berkeley, CA 94701    http://s27w007.pswfs.gov/People/bks.html

I have corresponded with Chuck Harrison extensively in the past.  There
is nothing in this correspondence to indicate that Chuck is other than
an honest, objective observer.  The above seems to indicate that Chuck 
is "under the influence of" Gene and Jed.  I have no evidence that that
is true.  

The only objection that I have to the two of us going to Cartersville
is that we are both mostly electronic types.  Better a combination of
one Academic/Theory and one Practical/Engineer.  We don't know what we
might be presented with so better to go with one person to read the flute 
music, and one to crawl around in the muck.  So perhaps one each
of cloumn A and B.

		A  			B
            Dale Bass              Chuck Harrison   
	    Dick Blue              Tom Droege
            Douglas Morrison       Jorge Stolfi

Many others from this group could be listed.  I just don't have stuff 
in front of me now to make up a list.  	I am, however, greatly amused by
Jed's repeated mention of an HVAC engineer.  Not to knock the profession,
but we want to uncover a subtile effect that the world has missed.  We 
do not need to bend duct work, or route pipes.  We need experts who 
understand the basic physics of heat, and experts in measurement. 

Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.27 / Bradley Sherman /  Re: Send Tom & Chuck
     
Originally-From: bks@s27w007.pswfs.gov (Bradley K. Sherman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Send Tom & Chuck
Date: 27 Sep 1994 21:50:30 GMT
Organization: Dendrome, A Genome Database for Forest Trees

In article <940927132438_76570.2270_HHB79-1@CompuServe.COM> 76570.2270@c
mpuserve.com (Eugene Mallove) writes:
>...
>I suggest that it would be a good idea to send *two* people: Chuck Harrison 
>AND Tom Droege. ...

I think we have the makings of a deal here.  Sci.physics.fusion will
pay for Tom Droege; Jed Rothwell, Eugene Mallove et. al  will pay
for Chuck Harrison.  (If both are willing and a common inspection
of the Griggs device can be arranged.)

Droege and Harrison can either file a joint report or separate reports
to s.p.f as they see fit.

    --bks

-- 
Bradley K. Sherman                  Computer Scientist
Dendrome Project                    510-559-6437  FAX: -6440
Institute of Forest Genetics        bks@s27w007.pswfs.gov  
P.O. Box 245, Berkeley, CA 94701    http://s27w007.pswfs.gov/People/bks.html
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenbks cudfnBradley cudlnSherman cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.27 / Gary Steckly /  Re: RE: Motor starting torque
     
Originally-From: gsteckly@clark.dgim.doc.ca (Gary Steckly)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: RE: Motor starting torque
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 94 20:07:44 GMT
Organization: Industry Canada

In article <9409231413.AA32296@pilot1.cl.msu.edu> blue@pilot.msu.edu
(Richard A Blue) writes:
>From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
>Subject: RE: Motor starting torque
>Date: Sat, 24 Sep 1994 00:12:56 GMT

>Thanks, to Marshall Dudley for his post on synchronous motors.  I have
>never been sure from what Jed Rothwell has told us what motor type is
>involved. 

I can understand how Richard missed the fact that the motor in question was a 
3-phase induction motor.  Jed deliberately hid that fact amidst all the 
discussion on the intricacies of calculating power factors involved with 3 
phase induction motors...the Dranetz saga etc.  Nowhere in his posts did he 
actually state that that is the type of motor Griggs used. He deliberately hid 
that fact in the full text accounts of the vist with Griggs...knowing full 
well that nobody would read the entire article.  Jed is obviously tryng  to 
mislead us by hiding key information.

(I think I am beginning to see why Jed is losing his patience)

regards

Gary


cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudengsteckly cudfnGary cudlnSteckly cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.27 / Doug Shade /  Ode to Cold (trivial/hummor)
     
Originally-From: rxjf20@email.sps.mot.com (Doug Shade)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Ode to Cold (trivial/hummor)
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 1994 21:17:19 GMT
Organization: Motorola LICD

Ode to Cold

The saddest part of every day,
when the reader queue goes empty.
No more SCI.FUSION.FUN.
No more 'discussions' of enthalpy.

So long Dale.
Goodnight Jed.
No more arguments,
about what was said.

So 'til tomorrow's 
morning light....
I can barely wait to login,
to SCI.FUSION.FIGHT

Doug Shade
rxjf20@email.sps.mot.com
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenrxjf20 cudfnDoug cudlnShade cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.27 / Barry Merriman /  Why not just buy/rent Tom  D. a Griggs Device?
     
Originally-From: barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Why not just buy/rent Tom  D. a Griggs Device?
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 94 23:48:39 GMT
Organization: UCLA, Mathematics Department

In article <36979k$fmk$1@mhadf.production.compuserve.com> Jed Rothwell  
<72240.1256@CompuServe.COM> writes:
> It is very compact and easy to work with and the rotors are cheap.
>  
> - Jed

Is there a small scale version of the Griggs device? If one
could be purchased (or rented) for < $1000, and takes up less room than,
say, a refrigerator, I'm sure we could raise enough money
to obtain one for Tom (at least short term), and let him experiment on it
in his basement (should be room, now that he can move out
the P&F setup).

If there is the possibility of buying/renting one for some experimenter
in this group (Droege, Bass, etc..) or other, I'd be willing
to chip in $50 dollars for that effort.

Seems like Griggs should be open to this arrangment, as he could
earn a grand off it as well (if he has a spare device sitting
around, or a loaner).



--
Barry Merriman
UCLA Dept. of Math
UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)


cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.28 / John Logajan /  Re: Jed, you should help in the visit
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@mirage.skypoint.net (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Jed, you should help in the visit
Date: 28 Sep 1994 01:34:50 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Jed Rothwell (72240.1256@CompuServe.COM) wrote:
: I suppose I would select John Logajan, Paul Koloc, Chuck Harrison, Gary
: Steckly, Bill Page, Scott Hazen Mueller or Thomas Zemanian.

Thanks for the vote of confidence, but I agree that without bringing
enough equipment for a new paradigm of measurement technique, nothing
is really going to be settled.  I think resonance and reflected power
are issues, or are apparent issues.  I have no insight into how
to resolve those particular issues -- at least using simple to install
methods.

I take all Jed's measurments at face value.  I don't know if the
dynameter or power meter could be fooled, and I don't have a simple
method to independently verify their readings.

Tom says he doesn't have a method in mind to independently verify them
either.  So nothing is going to be resolved.

Don't let me rain on anybody's parade, however.  If Griggs is willing,
send anybody you'all want.

--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com  --  612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA -
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.28 / David Davies /  Re: Fading: the plots
     
Originally-From: drd851@huxley.anu.edu.au (David R Davies)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fading: the plots
Date: 28 Sep 1994 18:01:57 +1000
Organization: Australian National University

c1prasad@watson.ibm.com (prasad) writes:

>In article <3670i1$kfq@bmerhc5e.bnr.ca>, schow@bnr.ca (Stanley T.H. Chow) writes:
>|>...
>|> For the case of cold fusion (for the lack of a better name), clearly
>|> not everyone knows how to do it. It is also clear that even the people
>|> who think they do cannot reproduce at will. In these situations, I
>|> think the normal procedure is to try to nail down the theory and 
>|> patents, then publish. Why would anyone publish partial results, and
>|> possibly letting someone else get the "key" patent?

>AFAIK, all that the over-unity folks are getting to do today, and this
>should include the CF people, is to file patents on (a) specific devices
>that are claimed to give the excess energy, (b) specific processes based
>on wild/hypothetical theories that the inventors like to think their
>devices work on.

>Patents specifically of type (b) are more than likely to die by obsoletion,
>when the real physics becomes known (if it does). I'm quite confident this
>would include several CF patents that insist that CF is due to specific
>fusion reactions.  Several "free energy" patents are much worse than this.

>Type (a) patents might just survive.  After all, if someone (X) proves
>that CF/Griggs'_pump/Newman's_motor works on new theory T, not what
>the original patentee thought it was.  I'm inclined to favor X getting
>"key" patents and a major chunk of the royalties, possibly more than
>the device guys, simply because the devices are more likely than not
>accidental successes, not unlike the Coke bottle falling on the little
>guy in the movie "The Gods Must Be Crazy!"  [ you might say I'm not being
>kind...;) ]

I'd say you were off the planet. Do you think that only reviewers and
critics should get royalties for works of art? What if there are several
theories that equally explain the result? Are theoretical ideas now more 
important than the reality of an actual working device?

Can you ever prove a theory true?


Cheers,

dave
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudendrd851 cudfnDavid cudlnDavies cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Thu Sep 29 04:37:45 EDT 1994
------------------------------
1994.09.29 / Geoff Chiddell /  Sonoluminescence ,Again?
     
Originally-From: uc660@freenet.Victoria.BC.CA (Geoff P. Chiddell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Sonoluminescence ,Again?
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 1994 03:08:33 GMT
Organization: The Victoria Freenet Association (VIFA), Victoria, B.C., Canada


Hi, 

This the newsgroup where I saw a posting on Sonoluminescence?

A fellow inter-Netter says there is an interesting article on the subject
in the journal, PHYSICS TODAY (Sept 1994) the current issue.

Enjoy reading.  I hope to see that article soon myself.  Evidently the
phenomenon remains pretty weird stuff.
-- 
Geoff Chiddell UC660   (UC660@FREENET.VICTORIA.BC.CA)

"There are more things in heaven and earth...than are dreamt of
in your philosophy" - William Shakespeare's Hamlet
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenuc660 cudfnGeoff cudlnChiddell cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.29 / A Rivero /  RE: fusion bibligraphy, c v -c
     
Originally-From: rivero@sol.unizar.es (Alejandro Rivero)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: fusion bibligraphy, c v -c
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 1994 10:59:51 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

> Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
> 
> incorrect article cases or misplaced Umlauts. Why do I go on about this mess 
> of a book? Maybe because I wasted $20. But it stands in my collection of books 
> on 'cold fusion'. I have them all except the Peat (out of print) and Fox, yet
> to come but ordered.
> 

This remembers me a thing. Has anyone got/read a book called
"the dark secrets of physics" or someting so, form Ed Teller?
It is relatively new (1991, post-cold fusion era) so I wonder if there
could be some data of interest in the book.

Anyone has read it and can post a comment?


						Alejandro Rivero

cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenrivero cudfnAlejandro cudlnRivero cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.29 / Harry Conover /  Re: Future Energy Foundation
     
Originally-From: conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Future Energy Foundation
Date: 29 Sep 1994 06:10:19 GMT
Organization: The Internet Access Company

Robert Horst (horst_bob@tandem.com) wrote:
: Someone recently suggested that our plan to send Tom to Georgia might
: lead to even more ambitious plans (sorry, I lost the original post).
: This could lead to an entirely new type of distributed organization.
: Here are some thoughts on how we might proceed.

: It is likely that our donations will be greater than Tom needs for the
: trip.  We could use the excess to establish a fund which could then
: be used in other efforts to advance the understanding of cold fusion
: (or whatever is causing the apparent excess energy). If we send in
: slightly larger checks, we can establish a fund that could be used
: for other purposes, yet avoid having to send in separate checks for
: each individual idea.  There have already been several suggestions
: that would require additional funds, such as sending someone else to
: accompany Tom.

: For now, I will call the organization the FEF, for "Future Energy
: Foundation," or "Fusion Experimental Fund," or even "Free Energy
: Follies," depending on your viewpoint.  We would join the FEF by
: paying in dues, then vote on the best way to spend the money.  We
: might vote to send our members to investigate other CF claims, or
: might use funds to purchase equipment/materials to aid an
: experiment we believe to be important.

Let's not get too carried away with this.  After all, this event
is somewhat of a singularity, with support originating from people
having an assortment of interest in the matter.  You're unlikely
to come across anything that command this kind of mixed interest
(energy, fusion, physics, credibility, humor, humbug, fraud) in 
ten or even twenty years.

I believe that your organizational efforts, although well intended,
are premature.  

                                    Harry C.


cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenconover cudfnHarry cudlnConover cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.29 / A Rivero /  Re: Free Energy Newsletter and similar postings.
     
Originally-From: rivero@sol.unizar.es (Alejandro Rivero)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Free Energy Newsletter and similar postings.
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 1994 13:11:08 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Being new to the list, I dont know how if all the so called free
energy discussions affect to the group bandwitch and if they are of 
general interest. Speaking for myself, I would like to underline the
points I see fitting here, aso the posters of such kind of info can
decide if post full notes, post URLs or pointers to more information,
or not to post here.

My point is that Im reading this newsgroup for information on fusion
experiences cold or hot, and related materials using fusion
technology or sharing techniques. Im not looking here for 
energy or ambiental problems, as they are other groups here, but I 
like to have short news about what on these fields happens to be
related to fusion. For me, the problems of energy, polution,
food, etc are political ones: science has WORKING proposals for
all them, only limitation being money, which is not Nature invention.

Well, lets take for example this actual posting from Stefan: It is
about cero-resistence materials. Confinament and aceleration in such
kind of materials could (I dont bet) be a method to get fusion
in warm or cold temperatures. So Stefan has a good point sending
here THIS PART of his newsletter. But lets see what information 
is really contained.

> Originally-From: harti@shb.contrib.de (Stefan Hartmann)
> Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,alt.paranet.science,alt.paran
t.ufo,sci.bio,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.particle
The number of cross-postings seems a little excesive. a.p.s and a.p.u are 
likely to coincide, every newssystem carryinf s.p.f. and spp is likely
to carry s.p also. So information no pertinent to the group could be
given as a pointer, even as an URL, so people using www reader can jump
directly.
> Subject: Free Energy Newsletter part 2/2
The subject is good enough to a automatic news processor to get it. Good.
> 
> The following article appears in the June 1994 monthly technical
> edition of Superconductivity News (Vol. 6, No. 42).
> 
OK. Full references.
> William Jay Fogal, president of Quick Chek Industries (Martinez, GA)
> has invented and patented an electronic device for which he has made
> very broad claims.  Others learning about the device have further
...
> 
> Fogal is not claiming he has invented a room temperature
> superconductor.  What he has invented is either completely fatuous or
...
>
Two first long parragraphs happen without references to fusion processes.
If the post has been sent here thinking on his relevence, some
note would be added near the headers.

Lets extract the could-be relevant info here:
 
> Fogal says his charged barrier semiconductor device allows electrons
> to flow without resistance (i.e., as in superconductors) at room
> temperature.  He claims the device demonstrates a very high AC voltage

> capacitor.  The first base plate member will create a transverse
> electric field that is known as a hall effect in the base plate member
> of the semiconductor crystal.  The ratio of the transverse electric
 
> The hall effect of the electrolytic capacitor, in relation to the
> position on the crystal lattice, will force electron angular spin in
> the same direction and electron flow to the top of the conduction
> bands in the lattice.  The magnetic flux and the density of the
 
> Since the angular spin and the flow of the electrons are in the same
> direction, due to the influence of the electromagnetic field, the
> electron lattice interaction factor does not come into play.  The
> electron wave density is greater and the mobility of the electron flow
 
> Think of the conduction bands in a crystal lattice as a highway.
> Electrons in the free state will move along this highway.  The only
> difference is the electron angular spin can be in different
> directions.  With the electrons spinning in different directions, the
> electrons would travel on different lanes of the highway and
> collisions can occur.  The scattering and the collision of the

Note that all the Hall stuff seems close to a divulgation
article about it. Probably a simply pointer to Sci Am or to the
original papers could be more useful. But no objections can be raised
to this. It is always good to have such expositions filed around.
I remember a transparency image of the electrons spinning and bouncing
in the interior wall of the conductor, and it was very suggestive.


Now the invention part: 
> electron lattice interaction.  If we could make the electrons move in
> one direction, and also spin in the same direction, then we could have
> more traffic electrons (on the highway) without having the resistance
> or the collisions.  We could put a barrier between the lanes on the
> highway.  But, the electrons could still spin in different directions.
> But, what if we could charge this barrier?!  Turn this barrier into an
> electromagnetic field!  An electromagnetic field in one direction.  A
> one pole electromagnet!  A hall effect magnetic field.  This one pole
> electromagnetic field would make almost all of the electrons spin in
> the same direction.  Because the electrons are a negative charge and
> the electromagnetic field has a negative charge, the electrons travel
> in unison and then we could have more electrons on the highway, and
> the electron travel could be faster.
 
> March 1, 1991 and awarded No. 5,196,809, titled "High gain, low
> distortion, faster switching transistor," on March 23, 1993.  The
 
> Prototype radios and computer modems have been fabricated employing
> the device for demonstration purposes.  Fogal emphasizes the noise
> reduction aspects of his semiconductor.

Until here, the description could be even useful.
But now come some absurd claims:
> Thomas E. Bearden (Huntsville, AL) believes Fogal's semiconductor
> represents a true overunity electrical device.  "Electromagnetics is
> over 100 years old; many of its assumptions are flat wrong," Bearden
> told us.  He relates the way the Fogal semiconductor works to the way
> heat pumps function, but says it takes it one step beyond.  A Fogal
 
> Bearden added that, based on endurance load tests on the Fogal
> semiconductor, they are led to the firm conclusion that the chip
> actually stops the longitudinal flow of electrons, strips them of
> their energy, and passes the pure energy along without resistance.  In
> this regard he says it behaves like a heat pump but goes one step
> beyond to pull energy from the vacuum.
> 
And typical unconclusive strange analysis. 
> It is important to note that the device does not violate the rules of
> thermodynamics involving the conservation of energy.  It does not make
> energy from nothing.  One end of a Fogal circuit would provide
> electricity for work such as running a light bulb or a computer, and
> the other end will draw energy from the environment and get quite cold
> in the process.
More important, this analysis is not related to the part
of the invention relevant to this newsgroup. The only thing 
it can do is to raise a series of flamings discussiong some points
of physics no restricted to nuclear or atomic/molecular physics.
So this part of the message is likely to generate noise if any.


So, what Have we got here? A full report about a curious device with
some to be-tested final claims and only and small lesson on Q Hall effect.

This lesson could be in the scope of the group but not the rest of the
posting. A small note abstracting the newsletter and simply pointing
to the full source, and remarking  that it contains a Hall effect device
description could have been enough for everyone. The free energy issue
is irrelevant.

					Alejandro Rivero
					Spain



cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenrivero cudfnAlejandro cudlnRivero cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.29 / Jed Rothwell /  Griggs effect not subtle
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@CompuServe.COM>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Griggs effect not subtle
Date: 29 Sep 1994 13:38:17 GMT
Organization: CFRA

Tom Droege writes:
 
     "I am, however, greatly amused by Jed's repeated mention of an HVAC
     engineer.  Not to knock the profession, but we want to uncover a subtle
     effect that the world has missed."
 
This is completely wrong. The effect is not "subtle" it is GIGANTIC, IN YOUR
FACE, YOU CANNOT MISS IT. Got it? Not subtle. The definition of subtle is: "So
slight as to be difficult to detect or analyze; elusive. b. Not immediately
obvious; abstruse" (American Heritage Dictionary)"  When you put your arm in
barrel of water which is 103 deg F, and you are expecting it to be 80 deg F,
this is 'immediately obvious.'
 
The biggest problem with you "skeptics" is that you cannot understand the
difference between subtle and overwhelmingly obvious. When Pons and
Fleischmann boil water with only a third of the power needed to do that, and
when their cathode remains hot hours later, that is not 'subtle' it is
explosively undeniably, obvious and unquestionable proof of heat beyond
chemistry.
 
 
Tom also fails to understand what kind of job he getting himself into when he
writes:
 
     We do not need to bend duct work, or route pipes."
 
You sure do if you want to make any changes to the configuration. If you want
to take the experimental setup as is and just check the calibrations then you
will not need a pipe wrench.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.29 / Kim Crane /  John May:  Inertia as a ZPF Lorentz force
     
Originally-From: crane@envs17.eas.asu.edu (Kim A. Crane)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: John May:  Inertia as a ZPF Lorentz force
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 1994 14:31:00 GMT
Organization: Engineering Computer Services - A.S.U.

The article is titled "Inertia as a zero-point-field Lorentz force" and it
is found in Physical Review A, Volume 49, Number 2, February, 1994.  The
authors are Bernard Haisch, Alfonso Rueda and H.E. Puthoff. 
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudencrane cudfnKim cudlnCrane cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.29 / Mike Jamison /  Re: Why not just buy/rent Tom  D. a Griggs Device?
     
Originally-From: edwlt12@mars.lerc.nasa.gov (Mike Jamison (ADF))
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Why not just buy/rent Tom  D. a Griggs Device?
Date: 29 Sep 1994 11:22 EDT
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center

In article <1994Sep27.234839.2047@math.ucla.edu>, barry@arnold.math.ucla
edu (Barry Merriman) writes...
>In article <36979k$fmk$1@mhadf.production.compuserve.com> Jed Rothwell  
><72240.1256@CompuServe.COM> writes:

[Barry Merriman asks]:
>Is there a small scale version of the Griggs device? If one
>could be purchased (or rented) for < $1000, and takes up less room than,
>say, a refrigerator, I'm sure we could raise enough money
>to obtain one for Tom (at least short term), and let him experiment on it
>in his basement (should be room, now that he can move out
>the P&F setup).
> 
>If there is the possibility of buying/renting one for some experimenter
>in this group (Droege, Bass, etc..) or other, I'd be willing
>to chip in $50 dollars for that effort.
> 
I'll see your $50 and raise it $50 :-)  But not for a GG.  I have a tough
time contributing cash, especially $100, to something I don't believe works.

However, I'd gladly donate $100 to Paul Koloc's Plasmak (TM) and hope others
would do the same.

Perhaps to get around tax issues, equipment could be purchased for him, and
donated, rather than cash.

Alternatively, there's a lot of experience on s.p.f, we could possibly
build what he needs...

How about it, Paul, could you give us a list of the equipment you'll be
needing over the next few years, highest priority items at the top of the
list?
> 
> 

Mike Jamison

> 
"Scientific research consists in seeing what everyone else has seen, but
thinking what no one else has thought"

						-A. Szent-Gyorgyi
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenedwlt12 cudfnMike cudlnJamison cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.29 / Robert Eachus /  Re: Test Results from Jim Griggs
     
Originally-From: eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Test Results from Jim Griggs
Date: 29 Sep 94 11:43:15
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.

In article <940929022215_76570.2270_HHB124-1@CompuServe.COM> 76570.2270@
ompuserve.com (Eugene Mallove) writes:

 > Flow rate of water:  5.382 gallons/min

   This value doesn't seem to be used in the energy budget, but where
is the flow measured, hot side or cold side?  Presumably, it is
measured cold, but it is not clear.

    Also how are the thermocouples for measuring the water temperature
located?  There may be a Hilsh tube heat pump embedded here.  A Hilsh
tube heat-pump/refrigerator separates a centrifuges a fluid stream.
The outer boundary layer (assuming a fluid that expands as it gets
hotter, in the temperature range of interest) is selected for density
and thus cooler than the interior.  Note that a heat pump can produce
more heat than the energy consumed operating it.

--

					Robert I. Eachus

with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudeneachus cudfnRobert cudlnEachus cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.29 / Chris Parkinson /  Re: Cold Fusion comment, WAS Re: UNI DIRECTIONAL SPEAKER CABLE
     
Originally-From: parky@ix.netcom.com (Chris Parkinson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.skeptic,sci.electronics,s
i.physics.electromag
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion comment, WAS Re: UNI DIRECTIONAL SPEAKER CABLE
Date: 29 Sep 1994 07:15:52 GMT
Organization: Netcom

In <5393@gec-mrc.co.uk> rnh@gec-mrc.co.uk (Richard Herring) writes: 

>
>[sci.electronics and sci.physics.electromag reinstated, just to 
>close the thread]
>
>Chris Parkinson (parky@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>
>: Hi, I'm the joker who started this thread.
>
>No you're not!
>
YES I AM!!!
>
But who cares anyways:^)
>_I_ made the Cold Fusion comment in sci.electronics (I think; it was
>a long time ago) (note the original subject of the thread)
>A discussion of unidirectional transmission lines ,presumably powered by
>Maxwell's demons, digressed, as all good Usenet threads do. The topic
>turned to other dubious audio practices and someone made a suggestion
>implying that because something or other was popular in Japan it must 
>automatically be a good thing. 

BLAH BLAH BLAH.....

>I merely remarked that cold fusion 
>was also popular in Japan, and invited the readers to draw 
>their own conclusions.
>
>Result: my very own flamewar. I shall avoid certain subjects in future.
>
>Please can we all go home now?
No I dont think so as I think your response is rather, shall we say
rediculous. Since when does one need to regard the Japanies in anything
other than capable. I can only gather that you are from an Italian
organisation and have a chip on your shoulder in regards to these people.

If you are in Italy, try checking out what Italy is doing in CF. I think
you will be suprised. Well on the otherhand dont as you sound like some 
of these other close minded baffoons that refuse to agree that there is 
something going on here in hydrogen->metal latticed experiments. Call it 
Cold Fusion, Warm Fusion, quad He generation, netron genorator or whatever 
but realize that there is an effect here that cannot be explained well 
with our current line of scientific understanding. 
>--
>| Richard Herring             |  rnh@gec-mrc.co.uk | Speaking for myself
>| GEC-Marconi Research Centre | No, but I used to contribute to the News Quiz.
>

Regards,
CP
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenparky cudfnChris cudlnParkinson cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.29 / Tom Droege /  Re: Test Results from Jim Griggs
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Test Results from Jim Griggs
Date: 29 Sep 1994 17:29:44 GMT
Organization: fermilab

In article <940929022215_76570.2270_HHB124-1@CompuServe.COM>, 76570.2270
compuserve.com (Eugene Mallove) says:
>
>Jim Griggs recently showed me test results from a Hydrosonic Pump *hot water* 
>test, i.e. there was *deliberately* no steam production.  The computer system 
>captures a frame of data at one-minute intervals.  What follows are the 
>numbers from a test on September 13, 1994. The initially listed numbers have
 
(Snip snip)

>The subsequent data frames during the test run at approx. one minute intervals
>gave the following COPs:
>
>1.089
>1.095
>1.09
>1.103
>1.097

(snip snip)

>Gene Mallove
>

OK, Jed, this looks like a subtle effect to me.  Way back in school,
I actually took a course on Heat Engines.  It had a lab.  We
ran kludges like this.  Steam engines, electric motors, internal 
combustion engines, etc., all with a Prony brake attached.

These are great fun, as the experiments always involved taking
temperatures several places, dumping water on the Prony brake to 
keep it cool, and moving buckets of water around to weigh them.

Everyone always got soaking wet.  It was often hard to resist a water
fight.  Lets see, I threw one bucket of 30.5 C water at Charlie, which 
was 19.4 C going into the brake so I must remember to add that into 
the computation.  

Whether due to water fights, or the natural perversity of these 
experiments, we were always lucky to come out within 20% or so of
the expected experimental results.  

It is very hard to do 1% heat experiments.  So unless I find a 
fantastic set up that would allow the 10% effect shown above to 
be significant, I am not particularly impressed.  I suppose Jed will
now say I am pre-judging the results.  I will go with an open mind.
If the measurement technique supports the results, I will say so.  
But be warned that I will demand that techniques support the claimed
accuracy.

Tom Droege 
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.29 / L Plutonium /  Re: PHY#1:A@P,SUPERCONDUCTIVI
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci
physics.electromag
Subject: Re: PHY#1:A@P,SUPERCONDUCTIVI
Date: 29 Sep 1994 18:27:49 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In article <3465.1242.uupcb@moondog.com>
israel.silverman@moondog.com (Israel Silverman)  writes:

> If I polish my 12 gauge wire so that it shines brightly, will it
> have a lower resistance?

  The more impurities you remove from a conductor such as copper, the
less the resistivity. So then, polished copper wires will have higher
conduction than unpolished copper wire. You could probably perform this
experiment provided, you ever perform experiments other than post to
the Internet :-)
  But here is an experiment far more important. I posted it in 1993 at
various times under my patent pending Spontaneous Neutron
Materialization Devices --- Fusion Engineered. It concerns copper wire,
silver conduction, tungsten light filaments and especially the heating
coils of stoves and ovens. It is this. Try to get as pure of a coil or
wire as possible. It will be found that with use those coils or wires
will have elements of higher atomic number than originally there. Due
to the variable electric current i or voltage V. Siemens, Philips, GE,
may have done a study of this on tungsten filaments but the reports are
unpublished. Now, it is my understanding that iron was produced in a
carbon arc underwater. All of these are the increase in hadron count
OVER the original hadron count of the material before applying
electricity.
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.29 / Richard Schultz /  cmsg cancel <36f305$58e@agate.berkeley.edu>
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cmsg cancel <36f305$58e@agate.berkeley.edu>
Date: 29 Sep 1994 19:03:37 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley

<36f305$58e@agate.berkeley.edu> was cancelled from within trn.
-- 
					Richard Schultz
             "an optimist is a guy
              that has never had
              much experience"
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.29 / Richard Schultz /  Re: John May:  Inertia as a ZPF Lorentz force
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: John May:  Inertia as a ZPF Lorentz force
Date: 29 Sep 1994 19:05:37 GMT
Organization: Philosophers of the Dangerous Maybe

In article <29SEP199407312916@envs17.eas.asu.edu>,
Kim A. Crane <crane@envs17.eas.asu.edu> wrote:
>The article is titled "Inertia as a zero-point-field Lorentz force" and it
>is found in Physical Review A, Volume 49, Number 2, February, 1994.  The
>authors are Bernard Haisch, Alfonso Rueda and H.E. Puthoff. 
                                               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^

This wouldn't be the Puthoff who "demonstrated" Uri Geller's "psychic
powers", would it?

-- 
					Richard Schultz
             "an optimist is a guy
              that has never had
              much experience"
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.29 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Test Results from Jim Griggs
     
Originally-From: barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Test Results from Jim Griggs
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 94 18:49:50 GMT
Organization: UCLA, Mathematics Department

In article <940929022215_76570.2270_HHB124-1@CompuServe.COM>  
76570.2270@compuserve.com (Eugene Mallove) writes:
> The mechanical input power is thus 167,084 BTU/hour   (65.65 HP)
> The thermal addition to the water from inlet to outlet is:
> 
>                                    185,845 BTU/hour
> 
> The computed COP (Coeficient of Performance) is 185,845/167,084 = 1.112
> 

Is there any possibility that the resistive heatiing of the motor
is conducted into the fluid? Seems like one needs to estimate the
direction of heat flow from rotor material <-> water, for
completelness (If T_rotor <= T_water, its no problem).




--
Barry Merriman
UCLA Dept. of Math
UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)


cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.29 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Why not just buy/rent Tom  D. a Griggs Device?
     
Originally-From: barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Why not just buy/rent Tom  D. a Griggs Device?
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 94 18:52:36 GMT
Organization: UCLA, Mathematics Department

In article <29SEP199411221477@mars.lerc.nasa.gov> edwlt12@mars.lerc.nasa.gov  
(Mike Jamison (ADF)) writes:
> I'll see your $50 and raise it $50 :-)  But not for a GG.  I have a tough
> time contributing cash, especially $100, to something I don't believe works.
> 
> However, I'd gladly donate $100 to Paul Koloc's Plasmak (TM) and hope others
> would do the same.
> 

Unfortunatley, I doubt we could get PK anything he really needs
for less than $10k---even  small plasma devices of the type used
in grad student research tend to cost around $100k, at least.
--
Barry Merriman
UCLA Dept. of Math
UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)


cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.29 / Stefan Hartmann /  Free Energy Newsletter part 2/2
     
Originally-From: harti@shb.contrib.de (Stefan Hartmann)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,alt.paranet.science,alt.paranet
ufo,sci.bio,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.particle
Subject: Free Energy Newsletter part 2/2
Date: 29 Sep 1994 01:16:00 +0200

Begin of part 2/2 of the free energy newsletter
============================================================================

The following article appears in the June 1994 monthly technical
edition of Superconductivity News (Vol. 6, No. 42).

William Jay Fogal, president of Quick Chek Industries (Martinez, GA)
has invented and patented an electronic device for which he has made
very broad claims.  Others learning about the device have further
extrapolated the claims to the point that if real, the device means
the end of power utilities, the rendering useless of the entire
electrical power grid, the demise of manufacturers of electrical
generators and electrical cable, and a dramatic reduction in the
activities of hundreds of thousands of ancillary service providers.
Most industries will have to change or die.  The infrastructure
alterations will be the most profound the world has ever witnessed.
While the odds are stacked against it being real, the staff of
Superconductivity News (SN) believes it is important to report the
events as they occur.

Fogal is not claiming he has invented a room temperature
superconductor.  What he has invented is either completely fatuous or
it is astounding in that it strikes at the very core theoretical
underpinnings of electromechanics.  Fogal told SN that his device grew
out of his efforts to fix a broken car radio in the mid 1970s.  As he
got past the wiring and the circuits and into the semiconductors
actually running the radio, he made changes that greatly improved the
audio quality.  He then let his ideas lay idle for more than a decade
before finally returning to the research in the late 1980s.

Fogal says his charged barrier semiconductor device allows electrons
to flow without resistance (i.e., as in superconductors) at room
temperature.  He claims the device demonstrates a very high AC voltage
and AC current gain.  His charged barrier device is on a bipolar
design that can be incorporated in (MOS) metal oxide semiconductor
designs, as well as multiple gate devices.  It operates on a hall
effect electromagnetic field internal device.  The hall effect
magnetic field forces electron flow and angular spin of the electrons
in the same direction to the top of the conduction bands in the
crystal lattice on semiconductor devices, unlike (SOI) silicon on
insulator devices that force electron flow to the surface of the
semiconductor lattice.  "Unlike superconductors which generate an
external field, my semiconductor creates a self-regulating magnetic
field internal to the device," Fogal said.

-- Fogal's Description of His Device --

Charged barrier semiconductor devices incorporate a base plate member
of a semiconductor crystal.  Also incorporated with the base plate
member is a dialectic material and a second base plate member.  The
combination of the two base plate members constitutes an electrolytic
capacitor.  The first base plate member will create a transverse
electric field that is known as a hall effect in the base plate member
of the semiconductor crystal.  The ratio of the transverse electric
field strength to the product of the current and the magnetic field
strength is called the hall coefficient, and its magnitude is
inversely proportional to the carrier concentration on the base plate
member.  The product of the hall coefficient and the conductivity is
proportional to the mobility of the carriers when one type of carrier
is dominant.  Since the base plate member is tied directly to the
emitter junction of the semiconductor, the hall coefficient comes into
play with the creation of a one pole electromagnet in the base plate
member.

The hall effect of the electrolytic capacitor, in relation to the
position on the crystal lattice, will force electron angular spin in
the same direction and electron flow to the top of the conduction
bands in the lattice.  The magnetic flux and the density of the
carriers on the electrolytic capacitor plate are in direct proportion
to the magnetic flux and carrier concentration on the emitter junction
on the semiconductor crystal.

Since the angular spin and the flow of the electrons are in the same
direction, due to the influence of the electromagnetic field, the
electron lattice interaction factor does not come into play.  The
electron wave density is greater and the mobility of the electron flow
is faster.  The device does not exhibit frequency loss in the wave.

The base or gate of the semiconductor is more sensitive to input
signal.  These devices will typically turn on with an input to the
junction in the area of 0.2 MV to 0.4 MV with an output at the
collector junction of 450 MV at 133.5 UA of current.

-- Electron Wave Function In Charged Barrier Technology --

Think of the conduction bands in a crystal lattice as a highway.
Electrons in the free state will move along this highway.  The only
difference is the electron angular spin can be in different
directions.  With the electrons spinning in different directions, the
electrons would travel on different lanes of the highway and
collisions can occur.  The scattering and the collision of the
electrons can cause friction and resistance to the flow.  The
resistance to the flow and the friction can cause semiconductors to
run hot.

In semiconductor devices, this is called lattice scattering or
electron lattice interaction.  If we could make the electrons move in
one direction, and also spin in the same direction, then we could have
more traffic electrons (on the highway) without having the resistance
or the collisions.  We could put a barrier between the lanes on the
highway.  But, the electrons could still spin in different directions.
But, what if we could charge this barrier?!  Turn this barrier into an
electromagnetic field!  An electromagnetic field in one direction.  A
one pole electromagnet!  A hall effect magnetic field.  This one pole
electromagnetic field would make almost all of the electrons spin in
the same direction.  Because the electrons are a negative charge and
the electromagnetic field has a negative charge, the electrons travel
in unison and then we could have more electrons on the highway, and
the electron travel could be faster.

The orientation of the spin of the electrons in the crystal lattice,
due to the electromagnetic field, has a direct impact on the formation
of the wave.  If the orientation of the spin of the electrons are in
unison, there will be no loss in the wave nature, and the density of
the wave will be greater, and the frequency of the wave will be
complete.  If the spin of the electrons in the lattice are in
different directions, the wave nature will be affected and there will
be a loss in the density of the wave.  And, there will be a gap in the
frequency of the wave.

-- Patent Issued --

Fogal filed an application for a US patent covering the design on
March 1, 1991 and awarded No. 5,196,809, titled "High gain, low
distortion, faster switching transistor," on March 23, 1993.  The
patent includes figures, diagrams, and several data plots, e.g. output
signal vs. input signal (vac) for the Fogal device vs. a standard
transistor.  The patent was Fogal's first, but he has since
received a second patent, No. 5,311,139, covering a fuse testing
device that has nothing to do with the semiconductor.  Another US
patent application covering improvements to the semiconductor was
filed in January of this year.  The patent abstract and claim 1
follow.

-- Patent Abstract --

A transistor in which the emitter terminal is coupled to ground
through a filter capacitor.  The filter capacitor has a capacitance of
from about 0.2 uf to about 22 uf and can be connected either by itself
or in parallel with a resistor, depending upon the circuit in which it
is used.  The incorporation of a filter greatly of such a capacitance
level provides greatly improved gain and less distortion of the input
signal, to permit a high output to be achieved in fewer amplifier
stages and with less current draw and heating than in conventional
transistor amplifier stage circuits.  Additionally, the transistor can
be provided in a unitary structure by incorporating the filter
capacitor directly on the transistor chip, and can also be provided by
incorporating the transistor and a resistor within the casing of a
filter capacitor.

Claim 1

a)	a substrate;
b) 	one of a NPN and a PNP transistor integrally formed on the
	substrate, the transistor having a base, a collector, and an
	emitter;
c)     	a parallel resistor and filter capacitor network coupled with
	the emitter and mounted on the transistor, to form an integral
	part of the integrated circuit, the filter capacitor including
	an outer casing; and
d)	base, collector, and emitter terminals on the substrate and
	coupled with the base, the collector, and the emitter,
	respectively, to permit the integrated circuit to be connected
	with an electronic circuit, wherein the integrated circuit is
	contained within the filter capacitor outer casing.

-- Prototypes Fabricated --

Fogal told SN that he has made six prototypes of his device.
Prototype radios and computer modems have been fabricated employing
the device for demonstration purposes.  Fogal emphasizes the noise
reduction aspects of his semiconductor.

Through the help of a colleague, Allan Ames of Advanced Scientific
Applications (Houston, TX), one of Fogal's semiconductors will be
tested by scientists at the Texas Center for Superconductivity at the
University of Houston.  This is being arranged through Wei-Kan Chu.
SN discussed the situation with Chu and he confirmed that testing will
be done after the documents he had received were reviewed.  SN's
editor-in-chief reviewed what the device might mean with Chu.  Clearly
Chu had not had the opportunity to give the matter much thought.

Thomas E. Bearden (Huntsville, AL) believes Fogal's semiconductor
represents a true overunity electrical device.  "Electromagnetics is
over 100 years old; many of its assumptions are flat wrong," Bearden
told us.  He relates the way the Fogal semiconductor works to the way
heat pumps function, but says it takes it one step beyond.  A Fogal
semiconductor simply stops electrons from flowing and passes the pure
potential energy from the now-free electrons with the circuit blocking
the drift current.  Unlike superconductors, pairs of electrons are not
needed to pass the current along without resistance.

Bearden added that, based on endurance load tests on the Fogal
semiconductor, they are led to the firm conclusion that the chip
actually stops the longitudinal flow of electrons, strips them of
their energy, and passes the pure energy along without resistance.  In
this regard he says it behaves like a heat pump but goes one step
beyond to pull energy from the vacuum.

-- SN Analysis and Comment --

It is important to note that the device does not violate the rules of
thermodynamics involving the conservation of energy.  It does not make
energy from nothing.  One end of a Fogal circuit would provide
electricity for work such as running a light bulb or a computer, and
the other end will draw energy from the environment and get quite cold
in the process.

The best aspect of this story is that either a Fogal semiconductor
works or it doesn't.  There is nothing sophisticated in its
construction and there are no mysterious materials fabrication steps
involved.  There should not be any gray or cloudy areas.  Testing
should be straightforward.

Q:	What are the odds of its being real?
A: 	If it is real, you will hear more about it soon enough.  If it
	isn't, think how much fun you have had reading this article.

Q:	Are there any intrinsic limitations if the device is real?
A:	None we can foresee.

==========================================================================
end of part 2/2 of the free energy newsletter
==========================================================================

Okay folks, this is the latest news about free energy machine development.

If you know of somebody else having something that runs on by converting 
zero point energy, please let me know.

Regards, Dipl. Ing. Stefan Hartmann.
c/o Workshop for Decentral Energy Research, Berlin, Germany.
email to:
harti@contrib.de
## CrossPoint v3.02 ##
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenharti cudfnStefan cudlnHartmann cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.29 / Dieter Britz /  Re: Let's send Tom to Cartersville, GA
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Let's send Tom to Cartersville, GA
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 1994 08:23:24 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway


OK, I have thought of a way to be in on this with $25. It would indeed not be
efficient for me to either send a note or get a cheque from my bank; but it
happens that I have a sort of an account with a bookshop in Richmond, and I
think I can get them to send a cheque to Scott. So now I am in on this in more
than spirit. 
Before I fax that book shop and ask them to do it, though, I would still like
to be sure that Griggs will allow Tom (and maybe a partner) on his premises
and to go over his free-lunch machine. It seems to me Scott is a good choice
for a negotiator on this.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.28 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Griggs Question -- To Jed?
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs Question -- To Jed?
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 1994 18:50:02 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <36br24$76g$1@mhadf.production.compuserve.com>,
Jed Rothwell  <72240.1256@CompuServe.COM> wrote:
> 
>     "Do you also require plants and other operations to keep enough room
>     around the device for frequent complete disassembly?"
> 
>It takes very little room to disassemble it, and the operation is
>*infrequent*, not frequent. The entire machine is much smaller than the
>conventional factory boilers it replaces, and it requires less maintenance.

     'Right', he remarked dryly.  I often wonder what words mean to 
     you.

     By the way, have y'all yet decided whether it's a heater or a separator?

                             dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.30 /  itimc@roimar.i /  Subject:Serious Cold Fusion.
     
Originally-From: itimc@roimar.imar.ro
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Newsgroups:sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Subject:Serious Cold Fusion.
Subject:Serious Cold Fusion.
Date: Fri, 30 Sep 1994 00:18:53 GMT
Date:Fri,30 Sept.1994
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Originally -From:itimc@imar.ro (Peter Glueck)
Newsgroups:sci.physics.fusion
Subject:Serious Cold Fusion.
Date:Fri,30 Sept.1994

I have borrowed this title from Edward de Bono's book "Serious
Creativity" (Using the Power of Lateral Thinking to Create New
Ideas),Harper Business Publishers ,1992.In this book,creativity
is shown to be directly connected with the ability to make
paradigm changes.Unfortunately enough,it seems that creativity is
more important for businessmen and entrepreneurs than for
scientists.Who,from the s.p.f colleagues knows this book? 
The world "serious" will be used with a meaning somewhat
different from those given by the 'Webster';according to a
definition due to a romanian philosopher,Mihail Ralea,serious is
"focused on the essential problems and/or on the essential
aspects of these problems".
Ralea emphasizes the existence,for each problem of a core
surrounded by some more peripheric,marginal,less significant
aspects, a kind of halo;serious research has the core as target. 
In my opinion,as I have shown in my paper "A paradigm too far",at
this stage we can speak seriously  only about working hypotheses
and not about theories.
{"A first-rate theory predicts,a second rate theory forbids, a
third rate theory explains after the event" (A.I.Kitaigorodski)}
A serious approach will distinguish between:
-scientifically serious CF,knowledge-oriented,and
-technologically serious CF,application-oriented.
According to my Surfdyn hypothesis (which in privacy I call my
"ugly duckling" type theory),the heat generating reactions take
place on the very surface of the CF generators,in active sites.
The much discussed items,lattice and bulk are,in my opinion just 
spectators/supporters and not participants in the important
processes.I am perfectly aware that it will last till these ideas
will be accepted-there are some very faint signs as Steve Jones'
opinion that the collapsing bubbles is the locus of the genuine
fusion reaction,not the lattice, however I am focused on the heat
generating reactions.
I don't ask anybody to accept that I am right,just because I
don't have any doubts that CF is a metacatalytical process and,
to refer to my preferred book, I am not fanatical about Surfdyn:
"When people are fanatically dedicated to political or religious
faiths or any other kinds of dogmas or goals,it's always because
these dogmas or goals are in doubt" (Robert Pirsig)
In the frame of my paradigm,the interfaces are defining for the
cold fusion systems,and we can distinguish two main categories:
-gas/liquid/solid systems (or simply wet),with 2 groupings
a)with free contact,the electrochemical devices with heavy water,
  light water, and molten salts.
b)with forced contact:the sonofusion devices.
-gas/solid systems(or simply dry") which include: gas loading and
unloading,gas discharge,protonic conductors,sparking and/or
magnetically activated devices and ion implantation systems. 

In these cases the contact between the hydrogen isotope and the
active surface is,more or less forced,with a maximum for the ion
implant and a minimum (?) for the Piantelli system,with a suppo-
sedly magnetical system of activation.Please don't forget that
all these considerations are actually components of an item
perhaps not enough understood and disputed here:know-how.

Scientifically serious cold fusion.

Scientifically serious CF systems and /or experiments are those
which give straightforward answers to the essential questions:
where take place the reactions,what reactions are these actually
and how do they develop? The basic requirement is clarity,and how
far this is possible,simplicity,lack of disturbing factors.We
need instruments which allow the direct,in situ and in tempore
observation of the events.Such ideal systems are very difficult
to be worked out; in a 'classical' paper [1],which wasn't
seriously considered by the CF community,Garfinkle advised that
ion implantation can be used as "a definitive means of
investigating" CF,based on the absence of impurities as oxygen    
and salts from the system.The idea was recently confirmed,a
research report of by Kamada et al [2] demonstrated the
generation of anomalous heat in aluminum implanted with deuterium
followed by electron bombardment.(This paper is unkillable,
therefore serious skeptics wouldn't read it or would reject it
from the start because it wasn't reproduced) The heat appears at
the contact areas deuterium/metal,in local regions and is so
intense that aluminum is melted.I consider this paper as an
example of scientifically serious CF;however ionic implantation
has no chances to be used for a source of energy,the raw material
(deuterium) is rapidly exhausted and heat generation ceases.
I haven't much to lose and therefore I dare to say that the very
complex electrochemical systems are not really "scientifically
serious",the environment is hostile to the formation of active
sites and those already working have to survive in a flux of
damaging impurities.For really interesting studies the use of
electrochemical microscopy is a must,in a  few years this
emergent science will be mature enough to allow the investigation
of the birth,development and decay of active sites.
I also consider that Reifenschweiler's results are a direct proof
of the catalytic character of the puzzling phenomena which
nullify the axiomatic intangibility of the nucleus;the clue is
the nanometric dimensions of the titanium particles, and probably
the Ti/TiO2 contacts.This latter is de facto just an other name
for Chuck Harrison's oxygen theory,the metal/metal oxide contacts
are essential in heterogeneous catalysis,there is an immense
literature on this subject,maybe the best known book is [3].
As a general remark,the study of the phenomena at the atomar
level as well as the probable room-temperature quantum-size
effects [4] is at an incipient level both for cold fusion and
heterogeneous catalysis.This is emergent science...
The most serious,that is significant studies will come from the
dry systems which are not perturbed by the secondary
reactions;that is with a minimum of neutrons or higher energy
particles.Heat is 'serious' and has to be thoroughly studied.

Technologically serious cold fusion

Simply stated, a technologically serious CF device is focused on
production of energy and has to warrant high intensity (high
concentration of active sites) and reliability (long life or/and
easy regeneration of the active sites).The key of the future is
to find such systems,it seems that a sonofusion system(?),that of
Griggs is working as requested,some of the dry systems e.g.
Piantelli's are hopeful and can be easily scaled-up.As regarding
the electrochemical systems,there the bulk and the surface
compete for deuterium or hydrogen,therefore their development
seems to be an up-hill task,the active centers are difficult to
breed and to maintain.If by a miracle I would be appointed as
coordinator of the worldwide cold fusion research program, be
convinced that the money would go mainly to the dry systems.
Because,as Oliver Wendell Holmes has stated "It does not matter
so much where we are, but in what direction we proceed".

Addenda.
For those netters whose primary reaction to Serious Cold Fusion
is "who has seen such a beast?"I have a little story,which is
absolutely not serious.It is about those 'theorists' who became
prisoners and victims of their own paradigm, and who like and
need to make other prisoners and victims. 
...............................................................   
             A Fable.
Dr.Arthur Patrick O'Kreefe [1] an Irish zoologist has used the
methods of genetic engineering to breed hyperintelligent
spiders.As expected,the spiders have applied their superior
skills to spin more and more efficient cobwebs in order 
to catch any type of potential prey.When the IQ of the spiders
got beyond a certain limit,the web became so performant that the
spiders themselves get captured and died from hunger.An
interesting remark: these spiders are unbelievably aggressive.

[1]A.P.O'Kreefe:"Genetic breeding of hyperintelligent arachni
des",Creat.and Recreat.Zoology,19,7,July 1991,8-11
.................................................................
Actually,our Spiders are not endangered and they capture and kill
cold fusion papers and devices.I have studied their activity and
I like them,they help us to get rid of some bad papers and to
debunk some errors.Unfortunately they try to kill every paper
(like spiders catching not only flies but bees too).Their method
is not serious at all: in these cases they avoid the core and
almost never read the paper,in order to not pass further the
halo.They attack mainly some marginal aspect and use the inverse
of Sherlock Holmes' patented method:
"When you have excluded the impossible whatever remains,however
improbable must be the truth."
The great clue, the Spiders' deadly poison is the impossible
you have to inject it in the facts and whatever remains,however
true it originally was,is a mess.
A few examples:
-aluminum rotors burning in water as explanation of excess heat
produced in the Griggs device raising a lot of suspicions re.the
author;I had the privilege to meet with James at Minsk,he wants
help to solve a formidable mystery,during my career of 35+years 
I have seen very few colleagues of such high human and
professional quality;
-radon included in aluminum,and coming out just to simulate
nuclear reactions (Kamada),however how can radon melt, very
locally the metal?
-McKubre's experimental masterpiece put in doubt because he is
publishing too slowly ,instead of sincerely admiring the high
density of the experimental points and just referring to the
patents of his group (e.g. WO92-22,905;22,906;22,907;22,908)
-an other very interesting result,due to Reifenschweiler mixed
with a lot of impossible ideas and simply forgotten.
-the most impressive example of an impossible idea grafted on     
 solid data was water boiling in form of liquid droplets in the 
 F&P cell,just to fake extra heat!
I have started this essay with De Bono and Ralea and will finish
it as well.As you probably know, intelligence is a very complex
concept,which has over 200 equivalent definitions;Mihail Ralea
has a totally negative one:"intelligence is the ability to not
confound the viewpoints".
And,dear Spiders,and other colleagues please have the kindness to 
notice the words of De Bono:

"There is nothing more marvelous than thinking of a new idea.
 There is nothing more magnificent than seeing a new idea 
working.
 There is nothing more useful than a new idea that serves your 
purpose"

 References.
[1] M.Garfinkle:"Ion implantation as a definitive means of
investigating any possibility of intracrystalline nuclear fusion"
Fusion Technology vol 22, Aug 1992 pp160-163.
[2] K.Kamada,H.Kinoshita,H.Takahashi:"Anomalous heat evolution of
deuteron implanted Al on electron bombardment",Research Report
NIFS-281,National Institute for Fusion Science,Nagoya,Japan,May
1994.
[3]S.A.Stevenson, J.A. Dumesic, R.T.K.Baker,E.Ruckenstein:"Metal-
Support Interaction in Catalysis,Sintering and Redispersion. Van 
Nostrand-Reinhold,1987.
[4] P.Avouris,I.W.Lyo:"Observation of Quantum-Size Effects at
Room Temperature on Metal Surfaces with STM",Science 264,13 May
1994 pp942-945.

cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenitimc cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.30 / Bart Simon /  address for BARC?
     
Originally-From: bssimon@helix.ucsd.edu (Bart Simon)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: address for BARC?
Date: Fri, 30 Sep 1994 00:19:29 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Greetings,

Sorry for the bother, does anyone have a fax number and/or address
for Srinivasan in India.  I assume he's left SRI and is back at BARC
now and i'd like to get into contact with him.

thanks for the help,

Bart Simon (bssimon@helix.ucsd.edu)

cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenbssimon cudfnBart cudlnSimon cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.29 / clifford bettis /  Re: Test Results from Jim Griggs
     
Originally-From: cbettis@unlinfo.unl.edu (clifford bettis)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Test Results from Jim Griggs
Date: 29 Sep 1994 13:39:00 GMT
Organization: University of Nebraska--Lincoln	

Do you know what the water pressure is at the input and output?

Cliff Bettis
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudencbettis cudfnclifford cudlnbettis cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.29 / Paul Johnson /  SL fusion explosive?
     
Originally-From: paj@gec-mrc.co.uk (Paul Johnson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: SL fusion explosive?
Date: 29 Sep 94 08:45:04 GMT
Organization: GEC-Marconi Research Centre, Great Baddow, UK

I hope this isn't too obvious a point for this conference.

Suppose that a single bubble sono-luminescence system can produce
excess energy.  Then that will generate a spherical shockwave which
will be reflected back into the center of the flask, presumably in
phase with the ultrasound used to generate the bubble.  Hence the next
implosion shock wave will be bigger, and hence the fusion yield
greater.  This feedback loop will continue until the flask
disintegrates.

I hope that Prof. Jones is sitting behind a nice thick screen when he
turns this thing on.

I wonder how you would go about stabilising such a reaction.

Paul.

-- 
Paul Johnson            | GEC-Marconi Ltd is not responsible for my opinions. |
+44 245 473331 ext 3245 +-----------+-----------------------------------------+
Work: <paj@gec-mrc.co.uk>           | You are lost in a twisty maze of little
Home: <Paul@treetop.demon.co.uk>    | standards, all different.
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenpaj cudfnPaul cudlnJohnson cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.29 / Jed Rothwell /  NOT THE DATA!!!! The method.
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@CompuServe.COM>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: NOT THE DATA!!!! The method.
Date: 29 Sep 1994 13:11:52 GMT
Organization: CFRA

One of my correspondents who was having a bad day wrote to me about the
Griggs experiment:
 
     ". . .to require whoever is sent to agree that the calorimetric data and
     setup are correct PRIOR to checking for themselves is the biggest piece
     of un-scientific crud I have ever heard."
 
I never said anyone has to agree to the DATA before going, I said you have to
agree to the basic method; the protocol. You have to agree that when 350
pounds of water rise 57 deg F in temperature that means the water has absorbed
20,000 BTUs. Actually, it has absorbed more than that, because the barrel
radiates heat the whole time.
 
You bring your instruments and take your own data, of course. You calibrate
the instruments on site. How else can it be done? As for the setup, I have
not seen anyone think up a better one yet. I have seen some suggestions for
arrangements that I consider less reliable and less definative. These could
not be implemented in a day or two anyway, so they are out of the question.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Fri Sep 30 04:37:04 EDT 1994
------------------------------
1994.09.29 / Chris Parkinson /  Re: RE: Motor starting torque
     
Originally-From: parky@ix.netcom.com (Chris Parkinson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: RE: Motor starting torque
Date: 29 Sep 1994 06:16:57 GMT
Organization: Netcom

In <gsteckly.61.00101379@clark.dgim.doc.ca> gsteckly@clark.dgim.doc.ca
(Gary Steckly) writes: 

>
>In article <9409231413.AA32296@pilot1.cl.msu.edu> blue@pilot.msu.edu
(Richard A Blue) writes:
>>From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
>>Subject: RE: Motor starting torque
>>Date: Sat, 24 Sep 1994 00:12:56 GMT
>
>>Thanks, to Marshall Dudley for his post on synchronous motors.  I have
>>never been sure from what Jed Rothwell has told us what motor type is
>>involved. 
>
>I can understand how Richard missed the fact that the motor in question was a 
>3-phase induction motor.  Jed deliberately hid that fact amidst all the 
>discussion on the intricacies of calculating power factors involved with 3 
>phase induction motors...the Dranetz saga etc.  Nowhere in his posts did he 
>actually state that that is the type of motor Griggs used. He deliberately hid 
>that fact in the full text accounts of the vist with Griggs...knowing full 
>well that nobody would read the entire article.  Jed is obviously tryng  to 
>mislead us by hiding key information.
>
>(I think I am beginning to see why Jed is losing his patience)
>
>regards
>
>Gary
>
>
>

Well I'd love to find a 40 or 50 HP electric motor that is single phase.
Common folks, get with it! I know that this is a physics newsgroup
and not an electro newsgroup but really now. To make this assumption
really makes me think something is wrong in some of your heads.
50 HP single phase, hmph...

CP
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenparky cudfnChris cudlnParkinson cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.29 / Antonio Bouzas /  Re: Free Energy Newsletter part 2/2
     
Originally-From: bouzas@physics.ucla.edu (Antonio Bouzas)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,alt.paranet.science,alt.paranet
ufo,sci.bio,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.particle
Subject: Re: Free Energy Newsletter part 2/2
Date: 29 Sep 1994 21:11:37 GMT
Organization: UCLA Department of Physics

>>>>> In article <5XmFepGeldB@shb.contrib.de>, harti@shb.contrib.de
(Stefan Hartmann) writes:

(......)
    > Thomas E. Bearden (Huntsville, AL) believes Fogal's semiconductor
    > represents a true overunity electrical device.  "Electromagnetics is
    > over 100 years old; many of its assumptions are flat wrong," Bearden
                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    > told us.  
(......)



Er... like which one, for example?

Antonio.
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenbouzas cudfnAntonio cudlnBouzas cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.29 / John Logajan /  Re: Test Results from Jim Griggs
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@mirage.skypoint.net (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Test Results from Jim Griggs
Date: 29 Sep 1994 21:24:15 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.


76570.2270@compuserve.com (Eugene Mallove) writes:
> one minute intervals gave the following COPs:

> 1.089
> 1.095
> 1.09
> 1.103
> 1.097
> 1.098
> 1.10
> 1.091
> 1.105
> 1.109


Okay we have 10 minutes worth of data.  There is no hint of a declining
COP -- as one would expect if the heat energy was stored in the bulk
of the rotor/housing mass during run up.

In fact the COP appears to trend slightly upward.

Cooling from one temperature to another follows the familiar RC exponential
curve -- more rapid at first slower thereafter.  So we would expect to
see the most dramatic change in the first minutes.

No change is seen.  So the "stored thermal energy" explanation is
weakened considerably.

--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com  --  612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA -
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.29 /  prasad /  Re: Free Energy Newsletter part 1/2
     
Originally-From: c1prasad@watson.ibm.com (prasad)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,alt.paranet.science,alt.paranet
ufo,sci.bio,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.particle
Subject: Re: Free Energy Newsletter part 1/2
Date: 29 Sep 1994 14:34:28 GMT
Organization: IBM Watson

In article <5XmFc1wuldB@shb.contrib.de>, harti@shb.contrib.de (Stefan Hartmann) writes:
|> > > One of the most interesting things was Bill Fogal's "Charged Barrier
|> > > Transistor" technology.
|> 
|> Basically, he takes a standard bipolar transistor, cuts open the case,
|> and glues a small capacitor element to the base. This is then kept
|> charged. The electric field affects the electron flow thru the transistor
|> to align the spins (via Hall effect). This causes a type of room temperature

I've read the earlier posts, and I still don't see how an *electric* field
can align spins.  The Hall effect requires a magnetic field, so am I to
understand that the transistor current is sufficient to create adequate
*magnetic* field to do this?

cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenc1prasad cudlnprasad cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.29 / Paul Koloc /  Re: SL fusion explosive?
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: SL fusion explosive?
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 1994 20:09:58 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <5400@gec-mrc.co.uk> paj@gec-mrc.co.uk (Paul Johnson) writes:
>I hope this isn't too obvious a point for this conference.
>
>Suppose that a single bubble sono-luminescence system can produce
>excess energy.  Then that will generate a spherical shockwave which
>will be reflected back into the center of the flask, presumably in
>phase with the ultrasound used to generate the bubble.  

Actually, if reflecting off the walls it would tend to reflect to
an image point (a webby arc actually due spherical aberation) on
the other side and an equaldistance from the the spherical flasks 
center of radial curvature.  

>                                     .. .       .  Hence the next
>implosion shock wave will be bigger, and hence the fusion yield
>greater.  This feedback loop will continue until the flask
>disintegrates.

The cavitating fluid and pressure waves will act to fuzz sound 
speed so the focusing won't likely be as sharp as would be 
desired.  

Also, it depends on where the fusion energy is dumped, which for 
such energetic particles is really smeared out, radially speaking. 

>I hope that Prof. Jones is sitting behind a nice thick screen when he
>turns this thing on.

Of course, and it's made of solid concrete blocks of high density stone.  

>I wonder how you would go about stabilising such a reaction.

I would think it's cleverly doing that now.  Of course, I have my
ear cocked for the "crack" followed by a tinkle of glass and a splash.  
                                  :-)
>Paul.
>-- 
>Paul Johnson            | GEC-Marconi Ltd is not responsible for my opinions. |
>+44 245 473331 ext 3245 +-----------+-----------------------------------------+
>Work: <paj@gec-mrc.co.uk>           | You are lost in a twisty maze of little
>Home: <Paul@treetop.demon.co.uk>    | standards, all different.
Paul, too
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc, Bx 1037 Prometheus II Ltd, College Park MD 20741-1037    |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.29 / Richard Benear /  Help !!!!!!!!!!!!!
     
Originally-From: rbenear@boi.hp.com (Richard Benear)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Help !!!!!!!!!!!!!
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 1994 22:33:12 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard / Boise, Idaho

Here is the reference you asked for.

"INERTIA AS A ZERO-POINT FIELD LORENTZ FORCE", Physical Review A, Feb-94
Authors:
   Alfonso Rueda
   Dept. of Electrical Engineering, California State Univ., Long Beach, CA

   H. E. Puthoff
   Inst. for Advanced Studies, Austin TX

I think there was one additional co-author of this article. Sorry but I can't
remember his name.



Other papers by Dr. Puthoff:

"Ground State of Hydrogen as a Zero-Point-Fluctuation-Determined State",
Physical Review D, vol. 35, no. 10, pp. 3266-3269, 15 May 1987.

"Gravity as a Zero-Point-Fluctuation Force", Physical Review A, vol. 39, no. 5,
pp. 2333-2342, 1 March 1989.

"Source of Vacuum Electromagnetic Zero-Point Energy", Physical Review A, vol.
40, no. 9, pp. 4857-4862, 1 November 1989.  See also his replies to comments in
Physical Review A, vol. 44, no. 5, page 3382 and 3385-3386, and an Erratum in
Physical Review A, vol. 41, no. 5, page 2902.

"Everything for Nothing", New Scientist, pp. 52-55, 28 July 1990.

 ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enjoy,
Richard Benear
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenrbenear cudfnRichard cudlnBenear cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.30 /  Publius /  ENTROPY
     
Originally-From: publius@gate.net (Publius)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: ENTROPY
Date: 30 Sep 1994 02:20:10 GMT

 I know I'm risking being labeled a fool - or worse, but here goes:

 In "The Book of Revelation" (Chapter 20) the author predicts the
 end of the World by "The Fire of God" and he says: "The old
 heaven (atmosphere) and the old Earth passed away and there was
 no more sea."
 He also said this would happen "a little season" after the end
 of the Twentieth Century.
 This got me to do some serious thinking about the Second Law 
 of Thermodynamics:
 Cold fusion experiments center on some secret contained in water,
 that may possibly be a new source of energy. Since water is
 composed of hydrogen and oxygen, a potentially explosive combination
 that only needs a catalyst to reverse the process that created water
 in the first place - well, you get the picture.
 If Entropy is the process of the degradation of matter and energy
 to an inert, uniform state, then the decomposition of water in
 a sudden cataclysmic chain reaction is certainly on the agenda.
 Wouldn't it be a joke if we are being steered by a Higher Power
 (thinking, of course, it is all our idea) to fulfill the
 'Prophecy'? Sorry about this. - PUBLIUS

cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenpublius cudlnPublius cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.29 / C Keys /  TeX to Word 6.0 conversion
     
Originally-From: crkeys@apeiron.CAM.ORG.CAM.ORG (C. Roy Keys)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: TeX to Word 6.0 conversion
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 1994 15:44:53 GMT

Does anyone have information about a utility or macro that would
convert documents written in TeX to Microsoft Word 6.0 for Windows
format, retaining all formatting and--most important--equations,
both display and inline, intact.

I would appreciate any assistance you might be able to offer.
Thank you. 

--
C. Roy Keys                        INTERNET: CRKEYS@APEIRON.CAM.ORG
4405 St. Dominique
Montreal, Quebec
H2W 2B2 Canada                      
VOX/FAX: 514-842-3667
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudencrkeys cudfnC cudlnKeys cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.30 / Jorge Stolfi /  Re: Test Results from Jim Griggs
     
Originally-From: stolfi@parc.xerox.com (Jorge Stolfi)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Test Results from Jim Griggs
Date: 30 Sep 1994 12:46:57 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Dept, University of Campinas


    > [Jed Rothwell:] The effect is not "subtle" it is GIGANTIC,...

In the data recently posted by Gene Mallove, the apparent 
excess heat is down to 10%.  

Considering all the possible sources of error (input temp, output 
temp, input power, flow rate) and the stored heat question, this 
can hardly be called "gigantic"...

    > [John Logajan:] [1.089...1.109] There is no hint of a 
    > declining COP -- as one would expect if the heat energy was 
    > stored in the bulk of the rotor/housing mass during run up.
    > In fact the COP appears to trend slightly upward.

But the average COP in the previous 5 minutes was 1.112;
so the overall trend is in fact slightly downward.

In any case, these fluctuations are not very meaningful, given the
high thermal inertia of the rotor and housing, and the time 
it takes for water to traverse the pump.

By the way, here are Gene's data for the preceding 5 min:

      TIn    TOut  TOut-TIn
    -----   -----  -------
    80.73   148.5    67.77
    80.39   148.4    68.01   
    80.05   148.2    68.15 
    80.15   148.5    68.45
    80.52   148.0    67.48 
    80.54   147.9    67.36

Note that that TempIn fell by 0.6F, then rose 0.5 F;  while TempOut 
fell almost steadily by 0.6F.  Thus (TempOut - TempIn) first rose by 
0.7 F (+1%) then fell by 1.1 F (-1.5%).

    > ... So the "stored thermal energy" explanation is
    > weakened considerably.

Perhaps.  However, note that the C.O.P. is computed using the
formula (TempOut - TempIn) x FlowRate / PowerIn.  Thus, changes in 
TempIn, FlowRate or PowerIn can compensate for changes in 
TempOut.

Moreover, the stored heat hypothesis *is* compatible
with the output temperature remaining constant, or even increasing,
for a limited time.  It all depends on the thermal history of 
the pump just before that time.

By the way, note that the input power (48 kW) and flow rate 
(5.382 gal/min) reported by Gene are much larger than those reported 
by Jed. Should we conclude that Gene's data refer to a bigger machine?

If so, how big is the rotor of this pump? Is it steel or aluminum? 
How thick is the housing?  How much water does the pump 
hold at one time?  

If we knew these numbers, we could estimate the pump's thermal
inertia and cooling rate.

    > [Eugene Mallove:] Note well that this is a *very* conservative
    > number, because no account whatsoever is being made of the thermal 
    > radiation and convective air heat transfer from the very hot pump
    > housing to the external environment.

Is it?  If the pump's outer temperature is 148 F, radiation and convection
losses should be negligible compared to the 48 kW. 

My guess is that the losses are less than 2% (1kW).  What is yours?

--stolfi



cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenstolfi cudfnJorge cudlnStolfi cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.30 / Jed Rothwell /  Re: Test Results from Jim Griggs
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@CompuServe.COM>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Test Results from Jim Griggs
Date: 30 Sep 1994 14:00:04 GMT
Organization: CFRA

barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman) asks:
 
     "Is there any possibility that the resistive heating of the motor is
     conducted into the fluid?"
 
No, that would be a violation of the Second Law. The Pump is hotter than the
electric motor. Surface temperatures of both are measured with the hand held
pyrometer. This is intuitively obvious even without excess heat. The Pump and
the electric motor are roughly the same mass, and the efficiency of any
electric motor is better than 50%, so more energy is converted to rotary power
than is lost in motor inefficiency. All rotary power is converted to heat in
the Pump.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Sat Oct  1 04:37:05 EDT 1994
------------------------------
1994.10.01 / Harry Conover /  Re: Test Results from Jim Griggs
     
Originally-From: conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Test Results from Jim Griggs
Date: 1 Oct 1994 03:50:08 GMT
Organization: The Internet Access Company

Greg Kuperberg (gk00@quads.uchicago.edu) wrote:
: In article <36hvqo$745@sundog.tiac.net> conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover) writes:
: >Greg Kuperberg (gk00@quads.uchicago.edu) wrote:
: >: What are the stupidest possible mistakes that could lead to an excess
: >: heat result?  If you just plug in the wrong numbers in the heat equation
: >: or you get the arithmetic all wrong, you can get any answer you want.
: >: These two explanations haven't been ruled out yet.
: ...
: >This prompts the question of "where is the measurement error budget"
: >and "what is the experimental uncertainty" that results?

: Your concerns about measurement errors are familiar, but it's not what
: I'm talking about.  I'm talking about mistakes like subtracting
: Thursday's power input from Friday's power output.  I'm talking about
: the data analysis equivalent of confusing your apartment number with
: your phone number.  You can't put error bars on mistakes like that.

Agree.  I was reading and responding to your words, while thinking about
the posted mesurement values at the top of the thread.  Sorry for the
confusion.

                                           Harry C.





cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenconover cudfnHarry cudlnConover cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.01 / John Logajan /  Instrumenting Griggs
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@mirage.skypoint.net (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Instrumenting Griggs
Date: 1 Oct 1994 05:51:31 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

It occured to me that one might wish to study the dynamic rotational
velocity of the drive shaft leading into the Griggs rotor.

I believe a fairly simple device could be constructed to accomplish
this.

Firstly, you take a DTP-laser printer combo, and produce a strip of
paper with very tightly spaced horizontal lines on it.  Then you
wrap that strip of paper around the shaft.

Next you get a PC and a timer card, and use a IR LED/sensor pair
to scan the "shaft encoder" as it turns.  You time the transitions,
and you digitize that into the PC memory.

If you take a baseline snapshot, you can use it to null out any
non-linearities in the system.  Then during the "anomalous heat"
period, you take additional complete rotational snapshots.

After using the baseline to compensate the test snapshots, any 
remaining timing variations between transitions should represent
rotor/housing/water induced frequency components coupling back
into the dynameter/motor/power-meter.

--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com  --  612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA -
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.30 / Robert Heeter /  FAQ on Conventional Fusion Section 2/11 (Energy) Part 1/5 (Technical Aspects)
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: FAQ on Conventional Fusion Section 2/11 (Energy) Part 1/5 (Technical Aspects)
Date: Fri, 30 Sep 1994 04:00:26 GMT
Organization: Princeton University


Archive-name: fusion/faq/section2-energy/part1-technical
Last-modified: 29-Sept-1994
Posting-frequency: More-or-less-monthly
Disclaimer: Draft only; please do not copy or cite at this time.

******************************************************************
2.1 Technical Characteristics of Fusion as a Future Energy Source

First Draft:  September 13, 1994
Written by Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@pppl.gov, unless
otherwise cited.

### Please let me know if anything here is unclear. ###

*	A.  What would a fusion energy plant look like?

In the most basic picture, you need a fusion reactor to create the
fusion energy, and you need an electricity-generating plant to 
convert the fusion energy to electricity.  A method for transferring
the fusion energy from the reactor to the generator is also needed.  
(You could also generate thermal energy if it would be useful near 
your fusion plant, such as for industrial process heat, and if your
reactor is safe enough to operate near other facilities.)

Details beyond this basic picture depend on the confinement method
used, the fuel used, and the choice of technology for converting
the fusion energy to electricity.  The confinement method
determines how your fusion reactor will work, and influences what
fuels you can use; different confinement approaches are discussed in
Section 4 of the FAQ.

Fusion reactors based on magnetic confinement and D-T fuel are
believed to be the strongest candidates at this time for commercial
energy production, and will be discussed most extensively below.


* B.  What fuels can a fusion reactor burn?

The different fusion reactions were discussed in Section 1.  It is
expected that early fusion reactors will burn deuterium and tritium
as their fuels; the neutrons produced in the D-T reaction will be
reacted with lithium in a "blanket" around the reactor, thus 
"breeding" more tritium.  More advanced fuels such as D-D, D-He3, 
and p-B11 will require better confinement and higher temperatures,
and will probably not be used right away. 

The D-D reaction has the most abundant fuel, followed by D-T with Li.
Details on fuel resources are given below in part B on environmental
characteristics.

Unless otherwise noted, the discussion below will assume the D-T
fuel cycle.


* C.  What are the different methods for converting fusion energy
to useful energy?

Generally it is expected that fusion energy will be converted to
electrical energy.  However, one might want to make lots of heat
to drive chemical reactions, perhaps to make hydrogen as a fuel.
The easiest method to convert fusion energy to electricity is to
collect the fusion energy as heat, use the heat to boil water,
and then drive a good 'ol steam turbine.  Alternatives use something
besides water as the heat transfer fluid (say liquid metal, or helium)
and something besides water as the turbine driver (such as helium).
These more advanced turbines are somewhat more efficient.  (Steam
turbines have a conversion efficiency of about 35%, and advanced
turbines can get up to about 50%.)

In principle, energy can also be extracted from a fusion reactor 
in the form of charged reaction-product particles (such as p-B11 
or D-He3).  In this case one can use magnetohydrodynamic conversion 
(or direct conversion) to convert the motion of the energetic 
reaction products directly to electrical energy.  This conversion 
can be up to 95% efficient.  However, direct conversion is only 
useful on the fraction of the energy which is in the form of charged 
particles.  The D-T fuel cycle generates most of its energy in the 
form of neutrons, so the thermal cycles described above must be 
used.  The advanced, aneutronic fuels are more suitable for 
direct conversion.


* D.  What would a D-T fusion reactor look like?

[[ The following paraphrases answers written by Arthur Carlson. ]]

A D-T fueled fusion reactor would have a fusion vacuum chamber, 
where the actual reactions take place; then there is the "first 
wall," which maintains the integrity of the vacuum while transmitting 
the neutrons from the D-T reaction.  The first wall needs to 
withstand bombardment from stray plasma particles, and also to 
withstand the high stresses which can occur if the plasma 
misbehaves, loses confinement, and disrupts into the wall.  

Beyond the first wall there will be a neutron-absorbing, 
tritium-generating blanket (which would most likely contain 
lots of lithium to generate tritium).  Within and outside the 
blanket would be tritium collecting equipment and heat 
extraction equipment.  The systems used to generate fusion in 
the vacuum chamber (laser or particle beam channels for inertial 
or muon fusion, electromagnet coils for magnetic fusion) would 
also lie in/outside the blanket.  Finally, shielding would
be needed for radiation-sensitive components, and to prevent 
stray radiation from leaving the reactor.

The first walls currently in use in experimental reactors are 
mostly made from stainless steel.  However, stainless steel
is not the best material, and advanced machines (such as TPX - see
sections 5 and 9) will be made from advanced materials, most
likely vanadium alloys.  These advanced materials are designed
to withstand the unique conditions in a fusion reactor, including
high thermal & mechanical stress and intense neutron bombardment.
In addition, they're designed to not become too radioactive, and
to decay quickly so as not to create long-term radioactive waste. 


* E.  How do you get the plasma hot enough for fusion to occur?

Much of the answer given below is taken from the PPPL World-Wide Web
homepage (which is public domain).  PPPL material is in "quotations".

"In an operating fusion reactor, part of the energy generated will 
serve to maintain the plasma temperature as fresh deuterium and 
tritium are introduced. However, in the startup of a reactor, either 
initially or after a temporary shutdown, the plasma will have to be 
heated to 100 million degrees Celsius.  In current tokamak (and 
other) magnetic fusion experiments, insufficient fusion energy is 
produced to maintain the plasma temperature. Consequently, the 
devices operate in short pulses and the plasma must be heated afresh 
in every pulse." 

There are several methods for heating plasmas.  These include Ohmic 
Heating, Neutral Beam Injection, Magnetic Compression, 
Radio-Frequency Heating, and Inertial Compression.  Each of these is 
discussed below. 

     1:  Ohmic Heating 

"Since the plasma is an electrical conductor, it is possible to heat 
the plasma by passing a current through it; in fact, the current that 
generates the poloidal field also heats the plasma. This is called 
ohmic (or resistive) heating; it is the same kind of heating that 
occurs in an electric light bulb or in an electric heater." 

"The heat generated depends on the resistance of the plasma and the 
current. But as the temperature of heated plasma rises, the 
resistance decreases and the ohmic heating becomes less effective. It 
appears that the maximum plasma temperature attainable by ohmic 
heating in a tokamak is 20-30 million degrees Celsius. To obtain 
still higher temperatures, additional heating methods must be used." 

     2:  Neutral-Beam Injection 

"Neutral-beam injection involves the introduction of high-energy 
(neutral) atoms into the ohmically -- heated, magnetically -- 
confined plasma. The atoms are immediately ionized and are trapped by 
the magnetic field. The high-energy ions then transfer part of their 
energy to the plasma particles in repeated collisions, thus 
increasing the plasma temperature." 

     3:  Magnetic Compression 

"A gas can be heated by sudden compression. In the same way, the 
temperature of a plasma is increased if it is compressed rapidly by 
increasing the confining magnetic field. In a tokamak system this 
compression is achieved simply by moving the plasma into a region of 
higher magnetic field (i.e. radially inward). Since plasma 
compression brings the ions closer together, the process has an 
additional benefit of facilitating attainment of the required density 
for a fusion reactor." 

     4:  Radiofrequency Heating 

"In radiofrequency heating, high-frequency waves are generated 
by oscillators outside the torus. If the waves have a particular 
frequency (or wavelength), their energy can be transferred to the 
charged particles in the plasma, which in turn collide with other 
plasma particles, thus increasing the temperature of the bulk 
plasma."

     5:  Inertial Compression 

This is similar to magnetic compression in that decreasing the gas
volume causes the temperature to rise, but in the inertial approach
the compression is achieved by using laser or particle beams to
heat the outer layer of a target pellet; the outer layer vaporizes
and the pressure that the vaporized layer exerts back on the
core of the pellet accelerates the plasma inward on itself, and
the inertia of the imploding atoms in the pellet allows the pellet
to be compressed (for a very short time), and thus heated.


* F.  What are the materials requirements for fusion?  
* G.  Are any of these materials scarce?

First we need some definitions:  
     "Reserve" = amount of a given substance which we know we 
     can extract today at current prices with current technology.

     "Resource" = amount of a substance which is present in the
     earth which could conceivably be extracted.

In general, reserves of fusion materials are sufficient for 
all current needs, and resources are sufficient for all projected
future needs for millions of years to come.

- Fuel: D is very abundant; T can be made with blanket (see below)

- Neutron Blanket: 
     Lithium (Li) (which will be used to breed tritium (T)) 
is abundant in seawater as well as in the crust.  Current 
reserves (Li is mostly obtained through mining on land) 
are 2.21 million metric tons, sufficient to build probably 
hundreds of reactors.  Oceanic resources are sufficient to 
meet current and projected world energy needs for millions 
of years to come, without costing significantly more.

- Reactor Structure:
    Silicon Carbide (SiC) and Vanadium or Vanadium-Titanium 
alloy are the primary candidates for reactor structures.  
Carbon of course is everywhere; silicon is also highly 
abundant.  Reserves of vanadium are currently 4.27 million 
metric tons; Vanadium is present in many minerals not 
currently used as ores, so the total resource is
significantly larger.  Reserves of titanium are currently 
288.6 million metric tons.  (Source:  _World Resources 1992-1993_)

A 1000 MW fusion reactor would use on the order of 1000 tons 
of vanadium, most of which could probably be recycled from 
one reactor into a new one (after a waiting period of tens of 
years for the radiactivity to decrease).  So vanadium reserves 
will not be stretched until probably hundreds of fusion reactors 
have been built, by which time new reserves will most likely 
be available.  (This does take into account other uses of vanadium.)

- Magnet Materials: 
    We're not sure just what future fusion reactors will use for
their electromagnets, primarily because superconductor technology
is still evolving.  Reactor designs generally try to prevent
radiation damage to the magnets (which could destroy their 
superconductivity) so magnets are not generally consumed in a
reactor; to my knowledge there is no projected shortage of
magnet materials.    


* H.  How large would a fusion reactor be?  Why?

Fusion reactors are generally expected to have significant
economies of scale, such that the cost-of-electricity from
a reactor will be most competitive in larger (thousands of
megawatts) plants.  The minimum competitive size of a fusion
plant, under current expectations, is probably around 
3000 megawatts of fusion power, which (after converting 
to electricity) comes to about 1000 to 1500 megawatts of 
electric power that can be sold.  (The U.S. consumes 
about 1 kilowatt of electricity per capita, so 1000 
megawatts = 1,000,000 kilowatts = enough energy for a city 
of a million people.)  It possible that this minimum size
will come down as fusioneers come to understand the physics
and improve their reactor concepts, and it's certainly
possible that the electricity cost will come down.
(More on this in section 2D on fusion energy economics.)
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.01 / Jed Rothwell /  Re: Test Results from Jim Griggs
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@CompuServe.COM>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Test Results from Jim Griggs
Date: 1 Oct 1994 14:33:48 GMT
Organization: CFRA

gk00@quads.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg) babbles:
 
     "What are the stupidest possible mistakes that could lead to an excess
     heat result?  If you just plug in the wrong numbers in the heat equation
     or you get the arithmetic all wrong, you can get any answer you want.
     These two explanations haven't been ruled out yet. . . . I'm talking
     about mistakes like subtracting Thursday's power input from Friday's
     power output.  I'm talking about the data analysis equivalent of
     confusing your apartment number with your phone number."
 
For Crying Out Loud Kuperberg, are you incapable of doing elementary
arithmetic? Have you got a dictionary in your house?!? Look up the definitions
and conversion factors for BTU's, horsepower, gallons and kilowatt hours. Do
your homework! Check the figures yourself!
 
What on earth is wrong with you "skeptics?" The data is right there in black
and white! The input temperature, output temperature, flow rates, torque and
R.P.M.'s. Everything you need to know. This is elementary science. What "heat
equation" are you talking about? Did you ever take junior high school physics?
Did you ever learn the definition of a BTU? If you cannot derive the answers
yourself then you have no business making comments about it.
 
BTW, if you do the arithmetic with simplified, dictionary definitions like "a
BTU is about one-third of a watt-hour" (quote from CompuServe Encyclopedia)
you will get a slightly different answer, but not significant. Jim's answer is
more accurate.
 
 
Harry H Conover asks more reasonable questions about error limits. These
questions can be addressed by:
 
1. Reading things like my formal report on the visit and the manufacturer's
specifications for the equipment.
 
2. Carefully reviewing the calibration and test procedures.
 
3. A review of all instruments and protocols followed by a visit to the site.
There is no point in going unless you prepare in advance, you know exactly 
what you will see, and you know how to verify and calibrate each instrument.
 
For example, you need to verify the flowmeter is working right. I would start
by reviewing the manufacturer's brochures. Then watch the direct output from
the flowmeter electronics on the oscilloscope. Finally, watch the simple,
foolproof calibration, which works like this: A steel drum is placed on the
scale and weighed empty. The stopwatch is clicked, the computer data marked,
and the stream of output water is redirected into the barrel for some set
period of time (8 or 10 minutes -- until the barrel is mostly full). The
computer data is marked again, the stopwatch stopped and the hose removed from
the barrel. The accumulated water is weighed to the nearest half-pound.
Convert pounds to gallons (8.3 to 1) and compare the flow to the computer
record for the same 10 minute period.
 
Before you get on an airplane to go visit an experiment like this, you have to
have in mind a series of procedures and tests you plan to execute in order to
verify as many parameters as possible: flow rate, temperature, torque and
RPM's, and input power. Some are easier to check than others. In other words,
you have to know what the hell you are doing. Jim has his own ways of doing
these things, but he will allow you to try your own methods as long as you do
not get in the way too much or try something dangerous.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.01 / Jorge Stolfi /  Re: Test Results from Jim Griggs
     
Originally-From: stolfi@parc.xerox.com (Jorge Stolfi)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Test Results from Jim Griggs
Date: 1 Oct 1994 14:44:26 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Dept, University of Campinas

    > [Me:] But the average COP in the previous 5 minutes was 1.112;
    > so the overall trend is in fact slightly downward.
 
    > [John Logajan:] I believe you cannot presume there were five
    > or six minures of previous data.  It states there were six 
    > *thermocouples*, not six minutes worth
    > of readings.

Oops, you are right.  So we still don't have enough data to tell 
whether the pump is cooling down or not.

(Since the COP for that initial measurement was 1.112, we still
have a slight downward trend in the COP; but this number
depends on TempIn, TempOut, FlowRate and PowerIn, so it doesn't
tell us much about TempOut alone.)

    > [Me:] In any case, these fluctuations are not very meaningful, 
    > given the high thermal inertia of the rotor and housing, and 
    > the time it takes for water to traverse the pump.

    > [John Logajan:] You're breaking symmetry with this argument.  
    > The thermal inertia opposes warming up to the same magnitude 
    > that it opposes cooling off.
    > 
    > If you have a high thermal inertia, then it isn't going 
    > to get too warm during run up.  If you have a low thermal 
    > inertia, then it is going to get hot quickly.

"Thermal inertia" is a bad term, because it suggests 
that the pump's thermal state can be described by a single
variable.  Unfortunately the situation is a bit more 
complicated than that.  

We have a thin sheet of water flowing around a large (1/4 ton) 
metal rotor and being heated by friction.  If there is a sudden 
drop in the flow rate or input power level (due, say, to a change
in the flow pattern inside the pump), then the temperature of
the water and of the *surface layers* of the rotor will change
in a matter of minutes; but it will take several tens of minutes
for the deeper layers to follow suit. 

In that case, the output temperature will remain contant for a
few minutes (while the old hot water gets flushed out), then
drop rapidly for a few minutes, then drop slowly for 
the next tens of minutes.   The latter part is definitely 
*not* an exponential decay curve: if 50% of the heat comes out in
the first 5 min, the next 25% of the heat will take much longer
than 5 min to come out.

A rough analogy is a ditch running down the middle of a
large but shallow sand box, with a tap at one end (the input power)
and a drain at the other end (the heat output).  
Suppose the sand is completely soaked, so that the flow 
in the ditch is stable.  Closing the tap affects the output flow in a 
matter of seconds; but most of the water stored in the sand 
will take tens of seconds to drain out.

    > [Me:] Moreover, the stored heat hypothesis *is* compatible
    > with the output temperature remaining constant, or even 
    > increasing, for a limited time.  It all depends on the thermal 
    > history of the pump just before that time.
    > 
    > [John logajan:] You'd have to explain this to me, since I 
    > can't see how the cooling rate signature could be held off.
    
Ok.  Let's define the "regime" as the instanatneous input power 
divided by the instantaneous input flow rate.

    Pump runs at high regime for 1 hour;
    water and rotor get evenly heated to 300 F.

    Pump runs at low regime for 1 min; the temperature
    of the water drops to 100F, the top 1cm of the rotor cools to 
    near 100 F, but most of the rotor is still near 300F.

    Pump runs at medium regime, for which the equilibrium temperature 
    would be 200F.  After a minute or so, the water and the top layer
    of the rotor reaches 200F; but since the core is still 
    hotter than the water, heat will flow out of the rotor into the 
    water.  So the water temperature will keep rising slowly 
    to, say, 220F for 15 minutes; and then drop slowly back to 200 F.   

Note that, in the interval from 5 to 25 minutes into the
third phase, the temperature is roughly constant, and the
output heat is higher than the input power.  The "excess heat" 
integrated over this interval is the heat lost by the rotor as 
it cooled from ~300F to ~200F average temperature.

Give me reasonably accurate data about the dimensions of the rotor,
what it is made of, and how thick is the housing; and, in a week or
two, I will try to come up with specific heating/cooling scenarios that
are compatible with the test data published so far. 
 
    > It strikes me as claiming that a capacitor could increase 
    > voltage *after* disconnected from some source and connected
    > to some load -- depending upon its previous charging history.

A single capacitor can't do that, but two capacitors connected by
resistors definitely can. 

Specifically, consider

         +---/\/\/\---+---/\/\/\---+
         A            |            |
               R1     |     R2     |
                    =====        =====
                  C1  |        C2  |
                      |            |
         +------------+------------+
         B

with R1*C1 = 1sec, R2*C2 = 10 sec. Charge both C1 abd C2 to +100V, 
then quickly discharge C1, and connect AB to a load.

--stolfi

Jorge Stolfi (stolfi@dcc.unicamp.br)
Computer Science Dept, University of Campinas
Campinas, SP -- BRAZIL
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenstolfi cudfnJorge cudlnStolfi cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.01 / Jonathan Kirwan /  Re: Cold Fusion comment, WAS Re: UNI DIRECTIONAL SPEAKER CABLE
     
Originally-From: jonk@netcom.com (Jonathan Dale Kirwan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.skeptic,sci.electronics,s
i.physics.electromag
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion comment, WAS Re: UNI DIRECTIONAL SPEAKER CABLE
Date: Sat, 1 Oct 1994 10:01:48 GMT
Organization: New World Computing Services

Chris Parkinson (parky@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: If you are in Italy, try checking out what Italy is doing in CF. I think
: you will be suprised. Well on the otherhand dont as you sound like some 
: of these other close minded baffoons that refuse to agree that there is 
: something going on here in hydrogen->metal latticed experiments. Call it 
: Cold Fusion, Warm Fusion, quad He generation, netron genorator or whatever 
: but realize that there is an effect here that cannot be explained well 
: with our current line of scientific understanding. 

Would you mind providing some good quality references, regarding 
repeatable experiments, where sufficient information is available to 
duplicate the "effect"?  Better, where such effects have been duplicated 
and confirmed here in the US?  Precise experimental details and results 
are required.

Jon K

cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenjonk cudfnJonathan cudlnKirwan cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.01 / Dean Schulze /  Re: Cold Fusion comment, WAS Re: UNI DIRECTIONAL SPEAKER CABLE
     
Originally-From: schulze@lpl.arizona.edu (Dean Schulze)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.skeptic,sci.electronics,s
i.physics.electromag
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion comment, WAS Re: UNI DIRECTIONAL SPEAKER CABLE
Date: 1 Oct 1994 19:15:28 GMT
Organization: Lunar and Planetary Laboratory - West

    Jon Kirwan writes:

>Would you mind providing some good quality references, regarding 
>repeatable experiments, where sufficient information is available to 
>duplicate the "effect"?  Better, where such effects have been duplicated 
>and confirmed here in the US?  Precise experimental details and results 
>are required.

    There was a Wall Street Journal article a couple of months ago
about how cold fusion research refuses to die.  I didn't save the article
but a Nexus search should find it for you quickly.  The WSJ article
pointed out that cold fusion research has been shunned by the established
literature so you won't find details of experiments or results there.
The article mentioned several researchers who are continuing CF research
so you can contact them directly.  It also mentioned some
of the organizations who are still funding cold fusion research and these
people are not fools.  There is something happening that they don't understand
and can't dismiss.

Dean Schulze
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenschulze cudfnDean cudlnSchulze cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.01 / Karl Hahn /  Re: Free Energy Newsletter part 2/2
     
Originally-From: hahn@newshost.lds.loral.com  (Karl Hahn)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,alt.paranet.science,alt.paranet
ufo,sci.bio,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.particle
Subject: Re: Free Energy Newsletter part 2/2
Date: Sat, 1 Oct 1994 20:15:31 GMT
Organization: Loral Data Systems

In article <36hguu$ae1@ixnews1.ix.netcom.com> sarfatti@ix.netcom.com
(Jack Sarfatti) writes:

>   I suspect everything in this newsletter ranks high on the crackpot index.

Well, maybe not.  I would believe an article about free energy if it were
authored by Willard Gibbs ;-)

--
|         (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:
cuddy1 cudenhahn cudfnKarl cudlnHahn cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.01 / John Logajan /  Re: Test Results from Jim Griggs
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@mirage.skypoint.net (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Test Results from Jim Griggs
Date: 1 Oct 1994 19:27:53 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Greg Kuperberg (gk00@quads.uchicago.edu) wrote:
: What are the stupidest possible mistakes that could lead to an excess
: heat result?  If you just plug in the wrong numbers in the heat equation
: or you get the arithmetic all wrong, you can get any answer you want.
: These two explanations haven't been ruled out yet.

Well, you were given 12 redundant thermocouple readings, a dynameter
reading and the water flow rate.

If you independently compute this to a different result than the one
posted, then you can crow about "stupidity."  But until you do the
exercise, I don't see that you have much to complain about.

--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com  --  612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA -
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.30 / Robert Heeter /  (Draft) FAQ on Conventional Fusion Section 2/11 (Energy)
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: (Draft) FAQ on Conventional Fusion Section 2/11 (Energy)
Part 2/5 (Environmental)
Date: Fri, 30 Sep 1994 04:00:36 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

Archive-name: fusion/faq/section2-energy/part2-enviro
Last-modified: 29-Sept-1994
Posting-frequency: More-or-less-monthly
Disclaimer: Draft only; please do not copy or cite at this time.

********************************************************************
2.2. Environmental Characteristics of Fusion as a Future Energy Source

First Draft:  September 29, 1994
Written by Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@pppl.gov, unless
otherwise cited.

### Please let me know if anything here is unclear. ###

* A. What are fusion's major potential environmental advantages?

Fusion, like fission, creates no greenhouse gases, no smog,
and no acid rain.  The major source of "air pollution" from
fusion would be, well, helium, which is completely inert and
is already a significant constituent of the earth's atmosphere.
Fusion isn't chemical energy, so it doesn't create chemical
byproducts that would cause air pollution.

Fusion consumes less fuel mass per unit of energy produced 
than any other fuel-consuming energy source.  There is also 
far more fusion fuel than for any other fuel-consuming
energy source.  Fusion gives you the most energy "bang
for your buck" and therefore minimizes the environmental
burdens of searching for and producing energy.  

Fusion fuel is also much more widely distributed, since 
all likely fuel elements are found abundantly in seawater.
There would be no Persian Gulf-type wars over access to 
fusion fuel.  Given the destructive nature of wars, this
is good for the environment as well as good for people.

With fusion, you don't need to rip up the ground like
coal mines do, or worry about oil spills, or devote
miles and miles of land to wind or solar farms.  Fusion creates
more energy with less resource investment than any other
form of energy known to man.


* B. But isn't fusion nuclear?  What about radioactive waste?

Fusion *is* a nuclear technology, but there are significant
qualitative differences between fusion and fission.  These
differences add up to both safety and environmental advantages
for fusion.  (Safety issues are discussed in Section 2 Part 3)
On the environmental side, fusion differs from fission in that
one can control the waste products by controlling the fuels 
used and the materials exposed to neutrons produced in the
fusion reaction.  In fission, uranium or plutonium decays
in a random way and the "daughters" of the fission process are
scattered all over the periodic table, and there are lots of
nasty radioactive isotopes produced.  Thus fission results in
large amounts of concentrated radioactive waste.  

In fusion, one has the opportunity to minimize or even 
perhaps to eliminate the radioactive waste problem.
"Aneutronic" fusion fuels (discussed in Section 1) would 
produce little or no radioactive waste at all.  Even in 
"neutronic" (but much easier) deuterium-tritium fusion 
(discussed in Section 1) most of the neutrons (which
are the primary source of radioactive waste) are absorbed in
a lithium blanket in order to replace the tritium fuel
burned in the reactor.  The only sources of radioactive waste
in a D-T reactor are stray tritium atoms and the reactor 
structure which is exposed to neutron radiation.  

Tritium is a relatively benign radioactive element, because:
(a) It doesn't emit strong radiation when it decays, so it's
     only hazardous if one breathes it in or ingests it.
(b) It generally shows up in one's body as water, and your body
     flushes out its water fairly frequently, so tritium won't
     build up in a living creature. (Unlike many fission
     reaction products.)
(c) It has a moderate half-life, only 12 years or so.  This
     means that it won't be around forever, so it doesn't
     create a long-term waste problem.  On the other hand,
     it probably won't decay in the few days that pass 
     while it's in one's body, which is also good.

Based on current tritium-handling knowledge and experience
scientists believe that incidental releases of radiation 
from fusion reactors will be comparable to releases from
either fission or coal plants.  In a fusion economy, the
contribution of tritium to one's radiation exposure will be
orders of magnitude less than natural exposure to things like
radon, cosmic rays, etc; and also much less than man-made 
exposure to things like medical x-rays.

Radioactive waste in a fusion reactor can be minimized by
choosing special structural materials which can withstand
neutron bombardment without becoming highly radioactive.
Two strong candidate "low-activation materials" are vanadium
and silicon-carbide.  Vanadium will be tested as a structural
material on the TPX tokamak to be built at Princeton.
If either vanadium or silicon carbide is used as a structural
material, the radioactive inventory of a fusion reactor will
be much less than that of a fission reactor with comparable 
power output.  In fact, with a low-activation fusion reactor,
one can wait ten or so years after shutdown, and the fusion
reactor will be 1,000 to 1,000,000 times *less* radioactive
than the fission reactor.  The material in the fusion reactor
will actually be less radioactive than some natural minerals,
particularly uranium ores, and it would conceivably be safe 
to *recycle* the fusion reactor structure into a new 
fusion reactor, with little permanent waste at all.  In these
circumstances one must compare the problems and hazards 
posed by permanent *chemical* wastes from manufacturing and 
operating other energy sources with the problems and hazards
posed by fusion energy.


* C. What key technologies are needed to achieve these advantages?

*Any* working fusion reactor would have minimal environmental
impact relative to fossil fuels, with the exception of the
radioactive waste problem.  Minimizing the radioactive 
inventory and waste burden of a fusion reactor is the key
to maximizing the environmental friendliness of fusion.

Now, as can be seen from the answers to questions A and B
above, the development of low-activation materials will 
help achieve a tremendous advantage for fusion by dramatically
reducing the radioactive waste problem.  This will be
complemented by development of tritium-handling techniques
which allow us to reduce the tritium radiation problems.
More advanced fusion reactors using aneutronic fuels will
eliminate the radioactive-waste problem entirely, but these
fuels are much harder to burn.  Aneutronic fusion is 
much further down the road and would probably have
a harder time competing economically.  Scientists believe 
that, from an environmental standpoint, even D-T fusion
with low-activation materials would be an improvement 
over current energy sources.  Advanced aneutronic fuels 
in which only charged particles (i.e., not neutrons) are
released by the fusion reaction would have an additional
advantage: one can directly convert charged particle energy 
to electrical energy with much higher efficiency than
one can achieve with conventional turbine-based technologies;
this would reduce the thermal pollution from a fusion plant
dramatically.


* D. What are the materials and fuel requirements for fusion?

This question is answered in Section 2 Part 1; please look
there.


* E. What about renewable energy sources?  Why do we
need fusion at all?  

(After all, renewables will be ready much sooner than fusion.)

Renewable energy sources depend on incident sunlight, which is
a diffuse, low-density source.  While renewables in many cases
are great for the environment, it's not clear that they'll
be able to "pull the whole load" in the future, when the 
population of the earth is expected to double and energy use
is expected to triple even *with* aggressive conservation 
and population-control measures.  This is especially true 
for the large dense cities which are developing worldwide
as nations develop and continue to urbanize.  Diffuse 
energy sources require lots of land, and dense cities
don't have lots of land.

So given that a major environmental constraint will be finding
enough land to feed everyone, while still leaving room for
wildlife and the rest of nature, it seems that it would 
be prudent to develop as many energy sources as possible 
and to make sure that at least some of those (like 
fusion) are not land-intensive.

Renewables certainly seem to be the "energy source of
tomorrow," and we should definitely develop them
- but we're likely to need fusion the *day after*
tomorrow, so we'd better develop it too.  
(Acknowledgements to W.D. Kay or Northeastern Univ.
for the idea which led to this last sentence.)
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.01 / A Rivero /  Flow measures in Griggs device. Question.
     
Originally-From: rivero@sol.unizar.es (Alejandro Rivero)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Flow measures in Griggs device. Question.
Date: Sat, 1 Oct 1994 13:29:24 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway


> Note that that TempIn fell by 0.6F, then rose 0.5 F;  while TempOut 
> fell almost steadily by 0.6F.  Thus (TempOut - TempIn) first rose by 
> 0.7 F (+1%) then fell by 1.1 F (-1.5%).
> 
>     > ... So the "stored thermal energy" explanation is
>     > weakened considerably.
> 
> Perhaps.  However, note that the C.O.P. is computed using the
> formula (TempOut - TempIn) x FlowRate / PowerIn.  Thus, changes in 
> TempIn, FlowRate or PowerIn can compensate for changes in 
> TempOut.
> 
Er... I think someone remarked it before, but I have not seen
answer. Perhaps I missed it. How is the flow measured? And where?
Volume variations between cold and hot could be in the range of 5%, no?
so I expect the flow to be measured in Kg/sec and not in cubic
foots by second. Same observations would apply to molar heat capacity, etc
and we are speaking of a flowing system !

It is not a joke, I have heard of histories about people using the
same density (or even the same mol. mass) for H20 and D20 !!


                                            Alejandro

cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenrivero cudfnAlejandro cudlnRivero cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.01 / Matt Kennel /  Re: ENTROPY
     
Originally-From: mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: ENTROPY
Date: 1 Oct 1994 07:36:14 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

Publius (publius@gate.net) wrote:
:  This got me to do some serious thinking about the Second Law 
:  of Thermodynamics:
:  Cold fusion experiments center on some secret contained in water,
:  that may possibly be a new source of energy. Since water is
:  composed of hydrogen and oxygen, a potentially explosive combination
:  that only needs a catalyst to reverse the process that created water
:  in the first place - well, you get the picture.

Fortunately for us the entropy of "2H20 + heat" is higher than "2H2 + O2"
and our oceans are safe.

Besides, if "cold fusion whatever" is not a chemical process what
difference does it make where the H is connected?

--
-Matt Kennel  		mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu
-Institute for Nonlinear Science, University of California, San Diego
-*** AD: Archive for nonlinear dynamics papers & programs: FTP to
-***     lyapunov.ucsd.edu, username "anonymous".
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenmbk cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.01 / A Rivero /  Hall effect (Was: Re: Free Energy News...
     
Originally-From: rivero@sol.unizar.es (Alejandro Rivero)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Hall effect (Was: Re: Free Energy News...
Date: Sat, 1 Oct 1994 13:47:08 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

> Originally-From: c1prasad@watson.ibm.com (prasad)
> Organization: IBM Watson
> 
> In article <5XmFc1wuldB@shb.contrib.de>, harti@shb.contrib.de (Stefan Hartmann) writes:
> |> > > One of the most interesting things was Bill Fogal's "Charged Barrier
> |> > > Transistor" technology.
> |> 
> |> Basically, he takes a standard bipolar transistor, cuts open the case,
> |> and glues a small capacitor element to the base. This is then kept
> |> charged. The electric field affects the electron flow thru the transistor
> |> to align the spins (via Hall effect). This causes a type of room temperature
> 
> I've read the earlier posts, and I still don't see how an *electric* field
> can align spins.  The Hall effect requires a magnetic field, so am I to
> understand that the transistor current is sufficient to create adequate
> *magnetic* field to do this?
> 
Hmm which is the difference between a magnetic and a electric field? Was
not a simple change of reference system?? :=)

Anyway you at Watson sure know more than I about this. But I think 
I remember some drawings of Mr Klitzing last year, on one dimensional systems,
and only using electrical fields... Wait a moment.

Here. I quote (out of context) directly from manuscript slide:

"Quantized resistance {h \over 2 e^2} = R_k/2 but
without a magnetic field"
-------

(The underscore is of v Klitzing, not mine)


Yours,

						Alejandro Rivero
						Zaragoza Univ, Spain

 

cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenrivero cudfnAlejandro cudlnRivero cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.01 / A Rivero /  Re: Test Results from Griggs.
     
Originally-From: rivero@sol.unizar.es (Alejandro Rivero)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Test Results from Griggs.
Date: Sat, 1 Oct 1994 13:55:28 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

> Greg Kuperberg (gk00@quads.uchicago.edu) wrote:
> : In article <36hvqo$745@sundog.tiac.net> conover@max.tiac.net
(Harry H Conover) writes:
> : >Greg Kuperberg (gk00@quads.uchicago.edu) wrote:
> : >: What are the stupidest possible mistakes that could lead to an excess
> : >: heat result?  If you just plug in the wrong numbers in the heat equation
> : >: or you get the arithmetic all wrong, you can get any answer you want.
> : >: These two explanations haven't been ruled out yet.
> : ...

Hmm Could we suggest a "nine-proff" style check? Stop the 
rotor, or put it at a speed with no excess power or lot heat generation.
Add a electric heater to get the same byproducts (hot water, steam) 
and make the measures. You must get COP under unity then.

Of course, this leaves the input power calculation to be checked. I ll
suggest osciloscopes, registers and all that, as electricity theory
is well known, and transients due to rotor operation can not be
emulated.

					Alejandro

cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenrivero cudfnAlejandro cudlnRivero cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.01 / William Beaty /  A D2O explosion! 
     
Originally-From: billb@eskimo.com (William Beaty)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: A D2O explosion! 
Date: Sat, 1 Oct 1994 19:43:46 GMT
Organization: Eskimo North (206) For-Ever

Here's something interesting.  Check out the part about the D2O steam
explosion with emission of light!

- Bill Beaty    billb@eskimo.com





[ Article crossposted from alt.sci.physics.new-theories ]
[ Author was Elf ]
[ Posted on Fri, 23 Sep 1994 00:19:10 +0000 ]

Micro-cavitation fusion, or luke-warm fusion
Nobody knows WHY cold nuclear fusion works, or even if it does. \conventional 
theroy does not cover it, and the ones invented to explain it do not work.
O.k, fine, so heres one that does, maybe.
I have a friend who does reaserch for the MOD, on subs etc. He showed me a 
paper on cavitation. It was also mentioned on Tomorrows world apperently. 
Cavitation is when you get bubbles forming in a violently stirred liquid, for 
those who don't know. This effect occurs around submarine propellors at depths 
of about 300ft or lower. Ie at pressures of 10atms. It can also me produced 
at1atms (up here at the surface), by pushing a ultrasound frequency into a 
sealed container of liquid. Water is best. This has been know for ages, since 
1952. What is new is that these bubbles glow in the dark. Dimly blue. Each 
bubble is aprox 1 to 3 microns in diameter, it depends on the wavelength. 
	What my friend was doing was studying the energy inside them, with a 
veiw to preventing it, (he didn't say why, MOD stuff). It turns out that the 
bubbles glow becuase the energys involved produce a plasma inside as they 
collapse. one that is at temp/pressures equal or greater to that at the core of 
the sun !
Reaserch into the experimental set-ups used in cold-fusion show that most used 
magnetic stirrers which produce small amounts of ultrasound, and some did not. 
I made a small set-up using a glass tube, and a ultrasound transducer. The end 
cap was positivly charged to attract free electrons. 
The inital run with plain water heated it no more than expected, ie slightly 
less energy out than in. The next using heavy water, plus dissolved deuterium 
gas was a little more dramatic. 
The equipment was activated in one second bursts, in case of radiation 
production. In aprox 1/10 of a second enough energy was liberated to vapourise 
the water, causing a large steam explostion. also sufficent light to blind me 
temporally.
There was no detectable radiation. upon  later thought I theroised that the 
oxygen atoms wheer acting as neutron absorbers, and the surrounding water coped 
with the gamma. 
Since I am currently in finacial dire striats, would anyone care to follow up 
on this. It is to important to be forgotten due to accident. I suggest a 
modified internal combustion engine would work. The air intake converted to a 
water intake, with the fuel injector acting as a gasious deuterium injector. 
The spark-plug  would be replaced with an ultra-sound transducer (speaker). 
Basically a fusion powered steam engine. 
N.B, conventional gas plasma theories of fusion still apply, its how the plasma 
is created thats weird ! 



--
 ############################################################################# 
 #                                 #    _________    __         _________    # 
 #     Minds are like Parachutes:  #   |   ______|  |  |       |   ______|   # 
 #                                 #   |  |____     |  |       |  |____      # 
 #        They must be OPEN        #   |   ____|    |  |       |   ____|     # 
 #                                 #   |  |______   |  |____   |  |          # 
 #           to operate!           #   |_________|  |_______|  |__|          # 
 #                                 #        elf@menageri.demon.co.uk         # 
 ############################################################################# 

--
.....................uuuu / oo \ uuuu........,.............................
William Beaty  voice:206-781-3320   bbs:206-789-0775
EE/Programmer/Science exhibit hobbyist
Seattle, WA 98117

cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenbillb cudfnWilliam cudlnBeaty cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.30 /  rfheeter@phoen /  (Draft) FAQ on Conventional Fusion 
     
Originally-From: rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: (Draft) FAQ on Conventional Fusion 
Subject: (Draft) FAQ on Conventional Fusion Section 2/11 (Energy)
Part 2/5 (Environmental)
Date: 30 Sep 94 07:00 GMT+0300

Subject: (Draft) FAQ on Conventional Fusion Section 2/11 (Energy)
Part 2/5 (Environmental)

Archive-name: fusion/faq/section2-energy/part2-enviro
Last-modified: 29-Sept-1994
Posting-frequency: More-or-less-monthly
Disclaimer: Draft only; please do not copy or cite at this time.

********************************************************************
2.2. Environmental Characteristics of Fusion as a Future Energy Source

First Draft:  September 29, 1994
Written by Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@pppl.gov, unless
otherwise cited.

### Please let me know if anything here is unclear. ###

* A. What are fusion's major potential environmental advantages?

Fusion, like fission, creates no greenhouse gases, no smog,
and no acid rain.  The major source of "air pollution" from
fusion would be, well, helium, which is completely inert and
is already a significant constituent of the earth's atmosphere.
Fusion isn't chemical energy, so it doesn't create chemical
byproducts that would cause air pollution.

Fusion consumes less fuel mass per unit of energy produced 
than any other fuel-consuming energy source.  There is also 
far more fusion fuel than for any other fuel-consuming
energy source.  Fusion gives you the most energy "bang
for your buck" and therefore minimizes the environmental
burdens of searching for and producing energy.  

Fusion fuel is also much more widely distributed, since 
all likely fuel elements are found abundantly in seawater.
There would be no Persian Gulf-type wars over access to 
fusion fuel.  Given the destructive nature of wars, this
is good for the environment as well as good for people.

With fusion, you don't need to rip up the ground like
coal mines do, or worry about oil spills, or devote
miles and miles of land to wind or solar farms.  Fusion creates
more energy with less resource investment than any other
form of energy known to man.


* B. But isn't fusion nuclear?  What about radioactive waste?

Fusion *is* a nuclear technology, but there are significant
qualitative differences between fusion and fission.  These
differences add up to both safety and environmental advantages
for fusion.  (Safety issues are discussed in Section 2 Part 3)
On the environmental side, fusion differs from fission in that
one can control the waste products by controlling the fuels 
used and the materials exposed to neutrons produced in the
fusion reaction.  In fission, uranium or plutonium decays
in a random way and the "daughters" of the fission process are
scattered all over the periodic table, and there are lots of
nasty radioactive isotopes produced.  Thus fission results in
large amounts of concentrated radioactive waste.  

In fusion, one has the opportunity to minimize or even 
perhaps to eliminate the radioactive waste problem.
"Aneutronic" fusion fuels (discussed in Section 1) would 
produce little or no radioactive waste at all.  Even in 
"neutronic" (but much easier) deuterium-tritium fusion 
(discussed in Section 1) most of the neutrons (which
are the primary source of radioactive waste) are absorbed in
a lithium blanket in order to replace the tritium fuel
burned in the reactor.  The only sources of radioactive waste
in a D-T reactor are stray tritium atoms and the reactor 
structure which is exposed to neutron radiation.  

Tritium is a relatively benign radioactive element, because:
(a) It doesn't emit strong radiation when it decays, so it's
     only hazardous if one breathes it in or ingests it.
(b) It generally shows up in one's body as water, and your body
     flushes out its water fairly frequently, so tritium won't
     build up in a living creature. (Unlike many fission
     reaction products.)
(c) It has a moderate half-life, only 12 years or so.  This
     means that it won't be around forever, so it doesn't
     create a long-term waste problem.  On the other hand,
     it probably won't decay in the few days that pass 
     while it's in one's body, which is also good.

Based on current tritium-handling knowledge and experience
scientists believe that incidental releases of radiation 
from fusion reactors will be comparable to releases from
either fission or coal plants.  In a fusion economy, the
contribution of tritium to one's radiation exposure will be
orders of magnitude less than natural exposure to things like
radon, cosmic rays, etc; and also much less than man-made 
exposure to things like medical x-rays.

Radioactive waste in a fusion reactor can be minimized by
choosing special structural materials which can withstand
neutron bombardment without becoming highly radioactive.
Two strong candidate "low-activation materials" are vanadium
and silicon-carbide.  Vanadium will be tested as a structural
material on the TPX tokamak to be built at Princeton.
If either vanadium or silicon carbide is used as a structural
material, the radioactive inventory of a fusion reactor will
be much less than that of a fission reactor with comparable 
power output.  In fact, with a low-activation fusion reactor,
one can wait ten or so years after shutdown, and the fusion
reactor will be 1,000 to 1,000,000 times *less* radioactive
than the fission reactor.  The material in the fusion reactor
will actually be less radioactive than some natural minerals,
particularly uranium ores, and it would conceivably be safe 
to *recycle* the fusion reactor structure into a new 
fusion reactor, with little permanent waste at all.  In these
circumstances one must compare the problems and hazards 
posed by permanent *chemical* wastes from manufacturing and 
operating other energy sources with the problems and hazards
posed by fusion energy.


* C. What key technologies are needed to achieve these advantages?

*Any* working fusion reactor would have minimal environmental
impact relative to fossil fuels, with the exception of the
radioactive waste problem.  Minimizing the radioactive 
inventory and waste burden of a fusion reactor is the key
to maximizing the environmental friendliness of fusion.

Now, as can be seen from the answers to questions A and B
above, the development of low-activation materials will 
help achieve a tremendous advantage for fusion by dramatically
reducing the radioactive waste problem.  This will be
complemented by development of tritium-handling techniques
which allow us to reduce the tritium radiation problems.
More advanced fusion reactors using aneutronic fuels will
eliminate the radioactive-waste problem entirely, but these
fuels are much harder to burn.  Aneutronic fusion is 
much further down the road and would probably have
a harder time competing economically.  Scientists believe 
that, from an environmental standpoint, even D-T fusion
with low-activation materials would be an improvement 
over current energy sources.  Advanced aneutronic fuels 
in which only charged particles (i.e., not neutrons) are
released by the fusion reaction would have an additional
advantage: one can directly convert charged particle energy 
to electrical energy with much higher efficiency than
one can achieve with conventional turbine-based technologies;
this would reduce the thermal pollution from a fusion plant
dramatically.


* D. What are the materials and fuel requirements for fusion?

This question is answered in Section 2 Part 1; please look
there.


* E. What about renewable energy sources?  Why do we
need fusion at all?  

(After all, renewables will be ready much sooner than fusion.)

Renewable energy sources depend on incident sunlight, which is
a diffuse, low-density source.  While renewables in many cases
are great for the environment, it's not clear that they'll
be able to "pull the whole load" in the future, when the 
population of the earth is expected to double and energy use
is expected to triple even *with* aggressive conservation 
and population-control measures.  This is especially true 
for the large dense cities which are developing worldwide
as nations develop and continue to urbanize.  Diffuse 
energy sources require lots of land, and dense cities
don't have lots of land.

So given that a major environmental constraint will be finding
enough land to feed everyone, while still leaving room for
wildlife and the rest of nature, it seems that it would 
be prudent to develop as many energy sources as possible 
and to make sure that at least some of those (like 
fusion) are not land-intensive.

Renewables certainly seem to be the "energy source of
tomorrow," and we should definitely develop them
- but we're likely to need fusion the *day after*
tomorrow, so we'd better develop it too.  
(Acknowledgements to W.D. Kay or Northeastern Univ.
for the idea which led to this last sentence.)
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenrfheeter cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.01 / Matt Kennel /  Re: Test Results from Griggs.
     
Originally-From: mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Test Results from Griggs.
Date: 1 Oct 1994 23:58:01 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

Alejandro Rivero (rivero@sol.unizar.es) wrote:

: Of course, this leaves the input power calculation to be checked. I ll
: suggest osciloscopes, registers and all that, as electricity theory
: is well known, and transients due to rotor operation can not be
: emulated.

There might a similar problem analogous to time-dependent current
and voltage.

Could possibly the torque and angular velocity fluctuate over a single
rotation?  Given that  average Power = 1/T sum_t torque(t)*ang_velocity(t)
that quantity might be greater than that if you measure
     <torque>_T * <angular_velocity>_T.

The relevant timescale here is one rotation.

: 					Alejandro


--
-Matt Kennel  		mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu
-Institute for Nonlinear Science, University of California, San Diego
-*** AD: Archive for nonlinear dynamics papers & programs: FTP to
-***     lyapunov.ucsd.edu, username "anonymous".
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenmbk cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.02 / Jonathan Kirwan /  Re: Cold Fusion comment, WAS Re: UNI DIRECTIONAL SPEAKER CABLE
     
Originally-From: jonk@netcom.com (Jonathan Dale Kirwan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.skeptic,sci.electronics,s
i.physics.electromag
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion comment, WAS Re: UNI DIRECTIONAL SPEAKER CABLE
Date: Sun, 2 Oct 1994 00:22:07 GMT
Organization: New World Computing Services

Dean Schulze (schulze@lpl.arizona.edu) wrote:
:     Jon Kirwan writes:

: >Would you mind providing some good quality references, regarding 
: >repeatable experiments, where sufficient information is available to 
: >duplicate the "effect"?  Better, where such effects have been duplicated 
: >and confirmed here in the US?  Precise experimental details and results 
: >are required.

:     There was a Wall Street Journal article a couple of months ago
: about how cold fusion research refuses to die.  I didn't save the article
: but a Nexus search should find it for you quickly.  The WSJ article
: pointed out that cold fusion research has been shunned by the established
: literature so you won't find details of experiments or results there.
: The article mentioned several researchers who are continuing CF research
: so you can contact them directly.  It also mentioned some

Thank you for the quick response.  I do not have access to Nexus but I 
will try to locate the article.  If found, I will probably also contact 
the reporter, as well, to see what he or she may have learned in distilling 
the news report.

: of the organizations who are still funding cold fusion research and these
: people are not fools.  There is something happening that they don't understand
: and can't dismiss.

I suspect that US researchers are not fools, either.  There is very strong
competition, as you may be well aware, in acedemia, too.  I've observed
it.  You'd have some tall explaining to do in trying to convince me that
the motivations of commercial interests are any stronger than those in
acedemia.  Some good murderous-intent stories exist in both camps. 

If there is meat in this story, not just sizzle, then there will be a 
wave of support from outside of commercial interests.  You can set you 
clock by it.  Some may nurse old memories and refuse to lend support, but 
there are too many with personal interests to assume that CF will be 
resisted by academia, in bulk.  It's naive to think otherwise.

Whether there is "something happening" remains to be seen, from my 
observational vantage point.  I have a healthy disrespect for the quality 
of the original foray into this subject which hasn't abated yet.  I admit 
it.  But although I am very, very, VERY! skeptical, based on the lousy 
pulp that was foisted on everyone before, together with the mean-spirited 
behaviors that only compounded their errors, I still have a deep wish for 
the positive aspects that my mind conjures up in considering CF.  (My 
dreaming of positives is hardly close to the reality that would actually 
exist if CF works and was cheap -- life is never so clean and pretty as I 
might imagine it.)

I've started several businesses based on scientific technologies, most
recently on silicon wafer temperature controls, and I know how easy it is
to sell science to those with money.  Venture money is very skeptical, 
always, but they do want to BELIEVE.  And the younger money often loves 
being behind world-busting technologies.  It sounds impressive.  I'm not 
the least bit impressed that there is business backing.  Such support 
means exactly nothing to me, and it shouldn't.  Irrational human behavior 
is a sufficient explanation, lacking other data.

Jon K

cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenjonk cudfnJonathan cudlnKirwan cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.02 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Test Results from Jim Griggs
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Test Results from Jim Griggs
Date: Sun, 2 Oct 1994 01:26:54 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <36js0c$195$1@mhadg.production.compuserve.com>,
Jed Rothwell  <72240.1256@CompuServe.COM> wrote:
>gk00@quads.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg) babbles:
> 
>     "What are the stupidest possible mistakes that could lead to an excess
>     heat result?  If you just plug in the wrong numbers in the heat equation
>     or you get the arithmetic all wrong, you can get any answer you want.
>     These two explanations haven't been ruled out yet. . . . I'm talking
>     about mistakes like subtracting Thursday's power input from Friday's
>     power output.  I'm talking about the data analysis equivalent of
>     confusing your apartment number with your phone number."
> 
>For Crying Out Loud Kuperberg, are you incapable of doing elementary
>arithmetic? Have you got a dictionary in your house?!? Look up the definitions
>and conversion factors for BTU's, horsepower, gallons and kilowatt hours. Do
>your homework! Check the figures yourself!
> 

     Jed, you appear to be incapable of reading english.  I believe Mr.
     Kuperberg is discussing the kind of error where you mistake a sundial for 
     a flowmeter, you read the temperature of your flow off the nearby digital
     alarmclock, or you add a reading of 4 and a reading of 4 to get 27.

     I've seen your logic, 4+4=27 would not surprise me.

                                      dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.02 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Test Results from Jim Griggs
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Test Results from Jim Griggs
Date: Sun, 2 Oct 1994 01:40:27 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <36js0c$195$1@mhadg.production.compuserve.com>,
Jed Rothwell  <72240.1256@CompuServe.COM> wrote:
>gk00@quads.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg) babbles:
> 
>What on earth is wrong with you "skeptics?" The data is right there in black
>and white! The input temperature, output temperature, flow rates, torque and
>R.P.M.'s. Everything you need to know. 

     Right.  I've got an insulated box with an inflow of 15 kps of 20C water
     and an outflow of 15 kps of 25C water.  There's nothing in the box 
     but some geometry that's causing the Water Pixies to put heat 
     into the water.

     Damn, I've just produced a machine that creates energy.

     That's Jed Rothwell's 'everything you need to know'.

     First. I could be wrong in any number of ways.  Second, I could be 
     lying.  Third, I could have left out some information that makes 
     the 'problem' go away.

     Jed, your apparent credulity is astonishing at times.

                                       dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.02 / L Plutonium /  Re: ENG#5:FIRST CONFIRMED EVIDENCE OF SPONTANEOUS NEUTRON  
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.fusion,sci
physics.electromag
Subject: Re: ENG#5:FIRST CONFIRMED EVIDENCE OF SPONTANEOUS NEUTRON  
Subject: 2 of 3, Correct Theory of both Cold Fusion and Hot Fusion
Date: 2 Oct 1994 02:25:50 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In article <3635nj$2o4@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium) writes:

>   I have been informed that in the November issue of FUSION TECHNOLOGY
> will have two articles on the appearance of iron, produced in a carbon
> arc under water. The original researcher in this area was a person by
> the name of George Oshawa.
>   This may be the first full scale investigation which will lead to the
> science of radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization. What Dirac
> spoke of in his book "Directions in Physics". rsnm pronounced (resin)
> is the reason cold fusion works. And it is rsnm which makes the Sun and
> stars work. Not the foggey goofball idea that gravity causes fusion.
>   Once the science community makes an earnest search into rsnm will we
> be able to make fusion power plants.
>                                                 ARCHIMEDES PLUTONIUM A@P

  I posted to the Internet in 1993 and 1994 my theory of radioactive
spontaneous neutron materialization rsnm.

13APR1994, 04:54:40 GMT sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics,sci.chem
Subject: 2 of 3, Correct Theory of both Cold Fusion and Hot Fusion
Lines: 225
Message-ID: <2oftug$g8o@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium) writes:
>	(11) The observation that when electric current i flowing through
wires or >through a light bulb filament or incandescent lamps are
hot and eventually >the wires or filaments or other parts wear-out
due to the high temperatures. >Those high
temperatures are a result of radioactive spontaneous neutron
>materialization when i  varies. And before these teachings, it
was >inexplicable as to how atoms of zinc Z=30 contaminated copper
Z=29 wire, or >atoms of rhenium Z=75 contaminated light bulb filaments
or heating coils >made of tungsten Z=74 in these
materials after running electric current in >the materials. With rsnm
it is a direct consequence that a copper wire will >have atoms of zinc,
and a tungsten filament or heater will have atoms of >rhenium after
running  a changing electric current i through, because there >is
radioactive growth of some of the original atoms because of rsnm. 
Check >chemical analysis of spent electric wires and filaments by
General Electric, >Philips, Siemens, et al.

cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.02 / mitchell swartz /  ENTROPY - some questions
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: ENTROPY - some questions
Subject: Re: ENTROPY
Date: Sun, 2 Oct 1994 03:12:10 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA


    In Message-ID: <36j3he$d1l@network.ucsd.edu>
Subject: Re: ENTROPY
Matt Kennel (mbk@inls1.ucsd.edul) writes:

= Publius (publius@gate.net) wrote:
   :  This got me to do some serious thinking about the Second Law 
   :  of Thermodynamics:
   :  Cold fusion experiments center on some secret contained in water,
   :  that may possibly be a new source of energy. Since water is
   :  composed of hydrogen and oxygen, a potentially explosive combination
   :  that only needs a catalyst to reverse the process that created water
   :  in the first place - well, you get the picture.
= Fortunately for us the entropy of "2H20 + heat" is higher than "2H2 + O2"
= and our oceans are safe.

   Is this actually correct?  
  What is Matt's calculation of the entropy of  a  "2H2O"  cluster
(in an Ice Ih-like stereoconstellation if we are to
discuss a possible better approximation for the material discussed)?  Matt?

   Second,  please share your proof that the entropy of two molecules of 
water is greater than three of diatomic molecules.

   Third, demonstrate that the reaction (or free energy if you wish)
is dominated by only the entropy of the products and reactants.

   Fourth, there is at least one other reasonable hypothesis as to why 
our atmosphere is safe.
The reaction proceeds from the gases to the aqueous state but is
stopped because of the involvement of spin-forbidden reactions from the
ground singlet state for the diatomic oxygen (which basically must attain
the triplet state first).
      Do you think the spin-orbit coupling theories, Matt,
and the other spectroscopic studies of this century are wrong?

  Finally,  why would, or how could,  the products control the reaction rate
rather than the activation energy (if any) or the nature of the original system?

           Thanks in advance.   
 
= Besides, if "cold fusion whatever" is not a chemical process what
= difference does it make where the H is connected?

   The connectivity is quite important as any scientist would know.
A little chromium, alumina, oxygen, hydrogen, silicates, .... &tc.,     it could
be a rock, or a ruby laser, or a Saturn V.   Connectivity counts, especially
if the nucleus is coupled to the lattice through s orbitals as discussed here
previously.  

   Can the failure to fully consider hydrogen's reaction
with molecular oxygen herald the relative inability to comprehend the much
more complicated reactions of hydrogen loaded into the solid state?        ;-)X

    Best wishes.
                           Mitchell Swartz  (mica@world.std.com)


cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.02 / mitchell swartz /  Conventional FAQ - low toxicity vs. benign
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Conventional FAQ - low toxicity vs. benign
Subject: (Draft) FAQ on Conventional Fusion 
Date: Sun, 2 Oct 1994 03:13:59 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <1994Sep30.040036.24628@princeton>
Subject: (Draft) FAQ on Conventional Fusion 
Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@pppl.gov writes:

  (mostly very good compilation)
"Tritium is a relatively benign radioactive element, because:
(a) It doesn't emit strong radiation when it decays, so it's
     only hazardous if one breathes it in or ingests it.
(b) It generally shows up in one's body as water, and your body
     flushes out its water fairly frequently, so tritium won't
     build up in a living creature. (Unlike many fission
     reaction products.)
(c) It has a moderate half-life, only 12 years or so.  This
     means that it won't be around forever, so it doesn't
     create a long-term waste problem.  On the other hand,
     it probably won't decay in the few days that pass 
     while it's in one's body, which is also good."

  It is not benign, but is rather of low toxicity.
Silicone -- considered by many to be "benign" or inert -- itself can
cause cancer by the Oppenheimer effect, and probably other pathways.
  Tritium (3H)  has low toxicity, putting it in the group with 7Be, 14C, 18F and
some other nuclides.

--->  benign    (after Webster, ibid.)     from Latin benignus
                                           to be born well.  
   1)  of a gentle disposition
    2)  of a mild character
    3)   manifesting kindness and gentleness.

   If the word "benign" is to apply to hydrogen isotopes it would
be protium or deuterium.  
   Alternatively, since ALL of the deuterium is from the BIG BANG,
given the origin of the word benign, perhaps it should only apply to deuterium.

   Best wishes.
               Mitchell Swartz  (mica@world.std.com)


cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.02 / Brian Roscher /  Looking for advice about fusion and nuclear engineering.
     
Originally-From: roachman@er5.rutgers.edu (Brian Roscher)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Looking for advice about fusion and nuclear engineering.
Date: 2 Oct 1994 00:27:01 -0400
Organization: Rutgers University

I am a undergrad student interested in studying fusion.  I am going to graduate
Rutgers with a 2.7 gpa with a degree in Mechanical Engineering and Physics.
Where is a good school that I could get into?  I know that Princeton is great
but I have a funny feeling they won't take me.  I was looking into Michigan 
University.  Does anyone know how their program is?  Also, what do nuclear 
engineers do?  How is the job industry for fusion and nuclear engineering?
Sorry for asking so many questions but I have to make decisions which will 
affect the rest of my life.  You only live once (as far as I know) so I want to
make the best choices while I am still alive.  Any help would be greatly
appreciated.  Thanks.

-- 
Brian Roscher
Roachman@eden.rutgers.edu


cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenroachman cudfnBrian cudlnRoscher cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.30 / Greg Kuperberg /  Re: Test Results from Jim Griggs
     
Originally-From: gk00@quads.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Test Results from Jim Griggs
Date: Fri, 30 Sep 1994 16:11:50 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

In article <36h1c1$9tt@news.parc.xerox.com> stolfi@dcc.unicamp.br writes:
>By the way, note that the input power (48 kW) and flow rate 
>(5.382 gal/min) reported by Gene are much larger than those reported 
>by Jed. Should we conclude that Gene's data refer to a bigger machine?

What are the stupidest possible mistakes that could lead to an excess
heat result?  If you just plug in the wrong numbers in the heat equation
or you get the arithmetic all wrong, you can get any answer you want.
These two explanations haven't been ruled out yet.
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudengk00 cudfnGreg cudlnKuperberg cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.30 / John Logajan /  Re: Test Results from Jim Griggs
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@mirage.skypoint.net (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Test Results from Jim Griggs
Date: 30 Sep 1994 16:36:27 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.


stolfi@parc.xerox.com (Jorge Stolfi) writes:
> In the data recently posted by Gene Mallove, the apparent 
> excess heat is down to 10%.  

It was a hot water test rather than a steam test, so I wouldn't draw
any conclusions one way or the other.


> But the average COP in the previous 5 minutes was 1.112;
> so the overall trend is in fact slightly downward.

I believe you cannot presume there were five or six minures of previous
data.  It states there were six *thermocouples*, not six minutes worth
of readings.


> In any case, these fluctuations are not very meaningful, given the
> high thermal inertia of the rotor and housing, and the time 
> it takes for water to traverse the pump.

You're breaking symmetry with this argument.  The thermal inertia 
opposes warming up to the same magnitude that it opposes cooling off.

If you have a high thermal inertia, then it isn't going to get too warm
during run up.  If you have a low thermal inertia, then it is going to
get hot quickly.



> Moreover, the stored heat hypothesis *is* compatible
> with the output temperature remaining constant, or even increasing,
> for a limited time.  It all depends on the thermal history of 
> the pump just before that time.

You'd have to explain this to me, since I can't see how the cooling
rate signature could be held off.

It strikes me as claiming that a capacitor could increase voltage *after*
disconnected from some source and connected to some load -- depending upon
its previous charging history.

--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com  --  612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA -
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.30 / Hugh Lippincott /  Re: Test Results from Jim Griggs
     
Originally-From: hughl@hp-and.an.hp.com (Hugh Lippincott)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Test Results from Jim Griggs
Date: 30 Sep 94 12:51:45 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company

This kind of real numbers are very nice to have shared.  
Over ASCII Email it is hard to fully understand the test setup
to allow full understanding of these numbers.  Simple description
of the test setup would be in order.  Some has already been reported.

Should someone be building a FAQ collection of questions 
and answers on this topic!  maybe two: Jed and Dale?

I would like to commend Griggs on his sharing of real data and 
would hope to have a description of how the data was reduced. 
If the data was relatively constant over time 
then reporting the time, the average and the standard deviation
should be sufficient.

I would appreciate more information about the input energy.
  I assume that there is a significant "break" between the motor 
the Hydrosonic Pump, with the energy transmitted by a rotating shaft
through the "dynamometer" to get the torque & rpm readings.
  I would appreciate some readings of the shaft temperature at dynamometer, 
if it is significantly different from ambient then a t/c should monitor it.
  Concurrent readings of housing temperatures and ambient temperatures
could help to define how conservative the COP figures are.

The other significant question concerns the possibility of 
energy storage in the Hydrosonic Pump from warmup to >1 periods. 
 What instrumentation is there (is possible) to address this question?


	Hugh Lippincott 	    	  hughl@hp-and.an.hp.com
	These opinions are my own and do NOT represent HP in any way.
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenhughl cudfnHugh cudlnLippincott cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.30 / Harry Conover /  Re: Test Results from Jim Griggs
     
Originally-From: conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Test Results from Jim Griggs
Date: 30 Sep 1994 21:26:48 GMT
Organization: The Internet Access Company

Greg Kuperberg (gk00@quads.uchicago.edu) wrote:
: In article <36h1c1$9tt@news.parc.xerox.com> stolfi@dcc.unicamp.br writes:
: >By the way, note that the input power (48 kW) and flow rate 
: >(5.382 gal/min) reported by Gene are much larger than those reported 
: >by Jed. Should we conclude that Gene's data refer to a bigger machine?

: What are the stupidest possible mistakes that could lead to an excess
: heat result?  If you just plug in the wrong numbers in the heat equation
: or you get the arithmetic all wrong, you can get any answer you want.
: These two explanations haven't been ruled out yet.


This prompts the question of "where is the measurement error budget"
and "what is the experimental uncertainty" that results? A very key
question in any physical experment, but particularly significant when 
phenomena being studied is in the 10% range.  In other words, what have
we got if the experimental uncertainty turns out to be, say 14%?
Typical Physics 101 Lab stuff.

                                         Harry C.

cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenconover cudfnHarry cudlnConover cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.30 /  nachtrieb@max. /  Alcator C-MOD Weekly Highlights, 19940929
     
Originally-From: nachtrieb@max.pfc.mit.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Alcator C-MOD Weekly Highlights, 19940929
Date: 30 SEP 94 18:18:04 GMT
Organization: MIT PLASMA FUSION CENTER

			Alcator C-MOD Weekly Highlights
				Sept. 29, 1994

The maintenance/repair period is continuing. Excellent progress was
made on the tokamak re-assembly this week.

Following final installation of the OH2L (Ohmic Heating coil number 2,
Lower portion) coax, the lower wedge plate was raised into position
and aligned. The twenty lower TF (Toroidal Field magnetic coil) radial
arms were then installed. The spring plates, which maintain
compression on the feltmetal sliding joints, were installed at the
inner joints of all the lower TF arms.

Following inspection and testing, including turn-to-turn hi-pot of the
TF arms, final preparations were made for transferring the tokamak
from the assembly stand back to its permanent location on the lower
dome. The "big lift", which is one of the major activities in the
re-assembly process, was successfully carried out on the morning of
Tuesday, September 27.

The assembly stand has now been dismantled, and the Southeast section
of the diagnostic stand, which had been removed to accommodate it, has
been re-assembled.

The next step in the assembly process is installation of the OH1
(Ohmic Heating coil number 1) and OH2U (Ohmic Heating coil number 2,
Upper portion) coaxes, which connect to the top of the core. Fit-up of
these components is in progress.

Manned access to the vessel has been re-established, and installation
of a new set of magnetic diagnostic loops (partial rogowskis) on the
inner wall is proceeding. These loops will be used to help determine
the distribution of poloidal halo currents on the inner wall during
disruptions.

Checkout of the cryogenic system has begun. The LN2 (Liquid Nitrogen,
diatomic) sump has been re-sealed.  All lines are being checked for
cleanliness. GN2 (Gaseous Nitrogen, diatomic) flowrate through the
proportional valves are being checked, and closing of the valves
verified. All pressure transducers are being tested.

Miklos Porkolab, Martin Greenwald, and Jim Terry are attending the
IAEA (International Atomic Energy Association) meeting in Sevilla,
Spain, where they are presenting papers on Alcator C-MOD results.

cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudennachtrieb cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.01 / Greg Kuperberg /  Re: Test Results from Jim Griggs
     
Originally-From: gk00@quads.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Test Results from Jim Griggs
Date: Sat, 1 Oct 1994 00:37:11 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

In article <36hvqo$745@sundog.tiac.net> conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover) writes:
>Greg Kuperberg (gk00@quads.uchicago.edu) wrote:
>: What are the stupidest possible mistakes that could lead to an excess
>: heat result?  If you just plug in the wrong numbers in the heat equation
>: or you get the arithmetic all wrong, you can get any answer you want.
>: These two explanations haven't been ruled out yet.
...
>This prompts the question of "where is the measurement error budget"
>and "what is the experimental uncertainty" that results?

Your concerns about measurement errors are familiar, but it's not what
I'm talking about.  I'm talking about mistakes like subtracting
Thursday's power input from Friday's power output.  I'm talking about
the data analysis equivalent of confusing your apartment number with
your phone number.  You can't put error bars on mistakes like that.
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudengk00 cudfnGreg cudlnKuperberg cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.30 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Test Results from Jim Griggs
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Test Results from Jim Griggs
Date: Fri, 30 Sep 1994 18:55:55 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <36h1c1$9tt@news.parc.xerox.com> stolfi@dcc.unicamp.br writes:
>
>    > [Eugene Mallove:] Note well that this is a *very* conservative
>    > number, because no account whatsoever is being made of the thermal 
>    > radiation and convective air heat transfer from the very hot pump
>    > housing to the external environment.
>
>Is it?  If the pump's outer temperature is 148 F, radiation and convection
>losses should be negligible compared to the 48 kW. 

It depends on surface area and special engineering which is designed 
to augment convection with turbine-fan blades, such as one finds in 
ordinary electric motors, generators and pumps.  Also, the thermal 
transfer inside the system may be effected by flow design which allow 
for laminar flow, which will tend to frustrate transfer rates from the 
fluid to the walls.  Is there an AC or room air circulation unit 
nearby??  We basically walled off our PMK formation experiment within 
a plexiglass cylinder (but partially covered at the top and bottom) 
to avoid significant air drift currents.  

A variation of the varlable heat transfer problem transformed to the 
plasma state, distorted the linearity of the thermal data from 
Chukanov's "fixed ball lightning-ish plasma cold fusion" gizmo so 
much that he thought net energy was being generated.  

>My guess is that the losses are less than 2% (1kW).  What is yours?

The losses could VARY considerably more.  

>--stolfi
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc, Bx 1037 Prometheus II Ltd, College Park MD 20741-1037    |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.30 /  BWHUCKABEE /  Re: Fusion Digest 2497
     
Originally-From: bwhuckabee@aol.com (BWHUCKABEE)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion Digest 2497
Date: 30 Sep 1994 21:37:01 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

In article <1994Jul17.234340.4534@Princeton.EDU>, Robert F. Heeter
<rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> writes:

This is Brian Huckabee.  Buck Deloach and I were just sitting here and
thinking that you must really know a lot about cold fusion.  We're hoping
to read about you in Time Magazine someday.  
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenbwhuckabee cudlnBWHUCKABEE cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.01 / Cameron Bass /  Re: ENTROPY
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: ENTROPY
Date: Sat, 1 Oct 1994 06:39:48 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <36fskq$164u@tequesta.gate.net>, Publius <publius@gate.net> wrote:
> I know I'm risking being labeled a fool - or worse, but here goes:
>
> In "The Book of Revelation" (Chapter 20) the author predicts the
> end of the World by "The Fire of God" and he says: "The old
> heaven (atmosphere) and the old Earth passed away and there was
> no more sea."
> He also said this would happen "a little season" after the end
> of the Twentieth Century.

     I'm pretty sure there's no mention of the Twentieth Century in 
     any of my copies.  

     Perhaps there's a new revision?

                             dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.30 / Jack Sarfatti /  Re: Free Energy Newsletter part 2/2
     
Originally-From: sarfatti@ix.netcom.com (Jack Sarfatti)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,alt.paranet.science,alt.paranet
ufo,sci.bio,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.particle
Subject: Re: Free Energy Newsletter part 2/2
Date: 30 Sep 1994 17:13:02 GMT
Organization: Netcom

In <BOUZAS.94Sep29141137@watt.physics.ucla.edu> bouzas@physics.ucla.edu
(Antonio Bouzas) writes: 

>
>>>>>> In article <5XmFepGeldB@shb.contrib.de>, harti@shb.contrib.de
(Stefan Hartmann) writes:
>
>(......)
>    > Thomas E. Bearden (Huntsville, AL) believes Fogal's semiconductor
>    > represents a true overunity electrical device.  "Electromagnetics is
>    > over 100 years old; many of its assumptions are flat wrong," Bearden
>                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>    > told us.  
>(......)
>
>
>
>Er... like which one, for example?
>
>Antonio.
>

I suspect everything in this newsletter ranks high on the crackpot index. 
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudensarfatti cudfnJack cudlnSarfatti cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.30 / Robert Heeter /  FAQ on Conventional Fusion Section 1/11 (Fusion Physics)
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: FAQ on Conventional Fusion Section 1/11 (Fusion Physics)
Date: Fri, 30 Sep 1994 04:00:19 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

Archive-name: fusion/faq/section1-physics
Last-modified: 7-Aug-1994
Posting-frequency: More-or-less-monthly

1. Fusion as a Physical Phenomenon
* This FAQ deals with conventional fusion only, not Cold Fusion. *

While this section is not yet complete, it should be useful to
many people, and I encourage you to distribute it to anyone who
might be interested (and willing to help revise it!!!).

Third Draft:  August 7, 1994
Written by Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@pppl.gov, unless
otherwise cited.

*** Please let me know if anything here is unclear. ***

*** A.  What is fusion?

"Fusion" means many things when discussed on the newsgroup.  
Technically, "fusion" is short for "Nuclear Fusion," which describes
the class of reactions where two light nuclei fuse together, forming
a heavier nucleus.  This heavier nucleus is frequently unstable, and
sometimes splits (fissions) into two or more fragments.  "Fusion"
also refers to the type of energy produced, and a "fusion reactor"
describes an energy-producing facility which generates power via
fusion reactors.  Finally, "fusion" can also be used to refer to
the scientific program aimed at harnessing fusion for clean,
safe, and hopefully inexpensive energy production - a collaborative 
international program which has been carried on for the past 40-some 
years.  Each of these three uses - the technical, the energy
source, and the scientific research program - is discussed in
a separate section of this FAQ.  The technical aspects of
fusion are discussed below in this section.


*** B.  How does fusion release energy?

If you add up the masses of the particles which go into a fusion
reaction, and you add up the masses of the particles which come out,
there is frequently a difference.  According to Einstein's famous
law relating energy and mass, E=mc^2, the "mass difference" can
take the form of energy.  Fusion reactions involving nuclei lighter
than iron typically release energy, but fusion reactions involving
nuclei heavier than iron typically absorb energy.  The amount of
energy released depends on the specifics of the reaction; a table
of reactions is given further below to give an idea of the variety 
of fusion reactions.

Another way to look at this is to consider the "binding energy"
of the elements in question.  If the reactants are bound more
weakly than the products, then energy is released in the reaction.
"Binding energy" is the amount of energy you would have to put
into a system in order to pull its components apart; conversely,
in a system with high binding energy, a lot of energy is released
as the components are allowed to bond together.  Suppose you
had two balls connected by a long, thin rubber band, so that they
are not very tightly connected, and the rubber band can be broken
easily.  This is a system with low binding energy.  Now here's an
analogy to what happens in fusion:  imagine the long, thin 
rubber band suddenly being replaced by a short, thick one.  The
short thick one has to be stretched a lot in order to connect
to the two balls, but it wants to bind them more tightly, so it
pulls them together, and energy is released as they move towards
each other.  The low-binding energy, long rubber band system
has been replaced by a high-binding energy, short rubber band
system, and energy is released. 


*** C.  Where does fusion occur in nature?

The conditions needed to induce fusion reactions are extreme; 
so extreme that virtually all natural fusion occurs in stars, 
where gravity compresses the gas, until temperature and pressure 
forces balance the gravitational compression.  If there is enough 
material in the star, pressures and temperatures will grow
large enough as the star contracts that fusion will begin to occur 
(see below for the explanation why); the energy released will then 
sustain the star's temperature against losses from sunlight being 
radiated away.  The minimum mass needed to induce fusion is roughly 
one-tenth the sun's mass; this is why the sun is a star, but 
Jupiter is merely a (large) planet.  (Jupiter is about 1/1000th 
the sun's mass, so if it were roughly 100 times bigger, it
too would generate fusion and be a small, dim star.)

Stellar fusion reactions gradually convert hydrogen into helium.  
When a star runs out of hydrogen fuel, it either stops burning 
(becoming a dwarf star) or, if it is large enough (so that gravity 
compresses the helium strongly) it begins burning the helium into 
heavier elements.  Because fusion reactions cease to release 
energy once elements heavier than iron are involved, the larger 
stars also eventually run out of fuel, but this time they
collapse in a supernova.  Gravity, no longer opposed by the internal
pressure of fusion-heated gases, crushes the core of the star, 
forming things like white dwarfs, neutron stars, and black holes
(the bigger the star, the more extreme the result).  (For more 
details, try the sci.astro or sci.space.science newsgroups.)


*** D.  Why doesn't fusion occur anywhere else in nature?

Current scientific knowledge indicates that very little fusion
occurs anywhere else in nature.  The reason is because in order
to get two nuclei to fuse, you first have to get them close together.
(This is because the nuclear forces involved in fusion only act
at short range.)  However, because the two nuclei are both positively
charged, they repel each other electrically.  Nuclei will not fuse
unless either (a) they collide with enough energy to overcome the
electrical repulsion, or (b) they find a "sneaky" way to circumvent
their repulsion (see muon-catalyzed fusion in section 4).  The
energy required for fusion is so high that fusion only occurs in
appreciable amounts once the temperature gets over 10 million
degrees Kelvin, so (a) doesn't happen anywhere outside of stars.
Current knowledge suggests that the sort of processes that would
allow sneaky-fusion as in (b) are very rare, so there just isn't
much fusion in the everyday world.


*** E.  What are the basic fusion reactions?

While it is possible to take any two nuclei and get them to fuse,
it is easiest to get lighter nuclei to fuse, because they are
less highly charged, and therefore easier to squeeze together.
There are complicated quantum-mechanics rules which determine which
products you will get from a given reaction, and in what amounts
("branching ratios").  The probability that two nuclei fuse is
determined by the physics of the collsion, and a property called
the "cross section" (see glossary) which (roughly speaking) 
measures the likelihood of a fusion reaction.  (A simple analogy
for cross-section is to consider a blindfolded person throwing
a dart randomly towards a dartboard on a wall.  The likelihood 
that the dart hits the target depends on the *cross-sectional* 
area of the target facing the dart-thrower.  (Thanks to Rich
Schroeppel for this analogy.))

Below is an annotated list of many fusion reactions discussed 
on the newsgroup.  Note:  D = deuterium, T = tritium, p = proton,
n = neutron; these and the other elements involved are discussed 
in the glossary/FUT.  (FUT = list of Frequently Used Terms; section
10 of the FAQ.)  The numbers in parentheses are the energies
of the reaction products (in Millions of electron-Volts, see
glossary for details).  The percentages indicate the branching 
ratios.  More information on each of the elements is given below.

Table I:  Fusion Reactions Among Various Light Elements

D+D   -> T (1.01 MeV) + p (3.02 MeV) (50%)   
      -> He3 (0.82 MeV) + n (2.45 MeV) (50%)  <- most abundant fuel
      -> He4 + about 20 MeV of gamma rays (about 0.0001%; depends
                                           somewhat on temperature.)
      (most other low-probability branches are omitted below)
D+T   -> He4 (3.5 MeV) + n (14.1 MeV)  <-easiest to achieve
D+He3 -> He4 (3.6 MeV) + p (14.7 MeV)  <-easiest aneutronic reaction
                                     "aneutronic" is explained below.
T+T   -> He4 + 2n + 11.3 MeV
He3+T -> He4 + p + n + 12.1 MeV (51%)
      -> He4 (4.8) + D (9.5) (43%)
      -> He4 (0.5) + n (1.9) + p (11.9) (6%)  <- via He5 decay
                                    
p+Li6 -> He4 (1.7) + He3 (2.3)      <- another aneutronic reaction
p+Li7 -> 2 He4 + 17.3 MeV (20%)
      -> Be7 + n -1.6 MeV (80%)     <- endothermic, not good.
D+Li6 -> 2He4 + 22.4 MeV            <- also aneutronic, but you 
                                              get D-D reactions too.
p+B11 -> 3 He4 + 8.7 MeV <- harder to do, but more energy than p+Li6
n+Li6 -> He4 (2.1) + T (2.7)        <- this can convert n's to T's
n+Li7 -> He4 + T + n - some energy

From the list, you can see that some reactions release neutrons,
many release helium, and different reactions release different
amounts of energy (some even absorb energy, rather than releasing
it).  He-4 is a common product because the nucleus of He-4 is
especially stable, so lots of energy is released in creating it.
(A chemical analogy is the burning of gasoline, which is relatively 
unstable, to form water and carbon dioxide, which are more stable.  
The energy liberated in this combustion is what powers automobiles.)
The reasons for the stability of He4 involve more physics than I
want to go into here.

Some of the more important fusion reactions will be described below.  
These reactions are also described in Section 2 in the context of 
their usefulness for energy-producing fusion reactors.


*** F.  Could you tell me more about these different elements?
(Note: there's more information in the glossary too.)

Hydrogen    (p):  Ordinary hydrogen is everywhere, especially 
                    in water.
Deuterium   (D):  A heavy isotope of hydrogen (has a neutron in
                    addition to the proton).  Occurs naturally at 
                    1 part in 6000; i.e. for every 6000 ordinary 
                    hydrogen atoms in water, etc., there's one D.
Tritium     (T):  Tritium is another isotope of hydrogen, with two 
                    neutrons and a proton.  T is unstable  
                    (radioactive), and decays into Helium-3 with a
                    half-life of 12.3 years.  (Half the T decays
                    every 12.3 years.)  Because of its short 
                    half-life, tritium is almost never found in 
                    nature (natural T is mostly a consequence 
                    of cosmic-ray bombardment).  Supplies have been 
                    manufactured using fission reactors; world 
                    tritium reserves are estimated at a few 
                    kilograms, I believe.  Tritium can be made by 
                    exposing deuterium or lithium to neutrons.
Helium-3  (He3):  Rare light isotope of helium; two protons and a 
                    neutron.  Stable.  There's roughly 13 He-3 atoms 
                    per 10 million He-4 atoms.  He-3 is relatively 
                    abundant on the surface of the moon; this is 
                    believed to be due to particles streaming onto
                    the moon from the solar wind.  He3 can also be
                    made from decaying tritium.
Helium-4  (He4):  Common isotope of helium.  Trace component of the 
                    atmosphere (about 1 part per million?); also 
                    found as a component of "natural gas" in gas 
                    wells.
Lithium-6 (Li6):  Less common isotope of lithium.  3 protons, 3 
                    neutrons.  There are 8 Li-6 atoms for every 100 
                    Li-7 atoms.  Widely distributed in minerals and 
                    seawater.  Very active chemically.
Lithium-7 (Li7):  Common isotope of lithium.  3 protons, 4 neutrons.
                    See above info on abundance.
Boron      (B):   Common form is B-11 (80%).  B-10 20%.  
                    5 protons, 6 neutrons.  Also abundant on earth.

Note:  Separating isotopes of light elements by mass is not 
         particularly difficult.


*** G.  Why is the deuterium-tritium (D-T) reaction the easiest?

Basically speaking, the extra neutrons on the D and T nuclei make
them "larger" and less tightly bound, and the result is
that the cross-section for the D-T reaction is the largest.
Also, because they are only singly-charged hydrogen isotopes,
the electrical repulsion between them is relatively small.
So it is relatively easy to throw them at each other, and it 
is relatively easy to get them to collide and stick.  
Furthermore, the D-T reaction has a relatively high energy yield.

However, the D-T reaction has the disadvantage that it releases
an energetic neutron.  Neutrons can be difficult to handle,
because they will "stick" to other nuclei, causing them to
(frequently) become radioactive, or causing new reactions.
Neutron-management is therefore a big problem with the
D-T fuel cycle.  (While there is disagreement, most fusion
scientists will take the neutron problem and the D-T fuel,
because it is very difficult just to get D-T reactions to go.)

Another difficulty with the D-T reaction is that the tritium
is (weakly) radioactive, with a half-life of 12.3 years, so
that tritium does not occur naturally.  Getting the tritium
for the D-T reaction is therefore another problem.

Fortunately you can kill two birds with one stone, and solve
both the neutron problem and the tritium-supply problem at
the same time, by using the neutron generated in the D-T
fusion in a reaction like n + Li6 -> He4 + T + 4.8 MeV.
This absorbs the neutron, and generates another tritium,
so that you can have basically a D-Li6 fuel cycle, with
the T and n as intermediates.  Fusing D and T, and then
using the n to split the Li6, is easier than simply trying
to fuse the D and the Li6, but releases the same amount of
energy.  And unlike tritium, there is a lot of lithium
available, particularly dissolved in ocean water.

Unfortunately you can't get every single neutron to stick
to a lithium nucleus, because some neutrons stick to other
things in your reactor.  You can still generate as much
T as you use, by using "neutron multipliers" such as
Beryllium, or by getting reactions like
n + Li7 -> He4 + T + n (which propagates the neutron)
to occur.  The neutrons that are lost are still a problem,
because they can induce radioactivity in materials that
absorb them.  This topic is discussed more in Section 2.


*** H.  What is aneutronic fusion?

Some researchers feel the advantages of neutron-free fusion
reactions offset the added difficulties involved in getting
these reactions to occur, and have coined the term
"aneutronic fusion" to describe these reactions.

The best simple answer I've seen so far is this one:
(I've done some proofreading and modified the notation a bit.)
[ Clarifying notes by rfheeter are enclosed in brackets like this.]

>From: johncobb@emx.cc.utexas.edu (John W. Cobb)
>Risto Kaivola <rkaivola@mits.mdata.fi> wrote:

[[ Sorry I don't have the date or full reference for this anymore;
this article appeared in sci.physics.fusion a few months ago.]]

>>Basically, what is aneutronic fusion?  The term aneutronic
>>confuses me considerably.  Could you give me an example of
>>an aneutronic fusion reaction? How could energy be produced
>>using such a reaction?  Can there be a fusion reaction in which
>>a neutron is never emitted?
>
>Examples:
>
>D + He3 --> He4 + p + 18.1MeV 
>(deuteron + helium-3 --> helium-4 + proton + energy)
>
>p + Li6 --> He4 + He3 + 4.0MeV
>(proton + lithium-6 --> helium-4 + helium-3 + energy)
>
>D + Li6 --> 2 He4 + 22.4MeV
>(deuteron + lithium-6 --> 2 helium-4's + energy)
>
>p + B11 --> 3 He4 + 8.7Mev
>(proton + boron-11 --> 3 helium-4's + energy)
>
>All of these reactions produce no neutrons directly.
[[ Hence "aneutronic." ]] 
>There are also other reactions that have multiple branches possible,
>some of which do not produce neutrons and others that do 
>(e.g., D + D, p + Li7).
>
>The question is how do you get a "reactor" going and not get 
>any neutrons.  There are 2 hurdles here. The first is getting the
>fuel to smack together hard enough and often enough for fusion
>to occur.
>The easiest fusion reaction is D + T --> He4 + n (the D-T fuel 
>cycle). A magnetic reactor can initiate fusion in one of these 
>things at about a temperature of 10keV. 
[1 keV = 1000 eV = 11,000,000 (degrees) kelvin, more or less]. 
>The other reactions require much higher temperatures (for example 
>about 50KeV for the D+He3 reaction). This is a big factor of 5. 
>The second hurdle is neutron production via "trash" (secondary) 
>reactions.  That is, the main reaction may be neutron-free, 
>but there will be pollution reactions that may emit neutrons. 
[ The products of the main reaction, e.g. He3, can be trapped in
your reactor temporarily, and fuse with other ions in the system 
in messy ways. ]
>Even if this is only a few percent, it can lead to big neutron
>emission. For example, the D+He3 reaction will also have some D+D 
>reactions occuring. 
[ Because in your reactor you will have a lot of Ds and He3s, and
the Ds will collide with each other as well as with the He3s. ]
>At 50Kev temperatures, the reaction 
>cross-section for D+D reactions is about 1/2 of the D+He3 
>cross-section, so there will be some generation of neutrons from 
>the 50% branch reaction of D + D-->He3 + n.
>Also, the other 50% goes to T+p, The triton (T) will then undergo 
>a D-T reaction and release another neutron. 
[ Because the cross-section for D-T reactions is much higher.]
>If the reactor is optmized (run in a He3 rich mode) the number 
>of neutrons can be minimized. The neutron power can be as low 
>as about 5% of the total. However, in a 1000 megawatt reactor, 
>5% is 50 MW of neutron power. That is [still] a lot of neutron 
>irradiation. This lower neutron level helps in designing 
>structural elements to withstand neutron bombardment, but it 
>still has radiation consequences.
>
>On the other hand, it is my understanding that the p-B11 reaction 
>is completely neutron free, but of course it is much harder 
>to light.


*** I.  What sort of fusion reactor is the sun?

Fortunately for life on earth, the sun is an aneutronic fusion
reactor, and we are not continually bombarded by fusion neutrons.
Unfortunately, the aneutronic process which the sun uses is 
extremely slow and harder to do on earth than any of the reactions
mentioned above.  The sun long ago burned up the "easy" deuterium
fuel, and is now mostly ordinary hydrogen.  Now hydrogen has a
mass of one (it's a single proton) and helium has a mass of four
(two protons and two neutrons), so it's not hard to imagine sticking
four hydrogens together to make a helium.  There are two major
problems here:  the first is getting four hydrogens to collide 
simultaneously, and the second is converting two of the four protons
into neutrons.  

The sun evades the first problem, and solves the second, by using a 
catalyzed cycle:  rather than fuse 4 protons directly, it fuses a 
proton to an atom of carbon-12, creating nitrogen-13; the N-13 emits 
a neutrino and a positron (an antielectron, that is an electon with
positive instead of negative charge) and becomes carbon-13.  
(Effectively, the Carbon-12 converted the proton to a 
neutron + positron + neutrino, kept the neutron, and became C-13).  
The C-13 eventually fuses with another proton to become N-14.  
N-14 then fuses with a proton to become oxygen-15.  Oxygen-15 decays 
to N-15 (emitting another positron), and N-15 plus another proton 
yields carbon-12 plus a helium-4 nucleus, (aka an alpha particle).  
Thus 4 protons are tacked one by one onto heavier elements, two of 
the protons are converted to neutrons, and the result is production
of helium and two positrons.  (The positrons will undergo 
matter-antimatter annihilation with two electrons, and the result
of the whole process is formation of a helium, two neutrinos, and
a bunch of gamma rays.  The gamma rays get absorbed in the solar 
interior and heat it up, and eventually the energy from all this 
fusion gets emitted as sunlight from the surface of the sun.)

The whole process is known as the carbon cycle; it's catalyzed
because you start with carbon and still have carbon at the end.
The presence of the carbon merely makes it possible to convert
protons to helium.  The process is slow because it's difficult
to fuse protons with carbon and nitrogen, and the positron-emitting
nuclear decays are also slow processes, because they're moderated
by the weak nuclear force.


*** J.  Why is it so hard to create controlled man-made fusion 
reactions?

In order to get two nuclei to fuse, you basically have to get
them to collide energetically.  It turns out that colliding two
beams of particles yields mostly scattering collisions, and few
fusion reactions.  Similarly, blasting a stationary target with
a beam of energetic ions also yields too little fusion.  

The upshot is that one must find some way to confine hot, 
energetic particles so that they can collide many many times,
and finally collide in just the right way, so that fusion occurs.
The temperatures required are upwards of 100 million degrees 
(Kelvin - it would be about 200 million Fahrenheit!).  At these
temperatures, your fusion fuel will melt/evaporate any material
wall.  So the big difficulties in fusion are (a) getting 
the particles hot enough to fuse, and (b) confining them long
enough so that they do fuse.


*** K.  What is plasma physics, and how is it related to fusion?

Plasma physics is the area of physics which studies ionized 
gases and their properties.  In most conventional types of fusion 
(muon-catalyzed fusion being the major exception), one must heat 
the fusion fuel to extremely high temperatures.  At these 
temperatures, the fuel atoms collide so much and so hard that 
many electrons are knocked loose from their atoms.  The result 
is a soup of ionized atoms and free electrons: a plasma.

In order to achieve the conditions required for controlled 
fusion, an understanding of how plasmas behave (and particularly 
how to confine and heat them) is often essential.


*** L.  Just how hot and confined do these plasmas need to be?
(Or, what conditions are needed for controlled fusion?)

Basically, the hotter your plasma, the more fusion you will have,
because the more ions will be flying around fast enough to stick
together.  (Although actually you can go *too* fast, and the atoms
then start to whiz by too quickly, and don't stick together long 
enough to fuse properly.  This limit is not usually achieved in 
practice.)  The more dense your plasma is, the more ions there are
in a small space, and the more collisions you are likely to have.
Finally, the longer you can keep your plasma hot, the more likely
it is that something will fuse, so duration is important too.  More
importantly, the slower your plasma loses energy, the more likely
it is that it will be able to sustain its temperature from internal
fusion reactions, and "ignite."  The ratio of fusion energy
production to plasma energy loss is what really counts here.

Hotness is measured by temperature, and as explained above, the
D-T fuel cycle (the easiest) requires temperatures of about 10 keV,
or 100,000,000 degrees kelvin.  Density is typically measured in 
particles-per-cubic centimeter or particles-per-cubic meter.
The required density depends on the confinement duration.

The Lawson product, defined as (density)*(confinement time) is a 
key measure of plasma confinement, and determines what combinations 
of density and energy confinement will give you fusion
at a given temperature.  It is important to note that what
you must confine is the *energy* (thermal energy) stored in 
the plasma, and not necessarily the plasma particles.  

There's a lot of subtlety here; for instance, you want to 
confine your fuel ions as well as their energy, so that they
stick around and fuse, but you *don't* want to confine the 
"ash" from the reactions, because the ash needs to get out 
of the reactor...  But you'd like to get the *energy*
out of the ash to keep your fuel hot so it will fuse better!
(And it gets even more complicated than that!)

Regardless, it's true that for a special value of the Lawson 
product, the fusion power produced in your plasma will just 
balance the energy losses as energy in the plasma becomes 
unconfined, and *ignition* occurs.  That is, as long as 
the plasma fuel stays around, the plasma will keep itself 
hot enough to keep fusing.

A simple analogy here is to an ordinary fire.  The fire won't
burn unless the fuel is hot enough, and it won't keep burning
unless the heat released by burning the fuel is enough to keep
the fuel hot enough.  The flame continually loses heat, but 
usually this loss is slow enough that the fire sustains itself.
You can accelerate the heat loss, however, by pouring water
on the fire to cool it quickly; this puts the fire out.

In fusion, the plasma continually loses heat, much as a fire 
gives off heat, and if the plasma loses heat faster than heat
is produced by fusion, it won't stay hot enough to keep burning.
In fusion reactors today, the plasmas aren't quite confined well
enough to sustain burning on their own (ignition), so we get
them to burn by pumping in energy to keep them hot.  This is sort
of like getting wet wood to burn with a blowtorch (this last analogy 
is usually credited to Harold Furth of PPPL).

For the D-T fuel cycle, the Lawson ignition value for a temperature 
of about 200,000,000 Kelvin is roughly 5E20 seconds-particles/m^3.  
Current fusion reactors such as TFTR have achieved about 1/10th of
this - but 20 years ago they had only achieved 1/100,000th of this!

How can we improve the Lawson value of a plasma further, so we get 
even closer to fusion ignition?  The trick is to keep the heat in the 
plasma for as long as possible.  As an analogy to this problem, 
suppose we had a thermos of coffee which we want to keep hot.  We can 
keep the thermos hotter longer by (a) using a better type of 
insulation, so that the heat flows out more slowly, or (b) using 
thicker insulation, so the heat has farther to go to escape, and
therefore takes longer to get out.

Going back to the fusion reactor, the insulation can be improved by 
studying plasmas and improving their insulating properties by 
reducing heat transport through them.  And the other way to boost
the Lawson value is simply to make larger plasmas, so the energy
takes longer to flow out.  Scientists believe it's technically
feasible to build a power-producing fusion reactor with high
Lawson value *Right Now*, but it would have to be large, so large 
in fact that it would cost too much to be able to make electricity
economically.  So we're studying plasmas and trying to figure out
how to make them trap energy more efficiently.


*** M.  What are the basic approaches used to heat and confine 
the plasma?  (Or, what is magnetic confinement?  
Inertial confinement?)

There are three basic ways to confine a plasma.  The first is 
the method the sun uses:  gravity.  If you have a big enough
ball of plasma, it will stick together by gravity, and be
self-confining.

Unfortunately for fusion researchers, that doesn't work here on
earth.  The second method is that used in nuclear fusion bombs:
you implode a small pellet of fusion fuel.  If you do it quickly
enough, and compress it hard enough, the temperature will go way
up, and so will the density, and you can exceed the Lawson 
ignition value despite the fact that you are only confining your
pellet for nanoseconds.  Because the inertia of the imploding
pellet keeps it momentarily confined, this method is known as
inertial confinement.

The third method uses the fact that charged particles placed in
a magnetic field will gyrate in circles.  If you can arrange the
magnetic field carefully, the particles will be trapped by it.
If you can trap them well enough, the plasma energy will be
confined.  Then you can heat the plasma, and achieve fusion with
more modest particle densities.  This method is known as 
magnetic confinement.  Initial heating is achieved by a 
combination of microwaves, energetic/accelerated particle beams, 
and resistive heating from currents driven through the plasma.
(Once the Lawson ignition value is achieved, the plasma becomes
more-or-less self-heating.)  In magnetic confinement, the plasma 
density is typically about 1E20 particles per cubic meter, and with
a temperature of about 1E8 kelvin, we see that ignition could be
achieved with a confinement time of about 4 seconds.  (All these 
numbers in reality vary by factors of 2 or 3 from the rough values 
I've given.)  Currently, magnetic-confinement reactors are about 
a factor of ten short of the ignition value.  (TFTR has an
energy confinement time of 0.25 seconds during its best shots.)  

More information on these different approaches is given in the
sections that follow.
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Sun Oct  2 04:37:04 EDT 1994
------------------------------
1994.09.21 /  Anthony /  Re: Let's send Tom to Cartersville, GA
     
Originally-From: Anff@qvwp.demon.co.uk (Anthony)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Let's send Tom to Cartersville, GA
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 1994 00:47:18 +0000
Organization: A H Worth & Co Ltd

Oh yes Tom,

Please don't forget your camera (and my 15 quid) a picture is worth
a thousand words especially if it's a Gif or JPEG!!!

-- 
Cheers
Anff

--Anthony Sumner -- Mail Anff@qvwp.demon.co.uk
"Knowledge is useless unless it's shared"
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenAnff cudlnAnthony cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.30 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Future Energy Foundation
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Future Energy Foundation
Date: Fri, 30 Sep 1994 05:26:01 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <Cwto6L.GG2@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> scott@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG
(Scott Hazen Mueller) writes:
>In article <horst_bob-270994095453@130.252.151.52> horst_bob@tandem.com
(Robert Horst) writes:
>>For now, I will call the organization the FEF, for "Future Energy
>>Foundation," or "Fusion Experimental Fund," or even "Free Energy
>>Follies," depending on your viewpoint.

Wasn't there an FEF (Fusion Energy Foundation) advocating huge goverment
block funding, and backed by Lyndon LaRouche?  These chaps were at 
every airport near fusion reseach facilities of goverment centers, as
well as most annual fusion meetings.   Also, one of Bogdan Maglich's
Companies was named the Fusion Energy Corporation, and he still has
a non-profit company that promotes aneutronic (the MIGMA way) energy
research, but I can't remember the name.  So the appeal of future 
fusion can and has drawn money, upon which even a certain Government 
Department crafts its continued existence.  That is judging by the
the description they give of their work, a kind of slushy glowing 
environmental and economic god-send they are bringing forth.  
Sorry for the diversion... . but there is a fine line here, .. . 
someplace.. ah    I think.   

>I nominate "The College of Sci.Physics.Fusion".  Sure, it's unwieldy, but
>it's got precedent.

>>Votes may be either posted, or sent directly to the secretary via Email.

>Votes should only be emailed.  Hardly anyone wants to read

>I vote aye.

>Me too!

>Me three!

>>5.  Yearly dues are to be ($50?, lower student rates?, $20 min with
>>higher donations encouraged?).  Non-US members may have reduced
>>rates to compensate for the costs of currency exchange and postage.

Sounds like the making of a non-profit org.  And, getting that tax status
could be very helpful.  

>Anyone know someone (attorney, accountant) who knows about club dues and
>the like?  Obviously, not every club has to jump through all of the
>legal hoops, but one that gives people a few hundred dollars here and
>there might.

Well some of us would like an honorary membership, since the vast 
share of our effort and funds are directly spent on fusion related
research, even though it may not be cf per se.   

            \scott
>-- 
>Scott Hazen Mueller scott@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG or (tandem|ub-gate)!zorch!scott
>Mail fusion-request@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG for emailed sci.physics.fusion digests.
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc, Bx 1037 Prometheus II Ltd, College Park MD 20741-1037    |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.02 / Jack Sarfatti /  Re: Free Energy Newsletter part 2/2
     
Originally-From: sarfatti@ix.netcom.com (Jack Sarfatti)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,alt.paranet.science,alt.paranet
ufo,sci.bio,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.particle
Subject: Re: Free Energy Newsletter part 2/2
Date: 2 Oct 1994 06:46:45 GMT
Organization: Netcom

In <941001151531@are107.lds.loral.com> hahn@newshost.lds.loral.com  (Karl Hahn) writes: 

>
>In article <36hguu$ae1@ixnews1.ix.netcom.com> sarfatti@ix.netcom.com
(Jack Sarfatti) writes:
>
>>   I suspect everything in this newsletter ranks high on the crackpot index.
>
>Well, maybe not.  I would believe an article about free energy if it were
>authored by Willard Gibbs ;-)
>

Yes, but was there an article by Gibbs in it? If so, I modify my pompous
remark to "almost everything". :-)

I do think we will be able to tap zero point energy in the future but
I doubt that any of the claims in that newsletter are correct. I would like
to be wrong on that but, alas!, I fear I am right in this particular.
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudensarfatti cudfnJack cudlnSarfatti cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.01 / Robert Heeter /  Re: Fusion Digest 2497
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion Digest 2497
Date: Sat, 1 Oct 1994 14:58:27 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

In article <36ieft$aj2@newsbf01.news.aol.com>, bwhuckabee@aol.com
sends down a bolt from the blue:

> In article <1994Jul17.234340.4534@Princeton.EDU>, Robert F. Heeter
> <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> writes:
> 
> This is Brian Huckabee.  Buck Deloach and I were just sitting here and
> thinking that you must really know a lot about cold fusion.  We're
hoping
> to read about you in Time Magazine someday.  

What?  When did I ever claim to know anything about cold fusion?
Who are you guys?  Perhaps you could include some of the text 
of whatever article I wrote that gave you that idea?  

I do profess to know at least a little about *hot* fusion, but
I don't think anyone really knows a lot about "cold fusion."

***************************
Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University
Maintainer of FAQ on *Conventional* Fusion
As always, I represent only myself, and not PPPL
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.02 / Mark Thorson /  Re: Free Energy Newsletter part 2/2
     
Originally-From: eee@netcom.com (Mark Thorson)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,alt.paranet.science,alt.paranet
ufo,sci.bio,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.particle
Subject: Re: Free Energy Newsletter part 2/2
Date: Sun, 2 Oct 1994 14:41:58 GMT
Organization: Netcom is powered by zero-point energy

In article <36hguu$ae1@ixnews1.ix.netcom.com>,
Jack Sarfatti <sarfatti@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>I suspect everything in this newsletter ranks high on the crackpot index. 

Coming from Jack, that's a pretty damning accusation  :-)

cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudeneee cudfnMark cudlnThorson cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.02 / Alison Colman /  Want: info on the Ohio H20 HV HF electrolysis patent
     
Originally-From: acolman@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Alison Colman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Want: info on the Ohio H20 HV HF electrolysis patent
Date: 2 Oct 1994 16:10:57 GMT
Organization: The Ohio State University


A couple of years - or a year and a half ago a "free energy" article
was cross-posted here that contained information on a guy in Ohio
who had developed a "very efficient" means of electrolyzing water 
using some stepping-voltage technique.  There was a very good text
of his patent and some accompanying circuit and setup diagrams.
If anyone know of an archive site where I might find this again
or if someone still has this info and can email it to me I would
really appreciate it.  The article also spawned some discussion on
the way the apparatus and circuitry really worked - any info there
might help also.
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenacolman cudfnAlison cudlnColman cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.02 / Mike Jamison /  Re: Instrumenting Griggs
     
Originally-From: edwlt12@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov (Mike Jamison (ADF))
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Instrumenting Griggs
Date: 2 Oct 1994 12:32 EDT
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center

In article <36itd3$nf1@stratus.skypoint.com>, jlogajan@skypoint.com writes...
>It occured to me that one might wish to study the dynamic rotational
>velocity of the drive shaft leading into the Griggs rotor.
> 
>I believe a fairly simple device could be constructed to accomplish
>this.
> 
>Firstly, you take a DTP-laser printer combo, and produce a strip of
>paper with very tightly spaced horizontal lines on it.  Then you
>wrap that strip of paper around the shaft.
> 
>Next you get a PC and a timer card, and use a IR LED/sensor pair
>to scan the "shaft encoder" as it turns.  You time the transitions,
>and you digitize that into the PC memory.
> 
>If you take a baseline snapshot, you can use it to null out any
>non-linearities in the system.  Then during the "anomalous heat"
>period, you take additional complete rotational snapshots.
> 
>After using the baseline to compensate the test snapshots, any 
>remaining timing variations between transitions should represent
>rotor/housing/water induced frequency components coupling back
>into the dynameter/motor/power-meter.

Something about this rings a bell - I read somewhere about this sort of 
thing being used to measure the torque on a driveshaft.  It required an
encoder at each end of the driveshaft, and a knowledge of the driveshaft's
flexing properties.

The system allowed for the calculation of instantaneous torque - which, when
multiplied by rpm and some constant, gave instantaneous horsepower.

Doing the integral ove time will give the averge H.P., and it sounds like
we need [well, somebody needs] a device that will do this.
> 
>--
> - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com  --  612-633-0345 -
> - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA -

Mike Jamison

"Scientific research consists in seeing what everyone else has seen, but
thinking what no one else has thought"

						-A. Szent-Gyorgyi
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenedwlt12 cudfnMike cudlnJamison cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.02 / Mike Jamison /  Re: Why not just buy/rent Tom  D. a Griggs Device?
     
Originally-From: edwlt12@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov (Mike Jamison (ADF))
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Why not just buy/rent Tom  D. a Griggs Device?
Date: 2 Oct 1994 12:58 EDT
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center

In article <1994Sep29.185236.3924@math.ucla.edu>, barry@arnold.math.ucla
edu (Barry Merriman) writes...
>In article <29SEP199411221477@mars.lerc.nasa.gov> edwlt12@mars.lerc.nasa.gov  
>(Mike Jamison (ADF)) writes:
>> I'll see your $50 and raise it $50 :-)  But not for a GG.  I have a tough
>> time contributing cash, especially $100, to something I don't believe works.
>> 
>> However, I'd gladly donate $100 to Paul Koloc's Plasmak (TM) and hope others
>> would do the same.
>> 
> 
>Unfortunatley, I doubt we could get PK anything he really needs
>for less than $10k---even  small plasma devices of the type used
>in grad student research tend to cost around $100k, at least.
>--
>Barry Merriman
>UCLA Dept. of Math
>UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
>barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)
> 

Actually, I was sort of thinking along the lines of buying excessed gov't.
equipment - vacuum roughing/diffusion pumps, etc.  Unfortunately, most of the
stuff that gets excessed at LeRC is in the form of old vaxes, pc/xt's and
other electronics that's not very useful [well, the vaxes can provide enough
heat for an average house, but... :)].

And there are the hamfests, where lasers can be bought for good prices...

If Paul can let us know what he needs, we may be able to get it for him.
Then again, his agreements may not let him or, perhaps, all he needs is the
time to finish his research...

> 

Mike Jamison

"Scientific research consists in seeing what everyone else has seen, but
thinking what no one else has thought"

						-A. Szent-Gyorgyi
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenedwlt12 cudfnMike cudlnJamison cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.02 / Thomas Zemanian /  Re: Instrumenting Griggs
     
Originally-From: ts_zemanian@pnl.gov (Thomas S. Zemanian)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Instrumenting Griggs
Date: 2 Oct 1994 19:48:20 GMT
Organization: Battelle PNL


Another possibility would be to operate the device off a DC motor, thereby
eliminating the power factor correction.  Moreover, the input power is then
easily derived from simultaneous monitoring of the voltage and current.

Unfortunately, 30 hp DC motors are quite rare.  Might anyone know where one
could be obtained?

--Tom

--
The opinions expressed herein are mine and mine alone.  Keep your filthy
hands off 'em! 
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudents_zemanian cudfnThomas cudlnZemanian cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.02 / Robert Heeter /  FAQ on Conventional Fusion Section 7/11 (Education)
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Originally-From: Geoff Maddison, geoff.maddison@aea.orgn.uk
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: FAQ on Conventional Fusion Section 7/11 (Education)
Date: Sun, 2 Oct 1994 15:35:56 GMT
Date: Sat, 26 Feb 1994 18:44:05 GMT
Organization: Princeton University


Archive-name: fusion/faq/section7-education
Last-modified: 6-Aug-1994
Posting-frequency: More-or-less-monthly

*****************************************************************
7. Educational Opportunities in Fusion Research
* This FAQ deals with conventional fusion only, not Cold Fusion. *

While this section is not yet complete, it should be useful to
many people, and I encourage you to distribute it to anyone who
might be interested (and willing to help revise it!!!).

Fourth Draft - August 6,1994
Written by Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@pppl.gov, unless
otherwise cited.  Acknowledgements to everyone are in Section 12.

***  Note: Answers in this section are biased towards Americans;
          I'd appreciate input from people in other nations to
          make this section as applicable as possible. 

***  Note #2:  These answers are by no means complete or final;
          I'm hoping y'all will contribute what you know and
          help me out!

***********************

Undergraduate/Graduate Opportunities: 

***  A.  What opportunities are there for interested students?

 * Undergraduate Opportunities:  Academic-year Programs

         !!!! High school students take note !!!!

Unfortunately, fusion research is a relatively small field, 
so most colleges and universities do not have much in the 
way of fusion research.  Plasma physics is a bit more common, 
but still not widespread.  But it's certainly possible to wind up 
doing plasma physics at the graduate level without getting 
much exposure as an undergraduate, at least in the U.S.

Exceptions - schools with active plasma/fusion research:

In the United States (in no particular order):
     Caltech, UCLA, Wisconsin-Madison, MIT, Texas-Austin, 
     Princeton, Maryland, Iowa, Auburn, Columbia, 
     Washington (Seattle) and probably some other schools 

In Germany - the Universities in:  
     Munich, Juelich, Bochum, Berlin, Stuttgart, Augsburg, and 
     Greifswald.  Graduate students can work at the Max Planck
     Institut fur Plasmaphysik, too.

In Britain:
     Imperial College, London; Oxford University; (elsewhere?) 

Elsewhere in the EU:
     Denmark:  University of Copenhagen
     Netherlands:  FOM Institute at Rijnhuizen (?, spelling?)

Most Russian research is done in Moscow, Leningrad, and Novosibirsk.

(help with other countries, anyone??)


 * If anyone needs help obtaining addresses to contact at these
institutions, let me know.  If anyone has contact addresses,
please send them to me so I can accumulate a list.


 * Undergraduate Summer Programs:
     
There are, however, undergraduate summer research programs 
(primarily for students who've completed their junior year) in 
both Europe and the United States (details on these programs
are appended).  One can also become involved in fusion / plasma
research through summer programs offered at the various U.S.
National Laboratories (particularly Livermore, Los Alamos,
and Sandia; possibly Oak Ridge?). Finally, it's also possible 
to do summer research at the schools which do research, provided
you find a way to make the right connections.


 * Graduate Opportunities:  

The summer program offered in Europe is targeted for beginning 
graduate students (perhaps more so than advanced undergraduates); 
see below for details.

The schools listed above which pursue fusion / plasma research 
also have graduate programs; there are other schools as well.  
There are several fellowships available to provide financial 
assistance, as well.  (I could really use a couple addresses here, 
so people know where to go to get the important information.  
Help anyone???)


***  B.  I'm an undergraduate interested in becoming a "fusioneer".  
         What should I study?

Basic Answer:  

     Fusion researchers come to the field from a number
of different disciplines, because the field is small and young
and no school has a major in "fusioneering" or "plasma physics".  
For undergraduates, a major in physics, astrophysics, or 
electrical engineering would provide a perhaps the best 
background for studying plasma physics.  Nuclear and mechanical
engineering are also viable options, particularly if your interest
lies more in reactor design and engineering.  At this point the
majority of graduate opportunities are on the plasma physics side,
though this may change as the science evolves and (we hope) more
reactor engineers are needed.

My opinion is that it is more important to look for research
opportunities relevant to the field, and the choice of major
is a little less important.


***  C.  What sorts of experiments are there for high-school
         students?  How can I get the equipment?  Has anyone
         else done this?

     While there are few fusion experiments that would be feasible
at the high school level, there are a number of interesting
possibilities for plasma physics experiments.  (There are 
people here at PPPL, and probably elsewhere, who can provide
demos and/or assist in developing experiments; if anyone 
is interested in this, let me know and I'll pursue this further.)

     There are a couple simple plasma demonstrations which
would probably be feasible.  If one has access to a microwave
oven, one can simply insert a sealed tube containing some sort
of low-pressure gas (such as a fluorescent light bulb), and 
then run the microwave.  The microwave radiation will ionize 
the gas, forming a microwave plasma discharge, if the circumstances 
are right.  (This may not be all that good for the microwave,
however.)  

     An easy way to observe the confining effects of a magnetic
field would be to build a fairly large magnetic coil (fields
of around 30 gauss will give a nice effect) and run a fluorescent
light inside.  (The Helmholtz configuration, where the coil
radius is equal to the coil separation, gives a fairly uniform
magnetic field in the region between the coils, and would be
better than a solenoid since it would make it easier to see
inside.  Moving the coils away from each other will generate
a magnetic mirror configuration, which also has some interesting
physics to it.)  This will be best if you can see inside the
fluorescent bulb, instead of just seeing the phosphor glow from
the glass tube.

     If one has access to a vacuum pump and a high voltage (2000 V)
power supply, it is also possible to build a glow discharge tube
instead of using the fluorescent light bulb.  Air will give
a pretty discharge, but helium and neon and argon are also 
interesting.  I have draftings and instructions for building
such a glow tube, which could be built as a high school project
for high schools with a small machine shop (courtesy of Tim
Bennett at PPPL).


***  D.  What about those summer programs you mentioned above?

I am currently aware of two major plasma/fusion summer programs.

* 1.  The National Undergraduate Summer Fellowship in Plasma Physics 
and Fusion Engineering (NUF) is a competitive U.S. program, 
primarily aimed at those completing their junior year in college.  
A one-week short course (at Princeton, in June) kicks off 
the program, followed by several weeks of research at various 
sites nationwide.  There is a substantial stipend ($4000 or so) 
and travel expenses up to $1000 are covered.  The application
deadline was Feb. 22 of this year, and will probably shift 
around next year.  

For further information, contact nuf@pppl.gov (Diane Carroll).

* 2.  There is also a Plasma Physics Summer School offered at 
Culham in England (where JET is located).  Here is a posting
on the program from Geoff Maddison, and some comments from
others on the program.

Originally-From: Geoff Maddison, geoff.maddison@aea.orgn.uk
Date: Sat, 26 Feb 1994 18:44:05 GMT
>
>      T H E   3 1 s t   C U L H A M   P L A S M A   P H Y S I C S
>      ###########################################################
>
>                       S U M M E R   S C H O O L
>                       #########################
>
>                   1 1   -   2 2   J U L Y   1 9 9 4
>
>         C u l h a m   L a b o r a t o r y,   A b i n g d o n,
>                     O x f o r d s h i r e,   U K
>
>
> An International Summer School intended  for students near 
> the  start of postgraduate courses.  No previous knowledge of 
> plasma physics  is assumed.  Since 1985,  the Summer School series  
> has been attended by over 600 students from 47 countries, more 
> than two thirds coming from outside the UK.
>
> Culham Laboratory is the primary centre for plasma physics & 
> nuclear fusion research in the UK; it is located close to the 
> city of Oxford, and  shares  a  site   with  the   world's  
> largest  magnetic  fusion experiment,  the  Joint  European  
> Torus   (JET).
>
>               The School covers a broad curriculum :-
>
> * Plasma particle dynamics   * Plasma waves  * Kinetic theory   
> * MHD * Computational techniques  * Astrophysical plasmas   
> * Laser plasmas * Magnetically confined plasmas    * Solar plasmas
> * Poster session * Space plasmas * Laboratory visits * Industrial 
> plasmas * Turbulence & chaos * Diagnostics * Gravitational plasmas
>
> A copy of the course textbook "Plasma Phyics: An Introductory
> Course" (Cambridge University Press, 1993)  is given to each
> student.
>
> ACCOMMODATION WILL BE IN A HISTORIC COLLEGE OF OXFORD UNIVERSITY.
>
>            CLOSING DATE FOR APPLICATIONS:  13th MAY 1994
>
>   (Late applications may be accepted, depending on accommodation.)
>
> Further details / application forms are available from :-
>
>      Mrs Joan Stimson,
>      Culham Laboratory,
>      Abingdon,
>      Oxfordshire  OX14 3DB,              Tel: 44 235 463293
>      UK.                                 FAX: 44 235 463288
>
> or e-MAIL enquiries to:  geoff.maddison@aea.orgn.uk
>

Commentary:

* From David Pearson, University of Reading, 1988 (?) attendee:

Dear Internet,

Yes, go to the Culham Summer School if you can - but read some
basic textbooks (or a textbook) first, if you are a beginner.
The Summer School is excellent, but I doubt if many people are
smart enough to plunge straight into it without knowing some
plasma physics first - I certainly wasn't.

* Note by Robert F. Heeter:  

The Culham program appears to be intended for students making 
the transition from undergraduate to graduate work.  The flyer 
I saw indicated that it was about twelve days long (two weeks 
of classes and a weekend in the middle), and the cost was 
on the order of 750 pounds sterling, including housing.



*** E.  When/where are the major fusion conferences?

** Major Annual Conferences:

The following is a list of some major annual conferences, including
(where I have the information) the sponsoring organization, the 
name of the conference, the typical abbreviation for the 
conference, the season when the conference is held, size of 
the conference, and some comments.  (The current list was 
provided by Art Carlson; I've reformatted it somewhat.)

* American Physical Society Division of Plasma Physics:
Annual Meeting. (APS, or APS-DPP).  Fall. About 1500 contributors. 

Largest and probably most important conference, covers all of 
plasma physics.

* European Physical Society:
European Conference on Controlled Fusion and 
... Plasma Physics (odd years) 
... Plasma Heating (even years) 
(EPS). Summer. About 500 contributors. 

The European equivalent of APS, covers all of plasma physics.

* International Atomic Energy Agency: 
International Conference on Plasma Physics and Controlled 
Nuclear Fusion Research. (IAEA). Fall. Attendence restricted. 

Politically important.

* Symposium on Fusion Technology (SOFT). Summer.

* International Conference on Plasma-Surface Interaction (PSI). 
Summer. 

Lots of surface physics and technology.

* International Sherwood Fusion Theory Conference 
(Sherwood). Spring. 

Probably the most important fusion _theory_ conference.
(From the secret code name for the original US fusion program.)


** A few dates of upcoming fusion-related conferences.
(dates European style, dy/mo/yr)

26/9-1/10
15th IAEA Int. conf. on PLASMA PHYSICS AND CONTROLLED NUCLEAR 
FUSION RESEARCH
Madrid, Spain

7-11/11/94
Meeting of the AMERICAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY--DIVISION OF PLASMA PHYSICS
Minneapolis, MN, USA

2-7/7/95
22nd European Conf. on CONTROLLED FUSION AND PLASMA PHYSICS
Bournemouth, UK


anybody have a few minutes to update my calendar???
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.02 / Chuck Sites /  Re: Test Results from Jim Griggs
     
Originally-From: chuck@iglou.iglou.com (Chuck Sites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Test Results from Jim Griggs
Date: Sun, 2 Oct 1994 17:56:28 GMT
Organization: IgLou Internet Services

crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:

>In article <36js0c$195$1@mhadg.production.compuserve.com>,
>Jed Rothwell  <72240.1256@CompuServe.COM> wrote:
>>gk00@quads.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg) babbles:
>> 
>>What on earth is wrong with you "skeptics?" The data is right there in black
>>and white! The input temperature, output temperature, flow rates, torque and
>>R.P.M.'s. Everything you need to know. 

>     Right.  I've got an insulated box with an inflow of 15 kps of 20C water
>     and an outflow of 15 kps of 25C water.  There's nothing in the box 
>     but some geometry that's causing the Water Pixies to put heat 
>     into the water.

>     Damn, I've just produced a machine that creates energy.

>     That's Jed Rothwell's 'everything you need to know'.

>     First. I could be wrong in any number of ways.  Second, I could be 
>     lying.  Third, I could have left out some information that makes 
>     the 'problem' go away.

>     Jed, your apparent credulity is astonishing at times.

>                                       dale bass

I must admit that when Dale critisizes some of the science issues of 
*conventional* cold fusion, he usually manages to 'get my goat'. On 
this Gigg's gadget, I stand right behind him. The GG machine is certainly 
a novel way of converting water to steam, and it may actually be 
pretty effecient at doing this.  It was suggested by someone in this group
(sorry I forget who it was) that utrasonic energy migh be resonant with the
Van Der Waals forces allowing a very effecient conversion of water to steam.  
However, to expect this device to "Over unity" is just plain delusion on 
the part of Jed, and others suggesting such.  In the first part, with all 
mechanical devices like electric motors and such, there are losses of energy 
in the conversion of energy from electrical to mechanical.  Then there are 
losses from mechanical transfer of energy from rotor to fluid-steam motion,
heat leakage and all that. To make up for that and then, in the process,
go-over unity requires some source of energy in the water that could be 
as high as 20% of the electrical input power.  
   Nahh... As much as I support serious investigations into Cold fusion
and believe that some unusual claims have a foundation for support, the
claims that the Giggs gadget is 'over unity' is goofy.  And let me add,
that if the speculation that this device causes ultra-cavitation and a
type of still hypothetical sono-fusion which will will make up for the
deficit, then show us a fusion reaction product because there should be
alot of it!     
   It may be that the GG is effective and perhaps more efficient than most
methods of converting electrical energy to thermal steam energy which obviously
would have commercial value, but even for that claim, I say prove it.  I'm 
with you on this one Dale.  The company that sells the GG obviously has 
some literature describing the product, specifications, effieciencies 
etc. If I was buying/renting/leasing this type of power plant for my 
business I certainly wouldn't buy it without some assurance on the savings
of energy costs using it.  Perhaps Jed and Giggs supporters can post that
here. 
   Until then, I support Dale's contention that this creature is a 
badly measured, over-unity, delusion on the part of Jed and company.

Chuck Sites
chuck@iglou.com










cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.02 / Loren Petrich /  Re: Cold Fusion comment, WAS Re: UNI DIRECTIONAL SPEAKER CABLE
     
Originally-From: petrich@netcom.com (Loren Petrich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion comment, WAS Re: UNI DIRECTIONAL SPEAKER CABLE
Date: Sun, 2 Oct 1994 20:01:58 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

In article <3630ml$kgd@ixnews1.ix.netcom.com>,
Chris Parkinson <parky@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>In <petrichCwIpDo.L7v@netcom.com> petrich@netcom.com (Loren Petrich) writes: 

	[Detailed discussion of Cold Fusion prospects deleted...]

>Hi, I'm the joker who started this thread.

>You make a good argument and I've heard it all before as it is a very
>typical response. I agree with the neutron prospect as some have seen it
>in their experiments but how do you explain those that do not see any
>neutrons and still get high heat output? Is it that you do not know 
>about those experimentors or what. Try reading up on them in Fusion
>Technology tm. or Cold Fusion Magazine tm.. 

	One joker in the deck:

	Is there _really_ more energy coming out than going in? It should 
be _very_ easy to monitor the amount of electricity a CF cell consumes; 
simply multiply the voltage across it by the current going through it, 
and integrate over time.

	One source of "excess heat" with CF cells may be a simple chemical
reaction. Electrolysis produces hydrogen which adsorbs into the palladium
electrode -- but this same hydrogen can react with oxygen, releasing
energy again -- and this reaction will be assisted by palladium's
catalytic properties (an outcome of Pd-H binding). 

	Resistance heating of the electrode and the water may heat the 
electrode enough to start the H2-O2 reaction, which would produce 
positive feedback from its generated heat, until all the available 
hydrogen was used up. Furthermore, palladium, like hydrogen, may also 
react with oxygen, giving yet another source of heat.

	So it would be interesting to _carefully_ calculate how much heat 
energy is coming out and compare it to the amount of electrical energy 
going in. And check to see whether the palladium gets corroded or not.

-- 
Loren Petrich, the Master Blaster
petrich@netcom.com                   Happiness is a fast Macintosh
lip@s1.gov                           And a fast train

cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenpetrich cudfnLoren cudlnPetrich cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.02 / Chuck Sites /  Re: Cold Fusion comment, WAS Re: UNI DIRECTIONAL SPEAKER CABLE
     
Originally-From: chuck@iglou.iglou.com (Chuck Sites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion comment, WAS Re: UNI DIRECTIONAL SPEAKER CABLE
Date: Sun, 2 Oct 1994 21:43:26 GMT
Organization: IgLou Internet Services

petrich@netcom.com (Loren Petrich) writes:

>[Newsgroup list altered a bit...]

>In article <jonkCwDz5L.Dw8@netcom.com> jonk@netcom.com (Jonathan Dale Kirwan) writes:
>>Harry H Conover (conover@max.tiac.net) wrote:
>>: Well, you can't knock the fact that the CF guys sure know how to party!
>>: Still, I can't help but wonder if they realize what traditional Japanese
>>: customs associated with failure entail. 

>	For those not in the know, one slices one's belly with a knife. 
>One usually does not live very much longer.

>	More seriously, I seriously think that Cold Fusion is a lost 
>cause. One _serious_ problem is the kinds of nuclear reactions involved. 
>Here they are, assuming deuterium as the initial material:

>	D + D -> T + p
>	D + D -> He3 + n
>	D + D -> He4 + gamma

>	Of these, the first two are about equally probable, and the third 
>one is much less likely. Some Cold Fusion enthusiasts maintain that there 
>is some new effect that makes the neutron-producing reaction _much_ less 
>likely than either (or both) of the other two, possibly by the third one 
>being accelerated significantly in some way. One hypothesis is 
>interaction with the surrounding medium, but nuclear energies are _much_ 
>higher than atomic-bond energies, let alone phonon energies. So one 
>requires some sort of effect that makes the third reaction go much 
>faster than normal (say), while affecting essentially _no_ other 
>nuclear-reaction rate. Such blatant ad-hockery makes me gag.

Sorry it makes you gag.

What many of 'us' Cold fusion types are looking for is a quantum effect
where a Band state of D+ ions forms via the periodicity of the metal host
and by Bose nature of the D+ particle undergoes a Bose-Einstien condensation
of the D+ quantum band states.  It's believed that an He4++ band state exists
that is conencident with D+ band state energy, which may allow the transition 
of the two D+ ions in a condensed band to become equivilant to and
indistiguishable from an He4 band.  Since the bands are distriubuted across 
several lattice units the conversion of energy (via E=m c^2) is too, and
by band-state to metal coupling the energy is distriubuted to the host metal.
The physics behind the idea is quite fasinating, and contrary to the common
press accounts is involved.  My favorite reference is T.A.Chubb and S.R.Chubb
"Cold Fusion as an Interaction between Ion Band States", Fusion Technology,
20, 93, 1991.  

   The main problems with realizing cold fusion as a phenomnea worthy of 
support and investigation are political foremost, and materials secondary.
I would suggest that if you can take a little critisism from your fellow 
colleages, it's worth a look into.  There are all kinds of angles to 
pursue.    
  

>	So I expect that, if CF happens, it will produce _lots_ of 
>neutrons. This produces some rather serious constraints on CF power-plant 
>design (can't have people irradiated with lots of neutrons, get it?). A 
>CF cell would have to have at least a few feet (>~ 1 meter) of cladding 
>around it, which will be rather heavy. This means that a CF power plant 
>would be at least as big as a typical car. However, they can still be 
>smaller than present-day fossil-fuel or nuclear-fission power plants, 
>thus making possible an abundance of small power plants rather than a few 
>big ones (good for surviving assorted disasters).

Before making claims that cold fusion will release neutrons as a 
reaction of D+D, you have to describe how D+D will occur.  What material
conditions can you scale up to make a usable device?  From what I've 
read on the D+D->he3+n reactions in the luke-warm to cold fusion energy
range, it's difficult at best to even see a neutron signature.  Yet 
to explain some of the better excess heat experiments and other
phenomenolgy producing He4 as an a nuclear ash requires a source of
energy that can only be explained by a nuclear reaction being envolved
where somehow the branching ratio is changed.  The theory I sited above 
curiuosly fits some of these odd results, and if you have a little 
nuclear physics background, makes good sense. 
        
[Some examples of how CF could change the economies of the world, and
irradiate everyone with neutrons (haha) delteted]

	Successful CF would change energy economics rather drastically, 
>because it would be an efficient source of electricity and low-grade 
>heat. In cold climates, all one would have to do is pipe in some steam 
>heat from one's neighborhood powerplant. Electricity? That would help 
>make electric cars economical, and electrolyzing water would make 
>hydrogen, which could easily substitute for natural gas.

There is alot of work going on hidden behind the curtains simply 
because the politics is sooo bad, and making it work is damn 
difficult.  Alot of good people have been stung in this field.
However some of the serious experimental results in combination 
with some realistic and usable theory, may allow us to exploit
what has been found so far.

>-- 
>Loren Petrich, the Master Blaster
>petrich@netcom.com                   Happiness is a fast Macintosh
>lip@s1.gov                           And a fast train

Chuck Sites                           Cold Fusion. As real as it gets.
chuck@iglou.com

cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.02 / Robert Heeter /  Re: Conventional FAQ - low toxicity vs. benign
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Conventional FAQ - low toxicity vs. benign
Date: Sun, 2 Oct 1994 15:18:17 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

> From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
> Message-ID: <Cx0znB.DHI@world.std.com>

Mitchell Swartz writes:

>   In Message-ID: <1994Sep30.040036.24628@princeton>
> Subject: (Draft) FAQ on Conventional Fusion 
> Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@pppl.gov writes:
> 
>   (mostly very good compilation)

Thanks.

> "Tritium is a relatively benign radioactive element, because:
[[ description of character of tritium as relatively safe
(for a hazardous radioactive isotope)) snipped. ]]
> 
>   It is not benign, but is rather of low toxicity.

I didn't say it was benign, I said it was "a relatively
benign radioactive element," i.e. compared to other
radioactive elements it's benign.  This is rather different
from simply saying it's benign.  I agree that it's of
low toxicity, but I don't think that single phrase 
fully encompasses the character of tritium as a 
radioactive element.  "Relatively benign" is more general.

> --->  benign    (after Webster, ibid.)     from Latin benignus
>                                            to be born well.  
>    1)  of a gentle disposition
>     2)  of a mild character

Tritium is of a relatively mild character as a radioactive element.
That is what I meant.  Sense 2 works fine; benign is not a poor
word choice.

[[ sense 3 snipped. ]]

If you think otherwise please explain more clearly.


*******************************************************
Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University
As always, I represent only myself, and not PPPL
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Mon Oct  3 04:37:04 EDT 1994
------------------------------
1994.10.03 / Richard Herring /  Re: Cold Fusion comment, WAS Re: UNI DIRECTIONAL SPEAKER CABLE
     
Originally-From: rnh@gec-mrc.co.uk (Richard Herring)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.skeptic,sci.electronics,s
i.physics.electromag
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion comment, WAS Re: UNI DIRECTIONAL SPEAKER CABLE
Date: 3 Oct 94 11:34:27 GMT

[Followups to sci.skeptic]

Chris Parkinson (parky@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
CP> In <5393@gec-mrc.co.uk> rnh@gec-mrc.co.uk (RH) writes: 

CP> Hi, I'm the joker who started this thread.

RH> No you're not!

CP> YES I AM!!!

CP> But who cares anyways:^)

Seconded.

RH> _I_ made the Cold Fusion comment in sci.electronics (I think; it was
RH> a long time ago) (note the original subject of the thread)
RH> A discussion of unidirectional transmission lines ,presumably powered by
RH> Maxwell's demons, digressed, as all good Usenet threads do. The topic
RH> turned to other dubious audio practices and someone made a suggestion
RH> implying that because something or other was popular in Japan it must 
RH> automatically be a good thing. 

CP> BLAH BLAH BLAH.....

In polite company we say "[snip]"

RH> I merely remarked that cold fusion 
RH> was also popular in Japan, and invited the readers to draw 
RH> their own conclusions.
RH> 
RH> Result: my very own flamewar. I shall avoid certain subjects in future.
RH> 
RH> Please can we all go home now?
CP> No I dont think so as I think your response is rather, shall we say
CP> rediculous. Since when does one need to regard the Japanies in anything
CP> other than capable. I can only gather that you are from an Italian
CP> organisation and have a chip on your shoulder in regards to these people.

Wrong!

O clueless one, read my signature. I am speaking only for _me_, and that
GEC down there stands for "General Electric Company plc", a British
company. You could have worked that out from the .co.uk domain. 

I think the Japanese are as capable, and as fallible, as any other nation.
My point was simply that "Japanese interest" does not logically imply
"must be genuine". But "can't afford to ignore, in case it is genuine" 
almost certainly does imply "Japanese interest". (or choose any other 
industrial nation that can afford to invest in speculative research)

CP> If you are in Italy, try checking out what Italy is doing in CF. I think
CP> you will be suprised. Well on the otherhand dont as you sound like some 

You seem a trifle inconsistent: if I _were_ in Italy, and had a chip
on my shoulder about Japan, wouldn't I be more likely to be loudly praising
the Italian work...?

CP> of these other close minded baffoons that refuse to agree that there is 

Perhaps you would be good enough to quote precisely what it was that I
said which appeared "close minded"? Or indeed can you quote anything
in which I even disagreed with you? I think you are classing me with those
who disagree with you, purely on the strength of my contradicting you
over who started the thread.
Categorizing those who do disagree with you as "buffoons" does nothing to
maintain the level of rational discourse, either.

CP> something going on here in hydrogen->metal latticed experiments. Call it 
CP> Cold Fusion, Warm Fusion, quad He generation, netron genorator or whatever 
CP> but realize that there is an effect here that cannot be explained well 
CP> with our current line of scientific understanding. 

Indeed: call it what you like, but until it can be reliably replicated,
never mind explained, don't be too quick to attach labels like "fusion"
to something which might turn out to be an entirely different phenomenon,
or even none at all. (how's that for openmindedness 8-)
I prefer "Pons-Fleischman effect".

--
| Richard Herring             |  rnh@gec-mrc.co.uk | Speaking for myself
| GEC-Marconi Research Centre | For sale: N-ray generator, one careful user
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenrnh cudfnRichard cudlnHerring cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.03 / Mike Jamison /  Re: Instrumenting Griggs
     
Originally-From: edwlt12@mars.lerc.nasa.gov (Mike Jamison (ADF))
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Instrumenting Griggs
Date: 3 Oct 1994 10:18 EDT
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center

In article <ts_zemanian-021094124828@ts_zemanian.pnl.gov>, ts_zemanian@p
l.gov (Thomas S. Zemanian) writes...
> 
>Another possibility would be to operate the device off a DC motor, thereby
>eliminating the power factor correction.  Moreover, the input power is then
>easily derived from simultaneous monitoring of the voltage and current.
> 
>Unfortunately, 30 hp DC motors are quite rare.  Might anyone know where one
>could be obtained?

How about a 30+ H.P. gasoline engine - fuel usage will not be fooled by
any reflections in the system.  

Calorimetry will be a pain, though, since you'll have to keep track of the
energy from the engine shaft, the energy thrown out the cooling loop *and*
the energy out the exhaust pipe...
> 
>--Tom
> 
>--
>The opinions expressed herein are mine and mine alone.  Keep your filthy
>hands off 'em! 


Mike Jamison

"Scientific research consists in seeing what everyone else has seen, but
thinking what no one else has thought"

						-A. Szent-Gyorgyi
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenedwlt12 cudfnMike cudlnJamison cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.03 / Ad aspera /  FYI 145, September 27, 1994 (Brown's musings)
     
Originally-From: JTCHEW@lbl.gov (Ad absurdum per aspera)
Newsgroups: sci.research,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.particle,sci.space.policy
Subject: FYI 145, September 27, 1994 (Brown's musings)
Date: Mon, 03 Oct 1994 10:15:41 -0800
Organization: Relayed, not written, by Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory



[Written by individuals at the American Institute of Physics and
merely posted by me, so respond to <fyi@aip.org> or other
references below.  Always posted here on sci.research; sometimes
crossposted to an eclectic and hopefully appropriate selection
of other newsgroups, with followups directed here. Back issues
may be ftp'd from NIC.HEP.NET, along with PHYSICS NEWS UPDATE
and the American Physical Society news/opinion column WHAT'S NEW;
or from pinet.aip.org. Enjoy! -jc]

Brown Says Physics Research Bill Dead (For Now);
Discusses Other Issues

FYI No. 145, September 27, 1994

At a wide-ranging roundtable discussion yesterday, House Science,
Space and Technology Committee Chairman George Brown (D-CA) offered
his views on science policy and funding this year.  Some of the
matters he discussed:

H.R. 4908, THE HYDROGEN, FUSION, AND HIGH ENERGY AND NUCLEAR
PHYSICS RESEARCH ACT:  Brown talked with Senator J. Bennett
Johnston (D-LA) last week, and they agreed that it would be
"impossible" to get this bill through the Senate before the target
adjournment date of October 7.  It would be "better not to even try
and finish it this year," Brown said.  The current thinking is to
take up a new bill early next year (all legislation dies at
adjournment.)  Brown commended Johnston for his efforts, and said
that the senator wants a full Senate floor debate on the ITER
program to avoid an SSC-type outcome.

SCIENCE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FY 1995:  Brown characterized the new
budgets for NSF and NASA as a "tremendous success." He sees a shift
in momentum for the space station, describing its full funding as
a "heartening experience."  In a change from what has sometimes
been a strained relationship with the appropriations committees,
Brown spoke of their "very good working relationship" this year.
Yet, Brown continued, "I'm not very happy" about overall FY 1995
federal science funding.  He cited the real dollar increase in
defense RDT&E funding, declaring "we're retreating" from a
realignment of military and civilian spending.  Saying that it was
a matter of spending priorities, and not just the cap on
discretionary spending, Brown cautioned "we're in deep trouble"
unless some defense spending moves to civilian programs.

EARMARKING:  Brown discussed his efforts to curb this practice at
length, saying the "big test" will be in the number of earmarks in
the forthcoming defense appropriations conference report.  He said
that appropriators are "violating the rules" when they earmark.
The committee has a "carefully planned program to keep the heat on"
next year, he said, continuing, "the best way to get at this
problem is to make it transparent."  His efforts have had, Brown
declared, "no support from the [House] leadership."

H.R. 3254, NSF AUTHORIZATION ACT: No action will occur on this bill
before adjournment; it will also die.  When asked about the damage
that would occur as a result, Brown said, "we [the science
committee] lose our credibility and status as an effective part of
the congressional system." Brown said he was "extremely unhappy"
with the outcome of his committee's legislation this year.

SCIENCE FUNDING ASSISTANCE TO RUSSIA: Brown characterized efforts
to provide funding to Russia as "extremely frustrating, highly
unsuccessful."  He wants to see the administration act on an
endowment with a steady flow of interest as a financing mechanism
to avoid the unevenness of appropriations.

###############
Public Information Division
American Institute of Physics
Contact: Richard M. Jones
fyi@aip.org
(301) 209-3095
##END##########
cudkeys:
cuddy03 cudenJTCHEW cudfnAd cudlnaspera cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.03 / John Lewis /  Re: ENTROPY
     
Originally-From: court@newton.physics.mun.ca (John Lewis)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: ENTROPY
Date: 3 Oct 1994 17:23:15 GMT
Organization: Memorial University of Nfld, St. John's, NF

In article <CwzEIC.I9M@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>In article <36fskq$164u@tequesta.gate.net>, Publius <publius@gate.net> wrote:
>> I know I'm risking being labeled a fool - or worse, but here goes:
>>
>> In "The Book of Revelation" (Chapter 20) the author predicts the
>> end of the World by "The Fire of God" and he says: "The old
>> heaven (atmosphere) and the old Earth passed away and there was
>> no more sea."
>> He also said this would happen "a little season" after the end
>> of the Twentieth Century.
>
>     I'm pretty sure there's no mention of the Twentieth Century in 
>     any of my copies.  
>
>     Perhaps there's a new revision?
>
>                             dale bass

Aarrgghh!  Don't believe anything you don't read in the `Quoran!

cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudencourt cudfnJohn cudlnLewis cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.03 / John Lewis /  Re: Conventional FAQ - low toxicity vs. benign
     
Originally-From: court@newton.physics.mun.ca (John Lewis)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Conventional FAQ - low toxicity vs. benign
Date: 3 Oct 1994 17:36:22 GMT
Organization: Memorial University of Nfld, St. John's, NF

In article <1994Oct2.151817.6580@Princeton.EDU>
Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> writes:
 ...
>
>I didn't say it was benign, I said it was "a relatively
>benign radioactive element," i.e. compared to other
>radioactive elements it's benign.  This is rather different
>from simply saying it's benign. ...

BTW, I've been told by a person who worked a lot with TT,TD, TH
etc. that the best way to wash T out of your body is to
drink a lot of beer.  Lots of water will work, but beer is more efficient -
probably because of its diuretic action.

>
>*******************************************************
>Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
>Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University
>As always, I represent only myself, and not PPPL

John Lewis
St. John's, Newfoundland
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudencourt cudfnJohn cudlnLewis cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.03 / Brian Roscher /  Support Fusion Research, write to president@whitehouse.gov.
     
Originally-From: roachman@er1.rutgers.edu (Brian Roscher)
Newsgroups: sci.energy,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Support Fusion Research, write to president@whitehouse.gov.
Date: 3 Oct 1994 15:40:04 -0400
Organization: Rutgers University

Dear Internet Users,
	If you support fusion as an alternative source of energy then please
write to the President of the United States at president@whitehouse.gov and
ask him to increase the level of funding for fusion research.  
		Thank you,
			Brian Roscher

-- 
Brian Roscher
Roachman@eden.rutgers.edu


cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenroachman cudfnBrian cudlnRoscher cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.03 / John Lewis /  Re: Let's send Tom to Cartersville, GA
     
Originally-From: court@newton.physics.mun.ca (John Lewis)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Let's send Tom to Cartersville, GA
Date: 3 Oct 1994 20:00:49 GMT
Organization: Memorial University of Nfld, St. John's, NF

Well, my cheque for US$30.00 is in the mail to Scott
Hazen Mueller.  Is anyone going to take bets as to
the likelihood of Tom's trip coming off? (not me -
I'm not into gambling).

The situation is delightful.  We've heard for so long now
that a water heater would appear Real Soon Now, and, lo
and behold, one has come forth!  Not from the well-funded lab
of Pons and Fleischmann (F.R.S.), not from a mighty
Japanese engineering company (and how many times the Yellow
Peril has been invoked in this group!), but from -
upstate Georgia!!!  It's almost like the Christmas story,
isn't it?  The Messiah (well, water heater), so long expected,
does finally appear - not in the halls of the great and the
powerful, but in a lowly manger, in a stable!

By the way, is our esteemed Jed Rothwell any relative of
William Jennings Bryan, perchance?  I almost expect him to
write, "I will not see mankind crucified ... on a tokamak"
one of these days.

John Lewis
Newfiejohn (as the USN and USCG refer to our lonely outpost)


cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudencourt cudfnJohn cudlnLewis cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.03 / Mike Jamison /  GG, SL and %error
     
Originally-From: edwlt12@mars.lerc.nasa.gov (Mike Jamison (ADF))
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: GG, SL and %error
Date: 3 Oct 1994 17:45 EDT
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center

I got to thinking about the SL -> excess GG heat idea.  If you really
believe in the excess heat, and you really think SL is responsible for it,
I suggest you take the numbers given by Steve Jones [40 neutrons/sec for
D-T] as an upper limit per bubble.

Take 14 MeV/neutron as the energy liberated/neutron [and, *don't* think 
about where D and T are coming from in tap water :-)].

So, how many bubbles must be present to provide the 10% excess claimed?

"Lots" is a pretty good number :-)

OK, so, now that you're convinced that SL is causing the excess heat, what
kind of error is needed in your voltage and current meters to come up with
a 10% error.

[in power]

Answer:  3% error for both voltage and current.

AC is typically not measured as accurately as DC.  Also, most meters [even
digital meters] assume "perfect" sinusiodal waveforms, and base their 
output on this - the exceptions are the meters that claim to read "TRMS" or
True RMS, voltage.


Mike Jamison


"Scientific research consists in seeing what everyone else has seen, but
thinking what no one else has thought"

						-A. Szent-Gyorgyi
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenedwlt12 cudfnMike cudlnJamison cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.03 / C Harrison /  Re: Want: info on the Ohio H20 HV HF electrolysis patent
     
Originally-From: harr@netcom.com (Charles (Chuck) Harrison)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Want: info on the Ohio H20 HV HF electrolysis patent
Date: Mon, 3 Oct 1994 01:34:02 GMT
Organization: Fitful

In article <acolman-021094110600@slip3-25.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
Alison Colman <acolman@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> wrote:
>
>A couple of years - or a year and a half ago a "free energy" article
>was cross-posted here that contained information on a guy in Ohio
>who had developed a "very efficient" means of electrolyzing water 
>using some stepping-voltage technique.  There was a very good text
>of his patent and some accompanying circuit and setup diagrams.
>If anyone know of an archive site where I might find this again
>or if someone still has this info and can email it to me I would
>really appreciate it.  The article also spawned some discussion on
>the way the apparatus and circuitry really worked - any info there
>might help also.

This message is posted periodically to inform readers about on-line
data sources related to "cold fusion" which are located at the 
University of North Carolina SunSITE server.

Two public WAIS (Wide Area Information Server) sources are online:
(1) Dieter Britz's Bibliography (periodically updated), and
(2) A sci.physics.fusion archive (1989 to present).
WAIS provides for multiple keyword searches in these databases.  It
does _not_ support boolean logic in the searching :-(.

1.  If you are directly connected to Internet, you can log onto a public
    WAIS server at the University of North Carolina:
    %telnet sunsite.unc.edu
    ...
    login: swais
    ...
    TERM = (unknown) vt100
    It takes a minute to load ...

    <use ? for online help>
    <use /cold to locate the cold-fusion "Source" - the Britz biblio>
    < or use /fusion to locate the fusion-digest source>
    <follow the prompts to select the source and enter your keywords
     for searching>

2.  If you have a "gopher" client, you can use it for WAIS access.  Many 
    university campuses provide gopher as a public information service.
2a. On most systems, you first select an option labeled "Other Systems",
    then from that menu select "WAIS based information".  Since each
    gopher site creates its own menus, I can't tell you exactly where to
    go from there.
2b. If you can gopher to SunSITE, at UNC, navigate the menus down thru
    SunSITE archives..All archives..Academic..Physics..Cold-fusion.
    You will find the searchable databases (typically marked <?>), as
    well as the primary-literature files discussed below.
2c. If you can 'telnet' but not 'gopher', you may telnet to
    sunsite.unc.edu and login as 'gopher'.  Then follow 2a or 2b above.

3.  If you have World Wide Web (WWW) browser, such as Mosaic, Cello, or
    Lynx, you may use the following URL's:
     wais://sunsite.unc.edu/cold-fusion       Britz bibliography
     wais://sunsite.unc.edu/fusion-digest     newsgroup archive
     gopher://sunsite.unc.edu/11/../.pub/academic/physics/Cold-fusion

4.  If you have a WAIS client on your system (the most common ones are
    "swais" -- character-based, and "xwais" -- for X-Windows), use it.  The
    Britz source is called "cold-fusion" and it is listed in the 
    directory-of-servers.

    If you _want_ a WAIS client program to run on your system, several are
    available in the public domain.  Try ftp-ing to one of these sites:
      sunsite.unc.edu
      think.com

There are several additional files archived at sunsite (e.g. Bollinger's
Twist of Ribbon, preprints of the Fleischmann&Pons 1989 paper), which
are accessible by anonymous ftp.
    %ftp sunsite.unc.edu
    . . .
    >cd pub/academic/physics/Cold-fusion
    >dir
The collection (mostly primary papers) maintained by vince cate has been
copied over to pub/academic/physics/Cold-fusion/vince-cate.

Additional contributions are welcome; e-mail cfh@sunsite.unc.edu.
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenharr cudfnCharles cudlnHarrison cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.03 / C Harrison /  Re: Instrumenting Griggs
     
Originally-From: harr@netcom.com (Charles (Chuck) Harrison)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Instrumenting Griggs
Date: Mon, 3 Oct 1994 01:43:29 GMT
Organization: Fitful

In article <2OCT199412323586@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov>,
Mike Jamison (ADF) <edwlt12@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov> wrote:
>In article <36itd3$nf1@stratus.skypoint.com>, jlogajan@skypoint.com writes...
>>It occured to me that one might wish to study the dynamic rotational
>>velocity of the drive shaft leading into the Griggs rotor.
[ description of quick-and-dirty optical encoder deleted]
>
>Something about this rings a bell - I read somewhere about this sort of 
>thing being used to measure the torque on a driveshaft.  It required an
>encoder at each end of the driveshaft, and a knowledge of the driveshaft's
>flexing properties.
>
[...]
I did exactly this 20-some years ago at the 1-2 hp level using a
shaft about 0.25 in. dia x 5 in. 17-4PH stainless (I think); at each
end was a coarse (20-hole) optical encoder disk.  Each signal transition
on one encoder set a flip-flop; the subsequent transition on the
other encoder cleared it.  Voila: a relative phase meter.

It worked pretty well; our major uncertainty was in the torque
calibration:  we used an ersatz prony brake that I'm too
ashamed to describe here ;-).

-Chuck

>> 
>>--
>> - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com  --  612-633-0345 -
>> - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA -
>
>Mike Jamison
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenharr cudfnCharles cudlnHarrison cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.03 / John Logajan /  Re: Test Results from Jim Griggs
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@mirage.skypoint.net (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Test Results from Jim Griggs
Date: 3 Oct 1994 04:44:07 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Jorge Stolfi (stolfi@parc.xerox.com) wrote:
:     > It strikes me as claiming that a capacitor could increase 
:     > voltage *after* disconnected from some source and connected
:     > to some load -- depending upon its previous charging history.

: A single capacitor can't do that, but two capacitors connected by
: resistors definitely can. 
:          +---/\/\/\---+---/\/\/\---+
:          A            |            |
:                R1     |     R2     |
:                     =====        =====
:                   C1  |        C2  |
:                       |            |
:          +------------+------------+
:          B
: with R1*C1 = 1sec, R2*C2 = 10 sec. Charge both C1 abd C2 to +100V, 
: then quickly discharge C1, and connect AB to a load.

I simulated this with Electronics Workbench.  The node point between
R1 and R2 is forced to zero per Jorge's instructions, and then
C1 is allowed to recharge from C2.  The waveform seen is a relatively
fast chargeup time for C1 to some fractional value of the initial
C2 charge.  When C2 and C1 hit the same voltage, the system goes
into the standard discharge curve.  There is no plateau, it is either
charging up quickly or discharging more slowly.

So I don't think there is any magic you can conjure up to hold the COP
steady for ten minutes other than a very very large thermal mass.  

You have 54 gallons being heated 7F hotter than unity over the course
of 10 minutes without any noticeable drop in the COP (and hence internal
temperature.)

The molar heat capacity of water is about three times that of metal.
And a mole of water is about 66% the weight of aluminium and about 32%
the weight of iron.

So if water weights 8 pounds per gallon, then 54 gallons of water has the
same thermal capacity as 1960 pounds of aluminum or 3960 pounds of iron.

A rise of 7F in 54 gallons of water means a fall of 7F in either 1960
pounds of aluminum, or 3960 pounds of iron, or some combination.

If you have less metal mass than that, then a greater temp drop in the
metal is required.  7F is 10% of input/output delta temp.  To hide
a 7F worth of energy change so that no difference in COP is observed
over 10 minurtes would require a staggering amount of thermal metal
mass.

--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com  --  612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA -
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.04 / Richard Blue /  Show me your wavefunction, please.
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Show me your wavefunction, please.
Date: Tue, 4 Oct 1994 03:49:23 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Chuck Sites says:

"It's believed that a 4He band state exists that is coencident with
the D+ band state energy, which may allow the transition of the two
D+ ions in a condensed band to become equivalent to and indistinguishable
from a 4He band."

These words get bandied about over and over again, but nobody seems
willing to actually say how it is that two deuterons in a condensed
band become "equivalent to" a single 4He.  I know there are a total
of two protons and two neutrons involved per each 4He, but just
putting the proper ingredients in the pot does not make a souffle!

I remain skeptical of there being any theory for cold fusion that
is worth a hoot if no one ever deals with the nuclear coordinates
in the problem.  Do two deuterons come within the range of the
nuclear interaction, yes or no?  If the Coulomb potential is
reduced by a 1/N factor is not the entire potential reduced by
a factor of 1/N?    If this thinking applies to the interaction
between two deuterons, why can't we extend it to the interaction
between the proton and the neutron within each deuteron?  So
now do we have a system in which the proton and the neutron are
bound by 2.223 MeV divided by N?  I would conclude that the
deuterons are going to fall apart rather easily such that we end
up with lots of free neutrons just floating around.

In short I think the kind of sloppy reasoning that goes into
this magical conversion from two deuterons to a 4He does not
wash.  Why can't we lay this to rest?

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.04 / Richard Blue /  Grigg's housing is hot?
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Grigg's housing is hot?
Date: Tue, 4 Oct 1994 03:49:24 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Grigg's housing is hotter than water?

In a series of exchanges between Jed Rothwell and a number of
people on Compuserve, which I read this weekend, Jed made the
assertion that the housing of the GG runs at a temperature that
is significantly above that of hot water or steam emerging from the
device.  I quote a message from Jed to Martin Gray starting with
Gray's comment as quoted by Jed:

MG   "If the outer shell is really at 350F it seems likely a source
      of error is the flow of heat from the shell into the water."

JR    "That is not a source of error, it is a source of heat.  To
     be perfectly honest I do not know what the metal temperature
     was during tests reported by Gene (I was not there), but in
     all tests I have observed the pyrometer showed the metal
     surface was much hotter than the steam or water coming from
     the Pump. There is no error about it.  There are no external
     sources of heat like electric resistors or flames.  The heat
     originates inside the Pump, probably in the Pump metal
itself."

MG   "Now the question becomes: what makes the shell so hot?"

JR    "A CF reaction, I think.  The shell is steel, which is a good
     candidate for a CF reaction."

MG    "If the immediate inner surface were 350F average (for the
      outer surface to be that hot) the rate of excess heat being
      deposited from the shell would have to be many times the
      average friction heat (most of which is in the water side of
      the interface).  I can't really make sense of it."

I agree with Martin Gray.  I can't make any sense of this other
than to say that either Jed has been seriously in error with
respect to his determination of operating conditions, or there is
a heat source that is more closely coupled to the external housing
of the pump than to the water or inner workings of the pump.  I
would suggest that Tom Droege go to Georgia equipped with a contact
temperature probe to measure the pump housing temperature and to
determine, at least roughly, a dT by dt on startup and cooldown.
It might also be interesting to see what happens if water flow
into the pump is interrupted.

Meanwhile let's all think of ways (perhaps not too obvious) by
which the pump housing can be heated.

Dick Blue



cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.03 /  prasad /  Re: Free Energy Newsletter part 2/2
     
Originally-From: c1prasad@watson.ibm.com (prasad)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,alt.paranet.science,alt.paranet
ufo,sci.bio,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.particle
Subject: Re: Free Energy Newsletter part 2/2
Date: 3 Oct 1994 13:50:21 GMT
Organization: IBM Watson

In article <BOUZAS.94Sep29141137@watt.physics.ucla.edu>, bouzas@physics.
cla.edu (Antonio Bouzas) writes:
|> >>>>> In article <5XmFepGeldB@shb.contrib.de>, harti@shb.contrib.de
(Stefan Hartmann) writes:
|> 
|> (......)
|>     > Thomas E. Bearden (Huntsville, AL) believes Fogal's semiconductor
|>     > represents a true overunity electrical device.  "Electromagnetics is
|>     > over 100 years old; many of its assumptions are flat wrong," Bearden
|>                           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|>     > told us.  
|> (......)
|> 
|> 
|> Er... like which one, for example?
|> 
|> Antonio.

Conservation of energy?

;)

cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenc1prasad cudlnprasad cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.03 /  prasad /  Re: address for BARC?
     
Originally-From: c1prasad@watson.ibm.com (prasad)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: address for BARC?
Date: 3 Oct 1994 13:56:09 GMT
Organization: IBM Watson

In article <9409292059.AA16095@helix.UCSD.EDU>, bssimon@helix.ucsd.edu
(Bart Simon) writes:
|> Greetings,
|> 
|> Sorry for the bother, does anyone have a fax number and/or address
|> for Srinivasan in India.  I assume he's left SRI and is back at BARC
|> now and i'd like to get into contact with him.
|> 
|> thanks for the help,
|> 
|> Bart Simon (bssimon@helix.ucsd.edu)
|> 

Just write to him at BARC (Bhabha Atomic Research Centre), Bombay.
The postal service will deliver it.  Make sure you get Srinivasan's initials
right, and it would help to mention his group/department to disambiguate
among the many Srinivasan's within BARC.

cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenc1prasad cudlnprasad cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Tue Oct  4 04:37:04 EDT 1994
------------------------------
1994.10.04 / Robert Heeter /  Conventional Fusion Glossary Section 0/7 (Intro)
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Conventional Fusion Glossary Section 0/7 (Intro)
Date: Tue, 4 Oct 1994 02:35:33 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

Archive-name: fusion/glossary/part0-intro
Last-modified: 27-Sept-1994
Posting-frequency: More-or-less-monthly
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!!!).

*****************************************************************
FUT: Glossary of Frequently Used Terms in Conventional Fusion

Edited by Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@pppl.gov

###  This introduces the Conventional Fusion FUT/Glossary  ###

# Editorial Note:  

Like any discipline, fusion research has evolved terminology used 
to facilitate discussion.  This includes the scientific vocabulary 
of the discipline, the names of various research machines and 
devices used, the names of various researchers in the field, the 
names of the various research labs and funding authorities, the
mathematical symbols used, and the acronyms frequently used as 
shorthand for some of the above.  

In the case of conventional (magnetic confinement, inertial
confinement, thermonuclear, muon-catalyzed, etc - but not Cold)
fusion, this terminology has grown to the point where newcomers
(including the author of the FUT!) may be intimidated by the 
apparent obscurity of the discussions.  This file is an attempt 
to provide a comprehensive and detailed listing and explanation 
of terms frequently used, so that those new to the group/field 
will be able to understand what is being said, and to contribute 
with a minimum of confusion and frustration.  Many terms are still
missing, and some terms may have less-than-fully-correct entries,
so if you would like to see something added or changed, let me
know.


# DO NOT BE INTIMIDATED BY THE SIZE OF THIS GLOSSARY!

Everything is organized alphabetically, and to make things even
better each entry is coded by type (names, acronyms, types of 
machines, basic physics terms, advanced plasma terms, etc).
Hopefully this will make the FUT easier to use. 


* What's in the FUT:  

We started with an initial list supplied by Jim Day 
(Jim.Day@support.com).  To this were added some comments from various
responses I received to the first draft.  I then incorporated terms
from PPPL and other glossaries.  Then acronyms, machine names, 
and names of important scientists were added as they came. 
I added categories for research and funding/political agencies, 
tried to broaden the base of basic science terms, and wrote up 
a few more preliminary definitions based upon explanations that 
have appeared in the newsgroup and in my studies.  Many of the 
terms listed still do not have explanations given.  

Recent drafts have been mostly incremental improvements to 
the previous versions.  New categories of terms have been made, 
the organization has been improved, and of course definitions 
have been added and improved.


* What's Needed to Improve the FUT:

I am looking for additional contributions (and improvements) to 
the list.  It would be nice if people posting to the group could
occasionally take a few moments to include definitions of a few 
terms used when you use them; in browsing through the group I 
can then snip out the terms and definitions and simply paste 
them into the evolving FUT file.  It also would be nice if 
references to the FAQ and the Reading List / Bibliography 
could be given to supplement the FUT descriptions, at least 
for some of the more complicated terms.


* Comment on Sources:

The terms and definitions occurring here represent a collection
of contributions from numerous sources.  Rather than include
acknowledgements for each individual definition, I have made
blanket acknowledgements in a separate section (in the FAQ).  
I have tried to include citations in most cases where only 
a single textual source was used.


* This file may be freely distributed; I recommend you retain the
revision date, and in any case I'd like to be cited as the editor. *

****************
Robert F. Heeter
rfheeter@pppl.gov
Graduate Student, Princeton Plasma Physics Lab
(Usual disclaimers apply.)
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.04 / M Fullerton /  Re: Want: info on the Ohio H20 HV HF electrolysis patent
     
Originally-From: mefuller@acs.ucalgary.ca (Michael Ernest Fullerton)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Want: info on the Ohio H20 HV HF electrolysis patent
Date: Tue, 4 Oct 1994 10:26:29 GMT
Organization: The University of Calgary

In article <acolman-021094110600@slip3-25.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
Alison Colman <acolman@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> wrote:
>
>A couple of years - or a year and a half ago a "free energy" article
>was cross-posted here that contained information on a guy in Ohio
>who had developed a "very efficient" means of electrolyzing water 
>using some stepping-voltage technique.  There was a very good text
>of his patent and some accompanying circuit and setup diagrams.
>If anyone know of an archive site where I might find this again
>or if someone still has this info and can email it to me I would
>really appreciate it.  The article also spawned some discussion on
>the way the apparatus and circuitry really worked - any info there
>might help also.


Here is some discussion I came across elsewhere.  I forget whose
wrote the quoted text.  It might have been John Logojan.  Any (polite)
comments?

======================================================================

MF|Meyer's claim to fame is that this device produces H2 and O2 gases from
  |H2O without regard to Faraday's Law governing gas production and
  |electrolytic current.  Elsewhere he makes further claims.


MF| US Patent # 4936961, Applied 6/16/88, Granted 6/26/90
  | Stanley A. Meyer, Grover City, Ohio, USA

MF| Method For The Production Of A Fuel Gas

MF| -------------------------------------------------------------------------
  | |   Pulse train generator consisting of:                                |
  | | - Variable amplitude, variable frequency, 50% duty cycle, pulse train.|
  | | - Variable frequency, variable duty cycle, pulse train gate.          |
  | |                  _   _   _           _   _   _                        |
  | |    i.e.        _| |_| |_| |_________| |_| |_| |_                      |
  | |                                                                       |
  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------
  |      |
  |      | Vpp ~ 26V (Patent says 0Khz, a probable misprint.)
  |      |
  |      |
  |      |  T1 = Transformer, Ferrite Toroid 1.5" Diameter, 0.25" thick
  |      |
  |      |_    _______________|\|___________________
  | 200   _)||(_              |/|                  |
  | turns _)||(_ 600 turns                         |
  | 24    _)||(_ 36 gauge    D1 1N1198 diode       |
  | gauge _)||(_____                               |
  |      |         |                               |
  |    -----       |_                              |_
  |   / / /         _)                              _)  T2 Inductor
  |                 _)<-| T3 Variable inductor      _)  100 turns
  |                 _)  |    Unspecified value      _)  24 gauge
  |                 _)__|                           _)  1.0" diameter
  |                |             ___               |
  |                |            / _ \  Water       |
  |                |           / / \ \ Capacitor   |
  |                |------------<   > >------------|
  |                            \ \_/ / Stainless steel (T-304)
  |                             \___/  Concentric cylinders
  |                                    4.0" tall, 0.5" inner cylinder O.D.
  |                                    0.0625" spacing


MF|The water capacitor concentric plates are immersed in distilled water.

MF|The frequency of the pulse train and/or inductor T3 is tuned to achieve a
  |resonance of the inductor/capacitor circuit.

MF|The frequency and duty cycle of the pulse train gate is tuned for maximum
  |gas flow at minimum input current.

MF|The amplitude of the pulse train voltage is used to control the amount
  |of gas evolution.

MF|All three above adjustments are somewhat interacting.

MF|Meyer claims the resulting incrementing step waveform on plates of the
  |water capacitor simultaneously induce an excited resonance in the water
  |dielectric molecules and continually increase the voltage gradient against
  |which the water molecules are eventually torn apart.
  ********************************************************************

Ron Freimuth:

    Looking at this circuit, I checked the rectifier specs for a
 1N1198A.  This is a general purpose, 600 V, 20 A diode.  Such a diode
 would have a lot of shunt capacitance.  It would also have a long
 reverse recovery time.  Making it inefficient at probably greater than
 1 kHz.  OTOH, it may not be functioning as a common rectifier.

    The 100 turn coil is roughly 50 micro-Henry.  Figure it out if you
 wish, L = (N^2 a^2)/(9a + 10l) micro-Hy. 'a' is radius of solenoid,
 and 'l' is length.  I figure 9a + 10 is about 30-50.

    The variable inductor is likely smaller than the fixed one.  Thus,
 series L is likely 75 *Hy.

    One could figure the capacitance of the cell if the description
 were clearer<g>, I believe distilled H2O has a relative dielectric
 constant of 80.  Might be around 1000 pFd.


    Transformer T1 could only handle low power, a few watts.  It's
 secondary voltage is three times the primary voltage. 60 Vp-p.

    If rectifier D1 operated as a good rectifier, there would be little
 AC after it.  Thus, there would be nothing to resonate with.  In
 reality, the rectifier would act somewhat as a few hundred pFd
 capacitor in parallel with a low resistance part of the time.  It may
 be that a large spike appears on the cathode side of the rectifier as
 soon as any stored charge is extracted.

    I expect this is a crude way to get whatever voltage is across the
 electrolytic cell.  If Meyer's patent only covered the technique shown
 in the schematic the first thing to do would be to design a more
 appropriate circuit.  That would 'beat' his patent, if no text covers
 it well enough. ;-)

    At 15.9 kHz, the reactance of the fixed inductor is 10^5 * 75 *
 10^-6 (wL) = 7.5 ohms.  The reactance of 1000 pFd at 15.9 kHz would be
 1/wC = 1/(10^5 * 10-9) = 10,000 ohms.  At  100 kHz Xl = 75 and Xc =
 1000.  Thus, the stated values would be at resonance (equal
 reactances) around 400 kHz.

    Any harmonic of the square wave would excite resonance, harmonics
 occur at all ODD multiples of the fundamental.  Perhaps a low enough
 fundamental frequency is used so the rectifier still rectifies, but
 appears as a near short part of the time the system is oscillating
 around 400 kHz.

    Again, this appears to be an example of a rather indeterminate
 electrical circuit that depends on secondary characteristics of the
 components, especially the rectifier.  I doubt this rectifier would be
 normally useful over 1 kHz!  Only one brand of rectifier may work
 correctly (Motorola does make a 1N1198A, no doubt close to a 1N1198).

    Again, assuming the circuit does anything I suspect the effect of
 the stored charge step recovery creates strong pulses around 1 micro-
 second long.  The resonant elements filter this so a good sine wave of
 near *current* flows though the loop.  Including the cell.

    However, the voltage across the cell can vary rapidly, if any kind
 of breakdown occurs in the cell.

    Again, a series tuned circuit of adequate Q (quality factor) looks
 like a *constant* AC current at the resonant frequency.  Which means
 the voltage can vary rapidly.  It can also be quite high.

    Judging by the power available for typical lab pulse generators, I
 know that 20 Vp-p through a 50 ohm series resistor is typical.  That
 limits the short circuit current to 20/50 = 0.4 A.  The secondary
 current would be 1/3 this.  This gives an IDEA of how much CURRENT
 could FLOW through the electrolytic CELL.

    A parallel tuned circuit would look like a voltage source, it could
 support high current pulses for a fraction of a cycle.  This is NOT a
 parallel circuit.

    The voltage across the cell could be rather high, as long as pure
 water is used in the cell.  Besides the likely breakdown of the
 rectifier, I suppose the H2O could be non linear.  There still
 wouldn't be high currents in the cell.  Except for one effect.  If the
 water somehow broke down at 1000 Volts the capacitance of the cell
 itself would discharge directly though the water.

    Circuits of this scale don't have overly high frequencies present
 in them.  I doubt there is any appreciable energy over 10 MHz.  I
 don't know of any molecular resonance this low in frequency.  I did
 find that the polar molecule, HCl is resonant in the Infrared region.

    This is far higher in frequency than what this circuit would
 produce! 10 MHz corresponds to a 30 meter radio wave.  More likely,
 ten times this wavelength.


    BTW, the Zero-point energy has nothing to do with energy from the
 vacuum.  It's the residual energy of vibration at absolute zero.
 Nothing fancy about it, I ran into the term when I was looking for
 information on molecular resonances.
-- 
Michael Fullerton         |  Seeds, like ideas, don't | All play and no work
mefuller@acs.ucalgary.ca  |  germinate in concrete    | makes Jack a dull boy.
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenmefuller cudfnMichael cudlnFullerton cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.04 / A Rivero /  Re: Opion Poll on GG
     
Originally-From: rivero@sol.unizar.es (Alejandro Rivero)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Opion Poll on GG
Date: Tue, 4 Oct 1994 13:00:45 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

> Doug Shade (rxjf20@email.sps.mot.com) wrote:
> : Please add your name:vote (1-10) below, this is just for fun...
> 
> : 10 -> Yes I am an absolute believer based on what I've read so far
> : 1-> Total snake oil
> 
> : shade: 7
> 
Alejandro Rivero: 1

BTW, I just connected my DIGITAL voltimeter to the nearest source and
it reads 235 Volts. ;-)

cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenrivero cudfnAlejandro cudlnRivero cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.04 / Robert Heeter /  Re: Conventional FAQ - low toxicity vs. benign
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Conventional FAQ - low toxicity vs. benign
Date: Tue, 4 Oct 1994 02:29:51 GMT
Organization: Princeton University


> From: court@newton.physics.mun.ca (John Lewis)
> Message-ID: <36pfem$9eh@coranto.ucs.mun.ca>
> References: <Cx0znB.DHI@world.std.com>
<1994Oct2.151817.6580@Princeton.EDU>

> In article <1994Oct2.151817.6580@Princeton.EDU>
> Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> writes:
>  ...
> >
> >I didn't say it was benign, I said it was "a relatively
> >benign radioactive element," i.e. compared to other
> >radioactive elements it's benign.  This is rather different
> >from simply saying it's benign. ...
> 
> BTW, I've been told by a person who worked a lot with TT,TD, TH
> etc. that the best way to wash T out of your body is to
> drink a lot of beer.  Lots of water will work, but beer is more
efficient -
> probably because of its diuretic action.

I've heard something similar, but the reason I was given
was that beer "has a good electrolyte balance" so it wouldn't
dilute your electrolytes as much.

Do you think I should add that in small quantities tritium is
regularly used to make glowing signs, wristwatch dials, etc.?

Also, how much is someone who doesn't know much about
radiation going to get out of what I wrote regarding tritium?
 
**************************************************************
Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University
As always, I represent only myself, and not PPPL
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.04 / Robert Heeter /  Conventional Fusion Glossary Section 1/7 (A to B)
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Conventional Fusion Glossary Section 1/7 (A to B)
Date: Tue, 4 Oct 1994 02:45:00 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

Archive-name: fusion/glossary/part1-AtoB
Last-modified: 17-Sept-1994
Posting-frequency: More-or-less-monthly
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!!!).
===============================================================

Glossary Part 1:  Terms from A to B

FREQUENTLY USED TERMS IN CONVENTIONAL FUSION RESEARCH 
AND PLASMA PHYSICS

Edited by Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@pppl.gov

Guide to Categories:
 
* = plasma/fusion/energy vocabulary
& = basic physics vocabulary 
> = device type or machine name
# = name of a constant or variable
! = scientists 
@ = acronym
% = labs & political organizations
$ = unit of measurement

Citations and Acknowledgements appear in Section 11.

==================================================================

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

# A - symbol used to indicate either area or magnetic 
vector potential.

$ A - abbreviation for Amperes; see entry.

@ AEC - (US) Atomic Energy Commission; see entry

@ ANL - Argonne National Laboratory; see entry

@ ARIES - Advanced Reactor Innovative Engineering Study (?)
           See Entry under ARIES

@ ASDEX - Axially Symmetric Divertor EXperiment; see entry

@ ASDEX-U - ASDEX-Upgrade; see entry for ASDEX.

* Activation: Activation occurs when a particle interacts
with an atomic nucleus, shifting the nucleus into an
unstable state, and causing it to become radioactive.
In fusion research, where deuterium-tritium is a common
fuel mixture, the neutron released when (D + T) combine
to form (4He + n) can activate the reactor structure. 

* Activation Product: The unstable nucleus formed when
activation occurs.  (See activation above.)

& Adiabatic:  Not involving an exchange of heat between the
system said to be adiabatic and the rest of the universe.

* Adiabatic Invariant:  Characteristic parameters which do not
change as a physical system slowly evolves; the most commonly
used one in plasma physics is the magnetic moment of a charged
particle spiraling around a magnetic field line.

* Afterglow:  Recombination radiation emitted from a cooling
plasma when the source of ionization (heating, etc) is removed.

* Advanced Fuels:  There are several elements/isotopes which
could be fused together, besides the DT fuel mixture.  Many such
fuel combinations would have various advantages over DT, but
it is generally more difficult to achieve fusion with these
advanced fuels than with the DT mix.  See fuels section of FAQ
for discussion. 

> Advanced Toroidal Facility:  (?) A reversed-field pinch machine
developed at Oak Ridge National Lab (ORNL) (?)

> Alcator: Name given to a set of tokamaks designed and built at MIT; 
these machines a distinguished by high magnetic fields with 
relatively small diameters.  The high magnetic field helps create 
plasmas with relatively high current and particle densities.  
The current incarnation is Alcator C-mod, and is described further
in section 5.  Alcator C was donated to LLNL for use as the 
Microwave Tokamak eXperiment (MTX), now shut down.

* Alfven waves: Transverse electromagnetic waves that are 
propagated along lines of magnetic force in a plasma.  The waves
have frequency less than the ion cyclotron frequency, and are
characterized by the fact that the field lines oscillate (wiggle)
with the plasma.  The propagation velocity depends on the particle
density and the strength of the magnetic field.  "[Relatively] 
Low frequency ion oscillation in the presence of an equilibrium 
magnetic field.  Also called the hydromagnetic wave along Bo.  
The torsional Alfven wave in cylindrical geometry was first measured 
in liquid mercury by B. Lehnert.  Alfven waves were first generated 
and detected in plasma by Allen, Baker, Pyle, and Wilcox in Berkeley 
and by Jephcott in England in 1959."  (quoting from Chen's book; 
see bibliography) - Albert Chou

! Alfven, Hannes Olof:  Nobel Prize-Winning Plasma Physicist
and Astronomer who first suggested the possibility of MHD waves
in 1942.

* Alpha emission:  Form of nuclear decay where the nucleus
emits an alpha particle (see entry below).

* Alpha particle:  The nucleus of a Helium-4 atom; is a
typical product of fusion reactions; also released
in various nuclear decay processes.  Alpha particles readily
grab electrons from other sources, becoming neutral helium;
even energetic alpha particles are easily stopped by thin 
barriers (sheets of paper, dead layers of skin, etc.), so that
as a radiological hazard alpha particles are only dangerous if
they are generated inside one's body (where the skin cannot
protect tissue from damage).

$ Ampere, kiloampere, megampere:  (from Herman) The standard
unit for measuring the strength of an electric current
representing a flow of one coulomb of electricity per second.
1 kiloampere = 1000 amperes; 1 megampere = 1,000,000 amperes.
Common abbreviations:  A, amps, kiloamps, megamps, kA, MA

! Ampere, Andre-Marie (1775-1836):  French physicist responsible 
for much of what is known about the fundamentals of electromagnetism.

& Ampere's Law:  General equation in electromagnetism relating
the magnetic field and the currents generating it.

* Aneutronic Fuels:  Advanced fusion fuels which would not
produce fusion neutrons.  See fuels section of FAQ for discussion.

$ Angstrom:  A unit of distance equal to 10^-10 meters or 10^-10 cm.

& Angular Momentum:  Momentum involved in the rotation of a body
about an axis; conserved like ordinary momentum (see momentum).
Angular momentum is defined as the cross product of ordinary momentum
with the position vector running from the axis of rotation to the
body whose angular momentum is being determined.  Torque is the
rate of change of angular momentum with time.  (see also torque)

* Anomalous Diffusion:  Diffusion in most plasma devices, 
particularly tokamaks, is higher than what one would predict from 
understood causes.  The observed, "typical" diffusion is referred to 
as "anomalous" because it has not yet been explained.  Anomalous 
diffusion includes all diffusion which is not due to collisions 
and geometric effects.  While such effects were not understood 
when the term was coined, and most still aren't, diffusion due 
to well-understood wave phenomena is still 'anomalous'.  "Classical" 
diffusion and "Neo-classical" diffusion are the two well-understood 
diffusion theories, neither is adequate to fully explain the observed 
"anomalous" diffusion.  See also:  entries for classical and 
neoclassical diffusion.  (Acknowledgements to Philip Snyder)

% Argonne National Laboratory:  One of the U.S. Department of Energy
basic-research Laboratories, located in Illinois... (need more info!)

* ARIES: Set of four fusion reactor design studies which investigated
the safety, economic, and environmental implications of various
advances in fusion reactor science and technology.

* Ash:  Fusion reaction products trapped in a plasma.  Ash is
bad because (a) it generally radiates more strongly than the fuel 
ions, and thus reduces energy confinement, and (b) it creates 
additional plasma pressure and/or reduces pressure available for fuel 
ions. (due to beta limits, see beta)  Controlling ash is a major 
area of fusion research.  Ideally one would be able to extract 
the ash ions after diverting an appropriate fraction of their 
energy to heating the fuel ions, and then convert the remaining ash 
energy to electricity.  Current research involves using RF waves to 
transfer energy from ash ions to fuel ions, and to push the ash into 
the scrape-off layer, where it can be collected via divertors.  
(See also scrape-off layer, divertors)

* Ash control - see ash, divertors.

* Ash removal - see ash, divertors.

* Aspect Ratio:  In toroidal geometry, the ratio of
the major diameter (total width of the torus) to the 
minor diameter (width of a slice taken through one side
of the ring).  (This would be much better with a picture!)

& Atom:  (from Herman)  The smallest unit of an element that
retains the characteristics of that element.  At the center
of the atom is the nucleus, made up of neutrons and protons,
around which the electrons orbit.  Atoms of ordinary hydrogen,
the lightest element, consists of a nucleus of one proton
orbited by one electron.  (Note:  distinct from a molecule,
which is the smallest unit of a substance which retains the
characteristics of that substance.  It takes far less 
energy to break apart a stable molecule into its constituent 
atoms than to divide a stable atom into two smaller atoms.)
Note that in solids, atoms are typically two angstroms
(2 x 10^-10 meters) apart; in air the gas molecules are about
30 angstroms apart.

& Atomic Bomb, A-Bomb:  (from Herman) A weapon with a large
explosive power due to the sudden release of energy when the
nuclei of heavy atoms such as plutonium-239 or uranium-235
are split.  This fission is brought about by the bombardment
of the fuel with neutrons, setting off a chain reaction.
The bomb releases shock, blast, heat, light, and lethal
radiation.  The world's first atomic bomb was successfully
tested by the United States on July 16, 1945.

% Atomic Energy Commission: United States governmental 
authority for atomic energy; split into ERDA and NRC in 1975.
(may not be 100% correct)

& Atomic Number (Z):  The number of protons in a nucleus; same
as the number of electrons in a neutral atom; determines the 
position of an element in the periodic table, and hence its
chemical properties (see also isotope).

* Atomic Temperature:  The temperature corresponding to the mean
kinetic energy of the neutral atoms in a plasma.  (If there were
no ions or electrons, the atomic temperature would be what we
normally think of as the temperature of a gas, such as the air.)

& Avogadro's number: N = 6.02497 x 10^23.  Number of particles 
in a mole of a substance.  Coefficient relating Boltzmann's 
constant to the ideal gas constant. This is the number of 
atoms per gram-atom.  See also: mole

> Axially Symmetric Divertor EXperiment (from Herman)
(ASDEX, Asdex: Garching, Germany)  A large tokamak designed 
for the study of impurities and their control by a magnetic
divertor.  The H mode or high mode of operation with neutral 
beam injection was first observed on ASDEX.

> Axially Symmetric Divertor EXperiment (ASDEX, Asdex):  "The original
ASDEX, located in Garching, Germany and decommisioned in 1990(?), 
would qualify today as a medium-sized tokamak. It was designed for 
the study of impurities and their control by a magnetic divertor.  
The H mode or high mode of operation with neutral beam injection was
first observed on ASDEX.  Its successor ASDEX-Upgrade (a completely 
new machine, not really an "upgrade") is larger and more flexible.
It is the first tokamak whose toroidal and poloidal field coils are 
not linked, which will be a necessary design factor in a reactor.  
It will achieve parameters at the edge which are very similar to 
those needed for a power reactor." - Arthur Carlson

* Azimuthal: Generally an angle, measured "around" an object.
In spherical geometries, the angle which is *not* the "polar angle".  
On the earth, one incarnation of the azimuthal angle is the longitude 
of a location relative to the prime meridian through Greenwich, 
England.  In toroidal geometries, the longitude idea still applies, 
but the other angle is the "poloidal" angle, not the "polar" angle.  
The azimuthal direction is the "long way" around a torus.  
See also: poloidal.


BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB

# B - variable used for Magnetic Field

# B - chemical symbol for the element boron; see entry

# Be - chemical symbol for the element beryllium; see entry

@ BHP - Biological Hazard Potential; see entry

@ BPX - Burning Plasma eXperiment; see entry

@ BTU - British Thermal Unit; see entry

@ BWR - Boiling Water Reactor (fission); see entry

* Background Radiation:  Level of environmental radation due to
"background" sources.  Background sources can be natural, such
as cosmic rays and natural radioactive elements (principally 
radon, but including other elements such as isotopes of potassium 
(which people get substantial amounts of in foods like bananas)).
They can also be man-made, such as from fossil-fuel combustion, 
everyday leakage from nuclear activities, and leftover from 
atmospheric nuclear weapons tests.  Background radiation is
usually distinguished from acute radiation, such as from medical
x-rays, nuclear accidents, radioisotope therapy, or other short-term
doses.  The man-made contribution to background radiation is
quite small compared to the natural contribution; medical uses
dominate human exposure to acute radiation.

* Ballooning Mode:  (Haven't had my waves & instabilities class yet!
Any help out there?)

* Banana Orbit:  The fast spiraling of an charged particle around a
magnetic field line is accompanied by a slow movement ("drift") of 
the center of the sprial.  Projected onto a poloidal plane, the drift
orbit has the shape of a banana.  These orbits are responsible for 
neo-classical diffusion (see entry).

* Baseball Coils:  Used in magnetic-mirror geometries to
produce a minimum-B configuration; so-called because of their
resemblance to the characteristic shape of lacing on a baseball.

* Beam-Beam Reaction:  Fusion reaction which occurs from the 
collision of two fast ions originating in injected neutral beams.

* Beam-Plasma Reaction:  Fusion reaction which occurs from the
collision of a fast beam ion with a thermal plasma ion.

* Beam-Wall Reaction:  Fusion reaction which occurs from the
collision of a fast beam ion with an ion embedded in or adsorbed
onto the reactor wall.

! Becquerel, Antoine-Henri:  French scientist and discoverer of
radioactivity; co-winner of Nobel Prize.  (See Curie)

$ Becquerel:  Unit of radioactivity equal to 1 disintegration per
second.  (see Curie)

& Beryllium: (Be)  Element with atomic number 4 (four protons).
May be useful in multiplying fusion neutrons to enhance tritium
production in a lithium blanket; rather hazardous to handle.
(See relevant terms mentioned.)

* Beta, or beta-value:  Ratio between plasma kinetic pressure and 
magnetic-field pressure; proportional to the ratio between plasma 
kinetic energy density and magnetic field energy density.  Beta 
is usually measured relative to the total, local field
(loosely called beta toroidal), but sometimes the plasma pressure 
relative to only the poloidal component of the field (beta poloidal)
or relative to some external field (like the maximum field at the
magnetic coils) is more useful. There is also a normalized beta 
(beta_N) of interest when discussing the beta limit (see entry).
(lots of help from Art Carlson with the above.)

"Because the cost of a reactor is strongly influenced by the 
strength of the magnetic field that must be provided, beta values 
are directly related to the economics of fusion power production. 
Beta is usually expressed as a percentage, with 5% generally 
believed to be the minimum value required for an economical 
fusion reactor." - from the PPPL WWW page on PBX-M.  
See also: pressure, kinetic pressure, magnetic pressure, 
second stability.


* Beta-Normal:  Beta-N, the normalized beta, is beta relative to
the beta limit (see below).

* Beta-Poloidal:  Beta-P is the same as the ordinary beta, except
only the poloidal field is used in calculating the magnetic field
pressure.  Beta-P is > 1 in many modern tokamaks.

* Beta Emission:  Form of nuclear decay where a neutron splits 
into a proton plus electron plus neutrino set.  The proton 
stays in the nucleus but the electron ("beta ray") is ejected.

* Beta Limit, also called Troyon Limit: If the plasma pressure in 
a tokamak becomes too high, the so-called ballooning modes become 
unstable and lead to a loss of confinement (sometimes catastophic,
sometimes not). The exact value at which this occurs depends 
strongly on the magnetic field B, the plasma minor radius a, and 
the toroidal plasma current I, such that maximum value of the 
normalized beta, beta_N=beta*B*a/I, is around 4% (with B in Teslas, 
a in meters, and I in Mega-amperes).  The exact value depends on 
details of the plasma shape, the plasma profiles, and the safety
factor. (Beta entries provided by Art Carlson.)

* Beta Particle / Beta Ray:  Original term used for electrons
ejected from decaying nuclei via beta emission.  (Label derives
from the old days when we had alpha, beta, and gamma emission,
and no one really knew what any of them were.)

* Biasing:  [from Art Carlson] The vacuum vessel of a tokamak
(or other device) has a variety of structures--limiters, divertor
plates, the wall itself. These are usually mechanically and
electrically connected, but it is possible to bias (charge) them to
different voltages relative to each other. This allows some control 
over the electric fields and currents around the plasma, which can 
influence, for example, the thickness of the scrape-off-layer, the 
transition between L- and H-mode, and the equilibrium configuration. 
Biasing experiments are being done on DIII-D, TEXTOR, and TdeV.

* Binary Collisions:  Collisions involving only two particles; 
multiparticle collisions (eg, three-body collisions) are usually
neglected/approximated...

* Binding Energy:  Energy required to separate two objects;
conversely, energy released when two objects are allow to bind
together.  Equivalent to the mass defect (see entry) via E=mc^2.

* Biological Hazard Potential (BHP):  Measure of the hazard posed by
a given quantity of radioactive material in which the variation in
biological effects of the various elements are accounted for.
(See also integrated biological hazard potential, IBHP)

& Biot-Savart Law:  General formula for determining the magnetic 
field due to a steady line (not space) current.  Related to Ampere's 
Law.

* Blanket: (from Herman) a region surrounding a fusion reactor 
core within which the fusion neutrons are slowed down, heat 
is transferred to a primary coolant, and tritium is bred 
from lithium.  In hybrid applications, fertile materials 
(U-238 or Th-232) are located in the blanket for conversion 
into fissile fuels.

* Bohm diffusion:  (from Herman) A rapid loss of plasma
across magnetic field lines caused by microinstabilities.
Theory formulated by the physicist David Bohm.  From Chen's book 
(see bibliography): "Semiempirical formula for the diffusion 
coefficient given by Bohm in 1946 (noted by Bohm, Burhop, and 
Massey, who were developing a magnetic arc for use in uranium 
isotope separation)."  Bohm diffusion was proposed (not derived 
from first principles) to scale as 1/B rather than the 1/B^2 
scaling predicted by classical diffusion.  A 1/B scaling results 
from assuming that particles diffuse across field lines at an 
optimum rate (effective collision frequency=cyclotron frequency).  
The 1/B scaling is observed (approximately) in most reactors.  
(Acknowledgements to Philip Snyder)  See also: diffusion, 
microinstabilities, field lines...

* Boiling Water Reactor (BWR):  Class of fission reactor where
water is used as a coolant and allowed to boil into steam.
(I don't remember much more about it - any help out there?)

& Boltzmann constant: k = 1.38 x 10^-16 erg/degree. This 
is the ratio of the universal gas constant to Avogadro's number.
It is also used to relate temperatures (Kelvin) to energies (ergs
or Joules) via E = (constant of order unity) * kT.

& Boltzmann Distribution:  See Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution;
distribution function.

* Boltzmann Equation:  Fundamental equation in kinetic theory
which describes the evolution of the distribution function.

* Bootstrap Current:  Currents driven in toroidal devices by 
neo-classical diffusion (see entry).  They may amount to a 
substantial fraction of the net current in a tokamak reactor, 
thus lengthening the pulse time or decreasing the power needed 
for current drive.

& Boron: (B)  Fifth element (Z=5) in the periodic table; has
5 protons; potential use as an aneutronic fuel.  (See FAQ section
1, part on reactions.)  Also useful as a neutron-absorber.

* Boronization:  Energy confinement in a fusion plasma depends
strongly on the average atomic number (Z) of the elements in the
plasma.  Boronization refers to a process whereby boron (atomic
number 5) is injected into a plasma and used to coat the walls
of the reactor; the effect is that impurities from the reactor
walls which enter the fusion plasma are primarily boron (which
has a fairly low Z) rather than the higher-atomic-number metals
typically used in reactor structures.  Boronization has been
associated with improved fusion plasma performance.  Boronization
is an example of Wall Conditioning.  See also Boron, atomic number,
wall conditioning, impurities.

* Branching Ratio:  In a fusion reaction involving two nuclei,
there are typically a variety of possible sets of products which
can form.  The branching ratio for a particular set of products
is the probability that that set of products will be produced.

* Breakeven:  there are several types:
	Commercial:  When fusion power can be converted into enough 
		electric power to power the reactor and generate enough
 		electricity to cover the costs of the plant at economically
 		competitive rates. (?)
	Engineering:  When enough energy can be generated from the
		fusion power output to supply power for the reactor and
		generate a surplus; sort of commercial breakeven without
		the economic considerations. (?)
	Scientific:  When fusion power = input power; Q=1.
		(See also Lawson Criterion)
		Extrapolated - projected for actual reactor fuel using 
			an alternative fuel.
		Actual - determined using the actual fusion fuel to be
			used in the reactor (typically DT).

* Breeder Reactor:  Class of nuclear reactor (could be fission
or fusion) which uses some of the nuclear byproducts (generally
neutrons) to transmute non-fuel materials to new materials which 
can be used for fuel in other reactors, in such a way that 
the reactor creates more fuel than it consumes (breeding).  
Term usually refers to reactors which breed fission fuel.
Use of breeder reactors would greatly extend the fuel supply for
nuclear fission energy, but also creates additional opportunities
for diversion of fissile materials to weapons production and
could exacerbate proliferation of nuclear weapons.

& Bremsstrahlung:  (German for "Braking Radiation")  Electromagnetic
radiation from a charged particle as it slows down (decelerates).  
Similar to synchrotron radiation (see also).  In a plasma 
bremsstrahlung occurs when electrons (which are lighter and generally
move faster) collide with ions (which are heavier and generally move
slower); the acceleration/deceleration of the electrons causes them
to radiate bremsstrahlung.

* British Thermal Unit:  Unit of energy needed to raise a pound of
water by one degree fahrenheit; equal to 252 calories or 1055 Joules.
(See also calorie, joule).  Not part of the metric system.

> Burning Plasma eXperiment (BPX):  Proposed U.S. successor to TFTR;
never funded.  See also: CIT, TPX.

> Bumpy Torus:  I believe this concept tries to combine mirror 
concepts with toroidal ones.  My understanding is that it is 
essentially a series of mirrors stuck end to end and bent into 
a ring.  - Albert Chou (corrections / enhancements welcome!)
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.04 / Mike Jamison /  Re: Grigg's housing is hot?
     
Originally-From: edwlt12@mars.lerc.nasa.gov (Mike Jamison (ADF))
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Grigg's housing is hot?
Date: 4 Oct 1994 09:43 EDT
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center

In article <9410031459.AA35248@pilot1.cl.msu.edu>, blue@pilot.msu.edu
(Richard A Blue) writes...
[snip]
> 
>I agree with Martin Gray.  I can't make any sense of this other
>than to say that either Jed has been seriously in error with
>respect to his determination of operating conditions, or there is
>a heat source that is more closely coupled to the external housing
>of the pump than to the water or inner workings of the pump.  I
>would suggest that Tom Droege go to Georgia equipped with a contact
>temperature probe to measure the pump housing temperature and to
>determine, at least roughly, a dT by dt on startup and cooldown.
>It might also be interesting to see what happens if water flow
>into the pump is interrupted.
> 
>Meanwhile let's all think of ways (perhaps not too obvious) by
>which the pump housing can be heated.

How about:  The emissivity setting for the pyrometer is not what it should
be, or, the metal is painted, sso the pyrometer should be set to the 
emissivity of the paint.  In other words, the housing isn't as hot as the
pyrometer says it is...
> 
>Dick Blue
> 
> 
> 
Mike Jamison

"Scientific research consists in seeing what everyone else has seen, but
thinking what no one else has thought"

						-A. Szent-Gyorgyi
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenedwlt12 cudfnMike cudlnJamison cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.04 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Grigg's housing is hot?
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Grigg's housing is hot?
Date: Tue, 4 Oct 1994 12:51:12 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <9410031459.AA35248@pilot1.cl.msu.edu>,
Richard A Blue <blue@pilot.msu.edu> wrote:
>Grigg's housing is hotter than water?
>
>In a series of exchanges between Jed Rothwell and a number of
>people on Compuserve, which I read this weekend, Jed made the
>assertion that the housing of the GG runs at a temperature that
>is significantly above that of hot water or steam emerging from the
>device.  I quote a message from Jed to Martin Gray starting with
>Gray's comment as quoted by Jed:
>
>MG   "If the outer shell is really at 350F it seems likely a source
>      of error is the flow of heat from the shell into the water."
>
>JR    "That is not a source of error, it is a source of heat.  To
>     be perfectly honest I do not know what the metal temperature
>     was during tests reported by Gene (I was not there), but in
>     all tests I have observed the pyrometer showed the metal
>     surface was much hotter than the steam or water coming from
>     the Pump. There is no error about it.  There are no external
>     sources of heat like electric resistors or flames.  The heat
>     originates inside the Pump, probably in the Pump metal
>itself."

     This is unbelievable.  Either Jed is wrong, or 
     there's an external heat source thermally coupled to the shell.
     In any case, this is a horrendous indication that something else
     is wrong.

     Given the reported configuration, my guess is simple.  Jed
     is mistaken or the measurements are mistaken.

     CF in the steel?  Give me a break.  I thought the CF was happening
     at the rotor.

     Won't be long now before Jed invokes the Philosophers' Stone...

                                dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.04 / Chuck Sites /  Re: Test Results from Jim Griggs
     
Originally-From: chuck@iglou.iglou.com (Chuck Sites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Test Results from Jim Griggs
Date: Tue, 4 Oct 1994 18:02:43 GMT
Organization: IgLou Internet Services


Ohh... flame time..

gk00@quads.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg) writes:

>In article <1994Oct2.175628.263@iglou.com> chuck@iglou.iglou.com (Chuck Sites) writes:
>>I must admit that when Dale critisizes some of the science issues of 
>>*conventional* cold fusion, he usually manages to 'get my goat'. On 
>>this [Griggs] gadget, I stand right behind him.

     Opps, it is Griggs isn't it.  What's that old saying... I don't 
care what they say about me, just spell the name right.   

>>...to expect this device to "Over unity" is just plain delusion on 
>>the part of Jed, and others suggesting such.
>>...then show us a fusion reaction product because there should be
>>alot of it!     

>You have a very interesting dichotomy between "real" cold fusion
>and "fake" cold fusion.  Your comments about the Griggs device are
>right on target.  Right on the target of "conventional"
>Pons-Fleischmann-style cold fusion, that is.  It's just plain delusion.
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^                                               
Wrong-o my good friend.  At least in the P&F style CF there are various
theoretical arguments and material/experimental augmentations that indicate  
some of the phenomenology seen is nuclear in origin.  See some of the 
reports in Dieter's bibliography if you need proof.  The only delusion 
as to whether CF exist is held by those that deny it's possibility. 
 
>(I must admit that muon-catalyzed fusion is a most unconventional
>kind of cold fusion, since it's a kind that works.)

It does work which proves the point above.  With some indepth understanding
of theory behind this type of catalyzed fusion, it may be possible to 
extend the fundamental concepts to other realms, as with fusion in metals,
Sono-fusion and others. Muon catalyzied fusion demonstrates at least two 
aspects in that regard; One the coulumb barrier is soft, and Two by 
modifing the quantum conditions (in this case with the heavier mass of 
the muon) fusion rates can be predicted from applied quantum theory.   
   With regard to P&F work, I've read thier work and the critisisms of the
thier work.  It seems to me they are reporting an fairly odd and big effect.
I've still not heard a good explination of the 'heat after death' effect.
          

[Back to the Griggs Gizomo] 

>>It was suggested by someone in this group (sorry I forget who it was)
>>that ultrasonic energy migh be resonant with the Van Der Waals forces
>>allowing a very effecient conversion of water to steam.

>Fat chance.

Ok, it was just an idea.  Looked like an interesting one to me.
However, since you seem to flipently dismiss the idea perhaps you
might care to enlighten us how a simple high speed turbine can create
a dry steam?  As I understand it, this device is in a few commercial
establishements already, so it must work somehow.  Ever seen a demonstration
of the the mechanical equivalent of heat.  I've never seen one create steam.

Have Fun,
Chuck Sites
     
  
                  
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.09.30 / Ray Kephart /  Gammacell 220 available
     
Originally-From: kephart@lyra.hac.com (Ray Kephart x5027)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Gammacell 220 available
Date: 30 Sep 1994 12:50:36 GMT
Organization: Hughes Aircraft Company


Hughes Aircraft has no further need of an AECL Gammacell 220 
Cobalt-60 source located at our Carlsbad Research Center in North
San Diego County, California.

Interested organizations should contact:
Leno Petteys (619) 931-6118.

Wray Kephart
kephart@lyra.hac.com

cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenkephart cudfnRay cudlnKephart cudmo9 cudqt3 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.04 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Re: Griggs housing is hot????
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs housing is hot????
Date: Tue, 04 Oct 1994 15:14 -0500 (EST)

There have been several messages about possible measurement errors on the
Griggs pump housing.  The housing is reported as being above the temperature of
the steam exiting, and discussion has focused on whether or not the
measurements are accurate.  For heavens sake.  Testing a metal surface to
determine if it is above or below 100 C has to be the easiest test possible.
Homemakers do it all the time when they lick a finger and touch a hot iron. One
simple drop of water on the housing will quickly determine if the temperature
is above or below 100 C which the steam should be, at standard atmospheric
pressure.

Sometimes the high tech solutions are error prone or require complicated
calibrations, whereas the old tried and true low tech solutions are both easier
and more reliable.

                                                                Marshall
cudkeys:
cuddy04 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.04 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Grigg's housing is hot?
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Grigg's housing is hot?
Date: Tue, 4 Oct 1994 19:27:40 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <4OCT199409434112@mars.lerc.nasa.gov>,
Mike Jamison (ADF) <edwlt12@mars.lerc.nasa.gov> wrote:
>> 
>>Meanwhile let's all think of ways (perhaps not too obvious) by
>>which the pump housing can be heated.
>
>How about:  The emissivity setting for the pyrometer is not what it should
>be, or, the metal is painted, sso the pyrometer should be set to the 
>emissivity of the paint.  In other words, the housing isn't as hot as the
>pyrometer says it is...

     Which is the same sort of idiotic error that I've been expecting
     on the power measurement.  It says wonders about either a) Jed, or
     b) their experimental capability.

                                 dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.04 / Barry Merriman /  How about testing Griggs with different fluids?
     
Originally-From: barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: How about testing Griggs with different fluids?
Date: Tue, 4 Oct 94 20:35:24 GMT
Organization: UCLA, Mathematics Department

If the Griggs device does release some unsuspected form
of energy, it must certainly depend on what is used for "fuel".
On the other hand, if it is a systematic error, it could be
more or less independant of the "fuel".

Has Griggs tried running with any other fluids, to see how
it effects the results?

I suppose that a practical fluid would have to have a viscosity
not too much bigger than that of water, to run with exisitng motors,
and also not change phase too easily
 (its simpler to keep the fluid in a single state, so you don;t
need to account for phase change heats)

Can anyone think of a suitable fluid? The only alternative I can
come up with is air (the fluid need not be in the liquid phase;
all that matters is that it not change phase), or various pure gases.

Suppose one made a Griggs device, but used various gases as the
working fluid---would the same anomolous heat show up (which 
would indicate a systematic error** --- or not, which would suggest
he understands how to properly diagnose such devices. 

** we can be pretty sure
air is not fusing; but use, say pure nitrogen if you want to 
be really sure, or a noble gas, say argon, if you want to beultra
sure). These devices could also be made smaller and cheaper, as they don't
need as much horsepower to drive the fluid.




--
Barry Merriman
UCLA Dept. of Math
UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)


cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.04 / Tom Droege /  Re: How about testing Griggs with different fluids?
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: How about testing Griggs with different fluids?
Date: 4 Oct 1994 21:15:45 GMT
Organization: fermilab

In article <1994Oct4.203524.17789@math.ucla.edu>, barry@arnold.math.ucla
edu (Barry Merriman) says:
>
>If the Griggs device does release some unsuspected form
>of energy, it must certainly depend on what is used for "fuel".
>On the other hand, if it is a systematic error, it could be
>more or less independant of the "fuel".
>
>Has Griggs tried running with any other fluids, to see how
>it effects the results?

Pure H2O immediately comes to mind, but it would be a very
expensive test.  

This devious person immediately thought of a cheap readily 
available fluid that can be purchased at almost any major
street intersection.  It's use would quickly settle the 
question once and for all time.

Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.04 / Thomas Zemanian /  Re: How about testing Griggs with different fluids?
     
Originally-From: ts_zemanian@pnl.gov (Thomas S. Zemanian)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: How about testing Griggs with different fluids?
Date: 4 Oct 1994 21:46:49 GMT
Organization: Battelle PNL

In article <1994Oct4.203524.17789@math.ucla.edu>,
barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman) wrote:

> If the Griggs device does release some unsuspected form
> of energy, it must certainly depend on what is used for "fuel".
> On the other hand, if it is a systematic error, it could be
> more or less independant of the "fuel".
> 
> Has Griggs tried running with any other fluids, to see how
> it effects the results?
> 
> I suppose that a practical fluid would have to have a viscosity
> not too much bigger than that of water, to run with exisitng motors,
> and also not change phase too easily
>  (its simpler to keep the fluid in a single state, so you don;t
> need to account for phase change heats)
> 
> Can anyone think of a suitable fluid? 

Dowtherm?

The only alternative I can
> come up with is air (the fluid need not be in the liquid phase;
> all that matters is that it not change phase), or various pure gases.

Well, no.  If the effect is related to cavitation, a phase change _will_ be
necessary, and must be inducible by the pressure drop of the high shear
flow at the rotor edges and holes.  I tink we'd best stick to liquids for
now.  a perfluorinated light oil might do the trick, but will be quite
expensive.

[deletia]

--Tom

--
The opinions expressed herein are mine and mine alone.  Keep your filthy
hands off 'em! 
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudents_zemanian cudfnThomas cudlnZemanian cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.04 / Thomas Zemanian /  Re: How about testing Griggs with different fluids?
     
Originally-From: ts_zemanian@pnl.gov (Thomas S. Zemanian)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: How about testing Griggs with different fluids?
Date: 4 Oct 1994 21:52:59 GMT
Organization: Battelle PNL

In article <36sgm2$gan@fnnews.fnal.gov>, Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
wrote:

> In article <1994Oct4.203524.17789@math.ucla.edu>, barry@arnold.math.uc
a.edu (Barry Merriman) says:
> >
> >If the Griggs device does release some unsuspected form
> >of energy, it must certainly depend on what is used for "fuel".
> >On the other hand, if it is a systematic error, it could be
> >more or less independant of the "fuel".
> >
> >Has Griggs tried running with any other fluids, to see how
> >it effects the results?
> 
> Pure H2O immediately comes to mind, but it would be a very
> expensive test.  
> 
> This devious person immediately thought of a cheap readily 
> available fluid that can be purchased at almost any major
> street intersection.  It's use would quickly settle the 
> question once and for all time.
> 

...and probably set fire to Cartersville, if it's what I think it is. 
Let's try to come up with something aprotic, if we can.

--Tom

--
The opinions expressed herein are mine and mine alone.  Keep your filthy
hands off 'em! 
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudents_zemanian cudfnThomas cudlnZemanian cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.03 / dave pierson /  Re: Instrumenting Griggs
     
Originally-From: pierson@cimcad.enet.dec.com (dave pierson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Instrumenting Griggs
Date: 3 OCT 94 19:29:09
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation

In article <3OCT199410180463@mars.lerc.nasa.gov>, edwlt12@mars.lerc.nasa.gov
(Mike Jamison (ADF)) writes...
>In article <ts_zemanian-021094124828@ts_zemanian.pnl.gov>, ts_zemanian@
nl.gov (Thomas S. Zemanian) writes...

>>Another possibility would be to operate the device off a DC motor, thereby
>>eliminating the power factor correction.  Moreover, the input power is then
>>easily derived from simultaneous monitoring of the voltage and current.

>>Unfortunately, 30 hp DC motors are quite rare.  Might anyone know where one
>>could be obtained?
	Look under most any diesel electric loco.  Any size up to 1000 hp.
	Currently being superseded by VFAC three phase, but it will be a while
	before theya re gone.

>How about a 30+ H.P. gasoline engine - fuel usage will not be fooled by
>any reflections in the system.  
	Nooooo, but by coolant temparature, air temperature & pressure, state of
	the lube oil, sate of the ignition, wear on the points, wear on the
	valves,  and thousands of other things.  The inherently uncertain
	nature of the "calibration".  DC motor idea is better.

thanks
dave pierson			|the facts, as accurately as i can manage,
Digital Equipment Corporation	|the opinions, my own.
200 Forest St			|I am the NRA.
Marlboro, Mass 01751		|pierson@msd26.enet.dec.com
"He has read everything, and, to his credit, written nothing."  A J Raffles
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenpierson cudfndave cudlnpierson cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.03 / Mike Jamison /  Re: GG, SL and %error
     
Originally-From: edwlt12@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov (Mike Jamison (ADF))
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: GG, SL and %error
Date: 3 Oct 1994 20:00 EDT
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center

In article <3OCT199417452312@mars.lerc.nasa.gov>, edwlt12@mars.lerc.nasa
gov (Mike Jamison (ADF)) writes...
>I got to thinking about the SL -> excess GG heat idea.  If you really
>believe in the excess heat, and you really think SL is responsible for it,
>I suggest you take the numbers given by Steve Jones [40 neutrons/sec for
>D-T] as an upper limit per bubble.
> 
>Take 14 MeV/neutron as the energy liberated/neutron [and, *don't* think 
>about where D and T are coming from in tap water :-)].
> 
>So, how many bubbles must be present to provide the 10% excess claimed?
> 
>"Lots" is a pretty good number :-)
> 
>OK, so, now that you're convinced that SL is causing the excess heat, what
>kind of error is needed in your voltage and current meters to come up with
>a 10% error.
> 
>[in power]
> 
>Answer:  3% error for both voltage and current.
Err, make that 5% error [1.05^2 = 1.1025, about 10%].

Knew I shouldn't've posted without checking my guess with a calculator...
> 
>Mike Jamison
> 
> 
>"Scientific research consists in seeing what everyone else has seen, but
>thinking what no one else has thought"
> 
>						-A. Szent-Gyorgyi
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenedwlt12 cudfnMike cudlnJamison cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.04 / Greg Kuperberg /  Re: Test Results from Jim Griggs
     
Originally-From: gk00@quads.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Test Results from Jim Griggs
Date: Tue, 4 Oct 1994 01:15:19 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

In article <1994Oct2.175628.263@iglou.com> chuck@iglou.iglou.com (Chuck Sites) writes:
>I must admit that when Dale critisizes some of the science issues of 
>*conventional* cold fusion, he usually manages to 'get my goat'. On 
>this [Griggs] gadget, I stand right behind him.
>...to expect this device to "Over unity" is just plain delusion on 
>the part of Jed, and others suggesting such.
>...then show us a fusion reaction product because there should be
>alot of it!     

You have a very interesting dichotomy between "real" cold fusion
and "fake" cold fusion.  Your comments about the Griggs device are
right on target.  Right on the target of "conventional"
Pons-Fleischmann-style cold fusion, that is.  It's just plain delusion.

(I must admit that muon-catalyzed fusion is a most unconventional
kind of cold fusion, since it's a kind that works.)

>It was suggested by someone in this group (sorry I forget who it was)
>that ultrasonic energy migh be resonant with the Van Der Waals forces
>allowing a very effecient conversion of water to steam.

Fat chance.
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudengk00 cudfnGreg cudlnKuperberg cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.04 / John Logajan /  Re: Instrumenting Griggs
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@mirage.skypoint.net (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Instrumenting Griggs
Date: 4 Oct 1994 01:32:09 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Thomas S. Zemanian (ts_zemanian@pnl.gov) wrote:
: Unfortunately, 30 hp DC motors are quite rare.  Might anyone know where one
: could be obtained?

Back 20 years ago, I was a technician on the electronics of a pair of
125 HP DC motors.  They were needed for variable speed applications, so
that is why they were DC.

But they were actually fed rectified three-phase AC.  High power SCR's
were triggered at various points in the cycle (just like a conventional
light-dimmer switch) to control the "on time."

The point here is that while the AC was converted to pulsing DC, no
filtering of the DC was attempted.



So here is an idea to avoid any supply "noise."  Let's say we have a
50 HP DC motor.  That 50*750=37,500 watts.

Let's say we can drive it with 120 volts.  37,500/120 = 312.5 Amps.

Ten 12 volt auto batteries rated at 600 AMP/Hour wired in series ought
to be able to drive the 50 HP motor for about two hours.  Cost, about
$400 or so for the batteries.

--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com  --  612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA -
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.02 / J Alexander /  Re: Opion Poll on GG
     
Originally-From: joi@ozemail.com.au (Jonathon Alexander)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Opion Poll on GG
Date: Sun, 2 Oct 1994 03:42:19 GMT
Organization: OzEmail Pty Ltd Sydney Australia

Doug Shade (rxjf20@email.sps.mot.com) wrote:
: Please add your name:vote (1-10) below, this is just for fun...

: 10 -> Yes I am an absolute believer based on what I've read so far
: 1-> Total snake oil

: shade: 7
John Alexander 5 Only cursory knowledge-Want plans & info-From Griggs?
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenjoi cudfnJonathon cudlnAlexander cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.04 / Greg Kuperberg /  Re: Test Results from Jim Griggs
     
Originally-From: gk00@quads.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Test Results from Jim Griggs
Date: Tue, 4 Oct 1994 03:10:19 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

In article <36kd7p$gsd@stratus.skypoint.com> jlogajan@skypoint.com writes:
>Greg Kuperberg (gk00@quads.uchicago.edu) wrote:
>: What are the stupidest possible mistakes that could lead to an excess
>: heat result?  If you just plug in the wrong numbers in the heat equation
>: or you get the arithmetic all wrong, you can get any answer you want.
>: These two explanations haven't been ruled out yet.
>Well, you were given 12 redundant thermocouple readings, a dynameter
>reading and the water flow rate.

Okay, the numbers that were posted were probably added and multiplied
without errors in arithmetic.  But are they worth anything?  Have you
ever heard of a paper profit?  These numbers look like nothing more
than a paper profit of energy.  I note that:

a) That's all that Pons and Fleischmann had.
b) Jed doesn't want Tom Droege to look at the water heater.
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudengk00 cudfnGreg cudlnKuperberg cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.04 / Cameron Bass /  Re: ENTROPY
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: ENTROPY
Date: Tue, 4 Oct 1994 03:25:37 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <36pem3$994@coranto.ucs.mun.ca>,
John Lewis <court@newton.physics.mun.ca> wrote:
>In article <CwzEIC.I9M@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
>crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>>In article <36fskq$164u@tequesta.gate.net>, Publius <publius@gate.net> wrote:
>>> I know I'm risking being labeled a fool - or worse, but here goes:
>>>
>>> In "The Book of Revelation" (Chapter 20) the author predicts the
>>> end of the World by "The Fire of God" and he says: "The old
>>> heaven (atmosphere) and the old Earth passed away and there was
>>> no more sea."
>>> He also said this would happen "a little season" after the end
>>> of the Twentieth Century.
>>
>>     I'm pretty sure there's no mention of the Twentieth Century in 
>>     any of my copies.  
>>
>>     Perhaps there's a new revision?
>
>Aarrgghh!  Don't believe anything you don't read in the `Quoran!

     I'm pretty sure the Twentieth Century is not mentioned there either.

     Perhaps we don't exist?

                              dale bass
     


cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.03 / Bruce Dunn /  Re: Instrumenting Griggs
     
Originally-From: Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Dunn)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Instrumenting Griggs
Date: Mon, 03 Oct 94 23:08:09 -0800
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada

John Logajan writes:

> Ten 12 volt auto batteries rated at 600 AMP/Hour wired in series ought
> to be able to drive the 50 HP motor for about two hours.  Cost, about
> $400 or so for the batteries.

So, to drive the Griggs device all we need to do is borrow an electric car
and take it apart for a couple of weeks.  Attach the motor to the Griggs
device, and power it from the batteries.  If the motor has a controller to
make fancy waveforms, measure the power going into the controller where it
is still DC (and hopefully has a relatively smooth waveform).  Put the
controller in a styrofoam picnic cooler, and run the feed water for the
Griggs device through a small radiator in the picnic cooler to capture the
heat from the controller (avoiding any arguments about controller
efficiency).



--
Bruce Dunn    Vancouver, Canada   Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca
cudkeys:
cuddy03 cudenBruce_Dunn cudfnBruce cudlnDunn cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.04 / James Griggs /  Re: Opion Poll on GG
     
Originally-From: James R. Griggs <100115.2716@CompuServe.COM>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Opion Poll on GG
Date: 4 Oct 1994 07:56:00 GMT
Organization: International Atomic Energy Agency

I vote 2.11 +/- 3  

Ben Franklin once said: "Be not the first the new to try, nor 
last to set the old aside."

-- 
James R. Griggs
100115.2716@CompuServe.Com  (Home)
ST0@SGIT.IAEA.OR.AT         (Work)
Vienna, Austria
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cuden2716 cudfnJames cudlnGriggs cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.04 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Conventional FAQ - low toxicity vs. benign
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Conventional FAQ - low toxicity vs. benign
Date: Tue, 4 Oct 1994 06:03:06 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <36pfem$9eh@coranto.ucs.mun.ca> court@newton.physics.mun.ca
(John Lewis) writes:
>In article <1994Oct2.151817.6580@Princeton.EDU>
>Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> writes:
> ...
>>
>>I didn't say it was benign, I said it was "a relatively
>>benign radioactive element," i.e. compared to other
>>radioactive elements it's benign.  This is rather different
>>from simply saying it's benign. ...
>
>BTW, I've been told by a person who worked a lot with TT,TD, TH
>etc. that the best way to wash T out of your body is to
>drink a lot of beer.  Lots of water will work, but beer is more efficient -
>probably because of its diuretic action.

Alcohol also plays a role in dulling memory, and probably 
would suppress ones urge to kill the SoBs responsible for 
polluting ones personally precious physical self.  

>>*******************************************************
>>Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
>>Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University
>>As always, I represent only myself, and not PPPL
>
>John Lewis
>St. John's, Newfoundland
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc, Bx 1037 Prometheus II Ltd, College Park MD 20741-1037    |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Wed Oct  5 04:37:04 EDT 1994
------------------------------
1994.10.04 / Thomas Zemanian /  Re: How about testing Griggs with different fluids?
     
Originally-From: ts_zemanian@pnl.gov (Thomas S. Zemanian)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: How about testing Griggs with different fluids?
Date: 4 Oct 1994 22:29:30 GMT
Organization: Battelle PNL

In article <ts_zemanian-041094145325@ts_zemanian.pnl.gov>,
ts_zemanian@pnl.gov (Thomas S. Zemanian) wrote:

> In article <36sgm2$gan@fnnews.fnal.gov>, Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
> wrote:
> 
> > In article <1994Oct4.203524.17789@math.ucla.edu>, barry@arnold.math.
cla.edu (Barry Merriman) says:
> > >Has Griggs tried running with any other fluids, to see how
> > >it effects the results?
> > 

[...]

> > This devious person immediately thought of a cheap readily 
> > available fluid that can be purchased at almost any major
> > street intersection.  It's use would quickly settle the 
> > question once and for all time.
> > 
> 
> ...and probably set fire to Cartersville, if it's what I think it is. 
> Let's try to come up with something aprotic, if we can.
> 

Sorry for the afterthought, but how about carbon tetrachloride?  Specific
gravity: 1.595, boiling point: 76.7 deg C, heat of vaporization: 30 kJ/mol
(water is 40), viscosity: 0.97 cp @20 C and 0.384 cp @100 C (water is 1.0
cp @20 C and 0.28 cp @100 C)

Of course, it is somewhat carcinogenic, but it should degrease the insides
of the GG quite nicely.

--Tom

--
The opinions expressed herein are mine and mine alone.  Keep your filthy
hands off 'em! 
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudents_zemanian cudfnThomas cudlnZemanian cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.04 / David Seghers /  Is Tom Going?
     
Originally-From: seghers_david/hp5000_zp@openmail2.corp.hp.com (David Seghers)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Is Tom Going?
Date: 4 Oct 1994 23:47:52 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard

Sorry if this has been discussed already, but articles age off our system
absurdly fast, and I see someone already sent his check to Scott.

So, if someone would be kind enough to post an update, or Scott,
your address, I'll be glad to send my check.

Thanks in advance,

David Seghers (seghers@hpcc01.HP.COM) 415-691-3730
************************************************************************
Solipsist Society, Founding Member  (I think, therefore you are.)
Charter member of the "I HATE vi!" Club.
************************************************************************
The statements and opinions above are my own, entirely my own, and no one
else's.
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenhp5000_zp cudfnDavid cudlnSeghers cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.05 / Harry Conover /  Re: How about testing Griggs with different fluids?
     
Originally-From: conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: How about testing Griggs with different fluids?
Date: 5 Oct 1994 01:32:45 GMT
Organization: The Internet Access Company

Thomas S. Zemanian (ts_zemanian@pnl.gov) wrote:

: Sorry for the afterthought, but how about carbon tetrachloride?  Specific
: gravity: 1.595, boiling point: 76.7 deg C, heat of vaporization: 30 kJ/mol
: (water is 40), viscosity: 0.97 cp @20 C and 0.384 cp @100 C (water is 1.0
: cp @20 C and 0.28 cp @100 C)

: Of course, it is somewhat carcinogenic, but it should degrease the insides
: of the GG quite nicely.

Actually, Carbon Tet's carcinogenic risks are likely less of an immediate
concern than the rapid and irreversible toxicity of its fumes to those with 
reasonably high levels of blood alcohol. 

This was the problem that cause Carbon Tet to be yanked from general use 
when the problem was identified in the 1950s.

Of course, I not suggesting that.....   Still, why take chances.            


                                            Harry C.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenconover cudfnHarry cudlnConover cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.05 / Gary Steckly /  Re: GG, SL and %error
     
Originally-From: gsteckly@dgim.doc.ca (Gary Steckly)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: GG, SL and %error
Date: Wed, 5 Oct 94 01:23:38 GMT
Organization: Communications Canada

Mike Jamison (ADF) (edwlt12@mars.lerc.nasa.gov) wrote:

: I got to thinking about the SL -> excess GG heat idea.  If you really
: believe in the excess heat, and you really think SL is responsible for it,
: I suggest you take the numbers given by Steve Jones [40 neutrons/sec for


that's assuming the people who like to thing of sonoluminesence as a 
sono*fusion* effect are on the right track.  On the other hand, some 
other pretty sharp individuals (the late Julian Schwinger) thought of 
sonoluminesence as a much more exotic process than fusion.  He alluded to 
a dynamic casimir effect.  In sonoluminesence you can think of the bubble 
as a hole in a dielectric medium (the water) which is being driven back 
and forth by the ultrasound. Wouldn't it be amazing if fusion were passe 
(oh for an 8th bit for accented characters) before it were a reality!  
Let's just pass go and collect some ZPE ;-)

regards

Gary
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudengsteckly cudfnGary cudlnSteckly cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.05 / Scott Mueller /  Re: Is Tom Going?
     
Originally-From: scott@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Scott Hazen Mueller)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Is Tom Going?
Date: Wed, 5 Oct 1994 04:45:55 GMT
Organization: At Home; Salida, CA

In article <36spj8$aoc@hprcl192.mayfield.hp.com> seghers@hpcc01.corp.hp.com writes:
>Sorry if this has been discussed already, but articles age off our system
>absurdly fast, and I see someone already sent his check to Scott.
>
>So, if someone would be kind enough to post an update, or Scott,
>your address, I'll be glad to send my check.

Here's the status as of 4 October 1994:

We have 14 sponsors so far, 15 counting the 20 UK# check I'm not sure I can
cash.  The list of names is attached at the end, after the .sig.

Of those 14(15), 8(9) had posted to the group that they would contribute, or
been included in Steven Jones' list of contributors.  There are 6 additional
contributions from people not listed.  That's an exceedlingly high ratio of
lurkers to posters.

The total fund to date is $370 US.

The address again is

Scott Hazen Mueller
4108 Killigrew Drive
Salida, CA 95368
Attn: CNF

-- 
Scott Hazen Mueller scott@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG or (tandem|ub-gate)!zorch!scott
Mail fusion-request@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG for emailed sci.physics.fusion digests.

Paul T. Breed
James William Brown
David Cyganski
(Alan M. Dunsmuir)
Nancy Gillett
V. Guruprasad
Robert W. Horst
Scott Hazen Mueller
Mark Muhlestein
Tarl Neustaedter
David W. Pierson
Thomas J. Selby
Bradley K. Sherman
Barry Smith
Dr. John H. Whipple

cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenscott cudfnScott cudlnMueller cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.05 / Chuck Sites /  Re: Show me your wavefunction, please.
     
Originally-From: chuck@iglou.iglou.com (Chuck Sites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Show me your wavefunction, please.
Date: Wed, 5 Oct 1994 05:03:25 GMT
Organization: IgLou Internet Services

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

>Chuck Sites says:

>"It's believed that a 4He band state exists that is coencident with
>the D+ band state energy, which may allow the transition of the two
>D+ ions in a condensed band to become equivalent to and indistinguishable
>from a 4He band."

>These words get bandied about over and over again, but nobody seems
>willing to actually say how it is that two deuterons in a condensed
>band become "equivalent to" a single 4He. I know there are a total
>of two protons and two neutrons involved per each 4He, but just
>putting the proper ingredients in the pot does not make a souffle!

Forget particles for a moment.  What the two deuterons in the 
condensed band become equivalent to is a single He4 *band*.  Not 
a particle.  It's the bands that are indistinguishable.  It's 
just that type of phenomena which would modify/steer the 
branching ratios and disapate the 24MeV to the lattice in
one shot.

>Dick Blue

Hope that helps,
Chuck Sites
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.05 / Dieter Britz /  Re: Instrumenting Griggs
     
Originally-From: kemidb@aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Instrumenting Griggs
Date: 5 Oct 94 09:14:59 GMT
Organization: Aarhus University, Denmark

In <55486@mindlink.bc.ca> Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Dunn) writes:

>John Logajan writes:

>> Ten 12 volt auto batteries rated at 600 AMP/Hour wired in series ought
>> to be able to drive the 50 HP motor for about two hours.  Cost, about
>> $400 or so for the batteries.

>So, to drive the Griggs device all we need to do is borrow an electric car
>and take it apart for a couple of weeks.  Attach the motor to the Griggs
>device, and power it from the batteries.  If the motor has a controller to
>make fancy waveforms, measure the power going into the controller where it
>is still DC (and hopefully has a relatively smooth waveform).  Put the
>controller in a styrofoam picnic cooler, and run the feed water for the
>Griggs device through a small radiator in the picnic cooler to capture the
>heat from the controller (avoiding any arguments about controller
>efficiency).


I suggest that the Stanley Meyer car is used for this purpose; an
appropriate choice, I'd say.

-- 
Dieter Britz   alias kemidb@aau.dk
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenkemidb cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.05 /  prasad /  Re: Test Results from Jim Griggs
     
Originally-From: c1prasad@watson.ibm.com (prasad)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Test Results from Jim Griggs
Date: 5 Oct 1994 12:50:58 GMT
Organization: IBM Watson

In article <1994Oct4.011519.8150@midway.uchicago.edu>, gk00@quads.uchica
o.edu (Greg Kuperberg) writes:
|> >It was suggested by someone in this group (sorry I forget who it was)
|> >that ultrasonic energy migh be resonant with the Van Der Waals forces
|> >allowing a very effecient conversion of water to steam.
|> 
|> Fat chance.

Van der Waals?  That name-drop was me.  And you evidently only read part of
my post, which didn't concern (a) ultrasonic energy, (b) resonance of any
kind, (c) efficiency of conversion.  [I don't know where these misassociations
came from, and won't take the blame!  My actual point is important, however...]

I was attempting to show Jed one possible reason why the measurements inside
of the vessel might be well nigh impossible, if not mighty difficult. 
Specifically, my point was/is:  the highest temperature the GG produces,
which is that of the o/p steam and the pump casing itself is about 40C (104F,
said Jed).  This is much less than the ordinary boiling temperature of 100C.
The 40C van der Waals isotherm takes a nice dip and hump.  Traditionally,
in theory, one draws a horizontal line between the dip and hump, and calls
it the liquid state.  Maxwell argued that the line should be drawn so that
the dip and the hump make equal areas w.r.t the line, because that would mean
equal energy in super-saturated steam (hump) and the super-hot water (dip),
for equilibrium.

In the Griggs pump, the equilibrium cannot be assumed, ie. you cannot assume
that the super-sat steam will sit long enough inside the pump casing to
be in thermal eqlbm with the super-hot water (all super's at only 40C !).
The pump throws out the steam BEFORE it can reach eqlbm, simply because
there's a lot of it being produced.  Now look closely at the van der Waals
isotherm - the liquid line disappears, you get a big cloud and mist, and
the fluid (neither liquid nor gas exactly) WILL ACTUALLY ACCELERATE from
the dip to the hump as it emerges ---- because the pressure p INCREASES
with the volume V in this region.  Within this region, your classical
thermodynamics reasoning fails because you don't have thermal equilibrium!

Presumably, this only restricts the use of "equilibrium thermodynamics",
not the heat diffusion equation (which is what Jed's arguments about it not
being a heat pump are based on - ie. dq flow is dictated by - grad T).  It
DOESN'T mean when we take the pump, water and steam AS A WHOLE, we should get
something crazy.  But it is enough, IMHO, to prevent any meaningful
measurement of the inside temperature and pressure using any simple methods,
eg. sticking a thermistor into the rotor body.


I don't know if anyone is seriously taking up my suggestion a while back
to see if Griggs could make a lab-top (pun!) model with a transparent material.
The above thermodynamical view is a further reflection in that direction,
to foresee difficulties at that stage.

I did NOT think of it as resonance - the obvious analogy with -ve resistance
in electronics apparently led someone else to presume I was talking resonances.
And more particularly, I wasn't at all talking about conversion efficiencies,
over, under or everywhere-around unity, whatever be the case!

----
"My little grey cells, mon ami, not your fancy cold fused sonoluminescence!"
-- M. Poirot in the virtual reality of the CF/GG world ;)

cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenc1prasad cudlnprasad cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.05 /  PAUL /  RE: Looking for advice about fusion and nuclear engineering.
     
Originally-From: stek@physop.pfc.mit.edu (PAUL)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: Looking for advice about fusion and nuclear engineering.
Date: 5 OCT 94 12:58:51 GMT
Organization: MIT PLASMA FUSION CENTER

>From: roachman@er5.rutgers.edu (Brian Roscher)
>Date:  5-OCT-1994  01:25:40
>Description: Looking for advice about fusion and nuclear engineering.

>I am a undergrad student interested in studying fusion.  I am going to graduate
>Rutgers with a 2.7 gpa with a degree in Mechanical Engineering and Physics.
>Where is a good school that I could get into?  I know that Princeton is great
>but I have a funny feeling they won't take me.  I was looking into Michigan 
>University.  Does anyone know how their program is?  Also, what do nuclear 
>engineers do?  How is the job industry for fusion and nuclear engineering?
>Sorry for asking so many questions but I have to make decisions which will 
>affect the rest of my life.  You only live once (as far as I know) so I want to
>make the best choices while I am still alive.  Any help would be greatly
>appreciated.  Thanks.

>-- 
>Brian Roscher
>Roachman@eden.rutgers.edu


Job prospects in fusion are bad, very bad.  Of the recent graduates of the 
program here at MIT none of them are getting jobs in fusion.  The growth in the
field was 15 years ago.  To rise in the ranks, you are going to have to wait 
till a bunch of 40 year olds retire.  Working on solving the world's energy
problems is a laudable goal, however, career wise a bright motivated student 
is best off looking elsewhere.  

Paul Stek
stek@mit.edu

cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenstek cudlnPAUL cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.05 /  prasad /  Re: Is Tom Going?
     
Originally-From: c1prasad@watson.ibm.com (prasad)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Is Tom Going?
Date: 5 Oct 1994 13:10:09 GMT
Organization: IBM Watson

In article <36spj8$aoc@hprcl192.mayfield.hp.com>, seghers_david/hp5000_z
@openmail2.corp.hp.com (David Seghers) writes:
|> absurdly fast, and I see someone already sent his check to Scott.

I think many of us already have.  (I did, anyway.)
Well, let's hope we get to settle this mystery by some date, say 'Xmas
this year?  I'll keep my fingers crossed.  See how CF is still unsettled?

|> Charter member of the "I HATE vi!" Club.

[ Vi's still the fastest text editor, if you can use all ten fingers! ;) ]

----
Nail-biting member of the "Is Tom going" Club!
Nail-biting member of the "When can we order CF/excess-energy" Club!
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenc1prasad cudlnprasad cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Thu Oct  6 04:37:02 EDT 1994
------------------------------
1994.10.05 / Jim Carr /  Re: Cold Fusion comment, WAS Re: UNI DIRECTIONAL SPEAKER CABLE
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion comment, WAS Re: UNI DIRECTIONAL SPEAKER CABLE
Date: 5 Oct 1994 10:39:00 -0400
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

In article <petrichCx2ABB.59u@netcom.com> 
petrich@netcom.com (Loren Petrich) writes:
>
>	One joker in the deck:
>
>	Is there _really_ more energy coming out than going in? It should 
>be _very_ easy to monitor the amount of electricity a CF cell consumes; 
>simply multiply the voltage across it by the current going through it, 
>and integrate over time.

It is not easy to monitor the power in, or out, for that matter.  The 
statement you make assumes the power going in is DC with no ripple 
from the power supply or high frequency AC from some unknown source. 
If it were plain DC, then reading the voltage on a constant current 
power supply every 5 minutes as in some P&F experiments would be fine. 

In another case, where the Griggs device involves a 3-phase motor,
one must also be concerned about power factors that might change 
with time.  There is nothing simple about that problem. 

Finally, the amount of energy output via the evolved electrolyzed 
gases is computed, not measured, in any case where the cell is 
open to the atmosphere  -- i.e. without a closed cycle including 
recombination of the products of electrolysis. 

-- 
 James A. Carr   <jac@scri.fsu.edu>     |  Raw data, like raw sewage, 
    http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac        |  requires some processing before
 Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst.  |  it can be spread around.  The 
 Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306    |  opposite is true of theories. 
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.06 / Greg Kuperberg /  Efficiency of elec. to heat to elec. conversion
     
Originally-From: gk00@quads.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg)
Newsgroups: sci.engr.mech,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Efficiency of elec. to heat to elec. conversion
Date: Thu, 6 Oct 1994 17:37:53 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago -- Academic Information Technologies

Here's a question:  Suppose that you have a 500-watt water heater in
room A and a power generator in room B that takes the heated water and
recovers as much electricity as possible.  What reasonable efficiency
can you expect with say, $5,000 of equipment and three weeks of work?
The only allowed connection between the two rooms is an insulated water
pipe (plus a return pipe if you want one), although you can give both
rooms access to the same supply of cool water.
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudengk00 cudfnGreg cudlnKuperberg cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.06 / Loren Petrich /  Re: Cold Fusion comment, WAS Re: UNI DIRECTIONAL SPEAKER CABLE
     
Originally-From: petrich@netcom.com (Loren Petrich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion comment, WAS Re: UNI DIRECTIONAL SPEAKER CABLE
Date: Thu, 6 Oct 1994 12:15:53 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

In article <1994Oct2.214326.1951@iglou.com>,
Chuck Sites <chuck@iglou.iglou.com> wrote:
>petrich@netcom.com (Loren Petrich) writes:
>>In article <jonkCwDz5L.Dw8@netcom.com> jonk@netcom.com (Jonathan Dale Kirwan) writes:
>>>Harry H Conover (conover@max.tiac.net) wrote:
>>>: Well, you can't knock the fact that the CF guys sure know how to party!
>>>: Still, I can't help but wonder if they realize what traditional Japanese
>>>: customs associated with failure entail. 

>>	For those not in the know, one slices one's belly with a knife. 
>>One usually does not live very much longer.

	[On what kinds of fusion reactions can take place...]

	[Problem: why aren't Cold Fusion effects observed with other 
nuclear reactions?]

... Such blatant ad-hockery makes me gag.

>Sorry it makes you gag.

>What many of 'us' Cold fusion types are looking for is a quantum effect
>where a Band state of D+ ions forms via the periodicity of the metal host
>and by Bose nature of the D+ particle undergoes a Bose-Einstien condensation
>of the D+ quantum band states. ...

	The only way a band state can form is if the D nuclei have a de 
Broglie wavelength comparable to a lattice spacing. And that simply 
cannot happen because the electrostatic interactions with the nearby 
electrons and nuclei are just too strong; all those deuterons get 
confined in potential wells.

	And even if they _did_ have overlapping wavefunctions, that is 
not the end of our problems, because two individual deuterons would still 
repel each other electrostatically. Just consider D - D scattering 
experiments; that should be pretty standard nuclear physics to perform, 
and I'm sure there's a lot of discussion of it in the literature.

	What happens with Bose-Einstein statistics is that the combined 
wavefunction keeps its sign when two particles are exchanged 
(Fermi-Dirac reverses sign). The BE condensation is a limiting case for 
low temperatures derived in the no-interaction limit; that is NOT valid 
for D+'s.

>   The main problems with realizing cold fusion as a phenomnea worthy of 
>support and investigation are political foremost, and materials secondary.

	OK, but to be taken seriously, one must be willing to acknowledge 
whatever failures happen. In fact, I suspect that an unwillingness to 
accept failure is a good marker of pseudoscience.

>Before making claims that cold fusion will release neutrons as a 
>reaction of D+D, you have to describe how D+D will occur. ...

	[...admission of the necesssity of branching-ratio changes...]

	That's a step forward :-), but the D + D -> He4 (say) rate would
have to be enhanced _enormously_ (and I mean, by several orders of 
magnitude). And it must be by some effect that is just not observed in 
any other context.

-- 
Loren Petrich, the Master Blaster
petrich@netcom.com                   Happiness is a fast Macintosh
lip@s1.gov                           And a fast train

cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenpetrich cudfnLoren cudlnPetrich cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.06 / Brian Rauchfuss /  Re: A D2O explosion!
     
Originally-From: brauchfu@fnugget.intel.com (Brian D. Rauchfuss)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: A D2O explosion!
Date: 6 Oct 1994 17:45:07 GMT
Organization: INTEL.FOLSOM

In article <Cx0Esz.2Mx@eskimo.com> billb@eskimo.com (William Beaty) writes:

>I made a small set-up using a glass tube, and a ultrasound transducer. The end 
>cap was positivly charged to attract free electrons. 

The cavitation theory helps explains the Griggs device, it could easily produce
cavitation in there.  This would be an interesting and simple experiment to
replicate!

>There was no detectable radiation. upon  later thought I theroised that the 
>oxygen atoms wheer acting as neutron absorbers, and the surrounding water 
>coped with the gamma. 

X-Rays should be checked for though.

>I suggest a 
>modified internal combustion engine would work. The air intake converted to a 
>water intake, with the fuel injector acting as a gasious deuterium injector. 
>The spark-plug  would be replaced with an ultra-sound transducer (speaker). 

Probably need to estimate the energy output before converting an engine, it 
might explde too!


BDR
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenbrauchfu cudfnBrian cudlnRauchfuss cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.06 / William Beaty /  Re: Grigg's housing is hot?
     
Originally-From: billb@eskimo.com (William Beaty)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Grigg's housing is hot?
Date: Thu, 6 Oct 1994 18:30:23 GMT
Organization: Eskimo North (206) For-Ever

On hot housing:

If the inside of the device is significantly above atmospheric pressure,
then the housing can be over 100C.  Were there partially-closed valves
involved?

-- 
.....................uuuu / oo \ uuuu........,.............................
William Beaty  voice:206-781-3320   bbs:206-789-0775
EE/Programmer/Science exhibit hobbyist
Seattle, WA 98117
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenbillb cudfnWilliam cudlnBeaty cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.06 / Greg Kuperberg /  Re: Efficiency of elec. to heat to elec. conversion
     
Originally-From: gk00@quads.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg)
Newsgroups: sci.engr.mech,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Efficiency of elec. to heat to elec. conversion
Date: Thu, 6 Oct 1994 21:16:39 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

In article <1994Oct6.173753.21695@midway.uchicago.edu> gk00@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>Here's a question:  Suppose that you have a 500-watt water heater in
>room A and a power generator in room B that takes the heated water and
>recovers as much electricity as possible.  What reasonable efficiency
>can you expect with say, $5,000 of equipment and three weeks of work?

The answer to my purely academic question seems to be:  2-3%, or not
much.  If you have another answer, I am still interested, but let
me scale up the problem to put it in another regime:  Let's say
that it's 50 KW, it can make steam, and you have $50,000 and two months.

>The only allowed connection between the two rooms is an insulated water
>pipe (plus a return pipe if you want one), although you can give both
>rooms access to the same supply of cool water.

This still holds, although you can make it a steam pipe.
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudengk00 cudfnGreg cudlnKuperberg cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.05 / Jim Carr /  Re: Cold Fusion comment, WAS Re: UNI DIRECTIONAL SPEAKER CABLE
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion comment, WAS Re: UNI DIRECTIONAL SPEAKER CABLE
Date: 5 Oct 1994 17:42:03 -0400
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

In article <1994Oct2.214326.1951@iglou.com> 
chuck@iglou.iglou.com (Chuck Sites) writes:
>
>                     ...                              From what I've 
>read on the D+D->he3+n reactions in the luke-warm to cold fusion energy
>range, it's difficult at best to even see a neutron signature.    ...

Why do you say this?  It is always *much* easier to see a nuclear 
signature than it is to measure heat or some equivalent 'chemical' 
scale observation.  Have you read Jones' papers on \mu-CF?  They 
talk explicitly about how you do these measurements.  Further, 
you can always measure the H-3 + p channel instead of He-3 + n. 

The most difficult experiment to do concerns the most popular theory, 
that of some sort of lattice-sharing of energy for d+d --> He-4, 
because it is hard to be sure the He-4 does not come from some 
contamination.  It does not have any kinetic energy from the 
reaction to help identify it uniquely.  The idea goes back to 
the early ideas of Hagelstein, and the main reason it lives on is 
that it is the hardest to disprove.  All other nuclear channels 
are easy to exclude at the claimed levels of power. 

-- 
 James A. Carr   <jac@scri.fsu.edu>     |  Raw data, like raw sewage, 
    http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac        |  requires some processing before
 Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst.  |  it can be spread around.  The 
 Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306    |  opposite is true of theories. 
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.06 /  nachtrieb@max. /  Alcator C-MOD Weekly Highlights, 19941006
     
Originally-From: nachtrieb@max.pfc.mit.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Alcator C-MOD Weekly Highlights, 19941006
Date: 6 OCT 94 20:51:51 GMT
Organization: MIT PLASMA FUSION CENTER

			Alcator C-MOD Weekly Highlights
				October 6, 1994

The maintenance/repair period is continuing this week. Excellent
progress has again been made on the tokamak re-assembly.

The OH1 (Ohmic Heating coil number 1; plasma current) and OH2U (Ohmic
Heating coil number 2, Upper portion; plasma current) coax busses were
installed and torqued to specification.  Following final inspection of
these coaxes, the upper wedge plate was installed.

The upper radial TF (Toroidal Field magnetic coil; primary confinement
field) magnet arms were then installed, and the spring plates, used to
maintain compression of the feltmetal in the sliding joints, were
installed at the top inner joints. The vertical TF arms were
installed, and the spring plates inserted in all the outer joints.
Inspections and testing, including hi-potting were then carried
out. The TF magnet assembly is now complete.

A fitup of the EF (External magnetic Field coil; plasma shaping and
control) coaxes and OH coax extensions was performed in preparation
for cylinder installation.  Following final inspections, the outer
cylinder was installed.

All ten "teardrop" adaptors on the lower vertical flanges have been
installed.  Now that the cylinder is in place, installation of the
horizontal port extensions has begun.

The bus tunnel, which had been pulled back during the machine
dis-assembly, has been moved back to its normal position.

Dr. Edmondo Giovannozzi has started a three month visit at Alcator
C-Mod from the Frascati FT tokamak group. He will be working with
Reich Watterson on improvements to the calibration systems of the
C-Mod Scanning YAG (Yttrium-Arsenide doped Garnet crystal; electron
temperature and density diagnostic) Thomson scattering Diagnostic.
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudennachtrieb cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.06 / Gary Steckly /  Re: Is Tom Going?
     
Originally-From: gsteckly@dgim.doc.ca (Gary Steckly)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Is Tom Going?
Date: Thu, 6 Oct 94 22:33:14 GMT
Organization: Communications Canada

Scott Hazen Mueller (scott@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG) wrote:
: In article <36spj8$aoc@hprcl192.mayfield.hp.com> seghers@hpcc01.corp.hp.com writes:
: >Sorry if this has been discussed already, but articles age off our system
: >absurdly fast, and I see someone already sent his check to Scott.
: >
: >So, if someone would be kind enough to post an update, or Scott,
: >your address, I'll be glad to send my check.

: Here's the status as of 4 October 1994:

: We have 14 sponsors so far, 15 counting the 20 UK# check I'm not sure I can
: cash.  The list of names is attached at the end, after the .sig.

My postal money order for $25. U.S. is inthe mail as of today.  I put a 
draft copy of a memorial certificate (suitable  for framing?) as per an 
earlier suggestion.  I'm open for comments on the wording and graphic 
elements plus I could print individual copies for each  contributor 
(providing we don't go over 50?).

regards

Gary  

cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudengsteckly cudfnGary cudlnSteckly cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.07 / R SPAANDONK /  Re: Fusion Digest 2818
     
Originally-From: rvanspaa@ozemail.com.au (R.J VAN SPAANDONK)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion Digest 2818
Date: Fri, 7 Oct 1994 04:54:18 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

>>
> This devious person immediately thought of a cheap readily
> available fluid that can be purchased at almost any major
> street intersection.  It's use would quickly settle the
> question once and for all time.
>

...and probably set fire to Cartersville, if it's what I think it is.
Let's try to come up with something aprotic, if we can.

--Tom

--
The opinions expressed herein are mine and mine alone.  Keep your filthy
>>hands off 'em!
_________________________________________________________________________
How about carbontetrachloride?

Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa@ozemail.com.au>














cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenrvanspaa cudfnR cudlnSPAANDONK cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.05 / Hugh Lippincott /  Re: Instrumenting Griggs
     
Originally-From: hughl@hp-and.an.hp.com (Hugh Lippincott)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Instrumenting Griggs
Date: 5 Oct 94 10:37:24 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company

In article <36q4b6$l3k@nntpd.lkg.dec.com>, pierson@cimcad.enet.dec.com
(dave pierson) writes:
|> In article <3OCT199410180463@mars.lerc.nasa.gov>, edwlt12@mars.lerc.nasa.gov
|> (Mike Jamison (ADF)) writes...
|> >In article <ts_zemanian-021094124828@ts_zemanian.pnl.gov>,
ts_zemanian@pnl.gov (Thomas S. Zemanian) writes...
|> 
|> >>Another possibility would be to operate the device off a DC motor, thereby
|> >>eliminating the power factor correction.  Moreover, the input power is then
|> >>easily derived from simultaneous monitoring of the voltage and current.
|> 
|> >>Unfortunately, 30 hp DC motors are quite rare.  Might anyone know where one
|> >>could be obtained?
|> 	Look under most any diesel electric loco.  Any size up to 1000 hp.
|> 	Currently being superseded by VFAC three phase, but it will be a while
|> 	before theya re gone.

Good thought: I believe that can be extended to almost ALL of the older 
"traction" motors used for electric street cars, subway cars and
"people mover"s.  These DC motors may be smaller than the locomotive.
 
	Hugh Lippincott 	    	  hughl@hp-and.an.hp.com
	<Just my own ideas, no blame or responsibility of HP>

cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenhughl cudfnHugh cudlnLippincott cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.05 / Jed Rothwell /  GG pyrometer was checked
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@CompuServe.COM>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: GG pyrometer was checked
Date: 5 Oct 1994 17:37:55 GMT
Organization: CFRA

Someone wrote:
 
>How about:  The emissivity setting for the pyrometer is not what it should
>be, or, the metal is painted, so the pyrometer should be set to the
>emissivity of the paint.  In other words, the housing isn't as hot as the
>pyrometer says it is...
 
Even though there is not a shred of evidence to support this hypothesis, Dale
Bass immediately concluded that it must be true. He is a 'true believer' he
will swallow any story - no matter how untenable - if it supports his
preconceived notions. He wrote:
 
     "Which is the same sort of idiotic error that I've been expecting on the
     power measurement.  It says wonders about either a) Jed, or  b) their
     experimental capability."
 
It says nothing about Jed, it says everything about Dale's inflamed
imagination, absurd illusions, and idiotic errors. Dale imagines that I did
not check the pyrometer because he did not bother to read the paper I wrote.
He supposes I have no way of calibrating or cross checking the measurements,
because he is stupid and careless and he would not have checked it. As always
he is utterly wrong, he is describing his own deficiencies, not mine. He is
the one who never bothers to read the papers or think through the experiment,
he is the one who shoots from the hip without knowing what he is talking
about, not me. As noted in the paper, the pyrometer was checked against many
different objects including metal surfaces. For example, it was aimed at the
separation tank, the steel drum and the pipes, which are equipped with
thermocouples, dial thermometers, and mercury thermometers. The pyrometer
agreed with these other instruments to within a few degrees, at temperatures
ranging from 60 F up to 315 F on the separation tank.
 
Every measurement I reported was cross checked and calibrated. I did not
describe each and every calibration procedure. In general, I go back to first
principles. For example, I check a flowmeter by collecting water for a set
period of time and then weighing it and measuring the volume in a marked
container. I check a thermometer or thermocouple by putting it first in ice
water and then in boiling water.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.05 / Larry Kubo /  Re: Grigg's housing is hot?
     
Originally-From: larryk@sr.hp.com (Larry Kubo)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Grigg's housing is hot?
Date: Wed, 5 Oct 1994 17:28:49 GMT
Organization: HP Sonoma County (SRSD/MWTD/MID)

Richard A Blue (blue@pilot.msu.edu) wrote:
: Grigg's housing is hotter than water?

: In a series of exchanges between Jed Rothwell and a number of
: people on Compuserve, which I read this weekend, Jed made the
: assertion that the housing of the GG runs at a temperature that
: is significantly above that of hot water or steam emerging from the
: device. 

: JR    "That is not a source of error, it is a source of heat.  To
:      be perfectly honest I do not know what the metal temperature
:      was during tests reported by Gene (I was not there), but in
:      all tests I have observed the pyrometer showed the metal
:      surface was much hotter than the steam 
" <stuff deleted here and there>

In my experience, pyrometers are about the last thermometric tool I would
use to determine temperature differences between two different radiating
bodies.
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenlarryk cudfnLarry cudlnKubo cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.06 / Jorge Stolfi /  Re: Test Results from Jim Griggs
     
Originally-From: stolfi@june.cs.washington.edu (Jorge Stolfi)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Test Results from Jim Griggs
Date: Thu, 6 Oct 1994 01:58:40 GMT
Organization: CS Dept, University of Campinas

    > [Me:]  
    >           +---/\/\/\---+---/\/\/\---+
    >          A            |            |
    >                R1     |     R2     |
    >                     =====        =====
    >                   C1  |        C2  |
    >                       |            |
    >          +------------+------------+
    >          B
    >
    > with R1*C1 = 1sec, R2*C2 = 10 sec. Charge both C1 abd C2 to +100V, 
    > then quickly discharge C1, and connect AB to a load.

    > [John Logajan:] I simulated this with Electronics Workbench.  
    > The node point between R1 and R2 is forced to zero per Jorge's 
    > instructions, and then C1 is allowed to recharge from C2.  
    > The waveform seen is a relatively fast chargeup time for C1 
    > to some fractional value of the initial C2 charge.  When C2 
    > and C1 hit the same voltage, the system goes into the standard
    > discharge curve.  
    > 
    > There is no plateau, it is either charging up
    > quickly or discharging more slowly.

First, it is *not* either/or.  Between the rise and fall there is  a smooth hump.
If you clip out a small piece of the graph around the maximum, it will show
essentially constant positive voltage and current --- i.e. "excess power".
 
More importantly, this circuit is not meant to be a model 
of the Griggs pump.  Its purpose was merely to show that the voltage at the 
load AB *can* rise while the system is being discharged.  

For a quantitative model, we first need to replace C2 and R2 by
a chain of R's and C's, representing the nested layers of the 
rotor.  We also need to add a second chain of R's and C's 
to the left of the load, to represent the housing;
and a  couple more to model the water and steam inside the pump.  
Of course we must use the right values of R and C.

We also need some power sources to represent the
mechanical energy input.  Part of it goes directly into the 
"water" capacitor, as friction in the water around the rotor.
However, an unknown fraction of it (apparently
as much as 1/4 of the total) gets turned into heat by
friction at the bearings, from where it goes into the 
inner layers of the rotor and/or the pump housing.

Finally, note that the load (steam vent) is not necessarily 
linear.   

    > So I don't think there is any magic you can conjure up to hold the COP
    > steady for ten minutes other than a very very large thermal mass.  

I believe I can do that without any magic.
Give me the data and I will try.

--stolfi

cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenstolfi cudfnJorge cudlnStolfi cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.06 / Ralph Coppola /  !! LOW COST VACUUM !!
     
Originally-From: aa679@cfn.cs.dal.ca (Ralph J. Coppola)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: !! LOW COST VACUUM !!
Date: Thu, 6 Oct 1994 03:43:51 GMT
Organization: Chebucto FreeNet

If anyone is interseted in low cost VACUUM systems .. ie plasma etc. Drop 
me a note via e-Mail and I will fwd you a copy of THE BELL JAR, a news 
letter on inexpensive vac tech's etc.

Ralph
aa679@cfn.cs.dal.ca


--
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenaa679 cudfnRalph cudlnCoppola cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.05 /  gate@teleport. /  Research Project
     
Originally-From: gate@teleport.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Research Project
Date: 5 Oct 1994 22:34:47 -0700
Organization: Teleport - Portland's Public Access (503) 220-1016

	I have recently been given an assignment to do a research 
project.  My partner and I chose to do somthing on Cold fussion.  If 
any of you 'netters have any suggestions for us, E-Mail me at:
	gate@teleport.com
	Make the subject Cold Fussion so I don't end up deleting it with 
the rest of my Junk mail.  Thanx for your time.
					Willie Darden
					Freshman At Oregon Episcopal School
					Honors Physics
-- 
gate@teleport.COM  Public Access User --- Not affiliated with Teleport
Public Access UNIX and Internet at (503) 220-1016 (2400-14400, N81)
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudengate cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.06 /  DanHicks /  Re: Instrumenting Griggs
     
Originally-From: danhicks@aol.com (DanHicks)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Instrumenting Griggs
Date: 6 Oct 1994 00:39:01 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

In article <ts_zemanian-021094124828@ts_zemanian.pnl.gov>,
ts_zemanian@pnl.gov (Thomas S. Zemanian) writes:

>>>Another possibility would be to operate the device off a DC motor,
thereby
eliminating the power factor correction.  Moreover, the input power is
then
easily derived from simultaneous monitoring of the voltage and current.<<<

If the AC motor were simply isolated from the pump with a good sized
flywheel, then the need to worry about instantaneous power fluctuations
would be eliminated.  Conventional industrial power meters (which
instantaneously multiply current times voltage) could then measure power
within 3% or so.  Also, adding in a good-sized capacitor bank would help
to filter out distortion on the AC line (a potential cause of error if
there are a lot of computers or fluorescent lights around) and improve the
power factor (since a poor power factor tends to amplify errors in power
measurement).

cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudendanhicks cudlnDanHicks cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.06 / David Davies /  Re: Show me your wavefunction, please.
     
Originally-From: drd851@huxley.anu.edu.au (David R Davies)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Show me your wavefunction, please.
Date: 6 Oct 1994 16:58:53 +1000
Organization: Australian National University

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

(stuff deleted)
>In short I think the kind of sloppy reasoning that goes into
>this magical conversion from two deuterons to a 4He does not
>wash.  Why can't we lay this to rest?

>Dick Blue

Oh no, not again? C'mon Dick. I'm not sure how seriously to take you
when you repeat variations on this theme but assuming you are serious
I will paraphrase what I and others have said before.

You should consider that maybe it is your logic that is sloppy. You
seem to say that because nobody has convinced you that band state fusion
is plausible within the orthodox QM and nuclear theory that it should be
dismissed. I don't *believe* in band state fusion (for want of a better
title) but nobody has come close to convincing me that it is impossible
and the Chubbs (among others) have had plausible stabs at the theory from
a number of different directions without being obviously or trivially
wrong so to me it is still an open question and a very interesting one.

If all we get out of the CF saga is an improved understanding of quantum
solid state phenomena then to my mind it will have been worth the effort.
The only real risks are a few bruised egos if CF fails to eventuate as an
energy source. If it does come good then the whole of science will suffer in
the public mind. Any good bookie would be laying off to ballance the odds
in this case. A solid dose of real scepticism (lots of 'maybe's and not so
many 'impossible's) would provide adequate insurance to the scientific comm-
unity and leave the way open for potential big benefits for all.

FWIIW my money is gradually shifting in the ZPE direction rather than fusion
(since you don't like me talking about stripping of nuclear excitation as
fusion) because this seems to be the only way to tie a number of strange
energy devices together but that's a fairly weak argument. I have asked
before and will try once more, does anyone have a good explanation for how
the deuteron's 3S and 3D states essentially co-exist when they (I assume)
have quite different energies? Is this ZPE? Is it rubbish? Beats me in any
conventional QM perspective. My intuitive Coherence Centre model seems to
make more sense to me but went down like the proverbial lead balloon on an
earlier posting. Ho Hum! The key point is, though, that even in the orthodox
view the deuteron can be found as 3D with excess energy about 4% of times.


Cheers,


dave 
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudendrd851 cudfnDavid cudlnDavies cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.06 / Dieter Britz /  Re: Is Tom Going?
     
Originally-From: kemidb@aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Is Tom Going?
Date: 6 Oct 94 07:37:17 GMT
Organization: Aarhus University, Denmark

In <Cx6nwK.6p2@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> scott@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Scott Hazen Mueller) writes:

[....]
>We have 14 sponsors so far, 15 counting the 20 UK# check I'm not sure I can
>cash.  The list of names is attached at the end, after the .sig.
[...]
>Paul T. Breed
>James William Brown
>David Cyganski
>(Alan M. Dunsmuir)
>Nancy Gillett
>V. Guruprasad
>Robert W. Horst
>Scott Hazen Mueller
>Mark Muhlestein
>Tarl Neustaedter
>David W. Pierson
>Thomas J. Selby
>Bradley K. Sherman
>Barry Smith
>Dr. John H. Whipple

Remember me? I'm in for $25 as soon as I know that the trip is on; because I'll
be getting someone else to send the check (it IS my money though), it would be
a bit awkward, accounting-wise, if it were torn up later, hence my waiting for
confirmation.
-- 
Dieter Britz   alias kemidb@aau.dk
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenkemidb cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.05 / John White /  Tests Tom Droege could do on Griggs device
     
Originally-From: jnw@char.vnet.net (John N. White)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Tests Tom Droege could do on Griggs device
Date: 5 Oct 1994 23:51:15 -0400
Organization: Vnet Internet Access, Inc. - Charlotte, NC. (704) 374-0779

I have a couple of ideas for tests that Tom Droege could do with the
Griggs device. As I understand it, when the excess heat kicks in the pump
makes a horrific racket and the input power decreases. These vibrations
could be getting back to the power meter and causing it to read low,
so it would be nice to have a qualitative description of the sound.
Does it shriek like a demon or growl like a dragon?

Putting a clamp-on AC current meter on one of the leads going to the motor
could give some very useful information. Note that such clamp-on meters
are small and cheap, and even Radio Shack sells them. Consider the following
two possibilities:

1. The Griggs device really produces excess heat, and the input power is
   really dropping. This should produce a substantial drop in the current
   going to the motor. An AC current meter would show less current.

2. The input power isn't dropping, but vibrations in the pump are being
   converted by the motor to their electrical equivalent which are then
   sent back to the power meter. The meter, being designed for 60Hz, is
   fooled into reading low. An AC current meter, on the other hand, would
   not be fooled in the same way. If anything, I would think that it
   would read high.

So a clamp on AC current meter would test between these two. It would
not be definitive, as one can think of ways that it could fail. And
it is no substitute for a wide bandwidth power meter. But it is a very
cheap and easy test, and the results could be very interesting.
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenjnw cudfnJohn cudlnWhite cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.06 / Eugene Mallove /  E-Quest Helium Results
     
Originally-From: 76570.2270@compuserve.com (Eugene Mallove)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: E-Quest Helium Results
Date: Thu, 6 Oct 1994 14:09:04 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Several authoritative sources -- some inside and some outside the company -- 
have described to me the status of the E-Quest ultrasonic-activation cold 
fusion experiments. I am sure a technical paper is going to be submitted very 
soon.

Summary of information:

1. E-Quest now has verified helium production in excess heat-producing 
experiments that range from 50 watts excess to 500 watts excess. Experiments 
are done in their heavy water circulation system. Typically Pd is used in 
these experiments, though Ti works too, but gives a somewhat different 
repsonse. They do not get excess heat in ordinary water or with stainless 
steel targets. The excess heat-producing runs to generate helium ranged from 3
hours to 72 hours duration.

2.  Helium measurements have now been successfully made with gas samples from 
the E-Quest experiments --- samples were measured at the US Bureau of Mines 
(Amarillo, Texas), at SRI International, and most recently at Rockwell (the 
latter lab is known to be used for helium measurements by investigators in the
hot fusion program).

3.  Ten (10) runs have been analyzed for helium. ALL gave positive helium 
results. Earlier runs tended to be in the 50-60 ppm of helium-4 range. At 
least one sample measured at Rockwell recently was a remarkable 552 ppm (NO 
decimal point error: Yes, five-hundred fifty-two ppm) The error range: plus or
minus 1 ppm. E-Quest believes this latter result accounts for nearly all of 
the excess heat evidenced in that run. This sample, as in other recent 
testing, was collected in 50cc *stainless steel* bottles. All the sample was 
obviously not needed for the testing, so archived gas remains for future 
testing. That 552 ppm sample was collected in a test of the E-Quest device at 
Los Alamos National Laboratory. At LANL, checks were made for gammas, 
neutrons, and tritium. None of the latter were found.

4.   The cover gas used in all cases was analytical grade argon *not* D2. 
Helium-4 content of the argon was measured and found to be less than 0.4 ppm. 
Remember, atmospheric He-4 concentration is less than 6ppm.   

5. Among the most amazing claimed findings however, was the highly significant
enhancement of the measured helium-3/helium-4 ratio, which is normally on the 
order of 10E-6.  The helium-3 measurement at Rockwell showed this ratio to be 
enhanced to around 10E-3 -- about 1000-fold increase.Such a finding would 
virtually rule out any possibility of the helium-4 being from "contamination" 
-- as preposterous as that favorite sketptic's theory would seem anyway at 
this point. Sixty ppm is 10 times natural background helium-4, but 552 ppm is 
on the order of 100 times background.

6. Evidence was obtained for plenty of helium in the Pd metal too.

7. The mass-spec peaks defining helium-4 and D2 -- or possible "di-deuterino" 
gas--  are said to be very well separated. So this IS helium-4.

8. Multiple measurements were made at Rockwell on each of several gas samples 
and background gas samples submitted. 

That's all for now.  I'll pass along anything else I hear about this excellent
advance.

***************************************
Eugene F. Mallove                       | "The replacement of impartial
Cold Fusion Technology                  |  reviewing by censorship will be
Box 2816                                |  the death of science."
Concord, New Hampshire 03302-2816       |   Julian Schwinger, Nobel Laureate
76570.2270@compuserve.com               |   Tokyo, Japan, Dec. 7, 1990
Fax: 603-224-5975; Phone: 603-228-4516
_______________________________________ 

cudkeys:
cuddy6 cuden2270 cudfnEugene cudlnMallove cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.06 / Scott Mason /  Fusion?
     
Originally-From: mason@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Scott Mason)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Fusion?
Date: 6 Oct 1994 08:12:07 -0400
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD


    As an EE with a healthy curiosity about the physics world (I also
have a BS in physics) I am quite dissappointed that this newsgroup has
little to do with fusion at all.  I suggest renaming the group sci.physics.
griggs, or perhaps alt.tom :) in order to more accurately reflect the
newsgroup's subject matter.

    ....This isn't intended as a flame, just an observation.

    BTW I've done a lot of work with hydro-acoustics and I think you
SL guys are barking up the wrong tree, but I have no numbers yet.  I
am working ondesigning a few exp's though,simply because I find the
current train of thought (in this newsgroup) rather curious.

   "An open mind is a wonderful thing, provided it's not being baraged
with garbage."
	 - J.C. Range

Later

Scott
--
    The comments or opinions expressed here do not reflect those of
the Naval Surface Warfare Center, U.S. Navy, or Federal Government.

cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenmason cudfnScott cudlnMason cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.07 / Eugene Mallove /  Griggs Steam Test Data
     
Originally-From: 76570.2270@compuserve.com (Eugene Mallove)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Griggs Steam Test Data
Date: Fri, 7 Oct 1994 00:14:54 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I have been much enjoying the lunatic skeptics on this forum (especially Bass,
Blue, and Kuperberg) as they try to come to terms with the Griggs device. Keep
up those marvelous, stupid, incompetent statements! The file on you is 
growing! Historians of science will love you skeptics for it.  You guys are 
like the pre-human creatures confronting the "monolith" in "2001: A Space 
Odyssey" -- you don't know what to make of it, but you can sure scream and 
screech and, well... act like apes!

Here's some more data to get you stirred up. I enjoy rattling your cages.

Hydrosonic Pump Steam Test. September 13, 1994:

One frame of data about 14 minutes into the test:

Input water temperatures (six thermocouples), degrees F:
110.8
109.9
110.2
110.3
110.0
109.7

Output temperature in steam (six thermocouples), degrees, F:
321.9
321.9
322.1
322.0
322.0
321.8


Avergae input temperature = 110.1 degrees F
Average output steam temperature = 321.9 degrees F
Delta-T = 211.8 degrees F

Input torque = 907.71 inch-pounds
Rpm's =  3572

Measured Horsepower = 51.45
BTU equivalent of mechanical input = 130,945 BTU/hour

Water input plow rate = 0.2818 gallons/minute
Energy content of steam = 1134 BTU/pound
BTU output in steam  = 162,033 BTU/hour

COP (Output power/input power) = 1.237

The other frames of data at about 45 second intervals show the following 
COP's, beginning with COP's less than 1.0 during the rapid start-up transient.
There is more variability in this performance than in the hot water test data 
submitted earlier:

COP at about 45 second intervals:

0.836
0.836
1.317
1.23
1.163
1.254
1.165
1.206
1.278
1.212
1.167
1.211
1.188
1.188
1.19
1.189
1.165
1.167
1.213
1.166
1.237
1.213
1.212



***************************************
Eugene F. Mallove                       | "The replacement of impartial
Cold Fusion Technology                  |  reviewing by censorship will be
Box 2816                                |  the death of science."
Concord, New Hampshire 03302-2816       |   Julian Schwinger, Nobel Laureate
76570.2270@compuserve.com               |   Tokyo, Japan, Dec. 7, 1990
Fax: 603-224-5975; Phone: 603-228-4516
_______________________________________ 

cudkeys:
cuddy7 cuden2270 cudfnEugene cudlnMallove cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.06 / Jed Rothwell /  More on GG pyrometer
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@CompuServe.COM>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: More on GG pyrometer
Date: 6 Oct 1994 15:12:19 GMT
Organization: CFRA

c1prasad@watson.ibm.com (prasad) writes:
 
     "Specifically, my point was/is:  the highest temperature the GG
     produces, which is that of the o/p steam and the pump casing itself is
     about 40C (104F, said Jed)."
 
That is incorrect. The pump housing is much hotter than that. On Jan 5,
Mallove recorded it peaked at 300 deg F (150 C). This was recorded with the
pyrometer, which is a Minolta / LAND model. I said that the steel drum reached
104F during some of the January tests I observed. It should be intuitively
obvious that the pump casing must be much hotter than 40C, because the steam
in the pump is pressurized and it is hotter than 100C.
 
 
larryk@sr.hp.com (Larry Kubo) writes:
 
     "In my experience, pyrometers are about the last thermometric tool I
     would use to determine temperature differences between two different
     radiating bodies."
 
I found the Minolta unit remarkably consistent with the other temperature
sensing devices (mercury thermometers, thermistors, thermocouples). You set
the emissivity for wet or dry bodies, and it reads within a few degrees of the
other instruments. For example, I set it for high water content and pointed at
people's faces and it read between 98 to 100 F. When the steel drum
temperature was stable after the run, the pyrometer agreed with the
thermometers on the water temperatures in the barrel, and it read the same
temperature on steel surface outside (different emissivity). These hand held
pyrometers are routinely used by HVAC engineers and other people who look for
hot spots, insulation problems and in other field applications.
 
I would not trust it if I had not checked it carefully against other
instruments and against common sense.
 
 
There have been a number of exotic, dangerous and expensive sounding projects
proposed here for doing things running the Griggs device on automobile
batteries and using carbon tetrachloride as a working fluid. I presume that
some of these fanciful ideas are tongue in cheek. I myself believe in doing
things according to tradition. I use only mainstream methods and tools, I do
everything according to the book, and I try to keep it simple and reliable.
For example, I measure temperature with a mercury thermometer, and an
electronic one too, but I trust the mercury more. It cannot be affected by
electric fields or weak batteries. I like to weigh things on a traditional
balance scale. They were invented thousands of years ago, they worked fine
back then, and they still work today. I don't trust electronic scales that
give you magic numbers out of nowhere with meaningless 5-digit precision. To
verify the RPMs shown by the dynamometer, I would use a strobe light. (I have
not got around to doing that by the way, but other people have confirmed the
rpm readings.) To measure electric power, the best tool by far is the top-of-
the-line General Electric Dranetz power meter which has been calibrated and
certified by G.E. factory technicians. The manual says it is accurate to
within a percent, and the other instruments prove this is true. The BMI power
meter the dynamometer agree with Dranetz results. This is a result using tried
and true off-the-shelf factory tools which any experienced engineer
understands and relies on. An exotic test with auto batteries would not give
such clear cut results and nobody would believe the results anyway. A custom
designed homemade rig of batteries is not going to be a reliable or as widely
understood as the Dranetz meter. People have been measuring HVAC and boiler
heat for nearly 200 years. The tools and methods are well understood, prosaic,
boring, simple and utterly reliable. It is best to stick with them and not try
to reinvent the wheel.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Fri Oct  7 04:37:03 EDT 1994
------------------------------
1994.10.07 / Joe Guokas /  Re: !! LOW COST VACUUM !!
     
Originally-From: joeguokas@aol.com (Joe Guokas)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: !! LOW COST VACUUM !!
Date: 7 Oct 1994 14:01:05 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

In article <Cx8Fp6.90C@cs.dal.ca>, aa679@cfn.cs.dal.ca (Ralph J. Coppola)
writes:...

Please send info on the BELL JAR to me at joeguokas@aol.com.
I saw your posting on sci.phys.fusion.
Thank you,
Joe Guokas


cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenjoeguokas cudfnJoe cudlnGuokas cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.07 / John Logajan /  Re: Fusion?
     
Originally-From: al789@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion?
Date: 7 Oct 1994 19:09:59 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)


rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu (Robert F. Heeter) says:
>Still, we could certainly split and have sci.physics.fusion stay,
>and then form a new group sci.physics.free-energy, which is what
>most of us are talking about right now anyway...

What, pray tell, is "free-energy"?  How is aneutronic fusion energy
more or less "free" than neutrono-promiscuous energy?

As far as I can determine, all human accessible energy is "free" in
the sense that it pre-exists our own existence.

-- 
-- John Logajan ---  al789@cleveland.freenet.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenal789 cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.07 / Joe Guokas /  Re: CF magazine.
     
Originally-From: joeguokas@aol.com (Joe Guokas)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CF magazine.
Date: 7 Oct 1994 14:25:04 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

In article <199410071041.AA09854@sol.unizar.es>, rivero@sol.unizar.es
(Alejandro Rivero) writes:

>BTW, who is the man who appears in the front cover
>of "CF" magazine, number one?

He is Dr. Edmund K. Storms, recently retired from Los Alamos National Lab.
 Storms' review of cold fusion in Fusion Technology is one of the best.  I
think he is now associated in some way with ENECO.  

Good luck with your research, 
Joe Guokas
joeguokas@aol.com
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenjoeguokas cudfnJoe cudlnGuokas cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.07 / p Guruprasad /  Re: More on GG pyrometer
     
Originally-From: c1prasad@watson.ibm.com (prasad == V Guruprasad)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: More on GG pyrometer
Date: 7 Oct 1994 18:44:26 GMT
Organization: IBM Watson

In article <37144j$7os$1@mhadg.production.compuserve.com>, Jed
Rothwell <72240.1256@CompuServe.COM> writes:
|> c1prasad@watson.ibm.com (prasad) writes:
|>  
|>      "Specifically, my point was/is:  the highest temperature the GG
|>      produces, which is that of the o/p steam and the pump casing itself is
|>      about 40C (104F, said Jed)."
|>  
|> That is incorrect. The pump housing is much hotter than that. On Jan 5,
|> Mallove recorded it peaked at 300 deg F (150 C). This was recorded with the
|> pyrometer,which is a Minolta / LAND model. I said that the steel drum reached
|> 104F during some of the January tests I observed. It should be intuitively
|> obvious that the pump casing must be much hotter than 40C, because the steam
|> in the pump is pressurized and it is hotter than 100C.

Hold it, Jed, I was only clarifying that I never intended my van-der-Waals
isotherm hypothesis to support their SL resonance (or whatever).(*1)

At that time, I had not read about this pump casing data, and was under the
impression stated above.  Thanks for the info.

"Should be intuitive"? - nay, not so.(*2)  There is no reason why steam
should be only generated above 100C.  Indeed, the only theoretical
constraint on the temperature is that you cannot have water or ice above
the triple point.  At any T below this, steam, and its generation, is very
well possible.  So your measurement might even go to knock down that
van-der-Waals=>SL-resonance theory that I didn't quite catch.

Are you trying to tell me that the steam is hotter than 100C in the pump
*because* of the compression (ie. from the ol' fashioned T = pV/R thing) ?
That would be a distinct point worth verifying, possibly by computing the
flow rates.  [ If so, that SL theory might even be worth looking at! ]

Well, I'll go check to see if the 150C isotherm has any dip at all to
the liquid phase.  If it doesn't, that would settle the SL theory!
I still wonder about the acceleration from the 40..100C isotherms anyway.
Would appreciate a cross check from an engineer more versed in this
sort of thing.

PS: nice to know your measuring procedures.

-----
(*1) [ why should I want someone else's theory to win over mine? ;) ]
(*2) [ "replied the angel.  Abu spake more low." ]

cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenc1prasad cudfnprasad cudlnGuruprasad cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.07 /  prasad /  Re: Efficiency of elec. to heat to elec. conversion
     
Originally-From: c1prasad@watson.ibm.com (prasad)
Newsgroups: sci.engr.mech,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Efficiency of elec. to heat to elec. conversion
Date: 7 Oct 1994 18:50:33 GMT
Organization: IBM Watson

In article <1994Oct6.211639.1526@midway.uchicago.edu>, gk00@quads.uchica
o.edu (Greg Kuperberg) writes:
|> The answer to my purely academic question seems to be:  2-3%, or not
|> much.  If you have another answer, I am still interested, but let
|> me scale up the problem to put it in another regime:  Let's say
|> that it's 50 KW, it can make steam, and you have $50,000 and two months.
|> 
|> >The only allowed connection between the two rooms is an insulated water
|> >pipe (plus a return pipe if you want one), although you can give both
|> >rooms access to the same supply of cool water.
|> 
|> This still holds, although you can make it a steam pipe.

Much of the success or failure depends not on the mere fact that you
are piping steam next door, but whether you are able to preserve its
temperature and pressure all the way.

My off-the-cuff guess is, your upper bound would be the 35-40% that
your power company's steam turbogenerator gives.  Just send over your
steam at above 1000C and see how much efficiency we can crank up!

(Of course, if you're only doing 40C, forget it, 2-3% is more than
your thought expt deserves!)

;)

cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenc1prasad cudlnprasad cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.07 / John Logajan /  Re: Rothwell's instruments
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@mirage.skypoint.net (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Rothwell's instruments
Date: 7 Oct 1994 19:24:59 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Bruce Dunn (Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca) wrote:
: If the dynometer says the power coming out of the motor is
: equal to the Dranetz measured power going into the motor, something is
: wrong (I haven't yet seen a motor which is 100% efficient).  If Jed means
: that the power out is equal to the power in times an assumed efficiency, I
: would like to know where the efficiency figure came from.

As far as I know, if you aren't measuring something real-time, you have
to assume it.  Before the arrival of the dynometer, one could only assume
the efficiency of the motor.  Jed reported in CFM that the manufactorer
of the motor he was testing at the time had rated it at a nominal
efficiency of about 82.5%.

So when Jed says the Dranetz and the dynometer agree, I take it to
mean that they agree taking into account the approx rated motor
efficiency.

The switching to the dynometer (I believe) was motivated in part to
eliminate the need to drag in an assumption about motor efficiency.

--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com  --  612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA -
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.07 /  prasad /  Re: Griggs Steam Test Data
     
Originally-From: c1prasad@watson.ibm.com (prasad)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs Steam Test Data
Date: 7 Oct 1994 19:01:19 GMT
Organization: IBM Watson

In article <941006191059_76570.2270_HHB66-1@CompuServe.COM>, 76570.2270@
ompuserve.com (Eugene Mallove) writes:
|> I have been much enjoying the lunatic skeptics on this forum ...
[ lots of data ]

Would be real nice, would look more obvious and eye-catching,
esp. to the many readers outside of USA, if you churned out the
data in SI.  Till you do that, the roving SI-prone, will merely
read, and having read, move on, with nothing more than an "uh,uh"
to break the monotony of poring over meaningless numbers and
associated diatribe...

;)

cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenc1prasad cudlnprasad cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.07 / John Logajan /  Re: E-Quest Helium Results
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@mirage.skypoint.net (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: E-Quest Helium Results
Date: 7 Oct 1994 21:56:54 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Eugene Mallove (76570.2270@compuserve.com) wrote:
: enhancement of the measured helium-3/helium-4 ratio, which is normally on the 
: order of 10E-6.  The helium-3 measurement at Rockwell showed this ratio to be 
: enhanced to around 10E-3 -- about 1000-fold increase.

Hmm, a 100 fold increase in He4 and a 100,000 fold increase in He3 over
background.

Very interesting indeed.

--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com  --  612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA -
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.07 / Tim Kooney /  Re: Griggs Question -- To Jed?
     
Originally-From: kooney@nrlssc.navy.mil (Tim Kooney)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs Question -- To Jed?
Date: Fri, 7 Oct 1994 21:04:28 GMT
Organization: Naval Research Laboratory, Stennis Space Center, MS

Alan M. Dunsmuir (Alan@moonrake.demon.co.uk) wrote:
> In article: <361r6v$992$1@mhadf.production.compuserve.com>  Jed Rothwell 
> <72240.1256@CompuServe.COM> writes:

> > When it first did, he was so shocked after measuring it several times
	that he
> > put the whole thing on the shelf and tried to forget it for many
	months. He
> > could not believe it. That is a normal, understandable reaction.

> Not in the least. If it is not, indeed, yet further emanations of your 
> own over-fertile imagination, but is actually claimed by Griggs, it's 
> simply another indication that he is more likely to be a scammer than 
> an innocently duped victim of his own lack of expertise.

> Alan M. Dunsmuir [@ his wits end]     (Can't even quote poetry right)

This whole thing reminds me of Joe Newman and his marvelous Energy Machine.
Even Eddie Albert (Green Acres) endorsed it.  Newman came by Tulane University
while I was studying Electrical Engineering.  The device was an electro-
mechanical rotor powered by a heap of batteries.  Predictable it had a 
greater than unity COP.  I went to see it again a couple of months later
at a big press conference.  I questioned his "magnetic decay of copper" 
theory and was treated to a rant on the close-mindedness of "conventional"
scientist.  I spent the afternoon explaining to potential investers that 
the device was more a variable reluctance motor with alot of inertia.  The
most obvious reason he was getting a measured power output was that he was
using the test instruments inappropriately.  Eventually a unit was sent
to the National Bureau of Standards (now NIST) and it was conclusively
shown to have an efficiency of about 15-20% (a little short of the requisite
100%+ for "free" energy).  Anyway he was a local media darling until he ran
for President, married a woman and her 14 year old daughter, then claimed
that an aura visible in S. Mississippi (March 1989 I think) was a 
warning from God that Lucedale, MS would be destroyed if the child welfare
authorities didn't return the young girl.  He kind of faded away after that.



				tim

cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenkooney cudfnTim cudlnKooney cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.07 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Why not just buy/rent Tom  D. a Griggs Device?
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Why not just buy/rent Tom  D. a Griggs Device?
Date: Fri, 7 Oct 1994 18:48:20 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <1994Sep29.185236.3924@math.ucla.edu> barry@arnold.math.ucla.
du (Barry Merriman) writes:
>In article <29SEP199411221477@mars.lerc.nasa.gov> edwlt12@mars.lerc.nasa.gov  
>(Mike Jamison (ADF)) writes:
>> I'll see your $50 and raise it $50 :-)  But not for a GG.  I have a tough
>> time contributing cash, especially $100, to something I don't believe works.
 
>> However, I'd gladly donate $100 to Paul Koloc's Plasmak (TM) and hope others
>> would do the same.

We appreciate the sentiment, and committment.  This seems to be a
harbinger of good things to come, since the positive interest
from " potential LARGE investors" has increased considerably.  

>Unfortunatley, I doubt we could get PK anything he really needs
>for less than $10k---even  small plasma devices of the type used
>in grad student research tend to cost around $100k, at least.

We probably need something on the order of 30E6$ for a breakeven 
series of burns in D-(^3)He.  The problem is to convince those with 
the dough (DoE??) that these things actually exist with stability and
lifetime and can be compressed any any gas.  So one would imagine that
a minimal demonstration burn size would due, but formed form air just
to get thier interest, plus a few hundred k$ for diagnostics and another
few hundred K$ for some (ok chaps, there it is here are the diagnostic
results -- "Now explain it!",   OR.. .  "At least improve our present 
notions a bit).  

A couple of megajoules of just the raw capacitors, switches, impulse
chargers, are a fair chunk and surrounding walls of various absorbing
or reflecting materials, are likely at the megabuck level.  

Still, we do miracles, with much much less.  We are definitely a 
most bang for the buck outfit.  Through donations, volunteers, inside
investors, we have managed to move this into the eye of seriously
interested parties.  If support is developed, then the supporter
sets the rules.  Generally, that means "closely held".  It all takes
time.. . .. ..   
>--
>Barry Merriman
>UCLA Dept. of Math
>UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
>barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc, Bx 1037 Prometheus II Ltd, College Park MD 20741-1037    |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.08 / Edwin Strojny /  Re: Carbon Tetrachloride
     
Originally-From: estro@sunny.ncmc.cc.mi.us (Edwin Strojny)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Carbon Tetrachloride
Date: Sat, 8 Oct 1994 00:32:10 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Someone suggested using carbon tetrachloride as a fluid in the Griggs 
machine.  DON'T!!  Halogenated hydrocarbons (ecxcept possibly 
flourocarbons (?)) will react chemically with aluminum.  Under Griggs 
conditions the reaction may be very vigorous.  In additon, the reaction 
products will react vigorously with oxygen and water.

Ed Strojny

cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenestro cudfnEdwin cudlnStrojny cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.07 / John Logajan /  Re: CF magazine.
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@mirage.skypoint.net (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CF magazine.
Date: 7 Oct 1994 15:27:33 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Alejandro Rivero (rivero@sol.unizar.es) wrote:
: BTW, who is the man who appears in the front cover
: of "CF" magazine, number one?

Dr. Edmund Storms is on the cover of #1.
Dr. Srinivasan is on #2.
Dr. Hagelstein is on #3.
No cover picture on #4 (now called "Cold Fusion" Update.)

--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com  --  612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA -
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.07 / John Logajan /  Re: Griggs Steam Test Data
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@mirage.skypoint.net (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs Steam Test Data
Date: 7 Oct 1994 15:31:17 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Greg Kuperberg (gk00@quads.uchicago.edu) wrote:
: 76570.2270@compuserve.com (Eugene Mallove)

: How's the publishing business going?

Well Greg, Dr. Mallove has authored at least one book and editted at least
three magazines on the cold fusion topic.  Are you attempting to compare
your accomplishments in this or any other field against his?

--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com  --  612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA -
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.07 / Bruce Dunn /  Rothwell's instruments
     
Originally-From: Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Dunn)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Rothwell's instruments
Date: Fri, 07 Oct 94 09:21:37 -0800
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada

Jed Rothwell writes:

> I myself believe in doing things according to tradition. I use only
> mainstream methods and tools, I do everything according to the book, and
> I try to keep it simple and reliable. For example, I measure temperature
> with a mercury thermometer, and an electronic one too, but I trust the
> mercury more. It cannot be affected by electric fields or weak batteries.
> I like to weigh things on a traditional balance scale. They were invented
> thousands of years ago, they worked fine back then, and they still work
> today. I don't trust electronic scales that give you magic numbers out of
> nowhere with meaningless 5-digit precision.

This seems eminently reasonable to me.  Here Jed shows an inherent distrust
of electronic "black boxes" which measure something and report a "magic
number".  I must say that I believe that Jed's measurement of the energy
output of the Griggs device is probably accurate, as the measurements
required to establish the volume and temperature of water are easy to make
and check by multiple independent means.


>  To measure electric power, the best tool by far is the top-of- the-line
> General Electric Dranetz power meter which has been calibrated and
> certified by G.E. factory technicians. The manual says it is accurate to
> within a percent, and the other instruments prove this is true.

This statement seems to suggest that when measuring energy input rather
than energy output, Jed now believes in a "magic number" from an electronic
black box.  The statement in the manual is worthless in establishing how
accurate an individual device is, and the calibration by G.E. is worthless
if there is something unusual about the voltage and current fluctuations
which make the meter inaccurate in this particular application.

> The BMI power meter [and] the dynamometer agree with Dranetz results.

[the "and" in square brackets is mine, as I presume that this is what was
Jed meant]

The fact that the Dranetz agrees with another power meter may not be an
independent check, if the meters have a common problem with interpretating
fluctuating voltages and currents in terms of overall power.  I would like
Jed to clarify what he means when saying that the Dranetz "agrees" with the
dynamometer.  If the dynometer says the power coming out of the motor is
equal to the Dranetz measured power going into the motor, something is
wrong (I haven't yet seen a motor which is 100% efficient).  If Jed means
that the power out is equal to the power in times an assumed efficiency, I
would like to know where the efficiency figure came from.

   An exotic test with auto batteries would not give such clear cut results
> and nobody would believe the results anyway. A custom designed homemade
> rig of batteries is not going to be a reliable or as widely understood as
> the Dranetz meter.

On the contrary, measuring DC power is much less ambiguous than measuring
AC power.  The issue isn't how reliable the batteries are, but how reliably
the power coming out of them (and thus entering the Griggs device) can be
measured.  Going to DC allows us to abandon the black boxes used to measure
power, and make highly accurate measurements of power with a voltmeter and
a calibrated resistance.  It is the moral equivalent of using a beam scale
rather than an electronic scale for measuring weight.

It may be noteworthy that Jed implies that the Dranetz power meter can be
"calibrated" by a technician.  If Jed means "adjusted until it reads
correctly" by the term "calibrate", this implies to me that within certain
limits, the device can be adjusted to give different readings with the same
input.  If so a Dranetz meter ***is*** capable of misreading (otherwise it
would't need to be calibrated).  Perhaps Jed could clarify what is meant by
"calibration" of a Dranetz meter.
--
Bruce Dunn    Vancouver, Canada   Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca
cudkeys:
cuddy07 cudenBruce_Dunn cudfnBruce cudlnDunn cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.06 / Robert Heeter /  Re: Fusion?
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion?
Date: Thu, 6 Oct 1994 23:59:45 GMT
Organization: Princeton University


 In message <370pinINNa4n@oasys.dt.navy.mil>, mason@oasys.dt.navy.mil 
(Scott Mason) writes:
 
>     As an EE with a healthy curiosity about the physics world (I also
> have a BS in physics) I am quite dissappointed that this newsgroup has
> little to do with fusion at all.  I suggest renaming the group
sci.physics.
> griggs, or perhaps alt.tom :) in order to more accurately reflect the
> newsgroup's subject matter.

Oh, there's still a few fusioneers here; it's just griggs is far
more entertaining right now...

Still, we could certainly split and have sci.physics.fusion stay,
and then form a new group sci.physics.free-energy, which is what
most of us are talking about right now anyway...

But I sort of enjoy what's going on, so I'm not proposing that
with any real desire to see it happen.


***************************
Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University
As always, I represent only myself, and not PPPL
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.07 / Robert Heeter /  Fusion Energy Open House, Mpls/St.Paul, 11/8/94
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics,sci.energy,sci.environment
Subject: Fusion Energy Open House, Mpls/St.Paul, 11/8/94
Date: Fri, 7 Oct 1994 00:20:09 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

On behalf of the Science Museum of Minnesota and the 
American Physical Society - Division of Plasma Physics,
(APS-DPP) I would like to invite any and all people to the
following *public* activities which will be held in 
Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN, in conjunction with the 
Annual Meeting of the APS-DPP this November.

First, from November 5-19, there will be special exhibits 
on fusion and plasma physics in the Science and Technology 
gallery on the third floor of the Science Museum of Minnesota.  
These exhibits will be coming from all over the United States
via collaborative work between the Princeton Plasma Physics
Lab, General Atomics, the University of Texas Institute
for Fusion Studies, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory,
the University of Maryland, and the Massachusetts 
Institute of Technology.

Second, on Tuesday, November 8, from 7-8:30 pm, there will
be a *free* open-to-the-public open house and lecture, 
where top fusion scientists will provide nontechnical and
entertaining information regarding the science and
goals of fusion research.  Those attending the lecture will 
also receive free admission to the fusion exhibits.

Speaking will be Dr. Dale Meade, Deputy Director of the 
Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory; Dr. David Overskei, 
Senior Vice President of General Atomics; and Dr. Don 
Correll, Deputy Program Leader for Inertial Confinement 
Fusion at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.  

The public lectures will be held in the Science Museum 
Auditorium (located at 10th & Cedar in downtown St. Paul; 
those interested are encouraged to come early (6 pm) to 
tour the fusion exhibits, and to stay late (til 9 pm)
to ask questions of our speakers.  There will be
free admission for the fusion exhibits starting at
5 pm on November 8.  Plasma/fusion researchers 
(espeically APS-DPP members) are strongly *discouraged* 
from attending the talk, as this will take seating away 
from those who don't already know about fusion research.

--Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@pppl.gov
(Event Co-Organizer and native Minnesotan)


For Further Information, Contact:

Robert F. Heeter and/or Sherrie Preische
(We're the fusion open house co-organizers.)
Princeton University Plasma Physics Laboratory 
Forrestal Campus, C-Site
P.O. Box 451
Princeton, NJ 08543
(609)243-2494

- or - 

Karen Laun
Adult Programs Director, Science Museum of Minnesota
612-221-4742


***************************
Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@pppl.gov
As always, I am solely responsible for what I say here.
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.07 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Re: Eugene Mallove
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Eugene Mallove
Date: Fri, 07 Oct 1994 12:25 -0500 (EST)

>Several authoritative sources -- some inside and some outside the company --
>have described to me the status of the E-Quest ultrasonic-activation cold
>fusion experiments. I am sure a technical paper is going to be submitted very
>soon.

Fantastic.  I am thrilled to see that a suggestion I made in here last year
that ultrasonic or microwave activation of a cold fusions cell might yield good
results appears to be confirmed.  Keep us posted.

                                                                Marshall
cudkeys:
cuddy07 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.07 / Jed Rothwell /  Re: Grigg's housing is hot?
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@CompuServe.COM>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Grigg's housing is hot?
Date: 7 Oct 1994 18:12:52 GMT
Organization: CFRA

billb@eskimo.com (William Beaty) writes:
 
     "If the inside of the device is significantly above atmospheric
     pressure, then the housing can be over 100C.  Were there
     partially-closed valves involved?"
 
Yes. There are two valves. The Pump has to be kept under fairly high pressure
in order to maintain the proper water level. The exact pressure depends on the
design of the rotor, the rpm's and other factors. There is a large industrial
spring loaded pressure valve and gauge on the output pipe of the Pump. The
steam goes from the Pump to the separation tank, which is also under pressure
and also above 100 deg C. The pressure and temperature are not as high in
separation tank as the Pump.
 
Let me say that this observation of mine that the pump was hotter than the
steam is not as firm as most of my other observations. I do not have three
pairs of hands like one of those Indian gods, so I was not able to keep track
of the surface temperatures as well as I would have liked. I do not have any
computer data on surface temperature, just manually collected data which I
took sporadically. I have no rotor temperature data.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.07 / Alan M /  Re: Research Project
     
Originally-From: Alan@moonrake.demon.co.uk ("Alan M. Dunsmuir")
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Research Project
Date: Fri, 7 Oct 1994 18:15:58 +0000
Organization: Home

In article: <37029n$jmj@sandra.teleport.com>  gate@teleport.com writes:
> 	Make the subject Cold Fussion so I don't end up deleting it with 
> the rest of my Junk mail.  Thanx for your time.

So you only delete correctly-spelt postings, do you?

Do you intend to do any of the work yourself, or are you expecting us 
to do it for you? Why not read the literature, and decide what to do 
yourself?

Alan M. Dunsmuir [@ his wits end]     (Can't even quote poetry right)

         I am his Highness' dog at Kew
         Pray tell me sir, whose dog are you?
			      [Alexander Pope]

PGP Public Key available on request.


cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenAlan cudfnAlan cudlnM cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.07 / John Logajan /  Re: GG pyrometer was checked
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@mirage.skypoint.net (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: GG pyrometer was checked
Date: 7 Oct 1994 17:37:58 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Cameron Randale Bass (crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU) wrote:
:      it became apparent that you were talking about a temperature
:      measurement that appears basically nonsensical.

With the publishing here of steam temp data by Dr. Mallove, we can
put this issue to rest.  Dr. Mallove reports a Griggs steam test
in which at one instant the steam temperature was 321.9F (the average
of six simultaneous thermocouple measurements.)

Since the steam temp is 320F, then a outer case temperature of 300F
(or thereabouts) measured by the pyrometer is consistent.

I'd estimate that to create steam of 320F (from water at 320F) would
require a pressure of about 80 PSI.

I'm not sure if the feed water tank is pressurized or not, but since
the water is side-fed into the rotor near the axis of rotation, it
will tend to be thrown radially to the outer circumference.  So the
rotor itself will tend to pump the feedwater up a pressure hill.


By the way, on a slightly different topic, I estimate that you'd need
to heat water to above 540F (under pressure) before the water will
have enough energy to completely flash to steam upon being exposed
to atmospheric pressure.  Any temperature less than that will leave
some liquid water.


--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com  --  612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA -
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.07 / Cameron Bass /  Re: GG pyrometer was checked
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: GG pyrometer was checked
Date: Fri, 7 Oct 1994 04:29:09 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <36uo9j$om2$1@mhadg.production.compuserve.com>,
Jed Rothwell  <72240.1256@CompuServe.COM> wrote:
>Someone wrote:
> 
>>How about:  The emissivity setting for the pyrometer is not what it should
>>be, or, the metal is painted, so the pyrometer should be set to the
>>emissivity of the paint.  In other words, the housing isn't as hot as the
>>pyrometer says it is...
> 
>Even though there is not a shred of evidence to support this hypothesis, Dale
>Bass immediately concluded that it must be true. He is a 'true believer' he
>will swallow any story - no matter how untenable - if it supports his
>preconceived notions. He wrote:

     Yep.  My preconceptions about the first law are pretty strong.
     I see you are not so burdened.

>     "Which is the same sort of idiotic error that I've been expecting on the
>     power measurement.  It says wonders about either a) Jed, or  b) their
>     experimental capability."
> 
>It says nothing about Jed, it says everything about Dale's inflamed
>imagination, absurd illusions, and idiotic errors. Dale imagines that I did
>not check the pyrometer because he did not bother to read the paper I wrote.

     No, actually I was wondering why you were using a pyrometer instead
     of stapling a few thermocouples around.  Then, it became apparent that
     you were talking about a temperature measurement that is appears 
     basically nonsensical.  Then it became apparent all was not
     cricket, nor even ping pong.  And it also is apparent that you don't
     care, so why should we?

>He supposes I have no way of calibrating or cross checking the measurements,
>because he is stupid and careless and he would not have checked it. As always
>he is utterly wrong, he is describing his own deficiencies, not mine. He is
>the one who never bothers to read the papers or think through the experiment,

     What paper?  Where did y'all publish in a peer-reviewed journal?
     After all, Griggs' result is quite revolutionary.  Indeed, utterly 
     astounding.  Something about fusion occurring in the steel of a 
     rotor housing when one swirls water around the interior using
     a pitted rotor.  Nobel, nay, John Rockefeller material.

     Anyway, soon as y'all do, I'd be more than happy to critique it like that
     last little thing from Phys. Lett. A.  I'm still waiting for the
     answers to the myriad questions from that one.

>he is the one who shoots from the hip without knowing what he is talking
>about, not me. As noted in the paper, the pyrometer was checked against many
>different objects including metal surfaces. 

      Good calibration.  So you're trying to say that cast iron and
      and polished stainless are the same from your point of view?

>For example, it was aimed at the
>separation tank, the steel drum and the pipes, which are equipped with
>thermocouples, dial thermometers, and mercury thermometers. The pyrometer
>agreed with these other instruments to within a few degrees, at temperatures
>ranging from 60 F up to 315 F on the separation tank.

     Makes you wonder why no thermocouples on the pump housing, especially
     as there's fusion going on in the steel.  Jed, you're always a treat.

     Of course, one must competently calibrate those as well.

>Every measurement I reported was cross checked and calibrated. I did not
>describe each and every calibration procedure. In general, I go back to first
>principles. For example, I check a flowmeter by collecting water for a set
>period of time and then weighing it and measuring the volume in a marked
>container. I check a thermometer or thermocouple by putting it first in ice
>water and then in boiling water.

     There's your problem, if you ice down the pyrometer, then boil it,
     it probably won't work very well.

                                  dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.07 / Greg Kuperberg /  Re: Griggs Steam Test Data
     
Originally-From: gk00@quads.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs Steam Test Data
Date: Fri, 7 Oct 1994 06:00:21 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

In article <941006191059_76570.2270_HHB66-1@CompuServe.COM> 76570.2270@c
mpuserve.com (Eugene Mallove) writes:
>Keep up those marvelous, stupid, incompetent statements!

How's the publishing business going?
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudengk00 cudfnGreg cudlnKuperberg cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.07 / Geoff Chiddell /  re) ..Testing Grigg G. with different fluids!
     
Originally-From: uc660@freenet.Victoria.BC.CA (Geoff P. Chiddell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: re) ..Testing Grigg G. with different fluids!
Date: Fri, 7 Oct 1994 03:49:34 GMT
Organization: The Victoria Freenet Association (VIFA), Victoria, B.C., Canada


I like that - carbon tetrachloride - as a proposed alternative to water in
a test run.  It's not hydrogen containing unlike gasoline!

A less toxic alternative is tetrachloroethylene.   C2Cl4

Another interesting test would be to add large amounts of these substances
to the input water:

1) NaCl to raise boiling point and surface tension
2) CaCl2 in excess to reduce water concentration in the solution
3) Li salts just to see what happens.  :-)
-- 
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenuc660 cudfnGeoff cudlnChiddell cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.07 / A Rivero /  Uff.! Is this serious?
     
Originally-From: rivero@sol.unizar.es (Alejandro Rivero)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Uff.! Is this serious?
Date: Fri, 7 Oct 1994 09:30:25 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway



 
X-Courtesy-Of: NCSA Mosaic 2.4 on Sun
X-Url: http://www.mit.edu:8001/afs/athena.mit.edu/user/r/e/rei/WWW/CFdir/CFtoctwo.html
Apparently-To: rivero
Content-Length: 2505
X-Lines: 75

 Excerpts from "Cold Fusion"'s Table of
Contents

June 1994 Vol. 1 No. 2

42

How the Oil Age ends

By Chris Tinsley

Cold fusion will transform the world in ways barely imaginable. It is probable
that our best efforts to predict what will happen in the next decades will not
get it right. Yet we have to start somewhere, so here is one man's view of how
the Oil Age is to end.

34

Hot fusion: From beginning to end

By Lawrence Forsley

A former hot fusion scientist, now doing cold fusion experiments, reflects on
the long, frustrating history of high-temperature plasma fusion. A noble quest
to mimic the stars lost its way, nad now seems doomed to extinction --- even
without cold fusion reigning. (See Editor Eugene Mallove's suggested cold
fusion bill, page 40, and excerpts from S.646, page 41.)

18

'CF' interviews Dr. M. Srinivasan, Bhabha Atomic Research Center

A top scientist at India's foremost nuclear research facility has been engaged
in cold fusion experiments since March 1989. He has seen it all --- excess
heat production as well as astonishing nuclear effects. Dr. Srinivasan has no
doubt that cold fusion is real, and that it will play a major role in supplying
energy for the developing world.

26

The Hydrosonic(TM) pump: An excess energy device?

Sometimes success can be so great that it is difficult to believe. Cold fusion
researchers have been accustomed to electrochemical experiments producing
a fraction of a watt, a few watts, or even a few tens of watts of excess heat. So
what happens when they encounter a device that already puts out kilowatts of
apparent excess heat, and is used to heat buildings?

Coming up to speed:

66

Excess heat: Key to understanding cold fusion

The bare essentials of what makes "cold fusion" such an awesome
phenomenon. Excess heat is truly so easy to comprehend that it has forced
some "skeptics" to spout perfect nonsense.

70

Wild and wooly theories

Every self-respecting theorist believes their theory is the correct explanation
for cold fusion. They can't all be right, can they? Here is a brief layman's
overview osf some of the wild, subversive ideas from the frontiers of physics.

About our cover

Dr. Mahadeva Srinivasan an associate director of Bombay's Bhabha Atomic Research
Center temporarily visiting SRI Internation in Meno Park, California. Portrait by
interviewer, Russ George. The dazzling Apollo 11 photograph of the Earth, showing Africa
and the Mideast, is courtesy of NASA.

Back to the Cold Fusion homepage.



----- End Included Message -----


No comments.

cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenrivero cudfnAlejandro cudlnRivero cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.07 / A Rivero /  CF magazine.
     
Originally-From: rivero@sol.unizar.es (Alejandro Rivero)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CF magazine.
Date: Fri, 7 Oct 1994 09:37:40 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

BTW, who is the man who appears in the front cover
of "CF" magazine, number one? The image on
http://www.mit.edu:8001/afs/athena.mit.edu/user/r/e/rei/WWW/CFdir/CFtocone.html
is not very clear...

				Alejandro

cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenrivero cudfnAlejandro cudlnRivero cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.07 / Mike Jamison /  Re: Efficiency of elec. to heat to elec. conversion
     
Originally-From: edwlt12@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov (Mike Jamison (ADF))
Newsgroups: sci.engr.mech,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Efficiency of elec. to heat to elec. conversion
Date: 7 Oct 1994 09:48 EDT
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center

In article <1994Oct6.173753.21695@midway.uchicago.edu>, gk00@midway.uchi
ago.edu writes...
>Here's a question:  Suppose that you have a 500-watt water heater in
>room A and a power generator in room B that takes the heated water and
>recovers as much electricity as possible.  What reasonable efficiency
>can you expect with say, $5,000 of equipment and three weeks of work?
>The only allowed connection between the two rooms is an insulated water
>pipe (plus a return pipe if you want one), although you can give both
>rooms access to the same supply of cool water.

Given $5,000 and today's materials, purchase:

1) small turbocharger - like the kind found in some motorcycles.
2) strong steel container for holding water/high pressure steam
3) car alternator.
4) necessary gearing to reduce ~100,000 rpm turbine speed to
   ~5,000 rpm (20:1 ratio)

Theoretical max efficiency, from thermodynamics:  (Th-Tl)/Th

Assume Th = 500 degrees C, = 773 K, Tl = 300 K (room temp.)
Note that 500C ~900 F.  I wouldn't want to stress a boiler with much higher
temps than this (of course, I'm an EE, so what do I know about mech. stuff).

Emax = 473/773 ~= 60%
Eturbine = 59% (this is max. efficiency for a propellor, I'm using the same
thing for the turbine)
Egenerator ~= 90%
Etransmission (or chain drive) ~= 90%

End to end efficiency = 0.6 * 0.6 * 0.59 * 0.9 * 0.9

Looks like about 15% or so to me.

Power out = ~75W, given Pin = 500W.

the only way to increase this is to increase the Th.  Given Th = infinity,
Eff = 0.59 * 0.9 * 0.9  [looks like above I have one too many 0.6's, so
the efficiency above should be ~25%, Pout = 125W.  Sorry about that...]

Theoretical max. efficiency ~= 50%, or 250W out


Mike Jamison

"Scientific research consists in seeing what everyone else has seen, but
thinking what no one else has thought"

						-A. Szent-Gyorgyi
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenedwlt12 cudfnMike cudlnJamison cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.08 / Richard Blue /  Still no wavefunctions shown!
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Still no wavefunctions shown!
Date: Sat, 8 Oct 1994 00:15:35 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To Dave Davies:  I did give you the proper explanation for the mixing
of s and d-states in the deuteron nuclear wavefunction.  The potential
between the proton and the neutron is non-central, in part, such that
orbital angular momentum is not a good quantum number.  Total angular
momentum is, but the nucleons have spin such that one can make
a state with total angular momentum  J = 1 and orbital angular momentum
of zero or two or a mixture thereof.

To Chuck Sites:  I did not mean to say that your wavefunction has to
involve "particles" as opposed to "band states", although I must
confess that I don't truly understand what your version of a
bandstate wavefunction would look like.  I assume it involves functions
of the center-of-mass coordinates for deuterons or 4He and eigenfunctions
for some Hamiltonian with a periodic potential.  I would say that
still has deuteron "particles" in it even though the expectation
values for the position of a deuteron are spread out.  Am I still
on the same wavelength as you are, or have I missed something?

This is as far as I ever got in this discussion with Scott Chubb.
He, however, did explicitely state that his theory involved a
Born-Oppenheimer separation in which the internal wavefunction of
the deuteron was not involved in the construction of the "band state".
My position is that you can't make a meaningful statement concerning
the release of energy as the result of a nuclear transistion without
including the significant coordinates in the problem.  Band states
as we all know them simply don't involve the appropriate coordinates.
The periodic potential that you think of when you invoke "band state"
thinking is, shall we say, six orders of magnitude too weak to alter
the nuclear wavefunctions.  In that sense a deuteron is a deuteron
is a particle, and it is not to be confused with and is not in anyway
degenerate with a 4He.  I insist that spreading deuterons all about
in a Pd lattice does not make something that you can call 4He spread
all about inside that lattice.  They have different names because
they are different.  If you can't say what happens to merge the
identities of these two distinct forms of nuclear matter what can
you say that supports the  notion that deuterons fuse into 4He?

cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.08 / Richard Blue /  E-Quest helium claims
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: E-Quest helium claims
Date: Sat, 8 Oct 1994 00:15:35 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Gene Mallove reports that certain samples taken from a "cold
fusion" experiment by E-Quest have been found to contain helium
at levels up to something like 500 parts per million.  However,
as is often the case, certain details concerning these samples
and the techniques employed to obtain them are absent from this
report.  As I understand the E-Quest experiments, "fusion" is
thought to occur in heavy water.  Gene, however, says the samples
tested involved helium in argon as the "cover gas".

I would conclude that the samples being tested have been
"processed" in some manner to extract helium from the heavy water
and put it into argon.  If that is the case a simple specification
of the helium concentration in the argon samples tested is, by itself,
a meaningless number.  Likewise any reference to the normal
concentration of helium in air as an expected background level tells
us absolutely nothing.  This sounds like a rumor of a report on
some meaningless data, but what else is new?

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Sat Oct  8 04:37:03 EDT 1994
------------------------------
1994.10.08 / Robert Heeter /  Re: Fusion?
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion?
Date: Sat, 8 Oct 1994 01:51:40 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

> Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
> Path: princeton!rfheeter.remote.princeton.edu!rfheeter
> From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
> Subject: Re: Fusion?
> Message-ID: <1994Oct6.235945.21847@Princeton.EDU>
> X-Xxmessage-Id: <AABA08DEE401416F@rfheeter.remote.princeton.edu>
> Originator: news@nimaster
> X-Xxdate: Thu, 6 Oct 1994 04:04:46 GMT
> Sender: news@Princeton.EDU (USENET News System)
> Nntp-Posting-Host: rfheeter.remote.princeton.edu
> Organization: Princeton University
> X-Newsreader: Nuntius Version 1.2
> References: <370pinINNa4n@oasys.dt.navy.mil>
> Date: Thu, 6 Oct 1994 23:59:45 GMT
> Lines: 26

> Path:
princeton!gw1.att.com!fnnews.fnal.gov!mp.cs.niu.edu!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!how
> land.reston.ans.net!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!cleveland.Freenet.Edu!al789
> From: al789@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John Logajan)
> Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
> Subject: Re: Fusion?
> Date: 7 Oct 1994 19:09:59 GMT
> Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
> Lines: 14
> Message-ID: <3746e7$ef1@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>
> References: <370pinINNa4n@oasys.dt.navy.mil>
<1994Oct6.235945.21847@Princeton.EDU>
> Reply-To: al789@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John Logajan)
> NNTP-Posting-Host: kanga.ins.cwru.edu
> 
> 
> rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu (Robert F. Heeter) says:
> >Still, we could certainly split and have sci.physics.fusion stay,
> >and then form a new group sci.physics.free-energy, which is what
> >most of us are talking about right now anyway...

[ Note that I said I wasn't being serious in proposing the split;
John trimmed that comment in his reply. ]

> What, pray tell, is "free-energy"?  How is aneutronic fusion energy
> more or less "free" than neutrono-promiscuous energy?

No one has presented any sort of coherent (much less
experimentally tested) theory that the Griggs pump is an 
aneutronic fusion device.  Is that what you'd like to
claim?  Until you give me a reasonable theory for the claimed
surplus energy production, it's just "free" energy - 
i.e., energy apparently showing up without any particular 
cause, much less an understood one.  The Griggs gadget 
has nothing whatsoever to do with fusion as yet.
I don't buy any of the "we don't know what it is, so
it must be fusion" arguments.  

I wouldn't think very highly of the doctor who, when 
presented with a mysterious and apparently new ailment, 
simply said, "well, I don't know what it is, and it defies
all our past biological knowledge, so it must be a very
unique strain of some obscure virus," and didn't try to 
investigate what the origin of the ailment was.  In this 
case, I'd be inclined to suspect hypochondria as much 
as some new germ.  I certainly wouldn't claim it was
anything *more* than hypochondria with any certainty until
I'd identified *precisely* what it was.

So either the Griggs results are experimental hypochondria,
seeing something where nothing really exists, or they're
free energy, i.e. energy without a known source.  The odds
that they're due to some bizarre form of aneutronic D-D
fusion are miniscule within the limits of the present
set of scientific knowledge.

On the other hand, I wouldn't think very highly of the
doctor who, presented with the mysterious case, simply
said "the symptoms you describe can't possibly exist, so
clearly this must be hypochondria," without doing any
experimental lab tests to check for possible causes.
 
> As far as I can determine, all human accessible energy is "free" in
> the sense that it pre-exists our own existence.

Except, apparently, for the energy coming off of the Griggs 
Gadget.  It remains to be demonstrated that this energy comes
from any source other than instantaneous creation 
from non-pre-existing energy by some magic in the pump. 

The Griggs gadget will remain a "free energy" device
in my book until someone actually does experiments
and finds the source of the apparent excess energy.

***************************
Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University
As always, I represent only myself, and not PPPL
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.08 / John Logajan /  Re: E-Quest helium claims
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@mirage.skypoint.net (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: E-Quest helium claims
Date: 8 Oct 1994 13:12:47 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Richard A Blue (blue@pilot.msu.edu) wrote:
: I would conclude that the samples being tested have been
: "processed" in some manner to extract helium from the heavy water
: and put it into argon.  If that is the case a simple specification
: of the helium concentration in the argon samples tested is, by itself,
: a meaningless number.  Likewise any reference to the normal
: concentration of helium in air as an expected background level tells
: us absolutely nothing.  This sounds like a rumor of a report on
: some meaningless data, but what else is new?

I don't follow your logic at all.  We are given the atmospheric background
of 6 ppm He4, and 0.4 ppm He4 in the Argon gas -- and a measure of 552 ppm
He4.

Now presumably "blank" D2O gives 6 ppm after undergoing the "processing",
and "blank" Argon gives 0.4 ppm after undergoing the "processing" and
"anomalous" D2O gives 552 ppm after undergoing identical "processing."

How is that "meaningless" per se?

What mechanism are you suggesting that would differentially concentrate
He4 (and He3 by a factor of 1000!) that wouldn't do so in the "blank"
samples?

I'm not saying you are wrong -- I just don't have a clue as to what you are
basing you "meaningless" comment on.

--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com  --  612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA -
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.08 / Cameron Bass /  Re: GG pyrometer was checked
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: GG pyrometer was checked
Date: Sat, 8 Oct 1994 14:34:58 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <37411m$6ks@stratus.skypoint.com>,
John Logajan <jlogajan@skypoint.com> wrote:
>Cameron Randale Bass (crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU) wrote:
>:      it became apparent that you were talking about a temperature
>:      measurement that appears basically nonsensical.
>
>With the publishing here of steam temp data by Dr. Mallove, we can
>put this issue to rest.  Dr. Mallove reports a Griggs steam test
>in which at one instant the steam temperature was 321.9F (the average
>of six simultaneous thermocouple measurements.)
>
>Since the steam temp is 320F, then a outer case temperature of 300F
>(or thereabouts) measured by the pyrometer is consistent.

    In what way has it been 'put to rest'?  Jed's assertion was apparently
    that the housing was *hotter* than the output steam.  Jed apparently
    asserted this on the basis of pyrometer readings.  Jed is apparently
    backing off the assertion in a forum of people who actually
    know what a pyrometer is.

    So, yes, it has been trivially 'put to rest' because it is nonsense
    in the configuration of which he speaks.

    It does, however, speak volumes about the rest of the 'research'.

                               dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.08 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Rothwell's instruments
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Rothwell's instruments
Date: Sat, 8 Oct 1994 14:44:25 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <3747ab$bts@stratus.skypoint.com>,
John Logajan <jlogajan@skypoint.com> wrote:
>Bruce Dunn (Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca) wrote:
>: If the dynometer says the power coming out of the motor is
>: equal to the Dranetz measured power going into the motor, something is
>: wrong (I haven't yet seen a motor which is 100% efficient).  If Jed means
>: that the power out is equal to the power in times an assumed efficiency, I
>: would like to know where the efficiency figure came from.
>
...
>So when Jed says the Dranetz and the dynometer agree, I take it to
>mean that they agree taking into account the approx rated motor
>efficiency.

     Or, if we multiply each number we measure by another number
     we guess, we get the same number.  After all, both must be calibrated
     for the goofy load.

>The switching to the dynometer (I believe) was motivated in part to
>eliminate the need to drag in an assumption about motor efficiency.

     Or to throw another 20 or 30% error into the calculation...

                               dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.08 / John Logajan /  Re: GG pyrometer was checked
     
Originally-From: al789@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: GG pyrometer was checked
Date: 8 Oct 1994 15:33:51 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)


crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) says:
>    In what way has it been 'put to rest'?  Jed's assertion was apparently
>    that the housing was *hotter* than the output steam.  Jed apparently
>    asserted this on the basis of pyrometer readings.

Sounds like a tempest in a teapot to me.

I don't recall that what you outline was the basis of the argument, but
even so, one can easily imagine either scenario (steam hotter or steam
cooler than the housing.)  Now I would tend to assume that the steam
would be cooler than the housing due to the expansion effect of going
from 80PSI or higher down to atmospheric -- I believe steam cools on
expanding under those conditions.

In any event, the case is around 300F and the steam is around 300F.
So what's the problem?
-- 
-- John Logajan ---  al789@cleveland.freenet.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenal789 cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.08 / John Logajan /  Re: Fusion?
     
Originally-From: al789@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion?
Date: 8 Oct 1994 15:47:45 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)


rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu (Robert F. Heeter) says:
>No one has presented any sort of coherent (much less
>experimentally tested) theory that the Griggs pump is an 
>aneutronic fusion device.  Is that what you'd like to
>claim?

It wasn't clear to me that you were referring to Griggs in your previous
comment, but I'll accept that that is what you meant.

I wasn't so much interested in deciding what Griggs or PF or anyone
was actually doing so much as determining what you meant by "free energy"
and how that differed from non-"free energy."

(By the way, until somebody detects neutrons coming out of a Griggs device,
I will assume it is aneutronic. :-)


>Until you give me a reasonable theory for the claimed
>surplus energy production, it's just "free" energy - 
>i.e., energy apparently showing up without any particular 
>cause, much less an understood one.


Okay -- so when you say "free energy" you mean *consensus-theory* free energy.

i.e. the postulated energy is devoid of a consensus theory.

Fine, now I know what you mean.  However, to avoid confusion in the future
you might want to use the longer definition, as "free energy" is just
a bit too ambiguous.

-- 
-- John Logajan ---  al789@cleveland.freenet.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenal789 cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.08 / John Logajan /  Re: Rothwell's instruments
     
Originally-From: al789@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Rothwell's instruments
Date: 8 Oct 1994 16:02:13 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)


crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) says:
>>So when Jed says the Dranetz and the dynometer agree, I take it to
>>mean that they agree taking into account the approx rated motor
>>efficiency.
>
>     Or, if we multiply each number we measure by another number
>     we guess, we get the same number.  After all, both must be calibrated
>     for the goofy load.

My sense of this is that if there is a prosaic explanation, it will be in
the input power measurement.  But still, we have a dynometer and a power
meter both reading the same, and both consistent with a motor manufacturer's
efficiency rating for that motor.

This is a more interesting mystery (even if prosaic) than you seem willing
to admit.

>>The switching to the dynometer (I believe) was motivated in part to
>>eliminate the need to drag in an assumption about motor efficiency.
>
>     Or to throw another 20 or 30% error into the calculation...

It *replaces* two assumptions with one assumption -- so at least it is
in the right direction.

-- 
-- John Logajan ---  al789@cleveland.freenet.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenal789 cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.07 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Why not just buy/rent Tom  D. a Griggs Device?
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Why not just buy/rent Tom  D. a Griggs Device?
Date: Fri, 7 Oct 1994 19:20:12 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <2OCT199412584236@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov> edwlt12@ariel.lerc.nas
.gov (Mike Jamison (ADF)) writes:
>In article <1994Sep29.185236.3924@math.ucla.edu>, barry@arnold.math.ucl
.edu (Barry Merriman) writes...
>>In article <29SEP199411221477@mars.lerc.nasa.gov> edwlt12@mars.lerc.nasa.gov  
>>(Mike Jamison (ADF)) writes:
>>> I'll see your $50 and raise it $50 :-)  But not for a GG.  I have a tough
>>> time contributing cash, especially $100, to something I don't believe works.
>>> 
>>> However, I'd gladly donate $100 to Paul Koloc's Plasmak (TM) and hope others
>>> would do the same.

>>Unfortunatley, I doubt we could get PK anything he really needs
>>for less than $10k---even  small plasma devices of the type used
>>in grad student research tend to cost around $100k, at least.

>>--
>>Barry Merriman
>>UCLA Dept. of Math
>>UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
>>barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)

>Actually, I was sort of thinking along the lines of buying excessed gov't.
>equipment - vacuum roughing/diffusion pumps, etc.  Unfortunately, most of the
>stuff that gets excessed at LeRC is in the form of old vaxes, pc/xt's and
>other electronics that's not very useful [well, the vaxes can provide enough
>heat for an average house, but... :)].

You have a good idea here, but it takes some "connections" to pick up
certain things.  We now have that.  Actually, we have a couple of rules.  
First we keep our operating costs at an absolute minimum.  That precludes 
stuff that needs maintanence, so the electric bills, space utilization
of vaxex, are a bit beyond our break line.   However, if you would
like to sniff out a few things that you could surplus to another
agency which then could be transfered to us, then please consider the
foillowing.    We are looking for 6 to 8  -- 18kV (maxwell type "C) 
capacitors of 10 kJ per can (56 ufd).   Also we are looking for working
(no leaks) class A Ignitrons --  five or six.  The hold off should
be 15-25kV.  (absolutely solid at 15 kV).   

We are also interested in fast charging power supplies (.5 amp) to 20kV.  
The stuff we have is too slow.  A digitizing micro voltmeter OR very
sensitive fractional millivolt meter is also needed.  Small servos
for flipping  10cm closing doors for playing trapping_the_ball "games" 
are also needed, and if anyone has a stash of radiation films --  
recording stuff, including stupid stuff such as electrostatic kind 
that though primitive can work when systems crash due to 
electromagnetic gremlins, that apparently are also generated by our 
work.  Stacks of Xray film of the 10x15cm, roughly size, and X-ray 
enhancement screens.. maybe a couple of holders.  And ... . hmmm!  
as our needs grow we shall reissue.   Yep!... oh!  need some wideband
RF spectrum analysers .. with output to a GPIB.. digitized.  

>And there are the hamfests, where lasers can be bought for good prices...

Yes, a fair sized compact transverse discharge nitrogen fast pulse
laser with drivers and electronic triggering intput would be also
most useful.   

>If Paul can let us know what he needs, we may be able to get it for him.
>Then again, his agreements may not let him or, perhaps, all he needs is the
>time to finish his research...

Now, just tell me where in the Government this excess stuff is an what
it is, and we will set our contact to snare it on whatever contract 
applies.  This will only be for items we still need, and can use 
essentially immediately.  We are not going to become a collection 
complex for unused excess equipment.  

BTW any Russians, Austrian, or German sources for solid "12 gauge 
wire (AWG)" which is composed of copper with neobium or silver 
neobium or palladium-silver-neobium, please contact me with prices.
We need about 30 to 50 meters of the stuff for a special interaction
experiment.  

>Mike Jamison
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc, Bx 1037 Prometheus II Ltd, College Park MD 20741-1037    |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.08 / L Plutonium /  ENGIN#5: RADIOACTIVE SPONTANEOUS NEUTRON MATERIALIZATION RSNM
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion,alt.sci.physics.pl
tonium,sci.physics
Subject: ENGIN#5: RADIOACTIVE SPONTANEOUS NEUTRON MATERIALIZATION RSNM
Subject: 2 of 3, Correct Theory of both Cold Fusion and Hot Fusion
Date: 8 Oct 1994 02:21:58 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In article <3635nj$2o4@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium) writes:

>   I have been informed that in the November issue of FUSION TECHNOLOGY
> will have two articles on the appearance of iron, produced in a carbon
> arc under water. The original researcher in this area was a person by
> the name of George Oshawa.
>   This may be the first full scale investigation which will lead to the
> science of radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization. What Dirac
> spoke of in his book "Directions in Physics". rsnm pronounced (resin)
> is the reason cold fusion works. And it is rsnm which makes the Sun and
> stars work. Not the foggey goofball idea that gravity causes fusion.
>   Once the science community makes an earnest search into rsnm will we
> be able to make fusion power plants.
>                                                 ARCHIMEDES PLUTONIUM A@P

  I posted to the Internet in 1993 and 1994 my theory of radioactive
spontaneous neutron materialization rsnm.

13APR1994, 04:54:40 GMT sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics,sci.chem
Subject: 2 of 3, Correct Theory of both Cold Fusion and Hot Fusion
Lines: 225
Message-ID: <2oftug$g8o@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium) writes:
       (11) The observation that when electric current i flowing
through wires or through a light bulb filament or incandescent lamps
are hot and eventually the wires or filaments or other parts wear-out
due to the high temperatures. Those high temperatures are a result of
radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization when i  varies. And
before these teachings, it was inexplicable as to how atoms of zinc
Z=30 contaminated copper Z=29 wire, or atoms of rhenium Z=75
contaminated light bulb filaments or heating coils made of tungsten
Z=74 in these materials after running electric current in the
materials. With rsnm it is a direct consequence that a copper wire will
have atoms of zinc, and a tungsten filament or heater will have atoms
of rhenium after running  a changing electric current i through,
because there is
radioactive growth of some of the original atoms because of rsnm. 
Check chemical analysis of spent electric wires and filaments by
General Electric, Philips, Siemens, et al.
 ------------------------------------
  The carbon arc suggests atoms of higher atomic number than just Z+1
for filaments or heating coils.
 ------------------------------------
IN A RELATED MATTER, In article <36viuc$khu@cville-srv.wam.umd.edu>
vjejjala@wam.umd.edu (Spinoza's God) writes:

> THE MOST ENERGETIC GAMMA BURST yet observed by the
> orbiting Gamma Ray Observatory was recorded on February 17,
> 1994.  The burst's energy was calculated to be 25 GeV, many times
> more energetic than those previously measured. Furthermore, the
> burst was the longest ever, lasting more than an hour.  This monster
> burst may have resulted from the collision of two stars.  (Astronomy,
> November 1994.)

  These are spontaneous neutron or alpha particle materialization from
out of nowhere. A universe which is an atom itself, grows by
spontaneous creation of particles. They are uniformly distributed in
space.
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.08 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Griggs Steam Test Data
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs Steam Test Data
Date: Sat, 8 Oct 1994 04:24:27 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <941006191059_76570.2270_HHB66-1@CompuServe.COM>,
Eugene Mallove <76570.2270@compuserve.com> wrote:
>I have been much enjoying the lunatic skeptics on this forum (especially Bass,

     As someone said recently, that's like being called ugly by a frog.

                                  dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.08 / Cameron Bass /  Re: re) ..Testing Grigg G. with different fluids!
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: re) ..Testing Grigg G. with different fluids!
Date: Sat, 8 Oct 1994 05:02:18 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1994Oct7.034934.16216@freenet.victoria.bc.ca>,
Geoff P. Chiddell <uc660@freenet.Victoria.BC.CA> wrote:
>
>I like that - carbon tetrachloride - as a proposed alternative to water in
>a test run.  It's not hydrogen containing unlike gasoline!

     This is likely unnecessary.  There are two possible sources of 
     error (assuming nothing completely idiotic, which I'd not bet the 
     farm on).  The first is an inadequate understanding of the energy
     balance for their setup.  The second is inadequate measurements
     (either because they do not understand their measuring apparatus
     or because they are not taking adequate measurements).

     These can both be tested without changing anything.  Indeed, the first
     thing one does when presented with interesting experimental results
     is *not* to change conditions, but to get better data.

     Anyway, the most likely error (and you can be assured that there
     *is* an error) is in the power measurement. 

     If it was me, I'd first determine V and I for each phase 
     (I have no idea why one would use a dynamometer at all, nor how one 
     might calibrate it accurately under jumpy loads, but I suppose if you 
     throw enough uncertainty, one's 'results' look better to a certain type 
     of 'inventor').  

     No need to change anything except the measuring toys.  It is quite telling
     that they are using mechanical means to determine power, and things
     like pyrometers to measure temperature.  

     However, you can be quite sure that the reported result *is* in 
     error.  I cannot stress stongly enough that they are _wrong_.  

     If thermodynamics doesn't do it for you, simply look at the literally
     hundreds of similar devices that preceeded this one into the grave.

                                  dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.07 / M Chambers /  cold fusion help please
     
Originally-From: chambers@badlands.NoDak.edu (Michael A Chambers)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cold fusion help please
Date: Fri, 7 Oct 1994 17:55:19 GMT
Organization: North Dakota Higher Education Computing Network


Hi everyone.  I am a biotechnology major so this is really not my cup of 
tea.  But I was wondering  if someone could send me the specs on a basic 
cold fusion cell.  Any information would be helpful.  I know there are 
some old radio electronics articles out about it-i just don't know where 
to find them.  Again i must stress that any info would be helpful...(ie 
about D2O, etc.)  The only thing i dont want to hear is why cold fusion 
is not possible.  Thank you very much.
					-mikel chambers

cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenchambers cudfnMichael cudlnChambers cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Sun Oct  9 04:37:03 EDT 1994
------------------------------
1994.10.09 / K Jonsson /  Re: Rothwell's instruments
     
Originally-From: kvj@rhi.hi.is (Kristjan Valur Jonsson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Rothwell's instruments
Date: 9 Oct 1994 14:40:53 GMT
Organization: University of Iceland

In <55761@mindlink.bc.ca> Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Dunn) writes:

>On the contrary, measuring DC power is much less ambiguous than measuring
>AC power.  The issue isn't how reliable the batteries are, but how reliably
>the power coming out of them (and thus entering the Griggs device) can be
>measured.  Going to DC allows us to abandon the black boxes used to measure
>power, and make highly accurate measurements of power with a voltmeter and
>a calibrated resistance.  It is the moral equivalent of using a beam scale
>rather than an electronic scale for measuring weight.

Why all this emphasis on measuring input power to the motor?  If a dynamometer
is attached to it it should give reasonably accurate figures for power entering
the pump.  Fast torque fluctuations don't vanish with a torque meter, as they
might with an AC power meter, they just add upp to the total torque measured.
So, average torque measured with a torque meter times the rmp should give
information enough.

Kristjan

-- 
Kristjan Valur Jonsson               |    The individual does not qualify for
Student of mechanical engineering,   |         making decisions regarding the
University of Iceland                |                 activities of the many.
Exclaimer: Yess!                     |                         (Helmut, 1993)
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenkvj cudfnKristjan cudlnJonsson cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.09 / Jed Rothwell /  GG January <> September
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@CompuServe.COM>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: GG January <> September
Date: 9 Oct 1994 15:07:25 GMT
Organization: CFRA

John Logajan <jlogajan@skypoint.com> wrote:
 
     "With the publishing here of steam temp data by Dr. Mallove, we can
     put this issue to rest.  Dr. Mallove reports a Griggs steam test
     in which at one instant the steam temperature was 321.9F (the average
     of six simultaneous thermocouple measurements.)
 
     Since the steam temp is 320F, then a outer case temperature of 300F
     (or thereabouts) measured by the pyrometer is consistent."
 
That is incorrect. The pyrometer data was from Jan. 1994 and the recent steam
test was from Sept. 1994. The data are not related. The temperatures vary
with the power of the electric motor, the rotor size and design, pressure and
other factors. You cannot always mix an match data from different experiments.
We have not seen a pyrometer reading from the Sept. 1994 experiments.
 
In the experiments that I observed, when I had a chance to use the pyrometer,
I saw that the Pump housing was hotter than the steam. I did not get a chance
to confirm this carefully.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.09 / John Logajan /  Re: E-Quest Helium Results
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@mirage.skypoint.net (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: E-Quest Helium Results
Date: 9 Oct 1994 15:29:42 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Dieter Britz (BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk) wrote:
: Gene, Gene, what have you done? For some years now, the 'cold fusion' 
: propagandists have carefully built up the picture that the normally rare d-d
: fusion branch leading to 4He is in fact the dominant one.

: Now you go and spoil it all. If you use 3He (which so far noone has found) to
: underpin the existence of 'cold fusion', you imply the 3He branch, one of the
: two normal ones.

Well, if pn + pn = 2p+2n      (D + D ==> 4He)  then how about

          p + pn = 2p+n       (H + D ==> 3He).

Seems like it is different inputs into the same "miracle", both with
aneutronic results.

--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com  --  612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA -
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.09 / John Logajan /  Re: GG January <> September
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@mirage.skypoint.net (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: GG January <> September
Date: 9 Oct 1994 15:44:26 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Jed Rothwell (72240.1256@CompuServe.COM) wrote:
: That is incorrect. The pyrometer data was from Jan. 1994 and the recent steam
: test was from Sept. 1994. The data are not related.

I was aware that the measurements were from different experiments.  I thought
the disagreement centered around the fact that the case temperature was
hotter than 212F.  I misread the debate.  Sorry about that.

: In the experiments that I observed, when I had a chance to use the pyrometer,
: I saw that the Pump housing was hotter than the steam. I did not get a chance
: to confirm this carefully.

As I mentioned elsewhere, if the housing is on the order of 320F, then the
internal pressure must be on the order of 80 PSI.  Therefore the steam will
be expanding and cooling upon being exhausted to the outside atmospheric
pressure -- so one would expect the steam to be cooler than the casing.

So I am still not sure what the debate is about.

--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com  --  612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA -
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.09 / Robert Heeter /  Re: Fusion?
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion?
Date: Sun, 9 Oct 1994 03:45:42 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

> Path:
princeton!udel!MathWorks.Com!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!
>
math.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!cleve
and.Free
> net.Edu!al789
> From: al789@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John Logajan)
> Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
> Subject: Re: Fusion?
> Date: 8 Oct 1994 15:47:45 GMT
> Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
> Lines: 34
> Message-ID: <376ev1$63e@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>
> References: <370pinINNa4n@oasys.dt.navy.mil>
<1994Oct8.015140.5862@Princeton.EDU>
> Reply-To: al789@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John Logajan)
> NNTP-Posting-Host: kanga.ins.cwru.edu
> 
> 
> rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu (Robert F. Heeter) says:
> >No one has presented any sort of coherent (much less
> >experimentally tested) theory that the Griggs pump is an 
> >aneutronic fusion device.  Is that what you'd like to
> >claim?
> 
> It wasn't clear to me that you were referring to Griggs in your previous
> comment, but I'll accept that that is what you meant.
> 
> I wasn't so much interested in deciding what Griggs or PF or anyone
> was actually doing so much as determining what you meant by "free
energy"
> and how that differed from non-"free energy."
> 
> (By the way, until somebody detects neutrons coming out of a Griggs
device,
> I will assume it is aneutronic. :-)

:) taken.  I didn't say it wasn't aneutronic, but that it wasn't
*aneutronic_fusion*.  Which is an entirely different statement. :)

> >Until you give me a reasonable theory for the claimed
> >surplus energy production, it's just "free" energy - 
> >i.e., energy apparently showing up without any particular 
> >cause, much less an understood one.
> 
> 
> Okay -- so when you say "free energy" you mean *consensus-theory* free
energy.

No, I mean *any-theory-I-believe* free energy.  One person's "free energy"
is (apparently) another person's "aneutronic cold fusion."  I 
don't think there's any complete consensus on any theory, so by 
your misinterpretation of my definition of "free energy", all 
energy is "free."  

I argue that one can more loosely use "free energy" when 
discussing alleged energy sources where, not only does the 
speaker personally think there's no respectable explanation, 
but also where the vast majority of scientists capable of 
understanding the proposed theory don't believe the theory either.

It's not a consensus you need, it's a strong majority opinion.
 
> i.e. the postulated energy is devoid of a consensus theory.

No, it's devoid of majority support in the pool of qualified evaluators.
(This, btw, is also why funding is so hard to obtain.)
 
> Fine, now I know what you mean.  However, to avoid confusion in the
future
> you might want to use the longer definition, as "free energy" is just
> a bit too ambiguous.

I don't think so.  I think most people understand that the
use of a term only occurs with the consent of the majority of
people speaking the language anyway.  But it doesn't require
a consensus.  If I and most physicists use the term 
"free energy" to refer to an energy source which lacks an
explanation accepted by the majority of physicists - and I
think that's the case - then it's a valid term, and I
don't need to stick "majority-view" in front of "free energy";
because the "majority-view" is implied in the statement.

I think I'd better quit before I get more confusing...

***************************
Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University
As always, I represent only myself, and not PPPL
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.09 / John Logajan /  Re: Fusion?
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@mirage.skypoint.net (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion?
Date: 9 Oct 1994 16:36:40 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Robert F. Heeter (rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu) wrote:
: > when you say "free energy" you mean *consensus-theory* free energy.

: I don't think there's any complete consensus on any theory, so by 
: your misinterpretation of my definition of "free energy", all 
: energy is "free."  
:
: It's not a consensus you need, it's a strong majority opinion.

Consensus is not necessarily "unanimous".  The dictionary says it means
"general agreement" or "majority of opinion."


: If I and most physicists use the term 
: "free energy" to refer to an energy source which lacks an
: explanation accepted by the majority of physicists - and I
: think that's the case - then it's a valid term, and I
: don't need to stick "majority-view" in front of "free energy";
: because the "majority-view" is implied in the statement.

Count me among the obtuse, then, because I didn't know what the heck
you meant by "free-energy."

So in summary (and check your dictionary if you doubt me)

1.) consensus does indeed mean majority of opinion 
2.) I personally did not understand your initial reference to "free energy"

So I still maintain that when you say "free energy", you've defined it to
mean: a postulated energy source for which there is no consensus (general
agreement) explanation.

So when the ancients agreed that the sun was a giant burning dung ball,
that was non-free energy, but when the first suggestion was made that
the sun was nuclear, that theory was necessarily a "free energy" theory
until it became more widely accepted.  :-)

--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com  --  612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA -
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.09 / John Logajan /  Re: E-Quest Helium Results
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@mirage.skypoint.net (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: E-Quest Helium Results
Date: 9 Oct 1994 16:42:59 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Matt Kennel (mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu) wrote:
: should remember that isotopic enhancement can occur through purely
: physical and chemical means.  An effect concentrating low-mass
: gases, e.g.---the effect H and D though would not be detectable 
: over background, leaving He3 and He4.

It would have to differentially concentrate He4 at a 100:1 rate over
H or D, and He3 at 100,000:1 rate over H or D.

Certainly possible by some means or other, but by what means in
particular?????

--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com  --  612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA -
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.09 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Re: Rothwell's  instruments
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Rothwell's  instruments
Date: Sun, 09 Oct 1994 12:57 -0500 (EST)

Kristjan Valur Jonsson writes:

-> So, average torque measured with a torque meter times the rpm should give
-> information enough.

If you are assuming a torque and rpm which are both varying with each
revolution then this is incorrect.  The correct formula for obtaining the
power would be the product of instantanous rpm and instantanous toque
integrated over each full revolution.  If there were no mass (inertia) in the
system, then a simpler formula would be the product of the root of the mean of
the squares of both the torque and rpm [ie. torq(RMS) * rpm(RMS)].  Using the
average rather than the RMS of these can give quite inaccurate answers.  Thus
if the torque and RPM are varying wildly, measurement and computing of the
power is not trivial.

The addition of a large flywheel to the motor (to some extent the rotor of the
motor is one already), to even out the rpm and touque would be a low tech, but
highly reliable solution to preventing (reducing?) errors due to instanteous
rpm and torque fluctuations.

For a better understanding of why the RMS instead of the average should be
used, I would suggest visualizing the rpm as current and the torque as voltage,
and consulting any text on electrical AC measurements.

                                                                Marshall
cudkeys:
cuddy09 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.09 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  What are free energy devices.
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: What are free energy devices.
Date: Sun, 09 Oct 1994 13:19 -0500 (EST)

The questions was raised in here earlier as to what "free energy" devices are.
This question is actually more complex than it at first sounds.  I would like
to share my thoughts on this "definition".

I think the simplest definition of a free energy device is a device which
delivers energy of some form tax free.  Although probably a pretty accurate
definition, it really begs the question.

I see a free energy device as a device which obtains or generates energy from a
source or fuel which has essentially no market value.  As an additional
requirement, a free energy device must be inexpensive and small enought to be
used by the end user, as opposed to being used by a utility.  If it is used by
the utility, it is not free energy, as far as the consumer is concerned.  A
free energy device cannot require a non-free input of energy from outside the
system to operate, except during startup.  Using this set of requirements the
following are or are not free energy devices:

        solar panels    yes if private
        geothermal      yes if private, but no if obtained by a utility
        wind            yes if private
        your own gas well and a generator  no - gas has market value
        wood stove      no  wood has market value, limited supply
        hydroelectric   yes if private
        fission         no  fuel cost not 0, utility only

And for items of interest in this newsgroup:

        fusion (hot)    no  delivery by utility only, not 0 fuel cost
        fusion (cold)   yes if private and runs on water with no additonal
                            energy input, no if requires D2O
        Griggs          no  requires energy input.
        heat pump       no  requires energy input (actually 2 sources)
        ZPE             yes if private & self sustaining
        PF cell et all  yes if self sustaining and runs on water, no if D2O

I am sure this does not agree with other peoples definitions, but until we can
at least define what we are talking about, confusion will dominate the
discussions.

                                                                Marshall
cudkeys:
cuddy09 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.09 / Matt Kennel /  Re: E-Quest Helium Results
     
Originally-From: mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: E-Quest Helium Results
Date: 9 Oct 1994 21:52:03 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

John Logajan (jlogajan@mirage.skypoint.net) wrote:
: Matt Kennel (mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu) wrote:
: : should remember that isotopic enhancement can occur through purely
: : physical and chemical means.  An effect concentrating low-mass
: : gases, e.g.---the effect H and D though would not be detectable 
: : over background, leaving He3 and He4.

: It would have to differentially concentrate He4 at a 100:1 rate over
: H or D, and He3 at 100,000:1 rate over H or D.

No it could be concentrating H or D even more strongly, but you just don't
see any of that effect as there is so much H and D hanging around
anyway, where as background He4 is rare, and He3 even more so.

: Certainly possible by some means or other, but by what means in
: particular?????

Some sort of forced gaseous diffusion?  

When the choice is between damn unlikely and nigh unto impossible
(suppression of radiation by factors of 10^14), I guess damn unlikely
is the better presumption.

:  - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com  --  612-633-0345 -

--
-Matt Kennel  		mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu
-Institute for Nonlinear Science, University of California, San Diego
-*** AD: Archive for nonlinear dynamics papers & programs: FTP to
-***     lyapunov.ucsd.edu, username "anonymous".
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenmbk cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.09 / Matt Kennel /  Re: Rothwell's instruments
     
Originally-From: mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Rothwell's instruments
Date: 9 Oct 1994 21:55:08 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

Kristjan Valur Jonsson (kvj@rhi.hi.is) wrote:
: Why all this emphasis on measuring input power to the motor?  If a dynamometer
: is attached to it it should give reasonably accurate figures for power entering
: the pump.  Fast torque fluctuations don't vanish with a torque meter, as they
: might with an AC power meter, they just add upp to the total torque measured.
: So, average torque measured with a torque meter times the rmp should give
: information enough.

real total power =  <torque(t) * angular_velocity(t)>_t
 	        /=  <torque(t)>_t * <angular_velocity(t)>_t
 		   = averaged dynamometer measurements.

: Kristjan Valur Jonsson               |    The individual does not qualify for

--
-Matt Kennel  		mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu
-Institute for Nonlinear Science, University of California, San Diego
-*** AD: Archive for nonlinear dynamics papers & programs: FTP to
-***     lyapunov.ucsd.edu, username "anonymous".
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenmbk cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.09 / A Palfreyman /  Re: What are free energy devices.
     
Originally-From: palf@netcom.com (Andrew Palfreyman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What are free energy devices.
Date: Sun, 9 Oct 1994 22:24:21 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

MARSHALL DUDLEY (mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com) wrote:
: And for items of interest in this newsgroup:
:         Griggs          no  requires energy input.
:         heat pump       no  requires energy input (actually 2 sources)

This is incorrect. Assuming excess energy is indeed produced,
feed output back to input via an energy-type converter, and run another
of the above devices from the excess...ad infinitum.
Of course, you have to "borrow" energy to start off the process.

As I think John Logajan has pointed out here, "free energy" is a term
containing an implicit slur, since it implies "something for nothing"
and offends our predilection to favour conservation laws. If the
conventional definition of energy is demonstrably not conserved, we shall
need to rewrite physics in terms of new, yet-to-be-defined conserved
quantities (symmetries). This is of course a tall order, as Dale Bass will
be the first to point out.

I have just begin to lurk here again; I was here in 89 for P&F's initial
outbursts (mainly verbal, not energetic :) and made loads of cash on
palladium futures, which I subsequently spent..it took me a while to
get the hang of futures, and I nearly lost the farm as the price ramped from
around $90 to $160 / oz. I started to cash in when the downside plummet
kicked in. It was one hell of a ride.

I got wind of "something being up again" when references to cold fusion
began to crop up again in periodicals I read (like software magazine
editorials, oddly enough).

Let's hope there's more meat on the bone this time.

Andrew Palfreyman
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenpalf cudfnAndrew cudlnPalfreyman cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.09 / A Palfreyman /  Pragmatics of nonconservation of energy
     
Originally-From: palf@netcom.com (Andrew Palfreyman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Pragmatics of nonconservation of energy
Date: Sun, 9 Oct 1994 22:56:35 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

I wrote:
: If the conventional definition of energy is demonstrably not conserved, we
: shall need to rewrite physics in terms of new, yet-to-be-defined conserved
: quantities (symmetries). This is of course a tall order, as Dale Bass will
: be the first to point out.

But what if we *do* find energy conservation violation?

The results are at best educated guesswork: something so fundamental is
going on as to transcend our current theories, and therefore I'd expect
the consequences (if such exist) to be radical in nature.

Perhaps the fundamental constants of nature (G,c, etc.) are altered in
the neighbourhood of the experiment! Further, that the effects are purely
local is certainly not a given, since we're handwaving (sorry, theorising :).

At least effects as radical and blunt as these are easily checkable at
the macroscopic level. I wonder, out of curiosity, if this has ever been
checked by anybody?

Andrew Palfreyman
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenpalf cudfnAndrew cudlnPalfreyman cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.10 / GREG BUELL /  Gravity control invention to get fusion... need cray
     
Originally-From: inventor@netcom.com (GREG BUELL)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Gravity control invention to get fusion... need cray
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 1994 00:29:32 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)


Gravity in the sun and stars is the cause of fusion.... so I would
think once we Humans get gravity control we can create fusion.

I need modeling of the sun from a cray to help me find gravity
control, I have sent messages to cray.com with to reply from them,
so any help from anyone would be nice.

inventor@netcom.com


cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudeninventor cudfnGREG cudlnBUELL cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.10 /  Publius /  Re: ENTROPY
     
Originally-From: publius@gate.net (Publius)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: ENTROPY
Date: 10 Oct 1994 02:04:29 GMT

Cameron Randale Bass (crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU) wrote:
: In article <36pem3$994@coranto.ucs.mun.ca>,
: John Lewis <court@newton.physics.mun.ca> wrote:
: >In article <CwzEIC.I9M@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
: >crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
: >>In article <36fskq$164u@tequesta.gate.net>, Publius <publius@gate.net> wrote:
: >>> I know I'm risking being labeled a fool - or worse, but here goes:
: >>>
: >>> In "The Book of Revelation" (Chapter 20) the author predicts the
: >>> end of the World by "The Fire of God" and he says: "The old
: >>> heaven (atmosphere) and the old Earth passed away and there was
: >>> no more sea."
: >>> He also said this would happen "a little season" after the end
: >>> of the Twentieth Century.
: >>
: >>     I'm pretty sure there's no mention of the Twentieth Century in 
: >>     any of my copies.  
: >>
: >>     Perhaps there's a new revision?
: >
: >Aarrgghh!  Don't believe anything you don't read in the `Quoran!

:      I'm pretty sure the Twentieth Century is not mentioned there either.

:      Perhaps we don't exist?

:                               dale bass
:      
 You are wrong, If you read Chapter 20 you will see that the author
 says it will happen after the second thousand years after Christ.
 But never mind. Thequestion is, how come you didn't address
 my point. Or do you dread the implications of an approach
 that the Second Law of Thermodinamics considers 'Water's
 existence to be 'unfinished business'?  PUBLIUS

cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenpublius cudlnPublius cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.10 / Eugene Mallove /  Nature is Speaking
     
Originally-From: 76570.2270@compuserve.com (Eugene Mallove)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Nature is Speaking
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 1994 03:06:56 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Dieter Britz writes in response to my posting about E-Quest helium results:

>Gene, Gene, what have you done? For some years now, the 'cold fusion' 
>propagandists have carefully built up the picture that the normally rare d-d
>fusion branch leading to 4He is in fact the dominant one. This scenario needs
>only two miracles: the dominance of this branch (quite unexplained), and how
>the 23 MeV gammas get quietly absorbed as heat, explained by waving the hands
>at some mumble mumble Moessbauer mumble. Thus, no gammas, neutrons or x-rays;
>heat only. And with kilowatts of heat coming out of tiny bits of metal, who
>can argue with this?
>
>Now you go and spoil it all. If you use 3He (which so far noone has found) to
>underpin the existence of 'cold fusion', you imply the 3He branch, one of the
>two normal ones. This would very likely drag with it the other main one, 
>tritium. So now you have two quite different miracles to explain: where are
>those neutrons from the tritium branch, and where are the x-rays given off
>from energetic tritons and protons crashing into the metal deuteride? In 
>fact,
>where is the tritium? Why did you do it, Gene? Things were settling in so
>nicely with the 4He scenario. 

Dieter continues to have a fundamental misunderstanding of science. It is NOT 
our job to second guess Nature. Be bewildered from time to time, of course. 
But when the hell are you skeptics going to realize that your preconceptions 
are making you blind to the only bottom line there is in science -- DATA from 
experiments, not your idea of how Nature *must* work? At the beginning of a 
new science *nothing* requires instant explanation. I didn't "do it," Dieter. 
The E-quest data -- if it continues to be upheld, as I strongly believe it 
will be -- is Nature speaking to us.

CF "propagandists" -- have NOT en masse embraced D + D --> He-4. I myself have
repeatedly said that all we can be sure of is that the excess energy is real 
beyond reasonable doubt and far, far beyond what could come from any 
conventional chemical explanation. I have also said that there was irrefutable
evidence for nuclear products, such as tritium, neutrons, and helium. There 
may be many different kinds of unexpected nuclear reactions, many different 
branches and categories of "chemically assisted nuclear reactions." I also 
think it is possible that ZPE *is* being tapped in some of these experiments, 
so you won't always find commensurate ash. I know you want it all wrapped up 
in one tidy little package, one solid, unifying explanation. That may not be 
found. We are probably dealing with a field of effects as potentially vast as 
chemistry itself.  You think it's all nonsense, you don't believe *any* of it.
You have embraced the glib Taubes explanation of fraud and incompetence for 
the whole field. You don't take data seriously. For years you have 
pontificated about what is or is not good enough for your bibliography. What a
joke! You are in big trouble now. The data is against your entire position. 
You were, wrong, wrong, wrong.

Look, mate, at this one example: Kevin Wolf of TAMU is sitting on solid, 
irrefutable data (multiline gamma ray spectroscopy) that proves that in his Pd
-heavy-water Pons-Fleischmann-type cells he obtained the following seven (7) 
radioactive isotopes: Silver (110, 105, and 106); and Rhodium (99, 101, 102); 
and Ruthenium (103) -- those are the numbers I've gathered from those in the 
know. This is alchemy, real alchemy. Do you doubt it? This is confirmation of 
the worst fear of Huizenga and Close, and you! Wolf does not doubt these 
results, but he does have a little problem -- the fear of disdain by the 
scientific community.  His solution to his "politcal problem" is to say that 
he has detected WIMPs!! He has a WIMP detector! He actually believes that, I'm
told. Only he feels he must see these WIMPs at least one more time! Good!  I 
hope, when he finally publishes this data -- which if he had any backbone he 
would have done long ago -- I hope that he *does* convince thousands of 
physicists to go up to the top of a mountain (as he has reportedy done!) with 
their newly made P&F cells.  Let them make fools of themselves by saying that 
cold fusion experiments may be WIMP detectors! How long will it take them to 
realize that we are dealing with a new physics paradigm here?

Gene Mallove

cudkeys:
cuddy10 cuden2270 cudfnEugene cudlnMallove cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.09 / Robert Heeter /  Re: Fusion?
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion?
Date: Sun, 9 Oct 1994 21:21:33 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

> From: jlogajan@mirage.skypoint.net (John Logajan)
> Message-ID: <37966o$6h0@stratus.skypoint.com>

In one our amazingly nonscientific grammar thread, John writes:
> Robert F. Heeter (rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu) wrote:
> : > when you say "free energy" you mean *consensus-theory* free energy.
> 
> : I don't think there's any complete consensus on any theory, so by 
> : your misinterpretation of my definition of "free energy", all 
> : energy is "free."  
> :
> : It's not a consensus you need, it's a strong majority opinion.
> 
> Consensus is not necessarily "unanimous".  The dictionary says it means
> "general agreement" or "majority of opinion."

My dictionary said, "Consensus: unanimity; agreement, especially in
     opinion; hence, general opinion."

It seemed to me that there "consensus", while not *necessarily* meaning
"unanimous," had that sort of overtone.  I didn't want Mitchell
Swartz misinterpreting me, :) so I chose to be more specific than
that term is.  I think you can have a strong majority opinion
that still falls short of "consensus."

But I think we both had the same thing in mind; I just wasn't sure
before from your use of consensus what you meant exactly.

> : If I and most physicists use the term 
> : "free energy" to refer to an energy source which lacks an
> : explanation accepted by the majority of physicists - and I
> : think that's the case - then it's a valid term, and I
> : don't need to stick "majority-view" in front of "free energy";
> : because the "majority-view" is implied in the statement.
> 
> Count me among the obtuse, then, because I didn't know what the heck
> you meant by "free-energy."

I'll do that then.  :)

Maybe one of these days I'll write a free-energy glossary too.  :)
 
> So I still maintain that when you say "free energy", you've defined it
to
> mean: a postulated energy source for which there is no consensus
(general
> agreement) explanation.

Why not just maintain that I meant what I told you I meant?  :)
 
> So when the ancients agreed that the sun was a giant burning dung ball,
> that was non-free energy, but when the first suggestion was made that
> the sun was nuclear, that theory was necessarily a "free energy" theory
> until it became more widely accepted.  :-)

I'd say that the sun, in the time when the nuclear theory was 
still in its infancy, was still a non-free-energy source, 
because the general view was still that it was a chemical fireball.

A quasar, on the other hand, is still a "free energy" source
at this point.  

(Why does this even matter???)

P.S.  Are you going to come to the Science Museum on Nov. 8?

***************************
Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University
As always, I represent only myself, and not PPPL
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.10 / Jed Rothwell /  More on GG
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@CompuServe.COM>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: More on GG
Date: 10 Oct 1994 02:51:41 GMT
Organization: CFRA

kvj@rhi.hi.is (Kristjan Valur Jonsson)
 
     "I would like to see, though, if all the enthalpi of the input water is
     accounted for?  I understand that it is forced into the pump via an
     auxiliary pump. Please elaborate."
 
I don't recall the exact draw of the aux pump but it was small. A few hundred
watts (quarter HP) as I recall. I tested the enthalpy by turning on the aux
pump and circulating the water through the GG with the big electric motor off
and the GG still. I saw no measurable temperature change. No doubt there must
have been one, but it was too small for the instruments I used. Please note
that when a small pump draws 200 watts, the pump gets hot and lot of the 
energy is lost as waste heat at the pump. It does not deliver all of the
energy into the water.
 
In another message he writes:
 
     "Why all this emphasis on measuring input power to the motor?"
 
There is no emphasis on that. However, it is nice to see that the power meters
show the expected amount of electricity is delivered to the motor. That is
what I call 'suspenders and a belt' -- double assurance that the input is
being measured correctly.
 
     "If a dynamometer is attached to it should give reasonably accurate
     figures for power entering the pump.  Fast torque fluctuations don't
     vanish with a torque meter, as they might with an AC power meter, they
     just add up to the total torque measured."
 
That's right. The technical spec sheet for the dynamometer shows that errors
are well below the excess measured, especially with steam. The specs from GE
for the AC power meter also show that errors will be below 0.5% at these power
levels. Some people have speculated that extremely fast power fluctuations
might "fool" the meter, but I am sure that is not true. GE has been measuring
industrial power since Edison et al. formed the company. There is no way on
earth an ordinary electric motor could fool one of their top-of-the-line
meters by 10% or 20% or 60%. That idea is ridiculous.
 
Someone mentioned the fact the GG rotor acts as a flywheel. Indeed it does. It
smooths out fluctuations.
 
Someone else asked what I meant when I said that GE calibrated it. I mean, of
course, that Griggs shipped the unit the GE service center, the GE technician
put it though it's paces, tested it at different power levels, put a sticker
on the top certifying that it was calibrated, and signed and dated the
sticker. This is standard operating procedure (S.O.P.). Everything Griggs does
is factory floor S.O.P., which is why his work is unquestionably right, and
much better than these arbitrary and nonstandard scientific experiments you
see in other CF work. Griggs is an electrical engineer who has been dealing
with heavy equipment and high tension factory AC for 30+ years. People who
have been in factories will understand that if you do that kind of work in a
sloppy or stupid manner, you are likely to be killed or maimed by the
machinery. You do it by the book, you follow the S.O.P., you get it right or
you are dead. It is like being a pilot; as the saying goes, "there are old
pilots and bold pilots but never any old, bold pilots." Factories and industry
enforce a level of discipline seldom seen in the scientific laboratory.
(Seldom seen by me, anyway.) In a laboratory they work with 1 or 2 watt DC
power which can never hurt anyone whereas Griggs is used to dealing with
50,000 watts AC.
 
 
jlogajan@mirage.skypoint.net (John Logajan) writes:
 
     ". . .if the housing is on the order of 320F, then the internal pressure
     must be on the order of 80 PSI.  Therefore the steam will be expanding
     and cooling upon being exhausted to the outside atmospheric pressure --
     so one would expect the steam to be cooler than the casing."
 
Good point. Next time I check it I will be sure to read the thermocouples and
dial thermometers on the GG Pump side of the pipe leading to the first
pressure valve. I suppose all that mechanical movement in the GG might produce
some waves of mechanical compression (as opposed to ultrasound compression),
but I don't suppose the steam pressure and temperature would be much different
in the output pipe attached to the GG housing.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.10 / Matt Kennel /  Re: Meaningless Mallove Report
     
Originally-From: mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Meaningless Mallove Report
Date: 10 Oct 1994 03:18:14 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

Richard A Blue (blue@pilot.msu.edu) wrote:
: So what about the 1000-fold increase in 3He-to-4He ratio?  Well, consider
: the nuclear physics.  Assuming the 4He comes from the fusion of two
: deuterons, the first guess would be that the 3He does also.  However,
: each 3He formed leaves a neutron unacounted for.  Remember the
: neutrons?  Do we have to remind you that the mere suggestion that
: there are 100,000 3He produced would indicate that a simple neutron
: detector would suffice to establish whether fusion is occuring.

People still ought to remember that you just cannot "let the 
neutron equilibrate without radiation" as one might try to hand-wave
with an exited He4 trying to get rid of its extra energy "coupling to 
the lattice" or something bizzare like that.

Even a free neutron completely thermalized will decay and emit
radiation.

(Or do we give up conservation of baryon number now, too?)

: Dick Blue
--
-Matt Kennel  		mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu
-Institute for Nonlinear Science, University of California, San Diego
-*** AD: Archive for nonlinear dynamics papers & programs: FTP to
-***     lyapunov.ucsd.edu, username "anonymous".
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenmbk cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.10 / David Davies /  Re: re) ..Testing Grigg G. with different fluids!
     
Originally-From: drd851@huxley.anu.edu.au (David R Davies)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: re) ..Testing Grigg G. with different fluids!
Date: 10 Oct 1994 14:00:04 +1000
Organization: Australian National University

crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:

(stuff deleted)
>     However, you can be quite sure that the reported result *is* in 
>     error.  I cannot stress stongly enough that they are _wrong_.  

And all the stress in the world will not make you _right_.

>     If thermodynamics doesn't do it for you, simply look at the literally
>     hundreds of similar devices that preceeded this one into the grave.

>                                  dale bass

A simple variant on the argument 'it hasnt happened before so it cant'.

At best, vacuous sophistry. 



The things we do to avoid those three little words "I dont know".

dave
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudendrd851 cudfnDavid cudlnDavies cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.10 / GREG BUELL /  Re: Gravity control invention to get fusion... need cray
     
Originally-From: inventor@netcom.com (GREG BUELL)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Gravity control invention to get fusion... need cray
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 1994 03:19:03 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

In article <inventorCxFLD8.MBH@netcom.com>,
GREG BUELL <inventor@netcom.com> wrote:
>
>Gravity in the sun and stars is the cause of fusion.... so I would
>think once we Humans get gravity control we can create fusion.
>
>I need modeling of the sun from a cray to help me find gravity
>control, I have sent messages to cray.com with to reply from them,
>so any help from anyone would be nice.
>
>inventor@netcom.com
>
>


... I have sent messages to cray.com with no reply....



inventor@netcom.com



cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudeninventor cudfnGREG cudlnBUELL cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.10 / Cameron Bass /  Re: GG pyrometer was checked
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: GG pyrometer was checked
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 1994 04:15:30 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <376e4v$4c8@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>,
John Logajan <al789@cleveland.Freenet.Edu> wrote:
>
>crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) says:
>>    In what way has it been 'put to rest'?  Jed's assertion was apparently
>>    that the housing was *hotter* than the output steam.  Jed apparently
>>    asserted this on the basis of pyrometer readings.
>
>Sounds like a tempest in a teapot to me.
...

     Not so, the attribution to fusion is quite revolutionary, if true.
     But it isn't true.

     And apparently the instruments were either misused, or misunderstood, 
     which is also quite telling.

>In any event, the case is around 300F and the steam is around 300F.
>So what's the problem?

     'Fusion in the steel' is the problem.  The solution is that there
     is none.

                                 dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.10 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Rothwell's instruments
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Rothwell's instruments
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 1994 04:18:04 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <376fq5$7ri@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>,
John Logajan <al789@cleveland.Freenet.Edu> wrote:
>>
>>     Or, if we multiply each number we measure by another number
>>     we guess, we get the same number.  After all, both must be calibrated
>>     for the goofy load.
>
>My sense of this is that if there is a prosaic explanation, it will be in
>the input power measurement.  But still, we have a dynometer and a power
>meter both reading the same, and both consistent with a motor manufacturer's
>efficiency rating for that motor.

     The meaning of 'the same' is more a mystery than anything else in 
     this matter.

>This is a more interesting mystery (even if prosaic) than you seem willing
>to admit.

     Why are experimental errors in someone's lab interesting?

                                 dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.09 / Chuck Sites /  Re: Cold Fusion comment, WAS Re: UNI DIRECTIONAL SPEAKER CABLE
     
Originally-From: chuck@iglou.iglou.com (Chuck Sites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion comment, WAS Re: UNI DIRECTIONAL SPEAKER CABLE
Date: Sun, 9 Oct 1994 00:07:54 GMT
Organization: IgLou Internet Services

petrich@netcom.com (Loren Petrich) writes:

[ Lead-in to the argument deleated]

>>What many of 'us' Cold fusion types are looking for is a quantum effect
>>where a Band state of D+ ions forms via the periodicity of the metal host
>>and by Bose nature of the D+ particle undergoes a Bose-Einstien condensation
>>of the D+ quantum band states. ...

>	The only way a band state can form is if the D nuclei have a de 
>Broglie wavelength comparable to a lattice spacing. And that simply 
>cannot happen because the electrostatic interactions with the nearby 
>electrons and nuclei are just too strong; all those deuterons get 
>confined in potential wells.

Actually, the formation of D+ and H+ band states has been demonstrated 
in several experiments. These are H to metal surface experiments but 
they can be used to extrapalate H bands in metals like PdD(x). I agree
with you that the electronic configuration of the metal will effect 
the creation of the band state, but that is materials problem. It is not 
not a problem with the overall concept.  See refs. below for a better
understanding of this phenomenology.

[1] R. Nieminen, "Hydrogen atoms band together"  Nature, Vol 356. 289-290.
     March 26 1992
[2] R. DiFoggio and R. Gomer, "Diffusion of hydrogen and deuterium on the
     (110) plane of tungsten". Phys. Rev. B 25, 3490 (1982)
[3] C. Astaldi, A. Bianco, S. Modesti, E. Tosatti. "Vibrational Spectra
     of Atomic H & D on Cu(110): Evidence for H Quantum Delocalization"
     Phy. Rev. Lett. Vol 68 no. 1. (90-).   

>	And even if they _did_ have overlapping wavefunctions, that is 
>not the end of our problems, because two individual deuterons would still 
>repel each other electrostatically. Just consider D - D scattering 
>experiments; that should be pretty standard nuclear physics to perform, 
>and I'm sure there's a lot of discussion of it in the literature.

Agreeded. The major difficulty with any fusion reaction is overcoming
the coulumb barrier.  In this particular case, its statistical quantum
mechanics applied to a band state of bose particles which allows the
D+ band state to be coincident with the He4 band state.  What this
says then is if a rare fusion reaction of D+D occurs, the creation of
He4++ will be favored by the the fact that D+ band is coincident with
the He4++ band.  That is the brancing ratios will be stirred to He4 for
a cold fusion reation under these specific conditions.  The coulumb
barrier is circumvented to a degree by the bose bands condensing,
forming a many particle complection (overlap) of the D+ band state.  One
aspect of this I've been looking at is the posibility that a condensed D+
band may have an energy state resonant with a low energy He4++ nuclear
resonance state.

>	What happens with Bose-Einstein statistics is that the combined 
>wavefunction keeps its sign when two particles are exchanged 
>(Fermi-Dirac reverses sign). The BE condensation is a limiting case for 
>low temperatures derived in the no-interaction limit; that is NOT valid 
>for D+'s.

Ahh.. Not true.  If you look at HTS (high temperature superconductors)
which envolves the BE condensation of Cooper pairs (2 electrons bound by 
a complex magnetic spin operator.. 'd' wave or 's' wave make no difference
here), you will realize that charge does not stop BE condensation. In fact
even the aspect that it's in a lattice of other charged particles doesn't
stop this phenomena.  So I would say that argument is mute with regard to 
the posibility of BE condensation in a high temp enviroment. The formation of
a D+ band condensate in deuterated metals does imply some specific materials
complications, for sure, but none that can't be over come. 

>>   The main problems with realizing cold fusion as a phenomnea worthy of 
>>support and investigation are political foremost, and materials secondary.

>	OK, but to be taken seriously, one must be willing to acknowledge 
>whatever failures happen. In fact, I suspect that an unwillingness to 
>accept failure is a good marker of pseudoscience.

No.. A pseudoscience has aspects like crystal worship.  This field has
it zelots for sure.  However, in this case, a number (huge number
actually) of really good scientists have given CF a try, some with
positive results, but most with null results (Ie.. the critical
material conditions were not right). In addition, there was bad and
misleading information from those that did get it by chance, and the
problem of confusing experimental error with positive results was a
problem. Perhaps that situation still exists, but given the critisism
of past experiments, folks are alot more cautious about crying "wolf".
I suspect the unwillingness to give up is based more on various
theories that say cold fusion in metals should exist then on some odd
delusion.  That's typical of the scientific process only this field
has been damned more than others.  

>>Before making claims that cold fusion will release neutrons as a 
>>reaction of D+D, you have to describe how D+D will occur. ...

>	[...admission of the necesssity of branching-ratio changes...]

>	That's a step forward :-), but the D + D -> He4 (say) rate would
>have to be enhanced _enormously_ (and I mean, by several orders of 
>magnitude). And it must be by some effect that is just not observed in 
>any other context.

In a way, I consider many of the reports of CF phenomena like USO's 
(Unidentified Superconductor Observations).  These are materials which
have been reported to superconduct near and above room temp. The problem
is these are transient envents and difficult to repeat even with the 
best technique.  In CF, I think we were and still are plauged by the same 
problem, but it's getting better.  At least we know what we are after.

>-- 
>Loren Petrich, the Master Blaster
>petrich@netcom.com                   Happiness is a fast Macintosh
>lip@s1.gov                           And a fast train

Have Fun,
Chuck Sites                           Cold Fusion. As real as it gets.
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.09 / Matt Kennel /  Re: E-Quest Helium Results
     
Originally-From: mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: E-Quest Helium Results
Date: 9 Oct 1994 05:09:55 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

John Logajan (jlogajan@mirage.skypoint.net) wrote:
: Eugene Mallove (76570.2270@compuserve.com) wrote:
: : enhancement of the measured helium-3/helium-4 ratio, which is normally on the 
: : order of 10E-6.  The helium-3 measurement at Rockwell showed this ratio to be 
: : enhanced to around 10E-3 -- about 1000-fold increase.

: Hmm, a 100 fold increase in He4 and a 100,000 fold increase in He3 over
: background.

: Very interesting indeed.

Those results are intriguing, certainly more so than just extra heat
coming out of nowhere.  Before jumping to conclusions though, one
should remember that isotopic enhancement can occur through purely
physical and chemical means.  An effect concentrating low-mass
gases, e.g.---the effect H and D though would not be detectable 
over background, leaving He3 and He4.

:  - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com  --  612-633-0345 -
:  - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA -

--
-Matt Kennel  		mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu
-Institute for Nonlinear Science, University of California, San Diego
-*** AD: Archive for nonlinear dynamics papers & programs: FTP to
-***     lyapunov.ucsd.edu, username "anonymous".
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenmbk cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.09 / Dieter Britz /  RE:	E-Quest Helium Results
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE:	E-Quest Helium Results
Date: Sun, 9 Oct 1994 11:57:54 GMT
Date: Thu, 6 Oct 1994 14:09:04 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway


76570.2270@compuserve.com (Eugene Mallove) writes
Date: Thu, 6 Oct 1994 14:09:04 GMT

>Several authoritative sources -- some inside and some outside the company -- 
>have described to me the status of the E-Quest ultrasonic-activation cold 
>fusion experiments. I am sure a technical paper is going to be submitted very 
>soon.

>Summary of information:

>1. E-Quest now has verified helium production in excess heat-producing 
>experiments that range from 50 watts excess to 500 watts excess. Experiments 
[...]
>3.  Ten (10) runs have been analyzed for helium. ALL gave positive helium 
>results. Earlier runs tended to be in the 50-60 ppm of helium-4 range. At 
>least one sample measured at Rockwell recently was a remarkable 552 ppm (NO 
[...]
>Los Alamos National Laboratory. At LANL, checks were made for gammas, 
>neutrons, and tritium. None of the latter were found.

[...]
>5. Among the most amazing claimed findings however, was the highly significant
>enhancement of the measured helium-3/helium-4 ratio, which is normally on the 
>order of 10E-6.  The helium-3 measurement at Rockwell showed this ratio to be 
>enhanced to around 10E-3 -- about 1000-fold increase.Such a finding would 
>virtually rule out any possibility of the helium-4 being from "contamination" 


Gene, Gene, what have you done? For some years now, the 'cold fusion' 
propagandists have carefully built up the picture that the normally rare d-d
fusion branch leading to 4He is in fact the dominant one. This scenario needs
only two miracles: the dominance of this branch (quite unexplained), and how
the 23 MeV gammas get quietly absorbed as heat, explained by waving the hands
at some mumble mumble Moessbauer mumble. Thus, no gammas, neutrons or x-rays;
heat only. And with kilowatts of heat coming out of tiny bits of metal, who
can argue with this?

Now you go and spoil it all. If you use 3He (which so far noone has found) to
underpin the existence of 'cold fusion', you imply the 3He branch, one of the
two normal ones. This would very likely drag with it the other main one, 
tritium. So now you have two quite different miracles to explain: where are
those neutrons from the tritium branch, and where are the x-rays given off
from energetic tritons and protons crashing into the metal deuteride? In fact,
where is the tritium? Why did you do it, Gene? Things were settling in so
nicely with the 4He scenario. 
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.10 / Richard Blue /  Re: Meaningless Mallove Report
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Meaningless Mallove Report
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 1994 00:13:54 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

John Logajan inquires about my use of "meaningless" in commenting on
the recent report by the former editor of "Cold Fusion."  I think
one key point is John's assertion that:

"Presumably 'blank' D2O gives 6 ppm."

I did not see that information in the Mallove report.  Did I miss it?
The 6 ppm figure, I believe, refers to a concentration in some
"standard" atmosphere; not the concentration in D2O under the experimental
conditions but absent any fusion.

My point was that there has to be a very complete set of control measurements
to make any sense of the data given my Mallove.  To make this more obvious
let us construct a more complete scenario - of course a purely fictional one
because we have been given none of the required information.  Heavy water,
containing some disolved 4He (concentration unknown), for an extended period
is subjected to intense ultrasound with exposure to various solids and gases
containing unknown concentrations of 4He.  One might presume that this
exposure releases 4He from solids subjected to cavitation, etc.  Either
in a continuous cycle or by batch processing at the end 4He dissolved in
the D2O is extracted and concentrated (?) by methods unspecified but
perhaps involving the bubbling of argon gas through the liquid.

The resulting sample contains argon as the "cover gas", 4He and 3He at
concentrations to be determined, and assorted other things such as
D2O vapor at saturation pressure (?).  At this point it may be desirable
to remove as much of the D2O vapor as possible by passage through a
cryogenic filter - something that can alter the helium-to-argon ratio
and possibly even the 3He to 4He ratio.

Now I haven't bothered to count up the number of different controls
required to trace the origin of observed changes in helium concentrations
back to something that actually happen in the device under study, but
even then figuring out what could serve as a valid "blank" isn't all
that easy.

So what about the 1000-fold increase in 3He-to-4He ratio?  Well, consider
the nuclear physics.  Assuming the 4He comes from the fusion of two
deuterons, the first guess would be that the 3He does also.  However,
each 3He formed leaves a neutron unacounted for.  Remember the
neutrons?  Do we have to remind you that the mere suggestion that
there are 100,000 3He produced would indicate that a simple neutron
detector would suffice to establish whether fusion is occuring.

You presume that all the proper control samples have been analyzed.
I doubt it because one of the control concentrations emphasized,
namely that for the atmosphere, is likely just pulled from a handbook,
and does not even apply except in some crude sense relating to sample
contamination after some unspecified processing.

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.09 / K Jonsson /  Re: Griggs Steam Test Data
     
Originally-From: kvj@rhi.hi.is (Kristjan Valur Jonsson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs Steam Test Data
Date: 9 Oct 1994 14:24:08 GMT
Organization: University of Iceland

In <941006191059_76570.2270_HHB66-1@CompuServe.COM> 76570.2270@compuserv
.com (Eugene Mallove) writes:

>Hydrosonic Pump Steam Test. September 13, 1994:

>Water input plow rate = 0.2818 gallons/minute
>Energy content of steam = 1134 BTU/pound
>BTU output in steam  = 162,033 BTU/hour

>COP (Output power/input power) = 1.237

Ok, being illiterate in your system of measurement units I depend on
your calculations being correct.  I would like to see, though, if
all the entalpi of the input water is accounted for?  I understand that
it is forced into the pump via an auxillay pump. Please elaborate.

Kristjan

-- 
Kristjan Valur Jonsson               |    The individual does not qualify for
Student of mechanical engineering,   |         making decisions regarding the
University of Iceland                |                 activities of the many.
Exclaimer: Yess!                     |                         (Helmut, 1993)
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenkvj cudfnKristjan cudlnJonsson cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Mon Oct 10 04:37:05 EDT 1994
------------------------------
1994.10.10 / Cameron Bass /  Re: ENTROPY
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: ENTROPY
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 1994 04:39:26 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <37a7fd$sdk@tequesta.gate.net>, Publius <publius@gate.net> wrote:
>Cameron Randale Bass (crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU) wrote:
>: In article <36pem3$994@coranto.ucs.mun.ca>,
>: John Lewis <court@newton.physics.mun.ca> wrote:
>: >In article <CwzEIC.I9M@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
>: >crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>: >>In article <36fskq$164u@tequesta.gate.net>, Publius <publius@gate.net> wrote:
>: >>> I know I'm risking being labeled a fool - or worse, but here goes:
>: >>>
>: >>> In "The Book of Revelation" (Chapter 20) the author predicts the
>: >>> end of the World by "The Fire of God" and he says: "The old
>: >>> heaven (atmosphere) and the old Earth passed away and there was
>: >>> no more sea."
>: >>> He also said this would happen "a little season" after the end
>: >>> of the Twentieth Century.
>: >>
>: >>     I'm pretty sure there's no mention of the Twentieth Century in 
>: >>     any of my copies.  
>: >>
>: >>     Perhaps there's a new revision?
>: >
>:      
> You are wrong, If you read Chapter 20 you will see that the author
> says it will happen after the second thousand years after Christ.
> But never mind. Thequestion is, how come you didn't address
> my point. Or do you dread the implications of an approach
> that the Second Law of Thermodinamics considers 'Water's
> existence to be 'unfinished business'?  PUBLIUS

     My advice to you, read it again.  First, the text is likely 
     an agglomeration of several different revisions, stages, etc.

     Second, if you must be literal, I must have missed Christ's 
     'reign of a thousand years'.  Without that, the clock cannot start.

     Third, as representive of even the most literal of readings,
     Augustine held that the 'reign of a thousand years' is reckoned 
     from the resurrection of Christ.  Then, according to the text,
     'Satan' must be released, "but only for a short time".  That
     would indicate a time around 1000 AD by a rather literal reading.
     This, by the way, is the apparent reason that apocalyptic movements
     arose at the turn of the last millenium.

     Unless you are holding that the resurrection occurred at or about
     1000 AD, or that we somehow missed Christ's reign, you're 
     going to have a difficult time holding that the 'devil' is 
     released around 2000 AD, and hence the twentieth century is
     mentioned in the text.

     And, no, I consider water's existence quite finished, especially
     that I just drank.  It seems surprisingly stable.

                                   dale bass


cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.10 / David Davies /  Re: Still no wavefunctions shown!
     
Originally-From: drd851@huxley.anu.edu.au (David R Davies)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Still no wavefunctions shown!
Date: 10 Oct 1994 15:03:20 +1000
Organization: Australian National University

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

>To Dave Davies:  I did give you the proper explanation for the mixing
>of s and d-states in the deuteron nuclear wavefunction.  The potential
>between the proton and the neutron is non-central, in part, such that
>orbital angular momentum is not a good quantum number.  Total angular
>momentum is, but the nucleons have spin such that one can make
>a state with total angular momentum  J = 1 and orbital angular momentum
>of zero or two or a mixture thereof.

The key thing I have been after Dick is the energies of the S and D
states for the deuteron. I haven't managed to follow up all the refs
you posted (and those quoted within them) but I still haven't found
anything that directly addresses my point.  I'll try again and see
where it gets me.

Assuming (till someone convinces me otherwise) that the S and D states
have differing energies, and that a measurement will give either an S
state (or S-like state) or D (or d-like) state then we have a situation
where a device could take in deuterons in the D state and eject them in
the S state leaving the energy difference behind. This would amount to 
some form of ZPE energy pump.

It seems clearer to me in my view of the nucleus as a bunch of matter
waves interacting nonlinearly and moving chaotically between s-type
and d-type attractors but, as they say, if you are holding a nonlinear
resonator in your hand everything looks loke an attractor:-) 

>To Chuck Sites:  I did not mean to say that your wavefunction has to
>involve "particles" as opposed to "band states", although I must
>confess that I don't truly understand what your version of a
>bandstate wavefunction would look like.  I assume it involves functions
>of the center-of-mass coordinates for deuterons or 4He and eigenfunctions
>for some Hamiltonian with a periodic potential.  I would say that
>still has deuteron "particles" in it even though the expectation
>values for the position of a deuteron are spread out.  Am I still
>on the same wavelength as you are, or have I missed something?

I'll let Chuck answer for himself but my comment here is that we
have a situation where the concept of particle is critical. I dont 
believe in them other than as a centre of coherence of matter waves
that takes multiple values simultaneously in a band state. 

>This is as far as I ever got in this discussion with Scott Chubb.
>He, however, did explicitely state that his theory involved a
>Born-Oppenheimer separation in which the internal wavefunction of
>the deuteron was not involved in the construction of the "band state".
>My position is that you can't make a meaningful statement concerning
>the release of energy as the result of a nuclear transistion without
>including the significant coordinates in the problem.  Band states
>as we all know them simply don't involve the appropriate coordinates.
>The periodic potential that you think of when you invoke "band state"
>thinking is, shall we say, six orders of magnitude too weak to alter
>the nuclear wavefunctions.  In that sense a deuteron is a deuteron
>is a particle, and it is not to be confused with and is not in anyway
>degenerate with a 4He.  I insist that spreading deuterons all about
>in a Pd lattice does not make something that you can call 4He spread
>all about inside that lattice.  They have different names because
>they are different.  If you can't say what happens to merge the
>identities of these two distinct forms of nuclear matter what can
>you say that supports the  notion that deuterons fuse into 4He?

I dont think anyone is saying they are degenerate since there are Mevs
of energy difference but two Ds with a high degree of coherence could
be seen as approaching highly excited 4He.


dave

cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudendrd851 cudfnDavid cudlnDavies cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.10 / John Logajan /  Re: Gravity control invention to get fusion... need cray
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@mirage.skypoint.net (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Gravity control invention to get fusion... need cray
Date: 10 Oct 1994 05:10:01 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

GREG BUELL (inventor@netcom.com) wrote:
: I need modeling of the sun from a cray to help me find gravity
: control, I have sent messages to cray.com with to reply from them,
: so any help from anyone would be nice.

One would think the "model" is nothing other than pressure.

--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com  --  612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA -
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.10 / John Logajan /  Re: Meaningless Mallove Report
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@mirage.skypoint.net (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Meaningless Mallove Report
Date: 10 Oct 1994 05:13:30 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Richard A Blue (blue@pilot.msu.edu) wrote:
: Do we have to remind you that the mere suggestion that
: there are 100,000 3He produced would indicate that a simple neutron
: detector would suffice to establish whether fusion is occuring.

Well, as I mentioned in another post, you could presumably combine
H+D ==> He3 + 5.4 MeVs.  This would appear to be aneutronic but
would require the same "miracle" as D+D ==> He4 + 23.7 MeVs.

--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com  --  612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA -
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.10 / John Logajan /  Re: More on GG
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@mirage.skypoint.net (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: More on GG
Date: 10 Oct 1994 05:18:39 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Jed Rothwell (72240.1256@CompuServe.COM) wrote:
: Someone mentioned the fact the GG rotor acts as a flywheel. Indeed it does. It
: smooths out fluctuations.

So, alas, does the electric motor rotor.  Thus you have two masses connected
together via a shaft -- not unlike a tuning fork, except that the dominant
vibrational motion would likely be a twisting motion.

I'm not saying that oscilatory motions exist, just that in almost all
physical cases, there are modes of oscilation that can exist under the
right conditions.

--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com  --  612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA -
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.10 / John Logajan /  Re: GG pyrometer was checked
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@mirage.skypoint.net (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: GG pyrometer was checked
Date: 10 Oct 1994 05:37:18 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Cameron Randale Bass (crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU) wrote:
: >In any event, the case is around 300F and the steam is around 300F.
: >So what's the problem?

:      'Fusion in the steel' is the problem.  The solution is that there
:      is none.

My problem with this is that you are presuming the conclusion.  i.e. there
is no fusion, therefore the readings were in error.  Now it may, in fact,
be true that the readings are in error and there is no fusion (or other
anomalous heat source) but presuming the conclusion is an unsatisfactory
intellectual methodology.


--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com  --  612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA -
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.10 / John Logajan /  Re: Rothwell's instruments
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@mirage.skypoint.net (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Rothwell's instruments
Date: 10 Oct 1994 05:44:04 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Cameron Randale Bass (crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU) wrote:
: >This is a more interesting mystery (even if prosaic) than you seem willing
: >to admit.

:      Why are experimental errors in someone's lab interesting?

For the same reason that the Shuttle O-ring failures (technical and
managerial reasons behind) were interesting -- the study of which helps
prevent recurrances in the future by designing more robust systems.
It seems an honorable goal.

--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com  --  612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA -
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.10 / John Logajan /  cmsg cancel <37ak6k$d73@stratus.skypoint.com>
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@mirage.skypoint.net (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cmsg cancel <37ak6k$d73@stratus.skypoint.com>
Date: 10 Oct 1994 05:45:13 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Article cancelled from within tin [v1.2 PL2]
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.09 /  Lforbes@debug. /  Why Use A Griggs Device?
     
Originally-From: Lforbes@debug.cuc.ab.ca
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Why Use A Griggs Device?
Date: Sun, 09 Oct 1994 21:43:18 GMT
Organization: Debug Computer Services

My apologies if this has been asked before but, I wonder why anyone would
routinely utilize a Griggs device to generate steam and/or hot water (as
has been mentioned by Jed Rothwell re the as yet unidentified "commercial" 
users) when the cost of heat generated from natural gas or fuel oil is, in
most locals, considerably less than that of electricity (even with the
supposed 1.2 or whatever COP of the Griggs). 

For example, in Calgary, Alberta, where I live, the approximate
residential cost of 1 GJ (gigajoule) of natural gas generated heat is $6. 
The equivalent cost of a like quantity generated by electrical resistance
heating is approximately $21, or roughly 3 1/2 times more (I would expect 
the ratio for industrial quantity users would be in the same ball park).

So why use a Griggs device in place of a gas or oil fired boiler??

Regards,
Laurie Forbes

cudkeys:
cuddy09 cudenLforbes cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.10 / A Rivero /  Non conservation of energy; not again...
     
Originally-From: rivero@sol.unizar.es (Alejandro Rivero)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Non conservation of energy; not again...
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 1994 10:51:52 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I dont like it, but before spaculation begins it is good to 
refresh memory (and remember this has no relation with fusion!):

> Originally-From: palf@netcom.com (Andrew Palfreyman)
> Subject: Pragmatics of nonconservation of energy
> I wrote:
> : If the conventional definition of energy is demonstrably not conserved, we
Note that the conventional (classical) definition is: Energy is the 
quantity asociated by Noether thorem to the invariance of physics laws
under translation in time. *This is, the law works the same today and yesterday)
> : shall need to rewrite physics in terms of new, yet-to-be-defined conserved
> : quantities (symmetries). This is of course a tall order, as Dale Bass will
> : be the first to point out.
> 
> But what if we *do* find energy conservation violation?
> 
Easy: then physics is not invariant under temporal traslation. 
Of course, you are speaking about violations greated that the ones
you could get from universe expansion etc. So the Energy-impulse
tensor would probably be higly not conserved, so the geometry of space-time
would be blown away in a highr order than the predicted from
quantum deformations, so... imagine. If you want remove any of this
consequences, you only can remove mathematical assuptions, so you mush choose
between: 
-there are a fundamental flaw in world
-there are a fundamental flaw in mathematics.
So you blow mathematics. But then, how can you say that Energy 
conservation is violated, is you can not add energies ?


...
> Perhaps the fundamental constants of nature (G,c, etc.) are altered in
> the neighbourhood of the experiment! Further, that the effects are purely
> local is certainly not a given, since we're handwaving (sorry, theorising :).
> 

cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenrivero cudfnAlejandro cudlnRivero cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.10 /  itimc@roimar.i /  Serious Cold Fusion.
     
Originally-From: itimc@roimar.imar.ro
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Serious Cold Fusion.
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 1994 14:15:43 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway


I have borrowed this title from Edward de Bono's book "Serious
Creativity" (Using the Power of Lateral Thinking to Create New
Ideas),Harper Business Publishers ,1992.In this book,creativity
is shown to be directly connected with the ability to make
paradigm changes.Unfortunately enough,it seems that creativity is
more important for businessmen and entrepreneurs than for
scientists.Who,from the s.p.f colleagues knows this book? 
The world "serious" will be used with a meaning somewhat
different from those given by the 'Webster';according to a
definition due to a romanian philosopher,Mihail Ralea,serious is
"focused on the essential problems and/or on the essential
aspects of these problems".
Ralea emphasizes the existence,for each problem of a core
surrounded by some more peripheric,marginal,less significant
aspects, a kind of halo;serious research has the core as target. 
In my opinion,as I have shown in my paper "A paradigm too far",at
this stage we can speak seriously  only about working hypotheses
and not about theories.
{"A first-rate theory predicts,a second rate theory forbids, a
third rate theory explains after the event" (A.I.Kitaigorodski)}
A serious approach will distinguish between:
-scientifically serious CF,knowledge-oriented,and
-technologically serious CF,application-oriented.
According to my Surfdyn hypothesis (which in privacy I call my
"ugly duckling" type theory),the heat generating reactions take
place on the very surface of the CF generators,in active sites.
The much discussed items,lattice and bulk are,in my opinion just 
spectators/supporters and not participants in the important
processes.I am perfectly aware that it will last till these ideas
will be accepted-there are some very faint signs as Steve Jones'
opinion that the collapsing bubbles is the locus of the genuine
fusion reaction,not the lattice, however I am focused on the heat
generating reactions.
I don't ask anybody to accept that I am right,just because I
don't have any doubts that CF is a metacatalytical process and,
to refer to my preferred book, I am not fanatical about Surfdyn:
"When people are fanatically dedicated to political or religious
faiths or any other kinds of dogmas or goals,it's always because
these dogmas or goals are in doubt" (Robert Pirsig)
In the frame of my paradigm,the interfaces are defining for the
cold fusion systems,and we can distinguish two main categories:
-gas/liquid/solid systems (or simply wet),with 2 groupings
a)with free contact,the electrochemical devices with heavy water,
  light water, and molten salts.
b)with forced contact:the sonofusion devices.
-gas/solid systems(or simply dry") which include: gas loading and
unloading,gas discharge,protonic conductors,sparking and/or
magnetically activated devices and ion implantation systems. 

In these cases the contact between the hydrogen isotope and the
active surface is,more or less forced,with a maximum for the ion
implant and a minimum (?) for the Piantelli system,with a suppo-
sedly magnetical system of activation.Please don't forget that
all these considerations are actually components of an item
perhaps not enough understood and disputed here:know-how.

Scientifically serious cold fusion.

Scientifically serious CF systems and /or experiments are those
which give straightforward answers to the essential questions:
where take place the reactions,what reactions are these actually
and how do they develop? The basic requirement is clarity,and how
far this is possible,simplicity,lack of disturbing factors.We
need instruments which allow the direct,in situ and in tempore
observation of the events.Such ideal systems are very difficult
to be worked out; in a 'classical' paper [1],which wasn't
seriously considered by the CF community,Garfinkle advised that
ion implantation can be used as "a definitive means of
investigating" CF,based on the absence of impurities as oxygen    
and salts from the system.The idea was recently confirmed,a
research report of by Kamada et al [2] demonstrated the
generation of anomalous heat in aluminum implanted with deuterium
followed by electron bombardment.(This paper is unkillable,
therefore serious skeptics wouldn't read it or would reject it
from the start because it wasn't reproduced) The heat appears at
the contact areas deuterium/metal,in local regions and is so
intense that aluminum is melted.I consider this paper as an
example of scientifically serious CF;however ionic implantation
has no chances to be used for a source of energy,the raw material
(deuterium) is rapidly exhausted and heat generation ceases.
I haven't much to lose and therefore I dare to say that the very
complex electrochemical systems are not really "scientifically
serious",the environment is hostile to the formation of active
sites and those already working have to survive in a flux of
damaging impurities.For really interesting studies the use of
electrochemical microscopy is a must,in a  few years this
emergent science will be mature enough to allow the investigation
of the birth,development and decay of active sites.
I also consider that Reifenschweiler's results are a direct proof
of the catalytic character of the puzzling phenomena which
nullify the axiomatic intangibility of the nucleus;the clue is
the nanometric dimensions of the titanium particles, and probably
the Ti/TiO2 contacts.This latter is de facto just an other name
for Chuck Harrison's oxygen theory,the metal/metal oxide contacts
are essential in heterogeneous catalysis,there is an immense
literature on this subject,maybe the best known book is [3].
As a general remark,the study of the phenomena at the atomar
level as well as the probable room-temperature quantum-size
effects [4] is at an incipient level both for cold fusion and
heterogeneous catalysis.This is emergent science...
The most serious,that is significant studies will come from the
dry systems which are not perturbed by the secondary
reactions;that is with a minimum of neutrons or higher energy
particles.Forced contact,as in the sonofusion devices seems to be 
an other good possibility to manage the process.
Heat is 'serious' and has to be thoroughly studied.

Technologically serious cold fusion

Simply stated, a technologically serious CF device is focused on
production of energy and has to warrant high intensity (high
concentration of active sites) and reliability (long life or/and
easy regeneration of the active sites).The key of the future is
to find such systems,it seems that a sonofusion system(?),that of
Griggs is working as requested,some of the dry systems e.g.
Piantelli's are hopeful and can be easily scaled-up.As regarding
the electrochemical systems,there the bulk and the surface
compete for deuterium or hydrogen,therefore their development
seems to be an up-hill task,the active centers are difficult to
breed and to maintain.If by a miracle I would be appointed as
coordinator of the worldwide cold fusion research program, be
convinced that the money would go mainly to the dry systems.
Because,as Oliver Wendell Holmes has stated "It does not matter
so much where we are, but in what direction we proceed".

Addenda.
For those netters whose primary reaction to Serious Cold Fusion
is "who has seen such a beast?"I have a little story,which is
absolutely not serious.It is about those 'theorists' who became
prisoners and victims of their own paradigm, and who like and
need to make other prisoners and victims. 
...............................................................   
             A Fable.
Dr.Arthur Patrick O'Kreefe [1] an Irish zoologist has used the
methods of genetic engineering to breed hyperintelligent
spiders.As expected,the spiders have applied their superior
skills to spin more and more efficient cobwebs in order 
to catch any type of potential prey.When the IQ of the spiders
got beyond a certain limit,the web became so performant that the
spiders themselves get captured and died from hunger.An
interesting remark: these spiders are unbelievably aggressive.

[1]A.P.O'Kreefe:"Genetic breeding of hyperintelligent arachni
des",Creat.and Recreat.Zoology,19,7,July 1991,8-11
.................................................................
Actually,our Spiders are not endangered and they capture and kill
cold fusion papers and devices.I have studied their activity and
I like them,they help us to get rid of some bad papers and to
debunk some errors.Unfortunately they try to kill every paper
(like spiders catching not only flies but bees too).Their method
is not serious at all: in these cases they avoid the core and
almost never read the paper,in order to not pass further the
halo.They attack mainly some marginal aspect and use the inverse
of Sherlock Holmes' patented method:
"When you have excluded the impossible whatever remains,however
improbable must be the truth."
The great clue, the Spiders' deadly poison is the impossible
you have to inject it in the facts and whatever remains,however
true it originally was,is a mess.
A few examples:
-aluminum rotors burning in water as explanation of excess heat
produced in the Griggs device raising a lot of suspicions re.the
author;I had the privilege to meet with James at Minsk,he wants
help to solve a formidable mystery,during my career of 35+years 
I have seen very few colleagues of such high human and
professional quality;
-radon included in aluminum,and coming out just to simulate
nuclear reactions (Kamada),however how can radon melt, very
locally the metal?
-McKubre's experimental masterpiece put in doubt because he is
publishing too slowly ,instead of sincerely admiring the high
density of the experimental points and just referring to the
patents of his group (e.g. WO92-22,905;22,906;22,907;22,908)
-an other very interesting result,due to Reifenschweiler mixed
with a lot of impossible ideas and simply forgotten.
-the most impressive example of an impossible idea grafted on     
 solid data was water boiling in form of liquid droplets in the 
 F&P cell,just to fake extra heat!
I have started this essay with De Bono and Ralea and will finish
it as well.As you probably know, intelligence is a very complex
concept,which has over 200 equivalent definitions;Mihail Ralea
has a totally negative one:"intelligence is the ability to not
confound the viewpoints".
And,dear Spiders,and other colleagues please have the kindness to 
notice the words of De Bono:

"There is nothing more marvelous than thinking of a new idea.
 There is nothing more magnificent than seeing a new idea 
working.
 There is nothing more useful than a new idea that serves your 
purpose"

 References.
[1] M.Garfinkle:"Ion implantation as a definitive means of
investigating any possibility of intracrystalline nuclear fusion"
Fusion Technology vol 22, Aug 1992 pp160-163.
[2] K.Kamada,H.Kinoshita,H.Takahashi:"Anomalous heat evolution of
deuteron implanted Al on electron bombardment",Research Report
NIFS-281,National Institute for Fusion Science,Nagoya,Japan,May
1994.
[3]S.A.Stevenson, J.A. Dumesic, R.T.K.Baker,E.Ruckenstein:"Metal-
Support Interaction in Catalysis,Sintering and Redispersion. Van 
Nostrand-Reinhold,1987.
[4] P.Avouris,I.W.Lyo:"Observation of Quantum-Size Effects at
Room Temperature on Metal Surfaces with STM",Science 264,13 May
1994 pp942-945.

cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenitimc cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.10 / Gary Steckly /  Re: re) ..Testing Grigg G. with different fluids!
     
Originally-From: gsteckly@dgim.doc.ca (Gary Steckly)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: re) ..Testing Grigg G. with different fluids!
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 94 13:43:58 GMT
Organization: Communications Canada

Cameron Randale Bass (crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU) wrote:

:      This is likely unnecessary.  There are two possible sources of 
:      error (assuming nothing completely idiotic, which I'd not bet the 
:      farm on).  The first is an inadequate understanding of the energy
:      balance for their setup.  The second is inadequate measurements
:      (either because they do not understand their measuring apparatus
:      or because they are not taking adequate measurements).

:      These can both be tested without changing anything.  Indeed, the first
:      thing one does when presented with interesting experimental results
:      is *not* to change conditions, but to get better data.

:      Anyway, the most likely error (and you can be assured that there
:      *is* an error) is in the power measurement. 

I am increasingly envious of Dale's complete understanding of the 
universe each time I read his comments.  It must be wonderful to to be 
so completely assured of one's omniscience that you just know that this 
unusual heat effect can be explained by a measurement error. 

Knowing with such certaintly that nature holds no more surprises for us 
would certainly simplify our lives.  I mean...you wouldn't even have to 
get up in the morning anymore.  What would be the point?


:      However, you can be quite sure that the reported result *is* in 
:      error.  I cannot stress stongly enough that they are _wrong_.  

I sort of wish that I had this complete assurance before I contributed to 
Tom' Trip. I feel like such a fool.

:      If thermodynamics doesn't do it for you, simply look at the literally
:      hundreds of similar devices that preceeded this one into the grave.

My kids used to fall down a lot while they were learning to walk too.  
I'm sure glad they didn't decide that it was a waste of  time... 
considering that all the other kids their age were still crawling.

regards

Gary 

cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudengsteckly cudfnGary cudlnSteckly cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.10 / Jed Rothwell /  Free energy => zero cost energy
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@CompuServe.COM>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Free energy => zero cost energy
Date: 10 Oct 1994 14:36:37 GMT
Organization: CFRA

mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY) has been discussing "free energy
devices." I prefer the term 'zero cost energy device' or 'zero cost fuel.' It
is more precise.
 
Dudley lists: "fusion (cold)   yes if private and runs on water with no
additional energy input, no if requires D2O." The cost of the heavy water is
so small compared to the amount of energy you can get out of it that for all
intents and purposes heavy water can classified as zero cost fuel.
 
He lists: "Griggs  no  requires energy input." At this stage in the
development that is correct, but if he can optimize the machine and make it
self-sustaining, then it will become a zero cost energy device.
 
 
mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel) speculates that the E-Quest device might be
performing "some sort of forced gaseous diffusion." He adds:
 
     "When the choice is between damn unlikely and nigh unto impossible
     (suppression of radiation by factors of 10^14), I guess damn unlikely is
     the better presumption."
 
Kennel is forgetting that the E-Quest device also produces 500 watts excess
heat for as long as you leave it running, and that when you turn it up a
little higher than normal, you can vaporize Pd or Ti samples with only a
fraction of the input power needed to do that. In other words, if this *is* a
"damn unlikely" gaseous diffusion system it has the additional benefit that it
produces massive amounts of useful energy out of nowhere. Maybe, as Kennel
speculates, it is not fusion. It just happens to produce energy and it gathers
10E18 atoms of commensurate helium, including helium-3 (from the moon, no
doubt). By some fantastic coincidence this is an energy source that happens to
produce just the right concentration of helium *as if it was fusion*.
 
Maybe, but I don't believe it.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.10 / Mike Jamison /  Re: Gravity control invention to get fusion... need cray
     
Originally-From: edwlt12@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov (Mike Jamison (ADF))
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Gravity control invention to get fusion... need cray
Date: 10 Oct 1994 11:49 EDT
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center

In article <37aib9$d73@stratus.skypoint.com>, jlogajan@skypoint.com writes...
>GREG BUELL (inventor@netcom.com) wrote:
>: I need modeling of the sun from a cray to help me find gravity
>: control, I have sent messages to cray.com with to reply from them,
>: so any help from anyone would be nice.
> 
>One would think the "model" is nothing other than pressure.
> 
Due to a huge mass.  Presumably, if you put enough crays together, you could
achieve enough mass to begin/sustain a fusion reaction :-)  Sure would cost
a lot, though...
>--
> - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com  --  612-633-0345 -
> - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA -

Mike Jamison

"Scientific research consists in seeing what everyone else has seen, but
thinking what no one else has thought"

						-A. Szent-Gyorgyi
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenedwlt12 cudfnMike cudlnJamison cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.10 / Richard Schultz /  Re: E-Quest Helium Results
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: E-Quest Helium Results
Date: 10 Oct 1994 17:10:53 GMT
Organization: Philosophers of the Dangerous Maybe

In article <941006140349_76570.2270_HHB85-1@compuserve.com>,
Eugene Mallove <76570.2270@compuserve.com> wrote:

[. . . .]

>3.  Ten (10) runs have been analyzed for helium. ALL gave positive helium 
>results. . . .

How was the analysis done?

>7. The mass-spec peaks defining helium-4 and D2 -- or possible "di-deuterino" 
>gas--  are said to be very well separated. So this IS helium-4.

If the analysis for the gas was mass spec, what kind of mass spec
was used?  What kind of ionizer and what kind of operating conditions?

					Richard Schultz
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.10 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Re: Free energy => zero cost energy
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Free energy => zero cost energy
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 1994 14:03 -0500 (EST)

Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@CompuServe.COM> writes:

-> Dudley lists: "fusion (cold)   yes if private and runs on water with no
-> additional energy input, no if requires D2O." The cost of the heavy water is
-> so small compared to the amount of energy you can get out of it that for all
-> intents and purposes heavy water can classified as zero cost fuel.

One has to draw the line somewhere.  If the device also had a means to extract
D20 from ordinary water it would certainly qualify.

-> He lists: "Griggs  no  requires energy input." At this stage in the
-> development that is correct, but if he can optimize the machine and make it
-> self-sustaining, then it will become a zero cost energy device.

Agreed.

                                                        Marshall

           **** A closed mind is a wonderful thing to lose ****
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.10 /  prasad /  Name reqd for free-energy (was re:fusion?)
     
Originally-From: c1prasad@watson.ibm.com (prasad)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Name reqd for free-energy (was re:fusion?)
Date: 10 Oct 1994 18:36:45 GMT
Organization: IBM Watson

In article <1994Oct6.235945.21847@Princeton.EDU>, Robert F. Heeter
<rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> writes:
|> 
|> Still, we could certainly split and have sci.physics.fusion stay,
|> and then form a new group sci.physics.free-energy, which is what
|> most of us are talking about right now anyway...

I've mentioned this before, but nobody seems to be bothered as yet.
Perhaps you folks think I'm being pedantic.

The term "free-energy" is already indexed in IEEE and other journals
as referring to the thermodynamic variables of Gibbs and Helmholtz.
Quite unfortunate, since it's in no way as "free" as the GG/CF excess
energy is promised to be!

It is REALLY getting to be high time we coined a new name for
this non-thermodynamic "free-energy".  The way things are going in this
CF/GG world, looks like the issue will remain open for a long long time.
One way or the other, say a decade from now, it's going to be really 
messy digging the right set of references if we go on mixing the terminology.

For example, even Carnot talks about perpetual machines that had failed,
way back in 1824.  But can one dig up any of the alt.journals of that era? 
The machines and the follies are lost, whether they were precursors of
CF and might have actually worked, or, as is more likely, whether they
were plain idiocies but are likely to be repeated because we've forgotten
the details of history.  Well, at least they called them PMMs, so we
have a handle to go by.

How about sci.excess-energy?
How about something in the lines of sci.energy.mystery?
	[ no flame intended ]

Could we not collect a few suggestions?

cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenc1prasad cudlnprasad cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.10 /  prasad /  More heartburns on free-energy (was Re: Fusion?)
     
Originally-From: c1prasad@watson.ibm.com (prasad)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: More heartburns on free-energy (was Re: Fusion?)
Date: 10 Oct 1994 18:54:43 GMT
Organization: IBM Watson

In article <1994Oct9.212133.20024@Princeton.EDU>, Robert F. Heeter
<rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> writes:
|>  
|> > So when the ancients agreed that the sun was a giant burning dung ball,
|> > that was non-free energy, but when the first suggestion was made that
|> > the sun was nuclear, that theory was necessarily a "free energy" theory
|> > until it became more widely accepted.  :-)
|> 
|> I'd say that the sun, in the time when the nuclear theory was 
|> still in its infancy, was still a non-free-energy source, 
|> because the general view was still that it was a chemical fireball.
|> 
|> A quasar, on the other hand, is still a "free energy" source
|> at this point.  
|> 
|> (Why does this even matter???)
|> 
|> P.S.  Are you going to come to the Science Museum on Nov. 8?

From what I gather, those indulging in Newman motors and the like use
the term "free-energy" specifically to mean what at least appears to
violate either the conservation of energy or the second law of thermodynamics.

Free energy folks just aren't the same as alternative energy folks.  There
just isn't any fun unless at least one of the two laws is challenged!
However, it is also risky business.  Look what it did to Newman!

In that sense, CF is not claimed to be "free-energy".  Not yet anyway.
GG seems to be on the way, though Griggs himself apparently isn't the type
to do so, but others will do the classifying if not the proponents!

PS: What's on Nov 8?
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenc1prasad cudlnprasad cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.10 / Laurence Battin /  Re: Show me your wavefunction, please.
     
Originally-From: battin@cyclops.iucf.indiana.edu (Laurence Gene Battin)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Show me your wavefunction, please.
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 1994 17:58:10 GMT
Organization: Indiana University

In article <37077d$89o@huxley.anu.edu.au>, David R Davies (drd851@huxley
anu.edu.au) wrote:
> blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue) writes:

> (stuff deleted)
> >In short I think the kind of sloppy reasoning that goes into
> >this magical conversion from two deuterons to a 4He does not
> >wash.  Why can't we lay this to rest?

> >Dick Blue

> Oh no, not again? C'mon Dick. I'm not sure how seriously to take you
> when you repeat variations on this theme but assuming you are serious
> I will paraphrase what I and others have said before.

> You should consider that maybe it is your logic that is sloppy. You
> seem to say that because nobody has convinced you that band state fusion
> is plausible within the orthodox QM and nuclear theory that it should be
> dismissed. I don't *believe* in band state fusion (for want of a better
> title) but nobody has come close to convincing me that it is impossible
> and the Chubbs (among others) have had plausible stabs at the theory from
> a number of different directions without being obviously or trivially
> wrong so to me it is still an open question and a very interesting one.

> If all we get out of the CF saga is an improved understanding of quantum
> solid state phenomena then to my mind it will have been worth the effort.
> The only real risks are a few bruised egos if CF fails to eventuate as an
> energy source. 

And a few million wasted bucks here, and a few million wasted bucks there,
(and pretty soon you'd be talking _real_ money...)

--
Gene Battin, N9XAM
battin@iucf.indiana.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenbattin cudfnLaurence cudlnBattin cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.10 /  prasad /  Re: More on GG
     
Originally-From: c1prasad@watson.ibm.com (prasad)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: More on GG
Date: 10 Oct 1994 19:05:26 GMT
Organization: IBM Watson

In article <37aa7t$2g9$1@mhadf.production.compuserve.com>, Jed
Rothwell <72240.1256@CompuServe.COM> writes:
|> see in other CF work. Griggs is an electrical engineer who has been dealing
|> with heavy equipment and high tension factory AC for 30+ years. People who
|> have been in factories will understand that if you do that kind of work in a
|> sloppy or stupid manner, you are likely to be killed or maimed by the
|> machinery. You do it by the book, you follow the S.O.P., you get it right or
|> you are dead. It is like being a pilot; as the saying goes, "there are old
|> pilots and bold pilots but never any old,bold pilots." Factories and industry
|> enforce a level of discipline seldom seen in the scientific laboratory.
|> (Seldom seen by me, anyway.) In a laboratory they work with 1 or 2 watt DC
|> power which can never hurt anyone whereas Griggs is used to dealing with
|> 50,000 watts AC.

I just can't help observing that at least one set of homopolar generators have
been built and measured at over-unity operation by someone who has been dealing
with not 50,000 W a.c. but 500,000,000 W a.c. and over of nuclear power, and
for well over 30 years, too.  But you didn't seem very interested!

cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenc1prasad cudlnprasad cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.10 / Richard Schultz /  Re: Show me your wavefunction, please.
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Show me your wavefunction, please.
Date: 10 Oct 1994 20:29:19 GMT
Organization: Philosophers of the Dangerous Maybe

In article <37077d$89o@huxley.anu.edu.au>,
David R Davies <drd851@huxley.anu.edu.au> wrote:

>If all we get out of the CF saga is an improved understanding of quantum
>solid state phenomena then to my mind it will have been worth the effort.

How do you expect to get improved understanding of quantum *anything*
without a wave function?  (Or density functional or whatever)
--
					Richard Schultz

"I seem to smell a peculiar and a fishlike smell."
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.10 / Jed Rothwell /  Re: Why Use A Griggs Device?
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@CompuServe.COM>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Why Use A Griggs Device?
Date: 10 Oct 1994 20:37:51 GMT
Organization: CFRA

Lforbes@debug.cuc.ab.ca asks:
 
     "My apologies if this has been asked before but, I wonder why anyone
     would routinely utilize a Griggs device to generate steam and/or hot
     water... when the cost of heat generated from natural gas or fuel oil
     is, in most locals, considerably less than that of electricity. . . . So
     why use a Griggs device in place of a gas or oil fired boiler??"
 
This question has been asked and it has been addressed by me and by others. It
is a shame e-mail discussions of this nature do not allow look-ups of previous
answers. In brief, there is an existing market for electrically fired boilers
in various industrial applications where gas or oil cannot be used. For
example, some factories may have explosive gas leaks, so open flames are
prohibited. Some areas within factories, schools or other buildings may not
have chimneys, yet they require intense heat for one reason or another. Some
city neighborhoods have strong anti-pollution statutes that discourage
combustion technologies.
 
Take a quick glance in the Classified Telephone Directory under "boilers." I
expect you find that electric boilers are sold and maintained even in Alberta.
 
The Griggs device has many other advantages besides the fact that it uses less
electricity than the conventional electric fired boiler. For example, it
requires less maintenance, it takes up less space, and it can boil
contaminated water without become silted up as quickly as a conventional
boiler.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.10 / Cameron Bass /  Re: re) ..Testing Grigg G. with different fluids!
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: re) ..Testing Grigg G. with different fluids!
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 1994 20:01:34 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1994Oct10.134358.11141@clark.dgim.doc.ca>,
Gary Steckly <gsteckly@dgim.doc.ca> wrote:
>Cameron Randale Bass (crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU) wrote:
>
>:      This is likely unnecessary.  There are two possible sources of 
>:      error (assuming nothing completely idiotic, which I'd not bet the 
>:      farm on).  The first is an inadequate understanding of the energy
>:      balance for their setup.  The second is inadequate measurements
>:      (either because they do not understand their measuring apparatus
>:      or because they are not taking adequate measurements).
>
>:      These can both be tested without changing anything.  Indeed, the first
>:      thing one does when presented with interesting experimental results
>:      is *not* to change conditions, but to get better data.
>
>:      Anyway, the most likely error (and you can be assured that there
>:      *is* an error) is in the power measurement. 
>
>I am increasingly envious of Dale's complete understanding of the 
>universe each time I read his comments.  It must be wonderful to to be 
>so completely assured of one's omniscience that you just know that this 
>unusual heat effect can be explained by a measurement error. 

      Not omniscience, experience, and the experience of everyone
      else since thermodynamics was invented.  Not surprisingly, 
      many other people have this same 'understanding', though most
      just ignore such devices.  

      Why do they do this?  Because they all eventually fade away or 
      are exposed.

      Why do they all fade away?  Because they are all in error.

>Knowing with such certaintly that nature holds no more surprises for us 
>would certainly simplify our lives.  I mean...you wouldn't even have to 
>get up in the morning anymore.  What would be the point?

     I'd be surprised if neutrino physics held no surprises.  But
     I'd be quite surprised if one could induce fusion in steel by
     swishing relatively low velocity water against it.
     
>:      If thermodynamics doesn't do it for you, simply look at the literally
>:      hundreds of similar devices that preceeded this one into the grave.
>
>My kids used to fall down a lot while they were learning to walk too.  
>I'm sure glad they didn't decide that it was a waste of  time... 
>considering that all the other kids their age were still crawling.

     Can your kids fly by flapping their tongues?

     Why don't you try to teach them?

     The reason?  Because it's impossible.

                              dale bass

cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.10 / Cameron Bass /  Re: re) ..Testing Grigg G. with different fluids!
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: re) ..Testing Grigg G. with different fluids!
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 1994 20:13:30 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <37ae84$6e1@huxley.anu.edu.au>,
David R Davies <drd851@huxley.anu.edu.au> wrote:
>crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>
>(stuff deleted)
>>     However, you can be quite sure that the reported result *is* in 
>>     error.  I cannot stress stongly enough that they are _wrong_.  
>
>And all the stress in the world will not make you _right_.

     To the contrary, I've got 150 years of thermodynamics, fluid dynamics
     and, more recently, nuclear physics behind that position.  All the
     the proponents of this device has is some bad measurments.

     Look at it this way: The claims are utterly revolutionary.  Aren't you
     bothered by the fact that they can't hook up a scope to 
     actually measure the input power?  Aren't you bothered by a 
     group that uses pyrometer measurements as the basis for other
     extrordinary claims?

     If you aren't, you might want to look to yourself to determine
     whether you want to understand how nature actually works.
     
>>     If thermodynamics doesn't do it for you, simply look at the literally
>>     hundreds of similar devices that preceeded this one into the grave.
>
>A simple variant on the argument 'it hasnt happened before so it cant'.
>
>At best, vacuous sophistry. 

     You rely on such 'vacuous sophistry' from the moment you
     open your eyelids each morning.

>The things we do to avoid those three little words "I dont know".

     There's where you've made your mistake.  In fact, we do know.

     There is an error, there are no miracles occurring.

                             dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.10 / Cameron Bass /  Re: re) ..Testing Grigg G. with different fluids!
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: re) ..Testing Grigg G. with different fluids!
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 1994 20:17:06 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <37ae84$6e1@huxley.anu.edu.au>,
David R Davies <drd851@huxley.anu.edu.au> wrote:
>>     If thermodynamics doesn't do it for you, simply look at the literally
>>     hundreds of similar devices that preceeded this one into the grave.
>
>A simple variant on the argument 'it hasnt happened before so it cant'.
>
>At best, vacuous sophistry. 

     Why don't you drive a nail into your femur and see if you strike
     100 million barrels of oil?  

     After all, just because it hasn't happened before doesn't mean it can't.

                                 dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.10 / Bruce Schechter /  Re: Name reqd for free-energy (was re:fusion?)
     
Originally-From: bruce@disney.com (Bruce Schechter)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Name reqd for free-energy (was re:fusion?)
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 1994 14:25:11 -0800
Organization: Wheel Spinner's Anonymous

In article <37c1jt$crf@watnews1.watson.ibm.com>, c1prasad@watson.ibm.com
(prasad) wrote:

> I've mentioned this before, but nobody seems to be bothered as yet.
> Perhaps you folks think I'm being pedantic.
> 
> The term "free-energy" is already indexed in IEEE and other journals
> as referring to the thermodynamic variables of Gibbs and Helmholtz.
> Quite unfortunate, since it's in no way as "free" as the GG/CF excess
> energy is promised to be!
> 
> It is REALLY getting to be high time we coined a new name for
> this non-thermodynamic "free-energy". 


How about "delusional energy"?

-- 

Bruce_Schechter@cc.wdi.disney.com.......................................
..................................................
                                                              
               opinions expressed approximate only my own and coincide
                                                              
                only coincidently with those of my employer or
anyone else
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenbruce cudfnBruce cudlnSchechter cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.10 /  HRJames /  Re: !! LOW COST VACUUM !!
     
Originally-From: hrjames@aol.com (HRJames)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: !! LOW COST VACUUM !!
Date: 10 Oct 1994 18:35:07 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

In article <Cx8Fp6.90C@cs.dal.ca>, aa679@cfn.cs.dal.ca (Ralph J. Coppola)
writes:

Ralph, I would like a copy of the BELLJAR.
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenhrjames cudlnHRJames cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.10 / A Palfreyman /  Re: Non conservation of energy; not again...
     
Originally-From: palf@netcom.com (Andrew Palfreyman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Non conservation of energy; not again...
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 1994 21:57:49 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

Alejandro Rivero (rivero@sol.unizar.es) wrote:
: > Originally-From: palf@netcom.com (Andrew Palfreyman)
: > But what if we *do* find energy conservation violation?
: 
: Easy: then physics is not invariant under temporal traslation. [...]
: If you want remove any of this
: consequences, you only can remove mathematical assuptions, so you mush choose
: between: 
: -there are a fundamental flaw in world
: -there are a fundamental flaw in mathematics.
: So you blow mathematics. But then, how can you say that Energy 
: conservation is violated, is you can not add energies ?

Because you seek a higher-order symmetry, of course.
Whatever that may be.

Andrew Palfreyman
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenpalf cudfnAndrew cudlnPalfreyman cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.10 / Jorge Stolfi /  Re: Grigg's housing is hot?
     
Originally-From: stolfi@atibaia.dcc.unicamp.br (Jorge Stolfi)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Grigg's housing is hot?
Date: 10 Oct 1994 22:05:56 GMT
Organization: DCC - UNICAMP - Campinas, SP, Brazil

 
    > [Jed Rothwell:] in all tests I have observed the pyrometer
    > showed the metal surface was much hotter than the steam or water
    > coming from the Pump. There is no error about it.
    
    > [Dale Bass:] This is unbelievable.
    
Not necessarily; the pressure inside the pump may be much higher  
than the pressure measured at the output pipe.  

So, even though the casing is hotter than the exhaust steam, 
it may still be cooler than the water inside the pump.

By the way, I suppose that the spinning rotor (30 cm radius,
3600 RPM) acts like a centrifugue, so that the water pressure 
inside the pump is higher at the periphery of the rotor than
near its axle.  

According to my arithmetic, if the water layer was turning with the
rotor at 3600 RPM, then the pressure difference between the axle and
the periphery would be about 100 atmospheres.  The actual water flow is
not that simple, of course; but in any case it seems quite possible
that the water pressure around the rotor is much higher
than the pressure at the steam outlet.

By the way, these numbers suggest the (admittedly farfetched)
possibility taht the "dry steam" produced by the Griggs device is
actually a mixture of steam and compressed air.  If that is the case,
then the heat output computed from steam tables will be overestimated.

    > [Dale Bass:] Either Jed is wrong, or there's an external heat
    > source thermally coupled to the shell.
    
Quite possibly. Jed reports that the pump consumes 4 kW when dry
(compared to 14 kW in the "excess heat" regime).  A good fraction of
this power must be turning into heat by friction at the bearings.
Presumably part of this heat flows directly into the casing, and
part of it into the rotor through the axle, with relatively little 
of it being lost to the air or to the water near the bearings.

This brings up the issue of where exactly are the output parameters
measured in the "steam table" tests.  To compute the heat output we
need to know temperature, pressure, and volume flow *at the same
point* on the output pipe.  If (say) the temperature and pressure
sensors lie upstream of the flow meter, and there is a pressure drop
between the two points, the computed heat output will be wrong (upwards).

--stolfi

 -------------------------------------------------------------------
Jorge Stolfi                                | Tel: +55 (192) 39-8442
Computer Science Dept. (DCC-IMECC)          |      +55 (192) 39-3115
Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP) | Fax: +55 (192) 39-7470 
Internet: stolfi@dcc.unicamp.br             | Campinas, SP -- Brazil
 -------------------------------------------------------------------
Please do not copy this .signature virus into your .signature file!
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenstolfi cudfnJorge cudlnStolfi cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.10 / Jorge Stolfi /  Re: Griggs Steam Test Data
     
Originally-From: stolfi@atibaia.dcc.unicamp.br (Jorge Stolfi)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs Steam Test Data
Date: 10 Oct 1994 23:23:40 GMT
Organization: DCC - UNICAMP - Campinas, SP, Brazil


    > [Gene Mallove:] I have been much enjoying the lunatic skeptics
    > on this forum (especially Bass, Blue, and Kuperberg) as they try
    > to come to terms with the Griggs device. Keep up those
    > marvelous, stupid, incompetent statements! [...] You guys are
    > like the pre-human creatures [...] you can sure scream and
    > screech and, well... act like apes!

Hey, I resent that!  

I contributed to this forum a perfectly stupid, incompetent theory
about the Griggs device, namely the "stored heat".  (It is obviously
very stupid, since Gene hasn't even bothered to respond to it.)

So, I hereby demand my just share of Gene's ad-hominem insults. 

Fair is fair.

    > Here's some more data to get you stirred up.  [...]
    > COP at about 45 second intervals:
    >
    > 0.836
    > 0.836
    > 1.317
    > ...
    > 1.212

So we are given the computed C.O.P.'s for 18 minutes.  Note the jump
from 0.836 to 1.317 between frames 2 and 3.  It means that at least
one of the relevant variables changed by more than 50% in 45 secs.  

Is this your idea of "steady state"?

If the machine is not in steady state, these numbers are largely 
meaningless.

Why don't you post the raw data, and leave the conclusions to us?

And, since you are at it, why don'y you tell us the dimensions of this
particular pump (rotor length and diameter, and casing thickness)?

Perhaps because you don't want to see all those poor ape-like
skeptics overstressing their microscopic brains with idiotic notions
like heat capacity and time constants?

--stolfi

 -------------------------------------------------------------------
Jorge Stolfi                                | Tel: +55 (192) 39-8442
Computer Science Dept. (DCC-IMECC)          |      +55 (192) 39-3115
Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP) | Fax: +55 (192) 39-7470 
Internet: stolfi@dcc.unicamp.br             | Campinas, SP -- Brazil
 -------------------------------------------------------------------
Please do not copy this .signature virus into your .signature file!
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenstolfi cudfnJorge cudlnStolfi cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.11 / John Logajan /  Re: re) ..Testing Grigg G. with different fluids!
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@mirage.skypoint.net (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: re) ..Testing Grigg G. with different fluids!
Date: 11 Oct 1994 02:38:26 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Cameron Randale Bass (crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU) wrote:
:      I'd be quite surprised if one could induce fusion in steel by
:      swishing relatively low velocity water against it.

It's certainly surprising.  SL was surprising, at least that is what I am
told (I wasn't in a position to evalute its probability.)

--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com  --  612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA -
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Tue Oct 11 04:37:03 EDT 1994
------------------------------
1994.10.11 / Jonathan Elson /  Re: Instrumenting Griggs
     
Originally-From: jmelson@artsci.wustl.edu (Jonathan M. Elson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Instrumenting Griggs
Date: 11 Oct 1994 03:59:16 GMT
Organization: College of Arts and Sciences -- Washington University,
St. Louis, Missouri, USA

Thomas S. Zemanian (ts_zemanian@pnl.gov) wrote:

: Another possibility would be to operate the device off a DC motor, thereby
: eliminating the power factor correction.  Moreover, the input power is then
: easily derived from simultaneous monitoring of the voltage and current.

: Unfortunately, 30 hp DC motors are quite rare.  Might anyone know where one
: could be obtained?

GE (and others) made "Jet Engine Starter Motors" for the US government.
Burden's Surplus Center (Lincoln Nebraska) has been selling these for
years.  Rated also as a generator, 32 Volts @ 400 A continuous.  Turn up
the field winding a little bit, raise the armature voltage, and you should
be able to get 30 HP out of it, at about 8000 RPM.  They sell them for less
than $200.  They weigh under 100 LB.

					Jon

cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenjmelson cudfnJonathan cudlnElson cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.11 / Jonathan Elson /  Re: Griggs Steam Test Data
     
Originally-From: jmelson@artsci.wustl.edu (Jonathan M. Elson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs Steam Test Data
Date: 11 Oct 1994 04:20:49 GMT
Organization: College of Arts and Sciences -- Washington University,
St. Louis, Missouri, USA

Eugene Mallove (76570.2270@compuserve.com) wrote:
: Here's some more data to get you stirred up. I enjoy rattling your cages.
: Hydrosonic Pump Steam Test. September 13, 1994:
: Avergae input temperature = 110.1 degrees F
: Average output steam temperature = 321.9 degrees F
: Delta-T = 211.8 degrees F

: BTU equivalent of mechanical input = 130,945 BTU/hour

: Water input plow rate = 0.2818 gallons/minute
: Energy content of steam = 1134 BTU/pound
: BTU output in steam  = 162,033 BTU/hour

: COP (Output power/input power) = 1.237

Wait a minute!  You show the BTU output in steam.  What about the
BTU input of the warm water flowing in? .2818 gal/min at 110.1 deg F
Are you including this in your energy balance?  Thanks.

cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenjmelson cudfnJonathan cudlnElson cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.11 / David Davies /  Re: re) ..Testing Grigg G. with different fluids!
     
Originally-From: drd851@huxley.anu.edu.au (David R Davies)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: re) ..Testing Grigg G. with different fluids!
Date: 11 Oct 1994 18:06:41 +1000
Organization: Australian National University

>>>     However, you can be quite sure that the reported result *is* in 
>>>     error.  I cannot stress stongly enough that they are _wrong_.  
>>
>>And all the stress in the world will not make you _right_.
> 
>     To the contrary, I've got 150 years of thermodynamics, fluid dynamics
>     and, more recently, nuclear physics behind that position.  All the
>     the proponents of this device has is some bad measurments.
> 
>     Look at it this way: The claims are utterly revolutionary.  Aren't you
>     bothered by the fact that they can't hook up a scope to 
>     actually measure the input power?  Aren't you bothered by a 
>     group that uses pyrometer measurements as the basis for other
>     extrordinary claims?
> 
>     If you aren't, you might want to look to yourself to determine
>     whether you want to understand how nature actually works.
>     
>>>     If thermodynamics doesn't do it for you, simply look at the literally
>>>     hundreds of similar devices that preceeded this one into the grave.
>>
>>A simple variant on the argument 'it hasnt happened before so it cant'.
>>
>>At best, vacuous sophistry. 
> 
>     You rely on such 'vacuous sophistry' from the moment you
>     open your eyelids each morning.
> 
>>The things we do to avoid those three little words "I dont know".
> 
>     There's where you've made your mistake.  In fact, we do know.
> 
>     There is an error, there are no miracles occurring.
> 


I read the literature in a wide range of disciplines and I am constantly 
asking myself why they did it this or that way and did they think to look 
at this or that etc. etc. What I have learned over the years is that each 
area has its own way of going about thinga and writing them up. I try to 
tune in to the ways they are used to rather than make assumptions about 
their competence. The impression I have of Griggs from comments by those 
that have met him and other clues is that he is probably an honest and 
capable engineer more concerned with getting on with the job at hand than 
pandering to the whims of a bunch of netters but he has gratiously agreed
to let Tom etc go and have a look at what he is doing. The very least we
can do is to hold back criticism till that happens. Even if you decide 
then that he is wrong, a little courtesy would not go astray. He is not 
some snake oil merchant pushing his wares over the net. He is probably 
quite open to his customers about his product. I intend to assume that 
until I see convincing evidence to the contrary.  
 
I am not easily convinced about anything. That includes the conclusions
of centuries of scientific endevour. Things change.  

If, a century or so ago you had told someone that you could take this 
green rock, process it a bit and it would give huge quantities of heat out 
for months or years you would have been called a crank. Things change.
 
I want to understand nature but I dont think we have much of an idea yet.
Sure we have made some spectacular advances in the last 100 years but  
we are still just scratching the surface. History tells me that when
people make a major scientific advance they usually go through a period
of consolidation where they think that all that is required is to tidy
up the loose ends. These loose ends usually start to unravel the whole 
system or parts of it.

One thing that I am quite confident about is that QM is going to be
totally rewritten, probably many times, before we solve some of the
trickier problems.

Ultimately measurement is paramount. If there is even a slight chance that 
Griggs' measurements are valid then it should be persued with vigor. 

Dont assume that because I disagree with you that I am as attached to
the opposing view as you are to yours but I do have my favourite loony 
theories in Many Worlds, Big Bang and Quantum Mind (Penrose et al)
but they are fairly harmless and I try not to get too offensive in my 
criticism of them.


Cheers,

dave


cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudendrd851 cudfnDavid cudlnDavies cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.11 / David Davies /  Re: Show me your wavefunction, please.
     
Originally-From: drd851@huxley.anu.edu.au (David R Davies)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Show me your wavefunction, please.
Date: 11 Oct 1994 18:14:08 +1000
Organization: Australian National University

schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz) writes:

>In article <37077d$89o@huxley.anu.edu.au>,
>David R Davies <drd851@huxley.anu.edu.au> wrote:

>>If all we get out of the CF saga is an improved understanding of quantum
>>solid state phenomena then to my mind it will have been worth the effort.

>How do you expect to get improved understanding of quantum *anything*
>without a wave function?  (Or density functional or whatever)
>--
>					Richard Schultz

>"I seem to smell a peculiar and a fishlike smell."

Before you can get a useful handle on the wavefunction it is necessary
to have a good an intuitive grasp of the physics. I think we still have
a way to go.

cheers,

dave

I smell the rank odour of old theories gone stale
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudendrd851 cudfnDavid cudlnDavies cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.11 / Cameron Bass /  Re: re) ..Testing Grigg G. with different fluids!
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: re) ..Testing Grigg G. with different fluids!
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 1994 11:44:20 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <37dh2h$98v@huxley.anu.edu.au>,
David R Davies <drd851@huxley.anu.edu.au> wrote:
>> 
>>>The things we do to avoid those three little words "I dont know".
>> 
>>     There's where you've made your mistake.  In fact, we do know.
>> 
>>     There is an error, there are no miracles occurring.
>> 
>pandering to the whims of a bunch of netters but he has gratiously agreed
>to let Tom etc go and have a look at what he is doing. The very least we
>can do is to hold back criticism till that happens. 

     Why?

>I am not easily convinced about anything. That includes the conclusions
>of centuries of scientific endevour. Things change.  

     And there are things that don't.

                               dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.11 / Eugene Mallove /  Suggestion for Richard Schultz
     
Originally-From: 76570.2270@compuserve.com (Eugene Mallove)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Suggestion for Richard Schultz
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 1994 13:31:04 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Richard Schultz wrote about E-Quest results:

>If the analysis for the gas was mass spec, what kind of mass spec
>was used?  What kind of ionizer and what kind of operating conditions?
>
>                                        Richard Schultz

I presume you have a telephone, so why don't you call Rockwell and try to 
speak to the man who did the mass spec work. His name is Brian Oliver. Or, you
could wait until the scientific paper comes out. You should probably also call
the US Bureau of Mines in Amarillo and ask them about their standard helium 
testing procedure via mass spec, because that lab also gave positive results.

See how polite I can be when I know I have all the right cards!

Gene Mallove

cudkeys:
cuddy11 cuden2270 cudfnEugene cudlnMallove cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.11 / Eugene Mallove /  Bass Flaps
     
Originally-From: 76570.2270@compuserve.com (Eugene Mallove)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Bass Flaps
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 1994 14:13:48 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Camel Dung Bass keeps flapping:

>Can your kids fly by flapping their tongues?

>Why don't you try to teach them?

>The reason?  Because it's impossible.

>dale bass

Bass sure can fly by flapping *his* tongue -- or was that his posterior? As 
the song said, "The answer my friend, is blowin in the wind...." 

Gene Mallove

cudkeys:
cuddy11 cuden2270 cudfnEugene cudlnMallove cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.11 / Richard Schultz /  A polite suggestion for Eugene Mallove
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: A polite suggestion for Eugene Mallove
Date: 11 Oct 1994 14:27:52 GMT
Organization: Philosophers of the Dangerous Maybe

In article <941011132448_76570.2270_HHB60-1@compuserve.com>,
Eugene Mallove <76570.2270@compuserve.com> wrote:

>See how polite I can be when I know I have all the right cards!

It is not usually considered polite to transmit scientific results
unless you are also willing to transmit the details of how those
results were obtained.  Why should *I* have to call Rockwell or
the Bureau of Mines?  You are the one making the claim.
--
				Richard Schultz

"It is terrible to die of thirst in the ocean.  Do you have to salt your
truth so heavily that it does not even quench thirst any more?"
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.10 / Jim Carr /  Re: Griggs Steam Test Data
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs Steam Test Data
Date: 10 Oct 1994 09:15:12 -0400
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

In article <373pk5$al@stratus.skypoint.com> jlogajan@skypoint.com writes:
>
>Well Greg, Dr. Mallove has authored at least one book and editted at least
>three magazines on the cold fusion topic.  Are you attempting to compare
>your accomplishments in this or any other field against his?

Perhaps Greg was asking about his research and publication record in 
electrochemistry and/or nuclear physics during the decade preceding 
cold fusion, as well as subsequent to cold fusion. 

Mallove is certainly a good writer, even if I do not agree with his 
bias concerning where the burden of proof lies when new and unusual 
phenomena are claimed to exist.

-- 
 James A. Carr   <jac@scri.fsu.edu>     |  Raw data, like raw sewage, 
    http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac        |  requires some processing before
 Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst.  |  it can be spread around.  The 
 Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306    |  opposite is true of theories. 
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.11 / Gary Steckly /  Re: re) ..Testing Grigg G. with different fluids!
     
Originally-From: gsteckly@clark.dgim.doc.ca (Gary Steckly)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: re) ..Testing Grigg G. with different fluids!
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 94 15:04:03 GMT
Organization: Industry Canada

In article <CxH3Mn.28x@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> crb7q@watt.seas.Virgini
.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:

>     Can your kids fly by flapping their tongues?

when they really get going, I'd almost swear that their feet no longer touch 
the ground.

>     Why don't you try to teach them?

Actually, they have likely taught me more than I will ever teach them. 
But one of the main things I have learned from them is that I don't know 
everything, nor do I allways have an answer for their questions.  I try 
to encourage them to find their own truths, and not blindly believe everything 
they are told.  But the biggest lesson I have learned from my kid is to hang 
on to a bit of that childlike (some would say childish) sense of wonder.  It 
makes life more interesting ;-)

regards

Gary
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudengsteckly cudfnGary cudlnSteckly cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.11 / John Lewis /  Re: Gravity control invention to get fusion... need cray
     
Originally-From: court@newton.physics.mun.ca (John Lewis)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Gravity control invention to get fusion... need cray
Date: 11 Oct 1994 16:56:49 GMT
Organization: Memorial University of Nfld, St. John's, NF

In article <inventorCxFt7r.5vs@netcom.com>
inventor@netcom.com (GREG BUELL) writes:
>In article <inventorCxFLD8.MBH@netcom.com>,
>GREG BUELL <inventor@netcom.com> wrote:
>>
>>Gravity in the sun and stars is the cause of fusion.... so I would
>>think once we Humans get gravity control we can create fusion.
>>
>>I need modeling of the sun from a cray to help me find gravity
>>control, I have sent messages to cray.com with to reply from them,
>>so any help from anyone would be nice.
>>
>>inventor@netcom.com
>>
>>
>
>
>... I have sent messages to cray.com with no reply....
>
>
>
>inventor@netcom.com
>

Try sending them money.

>
>


cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudencourt cudfnJohn cudlnLewis cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.11 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Suggestion for Richard Schultz
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Suggestion for Richard Schultz
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 1994 16:09:59 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <941011132448_76570.2270_HHB60-1@CompuServe.COM>,
Eugene Mallove <76570.2270@compuserve.com> wrote:
>
>See how polite I can be when I know I have all the right cards!
>
>Gene Mallove

    So, I guess that means when you're impolite, you know you're wrong.

                             dale bass



cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.11 / Dick Jackson /  Re: Name reqd for free-energy (was re: fusion?)
     
Originally-From: jackson@soldev.tti.com (Dick Jackson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Name reqd for free-energy (was re: fusion?)
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 1994 19:53:15 GMT
Organization: Citicorp-TTI at Santa Monica (CA) by the Sea

In article <37c1jt$crf@watnews1.watson.ibm.com> c1prasad@watson.ibm.com (prasad) writes:
>
>The term "free-energy" is already indexed in IEEE and other journals
>as referring to the thermodynamic variables of Gibbs and Helmholtz.
>Quite unfortunate, since it's in no way as "free" as the GG/CF excess
>energy is promised to be!

Hm? I think "free energy" is an ideal term -- not to be confused
with that ancient and well validated concept -- free energy.

I think it was the humourist Stephen Leacock who wrote about the notorious
Dr.  Anand Gupta who (quote) was later to become known as "Dr" Anand
Gupta.

Dick Jackson
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenjackson cudfnDick cudlnJackson cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.11 / Mike Jamison /  Re: Why not just buy/rent Tom  D. a Griggs Device?
     
Originally-From: edwlt12@mars.lerc.nasa.gov (Mike Jamison (ADF))
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Why not just buy/rent Tom  D. a Griggs Device?
Date: 11 Oct 1994 15:58 EDT
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center

In article <CxBHpp.Mz2@prometheus.UUCP>, pmk@promethe.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) writes...
>In article <2OCT199412584236@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov> edwlt12@ariel.lerc.na
a.gov (Mike Jamison (ADF)) writes:
>>In article <1994Sep29.185236.3924@math.ucla.edu>, barry@arnold.math.uc
a.edu (Barry Merriman) writes...
>>>In article <29SEP199411221477@mars.lerc.nasa.gov> edwlt12@mars.lerc.nasa.gov  
[snip]
> 
>>Actually, I was sort of thinking along the lines of buying excessed gov't.
>>equipment - vacuum roughing/diffusion pumps, etc.  Unfortunately, most of the
>>stuff that gets excessed at LeRC is in the form of old vaxes, pc/xt's and
>>other electronics that's not very useful [well, the vaxes can provide enough
>>heat for an average house, but... :)].
> 
>You have a good idea here, but it takes some "connections" to pick up
>certain things.  We now have that.  Actually, we have a couple of rules.  
>First we keep our operating costs at an absolute minimum.  That precludes 
>stuff that needs maintanence, so the electric bills, space utilization
>of vaxex, are a bit beyond our break line.   However, if you would
>like to sniff out a few things that you could surplus to another
>agency which then could be transfered to us, then please consider the

[wish list snipped]

Paul, 

I'm going to take your list and itemize it, repost it here, and with your
permission, post it to the lerc. bbs I have access to.  I can't get to the
bbs that the other centers must have, but hopefully there will be people 
who read s.p.f and also have access to the other gov't lab. bbs's.

As far as voltmeters go, if you have a half-decent high-voltage digitizing
meter, I could probably build a uVolt front end for it.

I need to know mainly:  How fast?  

Also, would you rather have a pc based data acq. card than a standalone meter?

> 
>>And there are the hamfests, where lasers can be bought for good prices...
> 
>Yes, a fair sized compact transverse discharge nitrogen fast pulse
>laser with drivers and electronic triggering intput would be also
>most useful.   

Looks like they go up to the several watt range (pulses of 10 ns at 1 MW,
100 Hz rep. rate, from the - rather old - text I just scanned).

I'll put out "feelers" for one of these...
> 
>>If Paul can let us know what he needs, we may be able to get it for him.
>>Then again, his agreements may not let him or, perhaps, all he needs is the
>>time to finish his research...
> 
>Now, just tell me where in the Government this excess stuff is an what
>it is, and we will set our contact to snare it on whatever contract 
>applies.  This will only be for items we still need, and can use 
>essentially immediately.  We are not going to become a collection 
>complex for unused excess equipment.  

Understood.  The contact at NASA LeRC is (216) 433-3056.  No name is given.

I believe all the gov't labs probably have places where they sell their 
excess equipment.

> 
>BTW any Russians, Austrian, or German sources for solid "12 gauge 
>wire (AWG)" which is composed of copper with neobium or silver 
>neobium or palladium-silver-neobium, please contact me with prices.
>We need about 30 to 50 meters of the stuff for a special interaction
>experiment.  
> 
>>Mike Jamison
>+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
>| Paul M. Koloc, Bx 1037 Prometheus II Ltd, College Park MD 20741-1037    |
>| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
>| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
>+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
> 

Mike Jamison

"Scientific research consists in seeing what everyone else has seen, but
thinking what no one else has thought"

						-A. Szent-Gyorgyi
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenedwlt12 cudfnMike cudlnJamison cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.11 / Cameron Bass /  Re: GG pyrometer was checked
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: GG pyrometer was checked
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 1994 19:46:12 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <37ajue$d73@stratus.skypoint.com>,
John Logajan <jlogajan@skypoint.com> wrote:
>Cameron Randale Bass (crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU) wrote:
>: >In any event, the case is around 300F and the steam is around 300F.
>: >So what's the problem?
>
>:      'Fusion in the steel' is the problem.  The solution is that there
>:      is none.
>
>My problem with this is that you are presuming the conclusion.  i.e. there
>is no fusion, therefore the readings were in error.  Now it may, in fact,
>be true that the readings are in error and there is no fusion (or other
>anomalous heat source) but presuming the conclusion is an unsatisfactory
>intellectual methodology.

     It's perfectly satisfactory.  If fusion is occuring, the experimenters
     are corpses.  They are not corpses, so there is no fusion.
     Since there is no fusion, there is an error. 

     One could have skipped a couple of steps by the 'Clown Rule', that is,
     'The Fiftieth Time is No Different Than The First Forty Nine, No 
     Matter What The Inventor Says'.

                                dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.11 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Rothwell's instruments
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Rothwell's instruments
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 1994 19:48:59 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <37akb4$d73@stratus.skypoint.com>,
John Logajan <jlogajan@skypoint.com> wrote:
>Cameron Randale Bass (crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU) wrote:
>: >This is a more interesting mystery (even if prosaic) than you seem willing
>: >to admit.
>
>:      Why are experimental errors in someone's lab interesting?
>
>For the same reason that the Shuttle O-ring failures (technical and
>managerial reasons behind) were interesting -- the study of which helps
>prevent recurrances in the future by designing more robust systems.
>It seems an honorable goal.

     Hardly.  Shuttle explosions are multibillion dollar problems.
     Bad experiments (especially among free energy types) are a dime a dozen.

                                    dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.11 / Greg Kuperberg /  Re: Griggs Steam Test Data
     
Originally-From: gk00@quads.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs Steam Test Data
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 1994 21:34:59 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

In article <37bep0$hub@ds8.scri.fsu.edu> jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) writes:
>In article <373pk5$al@stratus.skypoint.com> jlogajan@skypoint.com writes:
>>Well Greg, Dr. Mallove has authored at least one book and edited at least
>>three magazines on the cold fusion topic.  Are you attempting to compare
>>your accomplishments in this or any other field against his?
>Perhaps Greg was asking about his research and publication record in 
>electrochemistry and/or nuclear physics during the decade preceding 
>cold fusion, as well as subsequent to cold fusion. 

That's an interesting question too, but what I had in mind was how many
people actually buy his book and his three magazines.  I am curious
because of his numerous predictions that cold fusion advocates are
going to bury us skeptics (to put it in Krushchev terms).  The fate
of his bet with Barry Merriman is also a question.

>Mallove is certainly a good writer...

That is true.  However little he has to say, he nevertheless says
it well.
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudengk00 cudfnGreg cudlnKuperberg cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.12 / Barry Merriman /  Re: re) ..Testing Grigg G. with different fluids!
     
Originally-From: barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: re) ..Testing Grigg G. with different fluids!
Date: Wed, 12 Oct 94 01:43:59 GMT
Organization: UCLA, Mathematics Department

In article <gsteckly.65.000B12AB@clark.dgim.doc.ca> gsteckly@clark.dgim.doc.ca  
(Gary Steckly) writes:
> one of the main things I have learned from them is that I don't know 
> everything

But, the question relevant to the (Griggs = Fusion?) question
is more like: do you know _anything_?

Somehow, I just doubt you get fusion by turning on
your blender. Sure, there is cavitation, and thus 
_conceivably_ sonoluminesence, but even the energies
observed in carefully optimized sono. experiments
are far short of what is needed to produce significant
fusion, even if done in the presence of D & T.



--
Barry Merriman
UCLA Dept. of Math
UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)


cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.12 / Alan M /  Re: Why Use A Griggs Device?
     
Originally-From: Alan@moonrake.demon.co.uk ("Alan M. Dunsmuir")
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Why Use A Griggs Device?
Date: Wed, 12 Oct 1994 05:02:00 +0000
Organization: Home

In article: <1994Oct09.214318.8719@debug.cuc.ab.ca>  Lforbes@debug.cuc.ab.ca writes:

> So why use a Griggs device in place of a gas or oil fired boiler??
> 

Wrong question. The correct one is "Why _invent_ a Griggs device?"

And the answer, of course, is so one can then say "Oh look - it turns 
out to be Cold Fusion Device as well! What a surprise! We weren't 
expecting THAT"

Alan M. Dunsmuir [@ his wits end]     (Can't even quote poetry right)

         I am his Highness' dog at Kew
         Pray tell me sir, whose dog are you?
			      [Alexander Pope]

PGP Public Key available on request.


cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenAlan cudfnAlan cudlnM cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.12 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Grigg's housing is hot?
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Grigg's housing is hot?
Date: Wed, 12 Oct 1994 04:32:08 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <STOLFI.94Oct10190557@atibaia.dcc.unicamp.br>,
Jorge Stolfi <stolfi@dcc.unicamp.br> wrote:
> 
>    > [Jed Rothwell:] in all tests I have observed the pyrometer
>    > showed the metal surface was much hotter than the steam or water
>    > coming from the Pump. There is no error about it.
>    
>    > [Dale Bass:] This is unbelievable.
>    
>Not necessarily; the pressure inside the pump may be much higher  
>than the pressure measured at the output pipe.  
>
>So, even though the casing is hotter than the exhaust steam, 
>it may still be cooler than the water inside the pump.

      I wonder what kind of idiot would take a thermocouple measurement
      of expanded steam, compare it to a pyrometer reading of a 
      steam-producing housing, then claim that 'fusion' was occurring
      in the housing.

                                  dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.12 / John Logajan /  Re: GG pyrometer was checked
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@mirage.skypoint.net (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: GG pyrometer was checked
Date: 12 Oct 1994 05:19:53 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Cameron Randale Bass (crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU) wrote:
: >presuming the conclusion is an unsatisfactory intellectual methodology.

:      It's perfectly satisfactory.  If fusion is occuring, the experimenters
:      are corpses.  They are not corpses, so there is no fusion.
:      Since there is no fusion, there is an error. 

That's certainly an unrepentant position.  :-)

--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com  --  612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA -
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.12 / Cameron Bass /  Re: re) ..Testing Grigg G. with different fluids!
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: re) ..Testing Grigg G. with different fluids!
Date: Wed, 12 Oct 1994 05:31:36 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <gsteckly.65.000B12AB@clark.dgim.doc.ca>,
Gary Steckly <gsteckly@clark.dgim.doc.ca> wrote:
>In article <CxH3Mn.28x@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> crb7q@watt.seas.Virgin
a.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>
>>     Can your kids fly by flapping their tongues?
>
>when they really get going, I'd almost swear that their feet no longer touch 
>the ground.
>
>>     Why don't you try to teach them?
>
>Actually, they have likely taught me more than I will ever teach them. 
>But one of the main things I have learned from them is that I don't know 
>everything, nor do I allways have an answer for their questions. 

     I hope you have answers to some of them.  Like perhaps, 'Daddy,
     should I jump off this tall building and try to fly by flapping my 
     tongue'.

                                   dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.11 / Ryan Bissell /  ENGIN#5: RADIOACTIVE SPONTANEOUS NEUTRON MATERIALIZATION
     
Originally-From: ryan.bissell@lunatic.com (Ryan Bissell) 
Originally-From: ryan.bissell@lunatic.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: ENGIN#5: RADIOACTIVE SPONTANEOUS NEUTRON MATERIALIZATION
Date: 11 Oct 94 18:54:00 GMT
Organization: The Lunatic Fringe BBS - Richardson, Tx - (214) 235-5288

Originally-From: ryan.bissell@lunatic.com


Despite repeated warnings from tribal leaders, LUDWIG.PLUTONIUM said:


> burst was the longest ever, lasting more than an hour.  This monster
> burst may have resulted from the collision of two stars.  (Astronomy,
> November 1994.)

LP> These are spontaneous neutron or alpha particle materialization from
LP> out of nowhere. A universe which is an atom itself, grows by
LP> spontaneous creation of particles. They are uniformly distributed in
LP> space.


Then let's hope our universe has a VERY long half-life!



... Two most common elements in the universe: Hydrogen & Stupidity.
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12

----
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
The Lunatic Fringe BBS * 214-235-5288 * 3 nodes * Richardson, TX*
UseNet,ILink,RIME,FIDO,Intelec,LuciferNet,PlanoNet,U'NI-net and more!
Free 30 Day Trial Subscription * Upload/Download on First Call!!
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenbissell cudfnRyan cudlnBissell cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Wed Oct 12 04:37:03 EDT 1994
------------------------------
1994.10.12 / Matt Kennel /  Re: re) ..Testing Grigg G. with different fluids!
     
Originally-From: mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: re) ..Testing Grigg G. with different fluids!
Date: 12 Oct 1994 06:39:08 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

John Logajan (jlogajan@mirage.skypoint.net) wrote:
: Cameron Randale Bass (crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU) wrote:
: :      I'd be quite surprised if one could induce fusion in steel by
: :      swishing relatively low velocity water against it.

: It's certainly surprising.  SL was surprising, at least that is what I am
: told (I wasn't in a position to evalute its probability.)

Yes.  But at least Sonoluminesence doesn't purport to generate
tons of energy with no observable effect, in a way that hits up
hard against very firm notions of the strong force and special
relativity.

Oh and remember, that even given the seemingly spectacular amplification
and concentration of energy in SL, real inertially confined nuclear
fusion takes place at nearly Fermi degenerate densities.  Yes, you have
to make a mini white dwarf star to get significant fusion.

As far as we know, real fusion's not easy.

: --
:  - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com  --  612-633-0345 -
:  - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA -

--
-Matt Kennel  		mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu
-Institute for Nonlinear Science, University of California, San Diego
-*** AD: Archive for nonlinear dynamics papers & programs: FTP to
-***     lyapunov.ucsd.edu, username "anonymous".
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenmbk cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.12 / I Johnston /  Two Questions on GG
     
Originally-From: ianj@castle.ed.ac.uk (I Johnston)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Two Questions on GG
Date: Wed, 12 Oct 1994 12:17:33 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

There are two questions which I'd like to see dealt with:

1) Incontrovertible evidence of extended runs - on the order of days or
weeks of continuous heat production. We are assured that the machines are
in service industrially and have been for a considerable time so this
data shouldn't be hard to find. This would idspose of any heat storage
arguments once and for all.

2) The excess energies posted haven't been high. Electric motors are not
100% efficient and get hot. It wouldn't take a lot of heat travelling
down the power input shaft to supply the 'excess'. There are lots of
possible arguments about heat flow in the system, but I am sure we'd all
be reassured to have data from a run in which the input shaft is kept at
ambient temperature - or to know that this is already done, and how.

The first of these could be a possible test for Tom's visit. With a
little more work, so could the second.

Ian Johnston
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenianj cudfnI cudlnJohnston cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.13 / Richard Blue /  Still no wavefunction
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Still no wavefunction
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 1994 00:16:11 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

For Dave Davies:  You are still missing the point concerning the
groundstate nuclear wavefunction of the deuteron.  A pure s-state
is not an eigenstate of the Hamiltonian.  A pure d-state is not an
eigenstate of the Hamiltonian.  Orbital angular momentum is not
a good quantum number for the state.  There are not two states that
are approximately degenerate involved here.  Nothing short of cancelling
exactly a part of the Hamiltonian will do what you want done.

Dave says: " I don't think anyone is saying they are degenerate since
there are MeVs of energy difference, but two D's with a high degree of
coherence could be seen as approaching highly excited 4He."

Two points to be made here:  Everyone should take note that Dave correctly
notes that it must be "highly excited 4He."  That important fact gets
lost in some discussions.  Howver, my key assertion is some important
details concerning a transistion from two deuterons to a single 4He
have never been addressed.  Yet we are supposed to believe that there
are some serious attempts to construct a "theory" of cold fusion.
All we have at present are phrases like "a high degree of coherence."
I believe that an ordinary D2 molecule might be an example of that,
but it isn't much like a 4He atom is it?

Chuck Sites, on the otherhand forgets the "highly excited" business
and says:  "One aspect of this I have been looking at is the possibility
that a condensed D+ band may have an energy state resonant with a
low energy He4++ nuclear resonance state."

Chuck, if you are going to invent resonance states that have never been
seen experimentally or described by any theory shouldn't you start by
giving us a hint as to how you are going to construct this "low energy
He4++ nuclear resonance state"?  In what sense are you looking into
this possibility?  If you mean what I think you must mean there has
to be something like the missing wavefunction that I say no one ever
is willing to describe.  Just the fact that you haven't got the
energy of the states well specified indicates that perhaps you have
some hurdles to overcome.

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.12 / W Robinson /  Proposed Center for Superconductivity & Cryogenics
     
Originally-From: will@hunter.ssc.gov (William Robinson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Proposed Center for Superconductivity & Cryogenics
Date: Wed, 12 Oct 1994 14:08:02 GMT
Organization: Superconducting Super Collider Laboratory

As a part of the termination of the Superconducting Super Collider, the
Department of Energy provided funding to the Texas National Research Laboratory
Commission (TNRLC) to conduct a study of how to utilize existing assets.

One part of that study involves how to take advantage of the $500 million
investment made on behalf of the U.S. taxpayers over a six year period that
was spent supporting the research and development activities in large
superconducting magnets and related cryogenics at the SSC.  The cryogenics
facilities alone are capable of supplying up to 12 kW of cooling @ 4.5K.
TNRLC has identified several program areas that they believe could maximize
the value of the investment made in the SSC assets.  Applications include
areas in high energy physics (LHC), magnetic fusion energy (ITER & TPX), and
utility power (SMES, power transmission, and fault-current limiters).

A detailed capabilities fact sheet is available under the SSC home page.
You can use mosaic or your favorite WWW browser to view the following URL:
        http://www.ssc.gov/

TNRLC is interested in other ideas and applications you may have that can
be effectively applied at this national resource.  In terms of basic and
applied science, an entirely new range of potential applications can now be
considered because of the availability of the large-scale cryogenic facilities.

If you have any problems or questions on how to access this home page (or if
you would like more information) you can e-mail me at will@bowie.ssc.gov.

Regards,
William Robinson
Will Robinson
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenwill cudfnWilliam cudlnRobinson cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.12 / Scott Sloka /  To Author of FAQ's
     
Originally-From: jssloka@monet.UWaterloo.CA (Scott Sloka)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: To Author of FAQ's
Date: Wed, 12 Oct 1994 14:30:21 GMT
Organization: University of Waterloo


Howdy,

	My name is Scott Sloka and I am interested in the status of Nuclear
Fusion.  I saw a week ago that several FAQs were posted and I wish to know if 
it would be possible to acquire the whole set of FAQs.  I did not see them all
and was not able to save the ones that I saw at the time.  If it would not
be too much trouble, could the author of the FAQs, or anybody else that saved
them, please email them to me.  Thanks for your help in advance.

		-Scott
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenjssloka cudfnScott cudlnSloka cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.12 /  prasad /  Re: Name reqd for free-energy (was re: fusion?)
     
Originally-From: c1prasad@watson.ibm.com (prasad)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Name reqd for free-energy (was re: fusion?)
Date: 12 Oct 1994 18:41:17 GMT
Organization: IBM Watson

In article <1994Oct11.195315.18056@ttinews.tti.com>, jackson@soldev.tti.
om (Dick Jackson) writes:
|> 
|> Hm? I think "free energy" is an ideal term -- not to be confused
|> with that ancient and well validated concept -- free energy.
|> 
|> I think it was the humourist Stephen Leacock who wrote about the notorious
|> Dr.  Anand Gupta who (quote) was later to become known as "Dr" Anand
|> Gupta.

That's a good one!
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenc1prasad cudlnprasad cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.12 / Alison Colman /  Schwinger ZPE and solar fusion
     
Originally-From: acolman@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Alison Colman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Schwinger ZPE and solar fusion
Date: 12 Oct 1994 17:34:29 GMT
Organization: The Ohio State University


I have read Schwinger's articles in _Letters of the Academy of Sciences of
the USA_ and have some questions.  What is the energy density of the
photons
released in the events in typical coherent SL?  Is the ZPE released from
a point source?  This would suggest to me incredible densities which could
catalyze fusion in the plasma.  Has anyone looked into a solar model which
includes an oscillating "bubble" in the plasma at the solar center which
could be releasing ZPE orders of magnitude greater and catalyzing reactions
there?
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenacolman cudfnAlison cudlnColman cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.12 / Hugh Lippincott /  Re: What are free energy devices.
     
Originally-From: hughl@hp-and.an.hp.com (Hugh Lippincott)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What are free energy devices.
Date: 12 Oct 94 15:26:35 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company

In article <WAF2PCB825363731@brbbs.brbbs.com>, mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com
(MARSHALL DUDLEY) writes:
|> The questions was raised in here earlier as to what"free energy" devices are.
|> This question is actually more complex than it at first sounds.  I would like
|> to share my thoughts on this "definition".
|> 
|> I think the simplest definition of a free energy device is a device which
|> delivers energy of some form tax free.  Although probably a pretty accurate
|> definition, it really begs the question.
|> 
|> I see a free energy device as a device which obtains or generates
energy from |> a source or fuel which has essentially no market
value.  As an additional
|> requirement, a free energy device must be inexpensive and small enought to be
|> used by the end user, as opposed to being used by a utility. If it is used by
|> the utility, it is not free energy, as far as the consumer is concerned.  A
|> free energy device cannot require a non-free input of energy from outside the
|> system to operate, except during startup.  Using this set of requirements the
|> following are or are not free energy devices:
|> 
	<items selected from original list>
|>         geothermal      yes if private, but no if obtained by a utility
|>         your own gas well and a generator  no - gas has market value
|>         wood stove      no  wood has market value, limited supply
|>         hydroelectric   yes if private
|>                                                                 Marshall

This definition is confused by the "essentially NO market value" aspect
If you are not an operations and maintenance technician for the "private"
equipment then a significant cost is incurred to buy that service
which is essentially what you would pay the utility for the same
"free" energy.  The use of "free" is no cost, but the capital costs and
maintenance and environmental costs ... don't seem to be included.

My definition of "free energy" is energy that breaks the current laws 
of thermodynamics.  To be more exact with a "free energy system" 
you get out MORE WORK (or its effects) than you put in.  
This will correctly evaluate a heat pump which delivers more heat 
"energy" than the input electricity, but because it is lower grade energy
one cannot turn it arround and get the same (or MORE) work back out.

The breaking of the laws of thermodynamics is what makes Griggs pump
interesting, otherwise one must evaluate it in the appropriate context: 
 eg. Griggs should compare the Hydrosonic Pump's heat increase output 
 with the energy input required to make the electricity used by the motors
or with the corresponding heat pump technology Coefficient Of Performance
 between the same 2 temperatures (probably COP ~2+ not just 1.1 or 1.3)
or with a boiler that directly uses fuel for heating. 

 NOTE: Grigg's system operates at about the same rate of energy production
 as a home heating system (some produce 100% steam) with at ~40% thermal
 efficiency which competes with the utility's electricity production
 efficiency, and therefore equivalent environmental effects at lower cost.
 
-- 
	Hugh Lippincott 	     	  hughl@hp-and.an.hp.com
	These opinions are my own & in no way encumber my employer
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenhughl cudfnHugh cudlnLippincott cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Thu Oct 13 04:37:04 EDT 1994
------------------------------
1994.10.13 / Bruce TK /  Re: Hot Fusion Pays Well!
     
Originally-From: bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce       Scott          TK  )
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Hot Fusion Pays Well!
Date: 13 Oct 1994 11:50:42 +0100
Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching


Oh, Gene, you're just jealous. Go and look how much Marshall Rosenbluth
makes at UCSD; I bet it is more than the figures you put up!

-- 
Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de                               -- W Gibson
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnTK cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.13 / Eugene Mallove /  Destroy the house of Physics?
     
Originally-From: 76570.2270@compuserve.com (Eugene Mallove)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Destroy the house of Physics?
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 1994 13:36:41 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Gary Stecky writes:

>I hope this dragon doesn't totally destroy the house of the physics 
>establishment before they finally decide to take a look at it. 

It will likely do just that. And we couldn't find a more deserving 
"establishment." The pontificators of "Dreams of a Final Theory", "God 
Particle", "Theories of Everything", and Moonshine in 2050 will get their just
deserts.

Gene Mallove

cudkeys:
cuddy13 cuden2270 cudfnEugene cudlnMallove cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.13 / Mike Jamison /  Re: The Griggs inquiry
     
Originally-From: edwlt12@mars.lerc.nasa.gov (Mike Jamison (ADF))
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The Griggs inquiry
Date: 13 Oct 1994 08:55 EDT
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center

In article <1994Oct13.022753.12671@math.ucla.edu>, barry@arnold.math.ucl
.edu (Barry Merriman) writes...
> 
>As for the possibility of fusion: its been discussed ad nauseum, 
>but i'll juts add one point again for the record: if this
>process occurs in H20, it could only result from H + H 
>(or rather, p + p ) fusion. The cross section for this
>fusion reaction is incredibly small, which is why H20 
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Does this imply measureable fusion rates in D2O???  Or, D2 alone, which
would be more likely (I think the spacing of D2 is ~0.74 angstroms, and
for D2O it's about 1.74 angstroms).

For those who don't like angstroms, 1Ang = 1e-10 meters, so spacing is 
0.074 nm and 0.174 nm, respectively.

>doesn't spontaneosly fuse, and why the sun lasts for
>billions of years.
> 
>It is really rediculous to suggest that p + p fusion 
>is a possible significant CF energy source---even P & F never 
>went that far.

Agreed.
> 
>--
>Barry Merriman
>UCLA Dept. of Math
>UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
>barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)
> 
> 
Mike Jamison

"Scientific research consists in seeing what everyone else has seen, but
thinking what no one else has thought"

						-A. Szent-Gyorgyi
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenedwlt12 cudfnMike cudlnJamison cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.13 / R SPAANDONK /  Ludwig almost right?
     
Originally-From: rvanspaa@ozemail.com.au (R.J VAN SPAANDONK)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Ludwig almost right?
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 1994 14:24:35 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

                             3/133 Glenhuntly Rd.
                             Elwood
                             Vic. 3184
                             Australia
                             tel. 03-531-5049
                             internet: rvanspaa@ozemail.com.au




In the 8 Oct. issue of New Scientist on page 16, an article appears with the
title "Can electric charge be destroyed?"
Herein mention is made of work done by Shu-Yuan Chu of the University of
California, Riverside, who suggests that perhaps only the combination of rest
mass and charge may be conserved, and not each individually.

If this is so, then perhaps Ludwig is almost on the right track, and rather
than neutrons spontaneously coming into existence under the influence of
varying electric/magnetic fields, what is really happening is the conversion
of protons to neutrons. (I do realize that there is a mass difference here,
but its not nearly as large as that of a spontaneously generated neutron out
of nothing.) Furthermore, if the energy equivalent of the mass difference,
were to be "borrowed" from the vacuum, it could be paid back with interest,
when the neutron fused with a heavier nucleus. By the way this would also
explain the absence of free neutrons, as the energy debt to the vacuum can
only be repaid by fusion with another nucleus, which means in practice, that
if no such fusion were to take place, then the conversion would reverse, and
the neutron would be converted back into a proton.

Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa@ozemail.com.au>







cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenrvanspaa cudfnR cudlnSPAANDONK cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.13 / Bradley Sherman /  Re: Hot Fusion Pays Well!
     
Originally-From: bks@s27w007.pswfs.gov (Bradley K. Sherman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Hot Fusion Pays Well!
Date: 13 Oct 1994 13:49:32 GMT
Organization: Dendrome, A Genome Database for Forest Trees

In article <941013030017_76570.2270_HHB49-1@CompuServe.COM> 76570.2270@c
mpuserve.com (Eugene Mallove) writes:
> ...
>Charles Vest, Pres.     $255,000        $269,998        $48,654
>...
>Ronald C. Davidson,        ----         $165,500        $29,138
> ...


Oh man, the top 12 guys at MIT and Princeton *combined* only
make about as much as the CEO of a mid-sized corporation. 
And not even half as much as Mark McGuire, first baseman of the
Oakland A's, who didn't even play this much year due to an
injured heel.

I think I'm going to stop trying to maintain my kids' interest
in Science.

    --bks

-- 
Bradley K. Sherman                  Computer Scientist
Dendrome Project                    510-559-6437  FAX: -6440
Institute of Forest Genetics        bks@s27w007.pswfs.gov  
P.O. Box 245, Berkeley, CA 94701    http://s27w007.pswfs.gov/People/bks.html
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenbks cudfnBradley cudlnSherman cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.13 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Re: Name reqd for free-energy (was re: fusion?)
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Name reqd for free-energy (was re: fusion?)
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 1994 10:39 -0500 (EST)

jlogajan@mirage.skypoint.net (John Logajan) writes:

-> So I think we should stick to the tried and true *neutral* descriptive
-> term -- anomalous energy.  That captures the fact that it is unexpected
-> from current theory, but doesn't confine it prematurely to a particular
-> theory or ease of extraction.

->So I vote for the general label: anomalous energy.

I am not too happy with definitions which change with time.  At one time radium
would have been classified as anomalous energy.  I think it could cause
problems with research later.  Lets say that "anomalous energy" becomes widly
used.  Griggs starts advertising his pump as an anomalous energy device, and
sells them.  Then finally someone figures out exactly what is going on.  At
that point it is no longer an anomalous energy device, since it would no longer
be outside of our present understanding.  But papers written prior to that date
would be classified under anomalous energy.  But if there are NO errors in the
measurements, it would still be a free energy device, whether the energy comes
from fusion, ZPE, the sudden collapse of bubbles during SL somehow interacting
with the huge flux of neutrinos from the sun, unexpected non-linearities in
the steam tables, or some other as yet exotic but not conceptualized source.

I can see a researcher trying to look up papers on anomolous energy 100 years
from now, and finding all these papers over the last 100 years which are about
understood physical effects.

                                                                Marshall
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.13 / Jim Carr /  Re: Hot Fusion Pays Well!
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Hot Fusion Pays Well!
Date: 13 Oct 1994 11:03:30 -0400
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

In article <941013030017_76570.2270_HHB49-1@CompuServe.COM> 
76570.2270@compuserve.com (Eugene Mallove) writes:
>
>Now I knew from the size of the program's total annual dole, that these HF 
>guys were raking dough in big-time, but little did I know how big! Kind of 
>puts into perspective the annual hot fusioneers' hat-in-hand to Congress. They

If they were actual scientists (like some of the profs on the list) and 
not administrators, you would have a point.  After all, these guys get 
the big bucks for being successful at just what you deplore, getting 
their hats filled with greenbacks.  Many states make similar data 
available, since some require publishing the pay of everyone who makes 
more than the governor.  Usually they are profs in the med school, 
who tend to make more than many of the folks on your list. 

However, for perspective, our football coach makes 3 times more per year 
than most of those fusioneers, and the donations that pay for that program 
are tax deductible -- and hence also taxpayer funded, albeit indirectly.  

-- 
 James A. Carr   <jac@scri.fsu.edu>     |  Raw data, like raw sewage, 
    http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac        |  requires some processing before
 Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst.  |  it can be spread around.  The 
 Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306    |  opposite is true of theories. 
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.13 / Robert Heeter /  Re: To Author of FAQ's
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: To Author of FAQ's
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 1994 04:19:55 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

In article <CxKDMM.7n@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> Scott Sloka,
jssloka@monet.UWaterloo.CA writes:
> 	My name is Scott Sloka and I am interested in the status of Nuclear
> Fusion.  I saw a week ago that several FAQs were posted and I wish to
know if 
> it would be possible to acquire the whole set of FAQs.  I did not see
them all
> and was not able to save the ones that I saw at the time.  If it would
not
> be too much trouble, could the author of the FAQs, or anybody else that
saved
> them, please email them to me.  Thanks for your help in advance.

Hi Scott - 

The FAQs are just completing another set of revisions, and will be
reposted in their entirety over the next few weeks.  (There are 29
sections total, so it takes time to post them.)  If you really
can't wait to get them I'd be willing to email them to you, but
because there are so many parts I'd be happier if you could wait
for them to be posted.  I expect to run at an average rate of 
about one section per day on a more-or-less continual basis from 
now on.  Once they are posted this time, they'll become available
via anonymous FTP; I'll provide details of how to do that when
the time comes.

Thanks a lot for your interest; let me know if there's anything
confusing in the FAQs that I can fix.

***************************
Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University
As always, I represent only myself, and not PPPL
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.12 / Bruce Dunn /  Re: The Griggs inquiry
     
Originally-From: Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Dunn)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The Griggs inquiry
Date: Wed, 12 Oct 94 22:11:00 -0800
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada

In article <1994Oct13.022753.12671@math.ucla.edu>,
barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu Barry Merriman writes:

> if this process occurs in H20, it could only result from H + H
> (or rather, p + p ) fusion.

This ignores the fact that "normal" water contains deuterium.  If it
didn't, we wouldn't be able to isolate D2O from "normal" water.  If you
want pure H20, you will have to arrange to acquire some water from which
the D2O has been stripped (say the stripped byproduct from a heavy water
plant).  I don't remember anyone every testing pure H2O in a cold fusion
setup - does anyone else know if this has been done.




--
Bruce Dunn    Vancouver, Canada   Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenBruce_Dunn cudfnBruce cudlnDunn cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.13 / Grant Buffett /  Breakeven Yet?
     
Originally-From: gbuffett@morgan.ucs.mun.ca (Grant Buffett)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Breakeven Yet?
Date: 13 Oct 1994 17:02:25 GMT
Organization: Memorial University of Newfoundland

	Sorry if this sounds ignorant on my part, but I haven't been 
following the latest on fusion reactors.  Has anyone been successful in 
reaching breakeven with laser or inertia fusion?  I suspect not, but I'm 
just curious.

Thanks,
--
******************************************************************************
Grant Buffett				
Astronomy/Physics		       InterNet: gbuffett@beothuk.swgc.mun.ca 
Memorial University of Newfoundland	     or: gbuffett@morgan.ucs.mun.ca
Corner Brook Campus				
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
	God does not play dice!  - Albert Einstein

	God is a veteran gambler, and he throws the dice on every 
        possible ocassion!  - Stephen W. Hawking
******************************************************************************

cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudengbuffett cudfnGrant cudlnBuffett cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.13 / Matt Carey /  Re: COLD FUSION IS RADIOACTIVE SPONTANEOUS NEUTRON (OR
     
Originally-From: Matt Carey <mcarey@ucsd.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion,alt.sci.physics.pl
tonium,sci.physics
Subject: Re: COLD FUSION IS RADIOACTIVE SPONTANEOUS NEUTRON (OR
ALPHA  PARTICLE) MATERIALIZATION
Date: 13 Oct 1994 17:34:36 GMT
Organization: UCSD

In article <37hknd$m8k@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Ludwig Plutonium,
Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu writes:
>-------------------------------------
>  The carbon arc suggests atoms of higher atomic number than just Z+1
>for filaments or heating coils.
>-------------------------------------

This calls for a clear test f the Fe content of the C before the arc.  
Fe contamination of C is not only easy to come by , but is hard to get
rid of.


Matt Carey
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenmcarey cudfnMatt cudlnCarey cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.13 / Robert Heeter /  Re:  Fusion (November 8 event note)
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re:  Fusion (November 8 event note)
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 1994 04:50:21 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

In article <37c2lj$crf@watnews1.watson.ibm.com> prasad,
c1prasad@watson.ibm.com writes:
[ I wrote (to John Logajan, who lives in the Twin Cities): ]
> |> P.S.  Are you going to come to the Science Museum on Nov. 8?
> 
> PS: What's on Nov 8?

I posted an article a few days ago advertising this:

There will be a bunch of public activities at the
Science Museum of Minnesota in conjunction with
the Annual Meeting of the American Physical Society - 
Division of Plasma Physics.  As one of the two people
who conceived and organized this thing, I wanted to
advertise it to get people to come. :)

From Saturday, November 5, until Saturday, Nov. 19,
on the order of 1000-2000 square feet of museum space
will be filled with fusion energy and plasma physics
exhibits and demonstrations.  The exhibits are coming
from all over the country and represent a major effort
on the part of the national labs and fusion research
centers to try to share what we do with the average
American.  (The cold war is over and there's a growing
sense that we have a responsibility not just to compete
with the Russians, but to help keep our citizens 
educated on the research their tax dollars are supporting.
At least, that's my position. :)  )

Also, on Tuesday, November 8, from 6-9 pm, we'll
be having a special event at the Science Museum where
a number of prominent plasma physicists will be on
hand to give public talks on fusion research and answer
questions from anyone who is interested enough to attend.
The speakers will be:  Dr. Dale Meade, Deputy Director of 
PPPL; Dr. David Overskei, Senior Vice President of General
Atomics (home of DIII-D, the second largest fusion experiment
in the U.S.); and Dr. Don Correll, Deputy Program Leader for
Inertial Confinement Fusion at Lawrence Livermore National
Lab.

I was trying to point this out to John since I thought
he might enjoy coming, if only to harass us hot fusioneers...

:)

I'd appreciate it if those of you who live in Minnesota,
or have friends/relatives who live in Minnesota, would 
pass the word on to anyone who might be interested in
attending.  Exhibit hall passes to see the fusion exhibits
and attend the talk on the evening of the 8th will be
free to anyone who comes, thanks to some generous
contributions we've received from a number of sources.


***************************
Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University
As always, I represent only myself, and not PPPL
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.13 / Robert Heeter /  Conventional Fusion FAQ Section 0/11 (Intro) Part 1/3 (Overview)
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.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: Thu, 13 Oct 1994 04:55:57 GMT
Organization: Princeton University


Archive-name: fusion-faq/section0-intro/part1-overview
Last-modified: 12-Oct-1994
Posting-frequency: More-or-less-monthly


****************************************************************
Frequently Asked Questions about Fusion Research (with Answers)

Written/Edited by:

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

Last Revised October 12, 1994
*****************************************************************

Welcome to the Conventional Fusion FAQ!  This file is intended
to indicate (a) that this FAQ exists, and (b) what it is about.
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 as yet.)

Legal-Type Stuff:  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 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

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

*** Section Listing of the Conventional Fusion FAQ:
(Each of these sections is posted periodically on sci.physics.fusion.)

Section 0 - Introduction
     Part 1/3 - Title Page
                Table of Contents
                Preface and Current Status
     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 Fusion:
Part 0/7 - Intro
Part 1/7 - A-B
Part 2/7 - C-D
Part 3/7 - E-F
Part 4/7 - G-J
Part 5/7 - K-M
Part 6/7 - N-R
Part 7/7 - S-Z


*****************************************************************

Preface to the Conventional Fusion FAQ

*** Goal:
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.

*** Scope:
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.

*** 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.  The FAQ is available as a 
standalone, self-running Macintosh "digital magazine" program 
for those who are interested.

*** Current Status:
While much remains to be done, most sections now exist in at
least rough-draft form.  All sections could benefit from further
revision, and I would appreciate any new information, suggestions,
or comments anyone might be willing to provide.  Many thanks to 
those who have helped out thus far!  Many sections are undergoing
the moderation process for crossposting to the offical FAQ groups 
sci.answers and news.answers, and will be archived on rtfm.mit.edu
if and when they ever make it through the moderation process; 
This introduction will be crossposted to sci.physics, sci.energy, 
and sci.environment, since people there may be interested.
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.13 / Robert Heeter /  Conventional Fusion FAQ Glossary Part 0/7 (Intro)
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Conventional Fusion FAQ Glossary Part 0/7 (Intro)
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 1994 04:57:06 GMT
Organization: Princeton University


Archive-name: fusion-faq/glossary/part0-intro
Last-modified: 27-Sept-1994
Posting-frequency: More-or-less-monthly
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!!!).

*****************************************************************
FUT: Glossary of Frequently Used Terms in Conventional Fusion

Edited by Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@pppl.gov

###  This introduces the Conventional Fusion FUT/Glossary  ###

# Editorial Note:  

Like any discipline, fusion research has evolved terminology used 
to facilitate discussion.  This includes the scientific vocabulary 
of the discipline, the names of various research machines and 
devices used, the names of various researchers in the field, the 
names of the various research labs and funding authorities, the
mathematical symbols used, and the acronyms frequently used as 
shorthand for some of the above.  

In the case of conventional (magnetic confinement, inertial
confinement, thermonuclear, muon-catalyzed, etc - but not Cold)
fusion, this terminology has grown to the point where newcomers
(including the author of the FUT!) may be intimidated by the 
apparent obscurity of the discussions.  This file is an attempt 
to provide a comprehensive and detailed listing and explanation 
of terms frequently used, so that those new to the group/field 
will be able to understand what is being said, and to contribute 
with a minimum of confusion and frustration.  Many terms are still
missing, and some terms may have less-than-fully-correct entries,
so if you would like to see something added or changed, let me
know.


# DO NOT BE INTIMIDATED BY THE SIZE OF THIS GLOSSARY!

Everything is organized alphabetically, and to make things even
better each entry is coded by type (names, acronyms, types of 
machines, basic physics terms, advanced plasma terms, etc).
Hopefully this will make the FUT easier to use. 


* What's in the FUT:  

We started with an initial list supplied by Jim Day 
(Jim.Day@support.com).  To this were added some comments from various
responses I received to the first draft.  I then incorporated terms
from PPPL and other glossaries.  Then acronyms, machine names, 
and names of important scientists were added as they came. 
I added categories for research and funding/political agencies, 
tried to broaden the base of basic science terms, and wrote up 
a few more preliminary definitions based upon explanations that 
have appeared in the newsgroup and in my studies.  Many of the 
terms listed still do not have explanations given.  

Recent drafts have been mostly incremental improvements to 
the previous versions.  New categories of terms have been made, 
the organization has been improved, and of course definitions 
have been added and improved.


* What's Needed to Improve the FUT:

I am looking for additional contributions (and improvements) to 
the list.  It would be nice if people posting to the group could
occasionally take a few moments to include definitions of a few 
terms used when you use them; in browsing through the group I 
can then snip out the terms and definitions and simply paste 
them into the evolving FUT file.  It also would be nice if 
references to the FAQ and the Reading List / Bibliography 
could be given to supplement the FUT descriptions, at least 
for some of the more complicated terms.


* Comment on Sources:

The terms and definitions occurring here represent a collection
of contributions from numerous sources.  Rather than include
acknowledgements for each individual definition, I have made
blanket acknowledgements in a separate section (in the FAQ).  
I have tried to include citations in most cases where only 
a single textual source was used.


* This file may be freely distributed; I recommend you retain the
revision date, and in any case I'd like to be cited as the editor. *

****************
Robert F. Heeter
rfheeter@pppl.gov
Graduate Student, Princeton Plasma Physics Lab
(Usual disclaimers apply.)
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.13 / Robert Heeter /  Conventional Fusion FAQ Section 2/11 (Energy) Part 1/5 (Technical)
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.answers,news.answers
Subject: Conventional Fusion FAQ Section 2/11 (Energy) Part 1/5 (Technical)
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 1994 14:12:32 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

Archive-name: fusion-faq/section2-energy/part1-tech
Last-modified: 29-Sept-1994
Posting-frequency: More-or-less-monthly
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!!!).

******************************************************************
2.1 Technical Characteristics of Fusion as a Future Energy Source

Last Revised September 29, 1994
Written by Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@pppl.gov, unless
otherwise cited.

### Please let me know if anything here is unclear. ###

*	A.  What would a fusion energy plant look like?

In the most basic picture, you need a fusion reactor to create the
fusion energy, and you need an electricity-generating plant to 
convert the fusion energy to electricity.  A method for transferring
the fusion energy from the reactor to the generator is also needed.  
(You could also generate thermal energy if it would be useful near 
your fusion plant, such as for industrial process heat, and if your
reactor is safe enough to operate near other facilities.)

Details beyond this basic picture depend on the confinement method
used, the fuel used, and the choice of technology for converting
the fusion energy to electricity.  The confinement method
determines how your fusion reactor will work, and influences what
fuels you can use; different confinement approaches are discussed in
Section 4 of the FAQ.

Fusion reactors based on magnetic confinement and D-T fuel are
believed to be the strongest candidates at this time for commercial
energy production, and will be discussed most extensively below.


* B.  What fuels can a fusion reactor burn?

The different fusion reactions were discussed in Section 1.  It is
expected that early fusion reactors will burn deuterium and tritium
as their fuels; the neutrons produced in the D-T reaction will be
reacted with lithium in a "blanket" around the reactor, thus 
"breeding" more tritium.  More advanced fuels such as D-D, D-He3, 
and p-B11 will require better confinement and higher temperatures,
and will probably not be used right away. 

The D-D reaction has the most abundant fuel, followed by D-T with Li.
Details on fuel resources are given below in part B on environmental
characteristics.

Unless otherwise noted, the discussion below will assume the D-T
fuel cycle.


* C.  What are the different methods for converting fusion energy
to useful energy?

Generally it is expected that fusion energy will be converted to
electrical energy.  However, one might want to make lots of heat
to drive chemical reactions, perhaps to make hydrogen as a fuel.
The easiest method to convert fusion energy to electricity is to
collect the fusion energy as heat, use the heat to boil water,
and then drive a good 'ol steam turbine.  Alternatives use something
besides water as the heat transfer fluid (say liquid metal, or helium)
and something besides water as the turbine driver (such as helium).
These more advanced turbines are somewhat more efficient.  (Steam
turbines have a conversion efficiency of about 35%, and advanced
turbines can get up to about 50%.)

In principle, energy can also be extracted from a fusion reactor 
in the form of charged reaction-product particles (such as p-B11 
or D-He3).  In this case one can use magnetohydrodynamic conversion 
(or direct conversion) to convert the motion of the energetic 
reaction products directly to electrical energy.  This conversion 
can be up to 95% efficient.  However, direct conversion is only 
useful on the fraction of the energy which is in the form of charged 
particles.  The D-T fuel cycle generates most of its energy in the 
form of neutrons, so the thermal cycles described above must be 
used.  The advanced, aneutronic fuels are more suitable for 
direct conversion.


* D.  What would a D-T fusion reactor look like?

[[ The following paraphrases answers written by Arthur Carlson. ]]

A D-T fueled fusion reactor would have a fusion vacuum chamber, 
where the actual reactions take place; then there is the "first 
wall," which maintains the integrity of the vacuum while transmitting 
the neutrons from the D-T reaction.  The first wall needs to 
withstand bombardment from stray plasma particles, and also to 
withstand the high stresses which can occur if the plasma 
misbehaves, loses confinement, and disrupts into the wall.  

Beyond the first wall there will be a neutron-absorbing, 
tritium-generating blanket (which would most likely contain 
lots of lithium to generate tritium).  Within and outside the 
blanket would be tritium collecting equipment and heat 
extraction equipment.  The systems used to generate fusion in 
the vacuum chamber (laser or particle beam channels for inertial 
or muon fusion, electromagnet coils for magnetic fusion) would 
also lie in/outside the blanket.  Finally, shielding would
be needed for radiation-sensitive components, and to prevent 
stray radiation from leaving the reactor.

The first walls currently in use in experimental reactors are 
mostly made from stainless steel.  However, stainless steel
is not the best material, and advanced machines (such as TPX - see
sections 5 and 9) will be made from advanced materials, most
likely vanadium alloys.  These advanced materials are designed
to withstand the unique conditions in a fusion reactor, including
high thermal & mechanical stress and intense neutron bombardment.
In addition, they're designed to not become too radioactive, and
to decay quickly so as not to create long-term radioactive waste. 


* E.  How do you get the plasma hot enough for fusion to occur?

Much of the answer given below is taken from the PPPL World-Wide Web
homepage (which is public domain).  PPPL material is in "quotations".

"In an operating fusion reactor, part of the energy generated will 
serve to maintain the plasma temperature as fresh deuterium and 
tritium are introduced. However, in the startup of a reactor, either 
initially or after a temporary shutdown, the plasma will have to be 
heated to 100 million degrees Celsius.  In current tokamak (and 
other) magnetic fusion experiments, insufficient fusion energy is 
produced to maintain the plasma temperature. Consequently, the 
devices operate in short pulses and the plasma must be heated afresh 
in every pulse." 

There are several methods for heating plasmas.  These include Ohmic 
Heating, Neutral Beam Injection, Magnetic Compression, 
Radio-Frequency Heating, and Inertial Compression.  Each of these is 
discussed below. 

     1:  Ohmic Heating 

"Since the plasma is an electrical conductor, it is possible to heat 
the plasma by passing a current through it; in fact, the current that 
generates the poloidal field also heats the plasma. This is called 
ohmic (or resistive) heating; it is the same kind of heating that 
occurs in an electric light bulb or in an electric heater." 

"The heat generated depends on the resistance of the plasma and the 
current. But as the temperature of heated plasma rises, the 
resistance decreases and the ohmic heating becomes less effective. It 
appears that the maximum plasma temperature attainable by ohmic 
heating in a tokamak is 20-30 million degrees Celsius. To obtain 
still higher temperatures, additional heating methods must be used." 

     2:  Neutral-Beam Injection 

"Neutral-beam injection involves the introduction of high-energy 
(neutral) atoms into the ohmically -- heated, magnetically -- 
confined plasma. The atoms are immediately ionized and are trapped by 
the magnetic field. The high-energy ions then transfer part of their 
energy to the plasma particles in repeated collisions, thus 
increasing the plasma temperature." 

     3:  Magnetic Compression 

"A gas can be heated by sudden compression. In the same way, the 
temperature of a plasma is increased if it is compressed rapidly by 
increasing the confining magnetic field. In a tokamak system this 
compression is achieved simply by moving the plasma into a region of 
higher magnetic field (i.e. radially inward). Since plasma 
compression brings the ions closer together, the process has an 
additional benefit of facilitating attainment of the required density 
for a fusion reactor." 

     4:  Radiofrequency Heating 

"In radiofrequency heating, high-frequency waves are generated 
by oscillators outside the torus. If the waves have a particular 
frequency (or wavelength), their energy can be transferred to the 
charged particles in the plasma, which in turn collide with other 
plasma particles, thus increasing the temperature of the bulk 
plasma."

     5:  Inertial Compression 

This is similar to magnetic compression in that decreasing the gas
volume causes the temperature to rise, but in the inertial approach
the compression is achieved by using laser or particle beams to
heat the outer layer of a target pellet; the outer layer vaporizes
and the pressure that the vaporized layer exerts back on the
core of the pellet accelerates the plasma inward on itself, and
the inertia of the imploding atoms in the pellet allows the pellet
to be compressed (for a very short time), and thus heated.


* F.  What are the materials requirements for fusion?  
* G.  Are any of these materials scarce?

First we need some definitions:  
     "Reserve" = amount of a given substance which we know we 
     can extract today at current prices with current technology.

     "Resource" = amount of a substance which is present in the
     earth which could conceivably be extracted.

In general, reserves of fusion materials are sufficient for 
all current needs, and resources are sufficient for all projected
future needs for millions of years to come.

- Fuel: D is very abundant; T can be made with blanket (see below)

- Neutron Blanket: 
     Lithium (Li) (which will be used to breed tritium (T)) 
is abundant in seawater as well as in the crust.  Current 
reserves (Li is mostly obtained through mining on land) 
are 2.21 million metric tons, sufficient to build probably 
hundreds of reactors.  Oceanic resources are sufficient to 
meet current and projected world energy needs for millions 
of years to come, without costing significantly more.

- Reactor Structure:
    Silicon Carbide (SiC) and Vanadium or Vanadium-Titanium 
alloy are the primary candidates for reactor structures.  
Carbon of course is everywhere; silicon is also highly 
abundant.  Reserves of vanadium are currently 4.27 million 
metric tons; Vanadium is present in many minerals not 
currently used as ores, so the total resource is
significantly larger.  Reserves of titanium are currently 
288.6 million metric tons.  (Source:  _World Resources 1992-1993_)

A 1000 MW fusion reactor would use on the order of 1000 tons 
of vanadium, most of which could probably be recycled from 
one reactor into a new one (after a waiting period of tens of 
years for the radiactivity to decrease).  So vanadium reserves 
will not be stretched until probably hundreds of fusion reactors 
have been built, by which time new reserves will most likely 
be available.  (This does take into account other uses of vanadium.)

- Magnet Materials: 
    We're not sure just what future fusion reactors will use for
their electromagnets, primarily because superconductor technology
is still evolving.  Reactor designs generally try to prevent
radiation damage to the magnets (which could destroy their 
superconductivity) so magnets are not generally consumed in a
reactor; to my knowledge there is no projected shortage of
magnet materials.    


* H.  How large would a fusion reactor be?  Why?

Fusion reactors are generally expected to have significant
economies of scale, such that the cost-of-electricity from
a reactor will be most competitive in larger (thousands of
megawatts) plants.  The minimum competitive size of a fusion
plant, under current expectations, is probably around 
3000 megawatts of fusion power, which (after converting 
to electricity) comes to about 1000 to 1500 megawatts of 
electric power that can be sold.  (The U.S. consumes 
about 1 kilowatt of electricity per capita, so 1000 
megawatts = 1,000,000 kilowatts = enough energy for a city 
of a million people.)  It possible that this minimum size
will come down as fusioneers come to understand the physics
and improve their reactor concepts, and it's certainly
possible that the electricity cost will come down.
(More on this in section 2D on fusion energy economics.)
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.13 / Thomas Zemanian /  Re: Griggs Device and Cavitation Question
     
Originally-From: ts_zemanian@pnl.gov (Thomas S. Zemanian)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs Device and Cavitation Question
Date: 13 Oct 1994 19:37:42 GMT
Organization: Battelle PNL

In article <parkyCxMJ8t.n11@netcom.com>, parky@netcom.com (Chris Parkinson)
wrote:

> Newsgroups: misc.physics.fusion
> Subject: Griggs Device
> Distribution: usa
> Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
> 
> 
> Is the Hydrosonic pump a cavitation device? Are tornadoes cavitation
> devices? Are hurricains?
> 

Purportedly, no, and no.

> 
> Newsgroups: misc.physics.fusion
> Subject: Griggs Device
> Summary: 
> Followup-To: 
> Distribution: usa
> Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
> Keywords: 
> 
> 
> Is the Hydrosonic pump a cavitation device? Are tornadoes cavitation
> devices? Are hurricains?

Is there an echo in here?

--Tom

--
The opinions expressed herein are mine and mine alone.  Keep your filthy
hands off 'em! 
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudents_zemanian cudfnThomas cudlnZemanian cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.13 / Robert Heeter /  Conventional Fusion FAQ Section 0/11 (Intro) Part 2/3 (Outline)
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.answers,news.answers
Subject: Conventional Fusion FAQ Section 0/11 (Intro) Part 2/3 (Outline)
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 1994 05:49:53 GMT
Organization: Princeton University


Archive-name: fusion-faq/section0-intro/part2-outline
Last-modified: 12-Oct-1994
Posting-frequency: More-or-less-monthly

*****************************************************************
* Outline and List of Questions for the Conventional Fusion FAQ *
*               (subject to change if desirable)                *
*****************************************************************

*** 1. Fusion as a Physical Phenomenon:
 A.  What is fusion?
 B.  How does fusion release energy?
 C.  Where does fusion occur in nature?
 D.  Why doesn't fusion occur anywhere else in nature?
 E.  What are the basic fusion reactions?
 F.  Could you tell me more about these different elements?
 G.  Why is the deuterium-tritium (D-T) reaction the easiest?
 H.  What is aneutronic fusion?
 I.  What sort of fusion reactor is the sun? 
 J.  Why is it so hard to create controlled man-made 
        fusion reactions?
 K.  What is plasma physics, and how is it related to fusion?
 L.  Just how hot and confined do these plasmas need to be?
        (Or, what conditions are needed for controlled fusion?)
 M.  What are the basic approaches used to heat and confine 
        the plasma?  (Or, what is magnetic confinement?  
        Inertial confinement?)	

*** 2. Fusion as a Future Energy Source:
 2.1 Technical Characteristics
	  A.  What would a fusion energy plant look like?
   B.  What fuels can a fusion reactor burn?
   C.  What are the different methods for converting fusion energy
          to useful energy?
   D.  What would a D-T fusion reactor look like?
   E.  How do you get the plasma hot enough for fusion to occur?
   F.  What are the materials requirements for fusion?  
   G.  Are any of these materials scarce?
   H.  How large would a fusion reactor be?  Why?
 2.2 Environmental Characteristics
   A.  What are fusion's major potential environmental advantages?
   B.  But isn't fusion nuclear?  What about radioactive waste?
   C.  What key technologies are needed to achieve these advantages?
   D.  What are the materials and fuel requirements for fusion?
   E.  What about renewable energy sources?  
          Why do we need fusion at all?  
 2.3 Safety Characteristics Economic Characteristics  
     (Under construction)
 2.4 Economic Characteristics  
     (Under construction)
 2.5 Fusion for Space Applications  
     (Under construction)

*** 3. Fusion as a Scientific Research Program
 3.1 Chronology of Events and Ideas
     (Under construction)
	      When did fusion research begin?
	      When was fusion research declassified?
       What is the current state of fusion research? 
  		   Close / far from achieving practical benefits?
 3.2 Major Institutes and Policy Actors
     (Under construction)
       Who is doing fusion, and where?  (funds distribution?)
	      What level of international cooperation is there?
 3.3 History of Achievements and Funding
     (Under construction)
   	   What is the history of fusion funding (US, FUSSR, EC, Japan)?
	      What is the history of achievement of fusion parameters?

*** 4. Methods of Confinement / Approaches to fusion:
 4.1 Toroidal Magnetic Confinement Approaches
     (Under construction)
   A. What is a tokamak / how does it work?
	  B. What is a stellarator / " " " " ? 
	  C.   "  " reversed-field pinch / " " " " ? 
   D. What is a Field-Reversed Configuration / how does it work?
	  E.   "  "  " Plasmak / "   "    "   " ? 
   F. What is a Migma / how does it work?
 4.2 Alternative Confinement Methods / Approaches
     (Under construction)
   A. Gravitational Confinement	
   B. Inertial Confinement
	  C. Mirror Confinement
	  D. Muon-catalyzed Fusion
   E. Electrostatic Confinement 
   F. What about the pinch methods?
	  G. What are some other confinement approaches?

*** 5. Status of and plans for Present Devices:
 A.  Flagship Tokamaks
  1.  ITER: (International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor)
  2.  JET: (Joint European Torus)  
  3.  JT-60: (Japan Tokamak (?)) 
  4.  TFTR:  (Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor)  
  5.  TPX: (Tokamak Physics Experiment)  
 B.  Medium to Large Tokamaks
  1.  Alcator C-Mod: 
  2.  ASDEX-U:  (Axially Symmetric Divertor EXperiment-Upgrade) 
  3.  DIII-D:  (Doublet III, D-shape)
  4.  FT: (Frascati Tokamak)
  5.  NSTX: (National Spherical Tokamak eXperiment)
  6.  PBX-M:  (Princeton Beta Experiment-Modified)
  7.  TCV: (Variable Configuration Tokamak - in French) 
  8.  TdeV:  (Tokamak de Varenne)
  9.  TEXTOR:  
  10. Tore Supra:  
 C.  Small Tokamaks
  1:  CDX-U (Current Drive eXperiment-Upgrade)
  2.  START:  (Small, Tight-Aspect-Ratio Tokamak)
  3.  TEXT-U: (Texas Experimental Tokamak-Upgrade?)
 D.  Stellarators
  1.  ATF  (Advanced Toroidal Facility)  
  2.  Wendelstein-7AS:  (Advanced Stellarator) 
  3.  Wendelstein-7X
 E.  Inertial Confinement
  1.  NIF:  (National Ignition Facility)
  2.  Nova:
  3.  Omega:
  4.  NIKE:
 F.  Alternative Methods
  1.  Electrostatic Confinement:
  2.  MFTF:  Mirror Fusion Test Facility:  
  3.  Muon-Catalyzed Fusion 
  4.  Plasmak: 
  5.  RFX:  (Reversed-Field eXperiment)

*** 6. Recent Results
 A.  Recent Results on TFTR:
	 (a) What was done?
	 (b) Why does it matter?
 B.  Recent Results from JET
 C.  Recent Results from Inertial Confinement Fusion
 D.  Recent Results from Muon-Catalyzed Fusion
 E.  Recent major results from other experiments, 
       and theoretical work
 F.  Recent Political News
 G.  Appendix on TFTR and JET results

*** 7. Educational Issues and Conferences:
 A.  What opportunities are there for interested students?
 B.  I'm an undergraduate interested in becoming a "fusioneer."  
         What should I study?
 C.  What sorts of experiments are there for high-school
         students?  How can I get the equipment?  Has anyone
         else done this?
 D.  What about those summer programs you mentioned above?	
 E.  When/where are the major fusion conferences?

*** 8. Other internet resources:
 A. Newsgroups
 B. WAIS (Wide-Area-Information-Server)
 C. World-Wide Web
 D. Gopher
 E. Anonymous FTP Sites
 F. Listservers
 G. Electronic Bulletins
 H. Individuals Willing to Provide Additional Information

*** 9. Future Plans:
  (Under construction)
	(a) Plans for TPX?
	(b) Plans for ITER?
	(c) Prospects for funding? (US, EC, Japan, FUSSR)
	(d) What problems in designing a fusion powerplant?
		Rad waste, materials choices, device parameters ???
	(e) What are the key research problems/opportunities?

*** 10. Bibliography / Reading List
	A. Recent articles in the popular literature.
	B. General References and Histories 
	(suitable for those with minimal background in physics or fusion).
	C. Fusion Research Review Articles & Texts
	D. Plasma Physics - General Texts 
	(focus is on the science of plasmas, rather than engineering 
		of reactors)
	E.  Plasma Physics - Device-Specific
	(applications of plasma physics to specific devices)
	F. Fusion Reactor Engineering References
	G. List of Relevant Scientific Journals
	H. Unclassified / Unsummarized works.  (Please help me move
		references out of this section and into sections 1-4 by
 		contributing reviews of sources you know about!)

*** 11. Acknowledgements and Citations
  (I've had a lot of help, so I needed a separate section to list
   everyone!)

*** Glossary of Frequently Used Terms (FUT)
Part 0. Introduction to the Glossary / FUT
Part 1. Glossary terms from A to B
Part 2. Glossary terms from C to D
Part 3. Glossary terms from E to F
Part 4. Glossary terms from G to J
Part 5. Glossary terms from K to M
Part 6. Glossary terms from N to R
Part 7. Glossary terms from S to Z
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.13 / John Logajan /  Re-engineering Griggs
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@mirage.skypoint.net (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re-engineering Griggs
Date: 13 Oct 1994 17:51:07 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

As I understand it, the Griggs device usually has a constant flow of
new water through it.  In some of the posted results, the flow rate
varied from approx 5 GPM to a fraction of a GPM -- but always with
positive anomalous heat.

It is likely that the flow rate is fundamentally unconnected to the
anomalous heat generation, so theoretically, one ought to be able to
reduce the flow rate to zero.   In other words, the sole benefit of
the water flow has been its ability to carry heat away from the
reaction.

Those operations ought be be able to be decoupled, then.  A cooling
system (blanket aka internal combustion engine cooling jacket)
independent of the "core" operation is envisioned.

The primary benefit of decoupling the functions is that it might make
it easier to "tune" the individual parameters for maximum output.

--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com  --  612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA -
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.13 / Chris Parkinson /  Griggs Device and Cavitation Question
     
Originally-From: parky@netcom.com (Chris Parkinson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Newsgroups: misc.physics.fusion
Newsgroups: misc.physics.fusion
Subject: Griggs Device and Cavitation Question
Subject: Griggs Device
Subject: Griggs Device
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 1994 18:26:53 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

Newsgroups: misc.physics.fusion
Subject: Griggs Device
Distribution: usa
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)


Is the Hydrosonic pump a cavitation device? Are tornadoes cavitation
devices? Are hurricains?


Newsgroups: misc.physics.fusion
Subject: Griggs Device
Summary: 
Followup-To: 
Distribution: usa
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
Keywords: 


Is the Hydrosonic pump a cavitation device? Are tornadoes cavitation
devices? Are hurricains?


cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenparky cudfnChris cudlnParkinson cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.13 / Ad aspera /  Re: Hot Fusion Pays Well!
     
Originally-From: JTCHEW@lbl.gov (Ad absurdum per aspera)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Hot Fusion Pays Well!
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 1994 12:03:56 -0800
Organization: Purely personal 'pinions

Well, I know some highly paid scientific leaders whose
responsibilities are largely managerial.  I see them
not only driving expensive cars, but also agonizing over
how to avoid or mitigate layoffs after the unexpected 
torpedoing of entire programs, catching the redeye back
from Washington, insisting on the proper career guidance
for graduate students, etc.  The attempt to keep the place 
running both smoothly and legally, to provide leadership, 
and to find money causes them to put in long hours dealing 
with intractable problems and, sometimes, unpleasant people.
This workload is good in a way because it keeps them from 
feeling sorry for themselves about not having time to do 
much science anymore.  A lot of decently paid working 
scientists of comparable seniority and intelligence wouldn't 
touch the job on a bet, six-figure paycheck or not.

As for the wisecrack about "saving the world from fossil
fuel combustion -- in 50 or 100 years," we'll see how funny
it sounds in 50 or 100 years.  Barring the discovery that
the earth is hollow and largely filled with petroleum, it
might be a good idea to plan ahead and conduct at least a
modest level of research into alternatives.

Cheers, and note followups,
Joe
"Just another personal opinion from the People's Republic of Berkeley"
Disclaimer: Even if my employer had a position on the subject,
I probably wouldn't be the one stating it on their behalf.
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenJTCHEW cudfnAd cudlnaspera cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.13 / Robert Heeter /  Conventional Fusion FAQ Glossary Part 1/7 (A-B)
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.answers,news.answers
Subject: Conventional Fusion FAQ Glossary Part 1/7 (A-B)
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 1994 05:47:03 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

Archive-name: fusion-faq/glossary/part1-AtoB
Last-modified: 17-Sept-1994
Posting-frequency: More-or-less-monthly
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!!!).
===============================================================

Glossary Part 1:  Terms from A to B

FREQUENTLY USED TERMS IN CONVENTIONAL FUSION RESEARCH 
AND PLASMA PHYSICS

Edited by Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@pppl.gov

Guide to Categories:
 
* = plasma/fusion/energy vocabulary
& = basic physics vocabulary 
> = device type or machine name
# = name of a constant or variable
! = scientists 
@ = acronym
% = labs & political organizations
$ = unit of measurement

Citations and Acknowledgements appear in Section 11 of the FAQ.

==================================================================

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

# A - symbol used to indicate either area or magnetic 
vector potential.

$ A - abbreviation for Amperes; see entry.

@ AEC - (US) Atomic Energy Commission; see entry

@ ANL - Argonne National Laboratory; see entry

@ ARIES - Advanced Reactor Innovative Engineering Study (?)
           See Entry under ARIES

@ ASDEX - Axially Symmetric Divertor EXperiment; see entry

@ ASDEX-U - ASDEX-Upgrade; see entry for ASDEX.

* Activation: Activation occurs when a particle interacts
with an atomic nucleus, shifting the nucleus into an
unstable state, and causing it to become radioactive.
In fusion research, where deuterium-tritium is a common
fuel mixture, the neutron released when (D + T) combine
to form (4He + n) can activate the reactor structure. 

* Activation Product: The unstable nucleus formed when
activation occurs.  (See activation above.)

& Adiabatic:  Not involving an exchange of heat between the
system said to be adiabatic and the rest of the universe.

* Adiabatic Invariant:  Characteristic parameters which do not
change as a physical system slowly evolves; the most commonly
used one in plasma physics is the magnetic moment of a charged
particle spiraling around a magnetic field line.

* Afterglow:  Recombination radiation emitted from a cooling
plasma when the source of ionization (heating, etc) is removed.

* Advanced Fuels:  There are several elements/isotopes which
could be fused together, besides the DT fuel mixture.  Many such
fuel combinations would have various advantages over DT, but
it is generally more difficult to achieve fusion with these
advanced fuels than with the DT mix.  See fuels section of FAQ
for discussion. 

> Advanced Toroidal Facility:  (?) A reversed-field pinch machine
developed at Oak Ridge National Lab (ORNL) (?)

> Alcator: Name given to a set of tokamaks designed and built at MIT; 
these machines a distinguished by high magnetic fields with 
relatively small diameters.  The high magnetic field helps create 
plasmas with relatively high current and particle densities.  
The current incarnation is Alcator C-mod, and is described further
in section 5.  Alcator C was donated to LLNL for use as the 
Microwave Tokamak eXperiment (MTX), now shut down.

* Alfven waves: Transverse electromagnetic waves that are 
propagated along lines of magnetic force in a plasma.  The waves
have frequency less than the ion cyclotron frequency, and are
characterized by the fact that the field lines oscillate (wiggle)
with the plasma.  The propagation velocity depends on the particle
density and the strength of the magnetic field.  "[Relatively] 
Low frequency ion oscillation in the presence of an equilibrium 
magnetic field.  Also called the hydromagnetic wave along Bo.  
The torsional Alfven wave in cylindrical geometry was first measured 
in liquid mercury by B. Lehnert.  Alfven waves were first generated 
and detected in plasma by Allen, Baker, Pyle, and Wilcox in Berkeley 
and by Jephcott in England in 1959."  (quoting from Chen's book; 
see bibliography) - Albert Chou

! Alfven, Hannes Olof:  Nobel Prize-Winning Plasma Physicist
and Astronomer who first suggested the possibility of MHD waves
in 1942.

* Alpha emission:  Form of nuclear decay where the nucleus
emits an alpha particle (see entry below).

* Alpha particle:  The nucleus of a Helium-4 atom; is a
typical product of fusion reactions; also released
in various nuclear decay processes.  Alpha particles readily
grab electrons from other sources, becoming neutral helium;
even energetic alpha particles are easily stopped by thin 
barriers (sheets of paper, dead layers of skin, etc.), so that
as a radiological hazard alpha particles are only dangerous if
they are generated inside one's body (where the skin cannot
protect tissue from damage).

$ Ampere, kiloampere, megampere:  (from Herman) The standard
unit for measuring the strength of an electric current
representing a flow of one coulomb of electricity per second.
1 kiloampere = 1000 amperes; 1 megampere = 1,000,000 amperes.
Common abbreviations:  A, amps, kiloamps, megamps, kA, MA

! Ampere, Andre-Marie (1775-1836):  French physicist responsible 
for much of what is known about the fundamentals of electromagnetism.

& Ampere's Law:  General equation in electromagnetism relating
the magnetic field and the currents generating it.

* Aneutronic Fuels:  Advanced fusion fuels which would not
produce fusion neutrons.  See fuels section of FAQ for discussion.

$ Angstrom:  A unit of distance equal to 10^-10 meters or 10^-10 cm.

& Angular Momentum:  Momentum involved in the rotation of a body
about an axis; conserved like ordinary momentum (see momentum).
Angular momentum is defined as the cross product of ordinary momentum
with the position vector running from the axis of rotation to the
body whose angular momentum is being determined.  Torque is the
rate of change of angular momentum with time.  (see also torque)

* Anomalous Diffusion:  Diffusion in most plasma devices, 
particularly tokamaks, is higher than what one would predict from 
understood causes.  The observed, "typical" diffusion is referred to 
as "anomalous" because it has not yet been explained.  Anomalous 
diffusion includes all diffusion which is not due to collisions 
and geometric effects.  While such effects were not understood 
when the term was coined, and most still aren't, diffusion due 
to well-understood wave phenomena is still 'anomalous'.  "Classical" 
diffusion and "Neo-classical" diffusion are the two well-understood 
diffusion theories, neither is adequate to fully explain the observed 
"anomalous" diffusion.  See also:  entries for classical and 
neoclassical diffusion.  (Acknowledgements to Philip Snyder)

% Argonne National Laboratory:  One of the U.S. Department of Energy
basic-research Laboratories, located in Illinois... (need more info!)

* ARIES: Set of four fusion reactor design studies which investigated
the safety, economic, and environmental implications of various
advances in fusion reactor science and technology.

* Ash:  Fusion reaction products trapped in a plasma.  Ash is
bad because (a) it generally radiates more strongly than the fuel 
ions, and thus reduces energy confinement, and (b) it creates 
additional plasma pressure and/or reduces pressure available for fuel 
ions. (due to beta limits, see beta)  Controlling ash is a major 
area of fusion research.  Ideally one would be able to extract 
the ash ions after diverting an appropriate fraction of their 
energy to heating the fuel ions, and then convert the remaining ash 
energy to electricity.  Current research involves using RF waves to 
transfer energy from ash ions to fuel ions, and to push the ash into 
the scrape-off layer, where it can be collected via divertors.  
(See also scrape-off layer, divertors)

* Ash control - see ash, divertors.

* Ash removal - see ash, divertors.

* Aspect Ratio:  In toroidal geometry, the ratio of
the major diameter (total width of the torus) to the 
minor diameter (width of a slice taken through one side
of the ring).  (This would be much better with a picture!)

& Atom:  (from Herman)  The smallest unit of an element that
retains the characteristics of that element.  At the center
of the atom is the nucleus, made up of neutrons and protons,
around which the electrons orbit.  Atoms of ordinary hydrogen,
the lightest element, consists of a nucleus of one proton
orbited by one electron.  (Note:  distinct from a molecule,
which is the smallest unit of a substance which retains the
characteristics of that substance.  It takes far less 
energy to break apart a stable molecule into its constituent 
atoms than to divide a stable atom into two smaller atoms.)
Note that in solids, atoms are typically two angstroms
(2 x 10^-10 meters) apart; in air the gas molecules are about
30 angstroms apart.

& Atomic Bomb, A-Bomb:  (from Herman) A weapon with a large
explosive power due to the sudden release of energy when the
nuclei of heavy atoms such as plutonium-239 or uranium-235
are split.  This fission is brought about by the bombardment
of the fuel with neutrons, setting off a chain reaction.
The bomb releases shock, blast, heat, light, and lethal
radiation.  The world's first atomic bomb was successfully
tested by the United States on July 16, 1945.

% Atomic Energy Commission: United States governmental 
authority for atomic energy; split into ERDA and NRC in 1975.
(may not be 100% correct)

& Atomic Number (Z):  The number of protons in a nucleus; same
as the number of electrons in a neutral atom; determines the 
position of an element in the periodic table, and hence its
chemical properties (see also isotope).

* Atomic Temperature:  The temperature corresponding to the mean
kinetic energy of the neutral atoms in a plasma.  (If there were
no ions or electrons, the atomic temperature would be what we
normally think of as the temperature of a gas, such as the air.)

& Avogadro's number: N = 6.02497 x 10^23.  Number of particles 
in a mole of a substance.  Coefficient relating Boltzmann's 
constant to the ideal gas constant. This is the number of 
atoms per gram-atom.  See also: mole

> Axially Symmetric Divertor EXperiment (from Herman)
(ASDEX, Asdex: Garching, Germany)  A large tokamak designed 
for the study of impurities and their control by a magnetic
divertor.  The H mode or high mode of operation with neutral 
beam injection was first observed on ASDEX.

> Axially Symmetric Divertor EXperiment (ASDEX, Asdex):  "The original
ASDEX, located in Garching, Germany and decommisioned in 1990(?), 
would qualify today as a medium-sized tokamak. It was designed for 
the study of impurities and their control by a magnetic divertor.  
The H mode or high mode of operation with neutral beam injection was
first observed on ASDEX.  Its successor ASDEX-Upgrade (a completely 
new machine, not really an "upgrade") is larger and more flexible.
It is the first tokamak whose toroidal and poloidal field coils are 
not linked, which will be a necessary design factor in a reactor.  
It will achieve parameters at the edge which are very similar to 
those needed for a power reactor." - Arthur Carlson

* Azimuthal: Generally an angle, measured "around" an object.
In spherical geometries, the angle which is *not* the "polar angle".  
On the earth, one incarnation of the azimuthal angle is the longitude 
of a location relative to the prime meridian through Greenwich, 
England.  In toroidal geometries, the longitude idea still applies, 
but the other angle is the "poloidal" angle, not the "polar" angle.  
The azimuthal direction is the "long way" around a torus.  
See also: poloidal.


BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB

# B - variable used for Magnetic Field

# B - chemical symbol for the element boron; see entry

# Be - chemical symbol for the element beryllium; see entry

@ BHP - Biological Hazard Potential; see entry

@ BPX - Burning Plasma eXperiment; see entry

@ BTU - British Thermal Unit; see entry

@ BWR - Boiling Water Reactor (fission); see entry

* Background Radiation:  Level of environmental radation due to
"background" sources.  Background sources can be natural, such
as cosmic rays and natural radioactive elements (principally 
radon, but including other elements such as isotopes of potassium 
(which people get substantial amounts of in foods like bananas)).
They can also be man-made, such as from fossil-fuel combustion, 
everyday leakage from nuclear activities, and leftover from 
atmospheric nuclear weapons tests.  Background radiation is
usually distinguished from acute radiation, such as from medical
x-rays, nuclear accidents, radioisotope therapy, or other short-term
doses.  The man-made contribution to background radiation is
quite small compared to the natural contribution; medical uses
dominate human exposure to acute radiation.

* Ballooning Mode:  (Haven't had my waves & instabilities class yet!
Any help out there?)

* Banana Orbit:  The fast spiraling of an charged particle around a
magnetic field line is accompanied by a slow movement ("drift") of 
the center of the sprial.  Projected onto a poloidal plane, the drift
orbit has the shape of a banana.  These orbits are responsible for 
neo-classical diffusion (see entry).

* Baseball Coils:  Used in magnetic-mirror geometries to
produce a minimum-B configuration; so-called because of their
resemblance to the characteristic shape of lacing on a baseball.

* Beam-Beam Reaction:  Fusion reaction which occurs from the 
collision of two fast ions originating in injected neutral beams.

* Beam-Plasma Reaction:  Fusion reaction which occurs from the
collision of a fast beam ion with a thermal plasma ion.

* Beam-Wall Reaction:  Fusion reaction which occurs from the
collision of a fast beam ion with an ion embedded in or adsorbed
onto the reactor wall.

! Becquerel, Antoine-Henri:  French scientist and discoverer of
radioactivity; co-winner of Nobel Prize.  (See Curie)

$ Becquerel:  Unit of radioactivity equal to 1 disintegration per
second.  (see Curie)

& Beryllium: (Be)  Element with atomic number 4 (four protons).
May be useful in multiplying fusion neutrons to enhance tritium
production in a lithium blanket; rather hazardous to handle.
(See relevant terms mentioned.)

* Beta, or beta-value:  Ratio between plasma kinetic pressure and 
magnetic-field pressure; proportional to the ratio between plasma 
kinetic energy density and magnetic field energy density.  Beta 
is usually measured relative to the total, local field
(loosely called beta toroidal), but sometimes the plasma pressure 
relative to only the poloidal component of the field (beta poloidal)
or relative to some external field (like the maximum field at the
magnetic coils) is more useful. There is also a normalized beta 
(beta_N) of interest when discussing the beta limit (see entry).
(lots of help from Art Carlson with the above.)

"Because the cost of a reactor is strongly influenced by the 
strength of the magnetic field that must be provided, beta values 
are directly related to the economics of fusion power production. 
Beta is usually expressed as a percentage, with 5% generally 
believed to be the minimum value required for an economical 
fusion reactor." - from the PPPL WWW page on PBX-M.  
See also: pressure, kinetic pressure, magnetic pressure, 
second stability.


* Beta-Normal:  Beta-N, the normalized beta, is beta relative to
the beta limit (see below).

* Beta-Poloidal:  Beta-P is the same as the ordinary beta, except
only the poloidal field is used in calculating the magnetic field
pressure.  Beta-P is > 1 in many modern tokamaks.

* Beta Emission:  Form of nuclear decay where a neutron splits 
into a proton plus electron plus neutrino set.  The proton 
stays in the nucleus but the electron ("beta ray") is ejected.

* Beta Limit, also called Troyon Limit: If the plasma pressure in 
a tokamak becomes too high, the so-called ballooning modes become 
unstable and lead to a loss of confinement (sometimes catastophic,
sometimes not). The exact value at which this occurs depends 
strongly on the magnetic field B, the plasma minor radius a, and 
the toroidal plasma current I, such that maximum value of the 
normalized beta, beta_N=beta*B*a/I, is around 4% (with B in Teslas, 
a in meters, and I in Mega-amperes).  The exact value depends on 
details of the plasma shape, the plasma profiles, and the safety
factor. (Beta entries provided by Art Carlson.)

* Beta Particle / Beta Ray:  Original term used for electrons
ejected from decaying nuclei via beta emission.  (Label derives
from the old days when we had alpha, beta, and gamma emission,
and no one really knew what any of them were.)

* Biasing:  [from Art Carlson] The vacuum vessel of a tokamak
(or other device) has a variety of structures--limiters, divertor
plates, the wall itself. These are usually mechanically and
electrically connected, but it is possible to bias (charge) them to
different voltages relative to each other. This allows some control 
over the electric fields and currents around the plasma, which can 
influence, for example, the thickness of the scrape-off-layer, the 
transition between L- and H-mode, and the equilibrium configuration. 
Biasing experiments are being done on DIII-D, TEXTOR, and TdeV.

* Binary Collisions:  Collisions involving only two particles; 
multiparticle collisions (eg, three-body collisions) are usually
neglected/approximated...

* Binding Energy:  Energy required to separate two objects;
conversely, energy released when two objects are allow to bind
together.  Equivalent to the mass defect (see entry) via E=mc^2.

* Biological Hazard Potential (BHP):  Measure of the hazard posed by
a given quantity of radioactive material in which the variation in
biological effects of the various elements are accounted for.
(See also integrated biological hazard potential, IBHP)

& Biot-Savart Law:  General formula for determining the magnetic 
field due to a steady line (not space) current.  Related to Ampere's 
Law.

* Blanket: (from Herman) a region surrounding a fusion reactor 
core within which the fusion neutrons are slowed down, heat 
is transferred to a primary coolant, and tritium is bred 
from lithium.  In hybrid applications, fertile materials 
(U-238 or Th-232) are located in the blanket for conversion 
into fissile fuels.

* Bohm diffusion:  (from Herman) A rapid loss of plasma
across magnetic field lines caused by microinstabilities.
Theory formulated by the physicist David Bohm.  From Chen's book 
(see bibliography): "Semiempirical formula for the diffusion 
coefficient given by Bohm in 1946 (noted by Bohm, Burhop, and 
Massey, who were developing a magnetic arc for use in uranium 
isotope separation)."  Bohm diffusion was proposed (not derived 
from first principles) to scale as 1/B rather than the 1/B^2 
scaling predicted by classical diffusion.  A 1/B scaling results 
from assuming that particles diffuse across field lines at an 
optimum rate (effective collision frequency=cyclotron frequency).  
The 1/B scaling is observed (approximately) in most reactors.  
(Acknowledgements to Philip Snyder)  See also: diffusion, 
microinstabilities, field lines...

* Boiling Water Reactor (BWR):  Class of fission reactor where
water is used as a coolant and allowed to boil into steam.
(I don't remember much more about it - any help out there?)

& Boltzmann constant: k = 1.38 x 10^-16 erg/degree. This 
is the ratio of the universal gas constant to Avogadro's number.
It is also used to relate temperatures (Kelvin) to energies (ergs
or Joules) via E = (constant of order unity) * kT.

& Boltzmann Distribution:  See Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution;
distribution function.

* Boltzmann Equation:  Fundamental equation in kinetic theory
which describes the evolution of the distribution function.

* Bootstrap Current:  Currents driven in toroidal devices by 
neo-classical diffusion (see entry).  They may amount to a 
substantial fraction of the net current in a tokamak reactor, 
thus lengthening the pulse time or decreasing the power needed 
for current drive.

& Boron: (B)  Fifth element (Z=5) in the periodic table; has
5 protons; potential use as an aneutronic fuel.  (See FAQ section
1, part on reactions.)  Also useful as a neutron-absorber.

* Boronization:  Energy confinement in a fusion plasma depends
strongly on the average atomic number (Z) of the elements in the
plasma.  Boronization refers to a process whereby boron (atomic
number 5) is injected into a plasma and used to coat the walls
of the reactor; the effect is that impurities from the reactor
walls which enter the fusion plasma are primarily boron (which
has a fairly low Z) rather than the higher-atomic-number metals
typically used in reactor structures.  Boronization has been
associated with improved fusion plasma performance.  Boronization
is an example of Wall Conditioning.  See also Boron, atomic number,
wall conditioning, impurities.

* Branching Ratio:  In a fusion reaction involving two nuclei,
there are typically a variety of possible sets of products which
can form.  The branching ratio for a particular set of products
is the probability that that set of products will be produced.

* Breakeven:  there are several types:
	Commercial:  When fusion power can be converted into enough 
		electric power to power the reactor and generate enough
 		electricity to cover the costs of the plant at economically
 		competitive rates. (?)
	Engineering:  When enough energy can be generated from the
		fusion power output to supply power for the reactor and
		generate a surplus; sort of commercial breakeven without
		the economic considerations. (?)
	Scientific:  When fusion power = input power; Q=1.
		(See also Lawson Criterion)
		Extrapolated - projected for actual reactor fuel using 
			an alternative fuel.
		Actual - determined using the actual fusion fuel to be
			used in the reactor (typically DT).

* Breeder Reactor:  Class of nuclear reactor (could be fission
or fusion) which uses some of the nuclear byproducts (generally
neutrons) to transmute non-fuel materials to new materials which 
can be used for fuel in other reactors, in such a way that 
the reactor creates more fuel than it consumes (breeding).  
Term usually refers to reactors which breed fission fuel.
Use of breeder reactors would greatly extend the fuel supply for
nuclear fission energy, but also creates additional opportunities
for diversion of fissile materials to weapons production and
could exacerbate proliferation of nuclear weapons.

& Bremsstrahlung:  (German for "Braking Radiation")  Electromagnetic
radiation from a charged particle as it slows down (decelerates).  
Similar to synchrotron radiation (see also).  In a plasma 
bremsstrahlung occurs when electrons (which are lighter and generally
move faster) collide with ions (which are heavier and generally move
slower); the acceleration/deceleration of the electrons causes them
to radiate bremsstrahlung.

* British Thermal Unit:  Unit of energy needed to raise a pound of
water by one degree fahrenheit; equal to 252 calories or 1055 Joules.
(See also calorie, joule).  Not part of the metric system.

> Burning Plasma eXperiment (BPX):  Proposed U.S. successor to TFTR;
never funded.  See also: CIT, TPX.

> Bumpy Torus:  I believe this concept tries to combine mirror 
concepts with toroidal ones.  My understanding is that it is 
essentially a series of mirrors stuck end to end and bent into 
a ring.  - Albert Chou (corrections / enhancements welcome!)
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.13 / Robert Heeter /  Conventional Fusion FAQ Section 1/11 (Fusion Physics)
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.answers,news.answers
Subject: Conventional Fusion FAQ Section 1/11 (Fusion Physics)
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 1994 14:06:42 GMT
Organization: Princeton University


Archive-name: fusion-faq/section1-physics
Last-modified: 7-Aug-1994
Posting-frequency: More-or-less-monthly
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!!!).

******************************************************************
1. Fusion as a Physical Phenomenon

Last Revised August 7, 1994
Written by Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@pppl.gov, unless
otherwise cited.

******************************************************************

*** Please let me know if anything here is unclear. ***

*** A.  What is fusion?

"Fusion" means many things when discussed on the newsgroup.  
Technically, "fusion" is short for "Nuclear Fusion," which describes
the class of reactions where two light nuclei fuse together, forming
a heavier nucleus.  This heavier nucleus is frequently unstable, and
sometimes splits (fissions) into two or more fragments.  "Fusion"
also refers to the type of energy produced, and a "fusion reactor"
describes an energy-producing facility which generates power via
fusion reactors.  Finally, "fusion" can also be used to refer to
the scientific program aimed at harnessing fusion for clean,
safe, and hopefully inexpensive energy production - a collaborative 
international program which has been carried on for the past 40-some 
years.  Each of these three uses - the technical, the energy
source, and the scientific research program - is discussed in
a separate section of this FAQ.  The technical aspects of
fusion are discussed below in this section.


*** B.  How does fusion release energy?

If you add up the masses of the particles which go into a fusion
reaction, and you add up the masses of the particles which come out,
there is frequently a difference.  According to Einstein's famous
law relating energy and mass, E=mc^2, the "mass difference" can
take the form of energy.  Fusion reactions involving nuclei lighter
than iron typically release energy, but fusion reactions involving
nuclei heavier than iron typically absorb energy.  The amount of
energy released depends on the specifics of the reaction; a table
of reactions is given further below to give an idea of the variety 
of fusion reactions.

Another way to look at this is to consider the "binding energy"
of the elements in question.  If the reactants are bound more
weakly than the products, then energy is released in the reaction.
"Binding energy" is the amount of energy you would have to put
into a system in order to pull its components apart; conversely,
in a system with high binding energy, a lot of energy is released
as the components are allowed to bond together.  Suppose you
had two balls connected by a long, thin rubber band, so that they
are not very tightly connected, and the rubber band can be broken
easily.  This is a system with low binding energy.  Now here's an
analogy to what happens in fusion:  imagine the long, thin 
rubber band suddenly being replaced by a short, thick one.  The
short thick one has to be stretched a lot in order to connect
to the two balls, but it wants to bind them more tightly, so it
pulls them together, and energy is released as they move towards
each other.  The low-binding energy, long rubber band system
has been replaced by a high-binding energy, short rubber band
system, and energy is released. 


*** C.  Where does fusion occur in nature?

The conditions needed to induce fusion reactions are extreme; 
so extreme that virtually all natural fusion occurs in stars, 
where gravity compresses the gas, until temperature and pressure 
forces balance the gravitational compression.  If there is enough 
material in the star, pressures and temperatures will grow
large enough as the star contracts that fusion will begin to occur 
(see below for the explanation why); the energy released will then 
sustain the star's temperature against losses from sunlight being 
radiated away.  The minimum mass needed to induce fusion is roughly 
one-tenth the sun's mass; this is why the sun is a star, but 
Jupiter is merely a (large) planet.  (Jupiter is about 1/1000th 
the sun's mass, so if it were roughly 100 times bigger, it
too would generate fusion and be a small, dim star.)

Stellar fusion reactions gradually convert hydrogen into helium.  
When a star runs out of hydrogen fuel, it either stops burning 
(becoming a dwarf star) or, if it is large enough (so that gravity 
compresses the helium strongly) it begins burning the helium into 
heavier elements.  Because fusion reactions cease to release 
energy once elements heavier than iron are involved, the larger 
stars also eventually run out of fuel, but this time they
collapse in a supernova.  Gravity, no longer opposed by the internal
pressure of fusion-heated gases, crushes the core of the star, 
forming things like white dwarfs, neutron stars, and black holes
(the bigger the star, the more extreme the result).  (For more 
details, try the sci.astro or sci.space.science newsgroups.)


*** D.  Why doesn't fusion occur anywhere else in nature?

Current scientific knowledge indicates that very little fusion
occurs anywhere else in nature.  The reason is because in order
to get two nuclei to fuse, you first have to get them close together.
(This is because the nuclear forces involved in fusion only act
at short range.)  However, because the two nuclei are both positively
charged, they repel each other electrically.  Nuclei will not fuse
unless either (a) they collide with enough energy to overcome the
electrical repulsion, or (b) they find a "sneaky" way to circumvent
their repulsion (see muon-catalyzed fusion in section 4).  The
energy required for fusion is so high that fusion only occurs in
appreciable amounts once the temperature gets over 10 million
degrees Kelvin, so (a) doesn't happen anywhere outside of stars.
Current knowledge suggests that the sort of processes that would
allow sneaky-fusion as in (b) are very rare, so there just isn't
much fusion in the everyday world.


*** E.  What are the basic fusion reactions?

While it is possible to take any two nuclei and get them to fuse,
it is easiest to get lighter nuclei to fuse, because they are
less highly charged, and therefore easier to squeeze together.
There are complicated quantum-mechanics rules which determine which
products you will get from a given reaction, and in what amounts
("branching ratios").  The probability that two nuclei fuse is
determined by the physics of the collsion, and a property called
the "cross section" (see glossary) which (roughly speaking) 
measures the likelihood of a fusion reaction.  (A simple analogy
for cross-section is to consider a blindfolded person throwing
a dart randomly towards a dartboard on a wall.  The likelihood 
that the dart hits the target depends on the *cross-sectional* 
area of the target facing the dart-thrower.  (Thanks to Rich
Schroeppel for this analogy.))

Below is an annotated list of many fusion reactions discussed 
on the newsgroup.  Note:  D = deuterium, T = tritium, p = proton,
n = neutron; these and the other elements involved are discussed 
in the glossary/FUT.  (FUT = list of Frequently Used Terms; section
10 of the FAQ.)  The numbers in parentheses are the energies
of the reaction products (in Millions of electron-Volts, see
glossary for details).  The percentages indicate the branching 
ratios.  More information on each of the elements is given below.

Table I:  Fusion Reactions Among Various Light Elements

D+D   -> T (1.01 MeV) + p (3.02 MeV) (50%)   
      -> He3 (0.82 MeV) + n (2.45 MeV) (50%)  <- most abundant fuel
      -> He4 + about 20 MeV of gamma rays (about 0.0001%; depends
                                           somewhat on temperature.)
      (most other low-probability branches are omitted below)
D+T   -> He4 (3.5 MeV) + n (14.1 MeV)  <-easiest to achieve
D+He3 -> He4 (3.6 MeV) + p (14.7 MeV)  <-easiest aneutronic reaction
                                     "aneutronic" is explained below.
T+T   -> He4 + 2n + 11.3 MeV
He3+T -> He4 + p + n + 12.1 MeV (51%)
      -> He4 (4.8) + D (9.5) (43%)
      -> He4 (0.5) + n (1.9) + p (11.9) (6%)  <- via He5 decay
                                    
p+Li6 -> He4 (1.7) + He3 (2.3)      <- another aneutronic reaction
p+Li7 -> 2 He4 + 17.3 MeV (20%)
      -> Be7 + n -1.6 MeV (80%)     <- endothermic, not good.
D+Li6 -> 2He4 + 22.4 MeV            <- also aneutronic, but you 
                                              get D-D reactions too.
p+B11 -> 3 He4 + 8.7 MeV <- harder to do, but more energy than p+Li6
n+Li6 -> He4 (2.1) + T (2.7)        <- this can convert n's to T's
n+Li7 -> He4 + T + n - some energy

From the list, you can see that some reactions release neutrons,
many release helium, and different reactions release different
amounts of energy (some even absorb energy, rather than releasing
it).  He-4 is a common product because the nucleus of He-4 is
especially stable, so lots of energy is released in creating it.
(A chemical analogy is the burning of gasoline, which is relatively 
unstable, to form water and carbon dioxide, which are more stable.  
The energy liberated in this combustion is what powers automobiles.)
The reasons for the stability of He4 involve more physics than I
want to go into here.

Some of the more important fusion reactions will be described below.  
These reactions are also described in Section 2 in the context of 
their usefulness for energy-producing fusion reactors.


*** F.  Could you tell me more about these different elements?
(Note: there's more information in the glossary too.)

Hydrogen    (p):  Ordinary hydrogen is everywhere, especially 
                    in water.
Deuterium   (D):  A heavy isotope of hydrogen (has a neutron in
                    addition to the proton).  Occurs naturally at 
                    1 part in 6000; i.e. for every 6000 ordinary 
                    hydrogen atoms in water, etc., there's one D.
Tritium     (T):  Tritium is another isotope of hydrogen, with two 
                    neutrons and a proton.  T is unstable  
                    (radioactive), and decays into Helium-3 with a
                    half-life of 12.3 years.  (Half the T decays
                    every 12.3 years.)  Because of its short 
                    half-life, tritium is almost never found in 
                    nature (natural T is mostly a consequence 
                    of cosmic-ray bombardment).  Supplies have been 
                    manufactured using fission reactors; world 
                    tritium reserves are estimated at a few 
                    kilograms, I believe.  Tritium can be made by 
                    exposing deuterium or lithium to neutrons.
Helium-3  (He3):  Rare light isotope of helium; two protons and a 
                    neutron.  Stable.  There's roughly 13 He-3 atoms 
                    per 10 million He-4 atoms.  He-3 is relatively 
                    abundant on the surface of the moon; this is 
                    believed to be due to particles streaming onto
                    the moon from the solar wind.  He3 can also be
                    made from decaying tritium.
Helium-4  (He4):  Common isotope of helium.  Trace component of the 
                    atmosphere (about 1 part per million?); also 
                    found as a component of "natural gas" in gas 
                    wells.
Lithium-6 (Li6):  Less common isotope of lithium.  3 protons, 3 
                    neutrons.  There are 8 Li-6 atoms for every 100 
                    Li-7 atoms.  Widely distributed in minerals and 
                    seawater.  Very active chemically.
Lithium-7 (Li7):  Common isotope of lithium.  3 protons, 4 neutrons.
                    See above info on abundance.
Boron      (B):   Common form is B-11 (80%).  B-10 20%.  
                    5 protons, 6 neutrons.  Also abundant on earth.

Note:  Separating isotopes of light elements by mass is not 
         particularly difficult.


*** G.  Why is the deuterium-tritium (D-T) reaction the easiest?

Basically speaking, the extra neutrons on the D and T nuclei make
them "larger" and less tightly bound, and the result is
that the cross-section for the D-T reaction is the largest.
Also, because they are only singly-charged hydrogen isotopes,
the electrical repulsion between them is relatively small.
So it is relatively easy to throw them at each other, and it 
is relatively easy to get them to collide and stick.  
Furthermore, the D-T reaction has a relatively high energy yield.

However, the D-T reaction has the disadvantage that it releases
an energetic neutron.  Neutrons can be difficult to handle,
because they will "stick" to other nuclei, causing them to
(frequently) become radioactive, or causing new reactions.
Neutron-management is therefore a big problem with the
D-T fuel cycle.  (While there is disagreement, most fusion
scientists will take the neutron problem and the D-T fuel,
because it is very difficult just to get D-T reactions to go.)

Another difficulty with the D-T reaction is that the tritium
is (weakly) radioactive, with a half-life of 12.3 years, so
that tritium does not occur naturally.  Getting the tritium
for the D-T reaction is therefore another problem.

Fortunately you can kill two birds with one stone, and solve
both the neutron problem and the tritium-supply problem at
the same time, by using the neutron generated in the D-T
fusion in a reaction like n + Li6 -> He4 + T + 4.8 MeV.
This absorbs the neutron, and generates another tritium,
so that you can have basically a D-Li6 fuel cycle, with
the T and n as intermediates.  Fusing D and T, and then
using the n to split the Li6, is easier than simply trying
to fuse the D and the Li6, but releases the same amount of
energy.  And unlike tritium, there is a lot of lithium
available, particularly dissolved in ocean water.

Unfortunately you can't get every single neutron to stick
to a lithium nucleus, because some neutrons stick to other
things in your reactor.  You can still generate as much
T as you use, by using "neutron multipliers" such as
Beryllium, or by getting reactions like
n + Li7 -> He4 + T + n (which propagates the neutron)
to occur.  The neutrons that are lost are still a problem,
because they can induce radioactivity in materials that
absorb them.  This topic is discussed more in Section 2.


*** H.  What is aneutronic fusion?

Some researchers feel the advantages of neutron-free fusion
reactions offset the added difficulties involved in getting
these reactions to occur, and have coined the term
"aneutronic fusion" to describe these reactions.

The best simple answer I've seen so far is this one:
(I've done some proofreading and modified the notation a bit.)
[ Clarifying notes by rfheeter are enclosed in brackets like this.]

>From: johncobb@emx.cc.utexas.edu (John W. Cobb)
>Risto Kaivola <rkaivola@mits.mdata.fi> wrote:

[[ Sorry I don't have the date or full reference for this anymore;
this article appeared in sci.physics.fusion a few months ago.]]

>>Basically, what is aneutronic fusion?  The term aneutronic
>>confuses me considerably.  Could you give me an example of
>>an aneutronic fusion reaction? How could energy be produced
>>using such a reaction?  Can there be a fusion reaction in which
>>a neutron is never emitted?
>
>Examples:
>
>D + He3 --> He4 + p + 18.1MeV 
>(deuteron + helium-3 --> helium-4 + proton + energy)
>
>p + Li6 --> He4 + He3 + 4.0MeV
>(proton + lithium-6 --> helium-4 + helium-3 + energy)
>
>D + Li6 --> 2 He4 + 22.4MeV
>(deuteron + lithium-6 --> 2 helium-4's + energy)
>
>p + B11 --> 3 He4 + 8.7Mev
>(proton + boron-11 --> 3 helium-4's + energy)
>
>All of these reactions produce no neutrons directly.
[[ Hence "aneutronic." ]] 
>There are also other reactions that have multiple branches possible,
>some of which do not produce neutrons and others that do 
>(e.g., D + D, p + Li7).
>
>The question is how do you get a "reactor" going and not get 
>any neutrons.  There are 2 hurdles here. The first is getting the
>fuel to smack together hard enough and often enough for fusion
>to occur.
>The easiest fusion reaction is D + T --> He4 + n (the D-T fuel 
>cycle). A magnetic reactor can initiate fusion in one of these 
>things at about a temperature of 10keV. 
[1 keV = 1000 eV = 11,000,000 (degrees) kelvin, more or less]. 
>The other reactions require much higher temperatures (for example 
>about 50KeV for the D+He3 reaction). This is a big factor of 5. 
>The second hurdle is neutron production via "trash" (secondary) 
>reactions.  That is, the main reaction may be neutron-free, 
>but there will be pollution reactions that may emit neutrons. 
[ The products of the main reaction, e.g. He3, can be trapped in
your reactor temporarily, and fuse with other ions in the system 
in messy ways. ]
>Even if this is only a few percent, it can lead to big neutron
>emission. For example, the D+He3 reaction will also have some D+D 
>reactions occuring. 
[ Because in your reactor you will have a lot of Ds and He3s, and
the Ds will collide with each other as well as with the He3s. ]
>At 50Kev temperatures, the reaction 
>cross-section for D+D reactions is about 1/2 of the D+He3 
>cross-section, so there will be some generation of neutrons from 
>the 50% branch reaction of D + D-->He3 + n.
>Also, the other 50% goes to T+p, The triton (T) will then undergo 
>a D-T reaction and release another neutron. 
[ Because the cross-section for D-T reactions is much higher.]
>If the reactor is optmized (run in a He3 rich mode) the number 
>of neutrons can be minimized. The neutron power can be as low 
>as about 5% of the total. However, in a 1000 megawatt reactor, 
>5% is 50 MW of neutron power. That is [still] a lot of neutron 
>irradiation. This lower neutron level helps in designing 
>structural elements to withstand neutron bombardment, but it 
>still has radiation consequences.
>
>On the other hand, it is my understanding that the p-B11 reaction 
>is completely neutron free, but of course it is much harder 
>to light.


*** I.  What sort of fusion reactor is the sun?

Fortunately for life on earth, the sun is an aneutronic fusion
reactor, and we are not continually bombarded by fusion neutrons.
Unfortunately, the aneutronic process which the sun uses is 
extremely slow and harder to do on earth than any of the reactions
mentioned above.  The sun long ago burned up the "easy" deuterium
fuel, and is now mostly ordinary hydrogen.  Now hydrogen has a
mass of one (it's a single proton) and helium has a mass of four
(two protons and two neutrons), so it's not hard to imagine sticking
four hydrogens together to make a helium.  There are two major
problems here:  the first is getting four hydrogens to collide 
simultaneously, and the second is converting two of the four protons
into neutrons.  

The sun evades the first problem, and solves the second, by using a 
catalyzed cycle:  rather than fuse 4 protons directly, it fuses a 
proton to an atom of carbon-12, creating nitrogen-13; the N-13 emits 
a neutrino and a positron (an antielectron, that is an electon with
positive instead of negative charge) and becomes carbon-13.  
(Effectively, the Carbon-12 converted the proton to a 
neutron + positron + neutrino, kept the neutron, and became C-13).  
The C-13 eventually fuses with another proton to become N-14.  
N-14 then fuses with a proton to become oxygen-15.  Oxygen-15 decays 
to N-15 (emitting another positron), and N-15 plus another proton 
yields carbon-12 plus a helium-4 nucleus, (aka an alpha particle).  
Thus 4 protons are tacked one by one onto heavier elements, two of 
the protons are converted to neutrons, and the result is production
of helium and two positrons.  (The positrons will undergo 
matter-antimatter annihilation with two electrons, and the result
of the whole process is formation of a helium, two neutrinos, and
a bunch of gamma rays.  The gamma rays get absorbed in the solar 
interior and heat it up, and eventually the energy from all this 
fusion gets emitted as sunlight from the surface of the sun.)

The whole process is known as the carbon cycle; it's catalyzed
because you start with carbon and still have carbon at the end.
The presence of the carbon merely makes it possible to convert
protons to helium.  The process is slow because it's difficult
to fuse protons with carbon and nitrogen, and the positron-emitting
nuclear decays are also slow processes, because they're moderated
by the weak nuclear force.


*** J.  Why is it so hard to create controlled man-made fusion 
reactions?

In order to get two nuclei to fuse, you basically have to get
them to collide energetically.  It turns out that colliding two
beams of particles yields mostly scattering collisions, and few
fusion reactions.  Similarly, blasting a stationary target with
a beam of energetic ions also yields too little fusion.  

The upshot is that one must find some way to confine hot, 
energetic particles so that they can collide many many times,
and finally collide in just the right way, so that fusion occurs.
The temperatures required are upwards of 100 million degrees 
(Kelvin - it would be about 200 million Fahrenheit!).  At these
temperatures, your fusion fuel will melt/evaporate any material
wall.  So the big difficulties in fusion are (a) getting 
the particles hot enough to fuse, and (b) confining them long
enough so that they do fuse.


*** K.  What is plasma physics, and how is it related to fusion?

Plasma physics is the area of physics which studies ionized 
gases and their properties.  In most conventional types of fusion 
(muon-catalyzed fusion being the major exception), one must heat 
the fusion fuel to extremely high temperatures.  At these 
temperatures, the fuel atoms collide so much and so hard that 
many electrons are knocked loose from their atoms.  The result 
is a soup of ionized atoms and free electrons: a plasma.

In order to achieve the conditions required for controlled 
fusion, an understanding of how plasmas behave (and particularly 
how to confine and heat them) is often essential.


*** L.  Just how hot and confined do these plasmas need to be?
(Or, what conditions are needed for controlled fusion?)

Basically, the hotter your plasma, the more fusion you will have,
because the more ions will be flying around fast enough to stick
together.  (Although actually you can go *too* fast, and the atoms
then start to whiz by too quickly, and don't stick together long 
enough to fuse properly.  This limit is not usually achieved in 
practice.)  The more dense your plasma is, the more ions there are
in a small space, and the more collisions you are likely to have.
Finally, the longer you can keep your plasma hot, the more likely
it is that something will fuse, so duration is important too.  More
importantly, the slower your plasma loses energy, the more likely
it is that it will be able to sustain its temperature from internal
fusion reactions, and "ignite."  The ratio of fusion energy
production to plasma energy loss is what really counts here.

Hotness is measured by temperature, and as explained above, the
D-T fuel cycle (the easiest) requires temperatures of about 10 keV,
or 100,000,000 degrees kelvin.  Density is typically measured in 
particles-per-cubic centimeter or particles-per-cubic meter.
The required density depends on the confinement duration.

The Lawson product, defined as (density)*(confinement time) is a 
key measure of plasma confinement, and determines what 
combinations of density and energy confinement will give you 
fusion at a given temperature.  It is important to note that 
what you must confine is the *energy* (thermal energy) stored 
in the plasma, and not necessarily the plasma particles.  

There's a lot of subtlety here; for instance, you want to 
confine your fuel ions as well as their energy, so that they
stick around and fuse, but you *don't* want to confine the 
"ash" from the reactions, because the ash needs to get out 
of the reactor...  But you'd like to get the *energy*
out of the ash to keep your fuel hot so it will fuse better!
(And it gets even more complicated than that!)

Regardless, it's true that for a special value of the Lawson 
product, the fusion power produced in your plasma will just 
balance the energy losses as energy in the plasma becomes 
unconfined, and *ignition* occurs.  That is, as long as 
the plasma fuel stays around, the plasma will keep itself 
hot enough to keep fusing.

A simple analogy here is to an ordinary fire.  The fire won't
burn unless the fuel is hot enough, and it won't keep burning
unless the heat released by burning the fuel is enough to keep
the fuel hot enough.  The flame continually loses heat, but 
usually this loss is slow enough that the fire sustains itself.
You can accelerate the heat loss, however, by pouring water
on the fire to cool it quickly; this puts the fire out.

In fusion, the plasma continually loses heat, much as a fire 
gives off heat, and if the plasma loses heat faster than heat
is produced by fusion, it won't stay hot enough to keep burning.
In fusion reactors today, the plasmas aren't quite confined well
enough to sustain burning on their own (ignition), so we get
them to burn by pumping in energy to keep them hot.  This is sort
of like getting wet wood to burn with a blowtorch (this last analogy 
is usually credited to Harold Furth of PPPL).

For the D-T fuel cycle, the Lawson ignition value for a temperature 
of about 200,000,000 Kelvin is roughly 5E20 seconds-particles/m^3.  
Current fusion reactors such as TFTR have achieved about 1/10th of
this - but 20 years ago they had only achieved 1/100,000th of this!

How can we improve the Lawson value of a plasma further, so we get 
even closer to fusion ignition?  The trick is to keep the heat in the 
plasma for as long as possible.  As an analogy to this problem, 
suppose we had a thermos of coffee which we want to keep hot.  We can 
keep the thermos hotter longer by (a) using a better type of 
insulation, so that the heat flows out more slowly, or (b) using 
thicker insulation, so the heat has farther to go to escape, and
therefore takes longer to get out.

Going back to the fusion reactor, the insulation can be improved by 
studying plasmas and improving their insulating properties by 
reducing heat transport through them.  And the other way to boost
the Lawson value is simply to make larger plasmas, so the energy
takes longer to flow out.  Scientists believe it's technically
feasible to build a power-producing fusion reactor with high
Lawson value *Right Now*, but it would have to be large, so large 
in fact that it would cost too much to be able to make electricity
economically.  So we're studying plasmas and trying to figure out
how to make them trap energy more efficiently.


*** M.  What are the basic approaches used to heat and confine 
the plasma?  (Or, what is magnetic confinement?  
Inertial confinement?)

There are three basic ways to confine a plasma.  The first is 
the method the sun uses:  gravity.  If you have a big enough
ball of plasma, it will stick together by gravity, and be
self-confining.

Unfortunately for fusion researchers, that doesn't work here on
earth.  The second method is that used in nuclear fusion bombs:
you implode a small pellet of fusion fuel.  If you do it quickly
enough, and compress it hard enough, the temperature will go way
up, and so will the density, and you can exceed the Lawson 
ignition value despite the fact that you are only confining your
pellet for nanoseconds.  Because the inertia of the imploding
pellet keeps it momentarily confined, this method is known as
inertial confinement.

The third method uses the fact that charged particles placed in
a magnetic field will gyrate in circles.  If you can arrange the
magnetic field carefully, the particles will be trapped by it.
If you can trap them well enough, the plasma energy will be
confined.  Then you can heat the plasma, and achieve fusion with
more modest particle densities.  This method is known as 
magnetic confinement.  Initial heating is achieved by a 
combination of microwaves, energetic/accelerated particle beams, 
and resistive heating from currents driven through the plasma.
(Once the Lawson ignition value is achieved, the plasma becomes
more-or-less self-heating.)  In magnetic confinement, the plasma 
density is typically about 1E20 particles per cubic meter, and with
a temperature of about 1E8 kelvin, we see that ignition could be
achieved with a confinement time of about 4 seconds.  (All these 
numbers in reality vary by factors of 2 or 3 from the rough values 
I've given.)  Currently, magnetic-confinement reactors are about 
a factor of ten short of the ignition value.  (TFTR has an
energy confinement time of 0.25 seconds during its best shots.)  

More information on these different approaches is given in the
sections that follow.
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.13 / Barry Merriman /  Re: The Griggs inquiry
     
Originally-From: barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The Griggs inquiry
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 94 19:48:26 GMT
Organization: UCLA, Mathematics Department

In article <56131@mindlink.bc.ca> Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Dunn)  
writes:
> In article <1994Oct13.022753.12671@math.ucla.edu>,
> barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu Barry Merriman writes:
> 
> > if this process occurs in H20, it could only result from H + H
> > (or rather, p + p ) fusion.
> 
> This ignores the fact that "normal" water contains deuterium.  If it
> didn't, we wouldn't be able to isolate D2O from "normal" water.  If you
> want pure H20, you will have to arrange to acquire some water from which
> the D2O has been stripped (say the stripped byproduct from a heavy water
> plant).  I don't remember anyone every testing pure H2O in a cold fusion
> setup - does anyone else know if this has been done.
> 

Sure, but its only 1 part in 10000 D, so the odds
on two D's meeting eachother in griggs device are slim.



--
Barry Merriman
UCLA Dept. of Math
UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)


cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.13 / Mike Jamison /  Working people
     
Originally-From: edwlt12@mars.lerc.nasa.gov (Mike Jamison (ADF))
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Working people
Date: 13 Oct 1994 17:06 EDT
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center

The salary discussion, while not actually relevant to this group [like most
of the posts...] is interesting.

I see grad students defending their administrating professors' salaries,
basically saying "if they were in industry, they could..."

The problem, as I see it, is that, in industry, one must make a profit.

My guess is that these guys, with Phd's and all, would fail miserably.
Maybe people who have lots of experience modeling nonlinear systems *can*
get jobs paying $100,000+/year.

Somehow, though, I think they will need some experience with reality before
getting that kinda salary.

Speaking of reality, someone said that D-D fusion might account for the 
supposed excess energy in the GG.  it seems that when people mix 50% D2O
with 50% H2O, they pretty much end up with 100% DHO.  So, I would believe
that the 1 in 10,000 D's in regular water would be paired with an H rather
than another D.

So, we have the likelihood of a D-D collision somewhere around 1/1e8.

I hate to say it, but I have better odds of winning the Ohio lottery than 
the GG has of doing D-D fusion...  I think I'll go buy a ticket...


Mike Jamison


"Scientific research consists in seeing what everyone else has seen, but
thinking what no one else has thought"

						-A. Szent-Gyorgyi
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenedwlt12 cudfnMike cudlnJamison cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.13 / Thomas Zemanian /  Re: Working people
     
Originally-From: ts_zemanian@pnl.gov (Thomas S. Zemanian)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Working people
Date: 13 Oct 1994 21:54:26 GMT
Organization: Battelle PNL

In article <13OCT199417062819@mars.lerc.nasa.gov>,
edwlt12@mars.lerc.nasa.gov (Mike Jamison (ADF)) wrote:


[salary discussion deleted]

> 
> Speaking of reality, someone said that D-D fusion might account for the 
> supposed excess energy in the GG.  it seems that when people mix 50% D2O
> with 50% H2O, they pretty much end up with 100% DHO.  So, I would believe
> that the 1 in 10,000 D's in regular water would be paired with an H rather
> than another D.
> 
> So, we have the likelihood of a D-D collision somewhere around 1/1e8.
> 
> I hate to say it, but I have better odds of winning the Ohio lottery than 
> the GG has of doing D-D fusion...
> 

Depends on how many collisions occur, or how many tickets you buy, doesn't
it?

Yours in pedantry,
--Tom

--
The opinions expressed herein are mine and mine alone.  Keep your filthy
hands off 'em! 
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudents_zemanian cudfnThomas cudlnZemanian cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.13 / L Plutonium /  ScheissHund, Er hat einen Vogel Preis 1994
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: ScheissHund, Er hat einen Vogel Preis 1994
Date: 13 Oct 1994 23:07:41 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

Good Cheers !!!
That time of the years !?
Stop and drink a beers ??

This years "Er hat einen Vogel" song while you drink your beer is
"Please release me" I hope Jack Sarfatti will lead us into this song.

Pleasssssssssssssssse Release me , Let meee go
For IIIIII don't love youuuuuu any more.
To live a life in sooooooo much pain.
Release me, and let me philander again.

Pleasssssse Release me, let me go
For IIII have a mistress in Kokomo.
So much heartache so much  the same.
Release me, and let me cruise again.
 ---------------------------------------

Now then, I am disappointed with this year's Nobel because it was not a
mistake. I had hoped for a celebration mistake where I go out and buy a
deluxe pizza, and cream on the top yogurt quaffed down with homemade
root beer. I wanted to see back to back mistakes. I wanted to see
something like this.
   1993 Nobel to Hulse and Taylor for GR binary pulsars
   1994 Nobel to Smoot for big bang ejaculation
   1995 Nobel to Hawking for Wheelerchair GR black hole derriere
   1996 Nobel to Wheeler Chair Princeton brown nosing black hole GR
   1997 Nobel to Lovelock on geek Gaia
   1998 Nobel to Guth on Inflationary fart
   1999 Nobel to Wilson and Dawkins for eggolution

  No, I can not find fault with Nobel physics for 1994. How could they
have made such a stupid mistake in 1993?

  This years "ScheissHund, Er hat einen Vogel Preis" (German for
Birdbrain Shitdog Prize, but in German it is translated as" Shitdog,
You are possessed by a Bird, Prize") goes to the managing editor of
NATURE, John Maddox. His citation is this. 
     " Utter disregard for the method of science in the news of "Cold
Fusion"; even stated to write the obituary for "Cold Fusion"; and, most
unbecoming, John appears to be "warming" towards Lovelock's Gaia fakery
by giving it news coverage in Nature."
   The job of managing Editor of Nature is too much for John, and he
should be replaced as soon as possible. I nominate an experimental
scientist to always head the managing editorship of Nature, New
Scientist, Scientific American, Science. This is good medicine to help
prevent these news magazines from publishing propaganda and philosophy
more than they publish real science.

   I was hoping to redraw my picture of a dog with wings flying high
into the sky. This is the ScheissHund, in the hand award. I hand over a
picture and you, John Maddox, wears the ScheissHund to the office, work
or play. It is your badge of honor for the year 1994.
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.14 / L Plutonium /  RADIOACTIVE SPONTANEOUS ALPHA PARTICLE OR NEUTRON 
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag
sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RADIOACTIVE SPONTANEOUS ALPHA PARTICLE OR NEUTRON 
Subject: 2 of 3, Correct Theory of both Cold Fusion and Hot Fusion
Date: 14 Oct 1994 00:18:26 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

IT IS ONLY A MATTER OF TIME, before rsnm is verified. I want to start
emphasizing spontaneous alpha particle materialization (rsapm) also. I
believe that rsnm is the predominate mode that our universe grows, but
rsapm occurs also and it is rsapm, I believe which is the observation
of cosmic high energy particles. The
>Gamma Ray Observatory was recorded on February 17,
> 1994.  The burst's energy was calculated to be 25 GeV, 
was a rsapm.

In article <3635nj$2o4@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium) writes:

>   I have been informed that in the November issue of FUSION TECHNOLOGY
> will have two articles on the appearance of iron, produced in a carbon
> arc under water. The original researcher in this area was a person by
> the name of George Oshawa.
>   This may be the first full scale investigation which will lead to the
> science of radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization. What Dirac
> spoke of in his book "Directions in Physics". rsnm pronounced (resin)
> is the reason cold fusion works. And it is rsnm which makes the Sun and
> stars work. Not the foggey goofball idea that gravity causes fusion.
>   Once the science community makes an earnest search into rsnm will we
> be able to make fusion power plants.
>                                                 ARCHIMEDES PLUTONIUM A@P

  I posted to the Internet in 1993 and 1994 my theory of radioactive
spontaneous neutron materialization rsnm.

13APR1994, 04:54:40 GMT sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics,sci.chem
Subject: 2 of 3, Correct Theory of both Cold Fusion and Hot Fusion
Lines: 225
Message-ID: <2oftug$g8o@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium) writes:
       (11) The observation that when electric current i flowing
through wires or through a light bulb filament or incandescent lamps
are hot and eventually the wires or filaments or other parts wear-out
due to the high temperatures. Those high temperatures are a result of
radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization when i  varies. And
before these teachings, it was inexplicable as to how atoms of zinc
Z=30 contaminated copper Z=29 wire, or atoms of rhenium Z=75
contaminated light bulb filaments or heating coils made of tungsten
Z=74 in these materials after running electric current in the
materials. With rsnm it is a direct consequence that a copper wire will
have atoms of zinc, and a tungsten filament or heater will have atoms
of rhenium after running  a changing electric current i through,
because there is
radioactive growth of some of the original atoms because of rsnm. 
Check chemical analysis of spent electric wires and filaments by
General Electric, Philips, Siemens, et al.
 ------------------------------------
  The carbon arc suggests atoms of higher atomic number than just Z+1
for filaments or heating coils.
 ------------------------------------
IN A RELATED MATTER, In article <36viuc$khu@cville-srv.wam.umd.edu>
vjejjala@wam.umd.edu (Spinoza's God) writes:

> THE MOST ENERGETIC GAMMA BURST yet observed by the
> orbiting Gamma Ray Observatory was recorded on February 17,
> 1994.  The burst's energy was calculated to be 25 GeV, many times
> more energetic than those previously measured. Furthermore, the
> burst was the longest ever, lasting more than an hour.  This monster
> burst may have resulted from the collision of two stars.  (Astronomy,
> November 1994.)

  These are spontaneous neutron or alpha particle materialization from
out of nowhere. A universe which is an atom itself, grows by
spontaneous creation of particles. They are uniformly distributed in
space.
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.13 / Ad aspera /  Re: Working people
     
Originally-From: JTCHEW@lbl.gov (Ad absurdum per aspera)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Working people
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 1994 17:07:03 -0800
Organization: Purely personal 'pinions

> basically saying "if they were in industry, they could..."
> The problem, as I see it, is that, in industry, one must make 
> a profit.

Well, I *am* sometimes reminded of an old Doonesbury strip:

   Old Prof:      "I'm not going to stand for this!   
                  I'll get a job in private industry!

   Administrator:  "You're a professor of Latin."

   Old Prof:      "And a damn good one, too!  They'd
                  snap me up in a minute!"

Some of our researchers actually *would* be snapped up in 
a minute, and in fact are occasionally recruited.  Their 
reasons for staying usually center on some of the practical 
ramifications of making a profit -- in particular the pressure 
to specialize narrowly and eternally in something that the 
company knows how to make money from.

That can be a comfortable rut, because of either a large salary 
with an established company or success in the classic gamble
of the small company (trading a low salary for beaucoup stock 
options), but it is indeed a rut.  The researcher who has a 
free-roaming imagination and is accustomed to being able to 
indulge it might not be happy there in the long term, especially 
now that the old-fashioned corporate research center that was 
somewhat insulated from the day-to-day business of the company 
seems to be going extinct, replaced by a strongly "applied"
research lab (read:  product development, t minus 3 years) or
by an outplacement office that hands out resume advice and
spatulas.

Others, perhaps most, are indeed "professors of Latin," and, 
given the demise of the corporate lab, the private sector 
needs them like a squid needs a Mixmaster.

I might add (having worked in both environments) that government-
funded research labs allow you to escape some of the more odious
and/or ludicrous aspects of the business world, e.g., you'd never
overhear two shiny young MBA's in our cafeteria speculating on
whether one of them was wearing the same kind of necktie as the
director.  We have our own silliness and our own bureaucracy, but
tastes differ...

Cheers,
Joe
"Just another personal opinion from the People's Republic of Berkeley"
Disclaimer: Even if my employer had a position on the subject,
I probably wouldn't be the one stating it on their behalf.
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenJTCHEW cudfnAd cudlnaspera cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.13 / Robert Heeter /  Conventional Fusion FAQ Glossary Part 2/7 (C-D)
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.answers,news.answers
Subject: Conventional Fusion FAQ Glossary Part 2/7 (C-D)
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 1994 14:00:09 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

Archive-name: fusion-faq/glossary/part2-CtoD
Last-modified: 17-Sept-1994
Posting-frequency: More-or-less-monthly
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!!!).
===============================================================

Glossary Part 2:  Terms from C to D

FREQUENTLY USED TERMS IN CONVENTIONAL FUSION RESEARCH 
AND PLASMA PHYSICS

Edited by Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@pppl.gov

Guide to Categories:
 
* = plasma/fusion/energy vocabulary
& = basic physics vocabulary 
> = device type or machine name
# = name of a constant or variable
! = scientists 
@ = acronym
% = labs & political organizations
$ = unit of measurement

Citations and Acknowledgements appear in Section 11 of the FAQ.

==================================================================

CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC

# c - Speed of light; 3.0x10E+8 meters/second or 3.0x10E+10 cm/sec

@ CANDU - CAnadian Deuterium-Uranium class of fission reactor; 
see entry

@ CGS - Centimeters, Grams, Seconds; see CGS Units

@ CGS Units - see entry below; see also CGS above.

@ CIT - Compact Ignition Tokamak; see entry

@ COE - Cost of Electricity

$ cm - centimeters; unit of distance.  See also centi-

* Canadian Deuterium-Uranium Fission Reactor:  Nuclear fission
reactor type developed in, and prominent in, Canada; characterized
by use of heavy water (deuterium instead of hydrogen, D2O) as
moderator and coolant.  Neutrons absorbed by the deuterium create
a source of marketable tritium.

& Carbon: (C)  Sixth element (Z=5) in the periodic table; has
6 protons; often described as the basis of life on earth because
of its chemical properties; has potential for use with silicon 
as a low-activation structural material for fusion reactors, 
in the form silicon carbide.  (See relevant parts of FAQ 
section 2.)  Also useful as a neutron moderator.  See also
low-activation materials.

& Capacitor:  device used to store electrical energy by accumulating
charges on nearby conductors.  Energy may be stored and withdrawn
at varying rates.  Used in short-pulse plasma devices where only
a moderate amount of energy is needed.

* Capacity Factor:  Index (typically in percent) indicating the
average power supplied by an energy plant, relative to its 
maximum rated capacity.

* Capital:  Economic term for wealth of a permanent nature, rather
than that which is consumed; includes money and other financial 
goods, plant & equipment, etc. (I'm not an economist - anyone 
know any better?)

& Celsius: Temperature scale where zero degrees corresponds to the
freezing point of water (32 Fahrenheit) and 100 degrees corresponds 
to the boiling point (212 Fahrenheit).  Zero celsius = 273.16 Kelvin. 

& Centi-:  metric prefix indicating 1/100th of a given unit.
e.g., one centimeter is 1/100th of a meter.

& Centigrade: see Celsius

& CGS Units:  System of measurement where the fundamental units
are centimeters, grams, and seconds.

& Chain Reaction: (from Herman) A self-sustaining series of
chemical or nuclear reactions in which the products of the
reaction contribute directly to the propagation of the process.

& Charge Density:  See density, and apply to electrical charge.

& Charge, Electrical:  
     As a noun:  A fundamental physical attribute of a
particle, which characterizes the particle's electromagnetic
interaction with other particles and with electric and magnetic
fields.  (See also particle, field)

     As a verb:  Storing energy in a battery or electric capacitor by
running a current through it; opposite of discharge.  (It is possible
to charge most capacitors in either direction, but batteries charge
one way, and discharge the other.)

* Charge Exchange:  Phenomenon in which a positive ion colliding with
a molecule (or an atom) neutralizes itself by capturing an electron
from the molecule/atom, and transforming the molecule/atom into a
positive radical/ion.

* Charge Transfer:  see charge exchange

* China Syndrome:  American jargon/slang for a nuclear fission 
meltdown accident (see meltdown) in which the molten nuclear core
heats and melts the ground beneath it, thus sinking into the
earth, and heading towards China (which is roughly on the opposite
side of the globe).

* Classical Diffusion:  In plasma physics, diffusion due solely
to scattering of particles (unlike charges) via electrical/coulomb
interactions.  (See also diffusion.)

* Coherent Radiation:  Any form of radiation in which the phase
relationship between sections of the wave at different locations is
not random (or incoherent!).  Typical example is a laser beam, in
which the phase is more or less uniform across the beam, and changes
along the beam in accordance with the wavelength.  Radiation in 
which the photons tend to "agree" with one another, rather than
being randomly distributed.

* Cold Plasma Model:  Model of a plasma in which the temperature is
neglected with respect to the effects of interest.

& Collision Cross-Section:  Effective surface area of a particle
when it collides with another; describes probability of collisions
between the two particles.
 
* Collisionless Plasma Model:  Model of a plasma in which the density
is so low, or the temperature so high, that close binary 
collisions have practically no significance on certain timescales 
because the time scales of interest are smaller than the 
collision time.  Yields valid physical results for timescales
much shorter than the average collision time in a real plasma.

& Collision Time:  Typical time which passes between the time
a particle collides, and when it collides again.  Inverse of the
collision frequency; equal to the mean free path divided by the
particle's velocity.  The collision time decreases with increasing
density, and increases with increasing temperature.

> Compact Ignition Tokamak (CIT): Proposed U.S. successor to TFTR;
never funded.  See also, BPX, TPX.

> Compact Torus:  Any of a series of axially symmetric fusion 
configurations having closed flux surfaces (like a tokamak, not 
like a mirror machine), but having no material objects piercing 
the core (as do the toroidal field coils of a tokamak).  These 
devices have an inherently low aspect ratio.  The most successful
variants are the spheromak and the Field Reversed Configuration.
See also: low aspect ratio, spheromak, field-reversed configuration.
(Arthur Carlson, awc@ipp-garching.mpg.de)

* Compression Waves:  Also known as density waves (I think!);
waves where the quantity which oscillates is the density of the
medium, that is the medium at a given point alternately
compresses and expands.  Low-amplitude compression waves in 
air or water are commonly known as sound waves; shock waves 
are a high-amplitude form.  See also waves.

& Conductivity:  Degree to which a substance transmits (conducts)
a given physical property. (is this vague or what?) See electrical
conductivity, thermal conductivity.

* Confinement Time:  There are several types.  The general 
definition is that tau = [total]/[loss per unit time]; 
hence Tau_E = [total energy]/[energy loss per unit time].

Tau_[E, N, ...] is the amount of time the plasma is contained 
by magnetic fields before its [energy (E), particles (N or P)] 
leak / dissipate away.  The different types are, in general, 
similar but not equal.  
(Note note note:  Tau_E is NOT electron confinement time!)


* Controlled Thermonuclear Fusion:  (from Herman) The process
in which light nuclei, heated to a high temperature in a 
confined region, undergo fusion reactions under controlled
conditions.

* Cooperative Phenomena:  Plasmas are distinguished from 
collections of individual charged particles in that they exhibit 
cooperative phenomena, whereby the plasma particles "cooperate"
with one another.  Some examples include turbulence and Debye
shielding.  Early fusion researchers who devised fusion schemes
based upon theories where plasmas acted as merely a collection 
of individual particles (and therefore sought to confine only 
individual particles) often found themselves frustrated at the
ability of plasma cooperative phenomena (such as MHD instabilities)
to thwart their efforts.

* Core plasma:  Hot plasma at the center of a fusion reactor;
distinguished from edge plasma.  The core plasma does not
directly feel the effects of the divertor or limiter in the
way the edge plasma does.  (More info anyone?)

* Corona: The outermost (?) part of a star's atmosphere; 
characterized by high temperatures and low densities; home to 
many plasma phenomena.

$ Coulomb: standard unit of electric charge.  A single electron or
proton has a charge of (+/-) 1.6022E-19 coulombs.  Hence there are 
6.2414E+18 electrons in a coulomb of electrons.

* Coulomb Collision:  An interparticle collision where Coulomb's Law
is the governing force.  (See Coulomb's Law)  Coulomb collisions
have a number of interesting properties, but these are better 
described in textbooks.

& Coulomb's Law:  Force law governing the electrical interaction
between charged particles.  Force is proportional to (charge of
first particle) * (charge of second particle) / (square of separation
between particles).  Constant of proportionality depends on system
of units used.  (In SI units, it is 1/(4*pi*epsilon-0), where
epsilon-0 is the permittivity of free space = 8.854 x 10^-12 )

& Cryogenic:  Loosely, "very cold".  Used to describe systems which
operate at very low temperatures.  Superconducting magnetic field
coils currently need to operate at cryogenic temperatures (e.g.,
liquid helium at 4 Kelvin).

* Curie:  amount of radioactivity in a gram of radium; named
after Marie Curie (see below).  Corresponds to 3.7 x 10^10 
disintegrations/second.  (See Becquerel)

! Curie: Marie and Pierre; husband-wife pair of French scientists.
Pierre's name is attatched to the "Curie point" in magnetism, which 
is not discussed here. He and his wife shared with Antoine-Henri
Becquerel the Nobel Prize for physics in 1903. Marie Curie, 
a.k.a. Madame Curie, received the Nobel Prize for chemistry 
in 1911, becoming the first person to receive more than
one Nobel Prize.  She remains the only person to receive Nobel
Prizes in different fields. (I believe - RFH)

& Current Density:  Amount of current flowing through a substance,
per unit area perpendicular to the direction of current flow.  (See
also density)

* Current Drive:  Any of a variety of techniques used to cause
current flow in a plasma.  See inductive current drive, RF current
drive, non-inductive current drive.  Usually applied to schemes
used to generate current in tokamaks and other toroidal devices
which require internal plasma currents.  See also: bootstrap current.  

* Cusp Geometry:  I can't figure out how to explain this one in
words; suffice it to say that this is a description of a magnetic
field configuration where the magnetic field lines, rather than
closing in on themselves, tend to squirt out and form cusps at
certain points; I recommend you look this up in a plasma physics
text (e.g., Chen - see bibliography entry) to really understand it.

* Cyclotron:  Particle accelerator in which a magnetic field causes
particles to orbit in circles, and an oscillating electric field
accelerates the particles.

* Cyclotron Frequency:  Number of times per second that a particle
orbits in a magnetic field.

* Cyclotron Radius:  Radius of orbit of charged particle about
a magnetic field line.  Also called gyroradius, Larmor radius.

* Cyclotron Radiation:  See synchrotron radiation

* Cyclotron Resonance Heating:  see Electron Cyclotron Resonance
Heating, Ion Cyclotron Resonance Heating.


DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD

@ D - nuclear/chemical symbol for deuterium/deuteron

@ DT - Deuterium-Tritium; see entry labeled DT Fuel

@ DIII-D - Doublet III-D; see entry

@ DOE - Department of Energy (United States); see entry

* D-shaped plasma:  A toroidal plasma whose cross section 
is a D (instead of a circle).

* Debye Length: The characteristic distance over which charges are
shielded in a plasma.  See also: Debye shielding.
lambda_D = ( epsilon_0 k_B T_e / (n_e e^2) )^(1/2) 
lambda_D[m] = (7.434*10^3)*(_e[eV])^(1/2)*n[m^(-3)]^(-1/2)
(Arthur Carlson, awc@ipp-garching.mpg.de)

! Debye, Peter Joseph:  Physical chemist, studied behavior of 
conductive solutions (plasmas have some similar behaviors).

* Debye Radius:  See Debye Length.

* Debye Sheath:  The region of strong electric field in front of 
a material surface in contact with a plasma.  Its characteristic
thickness is the Debye length, and it is caused by Debye shielding
of the negative surface charge resulting from electrons flowing to 
the surface much faster (initially) than the ions.  The lost
electrons leave behind a region of net positive charge which
gradually diminishes the strength of the electric field 
over the debye length.  See also: Debye Length, Debye Shielding.
(Arthur Carlson, awc@ipp-garching.mpg.de, with modifications by
John Cobb, johncobb@uts.cc.utexas.edu)

* Debye Shielding:  If a positive (or negative) charge is inserted 
into a plasma, it will change the local charge distribution by 
attracting (repelling) electrons.  The net result is an additional
negative (positive) charge density which cancels the effect of the
initial charge at distances large compared to the Debye length.
(There is a corresponding effect of shielding by the ions, which, 
for various and subtle reasons, usually is less important.)
See also: Debye Length.
(Arthur Carlson, awc@ipp-garching.mpg.de)

* Debye Sphere:  Sphere around a charged test particle whose
radius is equal to the Debye length.

* Decay Modes:  Different pathways for decay of radioactive nuclei.
The decay modes for a given unstable state can include beta
emission, electron capture, alpha emission, fission, positron 
emission, and gamma emission.  (Did I miss any?)
See entries for each mode for more information.

& Density:  amount per unit of volume, or per unit surface area, or
per unit length. (Usually specified or clear from context which 
of these is meant).  Several types:
 Charge density   - amount of charge per unit (volume, area, length)
	Current density  - current flow per unit transverse surface area.
	Energy density   - amount of energy per unit volume.
	Flux density     - flux per unit of transverse surface area.
	Mass density     - mass per unit volume.
	Number density   - number of particles per unit volume.
	Particle density - same as number density.

% Department of Energy:  Department within the executive branch
of the U.S. government (at the cabinet level) which has 
managed and overseen federally-sponsored energy research.
The DOE was formed in 1977 from ERDA, the Energy Research
and Development Administration, and (I think) the Atomic
Enegy Commission (AEC).

& Deuterium: A heavy isotope of hydrogen whose nucleus
contains both a neutron and a proton.

* Deuteron: A deuterium ion; nucleus consisting of a proton
and a neutron.

* Diagnostics:  (from Herman) Procedures for determining
(diagnosing) the state of a plasma during an experiment;
also refers to the instruments used for diagnosing.

* Diamagnetic Effects:  Application of a magnetic field to a plasma
will tend to create circulating current within the plasma that will
reduce the strength of the magnetic field.

* Diffusion:  The interpenetration of one substance into another
as a result of thermal / random motion of the individual particles.
(e.g., the diffusion of a plasma across a magnetic field as a 
result of collisions which cause particles to move along new
field lines.)  See also classical diffusion, neoclassical diffusion,
anomalous diffusion, transport.

* Direct Conversion:  The generation of electricity by direct
recovery of the kinetic energy of the charged fusion reaction
products.

* Dispersion Relation:  For a given wave, the dispersion relation
relates the frequency of a wave (w, or omega) to its wavenumber k
and other physical quantities characteristic of the system.
Dispersion relations can be quite simple (e.g., w = k * c for light;
c being the speed of light), and they can also be quite complex,
with interesting mathematical structure.  The dispersion relation
and its mathematical structure provide important information
about the wave, including the phase and group velocities.  (See
relevant entries.)

* Disruption:  (from Herman)  Plasma instabilities sometimes grow
and cause disruptions of the carefully-engineered plasma conditions
in the reactor.  Major disruptions can cause an abrupt temperature 
drop and the termination of the plasma.  

& Distribution Function:  Function characterizing the density of
particles in a given space.  The velocity-space distribution
function gives the number of particles with a particular velocity;
the position-space distribution function is synonymous with the
particle density in position-space. 

* Divertor: (from Herman) Component of a toroidal fusion 
device that diverts charged particles on the outer edge 
of the plasma where they become neutralized.  In a reactor, the
divertor would incorporate a system for pumping out the neutralized
particles as exhaust from the machine.  A divertor, like a limiter, 
prevents the particles from striking and degrading the chamber 
walls, and dislodging secondary particles that would cool and 
contaminate the plasma.  Whereas a limiter is a material object 
used to limit the shape of the plasma, a divertor is a 
magnetic-field construction.  
See also: limiter.

> Doublet III-D:  (from Herman) Latest in a series of
tokamaks designed by GA Technologies (formerly General Atomic)
in San Diego making plasmas with noncircular cross sections,
including kidney shapes and D-shapes.  Though the current 
configuration does not (so far as the editor knows) involve 
doublet plasmas, this is still the official name for the device.

* Drift Motion:  Ordinarily particles placed in a magnetic
field will simply orbit in circles, but if the magnetic field
is not uniform, or curves, or there is an electrical field
perpendicular to the magnetic field, or another force is applied
perpendicular to the magnetic field, then the "guiding centers"
of the particle orbits will drift (generally perpendicular to
the magnetic field and to the applied force).  There are several
sorts of drifts; refer to a plasma physics text for more 
information (see Section 11: Bibliography).  For a good 
introduction at the undergraduate physics level, see Chen.

* Drift Velocity:  Characteristic velocity at which the center
of a particle's orbit ("guiding center") drifts when drift motion
(see above) occurs.

* DT Fuel:  (Deuterium-Tritium) Easiest fuel mixture to use 
in achieving fusion; unless otherwise specified, probably refers 
to a 50-50 (by numbers or by moles) mix of deuterium and tritium.
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.12 / L Plutonium /  COLD FUSION IS RADIOACTIVE SPONTANEOUS NEUTRON (OR ALPHA 
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion,alt.sci.physics.pl
tonium,sci.physics
Subject: COLD FUSION IS RADIOACTIVE SPONTANEOUS NEUTRON (OR ALPHA 
Subject: 2 of 3, Correct Theory of both Cold Fusion and Hot Fusion
Date: 12 Oct 1994 21:33:33 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In article <3635nj$2o4@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium) writes:

>   I have been informed that in the November issue of FUSION TECHNOLOGY
> will have two articles on the appearance of iron, produced in a carbon
> arc under water. The original researcher in this area was a person by
> the name of George Oshawa.
>   This may be the first full scale investigation which will lead to the
> science of radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization. What Dirac
> spoke of in his book "Directions in Physics". rsnm pronounced (resin)
> is the reason cold fusion works. And it is rsnm which makes the Sun and
> stars work. Not the foggey goofball idea that gravity causes fusion.
>   Once the science community makes an earnest search into rsnm will we
> be able to make fusion power plants.
>                                                 ARCHIMEDES PLUTONIUM A@P

  I posted to the Internet in 1993 and 1994 my theory of radioactive
spontaneous neutron materialization rsnm.

13APR1994, 04:54:40 GMT sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics,sci.chem
Subject: 2 of 3, Correct Theory of both Cold Fusion and Hot Fusion
Lines: 225
Message-ID: <2oftug$g8o@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium) writes:
       (11) The observation that when electric current i flowing
through wires or through a light bulb filament or incandescent lamps
are hot and eventually the wires or filaments or other parts wear-out
due to the high temperatures. Those high temperatures are a result of
radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization when i  varies. And
before these teachings, it was inexplicable as to how atoms of zinc
Z=30 contaminated copper Z=29 wire, or atoms of rhenium Z=75
contaminated light bulb filaments or heating coils made of tungsten
Z=74 in these materials after running electric current in the
materials. With rsnm it is a direct consequence that a copper wire will
have atoms of zinc, and a tungsten filament or heater will have atoms
of rhenium after running  a changing electric current i through,
because there is
radioactive growth of some of the original atoms because of rsnm. 
Check chemical analysis of spent electric wires and filaments by
General Electric, Philips, Siemens, et al.
 ------------------------------------
  The carbon arc suggests atoms of higher atomic number than just Z+1
for filaments or heating coils.
 ------------------------------------
IN A RELATED MATTER, In article <36viuc$khu@cville-srv.wam.umd.edu>
vjejjala@wam.umd.edu (Spinoza's God) writes:

> THE MOST ENERGETIC GAMMA BURST yet observed by the
> orbiting Gamma Ray Observatory was recorded on February 17,
> 1994.  The burst's energy was calculated to be 25 GeV, many times
> more energetic than those previously measured. Furthermore, the
> burst was the longest ever, lasting more than an hour.  This monster
> burst may have resulted from the collision of two stars.  (Astronomy,
> November 1994.)

  These are spontaneous neutron or alpha particle materialization from
out of nowhere. A universe which is an atom itself, grows by
spontaneous creation of particles. They are uniformly distributed in
space.
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.13 / Eugene Mallove /  Hot Fusion Pays Well!
     
Originally-From: 76570.2270@compuserve.com (Eugene Mallove)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Hot Fusion Pays Well!
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 1994 03:06:00 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I made a wonderful, serendipitous discovery. I was browsing through the weekly
academic newspaper, The Chronicle of Higher Education (September 14, 1994), 
and I came upon a massive compilation of "Pay and Benefits of Leaders at 416 
Private Colleges and Universities: A Survey." The Chronicle says that it 
compiled this information from IRS form 990 filed by each institution in the 
past two years.  That form requires colleges to list, among other things, the 
pay and benefits of it officers, directors, trustees, and key employees, as 
well as its *five highest paid employees other than those top officials*.

Of course I glanced at the pay scales of those senior officers at my alma 
mater and former place of business, MIT. Lo and behold! Among the top highest 
paid employees are two hot fusioneers!  Here's how the ranking goes:

Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)


                        91-92 pay       92-93 pay       92-93 benefits

Charles Vest, Pres.     $255,000        $269,998        $48,654
R.J. Thome, dept head     ---           $228,689        $37,744
  Plasma Fusion Ctr.
Walter E. Morrow, prof  $214,000        $226,307        $41,810
 and dir. Lincoln Lab.
R.R. Parker, prof. elec.  -----         $215,904        $37,629
Glenn P. Strehle, VP    $200,000        $208,725        $39,003
   treasurer
A.C. Hax, professor,     -----          $203,094        $37,708
    management

I immediately glanced down to the figures for that other university bastion of
hot fusion, Princeton. There was one hot fusioneer there too.

Princton University


                        91-92 pay       92-93 pay       92-93 benefits
Harold T. Shapiro       $257,500        $264,000        $30,509
        President
Randall A. Hack, Pres.  $208,000        $221,400        $37,957
 Princeton Univ. Invest-
 ment Trust Company
Hugo Sonnenschein       $195,000        $205,000        $35,489
  Provost
Peter M. Eisenberger    $176,644        $182,735        $31,382
 Prof. and Director
 Princeton Materials Inst.
Arnold J. Levine,          ----         $168,028        $29,126
  Prof.and chair, molecular
  biology               
Ronald C. Davidson,        ----         $165,500        $29,138
 Prof. and Director
 Princeton Plasma Physics
 Laboratory


So, let's see. Forty-percent of the top five highest paid employees at MIT are
in hot fusion. At Princeton, only 20 percent of the top five are in hot 
fusion. Seems like a pretty big investment for something so outrageously 
chancy, eh? I wonder if Congress knows about this, and if it knew, would it 
care? Note that Ronald C. Davidson of Princeton was formerly at the PFC at 
MIT. Apparently to make it to the top five at some university, he had to find 
his way down to Princeton.

Now I knew from the size of the program's total annual dole, that these HF 
guys were raking dough in big-time, but little did I know how big! Kind of 
puts into perspective the annual hot fusioneers' hat-in-hand to Congress. They
aren't doing it just for the scientific glory and to "save the world" from 
fossil fuel combustion -- in 50 to 100 more years, maybe. They're doin' it for
big cash! Hell, Parker and Thome at MIT each make more than the President of 
the United States! (Salary on paper, but not including benefits!) Now that's 
something to talk about, almost as good as the elusive "break-even." It's 
pretty damn clear why these guys don't like data that challenges their 
position.

Hey, some of you lower-ranking HF guys don't even make as much as these 
biggies get in Bennies each year! How d'ya feel about that? Maybe you like it 
and just dream of cashin' in yo selves some day.

I notice that there is one Hax among the big five at MIT. But Princeton, not 
to be outdone, has its own Hack among its big five.  Nice symmetry there. 
Actually, I'd put MIT down for three hacks. (There's another meaning here too,
because "hack," in MIT student parlance, means clever stunt or clever trick --
like arranging to have a giant helium balloon come out of the playing field 
ground in the middle of a Harvard football game.)

Gene Mallove


cudkeys:
cuddy13 cuden2270 cudfnEugene cudlnMallove cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.13 / Barry Merriman /  The Griggs inquiry
     
Originally-From: barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: The Griggs inquiry
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 94 02:27:53 GMT
Organization: UCLA, Mathematics Department


Well, since Griggs apparently earns a profit from selling
his devices as steam generators, he should not have too 
much concern whether they really turn out to be free
energy devices. That is good, as it should make him much
less defensive. In fact, if he gets straightened out about
where his measurement errors come from, he should be happy:
better diagnostics will help him produce a more efficient 
steam generator.

As for the possibility of fusion: its been discussed ad nauseum, 
but i'll juts add one point again for the record: if this
process occurs in H20, it could only result from H + H 
(or rather, p + p ) fusion. The cross section for this
fusion reaction is incredibly small, which is why H20 
doesn't spontaneosly fuse, and why the sun lasts for
billions of years.

It is really rediculous to suggest that p + p fusion 
is a possible significant CF energy source---even P & F never 
went that far.

--
Barry Merriman
UCLA Dept. of Math
UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)


cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.13 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Bass Flaps
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Bass Flaps
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 1994 01:48:06 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

Eugene 'Mr. Politesse' Mallove writes:
>Camel Dung Bass keeps flapping:
>
>>Can your kids fly by flapping their tongues?
>
>>Why don't you try to teach them?
>
>>The reason?  Because it's impossible.
>
>Bass sure can fly by flapping *his* tongue -- or was that his posterior? As 
>the song said, "The answer my friend, is blowin in the wind...." 
>
>Gene Mallove

      Yes, but you've apparently missed the answer.

                                 dale bass


cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.13 / Gary Steckly /  Re: re) ..Testing Grigg G. with different fluids!
     
Originally-From: gsteckly@dgim.doc.ca (Gary Steckly)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: re) ..Testing Grigg G. with different fluids!
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 94 01:13:29 GMT
Organization: Communications Canada

Barry Merriman (barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu) wrote:
: In article <gsteckly.65.000B12AB@clark.dgim.doc.ca> gsteckly@clark.dgim.doc.ca  
: (Gary Steckly) writes:
: > one of the main things I have learned from them is that I don't know 
: > everything

: But, the question relevant to the (Griggs = Fusion?) question
: is more like: do you know _anything_?

You will get no argument from me on that point :-)  I really *don't* know 
how to explain this effect. But to clap our hands over our ears and close 
our eyes and sing "i'm not listening...I can't hear you..." won't get 
us an answer.  I reserve judgement for the outcome of Tom's trip.

: Somehow, I just doubt you get fusion by turning on
: your blender. Sure, there is cavitation, and thus 
: _conceivably_ sonoluminesence, but even the energies
: observed in carefully optimized sono. experiments
: are far short of what is needed to produce significant
: fusion, even if done in the presence of D & T.

for the record, I tend to agree that this is likely not fusion.  Now 
let's try to figure out what it is.  

This entire attitude of denial is strangely reminiscent of a childrens 
book I once read to my daughter (oh no...not another children's analogy) 
about a dragon that followed a certain child around the house.  He kept 
trying to convince his parents that there was a dragon living with them 
but there answer was always "there's no such thing as a dragon".  

Anyway, ignoring this creature simply made it grow larger until it 
eventually broke through the roof and destroyed the house, at which time 
this child's parents could no longer ignore the reality of this dragon.

it was a good story.

I hope this dragon doesn't totally destroy the house of the physics 
establishment before they finally decide to take a look at it.  Like Gene 
has said, perhaps nature is speaking to us.

regards

Gary


: --
: Barry Merriman
: UCLA Dept. of Math
: UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
: barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)


cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudengsteckly cudfnGary cudlnSteckly cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.13 / Gary Steckly /  Re: re) ..Testing Grigg G. with different fluids!
     
Originally-From: gsteckly@dgim.doc.ca (Gary Steckly)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: re) ..Testing Grigg G. with different fluids!
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 94 01:24:11 GMT
Organization: Communications Canada

Cameron Randale Bass (crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU) wrote:

(deletia)

:      I hope you have answers to some of them.  Like perhaps, 'Daddy,
:      should I jump off this tall building and try to fly by flapping my 
:      tongue'.

I think you missed my point.  Strangely enough, my kid's usually understand 
my silly little anecdotes.  

regards

Gary
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudengsteckly cudfnGary cudlnSteckly cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.13 / John Logajan /  Re: Name reqd for free-energy (was re: fusion?)
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@mirage.skypoint.net (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Name reqd for free-energy (was re: fusion?)
Date: 13 Oct 1994 03:17:09 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Dick Jackson (jackson@soldev.tti.com) wrote:
: Hm? I think "free energy" is an ideal term -- not to be confused
: with that ancient and well validated concept -- free energy.

After reading this and other comments, I am still unhappy with the
"free energy" label.

Some people won't be happy until it is called "hoax energy" and some
won't be happy until it is called "real energy."

I've seen "new hydrogen energy" or "zero point energy" or "cold
fusion energy" or "hydrino energy" etc.

These are all too narrow because they presume the conclusion.

So I think we should stick to the tried and true *neutral* descriptive
term -- anomalous energy.  That captures the fact that it is unexpected
from current theory, but doesn't confine it prematurely to a particular
theory or ease of extraction.


So I vote for the general label:


            anomalous energy


--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com  --  612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA -
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.13 / Harry Conover /  Re: Bass Flaps
     
Originally-From: conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Bass Flaps
Date: 13 Oct 1994 04:13:34 GMT
Organization: The Internet Access Company

Eugene Mallove (76570.2270@compuserve.com) wrote:
: Camel Dung Bass keeps flapping:

: >Can your kids fly by flapping their tongues?

: >Why don't you try to teach them?

: >The reason?  Because it's impossible.

: >dale bass

: Bass sure can fly by flapping *his* tongue -- or was that his posterior? As 
: the song said, "The answer my friend, is blowin in the wind...." 

: Gene Mallove


Sure, Bass' tongue (actually fingers) really flaps.  Still, when it does,
the words that accompany are really worth a listen.

                                     Harry C.

cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenconover cudfnHarry cudlnConover cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.13 / Robert Heeter /  Conventional Fusion FAQ Glossary Part 0/7 (Intro)
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.answers,news.answers
Subject: Conventional Fusion FAQ Glossary Part 0/7 (Intro)
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 1994 04:59:02 GMT
Organization: Princeton University


Archive-name: fusion-faq/glossary/part0-intro
Last-modified: 27-Sept-1994
Posting-frequency: More-or-less-monthly
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!!!).

*****************************************************************
FUT: Glossary of Frequently Used Terms in Conventional Fusion

Edited by Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@pppl.gov

###  This introduces the Conventional Fusion FUT/Glossary  ###

# Editorial Note:  

Like any discipline, fusion research has evolved terminology used 
to facilitate discussion.  This includes the scientific vocabulary 
of the discipline, the names of various research machines and 
devices used, the names of various researchers in the field, the 
names of the various research labs and funding authorities, the
mathematical symbols used, and the acronyms frequently used as 
shorthand for some of the above.  

In the case of conventional (magnetic confinement, inertial
confinement, thermonuclear, muon-catalyzed, etc - but not Cold)
fusion, this terminology has grown to the point where newcomers
(including the author of the FUT!) may be intimidated by the 
apparent obscurity of the discussions.  This file is an attempt 
to provide a comprehensive and detailed listing and explanation 
of terms frequently used, so that those new to the group/field 
will be able to understand what is being said, and to contribute 
with a minimum of confusion and frustration.  Many terms are still
missing, and some terms may have less-than-fully-correct entries,
so if you would like to see something added or changed, let me
know.


# DO NOT BE INTIMIDATED BY THE SIZE OF THIS GLOSSARY!

Everything is organized alphabetically, and to make things even
better each entry is coded by type (names, acronyms, types of 
machines, basic physics terms, advanced plasma terms, etc).
Hopefully this will make the FUT easier to use. 


* What's in the FUT:  

We started with an initial list supplied by Jim Day 
(Jim.Day@support.com).  To this were added some comments from various
responses I received to the first draft.  I then incorporated terms
from PPPL and other glossaries.  Then acronyms, machine names, 
and names of important scientists were added as they came. 
I added categories for research and funding/political agencies, 
tried to broaden the base of basic science terms, and wrote up 
a few more preliminary definitions based upon explanations that 
have appeared in the newsgroup and in my studies.  Many of the 
terms listed still do not have explanations given.  

Recent drafts have been mostly incremental improvements to 
the previous versions.  New categories of terms have been made, 
the organization has been improved, and of course definitions 
have been added and improved.


* What's Needed to Improve the FUT:

I am looking for additional contributions (and improvements) to 
the list.  It would be nice if people posting to the group could
occasionally take a few moments to include definitions of a few 
terms used when you use them; in browsing through the group I 
can then snip out the terms and definitions and simply paste 
them into the evolving FUT file.  It also would be nice if 
references to the FAQ and the Reading List / Bibliography 
could be given to supplement the FUT descriptions, at least 
for some of the more complicated terms.


* Comment on Sources:

The terms and definitions occurring here represent a collection
of contributions from numerous sources.  Rather than include
acknowledgements for each individual definition, I have made
blanket acknowledgements in a separate section (in the FAQ).  
I have tried to include citations in most cases where only 
a single textual source was used.


* This file may be freely distributed; I recommend you retain the
revision date, and in any case I'd like to be cited as the editor. *

****************
Robert F. Heeter
rfheeter@pppl.gov
Graduate Student, Princeton Plasma Physics Lab
(Usual disclaimers apply.)
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.13 / Robert Heeter /  Re: Hot Fusion Pays Well!
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Hot Fusion Pays Well!
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 1994 05:44:10 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

In article <941013030017_76570.2270_HHB49-1@CompuServe.COM> Eugene
Mallove, 76570.2270@compuserve.com writes:
> I made a wonderful, serendipitous discovery. 

Seems like you have a little extra time on your hands lately?

>I was browsing through the weekly
> academic newspaper, The Chronicle of Higher Education (September 14,
1994), 
> and I came upon a massive compilation of "Pay and Benefits of Leaders
at 416 
> Private Colleges and Universities: A Survey." 

Send me a copy; I've heard the football coach at my alma mater makes more
than the university president; want to see if it's true.

Robert F. Heeter
Graduate College
Princeton, NJ 08544

>The Chronicle says that it 
> compiled this information from IRS form 990 filed by each institution
in the 
> past two years.  That form requires colleges to list, among other
things, the 
> pay and benefits of it officers, directors, trustees, and key
employees, as 
> well as its *five highest paid employees other than those top
officials*.

Sounds reasonable.

> Of course I glanced at the pay scales of those senior officers at my
alma 
> mater and former place of business, MIT. Lo and behold! Among the top
highest 
> paid employees are two hot fusioneers!  Here's how the ranking goes:

How many people did you leave off the list?
 
> Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)
> 
> 
>                         91-92 pay       92-93 pay       92-93 benefits
> 
> Charles Vest, Pres.     $255,000        $269,998        $48,654
> R.J. Thome, dept head     ---           $228,689        $37,744
>   Plasma Fusion Ctr.
> Walter E. Morrow, prof  $214,000        $226,307        $41,810
>  and dir. Lincoln Lab.
> R.R. Parker, prof. elec.  -----         $215,904        $37,629
> Glenn P. Strehle, VP    $200,000        $208,725        $39,003
>    treasurer
> A.C. Hax, professor,     -----          $203,094        $37,708
>     management

What's MIT's annual operating budget?  Note that the Plasma Fusion Center
pulls in on the order of $30 million/year in funding.  I'd estimate they
have about 200 employees.  I don't think that sort of salary is all that
unusual considering they're essentially operating a $30 million/year
business.  Especially if you factor in the numerous commercial
applications
of plasma physics, particularly in the semiconductor industry, which
can provide a fair amount of additional income through consulting work.
 
> I immediately glanced down to the figures for that other university
bastion of
> hot fusion, Princeton. There was one hot fusioneer there too.
> 
> Princton University 
> 
>                         91-92 pay       92-93 pay       92-93 benefits
> Harold T. Shapiro       $257,500        $264,000        $30,509
>         President
> Randall A. Hack, Pres.  $208,000        $221,400        $37,957
>  Princeton Univ. Invest-
>  ment Trust Company
> Hugo Sonnenschein       $195,000        $205,000        $35,489
>   Provost
> Peter M. Eisenberger    $176,644        $182,735        $31,382
>  Prof. and Director
>  Princeton Materials Inst.
> Arnold J. Levine,          ----         $168,028        $29,126
>   Prof.and chair, molecular
>   biology               
> Ronald C. Davidson,        ----         $165,500        $29,138
>  Prof. and Director
>  Princeton Plasma Physics
>  Laboratory
> 

Uh-oh; I wonder what Dr. Davidson is going to say if I point out he's
being
paid less than Dr. Thome, while running an institution that, with $100 
million/year in annual revenue, and about 800 employees, is 3-4 times
larger?
I wonder if I really care.

> So, let's see. Forty-percent of the top five highest paid employees at
MIT are
> in hot fusion. At Princeton, only 20 percent of the top five are in hot 
> fusion. 

Hmm...  now there are a pair of meaningless numbers if I ever saw some.
"MIT has twice as many overpaid plasma physicists as Princeton"???  I
don't think so.

> Seems like a pretty big investment for something so outrageously 
> chancy, eh?

Not nearly as big an investment on such a slim chance as Cold Fusion
Times, methinks.

> I wonder if Congress knows about this, and if it knew, would it 
> care? Note that Ronald C. Davidson of Princeton was formerly at the PFC
at 
> MIT. Apparently to make it to the top five at some university, he had
to find 
> his way down to Princeton.

I'll give you his email address and you can take that subject up with
him...
It's real easy:  rdavidson@pppl.gov.  Why don't you ask him, instead of
wasting
our time with this?
 
> Now I knew from the size of the program's total annual dole, that these
HF 
> guys were raking dough in big-time, but little did I know how big! Kind
of 
> puts into perspective the annual hot fusioneers' hat-in-hand to
Congress. They
> aren't doing it just for the scientific glory and to "save the world"
from 
> fossil fuel combustion -- in 50 to 100 more years, maybe. They're doin'
it for
> big cash! 

As if they couldn't earn an equal or larger salary running a high-tech
company
with their technical and administrative experience?  Get real...

If Davidson earns $200,000/year, and PPPL pulls down $100 million/year,
that
means...  hmm...  0.2/100 = 0.2% of PPPL funding goes to Ron.  Gosh, what
a *large* number...  Note that the *average* wage at PPPL is, I'd guess,
about $50 million / 1000 workers (roughly) = $50,000.  Find me *one* other
major business where the top worker only earns 4 times the average salary.
It looks like you have enough time on your hands to do something
productive
instead of posting these feeble attempts at rabble-rousing on the net.

> Hell, Parker and Thome at MIT each make more than the President of 
> the United States! (Salary on paper, but not including benefits!) Now
that's 
> something to talk about, almost as good as the elusive "break-even."
It's 
> pretty damn clear why these guys don't like data that challenges their 
> position.

Care to be more specific with that accusation?  I'd like to know what
makes you feel this way.  
 
> Hey, some of you lower-ranking HF guys don't even make as much as these 
> biggies get in Bennies each year! How d'ya feel about that? Maybe you
like it 
> and just dream of cashin' in yo selves some day.

Yep, that's right.  I signed up for 5-7 years of miserable income, no
benefits,
and insane workload, with the odds less than 50% that I'd end up with a
job
in the *field*, where I'd continue to earn a pathetic salary for
thirty-odd
years until maybe, if I was one of three or four people, I'd get a
high-paying
administrative job.  Yep, I'm in this for the money, and nothing else.
Gene, you're really amazing.  You realize that people with the sort of 
background in nonlinear computations that plasma grad students get are 
pulling in $100,000+ *starting* salaries on Wall Street right now?  
Yessir, if I really wanted money, I could just get my PhD, leave this 
place behind, and retire by the time I turn 40.  It's a good thing for
people like you that some of us are a little more concerned about making
a difference in the world than we are about making a few quick bucks.
And if I could do that, just imagine what Ron Davidson could do with his
mind and his experience if what he was interested in was personal profit.
I'm afraid money just isn't what it's all about here.  Try again.

*************************************************************************
Bob Heeter
rfheeter@pppl.gov
Graduate Student, Princeton Plasma Physics Lab
Just a lone voice from the bottom of the intellectual food chain.
This should not be construed as anything resembling an official
response from Princeton or the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory.
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.13 / Robert Heeter /  Conventional Fusion FAQ Section 0/11 (Intro) Part 3/3 (Revisions)
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.answers,news.answers
Subject: Conventional Fusion FAQ Section 0/11 (Intro) Part 3/3 (Revisions)
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 1994 14:06:35 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

Archive-name: fusion-faq/section0-intro/part3-revisions
Last-modified: 12-Oct-1994
Posting-frequency: More-or-less-monthly

*********************************************************
* Conventional Fusion FAQ:  Revision History by Section *
*********************************************************

*** Document as a Whole:

*	Initial Draft - preliminary outline of topics and structure.
*	to Feb. 26, 1994 - added some proto-answers.
*	to March 6, 1994 - added topics, added proto-answers.* 
* to March 20, 1994 - Reorganized, created standalone Mac document,
     updated various pieces, added a few proto-answers.
* to March 27, 1994 - updates of some sections, new answers, minor
     reorganizations, and revisions to outline.
* to April 6, 1994 - updated glossary, added legal goop at front.
* to April 15, 1994 - inserted section 2 on fusion energy; major
     revisions to many sections.  First draft of Section 5.
* April 22, 1994 - added disclaimers about this not being a Cold
     fusion FAQ to the top of each section to reduce confusion.
* June 16, 1994 - general updates to many sections, first draft
     of section 1.
* June 22, 1994 - revisions to several more sections.  Second draft
     of section 1.
* to August 14, 1994 - revised 1,5,6,7,8,FUT,Bibliography
                     - split section 4 into parts A & B
                     - partial draft of section 4B
                     - split section 2 into parts A-E
* to September 17, 1994 - incorporated earlier comments & revisions
                        - prepared all well-edited and revised 
                          sections for news.answers submission
                        - first draft of section 2A
                        - began WEB formatting in collaboration
                            with John Wright
                        - added multiple terms to glossary

* to September 27, 1994 - split off Glossary/FUT somewhat
                        - restructure and rename sections to
                          (hopefully) conform to *.answers
                          submission guidelines.
                          Mapping is Section #@ goes to
                            Section #/11 Part #/#
                            e.g. 2A -> 2/11 Part 1/5.

* to October 12,1994 - received permission for crossposting
                       to sci.answers and news.answers.
                     - Name and organization tweaked.
                     - New sections drafted.


*** Section 0:
* To Oct 12, 1994 - Created as sections 0.1,0.2,0.3.
                  - minor modifications to earlier intro material.
                  - section 0.1 goes to sci.physics.fusion,sci.energy,
                    sci.physics,sci.environment,sci.answers,news.answers
* Section 0.2 is usually updated as the outline changes.
* Section 0.3 is usually updated whenever anything else is modified.


*** Section 1:

* First Draft, June 11, 1994 - basic answers to basic questions.
* Second Draft, June 22, 1994 - made corrections and improvements.
* Third Draft, August 7, 1994 - corrections and improvements,
           more info on solar fusion and light elements.


*** Section 2:  first draft in progress
* September 13 - first draft of 2A completed.
* September 29 - 2A renamed 2.1; 2.2 drafted


*** Section 3:  first draft in progress
* Late sept 1994 - preliminary material posted
* Oct 12, 1994 - split into 3.1, 3.2, 3.3.


*** Section 4:
* August 14 - partial draft of 4B (EC, mu-c-f)
* September 11 - revision of 4B; added gravitational confinement
* Oct 12, 1994 - 4A and 4B renamed 4.1, 4.2.


*** Section 5:

* First Draft, April 15, 1994 - brief summaries of major machines.
* Second Draft, June 16, 1994 - added more machines, revised some.
* Third Draft, June 22, 1994 - added more machines, rearranged 
     entries, revised several entries.
* Fourth Draft, August 11, 1994 - mostly maintenance updates,
     added TdeV, made corrections to several entries.
* Fifth Draft, September 11, 1994 - more TdeV info, added Omega
     and NIKE ICF projects.


*** Section 6:

* First Draft, March 27, 1994 - brief answers kludged together 
     from earlier postings.
* Second Draft, June 22, 1994 - added new results & new sections.
* Third Draft, August 7, 1994 - added more political news


*** Section 7:

* First Draft, March 23, 1994 - basic answers
* Second Draft, April 15, 1994 - added list of conferences, 
     more schools.
* Third Draft, June 22, 1994 - added more schools & programs
* Fourth Draft, August 6, 1994 - minor corrections


*** Section 8:

* First Draft, March 22, 1994 - basic info, neutrino ftp, people.
* Second Draft, April 15, 1994 - added more info sources.
* Third Draft, June 12, 1994 - added more info sources.
* Fourth Draft, June 22, 1994 - added info on electronic bulletins,
     made revisions to other info sources.
* Fifth Draft, July 11, 1994 - added sunsite.unc.edu and the WWW 
     pages for US fusion research centers to the documented sources.
* Sixth Draft, September 11, 1994 - added WAIS info on sunsite.


*** Section 9:  Draft not yet completed

*** Section 10 - Bibliography

*	First draft, Feb. 3, 1994
*	Second draft, Feb. 12,1994 - new references, new structure
* Third draft, Feb. 19, 1994 - new references; incorporated
					corrections & comments since 2nd.
* Fourth draft, March 22, 1994	- added some new references, added  
     section H on additional sources for info.
* Fifth draft, April 10, 1994 - added new references.
* Sixth draft, August 14, 1994 - new references
* Seventh draft, September 5, 1994 - new references
* to September 17, 1994 - minor adjustments, one new reference


*** Glossary/FUT Revision History:

*	First draft was an accumulation of sources & Jim Day's list.
* Second draft, Feb. 12, 1994 - incorporated Herman's glossary,
						added list of undefined terms,
						defined labeling scheme
*	Third draft, Feb. 20, 1994 - incorporated new terms and 
					     corrections to old terms.
						added #, % to structure.
						separated A,B,C,D...
*	Fourth draft, March 6, 1994 - added new terms and corrections.
* Fifth draft, April 15, 1994 - added new terms and corrections;
          subdivided vocabulary into basic and advanced terms.
* Sixth draft, June 22, 1994 - more new terms and corrections;
          added subcategory for units of measurement.
* Seventh draft, August 14, 1994 - added new terms and corrections.
* Eighth draft, September 13, 1994 - new terms and corrections 
                                     (minor upgrade)
* September 17, 1994 - added many terms and definitions,
          restructured into intro plus parts B-H.
* To Oct 12, 1994 - sections renamed for *.answers crossposting
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Fri Oct 14 04:37:05 EDT 1994
------------------------------
1994.10.14 / Chuck Sites /  Re: Still no wavefunction
     
Originally-From: chuck@iglou.iglou.com (Chuck Sites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Still no wavefunction
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 1994 02:44:33 GMT
Organization: IgLou Internet Services

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

>Dave says: " I don't think anyone is saying they are degenerate since
>there are MeVs of energy difference, but two D's with a high degree of
>coherence could be seen as approaching highly excited 4He."

I recall saying something similar a few years back.  It had to do with
D+ condensing in metals, where 2D+'s whould look like *He4++.  Initially
I looked at the problem as two deuterons in a potential well, but this 
gives an *He4++ that has 24MeV of energy to unload before the He4++ is 
in ground state.  That means gamma emission.  One can then build a 
skeem to get around this via a Moshbaur like effect to disapate the
energy, but you have the hbar >= del E del t problem. 

>Two points to be made here:  Everyone should take note that Dave correctly
>notes that it must be "highly excited 4He."  That important fact gets
>lost in some discussions.  Howver, my key assertion is some important
>details concerning a transistion from two deuterons to a single 4He
>have never been addressed.  Yet we are supposed to believe that there
>are some serious attempts to construct a "theory" of cold fusion.
>All we have at present are phrases like "a high degree of coherence."
>I believe that an ordinary D2 molecule might be an example of that,
>but it isn't much like a 4He atom is it?

Well that depends Dick.  If the two nucleons of the D's are exchanging
vitual pions (or any strong guage particle), the D2 molecule would be
for all observational purposes, a dunbell shaped *He4 atom.  Unstable for
sure, but an *He4 atom none the less.  If the *He4 becomes bound by the
exchange of the strong guage, the *He4 decays with the emmision of the 
familiar T+p, He3+n, and He4+gamma fusion by-products.  In devising 
a theory where He4 becomes the dominant branch of this decay, a skeem
must be devised that influences He4 to remain He4.  Bose condensation is 
the only realistic way to influence that decay as I see.  Chuck Harrison
has mentioned works where tritium decay rates are altered in Titanium.
I think that can be sited as one example where the enviroment has an 
influence on the nuclear state. 

>Chuck Sites, on the otherhand forgets the "highly excited" business
>and says:  "One aspect of this I have been looking at is the possibility
>that a condensed D+ band may have an energy state resonant with a
>low energy He4++ nuclear resonance state."

>Chuck, if you are going to invent resonance states that have never been
>seen experimentally or described by any theory shouldn't you start by
>giving us a hint as to how you are going to construct this "low energy
>He4++ nuclear resonance state"?  In what sense are you looking into
>this possibility? 

Fair enough question.  W. Bernecky, a while back, posted a pretty
decent one dimensional model of band condensation.  It was pretty
clear how the statistical mechanics could influence the occupation of
the complection of the bands.  Using the same model, only with He4,
it's my hunch those bands will overlap the D bands.  If an He4
complection lies on or near a D complection given the same external
conditions, this might provide the quantum enviroment to alter the the
decay.  If the energy of the He4 complection lies right on top the D
complection, then the He4 has a resonance state that represents the
band energy of the n-body D complection.

> If you mean what I think you must mean there has
>to be something like the missing wavefunction that I say no one ever
>is willing to describe.  Just the fact that you haven't got the
>energy of the states well specified indicates that perhaps you have
>some hurdles to overcome.

Yep.  Work in progress.

>Dick Blue

Have Fun,
Chuck Sites
chuck@iglou.com





cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.14 / Jorge Stolfi /  Re: Hot Fusion Pays Well!
     
Originally-From: stolfi@atibaia.dcc.unicamp.br (Jorge Stolfi)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Hot Fusion Pays Well!
Date: 14 Oct 1994 02:18:05 GMT
Organization: DCC - UNICAMP - Campinas, SP, Brazil


    > [Gene Mallove:] I made a wonderful, serendipitous
    > discovery. Among the top highest paid employees [at MIT] are two
    > hot fusioneers!

To complete the picture, perhaps you can tell us the salaries

  of Dr. Fleischmann and Dr. Pons?

  of the director of the defunct Utah Cold Fusion Institute?

(One could ask more delicate questions, but let's stop here for now.)

--stolfi

PS. I am still waiting for the dimensions of the Griggs pump whose
temp data you posted a few days ago.  (Should I take your silence
as tacit admission that the GG "excess heat" claims are bogus?)

PPS. And don't forget my fair share of ad-hominem insults.  
I do demand equal treatment.

 -------------------------------------------------------------------
Jorge Stolfi                                | Tel: +55 (192) 39-8442
Computer Science Dept. (DCC-IMECC)          |      +55 (192) 39-3115
Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP) | Fax: +55 (192) 39-7470 
Internet: stolfi@dcc.unicamp.br             | Campinas, SP -- Brazil
 -------------------------------------------------------------------
Please do not copy this .signature virus into your .signature file!
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenstolfi cudfnJorge cudlnStolfi cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.14 / Cameron Bass /  Re: re) ..Testing Grigg G. with different fluids!
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: re) ..Testing Grigg G. with different fluids!
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 1994 03:07:08 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <37ctr2$2pc@stratus.skypoint.com>,
John Logajan <jlogajan@skypoint.com> wrote:
>Cameron Randale Bass (crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU) wrote:
>:      I'd be quite surprised if one could induce fusion in steel by
>:      swishing relatively low velocity water against it.
>
>It's certainly surprising.  SL was surprising, at least that is what I am
>told (I wasn't in a position to evalute its probability.)
>

    Certain aspects of recent findings may be surprising, but its existence is 
    not.  We've known about SL for over 50 years.

    Put it this way, if fusion were that easy (and that miraculous)
    I'd be as surprised as I would if Jed could fly by flapping *his* tongue.

                                 dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.14 / Duncan McIntyre /  GG Improvements
     
Originally-From: duncan_mcintyre@hpgnd.grenoble.hp.com (Duncan McIntyre)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: GG Improvements
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 1994 10:49:46 UNDEFINED
Organization: Hewlett Packard

Just a thought..

The essence of the GG is that if you slosh water around jolly quickly whilst 
whistling at it, you get fusion, right? 

Seems to me that there might just be some other people on the planet who know 
a thing or two about what happens when you bung water through a whistling 
rotor. Anyone from the aeronautics industry.

So, here's an experiment we can all try: nip down to your local airport with a 
bucket of water and throw it into a handy jet engine. The resulting huge 
increase in power will prove cold fusion and make you mighty rich when you 
sell the idea to Boeing.

I want a percentage.

Pip pip!
________________________________________________________________________________
Duncan_McIntyre @grenoble.hp.com

"I am drunk, and you madam are ugly, but in the morning I shall be sober...."
______________________________________________________________
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenduncan_mcintyre cudfnDuncan cudlnMcIntyre cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.14 / W Weingarten /  Re: The Griggs inquiry
     
Originally-From: woweinga@mtu.edu (Warren Weingarten)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The Griggs inquiry
Date: 14 Oct 1994 13:13:40 GMT
Organization: Michigan Tech. University

In article <1994Oct13.194826.26096@math.ucla.edu>,
barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman) wrote:
> 
> In article <56131@mindlink.bc.ca> Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Dunn)  
> writes:
> > In article <1994Oct13.022753.12671@math.ucla.edu>,
> > barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu Barry Merriman writes:
> > 
> > > if this process occurs in H20, it could only result from H + H
> > > (or rather, p + p ) fusion.
> > 
> > This ignores the fact that "normal" water contains deuterium.  If it
> > didn't, we wouldn't be able to isolate D2O from "normal" water.  If you
> > want pure H20, you will have to arrange to acquire some water from which
> > the D2O has been stripped (say the stripped byproduct from a heavy water
> > plant).  I don't remember anyone every testing pure H2O in a cold fusion
> > setup - does anyone else know if this has been done.
> > 
> 
> Sure, but its only 1 part in 10000 D, so the odds
> on two D's meeting eachother in griggs device are slim.
> Barry Merriman
True, but how about H+D->He3 as proposed by Logajan. See 9 Oct. Post
E-Quest Results.
> --
> Barry Merriman
> UCLA Dept. of Math
> UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
> barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenwoweinga cudfnWarren cudlnWeingarten cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.15 / Richard Blue /  FUAQ for Griggs Device
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: FUAQ for Griggs Device
Date: Sat, 15 Oct 1994 00:14:06 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

FUAQ is new terminology which stands for Frequently UnAnswered Questions.
I thought there might be some value in listing some of the key bits of
information that have been missing from the discussions concerning the
Griggs Hydrosonic Pump.

(1) Basic operating parameters such as the temperature and pressure in the
pump for various operating modes.  What measurements have been made and
what remains unknown?

(2) "Tuning" parameters that are adjusted to achieve the desired operating
mode.  I can think of only two: the makeup water flow rate and the throttle
setting on the output flow.  Input power and rotational speed are, I think,
not adjustable.

(3) Descriptions of plumbing external to the pump including the size and
possible internal structure of the separation tank, the location of throttle
valves, pressure regulators, and other components that could influence
pressure, temperature, and rate of flow.  How is water returned from the
separation tank?

(4) Locations of all significant instrumentation relative to the components
mentioned in (3).  Flow metering has been mentioned but never described.
Is the flow metered on the input, the output, or both?

(5) Operating characteristics of the make-up pump.  What is the pressure
differential against which it does work?  How is the input flow adjusted
and metered?

Beyond information relevant to any evaluation of the GG as a demonstration
of a device which generates anomolous heat, there are some facts relating
to claims that this is a practical and reliable device in continuous
service for a variety of applications.  One claim has been that it is superior
to a conventional boiler for use in the generation of steam from dirty
water.  Unless the crud in the water is in fact the fuel (grin) it has
to be deposited somewhere in the system.  One naturally assumes that it
builds up in the chamber where the water is being converted to steam, but
that seems to be a potentially unsatisfactory condition from the point
of view of continuous reliable operation.  Any explanation?

Anyone singing the praises of this device as "super efficient" relative
to other types of boilers are probably overlooking the fact that the
"over unity" numbers do not apply to the entire system from power input
to heat output.  There are certain obvious losses that do not result
in useful output.

As for reliability in long-term continuous service, it is a mechanical
device with bearings and seals operating in a difficult and corrosive
environment.  I would be very skeptical of any claim that this device
is "trouble free" in comparison with any ordinary water pump.  It is
somewhat less likely to compete well with an electric boiler.

Finally, I would like to remind those who are not technically inclined
that there is absolutely nothing surprizing in a claim that this device
heats water or produces steam.  Any ordinary water pump can do the same.
The power input at the pump shaft goes either into the mechanical work
of moving and/or elevating water or into heating the water.  I believe
all that Mr. Griggs has done is to maximize the heating by minimizing
the mechanical work output.  I don't even think you have to be very
clever to design a pump that operates in the heat-only mode.  The
mystery is why would anyone want such a device?  Think of it as a
$10,000 household water heater.  Is there a big market for those?

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.15 / Richard Blue /  Re: E-Quest exotic reactions
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: E-Quest exotic reactions
Date: Sat, 15 Oct 1994 00:14:06 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

In response to my suggestion that the production of 3He in a fusion
reaction without any accompanying neutrons, John Logajan proposes the
reaction p + d -> 3He in addition to the d + d -> 4He with no gammas
protons, neutrons, or X-rays.  I suggested that nuclear physics might
indicate that d + d might result in 3He + n, but you have all heard
that before, and some of you have pat answers as to why it does not
occur.  I would remind John that each new reaction process that is
introduced requires a new set of miracles.  You will find it difficult
to stretch the old miracles called up for 4He production to cover
the 3He case as well.  Must I remind you that protons are not
bosons?   Now if you think the E-Quest system is a way to get all
the hydrogen isotopes in a mood to fuse let us consider the possibilities
for tritium as well.  What miracles are needed to hide p + t and
d + t reactions?  Oh, I almost forgot the Mallove report indicated
that E-Quest used H2O as a blank.  No 3He production there?

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.14 / J WINTERFLOOD /  Re: The Griggs inquiry
     
Originally-From: jwinter@galileo.pi.infn.it (John WINTERFLOOD)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The Griggs inquiry
Date: 14 Oct 1994 15:33:53 GMT
Organization: Universita' di Pisa

: barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman) wrote:
: > 
: > <stuff deleted>
: > 
: > Sure, but its only 1 part in 10000 D, so the odds
: > on two D's meeting eachother in griggs device are slim.
: > Barry Merriman

Warren Weingarten (woweinga@mtu.edu) wrote:
: True, but how about H+D->He3 as proposed by Logajan. See 9 Oct. Post
: E-Quest Results.

How about improving the odds by adding a bit of D2O - to say double the
concentration - maybe hoping to double the excess energy?  It sounds a
lot easier to try than most of the other fluids suggested - and any
measurable or null effect is additional experimental evidence for our
consideration.
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenjwinter cudfnJohn cudlnWINTERFLOOD cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.14 / W Weingarten /  Re: The Griggs inquiry
     
Originally-From: woweinga@mtu.edu (Warren Weingarten)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The Griggs inquiry
Date: 14 Oct 1994 17:45:09 GMT
Organization: Michigan Tech. University

In article <37m8d1$eoc@serra.unipi.it>, jwinter@galileo.pi.infn.it (John
WINTERFLOOD) wrote:
> 
> : barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman) wrote:
> : > 
> : > <stuff deleted>
> : > 
> : > Sure, but its only 1 part in 10000 D, so the odds
> : > on two D's meeting eachother in griggs device are slim.
> : > Barry Merriman
> 
> Warren Weingarten (woweinga@mtu.edu) wrote:
> : True, but how about H+D->He3 as proposed by Logajan. See 9 Oct. Post
> : E-Quest Results.
> 
> How about improving the odds by adding a bit of D2O - to say double the
> concentration - maybe hoping to double the excess energy?  It sounds a
> lot easier to try than most of the other fluids suggested - and any
> measurable or null effect is additional experimental evidence for our
> consideration.
I agree. If this is the test that is to be performed, I would support the
effort with a check for $20. How about it, Tom?  Add some D2O to the feed,
and look for a higher COP.
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenwoweinga cudfnWarren cudlnWeingarten cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.14 / Tom Droege /  Re: GG Improvements
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: GG Improvements
Date: 14 Oct 1994 19:23:29 GMT
Organization: fermilab

In article <duncan_mcintyre.1.001A07F2@hpgnd.grenoble.hp.com>,
duncan_mcintyre@hpgnd.grenoble.hp.com (Duncan McIntyre) says:
>
>Just a thought..
>
>The essence of the GG is that if you slosh water around jolly quickly whilst 
>whistling at it, you get fusion, right? 
>
>Seems to me that there might just be some other people on the planet who know 
>a thing or two about what happens when you bung water through a whistling 
>rotor. Anyone from the aeronautics industry.
>
>So, here's an experiment we can all try: nip down to your local airport with a 
>bucket of water and throw it into a handy jet engine. The resulting huge 
>increase in power will prove cold fusion and make you mighty rich when you 
>sell the idea to Boeing.
>
>I want a percentage.
>
>Pip pip!
>________________________________________________________________________________


Anyone remember that they they used to inject water into WWII
aircraft engines to give them a short term boost??  Perhaps it
was a cold fusion effect!!!


Tom Droege

cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.14 / Mike Jamison /  Re: GG Improvements
     
Originally-From: edwlt12@mars.lerc.nasa.gov (Mike Jamison (ADF))
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: GG Improvements
Date: 14 Oct 1994 17:49 EDT
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center

In article <37mlrh$skf@fnnews.fnal.gov>, Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege) writes...
>In article <duncan_mcintyre.1.001A07F2@hpgnd.grenoble.hp.com>,
duncan_mcintyre@hpgnd.grenoble.hp.com (Duncan McIntyre) says:
>>
>>Just a thought..
>>
>>The essence of the GG is that if you slosh water around jolly quickly whilst 
>>whistling at it, you get fusion, right? 
>>
>>Seems to me that there might just be some other people on the planet who know 
>>a thing or two about what happens when you bung water through a whistling 
>>rotor. Anyone from the aeronautics industry.
>>
>>So, here's an experiment we can all try: nip down to your local airport with a 
>>bucket of water and throw it into a handy jet engine. The resulting huge 
>>increase in power will prove cold fusion and make you mighty rich when you 
>>sell the idea to Boeing.
>>
>>I want a percentage.
>>
>>Pip pip!
>>________________________________________________________________________________
> 
> 
>Anyone remember that they they used to inject water into WWII
>aircraft engines to give them a short term boost??  Perhaps it
>was a cold fusion effect!!!

And here I thought it was just to bring the combustion temp. down so they
could squirt a denser fuel air mix into the chamber...  Silly me.

Tom, you shouldn't post like this - someone may take you seriously :-)
> 
> 
>Tom Droege
> 

Mike Jamison

"Scientific research consists in seeing what everyone else has seen, but
thinking what no one else has thought"

						-A. Szent-Gyorgyi
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenedwlt12 cudfnMike cudlnJamison cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.14 / Matt Kennel /  Re: Still no wavefunction
     
Originally-From: mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Still no wavefunction
Date: 14 Oct 1994 22:02:36 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

Chuck Sites (chuck@iglou.iglou.com) wrote:
: >Chuck Sites, on the otherhand forgets the "highly excited" business
: >and says:  "One aspect of this I have been looking at is the possibility
: >that a condensed D+ band may have an energy state resonant with a
: >low energy He4++ nuclear resonance state."

: >Chuck, if you are going to invent resonance states that have never been
: >seen experimentally or described by any theory shouldn't you start by
: >giving us a hint as to how you are going to construct this "low energy
: >He4++ nuclear resonance state"?  In what sense are you looking into
: >this possibility? 

: Fair enough question.  W. Bernecky, a while back, posted a pretty
: decent one dimensional model of band condensation.  It was pretty
: clear how the statistical mechanics could influence the occupation of
: the complection of the bands.  Using the same model, only with He4,
: it's my hunch those bands will overlap the D bands.  If an He4
: complection lies on or near a D complection given the same external
: conditions, this might provide the quantum enviroment to alter the the
: decay. 

"complection"??

We don't need a "quantum environment to alter the decay", we need a PHYSICAL
MECHANISM.  In quantum mechanics, that means a Hamiltonian that has known
physical mechanisms that comes from known forces of nature, which means
electromagnetism, strong force, weak force and (sorta) gravity.

Dr Blue's contention, with which I agree, is that any theory that can
explain alteration of nuclear decay must necessarily involve coordinates
of nucleons.  This is because the current theory of nuclear decay needs
this.

: If the energy of the He4 complection lies right on top the D
: complection, then the He4 has a resonance state that represents the
: band energy of the n-body D complection.

Why?  What is the physical basis of the coupling?

Imagine I have a ball in position A, and a ball in position B.  Saying that
just because their wave functions "overlap" automatically implies some sort
of reaction is ridiculous.  You'd have just invented the transporter.

Whee.  I have a tennis ball in my left hand.  There exists a state in which
the ball is in my right hand.  Gee these wavefunctions overlap (in momentum
space).  Is the ball going to disappear and reappear in my right hand?

No, you need to have something that makes it do that.  Physical mechanism.
The "F" in F=dp/dt.  The "H" in    ih dPsi/dt = H|Psi.

You have lots of neutrino wavefunctions overlapping the hell with your body
right now.  What happens?  Nothing, because the magnitude of the
interaction (a weak force Hamiltonian) is very very small (but non-zero).

Similarly with radio waves, those photon wave functions are overlapping
a whole lot, but quantitatively not too much interaction because the
magnitude of the matrix element isn't big at low frequencies.

Now, let's go to an excited He4*.  Now, there is a whoppingly large
matrix element connecting He4* and T+p, with a strong force nuclear
Hamiltonian in the middle.  In fact this matrix element is so
big that the lifetime of the excited state (inversely proportional
to the matrix element) is so very small, that because of special
relativity it's causally impossible for almost anything else
to have an effect.  The light-sphere of conceivable causal influence
during this reaction time I don't believe is even atom-sized.
{Bose condensation does not break SR}.

To get fusion without some of these reactions you have to either
come up with some new reaction that's much much much much faster
than what happens now (requiring a nuclear Hamiltonian), but
by it's nature this can't involve any other coordinates besides
the nucleons, i.e. anything that depends on the macroscopic
physical arrangement (hydrogen in a metal).  This is why people
find it hard to believe that nuclear reactions are altered
significantly by the particular atomic arrangement. 

Or you have to have some means of turning off the normal strong
force just for now. 

: Have Fun,
: Chuck Sites
: chuck@iglou.com

--
-Matt Kennel  		mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu
-Institute for Nonlinear Science, University of California, San Diego
-*** AD: Archive for nonlinear dynamics papers & programs: FTP to
-***     lyapunov.ucsd.edu, username "anonymous".
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenmbk cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.14 / John Logajan /  Re: The Griggs inquiry
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@mirage.skypoint.net (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The Griggs inquiry
Date: 14 Oct 1994 16:10:45 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Barry Merriman (barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu) wrote:
: > > if this process occurs in H20, it could only result from H + H
: > > (or rather, p + p ) fusion.
: > 
: > This ignores the fact that "normal" water contains deuterium.

: Sure, but its only 1 part in 10000 D, so the odds
: on two D's meeting eachother in griggs device are slim.

There still is the putative H + D ==> He3 reaction, which ought to be
as common as there are D's.  There has been alleged He3 concentration
in E-Quest ultrasonic tests -- however using D2O where H was the minor
contaminant.

--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com  --  612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA -
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.14 / J WINTERFLOOD /  Re: Re-engineering Griggs
     
Originally-From: jwinter@galileo.pi.infn.it (John WINTERFLOOD)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Re-engineering Griggs
Date: 14 Oct 1994 23:41:49 GMT
Organization: Universita' di Pisa

John Logajan (jlogajan@mirage.skypoint.net) wrote:
: As I understand it, the Griggs device usually has a constant flow of
: new water through it.  In some of the posted results, the flow rate
: varied from approx 5 GPM to a fraction of a GPM -- but always with
: positive anomalous heat.

: It is likely that the flow rate is fundamentally unconnected to the
: anomalous heat generation, so theoretically, one ought to be able to
: reduce the flow rate to zero.   In other words, the sole benefit of
: the water flow has been its ability to carry heat away from the
: reaction.

: Those operations ought be be able to be decoupled, then.  A cooling
: system (blanket aka internal combustion engine cooling jacket)
: independent of the "core" operation is envisioned.

: The primary benefit of decoupling the functions is that it might make
: it easier to "tune" the individual parameters for maximum output.

This sounds like an excellent idea - It would also allow a fairly small
volume of working fluid to be used. This would make it easy to replace
the water with pure D2O or pure H2O or any combination in-between (even
Tritium might be worth trying).

It would be an good test of the strength of a persons skepticism to
get them to stand next to the cylinder as it starts cavitating with
pure D2O inside !  Any takers amongst our major skeptics ?
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenjwinter cudfnJohn cudlnWINTERFLOOD cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.15 / Matt Kennel /  Re: The Griggs inquiry
     
Originally-From: mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The Griggs inquiry
Date: 15 Oct 1994 00:15:24 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

John WINTERFLOOD (jwinter@galileo.pi.infn.it) wrote:
: : barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman) wrote:
: : > 
: : > <stuff deleted>
: : > 
: : > Sure, but its only 1 part in 10000 D, so the odds
: : > on two D's meeting eachother in griggs device are slim.
: : > Barry Merriman

: How about improving the odds by adding a bit of D2O - to say double the
: concentration - maybe hoping to double the excess energy?  It sounds a
: lot easier to try than most of the other fluids suggested - and any
: measurable or null effect is additional experimental evidence for our
: consideration.

If it gives 20% excess power with 1 in 10^4 then using heavy
water would probably ionize the hell out of their zip code.

--
-Matt Kennel  		mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu
-Institute for Nonlinear Science, University of California, San Diego
-*** AD: Archive for nonlinear dynamics papers & programs: FTP to
-***     lyapunov.ucsd.edu, username "anonymous".
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenmbk cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.14 / Bruce Dunn /  Re: GG Improvements
     
Originally-From: Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Dunn)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: GG Improvements
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 94 20:48:21 -0800
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada

Duncan McIntyre writes:

> So, here's an experiment we can all try: nip down to your local airport
> with  a bucket of water and throw it into a handy jet engine. The
> resulting huge increase in power will prove cold fusion and make you
> mighty rich when you sell the idea to Boeing.

It's been done already :-).  Early Boeing 707s used to have a water
injection system to increase the thrust of the non-fanjet engines at
takeoff.  Mind you, the thermodynamics people had conventional explanations
as to why injected water increased the thrust.


--
Bruce Dunn    Vancouver, Canada   Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenBruce_Dunn cudfnBruce cudlnDunn cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Sat Oct 15 04:37:02 EDT 1994
------------------------------
1994.10.15 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Why not just buy/rent Tom  D. a Griggs Device?
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Why not just buy/rent Tom  D. a Griggs Device?
Date: Sat, 15 Oct 1994 02:18:25 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <11OCT199415583690@mars.lerc.nasa.gov> edwlt12@mars.lerc.nasa
gov (Mike Jamison (ADF)) writes:
>In article <CxBHpp.Mz2@prometheus.UUCP>, pmk@promethe.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) writes...
>>In article <2OCT199412584236@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov> edwlt12@ariel.lerc.n
sa.gov (Mike Jamison (ADF)) writes:
>>>In article <1994Sep29.185236.3924@math.ucla.edu>, barry@arnold.math.u
la.edu (Barry Merriman) writes...
>>>>In article <29SEP199411221477@mars.lerc.nasa.gov> edwlt12@mars.lerc.nasa.gov  
>[snip]
>Paul, 
>
>I'm going to take your list and itemize it, repost it here, and with your
>permission, post it to the lerc. bbs I have access to.  I can't get to the
>bbs that the other centers must have, but hopefully there will be people 
>who read s.p.f and also have access to the other gov't lab. bbs's.

>As far as voltmeters go, if you have a half-decent high-voltage digitizing
>meter, I could probably build a uVolt front end for it.

>I need to know mainly:  How fast?  

We don't look gift horses in the mouth.  

>Also, would you rather have a pc based data acq. card than a standalone meter?

Certainly, and we have apparently picked up an old Sun or two... but
I'm not certain of their status yet.  

>>>And there are the hamfests, where lasers can be bought for good prices...

>>Yes, a fair sized compact transverse discharge nitrogen fast pulse
>>laser with drivers and electronic triggering intput would be also
>>most useful.   

>Looks like they go up to the several watt range (pulses of 10 ns at 1 MW,
>100 Hz rep. rate, from the - rather old - text I just scanned).

A slower rep rate   1 or two pulses but with a 30ns 250MW is closer too
what we need, as I recall.  That Mantle is a bit opaque.   We have an
expert so we can likely build or rebuild one to our performance and 
optical specs.   

>I'll put out "feelers" for one of these...
 
>>>If Paul can let us know what he needs, we may be able to get it for him.
>>>Then again, his agreements may not let him or, perhaps, all he needs is the
>>>time to finish his research...

A nice high density fast discharge bank (Maxwell type C" for example) 
capacitors ...  18KV with 20% reversal, to cover those missfired
crowbars.   In Any number up to 2 to 4 meg.  Even 50 to 100 kilojoules
have a good use.   
 
That's usually the problem.  It's best to keep any interaction quiet.  
Also, we have interested friends at LeRC, so tread lightly, lest
we disturb any predators thier or at hdqtrs.   

>Understood.  The contact at NASA LeRC is (216) 433-3056.  No name is given.

Or *reported*

>I believe all the gov't labs probably have places where they sell their 
>excess equipment.

>Mike Jamison
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc, Bx 1037 Prometheus II Ltd, College Park MD 20741-1037    |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.15 / Chuck Sites /  Re: Still no wavefunction
     
Originally-From: chuck@iglou.iglou.com (Chuck Sites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Still no wavefunction
Date: Sat, 15 Oct 1994 08:02:51 GMT
Organization: IgLou Internet Services

Matt takes a stab...

mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel) writes:

>Chuck Sites (chuck@iglou.iglou.com) writes:

>: Fair enough question.  W. Bernecky, a while back, posted a pretty
>: decent one dimensional model of band condensation.  It was pretty
>: clear how the statistical mechanics could influence the occupation of
>: the complection of the bands.  Using the same model, only with He4,
>: it's my hunch those bands will overlap the D bands.  If an He4
>: complection lies on or near a D complection given the same external
>: conditions, this might provide the quantum enviroment to alter the the
>: decay. 

>"complection"??

>We don't need a "quantum environment to alter the decay", we need a PHYSICAL
>MECHANISM.  In quantum mechanics, that means a Hamiltonian that has known
>physical mechanisms that comes from known forces of nature, which means
>electromagnetism, strong force, weak force and (sorta) gravity.

No kidding...

>Dr Blue's contention, with which I agree, is that any theory that can
>explain alteration of nuclear decay must necessarily involve coordinates
>of nucleons.  This is because the current theory of nuclear decay needs
>this.

How so?  Just what aspect of the coordinates dictate when a T atom decays?
As Chuck Harrison pointed out this decay can be altered in when imbedded
in Ti.  That's curious.  What could possibly effect the nuclear coordinates
such that T is more stable?  I bring this up because it indicates that the 
enviroment of the solid can effect these coordinates.  In the special case
of cold fusion in a D band condensation, the *He4 disapates it's kinetic 
energy by the shared momentum of the condensate.  When I mentioned a
Mosshabaur *like* effect sometime back, it was this I had in mind.
Having said that,  

>: If the energy of the He4 complection lies right on top the D
>: complection, then the He4 has a resonance state that represents the
>: band energy of the n-body D complection.

>Why?  What is the physical basis of the coupling?

The momentum of the n particles in the condensed system.  That's the physical
basis of the coupling.  That is what controls this *He4 decay.  

>Imagine I have a ball in position A, and a ball in position B.  Saying that
>just because their wave functions "overlap" automatically implies some sort
>of reaction is ridiculous.  You'd have just invented the transporter.

Ridiculous is a good word given that example.  I have argued in the past that
wave function overlap found in Bose Einstien condensation does suggest a 
probability for a reaction.  >: Fair enough question.  W. Bernecky,
a while back, posted a pretty
>: decent one dimensional model of band condensation.  It was pretty
>: clear how the statistical mechanics could influence the occupation of
>: the complection of the bands.  Using the same model, only with He4,
>: it's my hunch those bands will overlap the D bands.  If an He4
>: complection lies on or near a D complection given the same external
>: conditions, this might provide the quantum enviroment to alter the the
>: decay. 

>"complection"??

>We don't need a "quantum environment to alter the decay", we need a PHYSICAL
>MECHANISM.  In quantum mechanics, that means a Hamiltonian that has known
>physical mechanisms that comes from known forces of nature, which means
>electromagnetism, strong force, weak force and (sorta) gravity.

No kidding...

>Dr Blue's contention, with which I agree, is that any theory that can
>explain alteration of nuclear decay must necessarily involve coordinates
>of nucleons.  This is because the current theory of nuclear decay needs
>this.

How so?  Just what aspect of the coordinates dictate when a T atom decays?
As Chuck Harrison pointed out this decay can be altered in when imbedded
in Ti.  That's curious.  What could possibly effect the nuclear coordinates
such that T is more stable?  I bring this up because it indicates that the 
enviroment of the solid can effect these coordinates.  In the special case
of cold fusion in a D band condensation, the *He4 disapates it's kinetic 
energy by the shared momentum of the condensate.  When I mentioned a 
Mosshabaur *like effect  

>: IFn the energy of the He4 complection lies right on top the D
>: complection, then the He4 has a resonance state that represents the
>: band energy of the n-body D complection.

>Why?  What is the physical basis of the coupling?

>Imagine I have a ball in position A, and a ball in position B.  Saying that
>just because their wave functions "overlap" automatically implies some sort
>of reaction is ridiculous.  You'd have just invented the transporter.

Ridiculous is a good word given that example. 

>Whee.  I have a tennis ball in my left hand.  There exists a state in which
>the ball is in my right hand.  Gee these wavefunctions overlap (in momentum
>space).  Is the ball going to disappear and reappear in my right hand?

>No, you need to have something that makes it do that.  Physical mechanism.
>The "F" in F=dp/dt.  The "H" in    ih dPsi/dt = H|Psi.

>You have lots of neutrino wavefunctions overlapping the hell with your body
>right now.  What happens?  Nothing, because the magnitude of the
>interaction (a weak force Hamiltonian) is very very small (but non-zero).

>Similarly with radio waves, those photon wave functions are overlapping
>a whole lot, but quantitatively not too much interaction because the
>magnitude of the matrix element isn't big at low frequencies.

>Now, let's go to an excited He4*.  Now, there is a whoppingly large
>matrix element connecting He4* and T+p, with a strong force nuclear
>Hamiltonian in the middle.  In fact this matrix element is so
>big that the lifetime of the excited state (inversely proportional
>to the matrix element) is so very small, that because of special
>relativity it's causally impossible for almost anything else
>to have an effect.  The light-sphere of conceivable causal influence
>during this reaction time I don't believe is even atom-sized.
>{Bose condensation does not break SR}.

>To get fusion without some of these reactions you have to either
>come up with some new reaction that's much much much much faster
>than what happens now (requiring a nuclear Hamiltonian), but
>by it's nature this can't involve any other coordinates besides
>the nucleons, i.e. anything that depends on the macroscopic
>physical arrangement (hydrogen in a metal).  This is why people
>find it hard to believe that nuclear reactions are altered
>significantly by the particular atomic arrangement 

>Whee.  I have a tennis ball in my left hand.  There exists a state in which
>the ball is in my right hand.  Gee these wavefunctions overlap (in momentum
>space).  Is the ball going to disappear and reappear in my right hand?

>No, you need to have something that makes it do that.  Physical mechanism.
>The "F" in F=dp/dt.  The "H" in    ih dPsi/dt = H|Psi.

>You have lots of neutrino wavefunctions overlapping the hell with your body
>right now.  What happens?  Nothing, because the magnitude of the
>interaction (a weak force Hamiltonian) is very very small (but non-zero).

>Similarly with radio waves, those photon wave functions are overlapping
>a whole lot, but quantitatively not too much interaction because the
>magnitude of the matrix element isn't big at low frequencies.

>Now, let's go to an excited He4*.  Now, there is a whoppingly large
>matrix element connecting He4* and T+p, with a strong force nuclear
>Hamiltonian in the middle.  In fact this matrix element is so
>big that the lifetime of the excited state (inversely proportional
>to the matrix element) is so very small, that because of special
>relativity it's causally impossible for almost anything else
>to have an effect.  The light-sphere of conceivable causal influence
>during this reaction time I don't believe is even atom-sized.
>{Bose condensation does not break SR}.

>To get fusion without some of these reactions you have to either
>come up with some new reaction that's much much much much faster
>than what happens now (requiring a nuclear Hamiltonian), but
>by it's nature this can't involve any other coordinates besides
>the nucleons, i.e. anything that depends on the macroscopic
>physical arrangement (hydrogen in a metal).  This is why people
>find it hard to believe that nuclear reactions are altered
>significantly by the particular atomic arrangeme


>Or you have to have some means of turning off the normal strong
>force just for now. 

>: Have Fun,
>: Chuck Sites
>: chuck@iglou.com

>--
>-Matt Kennel  		mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu
>-Institute for Nonlinear Science, University of California, San Diego
>-*** AD: Archive for nonlinear dynamics papers & programs: FTP to
>-***     lyapunov.ucsd.edu, username "anonymous".
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.15 / M Fullerton /  Re: re) ..Testing Grigg G. with different fluids!
     
Originally-From: mefuller@acs.ucalgary.ca (Michael Ernest Fullerton)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: re) ..Testing Grigg G. with different fluids!
Date: Sat, 15 Oct 1994 08:13:57 GMT
Organization: The University of Calgary

In article <CxIB9w.Cq7@murdoch.acc.virginia.edu>,
Cameron Randale Bass <crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU> wrote:
>In article <37dh2h$98v@huxley.anu.edu.au>,
>David R Davies <drd851@huxley.anu.edu.au> wrote:
>
>>I am not easily convinced about anything. That includes the conclusions
>>of centuries of scientific endevour. Things change.  
>
>     And there are things that don't.

Like some peoples minds.

-- 
Michael Fullerton         |  Seeds, like ideas, don't | All play and no work
mefuller@acs.ucalgary.ca  |  germinate in concrete    | makes Jack a dull boy.
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenmefuller cudfnMichael cudlnFullerton cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.15 / Alan M /  Re: Hot Fusion Pays Well!
     
Originally-From: Alan@moonrake.demon.co.uk ("Alan M. Dunsmuir")
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Hot Fusion Pays Well!
Date: Sat, 15 Oct 1994 17:13:23 +0000
Organization: Home

In article: <941013030017_76570.2270_HHB49-1@CompuServe.COM>  76570.2270
compuserve.com (Eugene 
Mallove) writes:

   {ill-considered ranting post about salaries elided}

> Hey, some of you lower-ranking HF guys don't even make as much as these 
> biggies get in Bennies each year! How d'ya feel about that? Maybe you like it 
> and just dream of cashin' in yo selves some day.
> 
  Stop drivelling and post something of value, Gene. Don't you make 
enough out of cold fusion to keep you happy?

Could there _just_ be a litle jealousy showing here?

Alan M. Dunsmuir [@ his wits end]     (Can't even quote poetry right)

         I am his Highness' dog at Kew
         Pray tell me sir, whose dog are you?
			      [Alexander Pope]

PGP Public Key available on request.


cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenAlan cudfnAlan cudlnM cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Sun Oct 16 04:37:03 EDT 1994
------------------------------
1994.10.15 / Chuck Sites /  Re: Still no wavefunction
     
Originally-From: chuck@iglou.iglou.com (Chuck Sites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Still no wavefunction
Date: Sat, 15 Oct 1994 20:50:53 GMT
Organization: IgLou Internet Services

Opps... Sorry about that.  I had some phone line noise that cut off my
connection. I suprised that reply made it out to the net.  Instead of
trying to rewrite it, I'll let it go.

Back to the quantum enviroment effecting the branching ratio of the 
decay of the exited He4 state.  Basically when fusion of D+D occurs 
it forms an intermediate state *He4 which decays very quickly and 
breaks up to T+p, He3+n, and occasionally He4 + gamma.  That is:

D+D -> *He4 -> T + p
D+D -> *He4 -> He3 + n
D+D -> *He4 -> He4 + gamma      (rare)
D+D -> *He4 -> He4 + e- + e+    (really really rare)
D+D -> *He4 -> D + D.           (scattering)

The question with regard to the baranching rations is how the rare 
He4 branch can be enhanced to such an extent. As Dick and Matt put it,
how can the enviroment modify the nuclear coordinates?  Well, lets go 
back to the ultra cryogenic states of superfluid He4 and He3.  Electronically
these two particles a equal.  Two protons, two electrons, one neutron for 
He3 and two for He4.  He4 is a Bose, and the He3 is Fermi.  The only
differences are the mass and the nuclear spin. At really low temps He3
forms a BCC crystal while He4 remains superfluid.  That is purely an 
effect of the nuclear spin.  Ie.  The particle spin interferes in 
momentum space desructively for He3 and constructively for He4.

   What this indicates to me is that, in an enviroment that causes this 
type of interfernce, it will have an effect on at least one aspect of the
nuclear coordinates; the nuclear spin.  

Hope this helps you get the picture.

Have Fun,
Chuck Sites
chuck@iglou.com









cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.16 / Scott Mueller /  Tom's trip fund status
     
Originally-From: scott@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Scott Hazen Mueller)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Tom's trip fund status
Date: Sun, 16 Oct 1994 05:51:26 GMT
Organization: At Home; Salida, CA

As of today, October 15 1994, Tom's trip fund is at $690+, where the '+'
represents exchange-rate variations.

I've got from Tom a copy of Griggs' ICCF4 paper, which I've skimmed; I'm not
a scientist and not even an engineer, so my opinion of the paper is not worth
the paper it would take to print it.  However, in the paper Griggs does
invite visitors, so I am hopeful that he'll be receptive to Tom's visit.  I
shall contact him next week to make sure.

The current list of contributors is attached.

Keep those cards and letters coming!  :-)

               \scott

-- 
Scott Hazen Mueller scott@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG or (tandem|ub-gate)!zorch!scott
Mail fusion-request@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG for emailed sci.physics.fusion digests.

Anonymous
Paul T. Breed
James William Brown
David Cyganski
Alan M. Dunsmuir
Nancy Gillett
V. Guruprasad
Bruce Hamilton
Robert W. Horst
Steven E. Jones
John K. C. Lewis
Scott Hazen Mueller
Mark Muhlestein
Tarl Neustaedter
Andreas G. Nowatzyk
William S. Page
David W. Pierson
Richard Schroeppel
David Seghers
Thomas J. Selby
Bradley K. Sherman
Barry Smith
Gary Steckly
Jorge Stolfi
Dr. John H. Whipple
John N. White
Frank Yashar
Thomas S. Zemanian

cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenscott cudfnScott cudlnMueller cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.16 / David Davies /  Re: Show me your wavefunction, please.
     
Originally-From: drd851@huxley.anu.edu.au (David R Davies)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Show me your wavefunction, please.
Date: 16 Oct 1994 15:40:16 +1000
Organization: Australian National University

battin@cyclops.iucf.indiana.edu (Laurence Gene Battin) writes:

(stuff deleted)
>> If all we get out of the CF saga is an improved understanding of quantum
>> solid state phenomena then to my mind it will have been worth the effort.
>> The only real risks are a few bruised egos if CF fails to eventuate as an
>> energy source. 

>And a few million wasted bucks here, and a few million wasted bucks there,
>(and pretty soon you'd be talking _real_ money...)

Money wasted on unproductive fusion research? ...  Words fail me.

dave
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudendrd851 cudfnDavid cudlnDavies cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.16 / David Davies /  Re: Still no wavefunction
     
Originally-From: drd851@huxley.anu.edu.au (David R Davies)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Still no wavefunction
Date: 16 Oct 1994 16:59:52 +1000
Organization: Australian National University

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

>For Dave Davies:  You are still missing the point concerning the
>groundstate nuclear wavefunction of the deuteron.  A pure s-state
>is not an eigenstate of the Hamiltonian.  A pure d-state is not an
>eigenstate of the Hamiltonian.  Orbital angular momentum is not
>a good quantum number for the state.  There are not two states that
>are approximately degenerate involved here.  Nothing short of cancelling
>exactly a part of the Hamiltonian will do what you want done.

Not missing, ducking :~)

As I have said before, I see this  approach as an empirical kludge but
one that seems to work to a point. It is clearly incapable of being
extended to the case of a delocalised nucleus and seems to cause problems
of interpretation for those who stick with the conventional and discredited
particle/probability-density approach to QM. 

If you accept a real, physical matter wave then, for me at least, things 
seem clearer. In this example, for instance, we have nucleons that havea
non-spherical interaction that creates a chaotic element in the dynamics.
The system has two relatively stable attractors (S and D if you like) and
while spending most of the time in the S-like state, occasionally (~5%)
geting kicked up into the D-like state. 

However you look at it, saying that the wavefunction contains S-like and
D-like components suggests that the energy of the system is fluctuating
 - presumably drawing momentarily on the vacuum energy. My 
original speculation was that if the transition to the band state required
a D-like configuration of the nucleons then it would most likely happen
when the nucleus was at the high point of an energy fluctuation. The system
could then act as an energy pump if it was capable of releasing the D+ in 
an average or low energy point in the fluctuations. This is vague and not
very probable but I was trying to demonstrate that saying CF was impossible
was premature, not present a fully fledged theory.

We are clashing on issues of QM fundamentals. You and others have insisted
that the nucleons are, and remain, point-like. I and others have looked at
the notion that the mass and charge of the nuclei(ons) are spread out in the
xtal matrix, metal surface, or even the intense electromagnetic fields of the
spherical cavity resonances of SL bubbles. Rather than having point-point
interactions the nuclei than have surface-surface interactions. This still
probably leaves the coulumb barrier to be overcome but under quite different
conditions. If, as pre-CF work suggests, D+ forms two dimensional sheets in
Ti and Pd lattices we have the possibility of the Casimir force acting to 
overcome the coulomb barrier. There are many other possibilities, of course.
Also, as I have stated often, An extended sheet of excited He-stuff can 
transfer energy in vibrational modes to the lattice over a wide area. 


dave
 
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudendrd851 cudfnDavid cudlnDavies cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.16 / David Davies /  Re: The Griggs inquiry
     
Originally-From: drd851@huxley.anu.edu.au (David R Davies)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The Griggs inquiry
Date: 16 Oct 1994 17:10:52 +1000
Organization: Australian National University

mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel) writes:


>If it gives 20% excess power with 1 in 10^4 then using heavy
>water would probably ionize the hell out of their zip code.

I thought Jed had said he or someone else had put some D2O into
the Griggs Device with no noticeable effect. True? or did someone
just suggest it to him. I haven't been able to find the post. 

dave
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudendrd851 cudfnDavid cudlnDavies cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.13 /  nachtrieb@max. /  Alcator C-MOD Weekly Highlights, 19941013
     
Originally-From: nachtrieb@max.pfc.mit.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Alcator C-MOD Weekly Highlights, 19941013
Date: 13 OCT 94 20:49:24 GMT
Organization: MIT PLASMA FUSION CENTER

			Alcator C-MOD Weekly Highlights
				October 13, 1994

The maintenance/repair period is continuing. Good progress on
re-assembly of the machine was made this week.

The upper dome was installed, and the drawbars, which connect the dome
to the cylinder, hydraulically pre-tensioned. The tokamak structural
assembly is now complete.

All of the horizontal port extensions have been installed, torqued up,
and leak-checked.

All of the bus work and coax connections to the lower PF (Poloidal
Field magnetic coil; required for stability) coils have been completed
and inspected. The coils were hi-potted and rung successfully.

All cryogenic connections to the lower half of the machine, including
TF (Toroidal Field magnetic coil; primary confinement field), PF and
structure cooling, were completed and inspected. The lower half of the
cryostat has now been raised into position.

Last week Dr. Garry McCracken attended the DOE (Department of Energy;
main funding source for US magnetic fusion) Plasma Facing Materials
Meeting, in Pleasanton,CA, and presented a review of relevant C-MOD
results.  There is considerable interest in the C-MOD experience with
high-Z plasma-facing components, as well as in the C-MOD divertor
design.

Earl Marmar and Bob Granetz made presentations at the TPX Diagnostics
Review in Austin this week. Miklos Porkolab is making a presentation
at the TPX PAC meeting, also in Austin; Bruce Lipschultz is attending
this meeting as a member of the PAC.
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudennachtrieb cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.14 /  woweinga@mtu.e /  Re: The Griggs inquiry
     
Originally-From: woweinga@mtu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The Griggs inquiry
Date: 14 Oct 94 20:45 GMT+0300

In article <37m8d1$eoc@serra.unipi.it>, jwinter@galileo.pi.infn.it (John
WINTERFLOOD) wrote:
> 
> : barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman) wrote:
> : > 
> : > <stuff deleted>
> : > 
> : > Sure, but its only 1 part in 10000 D, so the odds
> : > on two D's meeting eachother in griggs device are slim.
> : > Barry Merriman
> 
> Warren Weingarten (woweinga@mtu.edu) wrote:
> : True, but how about H+D->He3 as proposed by Logajan. See 9 Oct. Post
> : E-Quest Results.
> 
> How about improving the odds by adding a bit of D2O - to say double the
> concentration - maybe hoping to double the excess energy?  It sounds a
> lot easier to try than most of the other fluids suggested - and any
> measurable or null effect is additional experimental evidence for our
> consideration.
I agree. If this is the test that is to be performed, I would support the
effort with a check for $20. How about it, Tom?  Add some D2O to the feed,
and look for a higher COP.
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenwoweinga cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.15 /  Alan@moonrake. /  Re: Hot Fusion Pays Well!
     
Originally-From: Alan@moonrake.demon.co.uk
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Hot Fusion Pays Well!
Date: 15 Oct 94 20:13 GMT+0300

In article: <941013030017_76570.2270_HHB49-1@CompuServe.COM>  76570.2270
compuserve.com (Eugene 
Mallove) writes:

   {ill-considered ranting post about salaries elided}

> Hey, some of you lower-ranking HF guys don't even make as much as these 
> biggies get in Bennies each year! How d'ya feel about that? Maybe you like it 
> and just dream of cashin' in yo selves some day.
> 
  Stop drivelling and post something of value, Gene. Don't you make 
enough out of cold fusion to keep you happy?

Could there _just_ be a litle jealousy showing here?

Alan M. Dunsmuir [@ his wits end]     (Can't even quote poetry right)

         I am his Highness' dog at Kew
         Pray tell me sir, whose dog are you?
			      [Alexander Pope]

PGP Public Key available on request.


cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenAlan cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.15 /  edwlt12@mars.l /  Re: GG Improvements
     
Originally-From: edwlt12@mars.lerc.nasa.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: GG Improvements
Date: 15 Oct 94 00:49 GMT+0300

In article <37mlrh$skf@fnnews.fnal.gov>, Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege) writes...
>In article <duncan_mcintyre.1.001A07F2@hpgnd.grenoble.hp.com>,
duncan_mcintyre@hpgnd.grenoble.hp.com (Duncan McIntyre) says:
>>
>>Just a thought..
>>
>>The essence of the GG is that if you slosh water around jolly quickly whilst 
>>whistling at it, you get fusion, right? 
>>
>>Seems to me that there might just be some other people on the planet who know 
>>a thing or two about what happens when you bung water through a whistling 
>>rotor. Anyone from the aeronautics industry.
>>
>>So, here's an experiment we can all try: nip down to your local airport with a 
>>bucket of water and throw it into a handy jet engine. The resulting huge 
>>increase in power will prove cold fusion and make you mighty rich when you 
>>sell the idea to Boeing.
>>
>>I want a percentage.
>>
>>Pip pip!
>>________________________________________________________________________________
> 
> 
>Anyone remember that they they used to inject water into WWII
>aircraft engines to give them a short term boost??  Perhaps it
>was a cold fusion effect!!!

And here I thought it was just to bring the combustion temp. down so they
could squirt a denser fuel air mix into the chamber...  Silly me.

Tom, you shouldn't post like this - someone may take you seriously :-)
> 
> 
>Tom Droege
> 

Mike Jamison

"Scientific research consists in seeing what everyone else has seen, but
thinking what no one else has thought"

						-A. Szent-Gyorgyi
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenedwlt12 cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Mon Oct 17 04:37:02 EDT 1994
------------------------------
1994.10.17 / Tom Droege /  Re: GG Improvements
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: GG Improvements
Date: 17 Oct 1994 21:01:10 GMT
Organization: fermilab

In article <EACHUS.94Oct17162228@spectre.mitre.org>, eachus@spectre.mitr
.org (Robert I. Eachus) says:
>
>In article <14OCT199417493109@mars.lerc.nasa.gov> edwlt12@mars.lerc.nas
.gov (Mike Jamison (ADF)) writes:
>
> > And here I thought it was just to bring the combustion temp. down so they
> > could squirt a denser fuel air mix into the chamber...  Silly me.
>
>   No, the goal was to increase the pressure in the cylinders to
>increase the power.  A naturally carburated engine is limited at high
>altitude in the amount of power it can generate by the amount of air
>that it can suck into the engine.  If you add water (and more fuel)
>you can burn more of the hydrogen and oxygen and generate more gases
>per cubic foot (or litre) of air sucked in.  (You have seen the
>exhaust from a diesel engine--or an F-4 Phantom II?  That black smoke
>is carbon soot.  For maximum power-not maximum fuel efficiency--you
>can burn the hydrogen out of the hydrocarbon and leave the carbon
>behind.)  So at the same temperature and same compression you get more
>power.
>
>   Of course you also get more knock.  Some WWII engines had lifetimes
>rated in minutes at "full military power" using water injection.  (And
>much shorter if you exceeded that...)
>
>
>--
>
>                                        Robert I. Eachus
>
>with Standard_Disclaimer;
>use  Standard_Disclaimer;
>function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...

Ahhh! See how fickle I am.  Now I believe Robert Eachus more than
Mike Jamison.  It is always true in science.  The better the 
explanation, and the better the presentation, the more it is believed
even if wrong.  But doing a few tests one one's own usually straightens
out the situation.  That is why the independant reproduction of an 
experiment is the most powerful tool in science.

So now I will believe Robert until I fire up my own jet engine and 
measure everything that goes in and out.  Hmmm!  I once did a little
work at NATTS, Trenton, N.J. (Naval Air Turbine Test Station).  That
is the kind of thing they did.  So somewhere these answers are well
known.

Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.17 / Tom Droege /  D2O Addition to Griggs Set Up
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: D2O Addition to Griggs Set Up
Date: 17 Oct 1994 21:14:03 GMT
Organization: fermilab

There is not much in the way of test or experiment that it is
possible to do on a visit to Cartersville.  But the addition of
say 2x the normal D2O concentration is one thing that I would 
be willing to try.  That is because with 10 runs and a double 
blind set up (I would not know which bottles contained the D2O 
and the test data would be sent to a third party along with the
bottle ID to judge the result) one could make a significant test.

Pity, now we hear that this has already been tried, with a null
result. If not a D-D or D-H reaction, then what?  A zero point 
producer? 

I repeat, all I can do on a trip to Cartersville is to talk with
the participants about their experimental technique and to make
a general judgement as to whether they possibly have an unexpected
effect.  

I can then do little more than write a bland report.

Then the real test is to see if I spend $20,000 to have 3 phase 440
brought into my basement.  

Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.17 / Jim Carr /  Re: Working people
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Working people
Date: 17 Oct 1994 18:09:15 -0400
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

In article <13OCT199417062819@mars.lerc.nasa.gov> 
edwlt12@mars.lerc.nasa.gov (Mike Jamison (ADF)) writes:
>
>I see grad students defending their administrating professors' salaries,
>basically saying "if they were in industry, they could..."
>
>The problem, as I see it, is that, in industry, one must make a profit.

You have to make a profit in universities as well.  It is called 
overhead, and it is a bigger profit than anyone makes in industry. 

If you think it is not a big deal, talk to the person who did not 
get tenure because they did not get a grant funded, or read the 
memos from the administration complaining about declining external 
funding (ie, declining overhead going into their coffers). 

>My guess is that these guys, with Phd's and all, would fail miserably.

Plenty do very well.  Maybe not after spending several decades doing 
academic research, but the real gist of the statement should be "if 
they had gone into industry...".  Industry, and society as a whole,
has a need for problem solvers, and physicists are problem solvers. 

-- 
 James A. Carr   <jac@scri.fsu.edu>     |  Raw data, like raw sewage, 
    http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac        |  requires some processing before
 Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst.  |  it can be spread around.  The 
 Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306    |  opposite is true of theories. 
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.17 /  jonesse@vanlab /  Phase change in TEFLON = spurious xs heat?
     
Originally-From: jonesse@vanlab.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Phase change in TEFLON = spurious xs heat?
Date: 17 Oct 94 17:37:27 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

Teflon is used in several electrolytic cells in which excess heat is
claimed.  (For example, M. Miles, K. Park and D. Stilwell, "Electrochemical
calorimetric evidence for cold fusion in the palladium-deuterium system,"
J. Electroanal. Chem., 296 (1990) 241-254.)  BYU Prof. Lee Hansen noted to
me recently that teflon undergoes a phase change near 25 C, and that in this
phase change considerable heat may be released which may then be mistaken for
"excess" heat.  

While we are working to pin down references and data, I would like to ask
whether anyone on spf has information regarding this phase change in teflon,
and whether this particular source of error has been noted before.

Thanks,
Steven Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenjonesse cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.17 /  jonesse@vanlab /  Questions for David Davies
     
Originally-From: jonesse@vanlab.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Questions for David Davies
Date: 17 Oct 94 17:44:47 -0600
Organization: Brigham Young University

David R. Davies writes:

"Also, as I have stated often, An extended sheet of excited He-stuff can
transfer energy in vibrational modes to the lattice over a wide area."

1.  How do you do this and still conserve momentum?  Keep in mind that 
a single helium nucleus must result eventually, and this has mass much
less than that of the lattice.  It appears to me that the lighter particle
necessarily acquires the lion's share of the energy of the reaction, in
order to conserve momentum.  Do you see a way out?

(When I pointed out this problem to Peter Hagelstein, he said "I think I see
the guillotine blade falling," in so many words.)

2.  How do you transfer energy (MeV remember) over a "wide area" of the
lattice, which implies many angstroms, while still satisfying the uncertainty
relation -- which limits the putative energy transfer to much less than an 
angstrom?

Best wishes,
Steven Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenjonesse cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.18 / David Davies /  Re: Still no wavefunction
     
Originally-From: drd851@huxley.anu.edu.au (David R Davies)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Still no wavefunction
Date: 18 Oct 1994 15:52:16 +1000
Organization: Australian National University


mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel) writes:
 
>: If you accept a real, physical matter wave then, for me at least, things
>: seem clearer. In this example, for instance, we have nucleons that havea
>: non-spherical interaction that creates a chaotic element in the dynamics.
>: The system has two relatively stable attractors (S and D if you like) and
>: while spending most of the time in the S-like state, occasionally (~5%)
>: geting kicked up into the D-like state.

>This is simply NOT TRUE.

Vague and unconventional perhaps but my original motivation in making
this suggestion was to indicate to those who made such dogmatic statements
that the situatuation was not so clear. You need to accept that not all
physicists agree with the conventional, probability wave view of QM and
look for a representation that comes closer to the underlying physics rather
than accepting as gospel what may be no more than a convenient mathematical
abstraction. I am not suggesting that you accept the ideas, just that they
do exist and deserve some rational discussion rather than being dismissed as
'impossible' or 'simply not true'.

The study of nonlinear systems has evolved its own terminology and methodology 
that I believe is very relevant to the evolution of QM. Increasingly, compu-
tational techniques are providing insights to dynamics that are just not
possible with current analytical techniques. 

>The "S" and "D" are approximate wavefunctions that you get when you
>solve a simplified version of the problem that ignores interaction.
>You put back in the interaction and use perturbation theory.

Yes. I agree - to a point. In the simple linear (or linearisable) case the
system has stable states that can be viewed as stable limit cycles. As the
element of nonlinearity (in this case I am assuming the distortion of the 
spatial distribution of the interaction forces) is increased, the limit cycle
behaviour disintegrates. The analytical approach starts to break down and we
talk about mixtures of analytically tractable states. This is really based on
an analytical convenience that may have little bearing on what is actually 
happening but has proved very useful in some cases. A computational model 
will typically show a rich underlying behaviour but does not necessarily 
lead to useful generalisations.

>: However you look at it, saying that the wavefunction contains S-like and
>: D-like components suggests that the energy of the system is fluctuating
>:  - presumably drawing momentarily on the vacuum energy.

Here I may be wrong in assuming that the S and D states are related to the
use of this terminology at the atomic level. What I have read on nuclear
modelling suggests that we are talking about the same thing. If so, in our
simple nuclear model where the S and D states are 'good' I assume that the D
state has a higher energy. By 'S-like' I mean an attractor that is similar
to the stable S-type limit cycle but is unstable.

>No.  The lowest energy eigenstate has a waveform that is what it is.
>It happens to be *approximately* a linear combination of two solutions
>to the problem, each called S and D.

>The energy is not fluctuating.  Both pure S and pure D wavefunctions
>have higher energy than the real ground state (by definition) and
>aren't a stable solution to the equations of motion.

Here I disagree or am at least surprised. I would expect the average energy 
to be somewhere in between the S and D energies of the simple case. Since S 
is not a stable state it can not alone be called a ground state. The word 
'stable' need some qualification here. We assume the nucleus is not disint-
egrating so it is stable in that sense. On the other hand, internally it may 
be quite chaotic which is not what we usually mean by 'stable'.

>: We are clashing on issues of QM fundamentals. You and others have insisted
>: that the nucleons are, and remain, point-like.

>Yes, quite.  (Though at GeV energies you do start to see internal
>structure of nucleons).    There is not a contradiction behind the
>notion that the wave function of an electron may be delocalized and
>also that electrons are considered elementary point particles.
>The first is a propery of the state of the system, the second is an
>assertion about the structure of the Hamiltonian, otherwise known
>as physical law.

The question of delocalization has been aired extensively in this group.
I am not aware of any experimental evidence for point particles. There is
only evidence of particles interacting aproximately at a point. The collapse
of an extended matter wave, such as one that is passing through two slits
simultaneously, down to a smaller spatial distribution can be seen as similar
to the common process of mode locking in resonant, nonlinear optical and 
electronic systems. No need at all for an infinite number of universes or 
equivalent sophistries explain the problem away. Simple everyday nonlinear
dynamics does the job.

The hamiltonian is not physical law. It is just a convenient mathematical
abstraction that applies in certain configurations where the energy is 
roughly conserved. At a small enough space-time scale this can not be 
assumed because of vacuum fluctuations and other factors impinging from 
outside our small system but all we have are averages. 

I think we can do better. 

>: Also, as I have stated often, An extended sheet of excited He-stuff can
>: transfer energy in vibrational modes to the lattice over a wide area.

>How?

The big question. It certainly doesn't make much sense if you insist on
point particles, however much the uncertainty in their position is spread
out. If, on the other hand, you accept the possibility that the particle
actually spreads out - mass, charge and all - then it starts to make more
sense. A continuous line or sheet of charge spread through the lattice 
and having vibrational excitation energy can quite plausibly excite a
vibrational mode in the lattice just through the electrostatic forces.
The Casimir force should also come into play.

I have re-iterated these ideas here several times - perhaps iterated would
be more accurate since they are evolving a little. The DOFs (defenders of
the faith) have largely avoided the central issues involved so I will
put the issue in the form of one simple (:~) challenge. 

Can anyone point to experimental evidence for the idea that particles are
inherently point-like? I remind you of the distinction I have made between
particles being point-like and particles acting at a 'point'.

Have fun,


dave
dave.davies@anu.edu.au


cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudendrd851 cudfnDavid cudlnDavies cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.15 /  blue@pilot.msu /  FUAQ for Griggs Device
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: FUAQ for Griggs Device
Date: 15 Oct 94 03:14 GMT+0300

FUAQ is new terminology which stands for Frequently UnAnswered Questions.
I thought there might be some value in listing some of the key bits of
information that have been missing from the discussions concerning the
Griggs Hydrosonic Pump.

(1) Basic operating parameters such as the temperature and pressure in the
pump for various operating modes.  What measurements have been made and
what remains unknown?

(2) "Tuning" parameters that are adjusted to achieve the desired operating
mode.  I can think of only two: the makeup water flow rate and the throttle
setting on the output flow.  Input power and rotational speed are, I think,
not adjustable.

(3) Descriptions of plumbing external to the pump including the size and
possible internal structure of the separation tank, the location of throttle
valves, pressure regulators, and other components that could influence
pressure, temperature, and rate of flow.  How is water returned from the
separation tank?

(4) Locations of all significant instrumentation relative to the components
mentioned in (3).  Flow metering has been mentioned but never described.
Is the flow metered on the input, the output, or both?

(5) Operating characteristics of the make-up pump.  What is the pressure
differential against which it does work?  How is the input flow adjusted
and metered?

Beyond information relevant to any evaluation of the GG as a demonstration
of a device which generates anomolous heat, there are some facts relating
to claims that this is a practical and reliable device in continuous
service for a variety of applications.  One claim has been that it is superior
to a conventional boiler for use in the generation of steam from dirty
water.  Unless the crud in the water is in fact the fuel (grin) it has
to be deposited somewhere in the system.  One naturally assumes that it
builds up in the chamber where the water is being converted to steam, but
that seems to be a potentially unsatisfactory condition from the point
of view of continuous reliable operation.  Any explanation?

Anyone singing the praises of this device as "super efficient" relative
to other types of boilers are probably overlooking the fact that the
"over unity" numbers do not apply to the entire system from power input
to heat output.  There are certain obvious losses that do not result
in useful output.

As for reliability in long-term continuous service, it is a mechanical
device with bearings and seals operating in a difficult and corrosive
environment.  I would be very skeptical of any claim that this device
is "trouble free" in comparison with any ordinary water pump.  It is
somewhat less likely to compete well with an electric boiler.

Finally, I would like to remind those who are not technically inclined
that there is absolutely nothing surprizing in a claim that this device
heats water or produces steam.  Any ordinary water pump can do the same.
The power input at the pump shaft goes either into the mechanical work
of moving and/or elevating water or into heating the water.  I believe
all that Mr. Griggs has done is to maximize the heating by minimizing
the mechanical work output.  I don't even think you have to be very
clever to design a pump that operates in the heat-only mode.  The
mystery is why would anyone want such a device?  Think of it as a
$10,000 household water heater.  Is there a big market for those?

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenblue cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.15 /  blue@pilot.msu /  Re: E-Quest exotic reactions
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: E-Quest exotic reactions
Date: 15 Oct 94 03:14 GMT+0300

In response to my suggestion that the production of 3He in a fusion
reaction without any accompanying neutrons, John Logajan proposes the
reaction p + d -> 3He in addition to the d + d -> 4He with no gammas
protons, neutrons, or X-rays.  I suggested that nuclear physics might
indicate that d + d might result in 3He + n, but you have all heard
that before, and some of you have pat answers as to why it does not
occur.  I would remind John that each new reaction process that is
introduced requires a new set of miracles.  You will find it difficult
to stretch the old miracles called up for 4He production to cover
the 3He case as well.  Must I remind you that protons are not
bosons?   Now if you think the E-Quest system is a way to get all
the hydrogen isotopes in a mood to fuse let us consider the possibilities
for tritium as well.  What miracles are needed to hide p + t and
d + t reactions?  Oh, I almost forgot the Mallove report indicated
that E-Quest used H2O as a blank.  No 3He production there?

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenblue cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.16 / Jonathan Grobe /  History of Science Newsgroup Available (soc.history.science)
     
Originally-From: grobe@ins.infonet.net (Jonathan Grobe)
Originally-From: comfort@cshl.org (Nathaniel Comfort at Cold Spring Harbor Lab)
Newsgroups: sci.optics,sci.philosophy.tech,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusio
,sci.psychology,sci.polymers
Subject: History of Science Newsgroup Available (soc.history.science)
Date: 16 Oct 1994 18:03:28 GMT
Organization: INS Info Services, Des Moines, IA USA

The soc.history.science newsgroup has been created. It is available both
as a Usenet group and as a gatewayed mailing list.

While most sites add new Big 7 groups (such as soc.*) automatically, others 
add them only on user request. So if the group has not been added to your 
site write to your  news administrator (write to the address news or usenet) 
and ask that it be added.

The charter is as follows:

  soc.history.science will discuss the history of science in the broad sense:
  including the history of the physical sciences, history of the biological
  sciences, history of the social sciences, history of medicine, history of
  technology, history of mathematics, philosophy of science, and related
  areas.

Originally-From: comfort@cshl.org (Nathaniel Comfort at Cold Spring Harbor Lab)

The Usenet newsgroup soc.history.science has now been gatewayed to a mailing
list, located at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory. This group is for the discussion
of topics in the history of science and is intended to bring together scholars
with different specialties, scientists themselves, and interested amateurs (in
the literal sense, not the pejorative sense). Those who do not read newsgroups,
or prefer electronic mail, can now participate in the discussions held in this
group. The mailing list works as follows:

+All messages posted to the newsgroup will be sent to all subscribers to the
mailing list.

+All messages e-mailed to the mailing list will appear as posts to the
newsgroup.

+To subscribe to the mailing list, send e-mail with the following message:
subscribe HIST-SCI [your full name]

Send the mail to:
listproc@cshl.org

Do not include a "subject" header

+For more information about this list server, send a message to the above
address
with the word "help" (without quotes) in the body. This explains how to receive
this list as a digest, how to receive a directory of who's on the list, how to
remove your name from this directory, and other features.

+To send mail to the list, send to:     hist-sci@cshl.org

+Please do not send subscribe messages to hist-sci. Any messages other than list
server commands sent to listproc will be returned.

Please direct technical questions about the list to Corp Reed (reed@cshl.org),
and any other questions to Nathaniel Comfort (comfort@cshl.org). We hope
you find this list an interesting place.

Nathaniel Comfort



 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Grobe  grobe@ins.infonet.net

cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudengrobe cudfnJonathan cudlnGrobe cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.17 / Matt Kennel /  Re: Still no wavefunction
     
Originally-From: mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Still no wavefunction
Date: 17 Oct 1994 00:45:14 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

David R Davies (drd851@huxley.anu.edu.au) wrote:
: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue) writes:

: >For Dave Davies:  You are still missing the point concerning the
: >groundstate nuclear wavefunction of the deuteron.  A pure s-state
: >is not an eigenstate of the Hamiltonian.  A pure d-state is not an
: >eigenstate of the Hamiltonian.  Orbital angular momentum is not
: >a good quantum number for the state.  There are not two states that
: >are approximately degenerate involved here.  Nothing short of cancelling
: >exactly a part of the Hamiltonian will do what you want done.

: Not missing, ducking :~)

: As I have said before, I see this  approach as an empirical kludge but
: one that seems to work to a point. It is clearly incapable of being
: extended to the case of a delocalised nucleus and seems to cause problems
: of interpretation for those who stick with the conventional and discredited
: particle/probability-density approach to QM. 

You mean physics?

: If you accept a real, physical matter wave then, for me at least, things 
: seem clearer. In this example, for instance, we have nucleons that havea
: non-spherical interaction that creates a chaotic element in the dynamics.
: The system has two relatively stable attractors (S and D if you like) and
: while spending most of the time in the S-like state, occasionally (~5%)
: geting kicked up into the D-like state. 

This is simply NOT TRUE.

The "S" and "D" are approximate wavefunctions that you get when you
solve a simplified version of the problem that ignores interaction.
You put back in the interaction and use perturbation theory.

: However you look at it, saying that the wavefunction contains S-like and
: D-like components suggests that the energy of the system is fluctuating
:  - presumably drawing momentarily on the vacuum energy.

No.  The lowest energy eigenstate has a waveform that is what it is.
It happens to be *approximately* a linear combination of two solutions
to the problem, each called S and D.

The energy is not fluctuating.  Both pure S and pure D wavefunctions
have higher energy than the real ground state (by definition) and
aren't a stable solution to the equations of motion.

: We are clashing on issues of QM fundamentals. You and others have insisted
: that the nucleons are, and remain, point-like. 

Yes, quite.  (Though at GeV energies you do start to see internal
structure of nucleons).    There is not a contradiction behind the
notion that the wave function of an electron may be delocalized and
also that electrons are considered elementary point particles.
The first is a propery of the state of the system, the second is an
assertion about the structure of the Hamiltonian, otherwise known
as physical law.

: Also, as I have stated often, An extended sheet of excited He-stuff can 
: transfer energy in vibrational modes to the lattice over a wide area. 

How?

: dave

--
-Matt Kennel  		mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu
-Institute for Nonlinear Science, University of California, San Diego
-*** AD: Archive for nonlinear dynamics papers & programs: FTP to
-***     lyapunov.ucsd.edu, username "anonymous".
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenmbk cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.17 / Rolf Lindgren /  Re: History of Science Newsgroup Available (soc.history.science)
     
Originally-From: rolf.lindgren@psykologi.uio.no (Rolf Marvin Bxe Lindgren)
Newsgroups: sci.optics,sci.philosophy.tech,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusio
,sci.psychology,sci.polymers
Subject: Re: History of Science Newsgroup Available (soc.history.science)
Date: 17 Oct 1994 07:36:59 GMT
Organization: Psykologisk Institutt, Universitetet i Oslo, Norge

In article <37rptg$90d@insosf1.infonet.net> grobe@ins.infonet.net
(Jonathan Grobe) writes:
> The soc.history.science newsgroup has been created. It is available both
> as a Usenet group and as a gatewayed mailing list.
> 
With the usual discussions on wether Freud was a science or not. Check
it out! 
--
 Rolf Lindgren           | FAQ for sci.psychology: 
			 |     ftp://rtfm.mit.edu/pub/usenet/sci.psychology
 9111 Sogn Studentby     |          Student of psychology. Writes thesis on  
 N-0858 OSLO             |      team building dictated by the market forces.
                            
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenlindgren cudfnRolf cudlnLindgren cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.17 /  dowen@vaxc.cc. /  Re: The Griggs inquiry
     
Originally-From: dowen@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The Griggs inquiry
Date: 17 Oct 94 18:17:49 +1000
Organization: Computer Centre, Monash University, Australia

Hi Folks,
In article <woweinga-141094134359@techmac8.t>, woweinga@mtu.edu writes:
> In article <37m8d1$eoc@serra.unipi.it>, jwinter@galileo.pi.infn.it (John
> WINTERFLOOD) wrote:
>> 
>> : barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman) wrote:
>> : > 
>> : > <stuff deleted>
>> : > 
>> : > Sure, but its only 1 part in 10000 D, so the odds
>> : > on two D's meeting eachother in griggs device are slim.
>> : > Barry Merriman
>> 
>> Warren Weingarten (woweinga@mtu.edu) wrote:
>> : True, but how about H+D->He3 as proposed by Logajan. See 9 Oct. Post
>> : E-Quest Results.
>> 
>> How about improving the odds by adding a bit of D2O - to say double the
>> concentration - maybe hoping to double the excess energy?  It sounds a
>> lot easier to try than most of the other fluids suggested - and any
>> measurable or null effect is additional experimental evidence for our
>> consideration.
> I agree. If this is the test that is to be performed, I would support the
> effort with a check for $20. How about it, Tom?  Add some D2O to the feed,
> and look for a higher COP.

Sorry guys, we've been through all the -likely- fusion reaction paths many
times, they all give fusion reaction products. (nuclear 'ash' and radiation)
If there were a fusion process occuring then these nuclear products would
be present.Has anybody bothered to do any measurements? Does the grass grow
near these pumps? Do personel working near these pumps get any mysterious
illnesses? Do they wear radiation badges? :-)

Regards to all,
Daryl Owen.



cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudendowen cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.17 / Jorge Stolfi /  Re: The Griggs inquiry
     
Originally-From: stolfi@atibaia.dcc.unicamp.br (Jorge Stolfi)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The Griggs inquiry
Date: 17 Oct 1994 12:02:11 GMT
Organization: DCC - UNICAMP - Campinas, SP, Brazil


    > [Matt Kennel:] If it gives 20% excess power with 1 in 10^4 then
    > using heavy water would probably ionize the hell out of their
    > zip code.

    > [David R Davies:] I thought Jed had said he or someone else had
    > put some D2O into the Griggs Device with no noticeable
    > effect. True?

Yes.

Whatever the "Giggs effect" is, it does not seem to involve deuterium.

--stolfi

 -------------------------------------------------------------------
Jorge Stolfi                                | Tel: +55 (192) 39-8442
Computer Science Dept. (DCC-IMECC)          |      +55 (192) 39-3115
Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP) | Fax: +55 (192) 39-7470 
Internet: stolfi@dcc.unicamp.br             | Campinas, SP -- Brazil
 -------------------------------------------------------------------
Please do not copy this .signature virus into your .signature file!
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenstolfi cudfnJorge cudlnStolfi cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.18 / Richard Blue /  Re: Still no wave function!!
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Still no wave function!!
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 1994 00:14:17 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Chuck Sites says: "The particle spin interferes in momentum space
destructively for 3He and constructively for 4He.  What this indicates
to me is that in an environment that causes this type of interference,
it will have an effect on at least one aspect of the nuclear coordinates;
the nuclear spin.

Hope this helps you get the picture."

No, it does not help.  This, along with mention of W. Bernecky and
Mossbauer effect, all seem to share one common feature.  That is
a confusion between what is cause and what is effect.  I agree that
nuclear spin can have a significant influence on the properties of
helium in a cryogenic state, but the issue is whether the atomic
coordinates of these states has any influence on the nuclear wave
function.  I still say no one, not Chuck Sites and not W. Bernecky
and not Scott Chubb, have given us any mechanism by which this
could occur; and they certainly have not presented even a rough
arguement to indicate what they would hope to do about this
aspect of the problem.  All that has been said deals with the issue
of getting two deuterons to occupy approximately the same region of
space inspite of the energy penalty associated with the Coulomb
interaction.  My contention is that it will take much more, including
some significant fiddling with the nuclear wavefuction, to come up
with a theory that would do anything but confirm that deuteron fusion
will produce neutrons, gammas, and X-rays - all those nasties that
we all agree are not produced.

Anytime I see a reference to the Mossbauer effect as indicative of
the influence of atomic physics on nuclear processes, I have to laugh.
Please look carefully at the physics.  By how much is the gamma energy
altered?  To what degree is the transistion rate influenced?  I have
always been willing to concede the potential for effects on that scale,
but I do ask that claims that magnify atomic influences by millions
be backed up with something more substantial by way of phyics.

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.17 / Cameron Bass /  Re: re) ..Testing Grigg G. with different fluids!
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: re) ..Testing Grigg G. with different fluids!
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 1994 14:06:10 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <Oct15.081357.40142@acs.ucalgary.ca>,
Michael Ernest Fullerton <mefuller@acs.ucalgary.ca> wrote:
>In article <CxIB9w.Cq7@murdoch.acc.virginia.edu>,
>Cameron Randale Bass <crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU> wrote:
>>In article <37dh2h$98v@huxley.anu.edu.au>,
>>David R Davies <drd851@huxley.anu.edu.au> wrote:
>>
>>>I am not easily convinced about anything. That includes the conclusions
>>>of centuries of scientific endevour. Things change.  
>>
>>     And there are things that don't.
>
>Like some peoples minds.

     Or the fantasies of 'inventors'...

                              dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.17 / Cameron Bass /  Re: re) ..Testing Grigg G. with different fluids!
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: re) ..Testing Grigg G. with different fluids!
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 1994 14:12:46 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1994Oct13.011329.9802@clark.dgim.doc.ca>,
Gary Steckly <gsteckly@dgim.doc.ca> wrote:
>
>for the record, I tend to agree that this is likely not fusion.  Now 
>let's try to figure out what it is.  

     It's experimental error.

>This entire attitude of denial is strangely reminiscent of a childrens 
>book I once read to my daughter (oh no...not another children's analogy) 
>about a dragon that followed a certain child around the house.  He kept 
>trying to convince his parents that there was a dragon living with them 
>but there answer was always "there's no such thing as a dragon".  

     It's not denial, it's experimental error.  And ...

>Anyway, ignoring this creature simply made it grow larger until it 
>eventually broke through the roof and destroyed the house, at which time 
>this child's parents could no longer ignore the reality of this dragon.

     ...confusing a 'good' story with reality is the whole problem here.

                           dale bass

cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.17 / Cameron Bass /  Re: re) ..Testing Grigg G. with different fluids!
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: re) ..Testing Grigg G. with different fluids!
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 1994 14:19:36 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1994Oct13.012411.10110@clark.dgim.doc.ca>,
Gary Steckly <gsteckly@dgim.doc.ca> wrote:
>Cameron Randale Bass (crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU) wrote:
>
>(deletia)
>
>:      I hope you have answers to some of them.  Like perhaps, 'Daddy,
>:      should I jump off this tall building and try to fly by flapping my 
>:      tongue'.
>
>I think you missed my point.  Strangely enough, my kid's usually understand 
>my silly little anecdotes.  

    Au contraire.  It was you who missed the koan, grasshopper.

    Sometimes there *are* possible and impossible.  And sometimes we
    can and should tell the difference.

    Here, for instance.

                                dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.17 / Jorge Stolfi /  Re: FUAQ for Griggs Device
     
Originally-From: stolfi@s1j.dcc.unicamp.br (Jorge Stolfi)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: FUAQ for Griggs Device
Date: 17 Oct 1994 14:24:21 GMT
Organization: DCC - UNICAMP - Campinas, SP, Brazil


    > FUAQ is new terminology which stands for Frequently UnAnswered
    > Questions [...] concerning the Griggs Hydrosonic Pump.

(6) Pump dimensions, especially: rotor size, housing thickness,
axle diameter, spacing between housing and rotor (on all three
sides).

(7) Is the rotor steel or aluminum? Is it solid? (What's its weight)?

(8) Is the output pure steam, or a steam/air mixture?

Of course, what we need most of all are STEADY STATE measurements. 
 
Steady state means that all relevant variables (input power,
mass flow, steam pressure, input temperature, and output temperature)
have been constant for *several hours*.

Failing that, we need to have those quantities measured
continuously over *several hours*.

 -------------------------------------------------------------------
Jorge Stolfi                                | Tel: +55 (192) 39-8442
Computer Science Dept. (DCC-IMECC)          |      +55 (192) 39-3115
Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP) | Fax: +55 (192) 39-7470 
Internet: stolfi@dcc.unicamp.br             | Campinas, SP -- Brazil
 -------------------------------------------------------------------
Please do not copy this .signature virus into your .signature file!
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenstolfi cudfnJorge cudlnStolfi cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.17 / John Lewis /  Re: GG Improvements
     
Originally-From: court@newton.physics.mun.ca (John Lewis)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: GG Improvements
Date: 17 Oct 1994 16:35:05 GMT
Organization: Memorial University of Nfld, St. John's, NF

In article <37mlrh$skf@fnnews.fnal.gov> Droege@fnal.fnal.gov
 ...
>
>Anyone remember that they they used to inject water into WWII
>aircraft engines to give them a short term boost??  Perhaps it
>was a cold fusion effect!!!
>
>
>Tom Droege
>

WWII German aircraft used methanol-water.
I think that water injection is still used - at least,
when I rode in the cockpit of a HS 746[8?] in 1982,
they used water injection into the gas turbines (2 turboprops)
for extra power during takeoff.

John Lewis
Newfiejohn

No apologies for being off-topic.
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudencourt cudfnJohn cudlnLewis cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.17 /  woweinga@mtu.e /  cmsg cancel <woweinga-141094134359@techmac8.t>
     
Originally-From: woweinga@mtu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,control
Subject: cmsg cancel <woweinga-141094134359@techmac8.t>
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 1994 14:23:43 GMT
Organization: OpenVision Technologies, Inc.

Cancelling spewage from notes gateway
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenwoweinga cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Tue Oct 18 04:37:03 EDT 1994
------------------------------
1994.10.17 / Robert Heeter /  Conventional Fusion FAQ Section 5/11 (Devices-Status)
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.answers,news.answers
Subject: Conventional Fusion FAQ Section 5/11 (Devices-Status)
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 1994 22:50:54 GMT
Organization: Princeton University


Archive-name: fusion-faq/section5-devices
Last-modified: 11-Sept-1994
Posting-frequency: More-or-less-monthly

*****************************************************************
5. Status of and plans for some Present Devices:
* This FAQ deals with conventional fusion only, not Cold Fusion. *

While this section is not yet complete, it should be useful to
many people, and I encourage you to distribute it to anyone who
might be interested (and willing to help revise it!!!).

Last Revised September 11, 1994
Written by Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@pppl.gov, unless
otherwise cited.


*** Notes:

* Most of the devices listed here have entries in the glossary.  
This section repeats the basic descriptions of each machine, 
and tries to give some current information on the operational 
status and research program being pursued on the machine.

* Jargon terms in this section are, or at least should be,
defined in the glossary.

* Entries are sorted by machine type, and then alphabetically. 

* For more information on a type of device, see section 4.

* Budgets are FY 1994 US $$

* I am lacking information on the Russian and Japanese programs,
and don't even have all the American facilities/devices listed.
I'd appreciate any information that anyone wants to send my way.
(Anybody at Madison want to let me know what y'all have there?)


*** A.  Flagship Tokamaks - The largest in the world
 
* 1.  ITER: (International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor)

Current Budget (US branch only): $62.2 million

Currently in the engineering design phase.  For more information
see Section 9: Future Plans.


* 2.  JET: (Joint European Torus)  

World's largest tokamak, in Oxfordshire, England, commonly owned 
by the European Community. 
Current Budget: ??

Has been undergoing modifications since achieving 1.7 MW of fusion
power with a 10% tritium fuel mixture in 1991.  
(See Section 6: Recent Results)

Current plan is to test advanced divertor operation (and other
advanced physics operation?), followed by 50-50 D-T fuel experiments
in 1996 or so.  (Help from anyone at JET?  Stephen Cooper?)


* 3.  JT-60: (Japan Tokamak (?)) 

Large tokamak located north of Tokyo in Japan.
Current Budget: ??  (including workers?)

JT-60 achieved the world's highest temperatures in 1993, and
also the best combined plasma parameters (triple product).


* 4.  TFTR:  (Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor)  

Large tokamak at Princeton.
Current Budget:  $75.4 million

TFTR was the first machine to use the 50-50 mix of D-T fuel, and
as a result is the current world's record holder in fusion energy
production.  TFTR is the largest tokamak in the United States,
but will be decommissioned at the end of 1995 when D-T operations
are completed.  TFTR will be allowed to cool off (to reduce the
radioactivity) for a year, and then decommissioned to make room
for TPX, according to the current plan.
  

* 5.  TPX: (Tokamak Physics Experiment)  

Large tokamak; smaller successor to TFTR at Princeton.  
Current Budget:  $19.3 million

TPX is intended to study advanced physics and technology issues.
Engineering design is underway; construction is scheduled to begin 
in FY 1996.  (Budget will rise to $42 million in FY95, but 
construction funding has been withheld for all components save
superconducting magnets pending passage of long-term fusion
program authorization legislation.)  See Section 9 on Future 
Plans for more information.



*** B.  Medium-to-Large Tokamaks

* 1.  Alcator C-Mod: 

Mid-sized tokamak at MIT.
Current Budget:  $14.5 million

Currently investigating advanced plasma configurations and
divertor operation.  Also studying the use of high-Z 
molybdenum divertor plates and walls.  For more information 
see the Alcator weekly updates posted periodically by Steve
Fairfax.


* 2.  ASDEX-U:  (Axially Symmetric Divertor EXperiment-Upgrade) 

Mid-sized tokamak at the Institute for Plasma Physics, 
Garching, Germany.

Current Budget: (?)

ASDEX-Upgrade is the first tokamak whose toroidal and poloidal field 
coils are not linked, which will be a necessary design factor in a 
reactor.  It will achieve parameters at the edge which are very 
similar to those needed for a power reactor. - Arthur Carlson


* 3.  DIII-D:  (Doublet III, D-shape)

Medium-large tokamak operated by GA Technologies (formerly 
General Atomic) in San Diego.  (Second largest in U.S., after TFTR)
Current Budget:  $44.6 million

Looking at enhancing plasma confinement by modifying the shape of
the plasma.  From Art Carlson:  Also investigating advanced 
divertor operation, including biasing.  (More info, anyone??)


* 4.  FT-U: (Frascati Tokamak - Upgrade)

Mid-sized tokamak located in Italy - more info anyone?


* 5.  NSTX: (National Spherical Tokamak eXperiment)

Mid-sized low aspect-ratio tokamak / spheromak experiment
proposal; still in design phase / not funded.  See Section 9 
on Future Plans for more information.


* 6.  PBX-M:  (Princeton Beta Experiment-Modified)

Mid-sized tokamak at Princeton, formerly PDX. 
Current Budget:  $ 2.7 million

PBX-M is being used to investigate advanced tokamak configurations,
including the second-stability high-beta regime, and thus also
plasma and pulse shaping for enhanced confinement.  PBX-M operations 
are on hold for fiscal year 1994 because of the DT operations 
on TFTR.  PBX-M has a budget request of $8.2 million to resume 
operation in FY 1995.


* 7.  TCV: (Variable Configuration Tokamak - in French) 

New tokamak located in Lausanne, Switzerland
Current Budget:  ??

"The TCV device (from "Variable Configuration Tokamak" in French)
is a new tokamak (first plasma Nov. 1992) designed to study the 
effects of plasma shaping on tokamak performance.  The geometry 
is R = 0.88 m, a = 0.24 m, with a design maximum elongation 
of k = 3, and current of Ip = 1.2 MA." 
     - David Ward, ward@crppsun.epfl.ch


* 8.  TdeV:  (Tokamak de Varenne)

The Tokamak de Varennes (TdeV) is a medium-sized fusion research
tokamak that began operating on March 25, 1987. TdeV is operated 
by the Centre Canadien de Fusion Magnetique (CCFM), Varennes 
(Quebec), Canada. The five main research areas to which CCFM is 
committed are (1) divertor, edge plasma and plasma biasing studies, 
(2) impurity transport, sources and control, (3) plasma-wall 
interaction and materials studies, (4) transport and equilibrium 
of the main plasma, (5) radiofrequency plasma current drive
and heating.

For the period 1993-1997, the TdeV scientific program will 
essentially focus its attention on four priorities: (1) continuation 
of divertor and plasma biasing physics, emphasizing divertor 
operation with increased biasing voltages, (2)  lower hybrid current 
drive experiments at high rf power densities, with extended plasma 
pulse lengths, (3) divertor pumping experiments with high pumping 
capacity, (4) compact toroid fuelling experiments.

[Information extracted from the Annual Report 1992 of the CCFM.]
[Info provided by Bonnie Nestor, mnj@ornl.gov]


* 9.  TEXTOR:  

Mid-sized tokamak in Juelich, Germany

TEXTOR is a limiter-type tokamak known for work on wall conditioning,
pumped limiters, detachment, and electrode-induced H-mode. 
                                                  - Art Carlson


* 10. Tore Supra:  

Large tokamak in Cadarache (southern France).  
Current Budget: ??

Tore Supra is the second largest tokamak in Europe, and uses 
superconducting magnets to achieve long plasma pulses.  Tore 
Supra has a circular cross-section (like TFTR), which limits the
achievable confinement time and experimental flexibility.  In 
addition to developing superconducting technology, it 
concentrates on the physics of long pulses and advanced
ergodic (space-filling) magnetic limiters.

(Could anyone provide me with more information?)



*** C.  Small Tokamaks

* 1.  CDX-U: (Current Drive Experiment-Upgrade)

[[ Information here adapted from the PPPL WWW/Mosaic page on CDX-U ]]

Small low aspect-ratio tokamak at the Princeton Plasma Physics Lab
Current Budget:  About $500,000

CDX-U is a small tokamak used to study advanced tokamak ideas,
which have included non-inductive methods of current drive, 
100%-bootstrap current tokamak plasmas, and low-aspect ratio 
plasma stability and performance.  It is also used as a flexible 
testbed for advanced plasma diagnostics.


* 2.  START:  (Small Tight-Aspect-Ratio Tokamak)

Small, Very low aspect-ratio tokamak at Culham in England
Current Budget: ??

START is unique (?) among current tokamaks in that it has 
never experienced a plasma disruption.  This may represent
an advantage of low aspect-ratio operation.  

(More info, anyone?)


* 3.  TEXT-U:

Small tokamak at the University of Texas-Austin
Current Budget:  ??

Up-to-date information on TEXT-U can be obtained from
the gopher server at U Texas:  hagar.ph.utexas.edu,
or via the WWW server http://w3fusion.ph.utexas.edu/frc.html.
TEXT-U is a small, flexible machine recently converted to divertor
operation.  - Bonnie Nestor



*** D.  Stellarators

* 1. ATF:  (Advanced Toroidal Facility)  

Large stellarator machine at Oak Ridge National Lab (ORNL)
Current Budget:  $4.9 million.

ATF is currently the largest stellarator in the world, and
is operating for FY 1994, but it will be mothballed in 1995
due to the shortage of funds in the U.S. program.


* 2.  Wendelstein-7AS:  (Advanced Stellarator) 

Large stellarator in Garching, Germany.
Current Budget: ??

Pursuing advanced stellarator physics in competition with the
tokamak design.  Currently attempting to minimize neoclassical
effects such as the bootstrap current; uses non-planar magnetic
coils, as an alternative to linked coils.  


* 3.  Wendelstein-7X:  (Advanced Stellarator) 

Large stellarator expected to be built in Greifwald, Germany.
Current Budget: ??

Large stellarator to be built [final approval was expected end 
of July??] in Greifswald, Germany (on the northern coast).  
Based on the principles developed in Wendelstein-AS, it will 
have superconducting magnets and be large enough to enable
a decision whether the next machine after ITER should be a 
tokamak or a stellarator. - Art Carlson (w/ minor amendments)



*** E.  Inertial Confinement
(Anyone from LLNL/LLE/NRL want to help out here?)

* 1.  NIF:  (National Ignition Facility)

Inertial-Confinement Fusion Facility proposed to be built
at Livermore and operational around the year 2000.  See 
Section 9 on Future Plans for more information.


* 2.  Nova:

The United States' largest laser (ICF) fusion facility, at LLNL.  
Current Budget: ??

(I don't know what the state of Nova research is.  Any help from
LLNL researchers?)


* 3. Omega:

24-beam 3 mega-joule laser fusion facility, located at the 
Laboratory for Laser Energetics (LLE) at the University of 
Rochester.  An upgrade called Improved Omega is (planned, 
approved, under construction?).  The new Improved Omega will
have 60 beams for better target illumination uniformity 
plus additional energy on target.


* 4. NIKE

Facility at the Naval Research Laboratory similar to Omega, but 
with gas (Ar?) lasers instead of Nd-YAG. (??) 



*** F.  Alternative Approaches

* 1.  Electrostatic Confinement

Studied with some success in the 1950s and 1960s, this concept
has recently been resurrected as a student research project 
at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.  There is another
experiment being done at Univ. Illinois at Urbana-Champaign,
in Miley's group.  And Bussard at Energy-Matter Conversion Corp.
(EMC^2) has written about a magnetize inertial-electrostatic 
device, but I have no details.  (Does anyone have more info?)


* 2.  MFTF:  Mirror Fusion Test Facility:  

Large mirror machine at Livermore, CA.
Current Budget:  $0.

MFTF has been mothballed since constrution was completed in
1980 (1986?).  (Budget cuts/political reasons/lack of prospects.)


* 3.  Muon-Catalyzed Fusion 

Muon-catalyzed fusion has yielded the best power out/power in
ratio of any approach to controlled fusion, but strong theoretical
arguments suggest that muon catalyzed fusion can go no further.
Some research is still underway in hopes of overcoming the
theoretical obstacles.  (See section on Muon-Catalyzed Fusion
in Section 4.)


* 4.  PLASMAK(tm): 

Spheromak-type pulsed device in Maryland, USA.
Current Budget: ??

Paul M. Koloc posts occasionally to let us know what he's up to.
As I understand it, they are looking towards a proof-of-concept 
experiment, but lack funding.  PLASMAK is oriented 
towards the proton-Boron aneutronic advanced fuel.  For 
more information on the Plasmak concept, see Section 4.


* 5.  RFX:  (Reversed-Field eXperiment)

Largest Reversed-Field Pinch presently operating; in Padova, Italy.
Budget: ??

RFX is planned to reach a plasma current of 2 MA.
(Emilio Martines, martines%pdigi3.igi.pd.cnr.it)
(Could you provide some more information now, Dr. Martines?)
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.17 / Robert Heeter /  Conventional Fusion FAQ Section 2/11 (Energy) Part 2/5 (Environmental)
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.answers,news.answers
Subject: Conventional Fusion FAQ Section 2/11 (Energy) Part 2/5 (Environmental)
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 1994 22:50:46 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

Archive-name: fusion-faq/section2-energy/part2-enviro
Last-modified: 29-Sept-1994
Posting-frequency: More-or-less-monthly
Disclaimer: This is an early draft and will be revised soon.

********************************************************************
2.2. Environmental Characteristics of Fusion as a Future Energy Source

Last Revised September 29, 1994
Written by Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@pppl.gov, unless
otherwise cited.

### Please let me know if anything here is unclear. ###

* A. What are fusion's major potential environmental advantages?

Fusion, like fission, creates no greenhouse gases, no smog,
and no acid rain.  The major source of "air pollution" from
fusion would be, well, helium, which is completely inert and
is already a significant constituent of the earth's atmosphere.
Fusion isn't chemical energy, so it doesn't create chemical
byproducts that would cause air pollution.

Fusion consumes less fuel mass per unit of energy produced 
than any other fuel-consuming energy source.  There is also 
far more fusion fuel than for any other fuel-consuming
energy source.  Fusion gives you the most energy "bang
for your buck" and therefore minimizes the environmental
burdens of searching for and producing energy.  

Fusion fuel is also much more widely distributed, since 
all likely fuel elements are found abundantly in seawater.
There would be no Persian Gulf-type wars over access to 
fusion fuel.  Given the destructive nature of wars, this
is good for the environment as well as good for people.

With fusion, you don't need to rip up the ground like
coal mines do, or worry about oil spills, or devote
miles and miles of land to wind or solar farms.  Fusion creates
more energy with less resource investment than any other
form of energy known to man.


* B. But isn't fusion nuclear?  What about radioactive waste?

Fusion *is* a nuclear technology, but there are significant
qualitative differences between fusion and fission.  These
differences add up to both safety and environmental advantages
for fusion.  (Safety issues are discussed in Section 2 Part 3)
On the environmental side, fusion differs from fission in that
one can control the waste products by controlling the fuels 
used and the materials exposed to neutrons produced in the
fusion reaction.  In fission, uranium or plutonium decays
in a random way and the "daughters" of the fission process are
scattered all over the periodic table, and there are lots of
nasty radioactive isotopes produced.  Thus fission results in
large amounts of concentrated radioactive waste.  

In fusion, one has the opportunity to minimize or even 
perhaps to eliminate the radioactive waste problem.
"Aneutronic" fusion fuels (discussed in Section 1) would 
produce little or no radioactive waste at all.  Even in 
"neutronic" (but much easier) deuterium-tritium fusion 
(discussed in Section 1) most of the neutrons (which
are the primary source of radioactive waste) are absorbed in
a lithium blanket in order to replace the tritium fuel
burned in the reactor.  The only sources of radioactive waste
in a D-T reactor are stray tritium atoms and the reactor 
structure which is exposed to neutron radiation.  

Tritium is a relatively benign radioactive element, because:
(a) It doesn't emit strong radiation when it decays, so it's
     only hazardous if one breathes it in or ingests it.
(b) It generally shows up in one's body as water, and your body
     flushes out its water fairly frequently, so tritium won't
     build up in a living creature. (Unlike many fission
     reaction products.)
(c) It has a moderate half-life, only 12 years or so.  This
     means that it won't be around forever, so it doesn't
     create a long-term waste problem.  On the other hand,
     it probably won't decay in the few days that pass 
     while it's in one's body, which is also good.

Based on current tritium-handling knowledge and experience
scientists believe that incidental releases of radiation 
from fusion reactors will be comparable to releases from
either fission or coal plants.  In a fusion economy, the
contribution of tritium to one's radiation exposure will be
orders of magnitude less than natural exposure to things like
radon, cosmic rays, etc; and also much less than man-made 
exposure to things like medical x-rays.

Radioactive waste in a fusion reactor can be minimized by
choosing special structural materials which can withstand
neutron bombardment without becoming highly radioactive.
Two strong candidate "low-activation materials" are vanadium
and silicon-carbide.  Vanadium will be tested as a structural
material on the TPX tokamak to be built at Princeton.
If either vanadium or silicon carbide is used as a structural
material, the radioactive inventory of a fusion reactor will
be much less than that of a fission reactor with comparable 
power output.  In fact, with a low-activation fusion reactor,
one can wait ten or so years after shutdown, and the fusion
reactor will be 1,000 to 1,000,000 times *less* radioactive
than the fission reactor.  The material in the fusion reactor
will actually be less radioactive than some natural minerals,
particularly uranium ores, and it would conceivably be safe 
to *recycle* the fusion reactor structure into a new 
fusion reactor, with little permanent waste at all.  In these
circumstances one must compare the problems and hazards 
posed by permanent *chemical* wastes from manufacturing and 
operating other energy sources with the problems and hazards
posed by fusion energy.


* C. What key technologies are needed to achieve these advantages?

*Any* working fusion reactor would have minimal environmental
impact relative to fossil fuels, with the exception of the
radioactive waste problem.  Minimizing the radioactive 
inventory and waste burden of a fusion reactor is the key
to maximizing the environmental friendliness of fusion.

Now, as can be seen from the answers to questions A and B
above, the development of low-activation materials will 
help achieve a tremendous advantage for fusion by dramatically
reducing the radioactive waste problem.  This will be
complemented by development of tritium-handling techniques
which allow us to reduce the tritium radiation problems.
More advanced fusion reactors using aneutronic fuels will
eliminate the radioactive-waste problem entirely, but these
fuels are much harder to burn.  Aneutronic fusion is 
much further down the road and would probably have
a harder time competing economically.  Scientists believe 
that, from an environmental standpoint, even D-T fusion
with low-activation materials would be an improvement 
over current energy sources.  Advanced aneutronic fuels 
in which only charged particles (i.e., not neutrons) are
released by the fusion reaction would have an additional
advantage: one can directly convert charged particle energy 
to electrical energy with much higher efficiency than
one can achieve with conventional turbine-based technologies;
this would reduce the thermal pollution from a fusion plant
dramatically.


* D. What are the materials and fuel requirements for fusion?

This question is answered in Section 2 Part 1; please look
there.


* E. What about renewable energy sources?  Why do we
need fusion at all?  

(After all, renewables will be ready much sooner than fusion.)

Renewable energy sources depend on incident sunlight, which is
a diffuse, low-density source.  While renewables in many cases
are great for the environment, it's not clear that they'll
be able to "pull the whole load" in the future, when the 
population of the earth is expected to double and energy use
is expected to triple even *with* aggressive conservation 
and population-control measures.  This is especially true 
for the large dense cities which are developing worldwide
as nations develop and continue to urbanize.  Diffuse 
energy sources require lots of land, and dense cities
don't have lots of land.

So given that a major environmental constraint will be finding
enough land to feed everyone, while still leaving room for
wildlife and the rest of nature, it seems that it would 
be prudent to develop as many energy sources as possible 
and to make sure that at least some of those (like 
fusion) are not land-intensive.

Renewables certainly seem to be the "energy source of
tomorrow," and we should definitely develop them
- but we're likely to need fusion the *day after*
tomorrow, so we'd better develop it too.  
(Acknowledgements to W.D. Kay or Northeastern Univ.
for the idea which led to this last sentence.)
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.17 / Robert Heeter /  Conventional Fusion FAQ Glossary Part 3/7 (E-F)
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.answers,news.answers
Subject: Conventional Fusion FAQ Glossary Part 3/7 (E-F)
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 1994 22:32:50 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

Archive-name: fusion-faq/glossary/part3-EtoF
Last-modified: 17-Sept-1994
Posting-frequency: More-or-less-monthly
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!!!).

===============================================================

Glossary Part 3:  Terms from E to F

FREQUENTLY USED TERMS IN CONVENTIONAL FUSION RESEARCH 
AND PLASMA PHYSICS

Edited by Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@pppl.gov

Guide to Categories:
 
* = plasma/fusion/energy vocabulary
& = basic physics vocabulary 
> = device type or machine name
# = name of a constant or variable
! = scientists 
@ = acronym
% = labs & political organizations
$ = unit of measurement

Citations and Acknowledgements appear in Section 11 of the FAQ.

==================================================================

EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

# e - symbol for the electron, for the unit electric 
      charge (e = 1.6x10^-19 coulombs), and for a Euler's fundamental
      mathematical constant e = 2.71828...

# E - Variable typically used for Energy or Electric Field
(usually in vector notation in the latter case; which is meant
is usually clear from context; when both are used in the same place
the energy is usually represented as U instead of E.)

@ EBT - Elmo Bumpy Torus; see entry

@ EC - European Community; see entry

@ ECDC - Electron Cyclotron Discharge Cleaning; see entry

@ ECE - Electron Cyclotron Emission; see entry

@ ECH - Electron Cyclotron Heating; see entry

@ ECRH - Electron Cyclotron Radiofrequency Heating - same as ECH.

$ ECU - European Currency Unit

@ ELM - Edge-Localized Mode; see entry

@ EM - Electromagnetic

@ EM Wave - Electromagnetic Wave; see entry

@ EPA - Environmental Protection Agency (U.S.); see entry

@ ERDA - Energy Research and Development Agency; see entry

@ ESECOM - Reactor design study done in the mid 1980s to 
evaluate the Environmental, Safety, and ECOnoMic potential
of different types of fusion and advanced fission reactors.

@ EU - European Union; see entry

@ eV - Electron-volt; see entry

$ Exa - metric prefix for 10^18 or 1,000,000,000,000,000,000

$ Exajoule - unit of energy, 10^18 joules; often used as unit
of measure for world annual energy use.  Comparable in size to
a Quad (1 EJ = 0.948 Quads); see entry for Quad.

* Edge Localized Mode (ELM): Mode found often in H-mode plasmas. 
This is a temporary relaxation of the very high edge gradients 
found in H-modes. It may be a relaxation back to the L-mode.
(Borrowed from a posting by Paul Stek)

* Edge Plasma:  Cooler, less dense plasma away from the center
of a reactor; affected by limiter or divertor, includes 
scrape-off layer.  Distinguished from core plasma.  See entries
for relevant terms used.

* Edge-Localized Mode:  (info from Paul Stek)  Found often in 
H-mode plasmas, this is a temporary relaxation of the very high 
edge gradients found in H-modes. It may be a relaxation back 
to the L-mode.

* Effective Collision Cross-section: (See collision cross section)

* Effective Collision Radius:  Effective size of a particle
equal to the square root of (cross section/pi).  Determines the
effective range of interaction of the particle.

& Elastic:  Term used to describe a process in which kinetic energy
is conserved; usually refers to (elastic) collisions or (elastic)
scattering.

& Electric Charge:  See charge, electrical.

& Electric Field:  A property of a patch of space which causes
the acceleration of electric charges located at that patch of
space.  The acceleration is given by a = qE/m, where q is the
charge, E the electric field vector, and m the mass of the
particle.  

& Electrical Conductivity:  Degree to which a substance conducts
electric current.  Can be defined by: 
	(current density) = (conductivity) * (applied electric field)

* Electromagnetic Coupling:  A means of extracting energy from a
magnetically confined plasma, where the plasma expands and pushes
on the confining magnetic field, causing electrical energy to
be generated in the external field-generating circuits.

& Electromagnetic Force:

& Electromagnetic Wave:  Wave characterized by combined oscillations
of both electric and magnetic fields.  The particle equivalent
is the photon.  There is a whole spectrum of electromagnetic
waves where the classes are distinguished by energy (or, 
equivalently, wavelength or frequency); the spectrum of 
electromagnetic waves includes radio waves, microwaves, 
infrared light, visible light, ultraviolet light, x-rays, and 
gamma rays.

& Electron: (from Herman) Elementary particle with a negative
electric charge.  Electrons orbit around the positively 
charged nucleus in an atom.  The charge on an electron is 
-1.6x10^-19 coulombs; the electron has a mass of 9.11 x 10^-31 kg.

* Electron Capture:  Nuclear decay process whereby a proton in
the nucleus absorbs an orbiting electron and converts to a
neutron.

* Electron Cyclotron Discharge Cleaning (ECDC):  Using relatively
low power microwaves (at the electron cyclotron frequency) to 
create a weakly ionized, essentially unconfined hydrogen plasma 
in the vacuum chamber.  The ions react with impurities on the 
walls of the tokamak and help remove them from the chamber.  For
instance, Alcator C-mod typically applies ECDC for a few days 
prior to beginning a campaign, and a few hours before each day's run.

* Electron Cyclotron Emission (ECE):  As electrons gyrate around in 
a magnetic field (see also larmor radius or cyclotron radius), 
they radiate radio-frequency electromagnetic waves.  This is 
known as electron cyclotron emission, and can be measured to 
help diagnose a plasma.

* Electron Cyclotron Heating (ECRH):  Radiofrequency (RF) heating 
scheme that works by injecting electromagnetic wave energy at the
electron cyclotron gyration frequency.  The electric field of the 
EM wave at this frequency looks to a gyrating electron like a 
static electric field, and it causes acceleration of the electron.  
The accelerated electron gains energy, which is then shared with 
other particles through collisions, resulting in heating.

* Electron Temperature:  The temperature corresponding to
the mean kinetic energy of the free electrons in a
plasma.

$ Electron-volt: 1 eV = 1.6 x 10^-12 erg. This is a unit of 
kinetic energy equal to that of an electron having a velocity of 
5.93 x 10^7 cm/sec.  This is the energy an electron (or 
other particle of charge=1 such as a proton), gains as it's 
accelerated through a potential difference of 1 volt.  In plasma 
physics the eV is used as a unit of temperature; when the mean 
particle energy is 1eV, the temperature of the plasma is 
11,600 Kelvin.

> Electrostatic Confinement:  An approach to fusion based on 
confining charged particles by means of electric fields, rather
than the magnetic fields used in magnetic confinement.  See
discussion in section 4B for more information.

* Electrostatic Waves:  Longitudinal oscillations appearing in a
plasma due to a perturbation of electric neutrality.  For a cold
unmagnetized plasma, or at large wavelengths, the frequency of
these waves is by definition the plasma frequency.

& Element: (need short discussion, with list and perhaps periodic
table in appendix?  isotope table with half-lives and decay modes
might also be useful.)

& Elementary Particles worth knowing about:  
	(at the nuclear-energy level)
 	electron & positron - seem to be stable
 	proton - thought to be stable, life > 10^30 sec
 	neutron - decays in ?10 min unless it's in a nucleus, which often
  		extends its life.
	other particles important for nuclear energy: 
		muon, neutrino (m,e,tau),
	photon
	muonic atoms
	pi-meson
 antiparticles
		this part is new - maybe separate entries with listing
		here??

> Elmo Bumpy Torus:  Bumpy Torus at ORNL; no longer operating.
See Bumpy Torus, ORNL.

* Elongation: parameter indicating the degree to which the cross 
section of a toroidal plasma is non-circular. kappa=b/a, where "b" 
and "a" are the vertical and horizontal minor radii. As kappa is 
increased, the confinement in relation to the total current improves, 
but the plasma also becomes more and more unstable to vertical 
displacements. A circular plasma has kappa of 1, a common value for 
elongated plasmas is 1.7, and the absolute limit is probably 
around 2.

& Energy:  Typically defined as "the ability to do work".  Power
is the rate at which work is done, or the rate at which energy
is changed.  "Work" characterizes the degree to which the properties
of a substance are transformed.  Energy exists in many forms,
which can be converted from one to another in various ways.
Examples include:  gravitational energy, electrical energy, 
magnetic and electric field energy, atomic binding energy (a form
of electrical energy really), nuclear binding energy, chemical
energy (another form of electrical energy), kinetic energy (energy
due to motion), thermal energy ("heat"; a form of kinetic energy 
where the motion is due to thermal vibrations/motions), and so on.

* Energy Balance:  Comparison of energy put into a plasma with the
energy dissipated by the system; related to energy confinement.

* Energy Confinement Time:  See energy loss time.

* Energy Loss Time:  Characteristic time in which 1/e (or sometimes
1/2) of a system's energy is lost to its surroundings.  In a plasma
device, the energy loss time (or the energy confinement time) is 
one of three critical parameters determining whether enough 
fusion will occur.  (See Lawson criterion)

% Energy Research and Development Agency (ERDA):  US Agency created 
by splitting of the AEC into ERDA and NRC in about 1975, charged
with managing US energy R&D (???).  Merged with ??? to become the
Department of Energy in about 1977. (???? correct? help??)

% Environmental Protection Agency:  Agency within the executive
branch of the U.S. government (under the Department of the Interior?
Independent?) charged with, well, protection of the environment.
Activities include research, regulatory, and cleanup functions.
(Any government people reading this who could help me out?)

* Equilibrium:  [ acknowledgements to John Cobb ]  An equilibrium is 
a state of a system where the critical parameters do not change 
significantly, within a given time frame. In the case when this time 
frame is infinite, It is called a Thermodynamic equilibrium. There 
are many cases where a plasma equilibrium is constant on some fast 
time scale, but changes over some slower time scale. For example, an 
IDEAL MHD equilibrium is constant over fluid time scales 
(microseconds to milliseconds), but it will evolve on the slower 
resistive or viscous time scales (milliseconds to seconds). All 
terrestial plasmas are NOT in thermodynamic equilibrium, but they may 
be constant over very long time periods.   

An equilibrium is unstable when a small change in a critical 
parameter leads the state of the system to diverge from the 
equilibrium.  An equilibrium is stable when a small change in a 
critical parameter leads to a "restoring force" which tends to
return the system to equilibrium.


$ Erg / ergs:  CGS unit for energy.  1E7 ergs = 1 joule.

* Ergodic:  A mathematical term meaning "space-filling".  If a 
magnetic field is ergodic, any field line will eventually pass 
arbitrarily close to any point in space.  Closely related to 
"chaotic".

* ESECOM:  Reactor design study done in the mid 1980s to 
evaluate the Environmental, Safety, and ECOnoMic potential
of different types of fusion and advanced fission reactors.

% European Community: see European Union
 
% European Union: (from Herman) Organization of European
countries (formerly European Community, EC, formerly European
Economic Community, EEC) established in 1967 to coordinate policies 
on the economy, energy, agriculture, and other matters.  The original
member countries were France, Belgium, West Germany, Italy, 
Luxembourg, and the Netherlands.  Joining later were Denmark, 
Ireland, the United Kingdom, Greece, Spain, and Portugal.  Other 
countries are in the process of joining now.

% Euratom:  (from Herman) European Atomic Energy Community.
International organization established in 1958 by members
of the European Economic Community to form a common market
for the development of peaceful uses of nuclear power.




FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF

# F:  Variable typically used for force; sometimes flux.

@ FRC: Field-Reversed Configuration; see entry

@ FY:  Fiscal Year; see entry

& Field:  In physics, any macroscopic quantity which exists
(and typically varies) througout a region of space.  Standard
examples include Electric and Magnetic fields, velocity flow fields,
gravitational fields, etc.

& Field Lines:  Lines in space along which a field is either 
changing or not changing (depends on the field) but which help
to create diagrams which characterize the behavior and effects 
of the field.  For instance, electric field lines run in the 
direction that the electric field will push charged particles; 
the strength of the field is proportional to the density of 
the field lines.  On the other hand, the magnetic force pushes
particles in a direction perpendicular to both the particle's
velocity and the direction of the magnetic field line.

> Field-Reversed Configuration:  A compact torus produced in a 
theta pinch and having (in principle) no toroidal field.  The 
potential advantages for a fusion reactor include a simple (linear) 
machine geometry, an average plasma pressure close to the confining 
field pressure, and physical separation of formation and burn 
chambers.  The are predicted to be violently unstable to tilting, but 
this is rarely observed.  See also: compact torus, theta pinch.
(Arthur Carlson, awc@ipp-garching.mpg.de)

* First Wall:  The first physical boundary that surrounds a plasma.

* Fiscal Year (FY):  Year used to open and close accounting records;
not necessarily the same as the calendar year.  (For instance, the
U.S. government's Fiscal Year begins Oct 1 and ends Sept 30.)

* Fissile Material:  Material containing a large number of 
easily fissionable nuclei which give off multiple neutrons in 
the fission process.  Usual meaning is that if a sufficiently
large amount of fissile material is put together, a fission
chain reaction can occur.  Examples include materials containing
high percentages of Uranium-235 and Plutonium-239.

& Fission (Nuclear): Nuclear decay process whereby a large
nucleus splits into two smaller (typically comparably-sized)
nuclei, with or without emission of other particles such
as neutrons.  When it occurs, fission typically results
in a large energy release.  See also spallation, radioactivity.

* Fission Bomb:  see atomic bomb, A-bomb.

* Fission Reactor:  (from Herman) A device that can initiate 
and control a self-sustaining series of nuclear fissions.

* Flat-top:  Stable period in the middle of a tokamak
discharge, characterized by a flat, stable peak in a plot
of plasma (current, temperature) vs. time.

* Flute Instability:  Term used to describe an interchange
instability in which the perturbation is uniform parallel 
to the magnetic field. In cyclindrical geometry, the structure 
resembles a fluted column in classical architecture. 

& Flux:  The total amount of a quantity passing through a given
surface per unit time.  Typical "quantities" include field lines,
particles, heat, energy, mass of fluid, etc.  Common usage in
plasma physics is for "flux" by itself to mean "magnetic field
flux."

& Flux Density:  Total amount of a quantity passing through a
unit surface area in unit time.  See also flux, above.

* Flux freezing:  See frozen-in law.

* Flux surfaces:  See magnetic flux surfaces.

* Flux trapping:  See frozen-in law.

* Fokker-Planck Equation:  An equation that describes the time rate 
of change of a particle's velocity as a result of small-angle 
collisional deflections.  Applicable when the cumulative effect of 
many small-angle collisions is greater than the effect of rarer
large-angle deflections.

& Force:  Rate of change of momentum with time.  Forces are said
to cause accelerations via F = ma (Newton's law).  There are four
primary forces known presently:  the gravitational, electromagnetic,
weak nuclear, and strong nuclear forces.  The gravitational and 
electromagnetic forces are long-range (dropping as 1/distance^2),
while the nuclear forces are short range (effective only within
nuclei; distances on the order of 10^-15 meters).  The 
electromagnetic force is much stronger than the gravitational force,
but is generally cancelled over large distances because of the 
balance of positive and negative charges.  Refer to entries for each 
force for more information.  See also momentum.

* Free Electron:  An electron not bound to an atom, molecule, or
other particle via electric forces.

* Free Wave:  A wave (e.g., electromagnetic) travelling in a 
homogeneous infinite medium (no boundary conditions).

* Frozen-in Flow Law:  In a perfect conductor, the total magnetic 
flux through any surface is a constant.  In a plasma which is nearly
perfectly conducting, the relevant surfaces move with the plasma;
the result is that the plasma is tied to the magnetic field, and
the field is tied to the plasma.

* Fusion (Nuclear): a nuclear reaction in which light atomic 
nuclei combine to form heavier nuclei.  (See also Controlled
Thermonuclear Fusion)

* Fusion Reactor: (from Herman) A nuclear reactor in which
a self-sustaining series of nuclear fusions would produce
energy (that could be converted to electric power).

> Fusion-Fission Hybrid: (from Herman) A proposed type of
nuclear reactor relying on both fusion and fission reactions.
A central fusion chamber would produce neutrons to provoke
fission in a surrounding blanket of fissionable material.
The neutron source could also be used to convert other
materials into additional fissile fuels (breeder hybrid).
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.17 / Robert Heeter /  Conventional Fusion FAQ Glossary Part 3/7 (E-F)
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.answers,news.answers
Subject: Conventional Fusion FAQ Glossary Part 3/7 (E-F)
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 1994 22:50:43 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

Archive-name: fusion-faq/glossary/part3-EtoF
Last-modified: 17-Sept-1994
Posting-frequency: More-or-less-monthly
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!!!).

===============================================================

Glossary Part 3:  Terms from E to F

FREQUENTLY USED TERMS IN CONVENTIONAL FUSION RESEARCH 
AND PLASMA PHYSICS

Edited by Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@pppl.gov

Guide to Categories:
 
* = plasma/fusion/energy vocabulary
& = basic physics vocabulary 
> = device type or machine name
# = name of a constant or variable
! = scientists 
@ = acronym
% = labs & political organizations
$ = unit of measurement

Citations and Acknowledgements appear in Section 11 of the FAQ.

==================================================================

EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

# e - symbol for the electron, for the unit electric 
      charge (e = 1.6x10^-19 coulombs), and for a Euler's fundamental
      mathematical constant e = 2.71828...

# E - Variable typically used for Energy or Electric Field
(usually in vector notation in the latter case; which is meant
is usually clear from context; when both are used in the same place
the energy is usually represented as U instead of E.)

@ EBT - Elmo Bumpy Torus; see entry

@ EC - European Community; see entry

@ ECDC - Electron Cyclotron Discharge Cleaning; see entry

@ ECE - Electron Cyclotron Emission; see entry

@ ECH - Electron Cyclotron Heating; see entry

@ ECRH - Electron Cyclotron Radiofrequency Heating - same as ECH.

$ ECU - European Currency Unit

@ ELM - Edge-Localized Mode; see entry

@ EM - Electromagnetic

@ EM Wave - Electromagnetic Wave; see entry

@ EPA - Environmental Protection Agency (U.S.); see entry

@ ERDA - Energy Research and Development Agency; see entry

@ ESECOM - Reactor design study done in the mid 1980s to 
evaluate the Environmental, Safety, and ECOnoMic potential
of different types of fusion and advanced fission reactors.

@ EU - European Union; see entry

@ eV - Electron-volt; see entry

$ Exa - metric prefix for 10^18 or 1,000,000,000,000,000,000

$ Exajoule - unit of energy, 10^18 joules; often used as unit
of measure for world annual energy use.  Comparable in size to
a Quad (1 EJ = 0.948 Quads); see entry for Quad.

* Edge Localized Mode (ELM): Mode found often in H-mode plasmas. 
This is a temporary relaxation of the very high edge gradients 
found in H-modes. It may be a relaxation back to the L-mode.
(Borrowed from a posting by Paul Stek)

* Edge Plasma:  Cooler, less dense plasma away from the center
of a reactor; affected by limiter or divertor, includes 
scrape-off layer.  Distinguished from core plasma.  See entries
for relevant terms used.

* Edge-Localized Mode:  (info from Paul Stek)  Found often in 
H-mode plasmas, this is a temporary relaxation of the very high 
edge gradients found in H-modes. It may be a relaxation back 
to the L-mode.

* Effective Collision Cross-section: (See collision cross section)

* Effective Collision Radius:  Effective size of a particle
equal to the square root of (cross section/pi).  Determines the
effective range of interaction of the particle.

& Elastic:  Term used to describe a process in which kinetic energy
is conserved; usually refers to (elastic) collisions or (elastic)
scattering.

& Electric Charge:  See charge, electrical.

& Electric Field:  A property of a patch of space which causes
the acceleration of electric charges located at that patch of
space.  The acceleration is given by a = qE/m, where q is the
charge, E the electric field vector, and m the mass of the
particle.  

& Electrical Conductivity:  Degree to which a substance conducts
electric current.  Can be defined by: 
	(current density) = (conductivity) * (applied electric field)

* Electromagnetic Coupling:  A means of extracting energy from a
magnetically confined plasma, where the plasma expands and pushes
on the confining magnetic field, causing electrical energy to
be generated in the external field-generating circuits.

& Electromagnetic Force:

& Electromagnetic Wave:  Wave characterized by combined oscillations
of both electric and magnetic fields.  The particle equivalent
is the photon.  There is a whole spectrum of electromagnetic
waves where the classes are distinguished by energy (or, 
equivalently, wavelength or frequency); the spectrum of 
electromagnetic waves includes radio waves, microwaves, 
infrared light, visible light, ultraviolet light, x-rays, and 
gamma rays.

& Electron: (from Herman) Elementary particle with a negative
electric charge.  Electrons orbit around the positively 
charged nucleus in an atom.  The charge on an electron is 
-1.6x10^-19 coulombs; the electron has a mass of 9.11 x 10^-31 kg.

* Electron Capture:  Nuclear decay process whereby a proton in
the nucleus absorbs an orbiting electron and converts to a
neutron.

* Electron Cyclotron Discharge Cleaning (ECDC):  Using relatively
low power microwaves (at the electron cyclotron frequency) to 
create a weakly ionized, essentially unconfined hydrogen plasma 
in the vacuum chamber.  The ions react with impurities on the 
walls of the tokamak and help remove them from the chamber.  For
instance, Alcator C-mod typically applies ECDC for a few days 
prior to beginning a campaign, and a few hours before each day's run.

* Electron Cyclotron Emission (ECE):  As electrons gyrate around in 
a magnetic field (see also larmor radius or cyclotron radius), 
they radiate radio-frequency electromagnetic waves.  This is 
known as electron cyclotron emission, and can be measured to 
help diagnose a plasma.

* Electron Cyclotron Heating (ECRH):  Radiofrequency (RF) heating 
scheme that works by injecting electromagnetic wave energy at the
electron cyclotron gyration frequency.  The electric field of the 
EM wave at this frequency looks to a gyrating electron like a 
static electric field, and it causes acceleration of the electron.  
The accelerated electron gains energy, which is then shared with 
other particles through collisions, resulting in heating.

* Electron Temperature:  The temperature corresponding to
the mean kinetic energy of the free electrons in a
plasma.

$ Electron-volt: 1 eV = 1.6 x 10^-12 erg. This is a unit of 
kinetic energy equal to that of an electron having a velocity of 
5.93 x 10^7 cm/sec.  This is the energy an electron (or 
other particle of charge=1 such as a proton), gains as it's 
accelerated through a potential difference of 1 volt.  In plasma 
physics the eV is used as a unit of temperature; when the mean 
particle energy is 1eV, the temperature of the plasma is 
11,600 Kelvin.

> Electrostatic Confinement:  An approach to fusion based on 
confining charged particles by means of electric fields, rather
than the magnetic fields used in magnetic confinement.  See
discussion in section 4B for more information.

* Electrostatic Waves:  Longitudinal oscillations appearing in a
plasma due to a perturbation of electric neutrality.  For a cold
unmagnetized plasma, or at large wavelengths, the frequency of
these waves is by definition the plasma frequency.

& Element: (need short discussion, with list and perhaps periodic
table in appendix?  isotope table with half-lives and decay modes
might also be useful.)

& Elementary Particles worth knowing about:  
	(at the nuclear-energy level)
 	electron & positron - seem to be stable
 	proton - thought to be stable, life > 10^30 sec
 	neutron - decays in ?10 min unless it's in a nucleus, which often
  		extends its life.
	other particles important for nuclear energy: 
		muon, neutrino (m,e,tau),
	photon
	muonic atoms
	pi-meson
 antiparticles
		this part is new - maybe separate entries with listing
		here??

> Elmo Bumpy Torus:  Bumpy Torus at ORNL; no longer operating.
See Bumpy Torus, ORNL.

* Elongation: parameter indicating the degree to which the cross 
section of a toroidal plasma is non-circular. kappa=b/a, where "b" 
and "a" are the vertical and horizontal minor radii. As kappa is 
increased, the confinement in relation to the total current improves, 
but the plasma also becomes more and more unstable to vertical 
displacements. A circular plasma has kappa of 1, a common value for 
elongated plasmas is 1.7, and the absolute limit is probably 
around 2.

& Energy:  Typically defined as "the ability to do work".  Power
is the rate at which work is done, or the rate at which energy
is changed.  "Work" characterizes the degree to which the properties
of a substance are transformed.  Energy exists in many forms,
which can be converted from one to another in various ways.
Examples include:  gravitational energy, electrical energy, 
magnetic and electric field energy, atomic binding energy (a form
of electrical energy really), nuclear binding energy, chemical
energy (another form of electrical energy), kinetic energy (energy
due to motion), thermal energy ("heat"; a form of kinetic energy 
where the motion is due to thermal vibrations/motions), and so on.

* Energy Balance:  Comparison of energy put into a plasma with the
energy dissipated by the system; related to energy confinement.

* Energy Confinement Time:  See energy loss time.

* Energy Loss Time:  Characteristic time in which 1/e (or sometimes
1/2) of a system's energy is lost to its surroundings.  In a plasma
device, the energy loss time (or the energy confinement time) is 
one of three critical parameters determining whether enough 
fusion will occur.  (See Lawson criterion)

% Energy Research and Development Agency (ERDA):  US Agency created 
by splitting of the AEC into ERDA and NRC in about 1975, charged
with managing US energy R&D (???).  Merged with ??? to become the
Department of Energy in about 1977. (???? correct? help??)

% Environmental Protection Agency:  Agency within the executive
branch of the U.S. government (under the Department of the Interior?
Independent?) charged with, well, protection of the environment.
Activities include research, regulatory, and cleanup functions.
(Any government people reading this who could help me out?)

* Equilibrium:  [ acknowledgements to John Cobb ]  An equilibrium is 
a state of a system where the critical parameters do not change 
significantly, within a given time frame. In the case when this time 
frame is infinite, It is called a Thermodynamic equilibrium. There 
are many cases where a plasma equilibrium is constant on some fast 
time scale, but changes over some slower time scale. For example, an 
IDEAL MHD equilibrium is constant over fluid time scales 
(microseconds to milliseconds), but it will evolve on the slower 
resistive or viscous time scales (milliseconds to seconds). All 
terrestial plasmas are NOT in thermodynamic equilibrium, but they may 
be constant over very long time periods.   

An equilibrium is unstable when a small change in a critical 
parameter leads the state of the system to diverge from the 
equilibrium.  An equilibrium is stable when a small change in a 
critical parameter leads to a "restoring force" which tends to
return the system to equilibrium.


$ Erg / ergs:  CGS unit for energy.  1E7 ergs = 1 joule.

* Ergodic:  A mathematical term meaning "space-filling".  If a 
magnetic field is ergodic, any field line will eventually pass 
arbitrarily close to any point in space.  Closely related to 
"chaotic".

* ESECOM:  Reactor design study done in the mid 1980s to 
evaluate the Environmental, Safety, and ECOnoMic potential
of different types of fusion and advanced fission reactors.

% European Community: see European Union
 
% European Union: (from Herman) Organization of European
countries (formerly European Community, EC, formerly European
Economic Community, EEC) established in 1967 to coordinate policies 
on the economy, energy, agriculture, and other matters.  The original
member countries were France, Belgium, West Germany, Italy, 
Luxembourg, and the Netherlands.  Joining later were Denmark, 
Ireland, the United Kingdom, Greece, Spain, and Portugal.  Other 
countries are in the process of joining now.

% Euratom:  (from Herman) European Atomic Energy Community.
International organization established in 1958 by members
of the European Economic Community to form a common market
for the development of peaceful uses of nuclear power.




FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF

# F:  Variable typically used for force; sometimes flux.

@ FRC: Field-Reversed Configuration; see entry

@ FY:  Fiscal Year; see entry

& Field:  In physics, any macroscopic quantity which exists
(and typically varies) througout a region of space.  Standard
examples include Electric and Magnetic fields, velocity flow fields,
gravitational fields, etc.

& Field Lines:  Lines in space along which a field is either 
changing or not changing (depends on the field) but which help
to create diagrams which characterize the behavior and effects 
of the field.  For instance, electric field lines run in the 
direction that the electric field will push charged particles; 
the strength of the field is proportional to the density of 
the field lines.  On the other hand, the magnetic force pushes
particles in a direction perpendicular to both the particle's
velocity and the direction of the magnetic field line.

> Field-Reversed Configuration:  A compact torus produced in a 
theta pinch and having (in principle) no toroidal field.  The 
potential advantages for a fusion reactor include a simple (linear) 
machine geometry, an average plasma pressure close to the confining 
field pressure, and physical separation of formation and burn 
chambers.  The are predicted to be violently unstable to tilting, but 
this is rarely observed.  See also: compact torus, theta pinch.
(Arthur Carlson, awc@ipp-garching.mpg.de)

* First Wall:  The first physical boundary that surrounds a plasma.

* Fiscal Year (FY):  Year used to open and close accounting records;
not necessarily the same as the calendar year.  (For instance, the
U.S. government's Fiscal Year begins Oct 1 and ends Sept 30.)

* Fissile Material:  Material containing a large number of 
easily fissionable nuclei which give off multiple neutrons in 
the fission process.  Usual meaning is that if a sufficiently
large amount of fissile material is put together, a fission
chain reaction can occur.  Examples include materials containing
high percentages of Uranium-235 and Plutonium-239.

& Fission (Nuclear): Nuclear decay process whereby a large
nucleus splits into two smaller (typically comparably-sized)
nuclei, with or without emission of other particles such
as neutrons.  When it occurs, fission typically results
in a large energy release.  See also spallation, radioactivity.

* Fission Bomb:  see atomic bomb, A-bomb.

* Fission Reactor:  (from Herman) A device that can initiate 
and control a self-sustaining series of nuclear fissions.

* Flat-top:  Stable period in the middle of a tokamak
discharge, characterized by a flat, stable peak in a plot
of plasma (current, temperature) vs. time.

* Flute Instability:  Term used to describe an interchange
instability in which the perturbation is uniform parallel 
to the magnetic field. In cyclindrical geometry, the structure 
resembles a fluted column in classical architecture. 

& Flux:  The total amount of a quantity passing through a given
surface per unit time.  Typical "quantities" include field lines,
particles, heat, energy, mass of fluid, etc.  Common usage in
plasma physics is for "flux" by itself to mean "magnetic field
flux."

& Flux Density:  Total amount of a quantity passing through a
unit surface area in unit time.  See also flux, above.

* Flux freezing:  See frozen-in law.

* Flux surfaces:  See magnetic flux surfaces.

* Flux trapping:  See frozen-in law.

* Fokker-Planck Equation:  An equation that describes the time rate 
of change of a particle's velocity as a result of small-angle 
collisional deflections.  Applicable when the cumulative effect of 
many small-angle collisions is greater than the effect of rarer
large-angle deflections.

& Force:  Rate of change of momentum with time.  Forces are said
to cause accelerations via F = ma (Newton's law).  There are four
primary forces known presently:  the gravitational, electromagnetic,
weak nuclear, and strong nuclear forces.  The gravitational and 
electromagnetic forces are long-range (dropping as 1/distance^2),
while the nuclear forces are short range (effective only within
nuclei; distances on the order of 10^-15 meters).  The 
electromagnetic force is much stronger than the gravitational force,
but is generally cancelled over large distances because of the 
balance of positive and negative charges.  Refer to entries for each 
force for more information.  See also momentum.

* Free Electron:  An electron not bound to an atom, molecule, or
other particle via electric forces.

* Free Wave:  A wave (e.g., electromagnetic) travelling in a 
homogeneous infinite medium (no boundary conditions).

* Frozen-in Flow Law:  In a perfect conductor, the total magnetic 
flux through any surface is a constant.  In a plasma which is nearly
perfectly conducting, the relevant surfaces move with the plasma;
the result is that the plasma is tied to the magnetic field, and
the field is tied to the plasma.

* Fusion (Nuclear): a nuclear reaction in which light atomic 
nuclei combine to form heavier nuclei.  (See also Controlled
Thermonuclear Fusion)

* Fusion Reactor: (from Herman) A nuclear reactor in which
a self-sustaining series of nuclear fusions would produce
energy (that could be converted to electric power).

> Fusion-Fission Hybrid: (from Herman) A proposed type of
nuclear reactor relying on both fusion and fission reactions.
A central fusion chamber would produce neutrons to provoke
fission in a surrounding blanket of fissionable material.
The neutron source could also be used to convert other
materials into additional fissile fuels (breeder hybrid).
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.17 / Robert Heeter /  Conventional Fusion FAQ Section 6/11 (Recent Results)
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.answers,news.answers
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Conventional Fusion FAQ Section 6/11 (Recent Results)
Subject: Re: Laymen Q: Was Princeton's Fusion a 'breakthrough?'
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 1994 22:50:58 GMT
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1993 12:01:28 GMT
Organization: Princeton University
Organization: Joint European Torus

Archive-name: fusion-faq/section6-results
Last-modified: 16-Oct-1994
Posting-frequency: More-or-less-monthly
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!!!).

*****************************************************************
6. Recent Results in Fusion Research

Last Revised October 16, 1994
Written by Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@pppl.gov, unless
otherwise cited.

( This section discusses major fusion results from the past
     few years. )

***  A.  Recent Results on TFTR: D-T Experiments

* (a) What was done?

The Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor (TFTR) here at Princeton 
switched from pure-deuterium fuel to a deuterium-tritium 
(D-T) fuel mixture in December 1993.  As discussed in 
Section 1, the D-T fuel is easier to fuse, but the neutrons 
produced in the reaction D + T -> 4He + n will slowly make 
the reactor radioactive, so this set of experiments will 
be the last for TFTR.  In these reactions, over 6 million 
watts (MW) of fusion power were produced for about a second.  
This is four times more power than any previous controlled 
fusion experiment.  The value of 6 MW should be compared to
the roughly 30 MW of input power used, which indicates that
fusion in TFTR remains short of breakeven.  (See glossary for
explanations of unfamiliar terminology.)

(There was an article on this in _Time_, Dec 20, 1993, p. 54, 
at least in the American edition; there are of course other 
articles out there too.  See Section 9, Part A (the bibliography
on recent literature) for more references.)

>>Update May 31 (mostly from TFTR News Updates by Rich Hawryluk):  
   Over 9 megawatts were generated in late May.
     This is 90 million times what could be generated in 1974
     when TFTR was proposed.
   Input power was up to 33.7 MW -> Q = 0.27.  
     This means we are making almost as much fusion power as
     is used to heat the plasma now.
   Two articles on the December experiments were published in
     the May 30 issue of Physical Review Letters.
			Recent TFTR shots have exhibited exceptionally high performance,
     with preliminary indications that energy confinement is 
     enhanced by 20-30 percent in D-T relative to D-D fuel.
   Plasma disruptions possibly caused by TAE mode activity have
     been observed.  Fusion performance is limited by the MHD
     activity, not by heating power or confinement.
   Central fusion power density has been increased from 1.25 MW m-3
     to 1.8 MW m-3.

>>Update August 7
   Work is ongoing to try to stabilize the power-limiting modes.
>>Update September 13
   Funding to continue D-T experiments throughout FY 1995 has
   been granted. (see below)

>>Update October 16
   Though TFTR has not literally achieved "breakeven" (fusion power
     output equals plasma heating power input), we are very close
     now, and in addition we have achieved plasma conditions very
     close to those needed in a real fusion powerplant.  The
     scientific results achieved suggest that D-T plasmas have
     better confinement than their D-D counterparts.  A number of
     crucial scientific issues have been resolved and the sense
     of the scientists here is that we can be fairly confident
     that we can build a fusion reactor which will generate 
     gigawatts of surplus energy.  The trick now is to find ways
     to do this an an environmental and cost-effective manner.


*	(b) Why does it matter?

The generation of multi-megawatt levels of fusion power is a major
achievement for the controlled fusion program.  Sustaining the
power output for a second is also significant, because most
known plasma instabilities occur much more quickly.  Also, use 
of tritium to achieve high power levels enables researchers to 
study plasmas under conditions closer to those of a working 
fusion reactor.  There are effects due to the heavier tritium 
ions, and due to the presence of highly energetic helium ions
produced in the fusion reaction.  In particular, scientists
were worried that the energetic He ions might trigger new plasma
instabilities.  (Plasmas are notorious for finding new ways to
misbehave whenever scientists manage to improve the operating 
conditions.)  Fortunately, no major instabilities were observed,
and in fact early reports are that plasma performance actually
improves in high-power D-T conditions.  These results enhance
the prospects for future experiments which will try to achieve
even higher power outputs in nearly steady-state conditions.
(See Section 8 for more information on future experiments.)


***  B.  Recent Results on JET

JET ran some experiments in 1991 using a 10% tritium mix, and 
produced 1.7 megawatts of fusion power.  Since then researchers
have been reconfiguring the machine.  (Anybody know if plasma
operation has begun?)
 
Appended below are comments adapted from a post I made on Feb 12, 
1994 (which in turn referenced a Dec 14, 1993 posting by 
Stephen Cooper at JET), which provide more background to the 
JET & TFTR results.  


***  C.  Recent Results in Inertial Confinement Fusion

(Anybody got any info?  I haven't had time to look yet.)


***  D.  Recent Results in Muon-Catalyzed Fusion
(Based on information provided by Steven Jones of BYU.)

Steven Jones posted on April 30:

>In article <1994Apr27.214422.17681@debug.cuc.ab.ca>,
>Lforbes@debug.cuc.ab.ca writes:
>
>>I have heard little lately (last year or so) about muon catalyzed 
>>fusion; have there been any noteable developments?
>
>Not lately.  Not much has happened since DoE decided to cut funding 
>in 1988, the year *before* cold fusion hit the fan, incidentally.
>Despite the funding cut, we were able to do some experiments at 
>LAMPF in 1989 and 1990, and we recently published a paper 
>on results:
>S.E. Jones, S.F. Taylor and A.N. Anderson, "Evaluation of 
>muon-alpha sticking from liquid, non-equilibrated d-t targets 
>with high tritium fractions," 
>Hyperfine Interactions 82 (1993) 303-311.
>
>Other groups (PSI, Russia) are plugging along, and we're trying to
>work out an international collaboration with them which looks 
>fairly good right now, though funding is tight.


***  E.  Recent major results from other experiments, and 
theoretical work?



(Anyone care to contribute anything major?)


***  F.  Recent Political News

* (a) U.S. Magnetic Fusion News:

Congress postponed construction of TPX for a year pending
(hopeful) passage of the fusion authorization bill.  Design 
funding for TPX has been continued.  TPX construction funding 
has been diverted to provide funds to extend D-T 
experimentation on TFTR.  The authorization legislation was
passed by both house and Senate, but the bills had conflicting
provisions and Congress did not complete passage of a final bill
this session.  The process will begin anew in the next legislative
session.

Meanwhile, Robert Hirsch has been hired by General Atomics.
Hirsch is the former head of the fusion program and was recently
working at the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI).

* (b) U.S. Inertial Fusion News

(Are there any ICF gurus out there?)


* (c) ITER News:

Paul-Henri Rebut has been succeeded as head of ITER by
Robert Aymar.  Concerns over ITER management have 
been receiving press lately.


* (d) European News:

(What's going on in Europe these days?)


* (e) Other world fusion news:

(Japan?)


***  G.  Appendix on TFTR and JET results

*********************************************
TFTR results vs JET results from 1991:
(Written by Stephen R. Cooper at JET, with comments [like this] 
by R.F. Heeter.)

>From src@jet.uk Tue Dec 14 11:14:34 EST 1993
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Laymen Q: Was Princeton's Fusion a 'breakthrough?'
Organization: Joint European Torus
References: <2ebdvg$44e@Mercury.mcs.com> <2ei3vk$o7o@mailer.fsu.edu>
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1993 12:01:28 GMT

In <2ei3vk$o7o@mailer.fsu.edu> jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
writes:
>As I recall, the reports from JET in November 1991 indicated a Q of
>about 1/9 for the light load of T, with plans to increase the T 
>to 50% by 1996.  I think their extrapolation to 50% indicated 
>they would be very close to breakeven at that point, but do not
>recall the details. 

>Could some JET person fill us in?

[ Note by rfheeter: Q is the ratio of power produced in the
machine by fusion to power put into the machine to heat
the plasma. Q = 1 means fusion yield is equal to power
input.  Economical fusion will require Q significantly 
greater than 1.  See the glossary (Section 10) for more details.]

Results quoted from "The JET Preliminary Tritium Experiment", 
invited talk given to the 1992 International Conference on 
Plasma Physics by P-H Rebut, Innsbruck, Austria, 29th June-3rd 
July 1992).

"Two Deuterium plasmas were heated by high power deuterium 
neutral beams from fourteen sources and fuelled by two neutral 
beam sources injecting tritium. In the best of the two D-T 
discharges, the tritium concentration was about 11% of bulk plasma 
at peak performance, when the total neutron emmision rate was 
6.0E17 per second, with 1.7MW of fusion power. The fusion 
amplification factor Q(DT) was 0.15. With an optimum tritium 
concentration, this pulse would have produced a fusion power 
of ~ 5MW and nominal Q(DT) of 0.46. The same extrapolation for 
the best pure deuterium discharge of the PTE series gives about 
11MW and a nominal Q(DT) of 1.14.

[ Note by rfheeter:  neutral beams are made by accelerating
deuterium ions, and then neutralizing the ions so that they
can fly into the magnetic field of the tokamak without being
deflected.  As they enter the plasma, they are re-ionized
and their energy is subsequently shared with the other 
ions in the plasma.  Thus this is a method for simultaneously
heating and refueling the plasma. See glossary for more info...]

The total integrated total neutron yield was 7.2E17 with an 
accuracy of +/- 7% and the total fusion energy was about 2MJ. 
The tritium injections last just 2 seconds out of a 10 second, 
3MA flat top. The amount of tritium injected and the limited 
number of shots were deliberatly restricted for operational 
convenience."

[ Note by rfheeter:  2 MJ = 2 million joules = 1 million
watts for a duration of 2 seconds, or 2 million watts for
a duration of one second.  1 Joule = 1 watt * 1 second.
A "10 second, 3 MA flat top" refers to the relatively stable
flat peak of a current-vs-time graph, indicating that
the plasma current is stable at about 3 million amps
(3 MA) for 10 seconds.  "Operational convenience" should
probably be interpreted as "because we didn't want to
make our reactor too radioactive, and tritium handling
is a pain." - that's an editorial comment. ]

--> Personal remarks start 
[this Cooper writing now, and not quoting others.]

The above seems to indicate that if JET had gone into it's full 
D-T phase at this time and with this configuration, we certainly
should have got to 50% of breakeven. As to if we could have 
matched our best deuterium pulse, I guess we would have come 
close especially as the TFTR results show no pathological 
problems with a 50/50 D-T mix. But this is all hypothetical, 
we no longer have anything like the configuration we had in 
1991, we're just about to finish a major shutdown incorporating 
a pumped divertor to look at impurity control and ash removal. 
The old H mode shots that the 1991 experiment were based on 
are a thing of the past and we'll have to wait and see how she 
performs with the new configuration.

[ Note by rfheeter: a "divertor" is a magnetic or physical
way of channeling particles from the edge of the plasma
out of the way, and helps to improve confinement of the plasma
as well as remove impurities. "H mode" is a relatively
stable operational mode of the tokamak, as contrasted with
"L mode", which is less stable.  I believe H = High and
L = Low, referring to high and low confinement.]

[[ The rest of the article was about TFTR and not JET,
and I have omitted it to save some space. ]]

Stephen R Cooper                 Physics Operations Group
src@jet.uk               Operations Division, JET.
-	Disclaimer: Please note that the above is a personal view and 
should not be construed as an official comment from the JET project.
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.18 / Stanley Chow /  Re: Working people
     
Originally-From: schow@bnr.ca (Stanley T.H. Chow)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Working people
Date: 18 Oct 1994 14:50:59 GMT
Organization: Bell Northern Research Ltd, Ottawa

In article <1994Oct17.222900.20798@princeton.edu>,
Robert F. Heeter  <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> wrote:
>Any industry executive would be overjoyed if his company were
>making the sort of technical progress fusion has made for the past 
>15 years.

Hmm, 15 years planning horizon; sounds quite a bit longer than even
the famed Japanese attention span. As for the US business crowd, I don't
think you are even in the right ball park.

>           And I'm afraid that in the R&D business, with Congress looking
>to cut budgets anywhere it can, if you don't produce, you don't get
>funded.  So I don't think it's that different.

Ah, but in the R&D "business", product is not the same as profit, it is
not even the same as useful. As several threads have discussed before,
come budget time, one expect lots of flashy experimental results (which 
are often/usually useless in terms of science). So in this sense, the
R&D business is much more like lobbying/entertainment as opposed to
"real business" in The Real World (tm).

-- 
Stanley Chow  InterNet: schow@BNR.CA  (613) 763-2831
Bell Northern Research Ltd., PO Box 3511 Station C, Ottawa, Ontario
Me? Represent other people? Don't make them laugh so hard.
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenschow cudfnStanley cudlnChow cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.18 / William Rowe /  Re: GG Improvements
     
Originally-From: browe@netcom.com (William J. Rowe)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: GG Improvements
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 1994 04:09:10 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

In article <37u93p$onh@coranto.ucs.mun.ca>, court@newton.physics.mun.ca
(John Lewis) wrote:

> In article <37mlrh$skf@fnnews.fnal.gov> Droege@fnal.fnal.gov
>  ...
> >
> >Anyone remember that they they used to inject water into WWII
> >aircraft engines to give them a short term boost??  Perhaps it
> >was a cold fusion effect!!!
> >
> >
> >Tom Droege
> >
> 
> WWII German aircraft used methanol-water.
> I think that water injection is still used - at least,
> when I rode in the cockpit of a HS 746[8?] in 1982,
> they used water injection into the gas turbines (2 turboprops)
> for extra power during takeoff.
> 
> John Lewis
> Newfiejohn
> 
> No apologies for being off-topic.

Water injection is still used to increase take off thrust in the KC135
aircraft I worked on in the Air Force. I think someone else metioned a
Boeing 707 which is essentially the same as a KC135 from this standpoint.

-- 
_______________________________________________________________________________
William Rowe                                                   browe@netcom.com
MD5OfPublicKey: F29A99C805B41838D9240AEE28EBF383
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenbrowe cudfnWilliam cudlnRowe cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.18 / David Davies /  Re: GG Improvements
     
Originally-From: drd851@huxley.anu.edu.au (David R Davies)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: GG Improvements
Date: 18 Oct 1994 17:18:40 +1000
Organization: Australian National University


Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege) writes:

>In article <14OCT199417493109@mars.lerc.nasa.gov>, edwlt12@mars.lerc.na
a.gov (Mike Jamison (ADF)) says:
>>
>>
>snip, snip 
>>>Anyone remember that they they used to inject water into WWII
>>>aircraft engines to give them a short term boost??  Perhaps it
>>>was a cold fusion effect!!!
>>
>>And here I thought it was just to bring the combustion temp. down so they
>>could squirt a denser fuel air mix into the chamber...  Silly me.
>>
>>Tom, you shouldn't post like this - someone may take you seriously :-)
>>> 
>>> 
>>>Tom Droege
>>> 
>>
>>Mike Jamison
>>
>>

>One should be constantly on one's guard in science.  It it doesn't make
>sense within your framework of reality, don't believe it just because I
>or some other "authority" said it.  You should all be aware by now that my 
>tongue is often in my cheek.  

>But thanks for giving the basic reason.  It makes sense to me therefore I
>will tend to believe it.  See - that is how it works.  But at this point
>my belief in your explanation is tenuous.  A few more examples, and some
>test data would slowly push the concept into my belief system.

>Tom Droege

+ Just received more by Robert I. Euchus


To confuse the issue I thought it was to control the combustion rate
(knock) so that lower octane fuel could be used. Lead worked better
and produced a valuable side industry that still showers some cities with
thousands of tons per year of lead compounds. To be fair, I think there
were significant technical problems with water that made it impractical
for cars.

Now we have three versions that seem to conflict but on closer inspection
can be interpreted to mean much the same thing.

If you think CF is tricky try working out what is going on in an internal
combustion engine. 


Cheers,

dave

cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudendrd851 cudfnDavid cudlnDavies cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.17 / Robert Heeter /  Re: Breakeven Yet?
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Breakeven Yet?
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 1994 22:28:56 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

In article <37jp71$o0v@coranto.ucs.mun.ca> Grant Buffett,
gbuffett@morgan.ucs.mun.ca writes:
> 	Sorry if this sounds ignorant on my part, but I haven't been 
> following the latest on fusion reactors.  Has anyone been successful in 
> reaching breakeven with laser or inertia fusion?  I suspect not, but
I'm 
> just curious.

Well, it's in the FAQ (Section 6, Recent Results), but the short answer
is: almost.  At least for magnetic fusion.  

Laser/inertial fusion, so far as I know, is a little behind.

TFTR has reached Power Out / Power In of about 0.3 this year,
during a 9 MW shot in May.  Plans are afoot to try to break 10 MW
sometime during the next year.

Given that TFTR isn't the most advanced reactor, but that no one
else is doing deuterium-tritium (high power fuel, but radioactive)
operations right now, it seems clear that we know how to get
breakeven with magnetic fusion.

Actually, TFTR has demonstrated plasma parameters of the type
needed in a real powerplant, so we actually feel reasonably 
confident that we have demonstrated the scientific possibility 
of making fusion work.  Now we have to show that we can 
improve the physics and engineer a reactor that is safe 
and economical.

The two new experiments, ITER and TPX, as well as 
continuing work on other, smaller, less advanced machines, are
intended to address these issues.

***************************
Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University
As always, I represent only myself, and not PPPL
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.17 / Robert Heeter /  Re: Working people
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Working people
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 1994 22:29:00 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

In article <13OCT199417062819@mars.lerc.nasa.gov> Mike Jamison,
edwlt12@mars.lerc.nasa.gov writes:
> The salary discussion, while not actually relevant to this group [like
most
> of the posts...] is interesting.
> 
> I see grad students defending their administrating professors' salaries,
> basically saying "if they were in industry, they could..."
> 
> The problem, as I see it, is that, in industry, one must make a profit.

Any industry executive would be overjoyed if his company were
making the sort of technical progress fusion has made for the past 
15 years.  And I'm afraid that in the R&D business, with Congress looking
to cut budgets anywhere it can, if you don't produce, you don't get
funded.  So I don't think it's that different.

> My guess is that these guys, with Phd's and all, would fail miserably.
> Maybe people who have lots of experience modeling nonlinear systems
*can*
> get jobs paying $100,000+/year.
> Somehow, though, I think they will need some experience with reality
before
> getting that kinda salary.

I'm not saying they "can."  I'm saying they *do.*  With a freshly
minted PhD, no less, and little or no experience in the real world.
It's not just the nonlinear guys, either.  Several students here
have gotten interested in the policy side of fusion energy research,
and have taken second degrees in public policy, with the result that
they're now technically-inclined policy analysts, and they're 
*also* being offered $100,000 starting salaries. 
Not all of them, but some.

The people that stay here really are not in it for the money. 

On the other hand, it's not a big surprise that none of the MIT
plasma grads in recent memory have stayed in plasma physics, and
that many of them are now on Wall Street, as I believe Paul Stek
reported recently.
 
***************************
Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University
As always, I represent only myself, and not PPPL
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.17 / Robert Heeter /  Conventional Fusion FAQ Section 2/11 (Energy) Part 2/5 (Environmental)
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.answers,news.answers
Subject: Conventional Fusion FAQ Section 2/11 (Energy) Part 2/5 (Environmental)
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 1994 22:32:45 GMT
Organization: Princeton University


Archive-name: fusion-faq/section2-energy/part2-enviro
Last-modified: 29-Sept-1994
Posting-frequency: More-or-less-monthly
Disclaimer: This is an early draft and will be revised soon.

********************************************************************
2.2. Environmental Characteristics of Fusion as a Future Energy Source

Last Revised September 29, 1994
Written by Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@pppl.gov, unless
otherwise cited.

### Please let me know if anything here is unclear. ###

* A. What are fusion's major potential environmental advantages?

Fusion, like fission, creates no greenhouse gases, no smog,
and no acid rain.  The major source of "air pollution" from
fusion would be, well, helium, which is completely inert and
is already a significant constituent of the earth's atmosphere.
Fusion isn't chemical energy, so it doesn't create chemical
byproducts that would cause air pollution.

Fusion consumes less fuel mass per unit of energy produced 
than any other fuel-consuming energy source.  There is also 
far more fusion fuel than for any other fuel-consuming
energy source.  Fusion gives you the most energy "bang
for your buck" and therefore minimizes the environmental
burdens of searching for and producing energy.  

Fusion fuel is also much more widely distributed, since 
all likely fuel elements are found abundantly in seawater.
There would be no Persian Gulf-type wars over access to 
fusion fuel.  Given the destructive nature of wars, this
is good for the environment as well as good for people.

With fusion, you don't need to rip up the ground like
coal mines do, or worry about oil spills, or devote
miles and miles of land to wind or solar farms.  Fusion creates
more energy with less resource investment than any other
form of energy known to man.


* B. But isn't fusion nuclear?  What about radioactive waste?

Fusion *is* a nuclear technology, but there are significant
qualitative differences between fusion and fission.  These
differences add up to both safety and environmental advantages
for fusion.  (Safety issues are discussed in Section 2 Part 3)
On the environmental side, fusion differs from fission in that
one can control the waste products by controlling the fuels 
used and the materials exposed to neutrons produced in the
fusion reaction.  In fission, uranium or plutonium decays
in a random way and the "daughters" of the fission process are
scattered all over the periodic table, and there are lots of
nasty radioactive isotopes produced.  Thus fission results in
large amounts of concentrated radioactive waste.  

In fusion, one has the opportunity to minimize or even 
perhaps to eliminate the radioactive waste problem.
"Aneutronic" fusion fuels (discussed in Section 1) would 
produce little or no radioactive waste at all.  Even in 
"neutronic" (but much easier) deuterium-tritium fusion 
(discussed in Section 1) most of the neutrons (which
are the primary source of radioactive waste) are absorbed in
a lithium blanket in order to replace the tritium fuel
burned in the reactor.  The only sources of radioactive waste
in a D-T reactor are stray tritium atoms and the reactor 
structure which is exposed to neutron radiation.  

Tritium is a relatively benign radioactive element, because:
(a) It doesn't emit strong radiation when it decays, so it's
     only hazardous if one breathes it in or ingests it.
(b) It generally shows up in one's body as water, and your body
     flushes out its water fairly frequently, so tritium won't
     build up in a living creature. (Unlike many fission
     reaction products.)
(c) It has a moderate half-life, only 12 years or so.  This
     means that it won't be around forever, so it doesn't
     create a long-term waste problem.  On the other hand,
     it probably won't decay in the few days that pass 
     while it's in one's body, which is also good.

Based on current tritium-handling knowledge and experience
scientists believe that incidental releases of radiation 
from fusion reactors will be comparable to releases from
either fission or coal plants.  In a fusion economy, the
contribution of tritium to one's radiation exposure will be
orders of magnitude less than natural exposure to things like
radon, cosmic rays, etc; and also much less than man-made 
exposure to things like medical x-rays.

Radioactive waste in a fusion reactor can be minimized by
choosing special structural materials which can withstand
neutron bombardment without becoming highly radioactive.
Two strong candidate "low-activation materials" are vanadium
and silicon-carbide.  Vanadium will be tested as a structural
material on the TPX tokamak to be built at Princeton.
If either vanadium or silicon carbide is used as a structural
material, the radioactive inventory of a fusion reactor will
be much less than that of a fission reactor with comparable 
power output.  In fact, with a low-activation fusion reactor,
one can wait ten or so years after shutdown, and the fusion
reactor will be 1,000 to 1,000,000 times *less* radioactive
than the fission reactor.  The material in the fusion reactor
will actually be less radioactive than some natural minerals,
particularly uranium ores, and it would conceivably be safe 
to *recycle* the fusion reactor structure into a new 
fusion reactor, with little permanent waste at all.  In these
circumstances one must compare the problems and hazards 
posed by permanent *chemical* wastes from manufacturing and 
operating other energy sources with the problems and hazards
posed by fusion energy.


* C. What key technologies are needed to achieve these advantages?

*Any* working fusion reactor would have minimal environmental
impact relative to fossil fuels, with the exception of the
radioactive waste problem.  Minimizing the radioactive 
inventory and waste burden of a fusion reactor is the key
to maximizing the environmental friendliness of fusion.

Now, as can be seen from the answers to questions A and B
above, the development of low-activation materials will 
help achieve a tremendous advantage for fusion by dramatically
reducing the radioactive waste problem.  This will be
complemented by development of tritium-handling techniques
which allow us to reduce the tritium radiation problems.
More advanced fusion reactors using aneutronic fuels will
eliminate the radioactive-waste problem entirely, but these
fuels are much harder to burn.  Aneutronic fusion is 
much further down the road and would probably have
a harder time competing economically.  Scientists believe 
that, from an environmental standpoint, even D-T fusion
with low-activation materials would be an improvement 
over current energy sources.  Advanced aneutronic fuels 
in which only charged particles (i.e., not neutrons) are
released by the fusion reaction would have an additional
advantage: one can directly convert charged particle energy 
to electrical energy with much higher efficiency than
one can achieve with conventional turbine-based technologies;
this would reduce the thermal pollution from a fusion plant
dramatically.


* D. What are the materials and fuel requirements for fusion?

This question is answered in Section 2 Part 1; please look
there.


* E. What about renewable energy sources?  Why do we
need fusion at all?  

(After all, renewables will be ready much sooner than fusion.)

Renewable energy sources depend on incident sunlight, which is
a diffuse, low-density source.  While renewables in many cases
are great for the environment, it's not clear that they'll
be able to "pull the whole load" in the future, when the 
population of the earth is expected to double and energy use
is expected to triple even *with* aggressive conservation 
and population-control measures.  This is especially true 
for the large dense cities which are developing worldwide
as nations develop and continue to urbanize.  Diffuse 
energy sources require lots of land, and dense cities
don't have lots of land.

So given that a major environmental constraint will be finding
enough land to feed everyone, while still leaving room for
wildlife and the rest of nature, it seems that it would 
be prudent to develop as many energy sources as possible 
and to make sure that at least some of those (like 
fusion) are not land-intensive.

Renewables certainly seem to be the "energy source of
tomorrow," and we should definitely develop them
- but we're likely to need fusion the *day after*
tomorrow, so we'd better develop it too.  
(Acknowledgements to W.D. Kay or Northeastern Univ.
for the idea which led to this last sentence.)
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Wed Oct 19 04:37:03 EDT 1994
------------------------------
1994.10.18 / Robert Eachus /  Re: GG Improvements
     
Originally-From: eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: GG Improvements
Date: 18 Oct 94 10:56:05
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.

In article <37vssg$hi8@huxley.anu.edu.au> drd851@huxley.anu.edu.au
(David R Davies) writes:

 > To confuse the issue I thought it was to control the combustion rate
 > (knock) so that lower octane fuel could be used. Lead worked better
 > and produced a valuable side industry that still showers some cities with
 > thousands of tons per year of lead compounds. To be fair, I think there
 > were significant technical problems with water that made it impractical
 > for cars.

   If you want to try the experiment it is easy.  First take your car
down to the local drag strip, and time it in the quarter mile.  Now,
run your car almost empty.  To, say, one gallon of gas in the tank add
a quart of water and a pint of "dry gas", or, if you prefer use
methanol.  Shake the bumper to stir the mix up.  Now start the car.
(Note: the gas in the carburetor is normal, so you have to run for a
few minutes to get the new mix into the engine, this should get you
back to the drag strip...)

   Without shutting the engine off, rerun the quarter mile, then
before the car shakes itself to pieces, shut it off, drain the gas
tank, fuel lines, and the carburetor, and refill with high-octane
gasoline.  In a month or three the engine will be back to normal and
you also know why the AA fuel dragster engines sound so rough before
the start.  (If anyone who reads this group follows drag-racing today,
correct me if I am wrong.  The "top fuel" dragsters use a "nitro" mix,
fuel with -NO3 radicals added to get more oxygen in the fuel.  But I
think AA are still restricted to hydrocarbon and alcohol mixes which
end up very high in methanol.)

   "High octane" fuel is slow burning. (Once upon a time this was
measured by mixing pure heptane and pure octane, and the octane rating
was the percentage of octane in the mix which knocked under the same
conditions as the fuel being tested.)

   Any fuel where the burning creates more gases than in the original
mix can be explosive.  Methanol burns (with excess oxygen):

      2 CH3OH + 3 O2 --> 2CO2 + 4 H2O.  (20% volume expansion)

In a somewhat more reducing environment you get:

       CH3OH + O2 --> CO + 2H2O         (50% volume expansion, but
really you need to figure in the rest of the air:)

       CH3OH + O2 + 4 N2 --> CO + 2H2O + 4 N2 (14% true volume expansion)

And if you go full bore:

       4 CH3OH + 2 O2 -->  C4 + 8H2O    (again 50%)

(But really:)

       4 CH3OH + 2 O2 + 8 N2 --> C4 + 8H2O + 8 N2

    Now we are up to 21% volume expansion, but in actuality you get a
witches brew of various nitrogen compounds including nitrous oxides
and HCN (hydrogen cyanide) adding water, especially if you can manage
to inject it as a liquid, tremendously increases this ratio because 1)
the methanol really enters as CH3OH.H2O, 2) it suppresses the nitrous
oxide formation and 3) it slows soot formation, favoring formation of
formic acid.

    Usually for full performance engines are pushed to between carbon
monoxide and soot formation at full throttle, and no self respecting
drag crew would run an engine at full throttle for more than, say,
three minutes without stripping it down and cleaning out the carbon
buildup.  Even at that blown engines are a regular occurance.  (Repeat
after me: graphite is the best lubricant, soot is the worst.
Fullerenes may help explain why this is so.)

    Been a long time since I did any of this...

--

					Robert I. Eachus

with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudeneachus cudfnRobert cudlnEachus cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.18 / David Seghers /  Re: D2O Addition to Griggs Set Up
     
Originally-From: seghers_david/hp5000_zp@openmail2.corp.hp.com (David Seghers)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: D2O Addition to Griggs Set Up
Date: 18 Oct 1994 20:07:30 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard

In article <37uper$efa@fnnews.fnal.gov>, Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege) says:
>  A zero point producer? 

One can always hope!
>
>I repeat, all I can do on a trip to Cartersville is to talk with
>the participants about their experimental technique and to make
>a general judgement as to whether they possibly have an unexpected
>effect.  

This is would be perfect from my perspective.  And sometimes it is
the "outsider" who makes a breakthrough observation.  (Uh, let the
air out of the tires....)
>
>I can then do little more than write a bland report.

Bland would be good, and probably good news.  I doubt seriously 
whether it would be allowed to *stay* bland after a few of the 
regulars have had a read....  (Who says phlogiston doesn't exist!)
>
>Then the real test is to see if I spend $20,000 to have 3 phase 440
>brought into my basement.  

I trust your curiosity to get you into trouble.  Come now, I'm sure you 
would design a self-powered test system!
>
>Tom Droege

David Seghers (seghers@hpcc01.HP.COM) 415-691-3730
************************************************************************
Solipsist Society, Founding Member  (I think, therefore you are.)
Charter member of the "I HATE vi!" Club.
************************************************************************
The statements and opinions above are my own, entirely my own, and no one
else's.
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenhp5000_zp cudfnDavid cudlnSeghers cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.18 / Doug Shade /  SL Question, Requisite Field Intensity ?
     
Originally-From: rxjf20@email.sps.mot.com (Doug Shade)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: SL Question, Requisite Field Intensity ?
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 1994 23:00:08 GMT
Organization: Motorola LICD

Took a first crack at SL last night... nothing to report....

Anyone know what sound field intensities are required to get the
characteristic cavitation/blue glow?

(Without calibration) I think I was around 2.5 W/CM^2.

Is a reflector (spherical flask) required (if so, that hints at higher
sound pressures being required).  Thanks and regards.

Doug Shade
rxjf20@email.sps.mot.com
....refusing to ask for directions on the Information Super Highway


Doug Shade
rxjf20@email.sps.mot.com
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenrxjf20 cudfnDoug cudlnShade cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.18 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Vacuum energy
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Vacuum energy
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 1994 22:08 -0500 (EST)

What is the present theory on Vacuum or zero point energy?  Does it exist in
our present 3 dimensions as some hard to detect particle, such as a neutrino,
or is it postulated to exist in a different dimension?  Or if neither of these,
just where does this tetra-joule level of energy exist where it is virtually
undetectable by physical systems.

                                                                Marshall
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.19 / Stefan Hartmann /  Free Energy Machine MPEG movie posted !
     
Originally-From: harti@uropax.contrib.de (Stefan Hartmann)
Newsgroups: sci.energy,sci.environment,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Free Energy Machine MPEG movie posted !
Date: 19 Oct 1994 10:14:23 +0100
Organization: Contributed Software GbR

Hi,

I just posted a new movie of the famous Methernitha Testatika Free Energy 
machine inside the newschannel:

alt.binaries.multimedia   and
alt.binaries.pictures.misc

Please uudecode it from there and UNZIP it and you will get the MPEG file
and a readme.txt with hints how to view it .

This is the future of clean energy production with no more environmental
pollution. Have a look at it  and copy it to all the people,
who care about our planet.

Regards, Stefan Hartmann.
email to:
harti@contrib.de

cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenharti cudfnStefan cudlnHartmann cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.19 / Richard Blue /  Consider experimental evidence
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Consider experimental evidence
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 1994 16:52:52 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Since Dave Davies expresses his distrust of the current state of
theory relating to the dueteron, perhaps it would help to consider
that there is actually some experimental observations that bear on
the questions.

One handle that can resolve questions relating to a determination
as to whether there is some degeneracy between two or more states
that overlap in energy is to add a perturbation which can remove
the degeneracy.  One common way to do that is to impose a magnetic
field on the system in question.  If the ground state of the
deuteron were, in fact, an s-state and a d-state one would assume
that the magnetic moments of these two states would be observably
different.  Experimental measurements good to 10 or 12 significant
figures (as I recall) show no such splitting.

There is, of course, a host of measurements on nuclear systems that
indicate the presence of a noncentral term in the nucleon-nucleon
interaction Hamiltonian.  I suppose one can find some other way
to deal with the problems left if one chooses to insist that all
fundamental interactions must be central, but why bother?
Given that we have a model for the deuteron wavefuction that says
the groundstate is nonspherical and the experimental observations
confirm this how could a pure s-state manifest itself as being
distinct from the s-d mixture that conforms to experimental
observations?  Dave Davies, I believe, is proposing an added
degeneracy in order alter the thermodynamics involved in an exchange
of energy between the nuclear and atomic degrees of freedom.  That
brings me back to the old business of special pleading - insisting
that cold fusion can involve some physics that does not show up
in any other circumstances.  If the magic is all in the deuteron
ground state why has it not had its effect on other systems?
Make a prediction and put it to an experimental test.  That way
perhaps we could move beyond suggestions that quantum mechanics
is in need for a major revision to accommodate cold fusion.

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.19 / K Jonsson /  Re: GG Improvements
     
Originally-From: kvj@rhi.hi.is (Kristjan Valur Jonsson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: GG Improvements
Date: 19 Oct 1994 11:34:54 GMT
Organization: University of Iceland

In <EACHUS.94Oct17162228@spectre.mitre.org> eachus@spectre.mitre.org
(Robert I. Eachus) writes:

>In article <14OCT199417493109@mars.lerc.nasa.gov> edwlt12@mars.lerc.nas
.gov (Mike Jamison (ADF)) writes:
>altitude in the amount of power it can generate by the amount of air
>that it can suck into the engine.  If you add water (and more fuel)
>you can burn more of the hydrogen and oxygen and generate more gases
>per cubic foot (or litre) of air sucked in.  (You have seen the
>exhaust from a diesel engine--or an F-4 Phantom II?  That black smoke
>is carbon soot.  For maximum power-not maximum fuel efficiency--you
>can burn the hydrogen out of the hydrocarbon and leave the carbon
>behind.)  So at the same temperature and same compression you get more
>power.
(A strange place for this discussion)
I don't fully understand what you are saying.  Are you saying that
the water gets seperated into  H and O which then recombines?  This
is the explanation I have often heard but it is obviously bogus (unless
there is the Griggs effect present in the fast moving vapour).  Could
you produe a chemical equation?
(Actually I shoudl know all this having just recently completed a course
on combustion engines)

Kristjan

-- 
Kristjan Valur Jonsson               |    The individual does not qualify for
Student of mechanical engineering,   |         making decisions regarding the
University of Iceland                |                 activities of the many.
Exclaimer: Yess!                     |                         (Helmut, 1993)
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenkvj cudfnKristjan cudlnJonsson cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.19 / K Jonsson /  Re: GG Improvements
     
Originally-From: kvj@rhi.hi.is (Kristjan Valur Jonsson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: GG Improvements
Date: 19 Oct 1994 11:39:10 GMT
Organization: University of Iceland

In <37u93p$onh@coranto.ucs.mun.ca> court@newton.physics.mun.ca (John Lewis) writes:

>WWII German aircraft used methanol-water.
>I think that water injection is still used - at least,
>when I rode in the cockpit of a HS 746[8?] in 1982,
>they used water injection into the gas turbines (2 turboprops)
>for extra power during takeoff.
I am fairly certain that my professor explained the effect as being that
the evaporation (water) cooled the working fluid thus allowing a higher
mass flow rate.  I suppose water has a higher specific heat of evaporation
than parafine.

Kristjan

-- 
Kristjan Valur Jonsson               |    The individual does not qualify for
Student of mechanical engineering,   |         making decisions regarding the
University of Iceland                |                 activities of the many.
Exclaimer: Yess!                     |                         (Helmut, 1993)
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenkvj cudfnKristjan cudlnJonsson cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Thu Oct 20 04:37:03 EDT 1994
------------------------------
1994.10.19 /  prasad /  Zero point energy problem, was Re: Vacuum energy
     
Originally-From: c1prasad@watson.ibm.com (prasad)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Zero point energy problem, was Re: Vacuum energy
Date: 19 Oct 1994 13:37:57 GMT
Organization: IBM Watson

In article <WAF2PCB220069895@brbbs.brbbs.com>, mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com
(MARSHALL DUDLEY) writes:
|> What is the present theory on Vacuum or zero point energy?  Does it exist in
|> our present 3 dimensions as some hard to detect particle, such as a neutrino,
|> or is it postulated to exist in a different dimension?  Or if neither of these,
|> just where does this tetra-joule level of energy exist where it is virtually
			^^^^^ tera?
|> undetectable by physical systems.

TJ (tera-joule) would be an understatement - re: renormalization.

All I seem to recall is that Dr Puthoff [having so far Put-off reading his
original papers;)] has demonstrated that inertia can be modelled by the
zero-point fluctuations.  I don't know whether he has also been able to
theoretically *prove* that the zero-point energy can be made available.

I tend to be more skeptical of that than the cold fusion exercise, simply
because the energy in question pertains to elementary particles in their
lowest order bound states.  It sounds like tapping the energy of the orbiting
electrons around atoms.  At a macroscopic level, it appears a lot less
coherent than ordinary heat, so straightening out the zero-point momentum
(else how do you get *coherent* energy) seems like violating the second law.
Even if the ZPE is only availed of as heat, it still involves bringing
up the entropy from the elementary particle level to the molecular level,
which still sounds like stepping over the second law.  Fusion, hot or cold,
involves no such violation.

If Puthoff has indeed proved the feasibility of ZPE, I'd like to see the
proof in layman's language, without obscuring the thermodynamic perspective
with a whole lot of QED/QCD equations.  Till the Puthoff theory reaches
that level of clarity, I'm feel that his experiments will remain as
inconclusive as CF or the myriad free-energy experiments reported to date.

Many experimentalists don't seem to appreciate this, that a Lorentz theory
that was designed to explain the Michelson-Morley experiments was bound
to remain somewhat unsatisfactory, and only a clear Einsteinian theory
founded on more basic premises was required for building our understanding
and use of nature.  In the CF case, the experiments are not yet as
definitive as M&M's, and we have many Lorentz's attempting what I might
call "local theories" to fit their results.  The ZPE case appears to have
even less following, and I'd think the theory so far has not yet been
shown to be thermodynamically sound either.

cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenc1prasad cudlnprasad cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.18 / Bruce TK /  Re: Impact fusion (recreational question)
     
Originally-From: bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce       Scott          TK  )
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Impact fusion (recreational question)
Date: 18 Oct 1994 12:06:08 +0100
Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching


In article <37urnq$nj2@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk>, nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk (Nick Maclaren) writes:

> Take a small (say 1 micron) bead of lithium hydride, charge it up
> to the eyeballs, accelerate it similarly and put something in the
> way.  This is not unrelated to inertial fusion.  

The problem is that the energy is not symmetrically deposited. In order to
get the compression you need in inertial fusion, the compression of a
spherical pellet must be as symmetric as possible. Otherwise there will
simply be an overturning motion which will allow the heated part in the
center to escape rather than be compressed.

-- 
Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de                               -- W Gibson
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnTK cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.19 / John Logajan /  Re: Phase change in TEFLON = spurious xs heat?
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@mirage.skypoint.net (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Phase change in TEFLON = spurious xs heat?
Date: 19 Oct 1994 15:13:58 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

jonesse@vanlab.byu.edu wrote:
: BYU Prof. Lee Hansen noted to
: me recently that teflon undergoes a phase change near 25 C, and that in this
: phase change considerable heat may be released which may then be mistaken for
: "excess" heat.  

Well, if anyone wants to send me some teflon, say a half pound (or half
a kilogram) or so of teflon (scrap pieces, lathe and mill turnings, etc)
I would be willing to run them up and down the temperature range using
the same general techniques I used to check out the Thermacore calibration.

If there is "considerable" heat release from the phase change at 25 C,
I think I ought to be able to detect it.

--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com  --  612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA -
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.19 / Ben Burch /  Re: D2O Addition to Griggs Set Up
     
Originally-From: Ben_Burch@wes.mot.com (Ben Burch)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: D2O Addition to Griggs Set Up
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 1994 23:05:41 GMT
Organization: Motorola, Inc.

In article <37uper$efa@fnnews.fnal.gov>, Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
wrote:

> Then the real test is to see if I spend $20,000 to have 3 phase 440
> brought into my basement.  

Ah, Tom?  Is there something magical about the electric motors Griggs
uses?  I mean, couldn't a scale device be built that would run on ordinary
220v two-phase, or even 120v power?  I am thinking about perhaps a washing
machine motor...

The other question to ask about this device is;  Even if it isn't a free
energy device of any sort, is it a really efficient heating plant?  That
alone would be a neat result.

-- 
"I don't speak for Motorola; They don't speak for me."
-Ben Burch                 | Motorola Wireless Data Group:
Ben_Burch@wes.mot.com      | Makers of the Envoy(R) Personal 
 --------------------------| Wireless Communicator
Envoy(R) Information Line;   1-800-535-5775
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenBen_Burch cudfnBen cudlnBurch cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.20 / Michael Mazur /  To SL Doug Something
     
Originally-From: mjmazur@acs.ucalgary.ca (Michael James Mazur)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: To SL Doug Something
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 1994 06:50:13 GMT
Organization: The University of Calgary

Hi Doug,
I'm not sure how much of this message you'll receive so I'll give
you my email address right off, mjmazur@acs.ucalgary.ca.  I don't
really understand why Sci.physics.fusion is the place to talk about
SL but oh well. If you haven't already done so, you should check
out articles by Gaitan, Crum, Barber and others found in the Journal
of the Acoustical Society of america. I could send you a list of
good papers if you'd like when I'm not having problems with my editor. 
 The sound pressure amplitudes required for stable SL are generally
about 1.2 to 1.4 atmospheres of pressure. Greater than 1.4 atm
and you get transient SL. Transient SL is b very faint. You'll
need to dark adapt for about 20min in a completly daek dark room.
Use gassy water and crank up the power till you see a faint glow.
For stable SL you'll need to use very well degassed water. Oh yeah,
use areou around a 30% by volume glycerine water mixture. 

As for flask shape, I have two. One is a 100ml spherical flask
with two cylindrical piezoelectric transducers mounted opposite
one another. I t wour works well for the stable SL. The other is
like Gaitan's. A cylindrical flask made of 2 transducers joined
by a cylindrical quartz tube.
For stable SL you'll need to inject a bubble into teh water as
well. If the bubbles immediately dissapear, you're above the stable
SL threshold. If they rise quickly then you're too low. In this
way you can sort of bracket the right pressure amplitude. And make
sure that you're at teh resonant frequency of the flask. This editor
is bugging me so I'm going to quit now. Send me a message to let
me know that you've received this. If not I'll resend it. Any more
questions just ast ask. Do people really think that this is fusion?
Funny how none of serious (those who work with it everyday) seem
to think that it's any type of fusion. Oh well, just my two cents.
Good luck,
-mike
-- 

  Mike Mazur                
  mjmazur@acs1.ucalgary.ca  

cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenmjmazur cudfnMichael cudlnMazur cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.20 / Bruce Hamilton /  Water Injection - was Re: GG Improvements
     
Originally-From: B.Hamilton@irl.cri.nz (Bruce Hamilton)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Water Injection - was Re: GG Improvements
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 1994 09:08:11 GMT
Date: Sat, 28 May 94 19:17:21 GMT
Organization: Industrial Research Limited

In article <37vssg$hi8@huxley.anu.edu.au> 
drd851@huxley.anu.edu.au (David R Davies) writes:

>Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege) writes:
[ more deleted ]

>>>>Anyone remember that they they used to inject water into WWII
>>>>aircraft engines to give them a short term boost??  Perhaps it
>>>>was a cold fusion effect!!!
...
>To confuse the issue I thought it was to control the combustion rate
>(knock) so that lower octane fuel could be used. Lead worked better
>and produced a valuable side industry that still showers some cities with
>thousands of tons per year of lead compounds. To be fair, I think there
>were significant technical problems with water that made it impractical
>for cars.

>Now we have three versions that seem to conflict but on closer inspection
>can be interpreted to mean much the same thing.

Before  I comment on the above, let me include an earlier post 
of mine from sci.energy.
[start included post ]
Subj: Boost Fluids, was Water Injection
Date: Sat, 28 May 94 19:17:21 GMT

In article <9405260858.aa01528@post.demon.co.uk>, richard@mole.demon.co.uk (Ric
>Kevin Chisholm writes:
[ nice Spitfire/merlin details deleted ]

>>So, water injection does give extra power.
>I've seen it used to very good effect on drag-racing engines. I was told
>that it gave extra power because the heat of the gasoline or alcohol fuel
>liberated the oxygen and hydrogen from the water - the hydrogen gets burnt,
>and the oxygen assists the total combustion process.
>
>Maybe someone knows the truth?

What is truth? :-).
What you are talking about here are known as "boost fluids", they
are still used today in some aviation engines to produce power
for takeoff. I can not confirm what the merlin used, but because
of the danger of icing up, modern ones are mixtures of methanol
and water. 60:40 or 55:45 MeOH:H2O are common and are detailed
in various Aviation specifications such as the UK D.Eng.R.D. 2491.

The mechanism suggested above is nonsense. When a supercharged engine
is operated at high boost, the mixture has to be enriched to keep the
engine operating condition knock-free. This extra fuel cools the
cylinder wall and the charge, thus delaying the onset of knock which
would otherwise occur at the associated higher temperatures.

The overall effect of boost fluid injection is to permit a considerable
increase in knock-free engine power to be developed for the same
combustion chamber temperature, this power increase being obtained
from the higher allowable boost. In practice, the fuel mixture is
usually weakened when using boost fluid injection, and the ratio of the
two fluid flows is approx. 100 parts of fuel to 25 parts of boost fluid
( for methanol/water fluids ) The resulting performance with such a
ratio corresponds to an effective uprating of the fuel rich mixture
rating ( aka supercharge octane rating of the fuel )  by about 25%,
irrespective of the original rating value of the fuel.

The extent of power boosting is limited to about 40% in practice
( assuming adequate mechanical strength of the engine :-) ) as
going above this increases the possiility of "drowning" the engine
with excessive liquid, and also it is difficult to ensure even
manifold distribution of the fluid with larger amounts of boost fluid.

[ end included post ]

Now some people who play with fusion seem to be confusing
some chemical aspects of combustion, and the various 
IC engines that SI fuels are burned in. If anyone is actually interested
in what causes knock ( which occurs when the unburnt gases
ahead of the flame front  spontaneously ignite, giving rise to
an excessive rate of pressure rise, thereby causing the
characeristic knocking sound ) then they should refer to 
"The Chemical Kinetic of Engine Knock"  Charles K Westbrook
Energy & Technology Review. March 1991 p1-13. [ This is a
promo publication from LLNL I think ] There is similar article
in Chemistry & Industry (UK) 3 Aug 1992 p562-564.  

Perhaps if people require further clarification of the various
mechanisms ( the alkyl lead compounds work by interfering 
with medium temperature chain branching reactions, whereas
oxygenates work by retarding the low temperature reactions )
then this should be moved to sci.energy, I can'tchange followups.
I return you to your regular diet of fusion follies.

                      Bruce Hamilton
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenHamilton cudfnBruce cudlnHamilton cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.20 / Alan M /  Re: FUAQ for Griggs Device
     
Originally-From: Alan@moonrake.demon.co.uk ("Alan M. Dunsmuir")
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: FUAQ for Griggs Device
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 1994 06:07:23 +0000
Organization: Home

Now the cash is in, has anybody actually contacted Griggs to see when 
he can have Tom along? I'd hate this to degenerate into an example of 
how useless practically theoetical scientists can be. <g>

Alan M. Dunsmuir [@ his wits end]     (Can't even quote poetry right)

         I am his Highness' dog at Kew
         Pray tell me sir, whose dog are you?
			      [Alexander Pope]

PGP Public Key available on request.


cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenAlan cudfnAlan cudlnM cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.20 /  prasad /  Re: D2O Addition to Griggs Set Up
     
Originally-From: c1prasad@watson.ibm.com (prasad)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: D2O Addition to Griggs Set Up
Date: 20 Oct 1994 12:33:48 GMT
Organization: IBM Watson

In article <Ben_Burch-1910941756360001@macip111.pb.wes.mot.com>,
Ben_Burch@wes.mot.com (Ben Burch) writes:
|> 
|> The other question to ask about this device is;  Even if it isn't a free
|> energy device of any sort, is it a really efficient heating plant?  That
|> alone would be a neat result.

Yes, if you compare it with an electric oven, no, with respect to heat pumps.
The former produces 1 unit of heat for 1 unit of energy input.  Heat pumps
are known to produce upto 6 units, and there is nothing free energy about
them either (other than the Gibbs free energy!).

cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenc1prasad cudlnprasad cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Fri Oct 21 04:37:02 EDT 1994
------------------------------
1994.10.20 / Cameron Bass /  Re: D2O Addition to Griggs Set Up
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: D2O Addition to Griggs Set Up
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 1994 13:28:47 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <Ben_Burch-1910941756360001@macip111.pb.wes.mot.com>,
Ben Burch <Ben_Burch@wes.mot.com> wrote:
>
>The other question to ask about this device is;  Even if it isn't a free
>energy device of any sort, is it a really efficient heating plant?  

     The answer is no.  Viscous heating is no more 'efficient' than 
     electrical resistive heating, and significantly less efficient than the
     nearest heat pump around these parts.  And you have the added 'advantage'
     of moving parts...

                           dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.20 / James Crotinger /  Re: Working people
     
Originally-From: jac@gandalf.llnl.gov (James Crotinger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Working people
Date: 20 Oct 1994 17:35:21 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, NCD

In article <1994Oct17.222900.20798@Princeton.EDU> Robert F. Heeter
<rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> writes:
   On the other hand, it's not a big surprise that none of the MIT
   plasma grads in recent memory have stayed in plasma physics, and
   that many of them are now on Wall Street, as I believe Paul Stek
   reported recently.

  I guess that depends on how you define "recent". I finished in 1989
and have been doing MFE work at LLNL since then. Scott Haney finished
in 1988 and is here. Dave Humphreys is at GA. Ken Kupfer is also at
GA, but is considering getting out. There are also several that are
doing plasma physics in non-fusion areas. 

  I suspect that the fact that a lot more recent grads have not stayed
in plasma physics has more to do with the lack of openings than with
the fact that they want to get into some richer field. The job market
is extremely tight right now, and with TFTR winding down next year
(supposedly), it isn't likely to get better soon.

  Jim

-- 
 ------------------------------------------------/\--------------------------
James A. Crotinger     Lawrence Livermore N'Lab // \ The above views are mine
jac@moonshine.llnl.gov P.O. Box 808;  L-630 \\ //---\  and are not neces-
(510) 422-0259         Livermore CA  94550   \\/Amiga\  sarily those of LLNL.
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenjac cudfnJames cudlnCrotinger cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.20 / Cameron Bass /  Re: D2O Addition to Griggs Set Up
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: D2O Addition to Griggs Set Up
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 1994 17:34:39 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <385o3c$13ea@watnews1.watson.ibm.com>,
prasad <c1prasad@watson.ibm.com> wrote:
>In article <Ben_Burch-1910941756360001@macip111.pb.wes.mot.com>,
Ben_Burch@wes.mot.com (Ben Burch) writes:
>|> 
>|> The other question to ask about this device is;  Even if it isn't a free
>|> energy device of any sort, is it a really efficient heating plant?  That
>|> alone would be a neat result.
>
>Yes, if you compare it with an electric oven

      This is not correct, but just out of curiosity, in what way 
      do you think resistive heating *less* 'efficient' than a spinning 
      rotor in water? 

                               dale bass







cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.20 / Scott Mueller /  Tom's trip
     
Originally-From: zorch@ftp.UU.NET (Scott Hazen Mueller)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Tom's trip
Date: 20 Oct 1994 15:09:31 -0400
Organization: UUNET Communications

Hello folks,

I've talked to Jim Griggs, and he's OK with the idea of a visit.  If anyone
besides Dieter was waiting for this confirmation, please drop your
contribution in the mail - there are only 11 more days to go.

Thanks,

          \scott

cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenzorch cudfnScott cudlnMueller cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.20 / Wayne Folta /  Sonoluminescence: anything but the gas get hot?
     
Originally-From: folta@cs.umd.edu (Wayne Folta)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Sonoluminescence: anything but the gas get hot?
Date: 20 Oct 1994 17:11:23 -0400
Organization: U of Maryland, Dept. of Computer Science, Coll. Pk., MD 20742

I only know what I've read in the latest Science article on SL, so this
may be a dumb question...

The article indicated very high temperatures in the gas bubbles as they
collapsed. This evidently creates the glow. It also mentioned that there
is extrememly fast quenching, I assume by the liquid.

My question is: would things at the boundary of a collapsing bubble experience
the high temperatures inside the bubbles themselves? Might, for example,
heat-driven chemical reactions take place at the edges of the bubbles? If
the fluid is stirred gently, would all of the liquid eventually be exposed
to momentarily very high temperatures?

Or are these temperature bursts so brief that they could not affect anything
else? (Or might any stirring dislocate things and break down SL?)

Thanks!
-- 


Wayne Folta          (folta@cs.umd.edu)
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenfolta cudfnWayne cudlnFolta cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.20 / Richard Benear /  Zero point energy problem, was Re: Vacuum energy
     
Originally-From: rbenear@boi.hp.com (Richard Benear)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Zero point energy problem, was Re: Vacuum energy
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 1994 19:53:35 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard / Boise, Idaho

prasad at IBM Watson writes:

[some text removed]
>I don't know whether he has also been able to
>theoretically *prove* that the zero-point energy can be made available.

     Supposedly there was an experiment recently at SLAC to test 
     the inertia/gravity theory on electrons. 
     Does anyone know the outcome?

[some text removed]
>Even if the ZPE is only availed of as heat, it still involves bringing
>up the entropy from the elementary particle level to the molecular level,
>which still sounds like stepping over the second law.  Fusion, hot or cold,
>involves no such violation.

     You should read a paper by Daniel C. Cole (of IBM) and 
     Harold E. Puthoff of the Institute for Advanced Studies at Austin: 
          "Extracting Energy and Heat from the Vacuum.", Physical Review E,
          (I think it was Aug. or Sept. 93', the papers at home and I'm 
          at work, but I did save the abstract). 
 
     The Abstract reads: "Relatively recent propsals have been made 
     in the literature for extracting energy and heat from 
     electromagnetic zero-point radiation via the use of the Casimir 
     force. The basic thermodynamics involved in these proposals is 
     analyzed and clarified here, with the conclusion that, yes, in 
     principle these proposals are correct. Technological considerations
     for actual application and use are not examined here."

[some text removed]
> The ZPE case appears to have
>even less following, and I'd think the theory so far has not yet been
>shown to be thermodynamically sound either.

     Again, read the paper listed above, then point out where it is wrong.

     Also, you might be surprised by how many people are working in 
     this field (Stochastic Electrodynamics).

Regards,
Richard Benear
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenrbenear cudfnRichard cudlnBenear cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.20 / Tom Droege /  Tom to go to Rome?
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Tom to go to Rome?
Date: 20 Oct 1994 20:38:44 GMT
Organization: fermilab

All roads lead to Rome?  Rome GA that is.  I hear Griggs is
moving there.  Gosh, it really looks like I am going to have
to go.  Well, I said I would, and so I will go.  Sounds like
a December trip as Griggs will be moving.  Before I spend your
money, though, I will put up a careful outline of what I think
I might be able to do.  Then we can consider it one last time.

Tom
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.20 / Joe Guokas /  Re: SL Question, Requisite Field Intensity ?
     
Originally-From: joeguokas@aol.com (Joe Guokas)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: SL Question, Requisite Field Intensity ?
Date: 20 Oct 1994 20:01:01 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

In article <1994Oct18.230008.23097@newsgate.sps.mot.com>,
rxjf20@email.sps.mot.com (Doug Shade) writes re SL:

>Anyone know what sound field intensities are required to
>get the characteristic cavitation/blue glow?
>(Without calibration) I think I was around 2.5 W/CM^2.

If you seek single-bubble sonoluminescence (SBSL), the
acoustic pressure should be between 1.1 and 1.3
atmospheres.  (This info is from the review of
sonoluminescence by Lawrence A. Crum in the September
issue of Physics Today.)  What this is in terms of W/cm^2,
I don't know, but I suspect it would be frequency
dependent.

Good luck,
Joe Guokas
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenjoeguokas cudfnJoe cudlnGuokas cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.21 / David Davies /  Re: Questions for David Davies
     
Originally-From: drd851@huxley.anu.edu.au (David R Davies)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Questions for David Davies
Date: 21 Oct 1994 14:46:54 +1000
Organization: Australian National University


jonesse@vanlab.byu.edu writes:
 
>David R. Davies writes:

>"Also, as I have stated often, An extended sheet of excited He-stuff can
>transfer energy in vibrational modes to the lattice over a wide area."

>1.  How do you do this and still conserve momentum?  Keep in mind that
>a single helium nucleus must result eventually, and this has mass much
>less than that of the lattice.  It appears to me that the lighter particle
>necessarily acquires the lion's share of the energy of the reaction, in
>order to conserve momentum.  Do you see a way out?

>(When I pointed out this problem to Peter Hagelstein, he said "I think I see
>the guillotine blade falling," in so many words.)

>2.  How do you transfer energy (MeV remember) over a "wide area" of the
>lattice, which implies many angstroms, while still satisfying the uncertainty
>relation -- which limits the putative energy transfer to much less than an
>angstrom?

>Best wishes,
>Steven Jones
 
In the same way that my daughter can push me to great heights on a swing
and has been able to since she was a toddler. 
 
I am talking resonance so significant energy transfer is possible in time
but I cant even begin to demonstrate that the frequencies are right. It's
worth noting though that with nonlinear resonators the frequency is usually
a function of energy. 
 
If such a beast as a delocalized nucleus exists as a line or sheet of matter 
and charge then its vibrational modes would probably be quite constrained. 
We don't want too many miracles do we? The lattice, on the other hand has 
the potential for a wide range of vibrational modes. This is particularly so
if we are considering a surface or near-surface effect where we have expansion 
of the lattice as it relaxes toward the surface, adsorption and diffusion of 
oxygen and other elements, bubbles forming etc.  
 
Point 2 takes us back to the interpretation of QM. From my perspective, the 
existance of a delocalized nucleus presumes that the nucleus has already
established some degree of coherent interaction with its lattice environment.
Otherwise, incoherent interaction would tent to make it collapse back to
a point-like thingy. We are looking at a coherent and distributed interaction
between the nucleus, or multiple nuclei, with a phonon.

Consider the swing analogy. Take a row of swings occupied by heavy parents
with the seats of the swings tied together loosely with elastic cords. Behind
the swings is a row of children pushing the swings and singing to keep in time.
The dynamics of the system will be relatively simple if the children keep in
time and push with the same low strength. The children can even get out of time 
if this is done smoothly across the line. On a long line you could get standing
wave patterns built up but as the swings go higher you introduce nonlinearity
(remember swings are only simple harmonic oscillators, or linear resonators, for
the limit of small amplitudes). The dynamics will become more complex, tending 
toward chaotic until one of the children is hit by a swing, pandemonium breaks
out and all the other children rush to gather around the injured one - their
wavefunction has collapsed. We want to avoid that breakdown by having energy
passed on from these swings through to the whole lattice of swings. 

The key points are, I think, that the interaction is building up over the full 
spatial distribution of the nucleus and the interaction can progress at a rate
that is not dictated by the dynamics of gamma release. I am not saying that a
gamma is released and then re-absorbed in the lattice but that the compound 
system of nuclei and lattice give a quite different channel for the transfer 
of the energy that might take place on a time scale orders of magnitude slower
than it would in a gamma release. 

Have fun,

dave

cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudendrd851 cudfnDavid cudlnDavies cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.21 /  dowen@vaxc.cc. /  Re: Tom to go to Rome?
     
Originally-From: dowen@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Tom to go to Rome?
Date: 21 Oct 94 18:14:47 +1000
Organization: Computer Centre, Monash University, Australia

Hi Folks,
In article <386kgk$s9g@fnnews.fnal.gov>, Droege@fnal.fnal.gov
(Tom Droege) writes:
> All roads lead to Rome?  Rome GA that is.  I hear Griggs is
> moving there.  Gosh, it really looks like I am going to have
> to go.  Well, I said I would, and so I will go.  Sounds like
> a December trip as Griggs will be moving.  Before I spend your
> money, though, I will put up a careful outline of what I think
> I might be able to do.  Then we can consider it one last time.
> 
> Tom
 -----------------------------------------------------------
Tom,
Despite the positive vibes from Jed on the above, I remain
skeptical and feel sure there is a real, common sense explanation
for the `Griggs phenomenon'.It could be that the system is 
acting as a heat pump. This may well explain the excess heat,
so it may be as well to check for any abnormally cold areas
in the pumping system.
I believe that they have already tested for radiation, but if
it could be arranged, I for one would be interested in your
personal observations relating to neutron or gamma measurements.

P.S. Your mention of Rome prompts me to ask if anyone has heard
more of the Italian experiments?
Also, anymore news concerning Reifenschweiler's work?

Regards to all,
Daryl Owen.

cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudendowen cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.21 / Mark Hittinger /  New laser/HF project at livermore
     
Originally-From: bugs@warlock.win.net (Mark Hittinger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: New laser/HF project at livermore
Date: 21 Oct 1994 13:33:24 -0400
Organization: WIN.NET mail and news


There is news today that (just before the election) the Clinton administration
is going to propose a large laser project for livermore.  Some more hot-fusion
mula mula for those wealthy hot-fusion elite (jed!).  Nothing for Eneco tho.
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenbugs cudfnMark cudlnHittinger cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Sat Oct 22 04:37:03 EDT 1994
------------------------------
1994.10.21 / S TECHNOLOGIES /  Re: Sonoluminescence: anything but the gas get hot?
     
Originally-From: chilton@facom1.ch.intel.com (STRATEGIC INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Sonoluminescence: anything but the gas get hot?
Date: 21 Oct 1994 14:12 -0700
Organization: Intel Corporation

In article <386mdr$hn3@ringding.cs.umd.edu>, folta@cs.umd.edu (Wayne Folta) writes...
>I only know what I've read in the latest Science article on SL, so this
> 
>My question is: would things at the boundary of a collapsing bubble experience
>the high temperatures inside the bubbles themselves? Might, for example,
>heat-driven chemical reactions take place at the edges of the bubbles? If
>the fluid is stirred gently, would all of the liquid eventually be exposed
>to momentarily very high temperatures?
> 
>Or are these temperature bursts so brief that they could not affect anything
>else? (Or might any stirring dislocate things and break down SL?)
> 

There is a branch of chemistry, known as sonochemistry, that studies these
effects.  Increase in rates of a variety of reactions are reported.  The
energy is sufficient to ionize atoms and molecules.

Court "the lurker" Hilton
 -------------------------
My opinions only!!!
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenchilton cudfnSTRATEGIC cudlnTECHNOLOGIES cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.21 / Stefan Hartmann /  Free Energy MPEG movie via FTP !
     
Originally-From: harti@uropax.contrib.de (Stefan Hartmann)
Newsgroups: sci.energy,sci.physics.fusion,sci.environment
Subject: Free Energy MPEG movie via FTP !
Date: 21 Oct 1994 23:53:01 +0100
Organization: Contributed Software GbR

Hi,

I just made the Testatika Free Energy Machine MPEG video
available at the FTP site:

ftp.cs.tu-berlin.de

Please get it from the /incoming directory.

It is called:

TESTATI1.ZIP

It is about 2.3 MB big.

Please get it from there, if you had problems to retrieve it from the 
newschannel, where I posted it in a.b.multimedia and a.b.p.misc

You have to use
vmpeg12a.zip  on DOS/WIndows
mpeg_play  on UNIX
Sparkle on MAcs  

to view it. XingIt viewer on Win3.x will not work, cause it is full
IBP frame resolution at 352x264 .

You can see Mr. Bauman of Methernitha light a 100 Watts bulbs from the
Testatika machine, which puts out about 3 KW of free energy,
just extracted from the surrounding ionized air particles...

This device might also tap some zero point energy.
They still keep it unfortunately secret. Write to them to get more info.

Regards, Stefan.


cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenharti cudfnStefan cudlnHartmann cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.21 / Marlon Griffith /  Re: Vacuum energy
     
Originally-From: Marlon A. Griffith <mgriffit@watarts.uwaterloo.ca>
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Vacuum energy
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 1994 19:11:28 GMT
Organization: U. of Waterloo

Hi, I also find Dr. Puthoff's articles very math intensive, but
if you want to examine
one of his articles about extracting energy from the vacuum,
here is a reference:
  Cole, Daniel C. and Puthoff, Harold E. "Extracting energy and
heat from the
  vacuum." _Physical Review E(I think, but one of the Physical
Reviews)_ vol. 48,
  no. 2 (August 1993), p. 1562-1565.
  
Have fun,
Marlon.
********************************************************
*                                                      *
* marlonAGriffith   mgriffit@watarts.uwaterloo.ca      *
********************************************************
*                                                      *
* "Nature has no secrets - only we have limitations in *
*  in the way we approach Nature."                     *
*                                  Christopher Seebach *
********************************************************
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenmgriffit cudfnMarlon cudlnGriffith cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.22 / Alan M /  Rothwell fan club
     
Originally-From: Alan@moonrake.demon.co.uk ("Alan M. Dunsmuir")
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Rothwell fan club
Date: Sat, 22 Oct 1994 06:51:21 +0000
Organization: Home

Looks like Jed might have deserted us here, temporarily, as he did 
sci.skeptic when the questioning there got too probing and his bland 
statements of 'fact' began to be challenged.

Does anybody know what Compuserve Forums he likes to frequent?

Alan M. Dunsmuir [@ his wits end]     (Can't even quote poetry right)

         I am his Highness' dog at Kew
         Pray tell me sir, whose dog are you?
			      [Alexander Pope]

PGP Public Key available on request.


cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenAlan cudfnAlan cudlnM cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.21 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Breakeven Yet?
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Breakeven Yet?
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 1994 03:55:06 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <1994Oct17.222856.20736@Princeton.EDU> Robert F. Heeter
<rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> writes:
>In article <37jp71$o0v@coranto.ucs.mun.ca> Grant Buffett,
>gbuffett@morgan.ucs.mun.ca writes:
>> 	Sorry if this sounds ignorant on my part, but I haven't been 
>> following the latest on fusion reactors.  Has anyone been successful in 
>> reaching breakeven with laser or inertia fusion?  I suspect not, but
>I'm 
>> just curious.

>Laser/inertial fusion, so far as I know, is a little behind.

>TFTR has reached Power Out / Power In of about 0.3 this year,
>during a 9 MW shot in May.  Plans are afoot to try to break 10 MW
>sometime during the next year.

"Oh wow!  Bet that orta melt the concrete."  

Why do you assume the query is about "scientific" break even, and 
don't you think it is important to note the difference for the 
"curious" surfer?? 

>Actually, TFTR has demonstrated plasma parameters of the type
>needed in a real powerplant, so we actually feel reasonably 
>confident that we have demonstrated the scientific possibility 
>of making fusion work.  

What are you talking about??   (of the type??)   What importance 
is the significance of "scientific fusion" in the quest for 
commercial use, except as silly hype for more funding from the 
naive person of congress?  

If you are still talking about the importance of demonstrating
the possibility that "scientific" fusion ( not scientific possibility)
may work, then I think we are in serious trouble.  Bob knows what
I'm talking about, assuming you are concerned for the ultimate goal
of commercial breakeven yields.   

>The two new experiments, ITER and TPX, as well as 
>continuing work on other, smaller, less advanced machines, are
>intended to address these issues.

Yes, we would't want to turn off the welfare trough.  It's hard 
for me to imagine a currently operating machine that is less 
advanced than the tokamak, or are we speaking of more archaic
tokamaks (such as the clever high field Alcator??  Bob?).      

>***************************
>Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
>Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University
>As always, I represent only myself, and not PPPL
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc, Bx 1037 Prometheus II Ltd, College Park MD 20741-1037    |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.22 / John White /  What Tom Droege could do with Griggs device
     
Originally-From: jnw@jazzmin.vnet.net (John N. White)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: What Tom Droege could do with Griggs device
Date: 22 Oct 1994 00:18:25 -0400
Organization: Vnet Internet Access, Inc. - Charlotte, NC. (704) 374-0779

Tom Droege writes:
> I repeat, all I can do on a trip to Cartersville is to talk with
> the participants about their experimental technique and to make
> a general judgement as to whether they possibly have an unexpected
> effect.  

It would be very easy to clamp an AC clamp-on amp-meter onto one of the
motor leads. If the input power were really decreasing then I would
expect the current to decrease. But if the power meter, designed for
60Hz, is being fooled by vibrations sent back through the motor, then
I would expect the amp-meter to read high.

Also, it might be useful to have a description of the "horrific noise"
that the pump makes.

jnw@vnet.com
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenjnw cudfnJohn cudlnWhite cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.22 / Scott Mueller /  Letter to Jim Griggs
     
Originally-From: scott@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Scott Hazen Mueller)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Letter to Jim Griggs
Date: Sat, 22 Oct 1994 18:27:34 GMT
Organization: At Home; Salida, CA

I've put the following letter in the mail today.

             \scott




                                                          4108 Killigrew Drive
                                                          Salida, CA 95368
                                                          October 22, 1994



James L. Griggs
V.P. Research
Hydro Dynamics Inc.
611 Grassdale Rd.
Cartersville, GA 30120

Dear Mr. Griggs:

I am writing in regard to our phone conversation of Thursday, October 20th
of this year.  I would like to set forth some information about our proposal
to send someone to visit your lab and examine one of your pumps.

We are the readers and submitters to the Usenet newsgroup "sci.physics.fusion",
or s.p.f.  Usenet is a logical network of thousands of computers that exchange
messages in a number of discussion areas, each called a newsgroup.  The
newsgroup "sci.physics.fusion" was formed in 1989 in response to the
announcement by Drs. Pons and Fleischmann that they had discovered a new
phenonenom, commonly called "Cold Fusion".  For the past five years the
participants of s.p.f have been discussing the possibility of the Pons and
Fleischmann results, and a few members have performed various experiments and
posted the results on the newsgroup.

One of our participants is a gentleman named Thomas Droege.  Tom has performed
a number of experiments and has shared the results and his experimental designs
with the group.  Jed Rothwell and Eugene Mallove are also participants, and
have mentioned the anomalous results displayed by your pumps.  In the ensuing
discussion, Steve Jones of BYU proposed that the participants of s.p.f could
send Tom Droege to your facility to meet with you, examine your pump, take some
measurements, and present a report to the newsgroup.

Several people responded positively, and I volunteered to be the treasurer for
the trip.  We have amassed sufficient funds to send Tom for a visit, and my
understanding from our conversation Thursday is that we have your concurrence.
Tom will be contacting you soon to make the final arrangements.

We are looking forward to seeing Tom's report.

                        Thank you,




                        Scott Hazen Mueller,
                        for the members of sci.physics.fusion



cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenscott cudfnScott cudlnMueller cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.23 / Barry Merriman /  Re: What Tom Droege could do with Griggs device
     
Originally-From: barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What Tom Droege could do with Griggs device
Date: Sun, 23 Oct 94 00:29:55 GMT
Organization: UCLA, Mathematics Department

It would also be good to find out if they have measured the 
response curve ( excess heat vs rotor frequency )

--
Barry Merriman
UCLA Dept. of Math
UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)


cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.22 /  nachtrieb@edge /  Alcator C-Mod Weekly Highlights, 19941020
     
Originally-From: nachtrieb@edge1.pfc.mit.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Alcator C-Mod Weekly Highlights, 19941020
Date: 22 OCT 94 23:28:55 GMT
Organization: MIT PLASMA FUSION CENTER

			Alcator C-MOD Weekly Highlights
				October 20, 1994

The maintenance period is continuing this week. We continue to make
excellent progress toward our scheduled October pump-down.

All bus and coax connections to the coils in the upper half of the
machine were completed. The curved busses were connected to the main
copper bus at the bus tunnel. Insulation of the bus is complete.
Hi-potting and ringing of the coils and cold bus has been carried out.

The cryostat, including the transition to the bus tunnel, has been
installed and sealed. Gas purge of the cryogenics system will begin
today. We now have two PC's monitoring the CRYO PLC (Programmable
Logic Control; system run by inexpensive personal computers);
response time to the PLC has been improved.

Working on the vacuum system is progressing well. All the main
horizontal flanges have been installed, with the exception of the two
left open for manned access. The pumping station has been installed
and the turbopumps are operating. All upper vertical teardrop adaptors
have been installed, and the upper and lower vertical port cross
assemblies are going on.

In-vessel work is also proceeding well. The halo current shunts on the
outer divertor modules are being re-installed, following modifications
to improve their performance and reliability. The E-port ICRF (Ion
Cyclotron Resonance Frequency; heating mechanism) antenna has been
installed, and the final installation of the D-port antenna is in
progress.  Baffles for the Thomson scattering have been installed in
the G-port verticals. The divertor gas gauge cables have been hooked
up.

Connection of the vessel heaters and thermocouples is in progress. All
of the lower heaters and TC's (Thermocouple; measures temperature) and
most of those at the horizontal ports are now connected. Checkout of
the HEAT system is proceeding.

Routing of cables around the outside of the cryostat has been
completed. Power and lighting under the machine have been
connected. The Northeast stairway to the diagnostic stand is back in
place. Re-installation of diagnostic systems is underway.

All of the igloo blocks, except for those near the bus tunnel, are now
in place. The remaining blocks should be installed today.

Checkout of the power systems has begun in preparation for high-power
testing and operation.

Doug McCune of PPPL (Princeton Plasma Physics Lab) spent two days at
Alcator this week, consulting on our use of the TRANSP (Princeton
TRANSPort computer code) code. A mechanism has been established for
PPPL to support the modifications we have made to TRANSP including the
interface to MDSplus (Model Driven System; a programming environment)
and the user interface. This will also facilitate the use of TRANSP at
other institutions, such as TCV, which also use MDSplus.
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudennachtrieb cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Sun Oct 23 04:37:02 EDT 1994
------------------------------
1994.10.23 / Robert Heeter /  Re: Conv. Fusion FAQ (Part 2/5 Envir) - "benign" vs low toxicity
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Conv. Fusion FAQ (Part 2/5 Envir) - "benign" vs low toxicity
Date: Sun, 23 Oct 1994 04:18:38 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

In article <Cy3pA8.GsH@world.std.com> mitchell swartz, mica@world.std.com
writes:
>   In Subject: Conventional Fusion FAQ Section 2/11 
> (Energy) Part 2/5 (Environmental)
> Message-ID: <1994Oct17.225046.3089@Princeton.EDU>
> Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> writes:
>
> =heeter  "The only sources of radioactive waste
> =heeter in a D-T reactor are stray tritium atoms and the reactor 
> =heeter structure which is exposed to neutron radiation.  
> =heeter Tritium is a relatively benign radioactive element, because:
> =heeter (a) It doesn't emit strong radiation when it decays, so it's
> =heeter      only hazardous if one breathes it in or ingests it.
> =heeter (b) It generally shows up in one's body as water, and your body
> =heeter      flushes out its water fairly frequently, so tritium won't
> =heeter      build up in a living creature. (Unlike many fission
> =heeter    reaction products.)
> =heeter (c) It has a moderate half-life, only 12 years or so.  This
> =heeter      means that it won't be around forever, so it doesn't
> =heeter      create a long-term waste problem.  On the other hand,
> =heeter      it probably won't decay in the few days that pass 
> =heeter      while it's in one's body, which is also good."
> 
>    Regarding the connotation, this word "benign" is not correct.
> Tritium is not a relatively benign radioactive element, but is rather a 
> radioactive element of low toxicity.

Mitch, I still don't see why one couldn't describe it as "relatively
benign."
 
>   Tritium (3H)  has low toxicity, putting it in the group with 
> 7Be, 14C, 18F and some other nuclides.   That is their category in the
> spectrum of these isotopes.

According to what criteria?
 
>    Furthermore, regarding the denotation this word is incorrect.
> 
> --->  benign    (after Webster, ibid.)     from Latin benignus
>                   meaning ---- >   to be born well.  
>     1)  of a gentle disposition
>     2)  of a mild character
>     3)   manifesting kindness and gentleness.

Again, I claim that relative to other radioactive nuclides, 
tritium has a relatively mild character and gentle disposition,
and therefore could be described as "relatively benign."

While this may not be the standard technical term used in
some book you feel like citing, I don't think you're right in 
denying that the statement "tritium is a relatively benign 
radioactive element" is an accurate use of the English language.
 
>    If the word "benign" is to apply to hydrogen isotopes it would
> be protium or deuterium.  Or do you disagree and claim that they are not
> benign?

Any use of "benign" clearly depends on context.  Protium in the
Hindenburg was not bengin, but protium in water is generally benign.
Etc.

>    Alternatively, since ALL of the deuterium is from the BIG BANG,
> given the origin of the word benign, perhaps it should only apply to
deuterium.
> Others would claim only protium?   Which do you think?

Mitch, I said "relatively benign radioactive element."  That's an entirely
different thing.  Taking a single word out of context and arguing about it
is a waste of time for both of us.
 
>    The phrase "low toxicity" encompasses the character of tritium as a 
> radioactive element, and is therefore used in standard believable texts
> such as "Health Physics - Principles of Radiation Protection",
>  D.J. Rees, MIT 
> Press  1967). 

Would you care to give an up-to-date reference which explains the
standard health physics nomenclature?

>  Perhaps you have a reference for tritium being benign?  Please cite.

The reasons why tritium is *relatively* benign *as a radioactive element*
were given in the FAQ.  Would you care to disagree with the factual
details,
or are you just going to obsess about my choice of summary description? 
 
>  The word 'benign' in this regard by someone charged with learning
> about responsibility in this field is self-serving word-play which 
> has the appearance of potential contempt for either (or both)
> the environment and human health.   

Mitch, the section of the FAQ which we're discussing is the one which
discusses environmental aspects of fusion.  There is an entirely 
different, separate section on safety issues.  The distinction I'm
drawing between the two sections is that environmental hazards are
the long-term, diffuse hazards, and in this context tritium releases
from fusion reactors really aren't expected to have much of an 
effect on the environment.  In terms of accidents and other acute
hazards, tritium is certainly hazardous, and I'll discuss that in
the safety section.  I certainly didn't intend to convey a sense
of contempt for either the environment or human health, and I'll
take a look at revising the section to make that clearer.

> Please cite a text on
> radiation biology or health physics by a qualified physician
> that lists tritium as benign.   OK?

Mitch, I never said "tritium is benign".  Can you get that through your
head?

> IMHO, the study of radionuclides requires diligent seriousness
> during their handling and/or generation.  Right? or do you 
> disagree?

No, let's just spew the stuff all over the place!  Come on Mitch,
do you think I really don't care about safety?  Get real.
 
>  Therefore, 'low toxicity' to describe this material is simple, correct
> and more appropriate then anything approaching either the
> denotation or connotation of the word 'benign'.

No, "low toxicity," as I understand it, only describes the 
behavior of tritium as a potential toxin in an acute dose
in one's body.  It does not adequately summarize the character
of tritium as a low-level isotope diffused throughout the
environment, which was the context I was discussing.
If you would like to cite a recent text on environmental 
assessment of various possible diffuse radioactive 
pollutants, and not a 27 year-old manual on acute 
radiation protection, feel free to correct me on this topic.  

In the meantime, I still feel "relatively benign radioactive
element" is a better phrase than "low toxicity."

>  Any graduate student in this field, who purports to 
> be writing a FAQ, ought take the charge earnestly
> considering the job/responsibility.    or do you disagree?    ;-) X

Gee Mitch, after 10 months of writing what is now a 400K document,
I think I'll stop "taking the charge earnestly" (whatever that
means) and just start throwing around bogus and incorrect statements
to see how many people I can confuse and piss off.  Wouldn't that
be fun?  Get real.

I'm offended at your insinuations regarding my character
and sense of duty, smiley face or no smiley face.
 
> =heeter "Based on current tritium-handling knowledge and experience
> =heeter scientists believe that incidental releases of radiation 
> =heeter from fusion reactors will be comparable to releases from
> =heeter either fission or coal plants." 
> 
>   What radiation release from a coal plants?

Hello, Mitch?  Coal contains various radioactive elements in it
as natural impuritites.  These elements are concentrated by the
combustion process, and released almost indiscriminately into the
environment afterwards.  Surely you don't expect to just mine
a bunch of rock, burn it, and have no radioactive elements at
all released into the surface environment?

> To plan for any such release of a "benign" radioactive material has
> an element of negligence and lack of responsibility.   Could you
> explain this further?

On the contrary, no containment system is ever perfect, and 
*not* to assess the level of operational leakage would be negligent
and irresponsible.  There are minor emissions of all sorts of
radioactive materials from both coal and fission plants all the
time.  They're so minor that we live with them everyday, and most
people don't even think about them.  From an environmental standpoint,
fusion is comparable to fission and coal in this respect, and perhaps
slightly better because of the *relatively* benign nature of tritium
(from fusion) compared to uranium daughter products (fission) or
uranium, thorium, and uranium daughter products (coal).

> Would you not agree that one should treat these materials seriously if 
> one wants to engender respect for this important field.

Of course.  Being aware that fusion has radiological advantages over
fission from an environmental point of view is very important, 
which is why I went to such pains to describe tritium in the FAQ.  
Again, if you want to discuss the hazards of acute exposure to
tritium from possible accidents and catastrophes, please wait until
I distribute the safety section of the FAQ.

> =heeter  "In a fusion economy, the
> =heeter contribution of tritium to one's radiation exposure will be
> =heeter orders of magnitude less than natural exposure to things like
> =heeter radon, cosmic rays, etc; and also much less than man-made 
> =heeter exposure to things like medical x-rays."
>    
>   Direct "down-wind" exposure to negligent quantities of tritium can
yield 
> exposures exceeding x-ray, radon, exposures received in some settings.
>   Or do you disagree?

What's a "negligent quantity of tritium?"
Heaven forbid that I use *that* phrase in an FAQ; as far as I can tell
it doesn't mean anything at all.  How can a "quantity" be negligent?

As I've said before, the safety risks of accidental tritium releases
are not the same as the environmental hazard of incidental tritium
releases in a fusion economy.  I certainly agree that if a terrorist
managed to blow up a fusion reactor containment building and destroy
the reactor, there could be some acute safety problems from the
tritium.  On the other hand, these safety problems would again be
*relatively* less than the comparable problem of someone blowing
up a fission reactor, because *tritium is a relatively benign
radioactive element.*

> Since you claim to know about these things please give some
> quantitative levels of expected exposures and relative background
> levels of comparison values in your FAQ.   

This is a good idea.

I'll present some quantitative estimates of acute exposures
in the safety section.

I'll also include quantitative data on the relative hazards of
the diffuse operational emissions of radioactive materials from
fission, fusion, and coal, as compared to background exposure,
in the next version of the environmental section.  I thought
"orders of magnitude less than natural exposure" and "comparable
to emissions from fission and coal plants" was an adequate summary
of the consensus viewpoint, but apparently that's not so.

********************************************************
Robert F. Heeter
rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University
Conventional Fusion FAQ Maintainer
* Not representing Princeton; just speaking my mind. *
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.23 / Robert Heeter /  Re:  Working People
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re:  Working People
Date: Sun, 23 Oct 1994 04:45:30 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

In article <380ncj$gh6@bmerhc5e.bnr.ca> Stanley T.H. Chow, schow@bnr.ca
writes:
> In article <1994Oct17.222900.20798@princeton.edu>,
> Robert F. Heeter  <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> wrote:
> >Any industry executive would be overjoyed if his company were
> >making the sort of technical progress fusion has made for the past 
> >15 years.
> 
> Hmm, 15 years planning horizon; sounds quite a bit longer than even
> the famed Japanese attention span. As for the US business crowd, I don't
> think you are even in the right ball park.

Negative.  I didn't say "planning horizon."  I said "progress... for the
past 15 years."  Actually, make it 20.  The fusion power produced in
a reactor has advanced 8 orders of magnitude in 20 years, or about
an order of magnitude every 2.5 years.  Now show me the manager
who wouldn't be happy to have his performance indicator multiply by
10 every 2.5 years.

> >And I'm afraid that in the R&D business, with Congress looking
> >to cut budgets anywhere it can, if you don't produce, you don't get
> >funded.  So I don't think it's that different.
> 
> Ah, but in the R&D "business", product is not the same as profit, it is
> not even the same as useful. As several threads have discussed before,
> come budget time, one expect lots of flashy experimental results (which 
> are often/usually useless in terms of science). 

Actually, results stay in discussion long enough that you can use 
anything you want from the previous year in the current year's 
budget discussions.  There wasn't anything special about the 
timing of the TFTR D-T experiments, for example, other than that 
they were a few months behind schedule (or a few years,
depending on which schedule you talk about).  And if you want 
to discuss whether the 9 megawatts of fusion produced in TFTR were 
"totally useless in terms of science," I'd be happy to explain 
their significance to you.

> So in this sense, the
> R&D business is much more like lobbying/entertainment as opposed to
> "real business" in The Real World (tm).

No, because as in real business, you receive funding to create 
something.  In real business, you use wealth to create wealth, and 
in R&D, you use knowledge and wealth to create more knowledge and 
more wealth (in the form of either scientific results or practical 
products).  But in both cases, if you don't produce sufficiently
more than you consume, you don't survive in the business.

Whether the R&D "product" is "useful" or not obviously depends
on what the *aims* of the project are, and not merely on whether
it is successful or not, in much the same way that one can
successfully produce and market "useless" items in real business.

***************************
Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University
As always, I represent only myself, and not PPPL
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
when? / Dr Ralph /      
Originally-From: jasonr@central.susx.ac.uk (Dr. J.F.Ralph)
Newsgroups: alt.paranet.science,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,alt.sci.phy
ics.plutonium,sci.bio,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.particl

Subject: Re: Carnot is dead ! Schaeffer disproves 2nd "law" !
Date: 24 Oct 1994 10:32:08 GMT
Organization: University of Sussex

Stefan Hartmann (harti@shb.contrib.de) wrote:
: The physician Mr. Bernhard Schaefer and his team of researchers, together  
: with the russian inventor Serogodski have successfully patented their
: new machine design, which works as a heat to mechanical energy converter.
[...]
: Bernhard Schaeffer has worked over a 30 years time period on these limits  
: of the 2nd thermodynamic sentence and finaly has won the battle.
: With his latest measurements he now can prove, that with the retrograde  
: condensation with these gas-mixtures he can get efficiencies, which are  
: far higher, than Carnot would predict.

Have the French applied to extradite him yet? Isn't it illegal over
there to build a heat engine better than Carnot? Maybe they will wheel
out the guillotine once more?

Splottie-kins (oh so nice).

cudkeys:
cudenjasonr cudfnDr cudlnRalph cudszM 
------------------------------
1994.10.24 / Nick Maclaren /  Re: Radioactive smoke
     
Originally-From: nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk (Nick Maclaren)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Radioactive smoke
Date: 24 Oct 1994 12:19:12 GMT
Organization: University of Cambridge, England

In article <38fjsf$p7k@stratus.skypoint.net>, jlogajan@mirage.skypoint.n
t (John Logajan) writes:
|> 
|> How does coal come to contain quantities of radioactive materials
|> that differ from concentrations of same on the surface?
|> 
|> It would seem to me that coal is some sort of former organic product
|> which once existed on the surface and was sedimented and/or subducted
|> into the earth.  Coal is then mined and the smoke from the burning
|> coal returns the elements back to the surface from whence they originally
|> came.
|> 
|> It would seem from that logic that you'd get as much airborne radioactivity
|> from burning a ton of wood as you would get from burning a ton of coal.
|> No?

No.  Consider some (dry) wood.  This still contains a lot of
water, plus yet more hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen as part of the
cellulose etc.  As it turns into coal, all of these volatiles
disappear (as does some of the carbon).  Almost all of the heavy
elements will remain.  In the resulting coal, they are therefore
a far higher proportion of the whole.  Also, other elements will
arrive from surrounding rock, mud stuck to the originating trees,
solutes that arrived while the coal was still peat, and so on.

You will get LESS carbon-14 by burning coal than wood, of course,
because this is being continually produced and has a short half-
life.  The stuff that you will get by burning coal is more likely
to be heavier elements with longer half-lives, plus their decay
products.

Nick Maclaren,
University of Cambridge Computer Laboratory,
New Museums Site, Pembroke Street, Cambridge CB2 3QG, England.
Email:  nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk
Tel.:  +44 223 334761    Fax:  +44 223 334679
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudennmm1 cudfnNick cudlnMaclaren cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.24 /  prasad /  Re: Zero point energy problem, was Re: Vacuum energy
     
Originally-From: c1prasad@watson.ibm.com (prasad)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Zero point energy problem, was Re: Vacuum energy
Date: 24 Oct 1994 12:37:46 GMT
Organization: IBM Watson

In article <CxzLxB.8qJ@boi.hp.com>, rbenear@boi.hp.com (Richard Benear) writes:
|> 
|>      You should read a paper by Daniel C. Cole (of IBM) and 
|>      Harold E. Puthoff of the Institute for Advanced Studies at Austin: 
|>           "Extracting Energy and Heat from the Vacuum.", Physical Review E,
|>           (I think it was Aug. or Sept. 93', the papers at home and I'm 
|>           at work, but I did save the abstract). 
|>  
|>      The Abstract reads: "Relatively recent propsals have been made ...
|>      force. The basic thermodynamics involved in these proposals is 
|>      analyzed and clarified here, with the conclusion that, yes, in 
|>      principle these proposals are correct. Technological considerations
|>      for actual application and use are not examined here."

21.10.94:

Thanks for the lead.  Glad to know the thermodynamic stone has been turned.
I'll look up the paper.

[I don't really belong in IBM, and I wasn't aware anyone here was seriously
working on ZPE any more than on CF ;)]

24.10.94:

My news feed was dead Friday.  Successfully dug up said reference and four
earlier papers by Cole and papers by Puthoff and Forward (the original proposal
of ZPE).  [Cole & Puthoff, '93] shows that the dynamics involved in the ZPE
scheme of Forward can indeed be nicely plotted on a thermodynamic phase space.
Quite unnecessary, because the original proposal of Forward does not envisage
any repetitive operation like an engine, or even straightening ZP oscillations,
but merely applies the Casimir force as a one-time use battery.  For some
reason, not having read the original paper, I was under the impression that
it was more than just that!

So the whole scheme certainly does not look as *attractive* as CF or GG! ;)

cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenc1prasad cudlnprasad cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.24 /  prasad /  Did they include the pressure head? re:Tom's visit
     
Originally-From: c1prasad@watson.ibm.com (prasad)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Did they include the pressure head? re:Tom's visit
Date: 24 Oct 1994 12:44:08 GMT
Organization: IBM Watson

In article <386kgk$s9g@fnnews.fnal.gov>, Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege) writes:
|> a December trip as Griggs will be moving.  Before I spend your

You don't have to pack in warm clothes, though, you'll meet an excellent heater
out there!  Take a sauna!!

Among other things, I'd be interested in the effect of the physical dimensions
and the rotor geometry on the "thermal gain".  There might be a minimum size,
since it depends on cavitation, and the flow rate might significantly affect
the gain.  How big must the "holes" be? etc.

Just another small thing in case it's gets overlooked.  The water pressure head,
and its contribution to the net heating.  It's been bugging me all of the last
weekend.  We seem to be discussing the electrical input to the pump motor all
the time, while gravity could very well inject a good amount of extra energy.

Also, as many *engineering* details that Griggs can give you as possible.  A
surprising lot of info or insight can lurk in gut feelings.  You might want
to take a few snapshots through the plastic window in the test unit Griggs
has built (for NASA?).

Thanks, Tom.

cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenc1prasad cudlnprasad cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.25 / Richard Blue /  Mitchell's benign word war
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Mitchell's benign word war
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 1994 00:14:21 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

As is often the case, and discussion of the hazards of ionizaing radiation
tends to result in the facts getting lost in the radioactive smoke.
If anyone believes that we can actually sort everything in the environment
into the good, the bad, and the benign and pick only from columns (a) and
(c) they may as well tune out for the rest of this message.  Robert Heeter
was, I believe, making the valid point that given a choice between exposures
to tritium or to the radioactive emissions from coal-fired power plants
there is no clear reason to choose preferentially to breath coal smoke.

Obviously you have to plug in all the numbers before you can say which
choice will result in a minimization of the hazard to public health.
I don't see that a substitution of "low toxicity" for "relatively benign"
does much to clarify the issue, however.  There is a clear indication in
some responses of confusion concerning the radioactivity in coal that
can, perhaps, be addressed more intelligently than just trying to
decide what words to use in describing tritium hazards.

Simply stated, there are radioisotopes in the environment and our
exposure to them is "significant" in any determination of the health
risks associated with ionizing radiation.  In that regard the
natural environment is not and never has been benign.  In case you
had not noticed, Mother Nature is not real nice.

The concentrations of radioisotopes in the earths crust is not
uniform just as coal is not uniformly distributed.  While I do know
that some specific coal deposites have unusually high levels of
radioactivity, I don't know how the average concentration of radioisotopes
in coal compares to the general average for the parts of the crust we
tend to dig up.  Coal is rather unique, however, in that we process lots
of it in a way that blows radioactive stuff up the stack into the atmosphere.
If you survey environmental activity on exposed surfaces and in surface
water you can find the "smoke plume" of a coal burning power plant with
no great difficulty.  As far as I know there are no limits, no required
monitoring, and no general attempt to reduce public exposure to this
activity.  In some sense our public policy is to treat this activity
as benign at the same time that far lesser hazards become the topics
of raging debates, with resulting demands for action addressing remediation
even at great expense.

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.24 / Thomas Zemanian /  Re: Did they include the pressure head? re:Tom's visit
     
Originally-From: ts_zemanian@pnl.gov (Thomas S. Zemanian)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Did they include the pressure head? re:Tom's visit
Date: 24 Oct 1994 14:47:13 GMT
Organization: Battelle PNL

In article <38ga6o$1cih@watnews1.watson.ibm.com>, c1prasad@watson.ibm.com
(prasad) wrote:

[deletia]

> 
> Among other things, I'd be interested in the effect of the physical dimensions
> and the rotor geometry on the "thermal gain".  There might be a minimum size,
> since it depends on cavitation, and the flow rate might significantly affect
> the gain.  How big must the "holes" be? etc.
> 

Yes.  We still need to get a handle on the thermal capacitance of the pump.
 Monitoring the housing temperature as the pump warms up, and again as it
cools down after shutdown should give an estimate of radiative and
convective losses, as well as the thermal capacitance. This assumes, of
course, that the energy balance closes.  Heat input from fusion or the
vacuum (if any)  will cause us to underestimate boththe loss terms and the
thermal capacitance, and should make the "excess energy" that much more
obvious in the calorimetry.

> Just another small thing in case it's gets overlooked.  The water pressure head,
> and its contribution to the net heating.  It's been bugging me all of the last
> weekend.  We seem to be discussing the electrical input to the pump motor all
> the time, while gravity could very well inject a good amount of extra energy.
> 

...9.81 Joules per kg of water for every meter of elevation loss.  This
seems pretty insubstantial to me, unless he's operating the pump in the
basement of a skyscraper witht he feed tank on the roof.

--Tom

--
The opinions expressed herein are mine and mine alone.  Keep your filthy
hands off 'em! 
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudents_zemanian cudfnThomas cudlnZemanian cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.24 / Ben Burch /  Re: GG Improvements-- Use nitromethane instead of water!
     
Originally-From: Ben_Burch@wes.mot.com (Ben Burch)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: GG Improvements-- Use nitromethane instead of water!
Date: Mon, 24 Oct 1994 17:01:46 GMT
Organization: Motorola, Inc.

In article <38d9dh$8e4@nntp1.u.washington.edu>, biffs@u.washington.edu
(Randy Smith) wrote:

> OBGriggs-- My guess is that it's sonic heat pumping.  I saw a demo a 
> while ago here at the UW at one of the engineering open houses of a 
> cooling device where compressed air was fed into a steel cylinder 
> tangential to the radius.  Not only was it deafingly loud (even with 
> ear muffs), it would cool down the center of the cylinder very 
> substantially (more than you would expect from the air expansion, 
> apparently--certainly much cooler than the walls).  I forgot the 
> explanation given at the time (apparently the effect had never 
> been studied much before), but I would guess it was sonic cooling, 
> much like the new hyper-efficient refrigerator designs (which use a 
> speaker).  Apparently, these things were used industrially as cooling 
> units, and there was a name for the effect (which I promptly forgot).

The device you describe is a "Hilsh Tube".  It is an effect know since
WW2, and has indeed been used commercially.  They can be cascaded to
make liquid air, for example.

-- 
"I don't speak for Motorola; They don't speak for me."
-Ben Burch                 | Motorola Wireless Data Group:
Ben_Burch@wes.mot.com      | Makers of the Envoy(R) Personal 
 --------------------------| Wireless Communicator
Envoy(R) Information Line;   1-800-535-5775
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenBen_Burch cudfnBen cudlnBurch cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.24 / Arnie Frisch /  Re: Radioactive smoke
     
Originally-From: arnief@wu.labs.tek.com (Arnie Frisch)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Radioactive smoke
Date: 24 Oct 1994 12:44:06 -0700
Organization: Tektronix Laboratories, Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton, OR

In article <38fjsf$p7k@stratus.skypoint.net> jlogajan@skypoint.com writes:
>Robert F. Heeter (rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu) wrote:
>: mitchell swartz, mica@world.std.com writes:
........
.......
......
.....
....
...
..
>: Coal contains various radioactive elements in it
>: as natural impuritites.  These elements are concentrated by the
>: combustion process, and released almost indiscriminately into the
>: environment afterwards.  Surely you don't expect to just mine
>: a bunch of rock, burn it, and have no radioactive elements at
>: all released into the surface environment?

>How does coal come to contain quantities of radioactive materials
>that differ from concentrations of same on the surface?

>I'm not saying one way or the other, I'm just asking. :-)
........
.......
......
.....
....
...
..
>It would seem from that logic that you'd get as much airborne radioactivity
>from burning a ton of wood as you would get from burning a ton of coal.
>No?



> - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com  --  612-633-0345 -
> - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA -


Well, let's think about this.  Don't you suppose that the presence, for
millions of years, of nearby or entrained decaying radioactive isotopes
will lead to an accumulation of things like Radon that is liberated by
combustion?


And don't you think that the wood is not around for long enough in that
form to accumulate a substantial amount of radioactive gases?


Arnold Frisch
Tektronix Laboratories

cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenarnief cudfnArnie cudlnFrisch cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.23 / Randy Smith /  Re: GG Improvements-- Use nitromethane instead of water!
     
Originally-From: biffs@u.washington.edu (Randy Smith)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: GG Improvements-- Use nitromethane instead of water!
Date: 23 Oct 1994 09:12:17 GMT
Organization: University of Washington

In article <EACHUS.94Oct18105605@spectre.mitre.org>,
Robert I. Eachus <eachus@spectre.mitre.org> wrote:
>In article <37vssg$hi8@huxley.anu.edu.au> drd851@huxley.anu.edu.au
(David R Davies) writes:
>
> > To confuse the issue I thought it was to control the combustion rate
> > (knock) so that lower octane fuel could be used. Lead worked better...
>
>...
>  In a month or three the engine will be back to normal and
>you also know why the AA fuel dragster engines sound so rough before
>the start.  (If anyone who reads this group follows drag-racing today,
>correct me if I am wrong.  The "top fuel" dragsters use a "nitro" mix,
>fuel with -NO3 radicals added to get more oxygen in the fuel.  But I
>think AA are still restricted to hydrocarbon and alcohol mixes which
>end up very high in methanol.)

This may be even more non-fusion-related than water pumps, but I 
recently read a history ("High Performance", I think) on drag racing
that covered this somewhat.  From what I gather (it's not a very technical
book), injecting an extra fluid does all three things discussed:
lowering combustion rates, lowering cylinder temperature, and providing
extra expansion gases.  Not only that, but it's all due to the phase 
change from an aerosol (or other liquid) to a gas and the heat it absorbs 
doing so.  

So, if you notice, there is nothing special about water (except the price).
You could just dump in fuel instead-- which is what dragsters do.  Top Fuel
dragsters run straight nitromethane at a 1-2 to 1-1 (by weight) fuel-air
ratio.  This is really, really expensive, but you don't need to mess with
water injectors (just plenty of fuel injectors).  

>...
>    Usually for full performance engines are pushed to between carbon
>monoxide and soot formation at full throttle, and no self respecting
>drag crew would run an engine at full throttle for more than, say,
>three minutes without stripping it down and cleaning out the carbon
>buildup.  Even at that blown engines are a regular occurance.  ...

I think most of the stripping down is to look for cracked or damaged
parts (top fuel engines put out about 500hp per cylinder), but they
would certainly clean it up.  Also, the rough running in whatever class
is probably mostly due to the timings, which have been changed slightly.  

Anyway, at least that book answered all my drag-racing-related stupid
questions (more tires?  more engines?  overhead valves?  air compressors 
instead of overworked blowers?  fuels that make nitromethane look like 
diesel?).  And oddly enough all with the same answer--"Somebody tried 
it, and it didn't work."  Plus I found out about zoom headers and deuce
coups.

OBGriggs-- My guess is that it's sonic heat pumping.  I saw a demo a 
while ago here at the UW at one of the engineering open houses of a 
cooling device where compressed air was fed into a steel cylinder 
tangential to the radius.  Not only was it deafingly loud (even with 
ear muffs), it would cool down the center of the cylinder very 
substantially (more than you would expect from the air expansion, 
apparently--certainly much cooler than the walls).  I forgot the 
explanation given at the time (apparently the effect had never 
been studied much before), but I would guess it was sonic cooling, 
much like the new hyper-efficient refrigerator designs (which use a 
speaker).  Apparently, these things were used industrially as cooling 
units, and there was a name for the effect (which I promptly forgot).

Anyway, (long OB, eh?) if the Griggs device has quite a bit of steam
in the chamber, and the swirling gas is the prime attribute of the
cylinder device, it could be a similar situation.  Of course, I don't
see how a heat pump would work without some part of the system absorbing 
heat from an external source, and the cylinder device might have been 
doing something non-sonic related (well, other than the incredible
howling).  The cylinder had the property that the sound frequency was
related to the swirling rate, so if you could get the power company
to turn down the power frequency...

Randy Smith (rsmith@ee.washington.edu or biffs@u.washington.edu)
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenbiffs cudfnRandy cudlnSmith cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.23 / Blaine Willick /  Griggs
     
Originally-From: bwillick@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca (Blaine Willick)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Griggs
Date: 23 Oct 1994 04:46:09 -0600
Organization: Alberta SuperNet Inc

Could someone point me towards information on the Griggs Device?
Thanks
BW

cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenbwillick cudfnBlaine cudlnWillick cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.23 / Linden Sisk /  Re: Free Energy machine MPEG movie demos !
     
Originally-From: lindy@shell.portal.com (Linden Lindy Sisk)
Newsgroups: sci.energy,sci.environment,sci.physics.fusion,sci.energy.hydrogen
Subject: Re: Free Energy machine MPEG movie demos !
Date: 23 Oct 1994 13:19:45 GMT
Organization: Portal Communications Company -- 408/973-9111 (voice) 408/973-8091 (data)

Isn't it just amazing that Hartman has been posting this crap for years now,
yet we haven't seen this wonderous machine on the six o'clock news?

Clearly the information is being suppressed by the oil companies.

--
                  Lindy Sisk   lindy@shell.portal.com
                         The Internet Crocodile
                             Eater of Souls
             "In CyberSpace, no one can hear you scream." (SM)
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenlindy cudfnLinden cudlnSisk cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.23 / Scott Mueller /  Re: Tom's trip - funding status
     
Originally-From: scott@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Scott Hazen Mueller)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Tom's trip - funding status
Date: Sun, 23 Oct 1994 19:34:07 GMT
Organization: At Home; Salida, CA

Here's the current status of the fund for Tom's trip to Rome:

We have collected $800+ as of today, 23 October 1994.  The '+' reflects
possible exchange rate variations.  33 people have contributed.  Of those
22 had posted to the group that they were contributing, and 11 had not.

I spoke to Jim Griggs last Thursday, and he was OK with the idea of a site
visit.  Tom has informed me that this should be enough money, so I say that
we have a 'go'.

Based on the typical inflow rate, I'd say we'll accumulate another $100 to
$200 by the close of collections on the 31st.

A few folks have raised the possibility of maintaining a standing fund if
there is a surplus left after this trip.  My understanding of my job is to
send the entire fund to Tom.  I don't know what the trip will cost, as Tom
has not supplied a figure, so I can't say as there would be a surplus.  If
folks would like me to pursue this avenue, I will, but as of now my plan is
just to deposit all of the funds and send a single check for the entire
amount on to Tom.

The current list of contributors is attached.  If you have sent in a
contribution and do not see your name, please contact me.

            \scott

-- 
Scott Hazen Mueller scott@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG or (tandem|ub-gate)!zorch!scott
Mail fusion-request@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG for emailed sci.physics.fusion digests.

Anonymous
Richard A. Blue
Paul T. Breed
James William Brown
Kim Alan Crane
David Cyganski
Alan M. Dunsmuir
Nancy Gillett
V. Guruprasad
Bruce Hamilton
Robert W. Horst
Steven E. Jones
Kristoph D. Krug
John K. C. Lewis
Scott Hazen Mueller
Mark Muhlestein
Tarl Neustaedter
Andreas G. Nowatzyk
William S. Page
David W. Pierson
Richard Schroeppel
David Seghers
Thomas J. Selby
Bradley K. Sherman
Barry Smith
Gary Steckly
Jorge Stolfi
Anthony Sumner
Warren O. Weingarten
Dr. John H. Whipple
John N. White
Frank Yashar
Thomas S. Zemanian

cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenscott cudfnScott cudlnMueller cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
when? / Stefan Hartmann /      
Originally-From: harti@shb.contrib.de (Stefan Hartmann)
Newsgroups: alt.paranet.science,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,alt.sci.phy
ics.plutonium,sci.bio,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.particl

Subject: Carnot is dead ! Schaeffer disproves 2nd "law" !
Date: 23 Oct 1994 16:50:00 +0100

Well, I just received the latest news about the research done over here
at the Workshop for decentral energy research in Berlin, Germany.

The physician Mr. Bernhard Schaefer and his team of researchers, together  
with the russian inventor Serogodski have successfully patented their
new machine design, which works as a heat to mechanical energy converter.

It does not need a "cold pole", it just converts the surounding heat into  
useful mechanical work.

It works via "retrograde condensation" and uses a gas-mixture of 2 working  
mediums, N2 and C4H10.

The German patent office issued the patent number:

42 44 016

Try to get it and read it. It is very interesting.

Bernhard Schaeffer has worked over a 30 years time period on these limits  
of the 2nd thermodynamic sentence and finaly has won the battle.

With his latest measurements he now can prove, that with the retrograde  
condensation with these gas-mixtures he can get efficiencies, which are  
far higher, than Carnot would predict.

These measurements are done very precisely and it was invested a huge  
amount of money and time to build all the technical equipment to measure  
the effect at the right pressure and temperature.

This invention will change the world. Now endless "free energy" is  
possible to use. You just pay for the machine and it will produce  
pollution free clean electrical energy, just by converting the heat of the  
surrounding into electrical energy. Just think about a refrigirator, which  
produces electrical energy, instead of consuming it !

You will soon hear more about this fantastic invention ! The future of  
mankind looks bright !


If you want to have more info on this whole subject, please write to the  
company which finances all the work:

Doekowa GmbH & Co KG
attn: Dr. Hans Wilh. Colsman
45241 Essen, Germany

They will send you an information paper of all the measurements and the  
future plans.
If you are an investor, which wants to license the machine design to build  
inside your country you are welcome to contact them as well.


So far my latest information. Sorry, they don't yet have email access, so  
you have to write to them by snail mail.
I will keep you updated on all the latest news about their machine design.

Regards, Stefan.

## CrossPoint v3.02 ##
cudkeys:
cudenharti cudfnStefan cudlnHartmann cudszM 
------------------------------
1994.10.23 / Jim Bowery /  Re: Conventional Fusion FAQ Section 5/11 (Devices-Status)
     
Originally-From: jabowery@netcom.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Conventional Fusion FAQ Section 5/11 (Devices-Status)
Date: Sun, 23 Oct 1994 16:57:14 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> writes:
> * 1.  Electrostatic Confinement
> 
> Studied with some success in the 1950s and 1960s, this concept
> has recently been resurrected as a student research project 
> at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.  There is another
> experiment being done at Univ. Illinois at Urbana-Champaign,
> in Miley's group.  And Bussard at Energy-Matter Conversion Corp.
> (EMC^2) has written about a magnetize inertial-electrostatic 
> device, but I have no details.  (Does anyone have more info?)

To the best of my knowledge (which is about a year old) Bussard 
is no longer pursuing the magnetic cusp design and has reverted
to the simpler technology first developed by Farnsworth in his
1930's work in gasseous electronics.  The Farnsworth technology
is simpler to build and also simpler to model theoretically as
well as having a track-record as we see in this exerpt:

---------- BEGIN EXERPT FROM HIRSCH'S PAPER ----------
Inertial-Electrostatic Confinement of Ionized Fusion Gasses

by Robert L. Hirsch
ITT Farnsworth Research Corporation, Fort Wayne, Indiana

Received 13 March 1967; in final form 19 June 1967
Journal of Applied Physics Volume 38, Number 11


Abstract

The nonmagnetic, inertial-electrostatic confinement of ionized 
gases in spherical geometry is discussed theoretically, and
associated experiments are described.  Assuming monoenergetic
ion and electron distribution functions, the Poisson equation
for bipolar currents is solved numerically.  The results indicate
spatially periodic solutions which represent the alternate 
formation of virtual anodes and virtual cathodes.  Particle
pressures are found to vary approximately as the inverse square
of the radius and extremely high electric fields are indicated. 
Near the center of the spherical cavity, there exists a high-
density, high-energy region, which may be of controlled fusion
interest.

The experimental apparatus consists of a hollow spherical cathode
concentrically placed within a spherical anode on which six ion 
guns are located.  Steady, reproducible operation up to -150kV and
60mA yields a copious neutron emission, a part of which originates 
from a luminous spherical region within the cathode.  After crowbar
of the main power supply, approximately 10**16 particles are released
from within the cathode.  This number is significantly greater than 
the 10**12-10**14 ions/cm**-3 calculated from the fusion rate.  The
difference is attributed to the formation of two or more virtual
anodes.  A bremsstrahlung collimation study indicates a spatially
periodic emission pattern, suggesting the formation of at least
two virtual anodes, the outer of which is about 2.5 cm in diameter.
No instabilities have been observed.


I. INTRODUCTION

Over thirty-five years ago Farnsworth(1) noted the existence of
a localized glow at the center of a spherically symmetric, high-
vacuum multipactor tube.(2)  He later reasoned that radially focused
electron currents were producing a space-charge potential well in
the hollow anode cavity.  This well was confining and concentrating
ions which were produced from residual gas.

Although the operation of the multipactor tube has not been studied
in detail, the concept of confinement in a dynamically produced 
potential well has received further consideration.  In the mid-1950's
Farnsworth suggested that this technique might be utilized to 
confine and concentrate ions into a small volume where an appreciable
number of nuclear fusion reactions could occur.  At that time ITT
initiated a modest program to investigate this technique of fusion-gas
confinement.  The results of recent theoretical and experimental
efforts are presented below.

---------- END EXERPT FROM HIRSCH'S PAPER ----------
-- 
The promotion of politics exterminates apolitical genes in the population.
  The promotion of frontiers gives apolitical genes a route to survival.
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenjabowery cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.23 / mitchell swartz /  Conv. Fusion FAQ (Part 2/5 Envir) - "benign" vs low toxicity
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Conv. Fusion FAQ (Part 2/5 Envir) - "benign" vs low toxicity
Date: Sun, 23 Oct 1994 00:56:32 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Subject: Conventional Fusion FAQ Section 2/11 
(Energy) Part 2/5 (Environmental)
Message-ID: <1994Oct17.225046.3089@Princeton.EDU>
Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> writes:

=heeter  "The only sources of radioactive waste
=heeter in a D-T reactor are stray tritium atoms and the reactor 
=heeter structure which is exposed to neutron radiation.  
=heeter Tritium is a relatively benign radioactive element, because:
=heeter (a) It doesn't emit strong radiation when it decays, so it's
=heeter      only hazardous if one breathes it in or ingests it.
=heeter (b) It generally shows up in one's body as water, and your body
=heeter      flushes out its water fairly frequently, so tritium won't
=heeter      build up in a living creature. (Unlike many fission
=heeter    reaction products.)
=heeter (c) It has a moderate half-life, only 12 years or so.  This
=heeter      means that it won't be around forever, so it doesn't
=heeter      create a long-term waste problem.  On the other hand,
=heeter      it probably won't decay in the few days that pass 
=heeter      while it's in one's body, which is also good."

   Regarding the connotation, this word "benign" is not correct.
Tritium is not a relatively benign radioactive element, but is rather a 
radioactive element of low toxicity.
  Silicone -- previously considered by many to be "benign" or inert -
itself can cause cancer by the Oppenheimer effect, and probably
other pathways as well.
   Therefore even silicone is not truly benign.

  Tritium (3H)  has low toxicity, putting it in the group with 
7Be, 14C, 18F and some other nuclides.   That is their category in the
spectrum of these isotopes.

   Furthermore, regarding the denotation this word is incorrect.

--->  benign    (after Webster, ibid.)     from Latin benignus
                  meaning ---- >   to be born well.  
    1)  of a gentle disposition
    2)  of a mild character
    3)   manifesting kindness and gentleness.

   If the word "benign" is to apply to hydrogen isotopes it would
be protium or deuterium.  Or do you disagree and claim that they are not
benign?
   Alternatively, since ALL of the deuterium is from the BIG BANG,
given the origin of the word benign, perhaps it should only apply to deuterium.
Others would claim only protium?   Which do you think?

   The phrase "low toxicity" encompasses the character of tritium as a 
radioactive element, and is therefore used in standard believable texts
such as "Health Physics - Principles of Radiation Protection",
 D.J. Rees, MIT 
Press  1967). 
 Perhaps you have a reference for tritium being benign?  Please cite.

 The word 'benign' in this regard by someone charged with learning
about responsibility in this field is self-serving word-play which 
has the appearance of potential contempt for either (or both)
the environment and human health.   Please cite a text on
radiation biology or health physics by a qualified physician
that lists tritium as benign.   OK?

IMHO, the study of radionuclides requires diligent seriousness
during their handling and/or generation.  Right? or do you 
disagree?

 Therefore, 'low toxicity' to describe this material is simple, correct
and more appropriate then anything approaching either the
denotation or connotation of the word 'benign'.

 Any graduate student in this field, who purports to 
be writing a FAQ, ought take the charge earnestly
considering the job/responsibility.    or do you disagree?    ;-) X

=heeter "Based on current tritium-handling knowledge and experience
=heeter scientists believe that incidental releases of radiation 
=heeter from fusion reactors will be comparable to releases from
=heeter either fission or coal plants." 

  What radiation release from a coal plants?
To plan for any such release of a "benign" radioactive material has
an element of negligence and lack of responsibility.   Could you
explain this further?
Would you not agree that one should treat these materials seriously if 
one wants to engender respect for this important field.


=heeter  "In a fusion economy, the
=heeter contribution of tritium to one's radiation exposure will be
=heeter orders of magnitude less than natural exposure to things like
=heeter radon, cosmic rays, etc; and also much less than man-made 
=heeter exposure to things like medical x-rays."
   
  Direct "down-wind" exposure to negligent quantities of tritium can yield 
exposures exceeding x-ray, radon, exposures received in some settings.
  Or do you disagree?
Since you claim to know about these things please give some
quantitative levels of expected exposures and relative background
levels of comparison values in your FAQ.   
  Good luck with the progressing FAQ.
   Best wishes.
               Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com)










cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.23 / mitchell swartz /  Conv. FAQ - low tox. vs. benign - 2 carbon aspects
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Conv. FAQ - low tox. vs. benign - 2 carbon aspects
Subject: Re: Conventional FAQ - low toxicity vs. benign
Date: Sun, 23 Oct 1994 00:57:42 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

   In Message-ID: <Cx4wt7.ID1@prometheus.UUCP>
Subject: Re: Conventional FAQ - low toxicity vs. benign
Paul M. Koloc  (pmk@promethe.UUCP) writes:

  >>I didn't say it was benign, I said it was "a relatively
  >>benign radioactive element," i.e. compared to other
  >>radioactive elements it's benign.  This is rather different
  >>from simply saying it's benign. ...
  >BTW, I've been told by a person who worked a lot with TT,TD, TH
  >etc. that the best way to wash T out of your body is to
  >drink a lot of beer.  Lots of water will work, but beer is more
    efficient -
  >probably because of its diuretic action.rites:
     [Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>]

= Alcohol also plays a role in dulling memory, and probably 
= would suppress ones urge to kill the SoBs responsible for 
= polluting ones personally precious physical self.  

   More importantly, from a molecular point of view:
EtOH is a free radical scavenger.
EtOH also has the fastest known second-order reaction rate 
with the hydroxyl free radical (one of the most important products of
the interaction of ionizing radiation with matter).   EtOH is therefore a
well-known radioprotector. 

  However, given the half-life of the isotope, the direct
neurotoxicity of EtOH, the exchange of 3H and 1H in vivo,
and the relative natural absence of the radioisotope
in the pristine environment, avoiding contamination
may be a more intelligent way to handle this.
  Best wishes.               Mitchell Swartz 
                                 (mica@world.std.com)


cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.22 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Letter to Jim Griggs
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Letter to Jim Griggs
Date: Sat, 22 Oct 94 22:46:44 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

scott@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Scott Hazen Mueller) sent a letter to Jim Griggs
at the Grassdale Road address. Jim is moving at the end of the month up the
road to Rome, GA. I don't have the new address. If you get no response, wait
a few weeks while he settles in at the new building. It is bigger and it has
two overhead cranes built in, which will be handy.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenjedrothwell cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.22 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Rothwell fan club
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Rothwell fan club
Date: Sat, 22 Oct 94 22:52:59 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Alan@moonrake.demon.co.uk ("Alan M. Dunsmuir") writes:
 
     "Looks like Jed might have deserted us here, temporarily, as he did
     sci.skeptic when the questioning there got too probing and his bland
     statements of 'fact' began to be challenged.
 
     Does anybody know what Compuserve Forums he likes to frequent?"
 
Listen, asshole, nobody has ever challenged my facts. All you have done
is rant and rave and post stupid unscientific absurdities, like the crap
we see here about the Griggs device, written by people who have never heard
of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The last message I posted in sci.skeptic
was a review of some of some of Miles' work written with help from Mel Miles
himself, which completely trashed the opposition. Nobody challenged it, least
of all you. You are too stupid to even understand it.
 
I don't frequent any forums. I have not been able to reach this one lately
because the CompuServe connection is screwed up and the Delphi one is a
pain in the butt to use.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenjedrothwell cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.23 / Donald Locker /  Re: GG Improvements
     
Originally-From: dhl@mrdog.msl.com (Donald H. Locker)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: GG Improvements
Date: Sun, 23 Oct 1994 00:05:33 GMT
Organization: Chelsea MSL, Inc.   Chelsea, MI   USA

In article <EACHUS.94Oct18105605@spectre.mitre.org>,
Robert I. Eachus <eachus@spectre.mitre.org> wrote:
>   Without shutting the engine off, rerun the quarter mile, then
>before the car shakes itself to pieces, shut it off, drain the gas
>tank, fuel lines, and the carburetor, and refill with high-octane
>gasoline.  In a month or three the engine will be back to normal and
>you also know why the AA fuel dragster engines sound so rough before
>the start.  (If anyone who reads this group follows drag-racing today,
>correct me if I am wrong.

The rest of your post looks OK, but I believe the main reason that the
engines sound so rough is that the cam profiles provide TREEEE-mendous
overlap (very early opening; very late closing) to allow adequate
breathing at high speeds.  (Amazing how much inertia air has when you
only have 5 milliseconds to fill a half-litre hole through a less-than
two inch poppet valve.)  Anyway, the engine is really rough since much
of the intake charge is diluted with exhaust at idle, and lots of the
air/fuel mixture gets swept right through the engine at the low
speeds.

-- 
Donald.
These opinions were formulated by a trained professional.
              DO NOT TRY THIS AT HOME!
      At the time, the tone will be ... BEEP!
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudendhl cudfnDonald cudlnLocker cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.23 / Michael Mazur /  Re: Rothwell fan club
     
Originally-From: mjmazur@acs.ucalgary.ca (Michael James Mazur)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Rothwell fan club
Date: Sun, 23 Oct 1994 05:30:57 GMT
Organization: The University of Calgary

what a knob.
-- 

  Mike Mazur                
  mjmazur@acs1.ucalgary.ca  

cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenmjmazur cudfnMichael cudlnMazur cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.23 / Stefan Hartmann /  Free Energy machine MPEG movie demos !
     
Originally-From: harti@uropax.contrib.de (Stefan Hartmann)
Newsgroups: sci.energy,sci.environment,sci.physics.fusion,sci.energy.hydrogen
Subject: Free Energy machine MPEG movie demos !
Date: 23 Oct 1994 09:38:03 +0100
Organization: Contributed Software GbR

Hi,

the famous Testatika machine MPEG movie is now at 2 FTP sites:

ftp.cs.tu-berlin.de   in /incoming/TESTATI1.ZIP

ftp.rrzn.uni-hannover.de  in   /incoming/TESTATI1.ZIP


Please get it from there and use 
vmpeg12a.zip on DOS
mpeg_play on UNIX
Sparkle on MACs  

to play (view) it.


I will post the second of the 3 movies I have of it today in
alt.binaries.pictures.misc and alt.binaries.multimedia
newsgroup.

The type of Testatika machines will replace all current energy sources
as it produces non-polluting "free" energy.

Get a look at the future of clean energy production !

Regards, Stefan.

cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenharti cudfnStefan cudlnHartmann cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Tue Oct 25 04:37:03 EDT 1994
------------------------------
1994.10.25 / Robert Heeter /  Conventional Fusion FAQ Glossary Part 6/7 (N-R)
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.answers,news.answers
Subject: Conventional Fusion FAQ Glossary Part 6/7 (N-R)
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 1994 00:45:13 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

Archive-name: fusion-faq/glossary/part6-NtoR
Last-modified: 17-Sept-1994
Posting-frequency: More-or-less-monthly
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!!!).

===============================================================

Glossary Part 6:  Terms from N to R

FREQUENTLY USED TERMS IN CONVENTIONAL FUSION RESEARCH 
AND PLASMA PHYSICS

Edited by Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@pppl.gov

Guide to Categories:
 
* = plasma/fusion/energy vocabulary
& = basic physics vocabulary 
> = device type or machine name
# = name of a constant or variable
! = scientists 
@ = acronym
% = labs & political organizations
$ = unit of measurement

Citations and Acknowledgements appear in Section 11 of the FAQ.

==================================================================

NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN

# n - variable used for number density of particles.
# n - also used as the symbol for a neutron.

@ NAS - National Academy of Sciences; see entry

@ NBI - Neutral Beam Injection; see entry

@ NIF - National Ignition Facility; see entry

@ NIKE - Naval Inertial Konfinement Experiment????; see entry

@ NRC - National Research Council *OR* Nuclear Regulatory
Commission; see entries.

@ NSTX - National Spherical Tokamak eXperiment; see entry

% National Academy of Sciences:  Elite, honorary, independent,
self-perpetuating organization of highly-successful scientists;
chartered by the U.S. Congress to provide technical advice
to the federal government upon request. 

> National Ignition Facility (NIF):  Inertial-Confinement 
Fusion Facility proposed to be built at Livermore and 
operational around the year 2000.  See Section 9 on Future 
Plans for more information.

% National Research Council:  Research arm of the National
Academy of Sciences.

> National Spherical Tokamak eXperiment (NSTX):  Mid-sized 
low aspect-ratio tokamak / spheromak experiment proposal; 
still in design phase / not funded.  See Section 9 on Future 
Plans for more information.

* Neo-classical Diffusion:  In a magnetized plasma, _classical_ 
diffusion refers to transport of particles due to Coulomb collisions, 
taking the spiral orbits in the magnetic field into account.  In a 
toroidal magnetic field, the actual rate of diffusion is much higher 
due to slow changes in the positions of the centers of the spirals 
known as banana orbits (see entry).  This faster transport is called 
_neo-classical_.  With very few exceptions the transport in toroidal 
devices is observed to be 10-100 times larger still, presumably due 
to small-scale turbulence.  The observed transport is called 
_anomalous_ (although it actually is the "normal" state).

* Neo-classical transport:  See neo-classical diffusion.

* Neutral Beam Injection: (from Herman) A method for producing
neutrally charged atoms of high energy (high velocity) and 
injecting beams of these atoms into a magnetically confined plasma,
where they are soon ionized.  The high-energy ions then transfer
part of their energy to the plasma particles in repeated
collisions, thus increasing the plasma temperature.

& Neutron:  Fundamental atomic particle with zero electrical
charge (therefore not confined by a magnetic field) and a mass
roughly equal to a proton's mass.

* Neutron Wall Loading:  Energy flux carried by fusion neutrons into
the first wall.  (see also First Wall, Flux, Neutrons)

> NIKE:  Medium-scale(?) inertial-confinement fusion facility at
the Naval Research Lab; see discussion in Section 5.

* Non-Inductive Current Drive:  Current drives schemes that do not 
rely upon the "transformer" effect in tokamaks.  The attainment of 
non-inductive current drive is crucial to the success of tokamaks 
as truly steady-state devices.  See also inductive current drive.

> Nova: (from Herman) The United States' largest laser (ICF) fusion
facility, at LLNL.  "The successor to Shiva.  The next 
generation will be known as Nova Upgrade; a proof of concept
experiment called Beamlet is in operation now.  (I think.)"
	- Albert Chou, albert@seas.ucla.edu

* Nuclear Binding Energy:

& Nuclear Force:  See Weak (Nuclear) Force, Strong (Nuclear) Force.

% Nuclear Regulatory Commission:  U.S. organization in charge
of overseeing safety of nuclear facilities, including fission
(and presumably fusion) reactors.  

& Nucleus:  The tiny core of an atom, positively charged,
containing protons and neutrons.  Electrons orbit the nucleus.


OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

@ OH - Ohmic Heating; see entry

@ OPEC - Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries; see entry

@ ORNL - Oak Ridge National Laboratory; see entry

% Oak Ridge National Laboratory:  Located in Oak Ridge, TN.  Home of 
a series of various fusion devices.  (Could use more info!)

! Ohm, Georg Simon (1789-1854): Physicist who discovered the
relationship between electric current, potential and resistance.
(Yes, it is Georg.  Swedish, I believe.)

$ Ohm:  Unit of electrical resistance.

& Ohmic heating: (from Herman)  Heating resulting from the
resistance a medium offers to the flow of electrical current.
In plasma subjected to ohmic heating, ions are heated
almost entirely by transfer of energy from the hotter
electrons.

* Ohmic heating coil:  Coil used to induce an electric field
in the plasma via a transformer effect, resulting in ohmic heating.

* Ohmic heating solenoid:  See ohmic heating coil, solenoid.

> Omega:  Inertial confinement fusion facility at the Laboratory
for Laser Energetics, University of Rochester (NY).

# Omega:  Variable frequently used to denote frequencies.

* O-Point:  Place where the poloidal magnetic field vanishes in such 
a way that the nearby flux surfaces are elliptical, e.g. on the 
magnetic axis (see entry) or at the center of a magnetic island (see 
entry). (See also X-Point.) 

* Outboard side:  portion of a tokamak / toroidal device on
the side opposite the central axis.



PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP

# p, P - Variables used for plasma (kinetic) pressure.
# p - also used as symbol for the proton

@ PBX-M - Princeton Beta Experiment-Modified; see entry

@ PF - Poloidal Field

@ PLT - Princeton Large Torus; see entry

@ PNL - Pacific National (Northwest?) Laboratory; no entry yet.

@ PPPL - Princeton Plasma Physics Lab; see entry

@ PV - Photo-Voltaic; see entry

@ PWR - Pressurized Water Reactor (fission); see entry

& Particle:

& Particle Density:  number of particles present per unit volume
(typically a cubic centimeter).  See also density; typically
represented by the variable "n".

* Pellet Injection / Pellet Injector: (from Herman) A device
that shoots small frozen pellets of hydrogen isotopes at
high speed into the inner regions of hot plasma.

& Phase Velocity:  Defined as w/k, this describes the rate
of propagation of a wave through space.

* Photo-voltaic:  Adjective used to describe devices which
convert light, particularly solar energy, into electricity.

* Pinch effect: (from Herman) The constriction of a plasma
carrying a large current caused by the interaction of that 
current with its own encircling magnetic field.

> Pinch machine:  Device which confines plasma using the pinch 
effect.

* Plasma: a gas in which many of the atoms or molecules 
are ionized.  Examples:  the sun, fluorescent light tubes,
very hot flames, much of interplanetary, interstellar,
and intergalactice space, the earth's ionosphere, parts
of the atmosphere around lightning discharges, and of
course what's inside a fusion reactor when it's working
right.

* Plasma Beta:  see Beta

* Plasma, Cold:  See Cold Plasma Model

* Plasma Containment:  (quoting from the PPPL Glossary of Fusion 
Terms)  "In plasma physics experiments or nuclear fusion experiments, 
operation is intended to prevent, in an effective and sufficiently 
prolonged manner, the particles of a plasma from striking the walls 
of the container in which this plasma is produced.  Plasma 
confinement is a fundamental requirement for obtaining net energy 
from a fusion plasma.  The reason is that scattering (hence 
diffusion) is at least an order of magnitude more probable than 
fusion reactions.  Hence, without confinement, the plasma fuel would 
disperse before enough fusion reactions could take place."

> Plasma Focus:  The Plasma Focus is another device which depends 
on the pinch effect.  Possible applications include both fusion
and plasma propulsion, as well as other plasma research.  In essence
the plasma focus is generated by discharge of a current across
the ends of two coaxial insulated conducting pipes. 
The Plasma Focus caused a huge stir when they generated copious 
neutrons, until it was discovered that the source of the neutrons 
was knockoffs from deuterium due to pinch accelerated electrons or 
ions.  Plasma focus is sort of a point version of the "Z"pinch. 
For more information on the plasma focus, see the entry in the
section on confinement approaches (4B).

* Plasma Frequency:  The natural collective oscillation frequency 
of free electrons in a plasma in the absence of a magnetic field.
Also known as Langmuir frequency; see also electrostatic waves.

* Plasma-Plasma Reaction:  Fusion reaction which occurs from the
collision of two thermal plasma ions.  (See also beam-wall, 
beam-beam, and beam-plasma reaction entries.)

> Plasmak:  Controversial advanced spheromak-type concept using 
a fluid rather than solid conducting shell and a plasma with purely
internal magnetic fields, whose pressure is supported by a 
surrounding gas; for more information see
entry in section 4.

& Plutonium:  (from Herman) A radioactive metallic element
whose isotope, plutonium-239, is used in nuclear weapons 
and as a fission reactor fuel.

* Poisoning:  Buildup of ash and impurities in a fusion plasma
tends to reduce the quality of the plasma and reduce the fusion
output; this sort of process is sometimes called "poisioning"
the reactor or the plasma.  See also ash, impurities.

* Poloidal:  In toroidal geometries, the direction along the
circumference of a slice through one side of the torus. 
"The short way around a torus".
	- Albert Chou, albert@seas.ucla.edu

* Poloidal Field:  In toroidal devices, the magnetic field that
encircles the plasma axis.

* Poloidal Field Coils:  In toroidal devices (eg, tokamaks), the
sets of windings which are (typically) aligned along the plasma
axis and produce poloidal fields.  These include ohmic heating,
shaping, vertical, equilibrium, and divertor windings. (Adapted from
PPPL Glossary)

* Positron:  Antiparticle to the electron; this particle has the
mass of the electron but the opposite charge.

* Positron Emission:  Form of nuclear decay where a proton 
disintegrates into a neutron, positron, and some sort of
neutrino. (?)

& Power:  Defined as amount of work per unit time, or change in 
energy per unit time.

& Pressure:  Defined as force per unit area.

> Pressurized-Water Reactor (fission):  Type of nuclear reactor
where the coolant is water kept under pressure to prevent it
from turning to steam inside the plant. (I think!)

* Price-Anderson Act:  U.S. Federal law passed in the 1950s (?)
which limits utility liability for nuclear fission plant
accident damages.  U.S. Government effectively insures the
utilities against external costs associated with nuclear 
accidents.

* Primary Energy:  Energy before conversion.  For instance,
the United States uses about 30,000 megajoules of electricity
per capita per year, but electricity is generally obtained
by converting other forms of energy (primarily chemical/heat)
at an efficiency of around 30%, so the U.S. consumes 90,000
megajoules of primary energy per capita for electrical use.
(Total U.S. primary energy consumption is 300,000 megajoules
per capita.)

% Princeton - See Princeton University and/or Princeton Plasma 
Physics Lab

> Princeton Beta Experiment-Modified (PBX-M):  mid-sized tokamak
research device at Princeton. (need more here!)  Original research 
goal was to investigate the so-called "second stability regime" in
tokamaks. (? I should know more, I work near it! - rfheeter)

> Princeton Large Torus (PLT): Large tokamak formerly operated
at the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory (PPPL).

% Princeton Plasma Physics Lab (PPPL):  Located in Princeton, 
New Jersey.  Single largest fusion research facility in the 
United States; sole U.S. single-purpose plasma physics 
laboratory; operated by Princeton University for the Department 
of Energy.  Site of PLT, PBX-M, TFTR, several other past and 
present experiments, and future site of TPX.
(Refer to entries for relevant machines, both here and in FAQ.)

% Princeton University:  Among other research activities, the 
University operates the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory for the 
Department of Energy (see above entry for PPPL).

* Project Matterhorn:  (from Herman) The code name of the 
United States' first secret controlled fusion project 
started by Lyman Spitzer at Princeton University in 1951.

* Project Sherwood:  Name often used to describe the U.S. controlled
fusion program in the 1950s and '60s.  (PPPL Glossary)

* Proliferation (nuclear):  Proliferation generally describes
the way something spreads (rapidly) from one area to another;
in the case of nuclear weapons, nuclear proliferation refers
to the spread of nuclear bomb-building technology from one
state to another.

& Proton: (from Herman) An elementary particle found in the
nucleus of all atoms.  It carries a single positive electrical
charge.


QQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQ

# q - Variable used to indicate electric charge; also used for
the "safety factor" (see charge, safety factor).  Usually clear
from context which is meant.

# Q: See Q-factor

* Q-factor:  Ratio of power produced by fusion to power
put into the reactor to heat the plasma and drive the
magnetic fields.  Q = 1 is the definition of scientific
breakeven, where power out = power in.  Economical fusion
will require Q significantly greater than 1.  Fortunately
Q increases dramatically as the plasma parameters 
approach the Lawson criterion for ignition.  Power to drive
the magnetic fields is frequently ignored in discussions of
Q, with the justification that a steady-state, continuous-output
fusion reactor will have superconducting magnet coils.

$ Quad:  Unit of energy equal to a Quadrillion BTUs (10^15)
or roughly one exajoule (see entry for joule, exajoule, BTU).

* Quasi-neutral plasma: an ionized gas in which positive 
and negative charges are present in approximately 
equal numbers.


RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

@ Rad - Radiation Absorbed Dose; see entry "rad"

@ Rem - Raditation Equivalent for Man; see entry "rem"

@ R&D - Research and Development.

@ RD&D - Research, Development, and Demonstration.

@ RF - RadioFrequency; see entry

@ RF Current Drive - Radio Frequency Current Drive; see entry

@ RF Heating - Radio Frequency Heating; see entry

! R.F. Heeter - Plasma physics graduate student at PPPL; the editor 
of the sci.physics.fusion FAQ, bibliography, and glossary. :)

@ RFC: Reversed-Field Configuration: see Field-Reversed Configuration.

@ RFP: Reversed-Field Pinch; see entry

@ RFX: Reversed-Field eXperiment; see entry

$ Rad:  radiation absorbed dose.  A unit used to measure the
amount of radiation energy absorbed per gram of a given
substance.  See also gray, rem, sievert.

& Radiation: The emission of energy from a body in the form
of light or heat waves, or energetic particles such as
alpha particles, electrons, or neutrons.  Radiation is
*what is emitted*, not *what does the emitting*.  A nucleus
which does the emitting is said to be radioactive.  Electrons
in atoms can also emit radiation in the form of ordinary 
visible light; such atoms are not said to be radioactive.

& Radioactive waste: (from Herman) Equipment and materials
from nuclear operations which are radioactive and for which
there is no further anticipated use.

& Radioactivity:  Characteristic property of unstable nuclei
which decay to other nuclei by emission of radiation.  A list
of common decay / transmutation modes is given under "decay
modes".

* Radio Frequency or radiofrequency:

* Radio Frequency Current Drive:  Plasma waves in the 
radio-frequency range can be used to push plasma particles
in such a way that current forms in the plasma; this is a
method of non-inductive current drive (see entry) which
would allow for steady-state fusion reactors to operate.

* Radio Frequency Heating:  Process for heating the plasma by
transferring energy to ions or electrons using waves generated
by an external oscillator at an appropriate frequency.  (This is
similar to how a microwave oven heats food.)  There are various
types:  see also ECRH, ICRH, and Lower Hybrid...  (PPPL Glossary)

* Ramsauer Effect:  A quantum effect allowing free electrons
within a narrow range of energies to pass through a noble
gas with very little elastic scattering.

* Rational Surface:  (related to q-factor, see entry)
Magnetic flux surface (see entry for this too) where the ratio
of toroidal to poloidal field strengths is a rational number;
this means that a particle travelling along this surface makes
an integer number of turns in each direction and then its orbit
closes in on itself.  The result is that the particle doesn't
sample the entire flux surface in its motion, which is important
for various technical reasons (which mostly result in reduced
confinement); see also magnetic island.

* Reactor:  See fission reactor, fusion reactor.

* Recombination Radiation: radiation produced when a 
free electron in a plasma is captured by an ion.

$ Rem:  Radiation (or Roentgen) equivalent for man.  Unit of 
absorbed radiation dose based on the definition rem = rad * quality.  
The quality factor depends on the type of radiation involved and 
is used to scale the radiation dose based on the relative 
harmfulness of different sorts of radiation.  Annual US average 
dose is about 300 millirem (0.3 rem), of which more than 2/3 
is natural (primarily radon), and the majority of the 
human-generated dose is due to medical uses (primarily X-rays).

* Reserve:  Amount of a substance which can be extracted from
the earth with current technology at current prices.  Typically
much smaller than resources (see entry for resources).  

& Resistance (electrical):  Ability of a given object to
resist the flow of electrical current.  To drive a given 
current a voltage must be applied to overcome the resistance 
according to V = I * R (V = voltage, I = current, R = resistance).
Resistance is determined by resistivity and geometrical factors.

* Resistive Instability:  Instability resulting from macroscopic
equations used to model a plasma of finite conductivity / nonzero
resistivity.

& Resistivity:  Tendency for a material/substance
to resist the flow of electrical current and to dissipate its
energy.  Resistivity, when combined with certain geometry
factors (generally length and cross-sectional area for wires)
determines resistance. 

* Resource:  Total amount of a substance which exists in the
earth and could conceivably be extracted someday at some price
with some technology.  Typically much larger than reserves.  
(See also reserve.)

> Reversed-Field Pinch (RFP):  A toroidal magnetic confinement scheme
which could constitute an alternative to the Tokamak for building a
fusion reactor.  It is characterized by a magnetic field mostly
generated by the plasma itself, with toroidal and poloidal components 
of comparable intensities, in contrast with the Tokamak where most of
the field is toroidal and externally applied. The name of the
configuration is given by the fact that the toroidal component of the
magnetic field changes sign in the outer region of the plasma. The 
main attractivness of the Reversed Field Pinch is that, according to
presently established scalings, it could reach ignition without the 
need of auxiliary heating. 
(Emilio Martines, martines%pdigi3.igi.pd.cnr.it)

> Reversed-Field eXperiment (RFX): It is the largest Reversed Field
Pinch device presently in operation.  Located in Padova (Italy) it 
is planned to reach a plasma current of 2 MA.
(Emilio Martines, martines%pdigi3.igi.pd.cnr.it)

* Rogowski Loop or Coil:  A coiled wire loop which encircles a
current-carrying plasma.  Changes in total plasma current induce a
voltage in the loop; integrating (adding up) the voltage over time
gives the plasma current.

* Rotational Transform:  (labels: \iota = 2*PI/q)
Due to the combination of applied toroidal field and induced
poloidal field, the magnetic field lines wind helically around
the torus (and on most flux surfaces they fill the surface
ergodically).  The rotational transform is a measure of this
helicity, and is defined as the average angle the field line
shifts in the poloidal direction per complete circuit in the
toroidal direction. The quantity q = 2*\pi / \iota is known
as the ``safety factor'' because of its role in stability theory.
(see also safety factor) (contributed by James Crotinger)

* Runaway Electrons:  (from Herman) Those electrons in a plasma that
gain energy from an applied electrical field at a faster rate than 
they lose it through collisions with other particles.  These 
electrons tend to "run away" in energy from the remainder of the 
plasma, because the collision cross-section decreases as the 
particle's velocity increases, so that the faster the particle goes, 
the less likely it is to be stopped.  See also:  collision 
cross-section.
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.24 / Robert Heeter /  Conventional Fusion FAQ Glossary Part 5/7 (K-M)
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.answers,news.answers
Subject: Conventional Fusion FAQ Glossary Part 5/7 (K-M)
Date: Mon, 24 Oct 1994 22:26:50 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

Archive-name: fusion-faq/glossary/part5-KtoM
Last-modified: 17-Sept-1994
Posting-frequency: More-or-less-monthly
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!!!).


===============================================================

Glossary Part 5:  Terms from K to M

FREQUENTLY USED TERMS IN CONVENTIONAL FUSION RESEARCH 
AND PLASMA PHYSICS

Edited by Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@pppl.gov

Guide to Categories:
 
* = plasma/fusion/energy vocabulary
& = basic physics vocabulary 
> = device type or machine name
# = name of a constant or variable
! = scientists 
@ = acronym
% = labs & political organizations
$ = unit of measurement

Citations and Acknowledgements appear in Section 11 of the FAQ.

==================================================================

KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK

# k: Mathematical symbol usually used for Boltzmann's Constant.
Value is 1.4 x 10^-23 Joules/Kelvin (in SI units), 
or 1.4 x 10^-16 ergs/Kelvin (in cgs units).

$ kA:  KiloAmpere; see kilo, Ampere

$ kW:  KiloWatt (1000 watts); see also kilo, Watt

$ kWh:  kilowatt-hour; see entry

& Kelvin: (K) temperature scale where zero degrees corresponds
to absolute zero (no thermal energy); degrees have same
size as in Celsius/centigrade scale.  273.16 K = zero C;
373.16 = 100 C.

! (Lord) Kelvin:  honorary name given to William Thompson; 19th 
century British physicist (many contributions in many subfields).

& kilo:  metric prefix used to indicate 1000 times the following
unit.  e.g., a kiloampere is 1000 amperes.

$ kilowatt-hour:  standard unit of electrical energy; equals one
kilowatt of power delivered for one hour.  Equivalent to 3.6
million joules.

* Kinetic Pressure:  Density of kinetic energy (energy in the
thermal motions of the plasma particles).  For an ideal plasma,
p = nkT.

* Kink Instability:  Instability resulting from excessive growth
of a kink mode; see kink mode.

* Kink Mode:  Class of MHD instabilities where the plasma angles
(kinks) like a snake, and sometimes thrashes around in the machine
and disrupts.

* Kruskal Limit:  In tokamaks, limiting value for plasma current
beyond which MHD instabilities are predicted.  (Has it been tested?)


LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL

# L - variable typically used to indicate self-inductance;
see inductance.

# Li - chemical symbol for the element lithium; see entry.
@ L-mode: see low mode.

@ LAMPF - Los Alamos Meson Physics Facility; see entry

@ LANL - Los Alamos National Laboratory; see entry

@ Laser: Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation.
     see entry.

@ LBL - Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory; see entry

@ LCFS - Last Closed Flux Surface; see entry

@ LLE - Laboratory for Laser Energetics; see entry

@ LLNL - Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory; see entry

@ LMFBR - Liquid-Metal Fast-Breeder Reactor; see entry

@ LMR - Liquid-Metal Reactor; see entry

@ LOCA - Loss-of-Coolant Accident; see entry

@ LWR - Light-Water Reactor; see entry

% Laboratory for Laser Energetics:  Second-largest (?) inertial
confinement research facility in the United States; located at
the University of Rochester in New York state.  Home of Omega;
future home of Improved-Omega.

* Landau Damping:  Damping of a wave propagating in a hot plasma,
due to the interaction of the wave with particles whose velocity
is close to the phase velocity of the wave.  Depends on the shape
of the velocity-space distribution function at the phase velocity
of the wave.  More info from John Cobb, with modifications:  

The phenomenon is very similar to surfing on water waves at the 
beach.  If a particle's speed is just slightly lower than the wave, 
then the particle can "catch the wave" and surf along at the wave 
speed.  In so doing, the particle will gain some energy, which will 
be at the expense of the wave.  This is called Landau Damping, since 
the loss of energy tends to damp the wave.  At the same time, if a 
particle moves just slightly faster than the wave, then it will also 
be caught on the wave.  However, in this case, it will slow down, 
giving the wave some extra energy.  In this case particles transfer 
energy to the wave; this is called inverse Landau damping.  Which 
effect dominates depends on whether there are more particles moving 
faster than the wave or more particles moving slower.  Thus it 
depends on the derivative of the distribution function with respect 
to velocity, evaluated at the wave's phase velocity.  Landau dmaping 
can lead to the decay of waves.  Inverse Landau damping can be a 
mechanism for some kinetic instabilities.

! Langmuir, Irving (1881-1957): American chemist, won Nobel Prize in 
chemistry in 1932, developed the theory of Langmuir probes (see 
entry).  Numerous inventions for General Electric (lighting).

* Langmuir frequency:  See plasma frequency.

* Langmuir oscillation:  See electrostatic waves.

* Langmuir probe: a small conductive electrode used to measure the
density, temperature, and electric potential (voltage) of a plasma.

& Larmor radius: the radius of the path of a charged 
particle in a magnetic field.  Also known as gyroradius
and cyclotron radius.
 
& Laser: (adapted from Herman) an optical device that amplifies and
concentrates light waves, emitting them in a narrow, intense beam.
Laser light radiation is notable for its brightness and to some 
extent for its monochromaticity and spatial and temporal coherence.

> Laser Fusion:  Form of inertial confinement fusion where
laser beams are used to compress the fuel pellet.

* Laser scattering device: See Thomson scattering device.

* Last Closed Flux Surface (LCFS):  [from Art Carlson]  The boundary 
between the interior region of a tokamak (or other device), where the 
field lines close back on themselves, and the scrape-off layer (see 
entry), where the run into a material wall. (See also separatrix.)

% Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory:  Located in Berkeley, CA; Another
large U.S. science laboratory; minor (?) U.S. fusion research center.  

% Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory:  Located in Livermore, CA,
about an hour east of SF in the Bay Area.  Home of the Nova laser 
inertial confinement fusion program; Nova is the largest
laser in the world.  Home of the former mirror projects MFTF 
(Mirror Fusion Test Facility, shut down on the day it became
operational, or thereabouts, due to budget cutting), 
TMX-U (Tandem Mirror eXperiment Upgrade), and the recently 
shut down Microwave Tokamak eXperiment (MTX).  Some notable 
older fusion experiments at Livermore included Table Top, Toy Top,
Baseball (and Baseball-II) and TMX (predecessor to TMX-U).
Livermore is also the site of the Rotating Target Neutron Sources 
(I and II) for testing materials samples in high-intensity 14 MeV
neutron fluxes and the High Field Test Stand for testing neutral
beams.  Workplace of Albert Chou and several other 
sci.physics.fusion participants. :)  

* Lawson Criterion:  Scientific breakeven criterion based on the 
product of energy confinement time and particle density.  Together
with plasma temperature, the Lawson value of a plasma indicates
how close it is to self-sustained (ignited) fusion; see also 
ignition.

> Light-Water Reactor:  Class of fission reactors using ordinary
"light" water as a coolant, rather than liquid metal or heavy
water (water with deuterium instead of hydrogen).

* Limiters:  (from Herman) structures placed in contact 
with the edge of a confined plasma which are used to 
define the shape of the outermost magnetic surface.  See also: 
divertor.

* Liquid Metal:  Metal which has been heated past its melting point
and can be used as a working fluid for pumping heat out from a 
powerplant.

> Liquid-Metal Reactor:  (Fission) reactor which uses liquid metal
as the reactor coolant.

> Liquid-Metal Fast-Breeder Reactor:  Fission breeder reactor 
(see entry for breeder reactor) using liquid-metal coolant.

& Lithium: (Li)  Third element in the periodic table, so all isotopes
contain 3 protons; chemically very reactive; stable isotopes 
are Li-6 (7.5% abundance) and Li-7 (92.5%); candidate for 
breeding tritium from fusion neutrons via the reactions: 

	n + 6Li -> 4He + T + 4.8 MeV, n + 7Li -> 4He + T + n - 2.5 MeV.

* Longitudinal Waves:  (by John Cobb, with editing) Waves where the 
variation of the field is partially or totally in the direction of 
propagation (parallel to wavennumber, k [a vector]).  Examples 
include sound waves and Langmuir waves.  Contrasted with transverse 
waves, where the variation is perpendicular to the direction of 
propagation, such as light waves.

& Lorentz Force:  Total electromagnetic force on a charged particle
moving in electric & magnetic fields.  F = q(E + (v/c)xB).  See
also force, cross product, charge, velocity, and variable symbols.

* Lorentz Gas:  Plasma model in which the electrons are assumed
not to interact with each other, but only with ions (Z -> infinity)
and where the ions are assumed to remain at rest/fixed (M-i -> 
infinity).

* Lorentz Model - see Lorentz Gas

% Los Alamos Meson Physics Facility (LAMPF):  Physics research
facility at Los Alamos National Lab; major site for U.S. 
muon-catalyzed fusion research in the 1980s.  May be shut down soon.

% Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL):  Major DOE research 
facility, located in Los Alamos, New Mexico, about an hour west of 
Santa Fe.  Former home of a frozen-deuterium-fiber Z-pinch device,
which was dismantled.  Home to an active theory division, including
the Numerical Tokamak Grand Challenge (being performed on the CM-5
massively-parallel supercomputer).

Also home to former alternative-concepts experimental devices like 
Scyllac, FRX-A, FRX-B, FRX-C/LSM, ZT40, and the aborted CPRF which 
was killed in 1991 when it was almost complete (budget cuts).

Currently there are some small in-house experiments, including one on 
electrostatic confinement as a possible fusion device, and/or a 
compact neutron source. They also do theory and experimental 
collaboration with other labs worldwide.
 
(Information provided by John Cobb and Ed Chao)


* Loss Cone:  (from John Cobb, with modifications and additions) 
In a magnetic mirror machine, particles with a large velocity 
parallel to the magneitc field and a small velocity perpendicular 
to the field will be able to escape past the magnetic mirror 
(see magnetic mirror). In that case the velocity distribution 
function (see distribution function) will be almost zero in the 
region of velocity space that allows particles to escape. The 
shape of that region (in a velocity space diagram with parallel 
velocity and perpendicular velocity as the axes) is a cone. When a 
particle undergoes a collision, its velocity gets somewhat 
randomized. Particles that are scattered into that cone are lost very 
quickly (in one mirror bounce time). Thus it is called a loss cone. 
Because of the loss cone, the theoretical maximum particle 
confinement time of a magnetic mirror machine can be only a few times 
the particle collision time; this is generally seen as a showstopper 
for mirror-based fusion research.

* Loss of Coolant Accident (LOCA):  Powerplant accident where 
the supply of coolant to the hot power-producing core is 
interrupted, or where the coolant drains out for some reason.
Can lead to meldown of a fission reactor core in extreme cases, 
or to small nuclear explosions (e.g., Chernobyl).  Fusion 
reactors are expected to be less vulnerable to LOCAs, but these 
must still be designed for.

* Low-activation materials:  In fission reactors, one is forced
to deal with the radioactive byproducts of the fission process,
but in fusion reactors one generally has a choice of what materials
to expose to neutrons produced by the fusion process.  A major 
problem for fusion reactors is developing materials (such as for
the reactor vacuum vessel structure) which can be exposed to 
high levels of neutron bombardment without becoming permanently
radioactive.  Candidate structural materials which have 
relatively low induced radiactivation (generally relative to 
stainless steel) are known as low-activation materials; these 
include titanium, vanadium, and silicon-carbide.

* Low Aspect Ratio:  (entry from John Cobb, slightly edited)
An aspect ratio for a torus that is small (minor radius is almost as
big as major radius).  There are many fusion devices which are 
designed to have a low aspect ratio.  Such devices look more like 
tractor tires than bicycle tires, as toruses go.  There are reasons
to believe that low aspect ratio devices will offer some advantages 
for a fusion reactor.  Usually, ease of theoretical and/or numerical 
analysis is not one of these advantages :>.

* Low mode or L-Mode:  (from Herman) The "normal" behavior of 
a tokamak plasma, characterized by poor confinement and a particular
scaling of decreasing confinement with increasing temperature.

* Lower Hybrid Heating:  form of RF heating using Lower Hybrid Waves.

* Lower Hybrid Waves:  "Electrostatic ion oscillations at a frequency
intermediate to the electron extraordinary wave (high frequency) and 
the magnetosonic wave (low frequency).  Not waves, strictly speaking,
because they do not propagate (I think)." 
	- Albert Chou, albert@seas.ucla.edu


MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

# m, M - variable typically used for mass.

$ MA - MegaAmpere or MegAmpere; see Mega, Ampere

$ m - meters; SI unit of distance

@ MFE - Magnetic Fusion Energy

@ MFTF - Mirror Fusion Test Facility; see entry

@ MIT - Massachusetts Institute of Technology; see entry

@ MHD - Magnetohydrodynamics; see entry

@ MHD Instability - see Magnetohydrodynamic instability.

@ MHTGR - Modular High-Temperature Gas-Cooled Reactor; see entry.

@ MKS - Meters, Kilometers, Seconds - see SI Units

@ MKSA - Meters, Kilometers, Seconds, Amperes - See SI Units.

@ MTX - Microwave Tokamak eXperiment; see entry

$ MW - Megawatt; one million watts; see entry for watts.

% Madison - See University of Wisconsin-Madison

* Magnetic Axis: The location of the innermost flux surface in a
toroidal device, the one which encloses no volume and has therefore
degenerated from a surface into a curve. Roughly, the circle through
the middle of the dough of the donut.

* Magnetic Bottle:  Colorful term used to describe a magnetic field
structure which confines a plasma "like in a bottle".

* Magnetic Confinement Fusion:  Method of fusion which uses
magnetic fields / magnetic bottles to confine a hot plasma
until fusion occurs.

* Magnetic Diffusion:

* Magnetic Field:

* Magnetic Field Coil:  Coiled current-carrying wires used to 
generate magnetic fields.

* Magnetic Flux Surfaces:

* Magnetic Island:  A magnetic topology near a "rational surface" 
(see entry) where the flux surface is broken up into tubes which 
are not connected with each other poloidally. It may be caused 
by a small perturbation, whether internal or external, whether 
deliberate or accidental, and is usually associated with 
enhanced transport (i.e., reduced confinement). The centers of 
the islands are magnetic O-points, while the boundaries between 
islands are marked by X-points (see entries).

* Magnetic Limiter:  See divertor.

> Magnetic Mirror: See mirror effect, mirror device

* Magnetic Moment:

* Magnetic Pressure:  Pressure which a magnetic field is capable
of exerting on a plasma; equal to the magnetic energy density;
proportional to B^2.  (Constant is 1/(2*mu-o) in SI units, 1/8pi
in CGS units).

* Magnetic Pumping:  Form of plasma heating where the plasma is
successively compressed and expanded by means of a fluctuating
external magnetic field.  (See also adiabatic compression, frozen-in
law.)

* Magnetic Reconnection:  (entry by John Cobb, with some 
modifications)  When a plasma has some resistivity, then the 
frozen-in flow requirement is relaxed (see frozen-in flow). In that 
case, the magnetic field can move through the plasma fluid on the 
resistive (magnetic diffusion) time scale.  (Typically slow compared 
to MHD timescales.)  This allows field lines to reconnect with each 
other to change their topology in response to magnetic and other 
forces in the plasma. (see also Helicity, which is not conserved when 
reconnection is significant.)  The predominant theory for solar 
flares is based on the transfer of energy from magnetic fields to 
plasma particles which can occur in reconnection.  Reconnection can 
also be studied in the laboratory. 

* Magnetic Well:  see Minimum-B Configuration.

* Magnetohydrodynamics:  Electrodynamic fluid model that takes 
into account electric current and magnetic field; relevant at 
relatively low frequencies and for distance scales larger than 
the larmor radius.

* Magnetohydrodynamic Generator:  A device that extracts
kinetic energy from a jet of plasma and generates electricity.

* Magnetohydrodynamic Instability (MHD instability):

* Mass Defect:  The energy from fusion reactions comes from the
difference in mass between the reactants and the products.  In an
energy-releasing reaction, some mass is converted to energy via
Einsteins famous equation E (energy) = m (mass) * c^2 (speed of
light squared).  The energy released is the difference between
the binding energies of the reactants and the products (see 
entry on binding energy).

% Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT):  Located in Cambridge, 
MA (just outside Boston).  Home of the Plasma Fusion Center and the
Alcator series of compact tokmaks.

% Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics (IPP):  In Garching (near
Munich).  The largest plasma physics institute in Germany.  Presently
home of ASDEX-Upgrade and Wendelstein-7AS. (See entries)

! Maxwell, James Clerk:  19th-century British physicist, responsible 
for the synthesis of the equations of electromagnetism and the 
prediction of electromagnetic waves, among other things.

& Maxwell-Boltzmann Distribution:  Distribution function of particle
velocities corresponding to a system in thermal equilibrium with a
temperature value of T.  See also: distribution functions, 
temperature.

& Maxwellian Distribution: see Maxwell-Boltzmann Distribution

& Maxwell's Equations: The key equations governing
electrical and magnetic phenomena. (more?)

& Mean Free Path:  Average distance a particle travels between
collisions.  Roughly equal to the collision cross section divided
by the particle density.

& Mega-:  Metric prefix indicating 1,000,000 times a given quantity.
e.g., a megawatt is 1,000,000 watts.

* Meltdown:  In a fission reactor, if there is insufficient coolant
or the fission chain reaction proceeds too rapidly, heat can
build up in the reactor fuel, causing it to melt.  In extreme
cases the whole fission core can melt down to (or even through) the
reactor floor.  Fusion reactors are not vulnerable to this.

& Metastable state:  several types
	Electronic
	Nuclear

& Micro-:  Metric prefix indicating 1/1,000,000th of a given
quantity.  e.g., a microampere is 1/1,000,000th of an ampere.  
	
* Microinstability: Instabilities due to particle / kinetic 
theoretical effects, typically occuring on small scales, as opposed 
to those derivable from fluid models valid on larger scales.

* Microwave Interferometer:  See interferometer, interferometry.

* Microwave Tokamak eXperiment (MTX): a reincarnation of Alcator C
at LLNL, now shut down.

$ mill:  financial unit equal to 0.1 cents or 0.001 dollars;
standard unit which electrical utilities use in charging for
electricity (e.g., 50 mills/kwh).

> Minimum-B Configuration:  Confinement configuration where the
magnetic field strength is a minimum where the plasma is to be
confined, and increases in all directions away from the confinement
region.  Stability is favorable in such a configuration because the
magnetic pressure increases in all directions away from the plasma.

> Mirror device, mirror machine:  (Adapted from Herman)
Generally, linear fusion machines which confine the plasma
using the mirror effect.  Basically there is a weak field
in the center, and strong fields at the ends.

* Mirror effect: A charged particle travelling into an increasing
magnetic field will (if the field becomes strong enough) reverse 
direction and be reflected back.

> Mirror Fusion Test Facility (MFTF):  A large mirror device built 
at LLNL in the late 1970s and mothballed for political reasons 
just before it was to begin operation.

* Mirror Ratio:  In a magnetic mirror configuration, the ratio
between the strongest and weakest values of the magnetic field;
a key ratio in determining confinement properties of the system.

* Mobility: The ease with which a charge in a medium (e.g. a plasma)
moves in response to an electric field. Related to diffusivity and to
resistivity.

* Moderator:  Substance used in a fission reactor to slow down
("moderate") energetic fission neutrons so that they are more
easily captured within the reactor and therefore maintain the
fission chain-reaction.

> Modular High-Temperature Gas-Cooled Reactor:  Class of fission
reactors under study in the U.S.; designed to run at higher 
temperatures and use gas cooling to achieve greater efficiency 
of conversion from thermal to electric energy.

& Mole: The amount of given substance such that the mass in grams 
is equal to its [atomic weight, molecular weight, mass number].
The number of particles in a mole of a substance is Avogadro's
Number N = 6.02497 x 10^23 (see entry).  For instance, one mole
of water weighs 18 grams, since water is H2O, the H's weigh
one apiece, and the O weighs 16.  Heavy water, or D2O, weighs
20 grams/mole, because each D weighs 2 instead of 1.

& Momentum:  Basic physical quantity measuring motion; generally
defined as momentum = mass * velocity.  The total momentum of
all bodies in a system is conserved in all physical processes 
known so far, I believe.  Momentum is related to force in that
force = rate of change of momentum with time.  See also force.

* Motor-Generator:  Device used to store energy by accelerating
a rotating flywheel to high speeds; energy may be rapidly discharged
and converted to shorter-pulse energy.  (Used to power TFTR; the
electric utility would be a little unhappy if TFTR were to suddenly
draw its 30 MW+ of power at random intervals. :)

> Muon-Catalyzed Fusion: Alternative approach to fusion where
muons are introduced to D-T fluid.  The muon is heavy enough that
it binds more strongly to the D or T than an electron would, and
the result is that the D and T nuclei in the molecule are drawn
more tightly together, and fusion results.  More detailed discussion
is given in section 4B.
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.25 / Robert Heeter /  Conventional Fusion FAQ Glossary Part 7/7 (S-Z)
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.answers,news.answers
Subject: Conventional Fusion FAQ Glossary Part 7/7 (S-Z)
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 1994 00:46:59 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

Archive-name: fusion-faq/glossary/part7-StoZ
Last-modified: 17-Sept-1994
Posting-frequency: More-or-less-monthly
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!!!).


===============================================================

Glossary Part 7:  Terms from S to Z

FREQUENTLY USED TERMS IN CONVENTIONAL FUSION RESEARCH 
AND PLASMA PHYSICS

8th Draft, Last Revised on Tuesday, September 13, 1994.

Edited by Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@pppl.gov

Guide to Categories:
 
* = plasma/fusion/energy vocabulary
& = basic physics vocabulary 
> = device type or machine name
# = name of a constant or variable
! = scientists 
@ = acronym
% = labs & political organizations
$ = unit of measurement

Citations and Acknowledgements appear in Section 11 of the FAQ.

==================================================================

SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

@ SI - Systeme Internationale; see SI Units

@ SNL - Sandia National Laboratory; see entry

@ SOL - Scrape-Off Layer; see entry

$ Sv - Sievert; see entry

* Safety Factor:  The number of times a field line goes around a 
torus "the long way" for each time around "the short way".  In a 
tokamak, this number is typically near unity in the center of the 
plasma and between two and 6 or 8 at the edge.  So-called because it 
helps to determine the degree of stability the plasma has against 
certain instabilities.

! Sakharov, Andrei: Russian physicist; among other achievements, he 
is credited with the initial design of the tokamak.

% Sandia National Laboratories:  Located in Albuquerque, New Mexico.
Another large DOE laboratory; has PBFA-II (Particle Beam Fusion
Accelerator, an ICF device) and some pinch devices.  Some divisions
located in Livermore (Sandia-Livermore).

* Scaling Laws:  These are mathematical rules explaining how 
variation in one quantity affects variations in other quantities.
For instance, in a tokamak reactor it's generally believed that
energy confinement depends on the size of the device and the strength
of the magnetic field, but the precise nature of the dependence is
not fully understood, so empirical "scaling laws" are tested to
see what the dependence is.

& Scattering:  The deflection of one particle as a result of
collisions.  See also Elastic.

* Scientific Feasibility:  Fusion will be considered scientifically 
feasible when (a) experiments are done which reach scientific
breakeven-type plasma conditions (see entry on breakeven), and
(b) the experimental results suggest that the approach can be
"scaled up" into a power-producing system.  Tokamak fusion
reactors are closing in on (a), and tokamak researchers think
(b) holds as well, so they are designing a power-producing
machine (ITER) to demonstrate net energy production from tokamak
fusion.

* Scrape-Off Layer (SOL):  [from Art Carlson] Outer layer of a 
plasma which is affected ("scraped off") by a divertor or limiter.  
That is, the outer layer of a magnetically confined plasma (ca. 2 cm 
thick) where the field lines penetrate a material surface (limiter or 
divertor plate) rather than close upon themselves. This region 
defines the outer limit of the plasma because any plasma crossing 
into the SOL is rapidly lost since transport along the field is much 
faster than that across the field.  That is, particles follow these
field lines into the material surface and are lost from the plasma.

* Second-stability region:  

* Separatrix:  [from Art Carlson] In a divertor tokamak (and some 
other configurations), the last closed flux surface (see entry) is 
formed not by inserting an object (limiter) but by manipulating the 
magnetic field, so that some field lines take a topologically 
different route (through the divertor, rather than simply around the 
central plasma). The boundary between the two types of field lines is 
called the separatrix.

* Sheared Flow:  Fluid flow where the magnitude of the fluid velocity 
changes along a direction perpedicular to the direction of the fluid
flow.  (Freeway traffic often exhibits sheared flow in that traffic
in the "fast lane" moves more rapidly than traffic in the slow lane
with the exits...)  Sheared flow typically correlates with reduced
transport and enhanced confinement.  (This definition is rather 
informal and may not be fully technically correct - R.F. Heeter)

* Shear Fields:

* Sheath:  See Debye Sheath

$ Sievert:  International unit for radiation dose.  One Sievert 
equals 100 rem (see entry for rem); average per-capita exposure
is about 0.3 Sv, primarily from natural background (see entry)
and medical x-rays.

* Shock Heating:  The heating produced by the impact of a shock wave.

* Shock Wave:  Wave produced as a result of a sudden, violent 
disturbance which occurs in a particular region faster than sound
waves can traverse the region.

* Shot: Fusion jargon for the production of a (short-lived) plasma.  
In the early days, plasmas were produced by the "discharge" of 
capacitor banks, which (frequently) made a BANG.  A modern tokamak 
produces a few dozen "shots" per day, each lasting a few seconds and, 
if nothing goes wrong, inaudible.  See also: capacitor, tokamak
(Arthur Carlson, awc@ipp-garching.mpg.de)

$ SI Units:  (also known as MKS, MKSA Units)  System of measurement
in which the fundamental units are meters, kilometers, seconds, and
the ampere.

$ Sievert:  Unit of absorbed radiation dose equivalent to 100 rem.
(see also rem, rad, Gray)  The sievert is based on the Gray in the
same way that the rem is based on the rad, I believe.

& Solenoid:  Cylindrical coil of wire which, when current 
flows through it, acts as an electromagnet.  For long solenoids
with many turns, the magnetic field inside the center is
nearly uniform.

* Sound Waves:  See entries on compression waves, waves.

* Spallation:

> Spheromak: [from Art Carlson]  A compact torus with comparable 
toroidal and poloidal magnetic fields. The plasma is roughly 
spherical and is usually surrounded by a close-fitting conducting 
shell or cage. The machine geometry can be simpler than a tokamak, 
but the close-fitting wall is a source of impurities and the current 
cannot be inductively driven. After early experiments failed to 
achieve a reasonable beta, interest has ebbed. The spheromak can also 
be considered as the low-aspect-ratio limit of the tokamak.  
See also: compact torus.

! Spitzer, Lyman:  Early Princeton Fusion Scientist; 
astrophysicist who first proposed orbiting space telescope;
inventor of the stellarator.

* Sputtering:  Process by which atoms are ejected from a solid 
surface by bombardment with plasma particles. (?)

* Stability:  characteristic of some types of equilibrium states;
see equilibrium.

> Stellarator: (adapted from Herman) Device invented by Lyman Spitzer
for the containment of a plasma inside a racetrack-shaped
(sometimes a figure-8) tube.  The plasma is contained by a magnetic 
field created by helical windings around the tube.  More generally, 
a toroidal sort of device that attempts to average out particle 
drifts that would otherwise take plasma to the walls of the vacuum
vessel by imposing a given amount of helicity to the toroidal field
lines.  "A toroidal plasma configuration, which, unlike a tokamak, 
is not axially symmetric.  The poloidal fields necessary for 
confinement are produced by external coils (rather than a current 
in the plasma), either helical coils in addition to plane toroidal 
field coils, or out-of-plane toroidal field coils (pioneered in 
Germany on Wendelstein 7-AS).  The stellarator is generally 
considered to be the most serious alternative to the tokamak.  Since 
the concept is inherently steady state, it would not have the 
tokamak's problems with thermal and mechanical cycling, current 
drive, and disruptions."
	-- Arthur Carlson, awc@ipp-garching.mpg.de

* Strong (Nuclear) Force:

* Superconductor:  (adapted from Herman) A type of electrical 
conductor that permits a current to flow with zero resistance.
Without superconducting coils, a fusion reactor would not be 
possible, because too much energy would be required to maintain the 
magnetic fields against resistive energy losses in the coil 
conductors.

& Synchrotron radiation:  electromagnetic energy radiated from
a charged particle moving in a curved orbit (typically in a magnetic
field), due to the acceleration required to change the direction 
of the particle's velocity.  See also bremsstrahlung.

* Symmetry axis: [from Art Carlson] The straight line (usually 
vertical) through the center of a configuration, when the 
configuration is symmetric to all (axisymmetric, like the tokamak) 
or some (periodic, like the stellarator) rotations about this 
line. Usually the z-axis.



TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT

# t - variable generally used to represent time

# tau - label generally used to represent confinement time

# T - variable generally used to represent temperature

# T - nuclear/chemical symbol for tritium/triton; see entry

$ T - abbreviation for Tesla; see entry

@ TCV - Variable Configuration Tokamak - from French; see Section 5.

@ TF - Toroidal Field

@ TFTR - Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor; see entry

@ TPX - Tokamak Physics Experiment; see entry

@ TW - terawatt; 10^12 watts; see watt.

@ TWyr - terawatt-year; Unit of energy equal to
         3.15 x10^19 joules or 30 Quads (see entries)

> T-3: (from Herman) A Soviet tokamak located at the 
Kurchatov Institute in Moscow that first proved viability
by producing a plasma temperature of 10 million degrees
centigrage/Kelvin.

> T-10: (from Herman) A later Soviet tokamak located at 
the Kurchatov Institute (a copy of which is PLT, only 
PLT had neutral beams).

> T-15: (from Herman) A Soviet tokamak with superconducting
magnets currently under construction.  (Was it completed?
Is it operational?)

> T-20:  (from Herman) A large Soviet tokamak that was to 
have operated under reactor conditions (net energy 
production) but which was abandoned for budgetary reasons.

* Tau: See # tau above.

! Taylor, J.B.:  Renowned plasma physicist; noted for helicity work??

* Taylor State:  (John Cobb?)

* Temperature, Plasma:  (adapted from Herman) A measure of 
the random (thermal) kinetic energy of the ions or electrons
in the plasma.  The temperature of each component of a plasma depends
on the mean kinetic energy of that component.  An example of this
is the fluorescent light bulb, which is an example of a 
weakly-ionized plasma where the electrons are at temperatures of tens 
of thousands of degrees, whereas the ions and neutrals are much 
cooler (so that you can touch the bulb without being burned).
See atomic temperature, electron temperature, and ion temperature.  

$ Tesla - SI unit of magnetic field strength; 1 tesla = 10,000 gauss.

& Thermal Conductivity:  degree to which a substance transmits heat.
(basic definition, I believe, is: 
	(heat flow) = (thermal conductivity) * (temperature gradient) )

* Thermal Conversion Cycle:  Process of generating electrical power
with a fusion reactor by means of a steam / other gas turbine.  This
is distinct from "direct conversion" cycles.

* Thermonuclear Fusion: fusion achieved by heating
up the fuel into the plasma state to the point where
ions have sufficient energy to fuse.

> Theta Pinch:  A pinch device in which the external current 
imposed goes in the azimuthal/circumferential direction around a
cylindrically shaped plasma.

* Thomson Scattering:  Collective(?) electron scattering.  Used to
measure electron temperature? Density?  (Find out in the next 
edition?)

* Thomson Scattering Device: (adapted from Herman)  A diagnostic 
device used to measure electron temperature in a plasma by directing
laser light into the plasma.  The laser's photons scatter off the
electrons in the plasma, spreading in a manner proportional to the
electron temperature.

> Tokamak: (Acronym created from the Russian words, 
"TOroidalnaya KAmera MAgnitnaya," or "Toroidal Chamber-Magnetic".)

Because the tokamak is the primary research machine for
magnetic confinement fusion today, we provide several 
descriptions from various sources:

-> One of several types of toroidal discharge chamber 
in which a longitudinal magnetic field is used to confine a 
plasma.  The tokamak is distinguished by a plasma current
running around the torus, which generates a stabilizing
poloidal magnetic field.  An externally-applied vertical
magnetic field is also used to achieve plasma equilibrium.

-> (Contributed by James Crotinger, jac@gandalf.llnl.gov)
An axisymmetric toroidal confinement device characterized by a
strong toroidal magnetic field (1-10 Tesla) and a toroidal
plasma current (several mega-Amps) that leads to a modest
poloidal magnetic field. The plasma current is usually induced
by ramping a current in a large solonoid along the symmetry axis
of the tokamak. This is an inherently pulsed mode of operation,
and other mechanisms of current drive are under investigation.

-> TOKAMAK  (tokomak)  (contributed by Paul M. Koloc)
"A three component magnetoplasma toroidal construct in which 
the poloidal magnetic component is provided by a toroidal plasma 
current. The other two components are coil driven, namely, the
vertical field (which opposes the major radial expansion) and
the toroidal field (which acts to provide a "stiff guide" field
for the plasma to gain more MHD stability.    
Note:
It is better to think that the toroidal or longitudinal field  
"stiffens" the plasma as against flopping or kinking, while the 
plasma current driven poloidal (locally azimuthal) field provides 
"confinement" pressure.  Actually, the toroidal field interacting 
with plasma diamagnetism may also contribute to a "magnetic 
bouyancy", which is a sort of UN-confinement -- (it actually gives 
the plasma a tendency to expand radially outward in the equatorial 
plane)."  

-> (from Herman:) "Based on an original Soviet design, a device
for containing plasma inside a torus chamber by using the 
combination of two magnetic fields - one created by electric
coils around the torus, the other created by intense electric
current in the plasma itself, which also servers to
heat the plasma [partially].  TFTR and JET are tokamaks."

> Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor:  Large tokamak at Princeton,
first machine to use 50-50 mix of D-T fuel, current world's
record holder in fusion energy production.  Largest tokamak
in the United States.  

> Tokamak Physics Experiment:  Smaller successor to TFTR at
Princeton.  Engineering design underway; construction 
scheduled to begin in FY 1995.

> Tore Supra:  Large tokamak in Cadarache (southern France).  
The second largest tokamak in Europe; uses superconducting magnets.  
Tore Supra has a circular cross-section (like TFTR), which limits the
achievable confinement time and experimental flexibility.  In 
addition to developing superconducting technology, it concentrates on 
the physics of long pulses and ergodic magnetic limiters.
See also: ergodic; magnetic limiter; superconductor; tokamak.

* Toroidal: in the shape of a torus, or doughnut.  
Or: Coordinate indicating which part of the torus a particle is in.
(Azimuthal coordinate) 
Or: General term referring to toruses as opposed to other geometries.

* Toroidal Field Coils:  Coils in a tokamak, typically wound around
the torus in a solenoid-like arrangement, used to generate the 
toroidal magnetic field.  Each turn completely surrounds the plasma.

> Toroidal Pinch:

& Torque:  

> Torsatron:

& Transformer, Transformer Effect:  See entry for Induction.

* Transport:  Refers to processes which cause heat energy, or 
particles, or something else, to flow out of the plasma and cease 
being confined.  Diffusion partly determines the rate of transport.
See also: diffusion, classical diffusion, neoclassical diffusion, 
anomalous diffusion.

* Transverse Waves:  Waves in which the direction of the
oscillation is perpendicular ("transverse") to the direction
of the wave propagation.  Examples include plucked strings and
electromagnetic waves in free space/air.

* Trapped-Particle Instability:

* Trapped-Particle Modes:

* Triangularity:  Geometric factor measuring an aspect of 
the shape (how "triangular" it is) of the cross-section of 
a non-circular plasma in a toroidal device.  See also elongation.

& Tritium: (adapted from Herman) A radioactive isotope of hydrogen 
with one proton and two neutrons in its nucleus and one orbiting 
electron.  A more efficient fuel than ordinary hydrogen (protium) 
because of the extra neutrons.  Tritium decays to helium-3 by 
emission of an electron ("beta emission") with a half-life of 12.3 
years.  Tritium can be synthesized from deuterium via neutron 
bombardment, or by fissioning lithium (see lithium).

* Triton: nucleus of a tritium atom; tritium ion.

* Troyon Limit:  see beta limit

* Turbulence:  "Violent macroscopic fluctuations which can develop
under certain conditions in fluids and plasmas and which usually
result in the rapid transfer of energy through the medium." 
(PPPL Glossary)

* Turbulent Heating:  "Mode of heating of a plasma where the orderly
motion of the particles created by external sources is converted
into disorderly motion, by the excitation of microinstabilities."
(PPPL Glossary)

* Two-Stream Instability:


UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU

# u - variable commonly used for energy density of electric or
magnetic fields; also sometimes used for velocity.

@ UT, UTA - University of Texas at Austin; see entry

@ UW, UWM - University of Wisconsin at Madsion; see entry

& Universal gas constant: R = 8.314 x 10^7 ergs per 
degree C per mole.

% University of Texas at Austin (UT):  Among other things, UT has
a large theoretical plasma physcs research center. (info, anyone?)
The TEXT experimental tokamak is also located here.

% University of Wisconsin at Madison:  Among other facilities,
"Wisconsin" has a large research program in both plasma physics
and fusion engineering.

* Upper Hybrid Waves:  Similar to lower hybrid waves, but at a 
higher frequency.  (more description?)  Not truly propagating 
waves, but plasma oscillations. (?)

& Uranium:  (from Herman) A radioactive metallic element whose
isotope, uranium-235, is a nuclear fission fuel.  Plutonium,
another fission fuel, can be produced from the more
plentiful isotope uranium-238.


VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV

# v - variable typically used for velocity

# V - variable typically used for electrical potential (Voltage)

$ V - abbreviation for Volts; see entry

@ VDE - Vertical *?* Event ???

& Vector:

& Vector Notation:

& Velocity:  The rate of change of position with time for a given
object.

& Velocity Space:  Mathematical space where each point corresponds 
not to a certain location in reality, but to a certain velocity.
Distribution functions typically involve mixes of both position and
velocity spaces.  (See distribution function.)  Contrast with
"position space" where each point corresponds to a given location.

& Velocity Space Instability:

* Vertical instability: [mostly by James Crotinger] A type of 
MHD (n=0) instability where the plasma drifts vertically upward. 
Nearly all tokamaks are vertically unstable (all highly shaped 
ones are).  Controlling this instability is possible in many 
cases, and is an important facet of machine design.  Vertical 
instabilities give rise to halo effects (see entry for halo).

& Viscosity:

* Vlasov Equation:

* Voltage Loop:  "A wire which encircles the main axis of a tokamak
in the vicinity of the vacuum vessel."  The voltage induced in this
loop during the shot is a measure of the ohmic heating voltage
induced by transformer action and applied to the plasma.
(PPPL Glossary)

$ Volt:  Unit of electrical potential.


WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW

@ W-7AS, W-7X - See Wendelstein entry

* Wall Conditioning:  Describes a class of procedures used to
control the composition of materials adsorbed onto the walls of
a plasma device.  Conditioning is important because material from
the walls can create impurities in the plasma, and these
impurities typically degrade plasma performance.  See also
boronization, impurity control, electron cyclotron discharge
cleaning.

& Wavelength:  The length of a single cycle of a wave; usually
measured from crest-to-crest.  For electromagnetic waves, the
wavelength determines the type (radio, infrared, visible, 
ultraviolet, X-Ray, gamma-ray) of radiation; in the case of 
visible light, wavelength determines the color of the light.

& Waves:

& Weak (Nuclear) Force:

>Wendelstein: A family of stellarators built in Garching, Germany.  
The machine currently in operation is Wendelstein-7AS (aka W-7AS).  
Wendelstein ("spiral rock") is a craggy Bavarian mountain;  some of 
W-1 through W-6 were built, some were just paper studies;  AS stands 
for "advanced stellarator" and refers on the physical side to an 
attempt to minimize neoclassical effects (see entry for Neo-classical 
Diffusion) such as the bootstrap current (see entry), and on the 
technical side to the use of out-of-plane coils as an alternative to 
linked coils.  W-7X, a much larger, superconducting stellarator based 
on the same concepts has been proposed to be built by the European 
Union in Greifswald, on the north coast of Germany.

% Wisconsin - See University of Wisconsin-Madison


XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

* X-Point:  Place where the poloidal magnetic field vanishes in such 
a way that two flux surfaces appear to cross, e.g. where the main 
plasma joins the divertor (see entry) or between magnetic islands.
Location where magnetic reconnection takes place.  (See magnetic
reconnection; see also divertors and O-point.)


YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY

* Yin-Yang Coil:  See baseball coil.

* Yucca Mountain:  Proposed U.S. site for permanent storage of
high-level nuclear waste; feasibility currently being explored by
U.S. Dept. of Energy.


ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

# Z - see atomic number
 
@ ZETA - Zero Energy Thermonuclear Assembly; see entry

> Zero Energy Thermonuclear Assembly:  A British fusion device in 
which scientists observed fusion neutrons in 1958.  They were
erroneously considered to be thermonuclear (coming from particles 
with a Maxwellian velocity distribution) and were a cause for the
initial optimism that fusion energy would be easy.  They were 
actually due to electromagnetic acceleration during a plasma 
instability, an effect which cannot be scaled up to produce useful 
energy.

> Z-Pinch:  Pinch device in which the externally-driven pinching 
current goes in the z direction (parallel to / through the 
cylindrical plasma).  See discussion in Section 4B.
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.25 / Global KID /  Call for Papers
     
Originally-From: dcannady@acca.nmsu.edu (Global Info KID)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Call for Papers
Date: 25 Oct 1994 11:47:01 GMT
Organization: New Mexico State University

                       Call for Papers
                         
                1995 International Conference
         on Emerging Particulate-Science Technologies
             for Environment and Health Improvement*
                                    
                       August 22-25, 1995
                       Chicago, Illinois

Abstracts are now being accepted for consideration for this year's
conference.  Conference symposia topics include, but are not limited to:

        Indoor Air Pollution
        Radon
        "Superfund" and RCRA Site Remediation
        Transportation Technologies for Clean Air
        Demilitarization of Chemical and Toxic Weapons

     (Or any presentation related to the conference topic.)

Abstracts will be accepted for consideration until January 31, 1995. 
Abstracts should not exceed 200 words.  Two copies, single spaced
should be submitted to:

        Ms. Sheila Clayton
        c/o Westinghouse Electric Corp.
        P. O. Box 2078
        Carlsbad, NM 88221

For information call 505-234-8784, or 234-8470.
                                     

*Sponsored by the Fine Particle Society

cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudendcannady cudfnGlobal cudlnKID cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.25 / mitchell swartz /  Conv. Fusion FAQ - "benign" vs. low toxicity
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Conv. Fusion FAQ - "benign" vs. low toxicity
Subject: Re: Conv. Fusion FAQ (Part 2/5 Envir) 
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 1994 12:22:44 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA


  In Message-ID: <1994Oct23.041838.12351@Princeton.EDU>
Subject: Re: Conv. Fusion FAQ (Part 2/5 Envir) 
              - "benign" vs low toxicity
Robert F. "just speaking (his) mind" Heeter
 <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> continues to insist:

  =heeter "Tritium is a relatively benign radioactive element  ."
 > "Regarding the connotation, this word "benign" is not correct.
 > Tritium is not a relatively benign radioactive element,
 > but is rather a radioactive element of low toxicity."
  =heeter  "relatively
 benign."
   Robert, you were given some of the reasons and part of  the knowledge of 
acute and chronic effects of radiation sources and
radioisotopes with  living systems (there are also subacute effects) . 
These (and for living systems the repair systems)
are well-known and have generated a significant 
literature.    Have you read any of it? 

      You should before you
embark on FAQ preparation which you repeatedly post on the Internet.
You have unfortunately remained impervious to reason ... perhaps some
"idea-surfactant"       (just kidding)

  Simply get the literature and start with the categorization 
-- i.e. systematized knowledge, which is what science is all about.
     Isn't that right?


   >   Tritium (3H)  has low toxicity, putting it in the group with 
   > 7Be, 14C, 18F and some other nuclides.   That is their category in the
   > spectrum of these isotopes.
=heeter  "According to what criteria?" 

   Criteria?    You were informed that too, to wit:
    >   "The phrase "low toxicity" encompasses the character of tritium as a 
    > radioactive element, and is therefore used in standard believable texts
    > such as "Health Physics - Principles of Radiation Protection",
    >  D.J. Rees, MIT 
     > Press  1967)." 

   Did you get the text?   Did you actually read it? 
 Have you read any of the literature?
   Do you have any single source to the contrary, or is this just what you
only "feel"? 
  What texts do the present graduate students use for health physics
or radiation medicine or radiation safety at Princeton?    if any?
Radiation biochemistry, biophysics, medicine, safety, and other 
subspecialties are important.  Do you get "exposed" to any of this or is
it just a single course, or afternoon?  Or is it none at all?


=heeter  "Again, I claim that relative to other radioactive nuclides, 
=heeter  tritium has a relatively mild character and gentle disposition,
=heeter  and therefore could be described as "relatively benign."
=heeter  While this may not be the standard technical term used in
=heeter some book you feel like citing, I don't think you're right in 
=heeter denying that the statement "tritium is a relatively benign 
=heeter radioactive element" is an accurate use of the English language."
   Robert, you had more respect until you claim that
"tritium has a ....gentle disposition".   To the contrary:
    Radiation is usually discussed in terms of half-lives,
quality, dose, depth-dose characteristics, secondary particles
and radiation, etc.  Right? 
   On the other hand:  Benign refers to a substances impact on
living systems, the environment, or (possibly) materials. 
Therefore, on the gripping hand, 
if you want to use the accuracy and precision of Al Bundy, perhaps
you might consider a job selling shoes instead.

 
  >    If the word "benign" is to apply to hydrogen isotopes it would
  > be protium or deuterium.  Or do you disagree and claim that they are not
  > benign?
=heeter "Any use of "benign" clearly depends on context.  Protium in the
=heeter Hindenburg was not bengin (sic), but protium in water is generally benign.
=heeter Etc."
  This is a needless addition of irrelevant information (except for
shipping, handling, and planning experiments).   Probably just for
obfuscation, eh?   In fact, the problems you cite in such accidents
as the Hindenburg incineration are not nuclear as is discussed here but
are acute free radical reaction catastrophes with molecular diatomic
oxygen, and not the reactions of protium per se (which are addressed here
in the fusion forum).
         But OK.   Still it is illogical, irrelevant, and immaterial.


  >    Alternatively, since ALL of the deuterium is from the BIG BANG,
  > given the origin of the word benign, perhaps it should only apply to
  > deuterium.
  > Others would claim only protium?   Which do you think?
=heeter "I said "relatively benign radioactive element."  That's an entirely
=heeter different thing.  Taking a single word out of context and arguing about it
=heeter is a waste of time for both of us."
    Apparently sometimes you unfortunately don't take the time to think.
 
  >    The phrase "low toxicity" encompasses the character of tritium as a 
  > radioactive element, and is therefore used in standard believable texts
  > such as "Health Physics - Principles of Radiation Protection",
  >  D.J. Rees, MIT 
  > Press  1967).    .....   
  >  Perhaps you have a reference for tritium being benign?  Please cite.
=heeter  "The reasons why tritium is *relatively* benign *as a radioactive element*
=heeter  were given in the FAQ.  Would you care to disagree with the factual
=heeter  details,
=heeter  or are you just going to obsess about my choice of summary description?" 
    Asked for a reference to corroborate your erroneous "information" you
have simply: not.


   > Please cite a text on
   > radiation biology or health physics by a qualified physician
   > that lists tritium as benign.   OK?
   =heeter  "I never said "tritium is benign".  Can you get that through your
    =heeter  head?"
  Actually, you did, you explicitly said:
   =heeter "Tritium is a relatively benign radioactive element" 

   You thus posted these words in the same sentence of your
submitted FAQ which is intended
as an educational tool/manuscript for NEWBIES.    Right?    

  It is becoming apparent  that you can't really find a reference to support
you claim after all.  Look closer.
Perhaps you have an NRC or American College of 
Radiology document or other substantial citation?   Perhaps you will share
some of your (or Princeton's) 
long-term (20 to 30 year) data to support your claim of tritium being
"relatively benign".
  If you do not have the information, then why even partially metamorphose 
the science so as to become a revisionist to 
actual scientific fact?          Why not just simply  read the literature.   OK?


  >  Therefore, 'low toxicity' to describe this material is simple, correct
  > and more appropriate then anything approaching either the
  > denotation or connotation of the word 'benign'.

=heeter "No, "low toxicity," as I understand it, only describes the 
=heeter behavior of tritium as a potential toxin in an acute dose
=heeter in one's body." 
    Explain your dichotomy of acute and chronic effects.
Most importantly, explain 
exactly upon what basis you have come to 
understand "low toxicity" describes the 
"behavior of tritium as a potential toxin in an acute dose
in one's body (Heeter)".     This is a serious matter.
Please cite your putative basis in the field of radiation medicine
wherein tritium is "relatively benign" (and we don't just 
mean burning exploding gas dirgible-sized balloons of diatomic 
molecular tritium like the example/obfuscation to which you refer).

   In the meantime, on what basis does a student like yourself 
use "feel[ings to "prove" that tritium is a] "relatively benign radioactive
element", rather then the more conventional "low toxicity."
Science needs data, not feelings, eh?    Or is it different in Princeton?  or in
your hot fusion lab?


 >  Any graduate student in this field, who purports to 
 > be writing a FAQ, ought take the charge earnestly
 > considering the job/responsibility.    or do you disagree?    ;-) X
 =heeter "...  after 10 months of writing what is now a 400K document,
 =heeter I think I'll stop "taking the charge earnestly" (whatever that
 =heeter means) and just start throwing around bogus and incorrect statements
 =heeter to see how many people I can confuse and piss off.  Wouldn't that
 =heeter be fun?  Get real.
 =heeter I'm offended at your insinuations regarding my character
 =heeter and sense of duty, smiley face or no smiley face."
   Why are you offended?   This is the second time you were
corrected.  
    Also, you might note that taking 'charge' means taking on
a 'project' which has "elements" of responsibility, and
therefore  "throwing around bogus and (or) incorrect statements"
might actually be inadvertent or unintentional as well.  
Or do you "feel" there is no responsibility at all?


    =heeter "Based on current tritium-handling knowledge and experience
    =heeter scientists believe that incidental releases of radiation 
    =heeter from fusion reactors will be comparable to releases from
    =heeter either fission or coal plants." 
  >   What radiation release from a coal plants?
=heeter "Coal contains various radioactive elements in it
=heeter as natural impuritites.  These elements are concentrated by the
=heeter combustion process, and released almost indiscriminately into the
=heeter environment afterwards.  Surely you don't expect to just mine
=heeter a bunch of rock, burn it, and have no radioactive elements at
=heeter all released into the surface environment?"
    Do you have any hard quantitative information whatsoever to 
support your claims?  Either data or the derived
information (cumulative, or per annum, or per kilowatt,
or whatever) including the incremental effect(s) of the
coal system (and other cited cases) over the background. 

   As you can see from the following

 =logajan  How does coal come to contain quantities of radioactive materials
 =logajan  that differ from concentrations of same on the surface? ...
 =logajan  It would seem from that logic that you'd get as much airborne radioactivity
 =logajan  from burning a ton of wood as you would get from burning a ton of coal.
 =logajan  No?
   [jlogajan@mirage.skypoint.net (John Logajan)
     Subject: Radioactive smoke
      Date: 24 Oct 1994 06:23:11 GMT
       Message-ID: <38fjsf$p7k@stratus.skypoint.net>]

   Thus, your comment has evoked lots of discussion, so it 
will be helpful for you to cite your references here too.  After all, you are
claiming that hot fusion makes no more environmental radioactivity than
an equivalent amount of coal combustion or pyrolysis.

      Thanks in advance, Robert.


 > To plan for any such release of a "benign" radioactive material has
 > an element of negligence and lack of responsibility.   Could you
 > explain this further?
=heeter "On the contrary, no containment system is ever perfect, and  
=heeter *not* to assess the level of operational leakage would be negligent
=heeter and irresponsible." 

    True.


=heeter    "There are minor emissions of all sorts of
=heeter radioactive materials from both coal and fission plants all the
=heeter time.  They're so minor that we live with them everyday, and most
=heeter people don't even think about them." 
  You are writing a FAQ not a gossip sheet, or a supermarket tabloid?
      or are you?            ;-) X


=heeter "From an environmental standpoint,
=heeter fusion is comparable to fission and coal in this respect, and perhaps
=heeter slightly better because of the *relatively* benign nature of tritium
=heeter (from fusion) compared to uranium daughter products (fission) or
=heeter uranium, thorium, and uranium daughter products (coal)."
   How sophomoricly simple.     There appear to be  two classes of important
radionuclides in this classification per Mr. Heeter.

  BENIGN:tritium         NOT BENIGN:coal, fission, uranium products

    However, science is systematized knowledge.  
At the graduate (and above) level, the toxicity of materials are divided into
 classes such as low, moderate, high, and
very high.    

      == TOXICITIES OF A FEW  RADIOACTIVE ISOTOPES ===
               (adapted from "Health Physics - 
Principles of Radiation Protection", D.J. Rees, MIT Press  1967)
     -----------------------------------------------------------------
low             moderate                 high                        very high 
3H                 32P                       131I                    90Sr 
7Be               42K                  natural uranium               226Ra 
18F               60Co                 natural thorium               233U 

    QED


  > Would you not agree that one should treat these materials seriously if 
  > one wants to engender respect for this important field.
=heeter "Of course.  Being aware that fusion has radiological advantages over
=heeter fission from an environmental point of view is very important, 
=heeter which is why I went to such pains to describe tritium in the FAQ."  

   If that was the level of scholarship and accurate description
described by "pain", then you are following too many subjects at too
shallow a level.


  =heeter "Again, if you want to discuss the hazards of acute exposure to
  =heeter tritium from possible accidents and catastrophes, please wait until
  =heeter I distribute the safety section of the FAQ."
  Again, attention is directed to the simple fact that it was you who
were discussing a medical issue which needed
correction.   Your hubris perhaps made you refractory to the information.
Perhaps you will continue to expand your knowledge in this important field.
Good luck on the expanded sections, hopefully grounded in scholarship on
your part.

     =heeter  "In a fusion economy, the
     =heeter contribution of tritium to one's radiation exposure will be
     =heeter orders of magnitude less than natural exposure to things like
     =heeter radon, cosmic rays, etc; and also much less than man-made 
     =heeter exposure to things like medical x-rays."
>  Direct "down-wind" exposure to negligent quantities of tritium can yield
> exposures exceeding x-ray, radon, exposures received in some settings.
>  Or do you disagree?
=heeter "As I've said before, the safety risks of accidental tritium releases
=heeter  are not the same as the environmental hazard of incidental tritium
=heeter releases in a fusion economy." 
   Economies don't release isotopes, reactors and experimental crucibles do.
  Would you care to quantify either, in either case? 


=heeter "I certainly agree that if a terrorist
=heeter  managed to blow up a fusion reactor containment building and destroy
=heeter  the reactor, there could be some acute safety problems from the
=heeter  tritium."  
    Please define acute and chronic as you use the terms in your FAQ,
both as to their application to the environment and to people?
   Also you are forgetting about simple chaos, corrosion, 
material failure, and ineptitude which could
also yield portions of systems in the wrong place.


=heeter  "On the other hand, these safety problems would again be
=heeter  *relatively* less than the comparable problem of someone blowing
=heeter  up a fission reactor, because *tritium is a relatively benign
=heeter  radioactive element.*"
   Say what?
  How can you link potential terrorism, the vast cornucopia of possible
malfunctions of a fusion reactor, those of its debris/products/ and innards to
"prove" your alleged point?  Not through simple mapping or known
logic anyway.   Show the graph, chart, or data to demonstrate any of your points here
if you have them, because it is becoming of compelling interest that you may not.

              Mitchell Swartz   (mica@world.std.com)

cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.26 / Jed Rothwell /  No scanner here
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: No scanner here
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 1994 00:15:12 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG

barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman) writes:

     "Jed---for greater dissemination, is it possible the patent, etc, could be
     scanned in and downloaded to this newsgroup? Seeing as you are a computer
     guy, perhaps you could access a scanner?"

Sorry, I don't have a scanner or any access to one. I find these graphic uploads
kind of annoying since they take up so much space. Patents are free, and I think
they are in the public domain, so I suppose anyone could scan it. The patent in
question is:

     U.S. 5,188,090, 2/1993, J. Griggs, Apparatus for heating fluids

. . .and while you are at it have a look at:

     U.S. 4,943,355 7/1990 J. Patterson
     U.S. 5,036,031 7/1991 J. Patterson
     U.S. 5,318,675 6/1994 J. Patterson

You can get patents delivered to you conveniently by contacting:

     The Library Connection
     Tel: 804-758-3311, 
     Fax: 800-325-2221

They charge about $3 per copy, but the 1990 and 1991 Patterson ones were a lot
more expensive because they came from England for some reason.


     "You could dispense with a lot of stupid questions by simply making this
     info available on the newsgroup."

I have made the information available by listing the sources, addresses and
telephone numbers time after time. I have made more CF information available
than
anyone else on the e-mail networks. It is not my job to do other people's
homework. I already answered most of the stupid questions, often two or three
times. People have not read what I posted already, or they have not understood.
For example, someone keeps claiming that the GG might be storing up heat, in
spite of the fact that I explained that the excess heat is steady hour after
hour, and even day after day in some data sets. How many times must I repeat
that
message before it sinks in? It is like trying to get Steve Jones to realize that
recombination can never create more energy than total electric energy in (I*V).
It does not matter how many times I repeat that -- he will never acknowledge it.

- Jed

cudkeys:
cuddy26 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.26 / Jed Rothwell /  Conv. Fusion FAQ: too much of a good thi
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Conv. Fusion FAQ: too much of a good thi
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 1994 00:15:11 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG

Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> periodically uploads a set
of documents titled "Conventional Fusion FAQ" (Frequently Asked Questions).
This is useful information and I thank him for it, but there is slight
problem. Many of us get these files via the Fusion Digest, which is published
by Scott Hazen Mueller (fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG). We get the whole thing
willy-nilly via on-line services which we have to pay for, and the
"Conventional Fusion FAQ" is getting longer and longer. I suggest the
following plan: Publish the FAQ periodically on a semi-regular basis, say once
every two or three months. Every month, run that short notice describing what
it is and where to find it: "How to find the Conventional Fusion FAQ on the
Net" (the 'FAQ FAQ').

- Jed

cudkeys:
cuddy26 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.25 /  prasad /  Re: Did they include the pressure head? Re: Tom's visit
     
Originally-From: c1prasad@watson.ibm.com (prasad)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Did they include the pressure head? Re: Tom's visit
Date: 25 Oct 1994 14:38:54 GMT
Organization: IBM Watson

In article <ts_zemanian-241094074251@ts_zemanian.pnl.gov>, ts_zemanian@p
l.gov (Thomas S. Zemanian) writes:
|> 
|> ...9.81 Joules per kg of water for every meter of elevation loss.  This
|> seems pretty insubstantial to me, unless he's operating the pump in the
|> basement of a skyscraper witht he feed tank on the roof.
|> 

True.

I was wondering whether he had a substantial pressure head from his water
supply company, and its relative contribution.  Well, I guess whatever the
pressure head he does get, it should still be a relatively small factor.

Still, this is one more figure to note down just in case.

-- 
#pragma prejudices=own brainwaves=own others=disowned!
// email: 71155.3116@compuserve.com, poll= < 1/month.
// bad habits: nun!
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenc1prasad cudlnprasad cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
when? /  prasad /      
Originally-From: c1prasad@watson.ibm.com (prasad)
Newsgroups: alt.paranet.science,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,alt.sci.phy
ics.plutonium,sci.bio,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.particl

Subject: Really *proved* it ???? Re: Schaeffer disproves 2nd "law" !
Date: 25 Oct 1994 14:45:50 GMT
Organization: IBM Watson

In article <5ZPnp-veldB@shb.contrib.de>, harti@shb.contrib.de (Stefan Hartmann) writes:
|> Bernhard Schaeffer has worked over a 30 years time period on these limits  
|> of the 2nd thermodynamic sentence and finaly has won the battle.
|> 
|> With his latest measurements he now can prove, that with the retrograde  
|> condensation with these gas-mixtures he can get efficiencies, which are  
|> far higher, than Carnot would predict.
|> 
|> These measurements are done very precisely and it was invested a huge  
|> amount of money and time to build all the technical equipment to measure  
|> the effect at the right pressure and temperature.

Am I to understand Schaeffer's claims are EXPERIMENTAL or THEORETICAL?

If it is the first, that's nothing new, so did the Newman motor, the Searle
disc and now the hydrosonic pump!

If it is a *theoretical* breakthrough, however, it would be very interesting
indeed to see it in print in a respectable journal.  Most free-energy claimants
are ordinarily quite incapable of overturning the whole lot of equations of
thermodynamics that have withstood a hundred years of application testing.

--------
leave unto prasad the opinions that are prasad's!
// "jees, he's caught the 3rd person syndrome!"

cudkeys:
cudenc1prasad cudlnprasad cudszM 
------------------------------
1994.10.25 / K Cornelius /  Re: Free Energy Machine MPEG movie posted !
     
Originally-From: kencorn@clark.net (Kenneth T. Cornelius)
Newsgroups: sci.energy,sci.environment,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Free Energy Machine MPEG movie posted !
Date: 25 Oct 1994 16:25:28 GMT
Organization: Clark Internet Services, Inc., Ellicott City, MD USA

Stefan Hartmann (harti@uropax.contrib.de) wrote:
: Hi,

: I just posted a new movie of the famous Methernitha Testatika Free Energy 
: machine inside the newschannel:

Shouldn't this be posted to alt.energy.crackpot?  Talk about wasted 
bandwidth!  Sheesh.  

--
Kenneth T. Cornelius  
kencorn@clark.net     
                  
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenkencorn cudfnKenneth cudlnCornelius cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.25 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Re: Radioactive smoke
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Radioactive smoke
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 1994 12:44 -0500 (EST)

werme@alingo.zk3.dec.com (Eric Werme) writes:
 
-> I can't answer the airborne/smoke radioactivity, but in the Oct 1 Science
-> News on page 223, an article reports that coal burning in US power plants
-> in 1982 released  a lot of Uranium and Thorium in its fly ash.  The U-235
-> content alone was some 11,000 pounds.  The total radioactive energy (not
-> sure how that was computed) is greater than the chemical energy!
 
When I worked in Oak Ridge we use to argue that the coal fired plants released
over 1,000 more activity into the atmosphere than a nuclear plant when the
environmentalists would come out.  Never did figure out why they were so
against a plant which released virtually nothing, and never said a word about
the coal fired plants which not only released thousands of times more uranium
and thorium, but millions of tons of carbon dioxide and sulfur dioxide as well.
 
-> From memory, but a year or two ago, someone at a local nuclear plant, I thin
-> Seabrook, NH, took some wood ash from his wood stove to work to analyze.
-> Turns out the ash is radioactive enough so that he had to treat it as
-> low level radioactive waste and had to leave it there.  One major difference
-> between that and coal was that the wood had significant amounts of
-> Strontium-90 (half life 29 years) courtesy of the above ground atomic
-> bomb tests.
 
One that most people don't realize is the lantern mantles for things like
Coleman lanterns are quite hot.  The powder on them is thorium.  The are quite
radioactive, and many people carry them in their wallets, giving their
testacles a good irradiation.  Also people will blow out the ash from an old
mantle and breathe in significant quantities of thorium.  I once stuck one in
a detector to measure it's radioactivity, and it was so hot it messed up the
detector. We had to buy a new detector.
 
                                                                Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.25 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Dick Blue Wars on Logic and NRC
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Dick Blue Wars on Logic and NRC
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 1994 12:58 -0500 (EST)

mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
 
->     Well at least the word 'hazard' was used.    If Dick Blue "believes" (as
-> states) that the radionuclides generated from fusion reactors (and judging f
-> the context here fission reactors as well) are comparable those radioactive
-> products generated form burning wood or coal, we challenge him for the
-> numbers to back up his "belief", and look forward to learning more if the
-> numbers really exist.
 
You are correct that Dick is incorrect in this assumption.  It has been shown
in a number of articles that fission, and I would suspect fusion, plants emit
far less radioactivity into the environment then do coal plants.  But I puzzled
why his understating of the impact of coal fired plants has you so upset.
 
                                                                Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.25 / A Bajorinas /  Re: GG Improvements
     
Originally-From: BajoriAP@Perkin-Elmer.com (Andrew Bajorinas)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: GG Improvements
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 1994 18:26:36 GMT
Organization: Perkin-Elmer Corp.

In article <37uomn$efa@fnnews.fnal.gov> Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege) writes:


>Ahhh! See how fickle I am.  Now I believe Robert Eachus more than
>Mike Jamison.  It is always true in science.  The better the 
>explanation, and the better the presentation, the more it is believed
>even if wrong.  But doing a few tests one one's own usually straightens
>out the situation.  That is why the independant reproduction of an 
>experiment is the most powerful tool in science.

>So now I will believe Robert until I fire up my own jet engine and 
>measure everything that goes in and out.  Hmmm!  I once did a little
>work at NATTS, Trenton, N.J. (Naval Air Turbine Test Station).  That
>is the kind of thing they did.  So somewhere these answers are well
>known.

In a piston engine water injection helps power by increasing the pressure 
generated. It adds to the pressure when the water is turned in to steam. In 
other words, the water goes in small and gets bigger when it is heated. 
Presto! more pressure. 

It does shorten engine life by encouraging rust BUT it also helps clean out 
carbon deposits (which do not dissolve in petrol but do in water). 

Maybe there is cold fusion to :)





 ==========================================================================
 == The above opinions are my own.  My employer thinks I am working. 8^) ==
 ==                                                                      ==
 == Andrew P. Bajorinas                      bajoriap@perkin-elmer.com   ==
 == Perkin-Elmer Corp, Norwalk, CT                                       ==
 ==========================================================================
 == If evolution is outlawed   |  Never underestimate the power          ==
 == only outlaws will evolve!  |  of the internet Luke.   -O W Kenobi-   ==
 ==========================================================================

cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenBajoriAP cudfnAndrew cudlnBajorinas cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.25 / A Bajorinas /  Re: GG Improvements
     
Originally-From: BajoriAP@Perkin-Elmer.com (Andrew Bajorinas)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: GG Improvements
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 1994 18:27:53 GMT
Organization: Perkin-Elmer Corp.

In article <38308u$3ke@eldborg.rhi.hi.is> kvj@rhi.hi.is (Kristjan Valur Jonsson) writes:
>In <EACHUS.94Oct17162228@spectre.mitre.org> eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert 
I. Eachus) writes:

>>In article <14OCT199417493109@mars.lerc.nasa.gov> edwlt12@mars.lerc.na
a.gov (Mike Jamison (ADF)) writes:
>>altitude in the amount of power it can generate by the amount of air
>>that it can suck into the engine.  If you add water (and more fuel)
>>you can burn more of the hydrogen and oxygen and generate more gases
>>per cubic foot (or litre) of air sucked in.  (You have seen the
>>exhaust from a diesel engine--or an F-4 Phantom II?  That black smoke
>>is carbon soot.  For maximum power-not maximum fuel efficiency--you
>>can burn the hydrogen out of the hydrocarbon and leave the carbon
>>behind.)  So at the same temperature and same compression you get more
>>power.
>(A strange place for this discussion)
>I don't fully understand what you are saying.  Are you saying that
>the water gets seperated into  H and O which then recombines?  This
>is the explanation I have often heard but it is obviously bogus (unless
>there is the Griggs effect present in the fast moving vapour).  Could
>you produe a chemical equation?
>(Actually I shoudl know all this having just recently completed a course
>on combustion engines)

>Kristjan

You are correct. The water can not really break in to Hydrogen and OXygen in 
this way. The effect is from the water being converted to steam, I think.




 ==========================================================================
 == The above opinions are my own.  My employer thinks I am working. 8^) ==
 ==                                                                      ==
 == Andrew P. Bajorinas                      bajoriap@perkin-elmer.com   ==
 == Perkin-Elmer Corp, Norwalk, CT                                       ==
 ==========================================================================
 == If evolution is outlawed   |  Never underestimate the power          ==
 == only outlaws will evolve!  |  of the internet Luke.   -O W Kenobi-   ==
 ==========================================================================

cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenBajoriAP cudfnAndrew cudlnBajorinas cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.25 / Jed Rothwell /  Test CompuServe Interface
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@CompuServe.COM>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Test CompuServe Interface
Date: 25 Oct 1994 20:51:18 GMT
Organization: CFRA

Let us see if the CompuServe => Internet interface is back to life.
Testing, testing 1, 2, 3. . .

- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.25 / Gary Steckly /  Re: Radioactive smoke
     
Originally-From: gsteckly@dgim.doc.ca (Gary Steckly)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Radioactive smoke
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 94 20:15:23 GMT
Organization: Communications Canada

I found this little tidbit on alt.energy.renewable I think, and saved 
it for posterity.  Looks like hydro is about the only safe energy we 
have so far (providing you don't live near the dam)

------excerpt begins-------------------------
    Worry about the release and accumulation of radioactive materials in  
the environment has led to much hand wringing over the risks of accidents 
at nuclear power plants and weapon  facilities.    But what about 
radioactivity released from burning coal?
     
     W. Alex Gabbard, a nuclear physicist at the Oak Ridge (Tenn.)  
National Laboratory, did a little calculating.  According to 
Environmental Protection Agency figures, an average ton of coal contains 
1.3 parts per mllion of uranium and 3.2 parts per million  of thorium.  Both
naturally occurring trace metals are radioactive.  Of the uranium, 
roughly 0.71 percent is U-235, the  fissionable variety used by nuclear 
power plants.
     
     Thus in 1982, he estimates, U.S. coal-burning power plants, which 
collectively consumed 616 million tons of coal, released 801 tons  of 
uranium and 1,971 tons of thorium into the environment  virtually unnoticed.
     
     Roughly 11,371 pounds of the uranium was U-235.  Moreover, global 
combustion of 2,800 million tons of coal that year released 8,960 tons of 
thorium and 3,640 tons of uranium, of which 51,700 pounds was U-235.
     
     Ironically, in 1982, 111 U.S. nuclear power plants used 540 tons  of 
nuclear fuel to generate electricity.  Thus, "the release of  nuclear 
components from coal combustion far exceeds the entire  U.S. consumption 
of nuclear fuels," Gabbard notes in the fall issue of the OAK RIDGE 
NATIONAL LABORATORY REVIEW.  Gabbard then  calculated the energy value of 
the lost radioactive materials. He found that the nuclear fuel released 
by burning coal has one and  a half times more energy than the coal itself.
     
     Because electric utilities are not perceived to be as hazardous as 
nuclear power plants, "large quantities of uranium and thorium and other 
radioactive species in coal ash are not being treatedas radioactive 
waste," Gabbard says.  "These products emit low-level radiation.
But because of regulatory differences, coal-fired power plants are 
allowed to release quantities of radioactive material that would provoke 
enormous public outcry if such amounts were released from nuclear 
facilities," he adds.
     
     "Nuclear waste products from coal combustion are allowed to be 
dispersed throughout the biosphere in an unregulated manner," Gabbard 
concludes.  Such wastes accumulate on electric utility sites and are "not 
protected from weathering, thus exposing people to increasing quantities 
of radioactive isotopes through air and water movement and the food chain."

------ end article -------


cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudengsteckly cudfnGary cudlnSteckly cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.26 / Bruce Hamilton /  US Patent 5,188,090 ( James L Griggs )
     
Originally-From: B.Hamilton@irl.cri.nz (Bruce Hamilton)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: US Patent 5,188,090 ( James L Griggs )
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 1994 05:35:44 GMT
Organization: Industrial Research Limited


I hope I don't waste bandwidth if others have already posted this.


APPARATUS FOR HEATING FLUIDS

PATENT NO.:  5,188,090
ISSUED:      February 23, 1993 (19930223)
INVENTOR(s): Griggs, James L., Powder Springs, Georgia), US (United
             States of America)
ASSIGNEE(s): Hydro Dynamics, Inc , (A  U.S. Company or Corporation ),
             Cartersville, GA (Georgia), US (United States of America)
             [Assignee Code(s):
EXTRA INFO:  Assignment transaction [Reassigned], recorded May 3,
             1993 (19930503)
             Assignment transaction [Reassigned], recorded May 3,
             1993 (19930503)

                        POST-ISSUANCE ASSIGNMENT

ASSIGNEE(s): HUDSON, W. KELLY, JR. 327 EAST FIRST AVENUE ROME, GA 30161
             Assignor(s): GRIGGS, JAMES L. -- signed: 09/25/1992; HYDRO
             DYNAMICS, INC. -- signed: 09/25/1992
             Recorded:    May 3, 1993 (19930503)
             Reel/Frame:  6531/0072
             Brief:       SECURITY INTEREST
             Rep.:        G. DONALD JOHNSON, ESQ. SUITE 700 1275 PEACHTREE
             ST., NE ATLANTA, GA  30309
ASSIGNEE(s): GRIGGS, JAMES L. 113 DOUGLAS STREET CARTERSVILLE, GA 30120
          Assignor(s): HYDRO DYNAMICS, INC. -- signed: 09/25/1992
             Recorded:    May 3, 1993 (19930503)
             Reel/Frame:  6510/0107
             Brief:       SECURITY INTEREST
             Rep.:        G. DONALD JOHNSON SUITE 700 1275 PEACHTREE
             STREET, N.E. ATLANTA, GA  30309

APPL. NO.:   7-682,003
FILED:       April 08, 1991 (19910408)
U.S. CLASS:  126-247 cross ref: 122-26
INTL CLASS:  [5] F24C 9-00
FIELD OF SEARCH: 237-1R; 237-012.3R; 126-247; 122-26

                          References Cited

                          U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS

    1,758,207    5/1930   Walker
    2,316,522    4/1943   Loeffler
    2,991,764    7/1961   French
    3,508,402    4/1970   Gray
    3,690,302    9/1972   Rennolds
    3,720,372    3/1973   Jacobs
    3,791,349    2/1974   Schaefer
    4,381,762    5/1983   Ernst                                  126-247
    4,779,575   10/1988   Perkins                                126-247

PRIMARY EXAMINER: Bennet, Henry A.
ATTORNEY, AGENT, OR FIRM: Pitts and Brtian
CLAIMS:           14
EXEMPLARY CLAIM:  1
DRAWING PAGES:    4
DRAWING FIGURES:  4
ART UNIT:         344
FULL TEXT:        312 lines

                                 ABSTRACT

Devices  for  heating  fluids. The devices employ a cylindrical rotor which
features surface irregularities. The rotor rides a shaft which is driven by
external  power  means.  Fluid  injected  into  the  device is subjected to
relative  motion  between  the  rotor and the device housing, and exits the
device   at   increased   psure   and/or   temperature.  The  device  is
thermodynamically  highly  efficient, despite the structural and mechanical
simplicity  of  the  rotor  and  other  compounds. Such devices accordingly
provide efficient, simply, inexpensive and reliable sources of heated water
and other fluids for residential and industrial use.

                    BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

  FIG. 1 is a partially cutaway perspective view of a first embodiment of a
device according to the present intion.

  FIG.  2  is  a  cross-sectional  view  of a second embodiment of a device
according to the present invention.

  FIG.  3  is  a  cross-sectional  view  of  a  device according to a third
embodiment of the present invention.
  FIG.  4  is a schematic view of a residential heating system according to
the present invention.

                       BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

  The  present invention relates to devices containing rotating members for
heating fluids.

  Various  designs  exist  for  devices  hich use rotors or other rotating
members to increase pressure and/or temperature of fluids (including, where
desired  to convert fluids from the liquidous to gaseous phases). U.S. Pat.
No.  3,791,349 issued Feb. 12, 1974 to Schaefer, for instance, discloses an
apparatus  and  method  for production of steam and pressure by intentional
creation  of  shock waves in a distended body of water. Various passageways
and  chambers  are  employed to create a tortuous path for the fluid and to
maxe the water hammer effect.

  Other  devices which employ rotating members to heat fluids are disclosed
in U.S. Pat. No. 3,720,372 issued Mar. 13, 1973 to Jacobs which discloses a
turbing  type  coolant  pump  driven by an automobile engine to warm engine
coolant;  U.S.  Pat.  No.  2,991,764 issued Jul. 11, 1961 which discloses a
fluid  agitation-type  heater;  and  U.S. Pat. No. 1,758,207 issued May 13,
1930  to  Walker  which  discloses  a hydraulic heat generating system that
includes  a  heat  generator  formed of a vaned rotor and stator acting in
concert to heat fluids as they move relative to one another.

  These  devices  employ  structurally  complex  rotors  and  stators which
include  vanes  or  passages  for  fluid flow, thus resulting in structural
complexity,  increased  manufacturing  costs,  and  increased likelihood of
structural  failure  and  consequent  higher  maintenance costs and reduced
reliability.

                        SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

  Devices  according  to the present inention for heating fluids contain a
cylindrical   rotor   whose   cylindrical  surface  features  a  number  of
irregularities  or bores. The rotor rotates within a housing whose interior
surface  conforms closely to the cylindrical and end surfaces of the rotor.
A bearing plate, which serves to mount bearings and seals for the shaft and
rotor,  abuts each side of the housing. The bearing plates feature hollowed
portions  which  communicate  with  the void between the housing and rotor.
Inlet  port  ar  formed  in the bearing plates to allow fluid to enter the
rotor/housing  void  in the vicinity of the shaft. The housing features one
or  more  exit  ports  through  which  fluid  at  elevated  pressure and/or
temperature  exits the apparatus. The shaft may be driven by electric motor
or  other  motive  means,  and  may  be driven directly, geared, powered by
pulley or otherwise driven.

  According  to  one  aspect  of  the  invention,  the rotor devices may be
utilized  to  supply heated water to heat excgers in HVAC systems and to
deenergized hot water heaters in homes, thereby supplanting the requirement
for  energy  input  into the hot water heaters and furnace side of the HVAC
systems.

  It  is  accordingly a object of the present invention to provide a device
for heating fluid in a void located between a rotating rotor and stationary
housing,   which   device  is  structurally  simple  and  requires  reduced
manufacturing and maintenance costs.

  It  is  an  additional  object  of  the  present  inventon  to produce a
mechanically  elegant  and  thermodynamically  highly  efficient  means for
increasing  pressure and/or temperature of fluids such as water (including,
where desired, converting fluid from liquid to gas phase).

  It  is  an additional object of the present invention to provide a system
for  providing  heat and hot water to residences and commercial space using
devices featuring mechanically driven rotors for heating water.

  Other  objects,  features  and  advantages  of the present invent will
become apparent with reference to the remainder of this document.

                  DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

  As  shown  in  FIG.  1,  device  10 in briefest terms includes a rotor 12
mounted  on a shaft 14, which rotor 12 and shaft 14 rotate within a housing
16.  Shaft  14  in  the  embodiment  shown  in  FIGS. 1 and 2 has a primary
diameter  of 13/4" and may be formed of forged steel, cast or ductile iron,
or  other materials as desired. Shaft 14 may be driven by an electric motor
or other  motive  means,  and  may  be  driven directly, geared, driven by
pulley, or driven as otherwise desired.

  Attached  rigidly  to  shaft  14  is  rotor 12. Rotor 12 may be formed of
aluminum,  steel,  iron or other metal or alloy as appropriate. Rotor 12 is
essentially  a  solid  cylinder  of  material  featuring a shaft bore 18 to
receive  shaft  14,  and  a  number of irregularities 20 in its cylindrical
surface.  In  the embodiment shown in FIGS. 1 and 2, rotor 12 is six inches
in  diameter  andnine  inches in length, while in the embodiment shown in
FIG.  3  the  rotor  is  ten  inches in diameter and four inches in length.
Locking  pins  set screws or other fasteners 22 may be used to fix rotor 12
with  respect  to  shaft  14.  In  the embodiment shown in FIG. 1, rotor 12
features  a  plurality  of  regularly  spaced and aligned bores 24 drilled,
bored,  or  otherwise  formed  in  its cylindrical surface 26. Bores 24 may
feature  countersunk  bottoms,  as  shown  in  FIG. 2. Bores 24 may ale
offset  from  the  radial direction either in a direction to face toward or
away  from  the direction of rotation of rotor 12. In one embodiment of the
invention,  bores  24 are offset substantially 15 degrees from direction of
rotation  of  rotor 12. Each bore 24 may feature a lip 28 (not shown) where
it  meets surface 26 of rotor 12, and the lip 28 may be flared or otherwise
contoured to form a continuous surface between the surfaces of bores 28 and
cylindrical  surface  26  of  rotor 12. Such flared sufaces are useful for
providing  areas  in which vacuum may be developed as rotor 12 rotates with
respect  to housing 16. The depth, diameter and orientation of bores 24 may
be adjusted in dimension to optimize efficiency and effectiveness of device
10  for  heating various fluids, and to optimize operation, efficiency, and
effectiveness  of  device 10 with respect to particular fluid temperatures,
pressures  and  flow rates, as they relate to rotational speed of rotor 12.
In  a  preferred embodiment of thedevice, the bores 24 are formed radially
substantially 18 degrees apart from on another.

  In  the  embodiment  shown  in FIGS. 1 and 2, housing 16 is formed of two
housing bells 30A and 30B which are generally C-shaped in cross section and
whose  interior  surfaces  32A  and  32B conform closely to the cylindrical
surface  26  and  ends  34  of rotor 12. The devices shown in FIGS. 1 and 2
feature  a  0.1  inch clearance between rotor 12 and housing 16. Smaller or
larger  clearances may obviously be provided, once again depending upon the
parameters  of the fluid involved, the desired flow rate and the rotational
speed  of  rotor  12.  Housing bells 30A and 30B may be formed of aluminum,
stainless steel or otherwise as desired, and preferably feature a plurality
of  axially  disposed  holes  36  through which bolts or other fasteners 38
connect  housing  bells  30A  and 30B in sealing relationship. Each housing
bell  30A  and  30B  also  features  a axial bore sufficient in diameter to
accommodate  the  shaf  14  together  with  seals  about  the  shaft,  and
additionally  to permit flow of fluid between the shaft, seals, and housing
bell 30A and 30B and bore 40.

  The  interior  surface  32A  and  32B of housing bells 30A and 30B may be
smooth  with  no irregularities, or may be serrated, feature holes or bores
or other irregularities as desired to increase efficiency and effectiveness
of  device  10  for  particular  fluids, flow rates and rotor 12 rotational
speeds. In the preferred embodiment, there are no s irregularities.

  Connected  to  an  outer  end  44A  and 44B of each bell 30A and 30B is a
bearing  plate  46A and 46B. The primary function of bearing plates 46A and
46B  is  to  carry  one  or  more bearings 48A and 48B (roller, ball, or as
otherwise desired) which in turn carry shaft 14, and to carry an O-ring 50A
and 50B that contacts in sliding relationship a mechanical seal 52A and 52B
attached  to shaft 14. The seals 52A and 52B acting in combination with the
O-rings  50A and 50B prevent or mnimize leakage of fluid adjacent to shaft
14  from  the  device  10.  Mechanical  seals  52A  and  52B are preferably
spring-loaded seals, the springs biasing a gland 54A and 54B against O-ring
50A  and  50B formed preferably of tungsten carbide. Obviously, other seals
and o-rings may be used as desired. One or more bearings 48A and 48B may be
used with each bearing plate 46A and 46B to carry shaft 14.

  Bearing  plates  46A and 46B may be fastened to housing bells 30A and 30B
using  bolts  58  or  as oterwise desired. Preferably disk-shaped retainer
plates through which shaft 14 extends may be abutted against end plates 46A
and 46B to retain bearings 48A and 48B in place.

  In  the  embodiment  shown  in  FIGS.  1  and 2, a fluid inlet port 63 is
drilled  or  otherwise  formed in each bearing plate 46A and 46B or housing
16, and allows fluid to enter device 10 first by entering a chamber or void
64  hollowed  within the bearing plate 46A or B, or directly into the space
43  located  between  rotor 12 andusing 16. Fluid which enters through a
bearing  plate 46 then flows from the chamber 64 through the axial bore 40A
and  40B in housing bell 30A and 30B as rotor 12 rotates within housing 16.
The fluid is drawn into the space 43 between rotor 12 and housing 16, where
rotation  of  rotor  12  with  respect  to  interior surface 32A and 32B of
housing bells 30A and 30B imparts heat to the fluid.

  One  or  more  exhaust ports or bores 66 are formed within one or more of
housing  bells  30A and 30B for exhaust  fluid and higher pressure and/or
temperature.  Exhaust  ports  66  may  be oriented radially or as otherwise
desired, and their diameter may be optimized to accommodate various fluids,
and  particular fluids at various input parameters, flow rates and rotor 12
rotational  speeds.  Similarly  inlet ports 63 may penetrate bearing plates
46A  and  46B or housing 16 in an axial direction, or otherwise be oriented
and sized as desired to accommodate various fluids and particular fluids at
various input paramet, flow rates and rotor 12 rotational speeds.

  The  device  shown  in  FIGS.  1  and  2,  which uses a smaller rotor 12,
operates  at  a  higher rotational velocity (on the order of 5000 rpm) than
devices 10 with larger rotors 12. Such higher rotational speed involves use
of  drive  pulleys  or  gears, and thus increased mechanical complexity and
lower  reliability.  Available  motors  typically  operate efficiently in a
range  of  approximately  3450  rpm,  which  the  inventor  has  found is a
comfortable otational  velocity for rotors in the 7.3 to 10 inch diameter
range.  Devices  as shown in FIGS. 1-3 may be comfortably driven using 5 to
7.5 horsepower electric motors.

  The device shown in FIGS. 1 and 2 has been operated with 1/2 inch pipe at
5000  rpm  using  city  water  pressure  at  approximately  75 pounds. Exit
temperature   at   that   pressure,   with  a  comfortable  flow  rate,  is
approximately 300 F. The device shown in FIGS. 1 and 2 was controlled using
a  valve  at  the  inlet  port 63 a a valve at the exhaust port 66 and by
adjusting flow rate of water into the device 10. Preferably, the inlet port
63  valve is set as desired, and the exhaust water temperature is increased
by  constricting  the  exhaust  port  66  orifice  and  vice versa. Exhaust
pressure  is  preferably  maintained  below inlet pressure; otherwise, flow
degrades  and the rotor 12 simply spins at increased speeds a flow of water
in void 43 apparently becomes nearer to laminar.

  FIG.  3  shows another embodiment of a dev 10 according to the present
invention.  This  device  features  a  rotor  12 having larger diameter and
smaller  length, and being included in a housing 16 which features only one
housing  bell  30.  The  interior surface 32 of housing bell 30 extends the
length  of  rotor  12.  A  housing  plate  68 preferably disk shaped and of
diameter  similar  to  the  diameter of the housing bell 30 is connected to
housing  bell  30  in  a sealing relationship to form the remaining wall of
housing  16.  Housing  pla, as does housing bell 30, features an axial
bore  40  sufficient in diameter to accommodate shaft 14, seals 52A and 52B
and  flow  of  fluid between voids 64 formed in bearing plates 46A and 46B.
This  embodiment  accommodates  reduced  fluid  flow  and  is preferred for
applications  such as residential heating. The inlet port 63 of this device
is  preferably  through  housing  16, as is the exhaust port 66, but may be
through bearing plates 46 as well.

  The device 10 shown in FIG. 3 is preferably oated with 3/4 inch copper
or  galvanized  pipe  at approximately 3450 rpm, but may be operated at any
other  desired  speed.  At an inlet pressure of approximately 65 pounds and
exhaust  pressure  of approximately 50 pounds, the outlet temperature is in
the range of approximately 300 F.

  FIG.  4  shows  a  residential heating system 70 according to the present
invention. The inlet side of device 10 is connected to hot water line 71 of
(deactivated)  hot  water  heater  72. Exhaust of device 10 is connected
exhaust  line  73  which  in  turn is connected to the furnace or HVAC heat
exchanger 74 and a return line 76 to cold water supply line 77 of hot water
heater  72.  The  device  10  according  to one embodiment of such a system
features  a  rotor 12 having a diameter of 8 inches. A heat exchanger inlet
solenoid  valve  80 controls flow of water from device 10 to heat exchanger
74, while a heat exchanger exhaust solenoid valve 82 controls flow of water
from  heat  exchanger  74 to return line 76. A third solenod valve, a heat
exchanger  by-pass  solenoid  valve  84,  when  open,  allows water to flow
directly  from  device  10  to return line 76, bypassing heat exchanger 74.
Heat  exchanger  valves  80  and 82 may be connected to the normally closed
side  of  a ten amp or other appropriate relay 78, and the by-pass valve 84
is  connected  to  the  normally  open side of the relay. The relay is then
connected  to  the air conditioning side of the home heating thermostat, so
that  the  by-pass valve 84 is op and the heat exchanger valves 80 and 82
are  closed  when the home owner enables the air conditioning and turns off
the  heat.  A  contactor 86 is connected to the thermostat in the hot water
heater  and  the  home  heating  thermostat  so  that  actuation  of either
thermostat  enables contactor 8 to actuate the motor driving device 10. (In
gas  water  heaters,  the temperature switch may be included in the line to
replace the normal thermalcouple.)

  The  hot  water  heater  72 is turned off and used as aeservoir in this
system  to  contain water heated by device 10. The device 10 is operated to
heat  the  water  to approximately 180 degree(s) -190 degree(s) F., so that
water  returning  to hot water heater 72 reservoir directly via return line
76  is  at  approximately  that temperature, while water returning via heat
exchanger  74,  which  experiences  approximately  40 degree(s) temperature
loss,  returns  to  the  reservoir at approximately 150 degree(s) F. Cutoff
valves  88  allow  the  device 10 and heat exchanger 74 to be isolated when
desired for maintenance and repair.

  The foregoing is provided for purposes of illustration and explanation of
preferred  embodiments  of the present invention. Modifications may be made
to  the disclosed embodiments without departing from the scope or spirit of
the invention.

What is claimed is:

  1. Apparatus for converting energy, comprising:
 (a) a shaft for connection to a motive means;
 (b)  a  cylindrical  rotor rigidly connected to the shaft, the cylindrical
rface  of  the  rotor  featuring a plurality of bores whose depth exceeds
their diameter;
 (c)  a  pair of seals, each attached to the shaft on opposite sides of the
rotor;
 (d) a housing bell surrounding the cylindrical surface and one end surface
of  the  rotor, the housing bell generally C-shaped in axial cross section,
having  an interior surface which conforms closely with the cylindrical and
end  surfaces of the rotor, and having an axial bore sufficient in diameter
to  accommodate  the  shaft  and one oe seals with additional space for
fluid flow;
 (e)  a  disc shaped housing plate connected to the housing bell in sealing
relationship  to  complete  a  housing  surrounding  the  rotor,  having an
interior  surface conforming closely with the end surface of the rotor, and
having  an  axial  bore sufficient in diameter to accommodate the shaft and
one of the seals with additional space for fluid flow;
 (f)  a first bearing plate connected to the housing bell, featuring a bore
adapted in size to accommode the shaft, a seated O-ring against which one
of  the  seals  abuts,  a  bearing for supporting the shaft, and a hollowed
portion  adapted in size to accommodate the shaft and one of the seals with
additional space for fluid flow;
 (g)  a  second  bearing  plate connected to the endplate, featuring a bore
adapted in size to accommodate the shaft, a seated 0-ring against which one
of  the  seals  abuts,  a  bearing for supporting the shaft, and a hollowed
portion  adapted in size to accommodate the shafnd one of the seals with
additional space for fluid flow;
 (h) at least one inlet port to allow flow of fluid into the apparatus; and
 (i) at least one exit port formed in the housing to allow exhaust of fluid
which  has  been  heated  by the rotating shaft and rotor acting in concert
with the stationary housing and bearing plates.

  2.  The  apparatus of claim 1 in which the bores are oriented radially in
the rotor.

  3.  The  apparatus  of claim 1 including one inlet port, which inlet port
penetrates the hous.

  4.  The  apparatus  of claim 1 including one inlet port, which inlet port
penetrates a bearing plate.

  5. The apparatus of claim 1 including one exhaust port.

  6.  The  apparatus  of claim 1 in which the housing comprises an interior
surface which includes no irregularities.

  7.  The  apparatus  of claim 1 in which the housing comprises an interior
surface which includes irregularities.

  8. Apparatus for converting energy, comprising:
 (a) a shaft for connection to a motive means;
 (b)  a  cylindrl  rotor rigidly connected to the shaft, the cylindrical
surface  of  the  rotor  featuring a plurality of bores whose depth exceeds
their diameter;
 (c)  a  pair of seals, each attached to the shaft on opposite sides of the
rotor;
 (d) a pair of housing bells, each surrounding a portion of the cylindrical
surface  and  one  end  surface  of  the  rotor the housing bells generally
C-shaped  in axial cross section, having an interior surface which conforms
closely  with  the cylindrical and end surfces of the rotor, and having an
axial  bore  sufficient in diameter to accommodate the shaft and one of the
seals with additional space for fluid flow;
 (e)  a pair of bearing plates, each connected to one of the housing bells,
each  featuring  a  bore adapted in size to accommodate the shaft, a seated
O-ring  against  which one of the seals abuts, a bearing for supporting the
shaft,  and a hollowed portion adapted in size to accommodate the shaft and
one of the seals with additional space for fluid flow;
f) at least one inlet port to alloflow of fluid into the apparatus; and
 (g) at least one exit port formed in the housing to allow exhaust of fluid
which  has  been  heated  by the rotating shaft and rotor acting in concert
with the stationary housing and bearing plates.

  9.  The  apparatus of claim 8 in which the bores are oriented radially in
the rotor.
  10.  The  apparatus of claim 8 including one inlet port, which inlet port
penetrates the housing.

  11.  The  apparatus of claim 8 including one inlet port, which inlet port
penetrates a bearng plate.

  12. The apparatus of claim 8 including one exhaust port.

  13.  The  apparatus of claim 8 in which the housing comprises an interior
surface which includes no irregularities.

  14.  The  apparatus of claim 8 in which the housing comprises an interior
surface which includes irregularities.

cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenHamilton cudfnBruce cudlnHamilton cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.24 / Robert Heeter /  Conventional Fusion FAQ Glossary Part 4/7 (G-J)
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.answers,news.answers
Subject: Conventional Fusion FAQ Glossary Part 4/7 (G-J)
Date: Mon, 24 Oct 1994 22:08:40 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

Archive-name: fusion-faq/glossary/part4-GtoJ
Last-modified: 17-Sept-1994
Posting-frequency: More-or-less-monthly
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!!!).
===============================================================

Glossary Part 4:  Terms from G to J

FREQUENTLY USED TERMS IN CONVENTIONAL FUSION RESEARCH 
AND PLASMA PHYSICS

Edited by Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@pppl.gov

Guide to Categories:
 
* = plasma/fusion/energy vocabulary
& = basic physics vocabulary 
> = device type or machine name
# = name of a constant or variable
! = scientists 
@ = acronym
% = labs & political organizations
$ = unit of measurement

Citations and Acknowledgements appear in Section 11 of the FAQ.

==================================================================

GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG

$ G - abbreviation for Gauss; see entry

@ GA - General Atomic; see entry.

@ GNP - Gross National Product; see entry.

@ GW - Gigawatt; see entry

@ GWe - Gigawatt - electrical energy; see gigawatt

@ GWt - Gigawatt - thermal energy; see gigawatt

# gamma:  Third letter in the Greek alphabet; variable used for
a number of things in phyics; in plasma physics gamma is often
used as the variable for growth rates of instabilities.

* Gamma Emission:  Nuclear decay process whereby the nucleus goes
from an excited state to a more stable state by emitting a gamma
ray.  (See entry for gamma ray.)

* Gamma Rays:  Electromagnetic radiation (photons) with energies
greater than (roughly) 100 keV (that is, 100,000 electron volts).
See relevant entries for more info.

% Garching:  A town in Germany just north of Munich, where the Max
Planck Institute for Plasma Physics (see entry) is located.

! Gauss, Carl Friedrich: (1777-1855) German mathmetician, astronomer 
and physicist.

$ Gauss - unit of magnetic field strength (CGS units)
10,000 gauss = 1 tesla (see also Tesla)

& Gaussian Units - See CGS Units

% General Atomic:  U.S. corporation involved in fusion research;
operates the DIII-D device in San Diego; see also Doublet III-D.
(Officially known as GA Technologies, I believe; or is that the
name of the parent company???)

$ Gigawatt:  Unit of power equal to 10^9 watts, 1000 megawatts,
or 1 million kilowatts.  See entry for watt.  1 gigawatt is a typical
size for a nuclear fission reactor, and is expected to be the typical
size of a fusion reactor.

& Gradient:  Mathematical term for the operator which determines
the magnitude and direction of the greatest rate-of-change of a
given function with position.  Similarly used to describe such
a rate-of-change.  For instance, at a given point on a hill, the 
slope of the hill in the steepest uphill direction is the gradient 
of the altitude funtion for the hill.

& Gravitational Force:  Force which attracts two bodies together
based on the product of their masses and the reciprocal of
the square of their distances.  "Gravity" is the force field
created by one massive body (like the earth) which another body 
(like you) will experience.

* Gross National Product:  Total value of goods and services
produced in a country; measure of economic strength of a nation.

* Gyrofrequency:  See cyclotron frequency.

* Gyroradius: radius of charged particle in magnetic field.
Same thing as cyclotron radius, Larmor radius.

> Glow Discharge: a relatively cool form of plasma discharge;
a common form is in fluorescent lights.  The voltage applied
to the plasma must be greater than the ionization potential of
the gas used; most of the plasma voltage drop is near the 
cathode, where the majority of ionization occurs.

* Grad-Shafranov Equation:  (Contributed by James Crotinger,
with minor revisions.)  The lowest order force balance in the 
plasma is simply that the Lorentz force must be balanced by 
the pressure force.  This balance, combined with Maxwell's 
equations, determines the equilibrium configuration of the 
magnetic field.  When the toroidal configuration is axisymmetric, 
and the equilibrium plasma flow is zero, the magnetic field may be 
written in terms of a stream function \psi that satisfies the 
Grad-Shafranov equation
      
	    \Delta*\psi = - \mu_0 R^2 p'(\psi) - FF'(\psi).
	Here p is the plasma pressure and F = R B_\phi.
(R is the radial distance from the axis of the machine)

(Alternatively, leaving out the equation): 
   In an axisymmetric torus, in the absence of equilibrium plasma 
   fluid flows, the magnetic field may be written in
   terms of a scalar potential. When the plasma is in equilibrium
   (forces balance and the plasma is stationary), this scalar
   potential obeys a non-linear elliptic equation known as the
   Grad-Shafranov equation.

$ Gray:  A unit of absorbed dose of radiation.   1 Gray = 100 rads.
Thus 1 gray = 10^4 ergs of energy deposited into a gram of material.
Defined relative to the material into which such radiation passed,
which should therefore be specified.

& Group Velocity:  This is derived from the dispersion relation
(see entry) as Vgroup = dw/dk; the group velocity is the rate
at which modulations or information within a wave travel through
a given medium. 

* Guiding Center:  Particles placed in a magnetic field will
gyrate in circles, and drift in various directions.  The
guiding center represents the instantaneous center of the circular
motion.  The idea is that you can think of the guiding center
as drifting, and the particle as orbiting the guiding center.

* Gyromagnetic Ratio:  Ratio of the magnetic moment to the
angular momentum of a particle.  (see magnetic moment, angular
momentum)


HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

# H - chemical symbol for the element hydrogen; see entry

# He - chemical symbol for the element helium; see entry.

@ H-mode:  see high-mode

@ HTO - Hydrogen-Tritium-Oxygen:  Water with a tritium atom
replacing a hydrogen.  See entry for tritium.

* Halo:  The cold, dense plasma formed outside the last closed flux 
surface during a vertical displacement event. The large currents 
which flow through this plasma stop the displacement and transfer the 
force to the vacuum vessel. If care is not taken in design, the halo 
currents can be large enough to threaten the structural integrity of 
the vacuum vessel or in-vessel components.  Whereas the center of a 
tokamak plasma is too hot for material probes to survive, probes
(such as magnetic-field coils) can sometimes be placed in the 
halo, and can measure things such as the halo current (see below).  
See also entry for vertical instability. 

* Halo Current:  Currents in the halo region of a plasma discharge.
See entry for halo above.

* Half-life:  For a given quantity of a radioactive isotope, 
there is a time period in which half the nuclei will decay to
a different state; this period is called the half-life.  Measured
half-lives range from trillionths of a second (for very 
short-lived isotopes) to billions of years (for isotopes which 
are almost stable, but not quite).The time in which half the 
atoms of a particular radioactive isotope disintegrate 
to another nuclear form.  Half-lives range from millionths 
of a second to billions of years.

* Helicity: (from John Cobb)  A measurement of the topological 
"tangledness" of magnetic field lines. It is formally defined as the 
scalar product of the magnetic vector potential with the magnetic 
field, K = A dot B. If the plasma is perfectly conducting, then 
helicity is a conserved quantity.  (Without resistance, field lines 
cannot reconnect, and magnetic topology is conserved, so helicity is
conserved).  (See frozen-in flow).  If the plasma has a small amount 
of resistivity, then Helicity is not exactly conserved.  However, the 
total helicity inside of a given flux surface is often conserved to a 
good approximation. In that case, the dynamics of a plasma can be 
analyzed as an evolution toward a minimum energy state subject to the 
constraint of a conserved total helicity (See Taylor State, J.B. 
Taylor). This is often used in analyzing the equilibrium and 
relaxation of RFP's and other toroidal devices. 

& Helium: Element whose nuclei all contain two protons.
Stable isotopes are 3He and 4He.  3He is rare on earth (only 1.3
ppm of naturally-occuring He), can be generated from decaying
tritium (half life of about 12 years), and is relatively abundant 
in the crust of the moon.  Helium is the second most abundant element 
in the universe and in the sun, and occurs at about (I believe)
1 part per million in earth's atmosphere.  Helium is also found
in significant quantities in natural gas deposits.  The nucleus
of the He atom is also known as an alpha particle.  Helium is
chemically inert, behaves nearly as an ideal gas under a wide
range of pressures and temperatures, and can only be liquefied
at 4 Kelvin (at atmospheric pressures).  One mole of He weighs
4 grams.

! Hertz, Heinrich:  19th-century German physicist; first (?)
observed low-frequency electromagnetic waves.

$ Hertz:  Unit of frequency equal to one complete oscillation (cycle)
per second.

* High-mode or H-mode:  (adapted from Herman) A regime of operation
most easily attained during auxiliary heating of diverted 
tokamak plasmas when the injected power is sufficiently high.  
A sudden improvement in particle confinement time leads to 
increased density and temperature, distinguishing this mode 
from the normal "low mode."  However, H-mode has been achieved
without divertors, auxiliary heating, or a tokamak.  (H-modes
have been observed in stellarators.)

* Hybrid reactor:  see fusion-fission hybrid.

& Hydrogen: (H) Element whose nuclei all contain only one proton.
Isotopes are protium (p, no neutrons) deuterium (D or d, 
one neutron), and tritium (T or t, two neutrons).  The single most
abundant element in the universe, and in the sun.  Hydrogen is
a major element in organic compounds, water (H2O), and many
other substances.  Hydrogen is ordinarily a gas, but can be
liquefied at low temperatures, and even solidified at low
temperature and high pressure.  Hydrogen gas can burn explosively
in the presence of oxygen.

* Hydrogen bomb or H-bomb: (from Herman) An extremely 
powerful type of atomic bomb based on nuclear fusion.  
The atoms of heavy isotopes of hydrogen (deuterium and 
tritium) undergo fusion when subjected to the immense 
heat and pressure generated by the explosion of a nuclear 
fission unit in the bomb.  

* Hydromagnetic Instability:  See MHD Instability



IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

# I - variable used to indicate total current through a conductor.

@ IAEA - International Atomic Energy Agency; see entry
 
@ IBHP - Integrated Biological Hazard Potential; see entry

@ ICE - Ion Cyclotron Emission; see entry

@ ICF - Inertial Confinement Fusion; see entry

@ ICH - Ion Cyclotron Heating - see ICRH

@ ICRH - Ion Cyclotron Resonance Heating; see entry

@ INEL - Idaho National Engineering Laboratory; see entry

@ IPP - Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics; see entry

@ ITER - International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor; see entry

% Idaho National Engineering Laboratory:  U.S. Department of energy
laboratory involved in engineering studies for fusion and fission
reactors, among other things.  Not surprisingly, located in Idaho.

* Ignition:  (from Herman) The point at which the plasma 
produces so much energy from fusion reactions that it no 
longer needs any external source of power to maintain 
its temperature.

* Impurities: atoms of unwanted elements in the plasma, 
which tend to degrade plasma performance, and in the case of 
fusion plasmas tends to inhibit fusion ("poisoning the reactor").
See also poisoning.

* Impurity Control:  Processes which reduce or control the level
of impurities in a plasma, and thereby improve its quality;
see also wall conditioning.

* Inboard side:  portion of a tokamak (or other toroidal device)
closest to the central axis.

& Inductance:  Characteristic relating the magnetic flux generated
through a loop of wires to the current in the wires; Phi=LI.

& Induction:  A changing magnetic flux through a current loop will
induce an electric field which will drive a current through the loop.
This is the principle behind an AC transformer, where an oscillating
electric voltage in one loop of the transformer creates a current
which generates an oscillating magnetic field, which then induces
a different voltage and current in a second loop.

* Inductive Current Drive:  Method to drive current in a toroidal
plasma by using the torus of conducting plasma as the second coil
in a transformer.  The primary coil usually runs down the center
of the torus; changes in the current driven through the primary
coil create changing magnetic fields which drive current in
the plasma.  The current thus driven can be used to heat the plasma
as well (see also ohmic heating; induction).

* Inertial Confinement Fusion:  Approach to fusion where the plasma
is imploded so quickly that the inertia of the converging particles
is so high that they fuse before they disperse.  This is the method
used in a hydrogen bomb; ICF schemes for power production usually
use small pellets of fuel in an attempt to make "miniature"
h-bomb type explosions.  Methods for imploding the pellet include
bombardment from all sides with high-powered laser and particle
beams, and of course implosion in a fission bomb.  Parts of ICF
fusion research remain classified due to their implications for
construction of hydrogen bombs.

* Instability:  (adapted from Herman) A state of plasma in which a
small perturbation amplifies itself to a considerable 
alteration of the equilibrium of the system, which sometimes leads to
disruptions.  Most are associated with waves and other natural
modes of oscillation in the plasma, which can sometimes grow.
There are (unfortunately!) many kinds.   See also:
Flute instability, MHD instability, Interchange instability,
microinstability, kink instability, resistive instability, 
trapped particle instability, two-stream instability, universal
instability, velocity-space instability.

* Integrated Biological Hazard Potential (IBHP):  Total
biological hazard potential of a collection of radioactive
materials summed over their decay lifetimes.  See also BHP.
One measure of the IBHP is the amount of water one would need
to use to dilute the materials to the point where the water
would be safe to drink.

* Interchange Instability:  In the simplest form, if you
place a high-density fluid on top of a low density fluid,
gravity will pull the high density fluid downwards so that
the low-density fluid ends up on top.  The two fluids
therefore interchange places.  More generally, an interchange
instability occurs when two types of fluid are situated with
an external force such that the potential energy is not
a minimum; the two fluids will then interchange locations to
bring the potential energy to a minimum.  A prime example is
the flute instability in mirror machines.

* Interference:  When two waves propagate through the same
region of space, they interfere with each other.  Neither
wave is altered, but the amplitudes of the waves add (or
cancel, if they're of opposite sign) to give the total 
effect to the medium at that point.  

* Interferometer:  Device which measures changes in a medium
by looking at effects on the interference of two waves which
are passed through that medium.

* Interferometry:  Method of gathering information about a
medium by using an interferometer or similar technique.
	Optical - Uses light as the wave to be interfered.
	Microwave - Uses microwaves instead.  Microwave interferometry
   is especially useful in plasma physics for measuring plasma 
   densities.

% International Atomic Energy Agency: (from Herman)  An
autonomous intergovernmental organization established in 1956
with the purpose of advancing peaceful uses of atomic energy,
with headquarters in Vienna.

> International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER):
Huge fusion reactor being planned by the EC, US, Japan,
and Russia (former USSR?).  Should generate far more
energy than it consumes.  Research goals include engineering
studies of reactor materials, component designs for steady-state
devices, and testing/proving commercial feasibility.  Discussed
in sections 5 and 9.

* Ioffe Bars:  Special configuration of conductors which, when
added to a conventional magnetic mirror, generate a "magnetic
well" which stabilizes the mirror against the hydromagnetic
instability.

& Ion:  (from Herman) An atom whic hhas ecome charged as a 
result of gaining or losing one or more orbiting electrons.  
A completely ionized atom is one stripped of all its electrons.

* Ion Cyclotron Emission (ICE):  As ions gyrate around in a magnetic
field (see also larmor radius or cyclotron radius), they radiate 
radio-frequency electromagnetic waves.  This is known as ion 
cyclotron emission, and can be measured to help diagnose a plasma.

* Ion Cyclotron Resonance Heating:  Like ECH, but heats ions 
using the ion cyclotron frequency.  See Electron Cyclotron Heating.

* Ion Temperature: the temperature corresponding to the
mean kinetic energy of the ions in a plasma.

& Ionization:  Process by which a neutral atom is converted to an ion 
(or one ion is converted to another of a different type).

& Ionization Energy:  Generally refers to the amount of energy 
required to strip a particular electron from an atom.  The 
first-ionization-energy is a commonly used quantity in many fields 
of physics and chemistry.  Typically measured in electron-volts.
Equivalent to the atomic binding energy of the electron.

& Ionization Potential:  See ionization energy.

* Ionosphere:  Ionized region of the upper earth atmosphere, which
behaves like a plasma, including reflection of AM radio waves and
generation of auroral glows.

* Isomer, Nuclear:  two nuclei with the same nuclear mass (total
number of protons and neutrons) but different nuclear compostions.
(e.g.: T & 3He are isomers: T has 1p, 2n; 3He has 2p, 1n)

& Isotope: (from Herman) One of several variations of the 
same element, possessing different numbers of neutrons but
the same number of protons in their nuclei.  Most elements have
several stable isotopes, and also several possible unstable
and semi-stable isotopes.  The chemical and physical properties
of the different isotopes are generally the same (except for the
slight mass difference and the possibility of radioactivity).
Examples include the hydrogen isotopes protium (ordinary
hydrogen), deuterium, and tritium (two neutrons, one proton); 
also uranium 238, 233, and 235.
The chemistry of an element depends only on the number of protons
(nuclear charge) and is therefore the same for all isotopes of
an element, but the nuclear properties of different isotopes
will be different.  There are roughly 300 known stable isotopes,
and over 1000 unstable ones.


JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ

# J - variable used to indicate current density

$ J - abbreviation for Joule; see entry

@ JET - Joint European Torus; see entry

@ JT-60: Japan Torus - 60; see entry

>% Joint European Torus:  Large tokamak next to the Culham 
Laboratory in Oxfordshire, England, commonly owned by the 
European Community.  First reactor to achieve > 1 MW of fusion 
power, in 1991.  Largest tokamak currently in operation (to the 
best of the editor's knowledge).

> JT-60: A large Japanese tokamak, located north of Tokyo.
(Anyone have any additional information?)  See also entry in 
Section 5.

$ Joule:  SI unit of energy.  1 Joule = 1E7 ergs = 1 Watt of
power occurring for one second.  1 Joule is roughly 0.001 BTU
and 1 calorie is roughly 4 joules.  There are 3.6 million joules
in a kilowatt hour.

& Joule Heating: See ohmic heating
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.25 / mitchell swartz /  Dick Blue Wars on Logic and NRC
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Dick Blue Wars on Logic and NRC
Subject: Mitchell's benign word war
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 1994 12:23:29 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

   In Message-ID: <9410241515.AA25909@pilot1.cl.msu.edu>
Subject: Mitchell's benign word war
Dick Blue (blue@pilot.msu.edu) writes:

=blue "As is often the case, and discussion of the hazards of ionizaing radiation
=blue tends to result in the facts getting lost in the radioactive smoke.
=blue If anyone believes that we can actually sort everything in the environment
=blue into the good, the bad, and the benign and pick only from columns (a) and
=blue (c) they may as well tune out for the rest of this message.  Robert Heeter
=blue was, I believe, making the valid point that given a choice between exposures
=blue to tritium or to the radioactive emissions from coal-fired power plants
=blue there is no clear reason to choose preferentially to breath coal smoke."

  Dick Blue would have us believe that the exhaust pipe of a leaking tritium
reactor is similar in health to a corn-cob pipe.  
   Blue considers potential exposure from fusion reactions no more dangerous
than the radioactivity released from burning of wood or coal.    
   Note however:   
     More "I believe".   No data.   No Board Certification.   No reference.
   No medical basis.   No biophysical basis.   

At the graduate (and above) level, the toxicity of materials are divided into
 classes such as low, moderate, high, and very high.    

      == TOXICITIES OF A FEW  RADIOACTIVE ISOTOPES ===
               (adapted from "Health Physics - 
Principles of Radiation Protection", D.J. Rees, MIT Press  1967)
     -----------------------------------------------------------------
low             moderate                 high                        very high 
3H                 32P                       131I                    90Sr 
7Be               42K                  natural uranium               226Ra 
18F               60Co                 natural thorium               233U 

  The only evidence here is that Dick Blue has demonstrated to high accuracy
that the TB-skeptics will say ANYTHING to justify this false allegations.


=blue "Obviously you have to plug in all the numbers before you can say which
=blue choice will result in a minimization of the hazard to public health.
=blue I don't see that a substitution of "low toxicity" for "relatively benign"
=blue does much to clarify the issue, however.]

  Dick Blue again fails to read the literature.   Do we shield against 
"relatively benign" materials?   Are all the books on Health Physics, Radiation
Safety, and Radiation Medicine wrong?    I doubt it.
 Blue apparently complies with minimal
NRC, radiation safety standards if at all, and by his
word-play encourages others through the Internet to do the same.  
   Quite irresponsible of Dick Blue.

  These are not benign materials.   That is not what the word 'benign'
means.   Not relatively, not conditionally, and not on a dependent basis.
Radioisotopes generated by fusion reactions, by fission reactions, or which
are used in the laboratory or clinic
require a seriousness to work with them.  Given his oversight of data,
reality, and normal procedure, that is why Dick
Blue probably either does not, or should not have, a license with which 
to work with them.
    

=blue    There is a clear indication in
=blue some responses of confusion concerning the radioactivity in coal that
=blue can, perhaps, be addressed more intelligently than just trying to
=blue decide what words to use in describing tritium hazards.
    Well at least the word 'hazard' was used.    If Dick Blue "believes" (as he 
states) that the radionuclides generated from fusion reactors (and judging from
the context here fission reactors as well) are comparable those radioactive
products generated form burning wood or coal, we challenge him for the 
numbers to back up his "belief", and look forward to learning more if the
numbers really exist.


=blue Simply stated, there are radioisotopes in the environment and our
=blue exposure to them is "significant" in any determination of the health
=blue risks associated with ionizing radiation.  .....
=blue  In some sense our public policy is to treat this activity
=blue as benign at the same time that far lesser hazards become the topics
=blue of raging debates, with resulting demands for action addressing remediation
=blue even at great expense.

      No, it is not necessarily significant but may be. 
     Background may be significant but only if it is
examined and quantitatively compared to what the total exposure actually is,
and if background is found to be on the order of, or much more, than the
incremental sources.

  Furthermore, tritium -- despite Blue's erroneous claim -- is not a natural
background radiation source of major significance.
It appears Blue may not even be aware of which radioisotope accounts for
most the background internal radiation to which we are all
 exposed on a normal ongoing basis.
(try potassium-40,  Dick, with about a 20 millirad (rad = 1/100th Gray) gonadal
dose per year).  
   Also, how many millirads (or whatever unit you want) of ionizing
radiation does a wood stove or coal furnace deliver per annum to the gonads
(or any other location)  as Robert Heeter and Dick Blue 'believe'? 

                Mitchell Swartz   (mica@world.std.com)


cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.25 / Stefan Hartmann /  Free Energy MPEG movie now at 3 sites !
     
Originally-From: harti@shb.contrib.de (Stefan Hartmann)
Newsgroups: alt.paranet.science,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,alt.sci.phy
ics.plutonium,de.sci.electronics,sci.bio,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,
ci.physics.particle
Subject: Free Energy MPEG movie now at 3 sites !
Date: 25 Oct 1994 14:12:00 +0100

The TESTATI1.ZIP file, which extracts to an MPEG movie of the famous TESTATIKA
free energy machine from the Switzerland group Methernitha, living in
CH-3517 Linden, Switzerland,

is now available at 3 FTP sites:

Now at :

ftp.cs.tu-berlin.de   in /incoming

ftp.rrzn.uni-hannover.de  in /incoming

ftp.uu.net in /tmp

Please get it from there, if you have missed it or had trouble to get the  
70 parts uuencoded postings inside the newsgroups.

You will need the following players to play it:

vmepg12a.zip   in ftp.netcom.com  in /pub/cfogg/mpeg   for DOS/WINDOWS
mpeg_play  on UNIX
Sparkle on MACs


XingIT player will not work !


I will soon upload also the second and third MPEG movie I have of the  
device to these sites. Stay tuned !

This is the future of clean nonpolluting energy supply ! Have a look into  
the future !

BTW, Methernitha is currently working on a 30 KW unit with discs as big as  
2 meters in diameter !

In this moment they still keep their research secret for some reasons. But  
if many people will write to them to disclose this invention, they might  
change their attitude. So please write to them !
Get their address from the end of the movie and write them !

Regards, Stefan.
email to:
harti@contrib.de


## CrossPoint v3.02 ##
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenharti cudfnStefan cudlnHartmann cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.25 / Eric Werme /  Re: Radioactive smoke
     
Originally-From: werme@alingo.zk3.dec.com (Eric Werme)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Radioactive smoke
Date: 25 Oct 94 12:45:54 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation

jlogajan@mirage.skypoint.net (John Logajan) writes:

>  Coal is then mined and the smoke from the burning
>coal returns the elements back to the surface from whence they originally
>came.

>It would seem from that logic that you'd get as much airborne radioactivity
>from burning a ton of wood as you would get from burning a ton of coal.

I can't answer the airborne/smoke radioactivity, but in the Oct 1 Science
News on page 223, an article reports that coal burning in US power plants
in 1982 released  a lot of Uranium and Thorium in its fly ash.  The U-235
content alone was some 11,000 pounds.  The total radioactive energy (not
sure how that was computed) is greater than the chemical energy!

From memory, but a year or two ago, someone at a local nuclear plant, I think
Seabrook, NH, took some wood ash from his wood stove to work to analyze.
Turns out the ash is radioactive enough so that he had to treat it as
low level radioactive waste and had to leave it there.  One major difference
between that and coal was that the wood had significant amounts of
Strontium-90 (half life 29 years) courtesy of the above ground atomic
bomb tests.

And (getting really off the s.p.f charter) another recent Science News
article covers the concentration of radio-isotopes from hospital
sewage.  Turns out that the sludge is radioactive enough to exceed
various federal standards, but but the DOE and EPA don't seem to want
to get invovled.

Unabashed commercial plug:  All s.p.f (in fact, all sci.*.*) readers
ought to subscribe to Science News.  In the US call 800-247-2160.  $44.50
for one year.

-- 
Eric (Ric) Werme         |  werme@zk3.dec.com
Digital Equipment Corp.  |  This space intentionally left blank.
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenwerme cudfnEric cudlnWerme cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.25 /  nestorm@fedc04 /  Coal combustion (was Re: Radioactive smoke)
     
Originally-From: nestorm@fedc04.fed.ornl.gov (Bonnie Nestor (NESTORM@FED
04.FED.ORNL.GOV))
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Coal combustion (was Re: Radioactive smoke)
Date: 25 OCT 94 13:57:04 GMT
Organization: MIT PLASMA FUSION CENTER

In the Oak Ridge National Laboratory Review [Vol. 26, Nos. 3 and 4, p. 24
(1993)], in an article called "Coal Combustion: Nuclear Resource
or Danger?" the author, Alex Gabbard, cites an article by J. P. McBride et al.,
"Radiological Impact of Airborne Effluents of Coal and Nuclear Plants"
(_Science_, December 8, 1978), and summarizes its conclusions: "Americans
living near coal-fired power plants are exposed to higher radiation doses than
those living near nuclear power plants that meet government regulations."

The Gabbard article goes on to discuss the makeup of coal and coal ash, noting
that trace quantities of uranium in coal range from less than 1 part per
million (ppm) to around 10 ppm; the amount of thorium contained in coal is
about 2.5 times the amount of uranium. "For a large number of coal samples,
according to Environmental Protection Agency figures released in 1984, average
values of uranium and thorium content have been determined to be 1.3 ppm and
3.2 ppm, respectively.... For the year 1982...each typical [coal-fired] plant
released 5.2 tons of uranium (containing 74 pounds of uranium-235) and 12.7
tons of thorium..... Releases in 1982 from worldwide combustion of 2800 million
tons of coal totaled 3640 tons of uranium (containing 51,700 pounds of
uranium-235) and 8960 tons of thorium."

Regarding radiation exposure, Gabbard states, "according to NCRP [National
Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements] Reports No. 92 and No. 95,
population exposure from operation of 1000-MWe... power plants amounts to 
490 person-rem/year for coal plants and 4.8 person-rem/year for nuclear plants.
Thus, the population effective dose equivalent from coal plants is 100 times
that from nuclear plants."

He goes on to note, "Although significant quantities of ash [produced during
coal combustion] are retained by precipitators, heavy metals such as uranium
tend to concentrate on the tiny glass spheres that make up the bulk of fly ash.
This uranium is released to the atmosphere with the escaping fly ash, at about
1.0% of the original amount, according to NCRP data. The retained ash is
enriched in uranium several times over the original uranium concentration
because the uranium, and thorium, content is not reduced as the volume of coal
is reduced....All studies of potential health effects associated with the
release of radioactive elements from coal combustion conclude that the
perturbation of background dose levels is almost negligible. However, because
the half-lives of radioactive potassium-40, uranium, and thorium are
practically infinite in terms of human lifetimes, the accumulation of these
species in the biosphere is directly proportional to the length of time that a
quantity of coal is burned.... the accumulated quantities of these isotopes
over 150 or 250 years could pose a significant future ecological burden and
potentially produce adverse health effects, especially if they are locally
accumulated."

A rather startling conclusion is that "by collecting the uranium residue from
coal combustion, significant quantities of fissionable material can be
accumulated. In a few years' time, the recovery of the uranium-235 released by
coal combustion from a typical utility anywhere in the world could provide the
equivalent of several World War II-type uranium-fueled weapons. Consequently,
fissionalbe nuclear fuel is available to any country that either buys coal from
outside sources or has its own reserves....Of far greater potential are the
much larger quantities of thorium-232 and uranium-238 from coal combustion that
can be used to breed fissionable isotopes. Chemical separation and purification
of uranium-233 from thorium and plutonium-239 from uranium require far less
effort than enrichment of isotopes. Only small fractions of these fertile
elements in coal combustion residue are needed for clandestine breeding of
fissionable fuels and weapons materials by those nations that have nuclear
reactor technology and the inclination to carry out this difficult task."

He points out that nuclear power is more expensive than coal partly because of
the expense involved in restricting emissions of radioactivity. "If coal-fired
plants were regulated in a similar manner, the added cost of handling nuclear
waste from coal combustion would be significant.... If increased regulation of
nuclear power plants is demanded, can we expect a significant redirection of
national policy so that radioactive emissions from coal combustion are also
regulated?"

"When considering the nuclear consequences of coal combustion, policymakers
should look at the data and recognize that the amount of uranium-235 alone
dispersed by coal combustion is the equivalent of dozens of nuclear fuel
loadings. They should also recognize that the nuclear fuel potential of the
fertile isotopes of thorium-232 and uranium-238, which can be converted in
reactors to fissionable elements by breeding, yields a vritually unlimited
source of nuclear energy..."

(I'm a total technopeasant who's just quoting the article; don't bother to 
flame me.)

Bonnie Nestor
mnj@ornl.gov
DISCLAIMER: I work at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, for Martin Marietta Energy
Systems, Inc., which is under contract to the U.S. Department of 
Energy -- but I don't speak for any of them, and they return the favor.

cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudennestorm cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.24 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Griggs device does not howl
     
Originally-From: barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs device does not howl
Date: Mon, 24 Oct 94 21:04:51 GMT
Organization: UCLA, Mathematics Department

In article <RU-W6tS.jedrothwell@delphi.com> jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:
>  
> 2. Questions answered in the patent or the material published by
> Hydrodynamics. Since Dick Blue never bothers to read patents, papers or other
> freely available material he would not know about that.
>  

Jed---for greater dissemination, is it possible the patent, etc,
could be scanned in and downloaded to this newsgroup? Seeing as
you are a computer guy, perhaps you could access a scanner?

You could dispense with a lot of stupid questions by simply
making this info available on the newsgroup.

--
Barry Merriman
UCLA Dept. of Math
UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)


cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.25 / Randy Smith /  Re: Griggs device does not howl
     
Originally-From: rsmith@maxwell.ee.washington.edu (Randy Smith)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs device does not howl
Date: 25 Oct 1994 01:28:23 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

In article <RU-W6tS.jedrothwell@delphi.com>,  <jedrothwell@delphi.com> wrote:
>biffs@u.washington.edu (Randy Smith) writes (in quotes):
> 
>     "...and the cylinder device might have been doing something non-sonic
>     related (well, other than the incredible howling)."
> 
>There is no incredible howling. Neither I nor any other person with first-hand
>knowledge of the machine has ever reported anything like a howling noise.

I did assume the Griggs pump made peculiar sounds, but I was actually 
talking about the 'Hilsh Tube', which was quite loud.

>...
>But, just to clear up any confusion, he posted a number of questions about
>Griggs. These fell into four categories:
> 
>1. Questions which I answered long ago, in detail...

I think you're talking about the FUAQ post.  Considering how long this
discussion has been going on, perhaps you should counter with a FAQ.
After all, one of the classic problems with overunity devices is the 
cloud of disinformation and speculation surrounding them.  Dispell that, 
and you've gone a long way twords proving your case.

Randy Smith (rsmith@ee.washington.edu or biffs@u.washington.edu)
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenrsmith cudfnRandy cudlnSmith cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.24 / Robert Heeter /  Re: Conv. Fusion FAQ (Part 2/5 Envir) - "benign" vs low toxicity
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Conv. Fusion FAQ (Part 2/5 Envir) - "benign" vs low toxicity
Date: Mon, 24 Oct 1994 18:07:10 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

In article <38fjsf$p7k@stratus.skypoint.net> John Logajan,
jlogajan@mirage.skypoint.net writes:
[ Bob Heeter wrote: ]
> : Coal contains various radioactive elements in it
> : as natural impuritites.  These elements are concentrated by the
> : combustion process, and released almost indiscriminately into the
> : environment afterwards.  Surely you don't expect to just mine
> : a bunch of rock, burn it, and have no radioactive elements at
> : all released into the surface environment?
> 
> How does coal come to contain quantities of radioactive materials
> that differ from concentrations of same on the surface?
> 
> It would seem to me that coal is some sort of former organic product
> which once existed on the surface and was sedimented and/or subducted
> into the earth.  Coal is then mined and the smoke from the burning
> coal returns the elements back to the surface from whence they
originally
> came.
> 
> It would seem from that logic that you'd get as much airborne
radioactivity
> from burning a ton of wood as you would get from burning a ton of coal.
> No?

Nick Maclaren already answered this, but let me just add that 
wood is likely to decompose on its own, whether you burn it or
not, whereas combustion of coal represents an human-generated
additional flow of material through the environment.  Even
if the concentration of radioactive materials in coal was the
same as in wood, you still need to be concerned that you're
digging stuff out of a reservoir in the ground and flowing
it through the environment.  Increasing the flow of radioactive 
materials in the surface environment can change the equilibrium
concentrations of those materials in different locations.
In the case of coal, when you burn it, the heavier radioisotopes
can become concentrated in the ash, and if you then take the
ash and use it as landfill, it will probably be somewhat more
radioactive than your average piece of ordinary land.  I don't
think it's a huge health hazard, but I think that's how it works.

***************************
Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University
As always, I represent only myself, and not PPPL
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.24 / Robert Heeter /  How to find the Conventional Fusion FAQ on the Net
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: How to find the Conventional Fusion FAQ on the Net
Date: Mon, 24 Oct 1994 19:03:22 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

Hi All,

A number of people have emailed me regarding how to
download the FAQ from places on the net.  Here's a
standard reply I've written up; I figured I'd post it
since there are probably curious people out there who
want to know, but didn't feel like writing me directly.
(This seems to be a Frequently Asked Question about
the FAQ, i.e., an FAQ FAQ!)

How to find the Conventional Fusion FAQ on the Net:
(Last Revised 10/23/94)

(A) Read sci.physics.fusion, sci.answers, news.answers.
The FAQ is posted monthly to these groups.  Not all
sections are posted at once, so you may need to wait
for a week or two.

(B) You can ftp to rtfm.mit.edu and look in any of
the following directories:

/pub/usenet/news.answers/fusion-faq
/pub/usenet/sci.answers/fusion-faq
/pub/usenet/sci.physics.fusion/

(C) There are other FAQ archive sites around the world
which one can try if rtfm is busy; a list is appended
below.

(D) In the not-too-distant future I hope to have a
World-Wide Web version of the FAQ also available.
I will publicize this in Section 0, Part 1 
(Intro-Overview) when it occurs.

*** Additional Note: 

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

So 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 figure out 
what's up with it. 


*************  List of FAQ Archive Sites Worldwide **********

(The following information comes from the
"Introduction to the *.answers newsgroups" 
posting, 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 any 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




***************************
Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University
As always, I represent only myself, and not PPPL
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Wed Oct 26 04:37:05 EDT 1994
------------------------------
1994.10.26 / Barry Merriman /  Re: No scanner here
     
Originally-From: barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: No scanner here
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 94 04:59:53 GMT
Organization: UCLA, Mathematics Department

In article <941025204932_72240.1256_EHB264-1@CompuServe.COM>  
72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
> 
>      U.S. 5,188,090, 2/1993, J. Griggs, Apparatus for heating fluids
> 
> .. . .and while you are at it have a look at:
> 
>      U.S. 4,943,355 7/1990 J. Patterson
>      U.S. 5,036,031 7/1991 J. Patterson
>      U.S. 5,318,675 6/1994 J. Patterson
> 

Thanks---I'll take a look at it (I can probably
get it on campus).

(I'm just curious to see what the device actually looks
like. Plus, I have a soft spot in my heart for the debunking
of simple mechanical devices that produce excess energy :-)


--
Barry Merriman
UCLA Dept. of Math
UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)


cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.26 / Dieter Britz /  Griggs: why?
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Griggs: why?
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 1994 08:31:15 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway


Now that I have seen the Griggs patent, I am left wondering why anyone would
build such a device in the first place. Presumably, he started simply
designing a converter of mechanical energy to heat, and then discovered - or
seemed to discover - that it was a free-lunch machine, producing more heat
than the mechanical energy put into it. 

What I am wondering is why build this sort of thing in the first place? Why
not heat water directly either from electricity or from burning oil? There are
surely lots of refined designs that maximise heat transfer to where you want
it, i.e. minimise loss of heat to places other than the water you want to
heat. As it is, with the motor surely not down in the water, the heat given
off from the motor must get lost to the air. Someone please enlighten me. 

I also wonder, of course, what this has to do with cold fusion. Remember that
subject? I wonder the same thing with radioactive coal smoke, and that so very
USAmerican preoccupation, the dragster.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.26 / Bruce Dunn /  Re: US Patent 5,188,090 ( James L Griggs )
     
Originally-From: Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Dunn)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: US Patent 5,188,090 ( James L Griggs )
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 94 07:43:43 -0800
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada

The Griggs patent, kindly provided by Bruce Hamilton, claims:

 The  device  is thermodynamically  highly  efficient, despite the
> structural and mechanical simplicity  of  the  rotor  and  other
compounds.

It should be noted that the patent does not claim "over unity" efficiency,
but merely that the efficiency is high.  Any engineer reading this would
take it to mean that the output closely approaches the theoretical book
value relating mechanical to heat energy.  I find this somewhat of an odd
claim.  Any device which converts mechanical energy into thermal energy
will be thermodynamically highly efficient.  With the exception of any heat
leakage from the un-insulated surface of a mechanical-to-heat coverter and
some radiated noise, on a steady state basis ***all*** mechanical power put
into the device ***must*** appear as heat in the fluid being passed through
the device.  The efficiency of such devices depends on their insulation,
not on their internal design.

On the positive side, there may well be a commercial use for such a device.
For example, I work in a lab which has an electrically powered steam
autoclave.  We are constantly having boiler problems with scale buildup
requiring regular boiler cleanings. We have also suffered from heater
element burnout when water level control devices didn't work correctly. The
Griggs device with its tight clearances and moving parts presumably would
be immune to the buildup of any internal deposits, and has no heater
element to burn out.


--
Bruce Dunn    Vancouver, Canada   Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenBruce_Dunn cudfnBruce cudlnDunn cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.26 / Cameron Bass /  Re: US Patent 5,188,090 ( James L Griggs )
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: US Patent 5,188,090 ( James L Griggs )
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 1994 15:27:24 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <B.Hamilton.117.2EADEAB0@irl.cri.nz>,
Bruce Hamilton <B.Hamilton@irl.cri.nz> wrote:
>
>I hope I don't waste bandwidth if others have already posted this.
>
>
>APPARATUS FOR HEATING FLUIDS
>
>PATENT NO.:  5,188,090
>ISSUED:      February 23, 1993 (19930223)
>INVENTOR(s): Griggs, James L., Powder Springs, Georgia), US (United
>             States of America)

      Not surprisingly, no mention of over-unity performance nor any claims
      of that nature.  Why Jed mentions the patent on a simple water heater
      escapes me...

                             dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.25 / Alan M /  Re: Rothwell fan club
     
Originally-From: Alan@moonrake.demon.co.uk ("Alan M. Dunsmuir")
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Rothwell fan club
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 1994 16:05:48 +0000
Organization: Home

In article: <xm7XyFL.jedrothwell@delphi.com>  jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:

> Listen, asshole, nobody has ever challenged my facts.

Remember the television program which you claimed had caused 'such as 
stir' when it was broadcast by the BBC? Pity you didn't know some regular
BBC viewers were members of sci.skeptic and read that ludicrous posting?

Remember how it 'proved that MIT had been cheating'? On repeated 
probing you finally conceded that a MIT graph had been shown on screen 
and that 'any fool could see that it was at variance with the published 
results'.

Remember the claims you made that cold fusion is now a undisputable 
fact, reported clearly and repeadedly by a range of peer-reviewed 
journals and the findings authenticated?

Remember the 'Journal published by MIT' which turned out to be a alumnis'
fraternal chat-rag?

Your brand of facts really is unique, Jed!

You're either a credulous fool or a charletan, Jed, Your less than 
subtle way with truth and logic leads me to suspect the latter 
alternative to be the more likely.

Still looking forward to Tom's visit to Griggs?

Alan M. Dunsmuir [@ his wits end]     (Can't even quote poetry right)

         I am his Highness' dog at Kew
         Pray tell me sir, whose dog are you?
			      [Alexander Pope]

PGP Public Key available on request.


cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenAlan cudfnAlan cudlnM cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.26 / C Weisgerber /  Re: Free Energy MPEG movie now at 3 sites !
     
Originally-From: naddy@mips.ruessel.sub.org (Christian Weisgerber)
Newsgroups: alt.paranet.science,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,alt.sci.phy
ics.plutonium,de.sci.electronics,sci.bio,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,
ci.physics.particle
Subject: Re: Free Energy MPEG movie now at 3 sites !
Date: 26 Oct 1994 17:50:47 +0100

harti@shb.contrib.de (Stefan Hartmann) writes:

> The TESTATI1.ZIP file, which extracts to an MPEG movie of the famous TESTATIKA
> free energy machine from the Switzerland group Methernitha, living in
> CH-3517 Linden, Switzerland,

MAKE.MONEY.FAST

-- 
Christian 'naddy' Weisgerber, Germany
naddy@mips.ruessel.sub.org / naddy@mips.lu.pfalz.de
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudennaddy cudfnChristian cudlnWeisgerber cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.26 / Robert Eachus /  Re: What Tom Droege could do with Griggs device
     
Originally-From: eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What Tom Droege could do with Griggs device
Date: 26 Oct 94 17:09:42
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.


    Hmmm. Just got reminded of something.  Tom, check the temperature
of the meters.  Some meters are Ok at any livable temperature but many
start dropping off when hot.  If the meters are mounted near the hot
side of the system, there may be a sensitivity.  There could also be
a problem from stray magnetic fields.  Good meters are shielded, but I
have had problems from the AC magnetic field dissipated in the shields
heating the meters.  Not usually a problem at these (low ;-) voltages
and currents, but it pays to be careful.

--

					Robert I. Eachus

with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudeneachus cudfnRobert cudlnEachus cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.26 / Michael Kenward /  Re: Rothwell fan club
     
Originally-From: Michael Kenward <m.kenward@bbcnc.org.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Rothwell fan club
Date: 26 Oct 1994 21:28:59 GMT
Organization: An InterNetNews site

You asked about Rothwell's visits to Compuserve forums. His memory is deficient here too.

I have 'seen' him in the journalists forum, the science forum and the White House Forum.

In all cases it is the same pattern. He surfaces. Astounds them all
with his science, only to sink without trace. A bit like that startling
breakthough he regularly promises.

Oh yes. It may be my memory that is playing up, but I seem to recall that
our Jed actually got dumped out of one Forum for being obnoxious. But as
I say, it might be my memory.

Do you think we could persuade him to bribe some MPs?

Michael Kenward
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenkenward cudfnMichael cudlnKenward cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.26 / Robert Eachus /  Re: GG Improvements-- Use nitromethane instead of water!
     
Originally-From: eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: GG Improvements-- Use nitromethane instead of water!
Date: 26 Oct 94 17:54:47
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.


In article <38d9dh$8e4@nntp1.u.washington.edu> biffs@u.washington.edu
(Randy Smith) writes:

  > You could just dump in fuel instead-- which is what dragsters do.  Top Fuel
  > dragsters run straight nitromethane at a 1-2 to 1-1 (by weight) fuel-air
  > ratio.  This is really, really expensive, but you don't need to mess with
  > water injectors (just plenty of fuel injectors).

    With nitromethane what do you need air for?  (Answer, you need to
compress something, and liquids don't compress well.)  Nitromethane is
CH3NO3, and "burns":

    2 CH3NO3 + nothing --> CO2 + CO + N2 + 3 H2O

    Or thereabouts.  As you can see the extra O2 from the air can
result in more nitrous oxides and more CO2 relative to CO in the
exhaust.

  > I think most of the stripping down is to look for cracked or damaged
  > parts (top fuel engines put out about 500hp per cylinder), but they
  > would certainly clean it up.  Also, the rough running in whatever class
  > is probably mostly due to the timings, which have been changed slightly.  

    Hmmmm. Read what I said, especially above.  If you aren't burning
to soot, you don't have those problems, and with "pure" nitro, it
isn't a problem.  It's the "gas" guzzlers that have to worry about
soot in the oil.

  > And oddly enough all with the same answer--"Somebody tried it, and
  > it didn't work."  Plus I found out about zoom headers and deuce
  > coups.

    Some worked well enough to be banned for safety reasons, like jet
powered "unlimited" dragsters, where you really needed about six miles
of runout for safety.  (No engine braking, and the exhaust made
'chutes a little problematic at high speeds--they usually worked, but
could jerk the car around, so you are counting on brakes a lot too
much for comfort.)

  > Anyway, (long OB, eh?) if the Griggs device has quite a bit of steam
  > in the chamber, and the swirling gas is the prime attribute of the
  > cylinder device, it could be a similar situation.

   I already pointed out the Hilsh tube effect.  If some of the (cold)
water fromt the center of the pump is returning to the feed tank, I'd
definitely suspect a Hilsh effect.

--

					Robert I. Eachus

with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudeneachus cudfnRobert cudlnEachus cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
when? / Robert Eachus /      
Originally-From: eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Newsgroups: alt.paranet.science,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,alt.sci.phy
ics.plutonium,sci.bio,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.particl

Subject: Re: Carnot is dead ! Schaeffer disproves 2nd "law" (NOT)
Date: 26 Oct 94 18:00:42
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.

In article <5ZPnp-veldB@shb.contrib.de> harti@shb.contrib.de (Stefan Hartmann) writes:

 > With his latest measurements he now can prove, that with the retrograde  
 > condensation with these gas-mixtures he can get efficiencies, which are  
 > far higher, than Carnot would predict.

   Let's see, hmmm, condensation, sounds like he should be comparing
to the Rankine cycle?  Like in a steam engine or steam turbine?  (Yes
a Rankine cycle engine can better the theoretical Carnot limit, due to
the phase changes in the working fluid.)

   Yawn!

--

					Robert I. Eachus

with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...
cudkeys:
cudeneachus cudfnRobert cudlnEachus cudszM 
------------------------------
1994.10.26 / Robert Eachus /  Re: GG Improvements
     
Originally-From: eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: GG Improvements
Date: 26 Oct 94 18:25:57
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.

In article <BajoriAP.616.000D71E0@Perkin-Elmer.com> BajoriAP@Perkin-Elme
.com (Andrew Bajorinas) writes:

  > It does shorten engine life by encouraging rust BUT it also helps
  > clean out carbon deposits (which do not dissolve in petrol but do
  > in water).

   Huh?  The only sense in which adding water cleans out carbon
deposits is to blow them out, which if you have a lot of (graphite)
buildup in your engine, it will do quite well.  Soot particles,
including C60, tend to end up in the exhaust :-) or the oil :-(.

   But the only "common" solvent I know of for carbon is molten iron.
And that will really do a job on your engine... ;-) Unburned
hydrocarbons tend to dissolve in organic solvents better than in
water.



--

					Robert I. Eachus

with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudeneachus cudfnRobert cudlnEachus cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Thu Oct 27 04:37:04 EDT 1994
------------------------------
1994.10.27 / Eric Werme /  Re: Radioactive smoke
     
Originally-From: werme@alingo.zk3.dec.com (Eric Werme)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Radioactive smoke
Date: 27 Oct 94 13:58:53 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation

mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY) writes:

>werme@alingo.zk3.dec.com (Eric Werme) writes:
> 
>-> I can't answer the airborne/smoke radioactivity, but in the Oct 1 Science
>-> News on page 223, an article reports that coal burning in US power plants
>-> in 1982 released  a lot of Uranium and Thorium in its fly ash.  The U-235
>-> content alone was some 11,000 pounds.  The total radioactive energy (not
>-> sure how that was computed) is greater than the chemical energy!
> 
>When I worked in Oak Ridge we use to argue that the coal fired plants released
>over 1,000 more activity into the atmosphere than a nuclear plant when the
>environmentalists would come out.

I'm always amused by utility companies that have both coal and nuclear
plants never defend the nuclear plant by comparisons against coal plants.  :-)

>One that most people don't realize is the lantern mantles for things like
>Coleman lanterns are quite hot. ...  I once stuck one in
>a detector to measure it's radioactivity, and it was so hot it messed up the
>detector. We had to buy a new detector.

At a tour of a 5 MW research reactor at MIT (how many people in the People's
Republic of Cambridge know there's a 5 MW reactor in their midst?  The tour
leader had a gas mantle sample.  Didn't break his detector, which was
just a basic Geiger counter.  It was the hottest of his samples, hotter
than a radium dial watch.

He also mentioned that there are new mantles that do not use Thorium.  Rush
out and get your Thorium sample now!  I think they're the ones dyed green.

The Thorium, btw, increases the light output of the mantle.  Sorry, don't know
why.
-- 
Eric (Ric) Werme         |  werme@zk3.dec.com
Digital Equipment Corp.  |  This space intentionally left blank.
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenwerme cudfnEric cudlnWerme cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.27 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Rothwell fan club
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Rothwell fan club
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 94 12:58:00 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Alan@moonrake.demon.co.uk ("Alan M. Dunsmuir") writes:
 
     "Remember the television program which you claimed had caused 'such as
     stir' when it was broadcast by the BBC?  Remember how it 'proved that
     MIT had been cheating'? On repeated probing you finally conceded that a
     MIT graph had been shown on screen and. . ." and bla, bla, bla.
 
Yes. I remember all of that, and I stand by everything I said. MIT definitely
did get excess heat in 1989, and so did Cal Tech, and so did Harwell. MIT did
diddle around with their data, as any fool can see just by looking that the
before-and-after versions. You can deny that until you are blue in the face,
but facts are facts; I am right; and you are wrong.
 
Now, why don't you do us all a favor? Slither back under your rock and shut
up.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenjedrothwell cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.27 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Griggs: why?
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs: why?
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 94 12:51:59 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz) writes:
 
     "Now that I have seen the Griggs patent, I am left wondering why
     anyone would build such a device in the first place."
 
I have listed the reasons about a dozen times. You have not been paying
attention. Very briefly: the machine is much more compact than a standard
electric heater; it is much easier to clean; it can boil impure, polluted
water; it costs less to maintain; it is safer than a gas or oil fired furnace;
in some sites an open flame cannot be used; it reduces fire insurance rates,
and -- like all electric boilers -- it does not require a chimney.
Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Dunn) describes some of the problems people
experience with ordinary electric boilers:
 
     "I work in a lab which has an electrically powered steam autoclave.  We
     are constantly having boiler problems with scale buildup requiring
     regular boiler cleanings. We have also suffered from heater element
     burnout when water level control devices didn't work correctly."
 
The excess energy is icing on the cake. Griggs emphasizes the other features
when selling the machine.
 
Britz also writes:
 
     "Presumably, he started simply designing a converter of mechanical
     energy to heat, and then discovered - or seemed to discover - that it
     was a free-lunch machine, producing more heat than the mechanical energy
     put into it."
 
That is correct. I stated that very clearly about a dozen times.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenjedrothwell cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.27 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: No scanner here
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: No scanner here
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 94 12:55:18 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman) writes:
 
     "(I'm just curious to see what the device actually looks like. Plus, I
     have a soft spot in my heart for the debunking of simple mechanical
     devices that produce excess energy :-)"
 
If you want to know what it looks like, I suggest you go look at a machine, or
look at photographs.
 
How on earth can you "debunk" it? On what basis? Anyone looking at the
schematics or photos can declare: "by the known laws of physics, this device
should not create energy." I know that perfectly well, and so does Griggs. You
cannot "debunk" it by repeating that fact, and you cannot possibly discover
the cause of the excess by looking at the schematics. The phenomenon occurs on
a subatomic level, the macroscopic details of the machine give little clue as
to why it happens. Let me explain this point carefully, by example:
 
Pretend that you are a physicist in the year 1894. I hop in a time machine and
show up at your door with a schematic of an atom bomb. I explain that it is a
gadget that produces an explosion equivalent to exploding 100 kilotons of
dynamite, millions of times more than burning a lump of coal of equivalent
mass. You look at the schematics carefully and you say -- reasonably enough --
"That's absurd and impossible. The only thing this machine does is to implode
a metal sphere into a lump. You cannot create a million times more energy than
coal just by smashing metal into a small lump!" You could debunk it very
easily, but of course, you would be wrong, because you cannot see what happens
to the atoms, and with your incomplete and faulty 19th century knowledge of
physics you cannot possibly understand the processes.
 
By the same token, in 1994 you cannot look at a schematic of a Pd
electrochemical cell and tell us why it produces massive excess heat energy
without significant radiation. But there is no question that it does, because
the power level in some cells is so high it cannot be a mistake.
 
The only way for you to debunk the Griggs device is to show that the
experimental protocols or the instruments used to measure energy input and
output are flawed. You cannot do that any more than Tom Droege or anyone else
can. Nobody has found any flaws, because there are none. The experiment is too
simple and the level of heat is too high for there to be any mistake.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenjedrothwell cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.27 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: US Patent 5,188,090 ( James L Griggs )
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: US Patent 5,188,090 ( James L Griggs )
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 94 12:57:05 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Dunn) writes:
 
     "Any device which converts mechanical energy into thermal energy will be
     thermodynamically highly efficient.  With the exception of any heat
     leakage from the un-insulated surface of a mechanical-to-heat coverter
     and some radiated noise, on a steady state basis ***all*** mechanical
     power put into the device ***must*** appear as heat in the fluid being
     passed through the device.  The efficiency of such devices depends on
     their insulation, not on their internal design."
 
That is correct. All mechanical energy delivered by the motor will be
converted to heat, and almost all of that heat will transfer to the fluid. The
only loss is to radiant heat from the housing, pipes, and steel drum walls.
That is one of the big advantages of the Hydrodynamic Pump. An electric motor
will concentrate energy much better than a heating coil. It can deliver, say,
50 HP of energy to a small space, and almost all that energy goes into the
water. That is why the Pump is more compact than a resistance heater of the
same capacity.
 
We now know how much energy is lost to radiant heat. Griggs recently tested a
dummy rotor with no holes around the periphery which created no ultrasound. It
showed a C.O.P. of 94% relative to the dynamometer. So, approximately 6% of
the mechanical energy is lost to radiation.
 
That analysis is fine as far as it goes. The question is: why does the device
create massive amounts of addditional energy when the ultrasound turns on?
That is the mystery. We have ordinary heat from stirring (friction), and then
we have thousands of additional watts of heat from somewhere else. The C.O.P.
is way over unity, between 110% and 150%. The device cannot be a heat pump and
it cannot be storing the energy up, because there is no significant deficit
and because it continues generating heat for hours or day if you leave it on.
In short, the "efficiency" of this device (the C.O.P.), like the Schaefer
device 20 years ago, does *not* depend on insulation. It *does* depend on the
internal design, because the device produces far, far more energy than you put
into it. Not a little bit more, at a level that might be explained away as an
instrurment reading. It produces so much excess than any instrument, no matter
how crude, can easily measure it.
 
The question is: why does it depend on the internal design? What causes it?
Why is one internal design better than another? I have no idea. Griggs can
answer some of these questions, but he has no idea what is happening on the
subatomic level where the phoneomenon must be occuring. Both of us are sure of
the calorimetery. We know it is producing heat, but we do not know why.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenjedrothwell cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.27 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Rothwell fan club
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Rothwell fan club
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 94 13:01:18 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Michael Kenward <m.kenward@bbcnc.org.uk> writes:
 
     "I have 'seen' him [Jed] in the journalists forum, the science forum and
     the White House Forum. . . . In all cases it is the same pattern. He
     surfaces. Astounds them all with his science, only to sink without
     trace. A bit like that startling breakthough he regularly promises."
 
Without a trace? Here is a homework exercise for you, Mike. Let us see if you
can get one or two elementary facts straight. This won't be hard, you don't
have to do any physics, you don't have to do any heavy reading, just counting.
Can you count from 1 to 10? Try this:
 
Go to the CompuServe SCIENCE forum, select Library 2. Count the number of
papers there uploaded by me, written by me, or edited by me. Tell us whether
you find any trace of my activities or not.
 
 
     "Oh yes. It may be my memory that is playing up, but I seem to recall
     that our Jed actually got dumped out of one Forum for being obnoxious.
     But as I say, it might be my memory."
 
That is correct. The journalist forum banned me because I uploaded a hilarious
letter from Mr. Jonathan Piel, editor of Scientific American, addressed to me.
Piel's letter shows that he is a scientific illiterate. I pointed that out.
These journalist types don't like it when people throwing stones at powerful
editors like Piel or Maddox.
 
If anyone wants a copy of that letter, by the way, please don't hesitate to
contact me. It is laff riot! It makes you realize what a great country this
is. Just think, any fool lucky enough to inherit a magazine can become a
powerful voice in science. A man can cut people's careers short, derail the
scientific process, and push our best scientists into the arms of competitors
in Japan. He does not have to understand the first thing about the scientific
method! He can cite famous scientific essays that he has never bothered to
read. He does not even need a PhD to publish outrageous McCarthy style
attacks against a distinguished Fellow of the Royal Society. This, truly, is
the land of opportunity.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenjedrothwell cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.27 / Xavier CH /  Re: Free Energy MPEG movie now at 3 sites !
     
Originally-From: llobet@elpp1.epfl.ch (Xavier Llobet i Sales EPFL-CRPP 1015 Lausanne CH)
Newsgroups: alt.paranet.science,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,alt.sci.phy
ics.plutonium,de.sci.electronics,sci.bio,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,
ci.physics.particle
Subject: Re: Free Energy MPEG movie now at 3 sites !
Date: 27 Oct 1994 17:20:08 GMT
Organization: EPFL


In article <CyBrCs.1EE@festival.ed.ac.uk>, ianj@castle.ed.ac.uk (I Johnston) 
writes:
=Stefan Hartmann (harti@shb.contrib.de) wrote:
=: The TESTATI1.ZIP file, which extracts to an MPEG movie of the
famous =:TESTATIKA free energy machine from the Switzerland group
Methernitha, living =:in CH-3517 Linden, Switzerland,

=Stefan is also advertising widely for sexually explicit still and moving
=pictures of Usenetters to sell on a compact disk. It makes me wonder
=slightly about the name "Testatika" - another load of balls?

Here is the phone directory entry for Methernitha:

                                                                            
 Heime 3517 Linden BE                                                       
    Methernitha Alters- u. Pflegeheim Otterbachstr. 123                     
     3517 Linden BE  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -     
                                                                            
 Methernitha Genossenschaftsverwaltung Griedenbuehl                         
  3517 Linden BE - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -     
    Moosbuehl Abt. Ton- u. Filmtechnik  - - - - - - - - - - 


The first one is nursing home, the second appears to be the audio and video
division of some cooperative.

FWIW

-xavier
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenllobet cudfnXavier cudlnCH cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.26 / Thomas Zemanian /  Re: Carnot is dead ! Schaeffer disproves 2nd "law" (NOT)
     
Originally-From: ts_zemanian@pnl.gov (Thomas S. Zemanian)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Carnot is dead ! Schaeffer disproves 2nd "law" (NOT)
Date: 26 Oct 1994 23:07:19 GMT
Organization: Battelle PNL

In article <EACHUS.94Oct26180042@spectre.mitre.org>,
eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus) wrote:

> In article <5ZPnp-veldB@shb.contrib.de> harti@shb.contrib.de (Stefan Hartmann) writes:
> 
>  > With his latest measurements he now can prove, that with the retrograde  
>  > condensation with these gas-mixtures he can get efficiencies, which are  
>  > far higher, than Carnot would predict.
> 
>    Let's see, hmmm, condensation, sounds like he should be comparing
> to the Rankine cycle?  Like in a steam engine or steam turbine?  (Yes
> a Rankine cycle engine can better the theoretical Carnot limit, due to
> the phase changes in the working fluid.)
> 
>    Yawn!
> 


Steam engines do, in fact, follow the Rankine cycle, but no, the Rankine
cycle cannot yield a greater efficiency than the Carnot cycle.  

(Simple demonstration:  the  Carnot cycle is reversible, so run a Rankine
cycle off a temperature difference, producing work W, dumping heat Qr to
the cold reservoir, and absorbing heat W + Qr from the hot reservoir.  Run
the Carnot engine in reversewith the work, W.  This absorbs heat Qc from
the cold reservoir and dumps heat Qc + W to the hot reservoir.  But, since
the Rankine cycle is assumed to have a greater efficiency than the Carnot
cycle, Qc > Qr.  Thus the net result of this coupling of engines is that
heat Qc - Qr has been transferred from the cold reservoir to the hot
reservoir.  This is a Second Law violation.)

Retrograde condensation is an oddity that occurs when the critical locus
for the two phase region, as mapped out on a P-T-x diagram,  does not
followt the maximum temperature on the saturation surface.  Then, starting
at saturated vapor of slightly greater temperature than the critical
temperature at a certain concentration, by dropping the pressure
isothermally, condensate begins to form.  Of course, as the pressure drops
further the condensate revaporizes and we reemerge on the saturation curve
as vapor.

Retrograde condensation does not, as far as I know, allow any evasion of
the Second Law.

--Tom

--
The opinions expressed herein are mine and mine alone.  Keep your filthy
hands off 'em! 
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudents_zemanian cudfnThomas cudlnZemanian cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.27 / Erik Sorgatz /  Re: Free Energy machine MPEG movie demos !
     
Originally-From: sorgatz@avatar.tti.com (Erik Sorgatz)
Newsgroups: sci.energy,sci.environment,sci.physics.fusion,sci.energy.hydrogen
Subject: Re: Free Energy machine MPEG movie demos !
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 1994 00:42:31 GMT
Organization: Citicorp TTI

In article <38d7db$sji@uropax.contrib.de> harti@uropax.contrib.de
(Stefan Hartmann) writes:
>Hi,
>
>the famous Testatika machine MPEG movie is now at 2 FTP sites:
>
>ftp.cs.tu-berlin.de   in /incoming/TESTATI1.ZIP
>
>ftp.rrzn.uni-hannover.de  in   /incoming/TESTATI1.ZIP
>
>
>Please get it from there and use 
>vmpeg12a.zip on DOS
>mpeg_play on UNIX
>Sparkle on MACs  
>
>to play (view) it.
>
>
>I will post the second of the 3 movies I have of it today in
>alt.binaries.pictures.misc and alt.binaries.multimedia
>newsgroup.
>
>The type of Testatika machines will replace all current energy sources
>as it produces non-polluting "free" energy.
>
>Get a look at the future of clean energy production !
>
>Regards, Stefan.
>

 Oh please! Put up or shut up...where is this gadget? Can we have a set of
PLANS to build one and VERIFY it operation? Dont give me that secret-mumbo-jumbo...
I INSIST YOU EITHER TAKE THIS GARBAGE TO 'alt.bizarre' OR GIVE US THE PROOF!

..or stop posting this crap, please! This is a science newsgroup, not one for 
paranoid fantasy!

(sheesh!)


-Avatar-> (aka: Erik K. Sorgatz) KB6LUY          +----------------------------+
TTI(es@soldev.tti.com)or: sorgatz@avatar.tti.com *Government produces NOTHING!*
3100 Ocean Park Blvd. Santa Monica, CA  90405    +----------------------------+
(OPINIONS EXPRESSED DO NOT REFLECT THE VIEWS OF CITICORP OR ITS MANAGEMENT!)
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudensorgatz cudfnErik cudlnSorgatz cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.26 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Re: GG Improvements
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: GG Improvements
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 1994 20:03 -0500 (EST)

eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus) writes:
 
-> including C60, tend to end up in the exhaust :-) or the oil :-(.
 
That bring up a question I have had since reading about bucky balls.  C60 is
about as round as you can get.  Any idea why is it not lubricating?
 
->    But the only "common" solvent I know of for carbon is molten iron.
-> And that will really do a job on your engine... ;-) Unburned
-> hydrocarbons tend to dissolve in organic solvents better than in
-> water.
 
If I remember my HS chemistry, carbon dissolves in both carbon tetracloride
and carbon disulfide.
 
                                                                Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.25 / Jordan Ziegler /  cold fusion project research
     
Originally-From: jordan.ziegler@forbin.com (Jordan Ziegler)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cold fusion project research
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 1994 23:07:26 GMT
Organization: COLOSSUS, The Forbin Project  319.266.0540

Hi.  My name is Jordan Ziegler and I'm from Portland, Oregon.  My friend
and I are doing a project on cold fusion and I was just wondering if
anybody had any advice for us.  Our project involves doing research in
some periodicals and other references, writing a paper on how we are
going to go about doing our project, and then attempting to reproduce
cold fusion.  This may sound quite ambitious for a couple of kids but we
think that cold fusion is a very interesting subject not only because of
its value as a source of energy but because of its potential efficiency.
If you have anything you would like to say to us, please write to us.
Thanks!
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenziegler cudfnJordan cudlnZiegler cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.26 / Robert Heeter /  Mitch's war of words
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Mitch's war of words
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 1994 02:20:09 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

Mitch - 

I've got to study for a midterm, so I can't write a detailed
reply just this minute. I assure you I did do my "homework"
and research tritium and the relative radiation hazards of 
fusion vs. fission and fossil fuels before writing the FAQ 
section on it.  I didn't make any claims I wasn't prepared
to defend technically, but I felt that since I was writing for
a general audience it would have been overkill to write a really
long, technically-involved section on tritium.  Several of the
references are in the bibliography already, and people interested
in environmental effects could do further reading based on that
information.  Anyway, I'll write up a summary of the references and 
their technical claims with all the gory details. But not until 
after I do my real homework first. 

***************************
Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University
As always, I represent only myself, and not PPPL
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.27 / I Johnston /  Re: Free Energy MPEG movie now at 3 sites !
     
Originally-From: ianj@castle.ed.ac.uk (I Johnston)
Newsgroups: alt.paranet.science,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,alt.sci.phy
ics.plutonium,de.sci.electronics,sci.bio,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,
ci.physics.particle
Subject: Re: Free Energy MPEG movie now at 3 sites !
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 1994 09:21:58 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

Stefan Hartmann (harti@shb.contrib.de) wrote:
: The TESTATI1.ZIP file, which extracts to an MPEG movie of the famous TESTATIKA
: free energy machine from the Switzerland group Methernitha, living in
: CH-3517 Linden, Switzerland,

Stefan is also advertising widely for sexually explicit still and moving
pictures of Usenetters to sell on a compact disk. It makes me wonder
slightly about the name "Testatika" - another load of balls?

Ian Johnston
Technology Staff Tutor,
The Open University in Scotland
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenianj cudfnI cudlnJohnston cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.27 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Breakeven yet?
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Breakeven yet?
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 1994 06:51:19 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <1994Oct23.045800.15460@Princeton.EDU> Robert F. Heeter
<rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> writes:
>In article <Cy087v.6vp@prometheus.UUCP> Paul M. Koloc,
>pmk@prometheus.UUCP writes:
>> In article <1994Oct17.222856.20736@Princeton.EDU> Robert F. Heeter 
>> <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> writes:
>> >In article <37jp71$o0v@coranto.ucs.mun.ca> Grant Buffett,
>> >gbuffett@morgan.ucs.mun.ca writes:
>> >> 	Sorry if this sounds ignorant on my part, but I haven't been 
>> >> following the latest on fusion reactors.  Has anyone been successful
>in 
>> >> reaching breakeven with laser or inertia fusion?  I suspect not, but
>> >I'm 
>> >> just curious.
 
>> >TFTR has reached Power Out / Power In of about 0.3 this year,
>> >during a 9 MW shot in May.  Plans are afoot to try to break 10 MW
>> >sometime during the next year.

Okay!  but didn't you originally speak of a possible Po/Pi of 1 late
this year??  This was some time ago when you first began announcing 
results of this effort.  

>Because it seemed clear to me from the context that he was 
>basing his question on prior knowledge of the issue, and simply
>wanted updated information.

Oh!  Well, it saves words.  

>Same order of magnitude, generally within a factor of two or less.
>TFTR temperature, plasma density, power density, and a variety
>of other parameters are all comparable to those which will be
>produced in ITER and future fusion power plants.  So we feel
>that such plasmas are scientifically possible.  Is that clearer?

But.. . wait minute.. aren't you forgetting to multiply these
critical parameters together to compare to the crucial  triple product
of "T * n * tau"  ???  Wouldn't this give things a bit of a 
more realistic multiple  for the "distance to go"?? 

>> What importance 
>> is the significance of "scientific fusion" in the quest for 
>> commercial use, except as silly hype for more funding from the 
>> naive person of congress?  

>Most people feel that you ought to demonstrate that you
>understand how to make a fusion plasma before you try to build
>a commercial device.  For instance, the Wright brothers didn't
>build a Boeing 747 right away.

Two points:  
1. ---
Don't compare the tokamak to the Wrights craft.. there are a host 
of other machines that suit it more profoundly.  Remember they
made it WORK and they did it in a bicycle shop.  You won't and
you don't, and that's half the problem.  You're paid to dittle.    
Doesn't have to make engineering sense.  Physicists are idiot 
engineers, with a few exceptions and they generally don't do
hot gov-fusion.   (It would drive them nuts).  
2. -- 
AND the universe is swimming in fusion, most of the matter is within
fusioning blobs called stars.  Besides we've collided particles to 
generate and measure fusion cross-sections and built fusion bombs,
which work!!  Besides a number of people have claimed to have evidence 
they produce fusion in much much larger densities than has been achieved 
by the luke warm (have to burn D-T) chaps.   I tend to believe their
stories, before the national fusion program's propaganda.  

>I sure wish I knew what you were talking about!  If you don't
>think you need to demonstrate scientifically that something works
>before you demonstrate commercial feasibility, then no wonder you're
>not getting funding for your approach.
 
Wanna bet!  I think it's more likely to be the other way around. .. 
and it may not be so long before you understand the full implecations
of such verbage.  Of course, you could get a preview from the chaps 
a mag fusion LANL  or mirror chaps at LLNL  or .. etc.,   etc.  
At some point countries and large corporations go broke being stupid 
about reality.  When that begins to happen, it's a time when workable
concepts can be recognized. 

>> Yes, we would't want to turn off the welfare trough.  It's hard 
>> for me to imagine a currently operating machine that is less 
>> advanced than the tokamak, or are we speaking of more archaic
>> tokamaks (such as the clever high field Alcator??  Bob?).      

>All those fusion scientists who have been on "welfare" for the
>past twenty years have improved the output of their reactors from
>0.1 watt to 10,000,000 watts.  Pretty productive "welfare" 
>program, don't you think?

Sure, like the chap that climbs in to the new car off the assembly
line and starts up the engine for the first time.   WOW! what an
improvement in power!!!!!  What does DoE-PPPL do?? feed that line
to the incoming tourists and congressional staff???  Shame on
you.  

Yawn... Now let's see you improve the averge burn density numbers.  
Make toks bigger and they may make more power just due to the 
remoteness of the wall and larger plasma volume --  BUT.. .  once 
those considerations are factored in.. well then let's see if the 
numbers jump the two or three orders of magnitude required for
real working fusion.  Certanly the cost / buck won't improve.  

Well, just keep pecking; you should be out soon??
>***************************
>Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
>Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University
>As always, I represent only myself, and not PPPL
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc, Bx 1037 Prometheus II Ltd, College Park MD 20741-1037    |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.27 / Matt Austern /  Re: Radioactive smoke
     
Originally-From: matt@physics2.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Radioactive smoke
Date: 27 Oct 1994 09:58:39 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (Theoretical Physics Group)

In article <WAF2PCB104467500@brbbs.brbbs.com> mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com
(MARSHALL DUDLEY) writes:

> One that most people don't realize is the lantern mantles for things like
> Coleman lanterns are quite hot.  The powder on them is thorium.  

People don't realize that?  I thought I remembered seeing radiation
warning labels right on the outside of the packages.

I've never figured out, though, just why they're radioactive.  Is it
some sort of unintentional byproduct of the manufacturing process, or
does the radioactivity actually play some role in the light
generation?
--

                               --matt
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenmatt cudfnMatt cudlnAustern cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.27 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Re: Radioactive smoke
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Radioactive smoke
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 1994 13:00 -0500 (EST)

matt@physics2.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern) writes:
 
-> > Coleman lanterns are quite hot.  The powder on them is thorium.
->
-> People don't realize that?  I thought I remembered seeing radiation
-> warning labels right on the outside of the packages.
 
If so then it was added since the last time I bought one.
 
-> I've never figured out, though, just why they're radioactive.  Is it
-> some sort of unintentional byproduct of the manufacturing process, or
-> does the radioactivity actually play some role in the light
-> generation?
 
Thorium is simply a rare earth phospher which is quite efficient and glows with
a brilliant white light.  Being radioactive is simply an unfortunate
characteristic for this use.
 
                                                               Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.27 / Nick Maclaren /  Re: Conv. Fusion FAQ (Part 2/5 Envir) - "benign" vs low toxicity
     
Originally-From: nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk (Nick Maclaren)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Conv. Fusion FAQ (Part 2/5 Envir) - "benign" vs low toxicity
Date: 27 Oct 1994 19:19:34 GMT
Organization: University of Cambridge, England

In article <Cy3pA8.GsH@world.std.com>, mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
|> 
|>    If the word "benign" is to apply to hydrogen isotopes it would
|> be protium or deuterium.  Or do you disagree and claim that they are not
|> benign?

Not even deuterium is entirely benign - it is a biochemical poison
in high concentrations.  However, the term was "relatively benign",
which is considerably more justifiable than plain "benign".  I don't
like the term either, but I cannot think of a better way of saying
"not as harmful as many others".


Nick Maclaren,
University of Cambridge Computer Laboratory,
New Museums Site, Pembroke Street, Cambridge CB2 3QG, England.
Email:  nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk
Tel.:  +44 223 334761    Fax:  +44 223 334679
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudennmm1 cudfnNick cudlnMaclaren cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
when? / Robert Eachus /      
Originally-From: eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Newsgroups: alt.paranet.science,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,alt.sci.phy
ics.plutonium,sci.bio,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.particl

Subject: Re: Carnot is dead ! Schaeffer disproves 2nd "law" (NOT)
Date: 27 Oct 94 15:12:56
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.

In article <ts_zemanian-261094154730@ts_zemanian.pnl.gov> ts_zemanian@pn
.gov (Thomas S. Zemanian) writes:

 > (Simple demonstration:  the  Carnot cycle is reversible, so run a Rankine
 > cycle off a temperature difference, producing work W, dumping heat Qr to
 > the cold reservoir, and absorbing heat W + Qr from the hot reservoir.  Run
 > the Carnot engine in reversewith the work, W...

   The counterexample should be obvious.  Run the Rankine cycle with
hot and cold sides at the same temperature, but different pressures.
(Rankine cycle engines can often be analyzed as pure heat engines, but
they are not.)

   Less this seem like a totally stupid counterargument, I have seen
experimental Rankine cycle systems which ran perfectly fine when the
hot side and cold sides were at the same temperature, but different
barometric pressures.  (That's a hint.  The system worked by
evaporating water at the bottom of a cliff, piping the vapor up,
expanding and condensing it at the top and returning the water.
Works, but no one has yet made it an economically efficient source of
electric power.  Usually the evaporators are designed to absorb
sunlight, etc., but the system I saw still generated power at twilight
when the temperatures approached and crossed equilbrium.)

   Understanding this system requires lots of headscratching, due to
the gravitational gradient in the middle. It really does extract
energy from the difference in pressures between hot and cold sides, as
well as (any) temperature difference.  If you don't have enough
pressure gradient to push the water (vapor) up the hill, you can't
extract energy from its return.  Heat is needed at the bottom to
evaporate the water and maintain the pressure difference, and must be
disposed of at the top.

   This is an experiment you can do at home (assuming you don't live
in an apartment).  Just use a mixture with a low boiling point, and
run a garden hose (for the vapor) and 3/8" copper tubing for the
return.  Put it on a sunny side of the house, and if you do everything
just right, you can maintain the evaporator and condenser at ambient
temperature, and still do measurable work.
--

					Robert I. Eachus

with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...
cudkeys:
cudeneachus cudfnRobert cudlnEachus cudszM 
------------------------------
1994.10.27 / Steve Mankowski /  Re: Griggs: why?
     
Originally-From: smankow@its.bldrdoc.gov (Steve Mankowski)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs: why?
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 1994 18:48:47 GMT
Organization: NTIA/ITS.N2 (RCAS)

In Article <xq52S13.jedrothwell@delphi.com>, jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:
>BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz) writes:
> 
>     "Now that I have seen the Griggs patent, I am left wondering why
>     anyone would build such a device in the first place."
>
And jedrothwell@delphi.com replied:
 
>I have listed the reasons about a dozen times. You have not been paying
>attention. Very briefly: the machine... (extra bandwidth deleted)

Not necessarily, he may simply be relatively new to the group. I learned
some time ago that this was an interesting and lively group to watch but it
still took me several weeks of dedicated lurking to get a reasonable feel
for what all was going on and what the issues and ramifications thereto
were. Not too long ago somebody suggested that this group could benefit from
a FAQ posting. I second the recommendation! Not everyone is a dedicated
lurker like myself so I think that a FAQ would go a long way toward keeping
Jed's bloodpressure from rising at all the endless, "stupid";-) questions
that keep filtering into the group and would free up some bandwidth so that
more new ground could be broken.   
SGM
smankowski@its.bldrdoc.gov
These are my thoughts alone and cannot be construed to represent those of my
employer, my wife or my associates except in the case of random coincidences
with vanishingly low probabilities of occurring! 
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudensmankow cudfnSteve cudlnMankowski cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.27 / Jorge Stolfi /  Griggs Gadget and stored heat
     
Originally-From: stolfi@stack.dcc.unicamp.br (Jorge Stolfi)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Griggs Gadget and stored heat
Date: 27 Oct 1994 19:02:07 GMT
Organization: DCC - UNICAMP - Campinas, SP, Brazil


    > [Jed Rothwell:] For example, someone keeps claiming that the GG
    > might be storing up heat, in spite of the fact that I explained
    > that the excess heat is steady hour after hour, and even day
    > after day in some data sets. How many times must I repeat that
    > message before it sinks in? 
    
You can repeat it a million times, it will not make it true.

For the record, once more:

  1. *All* the data you and Gene posted here is consistent with
  the "stored heat" hypothesis.
  
  2. Your responses (or, rather, the lack thereof) suggest strongly that
  you don't have the data needed to disprove that hypothesis.
  
--stolfi



 -------------------------------------------------------------------
Jorge Stolfi                                | Tel: +55 (192) 39-8442
Computer Science Dept. (DCC-IMECC)          |      +55 (192) 39-3115
Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP) | Fax: +55 (192) 39-7470 
Internet: stolfi@dcc.unicamp.br             | Campinas, SP -- Brazil
 -------------------------------------------------------------------
Please do not copy this .signature virus into your .signature file!

cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenstolfi cudfnJorge cudlnStolfi cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.28 / Cameron Bass /  Re: No scanner here
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: No scanner here
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 1994 00:05:44 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <xKxVKZ+.jedrothwell@delphi.com>,  <jedrothwell@delphi.com> wrote:
>to why it happens. Let me explain this point carefully, by example:
> 
>Pretend that you are a physicist in the year 1894. I hop in a time machine and
>show up at your door with a schematic of an atom bomb. I explain that it is a
>gadget that produces an explosion equivalent to exploding 100 kilotons of
>dynamite, millions of times more than burning a lump of coal of equivalent
>mass. You look at the schematics carefully and you say -- reasonably enough --
>"That's absurd and impossible. The only thing this machine does is to implode
>a metal sphere into a lump. You cannot create a million times more energy than
>coal just by smashing metal into a small lump!" You could debunk it very
>easily, but of course, you would be wrong, because you cannot see what happens
>to the atoms, and with your incomplete and faulty 19th century knowledge of
>physics you cannot possibly understand the processes.

     On the other hand, in about 15 minutes with mention of 'this experiment
     here and that experiment there' one could easily explain to a competent
     19th century physicist exactly what was happening in rather 
     specific terms. 

     They didn't arrive at atomic weaponry by accident, they knew
     exactly what they were after.

>By the same token, in 1994 you cannot look at a schematic of a Pd
>electrochemical cell and tell us why it produces massive excess heat energy
>without significant radiation. But there is no question that it does, because
>the power level in some cells is so high it cannot be a mistake.

     Au contraire, by a completely different token, a token that flies
     in the face of many of those little experiments that I mentioned before,
     a token of miracle, a magical mystery token, one should examine
     macroscopic heat and power measurements carefully enough to 
     rule out the experimental error that Mr. Griggs has likely incorporated 
     into his little experiment.

     Jed you're still a treat, comparing one of the largest directed
     technical pursuits of all time with free energy nuts floundering around
     in the lab.  It boggles the mind.

                                 dale

cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.28 / Cameron Bass /  Re: US Patent 5,188,090 ( James L Griggs )
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: US Patent 5,188,090 ( James L Griggs )
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 1994 00:14:23 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <xK5ViT5.jedrothwell@delphi.com>,  <jedrothwell@delphi.com> wrote:
> 
>That is correct. All mechanical energy delivered by the motor will be
>converted to heat, 

     Not true, as usual.

>and almost all of that heat will transfer to the fluid. The
>only loss is to radiant heat from the housing, pipes, and steel drum walls.

     Not true again, as usual.

>An electric motor will concentrate energy much better than a heating coil. 
 
     This is more than not true, this is generally absurd.

>the calorimetery. We know it is producing heat, but we do not know why.

     On the other hand, I know it's not producing more heat than is 
     put in, and I know why.  Experimental error.

     Jed, you're a treasure trove of information.

                           dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Fri Oct 28 04:37:03 EDT 1994
------------------------------
1994.10.27 / mitchell swartz /  Robert Heeter's Doublespeak (was Mitch's war on words)
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Robert Heeter's Doublespeak (was Mitch's war on words)
Subject: Mitch's war of words
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 1994 23:57:21 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <1994Oct26.022009.1328@Princeton.EDU>
Subject: Mitch's war of words
Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> continued:

=heeter "I've got to study for a midterm, so I can't write a detailed
=heeter reply just this minute. I assure you I did do my "homework"
=heeter and research tritium and the relative radiation hazards of 
=heeter fusion vs. fission and fossil fuels before writing the FAQ 
=heeter section on it.  I didn't make any claims I wasn't prepared
=heeter to defend technically, but I felt that since I was writing for
=heeter a general audience it would have been overkill to write a
=heeter really long, technically-involved section on tritium."
 
    Robert Heeter's use of the word "I"              8
    Number of references cited by Heeter             0

    Excuses. Excuses. Robert Heeter wrote incorrect material.
He based it upon nothing referenced with specificity.
When asked, he has been unable to cite, despite weeks, a single
citation.   His putative midterms obviously don't involve tritium,
or safety, or issues of heath physics, biophysics, or
radiation medicine.   Too bad.

    What was the problem?
    Robert Heeter claimed tritium was 'relatively benign'
in a widely published FAQ sent extensively throughout the
World on the Internet, with the prestige of Princeton Plasma
Physics behind him.
   
  =heeter "Tritium is a relatively benign radioactive element  ...."

   His negligent statement was corrected as to connotation.

     >"Regarding the connotation, this word "benign" is not correct.
     > Tritium is not a relatively benign radioactive element, but is 
     > rather a radioactive element of low toxicity."
     >   Tritium (3H)  has low toxicity, putting it in the group with 
     > 7Be, 14C, 18F and some other nuclides.   That is their category 
     > in the spectrum of these isotopes.
              ....
    > "and is therefore used in standard believable texts
    > such as "Health Physics - Principles of Radiation Protection",
    >  D.J. Rees, MIT 
    > Press  1967)." 

  Silicone -- previously considered by many to be "benign" or inert -
itself can cause cancer by the Oppenheimer effect, and probably
other pathways as well. Therefore even silicone is not truly benign.

   Furthermore, regarding the denotation, this word choice is 
also incorrect.

  --->  benign    (after Webster, ibid.)     from Latin benignus
                  meaning ---- >   to be born well.  
    1)  of a gentle disposition
    2)  of a mild character
    3)   manifesting kindness and gentleness.

   Isn't that special? 
 "manifesting kindness and gentleness" to describe
a beta emitting radioisotope formed in a "kiln" that generates neutrons.
How about some honesty.   It is a material of low toxicity, with a 
relatively short half life (12 years), two fortunate factors.

   Instead of responding with science, Robert Heeter pirouettes
in an attempt to psychoanalyze the tritium.

=heeter  "Again, I claim that relative to other radioactive nuclides, 
=heeter tritium has a relatively mild character and gentle disposition,
=heeter  and therefore could be described as "relatively benign."

   However, first, radiation is discussed in terms of half-lives,
quality of radiation, dose delivered, depth-dose and
scattering characteristics, secondary particles
and radiation, acute and chronic effects upon materials and living systems,
 etc.
   Second, on the other hand:  Benign refers to a substances impact on
living systems, the environment, or (possibly) materials. 

    Third, on the gripping hand, irresponsible use of, faulty
teaching standards regarding, or inadequate compliance with normal
 standard procedure involving, these materials can produce negative
 effects which could have been avoided.


=heeter   "Several of the
=heeter references are in the bibliography already, and people interested
=heeter in environmental effects could do further reading based on that
=heeter information. Anyway,I'll write up a summary of the references and 
=heeter their technical claims with all the gory details. But not until 
=heeter after I do my real homework first. 
       [Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
      Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University]

  Robert Heeter was asked for a reference.
   > Please cite a text on
   > radiation biology or health physics by a qualified physician
   > that lists tritium as benign.   OK?

   He refused probably because there was no reference.
   And so Robert Heeter was asked again when he published it again

    > It is becoming apparent that you can't really find a reference to
    >  support your claim after all.  Look closer.
    >  Perhaps you have an NRC or American College of 
    >  Radiology document or other substantial citation?   Perhaps you
    >  will share some of your (or Princeton's) 
    >  long-term (20 to 30 year) data to support your claim of tritium 
    >  being "relatively benign".
    > ...... Why not just simply  read the literature.   OK?

   Attention is directed to the facts that  Robert Heeter was asked for any 
basis to support his unqualified widely posted opinion on this matter. 

 He has failed to find a single one which to share here.  He was 
probed regarding his knowledge of this area, and if he had checked
the supplied reference which corrected his erroneous statement.

  >   Did you get the text?   Did you actually read it? 
  >  Have you read any of the literature?  ....
  >   What texts do the present graduate students use for health physics
  > or radiation medicine or radiation safety at Princeton?    if any?
  > Radiation biochemistry, biophysics, medicine, safety, and other 
  > subspecialties are important. Do you get "exposed" to any of this or
  > is it just a single course, or afternoon?  Or is it none at all?

  Robert Heeter apparently did not even read the reference cited which
corrected his erroneous statement (vide supra).

   In summary, the paucity of his response to the following questions
speaks volumes.    There is one conclusion regarding Mr. Heeter's 
comments and retreat on this matter.
 
      "He confesseth himself guilty, who
      refuses to come to a trial."
      [Thomas Fuller (1654-1734)
      Gnomologia, 1732, number  1828]

   Mr. Heeter has unfortunately also  indicated that Princeton may not 
optimally support the standards of teaching in this field at this time 
based upon this single sample (which has obviously a very high error rate). 
 In this field, radiation safety is as important as engineering and
corrosion issues.

              Mitchell Swartz,  ScD  MD  EE     (mica@world.std.com)


cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.27 / Jorge Stolfi /  Re: Radioactive smoke
     
Originally-From: stolfi@stack.dcc.unicamp.br (Jorge Stolfi)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Radioactive smoke
Date: 27 Oct 1994 20:31:53 GMT
Organization: DCC - UNICAMP - Campinas, SP, Brazil


    > [Gary Steckly:] I found this little tidbit on
    > alt.energy.renewable I think, and saved it for posterity.  Looks
    > like hydro is about the only safe energy we have so far
    > (providing you don't live near the dam)
    > 
    > ------excerpt begins------------------------- 
    >
    > [...] W. Alex Gabbard, a nuclear physicist at the Oak Ridge
    >(Tenn.)  National Laboratory, did a little calculating.
    >According to Environmental Protection Agency figures, an average
    >ton of coal contains 1.3 parts per mllion of uranium and 3.2
    >parts per million of thorium.  Both naturally occurring trace
    >metals are radioactive.  Of the uranium, roughly 0.71 percent is
    >U-235, the fissionable variety used by nuclear power plants.
    >
    > Thus in 1982, he estimates, U.S. coal-burning power plants,
    > which collectively consumed 616 million tons of coal, released
    > 801 tons of uranium and 1,971 tons of thorium into the
    > environment.
    
Unfortunately this "little tidbit" fails to point out that, since
those tons of uranium and thorium were diluted in a humongous amount
of ash, their *concentration* in the coal plant's output is still
very small.

That is definitely *not* the case for the radioactives that could be
released in a nuclear plant accident. 

In fact, considering that most of that coal ash ends up buried as
landfill, the statement that the plants "released 801 tons of uranium
and 1,971 tons of thorium into the environment" is downright
dishonest.

Note that the article carefully avoids comparing the concentration of
U+Th in the ash with that in dirt, granite, live trees, etc.

I wonder how much radioactive tritium is circulated over the country
---in unshielded, unregulated containers---by the U.S. beer industry?

Coal plants *are* great polluters, and nuclear energy *may* be cleaner
and safer.  However, this sort of misleading propaganda will hardly
help the latter's case.  

It only reinforces the public's distrust of the nuclear establishment
--- and of scientists in general.  And we *all* lose.

--stolfi

 -------------------------------------------------------------------
Jorge Stolfi                                | Tel: +55 (192) 39-8442
Computer Science Dept. (DCC-IMECC)          |      +55 (192) 39-3115
Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP) | Fax: +55 (192) 39-7470 
Internet: stolfi@dcc.unicamp.br             | Campinas, SP -- Brazil
 -------------------------------------------------------------------
Please do not copy this .signature virus into your .signature file!

cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenstolfi cudfnJorge cudlnStolfi cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.27 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Re: Radioactive smoke
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Radioactive smoke
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 1994 23:34 -0500 (EST)

stolfi@stack.dcc.unicamp.br (Jorge Stolfi) writes:
 
->     > Thus in 1982, he estimates, U.S. coal-burning power plants,
->     > which collectively consumed 616 million tons of coal, released
->     > 801 tons of uranium and 1,971 tons of thorium into the
->     > environment.
->
-> Unfortunately this "little tidbit" fails to point out that, since
-> those tons of uranium and thorium were diluted in a humongous amount
-> of ash, their *concentration* in the coal plant's output is still
-> very small.
->
-> That is definitely *not* the case for the radioactives that could be
-> released in a nuclear plant accident.
->
-> In fact, considering that most of that coal ash ends up buried as
-> landfill, the statement that the plants "released 801 tons of uranium
-> and 1,971 tons of thorium into the environment" is downright
-> dishonest.
 
Years ago in this area the ashes from the TVA coal fired plants were made into
cinder blocks.  They were basically like concrete blocks, but made from the
cinders from the coal fired plants.  Also, the rest of the cinders were stored
for the winter when it would snow.  They were used instead of salt on the
roadways, and I can recall many a winter in which the streets of Memphis would
end up covered with dirty cinders.
 
I don't know about now, but at least then the cinders WERE spread out
throughout the environment, and concentrated in the cities.  The cinder blocks
are definitely radioactive.  Once can determine within seconds if a building
is built with these cinder blocks with a small sodium iodide detector.  Many
buildings have surprisingly high gamma backgrounds because of them.
 
I worked for years in one of these cinder block buildings.  I always thought it
ironic that although I worked in the nuclear industry and handled nuclear
materials, most of my exposure was not from the nuclear materials but from the
ash of coal fired plants.
 
                                                                Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.28 / John Logajan /  Re: Radioactive smoke
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@mirage.skypoint.net (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Radioactive smoke
Date: 28 Oct 1994 05:19:34 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

MARSHALL DUDLEY (mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com) wrote:
: -> I thought I remembered seeing radiation
: -> warning labels right on the outside of the packages.
:  
: If so then it was added since the last time I bought one.

The packages used to have warnings about storing too many of them
together.  However, I haven't seen any thoriated mantles for sale
at our local outlets for a year or so (not that I have looked hard.)

I'm wondering if they have discontinued making them.

--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com  --  612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA -
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
when? / Lawrence Foard /      
Originally-From: entropy@world.std.com (Lawrence Foard)
Newsgroups: alt.paranet.science,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,alt.sci.phy
ics.plutonium,sci.bio,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.particl

Subject: Re: Carnot is dead ! Schaeffer disproves 2nd "law" !
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 1994 07:23:57 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

In article <5ZPnp-veldB@shb.contrib.de>,
Stefan Hartmann <harti@shb.contrib.de> wrote:
>Well, I just received the latest news about the research done over here
>at the Workshop for decentral energy research in Berlin, Germany.
>
>The physician Mr. Bernhard Schaefer and his team of researchers, together  
>with the russian inventor Serogodski have successfully patented their
>new machine design, which works as a heat to mechanical energy converter.

If the german patent office is as bad as the US one (anyone in the software
field is familiar with the horror stories), this means nothing except that
its time to fire some patent office employees.

>The German patent office issued the patent number:
>
>42 44 016

While your at it patent your grandmother and your cat to...

>Bernhard Schaeffer has worked over a 30 years time period on these limits  
>of the 2nd thermodynamic sentence and finaly has won the battle.

Or lost his mind...

>If you want to have more info on this whole subject, please write to the  
>company which finances all the work:
>
>Doekowa GmbH & Co KG
>attn: Dr. Hans Wilh. Colsman
>45241 Essen, Germany

Poor people....

-- 
------ Call the skeptic hotline 1-900-666-5555 talk to your own personal . 
\    / skeptic 24 hours/day.     Just say no to victimless crimes.      . .
 \  / High quality Linux application development available.            . . .
  \/ Violence is a lousy substitute for sex and drugs.                . . . .
cudkeys:
cudenentropy cudfnLawrence cudlnFoard cudszM 
------------------------------
1994.10.28 / Dieter Britz /  CNF bibliography update: "Cold Fusion Impact".
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CNF bibliography update: "Cold Fusion Impact".
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 1994 10:48:17 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway


 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current count:
-------------
 11 books
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I just received the book by Hal Fox, and send the biblio entry by itself
because I want to write some remarks about it. It seems to be a Second
Edition, but I never did see references to the First. Hal Fox, as you all
know, and it says on the cover of the book, is the Editor of Fusion Facts, a
newssheet on 'cold fusion'. The book, as seen below, is put out by an outfit
called the Fusion Information Center at Utah University. I paid $25. 

The book takes as starting premise that 'cold fusion' is real ("the greatest
scientific-technological discovery of the century!"), and goes on from there
with unbounded optimism, with bold print shouting at the reader and, believe
it or not, phrases such as "...heralds the dawn of remarkable new energy
systems for Mankind.." and "Research results now demonstrate that the entire
world's population will be able to enjoy the energy standard of living that is
now experienced in the United States". Which research results? Fox does not
tell. Neither does he tell how he arrived at his own energy scenario in his
figures on page I-4.The top figure shows a conventional projection to the year
2060 for usage of coal, gas, uranium, oil, hydro; of these, coal, gas, U and
hydro are still rising with coal dominating, while oil starts to fall from
about 2000. The other figure is his own, "changed by the author to include
Cold Fusion and other advanced energy systems now being developed", and now
only two sources are rising: 'Cold Fusion' and 'Other New Power', with CNF
clearly dominating the picture. We are told that unknown instigators got the
US Patent Office to treat CNF the same as perpetual motion, but that these
instigators will likely be fired if not imprisoned (shades of Mallove's
threats of blowing people out of the water). 

There are some curious bits, such as (page III-3) the claim that in India,
government-supported scientists had for several years been experimenting with
cold fusion, prior to F&P, and had only to modify their equipment. I had not
heard of this. At the back of the book, there is a fair amount on the Meyer
car and the Shoulders patents (electrum validum, clusters of charge), which
Fox seems to consider very exciting. These are not cold fusion, they are
"Enhanced Energy Technology", along with zero-point energy. Fair enough: if
you believe 'cold fusion', you are ready to believe in all these others as
well. 

The book is a mess but maybe the bibliography, tacked on the inside of the
back cover on a PC diskette, is useful? Fox has been collecting this about as
long as I have been collecting mine. I saw a printed version a few years ago
and it seemed much bigger than mine, including lots of references to articles
in Fusion Facts, conference procs etc. So this could be a good thing to have,
maybe? I put it into our PC, and ran the only visible file on it, BIB.EXE.
This unpacks the biblio onto the harddisk, plus a program to search it; all in
all close to 2 Mb. The biblio is not quite ASCII, so although I was able to
TYPE it on the screen, line-feeds were not as expected. I wanted to see it all
without having to search for specific keywords, as with the search proggie
provided, presumably the only way one is meant to access the files (the biblio
is divided into A-K, and L-Z, and you have to search them separately). I
looked for a few keywords, such as "Lipson", where I have 20 entries in mine.
I found 14. How about "Bockris"? I have 18 papers with him as an author. Here
I found more (25). However, picking one out at random (JOMB et al, on tritium
and helium), I find a reference to a conference, and not the journal paper in
Int. J. Hydrogen Energy. I have noticed that 'cold fusion' propagandists tend
to cite conf procs rather than papers in journals, even long after the
follow-up papers have appeared in journals. 

In summary, this book is evidence, for future generations, of the folly of
Mankind, of elaborate fantasies built on blind faith and wishful thinking.
Over to the propagandists to blow me out of the water.

Here, then, the new entry in the file cnf-bks:

#
Fox H;  "Cold Fusion Impact in the Enhanced Energy Age".
Fusion Information Center, University of Utah Research Park, P.O. Box 58639,
Salt Lake City, Utah 84158-0639. Revised 2nd ed., 1992. ISBN 0-9634978-0-4.
** The book comes with a DOS diskette containing the bibliographic collection
of the author, and a search program to access it. The book does not describe
the technical details of cold fusion but rather the implications to energy
policy, commerce, environment, agriculture, transportation and education.
There is a short list of some key patents and a short reading list. There is a
chapter on "enhanced energy technology", including the Meyer car, the
Shoulders "electrum validum" invention, and a discussion of zero point energy
devices. 
#
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.27 / Robert Heeter /  Re: Conv. Fusion FAQ: too much of a good thi
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Conv. Fusion FAQ: too much of a good thi
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 1994 03:27:50 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

I've been thinking about the question of how much FAQ
to post regularly myself.  Jed Rothwell suggests:

In article <941025204951_72240.1256_EHB264-2@CompuServe.COM> Jed
Rothwell, 72240.1256@compuserve.com writes:
> Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> periodically uploads
a set
> of documents titled "Conventional Fusion FAQ" (Frequently Asked
Questions).
> This is useful information and I thank him for it, but there is slight
> problem. Many of us get these files via the Fusion Digest, which is
published
> by Scott Hazen Mueller (fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG). We get the whole thing
> willy-nilly via on-line services which we have to pay for, and the
> "Conventional Fusion FAQ" is getting longer and longer. I suggest the
> following plan: Publish the FAQ periodically on a semi-regular basis,
say once
> every two or three months. Every month, run that short notice
describing what
> it is and where to find it: "How to find the Conventional Fusion FAQ on
the
> Net" (the 'FAQ FAQ').

Let's see:  400 K of FAQ = 400,000 bytes = about 3,200,000 bits.
Downloading on a slow connection at 2400 baud => 1,500 seconds.
1500 seconds * 1 minute/60 seconds = 25 minutes, I think.
25 minutes at $0.15/min (long distance or $9/hr internet service)
comes to about 4 dollars.  Plus it can take a fair amount of 
personal time to scroll through the darn thing!  :)

So on a relatively primitive connection with a newsreader that
doesn't let you pick and choose what you read, this is a problem,
as Jed suggests.

Given that I haven't even finished posting the full FAQ once,
and there are already these sorts of concerns, I think
altering the distribution rate and method would be appropriate.
Especially because it's also a significant amount of work for me
to continuously be posting FAQ sections, especially the ones
which need periodic updates to stay fresh.

The sort of thing that Jed suggests is actually relatively 
common practice for huge FAQs.

Here's what I'll do, unless someone has violent objections:
(Mitch, here's a new opportunity for you!)   ;)

(a) Post the full FAQ on a quarterly basis (every 3 months).
(b) Post the Intro/Outline and How to Obtain the FAQ articles
     (probably joined as a single post) monthly or biweekly so that
     they'll generally always be present on most systems.
(c) Enhance network-based archiving of the FAQ to improve
     on-demand accessibility.  This means I'll be putting the 
     FAQ on the World-Wide Web, in addition to maintaining a list
     of relevant FTP sites.  I'll see if I can get a PPPL machine
     to act as a listserver too, so you can mail in requests for
     pieces of the FAQ.  (Any other ideas?)

One additional idea which would help is if Scott's gateway could
clue in on the official-ness of the FAQ postings
(namely, their news.answers approval line) and actively
exclude the FAQ postings (other than the How to Find the FAQ)
from the Fusion Digest mailing list.  Is this do-able?  


***************************
Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University
As always, I represent only myself, and not PPPL
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.28 /  dowen@vaxc.cc. /  Re: US Patent 5,188,090 ( James L Griggs )
     
Originally-From: dowen@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: US Patent 5,188,090 ( James L Griggs )
Date: 28 Oct 94 19:11:08 +1000
Organization: Computer Centre, Monash University, Australia

Hi Folks,
In article <xK5ViT5.jedrothwell@delphi.com>, jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:
> Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Dunn) writes:
>  
>      "Any device which converts mechanical energy into thermal energy will be
>      thermodynamically highly efficient.  With the exception of any heat
>      leakage from the un-insulated surface of a mechanical-to-heat coverter
>      and some radiated noise, on a steady state basis ***all*** mechanical
>      power put into the device ***must*** appear as heat in the fluid being
>      passed through the device.  The efficiency of such devices depends on
>      their insulation, not on their internal design."
>  
> That is correct. All mechanical energy delivered by the motor will be
> converted to heat, and almost all of that heat will transfer to the fluid. The
> only loss is to radiant heat from the housing, pipes, and steel drum walls.
> That is one of the big advantages of the Hydrodynamic Pump. An electric motor
> will concentrate energy much better than a heating coil. It can deliver, say,
> 50 HP of energy to a small space, and almost all that energy goes into the
> water. That is why the Pump is more compact than a resistance heater of the
> same capacity.
>  
> We now know how much energy is lost to radiant heat. Griggs recently tested a
> dummy rotor with no holes around the periphery which created no ultrasound. It
> showed a C.O.P. of 94% relative to the dynamometer. So, approximately 6% of
> the mechanical energy is lost to radiation.
>  
> That analysis is fine as far as it goes. The question is: why does the device
> create massive amounts of addditional energy when the ultrasound turns on?
> That is the mystery. We have ordinary heat from stirring (friction), and then
> we have thousands of additional watts of heat from somewhere else. The C.O.P.
> is way over unity, between 110% and 150%. The device cannot be a heat pump and
> it cannot be storing the energy up, because there is no significant deficit
> and because it continues generating heat for hours or day if you leave it on.
> In short, the "efficiency" of this device (the C.O.P.), like the Schaefer
> device 20 years ago, does *not* depend on insulation. It *does* depend on the
> internal design, because the device produces far, far more energy than you put
> into it. Not a little bit more, at a level that might be explained away as an
> instrurment reading. It produces so much excess than any instrument, no matter
> how crude, can easily measure it.
>  
> The question is: why does it depend on the internal design? What causes it?
> Why is one internal design better than another? I have no idea. Griggs can
> answer some of these questions, but he has no idea what is happening on the
> subatomic level where the phoneomenon must be occuring. Both of us are sure of
> the calorimetery. We know it is producing heat, but we do not know why.
>  
> - Jed

Hmmmmm......
This could be getting interesting.
From the above, it appears that the ultrasound is required for the excess
heat. It would appear also that the rotor may be capable of producing
-kilowatts- of ultra-sound, in a rather -small- cavity. Has there been
any measurement of the intensity of the ultrasound? I also believe,
from previous posts of Jed, that the system must be `tuned' for optimal
performance, which implies resonant standing waves.
Maybe, -just- maybe, we are looking at some SL effect, but not I think
a fusion reaction, as there appears to be no nuclear ash or radiation.
However this does not rule out some form of `super chemistry'.
In a post months ago, someone (Tom Droege?), commented on the extreme
difficulty of trying to measure the (water) heating effect of ultrasonic
transducers. Perhaps the difficulty of measurement has been responsible
for this effect remaining undiscovered until now.
Does anyone know of experiments which have used kilowatts of
-concentrated- ultrasound in small resonant cavities filled with water?
It could be that the only way to produce the -concentration- of
ultrasound required for the effect, is by using the mechanical system
a'la Griggs. It would be interesting to have a window in the Griggs
system, I believe this has been suggested before. Is anything like a
window scheduled by Griggs in future investigations?
Is too late to subscribe to Tom's trip? Is there a maximum amount which 
has been reached and above which cheques are returned?

Regards to all,
Daryl Owen.
  
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudendowen cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.28 / K Jonsson /  Re: US Patent 5,188,090 ( James L Griggs )
     
Originally-From: kvj@rhi.hi.is (Kristjan Valur Jonsson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: US Patent 5,188,090 ( James L Griggs )
Date: 28 Oct 1994 09:54:09 GMT
Organization: University of Iceland

Thanks for an informative article, Mr Bass.

Kristjan


-- 
Kristjan Valur Jonsson               |    The individual does not qualify for
Student of mechanical engineering,   |         making decisions regarding the
University of Iceland                |                 activities of the many.
Exclaimer: Yess!                     |                         (Helmut, 1993)
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenkvj cudfnKristjan cudlnJonsson cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.29 / Richard Blue /  Griggs Patent?
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Griggs Patent?
Date: Sat, 29 Oct 1994 00:47:44 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

The Griggs patent reveals that the idea of heating water by stirring it
is not new.  In fact the only significant claim in the patent as I read
it is that the Griggs design is mechanically superior.  There is no claim
that it is more efficient than the earlier devices.  Having stacked out
a position based on the simplicity of the device, Griggs then seeks to
broaden the scope of his claim by including numerous poorly specified
modifications that may be considered in the future.  I wonder how well
these broader claims would stand up if anyone should be inclined to
challange this patent in the future.

On Griggs's behalf, Jed Rothwell, has made several other claims concerning
the virtues of the GG which, quite frankly, I don't think will stand up
very well when they are examined closely.

(1) Physical size - smaller than an electric water heater of comparable
capacity.  I don't think so.  I made the comparison to my household
water heater which does have comparable heating capacity.  It fits within
a circle 2 feet in diameter and stands 5 feet tall.  Most of that space
if taken up by the water storage tank and insulation.  If those were
included with the GG would the total package be smaller?

(2) Less troubled by build-up of scale, etc. from the makeup water -
Where do the solids get deposited?  If there is only a 0.1 inch gap
around all sides of the rotor and mechanical clearance must be maintained
there has to be a limit to how much solid matter can collect in the
system without altering the "tuning".

(3) Ease of operation - This is contradicted in statements made by Rothwell
and in the patent to the effect that throttling at the input and output
are required.  Any pressure regulator or control valve that is subject
to an accumulation of dirt can be a constant source of difficulty.

(4) High reliability - This makes no sense.  Two enemies of mechanical
devices that reduce operating lifetimes are loss of lubrication in
bearings and high levels of ultrasonic vibration.  Hot water and/or
steam is not a suitable lubricant for any bearing system I am familiar
with.  In similar applications such as water pumps shaft seals must
prevent water from displacing the bearing lubricant.  Maintaining
the integrity of shaft seals is thus very important.  Seals, such as
O-rings mentioned in the patent, are themselves subject to failure
if excess heat, chemical degradation, or wear take their toll.

(5) Ease of cleaning and repair - Weight of the parts alone make tear-down
and reassembly somewhat difficult, I should think.  Anytime you have to
pull bearings and seals off shafts you can encounter difficulty.  Rusting
of the parts does not make it easier.  Nothing rusts, you say?  Reassemmbly
probably requires some care to restore proper shaft alignment, and what
about rotor balance.

If that is not enough to cause concern I am still wondering about the
choice of materials.  Aluminum, steel, water, and cavitation just does
not fit with my experience as being a way to achieve a long service life.

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.28 / Tuomo Hdrkvnen /  Re: GG Improvements
     
Originally-From: THARKONE@viikki.helsinki.fi (Tuomo Hdrkvnen)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: GG Improvements
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 1994 12:38:18 GMT
Organization: university of helsinki

In article <EACHUS.94Oct26182557@spectre.mitre.org> eachus@spectre.mitre
org (Robert I. Eachus) writes:
>From: eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
>Subject: Re: GG Improvements
>Date: 26 Oct 94 18:25:57

>In article <BajoriAP.616.000D71E0@Perkin-Elmer.com> BajoriAP@Perkin-Elmer.com
>(Andrew Bajorinas) writes:

>  > It does shorten engine life by encouraging rust BUT it also helps
>  > clean out carbon deposits (which do not dissolve in petrol but do
>  > in water).

>   Huh?  The only sense in which adding water cleans out carbon
>deposits is to blow them out, which if you have a lot of (graphite)
>buildup in your engine, it will do quite well.  Soot particles,
>including C60, tend to end up in the exhaust :-) or the oil :-(.

>   But the only "common" solvent I know of for carbon is molten iron.
>And that will really do a job on your engine... ;-) Unburned
>hydrocarbons tend to dissolve in organic solvents better than in
>water.



>--

>                                        Robert I. Eachus

>with Standard_Disclaimer;
>use  Standard_Disclaimer;
>function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...

The water really seems to burn the carbon, as I have cleaned some engines with 
using just plain water. You just let the motor run till it's warm and then 
slowly pour some liters of water in the air intake (preferably not through 
air filter). When the motor is really dirty the exhaust looks very smoky and 
when it clears you can stop pouring the water. Be sure not to pour too fast as 
you'll brake the engine. Oh, yes and you'll have to use hi RPM:s as it stalls 
easily.

Tuomo
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenTHARKONE cudfnTuomo cudlnHdrkvnen cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.28 / Cameron Bass /  Re: US Patent 5,188,090 ( James L Griggs )
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: US Patent 5,188,090 ( James L Griggs )
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 1994 15:17:25 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1994Oct28.191108.1@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au>,
 <dowen@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au> wrote:
>
>Hmmmmm......
>This could be getting interesting.

     No more than at the beginning.  Same story, same answer.  To wit, 
     experimental error.  And the details of the experiment even give
     you a clue where to look first.

>From the above, it appears that the ultrasound is required for the excess
>heat. It would appear also that the rotor may be capable of producing
>-kilowatts- of ultra-sound, in a rather -small- cavity. Has there been
>any measurement of the intensity of the ultrasound? 
 
     It doesn't appear that there's been any measurements regarding
     the existence of 'ultrasound', so I suspect 'intensity' is
     right out...

>I also believe,
>from previous posts of Jed, that the system must be `tuned' for optimal
>performance, which implies resonant standing waves.
>Maybe, -just- maybe, we are looking at some SL effect, but not I think
>a fusion reaction, as there appears to be no nuclear ash or radiation.
>However this does not rule out some form of `super chemistry'.

     I love the snowball effect of speculation piled on ignorance.

     I think it's pixies.  They and the wildebeest got together, 
     and now they're teleporting energy from the veldt to Georgia.

                               dale bass

C. R. Bass                                          crb7q@virginia.edu        
Department of Wildebeest
Transvaal                                           (804) 924-7926
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.28 / Gary Steckly /  Re: Griggs: why?
     
Originally-From: gsteckly@dgim.doc.ca (Gary Steckly)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs: why?
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 94 15:53:53 GMT
Organization: Communications Canada

Dieter Britz (BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk) wrote:

: Now that I have seen the Griggs patent, I am left wondering why anyone would
: build such a device in the first place. Presumably, he started simply
: designing a converter of mechanical energy to heat, and then discovered - or
: seemed to discover - that it was a free-lunch machine, producing more heat
: than the mechanical energy put into it. 

(deletia)

I thought Jed answered that 3 or 4 times before?  I think the important 
thing is that he did build it and discovered these strange anomolies.

Many important discoveries came from "misguided " attempts to achieve 
totally different objectives, even more came from plain accidents. 
(Wasn't it Ivory Snow...so pure that it floats, simply a result of an 
extended lunch that resulted in an overaerated batch of soap?)

I realize that everyone looks for a scam when these strange things pop 
up, but lets not be overly suspicious.  Sometimes a cigar is just a 
cigar...never look a gift horse in the mouth...I could go on but 
mercifully, I won't :-)

regards

Gary
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudengsteckly cudfnGary cudlnSteckly cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.28 / JAMES STOLIN /  Re: No scanner here
     
Originally-From: FKNF40A@prodigy.com (JAMES STOLIN )
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: No scanner here
Date: 28 Oct 1994 03:06:48 GMT
Organization: Prodigy Services Company  1-800-PRODIGY

 jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:

>The only way for you to debunk the Griggs device is to show that the
>experimental protocols or the instruments used to measure energy input 
and
>output are flawed. You cannot do that any more than Tom Droege or anyone 
else
>can. Nobody has found any flaws, because there are none. The experiment 
is too
>simple and the level of heat is too high for there to be any mistake.
>

Jed,

   It's actually very simple to test the Griggs device and no instruments 
or measurements whatsoever are needed. 

1- Couple the output to the input.
2- Start the device.
3- Remove external sources of power used to start the device.

If the device keeps running, the Griggs device produces excess energy. 
If the device quits running .....


-
James B. Stolin  -  Illinois Computer Service  -  FKNF40A@prodigy.com


cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenFKNF40A cudfnJAMES cudlnSTOLIN cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.28 / Bruce Schechter /  Re: Rothwell fan club
     
Originally-From: bruce@disney.com (Bruce Schechter)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Rothwell fan club
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 1994 11:03:59 -0800
Organization: Wheel Spinner's Anonymous

In article <5o6UiN2.jedrothwell@delphi.com>, jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:

. He does not even need a PhD to publish outrageous McCarthy style
> attacks against a distinguished Fellow of the Royal Society. This, truly, is
> the land of opportunity.
>  
> - Jed

Jed, since when did you begin to believe that a PhD should be an important 
credential needed to enter into scientific debate?  Seems to
me that you dismiss most PhD's, and especially those who work
at places like MIT, Caltech and other backwaters of science, to 
be ignorant and corrupt.  Or perhaps you feel that a PhD is only needed
to publish outrageous McCarthy style attacks?
Pardon me if you've already posted this, but could you please
tell us of your credentials, academic or otherwise?

-- 

Bruce_Schechter@cc.wdi.disney.com.......................................
..................................................
                                                              
               opinions expressed approximate only my own and coincide
                                                              
                only coincidently with those of my employer or
anyone else
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenbruce cudfnBruce cudlnSchechter cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.28 /  prasad /  Re: CNF bibliography update: "Cold Fusion Impact".
     
Originally-From: c1prasad@watson.ibm.com (prasad)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CNF bibliography update: "Cold Fusion Impact".
Date: 28 Oct 1994 18:23:07 GMT
Organization: IBM Watson

In article <01HIT4IIW4YQ8WYE2O@vms2.uni-c.dk>, BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz) writes:
|> 
|> There are some curious bits, such as (page III-3) the claim that in India,
|> government-supported scientists had for several years been experimenting with
|> cold fusion, prior to F&P, and had only to modify their equipment. I had not

Amazing.  And to think that I was actually talking to a few of them and found
no less skepticism among them than anywhere in the US!  Whew, the things that
the eye and ear miss.

The most vehement disgust I came across out there was by a certain EE prof
related to the IISc, who had just obtained, after not inconsiderable expense
and effort of "importing", the Book of Joe Newman.  And the Book turned out to
be full of New Teachings on EE!
;)
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenc1prasad cudlnprasad cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.28 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Re: No scanner here
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: No scanner here
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 1994 14:53 -0500 (EST)

FKNF40A@prodigy.com (JAMES STOLIN ) writes:
 
-> 1- Couple the output to the input.
-> 2- Start the device.
-> 3- Remove external sources of power used to start the device.
 
This doesn't makes sense.  The input is cold water and the output is steam. You
say to take the steam and put it back into the input?  It is already steam,
so what good would that do?  And it is powered by an electric motor.  Are you
arguing that if you feed the steam from the output back to the input, you can
disconnect the power and the motor will keep running, or what?  Please explain.
 
                                                                Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.29 / Eugene Mallove /  Britz is Blown
     
Originally-From: 76570.2270@compuserve.com (Eugene Mallove)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Britz is Blown
Date: Sat, 29 Oct 1994 03:28:03 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Blowhard Britz writes of Hal Fox's book:

>In summary, this book is evidence, for future generations, of the folly of
>Mankind, of elaborate fantasies built on blind faith and wishful thinking.
>Over to the propagandists to blow me out of the water.

No one has to blow Britz out of the water. He has already blown himself to 
hell with his interminable stupidity. Ironically, the "elaborate fantasies 
built on blind faith and wishful thinking" are part and parcel of the 
Britz-Taubes axis of pathological skepticism.

Gene Mallove

cudkeys:
cuddy29 cuden2270 cudfnEugene cudlnMallove cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.28 / Greg Erker /  deuterium toxicity?
     
Originally-From: erker@fermi.trlabs.ca (Greg Erker)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: deuterium toxicity?
Date: 28 Oct 1994 19:03:06 GMT
Organization: TRLabs (Saskatoon)

In article <38oug6$jc2@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk>, nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk (Nick
Maclaren) wrote:

> Not even deuterium is entirely benign - it is a biochemical poison
> in high concentrations. 

This is off the topic slightly but I have heard this statement before
and always wondered about it.  I thought that isotopes all behaved
similarly because the chemical behavior is controlled by the 
electrons, which isotopes of the same element have the same number of.

If I had to guess about deuterium I would say it behaves differently
chemically because it is twice as heavy as hydrogen.  Is this
correct or is there a better explaination?

Regards,
Greg

-- 
Greg Erker,  Research Engineer
Telecommunications Research Laboratories (TRLabs) 
#108, 15 Innovation Blvd.,  Saskatoon, SK, CANADA
Ph: 306-668-8209  Fax: 306-668-1944
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenerker cudfnGreg cudlnErker cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.28 / Edward Lewis /  tornadoes
     
Originally-From: edward@uhuru.uchicago.edu (Edward Lewis)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.geo.meteorology,sci.physics.astro
Subject: tornadoes
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 1994 22:11:08 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago


Dec. 7, 1993
posted on Oct. 28, 1994

Luminous Tornadoes and Other Plasmoids

	During the past 1 3/4 years I've been posting articles about
ball lightning, plasmoids, EVs, and cold fusion on sci.physics.fusion
newsgroup. This is a version of one that I posted last winter.  Does
anyone have any reports about anomalous atmospheric phenomena?

        People have often seen bright or luminous tornadoes.
According to prior research, a large percentage of tornadoes are
bright or glowing, and people have experienced that some are quite hot.
(see B. Vonnegut and J. R. Weyer, "Luminous Phenomena Accompanying
Tornadoes," WEATHERWISE, 19-2 (Apr. 1966), 66-68. and B. Vonnegut and
J. R. Weyer, "Luminous Phenomena in Nocturnal Tornadoes, SCIENCE,
(1966), 1213-1220.)

        Storms on the Earth are probably an atmospheric manifestation
of earth plasmoid activity, according to Tesla's experience of
electricity in the ground that accompanied a storm.  Even clouds may
be such a manifestation.  Clouds seem to be plasmoid phenomena.  And
clouds may convert to ball lightning.  People have seen clouds which
contained a glowing spot, and in one case it is fairly documented that
a cloud with a glowing spot produced a tornado.

        Tornadoes are a locus for the conversion of substance
to light and electricity.  The power of tornadoes is anomalously high.
People have seen lightning from a large area converge to the area of a
cyclone, but this seems to only be part of the reason for the power.
People have seen tornadoes that had parts that were so bright that
they described the phenomena as being too bright to look at though the
tornadoes were quite a ways away; one person described tornadoes that
lit up the surroundings so that it was as if the direct sun was
shining during a period of time.  In one case, a thermometer measured
that the temperature of the air increased by about 20 degrees during
the passage of a tornado.

        I would say that tornadoes and ball lightning are the same
type of phenomena, though ball lightning is smaller.  I classify both
ball lightning and tornadoes, storms, clouds, and other phenomena as
kinds of a phenomena that I call plasmoid phenomena.  Galaxies and
atoms are other types of this kind of phenomena, according to my
theory.

        I would say that the cold fusion phenomena is a plasmoid
phenomena.  People have produced many types of phenomena including
traces and holes and tunnels that are similar to those produced by
plasmoid phenomena.  I would say that tiny plasmoids like ball
lightning are being produced. At the ICCF4, Matsumoto reported about
tiny ball lightning in his CF apparatus.  I suggest that people read
his articles in FUSION TECHNOLOGY.
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenedward cudfnEdward cudlnLewis cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.28 / Thomas Zemanian /  Re: deuterium toxicity?
     
Originally-From: ts_zemanian@pnl.gov (Thomas S. Zemanian)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: deuterium toxicity?
Date: 28 Oct 1994 20:14:01 GMT
Organization: Battelle PNL

In article <erker-2810941303060001@mac85.trlabs.ca>, erker@fermi.trlabs.ca
(Greg Erker) wrote:

> In article <38oug6$jc2@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk>, nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk (Nick
> Maclaren) wrote:
> 
> > Not even deuterium is entirely benign - it is a biochemical poison
> > in high concentrations. 
> 
> This is off the topic slightly but I have heard this statement before
> and always wondered about it.  I thought that isotopes all behaved
> similarly because the chemical behavior is controlled by the 
> electrons, which isotopes of the same element have the same number of.
> 
> If I had to guess about deuterium I would say it behaves differently
> chemically because it is twice as heavy as hydrogen.  Is this
> correct or is there a better explaination?
> 

Greg:

My understanding is that you are correct.  Some of our biological processes
utilize specific vibrational frequencies of some complex molecules. 
Deuterating these molecules alters the vibrational frequencies and hence
the regulatory functions they perform.

I am not a biochemist; this is the explanation given to me a year or so ago
concerning this question.

--Tom

--
The opinions expressed herein are mine and mine alone.  Keep your filthy
hands off 'em! 
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudents_zemanian cudfnThomas cudlnZemanian cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.28 /  jedrothwell@de /  Mysterious Bass and his Mystical Secrets
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Mysterious Bass and his Mystical Secrets
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 94 17:10:44 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes about the Griggs
device:
 
     "On the other hand, I know it's not producing more heat than is put in,
     and I know why.  Experimental error."
 
If you *know* it is an experimental error, why are you keeping it a secret?
Tell us! What experimental error? You will end this whole discussion and
emerge triumphant the moment you reveal your secret.
 
Also explain how you found the error by ESP. I am surprised you believe in
occult science. You have never been to the site, you have never seen the
device or the instruments, so you must use ESP. Maybe you think you have to
keep your sacred knowledge a secret, or your magical ability to "know how" and
"know why" will vanish. That must be it. That's why you claim you know
everything, but you never tell us anything. We have to learn the secret
handshake before you reveal your mystical knowledge. Right?
 
Or maybe you are full of crap, you don't know anything, and you are a faker.
That would not surprise me. After all, you claim you are with the University
of Virginia and you claim you teach there, but the University has never heard
of you. I sometimes wonder whether you exist at all. Maybe you are a
composite joke put together by the university staff?
 
- Jed
 
 
[P.S. I would to thank the Alert Reader who suggested I call the University of
Virginia and ask for Bass. You were right, they have never heard of him! For
others who wish to check, the information number is 804-924-0311.]
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenjedrothwell cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.28 / JAMES STOLIN /  Re: Radioactive smoke
     
Originally-From: FKNF40A@prodigy.com (JAMES STOLIN )
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Radioactive smoke
Date: 28 Oct 1994 21:06:55 GMT
Organization: Prodigy Services Company  1-800-PRODIGY

 stolfi@stack.dcc.unicamp.br (Jorge Stolfi) writes:
>
>In fact, considering that most of that coal ash ends up buried as
>landfill, the statement that the plants "released 801 tons of uranium
>and 1,971 tons of thorium into the environment" is downright
>dishonest.
>
>Note that the article carefully avoids comparing the concentration of
>U+Th in the ash with that in dirt, granite, live trees, etc.
>
   Both this note and the one it was refering to make me wonder.  What are 
the concentrations of uranum and thorium in the coal ash, the general 
environment and uranium ore?  These figures would give a much better 
perspective on the contamination situation.
 
-
James B. Stolin  -  Illinois Computer Service  -  FKNF40A@prodigy.com


cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenFKNF40A cudfnJAMES cudlnSTOLIN cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.28 / Johannes Swarts /  re:radioactive smoke
     
Originally-From: johannes@holland.gdt1.com (Johannes Swarts)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: re:radioactive smoke
Date: 28 Oct 1994 12:53:45 -0400
Organization: Geographic Data Technology, Inc.


Hi,

Maybe I could shed some light on the presence of radioactive elements in coal.
Please bear with me, as it's been a long time since school & I don't have my
references with me (I'm at work)...

Coal-forming environments are thought to have been shallow sea/lagoonal/swamp
environments supporting a profusion of plant life.  Accumulations of organic 
material over time, along with periodic/constant-but-slow influxes of sediment,
formed sedimentary stacks, sort of like layer cakes - I believe these cyclic
sequences are called coal measures...  Compaction & very low-grade (burial)
metamorphism altered the organic material to coal (peat-lignite-bituminous-
anthracite).

Anyway, the presence of abundant organic material (lots of carbon) resulted in
a reducing (vs. oxidizing) environment in the swamp/lagoon.  Reducing environ-
ments seem to favor the sequestering of U ions as reduced species.  We have swamps
and peat bogs here in New Hampshire that contain considerable U in a reduced
form.  Sources are predominantly granites, granodiorites, etc. (high-SiO2 rocks)
which can contain high levels of U and Th - these elements favor felsic over
mafic (low SiO2, high Mn & Fe) rocks in an igneous environment...  Vanadium
seems to follow the same geochemical pathway in the case of the reducing environment,
i.e., V is also concentrated in coal, as is Hg!

I seem to remember reading that the Chattanooga (sp?) Shale, a Devonian black
shale that occurs in the Midwest, has a high enough concentration of U that is
considered a low-grade source of that element.  Of course, the price of U would
have to rise considerably for mining to be economically feasible...

Hans
johannes@gdt1.com
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenjohannes cudfnJohannes cudlnSwarts cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.28 / Thomas Zemanian /  Re: Carnot is dead ! Schaeffer disproves 2nd "law" (NOT)
     
Originally-From: ts_zemanian@pnl.gov (Thomas S. Zemanian)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Carnot is dead ! Schaeffer disproves 2nd "law" (NOT)
Date: 28 Oct 1994 23:09:19 GMT
Organization: Battelle PNL

In article <EACHUS.94Oct27151256@spectre.mitre.org>,
eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus) wrote:

> In article <ts_zemanian-261094154730@ts_zemanian.pnl.gov> ts_zemanian@
nl.gov (Thomas S. Zemanian) writes:
> 
>  > (Simple demonstration:  the  Carnot cycle is reversible, so run a Rankine
>  > cycle off a temperature difference, producing work W, dumping heat Qr to
>  > the cold reservoir, and absorbing heat W + Qr from the hot reservoir.  Run
>  > the Carnot engine in reversewith the work, W...
> 
>    The counterexample should be obvious.  Run the Rankine cycle with
> hot and cold sides at the same temperature, but different pressures.
> (Rankine cycle engines can often be analyzed as pure heat engines, but
> they are not.)
> 

[description of a system which boils water at the base of a cliff, uses the
pressure generated to push the steam up the cliff, and condenses the steam
at the summit, deleted]

Very clever!  However, I still don't think you've exceeded the Carnot
efficiency.  Note that the reservoir temperatures are not really exactly
the same, or no heat could be input into the boiler or extracted by the
condenser.  (Still, by radically increasing surface area, one could, in
theory, bring the temperatures arbitrarily close together.  This point
bothers me.)

The second problem is with the definition of the efficiency.  Properly, it
would be the work extracted divided by the heat removed from the hot
reservoir, or

  e =(Qh-Qc)/Qh    

where Qh and Qc are the heat drawn from the hot reservoir and that dumped
to the cold reservoir.  Since the Carnot cycle is reversible, this may be
reduced to the well known ratio of absolute temperatures, but for the
Rankine cycle we must stick with the ratio of heats given above.  A great
deal of heat is being transferred in the described water pump. For each
kilogram of water boiled and condensed, the heat of vaporization at the
higher pressure must be input at the cliff base and that at the lower
pressure dumped at the cliff summit. This results in a yield of 
(1kg).(9,81 m/s^2).H of usable work,  where H is the height of the cliff.

Moreover, to close the cycle the condensate must be repressurized to return
it to the boiler.  Since the sat'd liquid is much denser than the sat'd
vapor, this is not a terrible price to pay, but must be taken into account
nonetheless.  I still don't believe that the Rankine cycle can top the
Carnot cycle for efficiency; merely the invocation of a phase change does
not allow a Second Law violation.

--Tom

--
The opinions expressed herein are mine and mine alone.  Keep your filthy
hands off 'em! 
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudents_zemanian cudfnThomas cudlnZemanian cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Sat Oct 29 04:37:06 EDT 1994
------------------------------
1994.10.29 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Griggs Patent?
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs Patent?
Date: Sat, 29 Oct 94 10:12:30 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue) makes an number of elementary mistakes
about the Griggs device, as usual. It would help him a great deal if he would
actually read about it before commenting, but that is not his style. Anyway,
he writes:
 
     "On Griggs's behalf, Jed Rothwell, has made several other claims
     concerning the virtues of the GG which . . ."
 
Let us get this straight please: I do not work on his behalf, any more than I
work for Pons and Fleischmann, E-Quest, Mizuno or Thermacore. I do not work
for him, I have no financial stake in his company. I am reporting what I
observed and learned from him and his customers. I give straight, unbiased
facts about research in which I have no financial interest. I am not Robert
Heeter reporting on hot fusion! My job is not at stake, I have no incentive
to cover up screw-ups or defend the indefensible.
 
 
     "Physical size - smaller than an electric water heater of comparable
     capacity.  I don't think so.  I made the comparison to my household
     water heater which does have comparable heating capacity."
 
Wrong. Your household heater cannot produce steam. I have seen photographs
and specifications of conventional boilers, both gas and electric. The Griggs
unit is more compact.
 
 
     "Less troubled by build-up of scale, etc. from the makeup water - Where
     do the solids get deposited?"
 
As I explained earlier -- about a dozen times -- you flush them out. It is
much easier to flush than a conventional boiler of the same capacity, because
the output is barely a foot away from the input. You could flush it
continuously by running more water through than the capacity, to make the
output a mixture of water and steam. That moves the problem to the separation
tank.
 
 
     "Ease of operation - This is contradicted in statements made by Rothwell
     and in the patent to the effect that throttling at the input and output
     are required.  Any pressure regulator or control valve that is subject
     to an accumulation of dirt can be a constant source of difficulty."
 
The pressure regulators are mechanical. They are set once, and they remain at
the proper settings for months. They are extremely reliable and trouble free.
They are not sources of difficulty -- this statement is based on Blue's
fevered imagination only. Furthermore, all steam boilers must have pressure
valves and gauges, so conventional units will have as many difficulties with
valves as the Griggs device does.
 
This is a good example of hysterical imaginary nonsense. Blue and others cast
about desperately to find something -- anything -- that they can point to as
a "problem" or "difficulty" with the Griggs device, the E-Quest device, P&F
and others. They strain their imaginations to come up with bogeyman problems.
Blue should take it easy and adapt Bass's approach: Just pretend you
understand and pretend you "know what the problem is." Don't ever try to come
up with anything specific! Never say what the problem is! When you do that,
anyone can see you are wrong. Blue thinks he has actually found a problem,
whereas Bass knows that he has nothing. He is holding a pair of deuces and
pretending he has a full house. He thinks he can bluff us with his ESP-based
knowledge of "experimental errors" and empty bluster.
 
 
     "High reliability - This makes no sense. Two enemies of mechanical
     devices that reduce operating lifetimes are loss of lubrication in
     bearings and high levels of ultrasonic vibration.  Hot water and/or
     steam is not a suitable lubricant for any bearing system I am familiar
     with."
 
What on earth makes Blue think the hot water gets into the bearings?!? What a
wacky idea! That is even stupider than the suggestion that conventional steam
boilers do not have valves and guages. Tell us Dick: does water get into the
bearings of a pump? This is another imaginary problem that real customers do
not report. We could go on for weeks making up imaginary problems, couldn't
we? What is the point?
 
 
     "Ease of cleaning and repair - Weight of the parts alone make tear-down
     and reassembly somewhat difficult, I should think."
 
You should not think. You should look at cold, hard facts. Reality. I have
seen Griggs tear down units. It takes little time, not much space, and
standard tools you will find in any factory or boiler room. Oh, by the way,
people do not lift heavy parts like engine blocks: they use overhead cranes
or hand pulled chain lever gadgets. Weight is not an issue, unless a part
slips and falls on your foot. Griggs designs his equipment with eye holes
in the right places to allow easy, safe lifting and assembly. My 9-year old
daughter can lift a large automobile engine right off the floor, pulling a
chain lever by herself at the Atlanta Sci Trek museum. These things are not
that complicated. If you want to know how they work, look up "lever" in any
elementary physics textbook.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenjedrothwell cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.29 / Tuan Ho /  <>:*:* Engineering & Math Books for Sale :*:*<>
     
Originally-From: tho@carbon.denver.colorado.edu (Tuan Thanh Ho)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: <>:*:* Engineering & Math Books for Sale :*:*<>
Date: 29 Oct 1994 06:51:23 -0600
Organization: University of Colorado at Denver



I have the following books for sale :

Please note the book condition:

Brand New = (!)
Excellent = (****)
Good      = (***)
Average   = (**)
Poor      = (*)


- J. D. Ullman, Computational Aspects of VLSI, Computer Science Press, 1984,
  $25 (!).

- M. Herzberger, Modern Geometrical Optics, Krieger, 1980, $32, (!).

- M. Born and E. Wolf, Principles of Optics: Electromagnetic Theory and
  Diffraction of Light, 6th ed., Pergamon Press, $39, (Soft bound) (!).

- J. S. Blakemore, Solid State Physics, 2nd ed., Cambridge University Press,
  1985, $39 (!).

- J. M. Jauch and F. Rohrlich, The Theory of Photons and Electrons, 2nd
  expanded Edition, Springer Verlag, 1980, $39 (***).

- A. Yariv, Quantum Electronics, 2nd ed., John Wiley & Sons, 1975, $25 (!).

- K. Huang, Statistical Mechanics, John Wiley & Sons, 1963, $25, (****).

- A. Sommerfeld, Thermodynamics and Statistical Mechanics, Academic Press,
  1956, $25 (***).  

- T. T. Wu, Ed., New Methodologies in Studies of Protein Configuration,
  Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1985, $25 (!).

- F. J. Brykowski, ed., Ammonia and Synthesis Gas: Recent and Energy-Saving
  Processes, Noyes Data Corporation, 1981, $25 (****).

- R. Abe, Statistical Mechanics, University of Tokyo Press, 1975, $25 (****).

- C. Kittel, Elementary Statistical Physics, John Wiley & Sons, $25 (****).

- W. H. Zachariasen, Theory of X-Ray Diffraction in Crystals, John Wiley &
  Sons, 1945, $20 (***).

- G. C. Levy, R. L. Lichter, and G. L. Nelson, Carbon-13 Nuclear Magnetic
  Resonance Spectroscopy, 2nd ed., John Wiley & Sons, 1980, $25 (****). 

- R. B. Marcus, Ed., Measurement of High-Speed Signals in Solid State 
  Devices (Semiconductors and Semimetals Vol.28), Academic Press, 1990,
  $35 (!).

- P. N. Butcher and D. Cotter, Cambridge Studies in Modern Optics: The 
  Elements of Nonlinear Optics, University of Cambridge Press, 1990, $42 (!)

- F. B. A. Frungel, High Speed Pulse Technology Vol. IV: Sparks and Laser
  Pulses, Academic Press, 1980, $30 (****).

- J. J. Duderstadt, Nuclear Power, Marcel Dekker, 1979, $35 (***).

- N. Johnson, S. G. Bishop, and G. D. Watkins, eds., Material Research
  Society Symposium Proceedings, vol.46, Microscopic Identification of
  Electronic Defects in Semiconductors, MRS Material Research Society, 1985,
  $25 (!).

- D. C. Harris, and M. D. Bertolucci, Symmetry and Spectroscopy: An 
  Introduction to Vibrational and Electronic Spectroscopy, Oxford University
  Press, 1978, $25 (***).

- R. W. Christy and A. Pytte, The Structure of Matter: An Introduction
  to Modern Physics, W. A. Benjamin, Inc., 1965, $25 (****).

- R. L. Shriner, R. C. Fuson, and D. Y. Curtin, The Systematic Identification
  of Organic Compounds: A Laboratory Manual, 5th ed., John Wiley & Sons,
  1964, $25 (***).

- R. F. Baron, Cryogenic Systems, 2nd ed., Oxford Science Publications,
  1985, $45 (!).

- H. H. Aly, ed., Lectures on Particles and Fields, Gordon & Breach Science
  Publishers, 1970, $90 (reg.$150), (****).

- R. Chand, Symmetries and Quark Models, Gordon & Breach Science Publishers,
  1970, $85 (reg.$140), (****).

- R. M. Olson and S. J. Wright, Essentials of Engineering Fluid Mechanics,
  5th ed., 1990, $50 (reg.$70), 1990 (!).

- I. Kaplan, Nuclear Physics, Addison Wesley, 1962, $35 (****).

- A. O. Barut, Scattering Theory, Aspects of Scattering Processes in Atomic,
  Nuclear, and Particle Physics, Gordon & Preach Science Publishers, 1969,
  $115 (reg.$198), (****).

- I. G. Currie, Fundamental Mechanics of Fluids, McGraw Hill, 1974, $30,
  (!).

- A. O. Barut and W. E. Britten, eds., De Sitter and Conformal Groups and
  Their Applications, Lectures in Theoretical Physics, Vol. XIII, Colorado
  Associated University Press, $45 (reg.$65), 1978, (****).

- A. V. Openheim and R. W. Schafer, Digital Signal Processing, Prentice Hall,
  1975, $59 (!), [Out of Print].

- E. O. Brigham, The Fast Fourier Transform, Prentice Hall, 1974, $35 (****).

- K. S. Narendra, and A. M. Annaswamy, Stable Adaptive Systems, Prentice Hall,
  1989, $59 (reg.$69), (!).

- M. Barnsley, Fractals Everywhere, Academic Press, 1988, $30 (reg.$50), 
  (!).

- M. S. Grewal, and A. P. Andrews, Kalman Filtering: Theory and Practice,
  Prentice Hall, 1993, $59 (reg.$69), (!).

- W. K. Pratt, Digital Image Processing, John Wiley & Sons, 1978, $49 (****).

- K. S. Narendra and R. W. Monopoli, Eds., Applications of Adaptive Control,
  Academic Press, 1980, $49 (****).

- L. Ljung, System Identification: Theory for the User, Prentice Hall, 1987,
  $73 (!).

- E. Isaacson and H. B. Keller, Analysis of Numerical Methods, John Wiley
  & Sons, 1966, $45 (***).

- A. Lawrence, Modern Inertial Technology: Navigation, Guidance, and Control,
  Springer Verlag, 1993, $39 (!).

- V. Solo, and X. Kong, Adatpive Signal Processing Algorithms: Stability
  and Performance, Prentice Hall, 1995, $56 (reg.$66), (!).

- L. Wang, Adaptive Fuzzy Systems and Control: Design and Stability Analysis,
  Prentice Hall, 1994, $55 (!).

- K. S. Narendra, Ed., Adaptive and Learning Systems: Theory and Applications,
  Plenum Press, 1986, $49 (****).

- E. I. Jury, Theory and Application of The Z-Transform Method, Krieger
  Publishing Co., 1982, $29 (****).

- S. K. Berberian, Lectures in Functional Analysis and Operator Theory,
  Springer Verlag, 1974, $35 (!).

- Y. L. Ershov and E. A. Palyutin, Mathematical Logic, Mir Publisher, 1984,
  $15 (!).

- D. E. Johnson, Introduction to Filter Theory, Prentice Hall, 1976, $20,
  (****).

- D. S. Touretzky, Ed., Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems,
  Vol.1 & 2 (1989, 1990), Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, $70 (****). 

- J. R. Wertz, Spacecraft Attitude Determination and Control, Soft bound,
  Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1978, $65, (!).

- T. C. Bartee, Editor-in-Chief, Digital Communications, Howard Sams & Co.,
  1986, $35 (!).

- M. Hall, Jr., Combinatorial Theory, Blaisdell Publishing Co., 1967, $29, 
  (****).

- J. A. Peterson and J. Hashisaki, Theory of Arithmetic, 2nd ed., John Wiley
  & Sons, 1968, $28, (***).

- F. F. Ling and I. G. Tadjbakhsh, eds., Recent Developments in Applied
  Mathematics, Rensselaer Press, 1983, $27 (!).

- C. W. Curtis, Linear Algebra: An Introduction Approach, 2nd ed., Allyn
  and Bacon, Inc., 1968, $27, (***).

- A. J. Pettofrezzo, and D. W. Hight, Number Systems: Structure and 
  Properties, Scott Foresman & Co., 1969, $28 (***).

- R. T. Seeley, Calculus of Several Variables, Scott Foresman & Co., 1970,
  $28 (****).

- I. N. Herstein, Topics in Algebra, Blaisdell Pub. Co., 1964, $29, (***).

- G. Stephenson, Matrices, Sets and Groups: An Introduction for Students of
  Science and Engineering, American Elsevier Pub. Co., Inc., 1965, $27,
  (***).

- S. M. Ross, Introduction to Probability Models, 4th ed., Academic Press,
  1989, $35 (!).

- S. Haykin, Adaptive Filter Theory, Prentice Hall, $65 (reg.$75), (!).

- C. G. Guy, Data Communications for Engineers, McGraw Hill, 1992, $29 (!).

- D. S. Naidu, Singular Perturbation Methodology in Control Systems, IEE
  Control Engineering Series, Peter Peregrinus Ltd., 1988, $55 (reg.$79+) (!). 

- J. Martin, Telecommunications and the Computer, 2nd ed., Prentice Hall,
  1976, $40 (reg.$60), (!).

- W. J. Palm III, Control Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, 1986,
  $45 (reg.$69), (!). 

- C. L. Wyatt, Electro-optical System Design for Information Processing,
  McGraw Hill, 1991, $35 (!).

- K. Ogata, Discrete-Time Control Systems, Prentice Hall, 1987, $25 (**).
  (reg.$70+).

- J. S. Vandergraft, Introduction to Numerical Computations, Academic Press,
  1978, $33 (****).

- R. E. Sonntag, and G. J. Van Wylen, Fundamentals of Statistical
  Thermodynamics, Robert E. Krieger Publishing Co., 1986 (reprint), $35 (!).

- A. O. Allen, Probability, Statistics, and Queueing Theory with Computer
  Science Applications, Academic Press, 1978, $35 (****).

- Y. D. Landau, System Identification and Control using P.I.M & Software,
  Prentice Hall, $59 (reg.$69), (!).

- R. V. Hogg and A. T. Craig, Introduction to Mathematical Statistics,
  4th ed., Macmillan, $35 (****).

- W. L. Luyben, Process Modeling, Simulation, and Control for Chemical
  Engineers, McGraw Hill, 1973, $35 (****).

- S. B. Kesler, ed., Modern Spectrum Analysis II, IEEE Press, 1986, $49 (***).

- M. L. Skolnik, Introduction to Radar Systems, 2nd ed., McGraw Hill,
  1980, $22 (****).

- W. G. Chambers, Basics of Communications and Coding, Oxford Science
  Publications, 1985, $35 (****).

- B. Widrow and S. D. Stearns, Adaptive Signal Processing, Prentice Hall,
  1985, $69, (reg.$78), (!).

- G. M. Jenkins and D. G. Watts, Spectral Analysis and its applications,
  Holden-Day, 1968, $25 (***).

- C. L. Phillips and H. T. Nagle, Digital Control System, 2nd ed.,
  Prentice Hall, 1990, $20 (**).

- C. L. Phillips and R. D. Harbor, Feedback Control Systems, Prentice Hall,
  1988, $20 (****).

- E. O. Brigham, The Fast Fourier Transform and its Applications, Prentice
  Hall, $65 (reg.$75), (!).

- F. Halsall, Data Communications, Computer Networks and Open Systems, 3rd
  ed., Addison Wesley, 1992, $25 (****). 

- W. Kaplan, Operational Methods for Linear Systems, Addison Wesley, 1962,
  $19 (**).

- J. D. Gibson, Principles of Digital and Analog Communications, 2nd ed.,
  Macmillan, 1993, $29 (****).

- E. M. Reingold, J. Nievergett, and Narsingh Deo, Combinatorial Algorithms:
  Theory and Practice, Prentice Hall, 1977, $39 (****).

- S. Lakshmivarahan, and S. K. Dhall, Analysis and Design of Parallel 
  Algorithms: Arithmetic and matrix Problem, McGraw Hill, 1990, $39 (!).

- Y. Kuang, Delay Differential Equations with Applications in Population
  Dynamics, Mathematics in Science and Engineering vol.191, Academic Press,
  1993, $39 (!).

- R. J. A. Little and D. B. Rubin, Statistical Analysis with Missing Data,
  John Wiley & Sons, 1987, $45 (!).

- C. R. Hicks, Fundamental Concepts in the Design of Experiments, 3rd ed.,
  Holt Rhinehart Winston, 1982, $43 (!).

- L. Gillman and M. Jerison, Rings of Continuous Functions, Van Nostrand
  Reinhold, 1960, $35 (***).

- P. Ribenboim, 13 Lectures on Fermat's Last Theorem, Springer-Verlag, 1979,
  $45 (!).

- D. A. Danielson, Vectors and Tensors in Engineering and Physics, Addison
  Wesley, 1992, $36 (!).

- Rabiner and Schafer, Digital Processing of Speech Signals, Prentice
  Hall, $75 (!).

- L. W. Couch II, Digital and Analog Communication Systems, Macmillan, 1983,
  $25 (***). 

- D. R. Smith, Digital Transmission Systems, Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1985,
  $20 (****).

- W. S. Meisel, Computer-Oriented Approaches to Pattern Recognition,
  Academic Press, 1972, $25 (***).

- M. Barkat, Signal Detection and Estimation, Artech House, 1991, $30 (!).

- S. Haykin, Communication Systems, 2nd ed., John Wiley & Sons, 1983,
  $30 (****).

- Proceedings ICASSP 85, IEEE International Conference on Acoustic, Speech,
  and Signal Processing, 1985, $25 (4 volumes, ****).

- T.W. Weber, An Introduction to Process Dynamics and Control, John Wiley & 
  Sons, 1973, $35 (***).

- W. A. Spivey and R. M. Thrall, Linear Optimization, Holt, Rinehart, and
  Winston, 1970, $29 (***).

- T. L. Vincent and W. J. Grantham, Optimality in Parametric Systems, John
  Wiley & Sons, 1981, $42 (***) (reg. $90).

- R. A. Gabel and R. A. Roberts, Signals and Linear Systems, 3rd ed., John
  Wiley & Sons, 1980, $20 (**, reg. $59.95).

- M. Brawn, Differential Equations and Their Applications, 2nd ed., Springer
  Verlag, 1975, $24 (***).

- T. Kailath, Linear Systems, Prentice Hall, 1980, $49 (****).

- E. D. Rainville and P. E. Bedient, Elementary Differential Equations,
  6th ed., Macmillan, 1981, $25 (***).

- J. Gilbert and L. Gilbert, Elements of Modern Algebra, 3rd ed., PWS-Kent
  Publishing Co., 1992, $40 (!).

- L. J. Bain and M. Engelhardt, Introduction to Probability and Mathematical
  Statistics, 2nd ed., PWS-Kent Publishing Co., 1992, $40 (!).

- J. Wesley Barnes, Statistical Analysis for Engineers and Scientists: A
  Computer-based Approach, McGraw Hill, 1994 $40 (!).

- G. H. Hostetter, C. J. Savant and R. T. Stefani, Design of Feedback Control
  Systems, Holt Rinehart and Winston, 1982, $32 (***).

- Digital Signal Processing Committee, Programs for Digital Signal Processing,
  IEEE Press, 1979, $25 (***). 

- G. F. Franklin and J. D. Powell, Digital Control of Dynamic Systems,
  Addison-Wesley, 1981, $30 (***).

- R. C. Dorf, Modern Control Systems, 4th ed., Addison-Wesley, 1986, $20 (**).

- J. J. D'Azzo and C. H. Houpis, Linear Control System Analysis and Design,
  2nd ed., McGraw Hill, 1981, $30 (****).

- E. B. Saff and A. D. Snider, Fundamentals of Complex Analysis for
  Mathematics, Science, and Engineering, Prentice Hall, 1976, $25 (****).

- A. S. Willsky, Digital Signal Processing and Control and Estimation Theory,
  Points of tangency, Areas of Intersection, and Parallel Directions,
  MIT Press, 1979, $25 (****).

- J. M. Mendel, Discrete Techniques of Parameter Estimation, Marcel Dekker,
  1973, $65 (****) (reg. $135).

- C. Johnk, Engineering Electromagnetic Fields and Waves, John Wiley & Sons
  1975, $30 (****).

- P. Bickel and K. Doksum, Mathematical Statistics: basic Ideas and Selected
  Topics, Holden-Day, Inc., 1977, $25 (****).

- W. Stallings, Data and Computer Communications, Macmillan, 1985, $20 (****).

- L. Balmer, Signals and Systems: An Introduction, Prentice Hall, 1991, $25.
  (****).

- M. O'Flynn, Probabilities, Random Variables, and random Process,
  Harper & Row publishers, 1982, $25 (****).

- E. A. Walker, Introduction to Abstract Algebra, Random House, 1987, $30.
  (****).


If interested, Please e-mail me at: tho@carbon.denver.colorado.edu
               or Phone me at     : (303) 364-4426



cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudentho cudfnTuan cudlnHo cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.28 / Edward Lewis /  tornadoes
     
Originally-From: edward@uhuru.uchicago.edu (Edward Lewis)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.geo.meteorology,sci.astro
Subject: tornadoes
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 1994 23:12:35 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago


Dec. 7, 1993
posted on Oct. 28, 1994

Luminous Tornadoes and Other Plasmoids

	During the past 1 3/4 years I've been posting articles about
ball lightning, plasmoids, EVs, and cold fusion on sci.physics.fusion
newsgroup. This is a version of one that I posted last winter.  Does
anyone have any reports about anomalous atmospheric phenomena?

        People have often seen bright or luminous tornadoes.
According to prior research, a large percentage of tornadoes are
bright or glowing, and people have experienced that some are quite hot.
(see B. Vonnegut and J. R. Weyer, "Luminous Phenomena Accompanying
Tornadoes," WEATHERWISE, 19-2 (Apr. 1966), 66-68. and B. Vonnegut and
J. R. Weyer, "Luminous Phenomena in Nocturnal Tornadoes, SCIENCE,
(1966), 1213-1220.)

        Storms on the Earth are probably an atmospheric manifestation
of earth plasmoid activity, according to Tesla's experience of
electricity in the ground that accompanied a storm.  Even clouds may
be such a manifestation.  Clouds seem to be plasmoid phenomena.  And
clouds may convert to ball lightning.  People have seen clouds which
contained a glowing spot, and in one case it is fairly documented that
a cloud with a glowing spot produced a tornado.

        Tornadoes are a locus for the conversion of substance
to light and electricity.  The power of tornadoes is anomalously high.
People have seen lightning from a large area converge to the area of a
cyclone, but this seems to only be part of the reason for the power.
People have seen tornadoes that had parts that were so bright that
they described the phenomena as being too bright to look at though the
tornadoes were quite a ways away; one person described tornadoes that
lit up the surroundings so that it was as if the direct sun was
shining during a period of time.  In one case, a thermometer measured
that the temperature of the air increased by about 20 degrees during
the passage of a tornado.

        I would say that tornadoes and ball lightning are the same
type of phenomena, though ball lightning is smaller.  I classify both
ball lightning and tornadoes, storms, clouds, and other phenomena as
kinds of a phenomena that I call plasmoid phenomena.  Galaxies and
atoms are other types of this kind of phenomena, according to my
theory.

        I would say that the cold fusion phenomena is a plasmoid
phenomena.  People have produced many types of phenomena including
traces and holes and tunnels that are similar to those produced by
plasmoid phenomena.  I would say that tiny plasmoids like ball
lightning are being produced. At the ICCF4, Matsumoto reported about
tiny ball lightning in his CF apparatus.  I suggest that people read
his articles in FUSION TECHNOLOGY.
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenedward cudfnEdward cudlnLewis cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.28 / Emory Bunn /  Re: Carnot is dead !
     
Originally-From: ted@physics2 (Emory F. Bunn)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.p
ysics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Carnot is dead !
Date: 28 Oct 1994 23:57:28 GMT
Organization: Physics Department, U.C. Berkeley

I didn't even know he was sick.

cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudented cudfnEmory cudlnBunn cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.29 /  siproj /  DO YOU WANT YOU TO GET alt.inventors VOTE YES HERE TO GET IT!
     
Originally-From: siproj@ripco.com (siproj)
Newsgroups: alt.config,sci.physics.fusion,sci.misc
Subject: DO YOU WANT YOU TO GET alt.inventors VOTE YES HERE TO GET IT!
Date: Sat, 29 Oct 1994 00:56:12 GMT
Organization: Ripco Internet BBS, Chicago



Well if you want alt.inventors and the FAQ's that are only
posted in alt.inventors.  A Dr. Gonzo of Canada rmgroup'd
alt.inventors much to the dismay of several people and 
somebody should help with getting back on track!

Anyhow this is the FAQ Table of Contents thus far for October.

Looking to hear from those interest in maintaining/newgrouping
in alt.inventors so the net can get it.  My e-mail box has got
so much stuff for this area already.

Where are all of you at?


Version 0.3            Last half of October 1994

1. Introduction

2. General overview

3. Main points of discussion.

4. Related Newsgroups to alt.inventors and how they relate.

5. Current FAQ Status

6. World Wide Web Resources for Inventors (Updated)

7. Patent Attorney's / Searchers e-mail directory (Updated)

8. Anything else?

END
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudensiproj cudlnsiproj cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.28 /  DanHicks /  Re: Tests Tom Droege could do on Griggs device
     
Originally-From: danhicks@aol.com (DanHicks)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Tests Tom Droege could do on Griggs device
Date: 28 Oct 1994 22:36:02 -0400
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

In article <36vs7j$igr@char.vnet.net>, jnw@char.vnet.net (John N. White)
writes:

>>>
2. The input power isn't dropping, but vibrations in the pump are being
   converted by the motor to their electrical equivalent which are then
   sent back to the power meter. The meter, being designed for 60Hz, is
   fooled into reading low. An AC current meter, on the other hand, would
   not be fooled in the same way. If anything, I would think that it
   would read high.
<<<

Huh?  What do you think a power meter is?  It's essentially a current
meter that uses a coil excited by the AC voltage in place of the permanent
magnet in a standard meter.  Signal distortion that would cause a power
meter to misread would be just as likely (perhaps more so) to cause a
clamp-on current meter to misread.  (The clamp-on meter is essentially a
standard meter coupled with a current transformer.  High frequencies would
not be transfered efficiently by the current transformer, and hence the
meter would tend to read low in the case of high frequency noise
superimposed on the 60 cycle signal.)

Frankly, the power meter is one of the things I'd least suspect.  If it is
a properly calibrated industrial meter, and if it is operating within the
manufacturer's stated limits for power factor and distortion (things which
should be easy to verify) then it should be quite accurate.
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudendanhicks cudlnDanHicks cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.29 / Cliff Frost /  Re: Mysterious Bass and his Mystical Secrets
     
Originally-From: cliff@ack.berkeley.edu (Cliff Frost)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Mysterious Bass and his Mystical Secrets
Date: 29 Oct 1994 09:46:23 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley

In article <pOwWjIM.jedrothwell@delphi.com>,  <jedrothwell@delphi.com> wrote:
>crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes about the Griggs
>device:
> 
>     "On the other hand, I know it's not producing more heat than is put in,
>     and I know why.  Experimental error."
> 
>If you *know* it is an experimental error, why are you keeping it a secret?
>Tell us! What experimental error? You will end this whole discussion and
>emerge triumphant the moment you reveal your secret.

Yes, I've been wondering about this also.

Dale, how have you ruled out deliberate fraud on the part of some or
all of the participants?

	Thanks,
		A. Lurker
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudencliff cudfnCliff cudlnFrost cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.29 / R SPAANDONK /  TESTATIKA device
     
Originally-From: rvanspaa@ozemail.com.au (R.J VAN SPAANDONK)
Originally-From:    Robin
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: TESTATIKA device
Subject: Re: Fusion Digest 2887
Date: Sat, 29 Oct 1994 17:51:30 GMT
Date:    Saturday, 29 October 1994 04:10 PM
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To:      FUSION -- INTERNET @ OZ-EMAIL  {FUSION@ZORCH.SF-BAY.ORG}
Originally-From:    Robin
Date:    Saturday, 29 October 1994 04:10 PM
Subject: Re: Fusion Digest 2887
 ------------------------------ Message Text -------------------------------

Reply to message text:

>>The type of Testatika machines will replace all current energy sources
>>as it produces non-polluting "free" energy.
>>
>>Get a look at the future of clean energy production !
>>
>>Regards, Stefan.
>>
>
> Oh please! Put up or shut up...where is this gadget? Can we have a set of
>PLANS to build one and VERIFY it operation? Dont give me that 
secret-mumbo-jumbo...
>I INSIST YOU EITHER TAKE THIS GARBAGE TO 'alt.bizarre' OR GIVE US THE PROOF!
>
>..or stop posting this crap, please! This is a science newsgroup, not one for
>paranoid fantasy!
>
>(sheesh!)
______________________________________________________________________________
While I have not seen this movie, as it won't play for me using the suggested
viewer, from a previous posting by an antagonist I gleaned that there is a poss-
ibility that it is drawing on atmospheric electricity. It has been known for 
many
years that a potential difference exists between the upper atmosphere and the 
ground.
A high insulating pole, with an ionizer on top of it, and a wire coming down to
ground level is a source of very high voltage low current power, suitable for 
electret
motors, though not for electromagnetic motors. The source of this power is 
either directly
or indirectly, the sun. I suspect that it is to some extent also behind 
lightning. 
As such we should be careful about tapping it on a large scale, as we may end 
up affecting
the amount of power available for use by lightning. This could have serious 
consequences
for world rainfall. (Lightning -> Thunder -> Shock to supercooled water -> ice 
(condensation nuclei). (Motto: Don't tamper with the weather, till you know 
what you're doing.)

And no, I'm not a raving lunatic.

I post this only to point out that however slim, there is just a chance 
according to
current scientific knowledge, that this device actually works, and produces 
power,
so please don't be too hasty in condemning it.

Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa@ozemail.com.au>








cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenrvanspaa cudfnR cudlnSPAANDONK cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.29 / Nick Maclaren /  Re: Radioactive smoke
     
Originally-From: nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk (Nick Maclaren)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Radioactive smoke
Date: 29 Oct 1994 13:48:11 GMT
Organization: University of Cambridge, England

In article <38rp5f$dou@usenetp1.news.prodigy.com>,
JAMES STOLIN  <FKNF40A@prodigy.com> wrote:
> stolfi@stack.dcc.unicamp.br (Jorge Stolfi) writes:
>
>   Both this note and the one it was refering to make me wonder.  What are 
>the concentrations of uranum and thorium in the coal ash, the general 
>environment and uranium ore?  These figures would give a much better 
>perspective on the contamination situation.

This is one of the two reasons that this smokescreen has arisen.
Uranium and thorium are extremely common in many parts of the world,
and are 1-10 ppm in rocks like granite.  The leakage of radium from
underlying rocks and houses built of granite is a serious health
hazard in the UK and elsewhere.

Uranium and thorium themselves are almost harmless.  They are weak
alpha particle emitters with a very long half life, and so can cause
trouble only if absorbed into organisms (or computers!)  What is
more, they are effectively biologically inert and therefore do NOT
accumulate in the biosphere or humans.

While plutonium is also a weak alpha particle emitter with a long
half life, it is NOT biologically inert and does accumulate in
human beings.  This is why it is dangerous and the others are not.

Banning the general industrial use of uranium and thorium is just a
knee-jerk reaction, and has no scientific basis.  The ONLY grounds
for restrictions are to protect the people who work with them.  After
all, think of how much roadstone is granite, and what happens when
traffic rolls over it day after day ....

Nick Maclaren,
University of Cambridge Computer Laboratory,
New Museums Site, Pembroke Street, Cambridge CB2 3QG, England.
Email:  nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk
Tel.:  +44 223 334761    Fax:  +44 223 334679
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudennmm1 cudfnNick cudlnMaclaren cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.29 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: No scanner here
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: No scanner here
Date: Sat, 29 Oct 94 10:10:19 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

FKNF40A@prodigy.com (JAMES STOLIN ) writes:
 
     "It's actually very simple to test the Griggs device and no instruments
     or measurements whatsoever are needed.
 
     1- Couple the output to the input.
     2- Start the device.
     3- Remove external sources of power used to start the device.
 
     If the device keeps running, the Griggs device produces excess
     energy..."
 
This is utterly impossible. The device produces only 20 to 50% excess. You
need 300% to 1000% excess to maintain a self-regenerating reaction, because
of mechanical inefficiency and heat losses (primarily radiation).
 
I suggest you do a little homework on steam turbines, electric generators,
and internal combustion engines. Any encyclopedia will have a lot of good
information. There is a wonderful little book called "Heat Engines" which I
depend on. It was written back in the 60's, it is probably out of print. The
DoE publishes some marvelous, handy and informative books too.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenjedrothwell cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.29 / Alan M /  Re: Mysterious Bass and his Mystical Secrets
     
Originally-From: Alan@moonrake.demon.co.uk ("Alan M. Dunsmuir")
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Mysterious Bass and his Mystical Secrets
Date: Sat, 29 Oct 1994 16:22:57 +0000
Organization: Home

I take it that Jed's tasteful simulation of a comms failure between 
CompuServe and the 'Net (funny - nobody else on CompuServe seems to 
have noticed it and an attempted posting to sci.physics.fusion seems
- even by his standards - an odd way of checking its status when a 
phone call to his local CIS office could have provided instant 
feed-back) is his way of saying "I decline to take up your 
challenge about my claim to 'undisputed facts' on alt.skeptic, and 
to the other post refuting my claim not to frequent CompuServe 
NewsGroups".

Alan M. Dunsmuir [@ his wits end]     (Can't even quote poetry right)

         I am his Highness' dog at Kew
         Pray tell me sir, whose dog are you?
			      [Alexander Pope]

PGP Public Key available on request.


cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenAlan cudfnAlan cudlnM cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.29 /  Alex /  Re: re) ..Testing Grigg G. with different fluids!
     
Originally-From: litvak@csa.bu.edu (Alex)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: re) ..Testing Grigg G. with different fluids!
Date: 29 Oct 1994 18:34:27 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

	I understand these fellows obtained a patent for this
contraption and I do not understand this. Some twenty years ago I read
in a magazine which was called "loosely translated" "Young mechanic"
about an ultra-sonic siren. It was constructed from alluminum disks,
with one disk having holes drilled all along the perimeter and the
other disk having some hole through which air was forced by a
pump. Disks were flush with each other. The ultra-sound was produced
when the disks were rotating with respect to each other with air being
forced through the holes. Obviously, the frequency was related to the
number of holes and angular speeds. It was also said that that device
could heat metal pieces to "RED-HOT" temperatures. 

If you stick this thing in water or other liquid you got for yourself
the same type of device as supposedly was patented. So why is the
patent office granting patents for things which have in public domain
for eons?






cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenlitvak cudlnAlex cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.29 / Chris Reed /  Re: Rothwell fan club
     
Originally-From: py10nps@rs1.tcs.tulane.edu (Chris Reed)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Rothwell fan club
Date: 29 Oct 1994 20:51:03 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Dept., Tulane Univ., New Orleans, LA

    I think someone should create "alt.fan.jed-rothwell".

    It might draw some of the noise away from this group.

                                    
                                                         Sincerely,

                                                         Christopher Reed
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenpy10nps cudfnChris cudlnReed cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.29 / Chris Parkinson /  Re: Mysterious Bass and his Mystical Secrets
     
Originally-From: parky@ix.netcom.com (Chris Parkinson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Mysterious Bass and his Mystical Secrets
Date: 29 Oct 1994 21:42:31 GMT
Organization: Netcom

In <pOwWjIM.jedrothwell@delphi.com> jedrothwell@delphi.com writes: 

>
>crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes about the 
Griggs
>device: alot of junk eh...:^)

deletions...
> 
>Or maybe you are full of crap, you don't know anything, and you are a 
faker.

Agreed, and to think I've been yaking with someone who doesnt exist!

>That would not surprise me. After all, you claim you are with the 
University
>of Virginia and you claim you teach there, but the University has never 
heard
>of you. I sometimes wonder whether you exist at all. Maybe you are a
>composite joke put together by the university staff?
> 
>- Jed
> 
> 
>[P.S. I would to thank the Alert Reader who suggested I call the 
University of
>Virginia and ask for Bass. You were right, they have never heard of 
him! For
>others who wish to check, the information number is 804-924-0311.]
>

I think everyone should not only call the University but flame this
dude probably known better as Curby 7Q (basically a nerd!).

Don't stand for this cyberspace crap! Our media here at this site is in 
need of honesty and truthfullness and not the ramblings of some 
loonytunes that are too afraid to correctly identify themselves.


A joke:
A guy walks into a doctors office and tells the receptionist there, that 
he's got shingles. She immediatly tells him to get out of his clothes 
and into a medical garment and wait for the nurse to see him.

The nurse comes in and asks him why he is here and he once again retorts 
that hes got shingles. She gasps and leaves to call for the doctor.

He comes in and asks him what is wrong and he says "Well nothin doc but 
I've got a load of shingles waitin in the parking lot for you!"

Pretty dumn I know but relevant.

CP
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenparky cudfnChris cudlnParkinson cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.30 / R SPAANDONK /  Re: Reply to Marshall
     
Originally-From: rvanspaa@ozemail.com.au (R.J VAN SPAANDONK)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reply to Marshall
Date: Sun, 30 Oct 1994 02:26:54 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Reply to message text:

>-> 1- Couple the output to the input.
>-> 2- Start the device.
>-> 3- Remove external sources of power used to start the device.
>
>This doesn't makes sense.  The input is cold water and the output is steam. You
>say to take the steam and put it back into the input?  It is already steam,
>so what good would that do?  And it is powered by an electric motor.  Are you
>arguing that if you feed the steam from the output back to the input, you can
>disconnect the power and the motor will keep running, or what?  Please explain.
>
>                                                                Marshall
___________________________________________________________________________
Perhaps augmenting the electric motor with a steam turbine, and then turning off
the power to the motor once a steady state had been achieved, would suffice. 
(The steam for the turbine would of course be generated by GG).

Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa@ozemail.com.au>











cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenrvanspaa cudfnR cudlnSPAANDONK cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.28 / Alan M /  Re: Rothwell fan club
     
Originally-From: Alan@moonrake.demon.co.uk ("Alan M. Dunsmuir")
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Rothwell fan club
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 1994 05:38:10 +0000
Organization: Home

In article: <38mhmr$3qs@auntie.bbcnc.org.uk>  Michael Kenward <m.kenward
bbcnc.org.uk> writes:

> Do you think we could persuade him to bribe some MPs?
> 
Given our luck with politicians, he'd probably finish up in the Cabinet!

Alan M. Dunsmuir [@ his wits end]     (Can't even quote poetry right)

         I am his Highness' dog at Kew
         Pray tell me sir, whose dog are you?
			      [Alexander Pope]

PGP Public Key available on request.


cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenAlan cudfnAlan cudlnM cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.28 / Alan M /  Re: Test CompuServe Interface
     
Originally-From: Alan@moonrake.demon.co.uk ("Alan M. Dunsmuir")
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Test CompuServe Interface
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 1994 05:38:13 +0000
Organization: Home

In article: <38jr46$8fj$1@mhadf.production.compuserve.com>  Jed Rothwell 
<72240.1256@CompuServe.COM> writes:

> Let us see if the CompuServe => Internet interface is back to life.
> Testing, testing 1, 2, 3. . .
> 
Congratulations, Jed. That's probably the only test you'll ever be 
associated with, where there is 100% agreement on the outcome!

Also I can see why you're keen to find a 'free energy' machine, given 
the rates CIS charges for Internet access!

Alan M. Dunsmuir [@ his wits end]     (Can't even quote poetry right)

         I am his Highness' dog at Kew
         Pray tell me sir, whose dog are you?
			      [Alexander Pope]

PGP Public Key available on request.


cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenAlan cudfnAlan cudlnM cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.29 /  Anthony /  Re: Mysterious Bass and his Mystical Secrets
     
Originally-From: Anff@qvwp.demon.co.uk (Anthony)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Mysterious Bass and his Mystical Secrets
Date: Sat, 29 Oct 1994 11:07:38 +0000
Organization: A H Worth & Co Ltd

Jed,

I think it's about time you post all your ranting and raving directly to
the people concerned in private. 
I am getting fed up with your outbursts, however I do enjoy your responses
to the questions about the Griggs device, but not the 'thats crap, he's a
fake, you are stupid, etc'. If you feel that the whole group needs to read
your outbursts and sarcasm then continue to do it and I'll merrily add you 
to my kill file, I for one can't afford to keep reading the ravings. It does
nothing but comsume valuable time and degrades the discussion.
(You weren't really obnoxious on Compu$pend were you. I think that must be a horrid
rumor so don't let the buggers :) get you down.)

[insert big ascii art of a happy face here]

-- 
Cheers
Anff

--Anthony Sumner -- Mail Anff@qvwp.demon.co.uk
"Knowledge is useless unless it's shared"
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenAnff cudlnAnthony cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.30 / Scott Jennings /  Re: DO YOU WANT YOU TO GET alt.inventors VOTE YES HERE TO GET IT!
     
Originally-From: smj@smudge.oro.net (Scott Jennings)
Newsgroups: alt.config,sci.physics.fusion,sci.misc
Subject: Re: DO YOU WANT YOU TO GET alt.inventors VOTE YES HERE TO GET IT!
Date: 30 Oct 1994 00:40:18 GMT
Organization: "OroNet, Penn Valley, CA"

siproj (siproj@ripco.com) wrote:
: Well if you want alt.inventors and the FAQ's that are only
: posted in alt.inventors.  A Dr. Gonzo of Canada rmgroup'd
: alt.inventors much to the dismay of several people and 
: somebody should help with getting back on track!

Why not alt.sci.inventors?
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudensmj cudfnScott cudlnJennings cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.30 /  nachtrieb@max. /  ALCATOR C-MOD WEEKLY HIGHLIGHTS, 19941026
     
Originally-From: nachtrieb@max.pfc.mit.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: ALCATOR C-MOD WEEKLY HIGHLIGHTS, 19941026
Date: 30 OCT 94 01:48:01 GMT
Organization: MIT PLASMA FUSION CENTER

			Alcator C-MOD Weekly Highlights
				October 26, 1994

Alcator C-MOD is nearing the end of the present maintenance/repair
period.  Good progress has continued in readying the machine for
resumed operation next month.

All vertical port crosses have been installed. Connection of internal
diagnostic cables to feedthroughs on the vertical port flanges is well
underway. All gate valves on the upper vertical ports have been
installed.

The cryostat and coil systems are being purged continuously with N2
gas from the vaporizer. The cryogenics system and CRYO PLC
(Programmable Logic Control; system run by inexpensive personal
computers) control system are now operational. All oxygen alarms were
checked out and are operational.

The TF (Toroidal Field magnetic coil; primary confinement field)
thermocouple scanner has been debugged and is now in operation. The
HEAT system is near the end of its checkout/debug cycle.

A modification has been made to the control circuitry of the chopper
supply used for fast vertical plasma position control. This
modification should improve response time and give a more linear
response to demand voltages.  Testing of the supply into a dummy load
is underway.

In-vessel work is continuing. The D-port ICRF (Ion Cyclotron Resonance
Frequency; heating mechanism) antenna is now complete.  All of the new
magnetics diagnostics associated with halo current monitoring are now
in place. A replacement flux loop for F17, which was found to be
damaged during the last campaign, has been installed. Cabling for two
of the ten divertor shunts was found to be faulty and is being
replaced. Calibration of the H-alpha diagnostic arrays is in progress.

A preliminary checkout of the neutron detection system using a small
external source was carried out. A full neutron calibration with a
source inside the machine is scheduled for this week.

All the igloo blocks are now in place. Equipment mounted on the igloo
is now being installed. Ex-vessel diagnostic systems are being
re-positioned on the diagnostic stand and readied for operation.

Dry runs for presentations at the APS (American Physical Society)
Division of Plasma Physics Meeting are taking place this
week. Thirty-one posters, eleven contributed orals, and two invited
talks on Alcator C-MOD research are being presented, including eleven
posters by our outside collaborators.
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudennachtrieb cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.30 / Anthony Siegman /  Re: Radioactive smoke
     
Originally-From: siegman@Sierra.Stanford.EDU (Anthony E. Siegman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Radioactive smoke
Date: 30 Oct 1994 03:36:14 GMT
Organization: Leland Stanford Junior University

>Thorium is simply a rare earth phospher 
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>which is quite efficient and glows with
>a brilliant white light.  Being radioactive is simply an unfortunate
>characteristic for this use.

   Actually it's an actinide (at atomic number 90, it's the first
element in the actinide group), which means it's one shell further out
in atomic orbitals, or one row further down in the Periodic Table,
with an unfilled inner 5f shell compared to the rare earths (=
lanthanides) which have an unfilled inner 4f shell.  

   Mantels for gas lanterns have always contained lots of rare earths,
since these elements have lots of electronic transitions in the
visible and thus glow brightly in the visible when heated (also
generally make useful visible and near IR laser materials).  I believe
lantern mantels were for a time (maybe still) one of the primary
commercial uses for rare earth ions; Allied Chemical, a major supplier
of rare earths, I think used to be something like Allied Lamp and
Chemical, or something similar.
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudensiegman cudfnAnthony cudlnSiegman cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Sun Oct 30 04:37:04 EST 1994
------------------------------
1994.10.30 / Robert Heeter /  Conventional Fusion FAQ Section 8/11 (Internet Resources)
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.answers,news.answers
Subject: Conventional Fusion FAQ Section 8/11 (Internet Resources)
Date: Sun, 30 Oct 1994 05:04:37 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

Archive-name: fusion-faq/section8-internet
Last-modified: 30-Oct-1994
Posting-frequency: More-or-less-monthly
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!!!).

*****************************************************************
8. Internet Information Resources
* This FAQ deals with conventional fusion only, not Cold Fusion. *

Last Revised October 30,1994
Written by Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@pppl.gov, unless
otherwise cited.


*** A. Newsgroups:  
     sci.physics.fusion (unmoderated)
     sci.physics.plasma (moderated)  
          - this latter is for plasma science discussions, 
            not for fusion issues.                

     Sci.physics.fusion postings have been archived on a couple 
     of internet sites.  For more information see the sections 
     on WAIS and Anonymous FTP below.


*** B. WAIS (Wide-Area Information Server) Databases

     [ Information on the sunsite.unc.edu WAIS database provided
          by Chuck Harrison, harr@netcom.com ]

     * sunsite.unc.edu has a searchable WAIS archive of all postings
       on sci.physics.fusion (1989-present).  According to Chuck 
       Harrison (harr@netcom.com), "WAIS access means it is 
       *searchable* on free-text keywords, which means alot when 
       you're trying to find old vaguely-recollected postings from 
       the 30MB or so of archive.  I created the thing because I 
       found that hunting through the vm1.nodak.edu [anonymous FTP 
       site, see below ] archives by ftp was prohibitively 
       time-consuming, so I suspect anyone who *wants* to look in 
       the newsgroup history (who knows why? ;-) ) should try 
       the WAIS database first if they have access (e.g. swais, 
       WWW, gopher, or telnet to sunsite)."

     * Accessing the sunsite archives - directions:
       [ The information below is straight from Chuck Harrison ]

       1. If you are directly connected to Internet, you can 
          log onto a public WAIS server at the University of North 
          Carolina:
          
          %telnet sunsite.unc.edu
          ...
          login: swais
          ...
          TERM = (unknown) vt100
          It takes a minute to load ...

          <use ? for online help>
          <use /fusion to locate the fusion-digest source>
          <follow the prompts to select the source and enter your 
           keywords for searching>

       2. If you have a "gopher" client, you can use it for WAIS 
          access.  Many university campuses provide gopher as a 
          public information service.

          2a. On most systems, you first select an option 
              labeled "Other Systems", then from that menu 
              select "WAIS based information".  Since each
              gopher site creates its own menus, I can't tell 
              you exactly where to go from there.

          2b. If you can gopher to SunSITE, at UNC, navigate 
              the menus down thru SunSITE archives..All 
              archives..Academic..Physics..Cold-fusion.
              [ Sometimes conventional fusion comes second! ]

          2c. If you can 'telnet' but not 'gopher', you may telnet 
              to sunsite.unc.edu and login as 'gopher'. Then follow 
              2a or 2b above.

       3. If you have World Wide Web (WWW) browser, such as 
          Mosaic, Cello, or Lynx, you may use the following URL:
          wais://sunsite.unc.edu/fusion-digest (newsgroup archive)

     [ More info on other Gopher and WWW resources is given below. ]

       4. If you have a WAIS client on your system (the most common 
          ones are "swais" -- character-based, and "xwais" -- for 
          X-Windows), use it.


*** C. World-Wide Web:

     * Much of the public-domain fusion info is now available 
       via WWW:  At this time, it appears that most of the 
       major U.S. fusion research labs have information available 
       on the Web, and the amount of available information is 
       growing rapidly.  Available materials include basic 
       fusion information, all sorts of pictures, information 
       about each lab's research projects, and more.

     * Navigating the Web is a little hard to explain, but the
       easiest way to start is to go to the NCSA What's New page in 
       Mosaic, open up the What's New archives, find the archive for 
       June 1994, and then browse through it until you find the 
       Office of Fusion Energy page.  From here, you can (I think) 
       move upwards within DOE to the Office of Energy Research, or 
       downwards to many of the fusion labs.  Alternatively, once you 
       know the "URL" addresses of a lab's WWW documents, you can 
       open them up directly with the "Open URL" menu command.

     * Some URL addresses to try:
     
     http://wwwofe.er.doe.gov/			(Office of Fusion Energy)
     http://harrier.pppl.gov/homepage.html	(PPPL)
     http://demo-www.gat.com/			(General Atomics / DIII-D)
     http://cmod2.pfc.mit.edu/			(MIT Plasma Fusion Center)

     * The University of Texas-Austin has a server:

               http://w3fusion.ph.utexas.edu/frc.html

       There is also a parallel WWW server for Univ. of Texas 
       Fusion Research (testing new features) at:

               http://ruby.ph.utexas.edu

          This WWW server cover the Fusion Research Center 
          (experimental program and the TEXT-U device) and 
          the Institute for Fusion Research (theoretical).

     (Apologies to those labs I left off this list; I figured this 
     would give anyone interested a decent start, and then the rest 
     of the labs are easy to get to.)


*** D. Gopher:

     * Garching (Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics): 
          The host is uts.ipp-garching.mpg.de (Port: 70)
          Or, from the top:  Gopher -> Europe -> Germany 
             -> Information Servers in Germany 
             -> MPI fuer Plasmaphysik Garching-Gopher
             (and, if you like, -> IPP Information)

          According to Art Carlson at Garching:
             "It's probably not very useful, since most of the info, 
             press releases and the like, is in German.  There is 
             other *great stuff* on the computer, like drawings 
             of ASDEX-Upgrade and time schedules, but it's not 
             publicly available (as far as I know)."

     * University of Texas - Austin:
          Gopher -> North America -> USA -> Texas
            -> University of Texas Austin Fusion Studies
                  (Machine name is hagar.ph.utexas.edu)

          This gopher server has a variety of material regarding 
          physics and fusion, including archives of the periodic 
          status reports for TFTR, Alcator C-Mod, and TEXT-U.
          This is also accessible via Mosaic with the URL 
          gopher://hagar.ph.utexas.edu/1, I believe.

     * Anything else out there?


*** E. Anonymous FTP Sites:
     vm1.nodak.edu (134.129.111.1) 
          This site has the complete archive of
          the sci.physics.fusion newsgroup, from its inception.

          In particular, this FAQ is (will soon be) archived here.

          To log in:  use the username anonymous, type your
          email address as the password, and then type "cd fusion"
          to get to the fusion directory.  Beware: the index is
          large!  To download something enter "get" and then
          the name of the file you want.

     sunsite.unc.edu
          Sunsite also collects the fusion digests archiving
          the sci.physics.fusion, in the directory 
           /pub/academic/physics/Cold-fusion.
          The recent digest files are in subdirectories whose 
          names begin with "fd," and the older stuff is
          archived by year in files fd89, fd90, etc...
          This material is also available under WAIS (see 8A).

     neutrino.nuc.berkeley.edu 
          Here you can find fusion-related GIF images.
          As for vm1.nodak.edu, log in anonymously, then cd to
          the directory /pub/fusion, and "get" what you want.

     rtfm.mit.edu
          This is the primary archive for the FAQ, at least in 
          the United States.  The latest version of a given
          section FAQ crossposted to sci.answers or news.answers 
          can be found somewhere in either
               /pub/usenet/news.answers/fusion-faq or
               /pub/usenet/sci.answers/fusion-faq
          (Sections with multiple parts have subdirectories.)
     
     There are other FTP archive sites for the FAQ as well.
          A list of these is posted in the "How to Find the FAQ"
          posting on sci.physics.fusion.


*** F. LISTSERV:
     vm1.nodak.edu also works as a listserver:

          "You get a (large) index of the archives by sending 
          an email to listserv@vm1.nodak.edu, with a blank 
          SUBJECT line, and the "message" 'index fusion'. To get 
          any one of these files, you then send to the same address
          the message, e.g., "get fusion 91-00487", etc, according 
          to what you're after."
            -- quoting Dieter Britz, BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk

          * This FAQ should soon be available via the listserver.


*** G. Electronic Bulletins

     * TFTR Updates - published occasionally by Rich Hawryluk,
forwarded automatically to sci.physics.fusion.  Also distributed
via electronic mailing list.

     * Alcator C-Mod Weekly Updates - posted by Steve Fairfax to
sci.physics.fusion periodically 

     * TPX Updates - published occasionally by Rob Goldston,
forwarded automatically to sci.physics.fusion.  Also distributed
via electronic mailing list.


*** H. Individuals Willing to Provide Additional Information

Many of the participants on sci.physics.fusion are conventional/hot
fusion researchers.  Many names and email addresses are to be found 
as sources for various slices of the FAQ, and so on.  (See the 
acknowledgements for a more-or-less complete list of contributors.)

A few people have expressed a willingness to serve as sources for
people seeking additional literature, such as laboratory reports, 
pamphlets, and assorted other documents.  What follows is a short 
listing:

* Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@pppl.gov 
	- Graduate Student at Princeton - 

	I have the FAQ, all sorts of archived postings and additional
	information used to generate the FAQ, a bunch of PPPL literature, 
	a set of quicktime movies made from television coverage of the 
	TFTR D-T runs (and GIFs from the QT movies), and access to just 
	about anyone here at PPPL who would have something I don't have.

The draft FAQ now exists as a stand-alone, self-running Macintosh
document roughly 400K in size; I will be happy to send it to
anyone who wants the FAQ in this (more convenient!) form.

* Joe T. Chew, jtchew@lbl.gov
	- Physicist at Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory -

	"I've also got a variety of pamphlets put out by this or that 
	lab or agency over the years; feel free to give out my address 
	as a source for photocopies of such things."
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.30 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Re: Reply to Marshall
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Reply to Marshall
Date: Sun, 30 Oct 1994 12:11 -0500 (EST)

rvanspaa@ozemail.com.au (R.J VAN SPAANDONK) writes:
 
-> Perhaps augmenting the electric motor with a steam turbine, and then turning
-> the power to the motor once a steady state had been achieved, would suffice.
-> (The steam for the turbine would of course be generated by GG).
 
One would not have to do that to see it would not work.  Steam Engines cannot
exceed the limits set by the carnot cycle, and at the relatively low
temperatures this device operates at, the efficiency of converting from heat
to kinetic energy would not provide a surplus.
 
This thermodynamic limitation in conjunction with the ineffiencies inherent in
a steam turbon means that over unity operation would have to exceed the 10% to
40% range thus far reported before such a device could be expected to work.
Now, if Griggs finds a way to get the reported surplus up to 100% to 200% such
a proposition would make a lot more sense.
 
                                                                Mashall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.30 / mitchell swartz /  Radioactive smoke -- Weisbach gas mantles
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Radioactive smoke -- Weisbach gas mantles
Subject: Re: Radioactive smoke
Date: Sun, 30 Oct 1994 20:31:24 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

   In Message-ID: <1533034siegman13817@EE.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Re: Radioactive smoke
Anthony E. Siegman (siegman@Sierra.Stanford.ED) writes:

       >Thorium is simply a rare earth phospher 
                           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
      >which is quite efficient and glows with
      >a brilliant white light.  Being radioactive is simply an unfortunate
      >characteristic for this use.
=      "Actually it's an actinide (at atomic number 90, it's the first
=    element in the actinide group), which means it's one shell further out
=    in atomic orbitals, or one row further down in the Periodic Table,
=    with an unfilled inner 5f shell compared to the rare earths (=
=    lanthanides) which have an unfilled inner 4f shell.  
=    
=       Mantels for gas lanterns have always contained lots of rare earths,
=    since these elements have lots of electronic transitions in the
=    visible and thus glow brightly in the visible when heated (also
=    generally make useful visible and near IR laser materials).  I believe
=    lantern mantels were for a time (maybe still) one of the primary
=    commercial uses for rare earth ions; Allied Chemical, a major supplier
=    of rare earths, I think used to be something like Allied Lamp and
=     Chemical, or something similar."


   Some are Welsbach gas mantles using the pyrophoric thorium (which,
like magnesium with which it is mixed to improve strength, can
ignite spontaneously)

   The Welsbach mantles employ thorium oxide and 1% cerium oxide
to get the dazzling emission in a gas flame.  The low work function of 
throrium leads to its use in some tungsten electron emission devices
to increase emission.         

     For those who want to calibrate their photographic films oft-maligned by
a few TB-skeptics here, all thorium isotopes are
unstable (naturally occurring Th232 emits alphas (T1/2 = 1.4 E+10 years))
enough to expose photographic films in a few hours.

   [BTW Robert Heeter, Thorium A, B, C, C', C'', D and X are not thorium,
      but are Po216, Pb212 etc.          ;-)  X            ]

    Best wishes.
                  Mitchell Swartz   (mica@world.std.com)


cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.29 / John White /  Re: Tests Tom Droege could do on Griggs device
     
Originally-From: jnw@jazzmin.vnet.net (John N. White)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Tests Tom Droege could do on Griggs device
Date: 29 Oct 1994 23:15:32 -0400
Organization: Vnet Internet Access, Inc. - Charlotte, NC. (704) 374-0779

In response to my suggestion to cross check the power meter with an AC
clamp-on meter danhicks@aol.com (DanHicks) replies:

> Huh?  What do you think a power meter is?  It's essentially a current
> meter that uses a coil excited by the AC voltage in place of the permanent
> magnet in a standard meter.

And that is a completely different thing from a current meter. For instance,
if power flows the other way, then the above power meter will read negative
while the current meter still reads positive.

Most industrial power measuring devices are induction based. Alternating
coils representing the current and voltage, phase shifted a quarter
cycle with respect to each other, act like an induction motor to push
an aluminum disk around. For measuring total energy, the rotation of
the disk is magnetically damped and a counter counts how many times it
goes around. (Ever see one of those funny glass enclosed things mounted
on a house with a large, horizontal, rotating metal disk inside?  :-)
For instantaneous power the disk can move against a spring.
These industrial meters are designed to work at line frequency (60Hz).

>                          Signal distortion that would cause a power
> meter to misread would be just as likely (perhaps more so) to cause a
> clamp-on current meter to misread.

I was thinking more in terms of noise. In any case, the main power flow
is from the wall to the motor, but the noise (or whatever) flows from
the motor to the wall. As pointed out above, this will reduce the power
reading while increasing the current reading.

>                          (The clamp-on meter is essentially a
> standard meter coupled with a current transformer.  High frequencies would
> not be transfered efficiently by the current transformer, and hence the
> meter would tend to read low in the case of high frequency noise
> superimposed on the 60 cycle signal.)

It depends on the frequency. If the "horrific noise" the device makes is
related to the electrical noise, then it is not at ultrasonic frequencies. 
In any case, the clamp-on meter would not read lower with the noise+60Hz
than with just the 60Hz current.

> Frankly, the power meter is one of the things I'd least suspect.  If it is
> a properly calibrated industrial meter, and if it is operating within the
> manufacturer's stated limits for power factor and distortion (things which
> should be easy to verify) then it should be quite accurate.

I am not aware of anyone checking to see if the meters are being operated
within the manufacturer's stated limits. A lot of "excess energy" devices
have turned out to be due to meters being used outside their stated limits.
And when the Griggs effect kicks in, output power remains constant while
the power meter readings decrease. That is why measurement of the input
power is the thing I most suspect.
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenjnw cudfnJohn cudlnWhite cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.29 / Robert Heeter /  Re: Griggs Patent?
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs Patent?
Date: Sat, 29 Oct 1994 14:44:14 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

Jed makes an interesting comparison in one of his recent diatribes:

In article <BKwUDGW.jedrothwell@delphi.com> , jedrothwell@delphi.com
writes:
> Let us get this straight please: I do not work on his behalf, any more
than I
> work for Pons and Fleischmann, E-Quest, Mizuno or Thermacore. I do not
work
> for him, I have no financial stake in his company. I am reporting what I
> observed and learned from him and his customers. I give straight,
unbiased
> facts about research in which I have no financial interest. I am not
Robert
> Heeter reporting on hot fusion! My job is not at stake, I have no
incentive
> to cover up screw-ups or defend the indefensible.

Thanks Jed, for telling me exactly what I'm doing and why I'm here.
I see you've become an expert at mindreading and ESP yourself.
And here I thought I was writing on the net because I wanted to
educate people about fusion, to get the knowledge that the
fusion community has created out into the rest of the world!
But it's clear from your statements that you know much better
than I do who I am and what I'm doing.

But you know, you're wrong.

For instance, given that only one in three people with plasma 
physics PhDs stays in plasma physics, you really can't claim 
that I'm doing things because my job is at stake.  My "job"
as it is, is to get a PhD.  There's no threat to the graduate
program here, so my "job" isn't likely to go away.  And plasma 
physics isn't going to go away if fusion does; there are a 
number of other applicatins.  Given that I don't even have a 
thesis project yet, I'm not committed to any field of plasma 
physics.  And those $100,000 Wall Street jobs can look pretty 
tempting sometimes.  Job at stake?  I don't think so.

I'd also like to know what screw-ups I've had "incentive to cover
up"; I certainly missed them.  It's sad to be here in the
thick of things and then find out I missed out on important news!

I personally wonder how you can claim not to have an incentive
to "defend the indefensible," considering that it's what you
spend most of your time doing.  And as for your claims of
giving "straight, unbiased facts about research in which
I have no financial interest," who do you think you're fooling?
You've been a contributing editor to the only magazine which
covers cold fusion.  Don't you think you have had an incentive
to generate news articles to maintain the research field your
magazine depended on for its existence?  Get real!  Your 
financial interest has been, and probably still is, intimately
connected with the continued existence and controversy of cold 
fusion.

Don't pretend otherwise, and certainly don't claim moral
superiority.  It's just not credible.

***************************
Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University
As always, I represent only myself, and not PPPL
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.29 / Robert Heeter /  Technical Reply to Mitch, Part 1.2
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Technical Reply to Mitch, Part 1.2
Date: Sat, 29 Oct 1994 17:27:22 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

This continues my reply to Mitchell Swartz regarding Tritium
in fusion systems.

In the preceding post I provided information indicating that I did 
in fact study the tritium issue before writing the FAQ section on the
topic.
Any claim that I haven't studied the issue is false.  

This post consists of Section 1.2 of the reply.  Below I will provide 
background indicating where I have made claims regarding tritium and
associated issues concerning environmental and safety aspects of fusion. 
If I forget to include something I said that ought to be justified,
let me know.

In Section 2, which will be posted later, I will provide numerous
references
and more technical information regarding each of the claims I will list
below.


*** Section 1.2  Summary of claims to be discussed in Section 2.

On September 30 I posted a draft of the FAQ section 2.2 on the
environmental aspects of fusion as a future energy source.

This draft contained the following discussion on tritium:

[ ... ] 
> The only sources of radioactive waste
> in a D-T reactor are stray tritium atoms and the reactor
> structure which is exposed to neutron radiation.
> 
> Tritium is a relatively benign radioactive element, because:
> (a) It doesn't emit strong radiation when it decays, so it's
>      only hazardous if one breathes it in or ingests it.
> (b) It generally shows up in one's body as water, and your body
>      flushes out its water fairly frequently, so tritium won't
>      build up in a living creature. (Unlike many fission
>      reaction products.)
> (c) It has a moderate half-life, only 12 years or so.  This
>      means that it won't be around forever, so it doesn't
>      create a long-term waste problem.  On the other hand,
>      it probably won't decay in the few days that pass
>      while it's in one's body, which is also good.
> 
> Based on current tritium-handling knowledge and experience
> scientists believe that incidental releases of radiation
> from fusion reactors will be comparable to releases from
> either fission or coal plants.  In a fusion economy, the
> contribution of tritium to one's radiation exposure will be
> orders of magnitude less than natural exposure to things like
> radon, cosmic rays, etc; and also much less than man-made
> exposure to things like medical x-rays.
[ ... ] 
[ This was downloaded from the fusion digest at sunsite.unc.edu. ]

On October 2, Mitch posted the following response to the middle
paragraph:

>   It is not benign, but is rather of low toxicity.
> Silicone -- considered by many to be "benign" or inert -- itself can
> cause cancer by the Oppenheimer effect, and probably other pathways.
>   Tritium (3H)  has low toxicity, putting it in the group with 7Be,
14C, 18F ands
> ome other nuclides.
> 
> --->  benign    (after Webster, ibid.)     from Latin benignus
>                                            to be born well.
>    1)  of a gentle disposition
>     2)  of a mild character
>     3)   manifesting kindness and gentleness.
> 
>    If the word "benign" is to apply to hydrogen isotopes it would
> be protium or deuterium.
>    Alternatively, since ALL of the deuterium is from the BIG BANG,
> given the origin of the word benign, perhaps it should only apply to
deuterium.
[ Also downloaded from fusion digest archives. ]

That same day, October 2, I replied:

[ citation of Mitch's comments snipped. ]
> I didn't say it was benign, I said it was "a relatively
> benign radioactive element," i.e. compared to other
> radioactive elements it's benign.  This is rather different
> from simply saying it's benign.  I agree that it's of
> low toxicity, but I don't think that single phrase
> fully encompasses the character of tritium as a
> radioactive element.  "Relatively benign" is more general.
> 
> > --->  benign    (after Webster, ibid.)     from Latin benignus
> >                                            to be born well.
> >    1)  of a gentle disposition
> >     2)  of a mild character
> 
> Tritium is of a relatively mild character as a radioactive element.
> That is what I meant.  Sense 2 works fine; benign is not a poor
> word choice.
> 
> [[ sense 3 snipped. ]]
> 
> If you think otherwise please explain more clearly.

Rather than explain more clearly, Mitch simply dropped the issue.
I assumed my reply had clarified the issue, and after obtaining
permission from the news.answers moderators to post the FAQ officially,
reposted the section on October 17.

It is only the *second* posting of the FAQ which has generated debate.

In addition to the statements made in the FAQ, I have made several
additional technical remarks.  Below I will summarize all of these
technical claims, so that I can efficiently cite references for
each one in Section 2, which will follow.

* Claim A: Tritium is not an external radiation hazard.  (From FAQ:) 
> (a) It doesn't emit strong radiation when it decays, so it's
>      only hazardous if one breathes it in or ingests it.

* Claim B: Tritium doesn't accumulate in living tissue.  (From FAQ:)
> (b) It generally shows up in one's body as water, and your body
>      flushes out its water fairly frequently, so tritium won't
>      build up in a living creature. (Unlike many fission
>      reaction products.)

* Claim C: Tritium has a moderate half life.
* Claim D: No long-term waste problem.
* Claim E: Not likely to decay while in one's body.
(all contained within the following snippet of FAQ)
> (c) It has a moderate half-life, only 12 years or so.  This
>      means that it won't be around forever, so it doesn't
>      create a long-term waste problem.  On the other hand,
>      it probably won't decay in the few days that pass
>      while it's in one's body, which is also good.

* Claim F: (below in section of FAQ)
> Based on current tritium-handling knowledge and experience
> scientists believe that incidental releases of radiation
> from fusion reactors will be comparable to releases from
> either fission or coal plants.  

   sub-claim F1: Coal plants release radioactive materials into the
          environment. 
> In article <Cy3pA8.GsH@world.std.com> mitchell swartz,
mica@world.std.com,
> Mitch asked (in reference to claim F):
> >   What radiation release from a coal plants?

I replied:
> Hello, Mitch?  Coal contains various radioactive elements in it
> as natural impuritites.  These elements are concentrated by the
> combustion process, and released almost indiscriminately into the
> environment afterwards.  Surely you don't expect to just mine
> a bunch of rock, burn it, and have no radioactive elements at
> all released into the surface environment?


* Claim G: If the world ran on fusion, the radiation exposure
due to the presense of fusion reactors would be orders of 
magnitude less than other natural and man-made exposures. (FAQ)
> In a fusion economy, the
> contribution of tritium to one's radiation exposure will be
> orders of magnitude less than natural exposure to things like
> radon, cosmic rays, etc; and also much less than man-made
> exposure to things like medical x-rays

* Claim H: (from my Oct. 2 response to Mitch)
> Tritium is of a relatively mild character as a radioactive element.


***************************
Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University
As always, I represent only myself, and not PPPL
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.30 / mitchell swartz /  Robert Heeter corrected by himself -- was (Technical Reply to Mitch Part 1.1)
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Robert Heeter corrected by himself -- was (Technical Reply to Mitch Part 1.1)
Subject: Technical Reply to Mitch, Part 1.1
Date: Sun, 30 Oct 1994 20:32:35 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA


Dear colleagues:

   In Message-ID: <1994Oct29.164508.22411@Princeton.EDU>
Subject: Technical Reply to Mitch, Part 1.1
Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>  writes trying
to defend his knee-jerk sophomoric position that
"tritium is relatively benign".   On one hand, he has unlimited
time, not matched here; but on the other hand this is important.
Therefore  this will be limited to his Part 1.1.  
 Part 1.2 to follow next week or p.r.n.

   ========== Response to Part 1.1 ============
     Unfortunately, like the previous nonsense
Rob Heeter accompanies this post by virtually no references except
for his previous quote or paraphrase which does not support his position.

    Furthermore, there is still such a paucity 
of data that no serious high school science fair student 
ought ever envy this aspect of the "scientific" post by Robert Heeter.   

   Finally, Mr. Heeter actually posts quotes which show he is WRONG. 
Here is what he wrote.

=  "What follows is a comprehensive technical reply on the entire issue.
=  Below I will first discuss the history of the debate (Section 1).  
=  I will show (Section 1.1) that as long ago as this past May 
=  I was posting articles (with references) discussing tritium 
=  and radioactivity in fusion.  Any claim that I haven't studied
=  the issue is false.  I will also (Section 1.2) provide background 
=  indicating where I have made claims which I will now be supporting.
=  Next (Section 2) I will list a number of references (Section 2.1)
=  and then detail each claim I have made, providing both references 
=  and further technical information to support the claim.  I'll
=  discuss both claims made in the FAQ (Section 2.2) and in
=  subsequent discussion (Section 2.3).
=  Finally, since radiation issues are so controversial, I will 
=  eventually rewrite the FAQ section in question to include much 
=  of this additional information so that people will realize I'm 
=  not simply making things up.  I didn't think it necessary to
=  provide references outside the bibliography in an essay written
=  for a general audience, but apparently that didn't work."

    Robert Heeter's use of the word "I"             13
    Number of references cited by Heeter             0

    Excuses. Excuses. Robert Heeter wrote incorrect material.
'Not thinking' is inadequate for most schools -- certainly in
technical fields.  Is it?
   
=  "In this section I detail some of the earlier discussions
=  of tritium, radioactivity, and other safety and environmental
=  aspects of fusion energy, and then summarize the claims I've
=  made recently.
=  * 1.1  History of discussions of tritium
=  Mitch has claimed that I haven't studied tritium and
=  don't have references on tritium safety and management.
=  However, all the way back in May, I posted an article
=  which discussed tritium and included references on 
=  tritium safety issues.  
=  Furthermore, as I've pointed out, a number of references
=  in the bibliography discuss tritium and other environmental
=  issues.
=  I've reproduced the relevant sections of both items
=  below.
=  I have additional references on this topic which I have
=  not yet included in the bibliography; a more complete
=  set of references will be given in Section 2.1."

    Robert Heeter's use of the word "I"              7
    Number of references cited by Heeter             0

.   So far, rather then supply references, Mr. Heeter quotes himself again.
Heeter gives his low S/N 'draft' term-paper yet again which, for 
bandwidth, is not presented here again except for the important excerpts.

 =  Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
=  Subject: Draft of Paper for Discussion
=  From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@theory.pppl.gov> ...
=  "Hi Everyone - the following is a term paper I wrote for the
=  "Introduction to Energy and Environmental Problems" graduate seminar
=  taught here at Princeton (Woodrow Wilson School / Center for Energy
=  and Environmental Studies).  I'm calling it a "draft" because I'm
=  still mulling over the ideas; any comments are welcome. .....
=           Rethinking Fusion via Industrial Ecology
=                    Robert F. Heeter
=           Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory
=                    May 6, 1994  ....
=  The vast majority of the radioactive inventory of a fusion reactor 
=  is in the structure and blanket.[28]  However, accident-risk 
=  analyses indicate that one can build containment structures 
=  capable of containing this inventory in most conceivable accident 
=  cases; and that even in such accidents, the maximum conceivable 
=  mobilization is small enough that doses to the general public will 
=  be low.  Indeed, in the ARIES-IV advanced-fusion design, the maximum 
=  plausible dose at the fusion site boundary in an accident may be 
=  low enough (< 25 rem) that current nuclear-stamp requirements 
=  would not apply to the reactor structure.[29]
=    For first-generation and most advanced fusion systems, the major
=  radiological hazards are therefore from tritium in the D-T fuel 
=  cycle.  Tritium will most likely be present in large (100 gm to 
=  10 kg) quantities in the lithium blanket and tritium processing 
=  facility in a first-generation fusion system.  Tritium is 
=  relatively more hazardous than the activated structural materials 
=  because it's intended to be mobile[30], because it will be 
=  handled more, and because of its inherent chemical and biological 
=  activity.  However, tritiated gas (T2, HT, etc..) is not easily 
=  absorbed in living tissue.  So the major tritium hazard is 
=  believed to be in the form of tritiated water.  The literature 
=  generally indicates that routine tritium emissions from a single 
=  plant will not exceed current nuclear guidelines, and are unlikely 
=  to have major public health effects.  Accidental releases in 
=  various circumstances are a little more problematic, but no early 
=  fatalities are predicted from most conceivable accidents in most 
=  designs.[31,32] 
=     An industrial-ecology analysis requires that we consider not only the 
=  risks of tritium releases from a single plant, but also the total 
=  hazard posed by tritium emissions in a global D-T fusion energy 
=  economy.  Apparently this issue was considered early on, and the 
=  conclusion was that if roughly half the current world energy 
=  supply (6 TW) were generated from fusion, reasonable levels of 
=  routine T emissions would raise the global average radiation dose 
=  rate by 0.04% of the current background dose rate; which is small.[33]
=  [28] This is a general conclusion of all reactor-design studies 
=  I've looked at, including those cited above.
=  [29] Conn, et. al, "Economic, Safety, ...", op. cit., Table 2.
=  [30] This is so you can remove it from the breeding blanket and 
=  re-inject it into the reactor.
=  [31] Holdren, John, "Safety and Environmental Aspects of Fusion 
=  Energy," in _Annual Reviews of Energy and the Environment_, 
=  Vol. 16, 1991, pp. 235-258.  (Tritium is summarized on pp. 239-242)
=  [32] Tritium issues were among the first studied when serious 
=  fusion reactor-design studies began in the 1970s; this conclusion 
=  has improved as tritium knowledge has grown and designs have 
=  improved.
=  [33] Carruthers, R., et al, Culham Study Group Report on Fusion 
=  Reactors and the Environment, CLM-R148, June 1975, as cited in 
=  R. Hancox, "Fusion Reactors and the Environment," text of a 
=  presentation given at the symposium on Energy and the Environment 
=  organized by the Royal Society (UK) of Chemistry at 
=  Bodington Hall, University of Leeds, 3-5 April 1990.  (This 
=  document was provided to me by Rush Holt at PPPL.)

  O.K.  There are "six" references, but three are Mr. Heeter's
comments.     Only three of them there are left.   One is the text of a
presentation given at a symposium.   [We doubt Dieter Britz 
would let such into his culled peer-reviewed published
papers if this regarded CF.     ;-) 

    First,  the only apparent relevant reference by Heeter
is by Holdren.   But note, it is  referred to again by Mr. Heeter
as "???" as discussed in his section "C".
Astonishingly, Mr. Heeter's quote appears to confirm
his lack of serious scholarship as cited in
his own Section "C" of the same draft term-paper
wherein his writes:

=  *** C. Fusion Research Review Articles & Texts
=  "* Holdren, John P., "Safety and Environmental Aspects of Fusion 
=  Energy," _Annual Reviews of Energy and the Environment_, 1991, 
=  pp. 235-58.        
=      Probably what it sounds like.  Holdren is a fusion proponent 
=  does reactor design studies, among other things. ???"
      [after Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
      Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University]

          "Probably what it sounds like"  !!
               "???"   !!     Are these a joke?
Is this what someone who actually reads a reference writes about in
regard to his/her quoted source?   No.  Probably not.
   The question marks "???" above clearly indicate that Mr. Heeter
has done the least possible amount of reading on such safety and
tritium issues for his fusion FAQ. 
This may be a disgrace to the present day level of expected
graduate effort, at least far from Plasma Physics, Princeton University.

   Now for the more important part.  Second, even his own paraphrases
and comments cited above by Mr. Heeter simply do not support
Mr. Heeter's unsubstantiated claim.
    Let's see what was written, to wit:

=heeter   "Tritium is relatively more hazardous than the activated
=heeter        structural materials"
         [Rethinking Fusion via Industrial Ecology
         Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
      Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University]

   This is from Heeter's post of his term paper, which he audaciously cites as
evidence to support his "claim"      But look closely at that quote he uses. 
It says "Tritium is relatively more hazardous than the activated structural materials"
which are presumably activated by the neutrons and possibly other reactions.
Now is that "relatively benign"  or "relatively more hazardous".
      The latter of course.    

And therefore, astonishingly, his very own references also support the 
conclusion that Mr. Heeter was wrong about this matter.

   In summary:
    Number of references cited by Heeter           3
                                             (maybe 2 by the Britz criterion)
    Number of references supporting Heeter          0

 Tritium (3H)  has low toxicity, putting it in the group with 
7Be, 14C, 18F and some other nuclides [Health Physics - Principles 
of Radiation Protection", D.J. Rees, MIT Press  1967]. 
In contradiction, Robert Heeter still has no valid reference
to support his claim.   He was asked if he had anything in any 
text on radiation biology or health physics, or by a qualified physician.
Neither does he have an NRC or American College of 
Radiology document.  Nor does he have long-term (20 to 30 year)
data to support his claim that he is willing to release.
His own Section "C", and comments demonstrate
that he has not even fully read the relevant literature. 

     Based upon -- the denotation of 'benign'      --   Heeter is incorrect
     Based upon -- the connotation of 'benign'   --   Heeter is incorrect
     Based upon -- his quotes {vide supra}        --   Heeter is incorrect

    [BTW: Did you finish 'mulling' the paper, Robert?  
      What was your grade?  (post the class
         average, too, with your reply OK?)]

    Best wishes.
             Mitchell Swartz,  ScD  MD  EE     (mica@world.std.com)


cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.30 / Matt Austern /  Re: Mysterious Bass and his Mystical Secrets
     
Originally-From: matt@physics2.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Mysterious Bass and his Mystical Secrets
Date: 30 Oct 1994 21:04:10 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (Theoretical Physics Group)

In article <pOwWjIM.jedrothwell@delphi.com> jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:

>      "On the other hand, I know it's not producing more heat than is put in,
>      and I know why.  Experimental error."
>  
> If you *know* it is an experimental error, why are you keeping it a secret?
> Tell us! What experimental error? You will end this whole discussion and
> emerge triumphant the moment you reveal your secret.

If someone claims (say) to have found a general procedure for solving
a quintic polynomial in radicals, then I know that he or she has made
an error.  I don't have to read an entire 300-page manuscript written
in green ink in order to know that the error is there. I may not know
exactly where the author lost a minus sign or divided by zero; still,
I can be quite certain that a mistake is there somewhere.
--

                               --matt
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenmatt cudfnMatt cudlnAustern cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.29 / Robert Heeter /  Technical Reply to Mitch, Part 1.1
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Technical Reply to Mitch, Part 1.1
Subject: Section 11 - Bibliography - Conventional Fusion FAQ
Date: Sat, 29 Oct 1994 16:45:08 GMT
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 1994 00:49:41 GMT
Organization: Princeton University
Organization: Princeton University

I have made a number of claims regarding tritium and radioactivity
in fusion, both in the FAQ itself and in the ensuing discussion.
Mitchell Swarz has not challenged the claims on any technical
level, other than to object to my use of the statement "tritium
is a relatively benign radioactive element," but doesn't believe 
I know what I am talking about and has asked for references.

He writes:

Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Message-ID: <Cy8ADx.EEJ@world.std.com>
>   Robert, you were given some of the reasons and part of  the knowledge
of 
> acute and chronic effects of radiation sources and
> radioisotopes with  living systems (there are also subacute effects) . 
> These (and for living systems the repair systems)
> are well-known and have generated a significant 
> literature.    Have you read any of it? 
>      You should before you
> embark on FAQ preparation which you repeatedly post on the Internet.

[...]
He continues...
>  Simply get the literature and start with the categorization 
[...]

And on and on...
> Have you read any of the literature?
> Do you have any single source to the contrary, or is this just what you
> only "feel"? 
[ ... ]
> It is becoming apparent  that you can't really find a reference to
support
> you claim after all.  Look closer.
[...]
> Why not just simply  read the literature.   OK?

What follows is a comprehensive technical reply on the entire issue.

Below I will first discuss the history of the debate (Section 1).  
I will show (Section 1.1) that as long ago as this past May 
I was posting articles (with references) discussing tritium 
and radioactivity in fusion.  Any claim that I haven't studied
the issue is false.  I will also (Section 1.2) provide background 
indicating where I have made claims which I will now be supporting.

Next (Section 2) I will list a number of references (Section 2.1)
and then detail each claim I have made, providing both references 
and further technical information to support the claim.  I'll
discuss both claims made in the FAQ (Section 2.2) and in
subsequent discussion (Section 2.3).

Finally, since radiation issues are so controversial, I will 
eventually rewrite the FAQ section in question to include much 
of this additional information so that people will realize I'm 
not simply making things up.  I didn't think it necessary to
provide references outside the bibliography in an essay written
for a general audience, but apparently that didn't work.

To do all this will take a lot of space, so I will post
this in several installments.  Section 1.1 is below.

*** Section 1.  Background information

In this section I detail some of the earlier discussions
of tritium, radioactivity, and other safety and environmental
aspects of fusion energy, and then summarize the claims I've
made recently.

* 1.1  History of discussions of tritium

Mitch has claimed that I haven't studied tritium and
don't have references on tritium safety and management.

However, all the way back in May, I posted an article
which discussed tritium and included references on 
tritium safety issues.  

Furthermore, as I've pointed out, a number of references
in the bibliography discuss tritium and other environmental
issues.

I've reproduced the relevant sections of both items
below.

I have additional references on this topic which I have
not yet included in the bibliography; a more complete
set of references will be given in Section 2.1.

> Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
> Subject: Draft of Paper for Discussion
> From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@theory.pppl.gov>
> X-XXMessage-ID: <AA0630C6D7030010@magic.stanford.edu>
> X-XXDate: Mon, 23 May 1994 17:07:02 GMT
> 
> Hi Everyone - the following is a term paper I wrote for the
> "Introduction to Energy and Environmental Problems" graduate seminar
> taught here at Princeton (Woodrow Wilson School / Center for Energy
> and Environmental Studies).  I'm calling it a "draft" because I'm
> still mulling over the ideas; any comments are welcome.
> 
> As usual, the thoughts presented are my own, and I don't 
> represent PPPL.
> 
> ****************************************************************
> 
> Rethinking Fusion via Industrial Ecology
> ----------------------------------------
> 
> Robert F. Heeter
> Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory
> May 6, 1994
> 
[...]   { It's a long paper; I'll cite only the tritium stuff. } 
        { I've copied the relevant footnotes below as well. }
> 
> The vast majority of the radioactive inventory of a fusion reactor 
> is in the structure and blanket.[28]  However, accident-risk 
> analyses indicate that one can build containment structures 
> capable of containing this inventory in most conceivable accident 
> cases; and that even in such accidents, the maximum conceivable 
> mobilization is small enough that doses to the general public will 
> be low.  Indeed, in the ARIES-IV advanced-fusion design, the maximum 
> plausible dose at the fusion site boundary in an accident may be 
> low enough (< 25 rem) that current nuclear-stamp requirements 
> would not apply to the reactor structure.[29]
>	For first-generation and most advanced fusion systems, the major
> radiological hazards are therefore from tritium in the D-T fuel 
> cycle.  Tritium will most likely be present in large (100 gm to 
> 10 kg) quantities in the lithium blanket and tritium processing 
> facility in a first-generation fusion system.  Tritium is 
> relatively more hazardous than the activated structural materials 
> because it's intended to be mobile[30], because it will be 
> handled more, and because of its inherent chemical and biological 
> activity.  However, tritiated gas (T2, HT, etc..) is not easily 
> absorbed in living tissue.  So the major tritium hazard is 
> believed to be in the form of tritiated water.  The literature 
> generally indicates that routine tritium emissions from a single 
> plant will not exceed current nuclear guidelines, and are unlikely 
> to have major public health effects.  Accidental releases in 
> various circumstances are a little more problematic, but no early 
> fatalities are predicted from most conceivable accidents in most 
> designs.[31,32] 
>	An industrial-ecology analysis requires that we consider not only the 
> risks of tritium releases from a single plant, but also the total 
> hazard posed by tritium emissions in a global D-T fusion energy 
> economy.  Apparently this issue was considered early on, and the 
> conclusion was that if roughly half the current world energy 
> supply (6 TW) were generated from fusion, reasonable levels of 
> routine T emissions would raise the global average radiation dose 
> rate by 0.04% of the current background dose rate; which is small.[33]

{ Relevant footnotes. }
> [28] This is a general conclusion of all reactor-design studies 
> I've looked at, including those cited above.
> [29] Conn, et. al, "Economic, Safety, ...", op. cit., Table 2.
> [30] This is so you can remove it from the breeding blanket and 
> re-inject it into the reactor.
> [31] Holdren, John, "Safety and Environmental Aspects of Fusion 
> Energy," in _Annual Reviews of Energy and the Environment_, 
> Vol. 16, 1991, pp. 235-258.  (Tritium is summarized on pp. 239-242)
> [32] Tritium issues were among the first studied when serious 
> fusion reactor-design studies began in the 1970s; this conclusion 
> has improved as tritium knowledge has grown and designs have 
> improved.
> [33] Carruthers, R., et al, Culham Study Group Report on Fusion 
> Reactors and the Environment, CLM-R148, June 1975, as cited in 
> R. Hancox, "Fusion Reactors and the Environment," text of a 
> presentation given at the symposium on Energy and the Environment 
> organized by the Royal Society (UK) of Chemistry at 
> Bodington Hall, University of Leeds, 3-5 April 1990.  (This 
> document was provided to me by Rush Holt at PPPL.)


Items listed in the most recently posted version of the bibliography
which discuss tritium safety and handling issues for fusion:

[ Everything below was obtained via the fusion digest archive at
sunsite.unc.edu, in /pub/academic/physics/Cold-fusion/fd-latest ]

Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Section 11 - Bibliography - Conventional Fusion FAQ
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 1994 00:49:41 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

[ ... ]

*** C. Fusion Research Review Articles & Texts

* Holdren, et al, "Exploring the Competitive Potential of Magnetic
Fusion Energy:  The Interaction of Economics with Safety and 
Environmental Characteristics," _Fusion Technology_, Jan 1988.

	Summarizes the results of the ESECOM fusion-reactor-design study.  
	Concludes that improved tokamaks are likely to be economically 
	competitive with fission and breeder-fission reactors.

	Level - familiarity with fusion terminology necessary.
	[Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu]

* Holdren, John P., "Safety and Environmental Aspects of Fusion 
Energy," _Annual Reviews of Energy and the Environment_, 1991, 
pp. 235-58.

	??? Probably what it sounds like.  Holdren is a fusion proponent 
	and does reactor design studies, among other things. ???

	Level - familiarity with fusion terminology necessary?
	[Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu]


*** F. Fusion Reactor Engineering References

* Najmabadi, et at. "The ARIES-II and ARIES-IV Second-Stability Tokamak
Reactors," in _Fusion Technology_, Vol. 21, May 1992, pp. 
1721-1728.

	Summarizes two of the ARIES paper reactors.  Both designs involve
 	utilizing the second stability regime to allow reduced magnetic 
	field strengths; also incorporate low-activation structural 
	materials and other features.  Part of an ongoing effort to 
	design an economically viable tokamak.



I believe that the above clearly indicates that I've done
a fair amount of reading on tritium issues for fusion.

***************************
Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University
As always, I represent only myself, and not PPPL
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.30 / Robert Heeter /  Conventional Fusion FAQ Section 7/11 (Education)
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Originally-From: Geoff Maddison, geoff.maddison@aea.orgn.uk
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.answers,news.answers
Subject: Conventional Fusion FAQ Section 7/11 (Education)
Date: Sun, 30 Oct 1994 04:54:09 GMT
Date: Sat, 26 Feb 1994 18:44:05 GMT
Organization: Princeton University


Archive-name: fusion-faq/section7-education
Last-modified: 30-Oct-1994
Posting-frequency: More-or-less-monthly
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!!!).

*****************************************************************
7. Educational Opportunities in Fusion Research

Last Revised October 30,1994
Written by Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@pppl.gov, unless
otherwise cited.  Acknowledgements to everyone are in Section 11.

***  Note: Answers in this section are biased towards Americans;
          I'd appreciate input from people in other nations to
          make this section as applicable as possible. 

***  Note #2:  These answers are by no means complete or final;
          I'm hoping y'all will contribute what you know and
          help me out!

***  Note #3:  I *have* received some information which has
          not yet found its way into the FAQ.  I'm busy
          preparing for a conference, so the revision will
          be delayed until the next posting.

***********************

Undergraduate/Graduate Opportunities: 

***  A.  What opportunities are there for interested students?

 * Undergraduate Opportunities:  Academic-year Programs

         !!!! High school students take note !!!!

Unfortunately, fusion research is a relatively small field, 
so most colleges and universities do not have much in the 
way of fusion research.  Plasma physics is a bit more common, 
but still not widespread.  But it's certainly possible to wind up 
doing plasma physics at the graduate level without getting 
much exposure as an undergraduate, at least in the U.S.

Exceptions - schools with active plasma/fusion research:

In the United States (in no particular order):
     Caltech, UCLA, Wisconsin-Madison, MIT, Texas-Austin, 
     Princeton, Maryland, Iowa, Auburn, Columbia, 
     Washington (Seattle), UC-Davis (cooperative with 
     Lawrence Livermore), U Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
     (nuclear engineering dept.) and probably some other schools. 

In Germany - the Universities in:  
     Munich, Juelich, Bochum, Berlin, Stuttgart, Augsburg, and 
     Greifswald.  Graduate students can work at the Max Planck
     Institut fur Plasmaphysik, too.

In Britain:
     Imperial College, London; Oxford University; (elsewhere?) 

Elsewhere in the EU:
     Denmark:  University of Copenhagen
     Netherlands:  FOM Institute at Rijnhuizen (?, spelling?)

Most Russian research is done in Moscow, Leningrad, and Novosibirsk.

(help with other countries, anyone??)


 * If anyone needs help obtaining addresses to contact at these
institutions, let me know.  If anyone has contact addresses,
please send them to me so I can accumulate a list.


 * Undergraduate Summer Programs:
     
There are, however, undergraduate summer research programs 
(primarily for students who've completed their junior year) in 
both Europe and the United States (details on these programs
are appended).  One can also become involved in fusion / plasma
research through summer programs offered at the various U.S.
National Laboratories (particularly Livermore, Los Alamos,
and Sandia; possibly Oak Ridge?). Finally, it's also possible 
to do summer research at the schools which do research, provided
you find a way to make the right connections.


 * Graduate Opportunities:  

The summer program offered in Europe is targeted for beginning 
graduate students (perhaps more so than advanced undergraduates); 
see below for details.

The schools listed above which pursue fusion / plasma research 
also have graduate programs; there are other schools as well.  
There are several fellowships available to provide financial 
assistance, as well.  (I could really use a couple addresses here, 
so people know where to go to get the important information.  
Help anyone???)


***  B.  I'm an undergraduate interested in becoming a "fusioneer".  
         What should I study?

Basic Answer:  

     Fusion researchers come to the field from a number
of different disciplines, because the field is small and young
and no school has a major in "fusioneering" or "plasma physics".  
For undergraduates, a major in physics, astrophysics, or 
electrical engineering would provide a perhaps the best 
background for studying plasma physics.  Nuclear and mechanical
engineering are also viable options, particularly if your interest
lies more in reactor design and engineering.  At this point the
majority of graduate opportunities are on the plasma physics side,
though this may change as the science evolves and (we hope) more
reactor engineers are needed.

My opinion is that it is more important to look for research
opportunities relevant to the field, and the choice of major
is a little less important.


***  C.  What sorts of experiments are there for high-school
         students?  How can I get the equipment?  Has anyone
         else done this?

     While there are few fusion experiments that would be feasible
at the high school level, there are a number of interesting
possibilities for plasma physics experiments.  (There are 
people here at PPPL, and probably elsewhere, who can provide
demos and/or assist in developing experiments; if anyone 
is interested in this, let me know and I'll pursue this further.)

     There are a couple simple plasma demonstrations which
would probably be feasible.  If one has access to a microwave
oven, one can simply insert a sealed tube containing some sort
of low-pressure gas (such as a fluorescent light bulb), and 
then run the microwave.  The microwave radiation will ionize 
the gas, forming a microwave plasma discharge, if the circumstances 
are right.  (This may not be all that good for the microwave,
however.)  

     An easy way to observe the confining effects of a magnetic
field would be to build a fairly large magnetic coil (fields
of around 30 gauss will give a nice effect) and run a fluorescent
light inside.  (The Helmholtz configuration, where the coil
radius is equal to the coil separation, gives a fairly uniform
magnetic field in the region between the coils, and would be
better than a solenoid since it would make it easier to see
inside.  Moving the coils away from each other will generate
a magnetic mirror configuration, which also has some interesting
physics to it.)  This will be best if you can see inside the
fluorescent bulb, instead of just seeing the phosphor glow from
the glass tube.

     If one has access to a vacuum pump and a high voltage (2000 V)
power supply, it is also possible to build a glow discharge tube
instead of using the fluorescent light bulb.  Air will give
a pretty discharge, but helium and neon and argon are also 
interesting.  I have draftings and instructions for building
such a glow tube, which could be built as a high school project
for high schools with a small machine shop (courtesy of Tim
Bennett at PPPL).


***  D.  What about those summer programs you mentioned above?

I am currently aware of two major plasma/fusion summer programs.

* 1.  The National Undergraduate Summer Fellowship in Plasma Physics 
and Fusion Engineering (NUF) is a competitive U.S. program, 
primarily aimed at those completing their junior year in college.  
A one-week short course (at Princeton, in June) kicks off 
the program, followed by several weeks of research at various 
sites nationwide.  There is a substantial stipend ($4000 or so) 
and travel expenses up to $1000 are covered.  The application
deadline was Feb. 22 of this year, and will probably shift 
around next year.  

For further information, contact nuf@pppl.gov (Diane Carroll).

* 2.  There is also a Plasma Physics Summer School offered at 
Culham in England (where JET is located).  Here is a posting
on the program from Geoff Maddison, and some comments from
others on the program.

Originally-From: Geoff Maddison, geoff.maddison@aea.orgn.uk
Date: Sat, 26 Feb 1994 18:44:05 GMT
>
>      T H E   3 1 s t   C U L H A M   P L A S M A   P H Y S I C S
>      ###########################################################
>
>                       S U M M E R   S C H O O L
>                       #########################
>
>                   1 1   -   2 2   J U L Y   1 9 9 4
>
>         C u l h a m   L a b o r a t o r y,   A b i n g d o n,
>                     O x f o r d s h i r e,   U K
>
>
> An International Summer School intended  for students near 
> the  start of postgraduate courses.  No previous knowledge of 
> plasma physics  is assumed.  Since 1985,  the Summer School series  
> has been attended by over 600 students from 47 countries, more 
> than two thirds coming from outside the UK.
>
> Culham Laboratory is the primary centre for plasma physics & 
> nuclear fusion research in the UK; it is located close to the 
> city of Oxford, and  shares  a  site   with  the   world's  
> largest  magnetic  fusion experiment,  the  Joint  European  
> Torus   (JET).
>
>               The School covers a broad curriculum :-
>
> * Plasma particle dynamics   * Plasma waves  * Kinetic theory   
> * MHD * Computational techniques  * Astrophysical plasmas   
> * Laser plasmas * Magnetically confined plasmas    * Solar plasmas
> * Poster session * Space plasmas * Laboratory visits * Industrial 
> plasmas * Turbulence & chaos * Diagnostics * Gravitational plasmas
>
> A copy of the course textbook "Plasma Phyics: An Introductory
> Course" (Cambridge University Press, 1993)  is given to each
> student.
>
> ACCOMMODATION WILL BE IN A HISTORIC COLLEGE OF OXFORD UNIVERSITY.
>
>            CLOSING DATE FOR APPLICATIONS:  13th MAY 1994
>
>   (Late applications may be accepted, depending on accommodation.)
>
> Further details / application forms are available from :-
>
>      Mrs Joan Stimson,
>      Culham Laboratory,
>      Abingdon,
>      Oxfordshire  OX14 3DB,              Tel: 44 235 463293
>      UK.                                 FAX: 44 235 463288
>
> or e-MAIL enquiries to:  geoff.maddison@aea.orgn.uk
>

Commentary:

* From David Pearson, University of Reading, 1988 (?) attendee:

Dear Internet,

Yes, go to the Culham Summer School if you can - but read some
basic textbooks (or a textbook) first, if you are a beginner.
The Summer School is excellent, but I doubt if many people are
smart enough to plunge straight into it without knowing some
plasma physics first - I certainly wasn't.

* Note by Robert F. Heeter:  

The Culham program appears to be intended for students making 
the transition from undergraduate to graduate work.  The flyer 
I saw indicated that it was about twelve days long (two weeks 
of classes and a weekend in the middle), and the cost was 
on the order of 750 pounds sterling, including housing.



*** E.  When/where are the major fusion conferences?

** Major Annual Conferences:

The following is a list of some major annual conferences, including
(where I have the information) the sponsoring organization, the 
name of the conference, the typical abbreviation for the 
conference, the season when the conference is held, size of 
the conference, and some comments.  (The current list was 
provided by Art Carlson; I've reformatted it somewhat.)

* American Physical Society Division of Plasma Physics:
Annual Meeting. (APS, or APS-DPP).  Fall. About 1500 contributors. 

Largest and probably most important conference, covers all of 
plasma physics.

* European Physical Society:
European Conference on Controlled Fusion and 
... Plasma Physics (odd years) 
... Plasma Heating (even years) 
(EPS). Summer. About 500 contributors. 

The European equivalent of APS, covers all of plasma physics.

* International Atomic Energy Agency: 
International Conference on Plasma Physics and Controlled 
Nuclear Fusion Research. (IAEA). Fall. Attendence restricted. 

Politically important.

* Symposium on Fusion Technology (SOFT). Summer.

* International Conference on Plasma-Surface Interaction (PSI). 
Summer. 

Lots of surface physics and technology.

* International Sherwood Fusion Theory Conference 
(Sherwood). Spring. 

Probably the most important fusion _theory_ conference.
(From the secret code name for the original US fusion program.)


** A few dates of upcoming fusion-related conferences.
(dates European style, dy/mo/yr)

7-11/11/94
Meeting of the AMERICAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY--DIVISION OF PLASMA PHYSICS
Minneapolis, MN, USA

2-7/7/95
22nd European Conf. on CONTROLLED FUSION AND PLASMA PHYSICS
Bournemouth, UK


anybody have a few minutes to update my calendar???
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.30 / Robert Heeter /  Conventional Fusion FAQ Section 10/11 (Bibliography)
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.answers,news.answers
Subject: Conventional Fusion FAQ Section 10/11 (Bibliography)
Date: Sun, 30 Oct 1994 05:06:16 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

Archive-name: fusion-faq/section10-biblio
Last-modified: 15-Sept-1994
Posting-frequency: More-or-less-monthly
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!!!).

******************************************************************
10. Bibliography - The Conventional Fusion Reading List
* This FAQ deals with conventional fusion only, not Cold Fusion. *

Last Revised September 15, 1994
Edited by Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@pppl.gov

************ Introductory Notes *********************************

This file is my attempt to answer the FAQ, 
"What literature is there on the subject of fusion?"

Note that this Reading List is for the "conventional" types
of fusion, and not for Cold Fusion.  

************ Notes on Construction and Organization  ************

The goal here is to provide a few major references at a variety 
of levels on each of a variety of topics.  The current Reading 
List is large, but still sketchy in areas.  In general I intend 
to limit the size of the bibliography by ignoring any work 
over 15 years old, unless it is considered a classic in the field.  
I may need to drop the limit to 10 years, since the list is 
getting large.

I would appreciate it if everyone would contribute suggestions 
of books, review articles, articles in the popular literature, 
and even new topics to be included in the Reading List.

In order to make this bibliography easier to use, I have sorted
the books into the following general categories:
  
A. Recent articles in the popular literature.
B. General References and Histories 
(suitable for those with minimal background in physics or fusion).
C. Fusion Research Review Articles & Texts
D. Plasma Physics - General Texts 
(focus is on plasma science, rather than engineering of reactors)
E.  Plasma Physics - Device-Specific
(applications of plasma physics to specific devices)
F. Fusion Reactor Engineering References
G. List of Relevant Scientific Journals
H. Unclassified / Unsummarized works.  (Please help me move
references out of this section and into sections A-G by 
contributing reviews of sources you know about!)

* So far only sections B, C and D have decent lists of references. * 

Currently I suggest that each reference included in the
Reading List contain the following information:

*************** Recommended Entry Format ********************
* LastName, Firstname/Initials.  _Title_. [# of pages] Publisher.
 Date.
	
	Descriptive blurb including summary of contents.  
	
	Level of Text
	[Name & Email address of reviewer.]
*************************************************************

Here is a sample application of the above template:

* Herman, Robin.  _Fusion: The Search for Endless Energy_. 
[267 p.] Cambridge University Press. 1990.

	A relatively nontechnical history of fusion energy research
	from 1951-1989.  Focus on U.S. magnetic confinement research.
	Includes glossary of terms and scientists.

	High-school level.
	[Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu]

Note that it would be best to avoid editorial comments and to
try not to make too many judgment calls in the summaries!

***************************************************************
***** Reference List of Conventional Fusion Literature ********
***************************************************************

*** A. Recent articles in the popular literature.

* Conn, et al, "The International Thermonuclear Experimental
Reactor," _Scientific American_, April 1992.  

	Describes plans for ITER.

	Level - high school physics.
	[Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu]


* Furth, H. P., "Magnetic Confinement Fusion," _Science_, Sept. 28, 1990,
pp. 1522-1527.
 
 Summarizes Magnetic Confinement Fusion research.

 Level - high school physics.
 [Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@pppl.gov]


* Jones, Steven E.  "Muon-Catalyzed Fusion Revisited," _Nature_,
May 8, 1986, pp. 127-133.

 Historical and scientific summary of muon-catalyzed fusion.
 Answers just about every frequently-asked question.

 Level - high school physics.
 [Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@pppl.gov]


* Lemonick, Michael.  "Blinded by the Light," _Time_, Dec. 20, 
1993, p. 54.

	Describes the first high-power D-T experiments on TFTR.

	Level - basic literacy. :)
	[Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu]


* Pope, Gregory T.  "Sun in a Bottle," _Popular Mechanics_,
April 1994, pp. 110-111.

	General article on state of (U.S. mostly) magnetic fusion.

	Level - high school physics (?)
	[Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu]

*** Note:  
     Science, Scientific American, and Nature often have articles.


*** B. General References and Histories 
(suitable for those with minimal background in physics or fusion).

* Bromberg, Joan Lisa.  _Fusion: science, politics, and the 
invention of a new energy source_.  [376 p.] MIT Press. 1982.

	DOE-authorized history of the US fusion program.  Author claims 
	no political pressures and a focus on political influences on
	science.  Focuses on US efforts at DOE labs.

	High-school level.
	[Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu]


* Griffin, Rodman.  "Nuclear Fusion," in _CQ Researcher_ 
(associated with _Congressional Quarterly_), January 22, 
1993 (vol. 3, no. 3) pp. 49-72.

	Policy-oriented overview of nuclear fusion in the U.S., includes
	pros & cons, covers key issues, background, history, current
	situation, outlook, and has an extensive bibliography.

	High-School level.
	[Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu]


* Heppenheimer, T. A.  _The Man-Made Sun: The Quest for Fusion
Power._  [347 p.] Little, Brown and Company. 1983.

	Nontechnical history.  Since it is ten years old, some of it 
	is badly out of date -- e.g., it was published before MFTF-B 
	was mothballed, and the Engineering Test Reactor was still 
	being promoted as "the next step." However, it has some good basic
	explanations and some interesting material on the politics of
	fusion.

	Includes index, glossary, bibliography, and chapter notes. 

	High-school level.
	[Bonnie Nestor, mnj@ornl.gov]	


* Herman, Robin.  _Fusion: The Search for Endless Energy_. 
	[267 p.] Cambridge University Press. 1990.

	A relatively nontechnical history of fusion energy research
	from 1951-1989.  Focus on U.S. magnetic confinement research.
	Includes glossary of terms and scientists.

	High-school level.
	[Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu]


* Shaw, EN. _Europe's Experiment in Fusion:  The JET 
Joint Undertaking_. [190 p.] Elsevier, 1990.

 Details the history of the conception, organization, design,
 construction, and initial operation of JET.

 High-school level, mostly.  Some technical jargon.
 [Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@pppl.gov]


* Voronov, GS.  _Storming the Fortress of Fusion_. [335 p.] 
Translated from the Russian by R.S. Wadhwa.  Original text 1985, 
revised 1988. Mir Publishers, Moscow.  

	Appears to be highly enthusiastic; contents
	indicate chapters on inertial confinement and muon-catalyzed
 fusion as well as tokamaks, stellarators, pinches, etc.  

	Level: one year college physics.
	[Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu]



*** C. Fusion Research Review Articles & Texts

* Breunlich, W. H., and Kammel, P., "Muon-Catalyzed Fusion,"
_Annual Reviews of Nuclear and Particle Science_, 1989, Vol. 39, 
pp. 311-356.

 Comprehensive review of muon-catalyzed fusion research, science, 
 and unsolved problems.

 Level - college physics background good.
 [Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@pppl.gov]


* Brunelli, B., et al., eds.  _Safety, environmental impact and 
economic prospects of nuclear fusion_. [360 p.]  Plenum Publishing
Corporation. 1990.

	From the Preface: "This book contains the lectures and the 
	concluding discussion of the 'Seminar on Safety, Environmental 
	Impact, and Economic Prospects of Nuclear Fusion', which was 
	held at Erice (Italy), August 6-12, 1989."  Numerous articles 
	on diverse aspects of fusion research, focusing on the topics 
	listed.

	[Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu]


* Colombo and Farinelli, "Progress in Fusion Energy," _Annual 
Reviews of Energy and the Environment_, 1992, pp. 123-160.

	A comprehensive summary of the state of fusion research.

	Level - Not very technical, familiarity with terminology good. 
	[Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu]


* Dolan, Thomas J.  _Fusion research._ [3 v.]  Pergamon Press. 1980.

	A decent overview of just about every aspect having to do 
	with fusion research, from physics (plasma, atomic, nuclear, 
	etc.) to large experiments (again, caveat emptor wrt the 
	currency of information on specific projects) to fusion 
	engineering issues (magnets, materials, nuclear engineering, 
	etc.).

	Graduate Level (?)
	[Albert Chou, albert@seas.ucla.edu]


* Holdren, et al, "Exploring the Competitive Potential of Magnetic
Fusion Energy:  The Interaction of Economics with Safety and 
Environmental Characteristics," _Fusion Technology_, Jan 1988.

	Summarizes the results of the ESECOM fusion-reactor-design study.  
	Concludes that improved tokamaks are likely to be economically 
	competitive with fission and breeder-fission reactors.

	Level - familiarity with fusion terminology necessary.
	[Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu]


* Holdren, John P., "Safety and Environmental Aspects of Fusion 
Energy," _Annual Reviews of Energy and the Environment_, 1991, 
pp. 235-58.

	??? Probably what it sounds like.  Holdren is a fusion proponent 
	and does reactor design studies, among other things. ???

	Level - familiarity with fusion terminology necessary?
	[Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu]


* International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).  _Status Report on 
Controlled Thermonuclear Fusion_.  (Published as Vol. 30, No 9, of 
the journal _Nuclear Fusion_, in Sept. 1990.)

	This is a comprehensive international review of all major controlled
	fusion research.  Starting to be a little dated, but still very 
	useful.

	Level - high-level scientific literature.
	[Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu]


* International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).  _World Survey of 
Activities in Controlled Fusion Research, 1991 Edition_.  (Published
as a special supplement to the journal _Nuclear Fusion_).  Over 630
pages.

	This is not really a review article, but a compendium of people,
	laboratories, machines, research programs, funding activity, and
	so on, for every country doing fusion research.  Good source of
 	statistics, acronyms, and so on.  The 1991 edition is only the 
	latest in a series published approximately every 5 years.

	Level - familiarity with fusion terminology useful
	[Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu]


* Thomassen, K.I., "Progress in Magnetic Fusion Energy Research," 
_Proc. of the IEEE_, Vol. 81, No. 3 (1993) 390.
 
	"A relatively recent paper giving an overview of the state of 
	Magnetic Fusion Energy research..."
	[Scott W. Haney, haney@random.llnl.gov]


* Teller, Edward, ed.  _Fusion: Magnetic confinement._ [2 v.] 
Academic Press. 1981.

	Good review articles on many subjects by important people in the
	field (e.g., Kunkel on NBI, Porkolab on RF heating, Conn on 
	reactors [a helluva long chapter!], Dawson on advanced reactors).

	Level: ??
	[Albert Chou, albert@seas.ucla.edu]



*** D. Plasma Physics - General Texts 
(focus is on the science of plasmas, rather than engineering of 
reactors)

* Chen, Francis F. _Introduction to Plasma Physics and Controlled
Fusion, vol 1._  [421 p.]  Plenum Publishing Corporation. 2nd 
edition, 1984.

	Intuitive (vs. mathematically rigorous) general plasma physics 
	text.  Chapters on single-particle motion, MHD, waves, diffusion & 
	resistivity, equilibrium & stability, kinetic theory, nonlinear 
	effects.  IMHO, frequently used as an undergraduate / basic 
	graduate text.  "It provides all the plasma physics you could
 	need.  However, like the title states, it is an INTRODUCTORY text.  
	Sometimes, the physical descriptions are not very rigorous, almost 
	too simple." - Robert Buckles
	
	Level:  Junior/Senior Undergraduate		
	[Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu]
	[Albert Chou, albert@seas.ucla.edu]
	[Robert Buckles, buckles@cae.wisc.edu]


* Hazeltine, RD, and Meiss, JD, _Plasma Confinement_ [411 p.]
	(Addison Wesley, 1992)

	Confinement-oriented approach to plasma physics, largely 
	fusion-oriented, tending towards theoretical as opposed to 
	experimental topics (from the intro). Chapters on Equilibrium 
	of confined plasmas, Kinetic description, Coulomb collisions, 
	Fluid Description, Stability of confinement, Collisional
 	transport, Nonlinear processes. "I know Chen's book pretty 
	well, Miyamoto's less well. Both are inferior to Hazeltine 
	and Meiss..." - Bruce Scott

	Level:  Graduate or advanced undergraduate.
	[Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu]
	[Bruce Scott, bds@hagar.ph.utexas.edu]


* Ichimaru, S. _Statistical Plasma Physics_ [2 volumes] 
Addison-Wesley. 1992.  

	First volume treats plasma theory from statistical-kinetic 
	point of view as an extension/application of statistical
	mechanics.

	Graduate level.
	[Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu]


* Krall, N., and Trivelpiece, A.. _Principles of Plasma Physics._ 
[674 p.]  San Francisco Press, 1986.

	Comprehensive introductory text for graduate students.  Chapters 
	on basic concepts and terminology, fluid/MHD models, 
	statistical/kinetic models, waves, stability, transport.  Readers 
	should be forewarned that the book was published around the few 
	years when the fusion program in the US took a serious downturn 
	and thus is seriously out of date concerning "current" 
	experiments.

	Graduate level.
	[Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu]
	[Albert Chou, albert@seas.ucla.edu]


* Miyamoto, Kenro. _Plasma physics for nuclear fusion._ [640 p.]
	MIT Press. 1989.

	This is another general plasma physics textbook, angled 
	towards the fusion applications.  Major sections on introductory 
	material, MHD, Kinetic descriptions, and "Heating, 
	Diagnostics, and Confinement."

	Graduate or senior undergraduate Level.
	[Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu]


* Nicholson, Dwight R.  _Introduction to Plasma Theory._ [292 p.]
	John Wiley and Sons. 1983.

	Introductory plasma physics textbook, emphasis on theory, not 
	meant to be used as a reference.  Contents, in order:  
	Introduction, Single-Particle Motion, Kinetic Theory 
	(3 chapters with progressively more approximations), 
	Vlasov Equation, Fluid Equations, MHD, Discrete Particle 
	Effects, Weak Turbulence Theory.

	Beginning graduate / advanced undergraduate level.
	[Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu.]


* Rose, DJ, and Clark, M, Jr, _Plasmas and Controlled Fusion_ 
(MIT, 1961)
	
	"For those who want a good dose of some plasma physics aspects 
	and a little less reactor technology, Rose and Clark is better 
	than Kammash (also for those like me who are familiar with the 
	physics and want a really basic intro to the engineering aspects).  
	Unfortunately it is pre-tokamak, so the methods and _basic_ 
	calculations involved in things like induction emf fields are 
	not present." - Bruce Scott

	[Bruce Scott, bds@hagar.ph.utexas.edu]


* Schmidt, George.  _Physics of high temperature plasmas._  Academic 
Press. 1979.

	An advanced graduate text, I believe.  I've looked at it, but 
	not in great depth.  A good reference, I think.

	Level: Advanced Graduate
	[Albert Chou, albert@seas.ucla.edu]



*** E.  Plasma Physics - Device-Specific

* Wesson, John. _Tokamaks_ [309 p.] Oxford Science Publications, 
1987.

	A clear introduction to the Tokamak concept, to the related 
	plasma physics and to some diagnostic techniques.

	Graduate level, basic plasma knowledge required.
	[Emilio Martines, martines@pdigi3.igi.pd.cnr.it]


* White, Roscoe. _Theory of tokamak plasmas._  [361 p.] 
North-Holland Physics, 1989.

	From the Preface: "These notes accompany a graduate course 
	taught at Princeton, designed to provide a basic introduction 
	to plasma equilibrium, particle orbits, transport, and those 
	ideal and resistive magnetohydrodynamic instabilities which 
	dominate the behavior of a tokamak discharge, and to develop 
	the mathematical methods necessary for their theoretical 
	analysis."

	"I know Chen's book pretty well, Miyamoto's less well. Both are
	inferior to R White's recent book." - Bruce Scott 

	Advanced Graduate Level.
	[Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
	 - I take the course next year and will know this intimately. :)]
	[Bruce Scott, bds@hagar.ph.utexas.edu]



*** F. Fusion Reactor Engineering References

* Kammash, Terry.  _Fusion reactor physics: principles and 
technology._  Ann Arbor Science Publishers. 1975.

	"For those who care mostly about engineering aspects and want 
	to know the physics involved in controlling and heating a 
	reactor plasma, Kammash is the first place to go." - Bruce Scott

	[Bruce Scott, bds@hagar.ph.utexas.edu]


* Krakowski, R.A., and Delene, J.G., "Connections Between Physics and
Economics for Tokamak Fusion Power Plants," _Journal of Fusion 
Energy_, vol. 7, no 1, 1988, pp. 49-89.

	From the abstract: "A simplified physics, engineering, and 
	costing model of a tokamak is used to examine quantitatively 
	the connection between physics performance and power-plant
	economics...."

	Level - Familiarity with plasma and reactor-engineering 
		terminology needed.
	[Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu]


* Najmabadi, et at. "The ARIES-II and ARIES-IV Second-Stability 
Tokamak Reactors," in _Fusion Technology_, Vol. 21, May 1992, pp. 
1721-1728.

	Summarizes two of the ARIES paper reactors.  Both designs involve
 	utilizing the second stability regime to allow reduced magnetic 
	field strengths; also incorporate low-activation structural 
	materials and other features.  Part of an ongoing effort to 
	design an economically viable tokamak.

(This section certainly needs to have more literature reviewed, but
it's not (yet) my field of expertise.  Help anyone?)



*** G. List of Relevant Scientific Journals
 (Anyone care to write short blurbs about some of these journals?)

 Annual Reviews of Nuclear and Particle Science
	Fusion Technology
	Nuclear Fusion
 Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research
	Physical Review Letters
 Physical Review E
	Physics of Fluids B (Now Physics of Plasmas)
	Plasma Physics
	Energy Policy
	(there are certainly others)



*** H. Unclassified / Unsummarized works.  (Please help me move 
references out of this section and into sections A-G by contributing 
reviews of sources you know about!)

* Akiyama, M., ed.
Design technology of fusion reactors. [636 p.] World Scientific 
Publishing. 1990.

* Artsimovich, L. A.
A physicist's ABC on plasma.
Mir Publishers. 1978.

* Boenig, Herman V.
Plasma science and technology.
Cornell University Press. 1982.

* Brunelli, B., et al., eds.
Unconventional approaches to fusion. [544 p.]
Plenum Publishing Corporation. 1982.

* Casini, G.
Plasma physics for thermonuclear fusion reactors. [496 p.]
Harwood Academic Publishers. 1982.

* Casini, G., ed.
Engineering aspects of thermonuclear fusion reactors. [646 p.]
Harwood Academic Publishers. 1982.

* Coppi, B., et al., eds.
Physics of plasma close to thermonuclear conditions. [2 v.]
Pergamon Press. 1981.

* Dean, Stephen O., ed.
Prospects for fusion power. [112 p.] 
Pergamon Press. 1981.

* Gill, Richard, ed.
Plasma physics and nuclear fusion research.
Academic Press. 1981.

* Golant, V. E., et al.
Fundamentals of plasma physics. [405 p.]
John Wiley and Sons. 1980.

* Golant, V. E., et al.
Plasma heating in toroidal fusion devices. [202 p.] Plenum Publishing 
Corporation. 1989.
 
* Gross, R. A. _Fusion energy._  John Wiley and Sons. 1984.
	(Recommended in Hazeltine & Meiss.)

* Hora, Heinrich.
Physics of laser driven plasmas. [317 p.] John Wiley and Sons. 1981.

* Joachain, Charles J., and Douglas E. Post, eds. Atomic and 
molecular physics of controlled thermonuclear fusion. [575 p.]
Plenum Publishing Corporation. 1983.

* McDowell, M. R., and A. M. Ferendeci, eds.
Atomic and molecular processes in controlled nuclear fusion. [500 p.]
Plenum Publishing Corporation. 1980.

* Motz, H.
The physics of laser fusion. 
Academic Press. 1979.

* Nishikawa, K.
Plasma physics: basic theory with fusion applications. [320 p.]
Springer-Verlag. 1990.

* Raeder, J., et al.
Controlled nuclear fusion: fundamentals of its utilization for energy 
supply. [400 p.]  John Wiley and Sons. 1986.

* Stacey, W. M.
Fusion plasma analysis. [376 p.]  John Wiley and Sons. 1981.


**********************

I've summarized all the books I've seen, and included what 
information I've received from others on the net.  If you are 
familiar with any of these books, or with other books you feel 
should be included in the reading list, please submit a summary 
in roughly the above format.

Thanks!

*************
Robert F. Heeter
rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Graduate Student, Princeton Plasma Physics Lab
Standard Disclaimers Apply
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.30 / Robert Heeter /  Conventional Fusion FAQ Section 11/11 (Acknowledgements)
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.answers,news.answers
Subject: Conventional Fusion FAQ Section 11/11 (Acknowledgements)
Date: Sun, 30 Oct 1994 14:24:59 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

Archive-name: fusion-faq/section11-acknowledgements
Last-modified: 13-Sept-1994
Posting-frequency: More-or-less-monthly

******************************************************************
12.  Citations and Acknowledgements

****** Blanket Acknowledgement ******

The staff who prepared the WWW page at PPPL deserve a blanket
acknowledgement, and the others who have prepared much of PPPL's
public information do too, since I have drawn heavily on their
work in a variety of different sections. 


***********   Section-by-Section *************

*** Section 1 - Fusion as a Physical Phenomenon

! John Cobb, johncobb@emx.cc.utexas.edu, whose description of 
aneutronic fusion I borrowed.
* Marybeth Gurski, gurski@cs.iastate.edu - guinea pig for 
first draft; made many suggestions and corrections
! Rich Schroeppel, rcs@cs.arizona.edu - corrections and
improvements.
! Art Carlson, awc@ipp-garching.mpg.de - corrections and
improvements.
! John Wright, jcwright@pppl.gov - minor corrections.


*** Section 2 - Fusion as a Future Energy Source

! Art Carlson, awc@ipp-garching.mpg.de, for many of the questions, 
and some of the answers, particularly describing the main 
components of a fusion reactor.


*** Section 3 - Fusion as a Scientific Research Program


*** Section 4 - Confinement Approaches
! John Cobb, johncobb@uts.cc.utexas.edu - info on electrostatic 
     confinement.
! Steven Jones, jonesse@physics.byu.edu - info on muon-catalyzed 
     fusion, corrections to my original entries.
! Ken Doniger, doniger@lsil.com - additional references on new 
     developments in electrostatic confinement
! Paul Koloc, prometheus!pmk@cs.umd.edu - info on the plasma focus
     and Z-pinch approaches. 
* John Lien, jtl@els.cray.com - info on subterranean pure-fusion bomb
     detonation as an energy source


*** Section 5 - Status of Current Fusion Devices

! Art Carlson, awc@ipp-garching.mpg.de - info on various machines.
! Albert Chou, albert@seas.ucla.edu - info on LLNL machines.
! John Cobb, johncobb@uts.cc.utexas.edu - info on various machines.
! Emilio Martines, martines@pdigi3.igi.pd.cnr.it - info on RFX.
! Stephen Cooper - JET info.
! David Ward, ward@crppsun.epfl.ch - more info on new machines
* Bonnie Nestor, mnj@ornl.gov - info on ATF, TdeV
! Andres C. Gaeris, agae@lle.rochester.edu - info on Omega, Nike


*** Section 6 - Recent Results

* Thanks to the TFTR and JET teams for giving us results to discuss!
* Particular thanks to Stephen Cooper at JET, who posted in Dec. 1993
  on the state of JET research, which I quoted extensively.


*** Section 7 - Educational Opportunities

* Geoff Maddison (geoff.maddison@aea.orgn.uk) and 
* Diane Carroll (via nuf@pppl.gov) - for providing 
     information on summer programs.
! Art Carlson - list of major upcoming conferences and plasma
     schools in various countries.
* Jim Day, jim.day@support.com - for suggesting high-school 
     experiments be included.
! David Pearson, dwcp@mercury.nerc-nutis.ac.uk - info on european
     plasma programs
* Thanks to the many students who have sent me email with questions!


*** Section 8 - Internet Resources

* Dieter Britz, BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk - I used his information on
     retrieving files from the vm1.nodak.edu ftp/listserv site.
* Bijal Modi - set up the neutrino.berkeley.edu ftp site.
! Art Carlson - info on Garching Gopher site.
! Joe Chew - for making himself available to provide info.
* Bonnie Nestor, mnj@ornl.gov - info on UTexas net resources.
? Perry Phillips, phillips@hagar.ph.utexas.edu - more Texas info.
! Chuck Harrison, harr@netcom.com - clued me in to sunsite resources.
! Steve Fairfax, fairfax@cmod.pfc.mit.edu - told me about MIT WWW
     pages, and thereby led me to take another look at the DOE info. 


*** Section 10 - Glossary - Acknowledgements:

! Jake Blanchard, blanchard@engr.wisc.edu - suggested we have a 
     list of acronyms too.
! Arthur Carlson, awc@ipp-garching.mpg.de - supplied additional 
     definitions, made corrections / amplifications / revisions to
     earlier definitions.
! Edward Chao, ehchao@theory.pppl.gov - info on LANL fusion research,
     additions and corrections to various definitions.
! Albert Chou, albert@seas.ucla.edu - supplied additional 
     definitions, made corrections / amplifications / revisions to 
     earlier definitions.
! John Cobb, johncobb@uts.cc.utexas.edu - lots o' definitions.
! James Crotinger, jac@gandalf.llnl.gov - additional definitions,
     quality control, and comments on the usefulness of the FUT.
* Jim Day, jim.day@support.com - initial list of terms, additional
     definitions, modifications to earlier definitions.
! Steve Fairfax, Fairfax@cmod.pfc.mit.edu - additional definitions
     from the Alcator weekly reports.
* Robin Herman, _Fusion: Search for Endless Energy_; I borrowed a 
     few terms from her glossary.  Cited as (from Herman).  (Many
     of these terms derived from the PPPL glossary I also used.)
! Paul M. Koloc, pmk@prometheus.UUCP - quality control, some entries
! Emilio Martines, martines@pdigi3.igi.pd.cnr.it - quality control,
     reversed-field entries & information.
* Princeton Plasma Physics Lab, Glossary of Fusion Terms - list of
     terms prepared by PPPL staff at some point.  Consulted in many
     cases, blatantly paraphrased in some, quoted and cited in 
     others.
* Mike Ross, mikeross@almaden.ibm.com - additional Livermore info
     and corrections to some entries.
* Richard Schroeppel, rcs@cs.arizona.edu - suggestions/corrections to
     many definitions.
! Philip Snyder, pbsnyder@theory.pppl.gov - corrections to 
     definitions.
! Paul Stek, Stek@cmod.pfc.mit.edu - additional definitions
!? Mitchell Swarz, mica@world.std.com - supplied additional 
     definitions / corrections and revisions to existing definitions.


*** Section 11 - Bibliography

* Acknowledgements are included with each reference listed.
* Additional thanks to Jim Day, jim.day@support.com, who gave
     me the initial list of references, from which this grew.


*** Additional Acknowledgements:

* Thanks to John Wright for doing much of the work required
  to convert the FAQ to Web format.

* I owe a special thank-you to Rush Holt at PPPL, who has been 
a mentor, answered zillions of questions, provided innumerable
references, and generally helped me acquire the background and 
tools to put this together.  

* The same goes for my professors here at PPPL.


******************************************************
Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@theory.pppl.gov
Graduate Student, Princeton Plasma Physics Lab
Usual Disclaimers Apply
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.31 / GREG BUELL /  Re: DO YOU WANT YOU TO GET alt.inventors VOTE YES HERE TO GET IT!
     
Originally-From: inventor@netcom.com (GREG BUELL)
Newsgroups: alt.config,sci.physics.fusion,sci.misc
Subject: Re: DO YOU WANT YOU TO GET alt.inventors VOTE YES HERE TO GET IT!
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 1994 01:31:21 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

In article <38uq1i$59l@ag.oro.net>, Scott Jennings <smj@smudge.oro.net> wrote:
>siproj (siproj@ripco.com) wrote:
>: Well if you want alt.inventors and the FAQ's that are only
>: posted in alt.inventors.  A Dr. Gonzo of Canada rmgroup'd
>: alt.inventors much to the dismay of several people and 
>: somebody should help with getting back on track!
>
>Why not alt.sci.inventors?


------->>>>>>>>   sci.inventors   would have a better chance of
                                  brainstorming a cure for cancer
                                  and other diseases.
                  sci.med         I unscribed to because there was no
                                  brainstorming to try to find a cure
                                  for cancer or any other diseases.


-- 
Name the Nearest 10 Stars to Earth *.*     inventor@netcom.com  
*.* of the Earth, and Humanity ??? *.*     Gravity Control and Total Recall
Manhattan Projects... for New Yorkers who don't travel to the stars, A Bombs
1,001 THINGS YOU CAN INVENT - ON A CD ROM - WITH TIPS TO GET YOU INVENTING !
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudeninventor cudfnGREG cudlnBUELL cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.30 / Greg Stumpf /  Re: tornadoes
     
Originally-From: stumpf@nsslsun.nssl.uoknor.edu (Greg Stumpf)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.geo.meteorology,sci.physics.astro
Subject: Re: tornadoes
Date: Sun, 30 Oct 1994 17:07:56 GMT
Organization: National Severe Storms Laboratory

In article <1994Oct28.221108.5948@midway.uchicago.edu> edward@uhuru.uchicago.
edu (Edward Lewis) writes:
>
>Luminous Tornadoes and Other Plasmoids
>
>	During the past 1 3/4 years I've been posting articles about
>ball lightning, plasmoids, EVs, and cold fusion on sci.physics.fusion
>newsgroup. This is a version of one that I posted last winter.  Does
>anyone have any reports about anomalous atmospheric phenomena?
>
>        People have often seen bright or luminous tornadoes.
>According to prior research, a large percentage of tornadoes are
>bright or glowing, and people have experienced that some are quite hot.
>(see B. Vonnegut and J. R. Weyer, "Luminous Phenomena Accompanying
>Tornadoes," WEATHERWISE, 19-2 (Apr. 1966), 66-68. and B. Vonnegut and
>J. R. Weyer, "Luminous Phenomena in Nocturnal Tornadoes, SCIENCE,
>(1966), 1213-1220.)

I have been chasing tornadoes for 8 years now, and I have seen my fair
share of nocturnal tornadoes, and watched a number of videos of the
same.  This post makes it sound like this "glowing" phenomenon is
quite common.

Let me tell you...it is!

BUT.....it is certainly NOT what you think it is.  When tornadoes
travel across the ground, they typically encounter electrical power
lines.  When the tornadoes hit these lines, and transformers,
large electrical arcs are created, which give off a bright glow
(orange or blueish green, depending on the type of arc and material
burning), which illuminates the tornado funnel quite brightly.

The tornado is NOT a plasma phenomena.  It is one of violently rotating
wind.  Let's move your research ahead 28 years from your quoted references,
and also start reading some *real* science in AMS journals.


Greg Stumpf, NSSL

Disclaimer:  Any opinions expressed in my posts, e-mail, or any other form of
electronic communications are mine, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion 
of the U.S. Government, NOAA, ERL, NSSL, or SWAT!  These posts are intended
as discussion material only and should not be subject to quotation by printed
or electronic media without prior, personal approval.


cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenstumpf cudfnGreg cudlnStumpf cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.31 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Mysterious Bass and his Mystical Secrets
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Mysterious Bass and his Mystical Secrets
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 1994 02:19:09 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <pOwWjIM.jedrothwell@delphi.com>,  <jedrothwell@delphi.com> wrote:
>crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes about the Griggs
>device:
> 
>     "On the other hand, I know it's not producing more heat than is put in,
>     and I know why.  Experimental error."
> 
>If you *know* it is an experimental error, why are you keeping it a secret?

     I'm not.  I've been saying that since I first read y'all's defunct rag.

>Also explain how you found the error by ESP.

     I didn't.  I found it by examining your 'energy balance'.  

>Or maybe you are full of crap, you don't know anything, and you are a faker.
>That would not surprise me. After all, you claim you are with the University
>of Virginia and you claim you teach there, but the University has never heard
>of you.

     Even someone so credulous couldn't possibly believe that he
     had gotten a telephone response from a bunch of buildings.

>[P.S. I would to thank the Alert Reader who suggested I call the University of
>Virginia and ask for Bass. You were right, they have never heard of him! For
>others who wish to check, the information number is 804-924-0311.]

     You're right, for some reason they don't appear to have my number
     at the main switchboard.  On the other hand, I so rarely call
     asking for my own number.
     
     If you're concerned about my existence, feel free to type

                    whois -h whois.virginia.edu crb7q

     Or contact me at Mechanical, Aerospace and Nuclear Engr.  

     Of course, Jed is being disingenuous as usual, having mailed
     me stuff and having received a check from me in the past...

                                 dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.31 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Mysterious Bass and his Mystical Secrets
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Mysterious Bass and his Mystical Secrets
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 1994 02:23:20 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <38t5lf$4sb@agate.berkeley.edu>,
Cliff Frost <cliff@ack.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>In article <pOwWjIM.jedrothwell@delphi.com>,  <jedrothwell@delphi.com> wrote:
>>crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes about the Griggs
>>device:
>> 
>>     "On the other hand, I know it's not producing more heat than is put in,
>>     and I know why.  Experimental error."
>> 
>>If you *know* it is an experimental error, why are you keeping it a secret?
>>Tell us! What experimental error? You will end this whole discussion and
>>emerge triumphant the moment you reveal your secret.
>
>Yes, I've been wondering about this also.
>
>Dale, how have you ruled out deliberate fraud on the part of some or
>all of the participants?

     Of course you're right, but I was taught that calling
     someone a liar without proof was rude.  On the other hand, 
     it is perfectly acceptable to extrapolate on idiocy.

                             dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.31 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Griggs Patent?
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs Patent?
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 1994 02:28:33 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

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

>a "problem" or "difficulty" with the Griggs device, the E-Quest device, P&F
>and others. They strain their imaginations to come up with bogeyman problems.
>Blue should take it easy and adapt Bass's approach: Just pretend you
>understand and pretend you "know what the problem is." Don't ever try to come
>up with anything specific! Never say what the problem is! When you do that,
>anyone can see you are wrong. Blue thinks he has actually found a problem,
>whereas Bass knows that he has nothing. He is holding a pair of deuces and
>pretending he has a full house. He thinks he can bluff us with his ESP-based
>knowledge of "experimental errors" and empty bluster.

     I suspect that someone who measures the external temperature of 
     a rotor housing with a pyrometer is basically a home-study course
     in experimental error, all by himself.

     You might do better playing cards than playing scientist.
     
                               dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.31 / Matt Kennel /  Re: No scanner here
     
Originally-From: mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: No scanner here
Date: 31 Oct 1994 00:52:11 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:
: FKNF40A@prodigy.com (JAMES STOLIN ) writes:
:  
:      "It's actually very simple to test the Griggs device and no instruments
:      or measurements whatsoever are needed.
:  
:      1- Couple the output to the input.
:      2- Start the device.
:      3- Remove external sources of power used to start the device.
:  
:      If the device keeps running, the Griggs device produces excess
:      energy..."
:  
: This is utterly impossible. The device produces only 20 to 50% excess. You
: need 300% to 1000% excess to maintain a self-regenerating reaction, because
: of mechanical inefficiency and heat losses (primarily radiation).

Therefore if the griggs device does not eventually achieve that 300% to 1000%
it will be useless as a means of producing electrical work.  (Otherwise,
each little extra bit electricity you put in the device you would have done
better to save and use directly, right?)

If it does not exceed the efficiency and economy and convenience of heat
pumps it will be useless as a means of generating "excess heat".

What thus finally remains is its value as pure physics experiment.  Thus it
is unwise to "not care" why the experiment is measuring excess heat.

Because as a physics experiment, we have to care about why it produces
excess heat. 

And because as an engineering device, we have to improve its performance by
a large amount.

{My non-experimentalist intuition also says that at the temperature regime
 where the device apparently operates heat losses as a result of air 
 convection and ensuing bulk propagation of heat would dominate
 radiative electromagnetic processes.}

(before anybody jumps in with this hoary tale yes the wright brothers did
 certainly know exactly why airplanes flew.  Fluid mechanics in the 19th
 century was hardly neanderthal.)

: - Jed

--
-Matt Kennel  		mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu
-Institute for Nonlinear Science, University of California, San Diego
-*** AD: Archive for nonlinear dynamics papers & programs: FTP to
-***     lyapunov.ucsd.edu, username "anonymous".
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenmbk cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.31 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Mysterious Bass and his Mystical Secrets
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Mysterious Bass and his Mystical Secrets
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 1994 02:42:08 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <38ufk7$lh9@ixnews1.ix.netcom.com>,
Chris Parkinson <parky@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>Agreed, and to think I've been yaking with someone who doesnt exist!

     Like who?

>>[P.S. I would to thank the Alert Reader who suggested I call the 
>University of
>>Virginia and ask for Bass. You were right, they have never heard of 
>him! For
>>others who wish to check, the information number is 804-924-0311.]
>>
>
>I think everyone should not only call the University but flame this
>dude probably known better as Curby 7Q (basically a nerd!).

     Take your best shot.  But I think you've found before that 
     ignorance is not the strongest base from which to issue an attack.

>Don't stand for this cyberspace crap!  Our media here at this site is in 
>need of honesty and truthfullness and not the ramblings of some 
>loonytunes that are too afraid to correctly identify themselves.

     I've been on the net for over 10 years, long before Rothwell
     crawled out of his burrow, and this is the 
     first time I've been accused of not existing by a neophyte.

     Feel free to call, spud.

                                 dale bass

C. R. Bass                                          crb7q@virginia.edu        
Department of Mechanical, 
     Aerospace and Nuclear Engineering             H (804) 978-1653
University of Virginia                             O (804) 924-7926

cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.30 / Leslie Barstow /  Re: Really *proved* it ???? Re: Schaeffer disproves 2nd "law" !
     
Originally-From: Leslie M. Barstow III <wdphoenix@delphi.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Really *proved* it ???? Re: Schaeffer disproves 2nd "law" !
Date: Sun, 30 Oct 94 22:54:42 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

prasad <c1prasad@watson.ibm.com> writes:
 
>Am I to understand Schaeffer's claims are EXPERIMENTAL or THEORETICAL?
>
>If it is the first, that's nothing new, so did the Newman motor, the Searle
>disc and now the hydrosonic pump!
>
>If it is a *theoretical* breakthrough, however, it would be very interesting
>indeed to see it in print in a respectable journal.  Most free-energy claimants
>are ordinarily quite incapable of overturning the whole lot of equations of
>thermodynamics that have withstood a hundred years of application testing.
 
News Flash... Science is based upon facts, not equations...
 
Equations are rarely formed before someone has a phenomenon which begs for a
rational explaination, and equations fall when someone finds an exception to the
rules.  Such is the history of science.  Equations are theory, repeatable
experiments are fact.  If your theory is wrong, you can change it - what do you
do with a fact that doesn't fit a theory... ignore it?
 
This is not to say that Schaeffler's device is what it claims, but don't shoot
it down because it violates some ancient "law" - that kind of thinking would
void 90% of mankind's discoveries.
--
Leslie M. Barstow III    | Disclaimer:  We don't need no stinkin' disclaimer!
                         | Send Flames to alt.dev.null
                         | Organization:  Wandering Damage.
WDPHOENIX@delphi.com     | Project:  Try To Take Over The World.
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenwdphoenix cudfnLeslie cudlnBarstow cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.31 / N Redington /  Re: tornadoes
     
Originally-From: redingtn@athena.mit.edu (Norman H Redington)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.geo.meteorology,sci.physics.astro
Subject: Re: tornadoes
Date: 31 Oct 1994 05:40:14 GMT
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Collisions with powerlines may cause some luminous tornadoes,
but I think if you search nineteenth century literature
or the Corliss anomaly handbooks you will find reports of
such phenomena going way back. I could be wrong about this,
since I'm relying on memory here, but I'm pretty sure.

Norman
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenredingtn cudfnNorman cudlnRedington cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.28 / Robert Heeter /  Give it up, Mitch...
     
Originally-From: rfheeter@pppl.gov (Robert F. Heeter)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Give it up, Mitch...
Date: 28 Oct 1994 19:09:33 -0400
Organization: Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory, Princeton University,
Princeton NJ 08540

In article <CyCvvM.KsD@world.std.com>,
mitchell swartz <mica@world.std.com> wrote:
>  In Message-ID: <1994Oct26.022009.1328@Princeton.EDU>
>Subject: Mitch's war of words
>Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> continued:
>
>=heeter "I've got to study for a midterm, so I can't write a detailed
>=heeter reply just this minute. I assure you I did do my "homework"
>=heeter and research tritium and the relative radiation hazards of 
>=heeter fusion vs. fission and fossil fuels before writing the FAQ 
>=heeter section on it.  I didn't make any claims I wasn't prepared
>=heeter to defend technically, but I felt that since I was writing for
>=heeter a general audience it would have been overkill to write a
>=heeter really long, technically-involved section on tritium."

The first lines of Mitch's response were:
>    Robert Heeter's use of the word "I"              8
>    Number of references cited by Heeter             0

Huh?

>    Excuses. Excuses. Robert Heeter wrote incorrect material.

As I said, I'm preparing a detailed response.  This takes time.
Relax, Mitch.

As for whether I wrote "incorrect material" - who do you think
you're kidding?  All you've disagreed with is a word choice,
not anything with technical content.

>He based it upon nothing referenced with specificity.

It's common practice in writing for a general audience, as
opposed to an audience experienced in the field, not to 
include specific references.  As I said, I have the references
available, and I'll be giving you a full technical treatment
as soon as I finish countering your non-technical attacks.

>When asked, he has been unable to cite, despite weeks, a single
>citation.   His putative midterms obviously don't involve tritium,
>or safety, or issues of heath physics, biophysics, or
>radiation medicine.   Too bad.

Bzzt!  Wrong.  Let me quote...

	Midterm Exam
	AST 555: Experimental Plasma Physics
	October 27, 1994

	...

	2) Tritium Inventory
	 * What is a typical tritium inventory goal for
		a DT fusion power reactor?  Why?
	 * Estimate the fraction of tritium burned up in
		a single pass through an ignited DT fusion plasma.
	 * Estimate the injection rate of tritium required
		for a 1 GWe fusion power reactor.
	 * In order to meet the tritium inventory goal, what
		can the residence time be for tritium in the
		system which cleans up the gas effluent from
		the plasma?  What can the tritium residence time
		be in the breeding blanket?

	...

Answer that in 20 minutes (which is all the time I had) 
and we can talk.  But don't tell me my "midterms obviously 
don't involve tritium, or safety..."

And if you had bothered to read the comprehensive bibliography
for the FAQ, which I have posted monthly for several months
now, you'd see that there are a number of references detailing
environmental and safety aspects of fusion reactors.
I'll spare you the agony of reading these references now, since
they're coming up in my technical reply shortly.

>    What was the problem?

Given that no one else has expressed the slightest concern
over this issue, I can only assume the problem lies mostly
in your mind.

>    Robert Heeter claimed tritium was 'relatively benign'
>in a widely published FAQ sent extensively throughout the
>World on the Internet, with the prestige of Princeton Plasma
>Physics behind him.

Not.  First of all, you're taking the quote out of context,
and we all know how dangerous that can be.  Secondly, there's
no logical reason to assume that a graduate student writing
an FAQ in his spare time, without any institutional review,
should therefore have "the prestige of Princeton Plasma 
Physics [sic] behind him."  Anyone who assumes that an 
institutional affiliation implies some level of personal 
prestige on a non-institution-related project is being silly.
I expect to be judged on the quality of my contributions to
this forum, not on where I go to school.

>  =heeter "Tritium is a relatively benign radioactive element  ...."

Note that this is clearly *not* the same thing as saying
tritium is "relatively benign."  Use of "relatively" clearly
requires some *comparison* between two things; leaving out
one of the two terms is sophistry at best.  Tritium is a
relatively benign radioactive element, much as a benign *tumor*
is benign only when compared to a malignant tumor.  Surely
someone who professes (as you do below) to having an MD knows
that any use of benign - even without "relatively" must involve
a comparison, and that whatever one says is benign is only
benign in comparison to something else.


Mitch now begins to repeat himself...

>   His negligent statement was corrected as to connotation.
>     >"Regarding the connotation, this word "benign" is not correct.
>     > Tritium is not a relatively benign radioactive element, but is 
>     > rather a radioactive element of low toxicity."
>     >   Tritium (3H)  has low toxicity, putting it in the group with 
>     > 7Be, 14C, 18F and some other nuclides.   That is their category 
>     > in the spectrum of these isotopes.
>              ....
>    > "and is therefore used in standard believable texts
>    > such as "Health Physics - Principles of Radiation Protection",
>    >  D.J. Rees, MIT 
>    > Press  1967)." 
>
>  Silicone -- previously considered by many to be "benign" or inert -
>itself can cause cancer by the Oppenheimer effect, and probably
>other pathways as well. Therefore even silicone is not truly benign.
>
>   Furthermore, regarding the denotation, this word choice is 
>also incorrect.
>
>  --->  benign    (after Webster, ibid.)     from Latin benignus
>                  meaning ---- >   to be born well.  
>    1)  of a gentle disposition
>    2)  of a mild character
>    3)   manifesting kindness and gentleness.

This is the fourth time you've written this Mitch.  Unfortunately,
repeating yourself doesn't make what you say any less false.

As I've pointed out many times, without any complaint from
anyone, the statement "tritium is a relatively benign
radioactive element" is consistent with either definition
(1) or (2) from your beloved dictionary.  Relative to other
radioactive elements - which we all know are a nasty lot - 
tritium has relatively gentle and mild characteristics.

>   Isn't that special? 
> "manifesting kindness and gentleness" to describe
>a beta emitting radioisotope formed in a "kiln" that generates neutrons.

Despite the fact that I very clearly pointed out to you, twice
before now, and a third time above, that the sense of benign 
I was using is *not* the "manifesting kindness and gentleness" 
sense, but rather the "gentle disposition" or "mild character"
sense, you insist on using "manifesting kindness and gentleness"
in your arguments.  Why is that?  Everyone on this group, you
included, knows that the statement "tritium is a relatively benign
radioactive element" does *not* mean "tritium is relatively
manifesting kindness and gentleness."  To think that that is
what I said requires an incredible amount of intellectual
dishonesty.

>How about some honesty.   

Give it up, Mitch.  How about some honesty on your part?
You certainly can't believe that I actually said what you
claim that I said.  No amount of sophistry on your part
is going to allow you to twist my words into anything resembling
what you claim I said, so why don't you stop wasting everyone's
time (and the bandwidth and resources of the internet) 
with this crap?

>   Instead of responding with science, Robert Heeter pirouettes
>in an attempt to psychoanalyze the tritium.
>
>=heeter  "Again, I claim that relative to other radioactive nuclides, 
>=heeter tritium has a relatively mild character and gentle disposition,
>=heeter  and therefore could be described as "relatively benign."

There's no psychoanalysis in the above sentence, and your
say-so won't put any in there.  Give it up, Mitch.

>   However, first, radiation is discussed in terms of half-lives,
>quality of radiation, dose delivered, depth-dose and
>scattering characteristics, secondary particles
>and radiation, acute and chronic effects upon materials and living systems,
> etc.

Radiation can be discussed in many contexts.  So can just about
any other term in any language on earth.  What's your point?

>   Second, on the other hand:  Benign refers to a substances impact on
>living systems, the environment, or (possibly) materials. 

That's right, and a relatively benign radioactive element generally
has less of an adverse impact than other radioactive elements.
As I said.  It certainly doesn't refer to any psychological
aspects of anything, as you seem to think above.

>    Third, on the gripping hand, irresponsible use of, faulty
>teaching standards regarding, or inadequate compliance with normal
> standard procedure involving, these materials can produce negative
> effects which could have been avoided.

So you read _The Gripping Hand_, by Niven and Pournelle.  But
that doesn't make the term standard English.  Before you criticize
me about my use of the language, you ought to get your own house
in order, don't you think?

Also, your last comma was unnecessary and bad grammatical form.
(But do you think I actually care?)

What I really can't believe is that Mitch even wrote this reply
to the letter I wrote in which I told him I'd answer all his
questions, but *after* my midterm exam...

>=heeter   "Several of the
>=heeter references are in the bibliography already, and people interested
>=heeter in environmental effects could do further reading based on that
>=heeter information. Anyway,I'll write up a summary of the references and 
>=heeter their technical claims with all the gory details. But not until 
>=heeter after I do my real homework first. 
>
>  Robert Heeter was asked for a reference.
>   > Please cite a text on
>   > radiation biology or health physics by a qualified physician
>   > that lists tritium as benign.   OK?
>
>   He refused probably because there was no reference.

Please go and see a psychologist if you (a) think that I refused,
when I said that I was going to give you all sorts of references
after I took my exam; (b) really believe that you have even half
a clue as to what my motives in allegedly "refusing" would have
been, had I actually refused; and (c) think that I need to cite 
a reference which "lists tritium as benign" instead of 
supporting my actual statement that "tritium is a relatively 
benign radioactive element."

>   And so Robert Heeter was asked again when he published it again

>    > It is becoming apparent that you can't really find a reference to
>    >  support your claim after all.  Look closer.
>    >  Perhaps you have an NRC or American College of 
>    >  Radiology document or other substantial citation?   Perhaps you
>    >  will share some of your (or Princeton's) 
>    >  long-term (20 to 30 year) data to support your claim of tritium 
>    >  being "relatively benign".
>    > ...... Why not just simply  read the literature.   OK?
>
>   Attention is directed to the facts that  Robert Heeter was asked for any 
>basis to support his unqualified widely posted opinion on this matter. 

Mitch, if I told you the sky was blue, would you need a reference?

Actually, your claim that I should, after stating that
"tritium is a relatively benign radioactive element," provide
you with a reference that "lists tritium as benign," is bogus.
What's the point in asking someone to provide a reference 
to support a claim he didn't make?

You could has easily have asked me to provide a reference
that says "tritium is a relative," or maybe "tritium is
a benign type of goldfish."  I mean, if you're going to twist
the language to your own purposes, why not go all the way?
Why stop at simply taking a few words out of context?
Why not misinterpret *everything* I say, and then post
longwinded and content-free articles telling me that I need
to provide you with references for absolutely every single
statement that I *never* *actually* made here?  
Would that entertain you?  Give it up, Mitch.

> He has failed to find a single one which to share here.  

Give it up, Mitch.  I have many references.  But to write
up everything takes time.  Apparently don't have the patience 
to wait for me to share them with you.

>He was 
>probed regarding his knowledge of this area, and if he had checked
>the supplied reference which corrected his erroneous statement.

You mean you expected me to go and dig up a 27-year old,
out-of-date text, which probably doesn't even exist around here,
when I have references on my desk from just a few years ago?  
And you think I have no knowledge of the area despite the 
references given in the bibliography?

>   In summary, the paucity of his response to the following questions
>speaks volumes.    

If you think it says anything more than that I have a lot of
other things to do, then you're listening to the wrong volumes.

>There is one conclusion regarding Mr. Heeter's 
>comments and retreat on this matter.
>
>      "He confesseth himself guilty, who
>      refuses to come to a trial."
>      [Thomas Fuller (1654-1734)
>      Gnomologia, 1732, number  1828]

Give it up, Mitch.  Even the harshest judge allows the lawyer 
to prepare his briefs before a trial.  I clearly stated that I 
was willing to go well out of my way to write up the technical 
details on tritium.  That's certainly not a retreat, nor a
refusal to come to trial, much less a confession of guilt.


>              Mitchell Swartz,  ScD  MD  EE     (mica@world.std.com)

				^^^^^^^^^^^^^
It's too bad your education doesn't seem to have given you
the good sense to not waste everyone's time with this stuff.

Give it up, Mitch.

****************************************
Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@pppl.gov
Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University
Anyone who thinks I represent my employer in anything
I say is silly.

If anyone actually reads this far, let me know by email.

cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Mon Oct 31 04:37:04 EST 1994
------------------------------
1994.10.26 / John Hansen /  High School physics student needs help
     
Originally-From: jhanson@snowcrest.net (John Hansen)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: High School physics student needs help
Date: 26 Oct 1994 17:52:03 GMT
Organization: SnowCrest

We are currently doing a project on the penetration power of alpha, beta
and gamma particles.  We are confused, however, what happens to these
particles once they penetrate the shilds that we are using.  We are using
cardboard, aluminukm and lead as shilding material.  Can you assist us
please.  Please e-mail your response to jhansen@snowcrest.net   Thank you
very much  Summer, and Misty

-- 
save every 5 minutes
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenjhanson cudfnJohn cudlnHansen cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.30 / Mike Jamison /  Re: Why not just buy/rent Tom  D. a Griggs Device?
     
Originally-From: edwlt12@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov (Mike Jamison (ADF))
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Why not just buy/rent Tom  D. a Griggs Device?
Date: 30 Oct 1994 09:49 EDT
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center

[list of who posted when snipped]

[Sorry for the delay, I've been in Houston for the past two weeks, battling
floods and S/W bugs.  Mainly the bugs...]

> 
>>As far as voltmeters go, if you have a half-decent high-voltage digitizing
>>meter, I could probably build a uVolt front end for it.
> 
>>I need to know mainly:  How fast?  
> 
>We don't look gift horses in the mouth.  

OK, slower = better, as far as precision goes.  Then again, fast + ability 
to average is probably best.
> 
>>Also, would you rather have a pc based data acq. card than a standalone meter?
> 
>Certainly, and we have apparently picked up an old Sun or two... but
>I'm not certain of their status yet.  

I have a donatable 286 MB/power supply/etc.  and I know the PC architecture
[bus architecture].  Also, PC based prototyping cards are readily available.

I have no idea about the Suns [and the 286 does work].

> 
>>>>And there are the hamfests, where lasers can be bought for good prices...
> 
>>>Yes, a fair sized compact transverse discharge nitrogen fast pulse
>>>laser with drivers and electronic triggering intput would be also
>>>most useful.   
> 
>>Looks like they go up to the several watt range (pulses of 10 ns at 1 MW,
>>100 Hz rep. rate, from the - rather old - text I just scanned).
> 
>A slower rep rate   1 or two pulses but with a 30ns 250MW is closer too
>what we need, as I recall.  That Mantle is a bit opaque.   We have an
>expert so we can likely build or rebuild one to our performance and 
>optical specs.   

OK, if I find any leads I'll let you know.

> 
> 
>A nice high density fast discharge bank (Maxwell type C" for example) 
>capacitors ...  18KV with 20% reversal, to cover those missfired
>crowbars.   In Any number up to 2 to 4 meg.  Even 50 to 100 kilojoules
>have a good use.   
> 
>That's usually the problem.  It's best to keep any interaction quiet.  
>Also, we have interested friends at LeRC, so tread lightly, lest
>we disturb any predators thier or at hdqtrs.   

Thanks for the warning - guess I'll post discriminately [i.e. direct questions
directly to friends, rather than a blanket post to all lerc bb's].
> 
>>Understood.  The contact at NASA LeRC is (216) 433-3056.  No name is given.
> 
>Or *reported*

Not sure of what you mean - there are probably several people doing the
job, so they don't bother to list them...
> 
>>I believe all the gov't labs probably have places where they sell their 
>>excess equipment.
> 
>>Mike Jamison
>+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
>| Paul M. Koloc, Bx 1037 Prometheus II Ltd, College Park MD 20741-1037    |
>| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
>| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
>+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
> 

Mike Jamison

"Scientific research consists in seeing what everyone else has seen, but
thinking what no one else has thought"

						-A. Szent-Gyorgyi
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenedwlt12 cudfnMike cudlnJamison cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.30 / Mike Jamison /  Re: GG Improvements
     
Originally-From: edwlt12@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov (Mike Jamison (ADF))
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: GG Improvements
Date: 30 Oct 1994 09:59 EDT
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center

In article <EACHUS.94Oct17162228@spectre.mitre.org>, eachus@spectre.mitr
.org (Robert I. Eachus) writes...
>In article <14OCT199417493109@mars.lerc.nasa.gov> edwlt12@mars.lerc.nas
.gov (Mike Jamison (ADF)) writes:
> 
> > And here I thought it was just to bring the combustion temp. down so they
> > could squirt a denser fuel air mix into the chamber...  Silly me.
> 
>   No, the goal was to increase the pressure in the cylinders to
>increase the power.  A naturally carburated engine is limited at high
>altitude in the amount of power it can generate by the amount of air
>that it can suck into the engine.  If you add water (and more fuel)
>you can burn more of the hydrogen and oxygen and generate more gases
>per cubic foot (or litre) of air sucked in.  (You have seen the
>exhaust from a diesel engine--or an F-4 Phantom II?  That black smoke
>is carbon soot.  For maximum power-not maximum fuel efficiency--you
>can burn the hydrogen out of the hydrocarbon and leave the carbon
>behind.)  So at the same temperature and same compression you get more
>power.

Yep, somewhat poor choice of words on my part.  The idea is to minimize
knock, by keeping the pre-ignitied temp down, otherwise you have a diesel.

Also, those WWII engines were generally supercharged, inc/// since plain old
gasoline engines won't run at 30,000 ft.  At least not very well...

I have a 351 Cleveland [Ford] engine at my parents' [still in peices, much
to their chagrin]/.  It has the "closed chamber" head design, complete with
a quench area.  The result is high compression wiothout pre-ignition, but
with lots of NOx emission.  The quench area kepps some of the fuel air mix
from burning, resulting in a cooler combustion.

> 
>   Of course you also get more knock.  Some WWII engines had lifetimes
>rated in minutes at "full military power" using water injection.  (And
>much shorter if you exceeded that...)

Apparently military jets have similar "full power" ratings.  On the order
of 15 minutes.
> 
> 
>--
> 
>					Robert I. Eachus
> 
>with Standard_Disclaimer;
>use  Standard_Disclaimer;
>function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...


Mike Jamison

"Scientific research consists in seeing what everyone else has seen, but
thinking what no one else has thought"

						-A. Szent-Gyorgyi
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenedwlt12 cudfnMike cudlnJamison cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.30 / Mike Jamison /  Re: Working people
     
Originally-From: edwlt12@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov (Mike Jamison (ADF))
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Working people
Date: 30 Oct 1994 10:09 EDT
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center

In article <37usmb$bli@ds8.scri.fsu.edu>, jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) writes...
>In article <13OCT199417062819@mars.lerc.nasa.gov> 
>edwlt12@mars.lerc.nasa.gov (Mike Jamison (ADF)) writes:
>>
>>I see grad students defending their administrating professors' salaries,
>>basically saying "if they were in industry, they could..."
>>
>>The problem, as I see it, is that, in industry, one must make a profit.
> 
>You have to make a profit in universities as well.  It is called 
>overhead, and it is a bigger profit than anyone makes in industry. 

In industry, my "cost" to the company was about 4 times what my salary was.
This was to cover the overhead [building, secretaries, management :-), etc.].

> 
>If you think it is not a big deal, talk to the person who did not 
>get tenure because they did not get a grant funded, or read the 
>memos from the administration complaining about declining external 
>funding (ie, declining overhead going into their coffers). 

I don't mean to imply it isn't a big deal, just that the phrase "Professor X
has a degree in plasma physics, therefore professor X would be able to run
a business" is a false statement.

Being able to get a degree or manage a department does not in itself qualify
one to be able to manage his/her own business.

As for the grants, the really unfortunaete thing is that professors who are
very good teachers, and only want to be very good teahers, have a difficult
time.  I knew a thermodynamics professor who was forced to retire early, not
because he was unable to get grants, but was unwilling.  He wanted to con-
centrate on teaching.
> 
>>My guess is that these guys, with Phd's and all, would fail miserably.
> 
>Plenty do very well.  Maybe not after spending several decades doing 
>academic research, but the real gist of the statement should be "if 
>they had gone into industry...".  Industry, and society as a whole,
>has a need for problem solvers, and physicists are problem solvers. 

I agree.  My statement is as false as the one I question - "Professor X
was able to get a Phd. in plasma physics, therefore professor X will do terribly
in industry" is false, as is its ?converse? [been awhile since I took a
logic class...]
> 
>-- 
> James A. Carr   <jac@scri.fsu.edu>     |  Raw data, like raw sewage, 
>    http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac        |  requires some processing before
> Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst.  |  it can be spread around.  The 
> Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306    |  opposite is true of theories. 

Mike Jamison

"Scientific research consists in seeing what everyone else has seen, but
thinking what no one else has thought"

						-A. Szent-Gyorgyi
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenedwlt12 cudfnMike cudlnJamison cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.30 / Mike Jamison /  Re:  Working People
     
Originally-From: edwlt12@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov (Mike Jamison (ADF))
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re:  Working People
Date: 30 Oct 1994 10:31 EDT
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center

In article <1994Oct23.044530.14533@Princeton.EDU>, Robert F. Heeter
<rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> writes...
>In article <380ncj$gh6@bmerhc5e.bnr.ca> Stanley T.H. Chow, schow@bnr.ca
>writes:
>> In article <1994Oct17.222900.20798@princeton.edu>,
>> Robert F. Heeter  <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> wrote:
>> >Any industry executive would be overjoyed if his company were
>> >making the sort of technical progress fusion has made for the past 
>> >15 years.
>> 
>> Hmm, 15 years planning horizon; sounds quite a bit longer than even
>> the famed Japanese attention span. As for the US business crowd, I don't
>> think you are even in the right ball park.
> 
>Negative.  I didn't say "planning horizon."  I said "progress... for the
>past 15 years."  Actually, make it 20.  The fusion power produced in
>a reactor has advanced 8 orders of magnitude in 20 years, or about
>an order of magnitude every 2.5 years.  Now show me the manager
>who wouldn't be happy to have his performance indicator multiply by
>10 every 2.5 years.

Well, when the performance starts at basically zero, and is 20 years later
at 0.3 [really 0.015 or so for self-sustaining], I say the manager wouldn't
be managing he department.  i.e. it's a moot point.  If I were the manager, I
would ask "why did you go with this design, when it looks so un-promising
to begin with" and proceed to resign.

What do you think the BIG 3 [automakers] would say if therir powerplant
department said "well, after 20 years of development, our new engine can
produce about 1% of the power it'll need to produce to make our next genera-
tion car go.  But, it's an 8 order of magnitude improvement from when we
started!"  

I don't think you can really make any valid comparisons between industry and
research, at least for fusion [tokamak] development...

> 
>> >And I'm afraid that in the R&D business, with Congress looking
>> >to cut budgets anywhere it can, if you don't produce, you don't get
>> >funded.  So I don't think it's that different.
>> 
>> Ah, but in the R&D "business", product is not the same as profit, it is
>> not even the same as useful. As several threads have discussed before,
>> come budget time, one expect lots of flashy experimental results (which 
>> are often/usually useless in terms of science). 
> 
>Actually, results stay in discussion long enough that you can use 
>anything you want from the previous year in the current year's 
>budget discussions.  There wasn't anything special about the 
>timing of the TFTR D-T experiments, for example, other than that 
>they were a few months behind schedule (or a few years,
>depending on which schedule you talk about).  And if you want 
>to discuss whether the 9 megawatts of fusion produced in TFTR were 
>"totally useless in terms of science," I'd be happy to explain 
>their significance to you.

I read most of "the man-made sun" several years ago.  I believe it predicted
breakeven in the mid 1980's.  Ahenm, it's 1994, and, quite unfortunately,
the phrase "where's the water heater" seems to apply to hot fusion as well
as to cold fusion.  Exzcept that no-one disputes the fact that when atoms
smash into each other with enough velocity, fusion will occur...

So, the very very basic science is understood, but the engineerin is still
in the works.
> 
>> So in this sense, the
>> R&D business is much more like lobbying/entertainment as opposed to
>> "real business" in The Real World (tm).
> 
>No, because as in real business, you receive funding to create 
>something.  In real business, you use wealth to create wealth, and 
>in R&D, you use knowledge and wealth to create more knowledge and 
>more wealth (in the form of either scientific results or practical 
>products).  But in both cases, if you don't produce sufficiently
>more than you consume, you don't survive in the business.

And, in real business, you use R&D to create cash - remember Bell Labs?  They
used to be one of the best R&D places to work.  Looking at the real world's
businesses, don't you wonder why fusion isn't being investigated by them?
The profits should be *huge* for a working fusion reactor.  Apparently the
risk is still greater...than the rewards.
> 
>Whether the R&D "product" is "useful" or not obviously depends
>on what the *aims* of the project are, and not merely on whether
>it is successful or not, in much the same way that one can
>successfully produce and market "useless" items in real business.

A lot of basic research has no real aim, with the exception that it is done
to improve our understanding of nature.  One of the problems with the tokamak
programs is that the aim is to produce a working powerplant.  Perhaps the
emphasis should be that we're trying to understand plasma physics...

> 
>***************************
>Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
>Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University
>As always, I represent only myself, and not PPPL

BTW, I don't dispute the numbers you give for starting salaries.  Just have
a hard time believing them.  A lot of it must be cost of living...

Mike Jamison

"Scientific research consists in seeing what everyone else has seen, but
thinking what no one else has thought"

						-A. Szent-Gyorgyi
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenedwlt12 cudfnMike cudlnJamison cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.01 / Jed Rothwell /  GG better than heat pump / Wrights
     
Originally-From: 72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: GG better than heat pump / Wrights
Date: Tue, 1 Nov 1994 01:30:39 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org

mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel) writes:

     "Therefore if the griggs device does not eventually achieve that 300% to
     1000% it will be useless as a means of producing electrical work."

You mean electric power. Yes, that this is right. You cannot use the GG as a
generator or motor.


     "If it does not exceed the efficiency and economy and convenience of
     heat pumps it will be useless as a means of generating "excess heat".

It has already exceeded the efficiency and economy of heat pumps. There has
been a great deal of confusion about this issue here. Let me explain one last
time: a heat pump cannot be used to boil water. Heat pumps are only effective
when the temperature of the heat reservoir is close to the output fluid
temperature you want. That is why heat pumps are used in Florida but not in
Alaska. Heat pumps are effective in space heating applications where air
temperature is raised from, say, 0 deg C to 22 deg C, but heat pumps are not
used in water heaters, where fluid is raised from 15 C to 45 C, and they not
used geographical locations where the outside temperature goes below -20 C. A
boiler requires far more energy per unit of mass than a water heater: raising
a gram of water from 15 to 45 C takes 30 calories (of course!), whereas
vaporizing that gram takes 85 calories to boiling and 540 cal/gram after that
(625 total, ignoring heat losses). Dick Blue has also overlooked this point.
 
The Griggs devices has also already exceeded the efficiency of resistance
electric heaters. When it is used to replace conventional electric heaters, it
reduces the customer's energy bills by a considerable extent, paying for
itself in 5 to 8 years. Some customers have readily available free sources of
rotary power. For example, a large farm may have reliable rotary power driven
by falling water or wind. (Such old fashioned mechanical power sources are
more common than is commonly realized. The wind still blows, farmers still use
it to pump water.) If a farm needs heat, it is far more efficient to convert
that mechanical power into heat with the Griggs device than it is to generate
electricity and run resistance heaters.

The Griggs devices is nowhere near as efficient as a gas or oil burner, but as
I pointed many times, some applications and some sites do not allow open
flames or chimneys, so there is always a market for electric heating.

There are, of course, heat pumps that operate over extremely large temperature
differences. Refrigerators and freezers, for example. In these applications
you must use a heat pump, you have no choice. There is no other method which
is more efficient.



Matt also comments on the Wrights, about whom I know a thing or two:

     "before anybody jumps in with this hoary tale yes the wright brothers
     did certainly know exactly why airplanes flew."

Matt is wrong, the Wrights did not know exactly. The details were not worked
out until the 1920s. It is true the Wrights were superb scientists and
brilliant physicists, and they did know everything of importance that had been
discovered up until they began their research. They corrected many important
constants, for example found that Smeaton coefficient for pressures, 0.005 *
V^2 was wrong. They derived a new value of 0.033. Modern wind tunnel data
gives 0.003289. [1] They developed the key theories which allowed flight, and
they worked the extremely complex mathematics of the propeller. That is why
their 1903 propellers generated more thrust than Farman, Voisin and
Dellagrange got 1908, even though Farman et al. had as much as *five times
more engine power*! [1] The Wrights compiled hundreds of pages of data on 200
different wing configurations. This data was not surpassed in accuracy and
precision for a generation. But, they did not work out the fluid dynamics.
That is, they did not explicate the theory commonly explained nowadays in the
simplified form: "air moves faster over the top of the wing than the bottom,
which creates a vacuum, which produces lift." As Crouch explained [2]:

     "Engineering was the key. The Wright brothers functioned as engineers,
     not scientists. Science, the drive to understand the ultimate principles
     at work in the universe, had little to do with the invention of the
     airplane. A scientist would have asked the most basic questions. How
     does the wing of a bird generate lift? What are the physical laws that
     explain the phenomena of flight?

          The answers to these questions were not available to Wilbur and
     Orville Wright, or to anyone else at the turn of the century. Airplanes
     would be flying for a full quarter century before physicists and
     mathematicians could explain why wings worked.

          How was it possible to build a flying machine without first
     understanding the principles involved? In the late twentieth century, we
     regard the flow of technological marvels from basic scientific research
     as the natural order of things. But this relationship between what one
     scholar, Edwin Layton, as described as the 'mirror image twins' of
     science and technology is a relatively new phenomenon. Historically,
     technological advance has more often preceded and even inspired
     scientific understanding.

          The roots of the flying machine lie not in scientific theory, but
     in the experimental work of a group of eighteenth-century engineers who
     were interested in windmills. . ."

     [Page 174, 175]

On the other hand, they did solve immensely complicated quadratic equations,
and they did heartbreakingly beautiful physics experiments. I disagree with
Crouch, I think they were scientists -- applied scientists, not theoreticians.
I think that Crouch is also wrong about the relationship between science and
technology. Even today most of the benefits go from technology to science.
Technology still precedes science.


References and additional sources of information:

1. Harry Combes, "Kill Devil Hill"(Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1979)
2. Tom Crouch, "The Bishop's Boys" (New York: Norton, 1989)
3. Tom Crouch, "A Dream of Wings" (Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press)
4. Marvin W. McFarland ed., "The Papers of Wilbur and Orville Wright" [2
volumes]. (New York: McGraw Hill, 1953)

- Jed

cudkeys:
cuddy1 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.01 / Richard Blue /  Re: Griggs patent?
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs patent?
Date: Tue, 1 Nov 1994 01:30:52 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

In his response to my comments on the Griggs patent Jed Rothwell's
reply prompts the following remarks by way of rebuttal.

On the question of size Jed asserts that the Griggs device is smaller
than other commercial steam boilers.  That may indeed be the case, but
I suspect that reflects the fact that size is not considered to be
as important as Jed would have it.  Certainly there are ways to reduce
the size of an electric boiler if that is desired.

Scale buildup -  Here Jed has transformed the issue by arguing that
the Griggs device is easier to flush.  He says, "That moves the problem
to the separation tank."  I rest my case.

With regard to how reliable throttle valves and pressure regulators
may be, Jed seems to indicate that their being of mechanical design
is sufficient to insure reliable operation.  My actual operating
experience (not just imagination) indicates Jed's basic assumption
is incorrect.  If there has to be some sort of matching between
input water flow and steam consumption, and high efficiency requires
"tuning" this is the sort of control problem that simple mechanical
regulators don't handle very well.  If, for example, there is only
a simple pressure regulator to control the flow of input water what
happens when the steam consumption is momentarily shut off?

When I suggest that water in the bearings may cause problems for such
a device, Jed indicates that any suggestion that water could get into
the bearings is ridiculous.  To the retorical question, "Does water
get into pump bearings?" my answer is yes.  Water pumps (and the
Griggs device) are rather dependent on having the shaft seals do
their job.  Do shaft seals fail?  Yes, they do fail if the shaft
is improperly aligned, if the shaft is rusty or roughened, if the
seal material takes a set as a result of high temperature operation
or other types of exposure, or if there is excessive vibration.
Equally significant is the need for proper installation of the
seal following disassembly for repair or cleaning.  The weight
of the parts becomes a problem not just because they are harder
to lift, Jed.  Its because it becomes more difficult to get
the pieces back together without damage to the seals, for example.
Having an overhead crane to do the lifting is only part of the
answer.

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.31 / Greg Erker /  Deuterium Toxicity: the answer
     
Originally-From: erker@fermi.trlabs.ca (Greg Erker)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Deuterium Toxicity: the answer
Date: 31 Oct 1994 15:01:40 GMT
Organization: TRLabs (Saskatoon)

Thanks to everyone who answered my question.  Here is a summary of the
answers I received for those who are interested.

FROM:   Tarl Neustaedter        tarl@east.sun.com [work]
>The length of the C-H bond is different for C-D, since the mass
>plays a part in determining this distance. Since most of metabolism
>depends on exact mechanical fits of enzymes, this bond-length 
>difference fucks up the metabolism.
>
>The effect exists for other isotopes but none has a 2-1 mass differential,
>so are less dramatic.

FROM: Jorge Stolfi  
>Yes; this difference affects several physical properties of D2O and
>deuterium compounds, notably the speed of diffusion through membranes
>and of chemical reactions.  These differences affect metabolism
>to such an extent that replacement of H2O by D2O at some
>modest percentage (10%? 20%) is fatal to mammals.
>
>There was an article in Scientific American on the biological
>effects of heavy water, some 10-20 years ago.  

FROM: Nick Maclaren
>For practical purposes, hydrogen is the only element where the isotopes
>have significantly different physical or chemical properties.  When you
>get down to that level, the Bohr atom ceases to be an adequate model and
>you have to take account of the totality.

FROM: Jim Carr
>It is called the "isotope effect" on chemical properties. 
>
>There are several sources for the effect, including mass (hence a 
>change in vibration of the bond) and nuclear spin (affecting details 
>of the electron distribution).  The relative importance varies 
>from element to element.

-- 
Greg Erker,  Research Engineer
Telecommunications Research Laboratories (TRLabs) 
#108, 15 Innovation Blvd.,  Saskatoon, SK, CANADA
Ph: 306-668-8209  Fax: 306-668-1944
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenerker cudfnGreg cudlnErker cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.31 / Dieter Britz /  CNF bibliography updates and archive retrieval, 31-Oct-94.
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CNF bibliography updates and archive retrieval, 31-Oct-94.
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 1994 15:42:30 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway


 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here the current Update. I have been on a visit in Poland, where I had an
interesting talk to Baranowski, an metal hydrides expert. This led to my
getting a few reprints, which I would otherwise have had some trouble getting
(my visit had nothing to do with 'cold fusion', though). Baranowski does not
like deuterium charging of Pd by electrolysis - too many things can go wrong,
he says, pressured D2 is better (the Italians would agree). He is also
scathing about the figure of 10^26 "atm"; that should be fugacity, he rightly
says (and Fleischmann and Pons no doubt know, but don't say). As is known from
old work by Bockris and coworkers in the 70's, this corresponds to a much
smaller actual pressure. Anyway, the Polish high-pressure experiments (both
gas-phase and electrochemical) gave zero results; as did the search for helium
after the very long 2-year experiment, which might be a record. Baranowski
also interestingly reckons that in PdD, at high D2 pressure, some tetrahedral
sites are occupied. This is seen by some as a sort of holy grail, because d-d
distances are then smaller. Most physicists doubt tetrahedral occupancy, I
think, but here is a metal hydrides expert speaking for for it. In any case,
the d-d distances, even if it is true, are still not small enough to explain
fusion simply by proximity arguments. 

The Chinese teams of Jin et al and Li et al tried CR-39 track detectors and
got marginal results, if any, for, resp., superconducting ceramic and PdD. I
can't do much with the commentary paper by Shibata, knowing not one word of
Japanese; so sorry. 

More Polish (older) work in the peripherals list, especially interesting to
those who ask how you can measure loading in situ - how do you calibrate R/R0
curves, they ask? Read Szafranski et al. The cigarette lighter effect has been
discussed here a bit; here we see when it was discovvered (1823) by 
Doebereiner. The paper also tells that he could have made a lot of money with
it (he was offered a fortune) but declined, preferring to pursue pure science.

The Goodstein paper is no doubt accessible to USAmericans; go for it, not a 
bad article.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Current count:
-------------
 11 books
960 papers
148 patents
222 comment items
 86 peripherals
 20 conference procs(-to-be)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


Journal papers:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
#
Baranowski B, Filipek SM, Szustakowski M, Farny J, Woryna W;
J. Less-Common Metals 158 (1990) 347.
"Search for 'cold-fusion' in some Me-D systems at high pressures of gaseous
deuterium".
** This team is expert in metal hydrides and had high-pressure equipment
available. This, they say, is the preferred manner of loading D into Pd,
rather than by electrochemistry. They were able to achieve 3 GPa D2 gas
pressure, applied to a 1.1*5.63 cm^2 Pd cylinder (67 g). This Pd sample is
larger than the critical size described by FPA-89, who reported "IGNITION".
The team searched for neutrons and excess heat in a long-term experiment with
D/Pd loadings as high as 1, for periods up to 5 months. At these high
loadings, the authors write that tetrahedral sites will be filled to some
extent (thought by some to be favourable to cnf). No neutrons or heat were
detected at any time. Attempts to introduce nonequilibrium conditions by some
temperature cycling did not provoke any emissions either. The authors comment
on the figure of 10^26 "atm" used by F&P(89), which is in fact a fugacity, not
a pressure. A better metal, achieving higher D loadings, might be Ni. During 2
months of experiments with this metal, again no evidence for cold fusion was
found. Further, high-pressure electrolysis at Pd was also tried; no cold
fusion was detected even at the achieved loadings of 0.91. Thus cold fusion
seems doubtful. Sep-89/?
#..................................................................... Oct-94
Baranowski B, Filipek S, Raczynski W;  Pol. J. Chem. 68 (1994) 845.
"Electrolytic charging of palladium by deuterium at normal and high pressure
conditions".
** The authors wish to clear up some of the confusion in the 'cold fusion'
field, e.g. the figure of 10^26 atm, and comment on the problems of 
electrolytic loading of Pd with deuterium. High pressure electrochemical 
loading was also tried. 0.1 M LiOD and D2SO4 were the electrolytes used, and 
Pd wires as cathodes. Ambient pressure electrolysis at current densities up to 
200 mA/cm^2 produced loadings corresponding only to some 400 atm, nowhere near
the fugacity figure of 10^26 stated by FPH-89. High pressure electrolysis was
also carried out, at up to 4.5 kbar. Here, loadings are achieved that place 
the Pd resistance on the falling branch. The authors conclude that the 
formation of D2 bubbles limits loading into Pd, and actual pressures within 
the metal.  Dec-93/?
#...................................................................... Oct-94
Jin S-X, Zhang F-X, Liu Y-Z, Shi W-Q, Ou W, Liu S-X, Liu X-J;
Chinese Sci. Bull. 39 (2) (1994) 101.
"Deuterium absorbability and anomalous nuclear effect of YBCO high temperature
superconductors".
** The HTSC family of compounds Y1Ba2Cu3O7-delta can absorb hydrogen, which
is then found on the Cu-O surface, write the authors, who ahev studied the
absorption of deuterium. They found some anomalous effects during this study.
CR-39 nuclear track etch was used, placed close to the absorbing samples, and
some tracks were found. These tracks were not found in controls without
deuterium. The mechanism is not clear and further work is needed. 
May-93/Jan-94
#..................................................................... Oct-94
Li X-Z, Mo D-W, Zhang L, Wang S-C, Kang T-S, Liu SJ, Wang J;
Nucl. Tracks Radiat. Meas. 22 (1993) 599.
"Anomalous nuclear phenomena and solid state nuclear track detector".
** This team reasoned that the nuclear reactions in cold fusion would produce
charged particles, and with gas phase experiments, it is feasible to detect
these, using track detectors. A CR-39 can be put on a Pd surface and has much
greater efficiency than the usual neutron detectors. This was done. Pd foil
(0.02*0.5*0.5 cm^3) was sandwiched with CR-39 film, both exposed to D2 gas at
9 atm. at liquid N2 temperature for 4 hours. The sample was then allowed to
warm up to room temperature slowly. Preliminary results from 1989-90 showed
some pits that could be due to alpha particles from the Pd, but later results
were not conclusive.
#..................................................................... Oct-94
Shibata T;  Oyo Buturi 62(7) (1993) 715 (in Japanese).
" Critical points for the evaluation of measured results on cold fusion".
** All in Japanese, this one-page paper baffles this abstracter. There is
mention of 3He, 4He, gammas and x-rays, presumably in a discussion about what
ought to be given off by cold fusion. No references. Mar-93/Jul-93
#..................................................................... Oct-94
Stroka A, Baranowski B, Filipek SM;  Pol. J. Chem. 67 (1993) 353.
"Search for 3He and 4He in Pd-D2 system long term cumulation experiment in
high pressure".
** The He results of the study reported in another paper from this lab
(Baranowski et al, J. Less-Common Metals 158 (1990) 347). In an enclosed cnf
experiment, it should be easy to detect He, e.g. by mass spectrometry (MS), if
any is formed, as it should be. A 1.1*5.63 cm^2 Pd cylinder (67 g) was kept
for more than 2 years at a D2 pressure of not less than 6 kbar, 298 K. This
gives a D/Pd loading of no less than 0.9. This Pd sample is larger than the
critical size described by FPA-89, who reported "IGNITION". A quadrupole MS
was used, capable of detecting 10^-10 mol He. No He was found above this
detection limit. This sets an upper limit of 10^6 fusions/s, which lies
between claimed emission measurements of 1/s and the much larger (and lethal)
emissions corresponding to excess heat claims. Another negative.  Oct-92/? 
#..................................................................... Oct-94

Peripherals:
^^^^^^^^^^^
#
Chen CL, Wu JK;  J. Mater. Sci. Lett. 13 (1994) 84.
"Electrolytic hydrogen transport in palladium".
** A permeation study: a Pd membrane (0.2 mm) was cathodically charged with
hydrogen on one side with varying current, and the hydrogen emerging from the
other side detected by anodic loading and measuring the current. The plot of
I(anodic) vs I(cathodic)  was linear with slope of 1 up to a charging current
of about 5 mA/cm^2, where the anodic current flattened out. This is attributed 
to the formation of beta phase hydride at the cathodic surface and resulting
recombination (formation of H2 bubbles).
#...................................................................... Oct-94
Linke D;
in Int. Doebereiner-Kolloq., Friedrich-Schiller-Univ., Jena 1981, p.10 (in 
German).
"5. Die Entdeckung der Platinkatalyse, das Doebereiner-Feuerzeug und seine
Verbreitung".
** Quoting from original sources, Linke here reports Doebereiner's discovery 
of the 'cigarette lighter effect', i.e. the catalysis of burning of hydrogen
in air at the surface of Pt or Pd, in 1923.
#...................................................................... Oct-94
Szafranski AW, Baranowski B;  Phys. Stat. Solidi (a)9 (1972) 435.
"The electrical resistance of the Pd-Ag-H system at 25 degC in a wide range of
hydrogen pressure".
** Anyone trying to measure the loading of hydrogen (or deuterium) into Pd
or its alloys by its resistance must read this paper, which presents 
calibration curves and discussion.
#...................................................................... Oct-94

Comments:
^^^^^^^^
#
Goodstein D;  Amer. Scholar  63 (4) (1994) 527.
"Pariah Science. Whatever happened to cold fusion?"
** A 'cold fusion' skeptic gives some impressions of the field, and concludes
that cnf has not been treated fairly. Goodstein knows Scaramuzzi personally
and knows that he is above scientific reproach. Nevertheless, Italian
physicists are scathing about his preoccupation with the subject. He also
notes that while excess heat claims are dismissed, the lower-level neutron
claims are considered possible ("good" and "bad" cold fusion).
#..................................................................... Oct-94



Retrieval of the archived files:
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. By FTP from vm1.nodak.edu (134.129.111.1).  Login anonymous, your email
   address is the password. CD FUSION and DIR FUSION.CNF* gets a listing. The
   general index is large. Use GET (ie. GET FUSION.CNF-PAP1). 
2. Via LISTSERV. You get a (large) index of the archives by sending an email  
   to listserv@vm1.nodak.edu, with a blank SUBJECT line, and the "message"   
   'index fusion'. To get any one of these files, you then send to the same   
   address the message, e.g., 
   get fusion 91-00487
   get fusion cnf-pap1         etc, according to what you're after.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
===========================================================

cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.31 / Robert Heeter /  Re: Mitch's unethical response to my Technical Reply Part 1.1
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Mitch's unethical response to my Technical Reply Part 1.1
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 1994 05:45:13 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

Here we go again...

Mitch writes...
> From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
> Subject: Robert Heeter corrected by himself -- was (Technical Reply to
Mitch Part 1.1)
> Message-ID: <CyI6EC.K6w@world.std.com>

>      Unfortunately, like the previous nonsense
> Rob Heeter accompanies this post by virtually no references except
> for his previous quote or paraphrase which does not support his
position.

As the post clearly stated, I'm preparing a list of references which
will come out in Section 2.1.  Any further complaints you give regarding
a lack of references are just so much sophistry on your part.
 
>    Finally, Mr. Heeter actually posts quotes which show he is WRONG. 
> Here is what he wrote.

(I'll delete the parts where Mitch continues to repeat himself.)

[ from Section 1.1 of my reply: ]    
> =  "In this section I detail some of the earlier discussions
> =  of tritium, radioactivity, and other safety and environmental
> =  aspects of fusion energy, and then summarize the claims I've
> =  made recently.
> =  * 1.1  History of discussions of tritium
> =  Mitch has claimed that I haven't studied tritium and
> =  don't have references on tritium safety and management.
> =  However, all the way back in May, I posted an article
> =  which discussed tritium and included references on 
> =  tritium safety issues.  
> =  Furthermore, as I've pointed out, a number of references
> =  in the bibliography discuss tritium and other environmental
> =  issues.
> =  I've reproduced the relevant sections of both items
> =  below.
> =  I have additional references on this topic which I have
> =  not yet included in the bibliography; a more complete
> =  set of references will be given in Section 2.1."
> 
>     Robert Heeter's use of the word "I"              7
>     Number of references cited by Heeter             0
> 
> .   So far, rather then supply references, Mr. Heeter quotes himself
again.

Mitch again demonstrates his inability to read.  The very last sentence
of the passage he cites clearly states that references will be given
later.  It seems Mitch is complaining that I didn't serve the dessert
before the salad.  So what?

[ now citing the excerpt from my paper posted back in May. 
I'll spare the waste of bandwidth and leave only the references. ] 

> =  [28] This is a general conclusion of all reactor-design studies 
> =  I've looked at, including those cited above.
> =  [29] Conn, et. al, "Economic, Safety, ...", op. cit., Table 2.
> =  [30] This is so you can remove it from the breeding blanket and 
> =  re-inject it into the reactor.
> =  [31] Holdren, John, "Safety and Environmental Aspects of Fusion 
> =  Energy," in _Annual Reviews of Energy and the Environment_, 
> =  Vol. 16, 1991, pp. 235-258.  (Tritium is summarized on pp. 239-242)
> =  [32] Tritium issues were among the first studied when serious 
> =  fusion reactor-design studies began in the 1970s; this conclusion 
> =  has improved as tritium knowledge has grown and designs have 
> =  improved.
> =  [33] Carruthers, R., et al, Culham Study Group Report on Fusion 
> =  Reactors and the Environment, CLM-R148, June 1975, as cited in 
> =  R. Hancox, "Fusion Reactors and the Environment," text of a 
> =  presentation given at the symposium on Energy and the Environment 
> =  organized by the Royal Society (UK) of Chemistry at 
> =  Bodington Hall, University of Leeds, 3-5 April 1990.  (This 
> =  document was provided to me by Rush Holt at PPPL.)
> 
>   O.K.  There are "six" references, but three are Mr. Heeter's
> comments.     Only three of them there are left.   One is the text of a
> presentation given at a symposium.  

No, it's a reference to a technical paper, *as cited in a 
written presentation.*  A somewhat different creature.

Given that Mitch was claiming I hadn't looked at tritium at all, the
fact that there are three references on tritium in a paper I wrote
over 5 months ago is rather telling.  Especially because I didn't
cite everything I read in writing the paper.

Note that he no longer claims that I haven't studied the issue.

So what does Mitch have to say about this?
>     First,  the only apparent relevant reference by Heeter
> is by Holdren.   But note, it is  referred to again by Mr. Heeter
> as "???" as discussed in his section "C".
> Astonishingly, Mr. Heeter's quote appears to confirm
> his lack of serious scholarship as cited in
      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> his own Section "C" of the same draft term-paper
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> wherein his [sic] writes:
> 
> =  *** C. Fusion Research Review Articles & Texts
> =  "* Holdren, John P., "Safety and Environmental Aspects of Fusion 
> =  Energy," _Annual Reviews of Energy and the Environment_, 1991, 
> =  pp. 235-58.        
> =      Probably what it sounds like.  Holdren is a fusion proponent 
> =  does reactor design studies, among other things. ???"
>       [after Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
>       Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University]
> 
>           "Probably what it sounds like"  !!
>                "???"   !!     Are these a joke?
> Is this what someone who actually reads a reference writes about in
> regard to his/her quoted source?   No.  Probably not.
>    The question marks "???" above clearly indicate that Mr. Heeter
> has done the least possible amount of reading on such safety and
> tritium issues for his fusion FAQ. 

Mitch, this is flat-out intellectual dishonesty on your part.
As my original post clearly stated, the above reference from
"Section C" was from the FAQ BIBLIOGRAPHY, *not* the Draft Paper.
Your attempt to smear me by claiming that I didn't read the
source before citing it in the paper is just so much hot air.
I'll be charitable and not accuse you of intentionally lying.
This would have been clear to you had you bothered to cite
a couple more lines from the original post.

I'll have to cite my own article since you're not capable of 
doing it properly yourself.

AS MY POST CLEARLY STATED:

In article <1994Oct29.164508.22411@Princeton.EDU> Robert F. Heeter,
rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu writes:
> Items listed in the most recently posted version of the bibliography
                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^  
> which discuss tritium safety and handling issues for fusion:
[...]
> Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
> Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
> Subject: Section 11 - Bibliography - Conventional Fusion FAQ
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Date: Mon, 15 Aug 1994 00:49:41 GMT
> 
> [ ... ]
> 
> *** C. Fusion Research Review Articles & Texts
[...] 
> * Holdren, John P., "Safety and Environmental Aspects of Fusion 
> Energy," _Annual Reviews of Energy and the Environment_, 1991, 
> pp. 235-58.
> 
> 	??? Probably what it sounds like.  Holdren is a fusion proponent 
> 	and does reactor design studies, among other things. ???
> 
> 	Level - familiarity with fusion terminology necessary?
> 	[Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu] 

Let me explain this to you, Mitch:  I wrote the entry on this article
in *March* of 1994, before I wrote the "Draft of Paper" which was
posted in May.  At the time I wrote the entry, I hadn't read the
article.  I then read the article, and used it in my paper.  But I
didn't update the FAQ Bibliography entry.

Had you bothered to read the Section 1.1 post, you would have noted
that the "Section C." entries are out of the FAQ bibliography,
since that's clearly stated *both* in the Section 1.1 post itself,
and in the citation I gave in that post *from the bibliography*.

Your attempt to claim that my very own paper included a citation
stating that I hadn't read the article I was citing is ludicrous.
This just eliminated any thought I might have had that you 
were participating honestly in this discussion.  You lied, 
Mitch, right there, in public.  Intentionally or not, when 
what I wrote was right under your nose, you lied about what 
I said.  That is far worse than any fantasy you can concoct 
about possible ways I was negligent in my scholarship.
Give it up, Mitch.  

For completeness, let me just cite the entry from the March
22 revision of the Bibliography.  The observant reader 
(unlike Mitch) will note that the entry is identical to the
one cited above, indicating that I didn't change the
original entry.  Keep in mind that the entire month of
April separates this bibliography entry (when I hadn't
read the article in question) from its citation in my
"Draft of Paper for Discussion" post (when I had read it).

:: 9. Conventional Fusion Reading List - fourth draft
:: 
:: Edited by Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@lyman.pppl.gov
:: 
:: Last Revised Tuesday, March 22, 1994
[...]
:: *** C. Fusion Research Review Articles & Texts
[...]
:: * Holdren, John P., "Safety and Environmental Aspects of Fusion 
:: Energy," _Annual Reviews of Energy and the Environment_, 1991, 
:: pp. 235-58.
:: 
:: 	??? Probably what it sounds like.  Holdren is a fusion proponent 
:: 	and does reactor design studies, among other things. ???
:: 
:: 	Level - familiarity with fusion terminology necessary?
:: 	[Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu]

Mitch continues...
> This may be a disgrace to the present day level of expected
> graduate effort, at least far from Plasma Physics, Princeton University.

On the contrary, your smear effort disgraces only yourself.
 
>    Now for the more important part.  Second, even his own paraphrases
> and comments cited above by Mr. Heeter simply do not support
> Mr. Heeter's unsubstantiated claim.
>     Let's see what was written, to wit:
> 
> =heeter   "Tritium is relatively more hazardous than the activated
> =heeter        structural materials"
>          [Rethinking Fusion via Industrial Ecology
>          Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
>       Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University]
> 
>    This is from Heeter's post of his term paper, which he audaciously
cites as
> evidence to support his "claim"      But look closely at that quote he
uses. 
> It says "Tritium is relatively more hazardous than the activated
structural materials"
> which are presumably activated by the neutrons and possibly other
reactions.
> Now is that "relatively benign"  or "relatively more hazardous".
>       The latter of course.    

Yes, let's look closely at the quote I used.

You're comparing apples and oranges, Mitch.  "Tritium is a relatively
benign radioactive element" is still true.  The statement that 
"tritium is relatively more hazardous than activated structural
materials" was written in a different context.  The statement from
the paper that tritium is relatively more hazardous is also true,
because tritium is more easily released from the fusion reactor;
it's volatile, whereas the structural materials can't go anywhere.
The statement in the FAQ that "tritium is a relatively benign
radioactive element" is true *in its context*.  Why?  Because,
given a certain emission of radioactivity into the environment, 
it is generally nicer to life to do so in the form of tritium 
(i.e., tritium is "relatively benign"), than to do put equal
activities of other radionuclides into the environment.
I'll explain this in more detail, with references, in Section 2.2
of my reply, which will be ready soon.

But for now, let me put it like this:  Suppose you have
a collection of cobras in a cage, and there's a rattlesnake
loose on the floor.  The rattlesnake loose on your floor is 
"relatively more hazardous" than the cobras in the cage,
because it's more likely to get to where you are and bite you.

On the other hand, the rattlesnake is still "relatively benign"
compared (in a different context) to the cobras, because in 
a situation where you have a choice between letting loose
equal numbers of cobras and rattlesnakes, you'd choose 
to be exposed to the rattlesnakes.  Why?  They're "lower
toxicity"! :)

When one takes context into account, there's no inconsistency 
in claiming that "tritium is a relatively benign radioactive 
element," and also stating that "tritium [in a fusion reactor] 
is relatively more hazardous than the activated structural materials."
It just depends what situation you're considering when you make
the statement.

Taking some quote out of context, and pretending it contradicts
some other quote taken out of context, is nearly as pathetic
as claiming that a part of the bibliography posted in August
was really part of a paper posted in May.  Give it up, Mitch.
 
> And therefore, astonishingly, his very own references also support the 
> conclusion that Mr. Heeter was wrong about this matter.

No, but your continued attempts to smear me by misrepresenting
what I've said are telling about your own ethics of "scholarship."
 
>     [BTW: Did you finish 'mulling' the paper, Robert?  

Research is never finished.  I'm still working on the ideas.
Writing the FAQ and preparing the Science Museum exhibit
are taking up more of my time lately, though.

>       What was your grade?  (post the class
>          average, too, with your reply OK?)]

Given your ethics in dealing with the information I *have*
given you, I see no real reason to answer this.
 
***************************
Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University
As always, but especially in this case,
I represent only myself, and not PPPL
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Tue Nov  1 04:37:04 EST 1994
------------------------------
1994.10.31 / Robert Heeter /  Technical Reply to Mitch, Part 2.1
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Technical Reply to Mitch, Part 2.1
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 1994 05:46:45 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

We now move on to Section 2 of my reply to Mitch.

In section 1, it was explained that despite Mitch's 
allegations, research on tritium issues in fusion reactors
was in fact conducted before the FAQ section was written.  
Also outlined were the set of claims made in the FAQ and 
elsewhere which will be defended below.

Here in Section 2.1 is a listing of some of
the references which were consulted before the writing 
of the section of the FAQ which we have been debating.
Since most of these are secondary literature from
within the fusion community, also listed, where
possible, are the relevant citations these articles
provide, so the interested person can gauge whether
these references have adequate support.

There is a general consensus among the references on
most issues, and sufficient detail is present for
the purposes of defending the FAQ, so not all
available references on this subject will be listed. 

Sections 2.2 and 2.3, which will follow in a
separate post, will cite chapter and verse from
the various references on each point made in the FAQ,
so that Mitch, and anyone else, can see that the FAQ
wasn't full of stuff that was just make up on the spot.

**********************************************************
*** Some Tritium / Environmental References on Fusion  ***
***            (Alphabetical by Author)                ***
**********************************************************

*** Conn, R.W. et al, "Economic, Safety, and Environmental
     Prospects of Fusion Reactors," in _Nuclear Fusion_,
     vol. 30, No. 9 (1990), pp. 1919-1934.
* Tritium/Safety discussion: pp. 1928-1931.
* Use in this source of "Low Toxicity" as suggested by Mitch? - No
(Some of the) Relevant citations in this article:
     * Morley, F, and Kennedy, J.W., in _Nuclear Fusion Reactor_,
          (Proc. Conf. Culham Laboratory, Abingdon, 1969),
          British Nuclear Energy Society, London (1970) 54;
     * Fraas, A.P., and Postma, H., Preliminary Appraisal of
          the Hazards Problems of a D-T Fusion Reactor Power
          Plant, Rep. ORNL-TM-2822, Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
     * Watson, J.S., and Wiffen, F.W. (Eds), _Radiation Effects
          and Tritium Technology for Fusion Reactors (Proc. Int.
          Conf. Gatlinburg. 1975), Rep. CONF-750989 (4 Vols),
          United States Energy Research and Development
          Administration, Washington, DC (1976)
     * Powell, J.R., Miles, F.T., Aronson, A., and Winsche, W.E.,
          "Studies of Fusion Reactor Blankets with Minimum
           Radioactivity Inventory and with Tritium Breeding
           in Solid Lithium Compounds," Rep. BNL-18236,
           Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, NY (1973). 


*** Gross, R. A. _Fusion energy._  John Wiley and Sons. 1984.
* Tritium and Tritium Safety Discussion:  pp. 154-162.
* Use in this source of "Low Toxicity" as suggested by Mitch? - No

The tritium section cites:
     * NRC Title 10 CFR part 20, appendix B, Tables 1 and 2 (1982)
     * Jacobs, D.G., _Sources of Tritium and Its Behavior upon
            Release to the Environment_, US Atomic Energy
            Commission Critical Review Series, 1968, TID-24635
     * Vogelsang, W.F., "Breeding Ratio, Inventory, and Doubling
            Time in a D-T Fusion Reactor," _Nucl. Tech._ vol 15,
            470 (1972)
     * Abdou, M.A., and Conn, R.W., "A Comparative Study of 
            Several Fusion Reactor Blanket Studies," _Nucl.
            Sci. Eng._, vol. 55, 256 (1974).
     * Anderson, J.L., "Tritium Handling Requirements and
            Development for Fusion," _Proc IEEE_, v. 69,
            1069 (1981).


*** Hancox, R., "Fusion Reactors and the Environment," 
     written presentation to the Royal Society of Chemistry,
     symposium on Energy and the Environment, April 1990.
     17 pages.  Text available from Robert Heeter by request.
* Tritium/Safety Discussion: pp. 6-8.
* Use in this source of "Low Toxicity" as suggested by Mitch? - No
* Note: source does use term "toxicity" (Sv/yr) as a technical 
     term, but not with any distinction of "high" vs "low" 
     toxicity isotopes.  (Could it be that this is a British 
     term not in general use here in the states?  Or is it
     just that the term isn't used much in fusion discussion?)  

Relevant Citations:
     * Carruthers, R., et al, Culham Study Group report on
          fusion reactors and the environment, CLM-R148, June 1975.
     * Hancox, R., and Redpath, W., Fusion Reactors - Safety
          and Environmental Impact, CLM-P750, May 1985.
     * Holdren, et al., ESECOM report (described below).
     * . Environmental Impact and Economoc Prospects of Nuclear
          Fusion, EURFU BRU/XII-828/86, November 1986.
     * Pease, R.S., et al, Environmental, Safety-related, and
          economic potential of fusion power, PEC-ED/050, Dec. 1989.


*** Holdren, et al, _Report of the Senior Committee on 
     Environmental, Safety, and Economic Aspects of 
     Magnetic Fusion Energy_, (ESECOM) September 25, 1989.  
     345 pages.  Available from LLNL as UCRL-53766.
* Tritium and Tritium Safety Discussions:  pp. 4-5, 52, 64, 74, 76,
79-82, 172-173, 183-184, 224-227, 231-235, 246, plus additional
discussion on relevant issues.
* Use in this source of "Low Toxicity" as suggested by Mitch? - No

Relevant Citations:  Available upon request (there are many).


*** Holdren, John P., "Safety and Environmental Aspects of Fusion 
     Energy," _Annual Reviews of Energy and the Environment_, 
     1991, pp. 235-58.
* Tritium and Tritium Safety Discussion:  pp. 239-242, 251.
* Use in this source of "Low Toxicity" as suggested by Mitch? - No

Relevant Citations:  Available upon request (there are about 30).


*** Loffler, Horst.  "Accident Analysis and Safety of Future
     Fusion Devices," in _Fusion Engineering and Design_,
     vol. 22, (1993) pp. 57-65.
* Tritium and Tritium Safety Discussion: pp. 58-60
* Use in this source of "Low Toxicity" as suggested by Mitch? - No

Relevant Citations:
     * Raeder, J., and Piet, S., et al, ITER Safety, ITER
          Documentation Series No. 36 IAEA, Wien (1991).
     * Gulden, W., "Tritium Inventories Used for NET Safety
          Analysis," _17th Symposium on Fusion Technology_,
          Roma, Italy, 1992 (Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1993) pp 1724.
     * R.S. Pease, J. Darvas, et. al., _Environmental, Safety
          Related and Economic Potential of Fusion Power, Main
          Report by the EEF Study Group_, Progressive
          Engineering Consultants, Warrington, UK (1989).
     * Raeder, J., Piet, S.J., et al, "Safety Analysis and
          Radioactivity Confinement for ITER," _Fusion
          Engineering and Design_, v. 16 (1991) p. 35-43.


One will note that the description of tritium as
being of "low toxicity" is not common in the fusion
literature.  Indeed, none of the references above used
this term, though Hancox did use "toxicity" in a meaningful
way.  While this may be a standard term in more
basic studies of health effects of radiation, it is
not commonly used in the contemporary fusion safety
analysis literature.  Since an unfamiliar term with
a well-defined meaning is less meaningful to the reader
than a clearly-nontechnical phrase, it is still
maintained that the statement "tritium is a relatively 
benign radioactive element, because: ...", with 
explanation, as used in the FAQ, provides a more meaningful 
summary (*to the average reader*) of tritium's properties 
than "tritium is of low toxicity."  Use of technical
jargon where the meaning is unclear to the reader is
worse than useless; it's confusing.

In Sections 2.2 and 2.3 I will provide evidence from
these (and some other) references to justify the
statements made in the FAQ regarding tritium.


***************************
Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University
As always, I represent only myself, and not PPPL
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.31 / Cliff Frost /  Re: Give it up, Mitch...
     
Originally-From: cliff@ack.berkeley.edu (Cliff Frost)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Give it up, Mitch...
Date: 31 Oct 1994 16:28:14 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley

>Despite the fact that I very clearly pointed out to you, twice
>before now, and a third time above, that the sense of benign 
>I was using is *not* the "manifesting kindness and gentleness" 
>sense, but rather the "gentle disposition" or "mild character"
>sense, you insist on using "manifesting kindness and gentleness"
>in your arguments.  Why is that?  Everyone on this group, you
>included, knows that the statement "tritium is a relatively benign
>radioactive element" does *not* mean "tritium is relatively
>manifesting kindness and gentleness."  To think that that is
>what I said requires an incredible amount of intellectual
>dishonesty.

Now, now, no need to impute such impure motives.  My favorite alternate
theory is that English is not Mitch's first language.  Most of his writing
in posts here seem (to me) to support that hypothesis.

This is the second time (that I recall) that Mitch has quoted from his
beloved dictionary and apparently misunderstood the quote.  The first
time was when he accused Steven Jones of attempting censorship.

This is also the second time (that I recall) that Mitch has attacked
someone based on an incredible misreading of very clear English.  The
other time was when he claimed Steven Jones was accusing Prof Ikegami
of being a con man.

But Mitchell has never answered the following question, put to him directly on
19 July 1994 (in Message-ID: <30grsc$cck@agate.berkeley.edu>):

	Mitchell, are you a native speaker of English?                                 
My tentative conclusion is that he is not, but that he doesn't let that
stop him from virulent personal attacks on people when *he* misunderstands
their use of language.

If I'm wrong, then the only other conclusions I can think of at the moment
are that you (Robert Heeter) are correct above and that Mitch is having
a lot of fun practicing absurdity (remember the Larry Wall discussion ;-).

In any event, this little theater of the absurd (sci.physics.fustion) is one
of the most amusing diversions I know.

	Thanks,
		Cliff Frost
		UC Berkeley
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudencliff cudfnCliff cudlnFrost cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.31 /  bill /  Re: tornadoes
     
Originally-From: lodi@dino.qci.bioch.bcm.tmc.edu (bill)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.geo.meteorology,sci.physics.astro
Subject: Re: tornadoes
Date: 31 Oct 1994 19:58:20 GMT
Organization: X-Ray Crystallography / H.H.M.I.

 In article <391vvu$akm@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> redingtn@athena.mit.e
u (Norman H Redington) writes:
 >Collisions with powerlines may cause some luminous tornadoes,
 >but I think if you search nineteenth century literature
 >or the Corliss anomaly handbooks you will find reports of
 >such phenomena going way back. I could be wrong about this,
 >since I'm relying on memory here, but I'm pretty sure.
 >
 >Norman

    When I was in high school in OKC a teacher who was a friend had a 
very strong tornado go through her neighborhood after dark.  This tornado
destroyed a number of single story brick exterior houses.  She described
a greenish light in the house along with the freight train going through
noise.  She made particular mention of it after we asked about the old
story of a TV glowing if it was set to channel 2 in a tornado.   Her house
was a near miss,  and I still don't know about channel 2 since she didn't
have it on,  and was not in doubt about the tornado. ;)

B.
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenlodi cudlnbill cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.31 / A Franquemont-G /  Re: DO YOU WANT YOU TO GET alt.inventors VOTE YES HERE TO GET IT!
     
Originally-From: abbyfg@ebec.com (Abby Franquemont-Guillory)
Newsgroups: alt.config,sci.misc,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: DO YOU WANT YOU TO GET alt.inventors VOTE YES HERE TO GET IT!
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 1994 15:21:17 -0600
Organization: I'm not organized, I just play that on the 'net...

In article <38uq1i$59l@ag.oro.net>, smj@smudge.oro.net (Scott Jennings) 
writes:
> From: smj@smudge.oro.net (Scott Jennings) 
> Newsgroups: alt.config,sci.physics.fusion,sci.misc 
> Subject: Re: DO YOU WANT YOU TO GET alt.inventors VOTE YES HERE TO GET 
> IT! 
> Date: 30 Oct 1994 00:40:18 GMT 
> Organization: "OroNet, Penn Valley, CA" 
>  
> siproj (siproj@ripco.com) wrote: 
> : Well if you want alt.inventors and the FAQ's that are only : posted in 
> alt.inventors.  A Dr. Gonzo of Canada rmgroup'd : alt.inventors much 
> to the dismay of several people and 
> : somebody should help with getting back on track! 
>  
> Why not alt.sci.inventors? 
>  

That gets my vote. I think it's a worthwhile newsgroup, I'm glad to see it 
considered and discussed, and I feel it belongs under alt.sci.* rather than 
just under alt.*



********ObDisclaimer:  My opinions, not my employer's.********
I'm certainly not speaking for anyone but myself at this time.




cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenabbyfg cudfnAbby cudlnFranquemont-Guillory cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.01 / Marc Foster /  Re: tornadoes
     
Originally-From: mfoster@alliant.backbone.uoknor.edu (Marc Foster)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.geo.meteorology,sci.physics.astro
Subject: Re: tornadoes
Date: 1 Nov 1994 04:29:42 GMT
Organization: University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK

In article <393i8s$9ut@gazette.bcm.tmc.edu>,
bill <lodi@dino.qci.bioch.bcm.tmc.edu> wrote:

>    When I was in high school in OKC a teacher who was a friend had a 
>very strong tornado go through her neighborhood after dark.  This tornado
>destroyed a number of single story brick exterior houses.  She described
>a greenish light in the house along with the freight train going through
>noise.  She made particular mention of it after we asked about the old
>story of a TV glowing if it was set to channel 2 in a tornado.   Her house
>was a near miss,  and I still don't know about channel 2 since she didn't
>have it on,  and was not in doubt about the tornado. ;)

You might get some glowing from charge particles driven by the tornado.
There are accounts of similar occurrances with the Labor Day Hurricane
in the Florida Keys.  The winds were driving the sand and creating a 
static charge.  I'm certainly not well read on the subject, but it could
be a possibility.  It's still got nothing to do with plasma manifestations,
however.

As for turning to Ch 2... it only works if you're in a mobile home.

Marc - trailers in Oklahoma... a true example of natural selection 
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenmfoster cudfnMarc cudlnFoster cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.01 / mitchell swartz /  Sax corrects Robert Heeter (was 'Give it up, Mitch)
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Sax corrects Robert Heeter (was 'Give it up, Mitch)
Subject: Give it up, Mitch...
Date: Tue, 1 Nov 1994 12:32:06 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

    In Message-ID: <38s0bd$74t@lyman.pppl.gov>
Subject: Give it up, Mitch...
(Robert F. Heeter (rfheeter@pppl.gov ) writes:

  >=heeter "I've got to study for a midterm, so I can't write a detailed
  >=heeter reply just this minute. I assure you I did do my "homework"
  >=heeter and research tritium and the relative radiation hazards of 
  >=heeter fusion vs. fission and fossil fuels before writing the FAQ 
  >=heeter section on it.  I didn't make any claims I wasn't prepared
  >=heeter to defend technically, but I felt that since I was writing for
  >=heeter a general audience it would have been overkill to write a
  >=heeter really long, technically-involved section on tritium."
       >    Robert Heeter's use of the word "I"              8
       >    Number of references cited by Heeter             0
=heeter "Huh?"

   Rob, this refers to the fact that you used the word "I" more than you
actually referenced data or sources.   That's all.
    Watch how it is done with your next paragraph.


=heeter As I said, I'm preparing a detailed response.  This takes time. ...
=heeter As for whether I wrote "incorrect material" - who do you think
=heeter you're kidding?  All you've disagreed with is a word choice,
=heeter not anything with technical content.
      >He based it upon nothing referenced with specificity.
=heeter It's common practice in writing for a general audience, as
=heeter opposed to an audience experienced in the field, not to 
=heeter include specific references.  As I said, I have the references
=heeter available, and I'll be giving you a full technical treatment
=heeter as soon as I finish countering your non-technical attacks.

 Robert Heeter's use of the word "I"              7
 Number of references cited by Heeter             0
  See.  It just adds up the two categories.      

       
       >When asked, he has been unable to cite, despite weeks, a single
       >citation.   His putative midterms obviously don't involve tritium,
       >or safety, or issues of heath physics, biophysics, or
       >radiation medicine.   Too bad.
=heeter Bzzt!  Wrong.  Let me quote...
=heeter      Midterm Exam
=heeter      AST 555: Experimental Plasma Physics
=heeter      October 27, 1994
=heeter      2) Tritium Inventory
=heeter       * What is a typical tritium inventory goal for
=heeter      	a DT fusion power reactor?  Why?
=heeter       * Estimate the fraction of tritium burned up in
=heeter      	a single pass through an ignited DT fusion plasma.
=heeter       * Estimate the injection rate of tritium required
=heeter      	for a 1 GWe fusion power reactor.
=heeter       * In order to meet the tritium inventory goal, what
=heeter      	can the residence time be for tritium in the
=heeter      	system which cleans up the gas effluent from
=heeter      	the plasma?  What can the tritium residence time
=heeter      	be in the breeding blanket?
=heeter Answer that in 20 minutes (which is all the time I had) 
=heeter and we can talk.  But don't tell me my "midterms obviously 
=heeter don't involve tritium, or safety..."

   Au contraire.  Where in the above is there a single direct
probing question or questions about
radiation safety, or issues of heath physics, biophysics, 
or radiation medicine?    As was said, " Too bad".   
If no students have actually learned, can one presume that
the teachers may have not taught?

 
=heeter And if you had bothered to read the comprehensive bibliography
=heeter for the FAQ, which I have posted monthly for several months
=heeter now, you'd see that there are a number of references detailing
=heeter environmental and safety aspects of fusion reactors.
=heeter I'll spare you the agony of reading these references now, since
=heeter they're coming up in my technical reply shortly.

  Rob, your own comments contradict you. 

=heeter   "Tritium is relatively more hazardous than the activated 
=heeter          structural materials"
         [Rethinking Fusion via Industrial Ecology
         Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
      Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University]

Now is that "relatively benign"  or "relatively more hazardous".
      The latter of course.    


   >  =heeter "Tritium is a relatively benign radioactive element  ...."
=heeter Note that this is clearly *not* the same thing as saying
=heeter tritium is "relatively benign."  Use of "relatively" clearly
=heeter requires some *comparison* between two things; leaving out
=heeter one of the two terms is sophistry at best.  Tritium is a
=heeter relatively benign radioactive element, much as a benign *tumor*
=heeter is benign only when compared to a malignant tumor.

    'Relatively benign' is not 'low toxicity', is it?
A benign tumor, which could be nothing more than a hematoma
from a swift kick in the shins or a fall, is more relatively benign
than a benign neoplastic tumor (like an adenoma).
   In fact some malignant tumors (low grade low stage fibrosarcoma) might
be more 'benign' than a high grade osteogenic sarcoma or 
liposarcoma which might be in another leg.  
  Furthermore compare that hyothetical hematoma to a
a locally advanced (pathologically benign appearing)  giant condyloma of
 Buschke-Lowenstein.   The later does not know, nor act like, it is benign.
In addition, if the hematoma degenerates (incredibly
infrequently) to a malignant hemangiosarcoma was it benign to begin with?
There is benign and 'benign', and neither refers in this case.


=heeter As I've pointed out many times, without any complaint from
=heeter anyone, the statement "tritium is a relatively benign
=heeter radioactive element" is consistent with either definition
=heeter (1) or (2) from your beloved dictionary.  Relative to other
=heeter radioactive elements - which we all know are a nasty lot - 
=heeter tritium has relatively gentle and mild characteristics.

  This is not exactly true and has already been addressed.
Also it  creates this new classification system:

   =Robert Heeter's Putative Classification of Radioisotopes =
Relatively benign,relatively gentle            Nasty lot
     mild characteristics
     ---------------------------------------------------------------
   Tritium                                 others radioactive elements
   ----------------------------------------------------------------

  As you were informed with the reference which you dislike but are 
unable to supplement, complement, refute with specificity or replace,
there are categories used to describe the toxicity of radioisotopes.
Tritium is in the group of low toxicity.   Some would put it in
a higher group (see below, Sax).
It does NOT belong on corn flakes where "relatively benign" 
(hopefully nutritious
but who knows anymore) materials belong.

      == TOXICITIES OF A FEW  RADIOACTIVE ISOTOPES ===
               (adapted from "Health Physics - 
Principles of Radiation Protection", D.J. Rees, MIT Press  1967)
     -----------------------------------------------------------------
low             moderate                 high                  very high 
3H                 32P                   131I                    90Sr 
7Be               42K                  natural uranium           226Ra 
18F               60Co                 natural thorium           233U 


=heeter Despite the fact that I very clearly pointed out to you, twice
=heeter before now, and a third time above, that the sense of benign 
=heeter I was using is *not* the "manifesting kindness and gentleness" 
=heeter sense, but rather the "gentle disposition" or "mild character"
=heeter sense, you insist on using "manifesting kindness and gentleness"
=heeter in your arguments.  Why is that?  Everyone on this group, you
=heeter included, knows that the statement "tritium is a relatively benign
=heeter radioactive element" does *not* mean "tritium is relatively
=heeter manifesting kindness and gentleness."  To think that that is
=heeter what I said requires an incredible amount of intellectual
=heeter dishonesty.

    Robert Heeter's use of the word "I"              3
    Number of references cited by Heeter             0

    Actually, it was not stated here that "tritium is a
relatively benign radioactive element" does or does *not* mean
"tritium is relatively manifesting kindness and gentleness." 
   You happened to have said both, and may have said them
together.  

   Heeter Comment 1:
  >=heeter  "Tritium is a relatively benign radioactive element"

   Heeter Comment 2:
  >=heeter  "Again, I claim that relative to other radioactive nuclides, 
  >=heeter tritium has a relatively mild character and gentle disposition,
  >=heeter  and therefore could be described as "relatively benign."

   OK?


   >   However, first, radiation is discussed in terms of half-lives,
   >quality of radiation, dose delivered, depth-dose and
   >scattering characteristics, secondary particles
   >and radiation, acute and chronic effects upon materials and living
   >  systems, etc.
=heeter Radiation can be discussed in many contexts.So can just about
=heeter any other term in any language on earth. What's your point?

   The point is that you do/have not.
   For example, with tritium the biological half life is shorter
(12 days) than the radiological half-life (12 years). 
That is quite fortunate, but it does not make
the material benign, because the 'wash-out' requires no further
input.


     >Third, on the gripping hand, irresponsible use of, faulty
     >teaching standards regarding, or inadequate compliance with normal
     > standard procedure involving, these materials can produce negative
     > effects which could have been avoided.
=heeterSo you read _The Gripping Hand_, by Niven and Pournelle.  But
=heeterthat doesn't make the term standard English. 

   Good book.  


=heeter Mitch, if I told you the sky was blue, would you need a
=heeter     reference?

   It only looks blue.    It may astonish you that the sky,
unlike a chromophore, or titanium-doped alumina, or a dye
like the methylene blue molecule, 
is not blue, but only looks blue 'from the side', because for
the sky, there is a scattering process of incoming light,
thereby linking the red hues of sunset to the "blue" sky cited
 above.     Better keep up your studies.


=heeter  I have many references.  But to write
=heeter up everything takes time.  Apparently don't have the patience 
=heeter to wait for me to share them with you.
  
   If you dont have the patience to examine the data before you
write it up and publish worldwide, then it seems that one of Dale
Bass' tongue-in-cheek 'comments' might apply to you.  
If you can't support it, don't write it,   grasshopper.


    >He was 
    >probed regarding his knowledge of this area, and if he had checked
    >the supplied reference which corrected his erroneous statement.
=heeter You mean you expected me to go and dig up a 27-year old,
=heeter out-of-date text, which probably doesn't even exist around here,
=heeter when I have references on my desk from just a few years ago?  
=heeter And you think I have no knowledge of the area despite the 
=heeter references given in the bibliography?

   Just crack some of those book bindings, grasshopper. 
E.g. N. I. Sax "Handbook of Dangerous Materials" (ibid.) in which
    tritium was listed as
  " A very toxic radioactive isotope of hydrogen ".

  Nothing benign or 'relatively benign' there.  Is there?
Note, too, that compared to an author like Sax ('very toxic') 
the suggested categorization of tritium to 'low toxicity' is much
more beneficial for the future of fusion science and engineering. 

  In summary, just find one reference that says tritium is non-toxic 
and relatively 
benign like you claim, Robert, and post the excerpt and/or location.
.  Many of us just want to read it for ourselves. 

    Best wishes.
             Mitchell Swartz   (mica@world.std.com)

cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.01 / J Interguru /  Inertial Laser Fusion
     
Originally-From: jhd@clark.net (Joseph Davidson - Interguru)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Inertial Laser Fusion
Date: 1 Nov 1994 15:00:01 GMT
Organization: Clark Internet Services, Inc., Ellicott City, MD USA

Does anyone have any idea what is behind the announcement of the $2B 
Inertial Fusion Facility at LANL.  I am strictly an amateur in this area 
but I had the impression that the energy from the laser beam did not 
transfer well to the pellet because the initial edge of the laser pulse 
raised an ablation cloud that then reflected the rest of the pulse.

I will give a list of possible interpetations of the reason behind the 
new facility.  I hope someone here can fill the rest of us in.

1) There has been a physics/engineering breakthrough in Laser Inertial 
Fusion and the coupling has been increased.

2)It is a political ploy with the following possible goals.

-- Keep LANL in business

-- Weapons research at no political cost

-- Shut up the congressional critics who object to the total emphasize on 
tokamacs.

-- Help Senator Fienstein

Any comments will be appreciated. 

--
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Davidson Ph.D.                              
InterGuru -- Internet Training and Consulting
1501 Dublin Drive, Silver Spring, Md. 20902         
voice 301 593 4152 ; fax 301 593 4152 (call first)  
j.davidson@ieee.org                                 |
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------

cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenjhd cudfnJoseph cudlnInterguru cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.01 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Griggs patent?
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs patent?
Date: Tue, 1 Nov 94 10:27:52 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue) writes:
 
     "Scale buildup -  Here Jed has transformed the issue by arguing that the
     Griggs device is easier to flush.  He says, 'That moves the problem to
     the separation tank.'  I rest my case."
 
May it rest in peace, with all your other forlorn hopes and screwball ideas.
Dick, do you have any idea what a separation tank is? No -- of course not --
silly question, you would not have typed that nonsense if you knew. For the
benefit of readers who speak language: a separation tank is a small, cheap
tank which takes in a mixture of boiling water and steam, and puts out steam
from one pipe on the top, and boiling water and condensate from a pipe at the
bottom. Needless to say, that makes it inherently easy to flush out. This tank
is small, cheap, compact, and it has no heater elements in it, so there is
nothing to foul, cake up or burn residue from dirty water. The tank can be
cleaned or replaced far more cheaply than a conventional electric boiler tank.
More to the point -- suppose you wanted to boil polluted or dirty water in a
factory with an ordinary electric boiler. Naturally, you would sometimes have
more water coming through than the capacity of the boiler could handle; it
cannot be regulated perfectly and you would want to flush the thing out for
the same reason you need to flush the GG. So what would you do with the
mixture of boiling water, factory dye, and steam from your conventional
boiler? Ah Ha! Run it through a separation tank.
 
 
     "Certainly there are ways to reduce the size of an electric boiler if
     that is desired."
 
Indeed there are! The best, simplest, cheapest and most effective way that I
know is to replace the conventional electric boiler with a unit from
Hydrodynamics. That also reduces you electric bill enough to pay for the unit
in a few years. It is like getting 20% interest on your money!
 
 
     "With regard to how reliable throttle valves and pressure regulators may
     be, Jed seems to indicate that their being of mechanical design is
     sufficient to insure reliable operation.  My actual operating experience
     (not just imagination) indicates Jed's basic assumption is incorrect."
 
Whereas the customers, who actually own and operate the units, report no
problems. How many of these Hydrodynamic Pumps have you operated Dick? What
"operating experience" are you talking about?
 
 
     "If there has to be some sort of matching between input water flow and
     steam consumption, and high efficiency requires "tuning" this is the
     sort of control problem that simple mechanical regulators don't handle
     very well."
 
There is a match, but it is not difficult to achieve, and it can be held quite
reliably with a simple mechanical regulator. Actual field experience with
satisfied customers proves you are wrong.  Some of the experimental units I
observed were temperamental. On the other hand, the latest unit is very
forgiving and it has three times better throughput than previous models.
 
 
     "If, for example, there is only a simple pressure regulator to control
     the flow of input water what happens when the steam consumption is
     momentarily shut off?"
 
If a simple pressure regulator was not appropriate for a location where steam
is required in bursts, on demand (like a dry cleaner), why on earth would
anyone be so stupid as to install such a regulator? Holding tanks, valves and
other equipment needed to cope with steam-on-demand systems was invented a
hundred years ago. Do you suppose people have undergone mass amnesia and
forgotten how to manufacture and install this equipment? What kind of nonsense
is that? And what does it have to do with the GG? Conventional electric
boilers must cope with this problem too. Why should it be less of a problem
for them?
 
 
     "Water pumps (and the Griggs device) are rather dependent on having the
     shaft seals do their job.  Do shaft seals fail?  Yes, they do fail if
     the shaft is improperly aligned, if the shaft is rusty or roughened, if
     the seal material takes a set as a result of high temperature operation
     or other types of exposure, or if there is excessive vibration."
 
Yes, equipment does have to be maintained and changed out. It has to be
installed properly. The same is true of my automobile oil pump. It had to be
replaced the other day after a mere nine years. Of course, there are various
circulation pumps and seals in any electric, gas or oil fired boiler system
too, and they must be maintained.
 
 
     "Its because it becomes more difficult to get the pieces back together
     without damage to the seals, for example. Having an overhead crane to do
     the lifting is only part of the answer."
 
It is not more difficult than a conventional system; it is less difficult. The
"other part of the answer" is to have a reasonably intelligent mechanic. The
Griggs device is easier to maintain than a conventional boiler.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenjedrothwell cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.01 /  jedrothwell@de /  Y. Arata DS-Cathode cold fusion
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Y. Arata DS-Cathode cold fusion
Date: Tue, 1 Nov 94 10:29:19 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

The "Osaka University Newspaper," a campus newspaper similar to MIT's Tech
Talk, reported interesting cold fusion research on September 20, 1994. This is
a front page article with the headlines:
 
     "100% REPRODUCIBLE COLD FUSION REACTION PROVED
 
     A big step towards practical applications
     3000 hour continuous heat generation verified"
 
I cannot post the entire article, but here is the lead in paragraph:
 
     "Emeritus Prof. Yoshiaki Arata, former head of an engineering
     research institute at this university, announced 100% reproducible
     cold fusion reactions, in a paper presented at a conference in
     Tokyo on September 12. Up until now, scientists have considered
     the existence of cold fusion indefinite because of
     irreproducibility, so this announcement may come as a shock. The
     paper, titled, "New Energy from a Double Structured Cathode
     Employing Palladium Black," reports the following comparison: The
     total potential chemical energy in the experimental cell was
     approximately 4 kilojoules, yet the researchers verified that the
     cell produced 50 to 100 kilojoules per hour in a continuous
     reaction lasting over 3000 hours, adding up to more than 200
     megajoules."
 
50 to 100 KJ/h equals a 14 to 28 watt power level. Here are some other details
from the article. Like many other leading cold fusion scientists in Japan,
Arata is a former top hot fusion scientists. He made one of Japan's first hot
fusion reactors in the late 1950's. He developed a new type of cold fusion
cathode in 1990, he tested a large number of configurations, and he has been
making steady progress. The newspaper article does not have much technical
detail. I faxed the University asking for copies of his 1992 paper and the
1994 paper described in the article. I gather the cathode consists of an
outside palladium sleeve which is evacuated during the manufacturing process
and filled with palladium black, a highly absorbent powder. A powder has a
gigantic surface area, so it readily absorbs hydrogen.
 
Arata is practical, results-oriented engineer. He says he is determined to
follow though and make a practical, larger scale device. More power to him!
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenjedrothwell cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.01 / Cameron Bass /  Re: GG better than heat pump / Wrights
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: GG better than heat pump / Wrights
Date: Tue, 1 Nov 1994 17:51:44 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <941031164155_72240.1256_EHB179-1@CompuServe.COM>,
Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> wrote:
>
>It has already exceeded the efficiency and economy of heat pumps. There has
>been a great deal of confusion about this issue here. 

     Only on your side as you still have not apparently figured 
     out what you plan on using the device to do.

>The Griggs devices has also already exceeded the efficiency of resistance
>electric heaters.

     Not at all, it has roughly the same 'efficiency', modulo your
     experimental errors.

>The Griggs devices is nowhere near as efficient as a gas or oil burner, but as
>I pointed many times, some applications and some sites do not allow open
>flames or chimneys, so there is always a market for electric heating.

      It has occurred to me before that you have no idea what the
      word 'efficient' means in this context.  Here you confirm 
      my suspicion.

>Matt also comments on the Wrights, about whom I know a thing or two:
>
>     "before anybody jumps in with this hoary tale yes the wright brothers
>     did certainly know exactly why airplanes flew."
>
>Matt is wrong, the Wrights did not know exactly. The details were not worked
>out until the 1920s. It is true the Wrights were superb scientists and
>brilliant physicists, and they did know everything of importance that had been
>discovered up until they began their research. T

     Jed, this is ridiculous.  They did not set out to build a 
     toaster and discover an airplane (as your Mr. Griggs apparently did).
     They knew exactly what they were doing, and they had gliders and 
     living, breathing examples that demonstrated that the basic concept
     was feasible.

                                   dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.01 / Jim Carr /  Re: Inertial Laser Fusion
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Inertial Laser Fusion
Date: 1 Nov 1994 12:16:33 -0500
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

In article <395l5h$cel@clarknet.clark.net> 
jhd@clark.net (Joseph Davidson - Interguru) writes:
>
>Does anyone have any idea what is behind the announcement of the $2B 
>Inertial Fusion Facility at LANL.  

 Do I *know* what is behind it?  No, except for the stated reasons, 
 which emphasize the possibilities as an alternative to tokamaks 
 and the utility in 'applications' areas.  

 But, of course, I can speculate -- and note that it is at LLNL, not LANL. 

>1) There has been a physics/engineering breakthrough in Laser Inertial 
>Fusion and the coupling has been increased.

 Could be.  Could even be that the knowledge has existed for a long 
 time but can now be pulled out from behind the curtain dividing the 
 classified and un-classified work on fusion.  Impossible to say unless 
 one happens to have access to that sort of information.  I do not know 
 if this was covered in the press releases on the new facility.  

>2)It is a political ploy with the following possible goals.

 If it is to be funded by Congress it will, like every other appropriation, 
 have a political component that satisfies many different constituencies. 

>-- Keep LANL in business
>
>-- Weapons research at no political cost

 More to the point, it probably offers a good way to shift personnel 
 from weapons design groups (who are otherwise no longer needed, but 
 do possess skills and knowledge with special value that may be needed 
 in the future or on a part-time basis to monitor the state of the 
 weapons in our arsenal or proliferation by others) to an area with 
 potential value that can make use of their skills. 

 If might also offer a way to do experiments that test computer codes 
 and preserve/maintain various technical skills during a time when 
 underground tests will no longer occur.  Remember, the Star Wars 
 program benefitted a lot the other way, when knowledge about big 
 lasers went from fusion to them, just as one suspects those lasers 
 might have been developed even earlier for defense-related reasons. 

>-- Shut up the congressional critics who object to the total emphasize on 
>tokamacs.

 Certainly.  Who knows, it might even work ... 

>-- Help Senator Fienstein

 Perhaps.  The proof would be if the program is cancelled if she loses. 

 More precisely, it helps a state with severe employment shifts as a 
 result of the shrinking defense budget.  One could also argue that the 
 B-factory at SLAC was funded toward this end.  Further, although CEBAF 
 and RHIC were started before the shut down of the defense industry, 
 their procurement programs have helped some on the east coast.  CEBAF 
 in particular has helped (and been helped by, via lower bids than 
 expected for some items) the shipyards in the area. 

-- 
 James A. Carr   <jac@scri.fsu.edu>     |  "A duck with a balloon over  
    http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac        |  its head saying onomatopoeia." 
 Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst.  |          - Gregory Corso 
 Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306    |   
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.01 / Joe Chew /  Re: Inertial Laser Fusion
     
Originally-From: jtchew@netcom.com (Joe Chew)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Inertial Laser Fusion
Date: Tue, 1 Nov 1994 18:34:10 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

In the short term, the National Ignition Facility (at Livermore,
by the way, not Los Alamos) will allow the small-scale study of
low-level physical phenomena in thermonuclear weapons without 
violating this or that moratorium on testing of actual weapons
(and with less interference from the other phenomena that occur
when a sizable H-bomb is let off, I would imagine!).  In the long
term, it will also support more realistically sized R&D on 
targets for inertial fusion.

It also conicides with the next step LLNL would want to take in
big-laser R&D, one of their major strengths.  

Whether lasers will ever be used for electricity-producing IFE
is a highly controversial subject.  Right now their combination
of efficiency and repetition rate looks a lot better for R&D
than for economically competitive power plants.  Breakthroughs
in either area might change the picture during the ~30 years
between now and electricity-producing IFE systems.  Livermore
people have said that solid-state diode-pumped lasers look
promising (NIF will use a flash-pumped glass laser, sort of
like a big Nova, I think).

I don't know much about laser-matter interaction, although 
transferring energy into the target without reflecting too
much off the corona, preheating the inside too much, or
just making hot electrons without a scheme to reconvert
their energy is indeed a problem.  I guess they think they've 
got it licked.  

--Joe
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenjtchew cudfnJoe cudlnChew cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Wed Nov  2 04:37:33 EST 1994
------------------------------
1994.11.02 / Michael Mazur /  Dan Clemmenson your mail server sucks.
     
Originally-From: mjmazur@acs.ucalgary.ca (Michael James Mazur)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Dan Clemmenson your mail server sucks.
Date: Wed, 2 Nov 1994 15:10:26 GMT
Organization: The University of Calgary

I sent this by email but it was returned several times so I'm posting it for you

Hi Dan, I just got your message here and as I'm going away till
the weekend (going to beeeeautiful Hamilton, yup can't get enough
of that steel!) I thought that I'd respond now.
  My setup consists of a simple 100ml spherical flask. On it are
mounted two cylindrical ceramic piezoelectric transducers
opposite to one another. If you can't find a flask you could try
a 'fat albert' light bulb. Somebody suggested it to me, it wasn't
you was it? Anyway, I use a five minute epoxy to glue the
transducers on. You might want to try something more permanent.
  Acoustic power is supplied by a 1000Watt power amp that is
driven by an HP crystal controlled signal generator. The output
from the amp is stepped up by a 100W E-core transformer. You
should be able to get by with an 80W amp ( I think that's what
Gaitan used at one point). I also have an impedance matching coil
between the transformer and the transducers. It makes a big
difference. So that's the basic setup. It SL's between about
19kHz and 40kHz. For stable SL an air bubble is injected from a
micropipette. I haven't tried other gases yet (still trying to
refine what I've got).
  I also have a cylindrical flask that I made out of two
cylindrical transducers and a piece of quartz tube. It works
really well for transient SL up to frequencies of about 70kHz.
I'd suggest building the spherical flask.
  About the burn, It came as my power amp was kicking in and out.
I noticed that when the power was shut off during transient SL
the neck of the flask became briefly very hot. So, being the good
physicist that I am, I went one step further and stuck my finger
inside of the neck. It gets really hot!
  Input power. Haven't really measured it but it must be well
below 100W as I haven't saturated the E-core yet. Better go now.
I might have mail service while I'm away but no guarantees.

See ya,

-mike







-- 

  Mike Mazur                
  mjmazur@acs1.ucalgary.ca  

cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenmjmazur cudfnMichael cudlnMazur cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.03 / Richard Blue /  Getting GG efficiency numbers right
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Getting GG efficiency numbers right
Date: Thu, 3 Nov 1994 02:00:17 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Jed Rothwell says that the Griggs Hydrosonic Pump will pay for
itself in energy savings, but he never uses the right numbers -
not even from his own measurements.

Consider the comparison between resistive electrical heating which
is about as direct as you can get for coupling watts delivered from
the power line to heat in the water and the GG.  In the latter case
the electric power goes to the mechanical power driving a rotating
shaft and stirring water to heat it.  The efficiency that Jed is
fond of quoting involves only the conversion from mechanical input
to the output heat - as I recall he says the efficiency is 120 to 150 %.
However, the first step in the energy conversion chain is certainly
less than 100% efficiency and, as I recall, goes down as the final
steps efficiency rises.  We should note that the product of 0.8 and
1.2 is 0.96.  You can run the GG for a very long time without saving
enough to pay for the initial cost differential with that kind of
efficiency.  Of course there are cheaper ways to heat water than to
use electric heating so I suspect that Jed hasn't really made a
strong case for using the GG as a money saver.

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.03 / Brian Stormont /  Re: DO YOU WANT YOU TO GET alt.inventors VOTE YES HERE TO GET IT!
     
Originally-From: brian@oramail.projo.com (Brian C. Stormont)
Newsgroups: alt.config,sci.misc,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: DO YOU WANT YOU TO GET alt.inventors VOTE YES HERE TO GET IT!
Date: 3 Nov 1994 00:14:02 GMT
Organization: The Providence Journal Company


alt.sci.inventors  does seems to fit into the already established
heirarchy.

Sounds good to me.

-brian

cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenbrian cudfnBrian cudlnStormont cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.03 / Robert Heeter /  Off to the APS Meeting!
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Off to the APS Meeting!
Date: Thu, 3 Nov 1994 01:41:00 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

Hi all (lurkers included!) - 

I'm going to be "gone" from the net for a couple weeks due to the
APS meeting and some other things (like visiting my family
in Minnesota while I'm there for the APS meeting).

I'll be leaving tomorrow so that I can set up the
exhibits at the Science Museum of Minnesota
(which I advertised earlier) on Friday...

Anyway, I thought I'd invite all the
sci.physics.fusion aficionados who will be at
the APS meeting to drop by the Outreach and
Education poster session on Thursday afternoon;
I'll be manning a poster on the FAQ and I thought
it'd be neat to meet people.  :)

--Bob

P.S.  For those not in the know - 
"APS Meeting"  = Annual Meeting of the 
Division of Plasma Physics
of the American Physical Society; to be held in
Minneapolis, Minnesota from Nov. 7-11.

***************************
Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University
As always, I represent only myself, and not PPPL
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.03 / Robert Heeter /  Fusion Energy Exhibit / Public Lecture - Nov. 8 - St. Paul, MN
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.energy,sci.environment,sci.physics
Subject: Fusion Energy Exhibit / Public Lecture - Nov. 8 - St. Paul, MN
Date: Thu, 3 Nov 1994 02:14:13 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

[ The following is a slightly-modified reposting of
an announcement I originally sent out in late September. ]

[ If you don't live near this event, but know people
who do (and would be interested in attending), please
let them know.  We'd like to reach as many people as
possible! :) ]

***************************************************
* November 8 - Fusion Open House - Science Museum *
***************************************************

On behalf of the Science Museum of Minnesota and the 
American Physical Society - Division of Plasma Physics,
I would like to invite any and all people to the
following *public* activities which will be held in 
Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN, in conjunction with the 
Annual Meeting of the APS-DPP this November.

First, from November 5-17, there will be a special 
2500-square-foot exhibit on fusion energy and plasma 
physics research, in the Science and Technology gallery 
(on the third floor) of the Science Museum of Minnesota.  
These exhibits will be coming from all over the United 
States via collaborative work between the Princeton 
Plasma Physics Lab, General Atomics, Lawrence Livermore 
National Laboratory, the U.S. ITER Home Team, 
the University of Texas Institute for Fusion Studies, 
the University of Maryland, and the Massachusetts 
Institute of Technology.

Second, on Tuesday, November 8, from 6-9:00 pm, there will
be a *free* open-to-the-public open house, with a mini
lecture series from 7:00-8:00, where top fusion scientists 
will provide nontechnical and entertaining information 
regarding the science and goals of fusion research.  
Those attending the lecture will also receive free 
admission to the fusion exhibits.

The public lectures will be held in the Science Museum 
Auditorium (located at 10th & Cedar in downtown St. Paul; 
those interested are encouraged to come early (5 or 6 pm) 
to tour the fusion exhibits, and to stay late (til 9 pm)
to ask questions of our speakers.  Plasma/fusion 
researchers (espeically APS-DPP members) are strongly 
*discouraged* from attending the talk, as this will
take seating away from those who don't already know 
about fusion research.  (We'd love to have you visit
the exhibits and give us suggestions and comments,
though!)

--Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@pppl.gov
(Event Co-Organizer and native Minnesotan)


For Further Information, Contact:

Robert F. Heeter and/or Sherrie Preische
rfheeter@pppl.gov / preische@pppl.gov
(We're the fusion open house co-organizers.)
Princeton University Plasma Physics Laboratory 
Forrestal Campus, C-Site
P.O. Box 451
Princeton, NJ 08543
(609)243-2494

- or - 

Karen Laun
Adult Programs Director, Science Museum of Minnesota
612-221-4742

***************************
Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@pppl.gov
As always, I am solely responsible for what I say here.
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.03 / Frank Close /  Removal from list
     
Originally-From: FEC@v2.rl.ac.uk (Frank Close)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Removal from list
Date: Thu, 3 Nov 1994 10:09:07 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I have received an unsolicited email informing me that I have
been removed from list of people who receive the Fusion BBS.
Given that there is essentially no fusion in the newsgroup
nowadays this may help keep my overflowing mailbox freer but
I would like to know if others have received any such general
circular and what the background to it is. Frank Close

cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenFEC cudfnFrank cudlnClose cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.03 / Brian Rauchfuss /  Re: US Patent 5,188,090 ( James L Griggs )
     
Originally-From: brauchfu@fnugget.intel.com (Brian D. Rauchfuss)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: US Patent 5,188,090 ( James L Griggs )
Date: 3 Nov 1994 00:13:46 GMT
Organization: INTEL.FOLSOM

In article <CyCwnz.A4t@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> crb7q@watt.seas.Virgini
.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
:In article <xK5ViT5.jedrothwell@delphi.com>,  <jedrothwell@delphi.com> wrote:
:
:>That is correct. All mechanical energy delivered by the motor will be
:>converted to heat, 
:
:     Not true, as usual.

Dale, you are complaining that Jed has not put any information into his post,
when your rebuttal has even less.  Where will the mechanical energy delivered
by the motor go, except to heat and output water velocity?

:>and almost all of that heat will transfer to the fluid. The
:>only loss is to radiant heat from the housing, pipes, and steel drum walls.
:
:     Not true again, as usual.

What losses are you thinking of?

BDR
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenbrauchfu cudfnBrian cudlnRauchfuss cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.02 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: GG better than heat pump / Wrights
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: GG better than heat pump / Wrights
Date: Wed, 2 Nov 94 23:09:16 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Alan@moonrake.demon.co.uk ("Alan M. Dunsmuir")
 
     "Could we have a reference for [saving money with GG], Jed?"
 
Nope, sorry. I never give out specific business information like customer
names.
 
 
     "Otherwise they remain - with due apologies to Griggs, Mills and
     Myers - just so much hot air."
 
If you think my postings are hot air then I suggest you stop reading them.
You can modify your software to delete or ignore everything I write.
 
 
     "Why haven't you mentioned Arata here? Enjoy getting the applause from
     the cookies on the CompuServe 'Science' Forum, rather than the
     brick-bats here, do you?"
 
I copied the message about Arata verbatim to this forum. You must have missed
it. The e-mail connections to Internet are erratic. I have noticed several
gaps in the past where messages from me and from others have gotten lost. The
Arata message came back to me via the Fusion Digest, so I am sure it made
into Internet, but perhaps it did not reach your server.
 
In any case, there has been no applause and no brick-bats in CompuServe
SCIENCE or here either, and I do not expect any. The so-called "skeptics"
will try their best to pretend Arata does not exist, just as they pretend
E-Quest, Los Alamos and Rockwell don't exist. Enormous progress and
definitive experiments scare the living daylights out of "skeptics" -- this
is their worst Halloween nightmare come true. Even Steve Jones has been
strangely silent. That's a pity, I was looking forward to reading his
nonsense "explanation" for Griggs and E-Quest. Jones is more creative than
Blue, who says it is "cold mist," or Bass who says he knows the answer but
he is going to keep it secret.
 
Speaking of Bass, I see his illusions of grandeur have escalated. First he
thought he knew more about electrochemistry than Fleischmann, then he claimed
he knows more about mechanical engineering than the best consultants in
Georgia, now he says he knows more about the Wrights than Tom Crouch! For
crying out loud. No doubt he thinks *he* should be President of the
Electrochemical Society, Fellow of the Royal Society, Dean of Mechanical
Engineering, and curator of the Smithsonian Air & Space Museum. Why not throw
in a Nobel Prize while we are at it? I have never seen such an inflated ego
in one so stupid. A week ago I suspected he might be a fictition; an
invention or joke put out by the U. Va staff. Now I think he must be real,
because no author would invent such a stupid ass -- it would seem too
unrealistic. The reader would not believe it.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenjedrothwell cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.03 / Brian Rauchfuss /  Re: tornadoes
     
Originally-From: brauchfu@fnugget.intel.com (Brian D. Rauchfuss)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.geo.meteorology,sci.astro
Subject: Re: tornadoes
Date: 3 Nov 1994 00:39:20 GMT
Organization: INTEL.FOLSOM

In article <1994Oct28.231235.8440@midway.uchicago.edu> edward@uhuru.uchi
ago.edu (Edward Lewis) writes:

:electricity in the ground that accompanied a storm.  Even clouds may
:be such a manifestation.  Clouds seem to be plasmoid phenomena.  And
:clouds may convert to ball lightning.  People have seen clouds which
:contained a glowing spot, and in one case it is fairly documented that
:a cloud with a glowing spot produced a tornado.

Since plasmoid's are composed of plasma, and produce a great deal of EMF, 
I think it safe to say that most clouds are not plasmoids.  I can fly
through a cloud, for example, and the radios do not pick up any additional
EMF activity.  Thunderclouds and lightning-producing clouds are a different 
matter, of course.

:kinds of a phenomena that I call plasmoid phenomena.  Galaxies and
:atoms are other types of this kind of phenomena, according to my
:theory.

Galaxies could contain a great deal of plasma, and their evolution is probably
effected by it.  But atoms?  How could an atom be composed of plasma, which
is composed of atoms?

BDR
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenbrauchfu cudfnBrian cudlnRauchfuss cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.02 /  clawsona@yvax. /  Re: tornadoes
     
Originally-From: clawsona@yvax.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.geo.meteorology
Subject: Re: tornadoes
Date: 2 Nov 94 12:04:11 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

There is a case on record where a man was in his living room looking up through
the funnel as it passed over his house (ripped the roof off.)  He reports the
following phen:

1) A luminescent cloud in the center of the funnel several hundred feet off the
ground.

2) An eerie light that illuminated the entire area.

3) A near total lack of sound

4) The ability to see through the funnel to the outside

5) What appeared to be a series of rings stacked upon eachother to comprise the
funnel.  The lowest "ring" would shift, then the one above, and so on, creating
a ripple effect.

6) No noticible difficulty in breathing.

This report was reprinted in a book on weather that I have, but did not bring
with me to school.

cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenclawsona cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.03 / Cameron Bass /  Re: US Patent 5,188,090 ( James L Griggs )
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: US Patent 5,188,090 ( James L Griggs )
Date: Thu, 3 Nov 1994 12:43:05 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <3999vq$19l@ornews.intel.com>,
Brian D. Rauchfuss <brauchfu@fnugget.intel.com> wrote:
>In article <CyCwnz.A4t@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> crb7q@watt.seas.Virgin
a.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>:In article <xK5ViT5.jedrothwell@delphi.com>,  <jedrothwell@delphi.com> wrote:
>:
>:>That is correct. All mechanical energy delivered by the motor will be
>:>converted to heat, 
>:
>:     Not true, as usual.
>
>Dale, you are complaining that Jed has not put any information into his post,
>when your rebuttal has even less.  Where will the mechanical energy delivered
>by the motor go, except to heat and output water velocity?

     No, I was actually pointing out that Jed is wrong, not
     that he was presenting no information.  And the answer is ... KE.
     
     Jed missed it, but you apparently didn't.

>:>and almost all of that heat will transfer to the fluid. The
>:>only loss is to radiant heat from the housing, pipes, and steel drum walls.
>:
>:     Not true again, as usual.
>
>What losses are you thinking of?

     Convection and conduction, at least one of which is fairly important.

     The point here, as usual, is that Jed cares little about
     any of this.  His posts have little to do with fact and
     a great deal to do with propaganda.  

                            dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.03 / Scott Mueller /  Re: Removal from list
     
Originally-From: scott@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Scott Hazen Mueller)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Removal from list
Date: Thu, 3 Nov 1994 15:22:32 GMT
Organization: At Home; Salida, CA


In article <9411031008.AA09656@suntan.Tandem.com> FEC@v2.rl.ac.uk (Frank Close) writes:
>I have received an unsolicited email informing me that I have
>been removed from list of people who receive the Fusion BBS.

It was not by my action, and I'd like to see a copy of the mail you or
anyone has received.  I would be rather annoyed if someone is deleting
subscribers from one of relays that distributes the Fusion Digest.

[PS - a final total for the s.p.f fund is coming shortly; I've been tied up
with personal business and also am waiting for a last contribution that I've
been told about in email.]

-- 
Scott Hazen Mueller scott@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG or (tandem|ub-gate)!zorch!scott
Mail fusion-request@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG for emailed sci.physics.fusion digests.

cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenscott cudfnScott cudlnMueller cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.03 / Dieter Britz /  CNF bibliography retraction
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CNF bibliography retraction
Date: Thu, 3 Nov 1994 15:42:41 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway


You weren't paying attention, were you? Or you would have noticed, and told 
me, that the two items below, which I posted a few days ago, were already in
the bibliography. I have removed the double entries out of the files now,
though not from the archived files; this will happen next time round.

#
Baranowski B, Filipek SM, Szustakowski M, Farny J, Woryna W;
J. Less-Common Metals 158 (1990) 347.
"Search for 'cold-fusion' in some Me-D systems at high pressures of gaseous
deuterium".
#
Shibata T;  Oyo Buturi 62(7) (1993) 715 (in Japanese).
" Critical points for the evaluation of measured results on cold fusion".
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
===========================================================

cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.03 / Cameron Bass /  Re: GG better than heat pump / Wrights
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: GG better than heat pump / Wrights
Date: Thu, 3 Nov 1994 12:57:17 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <Jm2WLtE.jedrothwell@delphi.com>,  <jedrothwell@delphi.com> wrote:

>Blue, who says it is "cold mist," or Bass who says he knows the answer but
>he is going to keep it secret.

     Apparently your reading skills need sharpening.  I have told
     you the answer, experimental error, any number of times.

     Repeat after me, Jed, experimental error, experimental error ...

>Speaking of Bass, I see his illusions of grandeur have escalated. First he
>thought he knew more about electrochemistry than Fleischmann, then he claimed
>he knows more about mechanical engineering than the best consultants in
>Georgia, now he says he knows more about the Wrights than Tom Crouch!

     No, I said that they were actually looking to fly, not invent
     spam.  On the other hand, Mr. Griggs was after spam when he
     'invented' flying.

> For crying out loud. No doubt he thinks *he* should be President of the
>Electrochemical Society, Fellow of the Royal Society, Dean of Mechanical
>Engineering, and curator of the Smithsonian Air & Space Museum. Why not throw
>in a Nobel Prize while we are at it? I have never seen such an inflated ego
>in one so stupid.

     As some man or another said, 'Stupid is as stupid does.'  I can
     recall someone measuring heat on an accessible surface using
     a pyrometer, and then, on the basis of those 'measurements', 
     claiming to the world that fusion was occurring in the metal.

     As I said before, 'Stupid is as stupid does'.

> A week ago I suspected he might be a fictition; an
>invention or joke put out by the U. Va staff. Now I think he must be real,

     I guess you've finally realized you're wrong.
     
     Again, 'Stupid is as stupid does'.

>because no author would invent such a stupid ass -- it would seem too
>unrealistic. The reader would not believe it.

     Getting your goat, Jed?  

     Good.

                                 dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.03 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: GG better than heat pump / Wrights
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: GG better than heat pump / Wrights
Date: Thu, 3 Nov 94 16:04:38 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Cameron Randale Bass <crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU> writes:
 
     "Apparently your reading skills need sharpening.  I have told
     you the answer, experimental error, any number of times.
     Repeat after me, Jed, experimental error, experimental error ..."
 
 
This is not an answer. You have not told us anything. You must specify what
the experimental error is. There are only three places to look:
 
     The temperature of the water, measured by thermocouples, thermistors and
     a mercury thermometer.
 
     The mass of the water, measured on a balance weight scale which was
     calibrated and certified to the nearest half-pound.
 
     The input energy (power integrated over time) measured by both the
     Dranetz electric power meter and the Eaton dynamometer, both recently
     calibrated and certified by the manufacturers.
 
Tell us where the error is. Which instrument is incorrect? Why? Put up or shut
up. The reason you do not spell out any particular error is very simple: You
do not know. You are bluffing. You have nothing in mind. As far as you or
anyone else can tell there is no error. You do not want to admit you are
wrong, so you keep posting these childish, repetitive messages instead. You
are not fooling anyone. All readers can see that you have no answer, you are
just pretending you do.
 
You should at least make an effort to explain it. Why not invent some
cock-and-bull nonsense like Richard Blue's "cold mist" idea? Or invisible heat
pumps, or enough stored energy to last for a year? Other "skeptics" have
posted these ridiculous ideas, you should too. It is sad that so many
"skeptics" like you, Steve Jones, and Frank Close, and Morrison have held
back. All of you should try to demolish Griggs, E-Quest, Pons and Fleischmann,
Arata, McKubre, Mizuno, or Cravens. You should stop hiding, stop ducking and
evading. You are cowards and fools. You know you are wrong, you have nothing
to say, and no way to disprove any of these experiments. You don't even have
the guts to try. At least Richard Blue makes a brave effort, and shows us all
how stupid he is.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenjedrothwell cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.03 / Robert Eachus /  Re: Carnot is dead ! Schaeffer disproves 2nd "law" (NOT)
     
Originally-From: eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.p
ysics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Carnot is dead ! Schaeffer disproves 2nd "law" (NOT)
Date: 3 Nov 94 10:46:21
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.

In article <ts_zemanian-281094155344@ts_zemanian.pnl.gov> ts_zemanian@pn
.gov (Thomas S. Zemanian) writes:

   > I still don't believe that the Rankine cycle can top the Carnot
   > cycle for efficiency; merely the invocation of a phase change
   > does not allow a Second Law violation.

   We should probably put this to bed, but...

   There is no second law violation in the system I described, it is
just that in such systems you have to concern yourself with all the
enthalpy, not just the latent heat.

   Incidently, there is another example I forgot to mention: OTEC
(Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion).  When you look at the whole system,
it makes sense in terms of heat, but in actuality there are salinity
gradient effects which make the system "more efficient."  So an OTEC
system could surpass Carnot limits, but again, it is not a second law
violation, it is just that some of the energy being extracted is not
in the form of heat.

--

					Robert I. Eachus

with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudeneachus cudfnRobert cudlnEachus cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.03 /  jedrothwell@de /  Lottsa Arata references
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Lottsa Arata references
Date: Thu, 3 Nov 94 12:14:33 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

I have had to give up coffee lately, I must be working with only half the
synapses firing. I forgot to look up Arata in the Fusion Facts bibliography.
Fortunately, one of my Faithful Readers send me a the following <ahem> gentle
reminder about doing one's homework.
 
"Before translating the paper you are looking for,  you may want to look at
these English references . . ." They are:
 
Y. Arata and Y-C. Zhang,"Reproducible 'Cold' Fusion Reaction Using a Complex
Cathode," Fusion Technology, vol. 22, p.287, Seat. 1992.
 
Y. Arata and Y-C. Zhang,"'Cold' Fusion in a Complex Cathode," pg. 441,
Frontiers of Cold Fusion (Proc. of ICCF-3 in 1992).
 
The Abstract from that paper reads:
 
     "A new cathode was developed, consisting of a nickel rod with palladium
     layer applied by plasma spraying, the palladium layer activates the
     surface functions of the deuterated cathode. High reproducibility of a
     "cold" fusion reaction is confirmed by using this cathode."
 
"Plasma spraying" mean sputtering in a vacuum to deposit a 300 um layer. The
cathode is round, 20 mm in diameter, 50 mm long. As I said in the report about
the Osaka Univ. Newspaper, the rod is hollow. My correspondent says this is to
accommodate instrumentation inside the rod. The ICCF3 paper does not make this
clear.
 
I recall that Zhang gave a paper during ICCF4, but it was not terribly
informative and I do not see it anywhere in the proceedings. It was:
 
     Papers C 2.3 A Remarkable Excess Heat Generated Using a New Type Pd
     Cathode
     Yoshiaki Arata, Yue Chang Zhang
 
The author's abstract can be found in Volume One of the ICCF4 books handed out
during the conference, or in Fusion Facts, Dec. 1994 issue, page 25.
 
Some of their earlier papers include:
 
Y. Arata and Y-C. Zhang,"Achievement of Intense 'Cold' Fusion Reaction," Proc.
Japan Acad., Ser. B, vol. 66, no. 1, p1, 1990.
 
Y. Arata and Y-C. Zhang,"Corroborating Evidence for 'Cold' Fusion Reaction,"
Proc. Japan Acad., vol. 66, p110, June 1990.
 
Y. Arata and Y-C. Zhang,"'Cold' Fusion Caused by a Weak 'On-Off Effect',"
Proc. Japan Acad., Ser. B, vol. 66, no. 2, p.33.
 
Y. Arata and Y-C. Zhang,"Achievement of an Intense 'Cold' Fusion Reaction,"
Fusion Technology, vol. 18, p. 95, Aug. 1990.
 
Y. Arata, Y-C Zhang (Res. Inst. Sci. Technol., Kinki Univ., Japan), "Cold
Fusion in Deuterated Complex Cathode," Kaku Yugo Kenkyu, vol. 67, no. 5, 1992,
pp 432-444, in Japanese.  (See Fusion Facts, Jan. 1993)
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenjedrothwell cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.03 / Bruce Dunn /  Griggs testing
     
Originally-From: Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Dunn)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Griggs testing
Date: Thu, 03 Nov 94 17:51:32 -0800
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada

Cameron Bass suggests that Griggs' "excess heat" comes from experimental
error (source undefined).  Jed Rothwell replies:


> You must specify what the experimental error is. There are only three
> places to look:
>
>      The temperature of the water, measured by thermocouples, thermistors
> and
>      a mercury thermometer.
>
>      The mass of the water, measured on a balance weight scale which was
>      calibrated and certified to the nearest half-pound.
>
>      The input energy (power integrated over time) measured by both the
>      Dranetz electric power meter and the Eaton dynamometer, both
> recently
>      calibrated and certified by the manufacturers.

     Putting bickering aside, I think that this is a nice statement of the
problem.  The measured numbers imply excess heat, assuming the measurements
are done on an apparatus working in a steady state (bypassing skeptic's
stored energy arguments).

     If, as skeptics believe, there is no excess heat, then one or more of
these numbers must be wrong.  We are proposing that Tom go and look at this
setup.  It should be easy with a little checking to put upper limits on the
experimental error from items 1 and 2 (temperature and mass).  I have
little expectation of problems with measuring these items, but believe that
they should be checked.  Thermometers are checkable with more thermometers.
As a check of the balance, I would propose taking an accurately calibrated
container and using it repetitively to add water to the barrel in its
normal operating position on the balance.  From the temperature of the test
water, the density is known, and from the volume and density, the added
mass is known.  The volumetric water additions should be done so as to take
the barrel through its entire operating range used for actual tests.

        I don't at all know how to get an independent check on the power
measuring equipment.  One thing however that I would be curious about is
how well the two independent methods of power measurement track one
another, and what the two measurements imply about the efficiency of the
motor used.  A set of measurements of power into the motor (Dranetz meter)
and power out of the motor (dynamometer) at different speeds and loads
would be of considerable interest.  The percentage drop in the two
different measurements when the device effect "turns on" would also be
highly relevant.

        On a side note, it still isn't clear to me whether the "excess
energy" is being computed relative to the power put into the Griggs device
itself, or relative to the power put into the motor driving the device.  No
doubt this has been stated by someone before, but I would appreciate a
clarification on this.


--
Bruce Dunn    Vancouver, Canada   Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca
cudkeys:
cuddy03 cudenBruce_Dunn cudfnBruce cudlnDunn cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.03 / Chris Parkinson /  Re: Mysterious Bass and his Mystical Secrets
     
Originally-From: parky@ix.netcom.com (Chris Parkinson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Mysterious Bass and his Mystical Secrets
Date: 3 Nov 1994 19:20:48 GMT
Organization: Netcom

In <CyInI8.77A@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU 
(Cameron Randale Bass) writes: 

>
>In article <38ufk7$lh9@ixnews1.ix.netcom.com>,
>Chris Parkinson <parky@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>
>>Agreed, and to think I've been yaking with someone who doesnt exist!
>
>     Like who?
>
>>>[P.S. I would to thank the Alert Reader who suggested I call the 
>>University of
>>>Virginia and ask for Bass. You were right, they have never heard of 
>>him! For
>>>others who wish to check, the information number is 804-924-0311.]
>>>
>>
>>I think everyone should not only call the University but flame this
>>dude probably known better as Curby 7Q (basically a nerd!).
>
>     Take your best shot.  But I think you've found before that 
>     ignorance is not the strongest base from which to issue an attack.
>
>>Don't stand for this cyberspace crap!  Our media here at this site is 
in 
>>need of honesty and truthfullness and not the ramblings of some 
>>loonytunes that are too afraid to correctly identify themselves.
>
>     I've been on the net for over 10 years, long before Rothwell
>     crawled out of his burrow, and this is the 
>     first time I've been accused of not existing by a neophyte.
>
>     Feel free to call, spud.
>
>                                 dale bass
>
>C. R. Bass                                          crb7q@virginia.edu 
       
>Department of Mechanical, 
>     Aerospace and Nuclear Engineering             H (804) 978-1653
>University of Virginia                             O (804) 924-7926
>
>

Apologies given but only for my personal attack.

It got a good result though. I distrust anyone who makes claimes and yet 
cannot be verified. I've had too many instances in real life that make 
me quite wary of phony baloneys that only wish to disinform. I'm glad to 
see you are real but still find your Griggs analysis quite poor. Why 
dont you get a PO from your finance department and purchase one of 
Griggs devices. 10 grand is alot but if your department could debug this 
phenomena it would actually be quite cheap. Not only that, but it would 
and could replace a boiler in your university and it does show in their 
literature that there are savings to be had. Now, do you really think 
that they would commit to such fraud as to get sued by someone?

Again I apologize for the flaming insults that I hurld at you.

Regards
CP
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenparky cudfnChris cudlnParkinson cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.03 / Greg Stumpf /  Re: tornadoes
     
Originally-From: stumpf@nsslsun.nssl.uoknor.edu (Greg Stumpf)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.geo.meteorology,sci.physics.astro
Subject: Re: tornadoes
Date: Thu, 3 Nov 1994 14:41:15 GMT
Organization: National Severe Storms Laboratory

In article <CyMIo1.9xJ@prometheus.UUCP> pmk@promethe.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) writes:
>
>phenomenon wouldn't crop up now and then.  When we add the ingredients
>of a low pressure path, such as the "vacuumed" core of a tornado, I 
>suspect that it would could be easily discharging continuously, -- 
>thereby producing the outward appearance of a flickering flourescent or 
>plasma phenomena especially a night.  

I believe the original poster had concluded that the *cause* of tornadoes
was a plasma phenomena.  You (and others who have followed up) are
arguing that tornadoes can *cause* plasma discharge.  Let's remember 
this when formulating followup posts.

>In several cases, lightning striking 
>through tornadoes have produced multiple ball lightnings tumbling out
>the bottom as it flew scouringly down a street.   

Can you please quote your reference for this information?  It still
sound to me like glowing transformers (which can be picked up and
thrown by the tornado as they are glowing).


Greg Stumpf, NSSL

Disclaimer:  Any opinions expressed in my posts, e-mail, or any other form of
electronic communications are mine, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion 
of the U.S. Government, NOAA, ERL, NSSL, or SWAT!  These posts are intended
as discussion material only and should not be subject to quotation by printed
or electronic media without prior, personal approval.

cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenstumpf cudfnGreg cudlnStumpf cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.03 / Chris Parkinson /  Re: Y. Arata DS-Cathode cold fusion
     
Originally-From: parky@ix.netcom.com (Chris Parkinson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Y. Arata DS-Cathode cold fusion
Date: 3 Nov 1994 19:28:57 GMT
Organization: Netcom

In <BE02T+3.jedrothwell@delphi.com> jedrothwell@delphi.com writes: 

>
>The "Osaka University Newspaper," a campus newspaper similar to MIT's 
Tech
>Talk, reported interesting cold fusion research on September 20, 1994. 
This is
>a front page article with the headlines:
> 
>     "100% REPRODUCIBLE COLD FUSION REACTION PROVED
> 
>     A big step towards practical applications
>     3000 hour continuous heat generation verified"
> 
>I cannot post the entire article, but here is the lead in paragraph:
> 
>     "Emeritus Prof. Yoshiaki Arata, former head of an engineering
>     research institute at this university, announced 100% reproducible
>     cold fusion reactions, in a paper presented at a conference in
>     Tokyo on September 12. Up until now, scientists have considered
>     the existence of cold fusion indefinite because of
>     irreproducibility, so this announcement may come as a shock. The
>     paper, titled, "New Energy from a Double Structured Cathode
>     Employing Palladium Black," reports the following comparison: The
>     total potential chemical energy in the experimental cell was
>     approximately 4 kilojoules, yet the researchers verified that the
>     cell produced 50 to 100 kilojoules per hour in a continuous
>     reaction lasting over 3000 hours, adding up to more than 200
>     megajoules."
> 
>50 to 100 KJ/h equals a 14 to 28 watt power level. Here are some other 
details
>from the article. Like many other leading cold fusion scientists in 
Japan,
>Arata is a former top hot fusion scientists. He made one of Japan's 
first hot
>fusion reactors in the late 1950's. He developed a new type of cold 
fusion
>cathode in 1990, he tested a large number of configurations, and he has 
been
>making steady progress. The newspaper article does not have much 
technical
>detail. I faxed the University asking for copies of his 1992 paper and 
the
>1994 paper described in the article. I gather the cathode consists of 
an
>outside palladium sleeve which is evacuated during the manufacturing 
process
>and filled with palladium black, a highly absorbent powder. A powder 
has a
>gigantic surface area, so it readily absorbs hydrogen.
> 
>Arata is practical, results-oriented engineer. He says he is determined 
to
>follow though and make a practical, larger scale device. More power to 
him!
> 
>- Jed
>

All Right!!!!

So glad there are folks keeping up on what is coming out of Japan. If 
Arata's proposal stands up to scrutiny then my predictions of two months 
ago will actually be ahead of schedule. All I can say is if this holds 
its own, then I want to give a great big neener, neener, neeners to all 
those who have stood staunchly in defiance of CF.

CP
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenparky cudfnChris cudlnParkinson cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.03 /  prasad /  RE: Carnot is dead ! Here is the info !
     
Originally-From: c1prasad@watson.ibm.com (prasad)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: Carnot is dead ! Here is the info !
Date: 3 Nov 1994 19:24:21 GMT
Organization: IBM Watson

In article <5_5qHhCeldB@shb.contrib.de>, harti@shb.contrib.de (Stefan Hartmann) writes:
|> Stefan Hartman posted a text regarding our work on 2nd law violating
|> cycles. For everyone interested in this work, we can recommend a booklet
|> which describes the Serogodsky-cycles and analyses them from a theoretical
|> point of view. Here is the abstract and an order form:

The 2nd law cannot be thrown out the window by a new thermodynamic cycle,
because it does not concern just the ideal gas engine, or even only the
known IC and Sterling and the CFC refrigerator cycles.  The 2nd law concerns
ANY THERMODYNAMIC CYCLE.  The Carnot efficiency is the DEFINITION of our
scale of temperature, starting with Lord Kelvin's demonstration that the 2nd
law provided the first linear scale of temperature.

Rest of Stefan stuff apart, I want to add what I think we may have to watch
out for.  Some time ago, I was trying to derive the thermodynamics equations
from scratch, starting with pV = RT, etc., and in particular for the non-ideal
gas equations of state, precisely because a similar non-ideal-ness appears to
get involved in cases like Griggs pump and these near critical point engines.

So I proceeded with a differential cycle, saying dw = pdx, where p represents a
force, x a distance (in case of gases, p == pressure, x == volume; in magnetism,
p == applied field and x == magnetization; etc.).  Then, following Carnot, I
told myself, hey, p depends on T :- p = p (T, x) is the general equation of
state for an arbitrary medium.  Then, net work ddw = dw(T.high) - dw(T.low) 
= { del p } over { del T } dT dx, where the partial derivative is with x const.
Then, if you defined the mechanical efficiency as eta = ddw over dw(T.high),
this becomes

 eta =	del p  dT dx		= del p  dT
	-----  ------------	  ----- ------------
	del x  p(T.high) dx	  del x  p (T.high)

Now's the catch.  Only for the ideal gas (p = rT / x) and magnetism
(x = p/rT -- Curie law) does this evaluate to dT / T -- Carnot efficiency.

For all real equations of state, it turns out that eta > dT/T.  Try the
Curie-Weiss law : x = p / r(T - theta), for which eta = dT/(T-theta) > dT/T
for all theta > 0.

If I hadn't know better, I might have run out of my bath screaming "eureka,
this solves the energy crisis".  No, this is a great country, there would
always be people willing to hire me for my software skill even if I did that
;)

The matter is resolved by noting that the eta above is a *mechanical* ratio,
not the *conversion* efficiency, which requires dq(T.high), not dw(T.high) 
in the denominator.  The conversion efficiency remains at the Carnot limit,
the fact is that the dw's become smaller than the corresponding dq's.  In
the ideal gas, the dq = the dw along the isotherms, and dw is easier to compute.
The difference dq - dw goes toward the internal energy of the medium!  The
non-idealness of a medium occurs because of internal interactions, as should
be clear from a textbook description of the Van der Waals or Berthelot eqns.
These internal interactions consume the energy difference.

If I were you, Stefan, I'd go over that invention's equations carefully
with a good textbook and a magnifying glass, and after a good night's sleep.
Even if *his* equations (if any) check out with *his* data.  He might simply
be doing the wrong things.  It's particularly easy to get thoroughly confused
with thermodynamics, especially in learning how to apply the theory.

The non-ideal cases are not worked out from scratch in the textbooks, because
the equations of thermodynamics include ways of correcting for the deviations.
The { del p / del x } is one of the thousands (I'm exaggerating, I know!)
of partial differential equations the classical theorists have long figured
out and thousands of chemists use everyday.  And so if you go ask one of them
today, saying "hey, guy, start from scratch, assume you have this real Nitrogen-
something gas or this mixture of gases, derive the Carnot efficiency without
your fancy thermodynamics, and prove to me it doesn't violate the 2nd law",
and probably your friend may be equally stumped, because he had taken the books
for granted.  That doesn't however mean that no one got that right before.

One of the basic equations used in thermodynamics is the conservation of
energy:  dU + dQ + dW = 0 (I like my outgoing heat +ve, like all other
energies).  Rewriting this as dU + TdS + pdV = 0, we can see why Kelvin
said what he did about dT/T.  How do you get the pdV work from dU and TdS?
How much should come from U and how much from the heat transfer TdS == dQ?
Unless you understand the 2nd law, you would have no basis for working this out.



Don't trust me --- TRY IT OUT YOURSELF!		(hint: get a napkin!)

Science works not because of beliefs, but because it does *work*, always
the *same* way for everyone.  Science is not religion, where you can
subscribe to your own favorite scheme of things.  Not in science, not much
freedom of choice here!

I'm just trying to save you the heartbreak, if and when you do discover
that that Serogodsky cycle engine doesn't seem to save your energy bill.

Note that that doesn't make me a skeptic of cold fusion or the ZPE.  Neither
of them are avowed violators of the 2nd law!

============

#ident	"@(#) Opinions (c) prasad, 1994"
	/* may change in '95 when someone disproves the 2nd law! */

cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenc1prasad cudlnprasad cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.03 /  cisitm@albert. /  cmsg cancel <39b5g0$dfl@anemone.saclay.cea.fr>
     
Originally-From: cisitm@albert.cad.cea.fr
Newsgroups: alt.spam,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cmsg cancel <39b5g0$dfl@anemone.saclay.cea.fr>
Date: 03 Nov 1994 18:44:43 EDT
Organization: Just say no to Spam.

This spam has been cancelled.  

Comments to: na48985@anon.penet.fi.
cudkeys:
cuddy03 cudencisitm cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.03 / Erik Rasmussen /  Cold Fusion
     
Originally-From: erasmuss@nim.gac.edu (Erik R Rasmussen)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Cold Fusion
Date: 3 Nov 1994 21:14:15 GMT
Organization: Gustavus Adolphus College


We are looking for some information in the area of cold fusion, and are  
planning to carry out a cold fusion reaction for an advanced lab project.   
We are interested if there are any "cold fusion kits" available.  We would  
also like to know where the FAQ for this topic could be found.  Any  
articles or information on the building of a cold fusion electrolysis cell  
would be greatly appreciated, and suggestions would be appreciated also.




					Thankyou,
					Erik R. Rasmussen
					erasmuss@gac.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenerasmuss cudfnErik cudlnRasmussen cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.03 / mitchell swartz /  IAEA Corrects Rob Heeter (was 'Tech Reply to Mitch, part 2.1)
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: IAEA Corrects Rob Heeter (was 'Tech Reply to Mitch, part 2.1)
Subject: Technical Reply to Mitch, Part 2.1
Date: Thu, 3 Nov 1994 23:26:13 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

   In Message-ID: <1994Oct31.054645.19499@Princeton.EDU>
Subject: Technical Reply to Mitch, Part 2.1
Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> writes more
nonsense to support his preposterous claim that
tritium is 'relatively benign' and the term 'low toxicity' is not
appropriate for tritium.    Mr. Heeter has also claimed
that all other radioisotopes are 'nasty'.

  In Section 2 by Robert Heeter (which runs 170
lines)  there are several interesting references but none
(as yet specified) which explicitly support his flawed contention.
In the reply to Section 1, it was shown that Sax contradicts 
Mr. Heeter.  Also it was shown that Rees contradicts 
Mr. Heeter in this matter.

  That contradiction will now be augmented by the IAEA,
International Atomic Energy Commission (Vienna),
in its Safety Series No. 1, "Safe Handling of Radioisotopes", and
by the U.S.  National Safety Council's publication
"Manual for Accident Prevention for Industrial Operations".


      == CLASSIFICATION OF ISOTOPES ACCORDING TO 
RELATIVE RADIOTOXICITY PER UNIT ACTIVITY ===
   (adapted from "International Atomic 
Energy Commission,Safety Series No. 1, Safe Handling of Radioisotopes,
see also "Manual for Accident Prevention for Industrial Operations",
McRElroy.
     -----------------------------------------------------------------
low             moderate             high            very high 
toxicity
3H               32P                 131I              90Sr 
7Be              42K             natural uranium      226Ra 
18F              60Co                59Fe              233U 
71Ge             192Ir               151Sm           241 Am 

   As Rob Heeter was informed with the references which he dislikes but is
unable to supplement, complement, refute with specificity or replace,
there are categories used to describe the toxicity of radioisotopes.
Tritium is in the group of low toxicity (Rees, IAEA).   Some would put it in
a higher group (see below, Sax).   In any case, it
 does NOT belong on corn flakes where "relatively benign" 
(hopefully nutritious but who knows anymore) materials belong.

   Notice how the IAEA and National Safety Council have categories
quite similar to those which Mr. Heeter decries already posted,
adaped from Rees.

      == TOXICITIES OF A FEW  RADIOACTIVE ISOTOPES ===
               (adapted from "Health Physics - 
Principles of Radiation Protection", D.J. Rees, MIT Press  1967)
     -----------------------------------------------------------------
low          moderate               high                very high 
3H              32P                 131I                  90Sr 
7Be             42K            natural uranium           226Ra 
18F             60Co            natural thorium           233U 

  As mentioned previously, in N. I. Sax "Handbook of Dangerous
Materials", tritium is listed as a
"very toxic radioactive isotope of hydrogen".

  In summary, there is nothing benign or 'relatively benign' here.

  Also, compared to a reference like Sax ('very toxic') 
the suggested categorization of tritium to 'low toxicity' is much
more beneficial for the future of fusion science and engineering.

  Mr. Heeter, who is now corrected by the IAEA, the NSC's
"Manual for Accident Prevention for Industrial Operations",
"Health Physics" (Rees), and 
the "Handbook of Dangerous Materials", 
is again asked to find one reference that says tritium
is non-toxic and relatively benign like he claims, with a full
post of the excerpt and location.

  Best wishes.
             Mitchell Swartz   (mica@world.std.com)

cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.04 / Dieter Britz /  Bibliography refusal
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Bibliography refusal
Date: Fri, 4 Nov 1994 08:44:20 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway


In case there is anyone out there who is following the bibliography and checks
Chem. Abstr. etc, I want to explain why I will not include a few items I have
found (I think it was Peter Glueck who made me aware of them). There are a few
fractofusion papers by the Deryagin team in a journal called Progress in
Surface Science. In Vol. 45, no. 1-4, Jan-Apr 1994, there are four such 
papers. I actually got hold of them and was struck by the apparently 
exceedingly long delay between submission and publication, e.g. 5 years for
one of them. It turns out that this journal has been running a series of 
memorials of Deryagin, who has just died, and is reprinting some highlights of
this very active man's publication career, including a few fractofusion 
papers. These have all been published before and they are all in the 
bibliography already.

I note that the journal chose not to include any papers on polywater, which
was at one time also called Deryagin water. He was one of the leading lights
in this affair. Apparently this is considered an embarrassment (as well it 
might), while fractofusion is not. This might be OK; I am willing to suspend
disbelief for the early work (1986) on LiD, this being an insulator and thus
able to sustain a voltage across a crack for perhaps long enough to let
deuterons accelerate across it; for materials like PdD or TiD2, this is very
unlikely and in fact all the fractofusion results are very marginal and
unconvincing, having been obtained with shoddy instrumentation, as far as I
can judge. Certainly noone in Russia has gone to Jones-level trouble to measure 
neutrons reliably in fractofusion.

While on the subject of Deryagin, I want to mention a little problem with his
name. The English transliteration of the Russian is indeed Deryagin, according
to the transliteration rules (there is a standard). Entries in Chem. Abstracts
of Russian-language papers where he is a coauthor use this correct form. The
man has also published in English, and unfortunately, in these cases, he
incorrectly transliterates his own name to Derjaguin. This has been a small
dilemma for me - should I use the correct form, or what he himself uses? I
opted for the latter, but one should be aware that these two names mean the
same person. 
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Fri Nov  4 04:37:26 EST 1994
------------------------------
1994.11.04 / Harry Conover /  Re: GG better than heat pump / Wrights
     
Originally-From: conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: GG better than heat pump / Wrights
Date: 4 Nov 1994 04:02:38 GMT
Organization: The Internet Access Company

jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:
 
[prior ranting deleted out of mercy...]
 
: Speaking of Bass, I see his illusions of grandeur have escalated. First he
: thought he knew more about electrochemistry than Fleischmann, then he claimed
: he knows more about mechanical engineering than the best consultants in
: Georgia, now he says he knows more about the Wrights than Tom Crouch! For
: crying out loud. No doubt he thinks *he* should be President of the
: Electrochemical Society, Fellow of the Royal Society, Dean of Mechanical
: Engineering, and curator of the Smithsonian Air & Space Museum. Why not throw
: in a Nobel Prize while we are at it? I have never seen such an inflated ego
: in one so stupid. A week ago I suspected he might be a fictition; an
: invention or joke put out by the U. Va staff. Now I think he must be real,
: because no author would invent such a stupid ass -- it would seem too
: unrealistic. The reader would not believe it.
:
: - Jed
 
While Bass clearly demonstrates both in-depth knowledge and practical
insight through his posts, your nomination of him as a candidate to receive
the Nobel Prize is likely a bit premature.  Still, it's a magnanimous
gesture on your part to nominate him for this honor, and an act that
helps to blunt the impact of your often rude and irrational posts.
 
On the other hand, many readers correctly perceive Steve Jones to be the
'father of the Cold Fusion concept', based upon the content of his
(together with Palmer, et al) seminal paper on the subject. In the
event that Cold Fusion is someday a reality, Steve deserves Nobel
recognition for correctly pointing the way.
 
Will you consider amending your nomination per the above?
 
                                    Harry C.
 
 
ps.  With respect to Griggs, Pons and Fleishman, etc... Fortunately,
     nominations for the 1995 MIT Ig Nobel Awards have not yet been
     closed.
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenconover cudfnHarry cudlnConover cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.04 / L McCarthy /  Re: DO YOU WANT YOU TO GET alt.inventors VOTE YES HERE TO GET IT!
     
Originally-From: lmccarth@bali.cs.umass.edu (L. Futplex McCarthy)
Newsgroups: alt.config,sci.misc,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: DO YOU WANT YOU TO GET alt.inventors VOTE YES HERE TO GET IT!
Date: 4 Nov 1994 03:58:32 GMT
Organization: The Navicular Fracture

Ala'nAla'nApurim writes:
$ Me, too, I vote for alt.sci.inventors, if alt.inventors is taken.
$ Won't you have to resubmit a proposal, or will votes to this thread do it?
 
I'm willing to newgroup an alt.sci.inventors, unless someone objects. Could
someone (preferably other than siproj :) put together some sort of charter
for it ?
 
-L. Futplex McCarthy, Court Stooge of the alt.config Cabal
   [use "Subject: remailer-help" for an autoreply about my Underdog remailer]
"No one is going to newgroup alt.s-xual.-b-se.r-c-very. Who, other than Netcom,
 would bother to carry it ?" --Wednesday <wednsday@mcs.com>
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenlmccarth cudfnL cudlnMcCarthy cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.04 / Harry Conover /  Re: GG better than heat pump / Wrights
     
Originally-From: conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: GG better than heat pump / Wrights
Date: 4 Nov 1994 04:13:46 GMT
Organization: The Internet Access Company

jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:
:
: This is not an answer. You have not told us anything. You must specify what
: the experimental error is. There are only three places to look:
:
:      The temperature of the water, measured by thermocouples, thermistors and
:      a mercury thermometer.
:
:      The mass of the water, measured on a balance weight scale which was
:      calibrated and certified to the nearest half-pound.
:
:      The input energy (power integrated over time) measured by both the
:      Dranetz electric power meter and the Eaton dynamometer, both recently
:      calibrated and certified by the manufacturers.
:
: Tell us where the error is. Which instrument is incorrect? Why?
 
 
Jed, it is apparent from your posts that you don't understand what is
meant by 'Experimental Error' and 'Experimental Uncertainty.'  Various
posts have previously pointed this out to you, and even discussed how
these values are computed.
 
You've been repeatedly requested to post your error analysis, yet you
remain silent on the subject, except to flame anyone that brings the
subject up.  Quite frankly, I now feel that it is time for you to "Put
up or shut up!"
 
                                           Harry C.
 
ps. Your statement that "there is no (experimental) error" clearly
    labels you as 'clueless' in this connection.  Error and uncertaintly
    is always present -- the only real questions being: how much, and
    how does this affect the final result.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenconover cudfnHarry cudlnConover cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.04 / Harry Conover /  Re: Lottsa Arata references
     
Originally-From: conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Lottsa Arata references
Date: 4 Nov 1994 04:49:37 GMT
Organization: The Internet Access Company

jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:
 
: Y. Arata and Y-C. Zhang,"Reproducible 'Cold' Fusion Reaction Using a Complex
: Cathode," Fusion Technology, vol. 22, p.287, Seat. 1992.
:
: Y. Arata and Y-C. Zhang,"'Cold' Fusion in a Complex Cathode," pg. 441,
: Frontiers of Cold Fusion (Proc. of ICCF-3 in 1992).
:
: The author's abstract can be found in Volume One of the ICCF4 books handed out
: during the conference, or in Fusion Facts, Dec. 1994 issue, page 25.
:
: Some of their earlier papers include:
:
: Y. Arata and Y-C. Zhang,"Achievement of Intense 'Cold' Fusion Reaction," Proc.
: Japan Acad., Ser. B, vol. 66, no. 1, p1, 1990.
:
: Y. Arata and Y-C. Zhang,"Corroborating Evidence for 'Cold' Fusion Reaction,"
: Proc. Japan Acad., vol. 66, p110, June 1990.
:
: Y. Arata and Y-C. Zhang,"'Cold' Fusion Caused by a Weak 'On-Off Effect',"
: Proc. Japan Acad., Ser. B, vol. 66, no. 2, p.33.
:
: Y. Arata and Y-C. Zhang,"Achievement of an Intense 'Cold' Fusion Reaction,"
: Fusion Technology, vol. 18, p. 95, Aug. 1990.
:
: Y. Arata, Y-C Zhang (Res. Inst. Sci. Technol., Kinki Univ., Japan), "Cold
: Fusion in Deuterated Complex Cathode," Kaku Yugo Kenkyu, vol. 67, no. 5, 1992,
: pp 432-444, in Japanese.  (See Fusion Facts, Jan. 1993)
:
: - Jed
 
 
Interesting.
 
Who (considering some of this work is at least 4 years old)
has published independent confirmation of these results?
 
Can anyone shed more light on either the design of this apparatus,
instrumentation, or the reaction itself?
 
                                    Harry C.
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenconover cudfnHarry cudlnConover cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.04 / Scott Hagie /  Re: DO YOU WANT YOU TO GET alt.inventors VOTE YES HERE TO GET IT!
     
Originally-From: hagie@netcom.com (Scott Hagie)
Newsgroups: alt.config,sci.misc,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: DO YOU WANT YOU TO GET alt.inventors VOTE YES HERE TO GET IT!
Date: Fri, 4 Nov 1994 05:49:44 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

Jonathan Priluck (jamcorp@world.std.com) wrote:
 
: Because many inventors simply are not scientists.  And most scientists
: (often to their great consternation) are not inventors.  FinallyI prefer
: alt.inventor over alt.sci.inventors becuase too many people think inventing
 
Sci does not stand for scientist, it stands for science. Science is a broad
subject that covers inventions quite well.
 
Scott
--
         Scott Hagie   -   hagie@netcom.com   -   Sierra Madre, Ca.
 
        L.A. has four seasons - Earthquake, flood, fire, and drought.
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenhagie cudfnScott cudlnHagie cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.03 / Jordan Ziegler /  project2
     
Originally-From: jordan.ziegler@forbin.com (Jordan Ziegler)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: project2
Date: Thu,  3 Nov 1994 03:42:07 GMT
Organization: COLOSSUS, The Forbin Project  319.266.0540

Sorry about this, but I'm new to E-mail and lost your E-mail address if
you wrote to me!  I hope you can write me again and maybe this time your
messages won't be deleted when I finish reading them and go on to the
next one.  Please write again because I would love to have your support
but have lost your adresses so I cannot write back!  Hopefully this was
not a waste of your time.  Also, to Joe Guokas: Willie is in fact my
partner.  Thanks for taking the time to write to both of us, though.
Hopefully I got your name right.  Again, I really appreciate your
responding to my message.  Please forgive me for losing your adresses
everyone else who wrote!  We really need your help.
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenziegler cudfnJordan cudlnZiegler cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.04 / Richard Blue /  Quartz in E-Quest device?
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Quartz in E-Quest device?
Date: Fri, 4 Nov 1994 15:13:11 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Something said by someone else doing sonoluminesence studies caught my
flagging attention and has led me to ask the following question.
 
Does E-quest use quartz to house the helium-producing(?) experiments?
Perhaps Jed Rothwell, Gene Mallove, or someone else privy to such
information would be so kind as to pass on that information.
 
Dick Blue
 
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.04 / Thomas Zemanian /  Re: Carnot is dead ! Schaeffer disproves 2nd "law" (NOT)
     
Originally-From: ts_zemanian@pnl.gov (Thomas S. Zemanian)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Carnot is dead ! Schaeffer disproves 2nd "law" (NOT)
Date: 4 Nov 1994 17:25:40 GMT
Organization: Battelle PNL

In article <EACHUS.94Nov3104621@spectre.mitre.org>,
eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus) wrote:
> In article <ts_zemanian-281094155344@ts_zemanian.pnl.gov> ts_zemanian@
nl.gov (Thomas S. Zemanian) writes:
>
>    > I still don't believe that the Rankine cycle can top the Carnot
>    > cycle for efficiency; merely the invocation of a phase change
>    > does not allow a Second Law violation.
>
>    We should probably put this to bed, but...
>
>    There is no second law violation in the system I described, it is
> just that in such systems you have to concern yourself with all the
> enthalpy, not just the latent heat.
>
>    Incidently, there is another example I forgot to mention: OTEC
> (Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion).  When you look at the whole system,
> it makes sense in terms of heat, but in actuality there are salinity
> gradient effects which make the system "more efficient."  So an OTEC
> system could surpass Carnot limits, but again, it is not a second law
> violation, it is just that some of the energy being extracted is not
> in the form of heat.
>
 
Ah, I see.  Well then, I think we are in agreement, except for our relative
definitions of the "efficiency".
 
--Tom
 
--
The opinions expressed herein are mine and mine alone.  Keep your filthy
hands off 'em!
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudents_zemanian cudfnThomas cudlnZemanian cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.04 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Mysterious Bass and his Mystical Secrets
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Mysterious Bass and his Mystical Secrets
Date: Fri, 4 Nov 1994 13:31:20 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <39bd6g$2jd@ixnews1.ix.netcom.com>,
Chris Parkinson <parky@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>It got a good result though. I distrust anyone who makes claimes and yet
>cannot be verified. I've had too many instances in real life that make
>me quite wary of phony baloneys that only wish to disinform. I'm glad to
>see you are real but still find your Griggs analysis quite poor.
 
     Is that your professional opinion?
 
> Why
>dont you get a PO from your finance department and purchase one of
>Griggs devices. 10 grand is alot but if your department could debug this
>phenomena it would actually be quite cheap.
 
     I don't know about you, but $10,000 doesn't grow on trees.
     And why, pray tell, should anyone but the 'inventor' figure out
     for free where he is making the experimental error?
 
     Not only would it be a waste of money, but it would be a waste
     of a more precious asset, time.
 
> Not only that, but it would
>and could replace a boiler in your university and it does show in their
>literature that there are savings to be had.
 
     We don't use electric boilers, we use coal.  In his wildest dreams,
     Mr. Griggs cannot compete with coal, even if his wild
     dreams were reality, which they're not.
 
                                 dale bass
 
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.04 / W Weingarten /  Re: Griggs testing
     
Originally-From: woweinga@mtu.edu (Warren Weingarten)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs testing
Date: 4 Nov 1994 15:57:27 GMT
Organization: Michigan Tech. University

In article <57759@mindlink.bc.ca>, Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Dunn)
wrote:
>
> Cameron Bass suggests that Griggs' "excess heat" comes from experimental
> error (source undefined).  Jed Rothwell replies:
>
>
> > You must specify what the experimental error is. There are only three
> > places to look:
> >
> >      The temperature of the water, measured by thermocouples, thermistors
> > and
> >      a mercury thermometer.
> >
> >      The mass of the water, measured on a balance weight scale which was
> >      calibrated and certified to the nearest half-pound.
> >
> >      The input energy (power integrated over time) measured by both the
> >      Dranetz electric power meter and the Eaton dynamometer, both
> > recently
> >      calibrated and certified by the manufacturers.
>
>      Putting bickering aside, I think that this is a nice statement of the
> problem.  The measured numbers imply excess heat, assuming the measurements
> are done on an apparatus working in a steady state (bypassing skeptic's
> stored energy arguments).
>
>      If, as skeptics believe, there is no excess heat, then one or more of
> these numbers must be wrong.  We are proposing that Tom go and look at this
> setup.  It should be easy with a little checking to put upper limits on the
> experimental error from items 1 and 2 (temperature and mass).  I have
> little expectation of problems with measuring these items, but believe that
> they should be checked.  Thermometers are checkable with more thermometers.
> As a check of the balance, I would propose taking an accurately calibrated
> container and using it repetitively to add water to the barrel in its
> normal operating position on the balance.  From the temperature of the test
> water, the density is known, and from the volume and density, the added
> mass is known.  The volumetric water additions should be done so as to take
> the barrel through its entire operating range used for actual tests.
>
>         I don't at all know how to get an independent check on the power
> measuring equipment.  One thing however that I would be curious about is
> how well the two independent methods of power measurement track one
> another, and what the two measurements imply about the efficiency of the
> motor used.  A set of measurements of power into the motor (Dranetz meter)
> and power out of the motor (dynamometer) at different speeds and loads
> would be of considerable interest.  The percentage drop in the two
> different measurements when the device effect "turns on" would also be
> highly relevant.
>
>         On a side note, it still isn't clear to me whether the "excess
> energy" is being computed relative to the power put into the Griggs device
> itself, or relative to the power put into the motor driving the device.  No
> doubt this has been stated by someone before, but I would appreciate a
> clarification on this.
>
>
> --
> Bruce Dunn    Vancouver, Canada   Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca
 
I think the answer to the last question is that is that it was relative to
the input power when done with steam, but that with the dyno installed the
last data for warm water only was from dyno to the output. Am I right Jed?
 
   One possibility for fooling the power meters and dyno would be for a
high frequency variation of the torque such that rms value of the torque
would be higher than the average value.  The dyno  will read the average
value, the power meters have a high frequency cut off and both would
therefore read less input than the true value.I could see this happening
when you consider the possibility of twisting oscillation thru the
connecting shaft and the mass of motor rotor and the pump rotor. This is
likely only if the shaft was continous and did not contain a damped
coupler.( Jed , could you give us the details here?)  High frequency
components would have to be present in the current waveforms, so a scope
measurement would help. This effect is probably not measurable with your
proposal but a difference in the readings between the two power meters
and/or dyno would be an indication that this is happening.
 
Your proposal is well stated Bruce, I hope Tom will consider doing the
things you suggest.
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenwoweinga cudfnWarren cudlnWeingarten cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.06 / William Beaty /  Re: tornadoes
     
Originally-From: billb@eskimo.com (William Beaty)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.geo.meteorology
Subject: Re: tornadoes
Date: Sun, 6 Nov 1994 09:00:33 GMT
Organization: Eskimo North (206) For-Ever

Wasn't there a Dr. Vonnegut who was pushing the idea that tornadoes are
electrically DRIVEN, rather than being electrical sources?
 
There's this videotape made by a TV station traffic plane of a twister
starting from nothing.  It has some pretty cool electrical effects:
while the tip of the twister is shredding a pine forest, it is
occasionally putting out an intense pinpoint of sputtering white
light, resembling an  arc welder but on a larger scale.  I saw this
several-minutes-long videotape on the 'weather' part of an educational
videodisk.  There's a chance that the tornadoe was actually shorting
out some powerlines, but the intense light did seem to happen when
the storm was in the middle of empty farmland rather than near roads,
and the light repeated a few times as the funnel moved along.
 
Chuck Doswell (doswell@nssl.uoknor.edu) wrote:
 
: I've read this account, attributed to a Roy Beech (spelling?) if I recall,
: and while it certainly is very interesting, it has little to do with the
: things that I and a large number of chasers intercepting a large number of
: tornadoes have seen.  Few of us have ever looked up directly into funnels,
: which might well be filled with darned near anything, I suppose, but
: tornado funnels probably aren't generally filled with glowing clouds.  As
: I indicated in my two cents worth on the subject, isolated observations
: cannot be repudiated or denied, but if they are not repeated or
: substantiated in some meaningful way, they are simply curiosities that do
: not have much bearing on scientific research.  If something happens so
: rarely that it has only been seen once or twice, and then by untrained
: observers, then it hardly seems likely to be playing an important role in
: the phenomenon.  That's why discussions of glowing tornadoes aren't going
: to lead serious tornado researchers to drop what they are doing to study
: up on plasma physics!  Show me that this is a feature common to most, if
: not all, tornadoes, and I'll be interested.  Otherwise, it's just idle
: chit-chat.
 
: --
: Chuck Doswell        'Illegitimi non carborundum"
: NOAA/NSSL
: Norman, OK            Standard disclaimer
--
.....................uuuu / oo \ uuuu........,.............................
William Beaty  voice:206-781-3320   bbs:206-789-0775
EE/Programmer/Science exhibit designer        http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/
Seattle, WA 98117
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenbillb cudfnWilliam cudlnBeaty cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.04 / Thomas Zemanian /  Re: I did NOT miss KE in Griggs Device
     
Originally-From: ts_zemanian@pnl.gov (Thomas S. Zemanian)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: I did NOT miss KE in Griggs Device
Date: 4 Nov 1994 17:19:20 GMT
Organization: Battelle PNL

In article <Jg6Ubjc.jedrothwell@delphi.com>, jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:
 
[deletia]
 
>
> 1. From the paper: "This device is called a 'pump' for lack of a better word.
> It does not actually move the water very much; 'pump' is something of a
> misnomer, 'stirrer' would be more accurate. . . . Because the device is not
> actually a pump, a small auxiliary pump moves the water from a feedwater tank,
> through the pipes, into the Hydrosonic pump, and out through a steam pipe or
> separate steam and condensate pipes."
>
 
To Tom Droege:
 
Please check and note down the power input and temperature of the auxiliary
pump.
 
Thanks,
--Tom
 
--
The opinions expressed herein are mine and mine alone.  Keep your filthy
hands off 'em!
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudents_zemanian cudfnThomas cudlnZemanian cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.04 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Why Griggs patents won't hold
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Why Griggs patents won't hold
Date: Fri, 04 Nov 1994 11:28 -0500 (EST)

jlogajan@mirage.skypoint.net (John Logajan) writes:
 
-> That is to say that in a chaotic mixing system ala the Griggs system,
-> there is a continuum of sonic frequencies generated, and in our state
-> of suspended disbelief about the ultrasonic anomalous heat effect,
-> we would presume that only some range of frequencies would induce
-> the effect -- i.e. we wouldn't expect energy in the sub-sonic range
-> to induce these proported effects.
->
-> Therefore an embodiment that delivers equivalent sonic energy, but
-> only in the ranges found to induce the effect, will take a leap in
-> the efficient production of same.
->
-> Therefore, the Griggs device, even if it works as claimed by some
-> ultrasonic effect, is a dead end -- a means to an end in the best
-> of cases, but a dead end even in the very short term.
 
I do not know if the pits on the rotor are spaced equally or randomly.  If they
are random, then you may have a point there.  If however they are equally
spaced, and there is some type of pit or roughness on the stator side, then the
frequency would be dominate at RPM*60*#pits_around_circumference.  This is the
same effect that a mechanical siren uses, or similar to the effect that goes on
in a Magnatron.  Both produce frequencies in which most of the power is in the
fundamental and harmonic frequencies.  I would expect the Griggs device to work
similarly.
 
                                                        Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy04 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.04 / Cameron Bass /  Re: I did NOT miss KE in Griggs Device
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: I did NOT miss KE in Griggs Device
Date: Fri, 4 Nov 1994 17:55:34 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <Jg6Ubjc.jedrothwell@delphi.com>,  <jedrothwell@delphi.com> wrote:
>
 
     Gee Jed, missed your own words from this.  No matter, I'll supply them
     again...
 
:In article <xK5ViT5.jedrothwell@delphi.com>,  <jedrothwell@delphi.com> wrote:
:
:>That is correct. All mechanical energy delivered by the motor will be
:>converted to heat,
>
>And crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) responded:
>
>     "No, I was actually pointing out that Jed is wrong, not that he was
>     presenting no information.  And the answer is ... KE.
>
>     Jed missed it, but you apparently didn't."
>
>
>Dale is completely wrong, as usual. I did not miss kinetic energy. I addressed
>this issue over and over and over and over again.
 
    Feel free to type 'over' again, and you're still wrong.
 
>It does not actually move the water very much; 'pump' is something of a
>misnomer,
 
     You've been calling it a pump, Mr. Griggs apparently named it a
     'pump', but I've been calling it a rotor.  So it's *your* intentional
     'misnomer'.
 
> 'stirrer' would be more accurate. . . . Because the device is not
>actually a pump, a small auxiliary pump moves the water from a feedwater tank,
>through the pipes, into the Hydrosonic pump, and out through a steam pipe or
>separate steam and condensate pipes."
>
>What does that mean? It means the Pump does not impart significant KE to the
>water.
 
     Must be pretty dense steam, he noted dryly.
 
>2. I said OVER AND OVER that in the barrel test all kinetic energy is
>captured. The water or steam comes out of the hose, hits the other water and
>walls of the steel drum, swirls around and stops after a while.
 
     The steam stops?  Bully for you.  You must have one big tank.
 
     And I don't see any restriction to any 'barrel test' above.
     You should probably be much more careful about making
     sweeping statements as above.
 
>What does that mean? It means that all kinetic energy in the water is
>converted to heat by friction.
 
     It just means you've incorrectly described several parts of
     the steam-producing setup.
 
     Don't bother yourself with correct descriptions, it makes
     the descriptions so much more interesting.
 
>If Dale understood the ABC's of elementary physics he would have known these
>two facts without me telling him.
 
     If Jed understood anything about elementary engineering, we'd
     not hear much from him at all.
 
                                dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.04 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Griggs testing
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs testing
Date: Fri, 4 Nov 94 13:12:28 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Regarding the Griggs Gadget (GG) Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Dunn)
writes:
 
     "We are proposing that Tom go and look at this setup.  It should be easy
     with a little checking to put upper limits on the experimental error
     from items 1 and 2 (temperature and mass).  I have little expectation of
     problems with measuring these items, but believe that they should be
     checked.  Thermometers are checkable with more thermometers."
 
For that purpose, I brought two thermistors (Radio Shack electronic
thermometers) and one cooking thermometer (alcohol I presume), and I used
someone's mercury thermometer as well. Non-electronic devices are good because
they eliminate any possibility of errors induced by electric noise. Please
note there are two other methods of eliminating noise:
 
1. Take measurements before the GG is turned on and after it is turned off.
The water in the 55 gallon steel drum stays hot for hours after the pump is
turned off; heat loss is gradual, you have loads of time to verify the
temperature of the water.
 
2. Take a bucket of water from the drum out to the parking lot 50 meters away
from the building and measure the temperature again.
 
 
     "As a check of the balance, I would propose taking an accurately
     calibrated container and using it repetitively to add water to the
     barrel in its normal operating position on the balance."
 
Bruce is referring here to the balance weight scale. It measures half-pound
increments up to 1,000 lbs. The team from Georgia Tech tested it properly
across a full range. They brought iron weights which they had checked on a
high precision Tech scale before coming out. (That is, they put masking tape
on the iron weights and wrote the exact weight; a round 100 lb iron weight
said something like "100.23 lbs.") I tested it with less formal methods: I
stood on it, and then Gene Mallove and I stood on it together. It agrees with
my bathroom scale and the doctor office scale, to the nearest pound. (I
stopped off at the doctor's office a week later just to be sure.) I also put
1, 2 and three gallon containers of water on it. The scale is rented from a
local factory equipment vendor, who tested and certified it, and put a sticker
on it showing the date last tested.
 
To make a long story short, I am quite sure the weight scale is correct,
probably to the nearest half-pound all the way up to 1,000 lbs. This type of
scale been used since the beginning of the industrial revolution, it is
extremely reliable.
 
 
     "I don't at all know how to get an independent check on the power
     measuring equipment."
 
I know exactly how to get an independent check: put the Dranetz meter back in
the carrying case, take it over to General Electric, and have them calibrate
it again. They will put a new sticker on it. Then you will know for sure the
thing works according to specifications. What Bruce has in mind is an
independent check on site. That is a darn good idea. I know how that is done
too, but I am not capable of doing the work. I am sure Tom Droege cannot do a
proper job either. You need an engineer who is familiar with three-phase
motors, Dranetz electric power meters, and Eaton dynamometers. You need tools
like an oscilloscope to manually measure phase angles, amplitude etc. Of
course the Dranetz does that automatically, computes the answer, and computes
the integrated total energy. It does the job far better than you can do it
with an oscilloscope, but you can verify it with the scope. You check the
dynamometer torque readings by hanging a weight off the side. You check the
RPM readings with a strobe light. This type of testing and calibration is
routine. There are are reliable, standard methods of measuring these things;
methods which any consulting engineer will know. With help from Griggs, I did
a number of the tests I am describing. I checked his electric meter against my
puny little $50 Radio Shack ammeter, and I tested the torque of the
dynamometer, although not the RPMs. I do not know enough about oscilloscopes
and electric power to check phase angles, but any qualified consulting E.E.
would. General Electric tested and certified the Dranetz unit. The engineer
who installed the dynamometer tested it very thoroughly. In reality there is
no question these instruments are correct. There is virtually no chance of a
20%, 30% or 50% error. But it is a good learning experience for someone like
me to check the instruments independently.
 
I am sure there are dozens of consulting engineers in Atlanta who could do
bang up job on site with another set of instruments. Needless to say, Griggs
himself is a superbly qualified electrical engineer with 30 years experience
measuring energy in factories and improving efficiency. He surely does know
how to measure phase angles with oscilloscopes! But you want an independent
evaluation, so you should call another engineering firm that specializes in
that line of work. Some of the best experts in Georgia have been out there
already, from Tech and from the Power Company. They have found no mistake. If
the sci.physics.fusion readers seriously want an independent evaluation of the
experiment, they should go through the channels, find an experienced
consulting engineer with a van full of equipment, and have the job done
properly. There is no point in sending someone who does not have the equipment
and who is not trained for the job. The best you can hope for is another
report like mine, from a non-professional who assumes that General Electric
and Eaton know what they are doing, and assumes the user manuals are not
kidding when they say this equipment is accurate to the nearest half-percent
at these power levels.
 
That is the best you can hope for, but I know Tom Droege, and I can predict
what you will get: a muddled, inconclusive, closed-minded report full of
nonsense like his claims about the Pons and Fleischmann experiments. Regarding
P&F, he said that you can hook up several electrochemical cells in series
electrically, turn one off, and have the others continue. He made dozens of
other really stupid, elementary mistakes, the kind that Morrison, Blue or
Frank Close are famous for: the "cigarette lighter effect" that allows
chemical energy storage of 203 eV per atom; "cold mist" that magically raises
350 lbs of water from room temperature to 104 deg F. Why does anyone take
these people seriously after all the crap they have posted over the years? Tom
understands his own calorimeter to some extent, but he completely fails to
understand the simpler, better calorimeters used by people like Pons and
Fleischmann, Mizuno or Srinivasan. He will make up some damn nonsense about
electrical noise from the GG interfering with the thermocouples -- and he will
say he forgot to measure after the GG turned off; or he will forget that
kinetic energy is converted to heat when the water stops moving; or he will
say the excess came from the auxiliary pump, and he forgot to measure the
temperature Delta T with only the aux pump running, and forgot to measure the
power draw of the aux pump.
 
Someone with experience and common sense -- like me -- will think up a dozen
objections and immediately test them to see whether they are valid or not.
That is why I can come to firm conclusion after a few months whereas the
"skeptics" will dither, doubt, ho and hum the rest of their lives. You can
send Tom to Rome, Georgia or you can send him to Hell -- either way he will
report back he cannot tell whether it is hot or cold.
 
 
     "One thing however that I would be curious about is how well the two
     independent methods of power measurement track one another, and what the
     two measurements imply about the efficiency of the motor used."
 
The methods track perfectly. The power output from the motor is exactly what
the manufacturer's specifications show it should be at different power
levels.
 
 
     "On a side note, it still isn't clear to me whether the "excess energy"
     is being computed relative to the power put into the Griggs device
     itself, or relative to the power put into the motor driving the device."
 
The excess is relative to both. There is more heat energy coming out than
electric power going in, and *far more* heat energy output then mechanical
energy input.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenjedrothwell cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.04 /  jedrothwell@de /  I have latest Arata paper
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: I have latest Arata paper
Date: Fri, 4 Nov 94 13:13:46 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Takahashi at Osaka U. sent me a copy of the Arata paper described in the
"Osaka University Newspaper." If you read Japanese and you would like a copy,
please send me your mailing address.
 
The newspaper was a little fuzzy about this point, but the paper does say that
in these latest experiments they are using an outer cathode of Pd and an inner
cathode of Pd black. In earlier experiments they used nickel with Pd sputtered
on to it (see ICCF3). There is a lot of detail in here about the calorimetry,
I am happy to report. There is far more detail about all aspects of the work
than they presented at ICCF4. Their Japanese is better than their English.
Prof. Zhang, needless to say, beats everyone on that score. She is one up on
me, she speaks good English, Japanese *and* Chinese.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenjedrothwell cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.04 / Alan M /  Re: Y. Arata DS-Cathode cold fusion
     
Originally-From: Alan@moonrake.demon.co.uk ("Alan M. Dunsmuir")
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Y. Arata DS-Cathode cold fusion
Date: Fri, 4 Nov 1994 17:22:37 +0000
Organization: Home

In article: <39bdlp$2s9@ixnews1.ix.netcom.com>  parky@ix.netcom.com
(Chris Parkinson) writes:
> All Right!!!!
>
> So glad there are folks keeping up on what is coming out of Japan. If
> Arata's proposal stands up to scrutiny then my predictions of two months
> ago will actually be ahead of schedule. All I can say is if this holds
> its own, then I want to give a great big neener, neener, neeners to all
> those who have stood staunchly in defiance of CF.
>
Dream on, Chris.
 
Alan M. Dunsmuir [@ his wits end]     (Can't even quote poetry right)
 
         I am his Highness' dog at Kew
         Pray tell me sir, whose dog are you?
                              [Alexander Pope]
 
PGP Public Key available on request.
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenAlan cudfnAlan cudlnM cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.04 / J Nowotarski /  Re: Mysterious Bass and his Mystical Secrets
     
Originally-From: jimn@ops1.bwi.wec.com (James Nowotarski)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Mysterious Bass and his Mystical Secrets
Date: Fri, 4 Nov 1994 18:39:12 GMT
Organization: Westinghouse Electric Corporation

In article <39bd6g$2jd@ixnews1.ix.netcom.com> parky@ix.netcom.com
(Chris Parkinson) writes:
 
 
>[...] I distrust anyone who makes claimes and yet
>cannot be verified. I've had too many instances in real life that make
>me quite wary of phony baloneys that only wish to disinform.
 
I'm glad to see that you feel this way.
Does this apply to Jed too, or only to the skeptics?
 
>I'm glad to
>see you are real but still find your Griggs analysis quite poor. Why
>dont you get a PO from your finance department and purchase one of
>Griggs devices. 10 grand is alot but if your department could debug this
>phenomena it would actually be quite cheap.
 
I don't really think that Dale's department needs to spend 10 grand for yet
another experiment that proves conservation of energy. I suspect that there
are far better ways for his department to spend 10 grand.
 
>[...]there are savings to be had. Now, do you really think
>that they would commit to such fraud as to get sued by someone?
 
Fraud, no.
Oops, experimental error.
 
Hey, did anyone else notice that the water heater has arrived!
And without neutrons, helium or D-D fusion! (Maybe)
The doubletalk stayed the same, though.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenjimn cudfnJames cudlnNowotarski cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.04 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Why Griggs patents won't hold
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Why Griggs patents won't hold
Date: Fri, 4 Nov 1994 18:02:55 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <Bg5375Q.jedrothwell@delphi.com>,  <jedrothwell@delphi.com> wrote:
>jlogajan@mirage.skypoint.net (John Logajan) writes:
>
>     "Griggs embodiment is necessarily an inefficient producer of ultrasonic
>     energy. . . . Therefore, the Griggs device, even if it works as claimed
>     by some ultrasonic effect, is a dead end -- a means to an end in the
>     best of cases, but a dead end even in the very short term."
>
>That is incorrect. There is strong evidence that the Griggs machine can be
>made far more efficient, to the point where it can be used as a self
>sustaining motor or generator. Both Griggs and his predecessor Schaefer
 
     Just as I suspected, one 'inventor' following directly in
     the footsteps of another 'inventor'.  Jed, you may kindly dispense
     with the horse doo-doo about 'Just looking for an efficient
     heater when all of the sudden...' now.
 
>reported incidents where the machines generated C.O.P.s well above the level
>needed to self-sustain (about 500%). These events are few and far between, and
>they are not readily reproducible now because the machine is not well
>understood.
 
     It's pixies.  They can be so truculent sometimes.
 
     'Not readily reproducible'.  That would make a great title
     for a book on these nutball 'inventors'.
 
>dry and semi-dry cells have much more potential, and they load faster. I have
>no doubt that the Pd D2O cells do generate massive excess heat, but I suspect
>they will be too finicky to commercialize.
 
     'Too finicky to commercialize' would be another great title
     for a book on P&F.  I wonder how one indicates sarcasm on a
     dust cover...
 
                            dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.04 / Cameron Bass /  Re: GG better than heat pump / Wrights
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: GG better than heat pump / Wrights
Date: Fri, 4 Nov 1994 13:44:48 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <hi9WDJO.jedrothwell@delphi.com>,  <jedrothwell@delphi.com> wrote:
>Cameron Randale Bass <crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU> writes:
>
>     "Apparently your reading skills need sharpening.  I have told
>     you the answer, experimental error, any number of times.
>     Repeat after me, Jed, experimental error, experimental error ..."
>
>
>This is not an answer. You have not told us anything. You must specify what
>the experimental error is.
 
     I must have missed it when you passed out 'Jed Rothwell's rules'.
 
>There are only three places to look:
>
>     The temperature of the water, measured by thermocouples, thermistors and
>     a mercury thermometer.
>
>     The mass of the water, measured on a balance weight scale which was
>     calibrated and certified to the nearest half-pound.
>
>     The input energy (power integrated over time) measured by both the
>     Dranetz electric power meter and the Eaton dynamometer, both recently
>     calibrated and certified by the manufacturers.
>
>Tell us where the error is. Which instrument is incorrect? Why? Put up or shut
>up.
 
     Any or all of them in incompetent hands.  But the first thing to
     check is the power meter.  Put a scope on the input power, integrate
     over time to high frequencies without incorporating some assumed
     efficiency in the motor, and report *that* number with the enthalpies.
 
     However, it is quite apparent that seeking experimental errors
     is not your forte, having measured the temperature of a rotor housing
     with a pyrometer, and then having reported 'fusion' on the basis
     of that measurement.
 
> You
>do not know. You are bluffing.
 
     What bluff?  It's experimental error.  It matters little if you
     wish to find the source or not.
 
>cock-and-bull nonsense like Richard Blue's "cold mist" idea? Or invisible heat
>pumps, or enough stored energy to last for a year? Other "skeptics" have
>posted these ridiculous ideas, you should too. It is sad that so many
>"skeptics" like you, Steve Jones, and Frank Close, and Morrison have held
>back. All of you should try to demolish Griggs, E-Quest, Pons and Fleischmann,
>Arata, McKubre, Mizuno, or Cravens. You should stop hiding, stop ducking and
>evading. You are cowards and fools. You know you are wrong, you have nothing
>to say, and no way to disprove any of these experiments.
 
     Life's too short to find experimental errors in the labs of
     'inventors' who cannot find their own.  That includes P&F.
 
> You don't even have
>the guts to try. At least Richard Blue makes a brave effort, and shows us all
>how stupid he is.
 
     Stupid is as stupid does, Jed.  Tell us about that fusion in the
     metal again, I'm still laughing about that.
 
                             dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.04 / O Committee /  MAHYD95: 14 International Conference on Magnetohydrodynamics
     
Originally-From: mahyd95@elmh.iph.sal.lv (Organization Committee)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.mech.fluids,sci.physics.computational.fluid-
ynamics,sci.materials,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.electromag
Subject: MAHYD95: 14 International Conference on Magnetohydrodynamics
in Riga. First Announcement and Call for Papers
Date: 4 Nov 1994 08:39:33 GMT
Organization: Institute of Physics, Latvia

MAHYD 95
 14th International Conference on Magnetohydrodynamics in Riga
24-26 August 1995, Jurmala, Latvia
 
First Announcement and Call for Papers
 
     The Riga Conference on Magnetohydrodynamics is the well known regular
meeting place for the researchers in all fields of magnetic interaction with
a fluid flow. The previous conferences starting with the first one in 1958
gathered typically 200-300 specialists from the ex-Soviet Union to exchange
the ideas both in theoretical and applied problems, and only a few scientists
of the international community were invited. In the present, Riga - the
capital of Latvia, has acquired all the appearance of a western city and
grows as a bridge for trade and a meeting place for the East and West Europe.
 
      The Conference will be held at the House of Science in Jurmala the
beautiful sea resort, which is in 20 minutes reach from the ancient center
of Riga with many tourist attractions. Accommodation will be arranged at
the House of Science. Further information will be sent with the second
announcement.
 
     The MHD Conference will take place in close succession to the 2nd
Baltic Heat Transfer Conference at the same location, 21-23 August.
This is arranged with the intention to give possibility to attend both
meetings for the interested specialists.
 
Main topics of the MAHYD 95  Conference:
-  theoretical and general aspects of an incompressible fluid
   magnetohydrodynamics
-  numerical methods for simulations of flow and electro-magnetic field,
   use of commercial packages
-  measurement techniques in MHD experiments and technology
-  dynamo theoretical and experimental aspects (magnetic field generation
   in a fluid flow)
-  heat transfer and magnetic convection (incompressible fluids)
-  ferrofluids (dynamics and structure)
-  fusion applications of liquid metal magnetohydrodynamics
-  MHD propulsion in fluid media
-  metallurgical applications
-  electrolytic metal production (with a special emphasis for aluminium
   reduction cells)
-  crystal growth, MHD related space technology
 
Papers.
 
Three copies of an extended abstract in English and printed in camera ready
quality on one A-4 page in single spacing (Times 12) should be sent to the
Organizing Committee prior to January 30, 1995.
The notification of acceptance and the second information letter will be
sent not later than March 15, 1995.
The full papers will be expected up to July 31, 1995.
The abstract volume will be available at the Conference, and the
Proceedings of the Conference will be published in the special issue of
the journal "Magnetohydrodynamics" both in English and in Russian.
 
Scientific and Organizing committee
O.Lielausis (chairman), E.Blums, V.Bojarevics, A.Cebers, A.Gailitis,
Yu.Gelfgat
 
Address for correspondence
 
MAHYD 95
Institute of Physics
Salaspils-1, LV-2169
Latvia
 
Fax:   +371-2-944700,  +371-8-820113
Telephone:  +371-2-944700
E-mail:  mahyd95@elmh.iph.sal.lv
MAHYD 95
Institute of Physics
Salaspils-1, LV-2169
Latvia
 
Registration form (to be sent before January 30, 1995)
 
Name: _____________________________________________
First Name: _______________________________________
Affiliation: ______________________________________
___________________________________________________
Address: __________________________________________
___________________________________________________
___________________________________________________
Phone: ____________________________
Fax: ______________________________
E-mail: ___________________________
 
Do you wish to present a paper?      Yes   No
 
Title of the paper: ______________________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
Authors of the paper:_____________________________________
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
 
 
 
 
 
____________________________________________________________
Do you wish to attend the Baltic Heat Conference?
 Yes   No
(to be sent as soon as possible before November 15, 1995)
In case "yes", you will receive the information as soon as possible.
 
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenmahyd95 cudfnOrganization cudlnCommittee cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.04 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Why Griggs patents won't hold
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Why Griggs patents won't hold
Date: Fri, 4 Nov 94 09:50:40 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

jlogajan@mirage.skypoint.net (John Logajan) writes:
 
     "Griggs embodiment is necessarily an inefficient producer of ultrasonic
     energy. . . . Therefore, the Griggs device, even if it works as claimed
     by some ultrasonic effect, is a dead end -- a means to an end in the
     best of cases, but a dead end even in the very short term."
 
That is incorrect. There is strong evidence that the Griggs machine can be
made far more efficient, to the point where it can be used as a self
sustaining motor or generator. Both Griggs and his predecessor Schaefer
reported incidents where the machines generated C.O.P.s well above the level
needed to self-sustain (about 500%). These events are few and far between, and
they are not readily reproducible now because the machine is not well
understood. If we can learn more about how it works, it seems likely that a
self sustaining version can be built. It might be extremely inefficient, with
a C.O.P. barely above the self sustaining level (between 500% and 1000%), but
that would not matter much because the fuel is free.
 
Shaefer is deceased, I got that information from his son.
 
It is much too early to declare any approach a "dead end" in this field. The
only form of CF or CF related energy that I have serious doubts about is pure
palladium wet cell electrolysis. I think the various schemes for gas loading,
dry and semi-dry cells have much more potential, and they load faster. I have
no doubt that the Pd D2O cells do generate massive excess heat, but I suspect
they will be too finicky to commercialize.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenjedrothwell cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.04 /  jedrothwell@de /  I did NOT miss KE in Griggs Device
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: I did NOT miss KE in Griggs Device
Date: Fri, 4 Nov 94 09:52:04 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Brian D. Rauchfuss <brauchfu@fnugget.intel.com> wrote:
 
     "Dale, you are complaining that Jed has not put any information into his
     post, when your rebuttal has even less.  Where will the mechanical
     energy delivered by the motor go, except to heat and output water
     velocity?"
 
 
And crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) responded:
 
     "No, I was actually pointing out that Jed is wrong, not that he was
     presenting no information.  And the answer is ... KE.
 
     Jed missed it, but you apparently didn't."
 
 
Dale is completely wrong, as usual. I did not miss kinetic energy. I addressed
this issue over and over and over and over again. Dale did not read what I
wrote, or he did not understand it. I am sick and tired or repeating myself
for the benefit of people who do not speak language, but I will make an
exception and explain this ONE MORE TIME. I made two points about KE:
 
1. From the paper: "This device is called a 'pump' for lack of a better word.
It does not actually move the water very much; 'pump' is something of a
misnomer, 'stirrer' would be more accurate. . . . Because the device is not
actually a pump, a small auxiliary pump moves the water from a feedwater tank,
through the pipes, into the Hydrosonic pump, and out through a steam pipe or
separate steam and condensate pipes."
 
What does that mean? It means the Pump does not impart significant KE to the
water.
 
2. I said OVER AND OVER that in the barrel test all kinetic energy is
captured. The water or steam comes out of the hose, hits the other water and
walls of the steel drum, swirls around and stops after a while.
 
What does that mean? It means that all kinetic energy in the water is
converted to heat by friction.
 
 
If Dale understood the ABC's of elementary physics he would have known these
two facts without me telling him.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenjedrothwell cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.05 / John Logajan /  Re: Why Griggs patents won't hold
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@mirage.skypoint.net (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Why Griggs patents won't hold
Date: 5 Nov 1994 04:20:00 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

MARSHALL DUDLEY (mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com) wrote:
: I do not know if the pits on the rotor are spaced equally or randomly.
 
I believe the posted Griggs patent mentioned pits every 18 degrees, or
about 20 pit-rows around the circumference.
 
: If they are random, then you may have a point there.  If however they are
: equally spaced, and there is some type of pit or roughness on the stator
: side, then the frequency would be dominate at
: RPM*60*#pits_around_circumference.
 
I believe the equation would be -- RPM/60*#pits.
 
RPM=roughly 3400, pits=20, so frequency = roughly 1100 Hz.
 
: This is the same effect that a mechanical siren uses, or similar to the
: effect that goes on in a Magnatron.  Both produce frequencies in which
: most of the power is in the fundamental and harmonic frequencies.
 
Yeah, and if you have kilowatts of 1100 Hz sound, it would be loud as hell.
 
: I would expect the Griggs device to work similarly.
 
Since there doesn't seem to be a eardrum busting amount of sound coming
out of the Griggs device even though the input power level is kilowatts,
one is lead to the conclusion that the frequency spectrum is rather broad
with most of the energy in the ultrasonic or higher range.
 
--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com  --  612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA -
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.04 /  bill /  Re: tornadoes
     
Originally-From: lodi@dino.qci.bioch.bcm.tmc.edu (bill)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.geo.meteorology,sci.physics.astro
Subject: Re: tornadoes
Date: 4 Nov 1994 19:01:45 GMT
Organization: X-Ray Crystallography / H.H.M.I.

 In article <doswell-0411940220140001@129.15.67.105> doswell@nssl.uoknor
edu (Chuck Doswell) writes:
 >
 >I'm simply going to add my two cents to this discussion.  I've been
 >chasing tornadoes since 1972, and I know a lot of folks who have been
 >doing the same for as long or longer, and a number of folks who have fewer
 >years but seen many more tornadoes than I have.  The sum of these
 >observations suggests that glowing tornadoes, if they occur at all, are
 >extremely rare.  It seems to me that if something like glowing tornadoes
 >does occur (and I am not in a position to deny that it occurs), it cannot
 >be a very important phenomenon, with regard to tornadoes in general.  If
 >any chaser out there has seen a glowing tornado, I'd be interested in
 >hearing about it, but I cannot be very enthused about this topic when so
 >many chasers have never seen anything resembling this.  I think Greg
 >Stumpf is essentially right ... many of the observations can be attributed
 >to the interaction of a destructive windstorm with the electric power
 >distribution system.  Tornadoes in cities may be illuminated at night by
 >external lights and thereby give the appearance of glowing.  Who knows
 >what may cause people to report such events, but given its relative
 >frequency it is not likely to be a topic of much scientific interest to
 >those engaged in tornado-related research.
 
 Ahem (mounts soap box)      With reference to this and Mr. Stumpf's
statements, I would like to comment that I merely passed on an account
which I believe reliable concerning anomalous light production in the
vicinity of a tornado.  I didn't say it (or the tornado) was due to a plasmoid
(whatever that is).  This post is impressive to me because of the statement
that this person is not in a position to deny that the phenom. occurs.
    Since severe local effects of severe weather is the most energetic event
(of nature) that most people ever encounter,  it is understandable that they
might have unusual properties attributed to them.  Since I suspect that
professional storm chasers would either get fired or killed if they got close
enough to observe very local phenomenon, the incidence of such
observations by professionals might be low.  Please note that sono-
luminescense (recent Science(Nature?)) is apparently still not well
understood.
 
            This whole matter leads me to ask a probably dumb question.
Has anyone attempted to obtain a very wide spectrum EM characterization
of tornadic storms to see if a characteristic EM emission occurs?  (Other
than whirling, glowing transformers :);)) .   If tornadoes produce such
characteristic waves then of course they could be DFed while still aloft,
etc.   If they don't, the rotating "plaswhatever" idea might suffer.   Surely
someone has done this.   (falls off soap box)
 
(don't call me surely)
 
B.
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenlodi cudlnbill cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.05 / Jorge Stolfi /  Re: GG better than heat pump / Wrights
     
Originally-From: stolfi@stack.dcc.unicamp.br (Jorge Stolfi)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: GG better than heat pump / Wrights
Date: 5 Nov 1994 04:33:00 GMT
Organization: DCC - UNICAMP - Campinas, SP, Brazil

 
    > [Jed Rothwell:] Why not invent some cock-and-bull nonsense like
    > ... enough stored energy to last for a year?
 
For the benefit of those who have just tuned into this channel,
and who may be misled by Jed's rhetoric, let me say once more that
 
  * in all, yes, *ALL* the measurements that Jed Rothwell and Gene
    Mallove have published here, the total "excess heat" observed is
    only a small fraction of the the heat stored in the pump;
 
  * moreover, the "stored heat" explanation fits like a glove to
    several puzzling features of the pump's behavior, as reported by
    Jed himself: the need for an initial "flow adjustment period" with
    its mysterious "boiloff" events; the smaller "excess power output"
    observed with longer measurement intervals; and especially the
    fact that the start of the "excess heat production mode" is
    signalled by a drop in the input power drawn by the motor, rather
    than an increase in the output heat flow.
 
Let readers be warned also that Jed's "energy to last for a year" quip
is not based on any established fact, but only on an evaluation by some
unidentified customer of Griggs --- not backed by any real data.
 
--jorge
 
 -------------------------------------------------------------------
Jorge Stolfi                                | Tel: +55 (192) 39-8442
Computer Science Dept. (DCC-IMECC)          |      +55 (192) 39-3115
Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP) | Fax: +55 (192) 39-7470
Internet: stolfi@dcc.unicamp.br             | Campinas, SP -- Brazil
 -------------------------------------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenstolfi cudfnJorge cudlnStolfi cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.05 / Chris Parkinson /  Re: tornadoes
     
Originally-From: parky@ix.netcom.com (Chris Parkinson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.geo.meteorology,sci.physics.astro
Subject: Re: tornadoes
Date: 5 Nov 1994 20:08:55 GMT
Organization: Netcom

In <doswell-0411940220140001@129.15.67.105> doswell@nssl.uoknor.edu
(Chuck Doswell) writes:
 
>
>
>I'm simply going to add my two cents to this discussion.  I've been
>chasing tornadoes since 1972, and I know a lot of folks who have been
>doing the same for as long or longer, and a number of folks who have
fewer
 
>deletions...    many of the observations can be attributed
>to the interaction of a destructive windstorm with the electric power
>distribution system.  Tornadoes in cities may be illuminated at night
by
>external lights and thereby give the appearance of glowing.  Who knows
>what may cause people to report such events, but given its relative
>frequency it is not likely to be a topic of much scientific interest to
>those engaged in tornado-related research.
>
>--
>Chuck Doswell
 
 
In regards to this I'd like to add a note:
 
I have a relative that lives in South Carolina and during huricane Hugo
he remained in his coastal home. The one thing that really stuck out in
his mind about the event, was the coloration of the clouds just prior to
the storm hitting. He said that they took on an eiery glow sort of
yellowish green. Now the thing that strikes me as rather odd is the idea
of a glow. And add to this that this storm was primarily over the
Atlantic and not over land. This therefore adds to the mystery as there
obviously was no way for the cloud and wind energies to pick up any EMF
from any opther source. And yet my brother still claims that it glowed.
I'm curious if any other have seen this event and moreover I feel that a
study in this arena will have a more mystrious phenomena attached to it
as one cannot quickly dismiss power lines or illumination due to street
or home lighting.
 
Regards,
CP
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenparky cudfnChris cudlnParkinson cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.04 / C Harrison /  Periodic Post: Cold Fusion online at sunsite.unc.edu
     
Originally-From: harr@netcom.com (Charles (Chuck) Harrison)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Periodic Post: Cold Fusion online at sunsite.unc.edu
Date: Fri, 4 Nov 1994 19:01:34 GMT
Organization: Fitful

This message is posted periodically to inform readers about on-line
data sources related to "cold fusion" which are located at the
University of North Carolina SunSITE server.
 
Two public WAIS (Wide Area Information Server) sources are online:
(1) Dieter Britz's Bibliography (periodically updated), and
(2) A sci.physics.fusion archive (1989 to present).
WAIS provides for multiple keyword searches in these databases.  It
does _not_ support boolean logic in the searching :-(.
 
1.  If you are directly connected to Internet, you can log onto a public
    WAIS server at the University of North Carolina:
    %telnet sunsite.unc.edu
    ...
    login: swais
    ...
    TERM = (unknown) vt100
    It takes a minute to load ...
 
    <use ? for online help>
    <use /cold to locate the cold-fusion "Source" - the Britz biblio>
    < or use /fusion to locate the fusion-digest source>
    <follow the prompts to select the source and enter your keywords
     for searching>
 
2.  If you have a "gopher" client, you can use it for WAIS access.  Many
    university campuses provide gopher as a public information service.
2a. On most systems, you first select an option labeled "Other Systems",
    then from that menu select "WAIS based information".  Since each
    gopher site creates its own menus, I can't tell you exactly where to
    go from there.
2b. If you can gopher to SunSITE, at UNC, navigate the menus down thru
    SunSITE archives..All archives..Academic..Physics..Cold-fusion.
    You will find the searchable databases (typically marked <?>), as
    well as the primary-literature files discussed below.
2c. If you can 'telnet' but not 'gopher', you may telnet to
    sunsite.unc.edu and login as 'gopher'.  Then follow 2a or 2b above.
 
3.  If you have World Wide Web (WWW) browser, such as Mosaic, Cello, or
    Lynx, you may use the following URL's:
     wais://sunsite.unc.edu/cold-fusion       Britz bibliography
     wais://sunsite.unc.edu/fusion-digest     newsgroup archive
     gopher://sunsite.unc.edu/11/../.pub/academic/physics/Cold-fusion
 
4.  If you have a WAIS client on your system (the most common ones are
    "swais" -- character-based, and "xwais" -- for X-Windows), use it.  The
    Britz source is called "cold-fusion" and it is listed in the
    directory-of-servers.
 
    If you _want_ a WAIS client program to run on your system, several are
    available in the public domain.  Try ftp-ing to one of these sites:
      sunsite.unc.edu
      think.com
 
There are several additional files archived at sunsite (e.g. Bollinger's
Twist of Ribbon, preprints of the Fleischmann&Pons 1989 paper), which
are accessible by anonymous ftp.
    %ftp sunsite.unc.edu
    . . .
    >cd pub/academic/physics/Cold-fusion
    >dir
The collection (mostly primary papers) maintained by vince cate has been
copied over to pub/academic/physics/Cold-fusion/vince-cate.
 
Additional contributions are welcome; e-mail cfh@sunsite.unc.edu.
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenharr cudfnCharles cudlnHarrison cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.05 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Y. Arata DS-Cathode cold fusion
     
Originally-From: barry@redwood.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Y. Arata DS-Cathode cold fusion
Date: Sat, 5 Nov 94 04:02:43 GMT
Organization: UCLA Dept. of Math, UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research

In article <39bdlp$2s9@ixnews1.ix.netcom.com> parky@ix.netcom.com
(Chris Parkinson) writes:
>All I can say is if this holds
>its own, then I want to give a great big neener, neener, neeners to all
>those who have stood staunchly in defiance of CF.
>
 
And what will you do if it doesn't hold its own?
 
For one thing: your attitude above suggests that you think the
skeptics among us _don't want_ CF to exist. Nothing is
further from the truth---we would all be delighted if it
exists; the problem is we don't think it _can exist_, given
the situation as described.
 
But, consider: based on Arata's published reports, we should
conclude he has had reproducible CF under control for
4 years now---yet he still has not provided any evidence
that fusion or any other nuclear process is occuring. Odd,
given four years with such a simple, functioning system,
that he hasn't been able to better characterize what is going on.
 
 
 
 
--
Barry Merriman
UCLA Dept. of Math
UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet)   barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (NeXTMail)
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.05 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Griggs testing
     
Originally-From: barry@redwood.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs testing
Date: Sat, 5 Nov 94 21:27:12 GMT
Organization: UCLA Dept. of Math, UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research

In article <Cyrv2J.Fp5@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> crb7q@watt.seas.Virgini
.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>     Or do something really stupid like measuring temperature with a
>     pyrometer, then claiming fusion in the metal.
>
>                                 dale bass
 
Excuse my ignorance, but what is a pyrometer, exactly, and what are
they normally used for?
 
 
--
Barry Merriman
UCLA Dept. of Math
UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet)   barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (NeXTMail)
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.06 / mitchell swartz /  Griggs Testing (& pyrometry)
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Griggs Testing (& pyrometry)
Subject: Re: Griggs testing
Date: Sun, 6 Nov 1994 14:39:01 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <1994Nov5.212712.7903@math.ucla.edu>
Subject: Re: Griggs testing
Barry Merriman (barry@redwood.math.ucla.edu) writes:
 
 
   >     Or do something really stupid like measuring temperature with a
   >     pyrometer, then claiming fusion in the metal.
   >
   >                                 dale bass
=merriman "Excuse my ignorance, but what is a pyrometer, exactly, and what are
=merriman they normally used for?
 
  Any high temperature thermometer (> circa 500C) is a pyrometer.
the optical type compares color or brightness against a standard source.
The more general radiation pyrometer uses the emissions within bands of
frequency to activate a detector (ie.thermocouple, thermopile or a bolometer).
 
    -   Mitchell Swartz  (mica@world.std.com)
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.07 / Scott Mueller /  Tom's trip fund status
     
Originally-From: scott@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Scott Hazen Mueller)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Tom's trip fund status
Date: Mon, 7 Nov 1994 03:31:08 GMT
Organization: At Home; Salida, CA

I anticipate that this will be the penultimate report.  I am waiting for
one final check that I was informed of in email, and then I shall deposit
the lot and mail the total to Tom.  The status, as of today (6 Nov 1994),
is total of $1003.95 has been raised.  The current contributor list is
attached.
 
            \scott
 
Richard A. Blue
Paul T. Breed
Dieter Britz
James William Brown
James A. Carr
Kim Alan Crane
David Cyganski
Alan M. Dunsmuir
Kenneth D. Easton
Nancy Gillett
Jeffery John Gorris
V. Guruprasad
Bruce Hamilton
Robert W. Horst
Roderick D. Johnson
Steven E. Jones
Kristoph D. Krug
John K. C. Lewis
Xavier Llobet
Scott Hazen Mueller
Mark Muhlestein
Tarl Neustaedter
Andreas G. Nowatzyk
William S. Page
David W. Pierson
Richard Schroeppel
David Seghers
Thomas J. Selby
Bradley K. Sherman
Barry Smith
Gary Steckly
Jorge Stolfi
Anthony Sumner
Mike Thompson
Robert A. Virzi
Warren O. Weingarten
John Winterflood
Dr. John H. Whipple
John N. White
Frank Yashar
Thomas S. Zemanian
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenscott cudfnScott cudlnMueller cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.08 / Richard Blue /  C.O.P. of 500% ???
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: C.O.P. of 500% ???
Date: Tue, 8 Nov 1994 01:05:47 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Jed Rothwell just cracks me up.  Here he has been telling us that
Jim Griggs is a mild-mannered engineer who had no intention of
building an "over unity" device.  It just happened that he stumbled
on to the best way yet to do cold fusion.  Now the story takes on
a slightly different twist.  Griggs, it seems, has been holding out.
He has known all along that is possible to generate up to 5 times
the input power with one of these devices.  Of course Griggs has
never even claimed that cold fusion is involved, and does not seem
to be the least bit upset about this small discrepancy between
output and input power.  It's a good thing Jed Rothwell came along
to sort things out in a truly scientific manner. (insert huge grin
here)
 
Dick Blue
 
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.07 /  DanHicks /  Re: Tests Tom Droege could do on Griggs device
     
Originally-From: danhicks@aol.com (DanHicks)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Tests Tom Droege could do on Griggs device
Date: 7 Nov 1994 00:44:40 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

In article <38v34k$lqi@jazzmin.vnet.net>, jnw@jazzmin.vnet.net (John N.
White) writes:
 
>>>And that is a completely different thing from a current meter. For
instance,
if power flows the other way, then the above power meter will read
negative
while the current meter still reads positive.<<<
 
And, if the power meter reads negative, it's because the POWER FLOW IS
NEGATIVE.  If you want to actually measure input power (and not input
volt-amps), you need to measure power via the instantaneous (current *
voltage) method.  If indeed the motor load drops when the GG starts
"creating" power then the phase angle will go up, the power factor will
drop, and input power (at a constant volt-amp level) will likewise drop.
No matter what you may feel about the reality of the GG itself, it's
unfair to "charge" it more for input power than the electric company
charges(*) -- the physics of the matter is that input power IS determined
by instantaneous (current * voltage), even if that disagrees with the RMS
volts * RMS amps method.
 
(*) Yes, the electric company tacks on surcharges for poor power factors,
but that's to pay for the increased distribution losses that poor power
factors charge.
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudendanhicks cudlnDanHicks cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.06 /  DanHicks /  Re: GG better than heat pump / Wrights
     
Originally-From: danhicks@aol.com (DanHicks)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: GG better than heat pump / Wrights
Date: 6 Nov 1994 23:31:26 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

In article <941031164155_72240.1256_EHB179-1@CompuServe.COM>,
72240.1256@compuserve.com (Jed Rothwell) writes:
 
>>>a heat pump cannot be used to boil water<<<
 
A heat pump using the right working fluid certainly could be used to boil
water.
 
The real problem with heat pumps is that effective efficiency (relative to
friction/resistance heating) drops rapidly as the temperature gradient
increases.  And, since there are inherent inefficiencies and costs with a
heat pump that aren't present with resistance heating, et al, the net cost
per BTU (or whatever) of a heat pump quickly exceeds that of other methods
as the gradient increases.
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudendanhicks cudlnDanHicks cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.05 / Chuck Doswell /  Re: tornadoes
     
Originally-From: doswell@nssl.uoknor.edu (Chuck Doswell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.geo.meteorology
Subject: Re: tornadoes
Date: Sat, 05 Nov 1994 03:16:18 +0100
Organization: National Severe Storms Laboratory

In article <1994Nov2.120411.10196@yvax.byu.edu>, clawsona@yvax.byu.edu wrote:
 
> There is a case on record where a man was in his living room looking up
through
> the funnel as it passed over his house (ripped the roof off.)  He reports the
> following phen:
>
> 1) A luminescent cloud in the center of the funnel several hundred feet
off the
> ground.
>
> 2) An eerie light that illuminated the entire area.
>
> 3) A near total lack of sound
>
> 4) The ability to see through the funnel to the outside
>
> 5) What appeared to be a series of rings stacked upon eachother to
comprise the
> funnel.  The lowest "ring" would shift, then the one above, and so on,
creating
> a ripple effect.
>
> 6) No noticible difficulty in breathing.
>
> This report was reprinted in a book on weather that I have, but did not bring
> with me to school.
 
I've read this account, attributed to a Roy Beech (spelling?) if I recall,
and while it certainly is very interesting, it has little to do with the
things that I and a large number of chasers intercepting a large number of
tornadoes have seen.  Few of us have ever looked up directly into funnels,
which might well be filled with darned near anything, I suppose, but
tornado funnels probably aren't generally filled with glowing clouds.  As
I indicated in my two cents worth on the subject, isolated observations
cannot be repudiated or denied, but if they are not repeated or
substantiated in some meaningful way, they are simply curiosities that do
not have much bearing on scientific research.  If something happens so
rarely that it has only been seen once or twice, and then by untrained
observers, then it hardly seems likely to be playing an important role in
the phenomenon.  That's why discussions of glowing tornadoes aren't going
to lead serious tornado researchers to drop what they are doing to study
up on plasma physics!  Show me that this is a feature common to most, if
not all, tornadoes, and I'll be interested.  Otherwise, it's just idle
chit-chat.
 
--
Chuck Doswell        'Illegitimi non carborundum"
NOAA/NSSL
Norman, OK            Standard disclaimer
cudkeys:
cuddy05 cudendoswell cudfnChuck cudlnDoswell cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.05 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Griggs testing
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs testing
Date: Sat, 5 Nov 1994 02:03:54 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <Bux3LfU.jedrothwell@delphi.com>,  <jedrothwell@delphi.com> wrote:
 
>     "I don't at all know how to get an independent check on the power
>     measuring equipment."
>
>I know exactly how to get an independent check: put the Dranetz meter back in
>the carrying case, take it over to General Electric, and have them calibrate
>it again. They will put a new sticker on it.
 
     The sticker.  I love it.
 
> Then you will know for sure the thing works according to specifications.
> What Bruce has in mind is an
>independent check on site. That is a darn good idea. I know how that is done
>too, but I am not capable of doing the work.
 
     Surely you jest, he noted dryly.
 
> I am sure Tom Droege cannot do a
>proper job either. You need an engineer who is familiar with three-phase
>motors, Dranetz electric power meters, and Eaton dynamometers. You need tools
>like an oscilloscope to manually measure phase angles, amplitude etc.
 
     You need an engineer familiar with an o-scope, nothing manual
     about it.
 
[about Tom Droege]
>say the excess came from the auxiliary pump, and he forgot to measure the
>temperature Delta T with only the aux pump running, and forgot to measure the
>power draw of the aux pump.
 
     Or do something really stupid like measuring temperature with a
     pyrometer, then claiming fusion in the metal.
 
                                 dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.07 / Ad aspera /  Re: tornadoes
     
Originally-From: JTCHEW@lbl.gov (Ad absurdum per aspera)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.geo.meteorology
Subject: Re: tornadoes
Date: Mon, 07 Nov 1994 11:22:11 -0800
Organization: Purely personal 'pinions

> Indeed, Dr. Bernard Vonnegut, at the State University of New
> York at Albany, has advanced such ideas.
 
Yes, he did, quite some time ago (as far back as the late
1950s, I believe).  I've got a preprint of "Electrical
*Theory* of Tornadoes" [emphasis mine], probably from J.
Geophysical Research, in a box in the attic somewhere.
 
I don't know if he ever formally recanted it, but by the time
I met him in the early 80s, he wasn't spontaneously talking
about tornadoes anymore, and I've never been told by an
atmospheric physicist that tornadoes are thought today to be
electrical in origin.  His specialty is cloud electrification,
and you know what they say about people who walk around with
a hammer... Remember also that tornadoes had been studied a
lot less at that time, and that researchers' ability to model
complicated fluid-dynamics problems was far more limited.
 
I assure you that BV is a respectable scientist, not one of
the well-meaning souls who may be found studying at the fringes
of meteorology, weird-looking electrical phenomena, or the life
of Tesla.  And hardly the first scientist, or the last, to put
forth a theory that didn't fly...
 
Cheers,
--Joe
cudkeys:
cuddy07 cudenJTCHEW cudfnAd cudlnaspera cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.05 / Alan M /  Re: I did NOT miss KE in Griggs Device
     
Originally-From: Alan@moonrake.demon.co.uk ("Alan M. Dunsmuir")
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: I did NOT miss KE in Griggs Device
Date: Sat, 5 Nov 1994 17:00:39 +0000
Organization: Home

In article: <Jg6Ubjc.jedrothwell@delphi.com>  jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:
 
> a small auxiliary pump moves the water from a feedwater tank,
> through the pipes, into the Hydrosonic pump, and out through a steam pipe or
> separate steam and condensate pipes.
 
What's the power consumption of this 'small auxiliary pump', Jed?
 
Alan M. Dunsmuir [@ his wits end]     (Can't even quote poetry right)
 
         I am his Highness' dog at Kew
         Pray tell me sir, whose dog are you?
                              [Alexander Pope]
 
PGP Public Key available on request.
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenAlan cudfnAlan cudlnM cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.04 / Philip Snyder /  Re: IAEA Corrects Rob Heeter (was 'Tech Reply to Mitch, part 2.1)
     
Originally-From: pbsnyder@tucson.princeton.edu (Philip B. Snyder)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: IAEA Corrects Rob Heeter (was 'Tech Reply to Mitch, part 2.1)
Date: Fri, 4 Nov 1994 16:48:19 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

In article <Cypt3p.2yL@world.std.com> mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
>   In Message-ID: <1994Oct31.054645.19499@Princeton.EDU>
>Subject: Technical Reply to Mitch, Part 2.1
>Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> writes more
>nonsense to support his preposterous claim that
>tritium is 'relatively benign' and the term 'low toxicity' is not
>appropriate for tritium.    Mr. Heeter has also claimed
>that all other radioisotopes are 'nasty'.
>
>  In Section 2 by Robert Heeter (which runs 170
>lines)  there are several interesting references but none
>(as yet specified) which explicitly support his flawed contention.
>In the reply to Section 1, it was shown that Sax contradicts
>Mr. Heeter.  Also it was shown that Rees contradicts
>Mr. Heeter in this matter.
>
>  That contradiction will now be augmented by the IAEA,
>International Atomic Energy Commission (Vienna),
>in its Safety Series No. 1, "Safe Handling of Radioisotopes", and
>by the U.S.  National Safety Council's publication
>"Manual for Accident Prevention for Industrial Operations".
>
>
>      == CLASSIFICATION OF ISOTOPES ACCORDING TO
>RELATIVE RADIOTOXICITY PER UNIT ACTIVITY ===
>   (adapted from "International Atomic
>Energy Commission,Safety Series No. 1, Safe Handling of Radioisotopes,
>see also "Manual for Accident Prevention for Industrial Operations",
>McRElroy.
>     -----------------------------------------------------------------
>low             moderate             high            very high
>toxicity
>3H               32P                 131I              90Sr
>7Be              42K             natural uranium      226Ra
>18F              60Co                59Fe              233U
>71Ge             192Ir               151Sm           241 Am
>
>   As Rob Heeter was informed with the references which he dislikes but is
>unable to supplement, complement, refute with specificity or replace,
>there are categories used to describe the toxicity of radioisotopes.
>Tritium is in the group of low toxicity (Rees, IAEA).   Some would put it in
>a higher group (see below, Sax).   In any case, it
> does NOT belong on corn flakes where "relatively benign"
>(hopefully nutritious but who knows anymore) materials belong.
>
[further info about 3H toxicity omitted]
>
>  In summary, there is nothing benign or 'relatively benign' here.
>
>  Also, compared to a reference like Sax ('very toxic')
>the suggested categorization of tritium to 'low toxicity' is much
>more beneficial for the future of fusion science and engineering.
>
>  Best wishes.
>             Mitchell Swartz   (mica@world.std.com)
>
 
 
Ok, this nonsense has gone on long enough.  It is rare even on the
internet to find so much repetitive blather posted about a small
and quite simple point.
 
Bob (not "Rob") Heeter posted a simple statement in the FAQ that
tritium is a relatively benign radioactive element.
 
What this means in this context, Mitch, is that if you had to put
a given amount of a radioactive element into the environment,
tritium would be a better choice than, say, uranium or thorium
(which are dumped into the atmosphere by coal plants).
 
Mitch seems to misunderstand the term relatively benign. It
is equivalent logically to 'relatively less malignant'.
It does *NOT* mean 'tritium is good', it means 'tritium is not
as bad as most radioactive elements'.  Mitch, unless you
think tritium is worse than most radioactive elements,
you do not disagree with Bob.
 
As pointed out above, tritium has a relatively low radiotoxicity.
This is one of the reasons that tritium *is* a relatively
benign radioactive element.  Another reason is its short
half life (12yrs).
 
Do you think that tritium's low toxicity makes it worse
than radioactive elements with higher toxicity?  If not,
then you agree with Bob, so please show some decency and
stop repeating yourself.  If you have a better phrase
to suggest that describes not just tritium's low
toxicity, but also its short half life and other
characteristics then suggest it.  Bob has been more than
willing to make changes and additions to the FAQ when
reasonable suggestions are made.
 
-Phil Snyder
speaking for myself
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenpbsnyder cudfnPhilip cudlnSnyder cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.04 / Mike Jamison /  Re: DO YOU WANT YOU TO GET alt.inventors VOTE YES HERE TO GET IT!
     
Originally-From: edwlt12@mars.lerc.nasa.gov (Mike Jamison (ADF))
Newsgroups: alt.config,sci.misc,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: DO YOU WANT YOU TO GET alt.inventors VOTE YES HERE TO GET IT!
Date: 4 Nov 1994 11:36 EDT
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center

In article <hagieCyqAux.BFE@netcom.com>, hagie@netcom.com (Scott Hagie) writes...
>Jonathan Priluck (jamcorp@world.std.com) wrote:
>
>: Because many inventors simply are not scientists.  And most scientists
>: (often to their great consternation) are not inventors.  FinallyI prefer
>: alt.inventor over alt.sci.inventors becuase too many people think inventing
>
>Sci does not stand for scientist, it stands for science. Science is a broad
>subject that covers inventions quite well.
 
Ahh, so the Pet Rock *was* a scientific discovery!
 
I suppose it was a social science discovery, but a scientific invention???
 
Just my 2 cents...
>
>Scott
>--
>         Scott Hagie   -   hagie@netcom.com   -   Sierra Madre, Ca.
>
>        L.A. has four seasons - Earthquake, flood, fire, and drought.
 
Mike Jamison
 
"Scientific research consists in seeing what everyone else has seen, but
thinking what no one else has thought"
 
                                                -A. Szent-Gyorgyi
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenedwlt12 cudfnMike cudlnJamison cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.07 / Zhiping Yu /  Help for TRUK data!
     
Originally-From: yu@kukui.soest.hawaii.edu (Zhiping (Chip) Yu)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.geo.meteorology
Subject: Help for TRUK data!
Date: Mon, 7 Nov 1994 23:51:38 GMT
Organization: School of Ocean and Earth Science and Technology

Hi, all:
 
        Does anyone know the ftp site for TRUK data set? If you do,
please e-mail me (yu@soest.hawaii.edu). Your help is greatly
appreciated.
 
 
Chip Yu
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenyu cudfnZhiping cudlnYu cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.07 / Stanley Chow /  Re: tornadoes
     
Originally-From: schow@bnr.ca (Stanley T.H. Chow)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.geo.meteorology
Subject: Re: tornadoes
Date: 7 Nov 1994 18:37:21 GMT
Organization: Bell Northern Research Ltd, Ottawa

In article <doswell-0511940316180001@129.15.67.105>,
Chuck Doswell <doswell@nssl.uoknor.edu> wrote:
>In article <1994Nov2.120411.10196@yvax.byu.edu>, clawsona@yvax.byu.edu wrote:
[Description of an eye-witness account]
>
>I've read this account, attributed to a Roy Beech (spelling?) if I recall,
>and while it certainly is very interesting, it has little to do with the
>things that I and a large number of chasers intercepting a large number of
>tornadoes have seen.  Few of us have ever looked up directly into funnels,
>which might well be filled with darned near anything, I suppose, but
>tornado funnels probably aren't generally filled with glowing clouds.
 
In other words, you don't know, and it is not interesting to you so you
have not looked for it.
 
 
>As
>I indicated in my two cents worth on the subject, isolated observations
>cannot be repudiated or denied, but if they are not repeated or
>substantiated in some meaningful way, they are simply curiosities that do
>not have much bearing on scientific research.  If something happens so
>rarely that it has only been seen once or twice, and then by untrained
>observers, then it hardly seems likely to be playing an important role in
>the phenomenon.
 
I suppose that depends on what you are studying. As you stated, you study
tornados and it is not very important to you. On the other hand, it may
be of interest to other people. There are many fields of study where
isolated and unrepeatable evidence are all they have. For example, novas
and comets documented ONLY in unreliable historical texts are important
people having their two half-brains severed are important, etc.
 
>That's why discussions of glowing tornadoes aren't going
>to lead serious tornado researchers to drop what they are doing to study
>up on plasma physics!  Show me that this is a feature common to most, if
>not all, tornadoes, and I'll be interested.  Otherwise, it's just idle
>chit-chat.
 
It is at least possible that these glowing tornadoes are of interest to
people other than tornado chasers.
 
 
 
--
Stanley Chow  InterNet: schow@BNR.CA  (613) 763-2831
Bell Northern Research Ltd., PO Box 3511 Station C, Ottawa, Ontario
Me? Represent other people? Don't make them laugh so hard.
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenschow cudfnStanley cudlnChow cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.05 / Nick Maclaren /  Re: Radioactive smoke
     
Originally-From: nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk (Nick Maclaren)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Radioactive smoke
Date: 5 Nov 1994 16:57:00 GMT
Organization: University of Cambridge, England

In article <WAF2PCB357570338@brbbs.brbbs.com>,
MARSHALL DUDLEY <mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com> wrote:
>I don't know about now, but at least then the cinders WERE spread out
>throughout the environment, and concentrated in the cities.  The cinder blocks
>are definitely radioactive.  Once can determine within seconds if a building
>is built with these cinder blocks with a small sodium iodide detector.  Many
>buildings have surprisingly high gamma backgrounds because of them.
 
Exactly the same is true of buildings built using granite, though I
am NOT saying that the levels of radioactivity are identical.  The
real issue is whether the effect is large enough and dangerous enough
to be of concern, not whether it is detectable.
 
>I worked for years in one of these cinder block buildings.  I always thought it
>ironic that although I worked in the nuclear industry and handled nuclear
>materials, most of my exposure was not from the nuclear materials but from the
>ash of coal fired plants.
 
Grin :-)
 
Nick Maclaren,
University of Cambridge Computer Laboratory,
New Museums Site, Pembroke Street, Cambridge CB2 3QG, England.
Email:  nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk
Tel.:  +44 1223 334761    Fax:  +44 1223 334679
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudennmm1 cudfnNick cudlnMaclaren cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.05 / L McCarthy /  Re: DO YOU WANT YOU TO GET alt.inventors VOTE YES HERE TO GET IT!
     
Originally-From: lmccarth@ducie.cs.umass.edu (L. Futplex McCarthy)
Newsgroups: alt.config,sci.misc,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: DO YOU WANT YOU TO GET alt.inventors VOTE YES HERE TO GET IT!
Date: 5 Nov 1994 10:20:16 GMT
Organization: The Navicular Fracture

Jonathan Priluck writes:
$ alt.inventors is not taken.
 
Well, yes, it is. Someone insisted on newgrouping it repeatedly without any
mention of it in alt.config at all. No demand was demonstrated, and no
justification of the apparent failure to consider placing it in existing
hierarchies was given.  Basically everyone except the newgrouper who
discussed it here came out opposed to the idea.
 
At any rate, it's been heavily rmgrouped and seems most unlikely to arise
from the grave at this point.
 
It's still very far from clear to me that there's any reason this couldn't
be handled amply by existing groups and/or a rather tiny mailing list.
Even this rather garishly titled thread (read my lips: there are no votes
on alt.* groups) only appears to have attracted a handful of interested
parties.
 
$ Somebody is objecting to it for no apparent reason.
 
Well, it helps to be around for the discussion at the time of the events in
question. It's not feasible to repost weekly every discussion of everything
that's ever come through alt.config.
 
-L. Futplex McCarthy, Court Stooge of the alt.config Cabal
   [use "Subject: remailer-help" for an autoreply about my Underdog remailer]
"No one is going to newgroup alt.s-xual.-b-se.r-c-very. Who, other than Netcom,
 would bother to carry it ?" --Wednesday <wednsday@mcs.com>
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenlmccarth cudfnL cudlnMcCarthy cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.07 / Stanley Chow /  Re: GG: Image of Cavities on Rotor
     
Originally-From: schow@bnr.ca (Stanley T.H. Chow)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: GG: Image of Cavities on Rotor
Date: 7 Nov 1994 18:47:09 GMT
Organization: Bell Northern Research Ltd, Ottawa

In article <39k9v9$21t@newsbf01.news.aol.com>,
JohnANixJr <johnanixjr@aol.com> wrote:
>I had the opportunity to visit Hydrodynamics several days ago.  I
>observed an interesting phenomena, and I have have Jim's OK to
>solicit ideas for the cause of this effect.  I have been reading this
>board closely for the past several weeks, and I have a basic
>understanding of the heated :-) discussion.
 
Wow! How can you understand the heat? There are so many different
theories and refutations! Did Jim give you the scoop on HIS theory?
Oh, I see, you understand the discussion, :-)
 
[Interesting observation deleted]
 
>I work as an packaging engineer for a large consumer products
>company, and my company may be interested in installing a GG at a
>test facility. The primary interest for my company is not for "excess
>energy", but we need an electric booster to an existing heat
>exchanger that can be rapidly turned on.  We only need the extra
>heating for short bursts, i.e. energy cost not an issue.  (Any ideas
>out there for other alternatives to meet this need?)
 
Now you have done it. This used to be some abstract flame bait,
you had to go and turn it into something real (and commercially
viable). You are going to disappoint a lot of people who think
this whole idea was stupid even as a water heater.
 
 
--
Stanley Chow  InterNet: schow@BNR.CA  (613) 763-2831
Bell Northern Research Ltd., PO Box 3511 Station C, Ottawa, Ontario
Me? Represent other people? Don't make them laugh so hard.
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenschow cudfnStanley cudlnChow cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.05 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Y. Arata DS-Cathode cold fusion
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Y. Arata DS-Cathode cold fusion
Date: Sat, 5 Nov 94 16:05:36 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Barry Merriman <barry@redwood.math.ucla.edu> writes:
 
>But, consider: based on Arata's published reports, we should
>conclude he has had reproducible CF under control for
>4 years now---yet he still has not provided any evidence
>that fusion or any other nuclear process is occuring. Odd,
 
Of course he has! You must not have read his papers. It is all there in
black and white, the proof is beyond any argument. His latest paper is
a gem, I must say. It is the best I have seen in a long time.
 
The proof, of course, is massive excess heat. As he says in the paper, this
system could only generate 4 KJ of chemical energy, yet these cells have
generated as much as *200 MJ*. You cannot argue with that! It has to be a
nuclear process; no conceivable chemical storage system would allow it.
His calorimetry is superb, the excess power level is typically 80 to 90
watts and it goes a lot higher than that for periods lasting 25 hours to
150 hours. What the hell do you think could cause an energy release on
that scale?
 
Don't bother saying it is a mistake and please don't imagine you can teach
Arata anything about nuclear physics, either. He was busy making hot fusion
reactors back in 1958 -- the first in Japan. The more I read this paper,
the more I realize what a powerhouse he is. If you want to contact him, by the
way, his address is Arata Hall, Osaka National University. They named the
building in his honor.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenjedrothwell cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.08 / Paul Koloc /  Re: IAEA Corrects Rob Heeter (was 'Tech Reply to Mitch, part 2.1)
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: IAEA Corrects Rob Heeter (was 'Tech Reply to Mitch, part 2.1)
Date: Tue, 8 Nov 1994 05:08:07 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <1994Nov4.164819.5352@Princeton.EDU> pbsnyder@tucson.princeto
.edu (Philip B. Snyder) writes:
>In article <Cypt3p.2yL@world.std.com> mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
>>   In Message-ID: <1994Oct31.054645.19499@Princeton.EDU>
>>Subject: Technical Reply to Mitch, Part 2.1
>>Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> writes more
>>nonsense to support his preposterous claim that
>>tritium is 'relatively benign' and the term 'low toxicity' is not
>>appropriate for tritium.    Mr. Heeter has also claimed
>>that all other radioisotopes are 'nasty'.
>>McRElroy.
>>low             moderate             high            very high
>>     -----------------------------------------------------------------
>>3H               32P                 131I              90Sr
>>7Be              42K             natural uranium      226Ra
>>3H               32P                 131I              90Sr
>>18F              60Co                59Fe              233U
>>71Ge             192Ir               151Sm           241 Am
 
Can you pick out the high bio-uptake elements other than (HDT) found in
forms of carbohydrates(sugars-starches, water or hydrocarbons(oils/fats).
 
 
>>Tritium is in the group of low toxicity (Rees, IAEA).   Some would put it in
>>a higher group (see below, Sax).   In any case, it
>> does NOT belong on corn flakes where "relatively benign"
>>(hopefully nutritious but who knows anymore) materials belong.
>>  Best wishes.  Mitchell Swartz   (mica@world.std.com)
 
>What this means in this context, Mitch, is that if you had to put
>a given amount of a radioactive element into the environment,
>tritium would be a better choice than, say, uranium or thorium
>(which are dumped into the atmosphere by coal plants).
 
That depends of who's environment you are speaking.  My ascestor's
drank water.
 
>Mitch seems to misunderstand the term relatively benign. It
>is equivalent logically to 'relatively less malignant'.
 
It means 'relatively good or healthy'.
 
>It does *NOT* mean 'tritium is good', it means 'tritium is not
>as bad as most radioactive elements'.
 
Again, for what or whom are you judging the "as bad as".  Afterall,
ones body does take up this isotope as water, whereas most 'others'
mentioned herein above by you, are not taken up by the biofunctioning
of your body.  Consequently, "bad for you or not" depends on your
propensity for the element in its common from chemistry of water,
or plant or animal life (i.e. sugars, fats, etc).
 
> Mitch, unless you
>think tritium is worse than most radioactive elements,
>you do not disagree with Bob.
 
If he can't be taken at his word, then read my tips' induced-perturbations
of your phosphor patterns.  For humans eating tritiated food stuffs,
yes, it can be quit dangerous, and especially so, if released within
our bodies during its relatively short, but hot, lifetime.
 
 
>As pointed out above, tritium has a relatively low radiotoxicity.
 
Certainly does, on the otherside of a layer of cloth,  but .. NOT
in residence within the body.
 
>This is one of the reasons that tritium *is* a relatively
>benign radioactive element.  Another reason is its short
>half life (12yrs).
Only for people who outlive its release by 5 to 10 times.
For those housing the stuff in their fatty tissue, during the
fist 20 years, it "sucks" (very damaging).
 
>Do you think that tritium's low toxicity makes it worse
>than radioactive elements with higher toxicity?
Toxicity depends on the natual inclination for bio uptake as
well as "raw 'energy flux".
 
>If not,
>then you agree with Bob, so please show some decency and
>stop repeating yourself.
 
Bob is truly a marvelous and wonderful fellow, that has a
knack for words in the style of our foremost politicians.
 
 
>If you have a better phrase
>to suggest that describes not just tritium's low
>toxicity, but also its short half life and other
>characteristics then suggest it.
 
Tritium has low toxicity outside and remove from the body, and
decays quickly, so as to be at optimal flux (glow) for the first
30 to 50 years.
 
> Bob has been more than
>willing to make changes and additions to the FAQ when
>reasonable suggestions are made.
 
There is an old Polish expression, "When it comes to living DNA, *Any*
level of radioactivity is too high."
 
>-Phil Snyder
>speaking for myself
 
Well, why don't you suggest he add the Polish proverb?
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc, Bx 1037 Prometheus II Ltd, College Park MD 20741-1037    |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
 
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.05 / Mike Hanson /  Re: tornadoes
     
Originally-From: mphanson@netcom.com (Mike Hanson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.geo.meteorology
Subject: Re: tornadoes
Date: Sat, 5 Nov 1994 21:11:35 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

doswell@nssl.uoknor.edu (Chuck Doswell) writes:
 
>In article <1994Nov2.120411.10196@yvax.byu.edu>, clawsona@yvax.byu.edu wrote:
 
>> There is a case on record where a man was in his living room looking up
>through
>> the funnel as it passed over his house (ripped the roof off.)  He reports the
>> following phen:
>>
>> 1) A luminescent cloud in the center of the funnel several hundred feet
>off the
>> ground.
>>
>> 2) An eerie light that illuminated the entire area.
>>
>> 3) A near total lack of sound
>>
>> 4) The ability to see through the funnel to the outside
>>
>> 5) What appeared to be a series of rings stacked upon eachother to
>comprise the
>> funnel.  The lowest "ring" would shift, then the one above, and so on,
>creating
>> a ripple effect.
>>
>> 6) No noticible difficulty in breathing.
>>
>> This report was reprinted in a book on weather that I have, but did not bring
>> with me to school.
 
>I've read this account, attributed to a Roy Beech (spelling?) if I
>recall...
 
 
For the record, "Inside a Texas Tornado," by Roy S. Hall.  In the June
1951 issue of "Weatherwise" (reprinted in Weatherwise in 04/87).
 
mph
 
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenmphanson cudfnMike cudlnHanson cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.05 / Barry Merriman /  Griggs Device Can't Be Fusion
     
Originally-From: barry@redwood.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Griggs Device Can't Be Fusion
Date: Sat, 5 Nov 94 22:16:31 GMT
Organization: UCLA Dept. of Math, UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research

Whatever the Griggs device is, it isn't fusion. Now that
I have a good idea what the device looks like, its even more
clear.
 
Here's why:
 
(1) sonoluminescence/cavitation is not efficient enough
    to produce net energy via fusion.
 
    I have spoken with some of the folks who work with
    Putterman here at UCLA (There is one prof in the math dept
    who does), and they said they already checked whether
    they could turn it into a fusion reactor. Based on the
    densities and temperatures they measure, and the
    acoustic power they use to drive the process, they
    would be many orders of magnitude short of breakeven,
    even if the used D & T in the ideal amounts instead of H
    (as part of the H20). zremeber: this is a highly optimized
    resonant experiment---so they are getting the maximal
    conceivable efficiency in converting the acoustic
    input power to plasma energy (and thus fusion).
 
(2) The H + H fusion rate is incredibly small, yet this
    would have to be the process for Griggs.
 
    The rates for H + H fusion are so small I don't
    even think they can be measured directly. Simple
    estimates based on the fact that the sun exists
    show that even at high temp and density it takes
    billions of years for an H + H fusion to occur.
 
(3) Strange surface phenomena are not likely
 
    (1) & (2) refer to the pure processes of
    cavitation and H + H fusion; couldn;t something
    special happen at the surface? Well, seems
    doubtful because:
 
    (a) the system is totally disordered: turbulent fluid,
    room temperature, etc: you can't appeal to quantum effects
    in such a disordered system.
 
    (b) the surface doesn't seem to require any special
    preparation or to be made of any special material,
    to be particulary clean, etc. Again, you can't expect
    an exotic effect in such a generic environment.
 
    (c) the nuclei are totally unaware of the presence
    of the surface; in this context (unlike, say D loaded
    palladium) the surface does not provide any special
    confinement properties that could remotely conceivably
    lead to enhance fusion.
 
 
 
So, given everything that is know about cavitation, sonoluminescence,
fusion rates and surface chemistry, I don't see any hope for
the Griggs device being a fusion reactor.
 
Jed likes to point out that a scientist of 1900 would have been
totally mystified by nuclear energy (e.g. a warm lump of
Plutonium would seem to magically produce energy, as
would a nuclear bomb), which seemingly produces energy
out of nowwhere, just by piling stuff up or squezzing it a bit.
 
Well, jed is right, but the analogy does not apply here
because:
 
In 1900, nuclear processes were unkown and completely uncharacterized---
thus they could be truly mystifying.
 
However, the processes that are supposed to power the griggs
device are already fundamentally chracterized: we already know
what cavitation/sono. and H + H fusion are basically capable
of. These are reasonably well characterized processes. It is
not reasonable to suggest we could suddenyl discover something
radically new about them, especially in such a untuned system
as the griggs device.
 
Can I guearantee its not fusion? No. Would I bet every thing
I own against it? Yes.
 
When confronted with a strange phenomena, you don't rule
out possibilities---but you do rank them according to
what seems to be known and what doesn't. I'd say we
pretty much know H + H fusion is not powering Griggs
device. In fact, of all the possibilities, the least
investigated is the possibility of measuring errors
on the device: after all, many man years of effort have
already gone into characterized H + H fusion and sonolum.,
to the point where many researchers agree on the status.
The same cannot be said for the chracterization of the
Griggs device, which rests on a few man years of
investigation, with essentially a single source.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
--
Barry Merriman
UCLA Dept. of Math
UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet)   barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (NeXTMail)
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.06 / [33m Specialist /  Need info on Cold Fusion
     
Originally-From: alblee@gpu2.srv.ualberta.ca ( [33m [5mThe Specialist [0m)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Need info on Cold Fusion
Date: 6 Nov 1994 04:45:17 GMT
Organization: Computer and Network Services, U of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada

I am working on a term paper for a Nuclear Physics class on
Cold Fusion.  Can someone please point me to a good staring
point on my research?  Are there any FAQs available on Cold
Fusion (I have the Conventional Fusion FAQ)?  Thanks very
much for any information.
 
        Albert Lee
 
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenalblee cudfn[33m cudlnSpecialist cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.05 / A Franquemont-G /  Re: DO YOU WANT YOU TO GET alt.inventors VOTE YES HERE TO GET IT!
     
Originally-From: abbyfg@tezcat.com (Abby Franquemont-Guillory)
Newsgroups: alt.config,sci.misc,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: DO YOU WANT YOU TO GET alt.inventors VOTE YES HERE TO GET IT!
Date: 5 Nov 1994 19:17:07 -0600
Organization: t e z c a t . c o m  - Wicker Park (Chicago)  312-850-0112

In article <Cyq5A3.JFr@world.std.com>,
Jonathan Priluck <jamcorp@world.std.com> wrote:
>
>alt.inventors is not taken.  Somebody is objecting to it for no apparent
>reason.
>
>Best Regards, Jon Priluck
 
The reason is that alt.inventors creates a new second level hierarchy for
newsgroups -- under which newsgroups would have to be things like
alt.inventors.widgets, alt.inventors.sprockets, alt.inventors.whatever-else
and so forth.  That's less desirable because it is unnecessary when there
is an existing hierarchy within which inventions could be discussed.
 
I hope that helps clarify things.
 
--
______________________________________________________________________________
Abby Franquemont-Guillory       |       Infamous Devil's Advocate
abbyfg@xochi.tezcat.com         |   It is not possible to say whether or
condor@smirror.tezcat.com       |     not these are my real opinions.
%%% Administrative Staff %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Tezcat.Com, Chicago %%%%%%%%%%%%
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenabbyfg cudfnAbby cudlnFranquemont-Guillory cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.07 / Jim Carr /  Re: tornadoes
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.geo.meteorology,sci.physics.astro
Subject: Re: tornadoes
Date: 7 Nov 1994 15:41:01 -0500
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

In article <39e0ep$m6l@gazette.bcm.tmc.edu>
lodi@dino.qci.bioch.bcm.tmc.edu (bill) writes:
>
>                         ...                       Since I suspect that
>professional storm chasers would either get fired or killed if they got close
>enough to observe very local phenomenon, the incidence of such
>observations by professionals might be low.
 
They might get killed, but they get paid to get close.  A colleague of
mine here chased tornadoes (to be more precise, they tried to anticipate
them so they could get in front of them) trying to place a piece of
apparatus cleverly called TOTO in their path.
 
Professionals have seen plenty; certainly he has the photos to prove it.
They have the advantage of being in radio contact with people watching
the satellite photos, weather maps, and radar with the intent of getting
near the storm as it forms rather than avoiding it.
 
--
 James A. Carr   <jac@scri.fsu.edu>     |  "A duck with a balloon over
    http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac        |  its head saying onomatopoeia."
 Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst.  |          - Gregory Corso
 Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306    |
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.08 / Ron Schudalla /  Re: tornadoes
     
Originally-From: schudall@microwave.msfc.nasa.gov (Ron Schudalla)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.geo.meteorology
Subject: Re: tornadoes
Date: 8 Nov 1994 14:48:33 GMT
Organization: NASA/MSFC

In article <39ls51$d2j@bmerhc5e.bnr.ca>, schow@bnr.ca (Stanley T.H. Chow) writes:
|> In article <doswell-0511940316180001@129.15.67.105>,
|> Chuck Doswell <doswell@nssl.uoknor.edu> wrote:
|> >In article <1994Nov2.120411.10196@yvax.byu.edu>, clawsona@yvax.byu.edu wrote:
|> [Description of an eye-witness account]
|> >
|> >I've read this account, attributed to a Roy Beech (spelling?) if I recall,
|> >and while it certainly is very interesting, <etc.)
 
|> In other words, you don't know, and it is not interesting to you so you
|> have not looked for it.
 
Actually, dude, DR. Doswell probably does know quite a bit about the subject,
since he has not only been CHASING them, but STUDYING them and WRITING about
them. Have you?
 
|> It is at least possible that these glowing tornadoes are of interest to
|> people other than tornado chasers.
 
Certainly not serious scientists. While I too have seen at least one picture with
a supposedly "glowing" core, the point is well taken that the extreme majority of
tornadoes do NOT produce this effect. The fact that people appear to be
attempting to link this phenomenon to tornado development and dynamics shows how
little some people know about this sibject. While I am certainly not a "mover and
shaker" in this field, I DO know that there is plenty of documented research on
how, when and where tornados form and what makes them go. Yes, there are still
some questions to be answered, but overall, I'd sat we have a good handle on it.
A little pop culture here..........Get the facts.
 
Ron
 
--
*******************************************************************
*                                                                 *
*       Ron Schudalla / HUGHES STX    Mission to Planet Earth -   *
*       Global Hydrology and          NOAA/NASA SSM/I             *
*         Climate Center, Rm. B104         Pathfinder Project     *
*       977 Explorer Boulevard                                    *
*       Huntsville, AL 35806                                      *
*       PH: 205-922-5792              Guitarist and Golfer of     *
*       FAX: 205-922-5930             modest ability.....         *
*                                                                 *
*               email: schudall@microwave.msfc.nasa.gov           *
*                                                                 *
*       "It's 106 miles to Chicago. We got a full tank o' gas,    *
*        half a pack o' cigarettes, it's dark out, and we're      *
*        wearing sunglasses."  "Hit it!"                          *
*                                                                 *
*******************************************************************
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenschudall cudfnRon cudlnSchudalla cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.08 / Mike Jamison /  Re: Griggs testing
     
Originally-From: edwlt12@mars.lerc.nasa.gov (Mike Jamison (ADF))
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs testing
Date: 8 Nov 1994 13:21 EDT
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center

In article <39kdq3$796@newsbf01.news.aol.com>, danhicks@aol.com (DanHicks) writes...
>In article <Cyrv2J.Fp5@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>,
>crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>>>>
>>I know exactly how to get an independent check: put the Dranetz meter
>back in
>>the carrying case, take it over to General Electric, and have them
>calibrate
>>it again. They will put a new sticker on it.
>
>     The sticker.  I love it.
><<<
>
>If you won't accept the validity of independent calibration by a qualified
>lab, what will you accept?  The only thing that's missing is verification
>that the meter is being operated within its range of permissible inputs --
>primarily phase angle and distortion, I would assume.  This is where the
>emphasis should be.  Can anyone find phase angle and distortion meters for
>Tom?
 
I believe this is what Dale is referring to.  Any competent calibration lab
can certify that an instrument is operating as it should, when used *properly*.
 
The question here is whether it is being used properly [not as in "hooked
up correctly" but as in "are the signals being measured within the measurement
range of the instrument".]
 
As an extreme case, a properly calibrated [sticker and all] DC voltmeter
*will not* properly measure AC voltage.
 
Just as a properly operating power meter with a bandwidth of a few hundred
Hertz *will not* properly measure high frequency power delivered to the
load.
 
A fairly simple test would be the following:
 
Use a 2 channel oscope to measure the voltage across and the current through
one leg of the 3 phase output.  A shunt resistor can be used to convert
I to V [or an inductive probe can be used].
 
If there are no indications of high frequency ringing, I'd trust the power
meter.  If, however, there's a lot of higher frequency junk on the line, I
would not trust the power meter.
 
Tom may or may not be able to get his hands on a fancy scope, that can
multiply two waveforms together...  Might have to do it in his head :-)
 
 
Mike Jamison
 
 
"Scientific research consists in seeing what everyone else has seen, but
thinking what no one else has thought"
 
                                                -A. Szent-Gyorgyi
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenedwlt12 cudfnMike cudlnJamison cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.07 / Chuck Doswell /  Re: tornadoes
     
Originally-From: doswell@nssl.uoknor.edu (Chuck Doswell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.geo.meteorology
Subject: Re: tornadoes
Date: Mon, 07 Nov 1994 02:04:04 +0100
Organization: National Severe Storms Laboratory

In article <Cyu916.MtM@eskimo.com>, billb@eskimo.com (William Beaty) wrote:
 
> Wasn't there a Dr. Vonnegut who was pushing the idea that tornadoes are
> electrically DRIVEN, rather than being electrical sources?
>
> There's this videotape made by a TV station traffic plane of a twister
> starting from nothing.  It has some pretty cool electrical effects:
> while the tip of the twister is shredding a pine forest, it is
> occasionally putting out an intense pinpoint of sputtering white
> light, resembling an  arc welder but on a larger scale.  I saw this
> several-minutes-long videotape on the 'weather' part of an educational
> videodisk.  There's a chance that the tornadoe was actually shorting
> out some powerlines, but the intense light did seem to happen when
> the storm was in the middle of empty farmland rather than near roads,
> and the light repeated a few times as the funnel moved along.
 
Indeed, Dr. Bernard Vonnegut, at the State University of New York at
Albany, has advanced such ideas.  To date, they have not been accepted
with any enthusiasm by serious tornado researchers, owing to a complete
absence of any convincing validating evidence, and a plethora of evidence
that "ordinary" meteorological processes are capable of producing
tornadoes.  This idea has surfaced more than once in the history of
tornado research and has yet to survive a serious test.
 
The videotape to which you are referring is almost certainly that shot
from a news helicopter in the Minneapolis area.  The "sputtering white
light" flashes are certainly from powerline breaks.  Sorry, no need for
exotics here, either.  I have seen tornadoes do this, though perhaps not
as spectacularly ... I don't chase in cities (one would need a
helicopter!).
 
--
Chuck Doswell        'Illegitimi non carborundum"
NOAA/NSSL
Norman, OK            Standard disclaimer
cudkeys:
cuddy07 cudendoswell cudfnChuck cudlnDoswell cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.08 / Chris Parkinson /  Re: tornadoes
     
Originally-From: parky@ix.netcom.com (Chris Parkinson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.geo.meteorology,sci.physics.astro
Subject: Re: tornadoes
Date: 8 Nov 1994 18:40:01 GMT
Organization: Netcom

In <39mvov$sps@romulus.ucs.uoknor.edu>
mfoster@alliant.backbone.uoknor.edu (Marc Foster) writes:
 
>
>In article <39e0ep$m6l@gazette.bcm.tmc.edu>,
>bill <lodi@dino.qci.bioch.bcm.tmc.edu> wrote:
>
>>Since I suspect that
>>professional storm chasers would either get fired or killed if they
got close
>>enough to observe very local phenomenon, the incidence of such
>>observations by professionals might be low.
>
>Get real.  It got KSNW an Emmy for the "under the bridge footage" from
>April 26, 1991.  Officially, those reporters weren't out chasing, but
>everyone knows that was a load of bull, given the the lead wx-man's
>reputation for remote directing his reporters (and the fact we knew all
>hell was going to break loose that day a week in advance).
>
>But that issue is best left for another thread.  The bottom line is
more
>tornadoes than ever are being observed by professionals, and still
we've
>not seen what the non-theoretical fluid dynamicists are claiming exist.
>
>Marc - where are you guys chasing, anyway?
>
 
Try Magneto Hydrodynamic waves otherwise known as Alfven waves. If one
can assume that there is fluid, alla rain, in the vortex and assuming
the magnetic potential in that area and calculating the velocities
invloved one can then assume electro-motive forces due to the laws of
MHD. Now since the magnetic potential is so low and the velocity so high
I'm not sure that the effect of the glow is possible. I leave that
question up to those that wish to apply the partial derivatives.
 
CP
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenparky cudfnChris cudlnParkinson cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.06 / mitchell swartz /  IAEA corrects Rob Heeter
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: IAEA corrects Rob Heeter
Subject: Re: IAEA Corrects Rob Heeter (was 'Tech Reply...part 2.1)
Date: Sun, 6 Nov 1994 18:24:41 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <1994Nov4.164819.5352@Princeton.EDU>
Subject: Re: IAEA Corrects Rob Heeter (was 'Tech Reply...part 2.1)
Philip B. Snyder (pbsnyder@tucson.princeton.edu) writes:
 
=pbs  Ok, this nonsense has gone on long enough.  It is rare even on the
=pbs internet to find so much repetitive blather posted about a small
=pbs and quite simple point.
 
  Apparently, some students at Princeton have trouble with
detailed scientific information and call it "nonsense".
 
 -->  blather  (after Webster)   --   voluble or nonsensical talk
 
  However, this was not "blather", but data which included actual
quotes and tables to support the fact that tritium is well-known as
categorized as a radioisotope of low toxicity.
 
  These sources -- which Mr. Snyder regards as blather --  included
  1)  the International Atomic
Energy Agency, Safety Series No. 1, Safe Handling of Radioisotopes,
  2) the "Manual for Accident Prevention for Industrial Operations",
McRElroy, put out by the U.S. National Safety Council
  3)"Health Physics - Principles of Radiation Protection" by
D.J. Rees, MIT Press  1967,  and
  4) N. I. Sax "Handbook of Dangerous Materials".
 
 Attention is directed to the fact that these references
were explicitly supplied because Mr. Heeter
said he did not have time to back up his statement.
Mr. Heeter said this several times.   Once he said,
 
  >=heeter "I've got to study for a midterm, so I can't write a detailed
  >=heeter reply just this minute."
   Message-ID: <38s0bd$74t@lyman.pppl.gov>
 
  And he later said,
=heeter "As I said, I'm preparing a detailed response.  This takes time. ..."
 
   Yet another time he similarly complained,
=heeter " I have many references.  But to write
=heeter up everything takes time.  Apparently don't have the patience
=heeter to wait for me to share them with you."
 
   So the references were supplied.
 
 
=pbs Bob (not "Rob") Heeter posted a simple statement in the FAQ that
=pbs tritium is a relatively benign radioactive element.
 
    It is not GRAS (generally recognized as safe).
It has low toxicity.  If you don't like the term, and want
no responsibility, please state your reasons why you and Princeton
deserve this exception.
 
  Mr. Snyder misunderstands the term 'benign' for he claims:
=pbs "It is equivalent logically to 'relatively less malignant'."
 
   But that is not totally true.  If it were, then an assault rifle or grenade
would be benign because they can be compared to a 50 megaton
nuclear device.
 
 
=pbs As pointed out above, tritium has a relatively low radiotoxicity.
 
   Thank you.  It has taken several posts to correct this matter to which
Mr. Heeter did not agree initially.
 
 
=pbs This is one of the reasons that tritium *is* a relatively
=pbs benign radioactive element.  Another reason is its short
=pbs half life (12yrs).
 
    Actually another component of its low toxicity may be
that its biological half life is shorter
(12 days) than the radiological half-life (12 years).
 
 
=pbs "If you have a better phrase
=pbs to suggest that describes not just tritium's low
=pbs toxicity, but also its short half life and other
=pbs characteristics then suggest it."
 
  The correct phrase in connection with human health
 is low toxicity.  To call such materials
benign is like calling a cigarette a "health-stick".
 
   Such attempts are unlikely to fool the public,
regulatory agencies, or even high school students.
Furthermore, in the long run such attempts may
only engender further skepticism, and possibly
episodes of ignoring the toxicities of these materials, when
full diligence and responsibility might have occurred.
 
 
=pbs  Bob has been more than
=pbs willing to make changes and additions to the FAQ when
=pbs reasonable suggestions are made.
 
   So far he has not on this matter, but time shall tell.
Alternatively, he can come up with some calculations, or information
to support his point.
    Best wishes.
             Mitchell Swartz   (mica@world.std.com)
 
 
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.08 / Michael Kenward /  Re: Economically feasible-how long?
     
Originally-From: Michael Kenward <m.kenward@bbcnc.org.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Economically feasible-how long?
Date: 8 Nov 1994 18:56:12 GMT
Organization: An InterNetNews site

> I am writing a 4 to 5 page research paper in Mosaic on fusion.  Does
> anybody have any sources about the future of fusion?  I am interested in
> when fusion will be feasible.  So far the only thing I found is that at
> current budget levels it will take us 50 yrs.  Other sources I need
> pertain to the general education in the public about fusion and fusion
> research. Email me at NickH@mail.utexas.edu  Thanks very much in advance.
>
>
> Nick Hildebrandt-college freshman at UT Austin.
 
 
30 years ago I started in fusion research. They said it would take
25 years to commercialise
then. (I got out.) The current talk is of 30 years to commercialisation.
 
There are plenty of books out there with different forecasts. Start by
getting the general material put out by the Princeton PLasma Physics Lab.
 
Michael Kenward
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenkenward cudfnMichael cudlnKenward cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.08 / Brian Rauchfuss /  Re: Y. Arata DS-Cathode cold fusion
     
Originally-From: brauchfu@fnugget.intel.com (Brian D. Rauchfuss)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Y. Arata DS-Cathode cold fusion
Date: 8 Nov 1994 17:42:50 GMT
Organization: INTEL.FOLSOM

In article <5o21bJY.jedrothwell@delphi.com> jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:
:His calorimetry is superb, the excess power level is typically 80 to 90
:watts and it goes a lot higher than that for periods lasting 25 hours to
:150 hours. What the hell do you think could cause an energy release on
:that scale?
 
Jed, what is the input power during this time?  What is the input to output
power gain?
 
BDR
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenbrauchfu cudfnBrian cudlnRauchfuss cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.08 /  bill /  Re: tornadoes
     
Originally-From: lodi@dino.qci.bioch.bcm.tmc.edu (bill)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.geo.meteorology,sci.physics.astro
Subject: Re: tornadoes
Date: 8 Nov 1994 21:01:36 GMT
Organization: X-Ray Crystallography / H.H.M.I.

 In article <8NOV199413272744@mars.lerc.nasa.gov> edwlt12@mars.lerc.nasa
gov (Mike Jamison (ADF)) writes:
 >In article <39ocgq$q9p@gazette.bcm.tmc.edu>, lodi@dino.qci.bioch.bcm.t
c.edu (bill) writes...
 >> In article <39mvov$sps@romulus.ucs.uoknor.edu> mfoster@alliant.backb
ne.uoknor.edu (Marc Foster) writes:
 >> >In article <39e0ep$m6l@gazette.bcm.tmc.edu>,
 >> >bill <lodi@dino.qci.bioch.bcm.tmc.edu> wrote:
 >> >
 >> >>Since I suspect that
 >> >>professional storm chasers would either get fired or killed if they got close
 >> >>enough to observe very local phenomenon, the incidence of such
 >> >>observations by professionals might be low.
 >>
 >> >Get real.  It got KSNW an Emmy for the "under the bridge footage" from
>> >April 26, 1991.  Officially, those reporters weren't out chasing, but
 >> >everyone knows that was a load of bull, given the the lead wx-man's
 >> >reputation for remote directing his reporters (and the fact we knew all
 >> >hell was going to break loose that day a week in advance).
 >> >    (del)
 
 >>  Whoa there cowboy!  I am not disputing the courage or commitment of
 >>chasers, but I just cannot see that OSHA or anyone else would allow
 >>employees to officially wade into a maelstrom of flying bricks, lumber
 >>and of course glowing transformers.  There are rules about closest
 >>approach, aren't there?  Fifty yards is the distance I meant by "local effects"
 >>and that is certainly super-hazardous.   And, getting real, " a week in
 >>advance"???  This is looney.
 >>      (del Elvises)
 
 >I don't know about the "week in advance part, but if I'm not mistaken, there's
 >at least *one* plane that is used to to *fly through* tornados.  For
 >scientific research, no less.  I believe it's a DC-3 [these planes weren't
 >able to fly above storms, so they were built strong enough to fly through
 >them].
 
 >What would OSHA do with firefighters, who have to go into flaming buildings
 >to rescue people?  Some people actually do risk their lives in their jobs...
 
  The whole point has been that the capricious and very violent nature
of tornados makes data collection a bitch.   No thanks for the snide
comment that some people have to risk their lives (duhhh),  but people
just don't get _real close_ to a tornado because they would be killed,
and they are observing a storm, not saving lives.
 
   As for the plane, where are the data and photos?
 
I for one believe good science involves searching for things that are
overlooked, not just holding onto today's understanding because it
is "good enough."      I do not hold with telling persons who bring in
alternate hypotheses to "take it to xxx newsgroup".
  If you have data, present it.
 
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenlodi cudlnbill cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.06 / John Lewis /  Re: IAEA Corrects Rob Heeter (was 'Tech Reply to Mitch, part 2.1)
     
Originally-From: court@newton.physics.mun.ca (John Lewis)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: IAEA Corrects Rob Heeter (was 'Tech Reply to Mitch, part 2.1)
Date: 6 Nov 1994 20:48:53 GMT
Organization: Memorial University of Nfld, St. John's, NF

In article <Cypt3p.2yL@world.std.com> mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
writes:
 
Oh Christ, give it a rest, will you?  All this stuff you've posted
comes to "tritium is relatively benign", strong emphasis on "relatively",
i.e there are lots of things that are worse.
 
If you feel like another exercise in looking up words in dictionaries,
look up "worse".  A really difficult technical term.
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudencourt cudfnJohn cudlnLewis cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.09 / Mihai Jalobeanu /  P.Glueck
     
Originally-From: itimc@utcluj.ro (Mihai Jalobeanu )
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Newsgroups:sci.physics.fusion
Subject: P.Glueck
Subject:CFQ =Cold Fusion Quarrel?No,this time it is
Date: Wed, 9 Nov 1994 15:21:59 GMT
Date:Tue.Nov 8,1994
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Organization:Institute of Isotopic and Molecular

Originally from:itimc@imar.ro (Peter Glueck)
Newsgroups:sci.physics.fusion
Subject:CFQ =Cold Fusion Quarrel?No,this time it is
Cold Fusion Quotes.
Date:Tue.Nov 8,1994
Organization:Institute of Isotopic and Molecular
             Technology,3400 Cluj-Napoca,Romania
 
Recently two groups,(Jordan Ziegler,in FD no2887 and no2925 and
Erik Rasmussen,in FD no2913) have announced start-up of cold
fusion research and have asked support from the cold fusion
community.At least theoretically this newsgroup is the best
place to get information from this new field of research.
Erik Rasmussen wanted to know where is a Cold Fusion FAQ
available and as far I know, we cannot give him a straight
answer;the promoters of CF have,are and probably will waste
many hours of work and millions of bytes in order to convince
the skeptics that yes, a new important source of energy was
discovered and it is developing at a reasonable rate.The
efficiency of this action is questionable and it is more and
more obvious that some of the skeptics wouldn't believe that
CF is real even when CF based boilers and other energy sources
will be available everywhere.
We know we have to fight because:
 
["All great truths begin as blasphemies"(G.B. Shaw)]
["One of the marvels of creation is the infinite capacity
 of the human brain to withstand the introduction of know-
 ledge" (Theodore Roosevelt)]
["The mind likes a strange idea as little as the body likes
 a strange protein and resists it with similar energy.If we
 watch ourselves with honesty,we shall often find that we begin
 to argue against a new idea even before it has been completely
 stated."(Wilfred Totter)]
 
Perhaps focusing on relevant information and on proper processing
of the available information will be  a more clever thing.I con-
sider the requests of Ziegler and Rasmussen as a warning,for the
sake of the future of our field we have to waste less time with
polemics,and we have to put our house in order.
 
["The important thing in science is not so much to obtain new
facts as to discover new ways of thinking about them"(Sir William
Bragg)]
 
We need a vision, we need a strategy,we have to recognize the
limits of our understanding and the first step is to accumulate
and to evaluate the information.
 
["We are very good at the making, and talking about the bricks of
the temple of science, but most of us are shy about mortar or
about the speculative blueprint of the whole design" (Gerald
Holton)]
[Science is built up with facts, as a house is with stones.But a
collection of facts is no more science than a heap of stones is  a
house."(J.H. Poincare)]
 
So many of our good men are mental prisoners of the Pd/D2O system
or of totems like bulk and lattice.So many are firmly convinced
that it is really possible to have a complete theory now,ignoring
the fact that the neighbor fields of solid state do not have a
perfect theory either.
 
["In science the primary duty of the ideas is to be useful and
interesting more than to be true"(Wilfred Totter)]
["Truth is never pure and rarely simple"(Oscar Wilde)]
["Science,at the bottom is really anti-intellectual.It always
distrusts pure reason and demands the  production of the
objective fact"(H.L. Mencken)]
["Knowledge is but struggle for knowledge.And we are always
equally far and equally near it"(Ramon Sender)
["Theories are ways of thinking which determine the choice of the
experiment"(Mary Migley)]
 
And it will be a long way to go because:
 
["Truth is perfectible at most,only lies can be perfect"
(Y.H.Prum)]
 
Beyond quotes:
Young Jordan & Willie and (probably) young Erik:I am very happy
to help you.
If you have questions,I shall try to give you the answers readily
and completely,including the honest "I don't know"I have joined
the cold fusion community from the very first moment because hot
fusion seemed to contradict my theory of technological progress,
and I knew that an other, more human way has to exist.And now my
life,my last years of work are dedicated to this problem.I have
followed the evolution of the field continuously,reading about it
in Current Contents,Physics Abstracts,Chemical
Abstracts,Referativnyi Zhurnal Khimiya and Fizika in Nature,
Science, New Scientist,La Recherche,in our beloved Chemical
Engineering News and in many other Russian, French, Italian,
German,Spanish,Hungarian,Czech,Polish,etc journals.It's a good
opportunity to say thank you to my so many friends who have sent
me information on cold fusion;I have to tell that these friends
are on the both sides of the barricade here.Beginning 1991 I am
collaborating with Fusion Facts and I know that this newsletter
is the best source in the field and its founder,Dr.Hal Fox is the
scientific equivalent of an apostle.
Jordan,Willie,Erik, I advise you to begin by obtaining the first
64 numbers of Fusion Facts.Two courageous editors,George Miley
and Roger Parsons have published CF papers when their peers
considered that it is better to wait or even worse,to destroy
this new science ;almost 65% of the important information is in
Fusion Technology (beginning Sept.1989) and in Journal of
Electroanalytical Chemistry.
The Britz Bibliography,available here is also a "must",however
you have to obtain the proceedings of the first 4 International
Conferences on Cold Fusion (Salt Lake City,1990;Como 1991,Nagoya
1992 and Maui 1993) as well as the "Cold Fusion Source Book"
edited by Dr.Hal Fox i.e. the extended proceedings of the Minsk
Symposium,May 1994.
You have to wait together with me till the second volume of "Fire
from Ice",will be written and published;however the author,Gene
Mallove is here and will give you both advises and information
from the primary sources.
Don't be afraid of the big,bad skeptics;we need them,I admire
them for their strong characters and consistency,now they are
those who have face a hostile reality,to defend an obsolete
paradigm and to fight a lost battle.All they have is words,the
facts are against them.
 
["It is time to understand that consensus in the scientific
community is not a good sign,but rather a symptom of crisis.The
polarization of views is normal".(V.Koliadin) (BTW,this is the
newest quote of my collection,from a letter published in Nature
6497,Sept 1994 ,p 372)
 
Don't be afraid from the Second Law,our very existence is,if not
contradicting, at least avoiding this law.More stronger is Prum's
Third Law:
 
["The World is constructed designedly in order to fulfill the
interest of the scientist,being infinitely complex and
perfectible,providing an endless and eternal field of thinking
and action for him".(Y.H. Prum)]
 
You have to choose yourself the way you will go,and don't forget
that:
 
["You cannot travel on the path until you have become the Path
itself".(Gautama Buddha)]
 
The first advice I will give you is:the electrochemical Pons-
Fleischmann type cell was the cradle of Cold Fusion,however this
doesn't mean that the new science has to develop here,in other
words I consider the dry systems and the sonofusion devices more
promising from the point of view of technology.
As regarding my own ideas you can find these in my papers
entitled "A paradigm too far" and "Serious Cold Fusion" published
at this forum in Sept. and Oct.,this year.I think that CF is de
facto an extreme form of catalysis,all the reactions taking place
on the surface of the electrodes and other heat generators,in
very restricted areas,"active sites".For example,the results of
Prof.Yoshiaki Arata,communicated by Jed Rothwell,demonstrate that
a very great surface (palladium black),that is many active sites
supports strong,continuous,long-lived heat generation.
It's well known you have to esteem those who are searching for
Truth but you have to beware of those who claim they have already
found it.It's your choice again, you can come with me or go on
your way, in both cases I shall be with you,ready to help.
 
Dr.Peter Glueck,Institute of Isotopic and Molecular Technology
POBox 700, 3400 Cluj-Napoca,Romania.
Fax 4064 185816;E-mail <ITIMC@IMAR.RO> or for short messages
<DEMO@DEMO.CLUJ.IIRUC.RO>
 
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenitimc cudfnMihai cudlnJalobeanu cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Thu Nov 10 17:56:35 EST 1994
------------------------------
1994.11.07 / John Logajan /  Re: tornadoes
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@mirage.skypoint.net (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.geo.meteorology
Subject: Re: tornadoes
Date: 7 Nov 1994 23:51:42 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Chuck Doswell (doswell@nssl.uoknor.edu) wrote:
: The videotape to which you are referring is almost certainly that shot
: from a news helicopter in the Minneapolis area.  The "sputtering white
: light" flashes are certainly from powerline breaks.

I recall that tornado -- only I wasn't chasing it, it was chasing me!

I was driving home from work heading east on I-694 in Brooklyn Park
when I noticed a funnel north-northeast of me.  The sky was high bright
overcast, the funnel was associated with just a small very dark section
of clouds.  It was the high ceiling that allowed the famous helicopter
pictures to be taken -- the funnel was visible for miles.

I didn't know which way it was heading, so instead of continuing east
and over the often traffic-snarled Mississippi River bridge, I headed south
along the river (I-94.) When I realized it wasn't moving south, I crossed the
river and headed north up East River Road -- straight for the tornado.
What a sight!

At this point I was afraid it was headed straight for my house farther
to the east, so I decided to try to race it home and warn my family.

I quickly managed to get ahead of it going east, and it finally did
dissipate -- as I don't think it ever did cross the Mississippi River.

The helicopter shots were spectacular.  You could see the powerlines
being broken and even though this was a very bright day (through the
overcast) the powerline sparks were incredibly bright.

I attribute the appearance and disappearance of the funnel as a result
of the spinning up and down of the winds.  When it spins up fast enough
I presume that the low-pressue in the core of the funnel causes the
water vapor to condense, ala a cloud chamber, or the mist you see
on the top surface of a fighter plane wing when he pulls up quickly.

So the air spinning is going on all along, but when it speeds up and
slows down, the vapor funnel appears and disappears.

--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com  --  612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA -
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.09 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: GG: Image of Cavities on Rotor
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: GG: Image of Cavities on Rotor
Date: Wed, 9 Nov 94 11:44:56 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

JohnANixJr <johnanixjr@aol.com> wrote about his visit to Hydro Dynamics and
the mysterious "shadows" that have appeared on the outside of a rotor. I am
delighted he got a chance to go out there. John contacted me and I suggested a
visit to Jim, because John knows a lot about aluminum chemistry. Jim told me
about these shadows, but I have not had a chance to see them  myself. I have
not even seen a photo. It is very difficult to visualize what they are like
without seeing them, as Doug Shade points out.
 
Let me add a few notes from my conversations with Jim about these shadows. The
rotor in which they appear is made of aluminum, as John says. It was modified
in a unique fashion after it was first cast. The walls of the rotor were cut
back making it thinner. This is difficult to follow without pictures! Imagine
a rotor place flat on a table, like a squared off donut. John describes it as
a cylinder 300 mm feet in diameter and 80 mm high ("high" when you lay it on
the table), with holes around the periphery. (Most of the rotors I have seen
were bigger than this.) 80 mm is 3 inches. This particular rotor used to be
higher than that, I believe it was 4 or 5 inches. Jim trimmed it down on both
sides in order to fit it into a new experimental configuration. Instead of
casting a new one from scratch, he trimmed off an inch from either side. That
made the "walls" between periphery holes and the side of the rotor much
thinner than normal. That is why this shadow phenomenon became visible for the
first time with this particular rotor. It was probably happening previously,
but he has never had such thin walls, so he could not see it previously.
 
Doug Slade is right, the holes are drilled in radially, around the periphery,
but not usually straight in. They are at an angle relative to the radius, like
a bicycle wheel spoke. (Unlike bicycle wheel spokes, they are all at the same
angle and in the same direction. Bicycle wheel geometry and engineering is a
fascinating subject, by the way.)
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenjedrothwell cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.09 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Griggs Device Can't Be Fusion
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs Device Can't Be Fusion
Date: Wed, 9 Nov 94 11:47:10 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

barry@redwood.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman), who is much braver than me,
writes:
 
     "Can I guarantee its not fusion? No. Would I bet every thing I own
     against it? Yes."
 
The DoE, Nature magazine and the U.S. hot fusion scientists bet everything
they owned against CF. That was a very foolhardy thing to do. It was uncalled
for. They have lost, and now their reputations will crumble and their budgets
will be gutted. They should have done what many of their Japanese colleagues
did. They should have put a side bet on CF.
 
 
     "When confronted with a strange phenomena, you don't rule out
     possibilities---but you do rank them according to what seems to be known
     and what doesn't. I'd say we pretty much know H + H fusion is not
     powering Griggs device. In fact, of all the possibilities, the least
     investigated is the possibility of measuring errors on the device. . ."
 
This is incorrect. The possibility of measuring errors has been carefully
investigated by some of the best engineers the State of Georgia, including
some of our top talent from Georgia Tech, an internationally recognized
institution. No evidence of measuring errors have been found, despite
intensive efforts over a period of years. In short, as we say down here, that
dog won't hunt. Try another hypothesis.
 
 
     ". . . after all, many man years of effort have already gone into
     characterized H + H fusion and sonolum., to the point where many
     researchers agree on the status. The same cannot be said for the
     characterization of the Griggs device, which rests on a few man years of
     investigation, with essentially a single source."
 
This is completely incorrect. Merriman is ignoring a mountain of well
established scientific evidence that disproves his hypothesis. In brief:
 
Others, including Shaefer, observed the excess heat effect in similar devices.
 
There is extremely convincing evidence that the E-Quest ultrasound device is
undergoing some form of nuclear fusion. I do not see how anyone can take any
other hypothesis seriously. The device produces 300 watts of heat hour after
hour with no sign of any chemical reaction, and it produces helium-4 and
helium-3 at massive concentrations in amounts commensurate with a nuclear
reaction. This has been confirmed by the best, most qualified laboratories on
earth. At ICCF4 John Huizenga himself told me that he recommened E-Quest go to
Los Alamos and Rockwell International. If those labs are good enough for him,
they should be good enough for any other 'skeptic.' The helium detected at
Rockwell is concentrated 100 times greater than atmosphere, so it cannot be
leaking in from outside, and it is 500,000 times above Rockwell's minimum
detection threshold, so it sure as heck is not a mistake.
 
Massive, overwhelming, undeniable evidence from thousands of other CF
experiments proves beyond question that our knowledge of nuclear fusion,
fission, the Coulomb barrier and other aspects of nuclear physics is flawed.
Many phenomena are occurring that our present understanding would indicate
are impossible. Kevin Wolf's transmutations; Pons and Fleischmann's excess
energy; E-Quest's heat and commensurate helium; and Arata's 3000-day long,
200 megajoule excess all point to one thing: the theories are wrong. Facts
have overruled theory. The one ironclad rule of science is that facts always
win, theories always lose. We do not know what is possible after all. Theory
cannot guide us, only experimental results can tell us what is possible and
what is not. This has always been true in science, but it is more true today
in this field than in other relatively well understood fields. Nothing about
CF is well understood.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenjedrothwell cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.06 /  JohnANixJr /  GG: Image of Cavities on Rotor
     
Originally-From: johnanixjr@aol.com (JohnANixJr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: GG: Image of Cavities on Rotor
Date: 6 Nov 1994 23:20:57 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

I had the opportunity to visit Hydrodynamics several days ago.  I 
observed an interesting phenomena, and I have have Jim's OK to 
solicit ideas for the cause of this effect.  I have been reading this 
board closely for the past several weeks, and I have a basic 
understanding of the heated :-) discussion.  

Jim showed me an aluminum rotor which had just returned from 
several months of operation at a commercial site.  This is the 
spinning rotor which heats the water.  The rotor was approximately 
300 mm in diameter and 80 mm thick.  The evenly spaced holes are 
approximately 13 mm in diameter and 60 mm deep.

The outside, flat surfaces of the rotor had a very sharp images of the 
row of cavities nearest the surface.  Essentially, each cavity showed 
up as a light region, and the 10-15 mm outside each cavity image 
was very dark.  Also, the "background" color of the rotor, the region 
below the holes near the axis, is light.

It seems to me that the energy to place these images must have been 
penetrating, since about 7-8 mm of aluminum separate the rotor 
surface from the nearest edge of the cavity.  The transition was very 
sharp between the light and dark regions and the image was very 
clear.  I recommended to Jim that he shave samples from each 
region and send them to outside labs for an analysis such as mass 
spec.  From my discussion with Jim, there was no image before the 
rotor went into operation.

I know the above description is very limited compared to actually 
seeing the rotor (and a full chemical analysis), but are there any 
ideas on the source of this image?   Would a thermal gradient within 
the rotor be able to produce the sharp image? The surface feels completely

flat to the touch, and it doesn't scrape off with a knife.

I work as an packaging engineer for a large consumer products 
company, and my company may be interested in installing a GG at a 
test facility. The primary interest for my company is not for "excess 
energy", but we need an electric booster to an existing heat 
exchanger that can be rapidly turned on.  We only need the extra 
heating for short bursts, i.e. energy cost not an issue.  (Any ideas 
out there for other alternatives to meet this need?)  

John Nix

cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenjohnanixjr cudlnJohnANixJr cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.07 /  DanHicks /  Re: Griggs testing
     
Originally-From: danhicks@aol.com (DanHicks)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs testing
Date: 7 Nov 1994 00:26:27 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

In article <Cyrv2J.Fp5@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>,
crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>>>
>I know exactly how to get an independent check: put the Dranetz meter
back in
>the carrying case, take it over to General Electric, and have them
calibrate
>it again. They will put a new sticker on it.

     The sticker.  I love it.
<<<

If you won't accept the validity of independent calibration by a qualified
lab, what will you accept?  The only thing that's missing is verification
that the meter is being operated within its range of permissible inputs --
primarily phase angle and distortion, I would assume.  This is where the
emphasis should be.  Can anyone find phase angle and distortion meters for
Tom?
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudendanhicks cudlnDanHicks cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Fri Nov 11 04:37:02 EST 1994
------------------------------
1994.11.08 /  bill /  Re: tornadoes
     
Originally-From: lodi@dino.qci.bioch.bcm.tmc.edu (bill)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.geo.meteorology,sci.physics.astro
Subject: Re: tornadoes
Date: 8 Nov 1994 17:28:58 GMT
Organization: X-Ray Crystallography /  H.H.M.I.

 In article <39mvov$sps@romulus.ucs.uoknor.edu> mfoster@alliant.backbone
uoknor.edu (Marc Foster) writes:
 >In article <39e0ep$m6l@gazette.bcm.tmc.edu>,
 >bill <lodi@dino.qci.bioch.bcm.tmc.edu> wrote:
 > 
 >>Since I suspect that 
 >>professional storm chasers would either get fired or killed if they got close
 >>enough to observe very local phenomenon, the incidence of such 
 >>observations by professionals might be low. 
 
 >Get real.  It got KSNW an Emmy for the "under the bridge footage" from
 >April 26, 1991.  Officially, those reporters weren't out chasing, but 
 >everyone knows that was a load of bull, given the the lead wx-man's
 >reputation for remote directing his reporters (and the fact we knew all
 >hell was going to break loose that day a week in advance).
 >
 >But that issue is best left for another thread.  The bottom line is more
 >tornadoes than ever are being observed by professionals, and still we've
 >not seen what the non-theoretical fluid dynamicists are claiming exist.

 >Marc - where are you guys chasing, anyway? 

  Whoa there cowboy!  I am not disputing the courage or commitment of
chasers, but I just cannot see that OSHA or anyone else would allow
employees to officially wade into a maelstrom of flying bricks, lumber
and of course glowing transformers.  There are rules about closest
approach, aren't there?  Fifty yards is the distance I meant by "local effects"
and that is certainly super-hazardous.   And, getting real, " a week in 
advance"???  This is looney.
      Speaking of getting real, for all we know the inside of tornadoes
could be full of flying Elvises since we cannot see through the wall of
debris and the noise would totally drown out 'Heartbreak Hotel'.
If professional chasers got a glimpse,  you think they'd report it?

Yours     Billy
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenlodi cudlnbill cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.11 / Richard Blue /  It's helium fer sure?
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: It's helium fer sure?
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 1994 15:57:03 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Once again Jed Rothwell assures us that the CF reaction produces
helium,  this time both 3He and 4He where previous claims have
universally been for 4He and no 3He.  Jed fails to notice this subtle
difference.  He goes on to say that in the E-Quest results the
helium production is commensurate with the energy production.  That
statement makes absolutely no sense unless and until you specify what
the reaction process is.  In fact with two forms of helium being
produced I would say there are two reaction pathways that most certainly
involve significantly different energy release.

To shore up his case Jed mentions the never-to-be-published results
from Kevin Wolf indicating a totally different class of reactions.  I
don't see how that can be taken as confirmation of the E-Quest helium
results.  I would say there is clearly a conflict between the two
experimental results.

Of course the real clincher in my argument for saying that Jed probably
doesn't know what is going on, is the significance of the Griggs
claims in all of this.  What does the Griggs device have in common with
the E-Quest experiment?  Well they both involve water, metal, and ultrasound.
I am waiting for Jed to tell us that the excess heat from the Griggs
device is accompanied by the production of commensurate amounts of
3He and 4He just like the E-Quest sound machine.  If you believe that,
Jed, why don't you dip into your barrel of water for a few samples
to send off to the world's greatest analysis lab that no doubt exists
somewhere in Georgia.  A few days of recycling water through the
Griggs machine at kilowatt power levels ought to turn up some
remarkable levels of helium fer sure.  One could even consider going
into the commercial production of 3He as a sideline.  I can imagine
every Griggs device being equipped with a helium extraction loop
on the output.  Then you offer to install these gadgets at a reduced
price in exchange for the 3He that gets extracted.

Remind us again, Jed.  What reaction is it that produces the 3He?
Since you do still profess to believe in energy conservation, I invite
you to undertake to make a list of all possible nuclear reaction
processes that can result in the production of 3He and excess energy.
I suspect that may be a short list.

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.10 / Monkey King /  Re: Y. Arata DS-Cathode cold fusion
     
Originally-From: monkey@engin.umich.edu (Monkey King)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Y. Arata DS-Cathode cold fusion
Date: 10 Nov 1994 14:10:27 GMT
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor

>jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:
>

If this is real CF, where is the nuclear ash?  Any precautions against
nuclear radiation?  How come they are not dead?

-- 
Monkey King                 | This message printed on 
monkey@engin.umich.edu      | recycled material.
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenmonkey cudfnMonkey cudlnKing cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.07 / W Weingarten /  Re: Tests Tom Droege could do on Griggs device
     
Originally-From: woweinga@mtu.edu (Warren Weingarten)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Tests Tom Droege could do on Griggs device
Date: 7 Nov 1994 16:11:39 GMT
Organization: Michigan Tech. University

In article <39kes8$8o6@newsbf01.news.aol.com>, danhicks@aol.com (DanHicks)
wrote:
>  No matter what you may feel about the reality of the GG itself, it's
> unfair to "charge" it more for input power than the electric company
> charges(*) -- the physics of the matter is that input power IS determined
> by instantaneous (current * voltage), even if that disagrees with the RMS
> volts * RMS amps method.
I agree.  The usual analog power meter does this by averaging the
instanteous power with the inertia of the meter movement.  However these
meters have some high frequency cutoff and if the current has a high
frequency component then the meter may not account for power from the high
frequency terms.  With digital meters, the sampling rate, cutoff
characteristics of current transformers, etc., may also under estimate the
power if the current has high frequency terms.
       These high frequency components could come from an oscillation in
the torque caused by a rigid shaft, and the two rotor masses.  If the
shafts of the two devices are connected by a damped coupler then I don't
think the oscillation could occur and their would be no high frequency
terms.
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenwoweinga cudfnWarren cudlnWeingarten cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.11 / Paul Koloc /  Re: tornadoes
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.geo.meteorology
Subject: Re: tornadoes
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 1994 05:36:58 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <39meie$3bd@stratus.skypoint.net> jlogajan@skypoint.com writes:
>Chuck Doswell (doswell@nssl.uoknor.edu) wrote:
>: The videotape to which you are referring is almost certainly that shot
>: from a news helicopter in the Minneapolis area.  The "sputtering white
>: light" flashes are certainly from powerline breaks.
>
>I recall that tornado -- only I wasn't chasing it, it was chasing me!

>I was driving home from work heading east on I-694 in Brooklyn Park
>when I noticed a funnel north-northeast of me.  The sky was high bright
>overcast, the funnel was .. .

>I attribute the appearance and disappearance of the funnel as a result
>of the spinning up and down of the winds.  When it spins up fast enough
>I presume that the low-pressue in the core of the funnel causes the
>water vapor to condense, ala a cloud chamber, or the mist you see
>on the top surface of a fighter plane wing when he pulls up quickly.

Adiabatic expansion cooling, which of course works for water vapor
lifted to higher altitudes forming clouds .. (depending on humity etc.)

>So the air spinning is going on all along, but when it speeds up and
>slows down, the vapor funnel appears and disappears.

Sensible.  
My daughter did her middle school sci project on an artificial "tornado".
She used a Plexiglas(tm) cylinder  .45mrad x1.3mh to exclude influx 
of air except at the bottom and where it was constrained to enter 
tangentially. She used a beam lamp directed along the axis from the 
top down to illuminate the condensed water vapor in the "tornado" 
that formed. To get more condensation, she boosted the humidity by 
putting the output from an unweighted pressure cooker into the air 
stream.  The hot plate was  1 or 2 kw.  The vacuum at the top was 
provided by a Sears household vacuum machine.  It was quite realistic, 
and could generate a demonstable force on toy buildings.      

I dissauded her from investigating her alternate ide of triggering 
a high voltage discharge done the tornado core and increasing 
vacuum meanfree path (reducing the air path breakdown potential).  
Incidentally, the fast exhaust volume vacuum hose should be grounded 
since it can build up a sizable potential and very quickly. 

A warning to parents of such foolish children.  Keep reminding them
of safety, keep double checking the set up, and have them find every
possible adverse problem that can arise.  It's such a joy when "They"
anticipate problems and prevent near calamities.  

>--
> - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com  --  612-633-0345 -
> - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA -
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc, Bx 1037 Prometheus II Ltd, College Park MD 20741-1037    |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.07 / CWRL User /  Economically feasible-how long?
     
Originally-From: cwrluser@nowhere.en.utexas.edu (CWRL User)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Economically feasible-how long?
Date: Mon, 07 Nov 1994 11:40:34 -0600
Organization: Computer Writing and Research Lab, UT-Austin

I am writing a 4 to 5 page research paper in Mosaic on fusion.  Does
anybody have any sources about the future of fusion?  I am interested in
when fusion will be feasible.  So far the only thing I found is that at
current budget levels it will take us 50 yrs.  Other sources I need
pertain to the general education in the public about fusion and fusion
research. Email me at NickH@mail.utexas.edu  Thanks very much in advance. 


Nick Hildebrandt-college freshman at UT Austin.
cudkeys:
cuddy07 cudencwrluser cudfnCWRL cudlnUser cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.11 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Griggs Device Can't Be Fusion
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs Device Can't Be Fusion
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 94 10:12:18 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Alan@moonrake.demon.co.uk ("Alan M. Dunsmuir") writes:
 
     "Talking about side bets, Jed - Do you have $1000 which says there will
     be consensus acceptance (across academic science) within 12 months that
     Arata's experiment is involving a nuclear process?"
 
No. I never make bets. I do not approve of betting, gambling, lotteries or the
like.
 
Furthermore, I think there is no possibility of a consensus acceptance of
Arata's experiment or any other CF work within 12 months. The war will go on
much longer than that. Leading members of the scientific establishment
including Maddox, Piel, Close, Huizenga and the decision makers at the DoE
will *never* accept any CF experimental evidence, no matter how convincing it
is. General acceptance can only come when these people have been shoved out of
the way in ignominy. They have staked their reputations on a position of hard
line opposition to CF, they have repressed it, ridiculed it, and attacked it
at every opportunity. They are hysterical anti-science fanatics. They will
never admit to themselves or to their readers that they have been drastically
wrong all these years.
 
You must realize that the opposition to CF is not based on any rational,
scientific arguments. This is a fight over money and power. It is politics,
not science. Any trained scientist who looks at the experimental data and who
understands concepts like peer review, replication, high Sigma data, and
instrument reliability will see instantly that the effect is real. A quick
glance at the 1990 papers from SRI or Amoco would convince anyone. It is
inconceivable that people like Arata and his colleagues would spend years
mistakenly thinking they are detecting 2 to 4 degree Delta T temperatures; or
that Mizuno would mistake 250 deg C for 400 deg C. The "skeptics" never
attempt to disprove Amoco, SRI, Arata or Mizuno. They never talk about them,
they never look at the data. This same technique was used by Galileo's
opponents. They refused to look through the telescope. "I see no mountains on
the moon" they insisted. Nowadays the 'skeptics' say they see no data in
support of CF, because they refuse to look. I watched Morrison turn green and
run away when the Amoco data was shoved in his face. Huizenga initially said
he would endorse Rockwell's analysis of the E-Quest. He thought we were
kidding. He thought it was safe to recommend Rockwell because he figured the
work would never get funded. When I told him I would pay for it myself if
necessary, he panicked and immediately declared that he would not endorse it
after all. "You don't need me, you fellows can handle it" he said. His
cowardice shocked even his fellow 'skeptic' Nate Hoffman, of Rockwell.
(Fortunately for me, someone else paid Rockwell.)
 
This is not a scientific debate, it is a power struggle. One group of
scientists has political control over funding, a new group of upstart
scientists threatens to put them out of business. History shows that serious
power struggles do not end in "consensus acceptance." They end when all
members of the opposition die, retire, are bankrupted, or get shoved out of
the way. You will find, for example, that fanatical opposition to
heavier-than-air flying machines began 20 years before the Wrights, and it
continued until 1912, even though everyone admitted the machines were real in
1908. Four years after their first major defeat the fanatics were still saying
"Yes, airplanes exist, but they will never be practical for any purpose." Four
years after the first prototype CF power reactors are shown, dozens of
'skeptics' will still say "Yes, CF exists, but it will never replace oil, coal
or fission." They will go to their graves with CF powered pacemakers in their
chests, mumbling "it is all a mistake, it isn't true, it is a flash-in-the-pan
fad." Don't laugh! I know people who think personal computers are unreliable.
They keep accounts on paper, which they say is "less work." They think
computers are a passing fad. You will find countless similar examples of
blind, irrational opposition to new inventions. People hate and fear novelty.
Look at how the steam locomotive industry responded to diesel engines.
Look at how the mainframe computer manufacturers responded to microcomputers.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenjedrothwell cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.11 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Hagelstein theory for CF ("Cold Fusion" Vol.1, No.3)
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Hagelstein theory for CF ("Cold Fusion" Vol.1, No.3)
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 94 10:17:46 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

And on the further downside, I regret to say the magazine has fired all
writers and appears to have suspended publication altogether. For now, anyway.
Perhaps a way will be found to revive it. The publisher lost money in other
ventures and he did not get along well with the editor, or with the writers
including me, so he is trying to publish it without us.
 
I am awfully sorry about this situation. I still hope we can work out some
mutually acceptable solution to the problem. I fel the subscribers are not
getting what they paid for. Let me hasten to add that it is not my fault if
the subscribers are unsatisfied, I have nothing to do with the management of
the magazine and I have not stock or any other interest in it. I just wrote for
it and translated when they asked me to.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenjedrothwell cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.11 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Y. Arata DS-Cathode cold fusion
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Y. Arata DS-Cathode cold fusion
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 94 11:16:16 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Doug Shade <rxjf20@email.sps.mot.com> writes:
 
>Why is it Jed is asked all the questions.... doesn't anybody go to the
>library anymore?
 
In this case, Brian had a perfectly good excuse for not going to the library.
The paper is in Japanese. I read it and I am translating bits and pieces.
The part I described came from the graphs, but you cannot understand the
graphs without reading the accompanying text, which is in Japanese.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenjedrothwell cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.11 / Monkey King /  Re: Y. Arata DS-Cathode cold fusion
     
Originally-From: monkey@engin.umich.edu (Monkey King)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Y. Arata DS-Cathode cold fusion
Date: 11 Nov 1994 18:10:31 GMT
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor

In article <BEy18Ce.jedrothwell@delphi.com>,  <jedrothwell@delphi.com> wrote:
>An entity calling itself the "Monkey King" from the University of Michigan
><monkey@engin.umich.edu> has a question. I am delighted to see that our
>universities have opened up to such intercultural diversity. Our simian
>colleague wishes to know:
> 
>     "If this is real CF, where is the nuclear ash? Any precautions against
>     nuclear radiation?  How come they are not dead?"
> 
>The main nuclear ash from a CF reaction is helium; an inert, harmless, non-
>radioactive gas. Radiation from CF can barely be detected with the best

Wonderful...

>This paper does not describe any effort to find the ash from this particular
>reaction. I expect that would be impossible. Helium is difficult to detect
>anyway, and an experimenter must usually choose between precise calorimetry

You gotta be kidding.  Helium is difficult to detect?  Can you say 'mass
spectrometer'? 

>- Jed


-- 
Monkey King                 | This message printed on 
monkey@engin.umich.edu      | recycled material.
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenmonkey cudfnMonkey cudlnKing cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.11 / Leslie Barstow /  Hagelstein theory for CF ("Cold Fusion" Vol.1, No.3)
     
Originally-From: Leslie M. Barstow III <wdphoenix@delphi.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Hagelstein theory for CF ("Cold Fusion" Vol.1, No.3)
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 94 01:57:35 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Has anyone here read through the article Peter Hagelstein has written for
"Cold Fusion" magazine describing his revised (many times over) theory for CF?
 
In a (really small) nutshell, he defines the problems associated with creating
a working theory for CF, and the paths he followed to arrive at his current
theory, which involves harmonic optical phonon resonance with quantum atomic
phenomena.  Basically, he describes CF as a neutron transfer caused by Braggs
scattering enhanced enormously by a phonon lasing effect occuring in the D and
H atoms within the Pd cathode.  He shows how this might be done, and also the
'ash' generated by such a transfer, which match admirably with the ash found
in CF reactions.
 
The article is written without the math necessary in a true journalistic paper
for clarity's sake, so that anyone picking up the magazine (with a basic
understanding of laser and quantum workings) might be able to understand, but
his work seems sound enough, and he certainly has enough knowledge of laser
principles to work from.
 
Another really neat fact - "CF" has lowered its subscription and newsstand
prices.  On the downside, I notice that this is a July/August combined issue,
which shouldn't be.
--
Leslie M. Barstow III    | Disclaimer:  We don't need no stinkin' disclaimer!
                         | Send Flames to alt.dev.null
                         | Organization:  Wandering Damage.
WDPHOENIX@delphi.com     | Project:  Try To Take Over The World.
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenwdphoenix cudfnLeslie cudlnBarstow cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.10 / Gary Steckly /  Re: Jed Rothwell the finest
     
Originally-From: gsteckly@clark.dgim.doc.ca (Gary Steckly)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Jed Rothwell the finest
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 94 14:15:42 GMT
Organization: Industry Canada

In article <39r4os$6s4@ixnews1.ix.netcom.com> parky@ix.netcom.com
(Chris Parkinson) writes:
>From: parky@ix.netcom.com (Chris Parkinson)
>Subject: Jed Rothwell the finest
>Date: 9 Nov 1994 18:35:08 GMT

>To all of you CF sceptics go back to the drawing boards. My money is on 
>Jed. He is right you know! The ego's involved in science today overbloat 
>the theories that exist in this 20th century. So what if nuclear theory 
>is potentially wrong. Openminded science will deliver far more than the 
>closed endedness that exist today in the US scientifict circles.

Your observation about the current state of objectivity in the scientific 
community today is IMHO quite accurate, particularly in light of Bryan 
Wallace's post here earlier this week (Nov. 6).   I don't know how many people 
took up Mr. Wallace on his offer  for an email copy of his book "The Farce of 
Physics" but I highly recommend it.  I started reading it last night, and it 
is quite an eye opener.  I never realized how easily the scientific 
brotherhood could suppress new evidence that might threaten established 
theories like GR.  The title of the first chapter "Sacred Science" is 
particularly appropo.

It is doubly disconcerting that merely getting these ideas published is so 
difficult that the author has to give it away on the internet.  I suggested to 
Mr. Wallace that he should have considered a "shareware" approach.  I for one 
will be sending him a small consideration, even though he does not solicit 
anything.

If anyone missed that offer you can get the book at the following FTP site

ftp.germany.eu.net in the directory
/pub/books/wallace, by using get farce.txt.

or send Mr. Wallace a request at "wallace@eckerd.edu".

regards

Gary
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudengsteckly cudfnGary cudlnSteckly cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.11 / Monkey King /  Re: Y. Arata DS-Cathode cold fusion
     
Originally-From: monkey@engin.umich.edu (Monkey King)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Y. Arata DS-Cathode cold fusion
Date: 11 Nov 1994 18:15:14 GMT
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor

In article <RQ60UKS.wdphoenix@delphi.com>,
Leslie M. Barstow III  <wdphoenix@delphi.com> wrote:
>Interesting article (the parts I've seen :)...
>I wonder why they chose Pd black, when many CF experiments seem to indicate
>that the reaction does not take place over the surface area...
> 
>Jed,
>  Take it easy on the Monkey dude - he obviously hasn't caught up on CF
>  reaction output yet.  For him, and those like him, 'CF ISN'T A STANDARD
>  FUSION REACTION!'

(Cold) Fusion is fusion is fusion is fusion....

> 
>  Also, careful when generalizing - He is not always an output product, and
>  some CF reactions can produce high levels of radiation (especially gamma -
>  several experiments have reported monochromatic, directional gamma bursts
>  [read - laser])

That would have killed Arata and company, now wouldn't it?

>--
>Leslie M. Barstow III    | Disclaimer:  We don't need no stinkin' disclaimer!
>                         | Send Flames to alt.dev.null
>                         | Organization:  Wandering Damage.
>WDPHOENIX@delphi.com     | Project:  Try To Take Over The World.


-- 
Monkey King                 | This message printed on 
monkey@engin.umich.edu      | recycled material.
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenmonkey cudfnMonkey cudlnKing cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.08 / Ron Schudalla /  Re: tornadoes
     
Originally-From: schudall@microwave.msfc.nasa.gov (Ron Schudalla)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.geo.meteorology,sci.physics.astro
Subject: Re: tornadoes
Date: 8 Nov 1994 18:54:37 GMT
Organization: NASA/MSFC

In article <39ogm1$jvj@ixnews1.ix.netcom.com>,
parky@ix.netcom.com (Chris Parkinson) writes:

|> 
|> Try Magneto Hydrodynamic waves otherwise known as Alfven waves. If one 
|> can assume that there is fluid, alla rain, in the vortex and assuming 
|> the magnetic potential in that area and calculating the velocities 
|> invloved one can then assume electro-motive forces due to the laws of 
|> MHD. Now since the magnetic potential is so low and the velocity so high 
|> I'm not sure that the effect of the glow is possible. I leave that 
|> question up to those that wish to apply the partial derivatives.
|> 
|> CP

Read the scientific journals people. Get the facts. And please move the MHD
discussions back to the proper bulletin boards.

Ron

-- 
*******************************************************************
*								  *
*	Ron Schudalla / HUGHES STX    Mission to Planet Earth -   *
*       Global Hydrology and	      NOAA/NASA SSM/I		  *
*         Climate Center, Rm. B104	   Pathfinder Project 	  *
*	977 Explorer Boulevard	      			          *
*	Huntsville, AL 35806					  *
*	PH: 205-922-5792	      Guitarist and Golfer of	  *
*	FAX: 205-922-5930             modest ability.....         *
*								  *
*		email: schudall@microwave.msfc.nasa.gov		  *
*								  *
*	"It's 106 miles to Chicago. We got a full tank o' gas,	  *
*	 half a pack o' cigarettes, it's dark out, and we're	  *
*	 wearing sunglasses."  "Hit it!"			  *
*								  *
*******************************************************************
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenschudall cudfnRon cudlnSchudalla cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.10 / Robert Dinse /  Re: repost of "tornadoes"
     
Originally-From: nanook@eskimo.com (Robert Dinse)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.geo.meteorology
Subject: Re: repost of "tornadoes"
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 1994 09:48:27 GMT
Organization: Eskimo North (206) For-Ever

In article <1994Nov10.022026.9843@midway.uchicago.edu>, edward@uhuru.uch
cago.edu (Edward Lewis) writes:
> Luminous Tornadoes and Other Plasmoids
> 
> 	During the past 1 3/4 years I've been posting articles about
> ball lightning, plasmoids, EVs, and cold fusion on sci.physics.fusion
> newsgroup. This is a version of one that I posted last winter.  Does
> anyone have any reports about anomalous atmospheric phenomena?

     The lightning storms that we have around here (Seattle Wa) are generally
pretty weak.

     I am used to lightning to being a very brief bright flash, but one night
while driving home from a friends house, just as I was crossing an intersection
that gave an unobstructed view to the east, there was a lightning strike, but
it didn't just flash and go out, it lasted so long I had time to stop the car,
put it in reverse, and get back into the intersection to see it.  It turned
from the usual blue-white color to a deep red just before it extinguished.

     It was the strangest lightning I've ever seen, it was like there was a
giant transformer supplying a continuous current rather than a static
discharge.  It is a phenomena that I observed only ONCE in my life, I was not
drunk or otherwise chemically impaired.

     When you see something like this you really begin to wonder about the
stock explanations, static charges built up by the movement of moist air or
whatever.  Well, for all but that particular lightning strike that makes
sense, but knowing that once the air is ionized it is very conductive and thus
any static charge should have been nearly instantly discharged (as is NORMALLY
the case with lightning), this didn't fit.  It implied that either there was
some continuous source of current sufficient to maintain the discharge for the
10 or 15 seconds it took me to stop and reverse back into the intesection,
or for some reason, the conduction path didn't have the low impedence one would
expect.

     I am curious both as to what could have sustained a discharge for such a
long time, and also what caused the color of the discharge to change from
blue-white to a deep red, the red was not like a neon-red, it was more like
a road-flare red.

     Another strange lightning "storm" I saw once was during the summer on an
otherwise clear day.  There was a single solitary cloud to the east and from
it every minute or so for about fifteen minutes there was a strike to the
ground.  Really bizzare.

-- 
-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
 Eskimo North: More Unix, Usenet, Internet for Less $$ (206)For-Ever Eskimo.Com
  Free two-week trial, login as "new".  For more info email: nanook@eskimo.com
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudennanook cudfnRobert cudlnDinse cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.10 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Y. Arata DS-Cathode cold fusion
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Y. Arata DS-Cathode cold fusion
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 94 12:44:54 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

An entity calling itself the "Monkey King" from the University of Michigan
<monkey@engin.umich.edu> has a question. I am delighted to see that our
universities have opened up to such intercultural diversity. Our simian
colleague wishes to know:
 
     "If this is real CF, where is the nuclear ash? Any precautions against
     nuclear radiation?  How come they are not dead?"
 
The main nuclear ash from a CF reaction is helium; an inert, harmless, non-
radioactive gas. Radiation from CF can barely be detected with the best
instruments in the world. It is much less intense than the radiation from hot
fusion. Arata et al. are not dead because minute amounts of helium are not a
bit dangerous. You can even breathe in large amounts of helium -- millions of
times more than this CF reaction produced. It will not harm you. It will give
your voice a comical high pitched quacking tone, which will make you sound
like Donald Duck, Richard Blue, or Frank Close, but it will not hurt you.
Hundreds of other scientists have observed CF reactions and they are all alive
and well. CF does not kill people. Even the "skeptics" at MIT, Harwell and Cal
Tech who observed CF reactions were not physically harmed by them, although
they suffered from extreme mental conniptions.
 
This paper does not describe any effort to find the ash from this particular
reaction. I expect that would be impossible. Helium is difficult to detect
anyway, and an experimenter must usually choose between precise calorimetry
and good detection. It is much easier to capture helium with something like E-
Quest's ultrasound driven cell, rather than with electrolysis which frees a
lot of gas even in a closed cell with a recombiner. In any case, I am sure
this CF reaction did produce helium, because that is what CF reactions produce
at Los Alamos, the Naval Air Warfare Center at China Lake, the Italian SIDF
laboratories, and elsewhere. The laws of nature are uniform throughout the
cosmos, although the food is better in Osaka than New Mexico.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenjedrothwell cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.10 / Tuan Ho /  <>== Books 4 Sale ==<>
     
Originally-From: tho@carbon.denver.colorado.edu (Tuan Thanh Ho)
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.engr.semiconductors,sci.optics,sci.physics.ele
tromag,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: <>== Books 4 Sale ==<>
Date: 10 Nov 1994 08:22:00 -0700
Organization: University of Colorado at Denver



I have the following books for sale :

Please note the book condition:

Brand New = (!)
Excellent = (****)
Good      = (***)
Average   = (**)
Poor      = (*)


- C. W. Wilmsen, ed., Physics and Chemistry of III-V Compound Semiconductor
  Interfaces, Plenum Press, 1985, $25 (!).

- A. Hasegawa, Optical Solitons in Fibers, Springer Verlag, 1989, $29 (!).

- M. Lesieur, Turbulence in Fluids, 2nd revised ed., Kluwer Academic Pub.,
  1990, $54 (!).

- M. S. Tyagi, Introduction to Semiconductor Materials and Devices, John 
  Wiley & Sons, 1991, $25 (!).

- R. F. Barron, Cryogenic Systems, 2nd ed., Oxford University Press, 1985,
  $47 (!).

- P. E. De Gennes and J. Prost, The Physics of Liquid Crystals, 2nd ed.,
  Oxford Science Publications, 1993, $47 (!).

- C. D. Aliprantis and O. Burkinshaw, Locally Solid Riesz Spaces, Academic
  Press, 1978, $47 (!).

- J. D. Ullman, Computational Aspects of VLSI, Computer Science Press, 1984,
  $25 (!).

- R. Penrose and C. J. Isham, Quantum Concepts in Space and Time, Oxford
  Science Publications, 1986, $59 (****).

- M. Herzberger, Modern Geometrical Optics, Krieger, 1980, $32, (!).

- J. S. Blakemore, Solid State Physics, 2nd ed., Cambridge University Press,
  1985, $39 (!).

- J. M. Jauch and F. Rohrlich, The Theory of Photons and Electrons, 2nd
  expanded Edition, Springer Verlag, 1980, $39 (***).

- K. Huang, Statistical Mechanics, John Wiley & Sons, 1963, $25, (****).

- A. Sommerfeld, Thermodynamics and Statistical Mechanics, Academic Press,
  1956, $25 (***).  

- T. T. Wu, Ed., New Methodologies in Studies of Protein Configuration,
  Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1985, $25 (!).

- F. J. Brykowski, ed., Ammonia and Synthesis Gas: Recent and Energy-Saving
  Processes, Noyes Data Corporation, 1981, $25 (****).

- R. Abe, Statistical Mechanics, University of Tokyo Press, 1975, $25 (****).

- C. Kittel, Elementary Statistical Physics, John Wiley & Sons, $25 (****).

- W. H. Zachariasen, Theory of X-Ray Diffraction in Crystals, John Wiley &
  Sons, 1945, $20 (***).

- G. C. Levy, R. L. Lichter, and G. L. Nelson, Carbon-13 Nuclear Magnetic
  Resonance Spectroscopy, 2nd ed., John Wiley & Sons, 1980, $25 (****). 

- R. B. Marcus, Ed., Measurement of High-Speed Signals in Solid State 
  Devices (Semiconductors and Semimetals Vol.28), Academic Press, 1990,
  $35 (!).

- P. N. Butcher and D. Cotter, Cambridge Studies in Modern Optics: The 
  Elements of Nonlinear Optics, University of Cambridge Press, 1990, $42 (!)

- F. B. A. Frungel, High Speed Pulse Technology Vol. IV: Sparks and Laser
  Pulses, Academic Press, 1980, $30 (****).

- J. J. Duderstadt, Nuclear Power, Marcel Dekker, 1979, $35 (***).

- N. Johnson, S. G. Bishop, and G. D. Watkins, eds., Material Research
  Society Symposium Proceedings, vol.46, Microscopic Identification of
  Electronic Defects in Semiconductors, MRS Material Research Society, 1985,
  $25 (!).

- D. C. Harris, and M. D. Bertolucci, Symmetry and Spectroscopy: An 
  Introduction to Vibrational and Electronic Spectroscopy, Oxford University
  Press, 1978, $25 (***).

- R. W. Christy and A. Pytte, The Structure of Matter: An Introduction
  to Modern Physics, W. A. Benjamin, Inc., 1965, $25 (****).

- R. L. Shriner, R. C. Fuson, and D. Y. Curtin, The Systematic Identification
  of Organic Compounds: A Laboratory Manual, 5th ed., John Wiley & Sons,
  1964, $25 (***).

- R. F. Baron, Cryogenic Systems, 2nd ed., Oxford Science Publications,
  1985, $45 (!).

- H. H. Aly, ed., Lectures on Particles and Fields, Gordon & Breach Science
  Publishers, 1970, $90 (reg.$150), (****).

- R. Chand, Symmetries and Quark Models, Gordon & Breach Science Publishers,
  1970, $85 (reg.$140), (****).

- R. M. Olson and S. J. Wright, Essentials of Engineering Fluid Mechanics,
  5th ed., 1990, $50 (reg.$70), 1990 (!).

- I. Kaplan, Nuclear Physics, Addison Wesley, 1962, $35 (****).

- A. O. Barut, Scattering Theory, Aspects of Scattering Processes in Atomic,
  Nuclear, and Particle Physics, Gordon & Preach Science Publishers, 1969,
  $115 (reg.$198), (****).

- I. G. Currie, Fundamental Mechanics of Fluids, McGraw Hill, 1974, $30,
  (!).

- A. O. Barut and W. E. Britten, eds., De Sitter and Conformal Groups and
  Their Applications, Lectures in Theoretical Physics, Vol. XIII, Colorado
  Associated University Press, $45 (reg.$65), 1978, (****).

- A. Agresti, Analysis of Ordinal Categorical Data, John Wiley & Sons, 1984,
  $28 (****).

- B. D. O. Anderson and J. B. Moore, Optimal Control, Prentice Hall, 1990,
  $53 (****). 

- L. Rabiner and B. Juang, Fundamentals of Speech Recognition, Prentice Hall,
  1993, $69 (!)

- E. O. Brigham, The Fast Fourier Transform, Prentice Hall, 1974, $35 (****).

- W. E. Barnes, Introduction to Abstract Algebra, D.C. Heath & Co., 1963,
  $25 (***).

- R. Katz, Axiomatic Analysis: An Introduction to Logic and the Real Number
  System, D.C. Heath & Co., 1964, $25 (***).

- B. R. Donald, D. Kapur, and J. L. Mundy, eds., Symbolic and Numerical
  Computation for Artificial Intelligence, Academic Press, 1992, $55 (!).

- P. R. Halmos, Measure Theory, Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1950, $35 (***).

- D. Gries and F. B. Schneider, A Logical Approach to Discrete Math,
  Springer Verlag, 1993, $42 (!).

- L. Hormander, Linear Partial Differential Operators, Academic Press, 1963,
  $42 (***).

- D. L. Lukes, Differential Equations: Classical to Controlled, Academic
  Press, 1982, $52 (!).

- M. Loeve, Probability Theory II, 4th ed., Springer Verlag, 1978, $39 (****).

- G. A. Mihram, Simulation: Statistical Foundations and Methodology, Academic
  Press, 1972, $39 (****).

- R. J. Muirhead, Aspects of Multivariate Statistical Theory, John Wiley
  & Sons, 1982, $65 (****).

- A. Papoulis, The Fourier Integral and its Applications, McGraw Hill, 1962,
  $39 (***). 

- R. D. Mattuck, A Guide to Feynman Diagram in the Many-Body Problem, McGraw
  Hill, 1967, $25 (***).

- F. Chatelin, Eigenvalues of Matrices, John Wiley & Sons, 1993, $59, (!).

- N. Jacobson, Lectures in Abstract Algebra (vol.I Basic Concepts), D. Van
  Nostrand Co., 1951 (***), $30.

- K. S. Narendra, and A. M. Annaswamy, Stable Adaptive Systems, Prentice Hall,
  1989, $65 (!).

- R. T. Rockafellar, Network Flows and Monotropic Optimization, John Wiley
  & Sons, 1984, $35 (***).

- E. Parzen, Stochastic Processes, Holden Day, 1962, $35 (***).

- D. T. Bartholomew, Stochastic Models for Social Processes, 2nd ed., John
  Wiley & Sons, 1973, $35 (****).

- M. T. Barlow and N. H. Bingham, Stochastic Analysis, London Mathematical
  Society Lecture notes Series 167, Cambridge University Press, 1991,
  $39 (****), soft bound.

- M. Aickin, Linear Statistical Analysis of Discrete Data, John Wiley & Sons,
  1983, $55 (!).

- M. S. Grewal, and A. P. Andrews, Kalman Filtering: Theory and Practice,
  Prentice Hall, 1993, $59 (!).

- W. K. Pratt, Digital Image Processing, John Wiley & Sons, 1978, $49 (****).

- K. S. Narendra and R. W. Monopoli, Eds., Applications of Adaptive Control,
  Academic Press, 1980, $49 (****).

- D. C. Champeney, Fourier Transforms and Their Physical Applications,
  Academic Press, 1973, $59 (****).

- D. A. S. Fraser, Probability and Statistics, Theory and Applications,
  Duxbury Press, 1976, $35 (****).

- S. O. Fatunla, Numerical Methods for Initial Value Problems in Ordinary
  Differential Equations, Academic Press, 1988, $48 (!).

- B. V. Gnedenko and I. N. Kovalenko, Introduction to Queueing Theory, 2nd ed.,
  $47, Birkhauser Boston, 1989, (!).

- J. D. Gaskill, Linear Systems, Fourier Transforms, and Optics, John Wiley
  & Sons, 1978, $59 (****).

- P. S. Maybeck, Stochastic Models, Estimation, and Control, Vol.3, Academic
  Press, 1982, $49 (****).

- L. Ljung, System Identification: Theory for the User, Prentice Hall, 1987,
  $73 (!).

- V. Solo, and X. Kong, Adatpive Signal Processing Algorithms: Stability
  and Performance, Prentice Hall, 1995, $59, (!).

- L. Wang, Adaptive Fuzzy Systems and Control: Design and Stability Analysis,
  Prentice Hall, 1994, $53 (!).

- K. S. Narendra, Ed., Adaptive and Learning Systems: Theory and Applications,
  Plenum Press, 1986, $49 (****).

- S. K. Berberian, Lectures in Functional Analysis and Operator Theory,
  Springer Verlag, 1974, $35 (!).

- M. Hamermesh, Group Theory and its Application to Physical Problems,
  Addison Wesley, 1962, $59 (reprint $200), (!).

- L. M. Grass, Theory of Functions of Real Variables, 2nd ed., McGraw Hill,
  1956, $38 (***).

- R. J. Doviak, and D. S. Zrnic, Doppler Radar and Weather Observations,
  2nd ed., Academic Press, 1993, $68 (!).

- M. Morse, Variational Analysis: Critical Extremals and Sturmian Extensions,
  John Wiley & Sons, 1973, $39, (***).

- E. Parzen, Modern Probability Theory and Its Applications, John Wiley & Sons
  1960, $27 (***).

- J. R. Wertz, Spacecraft Attitude Determination and Control, Soft bound,
  Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1978, $65, (!).

- T. C. Bartee, Editor-in-Chief, Digital Communications, Howard Sams & Co.,
  1986, $35 (!).

- M. Hall, Jr., Combinatorial Theory, Blaisdell Publishing Co., 1967, $29, 
  (****).

- J. A. Peterson and J. Hashisaki, Theory of Arithmetic, 2nd ed., John Wiley
  & Sons, 1968, $28, (***).

- F. F. Ling and I. G. Tadjbakhsh, eds., Recent Developments in Applied
  Mathematics, Rensselaer Press, 1983, $27 (!).

- C. W. Curtis, Linear Algebra: An Introduction Approach, 2nd ed., Allyn
  and Bacon, Inc., 1968, $27, (***).

- A. J. Pettofrezzo, and D. W. Hight, Number Systems: Structure and 
  Properties, Scott Foresman & Co., 1969, $28 (***).

- R. T. Seeley, Calculus of Several Variables, Scott Foresman & Co., 1970,
  $28 (****).

- G. Stephenson, Matrices, Sets and Groups: An Introduction for Students of
  Science and Engineering, American Elsevier Pub. Co., Inc., 1965, $27,
  (***).

- S. M. Ross, Introduction to Probability Models, 4th ed., Academic Press,
  1989, $35 (!).

- S. Haykin, Adaptive Filter Theory, Prentice Hall, $69 (!).

- C. G. Guy, Data Communications for Engineers, McGraw Hill, 1992, $29 (!).

- D. S. Naidu, Singular Perturbation Methodology in Control Systems, IEE
  Control Engineering Series, Peter Peregrinus Ltd., 1988, $55 (!). 

- J. Martin, Telecommunications and the Computer, 2nd ed., Prentice Hall,
  1976, $35 (!).

- W. J. Palm III, Control Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, 1986,
  $45 (!). 

- C. L. Wyatt, Electro-optical System Design for Information Processing,
  McGraw Hill, 1991, $35 (!).

- K. Ogata, Discrete-Time Control Systems, Prentice Hall, 1987, $25 (**).

- J. S. Vandergraft, Introduction to Numerical Computations, Academic Press,
  1978, $29 (!). 

- R. E. Sonntag, and G. J. Van Wylen, Fundamentals of Statistical
  Thermodynamics, Robert E. Krieger Publishing Co., 1986 (reprint), $35 (!).

- Y. D. Landau, System Identification and Control using P.I.M & Software,
  Prentice Hall, $65 (!).

- R. V. Hogg and A. T. Craig, Introduction to Mathematical Statistics,
  4th ed., Macmillan, $35 (****).

- S. B. Kesler, ed., Modern Spectrum Analysis II, IEEE Press, 1986, $49 (***).

- M. L. Skolnik, Introduction to Radar Systems, 2nd ed., McGraw Hill,
  1980, $22 (****).

- B. Widrow and S. D. Stearns, Adaptive Signal Processing, Prentice Hall,
  1985, $75 (!).

- G. M. Jenkins and D. G. Watts, Spectral Analysis and its applications,
  Holden-Day, 1968, $25 (***).

- E. O. Brigham, The Fast Fourier Transform and its Applications, Prentice
  Hall, $69 (!).

- F. Halsall, Data Communications, Computer Networks and Open Systems, 3rd
  ed., Addison Wesley, 1992, $25 (****). 

- W. Kaplan, Operational Methods for Linear Systems, Addison Wesley, 1962,
  $19 (**).

- J. D. Gibson, Principles of Digital and Analog Communications, 2nd ed.,
  Macmillan, 1993, $29 (****).

- E. M. Reingold, J. Nievergett, and Narsingh Deo, Combinatorial Algorithms:
  Theory and Practice, Prentice Hall, 1977, $39 (****).

- S. Lakshmivarahan, and S. K. Dhall, Analysis and Design of Parallel 
  Algorithms: Arithmetic and matrix Problem, McGraw Hill, 1990, $39 (!).

- Y. Kuang, Delay Differential Equations with Applications in Population
  Dynamics, Mathematics in Science and Engineering vol.191, Academic Press,
  1993, $39 (!).

- C. R. Hicks, Fundamental Concepts in the Design of Experiments, 3rd ed.,
  Holt Rhinehart Winston, 1982, $43 (!).

- L. Gillman and M. Jerison, Rings of Continuous Functions, Van Nostrand
  Reinhold, 1960, $35 (***).

- P. Ribenboim, 13 Lectures on Fermat's Last Theorem, Springer-Verlag, 1979,
  $45 (!).

- D. A. Danielson, Vectors and Tensors in Engineering and Physics, Addison
  Wesley, 1992, $36 (!).

- Rabiner and Schafer, Digital Processing of Speech Signals, Prentice
  Hall, $75 (!).

- L. W. Couch II, Digital and Analog Communication Systems, Macmillan, 1983,
  $25 (***). 

- D. R. Smith, Digital Transmission Systems, Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1985,
  $20 (****).

- W. S. Meisel, Computer-Oriented Approaches to Pattern Recognition,
  Academic Press, 1972, $25 (***).

- M. Barkat, Signal Detection and Estimation, Artech House, 1991, $30 (!).

- S. Haykin, Communication Systems, 2nd ed., John Wiley & Sons, 1983,
  $30 (****).

- Proceedings ICASSP 85, IEEE International Conference on Acoustic, Speech,
  and Signal Processing, 1985, $25 (4 volumes, ****).

- T.W. Weber, An Introduction to Process Dynamics and Control, John Wiley & 
  Sons, 1973, $35 (***).

- W. A. Spivey and R. M. Thrall, Linear Optimization, Holt, Rinehart, and
  Winston, 1970, $29 (***).

- T. L. Vincent and W. J. Grantham, Optimality in Parametric Systems, John
  Wiley & Sons, 1981, $42 (***). 

- R. A. Gabel and R. A. Roberts, Signals and Linear Systems, 3rd ed., John
  Wiley & Sons, 1980, $20 (**).

- M. Brawn, Differential Equations and Their Applications, 2nd ed., Springer
  Verlag, 1975, $24 (***).

- E. D. Rainville and P. E. Bedient, Elementary Differential Equations,
  6th ed., Macmillan, 1981, $25 (***).

- J. Gilbert and L. Gilbert, Elements of Modern Algebra, 3rd ed., PWS-Kent
  Publishing Co., 1992, $39 (!).

- L. J. Bain and M. Engelhardt, Introduction to Probability and Mathematical
  Statistics, 2nd ed., PWS-Kent Publishing Co., 1992, $39 (!).

- J. Wesley Barnes, Statistical Analysis for Engineers and Scientists: A
  Computer-based Approach, McGraw Hill, 1994 $39 (!).

- Digital Signal Processing Committee, Programs for Digital Signal Processing,
  IEEE Press, 1979, $25 (***). 

- G. F. Franklin and J. D. Powell, Digital Control of Dynamic Systems,
  Addison-Wesley, 1981, $30 (***).

- R. C. Dorf, Modern Control Systems, 4th ed., Addison-Wesley, 1986, $20 (**).

- J. J. D'Azzo and C. H. Houpis, Linear Control System Analysis and Design,
  2nd ed., McGraw Hill, 1981, $30 (****).

- E. B. Saff and A. D. Snider, Fundamentals of Complex Analysis for
  Mathematics, Science, and Engineering, Prentice Hall, 1976, $25 (****).

- A. S. Willsky, Digital Signal Processing and Control and Estimation Theory,
  Points of tangency, Areas of Intersection, and Parallel Directions,
  MIT Press, 1979, $25 (****).

- J. M. Mendel, Discrete Techniques of Parameter Estimation, Marcel Dekker,
  1973, $65 (****).

- C. Johnk, Engineering Electromagnetic Fields and Waves, John Wiley & Sons
  1975, $30 (****).

- P. Bickel and K. Doksum, Mathematical Statistics: basic Ideas and Selected
  Topics, Holden-Day, Inc., 1977, $25 (****).

- W. Stallings, Data and Computer Communications, Macmillan, 1985, $20 (****).

- L. Balmer, Signals and Systems: An Introduction, Prentice Hall, 1991, $25.
  (****).

- M. O'Flynn, Probabilities, Random Variables, and random Process,
  Harper & Row publishers, 1982, $25 (****).

- E. A. Walker, Introduction to Abstract Algebra, Random House, 1987, $30.
  (****).


If interested, Please e-mail me at: tho@carbon.denver.colorado.edu
               or Phone me at     : (303) 364-4426

Thanks,

Tuan T. Ho

cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudentho cudfnTuan cudlnHo cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.10 / Ron Schudalla /  Re: repost of "tornadoes"
     
Originally-From: schudall@microwave.msfc.nasa.gov (Ron Schudalla)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.geo.meteorology
Subject: Re: repost of "tornadoes"
Date: 10 Nov 1994 15:40:29 GMT
Organization: NASA/MSFC

In article <1994Nov10.022026.9843@midway.uchicago.edu>,
edward@uhuru.uchicago.edu (Edward Lewis) writes:
|> 
|> Dec. 7, 1993
|> posted on Oct. 28, 1994
|> 
|> Luminous Tornadoes and Other Plasmoids
|> 
|> 	During the past 1 3/4 years I've been posting articles about
|> ball lightning, plasmoids, EVs, and cold fusion on sci.physics.fusion
|> newsgroup. This is a version of one that I posted last winter.  Does
|> anyone have any reports about anomalous atmospheric phenomena?
|> 
|>         People have often seen bright or luminous tornadoes.
|> According to prior research, a large percentage of tornadoes are
|> bright or glowing, and people have experienced that some are quite hot.

Often? Most tornado reports I see do not indicate anything of the sort. I have
heard some people say that some are rather warm, but this does not strike me as
odd, given the amount of latent heat which could be released due to condensation
in tornadoes (I'm wingin it on that one....no real calculations on my part)


|> (see B. Vonnegut and J. R. Weyer, "Luminous Phenomena Accompanying
|> Tornadoes," WEATHERWISE, 19-2 (Apr. 1966), 66-68. and B. Vonnegut and
|> J. R. Weyer, "Luminous Phenomena in Nocturnal Tornadoes, SCIENCE,
|> (1966), 1213-1220.)

First of all, would you call this recent research? Several recent postings have
indicated that Dr. Vonnegut has not really followed up on this theory in recent
years.

|> 
|>         Storms on the Earth are probably an atmospheric manifestation
|> of earth plasmoid activity, according to Tesla's experience of
|> electricity in the ground that accompanied a storm.  Even clouds may
|> be such a manifestation.  Clouds seem to be plasmoid phenomena.  And
|> clouds may convert to ball lightning.  People have seen clouds which
|> contained a glowing spot, and in one case it is fairly documented that
|> a cloud with a glowing spot produced a tornado.

I'd say you have not been reading up very much on meteorology. Yes, there is
quite a bit of physics involved in the atmosphere. But most of it has been
documented as thermodynamic processes (in the case of clouds), and simpler (?)
hydrodynamic processes in the case of tornadoes. As far as "glowing spots" are
concerned.....(speculation mode ON).....let's remember something about storms and
tornadoes...they usually (not always) occur in late afternoon/early evening
times. At this time of the day, when the sun is setting and clouds tend to take
on a reddish hue, it is not out of the realm of possibility that the "glow" to
which you refer is simply a channeling of the sunlight (similar to the manner in
which storms with hail cores sometimes produce a "greenish" glow, according to
some eyewitnesses).....(speculation mode OFF).......

This is a much more plausible explanation than saying that
tornadoes, a phenomenon resulting from, basically, the conservation of angular
momentum, are a plasmoid phenomenon and are driven by electrical forces (at
least, that is how I read this post). Clouds are an atmospheric manifestation of
moist updrafts in the atmosphere.

|> 
|>         Tornadoes are a locus for the conversion of substance
|> to light and electricity.

Am I missing something here? I thought the conversion of matter to energy occurs
beyond the speed of light. Doppler measurements have shown that tornado
velocities are fast, but not THAT fast!

|> The power of tornadoes is anomalously high.
|> People have seen lightning from a large area converge to the area of a
|> cyclone, but this seems to only be part of the reason for the power.
|> People have seen tornadoes that had parts that were so bright that
|> they described the phenomena as being too bright to look at though the
|> tornadoes were quite a ways away; one person described tornadoes that
|> lit up the surroundings so that it was as if the direct sun was
|> shining during a period of time.  In one case, a thermometer measured
|> that the temperature of the air increased by about 20 degrees during
|> the passage of a tornado.

Show us your sources / data.

|> 
|>         I would say that tornadoes and ball lightning are the same
|> type of phenomena, though ball lightning is smaller.  I classify both
|> ball lightning and tornadoes, storms, clouds, and other phenomena as
|> kinds of a phenomena that I call plasmoid phenomena.  Galaxies and
|> atoms are other types of this kind of phenomena, according to my
|> theory.

You would say.....and what is the evidence for supporting what "you would
say..."? I respect opinions, but lets make sure that we know that these are
OPINIONS, until they are supported by FACTS. Last I checked, theoretical physics,
like meteorology, is a science and is governed by principles of scientific
research; namely, a researcher gathers (real) data as evidence, proposes a theory
based upon that evidence, and is HOPEFULLY SUPPORTED BY OTHER RESEARCHERS.
Confidence in your theories drops if people cannot reproduce your results. Isn't
that what happened to Fleischmann and Pons (sp), speaking of cold fusion? I'm not
up on THAT subject, but I do remember hearing a few years back when all of this
was going on in the news, that no one could reproduce their results. I'm open for
input on that.

I guess my main point here, to summarize, is that all of these theories have
little or NO evidence to support them. While they may be fun little mental
exercises, the massive amounts of evidence in the scientific journals indicate
that the explanations being put forth in this group for tornado formation, and
associated phenomena are out of the ballpark.

|> 
|>         I would say that the cold fusion phenomena is a plasmoid
|> phenomena.  People have produced many types of phenomena including
|> traces and holes and tunnels that are similar to those produced by
|> plasmoid phenomena.  I would say that tiny plasmoids like ball
|> lightning are being produced. At the ICCF4, Matsumoto reported about
|> tiny ball lightning in his CF apparatus.  I suggest that people read
|> his articles in FUSION TECHNOLOGY.

I would suggest reading JOURNAL OF THE ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES, JOURNAL OF APPLIED
METEOROLOGY, MONTHLY WEATHER REVIEW, TELLUS, QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL
METEOROLOGICAL SOCIETY,  and other respectable refereed meteorological journals
(not to say that FUSION TECHNOLOGY is unrespectable ;)! ).

Ron

-- 
*******************************************************************
*								  *
*	Ron Schudalla / HUGHES STX    Mission to Planet Earth -   *
*       Global Hydrology and	      NOAA/NASA SSM/I		  *
*         Climate Center, Rm. B104	   Pathfinder Project 	  *
*	977 Explorer Boulevard	      			          *
*	Huntsville, AL 35806					  *
*	PH: 205-922-5792	      Guitarist and Golfer of	  *
*	FAX: 205-922-5930             modest ability.....         *
*								  *
*		email: schudall@microwave.msfc.nasa.gov		  *
*								  *
*	"It's 106 miles to Chicago. We got a full tank o' gas,	  *
*	 half a pack o' cigarettes, it's dark out, and we're	  *
*	 wearing sunglasses."  "Hit it!"			  *
*								  *
*******************************************************************
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenschudall cudfnRon cudlnSchudalla cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.10 / Alex Teo /  MHD and TAE activity in TFTR?
     
Originally-From: act@ipp-garching.mpg.de (Alex Teo)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: MHD and TAE activity in TFTR?
Date: 10 Nov 1994 09:28:44 +0100
Organization: Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik, Garching bei Muenchen


In Section 6 (Resent Results) of Robert F. Heeter's excellently compiled
	FAQ it is stated:

> *****************************************************************
> 6. Recent Results in Fusion Research
> 
> Last Revised October 16, 1994
> Written by Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@pppl.gov, unless
> otherwise cited.
> 
> ( This section discusses major fusion results from the past
>      few years. )
> 
> ***  A.  Recent Results on TFTR: D-T Experiments

[snip]
>    Plasma disruptions possibly caused by TAE mode activity have
>      been observed.  Fusion performance is limited by the MHD
>      activity, not by heating power or confinement.

However, in a recent IAEA Conference paper, E Fredrickson et al, "TAE
Modes and MHD activity in TFTR DT Plasmas", say:

	... In the TFTR DT experiments to date there is no evidence for
	alpha loss due to alpha-driven TAE activity...

and give the impression that the disruptions are due to low m MHD
instabilities. 

I'm working on a project here at the W7-AS stellarator in Garching,
Germany, on GAE/TAE modes would be very grateful if anyone from the TFTR
experiment could clarify this point with me: were the disruptions due to
MHD activity or alpha-driven TAEs?

I don't trust my netnews reader (some articles don't seem to appear on it)
so carbon-copies of any replies would be very greatly appreciated.

			thanks in advance, Alex Teo
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenact cudfnAlex cudlnTeo cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.10 / Ron Schudalla /  Re: --cold fusion and PLASMOIDS
     
Originally-From: schudall@microwave.msfc.nasa.gov (Ron Schudalla)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.geo.meteorology
Subject: Re: --cold fusion and PLASMOIDS
Date: 10 Nov 1994 14:49:38 GMT
Organization: NASA/MSFC

This article has nothing to do with meteorology. Please quit cross-posting this
to S.G.M. Thanks.

Ron

-- 
*******************************************************************
*								  *
*	Ron Schudalla / HUGHES STX    Mission to Planet Earth -   *
*       Global Hydrology and	      NOAA/NASA SSM/I		  *
*         Climate Center, Rm. B104	   Pathfinder Project 	  *
*	977 Explorer Boulevard	      			          *
*	Huntsville, AL 35806					  *
*	PH: 205-922-5792	      Guitarist and Golfer of	  *
*	FAX: 205-922-5930             modest ability.....         *
*								  *
*		email: schudall@microwave.msfc.nasa.gov		  *
*								  *
*	"It's 106 miles to Chicago. We got a full tank o' gas,	  *
*	 half a pack o' cigarettes, it's dark out, and we're	  *
*	 wearing sunglasses."  "Hit it!"			  *
*								  *
*******************************************************************
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenschudall cudfnRon cudlnSchudalla cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.10 / Ron Schudalla /  Sorry (Was: Re: --cold fusion and PLASMOIDS)
     
Originally-From: schudall@microwave.msfc.nasa.gov (Ron Schudalla)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.geo.meteorology
Subject: Sorry (Was: Re: --cold fusion and PLASMOIDS)
Date: 10 Nov 1994 14:56:52 GMT
Organization: NASA/MSFC

Oops....sorry....not very scientific of me! I guess this DOES have something to
do with meteorology! Next time I'll read beyond the first paragraph BEFORE I
post! Oh well.....whatever.....nevermind :).

-- 
*******************************************************************
*								  *
*	Ron Schudalla / HUGHES STX    Mission to Planet Earth -   *
*       Global Hydrology and	      NOAA/NASA SSM/I		  *
*         Climate Center, Rm. B104	   Pathfinder Project 	  *
*	977 Explorer Boulevard	      			          *
*	Huntsville, AL 35806					  *
*	PH: 205-922-5792	      Guitarist and Golfer of	  *
*	FAX: 205-922-5930             modest ability.....         *
*								  *
*		email: schudall@microwave.msfc.nasa.gov		  *
*								  *
*	"It's 106 miles to Chicago. We got a full tank o' gas,	  *
*	 half a pack o' cigarettes, it's dark out, and we're	  *
*	 wearing sunglasses."  "Hit it!"			  *
*								  *
*******************************************************************
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenschudall cudfnRon cudlnSchudalla cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.10 / Alan M /  Re: Griggs Device Can't Be Fusion
     
Originally-From: Alan@moonrake.demon.co.uk ("Alan M. Dunsmuir")
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs Device Can't Be Fusion
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 1994 14:41:28 +0000
Organization: Home

In article: <Ru7Us8G.jedrothwell@delphi.com>  jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:
> The DoE, Nature magazine and the U.S. hot fusion scientists bet everything
> they owned against CF. That was a very foolhardy thing to do. It was uncalled
> for. They have lost, and now their reputations will crumble and their budgets
> will be gutted. They should have done what many of their Japanese colleagues
> did. They should have put a side bet on CF.
> 
Talking about side bets, Jed - Do you have $1000 which says there will 
be consensus acceptance (across academic science) within 12 months that
Arata's experiment is involving a nuclear process?

It would need to be as much as that to cover the amount of mouth you've 
been showing over the last year or so.

Alan M. Dunsmuir [@ his wits end]     (Can't even quote poetry right)

         I am his Highness' dog at Kew
         Pray tell me sir, whose dog are you?
			      [Alexander Pope]

PGP Public Key available on request.


cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenAlan cudfnAlan cudlnM cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.08 / Ron Schudalla /  Re:
     
Originally-From: schudall@microwave.msfc.nasa.gov (Ron Schudalla)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.geo.meteorology
Subject: Re:
Date: 8 Nov 1994 14:59:01 GMT
Organization: NASA/MSFC

In article <39o341$r6o@hammer.msfc.nasa.gov>,
schudall@microwave.msfc.nasa.gov (Ron Schudalla) 
|> 
|> Certainly not serious scientists. 
|>

I'll rebuke myself here.....I do believe that some serious scientists might
investigate this phenomenon, but in the face of all the evidence, I would have to
believe that they would come to "see the light", so to speak :). There has been
so much research done, in fluid laboratories, using numerical models as well as
radar, satellite, and surface observations, that I find it hard to believe that
someone who is well-read on this subject could possibly entertain the fact that
tornados are electrically driven, given todays vast expanse of knowledge (still
not vast enough, I know).

Ron

-- 
*******************************************************************
*								  *
*	Ron Schudalla / HUGHES STX    Mission to Planet Earth -   *
*       Global Hydrology and	      NOAA/NASA SSM/I		  *
*         Climate Center, Rm. B104	   Pathfinder Project 	  *
*	977 Explorer Boulevard	      			          *
*	Huntsville, AL 35806					  *
*	PH: 205-922-5792	      Guitarist and Golfer of	  *
*	FAX: 205-922-5930             modest ability.....         *
*								  *
*		email: schudall@microwave.msfc.nasa.gov		  *
*								  *
*	"It's 106 miles to Chicago. We got a full tank o' gas,	  *
*	 half a pack o' cigarettes, it's dark out, and we're	  *
*	 wearing sunglasses."  "Hit it!"			  *
*								  *
*******************************************************************
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenschudall cudfnRon cudlnSchudalla cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Sat Nov 12 04:37:04 EST 1994
------------------------------
1994.11.10 / Ron Schudalla /  Re: tornadoes2
     
Originally-From: schudall@microwave.msfc.nasa.gov (Ron Schudalla)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.geo.meteorology
Subject: Re: tornadoes2
Date: 10 Nov 1994 15:44:07 GMT
Organization: NASA/MSFC

In article <1994Nov10.021558.9593@midway.uchicago.edu>, edward@uhuru.uch
cago.edu (Edward Lewis) writes:
|> 	There is much literature about ball lighting, luminous
|> tornadoes, and other luminous atmospheric phenomena.  There has been
|> much literature about this for hundreds of years at least.
|> 
|> 	Corliss's anomalies books contain descriptions of reports and
|> citations, and there are many reports and articles about these things
|> in meterological periodicals.

Which "meteorological periodicals?"

|> 
|> 	Luminous tornadoes and other large luminous atmospheric
|> phenomena have been reported for centuries.  Vonnegut referred to the
|> ancient literature about these things.  So the phenomena that I was
|> writing about in my "tornadoes" post on sci.physics.fusion and
|> sci.geo.meteorology are not due to broken electrical power lines or
|> broken generators, etc.  There are actually many reports about
|> luminous tornadoes during the 19th century.  However this phenomena
|> contradicts people's meteorological theories and Quantum Mechanics
|> physics theories.

 It also contrdicts what has been discovered about tornadoes in last 20 years or
so.

-- 
*******************************************************************
*								  *
*	Ron Schudalla / HUGHES STX    Mission to Planet Earth -   *
*       Global Hydrology and	      NOAA/NASA SSM/I		  *
*         Climate Center, Rm. B104	   Pathfinder Project 	  *
*	977 Explorer Boulevard	      			          *
*	Huntsville, AL 35806					  *
*	PH: 205-922-5792	      Guitarist and Golfer of	  *
*	FAX: 205-922-5930             modest ability.....         *
*								  *
*		email: schudall@microwave.msfc.nasa.gov		  *
*								  *
*	"It's 106 miles to Chicago. We got a full tank o' gas,	  *
*	 half a pack o' cigarettes, it's dark out, and we're	  *
*	 wearing sunglasses."  "Hit it!"			  *
*								  *
*******************************************************************
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenschudall cudfnRon cudlnSchudalla cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.11 / Gary Skaggs /  Re: tornadoes
     
Originally-From: skaggs@nsslsun.nssl.uoknor.edu (Gary Skaggs)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.geo.meteorology
Subject: Re: tornadoes
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 1994 16:21:05 GMT
Organization: National Severe Storms Laboratory

In article <Cz0pzr.7F9@prometheus.UUCP> pmk@promethe.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) writes:
>
>>Chuck Doswell (doswell@nssl.uoknor.edu) wrote:
>>: .. .
>(for Boswell)
      ^^^^^^
      Doswell

>Do I detect an entreached government supported vested worker??  Where
>is your interest in expanding your research window to include other
>scientific disciplines?.  Is the world to be seen through a pin hole??
>Or are you just pulling our "chain".   
No.  Chuck is dealing with the reality of Federal Research Dollars in the 90s.
There has not been basic research for researches sake in the Weather arena 
since the Reagan adminstration took over.  And given the current Federal climate
re: basic-research-not-done-at-some-University-getting-pork-from-a-congress-
people-type, there won't be.  You use the money you have on priority items. If
dayglo or glow-in-the-dark hoses are seen as a key to REAL understanding and
prediction of tornadic events, then research money will be pointed that way.

I wish we had money to throw at glowing hoses.  That would mean we had more 
money then we knew what to do with.
>
>>: -- 
>>: Chuck Doswell        'Illegitimi non carborundum"
>>: NOAA/NSSL
>>: Norman, OK            Standard disclaimer
>>.....................uuuu / oo \ uuuu........,.............................
>>William Beaty  voice:206-781-3320   bbs:206-789-0775
>>EE/Programmer/Science exhibit designer        http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/
>>Seattle, WA 98117
>+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
>| Paul M. Koloc, Bx 1037 Prometheus II Ltd, College Park MD 20741-1037    |
>| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
>| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
>+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

______________________________________________________________________________
Gary Skaggs    skaggs@nssl.nssl.uoknor.edu
	"Neither my employer, The University of Oklahoma,
	 nor The National Severe Storms Laboratory, where I work,
	 know that I even have any opinion, much less this one."
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenskaggs cudfnGary cudlnSkaggs cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.11 / Marc Foster /  Re: repost of "tornadoes"
     
Originally-From: mfoster@alliant.backbone.uoknor.edu (Marc Foster)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.geo.meteorology
Subject: Re: repost of "tornadoes"
Date: 11 Nov 1994 16:50:00 GMT
Organization: University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK

In article <1994Nov10.022026.9843@midway.uchicago.edu>,
Edward Lewis <edward@uhuru.uchicago.edu> wrote:

[ superfluous drivel deleted ]

Excuse me, but reposting this does not make it any more true than the
last time.  I'd pick it apart again, but it's Friday and I'm too lazy
(besides, it would just be a waste of bandwidth).

Marc - Gee, a Claire Gilbert flamewar would almost seem pleasant right now

cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenmfoster cudfnMarc cudlnFoster cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.11 / Greg Stumpf /  Re: tornadoes
     
Originally-From: stumpf@nsslsun.nssl.uoknor.edu (Greg Stumpf)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.geo.meteorology,sci.physics.astro
Subject: Re: tornadoes
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 1994 16:50:05 GMT
Organization: National Severe Storms Laboratory

In article <Cz0qvG.906@prometheus.UUCP> pmk@promethe.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) writes:
>
>Glowing transformers??  Did I miss something.  From whence do glowing
>transformers come?  Are we speaking of "arcing" transformers that
>are still connected to their power line source??.    

I need only point out some of the movie footage of the April 2, 1957
Dallas tornado as an example.  At one point, a *glowing* (or whatever
synonym you'd like to use for descriptive purposes) transformer is seen
rotating about the base of the vortex.  It only glows for about a fraction
of a second.  Who is to say that the transformer need be connected to
an electrical current to burn?  Are there not chemicals (such as the
lovely PCBs) within transformers that can burn after being ignited?
If you watch the movie, I can certainly see how an untrained eye
may think this was ball lightning.

As for the ones I've seen personally, I regret not having captured
them on video.

>Try Corliss:  (from my old ref file) 
>Corliss, W.R., "Lightning, Auroras, Nocturnal Lights, and Related Luminous
>	Phenomena", 1982. (Published and distributed by The Sourcebook
>	Project, P.O. Box 107, Glen Arm, MD  21057) Tel: (301) 668-6047

I will certainly investigate this publication.


Greg Stumpf, NSSL

cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenstumpf cudfnGreg cudlnStumpf cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.11 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Re: Y. Arata DS-Cathode cold fusion
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Y. Arata DS-Cathode cold fusion
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 1994 15:51 -0500 (EST)

Leslie M. Barstow III <wdphoenix@delphi.com> writes:
 
->   some CF reactions can produce high levels of radiation (especially gamma -
->   several experiments have reported monochromatic, directional gamma bursts
->   [read - laser])
 
Hmmm, wouldn't that technically be a gaser?
 
                                                                Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.10 /  prasad /  Re: Griggs Device Can't Be Fusion
     
Originally-From: c1prasad@watson.ibm.com (prasad)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs Device Can't Be Fusion
Date: 10 Nov 1994 14:46:40 GMT
Organization: IBM Watson

In article <Ru7Us8G.jedrothwell@delphi.com>, jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:
|>  
|> hour with no sign of any chemical reaction, and it produces helium-4 and
|> helium-3 at massive concentrations in amounts commensurate with a nuclear
|> reaction. This has been confirmed by the best, most qualified laboratories on

Jed, are you saying that you are convinced there is fusion involved even
in the GG?  And do you think/know of excess He from the GG too?  What about
neutrons and other particles that should come from the known fusion reactions?

cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenc1prasad cudlnprasad cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.11 / Marc Foster /  Re: tornadoes
     
Originally-From: mfoster@alliant.backbone.uoknor.edu (Marc Foster)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.geo.meteorology
Subject: Re: tornadoes
Date: 11 Nov 1994 15:38:37 GMT
Organization: University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK

In article <Cz0pzr.7F9@prometheus.UUCP>,
Paul M. Koloc <pmk@promethe.UUCP> wrote:

>>: That's why discussions of glowing tornadoes aren't going
>>: to lead serious tornado researchers to drop what they are doing to study
>>: up on plasma physics!  Show me that this is a feature common to most, if
>>: not all, tornadoes, and I'll be interested.  Otherwise, it's just idle
>>: chit-chat.

>(for Boswell)
>Do I detect an entreached government supported vested worker??  Where
>is your interest in expanding your research window to include other
>scientific disciplines?.  Is the world to be seen through a pin hole??
>Or are you just pulling our "chain".   

Having known of Dr. Doswell (the least you could do is get his name right),
his research, and his philosophy the past five years, I can honestly
say you are full of shit.  He has done as much to expand ideas in 
tornado research than anyone else.  A good bit of the theories of
tornadogenesis can attributed directly to him, and guess what... the
theories are entirely based of field observations.

If you knew anything at all about this field, it would show up in
your posts.  You obviously do not.

Marc - falling for the flamebait yet again 
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenmfoster cudfnMarc cudlnFoster cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.11 / Matt Kennel /  Re: Y. Arata DS-Cathode cold fusion
     
Originally-From: mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Y. Arata DS-Cathode cold fusion
Date: 11 Nov 1994 23:05:28 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

Leslie M. Barstow III (wdphoenix@delphi.com) wrote:
: For those looking for ash,
:   Ash can be defined in many ways - heat, He, alpha and gamma radiation, and
:   Pd and salt-element "transmutations" have all been measured in various CF
:   reactions,

Why is "it" so different every time?  Why aren't experiments converging
on consistent phenomenoa instead of diverging?

: Leslie M. Barstow III    | Disclaimer:  We don't need no stinkin' disclaimer!

Does the griggs thing use heavy water?  I presume 'no' in its industrial
incarnation.


--
-Matt Kennel  		mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu
-Institute for Nonlinear Science, University of California, San Diego
-*** AD: Archive for nonlinear dynamics papers & programs: FTP to
-***     lyapunov.ucsd.edu, username "anonymous".
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenmbk cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.10 / Doug Shade /  Re: Y. Arata DS-Cathode cold fusion
     
Originally-From: rxjf20@email.sps.mot.com (Doug Shade)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Y. Arata DS-Cathode cold fusion
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 1994 15:42:31 GMT
Organization: Motorola LICD

In article <39odaq$cpr@ornews.intel.com>
brauchfu@fnugget.intel.com (Brian D. Rauchfuss) writes:

> Jed, what is the input power during this time?  What is the input to output
> power gain?
> 
> BDR

Why is it Jed is asked all the questions.... doesn't anybody go to the
library anymore?


cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenrxjf20 cudfnDoug cudlnShade cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.08 / Marc Foster /  Re: tornadoes
     
Originally-From: mfoster@alliant.backbone.uoknor.edu (Marc Foster)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.geo.meteorology,sci.physics.astro
Subject: Re: tornadoes
Date: 8 Nov 1994 04:45:19 GMT
Organization: University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK

In article <39e0ep$m6l@gazette.bcm.tmc.edu>,
bill <lodi@dino.qci.bioch.bcm.tmc.edu> wrote:
 
>Since I suspect that 
>professional storm chasers would either get fired or killed if they got close
>enough to observe very local phenomenon, the incidence of such 
>observations by professionals might be low. 

Get real.  It got KSNW an Emmy for the "under the bridge footage" from
April 26, 1991.  Officially, those reporters weren't out chasing, but 
everyone knows that was a load of bull, given the the lead wx-man's
reputation for remote directing his reporters (and the fact we knew all
hell was going to break loose that day a week in advance).

But that issue is best left for another thread.  The bottom line is more
tornadoes than ever are being observed by professionals, and still we've
not seen what the non-theoretical fluid dynamicists are claiming exist.

Marc - where are you guys chasing, anyway? 
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenmfoster cudfnMarc cudlnFoster cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.11 / Jim Carr /  Re: Griggs testing
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs testing
Date: 11 Nov 1994 13:29:00 -0500
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

|: In article <39riq4$jmh@ds8.scri.fsu.edu>, jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
|: wrote:
|
|: > They are also used to measure the temperature profile across an 
|: > automobile tire to check if the inflation pressure being used is 
|: > giving the desired effect under racing conditions.
|
|: Oh no!  I thought we were done with the drag-racing stories!

In article <1994Nov11.130732.8926@clark.dgim.doc.ca> 
gsteckly@dgim.doc.ca (Gary Steckly) writes:
>
>I doubt that Mr. Carr is into drag racing. No self respecting 
>"hot-rodder" would drive one of them "furrin cars" like a Miata ;-)

Autocross.  But a Miata with the addition of the 5.0 L mustang V8 
is supposed to be 'interesting'.  Tire temperature is the only way 
to fine tune the pressure in a very-stiff-sidewall tire (will not 
'roll over' even if 'flat') like the BFGs widely used on my car. 

-- 
 James A. Carr   <jac@scri.fsu.edu>     |  "The old he-coon walks just  
    http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac        |  before the light of day."    
 Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst.  |   - Gov. (still) Lawton Chiles to
 Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306    |     Jeb Bush during second debate
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.11 / Doug Shade /  Re: Superconducting Magnets
     
Originally-From: rxjf20@email.sps.mot.com (Doug Shade)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Superconducting Magnets
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 1994 22:09:36 GMT
Organization: Motorola LICD

In article <will.1134817816A@cfnews.ssc.gov>
will@hunter.ssc.gov (William Robinson) writes:

> Thanks,
> Will Robinson
> e-mail: will@bowie.ssc.gov
> Will Robinson

"Danger Will Robinson.."
I don't suppose you've ever heard that before...

Doug Shade
rxjf20@email.sps.mot.com
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenrxjf20 cudfnDoug cudlnShade cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.08 / Michael Telford /  Griggs device
     
Originally-From: Michael_Teleford@mindlink.bc.ca (Michael Telford)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Griggs device
Date: Tue, 08 Nov 94 01:35:13 -0800
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada

        I've been following this thread from the start, but some info got
lost along the way: what is the Griggs device, what does Griggs say it
does, and why is everyone dumping on him?

cudkeys:
cuddy08 cudenMichael_Teleford cudfnMichael cudlnTelford cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Sun Nov 13 04:37:03 EST 1994
------------------------------
1994.11.12 / Mark Conner /  Re: tornadoes
     
Originally-From: mconner@rain.atms.purdue.edu (Mark D. Conner)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.geo.meteorology,sci.physics.astro
Subject: Re: tornadoes
Date: 12 Nov 1994 01:12:36 GMT
Organization: Earth & Atmospheric Sciences, Purdue University

In article <1994Nov11.165005.26739@nsslsun.nssl.uoknor.edu> stumpf@nssls
n.nssl.uoknor.edu (Greg Stumpf) writes:

>of a second.  Who is to say that the transformer need be connected to
>an electrical current to burn?  Are there not chemicals (such as the
>lovely PCBs) within transformers that can burn after being ignited?

A minor nit to pick - PCBs are not flammable.  I think that's why they
used to be put in the oil in transformers in the first place - to
decrease (or eliminate) its flammability.  PCBs were commonly used as
a fire retardant in some applications before it was known they were
carcinogens.

It's possible the transformer was glowing from radiant heat - a
high-voltage line shorted across the case could easily heat it enough
to glow in a relatively short time.

-- 
Mark D. Conner  - N9XTN                 Opinions expressed here are
Dept. of Earth & Atmospheric Sciences	not necessarily those of the 
Purdue Univ., W. Lafayette IN 47907	Government, DoD, Purdue, or 
mconner@rain.atms.purdue.edu		the author.
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenmconner cudfnMark cudlnConner cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.11 / Doug Shade /  The Argument Clinic
     
Originally-From: rxjf20@email.sps.mot.com (Doug Shade)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: The Argument Clinic
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 1994 20:45:03 GMT
Organization: Motorola LICD

Man,
This is starting to sound very much like that old Monty Python skit,
"The Argument Clinic".  No matter what the other person (Jed) says, the
other guy (Dale) just says "No it isn't" with no further conversation.

[Insert wavy dream transition here...]
[Setting Dale and Jed sitting at the same table (unlikely I know)]

J:Griggs works
D:No it can't
J:Here are the numbers
D:There is a mistake here
J:OK, what is the mistake
D:Trust me there is one
J:This isn't an argument
D:Yes it is
J:Look,... and argument is a collected series of statements intended to
establish a proposition, not just the automatic nay saying of whatever
the other person says...
D:No it isn't
J:Yes it is!
D:Look,... If I argue you with you, I must take the contrary position..
J:Yes, but that's not just saying "No, it isn't"
D:Yes it is...

Just for fun fellas, read it with a smile...


Doug Shade
rxjf20@email.sps.mot.com
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenrxjf20 cudfnDoug cudlnShade cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.08 / Nick Maclaren /  Historical references [was Re: Griggs Device Can't Be Fusion]
     
Originally-From: nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk (Nick Maclaren)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Historical references [was Re: Griggs Device Can't Be Fusion]
Date: 8 Nov 1994 12:50:09 GMT
Organization: U of Cambridge, England

In article <1994Nov5.221631.8574@math.ucla.edu>, barry@redwood.math.ucla
edu (Barry Merriman) writes:
|> 
|> So, given everything that is know about cavitation, sonoluminescence,
|> fusion rates and surface chemistry, I don't see any hope for
|> the Griggs device being a fusion reactor.

I am not arguing with this point (or supporting it, either), but
there are a few flaws in your historical references.

|> Jed likes to point out that a scientist of 1900 would have been
|> totally mystified by nuclear energy (e.g. a warm lump of
|> Plutonium would seem to magically produce energy, as
|> would a nuclear bomb), which seemingly produces energy
|> out of nowwhere, just by piling stuff up or squezzing it a bit.
|> 
|> Well, jed is right, but the analogy does not apply here
|> because:
|> 
|> In 1900, nuclear processes were unkown and completely uncharacterized---
|> thus they could be truly mystifying.

Hang on a second.  What on earth are nuclear processes?  Atoms are
unchangeable by definition, aren't they?  No, in 1900 radioactivity
was a totally mystifying CHEMICAL phenomenon.

|> However, the processes that are supposed to power the griggs
|> device are already fundamentally chracterized: we already know
|> what cavitation/sono. and H + H fusion are basically capable
|> of. These are reasonably well characterized processes. It is
|> not reasonable to suggest we could suddenyl discover something
|> radically new about them, especially in such a untuned system
|> as the griggs device.

That is exactly what they said about physics and chemistry in
1900.  Then came relativity and quantum mechanics.

|> Can I guearantee its not fusion? No. Would I bet every thing
|> I own against it? Yes.

I am not taking you up on that :-)


Nick Maclaren,
University of Cambridge Computer Laboratory,
New Museums Site, Pembroke Street, Cambridge CB2 3QG, England.
Email:  nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk
Tel.:  +44 1223 334761    Fax:  +44 1223 334679
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudennmm1 cudfnNick cudlnMaclaren cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.06 / Bryan Wallace /  Free Book Offer
     
Originally-From: wallace@acasun.eckerd.edu (Bryan Wallace)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Free Book Offer
Date: 6 Nov 1994 13:28:28 -0500
Organization: Eckerd College, St. Petersburg, Florida


   In an effort to communicate interesting arguments, I will send
a 311KB ASCII email copy of my current book to anyone who sends a
request to my below email address.  This book is my independent
work and not the opinions of the physics department.  Of the many
interesting comments on the book that I've received to date, John
Archibald Wheeler of Princeton University wrote:
  "A dynamic ether, a compressible fluid that could move at the
  speed of light." I am delighted you take such a deep interest in
  a subject so important.
Kurt Pagels of Germany wrote:
  The reading of this book was for me very interesting and very
  informative!  The factual material and the wealth of ideas is in
  your book in such a manner great, that a second and third reading
  is needed, therewith all arguments come to consciousness.
But the comment I liked the best came from Rudolf Nedved of
Czechoslovakia, who wrote:
  I have studied up the preprint of your book "The Farce of
  Physics" and an very surprised.  For me, it was better than a
  thrilling crime novel.
Steven L. Mitchell, the Editorial Director of Prometheus Books
wrote:
  Thank you for sharing with us your manuscript titled "The Farce
  of Physics." The idea of publishing an internal critique of the
  scientific mindset is most intriguing.  Naturally, it would run
  counter to many prevailing opinions and this could negatively
  effect the market.  Since the audience for your book would be the
  dedicated reader of science, the risks facing publication are
  considerable.
Mitchell wanted a substantial grant to assist publication and share
the risks, and I have found no other publisher willing to give me
better terms, so I have decided to distribute the book free on the
Internet.  If one prefers to obtain a copy by anonymous ftp, they
can get it from ftp.germany.eu.net in the directory
/pub/books/wallace, by using get farce.txt.

  Bryan G. Wallace
  wallace@eckerd.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenwallace cudfnBryan cudlnWallace cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.12 / Leslie Barstow /  Re: Y. Arata DS-Cathode cold fusion
     
Originally-From: Leslie M. Barstow III <wdphoenix@delphi.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Y. Arata DS-Cathode cold fusion
Date: Sat, 12 Nov 94 02:28:01 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

MARSHALL DUDLEY <mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com> writes:
 
>Hmmm, wouldn't that technically be a gaser?
 
no, it would be a gamma-frequency laser.
 
If you want bad technical terms, check out one of the theories behind CF - it
involves phonon amplification (yes, folks, a "phaser"...:)
--
Leslie M. Barstow III    | Disclaimer:  We don't need no stinkin' disclaimer!
                         | Send Flames to alt.dev.null
                         | Organization:  Wandering Damage.
WDPHOENIX@delphi.com     | Project:  Try To Take Over The World.
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenwdphoenix cudfnLeslie cudlnBarstow cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.10 /  WRGoodII /  FYI: MIT work on 'Mills Cells'
     
Originally-From: wrgoodii@aol.com (WRGoodII)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: FYI: MIT work on 'Mills Cells'
Date: 10 Nov 1994 18:20:22 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

You might want to read an article in "MIT Tech Talk" (Nov 9 1994) entitled
"Graduate Student Envisions Power for Spacecraft from Cold Fusion"

cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenwrgoodii cudlnWRGoodII cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.08 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Griggs device
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Griggs device
Date: Tue, 08 Nov 1994 10:39 -0500 (EST)

Michael_Teleford@mindlink.bc.ca (Michael Telford) writes:
 
->         I've been following this thread from the start, but some info got
-> lost along the way: what is the Griggs device, what does Griggs say it
-> does, and why is everyone dumping on him?
 
From what I can understand Griggs invented a pump which heats as well as pumps
water.  It is simpler and smaller than a pump and electric resistance heater
together, since there is no resistance heater part, and because of the high
turbulance in the area where the water is heated, scale buildup (which can be a
real problem on resistance heating) is eliminated.  That is what he designed,
and patented.
 
Unfortunately (it seems) the device tends to produce more heat than the power
being feed into it.  No one know why, and apparently a number of people have
tried to find the reason (or problem?), but have been unable to do so.
 
The reason he is receiving so much "dumping" is that his device is reported as
being over-unity, and many people feel that this is impossible, thus he is
either lieing, or there is some type of measurement error.  However, as far as
I can tell the only people claiming measurement error are those who have not
tested the device themselves, and thus have no first hand knowledge or
experience with the device.  I personally put very little faith in arm chair
analysists.  One can argue all they want about sources of heat, errors and so
forth, but only those who are willing to investigate, and personally test,
evaluate and analyse a system have the first hand knowledge necessary to
properly determine just what is and is not happening.
 
Hopefully Tom's trip will help replace a lot of speculation and stupid ideas
with some real scientific data, and maybe even a theory which will hold water.
 
                                                                Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy08 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.08 / Doug Shade /  Re: GG: Image of Cavities on Rotor
     
Originally-From: rxjf20@email.sps.mot.com (Doug Shade)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: GG: Image of Cavities on Rotor
Date: Tue, 8 Nov 1994 17:32:44 GMT
Organization: Motorola LICD

In article <39k9v9$21t@newsbf01.news.aol.com>
johnanixjr@aol.com (JohnANixJr) writes:

> The outside, flat surfaces of the rotor had a very sharp images of the 
> row of cavities nearest the surface.  Essentially, each cavity showed 
> up as a light region, and the 10-15 mm outside each cavity image 
> was very dark.  Also, the "background" color of the rotor, the region 
> below the holes near the axis, is light.

I'm sorry, could you try to describe again... what are the 'flat'
surfaces of a round rotor?  Cavities nearest the surface?... I thought
the drum had holes drilled into it radially...


sorry, I'm just not getting the mental image I should from your
description.
Doug Shade
rxjf20@email.sps.mot.com
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenrxjf20 cudfnDoug cudlnShade cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.08 / Mike Jamison /  Re: tornadoes
     
Originally-From: edwlt12@mars.lerc.nasa.gov (Mike Jamison (ADF))
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.geo.meteorology,sci.physics.astro
Subject: Re: tornadoes
Date: 8 Nov 1994 13:27 EDT
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center

In article <39ocgq$q9p@gazette.bcm.tmc.edu>, lodi@dino.qci.bioch.bcm.tmc
edu (bill) writes...
> In article <39mvov$sps@romulus.ucs.uoknor.edu> mfoster@alliant.backbon
.uoknor.edu (Marc Foster) writes:
> >In article <39e0ep$m6l@gazette.bcm.tmc.edu>,
> >bill <lodi@dino.qci.bioch.bcm.tmc.edu> wrote:
> > 
> >>Since I suspect that 
> >>professional storm chasers would either get fired or killed if they got close
> >>enough to observe very local phenomenon, the incidence of such 
> >>observations by professionals might be low. 
> 
> >Get real.  It got KSNW an Emmy for the "under the bridge footage" from
> >April 26, 1991.  Officially, those reporters weren't out chasing, but 
> >everyone knows that was a load of bull, given the the lead wx-man's
> >reputation for remote directing his reporters (and the fact we knew all
> >hell was going to break loose that day a week in advance).
> >
> >But that issue is best left for another thread.  The bottom line is more
> >tornadoes than ever are being observed by professionals, and still we've
> >not seen what the non-theoretical fluid dynamicists are claiming exist.
> 
> >Marc - where are you guys chasing, anyway? 
> 
>  Whoa there cowboy!  I am not disputing the courage or commitment of
>chasers, but I just cannot see that OSHA or anyone else would allow
>employees to officially wade into a maelstrom of flying bricks, lumber
>and of course glowing transformers.  There are rules about closest
>approach, aren't there?  Fifty yards is the distance I meant by "local effects"
>and that is certainly super-hazardous.   And, getting real, " a week in 
>advance"???  This is looney.
>      Speaking of getting real, for all we know the inside of tornadoes
>could be full of flying Elvises since we cannot see through the wall of
>debris and the noise would totally drown out 'Heartbreak Hotel'.
>If professional chasers got a glimpse,  you think they'd report it?

I don't know about the "week in advance part, but if I'm not mistaken, there's
at least *one* plane that is used to to *fly through* tornados.  For 
scientific research, no less.  I believe it's a DC-3 [these planes weren't
able to fly above storms, so they were built strong enough to fly through
them].

What would OSHA do with firefighters, who have to go into flaming buildings
to rescue people?  Some people actually do risk their lives in their jobs...
> 
>Yours     Billy

Mike Jamison


"Scientific research consists in seeing what everyone else has seen, but
thinking what no one else has thought"

						-A. Szent-Gyorgyi
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenedwlt12 cudfnMike cudlnJamison cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.07 / Dieter Britz /  Re: Need info on Cold Fusion
     
Originally-From: kemidb@aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Need info on Cold Fusion
Date: 7 Nov 94 14:38:59 GMT
Organization: Aarhus University, Denmark

In <39hn0t$jga@quartz.ucs.ualberta.ca> alblee@gpu2.srv.ualberta.ca
([33m[5mThe Specialist[0m) writes:

>I am working on a term paper for a Nuclear Physics class on
>Cold Fusion.  Can someone please point me to a good staring
>point on my research?  Are there any FAQs available on Cold
>Fusion (I have the Conventional Fusion FAQ)?  Thanks very
>much for any information.

>	Albert Lee
>	

I would recommend starting with two recent papers:
Chechin et al, Int. J. Theo. Phys. 33 (1994) 617 "Critical review of theo-
retical models for anomalous effects in deuterated metals";
and
McKubre et al, J. Electroanal. Chem. 368 (1994) 55, "Isothermal flow calori-
metric investigations of the D/Pd and H/Pd systems".

The first gives you a good review of just about all theories to attempt to
explain purported results and classifies them in a nice way; this paper also
puts you on the track of more info if you want it. The McKubre et al is what
we call a quality positive, i.e. it reports results of very careful and 
thorough work that got positive results; noone has yet shown where they might
have gone wrong.

These papers will point you at yet more stuff to read but start with them.

-- 
Dieter Britz   alias kemidb@aau.dk
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenkemidb cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.13 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Griggs Device Can't Be Fusion
     
Originally-From: barry@redwood.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs Device Can't Be Fusion
Date: Sun, 13 Nov 94 01:29:58 GMT
Organization: UCLA Dept. of Math, UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research

In article <Ru7Us8G.jedrothwell@delphi.com> jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:

> 
>There is extremely convincing evidence that the E-Quest ultrasound device is
>undergoing some form of nuclear fusion. I do not see how anyone can take any
>other hypothesis seriously. The device produces 300 watts of heat hour after
>hour with no sign of any chemical reaction, and it produces helium-4 and
>helium-3 at massive concentrations in amounts commensurate with a nuclear
>reaction. 

Then forget Griggs & Arata---this seems like a much more
promising thing to investigate. We should send Tom D. to visit
E-Quest, or buy him an E-quest ultrasonic device
to play with (cost?).

I would certainly agree that if a national lab could verify these
claims, the device would merit intense investigation. Especially
if it produces He3 it would seem easy to do an experiment that would
create more He3 than is reasonably available in the environment, since
He3 is pretty rare on earth---the natural abundance of He3
is 1 part in 10,000 in naturally occuring He, and He itslef
occurs at << 1% levels in water and air (anyone know the exact
amount? My books are in transit right now...)

So: should Tom investigate E-Quest instead of Griggs?




--
Barry Merriman
UCLA Dept. of Math
UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet)   barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (NeXTMail)
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.13 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Jed Rothwell and all the others, you are the finest
     
Originally-From: barry@redwood.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Jed Rothwell and all the others, you are the finest
Date: Sun, 13 Nov 94 01:53:56 GMT
Organization: UCLA Dept. of Math, UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research

In article <39v0bm$p0q@ixnews1.ix.netcom.com> parky@ix.netcom.com
(Chris Parkinson) writes:
>
>So here goes, 
>TO:First and foremost Stan Pons and Martin Fleischmann.
>Arata, Zhang, Storms, McKubre, Passel, Smedley, Mizuno, Enyo, Gozzi, 
>DeNinno, Kunimatsu, Takahashi, Bockris, Miles, Bush, Cravens, Kucherov, 
>Karabut, Savvatimova, Claytor, Notoya, Dufour, Forsely, Griggs, 
>Stringham, George, Liaw, Leibert, Srinivasan, Hagelstein, Smullin, 
>Forsley, Ikegami, Mills, Okamoto, Oyama, Hirasawa, Miley, Batyrbakov, 
>Melich, Hansen, Letts, Tinsley, Huggins, Will and all the others, mega 
>thankyou's to all of you who are involved in Cold Fusion.
> 
>Your work is dangerous from the point of view of all who desire to 
>attack you with it. In that sense you are the couragous generals that 
>will make these battles come into your favor. Thank you again for your 
>stubborness in not letting popular opinion sway your genius.
>
>Regards,
>Chris Parkinson


Uh, I don't see Steve Jones on your list---even though his
work was more pioneering than any of the above, I guess 
his ``genius was swayed'', so you left him out.

On the other hand, you should add Joseph Newman to your list---I'm
pretty sure his device works via CF principles :-)




--
Barry Merriman
UCLA Dept. of Math
UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet)   barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (NeXTMail)
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.13 / Matt Kennel /  Re: Griggs Device Can't Be Fusion
     
Originally-From: mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs Device Can't Be Fusion
Date: 13 Nov 1994 05:08:54 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:
: Leading members of the scientific establishment
: including Maddox, Piel, Close, Huizenga and the decision makers at the DoE
: will *never* accept any CF experimental evidence, no matter how convincing it
: is.

This is not true.  If Stan Pons hadn't been lying in '89 and there
really were watt amounts of neutrons...

 General acceptance can only come when these people have been shoved out of
: the way in ignominy. They have staked their reputations on a position of hard
: line opposition to CF, they have repressed it, ridiculed it, and attacked it
: at every opportunity.

I think it would be quite amusing to those DOE workers if somebody thought
that CF had any bearing on their reputations at all.
:  
: You must realize that the opposition to CF is not based on any rational,
: scientific arguments. This is a fight over money and power. It is politics,
: not science.

Money and power?

Come on, real working cold fusion that could be
commercially successful would save the DOE's ass: some new physics
that needs lots of new research and technology.  Who better than the DOE
than to do it?

The DOE is hardly a monolith of fanatical disciplined stormtroopers.
{Indeed the opposite is so frightfully true sometimes...}

{And if those E-quest results do turn out OK...}

--
-Matt Kennel  		mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu
-Institute for Nonlinear Science, University of California, San Diego
-*** AD: Archive for nonlinear dynamics papers & programs: FTP to
-***     lyapunov.ucsd.edu, username "anonymous".
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenmbk cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.14 / Eugene Mallove /  Text of MIT Tech Talk Article
     
Originally-From: 76570.2270@compuserve.com (Eugene Mallove)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Text of MIT Tech Talk Article
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 1994 01:12:10 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

The article that Bill Good referred to appeared on the front center page of 
the November 9, 1994 issue of MIT Tech Talk, the official 
administration-supported campus newspaper (not the student newspapr, The 
Tech). The article continues onto page 8 with a photo of graduate student Ray 
Conley and his apparatus. The text of the article (which is NOT copyrighted):

************

GRADUATE STUDENT ENVISIONS POWER FOR SPACECRAFT FROM COLD FUSION
by Alice C. Waugh, News Office

A graduate student in aeronuatics and astronuatics has applied for a patent on
a process producing heat from a so-called cold fusion reaction in the hopes 
that it can some day be used to power spacecraft.

Ray Conley, who became interested in cold fusion as a result of his work in 
nuclear propulsion, acknowledges that he is an engineer and not a chemist; 
nonetheless, he has been able to reproduce the reaction resulting in excesss 
heat (more heat produced than that from the energy put in). He hopes to build 
apparatus that can produce 5,000 watts of power from a one-liter container and
have a commercially viable device in two years.

Scientists have been debating the nature of the cold fusion phenomenon ever 
since the controversial announcement five years ago by Martin Fleischmann and 
Stanley Pons, who claimed they had achieved nuclear fusion at room 
temperature. Some scientists speculate that what happened was a chemical 
reaction rather than fusion, while others, unable to duplicate the result, 
have dismissed the matter.

The debate over the process "doesn't concern me as much as the experimental 
evidence that the effect is real," Mr. Conley said. "It's a brand-new source 
of power that's going to be really useful."

Mr. Conley, who entered his idea in this year's BFGoodrich Collegiate 
Inventors Program contest, doesn't think what he has produced is fusion, since
he has detected none of the radiation that accompanies that process. Instead, 
he adheres to the theory of Dr. Randell Mills of HydroCatalysis Power Corp. in
Pennsylvania, who has postulated that the hydrogen atom can exist in 
fractional quantum states. In this scenario, a hydrogen atom can be shrunk 
when its electron goes from a quantum state of one to a state of one-half, 
releasing energy in the process.

Mr. Conley's apparatus includes potassium carbonate salt, water that has been 
distilled and de-ionized, nickel and platinum electrodes, and electricity. 
What happens in his experiments, he believes, is that the electricity causes 
the water to break into hydrogen and oxygen atoms and the salt into potassium 
and carbonate ions. The potassium ions act as a "potential well" for the 
energy released by the shrunken hydrogen atoms. The energy is transferred to 
the water, which rises in temperature. Thus, the fuel for the reaction is 
water and electricity, while the product is heat, oxygen and shrunken hydrogen
atoms (which do not react with oxygen and so are not flammable).

The problems encountered by researchers who have tried and failed to reproduce
the effect are probably caused by not building their equipment correctly, Mr. 
Conley said. Seemingly minor deviations, such as having a bit of oil from 
one's fingers on the electrodes, can result in failure, he said. "It's a black
art still, and if you don't do it right, it won't work. It's all just a 
function of engineering it properly."

Mr. Conley's advisor is professor Jack Kerrebrock of Aeronautics and 
Astronautics. The work is funded by the MIT Space Grant Program.

*******END of TEXT

Of course, the MIT administraton does not believe in the value of cold fusion 
at all, so Tech Talk is to be congratualeted for allowing some light to shine 
on this topic. Provost Mark Wrighton recently told a distinguished MIT alumnus
(the president of a large Massachusetts corporation) who had called to 
inquire, that there was NO cold fusion work going on at MIT (an obvious 
mistatement of fact). Wrighton said that as far as he was concerned cold 
fusion was "dead." He should know. Wrighton was one of the original DOE cold 
fusion panelists who helped railroad an arrogant, highly premature negative 
conclusion on cold fusion. In truth, Mark Wrighton very well knows that there 
*is* cold fusion work going on at MIT: Professors Peter Hagelstein and Louis 
Smullin are working on cold fusion, as is graduate student Ray Conley. MIT 
Professor Keith Johnson is also working on cold fusion theoretical work. In 
addition, Professor Johnson is working with major Hollywood directors and 
production companies to produce the movie version of his techno-thriller 
script on cold fusion, "Excess Heat." That film should emerge either late 1995
or early 1996. There is another MIT Professor (other than Peter Hagelstein), 
who wishes to remain anonymous, who also submitted patents on cold fusion in 
1989.

The Third Annual IAP Cold Fusion Lecture/Seminar series will be a full-day of 
lectures, video tapes, and demonstrations held at MIT on January 21, 1995. I 
will post further details as they become available. The following announcement
will appear in the MIT Independent Activities Program (IAP) Guide:

************************************************

COLD FUSION
A Massachusetts Institute of Technology
IAP Lecture Program
January 21, 1995, Saturday 9AM-5PM Room (to be announced)

        Cold fusion is the production of excess power from electrochemical 
cells, typically involving heavy water with palladium, or light water with 
nickel. Nuclear products and emissions have also been reported, such as 
tritium, neutrons, helium-4, and charged particles. New non-electrochemical 
physical systems have also been discovered that evidence significant excess 
power and associated nuclear products.  It is difficult to imagine a greater 
reversal of scientific fortunes than what has been emerging in the cold fusion
field. As the literature of cold fusion expands, the startling phenomena are 
of continuing interest to experimentalists, theoreticians, inventors, and 
entrepreneurs. In this day of lectures, discussions, and videos, the focus 
will be on the history, science, technology, and business of cold fusion.

********************

Gene Mallove

Cold Fusion Technology
P.O. Box 2816
Caoncord, New Hampshire 03302-2816
Phone: 603-228-4516; Fax: 603-224-5975
INTERNET:76570.2270@compuserve.com

cudkeys:
cuddy14 cuden2270 cudfnEugene cudlnMallove cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.13 / Richard Schultz /  Re: Griggs testing
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs testing
Date: 13 Nov 1994 06:49:58 GMT
Organization: Philosophers of the Dangerous Maybe

In article <1550756siegman25278@ee.stanford.edu>,
Anthony E. Siegman <siegman@Sierra.Stanford.EDU> wrote:
>>Excuse my ignorance, but what is a pyrometer, exactly, and what are
>>they normally used for?

>   Useful chiefly for measuring with rough accuracy temps of very hot
>("red hot") objects like steel coming out of blast furnace, crystals
>growing inside a crystal growing apparatus, glass up near its melting
>point, anything that you can peer at from several feet (or yards)
>away, but that's much too hot to touch.  Using it to measure the temp
>of the case of a functioning motor or pump or other piece of apparatus
>makes no sense to me -- anything you can measure with an optical
>pyrometer is generally either molten or on the verge of being so.

Just to add a practical detail.  When I was in graduate school, we calibrated
the temperatures of the rhenium filaments we used for doing surface ionization
in a mass spectrometry experiment by using an optical pyrometer.  We
always cited error limits of +/- 100 K on the measurements (which were
in the region of 2000 K).  Given the number of assumptions we had to
make about emissivity, etc., I am pretty sure that those were extremely
optimistic error limits.  But, as Siegman sais, maybe Jed Rothwell
was using something else.

					Richard Schultz
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.12 / Michael White /  Racetrack as confinement shape
     
Originally-From: white@menext2.engr.ucdavis.edu. (Michael White)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Racetrack as confinement shape
Date: 12 Nov 1994 21:43:02 GMT
Organization: University of California, Davis


I remember some work being done at University of California, Los Angeles
on a racetrack design for tokamaks.  This is basically two long magnetic
mirrors joined on both ends with half a torus to re-cycle electrons that
escape through the ends of the mirror.  It always seemed to me to be a
novel idea and I was wondering what the status of the research is, what
problems (theoretical) people might have with the device.  Basically, I'd
be interested on hearing a discussion on the idea.

- Mike White
  white@halfdome.engr.ucdavis.edu
  University of California, Davis
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenwhite cudfnMichael cudlnWhite cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.12 / Leslie Barstow /  Re: Y. Arata DS-Cathode cold fusion
     
Originally-From: Leslie M. Barstow III <wdphoenix@delphi.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Y. Arata DS-Cathode cold fusion
Date: Sat, 12 Nov 94 02:23:08 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Matt Kennel <mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu> writes:
 
>Why is "it" so different every time?  Why aren't experiments converging
>on consistent phenomenoa instead of diverging?
 
For two reasons:
 
1) the phenomenon involved can produce a large variety of results, depending
   on conditions in the experiment.
2) so many different experiments are being run - some with Pd, some with Ni,
   some with D20, some with H20, some with liquid, some with gas (and the
   list goes on and on)
 
In truth, about 80% of the experiments (those following Pons and Fleichmann's
original design) are coming up with very similar results - heat and He, with
either no or minimal radiation.
--
Leslie M. Barstow III    | Disclaimer:  We don't need no stinkin' disclaimer!
                         | Send Flames to alt.dev.null
                         | Organization:  Wandering Damage.
WDPHOENIX@delphi.com     | Project:  Try To Take Over The World.
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenwdphoenix cudfnLeslie cudlnBarstow cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.12 / LANGER C /  Re: P.Glueck
     
Originally-From: sglanger@vela.acs.oakland.edu (LANGER STEVEN C)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: P.Glueck
Date: 12 Nov 1994 16:31:24 GMT
Organization: Oakland University, Rochester, Michigan, U.S.A.

  Ok, I'm now absolutely convinced that cold fusion is workable.
Now just tell me where I can buy an energy plant for my house,
whether they'll take VISA, and what kind of money back guarantee
I`ll get.

ciao,
steve



-- 
"You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a
reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating the
very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for
independence." - C.A. Beard
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudensglanger cudfnLANGER cudlnC cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.12 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Griggs Device Can't Be Fusion
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs Device Can't Be Fusion
Date: Sat, 12 Nov 1994 16:30:48 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <Ru7Us8G.jedrothwell@delphi.com>,  <jedrothwell@delphi.com> wrote:
> 
>This is incorrect. The possibility of measuring errors has been carefully
>investigated by some of the best engineers the State of Georgia, including
>some of our top talent from Georgia Tech, an internationally recognized
>institution. No evidence of measuring errors have been found, despite
>intensive efforts over a period of years. In short, as we say down here, that
>dog won't hunt. Try another hypothesis.

     Names (other than the one emeritus that keeps popping up)?  

     Detailed findings?  Is 'intensive' reflected in any publications
     or reports, or do we just have to take your word for it?

     I'm surprised you can keep a lid on those guys, having witnessed
     such revolutionary happenings, he noted dryly.

>are impossible. Kevin Wolf's transmutations; Pons and Fleischmann's excess
>energy; E-Quest's heat and commensurate helium; and Arata's 3000-day long,
>200 megajoule excess all point to one thing: the theories are wrong.

     3000 days?  I must have missed something.  He was running 
     _before_ P&F's announcement?

     What prescience.

                                dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.12 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Griggs Device Can't Be Fusion
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs Device Can't Be Fusion
Date: Sat, 12 Nov 1994 16:50:18 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <hQ51kia.jedrothwell@delphi.com>,  <jedrothwell@delphi.com> wrote:
>Four years after the first prototype CF power reactors are shown, dozens of
>'skeptics' will still say "Yes, CF exists, but it will never replace oil, coal
>or fission."

     Doesn't appear we have to worry much about that.

                            dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.14 / Eugene Mallove /  Helium-3 from E-Quest
     
Originally-From: 76570.2270@compuserve.com (Eugene Mallove)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Helium-3 from E-Quest
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 1994 02:42:47 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Barry Merriman writes:

>I would certainly agree that if a national lab could verify these
>claims, the device would merit intense investigation. Especially
>if it produces He3 it would seem easy to do an experiment that would
>create more He3 than is reasonably available in the environment, since
>He3 is pretty rare on earth---the natural abundance of He3
>is 1 part in 10,000 in naturally occuring He, and He itslef
>occurs at << 1% levels in water and air (anyone know the exact
>amount? My books are in transit right now...)

Yes, this device already has been -- in effect -- verified at a national lab, 
Los Alamos. The tests were run under intense scrutiny there with Stringham and
George operating the device but with LANL scientists doing nuclear 
measurements. The helium measurements were made at Rockwell via mass 
spectrometry, after stainless steel sample holders were delivered there. There
is an eight-page report that was done by Rockwell of the helium measurements. 
I have not seen this report, but have heard a few details from it. I am urging
the E-Quest people to release this report ASAP, but they have a pending 
scientific paper in review at a major journal and don't want to muddy the 
waters -- so to speak.

One thing I heard -- second hand -- was that in one run deliberately designed 
(I presume) to generate a small absolute level of helium-4, the unit attained 
about 2.5 ppm helium-4 -- that's only about six times the 0.4 ppm helium-4 
background in the argon cover gas. BUT it was said that the helium-3 
concentration detected in that sample was 1.37E-2 ppm. One book that I have 
(J. Emsley, "The Elements") quotes the helium-3 natural terrestrial abundance 
as 0.000138 *percent* of total helium. So if atmospheric helium is about 5.5 
ppm, helium-3 naturally occurring is 7.6E-6 ppm. Therefore, if the second-hand
number is correct: 1.37E-2 ppm attained in the E-quest device test, this 
represents about an 1,800-fold increase in natural helium-3 level. Impressive,
if true. New tests are underway for further verification.

Gene Mallove

Cold Fusion Technology
Box 2816
Concord, New Hampshire 03302-2816
Phone: 603-228-4516; Fax: 603-224-5975
INTERNET:76570.2270@compuserve.com

cudkeys:
cuddy14 cuden2270 cudfnEugene cudlnMallove cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.12 /  DanHicks /  Re: P.Glueck
     
Originally-From: danhicks@aol.com (DanHicks)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: P.Glueck
Date: 12 Nov 1994 20:10:18 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

In article <3a2qks$c79@oak.oakland.edu>, sglanger@vela.acs.oakland.edu
(LANGER STEVEN C) writes:

>>>Ok, I'm now absolutely convinced that cold fusion is workable.
Now just tell me where I can buy an energy plant for my house,
whether they'll take VISA, and what kind of money back guarantee
I`ll get.<<<

Well, I'm not convinced.  All this arguing has convinced me that "hot"
fusion is the way to go.  So could YOU tell ME where I can plop down my
VISA and get a hot fusion energy plant for MY house?  (With money back
guarantee, of course.)

cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudendanhicks cudlnDanHicks cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.12 / Leslie Barstow /  Re: Y. Arata DS-Cathode cold fusion
     
Originally-From: Leslie M. Barstow III <wdphoenix@delphi.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Y. Arata DS-Cathode cold fusion
Date: Sat, 12 Nov 94 02:16:27 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Monkey King <monkey@engin.umich.edu> writes:
 
>(Cold) Fusion is fusion is fusion is fusion....
 
Umm, no.  Cold Fusion is, according to the best of present theories, not the
same as standard D-T fusion- it does involve the same processes, nor does it
produce the same type of output.
 
>That would have killed Arata and company, now wouldn't it?
 
(in reference to gamma laser bursts...)
Not if it didn't occur in their reaction.  High radiation output is rare in
Cold Fusion experiments, which is one reason so many are so skeptical.  Jed
was right - in most cases, He is the main ash, along with massive heat.  The
type of output I mentioned has been found in only two experiments so far (to my
admittedly incomplete knowledge).
 
>Monkey King                 | This message printed on 
>monkey@engin.umich.edu      | recycled material.
 
Maybe Jed was right in his initial response...
Get a clue.
--
Leslie M. Barstow III    | Disclaimer:  We don't need no stinkin' disclaimer!
                         | Send Flames to alt.dev.null
                         | Organization:  Wandering Damage.
WDPHOENIX@delphi.com     | Project:  Try To Take Over The World.
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenwdphoenix cudfnLeslie cudlnBarstow cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.13 / Anthony Siegman /  Re: Griggs testing
     
Originally-From: siegman@Sierra.Stanford.EDU (Anthony E. Siegman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs testing
Date: 13 Nov 1994 03:50:37 GMT
Organization: Leland Stanford Junior University

>Excuse my ignorance, but what is a pyrometer, exactly, and what are
>they normally used for?
>--
>Barry Merriman

Haven't used one for circa 30 years, but, at least at that time an
_optical_ pyrometer (don't know of any other kind) was:

   Hand-held gadget with small telescope plus internal optics so you
can simultaneously focus on an external object (like a glowing
crucible of molten metal) and a small internal filament or strip of
metal, typically tungsten, inside the gadget.  As you look you turn a
knob which controls electrical current flow through the small internal
stripe, so as to heat it to be (progressively) dull red/bright
red/white hot.

   Turn current up and down seeking to make internal strip have same
apparent color as glowng object, which means they'll be at
(approximately) same temperature.  One can do this with some degree of
accuracy, since image of internal metal strip is superimposed on image
of glowing object.

   Useful chiefly for measuring with rough accuracy temps of very hot
("red hot") objects like steel coming out of blast furnace, crystals
growing inside a crystal growing apparatus, glass up near its melting
point, anything that you can peer at from several feet (or yards)
away, but that's much too hot to touch.  Using it to measure the temp
of the case of a functioning motor or pump or other piece of apparatus
makes no sense to me -- anything you can measure with an optical
pyrometer is generally either molten or on the verge of being so.

   But maybe some kind of more sensitive IR-sensing gadget is what's
being considered here...


cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudensiegman cudfnAnthony cudlnSiegman cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.13 / Robert Dinse /  Re: tornadoes
     
Originally-From: nanook@eskimo.com (Robert Dinse)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.geo.meteorology
Subject: Re: tornadoes
Date: Sun, 13 Nov 1994 05:39:55 GMT
Organization: Eskimo North (206) For-Ever

In article <3a035t$879@romulus.ucs.uoknor.edu>, mfoster@alliant.backbone
uoknor.edu (Marc Foster) writes:
> say you are full of shit.  He has done as much to expand ideas in 

     I read this group because I am interested in fusion.  I am not at all
interested in the high degree of back biting that goes on here between the
different camps (hot vs cold fusion, old tokamaks verses more modern design
reactors, etc).

     Is the type of garbage like telling people they are full of shit really
necessary?  Is there a better (perhaps moderated) conference for fusion where
99% of the messages aren't personal attacks and people generally act like
they've survived and progressed from adolescence?

     I sincerely doubt that any of our congress critters responsible for
distributing funds read this anyway, so perhaps another forum can be used for
determining who's favorite pet projects should be funded?

-- 
-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
 Eskimo North: More Unix, Usenet, Internet for Less $$ (206)For-Ever Eskimo.Com
  Free two-week trial, login as "new".  For more info email: nanook@eskimo.com
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudennanook cudfnRobert cudlnDinse cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Mon Nov 14 04:37:05 EST 1994
------------------------------
1994.11.13 / Chris Parkinson /  Re: Jed Rothwell and all the others, you are the finest
     
Originally-From: parky@ix.netcom.com (Chris Parkinson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Jed Rothwell and all the others, you are the finest
Date: 13 Nov 1994 06:46:55 GMT
Organization: Netcom

In <1994Nov13.015356.19010@math.ucla.edu> barry@redwood.math.ucla.edu 
(Barry Merriman) writes: 

>
>In article <39v0bm$p0q@ixnews1.ix.netcom.com> parky@ix.netcom.com 
(Chris Parkinson) writes:
>>
massive deletions but they were mine so tough :)

>Uh, I don't see Steve Jones on your list---even though his
>work was more pioneering than any of the above, I guess 
>his ``genius was swayed'', so you left him out.
>
>On the other hand, you should add Joseph Newman to your list---I'm
>pretty sure his device works via CF principles :-)
>
>
>--
>Barry Merriman
>UCLA Dept. of Math
>UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
>barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet)   barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (NeXTMail)
>
Ok here goes again,

To add to the monumentous list that I am sure will grow day by day:
Steve Jones and Joseph Newman, your work is dangerous from the point of 
view of all who desire to attack you with it. In that sense you are the 
couragous generals that will make these battles come into your favor. 
Thank you again for your stubborness in not letting popular opinion sway 
your genius.

And I do wish to add kudos to all who are working in this field either 
for or against it. It could have turned out that no one wanted to work 
on this as is the few who are working in other worthy fields. I hope the 
new Congress does not create a money vacuum in science. Cold Fusion is 
monstrously underfunded and I would hate to see other areas reduced to 
those kind of levels.

Science is the only tool for leading us into the future. With it global 
warming will be a footnote in history as will toxic waste and nuclear 
weapons. I feel that we are all ready to embark on a new and wonderous 
path that will enable the planet to heal and end poverty, pestilance, 
disease and everything else that humanity struggles against. The 
expansion into the universe will help us define the who and why of all 
of us. Science will bring this to us and this is why I herald all that 
are working in a field as hostile as any that I've seen.

Again as more names are brought to my attention you will be honored in 
my, albiet insignificant way.

Chris Parkinson
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenparky cudfnChris cudlnParkinson cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.13 / Alan M /  Re: Griggs Device Can't Be Fusion
     
Originally-From: Alan@moonrake.demon.co.uk ("Alan M. Dunsmuir")
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs Device Can't Be Fusion
Date: Sun, 13 Nov 1994 07:22:25 +0000
Organization: Home

In article: <hQ51kia.jedrothwell@delphi.com>  jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:
>  This is a fight over money and power. It is politics,
> not science. Any trained scientist who looks at the experimental data and who
> understands concepts like peer review, replication, high Sigma data, and
> instrument reliability will see instantly that the effect is real.

This is absolute bollocks, Jed. We're not living int he Middle Ages, 
with scientific communication restricted to those who read and write in 
latin, and who knew with whom to correspond.

If there is ever a single replicable report of a cold fusion reaction 
reported in peer-reviewed reputable journal, it will be replicated all 
over the world wothin weeks, and all the obfuscation which could be 
generated by any vested interest could do nothing to suppress it. The 
world is full of trained and eager scientists just waiting for this to 
happen. But it hasn't happnend yet, and it's not going to happen, 
because all your so-called successful CF experiments can't stand up to 
the light and heat of peer analysis.

I guess you get your kicks out of seeing youself as a romantic, latter 
day Galileo (watch out for the Crackpot Index!) battling the Evil Empire 
of erroneous dogma and nurturing truth which will win in the end.

That's the only point we can agree on. Truth _will_ win in the end, and 
wash all your paranoid rantings into the gutter and sewers of 
historical anti-science.

Why not just accept that you've lost your fight for Government Funds to
support yourself and your friends in carrying out further CF 'research'?
Go off now and find some other hobby horse to ride.

Alan M. Dunsmuir [@ his wits end]     (Can't even quote poetry right)

         I am his Highness' dog at Kew
         Pray tell me sir, whose dog are you?
			      [Alexander Pope]

PGP Public Key available on request.


cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenAlan cudfnAlan cudlnM cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.13 / Alan M /  Re: Jed Rothwell and all the others, you are the finest
     
Originally-From: Alan@moonrake.demon.co.uk ("Alan M. Dunsmuir")
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Jed Rothwell and all the others, you are the finest
Date: Sun, 13 Nov 1994 07:22:26 +0000
Organization: Home

In article: <39v0bm$p0q@ixnews1.ix.netcom.com>  parky@ix.netcom.com
(Chris Parkinson) writes:
> PS. If I've missed any one please E-Mail me as I will repost this in the 
>     future. As I feel this deserves all the attention it can get!!!
> 
With the exception of 'GREAT STUFF' I saw no idiosyncratic 
capitalisations in your post. Did your keyboard stick in lower-case, or 
something?

Alan M. Dunsmuir [@ his wits end]     (Can't even quote poetry right)

         I am his Highness' dog at Kew
         Pray tell me sir, whose dog are you?
			      [Alexander Pope]

PGP Public Key available on request.


cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenAlan cudfnAlan cudlnM cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.13 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Re: Griggs testing
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs testing
Date: Sun, 13 Nov 1994 18:59 -0500 (EST)

schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz) writes:
 
-> Just to add a practical detail.  When I was in graduate school, we calibrate
-> the temperatures of the rhenium filaments we used for doing surface ionizati
-> in a mass spectrometry experiment by using an optical pyrometer.  We
-> always cited error limits of +/- 100 K on the measurements (which were
-> in the region of 2000 K).  Given the number of assumptions we had to
-> make about emissivity, etc., I am pretty sure that those were extremely
-> optimistic error limits.  But, as Siegman sais, maybe Jed Rothwell
-> was using something else.
 
I think you are comparing apples and oranges.  Just as you cannot say that
thermocouples are only for high temperatures, so is the case for this type of
meter.  It all depends on what it is designed for, and how it is calibrated.  I
am sure that they would not use infrared meters in hospitals for measuring
people's temperature if they are only accurate to about +/- 100 C.  The one's I
have seen are calibrated around 100 F and read out in .1 degree F increments.
Many people consider them more accurate than regular thermometers, and they are
certainly faster.  If I were to assume Jed's meter has these specifications I
would say that such meters do not work at temperatures as high as Jed is
measuring.  But I recognize that there is a broad range of products available
and would not make such an assumption.  Before making wild speculations on what
a particular meter may or may not be capable of, it seems prudent to at least
see what the specs on that particular model are.
 
                                                        Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.13 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Re: Griggs Device Can't Be Fusion
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs Device Can't Be Fusion
Date: Sun, 13 Nov 1994 19:35 -0500 (EST)

Alan@moonrake.demon.co.uk ("Alan M. Dunsmuir") writes:
 
-> If there is ever a single replicable report of a cold fusion reaction
-> reported in peer-reviewed reputable journal, it will be replicated all
-> over the world wothin weeks, and all the obfuscation which could be
-> generated by any vested interest could do nothing to suppress it.
 
From what I have been reading it appears that it is now being replicated all
over the world now.  So I agree, publishing in a peer review journal would not
change that, but the claim seems somewhat hollow.
 
Ignoring the present state of replications being made at this time, on what
basis do you make this claim?  I can think of several cases where things have
been published in peer review journals, and others either did not or were
unable to replicate them.  The article in Nature on Homopathy never was
followed up.  The trememdous criticism of this article forced those few who did
replicate the data to not pubish it, and the line of research pretty well ended
at that point.  The article in Science Magazine on the evidence that Crop
Circles were caused by ionized air votexes, likewise was never confirmed, and
the theory is pretty well discredited now.  On the other hand, articles on
heaver than air flying were published for years in popular magazines before
they were accepted for any peer review journals.  That was years after people
were flying in them. I have used commercially available electronic devices in
the past before I ever saw them mentioned in any peer review journals.
 
Sure peer review journals are great vehicles for spreading information between
scientists, but they are not a Holy Grail.  In many cases waiting for something
to appear in a peer review journal before taking the next step would simply
slow things down.  If the atomic bomb research waited for peer review each step
of the way, we would have lost the war before the first one was tested.
 
One other thought.  There is NO peer review journal for CF at this time.  You
see the same arguments in other fields, whether it is the research of Crop
Circles, ghosts or UFO's.  There are no peer review journals for those fields,
so it would be virtually impossible to publish in a peer review journal no
matter how good the evidence is.  At this time you can have magazines such as
Cold Fusion, but they are not peer review.  They are simply editor review.
Even if at some point they became peer review (that is articles are reviewed by
other CF researchers) that would not satisfy the critics, if they believe that
CF does not exist.  Only after CF is accepted by mainstream scientists would
the reviewers be accepted as knowledgeable. Thus you have a catch 22.  Just as
the Wright brothers had no peers in airodynamics, so it is to some extent with
CF.
 
                                                             Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.14 / Harry Conover /  Breakthrough: Accidental CF
     
Originally-From: conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Breakthrough: Accidental CF
Date: 14 Nov 1994 05:01:48 GMT
Organization: The Internet Access Company

While initial results remain sketchy, reports received from Warsaw
indicate that a high-yield CF reaction has been produced
using inexpensive apparatus.  The discovery was made by accident.

Polish researchers working with a Waring Blender containing water,
alcohol, and ice mixture accidently connected the 115V device to a 220V 
supply.  The resulting overspeed is reported to have produced excess 
heat and, ultimately, at the conclusion of the run, visible
light and smoke.

Due to a instrumentation limitations, precise energy yields
remain unknown, however, estimates based upon state-change
indications suggest a yield as high as 1,200-Joules.  Researchers
reported that the fusioning fluid retained a normal taste, precluding
chemical reactions as a mechanism for the excess heat.

Follow-on investigation remains on-hold pending the receipt of
funding for a replacement reaction apparatus and the filing of
patent applications.

More information will be posted as it is received.

                                    Harry C.

  


cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenconover cudfnHarry cudlnConover cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.09 / Mike Jamison /  Re: tornadoes
     
Originally-From: edwlt12@mars.lerc.nasa.gov (Mike Jamison (ADF))
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.geo.meteorology,sci.physics.astro
Subject: Re: tornadoes
Date: 9 Nov 1994 11:19 EDT
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center

[snip]

>   As for the plane, where are the data and photos?  

Sorry, was hoping to jog someone else's memory on this one.  No data/photos
here.  Maybe Popular Science, early seventies or so.
> 
> 

Mike Jamison

"Scientific research consists in seeing what everyone else has seen, but
thinking what no one else has thought"

						-A. Szent-Gyorgyi
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenedwlt12 cudfnMike cudlnJamison cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.09 / Mike Jamison /  Re: tornadoes
     
Originally-From: edwlt12@mars.lerc.nasa.gov (Mike Jamison (ADF))
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.geo.meteorology,sci.physics.astro
Subject: Re: tornadoes
Date: 9 Nov 1994 11:21 EDT
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center

In article <ts_zemanian-081194141143@ts_zemanian.pnl.gov>, ts_zemanian@p
l.gov (Thomas S. Zemanian) writes...
>In article <8NOV199413272744@mars.lerc.nasa.gov>,
>edwlt12@mars.lerc.nasa.gov (Mike Jamison (ADF)) wrote:
>> In article <39ocgq$q9p@gazette.bcm.tmc.edu>, lodi@dino.qci.bioch.bcm.
mc.edu (bill) writes...
> 
>[deletia]
> 
>[deletia]
> 
>> 
>> I don't know about the "week in advance part, but if I'm not mistaken, there's
>> at least *one* plane that is used to to *fly through* tornados.  For 
>> scientific research, no less.  I believe it's a DC-3 [these planes weren't
>> able to fly above storms, so they were built strong enough to fly through
>> them].
>> 
> 
>[deletia]
> 
>I think you are, in fact, mistaken.  I believe you're thinking of
>hurricanes, which are much larger, but locally less violent phenomena. 
>Yes, there are airplanes that have flown into the eyes of hurricanes for
>research purposes, but not into tornadoes (good heavens!)

I think you're right.  Thanks for the level-headed response.
> 
>--Tom
> 
>--
>The opinions expressed herein are mine and mine alone.  Keep your filthy
>hands off 'em! 

Mike Jamison

"Scientific research consists in seeing what everyone else has seen, but
thinking what no one else has thought"

						-A. Szent-Gyorgyi
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenedwlt12 cudfnMike cudlnJamison cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.14 / Matt Austern /  Re: Griggs Device Can't Be Fusion
     
Originally-From: matt@physics2.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs Device Can't Be Fusion
Date: 14 Nov 1994 07:38:31 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (Theoretical Physics Group)

In article <Ru7Us8G.jedrothwell@delphi.com> jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:

> This is incorrect. The possibility of measuring errors has been carefully
> investigated by some of the best engineers the State of Georgia, including
> some of our top talent from Georgia Tech, an internationally recognized
> institution. No evidence of measuring errors have been found, despite
> intensive efforts over a period of years.

This is the first time I've ever heard of an experimentalist claiming
not to have any measurement error.  At the risk of being blunt: if
someone claims to have performed an experiment without measurement
error, then he or she is incompetent.

Responsible experimentalists don't pretend to have zero error:
instead, they try to understand exactly how large their errors are
(including all sources of statistical, systematic, and theoretical
error) and how those errors affect their results.  In my experience,
the section on error analysis often forms the bulk of an experimental
paper.
--

                               --matt
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenmatt cudfnMatt cudlnAustern cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.09 / Chris Parkinson /  Jed Rothwell the finest
     
Originally-From: parky@ix.netcom.com (Chris Parkinson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Jed Rothwell the finest
Date: 9 Nov 1994 18:35:08 GMT
Organization: Netcom

To all of you CF sceptics go back to the drawing boards. My money is on 
Jed. He is right you know! The ego's involved in science today overbloat 
the theories that exist in this 20th century. So what if nuclear theory 
is potentially wrong. Openminded science will deliver far more than the 
closed endedness that exist today in the US scientifict circles.

Like I say, my money is on Jed and on CF in general.

CP
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenparky cudfnChris cudlnParkinson cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.09 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Griggs testing
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs testing
Date: Wed, 9 Nov 1994 18:52:51 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1994Nov5.212712.7903@math.ucla.edu>,
Barry Merriman <barry@redwood.math.ucla.edu> wrote:
>In article <Cyrv2J.Fp5@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> crb7q@watt.seas.Virgin
a.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>>     Or do something really stupid like measuring temperature with a 
>>     pyrometer, then claiming fusion in the metal.
>>
>Excuse my ignorance, but what is a pyrometer, exactly, and what are
>they normally used for?

      Typically, an optical device for high-temperature measurements
      based on various methods for determining the radiation output
      of a surface.  They're pretty good inside a furnace 
      since conditions are often pretty close to blackbody (and 
      one is typically not interested in 1 K accuracy anyway).  On the
      other hand, when measuring the temperature from a low-temperature
      surface of unknown emissivity, one would likely be a complete idiot
      to claim any accuracy at all (especially when it's so easy to 
      staple a couple of thermocouples on said surface anyway).
      One also must account for radiation absorption between the surface and
      the pyrometer, as well as focusing.  This is tough to do accurately
      with a hand-held device.

      One might also be a complete idiot to 'calibrate' the device
      by aiming it at other surfaces of different (and emphatically
      unknown) emissivity.

                            dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.14 / Mihai Jalobeanu /  Subject:Cold Fusion Quotes-2.
     
Originally-From: itimc@utcluj.ro (Mihai Jalobeanu )
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Newsgroups:sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Subject:Cold Fusion Quotes-2.
Subject:Cold Fusion Quotes-2.
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 1994 15:12:36 GMT
Date: Nov 10,1994
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Organization:Institute of Isotopic and Molecular Technology

Originally-From:itimc@imar.ro (Peter Glueck)
Newsgroups:sci.physics.fusion
Subject:Cold Fusion Quotes-2.
Date: Nov 10,1994
Organization:Institute of Isotopic and Molecular Technology
             3400 Cluj-Napoca,Romania

This is the companion paper of "CFQ=Cold Fusion Quarrel? No,
this time it is Cold Fusion Quotes." recently sent to s.p.f.
In both,I intend to line out some principles to be used for 
an useful CF FAQ.
 
I have to confess that,paraphrasing President Lyndon Johnson's
involvement with politics,[I seldom think about cold fusion more
than eighteen hours a day.] Therefore, I have plenty of time to
accomplish other tasks, mainly as a consultant.Recently I gave
lectures on "Creativity in Management", trying to adapt the
almost classical works and ideas from the Western world to our
situation.While preparing my lecture I became more and more aware
of the direct applicability of the basic truths from the field of
the creative management and business to the problems of cold
fusion.The solutions elaborated by bright minds like Drucker,De
Bono,Peters, and Waterman (just to mention a few) are very
inspiring.An essential conclusion is:_The creative managers are
our natural allies_!
As the following quotes will demonstrate, we have to learn a lot 
from them.They are the guys who know that:[Ideas are a resource
that can be filtered,examined,and fashioned into a multimillion
dollar enterprise](old saying in Chemical Enginering News)
However,cold fusion is different:in long range it is a 
multi-trillion dollar business.[1]

Cold fusion had a difficult start,what do the managers say?
[Beginnings are such delicate times][2]
[The new idea either finds a champion or it dies.No ordinary 
involvement with a new idea provides the energy required to 
cope with the indifference and resistance that change
provokes](Ed Schon)
Cold fusion was lucky enough to find a lot of champions who
helped the idea to survive and to prosper!It was a bit better
than stated by John Masters: [A really new idea at first has only
one believer] It wasn't quite so bad as seen by P.F.Drucker:
[Whenever anything is accomplished,it is being done,I have
learned,by a monomaniac with a mission] The following is true,but
don't take it"ad litteram"[You can always tell the pioneers.They
are the ones lying face down with an arrow in their back](Don
Esteridge)

Nothing can grow forever without major problems both in
management and science: 
[Good ideas and innovations must be driven into existence by 
courageous patience](admiral Hyman Rickover)
Be prepared for a difficult task because:
[If you find a path with no obstacles,it probably doesn't lead
anywhere](Frank A.Clark)  
[Obstacles are the thing you see when you take you eyes off the
goal](Ray Blignant)
The champions of the cold fusion need reinforcements given that:
[Despite the pleasure that individuals obtain from their
work,they are typically embarked on a solitary voyage,where the
chances of failure are high...It requires a strong constitution
to go alone in creative matters,and most innovative people at
times experience a strong need for personal,communal,or religious
support] (Howard Gardner)

Pathological skeptics make problems in both areas:
And that's a hell of a problem because we have stated so many
times that:
[Men,it has been well said,think in herds,it will be seen that
they go mad in herds,while they recover their senses slowly,and
one by one](Charles MacKay)  
And what's even worse:
[Changing people's habits and ways of thinking is like writing
your instructions in the snow during a snowstorm.Every 20 minutes
you must rewrite your instructions.Only with constant repetition
will you create change](Donald Dowar)
Managers and businessmen have learned from the very practice
that:solid evidence can change minds,but getting the data
requires time.However:
[The mind is like a parachute.It only works when it's open]

By the way,I'm informed of a book which will be published by the
Oxford University Business Press (1993-1994)"The Unbound Mind-
Breaking the Chains of Traditional Business Science" by Ian I.
Mitroff,H.A.Linstone.

What a precious thing:an "unbounded mind!"And how much is it
needed.Just put "science" or"technology"instead of business.
However sooner or later,the cold fusion story will enter the era
of success it deserves.One aspect of the evolution is predicted
with amazing precision by the literature on management:[An odd
thing does frequently occur.The most hardened skeptics are not 
the last to come on board.Straw-in-the-wind watchers that they
are,the hardened skeptics - the laggard tail of the normal
distribution curve - will often jump on the bandwagon as momentum
builds and progress appears to be more than fleeting.It's the
center of the distribution,the neither angry nor particularly
seducible bunch,that is more likely to climb on last][2]

Another essential thing we can learn from the managers is
Strategic Thinking,the ability to see a problem as a whole,I will
discuss this subject thoroughly later however even from these 
preliminary data,we can learn that we have to do a lot of
networking.And in this network the creative managers will be key
people.

References:
[1] Hal Fox,Cold Fusion Impact in the Enhanced Energy
Age",published by Fusion Information Center,Inc.,Utah,1993.
[2] Tom Peters,Nancy Austin,"A Passion for Excellence.The
Leadership Difference"Random House 1985,pp 135,161,304,414,415.

cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenitimc cudfnMihai cudlnJalobeanu cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.14 /  jedrothwell@de /  Griggs pyrometer
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Griggs pyrometer
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 94 00:35:45 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz) and others have discussed
pyrometers. He described rhenium filament type that he worked with which had
error limits of +/- 100 K on the measurements in the region of 2000 K. He
wonders what type I used to measure the Griggs Gadget surface temperature.
 
The answer is I have not got the foggiest idea. That is an interesting
question, I will find out next time I am out there, I am sure it says in the
user manual. Whatever it is, I am sure it works pretty well. The doubts
raised by Bass and others are nonsense. Let me just add a few notes of
reality to this discussion by describing the pyrometer and my method of
using it.
 
I have no earthly idea what type of filament or other component the
pyrometer incorporates. At the moment I don't even remember what company
made it. It was a Japanese camera company . . . Minolta or Canon. It looks
just like a little camera. Following instructions in the booklet, you set
the emissivity for the type of material, look at the material through the
viewfinder, press a button, and Presto! -- you get a temperature reading.
Naturally, I tested it on a variety of surfaces with different emissivity
levels. (Readers of this forum will know by now that I test EVERYTHING to
the N'th degree. I take nothing for granted.) I found that people's faces
and hands measure at 98 to 100 deg F. I measured a variety of metal and
liquid surface temperatures, which are at opposite extremes of emissivity.
I compared the readings with readings of the same metal and liquid measure
with thermometers and thermistors, at temperatures between 60 deg F and
310 F (on a dial thermometer). The pyrometer came within a few degrees in
every case. It is remarkably accurate, and a piece of cake to use.
 
Nearly every temperature measurement I took I verified with 2, 3, 4 or 5
instruments. The only measurement for which I used the pyrometer exclusively
was the GG surface temperature. That was simply because there were not other
instruments attached to the GG surface on the days I was there. Bass and
others make hysterical claims that I "relied upon" the pyrometer, even though
I have explained a dozen times or more that I also used thermometers,
thermocouples and thermistors. Bass is deliberately trying to confuse the
issue.
 
So what kind of gadget is this pyrometer? Technically, I cannot say. But I
can say:
 
1. I tested it. It works.
 
2. It is a mass market instrument. It is as reliable as a camera or camera
light exposure meter. HVAC engineers, electrical engineers, building
inspectors, and other professionals rely on these pyrometers. The brochures
show they work up to certain temperatures to within a few percent, and I
was nowhere near the top of the scale. There can be no serious doubt that
this type of pyrometer is accurate when it is properly used according to
the instruction booklet; when the batteries are good; and when the user has
enough common sense to check the pyrometer against thermometers. Dale Bass
and others will disagree, but what do they know? Dale thinks General
Electric cannot calibrate their own electric meters, and he claims that the
curator of the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum knows nothing about the
Wright Brothers. His opinions tell you everything about Dale Bass, and
nothing about General Electric or the Smithsonian.
 
3. Whether the pyrometer works or not has little bearing on my report. It
was only used for one temperature measurement. All the rest was done with
other instruments. Of course, the pyrometer also agreed with these other
instruments, in every case.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenjedrothwell cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.14 / Tom Droege /  Re: Griggs Device Can't Be Fusion
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs Device Can't Be Fusion
Date: 14 Nov 1994 17:52:55 GMT
Organization: fermilab

In article <USE2PCB102372131@brbbs.brbbs.com>, mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com
(MARSHALL DUDLEY) says:
>One other thought.  There is NO peer review journal for CF at this time.  You
>see the same arguments in other fields, whether it is the research of Crop
>Circles, ghosts or UFO's.  There are no peer review journals for those fields,

I think "Fusion Technology" comes close.  I have even reviewed one article
for it, so I know there is a review process.  

Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.14 / Ron Schudalla /  Re: tornadoes
     
Originally-From: schudall@microwave.msfc.nasa.gov (Ron Schudalla)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.geo.meteorology
Subject: Re: tornadoes
Date: 14 Nov 1994 17:50:00 GMT
Organization: NASA/MSFC

In article <Cz6yEJ.MM5@eskimo.com>, nanook@eskimo.com (Robert Dinse) writes:
|> In article <3a035t$879@romulus.ucs.uoknor.edu>, mfoster@alliant.backb
ne.uoknor.edu (Marc Foster) writes:
|> > say you are full of shit.  He has done as much to expand ideas in 
|> 
|>      I read this group because I am interested in fusion.  I am not at all
|> interested in the high degree of back biting that goes on here between the
|> different camps (hot vs cold fusion, old tokamaks verses more modern design
|> reactors, etc).
|> 
|>      Is the type of garbage like telling people they are full of shit really
|> necessary?  Is there a better (perhaps moderated) conference for fusion where
|> 99% of the messages aren't personal attacks and people generally act like
|> they've survived and progressed from adolescence?
|> 
|>      I sincerely doubt that any of our congress critters responsible for
|> distributing funds read this anyway, so perhaps another forum can be used for
|> determining who's favorite pet projects should be funded?

Funny you bring this up....we read this newsgroup (sci.geo.meteorology) to
discuss meteorology, not fusion. What jackass started this cross-posting,
anyways.......


-- 
*******************************************************************
*								  *
*	Ron Schudalla / HUGHES STX    Mission to Planet Earth -   *
*       Global Hydrology and	      NOAA/NASA SSM/I		  *
*         Climate Center, Rm. B104	   Pathfinder Project 	  *
*	977 Explorer Boulevard	      			          *
*	Huntsville, AL 35806					  *
*	PH: 205-922-5792	      Guitarist and Golfer of	  *
*	FAX: 205-922-5930             modest ability.....         *
*								  *
*		email: schudall@microwave.msfc.nasa.gov		  *
*								  *
*	"It's 106 miles to Chicago. We got a full tank o' gas,	  *
*	 half a pack o' cigarettes, it's dark out, and we're	  *
*	 wearing sunglasses."  "Hit it!"			  *
*								  *
*******************************************************************
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenschudall cudfnRon cudlnSchudalla cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.14 / Monkey King /  Re: Get a grip, Steve
     
Originally-From: monkey@engin.umich.edu (Monkey King)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Get a grip, Steve
Date: 14 Nov 1994 18:12:48 GMT
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor

In article <p2y0sG+.jedrothwell@delphi.com>,  <jedrothwell@delphi.com> wrote:
> 
>And as I have argued before, no sane person cares whether this heat comes from
                                 ^^^^
>nuclear reactions, zero-point energy, green cheese rotting on the moon,
>shrinking hydrogen atoms, or angels break dancing on a pin. This is what
>matters:
> 

I beg your pardon.  Real Scientists do.  Last time I checked most
scientists are sane.  

-- 
Monkey King                 | This message printed on 
monkey@engin.umich.edu      | recycled material.
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenmonkey cudfnMonkey cudlnKing cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.10 / Edward Lewis /  repost of "tornadoes"
     
Originally-From: edward@uhuru.uchicago.edu (Edward Lewis)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.geo.meteorology
Subject: repost of "tornadoes"
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 1994 02:20:26 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago


Dec. 7, 1993
posted on Oct. 28, 1994

Luminous Tornadoes and Other Plasmoids

	During the past 1 3/4 years I've been posting articles about
ball lightning, plasmoids, EVs, and cold fusion on sci.physics.fusion
newsgroup. This is a version of one that I posted last winter.  Does
anyone have any reports about anomalous atmospheric phenomena?

        People have often seen bright or luminous tornadoes.
According to prior research, a large percentage of tornadoes are
bright or glowing, and people have experienced that some are quite hot.
(see B. Vonnegut and J. R. Weyer, "Luminous Phenomena Accompanying
Tornadoes," WEATHERWISE, 19-2 (Apr. 1966), 66-68. and B. Vonnegut and
J. R. Weyer, "Luminous Phenomena in Nocturnal Tornadoes, SCIENCE,
(1966), 1213-1220.)

        Storms on the Earth are probably an atmospheric manifestation
of earth plasmoid activity, according to Tesla's experience of
electricity in the ground that accompanied a storm.  Even clouds may
be such a manifestation.  Clouds seem to be plasmoid phenomena.  And
clouds may convert to ball lightning.  People have seen clouds which
contained a glowing spot, and in one case it is fairly documented that
a cloud with a glowing spot produced a tornado.

        Tornadoes are a locus for the conversion of substance
to light and electricity.  The power of tornadoes is anomalously high.
People have seen lightning from a large area converge to the area of a
cyclone, but this seems to only be part of the reason for the power.
People have seen tornadoes that had parts that were so bright that
they described the phenomena as being too bright to look at though the
tornadoes were quite a ways away; one person described tornadoes that
lit up the surroundings so that it was as if the direct sun was
shining during a period of time.  In one case, a thermometer measured
that the temperature of the air increased by about 20 degrees during
the passage of a tornado.

        I would say that tornadoes and ball lightning are the same
type of phenomena, though ball lightning is smaller.  I classify both
ball lightning and tornadoes, storms, clouds, and other phenomena as
kinds of a phenomena that I call plasmoid phenomena.  Galaxies and
atoms are other types of this kind of phenomena, according to my
theory.

        I would say that the cold fusion phenomena is a plasmoid
phenomena.  People have produced many types of phenomena including
traces and holes and tunnels that are similar to those produced by
plasmoid phenomena.  I would say that tiny plasmoids like ball
lightning are being produced. At the ICCF4, Matsumoto reported about
tiny ball lightning in his CF apparatus.  I suggest that people read
his articles in FUSION TECHNOLOGY.
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenedward cudfnEdward cudlnLewis cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.10 / Edward Lewis /  tornadoes2
     
Originally-From: edward@uhuru.uchicago.edu (Edward Lewis)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.geo.meteorology
Subject: tornadoes2
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 1994 02:15:58 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

	There is much literature about ball lighting, luminous
tornadoes, and other luminous atmospheric phenomena.  There has been
much literature about this for hundreds of years at least.

	Corliss's anomalies books contain descriptions of reports and
citations, and there are many reports and articles about these things
in meterological periodicals.

	Luminous tornadoes and other large luminous atmospheric
phenomena have been reported for centuries.  Vonnegut referred to the
ancient literature about these things.  So the phenomena that I was
writing about in my "tornadoes" post on sci.physics.fusion and
sci.geo.meteorology are not due to broken electrical power lines or
broken generators, etc.  There are actually many reports about
luminous tornadoes during the 19th century.  However this phenomena
contradicts people's meteorological theories and Quantum Mechanics
physics theories.

	Recent articles about anomalous luminous atmospheric phenomena
are in Physics-Uspekhi, vol. 64, no. 5 (May 1994).  There are two
articles.  One is a report about two international conferences about
such phenomena that were held in Europe in 1993 and this year.

International Interdisciplinary Congress of Unsolved Problems of
Atmospheric Electricity, Sept 1993, Salzburg, Austria.

First International Workshop on Unidentified Atmospheric Light
Phenomena, March 1994, Hessdalen, Norway.

	I'll repost the original post that was titled "Luminous
Tornadoes and Other Plasmoids."
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenedward cudfnEdward cudlnLewis cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.10 / Edward Lewis /  --cold fusion and PLASMOIDS
     
Originally-From: edward@uhuru.uchicago.edu (Edward Lewis)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.geo.meteorology
Subject: --cold fusion and PLASMOIDS
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 1994 02:40:37 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

              (c) 1994 by Edward Lewis All Rights Reserved

        I've posted versions of this article several times on this
newsgroup since December of 1993; and I've posted several articles
about plasmoids and cold fusion on this newsgroup since January of
1993.  If anyone wants to reproduce or resend this article, get my
permission first.  

                        PLASMOIDS AND COLD FUSION

        W. Bostick produced that which he called plasmoids by
discharging through electrodes.  Bostick wrote a paper that was titled
"Plasmoids" that was published in SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN in 1957(1).  He
may have been the first to apply this term to this phenomena.  In this
paper, he had already began to tell others about his speculation that
galaxies and the phenomena he produced were similar.  He compared the
shapes and the travel of these things.  He also speculated a little
about the identity of "particles."  He shows pictures of different
kinds of plasmoid shapes in the article and related these to different
kinds of shapes of galaxies.  Many people including Bostick, Alfven
who is a physics Nobel Prize winner, Peratt and Lerner have developed
similar astronomical theories that model the universe as plasmoids and
that can be said to be derivations or summarizations of the
experimental work of W. Bostick and others.  It has become evident
that atoms can be defined as plasmoids, especially as according to the
phenomena produced by Ken Shoulders.  It seems that there are many
different kinds of plasmoid phenomena.  The EVs that Ken Shoulders
produced and ball lightning may be classified as kinds of this general
phenomena.  There is evidence that both plasmoids and ball lightning
are associated with neutrons, radioactivity, production of elements,
and excess radiation.

                Based on the phenomena that Matsumoto produced, the
traces, the pictures and descriptions of electrodes, the pictures of
stationary BL and corona-like phenomena, the visible BL-like phenomena
that he reports, and the sparks that he observed that left traces like
those produced during electrolysis and discharge, one may categorize
CF phenomena as tiny ball-lightning or plasmoids.  Important evidence
is the holes and trails on and in emulsions and electrodes that
Matsumoto produced by discharging and electrolysis, the holes in
electrodes that Liaw et al. produced, the holes in electrodes that others
produced, the empty areas in electrodes that are shaped liked grains
that Matsumoto and Silver et al. produced and the half-empty grains that
Matsumoto produced, and the holes and tunnels and trails on and in
electrodes that Silver produced.  These tunnels, holes, and trail-like
marks are similar to those that are produced by ball lightning
phenomena, though ball lightning are associated with bigger effects.
These tunnels, holes, and trail-like marks are also similar to those
produced by the EV phenomena that K. Shoulders produced.  Silver and
his co-authors who published a paper in the December issue of FUSION
TECHNOLOGY have reproduced the tunnels, holes, and trail-like markings
in metals that Matsumoto produced.  These tunnels, holes, and
trail-marks are evidence of the conversion and change of materials.
Important evidence that both CF phenomena and substance in general are
plasmoid phenomena is Matsumoto's experience of the production of
electricity by apparatus.  I suspect that plasmoid phenomena such as
electrodes and other materials may convert to be bigger plasmoids and
light and electricity.  EVs and ball lightning are known to convert to
light and electricity.

        I suspect that the round holes in electrodes that Matsumoto
produced and the round holes and tunnels that Silver produced are due
to the boring of BL-like phenomena, and that the grain-shaped holes
that they produced is evidence of the conversion of the grain to light
or electricity or of the production of plasmoids.  Some if not all
plasmoids are apparently able to travel through materials, even if the
plasmoids are very big.  The plasmoids that Matsumoto has produced
does this, and this is major evidence to support my deductions.
Matsumoto has also shown pictures of sectioned electrodes with what
seem to me to be trail-like tracks, as if tiny BL-like phenomena
traveled inside and left tracks.

        Many other anomalous phenomena can be described as plasmoid
phenomena.  For example, superconductivity seem to be similar to the
phenomena of ball lightning traveling though materials such as
ceramics and glass without leaving holes or visible effects, yet ball
lightning may convert to an electrical surge after touching a wire or
it may convert to a bolt of lightning.  Also, sonoluminescence seems
to be a phenomena of the water converting to light and perhaps
electricity.

cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenedward cudfnEdward cudlnLewis cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.09 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Griggs testing
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs testing
Date: Wed, 9 Nov 1994 19:05:22 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <39kdq3$796@newsbf01.news.aol.com>,
DanHicks <danhicks@aol.com> wrote:
>In article <Cyrv2J.Fp5@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>,
>crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>>>>
>>I know exactly how to get an independent check: put the Dranetz meter
>back in
>>the carrying case, take it over to General Electric, and have them
>calibrate
>>it again. They will put a new sticker on it.
>
>     The sticker.  I love it.
>
>If you won't accept the validity of independent calibration by a qualified
>lab, what will you accept?  The only thing that's missing is verification
>that the meter is being operated within its range of permissible inputs --
>primarily phase angle and distortion, I would assume.  This is where the
>emphasis should be.  Can anyone find phase angle and distortion meters for
>Tom?

     I'd 'accept' o-scope measurements (integrated power) performed by
     a competent engineer not associated with Griggs or Rothwell or
     his company.

     But what does it matter what I'll accept?  It seems to me that
     Mr. Griggs is not showing a great deal of imagination regarding 
     these earthshattering results.  Not only does he have an inside
     track for the next few Nobel prizes, but he should become richer
     than John D. Rockefeller from marketing the 'free energy'.  Why
     let a silly thing like a power meter stand in the way, verify it
     63 ways to Sunday and present the results on the nightly news.

     I'm not holding my breath.

                                    dale bass





cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.09 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Y. Arata DS-Cathode cold fusion
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Y. Arata DS-Cathode cold fusion
Date: Wed, 9 Nov 1994 19:32:56 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <5o21bJY.jedrothwell@delphi.com>,  <jedrothwell@delphi.com> wrote:
> 
>Of course he has! You must not have read his papers. It is all there in
>black and white, the proof is beyond any argument. His latest paper is
>a gem, I must say. It is the best I have seen in a long time.
> 
>The proof, of course, is massive excess heat. As he says in the paper, this
>system could only generate 4 KJ of chemical energy, yet these cells have
>generated as much as *200 MJ*. You cannot argue with that!

     One could argue any number of things, but why bother?

                                dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.15 / Eugene Mallove /  Criminality
     
Originally-From: 76570.2270@compuserve.com (Eugene Mallove)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Criminality
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 1994 01:02:34 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Jed blasts Steve Jones:

>What you are doing now is blocking progress. You are pretending -- yes,
>*pretending* -- that the heat is not real, or that it has no technical
>significance. Your behavior, in common with the behavior of the vast majority
>of other establishment scientists, is a God Damned moral abomination, an
>outrage, and a betrayal of science, religion, and humanity. By your inaction
>and stubborn, mindless opposition to this research, by your denial of proven
>facts, you prolong the holocaust extra weeks, months and perhaps years. This
>is not the first time scientists have deliberately blocked progress and
>inadvertently murdered people by inaction. We all know what happened to
>Semmelweis. We know that the doctors of Vienna went on killing their patients
>a generation longer than they should have. Unfortunately, that is not the 
>only
>example of closed-minded, bigoted scientists blocking progress. There are
>countless others in history.
>
>- Jed

Great! I couldn't have said it better myself. Steve Jones, of all the 
incompetent bigots in the opposition to cold fusion research and development, 
is THE ONE who is most wallowing in moral turpitude. He proclaims his 
Godliness and charity -- while blaspheming Truth, Science, and Humanity all in
one blow. All because of his monumental arrogance and envy that knows NO 
BOUNDS. (Right now, I am told,  he is sneaking around trying to kiss-up to 
Russ George and Stringham with offers of assistance, etc. -- anything to get 
on with something to one-up Pons and Fleischamnn!!) I have little doubt that 
the hellish experience in store for Dr. Jones right here on this earth may 
make him wish for the HELL of the afterlife. He will eat all his damned words 
-- slowly, one by one.

Then add to Jones those powerful figures who have steadfastly blocked 
research, those who have caused people to be threatened with loss of their 
jobs for investigating cold fusion, those who have mocked cold fusion 
research, those who have set forth the Big Lies about cold fusion being 
"pathological science," and those negativists who have made sure their own 
nests were feathered year after year by massive federal science ependitures 
for hot fusion -- these people's actions are morally bankrupt. In essence, 
their actions are criminal -- by any moral standard one could conceive -- 
particulary for the delay of the application of this technology to the human 
tragedy that is the daily experience of hundreds of millions of people.

Gene Mallove 

cudkeys:
cuddy15 cuden2270 cudfnEugene cudlnMallove cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.15 / Richard Blue /  Los Alamos, Rockwell, and E-Quest
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Los Alamos, Rockwell, and E-Quest
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 1994 01:02:32 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Gene Mallove, in a recent post, in reference to the E-Quest claims
says that the results "have been -- in effect -- verified at a
national lab, Los Alamos."  If you read what Gene has to say, however,
you will learn that maybe the association of the E-Quest claims with
the names "Los Alamos" and "Rockwell" is possibly somewhat overstated.

If you think the full faith and confidence of The Los Alamos National
Laboratory stands behind the E-Quest claims, think again.  What Gene
reveals is that some measurements were made at Los Alamos that relate
to nuclear radiation and/or radioactivity.  Nothing in the reports
Gene has circulated about the E-Quest results involves any claims
relating to such measurements.  Are we to believe that Los Alamos
made measurements that confirm the production of 4He and 3He through
the detection of radiation that accompanies the fusion process?  Gene
makes no such claim.  I conclude from his failure to reveal what the
Los Alamos measurements indicated that they likely do nothing to support
the E-Quest claims regarding fusion.  Isn't it a little strange then
that Los Alamos is said to have been involved in some form of verification
of the E-Quest result?  I think Gene is stretching the truth.

Likewise I see a need to seek clarification of what precisely is the
involvement of Rockwell in the E-Quest claims.  Here again Gene Mallove
probably reveals something I suspected from the beginning.  The Rockwell
involvement in the E-Quest experiment seems to be limited to the analysis
for helium content of samples delivered to them by E-Quest.  Under those
circumstances the ability of the Rockwell laboratory to reliably analyze
gas samples for trace levels of 4He and 3He does very little to establish
a sound basis for the E-Quest claims.  There remain many unanswered
questions concerning the taking of samples and their processing prior to
delivery to Rockwell.  In particular I repeat my request for information
concerning the steps taken by E-Quest (quite probably with no involvement
by either Los Alamos or Rockwell) to get from a sample of D2O containing
trace levels of helium to a sample of argon gas containing trace levels
of helium.  How does the helium get from the heavy water to the argon
samples delivered to Rockwell's lab?  Without that information the
numbers obtained by Rockwell have no significance!  They prove nothing
concerning cold fusion.

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.15 / Richard Blue /  One phenomenon or many?
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: One phenomenon or many?
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 1994 01:02:33 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Leslie M. Barstow III invites us to sign-on to a bit of sloppy thinking
with his statement that, "The phenomenon (CF) involved can produce a
large variety of results, depending on conditions in the experiment."
This is Ed Storms's Special Condition of Matter assertion warmed over.
This type of thinking would have you believe that any process that
results in a great deal of "excess heat" demonstrates the phenomenon
of cold fusion.  The obvious differences between the conditions leading
to the onset of cold fusion in the various experiments are simply to
be ignored.  Even if some key ingredient, such as D2O, is replaced
by something different whatever happens is still said to constitute
a "replication" of THE PHENOMENON.

If the reaction product is 4Helium and only 4Helium today, but tomorrow
3Helium shows up that is OK too.  It is still the same phenomenon.
If the D2O and palladium in experiment A are replaced by H2O and iron
in experiment B, as long as there is excess heat, it is still the
same phenomenon.

As long as nothing gets explained and nothing gets correlated with
observations from outside the realm of cold fusion experimentation
this little game came go on without end.  All that is required to
keep going is to do the calorimetry badly enough to insure a positive
result.  Of course, while Leslie feels perfectly justified in suggesting
that the fusion is somehow different in each particular case, I may
suggest that it is just the calorimetry that does not work as expected.
The unifying principle of cold fusion is that the outdated laws of
calorimetry simply have to be discarded to be replaced by a version
suitable to the NEW AGE.

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.09 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Y. Arata DS-Cathode cold fusion
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Y. Arata DS-Cathode cold fusion
Date: Wed, 9 Nov 94 15:01:27 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Brian Rauchfuss <brauchfu@fnugget.intel.com> and others have been asking about
the paper:
 
     Y. Arata, Y-C. Zhang, "New Energy Generated in DS-Cathode with 'Pd-
     Black,'" Kouon Gakkaishi, Vol. 20, No. 4, (July 1994) pp. 148 - 155.
 
Brian asked about input power and input to output gain. The paper shows two
sets of data in graphs. Fig 1, (a), (b) and (c) came from a cathode in 1992 -
1993. That same cathode was put aside for one year and tested again in 1994,
to see whether the reaction can be restarted easily in a previously charged
cathode. Data from the second test is shown in Fig 2, (a), (b), (c) and (d).
 
Fig. 1 covers hours 0 through 600. Input rises gradually from 290 KJ/h to 400
KJ/h at hour 325, then cell voltage and input climb over a two day period,
with input peaking at 500 KJ/h at hour 380, then falling back down to 325
again at hour 400, and steady after that to hour 600 (the end of the graph).
Translating KJ/h to power, these numbers equal: 81 W, 111 W, 139 W at peak,
and 97 W in the steady state reaction from hours 400 to 600.
 
Excess, shown in Fig 1 (c) is 0% excess during the first 250 hour incubation
period. Heat output is steady and it equals input electricity. This long
incubation period is predicted from the "spillover deuterium" process
described in the paper. During this time, the deuterons are migrating through
the outer Pd cathode, which serves as a filter rather than a reaction site.
After 250 hours the highly purified deuterons have reached the inner powdered
cathode, and the reaction begins.
 
The reaction begins to turn on at hour 210, and shoots up abruptly at hour
275. It fluctuates violently, although it never goes anywhere zero. Net heat
output (not excess) goes up to 600 KJ/h, falls off to 480 25 hours later, then
shoots up to 850 KJ/h for 10 hours, down to 600 KJ/h for a day, and up 900 for
three days, in a peak that corresponds to the rise in input. These
fluctuations dampen out considerably after hour 400, when input stablizes.
Output then wavers between 600 to 700 KJ/h, moving up and down every day or
two. That is steady state reaction, although the output line is nowhere near
as smooth and steady as it was during the incubation period, when there was no
CF reaction.
 
Translated to power, the values from the steady state reaction period are are
97 W input electricity, average net output 181 W heat, excess 83 W. As you
see, excess is roughly 85%.
 
Fig 2 (d) shows excess heat energy as a percent of input electric energy from
the 1994 run. There are two large groups of points between 50% and 100%, and
one set of points between 100% and 206%, corresponding to the 17 hour heat
burst marked "C" in graphs 2 (a), (b) and (c). During that burst, input was
steady at about 170 KJ/h while net output rose to 350 KJ/h and then peaked at
520 KJ/h. Translated to power those numbers are 47 W input, 97 W output, and
144 W at peak. That's a 206% excess the way Arata computes it (net output
minus input, divided by input, expressed as a percent.)
 
Fig 2 (a) shows the actual flow calorimetry data: cooling water flow and
temperature Delta T. During heat burst "C" flow was 450 ml/min and the
temperature Delta T was 4.9 deg C. At other times, with roughly 100% excess,
the Delta T fluctuated between 2 and 3 deg C.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenjedrothwell cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.10 / Cary Jamison /  Re: Griggs testing
     
Originally-From: cary@svl.trw.com (Cary Jamison)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs testing
Date: 10 Nov 1994 20:09:15 GMT
Organization: TRW ASG

In article <39riq4$jmh@ds8.scri.fsu.edu>, jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
wrote:

> |In article <1994Nov5.212712.7903@math.ucla.edu>,
> |Barry Merriman <barry@redwood.math.ucla.edu> wrote:
> |>
> |>Excuse my ignorance, but what is a pyrometer, exactly, and what are
> |>they normally used for?
> 
[...]
> They are also used to measure the temperature profile across an 
> automobile tire to check if the inflation pressure being used is 
> giving the desired effect under racing conditions.

Oh no!  I thought we were done with the drag-racing stories!

-- 
Cary Jamison
cary@svl.trw.com
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudencary cudfnCary cudlnJamison cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.09 /  DanHicks /  Re: GG: Image of Cavities on Rotor
     
Originally-From: danhicks@aol.com (DanHicks)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: GG: Image of Cavities on Rotor
Date: 9 Nov 1994 21:55:14 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

In article <39k9v9$21t@newsbf01.news.aol.com>, johnanixjr@aol.com
(JohnANixJr) writes:

>>>The outside, flat surfaces of the rotor had a very sharp images of the 
row of cavities nearest the surface.  Essentially, each cavity showed 
up as a light region, and the 10-15 mm outside each cavity image 
was very dark.  Also, the "background" color of the rotor, the region 
below the holes near the axis, is light.<<<

I can think of a couple of simple explainations offhand:

1) The discoloration is due to heating of the metal while drilling the
holes.  This heat would be sufficient to change the crystal structure of
some alloys, and the discoloration would show up over time as the crystal
structure etches.  Note that the "backwards" coloration could be explained
if the holes on the outer perimeter are drilled first -- this would serve
to insulate the metal directly adjacent to a cavity from the heat build up
from drilling the other holes.  (Keep in mind that the whole rotor will be
liquid cooled during this drilling operation, so heat will only build up
where there's a lot of bulk to conduct it and hold it in -- thin areas
will stay relatively cool.)

2) The discoloration could be due to "work hardening" or fatigue in the
metal due to vibration (with associated change in crystal structure).  One
would offhand expect the area directly adjacent to a hole to receive the
greater part of the fatigue, but in fact it's hard to say where the
stresses would concentrate without detailed analysis.

Of course, it could also be due to divine intervention, or the
discoloration may not actually be there at all but may just be "imagined"
or the result of "measurement error".  However, I'd be more inclined to
believe one of the first two explainations.
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudendanhicks cudlnDanHicks cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.14 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Griggs Device Can't Be Fusion
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs Device Can't Be Fusion
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 94 10:20:39 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

I accidentally wrote:
 
     "Arata's 3000-day long, 200 megajoule excess . . ."
 
That should be 3000 hours, not days. It is 125 days. 200 megajoules is the
correct number.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenjedrothwell cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.14 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Griggs Device Can't Be Fusion
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs Device Can't Be Fusion
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 94 10:23:15 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Barry Merriman <barry@redwood.math.ucla.edu> writes:
 
>So: should Tom investigate E-Quest instead of Griggs?
 
I do not not speak for E-Quest or Hydro Dynamics, but I would be very
surprised if E-Quest would allow Tom to "investigate" them. I would never
let him in the door if I was them.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenjedrothwell cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.09 /  DanHicks /  Re: Economically feasible-how long?
     
Originally-From: danhicks@aol.com (DanHicks)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Economically feasible-how long?
Date: 9 Nov 1994 22:10:44 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

In article <cwrluser-0711941140340001@blake.rh.utexas.edu>,
cwrluser@nowhere.en.utexas.edu (CWRL User) writes:

>>>So far the only thing I found is that at
current budget levels it will take us 50 yrs.<<<

You obviously haven't learned how to read reports yet.  "50 years" means
"I've got a life-long career here," while "at current budget levels" means
"but I'd sure like to rake in more money."  (At least this is what it
means to a researcher.  To a corporate finance officer it means "This job
will never be done in my lifetime/tenure and it's going to soak up all the
money we can possibly throw at it.")
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudendanhicks cudlnDanHicks cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.14 / D Chamberlin /  Re: tornadoes
     
Originally-From: drchambe@tekgp2.cse.tek.com (Dennis Chamberlin)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.geo.meteorology,sci.physics.astro
Subject: Re: tornadoes
Date: 14 Nov 1994 23:47:59 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <8NOV199413272744@mars.lerc.nasa.gov> edwlt12@mars.lerc.nasa.
ov (Mike Jamison (ADF)) writes:
>
>I don't know about the "week in advance part, but if I'm not mistaken, there's
>at least *one* plane that is used to to *fly through* tornados.  For 
>scientific research, no less.  I believe it's a DC-3 [these planes weren't
>able to fly above storms, so they were built strong enough to fly through
>them].
>

Well, I doubt that. 

With due respect for the DC-3 (and I have a great deal), it is not a 
machine that any sane person would knowingly fly into a tornado. 

Chances are its feathers would be instantly plucked, and it would 
become part of the swirling debris. At the very least, it would 
immediately  become impossible to control, and failure to control
airspeed while in extreme turbulence can also result in some unusual 
weather reports, e.g.

"Heavy rain in thunderstorms, strong gusty winds, hail, and reports 
of widely scattered aluminum." 

Now, there could be a case or two of accidental grazing funnel 
encounters, with survivors, just as some people have
occasionally 
walked out of burning buildings that collapse. And, a few C-130 crews
do routinely and deliberately penetrate hurricanes, with the aid of 
radar to help avoid the worst of it. But this is a much different 
order of turbulence. I bet if you asked any of these
pilots about 
flying into a tornado, you would immediately find yourself with 
no one to talk to.


cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudendrchambe cudfnDennis cudlnChamberlin cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.14 / Thomas Zemanian /  Re: Breakthrough: Accidental CF
     
Originally-From: ts_zemanian@pnl.gov (Thomas S. Zemanian)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Breakthrough: Accidental CF
Date: 14 Nov 1994 21:09:26 GMT
Organization: Battelle PNL

In article <3a8fqm$k23@watnews1.watson.ibm.com>, c1prasad@watson.ibm.com
(prasad) wrote:

> |> conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover) writes:
> |>  
> |> -> Polish researchers working with a Waring Blender containing water,
> |> -> alcohol, and ice mixture accidently connected the 115V device to a 220V
> |> -> supply.  The resulting overspeed is reported to have produced excess
> |> -> heat and, ultimately, at the conclusion of the run, visible
> |> -> light and smoke.
> |>  
> 
> Was that a troll?


Well, I took it for a bit of jest, particularly as the sentence after the
one above refers to the "unchanged taste" of the mixture as evidence that
no chemical change could account for the heat.  (I was going to suggest
esterification by citric acid (from the lemon juice) and ethanol
condensation, but I'm far too serious to ever sink so low.)

However, either Marshall Dudley has an extremely dry sense of humor, or he
was successfully trolled by the above.

--Tom

--
The opinions expressed herein are mine and mine alone.  Keep your filthy
hands off 'em! 
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudents_zemanian cudfnThomas cudlnZemanian cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.14 /  jedrothwell@de /  Get a grip, Steve
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Get a grip, Steve
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 94 12:14:06 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Steve Jones <jonesse@physc2.byu.edu> again raises theoretical objections to
try and disprove facts. He writes:
 
     "I'm waiting for someone to show me an x-ray spectrum from one of these
     expts. You see, nuclear reactions release lots of energy -- plenty to
     excite the metal atoms in the lattice, so that they *must* give off
     copious x-rays. . ."
 
And bla, bla, bla, bla. He hopes that mere theory will make hard, proven facts
go away. Here are the facts:
 
The 1994 data in Fig. 2 shows that Arata put 47 watts of electric power into a
closed cell in a flow calorimeter. The flow of water through the cooling loop
was 450 ml/min. The water came out 3 degrees hotter than it was going in.
During the 17 hour burst, it got 4.9 degrees hotter than input. Do you
understand what that means, Steve? Can you do elementary calorimetry, or
should I spell it out for you, the way Arata does in the paper? Here:
 
47 watts equals 2820 joules input per minute.
 
450 ml of water raised 3 degrees equals 1350 calories. One calorie equals 4.2
joules, so the output was 5670. Fig. 2 shows 500 hours of this output.
 
5670 joules is MUCH, MUCH more than 2820. A 3 degree Delta T temperature is a
cinch to detect. There is no mistake.
 
One run this year produced 200 megajoules of excess. Do you know how much
energy that is, Steve? No, obviously you don't. Let me give you two examples:
 
     200 megajoules is how much energy you get from burning 4.8 kg of
     gasoline. I do not know how much cathode weighed, but I am sure it was
     far less than 4.8 kg.
 
     200 megajoules is 20 times more energy than the Princeton Tokamak TFTR
     created in the famous December 1993 experiment. (See J.D. Strachan et
     al., PPPL-2978)
 
 
Steve also writes:
 
     "As I have argued before, a characteristic secondary x-ray spectrum
     (don't give me dental film!) would be demonstration of nuclear
     reactions.  Heat alone is not."
 
And as I have argued before, no sane person cares whether this heat comes from
nuclear reactions, zero-point energy, green cheese rotting on the moon,
shrinking hydrogen atoms, or angels break dancing on a pin. This is what
matters:
 
THE HEAT IS REAL.
 
IT IS A MILLION TIMES BEYOND THE LIMITS OF CHEMISTRY.
 
IT IS USEFUL ENERGY THAT WILL BE HARNESSED TO MAKE PEOPLE'S LIVES EASIER AND
MAKE THE WORLD MUCH CLEANER.
 
IT IS WORTH BILLIONS OF DOLLARS.
 
Do you understand? Nobody gives a fuck about your theories. Nobody cares
whether the heat is nuclear or not. That is not the issue, and it never has
been the issue. X-Rays be damned, you cannot run a car on x-rays.
 
Listen Steve, you claim to be a religious man. You appear to be a devout
Mormon. I have a great deal of respect for all forms of religion. Let me try
to explain this terms that relate to religion, not science. For once in your
life, I suggest you shut up, sit down, and read this carefully.
 
In this world of ours right now, millions of people are forced to drink
filthy, disease infested water. Countless of children starve and 40,000 to
50,000 of them die of starvation, disease and malnutrition every week. Got
that? Every week! That comes to a holocaust of 2.6 million innocent children
every year, the equivalent of the Nazi Final Solution every 5 years. Not only
that, but the air in every industrial city on earth is brown with filthy smoke
and pollution. You are a scientist, I am sure you realize these facts. You
must also realize that one of the principle causes of these horrors is lack of
clean, cheap, abundant energy. If people had enough energy, they could boil
drinking water and improve agriculture. A clean source of energy would
eliminate 70% of air pollution. Cheap energy would not eliminate poverty or
starvation by any means, but it is the single most important technical advance
that we can make towards solving those problems. It is better than whatever is
in second place.
 
Scientists and engineers must look solutions to these hellish problems. You
are being paid by the State of Utah to help humanity. You job is to do science
so that people -- the taxpayers and others -- can enjoy a better life, more
security, a chance at happiness and dignity. You job is to solve mysteries, to
uncover the truth about nature, and to help technologists harness the forces
of nature for the benefit of humanity. Cold fusion -- whether it is fusion,
fission, ZPE, or something else -- produces massive, highly concentrated heat
energy. Any fool, any FRESHMAN ENGINEERING STUDENT, can tell at a glance that
if the Arata cells can be scaled up slightly, and improved slightly, they will
produce massive quantities of zero-cost, pollution free energy. Nobody in his
right mind would assert that a 3 to 5 degree Delta T temperature is an
experimental error.
 
You job is to find answers, not to deny reality. The taxpayers are not paying
you to dream up theoretical objections to proven facts. We don't care why
there are no x-rays. Gamma rays make no difference to us. We want you to get
off your butt, get to work, and find out why CF cells produce so much heat
energy. We need a theory that explains these cells, because a theory will make
it a lot easier to scale them up, commercialize them, and start saving
people's lives. It is your job and your moral duty as a scientist and a human
being to get to work, find the solution, and to stop pretending the problem
does not exist. The heat is real. The effect is real. The 200 megajoules tell
us that it cannot be a chemical reaction. Your job is to find out just what
the hell it is, how it works, and how we can use it.
 
What you are doing now is blocking progress. You are pretending -- yes,
*pretending* -- that the heat is not real, or that it has no technical
significance. Your behavior, in common with the behavior of the vast majority
of other establishment scientists, is a God Damned moral abomination, an
outrage, and a betrayal of science, religion, and humanity. By your inaction
and stubborn, mindless opposition to this research, by your denial of proven
facts, you prolong the holocaust extra weeks, months and perhaps years. This
is not the first time scientists have deliberately blocked progress and
inadvertently murdered people by inaction. We all know what happened to
Semmelweis. We know that the doctors of Vienna went on killing their patients
a generation longer than they should have. Unfortunately, that is not the only
example of closed-minded, bigoted scientists blocking progress. There are
countless others in history.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenjedrothwell cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Tue Nov 15 04:37:05 EST 1994
------------------------------
1994.11.14 /  prasad /  Going on & on theory vs expt (was Re: Really *proved* it ????
     
Originally-From: c1prasad@watson.ibm.com (prasad)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Going on & on theory vs expt (was Re: Really *proved* it ????
Date: 14 Nov 1994 19:52:40 GMT
Organization: IBM Watson

In article <ZM3VUSX.wdphoenix@delphi.com>, Leslie M. Barstow III
<wdphoenix@delphi.com> writes:
|> prasad <c1prasad@watson.ibm.com> writes:
|>  
|> >began with a "fact"?  Theory means understanding, and till one has that, "facts"
|> >are little more than curios and a lot less than engineering.
|>  
|> I will not disagree that theories form the basis of our understanding, but
|> your response indicates you would deny anyone finding facts which might disprove
|> a theory the decency of publishing in a respected journal until they themselves

Your conclusion about what I "would" is incorrect and unwarranted, besides being
quite irrelevant to the issue I was raising - viz. a theoretical standard missing
from over 150 years (more?) of free-energy observations.

|> had a workable theory.  Journals do not (usually) follow your standard - many

Yup, as many a supermarket checkout counter rack can tell!  Be my guest.
Enjoy Joe's gyroscopic particle theory.  BELIEVE, and your world shall be blessed
with lots of free energy.  There, that should take care of it!

You seem to miss the basic point consistently, don't you?  Sheesh, you *would*
encourage budding free-energists to forget about ever attempting to put any
serious effort at learning prior physics and finding out where it was wrong,
wouldn't you, now?  With believers like you, who needs skeptics?


-------
Lately, I've noticed that quite a few people don't give up until they've proven
the fallibility of the person they're arguing with.  I fail to understand why
this should be so, I'd feel much safer relying on another person's strength instead.

(c) prasad's opinions, 1994 - 5 years to turn of century discoveries!

cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenc1prasad cudlnprasad cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.09 /   /  Mars in a month?
     
Originally-From: <IO00656@MAINE.MAINE.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Mars in a month?
Date: Wed, 9 Nov 1994 15:03:00 EST
Organization: University of Maine System

     How quickly can a spacecraft travel to Mars using a He3-D fusion rocket?
Assume anything you want.
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenIO00656 cudln cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.10 / Ailsa Murphy /  Re: tornadoes
     
Originally-From: antm@spdcc.com (Ailsa Murphy)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.geo.meteorology,sci.physics.astro
Subject: Re: tornadoes
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 1994 07:17:50 GMT
Organization: S.P. Dyer Computer Consulting, Cambridge MA








sorry about this. my sister taught me how to kill text, but not how
to condense. i think that's tomorrow's lesson.
                                 -kate




















>Ever heard of an MRF???  It verified.  A week before we thought it might
>happen, five days before we knew it would, three days before we knew
>where and when, and the day before TV stations from Atlanta to the Twin Cities
>sent reporters to Kansas and Oklahoma cover it.
>
>The first tornado that day dropped 250 yards in front of me.  I'd call that
>pinpoint accuracy.  Danger?  Not much.  We could've gotten in another 100
>yards or so, but the other people in my vehicle were screaming their 
>displeasure over our location as it was.
      I can imagine. -kate>








>>>      Speaking of getting real, for all we know the inside of tornadoes
>>>could be full of flying Elvises since we cannot see through the wall of
>>>debris and the noise would totally drown out 'Heartbreak Hotel'.
>>>If professional chasers got a glimpse,  you think they'd report it?
>
>Guess what... some hoses don't have "walls", but the circulation is on
>the ground.  Some tornadoes have condensation (that's all it is, kids!)
>at the surface, but none aloft.  Some tornadoes are completely invisible
>until they pick up debris.
           Very true. Although what I experienced was more likely an
      immense dust devil {roughly 100 feet high with winds of perhaps
      60 mph [I'm guessing here, I didn't have any instrument with me]
      and definite cyclonic rotation} I am in a position to state that
      sometimes the only way you can track these visually is by seeing
      something that has no business flying ascend to the treetops.
      And the only way you know where it's going is by having the damn 
      thing go right over you. Not an experience I'd reccommend unless
      you *like* getting sand blasted.
                                     -kate




























  








-- 
What I know is I don't know		\think /   antm@
What I'm sure is only half of the story	 \pink/  spdcc.com
All I want is a house on the hill	  \  /  who might be
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenantm cudfnAilsa cudlnMurphy cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.14 / Harry Conover /  Re: Y. Arata DS-Cathode cold fusion
     
Originally-From: conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Y. Arata DS-Cathode cold fusion
Date: 14 Nov 1994 03:56:38 GMT
Organization: The Internet Access Company

jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:

: The main nuclear ash from a CF reaction is helium; an inert, harmless, non-
: radioactive gas. Radiation from CF can barely be detected with the best
: instruments in the world. 

Jed, if the radiation can barely be detected, and if absorbtion of 
radiation is the mechanism for generating the excess heat, how is any 
heat produced.  Put another way, what is the hypothetical 
mechanism for the conversion of CF produced nuclear energy to 
heat?

: Helium is difficult to detect anyway, and an experimenter must usually 
: choose between precise calorimetry and good detection. 

Jed, I have to offer a correction on this point.  The presence of even
minute quantities of Helium are extremely easy to detect.  This is
one of the reasons that Helium, not Hydrogen, is so widely employed for 
the detection of minute leaks in high-vacuum systems.  This equipment
has been commercially available for at least 30 years.

                                    Harry C.
  

cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenconover cudfnHarry cudlnConover cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.10 / Michael White /  Re: Mars in a month?
     
Originally-From: white@menext3.engr.ucdavis.edu. (Michael White)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Mars in a month?
Date: 10 Nov 1994 08:37:07 GMT
Organization: University of California, Davis

In article <94313.150300IO00656@MAINE.MAINE.EDU> <IO00656@MAINE.MAINE.EDU>  
writes:
>      How quickly can a spacecraft travel to Mars using a He3-D fusion  
rocket?
> Assume anything you want.

How about 3 days?  I am not sure if this is using He3-D as the fuel (as
I have only read the abstract) but you might want to check out "Muon
catalysed nuclear fusion spaceship propulsion system concept" by G.
Primeau (9 pgs, 6 refs)  AIAA paper 91-2535.  (Note: the 3 days are
when Mars is closest to Earth).  Anyway, you might enjoy reading it.

- Mike White
  white@halfdome.engr.ucdavis.edu
  Dept. Mech. and Aero. Eng.
  UC Davis, Ca

.........................................................................
   Definition of a Math Professor:
     Someone who says A, writes B, and means C when it should have been D.
.........................................................................
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenwhite cudfnMichael cudlnWhite cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.14 / Harry Conover /  Re: Y. Arata DS-Cathode cold fusion
     
Originally-From: conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Y. Arata DS-Cathode cold fusion
Date: 14 Nov 1994 04:11:25 GMT
Organization: The Internet Access Company

Leslie M. Barstow III (wdphoenix@delphi.com) wrote:

: In truth, about 80% of the experiments (those following Pons and Fleichmann's
: original design) are coming up with very similar results - heat and He, with
: either no or minimal radiation.

I agree, most are coming up with very similar results, i.e., negative.

Performing physics experiments without theoretical foundations opens
up all sorts of new and exciting possibilities, and curious results!  
Like Alchemy of years past: 'We don't need no stinking theory!'
Expect equivalent results.

                                            Harry C.

cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenconover cudfnHarry cudlnConover cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.15 / Dieter Britz /  RE: --cold fusion and PLASMOIDS
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: --cold fusion and PLASMOIDS
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 1994 08:26:32 GMT
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 1994 02:40:37 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway



Originally-From: edward@uhuru.uchicago.edu (Edward Lewis) in FD 2948:
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 1994 02:40:37 GMT

>              (c) 1994 by Edward Lewis All Rights Reserved

>        I've posted versions of this article several times on this
>newsgroup since December of 1993; and I've posted several articles
>about plasmoids and cold fusion on this newsgroup since January of
>1993.  If anyone wants to reproduce or resend this article, get my
>permission first.

Indeed you have, and when will you stop?

>                        PLASMOIDS AND COLD FUSION

>        W. Bostick produced that which he called plasmoids by
>discharging through electrodes.  Bostick wrote a paper that was titled
>"Plasmoids" that was published in SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN in 1957(1).  He
[...]
>                Based on the phenomena that Matsumoto produced, the
>traces, the pictures and descriptions of electrodes, the pictures of
[...]
>        I suspect that the round holes in electrodes that Matsumoto
>produced and the round holes and tunnels that Silver produced are due
[...]
>        Many other anomalous phenomena can be described as plasmoid
>phenomena.  For example, superconductivity seem to be similar to the
[....]
>to be a phenomena of the water converting to light and perhaps
>electricity.

          UN-altered REPRODUCTION and DISSEMINATION of this 
          IMPORTANT Information is ENCOURAGED. 

- I almost miss him.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.15 / Leslie Barstow /  Re: Griggs Device Can't Be Fusion
     
Originally-From: Leslie M. Barstow III <wdphoenix@delphi.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs Device Can't Be Fusion
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 94 02:24:38 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

"Alan M. Dunsmuir" <Alan@moonrake.demon.co.uk> writes:
 
>happen. But it hasn't happnend yet, and it's not going to happen, 
>because all your so-called successful CF experiments can't stand up to 
>the light and heat of peer analysis.
 
On the contrary - in addition to the Arata paper, papers have been published
in Fusion Technology (a publication of the Americal Nuclear Society, devoted
to hot fusion), Physics Letters A, and the Journal of Electroanalytical
Chemistry, to name a few (more exist - if you want more, take it to mail).
All of these are peer-reviewed, highly respected journals, and, since the
problems surrounding P&F's original experiment, you had better bet they've
been reviewing them pretty hard. (P&F have also recently been published
again, this time with very reproducable results on the cutting edge of the
field).
--
Leslie M. Barstow III    | Disclaimer:  We don't need no stinkin' disclaimer!
                         | Send Flames to alt.dev.null
                         | Organization:  Wandering Damage.
WDPHOENIX@delphi.com     | Project:  Try To Take Over The World.
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenwdphoenix cudfnLeslie cudlnBarstow cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.15 / Dieter Britz /  RE: Criminality
     
Originally-From: BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: Criminality
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 1994 08:31:44 GMT
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 1994 01:02:34 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway


Originally-From: 76570.2270@compuserve.com (Eugene Mallove) in FD 2947:
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 1994 01:02:34 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

>Great! I couldn't have said it better myself. Steve Jones, of all the
>incompetent bigots in the opposition to cold fusion research and development,
>is THE ONE who is most wallowing in moral turpitude. He proclaims his
>Godliness and charity -- while blaspheming Truth, Science, and Humanity all in
>one blow. All because of his monumental arrogance and envy that knows NO
>BOUNDS. (Right now, I am told,  he is sneaking around trying to kiss-up to
>Russ George and Stringham with offers of assistance, etc. -- anything to get
>on with something to one-up Pons and Fleischamnn!!) I have little doubt that
>the hellish experience in store for Dr. Jones right here on this earth may
>make him wish for the HELL of the afterlife. He will eat all his damned words
>-- slowly, one by one.

Gene, you undoubtedly have fine writing skills, as seen in your book "Fire 
from Ice". Here, however, you try so hard to apply them rhetorically, that the
writing might be called ham writing (in analogy to ham acting). Your intent is
below the belt, trying to find soft spots on Steve. I trust Steve has enough
resilience to see this as just that: ham writing.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenBRITZ cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.10 /  jonesse@physc2 /  Re: Y. Arata DS-Cathode cold fusion
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc2.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Y. Arata DS-Cathode cold fusion
Date: 10 Nov 94 16:09:24 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

In article <5o21bJY.jedrothwell@delphi.com>, 
jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:
> Barry Merriman <barry@redwood.math.ucla.edu> writes:
>  
>>But, consider: based on Arata's published reports, we should
>>conclude he has had reproducible CF under control for
>>4 years now---yet he still has not provided any evidence
>>that fusion or any other nuclear process is occuring. Odd,
>  
> Of course he has! You must not have read his papers. It is all there in
> black and white, the proof is beyond any argument. His latest paper is
> a gem, I must say. It is the best I have seen in a long time.
>  
> The proof, of course, is massive excess heat. As he says in the paper, this
> system could only generate 4 KJ of chemical energy, yet these cells have
> generated as much as *200 MJ*. You cannot argue with that! It has to be a
> nuclear process; no conceivable chemical storage system would allow it.

You're quite the salesman, Jed.  Yet I need to see nuclear products (or
secondary products) commensurate with the "massive excess heat."

Now, 200 MJ is indeed quite a claim.  Looking here at my table of nuclear
reactions, I find that roughly 10^12 reactions (order of magnitude; varies
with specific reaction of course) are needed to yield 1 Joule.  So 200 MJ
implies roughly 2 X 10^20 nuclear reactions (if this is indeed nuclear).
Of course, a nuclear reaction simply rearranges the neutrons and protons into
products that are somewhat lighter than the reacting nuclei, such that
   delta-mass = Energy/c^2.
So we must have nuclear products, lots of them.  Indeed, for 200 megajoules
which Arata boldly claims (taking Jed at his word...) means over 10^20
nuclear products -- alphas, neutrons, tritons, rhodium nuclei -- whatever
(these guys don't claim it's just d-d fusion anymore).

So, I can indeed argue with Jed's claim that "it has to be a nuclear process":
unless the nuclear products are there in large amounts (exactly according to
E/c^2), then it ain't nuclear!

So I looked up one of Arata's papers; it's in the proceedings of ICCF-3
(Nagoya meeting).  In his BF-3 counter (stop laughing, Dick :), he detects
roughly 40 neutrons per day, above background.  OOOPS, we need products
around 10^12/second, per watt of power -- Arata is way, way short.  Makes no
claims of any other nuclear product here.  

I'm waiting for someone to show me an x-ray spectrum from one of these expts.
You see, nuclear reactions release lots of energy -- plenty to excite the
metal atoms in the lattice, so that they *must* give off copious x-rays
(*assuming* the 'excess heat' is really nuclear in origin).  As I have argued
before, a characteristic secondary x-ray spectrum (don't give me dental film!)
would be demonstration of nuclear reactions.  Heat alone is not.

And *NO ONE* yet has published the characteristic x-ray spectrum I've been
requesting over the last several years.  Doesn't matter if it's fusion,
fission, di-neutron whatever -- if the energy is nuclear (i.e., MeV-scale or
even tens of keV) -- then x-rays will arise from excited metal atoms as
the products slow down in the lattice.  Can't get around it.

McKubre is one who actually looked for such an x-ray spectrum -- and did
not find the tell-tale secondary x-rays!  We have looked also:  no x-rays.
Nope, the proof is not in, Jed.  In fact, it looks real bad for the nuclear
notion.

> His calorimetry is superb, the excess power level is typically 80 to 90
> watts and it goes a lot higher than that for periods lasting 25 hours to
> 150 hours. What the hell do you think could cause an energy release on
> that scale?
>  
I think of the errors of Notoya, and of Takahashi, and of Miles and of Mills
-- don't get started on this again, please.  Just show us the x-rays or
other energy-tagged products of nuclear reaction(s), then we'll be persuaded.
Oh yes, products must satisfy E=delta-m*c^2, and Arata's just don't, by,
oh, about a trillion-fold too few.

> Don't bother saying it is a mistake and please don't imagine you can teach
> Arata anything about nuclear physics, either. He was busy making hot fusion
> reactors back in 1958 -- the first in Japan.

Uh, Jed, BF-3 counters are temperature sensitive, among other problems.
Arata has not made a good choice here.
And we've shown that 3He-type counters such as used at Los Alamos have
artifacts due to high-voltage breakdown.  No detectors are immune to
"mistakes."

Now Arata's neutron yields just grow linearly with time, no matter which of
five different runs you look at (in Nagoya Proc. paper).  This is worrisome:
cold fusion is supposed to have an onset, and to be affected by d/Pd loading,
or current density, or something.  His neutrons just come out regularly --
too regularly to be consistent with heat data, IMHO.  Frankly, one could
get such a neutron plot from thorium in the environment of D2O, with
2.6MeV gammas causing photodisintegration of the deuterons to make neutrons.
Regular as you please.  And this rate of neutron production is easy to get
with such a contamination.  And these neutrons won't show up at all when
he uses H2O (only control mentioned).

Has he looked for neutrons with zero current, using the same cells (D2O, etc.)
-- and seen no neutrons?  He doesn't say.  Incomplete controls for such 
problems, IMHO.  I guess even Arata has something to check.  Pardon me.

> The more I read this paper,
> the more I realize what a powerhouse he is. If you want to contact him, by the
> way, his address is Arata Hall, Osaka National University. They named the
> building in his honor.
>  
> - Jed

Wow.  An appeal to authority.  But where are the x-rays?

--Steven Jones
(p.s, will be in Washington, D>C. all next week, so won't be able to respond
then.)
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenjonesse cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.10 /  jonesse@physc2 /  Recipe for seeing sonoluminescence
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc2.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Recipe for seeing sonoluminescence
Date: 10 Nov 94 16:50:25 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

Someone asked about how to see sonoluminescence (SL), and I offer a belated
recipe.  It's guaranteed to work:

1.  Mix distilled water (2 parts) with glycerine (1 part, by volume).
2.  Fill a transparent glass (pyrex) beaker to a depth of a few cm
(I generally use about 60 ml in a 100 ml beaker).
3.  Chill mixture to around -5 degrees centigrade (put in a freezer -- works
fine).
4. Turn off the lights -- room needs to be very dark for best results.
    Adjust eyes for a few minutes.
5.  Insert the horn (tip) of a sonic disrupter into the mixture, to a depth
of a few millimeters.  (I use a jack-stand to move the beaker up and down;
gets better results than fixed system.)  With ultrasound tip off, you can
feel position of tip relative to beaker and center it in beaker.
DO NOT TOUCH SONICATOR TIP WHEN ON.  (Ouch! :()  )

6.  Turn on sonicator, bring intensity up and down to see the bluish glow
of SL as bubbles collapse.  That's it.
Note that bubbles form sometimes on the tip, sometimes in patterns away from
the tip, out in the fluid.  Bubbles form from air dissolved in the fluid,
due to the strong ultrasonic sound field.

OK, you'll need a sonic disruptor.  Biologists commonly have these; I used
to borrow an old one from our biology dept. here.  Now I'm using a Tekmar
Sonic Disruptor supplied by one Tom Droege (he's a great guy).

We tried pure H2O for a long time -- believe me, glycerine helps a great deal.
I've also found by experimentation that adding LiOH or acid (in fact, our
old 'Mother Earth Soup') increases the light output quite a bit.  Don't know
why -- an empirical result.  And the temperature dependence is pronounced:
the colder the better, at least down to -6 degrees centigrade.  (I just 
measure temp. with a glass-bulb thermometer.)

Thanks to Tom Matula for help in getting this to work so easily now.

Try it -- easy to set up and *see*!

--Steven Jones

cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenjonesse cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.10 /  jonesse@physc2 /  cancel <1994Nov10.164850.1876@physc2.byu.edu>
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc2.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cancel <1994Nov10.164850.1876@physc2.byu.edu>
Date: 10 Nov 94 16:50:57 -0700

cancel <1994Nov10.164850.1876@physc2.byu.edu>
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenjonesse cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.14 / Chris Parkinson /  Re: Breakthrough: Accidental CF
     
Originally-From: parky@ix.netcom.com (Chris Parkinson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Breakthrough: Accidental CF
Date: 14 Nov 1994 07:31:24 GMT
Organization: Netcom

In <3a6qvs$sjn@sundog.tiac.net> conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover) 
writes: 

deletions...
>Polish researchers working with a Waring Blender containing water,
>alcohol, and ice mixture accidently connected the 115V device to a 220V 
>supply.  The resulting overspeed is reported to have produced excess 
>heat and, ultimately, at the conclusion of the run, visible
>light and smoke.
deletions...
>Follow-on investigation remains on-hold pending the receipt of
>funding for a replacement reaction apparatus and the filing of
>patent applications.
>
>More information will be posted as it is received.
>
>                                    Harry C.
>
Well now that the cat is out of the bag lots of luck patenting it here 
in the US. Additionally I happen to have an extra blender that I'll hook 
up to my rheostat. 220, well I think the extra heat came from the motor 
burning up. Unless it had TEFC double coated wire, which I doubt, it 
would have made it to 150% without any problem but 200%, wow! I'll let 
the Net know what I come up with. Looks like 10,000 RPM should do the 
trick. Maybe thats the real reason my Alfa Romeo smoked out at 10,000 
RPM! :^)

CP

I have an Alfa that hits 160 after 5 gears with 8000 rpm shift points. 
But alas the body couldnt handle the stress. I'm currently rewelding the 
frame in the hopes I can become the Cops worst nightmare! Just kidding!
When it ran: 0 to 60 in 4.9 secs. Not bad for a 1.75 liter motor eh. 
Just think what a motor of that genre could do if it were CF driven. 
Maybe 200 mph? God, I'd love it!
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenparky cudfnChris cudlnParkinson cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.15 / Leslie Barstow /  Re: Y. Arata DS-Cathode cold fusion
     
Originally-From: Leslie M. Barstow III <wdphoenix@delphi.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Y. Arata DS-Cathode cold fusion
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 94 03:20:49 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

<jonesse@physc2.byu.edu> writes:
 
>which Arata boldly claims (taking Jed at his word...) means over 10^20
>nuclear products -- alphas, neutrons, tritons, rhodium nuclei -- whatever
>(these guys don't claim it's just d-d fusion anymore).
 
Well, let's see, 10^20 products, divided by 125 days  = 8*10^17.  You can
also apply that factor to an error you have later on in your dissection...
Also, what percentage of neutrons do you think Arata detected with his counter?
All of them?  I think not.  Most of them?  No, keep trying...
 
>requesting over the last several years.  Doesn't matter if it's fusion,
>fission, di-neutron whatever -- if the energy is nuclear (i.e., MeV-scale or
>even tens of keV) -- then x-rays will arise from excited metal atoms as
>the products slow down in the lattice.  Can't get around it.
 
Actually, there is a theory which does get around it.  You make a false
assumption here - that most of the products are caught by the lattice.
In fact, beta radiation is not characteristic of CF, alpha is rare at best,
'transmuted' atoms do not exit the reaction with much energy, and the other
non-radiation product, neutrons, are not highly interactive with anything in
the cell.  Gamma radiation has been detected, but is mostly NOT in the
standard hot fusion spectrum, and so seems to be invalid as evidence, despite
its existance.
 
>Now Arata's neutron yields just grow linearly with time, no matter which of
>five different runs you look at (in Nagoya Proc. paper).  This is worrisome:
 
Reaction variations could account for this, causing it to change into a
different reaction state.  I realize this is little more than an excuse, but
in the absence of Maxwell's Demon, I'm afraid we don't have the tools to
actively measure what's going on inside the cathode at all times.  Would you
like we should disount the heat of a dying star since we don't detect the
standard hydrogen hot fusion reaction occuring any more?
 
>Has he looked for neutrons with zero current, using the same cells (D2O, etc.)
>-- and seen no neutrons?  He doesn't say.  Incomplete controls for such 
>problems, IMHO.  I guess even Arata has something to check.  Pardon me.
 
I'm sure a scientist of Arata's stature calibrated his instruments before
starting.
You're pardoned - this time.
--
Leslie M. Barstow III    | Disclaimer:  We don't need no stinkin' disclaimer!
                         | Send Flames to alt.dev.null
                         | Organization:  Wandering Damage.
WDPHOENIX@delphi.com     | Project:  Try To Take Over The World.
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenwdphoenix cudfnLeslie cudlnBarstow cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.14 / Nick Maclaren /  Scientific debate [was Re: Griggs Device Can't Be Fusion]
     
Originally-From: nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk (Nick Maclaren)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Scientific debate [was Re: Griggs Device Can't Be Fusion]
Date: 14 Nov 1994 12:16:57 GMT
Organization: U of Cambridge, England


I am not going to enter into the great CF debate, but I do feel
that some people are (probably accidentally) simply winding Jed
Rothwell up.  When flame wars start, you can be certain that
genuine scientific discussion will be the first casualty.  Please
give well-meaning people their due, whether or not you agree with
them!  The following posting is just an example, and should not be
taken to mean that the poster was being especially unfair.



In article <MATT.94Nov13233831@physics2.berkeley.edu>, matt@physics2.ber
eley.edu (Matt Austern) writes:
|> In article <Ru7Us8G.jedrothwell@delphi.com> jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:
|> 
|> > This is incorrect. The possibility of measuring errors has been carefully
|> > investigated by some of the best engineers the State of Georgia, including
|> > some of our top talent from Georgia Tech, an internationally recognized
|> > institution. No evidence of measuring errors have been found, despite
|> > intensive efforts over a period of years.
|> 
|> This is the first time I've ever heard of an experimentalist claiming
|> not to have any measurement error.  At the risk of being blunt: if
|> someone claims to have performed an experiment without measurement
|> error, then he or she is incompetent.

The statement was "No evidence of measuring errors have been found",
which is not the same as saying there aren't any.  Even so, it is
pretty surprising and would confirm your view (if taken at face
value).

However, you are quoting out of context.  When people talk informally
about no evidence for measurement error, they usually mean that
none was found that could account for the observed effect.  That is
what I understood Jed Rothwell's reply to mean, and rereading his
posting confirms my belief - are you sure that I was wrong?

|> Responsible experimentalists don't pretend to have zero error:
|> instead, they try to understand exactly how large their errors are
|> (including all sources of statistical, systematic, and theoretical
|> error) and how those errors affect their results.  In my experience,
|> the section on error analysis often forms the bulk of an experimental
|> paper.

This is partially true.  They very rarely include all possible
sources, because doing so would make all complex research grind to
a halt.  I have never seen an experimental paper in any field where
I could not think of an unmentioned and plausible source of errors;
but then, people tell me I have a devious mind :-)


Nick Maclaren,
University of Cambridge Computer Laboratory,
New Museums Site, Pembroke Street, Cambridge CB2 3QG, England.
Email:  nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk
Tel.:  +44 1223 334761    Fax:  +44 1223 334679
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudennmm1 cudfnNick cudlnMaclaren cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.15 / Eugene Mallove /  TEMPLATE -2
     
Originally-From: 76570.2270@compuserve.com (Eugene Mallove)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: TEMPLATE -2
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 1994 12:39:52 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Template for messages

Gene, Gene, what have you done? For some years now, the 'cold fusion' 
propagandists have carefully built up the picture that the normally rare d-d
fusion branch leading to 4He is in fact the dominant one. This scenario needs
only two miracles: the dominance of this branch (quite unexplained), and how
the 23 MeV gammas get quietly absorbed as heat, explained by waving the hands
at some mumble mumble Moessbauer mumble. Thus, no gammas, neutrons or x-rays;
heat only. And with kilowatts of heat coming out of tiny bits of metal, who
can argue with this?

Now you go and spoil it all. If you use 3He (which so far noone has found) to
underpin the existence of 'cold fusion', you imply the 3He branch, one of the
two normal ones. This would very likely drag with it the other main one, 
tritium. So now you have two quite different miracles to explain: where are
those neutrons from the tritium branch, and where are the x-rays given off
from energetic tritons and protons crashing into the metal deuteride? In fact,
where is the tritium? Why did you do it, Gene? Things were settling in so
nicely with the 4He scenario. 

cudkeys:
cuddy15 cuden2270 cudfnEugene cudlnMallove cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.15 / Harry Conover /  Re: Get a grip, Steve
     
Originally-From: conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Get a grip, Steve
Date: 15 Nov 1994 02:37:56 GMT
Organization: The Internet Access Company

jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:
: Steve Jones <jonesse@physc2.byu.edu> again raises theoretical objections to
: try and disprove facts. He writes:
:  
:      "I'm waiting for someone to show me an x-ray spectrum from one of these
:      expts. You see, nuclear reactions release lots of energy -- plenty to
:      excite the metal atoms in the lattice, so that they *must* give off
:      copious x-rays. . ."
:  
: And bla, bla, bla, bla. He hopes that mere theory will make hard, proven facts
: go away. Here are the facts:
  
Poor Jed.  He's now lowered himself to hurling invectives at the actual
father of Cold Fusion.  

For what it's worth, Jed, Steve's work has done more to attract researcher to
investigate the 'possibility and mechanisms' of cold fusion than potentially
all other efforts combined.  Serious research continues, thank God, in spite
of the repeated litany of false claims and well publicized quack failures 
that seem to have monopolized press coverage in this field.  

Steve's early hypothesis regarding a possible connection between geothermal
processes and Hydrogen fusion, existence of some factor that
provides a catalyst for low temperature Hydrogen fusion, and evidence for
Hydrogen fusion found in volcanic eruptions all provide food for thought and
act as a stimulus for further research.  

Following Steve's monumental efforts, clown after clown has produced 
a continuum of ridiculous and unsubstantiated claims and bad science,
demonstrating only that greed and ego too often overwelm both scientific 
knowledge and common sense.

When it gets to the point, as it apparently now has, that any effect 
or phenomenon that an investigator is unable to adequately explain is 
labeled 'Cold Fusion', its time for the educated, thinking masses to
stand up and correctly shout 'Quack', 'Fraud', 'Lunatic', 'Alchemist',
'Incompetent', or other appropriate term.  

On the hand, any claim that is accompanied by any real evidence of the
occurrence of an 'interesting' event deserves further investigation.  
Here, I define 'real evidence' as something a bit more than "I think
that I got out more energy than I put in."  Evidence of a Hydrogen
fusion is damn easy to detect!  Fusion produces Helium.  Helium is
damned easy to detect!  Fusion produces radiation!  Radiation is damn
easy to detect!  Failing to detect both is fairly conclusive evidence
that no nuclear event occurred.

Of course, we could postulate a Hydrogen fusion reaction that produces
neither Helium or radiation.  However, when we do propose things
like this, realize that our discussion has departed from the realm
of science and physics, and moved into the world of magick and science
fiction.  

                                Harry C.

         
ps. I'm still waiting for your to give us your Error Analysis and 
Experimental Uncertaintly computations, Jed.  Without these figures, a 
reasonable person should assume that your measurements of excess heat 
fall into the range of experimental noise and are meaningless.  In spite 
of your thousands of words of pontification, rhetoric and insult, you've 
failed to provide anything useful in support the Grigg's claim of excess 
heat as being anything beyond an expected level of experimental error 
or uncertainty.  If you have these figures, please post them.  If you 
haven't, get them. Without this information, you're simply wasting your 
own time, while creating false hope in others.  
  



cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenconover cudfnHarry cudlnConover cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.10 / Ad aspera /  Re: tornadoes
     
Originally-From: JTCHEW@lbl.gov (Ad absurdum per aspera)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.geo.meteorology,sci.physics.astro,sci.aeronautics
Subject: Re: tornadoes
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 1994 16:16:29 GMT
Organization: Purely personal 'pinions

{Begging Mary's indulgence; note followups -jc}

[Sci.aeronautics moderator's note:  I have an e-friend who flies into
hurricanes and, as we're currently discussing on a mailing list,
Dryden participated in a program that used a B-57 to penetrate
downbursts and microbursts (JAWS, or Joint Adverse Weather Study)
years ago.  But I've never heard of anyone flying into a tornado
intentionally, although I remember a story of doing so inadvertently
with a Navy airplane in Approach some years ago.  MFS]

In article <8NOV199413272744@mars.lerc.nasa.gov>, 
edwlt12@mars.lerc.nasa.gov (Mike Jamison (ADF)) wrote:

> if I'm not mistaken, there's at least *one* plane that is used 
> to *fly through* tornados.  For scientific research, no less.  
> I believe it's a DC-3 [these planes weren't able to fly above 
> storms, so they were built strong enough to fly through them].

As the saying goes, "you ain't gettin' ME up in that thing!"

Hurricane penetrations are old hat, although apparently quite, er,
memorable to fly (various multi-engine recips and turboprops over the
years).  Several planes have been modified for penetration of the less
severe thunderstorms, usually for lightning research (e.g., suitably
reinforced powered sailplanes, and a NASA F-106).  And tornadoes have
been chased (not penetrated) with various aircraft, ranging from a
light recip, used, I think, by Stirling Colgate to tempt the angels,
to a business jet used by Fujita (I don't know at what altitude).

I don't know about a plane intentionally used to fly through
*tornadoes*, although a rather good science fiction story, "Funnel
Hawk," was predicated on that scenario.  I should imagine that
although the structural loadings are well within the realm of air
combat manuvering, the possibility of encountering extremely heavy
rains and/or flying debris without much "cushion" between you and the
turf in which to deal with the problem (to say nothing of unfavorable
conditions for either forced landing or ejection) would make this
extremely hazardous.

Joe
"Just another personal opinion from the People's Republic of Berkeley"
Disclaimer: Even if my employer had a position on the subject,
I probably wouldn't be the one stating it on their behalf.


--
Mary Shafer                                                   DoD #362 KotFR   
SR-71 Chief Engineer         NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, CA
shafer@ferhino.dfrf.nasa.gov                Of course I don't speak for NASA
 "A MiG at your six is better than no MiG at all."  Unknown US fighter pilot
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenJTCHEW cudfnAd cudlnaspera cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.14 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Griggs pyrometer
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs pyrometer
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 1994 13:04:48 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <ZM420y5.jedrothwell@delphi.com>,  <jedrothwell@delphi.com> wrote:
>schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz) and others have discussed
>pyrometers. He described rhenium filament type that he worked with which had
>error limits of +/- 100 K on the measurements in the region of 2000 K. He
>wonders what type I used to measure the Griggs Gadget surface temperature.
> 
>The answer is I have not got the foggiest idea. That is an interesting
>question, I will find out next time I am out there, I am sure it says in the
>user manual. Whatever it is, I am sure it works pretty well. The doubts
>raised by Bass and others are nonsense. Let me just add a few notes of
>reality to this discussion by describing the pyrometer and my method of
>using it.

     "I have not the foggiest idea ... Whatever it is, I am sure it 
     works pretty well."

     Good experimental technique, he noted dryly.  I see you're following
     in the footsteps of your heros P&F.

>Nearly every temperature measurement I took I verified with 2, 3, 4 or 5
>instruments. The only measurement for which I used the pyrometer exclusively
>was the GG surface temperature. That was simply because there were not other
>instruments attached to the GG surface on the days I was there. Bass and
>others make hysterical claims that I "relied upon" the pyrometer, even though
>I have explained a dozen times or more that I also used thermometers,
>thermocouples and thermistors. Bass is deliberately trying to confuse the
>issue.

     No, I believe *you* are confused.  You say above that it is the only
     instrument used for measuring the surface temperature, and you
     apparently claimed fusion in the metal on the basis of the surface
     temperature being _higher_ than the thermocouple-measured temperatures
     within.  You're quite a card, Jed.

     I believe that you have made deprecating comments on the 
     experimental technique of others in the past.  However, 
     it would be difficult to imagine that they would have made
     this kind of idiotic mistake.

>So what kind of gadget is this pyrometer? Technically, I cannot say. But I
>can say:
> 
>1. I tested it. It works.

     "It works."  I do believe that it gives you a _reading_, he noted
     dryly.

>2. It is a mass market instrument. It is as reliable as a camera or camera
>light exposure meter. HVAC engineers, electrical engineers, building
>inspectors, and other professionals rely on these pyrometers. The brochures
>show they work up to certain temperatures to within a few percent, and I
>was nowhere near the top of the scale. There can be no serious doubt that
>this type of pyrometer is accurate when it is properly used according to
>the instruction booklet; when the batteries are good; and when the user has
>enough common sense to check the pyrometer against thermometers.

     "There can be no serious doubt."   Hahahahahahahaha.
       
> Dale Bass
>and others will disagree, but what do they know? Dale thinks General
>Electric cannot calibrate their own electric meters,

     I strongly suspect that they calibrate them just fine.  On the 
     other hand, certain users may be using them incorrectly.

     Jed, you're a treat.  

                                dale bass

cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.14 / mitchell swartz /  Y. Arata DS-Cathode cold fusion
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Y. Arata DS-Cathode cold fusion
Subject: Re: Y. Arata DS-Cathode cold fusion
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 1994 13:37:21 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA


   In Message-ID: <3a6n5m$sjn@sundog.tiac.net>
Subject: Re: Y. Arata DS-Cathode cold fusion
Harry H Conover (conover@max.tiac.net) wrote:  

   jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:
   : The main nuclear ash from a CF reaction is helium; an inert, harmless, non-
   : radioactive gas. Radiation from CF can barely be detected with the best
   : instruments in the world. 
=con  Jed, if the radiation can barely be detected, and if absorbtion of 
=con  radiation is the mechanism for generating the excess heat, how is any 
=con  heat produced.  Put another way, what is the hypothetical 
=con  mechanism for the conversion of CF produced nuclear energy to 
=con  heat?

     Harry, perhaps Jed meant "ionizing radiation".
    Thermal heat, both optical and acoustic phonons have been discussed
here at length by several of us.


   : Helium is difficult to detect anyway, and an experimenter must usually 
   : choose between precise calorimetry and good detection. 
=con Jed, I have to offer a correction on this point.  The presence of even
=con minute quantities of Helium are extremely easy to detect.  This is
=con one of the reasons that Helium, not Hydrogen, is so widely employed for 
=con the detection of minute leaks in high-vacuum systems.  This equipment
=con  has been commercially available for at least 30 years.

   Perhaps Jed meant "difficult in the atmospheric background of helium]
to detect".
    The S/N, interferring signals, etc. have also been discussed here
at length by several of us.

  Best wishes.
          Mitchell Swartz  (mica@world.std.com)


cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.14 / Jim Nowotarski /  Re: Breakthrough: Accidental CF
     
Originally-From: jimn@ops1.bwi.wec.com (Jim Nowotarski)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Breakthrough: Accidental CF
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 1994 13:37:48 GMT
Organization: Westinghouse Electronic Systems

In article <3a73oc$qpm@ixnews1.ix.netcom.com> parky@ix.netcom.com
(Chris Parkinson) writes:
>From: parky@ix.netcom.com (Chris Parkinson)
>Subject: Re: Breakthrough: Accidental CF
>Date: 14 Nov 1994 07:31:24 GMT


>deletions...
 Looks like 10,000 RPM should do the 
>trick. Maybe thats the real reason my Alfa Romeo smoked out at 10,000 
>RPM! :^)

Nah. I think it had something to do with the neutron flux :-)
>CP

>I have an Alfa that hits 160 after 5 gears with 8000 rpm shift points. 
>But alas the body couldnt handle the stress. I'm currently rewelding the 
>frame in the hopes I can become the Cops worst nightmare! Just kidding!
>When it ran: 0 to 60 in 4.9 secs. Not bad for a 1.75 liter motor eh. 
>Just think what a motor of that genre could do if it were CF driven. 
>Maybe 200 mph? God, I'd love it!
Great. Maybe you can get Cherenkov radiation in the exhaust!
I can just see it now, roaring down the highway with that lovely blue glow
coming out of the pipes...........


Jim Nowotarski
 -------------------
usual disclaimers...
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenjimn cudfnJim cudlnNowotarski cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.10 / Thomas Zemanian /  Re: Griggs testing
     
Originally-From: ts_zemanian@pnl.gov (Thomas S. Zemanian)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs testing
Date: 10 Nov 1994 17:14:39 GMT
Organization: Battelle PNL

In article <8NOV199413211657@mars.lerc.nasa.gov>,
edwlt12@mars.lerc.nasa.gov (Mike Jamison (ADF)) wrote:

[deletia]

> 
> A fairly simple test would be the following:
> 
> Use a 2 channel oscope to measure the voltage across and the current through
> one leg of the 3 phase output.  A shunt resistor can be used to convert
> I to V [or an inductive probe can be used].
> 
> If there are no indications of high frequency ringing, I'd trust the power
> meter.  If, however, there's a lot of higher frequency junk on the line, I
> would not trust the power meter.
> 
> Tom may or may not be able to get his hands on a fancy scope, that can
> multiply two waveforms together...  Might have to do it in his head :-)
> 

Maybe we could arrange to borrow one from the folks at Ga Tech.  They might
be interested in participating in the visit as well, since Jed has said
they've already shown some interest in the device.

--Tom

--
The opinions expressed herein are mine and mine alone.  Keep your filthy
hands off 'em! 
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudents_zemanian cudfnThomas cudlnZemanian cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.15 / Harry Conover /  Re: Breakthrough: Accidental CF
     
Originally-From: conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Breakthrough: Accidental CF
Date: 15 Nov 1994 01:29:45 GMT
Organization: The Internet Access Company

prasad (c1prasad@watson.ibm.com) wrote:

: Was that a troll?

No.  Trolls hang out under bridges.  This was more like one of the Irish 
'Little People'.

                                          Harry C.

;-)

ps.  A little humor, even if bad, often helps to retain both sanity and
     perspective. 
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenconover cudfnHarry cudlnConover cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.10 / Mike Jamison /  Re: Griggs testing
     
Originally-From: edwlt12@mars.lerc.nasa.gov (Mike Jamison (ADF))
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs testing
Date: 10 Nov 1994 12:46 EDT
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center

In article <ts_zemanian-101194101730@ts_zemanian.pnl.gov>, ts_zemanian@p
l.gov (Thomas S. Zemanian) writes...
>In article <8NOV199413211657@mars.lerc.nasa.gov>,
>edwlt12@mars.lerc.nasa.gov (Mike Jamison (ADF)) wrote:
> 
>[deletia]
> 
>> 
>> A fairly simple test would be the following:
>> 
>> Use a 2 channel oscope to measure the voltage across and the current through
>> one leg of the 3 phase output.  A shunt resistor can be used to convert
>> I to V [or an inductive probe can be used].
>> 
>> Tom may or may not be able to get his hands on a fancy scope, that can
>> multiply two waveforms together...  Might have to do it in his head :-)
>> 
> 
>Maybe we could arrange to borrow one from the folks at Ga Tech.  They might
>be interested in participating in the visit as well, since Jed has said
>they've already shown some interest in the device.

If this is the case, hopefully they'll have something like a Fluke Scopemeter
they could loan out.  Since it's battery operated, it's completely decoupled
from external power [we had a fancy Gould scope that was unable to read
3 phase 480V lines correctly until it was decoupled from the 120V power, 
via an isolation transformer and floating its ground - a procedure I don't
recommend.  The Scopemeter had no such trouble, since its grounds are 
already floating].

Also, the Scopemeter is plenty fast, with a 25 megasample/second acquisition
rate.
> 
>--Tom
> 
>--
>The opinions expressed herein are mine and mine alone.  Keep your filthy
>hands off 'em! 

Mike Jamison

"Scientific research consists in seeing what everyone else has seen, but
thinking what no one else has thought"

						-A. Szent-Gyorgyi
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenedwlt12 cudfnMike cudlnJamison cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.10 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Jed Rothwell the finest
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Jed Rothwell the finest
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 94 12:45:44 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

I appreciate the sentiments. But you should be applauding the cold fusion
scientists, not me. Hundreds of them have done magnificient work. They are the
heros. They have triumphed over hostile opposition, lack of funding, and
anti-science hysteria. You should be applauding Arata, Zhang, Storms, McKubre,
Passel, Smedley, Mizuno, Enyo, Gozzi, DeNinno, Kunimatsu, Takahashi, Bockris,
Miles, Bush, Cravens, Kucherov, Karabut, Savvatimova, Claytor, Notoya, Dufour,
Forsely, Griggs, Stringham, George, Liaw, Leibert, Srinivasan, Hagelstein,
Smullin, Forsley, Ikegami, Mills, Okamoto, Oyama, Hirasawa, Miley, Batyrbakov,
Melich, Hansen, Letts, Tinsley, Huggins, Will and all the others. First and
foremost give credit to Stan Pons and Martin Fleischmann. Hooray for all of
them!
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy10 cudenjedrothwell cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.15 / Leslie Barstow /  Re: Going on & on theory vs expt (was Re: Really *proved* it ????
     
Originally-From: Leslie M. Barstow III <wdphoenix@delphi.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Going on & on theory vs expt (was Re: Really *proved* it ????
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 94 04:06:10 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

prasad <c1prasad@watson.ibm.com> writes:
 
>|> your response indicates you would deny anyone finding facts which might disprove
>|> a theory the decency of publishing in a respected journal until they themselves
>
>Your conclusion about what I "would" is incorrect and unwarranted, besides being
>quite irrelevant to the issue I was raising - viz. a theoretical standard missing
>from over 150 years (more?) of free-energy observations.
 
I am glad to hear - your original message tone was unclear on this.
 
Re: the issue - I agree, to a point.  Free energy research has left much to be
desired in the way of (workable) theory.  More to the point, though, it has also
left much to be desired in the way of reproducability, and without at least
some of that, any theory you may come up with is guessing at best.
 
>|> had a workable theory.  Journals do not (usually) follow your standard - many
>
>Yup, as many a supermarket checkout counter rack can tell!  Be my guest.
 
Funny, I thought journals were usually to be found on the desks of those who
used them and in college libraries under headings such as "Physics Letters A"
(oh, I remember that section well in my college years...)
I hadn't realized WWN was a journal - thanks for the info :)
 
>You seem to miss the basic point consistently, don't you?  Sheesh, you *would*
>encourage budding free-energists to forget about ever attempting to put any
>serious effort at learning prior physics and finding out where it was wrong,
>wouldn't you, now?  With believers like you, who needs skeptics?
 
No, I have not missed the point entirely - you aimed the point poorly and I
had to go out of my way to locate it.
I never said any of that.  What I DID say was that theories could be flawed,
and that if a reliable experimental fact violated that theory, then the
theory should be called into question (assume here that reliable means
verified and checked for error, many times).
 
With believers like me, who needs skeptics indeed.   (define like me)
 
>Lately, I've noticed that quite a few people don't give up until they've proven
>the fallibility of the person they're arguing with.  I fail to understand why
>this should be so, I'd feel much safer relying on another person's strength instead.
>
>(c) prasad's opinions, 1994 - 5 years to turn of century discoveries!
 
Perhaps, if they are in an (at least semi-) informative argument, it is to
gain understanding, and to help others gain understanding, of what it is they
are
arguing about.  In this manner, both become stronger people.
 
(nc) this statement may be freely distributed :)
--
Leslie M. Barstow III    | Disclaimer:  We don't need no stinkin' disclaimer!
                         | Send Flames to alt.dev.null
                         | Organization:  Wandering Damage.
WDPHOENIX@delphi.com     | Project:  Try To Take Over The World.
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenwdphoenix cudfnLeslie cudlnBarstow cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.14 / Thomas Zemanian /  Re: Griggs Device Can't Be Fusion
     
Originally-From: ts_zemanian@pnl.gov (Thomas S. Zemanian)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs Device Can't Be Fusion
Date: 14 Nov 1994 15:57:39 GMT
Organization: Battelle PNL

In article <pO0X0Y3.jedrothwell@delphi.com>, jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:

> I accidentally wrote:
>  
>      "Arata's 3000-day long, 200 megajoule excess . . ."
>  
> That should be 3000 hours, not days. It is 125 days. 200 megajoules is the
> correct number.
>  

Okay, that's an average of 20 watts.  What was the input power during this
run?

--Tom

--
The opinions expressed herein are mine and mine alone.  Keep your filthy
hands off 'em! 
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudents_zemanian cudfnThomas cudlnZemanian cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.08 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Breakthrough: Accidental CF
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Breakthrough: Accidental CF
Date: Tue, 08 Nov 1994 11:03 -0500 (EST)

conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover) writes:
 
-> Polish researchers working with a Waring Blender containing water,
-> alcohol, and ice mixture accidently connected the 115V device to a 220V
-> supply.  The resulting overspeed is reported to have produced excess
-> heat and, ultimately, at the conclusion of the run, visible
-> light and smoke.
 
This sounds pretty fishy to me.  The newer blenders are electronically
controlled, and voltage should have minimal effect on RPM.  What I would expect
is that the electronics or motor or both would quickly overheat giving off
heat, flashes of light and smoke.  Sounds to me like the blender burned up,
which is exactly what I would expect under those conditions.
 
-> Due to a instrumentation limitations, precise energy yields
-> remain unknown, however, estimates based upon state-change
-> indications suggest a yield as high as 1,200-Joules.  Researchers
-> reported that the fusioning fluid retained a normal taste, precluding
-> chemical reactions as a mechanism for the excess heat.
 
1200 Joules.  That is the amount of energy a 60 watt bulb consumes in about 20
seconds.  With a blender which would normally pull hundreds of watts, this
could not be detected without good instrumentation.  With an ice water mixture,
the mixture would remain at the melting point of ice.
 
                                                                Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy08 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.14 / Stephen Evans /  Re: FYI: MIT work on 'Mills Cells'
     
Originally-From: evans@rex.pfc.mit.edu (Stephen W. Evans)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: FYI: MIT work on 'Mills Cells'
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 1994 13:35:38 -0500
Organization: MIT Plasma Fusion Center

In article <39u9rm$jsu@newsbf01.news.aol.com>, wrgoodii@aol.com (WRGoodII)
wrote:

> You might want to read an article in "MIT Tech Talk" (Nov 9 1994) entitled
> "Graduate Student Envisions Power for Spacecraft from Cold Fusion"

A mistitled article if ever there was one.  Even the student they are 
interviewing says that it isn't fusion and is more likely an ionic
reaction.  It is NOT an endorsement by MIT of cold fusion.

--- Steve

Stephen W. Evans                #4499 Caligula (GEnie)
MIT Plasma Fusion Center        #4210 Kaligula (Delphi)
evans@rex.pfc.mit.edu           #4548 Kiligula (CRIS)
Work : (617)253-5471            Home : (617)625-8086

pgp public key available by fingering evans@rex.pfc.mit.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenevans cudfnStephen cudlnEvans cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.15 / David Cyganski /  Re: Recipe for seeing sonoluminescence
     
Originally-From: cyganski@ee.WPI.EDU (David Cyganski)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Recipe for seeing sonoluminescence
Date: 15 Nov 1994 21:14:53 GMT
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, MA

Steve Jones' most recent posting seems to contain supporting evidence
for a conjecture that I emailed to Steve and also to Bill Page on 
September 29 of this year.  A copy of the note I mailed appears below
together with another note it included which in turn was originally mailed
to Terry Bollinger last year.

Terry had been looking for justification for his notion of a "wedge"
process in the the formation of Sonoluminescence.  I suggested that a 
sequence of momentum transfers between molecules with optimized mass
ratios could be just the cause he was looking for.  Having seen that Steve
was now investigating SL, I forwarded that note to him and included the
conjecture that introducing a Lithium impurity would increase the SL output
if this phenonena was taking place.  In his recent posting we find:

  From: jonesse@physc2.byu.edu
  Date: 10 Nov 94 16:50:25 -0700
  Distribution: world
  Organization: Brigham Young University
  Summary: Generating multi-bubble sonoluminescence

  "We tried pure H2O for a long time -- believe me, glycerine helps a
  great deal.  I've also found by experimentation that adding LiOH or
  acid (in fact, our old 'Mother Earth Soup') increases the light output
  quite a bit.  Don't know why -- an empirical result."


I would now like to suggest that Steve try the second "acceleration stage"
that was suggested in my note and try adding both a Lithium and a Sodium
impurity. I would be very interested in seeing if my idea continues to
play out along these lines.

David

Attached copies of previous email from September:
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve,

Your recent posting on sonolum. has provoked me to find a copy of
a note that I sent to Terry Bollinger last year during the time we
were discussing his "wedge" theory aggessively on s.p.f.  I believe
that this note suggests a very simple experiment that you can conduct
in your current experimental work.

Terry had been suggesting some kind of wedge mechanism might be responsible
for generating highly energetic nuclei in the collapsing bubble of a
stationary sonolum. experiment.  I responded that I was aware of another
very simple mechanism that could easily be a play and that I had recently
demonstrated this mechanism in the backyard to my neighbor's children with
a variety of sports related balls.

Suppose you stack a tennis ball on top of basketball and drop the two
together, from eye level, carefully so that the tennis ball remains on 
top of the basketball throughout the drop. Most people are quite surprised
by the fact that the tennis ball rebounds from the top of the basketball
and proceeds to "shoot" upwards to a height of nearly 20 feet, while the
basketball hardly rebounds from the ground.  While much more difficult,
if you stack a light rubber ball (the kind you use to play jacks) on top
and drop all three, the small rubber ball can attain a height of nearly
60 feet.  The boy's next door and I, after many trials, finally succeeded
in sending the small rubber ball over the top of the house while having
dropped the stack from only a standing position.

In the attached note below, that I sent Terry last year, I give the analysis
for the momentum transfer that gives rise to this simple but dramatic
effect.  Note that the  effect is maximized for a ball to ball mass ratio
of 1:3 for two balls and 1:2:6 for three balls.

Now suppose that the fluid in the sonolum. experiment was a cocktail of
molecules of atomic weights that progressed in a 1:3 or 1:2:6 fashion.  
We can then imagine the front of the collapsing bubble to give rise, with
a certain probability, the approximate alignment of molecules in this
progression.  At the moment of collapse, then, the lightest constituents
would rebound towards the still oncoming material at large energies,
in effect obtaining a large simulated amplification of the already
energetic collapse dynamics.

What would such a cocktail look like for one of your experiments?
If you are currently using D20 as the working fluid, then you would
wish to spike the fluid with something of a.w. 6.  The easiest
spike to obtain that approximately fits the bill would be Lithium at
a.w. 6.94.  

In a two stage system we would want to use something like H, D, Lithium,
or D, Helium, Carbon to get a good optimum progression.  Or, we can
accept a little non-optimality of the energy transfer and use the
progression 1:3:9. In this case not all the energy of the second ball
is transfered to the lightest, but instead, 49/51 of it is transfered.
Thus for light stages of D, Lithium one would wish for a heaviest stage
with a.w. near 21, for which Na suggests itself at a.w. 22.98.  

Since Lithium has come up before in cold fusion experiments you have
conducted, and since Na is readily available in the form of table salt,
I would like to suggest that these be added to a D20 sonolum. experiment
and the resulting intensity of light pulses be compared to that of the
unspiked experiment.

David

========================================================================
Terry,

As I promised, here are the equations related to the momentum transfer
for a pair of stacked balls that are dropped together.  Initially, the
two stacked objects fall with the same velocity. On impact the lower ball
reverses its direction but maintains the same speed.  The second
ball can be considered as now striking the lower ball at a matching
speed but opposite direction. 

Given two objects with masses m1 and m2, suppose that m1 and m2 begin with
equal but opposite initial velocities v1=-v2=v. After colliding, suppose 
the objects now have velocties u1 and  u2.  By  conservation of
momentum and conservation of energy we have respectively:

m1 v1 + m2 v2 = m1 u1 + m2 u2
and
m1 v1^2 + m2 v2^2 = m1 u1^2 + m2 u2^2

Let the mass ratio be m2/m1 =r and the final velocity to initial velocity
ratios be u1/v = p1 and u2/v = p2. The conservation equations can be
rearranged into the forms:

(1-r) = p1 + r p2
and
(1+r) = p1^2 + r p2^2

We can eliminate p1 from this pair of equations to obtain the single
equation

r^2 - 3r + (r^2+r)p2^2 + 2(r^2-r)p2 = 0.

Solving for p2 we obtain two roots representing the case of a collision
and the case of a miss.  That corresponding to the collision is:

p2 = (3-r)/(r+1).

Thus, the final velocity of m2 is given by u2 = (3-r) v / (r+1).

For the value of r = 3 we have the condition of maximum energy transfer
from m1 into m2 in which case u1 = 0, m1 comes to a complete halt, and
u2 = 2 v, m2 proceeds in the direction initially taken by the heavier
m1 but at twice its velocity, or with four times its original kinetic
energy (having obtained the kinetic energy of m1 which was three times
that of m1 initially).

Thus we see how the stacked pair of balls upon being dropped can result
in the upper ball achieving a height (potential energy) four times that
of the drop.

As mentioned in my last note this works for multiple stages and I have
tried it for the three stacked ball version. 
If you want to try this, be careful,
the third ball comes off at an unpredictable angle and terrible velocity!
(Since it now has 13 times the energy it did upon being dropped!)

Note also that the acceleration of the light ball is quite high at the
moment of the reversal of direction.  This might explain the radiation
at the moment initiation of cavity collapse mentioned by someone on
the net today.

I hope that this is of some assistance,
David Cyganski
Prof. Electrical and Computer Engineering
Worcester Polytechnic Institute
  



cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudencyganski cudfnDavid cudlnCyganski cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.15 / Marc Foster /  Re: tornadoes
     
Originally-From: mfoster@alliant.backbone.uoknor.edu (Marc Foster)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.geo.meteorology
Subject: Re: tornadoes
Date: 15 Nov 1994 05:49:00 GMT
Organization: University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK

In article <Cz6yEJ.MM5@eskimo.com>, Robert Dinse <nanook@eskimo.com> wrote:
>In article <3a035t$879@romulus.ucs.uoknor.edu>, mfoster@alliant.backbon
.uoknor.edu (Marc Foster) writes:
>> say you are full of shit.  He has done as much to expand ideas in 
>
>     I read this group because I am interested in fusion.  I am not at all
>interested in the high degree of back biting that goes on here between the
>different camps (hot vs cold fusion, old tokamaks verses more modern design
>reactors, etc).

You read sci.geo.meteorology because you are interested in fusion?  I think
not.  This whole thing has been getting crossposted to sci.physics.fusion
and sci.geo.meteorology in a weak attempt by the originator to merge the
two (very unrelated) fields.

>     Is the type of garbage like telling people they are full of shit really
>necessary?  Is there a better (perhaps moderated) conference for fusion where
>99% of the messages aren't personal attacks and people generally act like
>they've survived and progressed from adolescence?

Well, there's been two groups of people reading this thread:  weather people
and fusion people.  I doubt you'd claim him as one of yours, but it was
a fusion person that started this.  He got over into our group and started 
slamming very established work on the field of tornadoes (and the people
who did that work).  Someone needed to set him straight, and since I'm not
personally or professionally connected to the people I was defending, I
took it upon myself to tell him off.

Marc 
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenmfoster cudfnMarc cudlnFoster cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.15 / Ron Schudalla /  Re: tornadoes
     
Originally-From: schudall@microwave.msfc.nasa.gov (Ron Schudalla)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.geo.meteorology,sci.physics.astro
Subject: Re: tornadoes
Date: 15 Nov 1994 18:20:05 GMT
Organization: NASA/MSFC

In article <3aajis$rei@oz.plymouth.edu>,
s_freema@oz.plymouth.edu (Shawn M. Freeman) 
|> 
|> <A finally sensible dicussion about this deleted for brevity)
|>
|> IMO this discussion is senseless to the basics of physics. Welcome to
|> my kill file 8).
|> 
|> 
|> Later
|> Shawn
|> 

But wait....you forgot to discuss triboluminescence!

-- 
*******************************************************************
*								  *
*	Ron Schudalla / HUGHES STX    Mission to Planet Earth -   *
*       Global Hydrology and	      NOAA/NASA SSM/I		  *
*         Climate Center, Rm. B104	   Pathfinder Project 	  *
*	977 Explorer Boulevard	      			          *
*	Huntsville, AL 35806					  *
*	PH: 205-922-5792	      Guitarist and Golfer of	  *
*	FAX: 205-922-5930             modest ability.....         *
*								  *
*		email: schudall@microwave.msfc.nasa.gov		  *
*								  *
*	"It's 106 miles to Chicago. We got a full tank o' gas,	  *
*	 half a pack o' cigarettes, it's dark out, and we're	  *
*	 wearing sunglasses."  "Hit it!"			  *
*								  *
*******************************************************************
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenschudall cudfnRon cudlnSchudalla cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.14 /  prasad /  Re: Breakthrough: Accidental CF
     
Originally-From: c1prasad@watson.ibm.com (prasad)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Breakthrough: Accidental CF
Date: 14 Nov 1994 20:02:36 GMT
Organization: IBM Watson

In article <3a73oc$qpm@ixnews1.ix.netcom.com>, parky@ix.netcom.com
(Chris Parkinson) writes:
|> Well now that the cat is out of the bag lots of luck patenting it here 
|> in the US. Additionally ...

I'd think it's a lot worse abroad than here in the US.
You get a 1 year's time after first publication here.
Abroad, you don't.

cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenc1prasad cudlnprasad cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.14 /  prasad /  Re: Breakthrough: Accidental CF
     
Originally-From: c1prasad@watson.ibm.com (prasad)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Breakthrough: Accidental CF
Date: 14 Nov 1994 20:03:34 GMT
Organization: IBM Watson

|> conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover) writes:
|>  
|> -> Polish researchers working with a Waring Blender containing water,
|> -> alcohol, and ice mixture accidently connected the 115V device to a 220V
|> -> supply.  The resulting overspeed is reported to have produced excess
|> -> heat and, ultimately, at the conclusion of the run, visible
|> -> light and smoke.
|>  

Was that a troll?
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenc1prasad cudlnprasad cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Wed Nov 16 04:37:05 EST 1994
------------------------------
1994.11.15 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Griggs pyrometer
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs pyrometer
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 1994 20:05:05 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <ZK1X8fP.jedrothwell@delphi.com>,  <jedrothwell@delphi.com> wrote:
>crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
> 
>     "You say above that it [the pyrometer] is the only instrument used for
>     measuring the surface temperature. . ."
> 
>That is incorrect. I did not say that, and it is not true. I measured the
>surface temperature of the steel drum, the separation tank and other equipment
>which was equipped with thermometers and thermocouples. 

     It *is* correct, and you *did* say that.  You left out the part
     where we were discussing the surface temperature of the rotor
     housing.

>     " . . . and you apparently claimed fusion in the metal on the basis of
>     the surface temperature being _higher_ than the thermocouple-measured
>     temperatures within.  You're quite a card, Jed."
> 
>This is 100% pure, unadulterated nonsense. I cannot imagine where or how Dale
>dreams up this kind of garbage.

     Didn't dream it.  Apparently your evil twin was involved.

     Didn't think anyone would actually call you on your experimental
     deficiencies, Jed?  And heck, we've just scratched the surface.
> 
>I wrote: "Dale thinks General Electric cannot calibrate their own electric
>meters  . . ." He responded:
> 
>     "I strongly suspect that they calibrate them just fine.  On the other
>     hand, certain users may be using them incorrectly."
> 
>This cannot be true. The G.E. Dranetz power meter readings have been checked
>against many other meters at Hydro Dynamics and at customer sites. The same
>readings were seen in the electric company billing meters, meters brought in
>by consulting engineers, and customer-owned meters. Furthermore, as I pointed
>out time after time, the Dranetz agrees with the Eaton torque sensor
>(dynamometer). That is to say, the dynamometer shows exactly as much
>mechanical power delivered from the electric motor as you would expect, given
>the known inefficiencies shown in the manufacturers spec sheet for that motor.

     You're an idiot Jed.  There are several calibrations involved here,
     and I know durn well that the dynamometer is only good to about 20%
     on the best of days.  I suppose you didn't, though.

     This is rich.  Mr. Pyrometer explaining how the 'ironclad' 
     experiments work.

                               dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.15 / Prem Sobel /  Re: Griggs Device Can't Be Fusion
     
Originally-From: prem@ix.netcom.com (Prem Sobel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs Device Can't Be Fusion
Date: 15 Nov 1994 14:07:27 GMT
Organization: Netcom

In <BE1V8RO.wdphoenix@delphi.com> Leslie M. Barstow III 
<wdphoenix@delphi.com> writes: 

>Leslie M. Barstow III    | Disclaimer:  We don't need no stinkin' 
disclaimer!
>                         | Send Flames to alt.dev.null

Better still save all the heat of the flames. Don'y you people
realize that all the flames in this group IS CF :)

Prem
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenprem cudfnPrem cudlnSobel cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.15 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Griggs Device Can't Be Fusion
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs Device Can't Be Fusion
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 1994 19:47:53 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <546VUk2.jedrothwell@delphi.com>,  <jedrothwell@delphi.com> wrote:

>hell cannot have seen a cold fusion experiment. You could not "replicate"
>one "all over the world" in weeks, or even months, even if you had the whole
>U.S. Defense budget to work with.

      One hundred billion dollars would not suffice to replicate
      a cold fusion experiment all over the world in several months? 

      I guess that would basically be the definition of 'irreproducable'.

                                 dale bass

cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.15 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Y. Arata DS-Cathode cold fusion
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Y. Arata DS-Cathode cold fusion
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 1994 19:52:21 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <Bo4VspG.wdphoenix@delphi.com>,
Leslie M. Barstow III  <wdphoenix@delphi.com> wrote:
>Harry H Conover <conover@max.tiac.net> writes:
> 
>>I agree, most are coming up with very similar results, i.e., negative.
> 
>Umm, how do you consider excess heat and Helium production as negative
>results?
> 
>did the Helium just migrate through the sealed metal cell wall? 

     In case you weren't aware, Helium migrates through everything,
     walls included.

                           dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.15 / Matt Kennel /  Re: Griggs Device Can't Be Fusion
     
Originally-From: mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs Device Can't Be Fusion
Date: 15 Nov 1994 19:28:53 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

Alan M. Dunsmuir (Alan@moonrake.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: I guess you get your kicks out of seeing youself as a romantic, latter 
: day Galileo (watch out for the Crackpot Index!) battling the Evil Empire 
: of erroneous dogma and nurturing truth which will win in the end.

Let's all remember that Galileo's reasoning and experiments were profoundly
and immediately convincing to the "scientific" intellectual community.  It
was only the Roman Catholic Church {not quite regarded as the bastion of
progressive enlightenment, you know} that objected; and that was for serious
and fundamental ideological concerns of the place of faith versus reason.
The church saw itself as literally the defenders of the faith.

{don't give me any baloney about steve jones, alright....}
--
-Matt Kennel  		mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu
-Institute for Nonlinear Science, University of California, San Diego
-*** AD: Archive for nonlinear dynamics papers & programs: FTP to
-***     lyapunov.ucsd.edu, username "anonymous".
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenmbk cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.11 / Chris Parkinson /  Jed Rothwell and all the others, you are the finest
     
Originally-From: parky@ix.netcom.com (Chris Parkinson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Jed Rothwell and all the others, you are the finest
Date: 11 Nov 1994 05:44:22 GMT
Organization: Netcom

In <Jmy38cQ.jedrothwell@delphi.com> jedrothwell@delphi.com writes: 

>
>I appreciate the sentiments. But you should be applauding the cold 
>fusion scientists, not me. Hundreds of them have done magnificient 
>work. They are the heros. They have triumphed over hostile opposition, 
>lack of funding, and anti-science hysteria. 
GREAT STUFF!!!

deletions

>Jed

Dear Jed and all involved in Cold Fusion,

Jed, you are right but I still like all that you have done. And another 
thing Whoa! Look at all those names. Like I said you are the finest as 
you even know all (or at least most) who are involved.

So here goes, 
TO:First and foremost Stan Pons and Martin Fleischmann.
Arata, Zhang, Storms, McKubre, Passel, Smedley, Mizuno, Enyo, Gozzi, 
DeNinno, Kunimatsu, Takahashi, Bockris, Miles, Bush, Cravens, Kucherov, 
Karabut, Savvatimova, Claytor, Notoya, Dufour, Forsely, Griggs, 
Stringham, George, Liaw, Leibert, Srinivasan, Hagelstein, Smullin, 
Forsley, Ikegami, Mills, Okamoto, Oyama, Hirasawa, Miley, Batyrbakov, 
Melich, Hansen, Letts, Tinsley, Huggins, Will and all the others, mega 
thankyou's to all of you who are involved in Cold Fusion.
 
Your work is dangerous from the point of view of all who desire to 
attack you with it. In that sense you are the couragous generals that 
will make these battles come into your favor. Thank you again for your 
stubborness in not letting popular opinion sway your genius.

Regards,
Chris Parkinson

PS. If I've missed any one please E-Mail me as I will repost this in the 
    future. As I feel this deserves all the attention it can get!!!
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenparky cudfnChris cudlnParkinson cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.11 / Leslie Barstow /  Re: Really *proved* it ???? Re: Schaeffer disproves 2nd "law" !
     
Originally-From: Leslie M. Barstow III <wdphoenix@delphi.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Really *proved* it ???? Re: Schaeffer disproves 2nd "law" !
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 94 00:48:39 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

prasad <c1prasad@watson.ibm.com> writes:
 
>began with a "fact"?  Theory means understanding, and till one has that, "facts"
>are little more than curios and a lot less than engineering.
 
I will not disagree that theories form the basis of our understanding, but
your response indicates you would deny anyone finding facts which might disprove
a theory the decency of publishing in a respected journal until they themselves
had a workable theory.  Journals do not (usually) follow your standard - many
publish articles with nothing but experimental data and impact statements
based on that data - these articles lead, in turn, to articles by theorists
who try to come up with a workable theory (and usually fail the first couple
of times out, but, hey, that's part of the process).  This works in reverse,
too (and, of late, theoretical work HAS been coming first, a trend set by
Einstein, perhaps...)
 
My point here is this, if the theory doesn't fit the facts, then either the
facts are wrong, or the theory is wrong.  In the case of cold fusion, the
facts were incomplete, and the theories were most definitely wrong.  I do
not know the details of the experiment in question, so I cannot even
speculate on the problems involved, but, unless I've missed something, there
has yet to be enough information published here to allow anyone to start
passing judgement.
 
>Thanks for implying that you don't believe any theory exists.
 
On the contrary - plenty of theory exists, but no theory of physical science
can be conclusively sown to be without error.  Most we can be reasonably
assured of, but even Newton has been shown to be inaccurate before.
--
Leslie M. Barstow III    | Disclaimer:  We don't need no stinkin' disclaimer!
                         | Send Flames to alt.dev.null
                         | Organization:  Wandering Damage.
WDPHOENIX@delphi.com     | Project:  Try To Take Over The World.
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenwdphoenix cudfnLeslie cudlnBarstow cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.11 / Leslie Barstow /  Re: Y. Arata DS-Cathode cold fusion
     
Originally-From: Leslie M. Barstow III <wdphoenix@delphi.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Y. Arata DS-Cathode cold fusion
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 94 01:09:38 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Interesting article (the parts I've seen :)...
I wonder why they chose Pd black, when many CF experiments seem to indicate
that the reaction does not take place over the surface area...
 
Jed,
  Take it easy on the Monkey dude - he obviously hasn't caught up on CF
  reaction output yet.  For him, and those like him, 'CF ISN'T A STANDARD
  FUSION REACTION!'
 
  Also, careful when generalizing - He is not always an output product, and
  some CF reactions can produce high levels of radiation (especially gamma -
  several experiments have reported monochromatic, directional gamma bursts
  [read - laser])
 
For those looking for ash,
  Ash can be defined in many ways - heat, He, alpha and gamma radiation, and
  Pd and salt-element "transmutations" have all been measured in various CF
  reactions, and, at this point in the research, chance contamination has been
  accounted for, and accusing so many respectable scientists of fraud is
  ludicrous.
--
Leslie M. Barstow III    | Disclaimer:  We don't need no stinkin' disclaimer!
                         | Send Flames to alt.dev.null
                         | Organization:  Wandering Damage.
WDPHOENIX@delphi.com     | Project:  Try To Take Over The World.
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenwdphoenix cudfnLeslie cudlnBarstow cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.11 /  DanHicks /  Re: tornadoes2
     
Originally-From: danhicks@aol.com (DanHicks)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: tornadoes2
Date: 11 Nov 1994 01:20:34 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

In article <1994Nov10.021558.9593@midway.uchicago.edu>,
edward@uhuru.uchicago.edu (Edward Lewis) writes:

>>>Luminous tornadoes and other large luminous atmospheric
phenomena have been reported for centuries.  Vonnegut referred to the
ancient literature about these things.  So the phenomena that I was
writing about in my "tornadoes" post on sci.physics.fusion and
sci.geo.meteorology are not due to broken electrical power lines or
broken generators, etc.  There are actually many reports about
luminous tornadoes during the 19th century.  However this phenomena
contradicts people's meteorological theories and Quantum Mechanics
physics theories.<<<

Frankly, I'd be rather surprised if tornados DIDN'T glow to some extent. 
The rapid motion inside a tornado has got to generate a significant amount
of static electricity, and this would almost certainly lead to some degree
of corona discharge.  For me the question wouldn't be whether or not
tornados glow but how brightly they glow and whether this glow is strong
enough to be easily observed.
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudendanhicks cudlnDanHicks cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.14 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Griggs Device Can't Be Fusion
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs Device Can't Be Fusion
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 94 22:31:42 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Alan@moonrake.demon.co.uk ("Alan M. Dunsmuir") writes:
 
     "If there is ever a single replicable report of a cold fusion reaction
     reported in peer-reviewed reputable journal...
 
You don't know what you are talking about. There have been dozens of
replicable reports in world class journals. Look at the Fusion Facts or
Britz bibliography. Do you think the Japanese Journal of Applied Physics,
Phys. Letters A, or the J. of Electroanalytical Chemistry are not
"reputable?" What do you consider reputable, Mad Magazine?
 
 
     "...it will be replicated all over the world within weeks..."
 
You have obviously never bothered to read a single paper, and you sure as
hell cannot have seen a cold fusion experiment. You could not "replicate"
one "all over the world" in weeks, or even months, even if you had the whole
U.S. Defense budget to work with. Heck, you could not even finish
calibrating a proper experiment in weeks. Mizuno worked on his proton
conductors for two years before getting one that worked. His corporate
collaborators, who are world class experts, spent weeks working with him to
learn the techniques. A non-expert scientist could no more replicate a CF
device than a biochemist could make a silicon computer chip, or a computer
engineer could synthesize a new drug. It takes months to learn anything in
this field, just as it does in any other high tech field. There are no
textbooks, and no shortcuts. It is every bit as difficult as manufacturing
an incandescent light was in 1863 (five years after M. Farmer's ground
breaking work); or an airplane in 1908; or a transistor in 1951 before
Shockley developed his theory.
 
 
     "The world is full of trained and eager scientists just waiting for
     this to happen. But it hasn't happened yet...
 
The world is NOT full of trained and eager scientists. There are not more
than 1 or 2 thousand in the whole planet who have the foggiest idea how to
proceed in CF. The only reason they know is because they have spent five
years working 80 hours a week learning how to do it. It is a steep and
forbidding learning curve. If you could spend one hour in a lab you would
realize just how stupid and uninformed your pronouncement is. Furthermore,
you are ignoring the fact that CF has been widely replicated in spite of the
difficulties. Great progress has been made. Results are miles ahead of where
they used to be.
 
These comments of yours are based on imagination alone. You cannot possibly
have read even one paper in the field, because you do not have a clue how
difficult it is or what the experiments entail. Why do you keep yourself in
such blind ignorance? There are hundreds of papers to choose from in a dozen
or so world class journals. Read one or two and you will begin to grasp how
little you know. Your suggestion that anyone could pick up the skills
overnight is about as realistic as the idea that I could learn to fly a
Boeing 747 over the weekend because I have practiced with "Flight
Simulator;" or that if I gave you my aunt's recipe for Dubish Torte, you
could cook a perfect 12 layer Hungarian pastry the first time. Unless you
happen to be a superb cook, all you could produce from the recipe would be
a big mess, a waste of chocolate, and a pot of burned sugar.
 
 
     ". . .all your so-called successful CF experiments can't stand up to
     the light and heat of peer analysis."
 
Then why are they published in peer reviewed journals? What do you mean
"they can't stand up?" -- they have stood up! How else could they be
published? And why have other scientists managed to replicate them?
 
 
     "I guess you get your kicks out of seeing yourself as a romantic,
     latter day Galileo . . ."
 
Galileo was a jerk. A world class jerk. He was scheming weasle, interested
only in money, power and academic position. Privately to his friends he paid
lip service to Copernicus, but in his classes he went on teaching the old
astronomy for 20 years, knowing full well that it was garbage. He was a
renaissance version of Steve Jones. You should see the garbage Galileo
published to "prove" the sun orbits the earth! Here he was, at the height
of his influence and power, trashing the Copernicans in a political battle,
even though he knew perfectly well they were right. It was only years later
that he switched sides publicly, and I almost think the Church gave him
what he deserved. He trashed others for telling the truth, and then the
Church trashed him for the same reason. His anti-Copernican propaganda
was almost as stupid as the skeptical garbage you see here "proving" that
CF cannot exist.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenjedrothwell cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.15 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: Jed Rothwell and all the others, you are the finest
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Jed Rothwell and all the others, you are the finest
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 1994 04:08:28 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

In article <1994Nov13.015356.19010@math.ucla.edu>,
Barry Merriman <barry@redwood.math.ucla.edu> wrote:

>On the other hand, you should add Joseph Newman to your list---I'm
>pretty sure his device works via CF principles :-)

Not to mention adding Alfred E. Newman.

cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.15 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: Griggs Device Can't Be Fusion
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs Device Can't Be Fusion
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 1994 04:25:58 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

In article <hQ51kia.jedrothwell@delphi.com>,  <jedrothwell@delphi.com> wrote:

>You must realize that the opposition to CF is not based on any rational,
>scientific arguments. This is a fight over money and power. It is politics,
>not science.

Rothwell, to convince EVERYBODY all it takes is a reproduceable experiment
leading to a real product. It is getting tiresome reading your messages
that claim that thousands of 'competent scientists' are getting results
but are unable to obtain commercial backing, or are unable to market
real devices because a group of university professors are making fun od
them.

While your presious 'stupid scientists' were disagreeing with heavier-than-
air flight, the commercial sector was profiting from it. They reproduced
the experimental evidence and produced a marketable item. While those
who you claim were ruining the the reputations of those who experimented
with electricity, those same objects of redicule -- Edison, Westinghouse,
Tesla and the like, were rebuilding western civilization by putting products
on the market.

You claimed that the Japanese were about to reap a CF harvest that would
put the U.S. at a tremendous economic/energy disadvantage. Yet it is the
Japanese who are looking with gimlet eye at Pons and Fleischman these days
and not the U.S. loosing ground.

It must be a strange world you live in where facts mean nothing and dreams
mean everything.

cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.16 / Eugene Mallove /  Nonsense from MIT PFC
     
Originally-From: 76570.2270@compuserve.com (Eugene Mallove)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Nonsense from MIT PFC
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 1994 13:17:06 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Stephen Evans of the MIT PFC posted the nonsense below -- in the great 
tradition of MIT PFC incompetence on the issue of cold fusion, i.e. excess 
energy at non-chemical levels and nuclear products produced in systems where 
such products are not classically expected.

>> You might want to read an article in "MIT Tech Talk" (Nov 9 1994) entitled
>> "Graduate Student Envisions Power for Spacecraft from Cold Fusion"
>>
>>A mistitled article if ever there was one.  Even the student they are 
>>interviewing says that it isn't fusion and is more likely an ionic
>>reaction.  It is NOT an endorsement by MIT of cold fusion.
>>
>>--- Steve
>>
>>Stephen W. Evans                #4499 Caligula (GEnie)
>>MIT Plasma Fusion Center        #4210 Kaligula (Delphi)
>>evans@rex.pfc.mit.edu           #4548 Kiligula (CRIS)
>>Work : (617)253-5471            Home : (617)625-8086

"More likely an ionic reaction..."?  You know from nothing, but you have a big
mouth and you're on the federal HF dole (but not for long, buddy!). Your 
word's are like Pertrasso's famous undefined explanation of CF:   "It's got to
be a subtle mistake".

And who said that the Tech Talk article WAS an endorsement of cold fusion? But
we do know that the three top academic officials at MIT (none of whom have MIT
degrees, by the way) believe that CF research is a waste or worse:

President Charles Vest, by default
Provost Mark Wrighton, by his words
Dean of Science Robert Birgeneau, by his words


Eugene Mallove
Cold Fusion Technology
Box 2816
Concord, NH 03302-2816
Phone: 603-228-4516; Fax: 603-224-5975
INTERNET:76570.2270@compuserve.com

cudkeys:
cuddy16 cuden2270 cudfnEugene cudlnMallove cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.11 / Gary Steckly /  Re: Griggs testing
     
Originally-From: gsteckly@dgim.doc.ca (Gary Steckly)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs testing
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 94 13:07:32 GMT
Organization: Communications Canada

Cary Jamison (cary@svl.trw.com) wrote:
: In article <39riq4$jmh@ds8.scri.fsu.edu>, jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
: wrote:

[minor deletia]

: > They are also used to measure the temperature profile across an 
: > automobile tire to check if the inflation pressure being used is 
: > giving the desired effect under racing conditions.

: Oh no!  I thought we were done with the drag-racing stories!

I doubt that Mr. Carr is into drag racing. No self respecting 
"hot-rodder" would drive one of them "furrin cars" like a Miata ;-)

[and then have the nerve to post it on his Web page :-o ]

Gary

ps...just some envy showing Jim...I like your car.

cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudengsteckly cudfnGary cudlnSteckly cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.16 /  itimc@roimar.i /  Subject:Re:Arata DS-Cathode cold fusion.
     
Originally-From: itimc@roimar.imar.ro
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Newsgroups:sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Subject:Re:Arata DS-Cathode cold fusion.
Subject:Re:Arata DS-Cathode cold fusion.
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 1994 15:15:44 GMT
Date:Monday,14 Nov 1994
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Organization:Institute of Isotopic and Molecular


Originally- From:itimc@imar.ro (Peter Glueck)
Newsgroups:sci.physics.fusion
Subject:Re:Arata DS-Cathode cold fusion.
Date:Monday,14 Nov 1994
Organization:Institute of Isotopic and Molecular
             Technology,Cluj-Napoca, Romania.
 

The key element of know-how in Arata's device is, beyond any
doubt,the huge surface of the palladium black.In the frame of
my "surfdyn" hypothesis,this means many active sites where the 
reactions can take place.One alternative exists:forced contact
as in the sonofusion devices, the protonic conductors and the
gas discharge/sparking systems where the active sites are much
enhanced and continuously regenerated.
A similar example illustrating the "creative" potential of the
great surfaces is the Reifenschweiler experiment;the titanium
soot used there (monocrystalline particles of approx 15 nm)
is similar to the Pd black having great surface and catalytic 
ability;the activity of the nucleus can be changed.
These two great achievements published in 1994,confirm directly         
that the essence and root of cold fusion is catalysis. 

-Peter Glueck- Fax 4064-185816;Email <ITIMC@IMAR.RO>  

cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenitimc cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.16 / Richard Blue /  free energy, cow magnets, and the GG
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: free energy, cow magnets, and the GG
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 1994 15:38:51 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

In keeping with Jed Rothwell's free-wheeling approach to science, I have
been doing some speculating about the Griggs Gadget. (You know. An idle
mind . . .)

The inspiration for this message is something Jed revealed relating to
Jim Griggs having built a test model of the GG that could output at the
500% level.  That has made me wonder whether this mild mannered engineer
from Georgia is not secretly part of the free-energy crowd even though
his patent does not reveal that sort of thinking.  His device is only
supposed to be "more efficient."  How much more efficient is left to
the imagination of the user.

The other piece of information that I have had trouble understanding
relates to the Griggs choice of metals for the fabrication of the
Griggs Gadget.  Why would anyone use steel for the housing and aluminum
for the rotor?  Perhaps there is a little bit of proprietary information
that is being withheld, even from Jed Rothwell.  Then when Jed did let
slip that the rotor is a hollow casting I began to put two and two together
to get 17.

Suppose the rotor is made hollow so that something magic can be put
inside.  One of the favorite forms of magic among the seekers after
free energy is a permanent magnet.  Putting all these clues together
I come up with the notion that there may be a permanent magnet inside
the Griggs rotor, and the housing is made of steel to close the magnetic
circuit and conceal the magic from the casual observer.  It follows that
the rotor must be nonmagnetic so the flux lines can pass through the
water.  You remember the business about cow magnets of the gas line
to improve gas milage?  Perhaps Griggs has just given an old idea a
new incarnation.

I am, of course, justified in putting forth such nonsense because we
do have experimental data.  The housing temperature is elevated, and
now I know why!  It is eddy-current heating.  Isn't science wonderful?

I wonder if Tom Droege should take along a pocket compass just in case
he might get lost in the wilds of Georgia.

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.15 / Leslie Barstow /  Re: Y. Arata DS-Cathode cold fusion
     
Originally-From: Leslie M. Barstow III <wdphoenix@delphi.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Y. Arata DS-Cathode cold fusion
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 94 02:48:54 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Harry H Conover <conover@max.tiac.net> writes:
 
>I agree, most are coming up with very similar results, i.e., negative.
 
Umm, how do you consider excess heat and Helium production as negative
results?
 
did the Helium just migrate through the sealed metal cell wall?  Did the
heat get absorbed through the vacuum multi-walls of the cell?  And how do
you account for those differently configured experiments which are producing
radation in quantity...
 
>Performing physics experiments without theoretical foundations opens
>up all sorts of new and exciting possibilities, and curious results!  
>Like Alchemy of years past: 'We don't need no stinking theory!'
>Expect equivalent results.
 
Theory:  When trapped within a Pd cathode and stimulated by electricity,
         Deuterium in high concentration, along with some Hydrogen, set up a
         resonant pattern which amplifies the quantum wave probability of a
         neutron in the Deuterium nucleus being somewhere it shouldn't (like
         near the nucleus of another atom, where it stays, giving of its
         excess bonding energy in the form of heat).  (My favorite, and in
         favor with several scientists in the field).
Theory 2:  The "discovery" of CF caused skeptics to become nervous and jumpy.
           The energy produced by these millions of people is, coincidentally,
           in harmonic resonance with D atoms in Pd, and thereby validated an
           otherwise false discovery :)  (A nominal second favored by skeptics
           and supporters alike...)
--
Leslie M. Barstow III    | Disclaimer:  We don't need no stinkin' disclaimer!
                         | Send Flames to alt.dev.null
                         | Organization:  Wandering Damage.
WDPHOENIX@delphi.com     | Project:  Try To Take Over The World.
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenwdphoenix cudfnLeslie cudlnBarstow cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.16 / N Redington /  Re: FYI: MIT work on 'Mills Cells'
     
Originally-From: redingtn@athena.mit.edu (Norman H Redington)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: FYI: MIT work on 'Mills Cells'
Date: 16 Nov 1994 06:34:48 GMT
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology


evans@rex.pfc.mit.edu (Stephen W. Evans) writes:

|> In article <39u9rm$jsu@newsbf01.news.aol.com>, wrgoodii@aol.com (WRGoodII)
|> wrote:
|> 
|> > You might want to read an article in "MIT Tech Talk" (Nov 9 1994) entitled
|> > "Graduate Student Envisions Power for Spacecraft from Cold Fusion"
|> 
|> A mistitled article if ever there was one.  Even the student they are 
|> interviewing says that it isn't fusion and is more likely an ionic
|> reaction.  It is NOT an endorsement by MIT of cold fusion.
 
|> Stephen W. Evans              
|> MIT Plasma Fusion Center        

An ionic reaction?? The article I read talks about the Mills theory and
"shrunken hydrogen atoms". The article also claims to have a reproducible
experiment. 

What's with y'all at the Plasma Fusion Center, anyway? I vividly remember
the negativity of 1989 ... and now this! To quote the article:

"Mr. Conley (the student) doesn't think what he has produced is fusion...
Instead, he adheres to the theory of Dr. Randell Mills of HydroCatalysis
Power Corporation..."

The apparatus is described as a light-water, potassium carbonate
electrolysis cell with Ni and Pt electrodes.

"Mr. Ray Conley's advisor is Prof. Jack Kerrebock of aeronautics
and astronautics. The work is funded by the MIT Space Grant Program".
So says the article.

Norman Hugh Redington    
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenredingtn cudfnNorman cudlnRedington cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.15 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Re: Breakthrough: Accidental CF
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Breakthrough: Accidental CF
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 1994 00:22 -0500 (EST)

ts_zemanian@pnl.gov (Thomas S. Zemanian) writes:
 
-> However, either Marshall Dudley has an extremely dry sense of humor, or he
-> was successfully trolled by the above.
 
Opps, perhaps half trolled.  I figured the event itself (if it occured) was a
joke, but that the poster had assumed it was legit when he heard or read about
it.
 
Trolling, Trolling, Trolling, go hide.
 
                                                                Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.15 / Leslie Barstow /  Re: One phenomenon or many?
     
Originally-From: Leslie M. Barstow III <wdphoenix@delphi.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: One phenomenon or many?
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 94 04:26:29 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Richard A Blue <blue@pilot.msu.edu> writes:
 
>If the reaction product is 4Helium and only 4Helium today, but tomorrow
>3Helium shows up that is OK too.  It is still the same phenomenon.
>If the D2O and palladium in experiment A are replaced by H2O and iron
>in experiment B, as long as there is excess heat, it is still the
>same phenomenon.
 
"The Phenomenon" as you call it (good name, for now...) must consist of one
or more categories of reactions, not one single reaction.
 
Like a fission reaction, the products may differ slightly within one set of
conditions, and may differ more widely over differing conditions.  After all,
radioactive isotopes may have more than one mode of decay, and you certainly
wouldn't expect the same by-products from the fissioning of a Uranium atom
and a Technetium atom
 
 
Really, Blue - that's a weak argument, even for you.  I do not delude
myself - I am not an active researcher in CF, nor am I involved in it in any
way other than personal, but I am able to understand that what's happening
with CF goes beyond current nuclear reaction theory.
--
Leslie M. Barstow III    | Disclaimer:  We don't need no stinkin' disclaimer!
                         | Send Flames to alt.dev.null
                         | Organization:  Wandering Damage.
WDPHOENIX@delphi.com     | Project:  Try To Take Over The World.
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenwdphoenix cudfnLeslie cudlnBarstow cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.16 /  jedrothwell@de /  Eaton torque sensor specifications
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Eaton torque sensor specifications
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 94 14:36:53 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
 
     "You're an idiot Jed.  There are several calibrations involved here,
     and I know durn well that the dynamometer is only good to about 20%
     on the best of days.  I suppose you didn't, though."
 
That is nonsense. A modern precision dynamometer is far better than 20%. Here
are the specifications for the Eaton rotary transformer torque sensor model
1805-5K used at Hydro Dynamics:
 
Nonlinearity: of rated output  +/- 0.05%
Hysteresis: of rated output +/- 0.05%
Repeatability: of rated output +/- 0.02%
Zero balance: of rated output +/- 1.0%
 
Temperature range, compensated: +70 to +170 deg F; +21 to +77 deg C
Temperature range, useable: -20 to +170 deg F; -30 to +77 deg C
Temperature effect on output of reading per deg F: +/- 0.001%;
     per deg C: 0.0018%
Temperature effect on zero: of rated output per deg F: +/- 0.001%;
     per deg C: 0.0018%
 
Capacity: 5,000 lb * in; 565 N * m
Max speed RPM: 22,000
Protection for Overloads: 15,000 lb * in; 1,695 N * m
Torsional Stiffness 950,000 lb * in / Rad.; 107,330 N * m / Rad.
Rotating Inertia 8.41 * 10^-3 lb * in * Sec^2; 9.6 * 10^-4 N * m * Sec^2
Weight: 29 lbs; 13.2 kg
 
Please note the measurements taken at Hydro Dynamics are all far below these
maximum capacities. The unit is being operated well within the recommended
range of operating parameters. Also please note it was installed and tested by
a local engineering firm that specializes in this type of work, which is an
authorized dealer.
 
Product features include:
 
* High accuracy
* High overload protection with high signal output (sensitivity
* Extended speed range
* Minimal maintenance due to "bearings only" contact
* Carrier frequency excitation provides increased signal/noise immunity
* 100 to 10,000 lb. in. capacities.
 
For more information, contact Eaton Aerospace & Commercial Controls.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenjedrothwell cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.15 / Shawn Freeman /  Re: tornadoes
     
Originally-From: s_freema@oz.plymouth.edu (Shawn M. Freeman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.geo.meteorology,sci.physics.astro
Subject: Re: tornadoes
Date: 15 Nov 1994 10:19:56 -0500
Organization: Plymouth State College - Plymouth, NH.

I have been reading bits and pieces of this thread for a while...and I
know physics pretty good. But I want a few things explained to me.

I know what plasma is. I know how it can be formed (lightning). I know
about the intense heat and high energy it takes to form it.

I know about tornadoes. I know about the winds they can produce, the
pressures that they can cause and some of the theories of how the are formed.

Now for my question. How in the world can a swirling mass of high
winds and moisture produce enough heat and energy to make it plasmatic?!
People who say this...think for a minute. Plasma's....even simple ones
need to be at a temperature that is extremely high. Even plasma
discharges of a fraction of a second like lightning causes a shockwave
that we hear as thunder.

I also read in one of the posts that someone believed that tornadoes
can change mass into energy.....OOOOOOOOKKKKKKK. Maybe I can relate
this to how come I think my toilet glows when it swirls? 8)

I've seen tornadoes one in labs.....I have yet to here of any
experiements regarding one causing plasma or changing the mass in it
to energy.

IMO this discussion is senseless to the basics of physics. Welcome to
my kill file 8).


Later
Shawn

cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudens_freema cudfnShawn cudlnFreeman cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.15 /  parsec@worf.in /  Re: Get a grip, Steve
     
Originally-From: parsec@worf.infonet.net ()
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Get a grip, Steve
Date: 15 Nov 1994 15:34:06 GMT
Organization: INS Info Services, Des Moines, IA, USA

In article <p2y0sG+.jedrothwell@delphi.com>,  <jedrothwell@delphi.com> wrote:

<text deleted>

>And as I have argued before, no sane person cares whether this heat comes from
>nuclear reactions, zero-point energy, green cheese rotting on the moon,
>shrinking hydrogen atoms, or angels break dancing on a pin.

The whys and wherefores are of some import to physicists and other readers 
here.  Dr. Jones asks for evidence consistent with conventional theory, 
however...

>This is what matters:
> 
>THE HEAT IS REAL.
> 
>IT IS A MILLION TIMES BEYOND THE LIMITS OF CHEMISTRY.
> 
>IT IS USEFUL ENERGY THAT WILL BE HARNESSED TO MAKE PEOPLE'S LIVES EASIER AND
>MAKE THE WORLD MUCH CLEANER.
> 
>IT IS WORTH BILLIONS OF DOLLARS.

Fair enough.  You claim this phenomenon is easily reproduced, scalable, and 
lucrative.  If that is true, even a conspiracy of bigoted physicists 
won't fetter developments.  According to your reports several qualified,
well-funded groups are making striking advances.  When this new energy source 
displaces conventional technologies few beneficiaries will care much what 
theories are proved or discredited in the process.  Until that time, wouldn't 
it be more decorous not to answer misplaced technical objections with 
invectives?     

cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenparsec cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.15 / Mark Hittinger /  Received ICCF5 info yesterday
     
Originally-From: bugs@warlock.win.net (Mark Hittinger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Received ICCF5 info yesterday
Date: 15 Nov 1994 11:38:16 -0500
Organization: WIN.NET mail and news

The ICCF5 announcements came in the mail today.  It will be April 9-13, 1995
in Monte Carlo, Manaco.  The conference will be at the Hotel Loews Monte-
Carlo.

The registration fee is listed as 2,600 French Francs and the hotel deposit
is listed as 1,150 French Francs.  The per-day rate for the hotel is listed
as 1,150 French Francs.  Where is my neighborhood foreign currency whiz when
I need him??

I *think* this works out to around $489.50 for the registration fee and $216.50
for the hotel deposit/per-day rate.  Don't take my word for it though!  I knew
they would raise the registration fee since $300 was so cheap for ICCF4! :-)

The deadline for having hotel and registration fees in is listed as 1-Jan-95.

Another interested note is that they won't accept credit cards.  If you want
to go you have to get some kind of bank draft sent to their French bank.

As far as what will be discussed I have no idea.  Things have been on the slim
side for quite awhile.  The now defunct cold fusion magazines largely discussed
old "news".  I've heard nothing that had the scent of something important since ICCF4.
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenbugs cudfnMark cudlnHittinger cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.15 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Griggs pyrometer
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs pyrometer
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 94 12:39:27 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
 
     "You say above that it [the pyrometer] is the only instrument used for
     measuring the surface temperature. . ."
 
That is incorrect. I did not say that, and it is not true. I measured the
surface temperature of the steel drum, the separation tank and other equipment
which was equipped with thermometers and thermocouples. I measured it at
various temperatures including roughly 65 F (tap water temperature), room
temperature,  110 F (hot water in drum) and 310 deg F (separation tank). When
the steel drum has been filled with water for a while, the outside surface of
the steel drum below the water line comes to the same temperature as the water
within, so it is easy to compare the water temperature to the pyrometer
reading. I also checked this by holding the thermistor probe up against the
metal.
 
 
     " . . . and you apparently claimed fusion in the metal on the basis of
     the surface temperature being _higher_ than the thermocouple-measured
     temperatures within.  You're quite a card, Jed."
 
This is 100% pure, unadulterated nonsense. I cannot imagine where or how Dale
dreams up this kind of garbage.
 
 
I wrote: "Dale thinks General Electric cannot calibrate their own electric
meters  . . ." He responded:
 
     "I strongly suspect that they calibrate them just fine.  On the other
     hand, certain users may be using them incorrectly."
 
This cannot be true. The G.E. Dranetz power meter readings have been checked
against many other meters at Hydro Dynamics and at customer sites. The same
readings were seen in the electric company billing meters, meters brought in
by consulting engineers, and customer-owned meters. Furthermore, as I pointed
out time after time, the Dranetz agrees with the Eaton torque sensor
(dynamometer). That is to say, the dynamometer shows exactly as much
mechanical power delivered from the electric motor as you would expect, given
the known inefficiencies shown in the manufacturers spec sheet for that motor.
 
Dale thinks that a couple dozen expert middle-aged electrical engineers,
Georgia Power engineers, Georgia Tech professors, independent consultants, and
facilities managers from various customer sites are all incapable of
installing and using a simple electric meter, even though these people have
been doing that sort of work every day for 30+ years. Dale believe that the
power company is incapable of installing a billing meter that shows the
correct KWH use to within 20% to 50%. That is like suggesting that an
experienced farmer might have difficulty telling a cow from a horse. It is
utter nonsense. If Dale believes any of this crap he writes, he is living in a
fantasy world.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenjedrothwell cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.15 /  prasad /  Re: Griggs Device Can't Be Fusion
     
Originally-From: c1prasad@watson.ibm.com (prasad)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs Device Can't Be Fusion
Date: 15 Nov 1994 17:59:11 GMT
Organization: IBM Watson

In article <tomkCzAKBB.7rF@netcom.com>, tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich) writes:
|> Rothwell, to convince EVERYBODY all it takes is a reproduceable experiment
|> leading to a real product. It is getting tiresome reading your messages
|> that claim that thousands of 'competent scientists' are getting results
|> but are unable to obtain commercial backing, or are unable to market
|> real devices because a group of university professors are making fun of them.
|> ...
|> While your presious 'stupid scientists' were disagreeing with heavier-than-
|> ....
|> You claimed that the Japanese were about to reap a CF harvest that would
|> put the U.S. at a tremendous economic/energy disadvantage. Yet it is the
|> Japanese who are looking with gimlet eye at Pons and Fleischman these days
|> and not the U.S. loosing ground.
|> ....
|> It must be a strange world you live in where facts mean nothing and dreams
|> mean everything.

Huh???  Jed a skeptic??????

Now just how did I know this was coming? ;)
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenc1prasad cudlnprasad cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.15 /  prasad /  Re: Going on & on theory vs expt (was Re: Really *proved* it ????
     
Originally-From: c1prasad@watson.ibm.com (prasad)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Going on & on theory vs expt (was Re: Really *proved* it ????
Date: 15 Nov 1994 18:04:51 GMT
Organization: IBM Watson

In article <JMx3k7K.wdphoenix@delphi.com>, Leslie M. Barstow III
<wdphoenix@delphi.com> writes:
[ deleted! ]

I'm glad "vci2i" finally.
I've just noticed another poster projecting Jed as a skeptic.
Wonders never cease, do they?!

cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenc1prasad cudlnprasad cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.15 /  prasad /  Re: Breakthrough: Accidental CF
     
Originally-From: c1prasad@watson.ibm.com (prasad)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Breakthrough: Accidental CF
Date: 15 Nov 1994 18:08:09 GMT
Organization: IBM Watson

In article <3a92u9$84k@sundog.tiac.net>, conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover) writes:
|> No.  Trolls hang out under bridges.  This was more like one of the Irish 
|> 'Little People'.

Allusion to the "Adventure" game's "Pay Troll"?
I keep remembering it whenever the Port Authority
relieves me of some of my monies ;)

cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenc1prasad cudlnprasad cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.15 /  bill /  Re: tornadoes
     
Originally-From: lodi@dino.qci.bioch.bcm.tmc.edu (bill)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.geo.meteorology,sci.physics.astro
Subject: Re: tornadoes
Date: 15 Nov 1994 19:36:19 GMT
Organization: X-Ray Crystallography / H.H.M.I.

 In article <3aau4l$9ar@hammer.msfc.nasa.gov> schudall@microwave.msfc.na
a.gov (Ron Schudalla) writes:
 >In article <3aajis$rei@oz.plymouth.edu>,
 >s_freema@oz.plymouth.edu (Shawn M. Freeman) 
 >|> 
 >|> <A finally sensible dicussion about this deleted for brevity)
 >|>
 >|> IMO this discussion is senseless to the basics of physics. Welcome to
 >|> my kill file 8). 
 >|> Later
 >|> Shawn

 >But wait....you forgot to discuss triboluminescence!
 >    (delete overweight .sig)

 Naughty, naughty, naughty.  Rather than making fun of my new word, you
should have proposed a good experiment---    Just load a DC-3 with 
cameras and feldspar sand,  wait for severe conditions, turn on the EM
wide spectrum DFing rig, and go hose hunting!  Something is bound
to work!  One thing though--  If you see Elvis riding a glowing transformer
YOU MUST REPORT IT.

   Tally Ho

    B.

 


cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenlodi cudlnbill cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.15 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Criminality
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Criminality
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 1994 19:39:13 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <941114183301_76570.2270_HHB25-1@CompuServe.COM>,
Eugene Mallove <76570.2270@compuserve.com> wrote:
>
>Great! I couldn't have said it better myself. Steve Jones, of all the 
>incompetent bigots in the opposition to cold fusion research and development, 
>is THE ONE who is most wallowing in moral turpitude. He proclaims his 
>Godliness and charity -- while blaspheming Truth, Science, and Humanity all in
>one blow. All because of his monumental arrogance and envy that knows NO 
>BOUNDS. (Right now, I am told,  he is sneaking around trying to kiss-up to 
>Russ George and Stringham with offers of assistance, etc. -- anything to get 
>on with something to one-up Pons and Fleischamnn!!) I have little doubt that 
>the hellish experience in store for Dr. Jones right here on this earth may 
>make him wish for the HELL of the afterlife. He will eat all his damned words 
>-- slowly, one by one.
>
>Then add to Jones those powerful figures who have steadfastly blocked 
>research, those who have caused people to be threatened with loss of their 
>jobs for investigating cold fusion, those who have mocked cold fusion 
>research, those who have set forth the Big Lies about cold fusion being 
>"pathological science," and those negativists who have made sure their own 
>nests were feathered year after year by massive federal science ependitures 
>for hot fusion -- these people's actions are morally bankrupt. In essence, 
>their actions are criminal -- by any moral standard one could conceive -- 
>particulary for the delay of the application of this technology to the human 
>tragedy that is the daily experience of hundreds of millions of people.

     You know, I remember the first time _I_ saw the 700 Club.

                                 dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.17 / Thomas Zemanian /  Re: Y. Arata DS-Cathode cold fusion
     
Originally-From: ts_zemanian@pnl.gov (Thomas S. Zemanian)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Y. Arata DS-Cathode cold fusion
Date: 17 Nov 1994 00:50:08 GMT
Organization: Battelle PNL

In article <USE2PCB943656742@brbbs.brbbs.com>, mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com
(MARSHALL DUDLEY) wrote:

> ts_zemanian@pnl.gov (Thomas S. Zemanian) writes:
>  
> -> Let's nip a misunderstanding in the bud, shall we?  The zero point energy
> -> is that energy which remains with the system at absolute zero temperature.
> -> It arises whenever motion is restricted (as, for example, in the
> -> association of an electron with a proton in a hydrogen atom) and is a
> -> consequence of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.
> ->
> -> _Zero_potential _fluctuations_, on the other hand, are (if I understand
> -> them correctly) "quantum hiccups", as it were, which, with a suitable
> -> one-way check valve, could produce usable energy.  No violation of the
> -> Second Law is indicated, but a (possibly allowable) violation of the First
> -> is indicated.
>  
> Are not the above two descriptions simply two different ways of expressing the
> same thing?  It is my understanding that Heisenberg Uncertainty Priciple can be
> computed directly from the zero point or quantum fluctuations.  It is an
> observable effect of the ZPE/vacuum field.
>  
> It also is my understanding that ZPE and vacuum energy are the same thing.
> They both describe random fluctuations from the quantum level with no (0)
> matter present.  I thought the zero referred to matter/energy, that is a dark
> vacuum, thus ZPE is the vacuum energy.  Temperature is not involved, since in a
> vacuum there is no such thing as temperature per se.  Of course any attempt to
> extract energy from this random quantum fluctuation would require some type of
> interaction, ie matter, so in a practical sense any device extracting this
> energy would not really involve a vacuum.  Simply that the energy is present
> even in a vacuum.
>  

No, they are not the same thing.  Zero point energy can be described as
that energy which keeps the electron from spiralling down into the nucleus
at absolute zero.  Alternatively, since, even at absolute zero, the
restriction of the motion of the electron indicates that the uncertainty in
position must be finite.  Thus, by the HEP, the uncertainty in the momentum
cannot be zero; there must be some momentum, and hence, energy.  This is
the zero point energy.

As another example of the difference in the two phenomena, consider that I
can go to texts on spectroscopy and look up the zero point energy
correction for, say, Raman spectra for specific molecules.  If this energy
were a consequence only of vacuum, why would the correction change for
differing molecules?

ZPE and ZPF (vacuum energy) are _not_ the same thing.  They just sound
similar.

[deletia]

--Tom

--
The opinions expressed herein are mine and mine alone.  Keep your filthy
hands off 'em! 
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudents_zemanian cudfnThomas cudlnZemanian cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.15 / Lew Proudfoot /  Re: changes of science theory at 80 year intervals
     
Originally-From: lproudfoot@msmail3.hac.com (Lew Proudfoot)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,soc.history.science
Subject: Re: changes of science theory at 80 year intervals
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 1994 12:33:07 -0800
Organization: Hughes Aircraft Compan

In article <1994Nov10.012630.7023@midway.uchicago.edu>,
edward@uhuru.uchicago.edu (Edward Lewis) wrote:


>         I do not present a firm hypothetical basis to support my
> second hypothesis that those who develop genres of theories do not, or
> usually do not, independently produce anomalies to the theories of the
> genre.  But this idea is superficially similar to the difference
> between theoreticians and experimentalists, and philosophers and
> craftsmen which people have defined for ages.  However, some of the
> possible explanations which I present are that their society did not
> have the basis of experiential (technological) skill to enable one to
> test the theories until the following generation has begun their
> careers, or that those who develop theories themselves lack the
> ability to experience phenomena, either because of lack of
> experiential training or their disinterest to contradict their own
> ideas.  I do not understand this well and may not have delineated my
> ideas about this well.  There may be other explanations.
> 
>         The basis for the third hypothesis is my experience, which is
> general, that people seem to try to develop each of the stages of the
> development of physics theory during their careers.  There is a
> rushing, and perhaps a competition, whatever the reason that people
> try to understand and produce phenomena.
> 
Wow!  I would be very interested not in the theory behind this summary,
but some evidence that this eighty-year period actually exists. 
Interestingly, your theory seems to predict precisely the opposite of what
occurred in the early years of this century - two theories to explain
anamolies in current data (relativity and Quantum Mechanics) that appeared
to contradict each other, and are now seen as complementary.
The repetition of 'this is superficially similar to...' reminds me of what
Feynman told me about Fred Hoyle's gravity theories in the 70's.  [OK,
Feynman didn't tell me, exactly, he told the whole class!  Now, there was
a genius!]  He said that Hoyle started out talking about a non-constant G
[sound familiar to another thread currently running?] and that every paper
Hoyle wrote, the variation in G reduced, to where finally, the Hoyle
component was zero,  leaving Einstien's all alone.
Anyway, back to the point - data is much more important than theory.  Data
first, speculation second, experimental confirmation of predictions made
by the theory third.  This goes for all science, especially the history of
science.

-- 
Lew Proudfoot
Hughes Aircraft Company
[standard disclaimer here]
lproudfoot@msmail3.hac.com
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenlproudfoot cudfnLew cudlnProudfoot cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Thu Nov 17 04:37:08 EST 1994
------------------------------
1994.11.16 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Re: Y. Arata DS-Cathode cold fusion
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Y. Arata DS-Cathode cold fusion
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 1994 15:38 -0500 (EST)

ts_zemanian@pnl.gov (Thomas S. Zemanian) writes:
 
-> Let's nip a misunderstanding in the bud, shall we?  The zero point energy
-> is that energy which remains with the system at absolute zero temperature.
-> It arises whenever motion is restricted (as, for example, in the
-> association of an electron with a proton in a hydrogen atom) and is a
-> consequence of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.
->
-> _Zero_potential _fluctuations_, on the other hand, are (if I understand
-> them correctly) "quantum hiccups", as it were, which, with a suitable
-> one-way check valve, could produce usable energy.  No violation of the
-> Second Law is indicated, but a (possibly allowable) violation of the First
-> is indicated.
 
Are not the above two descriptions simply two different ways of expressing the
same thing?  It is my understanding that Heisenberg Uncertainty Priciple can be
computed directly from the zero point or quantum fluctuations.  It is an
observable effect of the ZPE/vacuum field.
 
It also is my understanding that ZPE and vacuum energy are the same thing.
They both describe random fluctuations from the quantum level with no (0)
matter present.  I thought the zero referred to matter/energy, that is a dark
vacuum, thus ZPE is the vacuum energy.  Temperature is not involved, since in a
vacuum there is no such thing as temperature per se.  Of course any attempt to
extract energy from this random quantum fluctuation would require some type of
interaction, ie matter, so in a practical sense any device extracting this
energy would not really involve a vacuum.  Simply that the energy is present
even in a vacuum.
 
I personally view the vacuum energy as residing within a dimension which is
filled with incredable amounts of energy but is orthogonal to our 4 dimensions.
(This view may not be shared by others.)  Thus interactions are rare and
difficult to tap.  It is sort of like a wind blowing east to west, and a boat
traveling north to south.  No energy is imparted to the boat when it is all
averaged out.  However, just as a proper sail set at an angle can extract
energy from this orthogonal wind, I believe it may be possible to somehow
extract energy from the vacuum.  It is more difficult than the sail problem
however since the energy is random.  In the sailboat it would be like the wind
is only in an east west direction, but randomly changes direction and velocity.
Thus not only is the source orthogonal, but requires some type of gate or diode
to extract useable energy.
 
Some of the devices discussed here may or may not be related to this.  Only
time will tell.
                                                                Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.17 / Nishith Gupta /  ....WHAT IS A LIGHT WATER REACTOR???
     
Originally-From: nishith@zrymc650.concret.civil.saitama-u.ac.jp (Nishith Gupta)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: ....WHAT IS A LIGHT WATER REACTOR???
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 1994 13:45:18 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Civil Engg.

Recently the media has reported that japan will help north korea to build
a light water reacter. Generally people known about heavy water reacter, but
what is this "Light water reactor"??
 If anybody has any information, Please reply by posting.

-- 
Nishith 
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudennishith cudfnNishith cudlnGupta cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.17 / Richard Schultz /  Re: Eaton torque sensor specifications
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Eaton torque sensor specifications
Date: 17 Nov 1994 06:02:02 GMT
Organization: Philosophers of the Dangerous Maybe

In article <JE8VEBd.jedrothwell@delphi.com>,  <jedrothwell@delphi.com> wrote:

>That is nonsense. A modern precision dynamometer is far better than 20%. Here
>are the specifications for the Eaton rotary transformer torque sensor model
>1805-5K used at Hydro Dynamics:
 
>Nonlinearity: of rated output  +/- 0.05%
>Hysteresis: of rated output +/- 0.05%
>Repeatability: of rated output +/- 0.02%
>Zero balance: of rated output +/- 1.0%
 
[data on termperature stability deleted]

>Product features include:
>* High accuracy

[etc.]

None of the numbers you have posted is inconsistent with an accuracy of
+/- 20%.  You do know the difference between precision and accuracy, don't
you?
--
					Richard Schultz

"You don't even have a clue as to which clue you're missing." -- Miss Manners
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.15 / Doug Shade /  Re: Breakthrough: Accidental CF
     
Originally-From: rxjf20@email.sps.mot.com (Doug Shade)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Breakthrough: Accidental CF
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 1994 23:01:24 GMT
Organization: Motorola LICD

I attempted to replicate the Warsaw Event....

All I was able to produce wa a nice batch of Maragaritas...

Doug Shade
rxjf20@email.sps.mot.com
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenrxjf20 cudfnDoug cudlnShade cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.16 / Harry Conover /  Re: Griggs Device Can't Be Fusion
     
Originally-From: conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs Device Can't Be Fusion
Date: 16 Nov 1994 00:37:16 GMT
Organization: The Internet Access Company

Leslie M. Barstow III (wdphoenix@delphi.com) wrote:
: "Alan M. Dunsmuir" <Alan@moonrake.demon.co.uk> writes:
:  
: >happen. But it hasn't happnend yet, and it's not going to happen, 
: >because all your so-called successful CF experiments can't stand up to 
: >the light and heat of peer analysis.
:  
: On the contrary - in addition to the Arata paper, papers have been published
: in Fusion Technology (a publication of the Americal Nuclear Society, devoted
: to hot fusion), Physics Letters A, and the Journal of Electroanalytical
: Chemistry, to name a few (more exist - if you want more, take it to mail).
: All of these are peer-reviewed, highly respected journals, and, since the
: problems surrounding P&F's original experiment, you had better bet they've
: been reviewing them pretty hard. (P&F have also recently been published
: again, this time with very reproducable results on the cutting edge of the
: field).

Uh huh.  So where's the beef?

                                        Harry C.


cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenconover cudfnHarry cudlnConover cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.17 / Eugene Mallove /  Con Artist Blue
     
Originally-From: 76570.2270@compuserve.com (Eugene Mallove)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Con Artist Blue
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 1994 14:56:52 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Dick Blue, you are an imbecile and a con artist and you prove it every day. 
How dare you post such a ludicrous accusation about Jim Griggs:

>Suppose the rotor is made hollow so that something magic can be put
>inside.  One of the favorite forms of magic among the seekers after
>free energy is a permanent magnet.  Putting all these clues together
>I come up with the notion that there may be a permanent magnet inside
>the Griggs rotor, and the housing is made of steel to close the magnetic
>circuit and conceal the magic from the casual observer.  It follows that
>the rotor must be nonmagnetic so the flux lines can pass through the
>water.  You remember the business about cow magnets of the gas line
>to improve gas milage?  Perhaps Griggs has just given an old idea a
>new incarnation.
>
>I am, of course, justified in putting forth such nonsense because we
>do have experimental data.  The housing temperature is elevated, and
>now I know why!  It is eddy-current heating.  Isn't science wonderful?
>
>I wonder if Tom Droege should take along a pocket compass just in case
>he might get lost in the wilds of Georgia.

It strains the imagination to think that you actually believe your 
explanation, but I think you do and that your posting was not tongue-in-cheek.

Your head is solid road apple material. Jim Griggs should sue your butt off 
for accusing him of blatant fraud -- based on no evidence whatsoever except 
your own mad imagination.

Gene Mallove

cudkeys:
cuddy17 cuden2270 cudfnEugene cudlnMallove cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.16 / Thomas Zemanian /  Re: Y. Arata DS-Cathode cold fusion
     
Originally-From: ts_zemanian@pnl.gov (Thomas S. Zemanian)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Y. Arata DS-Cathode cold fusion
Date: 16 Nov 1994 03:57:52 GMT
Organization: Battelle PNL

In article <3a0tbo$p0k@network.ucsd.edu>, mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
wrote:

[deletia]

> 
> Does the griggs thing use heavy water?  I presume 'no' in its industrial
> incarnation.
> 

This has been addressed before.  Apparently you missed the discussions on
how to test the hydrosonic pump.  It was suggested (by Jorge Stolfi, if
memory serves) that the input to the pump be dosed with D2O, raising the
concentration by 10% over that found naturally.  Then, if the dominant
reaction were (D,D) -> He4, the heat output should rise by 21%.  If the
dominant reaction were (H,D) -> He3, the heat output should rise by 10%.

Jed mentioned that this test had been done, with no detectible change in
the heat output.  Thus, the only reasonable remaining reaction would be
(H,H) -> D, which is normally quite a slow reaction.  There was some
speculation that the bottle of D2O might have degraded due to air contact,
but it seems unlikely to me that it should so deplete as to have
undetectible effect.

This is, to me, fairly strong evidence that the energy from the Griggs
device is not from fusion.  Thus, the anomalous heat must be from some
other source, be it vacuum energy, stored heat, or incorrect power
measurements.

--Tom

--
The opinions expressed herein are mine and mine alone.  Keep your filthy
hands off 'em! 
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudents_zemanian cudfnThomas cudlnZemanian cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.16 / David Seghers /  Re: Griggs Device Can't Be Fusion
     
Originally-From: seghers_david/hp5000_zp@openmail2.corp.hp.com (David Seghers)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs Device Can't Be Fusion
Date: 16 Nov 1994 22:40:56 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard

In article <MATT.94Nov13233831@physics2.berkeley.edu>, matt@physics2.ber
eley.edu (Matt Austern) says:
>
>In article <Ru7Us8G.jedrothwell@delphi.com> jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:
>
>> This is incorrect. The possibility of measuring errors has been carefully
                                                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> investigated by some of the best engineers the State of Georgia, including
>> some of our top talent from Georgia Tech, an internationally recognized
>> institution. No evidence of measuring errors have been found, despite
>> intensive efforts over a period of years.
>
>This is the first time I've ever heard of an experimentalist claiming
>not to have any measurement error.  At the risk of being blunt: if
                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>someone claims to have performed an experiment without measurement
>error, then he or she is incompetent.

I suggest, before you start inferring incompetence, you read carefully.   As
*I* read Jed's posting, he is talking about there not being errors in the
methodology for measuring.  In even simpler language, they haven't missed 
anthing big/obvious/simple.  All well designed experiments have the possibility
of no measuring errors while using individual measurements, each with its 
own measurement error.  You are talking about two entirely separate things.
>
>Responsible experimentalists don't pretend to have zero error:
>instead, they try to understand exactly how large their errors are
>(including all sources of statistical, systematic, and theoretical
>error) and how those errors affect their results.  In my experience,
>the section on error analysis often forms the bulk of an experimental
>paper.
>--

In my experience, people who go off half-cocked in one area make many
other mistakes, in other areas.  Jed, when he isn't spewing steam out 
his ears and posts due to those twisting his tail, has shown himself to be 
a thoughtful experimenter and willing to share his informaiton with this
forum.  Right or wrong, his postings deserve more respect than you have
shown in your hasty post.  (So Jed, if you read this, keep up the good 
work and learn to use a kill file for the 3-4 you *know* just poke at
you to see the result.)
>
>                               --matt
The rest of you out there might take a look at your attitudes. The flames/info
ratio has gone *way* up lately, mostly in personal attacks.  The humor 
factor is way up too, fortunately, with people who say "It CAN'T be XXXX,
you see, the theory says so, right here!"

The most constructive thing lately has been the effort to send Tom to 
look at the Grigg's machine (Jed, mellow out over this.  Look at it as an
opportunity to expand your credibility.)

My $20 worth (inflation, you know!),

David Seghers (seghers@hpcc01.HP.COM) 415-691-3730
************************************************************************
Solipsist Society, Founding Member  (I think, therefore you are.)
Charter member of the "I HATE vi!" Club.
************************************************************************
The statements and opinions above are my own, entirely my own, and no one
else's.
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenhp5000_zp cudfnDavid cudlnSeghers cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.17 / mitchell swartz /  Get a grip, Steve - momenta, radiation
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Get a grip, Steve - momenta, radiation
Subject: Re: Get a grip, Steve
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 1994 05:27:08 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <3advur$j90@network.ucsd.edu>
Subject: Re: Get a grip, Steve
Matt Kennel (mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu) writes:

    :    Conventional theory requires that Steve Jones explain why the putative
   : products are necessarily traveling at high velocity if such reactions
   : occur in a material.
   :    Without showing
   : in a compelling fashion that such fast moving products exist
   : to collide with other nuclei, Steve's demanded gamma rays 
   : are actually not even a sine qua non of these reactions.
   :    Furthermore, if Steve is unable to show in a compelling fashion that 
   : such fast moving products exist, there 
   : is no need to scrap conventional theory even in the face of
   : cold fusion phenomena.
=kennel  Look, it's been gone over a squillion times.  You put together
=kennel  the short-range nature of the strong force and special relativity and
=kennel  it is exceedingly difficult to escape the conclusion that nuclear reactions
=kennel  must produce detectable high-energy reaction products. 

   It is exceedingly difficult to escape the conclusion that
you might be merely handwaving because your claim 
has not been demonstrated.  
   Use a four-vector, or any theorem, equation, which 
you want, whatever;  just prove that it MUST happen like you claim.
Especially of interest will be your proof that special relativity
requires x-ray emission in the solid state if the momentum is
handled by phonons.
   Prove your claim IF you can, or consider dropping the argument. 


=kennel        If you then
=kennel  believe that the macroscopic energy observed is a result of nuclear
=kennel  reactions you can compute how many reactions must be taking place.  The
=kennel  number is gigantic, billions of times over detection thresholds.

  I posted this linear calculation
years ago here with tabulation dependent upon Qt of the putative
reaction.    So what.  It does not prove your "point" made above.

    - Mitchell Swartz


cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Fri Nov 18 04:37:04 EST 1994
------------------------------
1994.11.17 / Tom Droege /  ICCF5
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: ICCF5
Date: 17 Nov 1994 17:29:40 GMT
Organization: fermilab

Why is it that Mark Hittinger got a mailing on ICCF5 and I did not?
Am I on a special list?  What did I do wrong?  Can I get em on a 
charge of discrimination against the elderly? 

Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.16 / Richard Schultz /  Re: Griggs pyrometer
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs pyrometer
Date: 16 Nov 1994 06:19:39 GMT
Organization: Philosophers of the Dangerous Maybe

In article <ZM420y5.jedrothwell@delphi.com>,  <jedrothwell@delphi.com> wrote:
>schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz) and others have discussed
>pyrometers. He described rhenium filament type that he worked with which had
>error limits of +/- 100 K on the measurements in the region of 2000 K. 

You should reread what I wrote.  What I said was that our group had used an
optical pyrometer to *measure* the temperature of rhenium filaments and
that based on the uncertainties in the measurement I thought that the
result ithe pyrometer gave was probably not even good to +/- 100 K
at 2000 K.  In the experiments I performed, other uncertainties were
much more significant than the temperature uncertainty, luckily for me.

>He wonders what type I used to measure the Griggs Gadget surface temperature.
 
This is true, at least relative to my interest in the GG, which frankly is
minimal.

>The answer is I have not got the foggiest idea. That is an interesting
>question, I will find out next time I am out there, I am sure it says in the
>user manual. Whatever it is, I am sure it works pretty well. The doubts
>raised by Bass and others are nonsense. 

On the contrary.  If you want to play the game like a scientist, or 
rather if you want to be taken seriously by those of us who are scientist,
then it is absolutely vital that you tell us the make and model of every
piece of commercially available equipment that you use to obtain data.
That's so we can estimate what the true uncertainties are, rather than
having to rely on "I am sure it works pretty well."
 
>Naturally, I tested it on a variety of surfaces with different emissivity
>levels. (Readers of this forum will know by now that I test EVERYTHING to
>the N'th degree. I take nothing for granted.) I found that people's faces
>and hands measure at 98 to 100 deg F. I measured a variety of metal and
>liquid surface temperatures, which are at opposite extremes of emissivity.
>I compared the readings with readings of the same metal and liquid measure
>with thermometers and thermistors, at temperatures between 60 deg F and
>310 F (on a dial thermometer). The pyrometer came within a few degrees in
>every case. It is remarkably accurate, and a piece of cake to use.
 
By your own admission, it is at best accurate to within 5 degrees F.  I
for one don't find that too remarkable, but maybe 5 degrees isn'tthat
big a deal in your setup.  I wouldn't know, since you haven't provided a
complete error analysis.

>Nearly every temperature measurement I took I verified with 2, 3, 4 or 5
>instruments. The only measurement for which I used the pyrometer exclusively
>was the GG surface temperature. That was simply because there were not other
>instruments attached to the GG surface on the days I was there. Bass and
>others make hysterical claims that I "relied upon" the pyrometer, even though
>I have explained a dozen times or more that I also used thermometers,

You really ought to edit your posts more carefully so that you put the
contradictions further apart than in succeeding sentences.  You 
said that there was one measurement that you made using only the
pyrometer.  I would say that that means you "relied uopn" the pyrometer
for that measurement, but no doubt Mitchell Swartz will provide me
with a dictionary entry that shows I've been misusing the term "relied upon"
all these years.
--
				Richard Schultz

"It is terrible to die of thirst in the ocean.  Do you have to salt your
truth so heavily that it does not even quench thirst any more?"
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.16 / Chris Parkinson /  Re: Get a grip, Steve
     
Originally-From: parky@ix.netcom.com (Chris Parkinson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Get a grip, Steve
Date: 16 Nov 1994 06:22:09 GMT
Organization: Netcom

In <p2y0sG+.jedrothwell@delphi.com> jedrothwell@delphi.com writes: 

>
>Steve Jones <jonesse@physc2.byu.edu> again raises theoretical 
objections to
>try and disprove facts. He writes:
> 
>     "I'm waiting for someone to show me an x-ray spectrum from one of 
>:these expts. You see, nuclear reactions release lots of energy -- 
>:plenty to excite the metal atoms in the lattice, so that they *must* 
>:give off copious x-rays. . ."
> 
deletions ....

>Your job is to find out just what the hell it is, how it works, and how 
>we can use it.
> 
>What you are doing now is blocking progress. You are pretending -- yes,
>*pretending* -- that the heat is not real, or that it has no technical
>significance. Your behavior, in common with the behavior of the vast 
>majority of other establishment scientists, is a God Damned moral 
>abomination, an outrage, and a betrayal of science, religion, and 
>humanity. By your inaction and stubborn, mindless opposition to this 
>research, by your denial of proven facts, you prolong the holocaust 
>extra weeks, months and perhaps years. This is not the first time 
>scientists have deliberately blocked progress and inadvertently 
>murdered people by inaction. We all know what happened to
>Semmelweis. We know that the doctors of Vienna went on killing their 
>patients a generation longer than they should have. Unfortunately, that 
>is not the only example of closed-minded, bigoted scientists blocking 
>progress. There are countless others in history.
> 
>- Jed
>

Dear Jed,

I owe you an apology. I included Steve Jones in my admiration letter. I 
feel at this point it was a mistake. I feel that Mr. Jones's ego has got 
the better of him. Real science is no there.

Chris Parkinson

Dear Steve Jones,

Please get off your high horse. For the sake of all of us, your attitude 
needs tweeking. Please, please, please....

Chris Parkinson
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenparky cudfnChris cudlnParkinson cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.11 / Robert Heeter /  Re: MHD and TAE activity in TFTR?
     
Originally-From: rfheeter@pppl.gov (Robert F. Heeter)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: MHD and TAE activity in TFTR?
Date: 11 Nov 1994 10:54:53 -0500
Organization: Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory, Princeton University,
Princeton NJ 08540

In article <39sljsINNcf9@uts.ipp-garching.mpg.de>,
Alex Teo <act@ipp-garching.mpg.de> wrote:
>
>In Section 6 (Resent Results) of Robert F. Heeter's excellently compiled
>	FAQ it is stated:
>
[much trimmed]

>>    Plasma disruptions possibly caused by TAE mode activity have
>>      been observed.  Fusion performance is limited by the MHD
>>      activity, not by heating power or confinement.
>
>However, in a recent IAEA Conference paper, E Fredrickson et al, "TAE
>Modes and MHD activity in TFTR DT Plasmas", say:
>
>	... In the TFTR DT experiments to date there is no evidence for
>	alpha loss due to alpha-driven TAE activity...
>
>and give the impression that the disruptions are due to low m MHD
>instabilities. 

In general I'd trust Fredrickson over the FAQ.  I believe I was
summarizing one of the TFTR updates from a while back, and at
the time they weren't sure whether they were exciting TAEs.
(Hence the "possibly..." in what I wrote.)  Actually, they may
still be exciting TAEs, but just not getting TAE-induced alpha-loss.
>
>I'm working on a project here at the W7-AS stellarator in Garching,
>Germany, on GAE/TAE modes would be very grateful if anyone from the TFTR
>experiment could clarify this point with me: were the disruptions due to
>MHD activity or alpha-driven TAEs?

We're all at the APS-DPP meeting, but people should get back soon,
and if no one writes back, I'll ask around and see what people here know
about the situation.

In the meantime I'd bet that the high-power disruptions were due to 
MHD activity and not TAEs.

This will give me a chance to update that part of the FAQ, too.

***********************
Robert F. Heeter
rfheeter@pppl.gov
Conventional Fusion FAQ Maintainer
Speaking for myself, not for PPPL.
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.17 / Ken Matney /  Re: ....WHAT IS A LIGHT WATER REACTOR???
     
Originally-From: matney@walter (Ken Matney)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: ....WHAT IS A LIGHT WATER REACTOR???
Date: 17 Nov 94 11:11:08 CST
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.

Nishith Gupta (nishith@zrymc650.concret.civil.saitama-u.ac.jp) wrote:
: Recently the media has reported that japan will help north korea to build
: a light water reacter. Generally people known about heavy water reacter, but
: what is this "Light water reactor"??
:  If anybody has any information, Please reply by posting.
This is one of the many types of fission reactor designs.  Heavy water
reactors are popular in Canada (the CANDUs).  In the United States (and
other countries which do not have an abundance of heavy water (H-2 in
the place of H-1), the Uranium is enriched (somewhat more U-235 than in
the CANDU designs) and a critical mass is still achieved even though
H-1 absorbs more neutrons than does H-2.
--
Kenneth D. Matney, Ph.D.
Site Analyst - USDoE/BAPL
Eastern Region Sales
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenmatney cudfnKen cudlnMatney cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.16 / mitchell swartz /  FYI: MIT work on 'Mills Cells'
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: FYI: MIT work on 'Mills Cells'
Subject: Re: FYI: MIT work on 'Mills Cells'
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 1994 14:17:31 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

   In Message-ID: <evans-1411941335380001@corellon.pfc.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: FYI: MIT work on 'Mills Cells'
Stephen W. Evans (evans@rex.pfc.mit.edu) wrotes:


   > You might want to read an article in "MIT Tech Talk" (Nov 9 1994) entitled
   > "Graduate Student Envisions Power for Spacecraft from Cold Fusion"
                 [wrgoodii@aol.com (WRGoodII)]
=evans  A mistitled article if ever there was one.  Even the student they are 
=evans interviewing says that it isn't fusion and is more likely an ionic
=evans reaction.  

   The article spans two pages (several column inches).
It states that Ray Conley anticipates a 5000 watt system in a 
~ 1 - Liter size in about two years. 

  It says that he "doesn't think what he has produced is fusion, 
since he has detected none of the radiation that accompanies
the process.  ...Instead, he adheres to the theory of 
Dr.Randell Mills ... "

       - Best wishes.
                 Mitchell Swartz  (mica@world.std.com)


cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.16 / mitchell swartz /  Get a grip, Steve
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Get a grip, Steve
Subject: Re: Get a grip, Steve
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 1994 14:20:31 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <3aakde$b1i@insosf1.infonet.net>
Subject: Re: Get a grip, Steve
a poster (parsec@worf.infonet.net) wrote:

   >".... no sane person cares whether this heat comes from
   >nuclear reactions, zero-point energy, green cheese rotting on the moon,
   >shrinking hydrogen atoms, or angels break dancing on a pin.
             [<jedrothwell@delphi.com>]
=par The whys and wherefores are of some import to physicists and other readers 
=par here.  Dr. Jones asks for evidence consistent with conventional theory, 
=par however...

   Conventional theory requires that Steve Jones explain why the putative
products are necessarily traveling at high velocity if such reactions
occur in a material.
   Without showing
in a compelling fashion that such fast moving products exist
to collide with other nuclei, Steve's demanded gamma rays 
are actually not even a sine qua non of these reactions.
   Furthermore, if Steve is unable to show in a compelling fashion that 
such fast moving products exist, there 
is no need to scrap conventional theory even in the face of
cold fusion phenomena.


   >This is what matters:
   >THE HEAT IS REAL.
   >IT IS A MILLION TIMES BEYOND THE LIMITS OF CHEMISTRY.
   >IT IS USEFUL ENERGY THAT WILL BE HARNESSED TO MAKE PEOPLE'S LIVES
        EASIER AND
    >MAKE THE WORLD MUCH CLEANER.
   >IT IS WORTH BILLIONS OF DOLLARS.
=par Fair enough.  You claim this phenomenon is easily reproduced, scalable, and 
=par lucrative.  If that is true, even a conspiracy of bigoted physicists 
=par won't fetter developments.

  Given the blockage of papers' publication both for results and for
reanalyses of past "failures", there is obstruction to normal information
dissemination in this field. Secondary slower development
might therefore follow.

   after Webster (ibid.)
   fetter  1) a chain or shackle for the feet
           2) something that confines

    Fetter especially appears to apply in this case
since the information (at least) has been confined when considering
normal pathways (e.g. Science, Nature; as discussed here
previously by proponents on both sides).

     - Mitchell Swartz


cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.18 /  itimc@roimar.i /  Subject:The Laws of Physics or the laws of physics?
     
Originally-From: itimc@roimar.imar.ro
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Newsgroups:sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Subject:The Laws of Physics or the laws of physics?
Subject:The Laws of Physics or the laws of physics?
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 1994 15:12:07 GMT
Date:Nov 17,1994
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Organization:Institute of Isotopic and Molecular 

Originally-From:itimc@imar.ro (Peter Glueck)
Newsgroups:sci.physics.fusion
Subject:The Laws of Physics or the laws of physics?
Date:Nov 17,1994
Organization:Institute of Isotopic and Molecular 
             Technology,Cluj-Napoca,Romania
........................................................
Many thanks to all those who had the kindness to write
me following my posting:"A paradigm too far"(FD 2811?)
"Serious Cold Fusion"(FD 2833),"CFQ=Cold Fusion Quarrel?
No this time it is Cold Fusion Quotes!" (FD 2934) and
"Cold Fusion Quotes-2" (FD2946).Unfortunately, despite all
the efforts of our System Administrator,Dr.Mihai Jalobeanu 
who is i.a. a world wide known specialist in image processing,
our email connections are unreliable and some of the messages 
can get lost.For the time given, our machine is an old 386 
linked to the terminal of a very noisy phone line.
Apologies for delays and other problems created,beyond our
control.
                                     Peter Glueck.
...........................................................
The Laws of Physics or the laws of physics?

Imagine the impossible:due to some beneficial amnesia 
all the rancor and affronts accumulated in long years
and many battles are forgotten,the standardized roles
are ignored for a while and Goddess Empathy is ruling
s.p.f!.Skeptics and believers alike make heroic efforts to
understand each other's point of view. Take it just as a mental
experiment,which is imperative for taking a fresh look on the
situation and for understanding the roots of our conflicts beyond
interest,politics,reputation and human weaknesses.
Such an undertaking needs _positive thinking_,a stuff 
which is scarce at us and here we again can learn from the 
managers,please excuse me for a longer quote;

["Here is one secret of success.Avoid being against anything
Instead be _for_something.
Examples. Instead of being against illiteracy,be for literacy
and you will help to improve literacy.Instead of being against
your company's policy,be for an improved policy.
What happens:Whatever you are against,works against you.You
begin fighting it and become a part of the problem.But when 
you state what are you for,you begin focusing on the potential
for positive change".(You'll See It When You Believe It,by Dr.
Wayne W.Dyer,William Morrow and Co.,Inc.,105 Madison Ave,New 
York NY 10016,quoted from:Communication Briefings, Oct 1994) 

The conflict, from a purely epistemological point of view 
is between;
the Laws and the laws;
the Truth and the truths;
the Theory and the theories.
In my experience,wishful thinking i.e. in this case 
the firm belief that we already have discovered the Laws,
the Truth and the Theory is not restricted to physicists.
However it seems to be typical.In an editorial entitled
"Are there limits of scientific knowledge?",Analytical
 Chemistry,66,no.17,Sept 1,1994,Royce W. Murray wrote:
[...there is a difference in the way that physicists and 
 chemists regard science,and I sincerely hope that my 
physicist colleagues are not unduly offended.Many physicists 
hope they can understand EVERYTHING and they manage to 
pronounce this hope with great regularity to the public.
There's a certain arrogance there, but also an ambition
one must respect.
Chemists seem to have no such problem.
The complexity of molecular behavior-the origin,phase 
state,dynamic structure and, above all,bond making and 
bond breaking reactions of molecules-amounts to a 
complexity equivalent to that of a decent sized universe.
Yes,physicists,a universe.Chemists appreciate the enormity
of molecular complexity very well and they regularly say,
"We don't don't completely understand it,and it well be a long
time before we do." Contemplating molecular complexity is a
good mental exercise in humility.
Chemists appear to be quite content with this well adjusted,
honest attitude--even though as scientists we are sometimes 
less well regarded for our admitted lack of complete
understanding of our subject".]
However we have to admit that;

["What men really want is not knowledge but certainty"(Bertrand 
Russell)

Based on my professional experience, over 35 years in chemical
engineering I can add to this the value of KNOW-HOW,and the 
extra lesson of humility based on undeniable realities as:many
times we know what we have to do but we cannot explain in detail
why;there are some problems that get never finally solved;no
theory can avoid surprises and exceptions etc.
A similar case here ,the Second Law is a type of bugaboo and
it is clearly fundamental,some minor exceptions to it e.g.
evolution,life, our very existence are not significant.
I have emphasized many times that it isn't fair to demand
a complete,perfect theory of Cold Fusion now,given the 
neighbor fields of solid state science don't have 
such a theory  either.Two recent quotes:

["A rather disconcerting feature in the area of heteroge-
neous catalysis is the presence of a wide gap between 
theory and practice" -this is from a paper I am very 
enthusiastic about because it has many similarities to my 
'surfdyn' concept:"An interfacial mediator interpretation
of noble metal electrocatalysis",by Prof.L.D. Burke,
Platinum Metals Review,38, 4,Oct 1994,pp 166-173]

[A paper with a somewhat rhetorical subtitle:
"Mechanisms of Light Emission in Porous Silicon"
 (Confusion remains about why silicon emits light)
 by S.M.Prokes in Interface vol 3,no2,Summer 1994 p41]
(Interface is a type of supplement to J.Electrochemical 
Society and the editorial written by Paul A. Kohl in 
no3,Fall,1994 "The  Flop" is worth many thousand pages 
written on creativity)

What is distinctive for Cold Fusion, in the worst sense
is difficult reproducibility,therefore (given the soul
of positive and creative thinking present here ,now)
I will try to explain it once for ever.
Take the last example encountered at s.p.f.:in FD 2943
Gene Mallove publishes a paper from MIT Tech Talk
describing a Mills type cell.The inventor, Ray Conley 
is quoted;"Seemingly minor deviations, such as having
a bit of oil from one's fingers on the electrodes,can 
result in failure" and "It's a black art still,and if 
you don't do it right,it won't work. It's all just a
function of engineering it properly."
I have met many similar cases in my practice,this 
incredible hypersensitivity is characteristic for the  
catalytic processes,and if recognized and investigated
it is possible to be ruled by adequate know-how.
Consequently,irreproducibility,which seems to be a curse
can be transformed,by positive thinking in a valuable
information, and on this basis I can offer you an alter-
native concept: 'surfdyn'.
The principal points are:
1]We have to struggle for a good perfect theory/explanation
  but we will get,at least for the near future,only a working
  hypothesis.Here is mine.
2)Cold Fusion is a type of catalysis,all the reactions take
  place on the surface of the electrodes and other working
  parts of the devices.
  (The obsession of the lattice and the impossibility to
  understand the non-radiative energy transfer do not 
  disturb our model)
2)All the reactions take place in very restricted areas 
  of the very surface,the well known active sites.The whole 
  effort has to be spent for raising sufficient active sites
  and to maintain their productivity.
3)We are forced to accept the principle of Isotopic
  Democracy,i.e. that CF is not a privilege of deuterium.
  This is a strong evidence for a Mills type explanation
  for a part of the heat generating reactions.

Forget bulk, forget lattice! These entities are only supporters
or competitors of a surface with ultra-high concentration of 
hydrogen isotopes,the active sites are enhancing the mobility
of H, D,or T.How? I don't know but I guess the answer will
come from the follow-up research of those described e.g. in
the paper of Burke and "Observation of quantum-size effects
at room temperature on metal surfaces with STM". by P.Avouris
and I-W.Lyo, Science,264, 13 May 1994 pp942-945.

By the way, can somebody show experimental data which contra-
dicts my statement that the locus of the primary CF reactions
is the surface? And only some preferential zones of it?
Thank you in advance.

Peter Glueck Fax 4064-185816, Email <ITIMC@IMAR.RO>   

cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenitimc cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.19 / Richard Blue /  Re: solid road apple material
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: solid road apple material
Date: Sat, 19 Nov 1994 01:14:56 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I am sorry, Gene, if I had not made it sufficiently obvious that my post
on free energy, cow magents, and the GG was not entirely serious.  I did
refer to what I was saying as "nonsense."  Of course one purpose of that
post was to demonstrate that such nonsense can easily be confused with
much of what gets written in support of cold fusion.

However, nothing I said, even if it were true, would imply "fraud" on
the part of Jim Griggs.  He has been quite restrained in making claims
regarding the performance of the Hydrosonic Pump, and I don't believe
he is under any legal obligations to reveal to his costumers exactly
how the device works.  If he wants to invoke some "magic" in the
construction and set-up of the device he doesn't need to tell anyone
what that magic is in detail.

The most outlandish claims concerning the Griggs device have come from
Jed Rothwell.  The Rothwell claim that inspired me to speculate about
the inner workings of the GG was that the energy output of a test model
had been observed to reach the 500% level.  One way to avoid any hint
of fraud in the marketing of this device is simply to maintain some
separation between the party doing the marketing and the one spreading
the rumors about the performance of the device.

While we are on the subject of fraud, rumors, etc., I address a specific
challange to Gene Mallove and/or Jed Rothwell.  Would you state specifically
what the involvement of Los Alamos National Laboratory and Rockwell Corporation
has been in the experimental claims for the E-Quest device having produced
4He and 3He?  I believe it would be more appropriate for you to do that
rather than just drop names to lend credibility to the E-Quest claims.

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.19 / Richard Blue /  Eaton specifications for accuracy?
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Eaton specifications for accuracy?
Date: Sat, 19 Nov 1994 01:14:57 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Although the specifications for the Eaton torque sensor used to
measure the power input to the Griggs device have been posted twice I have
failed to find in those specifications any statement concerning the
accuracy other than the assurance that it is "high."  As I read the
specifications that were given they describe a device that could provide
an accurate measurement provided the instrument had been calibrated against
some standard.  Beyond that we have only Jed Rothwells statement that
the readings are in agreement with the electric power input to the motor
after correction for the motor efficiency on the basis of information
supplied by the motor manufacturer.  I don't see anything in what we
have been told that contradicts the suggestion by Dale Bass that the
accuracy of the power input to the Griggs device is uncertain by
20%

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.16 / Stephen Evans /  Re: Nonsense from MIT PFC
     
Originally-From: evans@rex.pfc.mit.edu (Stephen W. Evans)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Nonsense from MIT PFC
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 1994 11:39:07 -0500
Organization: MIT Plasma Fusion Center

In article <941116131443_76570.2270_HHB34-1@CompuServe.COM>,
76570.2270@compuserve.com (Eugene Mallove) wrote:

[most of the rest of the cites are messed up.  It appears that
 Mr Mallove's newsreader can't do them right.  I have tried to clean
 things up a bit, but he has made a real stew of it]
    
     [someone wrote this]
> >> You might want to read an article in "MIT Tech Talk" (Nov 9 1994) entitled
> >> "Graduate Student Envisions Power for Spacecraft from Cold Fusion"
 
     [i replied thusly]
> >>A mistitled article if ever there was one.  Even the student they are 
> >>interviewing says that it isn't fusion and is more likely an ionic
> >>reaction.  It is NOT an endorsement by MIT of cold fusion.

     [Mallove ranted]
> Stephen Evans of the MIT PFC posted the nonsense above -- in the great 
> tradition of MIT PFC incompetence on the issue of cold fusion, i.e. excess 
> energy at non-chemical levels and nuclear products produced in systems where 
> such products are not classically expected.

If you would have read the article you would have noted that NO NUCLEAR
PRODUCTS WERE PRODUCED.  A small quote from the article....

" Mr. Conley's apparatus includes potassium carbonate salt, water that has
been distilled and de-ionized, nickel and platinum electrodes, and electricty.
What happens in his experiments, he believes, is that the electricity causes
the water to break into hydrogen and oxygen atoms, and the salt into 
potassium and carbonate ions.  The potassium ions act as a "potential well"
for the energy released by the shrunken hydrogen atoms.  The energy is
transferred to the water, which rises in temperature.  Thus the fuel for
the reaction is water and electricity, while the product is heat, oxygen,
and shrunken hydrogen atoms (which do not react with oxygen and so are
not flammable) "

Sorry dude but I don't see fusion in any of that.  Of course I am just a
technical computer type guy, but even my University physics seems to have
left me with the impression that fusion involves adding bits to atoms that
were not there previously..... correct me if I'm wrong though....

> Eugene Mallove
> Cold Fusion Technology
> Box 2816
> Concord, NH 03302-2816
> Phone: 603-228-4516; Fax: 603-224-5975
> INTERNET:76570.2270@compuserve.com

Fastinating your no doubt esteemed associations.  I take it no University
will have you since you seem to need to get your Internet mail and such
through Compu$pend.  Or is it just that you seem to have a vested interest
in the cold fusion idea?? (sorry, after your bit above I just couldnt help
a personal attack or two).

The ONLY mention of "Cold Fusion" in the article was in the misleading title
(what do you expect from reporters, even student reporters) and the mention
that the person started his experiments due to in interest in the Cold Fusion
debate.  Oh and the mention that cold fusion most probably isn't the mechanism
for the excess heat.

Or are you one of those "Cold Fusion" dweebs that believes that any excess
heat produced in any experiment must be due to "Cold Fusion"???

--- Steve

Stephen W. Evans                #4499 Caligula (GEnie)
MIT Plasma Fusion Center        #4210 Kaligula (Delphi)
evans@rex.pfc.mit.edu           #4548 Kiligula (CRIS)
Work : (617)253-5471            Home : (617)625-8086

pgp public key available by fingering evans@rex.pfc.mit.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenevans cudfnStephen cudlnEvans cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.16 / Stephen Evans /  Re: Get a grip, Steve
     
Originally-From: evans@rex.pfc.mit.edu (Stephen W. Evans)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Get a grip, Steve
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 1994 11:41:15 -0500
Organization: MIT Plasma Fusion Center

In article <3aakde$b1i@insosf1.infonet.net>, parsec@worf.infonet.net () wrote:


> >THE HEAT IS REAL.

> >IT IS A MILLION TIMES BEYOND THE LIMITS OF CHEMISTRY.
                                             ^
                                           known

Just thought I would slip that in there..... these little ommissions
can lead to red faces later on.

Of course if you claim to know everything about Chemistry please come
apply at MIT.... I am sure they would be glad to let you fill them in.

--- Steve

Stephen W. Evans                #4499 Caligula (GEnie)
MIT Plasma Fusion Center        #4210 Kaligula (Delphi)
evans@rex.pfc.mit.edu           #4548 Kiligula (CRIS)
Work : (617)253-5471            Home : (617)625-8086

pgp public key available by fingering evans@rex.pfc.mit.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenevans cudfnStephen cudlnEvans cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.16 / Stephen Evans /  It Ain't Fusion! (was: Re: FYI: MIT work on 'Mills Cells')
     
Originally-From: evans@rex.pfc.mit.edu (Stephen W. Evans)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: It Ain't Fusion! (was: Re: FYI: MIT work on 'Mills Cells')
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 1994 11:56:52 -0500
Organization: MIT Plasma Fusion Center

In article <3ac968$ko1@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU>, redingtn@athena.mit.edu
(Norman H Redington) wrote:

> What's with y'all at the Plasma Fusion Center, anyway? I vividly remember
> the negativity of 1989 ... and now this! To quote the article:

[snip]

I DON'T SPEAK FOR THE PFC!!  I am just a computer guy who happens to know
alittle bit about physics and can read.  The article did NOT say that the
reaction was due to "Cold Fusion"  The Mill's process, while it may be
the greatest thing since sliced bread, is NOT FUSION.  Nothing is added
to the hydrogen atom.  It changes energy states but it's mass does not
change.  Fusion is GENERALLY (until this cold fusion debate) thought to
mean that something is ADDED to the Nucleus of the atom, possibly producing
a new, different atom and one or more byproducts!!

I am NOT negative about the possible uses of this process, especially should
it turn out to be commercially viable.  My electricty bill would REALLY 
appreciate something that operates at over unity take my word for it!!

I just don't see labeling it as "Fusion" when it most probably is just
an as yet not understood chemical or atomic process (as opposed to nuclear
since it seems only the electron shell is effected).  

I wasn't here in '89 but someone told me that when the P&F thing came out
that scientists here jumped for joy, dropped alot of other projects, and
tried, albiet unsucessfully, to reproduce their results.  Maybe the problem
was that they were indeed looking for Fusion as the rest of the world under-
stands the term, when they should have been looking for something different
that still generates energy, but certainly is NOT Fusion.

As far as I can see this labeling of various low temp heating phenomenon,
especially those involving electrolysis of one sort or another, as Fusion
relies at least in part on the false premise that we know everything there
is to know about what is conventionally termed "Chemisty".  There may be
a need to create an entire new branch of that discipline where such reactions
are dependant upon atomic energy states about which we know nothing now.  It
could be that the discipline thus created could explain much of what has
been going on in the area now termed "Cold Fusion".

But it remains.  Until you have added material to the nucleus of an atom,
thus altering it's atomic mass and possible generating byproduct particles,
it just ain't Fusion.

--- Steve

Stephen W. Evans                #4499 Caligula (GEnie)
MIT Plasma Fusion Center        #4210 Kaligula (Delphi)
evans@rex.pfc.mit.edu           #4548 Kiligula (CRIS)
Work : (617)253-5471            Home : (617)625-8086

pgp public key available by fingering evans@rex.pfc.mit.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenevans cudfnStephen cudlnEvans cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.16 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Re: Y. Arata DS-Cathode cold fusion
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Y. Arata DS-Cathode cold fusion
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 1994 10:55 -0500 (EST)

ts_zemanian@pnl.gov (Thomas S. Zemanian) writes:
 
-> This is, to me, fairly strong evidence that the energy from the Griggs
-> device is not from fusion.  Thus, the anomalous heat must be from some
-> other source, be it vacuum energy, stored heat, or incorrect power
-> measurements.
 
I agree with this assessment.  I personally think that if it is from vacuum
energy (ZPE) or some other exotic source instead of fusion it would be great.
Then you don't have to worry about neutrons, gammas and such, and absolutely
nothing gets used up.
 
                                                        Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.16 / Thomas Zemanian /  Re: Y. Arata DS-Cathode cold fusion
     
Originally-From: ts_zemanian@pnl.gov (Thomas S. Zemanian)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Y. Arata DS-Cathode cold fusion
Date: 16 Nov 1994 17:52:13 GMT
Organization: Battelle PNL

In article <USE2PCB890702391@brbbs.brbbs.com>, mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com
(MARSHALL DUDLEY) wrote:

> ts_zemanian@pnl.gov (Thomas S. Zemanian) writes:
>  
> -> This is, to me, fairly strong evidence that the energy from the Griggs
> -> device is not from fusion.  Thus, the anomalous heat must be from some
> -> other source, be it vacuum energy, stored heat, or incorrect power
> -> measurements.
>  
> I agree with this assessment.  I personally think that if it is from vacuum
> energy (ZPE) or some other exotic source instead of fusion it would be great.
> Then you don't have to worry about neutrons, gammas and such, and absolutely
> nothing gets used up.
>  

Let's nip a misunderstanding in the bud, shall we?  The zero point energy
is that energy which remains with the system at absolute zero temperature. 
It arises whenever motion is restricted (as, for example, in the
association of an electron with a proton in a hydrogen atom) and is a
consequence of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.

_Zero_potential _fluctuations_, on the other hand, are (if I understand
them correctly) "quantum hiccups", as it were, which, with a suitable
one-way check valve, could produce usable energy.  No violation of the
Second Law is indicated, but a (possibly allowable) violation of the First
is indicated.

Thus, tapping one phenomenon (ZPE) violates the HEP, whereas tapping the
other (ZPF, or vacuum energy) seems to violate the First Law.

Corrections cheerfully welcomed.

--Tom

--
The opinions expressed herein are mine and mine alone.  Keep your filthy
hands off 'em! 
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudents_zemanian cudfnThomas cudlnZemanian cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.16 /  nachtrieb@max. /  ALCATOR C-MOD WEEKLY HIGHLIGHTS, 19941116
     
Originally-From: nachtrieb@max.pfc.mit.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: ALCATOR C-MOD WEEKLY HIGHLIGHTS, 19941116
Date: 16 NOV 94 19:29:18 GMT
Organization: MIT PLASMA FUSION CENTER

		   Alcator C-MOD Weekly Highlights
			    Nov. 16, 1994

We are presently in a normal pre-operational cycle. Good progress has
been made this week in readying the machine for plasma operation.

The first coil cool-down to operating temperature was carried out
early in the week. No problems were encountered. The structure
cool-down was also begun, and the structure is now at operating
temperature.

High power tests under PLC (Programmable Logic Control; system run by
inexpensive personal computers) control were carried out last
Thursday. All supplies have now been tested.

Following leak checking, the machine was baked to 120C over the
weekend. A final leak check revealed one remaining very small leak,
which was repaired.  The base pressure was then in the low 10^-8 Torr
range with the walls at 35C, which is consistent with the best vacuum
conditions obtained in the past.

The gas system has been baked and is now operational.

Discharge cleaning (ECDC) was turned on Tuesday and run overnight.

The West-side igloo cover has been installed, permitting the upper
optics for the Thomson scattering and TCI interferometer (Two-Color
interferometer; measures density profiles on fast timescale) to
be installed and aligned.

Diagnostic installation is proceeding. The ECE (Electron Cyclotron
Emission; use to measure temperature profiles) beamline is now in
place. The Johns Hopkins Moly Monitor has been re-installed. The
plasma TV system is operational.

A new release of MDSplus (Model Driven System; a programming
environment), including new versions of all the CAMAC driver modules,
has been installed and is being debugged.

Power system testing will resume today, including Hybrid feedback
control. The latest release of the PCS plasma control system interface
will be in use.

Most of the Alcator physics staff and students attended the APS-DPP
meeting in Minneapolis last week. Two invited papers, and a total of
31 contributed papers, including 11 by our outside collaborators, were
presented.

cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudennachtrieb cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.16 / Matt Kennel /  Re: Get a grip, Steve
     
Originally-From: mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Get a grip, Steve
Date: 16 Nov 1994 22:09:31 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

mitchell swartz (mica@world.std.com) wrote:
:   In Message-ID: <3aakde$b1i@insosf1.infonet.net>
: Subject: Re: Get a grip, Steve
: a poster (parsec@worf.infonet.net) wrote:

:    >".... no sane person cares whether this heat comes from
:    >nuclear reactions, zero-point energy, green cheese rotting on the moon,
:    >shrinking hydrogen atoms, or angels break dancing on a pin.
:              [<jedrothwell@delphi.com>]
: =par The whys and wherefores are of some import to physicists and other readers 
: =par here.  Dr. Jones asks for evidence consistent with conventional theory, 
: =par however...

:    Conventional theory requires that Steve Jones explain why the putative
: products are necessarily traveling at high velocity if such reactions
: occur in a material.
:    Without showing
: in a compelling fashion that such fast moving products exist
: to collide with other nuclei, Steve's demanded gamma rays 
: are actually not even a sine qua non of these reactions.
:    Furthermore, if Steve is unable to show in a compelling fashion that 
: such fast moving products exist, there 
: is no need to scrap conventional theory even in the face of
: cold fusion phenomena.

Look, it's been gone over a squillion times.  You put together
the short-range nature of the strong force and special relativity and
it is exceedingly difficult to escape the conclusion that nuclear reactions
must produce detectable high-energy reaction products.  If you then
believe that the macroscopic energy observed is a result of nuclear
reactions you can compute how many reactions must be taking place.  The
number is gigantic, billions of times over detection thresholds.

This "theory" is not something like "well we think the dinosaurs
died because of xyz" or "aids works like ..." but something far more
secure and difficult to change.

Saying "it's different in palladium" is like saying "we don't conserve
energy because it's Just Different when we have a 75 centimeter vertical
tube with this kind of metal and about 4 amps of current.  We don't
know why and we don't care."

It's like saying "oh if you make a rock shaped like this gravity
will stop working, Just Because."

Also note that this reasoning does not depend on the particular
nuclear reactions, so you could muck around with conventional nuclear
theories (i.e. things relating to details about strong-force reactions
where there might be wiggle room) but still be very constrained by
your non-observations.

{yes the apparent He3 production is by far the most interesting 'result',
 if it holds up and if there is even the slightest sign of radiation that
 would be cool.}

:      - Mitchell Swartz

Personally I'm hoping for new physics (did anybody see the ny times
today; apparently hubble has ruled out black dwarfs as being the
Missing Mass, and the Hubble constant from macroscopic expansion
points more and more to a universe of 8 Gyr, whereas stellar evolution in 
globular clusters is apparently fixed hard at 15 Gyr...)

--
-Matt Kennel  		mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu
-Institute for Nonlinear Science, University of California, San Diego
-*** AD: Archive for nonlinear dynamics papers & programs: FTP to
-***     lyapunov.ucsd.edu, username "anonymous".
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenmbk cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.19 / Robert Horst /  Improving spf signal to noise
     
Originally-From: horst_bob@tandem.com (Robert Horst)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Improving spf signal to noise
Date: Sat, 19 Nov 1994 00:34:44 GMT
Organization: Tandem Computers

One way to improve the quality of a process is to come up with a
quality metric, then let individuals figure out the best way they can
improve the score on that metric.  Maybe this technique could improve
the signal to noise ratio of this newsgroup.

Over the last four days, I have rated every post to spf in the
following categories:

A. Results/analysis/news   
B. Questions/commments
C. Social/political/economic (not sci., but fusion related)
D. Noise/off-subject/crackpot theories
F. Flames/name calling/profanity/slander

A -- Includes original experimental results, data from other
experiments, paper abstracts or summaries, theories, conference
announcements or reports, and especially good comments or analysis.

B -- Generally for short comments on other posts that add something
to the conversation.  Must be on-subject and more than me-too
comments.

C -- Usually for discussion that are about fusion, but not science.
Includes social impact, economics, history, etc.  Also for novice
questions and good jokes.

D -- Includes seriously off-topic (hurricanes), followups that are
mostly noise (agreeing with a previous post, or disagreeing with no
supporting reasons), weak attempts at humor, and nonscientific
theories.

F -- This is a special category, and messages may get an F as well as
another grade.  I would not give an F to a post that said "Prof X did
a stupid experiment because he did not look at ...", but would give
an F to a post that said "This experiment shows that Prof X is an
idiot." Any post that implies fraud is also automatically an F.

Here are the results for Nov 15-18:

                A        B      C       D        F
Barstow         1        3      1
Bass                     1      1       3        2
bill                                    1
Blue                     3                       1
Britz                           1       1
Connover                 2              3
Cyganski         1
Droege                          1
Dudley                   1              2
Evans            1       3                       1
Freeman                                 1
Foster                                  1
Glueck           1
Gupta                           1
Hamberli                                1
Hittinger        1
Jalobeanu                       1
Kennel                          1
Kunich                          1       1
Maclaren                  1
Mallove                         3                2
Matney                    1
Nowotarski                              1           
Parkinson                       1       1
parsec                                  1
prasad                    1             5
Proudfoot                       1
Redington                 1
Rothwell        2         2                      2
Schudalla                               1
Schultz                   2
Seghers                          1
Shade                                   1
Sobel                                   1
Swartz          1         1      1      1
Zemanian        1         2             1

Totals          9       24      15     27       8   
Percent        11%      29%     18%    33%     10%

S/N ratio = (4A + B)/(D + 2E) = 60/43 = 1.4

I weighted the A's heavily, because I am willing to wade through about
4 worthless messages (or two flames) to get one good nugget of
information.

Please do not whine about how I may have classified your posts (that
will just add more class D traffic to next week's S/N computation).
If you do not like my classifications, just do one of your own and
post the results.

Better yet, how about generating more class A traffic.  It is not
really that difficult to get into class A.  Almost any kind of fact
(as opposed to opinion) will qualify.  It would be great to see more
posts based on data from published papers. 

Lets see if we can improve our S/N next week.  I will not have time to
do this all the time, but may try it once in a while to see if things
improve.

-- Bob Horst     (By the way, this message rates a C)
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenhorst_bob cudfnRobert cudlnHorst cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.17 / Dieter Britz /  Re: TEMPLATE -2
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <britz@alpha.kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: TEMPLATE -2
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 1994 16:23:32 +0100
Organization: DAIMI, Computer Science Dept. at Aarhus University



On Tue, 15 Nov 1994, Eugene Mallove wrote:

> Template for messages
> 
> Gene, Gene, what have you done? For some years now, the 'cold fusion' 
> propagandists have carefully built up the picture that the normally rare d-d
> fusion branch leading to 4He is in fact the dominant one. This scenario needs
> only two miracles: the dominance of this branch (quite unexplained), and how
> the 23 MeV gammas get quietly absorbed as heat, explained by waving the hands
> at some mumble mumble Moessbauer mumble. Thus, no gammas, neutrons or x-rays;
> heat only. And with kilowatts of heat coming out of tiny bits of metal, who
> can argue with this?
> 
> Now you go and spoil it all. If you use 3He (which so far noone has found) to
> underpin the existence of 'cold fusion', you imply the 3He branch, one of the
> two normal ones. This would very likely drag with it the other main one, 
> tritium. So now you have two quite different miracles to explain: where are
> those neutrons from the tritium branch, and where are the x-rays given off
> from energetic tritons and protons crashing into the metal deuteride? In fact,
> where is the tritium? Why did you do it, Gene? Things were settling in so
> nicely with the 4He scenario. 

This seems awfully familiar...

-- db

cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenbritz cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Sat Nov 19 04:37:08 EST 1994
------------------------------
1994.11.18 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Eaton torque sensor specifications
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Eaton torque sensor specifications
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 94 10:30:36 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz) writes:
 
     "None of the numbers you have posted is inconsistent with an accuracy of
     +/- 20%.  You do know the difference between precision and accuracy,
     don't you?"
 
Yes, I do. That is why I typed in the product spec sheet information: "High
accuracy" and "Extended speed range." Also, please note that I described here,
many times, the steps I took when the model 7540 controller box was in
calibration mode. These standard operating procedures ensure accuracy in the
torque readings. I am confident that the engineer who installed the equipment
took care of RPM accuracy. I have been told the overall accuracy and precision
of the instrument puts it within a half-percent of the actual mechanical power
readings. I would settle for 2%. In any case, let me repeat the last line of
my posting:
 
     For more information, contact Eaton Aerospace & Commercial Controls.
 
I think it is very important that you follow up on your idea here. I encourage
you to contact Eaton and resolve these doubts you raise. Let me explain why.
You, Dale Bass and other members of this forum have some very odd ideas, which
are far removed from reality. Dale believes that Georgia Power is incapable of
installing a billing meter accurate to within 20%. He believes that a dozen or
more highly experienced electrical engineers and professors are incapable of
installing and using standard electric power meters. He claims that General
Electric is incapable of calibrating its equipment, and that the certification
stickers they put on the equipment after performing factory recalibrations are
a joke. Perhaps he thinks that the user manuals and equipment specification
sheets published by General Electric are fraudulent.
 
Now you come along and claim that a $5,000 state-of-the-art dynamometer with a
rated precision better than +/- 0.5% may only be accurate to +/- 20%. This
speculation of yours is utterly, indescribably weird. Nobody I know with
experience with industrial measurement and control equipment would ever dream
up such a crazy notion. What engineer would design a factory control
instrument precise to the nearest 0.5% which might wander 20% either way? If
the engineers of this world did things that way, our chemical factories would
blow up, our helicopters and airplanes would routinely fall out of the sky. In
your weird scenario, a technician with Delta Airlines would say to the pilot:
 
     "Your jet engine fuel pump is delivering 4,225.6 horsepower, exactly as
     rated, but then again it might be 845 HP too low or too high, so the
     last five digits of precision don't mean anything. It should be enough.
     I hope. . . I can't really tell."
 
I cannot address such wacky notions. I encourage you to contact the
manufacturer and get a grip on reality without my help.
 
 
For readers not familiar with these instruments, I must hasten to add that in
many cases factory performance can only be measured to within broad limits. A
Georgia Tech professor of engineering specializing in textile mills once told
me that his analysis of drying machine performance was only accurate to within
about 20%. (He was measuring things like the amount of water left in the
fabric and the C.O.P. of the driers). However, that being the case, he would
not report his conclusions with 5 or 6 digits precision. If accuracy is 20%
(two digits) then precision beyond 2 digits means nothing, unless you are
measuring incremental Delta T changes. (Griggs is not doing that.)
Furthermore, the textile mill analysis was based upon many parameters measured
with many instruments combined with some unavoidable guesswork. The individual
meters used to measure drying machine power consumption, the speed at which
the fabric moves through the machine, etcetera, are all precise and accurate.
The problem is that readings from many meters must be combined, which
multiplies errors together, and other parameters which are not measured at all
must be estimated and factored in. Furthermore, factory equipment is often
left untested and uncalibrated for extended periods of time, because people
cannot afford to turn off production lines every day to hang weights and
strobe lights on their dynamometers. In the case of the Griggs Hydrodynamic
Pump test bed, there are only three parameters to be measured: mass of water,
water temperature, and input power (which is measured as electricity delivered
to the motor and mechanical power delivered to the Pump.) All three of these
parameters are measured with redundant equipment, and standard operating
calibration procedures are followed every day. Therefore, the Griggs
measurements are far more reliable than a typical off-the-shelf, non-critical
factory reading.
 
 
Another reason I would like you to contact Eaton is because I am sick and
tired of doing other people's homework. If you "skeptics" honestly believe
this blather and nonsense you post, you can jolly well go makes fools of
yourselves by asking the equipment manufactures stupid questions. Go ahead!
Ask them if their gadget is 20% accurate or not. I would love to hear the tech
support guy's response to an idiot question like that. I do feel sorry for the
poor guy though, because I have been there myself, and fielded many questions
almost as dumb as that.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenjedrothwell cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.18 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Arata paper in English
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Arata paper in English
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 94 10:34:39 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Harry H Conover <conover@max.tiac.net> writes:
 
>So, what does it say?
 
It says what the Japanese paper says, only in English. So you don't have to
know all those kanji to read it.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenjedrothwell cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.16 / Rodney Price /  Re: Get a grip, Steve
     
Originally-From: rprice@reunion.umd.edu (Rodney Price)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Get a grip, Steve
Date: 16 Nov 1994 22:45:40 GMT
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park

In article <p2y0sG+.jedrothwell@delphi.com> jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:
> Steve Jones <jonesse@physc2.byu.edu> again raises theoretical objections to
> try and disprove facts. He writes:
>  
>      "I'm waiting for someone to show me an x-ray spectrum from one of these
>      expts. You see, nuclear reactions release lots of energy -- plenty to
>      excite the metal atoms in the lattice, so that they *must* give off
>      copious x-rays. . ."
>  
[repulsive invective deleted]
>  
> - Jed

I drop in here once in a while to see what's going on.  I'm the graduate
student who worked for Steve Jones et al the summer of 1986 on his first 
cold fusion experiment.  After having not posted anything for at least two
years,  I guess I'll do it just once:

Why does anyone here pay attention to this guy?  Jed's the first and only 
occupant of my killfile (at the moment).  A marvelous invention.  Use it.

Rod Price
rprice@reunion.umd.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenrprice cudfnRodney cudlnPrice cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.18 / Ad aspera /  FYI
     
Originally-From: JTCHEW@lbl.gov (Ad absurdum per aspera)
Newsgroups: sci.research,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.accelerators,sci
physics.particle,sci.space.policy
Subject: FYI
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 1994 10:08:55 -0800
Organization: Relayed, not written, by Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory



[Written by individuals at the American Institute of Physics and
merely posted by me, so respond to <fyi@aip.org> or other
references below.  Always posted here on sci.research; sometimes
crossposted to an eclectic and hopefully appropriate selection
of other newsgroups, with followups directed here. Back issues
may be ftp'd from NIC.HEP.NET, along with PHYSICS NEWS UPDATE
and the American Physical Society news/opinion column WHAT'S NEW;
or from pinet.aip.org. Enjoy! -jc]


CRS Analyzes Federal Big Science Projects

FYI No. 160, November 18, 1994

In response to a request by the House science committee, the
Congressional Research Service (CRS) analyzed 30 federally-funded
scientific mega-projects begun within the past 15 years.  The
40-page report, entitled "Big Science and Technology Projects:
Analysis of 30 Selected U.S. Government Projects," and released on
August 24, examines 16 DOE, 11 NASA, and 3 NSF projects, some
on-going, some completed, and some cancelled.  It looks at their
cost and schedule histories, their record of authorizations (if
any) and appropriations, and provides a brief summary of their
current status and support.

The projects ending in termination all experienced significant
increases in their estimated cost.  CRS notes that many (although
not all) of the cost and schedule overruns were caused by
congressional appropriations of less than the full funding needed
to keep the program on track.  The report finds that "of those
projects selected, significant cost increases are associated more
frequently with the terminated projects than with the on-going
projects.  Of the terminated projects, cost increases ranged from
a low of about 1.5 times the originally estimated cost to highs of
5.2 times and 8 times.  Of the on-going projects, on the other
hand, estimated cost increases thus far range from none in several
cases to a high of 3.4 times."

The report concludes that "significant technical, cost, political,
foreign policy, and other events following an initial authorization
and/or appropriation may overshadow initial congressional support."
It recommends that Congress consider requiring "authorizing
legislation for big science and technology projects...  However,"
it warns, "it would seem inevitable that some big science and
technology projects, even with initial congressional and
administrative support, will succumb to unforeseen problems and
events."

Below is the CRS summary of LIGO.  In parentheses are the expected
date of completion, the initial estimated cost, and the current
estimated cost.  Summaries of selected DOE and NASA projects will
be provided in FYIs #161 and #162.

LASER INTERFEROMETER GRAVITATIONAL WAVE OBSERVATORY (FY1999; $340
m federal share; $356 m federal share):  "There has been debate in
Congress and the scientific community from the beginning concerning
the cost of the project....  There has been added congressional
concern in that LIGO lacks international collaboration or
participation.  More central to the debate is the criticism of its
having been scaled up from one 40-meter prototype in February 1992
to the current design of two 4-kilometer facilities.  Many in the
scientific community contend that the more prudent approach would
be to pursue aggressive technology development, beginning with the
construction of a 200-meter telescope.  In its current design,
there are questions as to whether or not the objectives of the
project are achievable.  LIGO is considered to be a high risk
experiment, even by many in the physics community."

The report can be obtained through the offices of your Members of
Congress.  The Capitol Switchboard number is 202-224-3121.


###############
Public Information Division
American Institute of Physics
Contact:  Audrey T. Leath
fyi@aip.org
(301)209-3094
##END##########
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenJTCHEW cudfnAd cudlnaspera cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.18 / S COM /  Re: changes of science theory at 80 year intervals
     
Originally-From: SPROLES@news.delphi.com (SPROLES@DELPHI.COM)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,soc.history.science
Subject: Re: changes of science theory at 80 year intervals
Date: 18 Nov 1994 23:39:17 -0000
Organization: Delphi Internet Services Corporation

I think that one theoristi said that the 80 year turnover rate is 
directly related to the life time of currenly in vogue theorist (and some 
overlap for prize students).  Does anyone know the source for this folklore?

Jude'

SPROLES@delphi.com
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenSPROLES cudfnSPROLES@DELPHI cudlnCOM cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.17 /  jedrothwell@de /  Arata paper in English
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Arata paper in English
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 94 16:10:06 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

I got a fax of a recent paper by Yoshiaki Arata in English. It is:
 
     Y. Arata, Y-C. Zhang, "A New Energy caused by 'Spillover-Deuterium,'"
     Proc Japan Acad., 70, Ser B (1994)
 
This was communicated Sept. 12, 1994. It covers much of the same ground as:
 
     Y. Arata, Y-C. Zhang, "New Energy Generated in DS-Cathode with
     'Pd-Black,'" Kouon Gakkaishi, Vol. 20, No. 4, (July 1994) pp. 148 - 155
     (in Japanese)
 
It is not as detailed.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenjedrothwell cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.17 / Barry Smith /  Re: Get a grip, Steve
     
Originally-From: barry@bluesky.com (Barry Smith)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Get a grip, Steve
Date: 17 Nov 1994 08:39:09 GMT
Organization: Blue Sky Research

In article <p2y0sG+.jedrothwell@delphi.com>
jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:

> THE HEAT IS REAL.
>  
> IT IS A MILLION TIMES BEYOND THE LIMITS OF CHEMISTRY.
>  
> IT IS USEFUL ENERGY THAT WILL BE HARNESSED TO MAKE PEOPLE'S
> LIVES EASIER AND MAKE THE WORLD MUCH CLEANER.
>  
> IT IS WORTH BILLIONS OF DOLLARS.

When will it be shown publicly?


Barry Smith, Blue Sky Research
barry@bluesky.com
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnSmith cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.20 / Richard Blue /  Energetic particles?
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Energetic particles?
Date: Sun, 20 Nov 1994 01:11:27 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I know this is a pointless excercise, but I would like to attempt to
explain to Mitchell Swartz why I, Steve Jones, and a number of other
knowledgeable people think the fusion produces energetic particles.

One of the key arguments made by cold fusion advocates has long been
that the observed excess heat exceeds the maximum that can be derived
from a chemical reaction process.  I assume, Mitchell, that you will
accept that as a starting point for this little excercise.  The reason
that we general use the designation "cold fusion" to describe the
process generating the excess heat is that the usual starting hypothesis
involves the reconfiguration of nuclei from less tightly bound configurations
to more tightly bound configurations, and the association with D2O
in the initial experiments has led to general belief that fusion of
deuterium to form 4He is a likely candidate for the energy production
process.  I won't hold you to that, but why don't we use this as
an example to follow through a line of reasoning that leads one to
suspect that energetic particles are produced.

Without worrying about the details it would seem that we are considering
a process involving the fusion of light nuclei with an energy release
of the order of MeV to tens of MeV per fusion event.  If you question
the logic behind such an assertion, I invite you to propose an alternative
process that does not fit that description.

Now we can begin to place some quantitative limits, based on experimental
observations and basic physics, on the fusion process.  These numbers
have all been given before.  Per watt of excess heat there must be
something like 10^12 or 10^13 fusion events per second in a total
sample population of perhaps 10^20 to 10^22 candidate nuclei.  From
that I conclude that in any time interval shorter than a microsecond
only a very small fraction of the population is involved.  You pick
a number you like.

Let us now return to the properties of nuclear systems and discuss
the energy levels in a typical isolated nucleus involving 8 or
fewer nucleons.  The density of states over the energy range involved
is very, very small.  Each nucleus has a ground state, but excited
states are few and far between - MeV separations are the rule.
But, you will remind me, the fusing nuclei are not isolated so the
nuclear states may be perturbed with a resulting increase in the
density of states and a reduction in level spacing.  At this point
I believe that the burden of proof must switch to you.  I insist
that it is a physical fact, an experimental observation if you will,
that this perturbation does not occur.  There is, in fact, no
mechanism by which it could occur.

If, however, you kling to the notion that the nuclear systems involved
in cold fusion are perturbed with a resulting increase in the density
of states you may be putting yourself in another little box.  In order
to conform with the experimental observations accepted by cold fusion
advocates it has been necessary to propose restrictions on the
outcome of the reaction process.  That is to say the claim is that of
several possible outcomes the reaction pathway is restricted to only
one final reaction product, and that product nucleus must be in its
ground state.  How do you reconcile the claim that the nuclei are in
very perturbed states before and during the reaction process with the
claim that final outcome is very unique?  Is the density of states
available abnormally high or is it abnormally low?

Since there is no known perturbing mechanism and the observed density
of states appears to remain low, the most likely description of the
reaction process involves transitions through a small number of states
with energy differences that remain large.  Furthermore the features
of the nuclear interaction set some limits on the time scale for the
transition process.  I like numbers such as 10^9 seconds or less -
actually a lot less.  If you object please give some ground for your
objection.

With that background we are led to the conclusion that the reaction
process releases energy on the MeV scale at single isolated locations
and that there are are virtually no possibilities for spreading the
released energy among more than a few "particles".  That follows
from simple causality arguments.

Now tell us where this chain of reasoning can be broken.

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.19 / A Plutonium /  November issue of FUSION TECHNOLOGY, a summary
     
Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.fusion
Newsgroups:
Subject: November issue of FUSION TECHNOLOGY, a summary
Subject: ENGIN#5: RADIOACTIVE SPONTANEOUS NEUTRON MATERIALIZATION RSNM
Date: 19 Nov 1994 01:01:04 GMT
Date: 8 Oct 1994 02:21:58 GMT
Organization: Plutonium College
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

  These newsgroups are really good at giving a summary or recap of
articles in technical journals. Dartmouth does not receive Fusion
Technology. So I was wondering if someone could give some summary or
details of the two articles concerning the appearance of iron in carbon
arc, provided, if they were published in the Nov issue. Thanks in
advance.

cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.10.08 / L Plutonium /  ENGIN#5: RADIOACTIVE SPONTANEOUS NEUTRON MATERIALIZATION RSNM
     
Originally-From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
Newsgroups:
sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.
physics
Subject: ENGIN#5: RADIOACTIVE SPONTANEOUS NEUTRON MATERIALIZATION RSNM
Date: 8 Oct 1994 02:21:58 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
Lines: 59
Message-ID: <374vo6$ldv@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>

In article <3635nj$2o4@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium) writes:

>   I have been informed that in the November issue of FUSION TECHNOLOGY
> will have two articles on the appearance of iron, produced in a carbon
> arc under water. The original researcher in this area was a person by
> the name of George Oshawa.
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenPlutonium cudfnLudwig cudlnPlutonium cudmo10 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.17 / Alex Teo /  FAQ confirmation (was Re: MHD and TAE activity in TFTR?)
     
Originally-From: act@ipp-garching.mpg.de (Alex Teo)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: FAQ confirmation (was Re: MHD and TAE activity in TFTR?)
Date: 17 Nov 1994 17:20:51 +0100
Organization: Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik, Garching bei Muenchen


rfheeter@pppl.gov (Robert F. Heeter) writes:
[snip] 
> In general I'd trust Fredrickson over the FAQ.  I believe I was
[etc.]

Thanks for the confirmation. The FAQ was not really incorrect ;) so much 
as not exactly confirming Fredrickson et al. And if I were you, mate, I
would just ignore the ridiculous anal-retentiveness of some people on this
forum who flog beyond death the denotations and connotations of plain and
simple English phrases whose meaning should be clear to all...

				cheerio, Alex Teo
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenact cudfnAlex cudlnTeo cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.17 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Griggs pyrometer
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs pyrometer
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 94 11:50:16 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Richard Schultz <schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu> writes:
 
>You should reread what I wrote.  What I said was that our group had used an
>optical pyrometer to *measure* the temperature of rhenium filaments and
 
Opps. Sorry about that.
 
 
>On the contrary.  If you want to play the game like a scientist, or 
>rather if you want to be taken seriously by those of us who are scientist,
 
God forbid! If I should ever -- EVER -- try to play the game like a scientist,
I hope my relatives have enough sense to commit me to insane asylum until I
get over it. I have seen such a miserable collection of dumb clucks and
incompetant egomaniacs as you scientists. Beggin' yer pardon guys, but if
someone was cruel enough to chuck you out of your ivory towers and force
you to work in the real world of private enterprise (where I live), you would
not last 15 minutes.
 
Regarding the pyrometer: I posted the make and model a 5 or 6 times previously.
Wandering over to the file cabinet again I find . . . it is a Minolta/LAND
device. . . can't read Gene Mallove's handwriting here.
 
Regarding other equipment and specifications, I suppose I have provide maybe
a hundred times more hard facts, specifications, detailed information, names
of equipment suppliers and other hands-on information than all you so-called
"skeptics" and "scientists" put together. Maybe 200 times more. Hard to say,
actually, since 99% of what you post is content-free hot air anyway.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenjedrothwell cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.17 /  ivie@cc.usu.ed /  Re: Con Artist Blue
     
Originally-From: ivie@cc.usu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Con Artist Blue
Date: 17 Nov 94 09:48:13 MDT
Organization: Utah State University

In article <941117142958_76570.2270_HHB59-1@CompuServe.COM>, 76570.2270@
ompuserve.com (Eugene Mallove) writes:
> It strains the imagination to think that you actually believe your 
> explanation, but I think you do and that your posting was not tongue-in-cheek.
> 
> Your head is solid road apple material. Jim Griggs should sue your butt off 
> for accusing him of blatant fraud -- based on no evidence whatsoever except 
> your own mad imagination.

Chill out! Didn't you read the first paragraph? Oh, where is that sarcasm
smiley when you need one...
-- 
----------------+------------------------------------------------------
Roger Ivie      | Don't think of it as a 'new' computer, think of it as
ivie@cc.usu.edu |     'obsolete-ready'
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenivie cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.17 / Chris Parkinson /  Re: Get a grip, Steve
     
Originally-From: parky@ix.netcom.com (Chris Parkinson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Get a grip, Steve
Date: 17 Nov 1994 18:19:15 GMT
Organization: Netcom

In <3ae22k$f9q@umd5.umd.edu> rprice@reunion.umd.edu (Rodney Price) 
writes:
 
snip

>I drop in here once in a while to see what's going on.  I'm the 
>graduate student who worked for Steve Jones et al the summer of 1986 on 
>his first cold fusion experiment.  After having not posted anything for 
>at least two years,  I guess I'll do it just once:
>
>Why does anyone here pay attention to this guy?  Jed's the first and 
>only occupant of my killfile (at the moment).  A marvelous invention.  
>Use it.
>
>Rod Price
>rprice@reunion.umd.edu
>

Well Rod, you have every right to kill any file you want. But you do not 
have the right to defame someone. The only issue here is that Steve 
Jones and probably you too, worked on some preliminary CF projects. It 
has become very obvious to me that the intent here is to destroy CF and 
not enhance the possibilities of CF. It has also come to me that DR. 
Jones has got a huge Ego. Jeds comments are useful in deflating that Ego 
and you jumping in like this without knowing the background of this 
thread is just a bit much.

Jed is one of the few that is actively seeaking out all CF research no 
matter where it is in the world. Does Steve do this? I haven't noticed 
that he does but what he does do is rely on his tired research 
podium, expressing the needs for nuclear ash wihtout conceding that 3H 
or 4H is the ash. Secondly, Jed is using his time and his resources to 
translate a paper from Japan. The article has a chance at revieling a 
breakthrough. Again is Steve helping in that effort. No, he merely wants 
to bitch about it. I fully endorse Jeds position in regards to Dr. Jones 
and moreover enjoyed his religious slant to the argument he presented.

CP
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenparky cudfnChris cudlnParkinson cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Sun Nov 20 04:37:04 EST 1994
------------------------------
1994.11.18 / Phil Dursin /  Cold fusion: A question
     
Originally-From: dursin@meteora.ucsd.edu (Phil Dursin)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Cold fusion: A question
Date: 18 Nov 1994 16:04:06 GMT
Organization: University of California at San Diego

My name is Alan Resnikoff.  I'm a 14 year old physics student at
La Jolla High SSchool.  I am doing a paper on future technologies.
 Most of what I've read 
suggests that cold fusion - my main interest - is a technology that will
never be achieved.  Would anyone be willing to comment on that?  If you are,
please send email to my mother :  dursin@aeolus.ucsd.edu.  Thanks very much!
Alan
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudendursin cudfnPhil cudlnDursin cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.18 / Dennis Lawrence /  Re: changes of science theory at 80 year intervals
     
Originally-From: Lawrence2@llnl.gov (Dennis Lawrence)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: changes of science theory at 80 year intervals
Date: 18 Nov 1994 20:32:40 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Livermore Lab

>      To me this seems obvious, but it seems lost on a lot of people.  Over and
> over I see people post data, followed by another post that says this must not
> be right because of (some theory).  Because the data doesn't agree with theory
> the data is wrong, I see that over and over again here.
> 
I have a meta-model of the way people deal with the world. Basically,
I think that no-one really understands the world - they construct models
in their head and interact with the model as if it was reality.

One popular model is the Theological Model. The above is an example. Much
of economics is another example - no matter how bad the prediction, there
are always ways to explain this away in order to keep the theory. God is
on my side.

A second popular model is the Military Model. This says "the enemy will
do what is in my best interests." This model is used by generals,
political candidates and corporate CEOs. (Sometimes, of course, this
model actually works - the Gulf War is an example!) For example, the
manager who assumes that the product will be designed correctly, so
there is no budget for testing.
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenLawrence2 cudfnDennis cudlnLawrence cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.18 / Ad aspera /  FYI 161 (CRS on DOE)
     
Originally-From: JTCHEW@lbl.gov (Ad absurdum per aspera)
Newsgroups: sci.research,sci.physics.particle,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.accelerators
Subject: FYI 161 (CRS on DOE)
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 1994 14:42:08 -0800
Organization: Relayed, not written, by Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory


[Written by individuals at the American Institute of Physics and
merely posted by me, so respond to <fyi@aip.org> or other
references below.  Always posted here on sci.research; sometimes
crossposted to an eclectic and hopefully appropriate selection
of other newsgroups, with followups directed here. Back issues
may be ftp'd from NIC.HEP.NET, along with PHYSICS NEWS UPDATE
and the American Physical Society news/opinion column WHAT'S NEW;
or from pinet.aip.org. Enjoy! -jc]

CRS Analysis of Federal Big Science Projects: DOE

FYI No. 161, November 18, 1994

FYI #160 summarized a recent CRS report analyzing 30 selected big
science projects, and provided the report's summary of LIGO.  This
FYI provides selected quotes from the CRS report relating to DOE
projects; FYI #162 will cover NASA projects.  In parentheses are
the expected date of completion, the initial estimated cost, and
the current estimated cost.

B-FACTORY (FY1998; $293 m; $293 m):  "The B-Factory project...is
considered very important to the U.S. high energy physics program
because of intense international competition in the research of
B-meson phenomena which contributes to further understanding of
matter and antimatter in the universe."

CONTINUOUS ELECTRON BEAM ACCELERATOR FACILITY (FY1995; $225 m; $513
m):  "CEBAF was strongly recommended by DOE and its nuclear science
advisory panel.  Following a [1984 House science committee
hearing]..., a provision authorizing CEBAF funding was included in
a House bill to authorize DOE civilian R&D programs.  However, no
laws authorizing DOE's civilian R&D programs were enacted
subsequently by the Congress."

RELATIVISTIC HEAVY ION COLLIDER (FY1999; $497 m; $595 m):  "RHIC
was strongly recommended by DOE and its nuclear advisory panel....
Although not authorized, as have been no other DOE civilian R&D
projects since the inception of RHIC, it received steady yearly
congressional appropriations and is estimated to be completed in
FY1999, about two years beyond its original estimated completion
date."

ADVANCED NEUTRON SOURCE (FY2003; $812 m; $812 m):  "The ANS is a
major research project which appears to have considerable
congressional support.  On several occasions since FY1998, Congress
has added funds to the DOE budget request for ANS pre-construction
research.  Congress did not approve the start of construction in
FY1994, however, and, for FY1995, both houses approved a little
more than half the DOE request, with only the House-proposed
legislation permitting the start of construction.  While the
Congress still appears to believe the project is needed, it is
concerned about the very high projected costs in future years in
light of current budget constraints."

ADVANCED PHOTON SOURCE (FY1996; $2.75 b; $2.88 b):  "The APS
project was developed through a rigorous merit review process at
DOE.  It appears to have received strong congressional support
because of its many applications and the support of potential
industrial users.  Since construction was first proposed in FY1989,
Congress has granted all DOE funding requests for construction.
The project appears to be on schedule and budget."

INTERNATIONAL THERMONUCLEAR EXPERIMENTAL REACTOR (FY2005-2008; $4.9
b; $8-10 b):  "The ITER project is an unprecedented international
science project in terms of its size and the complexity of the
agreements thus far.  While the project has been a success to date
and congressional support has remained strong, there is growing
concern about its eventual cost, the prospects for the tokamak
concept, and the difficulties expected in agreeing to a
construction site."

TOKAMAK PHYSICS EXPERIMENT (FY2000; $694 m; $694 m):  "While the
TPX has received congressional support so far, its future is
cloudy.  The House agreed to the FY1995 request of $66.9 million,
including $45 million for construction.  An amendment on the floor
of the House to remove that funding was defeated.  The Senate
appropriated $28 million for design and research only, although it
added an amendment permitting DOE to spend the $45 million for
construction if Congress authorized the TPX first.  In addition, if
the TPX does survive the FY1995 appropriation process [it received
design but no construction funding], the FY1996 request will be
about $135 million, requiring a substantial increase in the DOE
magnetic fusion budget."


###############
Public Information Division
American Institute of Physics
Contact:  Audrey T. Leath
fyi@aip.org
(301)209-3094
##END##########
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenJTCHEW cudfnAd cudlnaspera cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.18 /   /  Re: ....WHAT IS A LIGHT WATER REACTOR???
     
Originally-From: <IO00656@MAINE.MAINE.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: ....WHAT IS A LIGHT WATER REACTOR???
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 1994 17:44:26 EST
Organization: University of Maine System

     This has virtually nothing to do with fusion.  A light water reator is
a fission reactor that uses normal water as a moderator, that is it uses
normal water to slow down neutrons so that they have a greater chancee to
be captured by nuclei.  Light water is cheaper than heavy water, which has
deuturium.  However, it has a high cross section for neutrons, meaning, it will
capture neutrons.  This is not desirable since you want a moderator to slow
down neutrons, not capture them.
This was discussed yesterday in my Nuclear Physics class.
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenIO00656 cudln cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.20 / Cameron Bass /  Re: changes of science theory at 80 year intervals
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,soc.history.science
Subject: Re: changes of science theory at 80 year intervals
Date: Sun, 20 Nov 1994 06:07:55 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <CzGKF0.9vx@eskimo.com>, Robert Dinse <nanook@eskimo.com> wrote:
>
>     Seems to me Feynman also said, If the data doesn't agree with the theory,
>then the theory is wrong, no matter how elegant or mathematically
>self-consistent it is.

     Spoken like a true theoretician.  Data is dirty, data is difficult,
     data often 'sucks'.  An elegant and historically well-supported 
     theory is worth far more than someone's careless experiment.

>     To me this seems obvious, but it seems lost on a lot of people.  Over and
>over I see people post data, followed by another post that says this must not
>be right because of (some theory).  Because the data doesn't agree with theory
>the data is wrong, I see that over and over again here.

     Yes you do, and I'd be happy to tell you why:  The realm we're talking 
     about has been experimentally investigated for a long long time.
     Indeed, thermodynamics was probably the first 'modern' science,
     electromagnetics came right afterward.  So, we've been investigating
     and investigating for over a hundred years, experiments and theory
     have matched for over a hundred years.

     Then, some clown with a poorly instrumented 'experiment' decides 
     that he's discovered an exception.  Now, each of the last 500 clowns
     who made similar claims was *wrong*, and the new clown never seems
     interested in instrumenting the experiment sufficiently to actually
     find out if he's wrong (which you can be assured he is).  He then fades
     away until the next clown appears.

     This has been going on for over a hundred years, with only the 
     explanation changing.  In early years, they didn't bother hiding the
     first law violation.  Later, they started with 'unknown' electromagnetic
     phenomena, now they talk of first-law violating 'Zero Point Energy'.  

     Having seen it numerous times before, engineers and scientists grow a 
     bit weary at explaining to these clowns that no, while it might be 
     possible that the sun will not come up tomorrow owing to a flock of angels
     occulting earth, it's just not damn likely.

     I suspect this may be lost on people who don't find the First Law
     or nuclear scaling arguments compelling (or have never heard of the 
     First Law), but one can always hope.

                                dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.20 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Eaton torque sensor specifications
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Eaton torque sensor specifications
Date: Sun, 20 Nov 1994 06:17:02 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <3al5cn$jbl@newsbf01.news.aol.com>,
DanHicks <danhicks@aol.com> wrote:

>Mind you, I don't seriously doubt that the meter IS accurate 

     Why not?  At least one person involved in the calibration doesn't
     understand the device.

                              dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.20 / Jim Carr /  Re: Get a grip, Steve
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Get a grip, Steve
Date: 20 Nov 1994 15:59:07 -0500
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

In article <p2y0sG+.jedrothwell@delphi.com> jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:
|
|Steve Jones <jonesse@physc2.byu.edu> again raises theoretical objections to
|try and disprove facts. He writes:
| 
|     "I'm waiting for someone to show me an x-ray spectrum from one of these
|     expts. You see, nuclear reactions release lots of energy -- plenty to
|     excite the metal atoms in the lattice, so that they *must* give off
|     copious x-rays. . ."
| 
|And bla, bla, bla, bla. He hopes that mere theory will make hard, proven facts
|go away. Here are the facts:

Actually, what Steve writes is based on experiment, not theory. 

Later, Jed observes: 

|And as I have argued before, no sane person cares whether this heat comes from

Actually, it would be more precise to state that most engineers don't care 
where the heat comes from as long as they can specify a set of plans that 
allow such a device to be constructed in such a way that it always works. 
Scientists, on the other hand, will always care because the effect is 
unusual, and unusual things are always interesting. 

Further, although the engineer may not care where the heat comes from, the 
person marketing it will care, since the lawyers advising said person are 
likely to be concerned with whether it violates any EPA or NRC regulations 
or is likely to somehow injure its user, resulting in nasty lawsuits. 

And then Jed writes:

|IT IS A MILLION TIMES BEYOND THE LIMITS OF CHEMISTRY.

Now if "no sane person cares" where this heat comes from, why the 
continued emphasis that it does not come from chemistry?  It would 
seem that *you* care where it comes from, and once you make that 
point it is fair for anyone else to ask the question also. 

-- 
 James A. Carr   <jac@scri.fsu.edu>     |  "The old he-coon walks just  
    http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac        |  before the light of day."    
 Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst.  |   - Gov. (still) Lawton Chiles to
 Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306    |     Jeb Bush during second debate
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.19 / Matt Kennel /  Re: Get a grip, Steve
     
Originally-From: mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Get a grip, Steve
Date: 19 Nov 1994 00:52:36 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

David R Davies (drd851@huxley.anu.edu.au) wrote:
: mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel) writes:
: (deletions)
: >Look, it's been gone over a squillion times.  You put together
: >the short-range nature of the strong force and special relativity and
: >it is exceedingly difficult to escape the conclusion that nuclear reactions
: >must produce detectable high-energy reaction products.  If you then

: One squillion and one:

: No. The odds may be strongly in your favour here but there is nothing
: that anyone has ever said in these dogmatic statements that is very
: convincing.

: The strong force is not understood and even special relativity is
: highly questionable. Some would say totally discredited by measurements
: from Venus probes etc. It can also be argued that SR has nothing much to
: do with the problem. 

Well there we are then.  

"The strong force is not understood" and "special relativity is
highly questionable."

"And how do you KNOW that it's not the alignment of the planets?"



--
-Matt Kennel  		mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu
-Institute for Nonlinear Science, University of California, San Diego
-*** AD: Archive for nonlinear dynamics papers & programs: FTP to
-***     lyapunov.ucsd.edu, username "anonymous".
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenmbk cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.20 / Harry Conover /  Re: Improving spf signal to noise
     
Originally-From: conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Improving spf signal to noise
Date: 20 Nov 1994 17:48:40 GMT
Organization: The Internet Access Company

Robert Horst (horst_bob@tandem.com) wrote:
: One way to improve the quality of a process is to come up with a
: quality metric, then let individuals figure out the best way they can
: improve the score on that metric.  Maybe this technique could improve
: the signal to noise ratio of this newsgroup.

Curiously, in addition to providing a system for establishing
the s/n ratio within the group, you have provided a secondary benefit:
A vivid illustration of the difference between precision and accuracy.

Precision is nicely demonstrated by your quantification of postings to
into distinctly different categories that range from the reporting
of factual findings to those that simply pontificate and rant on 
various topics.

Accuracy is reflected by how objectively you categorize each posting
into range A through F.

While I appreciate and applaud the precision of your system, I must
question its accuracy.  (Realize that your categorization of postings
may or may not reflect the determinations of others who have more or
less scientific training, knowledge, experience, and objectivity.)

In particular, I seriously question the accuracy of several of 
you categorizations, particularly that accorded postings from
Jed Rothwell (and some of his more vocal supporters).  From my
perspective, all of Jed's postings fall in the right hand column
categories, with none even approaching the A category due to 
shortfalls in scientific/technical content, high speculative
content and questionable facts.  If you categorize Jed's
postings as A, you should then also categorize my factitious
report of Accidental Fusion in a Waring Blender as A.  

By contrast, your categorizations project an obvious negative
bias onto postings from those presenting objective scientific
data and criticisms, such Jones, Bass, and Blue.
This leads to a conclusion that your signal/noise rating
is seriously biased to pro-CF postings but agaist scientific
criticism.  The result becomes a CF political correctness figure of 
merit, rather being a reflection of the s/n ratio of postings.

While your categorization goal is laudable, its implementation
needs a little more work (my opinion).  Otherwise, the result is 
simply more biased and meaningless statistics which, unlike energy, 
is a commodity not lacking in today's society.

                                 Harry C.



cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenconover cudfnHarry cudlnConover cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.19 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: Subject:The Laws of Physics or the laws of physics?
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Subject:The Laws of Physics or the laws of physics?
Date: Sat, 19 Nov 1994 02:30:51 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

With all due respect Peter, I think that you have the problem all
wrong. Most scientists are perfectly willing to believe that there
are no absolute truths or physics known. But they do demand rigor
in anything that criticizes the known truths and physics.

Who is likely to consider a claim that contradicts known theories
of thermodymanics without a reproducible experiment rendering evidence
of the error of such theories? If such experiments aren't feasible
by the run-of-the-mill experimenter, then who is to believe trumped
up claims when the experimenter won't address obvious sources of error
or won't even discuss the _existance_ of error sources?

The battle against Cold Fusion isn't a battle of scientists at all. It is
an argument between people who want to believe the impossible and those
who must have the facts. Produce facts and the fact seekers will go away
quite happily.

cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.18 /  DanHicks /  Re: Eaton torque sensor specifications
     
Originally-From: danhicks@aol.com (DanHicks)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Eaton torque sensor specifications
Date: 18 Nov 1994 22:25:23 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

In article <JE8VEBd.jedrothwell@delphi.com>, jedrothwell@delphi.com
writes:

>>>
Nonlinearity: of rated output  +/- 0.05%
Hysteresis: of rated output +/- 0.05%
Repeatability: of rated output +/- 0.02%
Zero balance: of rated output +/- 1.0%
<<<

I'll have to agree with Schultz that these numbers are somewhat ambiguous
when taken without sufficient context.  I assume that the primary accuracy
figure is the "nonlinearity" -- with the figure given meaning that any
measurement taken may be off of calibration by 0.05% of rated output, due
to nonlinearities in the device.  But by far the worst figure is zero
balance, indicating that any measurement may be skewed +/- 1.0% of **rated
output**.  If rated output is, say, 20x the current operating point, then
this translates into a potential 20% error.  (Or at least this is my
interpretation, in the absence of further context.)
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudendanhicks cudlnDanHicks cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.21 / Robert Dinse /  Re: Y. Arata DS-Cathode cold fusion
     
Originally-From: nanook@eskimo.com (Robert Dinse)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Y. Arata DS-Cathode cold fusion
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 1994 12:39:49 GMT
Organization: Eskimo North (206) For-Ever

In article <CzJxCp.FHy@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, crb7q@watt.seas.Virgin
a.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
> In article <CzGK3t.8y6@eskimo.com>, Robert Dinse <nanook@eskimo.com> wrote:
> >In article <CzBr7A.B08@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, crb7q@watt.seas.Vir
inia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
> >> 
> >>      In case you weren't aware, Helium migrates through everything,
> >>      walls included.
> >> 
> >     I thought this was only true when it was super-cooled.  How do blimps
> >work?  (ie, what keeps all the helium from migrating through the walls of the
> >blimp)?
> 
>       Simple answer:  nothing.  More complex answer:  it takes a while.
> 
>                               dale bass


     I guess then the real question is, given the cylinder walls described,
the temperatures involved, the relative rareity of he in the atmosphere, could
it be sufficient to account for the measured levels?

-- 
-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
 Eskimo North: More Unix, Usenet, Internet for Less $$ (206)For-Ever Eskimo.Com
  Free two-week trial, login as "new".  For more info email: nanook@eskimo.com
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudennanook cudfnRobert cudlnDinse cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.21 / J Driscoll /  cold fusion 
     
Originally-From: 74063.3546@compuserve.com (Jeffrey J. Driscoll)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cold fusion 
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 1994 15:04:22 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I have done various cold fusion experiments in the past two years without      
any luck.  I started with the nickel / light water experiments and then about 10   
months ago I tried to reproduce the gas phase experiment that uses proton 
conductors in a dueterium atmosphere.  The Nickel light water experiments that 
I did were done on weekends and in my spare time and the proton conductor
experiments was a full time job for me for about 5 months.  Now I am looking
for work and I was wondering if anyone knew where I could get a job in the cold
fusion field. 

I already called up Hydrocatalysis but they were not hiring.   

I have a B.S. degree in Mechanical Engineering that I received 5 years ago and
I live near Boston, Massachusettes.

I set up a high quality nickel / light water  experiment with a
constant water temperature
bath, thermistors and a data acquisition system.  I did all of this in my basement
in my spare time.   The samples that I tried did not give off excess heat.   

I then tried to reproduce an experiment that was done by Tadahiko Mizuno from 
Japan.  I did this experiment as a full time job for 5 months but now the money 
has run out.   This experiment uses a small proton conductor which is heated
to approximately 400 deg C in a vacuum and then dueterium gas is added at a
pressure of about 1/10 of an atmosphere.  Mizuno says that some of his samples
rise to a temperature that is more than 100 deg C higher than his control samples. 
Mizuno's first paper said that this temp difference corresponded to 50 watts but
I have heard that he has a new wattage estimate which  is lower but I do not
know how much lower.  When we did the experiment we had 2 out of 7 samples 
that were potentially giving off excess heat but the amount of excess  heat was
not very much so we are not sure if something else was causing the temperature
difference.   It would have taken more experiments to determine whether or
not they were giving off excess heat and the money had run out.   I sent my 
samples to a university that is doing the exact same experiment so they might
be able to determine what is happening.
  

A few months ago I sent a question to this net about some strange things that I
was seeing with my experiment and it was answered at that time by someone
from Australia but it wasn't put on the net.  My question was this:
I have a chamber with a volume of 1 liter that has hydrogen gas in it at pressure of
1/10 of an atmosphere.   In this chamber is a heater that is putting out 60 watts with 
a thermocouple on the surface of the heater and a thermocouple at a location of 1 cm 
above the heater.   When I added air into this chamber so that the pressure rises to
a final pressure of  .12 atmosphere (from a starting pressure of .1 atm of hydrogen) 
both of the thermocouples indicate a rise in temperature.  The thermocouple on the
surface indicates a temperature  that starts at  375 and increases to 405 after the
air is added.  Usually  when the pressure is increased, the thermal conductivity of
some gas increases and this would have caused the surface temperature
of the heater to decrease - I saw the exact opposite.  

Laurie Besley from some scientific organization in Australia answered my question.
She had been designing a germanium resistance thermometer that measures between
4.2 K and 100 K.  She was not working with air and hydrogen but with air and helium.
A tiny amount of air was leaking into a chamber that was filled with helium.
She noticed the same thermal conductivity change that I saw and when she worked out 
the calculations, this thermal conductivity change is predicted by the calculations.
I am curious as to exactly why the air does this - the only answer that I can think of 
is that the hydrogen atoms crash into some of the oxygen and nitrogen atoms and
this slows down the rate of diffusion of the hot atoms from the hot surface to the
cold surface (the hydrogen atoms have a higher average velocity than the oxygen and 
nitrogen atoms and if the oxygen and nitrogen atoms get in the way then the 
heat is not transferred as quickly from the hot surface to the cold surface).
 
Does anybody know where I might get a job in the Cold Fusion field?
  I can do experiments
here at my house but I need funding.


      Jeff Driscoll

74063.3546@compuserve.com






cudkeys:
cuddy21 cuden3546 cudfnJeffrey cudlnDriscoll cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.22 / Richard Blue /  Helium penetration
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Helium penetration
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 1994 01:11:55 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Let me see if I can add to the confusion concerning the penetration
of helium into/through various materials.  We are not talking about
superfluid helium, just the ordinary gas you may fill your balloons
with.  It also involves, obviously, questions of rates - it is not
an all or nothing thing.

If you are concerned with a few million cubic feet of helium in a bag
being used to hold up a TV camera the acceptable rate of penetration
through the walls of the bag is decidedly different from a rate that
can be tolerated in experiments claiming to detect helium at the level
of 10^12 atoms in an environment where the normal concentration is
perhaps 10^16 per cc.

In the latter case the tolerable penetration rate through the materials
that isolate the sample under study from the atmosphere is small and
strongly dependent on the choice of materials - a fact that cold fusion
advocates seem to be rather slow to recognize.  There are two general
classes of materials that should be used only with great caution.
These are glass and organic polymer materials.  Within each of these
catagories there are subtle differences.  For example, if O-ring
seals are to be used at joints in the plumbing, Viton should be
avoided.  Of all the possible types of glass, fused quartz is the
worst, unless you really want helium to pass through.  In fact you
can make a dandy purification system for helium using a quartz membrane.

Now, armed with these bits of trivia, reread papers containing claims
for the production of helium with an eye for spoting ways in which
the levels of helium detected could be the result of contamination.
When the experimental set-up contains glass or plastic ask yourself
whether those materials could be sources of helium.  If there is
no discussion in the paper about potential contamination from these
sources I certainly would not assume that claims regarding helium
production are solid experimental fact.  Since the E-Quest claim
is the one currently on the table, I am still wondering about the
materials used in their reaction cell.

I am also a bit perplexed by the thinking of cold fusion advocates
who have no trouble accepting the notion that all the helium formed
deep within a palladium sample comes directly out, and are equally
certain that no helium can diffuse through the wall of a sample
bottle being used to transport a sample for analysis at a remote
location.

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.19 / Dieter Britz /  Re: Subject:The Laws of Physics or the laws of physics?
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <britz@alpha.kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Subject:The Laws of Physics or the laws of physics?
Date: Sat, 19 Nov 1994 12:25:08 +0100
Organization: DAIMI, Computer Science Dept. at Aarhus University


I don't want to quote Peter Glueck's whole posting, interesting though it
was, as usual for Peter. It is too long and I am too lazy to ^k so many 
lines.

[By the way, that person giving us posters grades: Glueck and Jalobeanu are
one and the same]

I like Peter's surfdyne idea. I don't know how many times I have written
that - if there be anything to 'cold fusion' (which I doubt) - then it is 
most likely to be a surface process (unless it is indeed fractofusion, as 
the Russians believe; but then, no XS heat). Again, if there be anything to 
the idea of 'electrochemical compression', i.e. an electrochemical potential
causing high effective compression of deuterons; then the effect will be 
greatest at or near the surface. So my advice has always been: maximise
surface. F&P have also apparently gone over to this idea, they now think
fusion rates scale with current, not volume, I believe.

There is one snag, though: If the process takes place at the surface and is
fusion, then all those Moessbauer-like theories (or should that be 
'theories'?) are in trouble. What surface process can there be to swallow
gamma rays and x-rays?

-- db

cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenbritz cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.09 /  news@utmb.edu
 /  cmsg newgroup sci.physics.fusion
     
Originally-From: news@utmb.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion.ctl
Subject: cmsg newgroup sci.physics.fusion
Date: 9 Nov 1994 14:05:45 CST



s
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudennews cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.19 / Joe Shea /  Re: Arata paper in English
     
Originally-From: joeshea@netcom.com (Joe Shea)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Arata paper in English
Date: Sat, 19 Nov 1994 13:32:02 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

So why the hell don't you post it?


jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:
: I got a fax of a recent paper by Yoshiaki Arata in English. It is:
:  
:      Y. Arata, Y-C. Zhang, "A New Energy caused by 'Spillover-Deuterium,'"
:      Proc Japan Acad., 70, Ser B (1994)
:  
: This was communicated Sept. 12, 1994. It covers much of the same ground as:
:  
:      Y. Arata, Y-C. Zhang, "New Energy Generated in DS-Cathode with
:      'Pd-Black,'" Kouon Gakkaishi, Vol. 20, No. 4, (July 1994) pp. 148 - 155
:      (in Japanese)
:  
: It is not as detailed.
:  
: - Jed
-- 
                                             joeshea@netcom.com
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenjoeshea cudfnJoe cudlnShea cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.21 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Get a grip, Steve
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Get a grip, Steve
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 94 16:41:25 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

I wrote that Steve Jones "hopes that mere theory will make hard, proven facts
go away."
 
jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) responds:
 
     "Actually, what Steve writes is based on experiment, not theory."
 
Yes, of course. Steve says that previous experiments proved various theories,
and the theories, in turn, prove that all CF data is wrong. That's nuts. It
does not work that way. You cannot make data go away by waving old
experiments, old theories, or old scientists at it. You have to show where
the instruments failed. They did not fail; there are no significant errors.
The calorimetry is right. Arata really did measure 200+ megajoules from his
cell. Mizuno really did measure 3.6 MJ from his.
 
The old theories are either wrong or inapplicable. The old experiments are
irrelevant. Evidently, conditions inside the sun are not like conditions
inside a metal lattice. You cannot apply the same rules to both.
 
 
I wrote that no sane person cares whether this heat comes from fusion or some
other source. Carr responds:
 
     "Actually, it would be more precise to state that most engineers don't
     care where the heat comes from as long as they can specify a set of
     plans that allow such a device to be constructed in such a way that it
     always works. Scientists, on the other hand, will always care because
     the effect is unusual, and unusual things are always interesting."
 
This is incorrect. No sane scientist will care where the heat comes from
either. If you can explain it with a new theory, and that theory becomes
generally accepted when CF is commercialized, you will win the Nobel prize.
You will become one of the most famous scientists on earth. You will get carte
blanche funding and your own private 50,000 sq. ft. research institute, like
Pons and Fleischmann. Scientists -- sane scientists, anyway -- work for
recognition, money, and power. CF will bring these things in spades to any
scientist who has the guts to work on it now, and the smarts to figure it out
later.
 
 
     "Further, although the engineer may not care where the heat comes from,
     the person marketing it will care, since the lawyers advising said
     person are likely to be concerned with whether it violates any EPA or
     NRC regulations or is likely to somehow injure its user, resulting in
     nasty lawsuits."
 
This is a very minor issue in the grand scheme of things. Converting factories
to produce CF automobiles and other products will cost billions of dollars.
Convincing Congress to allow CF, over the frantic objections of the DoE and
the oil industry, will be a monumental undertaking. Before CF succeeds the DoE
and other hard-core opponents will have to bulldozed out of the way. They must
be destroyed or co-opted. Compared to this, forcing a few bureaucrats to
change some regulations will be a minor undertaking. Furthermore, while there
will be some dangers and nasty lawsuits from CF accidents, CF will never kill
even a tenth of 1% of the people killed today by pollution and gasoline
explosions. The public will realize that CF is much safer than any
alternative, and the public will force through the necessary changes.
 
 
I wrote: "IT IS A MILLION TIMES BEYOND THE LIMITS OF CHEMISTRY." Carr
responds:
 
     "Now if "no sane person cares" where this heat comes from, why the
     continued emphasis that it does not come from chemistry?  It would seem
     that *you* care where it comes from, and once you make that point it is
     fair for anyone else to ask the question also."
 
No, I do not care. I am merely emphasizing a fact that Jones, Huizenga, Close
and other "skeptics" vociferously deny. I do not care where the heat comes
from, but I am quite certain it is not chemistry, because chemistry can only
produce 18 eV per atom whereas CF produces 10,000+ eV/atom; and because
chemical reactions cannot transmute hydrogen into helium or heavy hydrogen
(tritium) and chemistry does not produce low level ionizing radiation.
 
I do not give a fig who asks the question "where does it come from?" or what
answer they come up with. If someone decides to change the definition of
"chemistry" to include transmutation of elements and 10,000 eV/atom, that's
peachy keen with me. Change it any way you like! That is a word game. The only
thing I object to is people who say that all experimental results are
incorrect, bogus or fraudulent, and people who say the results are real but
they do not matter. The results ARE real and they DO matter.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenjedrothwell cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.19 / D Patterson /  Re: Cold fusion: A question
     
Originally-From: secrd1@gate.net(Daniel Patterson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Cold fusion: A question
Date: 19 Nov 1994 22:56:39 GMT

>   dursin@meteora.ucsd.edu (Phil Dursin) writes:
>  My name is Alan Resnikoff.  I'm a 14 year old physics student
at La Jolla High SSchool.  I am doing a paper on future 
technologies.  Most of what I've read 
>  suggests that cold fusion - my main interest - is a technology that will
>  never be achieved.  Would anyone be willing to comment on that?  If you are,
>  please send email to my mother :  dursin@aeolus.ucsd.edu.  Thanks very much!
>  Alan
>  
>>>>
Don't expect me to help you too much, because I am, also 14 years
old at Atlantic High School in South Florida.
My name, by the way is Daniel Patterson.

Cold fusion, at this point, in the way that Potts and Fleishmann
expressed, it is not very feasable.
Their scientific backing was not that good.

This does not mean, however, that fusion or even cold fusion is impossible.
Hot fusion is slowly but surely making progress.  I hope that they persue 
cold fusion some more, but I think it has to be approached at a different angle.

If there are any scientists out there that can help us any more
please post a message.  I am personally
very curious about fusion but the technical terms mean nothing to me.


cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudensecrd1 cudfnDaniel cudlnPatterson cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.19 / D Patterson /  What's happening in the technology?
     
Originally-From: secrd1@gate.net(Daniel Patterson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: What's happening in the technology?
Date: 19 Nov 1994 23:07:34 GMT

I am a 14 year old high school student in South Florida.
I am very interested in fusion and how the technology is
progressing.  I have tried to read what you scientists have
written on the subject, but the technical terms are way too
advanced for an Algebra II, Biology I student.  If someone
could explain, in plain english terms, what in the world is 
going on with fusion technology, cold fusion, magnetic
hot fusion, and hot fusion with lasers, I would be most 
appriciative.  For starters what is this Griggs device?
Your responces would make my year!  Thanks in advance.

Daniel Patterson

cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudensecrd1 cudfnDaniel cudlnPatterson cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.19 / Bruce Dunn /  Re: Eaton torque sensor specifications
     
Originally-From: Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Dunn)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Eaton torque sensor specifications
Date: Sat, 19 Nov 94 16:47:50 -0800
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada

Jed Rothwell writes:

>
> schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz) writes:
>
>      "None of the numbers you have posted is inconsistent with an
> accuracy of
>      +/- 20%.  You do know the difference between precision and accuracy,
>      don't you?"
>
> Yes, I do.

I have to score this one for Richard.  Jed:  none of the numbers which you
posted in the product specification for the torque sensor ***are***
inconsistent with an accuracy of 20%.  Please note that Richard didn't
claim that your individual instrument was necessary that bad, but merely
that you haven't posted any numbers which are inconsistent with an accuracy
that bad.  I remind you of the relevant numbers:

>Nonlinearity: of rated output  +/- 0.05%
>Hysteresis: of rated output +/- 0.05%
>Repeatability: of rated output +/- 0.02%
>Zero balance: of rated output +/- 1.0%

     I don't see anything here which resembles an accuracy rating.  Without
an accuracy rating, you can't contradict any claim of inaccuracy, no matter
how wild.  From the first three numbers, I take it that the sensor is very
linear, has little hysteresis (gives nearly the same number when a given
power level is approached by increasing power or by decreasing power), and
is repeatable.

  I am not sure what the "zero balance" is, unless it refers to the
accuracy of the zero point.  If this is the case, then a one tenth scale
measurement is subject to an uncertainty of plus or minus 1% of full scale,
or is only plus or minus 10% in accuracy.  Perhaps someone who understands
these instruments better can explain the meaning of "zero balance".



> That is why I typed in the product spec sheet information: "High
> accuracy" and "Extended speed range."

The claim "high accuracy" is not a number.  Richard's claim relates to
numbers, not vague statements such as "high accuracy".


> Also, please note that I described here, many times, the steps I took
> when the model 7540 controller box was in calibration mode. These
> standard operating procedures ensure accuracy in the torque readings.

I am sorry, but I think that you are going to have to repeat your
description of the calibration.  I don't remember ever seeing any
information on how the mechanical energy measurement apparatus was
calibrated.

> I am confident that the engineer who installed the equipment took care of
> RPM accuracy. I have been told the overall accuracy and precision of the
> instrument puts it within a half-percent of the actual mechanical power
readings.

Strangely enough, I am perfectly willing to believe this claim, provided
that the calibration is carefully and recently done.  I looks from your
description however that the accuracy isn't so much built into the
equipment at the factory, but established from a field calibration
procedure (your "controller box in calibration mode").  This would
certainly explain why the Eaton specifications don't talk about "accuracy",
any more than pH meter specifications talk about accuracy.  The weak link
is in the calibration, not in the equipment.  In this case, the only way to
counter Richard's objections is to describe the calibration, not the
specifications of the equipment being calibrated.


--
Bruce Dunn    Vancouver, Canada   Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenBruce_Dunn cudfnBruce cudlnDunn cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.22 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Get a grip, Steve
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Get a grip, Steve
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 1994 01:42:45 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <Rw2VtYF.jedrothwell@delphi.com>,  <jedrothwell@delphi.com> wrote:
>CF will never kill
>even a tenth of 1% of the people killed today by pollution and gasoline
>explosions.

     This is likely the most correct thing you've ever said in this forum.

                                dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Tue Nov 22 04:37:05 EST 1994
------------------------------
1994.11.20 / Frank Pitt /  Re: Con Artist Blue
     
Originally-From: frankie@mundens.equinox.gen.nz (Frank Pitt)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Con Artist Blue
Date: Sun, 20 Nov 94 23:24:51 GMT
Organization: Munden's Bar

In article <941117142958_76570.2270_HHB59-1@CompuServe.COM> 76570.2270@c
mpuserve.com writes:

>It strains the imagination to think that you actually believe your 
>explanation, but I think you do and that your posting was not tongue-in-cheek.

At least he has attempted to build a rational theory.

It may not be the correct one, but it's better than none at all. 

If those supporting the Griggs device were able to give a theoretical
explanation for it that fitted the data more accurately than Dick's,
then perhaps they wouldn't feel the need to use invective instead
of rational argument.

Actually, such a response makes Dick's explanation sound more believable,
perhaps he's getting too close too the truth, and people are getting 
worried.

The seeming secrecy surrounding the project, while understandable
from a commercial sense, smacks of Gellerism to those interested in
research. 

Frankly I don't understand why heat pumps are being discussed in the 
fusion echo at all. Fusion doesn't require rotors of any sort.

Frankie

Frank G. Pitt | Motif/Solaris/C++ | <frankie@mundens.equinox.gen.nz>
Christchurch  | Trunked Networks  | 3:770/140.0   
New Zealand   | Tait Electronics  | (064)(03)358-0146 (Munden's Bar)

	    
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenfrankie cudfnFrank cudlnPitt cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.19 / Mark Hittinger /  Re: ICCF5
     
Originally-From: bugs@warlock.win.net (Mark Hittinger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: ICCF5
Date: 19 Nov 1994 21:47:56 -0500
Organization: WIN.NET mail and news

Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege) writes:
>Why is it that Mark Hittinger got a mailing on ICCF5 and I did not?
>Am I on a special list?  What did I do wrong?  Can I get em on a 
>charge of discrimination against the elderly? 
>Tom Droege

I sent in a change of address to them recently because I'd relocated from
Lexington, Ky to Louisville, Ky.  New job, stock options, long hours,
broken computer software as far as the eye can see - situation normal!

So maybe being on top of the pile meant more than being (relatively) young.

Tom the papers you get in the mail are all perfumed n stuph.  "WE ARE FROM
REMULAK ...err...FRANCE"

Oh well I never did get any proceedings documents from ICCF4 - I bet you
did Tom!

I'm also not getting "cold fusion" magazine anymore - since the last full
glossy.

The address of the ICCF5 organizing committee is:

Mr. Jacques Payet, ICCF-F
c/o Centre Scientfique
IMRA EUROPE, S.A.
220 Rue Albert Caquot
Sophia Antipolis
06560 Valbonne France

(33) 93 95 73 30   FAX

Everybody note that 1-Jan-95 is some sort of registration deadline.

It would be nice if we could figure out what was going to be discussed or
shown there.  I want to skip all the UFO sessions and check out the casinos.
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenbugs cudfnMark cudlnHittinger cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.21 / Thomas Zemanian /  Re: Get a grip, Steve
     
Originally-From: ts_zemanian@pnl.gov (Thomas S. Zemanian)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Get a grip, Steve
Date: 21 Nov 1994 22:47:57 GMT
Organization: Battelle PNL

Hi Jed:

In article <Rw2VtYF.jedrothwell@delphi.com>, jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:

[deletia]

>  
> I wrote that no sane person cares whether this heat comes from fusion or some
> other source. Carr responds:
>  
>      "Actually, it would be more precise to state that most engineers don't
>      care where the heat comes from as long as they can specify a set of
>      plans that allow such a device to be constructed in such a way that it
>      always works. Scientists, on the other hand, will always care because
>      the effect is unusual, and unusual things are always interesting."
>  
> This is incorrect. No sane scientist will care where the heat comes from
> either. If you can explain it with a new theory, and that theory becomes
> generally accepted when CF is commercialized, you will win the Nobel prize.
> You will become one of the most famous scientists on earth. You will get carte
> blanche funding and your own private 50,000 sq. ft. research institute, like
> Pons and Fleischmann. Scientists -- sane scientists, anyway -- work for
> recognition, money, and power. CF will bring these things in spades to any
> scientist who has the guts to work on it now, and the smarts to figure it out
> later.

Er, any sane scientist would care a great deal for where the heat comes
from, for the very reasons you give above, _i.e._, money, fame,
recognition...

>  
>  
>      "Further, although the engineer may not care where the heat comes from,
>      the person marketing it will care, since the lawyers advising said
>      person are likely to be concerned with whether it violates any EPA or
>      NRC regulations or is likely to somehow injure its user, resulting in
>      nasty lawsuits."
>  
> This is a very minor issue in the grand scheme of things. Converting factories
> to produce CF automobiles and other products will cost billions of dollars.
> Convincing Congress to allow CF, over the frantic objections of the DoE and
> the oil industry, will be a monumental undertaking. Before CF succeeds the DoE
> and other hard-core opponents will have to bulldozed out of the way. They must
> be destroyed or co-opted. Compared to this, forcing a few bureaucrats to
> change some regulations will be a minor undertaking. Furthermore, while there
> will be some dangers and nasty lawsuits from CF accidents, CF will never kill
> even a tenth of 1% of the people killed today by pollution and gasoline
> explosions. The public will realize that CF is much safer than any
> alternative, and the public will force through the necessary changes.

Speaking as an engineer, I would care very much what the process I'm
scaling up or designing around entails.  It may be true that CF will cause
fewer deaths, as you assert above, but any deaths I may cause based on my
own ignorance of the forces I am handling will weigh heavily on my
professionalism as well as my conscience.

>  
>  
> I wrote: "IT IS A MILLION TIMES BEYOND THE LIMITS OF CHEMISTRY." Carr
> responds:
>  
>      "Now if "no sane person cares" where this heat comes from, why the
>      continued emphasis that it does not come from chemistry?  It would seem
>      that *you* care where it comes from, and once you make that point it is
>      fair for anyone else to ask the question also."
>  
> No, I do not care. I am merely emphasizing a fact that Jones, Huizenga, Close
> and other "skeptics" vociferously deny. I do not care where the heat comes
> from, but I am quite certain it is not chemistry, because chemistry can only
> produce 18 eV per atom whereas CF produces 10,000+ eV/atom; and because
> chemical reactions cannot transmute hydrogen into helium or heavy hydrogen
> (tritium) and chemistry does not produce low level ionizing radiation.

Jed, I must have missed when you posted how you drew this conclusion.  I am
not aware of any 18 eV/atom theoretical limit for chemical energetics.  How
did you arrive at this figure? (Honest curiousity, not sarcasm.)

Thanks,
--Tom

--
The opinions expressed herein are mine and mine alone.  Keep your filthy
hands off 'em! 
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudents_zemanian cudfnThomas cudlnZemanian cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.20 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Eaton torque sensor specifications
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Eaton torque sensor specifications
Date: Sun, 20 Nov 1994 05:22:19 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <Rgx2clk.jedrothwell@delphi.com>,  <jedrothwell@delphi.com> wrote:
> 
>Yes, I do. That is why I typed in the product spec sheet information: "High
>accuracy" and "Extended speed range." Also, please note that I described here,
>many times, the steps I took when the model 7540 controller box was in
>calibration mode.
...
>Now you come along and claim that a $5,000 state-of-the-art dynamometer with a
>rated precision better than +/- 0.5% may only be accurate to +/- 20%. This
>speculation of yours is utterly, indescribably weird. N

     _You_ calibrated it?  I change my estimate to 50%.

     Feel free to attend engineering school again to gain insight into the
     difference between precision and accuracy.

>up such a crazy notion. What engineer would design a factory control
>instrument precise to the nearest 0.5% which might wander 20% either way? 

     It's not the 'wandering' that's the problem, it's the accuracy.
     I have little doubt that one measurement or calibration assumption 
     y'all used is precisely wrong.

                             dale
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.20 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Eaton specifications for accuracy?
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Eaton specifications for accuracy?
Date: Sun, 20 Nov 1994 05:31:42 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <9411181710.AA31582@pilot1.cl.msu.edu>,
Richard A Blue <blue@pilot.msu.edu> wrote:
>Although the specifications for the Eaton torque sensor used to
>measure the power input to the Griggs device have been posted twice I have
>failed to find in those specifications any statement concerning the
>accuracy other than the assurance that it is "high." 

     That's because accuracy is a function of the calibration.

     I'm beginning to thing, though, that such 'trivial details'
     are beyond the grasp of our 'free energy' friends.

>supplied by the motor manufacturer.  I don't see anything in what we
>have been told that contradicts the suggestion by Dale Bass that the
>accuracy of the power input to the Griggs device is uncertain by
>20%

     Could be far more.  I didn't realize Jed had something to do with 
     the calibration.

     I'm still wondering why 'the best engineers in the state of GA'
     haven't been shouting this result to the skies.  Don't know about
     anyone else, but I'd have a hard time containing myself if 
     I had 'definite' results regarding an apparent failure of the
     first law implying a) the first law does not hold, or b) an energy source
     unknown to modern science.

     That must be a remarkably restrained group...

                              dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.22 / David Davies /  Re: Get a grip, Steve
     
Originally-From: drd851@huxley.anu.edu.au (David R Davies)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Get a grip, Steve
Date: 22 Nov 1994 18:41:29 +1100
Organization: Australian National University

mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel) writes:

>Fission was discovered by nuclear chemists, without high-energy radiation
>products.

Go back through the s.p.f archives and look at the arguments I am referring
to and you will see what I mean. Very narrow, little attempt at a real
argument. Assumption of truth.

>: Ok, I know that there are more detailed versions but they dont add a lot.

>: The key point many _REAL_ sceptics have tried to make often is that there
>: are strong theoretical assumptions - quite irrational ones - behind what
>: appear on the surface as clear statements of fact. 

>The "irrational theoretical assumptions" are quantitatively verified 
>physical models that have great predictive power and theoretical
>integrity.  

Some are. Others are not.

>You know, all that particle physics they've been doing
>for 50 years isn't all for nought.

The great fear of the Defenders of the Faith is that the whole belief
system will crash aroun their heads if anything is undermined. I dont
see most scientists as DoF but many teachers and science politicos
are responsible for this form of dogmatism.

Much, or most, of what science has 'discovered' this century will,
I think, hold out to some degree. Some will be laughed at by future
students in the process of repeating the errors.

>They are open to new results, but the explanation and experimental
>results must be compelling enough to both explain the new phenomena
>*and* the old phenomena and explain why the old theory worked so well.

Firstly I would question the often repeated view that there are lots
of past results that are being contradicted. We are looking at what
is largely new territory. I have challenged people here to come up
with experimental nuclear data that is directly relevant and nobody
has to my satisfaction.

If you do beam collision type experiments the interaction time and
the energy are directly related. The higher the energy, the faster
the reaction must be to conclude during the 'fly-past'. If, on the
other hand, you use relatively static forces to confine two nuclei
in the same region then you break the connection between energy
and reaction time. You also introduce the possibility of catalytic
effects of the surroundings. What are the coulomb screening effects
of band state electrons? I have not seen anyone even attempt that
question plausibly. Does anyone seriously think that they can say
what quantum states exist as stable states in Deuterated Pd - let
alone the miriad of possible transient states that could be involved.
De-located nuclei, wierd surface states, collapsing bubbles acting
as optical cavities with high EM standing waves. New fronteers and
plenty of them. 

The explanation is largely irrelevant in our case here. What really
matters are the results. My assessment of the CF results is that there
are many reports that would have been accepted readily if we take the
general standards of reporting. I am still not convinced that any of 
these excess energy results are valid but the situation does not
deserve the insults and invective that are aimed publicly at people
I prefer to see as honest researchers or industrialists. Many of these
people must fully realise the risks that they are taking with their
reputations and time but have decided to take the risk. I wish them
well and will still see them as good scientists if the whole business
does collapse eventually. 

Comments to the effect that they are all fools or rogues say more to
me about the critics than anything else. 


dave

cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudendrd851 cudfnDavid cudlnDavies cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Wed Nov 23 04:37:04 EST 1994
------------------------------
1994.11.21 / C Harrison /  Periodic Post: Cold Fusion online at sunsite.unc.edu
     
Originally-From: harr@netcom.com (Charles (Chuck) Harrison)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Periodic Post: Cold Fusion online at sunsite.unc.edu
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 1994 04:40:02 GMT
Organization: Fitful

This message is posted periodically to inform readers about on-line
data sources related to "cold fusion" which are located at the 
University of North Carolina SunSITE server.

Two public WAIS (Wide Area Information Server) sources are online:
(1) Dieter Britz's Bibliography (periodically updated), and
(2) A sci.physics.fusion archive (1989 to present).
WAIS provides for multiple keyword searches in these databases.  It
does _not_ support boolean logic in the searching :-(.

1.  If you are directly connected to Internet, you can log onto a public
    WAIS server at the University of North Carolina:
    %telnet sunsite.unc.edu
    ...
    login: swais
    ...
    TERM = (unknown) vt100
    It takes a minute to load ...

    <use ? for online help>
    <use /cold to locate the cold-fusion "Source" - the Britz biblio>
    < or use /fusion to locate the fusion-digest source>
    <follow the prompts to select the source and enter your keywords
     for searching>

2.  If you have a "gopher" client, you can use it for WAIS access.  Many 
    university campuses provide gopher as a public information service.
2a. On most systems, you first select an option labeled "Other Systems",
    then from that menu select "WAIS based information".  Since each
    gopher site creates its own menus, I can't tell you exactly where to
    go from there.
2b. If you can gopher to SunSITE, at UNC, navigate the menus down thru
    SunSITE archives..All archives..Academic..Physics..Cold-fusion.
    You will find the searchable databases (typically marked <?>), as
    well as the primary-literature files discussed below.
2c. If you can 'telnet' but not 'gopher', you may telnet to
    sunsite.unc.edu and login as 'gopher'.  Then follow 2a or 2b above.

3.  If you have World Wide Web (WWW) browser, such as Mosaic, Cello, or
    Lynx, you may use the following URL's:
     wais://sunsite.unc.edu/cold-fusion       Britz bibliography
     wais://sunsite.unc.edu/fusion-digest     newsgroup archive
     gopher://sunsite.unc.edu/11/../.pub/academic/physics/Cold-fusion

4.  If you have a WAIS client on your system (the most common ones are
    "swais" -- character-based, and "xwais" -- for X-Windows), use it.  The
    Britz source is called "cold-fusion" and it is listed in the 
    directory-of-servers.

    If you _want_ a WAIS client program to run on your system, several are
    available in the public domain.  Try ftp-ing to one of these sites:
      sunsite.unc.edu
      think.com

There are several additional files archived at sunsite (e.g. Bollinger's
Twist of Ribbon, preprints of the Fleischmann&Pons 1989 paper), which
are accessible by anonymous ftp.
    %ftp sunsite.unc.edu
    . . .
    >cd pub/academic/physics/Cold-fusion
    >dir
The collection (mostly primary papers) maintained by vince cate has been
copied over to pub/academic/physics/Cold-fusion/vince-cate.

Additional contributions are welcome; e-mail cfh@sunsite.unc.edu.
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenharr cudfnCharles cudlnHarrison cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.21 / Dieter Britz /  Re: changes of science theory at 80 year intervals
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <britz@alpha.kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,soc.history.science
Subject: Re: changes of science theory at 80 year intervals
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 1994 10:50:33 +0100
Organization: DAIMI, Computer Science Dept. at Aarhus University



On 20 Nov 1994, Harry H Conover wrote:

[...]
> promote reason will sway any of the true believers, particularly those
> that would label participants in this group as 'for' or 'against'
> Cold Fusion.  Like trying to make a valid scientific point in a 
> group devoted to paranormal activity or UFO's, you are banging your
> head against the wall.  True Believers resent having their belief
> structures challenged by facts, often becoming hostile and emotional.
> Fortunately, we have never witnessed such extreme reactions here!  :-)

Well, we've had any amount of foul language, personal attacks, even threats
of legal action. If this is not extreme, I wonder what sort of news groups
you frequent...

Dieter scoring another F.

PS: Before someone corrects me: Jalobeanu and Glueck are, it is true, not
the same person, but are in effect both Peter Glueck, who has to use J's
account to post, for the time being anyway.

-- db

cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenbritz cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.21 / Dieter Britz /  AESF Annu. Tech. Conf. ?
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <britz@alpha.kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: AESF Annu. Tech. Conf. ?
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 1994 16:39:06 +0100
Organization: DAIMI, Computer Science Dept. at Aarhus University


I have here a reference to 'Proc. AESF Annu. Tech. Conf. 1993' etc, out of
Chem. Abstracts. I'd like to put this conf. proc. into my list of these
(file cnf-conf). Anyone out there know any details of this conference, 
such  as full name, where, when, title of procs, who is the editor?

Thanks in advance.

-- db

cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenbritz cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.21 / Paul Koloc /  Re: "tornadoes" --> ball lightning observation
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.geo.meteorology
Subject: Re: "tornadoes" --> ball lightning observation
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 1994 15:10:31 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <Cz1pws.Mu9@eskimo.com> nanook@eskimo.com (Robert Dinse) writes:
>In article <1994Nov10.022026.9843@midway.uchicago.edu>, edward@uhuru.uc
icago.edu (Edward Lewis) writes:
>> Luminous Tornadoes and Other Plasmoids
>> 
>> 	During the past 1 3/4 years I've been posting articles about
>> ball lightning, plasmoids, EVs, and cold fusion on sci.physics.fusion
>> newsgroup. This is a version of one that I posted last winter.  Does
>> anyone have any reports about anomalous atmospheric phenomena?
>
>     The lightning storms that we have around here (Seattle Wa) are generally
>pretty weak.
>
>     I am used to lightning to being a very brief bright flash, but one night
>while driving home from a friends house, just as I was crossing an intersection
>that gave an unobstructed view to the east, there was a lightning strike, but
>it didn't just flash and go out, it lasted so long I had time to stop the car,
>put it in reverse, and get back into the intersection to see it.  It turned
>from the usual blue-white color to a deep red just before it extinguished.
>
>     It was the strangest lightning I've ever seen, it was like there was a
>giant transformer supplying a continuous current rather than a static
>discharge.  It is a phenomena that I observed only ONCE in my life, I was not
>drunk or otherwise chemically impaired.
>
>     When you see something like this you really begin to wonder about the
>stock explanations, static charges built up by the movement of moist air or
>whatever.  Well, for all but that particular lightning strike that makes
>sense, but knowing that once the air is ionized it is very conductive and thus
>any static charge should have been nearly instantly discharged (as is NORMALLY
>the case with lightning), this didn't fit.  It implied that either there was
>some continuous source of current sufficient to maintain the discharge for the
>10 or 15 seconds it took me to stop and reverse back into the intesection,
>or for some reason, the conduction path didn't have the low impedence one would
>expect.
>
>     I am curious both as to what could have sustained a discharge for such a
>long time, and also what caused the color of the discharge to change from
>blue-white to a deep red, the red was not like a neon-red, it was more like
>a road-flare red.

The lifetime of BL is do to the trapping of energetic currents, and 
its stored magnetic energy.  The change in color, is due to its 
stationary position with respect to the air,  (no local surface 
circulation), and the production of ozone and nitrogen oxides (NOx).  
This usually gives it a orange-yellow look.  However, if condition
are locally "still", the plasmoids will combine ozone and NOx to 
generate nitrogen pentoxide, which is a very heavy red gas, and it 
gives the shell a reddish color.  Another excited gas that produces 
a red or bright pinkish color is carbon.  The plasmoid can take this 
up by colliding with tree lives and plasmatizing them.   I saw a yellow 
ball turn red after blast of smoke was emitted upon striking leaves.  
The red color dissipated in a few seconds and was reinitiated with 
further collisions.  Also polar jets became prominate just after 
collision.  

>     Another strange lightning "storm" I saw once was during the summer on an
>otherwise clear day.  There was a single solitary cloud to the east and from
>it every minute or so for about fifteen minutes there was a strike to the
>ground.  Really bizzare.

These solitary clouds are the type that produce "M-strokes" which
are efficient fire starters.  
>-- 
>-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
> Eskimo North: More Unix, Usenet, Internet for Less $$ (206)For-Ever Eskimo.Com
>  Free two-week trial, login as "new".  For more info email: nanook@eskimo.com
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc, Bx 1037 Prometheus II Ltd, College Park MD 20741-1037    |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+



cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.23 /  jedrothwell@de /  Limits of chemistry approx. 20 eV/atom
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Limits of chemistry approx. 20 eV/atom
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 94 11:02:07 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

I wrote that the most energetic chemical reactions possible release
approximately 18 electron volts per atom (eV/atom). ts_zemanian@pnl.gov
(Thomas S. Zemanian) asks:
 
     "Jed, I must have missed when you posted how you drew this conclusion.
     I am not aware of any 18 eV/atom theoretical limit for chemical
     energetics.  How did you arrive at this figure?"
 
I got this number the old fashioned way. I asked a bunch of chemists and
physicists. :-}
 
Also, I computed how much energy is released from burning gasoline, coal and
other common fuels and chemicals. The number is between 2 and 4 eV/atom. The
most energy dense fraction of gasoline is octane C(8)H(18). My encyclopedia
says the heat of combustion for octane is 1308 kilcalories per mole at 25 deg
C, which equals 5.5 MJ/mole. There are 1.56 * 10^25 atoms in a mole of octane
(26 atoms * Avogadro's number), and 1 eV equals 1.6 * 10^-19 joules. That
works out 2.2 eV/atom.
 
One mole of octane weighs 114 grams, BTW. (So it yields 48 MJ/kg.)
 
All of the chemists and physicists I asked except one estimate the most
energetic reaction possible might generate between 15 and 20 eV. They base
this estimate on electron bonding theories which are over my head. The most
electron bonds you can have are in diamonds, which is what you would expect,
given carbon's propensity to snuggle up to just about any element (including
itself). Indeed, burning diamonds or coal produce the most eV/atom of any
common chemical. The one scientist who made much more extravagant claims was
Frank Close, who told Tinsley that it is possible to generate hundreds of eV
(perhaps even thousands!) from a chemical reaction, which is why the Piantelli
results are not compelling and not even interesting. I do not take that
assertion seriously. I went hunting around for the most energy density ever
actually recorded in an experiment. I looked in what I consider the most
likely place: the aerospace industry. Rocket scientists need the most energy
density they can get, and they can afford to pay for exotic and expensive
fuels, especially on interplanetary probes. Gene Mallove dug up a fascinating
paper by Robert Forward, "Alternate Propulsion Energy Sources," Air Force
Rocket Propulsion Lab., Edwards AFB, AFRPL TR-83-039. This paper describes
exotic metastable helium compounds that might allow 11 times more energy
storage than petrochemicals. A viewgraph says:
 
     "High energy content suitable for propulsion
     - He * --> He + 19.8 eV (114 kcal/gm)
     - Isp = 3150 sec (IDEAL)" [Isp means Specific Impulse]
 
114 kcal/gm = 478 MJ/kg; gasoline yields 42 MJ/kg, octane 48 MJ/kg. The paper
describes theory and some experiments as well. I figure that if the Air Force,
with all their resources, cannot even theorize a way to get more than 20
eV/atom then nobody else can either. I note that even the Air Force has it's
limits -- it does not propose burning diamonds to propel rockets. Ah, but that
is because carbon weighs so much more than hydrogen that the light element
compounds like octane produce more energy per unit of weight (but less per
atom), and because ejecting light elements gives a better Isp. As a taxpayer,
I say thank goodness!
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenjedrothwell cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.21 / Matt Kennel /  Re: Get a grip, Steve
     
Originally-From: mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Get a grip, Steve
Date: 21 Nov 1994 21:09:15 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

David R Davies (drd851@huxley.anu.edu.au) wrote:
: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) writes:
: ...
: >Actually, what Steve writes is based on experiment, not theory. 
: ...
: As I remember the argument it was a rehash of the old favorite
: which goes something like:

: "All the relevant nuclear reactions that we have observed produce high energy
: particles therefore no other reaction paths are possible."

: Q: How do you observe these reactions

: A: By detecting the high energy particles given off

Fission was discovered by nuclear chemists, without high-energy radiation
products.

: Ok, I know that there are more detailed versions but they dont add a lot.

: The key point many _REAL_ sceptics have tried to make often is that there
: are strong theoretical assumptions - quite irrational ones - behind what
: appear on the surface as clear statements of fact. 

The "irrational theoretical assumptions" are quantitatively verified 
physical models that have great predictive power and theoretical
integrity.  

You know, all that particle physics they've been doing
for 50 years isn't all for nought.

They are open to new results, but the explanation and experimental
results must be compelling enough to both explain the new phenomena
*and* the old phenomena and explain why the old theory worked so well.

: dave

--
-Matt Kennel  		mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu
-Institute for Nonlinear Science, University of California, San Diego
-*** AD: Archive for nonlinear dynamics papers & programs: FTP to
-***     lyapunov.ucsd.edu, username "anonymous".
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenmbk cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.22 /  jedrothwell@de /  Eqton torque sensor calibration S.O.P.
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Eqton torque sensor calibration S.O.P.
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 94 11:46:34 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Dunn) asks about the Eaton torque sensor
calibration procedures. The dynamometer is calibrated for torque (not RPMs) in
the following steps:
 
1. The electric motor is turned off. The 7540 controller is set for
"calibrate."
 
2. A pipe wrench is attached to shaft on the output side to prevent it from
rotating.
 
3. An arm is attached to the shaft on the input side, the scale is
temporarily reset for zero (so that the weight of the arm is cancelled).
A 20 lb weight is hung 30 inches from the shaft, creating 600 inch-pounds of
torque. A bubble level is used to ensure that the arm is horizontal.
 
4. The controller LED screen registered 600 when I did this (or very close,
anyway). If it does not, it can be adjusted.
 
The signal generated by the 1805-5K sensor for RPMs was displayed on an
oscilloscope. We did not discuss this in detail. RPMs can also be tested
independently with a strobe light, which is the standard method in a garage.
Please note that it is much simpler to detect RPMs than torque, so it is more
likely that the RPM sensors would remain calibrated.
 
 
Dunn adds:
 
     "Strangely enough, I am perfectly willing to believe this claim [that
     the device is accurate to within a half-percent], provided that the
     calibration is carefully and recently done."
 
It is not "strange" that a person should believe instruments work the way they
are designed to work. It would be strange if you believed anything else. The
torque calibration described above is done every day. The unit was installed
and tested extensively six months ago by an authorized dealer. The unit agrees
with the GE Dranetz electric meter. The specifications from Eaton show that
precision is far greater than it needs to be to prove the Griggs claim, and
the specifications say that the instrument feature "high accuracy." No
engineer would interpret that to mean +/- 20%, when precision error is less
than 1%.
 
There is enough iron-clad evidence in favor of Griggs that the burden of proof
is on the "skeptics." People who honestly believe the instrument might be so
wildly inaccurate should try to prove that notion by contacting Eaton,
learning more about the instrument, and posting a coherent, reasonable
hypothesis. The whole idea of +/- 20% accuracy is so far fetched it is utterly
ridiculous. It is contradicted by the data from the other instruments, it is
contrary to common sense. In short, it is a pipe-dream so unrealistic that I
refuse to post any more comments about it.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenjedrothwell cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.24 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Get a grip, Steve
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Get a grip, Steve
Date: Thu, 24 Nov 94 00:28:25 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel) writes:
 
     "They [nuclear chemists] are open to new results, but the explanation
     and experimental results must be compelling enough to both explain the
     new phenomena *and* the old phenomena and explain why the old theory
     worked so well."
 
That is NOT how science works. The experimental results do have to "explain"
anything. They do not have to answer any questions. They can raise questions
galore, confuse everyone, and make corn beef hash out of old theories. You do
not need to provide any explanation along with the experimental results. You
can say "this little nail-like thing generated 300 megajoules of heat and it
converted hydrogen into helium. There was with no ionizing radiation and no
chemical changes." You do not have to give a reason or explain what happened,
you just have to prove that it *did happen*.
 
Experimental results only have to meet two tests: 1. They must be replicated;
2. They must have a high s/n ratio. If the results meet those two conditions
then you must accept they are real. If they conflict with theory -- the
theory is wrong. If the results are inexplicable -- then you must admit you
do not understand nature. You can NEVER reject experimental evidence because
it appears to conflict with previous results, old theories or logic. You
cannot even question it on that basis. When evaluating results you must
purge all previous theories and textbook knowledge from your mind. You must
evaluate only physical reality -- what you see and what the instruments
show -- without prejudice, preconception, or opinion. You must believe
whatever the instruments tell you, no matter how extraordinary or
mind-boggling it is. The essence of the scientific method is to believe what
you see, not what the textbook says. Science must be based on cold, hard
facts and NOTHING ELSE. Nature is the only authority, experimentally proven
facts are all that matter, they are the only meaningful standards by which a
scientific question can be addressed.
 
Let me illustrate this point with a manifestly impossible imaginary
scenario. Suppose I was to walk in the room and say "I can read your mind. I
can prove it! Think of a number, I'll tell you what it is." You think "one
hundred and twenty" and I immediately blurt out "120." You think of 483 and I
immediately say "483." You think of 100 numbers in a row followed by 10
flavors of ice cream, and the names of two dozen people I have never met or
heard of, and I tell you every of these things as quickly as you think them
up. So, do you believe in mind reading or not? If you are scientist, you have
no choice. You MUST believe it. You must instantly and forever throw away all
doubts, all preconceptions, all hard-won knowledge to the contrary. No matter
how unlikely mind-reading may be, according to our knowledge of evolution,
the brain, and human history, one utterly airtight demonstration right before
your eyes must convince you. Otherwise, you are still living in the dark
ages. You are still a prisoner of opinion, hearsay, superstition, and
academia.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenjedrothwell cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.24 / Robert Dinse /  Re: Y. Arata DS-Cathode cold fusion
     
Originally-From: nanook@eskimo.com (Robert Dinse)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Y. Arata DS-Cathode cold fusion
Date: Thu, 24 Nov 1994 09:25:09 GMT
Organization: Eskimo North (206) For-Ever

In article <Czq6uo.747@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, crb7q@watt.seas.Virgin
a.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
> In article <3aulj5$k89@ixnews1.ix.netcom.com>,
> Chris Parkinson <parky@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >In <CzJxCp.FHy@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU 
> >(Cameron Randale Bass) writes: 
> >
> >>In article <CzGK3t.8y6@eskimo.com>, Robert Dinse <nanook@eskimo.com> 
> >wrote:
> >>>In article <CzBr7A.B08@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, 
> >crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
> >>>> 
> >snip...
> >>> How do blimps work?  (ie, what keeps all the helium from migrating 
> >>>through the walls of the blimp)?
> >>
> >>      Simple answer:  nothing.  More complex answer:  it takes a while.
> >>
> >>                              dale bass
> >
> >The latter true, the former well almost.
> 
>      No, actually each is true at a different level of complexity.
> 
>      You know, I'm beginning to appreciate the difference between
>      those now inclined to credit P&F's results and those not.  To wit, 
>      those inclined have no feel for the term 'orders of magnitude'.

     And those not seemed to have a penchant for insult rather than arguing
the facts, but hey, never mind the facts if they contradict your theories.

-- 
-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
 Eskimo North: More Unix, Usenet, Internet for Less $$ (206)For-Ever Eskimo.Com
  Free two-week trial, login as "new".  For more info email: nanook@eskimo.com
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudennanook cudfnRobert cudlnDinse cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.22 / Matt Kennel /  Re: Get a grip, Steve
     
Originally-From: mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Get a grip, Steve
Date: 22 Nov 1994 19:53:50 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

David R Davies (drd851@huxley.anu.edu.au) wrote:
: mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel) writes:

: >: The key point many _REAL_ sceptics have tried to make often is that there
: >: are strong theoretical assumptions - quite irrational ones - behind what
: >: appear on the surface as clear statements of fact. 

: >The "irrational theoretical assumptions" are quantitatively verified 
: >physical models that have great predictive power and theoretical
: >integrity.  

: Some are. Others are not.

: >You know, all that particle physics they've been doing
: >for 50 years isn't all for nought.

: The great fear of the Defenders of the Faith is that the whole belief
: system will crash aroun their heads if anything is undermined. I dont
: see most scientists as DoF but many teachers and science politicos
: are responsible for this form of dogmatism.

Oh come on, physics thrives on new phenomena.  The Science Establishment
*will* get irritated if resources are diverted to far-fetched baloney while
they have many many compelling projects and proposals that aren't getting
pursued.  If they were convinced there was something to cold fusion they'd
grab on like tigers.  Look at high TC superconductivity.

: Much, or most, of what science has 'discovered' this century will,
: I think, hold out to some degree. Some will be laughed at by future
: students in the process of repeating the errors.

: >They are open to new results, but the explanation and experimental
: >results must be compelling enough to both explain the new phenomena
: >*and* the old phenomena and explain why the old theory worked so well.

: I have challenged people here to come up
: with experimental nuclear data that is directly relevant and nobody
: has to my satisfaction.

You know the sceptics have just the same problem with cold fusion.

Deuterated wax where deuteriums are closer together than in
metals just sits there.

: If you do beam collision type experiments the interaction time and
: the energy are directly related. The higher the energy, the faster
: the reaction must be to conclude during the 'fly-past'. If, on the
: other hand, you use relatively static forces to confine two nuclei
: in the same region then you break the connection between energy
: and reaction time. You also introduce the possibility of catalytic
: effects of the surroundings. What are the coulomb screening effects
: of band state electrons? I have not seen anyone even attempt that
: question plausibly. Does anyone seriously think that they can say
: what quantum states exist as stable states in Deuterated Pd - let
: alone the miriad of possible transient states that could be involved.
: De-located nuclei, wierd surface states, collapsing bubbles acting
: as optical cavities with high EM standing waves. New fronteers and
: plenty of them. 

Actually in the early days people *have* tried to do just that, but
the answers were not encouraging.

Besides the core problem is *not* the conditions necessary to get fusion,
it's the total absence of direct nuclear consequences.  Physicists
were ready to believe Pons and Fleischmann even though it seems absurd
that you could get fusion at room-temperature.  But if there were neutrons
they figured "what the hell something must be happening."  P+F lied about
the neutrons.

Again, here's the core problem:  on the way to getting conditions to
fusion I'll grant whatever magic you need. Once you start fusing
though, the energy released is millions of times larger than any
effect from the surroundings, you know mere "chemistry".

Therefore the reaction will proceed nearly identically to vaccum.  This
has always been observed in experiment.  The chemical shifts are tiny
perturbations on the basic reaction pathyways.  You might change things
by 1%, but not by a factor of 10^12 or whatever.

It's like saying if you tilt a pistol upward, well gravity will pull on
the bullet and it won't come out, the pistol won't make any sound or
noise, all that will happen is the whole thing will warm up and you'll have
a heated lead pellet in the tube.

In fact in the nuclear case, you can make the argument that reactions
can proceed so fast that there is not time for *anything* chemical
to have an effect because of causality from special relativity.

: The explanation is largely irrelevant in our case here. What really
: matters are the results. My assessment of the CF results is that there
: are many reports that would have been accepted readily if we take the
: general standards of reporting.

Yes, but most are negative.  If you have a positive result, the more
extraordinary the consequences in violating well-established canon, the
more compelling the experiment needs to be.  You need a qualitative
"null test" not just accounting.  For example, a closed cycle producing
excess *power*, i.e. not 100 watts electricity in, 110 watts heat out.

Shit, just 10^5 neutrons a second would do just fine, and even that
takes a whole lot of miracles that physicists might try to swallow.
(There were some papers in phys rev letters, some ICF fusion at LLNL has
 been revealed.  To get substantial fusion they plasmize a 2.5 mm pellet
 of uranium using a 30 terawatt UV laser array.  This generates a tremendous
 gas of soft x-rays to compress the fusion fuel using radiation pressure.
 The pellet is compressed in nanonseconds to near fermi-degenerate densities.
 Those are the *normal* conditions that you need to get fusion, just to
 get some physical sense of the problem.)
 
: I am still not convinced that any of 
: these excess energy results are valid but the situation does not
: deserve the insults and invective that are aimed publicly at people
: I prefer to see as honest researchers or industrialists.

OK, let's start by eliminating the attacks on dogmatic science establishment.
eg: "Yar! When the cold fusion revolution comes you'll be the first up
against the wall!"  Aside from Pons who has demonstrated himself to be
untrustworthy, I don't impugn the motives of other honest researchers.

; Many of these
: people must fully realise the risks that they are taking with their
: reputations and time but have decided to take the risk. I wish them
: well and will still see them as good scientists if the whole business
: does collapse eventually. 

: dave


--
-Matt Kennel  		mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu
-Institute for Nonlinear Science, University of California, San Diego
-*** AD: Archive for nonlinear dynamics papers & programs: FTP to
-***     lyapunov.ucsd.edu, username "anonymous".
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenmbk cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.22 /  prasad /  ZPE: was Re: changes of science theory at 80 year intervals
     
Originally-From: c1prasad@watson.ibm.com (prasad)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,soc.history.science
Subject: ZPE: was Re: changes of science theory at 80 year intervals
Date: 22 Nov 1994 18:57:12 GMT
Organization: IBM Watson

In article <CzJyD7.G3x@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, crb7q@watt.seas.Virgin
a.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
|> ....
|>      This has been going on for over a hundred years, with only the 
|>      explanation changing.  In early years, they didn't bother hiding the
|>      first law violation.  Later, they started with 'unknown' electromagnetic
|>      phenomena, now they talk of first-law violating 'Zero Point Energy'.  
|> ....

Dale,

If that last phrase means *you* think ZPE violates 1st law, do go and read up
on the subject.  I've been chastised before (I wasn't sure it was ok with the
2nd law!) and have done my homework (and can pass on the favor <wicked grin>).

Of course, if your sentence really meant that *they* thought 1st law violates
the ZPE, please ignore my FYI below.  Though I don't recall anyone *saying*
on the net that the 1st law violates ZPE (the other way around, possibly?).

FYI: the current (and only?) ZPE proposal is not unlike mining fossil or
nuclear fuels, or making batteries out of copper and zinc.  The energy is
there in existing matter, so no 1st law violation here.  We don't put in
the energy, nor does it come from ambient heat or the microwave background,
etc., and no 2nd law problems exist either.  The only catch at present is
the viability wrt the cost/difficulty of production vs the net energy gain,
which looks like merely(!) a technology/engineering issue.

Back to your jed-bashing....			/* to each his own! */
;)
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenc1prasad cudlnprasad cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.22 / Ad aspera /  FYI 163 (Potential election impacts on funds)
     
Originally-From: JTCHEW@lbl.gov (Ad absurdum per aspera)
Newsgroups: sci.research,sci.energy,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.parti
le,sci.physics.accelerators,sci.geo,sci.research.careers,sci.bio,bionet.
eneral,sci.geo.meteorology,comp.misc,soc.culture.soviet
Subject: FYI 163 (Potential election impacts on funds)
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 1994 14:25:08 -0800
Organization: Relayed, not written, by Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory


[Written by individuals at the American Institute of Physics and
merely posted by me, so respond to <fyi@aip.org> or other
references below.  Always posted here on sci.research; sometimes
crossposted to an eclectic and hopefully appropriate selection
of other newsgroups, with followups directed here. Back issues
may be ftp'd from NIC.HEP.NET, along with PHYSICS NEWS UPDATE
and the American Physical Society news/opinion column WHAT'S NEW;
or from pinet.aip.org. Enjoy! -jc]

Likely Impacts of Election on Science and Technology Spending

FYI No. 163, November 22, 1994

In the two weeks since the election, there has been considerable discussion
in Washington science policy circles about the likely impacts of the
Republican-dominated 104th Congress on science and technology policy and
spending.  This and following FYIs provide initial impressions on what to
look for.

Science spending generally enjoys bipartisan support on Capitol Hill
(although this is less true for technology funding.)  Science has a lower
profile than many issues that Congress and the Administration  will  focus
on in 1995.  Nevertheless, there are several factors that will influence
science and technology deliberations.

Much of the debate will revolve around the budget.  The Republican Contract
for America calls for $147.9 billion in tax breaks and other programs that,
under law, must be "paid"  for.  The two major choices for doing so are
raising revenue (e.g., federal taxes) or cutting existing programs.  Given
the anti-tax mood of the electorate and the Members of Congress  just
elected, program cuts seem just over the horizon.

A document "Prepared by the House Budget Committee Republican Staff," dated
9/22/94, entitled "Republicans Have a Proven Track Record of Cutting
Spending; Examples of Possible Offsets for Contract with America; Taken
from Republican FY 1994 & 1995 Budgets," lists science and technology
related spending cuts.  These examples, with their total five year savings
in billions of dollars are as follows:

Limit Rate of Growth for the National Science Foundation: -0.346 billion
 dollars
Eliminate the Advanced Technology Program (Dept. of Commerce):  -0.819
Reduce Spending for the High Performance Computing Program: -1.230
Reduce the Overhead Rate on Federally Sponsored University Research: -1.620
Abolish Geological Survey: -3.261
Reduce Funding for Energy Technology Development: -2.139
Freeze Funding for National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration: -0.805
Abolish National Biological Survey: -0.139
Reduce Educational and Culture Exchange Programs: -0.276
Reduce Assistance for Eastern Europe and Former Soviet Union: -3.481
Convert Campus Based Aid: -2.870

The two-page document lists $176.085 billion in total reductions over five
years.

This is not a complete list of all cuts Congress may consider.  For
example, on a recent  ABC news show, incoming Senate Majority Leader Robert
Dole (R-KS) said, "Everything ought to be on the table ...Should we
eliminate some of these programs?  Certainly."  In citing targets, Dole
said, "maybe the Energy Department... I don't see any useful purpose it
serves.  It can be wrapped into something else."

The rationale for these spending cuts varies.  In some instances it is
philosophical,  in other cases, more of a budgetary nature.  Additional
FYIs on this topic will follow.

###############
Public Information Division
American Institute of Physics
Contact: Richard M. Jones
fyi@aip.org
(301) 209-3095
##END##########
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenJTCHEW cudfnAd cudlnaspera cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.23 / Gary Steckly /  Re: Eqton torque sensor calibration S.O.P.
     
Originally-From: gsteckly@dgim.doc.ca (Gary Steckly)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Eqton torque sensor calibration S.O.P.
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 94 02:49:55 GMT
Organization: Communications Canada

jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:
: Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Dunn) asks about the Eaton torque sensor
: calibration procedures. The dynamometer is calibrated for torque (not RPMs) in
: the following steps:

[detailed description of calibration process deleted]

Jed, I believe it is obvious that the skeptics who have resorted to this 
attack on the dynamometer and the interesting but irrelevant debate on 
precision and accuracy, are clutching at straws.  This excess heat is not 
going to go away no matter how many times they shout "experimental 
error".  I trust your measurements as do hundreds of other open minded 
followers of this fascinating phenomenon surrounding the Griggs Gadget.

I anxiously await the outcome of Tom's field trip.  I am sure that the 
theories that come out of it will be fascinating, although none 
will be as imaginative as the cow magnet idea ;-) 

"on with the games!"  [isn't it fortunate that this thing came along to 
fill the vacuum left by the baseball and hockey strikes?]

regards

Gary

cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudengsteckly cudfnGary cudlnSteckly cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.23 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Eqton torque sensor calibration S.O.P.
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Eqton torque sensor calibration S.O.P.
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 1994 03:27:52 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <5U12FuK.jedrothwell@delphi.com>,  <jedrothwell@delphi.com> wrote:
>Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Dunn) asks about the Eaton torque sensor
>calibration procedures. The dynamometer is calibrated for torque (not RPMs) in
>the following steps

      Upon further reflection, I change my estimate of Jed-involved
      calibration penalty to 70%.

>the specifications say that the instrument feature "high accuracy." No
>engineer would interpret that to mean +/- 20%, when precision error is less
>than 1%.

      Amusing.  I may have to increase my estimate again.

>learning more about the instrument, and posting a coherent, reasonable
>hypothesis. The whole idea of +/- 20% accuracy is so far fetched it is utterly
>ridiculous. 
...
>I refuse to post any more comments about it.

      Good plan.  

                                      dale bass


cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.23 / mitchell swartz /  Get a grip, Steve - Becquerel
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Get a grip, Steve - Becquerel
Subject: Re: Get a grip, Steve
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 1994 05:08:05 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <3ar29r$515@network.ucsd.edu>
Subject: Re: Get a grip, Steve
Matt Kennel (mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu) wrote:

  : >Actually, what Steve writes is based on experiment, not theory. 
  : As I remember the argument it was a rehash of the old favorite
  : which goes something like:
  : "All the relevant nuclear reactions that we have observed produce high energy
  : particles therefore no other reaction paths are possible."
  : Q: How do you observe these reactions
  : A: By detecting the high energy particles given off
=mk  Fission was discovered by nuclear chemists, without high-energy radiation
=mk  products.

   David Davies may be correct.   Fission was discovered by high-energy 
radiation products, wasn't it?

   Becquerel detected high energy radiation
from uranyl salts which exposed his photographic plate (1855).
 Can anyone think of an earlier non-solar fission observation?

      -   Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com)


cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.23 / mitchell swartz /  Energetic particles? -
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Energetic particles? -
Subject: Energetic particles?
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 1994 05:09:41 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

    In Message-ID: <9411191638.AA40373@pilot1.cl.msu.edu>
Subject: Energetic particles?
Richard A Blue (blue@pilot.msu.edu) writes one of the better
"theoretic arguments" against the cold fusion phenomena:

=db  I know this is a pointless excercise, but I would like to attempt to
=db  explain to Mitchell Swartz why I, Steve Jones, and a number of other
=db  knowledgeable people think the fusion produces energetic particles.

  Despite the innuendoes of Dick, it should be
noted that we actually all agree that energetic particles are 
involved as products.      Right?
  This may be a pointless exercise, but I'll attempt to
discuss this further with Dick Blue because he has been one of the
few TB-skeptics to try to avoid ad hominems and focus on the science.
    [Anyone else is encouraged
to join in and contribute to this exercise between two blind people
attempting to discuss this "elephant".]

THE PRODUCTS
   Dick and the TB-skeptics choose those energetic particles to be
those which they know best, that is, for the particles 
to be only ionizing radiation and neutrons.
The ionizing radiation is wave/particles in the range of 
MeV to 20+ MeV.  The TB-skeptics claim the radiation
must be coupled to the majority of reactions.  ]

   Now these emissions of high energy ionizing radiation and neutrons
are consistent with what is actually observed for plasma, and ion beam, 
systems.  However, no other evidence or theory has been presented to "prove" 
their putative claim that hundreds of people and experiments are
"wrong".   [Perhaps corroborating this, this forum has demonstrated 
that except for a few TB-skeptics, they
rarely obtain the paper or try to reproduce the experiment.   ;-)X

   Now, in contrast to the claims of the  TB-skeptics, the experimental 
data suggests to those who follow the field that many of the energetic
particles consist of nonionizing radiation, including
phonons within the heavier Group VIII lattice.
As discussed elsewhere (e.g. CAM Theory, ICCF4) the phonons 
are of at least two types, and have ~ 40 millieV energies. 


THE MATERIALS
=db  Without worrying about the details it would seem that we are considering
=db  a process involving the fusion of light nuclei with an energy release
=db  of the order of MeV to tens of MeV per fusion event.

   It is unlikely to be so simple because it occurs in the solid-state and
that state must be adequately prepared and loaded.
But we will consider the
single reaction product in some fully loaded and 
adequately prepared gendanken "pure" Pd  
[or  Pd(x)Ag(1-x) or Pd(x)Rh(1-x)].


=db  One of the key arguments made by cold fusion advocates has long been
=db  that the observed excess heat exceeds the maximum that can be derived
=db  from a chemical reaction process.  I assume, Mitchell, that you will
=db  accept that as a starting point for this little excercise.

   OK, Dick


=db  The reason
=db  that we general use the designation "cold fusion" to describe the
=db  process generating the excess heat is that the usual starting hypothesis
=db  involves the reconfiguration of nuclei from less tightly bound configurations
=db  to more tightly bound configurations, and the association with D2O
=db  in the initial experiments has led to general belief that fusion of
=db  deuterium to form 4He is a likely candidate for the energy production
=db  process. 

   The reactions are linked to 4He generation in some experiments in the
solid state (Pd, LiOD system).   
    It is cold because it is non-plasma, occuring at much lower bulk
temperatures.   Therefore neutrons and ionizing radiation are not observed
at the better-known plasma-type levels.


=db   I won't hold you to that, but why don't we use this as
=db  an example to follow through a line of reasoning that leads one to
=db  suspect that energetic particles are produced.y release
=db  of the order of MeV to tens of MeV per fusion event.  If you question
=db  the logic behind such an assertion, I invite you to propose an alternative
=db  process that does not fit that description.

  1 - 24 MeV  covers the energy "gap"
as the boundary condition on the nuclear side.   
Some data supports the upper level as discussed previously.
What do you think, Dick?    Could you provide an energy
level drawing to simply this?  thanks in advance.

THE SIGNAL/NOISE
=db  Now we can begin to place some quantitative limits, based on experimental
=db  observations and basic physics, on the fusion process.  These numbers
=db  have all been given before.  Per watt of excess heat there must be
=db  something like 10^12 or 10^13 fusion events per second in a total
=db  sample population of perhaps 10^20 to 10^22 candidate nuclei. 

   OK.   Let's call this ratio, Rm.     Rm  =  10^-11   to   10^-7

=db  From
=db  that I conclude that in any time interval shorter than a microsecond
=db  only a very small fraction of the population is involved.  You pick
=db  a number you like.

    Only a very small fraction of the population may be involved at any time.
Rm is in the range of  10^-11   to   10^-7 .    In the
microsecond there would be  10^-17   to   10^-13  .

=db  Let us now return to the properties of nuclear systems and discuss
=db  the energy levels in a typical isolated nucleus involving 8 or
=db  fewer nucleons.  The density of states over the energy range involved
=db  is very, very small.  Each nucleus has a ground state, but excited
=db  states are few and far between - MeV separations are the rule.

   I hope you will remind us of the selection rules too, in the 
requested state diagram.


=db  But, you will remind me, the fusing nuclei are not isolated so the
=db  nuclear states may be perturbed with a resulting increase in the
=db  density of states and a reduction in level spacing.  At this point
=db  I believe that the burden of proof must switch to you.  I insist
=db  that it is a physical fact, an experimental observation if you will,
=db  that this perturbation does not occur.  There is, in fact, no
=db  mechanism by which it could occur.

Do you have experimental proof of the spacing in fully loaded palladium? 
  Which type?  To what level of loading?

   Also because only a very small fraction of the population is involved on any time 
scale.    Rm/(1microsecond)  is only in the range of  10^-17   to   10^-13.  
That is a very small S/N in a parameter already with a small S/N.  We look
forward to seeing your experimental observations which you cite above.


=db  If, however, you kling to the notion that the nuclear systems involved
=db  in cold fusion are perturbed with a resulting increase in the density
=db  of states you may be putting yourself in another little box.  In order
=db  to conform with the experimental observations accepted by cold fusion
=db  advocates it has been necessary to propose restrictions on the
=db  outcome of the reaction process.  That is to say the claim is that of
=db  several possible outcomes the reaction pathway is restricted to only
=db  one final reaction product, and that product nucleus must be in its
=db  ground state. 

  There is no evidence for a single pathway, although one of them leads to
helium-4.   You are imposing restrictions upon the outcome a priori, Dick.
The final outcome, for at least one pathway, is He-4
in its ground state and significant phonon pools and non-ionizing radiation.
Could you further explain your statements, Dick?

=db How do you reconcile the claim that the nuclei are in
=db  very perturbed states before and during the reaction process with the
=db  claim that final outcome is very unique? 
=db    Is the density of states
=db  available abnormally high or is it abnormally low?

  Could you explain further?  That diagram would help
to further this discussion (UUENCODED GIF or IFF).


=db  Since there is no known perturbing mechanism and the observed density
=db  of states appears to remain low, the most likely description of the
=db  reaction process involves transitions through a small number of states
=db  with energy differences that remain large.  Furthermore the features
=db  of the nuclear interaction set some limits on the time scale for the
=db  transition process.  I like numbers such as 10^9 seconds or less -
=db  actually a lot less.  If you object please give some ground for your
=db  objection.

   Presumably you mean 10^-9 seconds.   You offered a microsecond
above, but let us consider the lower limit of a nanosecond.  The speed of
light offers a propagation distance of about a foot if memory serves
at this hour. 
   Phonon propagation speeds are much much slower
but still offer recruitment over many lattice sites.  How many do
you calculate, Dick?

=db  With that background we are led to the conclusion that the reaction
=db  process releases energy on the MeV scale at single isolated locations
=db  and that there are are virtually no possibilities for spreading the
=db  released energy among more than a few "particles".  That follows
=db  from simple causality arguments.

    Many lattice sites could be involved over time scales
of a nanosecond.   Given a putative phonon propagation velocity
as low as 100 meter/sec there would be scores of  lattice cells involved.  
Furthermore, consider and comment, Dick, regarding 
the volumetric recruitment which as I've pointed out previously goes as 
the cube.


=db  Now tell us where this chain of reasoning can be broken.

    Several loci are described above.  More thoughts hopefully will
appear from the "college" and lurkers.

Thanks go to Dick Blue for continuing a effort we began last year
to focus upon some serioius science here.  
   [Hope Robert Horst (horst_bob@tandem.com) 
    finds the improved S/N agreeable,     ;-)X            

     Best wishes.
              -  Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com)


cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.23 / Chris Parkinson /  Re: Y. Arata DS-Cathode cold fusion
     
Originally-From: parky@ix.netcom.com (Chris Parkinson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Y. Arata DS-Cathode cold fusion
Date: 23 Nov 1994 05:56:53 GMT
Organization: Netcom

In <CzJxCp.FHy@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU 
(Cameron Randale Bass) writes: 

>
>In article <CzGK3t.8y6@eskimo.com>, Robert Dinse <nanook@eskimo.com> 
wrote:
>>In article <CzBr7A.B08@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, 
crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>>> 
snip...
>> How do blimps work?  (ie, what keeps all the helium from migrating 
>>through the walls of the blimp)?
>
>      Simple answer:  nothing.  More complex answer:  it takes a while.
>
>                              dale bass
>

The latter true, the former well almost. Granted the helium molecule is 
tiny but with thick walls af high carbon content steel you wont get much 
migration. Its like runing through a dense forest eventually your path 
will be blocked and you must find an alternate route, if you can. Now I 
know that they dont make steel blimps but mylar baloons are used all the 
time and even after many days at only a few mills of thickness, the 
helium content is still above ambient pressure. Now with thicker walls 
the time constant goes up.

CP
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenparky cudfnChris cudlnParkinson cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.23 / Chris Parkinson /  Re: free energy, cow magnets, and the GG
     
Originally-From: parky@ix.netcom.com (Chris Parkinson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: free energy, cow magnets, and the GG
Date: 23 Nov 1994 06:11:57 GMT
Organization: Netcom

In <9411161537.AA29748@pilot1.cl.msu.edu> blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A 
Blue) writes: 

>
>In keeping with Jed Rothwell's free-wheeling approach to science, I 
>been doing some speculating about the Griggs Gadget. (You know. An idle
>mind . . .)

snip......

>
>I am, of course, justified in putting forth such nonsense because we
>do have experimental data.  The housing temperature is elevated, and
>now I know why!  It is eddy-current heating.  Isn't science wonderful?
>
>I wonder if Tom Droege should take along a pocket compass just in case
>he might get lost in the wilds of Georgia.
>
>Dick Blue
>
>
Eddy current heating huh... Well if that is the case then there is a 
Patent violation with a company I used to work for. I doubt it though. 
Do you understand what eddy current heating is. If there is truly a 
magnet (which I know is not the case) in the care where are the AC 
windings????? Oh but I frogot the leptons are a leapin and the electrons 
a scorin from the MOTOR! So excuuuuse me! I forgot.:)

The hollow is in the holes drilled around the perimeter. The patent does 
not disclose that the center is hollow. As such another argument would 
follw that; how can the unit survive the centrifical forces if not held 
together by a solid mass. The short answer is: It cant and it does need 
a solid core or at least a substructure as in a bridge to hold it all 
together.

CP

cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenparky cudfnChris cudlnParkinson cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.23 / Chris Parkinson /  Re: Get a grip, Steve
     
Originally-From: parky@ix.netcom.com (Chris Parkinson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Get a grip, Steve
Date: 23 Nov 1994 06:19:14 GMT
Organization: Netcom

In <CznBF9.DsF@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU 
(Cameron Randale Bass) writes: 

>
>In article <Rw2VtYF.jedrothwell@delphi.com>,  <jedrothwell@delphi.com> 
wrote:
>>CF will never kill
>>even a tenth of 1% of the people killed today by pollution and 
gasoline
>>explosions.
>
>     This is likely the most correct thing you've ever said in this 
forum.
>
>                                dale bass
>

Hey lets not take things out of context!

CP
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenparky cudfnChris cudlnParkinson cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.23 / Cameron Bass /  Re: ZPE: was Re: changes of science theory at 80 year intervals
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,soc.history.science
Subject: Re: ZPE: was Re: changes of science theory at 80 year intervals
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 1994 14:46:08 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <3ateu9$1b5t@watnews1.watson.ibm.com>,
prasad <c1prasad@watson.ibm.com> wrote:
>In article <CzJyD7.G3x@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, crb7q@watt.seas.Virgi
ia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>|> ....
>|>      This has been going on for over a hundred years, with only the 
>|>      explanation changing.  In early years, they didn't bother hiding the
>|>      first law violation.  Later, they started with 'unknown' electromagnetic
>|>      phenomena, now they talk of first-law violating 'Zero Point Energy'.  
>|> ....
>
>Dale,
>
>If that last phrase means *you* think ZPE violates 1st law, do go and read up
>on the subject.  I've been chastised before (I wasn't sure it was ok with the
>2nd law!) and have done my homework (and can pass on the favor <wicked grin>).

     No, it means that a certain subset of free energy nuts have
     adopted 'Zero Point Energy' as the explanation du jour for 
     violations of energy conservation in such ordinary devices as batteries
     and things that look like dishwashers.

>FYI: the current (and only?) ZPE proposal is not unlike mining fossil or
>nuclear fuels, or making batteries out of copper and zinc.  

     It's more like making batteries out of the national debt.
 
>The energy is
>there in existing matter, so no 1st law violation here.  We don't put in
>the energy, nor does it come from ambient heat or the microwave background,
>etc., and no 2nd law problems exist either.  The only catch at present is
>the viability wrt the cost/difficulty of production vs the net energy gain,
>which looks like merely(!) a technology/engineering issue.

     Don't believe everything Puthoff writes.

                                 dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.23 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Y. Arata DS-Cathode cold fusion
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Y. Arata DS-Cathode cold fusion
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 1994 14:56:47 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <3aulj5$k89@ixnews1.ix.netcom.com>,
Chris Parkinson <parky@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>In <CzJxCp.FHy@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU 
>(Cameron Randale Bass) writes: 
>
>>In article <CzGK3t.8y6@eskimo.com>, Robert Dinse <nanook@eskimo.com> 
>wrote:
>>>In article <CzBr7A.B08@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, 
>crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>>>> 
>snip...
>>> How do blimps work?  (ie, what keeps all the helium from migrating 
>>>through the walls of the blimp)?
>>
>>      Simple answer:  nothing.  More complex answer:  it takes a while.
>>
>>                              dale bass
>
>The latter true, the former well almost.

     No, actually each is true at a different level of complexity.

     You know, I'm beginning to appreciate the difference between
     those now inclined to credit P&F's results and those not.  To wit, 
     those inclined have no feel for the term 'orders of magnitude'.

                                dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.26 / Jim Carr /  Re: Get a grip, Steve - Becquerel
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Get a grip, Steve - Becquerel
Date: 26 Nov 1994 09:56:23 -0500
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

In article <CzpFLH.I6y@world.std.com> 
mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
>
>=mk  Fission was discovered by nuclear chemists, without high-energy radiation
>=mk  products.
>
>   David Davies may be correct.   Fission was discovered by high-energy 
> radiation products, wasn't it?

No.  The high energy products from fission are neutrons and detection 
of them, or of the lower energy fission products, was not sophisticated 
enough at that time.  Fission was established by chemistry.  If fact, 
it took a long time to realize that fission was happening because it 
is easy to confuse the chemistry of a light product with that of a 
heavy one in the same column, and because chemical separation methods 
are not very sensitive as they require significant amounts to work with. 
Read one of the histories, say Rhodes' book, for the details of the 
confusion due to problems with chemistry.  There is a lesson here.

>   Becquerel detected high energy radiation
> from uranyl salts which exposed his photographic plate (1855).

No, this was not fission.  He detected alpha decay.  He probably saw 
some decays of fission products, but it was mainly alphas that 
exposed his plates, which were wrapped in black paper.  And it was 
not 1855.  It was 1896, soon after Becquerel heard about X-rays. 

-- 
 James A. Carr   <jac@scri.fsu.edu>     |  "The old he-coon walks just  
    http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac        |  before the light of day."    
 Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst.  |   - Gov. (still) Lawton Chiles to
 Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306    |     Jeb Bush during second debate
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.23 / JAMES STOLIN /  Re: Energetic particles?
     
Originally-From: FKNF40A@prodigy.com (JAMES STOLIN )
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Energetic particles?
Date: 23 Nov 1994 21:33:44 GMT
Organization: Prodigy Services Company  1-800-PRODIGY

 mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:

>    [Anyone else is encouraged
>to join in and contribute to this exercise between two blind people
>attempting to discuss this "elephant".]

Mitchell,

   Please forgive the intrusion of a lay person into this discussion but 
you did say "anyone". <G>  I have been following the "cold fusion" debate 
since the first Pons and Fleishman announcement.  I have quoted "cold 
fusion" because I have not formed an opinion of exactly what is happening.
  I am not intimately involved in physics research and am not afraid to 
simply say I DON'T KNOW.  I do have a few thoughts and questions that I 
would like discussed or kicked around as one desires.  Anywhere H is 
referenced, feel free to substitute D or T.

   Unless there are outright lies, there have been reports of melted or 
vaporized PD electrodes in various experiments.  Do you accept these 
reports?  If so, do you or anyone else have explanations?  PD melts at ~1,
500C, Pd boils at ~2,200C and H burns at ~2,500C.  Though I can account 
for a few experimental cells blowing up due to H ignition, it seems that 
there is insufficient volume of H and O present in a "cold fusion" test 
cell to melt or vaporize the Pd electrode.  

   Next, has anyone modeled the relationship of H dissolved in Pd and 
calculated the various nuclear forces involved?  I am thinking along the 
lines of an effect in which the much larger nuclear forces of Pd overcome 
the forces that normally keep the H nuclei apart.  There could be widely 
disparate results if the Pd were in an amorphous or crystaline state. 
Perhaps that is why results vary so widely. 

   Another idea that is from my radio experience.  I wonder what would be 
the effect exciting H at its resonant frequency in experiments.  I 
believe H has a 21cm wavelength or approx 1428 Mhz.  This could be 
applied as the electrolysis voltage in various existing experiments or in 
a tuned microwave cavity lined with Pd.

Thanks for your patience.

-
James B. Stolin  -  Illinois Computer Service  -  FKNF40A@prodigy.com


cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenFKNF40A cudfnJAMES cudlnSTOLIN cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.25 / Harry Conover /  Re: Griggs power
     
Originally-From: conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs power
Date: 25 Nov 1994 23:28:59 GMT
Organization: The Internet Access Company

Bruce Dunn (Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca) wrote:

: Jed has now provided a description of how the Eaton torque sensor is
: calibrated.  It seems to me that the calibration procedure is quite
: straightforward, and the accuracy of a power measurement is likely to be no
: worse than 1%.

: The output power is derived from the difference between two temperature
: measurements, multiplied by the weight of hot product water.  From
: previously postings of Jed, I would estimate that the accuracy of measuring
: the temperature difference and the mass of water would each be no worse
: than 1%.

Interesting conclusion, but a bit optimistic.  The National Bureau of
of Standards must envy such precision and accuracy.

Care to share your error analysis leading to this remarkable 
finding?

                                     Harry C.


cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenconover cudfnHarry cudlnConover cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.24 / David Davies /  Re: Get a grip, Steve
     
Originally-From: drd851@huxley.anu.edu.au (David R Davies)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Get a grip, Steve
Date: 24 Nov 1994 12:59:21 +1100
Organization: Australian National University

mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel) writes:

>Oh come on, physics thrives on new phenomena.  The Science Establishment

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Once you get a lynch mob running scientists
are no different to any other mob.

>*will* get irritated if resources are diverted to far-fetched baloney while
>they have many many compelling projects and proposals that aren't getting

Tell this to those with alternate hot fusion techniques etc.

>pursued.  If they were convinced there was something to cold fusion they'd
>grab on like tigers.  Look at high TC superconductivity.

Superconductivity may be a good comparison. Its far more advanced than
CF of course and fits quite cleanly into the conventional QM framework
at a superficial level. If we had a decent understanding of the gamut
of quantum solid state effects then high temp SC would be a matter of
applying theory more than the cookbook approaches that are used now.
HTSC has the distinct practical advantage of having a relatively
reliable magnetic test for its existence.

... 

>Deuterated wax where deuteriums are closer together than in
>metals just sits there.

There is evidence for delocated protons in carbon chains. There are
no band state electrons in wax to my knowledge though and other
differences mak a comparison unhelpful. 

...

>Besides the core problem is *not* the conditions necessary to get fusion,
>it's the total absence of direct nuclear consequences.  Physicists
>were ready to believe Pons and Fleischmann even though it seems absurd
>that you could get fusion at room-temperature.  But if there were neutrons
>they figured "what the hell something must be happening."  

That's one interpretation. 

>            P+F lied about
>the neutrons.

This statement is unproven and could amount to a lie itself.

>Again, here's the core problem:  on the way to getting conditions to
>fusion I'll grant whatever magic you need. Once you start fusing
>though, the energy released is millions of times larger than any
>effect from the surroundings, you know mere "chemistry".

Sure this is the core problem for those who think it might be fusion
but we have been around and around this. It is not clear-cut.

>Therefore the reaction will proceed nearly identically to vaccum.  This
>has always been observed in experiment.  The chemical shifts are tiny
>perturbations on the basic reaction pathyways.  You might change things
>by 1%, but not by a factor of 10^12 or whatever.

>It's like saying if you tilt a pistol upward, well gravity will pull on
>the bullet and it won't come out, the pistol won't make any sound or
>noise, all that will happen is the whole thing will warm up and you'll have
>a heated lead pellet in the tube.

But if I make a small hole and burn the contents all I will get is a bit
of a sputter. (dont try this at home kids ;-)

>In fact in the nuclear case, you can make the argument that reactions
>can proceed so fast that there is not time for *anything* chemical
>to have an effect because of causality from special relativity.

Another critical point. I have addressed this over and over. Nobody 
has ever supported this argument with a proof that nuclear reactions
must take place in a short time. It is just the way experiments happen 
to be done in high energy beams that allows no alternative slower paths.

...

>Shit, just 10^5 neutrons a second would do just fine, and even that

Just 10^5 n/s and I would lose all interest.

...     up
>against the wall!"  Aside from Pons who has demonstrated himself to be
>untrustworthy, I don't impugn the motives of other honest researchers.

I have never made comments about lining people up against the wall. Even
when my country and yours were commiting obscene acts of barbarism in
Vietnam - which is when I last heard the expression used.

>--
>-Matt Kennel  		mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu
>-Institute for Nonlinear Science, University of California, San Diego
>-*** AD: Archive for nonlinear dynamics papers & programs: FTP to
>-***     lyapunov.ucsd.edu, username "anonymous".

A big challenge for Physics is to make a substantial break into the
realm of nonlinear dynamics. Dick Blue likes to talk of perturbation
theory but we need to look at areas that are fundamentally nonlinear.

Once we can cope with these problems comfortably, QM will take on a
very different appearance.

Cheers,

dave

cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudendrd851 cudfnDavid cudlnDavies cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.27 / Robin Spaandonk /  Re: Fusion Digest 2976
     
Originally-From: rvanspaa@ozemail.com.au (Robin van Spaandonk)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion Digest 2976
Date: Sun, 27 Nov 1994 06:05:40 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

>Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
[SNIP]
>   Now, in contrast to the claims of the  TB-skeptics, the experimental
>data suggests to those who follow the field that many of the energetic
>particles consist of nonionizing radiation, including
>phonons within the heavier Group VIII lattice.
>As discussed elsewhere (e.g. CAM Theory, ICCF4) the phonons
>are of at least two types, and have ~ 40 millieV energies.
[SNIP]
>  1 - 24 MeV  covers the energy "gap"
>as the boundary condition on the nuclear side.
[SNIP]
>    Many lattice sites could be involved over time scales
>of a nanosecond.   Given a putative phonon propagation velocity
>as low as 100 meter/sec there would be scores of  lattice cells involved.
>Furthermore, consider and comment, Dick, regarding
>the volumetric recruitment which as I've pointed out previously goes as
>the cube.
[SNIP]
Sorry to cut this up so badly, but I have attempted to get relevant info 
close together.
The speed of sound in the Platinum metals, is approx. 3000 m/s.
In my innocence, I assume that this is a reasonable approximation of the 
"phonon propagation velocity" mentioned above. If we further assume a separation
between Pd atoms of approx 0.3 nm then we can calculate the shortest time 
interval
in which 24 MeV can be distributed over surrounding atoms at 40 meV each as 
follows:
24 MeV / 40 meV = 6.0E8 . atoms. If each atom occupies a cube of space with 
sides
= 0.3 nm, then total volume =  1.62E7 cubic nm. This is the volume of a 
sphere with a radius
of approx 157 nm. At 3000 m/s, sound will travel this distance in approx.  
5.2E-11 sec., Thus well 
and truly within the 1 nano second mentioned above, and  on the order of time 
usually associated with nuclear reactions.
Any wave function that collapses with observation, describes only YOUR
KNOWLEDGE of the system, not the state of the system itself. It then 
becomes perfectly reasonable for it to collapse, as observation changes
knowledge/certainty. Motto: Looking wont kill the cat, it's not in a mixed
state. The only thing in a mixed state is what you know about the cat.
 
Robin - Exploder of Myths <rvanspaa@ozemail.com.au> 

cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenrvanspaa cudfnRobin cudlnSpaandonk cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.23 / Robert Heeter /  Re: catalyzed fusion ??
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: catalyzed fusion ??
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 1994 02:39:24 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

In article <3at109$1hu@gazette.bcm.tmc.edu> Todd Primm,
tp034588@mbcr.bcm.tmc.edu writes:
> 	I have heard of muon catalyzed fusion.
> I was wondering if someone could explain how it works.
> I am a scientist (biochemist), but not a physicist.

Looks like it's time to repost the FAQ...  I'll have a revised
how-to-find-the-FAQ FAQ ready this weekend (I hope).  
(We've got a *very* basic Web version now.)  In the
meantime, I'll send Todd email with the muon-fusion section.

--Bob Heeter
rfheeter@pppl.gov
Conventional Fusion FAQ maintainer
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.24 / A Plutonium /  Re: The Annenberg/CPB Collection THE MECHANICAL UNIVERSE and   
     
Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag
sci.bio,sci.chem,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The Annenberg/CPB Collection THE MECHANICAL UNIVERSE and   
Date: 24 Nov 1994 16:19:07 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In article <3ajrkr$2p5@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:

>    I bring this up because I have the theory that light is composed of
> neutrinos. I request that a neutrino detector be set up where the
> screen is.
> I request that all angles be checked of the polarizing filters to see
> if the neutrino detector detects more neutrinos than usual.


Today is Thanksgiving day 24Nov1994 in the USA. Here is a most
appropriate prayer to make to our Maker. It is in THE MECHANICAL
UNIVERSE series, Part II, #31: Voltage, Energy, and Force
     When is electricity dangerous or benign, spectacular or useful?

  This is one of the very most strong points of this series, the music.
And this series, if we were permitted to buy only one series of film or
movie or music production, mine would be this series. If I were allowed
only one book to purchase in all of my life, it would be the Feynman
Lectures on physics, three volume set.
  In the long view of history, The Mechanical Universe series will be
the quintessential movie production.

For your Thanksgiving Prayer, play this passage of #31 The Mechanical
Universe.

" But when a few volts tie an electron to an atom.
How strong is that bond?
Since a Vandegraff generator can build-up a hundred thousand volts.
It seems this machine ought to be capable of ionizing every bit of
ordinary matter in sight.
But it isn't.

Sometimes, voltage alone isn't enough.

In fact, if an atom and a Vandegraff engage in a simple tug of war for
one electron.

The atom always wins.

Because a tug of war is a question of force, not voltage. 
(Start of the music of Angels singing in the background of our Maker)

In other words, what matters is the derivative of the potential energy,
(music of angels singing in the background)
not just how big it is.

Here is a Vandegraff dome,  and an atom.

They are competing for an electron
that might be bound to the Vandegraff by tens of thousands of volts.

(Music of angels with drums)

But zooming in by ten, 

a hundred,

a thousand times.

The electrons potential energy due to the atom
is seen to be much smaller
but very much steeper.

(Angels singing in background)

In fact the horizontal scale 

has to be expanded

ten,

a hundred,

a thousand,

ten thousand,

a hundred thousand times, just to see the slope. 

(Angels singing in the background, ("Ah, Ah, Ah, Ah"))

The atom's force is a hundred thousand times stronger than the
Vandegraff. 
And that is no contest at all.  "

I will comment about this series more in this thread.
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.24 / A Plutonium /  Thanksgiving Prayer
     
Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.bio,sci.chem,sci.math,sci.phys
cs,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Thanksgiving Prayer
Date: 24 Nov 1994 16:24:42 GMT
Organization: Plutonium College

Today is Thanksgiving day 24Nov1994 in the USA. Here is a most
appropriate prayer to make to our Maker. It is in THE MECHANICAL
UNIVERSE series, Part II, #31: Voltage, Energy, and Force
     When is electricity dangerous or benign, spectacular or useful?

  This is one of the very most strong points of this series, the music.
And this series, if we were permitted to buy only one series of film or
movie or music production, mine would be this series. If I were allowed
only one book to purchase in all of my life, it would be the Feynman
Lectures on physics, three volume set.
  In the long view of history, The Mechanical Universe series will be
the quintessential movie production.

For your Thanksgiving Prayer, play this passage of #31 The Mechanical
Universe.

" But when a few volts tie an electron to an atom.
How strong is that bond?
Since a Vandegraff generator can build-up a hundred thousand volts.
It seems this machine ought to be capable of ionizing every bit of
ordinary matter in sight.
But it isn't.

Sometimes, voltage alone isn't enough.

In fact, if an atom and a Vandegraff engage in a simple tug of war for
one electron.

The atom always wins.

Because a tug of war is a question of force, not voltage. 
(Start of the music of Angels singing in the background of our Maker)

In other words, what matters is the derivative of the potential energy,

(music of angels singing in the background)

not just how big it is.

Here is a Vandegraff dome,  and an atom.

They are competing for an electron
that might be bound to the Vandegraff by tens of thousands of volts.

(Music of angels with drums)

But zooming in by ten, 

a hundred,

a thousand times.

The electrons potential energy due to the atom
is seen to be much smaller
but very much steeper.

(Angels singing in background)

In fact the horizontal scale 

has to be expanded

ten,

a hundred,

a thousand,

ten thousand,

a hundred thousand times, just to see the slope. 

(Angels singing in the background, ("Ah, Ah, Ah, Ah"))

The atom's force is a hundred thousand times stronger than the
Vandegraff. 
And that is no contest at all.  "

  The above passage brings tears to my eyes, it is art and science
combined that, it is even better than Handel's Messiah.
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.24 / Mark Chrisman /  Re: Thanksgiving Prayer
     
Originally-From: chrisman@ucdmath.ucdavis.edu (Mark Chrisman)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.bio,sci.chem,sci.math,sci.phys
cs,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Thanksgiving Prayer
Date: 24 Nov 1994 16:45:28 GMT
Organization: University of California, Davis

In article <3b2eoa$21f@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:

> Today is Thanksgiving day 24Nov1994 in the USA. Here is a most
> appropriate prayer to make to our Maker.

> [snip]

>   The above passage brings tears to my eyes....

It brought tears to my eyes as well.


 -------------------------------------------------------
Mark Chrisman

(Sorry, you left yourself wide open there :-)
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenchrisman cudfnMark cudlnChrisman cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.24 /  DanHicks /  Re: Eaton torque sensor specifications
     
Originally-From: danhicks@aol.com (DanHicks)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Eaton torque sensor specifications
Date: 24 Nov 1994 13:55:03 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

In article <CzJysE.GID@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>,
crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:

>>>
In article <3al5cn$jbl@newsbf01.news.aol.com>,
DanHicks <danhicks@aol.com> wrote:

>Mind you, I don't seriously doubt that the meter IS accurate 

     Why not?  At least one person involved in the calibration doesn't
     understand the device.

                              dale bass
<<<

Well, basically I'm assuming that the manufacturer and installer DID know
something about the device and designed/installed it so that better than
20% accuracy could be achieved.  I have of course no idea what the
instrument looks like or how it works in any specific sense, but a modern,
well-designed industrial instrument with a <1% spec should be able to
tolerate a modicum of misunderstanding and misuse on the part of the user
and still achieve much better than 20% accuracy.  After all, no matter how
ignorant you think Jed is, the average factory worker is even worse.

Of course, I still don't understand why one would want to measure torque. 
Far better to simply measure input power.  Even if there is some sort of
strange effect that occurs due to vibration being telegraphed back from
the rotor, a flywheel of moderate size would be sufficient to keep it from
reaching the motor and being reflected in the input power.  As I've said
before, a good industrial power meter should be able to maintain accuracy
over the range of wattages and phase angles seen with the GG, and this
accuracy is fairly easy to verify independently with lab instruments.

The way I see things, here's what should be measured:  (1) Input power,
both to the rotor motor and the feedwater pump motor. (2) Temperature and
flow rate of feedwater.  (3) Output power (more later here).  (4) An
insulated tent or hut should be built around the GG and its two motors and
the temperature and flow rate of air into and out of the hut should be
measured.  This needn't be elaborate, but it should be sufficient to
collect and measure 80 or 90% of the heat currently being thrown off
through convection and radiation from the motors and rotor.  This isn't
100% necessary, of course, but its existence would serve to quelch (or
possibly support) any claims that the theoretical output really is greater
than unity but that too much is being lost in motor efficiency et al for >
unity to show up in the raw input/output measurements.

The real problem seems to be measuring output power.  If it were simply
hot water coming out, any pressure in the flow would be quickly converted
to heat and then the temperature and flow rate of hot water out of a
relatively small accumulator could be easily measured.  Superheated steam
is a different matter and I don't pretend to have the background to know
how to deal with it.  The problem is that a scheme is needed that will
permit the reasonably accurate measurement of the heat output over runs of
several hours.  This to me is the most critical task at hand.
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudendanhicks cudlnDanHicks cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.24 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Re: Get a grip, Steve
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Get a grip, Steve
Date: Thu, 24 Nov 1994 14:58 -0500 (EST)

jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:
 
-> Let me illustrate this point with a manifestly impossible imaginary
-> scenario. Suppose I was to walk in the room and say "I can read your mind. I
-> can prove it! Think of a number, I'll tell you what it is." You think "one
-> hundred and twenty" and I immediately blurt out "120." You think of 483 and
-> immediately say "483." You think of 100 numbers in a row followed by 10
-> flavors of ice cream, and the names of two dozen people I have never met or
-> heard of, and I tell you every of these things as quickly as you think them
-> up. So, do you believe in mind reading or not? If you are scientist, you hav
-> no choice. You MUST believe it. You must instantly and forever throw away al
-> doubts, all preconceptions, all hard-won knowledge to the contrary. No matte
-> how unlikely mind-reading may be, according to our knowledge of evolution,
-> the brain, and human history, one utterly airtight demonstration right befor
-> your eyes must convince you.
 
Sorry, but that would not constitute proof you could read my mind.  After all
you could be controlling my mind, putting the images into my mind, as opposed
to the other way around.  One must explore all possibilities before jumping to
conclusions.  I have been down this road on studies of "possible" reincarnation
cases, and there are always alternative explainations which can be made to fit
the data.
 
                                                                Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.22 /  jonesse@acousb /  Re: Get a grip, Steve
     
Originally-From: jonesse@acousb.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Get a grip, Steve
Date: 22 Nov 94 11:54:08 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

All last week, I was in Washington, D.C., attending a conference on alternative
approaches to fusion energy.  I was invited to speak on the subject of
muon-catalyzed fusion along with V. Bystritskii of Russia.  I hope to share
some ideas, some very exciting developments, from this conference.  "Cold
fusion" [a la P&F] was not one of the topics of the conference.

I return to find Mr. Rothwell spouting nonsense (complete with expletives)
regarding me:

In article <Rw2VtYF.jedrothwell@delphi.com>, jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:
> I wrote that Steve Jones "hopes that mere theory will make hard, proven facts
> go away."
>
I hope no such thing.  What nonsense!  I would thank Mr. Rothwell to 
stop making such untrue and ridiculous assertions about what I hope.
  
> jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) responds:
>  
>      "Actually, what Steve writes is based on experiment, not theory."
>  
> Yes, of course. Steve says that previous experiments proved various theories,
> and the theories, in turn, prove that all CF data is wrong. That's nuts. It
> does not work that way. You cannot make data go away by waving old
> experiments, old theories, or old scientists at it. You have to show where
> the instruments failed. They did not fail; there are no significant errors.
> The calorimetry is right. Arata really did measure 200+ megajoules from his
> cell. Mizuno really did measure 3.6 MJ from his.
>  
> The old theories are either wrong or inapplicable. The old experiments are
> irrelevant. Evidently, conditions inside the sun are not like conditions
> inside a metal lattice. You cannot apply the same rules to both.
>  

When we look back at the stuff Jed has written before, we see that these are
old, tired arguments:

>JED: "One conclusive experiment can and MUST overrule the entire existing
>database, no matter how certain or long established it may be. ...
>Okay, a million, million previous experiments showed that E=Mc2.  So what?
>Every single one of them was wrong.  Period.  It does not work in metal
>lattices under electrolysis, and Einstein was flat out wrong."
(Jed Rothwell, 21 Dec. 1992)

Amusing, isn't it?
I think Jed is far too credulous regarding the electrolysis experiments,
and far too willing to throw out "a million, million previous experiments."
E=Mc2 works, Jed; we're not going to abandon this "theory" as you style it
so easily.   Frankly, I find your ravings quite amazing, Jed.

Actually, Jim Carr is correct:  what I write is based on experiments, including
our own ongoing experiments at BYU and elsewhere.  We have shown by our own
experiments and analyses of other experiments that many so-called
positive cf experiments are flawed.  E.g.:

> Yamaguchi claimed helium-4 production, but it was subsequently found out
that his apparatus had large GLASS windows, which could account for all the
helium-4 seen.  One remembers that the NTT stocks jumped up at the time of
his announcement in 1992.  Where is Yamaguchi now?  He is no longer with
NTT; last December (1993) we learned that he was probably joining P&F in
France.

>Jed suggests that Kevin Wolf saw radioactive products in his Pd rods, and that
this is strong evidence for cf.  But Wolf never made the claims publicly -- he
did not even show up at the Maui ICCF-4 meeting, for example.  He has been
careful to publish nothing on this.  And he has failed to reproduce the
"effect."  A close examination of his data shows the presence of Palladium-100.
This product comes from reactions with NEGATIVE Q, which implies a beam
irradiation, IMHO.  In any case, Wolf is not making any claims.

>Miles and others ASSUMED that H2 (or D2) + O2 recombination effects
were negligible in electrolysis cells, as long as the electrodes were covered
by electrolyte.  Our direct experiments have demonstrated that these
assumptions are FALSE and yield false positives for "excess heat."  With this
flawed assumption, we were able to 'generate' up to 750% "excess heat;" 
but this went away _completely_ when recombination was inhibited.

> Notoya showed a demonstration "excess heat" cell in Nagoya, Japan, in 1992.
But BYU graduate student David Buehler demonstrated -- by moving the alligator
clips on lead wires on this demonstration -- that the lead wires to the 
control cell had high resistance (compared to the lead wires going into the
nickel/cathode cell).  Thus, heat was being dissipated in the air in the
control cell, consistent with its running at a cooler temperature INSIDE the
cell, compared with the nickel cell.

>P&F claimed excess heat during a 10-minute boiling period in their Phys. Lett.
paper.  But on questioning, Fleischmann disclosed the astonishing fact
(which was NOT mentioned in the publication)
that measurements on input power, etc., were taken only once every FIVE
MINUTES, for the data published.  But during boiling, our experiments showed
(consistent with Tom Droege's and others' predictions) that the input voltage
jumps around rapidly and with large swings (for constant current as P&F used).
Thus, the input power was not adequately measured, and claims of "excess heat"
in this boiling cell are poorly founded.

I could go on; but these matters have been aired here previously.
Furthermore, three papers on our experiments 
including a discussion of mistakes in other
experiments have been submitted for publication.  One has already been
accepted for publication in Fusion Technology and should appear shortly. 

>  
> I wrote that no sane person cares whether this heat comes from fusion or some
> other source. 

What heat?

>Carr responds:
>  
>      "Actually, it would be more precise to state that most engineers don't
>      care where the heat comes from as long as they can specify a set of
>      plans that allow such a device to be constructed in such a way that it
>      always works. Scientists, on the other hand, will always care because
>      the effect is unusual, and unusual things are always interesting."
>  
> This is incorrect. No sane scientist will care where the heat comes from
> either. 

 No sane scientist will accept the "excess heat" as being "unusual" without
thorough scrutiny.  But then, Jed does not claim to be a scientist.

>If you can explain it with a new theory, and that theory becomes
> generally accepted when CF is commercialized, you will win the Nobel prize.
> You will become one of the most famous scientists on earth. You will get carte
> blanche funding and your own private 50,000 sq. ft. research institute, like
> Pons and Fleischmann. Scientists -- sane scientists, anyway -- work for
> recognition, money, and power. CF will bring these things in spades to any
> scientist who has the guts to work on it now, and the smarts to figure it out
> later.
>  
>  
>      "Further, although the engineer may not care where the heat comes from,
>      the person marketing it will care, since the lawyers advising said
>      person are likely to be concerned with whether it violates any EPA or
>      NRC regulations or is likely to somehow injure its user, resulting in
>      nasty lawsuits."
>  
> This is a very minor issue in the grand scheme of things. Converting factories
> to produce CF automobiles and other products will cost billions of dollars.
> Convincing Congress to allow CF, over the frantic objections of the DoE and
> the oil industry, will be a monumental undertaking. Before CF succeeds the DoE
> and other hard-core opponents will have to bulldozed out of the way. They must
> be destroyed or co-opted. Compared to this, forcing a few bureaucrats to
> change some regulations will be a minor undertaking. Furthermore, while there
> will be some dangers and nasty lawsuits from CF accidents, CF will never kill
> even a tenth of 1% of the people killed today by pollution and gasoline
> explosions. The public will realize that CF is much safer than any
> alternative, and the public will force through the necessary changes.
>  
>  
> I wrote: "IT IS A MILLION TIMES BEYOND THE LIMITS OF CHEMISTRY." Carr
> responds:
>  
>      "Now if "no sane person cares" where this heat comes from, why the
>      continued emphasis that it does not come from chemistry?  It would seem
>      that *you* care where it comes from, and once you make that point it is
>      fair for anyone else to ask the question also."
>  
> No, I do not care. I am merely emphasizing a fact that Jones, Huizenga, Close
> and other "skeptics" vociferously deny. I do not care where the heat comes
> from, but I am quite certain it is not chemistry, because chemistry can only
> produce 18 eV per atom whereas CF produces 10,000+ eV/atom; and because
> chemical reactions cannot transmute hydrogen into helium or heavy hydrogen
> (tritium) and chemistry does not produce low level ionizing radiation.
>  
> I do not give a fig who asks the question "where does it come from?" or what
> answer they come up with. If someone decides to change the definition of
> "chemistry" to include transmutation of elements and 10,000 eV/atom, that's
> peachy keen with me. Change it any way you like! That is a word game. The only
> thing I object to is people who say that all experimental results are
> incorrect, bogus or fraudulent, and people who say the results are real but
> they do not matter. The results ARE real and they DO matter.
>  
> - Jed

I agree with Jim Carr on this.

I care, and here are a few reasons why:
1.  Our own experiments disclose common errors in cf experiments, and our
work is being published in an effort to bring out the facts as we see them.
There are excellent paths to true fusion which are woefully underfunded
while P&F and others receive millions in funds from Japanese sources (like
Toyota).  Too bad.  P&F claimed fusion ignition at one time (not any more?),
but there are approaches which really can get there.  I will discuss these
in another post.

2.  As others have pointed out, a conscientious scientist or engineer will
be careful to determine safety and environmental hazards of his device.
This requires knowing what products arise from the device.
Jed's "head-in-the-sand" approach is, in this sense, unethical and
short-sighted.

3.  I agree with Jim Carr that ignorance of the effluents from a cf device
could lead to lawsuits.

4.  A scientist or engineer with a heat-producing device will want to know the
modus operundum so that he can control and optimize the device.

Willful ignorance just does not cut it, Jed. 

--Steven Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenjonesse cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.24 /  jonesse@physc2 /  Re: TEMPLATE -2
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc2.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: TEMPLATE -2
Date: 24 Nov 94 20:54:03 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

In article <941115123531_76570.2270_HHB35-2@CompuServe.COM>, 76570.2270@
ompuserve.com (Eugene Mallove) writes:
> Template for messages
> 
> Gene, Gene, what have you done? For some years now, the 'cold fusion' 
> propagandists have carefully built up the picture that the normally rare d-d
> fusion branch leading to 4He is in fact the dominant one. This scenario needs
> only two miracles: the dominance of this branch (quite unexplained), and how
> the 23 MeV gammas get quietly absorbed as heat, explained by waving the hands
> at some mumble mumble Moessbauer mumble. Thus, no gammas, neutrons or x-rays;
> heat only. And with kilowatts of heat coming out of tiny bits of metal, who
> can argue with this?
> 
> Now you go and spoil it all. If you use 3He (which so far noone has found) to
> underpin the existence of 'cold fusion', you imply the 3He branch, one of the
> two normal ones. 

Why do you say that 'noone has found' 3He so far?  A short while ago, you
(Gene Mallove) posted that 3Helium was found in the Equest experiments.
I have your post, if you have forgotten.  Or are you retracting that
claim?

This would very likely drag with it the other main one, 
> tritium. So now you have two quite different miracles to explain: where are
> those neutrons from the tritium branch, and where are the x-rays given off
> from energetic tritons and protons crashing into the metal deuteride? In fact,
> where is the tritium? Why did you do it, Gene? Things were settling in so
> nicely with the 4He scenario. 
> 

Not only do those problems arise, Gene, but also the fact that if 3Helium
is found from d-d fusion, then the associated product (to conserve baryon
number) is a NEUTRON.  So if 3Helium is found (as you previously posted)
and neutrons are not (according to tests of the Equest 'device' conducted
at Los Alamos Nat. Lab.) then indeed you have a contradiction.

Why did you do it, Gene?


cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenjonesse cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.24 /  jonesse@physc2 /  Re: Criminality/Ad hominem attacks by Mallove and Rothwell
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc2.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Criminality/Ad hominem attacks by Mallove and Rothwell
Date: 24 Nov 94 21:45:23 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

In article <941114183301_76570.2270_HHB25-1@CompuServe.COM>, 
76570.2270@compuserve.com (Eugene Mallove) writes:
                           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Jed blasts Steve Jones:
> 
>>What you are doing now is blocking progress. You are pretending -- yes,
>>*pretending* -- that the heat is not real, or that it has no technical
>>significance. Your behavior, in common with the behavior of the vast majority
>>of other establishment scientists, is a God Damned moral abomination, an
>>outrage, and a betrayal of science, religion, and humanity. By your inaction
>>and stubborn, mindless opposition to this research, by your denial of proven
>>facts, you prolong the holocaust extra weeks, months and perhaps years. This
>>is not the first time scientists have deliberately blocked progress and
>>inadvertently murdered people by inaction. We all know what happened to
>>Semmelweis. We know that the doctors of Vienna went on killing their patients
>>a generation longer than they should have. Unfortunately, that is not the 
>>only
>>example of closed-minded, bigoted scientists blocking progress. There are
>>countless others in history.
>>
>>- Jed
> 
> Great! I couldn't have said it better myself. Steve Jones, of all the 
> incompetent bigots in the opposition to cold fusion research and development, 
> is THE ONE who is most wallowing in moral turpitude. He proclaims his 
> Godliness and charity -- while blaspheming Truth, Science, and Humanity all in
> one blow. All because of his monumental arrogance and envy that knows NO 
> BOUNDS. (Right now, I am told,  he is sneaking around trying to kiss-up to 
> Russ George and Stringham with offers of assistance, etc. -- anything to get 
> on with something to one-up Pons and Fleischamnn!!)

What trash.
I have offered to ANYONE the opportunity to come to our labs to look for
neutrons, x-rays, etc. -- as well as exces heat.  I have not tried to 
"kiss-up too Russ George and Stringham with offers of assistance."

>I have little doubt that 
> the hellish experience in store for Dr. Jones right here on this earth may 
> make him wish for the HELL of the afterlife. He will eat all his damned words 
> -- slowly, one by one.
> 

I recently received a note from Ed Storms, himself a believer in cold-fusion
excess heat, etc., like Jed and Eugene Mallove,  but Ed writes to decry
the insults and invective exemplified by Jed and Eugene above:

Ed Storms:  "While there have been good reasons to doubt the reality of some
claims, the vicious and hostile attacks directed toward many in the field
has no place in normal science."  (10/25/94)

I must say that I agree, and further comment that what Jed and Mallove
are doing above is not 'normal science,' using the criterion of Storms.
Of course, Ed refers to the attacks directed towards so-=called 'true
believers' in cold fusion.  But does not the same apply to true believers
attacking me?  If not, why not?  

And why have Jed and Eugene raised (or rather lowered) the argument
to a new level of ad hominem attacks, by adding profanity to their
vituperative insults?



> Then add to Jones those powerful figures who have steadfastly blocked 
> research, those who have caused people to be threatened with loss of their 
> jobs for investigating cold fusion, those who have mocked cold fusion 
> research, those who have set forth the Big Lies about cold fusion being 
> "pathological science," and those negativists who have made sure their own 
> nests were feathered year after year by massive federal science ependitures 
> for hot fusion -- these people's actions are morally bankrupt. In essence, 
> their actions are criminal -- by any moral standard one could conceive -- 
> particulary for the delay of the application of this technology to the human 
> tragedy that is the daily experience of hundreds of millions of people.
> 
> Gene Mallove 
> 

I do not have *any* external funding for any fusion-related research, Genee.  
My last grant was from EPRI,
as they asked our group to repeat certain excess heat experiments, to
carefully ascertain the cause of the purported excess heat in electrolytic
cells.  We did so.  Indeed, about two years ago, we found in our sensitive
calorimeter what appeared to be excess heat.  This was reported to this
net, gleefully, by Jed who somehow had heard of our result.  But within
a short time, we found:

1.  No x-rays and no neutrons were associated with these electrolytic
cells, implying to us that no nuclear reactions were involved.  

2.  We could boost the apparent "excess heat" by bubbling oxygen through
the cell, and we could terminate all excess heat by bubbling nitrogen
through the cell (thus removing dissolved hydrogen/or D2).  We also
allowed the O2 and H2/or D2 to remain in solution due to the electrolysis
of water (or D2O), but could terminate the excess heat reading by placing
tubes around the electrodes to drive these gases up and out of the cell
for the most part.  Other tests as well lead to the inescapable conclusion:

The apparent excess heat was in fact due to less than 100% Faradaic
efficiency -- what one loosely calls "recombination."  This is a chemical
source of power, of course, which can integrate to large apparent
(but erroneous)
excess energy over hours and days of running.

At the same time, we reviewed dozens of cold-fusion experiments under
the EPRI request.  To be very brief (since our paper on all this has
now been submitted for publication), we found NO compelling evidence for
any connection between putative excess heat and any nuclear reaction.
Indeed, we can make an even stronger statement:  our review showed flaws
and calorimetric errors or at least questionable systematics in ALL cases 
where excess heat was reported.  

When published, Mallove and Rothwell will be free and welcome to find
fault with our report, if they can.  But I highly doubt that reputable
journals will allow them to hide behind ad hominem attacks and profanity
as they display in postings cited above.  Rather, they will have to come
up with substantive, technical arguments (if they can).  Note that the
postings from Jed and Mallove, cited here in full as posted by Mallove,
are essentially devoid of substantive technical arguments. 

--Steven Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenjonesse cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.28 / John Logajan /  Re: Orders of magnitude
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@mirage.skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Orders of magnitude
Date: 28 Nov 1994 05:01:38 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communucations, Inc.


William Hawkins (bill@texan.rosemount.com) wrote:
: How ironic, that the technology of
: the Internet could be used to bring about the next Dark Ages.


Harry H Conover (conover@max.tiac.net) wrote:
: Indeed, how ironic it is to see the Internet
: employed as a medium for pseudoscientists to outshout the quiet
: voices of knowledge and scientific reason.


World ends tomorrow, film at 11:00.

Please, this is a bit overdone.  The imminent threat to the orthodoxy
is greatly overstated.  Allusions to a thin blue line seperating us
from the abyss of inescapable insanity is just too overdrawn to be
taken seriously.

What if CF is a big nothing?  So what?  What matters it if a few hundred
people spend their free time investigating a nullity?  Some people spend
their time collecting stamps or coins.  Some people practice practice
practice playing a musical instrument and never play for anyone else.

There seems to be this nutty Puritan ethic that if you don't spend
your every waking hour studying something positive, something useful
that you are squandering your existance.

Foofah.  Have some fun.  Chase a few ghosts once in a while.  Get your
nose off the scientific correctness grindstone.  It really won't forever
taint you from conducting serious research -- honest.

--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com  --  612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA -
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.28 / Harry Conover /  Re: Orders of magnitude
     
Originally-From: conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Orders of magnitude
Date: 28 Nov 1994 05:42:56 GMT
Organization: The Internet Access Company

MARSHALL DUDLEY (mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com) wrote:
: bill@texan.rosemount.com (William Hawkins) writes:
:  
: -> What is difficult to understand is that such people do not seem
: -> to have any desire to improve their understanding.  They are
: -> quite happy telling those of us that _do_ understand, that we
: ->  *don't* understand.
:  
: What is difficult for me to understand is people who are so blinded by their
: beliefs (and science is built upon beliefs which change over the years as new
: experiments and data prove old beliefs to be incorrect or incomplete) that they
: cannot see the other side of the coin.  There are always two or more sides to
: every coin, and two or more possible explainations for everything, and Ocham's
: Razer is not guaranteed to always give the correct interpretation, although it
: is usually a good place to start.  In fact Ocham's razer can often give
: different answers to different people based on their own belief systems and
: experiences.
:  
: -> People who post prayers that all will be well in the future have no concept
: -> of the orders of magnitude of things that have to change to accomplish that.
:  
: This is a perfect example of the inability for someone to look at the other
: side of the coin.  If one's belief system has God or a Creater as the source of
: all power, all intelligence, and that which birthed the entire physical
: universe, then it can be aruged that to claim that that power is unable to
: change how things are on one small planet in one of billions of star systems,
: shows an inability to grasp the huge difference in the orders of magnitude
: between our small world, and the abilities of the creater of not only our world
: but of the entire universe.  A very good example indeed.
:  
:                                                                


Q.E.D. Match point to William Hawkins.
       Win to William Hawkins.


                                    Harry C.


ps.  Guys, get a clue.  Science intends to regain control of this 
     newsgroup from the pseudoscientific nonsense posters.  Humanity
     already has enough snake oil, philosophers stone, and magick to
     last a thousand years.  Please take your postings and insults to
     alt.free.energy, alt.paranormal.experiences, or alt.alien.research
     where you will be tolerated if not respected.  The sci hierarchy is
     intended for legitimate scientific discussions, not wild-eyed,
     pseudoscientific claims.
     
   

cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenconover cudfnHarry cudlnConover cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.27 / Bruce Dunn /  Re: Eaton torque sensor specifications
     
Originally-From: Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Dunn)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Eaton torque sensor specifications
Date: Sun, 27 Nov 94 22:44:05 -0800
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada

Dan Hicks writes:

>
> That's exactly my point.  AC power measurement is extremely
> well-understood, easy to duplicate, and easy to verify with ordinary lab
> instruments present in any freshman EE lab.  (In fact, students could
> probably be recruited to assist in the measurements.)  Torque
> measurements, while in theory simple, are much more difficult in
> practice,
> and verification would require modification of the device to add another
> torque sensor element to the drive shaft.



OK.  The power measurements indicate 30.47 kilowatts going into the motor.
Quick...  What is the power going into the Griggs device (and don't tell me
that it is 30.57 kilowatts - the motor casing is hot to the touch).




--
Bruce Dunn    Vancouver, Canada   Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenBruce_Dunn cudfnBruce cudlnDunn cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.28 / I Johnston /  Re: Griggs power
     
Originally-From: ianj@castle.ed.ac.uk (I Johnston)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs power
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 1994 08:59:26 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

Bruce Dunn (Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca) wrote:

..

: For the proposes of guiding Tom in his examination of the device, let me
: set up a logical argument.


: If:


: - Power in, temperature differential and product water mass are all
: measurable to within 1%

And let us not forget any power going in along the shaft connecting
motor and pump as heat flow. Just measuring the temperature of the shaft
may not be enough - if it's hotter than the pump casing it may well look
like heat going in, and if it's not as hot it could be the heat supply
to the rotor as 'cold' side of a heat pump. Ideally there should be a
good thermal barrier in the drive train.

: - The device operation is in steady state mode

We need a reasonable upper time limit for the stored heat hypothesis and then
wait at least that long before performing any tests. Interesting, isn't
it, that the only detail to emerge of the claimed industrial
applications of these machines (they've been in service for years,
remember) is that they are used for short term temperature boosting -
not stady state operation.

Ian
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenianj cudfnI cudlnJohnston cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.28 / I Johnston /  Re: Orders of magnitude
     
Originally-From: ianj@castle.ed.ac.uk (I Johnston)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Orders of magnitude
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 1994 09:06:43 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

William Hawkins (bill@texan.rosemount.com) wrote:

:  ........  For example, Rothwell comes on like one who
: understands the science, and can't understand why we don't all
: agree with him.  Several years ago, he told us he was a technical
: writer, not a scientist.  To me, that qualifies him to write
: really persuasive articles - about things filtered through his
: perception of reality.

But then, he has also been

* a humble computer programmer who doesn't know about theory
  but recognizes competence

* a business man who has invested vast sums of money in CF

* someone who has done the calorimetry, dammit

* someone who hasn't done the calorimetry, but trusts those who have, dammit

A man of many and developing talents.

Ian

PS Who can forget the technique of "Proof by Ancestor Worship" - 
   "he's a) dead and b) Japanese so you can't criticise him."
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenianj cudfnI cudlnJohnston cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.28 /  DanHicks /  Re: Eaton torque sensor specifications
     
Originally-From: danhicks@aol.com (DanHicks)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Eaton torque sensor specifications
Date: 28 Nov 1994 22:25:24 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

In article <5Uz1VDH.jedrothwell@delphi.com>, jedrothwell@delphi.com
writes:

>>>
Jim Griggs and his consultants do have the background to know how to deal
with
it. In fact, they are the best in the State for dealing with it. Their
method
is the best anyone can come up with. It is simple: condense the steam in a
steel drum full of water and measure the total weight of water and Delta T
temperature rise. There is a terrific amount of kinetic energy in
superheated
steam, which makes the steel drum bang and jump around as the steam is
captured, and the water to swirl and bubble. It makes a terrific racket
and it
is dangerous. As the water stops swirling, almost all the kinetic energy
is
captured. Losses are too small to bother with. It does not matter whether
the
thing is 20% over unity or 30% or 40%.
 
 
     "The problem is that a scheme is needed that will permit the
reasonably
     accurate measurement of the heat output over runs of several hours."
 
This can be done easily with flow calorimetry, where the GG outputs hot
water
instead of steam. The numbers for hot water are not as impressive as with
steam, but so what? You can run it for a week.
<<<

Great!  Then your assertion is that the dangerous and run-length-limiting
steel drum is unneeded.  So emphasis should be placed on the flow
calorimetry approach.  Again I'm no expert, but I'd guess that you need
input and output temperature sensors and a flow meter, rigged up to a
computer so that continuous integration can be performed.  The accuracy of
this can of course be checked with bulb thermometers and a calibrated
bucket (be sure to leave convenient ports for the thermometers and a valve
system for diverting water to the bucket).
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudendanhicks cudlnDanHicks cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.28 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Y. Arata DS-Cathode cold fusion
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Y. Arata DS-Cathode cold fusion
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 1994 13:16:04 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <Czwx5s.M2L@eskimo.com>, Robert Dinse <nanook@eskimo.com> wrote:
>In article <Czwo2E.9u1@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, crb7q@watt.seas.Virgi
ia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>> In article <CzrM5x.Ctv@eskimo.com>, Robert Dinse <nanook@eskimo.com> wrote:
>>           You say insult, I say observation. 
>>           You say tomato, I say tomaaaato,
>>           Let's call the whole thing off...
>
>     Name calling, personal attacks, fall outside the line of observation.

     Selective description as well as selective memory.

>How about creating sci.physics.fusion.cold, so the people who are interested
>in this phenomena can have a place to discuss it where the hot fusion folks
>don't have to feel like they or their budgets are threatened?

     Which 'hot fusion folks' would that be?

     Besides, this forum was created to discuss P&F's results, not 
     hot fusion. 

                             dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.29 / greg schuweiler /  Is there a Mosaic Home Page for Cold Fusion?
     
Originally-From: schuweil@forge.fnal.gov (greg schuweiler)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Is there a Mosaic Home Page for Cold Fusion?
Date: 29 Nov 1994 17:19:07 GMT
Organization: FERMILAB, Batavia, IL

Is anyone aware of a cold fusion mosaic home page?  If so please e-mail
the location as I do not read this group as often as I would like to.

--
=========================================================================
Greg Schuweiler                     The standard disclaimer applies
schuweil@forge.fnal.gov             to all I may have said, may say,
(708) 840-2665                      and/or may do.  It does not reflect,
                                    the feelings of my employer.  Heck,
                                    if it did, we would lose our funding. 
 
         Always on the outside of whatever side is in
=========================================================================

cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenschuweil cudfngreg cudlnschuweiler cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.28 /  prasad /  Inching to centimetres (more)
     
Originally-From: c1prasad@watson.ibm.com (prasad)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Inching to centimetres (more)
Date: 28 Nov 1994 16:31:56 GMT
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

Last week, I stated recalling that 1 in used to be 2.5402 cm back
in '70s, and outside the US.

I was browsing thru the original book on dynamics by Thomson (Lord Kelvin).
Somewhere near the end, he cites 2.5339 or whereabouts.  Not surprising,
since at least till recently the avoirdupois (sp?) was an independently
maintained std.

Looks like we need to do some archeology each time we read an old text!

cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenc1prasad cudlnprasad cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.28 /  jedrothwell@de /  What Frank Close says
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: What Frank Close says
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 94 13:17:03 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Recently, Frank Close claimed that he does NOT believe you can store thousands
of electron volts of energy per atom by chemical means. In earlier messages he
claimed that KeV levels energy can be stored in the electron shells; not the
nucleus, but strictly speaking it is not chemical energy. He describes a
theory that would allow this, saying the theory is "tongue partly in cheek."
Scientists I have showed it to say there are three possibilities:
 
1. Close is a crackpot.
 
2. His tongue is fully in cheek, this was meant as a joke. Or, perhaps it was
meant to distract attention from the fact that many scientists have observed
KeV level excess heat from CF cells.
 
3. This is a revolutionary new theory that overthrows a great deal of what we
know about atoms. If true, would bring Close a Nobel prize. I am amazed he has
not worked it out in greater detail and published it.
 
Here is a summary of the theory, from a message posted here by Close on March
7, 1994:
 
 -------------------------------------------------
 
First I will try and clarify what the point is and at the end why I
regard it as tongue partly in cheek:
 
1. You cannot get 10keV energy from an atom in its GROUND state.
 
2.IF you first SUPPLY energy to an atom then you can raise it to an excited
state. You may then recover that energy later when the atom restores
to its ground state.
 
(Hence I am talking about energy storage such as heat being supplied over
a long period and then recovered later. This is well known in chemistry
which involve the outer electrons which only involve eV per atom as Jed
keeps reminding us. However, read on).
 
3. The 1s electrons in Ni are bound with energies exceeding 10keV each.
   (The 3d and 4s "outer" electrons are bound only by eV and are the ones
   that are typically involved in "chemistry". Hence Jed is right when he
   refers to CHEMISTRY only liberating eV. I, however, am interested in
   the deep bound 1s electrons which is why I keep avoiding the word
   "chemistry" and use "Electrons" or "atomic" to differentiate them)
 
4. As far as energy conservation alone is concerned, it is in principle
   possible to STORE over 10keV per atom: supply 10keV which liberates
   the 1s electron and then later liberate the 10keV when the atom restores
   to its ground state.
 
 
 . .
 
 ----------------------------------------------
 
Since this theory pertains to atoms in an extremely excited state, that is to
say very HOT atoms, it cannot explain the CF reaction, which takes place at
near room temperature. Close himself points this out. Right or wrong, this
theory is not germane. Close admits it cannot explain the CF data. So, why did
he bring it up? I think it is a red herring, designed to obscure the issues
and introduce confusion into the discussion. CF reactions also produce helium
and tritium, which makes this theory all the more irrelevant, because
transmuting elements and isotopes requires a change to the nucleus
(obviously).
 
Close should try to address the issue honestly, instead of evading it.
Piantelli, Pons and Fleischmann, Mizuno, Arata and many others have observed
KeV level heat releases from metal lattices. "KeV" is a figure of merit; these
are probably MeV releases that have not continued long enough to add up to
millions of electron volts yet. A scientist must accept that as a fact, unless
he does not believe in elementary calorimetry. That is, unless he wants to
argue that 1 calorie does not necessarily equal 4.2 joules; or that Arata
cannot measure a 3.5 deg C Delta T difference; or Mizuno cannot measure a 120
deg C Delta T. These excess heat findings are very, very important. Whoever
explains them will certainly win a Nobel prize. Humanity will benefit a great
deal from the work. The British taxpayers pay Close to solve physics problems.
His job is to explain the mysteries of nature. Unfortunately, he is acting
like Steve Jones. Instead of explaining why there is excess heat, he is
pretending it is due to experimental error, or that it is not important enough
to bother with. He is not doing his job, the taxpayers should get rid of him.
They should find someone else who will deal with this new, difficult, and
important science.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenjedrothwell cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.28 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Orders of magnitude
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Orders of magnitude
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 1994 18:29:10 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <USE2PCB491916587@brbbs.brbbs.com>,
MARSHALL DUDLEY <mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com> wrote:
> 
>-> People who post prayers that all will be well in the future have no concept
>-> of the orders of magnitude of things that have to change to accomplish that.
> 
>This is a perfect example of the inability for someone to look at the other
>side of the coin.  If one's belief system has God or a Creater as the source of
>all power, all intelligence, and that which birthed the entire physical
>universe, then it can be aruged that to claim that that power is unable to

     So P&F are God?

>change how things are on one small planet in one of billions of star systems,
>shows an inability to grasp the huge difference in the orders of magnitude
>between our small world, and the abilities of the creater of not only our world
>but of the entire universe.  A very good example indeed.

     Just as I always suspected.  Cold fusion requires direct intervention
     of God.

     My guess is that God wouldn't bother.

                                    dale bass

cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.29 / David Davies /  Re: Orders of magnitude
     
Originally-From: drd851@huxley.anu.edu.au (David R Davies)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Orders of magnitude
Date: 29 Nov 1994 10:13:11 +1100
Organization: Australian National University

conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover) writes:
...
>ps.  Guys, get a clue.  Science intends to regain control of this 
>     newsgroup from the pseudoscientific nonsense posters.  Humanity
>     already has enough snake oil, philosophers stone, and magick to
>     last a thousand years.  Please take your postings and insults to
>     alt.free.energy, alt.paranormal.experiences, or alt.alien.research
>     where you will be tolerated if not respected.  The sci hierarchy is
>     intended for legitimate scientific discussions, not wild-eyed,
>     pseudoscientific claims.
>     
>   
Ah! At last a counter coup. Now we might get to see the big guns. At
long last the actual proof that CF is impossible.

Go Harry!


Good luck,


dave

cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudendrd851 cudfnDavid cudlnDavies cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.27 /  DanHicks /  Re: Eaton torque sensor specifications
     
Originally-From: danhicks@aol.com (DanHicks)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Eaton torque sensor specifications
Date: 27 Nov 1994 15:55:38 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

In article <Czwnw7.9rD@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>,
crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:

>>> 
     Why bother?  For such earth-shattering results, we can probably
     leave the power meter at home and use equipment that leaves 
     little room for doubt.
<<<

That's exactly my point.  AC power measurement is extremely
well-understood, easy to duplicate, and easy to verify with ordinary lab
instruments present in any freshman EE lab.  (In fact, students could
probably be recruited to assist in the measurements.)  Torque
measurements, while in theory simple, are much more difficult in practice,
and verification would require modification of the device to add another
torque sensor element to the drive shaft.
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudendanhicks cudlnDanHicks cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.25 /  GMallory /  Re: Griggs power
     
Originally-From: gmallory@aol.com (GMallory)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs power
Date: 25 Nov 1994 18:50:21 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

I still suggest that if the input power were known exactly and the output
head and mass were known exactly, you still would not know if you have
excess power.

If the Griggs machine is a inadvertent heat pump, then excess heat could
still
be generated. It seems as if it has all the possibilities of being a heat
pump with
working fluid expansion and compression going on at different times and
places
in the system.  You would have to surround the system in a insulated box
and measure the heat in and out of the box as well to get a good test.


cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudengmallory cudlnGMallory cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.27 / Gary Steckly /  Re: Get a grip, Steve
     
Originally-From: gsteckly@dgim.doc.ca (Gary Steckly)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Get a grip, Steve
Date: Sun, 27 Nov 94 21:55:13 GMT
Organization: Communications Canada

MARSHALL DUDLEY (mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com) wrote:
: jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:
:  
: -> Let me illustrate this point with a manifestly impossible imaginary
: -> scenario. Suppose I was to walk in the room and say "I can read your mind. I
: -> can prove it! Think of a number, I'll tell you what it is." You think "one
: -> hundred and twenty" and I immediately blurt out "120." You think of 483 and
(some deletions)
:  
: Sorry, but that would not constitute proof you could read my mind.  After all
: you could be controlling my mind, putting the images into my mind, as opposed
: to the other way around.  One must explore all possibilities before jumping to
: conclusions.  I have been down this road on studies of "possible" reincarnation
: cases, and there are always alternative explainations which can be made to fit
: the data.

What a great theory! Transmitting physic energy is a lot easier to 
accept than receiving it isn't it. And it could be applied to the Griggs 
device as  well. I mean, since we all *know* that apparent violations of 
the laws of thermodynamics cannot be tolerated, and it can't be fusion 
and ZPE is more frightening than all of these explanations, it MUST be 
some physcic energy from all those true believers watching the Grigg's 
tests.  That's it!  Waves of PSI energy focussed into the pump generating 
all that heat.  Whew...what a relief.  At least finally something that the 
scientific community can accept.

I'm almost afraid to think what will happen if Tom's trip results come 
out positive.  Is it really so hard to conceive of a new phenomenon 
here?  

psigh

Gary
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudengsteckly cudfnGary cudlnSteckly cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.29 / Richard Blue /  Reply to Mitchell Swartz
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Reply to Mitchell Swartz
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 1994 01:14:01 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

We have reached agreement to two key points in this discussion.  We agree
that the conversion of the energy from a nuclear reaction into lattice
heat must involve the emission of energetic "particles".  The experimental
results which you accept further seem to indicate that these particles
must be nonionizing.  That, in turn, implies that either they aren't
energetic enough to ionize or there is no coupling between these
particles and the atomic electrons.  I think that rules out energetic
photons and charged particles.   I would consider neutral partcles
such as neutrons, but I believe you don't want to consider that
alternative.  All you mention is millielectronvolt phonons.  Is that
really all we have to consider?

The other point you now seem to buy into is that the time scale appropriate
for the decay of the excited nucleus is a significant parameter in the
determination of what processes can possibly be involved.  Are we now
in agreement  that a switch from a nanosecond time scale to say
the scale of 10^-20 seconds will make a difference as to what the
energy transfer mechanism can possibly be?  You won't just blow that
away as some unproven theoretical concept now will you?  I do also note
that you suggest that a microsecond would be more comfortable from your
point of view.

Now, to respond to your request regarding energy level diagrams.  I
don't think a picture is needed.  You should be able to visualize
blank space without my transmitting a GIF that consists of two lines
with blank space between them.  I think I can describe that adequately
using ASCII transmission.  If you will allow me to run the energy scale
sideways the energy level diagram from 4He looks something like this:

     ground state                                     1st excited state
          |                                                |
          0                                               20 MeV

Normally the excited states of helium decay by the emission of
protons or neutrons.  Selection rules?  All the usual conservation
laws apply such as the conservation of total angular momentum.  One
that you may be less familiar with is the conservation of isospin.
The ground state has isospin zero and the particle emission pathways
involve the formation of 2 particles of isospin 1/2 that could
could to either isospin zero or one.  That does put some constraints
on what happens.

Of course there is photon emission to be considered, and E1 photons
have to have one unit of angular momentum so an excited state that
has angular momentum and parity 0+ just like the ground state can't
decay by the emission of a single E1 photon, if that is of any
interest to you.

The important issues, from my prespective, are to say how one
goes about making a 20 MeV transistion in 4He by creating
a billion phonons over a time scale of microseconds (to use
your number) while preventing the normal decay modes that go
much faster - say 10^-20 seconds.  I can't even begin to
guess how you think you can accomplish this.  How do you couple
nuclear excitation to phonons?  I always thought you had to make
a nucleus wiggle to create a phonon.  What is your picture
of that process?

I guess I also need to elborate on my ramblings concerning the
effect of strong perturbations with regard to the opening of
decay pathways.  If you accept my picture of the 4He energy
level diagram with a very low number of excited states that
participate in the required transistion, then there do exist
selection rules that limit how a given state can decay, i.e.
photon emission can be suppressed as one possibility.  However,
it seems to me that the more you mess up this simple picture
the more difficult it must get to keep a lid on all the
various decay pathways - something you have always insisted
is an established experimental fact.  For example, up in
the neighborhood of that 20 MeV excited state there are
really several states.  Some of those states can decay by
photon emission but some would rather break up into two
deuterons.  If I turn on the perturbation machine I would
expect more mixing between those states which opens them
up to every possible decay mode, I think.  That is what
I was getting at.  Any sort of perturbation would tend to
remove selection rule limitations rather than to bring
new limits to bear.  If there are no selection rules to
prevent it the fastest process wins, right?  My candidate
for speed is neutron emission.  What is yours?  One
billion phonons?  Isn't something strange with that?

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.29 / Richard Blue /  Con artist Blue?
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Con artist Blue?
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 1994 01:14:11 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

This con artist is seeking explanations while Jed Rothwell insists
that, "There is no need to explain the phenomenon."  Does not that
tell us something as to who may be the con artist?  Would you buy
the Brooklyn Bridge from someone who says, "There is no need to
explain how I got title to it"?

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.27 / John White /  Re: Griggs power
     
Originally-From: jnw@char.vnet.net (John N. White)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs power
Date: 27 Nov 1994 23:49:34 -0500
Organization: Vnet Internet Access, Inc. - Charlotte, NC. (704) 374-0779

danhicks@aol.com (DanHicks) writes:
>                                            ...   Since no one has
> suggested any reasonable mechanism by which chemical energy may be
> generated in the system (in any significant amount),  ...

This is incorrect. As I recall, someone suggested that the aluminum
could be reacting with the water to form Al(OH)3. Normally a protective
coating forms on aluminum surfaces, but this coating could easily be
disrupted with the conditions that exist in the Griggs device, in which
case the aluminum surface would react fairly rapidly.

The heat of formation of Al(OH)3 is 305 kcal/mol. For H2O it's 68.3 kcal/mol.
305 - 3 * 68.3 gives a net 100 kcal/mol of Al.
Al has 27 g/mol, or about 37 mol/kg. So reacting 1 kg of Al gives 3700 kcal.
3700 kcal * 4186.8 joule/kcal / (3.6e6 joule/kwh) gives 4.3 kwh/kg of Al.

Considering the immense mass of the Aluminum rotor, a kilo or two might
not be missed. This could explain the excess heat for the short runs that
we have been given data for. It could also explain the claim of a 500 percent
burst. It would not explain Jed's claim of satisfied customers saving energy
for years. (Note that the rotor would stop eroding after a certain point,
as the agitation/ultrasound ceased to be vigorous enough to disrupt the
protective coating on the aluminum.) These customers may be saving energy
for another reason, however. For instance, if their usage was intermittent
then in the off periods the water in the pump would flash to steam and
unload the motor. This would save lots of energy. In other words, Jed's
opinion that there exist satisfied customers just doesn't tell us very much.

jnw@vnet.com
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenjnw cudfnJohn cudlnWhite cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.26 / Jim Carr /  Re: Energetic particles? -
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Energetic particles? -
Date: 26 Nov 1994 10:02:26 -0500
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

In article <CzpFo6.IpJ@world.std.com> 
mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz) writes:
>
 =db  I know this is a pointless excercise, but I would like to attempt to
 =db  explain to Mitchell Swartz why I, Steve Jones, and a number of other
 =db  knowledgeable people think the fusion produces energetic particles.
>
>  Despite the innuendoes of Dick, it should be
> noted that we actually all agree that energetic particles are 
> involved as products.      Right?

Well, not as the term is usually defined.  An "energetic" particle 
would have MeV, perhaps keV, energies.  A "thermal" particle has 
an energy of around 1/40 eV (for a neutron).  Energetic normally 
denotes enough momentum to disturb struck particles from a lattice, 
so that (for example) x-rays would result from the disturbed 
electronic structure of the lattice or atom. 

>   Dick and the TB-skeptics choose those energetic particles to be

>data suggests to those who follow the field that many of the energetic
>particles consist of nonionizing radiation, including
>phonons within the heavier Group VIII lattice.
>As discussed elsewhere (e.g. CAM Theory, ICCF4) the phonons 
>are of at least two types, and have ~ 40 millieV energies. 

Phonons are not considered 'energetic' particles.  They have energies 
typical of the normal excitations in a condensed system. 

-- 
 James A. Carr   <jac@scri.fsu.edu>     |  "The old he-coon walks just  
    http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac        |  before the light of day."    
 Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst.  |   - Gov. (still) Lawton Chiles to
 Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306    |     Jeb Bush during second debate
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.26 / Matt Kennel /  Re: Energetic particles? -
     
Originally-From: mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Energetic particles? -
Date: 26 Nov 1994 22:01:45 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

mitchell swartz (mica@world.std.com) wrote:
: <phonons again>
: As discussed elsewhere (e.g. CAM Theory, ICCF4) the phonons 
: are of at least two types, and have ~ 40 millieV energies. 

: <blah blah>

:    Phonon propagation speeds are much much slower
: but still offer recruitment over many lattice sites.  How many do
: you calculate, Dick?


Q: How does an excited nucleus emit sound?

A: By vibrating back and forth against the interatomic restoring forces 
   that keep atoms in a lattice.


Q: How does a nucleus excited to MeV energies emit sound?

A: By vibrating forth against the interatomic restoring forces
   that keep atoms in a lattice.

   Notice there is no "back".  It will not go "back" because the restoring
   forces are far too weak to keep it in place by the need to
   conserve momentum.  The nucleus will break the "spring".

   As it goes forth ripping through the lattice it will create significant
   quantities of ionizing radiation.  This phenomenon has been experimentally
   observed for many decades.


Q: How does a nucleus excited to MeV energies emit sound without emitting
   anything else?

A: It does not.


An analogy:  a musician softly taps a timpani.  The energy delivered to the
membrane is transmitted and absorbed via the characteristic vibrations
throughout the membrane.  The musician is sick of this out of tune
instrument and shoots a 30 06 rifle at the membrane.  Does the membrane pick
up sound?  Yes.  Can the membrane dissipate all of the bullet's energy?
Hell no.  There will always be a bullet hole.

:      Best wishes.
:               -  Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com)

--
-Matt Kennel  		mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu
-Institute for Nonlinear Science, University of California, San Diego
-*** AD: Archive for nonlinear dynamics papers & programs: FTP to
-***     lyapunov.ucsd.edu, username "anonymous".
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenmbk cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.21 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Improving spf signal to noise
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Improving spf signal to noise
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 94 16:36:28 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

horst_bob@tandem.com (Robert Horst) proposes a fascinating new metric to
evaluate the signal to noise ratios of postings in this forum. This is a
worthy, laudable and thought-provoking idea. Unfortunately, I believe it is
flawed in so many ways, I do not see much point to it.
 
Horst is 100% right to emphasize the need for hard information. No scientific
discussion can proceed unless participants know what they are talking about.
This is category A: "Results / analysis / news." You will not find much of
that here. However, e-mail is not the right medium for that. You must read
Fusion Technology, the ICCF4 proceedings, the Japanese Journal of Applied
Physics and other scientific publications. This is the wrong medium for many
reasons: e-mail messages gradually disappear as they are replaced by new ones;
e-mail is not protected by copyright; and e-mail does not support graphics,
superscripts etc. For category A information, go to category A sources. If you
want idle chitchat and (occasionally) fun discussions of CF, come here.
 
On a deeper level, this idea is philosophically flawed. Horst is trying to
divorce science and emotion. That cannot be done, and it should not be done.
The progress of science is not governed exclusively by cold logic or Olympian
objectivity. Science is done by people. People are always motivated by
passions: love, curiosity, hate, fear, greed, rivalry, politics. Nobody can
escape human nature, no one can avoid having feelings. People who try to
quench their own passions end up with warped personalities. They do not lose
their emotions, they lose the ability to see and understand *that they are
driven by emotion*. They deny their own humanity. People must always infuse
everything they do with emotion, instinct, and passion. We are primates, not
computers. When you look at our science, art, education, literature, or
architecture, you can tell we are primates. Archeologists will someday learn
all about us by looking at the remains of our farms, automobiles, dishes and
our space telescope. Every tool, shard and scrap of civilization is infused
with feelings, attitudes, culture. Even pots and pans reveal the personalities
of the people who made them. The space telescope is a perfect illustration of
this. It is described in a superb book titled "The Hubble Wars" by Eric
Chaisson. I cannot recommend this book too highly. It gets rave reviews from
me and from Prof. Van Allen and many other Big Guns. This book shows how
science works in the real world. You might think it is a terrible shame that
science is driven by politics and rivalry. But you cannot change that fact by
pretending it is not so. People are not cold blooded or objective. There is no
point in wishing they were, and it is terribly dangerous to assume they are.
 
This leads to a more profound objection. In some cases, it is difficult to
distinguish between categories. You might think that anyone can spot the
difference between the extremes: "A. Results/analysis/news" and "F.
Flames/name calling/profanity/slander" but this is not true. You must
understand the deep content of the messages. You must know the history of the
dispute and the background of the writer in order to judge which message falls
in which category. (And of course, you must bear in mind that some messages
fall in two or more categories.) Let me give an example of what I mean. Many
messages are posted here by distinguished "skeptics" like Jones, Morrison, and
Close which fit into a certain pattern. They are exquisitely well written.
They draw upon extraordinary knowledge of physics, chemistry and general
science. They are couched in the most cool, objective scientific prose a
person could ask for; language which could easily grace the pages of Nature
magazine. There is not a hint of profanity in these messages, and outwardly,
there is no sign of slander or name calling or any other emotional content. If
you were to run these messages through an imaginary "Horst Metric Parser"
computer program, they would fit into categories A, B or C with no trouble at
all. Ah, but you must look more deeply in order really judge these messages.
Surface appearances and use of language do not tell the story. You must bring
to bear judgement and scientific knowledge that no computer parsing program
can draw on. You must judge the scientific and social content.
 
What is the scientific content? It is the same, in all cases. Strip away the
fancy language, the complex scientific terminology, the dazzling academic
veneer, and you find that all of these messages say precisely the same thing,
which can be summarized as follows:
 
     CF experimental results cannot be explained by present day theory,
     therefore, the data is caused by experimental error. Theory proves that
     CF cannot be fusion, therefore, CF has no scientific value.
 
Furthermore, equally important, the descriptions of the experiments and the
data from the "skeptics" may be written in impeccable scientific English, but
these descriptions are always drastically distorted. The "objections" raised
by skeptics to disprove the evidence are always without scientific merit. The
objections are violations of fundamental laws of physics, or they are many
orders of magnitude too small to explain anything. It makes no sense to say
that Jones is doing a good job reporting news of CF when he describes the
equipment at E-Quest, because his description is wildly inaccurate. Morrison's
"cigarette lighter effect" would produce one-thousand times less heat than the
Pons and Fleischmann experiment produced. He is *three orders of magnitude*
off! (And of course, he cannot begin to explain closed cell and gas loading
results where there is no oxygen.) If a scientific hypothesis is to have any
meaning at all, it must fit the data at some crude level. There is no point in
hypothesizing that I can drive from Atlanta to Washington on one cup of
gasoline.
 
And what is the social content and background? It is very simple. Morrison
works at CERN, where they hope to build the next generation Tokamak. CF will
prevent this from happening. Close and the others are at the center of the
scientific establishment. They resent CF scientists, they consider them
obnoxious upstarts. The "skeptics" honestly do believe that all experimental
results are bogus nonsense, and they resent the fact that other scientists,
large corporations and government agencies take CF research seriously, and
fund it. This is perfectly natural. People resent competition. They fear
losing their jobs, their prestige, their authority. You cannot judge their
statements without realizing how much they have at stake. Their personal lives
will be profoundly disrupted when CF succeeds.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenjedrothwell cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.23 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Con Artist Blue
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Con Artist Blue
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 94 11:03:20 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

frankie@mundens.equinox.gen.nz (Frank Pitt) writes:
 
     "If those supporting the Griggs device were able to give a theoretical
     explanation for it that fitted the data more accurately than Dick's..."
 
There is no need to explain the phenomenon. You can easily confirm that the
excess heat is real without knowing why. Griggs and everyone else associated
with it freely admits the source of the energy is a mystery.
 
 
     "The seeming secrecy surrounding the project, while understandable from
     a commercial sense, smacks of Gellerism to those interested in
     research."
 
There is no secrecy surrounding the project. Technical details are published
in the U.S. patent. Many scientists and engineers have visited the factory and
customer sites. You are free to purchase a machine and test it, or manufacture
one yourself. (Although you cannot sell one without a license, since Griggs
has a patent.)
 
Your assertions about "secrecy" and "Gellerism" have no basis in reality.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenjedrothwell cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.21 /  nachtrieb@brig /  ALCATOR C-MOD WEEKLY HIGHLIGHTS, 19941121
     
Originally-From: nachtrieb@bright.pfc.mit.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: ALCATOR C-MOD WEEKLY HIGHLIGHTS, 19941121
Date: 21 NOV 94 23:23:54 GMT
Organization: MIT PLASMA FUSION CENTER

		   Alcator C-MOD Weekly Highlights
			     Nov 21, 1994

Alcator C-MOD has resumed plasma operations. Runs during this week
have concentrated on conditioning discharges and equilibrium tuning.

Power systems testing was completed on Wednesday, Nov 16. All supplies
and coils were run for 1 second flattops to verify diagnostic
response.  Excellent agreement between predicted and observed
magnetics signals was obtained.

Plasma operations began on Thursday, after about 12 hours of overnight
[electron cyclotron] discharge cleaning (ECDC). Breakdown was achieved
on the fourth attempt, and successful current rise (to 200kA) was
obtained on shot 10.  The discharges were highly radiative, as is
typical for initial operation after a long vent.  Operation continued
on Friday with more tokamak conditioning discharges.  Currents up to
500kA with pulse lengths above 0.7 seconds were obtained.

In order to further clean up the machine, ECDC was run continuously
over the weekend, for a total of about 60 hours.

On Monday, running resumed and all indications were that the machine
conditioning was improved. Standard tokamak discharges with currents
up to 765kA and durations greater than 1.3 seconds were obtained.

Diagnostics continue to be brought on-line. The ECE (Electron
Cyclotron Emission; use to measure temperature profiles) grating
polychromator is operational. The HIREX high-resolution x-ray
spectroscopy diagnostic is also running and measuring ion
temperature. The TCI (Two-Color interferometer; measures density
profiles on fast timescale) interferometer is also operational.

Owing to an editing error, the number of C-MOD papers presented at the
APS (American Physical Society) meeting was given incorrectly in last
week's report. The correct number of C-MOD papers was forty-four.
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudennachtrieb cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.22 / John Logajan /  Dr. Oriani to give Cold Fusion Seminar
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@mirage.skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,mn.general
Subject: Dr. Oriani to give Cold Fusion Seminar
Date: 22 Nov 1994 03:40:24 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communucations, Inc.





                    The University of Minnesota
               Institute of Technology Alumni Society

                            presents

                  Material Aspects of Cold Fusion
                        Richard Oriani, PhD
      Department of Chemical Engineering and Materials Science

                 7:30pm Wednesday, December 7, 1994

                            Nolte Room
                      Radisson Hotel Metrodome
                      615 Washington Avenue SE


                Open to the public, $5 at the door

          Reservations must be made by Monday, December 5th
 
                       Phone  612-626-1804

                       Fax    612-624-2841

                       Mail   ITAS
                              105 Walter Library
                              117 Pleasant Street SE
                              Minneapolis, MN  55455

                              (State number of spaces to reserve.)






--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com  --  612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA -
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.22 /   /  Re: Free Book Offer
     
Originally-From: mtm12657@aol.com (MTM12657)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Free Book Offer
Date: 22 Nov 1994 00:15:05 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

In article <39j78c$ets@acasun.eckerd.edu>, wallace@acasun.eckerd.edu
(Bryan Wallace) writes:

Please send me a copy of your book. 
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenmtm12657 cudln cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.24 / Frank Close /  Its not chemistry
     
Originally-From: FEC@v2.rl.ac.uk (Frank Close)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Its not chemistry
Date: Thu, 24 Nov 1994 09:54:35 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway



Jed Rothwell:

> The one scientist who made much more extravagant claims was
>Frank Close, who told Tinsley that it is possible to generate hundreds of eV
>(perhaps even thousands!) from a chemical reaction,

I have NEVER said that you can do this with a CHEMICAL reaction.




cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenFEC cudfnFrank cudlnClose cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.24 / R SPAANDONK /  Re: Fusion Digest 2949
     
Originally-From: rvanspaa@ozemail.com.au (R.J VAN SPAANDONK)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion Digest 2949
Date: Thu, 24 Nov 1994 17:39:44 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

>Originally-From: drchambe@tekgp2.cse.tek.com (Dennis Chamberlin)
[snip]
>Now, there could be a case or two of accidental grazing funnel
>encounters, with survivors, just as some people have
>occasionally
>walked out of burning buildings that collapse. And, a few C-130 crews
>do routinely and deliberately penetrate hurricanes, with the aid of
>radar to help avoid the worst of it. But this is a much different
>order of turbulence. I bet if you asked any of these
>pilots about
>flying into a tornado, you would immediately find yourself with
>no one to talk to.
_______________________________________________________________
How about anchoring a TV camera to the ground, pointing up,
in the path of an approaching tornado? Even if nothing extraordinary
showed up, it would sure make a great shot for the evening news!

Cheers,

Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa@ozemail.com.au>








cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenrvanspaa cudfnR cudlnSPAANDONK cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.24 / R SPAANDONK /  Re: Fusion Digest 2947
     
Originally-From: rvanspaa@ozemail.com.au (R.J VAN SPAANDONK)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion Digest 2947
Date: Thu, 24 Nov 1994 17:39:54 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

>Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
>Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
>Subject: Re: Y. Arata DS-Cathode cold fusion
>Date: Wed, 9 Nov 94 15:01:27 -0500
>Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)
>
>Brian Rauchfuss <brauchfu@fnugget.intel.com> and others have been asking >about
>the paper:
>
>     Y. Arata, Y-C. Zhang, "New Energy Generated in DS-Cathode with 'Pd-
>     Black,'" Kouon Gakkaishi, Vol. 20, No. 4, (July 1994) pp. 148 - 155.
____________________________________________________________________
Jed,

Could you tell us how we can get copies of the paper itself?

TIA,

Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa@ozemail.com.au>









cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenrvanspaa cudfnR cudlnSPAANDONK cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.28 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Criminality/Ad hominem attacks by Mallove and Rothwell
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Criminality/Ad hominem attacks by Mallove and Rothwell
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 94 13:46:14 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Steve Jones <jonesse@physc2.byu.edu> writes:
 
     "Note that the postings from Jed and Mallove, cited here in full as
     posted by Mallove, are essentially devoid of substantive technical
     arguments.
 
Cited in full indeed! What a neat evasion, Jones should have been a lawyer.
Ah, but let us return to part of my posting that Mallove did not cite. Steve
saw this I am sure; I e-mailed a copy directly to him. Just for laughs, let us
see how he tries to wiggle out of this part:
 
 
The 1994 data in Fig. 2 shows that Arata put 47 watts of electric power into a
closed cell in a flow calorimeter. The flow of water through the cooling loop
was 450 ml/min. The water came out 3 degrees hotter than it was going in.
During the 17 hour burst, it got 4.9 degrees hotter than input. Do you
understand what that means, Steve? Can you do elementary calorimetry, or
should I spell it out for you, the way Arata does in the paper? Here:
 
47 watts equals 2820 joules input per minute.
 
450 ml of water raised 3 degrees equals 1350 calories. One calorie equals 4.2
joules, so the output was 5670. Fig. 2 shows 500 hours of this output.
 
5670 joules is MUCH, MUCH more than 2820. A 3 degree Delta T temperature is a
cinch to detect. There is no mistake.
 
One run this year produced 200 megajoules of excess. Do you know how much
energy that is, Steve? No, obviously you don't. Let me give you two examples:
 
     200 megajoules is how much energy you get from burning 4.8 kg of
     gasoline. I do not know how much the cathode weighed, but I am sure it
     was far less than 4.8 kg.
 
     200 megajoules is 20 times more energy than the Princeton Tokamak TFTR
     created in the famous December 1993 experiment. (See J.D. Strachan et
     al., PPPL-2978)
 
 
Any comments Steve? Is that not technical enough? Too technical? By the way,
read carefully: it says "closed cell" that's C-L-O-S-E-D. Recombination is not
a factor. That is also true of Piantelli and about a hundred others, so your
"experiment" is not relevant.
 
As for ad hominem attacks, some hombres in this world deserve them. Especially
scientists who betray science, and who evade and play word games and ego games
instead of working for the good of humanity. If you scientists keep acting
this way, the taxpayers are going to get fed up. They will throw you all out
into the street, which is what you deserve. Read that book "Hubble Wars" and
you will see what I mean.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenjedrothwell cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.28 / Lew Proudfoot /  Re: changes of science theory at 80 year intervals
     
Originally-From: lproudfoot@msmail3.hac.com (Lew Proudfoot)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,soc.history.science
Subject: Re: changes of science theory at 80 year intervals
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 1994 10:46:31 -0800
Organization: Hughes Aircraft Compan

In article <3ajdv5$see@news2.delphi.com>, SPROLES@news.delphi.com
(SPROLES@DELPHI.COM) wrote:

> I think that one theoristi said that the 80 year turnover rate is 
> directly related to the life time of currenly in vogue theorist (and some 
> overlap for prize students).  Does anyone know the source for this folklore?
> 
> Jude'
> 
Now this I have heard - frequently said in jest, without supporting data.  
And without a multi-page speculation attached.
Biggest examples are from nineteenth century physics, geology and
evolution.  The joke seems thin now, with ideas turning over so fast few
can keep up outside their direct area of expertise.

-- 
Lew Proudfoot
Hughes Aircraft Company
[standard disclaimer here]
lproudfoot@msmail3.hac.com
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenlproudfoot cudfnLew cudlnProudfoot cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.27 / Harry Conover /  Re: Orders of magnitude
     
Originally-From: conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Orders of magnitude
Date: 27 Nov 1994 17:56:32 GMT
Organization: The Internet Access Company

William Hawkins (bill@texan.rosemount.com) wrote:

[editing...]

: Without them, the true believers could post
: their pseudoscience as fact.  How ironic, that the technology of
: the Internet could be used to bring about the next Dark Ages.


Here! Here!

Thank you William Hawkins for having the wisdom and courage to 
call it as it is.  Indeed, how ironic it is to see the Internet
employed as a medium for pseudoscientists to outshout the quiet
voices of knowledge and scientific reason.

                                  Harry C.

cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenconover cudfnHarry cudlnConover cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.27 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Orders of magnitude
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Orders of magnitude
Date: Sun, 27 Nov 1994 13:43 -0500 (EST)

bill@texan.rosemount.com (William Hawkins) writes:
 
-> What is difficult to understand is that such people do not seem
-> to have any desire to improve their understanding.  They are
-> quite happy telling those of us that _do_ understand, that we
->  *don't* understand.
 
What is difficult for me to understand is people who are so blinded by their
beliefs (and science is built upon beliefs which change over the years as new
experiments and data prove old beliefs to be incorrect or incomplete) that they
cannot see the other side of the coin.  There are always two or more sides to
every coin, and two or more possible explainations for everything, and Ocham's
Razer is not guaranteed to always give the correct interpretation, although it
is usually a good place to start.  In fact Ocham's razer can often give
different answers to different people based on their own belief systems and
experiences.
 
-> People who post prayers that all will be well in the future have no concept
-> of the orders of magnitude of things that have to change to accomplish that.
 
This is a perfect example of the inability for someone to look at the other
side of the coin.  If one's belief system has God or a Creater as the source of
all power, all intelligence, and that which birthed the entire physical
universe, then it can be aruged that to claim that that power is unable to
change how things are on one small planet in one of billions of star systems,
shows an inability to grasp the huge difference in the orders of magnitude
between our small world, and the abilities of the creater of not only our world
but of the entire universe.  A very good example indeed.
 
                                                                Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.27 /   /  Re: Let's send Tom to Cartersville, GA
     
Originally-From: milow88@aol.com (MiloW88)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Let's send Tom to Cartersville, GA
Date: 27 Nov 1994 18:05:12 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

In article <36pnth$c45@coranto.ucs.mun.ca>, court@newton.physics.mun.ca
(John Lewis) writes:

Dear John:    I am dying to know:  What has built the water heater? 
Thanks,  Milo Wolff.
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenmilow88 cudln cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.27 /   /  Re: Instrumenting Griggs
     
Originally-From: milow88@aol.com (MiloW88)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Instrumenting Griggs
Date: 27 Nov 1994 18:50:25 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

In article <kemidb.781348499@aau>, kemidb@aau.dk (Dieter Britz) writes:


cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenmilow88 cudln cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.26 /  DanHicks /  Re: Griggs power
     
Originally-From: danhicks@aol.com (DanHicks)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs power
Date: 26 Nov 1994 21:40:38 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

In article <3b5t7t$djq@newsbf01.news.aol.com>, gmallory@aol.com (GMallory)
writes:

>>>
If the Griggs machine is a inadvertent heat pump, then excess heat could
still
be generated. It seems as if it has all the possibilities of being a heat
pump with
working fluid expansion and compression going on at different times and
places
in the system.  You would have to surround the system in a insulated box
and measure the heat in and out of the box as well to get a good test.
<<<

It should be sufficient to simply demonstrate that all parts of the device
are at or above ambient temperature.  The device could not possibly be
"pumping" heat without creating a cold spot somewhere.  Further, with
rough estimates of the surface area of the device, it should be possible
to roughly calculate how cold, on average, the device would have to be to
pump the 20% or whatever excess heat, utilizing ordinary convection and
radiation as the heat transfer mechanisms.  I suspect that this required
temperature is sufficiently low (presuming 20% excess) that issue will be
essentially moot.

Of course, this is disregarding the possibility of water as a heat source.
 I think there once was some mention of the fact that "excess" feedwater
is somehow allowed to drain from the system.  If this is the case, then
the heat content of this drainwater must be factored in.

Back to the original issue of what needs to be measured, there needs to be
some determination made of how long the system must be run in excess heat
mode to eliminate the possibility of stored energy.  Since no one has
suggested any reasonable mechanism by which chemical energy may be
generated in the system (in any significant amount), the only
consideration would appear to be simple heat storage.  If the system were
to operate in such a mode that it internally pumps heat (without drawing
it from the atmosphere) then eventually temperatures would presumably drop
below the freezing point of water and it would become difficult to
maintain water flow.  So the trick is to determine how much heat would
have to be pumped out to cool the whole device (including presumably a
portion of the water inside) to a temperature well below the freezing (say
-20 C).  Then determine how long the device would have to operate at 20%
excess to produce this much heat.

Of course, by the time the entire device is at -20 C then external
temperature measurements would pick it up, so it would presumably be
sufficient to operate the system for about 1/4 the -20C time and then
check for below-ambient measurements on the case.
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudendanhicks cudlnDanHicks cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.27 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Eaton torque sensor specifications
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Eaton torque sensor specifications
Date: Sun, 27 Nov 1994 02:50:31 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <3b2ni7$ngt@newsbf01.news.aol.com>,
DanHicks <danhicks@aol.com> wrote:
>In article <CzJysE.GID@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>,
>crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>In article <3al5cn$jbl@newsbf01.news.aol.com>,
>DanHicks <danhicks@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>Mind you, I don't seriously doubt that the meter IS accurate 
>
>     Why not?  At least one person involved in the calibration doesn't
>     understand the device.
>
>Well, basically I'm assuming that the manufacturer and installer DID know
>something about the device and designed/installed it so that better than
>20% accuracy could be achieved.  I have of course no idea what the
>instrument looks like or how it works in any specific sense, but a modern,
>well-designed industrial instrument with a <1% spec should be able to
>tolerate a modicum of misunderstanding and misuse on the part of the user
>and still achieve much better than 20% accuracy.  After all, no matter how
>ignorant you think Jed is, the average factory worker is even worse.

     How trusting of you...

     But, the average factory worker isn't suggesting that swirling
     water in a tub produces fusion.  And the average factory worker is 
     not suggesting one can measure his input power using a 
     dynamometer to better than 1% accuracy.
     
>Of course, I still don't understand why one would want to measure torque. 

     To increase our error bars.

>Far better to simply measure input power.  Even if there is some sort of
>strange effect that occurs due to vibration being telegraphed back from
>the rotor, a flywheel of moderate size would be sufficient to keep it from
>reaching the motor and being reflected in the input power.  

     Why bother?  For such earth-shattering results, we can probably
     leave the power meter at home and use equipment that leaves 
     little room for doubt.

                            dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.28 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Eaton torque sensor specifications
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Eaton torque sensor specifications
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 94 13:12:39 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

danhicks@aol.com (DanHicks) writes:
 
     "After all, no matter how ignorant you think Jed is, the average factory
     worker is even worse."
 
The people I have known who worked in factories, steel mills and onboard ships
have been among the smartest and best educated. I do not know what the average
might be. The penalty for stupidity in an old fashioned heavy industrial plant
was death.
 
 
     "Of course, I still don't understand why one would want to measure
     torque. Far better to simply measure input power.
 
It is best by far to measure both, which is what Griggs is doing. That gives
double assurance that the instruments are working correctly. This method is
known as "suspenders and a belt." The configuration was designed by a top
mechanical engineer. The suggestion that Jim measure both electrical and
mechanical power was made by many people including <modest cough> me. Jim
investigated precision dynamometers and found that they are now smaller,
cheaper, and much better than they used to be. I believe the Eaton unit cost
only five or six thousand dollars.
 
 
     "As I've said before, a good industrial power meter should be able to
     maintain accuracy over the range of wattages and phase angles seen with
     the GG, and this accuracy is fairly easy to verify independently with
     lab instruments."
 
True, but why not measure the mechanical power as well? That confirms it in
spades. It is particularly nice because the power meter and the dynamometer
work on different physical principles, so noise could not possibly affect the
readings on both instruments to the same extent, in the same direction.
Conceivably, noise might cause random errors in both instruments (although
there is no evidence of that), but it would never affect them both in the same
fashion at the same moment.
 
 
     "The way I see things, here's what should be measured:  (1) Input power,
     both to the rotor motor and the feedwater pump motor. (2) Temperature
     and flow rate of feedwater.  (3) Output power (more later here)."
 
All are measured, all with redundant instruments. Flow, for example, is
measured in the hopper, with an electronic flowmeter, with a mechanical
flowmeter, and by measuring the weight of accumulated water in the steel drum.
Temperature is measured with 5 different instruments based on three different
physical principles. Again, this eliminates any possibility of noise induced
error, because noise will not affect a mercury thermometer and an electronic
thermistor such that they both register 104 deg F when the real temperature is
only 80 deg F.
 
 
     "(4) An insulated tent or hut should be built around the GG and its two
     motors and the temperature and flow rate of air into and out of the hut
     should be measured.  This needn't be elaborate, but it should be
     sufficient to collect and measure 80 or 90% of the heat currently being
     thrown off through convection and radiation from the motors and rotor.
     This isn't 100% necessary, of course, but its existence would serve to
     quelch (or possibly support) any claims that the theoretical output
     really is greater than unity but that too much is being lost in motor
     efficiency et al for >unity to show up in the raw input/output
     measurements."
 
The over unity DOES show up in the raw input/output measurements! There is no
need for these heroic measures. A blank run with a rotor without holes shows
that 6% of the heat is lost to convection and radiation. There is no need to
account for it. The excess is 20% 30% above the raw numbers, or 10% above
electric energy input on a bad day.
 
 
     "Superheated steam is a different matter and I don't pretend to have the
     background to know how to deal with it."
 
Jim Griggs and his consultants do have the background to know how to deal with
it. In fact, they are the best in the State for dealing with it. Their method
is the best anyone can come up with. It is simple: condense the steam in a
steel drum full of water and measure the total weight of water and Delta T
temperature rise. There is a terrific amount of kinetic energy in superheated
steam, which makes the steel drum bang and jump around as the steam is
captured, and the water to swirl and bubble. It makes a terrific racket and it
is dangerous. As the water stops swirling, almost all the kinetic energy is
captured. Losses are too small to bother with. It does not matter whether the
thing is 20% over unity or 30% or 40%.
 
 
     "The problem is that a scheme is needed that will permit the reasonably
     accurate measurement of the heat output over runs of several hours."
 
This can be done easily with flow calorimetry, where the GG outputs hot water
instead of steam. The numbers for hot water are not as impressive as with
steam, but so what? You can run it for a week.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenjedrothwell cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.28 /  jedrothwell@de /  Where to get Arata papers
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Where to get Arata papers
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 94 13:14:52 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa@ozemail.com.au> asks how to get a copy of the
Arata papers:
 
Y. Arata, Y-C. Zhang, "New Energy Generated in DS-Cathode with 'Pd-Black,'"
Kouon Gakkaishi, Vol. 20, No. 4, (July 1994) pp. 148 - 155 (in Japanese)
 
Y. Arata, Y-C. Zhang, "New Energy Caused by 'Spillover-Deuterium,'" Proc.
Japan Acad., 70, Ser. B (1994) Vol 70(B) pp. 106 - 111 (in English)
 
Good question! I don't know. A friend of mine at Osaka U sent me copies. This
copy does not show the address of the Japan Academy. I suggest you contact
Prof. Zhang at the Welding Research Institute, Osaka University, Ibaraki 567,
Japan, Fax 06-878-3110.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenjedrothwell cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.28 / Wei-Hwa Huang /  Re: Thanksgiving Prayer
     
Originally-From: whuang@cco.caltech.edu (Wei-Hwa Huang)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.bio,sci.chem,sci.math,sci.phys
cs,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Thanksgiving Prayer
Date: 28 Nov 1994 18:21:33 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena

chrisman@ucdmath.ucdavis.edu (Mark Chrisman) writes:
>In article <3b2eoa$21f@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
>Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:
>> Today is Thanksgiving day 24Nov1994 in the USA. Here is a most
>> appropriate prayer to make to our Maker.
>> [snip]
>>   The above passage brings tears to my eyes....
>It brought tears to my eyes as well.

Well, you know what they say:
"Either it'll bring tears to their eyes, or else..."
"Or else what?"
"Or else it won't."
   --Lewis Carroll formulates the Principle of the Excluded Middle

cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenwhuang cudfnWei-Hwa cudlnHuang cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.27 / William Hawkins /  Orders of magnitude
     
Originally-From: bill@texan.rosemount.com (William Hawkins)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Orders of magnitude
Date: Sun, 27 Nov 1994 06:45:14 GMT
Organization: Fisher-Rosemount Systems Inc.

You know, I think Dale is on to something here.  After five
years of reading this group, and 55 years of limited experience
with humanity, I think that inability to comprehend orders of
magnitude explains a lot.  People who post prayers that all will
be well in the future have no concept of the orders of magnitude
of things that have to be changed to accomplish that.  True
believers of all kinds have no concept of the magnitude of things
that have to change to make their belief true.

What is difficult to understand is that such people do not seem
to have any desire to improve their understanding.  They are
quite happy telling those of us that _do_ understand, that we
 *don't* understand.  For example, Rothwell comes on like one who
understands the science, and can't understand why we don't all
agree with him.  Several years ago, he told us he was a technical
writer, not a scientist.  To me, that qualifies him to write
really persuasive articles - about things filtered through his
perception of reality.

In this United States holiday of Thanksgiving, I am thankful that men
such as Dick Blue, Dale Bass, Matt Kennel, and others still respond
to the attempts to replace science with belief (I've only mentioned
recent posters - Tom Droege and Dieter Britz are voices of reason
when they show up).  Without them, the true believers could post
their pseudoscience as fact.  How ironic, that the technology of
the Internet could be used to bring about the next Dark Ages.

This article is not about fusion, but it is about what goes on
here in sci.physics.fusion.  I welcome your postings or email.
Personally, while I'm pretty good about orders of magnitude of
physical things, I've no idea what's required to understand the
actions of humanity.

These are my personal opinions, brought to you courtesy of my
employer, who would be appalled at such nonsense.

Best regards,
Bill Hawkins
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenbill cudfnWilliam cudlnHawkins cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.20 / Harry Conover /  Re: changes of science theory at 80 year intervals
     
Originally-From: conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,soc.history.science
Subject: Re: changes of science theory at 80 year intervals
Date: 20 Nov 1994 18:35:45 GMT
Organization: The Internet Access Company

Cameron Randale Bass (crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU) wrote:

:      This has been going on for over a hundred years, with only the 
:      explanation changing.  In early years, they didn't bother hiding the
:      first law violation.  Later, they started with 'unknown' electromagnetic
:      phenomena, now they talk of first-law violating 'Zero Point Energy'.  

Unfortunately, the current popularity of New Age beliefs and ideas coupled
with PC anti-technology sentiments have opened entirely new vistas of 
opportunity for the quacks, wizards, warlocks, and incompetents.  Concepts
involving free-energy and perpetual motion were scoffed at twenty years
ago, but not today -- perhaps a reflection of the increasing levels of
scientific and technical illiterarcy that permeates today's 'media 
educated' society. Besides believing in something is quite easy, while 
addressing it on a informed basis of fact requires a great deal of effort 
over an extended period of time -- something inconsistent with today's 
quest for instant gratification!

:      Having seen it numerous times before, engineers and scientists grow a 
:      bit weary at explaining to these clowns that no, while it might be 
:      possible that the sun will not come up tomorrow owing to a flock of angels
:      occulting earth, it's just not damn likely.

:      I suspect this may be lost on people who don't find the First Law
:      or nuclear scaling arguments compelling (or have never heard of the 
:      First Law), but one can always hope.

While hope springs eternal, I am not optimistic that your efforts to 
promote reason will sway any of the true believers, particularly those
that would label participants in this group as 'for' or 'against'
Cold Fusion.  Like trying to make a valid scientific point in a 
group devoted to paranormal activity or UFO's, you are banging your
head against the wall.  True Believers resent having their belief
structures challenged by facts, often becoming hostile and emotional.
Fortunately, we have never witnessed such extreme reactions here!  :-)

                              Harry C.

ps.  Perhaps it is time for physical scientists to band together 
     into an organization functionally equivalent to the Gideons.
     Rather that distributing copies of the Bible or Book of Morman, 
     our goal will be to outfit every hotel room with a copy of 'Sears
     Zemansky, Richards, and Wehr' or equivalent basic physics text,
     along with the admonition that addressing more advanced subjects
     without comprehending the basics will lead to the development 
     brain fry and bizarre concepts.



cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenconover cudfnHarry cudlnConover cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.20 / Jim Nicholson /  Congrats to Riggs on a candidate.  Now how about a smaller experiment?
     
Originally-From: fusion@access3.digex.net (Jim Nicholson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Congrats to Riggs on a candidate.  Now how about a smaller experiment?
Date: 20 Nov 1994 19:20:37 GMT
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA

Nuclear fission happens in student reactors with plastic moderators and
produces only 4-20 Watts.  Nuclear fusion occurs in a D-T electrical
discharge and its output is detected using particle detectors.

Now that Mr. Griggs has a candidate for CF, why not do it up in a small,
well characterized system.  Thanx to -Jed's- e-mail, I know that the
water condensation system was insufficient, that there are questions
concerning power factors in the A.C. motor input power, and thanx to others
that there are inaccuracies in the dynomometer and question about 
extraneous chemical reactions.  My own questions would be does the effect
take place at a given motor R.P.M. such that a consistent underestimate of 
input power in a certain speed range would account for the effect.

To answer these questions, I would propose a smaller experiment with the
following characteristics:

1) Use DC motors only.  Much easier to measure electrical power.  And
	becasue they will be smaller, much easier to find the shaft
	power.
2) Power levels kept in the 100's of watts so that extremely accurate
	lab instruments can be used.  After all, you are relying on
	industrial equipment which was designed to see if something
	is working "right" within a certain ballpark, not to
	measure a quantity accurately enough for NIST.
3) Ultrasound produces chemical reactions and remove surface oxide
	coating of metals.  This is why it is used for cleaning, however,
	it seems to have a much more difficult time with high-T_melt
	materials like Tungsten.  It would be a simple matter to coat the
	pump parts with a protective Tungsten layer.
4) The smaller experiment should be completely closed
5) A well-insulated condensor should be used which has the
	capacity to condense and hold all your steam.
6) The experiment should be run much longer than 20 minutes and should
	use more than one condensor, so that you can divert steam from 
	one to the other and measure the output continuously.


I would encourage Mr. Griggs, since I intend to take up a similar path,
however, I will be starting small and will use similar guidelines to
eliminate measurement errors.  Good luck.

--
*******************************************************************************
*			  |						      *
* Jim Nicholson		  |Nothing short of offering free power to the Patent *
* M.S. Unclear Eng.	  |  Office should qualify one for a CF patent.	      *
* fusion@access.digex.net |  Everything else should be public domain.	      *
*			  |						      *
*******************************************************************************
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenfusion cudfnJim cudlnNicholson cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.20 / Stephane Baune /  The Strong coupling constant...
     
Originally-From: an462@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Stephane Baune)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: The Strong coupling constant...
Date: Sun, 20 Nov 1994 20:35:14 GMT
Organization: The National Capital FreeNet


 
  A collegue of mine asked me to post a (brief) summary
  of the results of his recent work. 
  
  His work is consists of describing atomic models using prime
  numbers. ( Strangly, it does work !? )
  
  If any of you out there are interested or have references to
  this, all feedback would be greatly apreciated.
  well, here we go..
  
  ********
  Summary:
  A new formula involving the coupling constant of the strong
  nuclear interaction.
  
  The elaboration of a new simple atomic and nuclear model(1) led
  me to enunciate the following formula:
  
                                1         
                        Eo =  -----Mp*C^2 
                              2b^2   
  
  where Eo = binding energy of the deuteron = 2.225 MeV
        Mp = mass of the proton
        C  = speed of light in free space
        b  = coupling constant of the strong interaction, for a
             Fermi's lenght
  
  From this formula, we get b = 14.52, which is very close to the
  Yukawa's value.
  
  The preceding formula can be considered as a nuclear
  correspondant of the well know formula:
                                a^2
                         Eo =  -----Me*C^2
                                 2
  
  where Eo = ground state energy of the hydrogen atom = 13.6 eV
        Me = mass of electron
  
        a  = coupling constant of the electromagnetic interaction,
             at Bohr's lenght = 1/137
  
  ----------
  (1) Lucien Boisvert. "Modele atomique et nucleaire"  
                       "Modele des spheres et tablaux periodique "  
      College de Maisonneuve, 1994.
  
  ********
  
  Well, there it is. 

--
If you want to be sure,then always doubt.
                         				}:-)

cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenan462 cudfnStephane cudlnBaune cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.23 / Mihai Jalobeanu /  Submission for sci.physics.fusion
     
Originally-From: itimc@utcluj.ro (Mihai Jalobeanu )
Originally-From:Peter Glueck <itimc@imar.ro> 
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Submission for sci.physics.fusion
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 1994 02:05:41 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway


Originally-From:Peter Glueck <itimc@imar.ro> 
Re:The Laws of Physics or the laws of physics?

In FD 2969 Dieter Britz wrote:
"I don't know how many times I have written that--if there be
anything to 'cold fusion' (which I doubt) -then it is most likely
to be a surface process (unless it is indeed fractofusion,as the 
Russians believe;but then,no XS heat"

<Fractofusion doesn't change anything,it is fusion on juvenile
 i.e. newly formed surfaces,and some reproducibility problems
 show it is also mediated by the formation of catalytic centers.
 Otherwise it is an ephemeral,destructive process with no chances
 to be used technologically.>

Dieter wrote:
"If the process takes place on the surface and is fusion, then 
all those Moessbauer-like theories (or should that be 'theories'
are in trouble).What surface process can there be to  swallow
gamma rays and x-rays?"

<I have asked for collegial help re. data (experimental facts)
which contradict the localization of the CF phenomena on the
surface in restricted areas.Obviously the nuclear particles
formed on the surface can interact with the lattice,these are
actually secondary reactions, typical for the gas discharge
systems, for example.
In my opinion, it is futile to ask now a CF theory which is 
more advanced than the respective theory of catalysis.
We have to discuss systematically the main aspects of the
reactions which actually take place in electrochemical,
ultrasonic,and gas/ solid systems.The correct order for this 
discussion is:locus,nature,mechanism(s).It will be a diffi-
cult discussion,the construction of a new paradigm isn't easy.
The quantity of accumulated data in favor of cold fusion or 
of a new energy source (if you wish) is so great that it is
really a heroic effort to elaborate a_ global vision_.However to
continue to deny  them,either on basis of possible errors or for
the sake of a theory or other is,I dare to say, an even more
heroical effort,a type of reputational Kamikaze act.
Dieter,please read the Burke paper cited in my posting ,it is a
great contribution to electrocatalysis and ,indirectly to CF!>

Peter Glueck,Fax 4064-185816,Email <itimc@imar.ro>    


------------

cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenitimc cudfnMihai cudlnJalobeanu cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.21 / David Davies /  Re: Get a grip, Steve
     
Originally-From: drd851@huxley.anu.edu.au (David R Davies)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Get a grip, Steve
Date: 21 Nov 1994 11:46:11 +1100
Organization: Australian National University

jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) writes:
...
>Actually, what Steve writes is based on experiment, not theory. 
...
As I remember the argument it was a rehash of the old favorite
which goes something like:

"All the relevant nuclear reactions that we have observed produce high energy
particles therefore no other reaction paths are possible."

Q: How do you observe these reactions

A: By detecting the high energy particles given off

Ok, I know that there are more detailed versions but they dont add a lot.

The key point many _REAL_ sceptics have tried to make often is that there
are strong theoretical assumptions - quite irrational ones - behind what
appear on the surface as clear statements of fact. I am not sure that you
can say that anything is impossible based on experimental or general
experiential evidence alone. The logic that because we usually see one
result means we always will is patently false but can often be buried in
arguments that seem totally reasonable.

Cheers,

dave
 
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudendrd851 cudfnDavid cudlnDavies cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.21 / David Davies /  Re: Get a grip, Steve
     
Originally-From: drd851@huxley.anu.edu.au (David R Davies)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Get a grip, Steve
Date: 21 Nov 1994 11:26:56 +1100
Organization: Australian National University

mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel) writes:

>"And how do you KNOW that it's not the alignment of the planets?"

I don't, and neither do you, but I would opt for something more
mundane. But then astrology is rather mundane compared with the
bizarre sophistry practiced by some with their half dead cats in
boxes and infinite numbers of universes etc.

For me the answer is simple: I dont know but would like to find out.

dave

cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudendrd851 cudfnDavid cudlnDavies cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.21 / Jim Bowery /  Re: What's happening in the technology?
     
Originally-From: jabowery@netcom.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What's happening in the technology?
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 1994 02:12:30 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

Go to your public library and look up any patents by Paul M. Koloc.
-- 
The promotion of politics exterminates apolitical genes in the population.
  The promotion of frontiers gives apolitical genes a route to survival.
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenjabowery cudfnJim cudlnBowery cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.21 / Matt Kennel /  Re: Y. Arata DS-Cathode cold fusion
     
Originally-From: mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Y. Arata DS-Cathode cold fusion
Date: 21 Nov 1994 04:36:02 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

Cameron Randale Bass (crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU) wrote:
: In article <CzGK3t.8y6@eskimo.com>, Robert Dinse <nanook@eskimo.com> wrote:
: >In article <CzBr7A.B08@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, crb7q@watt.seas.Vir
inia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
: >> 
: >>      In case you weren't aware, Helium migrates through everything,
: >>      walls included.
: >> 
: >     I thought this was only true when it was super-cooled.  How do blimps
: >work?  (ie, what keeps all the helium from migrating through the walls of the
: >blimp)?

:       Simple answer:  nothing.  More complex answer:  it takes a while.

Consider surface area to volume of a 100 meter blimp compared to
a desktop experiment.

:                               dale bass

--
-Matt Kennel  		mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu
-Institute for Nonlinear Science, University of California, San Diego
-*** AD: Archive for nonlinear dynamics papers & programs: FTP to
-***     lyapunov.ucsd.edu, username "anonymous".
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenmbk cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Wed Nov 30 04:37:14 EST 1994
------------------------------
1994.11.28 / A Plutonium /  Re: The Annenberg/CPB Collection THE MECHANICAL UNIVERSE and   
     
Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag
sci.bio,sci.chem,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The Annenberg/CPB Collection THE MECHANICAL UNIVERSE and   
Date: 28 Nov 1994 23:56:17 GMT
Organization: PLutonium Atom Foundation

In article <3b2edr$21f@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:

>   This is one of the very most strong points of this series, the music.
> And this series, if we were permitted to buy only one series of film or
> movie or music production, mine would be this series. If I were allowed
> only one book to purchase in all of my life, it would be the Feynman
> Lectures on physics, three volume set.
>   In the long view of history, The Mechanical Universe series will be
> the quintessential movie production.
> 
> For your Thanksgiving Prayer, play this passage of #31 The Mechanical
> Universe.
> 
> " But when a few volts tie an electron to an atom.
> How strong is that bond?
> Since a Vandegraff generator can build-up a hundred thousand volts.
> It seems this machine ought to be capable of ionizing every bit of
> ordinary matter in sight.
> But it isn't.
> 
> Sometimes, voltage alone isn't enough.
> 
> In fact, if an atom and a Vandegraff engage in a simple tug of war for
> one electron.
> 
> The atom always wins.
> 
> Because a tug of war is a question of force, not voltage. 
> (Start of the music of Angels singing in the background of our Maker)
> 
> In other words, what matters is the derivative of the potential energy,
> (music of angels singing in the background)
> not just how big it is.
> 
> Here is a Vandegraff dome,  and an atom.
> 
> They are competing for an electron
> that might be bound to the Vandegraff by tens of thousands of volts.
> 
> (Music of angels with drums)
> 
> But zooming in by ten, 
> 
> a hundred,
> 
> a thousand times.
> 
> The electrons potential energy due to the atom
> is seen to be much smaller
> but very much steeper.
> 
> (Angels singing in background)
> 
> In fact the horizontal scale 
> 
> has to be expanded
> 
> ten,
> 
> a hundred,
> 
> a thousand,
> 
> ten thousand,
> 
> a hundred thousand times, just to see the slope. 
> 
> (Angels singing in the background, ("Ah, Ah, Ah, Ah"))
> 
> The atom's force is a hundred thousand times stronger than the
> Vandegraff. 
> And that is no contest at all.  "
> 
> I will comment about this series more in this thread.

  The music of this series is exceptional. The portrayal of the work
and life of Tesla, Ben Franklin, Ampere, Volta, Tycho Brahe and Kepler
were excellent.
Those portrayals are hard to improve on, except, I think, more should
have been said about Tesla. And let me mention a weakness. Both
Einstein and Newton are over-billed. Poincare discovered Special
Relativity and Lorentz worked out the math, and in fact, Fitzgerald
deserves more credit. I roughly estimate that only 15 minutes and no
more should be devoted to Einstein. And, a whole 1/2 hour should be
devoted to Schrodinger, Debroglie, and Dirac each.
  Another weakness, which will be ironed out in the new edition of
Mechanical Universe. That is, Newton is overbilled. Newton did not
discover the inverse square law of gravity. I estimate that only 1/2 be
devoted to Newton. And, where Newton is over-billed, Maxwell is
underbilled.
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.28 /  Contest /  cancel: :SKILL CONTEST - WIN $750,000 CONDO!
     
Originally-From: contest@datanet.com (Contest)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cancel: :SKILL CONTEST - WIN $750,000 CONDO!
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 94 12:09:00 -0800
Organization: DNIS * Palm Springs, CA * Via Modem Call: (619) 864-1468        

Cleaning up spam from contest@datanet.com.  red@redpoll.mrfs.oh.us
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudencontest cudlnContest cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.28 /  DanHicks /  Re: Eaton torque sensor specifications
     
Originally-From: danhicks@aol.com (DanHicks)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Eaton torque sensor specifications
Date: 28 Nov 1994 22:10:40 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

In article <59727-786005046@mindlink.bc.ca>, Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca
(Bruce Dunn) writes:

>>>
OK.  The power measurements indicate 30.47 kilowatts going into the motor.
Quick...  What is the power going into the Griggs device (and don't tell
me
that it is 30.57 kilowatts - the motor casing is hot to the touch).
<<<

Simple answer:  Who cares?  Griggs, Rothwell, et al have claimed that the
GG has a usable efficiency in excess of resistance heating (ie, 100%). 
From this standpoint, it doesn't really matter if this efficiency is
somehow due to some mystical effect that makes the electric motor more
than 100% efficient -- the claim is that the heat energy coming out of the
steam output is greater than the electrical energy going in, and that's
what should be checked first.

***IF*** this claim is borne out (or the GG even achieves 90 or 95% --
better than one can reasonably expect given the losses in the motor and
elsewhere) then it would be interesting to know (from an academic
standpoint) the kinetic energy input -- this would help us understand what
is going on.  However, the claim is made in terms of electrical input, and
trying to divine electrical input from rotational kinetic energy input
seems extraordinarily backwards.
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudendanhicks cudlnDanHicks cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.29 / Harry Conover /  Re: Orders of magnitude
     
Originally-From: conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Orders of magnitude
Date: 29 Nov 1994 03:30:41 GMT
Organization: The Internet Access Company

David R Davies (drd851@huxley.anu.edu.au) wrote:

: Ah! At last a counter coup. Now we might get to see the big guns. At
: long last the actual proof that CF is impossible.

God, I hope not.  Years ago Steve Jones and others speculated about the
existence of CF in certain natural processes, and threw out the gauntlet
for others.  Sadly, in almost ten years, little theoretical progress has 
been accomplished and no postive experimental have been documented as
confirmable and/or reproducible.

Is anyone discouraged or pessimistic?  I hope not.  Progress and discovery
take time, and if Steve's original hypothesis proves correct, a process
for achieving cold fusion will ultimately emerge.  (Whether CF will be
a viable source of practical energy is altogether another issue.) Should 
Steve's hypothesis be in error, all the hand wringing and ranting in the 
world won't make CF happen.

If and when it does happen, you likely won't read about it in the popular
media until some years later.  Real scientific breakthoughs are seldom
page one material...more often taking the form of a letter or paper in
Nature or Physical Review Letters.  Dull stuff, but stuff that can turn
the world around.

When it does happen, our current rash of 'Cold Fusion Experts' will go
the way of alchemists of past, with their fantastic claims and esoteric 
methods eclipsed by the progress of carefully conducted scientific inquiry.
Serendipity may play a role in CF, however, even serendipity is seldom useful
to those lacking an adequate knowledge foundation.

God, I do hope to see the realization of CF, but I suspect were going
remain in 'thinking cap' and 'drawing board' stage of inquiry for some time
to come. 

later...

                                  Harry C.
  


cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenconover cudfnHarry cudlnConover cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.28 / S TECHNOLOGIES /  Re: Arata paper in English
     
Originally-From: chilton@facom1.ch.intel.com (STRATEGIC INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Arata paper in English
Date: 28 Nov 1994 18:12 -0700
Organization: Intel Corporation

In article <joesheaCzIo9E.EwL@netcom.com>, joeshea@netcom.com (Joe Shea) writes...
>So why the hell don't you post it?
> 

Or, at least, would you please post it?  I would LOVE to read it.

Thanks,
	Court
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenchilton cudfnSTRATEGIC cudlnTECHNOLOGIES cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.28 /  DanHicks /  Re: Griggs power
     
Originally-From: danhicks@aol.com (DanHicks)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs power
Date: 28 Nov 1994 22:35:05 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

In article <3bbngu$gnf@char.vnet.net>, jnw@char.vnet.net (John N. White)
writes:

>>>
Considering the immense mass of the Aluminum rotor, a kilo or two might
not be missed. This could explain the excess heat for the short runs that
we have been given data for. It could also explain the claim of a 500
percent
burst.
<<<

I didn't think the rotor was that massive, but perhaps you are right. 
Then to put a bound on the problem let's assume (for example) that after
20% erosion of the rotor the effect would stop (since cavitation would
also stop).  So the test run would have to be long enough to produce more
excess energy than one might get from "burning up" 20% of the rotor. 
Either that or the test protocol must include weighing the rotor before
and after the test (and somehow cleaning the rotor prior to the post-test
weigh-in so that all sludge is removed -- can you suggest a simple yet
reliable cleaning procedure?).  Or (since Jed wants belt-and-suspenders)
both the 20% erosion run length and the weigh-in would be used.
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudendanhicks cudlnDanHicks cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.28 /  DanHicks /  Re: changes of science theory at 80 year intervals
     
Originally-From: danhicks@aol.com (DanHicks)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: changes of science theory at 80 year intervals
Date: 28 Nov 1994 22:45:21 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

In article <lproudfoot-2811941046310001@f606-1017-word-d3.hac.com>,
lproudfoot@msmail3.hac.com (Lew Proudfoot) writes:

<<<
In article <3ajdv5$see@news2.delphi.com>, SPROLES@news.delphi.com
(SPROLES@DELPHI.COM) wrote:

> I think that one theoristi said that the 80 year turnover rate is 
> directly related to the life time of currenly in vogue theorist (and
some 
> overlap for prize students).  Does anyone know the source for this
folklore?
> 
> Jude'
> 
Now this I have heard - frequently said in jest, without supporting data. 

And without a multi-page speculation attached.
Biggest examples are from nineteenth century physics, geology and
evolution.  The joke seems thin now, with ideas turning over so fast few
can keep up outside their direct area of expertise.
<<<

Ah, but ideas don't really "turn over" that fast.  Rather, old ideas are
elaborated and reelaborated ad nausium in an attempt to explain retrograde
motion (when the retrograde motion isn't simply conveniently ignored). 
Truly new ideas really are quite rare.  The inability to "keep up" isn't
due to the appearance of new ideas, but rather to the ever-increasing
complexity of the old ones.
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudendanhicks cudlnDanHicks cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.29 / Jed Rothwell /  Re: Arata paper in English
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@CompuServe.COM>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Arata paper in English
Date: 29 Nov 1994 05:08:51 GMT
Organization: CFRA

STRATEGIC INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES <chilton@facom1.ch.intel.com> writes:
 
     "Or, at least, would you please post it?  I would LOVE to read it."
 
If you would LOVE to read it, then read it! What's stopping you? Contact the
publisher or the author, get a copy, and read it. I recommend it. It's a
fascinating high surface area technique not unlike Patterson's. (Patterson
agrees with me on that.) Very promising.
 
I do not "post" scientific papers. For one thing, that is a violation
of the copyright laws. Also it takes a lot of transcribing, which I don't do. 
Furthermore, almost all scientific papers include graphs, schematics, and 
formulas which cannot be reproduced in e-mail. You cannot understand what a 
paper is about just by reading the text. It is essential that you see the
graphs and look at the data carefully. The authors work hard on these papers
for months, for a good reason. There is no easy way to explain or understand
the issues.
 
I don't mind discussing a few interesting details of the Arata papers with
people who have read them carefully, but I will not do anyone's homework for
them or try to explain or summarize papers. I never do that. It is a waste 
of time and a terrible mistake. That is not how to do science. You must get
the facts from the author. You must read the paper carefully paragraph by 
paragraph, and figure out exactly what it means yourself, as best you can.
I sometimes think it is better for me when the papers are written in
Japanese and I have to look up some words and puzzle out the sentences a 
bit. It forces me to concentrate.
 
I should never have attempted to explain so much about the Griggs Gadget
here, since I see that so many people still have such impossible, weird, 
wacky ideas about it, what with multiple fluid inputs and outputs and 
disintegrating rotors it is a regular science fantasy bonanza. If the
people posting those messages would spend 15 seconds looking at the patent
or the sales literature or the article I wrote in "Cold Fusion" they would
see instantly that this speculation is claptrap and nonsense. It just proves
again that you must read *original source material* -- full papers, with all 
details spelled out, or you will blunder from one misconception to another,
and never learn anything.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.29 /  artki@kbbs.com /  Laser Fusion
     
Originally-From: artki@kbbs.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Laser Fusion
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 94 00:28:07 EST
Organization: KBBS - Internet & Files via Satellite   


   I was preparing to ask some questions about Laser Fusion in this
group when I noticed somebody saying that this USENET is dedicated to
Cold Fusion.  If so, could somebody tell me what the appropriate group
is for Laser Fusion questions?

  If not, be prepared for an onslaught of questions! <g>

     Arthur in >---(oo)---> Hollywood
---
 ~ SPEED 1.40 [NR] ~


--
    [*]   Message Origin:  KBBS Los Angeles  (818) 886-0872   [*]
    [*]   68 Lines : WorldLink Chat : Files : Games : Match   [*]
    [*]   28.8kb & ISDN available.  For Info: info@kbbs.com   [*]
    [*]   list@kbbs.com    whatsnew@kbbs.com   ads@kbbs.com   [*]

cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenartki cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.29 / Dieter Britz /  Re: Griggs power
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <britz@alpha.kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs power
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 1994 08:49:18 +0100
Organization: DAIMI, Computer Science Dept. at Aarhus University



On 27 Nov 1994, John N. White wrote:

> danhicks@aol.com (DanHicks) writes:
> >                                            ...   Since no one has
> > suggested any reasonable mechanism by which chemical energy may be
> > generated in the system (in any significant amount),  ...
> 
> This is incorrect. As I recall, someone suggested that the aluminum
> could be reacting with the water to form Al(OH)3. Normally a protective
> coating forms on aluminum surfaces, but this coating could easily be
> disrupted with the conditions that exist in the Griggs device, in which
> case the aluminum surface would react fairly rapidly.
> 
> The heat of formation of Al(OH)3 is 305 kcal/mol. For H2O it's 68.3 kcal/mol.
> 305 - 3 * 68.3 gives a net 100 kcal/mol of Al.
> Al has 27 g/mol, or about 37 mol/kg. So reacting 1 kg of Al gives 3700 kcal.
> 3700 kcal * 4186.8 joule/kcal / (3.6e6 joule/kwh) gives 4.3 kwh/kg of Al.
> 
> Considering the immense mass of the Aluminum rotor, a kilo or two might
> not be missed. This could explain the excess heat for the short runs that

Aaargh. Once again, a farfetched attempt to explain that which doesn't need
explanation. We have had lots of these. It must first be established that
this free-lunch machine is indeed providing free lunches; Tom is going to
throw some light on this question. So far, we have only the word of a few
propagandists, who might stand to gain from it. I tend to go along with
Dale Bass: it's likely to be simple measurement error, or worse.

As for this Al explanation, you must be kidding. A few kg Al might not be
missed, but they'd be very obvious as pits on the surface. And how do know
that ultrasonics will easily disrupt the oxide film? My understanding is that
that film is pretty tenacious.

-- db

cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenbritz cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.29 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Orders of magnitude
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Orders of magnitude
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 1994 09:17:16 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <1994Nov27.064514.27078@rosevax.rosemount.com> bill@texan.ros
mount.com (William Hawkins) writes:
>What is difficult to understand is that such people do not seem
>to have any desire to improve their understanding.  They are
>quite happy telling those of us that _do_ understand, that we
> *don't* understand.  

That sounds a bit grandiose.  

>In this United States holiday of Thanksgiving, I am thankful that men
>such as Dick Blue, Dale Bass, Matt Kennel, and others still respond
>to the attempts to replace science with belief (I've only mentioned
>recent posters - Tom Droege and Dieter Britz are voices of reason
>when they show up).  

Much is science is belief. .. perhaps even mythological.  

I think science has a considerable distance to travel.  At the moment
me thinks science stands more on sticks or stilts than concrete or 
granite.   That's not to say it doesn't convey a certain solidity,
it just that it shouldn't be taken too seriously... just yet. .. perhaps
another millenium or two.  

>Best regards,
>Bill Hawkins
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc, Bx 1037 Prometheus II Ltd, College Park MD 20741-1037    |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+


cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.01 / Richard Blue /  Nuclear physics = collisions?
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Nuclear physics = collisions?
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 1994 01:13:23 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

David Davies repeats one of the old cold fusion cliches when he says
that nuclear physics experiments always involve the collision of
energetic particles.  As a result of this "limited" domain of investi-
gation, it is asserted, experimental results from the realm of nuclear
physics are not relevant.  At least that is what cold fusion advocates
would have us believe.

This perspective on experimental nuclear physics is basically incorrect.
Any argument that derives from such assertions is wrong, and use of
such arguments is but another sign of weakness in the fundamental case
for cold fusion.

Dave says that in a nuclear collision the two reacting nuclei fly
rapidly by each other whereas in cold fusion they don't.  What limit
would you put on the relative velocity between your candidate
reactants before you consider a  "collision picture" to be the
appropriate one?  I suggest thermal energies set a lower limit
that we need to consider to be sure we are in the same experimental
domain as cold fusion.

Do nuclear reactions occur at thermal energies, and have such reactions
been investigated in detail?  My answer is "yes" so perhaps you could
explain why such data is not a valid input to the cold fusion debate.
Consider, for example, the capture of thermal neutrons by nuclei
ranging from 1H to 238U.  There is plenty of experimental data in that
limited catagory, and I see no reason to ignore it all.

Are there other ways to study nuclear reaction processes and nuclear
states at very low relative velocities?  Yes, there is a very rich
field of investigation involving the use of inverse reaction at
arbitrarily low relative velocity between the reaction products.  For
example, if you use energetic photons to break up the 4He nucleus into
a proton and a triton or into neutron and a 3He you can make measurements
in which the two particles move away from each other at very low relative
velocity.  Why is data derived from such studies off limits in any
cold fusion discussion?

I don't think cold fusion advocates are being totally honest when they
say that experimental data has to be given full weight at the expense
of accepted theory.  What they are really asserting is that a selected
subset of experimental information is to considered and a large body
of other experimental results must be completely ignored.

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.01 / Richard Blue /  Jed's error
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Jed's error
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 1994 01:13:25 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Jed Rothwell has told us how the Eaton torque sensor was calibrated,
but he failed to mention anything concerning the accuracy of that
calibration leaving us free to speculate.

The essence of the calibration, as I understand it, is that you attach
a lever to the motor shaft and hang a weight on it.  Twenty pounds at
a distance of 30 inches gives a torque of 600 in-pounds so you set
the Eaton read-out to 600, and there you have it.  Now is that a
1% measurement, a 10% measurement, or off the wall?

Let's think about the distance determination.  How do you make a
measurement of the lever arm that is correct at the 1% level, i.e.
30 +/- 0.3 inches?  Don't forget the fact that one end point for
the measurement is not accessible directly.  It's at the center of
the shaft.  Now what do we have at the point where the weight is
attached?  Jed didn't say.

Speaking of weight, did you hear anyone mention a weightless lever?
I don't think so.  That means there is another torque involved isn't
there?  So let us think our way through this.  You attach the lever
without the 20 pounds and you zero the Eaton meter to null out the
torque due to the lever.  Then you hang the weight and adjust the
range to get a reading of 600 in-pounds.  Now you take of the weight
and the level so you are back at zero torque, but that is not what
the meter reads, is it?  I am guessing that you then rezero the
meter.

Well what effect does friction have through all of this?  If I apply
a torque to the motor shaft and then remove it does the torque really
go back to zero?  Somewhere I heard Jed say that the motor needs help
getting started sometimes so I suspect there is just a tiny bit of
starting torque required.

How many errors have been made up to this point, and we haven't
even started the experiment?

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.29 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Re: Arata paper in English
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Arata paper in English
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 1994 11:47 -0500 (EST)

Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@CompuServe.COM> writes:
 
-> I do not "post" scientific papers. For one thing, that is a violation
-> of the copyright laws. Also it takes a lot of transcribing, which I don't do
-> Furthermore, almost all scientific papers include graphs, schematics, and
-> formulas which cannot be reproduced in e-mail. You cannot understand what a
-> paper is about just by reading the text. It is essential that you see the
-> graphs and look at the data carefully. The authors work hard on these papers
-> for months, for a good reason. There is no easy way to explain or understand
-> the issues.
 
If you would send me a copy of this paper, and it does not have a copyright
restriction in it to prevent me from doing so, I would be happy to fax it to
whoever wishes a copy (US only though).
 
                                                                   Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.29 / Michael Mazur /  Re: Criminality/Ad hominem attacks by Mallove and Rothwell
     
Originally-From: mjmazur@acs.ucalgary.ca (Michael James Mazur)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Criminality/Ad hominem attacks by Mallove and Rothwell
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 1994 10:02:15 GMT
Organization: The University of Calgary


>> Jed blasts Steve Jones:
>> 
>>>What you are doing now is blocking progress. You are pretending -- yes,
>>>*pretending* -- that the heat is not real, or that it has no technical
>>>significance. Your behavior, in common with the behavior of the vast majority
>>>of other establishment scientists, is a God Damned moral abomination, an
>>>outrage, and a betrayal of science, religion, and humanity. By your inaction
>>>... and lots of other stuff deleted.
>>>- Jed
>> 
>> Great! I couldn't have said it better myself. Steve Jones, of all the 
>> incompetent bigots in the opposition to cold fusion research and development, 
>>... and still more deleted.

Maybe it's just me but, I really think that too many of you
people waste way too much time slamming the opposition. Who
really cares? Just everybody calm down, maybe spend a little time
doing some real research (instead of telling everyone of how your
facts are never disputed 'cause you're always right), maybe
publish a paper or two in a reputable journal, kick back a cool
coors sixteen ouncer, and, you know, just do something
productive.
If we can all be a little more open-minded maybe something will
get done. Somebody said that the experimental results will tell
the truth. yup, they will. so why don't you people play nice
and get some good, publishable, reproducable results.

thanks and have a nice day.

-mike

-- 

  Mike Mazur                
  mjmazur@acs1.ucalgary.ca  

cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenmjmazur cudfnMichael cudlnMazur cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.29 / Astrid Kuhr /  Looking for somebody at JET/UK
     
Originally-From: ICH561@DJUKFA11.BITNET (Astrid Kuhr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Looking for somebody at JET/UK
Date: 29 Nov 94 09:37:44 GMT
Organization: Forschungszentrum Juelich


Hello!

Is here somebody from JET/UK?
I am looking for an email-adr. of somebody who is working at JET.

Thanx in advance,
Regards, Astrid

--
a.kuhr@kfa-juelich.de
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenICH561 cudfnAstrid cudlnKuhr cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.29 / Iron Lung /  Islind of Stability?
     
Originally-From: bl220050@wvnvms.wvnet.edu (Iron Lung)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Islind of Stability?
Date: 29 Nov 94 14:03:46 EST

	I'm posting this for a friend.  He's trying to write a novel and 
he needs a bit of information (if it exists).  He remembers hearing about
the 'islind of stability' some 30 years ago.  He would like more info. on
this, esp. the atomic number of the 'islind'.  He's tried several places for
this data, but he can't find it anywhere.  Is is real or just from an old
late night sci-fi?

	Brian

cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenbl220050 cudfnIron cudlnLung cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.29 /  frdschlib@shrs /  about fusion reactor research in United States
     
Originally-From: frdschlib@shrsys.hslc.org
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: about fusion reactor research in United States
Date: 29 NOV 94 20:07:38 GMT
Organization: MIT PLASMA FUSION CENTER

Hello, my name is Doogie Kim.  I am a high school senior, and I am looking
for any recent article about fusion reactor researches in United States.
I need the informations for my position paper about the solutions of future
electricity problems.  I would like to receive about scienctic sides of
research as well as political sides such as number of researches in United
states, funds, how much have the researched done, etc.  I hope I can get
all the material as soon as possible and thank you for your prompt attention.

Doogie Kim

frdschlib@hslc.org
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenfrdschlib cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.29 / Jon Kogut /  Re: Orders of magnitude
     
Originally-From: jkogut@teal.csn.org (Jon Kogut)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Orders of magnitude
Date: 29 Nov 1994 21:10:04 GMT
Organization: Colorado SuperNet, Inc.

In article <3bbql0$17f@sundog.tiac.net>,
Harry H Conover <conover@max.tiac.net> wrote:
>
>ps.  Guys, get a clue.  Science intends to regain control of this 
>     newsgroup from the pseudoscientific nonsense posters.  Humanity ...

Please move this discusion to alt.arrogance.anthropomorphism.


-- 
		jkogut@csn.org			<Jon Kogut>
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenjkogut cudfnJon cudlnKogut cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Thu Dec  1 04:37:03 EST 1994
------------------------------
1994.12.01 / Dieter Britz /  CNF bibliography updates and archive retrieval, 1-Dec-94.
     
Originally-From: britz@kemi.aau.dk (Dieter Britz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CNF bibliography updates and archive retrieval, 1-Dec-94.
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 1994 14:39:14 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway


 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
This month we are deluged by patents, dominating this Update. Most of them are
Japanese, one of them a blatant steal, even naming the "Pons-Fleischmann-
effect". These people seem to be pretty hopeful of anything that might bring
about fusion: vibration, coating the back of the cathode (why?)alpha 
particles, oxygen (!) zapping in a salt melt, and silicon or borate (a US 
one). All are quite confident that they have the secret, so they'll no doubt
be rich. I have to say that none of the Japanese patents had "adsorb" for
"absorb", so they have got better.
As for real papers, well, we only have one new one; the Notoya. For some 
reason, although she inclines towards the Mills scenario (i.e. Ni cathode in
light water, fusion of p+K), she still expects tritium, which you might think
goes with P&F-style CNF. She reckons she has found it, too. The Russians are
older papers I have only just received and translated; no real exciting stuff
there. I have a stack of these but I am slow at it, doing it at home, a bit at
a time. Peter Glueck has offered to do it for me (he seems to know about 10
languages, amazing) but I want to plug along myself.
If you are a lert {:] you might notice a problem with the numbers; here we 
have three new papers, but the number increases only by 1. Last time, I found
a couple of doubles (again) and have chucked them out.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Current count:
-------------
 11 books
961 papers
162 patents
222 comment items
 86 peripherals
 20 conference procs(-to-be)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


Journal papers:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
#
Bushuev VS, Ginodman VB, Zherikhina LN, Kuznetsov SP, Lapushkin YuA,
Matvienko IP, Nikitenko AI, Perekrestenko AD, Saposhnikov NP, Tolokonnikov SM,
Tskhovrebov AM;
Trud. Ord. Lenin. Ord. Oktyab. Revol. Fiz. Inst. im. P.N. Lebedeva, Ross. 
Akad. Nauk 220 (1992) 89  (in Russian).
"Experiments in the recording of nuclear emissions by electrolysis of heavy 
water".
** Search for neutrons and gamma radiation, in three variants of electrolytic
cells, using small Pd foil 0.1 mm*2.5 cm^2 (0.3 g), a larger foil, 0.3 mm* 
30.4 cm^2 (11 g) and a Pd rod 10 mm dia., 90 mm long (86 g). The first two 
were electrolysed in 30% D2SO4, the rod in this as well as 7% LiOD, all in 
D2O. Neutrons were detected by a battery of 6 3He tubes around the cell, 
gammas by CsI(Na) scintillation detectors. The Pd was vacuum annealed at 
500-600 C for some h, and electrolysis was maintained for about 100 h. The 
small foil showed no radiation above background. The large samples showed some
irreproducible large neutron pulses, up to 4 times background; no gammas.
#..................................................................... Nov-94
Demidenko VS, Simakov VI;
Izv. Vysch. Uchebn. Zaved. Fiz. 36(10) (1993) 20  (in Russian).
"The state of deuterium and probability of cold nuclear fusion in solids".
** Theory. It is necessary to focus on electric fields in solids and their
effect on fusion, in particular band models. The metals Pd and Ti alloys (with
V, Mn, Co, Cu) were considered. The "muffin tin" model was tried, with various
electron shell configurations in the Ti atom. Tunnelling was considered, and
found most effective at low energies; but not sufficient in itself. The answer
might lie in zone (band-) models, and excited Wannier states, related to Bloch
wave functions (no real conclusions). Phase transitions may also increase
Coulomb screening sharply. In general, the high mobility of deuterons in
metals, and the application of external fields (pressure etc) might yield
several orders of magnitude in fusion rates, so that solids can favour fusion.
#..................................................................... Nov-94
Notoya R, Noya Y, Ohnishi T;  Fusion Technol. 26 (1994) 179.
"Tritium generation and large excess heat evolution by electrolysis in light 
and heavy water-potassium carbonate solutions with nickel electrodes".
** The authors believe that in a cell of light water, K2CO3 and a Ni cathode,
the excess heat observed arises from fusion of protons with alkali metal (K)
at the Ni surface. The authors believe tritium is also generated. Some
electrolysis runs, with durations from 6 to 26 h, are reported here; heat and
tritium were measured, the tritium by taking samples out of the electrolyte
after electrolysis. Some of the runs were done in heavy water. A table shows
that all runs resulted in excess heat, in one case 169%. Electrolysis runs
resulted in about an order of magnitude more tritium than in control
measurements with pure water (light and heavy). Some rough linear relations
were shown between tritium generated and excess heat. Less tritium was
generated than Ca (from the p+K fusion) and two possible fusion reactions are
suggested for tritium formation.  Nov-93/Sep-94 
#..................................................................... Nov-94


Patents:
^^^^^^^
#
Arahori T; Jpn. Kokai Tokkyo Koho JP 05,333,176; 02-Jun-92.
Cited in Chem. Abstr. 121: 215637 (1994).
"Electric generators using heavy water".
** "The chem. reaction which occurs in electrolysis of water when Pd is used
as a cathode is converted into elec. energy by a semiconductor. A small, quiet
elec. generator can be prepd. which is easy to carry". (Direct quote from CA).
#..................................................................... Nov-94
Crouch-Baker S, McKubre CH, Smedley SL, Tanzella F (EPRI Inc.);
PCT Int. Appl. WO 94 15,342, Dec-92.
Cited in Chem. Abstracts 121:189680 (1994).
"Apparatus for storing isotopes of hydrogen".
** "An electrolysis system for altering the storage capacity of a metal 
cathode for H isotopes has a d.c. source coupled between an anode and a 
cathode, with both electrodes at least partially immersed in an electrolyte. 
The current source drives elec. current through the electrolyte from the anode
to the cathode. The electrolyte is typically a soln. of LiOD and H3BO3 in D2O.
The metal cathode is typically Pd. The current flow through the cell causes 
the Pd to become loaded with B and D, which substantially increases the 
efficiency of excess heat generation. In an alternative version, the surface 
of the cathode is fabricated from an alloy of B in Pd." (Direct quote from 
CA).
#..................................................................... Nov-94
Doke H; Jpn. Kokai Tokkyo Koho JP 06 18,683, 03-Jul-92.
Cited in Chem. Abstr. 121:215639 (1994).
"Cylindrical plated vibrating electrodes for room-temperature nuclear fusion".
** "A room-temp. nuclear fusion material, such as Pd or Ni, is plated onto a 
Ni plate which is then used as a cathode in heavy water, and it is vibrated at 
a high speed using magnetostriction vibration to bring about nuclear fusion. 
By adjusting the amplitude of the vibration, the nuclear fusion can be 
controlled and the output power can be controlled. The probability of 
room-temp. nuclear fusion is promoted". (Direct quote from CA).
#..................................................................... Nov-94
Drexler J; PCT Int. Appl. WO 94 16,446, Jan-93.
Cited in Chem. Abstr. 121:165726 (1994).
"Self-catalyzed nuclear fusion of lithium-6 and deuterium using alpha 
particles".
** "A method and app. are described for nuclear fusion of 6Li and D ions at
ambient temp. yielding alpha-particles and thermal energy. Ion pairs of Li and
D are accumulated and densely packed into a metallic lattice, approaching each
other closely or combining into LiD mols. The alpha-particles are then emitted
into the lattice which have [sic] an energy sufficient to cause the nuclei of
the Li and D atoms to fuse by compressive interaction of their nuclei within
the lattice. Upon fusion, secondary high-energy alpha-particles are emitted
which cause addnl. fusions and alpha-particles [sic] emissions. In this
manner, a continuous cycle of fusions and high-energy alpha-particle emissions
is initiated, resulting in a self-sustaining nuclear fusion chain reaction
occurring at or near room temp." (Direct quote from CA). 
#..................................................................... Oct-94
Furuya C (Tanaka Precious Metal Ind);
Jpn. Kokai Tokkyo Koho JP 06,148,366; 30-Oct-92.
Cited in Chem. Abstr. 121: 240377 (1994).
"Encapsulation of heavy hydrogen and method for cold nuclear fusion".
** "A heavy hydrogen-absorbing metallic cathode (such as Pd alloy, Ti) is used 
to conduct electrolysis of heavy water. After heavy hydrogen is absorbed by 
the cathode, a barrier layer (such as Hg, Au, Ag, Cu, Sn, In, or Zn) is 
deposited on the cathode by electroless or electrochem. deposition. A local 
temp. difference is imposed at the cathode to bring about cold nuclear fusion. 
A high heavy hydrogen absorption state can be maintained and the cold nuclear 
fusion can be brought about easily". (Direct quote from CA).
#..................................................................... Nov-94
Furuya C (Tanaka Precious Metal Ind);
Jpn. Kokai Tokkyo Koho JP 06,160,560; 20-Nov-92.
Cited in Chem. Abstr. 121:240380 (1994).
"Electrolysis of heavy water, cold nuclear fusion, and extraction of the 
energy produced from cold nuclear fusion".
** "A barrier layer which does not allow permeation of heavy H is formed on 1
side of a pipe- or plate-shaped heavy H-absorbing alloy to form a cathode. A 
wire- or plate-shaped Pt is used as an anode. A heat-conducting medium is 
passed to or in contact with the barrier layer side of the cathode, and with 
control of the temp. heavy H is produced and absorbed on the other side of the 
cathode. Cold nuclear fusion is carried out by controlling the c.d. and the 
temp. at the barrier layer side during electrolysis, and excess heat is 
generated from the cathode with absorbed heavy H. The excess energy of the 
cathode generated by cold nuclear fusion is extd. from the barrier layer side 
by using the heat-conducting medium". (Direct quote from CA).
#..................................................................... Nov-94
Hotsuta M (Erionikusu Kk);  Jpn. Kokai Tokkyo Koho JP 06,167,585; 30-Nov-92.
Cited in Chem. Abstr. 121: 240381 (1994).
"Heat-generating apparatus using Pons-Fleischmann cold nuclear fusion effect".
** "The title app. comprises (1) a means to adsorb O with the generation of 
excess heat from the Pons-Fleischmann cold nuclear fusion effect by 
electrolysis of a heavy water-contg. electrolyte in an electrolytic cell 
contg. an O-adsorbing structure, a Pt or Ni anode, and a H-absorbing metal 
such as a Pd or Ti plate, 1 side of which is a cathode. The D2 which is 
generated is absorbed by the H-absorbing metal and (2) a means is provided for 
generating excess heat by the Pons-Fleischmann cold nuclear fusion effect by
forming a vacuum vessel at another side of the H-absorbing metal plate and 
colliding accelerated charged particles on the surface of the H-absorbing 
metal to bring about the Pons-Fleischmann cold nuclear fusion effect of the D2 
in the H-absorbing metal. A large amt. of heat can be obtained stably with 
good reproducibility, and the wasteful loss of D2 can be prevented". (Direct 
quote from CA).
#..................................................................... Nov-94
Itsuhonmatsu M, Suzuki M, Sogi T (Osaka Gas Co Ltd);
Jpn. Kokai Tokkyo Koho JP 06,180,382; 11-Dec-92.
Cited in Chem. Abstr. 121: 215644 (1994).
"Acceleration of cold nuclear fusion and palladium electrode for it".
** "In the acceleration, Pd contg. an alpha-decay-inducing nuclide absorbs D. 
The radionuclide may be 190Pt or 147Sm. The electrolysis showed high 
efficiency for heat generation". (Direct quote from CA).
#..................................................................... Nov-94
Itsuhonmatsu M, Suzuki M (Osaka Gas Co Ltd);
Jpn. Kokai Tokkyo Koho JP 06,160,559; 20-Nov-92.
Cited in Chem. Abstr. 121: 240379 (1994).
"Palladium electrodes used for cold nuclear fusion".
** "The greater part of the surface of a Pd electrode is coated (by electro-
deposition or vapor deposition) with a material (such as >=1 of Zn, Cd, Ni,
Hg, and their alloys) whose H-generating activity is lower than that of Pd. 
The D/Pd ratio in the electrode is increased and the heat presumably generated
from nuclear fusion is increased sharply". (Direct quote from CA).
#..................................................................... Nov-94
Kubota H;  Jpn. Kokai Tokkyo Koho JP 06,138,269; 27-Oct-92.
Cited in Chem. Abstr. 121: 240378 (1994).
"Room-temperature nuclear fusion materials for fusion reactors".
** "The title material is obtained by coating a compact film (e.g. Au) 
uniformly on the entire surface of a H-absorbing metal (e.g. Pd) contg. highly
absorbed heavy hydrogen (e.g. D). The reactor conprises a heater, the 
material, and a heating medium in a vessel. Heating efficiency is very high".
(Direct quote from CA).
#..................................................................... Nov-94
Kunimatsu K, Kawai M, Fukatsu H, Takagi S (Aisin Aw Co);
Jpn. Kokai Tokkyo Koho JP 06 75,072; 24-Jun-91.
Cited in Chem. Abstr. 121:240370 (1994).
"Pons/Fleischmann cold fusion effect apparatus".
** "The title app. comprises an electrolyte (KCl, LiCl, and LiD molten salts)
in a pressure container, an anode made from a D2-absorbing metal immersed in 
the molten salt, a cathode made from a porous catalyst such as Pd immersed 
partly in the molten salt, and a space above the molten salt surface. 
Compressed D2 gas is fed into the space and contact [sic] part of the cathode,
and a power source is connected to both electrodes. The electrolyte is a 
molten salt so that it can be operated at high temp., the energy efficiency is
high, and it is unnecessary to replace the cathode". (Direct quote from CA).
#..................................................................... Nov-94
Takagi M (Tokyo Electric Power Co);
Jpn. Kokai Tokkyo Koho JP 06 34,776; 15-Jul-92.
Cited in Chem. Abstr. 121: 215643 (1994).
"Room-temperature nuclear fusion heat generating apparatus, steam-generating 
apparatus, and power generating plants".
** "In a fusion heat-generating app. having a power source circuit for 
electrolysis connected between the anode and the cathode in D2O and absorbing 
D2 at the cathode, generating by applying a voltage to generate excess heat, a 
power circuit for excitation is installed sep. from the power source for 
electrolysis to increase the c.d. of the cathode to promote the absorption of 
the D2. In the same vessel, an electrolytic chamber and a steam-generating 
chamber are sepd. by a partition, the electrolysis chamber is sealed and 
contains D2O inside it, an anode and a cathode are immersed in the D2O and 
connected to the power source circuit for electrolysis. The steam-generating 
chamber accomodates light water and there is a water-supply port at its lower 
part and a steam outlet at its upper part and at least part of the partition 
is in the cathode to form a heat-exchange wall of the 2 chambers. Sep. from 
the power source circuit for electrolysis, a power source circuit for
excitation is connected to the cathode to form the steam-generating app. The 
plant comprises (1) the steam-generating app., (2) a steam turbine connecting
the water-supply port and a steam outlet at the steam-generating chamber via 
steam pipes and condensing pipes, and (3) a power generator operated by the 
steam turbine. Heat can be generated efficiently". (Direct quote from CA).
#..................................................................... Nov-94
Takahashi A, Iida T (Tanaka Precious Metal Ind);
Jpn. Kokai Tokkyo Koho JP 06 34,777; 17-Jul-92.
Cited in Chem. Abstr. 121: 215642 (1994).
"Method for anomalous generation of heat".
** "In injecting D into a Pd cathode plate by the electrolysis of an aq. soln 
comprising heavy water and/or light water, low c.d. electrolysis is carried 
out alternatively with high c.d. electrolysis to uniformly inject D into both 
the front and rear sides of the Pd plate to conc. D in the Pd metal lattice. 
It provides a method for generating abnormal heat with good reproducibility".
(Direct quote from CA).
#..................................................................... Nov-94
Wada N, Goto T (Nagoya Daigaku Gakucho);
Jpn. Kokai Tokkyo Koho JP 06 88,887; 20-Apr-92.
Cited in Chem. Abstr. 121: 240372 (1994).
"Room-temperature nuclear fusion".
** "The process comprises the steps of (1) prepg. a D2-absorbing material, (2) 
positioning the material, (3) activating the surface of the material, (4)
adhering a substance which can trigger room-temp. nuclear fusion on the 
activated surface, and (5) placing the material in a container and filling up 
the container with D2 to carry out room-temp. nuclear fusion. The trigger 
substance contains Si (such as Si, SiC, or silicone grease). The efficiency
of room-temp. nuclear fusion is improved". (Direct quote from CA).
#..................................................................... Nov-94

Retrieval of the archived files:
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. By FTP from vm1.nodak.edu (134.129.111.1).  Login anonymous, your email
   address is the password. CD FUSION and DIR FUSION.CNF* gets a listing. The
   general index is large. Use GET (ie. GET FUSION.CNF-PAP1). 
2. Via LISTSERV. You get a (large) index of the archives by sending an email  
   to listserv@vm1.nodak.edu, with a blank SUBJECT line, and the "message"   
   'index fusion'. To get any one of these files, you then send to the same   
   address the message, e.g., 
   get fusion 91-00487
   get fusion cnf-pap1         etc, according to what you're after.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
===========================================================

cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenbritz cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.30 / Dieter Britz /  Where to get Arata (and other) references
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <britz@alpha.kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Where to get Arata (and other) references
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 1994 09:18:54 +0100
Organization: DAIMI, Computer Science Dept. at Aarhus University


Sorry, my newsreader seems to have lost the posting by Robin Spaandock
(sorry if I misspell this). But the answer to your question of how to get
these Arata, or any other, papers is ask your nearest librarian. If they
really try, they can get anything.

-- db

cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenbritz cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.30 / Tom Droege /  Re: Islind of Stability?
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Islind of Stability?
Date: 30 Nov 1994 17:47:29 GMT
Organization: fermilab

In article <1994Nov29.140346.12231@wvnvms>, bl220050@wvnvms.wvnet.edu (Iron Lung) says:
>
>        I'm posting this for a friend.  He's trying to write a novel and 
>he needs a bit of information (if it exists).  He remembers hearing about
>the 'islind of stability' some 30 years ago.  He would like more info. on
>this, esp. the atomic number of the 'islind'.  He's tried several places for
>this data, but he can't find it anywhere.  Is is real or just from an old
>late night sci-fi?
>
>        Brian
>

There have been several articles in "Scientific American" over the
years on this.  It may even show on some modern periodic tables.  
There are charts plotting atomic number vs atomic weight with all
the observed combinations.  The "island" is clearly visible as I
recall on such a chart.

Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.30 /  izarra@centre. /  Data for air (O2 and N2)
     
Originally-From: izarra@centre.univ-orleans.fr ()
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Data for air (O2 and N2)
Date: 30 Nov 1994 10:01:12 GMT
Organization: CITU - Universite d'Orleans - FRANCE

Hello

I am looking for numerical data that could give me
the mean free path of electrons in air, for atmospheric
pressure, and for temperatures lower than 10000 K (roughly
lower than 1 eV).

Typically, I know that this subject doesn't interest fusion,
but I don't know where to find these DATA.

Thanks.
Please answer at : izarra@centre.univ-orleans.fr

Charles de IZARRA
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenizarra cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.01 / JC Halstead /  CERN Energy Amplifier paper
     
Originally-From: halstead@nbn.com (JC Halstead)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CERN Energy Amplifier paper
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 1994 18:45:11 GMT
Organization: Bechtel Corp.

I'm looking for a CERN paper, CERN/AT/93-47 (1993), by F. Carminati (et
al) titled "An Energy Amplifier for cleaner and in exhaustible Nuclear
Energy Production drive by a Particle Beam Accelerator."  If you have
please reply and we can discuss transmission.

Also, I can get to CERN on WWW but can't access any of their data or
papers.  If you have a handle on this, I'd appreciate some enlightenment.

Thanks in advance for your consideration.

-JC, 12/1
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenhalstead cudfnJC cudlnHalstead cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.01 / A Plutonium /  Re: November issue of FUSION TECHNOLOGY, a summary
     
Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,alt.sci.physics.plutonium
Subject: Re: November issue of FUSION TECHNOLOGY, a summary
Date: 1 Dec 1994 18:48:58 GMT
Organization: PLutonium Atom Foundation

In article <browe-0112940020300001@192.0.2.1>
browe@netcom.com (William J. Rowe) writes:

> The propose reaction diagramed above ought to have an extremely small
> probability of happening. It strains credibility way past the breaking
> point. It is far, far more likely there has been an error somewhere.

  There was no error. And, as I claimed in 1991 that there are atoms of
X+1 atomic number in spent electric wires, filaments or heating coils,
within my patent of Spontaneous Neutron Materialization.
  When you come onto the real physics truth, it surprizes all of us.
  I must now, with the above confirmed experimental evidence revise
upwards of not only Spontaneous Neutron Materialization, and
Spontaneous Alpha Particle Materialization, but also, "Spontaneous
Spontaneous Fission Reaction Materialization". This last term comes
from "Spontaneous Fission", and since I do not want the word
"spontaneous" repeated, what I will call this is "Spontaneous Fusion".
The radioactive processes of neutron decay, alpha decay, and
spontaneous fission are reversible processes.
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.01 /  GeorgeRW /  Re: November issue of FUSION TECHNOLOGY, a summary
     
Originally-From: georgerw@aol.com (GeorgeRW)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: November issue of FUSION TECHNOLOGY, a summary
Date: 1 Dec 1994 07:40:15 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

In article <USE2PCB726535964@brbbs.brbbs.com>, mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com
(MARSHALL DUDLEY) writes:

 
>I think you missed the decimal on this one.  20.4% sounds more
reasonable.

No, I did not miss the decimal point, O18 is 0.204% of total Oxygen.

The oxygen was bubbled thru the water and there apparently was no other
special equipment.

As regards the O18 in the atmospheric oxygen that was bubbled thru the
deioinized water, the deionized water is free of dissolved impurities from
the point of view of the feed source, and I feel that it is proper to
still consider it deionized even after it either absorbs air naturally (
O2 ), or if  oxygen is bubbled thru it. Under natural conditions the
deionized water will absorb quantities of CO2 that will disassociate and
change the chemistry ( pH ) of the initially pure water ( 18 Megohm ).

Finally, as for the small chance that two O18's contact 2 carbons, I have
no comment.

 
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudengeorgerw cudlnGeorgeRW cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.01 / I Johnston /  Re: Griggs power
     
Originally-From: ianj@castle.ed.ac.uk (I Johnston)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs power
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 1994 11:30:36 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

Matt Kennel (mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu) wrote:
: I Johnston (ianj@castle.ed.ac.uk) wrote:
: : PS These Georgian mechanical engineers must be pretty laid back. After
: : all, they have just inspected a device and decided that it violates the
: : various established laws of physics and offers humanity a cheap, safe
: : energy source for ever and they ... don't say anything about it. Me,
: : personally, I'd get quite excited.

: But they haven't actually offered humanity a cheap safe energy
: source yet.  It's a source of heat, but still a net thermodynamic
: consumer of power.

But remember in test runs they can easily get 500% efficiency. And the
steam is superheated too ... it shouldn't be too hard to get a turbine to
drive the gadget with an efficiency of 20%. And ... bingo!

Ian
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenianj cudfnI cudlnJohnston cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.30 / Rich Hawryluk /  TFTR Update November 30, 1994
     
Originally-From: rhawryluk@pppl.gov (Rich Hawryluk)
Newsgroups: pppl.tftr.news,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: TFTR Update November 30, 1994
Date: 30 Nov 1994 15:09:54 -0500
Organization: Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory

Status  (November 30th. 1994)


Detailed analysis of shot 80539 which produced a maximum DT fusion power of
10.7 MW is continuing with many good TRANSP runs available to compare with
the data.

During the week of Nov. 14th, two DT experiments to study alpha driven TAE
were performed.

In collaboration with Columbia University, S. Sabbagh and G. Navratil ran
DT experiments at high beta poloidal with high q(0) to destabilize the
alpha driven TAE instability. As the power was increased, an increase in
the amplitude of the Alfven range of frequencies was observed. The mode
number was measured to be n=0, which is similar to neutral beam TAE
activity driven in DD plasmas. This data is being studied further at
present.

Another DT experimental proposal to study alpha driven TAE activity was
carried out in collaboration with Fusion Physics and Technology (FP&T) and
D. Spong from ORNL. The objective here was to obtain a high q(0)
approaching a reversed shear configuration in the plasma core, which has a
predicted lower threshold for the alpha driven TAE activity. This
experiment has observed an increase the Alfven range of frequencies during
DT operation. However, here again the toroidal mode number was n=0, which
is not the signature of an alpha driven TAE mode. The experimental results
are being discussed with the Theory Division and a more detailed analysis
will be available soon.


Future Activities

The week of Nov. 21st was the start of an ICRF campaign. This ICRF campaign
will continue for the next two weeks and will study second harmonic tritium
heating and mode conversion heating and current in D-T plasmas.

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




_________________________________________________________________________
R. J. Hawryluk
rhawryluk@pppl.gov
PPPL - LOB 325
Phone:  (609) 243-3306
Fax:    (609) 243-3248
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenrhawryluk cudfnRich cudlnHawryluk cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.30 / I Johnston /  Re: Griggs power
     
Originally-From: ianj@castle.ed.ac.uk (I Johnston)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs power
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 1994 10:31:40 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

Jed Rothwell (72240.1256@CompuServe.COM) wrote:
: ianj@castle.ed.ac.uk (I Johnston) writes:
:  
:      "And let us not forget any power going in along the shaft connecting
:      motor and pump as heat flow."
:  
: And let us not forget the Second Law of thermodynamics, which prevents this
: from occuring. Here, repeat after me: Heat cannot of itself go from one body
: to a hotter body. The GG is much *hotter* than the other bodies in the room, 
: including the electric motor, and the shaft, and the dynamometer. Also, 
: remember that the electric motor is now connected to the dynamometer, which
: is in turn connected to the GG.

OK, but lets see some measurements. Are you _sure_ that the shaft (not
the housing) at the gadget end is hotter than the shaft (not the
housing) at the motor end.

:  
: Details, details. . . and those pesky physical laws keep popping up!
:  

But my dear chap, one good experiment can set aside every physical law
every devised, can it not. After all, they're just theories, and one
good experiment can demolish a theory.
 
:  
:      "Ideally there should be a good thermal barrier in the drive train."
:  
: Yeah. Like maybe, uh. . . the dynamometer? Hmmmm? 
:  

Details, please.

:  
:      "Interesting, isn't it, that the only detail to emerge of the claimed
:      industrial applications of these machines (they've been in service for
:      years, remember) is that they are used for short term temperature
:      boosting - not steady state operation."
:  
: This "detail" has emerged in your mind alone, Ian. It is a fabrication.
: If you make up details as you go along, you can prove any damn conclusion
: you like. Interesting, isn't it?

Did anyone save the post where one of the proponents of this device
claimed that the main use in industrial applications was to supplement
for short periods the heat output of an existing heating system?

And Jed, darling, if we're going to descend to this sort of level...

* I think you are lying about the existence of industrial applications

* I think you are lying about the results of long term (steady state
  tests)

Ian

PS These Georgian mechanical engineers must be pretty laid back. After
all, they have just inspected a device and decided that it violates the
various established laws of physics and offers humanity a cheap, safe
energy source for ever and they ... don't say anything about it. Me,
personally, I'd get quite excited.
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenianj cudfnI cudlnJohnston cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.30 / Robert Heeter /  Re: Laser Fusion
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Laser Fusion
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 1994 21:24:45 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

In article <017433CTOOWKDLCBKDFW@kbbs.com> , artki@kbbs.com writes:
>    I was preparing to ask some questions about Laser Fusion in this
> group when I noticed somebody saying that this USENET is dedicated to
> Cold Fusion.  If so, could somebody tell me what the appropriate group
> is for Laser Fusion questions?

This is very definitely the right place to be for Laser Fusion
questions, although you've probably noticed that most of
the traffic is on Cold Fusion.  But there are a lot of conventional
fusion researchers lurking around, and your questions will get
answered if you ask nicely. ;)

>   If not, be prepared for an onslaught of questions! <g>

Fire away!

(Note:  I'm trying to build up the Conventional Fusion FAQ
Laser/Inertial fusion section, so the more questions get
asked, the more info I'll collect, and the better it will be.)

***************************
Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University
Maintainer of the Conventional Fusion FAQ
As always, I represent only myself, and not PPPL
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.30 /  GeorgeRW /  Re: November issue of FUSION TECHNOLOGY, a summary
     
Originally-From: georgerw@aol.com (GeorgeRW)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: November issue of FUSION TECHNOLOGY, a summary
Date: 30 Nov 1994 07:45:08 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

In article <3bgfdd$n9a@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>,
Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:

> >   These newsgroups are really good at giving a summary or recap of
> > articles in technical journals. Dartmouth does not receive Fusion
> > Technology. So I was wondering if someone could give some summary or
> > details of the two articles concerning the appearance of iron in
carbon
> > arc, provided, if they were published in the Nov issue. Thanks in
> > advance.

In response, there were two articles on the production of iron-56 ( ? )
from a carbon arc in deionized water. Both articles spoke of using carbon
rods which were struck under water and maintained at 5 plus amperes. 

The supposed reaction from the Bockis article is:

    6C12 + 6C12 + 8O18 + 8O18   ->  26Fe56 + 2He4.

The analysis of the crud left over from the rods does not conclusively
show that Fe56 is the only nuclide of iron being produced. The authors of
both papers seem to understand this. The Bockis paper strictly mentions
that the reaction apparently does not occur unless O2 is in the water, the
reaction does not occur when N2 is (?) bubbled through the water, to the
exclusion of O2!

It is important to note that excess energy was apparently observed in one
of the experiments from what I remember. The natural percentage of O18 in
atmospheric 
air is 0.204%.

Need more info, let me know, and I'll dig up my copies of the articles.
George Wisniewski



cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudengeorgerw cudlnGeorgeRW cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.30 /  nachtrieb@brig /  ALCATOR C-MOD WEEKLY HIGHLIGHTS, 19941129
     
Originally-From: nachtrieb@bright.pfc.mit.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: ALCATOR C-MOD WEEKLY HIGHLIGHTS, 19941129
Date: 30 NOV 94 16:25:06 GMT
Organization: MIT PLASMA FUSION CENTER

		   Alcator C-MOD Weekly Highlights
			    Nov. 28, 1994

Plasma operation is continuing on Alcator C-MOD. Due to the
[Thanksgiving] holiday, only three run days were scheduled last
week. Nevertheless, excellent progress was made.

Following Monday's run, during which standard tokamak plasmas were
produced in the inner-wall limiter configuration, we began setting up
diverted discharges.  On Tuesday, 800 kA lower single null diverted
discharges similar to those run during June of this year were
re-established. The re-start mini-proposal was declared completed.

Wednesday's run was devoted to a new mini-proposal (MP#065), to
develop orthogonal control techniques for the plasma shape. The
plasmas were lower single null, similar to those run on Tuesday. Good
progress was made on this task. The orthogonal controllers for plasma
current and R and Z centroid were installed and tuned up. Those for
inner gap, and R and Z location of the active x-point were installed
and seem to work correctly, but not completely optimized. The direct
current control on all PF (Poloidal Field) coils (except for EF4,
External Field Coil 4) was turned off during the portion of the shot
for which the shape controlers were active. Controllers for the
position of the upper x-point were installed, but not yet tuned
up. This needs to be completed and a more thorough exercising of the
control to demonstrate orthogonal behavior must be carried out to
complete this experiment. Once this is accomplished, development of
new equilibria should be greatly simplified.

In the course of Wednesday's run, several ohmic H-mode transitions
were obtained. These shots were well diverted with B=5.3 Tesla and
density greater than 1e20/m^3.  No special wall conditioning had been
done prior to these discharges.

Several disruptions were produced during this week's operation. The
new halo current diagnostics, including the re-designed divertor
shunts and the new segmented toroidal rogowski coil, are operational
and the data is being analyzed. Initial indications point to a
significant n=1 component in the halo currents.

Diagnostics are continuing to come on-line. The bolometer arrays, Moly
monitor, and the McPherson UV (Ultraviolet) spectrometer are now
operational. The ECE (Electron Cyclotron Emission; use to measure
temperature profiles) Michaelson electron temperature diagnostic was
on-line for plasma operation, with calibration being carried out
today.

Progress is also being made on the ICRF (Ion Cyclotron Resonance
Frequency; heating mechanism) system. The #1 transmitter has produced
2 MW for a one second pulse into a dummy load. The external resonant
loops for both the D- and E-port antennas have been installed.

As part of our ongoing collaboration with scientists from Los Alamos
National Laboratory, Glenn Wurden visited C-Mod from Nov. 20 through
Nov. 23. He came to discuss the details of an experiments planned for
CY (Calendar Year) '95 in which a fast CCD (Charge Coupled Device)
camera will be used used to view various phenomena, e.g. pellet
ablation, disruptions, etc. In addition, for this visit he brought an
IR (Infrared) TV camera which we set up to view the inner wall. In two
days of running we were able to observe the following: 1) During the
shot there was plasma light emitted in the wavelength band which the
camera viewed (~2 to 3.5 microns). This is probably due to atomic
hydrogen emission. 2) A few seconds after the shot the temperature of
inner wall tiles increased by a few degrees C. While the magnitude is
understandable, the delay is still not understood. 3) The IR TV images
showed clearly a tile which we knew to have poorer thermal contact
with the wall. They also showed that the leading edges of the tiles
were hotter than the rest of the surface.

Ben Welch is visiting this week from the University of Maryland. His
high resolution spectroscopy diagnostic is now installed and
operational.

Dr. Earl Marmar is in Russia this week for a meeting of the ITER
(International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor) diagnostics group.


cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudennachtrieb cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.30 / A Plutonium /  Re: November issue of FUSION TECHNOLOGY, a summary
     
Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: November issue of FUSION TECHNOLOGY, a summary
Date: 30 Nov 1994 00:01:49 GMT
Organization: Plutonium Atom Foundation

In article <3b3ddl$s12@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:

> >   These newsgroups are really good at giving a summary or recap of
> > articles in technical journals. Dartmouth does not receive Fusion
> > Technology. So I was wondering if someone could give some summary or
> > details of the two articles concerning the appearance of iron in carbon
> > arc, provided, if they were published in the Nov issue. Thanks in
> > advance.
> > 
> > -------------------------
> > From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
> > Newsgroups:
> > sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.
> > physics
> > Subject: ENGIN#5: RADIOACTIVE SPONTANEOUS NEUTRON MATERIALIZATION RSNM
> > Date: 8 Oct 1994 02:21:58 GMT
> > Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
> > Lines: 59
> > Message-ID: <374vo6$ldv@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
> > 
> > In article <3635nj$2o4@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
> > Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium) writes:
> > 
> > >   I have been informed that in the November issue of FUSION TECHNOLOGY
> > > will have two articles on the appearance of iron, produced in a carbon
> > > arc under water. The original researcher in this area was a person by
> > > the name of George Oshawa.
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.29 /  Contest /  cmsg cancel <25.63.5000@datanet.com>
     
Originally-From: contest@datanet.com (Contest)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cmsg cancel <25.63.5000@datanet.com>
Date: 29 Nov 94 20:22:33 GMT
Organization: DNIS * Palm Springs, CA * Via Modem Call: (619) 864-1468        

Mass spam cancelled by news@uunet.uu.net.
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudencontest cudlnContest cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.30 / Jed Rothwell /  Re: Griggs power
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@CompuServe.COM>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs power
Date: 30 Nov 1994 02:28:14 GMT
Organization: CFRA

ianj@castle.ed.ac.uk (I Johnston) writes:
 
     "And let us not forget any power going in along the shaft connecting
     motor and pump as heat flow."
 
And let us not forget the Second Law of thermodynamics, which prevents this
from occuring. Here, repeat after me: Heat cannot of itself go from one body
to a hotter body. The GG is much *hotter* than the other bodies in the room, 
including the electric motor, and the shaft, and the dynamometer. Also, 
remember that the electric motor is now connected to the dynamometer, which
is in turn connected to the GG.
 
Details, details. . . and those pesky physical laws keep popping up!
 
 
     "Ideally there should be a good thermal barrier in the drive train."
 
Yeah. Like maybe, uh. . . the dynamometer? Hmmmm? 
 
 
     "Interesting, isn't it, that the only detail to emerge of the claimed
     industrial applications of these machines (they've been in service for
     years, remember) is that they are used for short term temperature
     boosting - not steady state operation."
 
This "detail" has emerged in your mind alone, Ian. It is a fabrication.
If you make up details as you go along, you can prove any damn conclusion
you like. Interesting, isn't it?
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.01 / Dieter Britz /  Re: Laser Fusion
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <britz@alpha.kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Laser Fusion
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 1994 09:16:00 +0100
Organization: DAIMI, Computer Science Dept. at Aarhus University



On Tue, 29 Nov 1994 artki@kbbs.com wrote:

> 
>    I was preparing to ask some questions about Laser Fusion in this
> group when I noticed somebody saying that this USENET is dedicated to
> Cold Fusion.  If so, could somebody tell me what the appropriate group
> is for Laser Fusion questions?
> 
>   If not, be prepared for an onslaught of questions! <g>
> 
>      Arthur in >---(oo)---> Hollywood
> ---

We old-timers like to remind the others from time to time that this group
started as a result of the 'cold fusion' revelations, back in 1989, so
historically speaking, some of us feel that this is what the group is all
about. We do realise that it might as well embrace any other kind of fusion,
so we don't mind tokamaks, spheromaks, inertial fusion etc. We skeptics, in
fact, expect the group to focus more and more on these non-cold topics, as
'cold fusion' dies a slow death.
The reason we are at times a bit stroppy about all this is that occasionally
there is a suggestion, from a relative newcomer, to chuck out 'cold fusion'
into a special new group. We were here first.

- db

cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenbritz cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.01 / A Plutonium /  Re: The Annenberg/CPB Collection THE MECHANICAL UNIVERSE and   
     
Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag
sci.bio,sci.chem,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The Annenberg/CPB Collection THE MECHANICAL UNIVERSE and   
Date: 1 Dec 1994 00:01:33 GMT
Organization: Plutonium College

In article <3bdqn1$44n@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:

>   The music of this series is exceptional. The portrayal of the work
> and life of Tesla, Ben Franklin, Ampere, Volta, Tycho Brahe and Kepler
> were excellent.
> Those portrayals are hard to improve on, except, I think, more should
> have been said about Tesla. And let me mention a weakness. Both
> Einstein and Newton are over-billed. Poincare discovered Special
> Relativity and Lorentz worked out the math, and in fact, Fitzgerald
> deserves more credit. I roughly estimate that only 15 minutes and no
> more should be devoted to Einstein. And, a whole 1/2 hour should be
> devoted to Schrodinger, Debroglie, and Dirac each.
>   Another weakness, which will be ironed out in the new edition of
> Mechanical Universe. That is, Newton is overbilled. Newton did not
> discover the inverse square law of gravity. I estimate that only 1/2 be
> devoted to Newton. And, where Newton is over-billed, Maxwell is
> underbilled.

  I was in a rush in writing the above. 
  I think that the Mechanical Universe series will be revised and
updated periodically, just as physics college textbooks are under
steady revision and updating.
  In the future, the series name will be changed to that of The Quantum
Mechanical Universe. And, further in the future it will be called The
Quantum Mechanical Atom Totality. If the series has 100 hours of
showtime, then 5 hours will be spent on me alone. One hour should be
spent on Leucippus, Democritus, Epicurus and Lucretius, but mostly on
Democritus. Keep the same the movie of Kepler and Brahe, Ben Franklin,
Faraday, Tesla, Maxwell, Ampere, Michelson, all of which were excellent
in The Mechanical Universe. However, in the future, all of the physics
Plutonium Atom Prizewinners will be mentioned in the series.
  The time allotment given to Newton will be only 1 hour. The time
allotment given to Einstein will be no more than 1/2 hour. Why? Because
it was Poincare who discovered Special Relativity and it was Lorentz
who worked out the math. All that Einstein did for SR was to rehash
what Poincare did. Poincare published his SR long before Einstein
published his. The earliest date of world publication goes the victor.
   I quote from Feynman Lectures vol 1, page 15-3,  "Poincare, then
proposed that all the physical laws should be of such a kind that they
remain unchanged under a Lorentz transformation. In other words, we
should change, not the laws of electrodynamics, but the laws of
mechanics. "
   In fact, on reading Poincare's ideas on SR, gave Einstein his ideas
of pushing further those of Poincare.
   It is an injustice to Poincare to give Einstein SR. And the only
reason that Einstein has SR, is because Einstein had such a good public
relations press in back of him.
   No more than 1/2 hour for Einstein because, by the end of this
century, within 5 years, GR will no longer exist as a theory. So, what
does that leave Einstein in physics. It leaves him with the
photoelectric effect and the equation e= mcc.
   Newton should be downplayed. It was Hooke who discovered the inverse
square law of gravitation. No more than 1 hour for Newton.
   There should be a full 1 hour for Born, Heisenberg and Jordan. A
full 1 hour for Schrodinger and his equation. A full 1 hour to Dirac
and his equation.
   Mention Aristarchus. And the new series will have 2 hours devoted to
Archimedes I, because, physics starts with Archimedes, not Newton, nor
Galileo, but rather, physics starts with Archimedes. Archimedes II
unified physics, math, chemistry, and biology.
   The history of the atomic theory, in the distant future, will mean
the same as the history of science.
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.30 / mitchell swartz /  Reply to Dick Blue (was "Energetic Particles")
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Reply to Dick Blue (was "Energetic Particles")
Subject: Reply to Mitchell Swartz
Subject: Energetic particles?, you wrote:
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 1994 05:35:12 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <9411281701.AA37257@pilot1.cl.msu.edu>
Subject: Reply to Mitchell Swartz
Richard A Blue (blue@pilot.msu.edu) writes:

=db We have reached agreement to two key points in this discussion.  We agree
=db that the conversion of the energy from a nuclear reaction into lattice
=db heat must involve the emission of energetic "particles". 

   As corrected by Jim Carr (Message-ID: <3b7im2$mvr@ds8.scri.fsu.edu>),
this depends upon your definition of 'energetic'.


=db    The experimental
=db results which you accept further seem to indicate that these particles
=db must be nonionizing.

   Now 'may include'   does not equal  (   =/=  )   'must be'. 
    Right, Dick?


=db     That, in turn, implies that either they aren't
=db energetic enough to ionize or there is no coupling between these
=db particles and the atomic electrons.  I think that rules out energetic
=db photons and charged particles.   I would consider neutral partcles
=db such as neutrons, but I believe you don't want to consider that
=db alternative.  All you mention is millielectronvolt phonons.  Is that
=db really all we have to consider?

  Dick, you are shifting the sand to fit your anti-scenario.
First, I noted that the particles might include phonons.
The output reactions are apparently not limited to that because,
as you are aware, the word neutronpenic was already suggested here
to include the possibility of ultra-ultralow level neutron emission.
And that is clearly in contrast to 'aneutronic'.  Right?


=db The other point you now seem to buy into is that the time scale appropriate
=db for the decay of the excited nucleus is a significant parameter in the
=db determination of what processes can possibly be involved.  Are we now
=db in agreement  that a switch from a nanosecond time scale to say
=db the scale of 10^-20 seconds will make a difference as to what the
=db energy transfer mechanism can possibly be?  You won't just blow that
=db away as some unproven theoretical concept now will you?  I do also note
=db that you suggest that a microsecond would be more comfortable from your
=db point of view.

  Moi?     More shifting sand of your own creation, eh, Dick?
First, the use of decay limitation was brought up by you and is a
good point.   Also brought up by you was the time
scale.  YOU mentioned microsecond, didn't you?   

    In Message-ID: <9411191638.AA40373@pilot1.cl.msu.edu>
Subject: Energetic particles?, you wrote:
  =db  Now we can begin to place some quantitative limits, based on experimental
  =db  observations and basic physics, on the fusion process.  These numbers
  =db  have all been given before.  Per watt of excess heat there must be
  =db  something like 10^12 or 10^13 fusion events per second in a total
  =db  sample population of perhaps 10^20 to 10^22 candidate nuclei. 
  =db  From
  =db  that I conclude that in any time interval shorter than a microsecond
  =db  only a very small fraction of the population is involved.  You pick
  =db  a number you like.

  OK Dick?   Got that?  You mentioned microsecond. Therefore your 
conclusions are on quicksand in this matter.

  In any case, from my understanding one might infer some understanding
of the actual time for emission from the width of the
signal in the frequency domain.  OK?  Dick.  
  Do you agree?   Can you think of some other ways of determining
this  parameter?

     Where is your actual data to support your numbers which now range
from micro- to nano-picoseconds, Dick?      Thanks in advance.
[It appears Dick may be shifting the range for one apparent purpose.]

=db Now, to respond to your request regarding energy level diagrams.  I
=db don't think a picture is needed.  You should be able to visualize
=db blank space without my transmitting a GIF that consists of two lines
=db with blank space between them.  I think I can describe that adequately
=db using ASCII transmission.  If you will allow me to run the energy scale
=db sideways the energy level diagram from 4He looks something like this:
=db 
=db      ground state                                     1st excited state
=db           |                                                |
=db           0                                               20 MeV
=db 

  No problema with the  ascii-easy 'landscape approach'.   Now
just add in the appropriate selection rules including isospin conservation
if you wish, and of course, the other states.  


=db I guess I also need to elborate on my ramblings concerning the
=db effect of strong perturbations with regard to the opening of
=db decay pathways.  If you accept my picture of the 4He energy
=db level diagram with a very low number of excited states that
=db participate in the required transistion, then there do exist
=db selection rules that limit how a given state can decay, i.e.
=db photon emission can be suppressed as one possibility. 
=db      (deleted)   For example, up in
=db the neighborhood of that 20 MeV excited state there are
=db really several states.  Some of those states can decay by
=db photon emission but some would rather break up into two
=db deuterons. 

  This is what I was getting at with the energy diagram, OK?


=db   If I turn on the perturbation machine I would
=db expect more mixing between those states which opens them
=db up to every possible decay mode, I think.  That is what
=db I was getting at. 

  Perturbation machine, indeed.  That might span quite
a range.    ;-)X        Could you be more specific?


=db   Any sort of perturbation would tend to
=db remove selection rule limitations rather than to bring
=db new limits to bear.  If there are no selection rules to
=db prevent it the fastest process wins, right? 

  True.   However, all the selection rules
may not all be lifted at the same time.
 [Metachronous versus synchronous]
Or do you think they must?
How does that fit into your picture Dick?
What actually is your image of the background, Dick,
and include coupling with diffusion?

   In summary your arguments are the same old anemic ones,
and so far unfortunately still void of supporting data or
rigorous argument proving your TB-case.

  But since hope springs eternal we continue to await your 
"proof" of your belief on these matters.

   Best wishes.
      - Mitchell Swartz  (mica@world.std.com)


cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.30 / John White /  Re: Griggs power
     
Originally-From: jnw@char.vnet.net (John N. White)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs power
Date: 30 Nov 1994 22:30:15 -0500
Organization: Vnet Internet Access, Inc. - Charlotte, NC. (704) 374-0779

Dieter Britz <britz@alpha.kemi.aau.dk> writes:
> Aaargh. Once again, a farfetched attempt to explain that which doesn't need
> explanation. We have had lots of these. It must first be established that
> this free-lunch machine is indeed providing free lunches;

In order to show that the machine is providing free lunches, one needs to
consider all possible ways that the lunches might not be free, or might
not be lunches.

The rotor will corrode and produce heat. The question is whether the rate
is significant compared to the amount of excess heat. It is better to
find out by weighing the rotor before and after the run than to assume
that the answer is no.

>                                       ... I tend to go along with
> Dale Bass: it's likely to be simple measurement error, or worse.

My prime suspect is the measurement of the input power, but I don't want
to assume that and to disregard other possibilities.

> As for this Al explanation, you must be kidding. A few kg Al might not be
> missed, but they'd be very obvious as pits on the surface.

Do pits form under these conditions, or is material selectively removed
from the outermost surfaces? Do you know for sure that there are no pits?
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenjnw cudfnJohn cudlnWhite cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.30 / Dieter Britz /  Re: Griggs power
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <britz@alpha.kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs power
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 1994 09:11:04 +0100
Organization: DAIMI, Computer Science Dept. at Aarhus University



On Tue, 29 Nov 1994, Dieter Britz wrote:

[...]
> As for this Al explanation, you must be kidding. A few kg Al might not be
> missed, but they'd be very obvious as pits on the surface. And how do know
> that ultrasonics will easily disrupt the oxide film? My understanding is that
> that film is pretty tenacious.
> 
I have just been reminded of something I should have remembered: the 
tenacious oxide film becomes a gelatinous hydroxide layer in water, not so
hard to disrupt. So ultrasonics might well shake it off.
Still I reckon that some kg of such ablation would be obvious to the eye.

-- db

cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenbritz cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Fri Dec  2 04:37:04 EST 1994
------------------------------
1994.11.30 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Re: November issue of FUSION TECHNOLOGY, a summary
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: November issue of FUSION TECHNOLOGY, a summary
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 1994 15:28 -0500 (EST)

georgerw@aol.com (GeorgeRW) writes:
 
-> In response, there were two articles on the production of iron-56 ( ? )
-> from a carbon arc in deionized water. Both articles spoke of using carbon
-> rods which were struck under water and maintained at 5 plus amperes.
->
-> The supposed reaction from the Bockis article is:
->
->     6C12 + 6C12 + 8O18 + 8O18   ->  26Fe56 + 2He4.
->
-> The analysis of the crud left over from the rods does not conclusively
-> show that Fe56 is the only nuclide of iron being produced. The authors of
-> both papers seem to understand this. The Bockis paper strictly mentions
-> that the reaction apparently does not occur unless O2 is in the water, the
-> reaction does not occur when N2 is (?) bubbled through the water, to the
-> exclusion of O2!
 
I thought that deionized water could not contain any electropositive or
electronegative elements.  Would not oxygen dissolved in water make it not
deionized?
 
Strange that additional oxygen would be required.  Water is 1/3 oxygen (by
atomic count) and under an arc I would expect it to ionize and seperate from
the hydrogen.  The dissolved amount of oxygen in water is typically rather
minute, making the probability of 2 oxygen atoms taking place in the reaction
seem rather remote.  Or is the oxygen fed into the arc directly as opposed
to being disolved?
 
-> It is important to note that excess energy was apparently observed in one
-> of the experiments from what I remember. The natural percentage of O18 in
-> atmospheric
-> air is 0.204%.
 
I think you missed the decimal on this one.  20.4% sounds more reasonable.
 
                                                                Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.02 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: Jed's error
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Jed's error
Date: Fri, 2 Dec 1994 01:50:34 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

In article <3bkliu$ps0$1@mhadf.production.compuserve.com>,
Jed Rothwell  <72240.1256@CompuServe.COM> wrote:

>For people like Dick who never took shop in high school and have never spent
>three minutes in a machine shop or a factory let me explain a few things.
>Using my grandfather's micrometers and other metalworking tools, circa 1910,
>you could measure the diameter of a steel shaft or the length of a metal arm
>to within 0.001 inches. Before World War I we were mass producing surgical
>blades and other precision parts to tolerances far, far better than a third of
>an inch!

Well, any experimentalist will now understand the almost complete ignorance
or Rothwell where experiments are concerned. Dick Blue describes a series
of error sources for the calibration procedure Jed mentioned. Jed cannot
even begin to understand what Blue is talking about.

It's pretty plain that if you cannot understand how slight differences in 
arm length of a lever and weight differences in the entire assembly inter-
react then you don't have much of a chance of understanding minute differences
in measured output integrating to substantial numbers over great periods
of time.

Why does anyone lend any credability to Rothwell at all?

cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.30 / Mike Jamison /  Re: Islind of Stability?
     
Originally-From: edwlt12@mars.lerc.nasa.gov (Mike Jamison (ADF))
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Islind of Stability?
Date: 30 Nov 1994 16:46 EDT
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center

In article <3bidrh$69f@fnnews.fnal.gov>, Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege) writes...
>In article <1994Nov29.140346.12231@wvnvms>, bl220050@wvnvms.wvnet.edu (Iron Lung) says:
>>
>>        I'm posting this for a friend.  He's trying to write a novel and 
>>he needs a bit of information (if it exists).  He remembers hearing about
>>the 'islind of stability' some 30 years ago.  He would like more info. on
>>this, esp. the atomic number of the 'islind'.  He's tried several places for
>>this data, but he can't find it anywhere.  Is is real or just from an old
>>late night sci-fi?
>>
>>        Brian
>>
> 
>There have been several articles in "Scientific American" over the
>years on this.  It may even show on some modern periodic tables.  
>There are charts plotting atomic number vs atomic weight with all
>the observed combinations.  The "island" is clearly visible as I
>recall on such a chart.

If memory serves, plain old Iron is the most stable.  I guess if we live
long enough we'll witness the rust death of the universe...

> 
>Tom Droege


Mike Jamison


"Scientific research consists in seeing what everyone else has seen, but
thinking what no one else has thought"

						-A. Szent-Gyorgyi
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenedwlt12 cudfnMike cudlnJamison cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.30 / Matt Kennel /  Re: Griggs power
     
Originally-From: mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs power
Date: 30 Nov 1994 22:21:17 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

I Johnston (ianj@castle.ed.ac.uk) wrote:
: PS These Georgian mechanical engineers must be pretty laid back. After
: all, they have just inspected a device and decided that it violates the
: various established laws of physics and offers humanity a cheap, safe
: energy source for ever and they ... don't say anything about it. Me,
: personally, I'd get quite excited.

But they haven't actually offered humanity a cheap safe energy
source yet.  It's a source of heat, but still a net thermodynamic
consumer of power.

--
-Matt Kennel  		mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu
-Institute for Nonlinear Science, University of California, San Diego
-*** AD: Archive for nonlinear dynamics papers & programs: FTP to
-***     lyapunov.ucsd.edu, username "anonymous".
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenmbk cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.02 / Robin Spaandonk /  Re: 
     
Originally-From: rvanspaa@ozemail.com.au (Robin van Spaandonk)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: 
Date: Fri, 2 Dec 1994 15:08:06 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

If 1 kg of aluminum is converted into Al(OH)3 then this should be easily 
detectable
by chemical means in the output water.
_________________________________________________________________
Any wave function that collapses with observation, describes only YOUR
KNOWLEDGE of the system, not the state of the system itself. It then 
becomes perfectly reasonable for it to collapse, as observation changes
knowledge/certainty. Motto: Looking wont kill the cat, it's not in a mixed
state. The only thing in a mixed state is what you know about the cat.
 
Robin - Exploder of Myths <rvanspaa@ozemail.com.au> 

cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenrvanspaa cudfnRobin cudlnSpaandonk cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.02 / Ron Lunde /  Piezoelectric fusion?
     
Originally-From: ronl@teleport.com (Ron Lunde)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Piezoelectric fusion?
Date: 2 Dec 1994 09:59:33 -0800
Organization: Teleport - Portland's Public Access (503) 220-1016

Please excuse the naive question -- I looked in the faq, and didn't
see anything about this, and curiosity has got the best of me...

I'm curious if anyone has ever tried to induce a fusion reaction by
piezoelectric means?  For example, fit 6 pyramid-shaped piezoelectric
crystals together, with the pyramid tops inward, making a cube.  Put
the teensiest bit of hydrogen in the center.  Set up an oscillation
under high pressure on each crystal, so that pressure waves and
electrons arrive at the same time...

Thanks in advance for any replies!

--Ron
ronl@teleport.com

-- 
ronl@coolsoft.com
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenronl cudfnRon cudlnLunde cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.30 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Re: Eaton torque sensor specifications
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Eaton torque sensor specifications
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 1994 21:41 -0500 (EST)

Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@CompuServe.COM> writes:
 
-> Correct. That is how it is set up. The electronic flowmeter and thermocouple
-> readings go right into the computer. The computer runs the "DVT" instrument
-> control program under Windows. This program allows you to tweak parameters
-> like duration between readings and the number of times it polls the
-> instruments per reading. You can display and graph data in real time. The
-> program and the instrument package were installed by an engineering firm tha
-> specializes in that sort of computerized industrial control systems. It is
-> slick and fun to play with, but I prefer to work with a bucket and stopwatch
-> Of course, you can verify the flow with a bucket and stopwatch any time you
-> like.
 
Is the computer a Pentium?  If so then all math done with the floating point
processor is questionable and must be checked by hand to verify.  Hopefully it
is a 386 or 486 or a non-Intel processor, in which case the results can most
likely be trusted.
 
                                                                Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.01 / Harry Conover /  Re: Orders of magnitude
     
Originally-From: conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Orders of magnitude
Date: 1 Dec 1994 05:46:31 GMT
Organization: The Internet Access Company

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

: In article <3be792$cn0@sundog.tiac.net> 

: To the contrary, there has been a great deal of theoretical progress 
: in that time.  Essentially all the calculations made between 1957 and 
: March 1989 were based on the same approximations as the original work. 
: After the announcement, those calculations were redone by many groups 
: without those approximations and with the benefit of modern computers. 

: The unsatisfactory situation is that there are many theoretical ideas 
: that would explain CF, some form of it at least, but (as you note) there 
: is no consensus on any particular experiments that define a rate under 
: certain circumstances and no reaction under others that would select 
: among those theories and guide further development.  

My original comment re lack of theoretical progress was really directed
at the lack of emergence of a mechanism.  Specifically, something 
defining the neccesary and (wishful thinking) sufficient conditions for 
hydrogen fusion to occur at relatively moderate temperatures, wave 
functions, etc.  Citations of legitimate papers outlining work in this 
area would be greatly appeciated.

For example, is a dislocation site within a lattice a requirement, as
was suggested at one time?  What is the predicted role of temperature, if 
any, on a CF reaction?  Along the same lines, if subsurface magma type
environments present the most compelling experimental evidence for the
existence of a CF reaction, do we have a theoretical basis for believing
that it can occur at lower temperatures and pressures?  What is suggested
about required pressure, and is it likely that surface concentration of
hydrogen atoms is an alternative to high pressures?  What is the predicted
role of other elements or particles in a CF reaction?

Older papers have suggested that hydrogen fusion can
occur at relatively low termperatures, however, that somewhat 'gnarley'
localized physics is required for this to take place.  I'm now trying
to get a general feel for what some of the constraints on that 'gnarley'
environment may be.    

                                         Harry C.

cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenconover cudfnHarry cudlnConover cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.01 / William Rowe /  Re: November issue of FUSION TECHNOLOGY, a summary
     
Originally-From: browe@netcom.com (William J. Rowe)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: November issue of FUSION TECHNOLOGY, a summary
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 1994 08:20:30 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

georgerw@aol.com (GeorgeRW) writes:
>  
> -> In response, there were two articles on the production of iron-56 ( ? )
> -> from a carbon arc in deionized water. Both articles spoke of using carbon
>  rods which were struck under water and maintained at 5 plus amperes.
> 
>  The supposed reaction from the Bockis article is:
> 
>      6C12 + 6C12 + 8O18 + 8O18   ->  26Fe56 + 2He4.
> 
>  The analysis of the crud left over from the rods does not conclusively
>  show that Fe56 is the only nuclide of iron being produced. The authors of
>  both papers seem to understand this. The Bockis paper strictly mentions
>  that the reaction apparently does not occur unless O2 is in the water, the
>  reaction does not occur when N2 is (?) bubbled through the water, to the
>  exclusion of O2!

I don't suppose the Bockis article supplied any explaination as to how
this could occur.

The propose reaction diagramed above ought to have an extremely small
probability of happening. It strains credibility way past the breaking
point. It is far, far more likely there has been an error somewhere.

-- 
_______________________________________________________________________________
William Rowe                                                   browe@netcom.com
MD5OfPublicKey: F29A99C805B41838D9240AEE28EBF383
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenbrowe cudfnWilliam cudlnRowe cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.01 / William Rowe /  Re: Jones versus Fleischmann
     
Originally-From: browe@netcom.com (William J. Rowe)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Jones versus Fleischmann
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 1994 08:25:32 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

In article <3bikgk$ac6$2@mhadf.production.compuserve.com>, Jed Rothwell
<72240.1256@CompuServe.COM> wrote:

> Steve Jones has trotted out a compendium of the stale nonsense he posted over
> the years. In folk tales, magic spells sometimes work when you repeat them
> three times. Jones apparently believes that if you post nonsense a dozen times
> it becomes science. There is no point in cluttering up the bandwidth with a
> detailed rebuttal -- it will just trigger another core dump of "skeptical"
> baloney. People who want to know the truth should contact me for a copy of the
> Jones versus Fleischmann debate. Let me quote part of that:
>  

Jed I regularly read this newsgroup but seldom post in that I am here to
learn. However, as a lurker I got to tell you Steve Jones comes across as
being much more reasonable than you. If all I had to go on were your posts
and Steve Jones posts, I'd place my bets on Steve.

-- 
_______________________________________________________________________________
William Rowe                                                   browe@netcom.com
MD5OfPublicKey: F29A99C805B41838D9240AEE28EBF383
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenbrowe cudfnWilliam cudlnRowe cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.30 / Jim Carr /  Re: Orders of magnitude
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Orders of magnitude
Date: 30 Nov 1994 16:08:18 -0500
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

|David R Davies (drd851@huxley.anu.edu.au) wrote:
|
|: Ah! At last a counter coup. Now we might get to see the big guns. At
|: long last the actual proof that CF is impossible.

It is not possible for an experiment to establish that a physically 
possible process does not occur.  An experiment can only place a 
limit on the rate of the process.  There is no question that CF is 
possible (c.f. the early calculations by Jackson or Zel'dovitch 
circa 1957), the issue is the rate.  

In article <3be792$cn0@sundog.tiac.net> 
conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover) writes:
>
>God, I hope not.  Years ago Steve Jones and others speculated about the
>existence of CF in certain natural processes, and threw out the gauntlet
>for others.  Sadly, in almost ten years, little theoretical progress has 
>been accomplished ... 

To the contrary, there has been a great deal of theoretical progress 
in that time.  Essentially all the calculations made between 1957 and 
March 1989 were based on the same approximations as the original work. 
After the announcement, those calculations were redone by many groups 
without those approximations and with the benefit of modern computers. 

The unsatisfactory situation is that there are many theoretical ideas 
that would explain CF, some form of it at least, but (as you note) there 
is no consensus on any particular experiments that define a rate under 
certain circumstances and no reaction under others that would select 
among those theories and guide further development.  

Persons here on the net are divided as to why this unsatisfactory 
experimental situation exists, to put it diplomatically. 

-- 
 James A. Carr   <jac@scri.fsu.edu>     |  "The old he-coon walks just  
    http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac        |  before the light of day."    
 Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst.  |   - Gov. (still) Lawton Chiles to
 Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306    |     Jeb Bush during second debate
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.01 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Wild speculations on CF
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Wild speculations on CF
Date: Thu, 01 Dec 1994 17:19 -0500 (EST)

I would like Richard Blue (and anyone else with a good theoretical knowledge
of nuclear physics) to critique some ideas here.

I am making the following assumption, so please bear with me:

That experiments have shown that under some circumstances a system composed
of palladium and deuterium can generate excess heat and He4.  If this
assumption is wrong, then the following ideas are of no consequence, as there
is nothing to explain so we must at least agree on this as a starting point.

The vacuum foam muon catalized hypothesis:

Muons are continually popping into and out of existance as per QM theory.
In normal deuterium, the muon is in existance for too short a period to
allow two atoms of deuterium to fuse, since the atoms are in continual motion.

However in a metallic matrix they are held in close proximity, such that
they can fuse before the muon returns home.

Problem.  Insufficient gammas or neutrons detected.  The deuterium atoms should
be closer in a deuterium molecule, but no fusion has been reported in pure
deuterium systems.  Possible explainations to these are given in the palladium
catalysed section.

Palladium catalysed hypothesis:

This hypothesis is based on the observation that many of nature's methods are
repeated over and over again.  Such as electrons circling nucleus, planets
circling the sun, the sun circling the galactic center and so forth.  In this
case I am looking at the workings of a catalyst and seeing if a similar
action could account for CF.  I am aware of 3 mechanisms by which a catalyst
operates.

1.  Absorbing of the reagents on the catalysts surface places them in close
proximity so that the reaction rate increases.

2.  A reaction takes place between one of the reagents and the catalyst,
making a reaction between that reagent and another reagent more favorable,
so that the second reaction reduces the catalyst back to the original form.

3. A reaction is totally reversable.  Without a catalyst an exothermic
reaction will generate energy, and the resulting product will, because
of the elevated temperature, usually revert back to the original reagents
reabsorbing the energy of reaction.  The catalyst becomes involved so that
it either absorbes sufficient energy from the reaction on it's surface to
prevent the reverse reaction, or will cause the reaction to take place in
two or more discrete steps, so that when the final reaction takes place,
there is insufficient energy for the reverse reaction to take place.

Now for some possibilities.  If a deuterium and a palladium atom were to fuse
it would produce Ag.  In the case of PD 105 that reaction would release 13.1
Mev of energy.  Although Ag 107 is stable, that amount of energy in the nucleus
could trigger an alpha release, with a resulting reabsorption of 2.8 Mev of
this energy.  The final product would be Rh103 (which is stable), He4 and
10.2 Mev of energy.  With part of this leftover energy remaining with the
Rh103 nucleus, and an alpha of less than 10Mev, further division of the alpha
would not be expected, leaving a helium 4 atom, and no neutron or gamma.
There should be the possibility of x-ray florescence however.

Of course there still remains the problem of the coulomb barrier.  It is
yet to be determined if some type of channeling, temporary muons, or other
action could account for this, but ignoring that stumbling block for a moment
it does seem to allow for the production of heat and helium with no detectable
particles.  Also, if the second reaction is variable, it could explain some
experiments producing He4 and others not doing so.

Another scerenio.  Taking the catalytic action outlined in 3 above, a deuterium
could somehow bind with the palladium, releasing energy to the palladium
matrix.  Then the second deuterium could fuse with the first deuterium,
breaking the original binding.  The breaking of this binding would absorb
much of the energy released by fusion, so that the branching ratios would
favor the He4 NOT breaking up.  Of course the real question is just what type
of binding could account for this?  The energies are too high to be chemical.
It would have to be some type of nuclear binding, but not totally fusion.
It could be something which happens normally, but is reversable, and not
detectable, unless something keeps it from reversing (like fusion).

I have one bizzare answer to how such a binding could take place.

A hydrogen atom has one electron and is quite small.  The Palladium atom has
46 electrons (and is much larger), and has an oxidation state of +2 (also +4).
Deuterium has an oxidation state of +/- 1, so palladium is happy with giving
up 2 electrons to the deuterium atoms, which then will have 2 electrons each.
Now, we have a deuterium atom with a net negative charge and a palladium atom
with a net postive charge.  What if by some mechanism the deuterium nucleus
were to move within the outer electron shell of the palladium?  If it did
then it would see an even larger positive charge from the nucleus, and be
attracted closer, until the electrons of the deuterium atom extend past the
palladium nucleus, at which time the deuteruim nucleus would no longer be
shielded by the electrons.  Is such an action expected?  No. Is it possible,
maybe, maybe not.  Could it explain CF, possibly.  Such an analysis would
predict loading of 2:1 for fully packed palladium.  Does this verify?

One last scerenio.  Maybe CF is a two step process.  The first step happens
quite often and releases a significant amount of energy.  However this step
is reversable, and the large amount of energy virtually always causes the
first step to reverse, reabsorbing the energy.  Since no energy is released
and the intermediate state is short duration, this action is not detectable.

If the atoms are bound to a metallic matrix, the energy released by this
first step is dissipated by the matrix.  Now the first step cannot reverse
since the energy has been dissipated, and it remains at the intermediate state
until the second step takes place.  When the actual fusion takes place, less
than 10Mev is released,  expelling the He4 as an alpha.  Neutrons and gammas
are not released because the energy release of the second step is too low.
What is this first step?  Maybe something like Mills predicts.  If so, then
He4 and heat would only be produced if step 2 occured, otherwise you may get
heat and no He4.

I present these hypothesis to get some of us thinking.  I am sure you can
pick them apart, and I suggest you try and do so.  Advances are made by
a few people looking at the same thing, but seeing something different.
Just maybe one of the above scerenios will leave down a trail that ends up
being correct.  Only time will tell.

                                                                Marshall
cudkeys:
cuddy01 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.30 / Jed Rothwell /  Re: Eaton torque sensor specifications
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@CompuServe.COM>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Eaton torque sensor specifications
Date: 30 Nov 1994 19:38:03 GMT
Organization: CFRA

danhicks@aol.com (DanHicks) writes:
 
     "Then your assertion is that the dangerous and run-length-limiting steel
     drum is unneeded.  So emphasis should be placed on the flow calorimetry
     approach."
 
Well, there is no need to place the emphasis on one method or the other. You
can do it either way any time you like, or both ways the same afternoon. You
could even switch back and forth between steam and hot water during the same
run I suppose. Both tests are interesting.
 
 
     "I'd guess that you need input and output temperature sensors and a flow
     meter, rigged up to a computer so that continuous integration can be
     performed."
 
Correct. That is how it is set up. The electronic flowmeter and thermocouple
readings go right into the computer. The computer runs the "DVT" instrument
control program under Windows. This program allows you to tweak parameters
like duration between readings and the number of times it polls the
instruments per reading. You can display and graph data in real time. The
program and the instrument package were installed by an engineering firm that
specializes in that sort of computerized industrial control systems. It is
slick and fun to play with, but I prefer to work with a bucket and stopwatch.
Of course, you can verify the flow with a bucket and stopwatch any time you
like.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.30 / Jed Rothwell /  Jones versus Fleischmann
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@CompuServe.COM>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Jones versus Fleischmann
Date: 30 Nov 1994 19:41:08 GMT
Organization: CFRA

Steve Jones has trotted out a compendium of the stale nonsense he posted over
the years. In folk tales, magic spells sometimes work when you repeat them
three times. Jones apparently believes that if you post nonsense a dozen times
it becomes science. There is no point in cluttering up the bandwidth with a
detailed rebuttal -- it will just trigger another core dump of "skeptical"
baloney. People who want to know the truth should contact me for a copy of the
Jones versus Fleischmann debate. Let me quote part of that:
 
     ". . .Steve Jones and Douglas Morrison cannot do arithmetic. Let us
     assume that they are right and go to the extreme assumption that all the
     gases evolved recombine in the cell. This would generate 0.5 Amps x 1.54
     Volts = 0.77 Watts under all conditions. However, when the cell is
     boiling vigorously, the cell voltage is 76.5 Volts (it doesn't really
     matter what it is - see the next point (3)). The enthalpy input is now
     0.5 Amps x 76.5 Volts = 38.25 Watts. 0.77 Watts is pretty negligible
     compared to 38.25 Watts but the heat output from the cell is 182 Watts
     (11 Watts by radiation, 171 Watts to boil the D[2]O). The excess is
     144.5 Watts.
 
     It doesn't really matter how you tinker with these figures, you will
     always finish up with a massive excess rate of enthalpy production. The
     rail voltage of the galvanostat is 100V - one could say that the
     enthalpy input is 0.5 Amps x 100 Volts = 50 Watts, it has no effect on
     the qualitative level. One could say some of the D2O is dispelled as
     droplets (actually, we recover [approx] 95% of the alkali by dissolving
     the residues and titrating; some is undoubtedly lost by irreversible
     reactions with the glass walls of the Dewars.)
 
     . . .
 
     What estimate of the cell voltage does Steve Jones want to make? As I
     said in above, he can take the rail voltage at the galvanostat for all
     we care (if he does not trust us).
 
     . . .
 
     Steve Jones in common with Douglas Morrison, Frank Close etc etc.
     apparently wants to hide away 8MJ of resistive heating in the 0.0392
     cm^3 palladium electrode or say 2 GJ per mole of Pd. My mind boggles at
     this notion."
 
     - M. Fleischmann, October 21, 1993
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Sat Dec  3 04:37:07 EST 1994
------------------------------
1994.12.01 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Re: November issue of FUSION TECHNOLOGY, a summary
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: November issue of FUSION TECHNOLOGY, a summary
Date: Thu, 01 Dec 1994 10:06 -0500 (EST)

a0014246@wsuaix.csc.wsu.edu (mark fuller) writes:
 
-> Marshal, you're pretty close, my old chemistry text gives total
-> atmospheric O2 concentration at approx. 20.95%.  But I think George was
-> talking about the concentration of just the Oxygen 18 isotope naturally
-> present in the air.
 
You are right!!!  I completely missed that he was talking about a rather rare
isotope of oxygen.  Oxygen is normally 16, not 18.  I should not have missed
that.  The post now makes a lot more sense.  Please ignore my previous post on
this, confusion was on my part.
 
                                                                Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy01 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.01 /  artki@kbbs.com /  Inertial Fusion Drivers
     
Originally-From: artki@kbbs.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Inertial Fusion Drivers
Date: Thu, 01 Dec 94 12:52:57 EST
Organization: KBBS - Internet & Files via Satellite   


   I have a number of questions relating to Inertial Fusion.
   I'm interested in Inertial Fusion as a propulsion system for
spaceships. (working on a novel)  Like the Orion type drive only
using fusing pellets instead of atom bombs.
   I need to know more about drivers and pellets.  Let's look at
drivers first.
   I'll sketch out what I know and you all can jump in and correct
my misconceptions.

   I know of 4 candidates for drivers.
     A. Lasers.
        Pros
           Fairly well understood
        Cons
           Hard to cool.  A problem if you need a high rate of fire.
           If the ship is using lots of small explosions instead of
           one big one every few seconds then lasers might be
           impractical.
     B. Heavy Ion beams
        I've heard that Xenon, Cesium or Bismuth might work.
        Pros
            High rate of fire
        Cons
            ????
            Must be some otherwise we'd have power plants running <g>
     C. Light Ion beams
        That exhausts my knowledge of light ion beam drivers!
     D. Electron Beam
        The enviroment is likely to be contaminated by traces of the
        previous detonations.  I've heard that a low power laser could
        be used to ionize a "tunnel" through the gas and the E-Beam
        would follow that "tunnel".
     E. Is there a fifth choice?

   Would there be any gross advantages or drawbacks to any of the
above drivers when used for a propulsion system?

    As far as the power source for the drivers I'm assuming that
if you can make the Inertial Fusion work well enough to push a
spaceship you could have an IF power plant on the spaceship as well.
Yes, this is a BIG spaceship!  That's why I'm looking at this type
of drive, it seems well suited to pushing BIG ships around.

   Arthur in >---(oo)---> Hollywood             (ArtKi@KBBS.COM)
---
 ~ SPEED 1.40 [NR] ~


--
    [*]   Message Origin:  KBBS Los Angeles  (818) 886-0872   [*]
    [*]   28.8kb & ISDN available.  For Info: info@kbbs.com   [*]

cudkeys:
cuddy01 cudenartki cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.01 / Chuck Harrison /  Re: CF papers wtd
     
Originally-From: harr@netcom.com (Chuck Harrison)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: CF papers wtd
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 1994 22:18:39 GMT
Organization: Fitful

In article <3bk923$3hg@nic-nac.CSU.net>, vpopesc@mercury.uucp (Valentin Popescu) says:
>
>I am looking for papers on cold fusion in electronic format. If possible,
>please EMAIL me any that you may have, preferably in postscript format.
>
Try

file://sunsite.unc.edu/pub/academic/physics/Cold-fusion/vince-cate

& thereabouts.

-Chuck
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenharr cudfnChuck cudlnHarrison cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.01 / Astrid Kuhr /  Looking for somebody at JET/UK
     
Originally-From: ICH561@DJUKFA11.BITNET (Astrid Kuhr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Looking for somebody at JET/UK
Date: 1 Dec 94 10:11:35 GMT

Cancel <94333.103744ICH561@DJUKFA11.BITNET>
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenICH561 cudfnAstrid cudlnKuhr cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.02 / John Logajan /  Last Call -- Cold Fusion Seminar
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@mirage.skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Last Call -- Cold Fusion Seminar
Date: 2 Dec 1994 04:47:50 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.


                    The University of Minnesota
               Institute of Technology Alumni Society

                            presents

                  Material Aspects of Cold Fusion
                        Richard Oriani, PhD
      Department of Chemical Engineering and Materials Science

                 7:30pm Wednesday, December 7, 1994

                            Nolte Room
                      Radisson Hotel Metrodome
                      615 Washington Avenue SE


                Open to the public, $5 at the door

          Reservations must be made by Monday, December 5th
 
                       Phone  612-626-1804

                       Fax    612-624-2841

                       Mail   ITAS
                              105 Walter Library
                              117 Pleasant Street SE
                              Minneapolis, MN  55455

                              (State number of spaces to reserve.)


--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com  --  612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA -
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.02 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Jones versus Fleischmann
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Jones versus Fleischmann
Date: Fri, 2 Dec 1994 07:47:20 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <3bikgk$ac6$2@mhadf.production.compuserve.com>,
Jed Rothwell  <72240.1256@CompuServe.COM> wrote:
>Steve Jones has trotted out a compendium of the stale nonsense he posted over
>the years. In folk tales, magic spells sometimes work when you repeat them
>three times. Jones apparently believes that if you post nonsense a dozen times
>it becomes science. There is no point in cluttering up the bandwidth with a
>detailed rebuttal -- it will just trigger another core dump of "skeptical"
>baloney. People who want to know the truth should contact me for a copy of the
>Jones versus Fleischmann debate. Let me quote part of that:

     Speaking of baloney...   Where's the water heater?

>     - M. Fleischmann, October 21, 1993

     'Heating lots of water pretty durn soon.'
               - S. Pons, 1989


                                    dale bass

cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.02 / Dieter Britz /  Re: November issue of FUSION TECHNOLOGY, a summary
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <britz@alpha.kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: November issue of FUSION TECHNOLOGY, a summary
Date: Fri, 2 Dec 1994 09:06:53 +0100
Organization: DAIMI, Computer Science Dept. at Aarhus University



On Thu, 1 Dec 1994, William J. Rowe wrote:

> georgerw@aol.com (GeorgeRW) writes:
> >  
> > -> In response, there were two articles on the production of iron-56 ( ? )
> > -> from a carbon arc in deionized water. Both articles spoke of using carbon
> >  rods which were struck under water and maintained at 5 plus amperes.
> > 
> >  The supposed reaction from the Bockis article is:
> > 
> >      6C12 + 6C12 + 8O18 + 8O18   ->  26Fe56 + 2He4.
> > 
> >  The analysis of the crud left over from the rods does not conclusively
> >  show that Fe56 is the only nuclide of iron being produced. The authors of
> >  both papers seem to understand this. The Bockis paper strictly mentions
> >  that the reaction apparently does not occur unless O2 is in the water, the
> >  reaction does not occur when N2 is (?) bubbled through the water, to the
> >  exclusion of O2!
> 
> I don't suppose the Bockis article supplied any explaination as to how
> this could occur.
> 
> The propose reaction diagramed above ought to have an extremely small
> probability of happening. It strains credibility way past the breaking
> point. It is far, far more likely there has been an error somewhere.
 
Agreed. It is amazing how people seem to believe that zapping can do 
wonders. Just because an electric zap is impressive to humans, they feel 
that atoms must be impressed, too. Time and again we see zaps in science
fiction films, and zapparatus is sort of standard in the imagination of 
the Man in the Street of how a scientist's lab looks.
I doubt that Tandberg was the first to try zap-fusion (he sent lots of amps
through PdD wires, never got any fusion). Wada and Nishizawa had another go
in 1989, zapping between two PdD rods; they reckoned they got neutrons; one
has reason to doubt it. As we have seen, there are now a few patents that 
use zapping to tickle 'cold fusion' into happening. OK, you might get a 
few keV from a zap, and a tiny bit of fusion, but not enough to notice, what?
And a three-body reaction, now I ask you, who can believe that? 

-- db

cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenbritz cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.03 / Jed Rothwell /  Re: Jones versus Fleischmann
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@CompuServe.COM>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Jones versus Fleischmann
Date: 3 Dec 1994 14:38:46 GMT
Organization: CFRA

browe@netcom.com (William J. Rowe) writes:
 
     ". . .as a lurker I got to tell you Steve Jones comes across as being
     much more reasonable than you."
 
What?!? Jones claims that recombination can create more heat than I*V! He
claims that recombination can explain results with closed cells at Amoco and
elsewhere. That's not reasonable, it is kooky. It is crackpot science, like
Morrison's "cigarette lighter" theory -- many orders of magnitude off. What
does "comes across" mean, anyway? Do you mean that he says things that make no
sense but he phrases them in scientific sounding prose? If that's what you
mean, I agree. His statements are bosh & nonsense dressed up like science.
 
 
     "If all I had to go on were your posts and Steve Jones posts, I'd place
     my bets on Steve."
 
I suppose so! If that is all you had to go on, you might well think he was
right. Fortunately, you have a lot more to go on. Read any textbook on
electrochemistry or physics and you will see that everything he says is wrong.
You do not have to take my word for it. That's the nice thing about science:
there are objective standards and established laws. They prove that
Fleischmann is right and Jones is so wrong he isn't even in the ballpark.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.02 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Inertial Fusion Drivers
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Inertial Fusion Drivers
Date: Fri, 2 Dec 1994 08:31:33 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <3449YKOQTQFGQOHJOV@kbbs.com> artki@kbbs.com writes:
>
>     E. Is there a fifth choice?

Yes.  Check the work of C Yamanaka (Japan) and his MICF 
[ as well as Kamish (UMI) and Hasegawa (BTL) ]

Also, you might be interested in adiabatic inertial "fusion"
or more correctly "aneutronic energy" generated using a 
compressible and pressure leveraged PLASMAK(tm) magnetoplasmoid.  
It would run about 60 hertz using p-(^11)B, and of course 3 
phase operation puts the smoothed  reaction mass impulse at a 
very tolerable  and essentially continuous level. 

>above drivers when used for a propulsion system?
They go bang the surrounding structure can be fatigued, etc. 

>    As far as the power source for the drivers I'm assuming that
>if you can make the Inertial Fusion work well enough to push a
>spaceship you could have an IF power plant on the spaceship as well.
>Yes, this is a BIG spaceship!  That's why I'm looking at this type
>of drive, it seems well suited to pushing BIG ships around.

Not so big.. perhaps the size of a 747 with 50% more weight for
15 ton fueled Mars round trips.   Payload delivery would be about
230 Mg., and it would probably cruise around 20-40 gigawatts reaching
rather phenomenal speeds before retropropulsion was initiated. 

>   Arthur in >---(oo)---> Hollywood 
> (ArtKi@KBBS.COM) >---> ~ SPEED 1.40 [NR] ~
>--
>    [*]   Message Origin:  KBBS Los Angeles  (818) 886-0872   [*]
>    [*]   28.8kb & ISDN available.  For Info: info@kbbs.com   [*]
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc, Bx 1037 Prometheus II Ltd, College Park MD 20741-1037    |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.30 / Robert Heeter /  Re: about fusion reactor research in United States
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: about fusion reactor research in United States
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 1994 06:20:12 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

In article <29NOV94.20073890@shrsys.hslc.org> , frdschlib@shrsys.hslc.org
writes:
> Hello, my name is Doogie Kim.  I am a high school senior, and I am
looking
> for any recent article about fusion reactor researches in United States.
> I need the informations for my position paper about the solutions of
future
> electricity problems.  I would like to receive about scienctic sides of
> research as well as political sides such as number of researches in
United
> states, funds, how much have the researched done, etc.  I hope I can get
> all the material as soon as possible and thank you for your prompt
attention.

Let me point you to the Conventional Fusion FAQ, which should have
a lot of the info you need, and references for more places to go.

You can find the FAQ on the World-Wide Web at
http://lyman.pppl.gov/~jwright/fusion-faq.html

You can also get it by anonymous FTP at rtfm.mit.edu
in /pub/usenet/news.answers/fusion-faq/*

The FAQ runs about 300K, but you should find Sections 
0.1, 0.2, 1, 2.1, 2.2, 6, 8, and 10 the most useful.
(Section 0.1 has a list of what all the sections cover;
I just posted it a few days ago, so I won't repeat it.)

If you have any problems let me know and I'll email
you whatever else you need.

--Bob Heeter
(Maintainer of the Conventional Fusion FAQ)

***************************
Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University
As always, I represent only myself, and not PPPL
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.01 / V Popescu /  CF papers wtd
     
Originally-From: vpopesc@mercury.uucp (Valentin Popescu)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: CF papers wtd
Date: 1 Dec 1994 10:37:55 GMT
Organization: Physics, CSLA

I am looking for papers on cold fusion in electronic format. If possible,
please EMAIL me any that you may have, preferably in postscript format.

I am interested mostly in research results, theories, etc. Equations
and graphs most welcome.

Please do not mail looking for an argument on wether CF is real or not,
I am not going to entertain any such discussions. I appologize if this is
a FAQ. So far I have the following papers (by their net names)

aps.ps.gz     fp.ps.gz      lb.ps.gz      mb.ps.gz
cjh.ps.gz     dcb.ps.gz     kn.ps.gz      lb0.ps.gz     sek.ps.gz



which are:

fp - fleischmann pons, march 89
kn - koonin nauenberg, apr 89
lb - legett baym, apr 89
sek - koonin, apr 89
cjh - horowitz, ?
aps - am. phys. soc. report, may 89

any others, please email to vpopesc@calstatela.edu, and not to the
email adress in this silly header.

-- 
----									|
Valentin Popescu	|\ 	"We shall find a way or make a way!"   -+-
vpopesc@calstatela.edu	| \_____________________________________________|____
**********************	also: thrace@gnu.ai.mit.edu or fortuna@gnu.ai.mit.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenvpopesc cudfnValentin cudlnPopescu cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.30 /  jonesse@acoust /  Arata paper in hand; reply to Rothwell
     
Originally-From: jonesse@acoust.byu.edu
Originally-From: jonesse@acoust.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Arata paper in hand; reply to Rothwell
Subject: dir
Date: 30 Nov 94 15:55:44 -0700
Date: 30 Nov 94 15:28:59 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University
Organization: Brigham Young University

Path: acoust.byu.edu!jonesse
Originally-From: jonesse@acoust.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: dir
Message-ID: <1994Nov30.152859.1900@acoust.byu.edu>
Date: 30 Nov 94 15:28:59 -0700
References: <941114183301_76570.2270_HHB25-1@CompuServe.COM>  
<50-3FxG.jedrothwell@delphi.com>
Distribution: world
Organization: Brigham Young University

I now have a copy of the Arata & Zhang paper which Mr. Rothwell has been
claiming so much about (see, e.g., below).    Unlike Mr.
Rothwell, I offer to mail a copy of the paper directly to anyone who sends me an
address.

To me, the paper does not look as great as Mr. Rothwell would lead us to
believe.  Let's take a closer look.

The paper is entitled, "A New Energy caused by 'Spillover-Deuterium'",
by Y. Arata and Y-C. Zhang, Proc. Japan Acad. 70 (1994) Ser. B. pp. 106-111
(in English).  The title makes one wonder -- I will turn to the 'spillover
deuterium' explanation later.

The duty of the scientists is to disprove the null hypothesis, that is, that
the claimed excess heat is not due to prosaic sources.  
This requires, among other steps, use of adequate controls which show
no excess heat.  This Arata and Zhang
have not done:  they make no mention of controls with light
water, for instance.  

Furthermore, there is no explanation for the NEGATIVE
excess heat during the first half hour of the run shown in Fig. 3.  Nor is
this a trivial amount of negative excess heat:  the curve begins at -80%
(minus) whereas the maximum positive excess heat is about +60% excess heat
in Fig. 3.
Moreover, the plot minimum is -80%, and  no data is given for the first
10 minutes of the run (bad form).  Evidently, since the data line begins at
-80%, the early data showed even greater NEGATIVE excess heat.  

The missing data needs to be given (need I remind the reader of other
experimenters who have failed to give all the data while claiming remarkable
excess heat effects?).  The negative excess heat needs to be explained.
This could well be a case like we've seen before:  negative excess heat is
greater than can be explained by chemical reactions.  (For example, the
Huggins data showed negative excess heat amounting to approx. -100 eV per
atom, as has been discussed on this net before.)  But large NEGATIVE excess
heat cannot be explained as nuclear energy.  Rather, it looks like error.
How else can negative excess heat like this be explained?
Since control runs have not been presented in the paper, the null hypothesis
stands.

How do the two researchers (calorimetrists?) know that all Q enters the
coolant water during calibration?  Are calibration conditions truly IDENTICAL
with those found during electrolysis of heavy water?  What is the time
constant of the system?  Have they obtained the same results in a different
(better) calorimeter?  (These are Prof. Lee Hansen's questions.)  

The paper alludes to "unknown fusion reaction" but makes no mention of
any effort to measure neutrons or other products of nuclear fusion. 
In particular, the authors allude vaguely to 'the possibility of "solid-
state plasma fusion" under the condition of the high pulse/high frequency
current."  
[A previous paper by Arata did claim neutron production -- why no mention of
neutron measurements here?  Are they finally convinced that BF3 counters
will not give compelling data?]  Rather the authors make the now standard
assertion:  "the authors confirmed the sustained production of a 
significantly abnormal amount of energy over a period of several months
that could not be ascribed to chemical reaction energy."

Where are the commensurate nuclear products?
How do they account for NEGATIVE excess heat -- can this be 'chemical reaction
energy'?
And where are the control runs with light water to assure us that their
'effect' is not due to  systematic error?

The authors claim a "New energy" that is "caused by Spillover deuterium" --
what is this?  "If the 'Pd black' particles in the C-zone contact the inside
wall of the outer-cathode, deuterium in the outer-cathode travel
instantaneously and distribute homogeneously on the surfaces of all particles
through the contact zone by 'Spillover-Effect' (surface migration), and
penetrate quickly into all particles, respectively.  When the vacuum space of
"Particle-gaps" (Vo; space between each particle) in the C-zone should be
filled with D2 gas as electrolysis progresses, the pressure Pc rises..."

I really cannot make much sense out the authors' arguments regarding 'Spillover
deuterium' or how this 'causes new energy.'; the above quotation
gives the flavor of the paper.  Perhaps Jed can explain it to us.
In any case, to be fair, I offer the full paper to anyone who wishes to read it.
To me, the evidence it offers is far from compelling -- no light water controls
mentioned (reminds me of the P&F paper regarding boiling D2O cells -- we later
found out that they had boiling with H2O also) -- and no commensurate nuclear
products.  Haven't we heard of these problems before, say, 5.5 years ago?

Get serious, Rothwell -- the Arata paper is not compelling.

-- Steven Jones


In article <50-3FxG.jedrothwell@delphi.com>, jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:
> Steve Jones <jonesse@physc2.byu.edu> writes:
>  
>      "Note that the postings from Jed and Mallove, cited here in full as
>      posted by Mallove, are essentially devoid of substantive technical
>      arguments.
>  
> Cited in full indeed! What a neat evasion, Jones should have been a lawyer.
> Ah, but let us return to part of my posting that Mallove did not cite. Steve
> saw this I am sure; I e-mailed a copy directly to him. Just for laughs, let us
> see how he tries to wiggle out of this part:
>  
>  
> The 1994 data in Fig. 2 shows that Arata put 47 watts of electric power into a
> closed cell in a flow calorimeter. The flow of water through the cooling loop
> was 450 ml/min. The water came out 3 degrees hotter than it was going in.
> During the 17 hour burst, it got 4.9 degrees hotter than input. Do you
> understand what that means, Steve? Can you do elementary calorimetry, or
> should I spell it out for you, the way Arata does in the paper? Here:
>  
> 47 watts equals 2820 joules input per minute.
>  
> 450 ml of water raised 3 degrees equals 1350 calories. One calorie equals 4.2
> joules, so the output was 5670. Fig. 2 shows 500 hours of this output.
>  
> 5670 joules is MUCH, MUCH more than 2820. A 3 degree Delta T temperature is a
> cinch to detect. There is no mistake.
>  
> One run this year produced 200 megajoules of excess. Do you know how much
> energy that is, Steve? No, obviously you don't. Let me give you two examples:
>  
>      200 megajoules is how much energy you get from burning 4.8 kg of
>      gasoline. I do not know how much the cathode weighed, but I am sure it
>      was far less than 4.8 kg.
>  
>      200 megajoules is 20 times more energy than the Princeton Tokamak TFTR
>      created in the famous December 1993 experiment. (See J.D. Strachan et
>      al., PPPL-2978)
>  
>  
> Any comments Steve? Is that not technical enough? Too technical? By the way,
> read carefully: it says "closed cell" that's C-L-O-S-E-D. Recombination is not
> a factor. That is also true of Piantelli and about a hundred others, so your
> "experiment" is not relevant.
>  
> As for ad hominem attacks, some hombres in this world deserve them. Especially
> scientists who betray science, and who evade and play word games and ego games
> instead of working for the good of humanity. If you scientists keep acting
> this way, the taxpayers are going to get fed up. They will throw you all out
> into the street, which is what you deserve. Read that book "Hubble Wars" and
> you will see what I mean.
>  
> - Jed


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenjonesse cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.01 / mark fuller /  Re: November issue of FUSION TECHNOLOGY, a summary
     
Originally-From: a0014246@wsuaix.csc.wsu.edu (mark fuller)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: November issue of FUSION TECHNOLOGY, a summary
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 1994 07:54:26 GMT
Organization: Washington State University

mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY) writes:
: georgerw@aol.com (GeorgeRW) writes:
:  
: -> In response, there were two articles on the production of iron-56 ( ? )
: ->(deleted)
 
: I thought that deionized water could not contain any electropositive or
: electronegative elements.  Would not oxygen dissolved in water make it not
: deionized?
: (deleted) 
:  
: -> It is important to note that excess energy was apparently observed in one
: -> of the experiments from what I remember. The natural percentage of O18 in
: -> atmospheric
: -> air is 0.204%.
:  
: I think you missed the decimal on this one.  20.4% sounds more reasonable.
:  
:                                                                 Marshall

Marshal, you're pretty close, my old chemistry text gives total
atmospheric O2 concentration at approx. 20.95%.  But I think George was
talking about the concentration of just the Oxygen 18 isotope naturally
present in the air.

                                           Mark Fuller
                                           TANSTAAFL
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudena0014246 cudfnmark cudlnfuller cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.11.30 /  jonesse@acoust /  cancel <1994Nov30.154930.1901@acoust.byu.edu>
     
Originally-From: jonesse@acoust.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cancel <1994Nov30.154930.1901@acoust.byu.edu>
Date: 30 Nov 94 15:56:15 -0700

cancel <1994Nov30.154930.1901@acoust.byu.edu>
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenjonesse cudmo11 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.01 / Jed Rothwell /  Re: Jed's error
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@CompuServe.COM>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Jed's error
Date: 1 Dec 1994 14:11:42 GMT
Organization: CFRA

blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue) writes:
 
     "How do you make a measurement of the lever arm that is correct at the
     1% level, i.e. 30 +/- 0.3 inches? Don't forget the fact that one end
     point for the measurement is not accessible directly.  It's at the
     center of the shaft."
 
Is this supposed to be a joke? Does Dick Blue really, truly, honestly believe
that in the last decade of the 20th century, it is impossible to measure the
diameter of a shaft or manufacture a steel arm to a tolerance of one third of
an inch? Nearly one centimeter?!? This is such absurd garbage, I am amazed
that even Dick Blue could dream it up.
 
For people like Dick who never took shop in high school and have never spent
three minutes in a machine shop or a factory let me explain a few things.
Using my grandfather's micrometers and other metalworking tools, circa 1910,
you could measure the diameter of a steel shaft or the length of a metal arm
to within 0.001 inches. Before World War I we were mass producing surgical
blades and other precision parts to tolerances far, far better than a third of
an inch! People mastered better precision than that back in the time of the
ancient Greek and Roman empires. If they had not, those swords would never
have fit the scabbards right, and the aqueducts would have leaked all the
water out long before it reached town.
 
The other "objections" and wild speculation in this message was also all crap
and nonsense. The idea that nobody can measure a metal arm to the nearest
third of an inch wins the 1994 Prize for Idiotic Skeptical Notions. This is
right up there with Morrison's claim that you can burn 0.0044 moles of
hydrogen and get 86,700 joules of energy, or the Droege theory that you can
hook up four electrochemical cells in series, turn one off, and have the
others continue electrolysis. You "skeptics" are amazing! You will believe
absolutely anything but the truth.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy1 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Sun Dec  4 04:37:07 EST 1994
------------------------------
1994.12.05 /  itimc@roimar.i /  Submission for sci.physics.fusion
     
Originally-From: itimc@roimar.imar.ro
Originally-From:Peter Glueck
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Submission for sci.physics.fusion
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 1994 15:24:03 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Originally-From:Peter Glueck
Re:Is consistency a virtue?

This net is,in some respect very similar to a slaughter-house 
for the papers on cold fusion.This is as I see it.Perhaps for 
the skeptics it is,au contraire,(to quote one of the preferred   
expressions of one of the butchers) a place where the evil,
noxious, pseudoscientific products of ill or ill-willed
minds are discarded to oblivion.Sometimes the danger brought
about by these papers is overstated (as in William Hawkins'
message from FD 2979) in which he wrote so touching:
<In this United States holiday of Thanksgiving, I am thankful
that men such as Dick Blue,Dale Bass,Matt Kennel, and others
still respond to the attempts to replace science with belief
(I've only mentioned recent posters -Tom Droege and Dieter
Britz are voices of reason when they show up).Without them,
the true believers could post their pseudoscience as fact.
How ironic,that the technology of the Internet could be used 
to bring about the next Dark Ages.>
I don't understand how will work this in the practice,in case
the ascent of cold fusion couldn't be stopped? Will be CF taught
in the schools as a dogma everybody has to believe in? Will be CF
applied for the construction of heating devices which don't work
(it's obvious that the maximum what pseudoscience can breed is
pseudotechnology!).E.g.the clients of James Griggs will be forced
to pay for the excess BTU's which are actually not produced? Will
be  Hell air-conditioned and the moral will decay because people
wouldn't be scared any more to be sent there?
This Dark Ages story,as well as the contribution of Cold Fusion
to this disaster is not easy to understand. The opposite idea is
that those who are worried due to the damages of a victorious
Cold Fusion, forget that this field couldn't survive more than 
five years without a plethora of really interesting positive
results.
This is also obvious from the recent contribution of Dr.Steven
Jones (Get a grip,Steve?) in FD 2982.In this letter,he is  
criticizing Jed Rothwell's philosophy of science(in 1992)        
and some of the aspects of the achievements in the field
(Yamaguchi,Wolf,Miles,Notoya,Pons and Fleischmann) according to:
<We have shown by our own experiments and analysis of other
experiments that many so-called positive cf experiments are
flawed>(Read it carefully,it is *many* not *all* )
Nobody and nothing is perfect.I hope that Dr.Jones' promised
papers will include advises for improving the experimental 
techniques and instructions to avoid some of the common errors.
In the final part of the letter,Dr.Jones arrives to what I dare
to consider the important message:

<1.Our own experiments disclose errors in cf experiments,and our
work is being published in an effort to bring out the facts as we
see them.There are excellent paths to true fusion which are woe-
fully underfunded while P&F and others receive millions in funds
from Japanese sources (like Toyota).P&F claimed fusion ignition
at one time (not any more?) but there are approaches which really

can get there.>
When the Cold Fusion Dark Ages will arrive, the Japanese will
regret this inadequate spending of money.If cold fusion really
doesn't exist,there is a great mystery,how could they be forced
to pay?

<2. As others have pointed out, a conscientious scientist or
engineer will be careful to determine safety and environmental
hazards of his device.This requires knowing what products arise
from the device.Jed's "head in-the -sand" approach is, in this
sense ,unethical and short sighted">

O.K.,but we have to distinguish between _know-how_ and theory.
It is a welcome advise given that four working systems had 
shown thermal run-up (P&F,Mizuno,McKubre and Piantelli).
This problem is extremely serious for the hot fusion systems
see e.g. A.Donato,R. Andreani:"Structural materials for the
nuclear fusion reactors"(in Italian),ENEA Energia-Ambiente
-Innovazione 1-2,Jan-Feb 1994 pp 27-40. It is an additional
obstacle for this technology, however we wait for the good 
hot fusion news!

<3.I agree with Jim Carr that ignorance of the effluents from a
cf device could lead to lawsuits.>
We well know that "ignorance is not innocence but sin",but I have
no information regarding cases of hiding dangerous effluents from
any kind of CF devices.The problem was, fortunately enough, that
there are always so few effluents,except beneficial heat.

<4. A scientist or engineer with a heat-producing device will
want to know the modus operundum so that he control and optimize 
the device.>
The modus operandi is essential and it is based in any cases,on
theory,principles,empirical rules.
If I have understood it correctly,Prof.Jones does not try to deny
the existence of cold fusion (the excess heat producing type)
completely and once for ever.A loop-hole remains and if/ when the
Invincible Cold Fusion Demo will arrive, he will use it.     
This can be the reason for William Hawkins to not include Steve
Jones in his list of saviours?      

Dr.Peter Glueck,Institute of Isotopic and Molecular Technology,
POBox 700, 3400 Cluj-Napoca,Romania
Fax 4064-185816;  Email:<ITIMC@IMAR.RO>
 

cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenitimc cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.05 /  itimc@roimar.i /  Submission for sci.physics.fusion
     
Originally-From: itimc@roimar.imar.ro
Originally-From:Peter Glueck
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Submission for sci.physics.fusion
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 1994 15:24:25 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Originally-From:Peter Glueck
Re:An alternative explanation.

In FD 2983,Steven Jones writes:

<We could boost the apparent "excess heat"by bubbling oxygen 
through the cell,and we could terminate all excess heat by
bubbling nitrogen through the cell (thus removing dissolved
hydrogen/or D2).We also allowed the O2 and H2/or D2 to remain 
in solution due to the electrolysis of water (orD2O),but could
terminate the excess heat reading by placing tubes around the
electrodes to drive these gases up and out of the cell for the
most part.Other tests as well lead to the inescapable conclusion:
The apparent excess heat was in fact due to less than 100%
Faradaic efficiency--what one loosely calls "recombination." 
This is a chemical source of power, of course,which can integ-
rate to large apparent (but erroneous) excess energy over hours
and days of running.>

a)The false excess heat is due to gases accumulated and reacting
in the cell.The global gain has to be zero because by recombi-
nation you can, in the best case, receive the thermal equivalent
of the electric energy spent for electrolysis.You have mentioned
values of 750% momentary excess,how can you explain this?
b)On basis of known data and of my surfdyn concept (you have my
papers) an alternative explanation can be given:
-it is well known that the presence of oxygen promotes CF (see
e.g.Chuck Harrison's contributions at this net and D.Das,M.K.S.
Ray "Fusion in condensed matter -a likely scenario" Fusion
Technology,24,Aug 1993 pp 115-121;in my understanding this is due
to the development of active centers.The same researchers claim
that divided cells don't work at all.
Prof.Bockris was the first to show that inadequate turbulence
can stop the CF reactions,for example addition of D2O.Bubbling
of nitrogen can have a similar effect:inactivation of the active
centers.Intuitively,stagnant bubbles as by placing tubes around
the electrodes can also deactivate the centers.This sensitivity
is the great problem for the electrochemical systems.Creative
Gordian knots cutting methods as by Arata who uses a material
with an enormous surface are good solutions.
For this reason,I think actually you have obtained a real  heat 
excess effect.
However,I am eagerly waiting for your publications, if possible
in form of preprints.

Peter Glueck,Institute of Isotopic and Molecular Technology
POBox700,3400 Cluj-Napoca,Romania
Fax 4064-185816 E-mail:<ITIMC@IMAR.RO>

cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenitimc cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.06 / Richard Blue /  Re: Jed's errors
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Jed's errors
Date: Tue, 6 Dec 1994 01:14:23 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Jed,  Why is it that you waste more words spreading falsehoods about
my training and experience than you offer in answer to the questions
I raise?  I can believe that your grandfather could make a measurement
that was accurate to 0.001 inches.  The question is did you?  Did
you properly allow for the weight of the lever?  Did you consider
friction effects?  The one mechanical instrument you mentioned was
a pipe wrench.  Was that a calibrated pipe wrench?

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.05 / Tom Droege /  Re: Arata's Negative Excess Heat
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Arata's Negative Excess Heat
Date: 5 Dec 1994 18:35:05 GMT
Organization: fermilab

In article <3bv215$54n@styx.uwa.edu.au>, tag@chem.uwa.edu.au (T A Green) says:
>
>Steve Jones wanted to know why Arata et al. observed negative excess heat 
>during one experiment.This might arise simply because the calorimeter has 
>not yet reached thermal equilibrium. In any calorimetric experiment it is 

Seems to me that in a "good calorimetric" experiment, you keep track of
everything.  So one expects an apparent loss of heat as the apparatus 
heats up and as the Pd absorbs D/H.  If you don't, then you are tempted
to assume "positive excess heat" at the end of the experiment when these
earlier losses reappear.  

One should also keep a total energy balance for the whole experiment,
including a time dependent error accumulation.  This is why I was working
for such high accuracy.  One wants to be able to state at the end of
the experiment that one has returned to the starting point, and that 
there is an apparent change of energy of x joules with an error limit 
of (say one sigma) +/- y joules.  Unless this is done, as far as I am
concerned, there is no experiment.  

Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.04 / Jim Carr /  Re: Islind of Stability?
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Islind of Stability?
Date: 4 Dec 1994 16:40:17 -0500
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

||In article <1994Nov29.140346.12231@wvnvms>, 
||bl220050@wvnvms.wvnet.edu (Iron Lung) says:
||
||   Brian asked about the "Island of Stability" 

Apparently this article was multiply posted rather than cross posted. 
I sent him an answer from sci.physics, where I also posted a short 
summary of the key points.  I kept it short because the subject was 
discussed in some detail in the past few weeks because of the report 
on 1 August of the long lifetime (10-30 seconds) of two isotopes of 
Z=106 (A=265 and 266)) and the very recent announcement of the discovery 
of the element Z=110 (A=269).  

The 'island' is expected to be around Z=114 with A=278 (N=164). 

It is called an 'island' because most nuclei with lifetimes measured 
in seconds or hours are in a more-or-less contiguous 'valley' when 
you plot them on a graph with Z on one axis and N on another, while 
these are clearly separated from that region by a gap of nuclei with 
short (ms or less) lifetimes.  You have to jump this gap with some 
reaction to make those nuclei unless you can find some that are 
stable enough to have lasted after being made in a supernova. 

The recent experiments indicate the predicted longer lifetimes on 
what is sort of a 'sandbar' around this island. 

|In article <30NOV199416465599@mars.lerc.nasa.gov>
|edwlt12@mars.lerc.nasa.gov (Mike Jamison (ADF)) writes:
|>
|>If memory serves, plain old Iron is the most stable.  I guess if we live
|>long enough we'll witness the rust death of the universe...

Yes, Iron is the most tightly bound nucleus and thus essentially the 
most stable, but plenty of others have large barriers to decay so 
they are stable on the timescale of the life of the universe. 

In article <4@kentech.demon.co.uk> akldb writes:
>
>I seem to remember from my undergraduate lectures that the island of
>stability was expected at around a mass number of 120. 

Not mass number (A) but atomic number (Z).  Speculations bounced 
around in this general region of Z=114 to 126, but have settled 
down now that we know a lot more about the nuclear force and the 
models used to make the predictions.  Further, the many new nuclei 
that have been found, especially the trans-Fermium elements, have 
tested the older predictions and increase our confidence in some 
of the predictions.  For example, the paper in the 1 August 1994 
Phys. Rev. Letters shows remarkable agreement between the measured 
lifetime and that predicted by Patyk and Sobiczewski. 

>                   ...                          What we need is a nuclear
>physicist.

That's me.  Glad to oblige.  

-- 
 James A. Carr   <jac@scri.fsu.edu>     |  "The old he-coon walks just  
    http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac        |  before the light of day."    
 Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst.  |   - Gov. (still) Lawton Chiles to
 Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306    |     Jeb Bush during second debate
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.02 / Chris Hall /  Re: Jed's error
     
Originally-From: cmhall@umich.edu (Chris M. Hall)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Jed's error
Date: Fri, 2 Dec 1994 11:28:31
Organization: U. of Michigan Dept. Geol. Sci.

In article <tomkD05uGA.IyD@netcom.com> tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich) writes:
>From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
>Subject: Re: Jed's error
>Date: Fri, 2 Dec 1994 01:50:34 GMT

>In article <3bkliu$ps0$1@mhadf.production.compuserve.com>,
>Jed Rothwell  <72240.1256@CompuServe.COM> wrote:

>>For people like Dick who never took shop in high school and have never spent
>>three minutes in a machine shop or a factory let me explain a few things.
>>Using my grandfather's micrometers and other metalworking tools, circa 1910,
>>you could measure the diameter of a steel shaft or the length of a metal arm
>>to within 0.001 inches. Before World War I we were mass producing surgical
>>blades and other precision parts to tolerances far, far better than a third of
>>an inch!

>Well, any experimentalist will now understand the almost complete ignorance
>or Rothwell where experiments are concerned. Dick Blue describes a series
>of error sources for the calibration procedure Jed mentioned. Jed cannot
>even begin to understand what Blue is talking about.

>It's pretty plain that if you cannot understand how slight differences in 
>arm length of a lever and weight differences in the entire assembly inter-
>react then you don't have much of a chance of understanding minute differences
>in measured output integrating to substantial numbers over great periods
>of time.

>Why does anyone lend any credability to Rothwell at all?

Just to correct what you have just said, an error in torque calibration
would only integrate to a large energy error. The power error would scale
with the calibration error. Therefore to get a 20% power error, you need
a 20% torque error (assuming rpm is ok, a fairly easy measurement, see
Horowitz & Hill's Art of Electronics concerning the precision that 
frequencies can be measured).

As for a 20% calibration error for torque, it's fairly easy to calculate
the torque due to the lever. The error budget must be made up from distance
errors and weight errors, and the torque basically scales linearly with
both. One side seems to think this sort of error is plausible, one side 
does not. Before claiming that the lever torque is so critical, you must
estimate how biq it's torque is relative to the weight. How thick is
the lever; is it made from lead??

As both an engineer and an experimentalist, I find this thread rather
amusing. It basically boils down to one camp saying that engineers are
careful people whose job is to make things work, and the other camp who
seem to think that they have enlarged eyebrow ridges and bad breath.


Chris Hall
cmhall@umich.edu

cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudencmhall cudfnChris cudlnHall cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.03 / J W /  Re: Superconducting Magnets
     
Originally-From: "J.W.Fowler" <J.W.Fowler@ncl.ac.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Superconducting Magnets
Date: 3 Dec 1994 12:39:04 GMT
Organization: Newcastle University

In article <will.1134817816A@cfnews.ssc.gov>, will@hunter.ssc.gov
(William Robinson) says:
>
>I'm interested in superconducting magnet technology development required
>for magnetic containment of the large tokamak machines (ITER & TPX class).  My
>interests include materials, conductor, and current test capability that
>exists in this country (also in Germany and Japan) along with any R & D
>activity.  I don't see much discussion in this group (besides, cold fusion
>doesn't need it), so is there a more appropriate group I should be
>monitoring???
>
>Thanks,
>Will Robinson
>e-mail: will@bowie.ssc.gov
>Will Robinson


Hi, Ryan.




Why don't you send this guy some information on cold fusion!








You dweeb!
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenFowler cudfnJ cudlnW cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.02 / Ieromnimon F /  Re: Criminality/Ad hominem attacks by Mallove and Rothwell
     
Originally-From: ierof@csc2.essex.ac.uk (Ieromnimon F)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Criminality/Ad hominem attacks by Mallove and Rothwell
Date: 2 Dec 1994 16:07:52 GMT
Organization: University of Essex, Colchester, UK

In article <50-3FxG.jedrothwell@delphi.com> jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:
>Steve Jones <jonesse@physc2.byu.edu> writes:
> 
>     "Note that the postings from Jed and Mallove, cited here in full as
>     posted by Mallove, are essentially devoid of substantive technical
>     arguments.
> 
>Cited in full indeed! What a neat evasion, Jones should have been a lawyer.
>Ah, but let us return to part of my posting that Mallove did not cite. Steve
>saw this I am sure; I e-mailed a copy directly to him. Just for laughs, let us
>see how he tries to wiggle out of this part:
> 

 [snipped piece of text that is supposed to provide
  the missing technical arguments]

>Any comments Steve? Is that not technical enough? Too technical? By the way,
>read carefully: it says "closed cell" that's C-L-O-S-E-D. Recombination is not
>a factor. That is also true of Piantelli and about a hundred others, so your
>"experiment" is not relevant.
> 
>As for ad hominem attacks, some hombres in this world deserve them. Especially
>scientists who betray science, and who evade and play word games and ego games
>instead of working for the good of humanity. If you scientists keep acting
>this way, the taxpayers are going to get fed up. They will throw you all out
>into the street, which is what you deserve. Read that book "Hubble Wars" and
>you will see what I mean.
> 
>- Jed

Now calm down, take a deep breath, count up to a million times excess energy
(oops, sorry :-), and only let positive thoughts enter your mind (a holiday
with P&F, whatever). If that doesn't work, you sould get a prescription for
some lithium salts (free from 3He contamination...).

What a character...

Frank Ieromnimon,
Comp. Sci.
Essex University
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenierof cudfnIeromnimon cudlnF cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.03 / Harry Conover /  Re: Jed's error
     
Originally-From: conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Jed's error
Date: 3 Dec 1994 21:10:06 GMT
Organization: The Internet Access Company

Thomas H. Kunich (tomk@netcom.com) wrote:

: Why does anyone lend any credability to Rothwell at all?

What makes you believe anyone does?  Jed is comic relief, nothing more,
nothing less.   The more he posts, the more obvious it is.  Jed is....
putting it nicely...the 'Archie Bunker' of the physics domain.

                                     Harry C.

cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenconover cudfnHarry cudlnConover cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.02 / Bruce Dunn /  Re: Jed's error
     
Originally-From: Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Dunn)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Jed's error
Date: Fri, 02 Dec 94 07:51:50 -0800
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada

Dick Blue has thought up ways in which the calibration of the Eaton torque
sensor could be flawed.  I can solve both of his proposed problems (weight
positioning and lever mass) with an appropriately designed lever mechanism.
I can't believe that the manufacturers of the torque sensor are so
incompetent as engineers that they can't provide an appropriate solution to
these problems.

Skeptical as I am about the Griggs device, this objection is going to far.
It is fair to ask Jed about how the calibration of the torque sensor is
done.  I have done so and he has responded.  If you envision potential
problems in the calibration, why not ask Jed about the relevant details.
This will do far more to advance the state of the discussion than
speculating about the errors in an imaginary calibration procedure.



Blue's original post:

>
> Jed Rothwell has told us how the Eaton torque sensor was calibrated,
> but he failed to mention anything concerning the accuracy of that
> calibration leaving us free to speculate.
>
> The essence of the calibration, as I understand it, is that you attach
> a lever to the motor shaft and hang a weight on it.  Twenty pounds at
> a distance of 30 inches gives a torque of 600 in-pounds so you set
> the Eaton read-out to 600, and there you have it.  Now is that a
> 1% measurement, a 10% measurement, or off the wall?
>
> Let's think about the distance determination.  How do you make a
> measurement of the lever arm that is correct at the 1% level, i.e.
> 30 +/- 0.3 inches?  Don't forget the fact that one end point for
> the measurement is not accessible directly.  It's at the center of
> the shaft.  Now what do we have at the point where the weight is
> attached?  Jed didn't say.
>
> Speaking of weight, did you hear anyone mention a weightless lever?
> I don't think so.  That means there is another torque involved isn't
> there?  So let us think our way through this.  You attach the lever
> without the 20 pounds and you zero the Eaton meter to null out the
> torque due to the lever.  Then you hang the weight and adjust the
> range to get a reading of 600 in-pounds.  Now you take of the weight
> and the level so you are back at zero torque, but that is not what
> the meter reads, is it?  I am guessing that you then rezero the
> meter.
>
> Well what effect does friction have through all of this?  If I apply
> a torque to the motor shaft and then remove it does the torque really
> go back to zero?  Somewhere I heard Jed say that the motor needs help
> getting started sometimes so I suspect there is just a tiny bit of
> starting torque required.
>
> How many errors have been made up to this point, and we haven't
> even started the experiment?
>
> Dick Blue
>


--
Bruce Dunn    Vancouver, Canada   Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca
cudkeys:
cuddy02 cudenBruce_Dunn cudfnBruce cudlnDunn cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.02 / Jed Rothwell /  Re: Griggs power
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@CompuServe.COM>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs power
Date: 2 Dec 1994 22:11:22 GMT
Organization: CFRA

Mr. Johnston:
 
Your messages are so full of chaos, misinformation, and astounding ignorance
that I think it would be best not to address them again. You will only confuse
the readers of this forum with nonsense like this:
 
     ". . . remember in test runs they can easily get 500% efficiency. And
     the steam is superheated too ... it shouldn't be too hard to get a
     turbine to drive the gadget . . .
 
And this kind of incredibly stupid question:
 
IJ:  "Ideally there should be a good thermal barrier in the drive train."
 
Me:  "Yeah. Like maybe, uh. . . the dynamometer? Hmmmm?"
 
IJ:  "Details, please."
 
 . . which reveals that you did not understood what I wrote 2 lines above:
"remember that the electric motor is now connected to the dynamometer, which
is in turn connected to the GG;" and that you do not have the foggiest idea
what a dynamometer is. I cannot imagine what kind of "details" you might have
in mind, but I am sure I have no interest in providing them. As I said before,
I suggest you contact the manufacturer, because tech support people are paid
to deal with imbeciles like you.
 
 
For the record, I will answer just one more Astoundingly Stupid Question, and
then I will try to ignore you:
 
     "Are you _sure_ that the shaft (not the housing) at the gadget end is
     hotter than the shaft (not the housing) at the motor end."
 
Yes, I am sure the GG is 200 degrees Fahrenheit hotter than anything else in
the room. It is very easy to tell. Just after the machine was turned off, I
held my hand on the motor housing and shaft, and measured the temperatures
with the pyrometer. You cannot hold your hand for any length of time on the
GG, you would be severely burned.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.03 / John Logajan /  Re: Inertial Fusion Drivers
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@mirage.skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Inertial Fusion Drivers
Date: 3 Dec 1994 19:40:39 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Paul M. Koloc (pmk@prometheus.UUCP) wrote:
: Also, you might be interested in adiabatic inertial "fusion"
: or more correctly "aneutronic energy" generated using a 
: compressible and pressure leveraged PLASMAK(tm) magnetoplasmoid.  
: It would run about 60 hertz using p-(^11)B, and of course 3 
: phase operation puts the smoothed  reaction mass impulse at a 
: very tolerable  and essentially continuous level. 

I presume you mean there is one PLASMAK device per "phase" --
kinda like cylinders in a piston engine -- yup, nothin' like
cruisin' with the old V8 (P8?) engine. :-)

--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com  --  612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA -
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.02 /  akldb
 /  Re: Inching to centimetres (more)
     
Originally-From: akldb
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Inching to centimetres (more)
Date: Fri, 2 Dec 1994 21:20:00 GMT
Organization: Kentech Instruments Ltd.


In article <3bd0ls$iu4@watnews1.watson.ibm.com> c1prasad@watson.ibm.com
(prasad) writes:
>Last week, I stated recalling that 1 in used to be 2.5402 cm back
>in '70s, and outside the US.
>
>I was browsing thru the original book on dynamics by Thomson (Lord
Kelvin).
>Somewhere near the end, he cites 2.5339 or whereabouts.  Not surprising,
>since at least till recently the avoirdupois (sp?) was an independently
>maintained std.
>
>Looks like we need to do some archeology each time we read an old text!
>
>
What is this doing under fusion.

The inch was redefined in the UK in 1963 by act of parliament in terms of
a metric equivalent and there are now 2.54 cm to the inch. Now you know,
inches are metric!
The previous definition 1878 was for a yard (36 inches) 
"The straight line or distance between the centres of two gold plugs or
pins in the bronze bar... measured when the bar is at the temperature of
sixty-two degrees of Fahrenheit's thermometer, and when it is sup[ported
by bronze rollers placed under it in such a manner as best to avoid
flexure of the bar..."

If one attempts archeology one will find that the figure is very poorly
defined.
The Greeks had a foot equal to 16 fingers and then the Romans divided the
foot into 12 hence the inch.

cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.02 /  akldb
 /  Re: Islind of Stability?
     
Originally-From: akldb
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Islind of Stability?
Date: Fri, 2 Dec 1994 21:52:31 GMT
Organization: Kentech Instruments Ltd.


In article <30NOV199416465599@mars.lerc.nasa.gov>
edwlt12@mars.lerc.nasa.gov (Mike Jamison (ADF)) writes:
>In article <3bidrh$69f@fnnews.fnal.gov>, Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom
Droege) writes...
>>In article <1994Nov29.140346.12231@wvnvms>, bl220050@wvnvms.wvnet.edu
(Iron Lung) says:
>>>
>>>        I'm posting this for a friend.  He's trying to write a novel
and 
>>>he needs a bit of information (if it exists).  He remembers hearing
about
>>>the 'islind of stability' some 30 years ago.  He would like more info.
on
>>>this, esp. the atomic number of the 'islind'.  He's tried several
places for
>>>this data, but he can't find it anywhere.  Is is real or just from an
old
>>>late night sci-fi?
>>>
>>>        Brian
>>>
>> 
>>There have been several articles in "Scientific American" over the
>>years on this.  It may even show on some modern periodic tables.  
>>There are charts plotting atomic number vs atomic weight with all
>>the observed combinations.  The "island" is clearly visible as I
>>recall on such a chart.
>
>If memory serves, plain old Iron is the most stable.  I guess if we live
>long enough we'll witness the rust death of the universe...
>
>> 
>>Tom Droege
>
>
>Mike Jamison
>
>
>"Scientific research consists in seeing what everyone else has seen, but
>thinking what no one else has thought"
>
>						-A. Szent-Gyorgyi
>

I seem to remember from my undergraduate lectures that the island of
stability was expected at around a mass number of 120. The "stability " of
the nucleus is not solely due to the binding energy per nucleon as iron 56
may last a long while, but iron 53 only lasts 8.5 minutes yet the mass
excess is very similar. Certain "magic" numbers seem to help in the
stability. The ratio of protons to neutrons is important. The possible
decay routes will also help determine the stability. The iron 53 can loose
around 4MeV to go to Manganese 53. This is stable for a few million years,
yet conversion to Chromium 53 would release a further 500keV. There must
be some conserved quantities that prevent some transitions. It is these
that might bring about the island of stability  What we need is a nuclear
physicist.
Tony.
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.02 /  artki@kbbs.com /  Inertial Fusion Drive
     
Originally-From: artki@kbbs.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Inertial Fusion Drive
Date: Fri, 02 Dec 94 22:32:25 EST
Organization: KBBS - Internet & Files via Satellite   


 * Quote from INTERNET: pmk@prometheus. to ** ALL ** dated 12-02-94.

> In article <3449YKOQTQFGQOHJOV@kbbs.com> artki@kbbs.com writes:
> >
> >     E. Is there a fifth choice?
>
> Yes.  Check the work of C Yamanaka (Japan) and his MICF
> [ as well as Kamish (UMI) and Hasegawa (BTL) ]
  Ok.  I'll stroll down to CalTech and look them up.  Can you be
more specific in your references - is there a book or an issue of some
journal you can mention?  Or should I just put "YAMANAKA" in the library
computer and some obvious titles will show up?
  What's a MICF?

   Arthur in >---(oo)---> Hollywood             (ArtKi@KBBS.COM)
---
 ~ SPEED 1.40 [NR] ~


--
    [*]   Message Origin:  KBBS Los Angeles  (818) 886-0872   [*]
    [*]   28.8kb & ISDN available.  For Info: info@kbbs.com   [*]

cudkeys:
cuddy02 cudenartki cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.03 / Prem Sobel /  Re: Islind of Stability?
     
Originally-From: prem@ix.netcom.com (Prem Sobel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Islind of Stability?
Date: 3 Dec 1994 14:52:00 GMT
Organization: Netcom

In <3bidrh$69f@fnnews.fnal.gov> Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege) 
writes: 

>
>In article <1994Nov29.140346.12231@wvnvms>, bl220050@wvnvms.wvnet.edu 
(Iron Lung) says:
>>
>>        I'm posting this for a friend.  He's trying to write a novel 
and 
>>he needs a bit of information (if it exists).  He remembers hearing 
about
>>the 'islind of stability' some 30 years ago....
>
>There have been several articles in "Scientific American" over the
>years on this.  It may even show on some modern periodic tables.  
>There are charts plotting atomic number vs atomic weight with all
>the observed combinations.  The "island" is clearly visible as I
>recall on such a chart.

It is called lead, isn't it?

Prem
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenprem cudfnPrem cudlnSobel cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.02 / James Stolin /  Re: Griggs power
     
Originally-From: FKNF40A@prodigy.com (James Stolin)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs power
Date: 2 Dec 1994 21:57:56 GMT
Organization: Prodigy Services Company  1-800-PRODIGY

ianj@castle.ed.ac.uk (I Johnston) wrote:
>
>But remember in test runs they can easily get 500% efficiency. And the
>steam is superheated too ... it shouldn't be too hard to get a turbine 
to
>drive the gadget with an efficiency of 20%. And ... bingo!

Ian,

    I proposed the coupling of output to input also.  Did not get a 
response.  Do you kknow what the efficiency of a typical steam driven 
turbine is?  Thanks.

-
James B. Stolin  -  Illinois Computer Service  -  FKNF40A@prodigy.com


cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenFKNF40A cudfnJames cudlnStolin cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.03 / Jed Rothwell /  Re: Eaton torque sensor specifications
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@CompuServe.COM>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Eaton torque sensor specifications
Date: 3 Dec 1994 15:37:47 GMT
Organization: CFRA

mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY) writes:
 
     "Is the computer [attached to the GG instruments] a Pentium?  If so then
     all math done with the floating point processor is questionable and must
     be checked by hand to verify.  Hopefully it is a 386 or 486 or a
     non-Intel processor, in which case the results can most likely be
     trusted."
 
It is a 486 I believe. Absolutely everything is checked by hand, six ways from
seven. Neither Griggs nor I will believe a computer without extensive and
repeated checking by hand at every level.
 
However, as a computer dweeb, let me say something about the recently revealed
problems with the Pentium FPP. These problems have been greatly exaggerated in
the press. I admit I am shocked that such an error has gone undetected so
long. On the other hand, the sky has not fallen. The people at Intel know what
they are doing. This error only occurs at the extremes of floating point
division. Millions of people have used Pentiums for trillions of arithmetic
operations. If there was a serious commonly occurring error it would have be
caught a few weeks after the processor hit the streets. When I say "commonly
occurring" I mean if it happened 0.001% of the time. A problem that occurs 1%
of the time it is dead simple to catch. Back in the early days of
microcomputers, I often found arithmetic troubles and imprecision in compilers
from Microsoft and Borland, especially in double precision routines. I recall
a hardware arithmetic problem with the early versions of the 386. We never had
any problem finding these errors. Fixing them was hard.
 
Properly written financial accounting software and engineering software always
employs double checking, subtotals, and other accounting procedures to catch
errors of this nature. When an accountant or programmer gets a new computer,
she will run extensive tests with old data sets to make certain the answers
come out exactly the same, to the penny. If there is a discrepancy of even one
penny per million dollars, a responsible accountant will delay implementation
for weeks until she tracks down the source of the error. Accounting must
employ double checking because errors in arithmetic are always possible, even
with the best computers, and they were as common as fleas in the pre-computer
era (a.k.a. the dark ages, ending in the 1970's, which some of us still
remember).
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.03 /  artki@kbbs.com /  Inertial Fusion Drive
     
Originally-From: artki@kbbs.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Inertial Fusion Drive
Date: Sat, 03 Dec 94 09:36:36 EST
Organization: KBBS - Internet & Files via Satellite   


 * Quote from INTERNET: pmk@prometheus. to ** ALL ** dated 12-02-94.

> Also, you might be interested in adiabatic inertial "fusion"
> or more correctly "aneutronic energy" generated using a
> compressible and pressure leveraged PLASMAK(tm) magnetoplasmoid.
> It would run about 60 hertz using p-(^11)B, and of course 3
> phase operation puts the smoothed  reaction mass impulse at a
> very tolerable  and essentially continuous level.

  A fairly high level of jargon there!
  Let's see if I can figure it out.  Sounds like you have a pulse-jet
kind of fusion reaction going on.  Like a V1 (buzz bomb) only the
"engine" is made of plasma instead of steel.  Is this close to what
you meant?

  What kind of specific impulse are we talking about for this kind
of drive?

   Arthur in >---(oo)---> Hollywood             (ArtKi@KBBS.COM)
---
 ~ SPEED 1.40 [NR] ~


--
    [*]   Message Origin:  KBBS Los Angeles  (818) 886-0872   [*]
    [*]   28.8kb & ISDN available.  For Info: info@kbbs.com   [*]

cudkeys:
cuddy03 cudenartki cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.03 / Lee Eimers /  Re: Islind of Stability?
     
Originally-From: EIMERSL@cedarville.edu (Lee Eimers)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Islind of Stability?
Date: Sat, 3 Dec 1994 22:06:29 GMT
Organization: Cedarville College, Cedarville, OH

In article <1994Nov29.140346.12231@wvnvms> bl220050@wvnvms.wvnet.edu (Iron Lung) writes:
>From: bl220050@wvnvms.wvnet.edu (Iron Lung)
>Subject: Islind of Stability?
>Date: 29 Nov 94 14:03:46 EST

>        I'm posting this for a friend.  He's trying to write a novel and 
>he needs a bit of information (if it exists).  He remembers hearing about
>the 'islind of stability' some 30 years ago.  He would like more info. on
>this, esp. the atomic number of the 'islind'.  He's tried several places for
>this data, but he can't find it anywhere.  Is is real or just from an old
>late night sci-fi?

>        Brian

The phenomenon you are referring to was very popular for a short period about 
20 or 25 years ago.  As I remember it, the so-called "island of stability" 
related to the properties of transuranic elements in the region of atomic 
number 114.  Although I do not recall the details, around this number there 
was some reason to believe that the elements would be relatively long-lived 
(for transuranic elements, that is).  Some were urging experimental efforts 
to produce such elements.  I am not able to give you any references at the 
moment, but perhaps this will jog someone's memory and they will be able to 
help you.

Lee
cudkeys:
cuddy3 cudenEIMERSL cudfnLee cudlnEimers cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.04 / Matt Kennel /  Re: Jed's error
     
Originally-From: mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Jed's error
Date: 4 Dec 1994 00:32:57 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

Chris M. Hall (cmhall@umich.edu) wrote:

: As for a 20% calibration error for torque, it's fairly easy to calculate
: the torque due to the lever. The error budget must be made up from distance
: errors and weight errors, and the torque basically scales linearly with
: both. One side seems to think this sort of error is plausible, one side 
: does not. Before claiming that the lever torque is so critical, you must
: estimate how biq it's torque is relative to the weight. How thick is
: the lever; is it made from lead??

You also need to make sure that your torque calibration that you
perform at 0 RPM is still accurate at operating speeds.

: Chris Hall
: cmhall@umich.edu


--
-Matt Kennel  		mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu
-Institute for Nonlinear Science, University of California, San Diego
-*** AD: Archive for nonlinear dynamics papers & programs: FTP to
-***     lyapunov.ucsd.edu, username "anonymous".
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenmbk cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Tue Dec  6 04:37:04 EST 1994
------------------------------
1994.12.06 /  itimc@roimar.i /  Subject:Re:"Heat after Death"-an explanation.
     
Originally-From: itimc@roimar.imar.ro
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Subject:Re:"Heat after Death"-an explanation.
Subject:Re:"Heat after Death"-an explanation.
Date: Tue, 6 Dec 1994 01:30:21 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Originally-From: Peter Glueck
Subject:Re:"Heat after Death"-an explanation.

The "Heat after Death" phenomenon,described by Pons and
Fleischmann in their ICCF-4 paper(C2.12) has some of the 
characteristics of the Invincible Cold Fusion Demo.You 
can find an adequate description of the Demo in the paper
"The ideal cold fusion demonstration" by Bill Collis in
"Cold Fusion" Magazine 1,1 May 1994,p 46-47.
The P&F electrochemical cells which work with the complete
evaporation of the water phase, are transformed in dry CF
devices,and the heat generating process continues at zero 
energy input for a few hours.The heat generation is intense;
the temperature of the cathode is typically 250 Celsius.  
In the frame of my Surfdyn hypothesis the "Heat after Death"
phenomenon is very easy to understand if we consider some
recently discovered peculiarities of the heterogeneous 
catalysis, specifically hydrogenation.[1,2].
.................................................................
Abstract of [1].Studies in heterogeneous catalysis have long 
speculated on or have provided indirect evidence for the role
of hydrogen embedded in the catalyst bulk as a primary reactant
This report describes experiments carried out under single-
collision conditions that document the distinctive reactivity
of hydrogen embedded in the bulk of the metal catalyst.Specif-
ically,the bulk H atom is shown to be the reactive species
in the hydrogenation of CH3 adsorbed on Ni(111) to form CH4,
while the H atoms bound to the surface where unreactive.These 
results unambiguously demonstrate the importance of bulk species
to heterogeneous catalytic chemistry.
................................................................
The same mechanism may be operable in other catalytic reactions 
implying hydrogen,including ,as predicted by Surfdyn,cold fusion.
The role of subsurface hydrogen which has probably an increased
coherency,is obvious in the case of "heat after death";in the
dried cells it is no more supply of deuterium from the outside
and the bulk hydrogen is continuously diffusing out from the 
material.The heat- generating reactions continue in the active
centers which survived after the dry-up of the cell until the 
outflow of deuterium becomes so weak that the high local
concentration/ mobility cannot be more accomplished.
Cold Fusion is an extreme case of catalysis, however this
statement is only a part of the solution.Catalysis is very
complex, much more an art than a science.  

[1]  A.D.Johnson,S.P. Daley,A.L.Utz,S.T.Ceyer:"The chemistry
of bulk hydrogen:reaction of hydrogen embedded in nickel with
adsorbed CH3.
Science,vol 257,10 July 1992 pp 223-225.
(The authors are from the Department of Chemistry, Massachusetts 
Institute of Technology,Cambridge,MA 02139, the paper is based
on the Dr.Thesis of Andrew D.Johnson who was guided by Prof.    
Sylvia T.Ceyer.)

[2]  xxx:Chemical Engineering News,70,43,Oct 26 pp22 (Comments on
the work of Johnson and Ceyer who have received the award of the 
American Chemical Society,1993, for this important contribution
to the science of catalysis.)





















 

cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenitimc cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.04 /  bookworm /  FAQ..I want them..
     
Originally-From: bookworm@nmt.edu (bookworm)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: FAQ..I want them..
Date: Sun, 4 Dec 1994 22:49:35 GMT
Organization: New Mexico Tech

The subject sais it all, almost.  I would like to know to 
what pressure (in psi) I would need to take heavy water to
to initiate fusion.
Email me  
	

-- 
___________________________________________________________________
the incorrigible, uncorruptible, undefeatable, indefatigible
                       bookworm@nmt.edu
___________________________________________________________________
cudkeys:
cuddy4 cudenbookworm cudlnbookworm cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.06 / Robin Spaandonk /  GG operation
     
Originally-From: rvanspaa@ozemail.com.au (Robin van Spaandonk)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: GG operation
Date: Tue, 6 Dec 1994 05:12:10 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Jed,

I wonder if you could answer the following question about the GG for me.
Q: As the input electrical power purportedly drops at onset of the "effect"
(whatever the cause), I presume that the mechanical input power also drops.
I am just curious as to what actually happens. Do RPMs drop, or the torque,
or both? If both, could you give us a breakdown of the division. i.e. what 
percentage
of the drop occurs in the torque, what percentage in the RPM. My apologies,
if this has already been dealt with in a previous posting.

TIA,

Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa@ozemail.com.au>
_________________________________________________________________
Any wave function that collapses with observation, describes only YOUR
KNOWLEDGE of the system, not the state of the system itself. It then 
becomes perfectly reasonable for it to collapse, as observation changes
knowledge/certainty. Motto: Looking wont kill the cat, it's not in a mixed
state. The only thing in a mixed state is what you know about the cat.
 
Robin - Exploder of Myths <rvanspaa@ozemail.com.au> 

cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenrvanspaa cudfnRobin cudlnSpaandonk cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.05 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: Jones versus Fleischmann
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Jones versus Fleischmann
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 1994 07:30:18 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

In article <3bpvtm$frj$1@mhadg.production.compuserve.com>,
Jed Rothwell  <72240.1256@CompuServe.COM> wrote:

>I suppose so! If that is all you had to go on, you might well think he was
>right. Fortunately, you have a lot more to go on. Read any textbook on
>electrochemistry or physics and you will see that everything he says is wrong.
>You do not have to take my word for it. That's the nice thing about science:
>there are objective standards and established laws. They prove that
>Fleischmann is right and Jones is so wrong he isn't even in the ballpark.

So, Jed, what are _your_ qualifications? Where do you teach? What is
your degree in? What private research of note have _you_ performed?
What qualifications do you have to criticize Steven Jones or Daffy Duck
for that matter?

cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.05 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Inertial Fusion Drive
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Inertial Fusion Drive
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 1994 11:35:51 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <06455APGHYQDTPCILDQ@kbbs.com> artki@kbbs.com writes:
>
> * Quote from INTERNET: pmk@prometheus. to ** ALL ** dated 12-02-94.
>
>> In article <3449YKOQTQFGQOHJOV@kbbs.com> artki@kbbs.com writes:
>> >
>> >     E. Is there a fifth choice?
>>
>> Yes.  Check the work of C Yamanaka (Japan) and his MICF
>> [ as well as Kamish (UMI) and Hasegawa (BTL) ]
>  Ok.  I'll stroll down to CalTech and look them up.  Can you be
>more specific in your references - is there a book or an issue of some
>journal you can mention?  Or should I just put "YAMANAKA" in the library
>computer and some obvious titles will show up?

>  What's a MICF?  
Magnetic Inertial Confinement Fusion 
The Russians had it has a distinct area of fusion research, and 
unofficially  the US does in the sense that there are those doing 
magnetized plasma research... . plasma thingys which can be 
compressionally enhanced.  For example, former bomb types play 
around with this stuff.  

Yamanaka should work, but if you need more try C. Yamanaka, Institute 
for Laser Technology, 2-6 Yamada-Oka, Suita, Osaka 565, JAPAN.  For
example, Osaka recently produced shots at 1000 normal fuel density, and
neutron yeilds of 10^13.  The 1000 times density was a dream-prediction
by Teller from the early 70's, so it represents a significant closeness
to long sought after goals.   

As I say, our concept is about to lay claim to occupy magnetic and
inertial compression fusion areas, more or less simultaneously.  That's
because, although the fuel plasma is much much smaller in volume than
an ITER plasma, it is also much larger than the typical ICF pellet. 
Consequently, due to its relatively large size, it can be inertially 
AND adiabatically compressed through simple mechanical means.  

>   Arthur in >---(oo)---> Hollywood             (ArtKi@KBBS.COM)
>---
> ~ SPEED 1.40 [NR] ~
>--
>    [*]   Message Origin:  KBBS Los Angeles  (818) 886-0872   [*]
>    [*]   28.8kb & ISDN available.  For Info: info@kbbs.com   [*]


cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.05 / T Green /  Arata's Negative Excess Heat
     
Originally-From: tag@chem.uwa.edu.au (T A Green)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Arata's Negative Excess Heat
Date: 5 Dec 1994 12:45:25 GMT
Organization: The University of Western Australia

Steve Jones wanted to know why Arata et al. observed negative excess heat 
during one experiment.This might arise simply because the calorimeter has 
not yet reached thermal equilibrium. In any calorimetric experiment it is 
normal to ignore data during the initial period corresponding to a few 
thermal time constants of the calorimeter. Huggins didn't do this so he saw 
an energy deficit in the early part of his experiment.
Secondly, if you are using a closed cell and calculating the input power as
I*V, you are going to get an energy deficit during the loading of D into 
the cathode. This arises because you get less heat reacting a mole of D 
with Pd than you do with O2. So if the Arata data represents the beginning of
a run, there might be good reasons for the heat deficit. If it represents 
a period when the calorimeter has thermally equilibrated and the electode is 
fully loaded, then it's a real worry. Anyway, I can't believe that there are
no control experiments. Were the referees asleep?

---
todd
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudentag cudfnT cudlnGreen cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.05 / Jed Rothwell /  Re: Arata paper in hand; reply to Rothwell
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@CompuServe.COM>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Arata paper in hand; reply to Rothwell
Date: 5 Dec 1994 14:38:57 GMT
Organization: CFRA

jonesse@acoust.byu.edu wrote the following mind-boggling claptrap:
 
     "Furthermore, there is no explanation for the NEGATIVE excess heat
     during the first half hour of the run shown in Fig. 3.  Nor is this a
     trivial amount of negative excess heat:  the curve begins at -80%
     (minus) whereas the maximum positive excess heat is about +60% excess
     heat in Fig. 3. Moreover, the plot minimum is -80%, and  no data is
     given for the first 10 minutes of the run (bad form).  Evidently, since
     the data line begins at -80%, the early data showed even greater
     NEGATIVE excess heat."
 
     The negative excess heat needs to be explained. This could well be a
     case like we've seen before:  negative excess heat is greater than can
     be explained by chemical reactions."
 
I cannot tell whether this is meant as a joke, or whether Jones is innumerate.
Is it possible he cannot tell the difference between 1.5 hours and 3,000
hours? Can he really, honestly believe that a chemical storage mechanism
capable of storing 4 KJ maximum can account for a 200 MJ heat release? That is
what he is saying. Is it possible that a professor of physics cannot
distinguish between four thousand and two hundred million!?!
 
I don't think so. I expect Jones knows that if a person earns $4,000 per year,
he is poverty stricken, whereas a person who earns $200,000,000 per year is
very, very wealthy. Jones apparently hopes that nobody will read the paper,
and nobody will notice that he saying 4,000 = 200,000,000. Sigh . . .  For the
record, let me try to untangle this morass of confusion and chaos he has
introduced.
 
There is no explanation for the NEGATIVE excess heat because none is needed.
Anyone with 15 minutes experience in this field knows it is the heat of
formation of palladium deuteride. It always appears, it is expected and
normal. The maximum amount of energy that can be stored by this mechanism is
well understood. Arata confirmed that the chemical energy storage and release
of his cell is exactly what the textbook says it should be: 4 KJ maximum.
Figure 2 shows the test he used to confirm this. It is titled: "chemical
reaction characteristics when the same quantity of  Pd-black' was used as with
that of Fig. 1 DD-Cathode."
 
Jones claims he has "seen before" "negative excess heat is greater than can be
explained by chemical reactions." I have never head of such a thing, and
neither has Arata or any other CF scientist I know. If Jones has "seen"
massive amounts of energy being swallowed up, he should publish a paper about
it as quickly as possible. He will win a Nobel prize for this revolutionary
observation that disproves the laws of thermodynamics. This is far more
radical than CF, which obeys all the laws of thermodynamics and mass energy
conservation, as far as anyone knows.
 
The rest of his e-mail message is devoted to the same claptrap Jones has
offered ad nauseam since 1989. Again he claims that theory overrules facts.
Again he claims that an experimentally proven fact cannot be accepted unless
it offered along with a "theory." Again he claims that nuclear ash -- helium,
which is incredibly difficult to measure -- must be detected or the
calorimetry is somehow magically disproved. Again he ducks, wiggles, squirms,
digresses and evades the issues. Because he cannot "explain away" the
calorimetry he refuses to talk about it all. He knows perfectly well that the
4.9 degree Delta T temperature in the closed flow calorimeter must be real,
and he knows it must be beyond the limits of chemistry. He knows perfectly
well that "recombination" is not an issue with a closed calorimeter, so his
favorite bugaboo cannot be invoked in this case, any more than it can be with
Pons and Fleischmann who measure heat beyond I*V. Instead of addressing the
scientific issues he gives us more tired double-talk and evasive nonsense,
hoping against hope that nobody will read the paper, and that nobody will
notice the difference between four thousand and two hundred million.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.05 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Re: Jones versus Fleischmann
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Jones versus Fleischmann
Date: Mon, 05 Dec 1994 12:53 -0500 (EST)

arnief@wu.labs.tek.com (Arnie Frisch) writes:
 
-> You insist on referencing work that has been discarded - even by the
-> researchers responsible for that work - as having no future.  You
-> know that Amoco stopped working in this area because they concluded
-> it had no future!
 
This is really meaningless.  There can be lots of reasons to discard work in
process.  It may be too expensive, take to long to bring to fruitation,
governement intervention or regulation, or it may simply not fit into the
marketing plans of the company. There are many examples of work being discarded
by a large company only to be continued either by a samll company, or the
spin off by the original people working on it, to become a major force in the
market later. Intel dropping the Z-80 design which is STILL the most popular 8
bit processor is only one of many examples.
 
                                                                Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy05 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.05 / Arnie Frisch /  Re: Jones versus Fleischmann
     
Originally-From: arnief@wu.labs.tek.com (Arnie Frisch)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Jones versus Fleischmann
Date: 5 Dec 1994 08:06:16 -0800
Organization: Tektronix Laboratories, Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton, OR

In article <3bpvtm$frj$1@mhadg.production.compuserve.com> Jed Rothwell
<72240.1256@CompuServe.COM> writes:
>browe@netcom.com (William J. Rowe) writes:
> 
>     ". . .as a lurker I got to tell you Steve Jones comes across as being
>     much more reasonable than you."
> 
>What?!? Jones claims that recombination can create more heat than I*V! He
>claims that recombination can explain results with closed cells at Amoco and
>elsewhere.
........
...
..


You insist on referencing work that has been discarded - even by the
researchers responsible for that work - as having no future.  You
know that Amoco stopped working in this area because they concluded
it had no future!

Arnold Frisch
Tektronix Laboratories
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenarnief cudfnArnie cudlnFrisch cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.05 / Jed Rothwell /  Re: Arata paper in hand; reply to Rothwell
     
Originally-From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@CompuServe.COM>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Arata paper in hand; reply to Rothwell
Date: 5 Dec 1994 17:06:43 GMT
Organization: CFRA

I should add a technical note:
 
I mentioned that most electrochemical experiments start off with a heat
deficit for a few hours. It is possible that Arata's calorimeter is
deliberately set low, so that it would show a deficit instead of an even
balance after that. In other words, when his input equals output exactly, he
might show that as a slight deficit. He discusses the calorimetry in detail,
particularly in the Japanese paper. He mentions that an ideal flow calorimeter
would have no heat losses from the cell; all heat transfer would be via the
cooling water flow. He points out that is, of course, impossible. There must
always be marginal losses from the cell to air and elsewhere. I think he is
ignoring these losses. I gather he is looking only at the flow mass and Delta
T temperature. This would lead to a deliberate underestimation of the heat.
That is a nice conservative way to do things, which I highly recommend.
 
When the heat turns on in the Arata cell, the excess is so large and so steady
there is no need to take heroic measures to detect all of it. It is best to
ignore heat losses from the cell to air, because they are difficult to measure
with this setup. The heat energy removed via the cooling loop is far greater
than the electrical energy input, and this excess lasts for months. When you
already see 80 watts excess, there is no reason to track down an additional
fraction of a watt above that.
 
This deliberate underestimation might account for some of the start-up deficit
shown in Fig. 3, cited by Jones. In any case, I am quite sure the cell is not
magically swallowing up energy. Jones may believe this, but he will believe
any damn thing. A person who cannot tell the difference between a thousand and
hundred million cannot be expected to understand calorimetry. No doubt he
believes these latest insane claims from Dick Blue too: that it is impossible
to measure a 30 inch metal rod to within 0.3 inches. He probably nods
agreement with Droege's electrical engineering which allows magical operation
of devices wired in series. These "skeptics" live in a fantasy world where
anything is possible, where experiments mean nothing, and where there are no
rules, no physical laws and no scientific standards.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cuden1256 cudfnJed cudlnRothwell cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.06 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: GG operation
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: GG operation
Date: Tue, 6 DEC 94 14:10:23 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa@ozemail.com.au> asks about the GG:
 
     "As the input electrical power purportedly drops at onset of the
     "effect" (whatever the cause), I presume that the mechanical input power
     also drops. I am just curious as to what actually happens. Do RPMs drop,
     or the torque, or both?"
 
The dynamometer controller box screen shows that torque changes, RPMs remain
steady +/- 10 or 20 RPM. That is because in the tests I observed the GG was
powered by a three-phase AC electric motor. AC motors are synchronized with
the power mains. They are engineered to try and keep up with the speed of the
alternating current exactly. DC motors and ICE allow variable speed operation.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenjedrothwell cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.06 / Bruce Dunn /  Re: Jed's errors
     
Originally-From: Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Dunn)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Jed's errors
Date: Tue, 06 Dec 94 09:40:10 -0800
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada

Jed Rothwell writes:

> As I said, we reset to zero after attaching the lever arm, before hanging
> the 20 lb weight to exert the torque. You have to press zero reset again
> after  removing the arm, or you end up with a negative torque when
> everything is  turned off.


        This seems completely reasonble to me.  Assuming a linear response
from the sensor (and the manufacturer's specifications posted by Jed
indicate this), the calibration procedure in effect determines the slope of
a graph of torque vs. sensor output.  The intercept of the graph is then
set to zero, leaving the previously determined slope setting.  The fact
that the operating zero isn't one of the points used in determining the
slope isn't relevant, as long as the sensor is linear and used within its
range.  Had there been any potential problem with this type of calibration,
the manufacturer could easily have designed a two-armed, counterbalanced
calibration lever which exerts no net torque.



--
Bruce Dunn    Vancouver, Canada   Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca
cudkeys:
cuddy06 cudenBruce_Dunn cudfnBruce cudlnDunn cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.06 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Jed's errors
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Jed's errors
Date: Tue, 6 DEC 94 16:10:57 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Mathematically minded Bruce Dunn describes the situation correctly: "The
intercept of the graph is then set to zero, leaving the previously determined
slope setting." Yup. That's why they have separate buttons for "Zero Reset"
and "Range Adjust" on instruments. Let me describe this in a homely analogy
for the arithmetically challenged:
 
Pretend you want to measure box 1.2 meters tall with a tape measure. You
happen to have an old brass ultra-accurate Bureau of Standards meter stick.
You pull out the tape and find it convenient to put the tape 10 cm mark at the
zero mark on the brass one, and you measure up to 70 cm on the tape and 60 cm
on the brass. It is right on the mark, to the nearest millimeter (1.7%). You
take the tape and measure the box at 1.161 meters. That is accurate to the
nearest 2 mm (1.7%), assuming the millimeter tick marks above 80 cm are spaced
the same distance apart as the lower ones.
 
In this analogy:
 
Each millimeter equals an inch-pound. The force we measure during calibration
does not start at zero, it starts about 10 cm (100 in-lbs I guess), and we
measure a span of 60 cm (600 in-lbs). The object we measure is 1.161 meters
(1161 in-lbs). We are sure the tick marks are, in fact, evenly spaced apart
because: 1. Griggs has also tested 30 and 35 lb weights at different
distances; and 2. The manufacture's specs say the tick marks are evenly
spaced.
 
One part of this analogy is wrong. You might say we are using the brass meter
stick to make the actual measurement. I think the Eaton torque sensor may be
more precise and accurate than the tolerances for the weights and the arm
length. When I was there, anyway, we ran the check but we did not need to
adjust the equipment at all. We just verified it. I think it holds the
calibration well over many months. That is the kind of performance and
reliability you expect from expensive professional equipment. As I said
before, this is from Eaton Aerospace which specializes in industrial
measurements and control. This is the kind of instrument you bet your life on
every time you fly in an airplane. I know an engineer in Atlanta who
specializes in much larger dynamometers used to measure helicopter motor
torque and performance. If he makes a mistake, or the instrument screws up, he
will kill someone. If this class of instrument was routinely 20% off -- as
many people here seem to think -- Delta Jet Airplanes would routinely crash &
burn at Hartsfield, and every week a couple of itty bitty airplanes would
smash down in my neighborhood from Peachtree Dekalb Airport. In the last 15
years only three have crashed as I recall, and I think it was pilot error in
every case.(My house is right under the flight path.) As I have said many
times before, our civilization would grind to a halt if the absurd fantasies
of the "skeptics" were true. Airplanes would fall out of the sky! Half the
cars on the highway would stop dead every morning. In the Coca Cola factory,
machines would pour soda pop all over the floor. Steel mills would melt down,
oil refineries would explode. Dick Blue would buy a yardstick from Home Depot
and find it had been manufactured 37 inches long by accident. Such things do
happen occasionally. The Hubble Space telescope mirror is 2 microns (0.0001
inches) flatter than it should be because of a gross error in manufacturing.
Airplanes do crash, practically on top of my house. If it happened as often as
the "skeptics" believe, I would move out of the way!
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenjedrothwell cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.07 / A Plutonium /  Re: $290 million spent on foolishness--USA should spend on CF, 
     
Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics,sci.chem,sci.bio,alt.sci.
hysics.plutonium,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: $290 million spent on foolishness--USA should spend on CF, 
Date: 7 Dec 1994 01:36:38 GMT
Organization: Plutonium College

In article <3c0duu$h9f@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:

>   On page 41 we see a picture of Kip Thorne. This is done so that the
> unweary are supposed to think that this man knows alot of physics. I
  ^^^^^^^
> think they should have shown, on page 41, the Charles Dawson who
> delivered the Piltdown Hoax. Shown Dawson in his library with the right
> amount of textures and hues of lighting, for the reverence by young
> physicists to be "juju totems". 
>   Instead of wasting 290 billion to discover no Higgs boson exists.
> Instead they will spend 290 million to discover the hard way that no
> gravitons exist. Gravitons are merely the superposition of 4 neutrinos.

  unsuspecting

  So much of proposed physics is fluff. They show a picture of Kip
Thorne so that students are given a sense of feeling that this guy is
important and a  bigshot in physics. IMHO, if this experiment goes
forward, Kip Thorne in the future, once it is over, and the money
spent, will be seen as another Hoax. IMHO, Kip Thorne is a modern day
epicycle tweaqer, tweacker. One who goes around to fine-tune science
fakeries, to keep these fakeries around longer.

  Please post the names of the politicians who approved these
misappropriations. 290 million dollars is alot of money to waste on an
experiment which has no practical use.
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Wed Dec  7 04:37:03 EST 1994
------------------------------
1994.12.06 / A Plutonium /  $290 million spent on foolishness--USA should spend on CF,
     
Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics,sci.chem,sci.bio,alt.sci.
hysics.plutonium,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: $290 million spent on foolishness--USA should spend on CF,
Date: 6 Dec 1994 01:15:10 GMT
Organization: Plutonium College

  What are the names of the people who appropriated 290 million USA
dollars for such flights of birdbrain science projects below? What
Congressmen gave the go ahead? I realize Mass. and California are big
congressional states. Still, do they need to throw away 290 million
bucks to find out that the graviton does not exist. Is it any wonder
that Germany is ahead of the USA in nucleosynthesis. Germany and Japan
ahead of the USA in superconductivity research. Japan ahead of the USA
in CF research. 
   No wonder, when the USA throws 290 million dollars after impractical
and unuseable GR research.
   The below trend follows on the heels of another money waster of
large magnitude-- Smoot with his fluctuations.

In article <3bgcbc$hja@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:

>    This experimental set-up using a centrifuge is much easier. Even the
> math is much easier. In fact, I would not be surprized if graduate
> students at MIT could do the math, set-up the experiment. And have a
> report in a month. Their only real hurdle will be their physics
> professors who have preached GR for years and years, and who have
> connections to the warehouses of books on GR to sell and make their
> quick con artist dollars off of GR. Ever since Einstein gave the world,
> GR, as a science theory, it has been one of the most useless of useless
> theories, except for the con artist bucks collected by requiring
> students to buy books on GR for classrooms.

Here in passages I am going to quote from NEW SCIENTIST 26Nov1994, page
40 titled "Gravity's secret signals"

" Cosmic xylophone
   The project is called LIGO-- the laser interferometer
gravitational-wave observatory-- and two detectors are planned. It is
being carried out by physicists from the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology (MIT) in Cambridge and Caltech in Pasadena, California.
Scheduled to be operational by the year 2000 at a cost of $290 million,
(continued).."

  WHAT A WASTE OF MONEY. This shows that when physics geniuses or
supergeniuses roam Earth, still, that is not enough to stop birbrain
crackpotishness by wasting 290 million $. Mark my words, the $290
million will go to waste. My experiment above showing that GR is fakery
will preempt this extravaganza of throwing 290 million out the window.

  On page 41 we see a picture of Kip Thorne. This is done so that the
unweary are supposed to think that this man knows alot of physics. I
think they should have shown, on page 41, the Charles Dawson who
delivered the Piltdown Hoax. Shown Dawson in his library with the right
amount of textures and hues of lighting, for the reverence by young
physicists to be "juju totems". 
  Instead of wasting 290 billion to discover no Higgs boson exists.
Instead they will spend 290 million to discover the hard way that no
gravitons exist. Gravitons are merely the superposition of 4 neutrinos.


I quote some more from page 40

 " The quest started in the 1960s, when Joseph Weber, a physicist at
the University of Maryland at College Park, built a detector that
worked rather like a tuning fork.  His equipment consisted of a solid
bar-- an aluminium block about the size of a refrigerator-- which was
designed to resonate when struck by a gravitational wave of a certain
frequency. But such a detector responds only to one frequency. "

  These experiments were unsuccessful. What do you do when science
experiments, based on no-good reasoning, little to no application fail?
You pump more money into it and build huge experiments. Once performed,
you can always say the graviton was discovered, because noone else in
the world has the time or money to build another white elephant.
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.06 / Thomas Zemanian /  Re: GG operation
     
Originally-From: ts_zemanian@pnl.gov (Thomas S. Zemanian)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: GG operation
Date: 6 Dec 1994 20:46:05 GMT
Organization: Battelle PNL

In article <Je4U2kv.jedrothwell@delphi.com>, jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:

> Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa@ozemail.com.au> asks about the GG:
>  
>      "As the input electrical power purportedly drops at onset of the
>      "effect" (whatever the cause), I presume that the mechanical input power
>      also drops. I am just curious as to what actually happens. Do RPMs drop,
>      or the torque, or both?"
>  
> The dynamometer controller box screen shows that torque changes, RPMs remain
> steady +/- 10 or 20 RPM. That is because in the tests I observed the GG was
> powered by a three-phase AC electric motor. AC motors are synchronized with
> the power mains. They are engineered to try and keep up with the speed of the
> alternating current exactly. DC motors and ICE allow variable speed operation.
>  

Pedant point:  I doubt that this is a synchronous motor.  An induction
motor requires a certain amount of slippage to operate, and hence the motor
must turn slightly more slowly than the rotating poles of the field.  The
difference is not enough to matter for most purposes, however.

Carry on.

--Tom

--
The opinions expressed herein are mine and mine alone.  Keep your filthy
hands off 'em! 
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudents_zemanian cudfnThomas cudlnZemanian cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.07 / Richard Blue /  Levels in 4He
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Levels in 4He
Date: Wed, 7 Dec 1994 15:44:24 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

For Mitchell Swartz, here is a list of energy levels in the nucleus
4He.  The energy in MeV is followed by the quantum numbers for: total
angular momentum, parity, and isospin.  The ground state is taken as
zero energy.  I will first give the threshold energies for breakup
into the various possible two, three, or four-body configurations.

3H + p, 19.82 MeV; 3He + n, 20.58; d + d, 23.82; d + n + p, 26.07;
2n + 2p, 28.30  .

Energy levels, J, pi, T
0.0 0+ 0 , 20.21 0+ 0 , 21.01 0- 0 , 21.84 2- 0 , 23.33 2- 1 ,
23.64 1- 1 , 24.25 1- 0 , 25.28 0- 1 , 25.95 1- 1 , 27.42 2+ 0 ,
28.31 1+ 0 , 28.37 1- 0 , 28.39 2- 0 , 28.64 0- 0 , 28.67 2+ 0

I don't know what Mitchell expects to do with this information, but
there is one significant conclusion that anyone with a basic understanding
of quantum transitions should be able to reach.  Preventing the
decay of an excited 4He nucleus by particle emission after its formation
by the fusion of two deuterons would take some really significant
messing about.  Furthermore it is not obvious how the excitation
energy could be drained off by the creation of phonons.  What state
does the nucleus reside in after it has produced say half a million
phonons?  If you are keeping score, I still say there is no theory
that comes close to addressing these issues.

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.06 / Dieter Britz /  Re: Submission for sci.physics.fusion
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <britz@alpha.kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Submission for sci.physics.fusion
Date: Tue, 6 Dec 1994 09:45:31 +0100
Organization: DAIMI, Computer Science Dept. at Aarhus University



On Mon, 5 Dec 1994 itimc@roimar.imar.ro wrote:

> From:Peter Glueck
> Re:Is consistency a virtue?
> 
[...]
> This Dark Ages story,as well as the contribution of Cold Fusion
> to this disaster is not easy to understand. The opposite idea is
> that those who are worried due to the damages of a victorious
> Cold Fusion, forget that this field couldn't survive more than 
> five years without a plethora of really interesting positive
> results.

It is nice to see some more sober argument from a proponent of CNF; let there
be more of this, instead of the usual tirades.

However, there are two things I must disagree with in the above:
I don't think the skeptics are worried about 'cold fusion'; it has been said
several times that physicists and other scientists are fascinated by the 
exotic, and drawn to it like moths to a candle (I forget who said this 
but I like the image). Fleischmann himself once said to a reporter that, of
course, hot fusion research must go on. Noone in that area is worried.

The other thing is the idea that there must be something to 'cold fusion',
because it has survived 5 years. With all your wide reading, Peter, you do
know better. There are still people who believe Velikovsky, or Benveniste,
or in crop circles (even after the hoaxer has confessed) or earth rays, 
etc etc. I am not saying that we have proof of the nonexistence of 'cold 
fusion', but I am saying you need more than this to show that it is real.

-- D. Britz  alias  britz@alpha.kemi.aau.dk

cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenbritz cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.08 / Richard Blue /  RE: Jed's errors
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: Jed's errors
Date: Thu, 8 Dec 1994 01:39:42 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I concur with Bruce Dunn's analysis of the steps involved in the
calibration of the Eaton torque sensor, but I note that we still
do not have any estimate of the accuracy of the measurements made
with this instrument.  It is, however, clear that there is a chain
of measurements involved and errors propagating through that chain.
Considering the zero determination as independent of the determination
of the slope gives just a possible offset in the measured torque from
the correct value - hopefully an insignificant error.  I would like
to know that such offsets had been checked under various conditions
to see that the readout does indeed return to zero as expected.

The slope determination needs to be considered in somewhat greater
detail because there is potentially an extrapolation that can
multiply the error.  Howmany of you know, off the top of your head,
where the calibration point at 600 in-pounds lies with respect
to the torques measured during the quoted measurements?  Of course
cold fusion advocates need not concern themselves with obvious
experimental errors.  (See recent remarks concerning errors in
Arata'a calorimetry.)

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.07 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Jones versus Fleischmann
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Jones versus Fleischmann
Date: Wed, 7 DEC 94 12:37:29 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich) compares me to Steve Jones and asks:
 
     "So, Jed, what are _your_ qualifications?"
 
I can tell the difference between 4,000 and 200,000,000. Jones cannot.
 
 
     "Where do you teach?"
 
Right here.
 
 
     "What is your degree in?"
 
Japanese linguistics.
 
 
     "What private research of note have _you_ performed?"
 
Lots! It's private.
 
 
     "What qualifications do you have to criticize Steven Jones or Daffy Duck
     for that matter?"
 
Like I said, I can tell the difference between a thousand and a hundred
million. I know many other things that Jones does not. For example, I know
that a closed cell with a recombiner in it cannot create false excess heat
from a recombination error. I know that recombination can never creat
persistant excess heat above electric energy input. I know 4.2 joules equals 1
calorie.
 
How about yourself? Are you qualified? Here, let's find out. Take the
following easy test in the privacy of your own home:
 
     Use a meter stick to measure something 51 cm long. Now measure something
     52 cm long. Can you tell the difference? Are you sure you know which is
     longer? Congratulations!!! You are a lot smarter than Dick Blue.
 
     Light a match and place it an ash tray. Observe carefully. Does it burn
     for a week? No?!? Explain why not. It turns into funny gray stuff. Do
     you know what it is? That's right, it is called "chemical ash." All
     chemical reactions produce it. If you do not see commensurate chemical
     ash, then the heat reaction cannot be caused by chemistry. If you
     understand that much, you are a lot smarter than Frank Close.
 
     Can you light a cigarette by burning 0.0044 moles of hydrogen? Does it
     create 86,700 joules of energy? Morrison says it does!
 
     Define "order of magnitude." If someone proposes a hypothesis to explain
     an experimental result, and that hypothesis can only account for an
     effect six orders of magnitude smaller than the observed result, what
     does that tell you? Is the hypothesis right or wrong? What does it tell
     you about the scientist who proposes the hypothesis, and proposes it
     again, and again, and who keeps proposing it years later in the face of
     massive, obvious, widely replicated experimental data?
 
     Let's get down to brass tacks, big guy. Can YOU tell the difference
     between 4,000 and 200,000,000?
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenjedrothwell cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.06 / Richard Schultz /  Re: Get a grip, Steve - Becquerel
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Get a grip, Steve - Becquerel
Date: 6 Dec 1994 21:04:52 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley

In article <CzpFLH.I6y@world.std.com>,
mitchell swartz <mica@world.std.com> wrote:

>   David Davies may be correct.   Fission was discovered by high-energy 
>radiation products, wasn't it?
>
>   Becquerel detected high energy radiation
>from uranyl salts which exposed his photographic plate (1855).

One would think that after all this time, Mitchell "I have a Dictionary
and I'm not Afraid to Use It" Swartz would have had the grace to
at least acknowledge his error here. . .
--
					Richard Schultz

"You don't even have a clue as to which clue you're missing." -- Miss Manners
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Thu Dec  8 04:37:04 EST 1994
------------------------------
1994.12.06 /  nachtrieb@max. /  ALCATOR C-MOD WEEKLY HIGHLIGHTS, 19941206
     
Originally-From: nachtrieb@max.pfc.mit.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: ALCATOR C-MOD WEEKLY HIGHLIGHTS, 19941206
Date: 6 DEC 94 22:23:13 GMT
Organization: MIT PLASMA FUSION CENTER

		   Alcator C-MOD Weekly Highlights
			     Dec. 5, 1994

Plasma operation is continuing on Alcator C-MOD. Three run days were
scheduled last week, dedicated to two principal mini-proposals and one
piggy-back experiment. The machine operated reliably and all the
planned experiments were substantially completed. Friday was a
scheduled off-day, for installation of the ICRF (Ion Cyclotron
Resonance Frequency; heating mechanism) hardware and diagnostic work.

Two days were dedicated to completion of MP (miniproposal) #065, on
the implementation of orthogonal shape controllers. The purpose of
this experiment was to introduce new controllers (vectors of power
supply voltages) for the principal parameters characterizing the
plasma shape, including plasma position, x-point locations, and inner
gap, etc. These controllers are designed such that application of any
one controller affects only a single parameter, and does not
significantly alter the others. This experiment was successful, and
the new controllers will form the basis of future discharge
development activities. This approach is expected to give better
control of the equilibrium and to facilitate the discharge development
process for new configurations, such as slot divertors, etc.

During the course of these experiments, which used a 5.3Tesla, 850 kA,
lower single null equilibrium, ohmic H-mode (Hi-confinement mode)
transitions were frequently obtained.  These H-modes exhibited
frequent ELMs (Edge Localized Modes), and in some cases reached a
quasi-steady state lasting for essentially the whole duration of the
flattop diverted phase of the discharge, around 0.45 sec. Feedback was
able to maintain the density approximately constant at a line-averaged
density of about 1.2e20 [per cubic meter].

One day was devoted to a series of reproducible 600kA inner-wall
limiter discharges, for alignment and checkout of the several
diagnostic systems, including the ECE (Electron Cyclotron Emission;
use to measure temperature profiles) systems and HIREX x-ray
spectroscopy. The same controllers which had been tested on
single-null discharges were used to produce these symmetric limiter
equilibria. Shot-to-shot repeatability was excellent.

RF installation has continued in preparation for ICRF tuning
experiments (with plasma) scheduled for later this week. Connection of
the D-port antenna is now complete. The NINJA (Neutral gas INJection
Array) divertor gas-puff system has been baked out and leak-checked,
and is ready for operation. The multi-channel Z-meter array has been
installed and calibrated. Other diagnostic systems continue to be
brought on-line.

During an attempt on Friday to clear a short on one filament of the
fast neutral pressure gauge in the main chamber, a vacuum leak
occurred in the feedthrough, bringing the torus pressure up to 1e-5
Torr. The machine was immediately back-filled with helium, the
feedthrough and gauge were replaced, and the machine pumped down
again. Bakeout and discharge cleaning were carried out over the
weekend and on the scheduled maintenance day on Monday.

Earl Marmar participated in the ITER (International Thermonuclear
Experimental Reactor) Spectroscopy Working Group meeting in Moscow
last week. Martin Greenwald was in Washington for the ESNET Steering
Committee meeting.
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudennachtrieb cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.07 / A Plutonium /  Re: November issue of FUSION TECHNOLOGY, a summary
     
Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,alt.sci.physics.plutonium
Subject: Re: November issue of FUSION TECHNOLOGY, a summary
Date: 7 Dec 1994 23:36:24 GMT
Organization: Plutonium College

In article <Pine.OSF.3.91.941202085417.16654B-100000@alpha.kemi.aau.dk>
Dieter Britz <britz@alpha.kemi.aau.dk> writes:

> Agreed. It is amazing how people seem to believe that zapping can do 
> wonders. Just because an electric zap is impressive to humans, they feel 
> that atoms must be impressed, too. Time and again we see zaps in science
> fiction films, and zapparatus is sort of standard in the imagination of 
> the Man in the Street of how a scientist's lab looks.
> I doubt that Tandberg was the first to try zap-fusion (he sent lots of amps
> through PdD wires, never got any fusion). Wada and Nishizawa had another go
> in 1989, zapping between two PdD rods; they reckoned they got neutrons; one
> has reason to doubt it. As we have seen, there are now a few patents that 
> use zapping to tickle 'cold fusion' into happening. OK, you might get a 
> few keV from a zap, and a tiny bit of fusion, but not enough to notice, what?
> And a three-body reaction, now I ask you, who can believe that? 
> 
> -- db

  I am just going to comment on the fact that the Internet has a racial
majority of computer geeks. Sort of like TV (Telly in UK and Australia)
has a racial majority of actors. One of the reasons I stopped watching
TV. Who cares what starlett X wears for fashion, and who cares how many
girls star X is sleeping with?
   I just wanted to note that these sci.groups have a race majority of
computer associated people. And it seems like a trend that a gung-ho or
hung-lo computer person is not smart enough for physics or engineering
and, gets out of school and is gainfully employed in computer industry.
He would quickly find the Internet as a means of displaying his
parochialism.
  Computer geeks know how to change fonts. Converse with sentences
filled with computer language to impress someone at Kmart or Sears.
None of which is annoying until they give their penny worth of thoughts
in a hard core science. Just because they know what DOS is. They think
they know nuclear fusion. And this becomes really annoying on Internet.
That we have so many computer geeks running wild herd through
sci.groups.
   I wanted to make this general comment because when my successors
cull through these postings, let them realize that many posts were
committed by persons who had only a spattering of real understanding in
newsgroups like physics or engineering or physics experimentation.
Rather instead, their backgrounds were almost entirely around
superficial things relating to computers. And even their knowledge of
computers--not a one of them could build a computer from scratch, and
not a one of them understands the basic concept behind a computer in
the first place-- a device having many electronic gates and whether
those gates are open or closed. 
   So unfortunately, these computer persons which I call geeks, since
they outnumber the experts in the various newsgroups, we have to suffer
their dribble. IMHO, for example, the dribble by Dieter Britz above. 
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.08 / A Plutonium /  Re: $290 million spent on foolishness--USA should spend on CF,
     
Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics,sci.chem,sci.bio,alt.sci.
hysics.plutonium,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: $290 million spent on foolishness--USA should spend on CF,
Date: 8 Dec 1994 01:51:59 GMT
Organization: PLutonium College

In article <1994Dec7.201811.3616@dxcern.cern.ch>
mcnamara@vxaluw.cern.ch () writes:

> If you were unaware
> of this 290 million USD is almost nothing in the scheme of things.
> If you were to divide it up amongst all of the taxpayers, they'd
> each be paying about a nickel.

  3 dollars is perhaps more accurate.

  Priorities of spending. There is a time and place to do gravity
research. Since the Weber experiments failed, we should not spend 290
million for more of that thing.
  There are far more useful science out there, namely superconductors,
fusion, and the genome biotech projects.

  I repeat my call. Who are the persons who are responsible for the
misappropriation of 290 million. If we do not hold them accountable,
then there will be more misappropriations in the future.
  What are the names of the Politicians who are giving away 290 million
dollars for a gravity experiment, which has no practical value
whatsoever.
And if they go ahead with this dumb experiment, IMHO, most of the money
will go into the pockets of professors who squiggle down a few
formulas, what is the name of the physics professors in charge of this
project? Is it only Kip Thorne?
   Science projects of millions of dollars must have accountability,
plus priority. ACCOUNTABILITY + PRIORITY, the two go together. And I am
sure that if you had a census of physics professors, over 90% would
tell you that gravity experiments have no practical use.
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.06 / A Plutonium /  Re: The Annenberg/CPB Collection THE MECHANICAL UNIVERSE and   
     
Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag
sci.bio,sci.chem,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The Annenberg/CPB Collection THE MECHANICAL UNIVERSE and   
Date: 6 Dec 1994 23:22:59 GMT
Organization: Plutonium College

In article <3bj3ot$g43@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:

>  Keep the same the movie of Kepler and Brahe, Ben Franklin,
> Faraday, Tesla, Maxwell, Ampere, Michelson, all of which were excellent
> in The Mechanical Universe.

  #35 The Magnetic Field : The law of Biot and Sarvart, the force
between electric currents, and Ampere's law.


I quote in part.

" Mr. Ampere began his scientific career in the bloody pandemonium of
the French Revolution. 

(Music playing)
 Ampere's father John Jake was a Justice of the Peace,
 who was labeled an enemy of the revolution.

 As he approached the guillotine,
 Ampere senior scribbled a final note to his wife.
  "I do not leave you rich, or even in common comfort. But my greatest
expense has been the purchase of books and mathematical instruments
which were indispensable to our son's education. 
That this expense was in itself a wise economy. "
  Considering what his son mastered, the elder Ampere's money was well
spent indeed. "
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.07 / A Plutonium /  Re: The Annenberg/CPB Collection THE MECHANICAL UNIVERSE and   
     
Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag
sci.bio,sci.chem,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The Annenberg/CPB Collection THE MECHANICAL UNIVERSE and   
Date: 7 Dec 1994 01:06:18 GMT
Organization: Plutonium College

In article <3c2roj$97o@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:

> In article <3bj3ot$g43@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
> Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:
> 
> >  Keep the same the movie of Kepler and Brahe, Ben Franklin,
> > Faraday, Tesla, Maxwell, Ampere, Michelson, all of which were excellent
> > in The Mechanical Universe.

#29 THE ELECTRIC FIELD  Michael Faraday's vision of lines of constant
force in space laid the foundation for the modern force field theory

I quote in part. There is beautiful music in the background when this
is spoken.

" Faraday would come to admire Maxwell, and quite properly the
admiration would go both ways. 
Responding to a letter from Faraday.
Maxwell wrote:
 "You are the first person in whom the idea of bodies acting at a
distance has arisen as a principle to be actually believed in
Nothing is clearer than your descriptions
You seem to see the lines of force curving
around obstacles and driving plumb out of conductors
and swerving towards certain directions in crystals
and carrying with them everywhere
the same amount of attractive powers spread wider or denser
as the lines widen or contract"

And thinking of gravity as well as electricity, Maxwell concluded:

"Your lines of force can weave a web across the sky
and lead the stars in their courses " " (beautiful music)

I, Archimedes Plutonium want to pay a tribute to the geniuses of
Maxwell and Faraday. I want to restate Maxwell's tribute by saying.
(have the angel music in the background, Ah, Ah, Ah, Ahhhhh)

"Your lines of force are the result of 231Pu, which leads the galaxies
in their quantized speeds."
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.02 /  jonesse@physc2 /  Re:  Bockris in Nov. issue of Fusion Technology
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc2.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re:  Bockris in Nov. issue of Fusion Technology
Date: 2 Dec 94 13:51:48 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

georgerw@aol.com (GeorgeRW) writes:

>The supposed reaction from the Bockis article is:
>
>6C12 + 6C12 +8O18 +8O18  -->  26Fe56 + 2He4

First, the name is _Bockris_ not "Bockis."  
I am fairly well acquainted with John Bockris (at Texas A&M), and
I am frankly appalled that he is associated with such a bizarre claim.
Perhaps when one accepts the P&F cold-fusion story (as Bockris has), 
one is prepared to accept such nonsense.

Why is it clearly nonsense?  Consider:
0.  The Coulomb barrier between the carbon and oxygen nuclei is immense,
and this reaction purportedly takes place when a carbon arc is struck in
deionized water:  there is insufficient energy available.
1.  A FOUR-body nuclear interaction is posited.  Strong interactions are
characterized by time scales on the order of 10^-20 seconds.  The probability
of having four nuclei within strong interaction range in this time scale
is vanishing, and the logic of even suggesting such a 4-body reaction
is vanishing-squared.
2.  Need I go on?  The reaction posits not just any oxygen nuclei, but TWO
of the rare isotope, oxygen-18, in the same place at the same time along with
2 carbon nuclei (all within fermi separations).  

Makes me cry for John Bockris.  

Guess I'll have to look up the article again.  Can't believe John would publish
such nonsensical garbage.  Does believing P&F do this to your brain?
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenjonesse cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.02 /  jonesse@physc2 /  Re: catalyzed fusion ??
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc2.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: catalyzed fusion ??
Date: 2 Dec 94 14:04:24 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

In article <3at109$1hu@gazette.bcm.tmc.edu>, 
tp034588@mbcr.bcm.tmc.edu (Todd Primm) writes:
> 	I have heard of muon catalyzed fusion.
> I was wondering if someone could explain how it works.
> I am a scientist (biochemist), but not a physicist.
> Thanks for the help.  mail:  TP034588@MBCR.BCM.TMC.EDU
> 
> 

Todd,
Accessible articles are found in:
Scientific American, July 1987, and
Nature, May 1986.

Would also refer you to FAQ's available on this net, prepared by
Robert Heeter, which include a discussion of muon-catalyzed fusion.

--Steven Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenjonesse cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.02 /  jonesse@physc2 /  Re: Nuclear physics = collisions?/Davies questions
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc2.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Nuclear physics = collisions?/Davies questions
Date: 2 Dec 94 14:17:31 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

In agreeing with Dick Blue (below), I would like to add that muon-catalyzed
fusion provides another relevant example of nuclear reactions (indeed,
fusion) at low temperatures.
*I also pose questions to David Davies regarding special relativity at the
end of this note.

In article <9411301607.AA45827@pilot1.cl.msu.edu>, 
blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue) writes:
> David Davies repeats one of the old cold fusion cliches when he says
> that nuclear physics experiments always involve the collision of
> energetic particles.  As a result of this "limited" domain of investi-
> gation, it is asserted, experimental results from the realm of nuclear
> physics are not relevant.  At least that is what cold fusion advocates
> would have us believe.
> 
> This perspective on experimental nuclear physics is basically incorrect.
> Any argument that derives from such assertions is wrong, and use of
> such arguments is but another sign of weakness in the fundamental case
> for cold fusion.
> 
> Dave says that in a nuclear collision the two reacting nuclei fly
> rapidly by each other whereas in cold fusion they don't.  What limit
> would you put on the relative velocity between your candidate
> reactants before you consider a  "collision picture" to be the
> appropriate one?  I suggest thermal energies set a lower limit
> that we need to consider to be sure we are in the same experimental
> domain as cold fusion.
> 
> Do nuclear reactions occur at thermal energies, and have such reactions
> been investigated in detail?  My answer is "yes" so perhaps you could
> explain why such data is not a valid input to the cold fusion debate.
> Consider, for example, the capture of thermal neutrons by nuclei
> ranging from 1H to 238U.  There is plenty of experimental data in that
> limited catagory, and I see no reason to ignore it all.
> 
> Are there other ways to study nuclear reaction processes and nuclear
> states at very low relative velocities?  Yes, there is a very rich
> field of investigation involving the use of inverse reaction at
> arbitrarily low relative velocity between the reaction products.  For
> example, if you use energetic photons to break up the 4He nucleus into
> a proton and a triton or into neutron and a 3He you can make measurements
> in which the two particles move away from each other at very low relative
> velocity.  Why is data derived from such studies off limits in any
> cold fusion discussion?
> 
> I don't think cold fusion advocates are being totally honest when they
> say that experimental data has to be given full weight at the expense
> of accepted theory.  What they are really asserting is that a selected
> subset of experimental information is to considered and a large body
> of other experimental results must be completely ignored.
> 
> Dick Blue
> 

Matt Kennel also reacted (negatively) to a remarkable statement by Davies, 
in which Davies asserted:

"The strong force is not understood and 
even special relativity is highly questionable."  (D. Davies)

The statement challenging relativity is reminiscent of a posting of Jed
Rothwell's (another cold-fusion advocate):

"Okay, a million, million previous experiments showed that E=mc2. So what?
Every single one of them was wrong.  Period.  It does not work in metal
lattices under electrolysis, and Einstein was flat out wrong."
(Jed Rothwell, 21 Dec. 1992)

My reason for dredging up this Rothwell posting is to ask Davies whether
he is indeed in the same position, with both challenging Einstein's
special relativity (including E = mc^2) ?  Do you really need this to
support cold fusion claims?  In any case, would you please explain what
you meant when you posted "even special relativity is highly questionable"?

--Steven Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenjonesse cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.02 /  jonesse@physc2 /  cancel <1994Dec2.141540.1909@physc2.byu.edu>
     
Originally-From: jonesse@physc2.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cancel <1994Dec2.141540.1909@physc2.byu.edu>
Date: 2 Dec 94 14:17:43 -0700

cancel <1994Dec2.141540.1909@physc2.byu.edu>
cudkeys:
cuddy2 cudenjonesse cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.07 / mitchell swartz /  Get a grip, Steve - Becquerel
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Get a grip, Steve - Becquerel
Subject: Re: Get a grip, Steve - Becquerel
Date: Wed, 7 Dec 1994 04:22:40 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

    In Message-ID: <3c2jlk$3u0@agate.berkeley.edu>
Subject: Re: Get a grip, Steve - Becquerel
Richard P.E. Schultz  (schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu) begins to toot:

-rpes="One would think that after all this time, Mitchell "I have a Dictionary
-rpes=and I'm not Afraid to Use It" Swartz would have had the grace to
-rpes= at least acknowledge his error here. . ."
-rpes=         Richard Schultz

     As usual, Mr. Richard P.E. "Watch How I Miss the Point Completely"
Schultz reacts in knee-jerk fashion demonstrating neither evidence of
his reading the entire thread, nor of serious thinking on his part.
   This was fully addressed between Jim Carr and myself.  Furthermore,
 after Jim's kind correction of my inadvertent typographical error 
(Becquerel was only three  or so at the time), I wrote to clarify this matter.

=ms     "Thank you, Jim, for the correction and the good addition. 
=ms  However, it actually may have been in 1897 by Becquerel (1852-1908).
=ms  Rontgen discovered x-rays in November 1895.   [Journalism was apparently
=ms  no slacker. The first journal Archives of Clinical Skiagraphy was published
=ms  in UK in May 1896. ] 
=ms  A. H. Becquerel presented his results of the radioactive 
=ms  emissions of uranium compounds to the Paris Academy of Sciences in 
=ms  November 1896.   It may have been electrometer data; perhaps you or
=ms  someone will "update".
=ms     The alpha and beta particle experiments on films,
=mswith the demonstration that the betas were equivalent to Thomson's electron,
=ms are reported to have been in 1897.       
=ms    In 1898 radium (December) was named
=ms  by the Curies, and gamma rays were identified by Villard."
    [Message-ID: <CzyHEK.IpI@world.std.com>
     Subject: Get a grip, Steve - Becquerel (more dates)
     Date: Mon, 28 Nov 1994 02:25:32 GMT]

            -   Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com)


cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.08 / A Plutonium /  Re:  Bockris in Nov. issue of Fusion Technology
     
Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,alt.sci.physics.plutonium
Subject: Re:  Bockris in Nov. issue of Fusion Technology
Date: 8 Dec 1994 05:31:25 GMT
Organization: Plutonium Atom Foundation

In article <1994Dec2.135148.1907@physc2.byu.edu>
jonesse@physc2.byu.edu writes:

> georgerw@aol.com (GeorgeRW) writes:
> 
> >The supposed reaction from the Bockis article is:
> >
> >6C12 + 6C12 +8O18 +8O18  -->  26Fe56 + 2He4
> 
> First, the name is _Bockris_ not "Bockis."  
> I am fairly well acquainted with John Bockris (at Texas A&M), and
> I am frankly appalled that he is associated with such a bizarre claim.
> Perhaps when one accepts the P&F cold-fusion story (as Bockris has), 
> one is prepared to accept such nonsense.
> 
> Why is it clearly nonsense?  Consider:
> 0.  The Coulomb barrier between the carbon and oxygen nuclei is immense,
> and this reaction purportedly takes place when a carbon arc is struck in
> deionized water:  there is insufficient energy available.
> 1.  A FOUR-body nuclear interaction is posited.  Strong interactions are
> characterized by time scales on the order of 10^-20 seconds.  The probability
> of having four nuclei within strong interaction range in this time scale
> is vanishing, and the logic of even suggesting such a 4-body reaction
> is vanishing-squared.
> 2.  Need I go on?  The reaction posits not just any oxygen nuclei, but TWO
> of the rare isotope, oxygen-18, in the same place at the same time along with
> 2 carbon nuclei (all within fermi separations).  
> 
> Makes me cry for John Bockris.  
> 
> Guess I'll have to look up the article again.  Can't believe John would publish
> such nonsensical garbage.  Does believing P&F do this to your brain?

  Just do the experiment. That is right. Just repeat the experiment.
And see for yourself.
  Unlike the Tandberg cold fusion ( P&F erroneously given credit for,
because P&F just repeated Tandberg's work), there is only one parameter
with the Bockris experiment. 

  Unlike Cold Fusion experiments where there are too many parameters,
that is why one lab gets different results from another. But here, in
carbon arcing there is only one parameter. So now, the whole world can
repeat the same experiment and get the same results. Namely--

     IRON content Before the experiment is less than After the
experiment. New Iron was created during the experiment.

  I had posted in 1993, that when pure elements of atomic number X are
used for electrical wires, or light filaments, or electric stove
heaters. That after use, upon inspection, there will be elements of X+1
found in those materials. This was in my patent application 1991 of
Spontaneous Neutron Materialization Devices. That in pure copper (X=29)
wire, after electrical use would contain some atoms of X=30. Noone
bothered to verify this claim of mine. I had written in my patent that
Siemens, GE, Philips, if they looked at their spent filaments or
electrical wires will find traces of newly created elements. My patent
application of 1991 had already anticipated this science report of Nov
1994.

 The only surprize to me about the Sundaresan,Bockris report and the
Singh,Saksena,Dixit,Kartha report of vol26 Fusion Technology is that
atoms of almost 2X are synthesized.

  I suggest an alternative explanation which may be verified. Consider
this as the reaction. Successive Spontaneous Alpha Particle
Materialization. Where iron is the element stable to both fission and
fusion.

  Try, repeating this experiment, because it has only one parameter,
many labs will verify this work.

cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.08 / Matt Kennel /  Re: Jones versus Fleischmann
     
Originally-From: mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Jones versus Fleischmann
Date: 8 Dec 1994 04:46:22 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:
: If you do not see commensurate chemical
: ash, then the heat reaction cannot be caused by chemistry.

What if there are special never before detected chemical reactions
that occur Specifically In A Lattice Where It Might Be Different?

It's those electrochemist's job to figure out what this New Chemistry Is.

: - Jed

--
-Matt Kennel  		mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu
-Institute for Nonlinear Science, University of California, San Diego
-*** AD: Archive for nonlinear dynamics papers & programs: FTP to
-***     lyapunov.ucsd.edu, username "anonymous".
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenmbk cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.08 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: Nuclear physics = collisions?/Davies questions
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Nuclear physics = collisions?/Davies questions
Date: Thu, 8 Dec 1994 05:45:56 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

In article <1994Dec2.141731.1910@physc2.byu.edu>,
 <jonesse@physc2.byu.edu> wrote:
>
>Matt Kennel also reacted (negatively) to a remarkable statement by Davies, 
>in which Davies asserted:
>
>"The strong force is not understood and 
>even special relativity is highly questionable."  (D. Davies)
>
>The statement challenging relativity is reminiscent of a posting of Jed
>Rothwell's (another cold-fusion advocate):
>
>"Okay, a million, million previous experiments showed that E=mc2. So what?
>Every single one of them was wrong.  Period.  It does not work in metal
>lattices under electrolysis, and Einstein was flat out wrong."
>(Jed Rothwell, 21 Dec. 1992)

Speaking of Jed, we've had some contact recently in which I read the rather
hilarious:

"I can tell the difference between 4,000 and 200,000,000. Jones cannot.

Like I said, I can tell the difference between a thousand and a hundred
million." (Jed Rothwell, Dec '94)

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but if Jed can tell the difference between
the two numbers in the first sentence, how come he misspells them?

cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Fri Dec  9 04:37:57 EST 1994
------------------------------
1994.12.07 /  mcnamara@vxalu /  Re: $290 million spent on foolishness--USA should spend on CF, 
     
Originally-From: mcnamara@vxaluw.cern.ch ()
Newsgroups: sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics,sci.chem,sci.bio,alt.sci.
hysics.plutonium,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: $290 million spent on foolishness--USA should spend on CF, 
Date: Wed, 7 Dec 1994 20:18:11 GMT
Organization: University of Wisconsin


In article <3c33j6$rjr@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>, Archimedes.Plutonium@dart
outh.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:
|> Xref: dxcern sci.physics.electromag:2600 sci.physics:95926 sci.chem:2
575 sci.bio:22184 sci.physics.fusion:15986
|> Path: dxcern!CERN.ch!EU.net!Germany.EU.net!unibwh.unibw-hamburg.de!ne
s.rrz.uni-hamburg.de!news.dkrz.de!news.dfn.de!swiss.ans.net!europa.eng.g
efsd.com!gatech!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!news.bu.edu!dartvax.dartmouth.edu!u
enet
|> From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
|> Newsgroups: sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics,sci.chem,sci.bio,alt.s
i.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.fusion
|> Subject: Re: $290 million spent on foolishness--USA should spend on CF, 
|>  superconductor,biotech
|> Date: 7 Dec 1994 01:36:38 GMT
|> Organization: Plutonium College
|> Lines: 27
|> Message-ID: <3c33j6$rjr@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
|> References: <3c0duu$h9f@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
|> NNTP-Posting-Host: at-1-sn-78.dartmouth.edu
|> Summary: Liquid helium proves GR is fakery. Jupiter has metallic 
|>  hydrogen but no liquid helium. Why? Because gravity is the statistics 
|>  of neutrinos.
|> X-Posted-From: InterNews 1.0.3@dartmouth.edu
|> 
|> In article <3c0duu$h9f@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
|> Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:
|> 
|> >   On page 41 we see a picture of Kip Thorne. This is done so that the
|> > unweary are supposed to think that this man knows alot of physics. I
|>   ^^^^^^^
|> > think they should have shown, on page 41, the Charles Dawson who
|> > delivered the Piltdown Hoax. Shown Dawson in his library with the right
|> > amount of textures and hues of lighting, for the reverence by young
|> > physicists to be "juju totems". 
|> >   Instead of wasting 290 billion to discover no Higgs boson exists.
|> > Instead they will spend 290 million to discover the hard way that no
|> > gravitons exist. Gravitons are merely the superposition of 4 neutrinos.
|> 
|>   unsuspecting
|> 
|>   So much of proposed physics is fluff. They show a picture of Kip
|> Thorne so that students are given a sense of feeling that this guy is
|> important and a  bigshot in physics. IMHO, if this experiment goes
|> forward, Kip Thorne in the future, once it is over, and the money
|> spent, will be seen as another Hoax. IMHO, Kip Thorne is a modern day
|> epicycle tweaqer, tweacker. One who goes around to fine-tune science
|> fakeries, to keep these fakeries around longer.
|> 
|>   Please post the names of the politicians who approved these
|> misappropriations. 290 million dollars is alot of money to waste on an
|> experiment which has no practical use.
|> 


I dont know if it's really worthwhile to rebuff your claims.  You are
either a madman, a joker, or an idiot.

Personally, i applaud the government for spending money on basic
science.  It shows that it is at least sometimes possible for politicians
to perform a little bit of statesmanship.  Questions about things
as fundamental as gravity waves may have little or no consumer, or
vote value, but the advancement of our understanding of nature is
worth spending a few paltry million dollars.  If you were unaware
of this 290 million USD is almost nothing in the scheme of things.
If you were to divide it up amongst all of the taxpayers, they'd
each be paying about a nickel.  If you want to whine about money
poorly spent, there are far better places to look.

Pete
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenmcnamara cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.07 / Tom Droege /  New Scientist Article
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: New Scientist Article
Date: 7 Dec 1994 18:21:45 GMT
Organization: fermilab

I received a call a couple of days ago from an editor of the 
Brittish publication which I remember is called the "New Scientist."
Sorry if I have the name wrong, but my notes are not here.  This 
morning I got a call from the photo editor looking for a picture so
I guess they are serious.  I put them on to the Business Week photo,
but it seems that the price is too much for their budget.  I paid
$200 for an 8"x8" copy, so I gess the photographer wanted a lot.  

In any case it looks like there will be a story on the group financing
of my trip to Griggs.  So I guess I will have to go! ;^)

When I get a copy I will post it here if I can.

Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy7 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.09 / A Plutonium /  Re: The Annenberg/CPB Collection THE MECHANICAL UNIVERSE and   
     
Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag
sci.bio,sci.chem,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The Annenberg/CPB Collection THE MECHANICAL UNIVERSE and   
Date: 9 Dec 1994 05:05:58 GMT
Organization: Plutonium College

In article <3c2roj$97o@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:

>  Keep the same the movie of Kepler and Brahe, Ben Franklin,
> Faraday, Tesla, Maxwell, Ampere, Michelson, all of which were excellent
> in The Mechanical Universe.
 
   #30 POTENTIAL & CAPACITANCE : Benjamin Franklin proposes a
successful theory of the Leyden jar and invents the parallel plate
capacitor.
 
 As I stated earlier in this thread. If I were allowed to watch one and
only one movie in all of my life, out of all the video movies ever
made. Only one movie, my choice is this-- THE MECHANICAL UNIVERSE in
52, 1/2 hour films. The reason I am posting this is not for me to act
as a salesman to this series. The Plutonium Atom Foundation already
owns the laserdisks of this 52 series. The reason is that I must point
out the good features and the occasional features that must be changed
in the future remakes of this series. This series must be updated and
revised. And, this series, and all remakes will of course be
continually played during business hours at all fine universities in a
viewing room or on computer. Quick and free access. Just open the
series. All students should have access to a series such as this. A
special viewing room could be set aside where the series is continually
played during business hours. And also, at Uni or College cafetaria and
lunch, dinner hours have the series projected on the wall while
students are eating. This series is far better than any professor in
front of a classroom.

I quote from #30

[Beautiful music playing in the background of this series]

  " Franklin was also relentlessly optimistic
   throughout his life he saw everything as a wonderful game, 
   a serious game to be sure, but also a challenge of 
   limitless possibilities

  How did it feel to flail a whirlwind with a whip?
  Or to catch lightning with a kite?
  Franklin was the only man on Earth
  who could answer those questions from experience."
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.05 /  jonesse@astro. /  Jones responds to Fleischmann (and Jed), again
     
Originally-From: jonesse@astro.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Jones responds to Fleischmann (and Jed), again
Date: 5 Dec 94 17:55:47 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

In article <3bikgk$ac6$2@mhadf.production.compuserve.com>, 
Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@CompuServe.COM> writes:
> Steve Jones has trotted out a compendium of the stale nonsense he posted over
> the years. In folk tales, magic spells sometimes work when you repeat them
> three times. Jones apparently believes that if you post nonsense a dozen times
> it becomes science. 

I believe no such thing.  What nonsense.

>There is no point in cluttering up the bandwidth with a
> detailed rebuttal -- it will just trigger another core dump of "skeptical"
> baloney. People who want to know the truth should contact me for a copy of the
> Jones versus Fleischmann debate. Let me quote part of that:
>  
>      ". . .Steve Jones and Douglas Morrison cannot do arithmetic. 

I think we can.  Or at least our calculators do arithmetic quite well.

> Let us
>      assume that they are right and go to the extreme assumption that all the
>      gases evolved recombine in the cell. 

It is correct that Douglas was particularly concerned about recombination in
the P&F cell.  But my main concerns were different:
1.  P&F measured input voltage (for constant current supply) only once every
*Five minutes*, while calculating excess power for a *ten minute* boiling
episode.  During boiling, the resistance in the cell changes rapidly and
significantly (Nathan Southerland and I actually performed experiments showing
this effect).  Thus, five-minute sampling is grossly insufficient to determine
the integrated input power.

2.  P&F based their calculation of excess power assuming that all the 
electrolyte boiled away.  But droplets could have been ejected, reducing
the power needed to drive the water out, and resulting in an over-estimate
of excess power.

3.  Light-water controls were not mentioned in the papers (Phys. Lett. and
proceedings of ICCF-3).  Thus, the null hypothesis was NOT disproved.
Indeed, we later learned that the H2O-electrolytic cells boiled just as
did the D2O-cells -- Pons argued in Maui that the significant difference
was that the 100 C temp. stayed at that value longer for the D2O cells.
None of this was in the original paper, unfortunately, and the ability
of dry cells to stay at 100 C for hours lead to more questions (and further
skepticism). 

>  This would generate 0.5 Amps x 1.54
>      Volts = 0.77 Watts under all conditions. However, when the cell is
>      boiling vigorously, the cell voltage is 76.5 (it doesn't really
>      matter what it is - see the next point (3)). 

The 76.5 volt value was used in their calculation of excess power for the
10-minute boiling period, and was based on 5-minute sampling.  The fact is,
the cell voltage must have fluctuated wildly due to electrolyte boiling.
It *does* matter what the cell voltage is, since this determines input power,
and one must know the input and output powers accurately in order to
determine excess power.

>The enthalpy input is now
>      0.5 Amps x 76.5 Volts = 38.25 Watts. 0.77 Watts is pretty negligible
>      compared to 38.25 Watts but the heat output from the cell is 182 Watts
>      (11 Watts by radiation, 171 Watts to boil the D[2]O). The excess is
>      144.5 Watts.
>
Note the precision in these calculations of Fleischmann's!  He can do
arithmetic, but can he base these on measurements which satisfy the 
Nyquist criterion?  5-minute sampling is woefully inadequate, no matter
how one massages the data.
  
>      It doesn't really matter how you tinker with these figures, you will
>      always finish up with a massive excess rate of enthalpy production. The
>      rail voltage of the galvanostat is 100V - one could say that the
>      enthalpy input is 0.5 Amps x 100 Volts = 50 Watts, it has no effect on
>      the qualitative level. One could say some of the D2O is dispelled as
>      droplets (actually, we recover [approx] 95% of the alkali by dissolving
>      the residues and titrating; some is undoubtedly lost by irreversible
>      reactions with the glass walls of the Dewars.)
>  
>      . . .
In the ICCF-3 paper, p. 62, F&P state that the rate of enthalpy output
is =(squiggle) 171 W.  But no error is given.  What are we supposed to
make then of the 'approx. equal' symbol?  Where are the careful measurements
needed at this stage for scientific proof?  There is no discussion in either
of the P&F papers about dispelling of D2O as droplets.

"You will always finish up with a massive excess rate of enthalpy production"?
The numbers in the P&F paper are not so massive to me, with excess of
'approx. equal' 144.5 W (NO error given) for 102,500J/600s of enthalpy 'output'
into water vapor and 11 W "to ambient" for input of 37.5 W. 
Taking into account the unknown integrated input power (5-minute sampling
for a boiling cell is woefully inadequate) and unknown power into ejected
droplets -- and the 11 W to the 'ambient' is also not persuasive without
errors (systematic and statistical) -- it remains to be proven that the
null hypothesis will not suffice.  

Moreover, no data are published regarding any
nuclear measurements during these experiments.

Above, F. admits that some of the D2O may be "dispelled as droplets."
Approx. 95% -- what is the error on this recovery estimate?
How can they be certain that the voltage never exceeds 100V, when they do
only measure the voltage once every 5 minutes?  Cannot impedances result
in voltage swings that surpass the ratings?  The paper gives no data to
show that this did not happen.  The null hypothesis therefore stands.
 
The fact is, they did not measure the voltage often enough to provide
compelling data to support their assertion of excess heat -- after all the
time and money they've spent, measurements once every 5 minutes is the 
best they did!  (THis applies to what has so far been published -- hopefully
they will do a better job in the future.  If so, I predict they will find
that the 'excess heat' can be explained without recourse to "it must be
nuclear." )
>  
>      What estimate of the cell voltage does Steve Jones want to make? As I
>      said in above, he can take the rail voltage at the galvanostat for all
>      we care (if he does not trust us).
>  
>      . . .
>  

That's just it:  we don't want "estimates" any more.  We want solid
*measurements* taken sufficient rapidly to satisfy the Nyquist criterion.
We want sufficient controls so that the null hypothesis can be disproved.
And we want nuclear measurements with state-of-the-art detectors in
conjunction with state-of-the-art calorimetery.  Is this too much to ask?

Approach the experiments from the point of view of trying to find out
what you did wrong, and you may save us all a lot of trouble. 

>      Steve Jones in common with Douglas Morrison, Frank Close etc etc.
>      apparently wants to hide away 8MJ of resistive heating in the 0.0392
>      cm^3 palladium electrode or say 2 GJ per mole of Pd. My mind boggles at
>      this notion."
>  
>      - M. Fleischmann, October 21, 1993

I want no such thing.  How can Fleischmann make such ridiculous assertions?

>  
> - Jed

Jed, to be fair, would also post my past comments to Fleischmann.  Here, Jed
does not even mention the 5-minute sampling period used by P&F in their
published paper, although I have discussed this several times before.
He is giving one side of the story only.
            
--Steven Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy5 cudenjonesse cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.09 / Scott Mueller /  Fieldtrip fund, last update
     
Originally-From: scott@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Scott Hazen Mueller)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Fieldtrip fund, last update
Date: Fri, 9 Dec 1994 17:10:01 GMT
Organization: At Home; Salida, CA

Sorry for the long delay; Tom hasn't been complaining, so I've been pretty
lax.  The last check is in (thanks, Dale) and I'll be making up the deposit
and sending it on to Tom.  Tom, I need your snail-mail address; I can't
email or FAX you a check just yet...  :-)

The total collected is 1058.95, the odd number because some folks sent an
even number in their local currency.

The final sponsor list is attached.

           \scott

-- 
Scott Hazen Mueller scott@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG or (tandem|ub-gate)!zorch!scott
Mail fusion-request@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG for emailed sci.physics.fusion digests.

Anonymous
Cameron R. Bass
Richard A. Blue
Paul T. Breed
Dieter Britz
James William Brown
James A. Carr
Kim Alan Crane
David Cyganski
Alan M. Dunsmuir
Kenneth D. Easton
Doug Elias
Nancy Gillett
Jeffery John Gorris
V. Guruprasad
Bruce Hamilton
Robert W. Horst
Roderick D. Johnson
Steven E. Jones
Kristoph D. Krug
John K. C. Lewis
Scott Hazen Mueller
Mark Muhlestein
Tarl Neustaedter
Andreas G. Nowatzyk
William S. Page
David W. Pierson
Richard Schroeppel
David Seghers
Thomas J. Selby
Bradley K. Sherman
Barry Smith
Gary Steckly
Jorge Stolfi
Anthony Sumner
Mike Thompson
Robert A. Virzi
Warren O. Weingarten
John Winterflood
Dr. John H. Whipple
John N. White
Frank Yashar
Thomas S. Zemanian

cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenscott cudfnScott cudlnMueller cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.08 / I Johnston /  Re: Jones versus Fleischmann
     
Originally-From: ianj@castle.ed.ac.uk (I Johnston)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Jones versus Fleischmann
Date: Thu, 8 Dec 1994 11:42:40 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:
: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich) compares me to Steve Jones and asks:
:  
:      "So, Jed, what are _your_ qualifications?"
:  
:  
:      "What private research of note have _you_ performed?"
:  
: Lots! It's private.
:  
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. Remember, he used to be a "humble" computer
programmer who knew which experts to trust - before he became a
businessman who knew which horses to back - before he became an expert
in calorimetry. Now he's done lots of research, but it's a secret. I see
why CF is an attractive field.

"Follow the money" he said. Involvement in a company which buys up
CF patents, attempting to talk it up and then make a killing by flogging
the shares before investors realize the Horrible Truth (tm) 
sounds pretty money-led to me...

I'm sorry to clutter up bandwidth like this, folks, but I am thoroughly
fed up with this cheap little crook spewing his venom around.

Ian
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenianj cudfnI cudlnJohnston cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.08 / John Logajan /  Dr. Oriani's Lecture
     
Originally-From: logajan@cray.com (John M. Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Dr. Oriani's Lecture
Date: 8 Dec 94 00:18:34 CST

Dr Richard Oriani held his one hour and 45 minute lecture on cold fusion
and he structured it as a general review of the D/Pd work going on
around the world.  Though he had cautious reservations about some
aspects of various works, he was positive in general about D/Pd CF.

In his own work he only saw two positive runs out of about 30 experiments
using volumetric gas measurements in an "open"  Seebeck calorimeter to
which he claims 0.3% accuracy.  In his positive results he saw excess
heat of 5-20% above power in.

I believe he is currently interested in the work of Mizumo's perovskite
(hope I got all that right) experiments and it sounded like work is in
progress toward duplicating it. 

Ironically, Oriani said that it wasn't P&F's paper that got him interested
in CF, it was Steven Jones!  Unfortunately it sounds like Oriani now
believes in CF and so according to Steven Jones, it means that Oriani
has tapioca for brains.  I was sitting about six feet from Dr. Oriani
during the lecture, so I am likely contaminated with the same virus,
hence my report here is likely nothing more than the rantings of yet
another tapicoa brain. [No, I don't necessarily believe in CF, but
I have an open mind -- which means a virus could just jump right in
there at any time and the next thing you know, tapioca.]

     jonesse@physc2.byu.edu   2 Dec 94 13:51:48
     "Perhaps when one accepts the P&F cold-fusion story (as Bockris has), 
     one is prepared to accept such nonsense...."
     "Can't believe John [Bockris] would publish such nonsensical garbage.  
     Does believing P&F do this to your brain?"

--
 - John Logajan   F6111  --  logajan@cray.com  --  612-683-5426 -
 - Cray Research, Inc. 655F Lone Oak Drive, Eagan MN 55121-9957 -
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.09 / Tom Droege /  Re: The Dark Force
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics
Subject: Re: The Dark Force
Date: 9 Dec 1994 19:38:23 GMT
Organization: fermilab

In article <1994Dec6.163522.1915@vanlab.byu.edu>, jonesse@vanlab.byu.edu says:
>
>Although I am not an astrophysicist, I would venture to comment briefly on
>the fascinating puzzle of "dark matter" or "missing mass."

This is not the only puzzle that needs a "dark force".  There is the 
little matter of the two rock solid (and others of lower quality) 
2E20 ev cosmic rays.  Unless they were produced "nearby" (50 M parsecs)
they should have lost energy due to interaction with the 3 k background
radiation.  But nearby there is nothing but Dr. Jones's "dark force"
to accelerate them to such high energy.  

So it looks like I will be switching from "High Energy Physics" to 
"Really High Energy Physics" to try to measure these strange particles.
Contrary to HEP which has 300 physicist collaboration, this looks like it
will be done by a "few good men/women".  It looks like fun. BTW, it looks
like I am being reorganized.  Anything could happen.  But if I disappear,
I will get on Compuserve or some such thing.  

Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.09 / C Harrison /  Periodic Post: Cold Fusion online at sunsite.unc.edu
     
Originally-From: harr@netcom.com (Charles (Chuck) Harrison)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Periodic Post: Cold Fusion online at sunsite.unc.edu
Date: Fri, 9 Dec 1994 14:37:09 GMT
Organization: Fitful

This message is posted periodically to inform readers about on-line
data sources related to "cold fusion" which are located at the 
University of North Carolina SunSITE server.

Two public WAIS (Wide Area Information Server) sources are online:
(1) Dieter Britz's Bibliography (periodically updated), and
(2) A sci.physics.fusion archive (1989 to present).
WAIS provides for multiple keyword searches in these databases.  It
does _not_ support boolean logic in the searching :-(.

1.  If you are directly connected to Internet, you can log onto a public
    WAIS server at the University of North Carolina:
    %telnet sunsite.unc.edu
    ...
    login: swais
    ...
    TERM = (unknown) vt100
    It takes a minute to load ...

    <use ? for online help>
    <use /cold to locate the cold-fusion "Source" - the Britz biblio>
    < or use /fusion to locate the fusion-digest source>
    <follow the prompts to select the source and enter your keywords
     for searching>

2.  If you have a "gopher" client, you can use it for WAIS access.  Many 
    university campuses provide gopher as a public information service.
2a. On most systems, you first select an option labeled "Other Systems",
    then from that menu select "WAIS based information".  Since each
    gopher site creates its own menus, I can't tell you exactly where to
    go from there.
2b. If you can gopher to SunSITE, at UNC, navigate the menus down thru
    SunSITE archives..All archives..Academic..Physics..Cold-fusion.
    You will find the searchable databases (typically marked <?>), as
    well as the primary-literature files discussed below.
2c. If you can 'telnet' but not 'gopher', you may telnet to
    sunsite.unc.edu and login as 'gopher'.  Then follow 2a or 2b above.

3.  If you have World Wide Web (WWW) browser, such as Mosaic, Cello, or
    Lynx, you may use the following URL's:
     wais://sunsite.unc.edu/cold-fusion       Britz bibliography
     wais://sunsite.unc.edu/fusion-digest     newsgroup archive
     gopher://sunsite.unc.edu/11/../.pub/academic/physics/Cold-fusion

4.  If you have a WAIS client on your system (the most common ones are
    "swais" -- character-based, and "xwais" -- for X-Windows), use it.  The
    Britz source is called "cold-fusion" and it is listed in the 
    directory-of-servers.

    If you _want_ a WAIS client program to run on your system, several are
    available in the public domain.  Try ftp-ing to one of these sites:
      sunsite.unc.edu
      think.com

There are several additional files archived at sunsite (e.g. Bollinger's
Twist of Ribbon, preprints of the Fleischmann&Pons 1989 paper), which
are accessible by anonymous ftp.
    %ftp sunsite.unc.edu
    . . .
    >cd pub/academic/physics/Cold-fusion
    >dir
The collection (mostly primary papers) maintained by vince cate has been
copied over to pub/academic/physics/Cold-fusion/vince-cate.

Additional contributions are welcome; e-mail cfh@sunsite.unc.edu.
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenharr cudfnCharles cudlnHarrison cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.08 /  jedrothwell@de /  RE: Jed's errors
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: Jed's errors
Date: Thu, 8 DEC 94 11:27:36 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue) writes:
 
     "I concur with Bruce Dunn's analysis of the steps involved in the
     calibration of the Eaton torque sensor, but I note that we still do not
     have any estimate of the accuracy of the measurements made with this
     instrument."
 
For Crying Out Loud, Dick, use your common sense. Come down out of your
fantasy cuckoo clock cloud world and make you own estimate. Here:
 
The iron weights were checked out on a digital scale. The exact weight is
written on masking tape on them. (I don't recall if it was to the nearest 10th
or 100th of pound.) Any steel or aluminum arm is good to the nearest tenth
inch, no matter how crudely it is manufactured. A bubble level makes things
horizontal to within 1 degree.
 
Figure it out yourself! Hint: it ain't 20%.
 
 
     "Of course cold fusion advocates need not concern themselves with
     obvious experimental errors."
 
Dick refers to the fact that we don't care about heat losses when we are
already 10% to 200% positive. The null rotor test that Griggs performed proves
that he loses 6% of the energy to radiation, but he does not even bother to
add that in. Arata must lose some heat from the cell walls, but he does not
account for it because he is already getting twice as much energy out of the
flow as he puts in the form of electricity. The excess is a very hefty 80 to
90 watts sustained  power. Dick Blue and others will no doubt claim that is
marginal, tiny, and difficult to detect. Steve Jones and Tom Droege, who try
to measure 0.001 watt power levels, will say it is as difficult to measure
(or even to detect) 80 watts as 0.001 watts. The fact is, however, it is dead
simple to detect 80 watts. You cannot possibly miss seeing it. Any reader who
doubts that should turn on a 75 watt incandescent light bulb, let it get hot
for a while, and then try resting you hand on the bulb. Ask yourself whether
the tools of modern science can reliably detect that much heat. Can you tell
by feel whether a 75 watt light is on or off? If you had $20,000 worth of lab
equipment and three years, could you measure the difference in heat levels
produced by a 75 watt light and a 150 light bulb?
 
In stark, simple terms, Dick Blue and Steve Jones are asserting that Arata,
Mizuno, Pons, Fleischmann, Piantelli and countless other scientists cannot
measure the difference between a hot 75 watt bulb and a 150 watt bulb. Anyone
who bothers to spend 15 minutes doing grade school calorimetry will see that
this is pernicious nonsense. Readers who do not what I am talking about should
read my paper "A Simple Calorimeter" or try reading an elementary school
textbook description of calorimetry. My daughter's third grade book was
particularly interesting because the assertions in it are flat out wrong, the
experiments did not begin to work as described. The basic principles were
correct, however. It goes to show that you must always do the experiment
yourself before you assert anything.
 
If we bothered to "concern ourselves" (as Dick puts it) with these losses we
would only increase the net excess heat. Since we know with certainty that
these loses can only add to the excess, and since we have already demonstrated
there is an excess beyond any doubt, there is no need to account for them. The
Wright Brothers proved their point by flying six feet off the sand at Kitty
Hawk. They did not need to fly at 27,000 feet. When a calorimeter can easily
measure to one percent, and when you know that heat losses and other errors
can only add to the excess -- by the laws of thermodynamics -- then a 110%
excess should convince any scientist.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenjedrothwell cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.09 /  Ed /  Help! Vacuum Engineers, Scientists, Technicians, Plumbers
     
Originally-From: (Ed)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Help! Vacuum Engineers, Scientists, Technicians, Plumbers
Date: 9 Dec 1994 15:05:58 GMT
Organization: NASA Goddard Space Flight Center -- Greenbelt, Maryland USA

I need to find the World's smallest, off-the-shelf,
BA ionization gauge.  We don't want to have to make
the time to build them ourselves.  There are other
pressing matters.

We would like something on a 1.33" CF flange, but
could modify anything that will fit in a mini-CF
port.

Can you help?

Any ideas?

If you have any suggestions, please E-mail me.  I
have no time to scan the net!

Ed

Edward L. Patrick               <patrick@paf.gsfc.nasa.gov>
Hughes STX, Code 915
Laboratory for Atmospheres
NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
Greenbelt, MD  20771  USA

cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudlnEd cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Sat Dec 10 04:37:07 EST 1994
------------------------------
1994.12.06 /  jonesse@vanlab /  The Dark Force
     
Originally-From: jonesse@vanlab.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics
Subject: The Dark Force
Date: 6 Dec 94 16:35:22 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

Although I am not an astrophysicist, I would venture to comment briefly on
the fascinating puzzle of "dark matter" or "missing mass."

One of the key 'problems' of the Big Bang model lies in explaining how 
outer stars in most galaxies can have such high speeds -- exceeding escape
velocities in many cases (yet the galaxies remain bound).  The conventional
wisdom holds that this is accounted for by 'dark matter':

"During the past decade, however, observations of galaxies in the optical,
radio, and the X-ray regions have convinced astronomers of the presence of
the ubiquitous dark matter.  Astronomers no longer call this missing mass
as they once did, for it is the light, not the matter, which is missing.
... "This dark matter, invisible in the optical, UV, X-ray, gamma-ray,
infrared, and radio regions of the spectrum, is detected by its gravitational
attraction on the matter which we see." 
--Vera Rubin, in _Bubbles, Voids, and Bumps in Time_

What I'm suggesting is that actually what is missing is the FORCE necessary
to allow such high outer-star speeds.  The notion that this force must be
caused by "dark matter" presupposes that the only force of significance is
gravity, and that we understand the gravitational force over huge distances.
But other forces, such as electromagnetic, may be significant-- if plasmas
are involved, for instance.  (This leads to the alternative model known
as 'plasma cosmology,' an accessible discussion of which appears in the 
February 1992 issue of _Sky and Telescope_.)   OR, the gravitational force
may have a component that remains large at galactical distances.

What is particularly noteworthy is that most astronomers according to Rubin
are "convinced ... of the presence of the ubiquitous dark matter."  I think
she's right about this.  But I think it important to challenge the 
assumptions which underlie this paradigm.  What is really missing is the
force; perhaps we should call it the "DARK FORCE."

--Steven Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenjonesse cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.06 /  jonesse@vanlab /  John Bockris' 4-body nuclear reaction
     
Originally-From: jonesse@vanlab.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: John Bockris' 4-body nuclear reaction
Date: 6 Dec 94 16:39:56 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

I checked the November 1994 issue of _Fusion Technology_:  it was indeed
Prof. John Bockris of Texas A&M who co-authored a paper claiming 56Fe
production during arcing between carbon electrodes in water.  As I discussed
earlier, his suggested four-body reaction:

    12C +12C +18O  +18O  -->  56Fe + 4He

requires 4 reactants to be within range of the strong nuclear force
simultaneously (within 10^-20 sec. approx.), and so is vanishingly small
in probability.  Not to mention the unlikelihood of finding two rare
18O nuclei together out of all the 16O nuclei in the ambient.  These guys
are really stretching.


In other news, recently received a letter from Wayne Green, 
publisher of "Cold Fusion" magazine.  Wayne notes that:

"If there's no substantial progress this year, cold fusion is in real
trouble."
Agreed.

He lists on the editorial review board:  John Bockris (Texas A&M)
[actually mispells, writing "Jim" Bockris]
Peter Hegelstein (MIT), Xing Li (China) and others.  A bit surprised
to see Peter on this board ...
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenjonesse cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.06 /  jonesse@vanlab /  cancel <1994Dec6.131123.1913@vanlab.byu.edu>
     
Originally-From: jonesse@vanlab.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics
Subject: cancel <1994Dec6.131123.1913@vanlab.byu.edu>
Date: 6 Dec 94 16:35:46 -0700

cancel <1994Dec6.131123.1913@vanlab.byu.edu>
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenjonesse cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.06 /  jonesse@vanlab /  cancel <1994Dec6.133020.1914@vanlab.byu.edu>
     
Originally-From: jonesse@vanlab.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cancel <1994Dec6.133020.1914@vanlab.byu.edu>
Date: 6 Dec 94 16:40:06 -0700

cancel <1994Dec6.133020.1914@vanlab.byu.edu>
cudkeys:
cuddy6 cudenjonesse cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.09 / Matt Austern /  Re: The Dark Force
     
Originally-From: matt@physics10.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics
Subject: Re: The Dark Force
Date: 09 Dec 1994 22:35:08 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (Theoretical Physics Group)

In article <1994Dec6.163522.1915@vanlab.byu.edu> jonesse@vanlab.byu.edu writes:

> What I'm suggesting is that actually what is missing is the FORCE necessary
> to allow such high outer-star speeds.  The notion that this force must be
> caused by "dark matter" presupposes that the only force of significance is
> gravity, and that we understand the gravitational force over huge distances.
> But other forces, such as electromagnetic, may be significant-- if plasmas
> are involved, for instance.  (This leads to the alternative model known
> as 'plasma cosmology,' an accessible discussion of which appears in the 
> February 1992 issue of _Sky and Telescope_.)   OR, the gravitational force
> may have a component that remains large at galactical distances.

This is a good point; I thought of it too, actually, when I was first
learning a bit about particle astrophysics.

However, this is something that the pros have thought of too... In
fact, the astro types really do have good reasons for thinking that
we're talking about dark matter instead of a "fifth force" or a
modification of gravitation.  That belief might be wrong, but it's not
capricious!

The basic point is just that the apparent need for "dark matter" shows
up at all distance scales, not just at galactic scales.  Whether
you're looking at motion in globular clusters, or galactic rotation
curves, or motion in galactic clusters, or scales that are still
larger, the result is the same: the motion you observe can't be
explained by conventional gravitation if you assume that the matter we
see is all that's out there.

It's easy enough to modify general relativity in some way so that you
explain this effect on any one distance scale; the trouble is that a
modification that corrects the problem on one distance scale will fail
to correct the problem on other scales.  

Nobody has thought of a way to explain these effects on all distance
scales that involves modifying the forces; the hypothesis that there's
a relatively homogeneous distribution of dark matter, though, does
explain all of these effects.

It's not a terribly radical hypothesis, either: it's easy to think of
lots of plausible candidates for matter that we haven't yet observed.
They don't have to be exotic, either.  Particle physicists tend to
like the exotic candidates, but there are several mundane
possibilities that are perfectly plausible.
--

                               --matt
cudkeys:
cuddy09 cudenmatt cudfnMatt cudlnAustern cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.08 /  mcnamara@vxalu /  Re: $290 million spent on foolishness--USA should spend on CF,
     
Originally-From: mcnamara@vxaluw.cern.ch ()
Newsgroups: sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics,sci.chem,sci.bio,alt.sci.
hysics.plutonium,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: $290 million spent on foolishness--USA should spend on CF,
Date: Thu, 8 Dec 1994 19:41:36 GMT
Organization: University of Wisconsin


In article <3c5orv$d8t@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>, Archimedes.Plutonium@dart
outh.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:
|> Xref: dxcern sci.physics.electromag:2604 sci.physics:95990 sci.chem:2
618 sci.bio:22201 sci.physics.fusion:15992
|> Path: dxcern!CERN.ch!EU.net!howland.reston.ans.net!gatech!purdue!news
bu.edu!dartvax.dartmouth.edu!usenet
|> From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
|> Newsgroups: sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics,sci.chem,sci.bio,alt.s
i.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.fusion
|> Subject: Re: $290 million spent on foolishness--USA should spend on CF,
|> Date: 8 Dec 1994 01:51:59 GMT
|> Organization: PLutonium College
|> Lines: 30
|> Message-ID: <3c5orv$d8t@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
|> References: <3c0duu$h9f@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> 
|>  <3c33j6$rjr@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>  
|>  <1994Dec7.201811.3616@dxcern.cern.ch>
|> NNTP-Posting-Host: at-1-sn-265.dartmouth.edu
|> X-Posted-From: InterNews 1.0.3@dartmouth.edu
|> 
|> In article <1994Dec7.201811.3616@dxcern.cern.ch>
|> mcnamara@vxaluw.cern.ch () writes:
|> 
|> > If you were unaware
|> > of this 290 million USD is almost nothing in the scheme of things.
|> > If you were to divide it up amongst all of the taxpayers, they'd
|> > each be paying about a nickel.
|> 
|>   3 dollars is perhaps more accurate.
|> 

Ok fine, I was not really calculating, just ranting :)

|>   Priorities of spending. There is a time and place to do gravity
|> research. Since the Weber experiments failed, we should not spend 290
|> million for more of that thing.
|>   There are far more useful science out there, namely superconductors,
|> fusion, and the genome biotech projects.

Is it your claim that this 290 million dollars somehow comes out
of the pockets of these research efforts?  Untrue.  I dont know
for certain, but I'd bet even money that it is being built by the
NSF, not by the DoE, first off... that means that it is not money
coming out of energy research.  The NIH (who are doing the genome
project, and AIDS research, and many other things) have a budget
of about 12 billion dollars a year.  It is hard to see how 290
million dollars spent elsewhere (most likely over the course of
several years...) is going to hurt them.  As for superconductors,
I'd bet the DoE funds them, but I dont know.  Superconductor
research is obviously progressing, they just dont have many
newsworthy breakthroughs these days.
 
|>   I repeat my call. Who are the persons who are responsible for the
|> misappropriation of 290 million. If we do not hold them accountable,
|> then there will be more misappropriations in the future.

I think a better place to look for accountability is in defense
or public aid spending.  Physics projects like this one go through
something called peer review, so that people who know what is
going on can decide if they are worthwhile.  Your running around
screaming wont accomplish anything, but the only thing that kind
of action could hope to accomplish is to reduce the public's interest
in science.

|>   What are the names of the Politicians who are giving away 290 million
|> dollars for a gravity experiment, which has no practical value
|> whatsoever.

Does all science have to have a practical value?  What about art?

|> And if they go ahead with this dumb experiment, IMHO, most of the money
|> will go into the pockets of professors who squiggle down a few
|> formulas, what is the name of the physics professors in charge of this
|> project? Is it only Kip Thorne?

You seem to know nothing about how science is done.  Some of the
money will go to professors, but most of it will go into physical
creation of the experiment.  The results which they get may or may
not be earthshattering, but it will bring us a step closer to
understanding gravity.

You sound like the newspapers which declare 'physicists fail to
find supersymmetry' as if that were a failure on their part, and
not an result of good physics.

|>    Science projects of millions of dollars must have accountability,
|> plus priority. ACCOUNTABILITY + PRIORITY, the two go together. And I am
|> sure that if you had a census of physics professors, over 90% would
|> tell you that gravity experiments have no practical use.
|> 

To be honest, the opinions of nuclear or atomic physicists, (not to
pick on them...) is of less weight on an issue like this than the
opinions of people who are actually hoping to gain something from
it.  Similarly, the opinions of a chemist would not be considered
of as much weight in such a question.

Pete
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenmcnamara cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.08 / Michael Moroney /  Re: Bockris in Nov. issue of Fusion Technology
     
Originally-From: moroney@world.std.com (Michael Moroney)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,alt.sci.physics.plutonium
Subject: Re: Bockris in Nov. issue of Fusion Technology
Date: Thu, 8 Dec 1994 19:40:42 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

In article <3c65nd$57a@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>,
Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) wrote:
>   I had posted in 1993, that when pure elements of atomic number X are
> used for electrical wires, or light filaments, or electric stove
> heaters. That after use, upon inspection, there will be elements of X+1
> found in those materials. This was in my patent application 1991 of
> Spontaneous Neutron Materialization Devices. That in pure copper (X=29)
> wire, after electrical use would contain some atoms of X=30. Noone
> bothered to verify this claim of mine.

Well the various computers and other electronic gadgetry in use everywhere
make an excellent disproof of this.  The silicon in them is _very_ pure, with
tiny amounts of dopants deliberately added that greatly change its properties.
If current somehow converted silicon (Z=14) to phosphorus (Z=15) the properties
of nearly every electronic device would change drastically and proportionally
to use, as phosphorus is one of the elements used in tiny amounts to produce
n-type semiconductors.  We'd especially see this in high current devices such
as triacs and power transistors.  But we don't see any such effect.

-Mike
cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenmoroney cudfnMichael cudlnMoroney cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.09 / William Rowe /  Re: November issue of FUSION TECHNOLOGY, a summary
     
Originally-From: browe@netcom.com (William Rowe)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,alt.sci.physics.plutonium
Subject: Re: November issue of FUSION TECHNOLOGY, a summary
Date: Fri, 9 Dec 1994 19:22:06 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

In article <3c5gto$rmq@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>,
Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) wrote:

>In article <Pine.OSF.3.91.941202085417.16654B-100000@alpha.kemi.aau.dk>
>Dieter Britz <britz@alpha.kemi.aau.dk> writes:
>
>> Agreed. It is amazing how people seem to believe that zapping can do 
>> wonders. Just because an electric zap is impressive to humans, they feel 
>> that atoms must be impressed, too. Time and again we see zaps in science
>> fiction films, and zapparatus is sort of standard in the imagination of 
>> the Man in the Street of how a scientist's lab looks.
>> I doubt that Tandberg was the first to try zap-fusion (he sent lots of amps
>> through PdD wires, never got any fusion). Wada and Nishizawa had another go
>> in 1989, zapping between two PdD rods; they reckoned they got neutrons; one
>> has reason to doubt it. As we have seen, there are now a few patents that 
>> use zapping to tickle 'cold fusion' into happening. OK, you might get a 
>> few keV from a zap, and a tiny bit of fusion, but not enough to notice, what?
>> And a three-body reaction, now I ask you, who can believe that? 
>> 
>> -- db
>
>  I am just going to comment on the fact that the Internet has a racial
>majority of computer geeks. Sort of like TV (Telly in UK and Australia)
>has a racial majority of actors. One of the reasons I stopped watching
>TV. Who cares what starlett X wears for fashion, and who cares how many
>girls star X is sleeping with?
>   I just wanted to note that these sci.groups have a race majority of
>computer associated people. And it seems like a trend that a gung-ho or
>hung-lo computer person is not smart enough for physics or engineering
>and, gets out of school and is gainfully employed in computer industry.
>He would quickly find the Internet as a means of displaying his
>parochialism.
>  Computer geeks know how to change fonts. Converse with sentences
>filled with computer language to impress someone at Kmart or Sears.
>None of which is annoying until they give their penny worth of thoughts
>in a hard core science. Just because they know what DOS is. They think
>they know nuclear fusion. And this becomes really annoying on Internet.
>That we have so many computer geeks running wild herd through
>sci.groups.
>   I wanted to make this general comment because when my successors
>cull through these postings, let them realize that many posts were
>committed by persons who had only a spattering of real understanding in
>newsgroups like physics or engineering or physics experimentation.
>Rather instead, their backgrounds were almost entirely around
>superficial things relating to computers. And even their knowledge of
>computers--not a one of them could build a computer from scratch, and
>not a one of them understands the basic concept behind a computer in
>the first place-- a device having many electronic gates and whether
>those gates are open or closed. 
>   So unfortunately, these computer persons which I call geeks, since
>they outnumber the experts in the various newsgroups, we have to suffer
>their dribble. IMHO, for example, the dribble by Dieter Britz above. 

I am not sure what Dieter Britz's background is but I very much agree with
his comments. As for me, my degree is in physics. I have had an interest
in fusion physics for some time which is why I follow the postings in this
group. I am currently working as an engineer for an aerospace firm which
builds communications sattelites.

You did make a couple of valid points in that there seldom in any group as
good a signal to noise ratio as might be desired. However, if you are
going to cast Dieter as one of the "computer geeks" might we know what
your background? As far as I can see Dieter seems reasonably knowledgable.

-- 
_______________________________________________________________________________
William Rowe                                                   browe@netcom.com
MD5OfPublicKey: F29A99C805B41838D9240AEE28EBF383
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenbrowe cudfnWilliam cudlnRowe cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.08 / Alan M /  Re: New Scientist Article
     
Originally-From: Alan@moonrake.demon.co.uk ("Alan M. Dunsmuir")
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: New Scientist Article
Date: Thu, 8 Dec 1994 19:06:15 +0000
Organization: Home

In article: <3c4ufp$n2o@fnnews.fnal.gov>  Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege) writes:
> 
> I received a call a couple of days ago from an editor of the 
> Brittish publication which I remember is called the "New Scientist."

Don't be afraid of 'New Scientist', Tom. It has a well-deserved good 
reputation as a 'populising', but entirely serious, science weekly.

Alan M. Dunsmuir [@ his wits end]     (Can't even quote poetry right)

         I am his Highness' dog at Kew
         Pray tell me sir, whose dog are you?
			      [Alexander Pope]

PGP Public Key available on request.


cudkeys:
cuddy8 cudenAlan cudfnAlan cudlnM cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.09 / A Plutonium /  Re:  Bockris in Nov. issue of Fusion Technology
     
Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,alt.sci.physics.plutonium
Subject: Re:  Bockris in Nov. issue of Fusion Technology
Date: 9 Dec 1994 20:16:27 GMT
Organization: Plutonium Atom Foundation

In article <3c65nd$57a@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:

>   I suggest an alternative explanation which may be verified. Consider
> this as the reaction. Successive Spontaneous Alpha Particle
> Materialization. Where iron is the element stable to both fission and
> fusion.
> 
>   Try, repeating this experiment, because it has only one parameter,
> many labs will verify this work.

  When one looks at radioactive decay, most is in the form of alpha
particles.

  I offer the above, of successive spontaneous alpha particle
materialization as an alternative explanation for the reaction 6C12 +
6C12 +8O18 +8O18  -->  26Fe56 + 2He4

   That atoms of C and O, apparently rare isotopes are more inductive
to spontaneous creation, materialize spontaneos alpha particles within
their nucleus. And they do this until they reach iron, stable to both
fission and fusion.

   I offer my explanation because I intuit that once these experiments
are run with utmost accuracy. The Conservation of Energy/Mass will be
seen violated.

   In the future, when these experiments are run with top precision.
Then, the subatomic particle (hadrons) mass count will have seen to be
increased. In other words. Conservation of Energy/Mass is out the
window.

   Once that is verified that Conservation is fakery, then, we must
find out how to INDUCE spontaneous neutron/alpha particle
materialization to the maximum. So that we can quickly build the worlds
first CF Power Plant.

   We may find what induces radioactive spontaneous materialization
before we verify that conservation of energy/mass was fakery.

   I do not like these recent arguments of "vacuum" and "borrowing from
the vacuum" because that is still the conservation of energy/mass. Just
some more of "Saving the Appearances by epicycles". I am sure that the
carbon arcing experiments when verified, shows the Conservation of
Energy/Mass was a fakery, and bites the dust.

   Instead of these theoretical leanings toward vacuum. I recommend the
work of Dirac in his little book Directions in Physics, where he talks
about a new radioactivity heretofor undiscovered. What Dirac is
suggesting, and Dirac was way ahead of his time, is my spontaneous
neutron/alpha/beta particle materialization. This radioactivity is what
CF is all about. THis radioactivity is how the universe, our Sun, and
Earth grow by. Our solar system was not a dust cloud creation, but
instead it was radioactively grown from seed particles.

   So then, let us prove to the world that Conservation of Energy/Mass
are out the window.
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.09 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Nuclear physics = collisions?/Davies questions
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Nuclear physics = collisions?/Davies questions
Date: Fri, 9 DEC 94 11:22:32 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

jonesse@physc2.byu.edu quotes me out of context, in order to confuse the issue
and make people think I believe things which I do not. He quotes me:
 
     ""Okay, a million, million previous experiments showed that E=mc2. So
     what? Every single one of them was wrong.  Period.  It does not work in
     metal lattices under electrolysis, and Einstein was flat out wrong."
     (Jed Rothwell, 21 Dec. 1992)
 
In my message of 21 Dec. 1992, I made it perfectly clear that this was a
HYPOTHETICAL statement. I was not taking about any real experiment that shows
E<>mc^2. There has never been any such experiment, and I doubt there ever will
be. CF devices do not violate mass energy conservation. What I said was that
IF THERE EVER WAS SUCH AN EXPERIMENT, and IF IT WAS REPLICATED, I would -- of
course -- believe it. I recently offered another purely hypothetical example
of ESP "mind reading." No doubt Jones will now go around claiming I believe in
ESP.
 
I always believe widely replicated, high sigma results, no matter how much
they conflict with theory or with previous experience. To me, there is one and
only one standard in science: experimental evidence. Nature dictates the
truth, and we must swallow our doubts and believe it. Whatever replicated
experiments prove, I will slavishly believe. If you demonstrate a machine for
me, and I can see for myself that it does work beyond any possible measurement
error, I will believe it. Show me anti-gravity, mind reading, a violation of
mass-energy equivalence, time travel . . . prove it to me, and I will believe
it. Show me the sun coming up in the west I will believe that too.
 
Jones claims that CF results violate E=mc2. Therefore, he says, they must
be wrong. No other scientist I have ever talked to believes CF violates E=mc2.
Jones stands alone in this. Everyone else says that CF produces helium ash
commensurate with nuclear fusion, which balances the books and preserves
Einstein's theory. I do not think there is one chance in a million that
Jones understands Einstein, and Schwinger, Hagelstein, Fleischmann, Storms
and the others do not, so I suppose these theoretical speculations by Jones
about Einstein are wrong. If, by some miracle, Jones is right then Einstein
must be wrong. CF is real and it will remain real no matter what theoretical
speculations Jones or anyone else comes up with. No theory can overrule what
the flowmeters and thermometers prove.
 
 
What it boils down to is this: Jones, Blue and many other "skeptics" think
that science is based on theory. They think that when theory conflicts with
facts, the facts should be ignored. I believe in experiments only. This is an
irreconcilable difference in philosophy. I think we should agree to disagree
and not discuss the issue any more.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenjedrothwell cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.09 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Nuclear physics = collisions?/Davies questions
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Nuclear physics = collisions?/Davies questions
Date: Fri, 9 DEC 94 11:23:33 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

I said that I can tell the difference between 4,000 and 200,000,000, and.
Jones cannot. And I wrote that I can tell the difference between a thousand
and a hundred million." tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich) writes:
 
     "Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but if Jed can tell the difference
     between the two numbers in the first sentence, how come he misspells
     them?"
 
You are wrong; you stand corrected. I did not misspell anything. Those are
four different numbers: 4*10^3, 2*10^8, 1*10^3, and 1*10^8. Please note the
orders of magnitude. Numbers raised to the 8th power are much, much bigger
than numbers raised to the 3rd power. The theories and hypothesis offered
by Jones and others to "explain" CF results are usually five orders of
magnitude too small to explain anything. Jones attempted to explain Arata by
saying the energy might be chemical, but the data in Arata's paper show that
this is wrong by 5 orders of magnitude. Morrison attempted to explain Pons
and Fleischmann's results by claiming they might be caused by combustion
of hydrogen stored in the palladium. This is also about 5 orders of magnitude
too low. A hypothesis or theory which fails by 5 orders of magnitude is not
part of science, it is a joke, or an idiotic fantasy. Jones, Morrison et al.
offer such idiotic fantasies in order to confuse and bamboozle the public.
They want to fool people into thinking that CF might be an experimental error,
or a chemical reaction.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenjedrothwell cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.09 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Jones versus Fleischmann
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Jones versus Fleischmann
Date: Fri, 9 DEC 94 12:14:55 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Matt Kennel <mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu> asks:
 
     "What if there are special never before detected chemical reactions that
     occur Specifically In A Lattice Where It Might Be Different?"
 
Then, in that case, the overall energy release would be less than 20 eV per
atom, and there would be no transmutation of elements or isotopes. Chemical
reactions involve electron bonds, usually covalent bonds. (That's the
definition of chemistry.) CF changes the nucleus of the atom when it converts
one element into another, therefore it is nuclear.
 
If it turned that Mills is right, and the gas which looks just like helium is
actually shrunken pairs of hydrogen atoms, I suppose that would make CF only
partly nuclear; only when it creates tritium, as it does from time to time. I
believe the latest mass spec work at Rockwell has high enough resolution to
eliminate that possibility.
 
 
     "It's those electrochemist's job to figure out what this New Chemistry
     Is."
 
Naturally, CF requires a lot of critical research in chemistry. So do fission
and hot fusion reactors, and nuclear bombs. I think it is every scientist's
job to figure what this new reaction is. I do not think it matters whether it
is New Chemistry or New Physics. It is New Hydrogen Energy, as the Japanese
say. It is important because mankind desperately needs energy. One thing I am
sure about: quibbling over definitions and job descriptions will not solve any
mysteries.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenjedrothwell cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Sun Dec 11 04:37:08 EST 1994
------------------------------
1994.12.09 / Michael Moroney /  Re: November issue of FUSION TECHNOLOGY, a summary
     
Originally-From: moroney@world.std.com (Michael Moroney)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,alt.sci.physics.plutonium
Subject: Re: November issue of FUSION TECHNOLOGY, a summary
Date: Fri, 9 Dec 1994 21:48:46 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

In article <browe-0912941122060001@192.0.2.1>,
browe@netcom.com (William Rowe) wrote:
> As for me, my degree is in physics. I have had an interest
> in fusion physics for some time which is why I follow the postings in this
> group. I am currently working as an engineer for an aerospace firm which
> builds communications sattelites.
...
> However, if you are
> going to cast Dieter as one of the "computer geeks" might we know what
> your background? As far as I can see Dieter seems reasonably knowledgable.

Oh how you'll regret asking this!  Archimedes just happens to be Official
Potwasher for Dartmouth University, and Dartmouth is a very fine school.
This certainly puts your mere physics degree and engineering position to shame!

-Mike
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenmoroney cudfnMichael cudlnMoroney cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.09 /  jonesse@plasma /  Re: Arata's Negative Excess Heat/SL update
     
Originally-From: jonesse@plasma.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Arata's Negative Excess Heat/SL update
Date: 9 Dec 94 10:17:30 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

In article <3bvmgp$1fr@fnnews.fnal.gov>, 
Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege) writes:
> In article <3bv215$54n@styx.uwa.edu.au>, tag@chem.uwa.edu.au (T A Green) says:
>>
>>Steve Jones wanted to know why Arata et al. observed negative excess heat 
>>during one experiment.This might arise simply because the calorimeter has 
>>not yet reached thermal equilibrium. In any calorimetric experiment it is 
> 
> Seems to me that in a "good calorimetric" experiment, you keep track of
> everything.  So one expects an apparent loss of heat as the apparatus 
> heats up and as the Pd absorbs D/H.  If you don't, then you are tempted
> to assume "positive excess heat" at the end of the experiment when these
> earlier losses reappear.  
> 
> One should also keep a total energy balance for the whole experiment,
> including a time dependent error accumulation.  This is why I was working
> for such high accuracy.  One wants to be able to state at the end of
> the experiment that one has returned to the starting point, and that 
> there is an apparent change of energy of x joules with an error limit 
> of (say one sigma) +/- y joules.  Unless this is done, as far as I am
> concerned, there is no experiment.  
> 
> Tom Droege

I completely agree with Tom.  Note that Arata did NOT do this in the paper
under discussion; indeed, the early data on negative excess heat is cut off
from the plot (Fig. 3) and we are not given the needed data to integrate
the amount of negative excess heat.  Despite Rothwell's protestations, one
must demand better from experimenters who wish to do scientific proof-of-
principle experiments.

And I have sent out copies of Arata's paper to all who have requested it, so
all who wish can check this paper and examine the lack of proper controls
(an issue I discussed previously, but which Jed chose to ignore in his
vituperative response).             

We are conducting sonoluminescence (SL) experiments in our lab now, so this note
must be brief (!).  We have seen SL with deuterium bubbles.  We have also
seen single bubble SL in our lab, with help from visiting scientists.
As for neutrons, well, we're still looking...

--Steven Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy9 cudenjonesse cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.11 / Matt Kennel /  Re: Nuclear physics = collisions?/Davies questions
     
Originally-From: mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Nuclear physics = collisions?/Davies questions
Date: 11 Dec 1994 00:04:29 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:
: Jones claims that CF results violate E=mc2. Therefore, he says, they must
: be wrong. No other scientist I have ever talked to believes CF violates E=mc2.
: Jones stands alone in this. Everyone else says that CF produces helium ash
: commensurate with nuclear fusion, which balances the books and preserves
: Einstein's theory.

Well I think that ol' Al would also go for conservation of momentum;
comes out of that same 4-vector as E=mc^2.

CF now: you have D + D nearly at rest.  You end up supposedly with 4He at rest.

How do you couple the energy to something and still conserve momentum?

I have an idea, but it will make x-rays.

If the produced 4He stays still after the reaction, then it won't
keep very much of the energy.  

: What it boils down to is this: Jones, Blue and many other "skeptics" think
: that science is based on theory. They think that when theory conflicts with
: facts, the facts should be ignored. I believe in experiments only. This is an
: irreconcilable difference in philosophy. I think we should agree to disagree
: and not discuss the issue any more.

Yes, that is true.

Physics has worked best when people start from basic principles, and assume
that they hold almost universally.  Once these principles are discovered
and verified with extensive *experimentation*, experience has shown that
if new experiments in particular situations appear to violate these
principles in physical regimes extensively tested in previous years,
they are almost always wrong. 

Or at least the apparent interpretation of the experiments must be
incorrect.

And then there's the question of why flowmeters and thermometers must
be believed, but not photomultipliers.

: - Jed

--
-Matt Kennel  		mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu
-Institute for Nonlinear Science, University of California, San Diego
-*** AD: Archive for nonlinear dynamics papers & programs: FTP to
-***     lyapunov.ucsd.edu, username "anonymous".
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenmbk cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.11 / Paul Koloc /  Re: The Dark Force, or propulsion
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics
Subject: Re: The Dark Force, or propulsion
Date: Sun, 11 Dec 1994 08:00:27 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <1994Dec6.163522.1915@vanlab.byu.edu> jonesse@vanlab.byu.edu writes:
>Although I am not an astrophysicist, I would venture to comment briefly on
>the fascinating puzzle of "dark matter" or "missing mass."
>
>One of the key 'problems' of the Big Bang model lies in explaining how 
>outer stars in most galaxies can have such high speeds -- exceeding escape
>velocities in many cases (yet the galaxies remain bound).  The conventional
>wisdom holds that this is accounted for by 'dark matter':
>
>"During the past decade, however, observations of galaxies in the optical,
>radio, and the X-ray regions have convinced astronomers of the presence of
>the ubiquitous dark matter.  Astronomers no longer call this missing mass
>as they once did, for it is the light, not the matter, which is missing.
>... "This dark matter, invisible in the optical, UV, X-ray, gamma-ray,
>infrared, and radio regions of the spectrum, is detected by its gravitational
>attraction on the matter which we see." 
>--Vera Rubin, in _Bubbles, Voids, and Bumps in Time_
>
>What I'm suggesting is that actually what is missing is the FORCE necessary
>to allow such high outer-star speeds.  The notion that this force must be
>caused by "dark matter" presupposes that the only force of significance is
>gravity, and that we understand the gravitational force over huge distances.
>But other forces, such as electromagnetic, may be significant-- if plasmas
>are involved, for instance.  (This leads to the alternative model known
>as 'plasma cosmology,' an accessible discussion of which appears in the 
>February 1992 issue of _Sky and Telescope_.)   OR, the gravitational force
>may have a component that remains large at galactical distances.
>
>What is particularly noteworthy is that most astronomers according to Rubin
>are "convinced ... of the presence of the ubiquitous dark matter."  I think
>she's right about this.  But I think it important to challenge the 
>assumptions which underlie this paradigm.  What is really missing is the
>force; perhaps we should call it the "DARK FORCE."

Fortunately, science isn't a democracy.  Since this seems open for 
speculation, which unfortunately, runs into problems with the connection
between metric and mass, I thought I would input a notion.  

To me, the universe without mass is one devoid of information and metric.  
In a sense, if there is unified field theory, then information is likely
that "field".  Unlike the current "billard ball" theory of physics reality,
this notion includes the concept of logic operator.  That is a particle
isn't just an array of stuff, it is also has a component of logic, so that
for example, time may be quantized allowing the particle to be and not
be a an enormous rate, but according to logical rules.  That means the 
information and operators of particles, overlapping can interact to create
gravitationa. and electric phenomena, etc.    But back to this stab.    

Let's assume a constant processing rate for information, so that time
(framing rates) are dependent on the local information density.. which 
looks macroscopically like the local metric.  

Applying this to the problem, we find that time at the edges of mass
lumps (as galaxies) runs faster.  Since there is likely an overall edge 
to the finite universe from the time of the big bang, then, one would 
expect that the photon pressure out going to the void from from the 
leading expanding edge of stars (galaxies) is less than that inward 
toward mass denser universe -- just because of the edge time gradient.  
Thus the result would be a constant tendency to accelerate galaxies 
outward and flatten the curvature over inbound regions.  So for 
galaxies nearby maybe the edge stars are just RECENTLY faster.  
But... plasma .. mag storage and tied to local metric interactions 
.. should all produce fascinating locally coherence driving 
(stickyness -- freezing) contributions.  

One difference of the above prediction, is that this metric driven
photon acceleration of galaxies themselves partake.. but radially 
outward -- not ubiquitously.  Also the edge should be smoothing --
or becoming diffuse, thus slowing the acceleration.   Of course,
I wasn't around to notice the difference and I don't have a very
significant optical resolution device.  

>--Steven Jones

+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc, Bx 1037 Prometheus II Ltd, College Park MD 20741-1037    |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.11 / John White /  Roast Dynamometer
     
Originally-From: jnw@char.vnet.net (John N. White)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Roast Dynamometer
Date: 11 Dec 1994 21:49:53 -0500
Organization: Vnet Internet Access, Inc. - Charlotte, NC. (704) 374-0779

Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@CompuServe.COM> writes:
> remember that the electric motor is now connected to the dynamometer, which
> is in turn connected to the GG;
...
>>     "Are you _sure_ that the shaft (not the housing) at the gadget end is
>>     hotter than the shaft (not the housing) at the motor end."
 
> Yes, I am sure the GG is 200 degrees Fahrenheit hotter than anything else in
> the room. ...

In other words, the dynamometer is connected between a hot motor and a much
hotter GG. I suspect that the torque transducer is operating at a temperature
that is much higher than it is designed for. Some common types of transducers
give smaller signals when hot. This would cause the dynamometer to say that
there is less torque than is actually the case.

If this were true, then the error should increase if the GG is run at a higher
temperature. Sure enough, the excess heat is greater when the GG is used to
make steam than when it is used to make hot water.
cudkeys:
cuddy11 cudenjnw cudfnJohn cudlnWhite cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.12 / A Plutonium /  Yilmaz & Alley, THE EXPERIMENT WHICH SHOWS GR is FAKERY.
     
Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.electromag
sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Yilmaz & Alley, THE EXPERIMENT WHICH SHOWS GR is FAKERY.
Date: 12 Dec 1994 00:24:03 GMT
Organization: PLUTONIUM ATOM FOUNDATION

In article <3c97kp$6du@cville-srv.wam.umd.edu>
vjejjala@wam.umd.edu (Spinoza's God) writes:

> EINSTEIN'S GENERAL THEORY OF RELATIVITY does not fit well with quantum 
> mechanics, but it does persist as the prevailing theory of gravity and 
> has been vindicated in many experimental tests.  Nevertheless, scientists 
> try to build a better theory or at least to find flaws in Einstein's 
> equations.  Two researchers, Huseyin Yilmaz of Tufts University and 
> Carroll Alley of the University of Maryland (301-405-6098), believe they 
> have discovered a case in which general relativity provides a nonsensical 
> result, namely that the gravitational attraction between two infinitely 
> wide (but thin) parallel plates in close proximity would be zero.  
> Furthermore, they propose a gravity theory of their own, one which, they 
> claim, is compatible with quantum mechanics.  Other relativity experts, 
> such as Clifford Will of Washington University (314-935-6244) and William 
> Unruh of the University of British Columbia, dispute Yilmaz's assertions 
> and claim that general relativity is in good health.  Yilmaz and Alley 
> hope to use small unexplained discrepancies in the performance of the 
> Global Positioning System (the satellite-based navigation network) and new
> tests involving the travel times of laser beams over different paths to
> test their theory.  (Science News, 3 December 1994.)

  I just want to note that my priorities have been well established.
And there will be many contenders who will try to "get-around" others
priorities, and in this case my priorities. 
  I do not claim the first to disapprove of GR and embark on
experimentation showing it to be fakery. But I claim the first to have
two experiments which shows GR is fakery. First, (1) the huge massive
ball with center drilled out and two holes, where helium, by GR pools
in the cavity. Then the helium is replaced with superfluid helium and
the superfluid helium, according to GR must remain there in the pool,
but instead it always flows out. And it matters not whether that
massive ball is the planet Earth or Jupiter with their centers as the
cavity, GR just will not contain superfluid helium. And (2) experiment
uses superfluid helium in a centrifuge. Calculate the behavior of
superfluid helium according to GR in a centrifuge. Surprize, superfluid
helium disobeys GR.
   By this post, I put Messr. Yilmaz and Alley on notice that they may
have treaded on copyrighted ground. Theft of intellectual property is a
serious matter in the world of science, math, and engineering. And
although it appears from first glance that the work of Yilmaz and Alley
are different and/or unrelated in design or theoretical underpinning.
That is probably not the case. And because, others can easily set up
experiments because they have a laboratory or the facilities at hand,
that should not be a undue bias towards me who does not have a
laboratory and can not obtain superfluid helium.
   I have records of earliest public broadcasting of the theory of why
GR is fakery. And, even though Messr. Yilmaz and Alley perhaps do not
use superfluid helium. When it is analyzed closely, my theory is that
GR is the statistics of neutrinos. And when analyzed closely, that is
where Yilmaz and Alley are headed for in their theoretical
underpinnings. And, although they may never come out and say that their
work has anything to do with neutrinos or superfluid helium, I will
monitor their publications and all publications which assert that GR is
fakery.
   In science it is not uncommon to do unfair coups.
   The Plutonium Atom Foundation (PAF) stands vigorously behind any of
its copyrights, and patents, and will contest even the slightest degree
of theft or borrowing of intellectual property where due credit is not
given. Let me give another example in biology. PAF holds the copyrights
that the theory of biological evolution (Darwin on down to the Modern
Synthesis) is science fakery because the Bell Inequality with the
Aspect Experimental results proves evolution is fakery. Bell Inequality
and the ATOM TOTALITY theory replaces evolution with superdeterminism.
Now, there are many persons, when they understand these things will
like to pry the theory away from PAF. They will do some sneaky tactic,
and since they may have quick and easy access to a magazine like
Nature, they will try to steal the theory away from PAF. Let me state
again, PAF will defend strongly all of its intellectual property
copyrighted and patented.
   What I am saying is that Messr. Yilmaz & Alley, should they not
refer, or cite to my work or priorities when they should have, then a
lawsuit will be quick on the minds of the Plutonium Atom Foundation.
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.12 / Richard Blue /  Sloppy measurements
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Sloppy measurements
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 1994 15:58:32 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Jed Rothwell still seems to think that there is no reason to be too
concerned about obvious errors in CF measurements as long as there
are some even larger and more obvious errors that must bias the results
against cold fusion.  From his perspective the known heat losses from
the Griggs Gadget, for example, must more than compensate for errors
of the type I, and others, have mentioned so any apparent excess heat
must be real.

The problem with that approach to experimental measurements, I believe,
is the fact too many errors can remain undetected because they are
hidden in the generally sloppy approach to the measurements.  If there
were more effort put into the elimination of various errors just to
improve the signal-to-noise ratio it would be easier to tell what is
really going on.  My current favorite is the "toasted sensor" explanation
for the Griggs results.

While on the subject of sloppy measurements,  I want to add to what
Steve Jones has been saying about the P&F boiling water measurements.
In light of the 5 minute sampling interval, I have never understood
how the total time for boiloff was determined.  Yet that time interval
is a key parameter in any determination of the total heat output.

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.12 / I Johnston /  Re: Griggs power
     
Originally-From: ianj@castle.ed.ac.uk (I Johnston)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs power
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 1994 11:51:16 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

James Stolin (FKNF40A@prodigy.com) wrote:
: ianj@castle.ed.ac.uk (I Johnston) wrote:
: >
: >But remember in test runs they can easily get 500% efficiency. And the
: >steam is superheated too ... it shouldn't be too hard to get a turbine 
: to
: >drive the gadget with an efficiency of 20%. And ... bingo!

: Ian,

:     I proposed the coupling of output to input also.  Did not get a 
: response.  Do you kknow what the efficiency of a typical steam driven 
: turbine is?  Thanks.

A rushed response...


According to my Rogers and Mayhew, 80% efficiency for a turbine running
on saturated steam. That the TB's (or one of them) claim that the steam
is superheated shows how little they know of thermodynamics, by the way.
Of course, 80% is illustrative and probably relates to very large
turbine, but remember, the GG regularly and easily produces a 500% cop,
so we're only looking for an overall turbine efficiency of 20%.

Yours in faith,

Ian

cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenianj cudfnI cudlnJohnston cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.12 / I Johnston /  Re: Roast Dynamometer
     
Originally-From: ianj@castle.ed.ac.uk (I Johnston)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Roast Dynamometer
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 1994 11:56:07 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

John N. White (jnw@char.vnet.net) wrote:
: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@CompuServe.COM> writes:
: > remember that the electric motor is now connected to the dynamometer, which
: > is in turn connected to the GG;
: ...
: >>     "Are you _sure_ that the shaft (not the housing) at the gadget end is
: >>     hotter than the shaft (not the housing) at the motor end."
:  
: > Yes, I am sure the GG is 200 degrees Fahrenheit hotter than anything else in
: > the room. ...

: In other words, the dynamometer is connected between a hot motor and a much
: hotter GG. I suspect that the torque transducer is operating at a temperature
: that is much higher than it is designed for. Some common types of transducers
: give smaller signals when hot. This would cause the dynamometer to say that
: there is less torque than is actually the case.

And of course if the shaft is hot, but cooler than the pump, it could be
cold-spot for the heat pump... not that I see any need to invoke that, or
even faulty calibration until we have some evidence that a
'heat-producing' run has lasted longer than 10 minutes. The vituperative
and abusive comments of a man with a financial stake in having this
believed are not, to my mind, proof.

Ian
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenianj cudfnI cudlnJohnston cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.12 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Roast Dynamometer
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Roast Dynamometer
Date: Mon, 12 DEC 94 09:48:36 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

I Johnston <ianj@castle.ed.ac.uk> writes:
 
>And of course if the shaft is hot, but cooler than the pump, it could be
>cold-spot for the heat pump... not that I see any need to invoke that, or
 
The shaft would have to be much, much colder than the surrounding air for
this to work. Needless to say, it is not. It well over 100 deg F.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenjedrothwell cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.12 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Griggs power
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs power
Date: Mon, 12 DEC 94 09:50:26 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

I Johnston <ianj@castle.ed.ac.uk> writes:
 
>turbine, but remember, the GG regularly and easily produces a 500% cop,
>so we're only looking for an overall turbine efficiency of 20%.
 
Ian regularly and easily repeats this statement, but it is an absurd lie.
The GG only once produced a 500% cop, as I pointed out here time after time.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenjedrothwell cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.12 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Roast Dynamometer
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Roast Dynamometer
Date: Mon, 12 DEC 94 09:51:16 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

jnw@char.vnet.net (John N. White) writes:
 
     "In other words, the dynamometer is connected between a hot motor and a
     much hotter GG. I suspect that the torque transducer is operating at a
     temperature that is much higher than it is designed for."
 
That is incorrect for several reasons:
 
1. Dynamometers are designed to be attached to heavy, hot, industrial
equipment. The GG is not as hot as an ICE or diesel engine.
 
2. The steel shaft and bolts connecting the GG and dynamometer do not conduct
heat all that well. They gets hot, but nowhere near 300 degrees (GG surface
temperature). This will be obvious to anyone who has handled heavy equipment.
 
3. The dynamometer itself gets plenty hot, from internal friction. It works
like an automobile transmission.
 
4. The specifications say, "temperature range, useable: -20 to +170 deg F; -30
to +77 deg C." I am sure it is within the proper operating range. I am also
sure that if it was not, the fellow who installed and tested it -- an
authorized dealer -- would have noticed. I would notice a thing like that if I
spent a week installing $10,000 worth of industrial equipment and computers at
a customer site!
 
 
     "If this were true, then the error should increase if the GG is run at a
     higher temperature. Sure enough, the excess heat is greater when the GG
     is used to make steam than when it is used to make hot water."
 
This is groundless speculation. Statements based on imagination that begin
with "if this were true" can lead a person to any conclusion. It is better to
stick to prosaic, confirmed facts. Another problem with this speculation is
that it does not take into account the fact that the GE Dranetz power meter
agrees with the dynamometer. That cannot be a coincidence, and it cannot be
caused by electronic noise.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenjedrothwell cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.12 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Jones responds to Fleischmann (and Jed), again
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Jones responds to Fleischmann (and Jed), again
Date: Mon, 12 DEC 94 09:53:54 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

jonesse@astro.byu.edu writes:
 
     "How can they be certain that the voltage never exceeds 100V, when they
     do only measure the voltage once every 5 minutes?"
 
Three reasons:
 
1. They DID measure voltage far more often than once every 5 minutes, as I
pointed time after time after time after time after time after time after time
after time after time. Jones will never admit it, but they did.
 
2. The electric company gives them 100 volts. The power supply is set for
half-amp. That makes 50 watts, max. That's a lot less than 180 watts.
 
3. After the power went off all together, the cell remained hot for many
hours. See the ICCF4 paper "Heat after death."
 
 
     "Cannot impedances result in voltage swings that surpass the ratings?"
 
Nope. Not for long, anyway. If Jones knows how to get more than 50 watts
sustained out of a power supply set for a half-amp attached to 100 volts, he
should publish a paper about that. He will win the Nobel prize for proving the
First Law of Thermodynamics does not work.
 
 
     "The paper gives no data to show that this did not happen."
 
Right. It also gives no data proving that the Law of Gravity still works. Most
people just take it for granted that you cannot get more energy out of a DC
power supply than you put in.
 
 
     "The fact is, they did not measure the voltage often enough to provide
     compelling data to support their assertion of excess heat -- after all
     the time and money they've spent, measurements once every 5 minutes is
     the best they did!"
 
The fact is, Fleischmann and I both stated quite clearly that they have made
many other measurements. Jones keeps claiming they have not, but he is just
kidding. He knows that is not true.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenjedrothwell cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Tue Dec 13 04:37:03 EST 1994
------------------------------
1994.12.12 /  AvardF /  New Energy News and Fusion Facts
     
Originally-From: avardf@aol.com (AvardF)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: New Energy News and Fusion Facts
Date: 12 Dec 1994 17:00:06 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

FUSION FACTS and NEW ENERGY NEWS
These are two monthly news letters from the Fusion Information Center and
Institute for New Energy. Anyone who knows anything about fusion, knows
about FUSION FACTS! In its fifth year of publication, this newsletter is
distributed world wide, and is known for its accurate and detailed
coverage of the latest fusion developments. Its data bank carries over
200 references from 30 different countries. Primarily about cold fusion,
this technical report was the first publication on the subject of cold
fusion.
NEW ENERGY NEWS is the latest newsletter in its second year of
publication. Covering the latest discoveries in theory and collection of
radiant energy (known as zero point energy), and all types of enhanced
energy devices from unusual sources i.e.: rotation, solid state devices,
etc. Also covering Cold or Catalytic Fusion via both heavy and light
water. THIS IS NO LONGER DOUBTED AFTER OVER 200 CONFIRMATIONS AND 5
INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCES. Also dozens of meetings where positive papers
outnumbered doubters over 300 to one. Now actively pursued in Japan,
India, Italy, Russia, Germany, and others. So by E=mcsq., engines and
power plants with built in lifetime fuel are just on the horizon. We are
at the brink of the most fantastic technological developments imaginable.
Will you be with it, or ignore it? Order your subscription today!
Sample of partial contents from the Dec. 1994 issue.
1) Soliton waves everywhere. Space energy, Inertia, gravity, etc.
2) Cold fusion summary by several technical researchers
3) Exposure of early desperate reactions against cold fusion.
4) Space energy (zero point energy) explained and forcast
5) Patent for ZPE conversion
6) Natural anti-gravity
7) Energy conversion beyond Carnot Cycle
8) Single wire electric power vs. electron vortexes
9) Review of solar energy equipment
10) Water fuel combinations and water burning engine
11) Taming radioactivity
And many other fact filled pages with ample references. The most
revolutionary developments in Energy Science since Prometheus! All
contributed by major scientists. Reviewed and  published by highly trained
and qualified former senior Aerospace Engineers from Hughes, NAA-Rockwell,
Wstinghouse, Bu.Stds., etc.
Prices-
Fusion Facts:  One year subscripton -$100.00 for an individual, $300.00
for an institution
New Energy News:  One year subscription -$35.00 in U.S.A. $40.00 in Canada
and Mexico $60.00 in any other country
Call, fax or write to dept. F. 
To call: Dept. F. (801) 583-6232
To fax: Dept. F. (801) 58-FAXME 
To write: Dept. F.   P.O. Box 58639 Salt Lake City Utah 84158

cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenavardf cudlnAvardF cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.13 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Jones responds to Fleischmann (and Jed), again
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Jones responds to Fleischmann (and Jed), again
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 1994 00:14:42 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <BE+Vu5i.jedrothwell@delphi.com>,  <jedrothwell@delphi.com> wrote:
>jonesse@astro.byu.edu writes:
> 
>     "How can they be certain that the voltage never exceeds 100V, when they
>     do only measure the voltage once every 5 minutes?"
> 
>Three reasons:
> 
>1. They DID measure voltage far more often than once every 5 minutes, as I
>pointed time after time after time after time after time after time after time
>after time after time. Jones will never admit it, but they did.

     Where is this reported Jed, other than by you?       

     Answer:  Nowhere.

     Value of this 'information': Zero.

>2. The electric company gives them 100 volts. The power supply is set for
>half-amp. That makes 50 watts, max. That's a lot less than 180 watts.

     What's their equipment Jed?  What did they use?  And why have 
     they never reported that anywhere?

     Answer: They been hypnotized.

     Value of this 'information': Zero.

>3. After the power went off all together, the cell remained hot for many
>hours. See the ICCF4 paper "Heat after death."

     "Heat after death".  Yep, good description.  What happened to the Kel-F?

     P&F's Answer:  Who the f&^% knows since we sample so infrequently?

     Value of this phenomenon: Zero.

>     "Cannot impedances result in voltage swings that surpass the ratings?"
> 
>Nope. Not for long, anyway. If Jones knows how to get more than 50 watts
>sustained out of a power supply set for a half-amp attached to 100 volts, he
>should publish a paper about that. He will win the Nobel prize for proving the
>First Law of Thermodynamics does not work.

     The first law works well, thank you.  On the other hand, a power supply
     'set' to 0.5 amp DC at 100 Volts does not necessarily deliver
     50 Watts power.

     Jed's Understanding of AC: Zero.

>     "The paper gives no data to show that this did not happen."
> 
>Right. It also gives no data proving that the Law of Gravity still works. Most
>people just take it for granted that you cannot get more energy out of a DC
>power supply than you put in.

     Most people would have actually *measured* something, rather than 
     relying on a 'rail voltage' to get it right.  I'd have to say that
     two sample points in 10 minutes for a violent boiloff process is 
     inadequate to the point of ridiculousness.

     Value of Jed's Observation: Zero.
     
>     "The fact is, they did not measure the voltage often enough to provide
>     compelling data to support their assertion of excess heat -- after all
>     the time and money they've spent, measurements once every 5 minutes is
>     the best they did!"
> 
>The fact is, Fleischmann and I both stated quite clearly that they have made
>many other measurements. Jones keeps claiming they have not, but he is just
>kidding. He knows that is not true.

     Where did our good buddies in France make such statements?  And
     why, pray tell, did they not report such measurements either here
     or in their published work?  Indeed, why did Mr. Fleishmann rely on 
     'rail voltages' at all when he could have just pulled out 
     'other measurements' to justify the utterly inadequate sampling
     frequency that *he* reported?

     Why indeed?

     Answer:  You've invented the measurements in your limited but overactive
     imagination and hoped that we all just forgot.

     Grand sum value of 'information' included in Jed's posting:  Zero.

                              dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.13 / David Davies /  Re: Nuclear physics = collisions?/Davies questions
     
Originally-From: drd851@huxley.anu.edu.au (David R Davies)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Nuclear physics = collisions?/Davies questions
Date: 13 Dec 1994 14:26:14 +1100
Organization: Australian National University

tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich) writes:

>In article <1994Dec2.141731.1910@physc2.byu.edu>,
> <jonesse@physc2.byu.edu> wrote:
>>
>>Matt Kennel also reacted (negatively) to a remarkable statement by Davies, 
>>in which Davies asserted:
>>
>>"The strong force is not understood and 
>>even special relativity is highly questionable."  (D. Davies)
>>
I understand that SR is in conflict with the (potentially) best data available
for its verification - Venus probe measurements. I would like to see a
refutation of this before I give SR full credence. As for the so-called
strong fource, claiming that nuclear forces are understood would be a
much better example of pathological science than a few misguided electro-
chemists and their follies. 

>>The statement challenging relativity is reminiscent of a posting of Jed
>>Rothwell's (another cold-fusion advocate):
>>

If this refers to me then I claim most emphatically that I am not a CF
advocate. I believe that CF experiments have established a case to be
answered in a proper scientific manner. 

>>"Okay, a million, million previous experiments showed that E=mc2. So what?
>>Every single one of them was wrong.  Period.  It does not work in metal
>>lattices under electrolysis, and Einstein was flat out wrong."

Name one of these billions! Nobody has made these claims so why bother
saying that. Einstein himself said that he was most likely wrong. He was
an intelligent person who set an example in humility that those that turned
him into an idol should learn.

... silly stuff deleted re. Jed and numbers. Hell, why do I let myself
get sucked into this garbage. 

I largely ignore Jed's physics and that of the Defenders of the Faith.
I read Jed for information about the commercial activity surrounding CF.

dave - hoping that the present bout of nastiness will soon subside.

cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudendrd851 cudfnDavid cudlnDavies cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.13 / David Davies /  Re: Arata's Negative Excess Heat/SL update
     
Originally-From: drd851@huxley.anu.edu.au (David R Davies)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Arata's Negative Excess Heat/SL update
Date: 13 Dec 1994 15:20:49 +1100
Organization: Australian National University

>In article <3bvmgp$1fr@fnnews.fnal.gov>,
>Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege) writes:
>> In article <3bv215$54n@styx.uwa.edu.au>, tag@chem.uwa.edu.au (T A Green) says:
>>>
>>>Steve Jones wanted to know why Arata et al. observed negative excess heat
>>>during one experiment.This might arise simply because the calorimeter has
>>>not yet reached thermal equilibrium. In any calorimetric experiment it is
>>
>> Seems to me that in a "good calorimetric" experiment, you keep track of
>> everything.  So one expects an apparent loss of heat as the apparatus
>> heats up and as the Pd absorbs D/H.  If you don't, then you are tempted
>> to assume "positive excess heat" at the end of the experiment when these
>> earlier losses reappear.
>>
>> One should also keep a total energy balance for the whole experiment,
>> including a time dependent error accumulation.  This is why I was working
>> for such high accuracy.  One wants to be able to state at the end of
>> the experiment that one has returned to the starting point, and that
>> there is an apparent change of energy of x joules with an error limit
>> of (say one sigma) +/- y joules.  Unless this is done, as far as I am
>> concerned, there is no experiment.
>>
>> Tom Droege
 
It was Tom's experimental work that got me interested in this group and
the prospect of similar activities that keeps me interested. I am looking
forward to his assessment of the Griggs device.              
                                                                     
Having said that I am afraid I must agree with Jed on one point. The 
path Tom outlines above is OK as far as it goes but it seems important
to me to focus on getting the maximum anomalous heat effect and, at the
same time, come to a better understanding of the conditions under which
it appears. That takes the task beyond the capabilities of a basement
workshop. The bigest mistake that CF advocates have made was to allow the
impression that it was easy. Please dont quote F&P back to me on that
point. The whole argument about what they said five years ago is tedious
and totally irrelevant.
 
I think that metal hydrides are a quite unique physical environment that
are likely to display a range of interesting quantum properties. Think 
about it - lots of unbound electrons mixed with relatively free protons 
and deuterium nuclei. There is pre 1989 evidence for delocalised surface 
states of protons in the solid state literature and then there is the
Reifenschweiler data that I have not seen refuted. 
 
I have considered building not an FAQ but an FUQ (frequently unanswered 
questions) and would put the Reifenschweiler data near the top of this 
list. Has anybody here made any serious attempt to answer it? It looks 
very strong to me and would, if it is valid, be relatively easy to  
replicate. Remember R himself replicated it many times. So how do you 
answer it without resorting to the usual tactic, for both extemes of
this group, of personal abuse. I dont think anyone here has enough cred.
so focus instead on a clearly worked technical criticism. At least read 
his work before criticising. 
 

dave 


cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudendrd851 cudfnDavid cudlnDavies cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.13 / Cameron Bass /  Re: New Energy News and Fusion Facts
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: New Energy News and Fusion Facts
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 1994 05:28:41 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <3cih56$eb3@newsbf01.news.aol.com>, AvardF <avardf@aol.com> wrote:
...
>etc. Also covering Cold or Catalytic Fusion via both heavy and light
>water. THIS IS NO LONGER DOUBTED AFTER OVER 200 CONFIRMATIONS AND 5
>INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCES. Also dozens of meetings where positive papers
>outnumbered doubters over 300 to one.

    I have no doubt that 'cold fusion' is covered.  On the other hand, 
    a gathering of 300 goofballs does not constitute widespread
    acceptance.

>7) Energy conversion beyond Carnot Cycle
>10) Water fuel combinations and water burning engine

     As usual.  Why restrict ourself to modern crackpottery when we can 
     resurrect cracked pottery from the last century?

>contributed by major scientists. Reviewed and  published by highly trained
>and qualified former senior Aerospace Engineers from Hughes, NAA-Rockwell,
>Wstinghouse, Bu.Stds., etc.

     God forbid.

                             dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.13 / William Rowe /  Re: Nuclear physics = collisions?/Davies questions
     
Originally-From: browe@netcom.com (William Rowe)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Nuclear physics = collisions?/Davies questions
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 1994 05:20:27 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

In article <JO2V+9I.jedrothwell@delphi.com>, jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:

>jonesse@physc2.byu.edu quotes me out of context, in order to confuse the issue
>and make people think I believe things which I do not. He quotes me:
> 
>     ""Okay, a million, million previous experiments showed that E=mc2. So
>     what? Every single one of them was wrong.  Period.  It does not work in
>     metal lattices under electrolysis, and Einstein was flat out wrong."
>     (Jed Rothwell, 21 Dec. 1992)
> 
>In my message of 21 Dec. 1992, I made it perfectly clear that this was a
>HYPOTHETICAL statement. I was not taking about any real experiment that shows
>E<>mc^2. There has never been any such experiment, and I doubt there ever will
>be. CF devices do not violate mass energy conservation. What I said was that
>IF THERE EVER WAS SUCH AN EXPERIMENT, and IF IT WAS REPLICATED, I would -- of
>course -- believe it. I recently offered another purely hypothetical example
>of ESP "mind reading." No doubt Jones will now go around claiming I believe in
>ESP.
> 

The concept of E=mc^2 has been vailidated by so many experiments that one
experiment contradicticting it even if replicated isn't enough to discard or
revise the concept. Only if the experiment can be replicated by repeatedly not
just once with sufficient control to believe no errors were made would there be
sufficient evidence to revise this concept.


>I always believe widely replicated, high sigma results, no matter how much
>they conflict with theory or with previous experience. To me, there is one and
>only one standard in science: experimental evidence. Nature dictates the
>truth, and we must swallow our doubts and believe it. Whatever replicated
>experiments prove, I will slavishly believe. If you demonstrate a machine for
>me, and I can see for myself that it does work beyond any possible measurement
>error, I will believe it. Show me anti-gravity, mind reading, a violation of
>mass-energy equivalence, time travel . . . prove it to me, and I will believe
>it. Show me the sun coming up in the west I will believe that too.
> 

I whole heartedly agree with the concept of high sigma results. However,
todate I
haven't seen enough hard data posted to allow evaluation of the sigma related to
the Griggs device.

>Jones claims that CF results violate E=mc2. Therefore, he says, they must
>be wrong. No other scientist I have ever talked to believes CF violates E=mc2.
>Jones stands alone in this. Everyone else says that CF produces helium ash
>commensurate with nuclear fusion, which balances the books and preserves
>Einstein's theory. I do not think there is one chance in a million that
>Jones understands Einstein, and Schwinger, Hagelstein, Fleischmann, Storms
>and the others do not, so I suppose these theoretical speculations by Jones
>about Einstein are wrong. If, by some miracle, Jones is right then Einstein
>must be wrong. CF is real and it will remain real no matter what theoretical
>speculations Jones or anyone else comes up with. No theory can overrule what
>the flowmeters and thermometers prove.
> 
> 
>What it boils down to is this: Jones, Blue and many other "skeptics" think
>that science is based on theory. They think that when theory conflicts with
>facts, the facts should be ignored. I believe in experiments only. This is an
>irreconcilable difference in philosophy. I think we should agree to disagree
>and not discuss the issue any more.
> 
>- Jed
>

Neither theory nor experiment alone are sufficient. Theory without experimental
data is simply speculation however well founded it may be. Experiment without
theory is a dead end. Without theory there is no understanding and corresponding
advance in knowledge. CF or any new concepts in physics will never be firmly
accepted by all without both theory and experiment.

I am willing to accept there are some experiments that appear to generate more
energy than can be explained with known chemistry. Many CF advocates seem to be
saying if it can't be explained by know chemistry it must be fusion even if no
nuclear ash has been found. I would maintain this isn't sufficient to show
fusion. It seems equally valid to say the energy must come from a new type of
chemistry since no nuclear ash has been found despite the lack of any chemical
ash. The point is saying something is fusion because I don't know how else to
explain it isn't sufficient. It isn't sufficient to say experiments in hot
fusion
are not applicable. There must be a credible, experimentally verified
explainations as to why it is fusion and why other established principles do not
apply.

-- 
_______________________________________________________________________________
William Rowe                                                   browe@netcom.com
MD5OfPublicKey: F29A99C805B41838D9240AEE28EBF383
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenbrowe cudfnWilliam cudlnRowe cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.13 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Arata's Negative Excess Heat/SL update
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Arata's Negative Excess Heat/SL update
Date: Tue, 13 DEC 94 14:40:22 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Regarding Arata's negative excess heat during the first hour and a half, I
suggested that it was the heat of formation of palladium deuteride, which
would be extensive because he uses a large cathode. Todd Green pointed out a
more important cause of  negative' heat: the calorimeter absorbs heat for a
while before it comes to equilibrium. McKubre comments on this:
 
     "Negative excess power (i.e. time periods during which the measured
     total input power exceeded the measured output power) was never
     observed, except for times when a calorimeter was caused to depart
     significantly from its steady state condition (for example, following an
     increase in total input power or during periodic fluctuations introduced
     by non-constant recombination catalyst operation."
 
     - M.C.H. McKubre et al., "Isothermal flow calorimetric investigations of
     the D/Pd and H/Pd systems,"  J. Electroanal. Chem. 368 (1994) 55
 
Obviously, these fluctuations are counterbalanced by positive heat bursts.
When you turn up the power, the calorimeter shows a deficit; when you turn it
back down again later, it shows an excess. They add up to zero, there is no
net excess over the run.
 
Droege was not talking about negative heat per se. He suggested here that
Arata and Zhang forgot to recalibrate after the run, to verify that the 2 to 5
deg C Delta T registering on their thermocouples was no artifact. That
suggestion is ridiculous. They have been at it for five years now, and Arata
has been doing similar experiments since the time of the Second World War, so
I am sure he knows enough to do this kind of elementary checking. I will grant
that some people do not have enough sense to do this sort of thing. Some
people, for that matter, are so sloppy and stupid they touch the palladium
with their bare hands before putting it in the calorimeter. Some folks were
shown doing that on Japan's NHK National Television! Obviously, results from
bumbling amateurs like that do not count for anything.
 
 
David R Davies <drd851@huxley.anu.edu.au>, who started this thread, talks
about the ins and outs of working with metal hydrides and concludes:
 
     "That takes the task beyond the capabilities of a basement workshop."
 
That is correct. An ordinary basement experimenter will get a useful, good
result in Pd CF about as often as a home computer enthusiast will successfully
manufacture an integrated circuit chip starting with a silicon die. Mizuno has
25 years experience and he works in a fully equipped laboratory with $30,000+
worth of equipment that he purchased himself plus a bunch more provided by the
University and MITI. It took him two years of teeth grinding, bone crushing
labor before his proton conductors would even say boo. He got no excess heat
month after month, year after year. Now that he understands the problem better
and he has extensive experience, almost all of his conductors do generate
excess heat, and he has successfully taught other experts how to manufacture
them, but it took two years of blood, sweat, and tears to arrive at that happy
state. The only basement experimenter I know who has done anything of note is
Dennis Cravens, and he is professor of physics after all, with a fully
equipped lab back on campus in which he can manufacture and test components.
 
 
     "The biggest mistake that CF advocates have made was to allow the
     impression that it was easy."
 
That is incorrect. No CF advocate that I know has ever "allowed" that
impression. Making CF cells is every bit as difficult as making computer
chips, advanced HTSC, and other solid state devices. That impression spread by
itself, along with a lot of other hoopla and misinformation about CF. All
electrochemists and CF scientists I know would laugh at that idea as quickly
as an IBM engineer would laugh at a person trying to manufacture an integrated
circuit at home, with hand tools.
 
 
     "Please don't quote F&P back to me on that point. The whole argument
     about what they said five years ago is tedious and totally irrelevant."
 
It is irrelevant, but for the record let me say that I have talked to both P
and F about that, and they NEVER, EVER, IN A MILLION YEARS meant it was easy
in the sense that any fool can do it. It is *relatively easy* to fuse hydrogen
atoms together in a CF cell and get heat & helium. I repeat: *relatively*; as
in *comparatively easy*. Compared to building a Tokamak power reactor or a
thermonuclear hydrogen bomb CF is a piece of cake! Not only that, but one good
scientist working in a lab in Como Italy, Osaka, or even in a garage in Vernon
Texas can produce a hundred times more energy with a small CF cell than the
biggest, best Tokamak experiment in history ever produced, at Princeton
University. All those overpaid Princeton scientists, with all their billions
of dollars of high tech equipment cannot even accomplish what one good CF
scientist can do in a laboratory for a hundred thousand bucks. That is why CF
is *relatively* cheap and *comparatively* easy.
 
The analogy with silicon chips works well here here too. Solid state
transistors are easier, cheaper and more reliable than vacuum tube technology.
Solid state CF is much easier and many orders of magnitude cheaper than circa
1950 vacuum chamber HF Tokamak technology. But amateurs cannot build
transistors or CF devices.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenjedrothwell cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.13 / Dieter Britz /  Re: New Energy News and Fusion Facts
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <britz@alpha.kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: New Energy News and Fusion Facts
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 1994 09:07:21 +0100
Organization: DAIMI, Computer Science Dept. at Aarhus University

On 12 Dec 1994, AvardF wrote:

> FUSION FACTS and NEW ENERGY NEWS
[...]
> NEW ENERGY NEWS is the latest newsletter in it=92s second year of
> publication. Covering the latest discoveries in theory and collection of
> radiant energy (known as zero point energy), and all types of enhanced
> energy devices from unusual sources i.e.: rotation, solid state devices,
> etc. Also covering =93Cold or Catalytic=94 Fusion via both heavy and ligh=
t
> water. THIS IS NO LONGER DOUBTED AFTER OVER 200 CONFIRMATIONS AND 5
> INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCES. Also dozens of meetings where positive papers
> outnumbered doubters over 300 to one. Now actively pursued in Japan,
> India, Italy, Russia, Germany, and others. So by E=3Dmcsq., engines and
> power plants with built in lifetime fuel are just on the horizon. We are
> at the brink of the most fantastic technological developments imaginable.
> Will you be with it, or ignore it? Order your subscription today!
[...]

          UN-altered REPRODUCTION and DISSEMINATION of this=20
          IMPORTANT Information is ENCOURAGED.=20

... Really, do we need advertisements in this group?

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

cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenbritz cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.12 / Jean Merrick /  cancel: GREAT NEWS !
     
Originally-From: jean.merrick@lunatic.com (Jean Merrick) 
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cancel: GREAT NEWS !
Date: 12 Dec 94 23:24:00 GMT
Organization: The Lunatic Fringe BBS - Richardson, Tx - (214) 235-5288

Cleaning up spam from lunatic.com.  red@redpoll.mrfs.oh.us
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenmerrick cudfnJean cudlnMerrick cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.13 /  AvardF /  cmsg cancel <3cih56$eb3@newsbf01.news.aol.com>
     
Originally-From: avardf@aol.com (AvardF)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cmsg cancel <3cih56$eb3@newsbf01.news.aol.com>
Date: 13 Dec 1994 10:00:23 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

  Please cancel this posting
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenavardf cudlnAvardF cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.13 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Sloppy measurements
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Sloppy measurements
Date: Tue, 13 DEC 94 10:05:38 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue) writes:
 
     "My current favorite is the "toasted sensor" explanation for the Griggs
     results."
 
How can say that Dick?!? The "toasted sensor" theory does not hold a candle to
your own masterpieces: the "cold mist" theory and the theory that nobody can
measure a metal arm to within a third of an inch. No, your theories remain the
undisputed masterpieces of crackpot science.
 
Ah, but since you believe the "toasted" theory so faithfully, I suggest you
drop everything and contact Eaton Aerospace & Commercial Controls. Tell them
what you have discovered. Explain to them why it is impossible to attach their
dynamometers to internal combustion engines, diesel engines and all other
combustion engines. Do it right away! They will want to pull these instruments
off the market. No doubt, they will pay you a gigantic reward for discovering
this horrible defect.
 
While you are at it, call General Electric and explain to them why their
Dranetz power meters cannot possibly work the way their published
specifications claim. Then call Georgia Power and explain to them that their
billing meters don't work. I am sure you can think of some crackpot "theory"
to "explain" that as well. The executives at GE and Georgia Power can't wait
to hear from you. They love hearing about new age physics! So make that call
today!
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenjedrothwell cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Wed Dec 14 04:37:05 EST 1994
------------------------------
1994.12.13 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Jones responds to Fleischmann (and Jed), again
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Jones responds to Fleischmann (and Jed), again
Date: Tue, 13 DEC 94 13:17:28 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Cameron Randale Bass <crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU> writes:
 
>     Where is this reported Jed, other than by you?       
>
>     Answer:  Nowhere.
 
Answer: ICCF4, right in front of Steve Jones. Right in his face, actually.
Pity you weren't there.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenjedrothwell cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.13 / Gary Steckly /  Re: Nuclear physics = collisions?/Davies questions
     
Originally-From: gsteckly@dgim.doc.ca (Gary Steckly)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Nuclear physics = collisions?/Davies questions
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 94 23:35:16 GMT
Organization: Communications Canada

David R Davies (drd851@huxley.anu.edu.au) wrote:
: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich) writes:

: >In article <1994Dec2.141731.1910@physc2.byu.edu>,
: > <jonesse@physc2.byu.edu> wrote:
: >>
: >>Matt Kennel also reacted (negatively) to a remarkable statement by Davies, 
: >>in which Davies asserted:
: >>
: >>"The strong force is not understood and 
: >>even special relativity is highly questionable."  (D. Davies)
: >>
: I understand that SR is in conflict with the (potentially) best data available
: for its verification - Venus probe measurements. I would like to see a
: refutation of this before I give SR full credence. As for the so-called
: strong fource, claiming that nuclear forces are understood would be a
: much better example of pathological science than a few misguided electro-
: chemists and their follies. 

You will likely never convince scientists who are so firmly entrenched in 
their belief (yes, they are true believers in the dogma of SR) of the 
current scientific doctrine to even consider possibility of something 
really radical.  They will not "look through this new telescope" until 
houses are being heated and automobiles powered by this possible new energy 
source.

It's interesting to see that this attitude is more prevalent when applied 
to ones  area of expertise.  For example, Mr. Jones is more than 
willing to disagree with the astrophysicists when it comes to issues like 
the cosmological constant and the debate on "dark matter" (see thread on 
the "dark force".  But when a new idea hits a little closer to 
home...watch the sparks fly! Personally, I hope he pursues his 
ideas in cosmology.  They seem pretty fresh and original, sort of 
reminiscent of his early CF days before he got warn down by the skeptics.

Maybe scientists should go on a mandatory "job rotation" every 10 years 
or so to ensure that a modicum objectivity ;-)

regards

Gary

cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudengsteckly cudfnGary cudlnSteckly cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.13 / Harry Conover /  Re: Arata's Negative Excess Heat/SL update
     
Originally-From: conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Arata's Negative Excess Heat/SL update
Date: 13 Dec 1994 21:56:24 GMT
Organization: The Internet Access Company

jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:

: It took him two years of teeth grinding, bone crushing
: labor before his proton conductors would even say boo. 

Would someone here with scientific credentals explain the concept of 
a proton conductor?  

: Compared to building a Tokamak power reactor or a
: thermonuclear hydrogen bomb CF is a piece of cake! Not only that, but one good
: scientist working in a lab in Como Italy, Osaka, or even in a garage in Vernon
: Texas can produce a hundred times more energy with a small CF cell than the
: biggest, best Tokamak experiment in history ever produced, at Princeton
: University. 

Fortunately, Tokamak created fusion is readily measurable and verifiable.
By contrast, not a single incidence of CF has been reproducible or verifiable
within the bonafide physics community.  

: All those overpaid Princeton scientists, with all their billions
: of dollars of high tech equipment cannot even accomplish what one good CF
: scientist can do in a laboratory for a hundred thousand bucks. That is why CF
: is *relatively* cheap and *comparatively* easy.

I guess that beauty must truly be in the eye of the beholder!  
Most of us would prefer to return on measured cost per unit of verifiable 
output, in contrast to cost per unit of claimed output.  By this measurement,
conventional hot fusion researchers have produced infinitely more 'bang-
for-the-buck' than all of the CF researchers combined.  For most reasonable
people, this tells the entire story of CF to date.
 
Still, the opera ain't over till the fat lady sings. Driving a turbine
from an energy isolated system to produce usable energy will the the 
ultimate test...not helium, not neutrons, and certainly not marketing
rhetoric.  Until that point is reached, let the investor beware, 'cus
thars bars in dem dere woods'!


                                    Harry C.  

cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenconover cudfnHarry cudlnConover cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.14 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Jones responds to Fleischmann (and Jed), again
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Jones responds to Fleischmann (and Jed), again
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 1994 13:13:12 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <xG-U+Xo.jedrothwell@delphi.com>,  <jedrothwell@delphi.com> wrote:
>Cameron Randale Bass <crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU> writes:
> 
>>     Where is this reported Jed, other than by you?       
>>
>>     Answer:  Nowhere.
> 
>Answer: ICCF4, right in front of Steve Jones. Right in his face, actually.
>Pity you weren't there.

     What was the context of the 'report', and *what* other 'measurements' 
     were taken?

     Answer: Sure, we took thousands of them, millions maybe.  You can
             take our word for it, nudge, nudge, wink, wink.

     Value of this 'information': zero.

                                 dale bass



cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.13 / Dan Clemmensen /  RE: FYI Available Transducers for Sonoliminescence
     
Originally-From: dgc@asimov.netrix.com (Dan Clemmensen)
Newsgroups: sci.materials,alt.sci.physics.acoustics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: FYI Available Transducers for Sonoliminescence
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 1994 14:17:35 GMT
Organization: Netrix Corporation

In an earlier post, I gave ordering info for an SL
transducer kit, but mentioned that I'd not yet
seen it.  My kit has arrived. As I had guessed,
the kit contains the three transducers and
NOTHING ELSE. In particular, there is NO data.

The company did send some general piezo info under
separate cover, but I will have to wait for the
article to be published before I can do much.

Since this is what I suspected, I'm not unhappy.
If you are not in the U.S., you may still
want to order now so as to have the kit
when the article is published.

The two power transducers are disks with
an axial hole (or flat rings). Each is
.8" O.D., .3" I.D., .2" Thick, electrodes
on the flat surfaces. I assume that they are DOD type I.

The sensor transducer is a little bitty disk,
.25" dia, .1" thick, electrodes on the flat
surfaces (obviously). I assume it's DOD type II.

If you missed the first post and you care, E-mail me.
Happy Sonoluminescing.
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudendgc cudfnDan cudlnClemmensen cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.15 / Richard Blue /  Re: Roast Dynamometer
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Roast Dynamometer
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 1994 01:14:52 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I remain somewhat puzzled regarding the information Jed Rothwell has
given us concerning the operating temperature of the GG and the
attached dynamometer, but what else is new?

Jed assures us that: (1)The GG housing operates at 300 deg F. (2)
The Eaton dynamometer remains within its recommended operating
range.  (3)The upper limit on that operating range is 170 deg F.
Isn't there some information missing here?  All we seem to have
to go on is "groundless speculation", as Jed puts it.  He, however,
applies to phrase only to those who express some doubt about the
claimed "over unity" operation of the GG.

In the absence of any solid information, I am left to speculate about
the various temperature differentials that must be assumed to exist
within the GG if points (1) and (2) above are both correct.  If the
housing is at 300 F due to a heat source interior to that housing it
follows that the interior must be hotter.  Since most of the space
on the interior is filled with an aluminum rotor I tend to think
the rotor must also be at 300 F or higher.  This rotor is in solid
mechanical contact and (I would guess) good thermal contact with
with the steel shaft so my speculation would be that the shaft
interior to the housing is also at 300 F or higher.

The only way one can sustain a significant temperature differential
along the shaft is to have heat conduction from the pump interior
to some external sink.  The picture I have (in my mind) of the GG
shows a short bit of shaft that ends at the dynamometer.  Admittedly
this is groundless speculation, but it seems to me that the dynamometer
is: (a)serving as a major thermal impedence for heat flow from the
GG. (b)very likely operating at or above the recommended temperature
range.   I don't think it is up to the guys who installed the
device to assure us that the users aren't doing something silly.

I could go on about the significance for having a large temperature
differential across the dynamometer, but isn't it obvious that
something is possibly a bit wrong here?

I also note that the Darnetz power meter cannot possibly "agree"
with the dynamometer.  There is the question of motor efficiency
to be considered.

Dick  Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.15 / Richard Blue /  Refuting Reifenschweiler effect
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Refuting Reifenschweiler effect
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 1994 01:14:55 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

I have expressed my doubts about the Reifenschweiler claim for
an observed temperature effect on tritium activity.  I did write
something a bit too long to post here for the benefit of someone
else who thinks the measurements must be correct.  I will see
if I still have that file in case there is too much enthusiasm
for these results.

Basically it is a case of not having a very good signal to indicate
what the tritium activity is.  There are too many other effects that
can give the changes seen by Reifenschweiler in that signal.  It all
starts with the fact that the detector cannot sense the beta activity
directly, but only responds to secondary bremsstrahlung produced when
the betas are stopped in the matrix surrounding the tritium.  The
resulting photon spectrum is strongly dependent on the Z of the
material in which the betas stop, and Reifenschweiler's detector sees
only the extreme high energy tail of that spectrum.  I think the
effect is chemical alright, but it does not have much to due with
nuclear activity.  It is purely changes in the chemistry in the
titanium smoke where the tritium is lodged.  Nothing mysterious
or nuclear need be assumed.

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.14 / I Johnston /  Re: Griggs power
     
Originally-From: ianj@castle.ed.ac.uk (I Johnston)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs power
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 1994 10:45:17 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:
: I Johnston <ianj@castle.ed.ac.uk> writes:
:  
: >turbine, but remember, the GG regularly and easily produces a 500% cop,
: >so we're only looking for an overall turbine efficiency of 20%.
:  
: Ian regularly and easily repeats this statement, but it is an absurd lie.
: The GG only once produced a 500% cop, as I pointed out here time after time.

And this is the commercially viable, dependable, reliable device you
keep blasting on about? As soon as the utility of a low cop device is
questioned you rant about the availability of 500% (or was it 500%
excess heat -  a cop of 600%?), and as soon as the consequences of your
rants are pointed out, you backtrack.

Stick to the snake oil, dear boy.

Ian
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenianj cudfnI cudlnJohnston cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.14 / I Johnston /  Re: Roast Dynamometer
     
Originally-From: ianj@castle.ed.ac.uk (I Johnston)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Roast Dynamometer
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 1994 10:49:53 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:
: I Johnston <ianj@castle.ed.ac.uk> writes:
:  
: >And of course if the shaft is hot, but cooler than the pump, it could be
: >cold-spot for the heat pump... not that I see any need to invoke that, or
:  
: The shaft would have to be much, much colder than the surrounding air for
: this to work. Needless to say, it is not. It well over 100 deg F.

You fool, Rothwell. The cold side only has to be cooler than the heat
pump output. You keep wittering on about how hot the output is - above
boiling. So 100F would do very nicely as the cold side.

But I reiterate: we don't need to invoke heat-pumps, zero-point energy
or cold fusion when incompetence, ignorance, dishonesty and greed
provide such simple and straightforward explanations.

Ian
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenianj cudfnI cudlnJohnston cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.14 / Tom Droege /  Re: Arata's Negative Excess Heat/SL update
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Arata's Negative Excess Heat/SL update
Date: 14 Dec 1994 17:05:46 GMT
Organization: fermilab

In article <xsxUeLu.jedrothwell@delphi.com>, jedrothwell@delphi.com says:
(snip)
>That is incorrect. No CF advocate that I know has ever "allowed" that
>impression. Making CF cells is every bit as difficult as making computer
>chips, advanced HTSC, and other solid state devices. That impression spread by

... Stanly Pons who as I remember said his teen age son would do the experiment
soon.

Tom Droege

cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Thu Dec 15 04:37:03 EST 1994
------------------------------
1994.12.14 / Dieter Britz /  Re: Arata's Negative Excess Heat/SL update
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <britz@alpha.kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Arata's Negative Excess Heat/SL update
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 1994 10:33:13 +0100
Organization: DAIMI, Computer Science Dept. at Aarhus University

On 13 Dec 1994, Harry H Conover wrote:

> Would someone here with scientific credentals explain the concept of 
> a proton conductor? 

Credentials: humble electrochemist; also variously called howling hyena and
snake in the grass with Hidden Motives.

Most people assume (with some reason) that in palladium hydride, the hydrogen
is in the form of hydrogen ions, i.e. protons, and that these protons are 
highly mobile with a diffusion coefficient of about 10^-7 cm^2/s. That's only
about 2 OOM smaller than that in an aqueous solution. These mobile 
protons (or deuterons in palladium deuteride) would thus carry electric 
charge, or a big part of it. There is still some dispute about all this;
I have at least one paper that says that deuterium prefers the D- state 
in PdD, but this is unlikely.
While all this has been known for a long time, it is fairly recently that
'cold fusion' TB's have drawn attention to it and started calling these
metal hydrides 'proton conductors', I suppose trying to say that it is this
which produces the purported effect. Thus Fleischmann cites some interesting
old references, papers by Cohn (they are in the peri file), that were thought
to prove the existence of protons in PdH; and this has been taken up by
others.
A couple of years ago, Chuck Sites had a theory in this group, based on the
idea of ohmic resistance to deuteron flow ("Heavy Heat"). I think we 
convinced him that this heat had to be put in there first, so could not be
"excess".
The Japanese - or some of them - have produced setups in which they cover
one side of the Pd electrode with a layer impervious to deuterium. This, I
reckon, is also based on deuteron flow through the metal. I think they 
imagine the deuterons zooming through the metal and crashing into that
barrier and each other, and - naturally - fusing in the process. This is
quite ridiculous; if you believe in "electrochemical compression", i.e.
high internal deuterium pressures within the PdD, due to an applied high
overpotential, then you should apply it equally all around the cathode, as
Takahashi does. A barrier would do nothing at all. Still, they do it, and
they patent it.

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

cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenbritz cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.14 / Richard Schultz /  Re: Nuclear physics = collisions?/Davies questions
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Nuclear physics = collisions?/Davies questions
Date: 14 Dec 1994 12:05:11 GMT
Organization: Philosophers of the Dangerous Maybe

In article <1994Dec13.233516.20355@clark.dgim.doc.ca>,
Gary Steckly <gsteckly@dgim.doc.ca> wrote:

>You will likely never convince scientists who are so firmly entrenched in 
>their belief (yes, they are true believers in the dogma of SR) of the 
>current scientific doctrine to even consider possibility of something 
>really radical.  

If you have a better explanation for the Michelson-Morley experiment's
null result that *also* explains, say, experimentally observed time 
dilation, believe me, we are all ears.
--
					Richard Schultz
             "an optimist is a guy
              that has never had
              much experience"
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.14 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Nuclear physics = collisions?/Davies questions
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Nuclear physics = collisions?/Davies questions
Date: Wed, 14 DEC 94 10:11:30 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

browe@netcom.com (William Rowe) writes:
 
     "Many CF advocates seem to be saying if it can't be explained by know
     chemistry it must be fusion even if no nuclear ash has been found."
 
I do not know a single "CF advocate" or CF scientist who says that. I have
talked to all of the leading people in this field and to dozens of other
not-so-leading people. I cannot think of a single person who has asserted it
must be fusion on the strength of the heat alone. The heat proves that it
is not chemistry and not a mistake. We know what it isn't -- we have eliminated
various possibilities. But without additional pieces of the puzzle there is no
telling what CF is. Fission, fusion, ZPE, shrinking hydrogen? Something
unknown to science?
 
 
     "I would maintain this isn't sufficient to show fusion. It seems equally
     valid to say the energy must come from a new type of chemistry since no
     nuclear ash has been found despite the lack of any chemical ash."
 
That is incorrect. Helium-4 has been found in amounts commensurate with a
fusion reaction. See Miles, Gozzi or the E-Quest work for examples. The most
conservative hypothesis at the moment is that CF somehow fuses hydrogen to
form helium and occasionally super-heavy hydrogen (tritium). Until better
evidence comes along, I'll stick with that.
 
 
     "Neither theory nor experiment alone are sufficient. Theory without
     experimental data is simply speculation however well founded it may be.
     Experiment without theory is a dead end. Without theory there is no
     understanding and corresponding advance in knowledge."
 
The whole history of civilization and science proves that is incorrect. I can
list a few hundred phenomena of the utmost importance to the human race about
which we know practically nothing. Things like: human intelligence, heredity,
biological morphology, the effectiveness of aspirin, high temperature
superconducting, pottery glazes, or weather. Nobody can say yet why some
isotopes of some elements are stable and others are radioactive. Different
isotopes have surprisingly different properties; different conductivity and
so on. We have hardly begun to discover these properties, certainly there is
no theory yet to account for them. Throughout human history we have always
made use of countless tools and technologies without having a deep
understanding of them. In many cases we thought we understood things, but
it turned out we were wrong. Japanese sword makers produced splendid blades
without understanding combustion or chemical elements. Engineers routinely
work with forces and materials that are not well understood. They have to!
Civilization must go on, buildings must be built, even though we do not yet
know everything there is to know about concrete (and of course we never will).
 
There will always be an infinite ocean of unexplained mysteries. For every new
fact we learn, ten new unsolved mysteries are opened up. The frontiers of our
ignorance -- things we are sure we do not understand -- will always increase
faster than knowledge. The human race could devote all its energy to
researching the mysteries of the e coli bacteria and never get to the bottom
of it. Yet we must work and survive in the world as best we can in spite of
our ignorance.
 
As for CF, I have absolute faith in the scientific method. I am sure the
mystery will be solved enough to allow us to harness this new form of energy.
Science always works in the end, you just have to stick to it and be patient.
We will never learn all there is to know about CF, but we are rapidly learning
enough to control it and scale it up safely. Eventually a theory will emerge
to explain it. We may be able to use it even before then. After all, we used
fire for thousands of years before understanding it; we built steam engines
before modern thermodynamics emerged; and the Wrights built their airplane 20
years before the physicists figured out exactly why wings lift. Technology
often leads science, spurring discovery and better understanding *after* the
technology is commercialized.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenjedrothwell cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.14 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Roast Dynamometer
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Roast Dynamometer
Date: Wed, 14 DEC 94 10:18:08 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

I Johnston <ianj@castle.ed.ac.uk> writes:
 
>You fool, Rothwell. The cold side only has to be cooler than the heat
>pump output. You keep wittering on about how hot the output is - above
>boiling. So 100F would do very nicely as the cold side.
 
That is incorrect. Here, don't take my word for it, go check out your
refrigerator. Feel the temperature of the freon coils inside the refrigerator.
They are much colder than the air in the refrigerator. If they were not, they
could not extract heat from the air in the fridge, transport it to the
outside, and dump it outside at the compression pump. If the Griggs device
was a heat pump it would have to extract heat from the surrounding air.
Therefore some component of the pump would have to be far colder than the
air, or the heat would all come out of the pump and none would go back in.
That is the Second Law of Thermodynamics: Heat cannot of itself go from one
body to a hotter body. Please note that in your refrigerator, heat does not
go "of itself;" it is carried in the moving freon fluid. At the passive heat
transfer interface (the coils in the fridge; the cold shaft in your
hypothetical Griggs device), heat transfer is in accordance with the second
law.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenjedrothwell cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.14 / Thomas Selby /  Georgia Trip
     
Originally-From: HWHN61A@prodigy.com (Thomas Selby)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Georgia Trip
Date: 14 Dec 1994 20:01:17 GMT
Organization: Prodigy Services Company  1-800-PRODIGY

My newsreader has been working unreliably so I may have missed anupdates 
but in any case what is the status of Tom's trip to Georgia?  

cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenHWHN61A cudfnThomas cudlnSelby cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.12 /  jonesse@vanlab /  Re: Dr. Oriani's Lecture
     
Originally-From: jonesse@vanlab.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Dr. Oriani's Lecture
Date: 12 Dec 94 13:32:53 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

In article <1994Dec8.001834.2906@driftwood.cray.com>, 
logajan@cray.com (John M. Logajan) writes:
> Dr Richard Oriani held his one hour and 45 minute lecture on cold fusion
> and he structured it as a general review of the D/Pd work going on
> around the world.  Though he had cautious reservations about some
> aspects of various works, he was positive in general about D/Pd CF.
> 
> In his own work he only saw two positive runs out of about 30 experiments
> using volumetric gas measurements in an "open"  Seebeck calorimeter to
> which he claims 0.3% accuracy.  In his positive results he saw excess
> heat of 5-20% above power in.
> 
> I believe he is currently interested in the work of Mizumo's perovskite
> (hope I got all that right) experiments and it sounded like work is in
> progress toward duplicating it. 
> 
> Ironically, Oriani said that it wasn't P&F's paper that got him interested
> in CF, it was Steven Jones!  Unfortunately it sounds like Oriani now
> believes in CF and so according to Steven Jones, it means that Oriani
> has tapioca for brains.  

Don't put words in my mouth.  I have a great deal of respect for Prof.
Oriani and I'm confident that he will apply state-of-the-art instruments
and methods in his search.

From what I have heard from Dr. Oriani, I believe it incorrect to say
'Oriani now believes in CF'  -- does he claim the heat is due to Cold Fusion?
I highly doubt it.

>I was sitting about six feet from Dr. Oriani
> during the lecture, so I am likely contaminated with the same virus,
> hence my report here is likely nothing more than the rantings of yet
> another tapicoa brain. [No, I don't necessarily believe in CF, but
> I have an open mind -- which means a virus could just jump right in
> there at any time and the next thing you know, tapioca.]
> 
>      jonesse@physc2.byu.edu   2 Dec 94 13:51:48
>      "Perhaps when one accepts the P&F cold-fusion story (as Bockris has), 
>      one is prepared to accept such nonsense...."
>      "Can't believe John [Bockris] would publish such nonsensical garbage.  
>      Does believing P&F do this to your brain?"
> 

John Logajan left out the most important part of this, which was that
Bockris was claiming a FOUR-body reaction to generate 56Fe when carbon
rods were subjected to a carbon arc in H2O; the nonsensical reaction was
  12C + 12C + 18O +18O  -->  56Fe  + 4He.  (From the Bockris/Sundaresan
paper in Fusion Tech. Nov. 1994, p. 261.)

I explained why I believe this 4-body nuclear reaction to be nonsense,
and Mr. Logajan is unfair in taking my statements (above) out of context.


> --
>  - John Logajan   F6111  --  logajan@cray.com  --  612-683-5426 -
>  - Cray Research, Inc. 655F Lone Oak Drive, Eagan MN 55121-9957 -

--Steven Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenjonesse cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.12 /  jonesse@vanlab /  cancel <1994Dec12.132410.1922@vanlab.byu.edu>
     
Originally-From: jonesse@vanlab.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cancel <1994Dec12.132410.1922@vanlab.byu.edu>
Date: 12 Dec 94 13:33:31 -0700

cancel <1994Dec12.132410.1922@vanlab.byu.edu>
cudkeys:
cuddy12 cudenjonesse cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.13 /  jonesse@acousb /  Re: The Dark Force
     
Originally-From: jonesse@acousb.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics
Subject: Re: The Dark Force
Date: 13 Dec 94 18:07:47 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

In article <MATT.94Dec9143509@physics10.berkeley.edu>, 
matt@physics10.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern) writes:

> In article <1994Dec6.163522.1915@vanlab.byu.edu> jonesse@vanlab.byu.edu writes:
> 
>> What I'm suggesting is that actually what is missing is the FORCE necessary
>> to allow such high outer-star speeds.  The notion that this force must be
>> caused by "dark matter" presupposes that the only force of significance is
>> gravity, and that we understand the gravitational force over huge distances.
>> But other forces, such as electromagnetic, may be significant-- if plasmas
>> are involved, for instance.  (This leads to the alternative model known
>> as 'plasma cosmology,' an accessible discussion of which appears in the 
>> February 1992 issue of _Sky and Telescope_.)   OR, the gravitational force
>> may have a component that remains large at galactical distances.
> 
> This is a good point; I thought of it too, actually, when I was first
> learning a bit about particle astrophysics.
> 
> However, this is something that the pros have thought of too... In
> fact, the astro types really do have good reasons for thinking that
> we're talking about dark matter instead of a "fifth force" or a
> modification of gravitation.  That belief might be wrong, but it's not
> capricious!
> 
> The basic point is just that the apparent need for "dark matter" shows
> up at all distance scales, not just at galactic scales.  Whether
> you're looking at motion in globular clusters, or galactic rotation
> curves, or motion in galactic clusters, or scales that are still
> larger, the result is the same: the motion you observe can't be
> explained by conventional gravitation if you assume that the matter we
> see is all that's out there.
> 
> It's easy enough to modify general relativity in some way so that you
> explain this effect on any one distance scale; the trouble is that a
> modification that corrects the problem on one distance scale will fail
> to correct the problem on other scales.  
> 
> Nobody has thought of a way to explain these effects on all distance
> scales that involves modifying the forces; 

Can you show that plasma cosmology (of Anthony Peratt of Los Alamos,
Hannes Alfven, William Peter, ERic Lerner, etc.) is incorrect?

> the hypothesis that there's
> a relatively homogeneous distribution of dark matter, though, does
> explain all of these effects.
> 
Whoa -- that's a major problem for the dark-matter hypothesis:  
the distribution of dark matter is NOT homogeneous at all!
Let's return to Vera Rubin, who illucidates the dark-matter hypothesis
(and is an exponent thereof, but one willing to point out its warts),
in "Weighing the Universe", _Bubbles, Voids, and Bumps in Time_.

First, orbital velocities for planets around the sun drop off as
R^-1/2:
            *  Mercury
            |
            |* Venus
Orbital v   |
            |   *Jupiter
            |
            |                 * Uranus
            |                                          * Pluto
             ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
               Mean distance for sun

But the galaxies do not follow this pattern at all.
Rubin displays the data for dozens of spiral galaxies, which look generally like
this:

  Orbital    |
  Velocity   |                      
             |          ************ * * * * * 
             |        *
             |      *
             |    *
             |  *
             |*
             +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

So that the mass of the galaxies is clearly NOT concentrated at the core,
although that is where the visible mass of spiral galaxies is concentrated.

And some galaxies look like this:
                       ***************


              ********

And Andromeda looks like this:
                           *  *  *  
                 *      *           * * * * * * * * * 
                *
               *  *  *
              *    *
             *

--one sees the complications.  None of these distributions reflects a 
"homogeneous" distribution of matter throughout the galaxies.  Rather,
as Rubin emphasizes, this leads to the picture of a "dark halo," since
the missing matter (again note the tacit assumption) seems to be 
concentrated away from the center of the galaxy.  
"When the velocity has a constant value at all R  beyond the nucleus,
M/R must be constant.  Hence the mass interior to R increases linearly
with R.  This variation describes the pattern we observe in spiral galaxies."
(Rubin p. 93)

In a uniform sphere, the mass interior to R increases as R^3.
Clearly, it the mass distribution of galaxies is strange -- if one accepts
the dark matter model.  Hence, the "dark matter"
required by the standard cosmological model is not easily explained.


> It's not a terribly radical hypothesis, either: it's easy to think of
> lots of plausible candidates for matter that we haven't yet observed.
> They don't have to be exotic, either.  Particle physicists tend to
> like the exotic candidates, but there are several mundane
> possibilities that are perfectly plausible.
> --
> 
>                                --matt
                

Again, Matt, I disagree.  Rubin explains in detail why neutrinos won't work.
Recent observations from Hubble argue against baryonic matter such
as MACHOS (MAssive Compact _Halo_ Objects  -- note the "halo" designation
again).  

"Don't have to be exotic" you say?  In a Washington Post article dated 
Nov. 16, 1994, David Schramm says the Hubble findings point "toward weird
exotic stuff".    John Bahcall said he previously favored "ordinary stuff,"
but not any more.

So give me "several mundane possibilities that are perfectly plausible."

I think the picture is changing  8 ^ ) =.  The "dark force" idea should not
be dismissed so easily.

--Steven Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy13 cudenjonesse cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.15 / Xavier CH /  Re: NEEDED: E-mail address
     
Originally-From: llobet@elpp1.epfl.ch (Xavier Llobet i Sales EPFL-CRPP 1015 Lausanne CH)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: NEEDED: E-mail address
Date: 15 Dec 1994 08:17:34 GMT
Organization: EPFL


The E-mail address of Stefan Brunner is

brunner@crppsun.epfl.ch

Dr. Vaclavik does not have one.

-xavier
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenllobet cudfnXavier cudlnCH cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.15 / Jonathan Stone /  Re: Roast Dynamometer
     
Originally-From: jonathan@DSG.Stanford.EDU (Jonathan Stone)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Roast Dynamometer
Date: 15 Dec 1994 06:02:53 GMT
Organization: Stanford University

> Feel the temperature of the freon coils inside the refrigerator.
>They are much colder than the air in the refrigerator. If they were not, they
>could not extract heat from the air in the fridge, transport it to the
>outside, and dump it outside at the compression pump.

i've lurked here on and off since just after the creation
of the group. But this is just astounding.

Who is this peasant who doesn't appreciate the distinction between
temperature and heat flow? Or is it just ignorance of what human
skin sensors sense?  Or ignoring the fact that domestic refrigerators
generally cool (at least older models did) by condensing water vapour?

Has this Jed person, for instance, never stood outside (with well-insuated
shoes, or one's feet get cold) on a calm winter day?  And why is it, I
wonder, that the compressor starts up after one leaves the door open
for a while.  And, gee, why is it that carpeted floors feel so much warmer
than uncarpeted ones.  They must be at a higher temperature, huh, Jed?

It's not just bears that're in them thar hills, the Jeds  are much more
dangerous.  Or amusing, as the case may be.

cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenjonathan cudfnJonathan cudlnStone cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.14 / Emory Bunn /  Re: The Dark Force
     
Originally-From: ted@physics2 (Emory F. Bunn)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics
Subject: Re: The Dark Force
Date: 14 Dec 1994 21:21:08 GMT
Organization: Physics Department, U.C. Berkeley

In article <1994Dec13.180747.1925@acousb.byu.edu> jonesse@acousb.byu.edu writes:
>Can you show that plasma cosmology (of Anthony Peratt of Los Alamos,
>Hannes Alfven, William Peter, ERic Lerner, etc.) is incorrect?

There's an interesting discussion of this going on even now in
sci.astro.research.  Plasma-cosmology adherents should definitely go
read it.  It's a debate between Eric Lerner and Ned Wright.  Lerner is
one of the more vocal plasma-cosmology supporters, and Wright is a
prominent radio astronomer and microwave background expert.  (He's one
of the bigwigs behind the COBE satellite.)

The conventional wisdom for quite a while now has been that it's
impossible to reconcile the existence of a nearly-perfect blackbody
microwave background spectrum with plasma cosmology.  Wright has
explained that argument quite well, Lerner has stated his objections,
and the two of them are going at it.  Anyone who wants to really
understand why most cosmologists think that plasma cosmology is ruled
out should read this debate, and really try to understand the
arguments in detail.  It's well worth the effort.

The other people who should definitely look in on this debate are
those conspiracy theorists who are fond of saying things like: "Those
damned big-bangers!  They're so scared that everyone will find out
that the whole damn thing is a house of cards that they won't even
listen to the other side.  They just suppress the opinions of everyone
who doesn't toe the line."  If you go look in on this debate, and see
one of the more prominent mainstream big-bang cosmologists discussing
the issues carefully, logically, and without rancor with one of the
primary exponents of the nonconventional point of view, you'll realize
how far from the truth these alarmist notions are.

-Ted
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudented cudfnEmory cudlnBunn cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.15 / K Jonsson /  Re: Roast Dynamometer
     
Originally-From: kvj@rhi.hi.is (Kristjan Valur Jonsson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Roast Dynamometer
Date: 15 Dec 1994 11:32:00 GMT
Organization: University of Iceland

In <D0srF8.6vo@festival.ed.ac.uk> ianj@castle.ed.ac.uk (I Johnston) writes:

>jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:
>: I Johnston <ianj@castle.ed.ac.uk> writes:
>:  
>: >And of course if the shaft is hot, but cooler than the pump, it could be
>: >cold-spot for the heat pump... not that I see any need to invoke that, or
>:  
>: The shaft would have to be much, much colder than the surrounding air for
>: this to work. Needless to say, it is not. It well over 100 deg F.

>You fool, Rothwell. The cold side only has to be cooler than the heat
>pump output. You keep wittering on about how hot the output is - above
>boiling. So 100F would do very nicely as the cold side.

Excuse my ignorance, but would a heat pump with a cold side hotter
thatn the environment be able to pump any heat?  I have a faint recollection
of a lecturer telling me that the cold part had to be equal or colder
than the environment in order for the heat to flow into it.  Unless,
there is an external primary pump.

Kristjan

-- 
Kristjan Valur Jonsson               |    The individual does not qualify for
Student of mechanical engineering,   |         making decisions regarding the
University of Iceland                |                 activities of the many.
Exclaimer: Yess!                     |                         (Helmut, 1993)
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenkvj cudfnKristjan cudlnJonsson cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.15 / K Jonsson /  Re: Roast Dynamometer
     
Originally-From: kvj@rhi.hi.is (Kristjan Valur Jonsson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Roast Dynamometer
Date: 15 Dec 1994 11:40:13 GMT
Organization: University of Iceland

In <9412141655.AA23868@pilot1.cl.msu.edu> blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue) writes:

>I also note that the Darnetz power meter cannot possibly "agree"
>with the dynamometer.  There is the question of motor efficiency
>to be considered.

>Dick  Blue

Having followed this thred for a few months,  I remember that Jed
was confronted with this question before.  The answer he gave is
that what he means by 'agree' is that after allowing for the
specified efficiency of the motor, the power levels match.  I
don't think he mentioned how closely they match, however.

Now, I would like to iterate, that I have followed this tread closely
(out of interest) for three or four months.  My impression is that
the same questions and doubts keep popping up again and again
even though Jed regularly posts detailed answers for them.  It appars
that posters 'forget' of may have missed out parts of the discussion.

I therefore encourage the creation of a Griggs FAQ, especially aimed
at those participating in this discussion.

An Idea.  I have seen it before, as a matter of fact.

Kristjan.

-- 
Kristjan Valur Jonsson               |    The individual does not qualify for
Student of mechanical engineering,   |         making decisions regarding the
University of Iceland                |                 activities of the many.
Exclaimer: Yess!                     |                         (Helmut, 1993)
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenkvj cudfnKristjan cudlnJonsson cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.14 / William Beaty /  Anomolous science on WWW!
     
Originally-From: billb@eskimo.com (William Beaty)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Anomolous science on WWW!
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 1994 21:28:24 GMT
Organization: Eskimo North (206) For-Ever

[ Article crossposted from sci.physics.electromag ]
[ Author was William Beaty ]
[ Posted on Wed, 14 Dec 1994 21:23:47 GMT ]

For those interested in the science "underground," my page at 
http://www.eskimo.com/~billb  has links to the incredible
files libraries of KEELYNET BBS.  Megs and megs of gravity
machines, energy inventions, anomolous biology, tesla projects,
UFO, etc., etc.

Go to the WIERD RESEARCH, ANOMOLOUS SCIENCE entry.  Also don't
miss the GIFs of my maglev, electrosstatic, etc. hobby projects.
ALSO, the Keelynet guys have just come up with a working overunity
experiment for other "basement inventors" to replicate.  Instructions 
are on my page.


-- 
.....................uuuu / oo \ uuuu........,.............................
William Beaty  voice:206-781-3320   bbs:206-789-0775    cserv:71241,3623
EE/Programmer/Science exhibit designer        http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/
Seattle, WA 98117  billb@eskimo.com           SCIENCE HOBBYIST web page
-- 
.....................uuuu / oo \ uuuu........,.............................
William Beaty  voice:206-781-3320   bbs:206-789-0775    cserv:71241,3623
EE/Programmer/Science exhibit designer        http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/
Seattle, WA 98117  billb@eskimo.com           SCIENCE HOBBYIST web page
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenbillb cudfnWilliam cudlnBeaty cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.14 / Frithiof Jensen /  Re: Arata's Negative Excess Heat/SL update
     
Originally-From: faj@jet.uk (Frithiof Jensen)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Arata's Negative Excess Heat/SL update
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 1994 21:42:00 GMT
Organization: Joint European Torus

In <xsxUeLu.jedrothwell@delphi.com> jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:

>thermonuclear hydrogen bomb CF is a piece of cake! Not only that, but one good
>scientist working in a lab in Como Italy, Osaka, or even in a garage in Vernon
>Texas can produce a hundred times more energy with a small CF cell than the
>biggest, best Tokamak experiment in history ever produced, at Princeton
>University. All those overpaid Princeton scientists, with all their billions
>of dollars of high tech equipment cannot even accomplish what one good CF
>scientist can do in a laboratory for a hundred thousand bucks. That is why CF
>is *relatively* cheap and *comparatively* easy.

Go on then, get the garage guy to do 1.8 MW for me! Especially I would like to
see it on video, from some safe distance of course, we wouldn't like the neu-
trons to erase the chips in the camera! 

Or maybe you don't get on so well anymore - rantings like the above is not 
representing the good cold fusions scientists in the best possible manner.

frithiof.
- Disclaimer: Please note that the above is a personal view and should not 
  be construed as an official comment from the JET project.
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenfaj cudfnFrithiof cudlnJensen cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.14 / K Komoshvil /  NEEDED: E-mail address
     
Originally-From: komosh@halo.tau.ac.il (Konstantin Komoshvil)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: NEEDED: E-mail address
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 1994 15:44:47 GMT
Organization: Tel-Aviv University Computation Center

E-mail address of S.Brunner/J.Vaclavik is needed urgently to clear something
in their paper "Dielectric Tensor Operator ..." (Phys. Fluids B 5(6), June
1993). Their permamnent residence: Centre de Recherches en Physique des
Plasmas, Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne, Switzerland.
    Any info will be appreciated.
                                       Dr. K.Komoshvili
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenkomosh cudfnKonstantin cudlnKomoshvil cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.15 / Michael Mazur /  Re: Sloppy measurements
     
Originally-From: mjmazur@acs.ucalgary.ca (Michael James Mazur)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Sloppy measurements
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 1994 00:26:22 GMT
Organization: The University of Calgary

In article <p841+Zi.jedrothwell@delphi.com>,  <jedrothwell@delphi.com> wrote:
>blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue) writes:
> 
>     "My current favorite is the "toasted sensor" explanation for the Griggs
>     results."
> 
>How can say that Dick?!? The "toasted sensor" theory does not hold a candle to

speaking of toast, anyone see the web site with the paper on
SPTB's (strawberry poptart blowtorches)? better science than most
of what goes on here.

-mike



-- 

  Mike Mazur                
  mjmazur@acs1.ucalgary.ca  

cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenmjmazur cudfnMichael cudlnMazur cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.15 / William Beaty /  Another o/u device, plans
     
Originally-From: billb@eskimo.com (William Beaty)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Another o/u device, plans
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 1994 17:18:24 GMT
Organization: Eskimo North (206) For-Ever

The guys on KEELYNET BBS have made a preliminary announcement of
an overunity device based on a magnet and piezo resonance circuit.
This work is only a week old, so hard measurements are not complete.
They want everyone to take a look, try to replicate, see what's
going on.  Instructions are below, and the GIF schematic is on my Web
page.

- Bill Beaty

**************************************************************************
   ________________________________________________________________
   |File Name: MRA.ASC            |  Online Date :12/13/94        |
   |Contributed by : Joel McClain |  Dir Category:ENERGY          |
   |From : KeelyNet BBS           |  DataLine:(214) 324-3501      |
   | KeelyNet * PO BOX 870716 * Mesquite, Texas * USA * 75187     |
   |A FREE Alternative Sciences BBS sponsored by Vanguard Sciences|
   |--------------------------------------------------------------|

 The following requires the file MRA.GIF also on KeelyNet. The file 
 MRA.ZIP contains both this file MRA.ASC and the image MRA.GIF.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------
                       ***** Please NOTE!!*****

This is a preliminary report that will be followed by updates with 
more detail.Future versions will include various measurements of the
components used in the ciruit that is currently running.From all
appearances at this date, the circuit components will simply give 
varying outputs and do not appear to be all that critical.

It was felt that this information should be released to the public as
rapidly as possible, rather than risk loss of the information or the
demo by 'circumstances' beyond our control.There have been too many
discoveries which have disappeared by not being openly shared.We 
would rather risk being 'flamed' by other experimenters who actually 
BUILD THE CIRCUIT than take the chance of the information being lost 
by keeping it within a select group.

Our two primary fears are that someone will attempt to patent what is 
intended to be a gift to humanity, possibly with an intent to profit 
from others work or to lock it away, the other that it might be 
suppressed in some other fashion.

Therefore, the widest possible distribution is requested, and 
duplication attempted wherever possible.At the time of this 
correction to the original file, we have confirmation as to the 
numbers and others are working on the circuit on their own.Please 
take this information in the spirit of how it is given, as a gift to 
humanity.

The inventors are Joel McClain and Norman Wootan. You can contact 
them via KeelyNet or directly.

The circuit is being tested at various levels and attempts at 
duplication are under way.At this point, there is only one circuit.We 
will openly post other successful duplications or failures.Please 
feel free to try it yourself.The cost is minimal.

One other point, the crystal transducer was thought to be barium 
titanate and there is reason to believe it is in fact titanium 
zirconate.These are disc shaped, about 3" in diamter with a 1" 
diameter hole in the center.The disc is about 3/8" thick and is 
coated with silver on both sides.Thank you for your open-
mindedness.They are advertised in the back of many electronics 
magazines for about $5 each.We have access to a small stock and might 
offer them for experiments should people ask for them.

 Good luck and SEIZE THE DAY!

 ----------------------------------------------------------
             The Magnetic Resonance Amplifier (MRA)

Discovered and proven December 12, 1994 and shared with the world on 
December 13, 1994

 by Joel McClain and Norman Wootan

MRA is the Magnetic Resonance Amplifier.With low level ultrasonic 
input signals, the MRA produces usable direct current power at levels 
above unity. This circuit is based upon the work and theories of John 
Ernst Worrell Keely, and is offered into the public domain in his 
memory.

Without lengthy discussion about the ether, tetrahedral geometric 
virtual rotation, mass aggregate resonance or the rule of nines, it 
is possible to understand this circuit as basically a tuned magnetic 
and quartz amplifier.

However, it WAS necessary to study those subjects in order to design 
and build the MRA, so if you want to fully realize how it works, 
avail yourself of the files on KeelyNet which contain all of that and 
much, much more.

In the schematic, MRA.GIF, there is a tunable low power oscillator, 
which supplies a signal to one side of a barium titanite 
transducer.The opposite side of the transducer is connected to a 
primary coil, which is wrapped around a barium ferrite magnet 
core.The opposite end of the primary goes back to the oscillator.

A secondary is wrapped around the primary, and is connected to an 
ordinary bridge rectifier, and the output of the bridge is applied to 
a DC load.A filter capacitor can be used on the output of the bridge, 
and was used on the MRA which we built.Additionally, a load resistor 
across the capacitor will keep the output DC from getting too high as 
the circuit is tuned.We found that a 30 ohm, 10 watt resistor was 
sufficient.

Once this has been assembled, put a voltmeter across the output 
resistor to monitor the voltage rise as the circuit is tuned.Adjust 
the oscillator frequency to provide the highest DC output.During this 
process, be aware that the voltages across the piezo and the coil 
will be VERY MUCH HIGHER than the signal level which you are 
applying.We have seen combined voltages of almost 1000VAC with only 
30VAC of signal input.

When the circuit is tuned, the magnet will be "singing" at around 
8000 to 11000Hz.If the piezo sings, you are exceeding its power 
capabilities, and will need to reduce the number of turns on your 
primary.The frequency that resonates both the piezo and the magnet at 
optimum resonance will be three times (three octaves above) the 
frequency at which the magnet is singing. This is the nine harmonics 
that are mentioned in the Rule of Nines.

To test the circuit, place a precision, high wattage, low ohm 
resistor in series with the output from the oscillator to the piezo, 
and measure the voltage drop.It should be very small, less than 
0.1VAC.Use this value to determine current in the series circuit, and 
then calculate power.

Next, measure the DC voltage across your output load resistor, and 
once again calculate power.You should be between three to four times 
above the previously calculated input power.

Once the circuit is in operation, you will note that the voltage will 
vary by 0.1VDC or more, depending upon the time of day.This is due to 
the nature of etheric forces inherent to the earth's magnetic 
field.Watch for peak voltage at or before sunrise.

In our circuit, we measured 0.084VAC drop across a two ohm series 
resistor, for a total of 0.685W dissipation in the primary.With this, 
we attained 2.75W of output power, and used this to drive a lamp and 
a motor.Increasing the signal voltage had the effect of decreasing 
the primary current while boosting output power, thus improving the 
power gain ratio.We believe that larger power systems can be built by 
using larger coils, more piezos, and a lower frequency, as long as 
the aggregate combination is within the resonant frequency range of 
the components.

The MRA is essentially a means of releasing the electrical energy 
stored in magnets.As such, it is an AC battery with DC output.It can 
be used for a portable, self-charging power supply with a solid state 
oscillator and rechargable battery.For those who want a synopsis of 
the technology, the following paragraphs are offered, but it is 
strongly suggested that you follow up this reading with a more 
thorough study of the KeelyNet files.

Matter = energy.To change the matter, change the energy.Creating of a 
magnet achieved by a process which causes the matter to be both 
expanded and compressed at the same time, with the result that a 
magnet is in a constant state of collapse.This is why magnets attract 
material with similar lattice structures, as they attempt to fill the 
energy void which created them.The "domains" of the magnet are fixed 
after the process of magnetization, and the only way to extract 
electrical energy is to physically spin a coil relative to a magnet.

However, it is also possible to induce virtual rotation by applying 
the resonant frequency of the magnet, which causes the lattices and 
the domains to vibrate.However, the power required to do this is 
greater than the energy released by the virtual rotation.Therefore, 
it is necessary to increase the vibration without using excessive 
current.

The piezo has a virtually inexhaustable supply of free electrons, and 
it releases them when it is stressed.Using the piezo in series with 
the primary coil will almost eliminate primary current, because it is 
voltage which stresses the piezo, not current.Therefore, the piezo 
can be stressed with very little actual power, and provide the 
current to the primary coil, which vibrates the domains of the 
magnet.

The piezo is the catalyst for the circulating current with the 
primary coil. The circulating current is additive, and this is the 
reason for the high potentials developed across both the piezo and 
the primary coil.

It is at this point that resonance becomes important.You MUST have 
three octaves of separation between the magnet resonant frequency and 
the signal applied to the piezo.The circulating current is rich in 
harmonics, and this is necessary for the operation of the circuit.

Although the circuit is simple, it utilizes the concepts of PHI, of 
virtual rotation, of tetrahedral geometry, piezo and transformer 
theory, and electrical knowledge.It is not suggested as a beginner 
project as a result of the high voltages present.For engineers and 
technicians of experience, it may be difficult to accept that the MRA 
is above unity.The ramifications are emormous.Hopefully, it will help 
to build a better world.
 -------------------------------------------------------

Vangard Note

This device incorporates power multiplication principles using 
multiple resonances as claimed by Keely and Hendershott.It also 
corresponds in some ways with Floyd Sweet's VTA and Joe Parr's energy 
spheres from pyramids.

Joel called Sunday night in an excited state.He and Norman took turns 
explaining what they had achieved using this circuit.The power input 
measurements were about 600mWatts and yet the circuit was generating 
about 2.5 Watts on the output.Norman hooked up a DC motor and he said 
it was spinning like crazy in addition to a light bulb glowing 
brightly.

Norman was laughing and said they'd beat Harold Puthoffs' One Watt 
Challenge as issued at the 1994 ISNE conference in Denver.This has 
created quite a bit of excitement and Puthoff now has a FAX'd copy of 
the circuit.No doubt it will be everywhere in a very short time.The 
hope by Joel and Norman is that others will duplicate the initial 
effect and be able to expand on it to derive useful power.

Sweet claimed something on the order of 1:3,000,000 over-unity.The 
input power to his device was 10 VAC at 29uamps (290mWatts).The 
output had been loaded to as high as 3,000 Watts.

The initial MRA circuit is something on the order of 1:5 and is 
believed to be scalable.Joel says the coil he had wound around the 
barium ferrite magnet was not in the least precision and he is of the 
mind that a huge coil surrounding the magnet will produce a 
proportional increase in power.

Early talks with various KeelyNetters about the Sweet circuit led 
many of us to believe that Barium, when excited, rings for a long 
time when the exciter is removed.At the ISNE conference, Don Watson 
confirmed this with his analogy of glowing luciferase as found in 
fireflys or other phosphorescent materials.A weak stimulation 
continues to produce light for a time after the stimulation is 
removed.

So, here is a wonderful opportunity to build a pioneering device.If 
you have questions or suggestions, you may direct them to Joel 
McClain or Norman Wootan at KeelyNet.

I think they both need to be commended for their willingness to share 
what many would keep proprietary or die with the 
secret
                   .............>>>Jerry

 -----------------------------------------------------

-- 
.....................uuuu / oo \ uuuu........,.............................
William Beaty  voice:206-781-3320   bbs:206-789-0775    cserv:71241,3623
EE/Programmer/Science exhibit designer        http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/
Seattle, WA 98117  billb@eskimo.com           SCIENCE HOBBYIST web page
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenbillb cudfnWilliam cudlnBeaty cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.15 / A Plutonium /  Engineering device from GR is fakery; gravity is neutrino 
     
Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.electromag,alt.sci.physics.plutonium
Subject: Engineering device from GR is fakery; gravity is neutrino 
Date: 15 Dec 1994 03:43:28 GMT
Organization: Plutonium Atom Foundation

  Early this year, 1994, I had posted that superfluid helium proves GR
is science fakery. GR is a nice algorithm (as nice as the bio evolution
algorithm which is another science fakery) whose math works most of the
time. But like an algorithm in math which cannot become a math theorem,
likewise, GR is not science theory because it fails.  
   GR if true, would say that no fluid can ever be superfluid.
Superfluidity would never exist if GR were true and a universal law. No
fluid would reach 0 friction, because, well there is always gravity to
provide friction. And although the friction provided by gravity would
be very small indeed, still, no fluid should ever be superfluid. Just
the existence of superfluid helium destroys GR as a science theory.
   Then during 1994 I posted an experimental set-up of a large massive
sphere with the center drilled out. It does not have to be complete
sphere. It can be a semisphere with the center cupped-out to form a
well. Normal helium is put in the well (vacuum surroundings) and the
experiment is designed that it contains the normal helium as perscribed
by GR. Now replace the normal helium with superfluid helium. That well
filled with superfluid helium. And since the well kept the regular
helium contained just as GR predicted. It should contain the superfluid
helium, but it does not. Hence GR was a theory fakery and an algorithm
at best.
   Later I posted a second experimental set-up which is perhaps easier
to perform. Again it involves superfluid helium. It uses a centrifuge
to equal the law of gravity as per the math of GR. Put regular helium
in the centrifuge and GR seems to explain the physics. But replace with
superfluid helium in the centrifuge and the outcome is very much
different. Again indicating that GR is at best an algorithm for most
cases of physics, but not a universal law of physics. 
   And I gave the observational evidence that Jupiter has metallic
hydrogen and so it definitely should have superfluid helium in Jupiter.
But alas, Jupiter does not.
   I gave my theory of gravity as related to superconductivity. That
superconductivity is photon signalers decomposed into neutrino
signalers. Neutrinos have no resistance when going through materials,
the same as superconductivity. 
   In superfluid helium which is superconductive, the photons are again
decomposed into neutrinos. Thus the nullification of GR. The correct
theory of gravity is that gravity is the statistics of neutrinos. And
the best support of that claim is the fact that the Coulomb force is an
inverse square law in QED due to photon statistics.  Gravity  would
then be neutrinos giving neutrino statistics. That is why both are
inverse square laws, because they both are statistics. And since
photons are composite neutrinos, that explains why both have the same
math form, only differing in strength. GR fakery thought it was dealing
with mass and space curvature. That was incorrect. What the correct law
is, relates the statistics of neutrinos, such as the Casimir effect.
  Now to the point of this post. I had posted that I had found an
application to gravity -> neutrino statistics which is related to
superconductivity. I posted that application about a month ago. Let me
repeat that application. 
   Since gravity is neutrino statistics and since superconductivity is
neutrino flow. Then antigravity devices are able to be engineered. That
post was the engineering of superhighways, or superroads which are made
of superconductors nested on top of one after another. Superconducting
roads built on top of each other until they are built so high in the
sky as to reach Earth's escape velocity. In the distant future, we will
be able to bicycle or ride a train into outer space. And, nested
superconducting roads built into all the gas giant planets in order to
mine them out. There, for Jupiter, we can build the highways starting
from Jupiters escape velocity point, build down onto its surface,
metallic hydrogen? But for Venus and Mars we can land on these smaller
planets and then build nested superconducting roads from their surface
out. We will mine these planets completely out and use the matter to
create new multiple Earths. Perhaps in 40,000 years we will have 100
Earths orbiting the Sun. Our solar system will consist of only the Sun
and multi-Earths. All of this will be done because of the utility of
superconduction.
   That application I envision will become reality in 20,000 years,
roughly guessing. And although my patent application for nested
superconducting roads will probably not see any monetary gain. It is
reassuring to me that I was the first to have filed for the
application, and discovered the correct theory behind the application
that will give impetus to the project, the reason for the project, the
reason superconductivity is so important, the blueprint to make it
viable and work. A@P

___________________
_____________________
________________________
____________________________
_________________________________
______________________________________
_____________________________________________
___________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
 Nested Superconducting Roads of the Future A@P
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.15 / Tom Droege /  Re: Georgia Trip
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Georgia Trip
Date: 15 Dec 1994 20:56:30 GMT
Organization: fermilab

In article <3cniud$go8@usenetw1.news.prodigy.com>, HWHN61A@prodigy.com
(Thomas Selby) says:
>
>My newsreader has been working unreliably so I may have missed anupdates 
>but in any case what is the status of Tom's trip to Georgia?  
>

Just to tell all of you that I am still monitoring the news group 
and that I do plan to go to Georgia if they will accept me.  I 
have not yet called Griggs.  Plan to start negotiating the trip 
early next year.  I understand Griggs is moving his plant now.  

Looks like my job has not been eliminated, but my group has.  We 
had this wonderful group called the "Particle Instrumentation 
Group"  which we all called PIG.  Well, PIG has been SPAMed.  
Over the years we had collected a lot of pigs in the group.  Plaster
pigs, concrete pigs, paper mache pigs, pig posters, etc..  Now they
are all on their backs with "dead" indications.  People at Fermilab
who are pretty straight (meaning lack of a sense of humor) were 
really down on PIG and the fact that we all had a group unity 
and liked being called PIGs.  

Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.15 / Chuck Sites /  Re: Arata's Negative Excess Heat/SL update
     
Originally-From: chuck@iglou.iglou.com (Chuck Sites)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Arata's Negative Excess Heat/SL update
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 1994 07:38:38 GMT
Organization: IgLou Internet Services


Hi Folks,

    I've been lurking.... the GG stuff just does not thrill me.  However,
regarding proton conductors: This is an area I've been trying to get
some expertise in for several years now.  For CF, I think it holds promise.
There are alot of statistical quantum mechanics type problems that show up
when protons (and deuterons) conduct in metals, for example the wave overlap
equations I used for fusion probability, and the condensation of complections
in Bose bands W. Bernecky argues for.   Both are supportive of the Chubb's 
works at least in enhancing the overall cold fusion rate compaired to 
conventional models of cold fusion in solids.   It seems to me, that if
proton conduction is shown to occur in certain hydrated metals, it might 
be worth looking at neutrons immediately (Per Steve Jones), and He4
postmortum. The question is what is the *most* sensitive way of measuring 
He4 embedded in a metal?

Dieter Britz <britz@alpha.kemi.aau.dk> writes:

>On 13 Dec 1994, Harry H Conover wrote:

>> Would someone here with scientific credentals explain the concept of 
>> a proton conductor? 

>Credentials: humble electrochemist; also variously called howling hyena and
>snake in the grass with Hidden Motives.

I would say the later credentials are misplaced to say the least. 

>A couple of years ago, Chuck Sites had a theory in this group, based on the
>idea of ohmic resistance to deuteron flow ("Heavy Heat"). I think we 
>convinced him that this heat had to be put in there first, so could not be
>"excess"

Thanks for foot note Dieter. I will admit, the equation I wrote to
discribe it was just stupid.  At the time I was musing out an idea that
I had not fully thought out.  However, consider this, the conclusion draw
by this group was that if the D+ ion band became superconducting, one 
could expect odd effects in Ohm's law and Joule's law of heating!  What
we have is a paradox. Here is my argument:

   The implications of a positive charge superconducting path with in
a normal conductor does imply some potentially unusual phenomenology.
In a calorimetric system based on Joules law of heating from an ohmic
source, the introduction of a positive charge superconducting path could
cause the appearance of excess heat.  While this sounds counter intuitive,
it is really not.  Here is a simple Ohm's law type argument:
 
P_app = I_app V              where P_app = applied power and    
I_app -> I_e + -I_h          I_app is the applied current which results

in two charge carrier paths, one is the electron current I_e, and the
other is positive charge current, -I_h. (The negative represents the 
oposite charge sign of that positive charge carriers).              
                             
Joules Law of Heating for a metal is given by:  
Q = I_app^2 R t / J  where R=resistance, t=time, J=Joules constant. 

Substituting in the composite current:  
Q = (I_e - I_h)^2 R t / J 

And expanding:
          
       2                           2
    I_e  R t   2 I_e I_h R t    I_h  R t
 Q=  ------- - ------------- + ---------                         [6.1]
       J            J             J

The resistance value used so far represents a composite of the hydrogen
current resistance, electron resistance, and a component resistance for
the electron-hydrogen interaction.  Let me represent these as R_e, R_h,
and R_eh and make the non-commuting assertion:          

       2                               2
    I_e  R_e t   2 I_e I_h R_eh t   I_d  R_h t
Q = ---------- - ---------------- + ----------                   [6.2]
       J              J                 J

Now we have an equation which represents the addition of a positive
current on Joules Law.  In most cases I_h is small or zero, giving
little difference from Joule heating.  If the hydrogen current obtains
a respectable value as would be the case of out-gassing from a highly
loaded metal, one might expect to see the additional components come
into play.  Also, since resistance involve the capture and release of
valance electrons by the host metal's nuclei, for a positive charge
current in a host metal, the interaction is repulsive, so there is a
good reason to believe R_h is negative in this equation and would
subsequently reduce Joule heating in metals like PdH.  However, In
this equation, R_eh represents the resistance of the electron-proton
(deuteron) interaction, and one might assume it's value is positive
since the two currents should interact.  However, there is an effect
called in certain hydrated metal (PdH(x) is one) called the 'electron
wind' where electron current can actually push the proton current in
the opposite direction of electron current flow.  This force, can in
some material systems, obtain some very respectable values.  In any
case, we can think of R_eh as a negative resistance due to this effect
where the electron current acts as an EMF to the proton current.  It
should be obvious what a profound effect this could have on Joule
heating as given by our current simplistic equation.

  While we have a system that indicates a larger value of Q for a given
applied power, one would not expect Q to exceed Joules heating in a 
calorimetric system, since the energy in would equal the energy out.    
Since we have two charge carriers we would expect the measured total 
resistance to drop.  So let's make that assumption.  For fun, lets 
assume R_h goes to 0 as would be implied in a superconducting deuteron
band.  We would then get:

       2                           
    I_e  R_e t   2 I_e I_h R_eh t  
Q = ---------- + ----------------                                [6.3]
       J              J          

So if we have a superconducting hydrogen current, the 'electric wind' 
(which in detail requires a complicated quantum solution) would cause
the appearance of excess heat! 

It's also interesting to note:

Q = (I_e - I_h)^2 R t / J  = (I_e - I_h) V t / J

or solving for V, we get.
  
         Q J
V = -------------                                                 [6.4] 
    (I_e - I_h) t                                              

What this demonstrates is, as I_h increases, the voltage V would
increase as well if I_e is maintained in a constant current.  By the
same argument, if an external source of energy increases Q (say by a
nuclear reaction), V should increase proportionally.  However, if the
source of the heat is due to a proton current, V should be exponential
as I_h approaches I_e.  This might make a good indicator test as to 
whether sensitively measured xs-heating sources are nuclear in origin, 
or quantum mechanical in a constant current (I_e applied) system.
While this is a broad and generalized argument (I am ignoring alot of 
detail), it should fit for an ohm's law calibrated calorimeter.  


>The Japanese - or some of them - have produced setups in which they cover
>one side of the Pd electrode with a layer impervious to deuterium. This, I
>reckon, is also based on deuteron flow through the metal. I think they 
>imagine the deuterons zooming through the metal and crashing into that
>barrier and each other, and - naturally - fusing in the process.

I think you are under-estimating the reasoning here. It is to force a 
high concentration of D at the bi-metal interface. I see it more as
expliotation of fracto-fusion effect. 

> This is
>quite ridiculous; if you believe in "electrochemical compression", i.e.
>high internal deuterium pressures within the PdD, due to an applied high
>overpotential, then you should apply it equally all around the cathode, as
>Takahashi does. A barrier would do nothing at all. Still, they do it, and
>they patent it.

There has to be more to this than electrochemical compression, for 
sure. I think what what is interesting in this crazy field of CF is 
how much science is produced and simultaniously dismissed.  Something
is not right with this field.  Too many wild claims? 

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


Have Fun,
Chuck Sites
chuck@iglou.iglou.com

cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenchuck cudfnChuck cudlnSites cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.14 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Re: Nuclear physics = collisions?/Davies questions
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Nuclear physics = collisions?/Davies questions
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 1994 12:48 -0500 (EST)

browe@netcom.com (William Rowe) writes:
 
-> The concept of E=mc^2 has been vailidated by so many experiments that one
-> experiment contradicticting it even if replicated isn't enough to discard or
-> revise the concept. Only if the experiment can be replicated by repeatedly n
-> just once with sufficient control to believe no errors were made would there
-> sufficient evidence to revise this concept.
 
Actually it depends on whether the experiment results in a theory which also
agrees with the previous experiments.  For instance, the MM experiment which
validated the relativity equations easily replaced the Newton equations because
at low energies they converged.  There was no disagreement.  The same could be
true of e=mc^2.
 
Let me give you an example.  Lets say that you decide that e=mc^2 is an
approximation for things like the earth.  The thinking is that since all the
matter is condensed into a ball held together by gravity, energy was already
released by the matter being pulled together.  Now lets say an experiment
somehow is created that does show that the equality is slightly lower than
e=mc^2, maybe it is e=mc^2 - (quantity related to diameter, gravitational
constant and mass of the object).  This latter quantity would be essentially 0
for almost anything smaller than a planetoid, but could become significant for
a neutron star.  The results would not invalidate any experiments to date.
Thus a replicatable experiment could conceivably change the concept of e=mc^2,
as long as it does so without invalidating prior experiments.  (Please note the
above is simply a thought experiment to show how this could be achieved, I do
not intend to imply that this is actually the case).
                                                                Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.14 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Re: Arata's Negative Excess Heat/SL update
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Arata's Negative Excess Heat/SL update
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 1994 12:58 -0500 (EST)

Dieter Britz <britz@alpha.kemi.aau.dk> writes:
 
-> Most people assume (with some reason) that in palladium hydride, the hydroge
-> is in the form of hydrogen ions, i.e. protons, and that these protons are
-> highly mobile with a diffusion coefficient of about 10^-7 cm^2/s.
 
Assuming this is valid, what mechanism prevents the protons from entering
INSIDE of the palladium's outer electron shell?  The proton is quite positive,
and the palladium atom would be negative.  Coulomb forces would tend to attract
the neutron into the palladium atom, until it reaches a point where it begins
interacting with the nucleus which has a repealing positive charge.  I know
this is not suppose to happen, but am unable to figure out what the restoring
force would be.  (Of course if it DOES happen, I would think the probability of
fusion would be highly enhanced since PD likes to have 2 protons (or deuterium
nucli if deuterium, per atom.)
 
                                                                Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.14 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Re: Roast Dynamometer
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Roast Dynamometer
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 1994 16:32 -0500 (EST)

ianj@castle.ed.ac.uk (I Johnston) writes:
 
-> You fool, Rothwell. The cold side only has to be cooler than the heat
-> pump output. You keep wittering on about how hot the output is - above
-> boiling. So 100F would do very nicely as the cold side.
 
Interesting how those who haven't a clue on what they are talking about call
others fools.  You are totally wrong about this.  Check out the second law of
thermodynamics.  It is quite specific, and Jed is correct.  Heat cannot flow
from a cooler area to a warmer area without outside energy input according to
this law.
 
Lets look at your statements.  You state that the the cold side has to be
colder than the heat pump output.  This is not very definitive, as you are not
saying if the "cold side" of which you speak is the input or output.  However
if you are considering the output the cold side then you are saying that the
output must be colder than the output, which is nonsense.  If you are implying
that the input has to be colder than the heat pump output, then you are wrong.
If this were true than air conditioners would not work on days in which the
outside temperature is less than the inside temperature. The notion is
nonsense.  It matters not whether the input is warmer or cooler than the
output, the only effect will be a change in the efficiency of the heat pump
transfer.  I suggest you consult some refrigerastion books or books on
thermodynamics if you do not understand this.
 
I think you are saying that they can have the input side warmer than 100F, and
be pulling energy from that point (although your statements are ambigous).
That would violate the second law of thermodynamics.  I would suggest that the
laymen here who do not understand this law look it up and try to understand it.
If energy is being pulled out of this 100F part, then energy must be flowing
into it from somewhere.  If it is from the room air, or from inlet water, then
the air or inlet water would HAVE to be warmer than 100F, pure and simple.  If
the energy is being supplied somehow directly (say friction on a shaft
bearing) then it would have to be supplied by the motor and should register on
the power meter.  An efficiency of >1 should not be possible in this
configuration unless something else is going on.  For the heat pump hypothesis
to work there MUST be a source of heat, and that source must lose energy,
thereby dropping in temperature. If the source is the air then the input side
of the heat pump must necessarly be colder than room temperature.
 
                                                                Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Fri Dec 16 04:37:04 EST 1994
------------------------------
1994.12.15 / Dieter Britz /  Chuck's protons
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <britz@alpha.kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Chuck's protons
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 1994 14:21:30 +0100
Organization: DAIMI, Computer Science Dept. at Aarhus University

Chuck Sites wrote (sorry, I'm doing this in an awkward fashion, not having
come fully to grips with pine, so no proper quotes):

>Dieter Britz <britz@alpha.kemi.aau.dk> writes:

>>On 13 Dec 1994, Harry H Conover wrote:

>>> Would someone here with scientific credentals explain the concept of 
>>> a proton conductor? 

>>Credentials: humble electrochemist; also variously called howling hyena and
>>snake in the grass with Hidden Motives.

>I would say the later credentials are misplaced to say the least. 

Thanks, mate. Just trying to be neutral {:]

>>A couple of years ago, Chuck Sites had a theory in this group, based on the
>>idea of ohmic resistance to deuteron flow ("Heavy Heat"). I think we 
>>convinced him that this heat had to be put in there first, so could not be
>>"excess"

>Thanks for foot note Dieter. I will admit, the equation I wrote to
>discribe it was just stupid.  At the time I was musing out an idea that
>I had not fully thought out.  However, consider this, the conclusion draw
>by this group was that if the D+ ion band became superconducting, one 
>could expect odd effects in Ohm's law and Joule's law of heating!  What
we have is a paradox. Here is my argument:

>   The implications of a positive charge superconducting path with in
>a normal conductor does imply some potentially unusual phenomenology.
>In a calorimetric system based on Joules law of heating from an ohmic
>source, the introduction of a positive charge superconducting path could
>cause the appearance of excess heat.  While this sounds counter intuitive,
>it is really not.  Here is a simple Ohm's law type argument:
 
>[etc; much stuff that is above my head].

I wasn't trying to say you were stupid, Chuck, and hope I didn't give that
impression. If I understand the rest of it a tiny bit, and it means that
that you are implying proton superconductivity (are you?) then this is
certainly a fascinating idea. Superconductivity itself has been connected
with 'cold fusion', as you no doubt know, especially by Russian workers.

I agree, the Griggs thing is rather boring. Either it is a free lunch 
machine, or it isn't; Tom will throw light on it. This, much more than 
with 'cold fusion', is a case of put up or shut up. Griggs is said to 
have a machine ready to sell, so let him sell 'em, and see if a path is 
beaten to his door, as it would if the machine does provide free lunches.

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

cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenbritz cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.14 /  jonesse@plasma /  Re: Jones responds to Fleischmann (and Jed)
     
Originally-From: jonesse@plasma.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Jones responds to Fleischmann (and Jed)
Date: 14 Dec 94 11:25:04 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

Sometimes I feel like I'm talking into a black hole when dealing with Jed,
but I'll try once again I guess.

Jed writes:

"They [P&F] did measure voltage far more often than once every 5 minutes, as
I pointed time after time after time [ad nauseatum].  Jones will never
admit it, but they did."

Fleischmann said that they took measurements once every 5 minutes only,
FOR THE DATA PUBLISHED IN THE PHYS. LETT. PAPER.  That is what I was talking
about, as I made clear in my posting:  the published paper.  

And this fact was not mentioned in that paper, it only came out when I asked
F. to provide the input power data (which he declined to do).

Since then, F. stated at the Maui meeting that he has sampled more often
than every 5 minutes.  Great.  Let's see it published along with a disclosure
of input power data and calculated excess power for the higher sampling
rate.  Does the new rate satisfy the Nyquist criterion?  We'll see -- certainly
the sampling period of 5 minutes for the Phys. Lett. paper failed miserably
in that respect.

Also, Jed failed to address my question regarding expulsion of water droplets
which also makes the PUBLISHED P&F boiling-cell excess-heat claims suspect.

While I'm at it:
Jed, do P&F claim excess heat in light-water cells?

Jed also intones:
"All those overpaid Princeton scientists, with all their billions of
dollars of high tech equipment cannot even accomplish what one good CF
scientist can do in a laboratory for a hundred thousand bucks.  That is
why CF is *relatively* cheap and *comparatively* easy."

If this is so, why is it that the Publisher of Cold Fusion magazine states:

"If there's no substantial progress this year, cold fusion is in
real trouble."
(Wayne Green in letter to ICCF-4 attendees.)

This from a CF advocate!  What do you think, Mr. Rothwell?
How about all you investors in CF out there?

--Steven Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenjonesse cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.15 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Arata's Negative Excess Heat/SL update
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Arata's Negative Excess Heat/SL update
Date: Thu, 15 DEC 94 22:51:09 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

faj@jet.uk (Frithiof Jensen) does not understand the difference between
power and energy. I wrote that CF devices produce a hundred times more
*energy* than the best Tokamak experiment in history, and Jensen responded:
 
     "Go on then, get the garage guy to do 1.8 MW for me!"
 
First of all, the scientist we are talking about, Arata, does not work in a
garage. He works on the campus of Osaka National University, in Arata Hall,
a building named in his honor. Second, the device does not produce 1.8 MW, it
produces 80 watts. That is far, far less power than the Tokamak. But the
Tokamak stops working after a fraction of a second whereas the CF cell
works for months on end, 24 hours a day. As the paper clearly stated, the
total *energy* added up to more than 200 MJ. The Tokamak produced only 6 MJ.
 
 
     "Especially I would like to see it on video, from some safe distance of
     course, we wouldn't like the neutrons to erase the chips in the camera!"
 
CF reactions do not produce intense neutron radiation. That is another
gigantic advantage over HF.
 
 
     "Or maybe you don't get on so well anymore - rantings like the above
     is not representing the good cold fusions scientists in the best
     possible manner."
 
I am not "ranting" or "representing" anything. Arata claims 200+ MJ. That
is far more energy than any HF reactor ever produced and far more than any
HF reactor ever will produce. It is simple arithmetic, something you
"skeptics" are incapable of understanding. Look, it is easy: 200 > 6. Okay?
Many other CF reactors have produced more than 6 MJ. Any good CF device
will outperform the best that Princeton, ITER and all the rest can hope for.
We left them in the dust years ago. We got fully ignited, self sustaining
reactions two years ago, and very soon we will have self sustaining power
reactors. It's all over for hot fusion. As we say in the U.S.: the fat lady
sang, the game's over, we won, they lost.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenjedrothwell cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.15 / I Johnston /  Re: Roast Dynamometer
     
Originally-From: ianj@castle.ed.ac.uk (I Johnston)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Roast Dynamometer
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 1994 14:52:28 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

Kristjan Valur Jonsson (kvj@rhi.hi.is) wrote:
: In <D0srF8.6vo@festival.ed.ac.uk> ianj@castle.ed.ac.uk (I Johnston) writes:

: >jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:
: >: I Johnston <ianj@castle.ed.ac.uk> writes:
: >:  
: >: >And of course if the shaft is hot, but cooler than the pump, it could be
: >: >cold-spot for the heat pump... not that I see any need to invoke that, or
: >:  
: >: The shaft would have to be much, much colder than the surrounding air for
: >: this to work. Needless to say, it is not. It well over 100 deg F.

: >You fool, Rothwell. The cold side only has to be cooler than the heat
: >pump output. You keep wittering on about how hot the output is - above
: >boiling. So 100F would do very nicely as the cold side.

: Excuse my ignorance, but would a heat pump with a cold side hotter
: thatn the environment be able to pump any heat?  I have a faint recollection
: of a lecturer telling me that the cold part had to be equal or colder
: than the environment in order for the heat to flow into it.  Unless,
: there is an external primary pump.

No, it wouldn't. But the environment in this case - the sink if the
cycle were reversed - could be the shaft and rotor. In other words it
could pump heat from the electric motor to the water, in which case air
temperature is irrelevant - the thing would work in a vacuum.

It doesn't seem very likely, though. We still have no evidence - save
Jed's hysterical rants - that the thing has ever run in heat producing
mode (sic) for longer than a few minutes, and heat storage is quite
capable of explaining the results.

Ian
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenianj cudfnI cudlnJohnston cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.15 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Re: Roast Dynamometer
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Roast Dynamometer
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 1994 10:48 -0500 (EST)

jonathan@DSG.Stanford.EDU (Jonathan Stone) writes:
 
-> Who is this peasant who doesn't appreciate the distinction between
-> temperature and heat flow? Or is it just ignorance of what human
-> skin sensors sense?  Or ignoring the fact that domestic refrigerators
-> generally cool (at least older models did) by condensing water vapour?
 
What?????? Condensing water releases heat, evaporating water absorbs heat! Your
statment makes no sense at all and is totally contrary to the way heat of
vaporization works.  Refrigerators work (at least the older ones) by
evaporating freon. I think Jed knows the distinction between temperature and
heat flow, temperature is like voltage and flow is like current. Heat flows
from a warmer body to a colder body as required by the 2nd law of
thermodynamics. Jed is saying simply saying that. I can't believe that there
are so many people trying to dispute the second law of thermodynamics here.
 
                                                              Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.15 / Gary Steckly /  Re: Nuclear physics = collisions?/Davies questions
     
Originally-From: gsteckly@clark.dgim.doc.ca (Gary Steckly)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Nuclear physics = collisions?/Davies questions
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 94 15:38:57 GMT
Organization: Industry Canada

In article <3cmn1n$a4v@agate.berkeley.edu> schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
writes:
>From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
>Subject: Re: Nuclear physics = collisions?/Davies questions
>Date: 14 Dec 1994 12:05:11 GMT

>In article <1994Dec13.233516.20355@clark.dgim.doc.ca>,
>Gary Steckly <gsteckly@dgim.doc.ca> wrote:

>>You will likely never convince scientists who are so firmly entrenched in 
>>their belief (yes, they are true believers in the dogma of SR) of the 
>>current scientific doctrine to even consider possibility of something 
>>really radical.  

>If you have a better explanation for the Michelson-Morley experiment's
>null result that *also* explains, say, experimentally observed time 
>dilation, believe me, we are all ears.

I don't have any theories of my own, but there are a number of individuals 
(emphasis on *indivudual*...someone willing to go against the flow) out there 
who might.  Check out some of the postings by Tomes in sci.physics.

Bryan Wallace recently published a book on the net called "The Farce of 
Physics" that is a good eye-opener, if you aren't too offended by this 
brand of "heresy" you should get a copy (it's free).  He has tons of evidence 
to support the c+v concept of EM propagation.  His ideas stem from his 
research involving radar measurements of venus way back in the '60s. Funny 
though, he couldn't get many people to examine his data {:-o.   It seems the peer 
review process is a pretty effective censor/filter. I believe the aether might 
exist, but not in a form we were expecting. I like Wallace's "dynamic aether" 
or "compressible fluidlike ether moving through space" descriptions.   

One thing is pretty certain, these nagging discrepencies  are not going to go 
away through wishful thinking.  I believe the XS heat in devices like Griggs, 
Thermocor and others will ultimately prove too real to ignore.  Jed may have 
his critics, but there is no denying his thoroughness when it comes to 
calorimetry on systems of this size. I'm glad that Tom Droege has a sufficiently 
open mind to lead the little expedition to Georgia to look at the Griggs 
device.  This is a healthy attitude if nothing else.  

I believe that systems producing even more extreme levels of energy and "apparent"
violations of the laws of thermodynamics may be only months away from seeing the light of
day.  We'll just have to wait and see.

p.s.  I just read Bill Beaty's post on the Keelynet discovery.
 If this is true and replicable, the
house is about to collapse.  
>-->                 
                       Richard Schultz
>             "an optimist is a guy
>              that has never had
>              much experience"

I like your sig line...I relate to it and don't take it as a flame ;-)
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudengsteckly cudfnGary cudlnSteckly cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.15 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Re: Arata's Negative Excess Heat/SL update
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Arata's Negative Excess Heat/SL update
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 1994 10:59 -0500 (EST)

chuck@iglou.iglou.com (Chuck Sites) writes:
 
-> P_app = I_app V              where P_app = applied power and
-> I_app -> I_e + -I_h          I_app is the applied current which results
 
Interesting idea here, but I think you missed a sign.  the latter equation
should be
 
I_app -> I_e - (- I_h)  which reduces to I_app -> I_e + I_h
 
The reason is that the proton conductors would be positive, and would flow in
the opposite direction than the electrons.  Therefore one minus sign is from
the direction of flow and the other is because the charge on a proton is
opposite of the electron.
 
The confusion is because you are using "conventional" electron flow, where
the movement of a negative charge, the electron) is expressed as positive
flow.  A true (as opposed to conventional) representation would really have the
pair of minus signs on the electron and the plus sign on the proton conductor.
But the result is the same either way, both quantities end up positive.
 
                                                                Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.15 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Roast Dynamometer
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Roast Dynamometer
Date: Thu, 15 DEC 94 16:33:18 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

jonathan@DSG.Stanford.EDU (Jonathan Stone) asks:
 
     "Who is this peasant who doesn't appreciate the distinction between
     temperature and heat flow? Or is it just ignorance of what human skin
     sensors sense? Or ignoring the fact that domestic refrigerators
     generally cool (at least older models did) by condensing water vapour?"
 
O what a rogue and peasant slave am I! I should have suggested he feel a milk
carton rather than the encorporal air. Or use a thermometer. How absolute the
knave is! I must speak by the card, or equivocation will undo me.
 
But Stone has presented such an amazing notion! I am awed, overwhelmed. I
grovel in my ignorance. I never in my life knew that you could refrigerate
things by condensing water. Water! The universal solvent! The most common
fluid on earth! What a clever idea. And here on earth, at one atmosphere, it
condenses at such a well known temperature too: 100 degrees C. Very neat.  I
wonder though, what good are the refrigerators on the planet from outer space
where Mr. Stone comes from? Doesn't the meat spoil?
 
Here on earth the first refrigerator was invented by John Gorrie in 1844. It
used a combination of air and what he called an "uncongealable liquid"
(meaning a liquid with a low freezing point). The first commercially
successful compression refrigerator was invented by Carl Linde in 1873. It
used liquid ammonia. Freon (dichlorodifluoromethane) refrigerant gas replaced
ammonia and other fluids in 1931. Perhaps Freon has since been phased out
because of the ozone hole or something; I wouldn't know. My information is a
little out of date. My main source is "Heat Engines" by J. F. Sandfort
(Doubleday Anchor, 1962). Stone's main source of information appears to be his
own overwrought imagination, which is entertaining but not relevant. Stone
does not even understand the principles established by Gorrie in his 1851
patent claim:
 
"1. The employment of a liquid uncongealable at the low temperature at which
it is required to keep the engine, to receive the heat of the water to be
congealed and to give it out to the expanding air.
 
..
 
4. The process of cooling or freezing liquids by compressing air in a
reservoir, abstracting the heat evolved in the compression by means of a jet
of water, allowing the compressed air to expand in an engine surrounded by a
cistern of an unfreezable liquid, which is continually injected into the
engine [the main refrigerator] and returned to the cistern, and which serves
as a medium to absorb the heat from liquid to be cooled or frozen and give it
out to the expanding air."
 
Jacob Perkins simplified this design, and invented the first machine to use
one fluid condensable at low temperature for both operations.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenjedrothwell cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.15 /  AvardF /  More Fusion Facts and New Energy
     
Originally-From: avardf@aol.com (AvardF)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: More Fusion Facts and New Energy
Date: 15 Dec 1994 17:10:22 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

Fusion Facts is a scientific / technical newsletter reporting on cold
fusion and related research from around the world.  We mainly print
abstracts of published scientific papers, short technical articles and
information concerning research, development, conferences, techniques and
materials that pertain to cold fusion.  This publication is generally
written on a level for people with a background in the research, or that
have technical interest in the research.  Our information coverage is
worldwide, having correspondents in 7 countries, but reporting on research
centers in over 20 countries.  Fusion Facts has been published monthly for
over 5 years (Library of Congress ISSN number 1051-8738) and is available
from the Fusion Information Center.  Our address is P.O. Box 58639, Salt
Lake City, Utah 84158, or at street address 540 Arapeen Drive, Suite 209
(Dept. F), University of Utah Research Park, Salt Lake City, Utah 84108. 
(We are a private company, not a part of the University.)

New Energy News is a monthly newsletter reporting on all facets of
worldwide new energy research, from universities and government research
facilities to individual scientists and inventors.  It covers cold fusion,
wind and solar power, zero-point energy or space energy, devices for
generating electromagnetic power, experimental vehicle fuels, among
others.  For the most part, it is written on a less technical level, that
anyone with a general knowledge of physics can understand.  The newsletter
is also used as a sounding board for researchers with new ideas, new
developments on current research, and requests for information from other
researchers.  We feel that this publication is an encouragement to people
interested in the future of energy resources, who want to be "in" on the
newest developments as they are happening.  We also announce and report on
pertinent conferences and symposia.  New Energy News (Library of Congress
ISSN number 1075-0045) is the newsletter of the Institute for New Energy,
a non/profit organization dedicated to making the general population aware
of their energy options, both present and future.  The Institute for New
Energy's address is the same as the above address.

We are not listed in the Research Centers Directory because we do not do
research, we report on it.  We are not in the Encyclopedia of Associations
because we were not really aware of it (we have since contacted them). 
Our Editor/President, Hal Fox, has been listed in Who's Who (in Science
and Technology, I believe) for 1994.  A sample copy of either magazine is
available just by writing or calling our office at (801) 583-6232 or Fax
at (801) 583-2963 with your request.  

Also available is Cold Fusion Impact in the Enhanced Energy Age by Hal
Fox, a book covering the effects of the development of non-traditional
energy systems on our current lives and institutions, governments and
economies around the world.  It is available for US$ 24.95 and includes a
3.5" disc containing over 2000 references on cold fusion research papers
and patents published worldwide in the last 5= years.  The vast majority
of these papers are positive, reflecting practical and theoretical
research advancements in physics, electrochemistry, and nuclear physics.  

The Fusion Information Center is also publishing the Cold Fusion Source
Book, a compilation of complete scientific papers presented at several
world and regional conferences on cold fusion and allied research.


cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenavardf cudlnAvardF cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.15 / Bruce Schechter /  Re: Jones responds to Fleischmann (and Jed), again
     
Originally-From: bruce@disney.com (Bruce Schechter)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Jones responds to Fleischmann (and Jed), again
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 1994 16:11:31 -0800
Organization: Wheel Spinner's Anonymous

Reading all this reminded me of the doctor who, taking
the pulse of his lively, chatting patient, pronounced her
dead because his watch had stopped.

-- 

Bruce_Schechter@cc.wdi.disney.com.......................................
..................................................
                                                              
               opinions expressed approximate only my own and coincide
                                                              
                only coincidently with those of my employer or
anyone else
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenbruce cudfnBruce cudlnSchechter cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.14 / Matt Kennel /  Re: Arata's Negative Excess Heat/SL update
     
Originally-From: mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Arata's Negative Excess Heat/SL update
Date: 14 Dec 1994 22:14:49 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

Dieter Britz (britz@alpha.kemi.aau.dk) wrote:
: On 13 Dec 1994, Harry H Conover wrote:

: > Would someone here with scientific credentals explain the concept of 
: > a proton conductor? 

: Credentials: humble electrochemist; also variously called howling hyena and
: snake in the grass with Hidden Motives.

: Most people assume (with some reason) that in palladium hydride, the hydrogen
: is in the form of hydrogen ions, i.e. protons, and that these protons are 
: highly mobile with a diffusion coefficient of about 10^-7 cm^2/s. That's only
: about 2 OOM smaller than that in an aqueous solution. These mobile 
: protons (or deuterons in palladium deuteride) would thus carry electric 
: charge, or a big part of it. 

Given that Pd is metallic, what is the mobility of the normal ordinary
conduction band electrons?

Given a net current of J = J_e + J_p, with J_e the current due to
motion of electrons and J_p that of protons,

What is the ratio of J_p / J ?

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

--
-Matt Kennel  		mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu
-Institute for Nonlinear Science, University of California, San Diego
-*** AD: Archive for nonlinear dynamics papers & programs: FTP to
-***     lyapunov.ucsd.edu, username "anonymous".
cudkeys:
cuddy14 cudenmbk cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.16 / Bob Casanova /  Re: Engineering device from GR is fakery; gravity is neutrino 
     
Originally-From: cas@ops1.bwi.wec.com (Bob Casanova)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Engineering device from GR is fakery; gravity is neutrino 
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 1994 17:01:06 GMT
Organization: Westinghouse

In article <3coe10$h9a@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Archimedes.Plutonium@dartm
uth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:
>From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
>Subject: Engineering device from GR is fakery; gravity is neutrino 
>Date: 15 Dec 1994 03:43:28 GMT

>  Early this year, 1994, I had posted that superfluid helium proves GR
>is science fakery. GR is a nice algorithm (as nice as the bio evolution
>algorithm which is another science fakery) whose math works most of the
>time. But like an algorithm in math which cannot become a math theorem,
>likewise, GR is not science theory because it fails.  
>   GR if true, would say that no fluid can ever be superfluid.
>Superfluidity would never exist if GR were true and a universal law. No
>fluid would reach 0 friction, because, well there is always gravity to
>provide friction. And although the friction provided by gravity would

<snip>

Er, where did you get the idea that friction depends on gravity?

Bob C.
  <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
  <<< Good, fast, cheap!  (Pick 2) >>>
  <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
What the net needs is a good bus arbiter
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudencas cudfnBob cudlnCasanova cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.16 / John Logajan /  Re: Dr. Oriani's Lecture
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@mirage.skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Dr. Oriani's Lecture
Date: 16 Dec 1994 03:48:23 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

jonesse@vanlab.byu.edu wrote:
: logajan@cray.com (John M. Logajan) writes:
: > Ironically, Oriani said that it wasn't P&F's paper that got him interested
: > in CF, it was Steven Jones!  Unfortunately it sounds like Oriani now
: > believes in CF and so according to Steven Jones, it means that Oriani
: > has tapioca for brains.  

: Don't put words in my mouth.  I have a great deal of respect for Prof.
: Oriani and I'm confident that he will apply state-of-the-art instruments
: and methods in his search.

Your words had broad implication, i.e. "Does believing P&F do this to your
brain?"  seems to imply the set containing all human beings -- Dr. Oriani
being a member of that set.

: From what I have heard from Dr. Oriani, I believe it incorrect to say
: 'Oriani now believes in CF'  -- does he claim the heat is due to Cold Fusion?
: I highly doubt it.

Dr. Oriani presented the following measurements of one of his positive
anomalous heat experiments:  Excess Eout-Ein = 5.2 MeV/Pd atom.  Since that
ain't chemistry, and since Dr. Oriani says he has confidence in his own
results, the conclusion is inescapable that Dr. Oriani believes in the
phenomena.

Now if he had stood there and told us that he didn't have confidence in his
experiments and suspected there was a subtle error, then you would be right
that Dr. Oriani didn't have reason to believe in the phenomena.  So since
he seems to believe his own experimental results and since they are
inconsistent with chemistry as we know it ...


: John Logajan left out the most important part of this, which was that
: Bockris was claiming a FOUR-body reaction to generate 56Fe when carbon
: rods were subjected to a carbon arc in H2O; the nonsensical reaction was
:   12C + 12C + 18O +18O  -->  56Fe  + 4He.  (From the Bockris/Sundaresan
: paper in Fusion Tech. Nov. 1994, p. 261.)

: I explained why I believe this 4-body nuclear reaction to be nonsense,
: and Mr. Logajan is unfair in taking my statements (above) out of context.


I'm not sure there is a proper context to elaborate on the functioning of
the brains of those who advocate certain theories.  Those theories are
right or wrong on their own merits and the brain functions of the advocates
are immaterial in the analysis.

--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com  --  612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA -
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.16 / Jack Bernstein /  Free Japanese Magazines TOCs
     
Originally-From: japanese@netcom.com (Jack Bernstein)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Free Japanese Magazines TOCs
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 1994 04:42:46 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

Free table-of-contents e-mail delivery service

InterLingua, an information retrieval and translation company, will 
be making available (starting January, 1995) at no cost the tables-of-
contents of selected Japanese publications every month. This is part 
of a larger project in the science / technology arena that we are 
engaged in, so it is possible for us to make this information 
available at no obligation.

T-O-Cs of Japanese publications in the computer/electronics 
cateogry will be posted on the Usenet group (comp.research.japan). 
However, other T-O-Cs  can be delivered via e-mail to you if you 
contact us with your address and category preferences at the e-mail 
address below. (Sorry, we are unable to deliver via post office or 
fax).

Below is a list of categories in which we are currently translating T-
O-Cs and making them available at no cost. Should you have any 
other suggestions, please let us know. If there is sufficient interest 
in other categories, we will consider making arrangements with 
Japanese publishers.

Tables-of-contents from Japanese magazines will be available in the 
following categories:

1. General engineering (robotics, materials, inventions & patents)
2. Mechanical engineering
3. Transportation engineering
4. Metal engineering
5. Chemistry and chemical engineering
6. Energy engineering
7. Nuclear engineering
8. Electrical engineering
9. Electronics and communication technology
10. Information science (software & hardware)

Again, these are the subject areas in which InterLingua is currently 
engaged in translations and information retrieval. Any additional 
suggestions are more than welcome.

To subscribe to our e-mail delivery service contact us by e-mail at:

japanese@aol.com





cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenjapanese cudfnJack cudlnBernstein cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.16 / John Logajan /  Re: Dr. Oriani's Lecture
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@mirage.skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Dr. Oriani's Lecture
Date: 16 Dec 1994 23:37:56 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Anyone got a WWW browser (lynx, mosaic, netscape, etc)?

I put up three of Dr. Oriani's graphs, two dealing with his anomalous
heat cell, and one is a copy of some of McKubre's results.

For those who know what I am talking about (www)  point your url to:
http://www.skypoint.com/subscribers/jlogajan

--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com  --  612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA -
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.16 / I Johnston /  Heat Pumps
     
Originally-From: ianj@castle.ed.ac.uk (I Johnston)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Heat Pumps
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 1994 10:10:22 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

Gang,

There seems to be a degree of confusion over what a heat pump is. A word
or two, then:

A heat pump is a heat engine running in reverse. It needs two
temperature reservoirs, hot and cold, but while an engine moves heat
from hot to cold and produces work (Ws = Qh - Qc) the heat pump moves
heat from cold to hot and consumes work. If the coeffificient of
performance (Qh/Ws = useful output/paid-for input) is to be greater than
1, the cold temperature must be less than the hot one.

If, for example, we want to produce steam at 300F, we need a supply of
heat at less than 300F. A drive shaft kept heated to 100F by an electric
motor would do fine. 

I don't think the Griggs machine is a heat pump, by the way, just a very
expensive hot water bottle...

See Rogers and Mayhew for more detail, if you're that desperate.

Ian
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenianj cudfnI cudlnJohnston cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.16 / K Jonsson /  Re: Roast Dynamometer
     
Originally-From: kvj@rhi.hi.is (Kristjan Valur Jonsson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Roast Dynamometer
Date: 16 Dec 1994 11:14:26 GMT
Organization: University of Iceland

In <D0uxBH.5Jo@festival.ed.ac.uk> ianj@castle.ed.ac.uk (I Johnston) writes:

>Kristjan Valur Jonsson (kvj@rhi.hi.is) wrote:

>: Excuse my ignorance, but would a heat pump with a cold side hotter
>: thatn the environment be able to pump any heat?  I have a faint recollection
>: of a lecturer telling me that the cold part had to be equal or colder
>: than the environment in order for the heat to flow into it.  Unless,
>: there is an external primary pump.

>No, it wouldn't. But the environment in this case - the sink if the
>cycle were reversed - could be the shaft and rotor. In other words it
>could pump heat from the electric motor to the water, in which case air
>temperature is irrelevant - the thing would work in a vacuum.

Ian, you were proposing the heat pump theory as explaining the eccess
heat, weren't you?  In that case, pumping heat from the motor wouldn
solve anything, because that heat has already been accounted for (in
the power measurement).  The only way such a theory would be feasible
were if it were pumping heat from an unmeasured source, such as the
room environment.

Remember that Jed told us there is a positive temparature derivative
in the shaft as we travel towards the pump.  that means that
heat is flowing out of the pump, into the shaft, unless you propose
that a rotating steel shaft can constitute some kind of continuous
heat pump.

Now, please, will you drop at least the silliest explanations fro the
anomalous heat.  Next you will be suggesting that it is due to
Jed's body temparature as he approximates the temparature of the pump
with his flat hand.

Kristjan

-- 
Kristjan Valur Jonsson               |    The individual does not qualify for
Student of mechanical engineering,   |         making decisions regarding the
University of Iceland                |                 activities of the many.
Exclaimer: Yess!                     |                         (Helmut, 1993)
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenkvj cudfnKristjan cudlnJonsson cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.16 / Bradley Sherman /  Griggs and Maxwell's Demon
     
Originally-From: bks@s27w007.pswfs.gov (Bradley K. Sherman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Griggs and Maxwell's Demon
Date: 16 Dec 1994 15:34:36 GMT
Organization: Dendrome, A Genome Database for Forest Trees



A letter to the editor in _New Scientist_, 26 Nov 94, p. 57:
    I refer to "Inside Science" no. 75, pages 2 and 3
    (22 October) and the comments on Maxwell's demon.
    A German physicist, Rudolf Hilsh, perfected a device
    which appears to make use of this principle.

    The basis is a valute chamber similar to a centrifugal
    pump housing.  Compressed air is blown in tangentially
    on the periphery and spirals inwards toward the centre,
    where it escapes along two opposed axial tubes.

    Entry to one tube is through a mall hole in a diaphragm.
    The other tube has a throttle valve on the end.

    By adjusting the flow of the inlet air, the size of the
    diaphragm orifice and the throttle valve, a temperature
    differential can be established between the two exhausts.

    The device is fully described on page 514 of _The
    Scientific American Book of Projects for the Amateur
    Scientist_ by C. L. Strong, published by Simon & Schuster.

    It is claimed that the throttled "hot" pipe can produce
    air at 177 C  and that the diaphragm "cold" pipe can
    register -21 C.

    F.G. Grisley
    Barry, Glamorgan

---
    --bks

-- 
Bradley K. Sherman   bks@s27w007.pswfs.gov   510-559-6437, FAX -6440
Institute of Forest Genetics, P.O. Box 245, Berkeley, CA 94701,  USA
<a href="http://s27w007.pswfs.gov/index.html"> Dendrome Project </a>
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenbks cudfnBradley cudlnSherman cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.16 / J WINTERFLOOD /  Re: Another o/u device, plans
     
Originally-From: jwinter@galileo.pi.infn.it (John WINTERFLOOD)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Another o/u device, plans
Date: 16 Dec 1994 13:44:50 GMT
Organization: Universita' di Pisa

William Beaty (billb@eskimo.com) wrote:
: The guys on KEELYNET BBS have made a preliminary announcement of
: an overunity device based on a magnet and piezo resonance circuit.
: This work is only a week old, so hard measurements are not complete.
: They want everyone to take a look, try to replicate, see what's
: going on.  Instructions are below, and the GIF schematic is on my Web
: page.

: - Bill Beaty

This device seems to be a simple resonant circuit consisting of a piezo
device (capacitor) wired in series with a coil wrapped around a magnet.
A secondary around the magnet picks up supposed excess energy from
somewhere which goes through a rectifier and is measured driving a load.

What is missing is details of how the power measurement was made. On
looking at some of the discussions we find a recommendation *not* to use
a 'scope as it causes "skew" (whatever that may be) and much better to
use a handheld multimeter. (Together with a heap of misunderstandings of
any theory and superstitious belief in magical effects and numbers).

So measuring the input power at 20-40Khz with a (cheap?) multimeter or
two and the output power (DC - no problem here), I am not surprised to
read that they get an O/I ratio of 12/1 or so.

One note suggests that you can't get over-unity if you drive it with a
square wave - I wonder if the particular input measuring meter works
more efficiently with a square wave!

On another subject, I find it hard to believe that ultrasonic frequencies
are propagating through a springy shaft and massive armature to
appear significantly on the low-impedance AC mains and upset several
industrial meters specifically designed for measuring the power and phase
factors of such equipment. (Refering to the Griggs device of course).
Anyone want to guess what the torsional resonant frequency is and then
use the w^2 ratio to work out the ultrasonic attenuation. Besides we
now have a torque sensor in the middle which should provide still more
vibration isolation (being more compliant that a solid shaft).

We're waiting on you Tom.


cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenjwinter cudfnJohn cudlnWINTERFLOOD cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.16 / I Johnston /  Re: Roast Dynamometer
     
Originally-From: ianj@castle.ed.ac.uk (I Johnston)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Roast Dynamometer
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 1994 13:50:53 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

Kristjan Valur Jonsson (kvj@rhi.hi.is) wrote:
: In <D0uxBH.5Jo@festival.ed.ac.uk> ianj@castle.ed.ac.uk (I Johnston) writes:

: >Kristjan Valur Jonsson (kvj@rhi.hi.is) wrote:

: >: Excuse my ignorance, but would a heat pump with a cold side hotter
: >: thatn the environment be able to pump any heat?  I have a faint recollection
: >: of a lecturer telling me that the cold part had to be equal or colder
: >: than the environment in order for the heat to flow into it.  Unless,
: >: there is an external primary pump.

: >No, it wouldn't. But the environment in this case - the sink if the
: >cycle were reversed - could be the shaft and rotor. In other words it
: >could pump heat from the electric motor to the water, in which case air
: >temperature is irrelevant - the thing would work in a vacuum.

: Ian, you were proposing the heat pump theory as explaining the eccess
: heat, weren't you?  In that case, pumping heat from the motor wouldn
: solve anything, because that heat has already been accounted for (in
: the power measurement).  The only way such a theory would be feasible
: were if it were pumping heat from an unmeasured source, such as the
: room environment.

I don't think we need the heat pump theory. But then, we have been given
no evidence of any excess heat which is not amply explained by short
term heat storage. Pumped heat from the motor could be useful if the
power in to the pump were measured by the dynanometer, but I agree - if
the electrical input is used as the power input (and the overall cop
quoted accordingly) then the ratio between mechanical and thermal energy
transferred from motor to pump is not important.

Ian
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenianj cudfnI cudlnJohnston cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.16 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Heat Pumps
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Heat Pumps
Date: Fri, 16 DEC 94 09:53:01 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

I Johnston <ianj@castle.ed.ac.uk> writes:
 
     "If, for example, we want to produce steam at 300F, we need a supply of
     heat at less than 300F. A drive shaft kept heated to 100F by an electric
     motor would do fine."
 
The Griggs device produces far more heat energy than the total amount of
electric energy delivered to the electric motor. If the motor ran stone cold
and magically transferred every joule to the Griggs device via the shaft, that
would still not suffice. The electric motor would have to get colder and
colder, at the rate of 20,000 BTU per hour, in order for this hypothesis to
work.
 
In point of fact, the electric motor runs as hot as any other 40 HP motor, it
blows hot air into the room as expected. Very, very little of the waste heat
from the motor reaches the shaft. You can hold your hand on the exposed shaft
comfortably after the motor stops, whereas the electric motor housing is
pretty hot. That is what you expect; the shaft, flanges and couplings are
whirling around in ambient air, so of course they cool off. The other problem
with this hypothesis is that the dynamometer is installed on the shaft between
the motor and the Griggs device, as I pointed out before.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenjedrothwell cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Sat Dec 17 04:37:03 EST 1994
------------------------------
1994.12.15 / Matt Kennel /  SR = Silly Relativity?
     
Originally-From: mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: SR = Silly Relativity?
Date: 15 Dec 1994 21:56:14 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

Gary Steckly (gsteckly@clark.dgim.doc.ca) wrote:
: In article <3cmn1n$a4v@agate.berkeley.edu> schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu
(Richard Schultz)
: writes:
: >From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
: >Subject: Re: Nuclear physics = collisions?/Davies questions
: >Date: 14 Dec 1994 12:05:11 GMT

: >In article <1994Dec13.233516.20355@clark.dgim.doc.ca>,
: >Gary Steckly <gsteckly@dgim.doc.ca> wrote:

: >>You will likely never convince scientists who are so firmly entrenched in 
: >>their belief (yes, they are true believers in the dogma of SR) of the 
: >>current scientific doctrine to even consider possibility of something 
: >>really radical.  

``dogma of SR''.  SR is verified every bleeping nanosecond in exceedingly
well and precisely instrumented particle accelerators around the globe.  If
*fundamental physics were not Lorentz invariant* (the real Einsteinian
meaning of SR that makes it much more than just electromagnetism
and clocks) all of it would just plain NOT WORK. 

 "And yet, it does." 

QED works more exactly than korean premeds at stanford.

Even GR has been verified on *earth* via the gravitational redshift
and astrophysically via pulsar spindown (that just won the Nobel).

: Bryan Wallace recently published a book on the net called "The Farce of 
: Physics" that is a good eye-opener, if you aren't too offended by this 
: brand of "heresy" you should get a copy (it's free).  He has tons of evidence 
: to support the c+v concept of EM propagation.

: His ideas stem from his 
: research involving radar measurements of venus way back in the '60s.

Look there can be lots of weird magnetospheric and plasma things
in planetary astrophysics.


--
-Matt Kennel  		mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu
-Institute for Nonlinear Science, University of California, San Diego
-*** AD: Archive for nonlinear dynamics papers & programs: FTP to
-***     lyapunov.ucsd.edu, username "anonymous".
cudkeys:
cuddy15 cudenmbk cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.16 / Thomas Zemanian /  Re: Roast Dynamometer
     
Originally-From: ts_zemanian@pnl.gov (Thomas S. Zemanian)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Roast Dynamometer
Date: 16 Dec 1994 23:02:44 GMT
Organization: Battelle PNL

In article <3cp9fg$433@eldborg.rhi.hi.is>, kvj@rhi.hi.is (Kristjan Valur
Jonsson) wrote:

[deletia]

> 
> Excuse my ignorance, but would a heat pump with a cold side hotter
> thatn the environment be able to pump any heat?  I have a faint recollection
> of a lecturer telling me that the cold part had to be equal or colder
> than the environment in order for the heat to flow into it.  Unless,
> there is an external primary pump.
> 

 Kristjan:

You are correct, but one needs to specify what one is pumping heat from. 
If one is pumping heat from the environment (the usual way they are
employed), then the expansion step (cool side) must be colder than the
environment.  If one is pumping built up heat from within the
motor/device/whatever, the cold side need only be cooler than the
motor/device/whatever.

Identify the cold reservoir and the problem goes away.

--Tom

--
The opinions expressed herein are mine and mine alone.  Keep your filthy
hands off 'em! 
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudents_zemanian cudfnThomas cudlnZemanian cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.16 / Thomas Zemanian /  Re: Roast Dynamometer
     
Originally-From: ts_zemanian@pnl.gov (Thomas S. Zemanian)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Roast Dynamometer
Date: 16 Dec 1994 16:40:59 GMT
Organization: Battelle PNL

In article <Zw7UWx4.jedrothwell@delphi.com>, jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:

> I Johnston <ianj@castle.ed.ac.uk> writes:
>  
> >You fool, Rothwell. The cold side only has to be cooler than the heat
> >pump output. You keep wittering on about how hot the output is - above
> >boiling. So 100F would do very nicely as the cold side.
>  
> That is incorrect. Here, don't take my word for it, go check out your
> refrigerator. Feel the temperature of the freon coils inside the refrigerator.
> They are much colder than the air in the refrigerator. If they were not, they
> could not extract heat from the air in the fridge, transport it to the
> outside, and dump it outside at the compression pump. If the Griggs device
> was a heat pump it would have to extract heat from the surrounding air.
> Therefore some component of the pump would have to be far colder than the
> air, or the heat would all come out of the pump and none would go back in.
> That is the Second Law of Thermodynamics: Heat cannot of itself go from one
> body to a hotter body. Please note that in your refrigerator, heat does not
> go "of itself;" it is carried in the moving freon fluid. At the passive heat
> transfer interface (the coils in the fridge; the cold shaft in your
> hypothetical Griggs device), heat transfer is in accordance with the second
> law.
>  

Jed is correct in that, if the device were a heat pump extracting heat from
the surrounding air, there must needs be a cool spot colder that the
environs (the cold reservoir).  Ian is correct, in that 100C (not F, mind
you) would be the maximum allowable temperature for a cold reservoir for a
heat pump boiling water.

The upshot is that the thermal mass of the entire pump, shaft, and motor
assemblage must be considered when accounting for heat stored in the device
during the "warmup" period.

Before I am called unpleasant names forsuggesting this, bear in mind that
heat conduction is much faster through steel and aluminum than through air,
and so such a storage of heat and subsequent transfer via conduction, aided
by heat pumping, would not be blatantly obvious from exterior temperature
measurements.

Tom Droege:  please note the energy input (power integrated over time)
starting from a cold startup of the device, not merely after the warmup
period.  Thanks.

--Tom

--
The opinions expressed herein are mine and mine alone.  Keep your filthy
hands off 'em! 
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudents_zemanian cudfnThomas cudlnZemanian cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.16 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Another o/u device, plans
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Another o/u device, plans
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 1994 11:26 -0500 (EST)

billb@eskimo.com (William Beaty) writes:
 
-> To test the circuit, place a precision, high wattage, low ohm
-> resistor in series with the output from the oscillator to the piezo,
-> and measure the voltage drop.It should be very small, less than
-> 0.1VAC.Use this value to determine current in the series circuit, and
-> then calculate power.
 
There are some real pitfalls in trying to make this measurement if you do not
have the proper equipment and knowhow.  Measuring with a hand held ac voltmeter
is virtually guaranteed to give erroneous results.  Most ac voltmeters are set
up to only measure sine waves, and if the wave is not a sine, then they can
give highly inaccurate results.  Many do not measure RMS at all, but measure
the average and fudge for the "expected" RMS, assuming a sine wave.  Also most
are set up for low frequencies, giving low readings for frequencies over a few
hundred hertz.  Many digital meters sample at a 1/60 of a second interval to
average out one full cycle of a sign wave.  This can also introduce errors if
the frequency is other than an exact multiple of 60 hertz.  Lastly, there is no
guarantee that the voltage and current are in phase.  Assuming a sine wave,
the final power would not be I*E but rather I*E*cos(a) where a is the angle
between the current and voltage.  The only ways to make this measurement and
be reasonably certain of the results is to either use a scope to make the
measurements (and that only works well if both current and voltage are sine
waves), or to use a real time multiplying circuit that puts out a filtered DC
voltage proportional to the real time product of the voltage and current.
 
-> Next, measure the DC voltage across your output load resistor, and
-> once again calculate power.You should be between three to four times
-> above the previously calculated input power.
 
Once again there can be measurement errors unless the output is filtered.
Meters will give incorrect results for "pulsating" DC.
 
With the figures that were given, an efficiency of 500% gives plenty of excess
power to be able to drive the original oscillator in a self sustaining mode. I
would suggest seeing if this is possible.  Another alternative is to measure
the DC power flowing into the oscillator since that is a rather easy
measurement to make.  A decent oscillator should operate at better than 50%
efficiency, so if this is really an over unity device operating at 500%, that
should still give you over 250%.  Only if this were done would one need to look
beyond measurement error for an explaination.
 
                                                                Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.16 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Nuclear physics = collisions?/Davies questions
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Nuclear physics = collisions?/Davies questions
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 1994 18:35:10 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <gsteckly.91.000AA83A@clark.dgim.doc.ca>,
Gary Steckly <gsteckly@clark.dgim.doc.ca> wrote:
>
>I believe that systems producing even more extreme levels of energy and "apparent"
>violations of the laws of thermodynamics may be only months away
from seeing the light of
>day.  We'll just have to wait and see.
>
>p.s.  I just read Bill Beaty's post on the Keelynet discovery.
 If this is true and replicable, the
>house is about to collapse.  

     I prefer Keelynet for the aliens rather than the impossible
     devices.  Aliens are much more intertaining.

                                      dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.17 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Proposed course on energy and environmental physics
     
Originally-From: barry@redwood.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Proposed course on energy and environmental physics
Date: 17 Dec 1994 09:38:09 GMT
Organization: UCLA Dept. of Math, UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research

In article <1994Dec16.114227.1933@plasma.byu.edu> jonesse@plasma.byu.edu writes:
>Dear Colleagues:
>
>Comments on the following proposed new course are solicited.
>--Steven Jones
>
>Proposal for new BYU Physics course:  
>Energy and Environmental Physics
>
>1.  Fossil fuels
>2.  Fission
>3.  Fusion
>4.  Renewable energy and conservation

You may want to drop a line to Dave Ruzic, a professor
of engineering at U of illinois, Urbana-Champaign. He
designed and taught a course like this a couple times
in the past few years. I don't have his email handy,
but he's probably in the internet phone book.




--
Barry Merriman
UCLA Dept. of Math
UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet)   barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (NeXTMail)
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.16 / Matt Kennel /  Re: Arata's Negative Excess Heat/SL update
     
Originally-From: mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Arata's Negative Excess Heat/SL update
Date: 16 Dec 1994 01:59:10 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

MARSHALL DUDLEY (mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com) wrote:
: Dieter Britz <britz@alpha.kemi.aau.dk> writes:
:  
: -> Most people assume (with some reason) that in palladium hydride, the hydroge
: -> is in the form of hydrogen ions, i.e. protons, and that these protons are
: -> highly mobile with a diffusion coefficient of about 10^-7 cm^2/s.
:  
: Assuming this is valid, what mechanism prevents the protons from entering
: INSIDE of the palladium's outer electron shell?  The proton is quite positive,
: and the palladium atom would be negative.  Coulomb forces would tend to attract
: the neutron into the palladium atom, until it reaches a point where it begins
: interacting with the nucleus which has a repealing positive charge.  I know
: this is not suppose to happen, but am unable to figure out what the restoring
: force would be.  (Of course if it DOES happen, I would think the probability of
: fusion would be highly enhanced since PD likes to have 2 protons (or deuterium
: nucli if deuterium, per atom.)

A seemingly seductive idea but wrong.

What happens is that the palladium nucleus has Z = whatever positive
charges in the middle always.

Right at the approximate boundary of the atom the field from the enclosed
postitive nucleus and negative electrons cancel out.

The more towards the center, the more you feel all of the positive charges
in the nucleus but only some of the electrons, thus an effective net
positive charge and thus repulsive electric field configuration.

:                                                                 Marshall


--
-Matt Kennel  		mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu
-Institute for Nonlinear Science, University of California, San Diego
-*** AD: Archive for nonlinear dynamics papers & programs: FTP to
-***     lyapunov.ucsd.edu, username "anonymous".
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenmbk cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.16 / Jim Carr /  Re: Nuclear physics = collisions?/Davies questions
     
Originally-From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Nuclear physics = collisions?/Davies questions
Date: 16 Dec 1994 14:51:38 -0500
Organization: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute

David R Davies (drd851@huxley.anu.edu.au) wrote:
:
: I understand that SR is in conflict with the (potentially) best data available
: for its verification - Venus probe measurements. I would like to see a
: refutation of this before I give SR full credence. 

That is nothing like the best test of SR, since those velocities are 
small with respect to c.  A much better test of v+c ideas is when v/c 
is in the 0.9999 territory, such as in Phys. Lett. 12, 260 (1964) 
where a +v term is excluded at the 1 part in 10^5 level.  You cannot 
just ignore a result like this. 

:                                                     As for the so-called
: strong fource, claiming that nuclear forces are understood would be a
: much better example of pathological science than a few misguided electro-
: chemists and their follies. 

I don't know anyone who thinks nuclear forces are fully understood in 
any fundamental sense, but they have been measured experimentally with 
great care and in great detail at a wide range of energies and these 
phenomenological forces have been used with a great deal of success in 
ab initio calculations of the binding of light nuclei.  Just as one 
could do atomic calculations with the coulomb interaction before QED, 
one can do very well with phenomenology even if you cannot calculate 
the NN interaction from QCD.  By the way, the strong force and the 
nuclear force are now taken to be names of two different things. 

Pathological science has a widely understood set of conditions 
associated with it, such as a signal that remains comparable to the 
experimental noise level even as one scales up the experiment.  If 
you are going to make such a charge, you should be able to back it 
up with specific cases.  For example, I would ask you specifically 
what is pathological about the calculations of Wiringa and collaborators. 

In article <1994Dec13.233516.20355@clark.dgim.doc.ca> 
gsteckly@dgim.doc.ca (Gary Steckly) writes:
>
>You will likely never convince scientists who are so firmly entrenched in 
>their belief (yes, they are true believers in the dogma of SR) of the 
>current scientific doctrine to even consider possibility of something 
>really radical.  

Are you talking about the same people who quickly shifted their work 
to high-Tc superconductors, are looking for lepton-number violating 
decays, a neutrino mass, or supersymmetric particles?  Are you talking 
about the people who actually did the experiment in 1964 at CERN to 
test c+v models versus SR (and who were not the first to do such direct 
experiments)?  Are you talking about the hundreds of physicists who 
dropped what they were doing to try to duplicate -- not disprove -- the 
claims of cold fusion in electrochemical cells?  If what you say is 
true, why did we study the ideas of Dicke when studying GR? 

Most scientists believe in the results of *experiment*.  There is no 
dogma of SR; what exists is a body of experimental data that explicity 
contradicts some alternative ideas and remains ambiguous about others. 

>                 They will not "look through this new telescope" until 
>houses are being heated and automobiles powered by this possible new energy 
>source.

The history of cold fusion research shows this assertion to be wrong. 
Many physicists and chemists, including electro-chemists, looked at 
this almost as soon as they heard about it, just as they did with 
high-Tc a year or so earlier.  They looked, but in only one of the 
two cases did they find a reproducible image in the telescope. 

>Maybe scientists should go on a mandatory "job rotation" every 10 years 
>or so to ensure that a modicum objectivity ;-)

Most do something of the sort.  Most people I know are not working on 
the problems they were doing 10 years ago.  Many are working on very 
different problems.  However, this has its own difficulty, since along 
with objectivity goes the need to be aware of and knowledgable about 
*all* of the data that has been published on a particular subject. 

-- 
 James A. Carr   <jac@scri.fsu.edu>     |  "Floating point arithmetic   
    http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac        |  is only an approximation"    
 Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst.  |   - Seymour Cray, and other   
 Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306    |     computer designers ... 
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenjac cudfnJim cudlnCarr cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.16 / Thomas Zemanian /  Re: Roast Dynamometer
     
Originally-From: ts_zemanian@pnl.gov (Thomas S. Zemanian)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Roast Dynamometer
Date: 16 Dec 1994 21:17:18 GMT
Organization: Battelle PNL

In article <3com6d$ddo@nntp.Stanford.EDU>, jonathan@DSG.Stanford.EDU
(Jonathan Stone) wrote:

> > Feel the temperature of the freon coils inside the refrigerator.
> >They are much colder than the air in the refrigerator. If they were not, they
> >could not extract heat from the air in the fridge, transport it to the
> >outside, and dump it outside at the compression pump.
> 
> i've lurked here on and off since just after the creation
> of the group. But this is just astounding.
> 
> Who is this peasant who doesn't appreciate the distinction between
> temperature and heat flow? 

Er, Jonathan:

Jed is correct.  The cooling provided by a refrigerator depends on
conduction of heat from the air in the unit to the freon coils.  This heat
flux is driven by the temperature difference between the air and the coils.

>Or is it just ignorance of what human  skin sensors sense?  

Yes, if you insulated the coils, they'd not feel as cold.  That would be a
counterproductive modification, however.

>Or ignoring the fact that domestic refrigerators
> generally cool (at least older models did) by condensing water vapour?

Pardon?  Are you referring to swamp coolers that cool air by *evaporating*
water?  You've got the heat flowing in the wrong direction of the process,
and I am unaware of a domestic refrigerator that uses water as the working
fluid.  (Possible exceptions: absorption cycle refrigerators which use
water as the solvent and, _e.g._ LiBr as the solute.)

> 
> Has this Jed person, for instance, never stood outside (with well-insuated
> shoes, or one's feet get cold) on a calm winter day?  And why is it, I
> wonder, that the compressor starts up after one leaves the door open
> for a while.  And, gee, why is it that carpeted floors feel so much warmer
> than uncarpeted ones.  They must be at a higher temperature, huh, Jed?
> 
> It's not just bears that're in them thar hills, the Jeds  are much more
> dangerous.  Or amusing, as the case may be.

Jonathan, I must admit to being puzzled and occasionally annoyed by what
Jed writes, but I think you missed the boat here.

--Tom

--
The opinions expressed herein are mine and mine alone.  Keep your filthy
hands off 'em! 
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudents_zemanian cudfnThomas cudlnZemanian cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.16 / Ron Wickersham /  Re: Proposed course on energy and environmental physics
     
Originally-From: rjw@crl.com (Ron Wickersham)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Proposed course on energy and environmental physics
Date: 16 Dec 1994 23:59:49 -0800
Organization: CRL Dialup Internet Access	(415) 705-6060  [Login: guest]

jonesse@plasma.byu.edu wrote:
: Dear Colleagues:

: Comments on the following proposed new course are solicited.
: --Steven Jones

: Proposal for new BYU Physics course:  
: Energy and Environmental Physics

Envoronmental Physics?   as opposed to Non-environmental Physics :-)

Why not Energy economics, Environmental Policy, and Physics?

-Ron Wickersham
rjw@crl.com

cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenrjw cudfnRon cudlnWickersham cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.16 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Griggs and Maxwell's Demon
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Griggs and Maxwell's Demon
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 1994 18:29 -0500 (EST)

bks@s27w007.pswfs.gov (Bradley K. Sherman) writes:
 
-> A letter to the editor in _New Scientist_, 26 Nov 94, p. 57:
->     I refer to "Inside Science" no. 75, pages 2 and 3
->     (22 October) and the comments on Maxwell's demon.
->     A German physicist, Rudolf Hilsh, perfected a device
->     which appears to make use of this principle.
->
->     The basis is a valute chamber similar to a centrifugal
->     pump housing.  Compressed air is blown in tangentially
->     on the periphery and spirals inwards toward the centre,
->     where it escapes along two opposed axial tubes.
->
->     Entry to one tube is through a mall hole in a diaphragm.
->     The other tube has a throttle valve on the end.
->
->     By adjusting the flow of the inlet air, the size of the
->     diaphragm orifice and the throttle valve, a temperature
->     differential can be established between the two exhausts.
->
->     The device is fully described on page 514 of _The
->     Scientific American Book of Projects for the Amateur
->     Scientist_ by C. L. Strong, published by Simon & Schuster.
->
->     It is claimed that the throttled "hot" pipe can produce
->     air at 177 C  and that the diaphragm "cold" pipe can
->     register -21 C.
 
That is hardly news.  It is a simple vortex tube, and they have been around for
many years.  I used one several years ago.  They have been commercially
available for quite some time.  I don't see it has anything to do with
Maxwell's demon. It uses the same principle that makes the air cold when you go
to high altitudes. As a molecule moves against gravity (or the centrifical
force in the vortex tube) it loses energy and thus becomes colder.  Any
molecules moving in the opposite direction gain energy and become hotter.
 
                                                          Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.17 / A Plutonium /  Re: Yilmaz & Alley, THE EXPERIMENT WHICH SHOWS GR is FAKERY.
     
Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.electromag
sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Yilmaz & Alley, THE EXPERIMENT WHICH SHOWS GR is FAKERY.
Date: 17 Dec 1994 01:08:36 GMT
Organization: Plutonium Atom Foundation

In article <3cg573$ci6@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:

>   I just want to note that my priorities have been well established.
> And there will be many contenders who will try to "get-around" others
> priorities, and in this case my priorities. 
>   I do not claim the first to disapprove of GR and embark on
> experimentation showing it to be fakery. But I claim the first to have
> two experiments which shows GR is fakery. First, (1) the huge massive
> ball with center drilled out and two holes, where helium, by GR pools
> in the cavity. Then the helium is replaced with superfluid helium and
> the superfluid helium, according to GR must remain there in the pool,
> but instead it always flows out. And it matters not whether that
> massive ball is the planet Earth or Jupiter with their centers as the
> cavity, GR just will not contain superfluid helium. And (2) experiment
> uses superfluid helium in a centrifuge. Calculate the behavior of
> superfluid helium according to GR in a centrifuge. Surprize, superfluid
> helium disobeys GR.
>    By this post, I put Messr. Yilmaz and Alley on notice that they may
> have treaded on copyrighted ground. Theft of intellectual property is a
> serious matter in the world of science, math, and engineering. And
> although it appears from first glance that the work of Yilmaz and Alley
> are different and/or unrelated in design or theoretical underpinning.
> That is probably not the case. And because, others can easily set up
> experiments because they have a laboratory or the facilities at hand,
> that should not be a undue bias towards me who does not have a
> laboratory and can not obtain superfluid helium.
>    I have records of earliest public broadcasting of the theory of why
> GR is fakery. And, even though Messr. Yilmaz and Alley perhaps do not
> use superfluid helium. When it is analyzed closely, my theory is that
> GR is the statistics of neutrinos. And when analyzed closely, that is
> where Yilmaz and Alley are headed for in their theoretical
> underpinnings. And, although they may never come out and say that their
> work has anything to do with neutrinos or superfluid helium, I will
> monitor their publications and all publications which assert that GR is
> fakery.
>    In science it is not uncommon to do unfair coups.
>    The Plutonium Atom Foundation (PAF) stands vigorously behind any of
> its copyrights, and patents, and will contest even the slightest degree
> of theft or borrowing of intellectual property where due credit is not
> given. Let me give another example in biology. PAF holds the copyrights
> that the theory of biological evolution (Darwin on down to the Modern
> Synthesis) is science fakery because the Bell Inequality with the
> Aspect Experimental results proves evolution is fakery. Bell Inequality
> and the ATOM TOTALITY theory replaces evolution with superdeterminism.
> Now, there are many persons, when they understand these things will
> like to pry the theory away from PAF. They will do some sneaky tactic,
> and since they may have quick and easy access to a magazine like
> Nature, they will try to steal the theory away from PAF. Let me state
> again, PAF will defend strongly all of its intellectual property
> copyrighted and patented.
>    What I am saying is that Messr. Yilmaz & Alley, should they not
> refer, or cite to my work or priorities when they should have, then a
> lawsuit will be quick on the minds of the Plutonium Atom Foundation.

  Unlike other disapprovals of GR. I give the correct theory of what
gravity is, how it relates to QM. Any news publication reporting GR is
wrong which even hints of my work without citing me, will be contested
in court of law. The Plutonium Atom Foundation stands 100% behind all
of its intellectual property rights.
  There will be many experiments which look dissimilar. But there is
only one correct theory. Gravity is neutrino statistics. EM is photon
statistics. Both have the same math form (Coulomb's Law), only one is
10^40 stronger. 1 Photon decomposes to 2 neutrinos.
  
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.17 / A Plutonium /  Re: Engineering device from GR is fakery; gravity is neutrino
     
Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.electromag
Subject: Re: Engineering device from GR is fakery; gravity is neutrino
Date: 17 Dec 1994 01:22:05 GMT
Organization: Plutonium Atom Foundation

In article <cas.336.000C04B0@ops1.bwi.wec.com>
cas@ops1.bwi.wec.com (Bob Casanova) writes:

> Er, where did you get the idea that friction depends on gravity?

There is no math relation between friction and gravity, and so friction
is not dependent on gravity.

Friction ultimately is QM macroscopically. However, microscopically
there is gravitational attraction of atoms and subatomic particles,
10^40 weaker than EM.

So, if GR were a correct law then superfluidity would not be 0
friction, but, at minimum the gravitational attraction of helium atoms
for one another. Thus, in a mass of superfluid helium, their rolling
resistance is not 0 but a positive number (however small).

Again, I assert that if GR were a universal law no fluid is superfluid.
All measurements of superfluid helium have shown 0 resistance to flow.
Hence, GR is not universal law. And this is dramatically seen in
Jupiter which has metallic hydrogen but no superfluid helium. If GR
were a law and not a fakery, then Jupiter would have plenty of
superfluid helium on the gas giant. Instead, Jupiter has no superfluid
helium.
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.16 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Heat pumps
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Heat pumps
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 1994 11:41 -0500 (EST)

-> No. If the output is to be coolet than the input you need a
-> refrigerator. Perhaps it is possible with the same kit, but you'll need to
-> reverse the direction of flow of the fluid.

A refrigerator is a heat pump.  It pumps heat from the interior of the
refrigerator to the outside.  It all depends on which side you enclose and
insulate.  The mechanism is identical.

-> : If energy is being pulled out of this 100F part, then energy must be
-> : flowing into it from somewhere.
->
-> The 100F part is attached to a big hot electric motor. Lots of heat
-> available there.

That heat does not come for nowhere.  It must be supplied by the motor, which
gets it's energy from the power source.  Since this energy is being measureed
by a power meter, it is accounted for, and if it gets pumped into the Griggs
device it is of no more consequence than if it simply flowed into the pump due
to temperature differences.  It would bypass the dynometer, but it would still
be accounted for by the power meter. Therefore that alone cannot account for
over unity claims.

                                                                Marshall
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.16 /  jonesse@plasma /  Proposed course on energy and environmental physics
     
Originally-From: jonesse@plasma.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Proposed course on energy and environmental physics
Date: 16 Dec 94 11:42:27 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

Dear Colleagues:

Comments on the following proposed new course are solicited.
--Steven Jones

Proposal for new BYU Physics course:  
Energy and Environmental Physics

1.  Fossil fuels
*Society now depends on abundant, cheap fuels which coal, natural
gas and oil have been providing for 100 years
*Greenhouse effect, acid rain, etc. -- how big are the
environmental problems?  What can be/is being done?
*Resources and politics:  how long will the cheap fuels hold out?
*Does cost of oil stay below arising energy alternatives,
inhibiting alternate source developments?

2.  Fission
*How did fission get such a bad name? -- History of development
from nuclear bombs to TMI to Chernobyl to present (even TVA has
abandoned new fission plants)
*Second generation reactors:  inherently safe (e.g. from Sweden,
borated water coolant concept, relying on gravity vs. pumps)
*But will US and Europe ever build second-generation reactors?
*What to do with radioactive wastes:  Yucca Mtn. storage OR
electrolytic refining coupled with reactor-recycling of 90% of
wastes to greatly reduce wastes (remainder could be stored on
site)

3.  Fusion
*Is it as environmentally benign as advertised?
*Large tokamak path:  history and prospects.  What if ITER fails? 
Will utilities accept huge tokamaks anyway?
*Alternate fusion paths:  inertial confinement fusion.
But there are other approaches (funded at only about $1.5M/yr
TOTAL in U.S.--why?):  z-pinch progress; inertial electrostatic
concepts; beam-beam fusion ideas; muon-catalyzed fusion (e.g.,
will recent predictions regarding mu-c-f in tepid plasmas really
reduce the muon-alpha sticking bottleneck?); Penning-trap fusion
experiment (Los Alamos), etc.
*The "cold fusion" story (from an insider)
*Why is funding for fusion research so low and decreasing?
Cheap, abundant oil?  Budget constraints?  Lack of trust in
nuclear energy due to fission/bomb problems and slow progress in
fusion?

4.  Renewable energy and conservation
*Direct solar; solar/hydrogen generation; photovoltaics:  how low
can the cost get?
*Geothermal
*Wind and water
*Ocean thermal energy conversion; waves and tides
*Biomass:  vegetable oils mixed with diesel; super-growing plants
(e.g., for western US deserts); use of cellulose wastes
*Orbiting power stations
*Conservation
*What problems persist with these?
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenjonesse cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.16 / Robert Pettus /  Re: Roast Dynamometer
     
Originally-From: rap@iac.net (Robert Pettus)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Roast Dynamometer
Date: 16 Dec 1994 22:25:40 -0500
Organization: Internet Access Cincinnati 513-887-8877

OK, I have been reading about the various refrigerators.  I have some 
questions.

1)  I remember seeing a story about a refrigerator that was made by Crosley
here in cincinnati, for people with no electric power.  In the morning, you
would heat a chamber connected to a U-shaped tube in a pot of boiling water
for 45 minutes 
Then, you put the previously heated end INTO an insulted chamber... ( this
isn't making sense as I'm writing... but Im using dim memories ) and it would
COOL this chamber for better than a day.... even made Ice....   but it didn't
give details about construction.... Don't have to explain it here, just
tell me where I can read about it.

2).   I'd like to see how the Gorre refrig... worked.  Any references I can
get from the library?

(ps... suppose you didn't need Ice, could you have just used the cold air 
output as air conditioning? )
Robert
rap@iac.net

cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenrap cudfnRobert cudlnPettus cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.17 / John Logajan /  Re: Dr. Oriani's Lecture
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@mirage.skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Dr. Oriani's Lecture
Date: 17 Dec 1994 03:16:01 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

I wrote:
: Dr. Oriani presented the following measurements of one of his positive
: anomalous heat experiments:  Excess Eout-Ein = 5.2 MeV/Pd atom.  Since that
: ain't chemistry, and since Dr. Oriani says he has confidence in his own
: results, the conclusion is inescapable that Dr. Oriani believes in the
: phenomena.

Jed Rothwell pointed out to me that 5.2 Mev/Pd atom is likely a mistake.

It is, in fact, what Oriani had printed on one of the 30 slides he showed
us at his seminar.  However, I agree with Jed that it is a mistake.
Fortunately the slide gives enough information to come up with the likely
correct number.

The slide says there was a 200kJ excess for the entire run (out of 2474 kJ
input, by the way.)  Oriani then equates this to 50.4MJ/mole Pd -- which
therefore implies 1/252 mole of Pd or 420 mg Pd in the actual experiment.
Given 200kJ and 1/252 mole of Pd we get 523 eV/Pd atom.

So it looks like Oriani made a decimal place error when he was printing
up the slide.  But the conclusion I posted above still stands, 523 eV/Pd
atom in his experimental excess heat is well beyond known chemistry
(not counting the fact that *no* significant chemistry is even taking
place.)

As you will recall, Oriani claims a 0.3% measurement accuracy, therefore
taken against the input power is +or- 8kJ -- out of 200kJ excess -- if
I applied the numbers correctly.



--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com  --  612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA -
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.17 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Dr. Oriani's Lecture
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Dr. Oriani's Lecture
Date: Sat, 17 DEC 94 13:28:41 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

John Logajan <jlogajan@mirage.skypoint.com> writes:
 
>So it looks like Oriani made a decimal place error when he was printing
>up the slide.  But the conclusion I posted above still stands, 523 eV/Pd
 
Yup, it looks like Oriani got a little mixed up there . . . just a typo I
guess. It makes me feel better knowing that even ultra careful, ultra
precise people like Oriani and Fritz Will make mistakes occassionally. As
the Japanese say, "even monkeys fall out of trees."
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenjedrothwell cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.17 / Gary Steckly /  Re: Georgia Trip
     
Originally-From: gsteckly@dgim.doc.ca (Gary Steckly)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Georgia Trip
Date: Sat, 17 Dec 94 15:57:31 GMT
Organization: Communications Canada

Tom Droege (Droege@fnal.fnal.gov) wrote:

: Looks like my job has not been eliminated, but my group has.  We 
: had this wonderful group called the "Particle Instrumentation 
: Group"  which we all called PIG.  Well, PIG has been SPAMed.  
: Over the years we had collected a lot of pigs in the group.  Plaster
: pigs, concrete pigs, paper mache pigs, pig posters, etc..  Now they
: are all on their backs with "dead" indications.  People at Fermilab
: who are pretty straight (meaning lack of a sense of humor) were 
: really down on PIG and the fact that we all had a group unity 
: and liked being called PIGs.  

: Tom Droege

Good to hear you still have a job Tom.  You might want to hang on to one of 
those pigs though.  Should the results of your tests on the Griggs device 
confirm what Jed has been saying all along, I would think that a pair 
of wings glued to a Fermilab pig would make a nice little trophy to 
present to Jed and the Griggs boys as a gesture of good will :-)

(I know...the pig hasn't flown "officially" in everyone's opinion, but 
for those of us who trust Jed's assessment but we are hopeful)

regards

Gary

cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudengsteckly cudfnGary cudlnSteckly cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.17 / mark fuller /  Re: Arata's Negative Excess Heat/SL update
     
Originally-From: a0014246@unicorn.it.wsu.edu (mark fuller)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Arata's Negative Excess Heat/SL update
Date: Sat, 17 Dec 1994 02:24:15 GMT
Organization: Washington State University

jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:
: It's all over for hot fusion. As we say in the U.S.: the fat lady
: sang, the game's over, we won, they lost.
:  
: - Jed

Sorry to disagree, Jed,
But the fat lady hasn't sung till the turbines are a-spinnin and
at least some of those fdivs on my pentium space heater are 
powered by CF. 

Mark Fuller
TANSTAAFL  
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudena0014246 cudfnmark cudlnfuller cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.17 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Another theory for Griggs device
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Another theory for Griggs device
Date: Sat, 17 Dec 1994 12:14 -0500 (EST)

In a previous post I hinted at another possibility of what may be happening in
the Griggs device when I mentioned "non-linearities in the steam table" as one
of several things that should be looked at.  Since I did not get any bites on
that, let me outline a discussion I had with a scientist from Oak Ridge
National Labs about the Griggs device several months ago.  This dicsussion is
off the record, and most likely will not be collaborated, just as some of the
results of their CF cell experiments are.

I had an occasion to meet with this person and begun describing the Griggs
device to him.  After telling him how it worked I ended it with, "and it is
reported to produce more steam or hot water than then the input power should
produce".  His response was "that's not surprising".  I was almost floored.

He then told me that is is a fairly well known fact among some researchers that
the published steam tables are wrong.  The original team which made up the
steam tables found that toward the extremes (high pressure high temperature and
low pressure and temperature) there are unexplained non-linearities.  Since
these non-linearities could not be explained, and were shown to not obey the
conservation of energy, they fudged the tables to get rid of the
non-linearities.  They had assumed that there must be an error in their
measurements or equipment since it did not jive with theory.  Since then others
have found the same thing, but none of them will stick their neck out to
declare that steam tables which have been in use for decades are wrong,
especially since there seems to be no theory to explain these non-linearities.
Anyway, he said that if you go through a cycle of vaporization at one pressure
and condensation at a higher pressure and temperature, when you get back to the
original temperature and pressure the "corrected" steam table does not close.
That is to say accoring to the measurements there is steam left over which
should not be there, and by conservation of energy cannot be there. Anyway, he
said that it seems that such a device such as Griggs would enhance this
non-linearity effect and therefore produce more energy than is supplied. He
does not have the foggiest idea where the excess energy could come from, but
simply that given what he knows about the non-linearities in the (corrected)
steam tables, that seems like a good place to start looking.  I find the idea
intriguing, but as with so many other theories, it leaves one with as many
questions as it gives answers.

                                                                Marshall
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Sun Dec 18 04:37:03 EST 1994
------------------------------
1994.12.17 / Robert Heeter /  Re: Proposed course on energy and environmental physics
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Proposed course on energy and environmental physics
Date: Sat, 17 Dec 1994 23:41:04 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

In article <1994Dec16.114227.1933@plasma.byu.edu> ,
jonesse@plasma.byu.edu writes:
> Dear Colleagues:
> 
> Comments on the following proposed new course are solicited.
> --Steven Jones
> 
> Proposal for new BYU Physics course:  
> Energy and Environmental Physics

I took a class here at Princeton last year called
"Introduction to Energy and Environmental Problems"
The course was crosslisted under the engineering and
public policy programs, but did have significant physics
content.  The professor, Robert Socolow (socolow@pucc.princeton.edu)
used to be a nuclear physicist, I believe.  You should contact
him.  If he's too busy, I'd be happy to help too.  I have all the
articles and books from the class, plus a few extra references.
I'll trade you my course materials for some presentation info 
on muon-catalyzed fusion so I can give a talk on that in the 
grad student seminar here in the plasma physics program! ;)

> 1.  Fossil fuels
> *Society now depends on abundant, cheap fuels which coal, natural
> gas and oil have been providing for 100 years
> *Greenhouse effect, acid rain, etc. -- how big are the
> environmental problems?  What can be/is being done?
> *Resources and politics:  how long will the cheap fuels hold out?
> *Does cost of oil stay below arising energy alternatives,
> inhibiting alternate source developments?

Some physics-relevant topics include how we detect and extract
these things.

Also important is the fact that international development
patterns correspond to where the growth in energy demand will be.
China is building coal plants, not fission/fusion/renewables plants...
 
> 2.  Fission
> *How did fission get such a bad name? -- History of development
> from nuclear bombs to TMI to Chernobyl to present (even TVA has
> abandoned new fission plants)

Compare fission development and public attitudes in various
countries (e.g., France, Japan as pro-nuclear, vs. U.S...)

> *Second generation reactors:  inherently safe (e.g. from Sweden,
> borated water coolant concept, relying on gravity vs. pumps)
> *But will US and Europe ever build second-generation reactors?
> *What to do with radioactive wastes:  Yucca Mtn. storage OR
> electrolytic refining coupled with reactor-recycling of 90% of
> wastes to greatly reduce wastes (remainder could be stored on
> site)
 
> 3.  Fusion
> *Is it as environmentally benign as advertised?
> *Large tokamak path:  history and prospects.  What if ITER fails? 
> Will utilities accept huge tokamaks anyway?

Advanced tokamak path could lead to smaller machines too.

> *Alternate fusion paths:  inertial confinement fusion.
> But there are other approaches (funded at only about $1.5M/yr
> TOTAL in U.S.--why?):  z-pinch progress; inertial electrostatic
> concepts; beam-beam fusion ideas; muon-catalyzed fusion (e.g.,
> will recent predictions regarding mu-c-f in tepid plasmas really
> reduce the muon-alpha sticking bottleneck?); Penning-trap fusion
> experiment (Los Alamos), etc.

I was under the impression that non-tokamak alternatives got
around $20 million/year in the U.S.  But you just went to the
alternatives conference (any news?), so I'll be humble and just
ask where the $1.5 million number comes from.

> *The "cold fusion" story (from an insider)
> *Why is funding for fusion research so low and decreasing?
> Cheap, abundant oil?  Budget constraints?  Lack of trust in
> nuclear energy due to fission/bomb problems and slow progress in
> fusion?

Lack of public concern about energy supply?; lack of discretionary
funding in Congress?  Lack of strong advocacy?  little guy stuck
between a rock and a hard place?  (neither fission nor renewables 
people back fusion much?)

> 4.  Renewable energy and conservation
> *Direct solar; solar/hydrogen generation; photovoltaics:  how low
> can the cost get?

Land-use requirments for renewable energy?

> *Geothermal
> *Wind and water
> *Ocean thermal energy conversion; waves and tides
> *Biomass:  vegetable oils mixed with diesel; super-growing plants
> (e.g., for western US deserts); use of cellulose wastes
> *Orbiting power stations
> *Conservation
> *What problems persist with these?

Are nonfossil energy sources better, or does the grass just
look "greener" on the other side of the fence?  ;)

There are other environmental-science topics that don't have
to do with energy supply which you might want to include.  
Energy and chemical flows in the environment, sources-sinks-and
-cycles of different things, industrial ecology theory,
physical modelling of climate, ozone, smog, etc.

I should add that I also took an energy-sources class at
Stanford in spring 1993 and have most of the course materials
from that too.  Jane Woodward in the Petroleum Engineering
dept. taught that class; it was a very low-level techie look
at energy.  One could get a lot more into the physics of
different energy-supply technologies (physics of fission and
fusion reactors, of photovoltaic conversion, physics of 
wind-electric generators, etc.)

Just a few ideas off the top of my head...  I'm sure there
are others who teach these classes who could help more.


***************************
Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University
As always, I represent only myself, and not PPPL
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.17 / Robert Heeter /  Take a deep breath, Matt...
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Take a deep breath, Matt...
Date: Sat, 17 Dec 1994 23:47:09 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

In article <3cqe1u$r38@network.ucsd.edu> Matt Kennel, mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu
writes:
> ``dogma of SR''.  SR is verified every bleeping nanosecond in
exceedingly
> well and precisely instrumented particle accelerators around the globe.
 If
> *fundamental physics were not Lorentz invariant* (the real Einsteinian
> meaning of SR that makes it much more than just electromagnetism
> and clocks) all of it would just plain NOT WORK. 

I agree completely.
 
> QED works more exactly than korean premeds at stanford.

This, on the other hand, is exceedingly prejudiced and out of line.
What do you have against Korean premed students at Stanford?
I went there; I know some.  They're no worse than many physicists
I know, and in any case, no one deserves that sort of stereotypical
comment...  :)

Matt, I expected better of you.

***************************
Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University
As always, I represent only myself, and not PPPL
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.18 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Re: Heat pumps
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Heat pumps
Date: Sun, 18 Dec 1994 11:45 -0500 (EST)

gmallory@aol.com (GMallory) writes:
 
-> I beg to differ!  The heat is pumped from the cold end.  The heat output
-> of a home heat pump working against a 30 degree difference can be as high
-> as 3 times as many BTUs as would be generated by the simple electrical
-> conversion to heat.  A working heat pump does not get all its heat from
-> the power line, rather it moves heat from one temperature to another and
-> the cost of upgrading the temperature of the heat is what comes from the
-> power meter.
 
Go back and read what I wrote.  You are saying you beg to differ, then agreeing
with me!   I never said a typical heat pump gets all it's heat from the power
line. I said it must get it's heat from somewhere, normally from the air.
However, by the second law of thermodynamics if you extract heat from a body it
must drop in temperature, and the heat must flow from a "hotter" body.  Since
the shaft is hotter than the environment, it cannot be coming from the air.
That only leaves two possibilities, either directly from the heat from the hot
motor, or from friction from the motion supplied by the motor.  In both of
those cases the energy is supplied totally by the wall socket.  If you don't
understand this, go out to your heat pump and see what temperature the coils
are running at on the outside when heating.  They will typically be abou 40
degrees colder than the air outside.  That is so they can extract energy from
the outside air.  Then supply a heat source so that the coils are at 100
degrees F.  Measure the energy you put into the system as the heat source and
as the power the heat pump takes.  Then you will find that all the energy you
put into the system is appearing as heat in the house.  That is the comparison
you need to make with the Griggs device.
 
-> This is basic Physics and Engineering, not a miracle.  I heat my house
-> with one! -> and the BTSs dont all come from my power plug.
-> The outside air gets colder and the inside air gets warmer. at 1/3 the
-> cost of resistance heating.  Here in LA it is cheaper than gas for a
-> residential user.
->
-> HA! I am getting a 200% excess "power" gain!  Heat is NOT power!  Heat
-> moved betwen two different temperatures is power and is reversible.  Basic
-> Carnot cycle.  Heat Pumps are just heat engines run backwards.
 
You are fighting with a paper tiger here.  Of couse you are right. No one here
disagrees with this here at all.
 
                                                         Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.18 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Another theory for Griggs device
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Another theory for Griggs device
Date: Sun, 18 DEC 94 12:47:23 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY) writes:
 
     "[An Oak Ridge scientist] . . . told me that is is a fairly well known
     fact among some researchers that the published steam tables are wrong.
     The original team which made up the steam tables found that toward the
     extremes (high pressure high temperature and low pressure and
     temperature) there are unexplained non-linearities."
 
We do not depend on the steam tables. We condense the steam in a 50 gallon
steel drum full of water and measure the increased enthalpy of the water.
This result agrees closely with the steam table computations. Surely this
Oak Ridge fellow does agree that one BTU equals one pound of water raised
by one degree F. That is not exact of course; at extreme temperatures close
to boiling it does not work. That is why we kept the water temperature far
below extremes. It was between room temperature and 120 deg F (boiling is
212 deg F).
 
In any case, the steam generated by the Griggs device is not at the extremes.
It is normal for the industrial applications it is used for, at carpet
mills and places like that. If the steam tables were 20% to 60% incorrect for
these run-of-the-mill applications (literally "run-of-the-mill") then every
day hundreds of carpet factories, dairies, beer breweries and bakeries would
explode, all over the world. That does not happen. In the 1830's, before
standards were established, tables were published, and formal inspections
began, that *did happen*. Organizations like the U.S. Bureau of Standards and
the IEEE were established over the last 150 years to prevent accidents.
 
This Oak Ridge scientist should step out of his lab and visit the real world.
Go to a factory, a steel mill, a cannery, or an automobile assembly plant and
you will see that technology really does work. There are no 60% errors in the
tables under ordinary working conditions. This Oak Ridge person sounds like
another ivory tower scientist like Dick Blue, who thinks it is impossible to
measure a steel arm to within a centimeter.
 
By the way, Jim mentioned to me the other day the GG's installed at the carpet
mills run 24 hours a day almost all year long. (I talked to some of his other
customers who run on demand during the day.) That certainly defeats the
"stored energy" theory.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenjedrothwell cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.16 /  prasad /  GG-FAQ, was Re: Roast Dynamometer
     
Originally-From: c1prasad@watson.ibm.com (prasad)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: GG-FAQ, was Re: Roast Dynamometer
Date: 16 Dec 1994 13:28:06 GMT
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

In article <3cp9ut$4be@eldborg.rhi.hi.is>, kvj@rhi.hi.is (Kristjan Valur Jonsson) writes:
|> 
|> Now, I would like to iterate, that I have followed this tread closely
|> (out of interest) for three or four months.  My impression is that
|> the same questions and doubts keep popping up again and again
|> even though Jed regularly posts detailed answers for them.  It appars
|> that posters 'forget' of may have missed out parts of the discussion.
|> 
|> I therefore encourage the creation of a Griggs FAQ, especially aimed
|> at those participating in this discussion.
|> 

Second that on both counts.  Jed and others have posted reports on the
Griggs measurements, but it's time to collect the questions and answers
since they are literally getting frequent!

One such is definitely the issue of heat pumps requiring cold side not
hotter than the environment.  Which could ultimately raise the issue,
I wonder, whether 2.7 K could be used as the *real* cold side...

------
[ off to the patent office in big hurry ]
;)
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenc1prasad cudlnprasad cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.17 / Gary Steckly /  Re: Another o/u device, plans
     
Originally-From: gsteckly@dgim.doc.ca (Gary Steckly)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Another o/u device, plans
Date: Sat, 17 Dec 94 17:21:12 GMT
Organization: Communications Canada

MARSHALL DUDLEY (mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com) wrote:
: billb@eskimo.com (William Beaty) writes:
:  
: -> To test the circuit, place a precision, high wattage, low ohm
: -> resistor in series with the output from the oscillator to the piezo,
: -> and measure the voltage drop.It should be very small, less than
: -> 0.1VAC.Use this value to determine current in the series circuit, and
: -> then calculate power.
:  
: There are some real pitfalls in trying to make this measurement if you do not
: have the proper equipment and knowhow.  Measuring with a hand held ac voltmeter
: is virtually guaranteed to give erroneous results.  Most ac voltmeters are set
: up to only measure sine waves, and if the wave is not a sine, then they can
: give highly inaccurate results.  Many do not measure RMS at all, but measure
: the average and fudge for the "expected" RMS, assuming a sine wave.  Also most
: are set up for low frequencies, giving low readings for frequencies over a few
: hundred hertz.  Many digital meters sample at a 1/60 of a second interval to
: average out one full cycle of a sign wave.  This can also introduce errors if
: the frequency is other than an exact multiple of 60 hertz.  Lastly, there is no
: guarantee that the voltage and current are in phase.  Assuming a sine wave,
: the final power would not be I*E but rather I*E*cos(a) where a is the angle
: between the current and voltage.  The only ways to make this measurement and
: be reasonably certain of the results is to either use a scope to make the
: measurements (and that only works well if both current and voltage are sine
: waves), or to use a real time multiplying circuit that puts out a filtered DC
: voltage proportional to the real time product of the voltage and current.

I agree with what Marshall is saying and until this thing is powering 
itself I would suspect the AC measurement techniques are at fault. 

One rather unsettling little note in Bill's last update on his web home 
page though.  It seems that Norm Wootan's device began to oscillate on 
it's own in the middle of the night after he had shut down all his 
equipment.  He claims the high pitched squeal woke him up and he had to 
dissassemble the circuit to get it to stop (?!).  Before he 
dissassembled the circuit his counter switched on his counter and 
measured a 44kHz signal off the thing. To follow this story, check Bill's 
updates on his WWW home page at http://www.eskimo.com/~billb

????

Gary 

cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudengsteckly cudfnGary cudlnSteckly cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.17 / Greg Kuperberg /  Re: Roast Dynamometer
     
Originally-From: gk00@quads.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Roast Dynamometer
Date: Sat, 17 Dec 1994 17:35:22 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

In article <3ctlnk$3lb@little-miami.iac.net> rap@iac.net (Robert Pettus) writes:
>Then, you put the previously heated end INTO an insulted chamber...

As in "Take this, you worthless excuse for a f***ing chamber!"
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudengk00 cudfnGreg cudlnKuperberg cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.17 / Michael Mazur /  Re: Engineering device from GR is fakery; gravity is neutrino
     
Originally-From: mjmazur@acs.ucalgary.ca (Michael James Mazur)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Engineering device from GR is fakery; gravity is neutrino
Date: Sat, 17 Dec 1994 19:18:58 GMT
Organization: The University of Calgary


Archimedes Plutonium <Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>In article <cas.336.000C04B0@ops1.bwi.wec.com>
>cas@ops1.bwi.wec.com (Bob Casanova) writes:
>

>Again, I assert that if GR were a universal law no fluid is superfluid.
>All measurements of superfluid helium have shown 0 resistance to flow.

But isn't that 0 resistance within our limits of measurement?
Isn't a superfluid analogous to a superconductor which does have
some small amount of resistance?

>Hence, GR is not universal law. And this is dramatically seen in
>Jupiter which has metallic hydrogen but no superfluid helium. If GR
>were a law and not a fakery, then Jupiter would have plenty of
>superfluid helium on the gas giant. Instead, Jupiter has no superfluid
>helium.

How do we know that Jupiter has no superfluid helium? We (Wendy
and myself) thought that information about the composition of
Jupiter comes from spectral analysis. Are you implying that
superfluid helium have some unique spectral feature over
non-superfluid helium?

-mike
-wendy

-- 

  Mike Mazur                
  mjmazur@acs1.ucalgary.ca  

cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenmjmazur cudfnMichael cudlnMazur cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.17 /  ivie@cc.usu.ed /  Re: Another o/u device, plans
     
Originally-From: ivie@cc.usu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Another o/u device, plans
Date: 17 Dec 94 16:36:39 MDT
Organization: Utah State University

In article <D0v42r.BHC@eskimo.com>, billb@eskimo.com (William Beaty) writes:
> blah, blah, resonance, blah, blah, virtual rotation, etc.

So, you're telling me that if I magnetize a tuning fork and use a little
kicker to start it vibrating, then hold coils next to the vibrating ends
of the tuning fork, I'll get more energy out than I put in?
-- 
----------------+------------------------------------------------------
Roger Ivie      | Don't think of it as a 'new' computer, think of it as
ivie@cc.usu.edu |     'obsolete-ready'
cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenivie cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.17 / Jonathan Stone /  cmsg cancel <3cvnq5$nc2@nntp.Stanford.EDU>
     
Originally-From: jonathan@DSG.Stanford.EDU (Jonathan Stone)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cmsg cancel <3cvnq5$nc2@nntp.Stanford.EDU>
Date: 17 Dec 1994 23:45:46 GMT
Organization: Stanford University

cudkeys:
cuddy17 cudenjonathan cudfnJonathan cudlnStone cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.18 / mitchell swartz /  Roast Dynamometer (& temp. sensation)
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Roast Dynamometer (& temp. sensation)
Subject: Re: Roast Dynamometer
Date: Sun, 18 Dec 1994 00:37:15 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <3cvnq5$nc2@nntp.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Re: Roast Dynamometer
(Jonathan Stone (jonathan@DSG.Stanford.EDU) writes:

=JS     "I guess I owe Jed, and the net, an apology.
=JS  I wasn't intending to comment either way on Jed's claim about
=JS  the Griggs device not being a heat pump.  Merely to lampoon
=JS  his apparent inability to clearly and consistently make the distinction
=JS  between heat and temperature.
=JS   (deleted)   Hence my reference
=JS  vto standing outside on cold days, which can feel quite comfortable
=JS  if the air is *very* still (and dry) and one is insulated from the
=JS  ground.  Or to the apparent difference in temperature of insulated
=JS vand uninsulated parts a structure in thermal equilibrium, when
=JS  sensed by human hands. That's because hands sense heatflow, not
=JS  temperature."
=JS  "What I was really lampooning was this: one cannot tell the
=JS  temperature of the air [deleted]
=JS  Clearly I can't do any better,  so I'll withdraw the statement."

   Please support this apparently additional incorrect statement
that "hands sense heatflow, not temperature" since it is at odds
with medical physiology.

    Temperature sensation is characterized by a
dual system involving warmth and cool-detecting receptors
with two separate afferent fibers.

    Sensitivity over the body is
not uniform and the cold sensors are more common (4:1 to 10:1).
Try your forehead for maximum sensitivity to cold, but it is relatively
insensitive to warmth.  Also certain areas of the body are devoid of all
warmth receptors.

    Unlike pain sensation, temperature sensation is characterized by
adaptation (over some temperatures).   Subjective magnitude 
estimations can be described by power functions (1.6 in the exponent
for warmth, circa 1 for cold).   Furthermore there is some
persistence to cold, an eventual thermal indifference to cold just below
45C, and a paradoxical "cold" sensation can be induced above
45C under some conditions.   (for more information see, for 
example, V.Mountcastle, Medical Physiology, Vol II)

   Most important,  the temperature receptors do NOT measure
heat flow, and do measure absolute skin temperature.  
Careful experiments have indicated that they do not
measure the transcutaneous temperature gradient.

   Hope that corrects the matter slightly.
   Best wishes.
                 Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com)

cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.18 / Dieter Britz /  Re: Another o/u device, plans
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <britz@alpha.kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Another o/u device, plans
Date: Sun, 18 Dec 1994 12:35:04 +0100
Organization: DAIMI, Computer Science Dept. at Aarhus University

On 17 Dec 1994 ivie@cc.usu.edu wrote:

> In article <D0v42r.BHC@eskimo.com>, billb@eskimo.com (William Beaty) writes:
> > blah, blah, resonance, blah, blah, virtual rotation, etc.
> 
> So, you're telling me that if I magnetize a tuning fork and use a little
> kicker to start it vibrating, then hold coils next to the vibrating ends
> of the tuning fork, I'll get more energy out than I put in?
> -- 

No, that's not enough. You must also zap between the coils; *then* you get
excess free-lunch.

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

cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenbritz cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.18 /  GMallory /  Re: Heat pumps
     
Originally-From: gmallory@aol.com (GMallory)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Heat pumps
Date: 18 Dec 1994 08:55:22 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

In article <WAF2PCB726340406@brbbs.brbbs.com>, mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com
(MARSHALL DUDLEY) writes:

<That heat does not come for nowhere.  It must be supplied by the motor,
which
<gets it's energy from the power source.  Since this energy is being
measureed
<by a power meter, it is accounted for, and if it gets pumped into the
Griggs
<device it is of no more consequence than if it simply flowed into the
pump due
<to temperature differences.  It would bypass the dynometer, but it would
still
<be accounted for by the power meter. Therefore that alone cannot account
for
<over unity claims.

I beg to differ!  The heat is pumped from the cold end.  The heat output
of a
home heat pump working against a 30 degree difference can be as high as 3
times as many BTUs as would be generated by the simple electrical
conversion
to heat.  A working heat pump does not get all its heat from the power
line, rather
it moves heat from one temperature to another and the cost of upgrading
the
temperature of the heat is what comes from the power meter.

This is basic Physics and Engineering, not a miracle.  I heat my house
with one!
and the BTSs dont all come from my power plug.
The outside air gets colder and the inside air gets warmer. at 1/3 the
cost of
resistance heating.  Here in LA it is cheaper than gas for a residential
user.

HA! I am getting a 200% excess "power" gain!  Heat is NOT power!  Heat
moved betwen two different temperatures is power and is reversible.  Basic

Carnot cycle.  Heat Pumps are just heat engines run backwards.
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudengmallory cudlnGMallory cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.18 /  rvanspaa@ozema /        Re: Fusion Digest 3024
     
Originally-From: rvanspaa@ozemail.com.au
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:       Re: Fusion Digest 3024
Date: Sun, 18 Dec 1994 16:28:06 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

A.P. writes:
[SNIP]
>Friction ultimately is QM macroscopically. However, microscopically
>there is gravitational attraction of atoms and subatomic particles,
>10^40 weaker than EM.
>
>So, if GR were a correct law then superfluidity would not be 0
>friction, but, at minimum the gravitational attraction of helium atoms
>for one another. Thus, in a mass of superfluid helium, their rolling
>resistance is not 0 but a positive number (however small).
[SNIP]
________________________________________________________________
As you point out above gravity is about 10^40 less than EM.
As normal friction is due to EM forces, one would expect any friction 
due to gravity to be on the order of 10^40 less then normal friction.
This is way beyond our ability to measure. It is therefore very 
possible that the friction you mention due to gravitational 
attraction in a superfluid, does indeed exist. We just can't measure 
it because it is so insignificant.

Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa@ozemail.com.au>

cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenrvanspaa cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.18 /  rvanspaa@ozema /        Re: Fusion Digest 3024
     
Originally-From: rvanspaa@ozemail.com.au
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:       Re: Fusion Digest 3024
Date: Sun, 18 Dec 1994 16:28:17 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

For the chemists among you:

Does anyone know whether all possible H-O-O-O-O-H etc. molecules that 
might theoretically be possible require heat to be added to produce 
them? (Take any number of O's you like)?

Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa@ozemail.com.au>

cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenrvanspaa cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.19 / R Schroeppel /  Energy Course
     
Originally-From: rcs@cs.arizona.edu (Richard Schroeppel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Energy Course
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 1994 01:17:41 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

A few minor points to mention (from which the students may draw
many differing lessons):

Adjusted for inflation, gasoline is now slightly cheaper than it
was in 1960.

Remember the iconoclastic predictor (at USGS?) who, in the early
1970's had the temerity to suggest that US oil production was peaking?
And the welcome he received!  (Hubbard?)

That congressional belief in global warming got a big boost one
particularly hot summer.  (Here in Tucson, we're setting records
for heat in the summer, and cold in the winter.  We've had two
hundred-year-floods a decade apart.  The sky is falling!)

I think Sweden has voted to phase out their nuclear power plants.
Has France benefited from a pronuke policy?

The Brazil story with the kids playing with radioactive Co is worth
mentioning, along with the Missouri company that accidentally made
radioactive table legs.  Perhaps the deaths caused by bad software
in the Canadian xray machine.

Petr Beckmann.
The "energy crisis" and the 1973 gasoline shortage.
The 1990 oil war.

Rich Schroeppel  rcs@cs.arizona.edu

cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenrcs cudfnRichard cudlnSchroeppel cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Mon Dec 19 04:37:03 EST 1994
------------------------------
1994.12.16 /  prasad /  Re: Roast Dynamometer
     
Originally-From: c1prasad@watson.ibm.com (prasad)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Roast Dynamometer
Date: 16 Dec 1994 14:18:22 GMT
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

In article <D0uxBH.5Jo@festival.ed.ac.uk>, ianj@castle.ed.ac.uk (I Johnston) writes:
|> 
|> No, it wouldn't. But the environment in this case - the sink if the
|> cycle were reversed - could be the shaft and rotor. In other words it
|> could pump heat from the electric motor to the water, in which case air
|> temperature is irrelevant - the thing would work in a vacuum.

That still doesn't remove the basic theoretical difficulty.

Let's say there is such a heat pump mechanism operating somewhere in the
turbulence within the "pump", which presumably uses up some work 'w' from
input power to pump 'q' amount of heat from the shaft/casing etc. into the
water/vapour.  But that 'q' would have had to come from the same input power,
and not from the surrounding air, which is colder than said shaft/casing etc,
particularly since we are not postulating a heat pump mechanism between
the ambient and the hypothetical cold spot.

That makes our hypothetical heat pump mechanism quite useless for explaining
any excess heat.  Marshall Dudley has just explained that in another post
in terms of the second law.

As someone else has observed, these same ideas have kept repeating.  I too
was for some time thinking in terms of a heat pump.  As of now, we still
don't have any explanation, other than to somehow deny the excess heat claims.
Jed will hopefully keep us from succeeding in the denial!

Meantime, I wonder what happened to the Tom Droege (sp?) visit.
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenc1prasad cudlnprasad cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.18 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Re: Another theory for Griggs device
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Another theory for Griggs device
Date: Sun, 18 Dec 1994 15:51 -0500 (EST)

jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:
 
 -> mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY) writes:
->
->      "[An Oak Ridge scientist] . . . told me that is is a fairly well known
->      fact among some researchers that the published steam tables are wrong.
->      The original team which made up the steam tables found that toward the
->      extremes (high pressure high temperature and low pressure and
->      temperature) there are unexplained non-linearities."
->
-> We do not depend on the steam tables. We condense the steam in a 50 gallon
-> steel drum full of water and measure the increased enthalpy of the water.
-> This result agrees closely with the steam table computations. Surely this
-> Oak Ridge fellow does agree that one BTU equals one pound of water raised
-> by one degree F. That is not exact of course; at extreme temperatures close
-> to boiling it does not work. That is why we kept the water temperature far
-> below extremes. It was between room temperature and 120 deg F (boiling is
-> 212 deg F).
 
First of all "one BTW = one pound of water raised one degree F" has nothing to
do with steam tables, that is only the specific heat, which is around that
value (althoudh it is slightly temperature dependent).
 
I think you missed the point though.  This fellow is agreeing that this could
be an over-unity device because of the non-linearities in the heat of
vaporization/condensation at high and low pressures.  It matters not whether
you use the steam tables or not if the effect is real.
 
I disagree that the pressures (and local transient temperatures) are not
extreme.  When the ultrasound starts (as you say), there is likelyhood that you
are getting extensive cavatation and violent collapses.  From what we know
about sonaluminance the temperatures can reach over 10 million degrees, and the
pressure can change instantly from near vacuum to thousands of atmospheres.
This is of course on a minute scale.  Now, his theory is that each "cycle"
of this expansion and collapse, and the instant vaporization/condensation of
water at the surface of the bubbles, is just what would be required to extract
energy from this non-linearity.  But normally the non-linearity would only
introduce a very slight "excess energy" making it not very useful.  However, if
the Griggs device gets into some type of resonance (and you claim it requires
fine tuning to get the extra heat), then even a .1% extra energy per cycle (of
the ultrasound not motor) could add up to a significant amount of excess energy
at 30 khz.  Of course it would not be CF, but as you say, who cares.
 
-> In any case, the steam generated by the Griggs device is not at the extremes
-> It is normal for the industrial applications it is used for, at carpet
-> mills and places like that. If the steam tables were 20% to 60% incorrect fo
-> these run-of-the-mill applications (literally "run-of-the-mill") then every
-> day hundreds of carpet factories, dairies, beer breweries and bakeries would
-> explode, all over the world. That does not happen. In the 1830's, before
-> standards were established, tables were published, and formal inspections
-> began, that *did happen*. Organizations like the U.S. Bureau of Standards an
-> the IEEE were established over the last 150 years to prevent accidents.
 
We are only talking about a slight deviation, maybe .1 to 1%.  In most
applications it would not matter, but if you have a resonance which cycles
between high pressure and low pressure at a very rapid rate, a 1% extra per
cycle could end up being quite significant.  Also we are talking extreme, not
the type of pressure and temperature encountered in normal factories.  It has
nothing to do with outlet temperature/pressure or housing temperature.  It has
to do with the instanteous temperature and pressure variations inside of a
rapidly collapsing steam bubble; thousands of them, collapsing tens of
thousands of times per second.
 
-> This Oak Ridge scientist should step out of his lab and visit the real world
-> Go to a factory, a steel mill, a cannery, or an automobile assembly plant an
-> you will see that technology really does work. There are no 60% errors in th
-> tables under ordinary working conditions. This Oak Ridge person sounds like
-> another ivory tower scientist like Dick Blue, who thinks it is impossible to
-> measure a steel arm to within a centimeter.
 
He doesn't have to.  They run one of the largest uranium enrichmant plants in
the world, and work with extremely high temperature and pressure steam all the
time.  That is why he is aware of the non-linearities.  Apparently they have
to use "unofficial" steam tables to make things work properly at these extreme
conditions.
 
As pointed out above, we are not talking about a 60% error, and we are not
talking about normal temperatures and pressures.  Both assumptions are
incorect.
 
Mind you, he is supporting your contention of excess energy. I would think
you would embrace his ideas, or at least consider them.
 
Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy18 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.19 / Harry Conover /  Re: Roast Dynamometer
     
Originally-From: conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Roast Dynamometer
Date: 19 Dec 1994 01:37:04 GMT
Organization: The Internet Access Company

prasad (c1prasad@watson.ibm.com) wrote:

: As someone else has observed, these same ideas have kept repeating.  I too
: was for some time thinking in terms of a heat pump.  As of now, we still
: don't have any explanation, other than to somehow deny the excess heat claims.
: Jed will hopefully keep us from succeeding in the denial!

From my limited perspective, we are at the point of arguing facts, which
like negotiating actuals, doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

Personally, I've totally lost interest in Tom's trip, because from what
I have read and concluded, nothing has been shown to be happening that is
worth the trip.  

Clearly, here, measurement ambiguity permits conclusion of any desired
result.  This is nothing new, particularly with CF where P&F have led the
pack in this regard. Throw enough error and uncertainty into any 
experiment and you can conclude whatever you want.

Still, the possibility of an untrained experimentalist coming up with
a breakthrough result is a finite possibility.  Remote, yes, 
but clearly a possibility. Unfortunately, the length and details of Jed's 
postings suggest, at least to me, that this isn't the case here.  Without
splitting straws, it is apparent that Jed hasn't a clue regarding the 
calculation of Griggs experimental error, and so a claim of 20% excess
energy or, for that matter, 500% excess energy is not particlarly
convincing -- or even interesting.   At this point, I can only concede
that Griggs has a device for heating water that offers questionable
advantages over Ohmic heating in specific situations.

As an individual educated in physics, I see no compelling evidence of
nuclear involvement worth further investigation or discussion.  As an
engineer and businessman, I see nothing of continuing interest to me.

                               Harry C.



  
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenconover cudfnHarry cudlnConover cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.19 /  PAUL /  Bad political developments for fusion
     
Originally-From: stek@nel.pfc.mit.edu (PAUL)
Originally-From: MAX::JABLONSKI
Originally-From: fyi@aip.org (AIP listserver)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Bad political developments for fusion
Subject: FYI#169 - Walker Agenda
Date: 19 DEC 94 01:53:34 GMT
Date: 16-DEC-1994  12:11:32
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 94 12:19:29 EST
Organization: MIT PLASMA FUSION CENTER

Here are a couple of articles posted on the internal BBoard here at the
PFC.  The political future of fusion does not look real good.  

Paul Stek
Stek@mit.edu

Originally-From: MAX::JABLONSKI
Date: 16-DEC-1994  12:11:32
Description: Not Postive for Fusion                                  

From today's (Friday's) NYT:  "The Administration also is proposing
to cut $400 million to
$500 million out of the roughly $2 billion annual budget for applied research
on nuclear energy, renewable energy sources and energy conservation."


Date: Fri, 16 Dec 94 12:19:29 EST
Originally-From: fyi@aip.org (AIP listserver)
Message-Id: <9412161719.AA21488@aip.org>
To: fyi-mailing@aip.org
Subject: FYI#169 - Walker Agenda

The New House Science Committee Chairman Sets Agenda

FYI No. 169, December 16, 1994

Wednesday afternoon, the incoming chairman of the newly-renamed
House Committee on Science held a briefing to explain his
committee's agenda for 1995.  At the end of the hour-long
presentation, it was clearly evident that Robert Walker (R-PA) has
a clear view of where he wants to take his committee.

Rep. Walker's views are important from a number of perspectives: as
chairman of the House Science Committee, vice chairman of the House
Budget Committee, and as a key player in the House Republican
leadership.  Because of the great interest in the direction of
science policy and funding in the new Congress, this FYI is of an
extended length.  Topics are shown in capital letters.

[interesting stuff deleted] 


Regarding the SPACE STATION, Walker described himself as an
"enthusiast," and said the committee will move "aggressively on"
the program.  

When asked about FUSION PROGRAM funding, Walker replied: "I think
we need to take a look at the money we have been spending in the
fusion area.  It's certainly an area that we have to look at in
hearings; the Department of Energy may be coming forth with some
recommendations in that area....  What we can't afford to do is to
have massive cost overruns in that program.  It is a program where
there has been a lot invested over a period of a lot of years.  And
I think it now needs to be examined very, very carefully in light
of a lot of budget constraints that we're going to have."

Later in the briefing, discussion returned to the DOE FUSION
PROGRAM, and Tokamak funding.  "I am concerned about the fact that
that particular project has gone up in cost by about 50%, and as a
result, has captured my attention," Walker exclaimed.  He said he
"was not prepared to make that kind of judgement" when asked about
shutting down magnetic fusion research.  Walker supports
international cooperation for expensive programs.
makers on moving programs forward.

[fusion is the only program he is concerned about in this article.]
{more non-fusion stuff deleted] 
###############
Public Information Division
American Institute of Physics
Contact: Richard M. Jones
fyi@aip.org
(301) 209-3095
##END##########
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenstek cudlnPAUL cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.19 / Dieter Britz /  Re: Fusion Digest 3024
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <britz@alpha.kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Fusion Digest 3024
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 1994 09:54:03 +0100
Organization: DAIMI, Computer Science Dept. at Aarhus University

On Sun, 18 Dec 1994 rvanspaa@ozemail.com.au wrote:

> For the chemists among you:
> 
> Does anyone know whether all possible H-O-O-O-O-H etc. molecules that 
> might theoretically be possible require heat to be added to produce 
> them? (Take any number of O's you like)?
> 
> Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa@ozemail.com.au>

OK, I'll take the numbers 1 and 2 (HOH = water and HOOH = hydrogen 
peroxide. Water forms from its elements (you did mean that, didn't you?)
with the release of 286 kJ/mol; peroxide forms, releasing 188 ditto. It may
be that those are all the possible numbers. So you need add no heat, you get
some out (it's not "free", though).

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

cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenbritz cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.19 / Chuck Harrison /  Re: Sloppy measurements & P&F boiloff timing
     
Originally-From: harr@netcom.com (Chuck Harrison)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Sloppy measurements & P&F boiloff timing
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 1994 13:42:58 GMT
Organization: Fitful

In article <9412121557.AA23085@pilot1.cl.msu.edu>, blue@pilot.msu.edu
(Richard A Blue) says:

[...]

>While on the subject of sloppy measurements,  I want to add to what
>Steve Jones has been saying about the P&F boiling water measurements.
>In light of the 5 minute sampling interval, I have never understood
>how the total time for boiloff was determined.  Yet that time interval
>is a key parameter in any determination of the total heat output.
>
>Dick Blue
>
Dick,

Did you forget that the event was recorded with a video camera?  Yes,
this fact _was_ published in the peer-reviewed article, so you're not
allowed to ignore it on "hearsay" grounds.

And if you saw the CBC tape I think you would agree that it is
completely plausible to track the liquid level visually this way.

  -Chuck, just trying to keep you honest ;-).
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenharr cudfnChuck cudlnHarrison cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.19 / Richard Blue /  Response from Blue's Ivory Tower
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Response from Blue's Ivory Tower
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 1994 15:37:46 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Actually I am not in an Ivory Tower.  I am in my basement.  Jed Rothwell
has never been very good at reporting what I have said, and he certainly
is not capable of determining what I think!  As for my past associations
with Ivory Towers,  I can safely assert that I have logged more hours
of down and dirty operating experience with more machines, and I have
made more measurements on more systems using a greater variety of instruments
than Jed Rothwell can even dream about.  Yes, Jed, I have even boiled water
using a pump - in much the same way that Mr. Griggs does it.  However, I
am smart enough to know that it was not a particularly good idea to do
that, at least not as a way to produce "excess heat."

I would also like to say a word in defense of Ivory Towers.  It has certainly
been demonstraited that the cheerleaders for cold fusion have now been
joined by several sharp operators who are out to exploit the confusion
about this subject to try to make a few bucks.  It is a climate in which
the "truth" often suffers, because, to paraphrase Jed, "We don't need
no theory."  What that literally means is, "We don't need to know the
truth."  If you are searching for truth, the best place to look is in
those Ivory Towers.  It has been that way for a long time, and it
remains that way today.

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.19 /  nestorm@fedc04 /  Oak Ridge and uranium enrichment
     
Originally-From: nestorm@fedc04.fed.ornl.gov (Bonnie Nestor (NESTORM@FED
04.FED.ORNL.GOV))
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Oak Ridge and uranium enrichment
Date: 19 DEC 94 16:03:52 GMT
Organization: MIT PLASMA FUSION CENTER

Marshall Dudley writes of having talked to a scientist at "Oak Ridge National
Labs," which evoked the following response from Jed Rothwell:

> This Oak Ridge scientist should step out of his lab and visit the real world
> Go to a factory, a steel mill, a cannery, or an automobile assembly plant an
> you will see that technology really does work. There are no 60% errors in th
> tables under ordinary working conditions. This Oak Ridge person sounds like
> another ivory tower scientist like Dick Blue, who thinks it is impossible to
> measure a steel arm to within a centimeter.

To which Marshall Dudley replied:

> He doesn't have to.  They run one of the largest uranium enrichmant plants in
> the world, and work with extremely high temperature and pressure steam all the
> time.  That is why he is aware of the non-linearities.  Apparently they have
> to use "unofficial" steam tables to make things work properly at these extreme
> conditions.

Just for the record, Oak Ridge National Laboratory (singular) does not "run one
of the largest uranium enrichment plants in the world" -- that was the Oak
Ridge Gaseous Diffusion Plant, which hasn't operated since the late 1980s (it's
now known as the Oak Ridge K-25 Site, and is one of DOE's environmental
management headaches). Oak Ridge, Tennessee, is also home to the Oak Ridge Y-12
Plant, which used to make nuclear weapons components. All three sites are
operated by the same contractor, and the news media frequently mix them up or
treat them as a single entity.

However, there isn't much "ivory tower" atmosphere here at Oak Ridge National
Laboratory. Yes, there is some basic research, but ORNL is also involved in a
wide range of industrial collaborations with partners such as General Motors,
AlliedSignal, and Caterpillar. So we do have some contact with the real world!

Just the facts, at least as far as I know them...

Bonnie Nestor
mnj@ornl.gov

DISCLAIMER: I work at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, for Martin Marietta Energy
Systems, Inc., which is under contract to the U.S. Department of 
Energy -- but I don't speak for any of them, and they return the favor.

cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudennestorm cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.19 / Laurie Forbes /  Re: Another o/u device, plans
     
Originally-From: lforbes@nucleus.com (Laurie Forbes)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Another o/u device, plans
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 1994 17:29:51 GMT
Organization: Nucleus Information Service

cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenlforbes cudfnLaurie cudlnForbes cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.19 / Thomas Zemanian /  Re: Jones versus Fleischmann
     
Originally-From: ts_zemanian@pnl.gov (Thomas S. Zemanian)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Jones versus Fleischmann
Date: 19 Dec 1994 18:17:06 GMT
Organization: Battelle PNL

In article <D06Ayw.Kuu@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>,
crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) wrote:

[...]
> 
>      Speaking of baloney...   Where's the water heater?
> 

Georgia.  (or weren't you listening?)




<smirk>

--Tom

--
The opinions expressed herein are mine and mine alone.  Keep your filthy
hands off 'em! 
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudents_zemanian cudfnThomas cudlnZemanian cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.19 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Oak Ridge and uranium enrichment
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Oak Ridge and uranium enrichment
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 1994 13:12 -0500 (EST)

nestorm@fedc04.fed.ornl.gov (Bonnie Nestor (NESTORM@FEDC04.FED.ORNL.GOV)) writes


 
-> Just for the record, Oak Ridge National Laboratory (singular) does not "run
-> of the largest uranium enrichment plants in the world" -- that was the Oak
-> Ridge Gaseous Diffusion Plant, which hasn't operated since the late 1980s (i
-> now known as the Oak Ridge K-25 Site, and is one of DOE's environmental
-> management headaches). Oak Ridge, Tennessee, is also home to the Oak Ridge Y
-> Plant, which used to make nuclear weapons components. All three sites are
-> operated by the same contractor, and the news media frequently mix them up o
-> treat them as a single entity.
 
You are correct, I should have said "ran" instead of "run".  My understanding
is that this fellow actually is paid by ORNL but is  "on loan" to I believe
Y-12.  So he is actually working at one of the other plants other than ORNL.
However I did not feel this information was necessary to relate with respect to
what he had told me, and I am not too anxious to reveal too much information
about who he is. He has been a pretty good source of information on some of the
"inside experiments" that have not been published (such as CF), and I don't
want him to feel threatened about his job security.
 
-> However, there isn't much "ivory tower" atmosphere here at Oak Ridge Nationa
-> Laboratory. Yes, there is some basic research, but ORNL is also involved in
-> wide range of industrial collaborations with partners such as General Motors
-> Allied Signal, and Caterpillar. So we do have some contact with the real
-> world
 
Agreed.
 
                                                                Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.19 / J WINTERFLOOD /  Re: Another o/u device, plans
     
Originally-From: jwinter@galileo.pi.infn.it (John WINTERFLOOD)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Another o/u device, plans
Date: 19 Dec 1994 20:16:00 GMT
Organization: Universita' di Pisa

Gary Steckly (gsteckly@dgim.doc.ca) wrote:
: One rather unsettling little note in Bill's last update on his web home 
: page though.  It seems that Norm Wootan's device began to oscillate on 
: it's own in the middle of the night after he had shut down all his 
: equipment.  He claims the high pitched squeal woke him up and he had to 
: dissassemble the circuit to get it to stop (?!).  Before he 
: dissassembled the circuit his counter switched on his counter and 
: measured a 44kHz signal off the thing. To follow this story, check Bill's 
: updates on his WWW home page at http://www.eskimo.com/~billb

I didn't think anyone could *hear* 44kHz, never mind be woken up by it!

Frequency counters usually have very sensitive inputs and will often give
a reading even when not connected to anything. If they are connected to
a resonant circuit they will readily respond to the noise in the circuit
which will have a peak at the resonant frequency. If I remember correctly
he said the frequency reading was not steady tending to suggest a poor
signal to noise ratio - ie no appreciable power.

I'm waiting for news of some more careful measurements before I even take
second look.
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenjwinter cudfnJohn cudlnWINTERFLOOD cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.19 / Bruce Hamilton /  Re: Another o/u device, plans
     
Originally-From: B.Hamilton@irl.cri.nz (Bruce Hamilton)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Another o/u device, plans
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 1994 21:20:40 GMT
Organization: Industrial Research Limited

In article <D12J9t.E0y@nucleus.com> lforbes@nucleus.com (Laurie Forbes) writes:
>
>
>

Wow!. That _really_ is *secret*.
Anyway, does a nuclear fusion device count as an "over unity" device?.

          Bruce Hamilton 
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenHamilton cudfnBruce cudlnHamilton cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.19 / Thomas Zemanian /  Re: Another o/u device, plans
     
Originally-From: ts_zemanian@pnl.gov (Thomas S. Zemanian)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Another o/u device, plans
Date: 19 Dec 1994 21:14:59 GMT
Organization: Battelle PNL

In article <B.Hamilton.224.2EF5F928@irl.cri.nz>, B.Hamilton@irl.cri.nz
(Bruce Hamilton) wrote:

> In article <D12J9t.E0y@nucleus.com> lforbes@nucleus.com (Laurie Forbes) writes:
> >
> >
> >
> 
> Wow!. That _really_ is *secret*.

Actually, it's a Taoist approach to the problem.  By putting nothing into
the process, any and all output is "over unity".  The device is not
contentious, and hence, none can contend with it.

--Tom

--
The opinions expressed herein are mine and mine alone.  Keep your filthy
hands off 'em! 
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudents_zemanian cudfnThomas cudlnZemanian cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.19 /  kurtz@imap2.as /  Re: Another o/u device, plans
     
Originally-From: kurtz@imap2.asu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Another o/u device, plans
Date: 19 Dec 1994 20:33:55 GMT
Organization: Arizona State University

<*snip*>

: Sweet claimed something on the order of 1:3,000,000 over-unity.The 
: input power to his device was 10 VAC at 29uamps (290mWatts).The 
: output had been loaded to as high as 3,000 Watts.

I'll take one. Would you recommend I check Sears or K-Mart first?

--Lynn Kurtz
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenkurtz cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.19 / Bruce Schechter /  Re: Sloppy measurements
     
Originally-From: bruce@disney.com (Bruce Schechter)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Sloppy measurements
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 1994 14:03:44 -0800
Organization: Wheel Spinner's Anonymous

Jed, 
Once more I am touched by your faith in the accuracy
of commercial test equipment.  What do you think
of the latest results from the Intel Pentium chip?
By your reasoning they should be hailed as uncovering
a previously  overlooked arithmetical anomaly.

-- 

Bruce_Schechter@cc.wdi.disney.com.......................................
..................................................
                                                              
               opinions expressed approximate only my own and coincide
                                                              
                only coincidently with those of my employer or
anyone else
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenbruce cudfnBruce cudlnSchechter cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.19 / Michael Moroney /  Re: Engineering device from GR is fakery; gravity is neutrino
     
Originally-From: moroney@world.std.com (Michael Moroney)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.electromag
Subject: Re: Engineering device from GR is fakery; gravity is neutrino
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 1994 08:21:30 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

In article <3cteft$66j@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>,
Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) wrote:
> Friction ultimately is QM macroscopically. However, microscopically
> there is gravitational attraction of atoms and subatomic particles,
> 10^40 weaker than EM.
> 
> So, if GR were a correct law then superfluidity would not be 0
> friction, but, at minimum the gravitational attraction of helium atoms
> for one another. Thus, in a mass of superfluid helium, their rolling
> resistance is not 0 but a positive number (however small).

But could we measure an attraction 10^-40 the strength of electromagnetism?
I doubt it.  We don't even know for sure if an antiproton will "fall" down
or up in Earth's gravitational field, since no matter how good an effort
is made to eliminate the action of stray elecromagnetic effects, enough is
still there to interfere with the experiment, since gravity is so weak on an
antiproton.  (GR predicts "down" but this has not been verified)

> Again, I assert that if GR were a universal law no fluid is superfluid.
> All measurements of superfluid helium have shown 0 resistance to flow.
> Hence, GR is not universal law. And this is dramatically seen in
> Jupiter which has metallic hydrogen but no superfluid helium. If GR
> were a law and not a fakery, then Jupiter would have plenty of
> superfluid helium on the gas giant. Instead, Jupiter has no superfluid
> helium.

Jupiter is too hot for superfluid helium to exist.  Its nonexistance proves
nothing.

-Mike
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenmoroney cudfnMichael cudlnMoroney cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.19 / Bob Alberti /  Re: Anomolous science on WWW!
     
Originally-From: albatros@wings (Bob Alberti)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci,physics,electromag
Subject: Re: Anomolous science on WWW!
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 1994 22:37:05 GMT
Organization: Network Systems Corporation

Upon the wind billb@eskimo.com wrote:
: Go to the WIERD RESEARCH, ANOMOLOUS SCIENCE entry.

I gotta put this posting into my "Weird Spelling, Anamolous Syntax" server...
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenalbatros cudfnBob cudlnAlberti cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.19 /  jonesse@plasma /  Re:  Dr. Oriani's Lecture
     
Originally-From: jonesse@plasma.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re:  Dr. Oriani's Lecture
Date: 19 Dec 94 12:13:16 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

I have a telefax from Dr. Oriani that may serve better than second-guessing.
He says:

"I appreciate very much your skeptical, hard-headed point of view on cold
fusion."

"I am frustrated by the paucity of experimental details given by Mills,
Bush, etc., so that one cannot make a careful assessment of their claims."

"I dropped the work with Ni/K2CO3 then, being convinced that the Mills-
Noninski results were artifactual."

He does *not* say that he thinks apparent excess heat from Pd/LiOD cells is
due to Cold Fusion.  And evidently he did not make this specific claim in
his lecture, from what John Logajan says.  That is what I was asking: 
"Does he claim the heat is due to Cold Fusion?"

Give Oriani time -- I think he'll find the Pd/LiOD cells do not produce heat
by cold fusion -- just as he found that Ni/K2CO3 cells do not.
I still don't think it fair or correct to say that "Oriani now believes in CF".

--Steven Jones



cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenjonesse cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.19 /  jonesse@plasma /  cancel <1994Dec19.120219.1938@plasma.byu.edu>
     
Originally-From: jonesse@plasma.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cancel <1994Dec19.120219.1938@plasma.byu.edu>
Date: 19 Dec 94 12:13:42 -0700

cancel <1994Dec19.120219.1938@plasma.byu.edu>
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenjonesse cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.19 /  PNellesen /  Re: Bad political developments for fusion
     
Originally-From: pnellesen@aol.com (PNellesen)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Bad political developments for fusion
Date: 19 Dec 1994 22:10:20 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

Do the people making the decisions on fusion research have any idea at all
what a sustainable, controllable fusion reaction would mean for the energy
and environmental needs of the world?  (Perhaps the evil world oil
conglomerates are at the heart of this!) 

Pat Nellesen
cudkeys:
cuddy19 cudenpnellesen cudlnPNellesen cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.20 /  siproj /  FAQ New for alt.inventors Dec. 1994 (end of year!)
     
Originally-From: siproj@ripco.com (siproj)
Newsgroups: alt.inventors,sci.physics.fusion,comp.sys.mac.scitech,comp.i
fosystems.www.misc
Subject: FAQ New for alt.inventors Dec. 1994 (end of year!)
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 1994 04:36:12 GMT
Organization: R - Communications, Incorporated


Happy Holidays!


All about alt.inventors:

(Copyright 1994 by siproj and may be reprinted for no cost
 with written permission only by non-profit groups.)

Version 0.12.20.94            Dec. 1994

1. Introduction

2. General overview

3. Main points of discussion.

4. Related Newsgroups to alt.inventors and how they relate.

5. Current FAQ Status

6. World Wide Web Resources for Inventors (Updated)

7. Patent Agents/ Attorney's/ Searchers/ Marketing e-mail directory

8. Special Services and Information locations, e-mail etc.

9. Anything else?


............................................................

1. Introduction and FYI for E-mail recipients.

This group is a focus center for those interested in all phases of
the invention process.  After the proposal was posted, several
parties seem to have something positive to say about getting a
group started just for Inventors and those interested in Invention.

E-mail recipients please send a short confirmation
that you received this FAQ.  Also please let me know when
and if the FAQ shows up at your site in alt.inventors.

If you are an agent/ attorney/ consultant etc. in the 
specific directory of contacts, please send a number
of a patent you contributed to processing.  If your
participation to a patent is that of a person not-listed
in the actual patent, please describe how for reference
purposes with an inclusion of education value to our readers
in concise form for the FAQ.

............................................................

2. General overview

This is for those inventors trying to buck the odds or wishing to
show prior art to stop patents from being misappropriated by nefarious
organizations doing things like patenting software techniques et. al.

............................................................

3. Main points of discussion.

The main points of discussion approved within alt.inventors:

 A. To be a useful forum to get Inventors into a postive light.

 B. To promote First to Invent support to protect the independent inventor.
    Status of the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) movements on this
    subject will be monitored here as much as possible.  Stay tuned!

 C. To screen carefully list companies seeking outside technology and
    outlining the procedures for submission to their organization.
    Also a screen out list of NOT INVENTED HERE companies so that
    those outfits do not waste your time with an approach to them!

 D. To discuss techniques in researching, developing, filing, patenting $'s,
    marketing, getting renewals etc.

 E. To openly discuss prior art where applicable, especially in software.

 F. To consider tools and tricks of the trade, e.g. stereolithography.

 G. To locate competent counsel, searchers, associated services.

 H. To locate Internet invention services and resources.

 I. To announce at one's own risk their ideas for prior art declaration!
    (this is a public forum and giving away your ideas in it may
    affect your ability to file for and get approval of a patent
    at all in the U.S. and foreign countries.  Only do so if
    the idea is to be placed into the public domain or your
    patent advisor/attorney says so and you are willing to assume risk!)

 J. To allow announcements of inventors filings being available for
    license!  Such Press Releases should be in an abstract form of
    less than 2,000 characters per invention, lengthy items should
    have pointers for ftp or e-mail requests to keep bandwidth
    requirements down.

    Patents being posted should pose little risk despite foreign first
    to file regulation.  The reasoning is that extensive efforts
    already in progress by overseas organizations to monitor all
    public disclosures made at the PTO exist anyway.  Internet posts
    mean little in contrast to such a concerted effort by those
    foreign interests obtain leverage in the patent arena.

 K. To hold announcements of meetings and conferences specifically
    useful to inventors/innovators or those that wish to find
    and pay them for their efforts!

 L. To post filing forms templates or where to ftp them.

This of course is all subject to change because an astute inventor
is the delta force of an overworked word CHANGE!

............................................................

4. Related Newsgroups to alt.inventors and how they relate.

Related groups that may have material of interest and may
be likely to cross-post in certain instances, and definition
of what kind of messages should not be crossposted include:

alt.inventors only wants notices from this group of developments
no debates please!

     comp.patents         Discussing patents of computer technology.

alt.inventors only has interests in patents and trademarks
for singular inventions, no copyright or performance rights please!

     misc.int-property    Discussion of intellectual property rights.

alt.inventors leaves finger painting out of our discussions.

     misc.creativity      Promoting the use of creativity in all human

alt.inventors interest is with raising capital of all phases but
less interest in day-to-day operations environments, like transactions.
That may be important after the invention is being market then directly
read and post to that group and leave the barcodes for DOS etc. out.

     misc.entrepreneurs   Discussion on operating a business.


These groups may have helpful information, however crossposts
regarding patent/trademark law issues that directly apply to the
inventor are solicited exclusive to all other issues of law.

     misc.legal           Legalities and the ethics of law.
     misc.legal.computing Discussing the legal climate of the computin
     misc.legal.moderated All aspects of law. (Moderated)

Generally to broad when it includes everything from physics of magnets
but strays from the main idea to help inventors work through IDEAS!
Funding may be important, but only in the context of the invention
process.  Methods that mean something to getting through a lab
situation that involves invention only are welcome!

     sci.misc             Short-lived discussions ... in the sciences
     sci.research         Research methods, funding, ethics, and ...

............................................................

5. Current FAQ Status

Yes but this will is being built to include as much interesting
and valuable information as possible.

World Wide Web Pages, FTP sites, Telnet search services are all
sought to include in an FAQ for alt.inventors.

Please e-mail them to siproj@rci.ripco.com with the subject
FAQ Submission alt.inventors, you will be credited unless
you do not want to be.  Please state if your source, like if
it is from some other FAQ.


............................................................

6. World Wide Web Resources for Inventors

............................................................


These are World Wide Web locations of Interest to the Inventive:

The newest entries at the top of this list, such as this:

Full text of 1994 patents available here.
http://town.hall.org/patent/patent.html

The file library of the famous KEELYNET alternative science BBS.
http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/

Mosaic site with 500 MB of PTO & patenting information,
including the beginning of an Internet site that provides
full searching capabilities of the PTO's patent text
databases for free.  Beyond lots of documents, the current
Mosaic site allows people to retreive patent titles in any
class/subclass by clicking through a few screens. The patent
title data goes from 3500000 to Dec 1993.

(the Sun servers are going through special upgrades from Sun,
so crash from time to time, so if your http request fails,
try a little later in the day) with the following top level
menu items:

The Mosaic site is at:
http://sunsite.unc.edu/patents/intropat.html

This patent home page has both US and foreign patent
information links...
http://iac.net/~miller

The United States Patent and Trademark Office {USPTO}
http://www.uspto.gov

The Master page for Inventors found thus far on the net...
http://www.clas.ufl.edu/CLAS/Departments/Rewired/Re-WIRED.html

Inventor directions for success...
http://www.issi.com/misc/articles/Scenes.html

Library Invention???
http://is.rice.edu/~riddle/dl94.html

The Lego Home Page??? rec.toys.lego FAQ
http://legowww.itek.norut.no/faq/FAQ.html

A game called Nomic oriented towards Invention ->
http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~s2119737/nomic-faq.html

Ok, well this  is an interesting system invented
for handling data remotely from satellites, general interest.
http://guinan.gsfc.nasa.gov/AIS.html


............................................................

7. Patent Attorney's / Searchers / Marketing e-mail directory


The Patent Attorney's e-mail directory portion of the
alt.inventors FAQ is for informational purposes only to
help direct inventors to patent resources (such as counsel).

This is a pure list only, like a phone book, with the exception
that it allows inventors to locate resources more specific to
what they are doing (i.e. if someone invents a new type of
concrete then perhaps counsel with a materials physics background
will be more helpful than someone doing mostly software patents).

Abstracts of practices with more detail will be forthcoming.

   Name e-mail some specialties (if any abbreviated)
   snail mail address and phone/fax if available.
   Follow the pattern set forth below please at the head
   of the e-mail message for updates.

   E-mail additions, comments, corrections and updates to:

   siproj@rci.ripco.com


                  Note this list is growing!


Greg Aharonian                       (news service)
Internet Patent News Service
P.O. Box 404                          E-mail: srctran@world.std.com
Belmont, MA  02178                    Phone:  617-489-3727


G. Peter Albert, Jr.                  (patent attorney)
Greer, Burns & Crain, Ltd.
Sears Tower - Suite 8660              E-mail: palbert@interaccess.com
233 South Wacker Drive                Phone:  312-993-0080
Chicago, IL  606060-6501              Fax:    312-993-0633


John B. Berryhill, Ph.D.             (patents, electrical engineering)
Patent Agent
Dann, Dorfman, Herrell, and Skillman  E-mail: berryh@genie.slhs.udel.edu
1601 Market St., Suite 720
Philadelphia, PA  19103


Ronald Coslick             (patents & trademarks, contracts, searches)
Patent Attorney
110 North Peyton St.                  E-mail: coslick@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu
Alexandria, Virginia  22314           Phone:  703-549-1521


Daniel N. Fishman                    (patents, licensing & litigation)
Patent Attorney    (comp. hardware & software, electrical, mechanical)
Duft, Graziano & Forest, P.C.         E-mail: dfishman@netcom.com
1790 30th Street, Suite 140           Phone:  303-449-9497
Boulder, CO 80301                     Fax:    303-449-0814
                                      Cell:   303-469-6469


Robin Diane Goldstein, Esq.  (patent process assistance, coordination)
635 Lytton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA  94301                  E-mail: rdg@netcom.com
                                      Phone:  415-321-0505
                                      Fax:    415-321-5725


Peter Gordon   (registered patent agent, computer software & hardware)
Wolf, Greenfield & Sacks
600 Atlantic Ave.                     E-mail: pgordon@world.std.com
Boston, MA 02210                      Phone:  617-720-3500
                                      Fax:    617-720-2441


Robert Groover     (Reg. Patent Attorney,ICs, comp. hardware, physics)
Box 516349  
Dallas TX 75251                       E-mail: groover@netcom.com
                                      E-mail: patents@attmail.com
                                      Phone:  214-490-5335


Mark Horsburgh, PhD BSc MBA  (Patents, Trade Marks, Designs, Searches)
A.P.T. Patent                                (Physics, Chem., Biotech)
& Trade Mark Attorneys
1 King William Street                 Phone:  618 233 5566
Adelaide SA 5000                      Fax:    618 410 5042
AUSTRALIA                             E-mail: apt@ozemail.com.au
                                      E-mail:
                                  horsburg@adelaide.dialix.oz.au


Carl Oppedahl        (physics, electrical engineering, math, software)
Oppedahl & Larson           (specializes in Intellectual Property Law)

                                      E-mail: oppedahl@patents.com


Marina T. Larson       (technical in chemical and biological sciences)
Oppedahl & Larson           (specializes in Intellectual Property Law)

                                      E-mail: larson@patents.com


Patrick J. Murphy                  (electrical engineering, software)
Patent Attorney
Hewlett-Packard Company               E-mail: patm@royalma.fc.hp.com
3404 East Harmony Road, MS-79          Phone: 303-229-6968
Fort Collins, CO 80526


John W. L. Ogilvie       (Registered Patent Attorney, software expert)
Madson & Metcalf
170 South Main, #950                  E-mail: mm@utw.com
Salt Lake City, Utah 84101            Phone:  801-537-1700
                                      Fax:    801-537-1799


Carl E. Person (intellectual property attorney, infringement litigator)
Practicing Attorney
325 W 45 Street                       E-mail: carlpers@ix.netcom.com
New York NY 10036-3803                Phone:  212-307-4444
                                      Fax:    212-307-0247


Nick Pine         (telecommunications, solar energy, computer systems)
Patent Agent                          E-mail: nick@ece.vill.edu
821 Collegeville Road                 Phone:  610-489-0545
Collegeville, PA 19426                Fax:    610-489-7057


Steven G. Saunders, Esq.   (support in start-up companies, no biotech)
121B Tremont Street                   E-mail: saunders@acs.bu.edu
Brighton, MA  02135                   Phone:  617-783-5755
                                      Fax:    617-562-1102


Adrian A. Williams         (consultant, marketing and media, searcher)
R & D New Products and Services       E-mail: Adrian20@ix.netcom.com
P. O. Box 10789
Burbank, CA 91510-0789


James Zubok        (Registered Patent Agent, Int. Property consultant)
Patent Agent          (Mechanical & Electrical Engineering, Computers)
c/o                                   E-mail: KobuZZubok@aol.com
Business Automation Solutions
180 Bethel Loop, Suite 16F
Brooklyn, NY 11239                    Phone:  718-642-4201
                                      Fax:    718-642-4201


Total patent resources @ e-mail count thus far = 20/18 person entries.

............................................................

8. Special Services and Information locations, e-mail etc.

a.      Greg Aharonian Internet Patent News Service
        e-mail contact -> srctran@world.std.com

        Greg Aharonian
        Internet Patent News Service
        P.O. Box 404
        Belmont, MA  02178

        and/or call me at 617-489-3727

b.      Book resources.

        Title, Author
        Publisher, ISBN Number if available
        Price, other information

  1.    Inventing for Fun and Profit, Jacob Rabinow
        San Francisco Press
        $18.75 hard cover

  2.    How to be a successful inventor
        (seeking information)
        $20 approximately...

c.      Magazines for, about and of interest to inventors:

        Magazine Title, Phone Number
        Publisher and/or address, ISSN Number if available
        Price, other information

  1.    Inventors' Digest, 1-800-838-8808, 1-800-525-5885
        American Inventors Magazine
        4850 Galley Road, Ste. 209
        Colorado Springs, CO  80915
        - call - , Joann Hayes

  2.    Midnight Engineering, 1-719-254-4558 Fax 1-719-254-4558
        1700 Washington Avenue
        Rocky Ford, CO  81067
        - call - , William Gates

  3.    Extraordinary Science, 1-719-475-0918 Fax 1-719-475-0582
        International Tesla Society, ISSN #1043-3716
        P. O. Box 5636
        Colorado Springs, CO  80931
        $25 annually membership with subscription, J. W. McGinnis
        --
        Internet e-mail tesla@cscns.com
        Additional phone number: 1-800-397-0137
        Radio Show 5065 KHz on shortwave Sunday 10:00 PM Central Time

        (Note: alt.inventors expands beyond what Tesla or
               any competing inventor may have done.  Please
               refrain from debates, but indepth information
               is welcome, opinions are for other net areas!)

............................................................

9. Anything else?

Well some system administrators may not have alt.inventors
on their system.  Simply request it directly from them
in should be described as:

alt.inventors  a discussion area for inventors, many areas!

This group is not intended for any other hierarchy for many
reasons, like it does not fit well anywhere else and the
suggestions for sci.* were lacking at best.

Well keep it up is the most common thing heard.  Everyone
appreciates the technology we have today for the most part,
few wish to reward those that make it come true.

My thanks to many contributors, helpers, so many forall...


jamcorp@world.std.com (Jon Priluck)
marcos@dogen.persona.com (Marcos J. Polanco)
sugarman@world.std.com (Steven Garman)

... too many others of course, thanks again...


Suggestions other that persistence, uh watch out for the
sharks and snakes!

END of VERSION 0.12.20.94

............................................................


E-mail comments to:

siproj@rci.ripco.com

............................................................



--
siproj@rci.ripco.com     Creator of alt.inventors and keeper of the Official
                         alt.inventors FAQ despite what some alt.config
                         sysadmin/waste of time/bandwidth actions.
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudensiproj cudlnsiproj cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Tue Dec 20 04:37:04 EST 1994
------------------------------
1994.12.20 / John Logajan /  Photos of Griggs device
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Photos of Griggs device
Date: 20 Dec 1994 05:50:43 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

I have put up two photos of the Griggs device for those of you with WWW
browsers (Mosaic, Lynx, Netscape, etc.)  The photos are from the June '94
issue of "Cold Fusion" Magazine.

Point your url to:  http://www.skypoint.com/subscribers/jlogajan


A word about WWW (the World Wide Web.)  It is the wave of the future as
far as e-communication is concerned.  If you don't know what it is, find
out about it.  If you don't have access to it, get it. :-)

--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com  --  612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA -
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.20 /  dowen@vaxc.cc. /  Re: Refuting Reifenschweiler effect
     
Originally-From: dowen@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Refuting Reifenschweiler effect
Date: 20 Dec 94 18:06:31 +1100
Organization: Computer Centre, Monash University, Australia

Hi folks, have a nice day ;)  ................
In article <9412141707.AA51701@pilot1.cl.msu.edu>, blue@pilot.msu.edu
 (Richard A Blue) writes:
> I have expressed my doubts about the Reifenschweiler claim for
> an observed temperature effect on tritium activity.  I did write
> something a bit too long to post here for the benefit of someone
> else who thinks the measurements must be correct.  I will see
> if I still have that file in case there is too much enthusiasm
> for these results.
> 
> Basically it is a case of not having a very good signal to indicate
> what the tritium activity is.  There are too many other effects that
> can give the changes seen by Reifenschweiler in that signal.  It all
> starts with the fact that the detector cannot sense the beta activity
> directly, but only responds to secondary bremsstrahlung produced when
> the betas are stopped in the matrix surrounding the tritium.  The
> resulting photon spectrum is strongly dependent on the Z of the
> material in which the betas stop, and Reifenschweiler's detector sees
> only the extreme high energy tail of that spectrum.  I think the
> effect is chemical alright, but it does not have much to due with
> nuclear activity.  It is purely changes in the chemistry in the
> titanium smoke where the tritium is lodged.  Nothing mysterious
> or nuclear need be assumed.
> 
> Dick Blue
> 

It is noteworthy that Dick -thinks- the effect is chemical in origin,
and also interesting that he gives no detailed arguments or chemical
equations which might occur in the -vacuum- of the experiment. 
Reifenschweiler speculated on the possibility of a leak possibly
causing contamination. Perhaps Dick would care to elaborate
on his above post, which currently only expresses a vague supposition
with neither logic or theory to support it......
Chuck Harrison's post of the 20 June 94, entitled "Titanium Titride
and Calorimetry" also supports the "Reifenschweiler effect" and
should be also be taken into account in any explanation that Dick
may care to tender.
Regards to all,
Daryl Owen.

I am solely responsible for the above text.
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudendowen cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.20 / Dieter Britz /  More on proton conduction
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <britz@alpha.kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: More on proton conduction
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 1994 09:33:26 +0100
Organization: DAIMI, Computer Science Dept. at Aarhus University

Last week I made some remarks about proton (or deuteron) conductors, and said
that protons would carry a part of the current going through a sample. This
was rightly questioned by - I think - Matt Kennel, who wants to know how big
a part. Good question, and I have given it some more thought.
It depends on what you are talking about. If you mean a Pd cathode in the 
early part of charging with deuterium (or hydrogen), then almost all of the
hydrogen produced by reduction at the Pd/electrolyte goes into the metal (no
bubbles). In this case, the electrons moving through the Pd from the 
power supply, and out through the interface give rise to an equal number of
hydrogen atoms, which presumably dissociate into protons and electrons as
soon as they enter the metal; both particles then diffuse into the bulk. So
there is a proton current, plus an electron current, going into the bulk, 
side by side, equal to the imposed (electron) current. In terms of charge
moving (the definition of current, so many Coulombs per unit time), the
current is just the electron current from the supply; the other two 
"currents" cancel each other out by charge.

When the Pd is fully loaded with hydrogen, the current going through the Pd
still generates hydrogen atoms at the Pd surface but now these combine to
form H2 which bunches into bubbles and escapes. So now there are no more 
protons moving into the Pd.

So far we have confined this to the electrolysis situation. What happens if
you connect a piece of copper to each end of a fully loaded PdH sample, and
send a current through? Matt wants to know how much of the current would be
carried by the protons. My answer is zero. If any protons do move in response
to the applied potential  difference, they soon hit the end of the PdH 
and have nowhere to go; they can't move into the copper. Nor can any
move out of the copper at the other end, into the Pd. All the current 
would be carried by electrons.

I don't know why F&P and lately some Japanese are stressing proton 
conductivity of these metals, and quoting old references as proof. It really
boils down to the fact that protons, and deuterons are highly mobile in 
Pd, and this has been talked about all the time. How mobility might help
'cold fusion' is not clear - to say the least.

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

cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenbritz cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.20 / Stefan Hartmann /  New Free Energy Device announced ! MRA thread !
     
Originally-From: harti@shb.contrib.de (Stefan Hartmann)
Originally-From: NORMAN WOOTAN
Newsgroups: sci.energy,alt.energy.renewable,alt.paranet.science,alt.para
et.ufo,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,cl.energie
alternativen,sci.bio,sci.energy.hydrogen,sci.environment,sci.physics,sci
physics.fusion,sci.physics.particle
Subject: New Free Energy Device announced ! MRA thread !
Subject: MRA Input
Subject: MRA "Tech Bulletin"
Subject: MRA
Subject: MRA (Tech Bulletin)
Subject: MRA (Tech Bulletin)
Subject: Starting Over
Subject: MRA
Subject: MRA in Conventional Theory
Subject: MRA
Subject: mra piezo source?
Subject: MRA
Subject: (R) Magnetic Resonance Amplifier
Subject: MRA (Tech Bulletin)
Subject: Piezos are fragile
Subject: MRA
Subject: Tiger by the tail
Date: 20 Dec 1994 14:17:00 +0100

Below is the MRA.ASC + Update1 + Update2.

   ________________________________________________________________
   |File Name: MRA.ASC            |  Online Date :12/13/94        |
   |Contributed by : Joel McClain |  Dir Category:ENERGY          |
   |From : KeelyNet BBS           |  DataLine:(214) 324-3501      |
   | KeelyNet * PO BOX 870716 * Mesquite, Texas * USA * 75187     |
   |A FREE Alternative Sciences BBS sponsored by Vanguard Sciences|
   |--------------------------------------------------------------|

 The following requires the file MRA.GIF also on KeelyNet. The file
 MRA.ZIP contains both this file MRA.ASC and the image MRA.GIF.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------
                       ***** Please NOTE!!*****

This is a preliminary report that will be followed by updates with
more detail.Future versions will include various measurements of the
components used in the ciruit that is currently running.From all
appearances at this date, the circuit components will simply give
varying outputs and do not appear to be all that critical.

It was felt that this information should be released to the public as
rapidly as possible, rather than risk loss of the information or the
demo by 'circumstances' beyond our control.There have been too many
discoveries which have disappeared by not being openly shared.We
would rather risk being 'flamed' by other experimenters who actually
BUILD THE CIRCUIT than take the chance of the information being lost
by keeping it within a select group.

Our two primary fears are that someone will attempt to patent what is
intended to be a gift to humanity, possibly with an intent to profit
from others work or to lock it away, the other that it might be
suppressed in some other fashion.

Therefore, the widest possible distribution is requested, and
duplication attempted wherever possible.At the time of this
correction to the original file, we have confirmation as to the
numbers and others are working on the circuit on their own.Please
take this information in the spirit of how it is given, as a gift to
humanity.

The inventors are Joel McClain and Norman Wootan. You can contact
them via KeelyNet or directly.

The circuit is being tested at various levels and attempts at
duplication are under way.At this point, there is only one circuit.We
will openly post other successful duplications or failures.Please
feel free to try it yourself.The cost is minimal.

One other point, the crystal transducer was thought to be barium
titanate and there is reason to believe it is in fact titanium
zirconate.These are disc shaped, about 3" in diamter with a 1"
diameter hole in the center.The disc is about 3/8" thick and is
coated with silver on both sides.Thank you for your open-
mindedness.They are advertised in the back of many electronics
magazines for about $5 each.We have access to a small stock and might
offer them for experiments should people ask for them.

 Good luck and SEIZE THE DAY!

 ----------------------------------------------------------
             The Magnetic Resonance Amplifier (MRA)

Discovered and proven December 12, 1994 and shared with the world on
December 13, 1994

 by Joel McClain and Norman Wootan

MRA is the Magnetic Resonance Amplifier.With low level ultrasonic
input signals, the MRA produces usable direct current power at levels
above unity. This circuit is based upon the work and theories of John
Ernst Worrell Keely, and is offered into the public domain in his
memory.

Without lengthy discussion about the ether, tetrahedral geometric
virtual rotation, mass aggregate resonance or the rule of nines, it
is possible to understand this circuit as basically a tuned magnetic
and quartz amplifier.

However, it WAS necessary to study those subjects in order to design
and build the MRA, so if you want to fully realize how it works,
avail yourself of the files on KeelyNet which contain all of that and
much, much more.

In the schematic, MRA.GIF, there is a tunable low power oscillator,
which supplies a signal to one side of a barium titanite
transducer.The opposite side of the transducer is connected to a
primary coil, which is wrapped around a barium ferrite magnet
core.The opposite end of the primary goes back to the oscillator.

A secondary is wrapped around the primary, and is connected to an
ordinary bridge rectifier, and the output of the bridge is applied to
a DC load.A filter capacitor can be used on the output of the bridge,
and was used on the MRA which we built.Additionally, a load resistor
across the capacitor will keep the output DC from getting too high as
the circuit is tuned.We found that a 30 ohm, 10 watt resistor was
sufficient.

Once this has been assembled, put a voltmeter across the output
resistor to monitor the voltage rise as the circuit is tuned.Adjust
the oscillator frequency to provide the highest DC output.During this
process, be aware that the voltages across the piezo and the coil
will be VERY MUCH HIGHER than the signal level which you are
applying.We have seen combined voltages of almost 1000VAC with only
30VAC of signal input.

When the circuit is tuned, the magnet will be "singing" at around
8000 to 11000Hz.If the piezo sings, you are exceeding its power
capabilities, and will need to reduce the number of turns on your
primary.The frequency that resonates both the piezo and the magnet at
optimum resonance will be three times (three octaves above) the
frequency at which the magnet is singing. This is the nine harmonics
that are mentioned in the Rule of Nines.

To test the circuit, place a precision, high wattage, low ohm
resistor in series with the output from the oscillator to the piezo,
and measure the voltage drop.It should be very small, less than
0.1VAC.Use this value to determine current in the series circuit, and
then calculate power.

Next, measure the DC voltage across your output load resistor, and
once again calculate power.You should be between three to four times
above the previously calculated input power.

Once the circuit is in operation, you will note that the voltage will
vary by 0.1VDC or more, depending upon the time of day.This is due to
the nature of etheric forces inherent to the earth's magnetic
field.Watch for peak voltage at or before sunrise.

In our circuit, we measured 0.084VAC drop across a two ohm series
resistor, for a total of 0.685W dissipation in the primary.With this,
we attained 2.75W of output power, and used this to drive a lamp and
a motor.Increasing the signal voltage had the effect of decreasing
the primary current while boosting output power, thus improving the
power gain ratio.We believe that larger power systems can be built by
using larger coils, more piezos, and a lower frequency, as long as
the aggregate combination is within the resonant frequency range of
the components.

The MRA is essentially a means of releasing the electrical energy
stored in magnets.As such, it is an AC battery with DC output.It can
be used for a portable, self-charging power supply with a solid state
oscillator and rechargable battery.For those who want a synopsis of
the technology, the following paragraphs are offered, but it is
strongly suggested that you follow up this reading with a more
thorough study of the KeelyNet files.

Matter = energy.To change the matter, change the energy.Creating of a
magnet achieved by a process which causes the matter to be both
expanded and compressed at the same time, with the result that a
magnet is in a constant state of collapse.This is why magnets attract
material with similar lattice structures, as they attempt to fill the
energy void which created them.The "domains" of the magnet are fixed
after the process of magnetization, and the only way to extract
electrical energy is to physically spin a coil relative to a magnet.

However, it is also possible to induce virtual rotation by applying
the resonant frequency of the magnet, which causes the lattices and
the domains to vibrate.However, the power required to do this is
greater than the energy released by the virtual rotation.Therefore,
it is necessary to increase the vibration without using excessive
current.

The piezo has a virtually inexhaustable supply of free electrons, and
it releases them when it is stressed.Using the piezo in series with
the primary coil will almost eliminate primary current, because it is
voltage which stresses the piezo, not current.Therefore, the piezo
can be stressed with very little actual power, and provide the
current to the primary coil, which vibrates the domains of the
magnet.

The piezo is the catalyst for the circulating current with the
primary coil. The circulating current is additive, and this is the
reason for the high potentials developed across both the piezo and
the primary coil.

It is at this point that resonance becomes important.You MUST have
three octaves of separation between the magnet resonant frequency and
the signal applied to the piezo.The circulating current is rich in
harmonics, and this is necessary for the operation of the circuit.

Although the circuit is simple, it utilizes the concepts of PHI, of
virtual rotation, of tetrahedral geometry, piezo and transformer
theory, and electrical knowledge.It is not suggested as a beginner
project as a result of the high voltages present.For engineers and
technicians of experience, it may be difficult to accept that the MRA
is above unity.The ramifications are emormous.Hopefully, it will help
to build a better world.
 -------------------------------------------------------

Vangard Note

This device incorporates power multiplication principles using
multiple resonances as claimed by Keely and Hendershott.It also
corresponds in some ways with Floyd Sweet's VTA and Joe Parr's energy
spheres from pyramids.

Joel called Sunday night in an excited state.He and Norman took turns
explaining what they had achieved using this circuit.The power input
measurements were about 600mWatts and yet the circuit was generating
about 2.5 Watts on the output.Norman hooked up a DC motor and he said
it was spinning like crazy in addition to a light bulb glowing
brightly.

Norman was laughing and said they'd beat Harold Puthoffs' One Watt
Challenge as issued at the 1994 ISNE conference in Denver.This has
created quite a bit of excitement and Puthoff now has a FAX'd copy of
the circuit.No doubt it will be everywhere in a very short time.The
hope by Joel and Norman is that others will duplicate the initial
effect and be able to expand on it to derive useful power.

Sweet claimed something on the order of 1:3,000,000 over-unity.The
input power to his device was 10 VAC at 29uamps (290mWatts).The
output had been loaded to as high as 3,000 Watts.

The initial MRA circuit is something on the order of 1:5 and is
believed to be scalable.Joel says the coil he had wound around the
barium ferrite magnet was not in the least precision and he is of the
mind that a huge coil surrounding the magnet will produce a
proportional increase in power.

Early talks with various KeelyNetters about the Sweet circuit led
many of us to believe that Barium, when excited, rings for a long
time when the exciter is removed.At the ISNE conference, Don Watson
confirmed this with his analogy of glowing luciferase as found in
fireflys or other phosphorescent materials.A weak stimulation
continues to produce light for a time after the stimulation is
removed.

So, here is a wonderful opportunity to build a pioneering device.If
you have questions or suggestions, you may direct them to Joel
McClain or Norman Wootan at KeelyNet.

I think they both need to be commended for their willingness to share
what many would keep proprietary or die with the
secret
                   .............>>>Jerry

 -----------------------------------------------------

*********************************************************************
Message 9850
DATE/TIME: 12/13/94 09:31From   : JOEL MCCLAIN
To     : ALL
Subject: MRA Input
Folder : A, "Public Mail"
For those who plan to build their own MRA, you will have to use
sine wave signal wave input.  I've tried square wave, and although
the magnet will "sing", the output DC power will be below unity.
I believe this is because the circuit can't "breathe" evenly with
square wave input.
===============================================================================
Message 9875
DATE/TIME: 12/13/94 19:23
From   : JOEL MCCLAIN
To     : ALL
Subject: MRA "Tech Bulletin"
Folder : A, "Public Mail"

If you build your own MRA, there are a few things that you should know that
aren't in the file yet...they're still being discovered.

First of all, don't wear your quartz watch while you work on the MRA,as the
quartz will react with the circuit and run slow.  Secondly, avoid using scopes
for anything except occasional waveform checks, because there is so much flux
in the air that it will buildup on the scope and skew your display.

Thirdly, use a hand-heletr as opposed to a panel meter if you can because the
flux buildup on a panel meter chassis will destroy the front end
transistors...I know, as I did it.

Fourth, the constant ringing will drive you nuts and give you a head-ache in
short order.

Fifth, if you take the piezo out of the circuit after it has been on for a
while, as it cools, it will keep building up charges, and will bite you when
you pick it up.

Sixth, if the piezo screeches, shut the MRA down and wait for a while before
you start it up again.  The piezos are bad tempered if you overdrive them, and
will sulk for a while before they work right.

This ain't your daddy's oldsmobile...we're still learning to drive it so there
may be more of these "field bulletins".

Joel
========================================================================
====== Message 9876                                   DATE/TIME:
12/13/94 20:00
From   : NORMAN WOOTAN
To     : BILL BEATY
Subject: MRA
Folder : A, "Public Mail"

Bill:
Point well taken.  We will prove out the circuit and you will
know by the message traffic as to our progress.  We all value your
input and guidance therefore jump in and help us out as we sort this
beast out.  I have a very similar circuit to Joel's and we compare
notes constantly. I wound a coil on a barium ferrite magnet with my
windings running parallel to the "bloch wall" where Joel's coil has the
windings running perpendicular to the "bloch wall".
My I/O ratio so far as I can determine is around 12:1 which is some
improvement but we need testing.  Bert
Pool just left to go and build a similar circuit so the more folks that
build, test and improve on the design the better.

Thanks again.

Norm
===============================================================================

Message 9882
DATE/TIME: 12/14/94 08:17
Originally-From: NORMAN WOOTAN
To     : ALL
Subject: MRA (Tech Bulletin)
Folder : A, "Public Mail"

Since Joel and I have created a lot of interest in the MRA device we will
place everything on line so that no "stone is left unturned".  Long ago I saw
a sci-fi movie of a suitcase size device that you could plug any size AC load
into it and it would power it with no problem.  I dreamed of building such a
device by imploying a block of natural quartz with a mechanical oscillator
attached to all faces (Tesla oscillator) to force the quartz to yield free
electrons.  I envisioned the output (high voltage) to be stored in a capacitor
bank (1 kilo joule) them the output going into an inverter circuit and
stepdown transformer to take this piezo generated voltage down to a useful AC
voltage.  Now Joel and I have combined this cture of a magnet to sum the
outputs of the piezo effect and the ferro-resonant effect to give an
over-unity total at the bridge rectifier.  Last night Bert Pool came over to
gather up the needed supplies to build a prototype circuit to do independent
evaluation.  After I had run the circuit through the paces noting the outputs
and thoroughly discussing what we thought was going on here I turned off the
meters, scopes and the signal generator and finally went to bed. Well I woke
up a 2:00AM with a headache, went to get the tylenol and went into the room
with the test rig on the bench.  I turned on the frequency counter and found
that the circuit was running in free oscillation with no input.
Although no power was being produced the free running oscillations were
filling my living space with a high freq ultrasonic squeal that as Joel has
warned will give you a migrane headache in short order.  The free oscillation
was  [D [Ds around 44KHZ with the freq counter ranging up and down (no lock
on). I had to take the circuit apart to stop the ultrasonic ringing.  As Joel
has pointed out these titanium zirconate transducers, once set into resonance
will continue to ring for a long period.  Since there is possible some
conditioning taking place within the crystaline structure of the material I
believe that over a long conditioning period (burn in time) the whole circuit
can be make sensitive to a combination of two frequencies that are necessary.
The first freq involved is the input to drive the transducer which has to be 3
octaves down from the fundamental natural frequency of the ferro-magnetic
resonant frequency.  Although it has not been mentioned before in "A" public
on this net, Joel and I were successful in isolating and identifying the
fundamental Ferromagnetic Resonant Frequency as being around 174.9 KHZ.
Dosen't it sound ironic that this freq should fall so close to what the Corums
have determined that Tesla designed his big coil out in Colorado springs
around? I hav eread several art icles that speculated that the ferromagnetic
freq or the earth natural magnetic field resonated around 180KHZ.  With this
174.9 freq in mind we have applied the Joel McClain "Rule of Nines" to the
circuit where we run the transducer at a freq that is a multiple of the
fundamental 174.9 ferroresonant freq.  His circuit is running at a fifth and
mine is running at a third.
Example- I input a sine wave signal at 2.28 V AC into the series resonant
circuit at 59070HZ and get a voltage developed across the transducer of 26.04V
and a voltage across the coil of 24.02 with an output voltage from the bridge
rectifier of 30.2 V DC.  If every thing is running in an ideal phase
relationship (transducer oscillations and ferro-coil oscillations) then the
beat freq will partially sum the two voltages since they are in a series
circuit and set up a circulating current in the primary which when the primary
winding and the secondary windings have the proper impedance matching will
extract the maximum amout of energy from the circulating current in the
transformer into a healthy output at the bridge which is far OVER-UNITY, high
I/O ratio.  My circuit is showing a 13:1 ratio at this time and I have not
even approached a good impedance match in the windings.  A real sharp RF
engineer could sort all the details out in short order.  I don't profess to be
an RF engineer but have a good background in electronics.  This is the reason
for Joel and I going "PUBLIC DOMAIN" with tyhe circuit so that some highly
skilled folks out there can take this circuit and help develope it into
something of practical use.  We don't want PROFIT motivated people to "rip"
off the idea for self gain. We want any potential benefits of the circuit to
remain free for the taking.  More notes as we learn more.  As Joel says, "we
are like teanagers learning to drive dads olds".  A little help from
interested fellow researchers is welcome.

Norm

===============================================================================

DATE/TIME: 12/14/94 09:19
From   : NORMAN WOOTAN
To     : ALL
Subject: MRA (Tech Bulletin)
Folder : A, "Public Mail"

In our discussion of the MRA circuit we keep referring to the key part of the
circuit as being a transducer.  Let me clarify this a litle for I know there
are a lot of folks out there who will be running around looking for that same
device that we have.  First let's settle the confusion about the type of
material involved.
Jerry Decker and I bought some of these devices from Tanner Electronics here
in Dallas and were told that they were BARIUM TITANATE transducers made for
the ultra-sonic heads in the ultra-sonic welders used in the plastics
industry.
There are numerous manufacturers of such welding devices in which
they stack these devices (each rated at 50 Watts) to get the total power
needed to weld plastic by kinetic contact heating.
A physical description is:  2 inch outside diameter round eith a 5/8 th inch
hole through the center with a thickness of 3/16 th inch with silver layered
on each side which is convenient for soldering leads to the transducer.  When
employing these units they have to be suspended to that they are free to
resonate.  Don't lay them on a table or surface for this will dampen the free
oscillations.  We have not consulted an acoustical engineer to determine the
best way to mount the units or attach the I/O leads so as to provide the
optimum free resonances.  We have discussed the employment of tuned pipes of
the proper wave length ratios needed to enhance the free resonant or targeted
resonance that we desire. I have even thought of a mechanical type of tuning
fork device that would give us the Tesla described "CHILD ON THE SWING" type
drive that would give the maximum output with the least possible input
(wattage I/O).  A good microwave engineer would possibly come up with a tuned
cavity resonator which would drive the transducer at the optimum phase to
extract the energy needed to drive the ferro-rersonan t coil in the primary.
The magnet that Joel is useing is from an IBM hard drive and is as follows:
 [A [D [B 7 inches long X 2 inches  X 2 inches with the magnetic "Bloch wall"
across the thickness.
For those out there who may never heard the term "Block wall" it means the
neutral plane in a magnet.  The magnetic orientation is across the thickness
of the magnetic therefore cannot be described as a bar magnet which has it's
magnetic orientation along the long axis.  By useing a magnet which has the
flux across the thickness and the windings are wound around the center of the
long axis we have a coil which is wound with half of the winding turn in a "N"
field and the other half of the turn in a "S" field.

Makes no difference since the objective here is to ring the magnet into a
resonant freq and it seems to me that it is easier to ring (mechanically) with
the ends of the long axis protruding from the coil. In other words the "Node
point" is under the coil with the free ends oscillating.  There are several
ways to suspend a bar that is in free resonance.
All you have to do is open your door chime and look at how the chime bar is
mounted to extract the maximum acoustical energy from the hammer strike.  The
same objective applies here so there is a lot of work to be done to maximize
this device.
It is public so YOU can help sort it all out.
Joel is useing 150 turns in the primary and secondary of his ferro-magnetic
transformer.  Experimentation will provide the ideal ratios and impedance
matching.  Get with the program and provide free exchange of findings so all
may benefit.

Norm
Message 9930                                   DATE/TIME: 12/16/94 18:04
From   : JOEL MCCLAIN                       -- RECEIVED --
To     : NORMAN WOOTAN
Subject: Starting Over
Folder : A, "Public Mail"

Hi Norm,

I'm breaking in another piezo.  It's been on the sig gen for a few
hours.  I have 1.33VAC at 34.2KHz from the sig gen, measuring current
in line.  Current starts at 4ma, then slowly drops for about three
minutes until it gets down to just 1ma.  Since the 1.33VAC is  RMS,
input power to the MRA is 1.33mw.  Output is 3.1VDC across 4.7K from
the decade box which calculates at 2.0mw.  Since the meter is rated at
200KHz, I know that we are well within its range.  Gain at this low
level of signal is 150%.  We will learn how to condition a piezo from
this, which we can pass along as another tech note.  It looks like we
have to start at the leakage threshhold and work up in terms of power
applied.  It will take a LOT of tests to keep from conditioning parts
until they are just barely marginal under useful load.  Oh well,
nobody ever said it would be easy.  The noise from the magnet is
amazing, even at low power.

Joel
===============================================================================

Message 9949                                   DATE/TIME: 12/17/94 09:39
From   : NORMAN WOOTAN                      -- RECEIVED --
To     : JOEL MCCLAIN
Subject: MRA
Folder : A, "Public Mail"

Joel:  I have had my version of the MRA running for about 14 hours to
condition the magnet and the driver piezos so when I visit you we can
do some parallel testing on the two circuits for more verification of
over-unity operation. After running all night the circuit is definitely
in the (+) colume so we need to nail down the degree. I will bring out
my scope Techtronic 80 MHZ with a current probe so maybe we can further
bracket that elusive input figure.  Everyone agrees that when you are
dealing with AC at 40KHZ with harmonic bucking taking place it is
sometimes very difficult to pin down the real input wattage.  The
"equivalent resistance" test that you are doing is I guess the only
way, except for some sophisticated equipment that Hal and John have
down at the "Institute for Advanced Studies" in Austin.  More later
Norm
===============================================================================

Message 9951                                   DATE/TIME: 12/17/94 10:50
From   : JOEL MCCLAIN
To     : ALL
Subject: MRA in Conventional Theory
Folder : A, "Public Mail"

The MRA is a series resonant LC circuit in which power gain is
attainable as a result of the increase in effective impedance under
certain operating conditions.  When the series impedance increases,
primary current is reduced.  When the power available from the sec-
ondary coil either remains the same or increases as the primary
circuit impedance increases, a power gain occurs.

This is not possible with a series resonant circuit made of con-
ventional materials.  Even unity power transfer is considered to be
unattainable as a result of accumulated losses in the components,
which are passive (reactive) devices.  Materials and construction
methods are chosen for these components based upon the type of
application and frequency to be applied, with the goal of minimizing
losses.

A typical capacitor with polyethylene dielectric has a dielectric
constant of 2.3 times air.  Air has a constant of 1.0, and is the
basis for comparison.  Titanium dioxide, however, has a dielectric
constant maximum of 170, and a corresponding power factor of only
0.0006, comparable with polyethylene, so that the dissipation of
primary current in the dielectric is extremely low.  This is where
the comparison ends, because the titanium composite "capacitor" is
also a piezoelectric device as well as an excellent capacitor.

Heat adversely affects the power factor of most dielectric materials.
Titanium zirconate, however, contains polar molecules which rotate as
thermal pressure is applied.  This rotation increases the dielectric
constant if the frequency applied is equal to or lower than the res-
onant frequency of the dielectric.  At series resonance, the rotation
of polar molecules contributes to heat; as the dielectric constant
increases, a corresponding release of free electrons occurs, as a
direct result of the piezoelectric properties of the device.

In application, the MRA is tuned at resonance for maximum power tran-
sfer, then detuned slightly for maximum power gain.  This relates
directly to the use of thermal pressure at resonance, and the effect
that this has on continued polar rotation and the release of donor
electrons.

The coil, or primary of the MRA is a magnetic core which relative to
the fixed capacitance of the piezo, is a tuned permeability device.
This is often used in RF devices to attain a stable resonant fre-
quency.  Magnetic materials are chosen based upon the operating
characteristics of the intended application to reduce eddy currents
in the operating range.  In these applications, the resonant freq-
uency of the magnet itself is avoided, as this would "beat" with the
oscillating current.  However, in the MRA, this is the exact effect
which we want.

The barium ferrite magnet resonates audibly at frequencies which are
harmonics of the series resonant frequency.  The effect of this in a
typical audio application is called harmonic distortion, and is not
desirable, but once again, in the MRA, this is what we want to occur.
There is energy in the harmonics, and this energy serves to both
counter eddy losses as well as to oppose primary current flow, while
contributing to circulating current within the resonant circuit.

The net effect of this, is that when the MRA is detuned, harmonics of
the audible frequency "beat" with primary current, opposing its flow,
while the increase in circulating current couples more power to the
secondary, and therefore to the load.  This is how the power gain is
attained, basically by considering the naturally occuring harmonics
as beneficial instead of as undesirable effects to be filtered out.

When the MRA is detuned, the effective impedance increases as seen by
the source, while the power available to the load decreases in less
proportion.  This is measurable by using resistive equivalent circuit
testing.  However, the detuning is load dependent, and slight adjust-
ments are required if the load requirement is greater than the power
band of a harmonic interaction.  After retuning, the power to the
will increase in quantum intervals as the circulating current is
reinforced by the reaction of the permeable magnet core.  This will
be seen as slight incremental voltage increases across the load
device.

Once the magnet is "ringing", it's frequency and therefore harmonics
remain stable, as long as the series resonant range is not exceeded.
Therefore, the detuning affects the piezo only, and the circulating
current increase is a result of the phase relationship between the
harmonic and the source.  Voltage amplification is seen across the
primary, measurable higher than the source voltage, and this is
"seen" by the secondary.  This is not the same thing as a power gain,
because the power gain is a direct result of effective impedance.

It should also be noted that the term "virtual rotation" has been
applied in describing the operation of the MRA.  The comparison is
made with a generator, in which relative motion occurs between a
coil and magnet.  Rather than use physical energy to rotate a mass,
the MRA uses resonance to rotate the energy.  This is seen in the
polar rotation of the piezo dielectric as well as in the molecular
energy occuring in the reactive component of the magnet, ie, the
ringing.  The lattice structures of the piezo and magnet are com-
patible for virtual rotation, and the materials complement each other
electrically.

In the past, researchers have noted many effects which occur at
aggregate resonance, which typically includes a range of three
octaves.  Anomalous energy gains were referred to as "aetheric".
The aether was believed to exist outside of the three physical dimen-
sions, and could be "tapped" for free energy at resonance.  Aetheric
energy is said to be limitless, but to vary locally with increases
in earth magnetic fields at sunset and sunrise, like the tides of an
infinite ocean.  This effect is not thoroughly understood, but has
been observed in the MRA, as increases in output in the early morning,
and decreases in the early evening. This is still being studied.

Experimentation will determine the optimum MRA design for a specific
range of applications.
===============================================================================

Message 9964                                   DATE/TIME: 12/17/94 14:31
From   : NORMAN WOOTAN
To     : BILL BEATY
Subject: MRA
Folder : A, "Public Mail"

Bill:  Yes Joel and I both have Techtronic scopes and Fluke 87 true RMS
meters to cross check all measurements and so far we cannot find the
"flaw" in the test procedure if there is one.  The only real test is
"independent verification" which will be done by Hal Puthoff and John
down in Austin.  If you saw Jerry's message to me, I will be sending
Walter Rosenthal a complete running circuit for a second verification
along with a complete set of all the message traffic and "Tech
Bulletins" to date.  Joel and I have done all we can do as to
verification due to not having some very advanced equipment.  The next
step is on the work bench in the form of a voltage regulator stage, an
oscillator stage and a MOSFET driver stage to drive the front end of
the circuit so we can run it "stand alone".   Norm
===============================================================================


Message 9966                                   DATE/TIME: 12/17/94 15:45
From   : BILL BEATY
To     : ALL
Subject: mra piezo source?
Folder : A, "Public Mail"

The H&R catalog has LEAD ZIRCONATE TITANATE piezos, 1.5" by
1/10", 50khz.  Think it'll work?
===============================================================================

Message 9967                                   DATE/TIME: 12/17/94 18:17
From   : NORMAN WOOTAN
To     : BILL BEATY
Subject: MRA
Folder : A, "Public Mail"

Bill:  Yes those transducers will work but they are physically smaller
than the ones we are useing.  I figure when this circuit is verified
that the next step will be to go to a natural quartz milled waffer of
the natural freq we desire to same as the crystals used in transmitters
except a lot larger.  If you have access to a Thomas Directory at work,
please look up Branson who makes the ultrasonic welders so we can get a
source manufacturer from them.  Maybe someone on the Internet will know
the manufacturers of these transducers.  This circuit is a mind bender
when you study it's characteristics.  For example I started off this
morning (after I let the circuit run all night to condition the magnet
and piezo crystal) with a total over-unity power gain of 1.65:1 ratio.
After playing with the circuit all day taking measurements after each
adjustment or change of operating parameters, arrived at a 150:1 I/O
ratio.  Here are the figures:  Input 15.34 VAC @ 54.9 KHZ with .57 Ma
which is .000874 Watts which has to be adjusted for power factor by
multiplying by .707.  The output is: 16.75 VDC @ 78.8 Ma into a pure
resistive load. This figures out to be greater than a 150:1 I/O ratio.
I guess you have figured out how excited everyone is over this
"Gadget". Now unless OHMS law has been nulified or there is some
"spook" phenomenon that Joel and I cannot find then we have the 1 watt
challenge in the bag by a wide margin.  More as we learn more.  Norm
===============================================================================

Message 9981                                   DATE/TIME: 12/18/94 06:41
From   : BOB PADDOCK                        -- RECEIVED --
To     : BOB PADDOCK
Subject: (R) Magnetic Resonance Amplifier
Folder : A, "Public Mail"

 | BP>      Also see Radio Craft for March 1994 for more on
 | BP> Ehrenhaft.
 |
 |      Fumble fingers again.  :-( That should be 1944!.
===============================================================================

Message 9982                                   DATE/TIME: 12/18/94 10:13
From   : NORMAN WOOTAN
To     : ALL
Subject: MRA (Tech Bulletin)
Folder : A, "Public Mail"

I know that there are quit a few folks out there running around digging
up parts to build a MRA device to do independent testing.  Let me share
with you some findings that will assist all in this approach.  First
disregard the measurements that I gave Bill Beaty yesterday in a
message about power gain.  I like Joel find myself back at "square
one". It happens like this, when you have this circuit up on the
"ragged edge" where the first harmonic seems to be phase "beating" or
attenuating the input current and providing potential only to drive the
first stage resonance in the transducer, you disconnect the load to do
the only accurate total power consumption test which is "equivalent
resistance" measurements so we can nail down the elusive power figure
according to OHMS LAW.  Well when you unload the circuit under the
optimum operating conditions the transducers will immediately trip into
a very powerful mechanical oscillations around 2KHZ and self distruct
in short order and at the same time put out a violent voltage that can
soar above 1000 VAC which inturn will literaly wipe out your driving
amplifier and your frequency counter.  Fortunately the scope is better
protected on the front end.  So what I am saying is that you begin all
over conditioning a new set of driver transducers which even fresh out
of the box will display over-unity output in the circuit.  The people
over at the manufacturing firm that makes these transducers are
"smilling" and calling their stock broker to exercise some stock
options in their product for I see a lot of you destroying a bunch of
transducers in the process of testing and improving the circuit. Let me
share with you some ideas.  When I go back and read TOM BEARDENS works
about potentializing a circuit without the attendant circuit that is
normally involved we will have achieved the over-unity that we are
seeking.  After careful study of the MRA I can see how this device can
be separated into two separate devices.  First the piezo is a source of
high freq potential which at 3 octaves above drive the ferro-resonant
primary coil at the natural resonant freq of the magnetic material. [C
Now I believe I have figured out the secret behind the Swiss M-L
Converter known as the TESTAVISTATIKA or TESTATIKA for short.  This
device was developed in the group called METHERNETA by Paul Baumann and
it has been seen by our friend Stephan Marinov.  This ZPE tapping can
be accomplished through potential being derived from any source such as
the electrostatic charge developed in the whinshurst type generator.
The secret is in the MAGNETIC RESONANCE AMPLIFIER. Ken Shoulders and
R.A. Ford demonstrated that what we term as harmless energy
(electrostatic charge) when stored in a large capacitor is real charge
seperation and can do some interesting things such as exploding water,
wire and other interesting research projects.  If we take advantage of
the mechanical oscillations of the transducer and operate it at a level
of mechanical resonance (in free oscillation) that will optimize the
voltage output (lets say 400 volts) which inturn we use to drive the
ferro-resonant barium ferrite core coil then we can extract some
serious power from the coil providing that we have done our homework
and provided the optimum impedance matching  and tuning of the circuit
to maximize the final product.  We are a long ways from our final goal
of having a unit that we can flip a switch and the thing will run
"stand alone".  Joel and I have taken the first step by sharing with
you our findings so let's work this thing out together as a "joint
project".  We will share all findings in these Tech Bulletins so
everyone is on the same sheet of music.   Now for some "spook" type
anomalies that  occur around this circuit when it is running in the ZPE
tapping mode which is where we purposely de-tune the circuit upward in
freq so that we get the "beating" effect from the first harmonic.  When
you see this on the scope it will appear as the sine wave patern of the
input being broken into little line segments by an invisible or
transparent oscillation at a much higher freq than the primary driving
signal which in the case of my circuit is around 56.8 KHZ. Even when I
have CH 2 turned on with no signal (base line only) it also is broken
into short line segments as if the electron beam is driven into cut off
by this invisible signal.  Any RF engineers out there seen this?
Please explain same.  I believe that all the phenomenon that is being
observed by people such as Sweet, Aspden, Adams, Lambertson, Searle and
Tom Bearden are all connected by a common thread.  Let's "unravel it"
Norm
===============================================================================

Message 9983                                   DATE/TIME: 12/18/94 11:03
From   : JOEL MCCLAIN
To     : JERRY DECKER (SYSOP)
Subject: Piezos are fragile
Folder : A, "Public Mail"

Hi Jerry,
The piezos, for all of their 50 watt capability, are fragile,
especially along the edges.  I had mine soldered at the edges, and when
it bumped into the magnet while in transport, it cracked.  The piezo
has to be free to vibrate...if you touch it while the MRA is running,
you can watch your output drop off, so it's a question of finding a way
to mount them "loose", yet protected.  However, whoever accidently
picked up my stapled pack of tech notes might let me know so I can pick
them up...has all of the test fata and correspondence with Hal, and was
on the corner of the table.
THANKS!!
Joel
===============================================================================

Message 9984                                   DATE/TIME: 12/18/94 11:13
From   : NORMAN WOOTAN
To     : JERRY DECKER (SYSOP)
Subject: MRA
Folder : A, "Public Mail"

Hey!! Jerry, Don Smith is right all the way.  Let me explain- he has
basically the same circuit that we (Joel and I). In his circuit he is
useing a Tesla coil as the driver and trying to extract power in his
secondary from the "febile" background earth magnetic field.  If Don
had been privy to what Joel and I know (now everyone) then he could
have incorporated into his circuit a powerful barium ferrite magnet
which he could drive at its resonant freq and effectively do the same
thing we are doing.  In fact the Tesla coil instead of the transducer
is a much better driving potential.  It is inheriently much more stable
with much higher potentials being able to be achieved and the fact
remains that the ZPE tapping occurs in the domains of the magnet in
"Virtual Rotation".  Thoughts Jerry and Joel?????????????  Norm
===============================================================================

Message 9985                                   DATE/TIME: 12/18/94 11:55
From   : JOEL MCCLAIN
To     : NORMAN WOOTAN
Subject: Tiger by the tail
Folder : A, "Public Mail"

Hi Norm,

Sorry to hear that you also blew up your input amplifier.  We've got
a very powerful tiger by a very short tail with the MRA.  It's
purpose is to give power gain by bucking input current while using
circulating current to drive the load, and this is done in a tuned,
balanced state.  As we've seen, unbalancing the MRA by removing the
load can cause the "bucking" current to run open and blow up 40 to
50 watt amplifiers...with no other power applied.  Even the flux
from it blew up my panel mount DVM.

Well, the good news is that we are over unity...the bad news is that
we will have to cage the beast somehow.

Joel
===============================================================================

For more info:

http://www.eskimo.com/~billb


## CrossPoint v3.02 ##
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenharti cudfnStefan cudlnHartmann cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.21 / Richard Blue /  Re: Sloppy measurements
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Sloppy measurements
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 1994 01:12:57 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

In response to my question concerning the boil-off time in the P&F
experiments, Chuck Harrison says the event was recorded on video tape.
My question then becomes which "event"?  How is the evidence presented
on a video tape connected to the data presented in the paper? As I
recall the data was accumulated for a block of 64 cells simultaneously
so it would not be obvious that any but a selected few cells could
even be viewed by a video camera.  Furthermore, the real issue to
be resolved has to do with how the boiling (shown on the video) is
correlated to the power input.  Does there exist a data set that
makes that correlation clear with a time resolution better than
the reported 5-minute sampling interval?

I have seen a video tape in which Pons and Fleischmann clearly
seek to mislead viewers as to what they are seeing.  They wave
some painted tin can around and say that is what a cold fusion
reactor will look like.   Anyone can boil water in front of a
TV camera.  I don't think it is question of my honesty when I
suggest that possibly the evidence for cold fusion coming from
that lab in the south of France is somewhat shakey.   I don't
know that the timing for the boil-off is as bad as the graphical
presentation of the data would seem to indicate.  My question
was intended to make it clear that I honestly don't know
that it is any better.

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.21 / Richard Blue /  Re: Refuting the Reifenschweiler effect
     
Originally-From: blue@pilot.msu.edu (Richard A Blue)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Refuting the Reifenschweiler effect
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 1994 01:13:00 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Perhaps I should, for Daryl Owen's benefit, explain my doubts about
the Reifenschweiler data in greater detail.  Daryl does not challange
my statements concerning the nature of the signal which reaches the
detector so I take it that is not at issue.  I will add one further
concern relating to the detected radiation.  That has to do with the
geometry between the position of the source and the position of
the detector.  Changes in the location of the source will also effect
the signal being detected, so I would ask Daryl to tell us what defines
the location of the tritium that is being "detected?"

The point that Daryl does call into question relates to the chemistry
that occurs within the experimental volume during the course of the
experiment.  Daryl refers to "the - vacuum - of the experiment."
What vacuum?  What is the quality of the vacuum in the region of
titanium smoke during the preparation of the titanium tritide and
during the course of the measurements?

I suggest that Reifenschweiler and Owen are making an assumption about
the composition of the radiating sample that is not well supported by
any evidence available to them.  Just because the experimenter attempts
to prepare a sample of a particular composition does not mean that
he succeeds in doing so.

The vacuum system as described by Reifenschweiler has some obvious
limitations beyond the fact that the thin window assembly is possibly
leaky.  The pump and the vacuum gauge are both isolated from the
experimental volume by an obviously significant constriction in the
connected tubulation.  Furthermore one should be aware of the fact
that the titanium smoke deposite is a highly reactive getter, and as
such is probably a better vacuum pump than any other device connected
through a constricted tube.

For those reasons I doubt that the tritium is ever lodged in material
that can be properly characterized as being "titanium tritide".  Further-
more I doubt that the unknown chemical composition is stable throughout
the course of the measurements.  That was my point.  If there is any
evidence to support a claim that the sample is titanium tritide I did
not find it in an expanded unpublished version of the Reifenschweiler
paper which I have read.  I don't believe that the experimental
conditions as described support the picture that the activity level
of a chemically stable sample is altered by heating, and that the
best possibly explanation is that there is actually a change in the
rate constant for the beta decay of tritium.  Why is it the chemists
are some darned sure they can do nuclear physics under conditions
where they don't even have the chemistry well under control?

Dick Blue

cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenblue cudfnRichard cudlnBlue cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.20 / K Jonsson /  Re: Another theory for Griggs device
     
Originally-From: kvj@rhi.hi.is (Kristjan Valur Jonsson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Another theory for Griggs device
Date: 20 Dec 1994 15:20:49 GMT
Organization: University of Iceland

In <Jo-Xfsr.jedrothwell@delphi.com> jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:

>mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY) writes:
> 
>     "[An Oak Ridge scientist] . . . told me that is is a fairly well known
>     fact among some researchers that the published steam tables are wrong.
>     The original team which made up the steam tables found that toward the
>     extremes (high pressure high temperature and low pressure and
>     temperature) there are unexplained non-linearities."
> 
>We do not depend on the steam tables. We condense the steam in a 50 gallon
>steel drum full of water and measure the increased enthalpy of the water.
>This result agrees closely with the steam table computations. Surely this
>Oak Ridge fellow does agree that one BTU equals one pound of water raised
>by one degree F. That is not exact of course; at extreme temperatures close
>to boiling it does not work. That is why we kept the water temperature far
>below extremes. It was between room temperature and 120 deg F (boiling is
>212 deg F).

I think the point being made is not that because of some error in the
steam tables _you_ are getting wrong results.
The point is that there are (alledgedly) errors in the steam tables
introduced to cover up some (alledged) over unity process with steam,
and this problem/process is the source of you _real_ eccess energy.

Thus, you are not using bogus values to get bogus results, but the tables
indicate, erroneously, that there should be no eccess heat where indeed,
there is one.

This all sounds rather fantastic to mee, however.
But I have heard of all kinds of people attemting to exploit
som anomalies with steam before.  Perhaps there are grounds to it.

Kristjan

-- 
Kristjan Valur Jonsson               |    The individual does not qualify for
Student of mechanical engineering,   |         making decisions regarding the
University of Iceland                |                 activities of the many.
Exclaimer: Yess!                     |                         (Helmut, 1993)
-- 
Kristjan Valur Jonsson               |    The individual does not qualify for
Student of mechanical engineering,   |         making decisions regarding the
University of Iceland                |                 activities of the many.
Exclaimer: Yess!                     |                         (Helmut, 1993)
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenkvj cudfnKristjan cudlnJonsson cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.20 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Another theory for Griggs device
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Another theory for Griggs device
Date: Tue, 20 DEC 94 10:55:24 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY) writes:
 
     "I disagree that the pressures (and local transient temperatures) are
     not extreme.  When the ultrasound starts (as you say), there is
     likelihood that you are getting extensive cavitation and violent
     collapses."
 
Ah, that is true. I forgot about that. Dudley is saying that conditions on the
microscopic scale are extreme. Macroscopically the machine operates at normal
temperatures for industrial applications, but the excess heat may be added in
microscopic bursts.
 
Incidentally, there is an interesting article about Putterman's conventional
sonofusion in the New York Times Science Times section today, 12/20/94. It is
titled "New Shot at Cold Fusion By Pumping Sound Waves Into Tiny Bubbles."
Unfortunately it does not mention E-Quest or Hydro Dynamics.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenjedrothwell cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.20 / J WINTERFLOOD /  Re: New Free Energy Device announced ! MRA thread !
     
Originally-From: jwinter@galileo.pi.infn.it (John WINTERFLOOD)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: New Free Energy Device announced ! MRA thread !
Date: 20 Dec 1994 16:43:13 GMT
Organization: Universita' di Pisa

Lots of stuff Deleted

: Message 9967                                   DATE/TIME: 12/17/94 18:17
: From   : NORMAN WOOTAN
: To     : BILL BEATY
: Subject: MRA
: Folder : A, "Public Mail"

More deletions

: when you study it's characteristics.  For example I started off this
: morning (after I let the circuit run all night to condition the magnet
: and piezo crystal) with a total over-unity power gain of 1.65:1 ratio.
: After playing with the circuit all day taking measurements after each
: adjustment or change of operating parameters, arrived at a 150:1 I/O
: ratio.  Here are the figures:  Input 15.34 VAC @ 54.9 KHZ with .57 Ma
: which is .000874 Watts which has to be adjusted for power factor by
           ^^^^^^^!!!
I know where the excess power is coming from - it seems to be draining
the battery in your calculator!

Later we find :-

: everyone is on the same sheet of music.   Now for some "spook" type
: anomalies that  occur around this circuit when it is running in the ZPE
: tapping mode which is where we purposely de-tune the circuit upward in
: freq so that we get the "beating" effect from the first harmonic.  When
: you see this on the scope it will appear as the sine wave patern of the
: input being broken into little line segments by an invisible or
: transparent oscillation at a much higher freq than the primary driving
: signal which in the case of my circuit is around 56.8 KHZ. Even when I
: have CH 2 turned on with no signal (base line only) it also is broken
: into short line segments as if the electron beam is driven into cut off
: by this invisible signal.  Any RF engineers out there seen this?

Sounds to me like you are seeing the "chop" signal from your own CRO.
Try switching to "alt". Either that or your measurements are entirely
invalidated by frequencies much higher than the expected ~50Khz.



cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenjwinter cudfnJohn cudlnWINTERFLOOD cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.20 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Sloppy measurements
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Sloppy measurements
Date: Tue, 20 DEC 94 11:40:51 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Bruce Schechter <bruce@disney.com> asks me:
 
     "Once more I am touched by your faith in the accuracy of commercial test
     equipment.  What do you think of the latest results from the Intel
     Pentium chip?"
 
I agree with Intel: the Sky is Not Falling. I have been programming computers
for 25 years and I have never met one yet that did not have quirks, oddities,
mistakes, and strangeness built in. Windows has a cute software screw-up in
the Accessories calculator. The formula 2.01 - 2.00 gives you 0.00. In spite
of the problems with the Pentium, I know for a fact that you can perform
billions of calculations on a million dollar budget computation and get the
right answer to the nearest penny. The chances of hitting the bad spot in the
look-up table are very small. A properly designed accounting program will have
double checking and subtotals built in to catch mistakes like that anyway,
because hardware always screws up. And any programmer worth his salt will test
a large data set a dozen times on a new processor. If the error occurred more
than once in a blue moon, it would have been caught years ago.
 
I have written here a couple of dozen times that I NEVER EVER blindly trust
any computer or flowmeter or thermistor or any other gadget. Whenever possible
I go back and do the computation by hand, and measure the flow with a bucket
and a stopwatch. No computer glitch is going to fool me. Also, as I have said
about a dozen times, airplanes do crash, refineries do explode, the Hubble
Space telescope mirror is 2 microns (0.0001 inches) flatter than it should be
because of a gross error in manufacturing. Technology ain't perfect. On the
other hand, it *is* possible to measure a steel arm to better than a third of
an inch, in spite of what Dick Blue says.
 
Incidentally, to see the Pentium screw up, enter the formula 4,195,835 -
((4,195,835 / 3,145,727) * 3,145,727) That comes up 256 instead of zero. Be
sure to tell your compiler or spreadsheet to use the coprocessor. Also note
that some advanced compilers will simplify the expression and give you zero
without actually doing the work.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenjedrothwell cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.20 / Joshua Levy /  Re: Nuclear physics = collisions?/Davies questions
     
Originally-From: joshua@veritas.com (Joshua Levy)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Nuclear physics = collisions?/Davies questions
Date: 20 Dec 1994 09:24:40 -0800
Organization: VERITAS Software Corp., Santa Clara  CA

In article <JO2V+9I.jedrothwell@delphi.com> jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:
>I always believe widely replicated, high sigma results, no matter how much
>they conflict with theory or with previous experience. 

Which CF experiments are "widely replicated", Jed?  Why not post a
list of the experiment, and the replicators, for each one you believe?

For example, you seem to believe P&F "heat after death" experiment.
Who has reproduced this "heat after death" effect? You claim to only
believe "widely replicated" results, so I assume you can list at least
3 or 4 replicators for this experiment.  

(Actually, I can save you some time, just check those excuses which apply:
      The experiment is too new, so hasn't been replicated.
      Everyone is doing it wrong.
      Everyone is misanalyzing their data.
          Check here:   if this was done on purpose.
      It is all replicated in secret.
          Check here:   secret for patent reasons.
          Check here:   secret to maximize profits.
          Check here:   surpressed by the scientific establishment.
      It is all replicated and published in (Japan/India/Italy) <- check those
      It was replicated in 1831, but not understood.               which apply
      It has been replicated 100s of times!
      Lots of groups have confirmed parts of the experiment.
      Every group which does not have a control experiment has replicated it.
:-)

Joshua Levy <joshua@veritas.com>
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenjoshua cudfnJoshua cudlnLevy cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.20 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Re: Another theory for Griggs device
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Another theory for Griggs device
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 1994 11:59 -0500 (EST)

jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:
 
-> Incidentally, there is an interesting article about Putterman's conventional
-> sonofusion in the New York Times Science Times section today, 12/20/94. It i
-> titled "New Shot at Cold Fusion By Pumping Sound Waves Into Tiny Bubbles."
-> Unfortunately it does not mention E-Quest or Hydro Dynamics.
 
Is he using H2O or D2O?  Could you post the article for us all to read?
 
                                                        Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.20 / John Logajan /  Re: Dr. Oriani's Lecture
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Dr. Oriani's Lecture
Date: 20 Dec 1994 18:54:05 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

jonesse@plasma.byu.edu wrote:
: He does *not* say that he thinks apparent excess heat from Pd/LiOD cells is
: due to Cold Fusion.  And evidently he did not make this specific claim in
: his lecture, from what John Logajan says.  That is what I was asking: 
: "Does he claim the heat is due to Cold Fusion?"

Do you mean as opposed to ZPE or super-chemistry?

I guess it depends upon how one defines the term "cold fusion."  We seem to
have the potential here for three different definitions -- Dr. Jones's,
Dr. Oriani's, and NotDr. Logajan's.

My presumption is that lacking a generally accepted hypothesis, the term
"Cold Fusion" currently encompasses all phenomena evidencing excess energy
in densities in excess of known chemistry yet with aggregate environmental
temperatures under, say, 10,000C.

Perhaps Dr. Oriani has a different definition.  It is likely Dr. Jones has
a different definition.  If they do, I don't currently know what they mean
by the term -- I can only interpret remarks in the context of the definition
as I am aware of it -- which I just listed above.

What Dr. Oriani did present was measurment data showing excess energy to the
tune of 500 eV per Pd atom.  Dr. Oriani also eschews any current theoretical
explanation.  Yet Dr. Oriani expresses confidence in his measurements and
does not believe them to be artifactual.

So we have Dr. Oriani claiming energy densities far in excess of known
chemistry, claiming he has confidence it is not artifactual, and claiming
that it arose under essentially room temperature conditions.

That fits *my* current working definition of a claim for "cold fusion."

Now however Dr. Jones or Dr. Oriani define the phrase, the salient facts
remain -- claimed 500eV/Pd atom, claims that the results are not artifactual,
and room temperature aggregate conditions.


So getting back to the genesis of this thread -- is the claim that one's
brain is effected by a belief in cold fusion not applicable when one
believes in 500eV/Pd atom+ energies but avoids calling it "cold fusion."

When does this brain dysfunction kick in?

--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com  --  612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA -
 - WWW URL =  http://www.skypoint.com/subscribers/jlogajan -
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.20 / Steve Klassen /  Re: Engineering device from GR is fakery; gravity is neutrino
     
Originally-From: steve@photcan.com (Steve Klassen)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.electromag
Subject: Re: Engineering device from GR is fakery; gravity is neutrino
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 1994 16:38:07 GMT
Organization: Photon Systems Ltd.

In article <3cteft$66j@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Archimedes.Plutonium@dartm
uth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:

[deleted]

>Again, I assert that if GR were a universal law no fluid is superfluid.
>All measurements of superfluid helium have shown 0 resistance to flow.
>Hence, GR is not universal law. And this is dramatically seen in
>Jupiter which has metallic hydrogen but no superfluid helium. If GR
>were a law and not a fakery, then Jupiter would have plenty of
>superfluid helium on the gas giant. Instead, Jupiter has no superfluid
>helium.

You lost me here.  You are saying in the above paragraph that:

1) if GR is a law then there is no superfluid
2) if GR is a law then Jupiter would have plenty of superfluid

You are not being consistent.

-----
Steve Klassen
steve@photcan.com

cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudensteve cudfnSteve cudlnKlassen cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.20 / Dick Jackson /  Re: Roast Dynamometer
     
Originally-From: jackson@soldev.tti.com (Dick Jackson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Roast Dynamometer
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 1994 20:38:10 GMT
Organization: Citicorp-TTI at Santa Monica (CA) by the Sea

conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover) writes:
>
>Personally, I've totally lost interest in Tom's trip, because from what
>I have read and concluded, nothing has been shown to be happening that is
>worth the trip.  
>
>Clearly, here, measurement ambiguity permits conclusion of any desired
>result.  This is nothing new, particularly with CF where P&F have led the
>pack in this regard. Throw enough error and uncertainty into any 
>experiment and you can conclude whatever you want.

That raises what is to me an interesting meta point.  If we believe the
skeptics, a decent sized number of "cold fusion" researchers have produced
bogus results based on careless/sloppy/younameit technique. *Because*
the subject is "Cold Fusion", these results have been scrutinized with
a particularly intense scrute (here in this group) and in my judgement
many of the papers have been shown to be flawed, at least in that they
did not include discussion on possible errors or did not provide information
allowing a reader to fully evaluate likely errors.

Now this does not necessarily mean that the published results from
these researchers are wrong, but it does sort of cast a cloud over them.

But are "Cold Fusion" workers somehow selected to be sloppy and
(apparently) incompetent? I find this hard to believe. It leads me to
guess that most published papers on other subjects must be
equally deficient. If so we are in a sorry state.

Or can I just assume that c.f.ers are just average Joes, and, as with
other work, we have to trust them to have done their homework and presume
that they just chose not to include it in their papers?

These thought from the top of the head, I hope the intent is clear.

Dick Jackson

(and as the end of 94 approaches, would this be a good time to tally
up the count of c.f. based water heaters available?)
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenjackson cudfnDick cudlnJackson cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.20 / A Plutonium /  Re: Engineering device from GR is fakery; gravity is neutrino
     
Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.electromag
Subject: Re: Engineering device from GR is fakery; gravity is neutrino
Date: 20 Dec 1994 23:45:50 GMT
Organization: Plutonium College

In article <Dec17.191858.51105@acs.ucalgary.ca>
mjmazur@acs.ucalgary.ca (Michael James Mazur) writes:

> But isn't that 0 resistance within our limits of measurement?
> Isn't a superfluid analogous to a superconductor which does have
> some small amount of resistance?

  I think you meant to say "beyond" our limits of measurement. I do not
know how anyone came up with the statement "superfluid helium has 0
resistance". I can understand where Onnes derived his superconductivity
has 0 resistance. I do not know the physics dimensions for
superfluidity.

  Earlier this year I thought superconductivity was a tiny fraction of
resistance and not exactly 0. But experiment is the final arbitrager.

  There are experiment reports that a superconductor when set into the
state, has a spontaneous current from out of nowhere arise. So the
answer is most definitely that the superconductor state is at least 0,
and since a spontaneous current arises, by math you can get a negative
number resistance.
   A spontaneous current arising once a superconductor goes below Tc
accords well with my theory of superconductivity. That
superconductivity is neutrinolization, akin to polarization. In
polarization, photons are modified,i.e. the composing neutrinos are
regrouped and rejoined to make polarized photons. But in
superconduction, photon signalers of the current are decomposed (not
just modified) into neutrinos. The ambient background, in fact space
itself is neutrinos, such that what is not matter, is neutrino space.
Any superconductor will arise a spontaneous electric current because of
the ambient background neutrinos.


> >Hence, GR is not universal law. And this is dramatically seen in
> >Jupiter which has metallic hydrogen but no superfluid helium. If GR
> >were a law and not a fakery, then Jupiter would have plenty of
> >superfluid helium on the gas giant. Instead, Jupiter has no superfluid
> >helium.
> 
> How do we know that Jupiter has no superfluid helium? We (Wendy
> and myself) thought that information about the composition of
> Jupiter comes from spectral analysis. Are you implying that
> superfluid helium have some unique spectral feature over
> non-superfluid helium?

  I rely on what the astronomers tell me. And these days they tell me
little. But what they have told me from books and in talk, is that
Jupiter has observable metallic hydrogen, but no superfluid helium. How
they know this, I do not know myself. Would someone, so kind, please
post the pressure and temperature to produce metallic hydrogen, and the
equivalency conditions to produce superfluid helium on Jupiter?
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.21 / A Plutonium /  Re: Engineering device from GR is fakery; gravity is neutrino
     
Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.electromag
Subject: Re: Engineering device from GR is fakery; gravity is neutrino
Date: 21 Dec 1994 00:11:37 GMT
Organization: plutonium college

In article <steve.128.0009A2EB@photcan.com>
steve@photcan.com (Steve Klassen) writes:

> You lost me here.  You are saying in the above paragraph that:
> 
> 1) if GR is a law then there is no superfluid
> 2) if GR is a law then Jupiter would have plenty of superfluid
> 
> You are not being consistent.

  This is a neat syllogism. I do not suspect I committed a
inconsistency.
I think the trouble evaporates when one considers that I am attacking
one idea. I am attacking GR, with various many arguments, A1, to let us
say A4. A1 is no superfluid exists if GR is correct. A2 is Jupiter has
no superfluid helium when it should have because it has metallic
hydrogen, hence GR is incorrect. A3 is experimental setup of hollow
center sphere. A4 is centrifuge of superfluid helium disobeying what GR
dictates.

  Now then, all of those A1-A4 arguments were attacks on GR. A1-A4 or
however many other A's I tack-on are consistent in that each one is an
individual attack against GR. So, I am consistent in attacking GR. 

  And once those two that you enumerate, Steve, are more carefully
written out, then they are not inconsistent.

 1) if GR is a law then there is no state of superfluidity, but
superfluid helium exists in our labs.
 2) if GR is a law then Jupiter would have superfluid helium present
because metallic hydrogen is present, but Jupiter has no superfluid
helium. 

  Perhaps someone with more time than I, can state what the fallacy of
logic that gives the appearance of inconsistency to the above, when in
fact, after clarification, they are consistent.
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.21 / David Davies /  Re: More on proton conduction
     
Originally-From: drd851@huxley.anu.edu.au (David R Davies)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: More on proton conduction
Date: 21 Dec 1994 14:47:57 +1100
Organization: Australian National University

Dieter Britz <britz@alpha.kemi.aau.dk> writes:
... deletions

>I don't know why F&P and lately some Japanese are stressing proton 
>conductivity of these metals, and quoting old references as proof. It really
>boils down to the fact that protons, and deuterons are highly mobile in 
>Pd, and this has been talked about all the time. How mobility might help
>'cold fusion' is not clear - to say the least.

It is not the mobility as such but the evidence it provides for significant
resonant coupling between the nuclei (H,D,T) and the lattice which is 
fundamental to the picture that some of us are trying to come to grips with.

To understand the behaviour of hydrogen in metals it is necessary to eacape
from hte picture of atoms as little billiard balls and think instead of
couplings between resonant energy systems. It is clear that even physicists
that regularly do quantum mechanical calculations still use outdated and
unhelpful intuitive models - such as particles.

What is implicit, I think, in talk of proton conductors is that the conduction
is far greater than a simple billiard ball model would allow.


Cheers,

dave

cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudendrd851 cudfnDavid cudlnDavies cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.21 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: Dr. Oriani's Lecture
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Dr. Oriani's Lecture
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 1994 03:26:47 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

In article <3d798d$rgt@stratus.skypoint.net>,
John Logajan <jlogajan@skypoint.com> wrote:
>
>I guess it depends upon how one defines the term "cold fusion."  We seem to
>have the potential here for three different definitions -- Dr. Jones's,
>Dr. Oriani's, and NotDr. Logajan's.
>
>My presumption is that lacking a generally accepted hypothesis, the term
>"Cold Fusion" currently encompasses all phenomena evidencing excess energy
>in densities in excess of known chemistry yet with aggregate environmental
>temperatures under, say, 10,000C.

John, is it too much to expect the english language to be used as it was/is
intended? In the dictionary I see defined, "fusion, as in nuclear fusion".

Nowhere does it say excess heat without commensurate nuclear byproducts.

This is NOT a discussion of semantics. It is you who have decided to define
a non-nuclear process by a nuclear definition.

I suggest that you learn a few more language skills.

cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Wed Dec 21 04:37:06 EST 1994
------------------------------
1994.12.21 / David Davies /  Re: Roast Dynamometer
     
Originally-From: drd851@huxley.anu.edu.au (David R Davies)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Roast Dynamometer
Date: 21 Dec 1994 15:36:15 +1100
Organization: Australian National University

jackson@soldev.tti.com (Dick Jackson) writes:
... deletions

>But are "Cold Fusion" workers somehow selected to be sloppy and
>(apparently) incompetent? I find this hard to believe. It leads me to
>guess that most published papers on other subjects must be
>equally deficient. If so we are in a sorry state.

>Or can I just assume that c.f.ers are just average Joes, and, as with
>other work, we have to trust them to have done their homework and presume
>that they just chose not to include it in their papers?
...

I will take this point further and challenge anyone to show me an experimental
paper in any journal that would stand alone against the sort of criticism that
CF papers have recieved. Its not usually sloppy work, just a fact of life that
you cant say everything every time. If we did, journals would be ten times 
thicker than they are and still not solve the problem of allowing researchers
from other disciplines to quickly understand what is going on.

Interestingly, the technology to overcome this problem has existed for at least
a decade via electronic publication and word/phrase linking but it is very slow
to catch on. The WWW activity that is taking off now is barely scratching the
surface. 

We are a very conservative animal most of the time.


Cheers,

dave
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudendrd851 cudfnDavid cudlnDavies cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.21 / Harry Conover /  Re: Roast Dynamometer
     
Originally-From: conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Roast Dynamometer
Date: 21 Dec 1994 05:57:24 GMT
Organization: The Internet Access Company

Dick Jackson (jackson@soldev.tti.com) wrote:

: Now this does not necessarily mean that the published results from
: these researchers are wrong, but it does sort of cast a cloud over them.

: But are "Cold Fusion" workers somehow selected to be sloppy and
: (apparently) incompetent? I find this hard to believe. It leads me to
: guess that most published papers on other subjects must be
: equally deficient. If so we are in a sorry state.

Let me raise this as a qestion: How many CF researchers are working
outside of their area of competence, training, and past professional 
experience?  A fusion reaction (cold or otherwise), just like fission,
is a nuclear rather than chemical reaction.  Still, most of the claim
in the field of CF appear to be advanced by chemists, not physicists.

While I have nothing against chemists, most receive very terse 
education in advanced aspects of physics, and it is rare to find one
comfortable working with the sophisticated instrumentation and
experimental measurement techniques required in nuclear physics.

Individuals cross-educated in both nuclear physics and chemistry
do exist, however, most seem content to work in nuclear chemistry
and related fields, apparently not finding the case for CF compelling
enough to shift their focus.

Very little on CF is published in peer reviewed physics journals,
while a surprising amount appears in electro-chemistry or physical
chemistry publications -- suprising because electro-chemistry has
no established connection with nuclear reactions. (Please correct
me on this count if I am talking through my hat.)

If and when a CF breakthrough event takes place, I suspect you'll see
a stampede of qualified physicists enter the scene.  (Today, many
seem to treat CF reports as quite simply, a combination of wishful
thinking and bad experimental technique.)  Until a breakthrough
does occur, the flame is being kept alive by Steve Jones
and a handful of other competent researchers.

                                    Harry C.

ps.  Before I have all the chemists and chemistry fans on my case,
     I cheerfully acknowledge the observation of nuclear transmutation
     by the chemists Hahn and Strassmann in 1938.  However, note
     the carefully chosen words appearing in their initial paper:
     "As chemists we should replace the symbols Ra, Ac, and Th...
     by Ba, La, and Ce ... As nuclear chemists, closely associated
     with physics, we cannot decide to take this step in contradiction
     to all previous experience in nuclear physics."  Two months
     later, Meitner and Frish published: "the uranium nucleus...
     after neutron capture...divides itself into two nuclei of roughly
     equal size", and coined the phrase 'nuclear fission'. Contrast
     these statements with the wild and crazy claims made by some of
     today's CF workers! 





  
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenconover cudfnHarry cudlnConover cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.21 / Harry Conover /  Re: Roast Dynamometer
     
Originally-From: conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Roast Dynamometer
Date: 21 Dec 1994 06:10:44 GMT
Organization: The Internet Access Company

David R Davies (drd851@huxley.anu.edu.au) wrote:

: I will take this point further and challenge anyone to show me an experimental
: paper in any journal that would stand alone against the sort of criticism that
: CF papers have recieved. Its not usually sloppy work, just a fact of life that
: you cant say everything every time. If we did, journals would be ten times 
: thicker than they are and still not solve the problem of allowing researchers
: from other disciplines to quickly understand what is going on.

David, I believe you may be missing the point here.  If CF is real, and
the authors correct in their conclusions, the work will be independently
replicated and confirmed.  Criticism is only significant in light of the
failure of these report to be replicated by competent researchers.

I challenge you to identify one scientific discovery that was
voided by criticism.  "Facts are stubborn things.


                                       Harry C.
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenconover cudfnHarry cudlnConover cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.21 / Dieter Britz /  Re: Dr. Oriani's Lecture
     
Originally-From: Dieter Britz <britz@alpha.kemi.aau.dk>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Dr. Oriani's Lecture
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 1994 10:03:08 +0100
Organization: DAIMI, Computer Science Dept. at Aarhus University

On 20 Dec 1994, John Logajan wrote:

[...]
> I guess it depends upon how one defines the term "cold fusion."  We seem to
> have the potential here for three different definitions -- Dr. Jones's,
> Dr. Oriani's, and NotDr. Logajan's.
> 
> My presumption is that lacking a generally accepted hypothesis, the term
> "Cold Fusion" currently encompasses all phenomena evidencing excess energy
> in densities in excess of known chemistry yet with aggregate environmental
> temperatures under, say, 10,000C.
> 

This is pretty reasonable, and in fact the position taken by the more 
restrained believers (or tend-to-be-believers) of CNF. In this spirit,
'cold fusion' is a generic term for whatever might be causing what some
workers reckon they have observed. If, one fine day, we get reproducible
and incontrovertible evidence for, say, excess heat beyond chemistry, this
fact will override all argument about whether it is caused by fusion or
zpe or whatever; scientists will then work to find out just what it is.
This fine day has not come and most likely never will.

The trouble is that the more ardent TB's spoil this reasonable scenario by
time and again contradicting it; at one time they say "hitherto unknown
nuclear reaction' (reasonable), or "aneutronic and atritonic"; yet when
someone finds neutrons or tritium they say "See! What did I tell you? It's
true". Some, like e.g. Notoya even look for tritium in the Mills setup,
and simultaneously believe in p+K --> Ca, and the production of tritium.

Who should be surprised that we skeptics remain skeptical?

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

cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenbritz cudfnDieter cudlnBritz cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.21 / Stefan Hartmann /  Free Energy Device GIF pic ! MRA picture
     
Originally-From: harti@shb.contrib.de (Stefan Hartmann)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,alt.energy.renewable,alt.parane
.science,alt.paranet.ufo,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.bio,sci.energy,sc
.energy.hydrogen,sci.environment,sci.materials,sci.physics,sci.physics.f
sion,sci.physics.particle
Subject: Free Energy Device GIF pic ! MRA picture
Date: 21 Dec 1994 13:45:00 +0100

Hi,

this is the schematics of tzhe recent announced Magnetic Resonance  
Amplifier circuit (MRA).

Please save this message and uudecode it and view it with a GIF pic  
viewer.

Regards, Stefan.

section 1 of uuencode 5.10 of file mra.gif    by R.E.M.

begin 644 mra.gif
M1TE&.#=A@`+@`8```````/___RP`````@`+@`0`"_XR/J<OM#Z.<M-J+L]Z\
M^P^&XDB6YHFFZLJV[@O'\DS7]HWG^L[W_@\,"H?$HO&(3"J7S*;S"8U*I]2J
M]8K-:K?<KO<+#HO'Y++YC$ZKU^RV^PV/RZ>`>MU@!U#LC3R"OY=W=R`XF'"G
MYZ#GIY#8B/<`B"=YJ&@X*<GX-\<)<=FY=>D8&#D:8/JX8"CJ*#JI"'DZ2DG8
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MQ\7#-LLQ:H445_*$VC!SRKZ*6\L6[0LR(L0@^_JS6C`VW:#&O!ZG%(VLO;J:
MK"W,2W@Z0X2C4X@UWKHL;>RGP4_?W=A?^.^\3Y-W3>SG[_$.Y6?O3ER'_(?/
M3.?_Y.K54N\X=]%SE&'VV3=\$4568`4*%1E_XLWG6V7&4;:?2_5)Y=9OSL'"
MEGW@M0?<<0GF]P-WMB17H%Z5"09:AA-"AME_)DJ8"HTVWA@6??/Q.(R%H2WG
MX6(#ZB-B)6\-*=Z$%?*768GT);GAD<F@6$1J@-VU)(UM*;DD5EIF!PE-/FWY
M84TNG9DF?'6Y25T-K)'(')UJ<3BCD`K&QN)M4\XF6'"YF6;ECWGN1PU^6$ZC
MQ&$525-=F&/V-BDNU36XY5OI,<(8>61"-]2:7W:ZZ7U^7$KIHF,XFM@'K**X
MHZK:R2IK4D*\V@ZMEJRE*V>]_@IL&ND%^R6QQAZ+;++*_R[+;+/./@MMM-).
M2VVUUEX+T+!QPA=2J8,)B-V;DH%Y);;FGMOHA1E*J>=EG^%F8Y-@RH-K?F#!
M16:NI?R5EZ?UYEALE+E%)RZYZ(8B4YLA;K:GP#<--^`F%TGG;*B%`FP0D7C]
M2Z1P.T)WS6K/<7QP<4,:K-Z%:JJF'<66N<BKLA8W7&[&[-;7P6,XA\CS=;:6
M+,5/,*$2TXT=&@13R@:CU^S,A-8\:Y26Y2RHSN_J=DY@0&-1:M3C^HIC*;EN
M'*/*Q[K7SVL)#L2=!\T)BIR2VSRY]31$?W7WPWB+BC31"SM<)9"_HKU7TFLO
MIJZV1>D+<\$>?V1VW50TZ#6.0_]WM:"!2JNY^8F]?J<TIO?6^?>@1F'<N&;4
M`29Y%I?'''::#_KHI<]1KVLLZ('W!S;IG8_%H-^`OVUZH(6T;O=6O9/=KM&X
M<7ZHURPG.R>[>4O/L*(5Q3HH\5[RJCWR0RANF#WY;AOPZ!3SS7F_'5/?/**=
M%1T_R;=7<GV/IE,N?O_(1SHJ5($J3^'J%_E$\I?C?:]2*_.>_QX(P3+4RWX1
MK*`%N5:-"VIP@V>8(`<_",(0BG"$)"RA"4^(PA16X%X_4THS2,6IZ'B+=VM1
MH`K?$+X;OJ^%+FQ?-JCBKO7I#VK"&1B6>$B"`.$--:/['HC.PRV=)#%]S='A
M#G-H`5;_L48]C'M>V2(D.%!@D0/T"I#>E/>H=LB.+S[TQ(&FUD83.JT$6'P=
M@]ZW.2':BX*+(R*H?-5"&3;/B0W!%;@0A+(3$DY#Y<,7OGK3)1Z^[2POX9_C
MXOB/,9)QB5##72`MZ3%]T8P4E>M=&$.XR![QB4XS>DSP;/9#!($2DW'X$`.3
M<;0@:JU,*\H:[]@VLOS%$E662M6:AD4_6J(R0G:QX=.<E#!G'@B7;KP=XC#6
M"=]`C)?!!&(114:OTC`-'$@R47Q>^2)P,NQF+)L="75'P&(6JI61VQ4YJ_G%
MBQ5/#MIT4(O8PQ@;&@YB<[O;`=_C&E/6L)*#@=W3;M,U%58/_TJ19&4T$QDS
M=^YS8^K:XYS\"2"MK5&-)]E=K)`Q$49R)&W@<F!!IZG(=LG(-A2"G'_LR1F4
MGG&A1F1*/W7TQS,J#'=`+5UI$.E$G1&U1BH[R5)G2E%-_B\3%:440]D40Y^X
M"WT"1&/`T,<<GXZH=D?=::)Z&;*H&-5JSYQ?U;A7);19*7\L5:L5Y\''?8+P
M>`&]I*>J>B9JKL:JJ^,;),4%*%P>A)$!U)02F2BIZ]R5:J[*ZV3G8-EY7+:R
M4B7D9H&56;=]=K27#>T&3$O:U*IVM:QMK6M?"]O8RG:VM*VM;6^+V]SJ=K>\
M[:UO?PO<X`IWN,0MKG&/B]SD$C>@S/]MKG.?"]WH2G>ZU*VN=:^+W>QJ=[O<
M[:YWOPO>\';*@JA5KFO+NRSTFG>UZH7?>LW;7F3%][V?G6_NZ*M<^Q)+O_BU
M(G]!VU_D_G=P"*PL:$@I`6E6CJ;[:B)E$_RJ@YI/L$0T7T-A&@(E,A8&S,5C
M#`;\N1>Z;98_1*(^*_PC3ZS3P-N;8(0YN>$WKEBAIWV=,KW3HGU,D;PB'C$9
M:3PKE.XMBQI=00ZU-S0CX30L($:.9#^\3D/NN((<Z^PIQ79ES63NP!!VJ$9<
M3.0)QQBI]<1Q.=C*X92&>01-IM4K550VE2C9?88]IX"4\2TYIPY\6H6H+C7&
MPJRFU4*Y3-K_6;6,TV0><)Q^>D1+$!O#1TY,?19IX&XJ>LP57I`DI[IHDYX'
M4+DP6$_MM/!%#356&_^I6-"LJ=D^#;A5ZPALJ0R4X&`MFU?7IM7A=,P\G4I3
M6(_Z8;Z6-3V-EV6]M@Z=-;4U+_-ER7@FZ7SFM%.KR\KGN)YZ/2<F%)J=+9EA
M@]-'92X2S2C'ZQG;5-M2PG4\J;+-2Y^,VY[#J/B8?:@GC131OC/WDF7=;,\1
M2,[Z9+"T$[91?ZH:<Z'LMS7'^JYTTUJE!"=U85)<KG@7SB]*?C<OJ+R]7X-[
M9(`\=;M%BLAK!YQMON2XR(_=;[OL2MZP^8K%2SD>F*.;1$2%V4MO_^YLCU^&
MHS\/>KFQZ3]T"BW4X,93XPZN%D-Q^=I4$C=4199S:^OZ=TSR19]R)"([,3G@
M&*=Z>X0GT\ZY6^P`DYV"_$SV-()<Q6@JX``#*ZKQTF6\3E&<`@5(3,7*L)E_
M[;#>+[F@C4.:YI7$XPS]Q<2^/[>1B*\SX6'HW(]W[^[+@>X$VERKD),6]+`E
M_:*8O5G3OU;UL*([ZY]EXOZ^GCBS#S`':^]3VQL7]R7AO>[G#OS?!]?WD!+^
M<(DO1N,+%_G95/[P-^U\X#*?$]./_M:JST_Q:G_[W.^^][\/_O"+?_SDGZ[U
MSX_^]*M__>QOO_O?#__XRW_^]*^__>^/___\ZW___.^___\/@`$H@`-(@`5H
M@`>(@`FH@`O(@`WH@`\(@1$H@1-(@15H@1>(@9OT;V:6@0A(:0Z$5QW8!>%C
M95XF>AJ(,#R%<S4F@DUA2'RD<I]W=%BF!1QE8:R&)HJ755K55P7C8"V(%J!'
M8@A62SJQ%,%F4<;V$DI(&]CG@,A4=V9';8VU@UP%65]EA3[X>$1@'4=X37''
MA$H8:4!(`V8W$TF(<2N'AF884@`G<N-CA!A2<?14=1`7@\E&AG24.#JWAM>3
M;VS83/P#39+7;3[0A7+XAH*(AFK(97G8`L?&AV%H5I#3A[>VB$R%AV4X:8@8
MAH!HAY7HB%`FB9[_6&V="(J<^&ZVY(0VJ!7C1(<?-5&O"&2AJ(>C"(J*:(J2
MF(ALEX:T.%I0:'!X=X>-EFML6(RF1FALXE>^2($ER(Q`Z(S/*(+1*(W5:(W7
MB(W9Z`;HT6=L0(W:>&]!M5,FF`3X\8W@&(X9M75!XX3H2"U30T"=UH21QS['
M9&>%PU"6]R#K07CN^(C-Y6;XV&U2J(NYR(A@*'%S(73^.&+6!2LMEX;&.(R3
M6&=B:'6[1FX2QI`OI)$()5:HZ(=:MR=VE&JW*$Q^HG+GN)$*!F$_N(U>6(ID
M!W5M>)#&6')_!W&_6'[<Q34NV9(JF3R[*&HB"88U:9*T<S&1Z%\[&5Z3_Q-[
M+=:.<O*%71)2P3B20_:*PC@B\/B)]9A"'9DB/@F'0"F6*`24I7>6+O"4/+"6
M2A&5NK*0Q]668?F6**:'=5DK<\E;>DF7Z?)??+F1+HB7+5D<(`:8@=F3@RF#
M47F8!8:8;9"6-Q"9>$5ZC?F843"9DHE]EEECBGF9Q^"9*U1]G+E)H0F:3,F2
M]I>9\#":M;>:8XF:9=E^K\F:0$";728LL0F6[W>;FFB;O->;AAB<'E9_PRF*
MPHF<:$":;LE_QIEF89F<'>2<RVE[SCD,Q&>=-"A!TYF=OD6",]B(/;28NMF4
M1F::#:F)YYEZ+YB)]8:;XTF>W_5EZMF9Z=F<[/\IE6N6&*TIG979G;TU20(I
M<*S32,`X8]J9`_^Y@6%`G:))GY-%DFXXE`8YD0B*`PH*2V30H('PH'<E9#8Y
M=:>(@_J9H)F5FGVT*MS9H4O9BI=X@P9I="1ZH7G583ZVG?ZYHCH4H44)DA3Z
M8FP)@YABHQJJHO?9,B+JHP5Y@B4ZI$@EGBF*HT:*C`4:.9>R+5G9GAC:GBOH
MGBIF!ANZF%**HCV&`EK:I19*CN\)I?:Y?YHT1G')8OI!08>(@D0:I6U:9?8C
MFRRXGP^&84\J!F#ZD_&9HV=3J!DZHTV:IFH:J,-)J"<J6V9Z`F9J98.GJ`QZ
MFX<W`Y)Z?8?ZI_G9D%/_.*:8RE\U"JJYQ:FU"*24R9FI.I_F&7BGBENNRF:^
M1ZMGFIAE*DV"2H2W=:L99JO\>:/H):J\*H.[]:LA"*3,9ZSY(*H(E!1M^:BF
M*D<CP7AGUWA4:9[1V0/).JD`":T]<633JJGOA)4FR7/@":S<NJK]&6Y(]*P)
M!:AUZJ?5NF"G^%A_B7R<ZJVZ:E#E&FX<>CIQ6J\E%*!"^5!;2K!]VJV>ZJ#`
M\RF[:9=>RJ[FBF6D2'+'6;&UF9N'D7D>`68;*T([BK'^1INN2JD.^[!$!K!T
M-[#MJDC6JGA4RCY[>JD,FZAJ8&+F1YCSRJ1FJ;).6J*OUZQ9,AI3"*XH$;(-
M__N50;NH4JEZ16NTG`:624N<%,NT_BJU:]"O!2N<=\JU76BS[RIS/INS=QFO
MP=*U]/J;;;:U4VMJE4JMO2JG)F"IZ>6TLSBCAKFVL"IXJ-6#=/NS2?16S-*W
M9#J6:GFX0:B,:`NIGZJ9W.<PBVLR7M"U4ONV1Y!`8PN?B26:=+E]E$>YFBNS
M7NE6B)(XM5J8.$:NK1NXM1JKGRNR#Q91U'.N2$EQ``=';,N%8+JYKNNZ=JLM
MTKJOY259HXL4M]N+(^IO7'>SO4N-G$NJPDL^Q`N=JEH[>:N9%UM/8]B/I?.X
M6%N.TJM88O2ZX?JA+TMC0XBXIRFO,A.'N!NCN19%[/][K$T0ODJ;N?@;70[Z
M,]8;GB6WKM2;MAX917`@9$)E&U*8.@ICMN/;D06,P/G:L@7DLC[[G0/\K67I
M20?Z>1ET*X<TDV;(B@HKM'Y971[58(8GL5MUO^7K6%98=TM:MT:E;/BD:2%\
MK]7FO40Y2GQJ-W.KPAQJM2VFOG]RE,M[PKXY2#>,J(RZL;AH,RF9NKB*IKHU
ME]*U+T<LD^CZ2>P*IY$E:>Q13%?XFW&[C,`!52Q%OE:,EB\X0W,+P#19AQ(J
MOC5<B!.JAO06QAP[@MJKMHH2OEJ,P419LE!\MO*+B53<=2:LN%^`O._8'?D;
MMRU,:X:<Q%?LQXK,4XS<:'W_+*LI*'TK9<DK7,@$ZA]WT8V:+*N[^S>>/+^_
M&LF"B\5BV\8O*J.JR\7;F['M\W7R0HK3-\LO[)T!NIR4',!\6D?`^:R+=G>'
M9:"'=<:6"\B@)3K?6,&LW)EY"ID=.LR(7,OX:%I\-:[7J[6T^LUNS+_#%XCC
M["V[S,L$C,S7^<WI?,?(>KZA:D8/O,FP^[[R!<CVW#39#+)EM+0P2[B0:\U_
MS,Y%[)9F4LZSZ[5/JRH"K="SJLKS;,%*"\^LV7T+&L@,W="5+&'Y.\?+*KET
M9M$2C9G5',A4^[K(?-(XJ\L7_3DK/6ABDX]VYB^0MT/<LG<5',=!;2J`1]0:
M[;=$_RS$6\S/H0R:-CTX*[VSOT-#._,R2"=$3_;#OQ0Q&2DW72VG__*Q1MS4
M3'R7_XRW.;JS$Y56$S-(<P8^-80].35V6%=V=>U9F[K,_8LT'>W4IRG!^Y7.
ML;<0KJ!4+04W+KPSZVMSFJ..)W:28?W0UZQ@,XW'&[R_WCC,3UE&$C,]AZTQ
M<C-D"Y383N;8`HR4D3VT_DO*?679@[N4#3I4)%/*VDH.GSV\4#$]#:<Z]EA*
M\1BBXKAY?3FH<$S03PS;'@J\U%6:<@U&V.9KVQ2PX#`_O]U4(2H]R0RU4"FW
MG)NJ.&V^R[W4>\!8/N/*"EE2#01%2[RCOJS:5>W(K+O"H?_EW8`[IRX=+0IJ
M%I.;8X"&,@MWVKT,WPY'UTO,IF@,K/4MWO@-+?I=N-#CUN0RX`"^V!+^=#L<
M9%RZW0<,V,2[X`&FWT/7:;]4KB=%<_P=K]4[>*JLOT#=L(B#S2-^V?0'WJB4
MT;![88E,XPP.0>.]S;G4S_-7XWL5V).-UG\=?T/^03YNY&*FXT+.XP^T@U)U
MHIF-W$D>Y4E'P06-)!BJY$2NFDDFFU7KY5DNY68>CD;HDI1LY5"]?I.<WC58
M:8K]!'+KOO.MO^98YOAWM/&=O#>C8\O:I/=-2;G-V7M^?Z2LMTZYZ%XUXZY"
M-8XRUBO[Y/*GZ#=6!4L%SD'NIH3_SK)(?;4:6YS!PTFS@<KO'$"`0C\Y_B:_
M"V<P'%FCW71.QR6H36=$3:6-Q^I,_>E9C.AA_I,4:;(EY77!0<:W[=Y5\>J=
MYZ(HF4"-!2/-MG8Q"<U=B>DY[7I%/K&BON,"^TSI>I6/5FQ\/-U2`R_[W89%
MYW+>1HFOC)%8)\6P_&T<W;FK(^F_/NHX_.QN:)43.F?GSKU%U<2X1HSRNG3S
M9A:[-,*+B.S>GNU+))9MKN&S>4<(OVHPASE.A?!1EE#IO>QS57';49(6'QIT
ML_"Z>W$.#[$/?\&5CN4GN(32+G:NU$Y5_'8&KX*^TTK/C;'Y5G-P1V_"#HF-
MCNV95N]]_YW<4/XHSZR,U-IWED95%`9VBV?&?T5%_TI8N3ZS.'E5E/VQ(,.R
M??.='_CHEAZD"VW@M\*<4XJ^<!WD9O^\1Z3:2`&R+A[IL?OV+U^::)[@,TNZ
M+B;.."[-\9SOHWY5F'W+3QWF?+]L6<^ZRYWH7[Y!VLZJK1OY"X[YF:_Y#IEF
M$M]_FP_ZH2_ZB<^1GPE_I%_ZIL^;1:KZ[B?QGM_ZL?7ZDA_[:7[@M9]^L\_X
MN&\MNL_[ZN?[OX]^P2_\UD?\Q>]\QX_\QJ?\R_][S>_\U<GZT2]\T$_]^&7]
MU_]>V:_]\#7]W2][WP_^],7]XR^7XF_^W@^VS#_Z[>_^[\_DC_]/GM&W^S<D
MA(]*_Q)X_X2:_Q%8_\Q/`/$Q=;G]89235GMQUGL"_L%0',G2/%'12]G6?>&8
M6^7:OO%<)^D&^(%`PT]!A!AKP@`RPGPY+U!$;^>B5K%9[98;NA8/1H]R^BV:
MK2NI#XU:4YC4=O<SI]_Q>7W,3D..[>C>]D#D"%4.$Q47&2L"P^0>N08;'0TK
M,20Q-SD[932=@M3^@LK\2A/6B,10E^(`3UUAATC)7"&%E&PA:4=M66=U?SWA
MB(V/D5M`(VF;EZ92U:#+;DT!FZ6'>*M169V%L4>?5[6CN6/%O<^WPY(?--WC
MY>>?.YC7JQ?4]:_-PW&[B7.&C]2W?J__LK$3F.^/P8&AZ(&).)$BO67^]LDZ
M8XK!+H;]\E'[N&U?1G#3KD`I.)#D0H@5Z\&4.7/319'J8MUD]\_?K97M2N8,
MZC"CQHT]?[9\""\94YI/H>:PJ93;-))6\=U<R-#ATJ[K<*;\`NXG68$%_<AT
M&I5M6V421`$4E:M5+U@JXUKSU2/@7%EWYZX*_-<OUC-[_W*4FW<8S+5N(4?V
M4O/QCLJ2-5S&O)GS$<J--'=V))ITZ0VA<=3=X]%T"=2M8;=]'9OVV]JW:\_&
MO1L1#Z>4X/S6S1OJ<.+',[D67FAM4>2PC3^7WD2Y5,W`ITN.GIV[Q!%Y[0(D
MN!>\^,3A2PD&_[:].R;V[;L;#VOP;/VO5('UZNH<?G&X@=^K#H9:]$M!"NP^
M>8Q`SWQC*2#\[`N)OI-&.D>U_ORSQ[!4)@FPIPK=$,M#2]HHD:]`Y'/I(*$B
M=,[%G,;#$+.I8M)GLZ3X&-$2!VCT0<#Y*@3R19:\VD]'&0GID8T;84RPPR4U
M9/"[%E4T\CXK013R2"0%"0XH]1*C"S!<#BM0F#/+:P6\-,4D[,2=>%KS3+M>
M^6BL8!`BCTQ^[`QOJ3>E5*$NQF`D]$H["TW43RXS_._!K.9+Z)YRTO*I1I"\
M(<NPAB@%5,+TTB&*+Z]T:<<:+#,MI\9P)"5U*^RV9%36$Z:B$L+%[O\A3S`X
M35I10@Z_<;!)5W?:-::A!A,)K#=K&10=O]!Z%<59J:U$22!C)%*BK8@\J<Z@
M[L2FV&%'2DH,59$U4:EOR54()%Y[I:[:>1.Y-L)L/XUF6#*>%18L./4;8UR`
MHQW8J*^,-;7(A'W:U]U/"PX)5GHI7LU+C$+%EJNC'MI8F[*(VM`H3T&\52%E
M@TQX4FRE59@^KL#,2F9@*ZZYBT?*HW,6G9U5Y;"[Z#SO/`!SMNJ4]80..FG5
M3FSVZ$C4(Q1I\_1MUDRBT4,C5INY#I1K!*7;NNNQ;20;[.?$)EMM5;]F#;ZT
M4X-[[9OGGE5N&\ZN>YZ[]:9(;JRI)DQI/R__[%LMPY'\V]9LM=06<<<>QU#Q
M^Q[5\M'(9^(;<W<FA]17QL7:/'/1X[,.U<6')+TBHEEOW?7788]=]MEIK]WV
MVW'/7??="Q\0]=^Q5%WXX9]B6<W*GT:9^.69[RSOYJ&//C+^I*_>^AG=OE[[
M[;GOWOOOP0]?_/')+]_\\]%/7_WUM=NE3EX`E/@7DMFO?_QX#?8781SM[[_[
M.*CV/OV][W+^,^#V5,$ODA$04`4\X`.EY[-C+;"!%6P8!#$8P7#)3(`<3,>[
M,AA"X1WH7O+3R@F3)D(5;@Z`;M+?`"V8PA7.$'&9BF$H/#64`M&0AS6D$*(X
M)K\./J^'133B$9&8_T0E+I&)373B$Z$812E.48F\LV*RJ)A%+6Z1BUWTXA?!
M&$8QCI&,933C&=&81C6ND8UM=.,;X1A'.<Z1CG5\7`<;1)7!X5&`SJK:\7[V
M-`5Z9(B?4]X?FP8J:B0K@7ER&UZ<AD-).C*0=-%*T1BI*\`<;Q"%U!D_H%7!
M1O8%D+\JI*$^M!L%\J@R#'R8"5%FO(Z$3EG\P9$G4S?+5\82A([3H2]SU;+]
MZ3&!O'2<,:F'L6,*D9A:H^`R3>A*4SX3?K0DC@-3F4UCSDR8*)1F$(7V$A+"
M"YG<^M4VQSDS;7USFN:"(0H]ITN#48)=T*3<G:SF07F^$TH\,5+3`AA#>_]"
MAT*D7%0G;V@&/.)+G=U:)9_`>13DK5-=>O3F!M%)OW!B5)_GA!4UZ<DL<R)%
MHQO56#'G65%_C@>@!\WA2'&SJ\8U%)2H'.6%3@I3<0+LDWN"Z$2GR<I+/G0]
M_&.G2M#%4?P=S*?[=%-1E;HBG%(36/U:ZH?B)T-_2=.@E,J?5E5YC9D6Y@@)
M)5Q))250K%(IF4Q=Y,=8%-&,=B2I$,TH)DN(JZ^ZE:]?;>M3#T5.@MG'6`M]
M(4UYEM@)G75"A-0<,:8VTXL%KZ-52ZE3<SI0$DY-G0B%IV6!&<2_:NRR/$VG
M:-5JU\\><J&6Z^9:5ZM-K@)-LA#+3F07-UF&7C7_H+$55@%MV2Y8'LJS%CU5
M:&%[3KV\BI_#+-DV`WO(AIZVG=[Z(4J;J]K21LU"UYT4VHYVNN@V=R6&M>US
M=QE/CPK7DT'M)__VBESX;K>;O_QE<L<K7VM*=+\JNR]^$;O>BXIJD?0CHFCZ
M.#^7"M6BZ3DL:^<GI_PY&+"#0^U0Q<0T-K%IN9H,7''_M*_DZ87$F!7E5'\:
M2BP6KIXMZ=UA.2M;9C2NQ?&UXXUQG&,=[YC'/?;QCX$<9"$/F<A%-O*1D9QD
M)<=1P^RLY+NBYMU]9I6G&X4N1>/"+E3*DX%;;AA9$XO%1;D75U#V<"#']5`8
MSR%G?G1QDP5Y8"/JL+PJ_QW89JN,%Z>:[,%ZABUU^1O7:EX9PK6LDC:'&^"4
MO5+-B>98G4N[,)AJL86S9;`RUQM<'.XYFE2E:(J1RV7K%IC0@_UL?IIZY=$*
M6IP%;?2CA7E4YBJ7TE'-;SHU/5(-<WJVN31M7J&)VZUZNM`-]H5B+FQ<N5+O
M<J7D-"QE'>HO4I>TB(00(!EFJN\6^Y_FA"11=55E`L>KO97,+FZQ^]1P@Q+3
M&U%975GY7?PYN:=<I#:PI5N/=LF4EN;U,ZG@JEWEIE7@)RQL8<J=S16?>,RJ
MGK2^KOU!T#7!7+$F*Z"[>.];*_35BVWWP/L[8A;O][@"AI*PDWW,?W>4N^FF
M-_^#YXT8AK[#XJ?6]6/+5VFS]A.T)I^JFR.:\'2KO..T9NG-2_UI8[.JEVNV
M)Z2A+7.$JS3F-G?00*=(9T$_^\%_PN_0K^1ODB>]N`M"Z:8%GF!)$WVNE[:O
MBLQL]++4_(75-GH3X8SA22I8KXY6>TT'&?)99AG,CH1J,'W;<)"#,Y^4=;AB
M_YAF@76ZP'AUGV/Y..(*RWG)G??\YT$?>M&/GO2E-_WI49]ZU:^>]:UW_>MA
M'WO9SY[VM;?][7&?>]WOGO>]]_WOG8=S&0%NY13?429>P_F;"3_?47@L@I2O
M6ZQ_M`YW9P/S$7P5QP8''@?.'HENT'V*8__JR&>/DHS_-J+MTQQ%UW$_Y@IE
M?>,_(?EI$__\]=#*\_?&2<BG_PS(KS30[C2.)/K$S4#0K^">)`,,D.N<#V\4
M1$>BKP&I9>]V"*_Z9&3:K*4B3_)"9T&^C*DX*9(R+%%`\()^YFJ.37#*!$U6
M$%16D*3XC@7=BY.")O`(;V503"Y(#=DV,,(N<->>S`:;*F:^SV;0#B<V96?2
M0N<&[5CXZQ]&I?+096AL15.^!'[BI%+T;6<,;@HKA1Q`;=0HQ]VN,%10\.`4
M!@W/)0N)90H';=36#P[W0]M>L`G7SU*@<`]1D&WF)@GQK5Q""=X:0LQB)-L>
M9C`@K<6RK>*.3L+*J5,(#^9R_PMD:LE*R`U3&HMAB@+JQL&9#I%<DHD$_<OQ
MBD3=IJYC^@80?XND/(H0M^WC!LD5_\V&>M#L1)&T;JF!.@76H$Z6M"WHI,7;
M$-'7$&+MRH3=EL744@V(7''F3G$`+W%5_A#QJJ+N0,@+N>D2,''RAJL1%U&D
MQ,6?&)%;=O&2X*6B).L8A9'`*,_/)$DGR-$<R2E2<A'>W"4>[XGCTBM?3E!O
M6/$:_3`_."7J)&X@#U(,$3)@\)#/"`L:R.$7!:808U`5ZT[N@&<<,VT+\<6&
M)$X3"0@B)_(.Z7"L*E(@5X5E%NWN'#'@>O$`VP8'%7'D`@\KB+#AXJ=U`$\\
M8%!J-/]IZH#FDVK2P@*'&GLRWF)GAZA1,7(2<%SH8&K2H*3&I(@2%7T2:L8D
M!7FR!%TP\GI&Y/@%^-PB`*^)9@Q$+-F"+'G#O+X#+8N#`M6F:)1#+=VR+NWR
M+O$R+_5R+_FR+_,`+K$.T<`&,!VE'8]/^O!`+IMO,0GP`7UG3[[O>7Y(!P@S
M/@#S"%7K)+>E,O%/*?N*YD1&KOC/"^@0)C\3`"5!,Q'0T*[/,273!#"S;?(H
M,V!2N%B@^.3O':I@.%K(_V`S-4US-8-M.1B05NAR+'GS,N;K%'/$,!F0;PAS
M.3MS2OXC.$/D`(E(SC@S-RNP)U]J%I]P*S?IK#!/3YH1!C7_L*@24410#0BM
MT#U9<$Z@LJO><S!ESJ=^,$_"4P2;KJLV3&DV#$^`;IS`Q"RH$+IN<JT4;#O7
M4B3=40S#4!LM\M`ZB]5<9D(Q<5W@$<I@C6V"Z2"]"J[N)5*BQ.>6L!L+RP[Y
M"AC;L`O'X42K\!L_T!Y+41`Y,D9)30X9-*PP30UY!KZ$(AJ)44,Q2?O$L0?)
M[-V>\0TD4A(5:;>:SNTVB$E!M`]UTJ&0U".?5.ZN0D:7=$0K\48-T4=K=&W(
M\&H$R^>\<>Z4;ADIT47WTTJMJ0TQBAU9<V.&%$JYDSG3+`IK3`C/:QY7RJ&F
M=$U?ZDN=R^XT4+/LT3KMY@EM\;GF_RL7)HC1YK1*C3(BA\T<C(I%^#%8L'1_
M1"RW^K`ZY4NP.!%3+B]-Y710PQ*8)G+"=#!X:DM,N3$-071'8\I!<?4B40WB
M+@4=*O03$489<RA4?_6>IHQ#[[3</B<B(Y0QT0(C8+0D:-5"D$)<5+(@E[)4
M9#70)NZ?&,M2N-4D/1,)O9,KOY('Z2JI"'),HPQ-?`0A.8N4\.E6CZL$+8O*
MV%/=YK->G4D^Q7/OY-7"1O!>R22KCI(&O0,LN:L#74A.+BZ2_I4]6:<J9^\X
M.4=CMT!7_9)'*,9CD4%D/Q98J^7%.`-E2W9E6;9E7?9E839F28]D978!/8%D
M@6-'J0\NP/\*U`2E9M/`&'K3-]BL,E53-#MT_`*S1.4%:&?D.D&3!QS55"V`
M9G73:=L':B^--*=V.IDV;K`6_%AE/KO+855P\`0I&566EQ;48AG6:<ZS*R%3
M/3L,;N/0;CW0!W].0.-S;?D2Y5J.#:NT591I,M%K28SP@V[U67V%<)N5<*<U
M:76T/ESB;3$F3P]Q46&63>/)$>FT\(ZT%E.3<275&GVTPBP5L):3<VNT24L5
M46'WY4J6=:ND);.!2F_Q4L4V4C?2@RC4KGBW'^_43=7+>'0W24OHK_Y643JW
M27[U)2@/>36D4;L%4A/285)7'VF-=E?2=_$1&1\WNUJ6>_740X^*=1IS*69$
M[71*TDV7:L8Z\G"%5%Q=UV5F-:A(E\\^]BB;LF!Q4BM!B\K>\S2MTEZ]<B8%
M^.?\-4PR#,W253T?6$_R<X'QD_AF,FP=,/_,QBPQ^"\Y%FE/MJ0ZN$.LMA#,
LU&]'.(55>(59N(5=^(5A.(9E>(9IN(9M^(9Q.(=U>(=YN(=]^(<_H````#L`
`
end
sum -r/size 48724/13664 section (from "begin" to "end")
## CrossPoint v3.02 ##
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenharti cudfnStefan cudlnHartmann cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.20 / Robert Heeter /  Jed Rothwell does not understand fusion
     
Originally-From: Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Jed Rothwell does not understand fusion
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 1994 15:50:12 GMT
Organization: Princeton University

I don't normally descend to responding to Rothwell, but
since he's mentally diverged to the point where he now
makes false claims about real fusion machines, I figure
a correction is in order.

In article <RS8UfOF.jedrothwell@delphi.com> , jedrothwell@delphi.com
writes:
> Second, the device does not produce 1.8 MW, it
> produces 80 watts. That is far, far less power than the Tokamak. 

Actually, the Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor here at Princeton has now
generated 10 MW and approximately 10 MJ from fusion.

> But the
> Tokamak stops working after a fraction of a second whereas the CF cell
> works for months on end, 24 hours a day. As the paper clearly stated,
the
> total *energy* added up to more than 200 MJ. The Tokamak produced only
6 MJ.

Actually Jed, if you had bothered to read any of the recent stuff on
tokamaks, you'd realize that the tokamak does *not* "stop working after
a fraction of a second."  Actually, what happens is that we run it for
*several* seconds, and then *we shut it off.*  Why?  Because with 
non-superconducting magnets, it costs a lot of energy to run the thing,
and much of the important physics can be studied in just a few seconds;
physical processes in the plasmas in question generally occur on much
faster timescales.  The annual electricity bill here at PPPL for 
operating TFTR is something like $5 million, making energy a significant
operating cost.  The only real limit on fusion power production in a 
tokamak is how long we feel like keeping the switch turned on.

There are tokamaks out there (Tore Supra in France) with superconducting
magnet coils and *very* long pulses.  If Tore Supra were trying to make
energy instead of trying to *learn how* to make energy in a better way,
they could run with D-T and probably get substantially more than 200 MJ
in a single run.

TPX (to be built here at Princeton, provided Congress can be persuaded
that fusion deserves continued funding) will also have virtually-unlimited
pulse lengths.

[...]
>  
>      "Or maybe you don't get on so well anymore - rantings like the
above
>      is not representing the good cold fusions scientists in the best
>      possible manner."
>  
> I am not "ranting" or "representing" anything. Arata claims 200+ MJ.
That
> is far more energy than any HF reactor ever produced and far more than
any
> HF reactor ever will produce. 

Bzzt!  Wrong.  The integrated fusion power output from TFTR (summing all
the shots so far) is certainly approaching 200 MJ, if it hasn't exceeded
it
yet.  And ITER will generate gigawatts of fusion power for pulses of many
many seconds.  Jed, are you claiming ITER (or something like ITER) will
never be built?  Furthermore, many scientists simply don't believe
Arata's claims; they haven't been verified.  No one will tell you TFTR
doesn't generate multi-megawatt fusion power levels.  There's a certain
difference in the degree of confidence in the results, you know?

Give it up, Jed.  Cold Fusion has yet to demonstrate conclusively that 
it *exists*, much less that it *works*, much less that it's *fusion*, much
less that it can even pretend to compete with hot fusion.  

Ahem.

Sorry to start ranting myself there.  Got a little carried away.
(But it's so much fun!)

******************************************
Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@princeton.edu
Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University
I certainly do not represent Princeton or the Princeton
Plasma Physics Lab.  Any comments above are simply
my own personal thoughts on the subject.
cudkeys:
cuddy20 cudenrfheeter cudfnRobert cudlnHeeter cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.21 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Nuclear physics = collisions?/Davies questions
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Nuclear physics = collisions?/Davies questions
Date: Wed, 21 DEC 94 10:13:34 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

joshua@veritas.com (Joshua Levy) asks me:
 
     "For example, you seem to believe P&F "heat after death" experiment. Who
     has reproduced this "heat after death" effect? You claim to only believe
     "widely replicated" results, so I assume you can list at least 3 or 4
     replicators for this experiment."
 
Certainly. Just off the top of my head: Mizuno (Hokkaido U), Takahashi (Osaka
U.), McKubre (SRI), Patterson, Mizuno again at approximately 1800 deg C
(thermocouple wires melted at 1600 C). Plus, I suppose you might include
anyone who uses non-electrolytic techniques like ion beam loading, where
detection begins after the beam is turned off, or gas loading, where the heat
begins after the temperature or pressure cycling stops.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenjedrothwell cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.21 / John Logajan /  Re: Dr. Oriani's Lecture
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Dr. Oriani's Lecture
Date: 21 Dec 1994 14:31:34 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Thomas H. Kunich (tomk@netcom.com) wrote:
: jlogajan wrote:
: >My presumption is that lacking a generally accepted hypothesis, the term
: >"Cold Fusion" currently encompasses all phenomena evidencing excess energy
: >in densities in excess of known chemistry yet with aggregate environmental
: >temperatures under, say, 10,000C.

: I suggest that you learn a few more language skills.

There is more heat than light in that sentence, alas.  I have no intention
of getting into a flame war (I save that for political debates :-)


: John, is it too much to expect the english language to be used as it was/is
: intended? In the dictionary I see defined, "fusion, as in nuclear fusion".
: Nowhere does it say excess heat without commensurate nuclear byproducts.
: It is you who have decided to define a non-nuclear process by a nuclear
: definition.

You have raised three points:

1.) Common usage ("language as it was intended")
2.) Definition by negation of excluded terms ("Nowhere does it say...")
3.) Presumming the conclusion (CF is "not nuclear")


Common usage is simply what it is.  If you want to speak in terms at
variance with common usage you generally have to explicitly state your
definition.  The definition of Cold Fusion is certainly in flux, so for
the sake of clarity I found it necessary to precisely define the term as
I understood it.  It never hurts to define your terms.

Saying that Cold fusion cannot be fusion because the definition of fusion
does not mention excess heat without commensurate nuclear byproducts is
flawed in two ways. Firstly, it presumes the conclusion that CF is
nuclear byproduct free. That is an empirical data point that has not
been established and remains a point of query.  Secondly, it is logically
erroneous to negate things not mentioned in definitions and use those
negations as positive restrictions. [e.g. this form is flawed: "Muon
catalyzed fusion is not mentioned in the dictionary definition of fusion,
therefore it is not fusion."  Many (infinitely many) other examples are
possible.]

Finally, you presume CF is non-nuclear.  It may or may not be.  Currently
CF is used to describe a phenomena that has energy densities well in
excess of known chemistry hence the presumption it is fusion, i.e. CF.

CF may be fission, it may be ZPE, it may be super-chemistry, it may be error.
Anomalous heat may be a more suitable term until the underlying cause is
understood.  But for the present, CF as it is popularly defined is a 
catchall for the general phenomena.


: This is NOT a discussion of semantics.

              :-)

--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com  --  612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA -
 - WWW URL =  http://www.skypoint.com/subscribers/jlogajan -
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.21 / John Logajan /  Re: Dr. Oriani's Lecture
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Dr. Oriani's Lecture
Date: 21 Dec 1994 15:55:03 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Dieter Britz (britz@alpha.kemi.aau.dk) wrote:
: Who should be surprised that we skeptics remain skeptical?

Just for the record, let no one imagine that I have removed myself from
membership in the skeptical category.  In my posts here I am only striving
to be an advocate of clear thinking (though one may always fall short in
the actual practice :-)

--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com  --  612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA -
 - WWW URL =  http://www.skypoint.com/subscribers/jlogajan -
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.21 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Jed Rothwell does not understand fusion
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Jed Rothwell does not understand fusion
Date: Wed, 21 DEC 94 11:13:43 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> writes:
 
     "Actually, the Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor here at Princeton has now
     generated 10 MW and approximately 10 MJ from fusion."
 
WOW! Congratulations! I thought the record was 6 MJ. Wow, a whole ten
megajoules. <Yawn> Unfortunately for you people, by now CF results are a lot
higher than 200 MJ. Run as hard as you like, you will never catch up.
 
 
     "Jed, are you claiming ITER (or something like ITER) will never be
     built?"
 
Yes, that's what I am claiming. It will never, ever be built because it is an
1950's style multi-billion dollar kludge. CF costs practically nothing and it
began producing far more energy than you people can produce years ago. We got
stand alone fully ignited reactions two years ago, whereas you people have to
pay $5 million a year for your electricity alone. If the Republican Congress
does not gut your program, the Japanese will. As Yoshikawa wrote in the
Mainichi newspaper (10/28/94):
 
     "Hot fusion has taken a gigantic budget and years of effort, yet it has
     very little to show for it, and the future of the research is cloudy...
     Already, more than 300 billion yen has been spent, yet it is still at
     the stage where researchers are trying to control the plasma fuel by
     trial and error methods... Not only does fusion takes time and money,
     but something else makes the researchers anxious these days: cold
     fusion..."
 
It is all over for you. You had your chance, but your gadget did not work.
Ours is a billion times cheaper and a thousand times more effective. Once we
get self sustaining power reactors you will not have a snowball's chance in
Hell.
 
 
     "Furthermore, many scientists simply don't believe Arata's claims; they
     haven't been verified."
 
Don't be ridiculous. Arata is doing Pd D2O CF. The excess heat from CF has
been verified in hundreds of experiments in labs all over the world: Los
Alamos, China Lake, the National Institute for Fusion Science, U. Minn., Osaka
U., Hokkaido U., Tokyo Inst. of Technology, Yokohama Nat. U., Harwell . . .
the list goes on and on. Of course it has been verified. As Storms wrote in
his ICCF4 paper:
 
     "Reproducivity of the Pons-Fleischmann effect is no longer an issue. If
     proper palladium and protocols are used, a high probability of
     successful excess energy production can be expected using the
     electrolytic technique."
 
 
 
     "No one will tell you TFTR doesn't generate multi-megawatt fusion power
     levels."
 
Maglich told me TFTR does not generate multi-megawatt fusion power levels.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenjedrothwell cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.21 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Dr. Oriani's Lecture
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Dr. Oriani's Lecture
Date: Wed, 21 DEC 94 12:56:46 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

John Logajan <jlogajan@skypoint.com> writes:
 
     "Saying that Cold fusion cannot be fusion because the definition of
     fusion does not mention excess heat without commensurate nuclear
     byproducts is flawed in two ways. Firstly, it presumes the conclusion
     that CF is nuclear byproduct free. That is an empirical data point that
     has not been established and remains a point of query."
 
Quite right. I think the evidence is now swinging strongly in favor of
helium-3 and helium-4 production at levels commensurate with nuclear fusion.
The best results are from E-Quest. They have not been published yet, but
Oriani saw them, he was quite impressed and he discussed them briefly in the
lecture. (Since this thread is about Oriani, I thought I would mention that.
Also let me thank to John for sending me the audio tape.) Other impressive
helium results are from the Miles (China Lake), Yamaguchi (NTT), and Gozzi (U.
La Sapienza). When the E-Quest results from Rockwell, SRI and the Bureau of
Mines are published, it will settle the issue once and for all.
 
It has taken a long to pin down helium as the main product of CF for several
reasons, worth enumerating:
 
1. Fusion produces very tiny levels of helium; it takes a very powerful CF
reaction to produce enough helium to increase the density above background.
Fortunately, E-Quest can produce a 300 watt CF reaction which makes a hundred
times greater concentration of helium-4 in a steel collection cell in a few
hours, and 1000 times the background of helium-3. Once the concentration goes
above the natural background of air, contamination (a leak) will only decrease
the level of helium.
 
2. Electrochemical CF techniques produce copious free D2 gas, which has an
atomic mass close to helium-4. To separate the two with confidence, you need
the highest resolution mass spectrometers money can buy. Fortunately, Miles
and E-Quest have used the best equipment on earth. Also fortunately,
E-Quest does not use electrolysis, so they do not have copious D2 gas to
contend with.
 
3. Helium-4 is not radioactive, so it is hard to detect. The mass of "nuclear
ash" from a CF reaction is millions of times smaller than the mass of chemical
ash ("ash-ash") from a chemical reaction. You can easily see, weigh and verify
the ash from burning hydrogen: it is water. If you observe a 200 MJ reaction
from burning hydrogen, you will find 12.6 liters of water sloshing around,
whereas 200 MJ of fusion heat produces only 0.0035 grams of helium.
 
 
 
Logajan also discusses language:
 
     "Common usage is simply what it is.  If you want to speak in terms at
     variance with common usage you generally have to explicitly state your
     definition.  The definition of Cold Fusion is certainly in flux . . ."
 
As a language maven, let me add that the definition of all words in all
languages is forever in flux, but the rate of change for most words is slower
than it is for the terms "Cold Fusion" or "CF." Many words start off meaning
one thing and end up meaning something else. We still say ships "sail" or
"steam" (go; depart) even when they are driven by diesel or gas turbines.
Letters still say "CC:" at the bottom even though carbon copy paper is no
longer used. "Meteorology" now refers to the study of weather, it has nothing
to do with meteoroids. Some sources say that the term was coined in an era
when people thought that meteors influence weather. I still call computer RAM
"core memory" even though Mr. Wang's core memory bits went out fashion years
ago. "I'm fine" does not mean "I am very small in size, weight, or thickness"
or "I am free from impurities" or even "I am finished" -- although the word
derives from the Latin "finis" (end; done). The other meanings came first, but
"I'm fine" means "I am in good health." Ultimately, Lewis Carroll was right:
 
     "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it
     means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less."
 
     - Carroll, Through the Looking-Glass, ch. 6 (1872)
 
In the case of CF however, I think the scientific evidence strongly supports
the hypothesis that hydrogen atoms fuse together to form helium. Therefore, it
is fusion. The term is technically accurate and still up-to-date. How CF
overcomes the coulomb barrier and fuses without a lethal burst of radiation is
a mystery.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenjedrothwell cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.21 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Another theory for Griggs device
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Another theory for Griggs device
Date: Wed, 21 DEC 94 12:59:25 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

MARSHALL DUDLEY <mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com> writes:
 
>-> Incidentally, there is an interesting article about Putterman's conventional
>-> sonofusion in the New York Times Science Times section today, 12/20/94. It i
>-> titled "New Shot at Cold Fusion By Pumping Sound Waves Into Tiny Bubbles."
>-> Unfortunately it does not mention E-Quest or Hydro Dynamics.
> 
>Is he using H2O or D2O?  Could you post the article for us all to read?
 
H2O. I cannot post the article because it is the newspaper. It is not
in electronic form and besides, the New York Times company has copyrights.
It is yesterday's newspaper, you can find the Times in any good library.
It was interesting but not earthshaking. There was not much technical detail.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenjedrothwell cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.21 / Gary Steckly /  Re: Another o/u device, plans
     
Originally-From: gsteckly@clark.dgim.doc.ca (Gary Steckly)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Another o/u device, plans
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 94 19:31:16 GMT
Organization: Industry Canada

In article <3d4pm0$rd9@serra.unipi.it> jwinter@galileo.pi.infn.it
(John WINTERFLOOD) writes:

>I didn't think anyone could *hear* 44kHz, never mind be woken up by it!

They can't, and I doubt that even very talented bats could hear that 
high up ;-) but if you read the MRA updates that Bill Beaty is posting 
on his web page, they also mention that there is a harmonic relationship 
between the electrical signal driving the magnet and the mechanical 
vibrations.  The signal they hear is likely several octaves down.

>Frequency counters usually have very sensitive inputs and will often give
>a reading even when not connected to anything. If they are connected to
>a resonant circuit they will readily respond to the noise in the circuit
>which will have a peak at the resonant frequency. If I remember correctly
>he said the frequency reading was not steady tending to suggest a poor
>signal to noise ratio - ie no appreciable power.

>I'm waiting for news of some more careful measurements before I even take
>second look.

I'm looking forward to some more controlled tests/data as well, which should 
be forthcoming according to Bill's notes, but it doesn't cost anything to 
watch (as long as Bill keeps those updates coming).  Don't forget...most of 
these guys that frequent the Keelynet are not scientists..they are 
"inventors".  Now I realize that that word often initiates waves of derisive 
laughter in the scientific community who often look down on that special 
breed of person, however I don't take that position.  In my opinion, many of 
these inventors are the "artists" of technology.  They have a certain creative 
spark (Dieter will love that one) that has beed drilled out of many *real 
scientists* through years of discipline and study, but I think there is 
sufficient room in the world for both groups.  Invariably, once a new 
phenomenon is discovered, it ususally remains for "real science" to take it 
apart systematically, catalog the various parts and really figure out what is 
happening.

regards

Gary
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudengsteckly cudfnGary cudlnSteckly cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.21 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Dr. Oriani's Lecture
     
Originally-From: barry@redwood.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Dr. Oriani's Lecture
Date: 21 Dec 1994 20:42:39 GMT
Organization: UCLA Dept. of Math, UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research

In article <JIz2HFG.jedrothwell@delphi.com> jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:

>In the case of CF however, I think the scientific evidence strongly supports
>the hypothesis that hydrogen atoms fuse together to form helium. Therefore, it
>is fusion. 
>- Jed

Jed: you really need to divest yourself of this notion that CF
is the result of H+H fusion (especially in Griggs). That reaction
simply doesn't proceed. Virtually all plasma fusion experiments are done
with H (or D) prescisely because they _don't want the fusion
reactions to occur_. We have had Tokamak H plasma's of temperatures
up to 10^9 degrees, and reasonable densities (~ 10^19/m^3), without
observing any significant amount of fusion...so even such extreme
direct observation shows H+H does not fues (nver mind the
sun would have burned out long ago if it did).

(for pedants: the H+H -> He cross section is not zero, just
incredibly small)

Any CF experiment that claims the mechanism is H+H fusion is simply
in error. Its comparable to having a photo come out showing the sky
was green---you would conclude there was a development error, not that
the sky must have been green when you snapped the photo.

--
Barry Merriman
UCLA Dept. of Math
UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet)   barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (NeXTMail)
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.21 / Matt Kennel /  Re: Take a deep breath, Matt...
     
Originally-From: mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Take a deep breath, Matt...
Date: 21 Dec 1994 19:38:59 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

Robert F. Heeter (rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu) wrote:
: > QED works more exactly than korean premeds at stanford.

: This, on the other hand, is exceedingly prejudiced and out of line.
: What do you have against Korean premed students at Stanford?

Against?  Nothing! 

: I went there; I know some.  They're no worse than many physicists
: I know, and in any case, no one deserves that sort of stereotypical
: comment...  :)

: Matt, I expected better of you.

Why do you think this is an insult?    I really really really
didn't mean it as such.  QED is an fabulous success, likewise
asian students in california.  That's what I was trying to
get across!  I wanted a colorful analogy.

Apologies, still, to anybody upset....
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenmbk cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.21 / A Plutonium /  Re: Engineering device from GR is fakery; gravity is neutrino
     
Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.ele
tromag,sci.math,sci.physics
Subject: Re: Engineering device from GR is fakery; gravity is neutrino
Date: 21 Dec 1994 23:08:56 GMT
Organization: PLutonium Atom Foundation

In article <3d7qbe$a2o@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:

>    A spontaneous current arising once a superconductor goes below Tc
> accords well with my theory of superconductivity. That
> superconductivity is neutrinolization, akin to polarization.

--- You wrote:
In article <3d7qbe$a2o@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> you write:

|>
|>  Earlier this year I thought superconductivity was a tiny fraction
of
|>resistance and not exactly 0. But experiment is the final arbitrager.

yes, this is true.

|>
|>  There are experiment reports that a superconductor when set into
the
|>state, has a spontaneous current from out of nowhere arise. So the
|>answer is most definitely that the superconductor state is at least
0,
|>and since a spontaneous current arises, by math you can get a
negative
|>number resistance.

First, the thought of negative resistance is not credible, but that is
somewhat
beside the point.  For one thing, consider negative resistance in a
ring
carrying current... positive resistance causes current in a ring to
decay - are
you saying that once you put current into a superconducting ring, it
*increases* monotonically?  

Second, why must you assume something as unbelievable as negative
resistance? 
Why could it not be that some transition occurs while going through the
critical temperature which involves the spin state of the
superconductor? 
Suppose some large scale realignment occurs as the temperature drops
below
T_c.  This "flipping" could in principle give rise to an electric
current
in a material with extremely low resistance.

Todd
--- end of quoted material ---

  The thought of negative resistance is real, and it is a physical
entity, as I indicate with the spontaneous electric current from
ambient neutrinos. We do not yet have the math equations and the math
theory to match what I am suggesting.
  But in the future, with the Maxwell Equations Neutrinolized (I am
working on that, slowly), then the Quantum Hall effect,
superconductivity, and Ohm's law will all be a fallout of these
Equations.  Coulombs law and gravity are one and the same only
different neutrino statistics.
  The Neutrinolized Maxwell Equations will be so powerful as to give
the Titius-Bode law. Where Newton saw gravity as a "falling" and
Einstein saw gravity as a "spacetime curvature", both were neat
algorithms that came ever closer to the truth, but neither were true
physics. The truth of how many planets there are and their exact orbits
and motions are all electrical facts. The Titius-Bode law was more
correct in theory underpinning than either the Newton or Einstein
concepts. The day we have the planets orbits derived out of the
Neutrinolized Maxwell Equations and the Schrodinger Equation, is the
day we can put gravity to rest as a mature science.
   The Neutrinolized Maxwell Equations will need Negative electrical
resistance in order to make the math symmetrical, just as Dirac
Equation output gave the positive electron.
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.21 / A Plutonium /  NEW PATENT LAW, NEWS, GOOD NEWS, 20 years from first 
     
Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.electromag
Subject: NEW PATENT LAW, NEWS, GOOD NEWS, 20 years from first 
Date: 21 Dec 1994 23:21:40 GMT
Organization: Plutonium Atom Foundation

In the WSJ, eastern edition, 21Dec1994, page B6
    " The new patent law, which took effect this month, brings US
patent law for all products including drugs into line with practices
outside the USA. Under the old USA rule, drugs retained their patents
for 17 years, dated from the patent's issue. Under the new rules, the
patent will last for 20 years, dated from the first application for the
patent."

  I give prayer thanks to 231PU, our Maker. Thanks proton Zeus, thanks
proton Hera, thanks proton Mercury, thanks proton Venus, thanks proton
Mars, thanks proton Jupiter, thanks proton Saturn, thanks proton
Uranus, thanks proton Neptune, thanks proton Pluto, thanks proton
Persphone, thanks proton Demeter, etc. for looking out for the
Plutonium Atom Foundation.
   In  the future, PAF will be the largest and richest single
organization on this planet. Science and technology, though it is slow
to grow, eventually displaces all other things because science, i.e.
Quantum Mechanics is the truth and wisdom, and all other thoughts are
offshoots of QM.
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.21 / John Campbell /  SonoLuminescense
     
Originally-From: soup@penrij.UUCP (John R. Campbell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: SonoLuminescense
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 1994 02:02:30 GMT
Organization: The Other "Woman" of the House

Wasn't SJones doing work on SonoLuminescence?  I didn't see his name
*ANYWHERE* in the article on this in 12/20's Science Times section of
the New York Times.

-- 
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 John R. Campbell, Speaker to Machines            | Grace is sufficient;
 soup@penrij.UUCP, soup%penrij@kd3bj.ampr.org     | Joy is now unemployed.
 soup@sonosam.wisdom.bubble.org <-- not anymore!  |      - Heather Campbell
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudensoup cudfnJohn cudlnCampbell cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.22 / David Davies /  Re: Roast Dynamometer
     
Originally-From: drd851@huxley.anu.edu.au (David R Davies)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Roast Dynamometer
Date: 22 Dec 1994 11:49:38 +1100
Organization: Australian National University

conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover) writes:

>David R Davies (drd851@huxley.anu.edu.au) wrote:

>: I will take this point further and challenge anyone to show me an experimental
>: paper in any journal that would stand alone against the sort of criticism that
>: CF papers have recieved. Its not usually sloppy work, just a fact of life that
>: you cant say everything every time. If we did, journals would be ten times 
>: thicker than they are and still not solve the problem of allowing researchers
>: from other disciplines to quickly understand what is going on.

>David, I believe you may be missing the point here.  If CF is real, and
>the authors correct in their conclusions, the work will be independently
>replicated and confirmed.  Criticism is only significant in light of the
>failure of these report to be replicated by competent researchers.

Not surprisingly I think it is you that has missed the point(s).

1) CF was dismissed by a large, vocal, irrational reaction long before there was any
reasonable chance of replication. 

2) To some, replication is no longer an issue. There is far stronger evidence of CF
or anomalous heat than the original F&P results. Other people are unhappy that they cant
replicate the experiments in their basements or as a shoe-string sideline to their other
research work. Tough. They are not likely to build a successful hot fusion reactor either
but somehow this has not become a critical issue in the HF debate.

3) There are competent researchers out there getting results but to some, just the fact
they are working in CF leads to assumptions of incompetence. They may prove to be wrong
but that still doesnt make them incompetent - just adventurous, even brave.


>I challenge you to identify one scientific discovery that was
>voided by criticism.  "Facts are stubborn things.

Yes, I believe that "facts" will always win out. Criticism, motivated by politics,
religion or whatever can delay the general recognition of better truths by centuries.
If you want examples of this you dont have to look further that the concept of a round
earth, heliocentric solar system and evolution to see where very intelligent and know-
ledgeable people have put aside logic and reason to run with the pack.

We dont have centuries to spare. We need a clean, save source of energy now. If there
is the smallest chance that CF can provide this then it should receive serious and
sustained consideration. At the very least, those who are seriously investigating the
area chould be left to work in peace without the vilification anf general verbal filth
that has surrounded CF.


Cheers,

dave 
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudendrd851 cudfnDavid cudlnDavies cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.22 / A Plutonium /  Re: Engineering device from GR is fakery; gravity is neutrino
     
Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.ele
tromag,sci.math,sci.physics
Subject: Re: Engineering device from GR is fakery; gravity is neutrino
Date: 22 Dec 1994 00:23:21 GMT
Organization: Plutonium Atom Foundation

In article <3daci8$k76@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:

>    The Neutrinolized Maxwell Equations will need Negative electrical
> resistance in order to make the math symmetrical, just as Dirac
> Equation output gave the positive electron.

  I suppose I did not make my answer clear. It is my hunch the math
equations, when they are established, will have a term which looks like
negative electrical resistance. It is the math of the future, that I am
looking forwards to for the concept of negative electrical resistance.
In the first place, resistance is merely statistics of particles, thus
there is no logical reason to forbid negative resistance. And although,
negative electrical resistance seems counterintuitive, I need only
remind you of the history of physics that the positron was
counterintuitive both in Dirac's theory and in experimental discovery.
After living with the positron for many years is this kind of stuff
accepted commonly.
  And in the physical reality of superconductivity experiment, negative
electrical resistance is ambient neutrinos in the background of the
experimental setup which contributes to the superconductor.
  So to recap my answer to Todd's excellent question. I propose that
negative ohmic resistance has math meaning because it is a term in the
Neutrinolized Maxwell Equations, and, from superconductivity
phenomenon, provided that superconductivity is neutrinolization, then
negative ohmic resistance has physical meaning in addition to the
purely math meaning. Negative ohmic resistance is the ambient
neutrinos. This makes sense on a grander scale which I envision. I
envision that our observable universe is the space of the 94th and 93rd
electron, the mass and matter in the observable universe is the mass of
the 94th and 93rd electrons of 231Pu, (our Sun and Earth are tiny bit
of the mass of the 94th). Now a question occurs. Since all QM is both
particle and wave. What is the particle for the space of the 94th and
93rd electron? It is, I propose neutrinos. 
  In the future, when one says space in physics, it will be equivalent
to neutrinos. We have the equivalence E <-> mcc. We shall have an
equivalence, I speculate that Space <-> neutrinos. Since we know so
little about neutrinos, my speculations are primitive.
  But in answer to Todd's question, the math will demand the term for
negative ohmic resistance, however strange that seems at the present
time.
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.22 / mitchell swartz /  Jed Rothwell does understand fusion (who does?)
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Jed Rothwell does understand fusion (who does?)
Subject: Jed Rothwell does not understand fusion
Date: Thu, 22 Dec 1994 00:55:36 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <1994Dec20.155012.149@Princeton.EDU>
Subject: Jed Rothwell does not understand fusion
Robert F. Heeter <rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> wrote:

=rh  I don't normally descend to responding to Rothwell, but
=rh since ....  <snip>
=rh  Give it up, Jed.  Cold Fusion has yet to demonstrate conclusively that 
=rh  it *exists*, much less that it *works*, much less that it's *fusion*, much
=rh  less that it can even pretend to compete with hot fusion.  
=rh  Ahem.
=rh  Sorry to start ranting myself there.  Got a little carried away.
=rh  (But it's so much fun!)

  Cold Fusion conclusively*exists*, and not simply
because we are still here discussing it at t+5years.   

  Cold Fusion conclusively *works* based upon the 
more than 100 papers at ICCF4 and other documentation and work.

Whether Cold Fusion can even "pretend to compete with hot fusion"
seems more than a scosh anthropomorphic.   Just draw out the table. 
Input, Output.   Power and Energy.  

   - Mitchell Swartz  (mica@world.std.com)
  
   

cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.22 / mitchell swartz /  Sloppy measurements (power and energy, again)
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Sloppy measurements (power and energy, again)
Subject: Re: Sloppy measurements
Date: Thu, 22 Dec 1994 00:56:27 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

   In Message-ID: <9412202140.AA55371@pilot1.cl.msu.edu>
Subject: Re: Sloppy measurements
Dick Blue (blue@pilot.msu.edu) writes:

=dblue   In response to my question concerning the boil-off time in the P&F
=dblue   experiments, Chuck Harrison says the event was recorded on video tape.
=dblue   My question then becomes which "event"?  How is the evidence presented
=dblue   on a video tape connected to the data presented in the paper?

  Seems that was stated in the paper and previous postings.

=dblue    As I
=dblue   recall the data was accumulated for a block of 64 cells simultaneously
=dblue   so it would not be obvious that any but a selected few cells could
=dblue   even be viewed by a video camera. 

   As I recall there were three or four cells each with a boil-off  in sequence.
Which  movie actually had the 64 cells, Dick?    Thanks in advance.


=dblue    Furthermore, the real issue to
=dblue   be resolved has to do with how the boiling (shown on the video) is
=dblue   correlated to the power input. 

  Given the dynamic variations in the calorimetric and 
electrochemical non-equilibrium system, combined
with the non-linear, inhomogenous, possibly time-variant,
properties of the materials, do you think that 
the boiling (and other heat and
mass transfer factors) might actually be 
better correlated to the time integral of the power input?

        - Mitchell Swartz (mica@world.std.com)

cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.22 / mitchell swartz /  Another o/u device, plans (and bats)
     
Originally-From: mica@world.std.com (mitchell swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Another o/u device, plans (and bats)
Subject: Re: Another o/u device, plans
Date: Thu, 22 Dec 1994 00:57:26 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

  In Message-ID: <1994Dec20.155012.149@Princeton.EDU>
Subject: Re: Another o/u device, plans
Gary Steckly (gsteckly@clark.dgim.doc.ca) states:

   "(John WINTERFLOOD) writes:
    >I didn't think anyone could *hear* 44kHz, never mind be woken up by it!
=gs  they can't, and I doubt that even very talented bats could hear that 
=gs  high up ;-) but if you read the MRA updates that Bill Beaty is posting 
=gs  on his web page, they also mention that there is a harmonic relationship 
=gs  between the electrical signal driving the magnet and the mechanical 
=gs  vibrations.  ...

   Oh, the low S/N here.     Another erroneous "factoid".
   Bats have vocal capabilities from 10kHz to 120kHz, and receptive 
sensitivity from 1kHz to 120kHz.  So the average bat can hear the
putative sound.

 [ Methinks the moth and porpose may peak out at about 150kHz for
reception.  Doesn't anybody actually read anymore?    ;-}  ]

   - Mitchell Swartz  (mica@world.std.com)
  

cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenmica cudfnmitchell cudlnswartz cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Thu Dec 22 04:37:04 EST 1994
------------------------------
1994.12.22 / Greg Kuperberg /  Re: Dr. Oriani's Lecture
     
Originally-From: gk00@quads.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Dr. Oriani's Lecture
Date: Thu, 22 Dec 1994 03:06:27 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

In article <3da3vv$eah@saba.info.ucla.edu> barry@redwood.math.ucla.edu
(Barry Merriman) writes:
>In article <JIz2HFG.jedrothwell@delphi.com> jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:
>>In the case of CF however, I think the scientific evidence strongly supports
>>the hypothesis that hydrogen atoms fuse together to form helium. Therefore,
>>it is fusion. 
>Jed: you really need to divest yourself of this notion that CF
>is the result of H+H fusion (especially in Griggs).

Barry, you just don't have the right zen of the claims of the True Believers.
When you say, H+H fusion, you probably mean

H + H -> D + e^+ + neutrino.

This is not what Jed means.  Jed specifically says that the evidence
suggests that hydrogen atoms fuse together to form *helium*.  While to
the True Believers it is perfectly plain that the evidence suggests
that, exactly how it does fuse together to form helium is one of life's
little mysteries.  If you're using heavy water, and the product that
you see is helium 4, you can just say:

D + D -> He4

That's simple enough.  It doesn't have the same branching ratio any
ordinary D+D fusion, and the gamma ray is missing, but so what?  We're
talking a new phenomenon here, not some stale old fusion reaction like
muon-catalyzed fusion.  Muon-catalyzed fusion has the same branching
ratios as other fusion only because the idea is too mundane.

But what if you're using light water?  Then you might say

H + H -> He4,

which conserves charge, but not baryon number, and moreover loses
energy.  Or you might say

H + H + H + H -> He4,

which conserves baryon number but not charge.  At least the mass
equation looks a little better.  Or maybe it's

4H -> He4 + 2e^+ + 2nu

That conserves everything that it's supposed to, but how come you don't
see gamma rays from positrons annihilating electrons?  That too is one
of life's little mysteries.  And then there's the fact that you need
four protons in one place at the same time, which is sort-of like
having three large asteroids hit each other and Jupiter at the same
time.  OOLLM.

Another problematic reaction is

2D -> He3

The left side looks much better now, but what happened to the neutron?

Perhaps the most accurate picture is

nH + mD -> theoretical fog -> kHe + Heat! Heat! XS Heat! -> Money!

for some n, m, and k.  The evidence strongly supports the hypothesis
that cold fusion is actually fusion (as if the name didn't give it away),
but just what kind of fusion...well, they're working on it.
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudengk00 cudfnGreg cudlnKuperberg cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.22 / Gary Steckly /  Re: Another o/u device, plans (and bats)
     
Originally-From: gsteckly@dgim.doc.ca (Gary Steckly)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Another o/u device, plans (and bats)
Date: Thu, 22 Dec 94 02:41:42 GMT
Organization: Communications Canada

mitchell swartz (mica@world.std.com) wrote:
:   In Message-ID: <1994Dec20.155012.149@Princeton.EDU>
: Subject: Re: Another o/u device, plans
: Gary Steckly (gsteckly@clark.dgim.doc.ca) states:

:    "(John WINTERFLOOD) writes:
:     >I didn't think anyone could *hear* 44kHz, never mind be woken up by it!
: =gs  they can't, and I doubt that even very talented bats could hear that 
: =gs  high up ;-) but if you read the MRA updates that Bill Beaty is posting 
: =gs  on his web page, they also mention that there is a harmonic relationship 
: =gs  between the electrical signal driving the magnet and the mechanical 
: =gs  vibrations.  ...

:    Oh, the low S/N here.     Another erroneous "factoid".
:    Bats have vocal capabilities from 10kHz to 120kHz, and receptive 
: sensitivity from 1kHz to 120kHz.  So the average bat can hear the
: putative sound.


sorry Mitch...I knew I should have said "talented dogs" after I sent 
that...I was just trying to make a point that the Keely folk weren't 
hearing a 44kHz sound.  

:  [ Methinks the moth and porpose may peak out at 
about 150kHz for : reception.  Doesn't anybody actually read anymore?    ;-}  ]

not with all that wonderful selection on the tube. After the electronic 
highway is a reality, we likely won't have to resort to usenet for 
entertainment ;-)

rgards

Gary

:    - Mitchell Swartz  (mica@world.std.com)
:   

cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudengsteckly cudfnGary cudlnSteckly cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.22 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Dr. Oriani's Lecture
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Dr. Oriani's Lecture
Date: Thu, 22 DEC 94 00:41:32 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

I wrote: "the scientific evidence strongly supports the hypothesis that
hydrogen atoms fuse together to form helium." barry@redwood.math.ucla.edu
(Barry Merriman) responded:
 
     "Jed: you really need to divest yourself of this notion that CF
     is the result of H+H fusion (especially in Griggs)."
 
I did not mean that. I meant all isotopes of hydrogen. As I pointed out here
before, there is more than enough deuterium in the GG to account for the
heat. I have no idea whether the reaction is H+H or D+H. I suppose it cannot
involve tritium, because there is not enough.
 
 
     "That reaction simply doesn't proceed. Virtually all plasma fusion
     experiments are done with H (or D) precisely because they _don't want
     the fusion reactions to occur_. We have had Tokamak H plasma's of
     temperatures up to 10^9 degrees, and reasonable densities (~ 10^19/m^3),
     without observing any significant amount of fusion..."
 
Whoa! Stop right there. These claims may not apply to the metal lattice. The
rules and laws you are quoting here are special cases limited to extremely
high temperatures, inside the sun or inside a Tokamak. We know that the rules
must be radically different inside a metal lattice, because otherwise CF would
not happen in the first place, or if it did, it would kill the observers.
 
Obviously, CF is not HF. Obviously, nobody understands how it works (least of
all me). I think you are going out on a limb making pronouncements about what
can happen and what will work. You are forgetting that by your rules --
according to your knowledge -- none of this can be happening in the first
place. Since it *is* happening, your rules do not apply, so you cannot judge
the situation.
 
 
     "Any CF experiment that claims the mechanism is H+H fusion is simply
     in error. Its comparable to having a photo come out showing the sky
     was green---you would conclude there was a development error, not that
     the sky must have been green when you snapped the photo."
 
Experiments never claim anything. All they do is reveal the truth. People do
all the interpreting and they make all the claims. The experiments show heat
and they show helium. I have no idea which isotopes of hydrogen go into
forming the helium. Perhaps in the future some experiment will prove that H+H
fusion is occurring. If that happens, then unless you can find an error in the
instruments or protocols you will have to accept that fact. You cannot
dispute experimental results by pointing to theory. If a camera shows the sky
is green, and the sky looks green to you, and other people take photos and
they all show the sky is green -- then the sky must have turned green. After
sufficient tests I would believe it. I believe *absolutely anything* proven by
experiment. A green sky, UFO's, ESP, turning mercury into gold, bringing the
dead back to life, a face on Mars -- show me a definitive experiment and I
will believe any of those things, unconditionally. I don't need any theory; I
do not have to understand why it happens; what the textbooks say is immaterial.
The experiment is all that matters. It is the one and only source of truth.
 
Thus far, the experiments show that ordinary water (1/6000th deuterium) does
not work with palladium, but it does work with nickel. They show that
increasing the concentration of deuterium in water with nickel marginally
improves the CF effect. Nobody can explain these results.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenjedrothwell cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.22 /  dowen@vaxc.cc. /  "New Scientist"article on Tom's trip...
     
Originally-From: dowen@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: "New Scientist"article on Tom's trip...
Date: 22 Dec 94 17:40:05 +1100
Organization: Computer Centre, Monash University, Australia

Hi Folks, have a nice day :) ......
This weeks "New Scientist" on page 11 is carrying an article entitled
"Net backs probe into cold fusion" which details this newsgroup's part
in sponsoring Tom Droege's trip to investigate the Griggs' device.
Douglas Morrison of CERN is quoted as saying...."Tom is an incredible
expert in electronic and mechanical systems".....
Steve Jones and Jed Rothwell are also mentioned.
Well folks I guess that this is the first time that I've seen an 
article solely based on a network newsgroup, in a reputable popular
scientific magazine. All the other sci. groups are probably green
with envy ;) ........

Regards to all,
Daryl Owen.

 
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudendowen cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.22 / Frank Close /  Take Rothwell Japanese claims with picnh of salt
     
Originally-From: FEC@v2.rl.ac.uk (Frank Close)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Take Rothwell Japanese claims with picnh of salt
Date: Thu, 22 Dec 1994 08:57:37 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

To correct reecnt claims by Jed Rothwell:
 
I spent the summer in Japan and interviewed senior people in the
energy field. A picture further from that put out here by Jed Rothwell
would be hard to imagine.

cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenFEC cudfnFrank cudlnClose cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.21 /  jonesse@plasma /  Hot fusion alternatives:  Penning trap experiment
     
Originally-From: jonesse@plasma.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Hot fusion alternatives:  Penning trap experiment
Date: 21 Dec 94 17:21:01 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

Dear Colleagues:

I appreciate the many comments on my outline for a course on
"Energy and environmental physics."

Robert Heeter offers to trade course materials from a related course he took
at Princeton for some presentation info. on muon-catalyzed fusion (of which
I have an ample supply).  It's a deal, Robert.  I'll send these soon.

Robert makes the observation:  
"I was under the impression that non-tokomak alternatives got around
$20 million/year in the U.S.  But you just went to the alternatives conference
(any news?), so I'll be humble and just ask where the $1.5M number comes from."

The $1.5 M comes from a paper by Norman Rostoker given at the conf.,
"Alternate Fusion Concepts," but evidently does not include laser fusion.
Norm writes:  "Alternate concepts receive about 1.5M$ out of about 373M$
for fiscal 1995."

Incidentally, I have a paper kindly provided by Ed Storms regarding Cold
Fusion in which Ed notes:  "Support in Japan is estimated to be at least
$90M... A few companies are supporting work, the most notable being the
Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) and more recently ENECO.  
The total effort in the U.S. probably does not exceed $4M/y."

That level of support seems quite substantial compared to some very
nice hot-fusion alternatives -- don't see why the cf-advocates are crying
for more money.

One of the better alternatives to ITER-path was presented by Dr. Barnes
of Los Alamos Nat. Lab.:  Penning Fusion Experiment.  This is a beam-beam
device in which the beams are constrained via strong magnetic fields.
The beams are accelerated to about 100 keV (near the peak for fusion
reactions) using a *virtual* cathode formed by electrons.  That is,
D+ ions are accelerated towards the cathode to about 100 keV in a
spherically-symmetric manner -- reminiscent of Hirsch's electrostatic
device but without the troublesome (real) cathode grid. 
(The problem with the grid is that D+ ions pass through the grid hundreds
of times before fusion occurs, typically, heating the grid too much to
allow for a workable electrostatic-confinement device.  The LANL boys
think they have solved that problem with the virtual cathode (!).)
 I will have to
wait until I get the written paper to give more details-- I'm working from
my notes here.  Barnes said there will be a conference on the subject
held at the El Dorado Hotel in Sante Fe January 12-14, 1995.

I asked whether he could extrapolate to d-3He beams -- he said yes.
The problem now is that their Penning trap is tiny, a few cm, and scaling
is not obvious.  And of course, they need funding.  I think they should
get it.  Oh, and he said the ash (4He, etc.) that is charged could be
extracted rather easily along magnetic field lines -- they've looked at
that and the numbers look good.

In general, Robert, I personally find that beam-beam approaches look 
more attractive than plasmas at a few keV -- much higher fusion cross-
sections, smaller systems, etc.  Keep an open mind about 
alternatives to tokomak.

Best wishes --
Steven Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenjonesse cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.21 /  jonesse@plasma /  New York Times miscue:  Sonofusion is NOT cold fusion!
     
Originally-From: jonesse@plasma.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: New York Times miscue:  Sonofusion is NOT cold fusion!
Date: 21 Dec 94 17:41:24 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

Ugh. Not again.

I've had three phone calls with friends today -- Washington, Calif. and Texas
-- on a news article on sonofusion, published in the NY Times, 12/20/94.
Terry Bollinger and I and a few others have been talking about the possibility
of *HOT* fusion during collapse of a bubble of D2 or DT since Nov-Dec. 1992,
on this net.
I will re-transmit a posting of 26 January 1994 on this to give background
info.

What I find disturbing is that:
1.  The headline of the article is woefully misleading -- this is a shot
at HOT fusion during sound-field-induced bubble collapse.  Indeed, the
text of the article makes clear that high temperatures in the bubble
are needed, several million degrees (at least).  Yet whoever wrote the
headline got it wrong, terribly wrong:

"New Shot at Cold Fusion by Pumping Sound Waves Into Tiny Bubbles".

Next they'll be saying tokomak is cold fusion?
The term applies to fusion without high-temperature plasmas; but just
such plasmas are sought in sonofusion.

2.  No neutrons have yet been found in sonofusion.  This is true of
our sonofusion experiments here as well (we're happy to keep a low profile,
although I have passed along a few updates throughout this year).  Yet this
media splash.  Just hope it does not get out of hand.

No, this is not a "shot at cold fusion"  -- just another media miscue.

--Steven Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenjonesse cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.21 /  jonesse@plasma /  Sonofusion at BYU:  reposting
     
Originally-From: jonesse@plasma.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Sonofusion at BYU:  reposting
Date: 21 Dec 94 17:47:20 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

The following was posted in Sept. 1994 here, and includes a posting
from Jan. 1994:

I would like to call your attention to two interesting articles on
sonoluminescence (SL).  The first was written by Lawrence Crum of
the Univ. of Washington, one of the true gentlemen of modern
science.  His article appears in this month's issue of Physics
Today (Sept. 1994).  Appended to this post find an earlier
commentary on Prof. Crum's colloquium at BYU in January 1994 and
related ideas.  Note that in that post the notion of fusion during
bubble cavitation in SL is advanced -- indeed, this idea was
discussed here on s.p.f. as early as 1992 (Jones, Bollinger, etc.).
Well, Prof. Crum is bold enough to advance the idea in his Phys.
Today article:

"The strong probability that SBSL results from an imploding shock
wave has now made this curious phenomenon one of considerable
interest.  ...This spherically symmetric implosion has the
potential for creating some exotic physics... Calculations suggest
that temperatures as high as 10^8 K are to be expected.  This
result has in turn prompted calculations of the possibilities of
inertial confinement fusion with a deuterium-tritium gas mixture,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
which yield a qualified estimate of 40 neutrons per second under
                                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 
ideal conditions [ref. 9]."

Whoa -- we can easily see 40 neutrons per *day* in our detector in
the Provo Canyon tunnel laboratory.  

So we look at ref 9, which is a paper in Phys. Rev. Lett. 72 (1994)
1380-1383 by Bradley Barber et al. from UCLA.  (The second must-
read paper.)  The calculation there is based on a shock-wave model
by Wu and Roberts which I have discussed previously here, found in
PRLett. 70 (1993) 3424.  The idea, in brief, is that the spherical
sound wave in the water impinges on a bubble (here D2+T2) in the
center of a spherical flask.  As the bubble collapses, a shock wave
forms which rapidly heats the gas near the origin.  After
reflection, the outgoing shock wave further heats the gas just
heated by the incoming shock -- and the result 0.1 ps after
focussing is a remarkable 3 X 10^8 K (!).

Bradley et al. then use standard formulas for d-t fusion, based on
sigma-v for d-t at 10 keV (10^8 K) to estimate a fusion yield of
40 n/s.

I have extended this calculation to hoped-for conditions of our
experiments using sigma-v values for d-d fusion (collapsing bubble
of deuterium simply), to get:

Temp. in shock-heated D2      fusion neutron yield
 ------------------------     ---------------------
10 keV                        1400 n/hour
5  keV                          10 n/hour
2  keV                           0.2 n/hour

Since our detector has an efficiency of 15% for 2.45 MeV neutrons
(from d-d fusion) with a background rate of 0.65 counts/hour, the
5 keV number (fusion yield of 10 n/h) would have to be achieved in
order for us to detect a signal.  Of course, if we could use D2+
tritium in the bubble, D2+T2, then a much lower temperature would
allow us to see the (14.1 MeV) neutrons from d-t fusion.  Indeed,
a temperature of 1 keV (11,600 K) would give a yield of about 18
neutrons/h for d-t fusion -- again easy to see in our detector in
Provo Canyon.  But I think we'd better stick with D2 for the
present.  Stay tuned.

I am intrigued also by Prof. Crum's comment that there is evidence
for occasional "super shocks" in which "internal shock waves would
occur that would be similar to those postulated for SBSL [see
below] but driven at much higher initial velocities.  Because of
the transient nature of the phenomenon it would be very difficult
to determine if and when these "super shocks" occurred."  [Phys.
Today, p. 28]  

I suggest that neutrons from fusion may provide a probe for such
unusual events.  Indeed, I maintain (getting bold here, but why
not) that the unusual neutron events which we announced in April
1989, Nature, may be due to just such events, following cavitation
in the D2 bubbles in our electrolysis experiments.  If this wild
hypothesis were true, then the metal lattice would have nothing to
do with the low-level fusion that we (perhaps) saw.  Indeed, the
fusion would be a form of hot fusion:  "hot-bubble fusion" one
might call it.                       

My January 1994 post below is reposted to provide background for
those who missed it:

Prof. Lawrence Crum of the University of Washington provided a
colloquium on the subject of "Synchronous Picosecond
Sonoluminescence" (SP-SL) at BYU on January 21, 1994.  Here is his
abstract for his talk:

When an acoustic wave of moderate pressure amplitude is propagated
through an aqueous liquid, light emissions can be observed.  This
conversion of mechanical energy into electromagnetic energy
represents and energy amplification per molecule of over eleven
orders of magnitude!  Recently, we made the discovery that a
single, stable gas bubble, acoustically levitated in a liquid, can
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 emit optical emissions each cycle for an unlimited period of time. 
Presumably, the oscillations of the bubble cause the gas in the
interior to be heated to incandescent temperatures during the
compression portion of the cycle.  We have no current explanation
for how this mechanical system sustains itself.  Furthermore, some
recent evidence from Putterman and colleagues at UCLA indicates
that the lifetime of the optical pulse is less than 50 picoseconds,
and that the temperatures elevated in the interior of the bubble
for times on the order of tens of nanoseconds, it is likely that
some rather unusual physics is occurring.  The best guess is that
a shock wave is created in the gas which is then elevated to high
temperatures by inertial confinement.  If shock waves are the
mechanism for SL emission, then optimization of the process could
lead to extraordinary physics.  A general review of this intriguing
phenomenon will be presented as well as the latest explanations for
the anomalous behavior.


Here I provide notes based on his talk and our discussions
together, along with other literature.

First, it is important to distinguish stable, SB-SL from the
previously known *transient* sonoluminescence (T-SL).  These appear
to be quite different phenomena, as a table will demonstrate:

Transient (garden-variety)SL   Stable single-bubble SL [SB-SL]
 ----------------------------- -------------------------------- 

Multiple cavitation sites      One cavitation site (or few)
 with random spatial and         with same bubble(s) repeatedly
 temporal distribution           collapsing
                               
(To simplify discussion, I will consider the SB-SL case of a single
bubble at the center of a spherical flask full of H2O or D2O.)

Can be produced by traveling   Requires standing sound waves (SW)
or standing waves of sound

Easily obtained, with much     Very difficult to realize; requires
gas dissolved in liquid         <5% dissolved gasses.  Bubble must
                                be *injected* into liquid.

Discovered 1933 by N.Marinesco  Discovered 1988 by D. Gaitan, L. 
 & J. Trillat.                      Crum and C. Church.

Emitted light spectrum shows   Emitted light shows no distinct
distinct lines, e.g., N+N -->   lines; rather, spectrum fits black
N2; so chemiluminescence         curve quite well.
postulated.

Bubles tend to collapse asym-  Bubbles tend to collapse symmetric
metrically, thus introducing   "developing an imploding shock wave
liquid into bubble, which is    within the gas." [L.A. Crum, J.
heated by adiabatic compression.    Acoust. Soc. Am. 94(1993) 1 ]

From above, Temp ~ 5000 K      From above, Temp up to 100,000 K
deduced, during cavitation.     deduced during cavitation.

Normal physics, no shock       "Extraordinary physics"; shock waves
waves needed.                   implied.  

Time between pulses quite      Time between pulses clock-like; 
random; pulse-length typically   pulse-length < 50 *pico*seconds
several nanoseconds.

(Sychronous picosecond SL:

!__________!__________!__________!__________!__________!____
   Time between light-flashes ! = 50 microsec +- 50 Picosec
     for 20 kHz driving field; sound source good to 1 part in
     10^4, light source stable to 1 part in 10^6. )
   

No fusion possible.             Fusion during cavitation possible?
                                 like inertial-confinement approach
                                 with holraum-like target.  Allows
                                 compression with less heating than
                                 ablation approaches IMHO.  No   
                                 experimental tests yet.  I suggest
                                 comparing p-d,d-d and d-t targets
                                 (gases in cavitating bubble).


Additional notes from Barber and Putterman, Nature 352 (1991) 318:

1.  "SL is a non-equilibrium phenomenon in which the energy in a
sound wave becomes highly concentrated so as to generate flashes
of light in a liquid.  We show here that these flashes, which
comprise over 10^5 photons, are too fast to be resolved by the
fastest photomultiplier tubes available.  Furthermore, when SL is
driven by a resonant sound field, the bursts can occur in a
continuously repeating, regular fashion."

2.  "These bursts represent an amplification of energy by eleven
orders of magnitude."

3.  "The flash widths that we find are so short that one wonders
whether some phenomenon stimultes the atoms to fire in usison. 
Known cooperative phenomena include laser action, super-radiance
and super-fluorescence.  Any cooperative phenomenon underlying our
observations must be of a spherical nature, however, because a
randomly oriented dipose emission would lead to a broad spread in
the distribution of pulse heights....no such broadening is seen.
Nevertheless, it is reasonable to expect that some type of
correlation characterizes the outgoing photons, because the spacing
between light-emitting sources is much less than the wavelength of
the emitted light."  

4.  "The huge, spontaneous (non-equilibrium) amplification factors
discussed above are noteworthy in that they are controllable and
reproducible.  In this respect, stable synchronous SL differs from
other phenomena (such as dust explosions, ball lightning and highly
speculative conditions for nuclear fusion) that also require large
spontaneous energy concentrations. [Note evident reference to cold
fusion.]  If we could understand the mechanism behind synchronous
SL, we might see a way to achieve large but controllable energy
concentrations more generally."

With colleagues, we are now preparing experiments to study stable,
single-bubble SL as a possible means of achieving nuclear fusion
reactions.  Our neutron detectors are capable of unambiguously
identifying neutron emissions at a rate of a few neutrons per hour. 
A previous posting describes our redundant detectors, employing
fast waveform digitizers, in a deep tunnel in the Wasatch mountains
near the campus of Brigham Young University.

--Steven Jones

P.S. (DEC. 21, 1994:  we have achieved SB-SL using a D2 bubble in our
tunnel lab. and have begun to look for neutrons.  The longest duration
for a D2 bubble in our most sensitive neutrons detector was about 25
minutes.  Stay tuned.)
cudkeys:
cuddy21 cudenjonesse cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.22 / Bruce TK /  Re: Jed Rothwell does not understand fusion
     
Originally-From: bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce       Scott          TK  )
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Jed Rothwell does not understand fusion
Date: 22 Dec 1994 13:07:27 +0100
Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching


Robert,

I thought the main limitation on the length of a TFTR shot is how long
you can run the neutral beams apparatus before it overheats, or before
its power supply runs out.  Is this so?  I have the impression it is
run from large capacitor banks.  Correct?

On smaller tokamaks with no external power, the length of a shot is limited
by how many volt-seconds you have in your power supply at constant current.

-- 
Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de                               -- W Gibson
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnTK cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.22 / Bruce TK /  Re: Jed Rothwell does not understand fusion
     
Originally-From: bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce       Scott          TK  )
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Jed Rothwell does not understand fusion
Date: 22 Dec 1994 13:09:59 +0100
Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching


In article <Bg+V-RP.jedrothwell@delphi.com>, jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:

[ranting deleted]

> Maglich told me TFTR does not generate multi-megawatt fusion power levels.

Nice to know that.  If it is really so, he deletes himself as a knowledgable
critic.

The TFTR record is slightly over 10 MW, and levels of order 6 MW, which a year
ago was a world record, are now routine.

-- 
Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de                               -- W Gibson
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnTK cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.22 / This Up /  Re: Engineering device from GR is fakery; gravity is neutrino
     
Originally-From: dellwo@orib01.phy.ornl.gov (This Side Up)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.ele
tromag,sci.math,sci.physics
Subject: Re: Engineering device from GR is fakery; gravity is neutrino
Date: 22 Dec 1994 09:00 EST
Organization: Oak Ridge National Laboratory

In article <3daci8$k76@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>, Archimedes.Plutonium@dart
outh.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes...
>In article <3d7qbe$a2o@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
>Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:
> 
>>    A spontaneous current arising once a superconductor goes below Tc
>> accords well with my theory of superconductivity. That
>> superconductivity is neutrinolization, akin to polarization.
> 
>--- You wrote:
>In article <3d7qbe$a2o@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> you write:
> 
>|>
>|>  Earlier this year I thought superconductivity was a tiny fraction
>of
>|>resistance and not exactly 0. But experiment is the final arbitrager.
> 
>yes, this is true.
> 
>|>
>|>  There are experiment reports that a superconductor when set into
>the
>|>state, has a spontaneous current from out of nowhere arise. So the
>|>answer is most definitely that the superconductor state is at least
>0,
>|>and since a spontaneous current arises, by math you can get a
>negative
>|>number resistance.
> 
>First, the thought of negative resistance is not credible, but that is
>somewhat
>beside the point.  For one thing, consider negative resistance in a
>ring
>carrying current... positive resistance causes current in a ring to
>decay - are
>you saying that once you put current into a superconducting ring, it
>*increases* monotonically?  

Actually, negative resistance is a real animal and is used to
describe some devices. It's just a regime where, as voltage is
increased, current decreases. It's not what Archimedes is
looking for though.

Joe
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudendellwo cudfnThis cudlnUp cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.22 / Mark Chrisman /  Re: Engineering device from GR is fakery; gravity is neutrino
     
Originally-From: chrisman@ucdmath.ucdavis.edu (Mark Chrisman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.ele
tromag,sci.math,sci.physics
Subject: Re: Engineering device from GR is fakery; gravity is neutrino
Date: 22 Dec 1994 14:46:11 GMT
Organization: University of California, Davis


A@P, how can there be such a thing as finite resistance when there are no
finite numbers?

 -------------------------------------------------------
Mark Chrisman   
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenchrisman cudfnMark cudlnChrisman cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.22 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Bad political developments for fusion
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Bad political developments for fusion
Date: Thu, 22 Dec 1994 13:41:02 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <3d5hus$7gj@newsbf02.news-fddi.aol.com> pnellesen@aol.com (PNellesen) writes:
>Do the people making the decisions on fusion research have any idea at all
>what a sustainable, controllable fusion reaction would mean for the energy
>and environmental needs of the world?  (Perhaps the evil world oil
>conglomerates are at the heart of this!) 

Perhaps you are thinking of aneutronic energy.  Tokamak fusion, if it 
could happen would generate thermal and potential radiation pollution. 
It would be uneconomical as well, and I think that includes the plan 
to make money by generating fissionable material by using its neutron 
flux capability to put it in the role of nuclear materials breeder 
plant -- with electric power as a sort of side line.   

>Pat Nellesen
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc, Bx 1037 Prometheus II Ltd, College Park MD 20741-1037    |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.22 / John Stanley /  Re: Free Energy Device GIF pic ! MRA picture
     
Originally-From: jstanley@gate.net (John Stanley)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,alt.energy.renewable,alt.parane
.science,alt.paranet.ufo,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.bio,sci.energy,sc
.energy.hydrogen,sci.environment,sci.materials,sci.physics,sci.physics.f
sion,sci.physics.particle
Subject: Re: Free Energy Device GIF pic ! MRA picture
Date: 22 Dec 1994 15:01:37 GMT

Stefan Hartmann (harti@shb.contrib.de) wrote:
: Hi,

: this is the schematics of tzhe recent announced Magnetic Resonance  
: Amplifier circuit (MRA).

: Please save this message and uudecode it and view it with a GIF pic  
: viewer.

This is amazing! The mere presence of this .gif file on my hard drive
has turned my computer into an over-unity device. My laptop is now 
powering the house and running the electric meter backwards!
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenjstanley cudfnJohn cudlnStanley cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.22 /  rvanspaa@ozema /        Re: Fusion Digest 3027
     
Originally-From: rvanspaa@ozemail.com.au
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:       Re: Fusion Digest 3027
Date: Thu, 22 Dec 1994 15:49:54 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

> Originally-From: Dieter Britz <britz@alpha.kemi.aau.dk>
> Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
> Subject: Re: Fusion Digest 3024
> Date: Mon, 19 Dec 1994 09:54:03 +0100
> Organization: DAIMI, Computer Science Dept. at Aarhus University
> 
> On Sun, 18 Dec 1994 rvanspaa@ozemail.com.au wrote:
> 
[SNIP]
> 
> OK, I'll take the numbers 1 and 2 (HOH = water and HOOH = hydrogen
> peroxide. Water forms from its elements (you did mean that, didn't you?)
> with the release of 286 kJ/mol; peroxide forms, releasing 188 ditto. It may
> be that those are all the possible numbers. So you need add no heat, you get
> some out (it's not "free", though).
> 
> -- Dieter Britz  alias  britz@alpha.kemi.aau.dk
______________________________________________________________
Sorry Dieter,

I guess I didn't make myself clear enough. I'm well aware of the 
exothermic creation of water and hydrogen peroxide 
from hydrogen and oxygen. What I was wondering was, are there any 
known compounds with O of 3 or more? As the energy liberated during 
creation of H2O2 is less than that of H2O, I would expect this trend 
to continue, and probably such that H2O3...etc (if it exists) would be endothermic.
I wonder though if all such higher compounds would be endothermic? I 
see formation of such higher O compounds as a possible source of 
energy in the GG etc. under instantaneous extreme conditions. If they 
exist, then they would probably go undetected, unless explicitly 
sought.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa@ozemail.com.au>

cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenrvanspaa cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.22 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Hot fusion alternatives:  Penning + meeting details 
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Hot fusion alternatives:  Penning + meeting details 
Date: Thu, 22 Dec 1994 14:43:10 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <1994Dec21.172101.1946@plasma.byu.edu> jonesse@plasma.byu.edu writes:
>Dear Colleagues:

>I appreciate the many comments on my outline for a course on
>"Energy and environmental physics."

>Robert makes the observation:  
>"I was under the impression that non-tokomak alternatives got around
>$20 million/year in the U.S.  But you just went to the alternatives conference
>(any news?), so I'll be humble and just ask where the $1.5M number comes from."

A query: there was a rumor at the meeting that several of the attendees
were contacted (some several times) and asked NOT to attend.  True that
the DoE chose not to participate, but why the antiactive stance???  It
doesn't make sense to me, an American who is generally for open 
individual intellectual and professional freedom.  The meeting was 
well attended, but there were a large number of cancellations. Apparently,
some can be pressured in these times of cut-backs.  That only makes
the DoE action doubly questionable.      

>The $1.5 M comes from a paper by Norman Rostoker given at the conf.,
>"Alternate Fusion Concepts," but evidently does not include laser fusion.
>Norm writes:  "Alternate concepts receive about 1.5M$ out of about 373M$
>for fiscal 1995."

But the DoE must answer to an interest that Congress has in promoting
alternative concept funding.  So the USDoE does now (conveniently) 
include ICF as an alternative concept.   Seems a crock of bad sour-
kraut to me.   

>That level of support seems quite substantial compared to some very
>nice hot-fusion alternatives -- don't see why the cf-advocates are crying
>for more money.

>One of the better alternatives to ITER-path was presented by Dr. Barnes
>of Los Alamos Nat. Lab.:  Penning Fusion Experiment.  This is a beam-beam
>device in which the beams are constrained via strong magnetic fields.
>The beams are accelerated to about 100 keV (near the peak for fusion
>reactions) using a *virtual* cathode formed by electrons.  That is,
>D+ ions are accelerated towards the cathode to about 100 keV in a
>spherically-symmetric manner -- reminiscent of Hirsch's electrostatic
>device but without the troublesome (real) cathode grid. 
>(The problem with the grid is that D+ ions pass through the grid hundreds
>of times before fusion occurs, typically, heating the grid too much to
>allow for a workable electrostatic-confinement device.  The LANL boys
>think they have solved that problem with the virtual cathode (!).)
> I will have to
>wait until I get the written paper to give more details-- I'm working from
>my notes here.  Barnes said there will be a conference on the subject
>held at the El Dorado Hotel in Sante Fe January 12-14, 1995.

The Penning and other continuous Spherical IC confinement schemes 
make interesting physics fusion generating trinkets, but they will
not produce the power flux that will gather the serious interest of 
the commercial grid-power industry.  The real advantage that I see
is that such work can be put into many universities' physics programs.   
Apologies to R. Bussard/R. Hirsch.  

For interested potential attendees:  read the announcement at the end 
of this post.  

>In general, Robert, I personally find that beam-beam approaches look 
>more attractive than plasmas at a few keV -- much higher fusion cross-
>sections, smaller systems, etc.  Keep an open mind about 
>alternatives to tokomak.

Keep pecking away at your muon enhancement strategies, Steve. In the 
mean while  .. .
Yes -- Commercial fusion requires strongly heated dense plasmas.  It's
simply a matter of getting sustained pressure to the fuel (preferably
aneutronic), which is well insulated against impurity flux.  

>Best wishes --
>Steven Jones
announcement follows sig
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc, Bx 1037 Prometheus II Ltd, College Park MD 20741-1037    |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+


           PHYSICS OF SPHERICAL CONTINUOUS INERTIAL FUSION WORKSHOP


The Department of Energy (DOE) and the Electric Power Research Institute
(EPRI) are organizing a workshop to assess the physics basis of spherically
convergent continuous fusion systems.  These systems include Inertial
Electrostatic Confinement (IEC) and systems combining electrostatic and
magnetic confinement, such as the Polywell=81 or Penning Trap concepts.  The
goal of this workshop is to collect relevant theoretical and experimental
physics work addressing issues.

The organizing committee,

	Dan Barnes - Los Alamos
	Tom Schneider - EPRI
	Ron Blanken - DOE/Office of Fusion Energy
	Nick Krall - Krall Associates
	Gerry Kulcinski - University of Wisconsin
	George Miley - University of Illinois
	Bill Nevins - Lawrence Livermore

is planning a two day program of invited presentations focusing on generic
and concept specific issues.  A list of topics is enclosed.  The program
also includes extended time for discussion and for accommodating
contributed papers.  If you would like to contribute a paper, please return
the following registration form as soon as practical.  You may respond
electronically to FAX number (505) 665-7150 or via internet to
dbarnes@ctrss2.lanl.gov or june@ctrss2.lanl.gov.  The final day of the
workshop (Saturday morning, January 14) is reserved for discussions of
applications (neutron source, space power, transmutations, fusion energy,
etc.) and proposed next steps to resolve physics issues.

The organizing committee will prepare a concise summary of the workshop
which will be a consensus view of the major physics issues, the status of
these issues (theoretically and experimentally), and next steps toward
developing these systems toward near term and long term applications.  This
summary will be published in Fusion Technology.  The proceedings of the
workshop, including this summary will be published as a Los Alamos report.
Speakers are requested to provide a four page extended synopsis of their
presentation by January 31, 1995, for these proceedings.

Please let us know if you will be participating and whether you wish to
make a presentation.  An agenda will be sent to you in a few days.  If you
are able to let us know, by electronic (FAX or internet) means, we will
send further information by these means.  We look forward to an exciting
and productive workshop.


TOPICS:

*  Generic Issues
   -   Limits on convergence
         Source
         Asphericity
         Coulomb scattering
   -   Power balance
         Ion energy scattering
         Electron scattering and energy confinement
   -   Waves and instabilities
   -   Computer modeling
   -   Scaling expectations
   -   Direct conversion issues

*  Specific Issues
   -   Gridded systems
         Grid losses of ions and electrons
         Experimental results (scaling, profiles)
   -   Poly wells
   -   Magnetic geometry and MHD
         Electron losses (cusp, cross field)
         Experimental results
   -   Penning Traps
         Spherical Symmetry
         Electron losses
         Experimental results

*  Furture directions

==========================================================================


The Physics of Spherical Continuous Inertial Fusion Workshop is scheduled
for January 12--14, 1995, at the Eldorado Hotel, Santa Fe, New Mexico.
Registration will be held from 7:30--8:00 a.m. on Thursday, January 12,
1995, with the workshop beginning at 8:00 a.m.  The workshop is scheduled
to end on Saturday, January 14, in the early afternoon.

Technical information may be obtained by contacting Dan Barnes,
505-667-4394 (phone) or 505-665-7150 (fax) or via internet at
dbarnes@penning.lanl.gov or june@ctrss2.lanl.gov.  Lenora Alsbrook,
Protocol Office Conference Coordinator, will assist with logistics and can
be contacted at 505-667-8449 (phone) or 505-667-7530 (fax).

A block of rooms has been reserved at the Eldorado Hotel (309 W. San
=46rancisco Street,Santa Fe, NM   505-955-4455).  Please make your own
reservations, referencing the "Workshop on Physics of Spherical Continuous
Inertial Fusion."  The conference rate will $80 (single/double).
Reservations will be accepted until December 21, 1994.  After that date,
requests will be received on a space available basis.

In order to establish your participation, please return this registration
form and a fee of $100.00 by DECEMBER 21.  Late registrations (received
after December 21, 1994) will be $125.00.

=========================================================================

Preliminary Registration for

Physics of Spherical Continuous Inertial Fusion Workshop


NAME:______________________________________

ORGANIZATION:______________________________

ADDRESS:___________________________________

___________________________________________



E-MAIL
ADDRESS:___________________________________


I am interested in attending the Workshop:______

I would like to give a presentation:____________

Tentative
Title:_____________________________________

___________________________________________



Please return this form and fee to:

Los Alamos National Labortory
Protocol Office, MS P366
Attention:  BUS-1 Conference Accountant
Los Alamos, NM 87545
Phone:  505-667-6774  -  Fax:  505-667-7530
(Lenora Alsbrook)

(Make check payable in US Dollars to Physics of Spherical Continuous
Inertial Fusion Workshop.)

IF YOU HAVE NOT ALREADY REGISTERED, PLEASE RETURN THIS FORM NOW.


June D. Garcia
Group T-15
Los Alamos National Laboratory
june@ctrss2.lanl.gov
505-667-4394

cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.22 / Paul Koloc /  Re: Jed Rothwell does not understand fusion
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Jed Rothwell does not understand fusion
Date: Thu, 22 Dec 1994 14:52:27 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <3dbqanINN5b1@slcbds.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de> bds@ipp-garchin
.mpg.de (Bruce       Scott          TK  ) writes:
>
>In article <Bg+V-RP.jedrothwell@delphi.com>, jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:
>
>[ranting deleted]
>
>> Maglich told me TFTR does not generate multi-megawatt fusion power levels.
>
>Nice to know that.  If it is really so, he deletes himself as a knowledgable
>critic.

>The TFTR record is slightly over 10 MW, and levels of order 6 MW, which a year
>ago was a world record, are now routine.

Bruce, I think Maglich is questioning how much power is due to beam
interactions (direct pumping) as opposed to equilibrated plasma-plasma 
interation fusion.  Also, what does that work out in in watts per 
cubic centimeter averaged over the plasma volume??  And what fraction
of equivalent heat density is that compared to the energy density
of a burning candle?  

Just keeping those feet on the ground  --  as if a tokamak facility
wasn't massive enough to make for an excellent anchor.  

>-- 
>Gruss,
>Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
>Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
>bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de                               -- W Gibson
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc, Bx 1037 Prometheus II Ltd, College Park MD 20741-1037    |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.22 / Alan M /  Re: Bad political developments for fusion
     
Originally-From: Alan@moonrake.demon.co.uk ("Alan M. Dunsmuir")
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Bad political developments for fusion
Date: Thu, 22 Dec 1994 16:25:32 +0000
Organization: Home

In article: <3d5hus$7gj@newsbf02.news-fddi.aol.com>  pnellesen@aol.com
(PNellesen) writes:
> Do the people making the decisions on fusion research have any idea at all
> what a sustainable, controllable fusion reaction would mean for the energy
> and environmental needs of the world? 

Yes - the fusion researchers have been telling them since 1955. (Just 
give us amother $10bn and 18 months...)

Alan M. Dunsmuir [@ his wits end]     (Can't even quote poetry right)

         I am his Highness' dog at Kew
         Pray tell me sir, whose dog are you?
			      [Alexander Pope]

PGP Public Key available on request.


cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenAlan cudfnAlan cudlnM cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.22 / Thomas Zemanian /  Re: Dr. Oriani's Lecture
     
Originally-From: ts_zemanian@pnl.gov (Thomas S. Zemanian)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Dr. Oriani's Lecture
Date: 22 Dec 1994 16:37:46 GMT
Organization: Battelle PNL

In article <Zy91P9M.jedrothwell@delphi.com>, jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:

> I wrote: "the scientific evidence strongly supports the hypothesis that
> hydrogen atoms fuse together to form helium." barry@redwood.math.ucla.edu
> (Barry Merriman) responded:
>  
>      "Jed: you really need to divest yourself of this notion that CF
>      is the result of H+H fusion (especially in Griggs)."
>  
> I did not mean that. I meant all isotopes of hydrogen. As I pointed out here
> before, there is more than enough deuterium in the GG to account for the
> heat. I have no idea whether the reaction is H+H or D+H. I suppose it cannot
> involve tritium, because there is not enough.
>  

Hang on, Jed.

Didn't you say you'd already dosed the input water to the GG with D2O and
seen no effect on the output heat?  I'd say this effectively squelches the
idea that D+H or D+D fusion is going on.

You still have the H+H reaction to tinker with.  Perhaps running a clean GG
on DDI H2O and shooting samples of the input and output water on a low mass
MS, or looking at them in an NMR (although that's a fairly insensitive
detector) might yield a clue as to whether deuterons are being produced.

[much deleted]

>  
> Thus far, the experiments show that ordinary water (1/6000th deuterium) does
> not work with palladium, but it does work with nickel. They show that
> increasing the concentration of deuterium in water with nickel marginally
> improves the CF effect. Nobody can explain these results.
>  

The same tests are indicated here, to look for depletion or enrichment of
deuterons.

I hope this helps,

--Tom

--
The opinions expressed herein are mine and mine alone.  Keep your filthy
hands off 'em! 
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudents_zemanian cudfnThomas cudlnZemanian cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.22 / A Plutonium /  NEW PLANETS DISCOVERED, REPEAT TITIUS-BODE LAW
     
Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci
physics.electromag
Subject: NEW PLANETS DISCOVERED, REPEAT TITIUS-BODE LAW
Date: 22 Dec 1994 19:57:11 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

I make this prediction because I know this ideas are just hogwash.
  List of Hogwash Ideas
             (1) Solar system and other star systems with their planets
originate from a primeval gas dust cloud. Believers in gas-dust cloud
creation of our Solar system read too many fairy tales
             (2) Earth and Moon formed from a primeval gas dust cloud
condensate
             (3) Moon was created from some asteroidal body that hit
Earth and the Moon is the remnant of that impact.

All of this is hogwash, perhaps cutsy hogwash.

The true theory of Star, planets, and moon creation are according to a
mode of radioactive matter creation. See Dirac's Directions in Physics
on this radioactivity.

The true theory of planet and moon creation and orbits comes from
Quantum Mechanics, especially in the form of Coulomb's Law and the
Meissner effect.

The true theory of planet and moon orbits also comes from the
Schroedinger Equation.

All of the present-day theories of star,planet and moon creation are
hogwash because none of those tie in with QM. All of those hogwash
theories were based on GR, but GR itself is a hogwash theory.

I make the following prediction. When astronomy gets good enough, that
community will observe another Solar system with a star besides our own
Sun. They will see a star with its planets orbiting that star. Here is
the prediction. They will see that those planets also obey a
Titius-Bode law relative to their sun-star.

This prediction of mine is founded on the idea that planets are created
by a spontaneous radioactive creation process starting from a seed
planet from the Schroedinger Equation. Picture the planets orbit as a
Meissner effect. QM will tell all there is about the planets. The
Titius-Bode Law is the math consequence of a harmony of the spheres
with QM.
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.22 / A Plutonium /  Re: New York Times miscue:  Sonofusion is NOT cold fusion!
     
Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics
Subject: Re: New York Times miscue:  Sonofusion is NOT cold fusion!
Date: 22 Dec 1994 20:54:33 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In article <1994Dec21.174124.1947@plasma.byu.edu>
jonesse@plasma.byu.edu writes:

> Ugh. Not again.
> 
> I've had three phone calls with friends today -- Washington, Calif. and Texas
> -- on a news article on sonofusion, published in the NY Times, 12/20/94.

 This is how a "little tin badge, self-appointed, physics apprentice"
tries to impress the general public. Did you get a phone call from the
president of the Mormon church also Steven?

> "New Shot at Cold Fusion by Pumping Sound Waves Into Tiny Bubbles".
> 
> Next they'll be saying tokomak is cold fusion?
> The term applies to fusion without high-temperature plasmas; but just
> such plasmas are sought in sonofusion.

  Contrary to what Steven is trying to fob off by redefining
everything. Sonoluminescence is Cold Fusion. Sonoluminescence is the
varying of current i or voltage V, analog, with sound. Sonoluminescence
is the creation of new neutrons (blue light) that never existed before,
in violation of the conservation of energy/mass. See the spontaneous
neutron materialization in Carbon Arc under water recently reported.
   Steven is a poor sport when he starts to lose.

> 2.  No neutrons have yet been found in sonofusion.  This is true of
> our sonofusion experiments here as well (we're happy to keep a low profile,
> although I have passed along a few updates throughout this year).  Yet this
> media splash.  Just hope it does not get out of hand.

  Steven, IMHO, will believe the Mormon Joseph Smith gold tablets
behind double veiled curtains. With all due respect, would you believe
a man like that reporting on delicate physics experiments that decides
where millions and billions of research money is spent? I myself surely
have no desire to trust Religion inside of science, especially where it
means the future of a nation? How did Joseph Smith's gold tablets
disappear Steven? Was it through your definition of Hot or cold fusion?
Did Joseph Smith chuck the tablets into the fusion reactor in Princeton
and forever discard the truth? Please run that experiment in your BYU
lab. Really, it is amazing that anyone takes your physics reports
seriously anymore Steven. Even if you are not given hot fusion kickback
money or perks.
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.22 / Tom Droege /  Re: Sloppy measurements & P&F boiloff timing
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Sloppy measurements & P&F boiloff timing
Date: 22 Dec 1994 22:28:05 GMT
Organization: fermilab

In article <harrD128rM.5oq@netcom.com>, harr@netcom.com (Chuck Harrison) says:
>
(Snip)
>And if you saw the CBC tape I think you would agree that it is
>completely plausible to track the liquid level visually this way.
>

And I am trying to keep you honest Chuck.  I have seen tapes by
P&F, and I have long discussed here that one *cannot* keep track
of the liquid level.  The boiling is just too severe.  No way to 
begin to tell where the level is.  How much is gas and how much 
liquid.  So it is just a junk experiment!!

But there are lots of ways to do it right if P&F would try.

Tom Droege

cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.22 / Tom Droege /  Re: "New Scientist"article on Tom's trip...
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: "New Scientist"article on Tom's trip...
Date: 22 Dec 1994 22:41:11 GMT
Organization: fermilab

In article <1994Dec22.174005.1@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au>, dowen@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au says:
>
>Hi Folks, have a nice day :) ......
>This weeks "New Scientist" on page 11 is carrying an article entitled
(Snip)

Daryl, possibly you might bend the copyright law a little and post 
a larger (meaning almost everything) extract of the article.  I had 
hoped they would send me a copy, but they sent some old issues.  The
e-mail address the editor gave me did not work, so I could not write
him to ask for more info.  

But as a result of the article, I am in contact with a Dutch science
editor.  So there will be another article.  BTW, the "New Scientist"
wanted a picture.  So I gave them the name of the "Business Week" 
photographer.  But they wanted $300 to use the picture.  Guess that 
was beyond the budget!  If the e-mail address would work, I would 
write and ask permission to post.

Tom Droege

cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.22 /   /  Re: Free Energy Device GIF pic ! MRA picture
     
Originally-From: rpede@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca ( )
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,alt.energy.renewable,alt.parane
.science,alt.paranet.ufo,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.bio,sci.energy,sc
.energy.hydrogen,sci.environment,sci.materials,sci.physics,sci.physics.f
sion,sci.physics.particle
Subject: Re: Free Energy Device GIF pic ! MRA picture
Date: Thu, 22 Dec 1994 16:48:11 -0800
Organization: INNOtronics

In article <3dcc5u$n7j@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>,
Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) wrote:

> In article <3dc4ch$jg7@tequesta.gate.net>
> jstanley@gate.net (John Stanley) writes:
> 
> > Stefan Hartmann (harti@shb.contrib.de) wrote:
> > : Hi,
> > 
> > : this is the schematics of tzhe recent announced Magnetic Resonance  
> > : Amplifier circuit (MRA).
> > 
> > : Please save this message and uudecode it and view it with a GIF pic  
> > : viewer.
> > 
> > This is amazing! The mere presence of this .gif file on my hard drive
> > has turned my computer into an over-unity device. My laptop is now 
> > powering the house and running the electric meter backwards!
> 

> Messr. Stefan?






This device is incredible!!!   I am having similar results as described by
just downloading the file!   It seems that while I was uudecoding the gif,
it somehow clock-quadrupled my chip and I am now geting speeds of upwards
of 320MHz!!!  And amazingly this doubles to 620MHz when I run programs
while the gif is in the background!  All you skeptics shouldn't make fun
of this amazing "gift" to humanity since it really works.  I have even
implemented this circuit to my Stun-Gun and the output voltage is at least
1 Tera Volt (estimating that I can throw sparks a 1/4 mile!).
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenrpede cudln cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.22 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Dr. Oriani's Lecture
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Dr. Oriani's Lecture
Date: Thu, 22 DEC 94 17:52:51 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Thomas S. Zemanian <ts_zemanian@pnl.gov> writes:
 
>Didn't you say you'd already dosed the input water to the GG with D2O and
>seen no effect on the output heat?  I'd say this effectively squelches the
>idea that D+H or D+D fusion is going on.
 
I sent them an old bottle of heavy water with about 100 ml left and they
added it to the hopper in the middle of a run and stirred it in. The hopper
and feedwater tank is about 10 gallons as I recall; I have the exact numbers
at the office. In any case, it would have raised the concentration of D2O
considerably. They said there was no dramatic, obvious effect from it. It was
only done once under poorly controlled conditions, with an old bottle of
unknown concentration. (A bottle of heavy water left open acts as a 'getter'
for light water; it exchanges molecules with the air as it tries to get back
to 1 part in 6000 again.)
 
It was not a conclusive test by any means. Srinivasan and others have tried
various mixtures with nickel cells, again without dramatic results. He got
the most tritium production with a mixture of 25% D2O.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenjedrothwell cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.22 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Dr. Oriani's Lecture
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Dr. Oriani's Lecture
Date: Thu, 22 DEC 94 17:59:25 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Thomas H. Kunich <tomk@netcom.com> writes:
 
>After all, are we going to believe Jed Rothwell's suggestion that the 
>Grigg's water heater is a CNF machine?
 
I would not believe that if I was you. Especially because Jed never made any
such suggestion. I am not aware of a single experiment that indicates the
Griggs device is a CNF machine. As I stated very clearly in the paper uploaded
here a half dozen times, I do not know whether it is CF or something else.
 
My working hypothesis is that it might be. Until I hear a better hypothesis,
I'll stick with that.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenjedrothwell cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.22 / Chuck Harrison /  Re: Sloppy measurements
     
Originally-From: harr@netcom.com (Chuck Harrison)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Sloppy measurements
Date: Thu, 22 Dec 1994 19:55:42 GMT
Organization: Fitful

In article <9412202140.AA55371@pilot1.cl.msu.edu>, blue@pilot.msu.edu
(Richard A Blue) says:
>
>In response to my question concerning the boil-off time in the P&F
>experiments, Chuck Harrison says the event was recorded on video tape.
>My question then becomes which "event"?  How is the evidence presented
>on a video tape connected to the data presented in the paper?
[...]
I have proper respect for Dick's intelligence and honesty.  However I do
find it tiresome when he shoots from the hip like this on matters of
record.  "How is the evidence ... connected...", indeed!

M Fleischmann, S Pons, _Physics Letters A_ 176 (1993) p. 127:

... [a simple] procedure is to make time-lapse video recordings of the
cells which can be synchronized with the temperature-time and cell
potential-time data.  Figures 8a and 8b give the records of the operation
of two of a set of four such cells.  Figure 12, a still taken from the
video recordings, shows the last cell being driven to boiling, the first
three having boiled dry.

The caption of figure 12 (page 128) reads:

Fig. 12.  Still of video recording of the cells described in fig. 8
showing the last cell during the final boiling period, the other cells
having boiled dry.

In this peer-reviewed article, F&P state flatly that these video frames
correspond to the given temperature and potential graphs.

A few years ago, when I was more actively interested in CF, I would
resolve questions such as this by going to the library and Xeroxing
journal papers, faxing to workers in the field, etc.  This material
remains in my file cabinet; every now and then a comment on s.p.f
stimulates me to check a fact or two.  I think that Dick has seen
most of the same papers, but relies on his memory for later commentary.
Readers of Dick's commentary should keep this in mind as his memory,
like most of ours here, is subject to inaccuracies.

-Chuck
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenharr cudfnChuck cudlnHarrison cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.22 /  jonesse@plasma /  Questions for Rothwell
     
Originally-From: jonesse@plasma.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Questions for Rothwell
Date: 22 Dec 94 12:03:37 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

Jed writes:

"Any good DF device will outperform the best that Princeton, ITER and all the
rest can hope for.  We left them in the dust years ago.  We got
fully ignited, 
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
self-sustaining reactions two years ago, and very soon we will have self
sustaing power reactors.  It's all over for hot fusion."  (Rothwell)

Whoa-- "ignited" reactions sounds like a term from hot fusion, meaning that
the fusion reactions provide enough heat to keep the plasma hot enough for
fusion without other heat supply.  
But then this is not "cold" fusion, which requires fusion
without a hot plasma.  (Muon-catalyzed fusion is the only verified form
of cold fusion.)  
So just what do you mean by this boast of 
"fully ignited"?

Wow, this guy is quite the enthusiast, oh my....

He avoided answering several questions I posted about a week ago; I'll try
again:

"Jed, do P&F claim excess heat in light-water cells?"

Funny this is so hard to get a straight answer to.  We've been trying to get
an answer to this since 1989.  Why can't we get a straight answer?

"Why is it that the publisher of cold Fusion magazine states:

'If there's no substantial progress this year, 
cold fusion is in real trouble."
(Wayne Green in letter to ICCF-4 attendees.)
This from a CF advocate!  What do you think, Mr. Rothwell?
How about all you investors in CF out there?"
[From Jones posting, 14 Dec. 1994]

--Steven Jones

cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenjonesse cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.22 / Rich Hawryluk /  TFTR Update (Dec. 22, 1994)
     
Originally-From: rhawryluk@pppl.gov (Rich Hawryluk)
Newsgroups: pppl.tftr.news,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: TFTR Update (Dec. 22, 1994)
Date: 22 Dec 1994 11:50:53 -0500
Organization: Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory

Status  (Dec. 22,1994)

Another series of ICRF D-T experiments were completed on December 9.
Afterwards, scheduled maintenance on subsystems was performed. The results
from the D-T experiments are summarized below.

First experiments on off-axis mode conversion current drive were performed.
Initial indications are that 40 - 50 kA of non inductively driven current
was produced in a 1 MA discharge at (r/a)=0.25 with 2 MW of ICRF power, in
approximate agreement with calculations.

An interaction between the mode converted ion Bernstein wave (IBW) and a
small central alpha particle population was also observed in a D-3He plasma
with residual tritium present. When the IBW was generated at the plasma
axis, heating of the alpha particle population and scattering of alphas
into the loss cone was seen.

On December 8, 1994, the TFTR Alpha Particle Scattering Diagnostic observed
for the first time in a tokamak plasma, the ion Bernstein harmonics of a
deuterium neutral beam heated plasma using the collective Thomson
scattering  technique.  The line width of the scattered spectrum using the
diagnostic's synchronous detector electronics also agreed well with the
TFTR CHERS ion temperature diagnostic for the same plasma location at R=330
cm for  shot 81705.  Further confirmation of this observation will be made
in January 1995 when either the toroidal magnetic field will be changed or
the scattering location will be moved, with the hope of observing the ion
Bernstein harmonics tune with the local magnetic field.  We hope also to
detect the tritium ion Bernstein harmonics during DT operation, and may be
able to measure the relative densities and temperatures of the DT confined
fuel ions in the plasma core.  We also hope to observe an increase in
scattered signal line width  as we probe the core of the plasma in January.


Finally, scattered signals are also detected in the higher frequency
receiver channels corresponding to energetic ions, such as the alpha
particles, and analysis is in progress to understand these measurements.
The TFTR Alpha Particle Scattering Diagnostic is a collaboration with John
Machuzak from MIT.

A study of diffusion of beam ions has been performed on TFTR by B.
Heidbrink and E. Ruskov from University of California, Irvine in
collaboration with the TFTR Group. E. Ruskov presented a summary of this
work to the TFTR Group on Monday Dec 5th 1994. The main results were:

        1)      From a set of DD and DT plasmas it was established that a
low value of the fast ion diffusion coefficient (Df < 0.2m2/sec) best fits
the data.

        2)      The long decay of the 14 MeV neutron emission from a short
DT beam pulse sets an even lower limit of Df < 0.05m2/sec

        3)      Future work will use a spatially dependent Df(r) profile
instead of the spatially constant value of Df used in the present study.


Future Activities

 This ICRF campaign will continue after the scheduled holiday break.

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

_________________________________________________________________________
R. J. Hawryluk
rhawryluk@pppl.gov
PPPL - LOB 325
Phone:  (609) 243-3306
Fax:    (609) 243-3248
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenrhawryluk cudfnRich cudlnHawryluk cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.22 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Jed Rothwell does not understand fusion
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Jed Rothwell does not understand fusion
Date: Thu, 22 DEC 94 12:16:41 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

I wrote that Maglich told me TFTR does not generate multi-megawatt fusion
power levels. bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce Scott TK) responded:
 
     "Nice to know that.  If it is really so, he deletes himself as a
     knowledgable critic."
 
It really is so. He wrote it in testimony before the Subcommittee on Energy
and Water, U.S. House of Representatives, April 12, 1994, and in a paper
delivered at the 1994 Spring Meeting of the American Physical Society titled,
"Comments on Reported Production of Thermonuclear Fusion Power in Princeton's
Tokamak."
 
 
     "The TFTR record is slightly over 10 MW, and levels of order 6 MW, which
     a year ago was a world record, are now routine."
 
Big deal. So what? That's power, not energy. They cannot make it self-sustain
the way Pons and Fleischmann can, and they cannot leave it running 24 hours a
day the way any CF scientist can. Leave a good CF cell running a couple of
weeks and it generates more than that measly 10 MJ Princeton shot. Heck, the
largest unit Griggs has installed produces 10 MJ excess every eight minutes,
and it works 24 hours a day right there in the carpet factory, doing real work
for real customers. Saving real money. Hot fusion would not be able to do that
for another 50 years, even if by some miracle it actually worked. We all know
it cannot be engineered to work. Read "Lessons Learned from the Tokamak
Advanced Reactor Innovation and Evaluation Study (ARIES)," by R.A. Krakowski
et al., Los Alamos National Laboratory. It is an eight page obituary for HF,
written by DOE's top people with support from the Office of Fusion Energy:
 
     "Economics: All the ARIES designs would not competitive with respect to
     Advanced Light Water (fission) Reactors. The ARIES designs are
     uneconomic because: a) they recirculate too much power (i.e. Q[E] is too
     small), and b) the fusion power core is too massive and expensive ...
     and c) without direct energy conversion the *net* thermal conversion
     efficiency can be no better than for conventional fission or fossil
     power plants . . . Lastly the ARIES studies have shown that tokamak
     based fusion power cannot use enhanced ES&H [environmental safety &
     health] merits to resolve the economic issues. . . "
 
Congress will pull the plug on the hot fusion program, because the taxpayers
do not like flushing money down a sewer. If hot fusion was worth anything it
would attract support from private industry the way cold fusion does. Only the
government will support it, because the government likes throw away money on
hair brained boondoggles that no sane corporation would touch. It is a scam.
It is a giveaway to the contractors and professors who are too stupid to find
honest work. It is like the SSC Multi Billion Dollar Hole In the Ground. The
sooner they shut it down the better.
 
The title of this thread is "Jed Rothwell does not understand fusion." That
statement is 100% true. Here are a few things I *do* understand:
 
     Engineering
     Energy cost benefit analysis and economics
     Government corruption and fraud
     The conclusions of the ARIES study
     Power density, cost of fuel, cost of materials in generator, etc.
 
Those topics relate to the real world of business, which I understand better
than all of you academic scientists put together. Out here in the real
world -- by those standards -- hot fusion is a dead duck.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenjedrothwell cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.22 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Jed Rothwell does not understand fusion
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Jed Rothwell does not understand fusion
Date: Thu, 22 DEC 94 12:22:37 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Paul M. Koloc <pmk@prometheus.UUCP> writes:
 
>Bruce, I think Maglich is questioning how much power is due to beam
>interactions (direct pumping) as opposed to equilibrated plasma-plasma 
>interation fusion.  Also, what does that work out in in watts per 
 
That is correct. His conclusion is:
 
     "Correct calculations indicate that *false neutrons alone* can
     explain the data, T/F = 0/000; i.e. the observed data are
     compatible with zero thermonuclear fusion power production, TFPP=0."
 
He thinks it is the so-called ZETA effect, named after a British HF reactor
in the 1950s where they made the same mistake.
 
I have no idea whether Maglich's claims are correct or not. I cannot judge
them. I can, however, judge the economics of HF as described in the Los Alamos
paper by Krakowski et al. In a word: it is hopeless. Dead. Kaput. A waste of
money.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenjedrothwell cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.22 /  mmord@batman.b /  Re: Take a deep breath, Matt...
     
Originally-From: mmord@batman.bmd.trw.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Take a deep breath, Matt...
Date: 22 Dec 94 09:25:08 MST

In article <1994Dec17.234709.8636@Princeton.EDU>, Robert F. Heeter
<rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu> writes:
> In article <3cqe1u$r38@network.ucsd.edu> Matt Kennel, mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu
> writes:

(snip)

>  
>> QED works more exactly than korean premeds at stanford.
> 
> This, on the other hand, is exceedingly prejudiced and out of line.
> What do you have against Korean premed students at Stanford?
> I went there; I know some.  They're no worse than many physicists
> I know, and in any case, no one deserves that sort of stereotypical
> comment...  :)
> 
> Matt, I expected better of you.
> 
> ***************************
> Robert F. Heeter, rfheeter@phoenix.princeton.edu
> Graduate Student in Plasma Physics, Princeton University
> As always, I represent only myself, and not PPPL

Ya know I've sometimes wondered....
Is it also not good to stereotype when you are saying something
*complimentary*?

Bret
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenmmord cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.22 / A Plutonium /  Re: Free Energy Device GIF pic ! MRA picture
     
Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,alt.energy.renewable,alt.parane
.science,alt.paranet.ufo,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.bio,sci.energy,sc
.energy.hydrogen,sci.environment,sci.materials,sci.physics,sci.physics.f
sion,sci.physics.particle
Subject: Re: Free Energy Device GIF pic ! MRA picture
Date: 22 Dec 1994 17:14:38 GMT
Organization: Plutonium College

In article <3dc4ch$jg7@tequesta.gate.net>
jstanley@gate.net (John Stanley) writes:

> Stefan Hartmann (harti@shb.contrib.de) wrote:
> : Hi,
> 
> : this is the schematics of tzhe recent announced Magnetic Resonance  
> : Amplifier circuit (MRA).
> 
> : Please save this message and uudecode it and view it with a GIF pic  
> : viewer.
> 
> This is amazing! The mere presence of this .gif file on my hard drive
> has turned my computer into an over-unity device. My laptop is now 
> powering the house and running the electric meter backwards!

And to put the Magnetic Resonance Amplifier Circuit (MRA) into
in-depth- historical perspective, the transfiguration of the Magi. And
the glow, the picture negative of the Shroud of Turin. I just wonder if
there is a beautiful, and lush connection between those  and the veils
of non-seeing of Joseph Smith's gold tablets and the Fatima, Portugal
apparitions? For I am a sinner and in the dark concerning these matters
and in need of a good racking. Rough equation Magi = MRA =  shroud =
1/2M^Fatima(Portugal). Chew the fat on that?  Is this agreeable to you
Messr. Stefan?
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.22 / A Plutonium /  Re: Engineering device from GR is fakery; gravity is neutrino
     
Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.electromag
Subject: Re: Engineering device from GR is fakery; gravity is neutrino
Date: 22 Dec 1994 17:55:02 GMT
Organization: Plutonium College

In article <3d7qbe$a2o@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:

>   I rely on what the astronomers tell me. And these days they tell me
> little. But what they have told me from books and in talk, is that
> Jupiter has observable metallic hydrogen, but no superfluid helium. How
> they know this, I do not know myself. Would someone, so kind, please
> post the pressure and temperature to produce metallic hydrogen, and the
> equivalency conditions to produce superfluid helium on Jupiter?

The New Solar System
Beatty and Chaikin
1990

pages 133-134

"About 20,000 km below Jupiter's cloud tops, liquid hydrogen reaches a
pressure in excess of 4 million bars (4Mbar) and a temperature of about
10,000 K."

"Thus, the hydrogen acts not at all like a gas, but more like molten
metal. This exotic form of hydrogen, like other metals, is both an
electrical conductor and opaque to visible radiation. Most of the
interior of Jupiter is in this state, which so far lies tantalizingly
just beyond the limits of modern high-pressure laboratory
experimentation."

"Helium is an important tracer of internal processes in giant planets,
because it is unlikely to have become separated from the hydrogen as
these planets were forming. "

"The Voyager spacecraft determined that Saturn's atmospheric helium is
about four times less abundant than would be expected, while Jupiter
and Uranus' atmospheric helium fractions are about equal to the solar
value."

  According to my theory, GR is a fakery because of superfluid helium.
The reason Saturn has anomalous missing helium is because it is
superfluid helium which obeys no silly manmade theory called General
Relativity. GR has never been reconciled with QM, that alone tells the
thinking scientist that GR is hogwash.

cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.22 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: Dr. Oriani's Lecture
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Dr. Oriani's Lecture
Date: Thu, 22 Dec 1994 01:13:34 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

In article <Pine.OSF.3.91.941221095150.3390A-100000@alpha.kemi.aau.dk>,
Dieter Britz  <britz@alpha.kemi.aau.dk> wrote:
>On 20 Dec 1994, John Logajan wrote:
>
>This is pretty reasonable, and in fact the position taken by the more 
>restrained believers (or tend-to-be-believers) of CNF. In this spirit,
>'cold fusion' is a generic term for whatever might be causing what some
>workers reckon they have observed.

I disagree with this -- unless it's 'nuclear' I don't think it should be
called Cold _Nuclear_Fusion_. Whatever source excess heat is coming from
we should NOT assume that
	a) it's nuclear
	b) it's fusion
	c) it's even real
until we see reproducible experiments and incontrovertable evidence of
nuclear origin.

I suggest the term that has been used here many times before:
	Anomolous Heat

After all, are we going to believe Jed Rothwell's suggestion that the 
Grigg's water heater is a CNF machine?

cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.22 /  jonesse@plasma /  Helium-production via CF revisited
     
Originally-From: jonesse@plasma.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Helium-production via CF revisited
Date: 22 Dec 94 12:36:43 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

Rothwell:

"I think the evidence is now swinging strongly in favor of helium-3
and helium-4 production at levels commensurate with nuclear fusion.
The best results are from E-quest.  They have not been published yet."

Mallove:
"E-Quest has now verified helium production... Typically Pd is used in
these experiments, though Ti works too, but gives a somewhat different
response.  They do not get excess heat in ordinary water or with stainless
steel targets....
"That 552 ppm [4he] sample was collected in a test of the E-Quest device
at Los Alamos national Laboratory.  
At LANL, checks were made for gammas, neutrons, and tritium.  
                              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
None of the latter were found."
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
(Mallove, Oct. 1994 post)

Notes:
1.  How can fusion (or any other nuclear reaction) produce 3He and 4He
*without* producing gammas, neutrons or tritium?
e.g.,  
d + d -->  3He + n
d + d -->   p + t  [tritium]
d + d -->  4He + gamma (down by approx. 10^6 in true cold fusion, that is
                        muon-catalyzed fusion)

Come now, the data have at least to be self-consistent.  Ironic that Mallove
would be the news-bearer from which we find the inconsistency.

2.  If this is due to sonoluminescence/fusion, that is hot fusion during 
collapse of a D2 or HD bubble, what difference does it make whether they
use Pd or Ti or stainless steel? 

3. Do Stringham and George of E-Quest (a struggling little company) claim
any connection to Single Bubble Sonoluminescence?  (I highly doubt it,
since SB-SL is rather difficult to achieve with D2 bubbles and requires
much better equipment than they talked about at the Maui meeting on cold
fusion.)

4.  Unless and until E-Quest or someone else shows *energetic* products
which are associated with fusion (e.g., MeV-scale particles, or secondary
x-rays -- still *no* x-ray spectrum from anyone anywhere with a CF device),
then the most likely source of the helium is from contamination,
either from the system itself (e.g. Yamaguchi's glass) or the air (e.g. Miles).

Dick Blue and I and others have commented on the 
Yamaguchi and Miles claims at length
before and found these highly suspect.  From what I see of E-Quest's claims,
the claims of helium isotope production by nuclear reactions are far from
compelling.  Indeed, the admitted 
*absence* of associated gammas, neutrons and tritium
argues strongly *against* the interpretation that the helium gases were
produced via nuclear reactions.  If, as Rothwell asserts, "the best results
are from E-Quest," then there are no compelling CF results at all.

-Steven Jones

cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenjonesse cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.22 /  jonesse@plasma /  cancel <1994Dec22.122832.1951@plasma.byu.edu>
     
Originally-From: jonesse@plasma.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cancel <1994Dec22.122832.1951@plasma.byu.edu>
Date: 22 Dec 94 12:37:07 -0700

cancel <1994Dec22.122832.1951@plasma.byu.edu>
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenjonesse cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.22 /  jonesse@plasma /  Re: SonoLuminescense
     
Originally-From: jonesse@plasma.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: SonoLuminescense
Date: 22 Dec 94 13:00:27 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

In article <1994Dec21.020230.1824@penrij.UUCP>, 
soup@penrij.UUCP (John R. Campbell) writes:
> Wasn't SJones doing work on SonoLuminescence?  

Yes, we are.

> I didn't see his name
> *ANYWHERE* in the article on this in 12/20's Science Times section of
> the New York Times.
> 

What a relief!  I think it's highly premature.

> -- 
>  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>  John R. Campbell, Speaker to Machines            | Grace is sufficient;
>  soup@penrij.UUCP, soup%penrij@kd3bj.ampr.org     | Joy is now unemployed.
>  soup@sonosam.wisdom.bubble.org <-- not anymore!  |      - Heather Campbell

--S. Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenjonesse cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.22 / Chuck Harrison /  Re: Refuting the Reifenschweiler effect
     
Originally-From: harr@netcom.com (Chuck Harrison)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Refuting the Reifenschweiler effect
Date: Thu, 22 Dec 1994 20:08:49 GMT
Organization: Fitful

In article <9412202215.AA30827@pilot1.cl.msu.edu>, blue@pilot.msu.edu
(Richard A Blue) says:
>
>Perhaps I should, for Daryl Owen's benefit, explain my doubts about
>the Reifenschweiler data in greater detail.
[...]

In my opinion Dick Blue does not represent the contents of the "expanded
unpublished version of the Reifenschweiler paper" very well at all.

Anyone else interested in obtaining a paper copy of this manuscript by
mail may contact me at harr@netcom.com.  I can also include (by his own
authorization) a copy of a critical analysis sent to me by Dick Blue.

Caveat lector!

-Chuck
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenharr cudfnChuck cudlnHarrison cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.22 / Michael Mazur /  Re: Sonofusion at BYU:  reposting
     
Originally-From: mjmazur@acs.ucalgary.ca (Michael James Mazur)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Sonofusion at BYU:  reposting
Date: Thu, 22 Dec 1994 23:21:48 GMT
Organization: The University of Calgary

In article <1994Dec21.174720.1948@plasma.byu.edu>,
 <jonesse@plasma.byu.edu> wrote:
>The following was posted in Sept. 1994 here, and includes a posting
>from Jan. 1994:
>

>"The strong probability that SBSL results from an imploding shock
>wave has now made this curious phenomenon one of considerable
>interest.  ...This spherically symmetric implosion has the
>potential for creating some exotic physics... Calculations suggest
>that temperatures as high as 10^8 K are to be expected.  This
>result has in turn prompted calculations of the possibilities of
>inertial confinement fusion with a deuterium-tritium gas mixture,
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>which yield a qualified estimate of 40 neutrons per second under
>                                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 
>ideal conditions [ref. 9]."
>

For those who wish to know what was said in the next sentence...

"While the possibilities of actual fusion in this system are
remote, the likelihood that the gas in the bubble remains
relatively cold until the final stages of collapse suggests that
one could use this simple and inexpensive system to obtain
information about inertial confinement fusion."

For people who wouldn't have normally read the article, I think
that this additional sentence changes the message in the
paragraph.

The shock wave model does allow for some extremely high
temperatures  within about 10A of the bubble centre providing
that the shock remains spherical and that you ignore transport
processes. In this case, it also allows for the temperature to
increase without limit. I'm not sure whether either of these
assumptions is true to within 10A of the bubble centre. 

-mike
-- 

  Mike Mazur                
  mjmazur@acs1.ucalgary.ca  

cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenmjmazur cudfnMichael cudlnMazur cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.22 / Michael Mazur /  Re: New York Times miscue:  Sonofusion is NOT cold fusion!
     
Originally-From: mjmazur@acs.ucalgary.ca (Michael James Mazur)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics
Subject: Re: New York Times miscue:  Sonofusion is NOT cold fusion!
Date: Thu, 22 Dec 1994 23:34:18 GMT
Organization: The University of Calgary

In article <3dcp29$gug@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>,
Archimedes Plutonium <Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>In article <1994Dec21.174124.1947@plasma.byu.edu>
>jonesse@plasma.byu.edu writes:
>
>> Ugh. Not again.
>> 
>> I've had three phone calls with friends today -- Washington, Calif. and Texas
>> -- on a news article on sonofusion, published in the NY Times, 12/20/94.
>
> This is how a "little tin badge, self-appointed, physics apprentice"
>tries to impress the general public. Did you get a phone call from the
>president of the Mormon church also Steven?
>
>> "New Shot at Cold Fusion by Pumping Sound Waves Into Tiny Bubbles".
>> 
>> Next they'll be saying tokomak is cold fusion?
>> The term applies to fusion without high-temperature plasmas; but just
>> such plasmas are sought in sonofusion.
>
>  Contrary to what Steven is trying to fob off by redefining
>everything. Sonoluminescence is Cold Fusion. Sonoluminescence is the
>varying of current i or voltage V, analog, with sound. Sonoluminescence
>is the creation of new neutrons (blue light) that never existed before,

So.... neutrons are blue light? Guess they've been teaching me
the wrong physics.

-mike
-- 

  Mike Mazur                
  mjmazur@acs1.ucalgary.ca  

cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenmjmazur cudfnMichael cudlnMazur cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.22 /  jonesse@plasma /  Helium-production via CF revisited
     
Originally-From: jonesse@plasma.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Helium-production via CF revisited
Date: 22 Dec 94 15:54:44 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

Reposting to add a comment:  high (552 ppm) 4He was found for run
of Roger Stringham's ultrasound device at Los Alamos with Tom Claytor 
and crew.  Should point out that  helium in laboratories is often 
MUCH higher than in outdoor ambient air.  Since no neutrons, gammas
or tritium were found in this cell although 4He was found, suggest
checking helium levels in Claytor's lab.  Helium is often high in
these labs due to use of bottled helium for various things.  In
particular, I recall that Claytor uses helium -- anyway, claimants
ought to check the level of helium in lab air at time of the tests.
(I think contamination from lab air is likely source of the claimed
helium, rather than nuclear reactions without gammas, tritons or neutrons!) 

Rothwell:

"I think the evidence is now swinging strongly in favor of helium-3
and helium-4 production at levels commensurate with nuclear fusion.
The best results are from E-quest.  They have not been published yet."

Mallove:
"E-Quest has now verified helium production... Typically Pd is used in
these experiments, though Ti works too, but gives a somewhat different
response.  They do not get excess heat in ordinary water or with stainless
steel targets....
"That 552 ppm [4he] sample was collected in a test of the E-Quest device
at Los Alamos national Laboratory.  
At LANL, checks were made for gammas, neutrons, and tritium.  
                              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
None of the latter were found."
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
(Mallove, Oct. 1994 post)

Notes:
1.  How can fusion (or any other nuclear reaction) produce 3He and 4He
*without* producing gammas, neutrons or tritium?
e.g.,  
d + d -->  3He + n
d + d -->   p + t  [tritium]
d + d -->  4He + gamma (down by approx. 10^6 in true cold fusion, that is
                        muon-catalyzed fusion)

Come now, the data have at least to be self-consistent.  Ironic that Mallove
would be the news-bearer from which we find the inconsistency.

2.  If this is due to sonoluminescence/fusion, that is hot fusion during 
collapse of a D2 or HD bubble, what difference does it make whether they
use Pd or Ti or stainless steel? 

3. Do Stringham and George of E-Quest (a struggling little company) claim
any connection to Single Bubble Sonoluminescence?  (I highly doubt it,
since SB-SL is rather difficult to achieve with D2 bubbles and requires
much better equipment than they talked about at the Maui meeting on cold
fusion.)

4.  Unless and until E-Quest or someone else shows *energetic* products
which are associated with fusion (e.g., MeV-scale particles, or secondary
x-rays -- still *no* x-ray spectrum from anyone anywhere with a CF device),
then the most likely source of the helium is from contamination,
either from the system itself (e.g. Yamaguchi's glass) or the air (e.g. Miles).

Dick Blue and I and others have commented on the 
Yamaguchi and Miles claims at length
before and found these highly suspect.  From what I see of E-Quest's claims,
the claims of helium isotope production by nuclear reactions are far from
compelling.  Indeed, the admitted 
*absence* of associated gammas, neutrons and tritium
argues strongly *against* the interpretation that the helium gases were
produced via nuclear reactions.  If, as Rothwell asserts, "the best results
are from E-Quest," then there are no compelling CF results at all.

-Steven Jones

cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenjonesse cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.22 /  jonesse@plasma /  cancel <1994Dec22.123643.1952@plasma.byu.edu>
     
Originally-From: jonesse@plasma.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cancel <1994Dec22.123643.1952@plasma.byu.edu>
Date: 22 Dec 94 15:55:08 -0700

cancel <1994Dec22.123643.1952@plasma.byu.edu>
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenjonesse cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.23 / Barry Merriman /  When will there be replication (Jed?)
     
Originally-From: barry@redwood.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: When will there be replication (Jed?)
Date: 23 Dec 1994 02:59:20 GMT
Organization: UCLA Dept. of Math, UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research

Jed: when will there be a published (doesn't matter
where, e.g. even the Internet) "recipe" for a reproducible
cold fusion experiment?

You claim various researchers have achieved reproducible results,
so when are they planning to present a recipe that mainstream
scientists can follow to verify their work? I can understand why
commercial CF researchers wouldn't do that, but you mention a number
of academic or otherwise unencumbered researchers too.

--
Barry Merriman
UCLA Dept. of Math
UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet)   barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (NeXTMail)
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.22 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Sloppy measurements & P&F boiloff timing
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Sloppy measurements & P&F boiloff timing
Date: Thu, 22 DEC 94 23:01:13 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege) writes:
 
     "I have seen tapes by P&F, and I have long discussed here that one
     *cannot* keep track of the liquid level.  The boiling is just too severe.
     No way to begin to tell where the level is.  How much is gas and how much
     liquid."
 
That is incorrect. It is very easy to measure the water level. On an original
tape even after boiling starts there is no question where it is. Furthermore,
if you have any doubt, all you need to do is rewind the tape to a point just
before the boiling ensues and measure the water level then. The time lapse
tape includes a digital clock, so you can easily determine how much time it
took for the water to drop from there to the bottom of the cell. In some
experiments, the water level starts above the half-silvered portion of the
test tube. In that case you can take the worst case analysis and assume that
there was only enough water to fill it up just above the half silver line;
that would still give you far more energy than any chemical reaction can yield.
 
I explained all of these points time after time, but Droege just does not
get it. I believe he is incapable of understanding. He could not have read
the paper carefully, because all of these points are explained there in
excruciating detail. I have taken the liberty of expressing them in plain
English, but even with that, I doubt Droege will understand.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenjedrothwell cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Fri Dec 23 04:37:07 EST 1994
------------------------------
1994.12.22 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Questions for Rothwell
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Questions for Rothwell
Date: Thu, 22 DEC 94 23:02:40 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

jonesse@plasma.byu.edu asks:
 
     "Whoa-- "ignited" reactions sounds like a term from hot fusion, meaning
     that the fusion reactions provide enough heat to keep the plasma hot
     enough for fusion without other heat supply. But then this is not "cold"
     fusion, which requires fusion without a hot plasma.  (Muon-catalyzed
     fusion is the only verified form of cold fusion.) So just what do you
     mean by this boast of "fully ignited"?
 
That is Martin Fleischmann's expression. He uses it to describe a Pd cathode
that stays hot by itself for hours or days, while it generates, say, a hundred
thousand times more energy than any chemical reaction from the same mass of
chemical fuel could produce. It is also called "heat after death." P&F wrote
a superb paper about the phenomenon in the ICCF4 proceedings, Vol. 2. I
suggest you have a look at it.
 
It is "ignited" in the sense that it stays hot by itself, or it can even get
much hotter the way Mizuno's device did last year. It requires no additional
input energy for some period of time ranging from a few hours to a few days.
It is not, of course, "ignited" in the chemical sense of the word; there is
no oxygen, and no chemical fuel can produce thousands of eV per atom. One nice
thing about a fully ignited stand alone reaction is that it simplifies the
calorimetry. You do not have to account for any input energy. Again, that is
explained in the ICCF4 paper; it is a pity you missed it.
 
 
     "He avoided answering several questions I posted about a week ago;
     I'll try again: 'Jed, do P&F claim excess heat in light-water cells?'"
 
Surely you know the answer to that! Ah... but perhaps you do not. I gather
you have not read their ICCF4 papers, perhaps you missed a few others. Rather
than ask me such silly questions, I suggest you try reading original
scientific papers. Anyway, the answer is still No, as far as I know. I have
not heard any different.
 
 
    "Funny this is so hard to get a straight answer to.  We've been trying
    to get an answer to this since 1989.  Why can't we get a straight answer?"
 
Don't be ridiculous. You got a straight answer dozens of times, from them and
from me. You just don't want to hear it. The answer, let me repeat, is: NO.
Got that? Nada, no excess, nothing. In Japanese: mattaku arimasen.
 
I suspect you will ask again in a few weeks. You "skeptics" are like these
tragic patients who have suffered the loss of short term memory. You ask
something, we tell you, but ten minutes later you have forgotten, so you ask
again. I suggest you write it down on a Post-It note, and paste it up on your
computer. Just two letters: NO
 
 
    "Why is it that the publisher of cold Fusion magazine states: 'If there's
    no substantial progress this year, cold fusion is in real trouble."
    (Wayne Green in letter to ICCF-4 attendees.)
 
Why ask me that question? Ask Wayne Green. I have no idea why he thinks that.
It is nonsense, there has been enormous progress this year.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenjedrothwell cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.23 / Patrick Byrne /  When??
     
Originally-From: pbyrne@calvin.stemnet.nf.ca (Patrick R. Byrne)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: When??
Date: 23 Dec 1994 03:42:24 GMT
Organization: STEM~Net


cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenpbyrne cudfnPatrick cudlnByrne cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.23 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: When will there be replication (Jed?)
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: When will there be replication (Jed?)
Date: Fri, 23 DEC 94 00:16:40 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Barry Merriman <barry@redwood.math.ucla.edu> asks:
 
     "Jed: when will there be a published (doesn't matter >where, e.g. even
     the Internet) 'recipe' for a reproducible cold fusion experiment?"
 
There have been hundreds of recipes published already! I have never seen one
on Internet, but you can find dozens in the peer reviewed scientific
literature and conference proceedings. Of course there are recipes! How could
there not be? In 1989 nobody could replicate, whereas today, in the ICCF4
proceedings, you will see that hundreds of people have, and many have achieved
power levels a thousand times higher than they did back in 1989. All these
people learned with the help of recipes, communication, mutual help and
support.
 
I think that the two best recipes are in the ICCF4 proceedings, in the papers
by Storms and by Cravens. Fleischmann nominated Cravens for "Best Paper at
ICCF4." I agree. It has lots of nitty gritty detail, and if you get stuck,
Cravens himself will help you out. So will most other CF scientists I know. Ed
Storms has written an expanded and improved version of his "How To" paper
which is due to be published in Fusion Technology next year.
 
As I said, in the broader sense the scientific literature constitutes a
gigantic "How To" recipe. But it is not written for amateurs, any more than
your gourmet French Cookbook is. How could it be? Look at the procedures and
equipment used, and you will see that no untrained, non-specialist scientist
could deal with it. It takes months of hands-on lab work to master the
techniques. Look at Mizuno's ICCF4 recipe for a proton conductor: grinding,
sintering, baking, polishing . . . it takes him five days of hard work to make
one set of conductors, and at any step along the way, if the temperature is
too high, or the chemicals impure, or some other nitty gritty detail is wrong,
it fails. You get no heat at all. It is like baking a 12 layer Hungarian
dubish torte: it takes practice, practice, practice, or you will burn the
sugar. Two years of practice in Mizuno's case, and he did electrochemistry for
20 years before that. So, of course you can replicate him, but it takes as
much skill as it does to replicate a silicon chip or a high performance HTSC
device. (The formula for the proton conductors are very similar to HTSC
formulas. My guess is that they do, in fact, superconduct -- I should ask him
about that.)
 
To take another example, look at the equipment Miley designed to fabricate his
cathodes. He describes a specialized e-beam thin film fabrication machine
custom designed for this purpose. Do you think you could make one over the
weekend and start cranking out cathodes with it? Nope, not a chance. Look at
Arata: his double structure cathode is based on the palladium devices he used
in his hot fusion reactors back in 1958. The guy has had this stuff on the
back burner for nearly forty years! Yet even with that head start it took
Arata and Zhang a couple of years to get a really hot 80 watt sustained
reaction. You can replicate them I am sure, but first you will have to spend a
couple of years catching up and learning what Arata already know forty years
ago.
 
 
     "You claim various researchers have achieved reproducible results, so
     when are they planning to present a recipe that mainstream scientists
     can follow to verify their work?"
 
They have published all along! And of course mainstream scientists have
verified. Goodness, look at the results from Japan, China, Italy and India.
Look at Los Alamos, Texas A&M or Harwell. Verification in spades, everywhere
you turn. Results at very high sigma levels, even from Harwell (who deny they
got a positive result). People like Arata and Ikegami are as mainstream as
they come, and they certainly have verifed. If they had not published, how
do you think *I* learned all this stuff? I can natter on for hours about the
ins and outs of various techniques. Heck, I could write a book about it, and
someone like Storms or Kunimatsu or Mizuno knows a hundred times more than I
do. Compared to 1989, the specialized literature and advanced knowledge of
deuterated metals must have grown a thousandfold. I have two file cabinets
full of papers, and that hardly scratches the surface. A great deal of it is
over my head, but there is also tons that I do understand.
 
 
     "I can understand why commercial CF researchers wouldn't do that, but
     you mention a number of academic or otherwise unencumbered researchers
     too."
 
Lots of commercial CF researchers publish even more detail than the academics.
Look at the patents, they tell you every little tiny detail. Check out the
ones from Canon and the U.S. patents from Patterson. They have to tell all, or
the Patent Office will rule them invalid. Unfortunately, they are a couple of
years behind the state of the art, because it takes so long to get a patent.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenjedrothwell cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.23 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Helium-production via CF revisited
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Helium-production via CF revisited
Date: Fri, 23 DEC 94 00:22:02 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

<jonesse@plasma.byu.edu> writes:
 
>1.  How can fusion (or any other nuclear reaction) produce 3He and 4He
>*without* producing gammas, neutrons or tritium?
 
Nobody knows. That is what we are trying to find out!
 
>Come now, the data have at least to be self-consistent.  Ironic that Mallove
>would be the news-bearer from which we find the inconsistency.
 
Nope. You are wrong Steve, the data DOES NOT have to be even the least bit
self-consistant. Data just is. The results are confirmed because there is
no mistake in the protocals and the mass spec units at all three locations
are definetely working right. These are experimental results, they can
contradict theory and they can look inconsistant. You have to accept them
anyway, because the only meaningful standard in science is replicated, high
sigma, experimental data. If you do not accept it, you are not doing science.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenjedrothwell cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.23 / Harry Conover /  Re: Questions for Rothwell
     
Originally-From: conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Questions for Rothwell
Date: 23 Dec 1994 06:15:41 GMT
Organization: The Internet Access Company

jonesse@plasma.byu.edu wrote:

: How about all you investors in CF out there?"

Good Lord, I hope there's no one out there with so much congenital brain
cramp that they actually invest in this CF (Cold Fantasy) stuff!  Hells,
Jed's postings alone should be enough to scare any reasonably competent
investor off!

                                       Harry C.


ps.  Are incompetent investors fair game in this regard?
     (Hey: I see nothing, I hear nothing, I sa nothing!)
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenconover cudfnHarry cudlnConover cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.23 / Harry Conover /  Re: When will there be replication (Jed?)
     
Originally-From: conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: When will there be replication (Jed?)
Date: 23 Dec 1994 06:24:57 GMT
Organization: The Internet Access Company

jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:
: Barry Merriman <barry@redwood.math.ucla.edu> asks:
:  
:      "Jed: when will there be a published (doesn't matter >where, e.g. even
:      the Internet) 'recipe' for a reproducible cold fusion experiment?"
:  
: There have been hundreds of recipes published already! I have never seen one
: on Internet, but you can find dozens in the peer reviewed scientific
: literature and conference proceedings. Of course there are recipes! How could
: there not be? In 1989 nobody could replicate, whereas today, in the ICCF4
: proceedings, you will see that hundreds of people have, and many have achieved
: power levels a thousand times higher than they did back in 1989. All these
: people learned with the help of recipes, communication, mutual help and
: support.
:  
: I think that the two best recipes are in the ICCF4 proceedings, in the papers
: by Storms and by Cravens. Fleischmann nominated Cravens for "Best Paper at
: ICCF4." I agree. It has lots of nitty gritty detail, and if you get stuck,
: Cravens himself will help you out. So will most other CF scientists I know. Ed
: Storms has written an expanded and improved version of his "How To" paper
: which is due to be published in Fusion Technology next year.
:  
: As I said, in the broader sense the scientific literature constitutes a
: gigantic "How To" recipe. But it is not written for amateurs, any more than
: your gourmet French Cookbook is. How could it be? Look at the procedures and
: equipment used, and you will see that no untrained, non-specialist scientist
: could deal with it. It takes months of hands-on lab work to master the
: techniques. Look at Mizuno's ICCF4 recipe for a proton conductor: grinding,
: sintering, baking, polishing . . . it takes him five days of hard work to make
: one set of conductors, and at any step along the way, if the temperature is
: too high, or the chemicals impure, or some other nitty gritty detail is wrong,
: it fails. You get no heat at all. It is like baking a 12 layer Hungarian
: dubish torte: it takes practice, practice, practice, or you will burn the
: sugar. Two years of practice in Mizuno's case, and he did electrochemistry for
: 20 years before that. So, of course you can replicate him, but it takes as
: much skill as it does to replicate a silicon chip or a high performance HTSC
: device. (The formula for the proton conductors are very similar to HTSC
: formulas. My guess is that they do, in fact, superconduct -- I should ask him
: about that.)
:  
: To take another example, look at the equipment Miley designed to fabricate his
: cathodes. He describes a specialized e-beam thin film fabrication machine
: custom designed for this purpose. Do you think you could make one over the
: weekend and start cranking out cathodes with it? Nope, not a chance. Look at
: Arata: his double structure cathode is based on the palladium devices he used
: in his hot fusion reactors back in 1958. The guy has had this stuff on the
: back burner for nearly forty years! Yet even with that head start it took
: Arata and Zhang a couple of years to get a really hot 80 watt sustained
: reaction. You can replicate them I am sure, but first you will have to spend a
: couple of years catching up and learning what Arata already know forty years
: ago.
:  
:  
:      "You claim various researchers have achieved reproducible results, so
:      when are they planning to present a recipe that mainstream scientists
:      can follow to verify their work?"
:  
: They have published all along! And of course mainstream scientists have
: verified. Goodness, look at the results from Japan, China, Italy and India.
: Look at Los Alamos, Texas A&M or Harwell. Verification in spades, everywhere
: you turn. Results at very high sigma levels, even from Harwell (who deny they
: got a positive result). People like Arata and Ikegami are as mainstream as
: they come, and they certainly have verifed. If they had not published, how
: do you think *I* learned all this stuff? I can natter on for hours about the
: ins and outs of various techniques. Heck, I could write a book about it, and
: someone like Storms or Kunimatsu or Mizuno knows a hundred times more than I
: do. Compared to 1989, the specialized literature and advanced knowledge of
: deuterated metals must have grown a thousandfold. I have two file cabinets
: full of papers, and that hardly scratches the surface. A great deal of it is
: over my head, but there is also tons that I do understand.
:  
:  
:      "I can understand why commercial CF researchers wouldn't do that, but
:      you mention a number of academic or otherwise unencumbered researchers
:      too."
:  
: Lots of commercial CF researchers publish even more detail than the academics.
: Look at the patents, they tell you every little tiny detail. Check out the
: ones from Canon and the U.S. patents from Patterson. They have to tell all, or
: the Patent Office will rule them invalid. Unfortunately, they are a couple of
: years behind the state of the art, because it takes so long to get a patent.
:  
: - Jed

Yawn.  The psychiactric community has a name for this type of
psychotic out-pouring:  'Fruit'.

                                 Harry C.


cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenconover cudfnHarry cudlnConover cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.23 / Paul Koloc /  Jed Rothwell paints with a wide brush
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Jed Rothwell paints with a wide brush
Date: Fri, 23 Dec 1994 07:54:16 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <h630P3B.jedrothwell@delphi.com> jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:

> 
> .. .          . Saving real money. Hot fusion would not be able to do that
>for another 50 years, even if by some miracle it actually worked. We all know
>it cannot be engineered to work. Read "Lessons Learned from the Tokamak
>Advanced Reactor Innovation and Evaluation Study (ARIES)," by R.A. Krakowski
>et al., Los Alamos National Laboratory. It is an eight page obituary for HF,
>written by DOE's top people with support from the Office of Fusion Energy:
> 
>     "Economics: All the ARIES designs would not competitive with respect to
>     Advanced Light Water (fission) Reactors. The ARIES designs are
>     uneconomic because: a) they recirculate too much power (i.e. Q[E] is too
>     small), and b) the fusion power core is too massive and expensive ...
>     and c) without direct energy conversion the *net* thermal conversion
>     efficiency can be no better than for conventional fission or fossil
>     power plants . . . Lastly the ARIES studies have shown that tokamak
>     based fusion power cannot use enhanced ES&H [environmental safety &
>     health] merits to resolve the economic issues. . . "
 
Please notice Jed, that you are quoting a tokamak study. That report 
makes no claims about advanced concept "hot" fusion.   

>Congress will pull the plug on the hot fusion program, because the taxpayers
>do not like flushing money down a sewer. If hot fusion was worth anything it
>would attract support from private industry the way cold fusion does. Only the
>government will support it, because the government likes throw away money on
>hair brained boondoggles that no sane corporation would touch. It is a scam.
>It is a giveaway to the contractors and professors who are too stupid to find
>honest work. It is like the SSC Multi Billion Dollar Hole In the Ground. The
>sooner they shut it down the better.
 
>The title of this thread is "Jed Rothwell does not understand fusion." That
>statement is 100% true. Here are a few things I *do* understand:
 
>     The conclusions of the ARIES study
 
>Those topics relate to the real world of business, which I understand better
>than all of you academic scientists put together. Out here in the real
>world -- by those standards -- hot fusion is a dead duck.
 
Ah... how about restricting you conclusion to the type of machine
which was subject of the study you quoted, namely, the tokamak.  

Hot fusion has come a lot further conceptually than the tokamak.  
Otherwise your conclusions have blithered into a tenable position.  

>- Jed
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc, Bx 1037 Prometheus II Ltd, College Park MD 20741-1037    |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.23 / Stefan Hartmann /  MRA thread update, free energy device...
     
Originally-From: harti@shb.contrib.de (Stefan Hartmann)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,alt.energy.renewable,alt.parane
.science,alt.paranet.ufo,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,cl.energie.alternativ
n,de.sci.electronics,sci.bio,sci.energy,sci.energy.hydrogen,sci.environm
nt,sci.materials,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.particle
Subject: MRA thread update, free energy device...
Subject: (R) MRA
Subject: MRA at preamp signal input
Subject: MRA
Subject: Information Wanted
Subject: (R) MRA
Subject: MRA / Gravity
Subject: MRA
Subject: E-Line Tests
Subject: (R) MRA
Subject: MRA
Subject: fractured traces
Subject: (R) MRA
Subject: MRA
Subject: MRA Anomalies
Subject: Addendum to MRA Anomalies
Subject: (R) MRA
Subject: MRA
Subject: (R) MRA
Subject: MRA
Subject: Test of the "monster" MRA
Subject: ALSO TO MICHAEL FIDLER AND BOB PADDOCK
Subject: (R) Addendum to MRA Anomalies
Subject: MRA1.ASC and RULE9.ASC
Subject: Capacitor Charging in MRA Field
Subject: ALSO TO BILL BEATY
Subject: (R) Addendum to MRA Anomalies
Date: 23 Dec 1994 10:41:00 +0100

 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi stefan

If you've had as many problems as I have connecting to www.eskimo.com
then I thought I'd send this update after I finally got connected!
(Bill updates the file every two days unless anything important
comes up)

Bill Beaty says he'll pass on any questions/comments to the MRA
designers.

Enjoy...

--- start mra update3.txt ---

Message 10033                                  DATE/TIME: 12/19/94 10:46
From   : JERRY DECKER (SYSOP)               -- RECEIVED --
To     : NORMAN WOOTAN
Subject: (R) MRA
Folder : A, "Public Mail"

Hi Norm/Joel et. al,
Just got a call from Tom Bearden.....he's excited and even though I
sent the MRA to him last week, he wants it today...so I am faxing
it...along with the MRA1 and the UJTOSC (Woody's UJT oscillator file)
because he can use all of it.
As to the fracturing, he says this is due to pumping the potetial field
and went into a long explanation that I don't remember half of....he
says his paper on stepped charging of the capacitors warns of this and
they still haven't figured out how to get around it....
He says they have transients exceeding 3000 volts and have smoked
several test instruments on their end also....he says to be sure and
warn Rosenthal of this before he trashes some of that very expensive
stuff he will use....
Tom says because the anomalies in such circuits are so radically
different from normal electromagnetics, to prevent or at the very least
ATTEMPT to minimize damage to their test devices and circuits..they
have adopted the approach of discrete charging only up to fixed
levels....it is everyones desire to get the max power out, but not at
the expense of blown equipment, ruptured parts or circuits that burn
out, so he thinks once the grad students and others start getting into
it, they will work convergently (as everyone here does) to come up with
the bottomline details of what works, what doesn't and what will
produce anomalous effects.....so, I have to get those faxes to him now,
again, he said he is SO VERY PLEASED that everyone is working so well
together and that the information is being so freely shared.....>>>
Jerry
===============================================================================

Message 10041                                  DATE/TIME: 12/19/94 12:10
From   : JOEL MCCLAIN                       -- RECEIVED --
To     : BERT POOL
Subject: MRA at preamp signal input
Folder : A, "Public Mail"

Hi Bert,

At the meeting, you were talking about energizing an MRA with low
level signal input, so I gave it a try with a weak stereo preamp.
The input to the MRA was 0.562VAC and 1.1ma for 6.2mw of input
power.  The output power is only 2.2mw.  After an hour, the input
power power dropped off to 4.2mw as the circuit equivalent resistance
increased from 510 ohms to 1.0K ohms, and the output power stayed the
same at 2.2mw, but this is still only half of unity.  Even given more
hours of test, I don't think it will make unity.  It's possible that
the weak potential and resulting current are not enough to create
the flux density and piezo effect that we need.

Joel
===============================================================================

Message 10048                                  DATE/TIME: 12/19/94 18:10
From   : NORMAN WOOTAN                      -- RECEIVED --
To     : JOEL MCCLAIN
Subject: MRA
Folder : A, "Public Mail"

Joel: I picked up 2 40 watt amps from radio shack today, one for you
and one for me. They atre powered by 12VDC so we can easily track the
DC input to the amp.  I'll get it to you later, maybe tommorrow.  Norm
PS:  I like Dan's idea of compression mounting the transducers for we
can sandwich the driver between two transducers all insulated from on
another in 100 # compression and drive the outer two with the desired
freq from the power amp them take the high voltage output from the
center transducer to drive the ferro-magnetic coil.  Will give this a
try for I also stopped at "Elliot's" and picked up brass shim stock to
give us lead outs to solder to since we are sandwiching the units and
cannot solder to the surfaces.  Norm
===============================================================================

Message 10050                                  DATE/TIME: 12/19/94 20:24
From   : JAMES HARTMAN
To     : ALL
Subject: Information Wanted
Folder : A, "Public Mail"

[Title Page]
ELECTROGRAVITICS SYSTEMS

An examination of electrostatic motion,
dynamic counterbary and barycentric control.

Prepared by:
Gravity Research Group
Aviation Studies (International) Limited
Special Weapons Study Unit
29-31 Cheval Place, Knightsbridge
London, S.W.7. England

Report GRG-013/56 February 1956.

I was looking for follow-up reports to the above plus any information
on T.T. Brown's PROJECT WINTER HAVEN listed in the above title.

Contact me via here else:

James Hartman
P.O. Box 612
Griffith, IN 46319

Tel (219) 924-1692.
===============================================================================

Message 10054                                  DATE/TIME: 12/19/94 21:14
From   : JOEL MCCLAIN                       -- RECEIVED --
To     : NORMAN WOOTAN
Subject: (R) MRA
Folder : A, "Public Mail"


   -------  1.90vac @ 34.11KHz          Hi Norm,
   | sig |------------
   |     |           |                  Using this circuit in the MRA
   | gen |           |                  I've been able to measure the
   -------        --------              primary current without the
      | ref A        []   piezo         effects of the voltage multi-
      |           --------              plication or the inductance of
      |              | ref B            wire wound resistors.
      |              |
      |              \  8 ohm comp.     With the 8 ohm resistor wired
      |              /  resistor        between the piezo and primary
      |              \                  and measuring from the return
      |              /                  side at ref A to ref B and to
      |              | ref C            ref C, and subtracting them,
      |              |                  you have the voltage drop for
      |              0                  calculating series current.
      |              0 primary
      |              0 winding          I have 11.15vac at ref B and
      |              0                  11.10vac at ref C for .050
      |              |                  drop, /8 = .00625 amps, times
      ----------------                  1.90vac for 11.9mw.

On the output (not shown) is 5.80vac across 600 ohm resistive load
for current of 9.7ma and power of 56mw.  Gain is 56/11.9 = 4.66
times unity.  Please try this and let me know what you get.

Joel
===============================================================================

Message 10059                                  DATE/TIME: 12/20/94 07:55
From   : NORMAN WOOTAN
To     : JAMES HARTMAN
Subject: MRA / Gravity
Folder : A, "Public Mail"

James: We have your speaker levitation experiment on the net as a file.
A couple of days ago someone mentioned the harmonic rich wave form of
the MRA as being the same as your output from the "distortion amp" when
you were getting the levitation effect with the correct fundamental
freq applied.  All goes back to Keely with the multiple freq discord
causing anomolous gravity effects.  Sure wish you luck in the pursuit
of follow-up info on the English report.  With the Neiper Ring project
we will need as much info as possible to achieve full anti-grav
effects.  Norm
===============================================================================

Message 10061                                  DATE/TIME: 12/20/94 08:03
From   : NORMAN WOOTAN
To     : BOB PADDOCK
Subject: MRA
Folder : A, "Public Mail"

Bob:  Thanks for the feed back on this project.  I as do all the "E"
folks on the NET understand where you are coming from for you have been
a staunch supporter of our efforts with very valuable input at all
times.  Bert wants more info on the "indestructible" transistors you
mentioned.  Walter Rosenthal told me last night that he will not even
hook up anything without a transient suppresion diode in the circuit so
as to prevent taking out expensive equipment. Bert is designing the
oscillator driver circuit to power the front end when we eventually ge
the MRA in the "stand alone" configuration.  Right now we like you have
a good theory in the breadboard stage with it clearly demonstrating
over-unity but need to "flesh it out and maximize the effects and learn
more about what is going on.  Thanks  Norm
===============================================================================

Message 10071                                  DATE/TIME: 12/20/94 14:04
From   : JOEL MCCLAIN                       -- RECEIVED --
To     : NORMAN WOOTAN
Subject: E-Line Tests
Folder : A, "Public Mail"

Hi Norm,

I like the idea of using the solid state amps to measure current
differentials.  I've tried to measure the difference in AC current
to the sig gen by measuring the voltage drop across a 2 ohm resistor
in series with line to the sig gen.  Even with a Sola, there is more
line variation than the 0.001VAC difference in drop that would equal
the entire output power of the MRA.  (.001/2 X 119.2VAC = 60mw).
So, measuring input power in this way is out of the question.

Joel
===============================================================================

Message 10073                                  DATE/TIME: 12/20/94 14:28
From   : ARNOLD FOX                         -- RECEIVED --
To     : NORMAN WOOTAN
Subject: (R) MRA
Folder : A, "Public Mail"

Howdy Norman
This is for you and Joel. First off - congradulations on a working
device & for sharing it. There are numerous things that you need to
make sure you & are aware as not to fall into a cold fusion or
unrepeatable phenomena trap. Don't deplete your stocks of materials!
Materials reputed to be the same & sold as exact copies of what you
have - will vary. Tiny deviations in the manufacturing process may
throw things off with replicated devices using materials made at later
production runs. Save enough that precise analysis may be done from
your original stocks. You are both aware of devices that were next to
impossible to duplicate - manytimes this was due to redoing a working
device with new materials or components - where the originals had been
conditioned by previous usage or aging due to sitting around the
workshop. Take extensive notes & take some more! I liked the fact you
noticed varied outputs due to the time of day. Note everything of this
nature. Simple directional orientation within the earth's magnetic
field may have effects - this translating to simple positioning of the
device in the lab. Don't leap away from the basic design until you've
done everything possible to document and study it. Pay attention to
seemingly noncritical design items. A perfectly wound coil may not
perform as well as one thrown together in the shop. I'll get back later
and add somemore to this.
Take Care & Merry Christmas To All!
Arnold
===============================================================================

Message 10080                                  DATE/TIME: 12/20/94 18:35
From   : NORMAN WOOTAN
To     : ARNOLD FOX
Subject: MRA
Folder : A, "Public Mail"

Arnold:  You bet we will keep plenty of the original stock of
transducers and magnet material for we have been down that road before.
By the way, the MRA is not too difficult to reproduce if all potential
builders will follow simple guidlines provided in the "tech bulletins"
for I have built 3 different versions with different wire sizes and
different shaped barium ferrite magnets and still get the indicated
over-unity effect (to be verified by independent testing).  The most
critical part of the MRA is in the set up and tuning and keeping the
discipline to stay at very low power levels while observing the output.
 If you crowd the circuit and go for large power outputs you defeat the
whole resonant set up.  You mentioned "effects", well here is one for
you, while the MRA is running you can "tweek it to maximum" output with
the minimum input possible, walk out of the room for let's say 30
minutes and return to close proximity to the running circuit and
suddenly see the DC output climbing as if this circuit was being
affected by the "aura around the body" or maybe it is just a capacitive
effect.  One thing is for sure there is a field of "influence" around
the running device as if it is drawing energy in from the immediate
surroundings.  All very interesting.  Norm

--- end of update3.txt ---

--- parts.txt ---
The transducer used in the Keelynet device was obtained from a surplus
source local to Texas.  We're trying to track down more of them.

A Lead Zirconate Titanate piezo transducer can be had from H&R corp,
but its dimensions are: 2" dia x 0.1" thick, not the same as the
original Keelynet device.  Will it work?  Dunno.
H&R Co.
18 Canal St     <---- This place has a GREAT surplus mail order catalog!
PO Box 122
Bristol, PA  19007-0122
800-848-8001

--- end of parts.txt ---


Hi Stefan

I found when to access www.eskimo.com, 8am uk time, it seems
load is the connection problem!

Anyway heres the latest update, what are your thoughts?

--- start of update4.txt ---
Message 10090                                  DATE/TIME: 12/21/94 04:18
From   : BILL BEATY                         -- RECEIVED --
To     : NORMAN WOOTAN
Subject: fractured traces
Folder : A, "Public Mail"

On your strange oscilloscope results: I see this often, when
the chopping frequency gets close to the frequency being
triggered upon.  If you are seeing these segmented traces
when the scope is in ALTERNATE triggering (or on a single
channel scope) then it is real.  But the chopper on a dual
trace scope can easily create moving line segments of
various kinds without anything wierd going on. (Oh, I
meant that I see it often at work, when doing frequency
sweeps on circuitry)
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenharti cudfnStefan cudlnHartmann cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.23 / Bruce TK /  Re: Questions for Rothwell
     
Originally-From: bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce       Scott          TK  )
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Questions for Rothwell
Date: 23 Dec 1994 12:49:05 +0100
Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching


In article <3ddpud$je0@sundog.tiac.net>, conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover) writes:
|> jonesse@plasma.byu.edu wrote:
|> 
|> : How about all you investors in CF out there?"
|> 
|> Good Lord, I hope there's no one out there with so much congenital brain
|> cramp that they actually invest in this CF (Cold Fantasy) stuff!  Hells,
|> Jed's postings alone should be enough to scare any reasonably competent
|> investor off!

That's just it.  Jed himself _is_ an investor, albeit not the largest one.

Jed, do I have this correct?

-- 
Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de                               -- W Gibson
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnTK cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.23 / Bruce TK /  Re: Jed Rothwell does not understand fusion
     
Originally-From: bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce       Scott          TK  )
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Jed Rothwell does not understand fusion
Date: 23 Dec 1994 12:52:28 +0100
Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching


In article <p63VvlN.jedrothwell@delphi.com>, jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:
|> Paul M. Koloc <pmk@prometheus.UUCP> writes:
|>  
|> |>Bruce, I think Maglich is questioning how much power is due to beam
|> |>interactions (direct pumping) as opposed to equilibrated plasma-plasma 
|> |>interation fusion.  Also, what does that work out in in watts per 
|>  
|> That is correct. His conclusion is:
|>  
|>      "Correct calculations indicate that *false neutrons alone* can
|>      explain the data, T/F = 0/000; i.e. the observed data are
|>      compatible with zero thermonuclear fusion power production, TFPP=0."

I had the impression this was adequately refuted by Robert Heeter's
unofficial information and TFTR's official response.

TFTR now have sufficient alpha particle diagnostics to say what fraction
of the alphas come from thermonuclear fusion, and as I recall the answer
is in the tens of percent, up to half.

Robert, please correct this if it is wrong.

Anyone else interested in nailing it down: send queries to the address
given in the TFTR reports regularly posted by Richard Hawryluk.  There was
one just a day or two ago.

-- 
Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de                               -- W Gibson
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnTK cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.23 /  Nate /  Re: Free Energy Device GIF pic ! MRA picture
     
Originally-From: patriot@kaiwan009.kaiwan.com (Nate)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,alt.energy.renewable,alt.parane
.science,alt.paranet.ufo,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.bio,sci.energy,sc
.energy.hydrogen,sci.environment,sci.materials,sci.physics,sci.physics.f
sion,sci.physics.particle
Subject: Re: Free Energy Device GIF pic ! MRA picture
Date: 23 Dec 1994 04:25:09 -0800
Organization: KAIWAN Internet (310-527-4279,818-756-0180,714-638-4133)

For those of you making jokes about the whole MRA thing...

If it works or not, this is a good example for those who do invent stuff 
that big businesses wouldn't want getting out. It is good to see people 
working together in a OPEN MINDED way, and help by contributing resources 
to the project.

One of the bigest problems with small projects like this is resources. If 
you can get access to some good equipment for a few days it can really 
help take a project further.

Don't sluff it off just yet, they may not have anything, but they have 
learned some real important stuff to use the next time they have something.


cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenpatriot cudlnNate cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.23 / Barry Wise /  Re: Dr. Oriani's Lecture
     
Originally-From: bwise@mitre.org (Barry Wise)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Dr. Oriani's Lecture
Date: Fri, 23 Dec 1994 07:59:15 -0500
Organization: The Mitre Corp

In article <3da3vv$eah@saba.info.ucla.edu>, barry@redwood.math.ucla.edu
(Barry Merriman) wrote:


> 
> Any CF experiment that claims the mechanism is H+H fusion is simply
> in error. Its comparable to having a photo come out showing the sky
> was green---you would conclude there was a development error, not that
> the sky must have been green when you snapped the photo.
> 

Oh?  I seem to remember that the original pictures from the Mars lander
showed the sky as red, so they corrected the pictures (the sky's blue
right?).  It turned out that red was the correct color.   Extrapolating
from one environment to another is fraught with pitfalls.
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenbwise cudfnBarry cudlnWise cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.23 / Alan M /  Re: Roast Dynamometer
     
Originally-From: Alan@moonrake.demon.co.uk ("Alan M. Dunsmuir")
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Roast Dynamometer
Date: Fri, 23 Dec 1994 10:53:39 +0000
Organization: Home

In article: <3daif2$qfq@huxley.anu.edu.au>  drd851@huxley.anu.edu.au
(David R Davies) writes:
> We need a clean, save source of energy now. If there
> is the smallest chance that CF can provide this then it should receive serious and
> sustained consideration.

And if CF and its proponents ever demonstrate the smallest likelihood
that it will provide such a boon to mankind, I'm sure it will be
accorded the respect which will then become its due.

Until then, it's just so much snake oil.

(Sorry - that's unfair to snake oil, or Seneca Oil, which was naturally
seeping petroleum and therefore was able to display a valid energy
component. That puts it in a much higher league than CF.)

Alan M. Dunsmuir [@ his wits end]     (Can't even quote poetry right)

         I am his Highness' dog at Kew
         Pray tell me sir, whose dog are you?
			      [Alexander Pope]

PGP Public Key available on request.


cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenAlan cudfnAlan cudlnM cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.23 / Alan M /  Re: Helium-production via CF revisited
     
Originally-From: Alan@moonrake.demon.co.uk ("Alan M. Dunsmuir")
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Helium-production via CF revisited
Date: Fri, 23 Dec 1994 10:53:44 +0000
Organization: Home

In article: <Bm0WP3S.jedrothwell@delphi.com>  jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:
> These are experimental results, they can
> contradict theory and they can look inconsistant. You have to accept them
> anyway, because the only meaningful standard in science is replicated, high
> sigma, experimental data.

Let them publish, and have someone else replicate their results and my
doubts about their protocol will be reduced. Your telling me simply that I
dare not question it does _nothing_ for anybody's confidence in their results.

(Have you ever considered that your own protocol, which is to triumph as an 
unquestionable success anything which supports the CF myth before checking 
the data, then quietly drop it when it is later shown - again - to be 
spurious, does nothing to promote confidence in _any_ CF results? CF without 
Jed Rothwell would be potentially a lot more acceptable than CF with JR as its 
noisiest spokesman.)

Alan M. Dunsmuir [@ his wits end]     (Can't even quote poetry right)

         I am his Highness' dog at Kew
         Pray tell me sir, whose dog are you?
			      [Alexander Pope]

PGP Public Key available on request.


cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenAlan cudfnAlan cudlnM cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.23 / Alan M /  Re: Dr. Oriani's Lecture
     
Originally-From: Alan@moonrake.demon.co.uk ("Alan M. Dunsmuir")
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Dr. Oriani's Lecture
Date: Fri, 23 Dec 1994 11:05:45 +0000
Organization: Home

In article: <Zy91P9M.jedrothwell@delphi.com>  jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:

> We know that the rules
> must be radically different inside a metal lattice, because otherwise CF would
> not happen in the first place, or if it did, it would kill the observers.

   ROFL!!!!

Alan M. Dunsmuir [@ his wits end]     (Can't even quote poetry right)

         I am his Highness' dog at Kew
         Pray tell me sir, whose dog are you?
			      [Alexander Pope]

PGP Public Key available on request.


cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenAlan cudfnAlan cudlnM cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.23 / Mitchel Berger /  Re: Free Energy Device (Magnetic Resonance Amp)
     
Originally-From: berger@sbcm.com (Mitchel Berger)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,alt.energy.renewable,alt.parane
.science,alt.paranet.ufo,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.bio,sci.energy,sc
.energy.hydrogen,sci.environment,sci.materials,sci.physics,sci.physics.f
sion,sci.physics.particle
Subject: Re: Free Energy Device (Magnetic Resonance Amp)
Date: Fri, 23 Dec 1994 12:56:09 GMT
Organization: AishDas Society


Am I wrong on this, or is this MRA thing a way to use a piezo as a battery?

What started me thinking is this talk of a virtually limitless supply of
electrons in the barium titanite. (I never even heard of the stuff before.)
But now that I see the schematic, I felt sure enough to voice my opinion.
--
Micha Berger                    red---6-murder---kindness-Abraham-body---nefesh
berger@sbcm.com  212 224-4937   green-7-incest---Torah----Jacob---mind----ruach
aishdas@iia.org  201 916-0287   blue--8-idolatry-worship--Isaac---soul-neshamah
	<a href=http://www.iia.org/~aishdas>AishDas Society's Home Page</a>
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenberger cudfnMitchel cudlnBerger cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.23 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Questions for Rothwell
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Questions for Rothwell
Date: Fri, 23 DEC 94 09:35:33 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Bruce       Scott          TK <bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de> writes:
 
>That's just it.  Jed himself _is_ an investor, albeit not the largest one.
>
>Jed, do I have this correct?
 
That is correct, I am an investor and experimentor. I am probably the
smallest, not the largest! The largest, I think, is the Minstry of
International Trade and Industry, Government of Japan. There are also about
a hundred Japanese corporations and university all of whom spend more on
CF every day than I spend in a year.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenjedrothwell cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.23 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Jed Rothwell paints with a wide brush
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Jed Rothwell paints with a wide brush
Date: Fri, 23 DEC 94 09:41:59 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Paul M. Koloc <pmk@prometheus.UUCP> writes:
 
>Please notice Jed, that you are quoting a tokamak study. That report 
>makes no claims about advanced concept "hot" fusion.   
 
Oh, yes! Absolutely right, and I should have made that clear. The ARIES study
from Los Alamos says that tokamak designs will never be cost effective, and
it recommends the DoE look at other hot fusion designs instead. It certainly
does not condemn the whole idea, and I am sorry I gave that impression.
 
The study shows that the physics of tokamaks make them inherently uneconomical.
It says, in effect, the problems are built in and that no amount of engineering
can overcome them.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenjedrothwell cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.23 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Roast Dynamometer
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Roast Dynamometer
Date: Fri, 23 DEC 94 09:48:28 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

"Alan M. Dunsmuir" <Alan@moonrake.demon.co.uk> writes:
 
>And if CF and its proponents ever demonstrate the smallest likelihood
>that it will provide such a boon to mankind, I'm sure it will be
>accorded the respect which will then become its due.
 
How do you account for the fact that CF is accorded great respect in Japan?
Do you think that MITI, Hitachi, Mitsubishi, Toyota and the Tokyo Inst. of
Technology are run by idiots who cannot measure 80 watts of excess heat?
CF *already is* accorded great respect. Why do you deny that fact and call
it "snake oil." It is only denigrated and attacked in the U.S. and England.
In France, Italy, Russia, China and Japan it is funded. Surely you will
agree that physics works the same in the U.S. as it does on the campus of
Osaka National University. The results garner great respect in Osaka, and
viralent, spitefull attacks here in the U.S. So the difference must be due
to culture, or outlook, or perhaps vested interests. 80 watts is 80 watts,
the fact that the Japanese believe in the measurments and you call them
"snake oil" tells us a lot about the Japanese and you, but nothing at all
about physics per se. It is very simple: they believe experimental evidence
even when it contradicts theory, whereas you think that any result which
contradicts the textbooks must be snake oil.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenjedrothwell cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.23 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Helium-production via CF revisited
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Helium-production via CF revisited
Date: Fri, 23 DEC 94 09:57:32 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

"Alan M. Dunsmuir" <Alan@moonrake.demon.co.uk> writes:
 
>(Have you ever considered that your own protocol, which is to triumph as an 
>unquestionable success anything which supports the CF myth before checking 
>the data, then quietly drop it when it is later shown - again - to be 
>spurious, does nothing to promote confidence in _any_ CF results? CF without 
 
I have never done that! I have not "quietly dropped" any experiment. As far
as I know, all of the important work that I have reported over the years has
stood the test of time. In most cases, the workers have gone on to report
much better experiments with improved instrumentation.
 
What are you talking about? Which experimenters have formally retracted? The
only person I know who has publicly retracted is Steve Jones, at ICCF4. He
retracted his neutron results. I do not know anything about neutrons and I
have never cited his work as a triumph or as anything else. The only experiment
that Steve has done which I know about is the Kamiokande fiasco, which is the
last thing on earth I would "triumph."
 
I know of only three major CF experiments which were later shown to be
mistaken or fradulent, and all three were supposedly negative but actually
they showed excess heat. They were the most famous ones of 1989: MIT, Harwell,
and Cal Tech. They were done by the arch enemies of CF, who were determined to
prove the effect does not exist. The fact that even these people got excess
heat is the best proof that the effect is real. They did everything they could
to make it go away, but the heat is there. Of course, it is nowhere near as
good as McKubre or Arata.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenjedrothwell cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.23 /  artki@kbbs.com /  Jed Rothwell does not
     
Originally-From: artki@kbbs.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Jed Rothwell does not
Date: Fri, 23 Dec 94 06:08:12 EST
Organization: KBBS - Internet & Files via Satellite   


 * Quote from INTERNET: jedrothwell@del to ** ALL ** dated 12-22-94.

]It really is so. He wrote it in testimony before the Subcommittee on Energy
]and Water, U.S. House of Representatives, April 12, 1994, and in a paper
]delivered at the 1994 Spring Meeting of the American Physical Society titled,
]"Comments on Reported Production of Thermonuclear Fusion Power in Princeton's
]Tokamak."
]
]
]     "The TFTR record is slightly over 10 MW, and levels of order 6 MW, which
]     a year ago was a world record, are now routine."
]
]Big deal. So what? That's power, not energy. They cannot make it self-sustain
]the way Pons and Fleischmann can, ...

  They can?  Are you saying that P&F have extracted power from their cells
which they use to run the electrodes and so on?
When have they done this feat?
   Arthur in >---(oo)---> Hollywood             (ArtKi@KBBS.COM)
   Written 12/23/94 - Who knows when it will show up...
---
 ~ SPEED 1.40 #2164 ~


--
    [*]   Message Origin:  KBBS Los Angeles!  74 Access Lines   [*]
    [*]   (818) 886-0872 or Telnet 204.96.25.7  info@kbbs.com   [*]



cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenartki cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.23 /  DaveHatunen /  Re: Free Energy Device (Magnetic Resonance Amp)
     
Originally-From: hatunen@netcom.com (DaveHatunen)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,alt.energy.renewable,alt.parane
.science,alt.paranet.ufo,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.bio,sci.energy,sc
.energy.hydrogen,sci.environment,sci.materials,sci.physics,sci.physics.f
sion,sci.physics.particle
Subject: Re: Free Energy Device (Magnetic Resonance Amp)
Date: Fri, 23 Dec 1994 15:30:54 GMT
Organization: As little as you're likely to find anywhere

In article <1994Dec23.125609.5889@sbcm.com>,
Mitchel Berger <berger@sbcm.com> wrote:
>
>Am I wrong on this, or is this MRA thing a way to use a piezo as a battery?
>
>What started me thinking is this talk of a virtually limitless supply of
>electrons in the barium titanite. (I never even heard of the stuff before.)
>But now that I see the schematic, I felt sure enough to voice my opinion.

Um. There's no such thing as a "supply of electrons". Electrical
circuits just send existing electrons around in a circle; no need for a
"supply".



-- 


    ********** DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@netcom.com) **********
    *                Daly City California:                *
    *       where San Francisco meets The Peninsula       *
    *       and the San Andreas Fault meets the Sea       *
    *******************************************************

cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenhatunen cudlnDaveHatunen cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.23 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Jed Rothwell does not
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Jed Rothwell does not
Date: Fri, 23 DEC 94 12:37:06 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

I wrote that Pons and Fleischmann reported fully ignited self sustaining
reactions a couple of years ago and <artki@kbbs.com> asked:
 
     "They can?  Are you saying that P&F have extracted power from their
     cells which they use to run the electrodes and so on? When have they
     done this feat?"
 
No, I don't mean that. They do not need to extract power or to input power;
the electrodes are turned off. The cathode remains hot by itself. Think of it
like a burning log: first you hold a match to it (the electrodes), then after
a while it gets hot and the reaction continues by itself. You can take the
match away and the log continues to burn.
 
This was first described at ICCF3, and later published in:
 
     M. Fleischmann (Univ. Southampton), S. Pons (IMRA Europe), "Calorimetry
     of the Pd-D2O system: from simplicity via complications to simplicity,"
     Physics Letters A, 176 (1993) 118-129
 
It was described in much greater detail in:
 
     S. Pons, M. Fleischmann (IMRA Europe), "Heat After Death," Proc. ICCF4
     Vol 2. Paper # 8 (EPRI)
 
Fleischmann described the effect in remarks published here, in
sci.physics.fusion, last year:
 
     "Afficionados of the field of 'Hot Fusion' will realise that there is a
     large release of excess energy during Stage 5 at zero energy input.  The
     system is therefore operating under conditions which are described as
     'Ignition' in 'Hot Fusion'.  It appears to us therefore that these types
     of systems not only 'merit investigation' (as we have stated in the last
     paragraph) but, more correctly, 'merit frantic investigation'."
 
I concur.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenjedrothwell cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.23 / A Plutonium /  Re: NEW PATENT LAW, NEWS, GOOD NEWS, 20 years from first  
     
Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.electromag
Subject: Re: NEW PATENT LAW, NEWS, GOOD NEWS, 20 years from first  
Date: 23 Dec 1994 18:43:09 GMT
Organization: Plutonium College

In article <3dada4$l5j@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:

>   I give prayer thanks to 231PU, our Maker. Thanks proton Zeus, thanks
> proton Hera, thanks proton Mercury, thanks proton Venus, thanks proton
> Mars, thanks proton Jupiter, thanks proton Saturn, thanks proton
> Uranus, thanks proton Neptune, thanks proton Pluto, thanks proton
> Persphone, thanks proton Demeter, etc. for looking out for the
> Plutonium Atom Foundation.

I mispelled persephone, and I must atone for that. Here I looked it up
in Academic American Encyclopedia; their entry was
         Topic:  Persephone, {pur-sef'-uh-nee}
          Text:
     In Greek mythology, Persephone (also called Kore) was the
beautiful    daughter of ZEUS and
     DEMETER who represented both nature's growth cycle and death.
HADES, god of the underworld and
     brother of Zeus, was lonely in his underworld kingdom; therefore
Zeus, without consulting
     Demeter, told him to take Persephone as his wife. Thus, as
Persephone was picking        flowers
     one day, Hades came out of the earth and carried her off to be his
queen. While the grieving
     Demeter, goddess of grain, searched for her daughter, the earth
became a barren wasteland. Zeus
     finally obtained Persephone's release, but because she had eaten a
pomegranate seed in the
     underworld, she was obliged to spend four months (winter) of each
year there, during which time
     barrenness returned to the earth. With her mother, Persephone was
a central cult figure in the
     ELEUSINIAN MYSTERIES. In Roman mythology, she was called
Proserpina.

  We must take all the Greek and Roman gods as one system which of all
the religious systems that came about, the Greek multi-gods came
closest to hitting the bullseye of truth. It was not by mere
coincidence that science and math started in the Greek culture, as well
as the multi-god system. That system, will be seen in the future as the
religion that came closest to the truth, of all religious system.
Because, if we replace each of the ancient Greek and Roman gods with
protons and electrons and neutrons of 231PU, then we have the joining
of religion with physics. BTW, there is eternal life in reincarnation,
not of our body chemicals, but of our photon/neutrino minds, our
photon/neutrino souls, since they have no rest mass they are forever
moving somewhere in the universe. All religions were superdetermined,
even those with goofball practices and beliefs, all of which were
stepping stones of reverance for the real truth-- Quantum Mechanics,
and our Maker-- one atom of the whole, 231PU.
                      94th ELECTRON OF 231PU
               Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH ELECTRON


                ::\ ::|:: /::
                 ::\::|::/::
                     _ _
                    (:Y:)  
                     - -    
                 ::/::|::\::   
                ::/ ::|:: \::
                                 A@P
        One of those dots is the Sun with 9 smaller dots around it.
Look in a chemistry textbook or quantum physics textbook of the
electron cloud dot picture.
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.23 / Axel Jusek /  Re: New Free Energy Device announced ! MRA thread !
     
Originally-From: Jugan@Trashcan.escape.de (Axel Jusek)
Newsgroups: sci.energy,alt.energy.renewable,alt.paranet.science,alt.para
et.ufo,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.bio,sc
.energy.hydrogen,sci.environment,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.phys
cs.particle,cl.energie.alternativen
Subject: Re: New Free Energy Device announced ! MRA thread !
Date: Fri, 23 Dec 94 17:04:56 CET
Organization: Wolf

harti@shb.contrib.de (Stefan Hartmann) miszbrauchte seine Tastatur
am 20.12.1994 um 14:17:00 Uhr, um
folgende Messy unter dem Betreff "New Free Energy Device announced
! MRA thread !" unter die Leute zubringen:
SH> Below is the MRA.ASC + Update1 + Update2.
SH> 
SH>    ________________________________________________________________
SH>    |File Name: MRA.ASC            |  Online Date :12/13/94        |
SH>    |Contributed by : Joel McClain |  Dir Category:ENERGY          |
SH>    |From : KeelyNet BBS           |  DataLine:(214) 324-3501      |
SH>    | KeelyNet * PO BOX 870716 * Mesquite, Texas * USA * 75187     |
SH>    |A FREE Alternative Sciences BBS sponsored by Vanguard Sciences|
SH>    |--------------------------------------------------------------|
SH> 
SH>  The following requires the file MRA.GIF also on KeelyNet. The file
SH>  MRA.ZIP contains both this file MRA.ASC and the image MRA.GIF.
SH> 
SH> 
Waere nett wenn ich auch mal das File MRA.GIF bekommen koennte.

Danke

Axel.

cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenJugan cudfnAxel cudlnJusek cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.23 / A Plutonium /  Re: NEW PATENT LAW, NEWS, GOOD NEWS, 20 years from first  
     
Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.electromag
Subject: Re: NEW PATENT LAW, NEWS, GOOD NEWS, 20 years from first  
Date: 23 Dec 1994 18:57:00 GMT
Organization: Plutonium College

In article <3dada4$l5j@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:

> In the WSJ, eastern edition, 21Dec1994, page B6
>     " The new patent law, which took effect this month, brings US
> patent law for all products including drugs into line with practices
> outside the USA. Under the old USA rule, drugs retained their patents
> for 17 years, dated from the patent's issue. Under the new rules, the
> patent will last for 20 years, dated from the first application for the
> patent."

  This news is one of the most important news items of this year. It
should have been on the front page of all the major newspapers. This is
one of the troubles with the running of news outlets in a liberty
society, and it is not incompatible with freedom of press. If, we
regulate the news as to what is of benefit to all of humanity, rather
than, what is sensational. Again, this is not a lessening of freedoms
of press or whatever. But a willful screening of priorities.
  For example, the changing of the USA patent laws should have received
front page coverage over most if not all news outlets in the USA. News
items such as O.J. Simpson, Jeffrey Dahmer, attempted assinations on .
.  All that stuff which is antisocial, incongrous to decent , go ahead,
productive life towards the ends of the newspapers or news broadcast.
And the managing editors of news can easily do this where a viewer or
reader knows that as they go towards the end of the paper or program
they are going into the lower lifes. The front page and near the front
is uplifting material.
  This scheme does not interfer with any freedoms and it improves those
medias.
  I summarize. It is pathetic that the new patent law received such a
little blurb by the news people. Instead, they love to sensationalize.
And in their sensationalizing, is it not any wonder that so many kooks
are out and about trying to assinate our president, for no other reason
than that they will be on the front covers of dip---- newspaper reports.
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.23 / A Plutonium /  Re: New York Times miscue:  Sonofusion is NOT cold fusion!
     
Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics
Subject: Re: New York Times miscue:  Sonofusion is NOT cold fusion!
Date: 23 Dec 1994 19:06:38 GMT
Organization: Plutonium Atom Foundation

In article <Dec22.233418.62088@acs.ucalgary.ca>
mjmazur@acs.ucalgary.ca (Michael James Mazur) writes:

> So.... neutrons are blue light? Guess they've been teaching me
> the wrong physics.

Yes, the presence of neutrons has the eerie blue glow.

Question: has there been any other light, other than blue light,
associated with sonoluminescence?

The recent carbon arc in water or heavy water should the presence of
new iron that never existed before the experiment. That is spontaneous
neutron materialization occurring multiple times to turn carbon, or
oxygen atoms into iron atoms. Iron is the most stable element to
fission and fusion. That is why the reaction process goes from carbon
all the way up to iron.

Both sonoluminescence and carbon arc into iron are violations of
conservation of energy/mass. The science of cold fusion is the science
that proves conservation of energy/mass is fakery, baloney, goofball
physics.

This science will not excell until it is convincingly demonstrated
that-- total hadrons before the experiment was less than hadron count
after the experiment. That is what carbon arc, sonoluminescence, all
varieties of cold fusion are about. The violation of conservation of
energy/mass with spontaneous neutron materialization.
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.23 / Bruce TK /  Re: Questions for Rothwell
     
Originally-From: bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce       Scott          TK  )
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Questions for Rothwell
Date: 23 Dec 1994 22:07:22 +0100
Organization: Rechenzentrum der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft in Garching


In article <Zm0X-zd.jedrothwell@delphi.com>, jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:
|> There are also about a hundred Japanese corporations and university all 
|> of whom spend more on CF every day than I spend in a year.

Interesting.  How about a partial list of 10 or 15?

-- 
Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de                               -- W Gibson
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenbds cudfnBruce cudlnTK cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Sat Dec 24 04:37:04 EST 1994
------------------------------
1994.12.23 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Roast Dynamometer
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Roast Dynamometer
Date: Fri, 23 Dec 1994 22:13:14 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <RE+U3Vc.jedrothwell@delphi.com>,  <jedrothwell@delphi.com> wrote:
>"Alan M. Dunsmuir" <Alan@moonrake.demon.co.uk> writes:
> 
>>And if CF and its proponents ever demonstrate the smallest likelihood
>>that it will provide such a boon to mankind, I'm sure it will be
>>accorded the respect which will then become its due.
> 
>How do you account for the fact that CF is accorded great respect in Japan?

     It isn't accorded 'great respect' if one judges valuation by how
     much is spent on it.  Shoot, one little fighter plane is accorded
     far more respect.

>Do you think that MITI, Hitachi, Mitsubishi, Toyota and the Tokyo Inst. of
>Technology are run by idiots who cannot measure 80 watts of excess heat?

     Sure, if the heads of MITI, Hitachi, Mitsubishi, Toyota and the
     Tokyo Inst. of Technology try to take measurements of a ten minute 
     boiloff every five minutes, then they're idiots.

     However, I'm quite surprised that the heads of MITI, Hitachi, Mitsubishi,
     Toyota and the Tokyo Inst. of Technology are performing 'CNF'
     experiments.  If I was a major stockholder, I'd try to have them 
     fired for not performing their real jobs.

                              dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.23 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Jed Rothwell does not
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Jed Rothwell does not
Date: Fri, 23 Dec 1994 22:23:25 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <RyyWf5S.jedrothwell@delphi.com>,  <jedrothwell@delphi.com> wrote:
>I wrote that Pons and Fleischmann reported fully ignited self sustaining
>reactions a couple of years ago and <artki@kbbs.com> asked:
> 
>     "They can?  Are you saying that P&F have extracted power from their
>     cells which they use to run the electrodes and so on? When have they
>     done this feat?"
> 
>No, I don't mean that. They do not need to extract power or to input power;
>the electrodes are turned off. The cathode remains hot by itself. Think of it
>like a burning log: first you hold a match to it (the electrodes), then after
>a while it gets hot and the reaction continues by itself. You can take the
>match away and the log continues to burn.

     This 'heat after death' is likely the biggest pile of BS I've ever
     seen discussed in this group.  I'm willing to bet that it never happened,
     and hence will never be heard from again.

     Each year brings a new and different pile of BS, but once you get a whiff,
     it's clear that it's the same old BS.

>Fleischmann described the effect in remarks published here, in
>sci.physics.fusion, last year:
> 
>     "Afficionados of the field of 'Hot Fusion' will realise that there is a
>     large release of excess energy during Stage 5 at zero energy input.  The
>     system is therefore operating under conditions which are described as
>     'Ignition' in 'Hot Fusion'.  It appears to us therefore that these types
>     of systems not only 'merit investigation' (as we have stated in the last
>     paragraph) but, more correctly, 'merit frantic investigation'."
> 
>I concur.

     This is ridiculous.  They're naked, Jed.  Those 'invisible Armanti
     suits' are just air.

                                  dale bass



cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.23 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Jed Rothwell does not
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Jed Rothwell does not
Date: Fri, 23 DEC 94 21:56:37 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Cameron Randale Bass <crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU> writes:
 
>     This 'heat after death' is likely the biggest pile of BS I've ever
>     seen discussed in this group.  I'm willing to bet that it never happened,
>     and hence will never be heard from again.
 
So, you have read the papers describing these heat after death events at
IMRA, SRI, Patterson Research, and U. Hokkaido, and you have come to the
conclusion that the data is fabricated? Or do you think their instruments
went crazy? I think you are living in a dream world. I cannot imagine why you
believe that Toyota would allow their scientists to publish peer reviewed
papers making claims of easily verified, macroscopic phonomena that did not
happen, and I refuse to believe they could force SRI to go along with the
scam. The whole idea that "it never happened" -- that the temperature really
was 20 C and not 100+ at IMRA or 1800 at Hokkaido -- strikes me a cloud
coockoo land thinking. Why would they publish results like that if it was not
true? Why would they go on making claims year after year? How on earth do
they persuade visiting scientist to come back to the U.S. or Japan and
corraborate the story in phone calls and letters to me? What is the purpose
of this gigantic Fu Manchu plot? I'll tell you: nothing. There is no plot.
Toyota is not running a multi year multimillion dollar practical joke. The
results they publish are real. Your assertions that "it never happened" are
based upon your own imagination and your inability to come to grips with
reality. You are making up hysterical nonsense. It's that simple.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenjedrothwell cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.23 / Erik Francis /  Re: NEW PLANETS DISCOVERED, REPEAT TITIUS-BODE LAW
     
Originally-From: max@alcyone.darkside.com (Erik Max Francis)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci
physics.electromag
Subject: Re: NEW PLANETS DISCOVERED, REPEAT TITIUS-BODE LAW
Date: Fri, 23 Dec 94 14:48:43 PST
Organization: &tSftDotIotE

Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:

> The true theory of Star, planets, and moon creation are according to a
> mode of radioactive matter creation. See Dirac's Directions in Physics
> on this radioactivity.
> 
> The true theory of planet and moon creation and orbits comes from
> Quantum Mechanics, especially in the form of Coulomb's Law and the
> Meissner effect.

Now that's just funny.


Erik Max Francis, &tSftDotIotE ...!uuwest!alcyone!max max@alcyone.darkside.com
San Jose, CA ... GIGO, Hg, Omega, Universe, Psi ... ICBM: 37 20 N 121 53 W  _
H.3`S,3,P,3$S,#$Q,C`Q,3,P,3$S,#$Q,3`Q,3,P,C$Q,#(Q.#`-"C`- ftmfbs kmmfa mc2 / \
Omnia quia sunt, lumina sunt.  ("All things that are, are lights.")   -><- \_/
cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenmax cudfnErik cudlnFrancis cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.23 /  AvardF /  COLD FUSION CELL DESIGN
     
Originally-From: avardf@aol.com (AvardF)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: COLD FUSION CELL DESIGN
Date: 23 Dec 1994 23:36:03 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

COLD FUSION CELL DESIGN

This abstract was found in the October issue of  FUSION FACTS and was
written by H.P. Ransford III and S.J. Pike (Nova Res. Group, Inc., Denver,
CO) 
For more information: Call, fax or write to Dept. F. 
To call: Dept. F. (801) 583-6232
To fax: Dept. F. (801) 58-FAXME 
To write: Dept. F.   P.O. Box 58639 Salt Lake City Utah 8415
Or send email to AvardF@AOL.COM for more information

To assure continued and expanding funding in an increasingly
cost-conscious, results-oriented world economy, "cold fusion"
needs solid proof of commercial feasibility. Excess heat
calculations are of little use in convincing nonscientific
skeptics. Heat alone, at low temperatures, does not have the
"medium of exchange" value of electrical power. Proof of
commercial viability has three critical dimensions which must
meet certain minimums:
y The temperature must reach 175 to 200xC - high enough to
allow reasonably efficient (in the range of 15-20%) conversion
to mechanical/electrical power.
y The system power levels must reach at least 5 to 10 kw of
thermal output to demonstrate conversion to self power plus
provide useful electrical energy for other functions.
y The system must operate continuously for weeks to months
with short lag times to start up or shut down.
To date, world wide, most cold fusion investigations have been
attempts to confirm and expand understanding of the
Fleischmann-Pons Effect (FPE) at its basic levels. This
research to corroborate FPE - with notable exceptions - has
three common characteristics:
y Most FPE experiments have been conducted at or near
ambient conditions of temperature and pressure, many in open
cells.
y The experiments have been small in scale with minimal
standardization of design.
y These experiments produced small thermal outputs and low
excess energy ratios.
Despite the many technical (and other) obstacles in this field,
the research now has clearly revealed these empirical facts:
y Nuclear reactions can indeed occur in electrolytic systems;
y The energy released in these reactions occurs primarily as
heat;
y The major byproducts in Palladium-deuterium systems is
ordinary helium.
y Excess energy ratios exceeding 10:1 are possible;
y The energy density can exceed three kilowatts per cubic
centimeter;
y The reaction rate increases nonlinearly with increasing
temperature.
These results hint at the potential power yields from cold
fusion.  They also show that safety precautions developed for
electrochemical research can no longer be considered sufficient
for FPE studies.  The various accidents and events arising form
open cells have led Fleischmann, Pons and others to issue
warnings emphasizing the danger of closed systems.
However, if cold fusion is to ever reach its potential, closing
and pressurizing the research cells is necessary.  This calls for
a much greater ability to contain and control cold fusion
events.  Safety must be the highest priority in the laboratory
and thus, in the design and construction of experimental
equipment.  Good design must allow for radioactive products,
high pressures and high temperatures, coolant circulation and
the ability to easily maintain experimental protocols.

cudkeys:
cuddy23 cudenavardf cudlnAvardF cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.24 / Laurie Forbes /  Re: Another o/u device, plans
     
Originally-From: lforbes@nucleus.com (Laurie Forbes)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Another o/u device, plans
Date: Sat, 24 Dec 1994 04:39:03 GMT
Organization: Nucleus Information Service

Thomas S. Zemanian (ts_zemanian@pnl.gov) wrote:
: In article <B.Hamilton.224.2EF5F928@irl.cri.nz>, B.Hamilton@irl.cri.nz
: (Bruce Hamilton) wrote:

: > In article <D12J9t.E0y@nucleus.com> lforbes@nucleus.com (Laurie Forbes) writes:
: > >
: > >
: > >
: > 
: > Wow!. That _really_ is *secret*.

: Actually, it's a Taoist approach to the problem.  By putting nothing into
: the process, any and all output is "over unity".  The device is not
: contentious, and hence, none can contend with it.

: --Tom

: --
: The opinions expressed herein are mine and mine alone.  Keep your filthy
: hands off 'em! 

Actually, the amazing revelations of the original post left me speachless. 

Regards,
Laurie Forbes

cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenlforbes cudfnLaurie cudlnForbes cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.22 /  prasad /  More questions, was Re: Dr. Oriani's Lecture
     
Originally-From: c1prasad@watson.ibm.com (prasad)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: More questions, was Re: Dr. Oriani's Lecture
Date: 22 Dec 1994 16:09:58 GMT
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

In article <JIz2HFG.jedrothwell@delphi.com>, jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:
|>  
|> 2. Electrochemical CF techniques produce copious free D2 gas, which has an
|> atomic mass close to helium-4. To separate the two with confidence, you need
|> the highest resolution mass spectrometers money can buy. Fortunately, Miles
|> ...
|> whereas 200 MJ of fusion heat produces only 0.0035 grams of helium.

A question though.  Why can't simple chemical means be used for the separation ?
Say a catalyst [ like Pd ;) ] be used to remove the D2, which should behave
chemically almost like H2?

Has this problem to do with the relatively tiny quantity of He-4 expected ?

|> overcomes coulomb barrier and fuses without a lethal burst of radiation is
|> a mystery.

Let's say we eventually discover the mystery mechanism X.

Say the Coulomb barrier is of height Uc (energy units).  X would have to
supply the D+ ions with Uc to overcome the barrier.  Once over the barrier,
the ions can proceed to fuse and release fusion energy. However, if the
fusion energy released of itself is Uf, the fused ions would actually release
(Uf + Uc).  Now here's my question. What are Uc and Uf in this case?

Reason for asking is this.  If Uc (the Coulomb barrier) is itself so high
that the hot fusion folks need 10^9 degrees temperature to overcome (ie.
Uc = O( 10^9 kB ), kB == Boltzmann const.), what is to say we still need
a Uf contribution ?!

Ie., if we do come up with a *cold* unknown mechanism X to supply O(10^9 kB),
do we theoretically still need fusion as well to explain the excess enthalpies?

cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenc1prasad cudlnprasad cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.22 /  prasad /  Re: "New Scientist"article on Tom's trip...
     
Originally-From: c1prasad@watson.ibm.com (prasad)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: "New Scientist"article on Tom's trip...
Date: 22 Dec 1994 16:17:19 GMT
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

Rushing to the library to check this out!
Maybe my name's finally got into a respected journal, too!!

;)

cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenc1prasad cudlnprasad cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.24 / Barry Merriman /  Re: Helium-production via CF revisited
     
Originally-From: barry@redwood.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Helium-production via CF revisited
Date: 24 Dec 1994 09:17:36 GMT
Organization: University of California, Los Angeles

So you mean that P & F's original neutron measurements and gamma
ray measurements from 1988 still stand? These were not
erroneous? Then why is it that these days CF no longer
produces neutrons and gammas?



--
Barry Merriman
UCLA Dept. of Math
UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet)   barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (NeXTMail)
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenbarry cudfnBarry cudlnMerriman cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Sun Dec 25 04:37:04 EST 1994
------------------------------
1994.12.24 /  djs0923@tntech /  Re: yes, i am in a xmass spirit
     
Originally-From: djs0923@tntech.edu
Newsgroups: sci.math,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physi
s,sci.chem,sci.bio
Subject: Re: yes, i am in a xmass spirit
Date: 24 Dec 94 13:34:25 -0600
Organization: Tennessee Tech University

In article <3dfvdi$jbm@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>, Archimedes.Plutonium@dart
outh.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:> 
>   GIFT of GIFT WRAPPING TO the civilized world, for free by Archimedes
> 1994.
> 
>  Go to a supermarket store where they have those plastic bags at the
> check-out aisles. The non-see-through, white ones are the best. Those
> bags have plastic handles. Now then. It would look out of place to
> barge through the front doors of a supermarket and grab a handful of
> plastic bags. Go and buy something cheap like one ice cream bar and
> when you pay for it, do not just grab one of those plastic carrying
> sacks. No. Instead grab a wad, a handful of about 20 of those plastic
> bags. They are for free, or at least they payed for your ice cream bar.
>   Now then, when you get those bags home and start your gift wrapping
> operation. You do not need fancy and expensive wrapping paper. You do
> not need tape that costs money.  You do not need scissors. You do not
> need fancy bows and ribbons and whatever.
>   INSTRUCTIONS for gift wrapping with plastic supermarket bags.
> 
>  Place gift inside of plastic bag. Now, it is very important that you
> tightly wind the plastic around the gift so that the kid will have a
> hard time opening up the gift. Wrapp it around tightly and with the two
> handles tie a special dreadknot with those two handles. There, you do
> not need your wife to put a finger on a string in order to knot a
> conventional wrapping.And he/she whoever the recipient of the gift will
> like you more for the plastic bag wrapping because the exhilaration of
> getting a gift is the opening of it. With regular expensive wrapping
> paper, that is a snap to tear that off in a second. But with a well
> wrapped Archimedes plastic gift wrap (remember, 0 out of pocket cost to
> you) it can take upwards of 5 minutes just to get inside. And, if the
> gift wrapped plastic is not harmed to badly it makes a nice garbage bag
> to be used again.
>   Now for the fancy gift to a special loved one, gift wrap the gift in
> the plastic bag so that the handles are easy to grab, in case the loved
> one wants to open the gift elsewhere or take it home before opening it.
> They can carry the gift by the two strong plastic handles. And the
> plastic preserves the gift from outside snow slush and sprayed road
> salt. Something that the conventional wrapping could not bragg about.
>   And for the loved ones closest to your heart, a gift wrapped plastic
> supermarket bag can be decorated with a black magic marker or other
> color. Just write a nice Xmass song on the outside and to be really
> fancy, triple plastic gift wrap, each layer with a magic marker
> writing.
> 
>   Happy New Year from Archimedes Plutonium, the year 95 is the year of
> americium.

This "idea" is called the gift bag, and is usually made from very heavy and
ornate paper and can be drawn shut with a string. They can even be reused again
and again. so you didn't think of this after all!

By the way, you can not just grab extra bags at the store; this is called
theft. You purchase something and are given a bag out of convenience to you;
You are not entitled to one, let alone 20 or more. It is also considered
extremely tacky to give a gift in this manner. Why not just wrap the gift in
yesterday's newspaper, which you could find in your neighbor's trash? (and be
guilt-free, as this is not theft) BECAUSE PEOPLE WOULD THINK YOU ARE TASTELESS
AND CHEAP, that's why.

I have decided that this idea was not due to heavy metal poisoning. It almost
certainly has to do with extreme radiation sickness and a severe blow to the
head.


cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudendjs0923 cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.24 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Helium-production via CF revisited
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Helium-production via CF revisited
Date: Sat, 24 DEC 94 14:35:54 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

I wrote that I am not aware of any important CF results that have been
retracted. I have reported various experiments over the years, and as far as I
know they all still stand. Barry@redwood.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman) asks:
 
     "So you mean that P & F's original neutron measurements and gamma ray
     measurements from 1988 still stand? These were not erroneous? Then why
     is it that these days CF no longer produces neutrons and gammas?"
 
Honestly, I do not read papers about neutrons and gamma rays. I don't know
anything about those subjects. So, a reader who wants the nitty gritty details
will have to go to the library and read the papers himself. I can address the
questions in a limited fashion.
 
First of all, the statement that "CF no longer produces neutrons and gammas"
is preposterous. Of course it produces them. Anyone who has read even a
handful of papers or glanced at the ICCF3 or ICCF4 proceedings would know
that. Fortunately, it does not produce as many neutrons as HF!
 
Regarding the early work from P&F, that was not what I call an important
result. I certainly never reported on it. It was the very first, preliminary
work by P&F. It was done with a BF3 counter, which I gather is the wrong kind
of instrument for that purpose, and it was retracted a few months after the
announcement. It was screwed up, although it was not a colossal screw up like
so many other CF experiments. I have seen much worse! It was preliminary stuff
of no importance. Solid work followed from places like Osaka U, and from P&F
themselves. As far as I know, the solid experiments all still stand.
 
Judging P&F by this preliminary work is exactly like claiming that the first
wind tunnel data from the Wrights was rotten, and therefore their work was
fatally flawed. It is perfectly true that their first wind tunnel was no good.
That is why they scrapped it and built another a few weeks later. The data
from the second one was of such good quality that it was not improved upon
until the 1920's. They made mistakes, and then they corrected their mistakes.
All scientists do that. The subsequent neutron and gamma work from P&F and
from many other scientists has stood the test of time. There have been no
retractions.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenjedrothwell cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.24 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: More questions, was Re: Dr. Oriani's Lecture
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: More questions, was Re: Dr. Oriani's Lecture
Date: Sat, 24 DEC 94 14:41:42 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

I wrote that 200 MJ of fusion heat produces only 0.0035 grams of helium, and
that with electrochemistry D2 gas gets in the way. 1prasad@watson.ibm.com
(prasad) asks:
 
     "A question though.  Why can't simple chemical means be used for the
     separation? Say a catalyst [ like Pd ;) ] be used to remove the D2,
     which should behave chemically almost like H2?"
 
Yes, both simple and complex chemical methods are used to remove the D2. It is
done in stages, first by running the gas through filters with recombiners
(like Pd) in them, and then using cryogenic techniques. At Rockwell that is
what they do anyway, I do not know what techniques are used elsewhere. Even
after all that processing though, the plots I have seen have more D2 left in
them than 4He. Unless the resolution is very good, the remaining D2
overshadows the helium; the helium comes out as a "bump on the shoulder" of
the D2. Naturally, this is a problem even without electrochemistry, because
there will always be a few molecules breaking down and recombining at any
given moment.
 
The problem is exacerbated in the technique used by Mel Miles et al. at China
Lake. Their method has a lot to recommend it, but it does put a lot of D2 gas
in the collection cylinder. They use an open cell. That is to say, a cell with
no recombiner. So free D2 and O2 gas is constantly forming and it comes out in
a steady stream. When there is excess heat, you will find mixed in with the
normal effluent gas is a tiny amount of 4He. When there is no excess, there is
no measurable level of 4He. An open cell is good because pressure in the
electrolytic cell is always positive; gas is always flowing out (as long there
is any electrolyte left), which keeps impurities from coming in. Also there is
no recombiner in the cell, which is good because recombiners are notorious for
introducing impurities and foreign chemicals into the mix. To take a sample,
they attach small, elaborate looking, specially designed stainless steel
canisters to the flow. The canisters do not hold much gas: you could fit one
in a shirt pocket (although Mel would have a fit if you mishandled it in that
fashion!). I do not know whether they are evacuated before attaching or
whether they just let the gas flow through them for a while to cleanse out
foreign gases before closing them off, but in any case they can only hold a
small amount of gas at about one atmosphere, and most of that sample is free
D2 and O2 gas. You cannot let the 4He build up to higher concentrations in the
CF cell, the way you can with the E-Quest device.
 
As you can imagine, this collection operation is done with elaborate care to
make sure nobody touches the steel canister without gloves, particularly where
the hose interfaces to the canister. It is painstaking work, well described in
his publications. After the sample is taken, it is shipped or carried to the
mass spec. lab where they begin the elaborate work of filtering and processing
the samples. At Rockwell they charge thousands of dollars to process a handful
of samples, and it takes weeks. It is worth it though. They really are the
best in the world. The hot fusion people swear by them. That is why Huizenga
was so freaked out when we told him they had agreed to look at the E-Quest
samples. He knows that when they see 100 x background 4He and 1000 x
background 3He, there is no mistake about it. Steve Jones thinks it is
contamination, but I have talked to the people in the various labs where the
E-Quest machines are set up, and I know for a fact they are not located on the
moon, where 3He is common, and the people in the labs do not quack like ducks,
so the 4He background is not 100 or 200 times normal. I suppose Jones thinks
some deranged helium balloon seller from a shopping mall is following them
around a canister of gas and venting it into the room every time they do the
experiment. It must be a very expensive canister, having all that 3He in it.
In any case, that is a fantasy, there is no excessive concentration of helium
in the air at any of the labs they have worked in, and there is none at
Rockwell, SRI or the Bur. of Mines. Heck, even if there was, those stainless
steel collection canisters would keep it out. They cost $500 apiece, they
better work the way they are supposed to for that kind of money!
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenjedrothwell cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.24 / L COM /  Re: yes, i am in a xmass spirit
     
Originally-From: LAURAHELEN@news.delphi.com (LAURAHELEN@DELPHI.COM)
Newsgroups: sci.math,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physi
s,sci.chem,sci.bio
Subject: Re: yes, i am in a xmass spirit
Date: 24 Dec 1994 14:55:32 -0500
Organization: Delphi Internet Services Corporation

djs0923@tntech.edu writes:

>In article <3dfvdi$jbm@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>, Archimedes.Plutonium@dar
mouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:> 

>By the way, you can not just grab extra bags at the store; this is called
>theft. You purchase something and are given a bag out of convenience to you;
>You are not entitled to one, let alone 20 or more. It is also considered
>extremely tacky to give a gift in this manner. Why not just wrap the gift in
>yesterday's newspaper, which you could find in your neighbor's trash? (and be
>guilt-free, as this is not theft) BECAUSE PEOPLE WOULD THINK YOU ARE TASTELESS
>AND CHEAP, that's why.

Oh, lighten up.  Ludwig's post was hilarious.

				Laura
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenLAURAHELEN cudfnLAURAHELEN@DELPHI cudlnCOM cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.24 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Meta-research on sci.physics.fusion
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Meta-research on sci.physics.fusion
Date: Sat, 24 DEC 94 15:04:35 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Jacobs Shannon <shanen@kki.esi.yamanashi.ac.jp> writes:
 
>As regards cold fusion itself, my basic conclusion is that it was a
>flash in the pan.  If it really was the great breakthrough that it
>appeared to be, then enough time has passed (and enough money has been
>spent) for more convincing experiments and much stronger theoretical
>justifications.
 
This "basic conclusion" is preposterous. Obviously, you have never invented
anything in your life, or done any industrial R&D. If you had the slightest
knowledge of history -- if you had read even one book! -- you would know that
R&D usually takes far more than a mere 5 years with something as fundamental
as CF. How could you be so blind to history! Haven't you bothered to check out
books on the development of the electric light, the transister, or even the
zipper? These developments took *decades*. You are expecting a miracle of
speed in CF, and you are blind to the extent of the progress that has been
accomplished. In 1989 power levels were still measured in milliwatts, from
intermittant reactions. Now, it is not unsual to see 20 or even 80 watt
reactions that are sustained over many weeks in a positive flow of heat.
That is thousands of times more power!
 
If mankind had drawn the line and abondoned work in the past after only 5 years,
we would still be living in caves. Your attitude is ignorant defeatism. It is
born of the know-nothing "me first" "must have it now" late 20th century.
People think you can have a free lunch, they think technology and money and
goodies should just fall into their laps without any effort or sacrifice
on anyone's part. They think you judge the present without knowing anything
about the past. Good Grief! Learn the history of your own damn country. Read
about the heroic scientists and inventors of the past. If the U.S. had been
populated by losers with this give-it-up attitude in the past, we would have
no railroads, no airplanes, no spacecraft or computers, or anything else. We
would be as impoverished and backwards as the former Soviet Union.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenjedrothwell cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.24 / Jacobs Shannon /  Re: Meta-research on sci.physics.fusion
     
Originally-From: shanen@kki.esi.yamanashi.ac.jp (Jacobs Shannon)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Meta-research on sci.physics.fusion
Date: Sat, 24 Dec 1994 13:28:58 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Electrical Eng. & Comp. Sci., Yamanashi Univ., Japan

This thread begins with a multi-part report of some informal research
I conducted a few months ago.  It is structured as follows:

This post describes the structure of this report and introduces the
research.  The next post (#1 in the thread) acknowledges the
participants and includes a few tentative conclusions about the
communication meta-issues and also about the scientific topics
discussed in sci.physics.fusion at the time of the research.  These
two posts will also be posted to sci.physics.fusion (but not directly
linked to the complete thread in news.misc, which seems to be the most
appropriate forum).  The third post (#2) explains the procedure and
includes a copy of the survey instrument.  The fourth post (#3)
summarizes the results numerically, and the last posts (#4 on) include
most of the very thoughtful--but less easily categorized--answers that
were offered.

This research was actually an accidental result of my curiosity about
cold fusion, the original focus of sci.physics.fusion.  Even after
some years this is a rather controversial topic.  Is this controversy
due to substantive scientific issues or just due to the personalities
of the participants?

[I also have some interest in comparing scientific communication in
Japan with the rest of the world.  However, so far I have few
conclusions--even tentative conclusions--to offer publicly.]

--
If I write it in Japanese, there's a 28% chance it is my opinion.
 (And Japanese documentation makes for an interesting netlife.)
         VAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVA
         A   This special message has been brought    V 
         V  to you by shanen@kki.esi.yamanashi.ac.jp  A
         AVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAV


--
If I write it in Japanese, there's a 28% chance it is my opinion.
 (And Japanese documentation makes for an interesting netlife.)
         VAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVA
         A   This special message has been brought    V 
         V  to you by shanen@kki.esi.yamanashi.ac.jp  A
         AVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAV
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenshanen cudfnJacobs cudlnShannon cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.24 / Jacobs Shannon /  Re: Meta-research on sci.physics.fusion
     
Originally-From: shanen@kki.esi.yamanashi.ac.jp (Jacobs Shannon)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Meta-research on sci.physics.fusion
Date: Sat, 24 Dec 1994 13:30:40 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Electrical Eng. & Comp. Sci., Yamanashi Univ., Japan

[The complete series is over on news.net under the same Subject.]

The following people contributed to this research by answering the
survey, and my VERY belated thanks for their assistance.  I'm almost
sure I haven't left anyone out, but...  I don't see how I can
adequately express my gratitude for their help as I tried to wrestle
with these complexities.  

	awc@ipp-garching.mpg.de     Mon Jul 25 16:35:01 1994
	blue@pilot.msu.edu          Thu Jul 28 00:40:12 1994
	chuck@iglou.com             Tue Jul 26 12:27:54 1994
	court@newton.physics.mun.ca Tue Jul 26 00:09:20 1994
	droege@fnal.fnal.gov        Tue Jul 26 02:09:36 1994
	dschnei@aol.com             Sun Jul 24 00:27:47 1994
	gsteckly@clark.dgim.doc.ca  Sun Jul 24 00:58:13 1994
	harr@netcom.com             Sat Jul 23 22:40:39 1994
	mbk@lyapunov.UCSD.EDU       Sun Jul 24 02:17:12 1994
	nanook@eskimo.com           Sat Jul 23 16:51:12 1994
	rfheeter@theory.pppl.gov    Tue Jul 26 12:52:43 1994
	rvanspaa@ozemail.com.au     Sun Jul 31 20:29:07 1994
	staszak@enuxsa.eas.asu.edu  Tue Jul 26 01:18:47 1994
	tom@mips2.Phy.QueensU.CA    Sun Jul 24 03:43:19 1994
	werme@zk3.dec.com           Mon Jul 25 21:13:22 1994

On the communication meta-issues, even after another careful reading
of the results and compiling the rather fuzzy numbers, I'm not sure
what to say.  I was hoping to get some feel for the line between
personalities and the scientific positions they represented, but I
don't feel like I succeeded.  Ludwig Plutonium figured in this
research primarily as the extreme limit of personality deviance, but
he was too detached from the scientific positions to illuminate the
issue.  One interesting aspect was that the respondent who noticed no
ad hominem attacks was the same one who mentioned using a filter
program to screen out some posts, including LP's.  The future
extension of this might be that many people could use filters to
shield themselves from many disagreeable ideas, which would (in my
philosophy) be a bad development.

As regards cold fusion itself, my basic conclusion is that it was a
flash in the pan.  If it really was the great breakthrough that it
appeared to be, then enough time has passed (and enough money has been
spent) for more convincing experiments and much stronger theoretical
justifications.

On the other hand, the most serious critics of cold fusion, the hot
fusion physicists, are hard to see as completely impartial.  They are
following a `big science' path, and of course they are proud of their
`grand' work, and would hate to see it `destroyed' by a `cheap trick'
like cold fusion.  If cold fusion were a viable reality, it would, at
the very least, suggest that they had overlooked something in their
equations.  How embarrassing!  And of course, from their perspective
of the `big project', anything that diverts research money is slowing
them down.  [Or maybe it's another one of those personal things:
several of them STRONGLY declined to participate in this research.]

In contrast to the hot fusion people, I tend to take the pure
physicists much more seriously.  True purists would be delighted to
find a new equation or a new solution to old equations.  That such a
solution might explicate cold fusion is not particularly important to
them; they have no vested interest in hot fusion, except that they
think they already understand its basic equations.  Yet so far they
have not come up with a theoretical basis for cold fusion on a useful
scale, and though negative evidence is never conclusive, I doubt that
they will.  Years have passed, and seemingly trickier problems have
been solved from scantier clues.  At this point, I must suspect the
clues/evidence were misleading, and much of the discussion on
sci.physics.fusion has involved just such questions about the
evidence.

On the other hand, cold fusion is extremely attractive, and I, too,
wish it were viable.  Small scale technology created by a few brave
souls but with world shaking effects is an incredibly attractive model
of science.  Much nicer than the massive brute force approaches of the
hot fusion researchers--that kind of large scale technology, while
important and useful, often seems to create new and larger scale
problems as `normal' side effects.

Here we have all the personality elements for a major ideological
struggle.  But this is supposed to be a scientific controversy?
Interesting.  Right now my final conclusion runs something along the
lines of `people believe what they want to believe', which is not
exactly a shocking surprise.

--
If I write it in Japanese, there's a 28% chance it is my opinion.
 (And Japanese documentation makes for an interesting netlife.)
         VAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVA
         A   This special message has been brought    V 
         V  to you by shanen@kki.esi.yamanashi.ac.jp  A
         AVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAVAV
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenshanen cudfnJacobs cudlnShannon cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.24 / Bruce Dunn /  Heat after Death
     
Originally-From: Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Dunn)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Heat after Death
Date: Sat, 24 Dec 94 09:16:46 -0800
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada

Has anyone performed the obvious control of taking a cell showing "heat
after death" (a hot electrode in the absence of applied electrical current)
and flooding it with argon, nitrogen or carbon dioxide?  If the heat is
really from some unknown source internal to the electrode, it won't be shut
down by such a maneuver.  If the heat does shut off however, oxidation of
stored hydrogen would be suspected.


--
Bruce Dunn    Vancouver, Canada   Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenBruce_Dunn cudfnBruce cudlnDunn cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.24 / A Plutonium /  yes, i am in a xmass spirit
     
Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,alt.religion.kibology,sci.math,sci
physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics,sci.chem,sci.bio
Subject: yes, i am in a xmass spirit
Date: 24 Dec 1994 02:01:22 GMT
Organization: plutonium college

   Well not quite true. Because I recognize only three holidays, 7Nov
the birth of the Atom Totality theory; 14Dec the day of first
identification of our Maker, PU. And New Years day.
   But, I think I managed to summon some spirit this year because I see
all of these gift wrapped packages and say what a waste of poor trees
for these gift wrapping paper and fluff. 
   So I say to myself, I am Archimedes, which means "Chief Engineer" or
"Main Engineer". Me being the Chief Engineer, I ought to be able to
come to the relief of all the Xmass-ians (I  do not like to say that
other word, forgive me).
   So, what a messy job gift wrapping is, cutting, folding, taping.
   So I want to help out all of those C----- with an Xmass invention by
me Archimedes, and in the spirit of Xmass I give this as a gift to the
world, and not make a patent on it and rake in more money as is
encouraged by the American way. This is my gift to the world and it
will replace gift wrapping.

  GIFT of GIFT WRAPPING TO the civilized world, for free by Archimedes
1994.

 Go to a supermarket store where they have those plastic bags at the
check-out aisles. The non-see-through, white ones are the best. Those
bags have plastic handles. Now then. It would look out of place to
barge through the front doors of a supermarket and grab a handful of
plastic bags. Go and buy something cheap like one ice cream bar and
when you pay for it, do not just grab one of those plastic carrying
sacks. No. Instead grab a wad, a handful of about 20 of those plastic
bags. They are for free, or at least they payed for your ice cream bar.
  Now then, when you get those bags home and start your gift wrapping
operation. You do not need fancy and expensive wrapping paper. You do
not need tape that costs money.  You do not need scissors. You do not
need fancy bows and ribbons and whatever.
  INSTRUCTIONS for gift wrapping with plastic supermarket bags.

 Place gift inside of plastic bag. Now, it is very important that you
tightly wind the plastic around the gift so that the kid will have a
hard time opening up the gift. Wrapp it around tightly and with the two
handles tie a special dreadknot with those two handles. There, you do
not need your wife to put a finger on a string in order to knot a
conventional wrapping.And he/she whoever the recipient of the gift will
like you more for the plastic bag wrapping because the exhilaration of
getting a gift is the opening of it. With regular expensive wrapping
paper, that is a snap to tear that off in a second. But with a well
wrapped Archimedes plastic gift wrap (remember, 0 out of pocket cost to
you) it can take upwards of 5 minutes just to get inside. And, if the
gift wrapped plastic is not harmed to badly it makes a nice garbage bag
to be used again.
  Now for the fancy gift to a special loved one, gift wrap the gift in
the plastic bag so that the handles are easy to grab, in case the loved
one wants to open the gift elsewhere or take it home before opening it.
They can carry the gift by the two strong plastic handles. And the
plastic preserves the gift from outside snow slush and sprayed road
salt. Something that the conventional wrapping could not bragg about.
  And for the loved ones closest to your heart, a gift wrapped plastic
supermarket bag can be decorated with a black magic marker or other
color. Just write a nice Xmass song on the outside and to be really
fancy, triple plastic gift wrap, each layer with a magic marker
writing.

  Happy New Year from Archimedes Plutonium, the year 95 is the year of
americium.
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.24 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Heat after Death
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Heat after Death
Date: Sat, 24 DEC 94 15:11:27 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Bruce Dunn <Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca> writes:
 
>Has anyone performed the obvious control of taking a cell showing "heat
>after death" (a hot electrode in the absence of applied electrical current)
>and flooding it with argon, nitrogen or carbon dioxide?  If the heat is
>really from some unknown source internal to the electrode, it won't be shut
>down by such a maneuver.  If the heat does shut off however, oxidation of
>stored hydrogen would be suspected.
 
That is incorrect. Flooding a hot cathode with any gas or liquid at different
temperature will definitely shut it off. In some cases that is the only way
to quench the reaction. It induces a thermal shock. In a cell with a recombiner,
the recombinded, cool, pure D2O will drip down. If it happens to hit the
hot cathode it will cool it off and quench the reaction, so you have to be
careful to direct it elsewhere, with something like a little metal umbrella
over the cathode.
 
In any case, oxidation of stored hydrogen in the cathode is ruled out for
two reasons: 1. there is no oxygen in most cells. 2. The amount of energy
that comes out of some cathodes is thousands or even hundreds of thousands
more than you could get out of the cathode if the entire mass of the cathode
(a half gram typically) was made of hydrogen. In short: a match will not
burn for a week. You cannot burn a half-gram of hydrogen at 30 watts hour
after hour after hour. The fuel all gets used up at that rate after a few
minutes.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenjedrothwell cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.24 / Dave Kliman /  Re: yes, i am in a xmass spirit
     
Originally-From: dkliman@panix.com (Dave Kliman)
Newsgroups: sci.math,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physi
s,sci.chem,sci.bio
Subject: Re: yes, i am in a xmass spirit
Date: Sat, 24 Dec 1994 16:06:18 -0500
Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and Unix, NYC

In article <1994Dec24.133425.6375@atlas.tntech.edu>, djs0923@tntech.edu wrote:

> In article <3dfvdi$jbm@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>,
Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:> 
> >   GIFT of GIFT WRAPPING TO the civilized world, for free by Archimedes
> > 1994.
> > 
> >  Go to a supermarket store where they have those plastic bags at the
> > check-out aisles. The non-see-through, white ones are the best. Those
> > bags have plastic handles. Now then. It would look out of place to
> > barge through the front doors of a supermarket and grab a handful of
> > plastic bags. Go and buy something cheap like one ice cream bar and
> > when you pay for it, do not just grab one of those plastic carrying
> > sacks. No. Instead grab a wad, a handful of about 20 of those plastic
> > bags. They are for free, or at least they payed for your ice cream bar.
> >   Now then, when you get those bags home and start your gift wrapping
> > operation. You do not need fancy and expensive wrapping paper. You do
> > not need tape that costs money.  You do not need scissors. You do not
> > need fancy bows and ribbons and whatever.
> >   INSTRUCTIONS for gift wrapping with plastic supermarket bags.
> > 
> >  Place gift inside of plastic bag. Now, it is very important that you
> > tightly wind the plastic around the gift so that the kid will have a
> > hard time opening up the gift. Wrapp it around tightly and with the two
> > handles tie a special dreadknot with those two handles. There, you do
> > not need your wife to put a finger on a string in order to knot a
> > conventional wrapping.And he/she whoever the recipient of the gift will
> > like you more for the plastic bag wrapping because the exhilaration of
> > getting a gift is the opening of it. With regular expensive wrapping
> > paper, that is a snap to tear that off in a second. But with a well
> > wrapped Archimedes plastic gift wrap (remember, 0 out of pocket cost to
> > you) it can take upwards of 5 minutes just to get inside. And, if the
> > gift wrapped plastic is not harmed to badly it makes a nice garbage bag
> > to be used again.
> >   Now for the fancy gift to a special loved one, gift wrap the gift in
> > the plastic bag so that the handles are easy to grab, in case the loved
> > one wants to open the gift elsewhere or take it home before opening it.
> > They can carry the gift by the two strong plastic handles. And the
> > plastic preserves the gift from outside snow slush and sprayed road
> > salt. Something that the conventional wrapping could not bragg about.
> >   And for the loved ones closest to your heart, a gift wrapped plastic
> > supermarket bag can be decorated with a black magic marker or other
> > color. Just write a nice Xmass song on the outside and to be really
> > fancy, triple plastic gift wrap, each layer with a magic marker
> > writing.
> > 
> >   Happy New Year from Archimedes Plutonium, the year 95 is the year of
> > americium.
> 
> This "idea" is called the gift bag, and is usually made from very heavy and
> ornate paper and can be drawn shut with a string. They can even be
reused again
> and again. so you didn't think of this after all!
> 
> By the way, you can not just grab extra bags at the store; this is called
> theft. You purchase something and are given a bag out of convenience to you;
> You are not entitled to one, let alone 20 or more. It is also considered
> extremely tacky to give a gift in this manner. Why not just wrap the gift in
> yesterday's newspaper, which you could find in your neighbor's trash? (and be
> guilt-free, as this is not theft) BECAUSE PEOPLE WOULD THINK YOU ARE TASTELESS
> AND CHEAP, that's why.
> 
> I have decided that this idea was not due to heavy metal poisoning. It almost
> certainly has to do with extreme radiation sickness and a severe blow to the
> head.

Oh come on! the guy was just kidding! (I hope) I laughed out loud.

-- 
dkliman@panix.com      |" By the time they had diminished from 50 to 8,
Dave Kliman            |the other dwarves began to suspect 'Hungry'...
                       |         -Gary Larson, "The Far Side"
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudendkliman cudfnDave cudlnKliman cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.24 / L COM /  Re: yes, i am in a xmass spirit
     
Originally-From: LAURAHELEN@news.delphi.com (LAURAHELEN@DELPHI.COM)
Newsgroups: sci.math,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physi
s,sci.chem,sci.bio
Subject: Re: yes, i am in a xmass spirit
Date: 24 Dec 1994 18:05:31 -0500
Organization: Delphi Internet Services Corporation

If you're short of money I think the Sunday funnies are a great way to gift
wrap stuff.
Heck, you can wrap your gifts in your friend's *house*!!!  Go visit and 
while your friend isn't looking stick your gift someplace.  Then you drop
a hint about an unusual object to be found, say, behind the piano.

					Laura
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenLAURAHELEN cudfnLAURAHELEN@DELPHI cudlnCOM cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.24 / Erik Francis /  Re: yes, i am in a xmass spirit
     
Originally-From: max@alcyone.darkside.com (Erik Max Francis)
Newsgroups: sci.math,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physi
s,sci.chem,sci.bio
Subject: Re: yes, i am in a xmass spirit
Date: Sat, 24 Dec 94 16:25:16 PST
Organization: &tSftDotIotE

LAURAHELEN@news.delphi.com (LAURAHELEN@DELPHI.COM) writes:

> Oh, lighten up.  Ludwig's post was hilarious.

The last thing Ludwig needs is encouragement.


Erik Max Francis, &tSftDotIotE ...!uuwest!alcyone!max max@alcyone.darkside.com
San Jose, CA ... GIGO, Hg, Omega, Universe, Psi ... ICBM: 37 20 N 121 53 W  _
H.3`S,3,P,3$S,#$Q,C`Q,3,P,3$S,#$Q,3`Q,3,P,C$Q,#(Q.#`-"C`- ftmfbs kmmfa mc2 / \
Omnia quia sunt, lumina sunt.  ("All things that are, are lights.")   -><- \_/
cudkeys:
cuddy24 cudenmax cudfnErik cudlnFrancis cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.25 /  AvardF /  COLD FUSION CONFERENCE
     
Originally-From: avardf@aol.com (AvardF)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: COLD FUSION CONFERENCE
Date: 25 Dec 1994 02:35:28 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

The FIFTH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE on COLD FUSION --ICCF-5,  9-13 April
1995  Monte Carlo, Monaco
We are pleased to announce that the Fifth International Conference on Cold
Fusion (ICCF-5) will be held from 9 April (Sunday evening) - 13 April
(Thursday) in Monte Carlo, Monaco.
Five years of intensive investigation have uncovered a wide variety of
unexpected phenomena occurring in reactions of deuterium in condensed
matter under ambient conditions. Further progress has been made in many
laboratories during the last few months in experiment design, reliability
and reproductivity.
The purpose of this conference is to provide a forum for scientists
engaged in active research on the subject to interchange ideas, present
recent results and consider the significance of these new results,
demonstrations and developments in the theory. We would like to extend our
warmest invitation to all of you to join together in this discussion of
the research. 

Format of the conference: 9-13 April 1995

9 April, Sunday - Registration and Welcome Reception
10 April, Monday - 13 April, Thursday - Presentations in the following
subject areas:

* Demonstration Devices and their Characterization
* Calorimetry 
* Improved Precision Calormetric Techniques
* Excess Power Generation
* Materials and Fundamentals
* Electrochemical Studies of Deuterated Metal Systems 
* Nuclear Measurements 
* Solid State Theory 
* Solid-State Physics of Metal Matrices
* Behavior of Gas-Metal Systems
* Safety Issues
* Coherent Processes
* Scientific Equipment and Supply Exhibition

Call for Abstracts

One page abstract due: 1 January 1995

Accepted contributions will be presented either as poster sessions and/or
oral presentations. The authors will be notified by the Advisory Committee
as soon as the abstracts have been reviewed.
Submit three copies of a one page abstract in English giving the title of
the presentation, contact author, and affiliation to:

Mr. Jaques Payet, ICCF-5
c/o IMRA EUROPE  S.A., Centre Scientifique
B.P. 213 - 220, rue Albert Caquot
06904 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France 
Tel: (33) 93 95 73 37  Fax: (33) 93 95 73 30

The registration fee for conference participants is 2.600 French Francs
which is due along with the abstract(s) for presentations and hotel
reservation requests. The registration fee includes a copy of the
conference proceedings, coffee breaks, the Conference banquet and the
welcome reception. 
The registration fee for accompanying persons is 1.000 French Francs which
includes the welcome reception, coffee breaks, the Conference banquet and
a sightseeing tour.

For more information:
Call, fax or write to Dept. F. 
To call: Dept. F. (801) 583-6232
To fax: Dept. F. (801) 58-FAXME 
To write: Dept. F.   P.O. Box 58639 Salt Lake City Utah 8415

cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenavardf cudlnAvardF cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.25 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: Sloppy measurements
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Sloppy measurements
Date: Sun, 25 Dec 1994 08:59:23 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

In article <RQx23Az.jedrothwell@delphi.com>,  <jedrothwell@delphi.com> wrote:
>Bruce Schechter <bruce@disney.com> asks me:
> 
>     "Once more I am touched by your faith in the accuracy of commercial test
>     equipment.  What do you think of the latest results from the Intel
>     Pentium chip?"
> 
>I agree with Intel: the Sky is Not Falling. I have been programming computers
>for 25 years and I have never met one yet that did not have quirks, oddities,
>mistakes, and strangeness built in. Windows has a cute software screw-up in
>the Accessories calculator. The formula 2.01 - 2.00 gives you 0.00. In spite
>of the problems with the Pentium, I know for a fact that you can perform
>billions of calculations on a million dollar budget computation and get the
>right answer to the nearest penny. The chances of hitting the bad spot in the
>look-up table are very small. A properly designed accounting program will have
>double checking and subtotals built in to catch mistakes like that anyway,
>because hardware always screws up. And any programmer worth his salt will test
>a large data set a dozen times on a new processor. If the error occurred more
>than once in a blue moon, it would have been caught years ago.

And once again Rothwell proves that he cannot grasp the real problem. Like:
how do you double check a floating point number with a floating point
processor that makes the occassional error of returning single point
precision on a double point problem?

And in case Rothwell doesn't realize it, the Pentium will make the error
100% of the time in it's error region which is unknown to the general
programming population.

Is the Pentium problem important? Probably not. But Rothwell's claims
match every other claim he has made here -- vast unsupported assumptions
make up his data base.

cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.25 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: Dr. Oriani's Lecture
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Dr. Oriani's Lecture
Date: Sun, 25 Dec 1994 09:22:07 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

In article <3d9j4n$gb5@stratus.skypoint.net>,
John Logajan <jlogajan@skypoint.com> wrote:
>
>Just for the record, let no one imagine that I have removed myself from
>membership in the skeptical category.  In my posts here I am only striving
>to be an advocate of clear thinking (though one may always fall short in
>the actual practice :-)

By that, John, I expect that you mean that it is clear thinking to regard
anomalous heat as fusion without the slightest evidence that there is
1) repeatability, 2) commensurate fusion byproducts, 3) no evidence of
experimental technique failure, 4) total lack of agreement on what experiments
are comparable (seeing as how none seem to duplicate the results of any
other) and 5) no underlying theory that could make any attempt at all to
put a scientific basis on such claims.

John, strange experimental results most often are technical errors, not new
physics. Though you claim to retain your skepticism, your messages appear
to differ with that position.

Please note that although I criticize Rothwell and Schwartz about their
rediculous postings, I am open-minded enough to listen to just about
any claim. Yet in CNF there is far too much smoke and no visable fire.
That should make anyone suspicious.

cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Mon Dec 26 04:37:03 EST 1994
------------------------------
1994.12.25 / Mark Hittinger /  Re: Heat after Death
     
Originally-From: bugs@warlock.win.net (Mark Hittinger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Heat after Death
Date: 25 Dec 1994 11:47:38 -0500
Organization: WIN.NET mail and news

Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Dunn) writes:
>Has anyone performed the obvious control of taking a cell showing "heat
>after death" (a hot electrode in the absence of applied electrical current)
>and flooding it with argon, nitrogen or carbon dioxide?  If the heat is
>really from some unknown source internal to the electrode, it won't be shut
>down by such a maneuver.  If the heat does shut off however, oxidation of
>stored hydrogen would be suspected.

I think the point that Dr. Pons was making here may have been lost.

He claimed to run cells with light water and heavy water.  Light water cells
showed expected cooling curves after death.  Nicely downward logarithmic
sloping cooling curves.  The same cells with heavy water displayed very
erratic and "strung-out" cooling curves.

Now Dr. Pons's implication was that the anamolous curve of heavy water could
not be due to oxidation of the stored hydrogen because of the light water
work.  If there had been a stored hydrogen effect then he would have seen
it in the light water cell as well.

As a skeptic I found this experiment to be the only one I'm worried
about.  I am not so interested in the energy in/out calculations from this
experiment.  Dr. Jones has a very compelling argument that the power 
has been measured incorrectly.  I buy that.  The argument that water is
being blown out of the cells in droplets during the boiling process is
good and I buy that as well.  

The large discrepancy between the light water cooling curve and the heavy water
cooling curve is still an annoying one!  That is the last mystery to be slain.

Other than that I have to agree with the publisher of "cold fusion" magazine
who said that if nothing happened in 94 that "cold fusion" was dead.  Just
a few more days left :-).

If nothing else the whole fiasco will be a good case study for science
students.
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenbugs cudfnMark cudlnHittinger cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.25 / C Harrison /  Periodic Post: Cold Fusion online at sunsite.unc.edu
     
Originally-From: harr@netcom.com (Charles (Chuck) Harrison)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Periodic Post: Cold Fusion online at sunsite.unc.edu
Date: Sun, 25 Dec 1994 20:08:01 GMT
Organization: Fitful

This message is posted periodically to inform readers about on-line
data sources related to "cold fusion" which are located at the 
University of North Carolina SunSITE server.

Two public WAIS (Wide Area Information Server) sources are online:
(1) Dieter Britz's Bibliography (periodically updated), and
(2) A sci.physics.fusion archive (1989 to present).
WAIS provides for multiple keyword searches in these databases.  It
does _not_ support boolean logic in the searching :-(.

1.  If you are directly connected to Internet, you can log onto a public
    WAIS server at the University of North Carolina:
    %telnet sunsite.unc.edu
    ...
    login: swais
    ...
    TERM = (unknown) vt100
    It takes a minute to load ...

    <use ? for online help>
    <use /cold to locate the cold-fusion "Source" - the Britz biblio>
    < or use /fusion to locate the fusion-digest source>
    <follow the prompts to select the source and enter your keywords
     for searching>

2.  If you have a "gopher" client, you can use it for WAIS access.  Many 
    university campuses provide gopher as a public information service.
2a. On most systems, you first select an option labeled "Other Systems",
    then from that menu select "WAIS based information".  Since each
    gopher site creates its own menus, I can't tell you exactly where to
    go from there.
2b. If you can gopher to SunSITE, at UNC, navigate the menus down thru
    SunSITE archives..All archives..Academic..Physics..Cold-fusion.
    You will find the searchable databases (typically marked <?>), as
    well as the primary-literature files discussed below.
2c. If you can 'telnet' but not 'gopher', you may telnet to
    sunsite.unc.edu and login as 'gopher'.  Then follow 2a or 2b above.

3.  If you have World Wide Web (WWW) browser, such as Mosaic, Cello, or
    Lynx, you may use the following URL's:
     wais://sunsite.unc.edu/cold-fusion       Britz bibliography
     wais://sunsite.unc.edu/fusion-digest     newsgroup archive
     gopher://sunsite.unc.edu/11/../.pub/academic/physics/Cold-fusion

4.  If you have a WAIS client on your system (the most common ones are
    "swais" -- character-based, and "xwais" -- for X-Windows), use it.  The
    Britz source is called "cold-fusion" and it is listed in the 
    directory-of-servers.

    If you _want_ a WAIS client program to run on your system, several are
    available in the public domain.  Try ftp-ing to one of these sites:
      sunsite.unc.edu
      think.com

There are several additional files archived at sunsite (e.g. Bollinger's
Twist of Ribbon, preprints of the Fleischmann&Pons 1989 paper), which
are accessible by anonymous ftp.
    %ftp sunsite.unc.edu
    . . .
    >cd pub/academic/physics/Cold-fusion
    >dir
The collection (mostly primary papers) maintained by vince cate has been
copied over to pub/academic/physics/Cold-fusion/vince-cate.

Additional contributions are welcome; e-mail cfh@sunsite.unc.edu.
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenharr cudfnCharles cudlnHarrison cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.25 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: Heat after Death
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Heat after Death
Date: Sun, 25 Dec 1994 21:59:18 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

In article <3dk7na$el4@warlock.win.net>,
Mark Hittinger <bugs@warlock.win.net> wrote:

>He (Pons) claimed to run cells with light water and heavy water.  
>Light water cells
>showed expected cooling curves after death.  Nicely downward logarithmic
>sloping cooling curves.  The same cells with heavy water displayed very
>erratic and "strung-out" cooling curves.
>
>As a skeptic I found this experiment to be the only one I'm worried
>about.  I am not so interested in the energy in/out calculations from this
>experiment.  Dr. Jones has a very compelling argument that the power 
>has been measured incorrectly.  I buy that.  The argument that water is
>being blown out of the cells in droplets during the boiling process is
>good and I buy that as well.  
>
>The large discrepancy between the light water cooling curve and the heavy water
>cooling curve is still an annoying one!  That is the last mystery to be slain.

Well, I'd feel a lot better about such claims if Fleischman and Pons were a
bit more forthcoming with regard to reporting their experiments and the
conditions of said experiments.

For instance: how many heavy water experiments were run and how many were
positive. How many 'light' water controls were run and did any show
anomalous signs? Unless experiments are reported faithfully and all
variables described they are of little use to anyone except True Believers.

>If nothing else the whole fiasco will be a good case study for science
>students.

I have _almost_ come to the conclusion that there is something of some
sort there. Lots of scientists have reported anomalous heat. While none
agree as to the methods used, the byproducts found, the energy inserted
and the heat measured, 	 must admit that I doubt that so many people
can make really stupid mistakes.

Not, mind you, that I believe for a second that there is fusion occuring.
But there may very well be some really subtle form of energy storage and/or
transference.

But when you read reports that a cell boiled off all it's water then stayed
precisely at boiling for the next three hours you have to ask yourself just
how gullible you have to be to believe ANY of these claims.

cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.26 / John Logajan /  Re: Dr. Oriani's Lecture
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Dr. Oriani's Lecture
Date: 26 Dec 1994 06:12:13 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Thomas H. Kunich (tomk@netcom.com) wrote:
: John Logajan <jlogajan@skypoint.com> wrote:
: >Just for the record, let no one imagine that I have removed myself from
: >membership in the skeptical category.  In my posts here I am only striving
: >to be an advocate of clear thinking (though one may always fall short in
: >the actual practice :-)

: By that, John, I expect that you mean that it is clear thinking to regard
: anomalous heat as fusion without the slightest evidence that there is
: 1) repeatability, 2) commensurate fusion byproducts, 3) no evidence of
: experimental technique failure, 4) total lack of agreement on what experiments
: are comparable (seeing as how none seem to duplicate the results of any
: other) and 5) no underlying theory that could make any attempt at all to
: put a scientific basis on such claims.

Each and every point you mention is currently the source of contentious
claims.  "Clear thinking" (TM) doesn't allow us to reach automatic
conclusions about any of these claims.  There is only one recourse and
that is to examine the evidence.

: John, strange experimental results most often are technical errors, not new
: physics. Though you claim to retain your skepticism, your messages appear
: to differ with that position.

My postings are consistent with pure skepticism.  My dictionary says:
"skeptic  1. a person who questions the validity or authenticity of
something purporting to be factual."

I do, in fact, question the validity of any and every CF claim that comes
to my attention.

I do not, however, only employ skepticism part time -- when an anti-CF'er
makes some sort of absolutist claim -- I also question the validity of
that claim.

If, say, Steven Jones wants to offer the theory that anyone who believes
in CF must necessarily be suffering from brain dysfunction, let him
answer to critics of that claim (such as myself) who see it as a
transparent ad hominem.  Let him answer such charges and defend his
position with whatever scientific backing he can muster.

I'm quite willing to hold claim makers of any stripe to the rigors of
producing evidence to support their claims.  I believe that is the true
spirit of skepticism -- not this one-sided stuff more accurately
called "debunkerism."

--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com  --  612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA -
 - WWW URL =  http://www.skypoint.com/subscribers/jlogajan -
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.26 /  adam@park78.de /  Is dark matter likely to exist?
     
Originally-From: adam@park78.demon.co.uk
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Is dark matter likely to exist?
Date: Mon, 26 Dec 1994 11:06:20 GMT
Organization: Demon Internet

I've noticed references to dark matter in several articles, and now am
wondering if in fact there is much evidence for its existence. The
main reason why I am concerned about this is that I have been led to
believe that there is not nearly enough valid data to make the
existence of dark matter a possibility. However, the discussions here
tend to indicate that there is a possibility that it does exist. So 
now I'm puzzled!

-- Adam Lloyd
adam@park78.demon.co.uk






cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenadam cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.26 / Richard Schultz /  Re: Roast Dynamometer
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Roast Dynamometer
Date: 26 Dec 1994 11:51:16 GMT
Organization: Philosophers of the Dangerous Maybe

In article <3d8bbv$3sp@huxley.anu.edu.au>,
David R Davies <drd851@huxley.anu.edu.au> wrote:

>I will take this point further and challenge anyone to show me an experimental
>paper in any journal that would stand alone against the sort of criticism that
>CF papers have recieved. Its not usually sloppy work, just a fact of life that
>you cant say everything every time. If we did, journals would be ten times 
>thicker than they are and still not solve the problem of allowing researchers
>from other disciplines to quickly understand what is going on.

I believe it was the sociologist Marcello Truzzi who coined the phrase 
"extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence."  Cold Fusion, if
it were true, would create the necessity of overturning well-established
theories that up to this point have not shown any serious weaknesses.
Thus, in order for Cold Fusion to be accepted by the general scientific
community, it will have to stand up to more intense scrutiny than the
usual scientific claim.  Most papers that appear in scientific journals
do not make such extravagant claims, and hence there is much less
scrutiny attendant on them.  As a matter of fact, I will readily grant
that plenty of papers by incompetents make it in to the literature.
But that doesn't alter the hurdle that Cold Fusion faces:  "extraordinary
claims demand extraordinary evidence."
--
				Richard Schultz

"It is terrible to die of thirst in the ocean.  Do you have to salt your
truth so heavily that it does not even quench thirst any more?"
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.26 / Prem Sobel /  Re: Engineering device from GR is fakery; gravity is neutrino
     
Originally-From: prem@ix.netcom.com (Prem Sobel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.ele
tromag,sci.math,sci.physics
Subject: Re: Engineering device from GR is fakery; gravity is neutrino
Date: 26 Dec 1994 13:14:55 GMT
Organization: Netcom

In <3daci8$k76@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu 
(Archimedes Plutonium) writes: 

> the thought of negative resistance is not credible, but that is
>somewhat beside the point.  For one thing, consider negative
>resistance in a ring carrying current... positive resistance causes 
>current in a ring to decay - are you saying that once you put current 
>into a superconducting ring, it *increases* monotonically?  
>
>Second, why must you assume something as unbelievable as negative
>resistance? 

The current does not increase monotonically because it EXACTLY
cancels the positive resistance in the circuit. If you wish to study
a very real negative resistance device get some tunel diodes and 
experimennt with them. The voltage current curve looks like:

  i
   |
   |
   |          /
   |   _     /
   |  / \   /
   | /   \_/
   |/
   +---------------------- v

Prem
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenprem cudfnPrem cudlnSobel cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.26 / John Logajan /  My hobby WWW page
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: My hobby WWW page
Date: 26 Dec 1994 17:25:57 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Thomas H. Kunich (tomk@netcom.com) wrote:
: anomalous heat as fusion without the slightest evidence that there is
: 1) repeatability

Speaking of repeatability, if you can, check my www home page for McKubre's
graph of dozens of experiments.

Currently my www page has two Oriani graphs of temperature versus input power,
one being a calibration run, and one containing data from his two anomalous
runs.

I have a McKubre graph showing loading versus anomalous heat.

I have two views of the Griggs device and the text of the Griggs patent.

I also have a photomicrograph of one of Equest's cavitation bubbles
collapsing.

And I have some of Droege's last run data (a graphical VGA screen dump).

And I have Koloc's (hot) Plasmak drawing that he posted a while back.

I'm looking for charts and such to put up.  Line art compacts pretty well,
so I can put more of that up.  Photo's with high-res are space hogs, so
I can't put too many of them up.  I have a 2 meg account limit (without
incurring additional charges) so if anyone is interested in establishing
a permenant www cold fusion archive I could check on storage charges and
take up donations.  Last I heard the service was considering offering
a each meg for well under a $1 per month.

Otherwise I'll just rotate the old stuff out as I find new stuff.

--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com  --  612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA -
 - WWW URL =  http://www.skypoint.com/subscribers/jlogajan -
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.26 / Jack Sarfatti /  Re: Yilmaz & Alley, THE EXPERIMENT WHICH SHOWS GR is FAKERY.
     
Originally-From: sarfatti@ix.netcom.com (Jack Sarfatti)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.electromag
sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Yilmaz & Alley, THE EXPERIMENT WHICH SHOWS GR is FAKERY.
Date: 26 Dec 1994 19:36:05 GMT
Organization: Netcom

In <3ctdmk$4vd@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu 
(Archimedes Plutonium) writes: 


>> that the theory of biological evolution (Darwin on down to the Modern
>> Synthesis) is science fakery because the Bell Inequality with the
>> Aspect Experimental results proves evolution is fakery. Bell >> 
>> Inequality and the ATOM TOTALITY theory replaces evolution with 
>> superdeterminism.

There is no Archimedes Plutonium. It's really John Baez kidding around! 
:-)  The above quote is obviously a parody of my "crackpot" theory. I am 
the first "nut" to coin the term "superdeterminism" in the above 
context. So if Plutonium were a real being instead of a fictional one, 
my potty lawyers would sue him! :-) Imagine John Baez locked in a room 
with Plutonium for all eternity at Tipler's Omega Point! :-)

For the record. GR is not a fakery. It is a beautiful theory which 
agrees with experiment very precisely. A nice exposition of that is in 
Roger Penrose's book, Shadows of the Mind.

cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudensarfatti cudfnJack cudlnSarfatti cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.26 / John Brookes /  HP MASS SPEC Engine For Sale
     
Originally-From: jbrookes@ccnet.com (John Brookes)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: HP MASS SPEC Engine For Sale
Date: 26 Dec 1994 11:48:26 -0800
Organization: CCnet Communications (510-988-7140 guest)

HP MS Engine 5989-A with 
59940A HP Unix ChemStation
model 345C+ workstation with hi-res color
display. 
Options built-in:

Optical DAT drive
Laserjet III printer

Chemistry options installed:
negative ion detection
extended mass range 10-2000 amu
direct insertion probe
thermospray LC/MS
butterfly isolation valve mounted on diffusion pumps

spare parts, tools, desk, work table, chiller, diaphragm 
vacuum system

New cost about $200,000

Serious offers above $90,000 are solicited.
Please contact John Brookes via email or 1-510-428-0700.
Emeryville Analytical Equipment Co.
HP serice contract available.
Installation available.











cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenjbrookes cudfnJohn cudlnBrookes cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.26 / Harry Conover /  Re: Yilmaz & Alley, THE EXPERIMENT WHICH SHOWS GR is FAKERY.
     
Originally-From: conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.electromag
sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Yilmaz & Alley, THE EXPERIMENT WHICH SHOWS GR is FAKERY.
Date: 26 Dec 1994 21:17:48 GMT
Organization: The Internet Access Company

Jack Sarfatti (sarfatti@ix.netcom.com) wrote:

: There is no Archimedes Plutonium. It's really John Baez kidding around! 

Oh sure, and next you'll tell us with equal authority that there is no
Santa Clause, or that Jed Rothwell is really Steven Jones 'on a toot'.
Damn skeptic!    :-)

                                      Harry C.


cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenconover cudfnHarry cudlnConover cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.26 / Harry Conover /  Re: Yilmaz & Alley, THE EXPERIMENT WHICH SHOWS GR is FAKERY.
     
Originally-From: conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.electromag
sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Yilmaz & Alley, THE EXPERIMENT WHICH SHOWS GR is FAKERY.
Date: 26 Dec 1994 21:32:58 GMT
Organization: The Internet Access Company

Harry H Conover (conover@max.tiac.net) wrote:
: Jack Sarfatti (sarfatti@ix.netcom.com) wrote:

: : There is no Archimedes Plutonium. It's really John Baez kidding around! 

: Oh sure, and next you'll tell us with equal authority that there is no
: Santa Clause, or that Jed Rothwell is really Steven Jones 'on a toot'.
: Damn skeptic!    :-)

:                                       Harry C.

Whoops, make that Santa Claus.  Santa Clause is a figure dressed all
in black who travels around distributing summonses on Cristmas Eve.



cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenconover cudfnHarry cudlnConover cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.26 / Bruce Hamilton /  Re: Yilmaz & Alley, THE EXPERIMENT WHICH SHOWS GR is FAKERY.
     
Originally-From: B.Hamilton@irl.cri.nz (Bruce Hamilton)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.electromag
sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Yilmaz & Alley, THE EXPERIMENT WHICH SHOWS GR is FAKERY.
Date: Mon, 26 Dec 1994 23:20:28 GMT
Organization: Industrial Research Limited

In article <3dncqa$sov@sundog.tiac.net> conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover) writes:

>Harry H Conover (conover@max.tiac.net) wrote:
>: Oh sure, and next you'll tell us with equal authority that there is no
>: Santa Clause, or that Jed Rothwell is really Steven Jones 'on a toot'.
>: Damn skeptic!    :-)

>Whoops, make that Santa Claus.  Santa Clause is a figure dressed all
>in black who travels around distributing summonses on Cristmas Eve.

Drat. Here was I believing it to be the clause in a contract that gave
me a bonus for ealy completion. :-)

      Bruce Hamilton


cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenHamilton cudfnBruce cudlnHamilton cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.26 / A Plutonium /  Re: Free Energy Device GIF pic ! MRA picture
     
Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,alt.energy.renewable,alt.parane
.science,alt.paranet.ufo,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.bio,sci.energy,sc
.energy.hydrogen,sci.environment,sci.materials,sci.physics,sci.physics.f
sion,sci.physics.particle
Subject: Re: Free Energy Device GIF pic ! MRA picture
Date: 26 Dec 1994 21:57:11 GMT
Organization: Plutonium College

In article <3defj5$m5b@kaiwan009.kaiwan.com>
patriot@kaiwan009.kaiwan.com (Nate) writes:

> For those of you making jokes about the whole MRA thing...
> 
> If it works or not, this is a good example for those who do invent stuff 
> that big businesses wouldn't want getting out. It is good to see people 
> working together in a OPEN MINDED way, and help by contributing resources 
> to the project.
> 
> One of the bigest problems with small projects like this is resources. If 
> you can get access to some good equipment for a few days it can really 
> help take a project further.
> 
> Don't sluff it off just yet, they may not have anything, but they have 
> learned some real important stuff to use the next time they have something.

  Please do not get me wrong. I have not sluffed off any of the
Magnetic Resonance Amplifier by my joke.
> And to put the Magnetic Resonance Amplifier Circuit (MRA) into
> in-depth- historical perspective, the transfiguration of the Magi. And
> the glow, the picture negative of the Shroud of Turin. I just wonder if
> there is a beautiful, and lush connection between those  and the veils
> of non-seeing of Joseph Smith's gold tablets and the Fatima, Portugal
> apparitions? For I am a sinner and in the dark concerning these matters
> and in need of a good racking. Rough equation Magi = MRA =  shroud =
> 1/2M^Fatima(Portugal). Chew the fat on that?  Is this agreeable to you
> Messr. Stefan?

  But it is annoying to read these thought experiments which have
already been tried and tested. If there is free energy, via violation
of conservation energy/mass, i.e. spontaneous neutron materialization,
then Stefan et al are trespassing on my territory. And I am almost sure
that Stefan's device has been anticipated by others. 
  I suppose almost anyone can come screaming over the Nets that a new
great device is found and these guys want to give it to the world for
free, when in fact it was already discovered long before. This is why I
poke fun at Stefan et al. They have not really checked out the
literature of patents for their device, if they would have, they would
have seen they have nothing to give away to all of humanity in the
first place.
  How would Biro feel if I came over the Net, blairing-out that I
discovered the ball point pen, and was so nice as to give it to all of
humanity. That is just an example, for I did not discover the
ball-point pen, and so it is not mine to give away to the world for
free. Same ploy with Stefan. Either he knows that he is not the first
or he has alot of childish enthusiasm. And on his future posts of this
nature. It would be wise of him to just post his ideas and/or device
and not presume anything.
  But bravo on the scientific spirit and the scientific drive to push
for new invention.
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.26 / A Plutonium /  Re: Yilmaz & Alley, THE EXPERIMENT WHICH SHOWS GR is FAKERY.
     
Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.electromag
sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Yilmaz & Alley, THE EXPERIMENT WHICH SHOWS GR is FAKERY.
Date: 26 Dec 1994 22:24:56 GMT
Organization: Plutonium Atom Foundation

In article <3dn5v5$ikp@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>
sarfatti@ix.netcom.com (Jack Sarfatti) writes:

> The above quote is obviously a parody of my "crackpot" theory. I am 
> the first "nut" to coin the term "superdeterminism" in the above 
> context.

  I have no room whatsoever for jokes or kidding around when it comes
to priority rights. All joking stops for me when I even think someone
has "tip-toed" across my turf.
  I was talking with a student here at Dartmouth about a month ago. He
was writing his term paper on the Atom Totality and superdeterminism.
He felt sure that David Bohm coined the term superdeterminism. Of
course, I disagreed with him and told him that J. Bell started the term
and the idea as a way to reconcile his inequality. I asked this student
to point to the Bohm passage.I REALLY NEED TO KNOW, the first
publication of the idea superdeterminism as per John Bell's idea of
superdeterminism. I quote Bell--

"[Superdeterminism] involves absolute determinism in the universe, the
complete absence of free will. Suppose the world is
super-deterministic, with not just inanimate nature running on
behind-the-scenes clockwork, but with our behavior, including our
belief that we are free to choose to do one experiment rather than
another, absolutely predetermined, including the "decision" by the
experimenter to carry out one set of measurements rather than another,
the difficulty disappears.  There is no need for a faster than light
signal to tell particle A what measurement has been carried out on
particle B, because the universe, including particle A, already "knows"
what that measurement, and its outcome, will be. "

  Perhaps somebody coined the word "superdeterminism" which had no
relation to Quantum Mechanics. I need to know who thought up
superdeterminism with respect to Quantum Mechanics FIRST.
  Only the ATOM WHOLE theory lends meaning to superdeterminism. And, I
find it hard to believe that the student was correct, because, how
could Bohm have thought up superdeterminism without the Bell
inequality? How could QM superdeterminism antedate Bell inequality?

  Jack, please be careful with copyright infringement. With libel and
slander, those are rather ancient duals with swords or chariots or
joists on medieval lawns. And mostly pathetic people waste time on
libel and slander. But copyright or patent rights, that is a far
different ball game. Even if you jest about it, I do not take it
lightly.
cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.26 / C Harrison /  Ti:T Reifenschweiler effect: bibliog update
     
Originally-From: harr@netcom.com (Charles (Chuck) Harrison)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Ti:T Reifenschweiler effect: bibliog update
Date: Mon, 26 Dec 1994 22:41:53 GMT
Organization: Fitful

26 Dec 1994  updates to:

                An Annotated Bibliography
              of the "Reifenschweiler Effect":
 Temperature & concentration dependence of tritium activity
                  in a titanium matrix
 -----------------------------------------------------------
The full updated document is available at
file://sunsite.unc.edu/pub/academic/physics/cold-fusion/TiBib.txt

==========================================
Section 2.  Titanium Hydride phase diagram
==========================================

[Yamanaka 1989]
S Yamanaka, T Tanaka, S Tsuboi, M Miyake, "Effect of oxygen
     on solubility of hydrogen isotopes in Titanium", _Fusion
     Engineering & Design_ 10:303-308 (1989).

Compare with [Dantzer 1983].  Higher temperatures (600-850C)
and O concentrations (>10at%) are used.  H and D solubility is
decreased with O concentration.  A model in which O at an
octohedrally-coordinated site "blocks" H occupancy at the 6
nearest-neighbor tetrahedrally-coordinated sites is found to
fit the data well.  See also [Yamanaka 1991].

----------------
[Yamanaka 1991]
S Yamanaka, H Ogawa, M Miyake, "Effect of interstitial
     oxygen on hydrogen solubility in titanium, zirconium,
     and hafnium", _J Less-Common Metals_ 172-174:85-94
     (1991).

Data from [Yamanaka 1989] is compared with similar measurements
on two other metal oxides.  An additional point at TiO(.05)
is reported and a relatively sharp change in thermodynamic
properties between pure Ti and this composition is suggested
by the graphs.


==============================================================
Section 4.  H diffusion in Ti: NMR studies, "hydrogen pairing"
==============================================================

[Baker 1994]
DB Baker, MS Conradi, RE Norberg, RG Barnes, DR Torgeson,
     "Explanation of the high-temperature relaxation anomaly
     in a metal-hydrogen system", _Phys Rev B_ 49(17):11773-
     11782 (May 1994).

The interstitial molecule hypothesis [Baker 1992] is abandoned
based on new evidence (especially the disappearance of the
effect under inert gas overpressure) in favor of a surface
phenomenon.  A model based on rapid exchange of H between the
hydride and molecular gas is proposed and fitted to data
in the Nb(0.5)V(0.5)H(0.36) system.  An appendix considers
a model based on fast-relaxing surface H states (atoms or
H(2)- ions) but finds these specific mechanisms unable to
explain the isotope dependency (anomalous relaxation rate
is reduced by ~4.3X when 90% of the H is replaced by D).  The
authors are concerned that the qualitatively similar 45Sc
anomaly [Barnes 1989] remains unexplained by the gas-exchange
model.  Further anecdotal evidence of surface phenomenology is 
"poisoning" by oxygen (when packed with MgO) and nitrogen
(from BN).

=================================
Section 5.  Tritium-specific data
=================================

[Bach 1980]
P Bach, "Improvement of the room-temperature behavior of metal
     tritides with respect to 3He release: Titanium", _Appl
     Phys Lett 37(5):492-494 (1 Sept 1980).

Thin films (0.6 mg/cm^2) [ ~ 15 nm thick] were tritided to 
TiT(1.19-1.72) composition after HV or UHV outgassing.  3He
release was monitored over extended (up to 6 yrs) aging.
The author does not comment, but this reviewer notes that, in
contrast to a 1975 Oak Ridge study by Perkins et al, _none_
of the thin-film samples achieved ultimate helium evolution
rates as high as predicted.  For three different preparation
techniques, the maximum reported values of v (desorption rate
/ generation rate) were 20%, 25%, and 40%.  This is consistent
with anomalously low tritium activity under these conditions.

---------------
[Budick 1992]
B Budick, J Chen, H Lin, "Bremsstrahlung from tritium beta decay",
     _Phys Rev C_ 46(4):1267-1275 (Oct 1992).

Investigation of the soft x-ray bremsstrahlung spectrum from
T decay, including the effect of surrounding matter on external
bremsstrahlung (EB) versus internal bremsstrahlung (IB) contri-
butions.  Extensive experimentation with T(2) - noble-gas
mixtures.  GM-tube measurements in [Reifenschweiler 1994a]
were based on bremsstrahlung x-rays.

cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenharr cudfnCharles cudlnHarrison cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.27 / A Plutonium /  SUPERCONDUCTIVITY=NEUTRINOLIZATION,LINK TO PHOTOSYNTHESIS
     
Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics,sci.bio,sci.chem,sci.p
ysics.fusion,sci.physics.electromag
Subject: SUPERCONDUCTIVITY=NEUTRINOLIZATION,LINK TO PHOTOSYNTHESIS
Date: 27 Dec 1994 00:10:32 GMT
Organization: PLUTONIUM ATOM FOUNDATION

The title of this post is SUPERCONDUCTIVITY=NEUTRINOLIZATION,LINK TO
PHOTOSYNTHESIS. And I am almost done with my patent on
superconductivity. And I claim an application within that patent on a
heretofor undiscovered physical phenomenon which is very useful. I
found this in the course of my patent work that the following described
below must be true. It only awaits discovery and verification.

The correct theory of superconductivity, I posit, is neutrinolization.
In silver conduction, or copper, or aluminum, the signalers for
electrons to move are photons. This comes out of QM and QED. The
scattering of photons results in electrical resistance. Different
conductors scatter photons differently. The reason silver is the
highest reflector of photons is because it is the highest conductor of
electricity and vice versa.

Now then, in superconductivity, the photon signalers are decomposed
each into 2 neutrinos. One neutrino is an E-neutrino, the other a
B-neutrino setting up the Meissner effect and keeping the neutrinos
bound within the superconducting material. I posit that
superconductivity, see my patent, is prevalent in the Bioworld. Room
temperature superconductors already exist and are awaiting to be
discovered and verified.

In the course of my doing the patent work, I came across a gap in the
correct theory. I think I have filled that gap. And with the joy that
filling the gap has given me a new discovery in physics of immense
importance, both practical and theoretical.

In my patent application I state that room temperature superconductors
exist in the plant kingdom, for example, in the photosynthesis
mechanism of aspen tree colony. Wherein the photosynthesis mechanism
contains superconductors connecting one aspen tree clone to all the
clones within the colony. This is a trees way of communicating to all
of its biomatter, its sensory organs.

Now then, since photosynthesis utilizes photons to produce a storehouse
of energy. And since superconductors utilize photons in order to
decompose them each into 2 neutrinos. Then the reverse must exist.
Because there is no work function involved. The reverse is a biological
mechanism that takes ambient neutrinos and synthesizes them into
photons. Takes 2 neutrinos from the background radiation, joins them to
make a photon, and in the process derives net energy.

Now I am not guaranteed, only reasonably confident that our summertime
insects which produce light such as firefly, glowworm, and other
instances of bioluminescence have this reverse superconduction
mechanism, where they are able to convert ambient neutrinos into
photons. See my patent for more details and claims thereof.

Since the name photosynthesis is used for converting photons into a
storehouse of plant energy. I will name the reverse of
superconductivity, that is, the joining of 2 neutrinos to make a
photon, I call that neutrinosynthesis, somewhat similar to
photosynthesis. And, neutrinosynthesis, I posit is quite common in
Nature, in the Bioworld. Especially for plants at night, deep sea
organisms, and for insects or small organisms that seem to have alot of
spare energy, yet, have not had a meal in a very long time.
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.26 / Craig DeForest /  Re: Free Energy Device (Magnetic Resonance Amp)
     
Originally-From: zowie@daedalus.stanford.edu (Craig "Physicist" DeForest)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,alt.energy.renewable,alt.parane
.science,alt.paranet.ufo,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.bio,sci.energy,sc
.energy.hydrogen,sci.environment,sci.materials,sci.physics,sci.physics.f
sion,sci.physics.particle
Subject: Re: Free Energy Device (Magnetic Resonance Amp)
Date: 26 Dec 94 17:01:32
Organization: Stanford Center for Space Science and Astrophysics

In article <foo> berger@sbcm.com (Mitchel Berger) writes:
   Am I wrong on this, or is this MRA thing a way to use a piezo as a battery?

Well, in a way... They seem to be using it just like one uses an
inductance in a switching power supply: you can use it to store energy
for a little while (part of a (fast) AC cycle), and get the energy
back out at a different voltage.

Their fallacy seems to revolve around a confusion between supply
voltage (at zero current) and available power: they report the voltage
measured at different parts of the circuit, but don't ever test 
the actual available power (by putting, eg, a load resistor on the end
and measuring the voltage *then*).

A step-up transformer would produce the same results they report:  a 
small alternating voltage going in produces a large alternating voltage
out (which can then be rectified to DC).  However, no violation
of conservation of energy applies:  if you step up the voltage by a
factor of N, you have to supply N times as much current in the low-voltage
side as you draw out of the high-voltage side.

Electromechanical resonances can produce the same kinds of effects
in transducers (of which their piezo-electric crystal is one).  There
are a number of resonant effects that can concentrate power in the 
time domain -- resulting in very short-duration peaks of high voltage
across the crystal -- while not affecting overall power consumption.
These effects are easily discerned by the use of an instrument with
time resolution (eg an oscilloscope).  But, of course, we are admonished
not to use one!

Of course, the proof of the pudding is to plug the output of the device
into the input, and watch it power itself.  Since the experimenters
haven't done so, we can only assume that they are being fooled in some
manner by the physics of the device. 





--
--Craig DeForest    "PhD time: tee minus 94 days and holding for netnews delay"

cudkeys:
cuddy26 cudenzowie cudfnCraig cudlnDeForest cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.27 / Paul Winalski /  Re: SUPERCONDUCTIVITY=NEUTRINOLIZATION,LINK TO PHOTOSYNTHESIS
     
Originally-From: winalski@gemgrp.enet.dec.com (Paul S. Winalski)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics,sci.bio,sci.chem,sci.p
ysics.fusion,sci.physics.electromag
Subject: Re: SUPERCONDUCTIVITY=NEUTRINOLIZATION,LINK TO PHOTOSYNTHESIS
Date: 27 Dec 1994 01:10:49 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation, Nashua NH


In article <3dnm1o$g7b@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>,
Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:
|>
|>Now I am not guaranteed, only reasonably confident that our summertime
|>insects which produce light such as firefly, glowworm, and other
|>instances of bioluminescence have this reverse superconduction
|>mechanism, where they are able to convert ambient neutrinos into
|>photons. See my patent for more details and claims thereof.

Nearly all chemical reactions involve either the absorption or emission of
photons.  Usually these are at the same frequency as the mechanical vibrations
of molecules and thus are in the infrared portion of the electromagnetic
spectrum.  Traditionally, this is called "heat" by chemists.  Reactions that
absorb such photons are termed "endothermic" and reactions that emit them are
called "exothermic".  At a quantum level, it's all electrons shifting around
between molecular orbitals of different energies.

In the case of bioluminescence, we have an exergonic (energy-releasing) chemical
reaction that happens to radiate at a higher frequency than is usual, so the
photons are in the frequency range of visible light as opposed to being in the
infrared.  Otherwise, there isn't much difference between bioluminescence and
a whole host of other ATP-dependent redox reactions.  The chemical reactions
involved exhibit none of the properties normally associated with
superconductivity, and there is no need to invoke any unusual (i.e.,
neutrinosynthesis) phenomena to explain them.

--PSW
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenwinalski cudfnPaul cudlnWinalski cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Tue Dec 27 04:37:09 EST 1994
------------------------------
1994.12.27 / Craig DeForest /  Re: Free Energy Device (Magnetic Resonance Amp)
     
Originally-From: zowie@daedalus.stanford.edu (Craig "Physicist" DeForest)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,alt.energy.renewable,alt.parane
.science,alt.paranet.ufo,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.bio,sci.energy,sc
.energy.hydrogen,sci.environment,sci.materials,sci.physics,sci.physics.f
sion,sci.physics.particle
Subject: Re: Free Energy Device (Magnetic Resonance Amp)
Date: 27 Dec 94 13:47:38
Organization: Stanford Center for Space Science and Astrophysics

In article <D1HGrx.2yL@eskimo.com> billb@eskimo.com (William Beaty) writes:
   Craig "Physicist" DeForest (zowie@daedalus.stanford.edu) wrote:
	[some concerns about the "Free Energy Device" of recent interest]

   Watch out!  Don't base your arguements on the stuff in the Usenet groups. 
   Go read the more complete records in my Web page. The output power on the
   original device was measured as filtered DC across a load resistor!

I stand corrected on that point.  However, there are a number of
mistakes they could have made, including some of the ones in the
previous article.  Perpetual motion is a tricky business -- there are
so *many* ways to fool oneself!

Perhaps the most basic property of any "Free Energy Device" is the
device's ability to drive itself and produce excess power.  Any
inventor with a basic new idea should develop a cogent, conceptually
bulletproof demonstration of the science -- especially inventors in
the tricky field of alleged perpetual motion!  Unfortunately, all such
Free Energy Devices to date have failed under the self-power test -- 
otherwise, we'd be using them to power our homes!

When Shockley and his team at Bell Labs developed the transistor (a
device which must then have seemed nearly as strange as a "Free Energy
Device"), the first thing they did was use it in a quick, cogent
example circuit -- an audio amplifier.  The equivalent example in 
this case is an input-free generator.

With such a simple circuit as their design, it would be trivial to
plug it back into itself.  Certainly it would take less effort than
has already been expended on public relations for the idea.  They'll
have much less trouble being taken seriously once they've successfully 
done so.  Until that point, the community at large is likely to continue
treating them as cranks.
--
--Craig DeForest    "PhD time: tee minus 94 days and holding for netnews delay"

cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenzowie cudfnCraig cudlnDeForest cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.27 /  prasad /  Out-Of-Context Fun. was Re: Such gullible "skeptics!"
     
Originally-From: c1prasad@watson.ibm.com (prasad)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Out-Of-Context Fun. was Re: Such gullible "skeptics!"
Date: 27 Dec 1994 21:45:10 GMT
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

In article <Joz6YSM.jedrothwell@delphi.com>, jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:
|> ...
|> unscientific slop, they never, ever question it! They "buy" it, take it home,
|> and worship it.

Very very funny, particularly the last bit.  Throw in a few Taoist kowtows
("1-kowtow", "2-kowtow", "3-kowtow",.. "drink excess energy!").  Throw in some
furry creatures from the Return of the Jedi, worshipping Lor' C3PO.  Enough
to make me roll on the floor!  Jed(i), time to take to writing!  Tottemo
omoshiroi desu yo!!

|> ...
|> consults an elementary physics book. He follows the flock like a good sheep,
|> he believes whatever they tell him to believe. His beliefs are based on faith,
|> ...

Just plain Christmas spirit, my good fellow, remember the Good Shephard?!

BTW, didn't anyone every tell you, "faith can move mountains"?  Just peer
into the sci.physics forum to see a whole bunch of such stuff (viz. "are
scientists believers", etc.), and you'll beg to return to compuserve!

-----
8O) [Ho ho ho, etc.!  Feel very refreshed from my xmas-at-niagara!]
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenc1prasad cudlnprasad cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.28 / A Plutonium /  IMPORTANT EXPERIMENTS FOR SUPERCONDUCTIVITY RESEARCH AND 
     
Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.ele
tromag,sci.chem,sci.physics
Subject: IMPORTANT EXPERIMENTS FOR SUPERCONDUCTIVITY RESEARCH AND 
Date: 28 Dec 1994 00:35:11 GMT
Organization: Plutonium Atom Foundation

  These are a few experiments to see how neutrinos affect the state of
superconduction. I have read that a neutrino beam can be manufactured
from particle accelerators. If true, then these are very important
experimental set-ups. Also, one can use radioactive elements that emit
alot of neutrinos and see how the radiation, radioactivity and
neutrinos affect the state of superconduction. If my theory that
superconductivity is neutrinolization is correct then these experiments
will have observable affect on the state of superconduction.
  1. Manufacture a directional neutrino beam. Slam the neutrino beam
into a superconducting material at room temperature to see if there is
any electric current produced.
   2. Slam the neutrino beam at the superconductor when it is below Tc
and superconducting a current. Put the beam at various angles. Observe
whether there are any changes.
   3. Slam the neutrino beam at a superconductor which is displaying
the Meissner effect with a magnet. Observe whether there is any
interruption in the Meissner effect from the neutrino beam at various
angles.

  And some related experiments, instead of a neutrino beam what is
required are neutrino detectors. Set up experiments where light passes
through various light polarizers at various angles, to observe whether
there is an increase in neutrino count. If this experiment shows that
the neutrino count increases, then it means that photon polarization is
directly related to superconductivity. Provided that the correct theory
of superconductivity is neutrinolization.
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.28 / A Plutonium /  Re: SUPERCONDUCTIVITY=NEUTRINOLIZATION,LINK TO PHOTOSYNTHESIS
     
Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics,sci.bio,sci.chem,sci.p
ysics.fusion,sci.physics.electromag
Subject: Re: SUPERCONDUCTIVITY=NEUTRINOLIZATION,LINK TO PHOTOSYNTHESIS
Date: 28 Dec 1994 01:31:04 GMT
Organization: Plutonium Atom Foundation

In article <3dnpip$9lo@jac.zko.dec.com>
winalski@gemgrp.enet.dec.com (Paul S. Winalski) writes:

>  The chemical reactions
> involved exhibit none of the properties normally associated with
> superconductivity, and there is no need to invoke any unusual (i.e.,
> neutrinosynthesis) phenomena to explain them.

  I agree with Paul's synopsis except the above. I believe there are
many biological phenomena which can not be explained by current
knowledge of energy equations. Many phenomena where an organism
collects energy from the surroundings which do not agree with food
stored or food intake or photosynthesis. And, since plants have
progressed for billions of years by harvesting energy from light, it is
reasonably probable that many organisms progressed by harvesting the
vast ocean of neutrinos which bombard every organism every second.
Roughly 10^40 neutrinos go through our body every second.
   What I am looking for is some research material that seems to
indicate "unaccountable energy" from a living organism. Some insects,
perhaps, that have no energy stores, no meals, no photosynthesis, yet
do physical work. But from where? Or perhaps in the photosynthesis
process itself, some unaccountable observations that some plants grow
in complete darkness. Or that nighttime is the plant kingdoms most
optimal time for growth. There may be organisms that have organs which
directly utilize neutrinos. Then, there may be organisms that have
organs which synthesize 2 neutrinos to make 1 photon and subsequently
utilize those new photons.
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.27 /   /  Re: IMPORTANT EXPERIMENTS FOR SUPERCONDUCTIVITY RESEARCH AND
     
Originally-From: sliu104780@aol.com (SLiu104780)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: IMPORTANT EXPERIMENTS FOR SUPERCONDUCTIVITY RESEARCH AND
Date: 27 Dec 1994 21:19:33 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

How is this relared to CF?
H. Liu 
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudensliu104780 cudln cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.28 / Laurie Forbes /  Facilitated Communication
     
Originally-From: lforbes@nucleus.com (Laurie Forbes)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Facilitated Communication
Date: Wed, 28 Dec 1994 04:02:19 GMT
Organization: Nucleus Information Service

Just viewed a PBS Frontline program on "FC" (Facilitated Communication).  
FC is the process by which a "facilitator" (a person with normal mental 
faculties) assists an autistic individual in communicating by typing on a 
keyboard.  The facilitator holds the autistic individual's hand above
the keyboard while the autistic person supposedly types out a message.  
By this process, normally completely incommunicative individuals
suddenly became fluent and even eloquent writers.  Naturally enough, this 
development generated great excitement amongst those parents and 
guardians of autistic children.  Sadly however, when the process was 
finally critically examined by suitable controlled testing, it was 
clearly demonstrated to be without foundation.  This story is IMO bizarre 
for several reasons:

 . Controlled testing was not carried out by the CF researchers until
considerably after the technique had been widely accepted and put to use. 
It fell to a lawyer, finally, to initiate controlled testing in
investigation of sexual abuse allegations related to an autistic child. 
One control employed was to simply show the facilitator a picture of an
object and to show the autistic individual a different object.  In every
case, the autistic individual "typed" the name of the object shown the
facilitator. 

 . It did not seem to bother the proponents of the technique that a 
facilitator was always necessary (to hold the subject's hand) even though 
the subjects were not particularly or at all physically handicapped.  
Also not of concern to some proponents was the fact that the facilitator 
always kept his or her eyes on the keyboard while the autistic person 
very often "typed" while looking elsewhere or with eyes closed.

 . As a result of this "therapy" process, autistic persons apparently 
attended university classes (along with their facilitators) and were granted 
degrees (at least as I understood the Frontline program).

 . Even though the process has been throughly discredited and several 
lawsuits have been launched as a result, a program of study for FC still 
exists at Syracuse (sp) University and other centers.

So, what has all this to do with CF (the similarity in the initials not
withstanding).  As was pointed out on the Frontline program, this so
called scientific investigation could be considered to be equivalent to
the "cold fusion of social services" i.e. pathological science at its
worst.  Sadly, there are apparently many who still cling doggedly to the
veracity of FC although in their cases (many being the parents of autistic
children) this is perhaps a little more understandable.

Regards,
Laurie Forbes


cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenlforbes cudfnLaurie cudlnForbes cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.27 /  jonesse@plasma /  John Bockris' 4-body reaction (was Re: Dr. Oriani's lecture)
     
Originally-From: jonesse@plasma.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: John Bockris' 4-body reaction (was Re: Dr. Oriani's lecture)
Date: 27 Dec 94 14:08:52 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

John Logajan writes:

"If, say, Steven Jones wants to offer the theory that anyone who believes
in CF must necessarily be suffering from brain dysfunction, let him 
answer to critics of that claim (such as myself) who see it as a 
transparent ad hominem."

This is getting a bit tedious, John.  I offer no such theory, OK?

Several weeks ago, I did pose a question (certainly not a theory) which
was asked rather tongue-in-cheek.  I have a great deal of respect for 
John Bockris' early work on electrochemistry.  But I was shocked 
-- and I said so --
by his putting forth the following 4-body reaction as a putative source of 
excess heat in a water cell housing a carbon-arc;  Prof. Bockris posited 

   12C + 12C + 18O + 18O  --> 56Fe + 4He.
(Published in Fusion Technology, Oct. or Nov. 1994)

Now this is just nonsense -- do you disagree, John?   Gosh, Bockris is
proposing here a nuclear reaction involving 4 nuclei simultaneously --
including _two_ 18oxygen nuclei (rare!) to boot!  This is a bizarre proposition
to publish, I'm bold to say -- off the scale.  
As I said, I feel concerned for Dr. Bockris, and
wondered out loud what could lead him to publish such nonsense.

Yes, the reaction makes helium and iron and is exothermic -- but a 4-body
nuclear reaction (esp. with two rare 18O nuclei simultaneously)?  Preposterous!

So I asked whether believing in excess-heat from cold
fusion (a la P&F) could have prepared Bockris to now put forth this bizarre
4-body reaction?  And this was phrased as a question by me, not some theory for
general application.  Let me make it clear now, if it was not before, I
strongly challenge Bockris' proposition that a four-body nuclear reaction is
producing excess heat (and iron) in his cell; but I do not mean any personal
attack on this scientist who has contributed much in the past.

Sincerely, I wonder what path led Prof. Bockris to this
proposition -- which he published! -- of a 4-body reaction leading to excess
heat.  Frankly, I'm concerned for John Bockris and I respect his early work,
and I'm led to wonder.

Do you not also wonder about this, Mr. Logajan?

--Steven Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenjonesse cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.27 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: Dr. Oriani's Lecture
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Dr. Oriani's Lecture
Date: Tue, 27 Dec 1994 05:16:45 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

In article <3dlmrt$g8j@stratus.skypoint.net>,
John Logajan <jlogajan@skypoint.com> wrote:

>Each and every point you mention is currently the source of contentious
>claims.  "Clear thinking" (TM) doesn't allow us to reach automatic
>conclusions about any of these claims.  There is only one recourse and
>that is to examine the evidence.

John, when people claim to find 'new' physics -- when they make claims like
they have been purported to do by Rothwell for instance -- then it is up
to the experimentalist to provide enough information to test such results.
This hasn't been the case with most 'positives'. Other positives have shown
serious technical flaws. That is acceptable in my book. It is easy to
criticize experiments with hindsight. But after experimental flaws being 
pointed out, when the claimant doesn't take any steps at all to correct
technique, then EVEN MORE the weight of evidence must be on the side of
'new' physics.

>My postings are consistent with pure skepticism.  My dictionary says:
>"skeptic  1. a person who questions the validity or authenticity of
>something purporting to be factual."

Do I therefore take it that you are seriously skeptical about relativity?
What about gravity? Are you skeptical about it's existance? Or are you
only skeptical about controversial subjects?

>If, say, Steven Jones wants to offer the theory that anyone who believes
>in CF must necessarily be suffering from brain dysfunction, let him
>answer to critics of that claim (such as myself) who see it as a
>transparent ad hominem.  Let him answer such charges and defend his
>position with whatever scientific backing he can muster.

As anyone who uses the net seriously knows, people of all stripe use
satire and exageration to make a point. Are we to refuse this right to
Dr. Jones for your gratification? Sheesh, after all of the ad hominem
attacks pointed at Dr. Jones you want HIM to be careful? Too bad you
don't take as much public umbrage at Rothwell.

>I'm quite willing to hold claim makers of any stripe to the rigors of
>producing evidence to support their claims.  I believe that is the true
>spirit of skepticism -- not this one-sided stuff more accurately
>called "debunkerism."

There are literally MILLIONS of scientists what are waiting for one --
ONE serious reproduceable excess heat experiment. After 5 years!!! there
has been nothing but subterfuge from the CNF camp. Even good scientists
who have shown positive results and then later found their technical
errors have failed to publically retract and have slipped back into the
woodwork. Tom Droege has shown us here on the net the difficulty of
running such an experiment with all of the wild variables. You yourself
have contributed no mean efforts. All of this has shown that physics
and all of the physicists who have gone before, despite Rothwell's and
Schwartz' claims, are not total blithering idiots.

At this point skepticism doesn't say "give equal weight to all findings",
it says, "PROVE IT".

cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.27 /  prasad /  Re: Heat after Death
     
Originally-From: c1prasad@watson.ibm.com (prasad)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Heat after Death
Date: 27 Dec 1994 13:38:39 GMT
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

In article <3dk7na$el4@warlock.win.net>, bugs@warlock.win.net (Mark Hittinger) writes:
|> ...
|> Other than that I have to agree with the publisher of "cold fusion" magazine
|> who said that if nothing happened in 94 that "cold fusion" was dead.  Just
|> a few more days left :-).

Don't be too hasty, there will certainly still be more heat after the death.
:)
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenc1prasad cudlnprasad cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.27 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Heat after Death
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Heat after Death
Date: Tue, 27 DEC 94 11:21:42 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

bugs@warlock.win.net (Mark Hittinger) misinterprets the "Heat after Death"
results. He is correct in saying:
 
     "Light water cells showed expected cooling curves after death.  Nicely
     downward logarithmic sloping cooling curves.  The same cells with heavy
     water displayed very erratic and "strung-out" cooling curves."
 
That is also true of D2O Pt cells. This statement, however, is incorrect:
 
     "Now Dr. Pons's implication was that the anomalous curve of heavy water
     could not be due to oxidation of the stored hydrogen because of the
     light water work.  If there had been a stored hydrogen effect then he
     would have seen it in the light water cell as well."
 
There is no "implication" involved. The total amount of energy generated in
the cell during the "heat after death" phase is far greater than any chemical
system of equivalent mass could produce. Stored hydrogen could not have
generated that level of energy, and neither could burning gasoline. (Gasoline
is the most energy dense common chemical available.)
 
This was described in the rebuttal to Morrison written by Fleischmann which
was uploaded here several times. I see no point in uploading it again; it has
been uploaded many time and I have made this point about chemical energy
dozens of times -- perhaps hundreds of times. If Hittinger et al. *still* do
not understand the limits of chemistry then I am sure nothing I can say will
ever enlighten them. But I thought it would be a good idea to correct this
mistake for the benefit of other readers. If anyone would like a copy of
Fleischmann's statement, please feel free to contact me.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenjedrothwell cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.27 / William Beaty /  Re: Free Energy Device GIF pic ! MRA picture
     
Originally-From: billb@eskimo.com (William Beaty)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,alt.paranet.science,alt.sci.phy
ics.plutonium,sci.energy,sci.energy.hydrogen,sci.physics.fusion,
Subject: Re: Free Energy Device GIF pic ! MRA picture
Date: Tue, 27 Dec 1994 16:57:44 GMT
Organization: Eskimo North (206) For-Ever

Archimedes Plutonium (Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu) wrote:

:   But it is annoying to read these thought experiments which have
: already been tried and tested. If there is free energy, via violation
: of conservation energy/mass, i.e. spontaneous neutron materialization,
: then Stefan et al are trespassing on my territory. And I am almost sure
: that Stefan's device has been anticipated by others. 

Stefan's device is actually Norman Wootan's and Joel Mcclain's device,
and his posting was either a crosspost from alt.sci.new-theories, or 
was taken from http://www.eskimo.com/~billb.

The MRA info was not a thought experiment, it was instructions for
building the device.  The device is based upon Keely's acoustic discoveries
from the turn of the century.  For more info, go to the mirror sites for
the Keelynet file libraries.  See my web page.  One of them is at www.
protree.com/KeelyNet.

:   I suppose almost anyone can come screaming over the Nets that a new
: great device is found and these guys want to give it to the world for
: free, when in fact it was already discovered long before. This is why I
: poke fun at Stefan et al. They have not really checked out the
: literature of patents for their device, if they would have, they would
: have seen they have nothing to give away to all of humanity in the
: first place.

Do you know of any patents for devices similar to the MRA?  The MRA 
inventors are familiar with the literature.  The MRA closely resembles
the device discovered by F. Sweet and explored by Bearden, which was not
patented.  The construction of that device is still being kept secret.  
The MRA is vaguely similar to the Hendershott device, Neuman's motor, and 
McKie's PODMOD, which use nonlinear effects with coils and capacitors to 
'tap the ZPE' or whatever it is they do.

:   How would Biro feel if I came over the Net, blairing-out that I
: discovered the ball point pen, and was so nice as to give it to all of
: humanity. That is just an example, for I did not discover the
: ball-point pen, and so it is not mine to give away to the world for
: free.

I don't understand your point.  Are you saying that all of the 'free
enegy' devices of the past actually work, so there is no need for another
one?  By analogy, I think the MRA is more like a flying machine from
1900:  there has been much work in the field, mostly by 'basement' 
inventors, conventional science regards the field with distaste, no one 
has a device which unquestionably works, and the Wright Brothers have yet 
to come upon the scene with some science and devices which really explain 
the physics beyond doubt.  So the Keelynet group and their MRA is not
an announcement of a brand new device to save humanity, it is an 
announcement of a fairly simple, apparently WORKING device in very early 
experimental stages, which any curious experimenter can slap together and 
experiment with. Since the device is only a couple of weeks old, it's not 
proved beyond a shadow of a doubt to work.  The point of the MRA 
announcement was to get others to participate, and to go against the 
egotism, greed, and secrecy which plagues the whole free energy field.

: Same ploy with Stefan. Either he knows that he is not the first
: or he has alot of childish enthusiasm. And on his future posts of this
: nature. It would be wise of him to just post his ideas and/or device
: and not presume anything.

First at what?  I still don't understand your point here.

:   But bravo on the scientific spirit and the scientific drive to push
: for new invention.

-- 
.....................uuuu / oo \ uuuu........,.............................
William Beaty  voice:206-781-3320   bbs:206-789-0775    cserv:71241,3623
EE/Programmer/Science exhibit designer        http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/
Seattle, WA 98117  billb@eskimo.com           SCIENCE HOBBYIST web page
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenbillb cudfnWilliam cudlnBeaty cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.27 / John Logajan /  Re: Dr. Oriani's Lecture
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Dr. Oriani's Lecture
Date: 27 Dec 1994 19:01:13 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Thomas H. Kunich (tomk@netcom.com) wrote:
: >"skeptic  1. a person who questions the validity or authenticity of
: >something purporting to be factual."

: Do I therefore take it that you are seriously skeptical about relativity?

Of course.  One ought to question the validity of GR or SR.  The alternative
is to take it on faith.

: What about gravity? Are you skeptical about it's existance? Or are you
: only skeptical about controversial subjects?

Such manifestations of nature as gravity are inescapably apparent.  Theories
about its non-obvious properties, however, deserve the skeptical look.  That
is to say, the authenticity of the purported predictions ought to be
validated.

: >If, say, Steven Jones wants to offer the theory that anyone who believes
: >in CF must necessarily be suffering from brain dysfunction, let him
: >answer to critics of that claim (such as myself) who see it as a
: >transparent ad hominem.  Let him answer such charges and defend his
: >position with whatever scientific backing he can muster.

: As anyone who uses the net seriously knows, people of all stripe use
: satire and exageration to make a point. Are we to refuse this right to
: Dr. Jones for your gratification? Sheesh, after all of the ad hominem
: attacks pointed at Dr. Jones you want HIM to be careful? Too bad you
: don't take as much public umbrage at Rothwell.

You can't have it both ways.  Either it is okay (a right!) to use satire
and exageration or isn't (a wrong?)  Otherwise you are special pleading.

Also I haven't noticed a lack of insults directed toward Mr. Rothwell, et al
in this forum.

A couple of years back I interjected myself into a couple of these ongoing
exchanges -- but the results were counter-productive.  The wounds are too
deep, too much water over the dam -- pick your metaphore.  Not being a
seer, I am unable to discern who landed the first blow, and ergo, who
is aggressor and who is the victim.  I do know that the anti-CF'ers were
using ad hominem from day one -- but it is difficult to say on an individual
basis who is guilty and who is innocent.

However, I do know that a large body of CF researchers have never uttered
a negative word about Steven Jones, and so therefore he cannot justify
a blanket insult of brain dysfunction toward all CF researchers who 
have gotten anomalous results and who believe their results are not
prosaic artifacts -- at least not justified on the basis that they
insulted him first.  Dr. Jones would have to produce psychological
studies showing a high correlation between researchers with positive
CF results and symptoms of brain dysfunction diagnosed by other means
if he really wants to justify his statement.

I'm also not aware that Dr. Bockris has publicly insulted Dr. Jones -- 
but I do know that Dr. Jones has publicly suggested brain dysfunction
in Dr. Bockris (apparently on the basis of a disagreement over the
likelyhood of a four body nuclear interaction.)

: At this point skepticism doesn't say "give equal weight to all findings",
: it says, "PROVE IT".

Yep, I'm waiting for those psychological profiles. :-)

--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com  --  612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA -
 - WWW URL =  http://www.skypoint.com/subscribers/jlogajan -
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.27 / William Beaty /  Re: Free Energy Device (Magnetic Resonance Amp)
     
Originally-From: billb@eskimo.com (William Beaty)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,alt.energy.renewable,alt.parane
.science,alt.paranet.ufo,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.bio,sci.energy,sc
.energy.hydrogen,sci.environment,sci.materials,sci.physics,sci.physics.f
sion,sci.physics.particle
Subject: Re: Free Energy Device (Magnetic Resonance Amp)
Date: Tue, 27 Dec 1994 18:59:52 GMT
Organization: Eskimo North (206) For-Ever

Craig "Physicist" DeForest (zowie@daedalus.stanford.edu) wrote:
: In article <foo> berger@sbcm.com (Mitchel Berger) writes:
:    Am I wrong on this, or is this MRA thing a way to use a piezo as a battery?

: Well, in a way... They seem to be using it just like one uses an
: inductance in a switching power supply: you can use it to store energy
: for a little while (part of a (fast) AC cycle), and get the energy
: back out at a different voltage.

: Their fallacy seems to revolve around a confusion between supply
: voltage (at zero current) and available power: they report the voltage
: measured at different parts of the circuit, but don't ever test 
: the actual available power (by putting, eg, a load resistor on the end
: and measuring the voltage *then*).

<deleted>

Watch out!  Don't base your arguements on the stuff in the Usenet groups. 
Go read the more complete records in my Web page. The output power on the
original device was measured as filtered DC across a load resistor!  
This being the case, the rest of your arguement is meaningless.  There
are several possible mistakes the inventors may have made, but the ones
you point out are not among them.

: A step-up transformer would produce the same results they report:  a 
: small alternating voltage going in produces a large alternating voltage
: out (which can then be rectified to DC).  However, no violation
: of conservation of energy applies:  if you step up the voltage by a
: factor of N, you have to supply N times as much current in the low-voltage
: side as you draw out of the high-voltage side.

: Electromechanical resonances can produce the same kinds of effects
: in transducers (of which their piezo-electric crystal is one).  There
: are a number of resonant effects that can concentrate power in the 
: time domain -- resulting in very short-duration peaks of high voltage
: across the crystal -- while not affecting overall power consumption.
: These effects are easily discerned by the use of an instrument with
: time resolution (eg an oscilloscope).  But, of course, we are admonished
: not to use one!

: Of course, the proof of the pudding is to plug the output of the device
: into the input, and watch it power itself.  Since the experimenters
: haven't done so, we can only assume that they are being fooled in some
: manner by the physics of the device. 

If one assumes this, then one should never explore anomolies, because
there is no chance that any new fields of physics will ever be opened
up by pursuing observed anomolies.  It might be better to assume that
there is a small chance of making a discovery, and a large chance that
further exploration will turn up the error.

Keep in mind that the report of the weird effect is only a few days old,
and the report was intentionally made BEFORE the experimenters had gone 
ahead with putting together a self-powering device, so that any other
curious parties could have a go at it.


: --
: --Craig DeForest    "PhD time: tee minus 94 days and holding for 
netnews delay"

-- 
.....................uuuu / oo \ uuuu........,.............................
William Beaty  voice:206-781-3320   bbs:206-789-0775    cserv:71241,3623
EE/Programmer/Science exhibit designer        http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/
Seattle, WA 98117  billb@eskimo.com           SCIENCE HOBBYIST web page
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenbillb cudfnWilliam cudlnBeaty cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.27 /  jedrothwell@de /  Such gullible "skeptics!"
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Such gullible "skeptics!"
Date: Tue, 27 DEC 94 14:36:20 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

I am continually amazed at the extreme gullibility of the people who call
themselves "skeptics" in this forum. At the drop of a hat, they will latch on
to some unscientific, untenable idea without a scrap of experimental support.
Dick Blue blurts out the notion that nobody can measure a steel arm to within
one centimeter, and instead of questioning this absurd idea the "skeptics"
fall in line, nod their heads in unison, and accept it without hesitation. Tom
Droege says it is impossible to measure the water level in a video, apparently
because he has forgotten that VCRs have a rewind button. He has "forgotten"
that point over and over again, even after it was clearly stated in the
Physics Letters A paper, in the lecture given by Pons, and in message after
message posted by me here in this forum. He forgets, he forgets, he forgets
again. Any six-year old child familiar with the controls on a household VCR
will know that Droege is wrong. It *is* possible to rewind a tape, pause it,
and read the clock numbers off the screen. Yet no "skeptic" will believe such
simple, obvious facts, or even acknowledge them.
 
bugs@warlock.win.net (Mark Hittinger) provides a nice illustration of a
"skeptic" who instantly buys humbug and quackery, because it supports his
superstitions and prejudices. He writes:
 
     "I am not so interested in the energy in/out calculations from this
     experiment.  Dr. Jones has a very compelling argument that the power has
     been measured incorrectly.  I buy that.  The argument that water is
     being blown out of the cells in droplets during the boiling process is
     good and I buy that as well."
 
In short, Hittinger will "buy" absolutely anything, sight unseen, as long as
it supports his crazy notions. Jones says you can get more than 100 volts out
of a power supply attached to 100 volt mains -- and Hittinger buys it! So do
all the other skeptics, they go along like sheep. They will doubt you can cut
a steel arm to +/- 1 cm, they will question any claim from any CF scientist --
no matter how plausible -- but when a member of their own group offers
unscientific slop, they never, ever question it! They "buy" it, take it home,
and worship it.
 
As for this ridiculous "droplet" idea that Droege dreamed up, there is not one
scrap of experimental evidence to support it. Fleischmann gave certain proof
that it is wrong here in the this forum and in his papers. Anyone who bothers
to do a simple experiment can prove it is wrong. Boil some water in a tall
test tube with a small opening in the top and see how much is lost to
"droplets." Similar experiments have been performed over the last 4000 years
by chemists, alchemists, cooks and people brewing hard liquor. Nobody has ever
seen any result remotely like the one dreamed up by Droege and "bought" by
Hittinger. But does Hittinger question this Holy Revelation of the Truth? Does
he question his fellow "skeptic?" Does he try a simple experiment? Does he ask
a chemist or a cook whether this is likely to be true? No, he "buys" it, just
as he "buys" all the other nonsense, like Morrison's "cigarette lighter"
theory. He never questions, he never experiments, he never doubts, he never
consults an elementary physics book. He follows the flock like a good sheep,
he believes whatever they tell him to believe. His beliefs are based on faith,
superstition, and unquestioning, unthinking obedience to authority.
 
Genuine skeptics will be appalled at this group-think, this gullibility, this
unthinking acceptance of unproven, unscientific garbage. What you see here is
the very opposite of true scientific skepticism.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenjedrothwell cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.27 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Dr. Oriani's Lecture
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Dr. Oriani's Lecture
Date: Tue, 27 DEC 94 14:52:21 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Thomas H. Kunich <tomk@netcom.com> writes:
 
>There are literally MILLIONS of scientists what are waiting for one --
>ONE serious reproduceable excess heat experiment. After 5 years!!! there
 
There are many, many reproduceable CF excess heat experiments. The literature
is full of examples of them. Look at the work of P&F, Kunimatsu and McKubre
for example. If you make a serious effort to reproduce CF heat, and you are
competant and you have a properly equipped lab, I am sure you will succeed in
a year or two. It is much easier than, say, replicating an Intel Pentium
Processor (warts and all!). Cravens has written an excellent guide to getting
started, and so has Storms. The Storms paper will come out in an expanded and
improved version next year. As he says, anyone who follows the proceedures
he describes *will get excess heat* with most samples. Reproducibility is
far better than it was with transistors five years after Bell Labs made the
first working device. (At that time, 95% of transistors from a run would fail;
with CF devices in a good lab, 80% will work.)
 
There is no reason for a serious scientist to wait for "ONE serious
reproducable" experiment. EPRI and the U.S. Navy published the ICCF4 proceedings
that include dozens of papers in four volumes describing experiment after
experiment that meet these qualifications. People who are seriously interested
in the field will get the proceedings, talk to the scientists, visit the
sites, learn the techniques, and replicate the experiments. They *will see*
excess heat, no question about it. "Skeptics" on this forum will deny that
fact, but it is a documented reality. Read the proceedings, read the papers
from Arata, McKubre, Storms and the others. There is no point in claiming
"there are no replicatable experiments" when I can cite hundreds of pages of
reports proving that is incorrect.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenjedrothwell cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.27 / Richard Schultz /  cmsg cancel <3dq0cp$su3@agate.berkeley.edu>
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cmsg cancel <3dq0cp$su3@agate.berkeley.edu>
Date: 27 Dec 1994 21:20:29 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley

<3dq0cp$su3@agate.berkeley.edu> was cancelled from within trn.
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.27 / Richard Schultz /  Re: Such gullible "skeptics!"
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Such gullible "skeptics!"
Date: 27 Dec 1994 21:23:37 GMT
Organization: Philosophers of the Dangerous Maybe

In article <Joz6YSM.jedrothwell@delphi.com>,  <jedrothwell@delphi.com> wrote:

>Jones says you can get more than 100 volts out
>of a power supply attached to 100 volt mains -- and Hittinger buys it! 

I can personally attest that I have used a power supply attached to 120 V
mains and gotten 30 THOUSAND volts out of it.  Furthermore, I also once used
a 100 V power supply that fried and started putting out something closer to
200 V.  (The latter was one of Kepco's more clever designs:  a $3 transistor
blew and took a $120 potentiometer with it.)
--

					Richard Schultz

"You don't even have a clue as to which clue you're missing." -- Miss Manners
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.27 /  prasad /  Re: Free Energy Device (Magnetic Resonance Amp)
     
Originally-From: c1prasad@watson.ibm.com (prasad)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Free Energy Device (Magnetic Resonance Amp)
Date: 27 Dec 1994 21:30:50 GMT
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

In article <D1HGrx.2yL@eskimo.com>, billb@eskimo.com (William Beaty) writes:
|> Craig "Physicist" DeForest (zowie@daedalus.stanford.edu) wrote:
|> ...
|> Go read the more complete records in my Web page. The output power on the
|> original device was measured as filtered DC across a load resistor!  
|> This being the case, the rest of your arguement is meaningless.  There
|> are several possible mistakes the inventors may have made, but the ones
|> you point out are not among them.

Filtering doesn't remove all a.c., so the o/p power measurements are still
likely to be off by a significant margin.  A surer approach would be to
measure in a way that doesn't depend on the direction of the current.
Calorimetry springs to my mind, but 2.5 W seems to be too low for any accuracy.
Newman cited operating an oil pump to prove the output mechanical power, since
his motors are electrically very non-linear as well.  The voltage and current
measurements in CF have been questioned umpteen times, so it wouldn't right
to assume "filtered D.C." is a sufficient guarantee of experimental accuracy.

----
my $.02
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenc1prasad cudlnprasad cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Wed Dec 28 04:37:03 EST 1994
------------------------------
1994.12.28 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Re:  John Bockris' 4-body reaction
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re:  John Bockris' 4-body reaction
Date: Wed, 28 Dec 1994 12:02 -0500 (EST)

jonesse@plasma.byu.edu writes:
 
-> "Spectroscopially pure carbon rods were subjected to a carbon arc in highly
-> purified water...  The original carbon contained ~2 ppm iron, and the
-> detritus contained up to 286 ppm of iron...  When dissolved O2, was replaced
   ^^^^^^^
 
This is odd.  Is that not the solid remains of the carbon rod?  I would expect
to find anything formed to end up in the water or on the sides of the
container, not in the carbon rods.  If a mechanism could be found that does
generate iron, another would have to be found to transport it into the carbon
rod.
 
-> by N2 in the solution, no iron was formed.   Hence, the mechanism
->   2 C-12 + 2 O-18 --> Fe-56 + He-4
-> was suggested as the origin of the iron.
 
O18 is only .2% of the oxygen of the atmosphere.  You are correct that this is
pretty rare.  I wonder if this is being done in a steel container?  Add oxygen
and you get rust which may then get into the arc.  At that point the iron gets
stripped of the oxygen and accelerated to the carbon rod, where it is detected.
Such an explaination seems more plausable than the above 4 body reaction, but
of course does depend on there being a source of iron within the experiment.
 
-> "Bush and Eagleton and Notoya and Enyo
-> [note the frequent reference to Japanese]
-> have claimed that new calcium has been formed as a result
-> of the electrolysis of H2O on nickel in a potassium carbonate solution.  Kom
-> et al. and others have recorded the dependence of K and P in certain bacteri
-> as a function of the presence and absence of K and P in the nutrient liquid
-> half the samples, these materials had been removed).  They claim that the
-> missing elements are formed in nuclear biological processes.
 
This brings to mind some work I read, I believe it was in the 70's, where
plants were grown without a certain element required (calcium, potassium?) and
after the plants were grown, they were subjected to analysis and the element
which was supposedly missing was detected.  The researchers at the time claimed
that the plants somehow transmuted an available element to the one needed.  If
I remember right it raised a storm of controversy and I never heard anything
about it again.  Maybe some of this work should be looked at again.  There
seems to be sufficient anomolous reports from various disiplines to suggest
that something we do not understand may be going on.
 
                                                                Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.28 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Facilitated Communication
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Facilitated Communication
Date: Wed, 28 Dec 1994 12:12 -0500 (EST)

lforbes@nucleus.com (Laurie Forbes) writes:
 
->  . Controlled testing was not carried out by the CF researchers until
-> considerably after the technique had been widely accepted and put to use.
-> It fell to a lawyer, finally, to initiate controlled testing in
-> investigation of sexual abuse allegations related to an autistic child.
-> One control employed was to simply show the facilitator a picture of an
-> object and to show the autistic individual a different object.  In every
-> case, the autistic individual "typed" the name of the object shown the
-> facilitator.
 
That is unbelievable.  These people sit in their ivory towers and don't have a
clue as to how even the human mind works.  This is exactly the same phenominia
as the OUI-OUI Board and automatic writing uses.   Give the subconcious mind a
clear channel to the outside world, and it will express itself.  The autistic
hand is nothing more than the equivalent of the OUI-OUI planchet.
 
                                                              Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.28 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Re: Such gullible "skeptics!"
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Such gullible "skeptics!"
Date: Wed, 28 Dec 1994 12:18 -0500 (EST)

frankie@mundens.equinox.gen.nz (Frank Pitt) writes:
 
-> I understood him to say that you would need to be able to measure
-> to the centre of torque, the center being _inside_ a steel arm, and
-> that measuring the position of the center torque was difficult to do
-> accurately.
 
That is a rather absured notion.  The center of a shaft is easily found by
measuring to the near side, and measuring to the far side.  If the shaft is
round then the center is (Dn+Df)/2.  I have done it hundreds of times to
.001" accuracy myself.
 
                                                                Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.28 / Paul Koloc /  Was Arata's > Steve's BL
     
Originally-From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Was Arata's > Steve's BL
Date: Wed, 28 Dec 1994 19:07:24 GMT
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <1994Dec9.101730.1919@plasma.byu.edu> jonesse@plasma.byu.edu writes:
>In article <3bvmgp$1fr@fnnews.fnal.gov>, 
>Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege) writes:
>> Seems to me that in a "good calorimetric" experiment, you keep track of
>> everything.  So one expects an apparent loss of heat as the apparatus 
>> heats up and as the Pd absorbs D/H.  If you don't, then you are tempted
>> to assume "positive excess heat" at the end of the experiment when these
>> earlier losses reappear.  
 
>> Tom Droege

>I completely agree with Tom.  Note that Arata did NOT do this in the paper
>under discussion; indeed, the early data on negative excess heat is cut off
>from the plot (Fig. 3) and we are not given the needed data to integrate
>the amount of negative excess heat.  Despite Rothwell's protestations, one
>must demand better from experimenters who wish to do scientific proof-of-
>principle experiments.

>--Steven Jones

Steve, since we have met twice (you may not remember Baltimore) and you 
told me of your BL experiment on both occasions, I was hoping that you
might be able to whip up a few measurements, since the holiday season 
and first few weeks of the NY are *usually slow*.  I'm curious.   

Also, since you mentioned the electrified dust model, I was wondering
if you were suggesting that it could be a valid model for what you - 
et al. generated those  few years back with the glass plate, needle and
Tesla coil (if I remember correctly).  Sorry I do not recall your student's
name, that did much of the original work.    
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul M. Koloc, Bx 1037 Prometheus II Ltd, College Park MD 20741-1037    |
| mimsy!promethe!pmk; pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu   FAX (301) 434-6737   |
| VOICE (301) 445-1075   *****  Commercial FUSION in the Nineties *****   |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+

cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenpmk cudfnPaul cudlnKoloc cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.28 / E Smith /  Re: patent office is dangerous !
     
Originally-From: ems@cygnus.com (E. Michael Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.energy,alt.paranet.science,
ci.environment,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: patent office is dangerous !
Date: Wed, 28 Dec 1994 19:32:15 GMT
Organization: Cygnus Support, Mountain View, CA

In article <3ds3sv$61k@rsbsn001.rsb.texaco.com> dobitz@texhrc.texaco.com
(John K. Dobitz) writes:
>I didn't include the original lengthy message because it was another
>orthodox conspiracy theory.  All I can say is that in most cases people
>really don't understand patent process or even what a patent is.

While you are completely correct, and the other posting was, IMHO, a
paranoid conspiracy post, the other author WAS correct in stating that
patent applications can get your invention hidden and/or stolen.

The original inventor of the Laser had to wait decades and go to court
several times to get royalties for the laser.  Seems the US had his 
invention classified secret until well after someone else had re-invented it.

A local company invented a new way to treat a medical injury (fancy 
portable splint or something).  Major consumer would be the military.
Under a law that lets the military use any invention they want, AND have
it manufactured by whom-ever they want, the US military had another
company make the device and DID NOT pay the inventor anything...  His
company either went bankrupt or close to it.

These are not unique cases.  The 'bottom line' is that if something DOES
have military advantages (such as a better way to make fuel easily) it
WILL be clasified if the military wants it, or wants to keep it out of
the hands of 'the other guy'.  (Watch 'The Battle of the Bulge' for an
example of why fuel is important to war...)

Note:  I DO NOT believe in any way shape or form in 'free energy devices'
or 'conspiracies to silence inventors'.  Unfortunately, that does not
change the law; and the law says that if the US Govt wants to bury your
invention, or use it for free for the 'military', they can (and have).

If I invented a device or technology with world shaking impacts (an unlikey
scenario, alas ;-) then I would have patent applications on it filed in
at least 4 mutually antagonistic countries.  (Europe, Russia, Japan, and 
THEN the US...)  and I'd likely have a copy of the work escrowed with a
'friend' in a foreign country, where he could 'go public' with it (as an
'independent invention' of course) should the US have enough clout to 
convince the foreigners to sit on the invention as well.

From the 'almost a conspiracy theory' department:  Anyone see the PBS
show on diamonds?  Notice that scene where the ex-GE employee says that
they were making 1-2 carat GEM grade diamonds syntheticly?  And that 
DeBeers sent over an envoy and suddenly they didn't know how to make
GEM grade any more, but the price of industrial diamonds from both GE
and DeBeers went up a chunk?  Notice the scene about the high cost to 
the US in WWII for industrial diamonds? The scene about the effort to 
keep industrial diamonds out of the hands of WWII Nazi Germany?  

Gee.. now we hear that GE was found inocent of any conspiracy to 
restrain trade...  Hmmm...  And just WHOM is a large military contractor?  

It does look like the technological genie is out of the bag on this one,
though, in that synthetic industrial diamonds are a well known technology
and anyone wanting to push that technology further has a good idea which
ways to go...

Just remember Adam Smith, and his statement about folks getting together
even for merry making, but that the conversation turns to ways to 
restrain trade and increase profits...  

So, no, I don't believe in the 'conspiracy' theories.  But, yes, I DO
believe in the 'unseen hand' of Adam Smith and the tendency of greed
and avarice to drive folks in a common direction.  And, yes, I DO 
believe in the tendency of the military to be paranoid about technological
advances that might obsolete their current batch of toys...  And, yes,
the law DOES let them act on that paranoia by confiscation and clasification.


-- 

E. Michael Smith
Manager of Stuff
Cygnus Support
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenems cudfnE cudlnSmith cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.28 / Paul Freda /  Re: patent office is dangerous !
     
Originally-From: Paulfr@ix.netcom.com (Paul Freda)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.energy,alt.paranet.science,
ci.environment,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: patent office is dangerous !
Date: 28 Dec 1994 20:51:09 GMT
Organization: Netcom

In <3ds3sv$61k@rsbsn001.rsb.texaco.com> dobitz@texhrc.texaco.com (John 
K. Dobitz) writes: 

>
>All I can say is that in most cases people really don't understand 
>the patent process or even what a patent is.
>
>
>
>**************************************************************
>* John Dobitz                                                *
>* Texaco Exploration & Production Technology Department      *
>* Houston, Tx                                                *
>* dobitz@Texaco.COM                                          *
>**************************************************************
>* This note is the opinion of the writer and not of Texaco.  *
>**************************************************************
>

I thought I did.  But I'd like to make sure.  What is a patent and what 
are the essentials of the process one needs to know ?

Paul  <paulfr@ix.netcom.com>

cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenPaulfr cudfnPaul cudlnFreda cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.25 / Stefan Hartmann /  patent office is dangerous !
     
Originally-From: harti@shb.contrib.de (Stefan Hartmann)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.energy,alt.paranet.science,
ci.environment,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: patent office is dangerous !
Date: 25 Dec 1994 12:02:00 +0100


*******
Dangers of Using the US Patent Office with Advanced Technologies
*******

I know of 3 persons personally that have had the US Secrecy Order listed
below slapped on them and their work was foreably taken away from them -
as a result of filing for a patent within the US Patent Office system.
Over 3,000 patents have been classified this way.  Where did they go?
Where are they now?  This is not always the best way to go!  For
example, Ken Shoulders was able to include some advanced material in his
80 page patent No. 5,018,180 dated May 21, 1991, but he had to hide all
of the good stuff on pages 65 on (or so, I forget).  Also, Stan Meyer in
Grove City, OH, has patented several inventions (relating to his
hydrogen fracturing process to drive a car using water and creating
hydrogen gas with a laser device) in several foreign countries - BEFORE!
ever approaching the US Patent Office.  He has had much experience in
the typical US process of "trying to be bought-off."

If you think you are going to promote 'free-energy devices' or other
advanced technology in the world by first obtaining a US patent - you
are very, very naive.  (Look up what that word really means!)

So:  Good Luck with your US Patent Office searches, free or otherwise.

*******

INSIGHTS INTO THE PROPRIETARY SYNDROME

By KEN MacNEILL

Cadake Industries
Winter Haven, Florida

PART I

To give you some background on myself, I have been interested in the
energy situation since I can remember.  I have built all kinds of
devices, solar energy panels, windmills, photovoltaic arrays, flywheel
devices, and also carburetors of which I will talk on Sunday.  In my
background I am an accomplished tool and diemaker, moldmaker, been
involved in Design Engineering for the past 12 years, primarily in the
automation area.

My first real involvement with other people in this alternate energy
area was at the Toronto Symposium in 1981 where I met George Hathaway as
well as over 100 other people that believe in the impossible according
to orthodox science.  Since that time I have make myself aware of just
about everything that is happening in this field, and believe me there
are some really fantastic things going on.  The rediscovery of some of
the technology that was lost in the past is finally coming to
realization, for instance the Tesla technology, the Hubbard device, the
Moray approach to tapping into the free energy supply that we're sitting
in without even knowing it.

A friend of mine gave me a real insight possibly without even knowing
it.  He said the problem could only be solved by just considering the
problem of weighing a glass of water at 500 feet under water.  Here you
are under water with a glass of water:  how do you weigh it???

The analogy is the same for us.  Here we sit in the vastness of the
cosmos on top of one of the biggest magnets known to us and we are like
the glass of water.  We are in the vast ocean of energy.  Look around us
and watch just the weather for instance, the next thunderstorm, think of
all the electrical potential being wasted.  That energy is there;  it is
very real.

Tom Bearden, one of our upcoming speakers, may have illustrated it quite
well by the bird sitting on top of the wire with 13,000 volts going
through it.  We all know that it could kill him but is doesn't.  I am
positive that within this group will be the ways and means for making
the energy situation of the future change.

Now to the other side of this coin.  Why has not this technology been
allowed to become established?  We have to look at the 'profit motive'
involved.  If we have free energy, how will they charge for it?  What
will happen to the billions of dollars that the utilities and oil
companies and the government backing these establishments do if we can
give the people independence from the chains of having to pay for
energy?

One question that has been uppermost in my mind for the last year has
been the rhetoric given by our elected representatives about the energy
situation and the amount of money given to small researchers who could
possibly give us a viable approach to becoming energy independent.  Who
gets the government money??  Let me get a little audience participation
in the question.  How many of you have all the money you need for
research in the energy area?  Everyone who has please stand!!!!!  Now
let me mention a few of the names of the companies that get the money.
See if you recognize them:  Exxon, Gulf Oil, General Electric,
Westinghouse, TRW, Exide Storage Battery, all manufacturers or producers
of fossil fuel products.  We need to get away from the fossil fuels for
the future and get into something that can indeed give us a future
because we are rapidly depleting not only our natural resources but our
air and water.  All because of burning fossil fuels.  We fund our
universities and colleges in the most directed of ways.  If you want to
explore the possibilities in some some of the more esoteric areas, for
instance the ones you will be hearing about in the next three days,
there is no money for that.  WHY???  Because of the possibility that we
might succeed.  What would our government do if all the American people
could go back and forth to work, heat their homes, run their businesses
without paying taxes on gas and oil?  Consider the fact that all of the
gas stations would go out of business or would have to find other ways
of making money.  Many complimentary businesses would also fold.  But
alas, this is America.  What are we here for???  To perpetuate Big
Business, Big Government, or to advance toward the future, not expending
all of our natural resources but to save them to make the goods of the
future.  Coal and oil both can be used for making all kinds of things
besides fuels;  the list is endless.

It is my feeling that the technology may be already here and may have
been shown to the government.  It even may have been introduced to our
patent office and turned down.  Because as you know, there is no such
thing as a perpetual motion device.  And I agree with the premise
because forever is a long time.

But there are surely some of the devices or parts thereof that have been
introduced to the government or to big business in the past which have
been shelved.  Tesla's transmission device is a classic illustration
probably best known to this group.  What happened is that they removed
the money from him to do his research and effectively stifled this
remarkable man.  How many other times has it happened to someone not so
well known?  At this moment, there are over 3,000 devices or
applications in the patent office that have been branded as security or
put under wraps by the secrecy order, Title 35, U.S. Code (1952)
Sections 181-188.  What is security?  How is it defined?  I have had
many inventors or other scientists tell me that they did not want to
discuss their invention with me or others because they might lose it to
us or we might tell someone else before they got it onto the market.
Believe me, it won't get there by going through the patent process.  It
is my feeling that if such a device were introduced at this level, then
it would be put under the Secrecy Act.  I don't know that I am correct
in this assumption.  But I cannot imagine a government like ours wanting
to commit financial suicide.  So what better way than to brand something
as a secret?

I would like to read the Secrecy Order to you so that you may better
understand my concern.  Please pay close attention.  I think it is very
important.  To you or anyone!!!  Consider your receiving this:

*************
SECRECY ORDER
*************

(Title 35, United States Code (1952), sections 181-188)

NOTICE:  To the applicant above named, his heirs, and any and all of his
assignees, attorneys and agents, hereinafter designated principals:

You are hereby notified that your application as above identified has
been found to contain subject matter, the unauthorized disclosure of
which might be detrimental to the national security, and you are ordered
in nowise to publish or disclose the invention or any material
information with respect thereto, including hitherto unpublished details
of the subject matter of said application, in any way to any person not
cognizant of the invention prior to the date of the order, including any
employee of the principals, but to keep the same secret except by
written consent first obtained of the Commissioner of Patents, under the
penalties of 35 U.S.C. (1952) 182, 186.

Any other application already filed or hereafter filed which contains
any significant part of the subject matter of the above identified
application falls within the scope of this order.  If such other
application does not stand under a security order, it and the common
subject matter should be brought to the attention of the Security Group,
Licensing and Review, Patent Office.

If, prior to the issuance of the secrecy order, any significant part of
the subject matter has been revealed to any person, the principals shall
promptly inform such person of the secrecy order and the penalties for
improper disclosure.  However, if such part of the subject matter was
disclosed to any person in a foreign country or foreign national in the
U.S., the principals shall not inform such person of the secrecy order,
but instead shall promptly furnish to the Commissioner of Patents the
following information to the extent not already furnished:  date of
disclosure;  name and address of the disclosee;  identification of such
part;  and any authorization by a U.S. government agency to export such
part.  If the subject matter is included in any foreign patent
application, or patent, this should be identified.  The principals shall
comply with any related instructions of the Commissioner.

This order should not be construed in any way to mean that the
Government has adopted or contemplates adoption of the alleged invention
disclosed in this application;  nor is it any indication of the value of
such invention.

*****************
END SECRECY ORDER
*****************

It is my feeling that something on the order of a so-called 'free energy
device' would receive this treatment.  My only approach would be to go
to the public domain.  That is, get the information or the device out
there to enough people that they could not stop you.  This group looks
like the best group to give this information to.  Hopefully it will
forthcoming in the next three days.


Transcribed from:  PROCEEDINGS;  The Second International Symposium on
Non-Conventional Energy Technology, pp 125-126.

I have been told this was presented on September 23, 1983.

Contact Ken MacNeill at:
Cadake Industries, P.O. Box 1866, Clayton, GA 30525.

******



## CrossPoint v3.02 ##
cudkeys:
cuddy25 cudenharti cudfnStefan cudlnHartmann cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.28 / Richard Schultz /  Re: Such gullible power supply purchasers
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Such gullible power supply purchasers
Date: 28 Dec 1994 12:23:47 GMT
Organization: Philosophers of the Dangerous Maybe

In article <3dr0aa$8ht@sundog.tiac.net>,
Harry H Conover <conover@max.tiac.net> wrote:

>ps.  Unless your talking about something like the Leeds and Northrup
>     variety, $120 must buy one Hell of a potentiometer (unless your
>     speaking of one marketed to the medical community, where component
>     prices are normalized to medical billing rates if possible).

It's actually fairly hefty (it's been a while but I seem to remember
it being something like 10 turns, 300 K, 1 watt).  The pricing is
mainly to discourage random people from messing up the inventory
system.  If you buy 10,000 the price is something like $25 or
maybe even less, but if you buy 1 or even 10, the price is over $100.
Or it could be a complicated conspiracy between the power supply makers
and the electronics part makers, since the same power supply had done
the same thing three years previously.  It didn't take us much longer
to figure out that we should have simply replaced it the first time
(as we did the second time), since the newer designs are more rugged.
--
					Richard Schultz
             "an optimist is a guy
              that has never had
              much experience"
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.28 / Richard Schultz /  Re:  John Bockris' 4-body reaction
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re:  John Bockris' 4-body reaction
Date: 28 Dec 1994 12:29:14 GMT
Organization: Philosophers of the Dangerous Maybe

In article <1994Dec27.144315.1962@plasma.byu.edu>,
 <jonesse@plasma.byu.edu> wrote:
>Here's the reference to the article by R. Sundaresan and J. Bockris:
>Fusion Technology, vol. 26, Nov. 1994, p. 261 ff.
>
>From the abstract:

>The original carbon contained ~2 ppm iron, and the
>detritus contained up to 286 ppm of iron...  When dissolved O2, was replaced 
>by N2 in the solution, no iron was formed.   Hence, the mechanism
>  2 C-12 + 2 O-18 --> Fe-56 + He-4
>was suggested as the origin of the iron.  The increase in temperature of the
>solution was consistent with expectation based on this reaction."

Did they do any of the following control experiments?

(1) measure the iron content of the water
(2) measure the iron content of the glass (or whatever was used to hold
     the solution)
(3) make sure that iron wasn't leaching into the solution from somewhere
(4) try blowing pure oxygen-18 through the solution to see if the
     reaction speeded up
(5) try using a rod enriched with carbon-13 to see if the reaction 
     slowed down
--
					Richard Schultz

"You don't even have a clue as to which clue you're missing." -- Miss Manners
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.29 / Frank Pitt /  Re: Such gullible "skeptics!"
     
Originally-From: frankie@mundens.equinox.gen.nz (Frank Pitt)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Such gullible "skeptics!"
Date: Thu, 29 Dec 94 12:20:47 GMT
Organization: Munden's Bar

In article <Joz6YSM.jedrothwell@delphi.com> jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:
>

>Dick Blue blurts out the notion that nobody can measure a steel arm to within
>one centimeter, 

Hmm, this is a little different than what I read Dick Blue as saying.

I understood him to say that you would need to be able to measure 
to the centre of torque, the center being _inside_ a steel arm, and 
that measuring the position of the center torque was difficult to do 
accurately.

That's slightly different than just measuring the _length_ of a steel arm,
especially as the center of torque could quite easily be moving at the time.

>Droege says it is impossible to measure the water level in a video, apparently
>because he has forgotten that VCRs have a rewind button. He has "forgotten"
>that point over and over again, even after it was clearly stated in the
>Physics Letters A paper, in the lecture given by Pons, and in message after
>message posted by me here in this forum. He forgets, he forgets, he forgets
>again. Any six-year old child familiar with the controls on a household VCR
>will know that Droege is wrong. It *is* possible to rewind a tape, pause it,
>and read the clock numbers off the screen. 

I think you have misunderstood this point too.

Reading those clock numbers off the screen does _not_ measure the water 
level. It only shows that certain numbers were recorded on videotape.

Those numbers may very well be the correct measurement of the water-level,
but examining the video does not actually measure the water level


Frankie

	    
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenfrankie cudfnFrank cudlnPitt cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.29 / Frank Pitt /  Re: Such gullible "skeptics!"
     
Originally-From: frankie@mundens.equinox.gen.nz (Frank Pitt)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Such gullible "skeptics!"
Date: Thu, 29 Dec 94 12:26:55 GMT
Organization: Munden's Bar

In article <Joz6YSM.jedrothwell@delphi.com> jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:

>In short, Hittinger will "buy" absolutely anything, sight unseen, as long as
>it supports his crazy notions. Jones says you can get more than 100 volts out
>of a power supply attached to 100 volt mains -- and Hittinger buys it! 

Of course he bloody well does.

Every television in the world, including the monitor you're reading this
on, gets several thousand volts out of 100, 110, 115, or 240 V mains.


Frankie

	    
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenfrankie cudfnFrank cudlnPitt cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.28 /  rvanspaa@ozema /        Re: A@P
     
Originally-From: rvanspaa@ozemail.com.au
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:       Re: A@P
Date: Wed, 28 Dec 1994 15:10:44 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Eureka!

A@P is actually an "ap", i.e. an application! It's a highly 
sophisticated artificial intelligence program funning on the computer 
at dartmouth.

Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa@ozemail.com.au>
 

cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenrvanspaa cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.28 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Jed Rothwell does not
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Jed Rothwell does not
Date: Wed, 28 Dec 1994 14:03:34 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <py7VvpV.jedrothwell@delphi.com>,  <jedrothwell@delphi.com> wrote:
>Cameron Randale Bass <crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU> writes:
> 
>>     This 'heat after death' is likely the biggest pile of BS I've ever
>>     seen discussed in this group.  I'm willing to bet that it never happened,
>>     and hence will never be heard from again.
> 
>So, you have read the papers describing these heat after death events at
>IMRA, SRI, Patterson Research, and U. Hokkaido, and you have come to the

.... ranting continues

>coockoo land thinking. Why would they publish results like that if it was not
>true?

     I guess all those alien abduction stories are true, he noted 
     dryly.  
     
     
> Why would they go on making claims year after year? How on earth do
>they persuade visiting scientist to come back to the U.S. or Japan and
>corraborate the story in phone calls and letters to me? What is the purpose
>of this gigantic Fu Manchu plot? I'll tell you: nothing.

     I agree.

                         dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.28 /  bearpaw /  Re: The True Reaction (was: Dr. Oriani's Lecture)
     
Originally-From: bearpaw@world.std.com (bearpaw)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The True Reaction (was: Dr. Oriani's Lecture)
Date: Wed, 28 Dec 1994 15:18:15 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

mgriffin@il.us.swissbank.com (Mike Griffin) writes:

>In article <1994Dec22.030627.5493@midway.uchicago.edu>
> gk00@quads.uchicago.edu (Greg  Kuperberg) gives us the likely 
>reaction that the CF TBs must have in mind:
>	nH + mD -> theoretical fog -> kHe + Heat! Heat! XS Heat! -> Money!
> . . .
>no dispute.  No excess money has ever been measured, and until it is, there
>is probably no point in paying attention to the fantasies of the TBs.
> . . .

Hmmm.  To be consistant, this should be applied to Hot Fusion as well.
(In some sense, of course, there has been excess money measured in the
Hot Fusion field -- coming from the gov't.  Perhaps the technical term
for this is ZPM -- Zero Point Money.)

;-)
Bearpaw MacDonald,
CF agnostic

cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenbearpaw cudlnbearpaw cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.28 / John Logajan /  Re: John Bockris' 4-body reaction (was Re: Dr. Oriani's lecture)
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: John Bockris' 4-body reaction (was Re: Dr. Oriani's lecture)
Date: 28 Dec 1994 15:52:51 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

jonesse@plasma.byu.edu wrote:
: John Logajan writes:
: "If, say, Steven Jones wants to offer the theory that anyone who believes
: in CF must necessarily be suffering from brain dysfunction, let him 
: answer to critics of that claim (such as myself) who see it as a 
: transparent ad hominem."

: This is getting a bit tedious, John.  I offer no such theory, OK?
: Several weeks ago, I did pose a question (certainly not a theory) which
: was asked rather tongue-in-cheek.

It was, however you wish to spin it, a thinly veiled ad hominem.  However,
this "clarification" is sufficient as a retraction for my purposes, therefore
the matter is at an end.  No more talk of brain dysfunction.  Now we can get
back to arguing facts and theories based upon their merits or lack thereof.


:    12C + 12C + 18O + 18O  --> 56Fe + 4He.
: Now this is just nonsense -- do you disagree, John?   

I'm only answering this because you asked, I really have no opinion on it.
I'm an neither an authority on nuclear physics, nor a psychiatrist.
From what I have gathered from the current state of popular physics, the
above reaction seems likely possible, but highly improbable.  

Bockris has apparently offered a hypothesis in an attempt to explain an
observation (excess iron.)  Thus we have three cases:

1.) There really is no excess iron.
2.) There is excess iron but the specifics of Bockris hypothesis is wrong.
3.) There is excess iron and the Bockris hypothesis is right.

I'm simply not in a position to determine any one of the three at this point
and require more information.  I presume Bockris or other interested parties
will continue to investigate this avenue.  Frankly, I'm glad a few people
go off an investigate this low probability stuff.

--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com  --  612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA -
 - WWW URL =  http://www.skypoint.com/subscribers/jlogajan -
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.28 / John Logajan /  Re: Dr. Oriani's Lecture
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Dr. Oriani's Lecture
Date: 28 Dec 1994 16:09:52 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Thomas H. Kunich (tomk@netcom.com) wrote:
: John Logajan <jlogajan@skypoint.com> wrote:
: >suggested brain dysfunction
: >in Dr. Bockris (apparently on the basis of a disagreement over the
: >likelyhood of a four body nuclear interaction.)

: Am I to believe by this that you think that there is some sort of physics
: that would favor such an unlikely four body fusion?

We know from elementary logic that the two issues are unrelated.

There are two general logical errors of this type -- judging the theory
by the man.  One is an attempt to discredit the theory by discrediting
the man (ad hominem) and the opposite is to bring credit to the theory
by praising the man, his credentials, etc (ad sorryifogotinem:-)

This means that crazy people can say things that are true and sane people
can say things that are false -- so the only way to tell if a thing is true
is to look at the thing itself -- the attributes of the man are irrelevent.

If we are interested in the physics of Bockris's theory we investigate that.
To go on about the mental state of Dr. Bockris if our interest is in the
physics is to engage ourselves in logical fallacy.

--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com  --  612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA -
 - WWW URL =  http://www.skypoint.com/subscribers/jlogajan -
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.28 / John Dobitz /  Re: patent office is dangerous !
     
Originally-From: dobitz@texhrc.texaco.com (John K. Dobitz)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.energy,alt.paranet.science,
ci.environment,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: patent office is dangerous !
Date: 28 Dec 1994 16:31:27 GMT
Organization: Texaco INC

I didn't include the original lengthy message because it was another
orthodox conspiracy theory.  All I can say is that in most cases people
really don't understand patent process or even what a patent is.



**************************************************************
* John Dobitz                                                *
* Texaco Exploration & Production Technology Department      *
* Houston, Tx                                                *
* dobitz@Texaco.COM                                          *
**************************************************************
* This note is the opinion of the writer and not of Texaco.  *
**************************************************************
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudendobitz cudfnJohn cudlnDobitz cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.28 / Thomas Zemanian /  Re: John Bockris' 4-body reaction (was Re: Dr. Oriani's lecture)
     
Originally-From: ts_zemanian@pnl.gov (Thomas S. Zemanian)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: John Bockris' 4-body reaction (was Re: Dr. Oriani's lecture)
Date: 28 Dec 1994 17:07:50 GMT
Organization: Battelle PNL


I'd rather not get entangled in the argument over whether someone took a
cheap shot at someone else, but if I may stick my nose into this briefly...

In article <3ds1kj$epv@stratus.skypoint.net>, jlogajan@skypoint.com (John
Logajan) wrote:
> jonesse@plasma.byu.edu wrote:

[deletia]

> :    12C + 12C + 18O + 18O  --> 56Fe + 4He.
> : Now this is just nonsense -- do you disagree, John?   
> 

Actually, this may not be a four bod interaction, but rather a two body
interaction, if it occurs on the surface of the carbon rods at the point
where the arc touches down.  Thus, the highly improbable reaction above may
actually be

{12C Surface} + 18O + 18O --> 56Fe + 4He.

This is still quite improbable, but not quite so absurd as the four body
interaction suggested above.  This requires that dissociated oxygen adsorb
on the carbon surface, and that two 18O (quite rare!) find themselves
adjacent to each other in the region of the arc.

There also exists the problem of the carbon - carbon spacing in the
graphite rod.  Bond lengths in graphite are 1.42 Angstroms at 15 de.g C;
this seems a bit far apart for fusion events.

[deletia]

--Tom

--
The opinions expressed herein are mine and mine alone.  Keep your filthy
hands off 'em! 
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudents_zemanian cudfnThomas cudlnZemanian cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.28 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  John Bockris' 4-body reaction (was Re: Dr. Oriani's lecture)
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: John Bockris' 4-body reaction (was Re: Dr. Oriani's lecture)
Date: Wed, 28 Dec 1994 11:42 -0500 (EST)

jonesse@plasma.byu.edu writes:
 
-> Sincerely, I wonder what path led Prof. Bockris to this
-> proposition -- which he published! -- of a 4-body reaction leading to excess
-> heat.  Frankly, I'm concerned for John Bockris and I respect his early work,
-> and I'm led to wonder.
 
Since he is a chemist I suspect he was lead there by catalytic type arguments,
which are quite common in chemistry, and can involve many body reactions.  You
are correct that a 4-body reaction by normal nuclear type collisions is
vanishingly small, but I suspect he is visualizing some type of catalytic type
of interaction where things are "sticking" for a sufficiently long time for all
elements of the process to eventually come together for the final reaction.
 
I personally feel that even with a catalytic type reaction (which has not been
shown to occur on the nuclear scale as far as I know, but some CF experiments
might be an example of) the probablity of such is quite remote, but I am
willing to take a wait and see attitude. If iron and He4 is truly being
generated then I am sure the correct answer will be forthcoming eventually.  If
they are not, then that will be determined as well I am sure.
 
                                                                Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.28 /  DaveHatunen /  Re: patent office is dangerous !
     
Originally-From: hatunen@netcom.com (DaveHatunen)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.energy,alt.paranet.science,
ci.environment,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: patent office is dangerous !
Date: Wed, 28 Dec 1994 20:59:21 GMT
Organization: As little as you're likely to find anywhere

In article <D1JCxs.700@cygnus.com>, E. Michael Smith <ems@cygnus.com> wrote:
>In article <3ds3sv$61k@rsbsn001.rsb.texaco.com> dobitz@texhrc.texaco.co
 (John K. Dobitz) writes:
>>I didn't include the original lengthy message because it was another
>>orthodox conspiracy theory.  All I can say is that in most cases people
>>really don't understand patent process or even what a patent is.
>
>While you are completely correct, and the other posting was, IMHO, a
>paranoid conspiracy post, the other author WAS correct in stating that
>patent applications can get your invention hidden and/or stolen.
>
>The original inventor of the Laser had to wait decades and go to court
>several times to get royalties for the laser.  Seems the US had his 
>invention classified secret until well after someone else had re-invented it.

Who was that laser patent holder anyway? I'd like to know more. As far
as I know the first ruby laser was built at Hughes in about 1958. So
I'm sure Hughes would have tried to get the patent. By 1964 we had a
HeNe laser in the Physics lab at Louisville. I don't believe either
laser would have been based on a previous patent application, since the
theory was in place for sometime before that, and the whole business
was done based on publications in journals.

And neither type of laser was a secret.

I have a feeling you misunderstand the case. How about more details?

>A local company invented a new way to treat a medical injury (fancy 
>portable splint or something).  Major consumer would be the military.
>Under a law that lets the military use any invention they want, AND have
>it manufactured by whom-ever they want, the US military had another
>company make the device and DID NOT pay the inventor anything...  His
>company either went bankrupt or close to it.

There have been problems of this type. But I am skeptical that any one
is a personal acquaintance of three people who have had their
inventions seized by the government. There is a good reason at the base
of this sort of thing, of course. I'd sure hate to have had Watson get
public patents on radar in about 1938 in England. Remember, "patent" is
short for "letter patent", which means literally a letter making the
information open, or patent.

>These are not unique cases.  The 'bottom line' is that if something DOES
>have military advantages (such as a better way to make fuel easily) it
>WILL be clasified if the military wants it, or wants to keep it out of
>the hands of 'the other guy'.  (Watch 'The Battle of the Bulge' for an
>example of why fuel is important to war...)

Do you have a problem with that, as a general principle? (Obviously
there may be individual silliness.)

>Note:  I DO NOT believe in any way shape or form in 'free energy devices'
>or 'conspiracies to silence inventors'.  Unfortunately, that does not
>change the law; and the law says that if the US Govt wants to bury your
>invention, or use it for free for the 'military', they can (and have).

Hm. Free? Do you have a legal cite for that?

[...]

>From the 'almost a conspiracy theory' department:  Anyone see the PBS
>show on diamonds?  Notice that scene where the ex-GE employee says that
>they were making 1-2 carat GEM grade diamonds syntheticly?  And that 
>DeBeers sent over an envoy and suddenly they didn't know how to make
>GEM grade any more, but the price of industrial diamonds from both GE
>and DeBeers went up a chunk?  

That wasn't the government. That was business. DeBeers is a conspiracy,
I guess, but it isn't a secret.

[...]

>Just remember Adam Smith, and his statement about folks getting together
>even for merry making, but that the conversation turns to ways to 
>restrain trade and increase profits...  

If you love conspiracies, check out the great electrical equipment
conspiracy that was busted in teh late 1950s; the only time high
corporate management has ever gotten jail terms. There was a book about
it called "By the Phase of the Moon", or something (Westinghouse, GE,
Allis-Chalmers, et al, apparently divvied up business by the phase of
the moon).

>So, no, I don't believe in the 'conspiracy' theories.  

Your lips tell me "no, no", but there's "yes, yes" in your eyes...

>But, yes, I DO
>believe in the 'unseen hand' of Adam Smith and the tendency of greed
>and avarice to drive folks in a common direction.  

Some people call that "the market". How does Cygnus feel about it?

>And, yes, I DO 
>believe in the tendency of the military to be paranoid about technological
>advances that might obsolete their current batch of toys...  And, yes,
>the law DOES let them act on that paranoia by confiscation and clasification.

There are times when I wouldn't have it any other way.

>E. Michael Smith
>Manager of Stuff
>Cygnus Support


-- 


    ********** DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@netcom.com) **********
    *                Daly City California:                *
    *       where San Francisco meets The Peninsula       *
    *       and the San Andreas Fault meets the Sea       *
    *******************************************************

cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenhatunen cudlnDaveHatunen cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.28 /  prasad /  Re: patent office is dangerous !
     
Originally-From: c1prasad@watson.ibm.com (prasad)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: patent office is dangerous !
Date: 28 Dec 1994 22:28:04 GMT
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

In article <D1JCxs.700@cygnus.com>, ems@cygnus.com (E. Michael Smith) writes:
|> The original inventor of the Laser had to wait decades and go to court
|> several times to get royalties for the laser.  Seems the US had his 
|> invention classified secret until well after someone else had re-invented it.
				^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Several decades after, as I recall it, and people had stopped paying royalties.
I believe he had to write off royalties on the laser altogether.

Townsend apparently initiated the secrecy move.  Considering that a light-beam
is less likely to be hot military stuff than a microwave/infrared-beam, the
problem seems to have been professional rivalry rather than Uncle Sam's.  From
that perspective, recall the patent for microcontroller that Intel lost to
one Hyatt?

|> If I invented a device or technology with world shaking impacts (an unlikey
|> scenario, alas ;-) then I would have patent applications on it filed in
|> at least 4 mutually antagonistic countries.  (Europe, Russia, Japan, and 
|> THEN the US...)  and I'd likely have a copy of the work escrowed with a

Catch-22:
	you are not allowed to file abroad until 6 months after filing in US.

|> 'friend' in a foreign country, where he could 'go public' with it (as an
|> 'independent invention' of course) should the US have enough clout to 

Then you lose the title, even if everyone would "know" it was really you.
You might as well file as yours, the courts will figure out anyway.  If it's
really world-shaking, clouts just might fall to the wayside.  Or play it safe,
emigrate before filing anywhere.  Then again, almost every country has secrecy
laws that are no less stringent, and they give far less in return.  Not even
protection from a foreign DeBeer for the diamonds in your backyard!  Read
a Lustbader lately?!

Further, if you do publish in a foreign country, it's chances of being flamed
are definitely less than in the US, but au contraire with or without funding,
it's chances of actually impacting human life is going to be way low.  US is
*the* market for mankind.

The best bet is of course to wait for a couple of centuries before coming
up with any such "last frontier" devices.  By then, hopefully in a non-nuclear
way, the world will have resolved its last conflicts and all people will be
happily employed in private businesses without a military to worry about.
Then you bring in the world shaking discovery and the world can promptly
revert to war.
;)

=======
#include "std/disclaim.h"

cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenc1prasad cudlnprasad cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.28 / John Dobitz /  Re: patent office is dangerous !
     
Originally-From: dobitz@texhrc.texaco.com (John K. Dobitz)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.energy,alt.paranet.science,
ci.environment,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: patent office is dangerous !
Date: 28 Dec 1994 22:52:15 GMT
Organization: Texaco INC

In article <3dsj3t$fd@ixnews1.ix.netcom.com>,
Paul Freda <Paulfr@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>In <3ds3sv$61k@rsbsn001.rsb.texaco.com> dobitz@texhrc.texaco.com (John 
>K. Dobitz) writes: 
>
>>
>>All I can say is that in most cases people really don't understand 
>>the patent process or even what a patent is.
>>
>
>I thought I did.  But I'd like to make sure.  What is a patent and what 
>are the essentials of the process one needs to know ?
>
>Paul  <paulfr@ix.netcom.com>
>

In short, (and this is going to bring out the lawyers with and without
degree) a patent is short for letter patent.  The agreement is that you
publish your invention (you have to tell how it works or at least give
enough information for someone else to duplicate your efforts) through the
patent office.  The government wants everyone to know how to do these
things.  The opposite is a trade secret (like the Coke formula) that is
truely a secret and nobody knows how to do it except your company and if
your company loses the secret (fire, flood, famine, pestilence) it is gone
until someone reinvents it.

In exchange for publication, the government grants you exclusive use of
your patent for a period of time, 17 years in the US if you keep up on the
maintenence of your patent.  After that time runs out it's a freebie to
anyone who wants to use it.

So, when anyone claims someone "bought up all the patents and are keeping
it secret" then you know they don't have a clue because the secret is
published by the government and printed and archived throughout the
country for anyone to see.  And it has to say somewhere in it that this
fuel system will let a car get 200 mpg or that use of this unique fuel
system isn't patented so it can't be buried in the wording.

If you don't want to patent you can always publish and noone can ever
patent your invention.  At least you would be able to manufacture your
invention.

Again, this is the short version and there are hundreds of patent
attourneys that make their living off the nuances.

**************************************************************
* John Dobitz                                                *
* Texaco Exploration & Production Technology Department      *
* Houston, Tx                                                *
* dobitz@Texaco.COM                                          *
**************************************************************
* This note is the opinion of the writer and not of Texaco.  *
**************************************************************
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudendobitz cudfnJohn cudlnDobitz cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.28 / Rodney Dyer /  Re: patent office is dangerous !
     
Originally-From: rmdyer@uncc.edu (Rodney M. Dyer)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.energy,alt.paranet.science,
ci.environment,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: patent office is dangerous !
Date: 28 Dec 1994 23:40:06 GMT
Organization: University of North Carolina at Charlotte

Paranoia the destroya !!!!

cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenrmdyer cudfnRodney cudlnDyer cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.28 / A Plutonium /  Re: Free Energy Device GIF pic ! MRA picture
     
Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,alt.paranet.science,alt.sci.phy
ics.plutonium,sci.energy,sci.energy.hydrogen,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Free Energy Device GIF pic ! MRA picture
Date: 28 Dec 1994 23:50:41 GMT
Organization: Plutonium Atom Foundation

In article <D1HB4C.GJw@eskimo.com>
billb@eskimo.com (William Beaty) writes:

> Do you know of any patents for devices similar to the MRA?  The MRA 
> inventors are familiar with the literature.  The MRA closely resembles
> the device discovered by F. Sweet and explored by Bearden, which was not
> patented.  The construction of that device is still being kept secret.  
> The MRA is vaguely similar to the Hendershott device, Neuman's motor, and 
> McKie's PODMOD, which use nonlinear effects with coils and capacitors to 
> 'tap the ZPE' or whatever it is they do.

  With respect to my patent pending on Spontaneous Neutron
Materialization Devices, what Canon has verified of my work as regards
to Canon's European patent. The technique (2) to induce rsnm is pulsing
which is either changing electric current i and/or changing  electric
potential difference V. Changing i, V is what Canon has done to induce
cold fusion in their experiments. Canon calls it "pulsing" but it is
the same as changing i, V as claimed in my early patent application. 
 The MRA  trespasses onto my theoretical work and patent if it is found
out that the MRA violates the conservation of energy/mass. Because, the
theory that you guys have behind the MRA is wrong. And, the reason that
the MRA can work, if work at all, is because it follows my patent, by
changes in current or electric potential which is also magnetic
potential. Hence, if there are MRA devices built that work, all those
devices are my Neutron Materialization devices.
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.29 / Tom Droege /  The Check Was in the Mail
     
Originally-From: Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: The Check Was in the Mail
Date: 29 Dec 1994 00:05:25 GMT
Organization: fermilab

But now it has arrived.  I would like to acknowlege that I 
have received a check for $1058.95.  I will deposit it in my
bank account.  I should be able to get some cheap derivatives
so it will grow while I am arranging a trip to Mr. Griggs. ;^)  

Several people have expressed an interest in joining me for the
trip.  When I talk with Griggs I will see how he responds to 
my showing up with a "Team".

There is bound to be some money left over.  What do you all think
about using the remainder to sponser someone to attend ICCF5?  
Some of you live close enough that the left overs might do the 
trick.  Dieter Britz comes to mind.  

Meanwhile the 17 December "New Scientist" has arrived with a nice 
article on the trip.  "Net backs probe into cold fusion" is the 
headline.  I will write and see if I can get permission to post 
the entire article.  

Tom Droege
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenDroege cudfnTom cudlnDroege cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.28 / Kaya Bekiroglu /  How long for Princeton Tokamak?
     
Originally-From: kbekirog@lynx.dac.neu.edu (Kaya Bekiroglu)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: How long for Princeton Tokamak?
Date: 28 Dec 1994 19:57:25 -0500
Organization: Division of Academic Computing, Northeastern University, Boston, MA. USA

Just out of curiosity - how long is Princeton's Tokamak going to be
funded?  Is it in danger of being shut down anytime soon?


-- 
Mr. Kaya Bekiroglu
Memetic Engineer
kbekirog@lynx.dac.neu.edu

cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenkbekirog cudfnKaya cudlnBekiroglu cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.27 /  jonesse@plasma /  Re:  John Bockris' 4-body reaction
     
Originally-From: jonesse@plasma.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re:  John Bockris' 4-body reaction
Date: 27 Dec 94 14:43:15 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

Here's the reference to the article by R. Sundaresan and J. Bockris:
Fusion Technology, vol. 26, Nov. 1994, p. 261 ff.

From the abstract:
"Spectroscopially pure carbon rods were subjected to a carbon arc in highly
purified water...  The original carbon contained ~2 ppm iron, and the
detritus contained up to 286 ppm of iron...  When dissolved O2, was replaced 
by N2 in the solution, no iron was formed.   Hence, the mechanism
  2 C-12 + 2 O-18 --> Fe-56 + He-4
was suggested as the origin of the iron.  The increase in temperature of the
solution was consistent with expectation based on this reaction."

And from the paper, one learns the exegesis of this bizarre (IMHO) proposition:

"During the last few year, numerous reports of tritium formation from deuterium
held under solid-state confinement have been published.  It is much less well
known that long before results of such reactions were revealed, a number of
other reports had been made concerning stimulation of nuclear reactions by
ultralow-energy changes.  Thus, Kervran claims to have brought about the
formation of 103Ru and 206Pb under chemical conditons. Kushi and Ohsawa claim
that iron, cobalt, and nickel may be formed from carbon following arcing in the
presence of oxygen... 

"Bush and Eagleton and Notoya and Enyo 
[note the frequent reference to Japanese]
have claimed that new calcium has been formed as a result
of the electrolysis of H2O on nickel in a potassium carbonate solution.  Komaki
et al. and others have recorded the dependence of K and P in certain bacteria,
as a function of the presence and absence of K and P in the nutrient liquid (in
half the samples, these materials had been removed).  They claim that the
missing elements are formed in nuclear biological processes.
                               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
"In all these cases, the formation of new elements appears to be occurring in
the cold, as is indeed the case with the formation of tritium from deuterium,
which the authors regard as well established.

"In the following, we report work in which the chemically stimulated formation
of iron from carbon is described."


Hook, line and sinker. 

--Steven Jones

cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenjonesse cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.27 /  jonesse@plasma /  cancel <1994Dec27.142239.1961@plasma.byu.edu>
     
Originally-From: jonesse@plasma.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: cancel <1994Dec27.142239.1961@plasma.byu.edu>
Date: 27 Dec 94 14:44:27 -0700

cancel <1994Dec27.142239.1961@plasma.byu.edu>
cudkeys:
cuddy27 cudenjonesse cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.28 / Harry Conover /  Re: Such gullible "skeptics!"
     
Originally-From: conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Such gullible "skeptics!"
Date: 28 Dec 1994 06:24:10 GMT
Organization: The Internet Access Company

Richard Schultz (schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu) wrote:
: In article <Joz6YSM.jedrothwell@delphi.com>,  <jedrothwell@delphi.com> wrote:

: >Jones says you can get more than 100 volts out
: >of a power supply attached to 100 volt mains -- and Hittinger buys it! 

: I can personally attest that I have used a power supply attached to 120 V
: mains and gotten 30 THOUSAND volts out of it.  Furthermore, I also once used
: a 100 V power supply that fried and started putting out something closer to
: 200 V.  (The latter was one of Kepco's more clever designs:  a $3 transistor
: blew and took a $120 potentiometer with it.)
: --

Apparently Kepco has outdone itself on that design.  Most firms use a
$30 transistor to protect a $0.50 fuse.  Using a $120 potentiometer to
protect a $3 transitor takes real creativity!

                                       Harry C.

ps.  Unless your talking about something like the Leeds and Northrup
     variety, $120 must buy one Hell of a potentiometer (unless your
     speaking of one marketed to the medical community, where component
     prices are normalized to medical billing rates if possible).

cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenconover cudfnHarry cudlnConover cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.28 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: Dr. Oriani's Lecture
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Dr. Oriani's Lecture
Date: Wed, 28 Dec 1994 06:47:34 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

In article <3dpo9p$n3m@stratus.skypoint.net>,
John Logajan <jlogajan@skypoint.com> wrote:

>I'm also not aware that Dr. Bockris has publicly insulted Dr. Jones -- 
>but I do know that Dr. Jones has publicly suggested brain dysfunction
>in Dr. Bockris (apparently on the basis of a disagreement over the
>likelyhood of a four body nuclear interaction.)

Am I to believe by this that you think that there is some sort of physics
that would favor such an unlikely four body fusion? And that _if_ Bockris
were to seriously suggest such a combination as a source of CNF that you
would countenance such a theory without strong evidence? And without
such evidence, I suggest, such a theory would surely qualify for 
'dysfunctional' appelations. Either that or why bother to teach any
physics at all if everything is equally possible?

Either we live in a vacuum or in an ordered universe. If it is ordered then
either we have some clue as to what holds it together or not. If we have that
clue then suggesting highly counter theories without some sort of substatiating
evidence qualifies as science fiction, not science fact.

Need I mention that the _majority_ of people in the U.S. believe that
faster than light travel is possible because of Star Trek?

cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.28 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: Dr. Oriani's Lecture
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Dr. Oriani's Lecture
Date: Wed, 28 Dec 1994 06:52:36 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

In article <Jq96AQN.jedrothwell@delphi.com>,  <jedrothwell@delphi.com> wrote:

>There is no point in claiming
>"there are no replicatable experiments" when I can cite hundreds of pages of
>reports proving that is incorrect.

Jed, where is the Pons & Fleischman water heater? 5 years ago they said that 
they HAD a working water heater and commercial use of it would commence
within the year. Where is it?

Where are the commercial uses for this easily reproduceable science?

cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.28 / M Barnard /  Re: Free Energy Device (Magnetic Resonance Amp)
     
Originally-From: barnard@grin.io.org (M Barnard)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,alt.energy.renewable,alt.parane
.science,alt.paranet.ufo,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.bio,sci.energy,sc
.energy.hydrogen,sci.environment,sci.materials,sci.physics,sci.physics.f
sion,sci.physics.particle
Subject: Re: Free Energy Device (Magnetic Resonance Amp)
Date: Wed, 28 Dec 1994 00:51:21
Organization: Internex Online, Toronto, Ontario, Canada (416 363 3783)

In article <ZOWIE.94Dec27134738@daedalus.stanford.edu> zowie@daedalus.st
nford.edu (Craig "Physicist" DeForest) writes:

>I stand corrected on that point.  However, there are a number of
>mistakes they could have made, including some of the ones in the
>previous article.  Perpetual motion is a tricky business -- there are
>so *many* ways to fool oneself!

>Perhaps the most basic property of any "Free Energy Device" is the
>device's ability to drive itself and produce excess power.  Any
>inventor with a basic new idea should develop a cogent, conceptually
>bulletproof demonstration of the science -- especially inventors in
>the tricky field of alleged perpetual motion!  Unfortunately, all such
>Free Energy Devices to date have failed under the self-power test -- 
>otherwise, we'd be using them to power our homes!
[snip]
>With such a simple circuit as their design, it would be trivial to
>plug it back into itself.  Certainly it would take less effort than
>has already been expended on public relations for the idea.  They'll
>have much less trouble being taken seriously once they've successfully 
>done so.  Until that point, the community at large is likely to continue
>treating them as cranks.
>--

Okay...I'm just an interested bystander who has been following the debate and 
who has read all of the notes and seen the .gif.  This doesn't mean I 
understand all of it, but I have read it.

In one point of the collected e-mails back and forth, one of the inventor's 
claims to have done just what you suggested.  From memory (so bear with the 
innacuracies):

"I turned off the power and went to bed for the night.  A few hours later I 
woke up with a splitting headache.  I went and checked on the MRA circuit and 
found that it was still producing power."

They refer to similar occurences as well.  This would seem to indicate that 
they have performed and passed this test, at least in their own eyes.  I don't 
doubt that there are many ways that they could be fooling themselves still.

Craig, I don't have the electronics background to comment on the science of 
what they are doing, however, I do have enough scientific background to do my 
research before making or debunking claims.  I've read what they've made 
available.  Have you?  You obviously are skeptical, and you obviously know 
what you are talking about.  You would make the perfect person to actually 
read the notes and provide useful comments.

M
barnard@grin.io.org-----------------------------------------------------------
Neolithic sculptures dance in the hills./Cairn stones, held together by a
charm of gravity,/orbit around each other/as if they were the bones of a
dancer,/held together by ligaments and will.
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenbarnard cudfnM cudlnBarnard cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.28 / Harry Conover /  Re: Facilitated Communication
     
Originally-From: conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Facilitated Communication
Date: 28 Dec 1994 07:20:23 GMT
Organization: The Internet Access Company

Laurie Forbes (lforbes@nucleus.com) wrote:


[snip, snip]

: So, what has all this to do with CF (the similarity in the initials not
: withstanding).  As was pointed out on the Frontline program, this so
: called scientific investigation could be considered to be equivalent to
: the "cold fusion of social services" i.e. pathological science at its
: worst.  Sadly, there are apparently many who still cling doggedly to the
: veracity of FC although in their cases (many being the parents of autistic
: children) this is perhaps a little more understandable.

Unfortunately, in almost every field when excessive emotion enters 
the picture, scientific objectivity seems to be the first victim.

In the case of Facilitated Communication, when a competent scientist
was finally imported to review and critique the field (an expert in 
communications devices for the handicapped -- sorry, I have misplaced his 
name but he was from Boston), only several days of investigation was 
required to prove beyond argument that that FC was entirely bogus 
and without any merit.  Still, as you point out, some "true believers"
driven by emotion (or profit) blind themselves to these facts 
and continue to argue to FC produces beneficial results, synthesizing
verbose but ridiculous counter-arguments against FC's critics.  

The parallel in Cold Fusion is inescapable. 

A number of posters in this group continue to post verbose, emotional
and almost pleading arguments for the demonstrated existence of CF in
the face of a continuing failure by CF researchers to produce a single, 
meaningful, reproducible result.  Just as FC enthusiasts ridicule and
deny its exposure as a humbug, CF enthusiasts denounce and attack those
who expose CF's failure to demonstrate positive results.

This is simply human nature and attempts to convince emotion driven
enthusiasts of the scientific reality of the situation is a pointless
exercise!  Non-scientist have difficulty accepting that simply wanting
something to be true is not a neccessary and sufficient condition for
the phenomenon to exist.  In fact, history has repeatedly demonstrated 
that in science this lack of objectivity is, more often than not, 
counter-productive.  

Unfortunately, IMHO today's CF appears to be more religious belief
than scientific fact, and attempting to debate the truth of religious 
convictions is pointless.  

                                      Harry C.
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenconover cudfnHarry cudlnConover cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.22 / Mike Griffin /  The True Reaction (was: Dr. Oriani's Lecture)
     
Originally-From: mgriffin@il.us.swissbank.com (Mike Griffin)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: The True Reaction (was: Dr. Oriani's Lecture)
Date: Thu, 22 Dec 1994 19:20:59 GMT
Organization: Swiss Bank Corporation

In article <1994Dec22.030627.5493@midway.uchicago.edu> gk00@quads.uchicago.edu (Greg  
Kuperberg) gives us the likely reaction that the CF TBs must have in mind:

	nH + mD -> theoretical fog -> kHe + Heat! Heat! XS Heat! -> Money!

In fact this may be a valuable analytic tool for judging the near-lunatic ravings of
the Jed Rothwells of the net.  Whatever stance you take on the existence of nuclear
byproducts like gamma rays, on the detection of that last reaction product, there is
no dispute.  No excess money has ever been measured, and until it is, there is
probably no point in paying attention to the fantasies of the TBs.

Why, you may ask, do I continue to read s.p.f?  Because it is highly entertaining, worth
at least one good chuckle per day.  Greg's reaction is a fine example -- brilliant
satire, IMHO. (Thanks, Greg!)

Mike Griffin
(My employer takes no stand, that I know of, on CNF or perpetual motion machines, or
on the utility of theoretical science or attention to detail in the laboratory.)

cudkeys:
cuddy22 cudenmgriffin cudfnMike cudlnGriffin cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Thu Dec 29 04:37:04 EST 1994
------------------------------
1994.12.30 / Jon Livesey /  Re: Kunich versus Rothwell
     
Originally-From: livesey@solntze.engr.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Kunich versus Rothwell
Date: 30 Dec 1994 01:53:12 GMT
Organization: sgi

In article <Rq-awWQ.jedrothwell@delphi.com>, jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:
|> Let me clarify a  previous message. I claim there is a new field of science
|> here and a vitally important new technology, loosely known as CF. As proof, I
|> point to hundreds of peer reviewed scientific papers and conference
|> proceedings from EPRI, one the world's most respected energy research
|> organizations. Thomas H. Kunich <tomk@netcom.com> responded:
|>  
|>      "Jed, where is the Pons & Fleischmann water heater? 5 years ago they
|>      said that they HAD a working water heater and commercial use of it would
|>      commence within the year. Where is it?"
|>  
|> So tell us Tom, what does your response tell the reader? What exactly are you
|> saying? Let me interpret. You are saying that in order to evaluate this new
|> science -- to decide whether it is real or not, and significant or not -- we
|> should ignore the scientific papers that Jed talks about and instead look at
|> *one* offhand statement supposedly made by *one* scientist at a press
|> conference five years ago.

Given that this "offhand" comment was precisely the kind of thing
that got the press excited about "cold fusion" in the first place,
and given that they knew they were talking to the press and that
such comments would have the effect of attracting attention, it's
not all that unreasonable to ask how it all turned out.

jon.
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenlivesey cudfnJon cudlnLivesey cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.29 /  jonesse@acousb /  Any hope for fission reactors?
     
Originally-From: jonesse@acousb.byu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Any hope for fission reactors?
Date: 29 Dec 94 16:53:13 -0700
Organization: Brigham Young University

IS THERE ANY HOPE FOR FISSION AS A SOURCE OF ENERGY AFTER 2000?

Dear colleagues,
I would appreciate your comments on the possibility that fission
energy might supply a significant part of our energy needs during
the 3rd millenium AD.  Some of the problems:  

*Chernobyl and Three Mile Island-type releases
*What to do with long-lived radioactive wastes from spent fuel
*What to do with radioactive wastes from decommissioning (we are
just beginning to face this)
*Association of nuclear power with nuclear bombs
*Widespread, entrenched distrust of things nuclear
*No new orders for nuclear plants in the US for about 15 years
*High costs of nuclear power plants
*Public perception that solar or fusion will provide the solution
soon enough, or that cheap oil, gas and coal will last
essentially indefinitely.

Now a friend of mine from Canada has sent me a paper in which he
and associates describe an "inherently safe" fission reactor. 
The idea is to suspend 1-mm diam. fuel pellets in a vertical flow
of helium, this in place of rigid fuel rods in conventional
designs.  Should the He coolant flow stop, gravity will cause the
pellets to fall onto a cone where the pellets will be spread out
to much less than critical mass, and water will serve to cool the
pellets.  [A Swedish design uses borated water which expands in
case of excess heat in the rigid fuel rods, thus increasing the
moderation of neutrons, and shutting down the reaction -- also
inherently safe.]

My friend invites me to join him in studies of this "fluidized
bed" concept for a safe fission reactor.  He also suggests using
electrorefining techniques to separate out the neutron-absorbing
waste products -- the remainder is simply recycled into the fuel
pellets for further nuclear transmutation, including plutonium,
strontium and cesium bad actors.  (Some of the waste is stable
and valuable, e.g. gold -- and might be extracted in this way and
sold.)  Indeed, he finds that such a reactor could be used as a
plutonium-burner -- solving a big problem we now face of getting
rid of excess bomb plutonium. There remains long-lived waste
which must be disposed of, but perhaps 10% (he suggests) of that
which now must be stored.

Sounds good.  But will "inherently safe reactors" be sufficiently
acceptable to be tried in the US and Europe?  Perhaps elsewhere? 
Who would build such reactors, and where would the waste be
stored?  Considering the problems the Dept. of Energy and nuclear
industry are facing in cleaning up radioactive wastes, and the
public distrust of nuclear reactors (and scientists, lately), I
wonder if *any* nuclear reactors could be built again in the US.

What do you think? 
--Steven Jones
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenjonesse cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.29 / Robert Pettus /  What is your opinion?
     
Originally-From: rap@iac.net (Robert Pettus)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: What is your opinion?
Date: 29 Dec 1994 19:58:46 -0500
Organization: Internet Access Cincinnati 513-887-8877

OK, I've been lurking about this newsgroup for quite a while, following the
arguements for and against cold fusion.  It seems to me that the general con-
sensus is that CF is bogus, or actually NOT fusion as in binding 2H to 
He.  

The arguements against CF seem to center on the fact that CF doesn't produce
the radiation or by-products in the expected amounts, based on experience 
with Hot fusion.  However, SOME tritium is noted in the by products.... etc.

Now here is my question.  Perhaps the skeptics are right, and what we are 
seeing is not in fact cold fusion.  Could it be instead some sort of 
exotic electrochemical reaction?   Perhaps it is some sort of catalytic 
reaction, and therefore not requiring the normal force to initiate the 
reaction.

I notice that the Japanese are still working on the subject of CF, and are
producing a steady stream of patents on whatever it is.  The japanese 
seem to be much less concerned about the status quo of physics, and much 
more concerned about making MONEY.   ( making money should be the eventual
goal of most research IMHO ).  They seem to think it is commercial, and 
are not allowing it to die.

Comments Please... 
Robert
rap@iac.net

cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenrap cudfnRobert cudlnPettus cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.30 / Harry Conover /  Re: Free Energy Device (Magnetic Resonance Amp)
     
Originally-From: conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,alt.energy.renewable,alt.parane
.science,alt.paranet.ufo,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.bio,sci.energy,sc
.energy.hydrogen,sci.environment,sci.materials,sci.physics,sci.physics.f
sion,sci.physics.particle
Subject: Re: Free Energy Device (Magnetic Resonance Amp)
Date: 30 Dec 1994 03:05:41 GMT
Organization: The Internet Access Company

M Barnard (barnard@grin.io.org) wrote:

: Craig, I don't have the electronics background to comment on the science of 
: what they are doing, however, I do have enough scientific background to do my 
: research before making or debunking claims.  I've read what they've made 
: available.  Have you?  You obviously are skeptical, and you obviously know 
: what you are talking about.  You would make the perfect person to actually 
: read the notes and provide useful comments.

Why?

When a device constructed by one or more laymen claims (as they continuously
do) to overthrow and obsolete over 2,000 years of incrementally and painfully
acquired scientific knowledge, why should a detailed analysis and criticism
of the mechanism be expected or required?  

Consider the thousands of quack claims made to date, and the fact that in 
not one single case has one of these claims successfully overturned 
any of the law of thermodynamics, which include the conservation of 
energy. 

Consider the fact that the laws of thermodynamics have proven themselves
to be one of the most useful tools of science and technology and, in fact,
our scientific and technological achievements to date are largely due to
the validity of these laws as development tools.

Why then, on the basis of an unsubstantiated claim made by unsophisticated
workers, should we question the very foundations of man's scientific 
knowledge?  

Perpetual motion and free energy systems are fun to contemplate, and
sometimes a challenging puzzle to surface the error in thinking or 
measurement that serves as their basis.  Still, to take any of them
as serious or real requires, for the scientifically literate, a leap
of faith fully equivalent to that of accepting:

   -  I have a serum that will raise the dead.

   -  I have an elixir that will provide eternal, healthy life.

   -  I have invented a fluid that will quadruple the output of
      your car's batter, and make it last forever.

   -  I have a product that will make your car run on water.

   -  I have invented a device that produces free energy by
      tapping the Earth's magnetic field.

The list goes on and on.  You could test each one individually to
find it didn't work, or you can apply the accumulated knowedge of
science to analyze and predict the outcome.  Given that, to date,
scientific analysis has produced the same results as experimental
validation attempts, it is a 'no-brainer' to opt for analytical
evaluation.  

In this case, since the device under discussion claims to violate
conservation of energy, it cannot function as described.  End
of discussion!  :-)  Further analysis will only serve to isolate the
experimental or conceptual error(s) made by it's proponents, and while
this type of expose is is (as the solution of a puzzle) entertaining,
it has no relationship to a scientific evaluation of the merits of
the proposed device.

The simple fact is: You cannot make something that creates energy,
or extracts it from a place where it doesn't exist!  Perhaps the
bet argument for the fundamental correctness of this premise is: 
Think about the terrible consequences that would occur if you could 
do this, and realize that if it could be done, nature has likely 
already done it or is in the process of doing so!  Remember, in
science, nature did it first (including both fission and fusion).  

                                  Harry C.


cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenconover cudfnHarry cudlnConover cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.29 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Re: John Bockris' 4-body reaction (was Re: Dr. Oriani's lecture)
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: John Bockris' 4-body reaction (was Re: Dr. Oriani's lecture)
Date: Thu, 29 Dec 1994 21:31 -0500 (EST)

harmon@hepnsf.csudh.edu writes:
 
-> I think that just about covers all the possible paths.  So to calculate the
-> probability all you need to do is look up the vertex factors (the little > a
-> < 's) make sure these are all stable isotopes, then sum over all the possibl
-> paths.
 
As it turns out, all of the isotopes you listed are stable.
 
                                                                Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.30 / John Nagle /  Re: patent office is dangerous !
     
Originally-From: nagle@netcom.com (John Nagle)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.energy,alt.paranet.science,
ci.environment,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: patent office is dangerous !
Date: Fri, 30 Dec 1994 04:12:03 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

ems@cygnus.com (E. Michael Smith) writes:
>From the 'almost a conspiracy theory' department:  Anyone see the PBS
>show on diamonds?  Notice that scene where the ex-GE employee says that
>they were making 1-2 carat GEM grade diamonds synthetically?

     Some synthetic gem-quality diamonds made by GE can be seen in
the Smithsonian's gem collection.  GE made these back in the 1950s.
There's no big secret about it; it just takes a huge press, a lot of
press time, and there are supposedly yield problems.  Still, far more
is known about making synthetic gem materials now, as a spinoff from
silicon wafer making.  You can buy ruby and sapphire bar stock.
You can buy little diamond flats to put under your IC to improve
heat conduction.  If the semiconductor industry ever decides diamond
substrates would be useful, the stuff would probably come out in bulk.
Diamond really isn't that rare; it's only promotion that makes it valuable.

     The current hot technology in this area is a new way to repair
flaws in diamonds, allowing the upgrading of low-grade gems to 
higher grade gems.  This has the gem industry a bit worried.

					John Nagle
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudennagle cudfnJohn cudlnNagle cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.29 /  prasad /  patent office no longer dangerous!
     
Originally-From: c1prasad@watson.ibm.com (prasad)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: patent office no longer dangerous!
Date: 29 Dec 1994 14:26:58 GMT
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

In article <162841siegman29252@EE.Stanford.EDU>, siegman@EE.Stanford.EDU
(Anthony E. Siegman) writes:
|> 
|> these early laser devices and systems for military purposes.  The
|> resulting contracts were then classified, and in an ironic twist Gould
|> was not able to get the necessary security clearance to work on them
|> with TRG; I think the problem had to do with alleged Communist
|> sympathies or activities by his sister, not by Gould himself.  I doubt
|> very very much that Townes, who was then at Columbia and associated

So that's the mystery!  Thanks for clearing up the story.  It never did make
much sense before, because Maiman (again if I recall right) was supposed to
have got the first ruby laser to work, and that was on the west coast, miles
away...

cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenc1prasad cudlnprasad cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.29 /  prasad /  Griggs O/U is Commercial? Was: Re: Dr. Oriani's Lecture
     
Originally-From: c1prasad@watson.ibm.com (prasad)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Griggs O/U is Commercial? Was: Re: Dr. Oriani's Lecture
Date: 29 Dec 1994 14:36:01 GMT
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

In article <5Y5Zo2P.jedrothwell@delphi.com>, jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:
|> one to six years (depending on how many hours per day it is used.) Griggs just
|> finished installing several more systems in factories here in Georgia. There
|> is absolutely, positively no question that they produce thousands of watts of
|> excess heat -- the big ones put out roughly 22 KW excess, 24 hours a day, 7
|> days a week. That is a commercial use, by golly. His customers are factory
|> engineers and industrialists -- not scientists -- so they know what the hell
|> they are doing. They would never buy the kind of crap Dick Blue peddles about

Are you saying that Griggs is actually installing special o/u class units, not
merely the (non o/u) units described in his 1993(?) patent etc.?

Or does that mean the installed units are being operated in the o/u range
by many of the industrial clients, possibly with Griggs showing them how?

Maybe Tom had better take a look at some of these sites as well if the
owners are willing???

cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenc1prasad cudlnprasad cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.29 /  rvanspaa@ozema /        Re: Fusion Digest 3060
     
Originally-From: rvanspaa@ozemail.com.au
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:       Re: Fusion Digest 3060
Date: Thu, 29 Dec 1994 15:14:28 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Steven Jones writes: 
>    12C + 12C + 18O + 18O  --> 56Fe + 4He.
> (Published in Fusion Technology, Oct. or Nov. 1994)
> 
> Now this is just nonsense -- do you disagree, John?   Gosh, Bockris is
> proposing here a nuclear reaction involving 4 nuclei simultaneously --
> including _two_ 18oxygen nuclei (rare!) to boot!  This is a bizarre proposition
> to publish, I'm bold to say -- off the scale.
> As I said, I feel concerned for Dr. Bockris, and
> wondered out loud what could lead him to publish such nonsense.
__________________________________________________________________
Though I too seriouly doubt that the above reaction is the reason 
behind the observed penomenon, I feel duty bound too point out that 
two colliding molecules of CO with O being O18, would at least bring 
the four required nuclei within "striking distance" all at the same 
time.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa@ozemail.com.au>

cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenrvanspaa cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.29 / Thomas Zemanian /  Re: John Bockris' 4-body reaction (was Re: Dr. Oriani's lecture)
     
Originally-From: ts_zemanian@pnl.gov (Thomas S. Zemanian)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: John Bockris' 4-body reaction (was Re: Dr. Oriani's lecture)
Date: 29 Dec 1994 16:45:19 GMT
Organization: Battelle PNL

In article <tomkD1JtsC.E6n@netcom.com>, tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
wrote:

> In article <ts_zemanian-281294084909@ts_zemanian.pnl.gov>,
> Thomas S. Zemanian <ts_zemanian@pnl.gov> wrote:
> >
> >Actually, this may not be a four bod interaction, but rather a two body
> >interaction, if it occurs on the surface of the carbon rods at the point
> >where the arc touches down.  Thus, the highly improbable reaction above may
> >actually be
> >
> >{12C Surface} + 18O + 18O --> 56Fe + 4He.
> 
> Err, wouldn't you think that since the carbon atoms need to be adjacent and
> there needs to be some force to overcome the coulomb barrier that this
> STILL represents a four body problem?
> 

If the 18O's come together *on the surface* there wil, of course, be two
adjacent carbons.  If you wish to consider the surface as another "body",
as in the Langmuir treatment of surface isotherms, then one might call this
a three body interaction.  The point is that if this occurs *on the
surface*, then the probabilistic hindrance inherent in a four body
interaction reduces to that of a two (or three) body interaction.  I
believe I acknowledged the coulomb barrier problem in the part of my post
which you deleted by noting that the carbon-carbon bond length in graphite
was prohibitively large for fusion events to occur at any meaningful
frequency.  As Marshall Dudley has noted, the iron was found in the
detritus, _i.e._, the carbon rod residue.  Does this not point to a surface
reaction?

> And, umm, where is all of this O18 coming from?

As I noted, the 18O is rare.  Why delete arguments and then ask why I
hadn't addressed them?

> 
> Bockris found iron, I'll give him that. It's the presentation of where
> that iron came from that leaves one chuckling.

Agreed.

--Tom

--
The opinions expressed herein are mine and mine alone.  Keep your filthy
hands off 'em! 
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudents_zemanian cudfnThomas cudlnZemanian cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.29 /  jedrothwell@de /  Kunich versus Rothwell
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Kunich versus Rothwell
Date: Thu, 29 DEC 94 12:43:20 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Let me clarify a  previous message. I claim there is a new field of science
here and a vitally important new technology, loosely known as CF. As proof, I
point to hundreds of peer reviewed scientific papers and conference
proceedings from EPRI, one the world's most respected energy research
organizations. Thomas H. Kunich <tomk@netcom.com> responded:
 
     "Jed, where is the Pons & Fleischmann water heater? 5 years ago they
     said that they HAD a working water heater and commercial use of it would
     commence within the year. Where is it?"
 
So tell us Tom, what does your response tell the reader? What exactly are you
saying? Let me interpret. You are saying that in order to evaluate this new
science -- to decide whether it is real or not, and significant or not -- we
should ignore the scientific papers that Jed talks about and instead look at
*one* offhand statement supposedly made by *one* scientist at a press
conference five years ago. Instead of carefully reading papers and performing
replication experiments, we should judge the entire field by asking
about the outcome of hocus pocus prediction made a professor at a press
conference long ago.
 
There is a great divide here between our two ways of doing science. It would
be best for us to agree to disagree, in a friendly fashion. When *I* want to
find about a technology, I spend months reading about it, talking to people
about it, and I go to the laboratories with my Radio Shack thermistors,
ammeters and my stop watch (to measure flow rates). I get information first
hand and I verify it myself, so that I can absolutely sure it is right. When
*you* want to evaluate a new technology, you ignore the scientific papers and
you zero in on comments taken out of context from a press conferences five
years ago. You look at a media circus that occurred before 99.99% of the
experimental work was performed, and before any papers were published. You
examine one isolated incident which has nothing to do with any experiment in
any laboratory. I look at a whole constellation of data taken over many years,
from as many different scientists as I get my hands on.
 
I think that my way of doing science is better than yours. I think that your
method -- the Press Conference Evaluation System -- is about as scientific as
reading tea leaves or using an Ouija board to predict the outcome of an
experiment five years in the future. When I want to confirm excess heat in an
experiment I use a thermometer, whereas you cite a five-year-old press
conference. As I said, let us agree to disagree. You go ahead and do things
your way, and I will go on doing what I have done all my life. Time will tell
who has a better method of determining the truth about nature.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenjedrothwell cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.29 /  PAUL /  RE: How long for Princeton Tokamak?
     
Originally-From: stek@nel.pfc.mit.edu (PAUL)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: RE: How long for Princeton Tokamak?
Date: 29 DEC 94 18:13:05 GMT
Organization: MIT PLASMA FUSION CENTER

In a previous article, kbekirog@lynx.dac.neu.edu (Kaya Bekiroglu) wrote:
->Just out of curiosity - how long is Princeton's Tokamak going to be
->funded?  Is it in danger of being shut down anytime soon?
-> 
-> 
->-- 
->Mr. Kaya Bekiroglu
->Memetic Engineer
->kbekirog@lynx.dac.neu.edu
-> 

TFTR was to be shut down in September but they got an extension for
another year to continue their DT experiments. One reason for this
was that funding for construction for their next machine, TPX, did not
go through.  I predict that TFTR will continue to run or at least not be
taken apart till after funding for a new machine at Princeton is 
assured.  Failure to build a replacement experiment would kill the 
biggest fusion lab in the country.  This would only happen if there
were a huge drop in fusion funding.  This is a possibility.

Paul Stek
Stek@mit.edu

"Speaking only for myself, if that." 
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenstek cudlnPAUL cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.29 / Richard Schultz /  Re: Kunich versus Rothwell
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Kunich versus Rothwell
Date: 29 Dec 1994 18:35:57 GMT
Organization: Philosophers of the Dangerous Maybe

In article <Rq-awWQ.jedrothwell@delphi.com>,  <jedrothwell@delphi.com> wrote:

>. . .I get information first
>hand and I verify it myself, so that I can absolutely sure it is right. 

So you are absolutely sure that a power supply attached to 100 volt mains
cannot put out more than 100 volts?
--
					Richard Schultz

"I seem to smell a peculiar and a fishlike smell."
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.29 /  harmon@hepnsf. /  Re: John Bockris' 4-body reaction (was Re: Dr. Oriani's lecture)
     
Originally-From: harmon@hepnsf.csudh.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: John Bockris' 4-body reaction (was Re: Dr. Oriani's lecture)
Date: 29 Dec 1994 22:29:53 GMT
Organization: CSU Dominguez Hills, Carson,  CA, USA

In article <ts_zemanian-291294083213@ts_zemanian.pnl.gov>, ts_zemanian@pnl.gov
(Thomas S. Zemanian) writes
>If the 18O's come together *on the surface* there wil, of course, be two
>adjacent carbons.  If you wish to consider the surface as another "body",
>as in the Langmuir treatment of surface isotherms, then one might call this
>a three body interaction.  The point is that if this occurs *on the
>surface*, then the probabilistic hindrance inherent in a four body
>interaction reduces to that of a two (or three) body interaction.  I
>believe I acknowledged the coulomb barrier problem in the part of my post
>which you deleted by noting that the carbon-carbon bond length in graphite
>was prohibitively large for fusion events to occur at any meaningful
>frequency.  As Marshall Dudley has noted, the iron was found in the
>detritus, _i.e._, the carbon rod residue.  Does this not point to a surface
>reaction?

When in doubt, draw pictures.

O(18) --------\ 
               > ---- Si(30) ---\           /----- Fe(56)
C(12) --------/                   \       /
                                   > --- <                   1
C(12) -------\                    /       \
              > ----- Si(30) ---/           \----- He(4)
O(16) -------/

or

O(18) -----\
            > ------ S(36) ---\
O(18) -----/                    \       /----- Fe(56)
                                 > --- <                    2
C(12) ----\                     /       \----- He(4)
           > ------- Mg(24)---/
C(12) ----/

or

O(18) ----------------------------\
                                   \     /--- Fe(56)
O(18) ---------------\              >---<                   3
                      \            /     \--- He(4)
                       >-Ca(42)---/
C(12) ---\            /
          > -Mg(24)--/
C(12) ---/

or

O(18) -----------------------------\
                                    \      /---- Fe(56)
C(12) ----------------\              >----<                4
                       \            /      \--- He(4)
                        >--Ca(42)--/
O(18) ---\             /
          >-- Si(30)--/
C(12) ---/

or

C(12) ------------------------------\
                                      \      /---- Fe(56)
C(12) -------------------\             >----<              5
                          \           /      \---- He(4)
                           >--Ti(48)-/
O(18) ---\                /
          >-- S(36) -----/
O(18) ---/

or

C(12) -------------------------------\
                                       \      /---- Fe(56)
O(18) -------------------\              >----<              6
                          \            /      \----- He(4)
                           >--Ti(48)-/
O(18) ----\               /
           >-- Si(30) ---/
C(12) ----/

I think that just about covers all the possible paths.  So to calculate the
probability all you need to do is look up the vertex factors (the little > and
< 's) make sure these are all stable isotopes, then sum over all the possible
paths.  If you were really motivated, this could probably be done.  Every
few years Nuclear Physics A has issues which have different A valued isotopes
and often lists formation reactions and the threshold energies and the 
experimental references to get the cross sections.  Maybe when I'm finished 
with my current project I'll do it.  It seems like an easy way to publish a 
paper.
In any event, since each of these reactions has 4 < and > 's it is a four
body reaction.

Craig
harmon@hepnsf.csudh.edu
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenharmon cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.29 / K Jonsson /  Re: Kunich versus Rothwell
     
Originally-From: kvj@rhi.hi.is (Kristjan Valur Jonsson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Kunich versus Rothwell
Date: 29 Dec 1994 23:01:00 GMT
Organization: University of Iceland

In <3duvid$kv2@agate.berkeley.edu> schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz) writes:

>In article <Rq-awWQ.jedrothwell@delphi.com>,  <jedrothwell@delphi.com> wrote:

>>. . .I get information first
>>hand and I verify it myself, so that I can absolutely sure it is right. 

>So you are absolutely sure that a power supply attached to 100 volt mains
>cannot put out more than 100 volts?

It cannot 'pull out' more than 100V.  what it does with it then,
is another matter.  Analogy:  A faucet cannot pull more than two
bar from a water outlet if the water supply is at two bar.  However,
there may be a pump downstreamn...

Perhaps this wasn't such a good example for jed to state his point but
he had other analogies aswell.  It's purposeless to split hairs like
this.

Kristjan

-- 
Kristjan Valur Jonsson               |    The individual does not qualify for
Student of mechanical engineering,   |         making decisions regarding the
University of Iceland                |                 activities of the many.
Exclaimer: Yess!                     |                         (Helmut, 1993)
-- 
Kristjan Valur Jonsson               |    The individual does not qualify for
Student of mechanical engineering,   |         making decisions regarding the
University of Iceland                |                 activities of the many.
Exclaimer: Yess!                     |                         (Helmut, 1993)
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenkvj cudfnKristjan cudlnJonsson cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.29 / Anthony Siegman /  Re: patent office is dangerous !
     
Originally-From: siegman@EE.Stanford.EDU (Anthony E. Siegman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: patent office is dangerous !
Date: 29 Dec 1994 01:34:17 GMT
Organization: Leland Stanford Junior University

From several authors (names omitted to protect the guilty):

> The original inventor of the Laser had to wait decades and go to court
> several times to get royalties for the laser.  Seems the US had his 
> invention classified secret until well after someone else had re-invented it.
>				^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Several decades after, as I recall it, and people had stopped paying royalties.
>I believe he had to write off royalties on the laser altogether.
>
>Townsend apparently initiated the secrecy move.  Considering that a light-beam

   Maybe not at the top of the heap, but certainly well up to usual
s.p.f. standards for inaccuracy and misinformation

   Individual referred to is Gordon Gould, who did indeed file one or
more very early patent claims on laser concepts (around 1957?), and
subsequently had a decades-long series of legal and patent battles
with Charles H. *Townes*, and I believe a number of others as well.
over these inventions.

   However, none of this (at least to my knowledge) involved
classification of the patents by the U.S.; I'm not aware of any basic
laser patents that were classified, and all the significant laser
development activies at that time (mid-1950s onward) were widely and
openly published.

   Gould did join up with a small company on Long Island (TRG?
Technical Research Group? -- anyway, long since defunct) in writing
proposals and going after government contracts to develop some of
these early laser devices and systems for military purposes.  The
resulting contracts were then classified, and in an ironic twist Gould
was not able to get the necessary security clearance to work on them
with TRG; I think the problem had to do with alleged Communist
sympathies or activities by his sister, not by Gould himself.  I doubt
very very much that Townes, who was then at Columbia and associated
with Bell Labs, would have had anything to do with this
classification.

   Gould may very well never have gotten any royalties on these
inventions -- but this is partly because he sold the rights to a
company called (I think) Research Corporation, who bought them "on
spec" and then invested the funds to make the long legal fight.  I be
pretty sure he collected at least something from them up front for
these rights.  Royalties were certainly paid by laser companies on
these various patents, at various times.

   Of course neither Gould or Townes actually made any working
versions of their "inventions", at the time they filed the patents or
for lengthy periods afterwards.  In fact, the first working laser --
indeed the first two or three types of working lasers -- were made by
other people working quite independently of the patents.  As one cynic
has said, "The value of a patent is equal to the amount of legal fees
that the inventor is willing and able to spend in attacking other
people using the patent, or other people are willing and able to spend
in attacking the patent, and has virtually nothing to do with the
technical merits or actual validity of the claimed invention."

cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudensiegman cudfnAnthony cudlnSiegman cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.29 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: John Bockris' 4-body reaction (was Re: Dr. Oriani's lecture)
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: John Bockris' 4-body reaction (was Re: Dr. Oriani's lecture)
Date: Thu, 29 Dec 1994 01:36:12 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

In article <ts_zemanian-281294084909@ts_zemanian.pnl.gov>,
Thomas S. Zemanian <ts_zemanian@pnl.gov> wrote:
>
>Actually, this may not be a four bod interaction, but rather a two body
>interaction, if it occurs on the surface of the carbon rods at the point
>where the arc touches down.  Thus, the highly improbable reaction above may
>actually be
>
>{12C Surface} + 18O + 18O --> 56Fe + 4He.

Err, wouldn't you think that since the carbon atoms need to be adjacent and
there needs to be some force to overcome the coulomb barrier that this
STILL represents a four body problem?

And, umm, where is all of this O18 coming from?

Bockris found iron, I'll give him that. It's the presentation of where
that iron came from that leaves one chuckling.

cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.29 / Thomas Kunich /  Re: Dr. Oriani's Lecture
     
Originally-From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Dr. Oriani's Lecture
Date: Thu, 29 Dec 1994 01:46:56 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

In article <3ds2kg$epv@stratus.skypoint.net>,
John Logajan <jlogajan@skypoint.com> wrote:

>There are two general logical errors of this type -- judging the theory
>by the man.  One is an attempt to discredit the theory by discrediting
>the man (ad hominem) and the opposite is to bring credit to the theory
>by praising the man, his credentials, etc (ad sorryifogotinem:-)

What is this leading to? We know by reading Dr. Jones messages that he 
critcized the THEORY and offered the observation that in his opinion
the theory was so unlikely that anyone that would forward it without
very strong evidence would be suspect. This was the source of your
so-called 'ad hominem' but what I would call a serious consideration.

I note that in several of your messages you leave the impression that
you're  so 'even handed' that you are willing to accept at face value any
claim made by virtually anyone. That is hardly the previous impression
I had of you as someone that required convincing evidence before they
were willing to give carte blanche to new theories. What has happened
to change your views?

cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudentomk cudfnThomas cudlnKunich cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.29 / A Plutonium /  Re: John Bockris' 4-body reaction (was Re: Dr. Oriani's 
     
Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.electromag
Subject: Re: John Bockris' 4-body reaction (was Re: Dr. Oriani's 
Date: 29 Dec 1994 02:37:26 GMT
Organization: Plutonium Atom Foundation

In article <3ds1kj$epv@stratus.skypoint.net>
jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan) writes:

> 1.) There really is no excess iron.
> 2.) There is excess iron but the specifics of Bockris hypothesis is wrong.
> 3.) There is excess iron and the Bockris hypothesis is right.

  John is doing a good favor by listing the logical possibilities. It
is a shame that the anti-CF can not reciprocate in like style. That is
because their posts are mostly ad hominem, coupled with their old-fogey
ideas of physics, along with their gray wool style of clothing.

  I tend to agree with (2.) That there is excess iron but the specifics
of Bockris hypothesis is wrong.
  I posit that all CF experiments, plus sonoluminescence, excess iron
in carbon arc, cosmic gamma rays, (and even hot plasma fusion for the
most part) are all forms of Spontaneous Neutron Materialization, a
radioactive process as first outlined by P.A.M. Dirac in his Directions
in Physics. CF will not be accepted by the physics community at large
until----------------
until----------- it is seen as a violation of the conservation of
energy/mass.  That is what the excess iron in carbon arc experiments
are all about.  Once we throw conservation of energy/mass out the
window and into the gutter of shame, as all conservation laws in
physics are fakeries. Not until then, will CF research explode.
  One paragraph by Dirac is worth more than all the physics thoughts of
a pipsqueck like Steven Jones. Jones who is losing the fight against
CF, as so many others in this newsgroup, will then have the compulsion
to rationalize their attacks as a benefit to science by saying they
provided constructive criticism all along the way. This is far from the
truth. Closer to the truth is that most every one of these anti-CFers
were merely background noise, carnival barkers in the case of Jones.

  I posit that the most likely equation of the excess iron in the
Bockris type of experiments is a whole string of spontaneous neutron
materializations which go to the element stable to both fusion and
fission-- iron.
  The correct equation I posit is this
     18Oxygen + neutron + neutron, successive spontaneous
materialization all the way up to form a nucleus which makes an atom of
iron.
    I do not know if this reaction goes for carbon atoms to make iron.
But that is not important here and now. What is important is to set up
a delicate experiment that measures the hadron number before the
experiment and measures it again after the experiment. Spontaneous
Neutron Materialization posits an increase in hadrons in carbon arc.
This will be the deathknell of the stupid conservation of energy/mass. 
   Even a ten year old kid can see change all around in the world. Why
are physics professors so stupid as to believe in a world restricted in
change by conservation laws?
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.28 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Dr. Oriani's Lecture
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Dr. Oriani's Lecture
Date: Wed, 28 DEC 94 22:16:15 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich) asks:
 
     "Jed, where is the Pons & Fleischmann water heater? 5 years ago they
     said that they HAD a working water heater and commercial use of it would
     commence within the year. Where is it?"
 
Read the scientific literature and you will see. The Electric Power Research
Institute (EPRI) and the U.S. Office of Naval Research (ONR) sponsored a major
conference on cold fusion last year: ICCF4. They published the proceedings in
four volumes. Contact EPRI, get the proceedings, read them, and you will see
for yourself where the technology is today and what the prospects for the
future are. You "skeptics" love to carp, moan and pontificate about this
field, but as far as I can see none of you has ever read a paper about it. If
you had, you would not ask such patently stupid questions as this.
 
 
     "Where are the commercial uses for this easily reproducible science?"
 
I have no idea whether the Griggs device works by cold fusion or not, but I do
know that it produces copious excess heat; enough to pay for the equipment in
one to six years (depending on how many hours per day it is used.) Griggs just
finished installing several more systems in factories here in Georgia. There
is absolutely, positively no question that they produce thousands of watts of
excess heat -- the big ones put out roughly 22 KW excess, 24 hours a day, 7
days a week. That is a commercial use, by golly. His customers are factory
engineers and industrialists -- not scientists -- so they know what the hell
they are doing. They would never buy the kind of crap Dick Blue peddles about
how it is impossible to measure a steel arm to +/- 1 cm. *You* believe that, I
am sure. You probably think it is impossible to rewind a VCR too (the Droege
thesis). People like you will believe anything that supports your illusions
and your wacky theories. I myself only believe replicated experimental data.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudenjedrothwell cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.28 /   /  Re: The Check Was in the Mail
     
Originally-From: sliu104780@aol.com (SLiu104780)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The Check Was in the Mail
Date: 28 Dec 1994 22:55:34 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

Please post the article if you can!
cudkeys:
cuddy28 cudensliu104780 cudln cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.29 / John Logajan /  Re: Dr. Oriani's Lecture
     
Originally-From: jlogajan@skypoint.com (John Logajan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Dr. Oriani's Lecture
Date: 29 Dec 1994 04:22:47 GMT
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.

Thomas H. Kunich (tomk@netcom.com) wrote:
: I note that in several of your messages you leave the impression that
: you're  so 'even handed' that you are willing to accept at face value any
: claim made by virtually anyone.

I must be well off my form then, because I was trying to impress the
exact opposite -- not that I am willing to accept any and every claim,
but that I am demanding that all claims meet the same high standards.

--
 - John Logajan -- jlogajan@skypoint.com  --  612-633-0345 -
 - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA -
 - WWW URL =  http://www.skypoint.com/subscribers/jlogajan -
cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenjlogajan cudfnJohn cudlnLogajan cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.29 /  Nate /  Re: Free Energy Device GIF pic ! MRA picture
     
Originally-From: patriot@kaiwan009.kaiwan.com (Nate)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,alt.paranet.science,alt.sci.phy
ics.plutonium,sci.energy,sci.energy.hydrogen,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Free Energy Device GIF pic ! MRA picture
Date: 29 Dec 1994 05:26:24 -0800
Organization: KAIWAN Internet (310-527-4279,818-756-0180,909-785-9712,714-638-2139)

To those who are building MRA devices;

I was thinking about the device as described and was thinking that if you 
placed a coil near the magnet (not wound around it like the one you have, 
however the one you have is there still, there would now be two coils), 
you could "vibrate" or make the magnet move at the frequency you are 
doing it at now using the pezo device.

I can see some problems, like the pezo is not magnetic (much) and doesn't 
interfere with the coil you have for output. Maybe some other weird 
aspects of this device also. I was just thinking it would save some of 
the equipment you are blowing, if you could get the same results out of it.

I haven't built it yet, haven't had the time to play around lately and 
may not find the time, but just thought a suggestion would help.

As for pople who think a Patent gives them Rights to God's creations - 
Forget it!

I think that if something was so fantastic that it would be greatly in 
the public's interest, the Patent holder should betreated nicely, like a 
lifetime worth of food or something, but if he held back his invention 
because of greed (as in big companies holding on to stuff because it 
would hurt profits) then the rule of "public benifit" would apply and 
invalidate his greedy claims. This is my opinion only, but I really hate 
that attitude "you are violating my patent" when someone tries to play 
with technology in his own basement and wants to tell others how much 
"fun" he is having.

Let some court decide how much the patent holder gets in royalties FROM 
THE BASEMENT INVENTOR who actually had the balls to make the thing 
produceable in mass quantities.

Most engineers have no understanding of how to market something, and most 
know only how to make a prototype work (my experience, this does not 
include manufacturing engineers).

Sorry for the spelling errors, I am typing like a mad man here...

cudkeys:
cuddy29 cudenpatriot cudlnNate cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Fri Dec 30 04:37:09 EST 1994
------------------------------
1994.12.30 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Kunich versus Rothwell
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Kunich versus Rothwell
Date: Fri, 30 DEC 94 10:52:02 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz) asks:
 
     "So you are absolutely sure that a power supply attached
     to 100 volt mains cannot put out more than 100 volts?"
 
Sorry, I should have said "rail voltage." I mean after the last step up
transformer. In other words: the most you can have; the max output
of that power supply.
 
I'll bet you knew what I meant. I'll bet you are nitpicking. Someday,
you should go looking for errors in the anti-CF postings from Blue,
Morrison, Jones, et al. It is easier than looking for slip ups in my
messages because I make trivial errors whereas they are usually 5 or 6
orders of magnitude off. Better yet, why don't you try *defending* their
point of view. Explain why nobody can measure anything to the nearest
centimeter. Amuse us!
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenjedrothwell cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.30 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Kunich versus Rothwell
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Kunich versus Rothwell
Date: Fri, 30 DEC 94 10:53:20 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

livesey@solntze.engr.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
 
     "Given that this "offhand" comment was precisely the kind of thing that
     got the press excited about "cold fusion" in the first place, and given
     that they knew they were talking to the press and that  such comments
     would have the effect of attracting attention, it's not all that
     unreasonable to ask how it all turned out."
 
I agree completely! It is reasonable to ask how it all turned out. I encourage
you to ask, you should find out how it came out! The question is, how do you
go about doing that? What steps do you take to learn how the cold fusion saga
turned out, and what the prospects are for CF water heaters, cars, spacecraft
etcetera. I recommend these steps:
 
1. Read recent peer-reviewed scientific papers about the subject.
2. Read conference proceedings.
3. Talk to scientists, visit labs, confirm the readings with your own
instruments if possible.
4. Replicating experiments, if you have a few years and $100,000 to spare.
 
Kunich, on the other hand, wants to ignore all the scientific papers, and he
demands that nobody anywhere go into a laboratory and perform an experiment.
He wants to judge the entire field by asking just one question: Where is the
Toyota water heater? Why do we only see boiling in the lab, why hasn't this
product been commercialized yet? If you ignore all the scientific data and you
ask this one question, you get the negative answer Kunich so desperately wants
to hear. On the other hand, if you open your eyes and look at the facts, you
will see that a great deal of progress has been made and the prospects for the
technology are good.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenjedrothwell cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.30 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Griggs O/U is Commercial? Was: Re: Dr. Oriani's Lecture
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Griggs O/U is Commercial? Was: Re: Dr. Oriani's Lecture
Date: Fri, 30 DEC 94 10:54:17 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

c1prasad@watson.ibm.com (prasad) asks:
 
     "Are you saying that Griggs is actually installing special o/u class
     units, not merely the (non o/u) units described in his 1993(?) patent
     etc.?"
 
You misunderstand. The patented version of the Griggs device is over unity
(o-u). It outputs far more energy in the form of heat than the electric energy
input. All of the units installed at customer sites are o-u, as were the
test-bed units I observed in 1993 and 1994. The fact that this device is o-u was
not mentioned in the patent. Obviously this is because if they had mentioned
it, they never would have gotten a patent! Please note that a patent does not
have to list every known feature and potential use of an invention. It has to
describe the invention with complete accuracy such that a person skilled in
the art can replicate it, but it does not have to reveal every known aspect of
the machine's performance.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenjedrothwell cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.30 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: What is your opinion?
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What is your opinion?
Date: Fri, 30 DEC 94 11:02:10 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Andrew Palfreyman <palf@netcom.com> writes:
 
>Surely you beg a more fundamental question, and that is an existence
>proof. Does it not strike you as odd that *nobody* has coupled the 
>output to the input and generated a self-sustaining system? - or
>connected several devices in series to produce the same effect?
 
Why do you ask? Does it strike you as odd that nobody has done this?
I have a suggestion for you: try reading one or two scientific papers about
cold fusion. You will see why nobody has made a self-sustaining CF reactor
yet. Three years ago they made systems that self sustained in the sense that
they kept running by themselves for hours or days without input, but that
is not what you have in mind. You want to see a CF reactor *with input*,
and possibly one that produces enough excess to perform useful work. If you
read the scientific literature, it will soon be clear to you why this is
impossible at the present stage of development, and what the prospects for
achieving this in the future are.
 
If you are at all interested in the subject you will take the time to read
the papers. Then you will not ask such naieve questions. Anyone who has
read the literature knows why "*nobody* has coupled the output to input."
You would not ask if you were at all familiar with the science.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenjedrothwell cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.30 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Kunich versus Rothwell
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Kunich versus Rothwell
Date: Fri, 30 DEC 94 11:55:25 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

Richard Schultz <schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu> writes:
 
>The point of my response -- to which Rothwell has not yet made a reply,
>so perhaps he will explain exactly what he meant -- was as the previous
 
I responded and the damn response dissappeared into the cybernetic
continuum. It never showed up in s.p.f. Okay, I'll respond again:
 
You know very well what I meant; I meant the rail voltage; the max you can
get out of a given power supply. Fleischmann's response to Jones was 100%
clear on this point. Jones never responded because he is an evasive weasle,
but facts are facts, you can never get more energy out of a power supply
than you put in.
 
You have found one minor slip-up in my messages here. I should have written
"rail volatage" intead of "mains" because, yes, you can step up voltage
with a tranformer. So now that you have found this slip up, you plan to beat
the drum on it fora couple of months no doubt. Here is a thought for you
though: instead of looking for trivial mistakes in *my* messages, why don't
you go looking for bone headed, unbelieveably stupid, drastic mistakes in
messages from people like, say, Dick Blue or Steve Jones. You will find
rich pickings! Mistakes galore. I may slip up in terminology from time to
time, but those people routinely make claims that are 5 or 6 orders of
magnitude wrong. Why are you silent about there mistakes? Could it be that
you agree with everything they say? Are you one of these fruitcakes who thinks
a power supply can put out three times more energy that it gets from the
electric company? Do you believe it is impossible to measure anything to
within a centimeter? Do you think a VCR tape cannot be rewound?
 
If you want to point out really stupid mistakes you should join my side.
The opportunities are much greater, because the bogus science and nitwit
ideas posted here to *disprove* CF are far worse than all the mistakes I have
ever made.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenjedrothwell cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.30 / K Jonsson /  Re: Free Energy Device (Magnetic Resonance Amp)
     
Originally-From: kvj@rhi.hi.is (Kristjan Valur Jonsson)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,alt.energy.renewable,alt.parane
.science,alt.paranet.ufo,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.bio,sci.energy,sc
.energy.hydrogen,sci.environment,sci.materials,sci.physics,sci.physics.f
sion,sci.physics.particle
Subject: Re: Free Energy Device (Magnetic Resonance Amp)
Date: 30 Dec 1994 16:57:09 GMT
Organization: University of Iceland

In <3dvte5$cdi@sundog.tiac.net> conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover) writes:

>of faith fully equivalent to that of accepting:

>   -  I have a serum that will raise the dead.

>   -  I have an elixir that will provide eternal, healthy life.

>   -  I have invented a fluid that will quadruple the output of
>      your car's batter, and make it last forever.

>   -  I have a product that will make your car run on water.

>   -  I have invented a device that produces free energy by
>      tapping the Earth's magnetic field.

How about:

- A device which extracts energy at an explosive rate from
the mass of a heavy metal.

The inventors are not claiming to be making energy out of nothing, but
rather that they are tapping some new source (in fact, I think they
mentioned the earth's mag field).

Science is constantly developing new theories.  A new theory doesn't have
to break existion ones.
Perhaps a new physical effect has truly been discovered.  Not everything
discovered has been previously made by nature, or if made, discovered by
man.

Kristjan

-- 
Kristjan Valur Jonsson               |    The individual does not qualify for
Student of mechanical engineering,   |         making decisions regarding the
University of Iceland                |                 activities of the many.
Exclaimer: Yess!                     |                         (Helmut, 1993)
-- 
Kristjan Valur Jonsson               |    The individual does not qualify for
Student of mechanical engineering,   |         making decisions regarding the
University of Iceland                |                 activities of the many.
Exclaimer: Yess!                     |                         (Helmut, 1993)
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenkvj cudfnKristjan cudlnJonsson cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.30 / Sam Goldwasser /  Re: Kunich versus Rothwell
     
Originally-From: sam@colossus.stdavids.picker.com (Sam Goldwasser)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Kunich versus Rothwell
Date: Fri, 30 Dec 1994 17:26:31 GMT
Organization: Picker International, St. Davids

In article <54zYYoS.jedrothwell@delphi.com> jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:

>   schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz) asks:

>	"So you are absolutely sure that a power supply attached
>	to 100 volt mains cannot put out more than 100 volts?"

>   Sorry, I should have said "rail voltage." I mean after the last step up
>   transformer. In other words: the most you can have; the max output
>   of that power supply.

This is still nonsense. You have never heard about voltage multipliers?  No
need for transformers.  What about even RMS vs. peak voltage?
There is a good chance that the computer you will be using to flame this
response has a power supply that includes an internal 320 VDC bus gotton
from the 115 VAC (163 V peak) line with no stepup transformer.

These are just very very basic circuits.

--- sam

>   I'll bet you knew what I meant. I'll bet you are nitpicking. Someday,
>   you should go looking for errors in the anti-CF postings from Blue,
>   Morrison, Jones, et al. It is easier than looking for slip ups in my
>   messages because I make trivial errors whereas they are usually 5 or 6
>   orders of magnitude off. Better yet, why don't you try *defending* their
>   point of view. Explain why nobody can measure anything to the nearest
>   centimeter. Amuse us!

>   - Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudensam cudfnSam cudlnGoldwasser cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.30 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Re: Kunich versus Rothwell
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Kunich versus Rothwell
Date: Fri, 30 Dec 1994 14:13 -0500 (EST)

sam@colossus.stdavids.picker.com (Sam Goldwasser) writes:
 
-> In article <54zYYoS.jedrothwell@delphi.com> jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:
->
-> >   Sorry, I should have said "rail voltage." I mean after the last step up
-> >   transformer. In other words: the most you can have; the max output
-> >   of that power supply.
->
-> This is still nonsense. You have never heard about voltage multipliers?  No
-> need for transformers.  What about even RMS vs. peak voltage?
-> There is a good chance that the computer you will be using to flame this
-> response has a power supply that includes an internal 320 VDC bus gotton
-> from the 115 VAC (163 V peak) line with no stepup transformer.
 
I don't think you are standing on very solid ground here.  You are arguing
semantics.  Jed was wrong when he said mains (AC).  He has corrected that.  He
said he means rails.  He is correct that if you use the normal electronic
definition of rails, you cannot obtain voltage in excess of that (except by
connecting supplies in series).  Rail is normally defined as the DC voltage
supplied to the output "passive" regulators. By passive I mean that there is no
switching, only voltage drop, even though the regulator may use an active
device such as a transistor.  RMS, peak and average voltage are the same for a
DC voltage. If it is not a DC voltage, then it is not a "rail".  Your example
of 115VAC = 163 V peak has no merit as that is AC, not DC.
 
It is true you can obtain higher voltages without transformers.  This class of
circuits is commonly known as "voltage multipliers".  They all require active
circuits involving switching.  Such a circuit can be made from several
capacitors and diodes, or through a resonance circuit (such as the MRA being
discussed here already). However such a circuit will not increase voltage from
a rail, since a rail is filtered DC, without the addition of a switching
circuit. Once a switching circuit is added then the output of the switching
circuit, once rectified and filtered, becomes the "rail". The voltage
supplying the switching circuit will no longer be defined as the rail, since a
rail normally only supplies passive regulators which cannot increase voltage.
 
In other words once you add a step up circuit to a voltage source, if that
circuit has a DC output, then the part of the circuit defined as the "rail"
moves from the source of the initial DC voltage to the DC output of the step up
circuit prior to it going through it's output regulator.
 
Looking at your example of the computer power supply, the 320VDC voltage is NOT
a rail voltage since it supplies a switching circuit and a step down
transformer.  There are two rails in the supply however since it delivers
+5 and +12V.  Each of these have a rail located between the output of the
filtered step down and the final regulator (assuming it has a final regualtor).
 
                                                                Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.30 /  RobertBass /  Re: Free Energy Device
     
Originally-From: robertbass@aol.com (RobertBass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Free Energy Device
Date: 30 Dec 1994 16:08:15 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

Those claiming o/u is "impossible" according to the "established laws of
physics" have a dangerously small knowledge of both the history of physics
and the current status of its "laws."
       In the first place, they must be unaware of the phenomenon of ZPF
(Zero Point Fluctuations) of ions in a crystal at "absolute zero
temperature."  If there is no "free energy in space to be tapped", why do
the ions have ZPF?  In my 29 page paper at ICCF-4 I proved by rigorous
math & accepted Quantum Mechanics (QM) that not only is the Coulomb
Barrier RESONANTLY TRANSPARENT to to low-energy (< 20 eV) deuterons in a
beta-phase deuterided palladium lattice, and in fact numerically computed
the lowest-energy 200-line Transparency Spectrum by the WKB method, but
demonstrated that ZPF Line Broadening means that Jaendel's supposedly
fatal criticism of the Turner-Bush transmission resonance theories [it
would take a deuteron a billion years to tunnel through unless it has the
-exactly- correct energy to hundreds of decimal places] is trivially
refutable, and that the tunneling time is a femtosecond!  If no one can
find a flaw in the improved version which I plan to submit to ICCF-5, then
this would be  "proof" by orthodox physics that Cold Fusion (CF) is a form
of "tapping the ZPF for free energy", in the sense that if the "free
energy of the ZPF" did not pervade all space known to us, CF would be as
"impossiblel" as the uninformed critics have contended.
       In the second place, these loud-mouth ignoramuses must be unaware
of the serious challenge to the Copenhagen Interpretation of QM & QED
posed, respectively, by Stochastic Mechanics (SM) and Stochastic
Electrodynamics (SED).  Hal Puthoff of the Austin, TX IAS has, alone &
with various collaborators, shown the gigantic importance of the ZPF in
SED, and has published in Physical Review a _proof_ with which the
referees could find no grounds for rejection that it does NOT contradict
established physics to postulate "tapping the ZPF" for "free energy."
       In a sense (according to my personal understanding of SM/SED) the
conservative critics are right, in that I do not believe that "tapping the
ZPF" for "_effectively_ free energy" on this Earth is actually getting
energy from _nowhere_ because I agree with Puthoff's concept of a
"cosmological feedback cycle" in SED in which ZPF radiation here drives
ZPF in the farthest cosmos and vice versa.
       However, I go farther than Puthoff and believe that there is a
cosmological _inevitability_ to SM, in the sense that monopole radiation
(Coulomb forces) from the quarks or partons in the farthest stars provide
the mysterious "background field" of zero-mean, non-zero variance, "white
noise" type of electrostatic forces which convert Newton-Coulomb mechanics
into SM (misunderstood as a counter-intuitive & mysterious QM).
       In fact, I have satisfied myself (and no one has shown me a flaw in
my unpublished paper) that if one models atomic mechanics by supposing
that Newtonian determinism is correct, but simply _includes_ on the
right-hand side of Newtonian equations of motion the hitherto IRRATIONALLY
neglected Coulomb forces of all of the fluctuating particles in the most
distant stars, one finds that charged particles all "jiggle" and therefore
must be described by a probability distribution, which turns out to be
_exactly_ Schroedinger's Equation!  [But no longer mysterious or
counter-intuitive; and if one includes dipole radiation as does Puthoff,
then one can (as he explained to me in a conversation) even see that the
supposedly mysterious "non-locality" uncovered by Bell's Theorem and the
experimental disproofs of Einstein's expectations in the EPR Paradox is
actually NOT true, genuine "non-locality", but an illusion of non-locality
(which does not violate the speed of light).]
       In Puthoff's theory SED he has to take Planck's constant as a
given.
       However, in my SM theory, I take as "given" only the constants
known to Newton and to Coulomb, plus the astronomical observation of
Hubble's constant (or, equivalently, the mean density of the cosmos in GR
cosmologies); and then I derive the variance of the zero-mean Coulombic
white-noise which is jiggling all charged particles on earth, and from
that I get Planck's constant EXACTLY!
       Can this be a "mere numerical coincidence"?
       I will mail a preprint of my paper on "Planck's constant from
Hubble's constant: the cosmological inevitability of SM" to anyone who
mails me $x.xx to cover the cost of Xeroxing, envelope & postage, together
with their snail-mail address & a written request for same.  (I do not
have access to a scanner so I could put it into an attachable-file form.)
Bob Bass
Robert W. Bass, Ph.D. (math, 1955), M.A. Oxon [Rhodes Scholar, 1952]),
Prof. of Physics (BYU, 1971-81), Aerospace (U CO, 1965-67), Systems
Eng.(WCU,'91)
Registered Patent Agent 29,130 (1978); P.O. Box 6337, T.O., CA 91359-6337
Voicemail: (818) 377-4471       E-mail: robertbass@aol.com
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenrobertbass cudlnRobertBass cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.30 / Edward Lewis /  ---Tiny Ball Lightning
     
Originally-From: edward@uhuru.uchicago.edu (Edward Lewis)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.geo.meteorology
Subject: ---Tiny Ball Lightning
Date: Fri, 30 Dec 1994 21:20:44 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

(c) 1994 by Edward Lewis All Rights Reserved
December 22, 1994

	I have been posting articles about tiny ball lightning and
plasmoids for a while now.  In the December, 1994 issue of FUSION
TECHNOLOGY, Matsumoto reports about the observation of tiny ball
lightning in several cold fusion experiments, and he suggests that
people use nuclear emulsions.  Sufficient evidence of the production
of things that can be called "plasmoids" or tiny ball lightning is the
many kinds of plasmoid traces that Matsumoto has produced, and the
EB-filament paper by Nardi and Bostick et al.: V. Nardi, W. H.
Bostick, J. Feugeas, and W. Prior, "Internal Structure of
ELectron-Beam Filaments," Physical Review A, 22, no. 5, 2211
(November, 1980).  This is substantial proof, in my opinion.  Some of
the ring traces are very similar, and some of the other traces are
similar too.  I'd also like to suggest that people use nuclear
emulsions awith various kinds of cold fusion and plasmoid experiments.
Many of the plasmoids produced by electrolysis and discharge are the
same.  And people have known for a long time that plasmoids and
discharges are associated with neutron production.



              (c) 1994 by Edward Lewis All Rights Reserved

        I've posted versions of this article several times on this
newsgroup since December of 1993; and I've posted several articles
about plasmoids and cold fusion on this newsgroup since January of
1993.  If anyone wants to reproduce or resend this article, get my
permission first.

                        PLASMOIDS AND COLD FUSION

        W. Bostick produced that which he called plasmoids by
discharging through electrodes.  Bostick wrote a paper that was titled
"Plasmoids" that was published in SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN in 1957(1).  He
may have been the first to apply this term to this phenomena.  In this
paper, he had already began to tell others about his speculation that
galaxies and the phenomena he produced were similar.  He compared the
shapes and the travel of these things.  He also speculated a little
about the identity of "particles."  He shows pictures of different
kinds of plasmoid shapes in the article and related these to different
kinds of shapes of galaxies.  Many people including Bostick, Alfven
who is a physics Nobel Prize winner, Peratt and Lerner have developed
similar astronomical theories that model the universe as plasmoids and
that can be said to be derivations or summarizations of the
experimental work of W. Bostick and others.  It has become evident
that atoms can be defined as plasmoids, especially as according to the
phenomena produced by Ken Shoulders.  It seems that there are many
different kinds of plasmoid phenomena.  The EVs that Ken Shoulders
produced and ball lightning may be classified as kinds of this general
phenomena.  There is evidence that both plasmoids and ball lightning
are associated with neutrons, radioactivity, production of elements,
and excess radiation.

                Based on the phenomena that Matsumoto produced, the
traces, the pictures and descriptions of electrodes, the pictures of
stationary BL and corona-like phenomena, the visible BL-like phenomena
that he reports, and the sparks that he observed that left traces like
those produced during electrolysis and discharge, one may categorize
CF phenomena as tiny ball-lightning or plasmoids.  Important evidence
is the holes and trails on and in emulsions and electrodes that
Matsumoto produced by discharging and electrolysis, the holes in
electrodes that Liaw et al. produced, the holes in electrodes that others
produced, the empty areas in electrodes that are shaped liked grains
that Matsumoto and Silver et al. produced and the half-empty grains that
Matsumoto produced, and the holes and tunnels and trails on and in
electrodes that Silver produced.  These tunnels, holes, and trail-like
marks are similar to those that are produced by ball lightning
phenomena, though ball lightning are associated with bigger effects.
These tunnels, holes, and trail-like marks are also similar to those
produced by the EV phenomena that K. Shoulders produced.  Silver and
his co-authors who published a paper in the December issue of FUSION
TECHNOLOGY have reproduced the tunnels, holes, and trail-like markings
in metals that Matsumoto produced.  These tunnels, holes, and
trail-marks are evidence of the conversion and change of materials.
Important evidence that both CF phenomena and substance in general are
plasmoid phenomena is Matsumoto's experience of the production of
electricity by apparatus.  I suspect that plasmoid phenomena such as
electrodes and other materials may convert to be bigger plasmoids and
light and electricity.  EVs and ball lightning are known to convert to
light and electricity.

        I suspect that the round holes in electrodes that Matsumoto
produced and the round holes and tunnels that Silver produced are due
to the boring of BL-like phenomena, and that the grain-shaped holes
that they produced is evidence of the conversion of the grain to light
or electricity or of the production of plasmoids.  Some if not all
plasmoids are apparently able to travel through materials, even if the
plasmoids are very big.  The plasmoids that Matsumoto has produced
does this, and this is major evidence to support my deductions.
Matsumoto has also shown pictures of sectioned electrodes with what
seem to me to be trail-like tracks, as if tiny BL-like phenomena
traveled inside and left tracks.

        Many other anomalous phenomena can be described as plasmoid
phenomena.  For example, superconductivity seem to be similar to the
phenomena of ball lightning traveling though materials such as
ceramics and glass without leaving holes or visible effects, yet ball
lightning may convert to an electrical surge after touching a wire or
it may convert to a bolt of lightning.  Also, sonoluminescence seems
to be a phenomena of the water converting to light and perhaps
electricity.

cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenedward cudfnEdward cudlnLewis cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.30 / Richard Schultz /  Re: John Bockris' 4-body reaction (was Re: Dr. Oriani's lecture)
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: John Bockris' 4-body reaction (was Re: Dr. Oriani's lecture)
Date: 30 Dec 1994 12:38:04 GMT
Organization: Philosophers of the Dangerous Maybe

In article <USE2PCB841946399@brbbs.brbbs.com>,
MARSHALL DUDLEY <mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com> wrote:

>As it turns out, all of the isotopes you listed are stable.

Yes, but did Bockris look for any of them?  Since the intermediates
are stable and have to go over a huge barrier to get to the product,
a process that produces iron-56 should have produced measurable quantities
of the intermediate isotopes.
--
					Richard Schultz

"I seem to smell a peculiar and a fishlike smell."
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.30 / Richard Schultz /  Re: Kunich versus Rothwell
     
Originally-From: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Kunich versus Rothwell
Date: 30 Dec 1994 12:47:57 GMT
Organization: Philosophers of the Dangerous Maybe

In article <788868676.8575snx@mundens.equinox.gen.nz>,
Frank Pitt <frankie@mundens.equinox.gen.nz> wrote:
>In article <3dvf3c$66j@eldborg.rhi.hi.is> kvj@rhi.hi.is writes:

[regarding my amusement that Jed Rothwell appears to think that a power
supply attached to 100 V mains can't put out more than 100 V]

>>Perhaps this wasn't such a good example for jed to state his point but
>>he had other analogies aswell.  
>>It's purposeless to split hairs like this.

>It was originallly an analogy ? 
>Then it's even stranger that he repeats it as if it were a fact.
>I tend to think that it's important, because although Jed claims an
>engineers knowledge, he often gets things like this wrong, and then 
>refuses to acknowledge his mistake, in this case ridiculing others for 
>not believing that he is right, even though his mistake is clear to
>any electrical tradesman, let alone a physicist or engineer.

The original context was a post where Jed Rothwell was deriding what
he considered stupid objections by skeptics.  One of these was that
Steven Jones had criticized Pons and Fleischmann's input power 
measurements into their cells because they weren't tracking the output
of the power supply to look for transient voltage increases.  Rothwell
said in an earlier post as an example of what he considers stupid 
objections that the skeptics appear to think that a power supply attached
to 100 V mains can put out more than 100 volts.  It wasn't an analogy;
Rothwell was stating it as if it were an obvious fact.  I pointed out that
I myself have used a power supply that got 120 V from the mains and put
out 30 kV.  I also once had the bad fortune to be using a 100 V power
supply that broke and started putting out something like 200 V.  (To
be honest, it was about eight years ago -- it might have been a 200 V
power supply putting out 300 V.  What I remember was that the needle
had pinned and I measured the voltage and discovered it was much higher 
than the rating of the supply.)

The point of my response -- to which Rothwell has not yet made a reply,
so perhaps he will explain exactly what he meant -- was as the previous
poster wrote.  If Rothwell can't even get simple, easily verified fact
straight, how can he expect us to trust him with subtle measurements?
--
					Richard Schultz

"I seem to smell a peculiar and a fishlike smell."
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenschultz cudfnRichard cudlnSchultz cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.30 / Harry Conover /  Re: Any hope for fission reactors?
     
Originally-From: conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Any hope for fission reactors?
Date: 30 Dec 1994 14:39:30 GMT
Organization: The Internet Access Company

jonesse@acousb.byu.edu wrote:
: IS THERE ANY HOPE FOR FISSION AS A SOURCE OF ENERGY AFTER 2000?

: Dear colleagues,
: I would appreciate your comments on the possibility that fission
: energy might supply a significant part of our energy needs during
: the 3rd millenium AD.  Some of the problems:  

Steve, I may be a maverick on this, but I believe that the psychological
fear of nuclear energy (any source) is far greater the the actual risk
and/or long term ramifications.

Some thoughts on each of these items...

: *Chernobyl and Three Mile Island-type releases

    First, let's exclude Chernobyl from this.  Its an isolated situation
    involving obsolete, non-commercialized technology (at least in the
    Western World).  

    With respect to all other operating commercial reactors, lets ask
    ourselves the question: How does this situation significantly differ
    from the risks posed by commercial aviation.  Airplanes are inherently
    dangerous prone to catastrophic crashes resulting from human error,
    adverse weather conditions, mechanical failure, and other causes.
    Aircraft crashes more often than not kill everyone aboard, plus,
    plus pose an even greater threat ground based people and property.

    Still, despite the high frequency of aircraft disasters, and the
    very real potential for a truly catastrophic disaster (literally
    killing thousands of people), there has been no outbreak of 
    public cries to do away with the airline industry.

    Why is air transportation an acceptable risk, when nuclear facilities
    are viewed as an unacceptable risk?  Psychology!
 
: *What to do with long-lived radioactive wastes from spent fuel

   Concentrated it.  Vitrify it.  And bury it in a subduction layer.

: *What to do with radioactive wastes from decommissioning (we are
: just beginning to face this)

   Reprocess it for supply as cheap fuel to remaining and newly built
   nuclear plants.
    
: *Association of nuclear power with nuclear bombs

   Another psychological issue.  Equivalent to a boycott of insecticides
   because the Nazi's used them for people extermination. Equivalent to
   a boycott of electricity, because some states use it in executions.

   Also, keep in mind that U-235 and Plutonium are, without a doubt, the
   most valuable (in a cost sense) materials on earth... far more costly
   than diamonds, platinum, .... name it.  Because of this, it will 
   continue to be produced and traded, with or without a nuclear
   power industry.

: *Widespread, entrenched distrust of things nuclear

   Still another psychological issue.  Education and counter-propaganda
   can overcome virtually all of this.  Remember that we live in a world
   where the majority of people cannot or will not think for themselves.
   Unfortunately, for these folks, much of their thinking is done for
   them by the media... When you consider what makes up the media, this
   is even more frightening than the nuclear industry!

: *No new orders for nuclear plants in the US for about 15 years

   Reshape public opion and reform licensing.  Do it and they will come!

: *High costs of nuclear power plants

   Not really.  You should separate the cost of political delays from
   the plant construction cost.  

: *Public perception that solar or fusion will provide the solution

  Again, the result of having a less than technically literate media
  being allowed to shape public opinion.

: soon enough, or that cheap oil, gas and coal will last
: essentially indefinitely.

  Sure, a $12.00/gallon, it will.  Otherwise we have a very finite
  supply remaining.

: Now a friend of mine from Canada has sent me a paper in which he
: and associates describe an "inherently safe" fission reactor. 
: The idea is to suspend 1-mm diam. fuel pellets in a vertical flow
: of helium, this in place of rigid fuel rods in conventional
: designs.  Should the He coolant flow stop, gravity will cause the
: pellets to fall onto a cone where the pellets will be spread out
: to much less than critical mass, and water will serve to cool the
: pellets.  [A Swedish design uses borated water which expands in
: case of excess heat in the rigid fuel rods, thus increasing the
: moderation of neutrons, and shutting down the reaction -- also
: inherently safe.]

    I suspect that many novel configurations are available to
    be exploited.

[snip, snip]


At any rate, the above comments represent my current opinions and may
or may not translate to absolute fact.  I welcome any critical 
disagreement or corrections to my 'facts'.

                                    Harry C.

cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenconover cudfnHarry cudlnConover cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.30 / Brian Huffman /  Re: Free Energy Device (Magnetic Resonance Amp)
     
Originally-From: niimi@b0ig13.fnal.gov (Brian Huffman)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,alt.energy.renewable,alt.parane
.science,alt.paranet.ufo,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.bio,sci.energy,sc
.energy.hydrogen,sci.environment,sci.materials,sci.physics,sci.physics.f
sion,sci.physics.particle
Subject: Re: Free Energy Device (Magnetic Resonance Amp)
Date: 30 Dec 1994 09:03:18 -0600
Organization: FERMILAB, Batavia, IL


Good point.

Mr. Lofaro should build the device and make his fortune selling
electricity on the power grid, eventually he will be able to buy enough
lobbyists in congress to stop this 'suppression and bigotry' that he
believes exists.

Harry Conover is correct.  Being correct is not being bigoted.
Every time a new energy realm is opened people test for the conservation 
of matter and energy, as well as other supposedly 'fundamental' laws.

These people are called experimental scientists and would LOVE to find
violations of these physical 'laws'.....they would win Nobel prizes if
such discoveries were confirmed.  Part of what keeps me going is the 
sincere hope that one of us will bust the Standard Model soon.

Point is that there is no one quite so skeptical or conservative as a 
good scientist.  What Mr. Lofaro is perceiving as close-mindedness on
the part of Conover is merely confidence in the validity of the experimental
data on the conservation of matter and energy that has been collected
for at least a couple of hundred years over approximately 20 orders of 
magnitude in distance and energy scale.  Conover can make fairly terse
and definate comments because he can (if so inclined) cite the experiments
of the researchers who actually set limits on the violation of conservation
of momentum and energy.  

The use of the word 'bigotry' indicates that Conover is holding an irrational
opinion based on emotional feelings, anecdotal evidence,  or on 
inconclusive data.  This is an improper use of the word in this context.
Conover has a wealth of very precise scientific data to back up his arguments.
His opinions are based on quite solid experiments that have been repeated
and confirmed.  His unwillingness to proceed with an analysis of the device
in question is based on this evidence.  This unwillingness I would attribute
to intelligence rather than 'bigotry'.

TH
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenniimi cudfnBrian cudlnHuffman cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.30 /  rvanspaa@ozema /        Fe in C (Alternative explanation)
     
Originally-From: rvanspaa@ozemail.com.au
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:       Fe in C (Alternative explanation)
Date: Fri, 30 Dec 1994 22:28:43 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

High purity Silicon for the electronics industry in made, by passing 
a molten zone through the silicon to carry impurities to the end of 
the bar. Perhaps in the carbon arc experiment, the combination of 
high current, and high temperature migrates the Fe that is in the 
carbon at the beginning (2 ppm) along the carbon rod, as it is 
consumed in the arc, concentrating it in the process. In this way, an 
original concentration of 2 ppm would increase to 200 ppm when 99% of 
the rod was consumed.

Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa@ozemail.com.au>

cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenrvanspaa cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.30 /  rvanspaa@ozema /        Off topic
     
Originally-From: rvanspaa@ozemail.com.au
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject:       Off topic
Date: Fri, 30 Dec 1994 22:28:53 GMT
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway

Does anyone know whether or not the length of the sunspot cycle is 
related to the length of the Jovian year? (Gravitational tides in the 
sun caused by Jupiter?)

Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa@ozemail.com.au>

cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenrvanspaa cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.30 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Kunich versus Rothwell
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Kunich versus Rothwell
Date: Fri, 30 Dec 1994 15:19:19 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <Rq-awWQ.jedrothwell@delphi.com>,  <jedrothwell@delphi.com> wrote:
>organizations. Thomas H. Kunich <tomk@netcom.com> responded:
> 
>     "Jed, where is the Pons & Fleischmann water heater? 5 years ago they
>     said that they HAD a working water heater and commercial use of it would
>     commence within the year. Where is it?"
> 
>So tell us Tom, what does your response tell the reader? What exactly are you
>saying? Let me interpret. You are saying that in order to evaluate this new
>science -- to decide whether it is real or not, and significant or not -- we
>should ignore the scientific papers that Jed talks about and instead look at
>*one* offhand statement supposedly made by *one* scientist at a press
>conference five years ago.

     Offhand my patootie.  That was the core subject.

     In any case, we're to take from this that there *was* no water heater,
     and that there will be no water heater.  What a surprise.

     And one can evaluate subsequent claims in the light offered
     by the originals.

>Time will tell
>who has a better method of determining the truth about nature.

     Over five years later, it already has.

                                  dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.30 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Kunich versus Rothwell
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Kunich versus Rothwell
Date: Fri, 30 Dec 1994 15:36:56 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <3dvf3c$66j@eldborg.rhi.hi.is>,
Kristjan Valur Jonsson <kvj@rhi.hi.is> wrote:
>In <3duvid$kv2@agate.berkeley.edu> schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz) writes:
>
>>In article <Rq-awWQ.jedrothwell@delphi.com>,  <jedrothwell@delphi.com> wrote:
>
>>>. . .I get information first
>>>hand and I verify it myself, so that I can absolutely sure it is right. 
>
>>So you are absolutely sure that a power supply attached to 100 volt mains
>>cannot put out more than 100 volts?
>
>It cannot 'pull out' more than 100V.  what it does with it then,
>is another matter.

     I'm not sure what 'pull out' means, but Mr. Schultz's point surely
     indicates that Mr. Rothwell is an idjut.  The voltage output of a 
     power supply attached to 100 V mains is essentially limited only by one's 
     imagination (and budget).

     Of course, what would one expect from someone who measures temperature
     on a ~200 C surface with a pyrometer then claims fusion in the metal
     on that basis?

     Stupid is as stupid does.

                             dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.30 /  RobertBass /  "FREE" Energy or O/U "Scientifically" Impossible?
     
Originally-From: robertbass@aol.com (RobertBass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: "FREE" Energy or O/U "Scientifically" Impossible?
Date: 30 Dec 1994 17:30:52 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

     Those saying that "free energy" or "over-unity" (o/u) devices 
are "impossible" according to the "established  laws  of  physics" 
have a dangerously small knowledge of both the history of  physics 
and the current status of its "laws."
     In the first place, they must be unaware of the phenomenon of 
ZPF (Zero Point Fluctuations) of ions in a  crystal  at  "absolute 
zero temperature."  If there is no "free energy  in  space  to  be 
tapped", why do the ions have ZPF?
     In my 29 page paper at ICCF-4 I proved  by  rigorous  math  & 
accepted Quantum Mechanics (QM)  that  not  only  is  the  Coulomb 
Barrier RESONANTLY TRANSPARENT to  very  low-energy  (  <  20  eV) 
deuterons in beta-phase deuterided palladium lattices, and in fact 
numerically  computed  the  lowest-energy  200-line   Transparency 
Spectrum by  the  WKB  method,  but  demonstrated  that  ZPF  Line 
Broadening means that Jaendel's supposedly fatal criticism of  the 
Turner-Bush transmission  resonance  theories  [it  would  take  a 
deuteron a billion years to  tunnel  through  unless  it  has  the 
"_exactly_" correct energy  to  hundreds  of  decimal  places]  is 
trivially refutable, and that the tunneling time is a femtosecond!
     If no one can find a flaw in the  improved  version  which  I 
plan to submit to ICCF-5, then this would be  "proof" by  orthodox 
physics that Cold Fusion (CF) is a form of "tapping  the  ZPF  for 
free energy", in the sense that if the "free energy  of  the  ZPF" 
did  not  pervade  all  space  known  to  us,  CF  would   be   as 
"impossible" as the uninformed critics have contended.
     In the second place, these  loud-mouth  ignoramuses  must  be 
unaware of the serious challenge to the Copenhagen  Interpretation 
of QM & QED posed, respectively, by Stochastic Mechanics (SM)  and 
Stochastic Electrodynamics (SED).  Hal Puthoff of the  Austin,  TX 
IAS has, alone & with various collaborators,  shown  the  gigantic 
importance of the ZPF in SED, and has published in Physical Review 
a _proof_ with which  the  referees  could  find  no  grounds  for 
rejection that it  does  NOT  contradict  established  physics  to 
postulate "tapping the ZPF" for "free energy."
     In a sense (according to my personal understanding of SM/SED) 
the conservative critics are right, in that I do not believe  that 
"tapping the ZPF" for "_effectively_ free energy" on this Earth is 
actually getting  energy  from  _nowhere_  because  I  agree  with 
Puthoff's concept of a "cosmological feedback  cycle"  in  SED  in 
which ZPF radiation here drives ZPF in  the  farthest  cosmos  and 
vice versa.
     However, I go farther than Puthoff and believe that there  is 
a cosmological _inevitability_ to SM, in the sense  that  monopole 
radiation (Coulomb forces) from  the  quarks  or  partons  in  the 
farthest  stars  provide  the  mysterious   (uniform,   isotropic) 
"background field" of zero-mean, non-zero variance, "white  noise" 
type  of  electrostatic  forces   which   convert   Newton-Coulomb 
mechanics into SM (now  misunderstood  as  a  counter-intuitive  & 
mysterious QM).
     In fact, I have satisfied myself (and no one has shown  me  a 
flaw in my unpublished paper) that if one models atomic  mechanics 
by supposing that Newtonian determinism  is  correct,  but  simply 
includes_ on the right-hand side of Newtonian equations of  motion 
the hitherto IRRATIONALLY neglected Coulomb forces of all  of  the 
fluctuating particles in the most distant stars,  one  finds  that 
charged particles near Earth all must randomly "jitter or  jiggle" 
(zitterbewegung) and therefore must be described by a  probability 
distribution, which  turns  out  to  be  _exactly_  Schroedinger's 
Equation!  [But no longer mysterious or counter- intuitive; and if 
one includes dipole radiation as does Puthoff, then one can (as he 
explained to me in a conversation) even see  that  the  supposedly 
mysterious "non-locality" uncovered  by  Bell's  Theorem  and  the 
experimental  disproof  of  Einstein's  expectations  in  the  EPR 
Paradox is actually  NOT  true,  genuine  "non-locality",  but  an 
_illusion_ of non-locality (which does not violate  the  speed  of 
light).]
     In Puthoff's theory of SED he has to take  Planck's  constant 
as a primitive (unexplained) given.
     However, in  my  SM  theory,  I  take  as  "given"  only  the 
constants known to Newton and to Coulomb,  plus  the  astronomical 
observation of  Hubble's  constant  (or,  equivalently,  the  mean 
density of the cosmos in GR cosmologies); and then  I _derive_ the 
variance of the zero-mean Coulombic white-noise which is  jiggling 
all charged particles on Earth,  and  from  that  I  get  Planck's 
constant EXACTLY!
     Can this be a "mere numerical coincidence"?
     I will mail a preprint of my paper on "Planck's constant from 
Hubble's constant: the cosmological inevitability of SM" to anyone 
who mails me $2.91 to cover  the  cost  of  Xeroxing,  envelope  & 
postage, together  with  their  snail-mail  address  &  a  written 
request for same.  (I do not have access to a scanner so  I  could 
put it into an attachable-file form.)
Sincerely, Bob Bass (Dr. Robert W. Bass)
           Ph.D. (math, 1955), M.A. Oxon [Rhodes Scholar, 1952]),
       Prof. of Physics (BYU, 1971-81); Aerospace (U CO, 1965-67);
 EE fac. (UCLA, Rsch. Eng. III, 1986-87); Systems Eng.(WCU,'91-92)
               Registered Patent Agent 29,130 (1978)
               P.O. Box 6337, Thousand Oaks, CA 91359-6337
   Voicemail: (818) 377-4471       E-mail: robertbass@aol.com
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenrobertbass cudlnRobertBass cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.30 / Richard Wentk /  Re: Free Energy Device (Magnetic Resonance Amp)
     
Originally-From: leo@rwentk.demon.co.uk (Richard Wentk)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,alt.energy.renewable,alt.parane
.science,alt.paranet.ufo,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.bio,sci.energy,sc
.energy.hydrogen,sci.environment,sci.materials,sci.physics,sci.physics.f
sion,sci.physics.particle
Subject: Re: Free Energy Device (Magnetic Resonance Amp)
Date: Fri, 30 Dec 1994 21:29:25 +0000
Organization: The Laughing Lion Company

In article <3dvte5$cdi@sundog.tiac.net>
           conover@max.tiac.net "Harry H Conover" writes:

> When a device constructed by one or more laymen claims (as they continuously
> do) to overthrow and obsolete over 2,000 years of incrementally and painfully
> acquired scientific knowledge, why should a detailed analysis and criticism
> of the mechanism be expected or required?  
[snip]

> ........................You could test each one individually to
> find it didn't work, or you can apply the accumulated knowedge of
> science to analyze and predict the outcome.  Given that, to date,
> scientific analysis has produced the same results as experimental
> validation attempts, it is a 'no-brainer' to opt for analytical
> evaluation.  
> 
> In this case, since the device under discussion claims to violate
> conservation of energy, it cannot function as described.  End
> of discussion!  :-)  Further analysis will only serve to isolate the
> experimental or conceptual error(s) made by it's proponents, and while
> this type of expose is is (as the solution of a puzzle) entertaining,
> it has no relationship to a scientific evaluation of the merits of
> the proposed device.
> 

You, Sir, are wrong. 

Two points:

1. I don't believe that free energy devices do, or can overthrow
the laws of thermodynamics. What they can do is connect with energy
sources that haven't previously been tapped. This does not, to me,
seem like such an improbability that it can be dismissed out of
hand. We know far too little about how the world works to be able 
to state categorically what is and isn't possible yet. Anyone with
an open mind and access to the net can find reliable reports of
all kinds of anomalous phenomena which can't yet be explained
in traditional scientific terms. And science itself has its own
mysteries still pending. (Examples? Of anomalous phenomena - 
go find them yourself! It's not hard. Of scientific mysteries - 
here are three:

i. Earlier in the year the HST revised the age of the Universe to between
8 and 12 billion years. This conflicts with earlier observations. Which
are right?

ii. Where is the supposed dark matter between the galaxies? Does it
exist at all - and if so, what is it? Current theories seem to
suggest it may be 'some previously unknown kind of matter' - 
whatever that means.)

iii. How does quantum physics /really/ work? Does the Copenhagen
interpretation, the many-worlds theory, or the idea of the 
implicate order offer the correct philosophical basis?)

2. You may perhaps wish to recall the story of Galileo, who had serious
problems persuading some clerics that Jupiter had moons. Their reasoning
was that Jupiter couldn't possibly have moons, and therefore there weren't 
any to be seen, and therefore there was no point in looking through the 
telescope to check. This is, as you put it, a 'no brainer.' Like your 
argument, it assumes that we know everything that there is to know 
already - a claim that is obviously quite ludicrous, especially in the light 
of the scientific uncertainties mentioned above. 

What you are proposing is not science at all, it is an appeal to prior
authorities. Your argument has no logical basis. To say that just because
all previous attempts (and have you researched this subject in
depth - could you quote references for example?) at 'free energy' 
machines haven't worked it's impossible for any future attempts
to work either, is not a scientific argument. You are stating an 
opinion, plain and simple. There is no hypothesis here that can 
be tested and disproved - and without that there is no science. 

RW
-- 
================================================================================
Richard Wentk              |           The Laughing Lion Company
Freelance writing & music  |           "Without stirring abroad
leo@rwentk.demon.co.uk     |          One can know the whole world..."  Lao Tzu
================================================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenleo cudfnRichard cudlnWentk cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.30 / M Barnard /  Re: Free Energy Device (Magnetic Resonance Amp)
     
Originally-From: barnard@grin.io.org (M Barnard)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,alt.energy.renewable,alt.parane
.science,alt.paranet.ufo,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.bio,sci.energy,sc
.energy.hydrogen,sci.environment,sci.materials,sci.physics,sci.physics.f
sion,sci.physics.particle
Subject: Re: Free Energy Device (Magnetic Resonance Amp)
Date: Fri, 30 Dec 1994 17:28:19
Organization: Internex Online, Toronto, Ontario, Canada (416 363 3783)

In article <ZOWIE.94Dec30031851@daedalus.stanford.edu> zowie@daedalus.st
nford.edu (Craig "Physicist" DeForest) writes:
>In article <foo> ftlofaro@unlv.edu (Frank Lofaro) writes:
>        (a bunch of stuff)

>Perhaps Mr. Lofaro would be a good candidate for Official Free Energy
>Device Tester.  Frank, would you care to assemble and verify a copy?

>(I, for one, eagerly await your posted results!)
>--
>--Craig DeForest    "PhD time: tee minus 89 days and holding for netnews delay"

Perhaps this should be viewed from a slightly different perspective. 

Let's ignore their obviously badly informed theorizing.  They have built a 
device which, according to their data, is producing more _electrical_ energy 
than is being put into it from their source.  

As Craig pointed out to me in an e-mail, it would take about $50 for parts for 
the controversial circuit.  It sounds like it would take about five hours to 
assemble components and build the circuit.  As I pointed out earlier, I don't 
have the scientific background to be credible as an evaluator of the circuit, 
so it doesn't make any sense for me to do this.

Harry, I agree with you that their theoretical claims don't make sense and 
that centuries of empirical evidence say that they can't be doing what they 
claim to be doing.  However, they are getting experimental results and are 
publishing them.  As Scott (I think) pointed out, he needs data to look at.  
Specifically, he needs hard, credible, duplicatable data.

My original post on this concerned debunking without reading what they have 
published.  I'm with Harry in that I am extremely skeptical.  I also 
understand that he has better things to do with his time than repeat their 
experiment just to prove where they went wrong.

However, in order for this thing to be put to bed, the experiment itself must 
be duplicated by a _skeptic_, the experimental results duplicated or 
disproven and the cause for them determined.  

It would take one of the qualified skeptics that reads this group about one 
day to read the published notes, build their device and determine what they 
are doing wrong.  As Harry pointed out, it would be an interesting 
intellectual challenge to find out where they have gone wrong.

How about it.  Who wants to take a day and give us our hard data?

M
barnard@grin.io.org-----------------------------------------------------------
Neolithic sculptures dance in the hills./Cairn stones, held together by a
charm of gravity,/orbit around each other/as if they were the bones of a
dancer,/held together by ligaments and will.
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenbarnard cudfnM cudlnBarnard cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.30 / Roger Wilson /  Re: Free Energy Device (Magnetic Resonance Amp)
     
Originally-From: trsw@satterth.demon.co.uk (Roger Wilson)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,alt.energy.renewable,alt.parane
.science,alt.paranet.ufo,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.bio,sci.energy,sc
.energy.hydrogen,sci.environment,sci.materials,sci.physics,sci.physics.f
sion,sci.physics.particle
Subject: Re: Free Energy Device (Magnetic Resonance Amp)
Date: Fri, 30 Dec 1994 18:32:31 +0000
Organization: Satterthwaites Ltd

In article <3dvte5$cdi@sundog.tiac.net>
           conover@max.tiac.net "Harry H Conover" writes:
" When a device constructed by one or more laymen claims (as they continuously
" do) to overthrow and obsolete over 2,000 years of incrementally and painfully
" acquired scientific knowledge, why should a detailed analysis and criticism
" of the mechanism be expected or required?  
" 
<good points cut for brevity>
" 
" Why then, on the basis of an unsubstantiated claim made by unsophisticated
" workers, should we question the very foundations of man's scientific 
" knowledge?  

On a practical point, if one relies on a 'thought experiment'
instead of actually testing the device, the proponents are free
to go on promoting the thing. Most people don't know enough
science to reject such nice ideas, and would rather they were
true anyway.

TRUE EXAMPLE: An energy consultant has just told me to fit
magnets to the natural gas feed pipes on my baking ovens, in
order to 'ionise the gas to promote more efficient mixing and
combustion'. I can find a lot of people to tell me what I know
already, that his physics is very loopy indeed, but no one can
point me to a comparative test that shows these things don't
work. There ARE satisfied users who say they get 10% or 20%
better fuel economy.

I don't want to pay him for this idea, but I'll need evidence
better than my opinion that it can't work, even though it happens
that I'm entitled to write BSc, PhD & DSc after my name. Anybody
know of a relevant report or paper that has ACTUAL DATA? If you
do, mail me, please!

In the end, science is experimental, and scientific theory is
provisional. Any scientific principle can be shown to be false,
and eventually most of them are. Uncomfortable, but true. So,
while I agree that it's a real bore to have to prove that a
particular perpetual motion machine doesn't work, it's far better
science to prove it experimentally rather than by theory. 

-- 
Roger Wilson  - - - - - - - - - - - - -  at home:trsw@satterth.demon.co.uk
at Dept. of Earth Sciences, Liverpool University:     trsw@liverpool.ac.uk
Also at Satterthwaites Ltd, Crosby L23 5RE, UK - - - - Bakers for 84 years
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudentrsw cudfnRoger cudlnWilson cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.30 / Ron Schudalla /  Re: ---Tiny Ball Lightning
     
Originally-From: schudall@microwave.msfc.nasa.gov (Ron Schudalla)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.geo.meteorology
Subject: Re: ---Tiny Ball Lightning
Date: 30 Dec 1994 22:31:04 GMT
Organization: NASA/MSFC

In article <1994Dec30.212044.20444@midway.uchicago.edu>, edward@uhuru.uc
icago.edu (Edward Lewis) writes:
|>

	(deletion)

|>
|>               (c) 1994 by Edward Lewis All Rights Reserved
|> 
|>         I've posted versions of this article several times on this
|> newsgroup since December of 1993; and I've posted several articles
|> about plasmoids and cold fusion on this newsgroup since January of
|> 1993.  If anyone wants to reproduce or resend this article, get my
|> permission first.
|> 

	(deletion)

I just reproduced your article on my printer.........sue me.

Please, we have seen this article continuously now since you have been posting
it. Unless you can relate this more to meteorology (or rather, put this more into
a perspective which would interest us as meteorologists), I would ask that you
please STOP cross-posting this article to this newsgroup.

-- 
*******************************************************************
*								  *
*	Ron Schudalla / HUGHES STX    Mission to Planet Earth -   *
*       Global Hydrology and	      NOAA/NASA SSM/I		  *
*         Climate Center, Rm. B104	   Pathfinder Project 	  *
*	977 Explorer Boulevard	      			          *
*	Huntsville, AL 35806					  *
*	PH: 205-922-5792	      Guitarist and Golfer of	  *
*	FAX: 205-922-5930             modest ability.....         *
*								  *
*		email: schudall@microwave.msfc.nasa.gov		  *
*								  *
*******************************************************************
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenschudall cudfnRon cudlnSchudalla cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.30 / Greg Rostron /  Re: The True Reaction (was: Dr. Oriani's Lecture)
     
Originally-From: rostron@il.us.swissbank.com (Greg Rostron)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The True Reaction (was: Dr. Oriani's Lecture)
Date: 30 Dec 1994 19:26:08 GMT
Organization: Swiss Bank Corporation, Swiss Bank Center, Zurich Airport

bearpaw writes
> mgriffin@il.us.swissbank.com (Mike Griffin) writes:
> 
> >In article <1994Dec22.030627.5493@midway.uchicago.edu>
> > gk00@quads.uchicago.edu (Greg  Kuperberg) gives us the likely 
> >reaction that the CF TBs must have in mind:
> >	nH + mD -> theoretical fog -> kHe + Heat! Heat! XS Heat! -> Money!
> > . . .
> >no dispute.  No excess money has ever been measured, and until it is,  
there
> >is probably no point in paying attention to the fantasies of the TBs.
> > . . .
> 
> Hmmm.  To be consistant, this should be applied to Hot Fusion as well.

> Bearpaw MacDonald,
> CF agnostic

The difference is that the hot fusion folks have not announced, time
and time again, that their process provides a net positive energy balance.
If they had, I'd ask to see their excess money measurements, too.

The point is, that if CF works as alleged by the TB's, then why aren't  
they raking it in?  The inescapable answer is that it doesn't *really*
work well enough for that.  The water heater is still beyond the reach
of this technology.  It is beyond conventional fusion, too, but those
researchers have the intellectual honesty to admit that.

Mike Griffin
(Expressed opinions are my own.)
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenrostron cudfnGreg cudlnRostron cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.30 / Greg Rostron /  Re: The True Reaction (was: Dr. Oriani's Lecture)
     
Originally-From: rostron@il.us.swissbank.com (Greg Rostron)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The True Reaction (was: Dr. Oriani's Lecture)
Date: 30 Dec 1994 19:27:49 GMT
Organization: Swiss Bank Corporation, Swiss Bank Center, Zurich Airport

bearpaw writes
> mgriffin@il.us.swissbank.com (Mike Griffin) writes:
> 
> >No excess money has ever been measured, and until it is, there
> >is probably no point in paying attention to the fantasies of the TBs.
> > . . .
> 
> Hmmm.  To be consistant, this should be applied to Hot Fusion as well.

> Bearpaw MacDonald,
> CF agnostic

The difference is that the hot fusion folks have not announced, time
and time again, that their process provides a net positive energy balance.
If they had, I'd ask to see their excess money measurements, too.

The point is, that if CF works as alleged by the TB's, then why aren't  
they raking it in?  The inescapable answer is that it doesn't *really*
work well enough for that.  The water heater is still beyond the reach
of this technology.  It is beyond conventional fusion, too, but those
researchers have the intellectual honesty to admit that.

Mike Griffin
(Expressed opinions are my own.)
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenrostron cudfnGreg cudlnRostron cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.30 / Greg Rostron /  Re: The True Reaction (was: Dr. Oriani's Lecture)
     
Originally-From: rostron@il.us.swissbank.com (Greg Rostron)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The True Reaction (was: Dr. Oriani's Lecture)
Date: 30 Dec 1994 19:28:59 GMT
Organization: Swiss Bank Corporation, Swiss Bank Center, Zurich Airport

bearpaw writes
> mgriffin@il.us.swissbank.com (Mike Griffin) writes:
 
> >No excess money has ever been measured, and until it is, there
> >is probably no point in paying attention to the fantasies of the TBs.
> > . . .
 
> Hmmm.  To be consistant, this should be applied to Hot Fusion as well.

> Bearpaw MacDonald,
> CF agnostic

The difference is that the hot fusion folks have not announced, time
and time again, that their process provides a net positive energy balance.
If they had, I'd ask to see their excess money measurements, too.

The point is, that if CF works as alleged by the TB's, then why aren't  
they raking it in?  The inescapable answer is that it doesn't *really*
work well enough for that.  The water heater is still beyond the reach
of this technology.  It is beyond conventional fusion, too, but those
researchers have the intellectual honesty to admit that.

Mike Griffin
(Expressed opinions are my own.)
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenrostron cudfnGreg cudlnRostron cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.30 / Greg Rostron /  Re: The True Reaction (was: Dr. Oriani's Lecture)
     
Originally-From: rostron@il.us.swissbank.com (Greg Rostron)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The True Reaction (was: Dr. Oriani's Lecture)
Date: 30 Dec 1994 19:30:16 GMT
Organization: Swiss Bank Corporation, Swiss Bank Center, Zurich Airport

bearpaw writes
> mgriffin@il.us.swissbank.com (Mike Griffin) writes:
 
> >No excess money has ever been measured, and until it is, there
> >is probably no point in paying attention to the fantasies of the TBs.
> > . . .
 
> Hmmm.  To be consistant, this should be applied to Hot Fusion as well.

> Bearpaw MacDonald,
> CF agnostic

The difference is that the hot fusion folks have not announced, time
and time again, that their process provides a net positive energy balance.
If they had, I'd ask to see their excess money measurements, too.

The point is, that if CF works as alleged by the TB's, then why aren't  
they raking it in?  The inescapable answer is that it doesn't *really*
work well enough for that.  The water heater is still beyond the reach
of this technology.  It is beyond conventional fusion, too, but those
researchers have the intellectual honesty to admit that.

Mike Griffin
(Expressed opinions are my own.)
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenrostron cudfnGreg cudlnRostron cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.30 / Mike Griffin /  Re: The True Reaction (was: Dr. Oriani's Lecture)
     
Originally-From: mgriffin@il.us.swissbank.com (Mike Griffin)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The True Reaction (was: Dr. Oriani's Lecture)
Date: 30 Dec 1994 19:46:42 GMT
Organization: Swiss Bank Corporation, Swiss Bank Center, Zurich Airport

My apologies for posting multiple copies of the same article (more or  
less).  I *believed* my news reader when it kept telling me the post  
failed!

Mike Griffin
(and Greg Rostron had nothing to do with this.)
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenmgriffin cudfnMike cudlnGriffin cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.30 /  DaveHatunen /  Re: Free Energy Device (Magnetic Resonance Amp)
     
Originally-From: hatunen@netcom.com (DaveHatunen)
Newsgroups: sci.bio,sci.energy,sci.energy.hydrogen,sci.environment,sci.m
terials,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.particle
Subject: Re: Free Energy Device (Magnetic Resonance Amp)
Date: Fri, 30 Dec 1994 18:30:51 GMT
Organization: As little as you're likely to find anywhere

In article <3e1hkp$rt2@shemesh.tis.com>, Richard Clark <richard@tis.com> wrote:

>Perhaps the experimenters are not claiming anything so radical as a violation
>of any fundamental law, but rather a new way to use one. For instance,
>rather than simply generating energy from "nowhere", perhaps it turns out
>that their peizo is sucking up elecrons from the surrounding air and converting
>these to energy. No laws broken. Just a new way to use 'em. I'll agree
>that the device is probably just a spoof, but I don't agree with dismissing
>it on the grounds that it violates any known "laws". We certainly don't
>know *everything* yet, and one must keep an open mind...

"Sucking up electrons"???

"..converting these to energy"?????

ROTFL

Good spoof yourself.

-- 


    ********** DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@netcom.com) **********
    *                Daly City California:                *
    *       where San Francisco meets The Peninsula       *
    *       and the San Andreas Fault meets the Sea       *
    *******************************************************

cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenhatunen cudlnDaveHatunen cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.30 /  prasad /  Not self-sustaining is ok. Was Re: What is your opinion
     
Originally-From: c1prasad@watson.ibm.com (prasad)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Not self-sustaining is ok. Was Re: What is your opinion
Date: 30 Dec 1994 12:59:08 GMT
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

In article <palfD1M2uA.8CK@netcom.com>, palf@netcom.com (Andrew Palfreyman) writes:
|> 
|> Surely you beg a more fundamental question, and that is an existence
|> proof. Does it not strike you as odd that *nobody* has coupled the 
|> output to the input and generated a self-sustaining system? - or
|> connected several devices in series to produce the same effect?

Not yet.  As has been discussed with regard to the Griggs pump, since the
excess energy is only manifest as heat, whereas the input needs to be
mechanical or electrical, the *heat* excess currently obtained is apparently
not sufficient to self-sustain, even if it's definitely o/u, because one
needs to convert the thermal excess into coherent forms (mech/elec) before
it can be used to self-sustain.  Earlier discussions in this forum suggest
a gain of at least 8 or 9 before a self-sustaining system can be realized.

The argument does not excuse other o/u devices like Newman's motor whose
excess output is claimed to be mechanical or electrical.  Even the
slightest excess distinguishable over the noise margin in such cases should
theoretically suffice to make a self-sustaining feedback loop.

cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenc1prasad cudlnprasad cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.30 /  prasad /  Re: Free Energy Device
     
Originally-From: c1prasad@watson.ibm.com (prasad)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Free Energy Device
Date: 30 Dec 1994 13:24:52 GMT
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

In article <3dvte5$cdi@sundog.tiac.net>, conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover) writes:
|> 
|> When a device constructed by one or more laymen claims (as they continuously
|> do) to overthrow and obsolete over 2,000 years of incrementally and painfully
|> acquired scientific knowledge, why should a detailed analysis and criticism
|> of the mechanism be expected or required?  

Three reasons.  First, the second law is the first scientific formulation of
the impossibility of o/u devices etc, and dates back only to 1824.  While
definitely older than E=mc^2 or E=hf, the 2nd law less than 200 years old.
If you want to think of it as representing 2000 prior years' observations
as well, why not get carried away even more and say 10 million years, or
whatever time we've been swinging on the ground instead of from vines?
It doesn't sound very scientifically honest to claim consistency over all
such years, even before anyone had a specific scientific analysis to back
it, which only happened c.1824.

Second, acting without case-by-case analysis is merely prudent, for saving time
in processing and examining patents or applicants for venture capital, etc.
Go back over those very same 2000 years that you claim, and it was magic,
mysticism and religious bigotry that characterizes the bulk of the evidence.
Only in the last couple of centuries have we had any serious scientific
approach at all at the so-called "perpetual motion machines" (I dislike the
term, because every atomic electron to planets and galaxies seem to be in
perp.motion anyway!).  Even in these < 200 years, for almost every invention
or machine we have successfully adopted, there has been another that was
claimed or thought to be over-unity.  In the spirit you raised, 200 years
of *selected* evidence seems somewhat a shaky ground!

Third, while we might be satisfied with the bonafides of the 2nd law, what
makes you so sure that every *other* facet of nature is already known?  It's
very discouraging to believe there is nothing left to do or search for, and
all that remains is how to engineer the fission and fusion we already know!
Many offbeat experiments are not well performed or reported and there is
little to be done about them, so if they happen to claim o/u, it makes sense
to admonish them with a recital of the 2nd law (and never trust repeat
offenders or apply 3 strikes, etc;-).  But when a class of experiments are
claimed consistently by a number of people that apparently contradicts
known laws by our *interpretations*, I'd hold there is probable cause for
further investigation.

cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenc1prasad cudlnprasad cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.30 / Scott Mason /  Re: Free Energy Device (Magnetic Resonance Amp)
     
Originally-From: mason@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Scott Mason)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,alt.energy.renewable,alt.parane
.science,alt.paranet.ufo,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.bio,sci.energy,sc
.energy.hydrogen,sci.environment,sci.materials,sci.physics,sci.physics.f
sion,sci.physics.particle
Subject: Re: Free Energy Device (Magnetic Resonance Amp)
Date: 30 Dec 1994 15:25:05 -0500
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In alt.sci.physics.new-theories, ftlofaro@unlv.edu (Frank Lofaro) writes:
[...snip...]
>A lot of such things are suppressed by various governments and/or the
>bigotry of the scientific community. Had YOU actually made such a
>device, would you not have any worries or difficulties in trying to
>get people to accept it, etc?

    If the damn thing worked, no, there would be absolutely no problem
    in getting the scientific community to accept it.

>So are Newton's rules of motion. And they work fine still for most
>stuff. That does not mean they are the true description of the way the
>universe works, even come close, or are even the best we have!

    You're right.  Physics is a mere model of the workings of the universe.


>We should try to substantiate it, but with an OPEN MIND! We should not
>go charging in with only one goal, to disprove any innovation that
>threatens our current pet theories and concepts about the world! To do
>that is UNscientific in the extreme!

    You're right, but in evaluating a new theory, or universal law,
    or model, or whatever, the burden of proof is on the origenator
    of the new theory.  Not on the old-theory supporters to disprove
    the new theory.

>They are NOT doing such a thing. They are claiming new laws of
>physics, and thus it has to be evaluated in that context. Please do

    NO!  New (even old) laws of physics must be evaluated in the context of
    empiricism.

>tell me where you go the divine knowlege that lets you know it does
>not follow any new physical laws or that such laws do not exist,

    Could (and IMHO probably) be that our current laws are flawed.
    However, I have yet to see ANY conclusive proof or anything violating
    the laws of thermodynamics.  I have centuries of experimental data
    supporting the current laws of thermodynamics.  It is YOUR responsibility
    to show (with empirical evidence) that they are in error if you
    are proposing new laws.

>without having to do any experimental research in the first place!

    We have centuries of experimental research supporting our current
    theories.  What do YOU have?

>Please enlighten us poor wretches, or lack your direct rapport with
>God!

    Enlightening you poor wretches is a daunting task indeed.

>Bull! You aren't undertaking open minded scientific research if you go
>in with such a closed attitude! If you go in expecting negative
>results that firmly, chances are you'll set things up to prove your
>point, and save your precious theories and world views from being
>subject to the light of new innovations.

    What?  Attitude and emotion cannot influence an experiment that
    has been set up scientifically.  Of course I forgot that most of
    you free energy guys suscribe to a more holistic view of science.
    Maybe my aura can change the universe.

>Energy can never be created? What the hell do fission and fusion do?
>CREATE energy from matter. It was said that there is strict
>conservation of energy and of matter, and the whole idea of conversion
>between the two was once seens as utterly preposterous. The ideas of

    Burning a log converts matter to energy.  No big deal.

>quantum theory, virtual particles, black holes, Hawking radiation, etc
>once would have been met with nearly universal derision, but things
>have changed.

    Yes.  This is a place for new theories.  I have yet to see anything
    resembling a theory from the free energy gurus.  Care to share,
    or does your toy only work when others aren't looking?

>Physics and science in general were progressing fairly well until
>fairly recently. Quantum theory, and relativity, among other things,
>were discovered, various theoretical advances were made, etc. However
>basic research has stopped, and it is not exclusively due to financial
>constraints in society. An entrenched bigotry against new ideas has
>set in among the scientific community, as fervent as the most
>extremely believer, but of the opposite kind. It refuses to believe
>anything that isn't in total agreement with "known" principles (as if
>we can ever TRULY know the nature of the universe). What hubris!

    Oh here we go again.  "Mommy, he questioned my theory.  He actually
    wanted emirical evidence.  Everybody hates me mommy....".  Show
    me where "known" principals are wrong (ther is plenty of evidence
    to contradict many principals), I look for these instances.  They're
    what breeds new understanding.  But for Gods sake, I'm sick of seeing
    hollow ideas spread without a shread of evidence to support them.
    This has done more to halt the advance of science than anything
    else.

>If the scientists would drop their current extreme closed mindedness a
>lot more really USEFUL science would be done. Groundbreaking, world
>expanding work, not lots of piddling little incremental improvements
>with no new fundamental knowledge or experience gained.

    I am open minded.  I am just sick of people like these trying to
    shovel $#!) into it.  Show me something real.  Show me something
    I can touch.  Show me some data.  Let me take some data.

>"Scientific" bigotry results from, and can only lead to IGNORANCE!
>Open your eyes, open your minds and stop hindering progress!

    Resistance is futile.  You will be assimilated.

>P.S. To you skeptics. Skepticism does not mean an active, religious
>belief in disbelief, that is just another form of unreasoning
>faith. It means having an open mind, rejecting and ACCEPTING new
>evidence when such is warranted. One can NOT make such a determination
>before examining the evidence. Statements such as the one made by the
>author above: "In this case, since the device under discussion claims
>to violate conservation of energy, it cannot function as described."
>are unscientific, bigotted, ignorant, unproductive and extremely
>detrimental to progress and free inquiry.

    Skepticism:  Philos. The doctrine that absolute knowledge is unattainable
		 and that all judgements must be continually questioned
		 and doubted and reexamined.

    Scott, a proud skeptic.

--
    The comments or opinions expressed here do not reflect those of
the Naval Surface Warfare Center, U.S. Navy, or Federal Government.

cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenmason cudfnScott cudlnMason cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.30 / K Jonsson /  Re: Free Energy Device (Magnetic Resonance Amp)
     
Originally-From: kvj@rhi.hi.is (Kristjan Valur Jonsson)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,alt.energy.renewable,alt.parane
.science,alt.paranet.ufo,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.bio,sci.energy,sc
.energy.hydrogen,sci.environment,sci.materials,sci.physics,sci.physics.f
sion,sci.physics.particle
Subject: Re: Free Energy Device (Magnetic Resonance Amp)
Date: 30 Dec 1994 17:17:22 GMT
Organization: University of Iceland

In <3e17fm$r2q@b0ig13.fnal.gov> niimi@b0ig13.fnal.gov (Brian Huffman) writes:


>Good point.

>Mr. Lofaro should build the device and make his fortune selling
>electricity on the power grid, eventually he will be able to buy enough
>lobbyists in congress to stop this 'suppression and bigotry' that he
>believes exists.

>Harry Conover is correct.  Being correct is not being bigoted.
>Every time a new energy realm is opened people test for the conservation 
>of matter and energy, as well as other supposedly 'fundamental' laws.

>These people are called experimental scientists and would LOVE to find
>violations of these physical 'laws'.....they would win Nobel prizes if
>such discoveries were confirmed.  Part of what keeps me going is the 
>sincere hope that one of us will bust the Standard Model soon.

>Point is that there is no one quite so skeptical or conservative as a 
>good scientist.  What Mr. Lofaro is perceiving as close-mindedness on
>the part of Conover is merely confidence in the validity of the experimental
>data on the conservation of matter and energy that has been collected
>for at least a couple of hundred years over approximately 20 orders of 
>magnitude in distance and energy scale.  Conover can make fairly terse
>and definate comments because he can (if so inclined) cite the experiments
>of the researchers who actually set limits on the violation of conservation
>of momentum and energy.  

You didn't read all of Mr. Lofaro's post, did you now.  Although perhaps
a bit fanatical about the current state of the scientific community, his
basic argument is correct.  If a device _appears_ to violate establised
laws, it doesn't mean that it does.  It might be using a new process of
aquiring if from somewhere.  And laws sometimes are only an approximation
on what is really going on.  Consider the conservation of mass and
energy, which has been shown not to be individually conserved.
To Marconi's peers, a self powered crystal receiver would have appeared
to be violating the conservation of energy.

Kristjan

-- 
Kristjan Valur Jonsson               |    The individual does not qualify for
Student of mechanical engineering,   |         making decisions regarding the
University of Iceland                |                 activities of the many.
Exclaimer: Yess!                     |                         (Helmut, 1993)
-- 
Kristjan Valur Jonsson               |    The individual does not qualify for
Student of mechanical engineering,   |         making decisions regarding the
University of Iceland                |                 activities of the many.
Exclaimer: Yess!                     |                         (Helmut, 1993)
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenkvj cudfnKristjan cudlnJonsson cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.30 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Re: Such gullible "skeptics!"
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Such gullible "skeptics!"
Date: Fri, 30 Dec 1994 11:03 -0500 (EST)

frankie@mundens.equinox.gen.nz (Frank Pitt) writes:
 
-> Read what I said, Marshall, not the centre of a _shaft_,
-> the centre of _torque_ of an arm.
 
The arm is attatched to the drive shaft.  Assuming the shaft runs true, is not
the center of the shaft and the center of _torque_ the same thing?
 
-> I made no mention of determining the diameter of a shaft, and from that
-> extrapolating it's center.
 
The center is interpolated, not extrapolated.
 
-> In fact I didn't even mention shafts, I have no idea whether the arm
-> in question was tubular or shaped like a Morris Minor link pin.
 
We are talking about a physical system which has been discribed here and
elsewhere many times.  The arm is attached to a shaft.  You did not need to
mention it, that part is already known.
 
                                                                Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.30 / Scott Mason /  Re: Free Energy Device (Magnetic Resonance Amp)
     
Originally-From: mason@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Scott Mason)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,alt.energy.renewable,alt.parane
.science,alt.paranet.ufo,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.bio,sci.energy,sc
.energy.hydrogen,sci.environment,sci.materials,sci.physics,sci.physics.f
sion,sci.physics.particle
Subject: Re: Free Energy Device (Magnetic Resonance Amp)
Date: 30 Dec 1994 12:51:37 -0500
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In alt.sci.physics.new-theories, conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover) writes:
[...snip...]
>When a device constructed by one or more laymen claims (as they continuously
>do) to overthrow and obsolete over 2,000 years of incrementally and painfully
>acquired scientific knowledge, why should a detailed analysis and criticism
>of the mechanism be expected or required?

    You're right.  There's no reason to climb the tower of Pisa to drop
    stones.  1500 years of human thinking has concluded the heavier
    one will fall faster.

>Consider the thousands of quack claims made to date, and the fact that in
>not one single case has one of these claims successfully overturned
>any of the law of thermodynamics, which include the conservation of
>energy.

    Harry, don't let quacks like Griggs, et al. harden your opposition
    to new theories.  This is what this newsgroup was (origenally) for.
    (and hopefully will be again).  Your argument should be that your
    time is valuable and you must decide whether evaluating their thingy
    is worthwhile.  Based on historical evidence, and the extraordinary
    (if not perposterous) claims for the device, your time could be better
    spent weaving belly-button lint into an evening gown.  Remember
    also that the burden of proof is on them.  Please however, don't
    just dismiss wild theories.  Some of our most useful scientific
    theories were at one time very radical.  Just point out to authors
    of such theories, that those theories rooted in our scientific commmunity
    are those that carried more proof than wild speculation.


    Scott
--
    The comments or opinions expressed here do not reflect those of
the Naval Surface Warfare Center, U.S. Navy, or Federal Government.

cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenmason cudfnScott cudlnMason cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.30 / Richard Clark /  Re: Free Energy Device (Magnetic Resonance Amp)
     
Originally-From: richard@tis.com (Richard Clark)
Newsgroups: sci.bio,sci.energy,sci.energy.hydrogen,sci.environment,sci.m
terials,sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.particle
Subject: Re: Free Energy Device (Magnetic Resonance Amp)
Date: 30 Dec 1994 17:56:41 GMT
Organization: Trusted Information Systems, Inc.

> [various parts snipped]
>
>Harry Conover is correct.  Being correct is not being bigoted.
>Every time a new energy realm is opened people test for the conservation 
>of matter and energy, as well as other supposedly 'fundamental' laws.
>

Perhaps the experimenters are not claiming anything so radical as a violation
of any fundamental law, but rather a new way to use one. For instance,
rather than simply generating energy from "nowhere", perhaps it turns out
that their peizo is sucking up elecrons from the surrounding air and converting
these to energy. No laws broken. Just a new way to use 'em. I'll agree
that the device is probably just a spoof, but I don't agree with dismissing
it on the grounds that it violates any known "laws". We certainly don't
know *everything* yet, and one must keep an open mind...


Richard H. Clark

cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenrichard cudfnRichard cudlnClark cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.30 / K Jonsson /  Re: Such gullible "skeptics!"
     
Originally-From: kvj@rhi.hi.is (Kristjan Valur Jonsson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Such gullible "skeptics!"
Date: 30 Dec 1994 18:00:09 GMT
Organization: University of Iceland

In <788867972.8574snx@mundens.equinox.gen.nz> frankie@mundens.equinox.ge
.nz (Frank Pitt) writes:

>Read what I said, Marshall, not the centre of a _shaft_, 
>the centre of _torque_ of an arm.

>I made no mention of determining the diameter of a shaft, and from that
>extrapolating it's center. 

>In fact I didn't even mention shafts, I have no idea whether the arm
>in question was tubular or shaped like a Morris Minor link pin.

>Frankie

What is the centre of torque?  There is no fundamental point about
which torque is measured.  Or are you talking about the centre
of gravity of the arm's cross section?
In any case, it is irrelevant.  The shape of the arm is irrelevant.
We are talking about calibrating a torque meter.  To do that, we
have to apply a known torque _to a shaft_.  The torque we are interested
in is the torque we apply about the shaft's axis.  Incidentally,
if this is a sensible shaft, the axis is at the centre.

So, it boils down to this:
Can we measure the distance from the force's line of action to the
centre of the shaft with any accuracy?

I should say yes. on the order of a metre, we should easily get an
error margin of +- 0.5 mm.

The question is, how large is this error margin.  What are it's effects
on the final torque measurements.  What is the total error margin in
the torque applied?  Having this, we can easily predict the error
in the measured power.


Kristjan

-- 
Kristjan Valur Jonsson               |    The individual does not qualify for
Student of mechanical engineering,   |         making decisions regarding the
University of Iceland                |                 activities of the many.
Exclaimer: Yess!                     |                         (Helmut, 1993)
-- 
Kristjan Valur Jonsson               |    The individual does not qualify for
Student of mechanical engineering,   |         making decisions regarding the
University of Iceland                |                 activities of the many.
Exclaimer: Yess!                     |                         (Helmut, 1993)
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenkvj cudfnKristjan cudlnJonsson cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.30 /  DaveHatunen /  Re: Free Energy Device (Magnetic Resonance Amp)
     
Originally-From: hatunen@netcom.com (DaveHatunen)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,alt.energy.renewable,alt.parane
.science,alt.paranet.ufo,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.bio,sci.energy,sc
.energy.hydrogen,sci.environment,sci.materials,sci.physics,sci.physics.f
sion,sci.physics.particle
Subject: Re: Free Energy Device (Magnetic Resonance Amp)
Date: Fri, 30 Dec 1994 18:05:58 GMT
Organization: As little as you're likely to find anywhere

In article <3e1e55$7bc@eldborg.rhi.hi.is>,
Kristjan Valur Jonsson <kvj@rhi.hi.is> wrote:

[...]

>The inventors are not claiming to be making energy out of nothing, but
>rather that they are tapping some new source (in fact, I think they
>mentioned the earth's mag field).

I realize that the nature of fields can be very hard to get across, but
it needs to be noted that the earth's magnetic field is not a source of
energy. One cannot convert the field to energy. The nature of
electromagnetic fields is well-known, and the idea that anyone would
think that somehow the earths' magnetic field is available as a source
of energy is preposterous. Claiming to do so marks the claimant as
either an ignoramous or a charlatan.

That said, I will admit that there is one misleading effect of a field
that can make it appear to be a source of energy. If I release a mass in
a gravitational field, it will fall, and it will acquire kinetic energy
as it changes its position in the gravitational potential field.
Similarly, if I release an iron object near a magnet, the iron object
will acquire kinetic energy as it changes its position in the magnetic
field. But these are one time effects; there is no way to cycle the
process without expending the acquired energy to restore the original
configuration. Outside the realm of mass-energy conversions (and I
don't believe that has been claimed for the process in question) this
is what the principle of energy conservation is all about. 

>Science is constantly developing new theories.  A new theory doesn't have
>to break existion ones.
>Perhaps a new physical effect has truly been discovered.  Not everything
>discovered has been previously made by nature, or if made, discovered by
>man.

Honestly, do you really believe that some strangers claiming to have a
perpetuum mobile (for that is what they are claiming) might really have
come up with something that utterly destroys the entire infrastructure
of modern science (for that is what it would do)?

For such a claim to be taken seriously surely we must demand of the
claimants that they supply very, very, very good evidence. 

>Kristjan
>
>-- 
>Kristjan Valur Jonsson               |    The individual does not qualify for
>Student of mechanical engineering,   |         making decisions regarding the

First year?



-- 


    ********** DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@netcom.com) **********
    *                Daly City California:                *
    *       where San Francisco meets The Peninsula       *
    *       and the San Andreas Fault meets the Sea       *
    *******************************************************

cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenhatunen cudlnDaveHatunen cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.30 / Mike Jamison /  Re:       Re: A@P
     
Originally-From: edwlt12@mars.lerc.nasa.gov (Mike Jamison (ADF))
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re:       Re: A@P
Date: 30 Dec 1994 12:45 EDT
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center

In article <199412280831.TAA10637@oznet02.ozemail.com.au>, rvanspaa@ozem
il.com.au writes...
>Eureka!
> 
>A@P is actually an "ap", i.e. an application! It's a highly 
>sophisticated artificial intelligence program funning on the computer 
>at dartmouth.

Apparently it still has a few bugs...
> 
>Robin van Spaandonk <rvanspaa@ozemail.com.au>
> 
> 
Mike Jamison

"Scientific research consists in seeing what everyone else has seen, but
thinking what no one else has thought"

						-A. Szent-Gyorgyi
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenedwlt12 cudfnMike cudlnJamison cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.30 / Jon Kogut /  Re: Dr. Oriani's Lecture
     
Originally-From: jkogut@teal.csn.org (Jon Kogut)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Dr. Oriani's Lecture
Date: 30 Dec 1994 18:07:39 GMT
Organization: Colorado SuperNet, Inc.

In article <tomkD1IDJA.Hry@netcom.com>,
Thomas H. Kunich <tomk@netcom.com> wrote:
>
>Either we live in a vacuum or in an ordered universe.

That's a pretty large excluded middle.


> If it is ordered then
>either we have some clue as to what holds it together or not. If we have that
>clue then suggesting highly counter theories without some sort of substatiating
>evidence qualifies as science fiction, not science fact.
>

Do you think a theory is necessarily either science fiction or science
fact?  Through which slit would you have put the theory of continental
drift, when it was first proposed?

-- 
		jkogut@csn.org			<Jon Kogut>
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenjkogut cudfnJon cudlnKogut cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.30 / A Plutonium /  Re: 2nd Patent by A@P, SUPERCONDUCTIVITY CORRECT THEORY; ROOM  
     
Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.ele
tromag,sci.bio,sci.chem,sci.physics
Subject: Re: 2nd Patent by A@P, SUPERCONDUCTIVITY CORRECT THEORY; ROOM  
Date: 30 Dec 1994 20:17:00 GMT
Organization: Plutonium Atom Foundation

In article <3e1pmr$pb2@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:

>  The full title of this missive is "2nd Patent by A@P,
> SUPERCONDUCTIVITY CORRECT THEORY; ROOM TEMPERATURE SUPERCONDUCTORS ,
> part 1 of 2 ".
>  I will post my 2nd patent pending work only in parts. I will not post
> the DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION, nor the 11 CLAIMS. That is
> what the business of a patent is all about. Besides the Details of the
> Invention and the Claims, I feel free to post the remainder because, I
> feel that the most important inventions will be INTERNET posted in the
> future anyway. It stimulates action and research and verification and
> confirmation that much faster. Time is of the essence, especially for
> important works of engineering.

  This is part 2 of 2. 

	And although Debroglie does not discuss neutrinos in the below quote,
his physics intuition is continued because it is important.
	" In my search for this "something extra," I have found that the only
phenomenon known to us today in which material corpuscles vanish, in a
way analogous to that in which the photon disappears in the
photo-electric effect, is that in which pairs of electrons of opposite
signs are dematerialized. The positive electron was discovered only a
few years ago and its discovery was a striking confirmation of certain
features in DiracUs equations which up to that point had rather seemed
to be blemishes. Suitably interpreted, then, DiracUs Theory shows that
the existence of a negative electron ought to imply the existence of a
positive anti-electron. Still more generally, there ought to be an
anti-corpuscle corresponding to every corpuscle obeying DiracUs
equations, and standing to the latter in the same relation as the
positive electron to the negative electron. These predictions were
confirmed by the discovery of the positive electron, so that it has
become tempting to imagine the photon as consisting of a corpuscle of
negligible mass and charge obeying DiracUs equations, and associated
with an anti-corpuscle of the same character. It is an attractive
hypothesis, and from the mathematical point of view it can be
completely worked out. It is easy to understand how a photon
constructed in this way could be annihilated in the presence of Matter
by transferring to it the whole of its energy, a process analogous to
the annihilation of a pair of electrons in the phenomenon of
dematerialization. This annihilation-- a quantum transition-- would
then constitute the photo-electric effect, the fundamental importance
of which from the theoretical point of view has already been pointed
out; and it ought then to be possible to define the electro-magnetic
field as a function of this transition. Actually, indeed, it can be
shown that it is possible to connect with this transitional process of
annihilation an electromagnetic field completely identical with that
which defines MaxwellUs wave-- an extremely interesting fact. Further,
since the photon is thus assumed to consist of a corpuscle and an
anti-corpuscle, both of them possessing spin, it should now follow
Bose-Einstein statistics. 
   It should be observed that Jordan has developed a kind of variant on
this theory, differing from it in certain essential particulars,
especially in treating the photon as a mere appearance and not as a
genuine unit. This view has been further developed recently by de
Kronig; it has certain interesting aspects, but is not finished enough
to allow it to be judged as a whole. " {5e}
	Dirac Equation solves mass and charge for nonzero particles. But a
photon has zero mass and charge. Debroglie wanted to solve the Dirac Eq
for a particle of 0 mass, 0 charge, yet spin of 1/2.
	Before leaving Debroglie, I should mention that Kronig was unfairly
treated in the history of physics. Kronig tried to make 1 photon = 2
neutrinos. Rotational symmetry, photon has cylindrical symmetry. Kronig
wanted 1 photon = 2 neutrinos. Pryce raised an objection with the
symmetry of the field. According to held views at the time of Kronig,
the photon -> neutrinos had to have cylindrical symmetry and in order
to get the theory to work-out, Kronig had to break cylindrical
symmetry. Kronig did important physics, and he has won the Plutonium
Atom Prize, far more important than the Nobel Prize. Any prize that is
given to persons who purportedly "conferred the greatest benefit to
humanity in physics", and yet, such a prize neglects one such as Tesla,
is a joke prize. Because the Nobel Prize missed Tesla, the Nobel Prize
should be seen as the world's joke prize which on occasion awards
fairly. The Nobel prize having missed Tesla, means, in my humble
opinion, that the Nobel prize is doomed to ignoble status or obscurity.
   	Now I discuss the Bohm-Aharonov experiment of 1959 and the related
Aharonov-Casher article {6} of 1984. The 1984 article was a theoretical
extension of the older 1959 experiment, but it is in AharonovUs 1984
article that he even sees a relation of this effect with
superconductivity. Although Aharonov sees a possible connection with
neutrons and not neutrinos. In one of my Internet postings below I give
more detail of this article.
	" In QM, however, the basic equations that describe the motion of all
objects contain A (vector potential)  and V (scalar potential)
directly, and they cannot be simply eliminated. Nonetheless, it was
initially believed that these potentials had no independent
significance. In 1959, Bohm and Aharonov discovered that both the
scalar and vector potentials should play a major role in quantum
mechanics. They proposed two electron interference experiments in which
some of the electron properties would be sensitive to changes of A or
V, even when there were no electric or magnetic  fields present on the
charged particles. The absence of E and B means that classically there
are no forces acting on the particles, but quantum-mechanically it is
still possible to change the properties of the electron. These
counterintuitive predictions are known as the Aharonov-Bohm effect."
{4c}
	Potential has 3 vector components plus 1 scalar, namely x,y,z, and V.
The vector potential is related to the Electromagnetic field. A is the
vector potential and V is the scalar potential. One gets the
Electromagnetic field from the potentials by differentiating.  V = curl
A. 
   	It was thought that the vector potential was not unique. The point
is that the EM field makes the particle move, and it was thought that
the field only makes particles move.
	Bohm-Aharonov effect-- situation in the experimental set-up where
electrons do not come in contact with Electromagnetic field. That is E
and B are 0 where the electrons are going. But the potential is not 0.
In the experiment using double-slits and a solenoid,  Bohm, Aharonov
found that the potential effected the electrons even though the field
is zero. Hence the potential has physical existence.
   Here in this historical outline, I want to point out that what is
strange and counterintuitive in the Meissner effect and now the
Bohm-Aharonov effect can be understood with the idea that photons are
QED signalers and they can be decomposed into neutrinos. With neutrino
signalers in the Meissner effect and the Bohm-Aharonov effect, those
experiments become crystal clear. Note that although neutrinos
associated with superconductivity are not mentioned in either one of
these two famous experiments, Meissner effect, and Bohm-Aharonov effect
(Aharonov-Casher article-- they were looking at neutrons, not
neutrinos), these experiments are supporting evidence that photons are
composite particles, and the only candidates are neutrinos.
   Now in this history of superconductivity outline, we come close to
recent events. The end of the year 1986 started an avalanche in
research into superconductors. Because in Oct1986, Mller & Bednorz
discovered superconductivity above 30K in a ceramic oxide containing
lanthanum, barium, and copper. Their publication was titled Possible
higher Tc superconductivity in the Ba-La-Cu-O system .  Until that 1986
discovery, the highest Tc was a niobium germanium alloy at 23K. But
more important, the Ba-La-Cu-O system was a wholly new class of
superconductor because it was a ceramic material, not a metal alloy. 
And, which the prevailing theory of the BCS was at a loss to understand
how a ceramic could be superconductive, much less predict that a
ceramic could ever be superconductive.
	Before the end of 1986, scientists had verified the onset of
superconductivity at 95K in a compound consisting of a mixed phase of
yttrium-barium-copper oxide.  This was very important because now
superconductivity occurred above liquid nitrogen temperatures which is
77K. Liquid nitrogen is a far cheaper refrigerant than liquid helium
and would make superconduction practical in economic terms. This 95K
superconductor, a perovskite, has the chemistry of YBa2Cu3Ox, where x
varies somewhat between 6.3 and 7. And it is the CuO2 planes which are
the most important single factor in sustaining high temperature
superconductivity in this perovskite. It seems that the planar
structure is the most important factor in these perovskites.
	After the Oct1986 discovery, an explosive race was on for higher Tc
superconductors (HTSC). The discovery of HTSC followed where in 1988
the cuprate oxide Tl-Ba-Ca-Cu-O compounds had a Tc at 125K. Then later
mercury superconductors were reported that top the 125K.
   Here I interrupt the plethora of discoveries of HTSC and divert to
make mention of several organic superconductors and to mention that
organic superconductors (based on carbon compounds) has had a history
of superconductivity research as explosive as the inorganic, the
physical chemistry research. As the field of superconductivity research
exploded into a race to find HTSC after 1986, so also did the race for
higher Tc in organic superconductors. The first organic superconductor
was discovered in 1979 with tetramethyltetraselenafulvalenePF6 , a
salt,-- (TMTSF)2PF6 with a Tc at 0.9K. With the organic salt
bis(ethylenedithio) tetrathiafulvalene (ET), it was discovered in 1983
that (ET)2ReO4  is superconductive under pressure at Tc of 2K. Followed
by the ambient pressure superconductor of the iodine salt b-(ET)2I3 
with a Tc of 1.4K. Bromine containing b-(ET)2BrI2   Tc of 3K and, 8K
for the bU-(ET)2I3  and, 10K for the copper thiocyanate k-(ET)2Cu(NCS)2
 in 1988 and, 13K for the copper dicyanamide salt k-(ET)2Cu[N(CN)2]Cl
in 1990 and, 19K with K3C60 in 1991 and, 33K with Rb2CsC60 which holds
the record for organic compounds as of this writing. {7}
   Back to the history of HTSC for inorganic compounds, and more
recently, zero resistance has been observed at temperatures over 125K
for inorganic compounds. There are reports of the onset of zero
resistance at room temperature (about 295K). But none of these reports
have been substantiated. As of this writing, Dec1994, there have been
rumors of approaching room temperature Tc, but those are just rumors.
   This brings the history of superconductivity to the year 1994 with
this patent application. I had known that silver was the highest
electrical conductor and it was not by coincidence that silver is the
highest reflector of light (photons). In Spring1994, I had intuited
that since superconductivity is zero resistance and conductivity is by
photon signalers (conduction is transmitted at the speed of light),
that the signalers in superconductivity were no longer photons but had
changed to a particle that would not be scattered through the material.
The only particle known that is not scattered through any material is
the neutrino.  I intuited that the neutrino was involved in
superconductivity. That photons at the Tc decomposed into neutrinos.
The physics of a material drastically changed at the Tc.  A drastic
change suggests that the particles involved were different particles.
The only particle that moves through matter with no resistance is the
neutrino. So then, 2 photons = 4 neutrinos = 1 graviton. This, I
reasoned by Math Logic, the process of elimination. Neutrinolization
had to be the correct theory of superconductivity. All matter is both
particle and wave. Consider particles. In conduction, such as a silver
wire, from QED, the flow of electrons is signaled by photons, of which
the scattering of photons creates the measured ohmic resistance known
to silver. What signaling particle can go through a superconductor and
yet not be scattered into resistance? By process of elimination, the
only particle that could produce no resistance was the neutrino. Hence,
superconductivity was photons decomposed into neutrinos as signalers
for the electrons to move.
   On the Internet, especially sci.physics.electromag and
sci.physics.fusion a thread (of thought) developed arising from a
dialogue between Morten Holm Pedersen and myself.

>From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
>Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics,
>sci.physics.electromag
>Subject: PHY#4:A@P,SUPERFLUID HELIUM PROVES GR is >Fakery,crackpot quackery
>Date: 22 Sep 1994 19:17:47 GMT
>Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
>Lines: 178
>Message-ID: <35sl8r$jnj@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
>From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
>Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag,alt.sci.
>physics.plutonium
>Subject: Re: PHYSICS IS NOW 100% QM! EXPERIMENT WHICH PROVED >GR AS FAKERY
>Date: 28 Jul 1994 03:54:21 GMT
>Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
>Lines: 56
>Message-ID: <317a5d$41o@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
>References: <316h3l$6fc@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
>In article <316h3l$6fc@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
>Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium) writes:
>From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium)
>Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag,alt.sci.
>physics.plutonium
>Subject: Re: PHYSICS IS NOW 100% QM! EXPERIMENT WHICH PROVED >GR AS FAKERY
>Date: 2 Aug 1994 11:51:38 GMT
>Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
>Lines: 116
>Message-ID: <31lc0a$4sr@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
>References: <316h3l$6fc@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
>In article <316h3l$6fc@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
>Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium) writes:
>>   This is the experiment which will prove GR (General Relativity)
>>a FAKERY; QM NOW is 100% of physics. Physics experimental set->>up.
Have a huge spherical ball made out of very dense metal. There
>>was I believe I read a long time ago about some
experiments (Univ. >>Maryland? Johns Hopkins?) which tried to measure
the graviton-- >>experimental evidence for the existence of the
graviton.
>> Those experiments flopped as far as I know because of the failure
>>of the sensitivity of experimental measure. The claim by those
>>researchers was that the experimental set-up could not be made
to >>the precision wanted.
>>   I propose this famous experiment which will be known as the
>> Plutonium-____________ experiment. In the history of physics
>>there will be a class of experiments which can be viewed as major
>>experiments. The double -slit experiment to be sure. The blackbody
>>cavity radiation experiment, esq. of Planck. The
radioactivity >>experiment of esq. Becquerel. The Michelson
interferometer >>experiments for the ether. The Bell-Aspect experiment.
And now >>we have the most famous experiment of the
Plutonium->>_____________. Whoever's name fills that blank slot will go
>>down in history also.
>>    This experiment, I predict, will show that GR (General >>Relativit
) is false. Remember, that in physics it takes only one >>famous
experiment to dispel a fakery theory such as GR, and unlike >>biology
where that community cuddles/adores/cherishs
and >>elevates fakeries--Darwin evolution to the stature of religion. 
>>    This famous experiment will show that gravity is neutrino
>>couplings, i.e., 4 neutrinos = 1 graviton, or 4 neutrino = 2
photons = >>1 graviton.
>>    As a corollary of this experiment, surprise, an ether exists. The
>> ether is space. And the ether is neutrinos. Space is equal to
>> neutrinos, and, neutrinos make up what we perceive as space. 
>>    Photons are waves and they propagate through a medium. That
>>medium consists of neutrinos. So as a charming historical >>highlight,
Michelson was correct after all, there is an ether. Ether >>is
neutrino space.
>>   This experiment perhaps may be conducted well at IBM research
>>labs since the idea of this experiment flowed from the dialogue
I >>had with Mr. Morten Pedersen in May 1994.
>> 24May1994, 02:14:47 GMT >>sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.electromag
>> The FAQ for superconductivity 21/05/1994
>> In article <2rrnun$ltc@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
>> Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium) writes: 
>> > In article <2rq0fl$n82@monterosa.zurich.ibm.com>
>> > hpe@zurich.ibm.com (Morten Holm Pedersen) writes:
>> > > Superfluidity
>> >   My knowledge of this is as yet nil. But I must look into it.
>>    Or this experiment may be conducted at the locale where the
>>current search for the graviton is being conducted.
>>    Description of the Experiment. A huge heavy and massive solid
>> sphere. One diameter drilled out with a center cavity. The sphere
>>is more massive than what the correct calculations and >>predictions
of what GR says will hold X number of helium atoms >>within the
central cavity. GR predicts that the helium in e
>>central cavity will stay bound within the cavity. 





>>                                   $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$oooo
>>                        $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$o         
>>                  $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$       
>>              $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
>>            $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$      
>>           $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$       
>>                                                      well
>>           $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$    $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
>>            $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
>>               $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
>>                $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
>>                          $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
>>                                   $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
>> -----------------------------------------------------------
                                
>>                                  EARTH'S GROUND
>>    Now replace the helium with superfluid helium. Capillarity
must >>be removed. And I am sure there are excellent experimental
>>physicists the world over who can device the experiment such
that >>capillarity is eliminated. Then GR would predict tt
the >>superfluid helium will also remain in the center cavity. Because
>>GR does not distinguish between nonsuperfluid helium mass and >>superfluid helium mass.
>>   Plutonium QM. Superfluidity and superconductivity is the motion
>>of neutrinos. In superconductivity, the photon carriers are >>diffract
on grated into neutrino carriers. In superfluidity, again, it >>is
neutrino carriers resulting in zero frictin
and null gravity. Why >>null gravity?
>> Because, according to my theory, gravity is neutrinos. 
>>    According to Plutonium QM, the superfluid helium will not
>>remain in the center cavity but always move out of the holes.
And >>it matters not how massive the ball is. The ball can be the
planet >>Earth where the center cavity would be the center
of the Earth, the >>planet Jupiter, a star. The same experiment will
always move the >>superfluid helium out of the center. Why? Because
superfluid >>helium is Quantized neutrinos, i.e. equal to gravity.
Gravity is >>nullified by neutrinos because gravitons are neutrinos.
>>    This experiment when done and confirmed that Plutonium QM is
>> correct, then it will be the strongest experimental evidence
that >>black holes, neutron stars, and other assorted exotica and
>>figments of the imagination were fakeries.
>>   This experiment when done will imply that gravity is not a
>> fundamental quantum interaction (a force) but is a statistical,
>>and secondary derivative of neutrino statistics. Gravity is a
>>neutrino RCasimir effectS. Gravity is a secondary derivative,
>>analogous to van der Waals force is a derivative. That
will leave >>physics then with only 3 interactions--- strongnuclear,
>>radioactivities, and electromagnetism. {8}

>From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes >Plutonium)
>Newsgroups: sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics,sci.chem,sci.bio,alt.
>sci.physics.plutonium
>Subject: Re: ROOM TEMPERATURE SUPERCONDUCTORS; FOUND
>Date: 25 Nov 1994 01:01:31 GMT
>Organization: PLutonium Atom Foundation
>Lines: 22
>Message-ID: <3b3d1b$s12@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
>References: <3a9695$ja5@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> 
> <CzFp56.2Cs@news.cis.umn.edu> ><3aiim7$9jt@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> 
> <3alr7e$9vr@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> ><3arca4$i0v@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>  
> <3b0fil$4cb@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
>Summary: Superconductivity is neutrinolization. The bioworld >already
has a room temperature superconductor, just waiting to be >found.
>In article <3b0fil$4cb@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
>Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) >writes:
>>   In the PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS, 23July1984, Vol 53, Number
>>4, pp 319-321, there is the article "Topological Quantum Effects
>>for Neutral Particles" by Y. Aharonov and A. Casher. I have read
it >>to see what the difference between this and the
Bohm-Aharonov >>Effect is. These newsgroups are good at giving
differing >>summaries and opinions to these type of reports. Anyone
care to >>summarize this report?
>   This publication was timely because it was 1984, two years
>before (1986) IBM researchers discovered ceramic superconductors.
>   Towards the end of this publication, Aharonov-Casher state, and I
>quote. RThis phenomenon may be summarized by the statement that
>the superconductor screens all the moments of E but does not >screen
the topological effect of expSidrxudotE. The above >discussion
suggests the possibility of looking for the effect on
>fluxons in two-dimensional superconductors.S
>Did anyone confirm or research further into that suggestion? {8}

>From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes >Plutonium)
>Newsgroups: sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics,sci.chem,sci.bio,
>alt.sci.physics.plutonium
>Subject: Re: ROOM TEMPERATURE SUPERCONDUCTORS; FOUND
>Date: 25 Nov 1994 23:14:58 GMT
>Organization: PLutonium Atom Foundation
>Lines: 39
>Message-ID: <3b5r5i$7e5@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
>References: <3a9695$ja5@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> 
><CzFp56.2Cs@news.cis.umn.edu> ><3aiim7$9jt@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> 
> <3alr7e$9vr@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> ><3arca4$i0v@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> 
> <3b0fil$4cb@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>  ><3b3d1b$s12@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
>Summary: A room temperature superconductor already exists in the 
>Bioworld, awaiting to be discovered. Because polarization exists in 
> the Bioworld, and neutrinolization is related to polarization.
>In article <3b3d1b$s12@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
>Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) >writes:
>> >   In the PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS, 23July1984, Vol 53, Number
>> >4, pp 319-321, there is the article RTopological Quantum Effects
>> >for Neutral ParticlesS by Y. Aharonov and A. Casher. I have
read it >> >to see what the difference between this d
the Bohm-Aharonov >> >Effect is. These newsgroups are good at giving
differing 
>> >summaries and opinions to these type of reports. Anyone care
to >> >summarize this report?
>>    This publication was timely because it was 1984, two years
>>before (1986) IBM researchers discovered ceramic >>superconductors.
>>    Towards the end of this publication, Aharonov-Casher state,
and >>I quote. "This phenomenon may be summarized by the statement
>>that the superconductor screens all the moments of E but does
not >>screen the topological effect of expSidrxudotE. e
above >>discussion suggests the possibility of looking for the effect
on >>fluxons in two-dimensional superconductors."
>>  Aharonov, I suspect, wanted to include interference in double slit
>>experiment of the Bohm-Aharonov Effect with neutrons. I suspect,
>>Aharonov never anticipated that his paper would be used by anyone
>>(me) to channel into the correct theory of superconductivity
by >>replacing Aharonov's neutrons with that of neutrinos.
>>  The Aharonov-Casher report is important, for it is the correct
>>path into forming the theory that superconductivity is >>neutrinolizat
on, and that the state of superconduction is the >>decomposition
of photons into neutrinos which result in the
>>Meissner Effect.
>>   All of this ties in nicely with Debroglie's desire to have a Dirac
>>Equation for the photon. His theory is nicely outlined in one of his
>>masterpieces RMatter and LightS 1937.
>>   All that is really needed to confirm my theory of >>superconductivi
y = neutrinolization, is for the experimental >>reporting that
when a "neutrino detector counter" like a geiger >>counter is set-up
in a double-slit experiment, and also light
>>polarizers at various angles, and somehow set-up in a >>superconductor
as well. When the report comes in, it will show >>that a Neutrino
Counter detects an increase in neutrinos in these >>experiments. {8}
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.30 / A Palfreyman /  Re: What is your opinion?
     
Originally-From: palf@netcom.com (Andrew Palfreyman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What is your opinion?
Date: Fri, 30 Dec 1994 06:46:58 GMT
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)

Robert Pettus (rap@iac.net) wrote:
:   [...]
: Now here is my question.  Perhaps the skeptics are right, and what we are 
: seeing is not in fact cold fusion.  Could it be instead some sort of 
: exotic electrochemical reaction?   Perhaps it is some sort of catalytic 
: reaction, and therefore not requiring the normal force to initiate the 
: reaction.

Surely you beg a more fundamental question, and that is an existence
proof. Does it not strike you as odd that *nobody* has coupled the 
output to the input and generated a self-sustaining system? - or
connected several devices in series to produce the same effect?
===
Andrew Palfreyman		palf@netcom.com
 --------------------------------------
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenpalf cudfnAndrew cudlnPalfreyman cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.30 / Frank Lofaro /  Re: Free Energy Device (Magnetic Resonance Amp)
     
Originally-From: ftlofaro@unlv.edu (Frank Lofaro)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,alt.energy.renewable,alt.parane
.science,alt.paranet.ufo,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.bio,sci.energy,sc
.energy.hydrogen,sci.environment,sci.materials,sci.physics,sci.physics.f
sion,sci.physics.particle
Subject: Re: Free Energy Device (Magnetic Resonance Amp)
Date: 30 Dec 1994 07:17:53 GMT
Organization: University of Nevada, Las Vegas

In article <3dvte5$cdi@sundog.tiac.net> conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover) writes:
>M Barnard (barnard@grin.io.org) wrote:
>
>: Craig, I don't have the electronics background to comment on the science of 
>: what they are doing, however, I do have enough scientific background to do my 
>: research before making or debunking claims.  I've read what they've made 
>: available.  Have you?  You obviously are skeptical, and you obviously know 
>: what you are talking about.  You would make the perfect person to actually 
>: read the notes and provide useful comments.
>
>Why?
>
>When a device constructed by one or more laymen claims (as they continuously
>do) to overthrow and obsolete over 2,000 years of incrementally and painfully
>acquired scientific knowledge, why should a detailed analysis and criticism
>of the mechanism be expected or required?  
>

So all tthe old scientific knowledge is nott in need of revision??
Do you also believe in strictt Newtonian classical physics?
Disbelieve quantum theory?

I didn't think so.

>Consider the thousands of quack claims made to date, and the fact that in 
>not one single case has one of these claims successfully overturned 
>any of the law of thermodynamics, which include the conservation of 
>energy. 
>

A lot of such things are suppressed by various governments and/or the
bigotry of the scientific community. Had YOU actually made such a
device, would you not have any worries or difficulties in trying to
get people to accept it, etc?

>Consider the fact that the laws of thermodynamics have proven themselves
>to be one of the most useful tools of science and technology and, in fact,
>our scientific and technological achievements to date are largely due to
>the validity of these laws as development tools.
>

So are Newton's rules of motion. And they work fine still for most
stuff. That does not mean they are the true description of the way the
universe works, even come close, or are even the best we have!

>Why then, on the basis of an unsubstantiated claim made by unsophisticated
>workers, should we question the very foundations of man's scientific 
>knowledge?  
>

We should try to substantiate it, but with an OPEN MIND! We should not
go charging in with only one goal, to disprove any innovation that
threatens our current pet theories and concepts about the world! To do
that is UNscientific in the extreme!

>Perpetual motion and free energy systems are fun to contemplate, and
>sometimes a challenging puzzle to surface the error in thinking or 
>measurement that serves as their basis.  Still, to take any of them
>as serious or real requires, for the scientifically literate, a leap
>of faith fully equivalent to that of accepting:
>
>   -  I have a serum that will raise the dead.
>
>   -  I have an elixir that will provide eternal, healthy life.
>
>   -  I have invented a fluid that will quadruple the output of
>      your car's batter, and make it last forever.
>
>   -  I have a product that will make your car run on water.
>
>   -  I have invented a device that produces free energy by
>      tapping the Earth's magnetic field.
>

This is a bogus argument. Trying to lump this innovation together with
many unrelated things just to make it look ridiculous hardly furthers
scientific discourse.

>The list goes on and on.  You could test each one individually to
>find it didn't work, or you can apply the accumulated knowedge of
>science to analyze and predict the outcome.  Given that, to date,
>scientific analysis has produced the same results as experimental
>validation attempts, it is a 'no-brainer' to opt for analytical
>evaluation.  
>

If they were claiming it used the scientific laws you cite, you could
be right. If for example, they claimed it used Ohm's law to make
current equal voltage times resistance, you would be correct for
calling them on the point that they are misapplying Ohm's law.

They are NOT doing such a thing. They are claiming new laws of
physics, and thus it has to be evaluated in that context. Please do
tell me where you go the divine knowlege that lets you know it does
not follow any new physical laws or that such laws do not exist,
without having to do any experimental research in the first place!
Please enlighten us poor wretches, or lack your direct rapport with
God!

>In this case, since the device under discussion claims to violate
>conservation of energy, it cannot function as described.  End
>of discussion!  :-)  Further analysis will only serve to isolate the
>experimental or conceptual error(s) made by it's proponents, and while
>this type of expose is is (as the solution of a puzzle) entertaining,
>it has no relationship to a scientific evaluation of the merits of
>the proposed device.
>

Bull! You aren't undertaking open minded scientific research if you go
in with such a closed attitude! If you go in expecting negative
results that firmly, chances are you'll set things up to prove your
point, and save your precious theories and world views from being
subject to the light of new innovations.

>The simple fact is: You cannot make something that creates energy,
>or extracts it from a place where it doesn't exist!  Perhaps the
>bet argument for the fundamental correctness of this premise is: 
>Think about the terrible consequences that would occur if you could 
>do this, and realize that if it could be done, nature has likely 
>already done it or is in the process of doing so!  Remember, in
>science, nature did it first (including both fission and fusion).  
>
>                                  Harry C.
>
>

Energy can never be created? What the hell do fission and fusion do?
CREATE energy from matter. It was said that there is strict
conservation of energy and of matter, and the whole idea of conversion
between the two was once seens as utterly preposterous. The ideas of
quantum theory, virtual particles, black holes, Hawking radiation, etc
once would have been met with nearly universal derision, but things
have changed.

Physics and science in general were progressing fairly well until
fairly recently. Quantum theory, and relativity, among other things,
were discovered, various theoretical advances were made, etc. However
basic research has stopped, and it is not exclusively due to financial
constraints in society. An entrenched bigotry against new ideas has
set in among the scientific community, as fervent as the most
extremely believer, but of the opposite kind. It refuses to believe
anything that isn't in total agreement with "known" principles (as if
we can ever TRULY know the nature of the universe). What hubris!

With that attitude, nothing but Newton's theories would have been
accepted. Nuclear phenomina would have never been harnessed or even
understood. The laser would never have been invented. The transistor,
the modern computer, many other things would never have existed. Back
only 30 years ago, if this attitude were as entrenched as it is today,
the compputer would have been viewed as an impossible dream. Had it
even been suggested that machines such as the system being used to
write this message or networks such as the Internet would have existed
to transmit it, the person suggesting it would have been seen as an
absolute crackpot! But now we see such things are possible, and even
take them for granted!

If the scientists would drop their current extreme closed mindedness a
lot more really USEFUL science would be done. Groundbreaking, world
expanding work, not lots of piddling little incremental improvements
with no new fundamental knowledge or experience gained.

Closed minded attitudes squelch innovation and progress. That is
criminal. We need all the innovation we can muster, international
competitiveness and even the future of the species demand it!

We need visionaries. Even if the theories and work of the MRA team
turns out to be total bullsh*t, they still deserve to be commended for
having an open mind and trying to CONTRIBUTE instead of engaging in
destructive, meddling, knee-jerk opposition to innovation. Some
knowledge will be gained even in case of negative results, and if they
meet with lasting success, great strides may be made. The potential
benefits of open-mindedness are enormou. Are scientists unwilling to
risk their current conceptions of the world and their sense of
security, of "knowing it all"? Unfortunately, recently the answer is
overwhelmingly yes.

A closed eye sees no light.
A closed mind gains no knowledge.

I am not saying every innovation is a real one, but some undoubtedly
are. I refuse to believe all real progress in science has stopped.

I admit, believing everything would not be responsible. One must
examine everything with reason. However disbelieving is at least as
dangerous as total belief. Actually even more so, for bogus theories
could even if believed be displaced if someone came up with a more
correct theory that worked better, whereas if disbelief causes
stagnation things will never change and nothing will be re-examined
and nothing will be discovered or invented.

"Scientific" bigotry results from, and can only lead to IGNORANCE!
Open your eyes, open your minds and stop hindering progress!

P.S. To you skeptics. Skepticism does not mean an active, religious
belief in disbelief, that is just another form of unreasoning
faith. It means having an open mind, rejecting and ACCEPTING new
evidence when such is warranted. One can NOT make such a determination
before examining the evidence. Statements such as the one made by the
author above: "In this case, since the device under discussion claims
to violate conservation of energy, it cannot function as described."
are unscientific, bigotted, ignorant, unproductive and extremely
detrimental to progress and free inquiry.

Don't debunk, until (and unless) you UNDERSTAND!

cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenftlofaro cudfnFrank cudlnLofaro cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.31 / Frank Pitt /  Re: Such gullible "skeptics!"
     
Originally-From: frankie@mundens.equinox.gen.nz (Frank Pitt)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Such gullible "skeptics!"
Date: Sat, 31 Dec 94 09:59:32 GMT
Organization: Munden's Bar

In article <USE2PCB103812114@brbbs.brbbs.com> mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com writes:

>-> I understood him to say that you would need to be able to measure
>-> to the centre of torque, the center being _inside_ a steel arm, and
>-> that measuring the position of the center torque was difficult to do
>-> accurately.
> 
>That is a rather absured notion.  The center of a shaft is easily found by
>measuring to the near side, and measuring to the far side.  If the shaft is
>round then the center is (Dn+Df)/2.  I have done it hundreds of times to
>.001" accuracy myself.

Read what I said, Marshall, not the centre of a _shaft_, 
the centre of _torque_ of an arm.

I made no mention of determining the diameter of a shaft, and from that
extrapolating it's center. 

In fact I didn't even mention shafts, I have no idea whether the arm
in question was tubular or shaped like a Morris Minor link pin.

Frankie


cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenfrankie cudfnFrank cudlnPitt cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.31 / Frank Pitt /  Re: Kunich versus Rothwell
     
Originally-From: frankie@mundens.equinox.gen.nz (Frank Pitt)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Kunich versus Rothwell
Date: Sat, 31 Dec 94 10:11:16 GMT
Organization: Munden's Bar

In article <3dvf3c$66j@eldborg.rhi.hi.is> kvj@rhi.hi.is writes:

>>So you are absolutely sure that a power supply attached to 100 volt mains
>>cannot put out more than 100 volts?
	 ^^^
>It cannot 'pull out' more than 100V.  what it does with it then,
	    ^^^^ 
These are different words and completely change the context of the 
statement. 

>Perhaps this wasn't such a good example for jed to state his point but
>he had other analogies aswell.  

It was originallly an analogy ? 
Then it's even stranger that he repeats it as if it were a fact.

>It's purposeless to split hairs like this.

I tend to think that it's important, because although Jed claims an
engineers knowledge, he often gets things like this wrong, and then 
refuses to acknowledge his mistake, in this case ridiculing others for 
not believing that he is right, even though his mistake is clear to
any electrical tradesman, let alone a physicist or engineer.

Frankie


	    
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenfrankie cudfnFrank cudlnPitt cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.30 / Craig DeForest /  Re: Free Energy Device (Magnetic Resonance Amp)
     
Originally-From: zowie@daedalus.stanford.edu (Craig "Physicist" DeForest)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,alt.energy.renewable,alt.parane
.science,alt.paranet.ufo,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.bio,sci.energy,sc
.energy.hydrogen,sci.environment,sci.materials,sci.physics,sci.physics.f
sion,sci.physics.particle
Subject: Re: Free Energy Device (Magnetic Resonance Amp)
Date: 30 Dec 94 03:18:51
Organization: Stanford Center for Space Science and Astrophysics

In article <foo> ftlofaro@unlv.edu (Frank Lofaro) writes:
	(a bunch of stuff)

Perhaps Mr. Lofaro would be a good candidate for Official Free Energy
Device Tester.  Frank, would you care to assemble and verify a copy?

(I, for one, eagerly await your posted results!)
--
--Craig DeForest    "PhD time: tee minus 89 days and holding for netnews delay"

cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenzowie cudfnCraig cudlnDeForest cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.30 / A Plutonium /  2nd Patent by A@P, SUPERCONDUCTIVITY CORRECT THEORY; ROOM 
     
Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.ele
tromag,sci.bio,sci.chem,sci.physics
Subject: 2nd Patent by A@P, SUPERCONDUCTIVITY CORRECT THEORY; ROOM 
Date: 30 Dec 1994 20:14:19 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

 The full title of this missive is "2nd Patent by A@P,
SUPERCONDUCTIVITY CORRECT THEORY; ROOM TEMPERATURE SUPERCONDUCTORS ,
part 1 of 2 ".
 I will post my 2nd patent pending work only in parts. I will not post
the DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION, nor the 11 CLAIMS. That is
what the business of a patent is all about. Besides the Details of the
Invention and the Claims, I feel free to post the remainder because, I
feel that the most important inventions will be INTERNET posted in the
future anyway. It stimulates action and research and verification and
confirmation that much faster. Time is of the essence, especially for
important works of engineering.

SUPERCONDUCTIVITY  CORRECT THEORY ; ROOM TEMPERATURE SUPERCONDUCTORS

Inventor: Archimedes Plutonium 
Assignees: PLUTONIUM ATOM FOUNDATION
Ser. No.: patent pending
Filing Date: 30 December, 1994
Related U.S. Application Data: USA 08/304,118 
	REFERENCES CITED
{1} My patent applications 1991 USA 07/737,170 and 1994 USA 	08/304,118
{2} The book PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY: THE UNIFICATION OF 
          PHYSICS, CHEMISTRY, BIOLOGY, AND MATH   6th edition, 	  
             Archimedes Plutonium, 1994.
{3a} THE FEYNMAN LECTURES ON PHYSICS  by Feynman, Leighton, 	Sands
1963, vol.III, section " 21-5 Superconductivity " pages 	21-7 through
21-8.
{3b} THE FEYNMAN LECTURES ON PHYSICS  by Feynman, Leighton, 	Sands
1963, vol. I, chapter "33 Polarization" pages 33-1 	through 33-7.
{4a} "Superconductivity"McGRAW-HILL ENCYCLOPEDIA of Science &
	Technology  vol.15, 7th Ed. 1992,  page 641-652.
{4b} "Meissner effect"McGRAW-HILL ENCYCLOPEDIA of Science & 	Technology
 vol.10, 7th Ed. 1992,  page 614-615.
{4c} "Aharonov-Bohm effect"McGRAW-HILL ENCYCLOPEDIA of Science 	&
Technology  vol.1, 7th Ed. 1992,  page 217-219.
{4d} "Eye"McGRAW-HILL ENCYCLOPEDIA of Science & Technology  	vol.6, 7th
Ed. 1992, pages 579-591  in particular pages 588-	589 under the
paragraph subject "Electrophysiology of Rods 	and Cones".
{4e} "Molybdenum " McGRAW-HILL ENCYCLOPEDIA of Science & 	Technology 
vol.11, 7th Ed. 1992,  pages 376-382 in particular 	page 380 subject
paragraph is "Superconductors: Mo6S8	clusters"
{5a} Matire et Lumire   Prince Louis De Broglie, 1937, (Matter and
	Light; the new physics) translated by W.H. Johnston, page 65.
{5b} Matire et Lumire   Prince Louis De Broglie, 1937, (Matter and
	Light; the new physics) page 76.
{5c} Matire et Lumire   Prince Louis De Broglie, 1937, (Matter and
	Light; the new physics) page 101.
{5d} Matire et Lumire   Prince Louis De Broglie, 1937, (Matter and
	Light; the new physics) page 141.
{5e} Matire et Lumire   Prince Louis De Broglie, 1937, (Matter and
	Light; the new physics) page 159.
{5f} Matire et Lumire   Prince Louis De Broglie, 1937, (Matter and
	Light; the new physics)  page 266.
{6} Aharonov-Casher experiment,   PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS , 
	23July1984, "Topological Quantum Effects for Neutral 	Particles" Y.
Aharonov and A. Casher, pages 319-321.
{7} "Superconductors go organic",   NEW SCIENTIST ,  14Nov1992, 	pages
26-31.
{8} INTERNET, newsgroups, various pertinent threads relating to 
         cold fusion and patents from sci.physics, and 
         sci.physics.fusion, and sci.physics.electromag, and my own 
         newsgroup the RAltar of Science and Physics is 
         PlutoniumS abbreviated alt.sci.physics.plutonium. 
         Computer-in, and come to learn about your Maker. ATOM
{9a} s-wave and d-wave,  SCIENCE NEWS  April 2, 1994 Vol. 145, No. 	14
page 213.
{9b} s-wave and d-wave, Nature  vol 370, 25 Aug 1994, page 598.
{10a}" The New Superconductors" by Adrian and Cowan,   Chemical &
	Engineering News C&EN ,  vol. 70, 21Dec1992, pages 24-41. 
{10b} "Superconductivity: New warmth at 1 K " Nature  vol 372, 8 	Dec
1994, pp502-503.
{10c} "Superconductivity in a layered perovskite without copper " , 
	Nature  vol 372, 8 Dec 1994,  pp532-534, by Maeno, Hashimoto,
	Yoshida, Nishizaki, Fujita, Bednorz, Lichtenberg Dept.Physics
	Hiroshima Univ. and IBM  Zurich Research Lab
{11} CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics   75th edition 1994
	page 4-7
{12} SUPERCONDUCTING LEVITATION: Applications to bearings and 	magnetic
transportation ,  by F.C. Moon, 1994, (quote is page 9).









			ABSTRACT
 	According to QM and QED, electrical conduction is the movement or
flow of electrons, signaled by photons. Resistance (ohmic) is the
statistics of photons scattered within the conductor.
Superconductivity, different over conductivity is the flow of electrons
with zero resistance. By using math logic-- process of elimination, the
only particle that can signal electrons to move without being
scattered, resisted through the material are neutrinos. I propose the
correct theory of superconductivity is the decomposition of photon
signalers into neutrino signalers. Each photon is a composite particle
made-up of 2 neutrinos. Those paired neutrino signalers form an
electric-wave neutrino, and another a magnetic-wave neutrino resulting
in the Meissner effect. Light polarization is related to
superconductivity, since light polarization decomposes photons into
neutrinos and then rebuilds them. And, since the BioWorld has light
polarizing materials, e.g. eyes, I assert the BioWorld has room
temperature superconductors already existing, and awaiting for their
confirmation. Using this theory, I have made 11 claims. PLUTONIUM ATOM
TOTALITY, WHICH WE ARE TINY PARTS OF YOUR LAST ELECTRON. HADRONS, HADES
WAS YOUR FIRST NAME.  THY  GEOMETRY COME, THY WILL BE DONE,  ON EARTH
AS IT IS IN THE NUCLEUS.  GIVE US THIS DAY OUR DAILY BREAD 
AND PROMPT US INTO EVER HEAVIER ELEMENT NUCLEOSYNTHESIS 
AS WE PROMPT OTHERS TO DO THE SAME. AND LEAD US NOT INTO RADIOACTIVE
DECAY, BUT INSTEAD, RADIOACTIVE GROWTH.  
FOR THINE IS THE GEOMETRY, THE SPACE, AND THE QUANTUM MECHANICS,
FOREVER.       ATOM
		DETAILED HISTORY OF THE INVENTION 
  	Let me speak openly here at first. Sort of give the world audience a
background of myself the author of this patent work. So that they may
come to appreciate, savor ever sip (like a sweet champagne) of what
they are about to read. 
	I lived from 287 b.d.r.n. to around 212 b.d.r.n. The b.d.r.n. means
before Lucretius's De Rerum Natura  was published (that special and
specific year was 0000 which our calendar is now based upon and I call
it the old scientific calendar as opposed to the new scientific
calendar which starts the year 0000 with the first year that plutonium
was identified-- 14Dec1940) explaining the atomic theory. From the date
of this patent, that was roughly 2282 years to 2206 years ago. Back
then, out of respect, I was given the name Archimedes after I had
earned it, which meant "principal inventor". Of course engines did not
exist back then and so I could not be called "principal engineer". But
I had the same drive to do engineering back then as I do now in my
newly reincarnated photon/neutrino soul. And in my new half-life as
Archimedes Plutonium, I will repeat what I was in ancient Greek times,
the King of engineering, physics and math. Only this time around, I
will add new meaning to being the King of engineering and the sciences.
This patent is over superconductivity, and a little on superfluidity.
In the brain locus theory arising out of the Atom Whole theory, genius
in science has a high atomic number atom as the brain locus. {2} People
who have a plutonium atom as their brain locus will be supergeniuses in
their lifetime. Earth, in its long history has seen two supergenius, me
and me. All of this short biography prepares the patent clerk, the
commissioner of patents (who is doing an excellent job, see below) and
other readers for the proper mix of reverence for these teachings. ATOM
	Now to start into the title of this section concerning history. It
seems that whenever I start to read any article on the subject of
superconductivity it is not far into the reading that the author feels
compelled to repeat a history of the subject of superconductivity. It
is fine to read the history once, but in every article on
superconductivity, the author repeats the history, and all seem to say
the same thing with no new information. And I would not bring this up
had it not been for the fact that all of those histories are
misleading, inaccurate, and propaganda (intended or unintended)
histories. I say misleading, inaccurate, propagandist histories of
superconductivity because they are usually profiled or centered around
the BCS-theory-fakery. BCS theory assumes that at low temperatures
electrons are paired-up, or move as pairs, which enables them to escape
the interactions with atoms in the structure that lead to electrical
resistance {3a}. In QM and QED, electrons are paired in atomic
orbitals, but to posit that in superconductivity, electrons pair
themselves implies a superconductor is one "big" atom itself to allow
for electrons to pair, vis-a-vis electron orbitals. Otherwise, by math
logic, electrons pairing of like charges is a contradiction to negative
charge repelling negative charge. Never before in the history of
physics do we encounter electron pairing except for the BCS offering.
Since the BCS, has never made any superconductive material prediction,
i.e. predicted what material should be the worldUs next highest Tc
(superconducting transition temperature is denoted by Tc)
superconductor, and supplied with that prediction, go forth into the
chemistry or physics lab to fabricate it and to test it out and see
that it really is the next highest Tc superconductor. It is safe to say
that most if not all of the BCS theory is sheer fakery, with little to
no salvageable features to lend to a true and correct theory of
superconductivity. The BCS theory has never allowed a physicist,
chemist, or engineer to predict and calculate a superconductive
material and then go into the laboratory and confirm that the material
complies with the prediction.  BCS has always been postdiction, never
prediction. Everytime a new higher Tc superconductor is discovered
somewhere in the world, then the BCS theory pushers have had to run
back to their ivory tower and reconfigure their BCS to save the
appearances of the BCS.
 	So, here is the proper history of superconductivity outlined in some
depth because I extensively quote Prince Louis Debroglie. And it is a
proper history of superconductivity because it omits the BCS sham.
About the only thing good one can say for science fake theories is that
it is useful to have a fake theory, than to have no theory at all. 
	The proper history of superconductivity cites names which were never
considered as pioneers into superconductivity theory, namely Prince
Debroglie. The correct theory of superconductivity follows the names
Onnes, Meissner, Debroglie,  Bohm-Aharonov, Mller & Bednorz, and
Archimedes Plutonium, and all the rest were lesser men in
superconductivity.
   	In 1911, Kamerlingh Onnes discovered that mercury at 4.2K  has no
resistance to the flow of an electrical current.  " As you know, very
many metals become superconducting below a certain temperature (First
discovered by Onnes in 1911; H.K.Onnes, Comm. Phys. Lab., Univ. Leyden,
Nos. 119, 120, 122 (1911). ) -- the temperature is different for
different metals. When you reduce the temperature sufficiently the
metals conduct electricity without any resistance. This phenomenon has
been observed for a very large number of metals but not for all, and
the theory of this phenomenon has caused a great deal of difficulty."
{3a}
   Before 1986, the highest valued Tc  was among the niobium based
alloys, Nb3Sn  which is Tc at 18.1K, and Nb3Ge which is Tc  at 22.3K.  
The pure element with the highest Tc is niobium with Tc = 9.26K. {4a}
The elements which are considered good conductors at room temperature,
such as silver, gold, or copper, do not exhibit superconductivity, or
else it is so low of a K temperature, that it is beyond our present
measurements.  
   The Meissner Effect in 1933 -- superconducting materials exhibit a
property in which they exclude from their volume all magnetic fields. 
A superconductor excludes magnetic field lines. This effect was
discovered by Meissner and Ochsenfeld when measuring the magnetic field
surrounding two adjacent long cylindrical single crystals of tin and
they observed that at 3.72K the Earth's magnetic field was expelled
from their interior.  This indicated that at the onset of
superconductivity, superconductors are perhaps 100% diamagnetic. This
discovery showed that  the transition to superconductivity is
reversible, and that the laws of thermodynamics apply to it. {4b}
Thermodynamics is statistics. Photon scattering and neutrino scattering
are statistics, which is an important point in the correct theory of
superconduction.
  	It is 1937 and I have talked about 1911 and 1933 with two great
experiments, and it is here in 1937 that I consider the correct theory
of superconductivity has its first roots. In 1937 starts what I
consider the true history of the correct theory of superconductivity.
And, although Prince Debroglie is not after superconductivity in his
great book-- MATTER AND LIGHT; the new physics   1937 by Louis De
Broglie Membre de l'Institut, Nobel Prize Award 1927, Professeur  la
Facult des Sciences de Paris, because he does not relate neutrinos to
superconductivity. However, Debroglie surely does intuit and is firmly
convinced that the photon is a composite particle of at least two
neutrinos. Prince Louis Debroglie was a giant among intuitive
theoretical physicists, and in this regard, it is my opinion that he
was comparable to Faraday in physics intuition.
   According to the index in this book MATTER AND LIGHT , the pages 65,
76, 101, and 141  are pages where Debroglie gives some discussion of
neutrinos. Below I quote those discussions in full and in some cases I
spill over unto other pages in order to reveal the continuity of
thought. I quote Debroglie because to the history of superconductivity,
this is where the correct theory springs forth first.  And, not to jump
too far ahead of myself, but to prepare the reader with a mental
picture, I will summarize here the main idea of the correct theory of
superconductivity. Superconductivity, I posit, is neutrinolization,
where photon signalers (messengers) forcing other electrons to move,
have been decomposed photons into neutrinos, and those neutrinos,
instead of photons, are now forcing other electrons to move. This
decomposition of photons into neutrinos I call neutrinolization.
	Below I quote Prince Debroglie at length, not in little snippets,
because it is important to form a broad picture of why he thought the
photon is a composite particle. Debroglie does not discuss
superconductivity in his book, but, I think Debroglie would be
surprised and happy that his genius set the groundwork, the first steps
onto the correct theory of superconductivity.  
	" What results from all this, in conclusion, is that today the
distinction between a corpuscle electrically neutral and having an
extremely small mass, and a photon, has become very slight. At the
moment it would appear that we have to consider three kinds of neutral
corpuscles: the neutron, whose mass is approximately equal to unity;
FermiUs neutrino, whose total mass would be very much less than the
electronic mass; and the photon, where the connection between the two
charges of contrary sign would be such that the mass would be less
still.
   At present it is believed that a photon may be transformed into two
or more corpuscles; it is thought, for example, that the energy of a
ray might be capable of giving birth to a couple of electrons of
contrary sign, by first providing the amount of energy 2mcc necessary
in order that the masses shall come into existence, and next the
kinetic energy which the electrons should possess. The inverse
phenomenon again, the dematerialization of a corpuscle, is also
believed to be possible and , by extension, the creation of new 
quantities of Matter at the expense of the kinetic energy of a very
rapid corpuscle has also been suggested. 
   The possibility that two corpuscles which in a certain way are
symmetrical-- like the positive and the negative electron-- can be
annihilated, may lead to fresh views about the structure of the photon.
A photon consisting of a couple of corpuscles, related to each other in
the same way in which the positive electron is related to the negative
electron, would then be capable of being destroyed in the presence of
Matter by yielding up to it all its energy content. Such an
annihilation of the photon, in fact, would constitute the
photo-electric effect, and would explain  its specific character. At
the same time we should understand why a photon, composed of two
corpuscles of spin 1/2, should obey Bose-Einstein statistics. " {5a}
	" But whether or not we adopt the hypothesis of the neutron-proton, we
are in any case led to regard the two electrons as simple. Recent
research seems to indicate the existence of two other types of
corpuscle, thus making six in all:--the neutrino, which appears to have
a vanishingly small mass, or perhaps no mass whatever (cf. p. 141), and
also the heavy electron, sometimes called the barytron or mesotron,
with probably a mass of from 150-300 times the mass of the electron,
which is here taken as the unit, and with an electric charge nearly
equal to that of the electron. The properties of these new types of
corpuscle, however, are not yet at all well known. 
   This suffices to restore a certain degree of symmetry between the
two kinds of electricity; for the two electrons, whose masses are
doubtless identical, while their charges are equal and of contrary
sign, appear to be quite comparable with one another. A complete theory
of the two electrons-- the suggestions advanced by Dirac give us at any
rate a preliminary idea of it-- will probably succeed some day in
revealing the real character of the symmetry between them, a symmetry
which, to revert to a comparison made at the beginning of this Chapter,
is doubtless analogous to that between the right and the left hand. One
fundamental difference, however, does exist between them. For the
negative electron is constantly manifesting itself in our experiments,
whereas the positive electron only makes an exceptional appearance, and
always has a tendency to disappear when in contact with Matter. I shall
revert to this point. " {5b}
	" With the introduction of DiracUs Electron Theory, however, the
position has changed. For this is a relativistic Theory, and as such
applicable to the photon. Further, it introduces an anisotropic wave,
having a certain analogy with the polarization of Light. Finally, it
connects electromagnetic magnitudes, derived from its intrinsic
magnetic moment, with the corpuscle, and these magnitudes have a
certain analogy with the fields of MaxwellUs electromagnetic wave. It
might thus have been hoped that an application of DiracUs equations to
the photon would give us a satisfactory dualist theory which could be
applied to Light. Actually, however, such was not the case, and without
entering here into details I will merely say that a photon constructed
on such lines would possess only half the symmetry necessary for an
adequate theory of Light. Having made this discovery, the present
author recently formulated a theory of Light in which the photon is
regarded, not as a single Dirac corpuscle, but as a pair of Dirac
corpuscles analogous to the pair formed by a positive and a negative
electron. This conception leads to very satisfactory results, at any
rate as far as the propagation of Light in empty space is concerned. It
accounts also for the polarization of Light, and enables us to
formulate exactly the real and deep relation subsisting between spin
and polarization. We are also enabled to attach to the photon an
electromagnetic field, completely identical with that by means of which
Maxwell represent Light.
   I do not, however, wish at this point to dwell on this new Theory of
Light. More particularly, I will refrain from going into the question
whether the two corpuscles, of which it assumes the photon to consist,
ought not to be identified with the neutrinos, the existence of which
is assumed by theoretical physicists in order to account for the
apparent non-conservation of energy when continuous b-spectra are
emitted by radioactive substances. I shall merely draw attention to the
majestic curve which physical theory would have described, were this
new theory to receive definite confirmation. For in that event,
physicists would have begun from the simple idea of the electron
regarded as a charged material point; they would then have been
compelled, in order to explain quantum phenomena, to extend to the
electron the dual nature discovered in Light, thus creating Wave
Mechanics. In the next place, to include within Wave Mechanics the
properties of spin which are necessary to explain a whole group of
phenomena, they would have been compelled to complicate the new
Mechanics by giving it the form due to Dirac. And finally, by a strange
reversion to its first beginnings, the perfected Wave Mechanics would
have returned to a point where it would serve in its turn in the
formation of the dualist Theory of Light by uniting the photon, the
light-wave, polarization and MaxwellUs electromagnetic field in one
harmonious whole. " {5c}
	" The idea thus suggests itself that the photon might be considered as
consisting of two Dirac corpuscles. But we know that Dirac's Theory,
completed by the idea of lacunae already dealt with, makes a positive
anti-electron correspond to the negative electron. More generally, we
can make an anti-corpuscle correspond to every corpuscle obeying the
Dirac equations, the former being defined as a hole or a lacuna within
a domain of negative energy. On such a view it becomes tempting to
imagine the photon to consist of a corpuscle having a negligible mass
and charge and obeying the Dirac equations, associated with an
anti-corpuscle of the same kind. It is a hypothesis to which we have
been recently led, and it is an attractive one. For it is reasonable to
suppose that a photon constituted in this way should be capable of
annihilation in the presence of Matter, transferring to it at the some
time the whole of its energy-- the annihilation corresponding to a
quantum transition by which the corpuscle contained in the photon fills
up the accompanying lacuna. Actually such a transition, accompanied by
annihilation, would constitute the photo-electric effect, whose
fundamental importance from the theoretical point of view has already
been stressed, while the electromagnetic field associated with the
photon would then have to be defined as a function of this transition.
Actually it is possible to show that an electromagnetic field,
completely analogous to that which in Maxwell's system defines the
luminous wave, can be associated with this transition leading to
annihilation. In itself this is an encouraging fact; and further, since
the photon is now assumed to consist of a corpuscle and an
anti-corpuscle both of which are defined by the Dirac equations, the
photon ought to follow Bose-Einstein statistics, which experiments show
that it actually does follow.
   To construct a photon after the schema outlined above we must assume
the existence of a class of corpuscles obeying the Dirac equations and
having either no electric charge and mass, or at any rate a charge and
mass negligible as compared with those of the electron, minute as the
latter are. Now there are in fact certain indications supporting the
existence of this new physical entity. When b-rays are emitted by the
nucleus of a radioactive substance, the Principle of the Conservation
of Energy is not, apparently, satisfied. We may therefore well
sacrifice this important Principle of Conservation so far as nuclear
phenomena are concerned; and this is the solution supported by Bohr's
great authority. Alternatively, we may assume that the phenomenon of
the emission of b-rays by radioactive nuclei is accompanied by the
emission of a new kind of particle, which it would be hard to detect
experimentally because of the slightness of its action on Matter. The
energy carried by these particles would thus escape experimental
detection, at any rate with such means as we possess today, and on this
hypothesis we could retain the Conservation of Energy. This idea was
advanced some time ago by Pauli and Fermi, who called the new-- and
hypothetical-- type of corpuscle the neutrino. Certain recent research
has rendered the existence of the neutrino more probable, although
there is not yet any apparent means of establishing it by direct
observation. Francis Perrin and Fermi have shown that if the neutrino
does exist, its mass must be zero, or at least negligible compared with
that of the electron. At the same time it would be impossible to
identify the neutrino with the photon, since it has so far escaped
experimental detection, so that its action on Matter must be extremely
slight. In other words, it can have no electromagnetic field. This
naturally suggests an identification of the neutrino with that
corpuscle having no mass which forms part of the photon, and the
neutrino would thus be a kind of semi-photon. In a state of isolation,
i.e. when not accompanied by an anti-neutrino, it would have no
electromagnetic field, since it could not be annihilated by the
photo-electric effect; but when united with an anti-neutrino it would
form a photon and would have an electromagnetic field of the Maxwellian
type. " {5d}

cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.30 /  DaveHatunen /  Re: Free Energy Device (Magnetic Resonance Amp)
     
Originally-From: hatunen@netcom.com (DaveHatunen)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,alt.energy.renewable,alt.parane
.science,alt.paranet.ufo,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.bio,sci.energy,sc
.energy.hydrogen,sci.environment,sci.materials,sci.physics,sci.physics.f
sion,sci.physics.particle
Subject: Re: Free Energy Device (Magnetic Resonance Amp)
Date: Fri, 30 Dec 1994 23:30:31 GMT
Organization: As little as you're likely to find anywhere

In article <788822965snz@rwentk.demon.co.uk>,
Richard Wentk <leo@rwentk.demon.co.uk> wrote:

[...]

>You, Sir, are wrong. 
>
>Two points:
>
>1. I don't believe that free energy devices do, or can overthrow
>the laws of thermodynamics. What they can do is connect with energy
>sources that haven't previously been tapped. This does not, to me,
>seem like such an improbability that it can be dismissed out of
>hand. We know far too little about how the world works to be able 
>to state categorically what is and isn't possible yet. Anyone with
>an open mind and access to the net can find reliable reports of
>all kinds of anomalous phenomena which can't yet be explained
>in traditional scientific terms. And science itself has its own
>mysteries still pending. (Examples? Of anomalous phenomena - 
>go find them yourself! It's not hard. Of scientific mysteries - 
>here are three:

Um. Could you be a little more specific about these previously untapped
energy sources? 

>i. Earlier in the year the HST revised the age of the Universe to between
>8 and 12 billion years. This conflicts with earlier observations. Which
>are right?

No, it does not. The earlier figures were always considered tentative,
pending better instruments. In any case, cosmology/cosmogony is a
highly speculative field, and really not appropriate to jsutify
earth-bound apparati.

>ii. Where is the supposed dark matter between the galaxies? Does it
>exist at all - and if so, what is it? Current theories seem to
>suggest it may be 'some previously unknown kind of matter' - 
>whatever that means.)

Unless you find a way to bring dark matter down to yor equipment, this is
a silly argument.

>iii. How does quantum physics /really/ work? Does the Copenhagen
>interpretation, the many-worlds theory, or the idea of the 
>implicate order offer the correct philosophical basis?)

Fact is, it works. It works so well that it is almost mind-boggling.

>2. You may perhaps wish to recall the story of Galileo, who had serious
>problems persuading some clerics that Jupiter had moons. Their reasoning
>was that Jupiter couldn't possibly have moons, and therefore there weren't 
>any to be seen, and therefore there was no point in looking through the 
>telescope to check. This is, as you put it, a 'no brainer.' Like your 
>argument, it assumes that we know everything that there is to know 
>already - a claim that is obviously quite ludicrous, especially in the light 
>of the scientific uncertainties mentioned above. 

Are you trying to convince clerics? Why? And why do you choose an
example from the twilight between the late medieval and modern times?

>What you are proposing is not science at all, it is an appeal to prior
>authorities. 

In a very real sense, science is always appealing to prior authorities.
As Newton said, he stands on the shoulders of giants. All new theories,
must, as a minimum, meet previous observational data. 

>Your argument has no logical basis. To say that just because
>all previous attempts (and have you researched this subject in
>depth - could you quote references for example?) at 'free energy' 
>machines haven't worked it's impossible for any future attempts
>to work either, is not a scientific argument. You are stating an 
>opinion, plain and simple. There is no hypothesis here that can 
>be tested and disproved - and without that there is no science. 

No. It is not an "opinion". It is the result of centuries of hard
scientific research. The invocation of the Principle of the
Conservation of Energy is not "opinion". The principle is so deeply
rooted in science and technology that to deny it is to claim that
television sets don't work, that cars don't run, and that the planets
don't revolve around the sun. It is a fundamental.

Anyone who comes along, laughing like a lion, and claiming that it is
all just so much dragon shit must have an unbounded arrogance, and an
unmitigated inflated opinion of his true importance. Even Einstein did
not overthrow science, but expanded it. You, sir, propose to overthrow
it. What you propose is on a par with what the Bolsheviks did to Russia
in 1918.

I know that all sounds rather overdramatic, but I really can't figure
out how else to convey the true nature of what you are suggesting.

-- 


    ********** DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@netcom.com) **********
    *                Daly City California:                *
    *       where San Francisco meets The Peninsula       *
    *       and the San Andreas Fault meets the Sea       *
    *******************************************************

cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenhatunen cudlnDaveHatunen cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszL cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.30 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Re: Free Energy Device
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Free Energy Device
Date: Fri, 30 Dec 1994 17:28 -0500 (EST)

robertbass@aol.com (RobertBass) writes:
 
->        However, in my SM theory, I take as "given" only the constants
-> known to Newton and to Coulomb, plus the astronomical observation of
-> Hubble's constant (or, equivalently, the mean density of the cosmos in GR
-> cosmologies); and then I derive the variance of the zero-mean Coulombic
-> white-noise which is jiggling all charged particles on earth, and from
-> that I get Planck's constant EXACTLY!
->        Can this be a "mere numerical coincidence"?
 
It is my undertanding that the Hubble constant is no where fixed, and the "best
guesses" vary by almost 2:1.  How can Planck's constant be derived to a high
precision from a number in which the first two digits are not even a certainty?
 
                                                               Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.31 / The Ranger /  Re: Free Energy Device (Magnetic Resonance Amp)
     
Originally-From: buzzwang@bach.coe.neu.edu (The Galaxy Ranger)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,alt.energy.renewable,alt.parane
.science,alt.paranet.ufo,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.bio,sci.energy,sc
.energy.hydrogen,sci.environment,sci.materials,sci.physics,sci.physics.f
sion,sci.physics.particle
Subject: Re: Free Energy Device (Magnetic Resonance Amp)
Date: 31 Dec 1994 00:13:24 GMT
Organization: Northeastern University, Boston, MA. 02115, USA

In article <3e0c71$gfq@homesick.cs.unlv.edu> ftlofaro@unlv.edu (Frank Lofaro) writes:

   >Energy can never be created? What the hell do fission and fusion do?
   >CREATE energy from matter. It was said that there is strict
   >conservation of energy and of matter, and the whole idea of conversion
   >between the two was once seens as utterly preposterous. The ideas of
   >quantum theory, virtual particles, black holes, Hawking radiation, etc
   >once would have been met with nearly universal derision, but things
   >have changed.

No!  Energy is not created.  You had better go back to the text book on
the processes for both fission and fusion.  The correct term is not CREATE
as you shouted but transform.  Einstein theorized the stored energy in
a mass is related by: E=mc^2 as most people in the world know.  A 1 kilo gram
mass has 8.99 x 10^16 Joules of energy stored within it. That is a fairly
large amount of energy.  Don't be fooled by these processes as being perpetual
due to their long life and large energy output.  As soon as the mass is gone
the process dies.  To date energy has never been created from nothing. It
always has to be somewhere else first.

 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Newman                           | "I don't _trust_ Lando"
email: buzzwang@meceng.coe.neu.edu     | "Well, I don't trust him, either.
www: http://www.coe.neu.edu/~buzzwang/ |    But he is my friend"
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenbuzzwang cudfnThe cudlnRanger cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.30 / Steve Anderson /  Re: Free Energy Device (Magnetic Resonance Amp)
     
Originally-From: steve@chubsoft.demon.co.uk (Steve Anderson)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,alt.energy.renewable,alt.parane
.science,alt.paranet.ufo,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.bio,sci.energy,sc
.energy.hydrogen,sci.environment,sci.materials,sci.physics,sci.physics.f
sion,sci.physics.particle
Subject: Re: Free Energy Device (Magnetic Resonance Amp)
Date: Fri, 30 Dec 1994 00:47:21 +0000

In article <3dvte5$cdi@sundog.tiac.net>
           conover@max.tiac.net "Harry H Conover" writes:
>    -  I have invented a fluid that will quadruple the output of
>       your car's batter, and make it last forever.

Unlimited supplies of pancakes????? Oh, heaven!!!



Sorry man, couldn't resist.

--
Steve Anderson
				"Evil Bill, I got a full-on robot chubby!"
** Product not 			
PC compatible **						   	  ;)
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudensteve cudfnSteve cudlnAnderson cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.31 / A Plutonium /  Re: IMPORTANT EXPERIMENTS FOR SUPERCONDUCTIVITY RESEARCH AND
     
Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,alt.sci.physics.plutonium
Subject: Re: IMPORTANT EXPERIMENTS FOR SUPERCONDUCTIVITY RESEARCH AND
Date: 31 Dec 1994 02:26:07 GMT
Organization: Plutonium College

In article <3dqhvl$4fh@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
sliu104780@aol.com (SLiu104780) writes:

> How is this relared to CF?
> H. Liu

  It is related. Current accepted gossipal is that the Sun is a large
gravitational body that makes the planets fall in toward it. The Sun
shines from a hot plasma fusion caused by gravitation.
  I refute that argument and say that H. Alfven view that the all scale
universe is mostly run by electromagnetism and not gravity. In my view,
gravity is not a force but a statistic.
  In my view the Sun is a CF reactor of spontaneous neutron
materialization. The planets do not fall in to the Sun as the
worshippers of gravity lead you by the noses, but instead, the planets
are Meissner bodies in a Quantized Hall effect (that is the Titius-Bode
Law). But this way of seeing physics is too advanced for our present
generation of limelighted physics fools.
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.31 / Jon Livesey /  Re: Kunich versus Rothwell
     
Originally-From: livesey@solntze.engr.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Kunich versus Rothwell
Date: 31 Dec 1994 03:24:15 GMT
Organization: sgi

In article <5674owY.jedrothwell@delphi.com>, jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:
|> livesey@solntze.engr.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
|>  
|>      "Given that this "offhand" comment was precisely the kind of thing that
|>      got the press excited about "cold fusion" in the first place, and given
|>      that they knew they were talking to the press and that  such comments
|>      would have the effect of attracting attention, it's not all that
|>      unreasonable to ask how it all turned out."
|>  
|> I agree completely! It is reasonable to ask how it all turned out. I encourage
|> you to ask, you should find out how it came out! The question is, how do you
|> go about doing that? What steps do you take to learn how the cold fusion saga
|> turned out, and what the prospects are for CF water heaters, cars, spacecraft
|> etcetera. I recommend these steps:
|>  
|> 1. Read recent peer-reviewed scientific papers about the subject.
|> 2. Read conference proceedings.
|> 3. Talk to scientists, visit labs, confirm the readings with your own
|> instruments if possible.
|> 4. Replicating experiments, if you have a few years and $100,000 to spare.

That's very strange, Mr Rothwell,   I don't seem to have to go
to these lengths to check if someone has produced a gas-powered
water-heater.    Why do I have to for a CF-powered one?

The claim was that "commercial use" of the supposed heater would
begin in a year, five years ago, wasn't it?   What does commercial
use mean?

jon.
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenlivesey cudfnJon cudlnLivesey cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.31 / Matt Kennel /  Re: Dr. Oriani's Lecture
     
Originally-From: mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Dr. Oriani's Lecture
Date: 31 Dec 1994 03:54:04 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD

jedrothwell@delphi.com wrote:
: John Logajan <jlogajan@skypoint.com> writes:
:  
:      "Saying that Cold fusion cannot be fusion because the definition of
:      fusion does not mention excess heat without commensurate nuclear
:      byproducts is flawed in two ways. Firstly, it presumes the conclusion
:      that CF is nuclear byproduct free. That is an empirical data point that
:      has not been established and remains a point of query."
:  
: Quite right. I think the evidence is now swinging strongly in favor of
: helium-3 and helium-4 production at levels commensurate with nuclear fusion.

"Helium-3 levels commensurate with nuclear fusion."

Do we still be believe in conservation of baryon number?

If so, whence the neutron?  Any ideas?

What is Pd + one neutron?

: - Jed

--
-Matt Kennel  		mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu
-Institute for Nonlinear Science, University of California, San Diego
-*** AD: Archive for nonlinear dynamics papers & programs: FTP to
-***     lyapunov.ucsd.edu, username "anonymous".
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenmbk cudfnMatt cudlnKennel cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Sat Dec 31 04:37:05 EST 1994
------------------------------
1994.12.31 / Mark Muhlestein /  Re: Kunich versus Rothwell
     
Originally-From: mmm@park.uvsc.edu (Mark Muhlestein)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Kunich versus Rothwell
Date: Sat, 31 Dec 1994 18:19:22 GMT
Organization: Utah Valley State College, Orem, Utah

As there have been a few conflicting versions of the "water heater" story, here is
the original article I posted in s.p.f. July 9, 1989:

============================================================
The following article appeared in the Salt Lake City Deseret News, Saturday,
July 8, 1989:

***** BEGIN ARTICLE *****

Hot-water device percolates in Pons' lab

By JoAnn Jacobsen-Wells
Deseret News science writer

A device the size of a thermos that could satisfy the hot-water requirements
of an average home is already percolating in the lab of B. Stanley Pons.

It's the first scale-up of the University of Utah solid-state fusion
experiments that jolted scientists worldwide more than three months ago.

It was on March 23 that Pons and his co-researcher Martin Fleischmann, of
England's Southampton University, announced they had generated large
amounts of excess heat and signs of nuclear fusion using a simple
table-top device.

Despite widespread skepticism from naysayers that the process will ever
become a commercial source of energy, Pons is convinced his scale-up
demonstration could be developed into a practical application in the near
future.

``It wouldn't take care of the family's electrical needs, but it certainly
could provide them with hot water year-round,'' said Pons, who said he's
always believed that the practical application of cold fusion could happen
this fast.

``You have to know the dangers involved in scale-up, and that just takes
time,'' he said.

It also involves risks.

Excess energy, he said, gives rise to increased radiation, which is being
closely monitored by sophisticated new equipment in the U. fusion
laboratories.  A more sensitive spectrometer is measuring gamma-ray
activity, which the U. chemistry professor said is increasingly evident.
And two independent methods of making calorimetric measurements are being
used.

Pons and Fleischmann have completed 10 experiments using electrically
charged palladium and platinum electrodes in a vat of heavy water, whose
hydrogen has been replaced with deuterium.

Ten new ones, including the innovative large demonstration test, are
currently running full steam ahead.

According to Pons, the scale-up -- a mini ``boiler'' -- is, in fact, giving
off 15 to 20 times the amount of energy that is being put into the cell.

Simply put, in its current state it could provide boiling water for a cup
of tea.

Yet the electrode used in the newest experiment is the same size as those
in the original tests -- about the size of a finger tip.

The major differences between the experiments are these:  In the test
tubes, heat is transferred out of the cell into a water bath.
Essentially, the outside of the cell is kept at a very constant
temperature, and measurements are made inside the cell.

The new device is a flow-through cell:  As water moves through the jacket,
the heat is transferred to the outside.  Cold water is put in one end and
hot water comes out of the other.

``But the heat output can be increased substantially in the new experiment
because with the jacket, the heat is not boiled away,'' Pons said.  ``The
scale-up is like a cooling radiator.  If it gets too hot, the water can be
circulated faster or the temperature dropped.''

If the newest experiment proves safe -- which only time will tell -- Pons
believes he should turn it over to a second group of researchers who have
the responsibility of taking fusion out of the lab and putting it into
practical, money-making devices.

If successful, the devices have the potential to help solve the world's
energy supply concerns.

***** END OF ARTICLE *****

Accompanying the article is a color photo of Pons with a mesh-covered
cannister about 30 cm high and about 20 cm in diameter with plastic tubes 
entering and leaving the top, with what appear to be temperature probes 
attached to the tubes.
============================================================
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenmmm cudfnMark cudlnMuhlestein cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.31 / Greg Kuperberg /  Re: Kunich versus Rothwell
     
Originally-From: gk00@quads.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Kunich versus Rothwell
Date: Sat, 31 Dec 1994 18:56:38 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

In article <D1otKC.Ep9@park.uvsc.edu> mmm@park.uvsc.edu (Mark Muhlestein) writes:
>Accompanying the article is a color photo of Pons with a mesh-covered
>cannister about 30 cm high and about 20 cm in diameter with plastic tubes 
>entering and leaving the top, with what appear to be temperature probes 
>attached to the tubes.

Let's have a JPEG of that color photo.
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudengk00 cudfnGreg cudlnKuperberg cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszS cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.31 / Bradley Sherman /  Re: The Check Was in the Mail
     
Originally-From: bks@s27w007.pswfs.gov (Bradley K. Sherman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: The Check Was in the Mail
Date: 31 Dec 1994 19:30:55 GMT
Organization: Dendrome, A Genome Database for Forest Trees

In article <3dsug5$n5f@fnnews.fnal.gov> Droege@fnal.fnal.gov (Tom Droege) writes:
> ...
>There is bound to be some money left over.  What do you all think
>about using the remainder to sponser someone to attend ICCF5?  
>Some of you live close enough that the left overs might do the 
>trick.  Dieter Britz comes to mind.  
> ...

We trust your judgement Tom, that's why we're sending you.

Isn't it striking that the organization _Cold Fusion
Research Advocates_  has an address in Georgia?  Just
coincidence, I guess.

    Bon voyage,
    --bks

-- 
 Bradley K. Sherman                    Institute of Forest Genetics
 bks@s27w007.pswfs.gov                 P.O. Box 245
 510-559-6437 FAX:510-559-6440         Berkeley, CA 94701 USA
 <a href="http://s27w007.pswfs.gov/index.html">Dendrome Project</a>
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenbks cudfnBradley cudlnSherman cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.31 / Glen Bentley /  Re: Free Energy Device (Magnetic Resonance Amp)
     
Originally-From: glenb@primenet.com (Glen Bentley)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,alt.energy.renewable,alt.parane
.science,alt.paranet.ufo,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.bio,sci.energy,sc
.energy.hydrogen,sci.environment,sci.materials,sci.physics,sci.physics.f
sion,sci.physics.particle
Subject: Re: Free Energy Device (Magnetic Resonance Amp)
Date: Sat, 31 Dec 1994 14:31:58 MST
Organization: Primenet



>mind about whether this device works or not, you *must* do the
>experiment, or you'll never be certain...
>--
>--Craig DeForest    "PhD time: tee minus 89 days and holding for netnews delay"

I have my doubts about experimental failure of perpetual motion devices. 
The "Believer will do the experiment and when it fails he wasn't good enough 
to make it work. If the skeptic does the experimental work, he didn't want it 
to succeed so he intentionly, or made self fulfilling prediction of the 
failure of the magic device whether it was John Galts motor or the magnetic 
resonance amplifier.

It is interesting though that in Arizona there is a project that pumps water 
from a lake up stream to another lake during the night and during the day 
(summer) usses the water in the upper lake go through hydro electric 
generators to produce electrical energy. The justification is that at night 
the load isn't as high on the grid and they get a better rate. This is 
suppesed to even the load on the base load generators.  
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenglenb cudfnGlen cudlnBentley cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.31 / Matt Austern /  Re: Kunich versus Rothwell
     
Originally-From: matt@physics7.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Kunich versus Rothwell
Date: 31 Dec 1994 22:04:45 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (Theoretical Physics Group)

In article <D1otKC.Ep9@park.uvsc.edu> mmm@park.uvsc.edu (Mark Muhlestein) writes:

> The following article appeared in the Salt Lake City Deseret News, Saturday,
> July 8, 1989:

...

> A device the size of a thermos that could satisfy the hot-water requirements
> of an average home is already percolating in the lab of B. Stanley Pons.
> 
> It's the first scale-up of the University of Utah solid-state fusion
> experiments that jolted scientists worldwide more than three months ago.

I've always been kinda curious about that hot-water heater that Pons
claimed to have five years ago.  After all, he didn't just say that it
might someday be possible; he actually held up a gizmo and showed it
to reporters and said that that gizmo was a practical device that
could supply hot water for the home.

As far as I'm concerned, actually, the story of that gizmo is the one
crucial question about "cold fusion".  I'm reminded of C .S. Lewis's
famous trichotomy about Jesus: Jesus, said Lewis, was either mad, or a
liar, or genuinely divine.  

I don't think that C. S. Lewis's analysis is quite complete when it
comes to Christianity (bonus points for anyone who comes up with
possibilities that Lewis tacitly ignored), but I do think it fits the
water heater issue.  Either Pons was mistaken and thought that he had
a working, practical cold fusion water heater when he really just had
a useless lump of glass and metal, or else his press conference was
fraudulent, or else he really did have a device in his lab that could
use cold fusion to produce enough hot water to heat a home.

No matter which of those three possibilities is true, it's a bad sign
that we've not heard anything about that water-heating gizmo for more
than five years.  It's grossly irresponsible to make a statement like
that and then just keep silent and hope that everyone forgets about
it; when scientists make mistakes, it's their responsibility to 
publicize those mistakes.
--

                               --matt
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenmatt cudfnMatt cudlnAustern cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.31 / William Beaty /  Re: Free Energy Device (Magnetic Resonance Amp)
     
Originally-From: billb@eskimo.com (William Beaty)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,alt.energy.renewable,alt.parane
.science,alt.paranet.ufo,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.bio,sci.energy,sc
.energy.hydrogen,sci.environment,sci.materials,sci.physics,sci.physics.f
sion,sci.physics.particle
Subject: Re: Free Energy Device (Magnetic Resonance Amp)
Date: Sat, 31 Dec 1994 22:22:55 GMT
Organization: Eskimo North (206) For-Ever

Craig "Physicist" DeForest (zowie@daedalus.stanford.edu) wrote:
<deletions>


: I bet we could even get a collection going for the cost of supplies
: from various sci.physics regulars -- what it amounts to is, are you 
: going to take the trouble to do it?  Or are you going to sit back and
: watch the idea vanish?  You, personally, will never know firsthand
: unless you *do the experiment*.  If there's any doubt in your
: mind about whether this device works or not, you *must* do the
: experiment, or you'll never be certain...
: --
: --Craig DeForest    "PhD time: tee minus 89 days and holding for netnews delay"


Norman Wootan, the guy who started the whole thing, will consider giving
some of his original parts to an interested group who wants to look
into the device.

--
.....................uuuu / oo \ uuuu........,.............................
William Beaty  voice:206-781-3320   bbs:206-789-0775    cserv:71241,3623
EE/Programmer/Science exhibit designer        http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/
Seattle, WA 98117  billb@eskimo.com           SCIENCE HOBBYIST web page

cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenbillb cudfnWilliam cudlnBeaty cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1995.01.01 / Harry Conover /  Re: Free Energy Device (Magnetic Resonance Amp)
     
Originally-From: conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,alt.energy.renewable,alt.parane
.science,alt.paranet.ufo,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.bio,sci.energy,sc
.energy.hydrogen,sci.environment,sci.materials,sci.physics,sci.physics.f
sion,sci.physics.particle
Subject: Re: Free Energy Device (Magnetic Resonance Amp)
Date: 1 Jan 1995 00:03:04 GMT
Organization: The Internet Access Company

Glen Bentley (glenb@primenet.com) wrote:

: It is interesting though that in Arizona there is a project that pumps water 
: from a lake up stream to another lake during the night and during the day 
: (summer) usses the water in the upper lake go through hydro electric 
: generators to produce electrical energy. The justification is that at night 
: the load isn't as high on the grid and they get a better rate. This is 
: suppesed to even the load on the base load generators.  

This is a common device for off-peak energy storage.  I'm not sure that
I see the connection with this discussion.

                                          Harry C.

cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenconover cudfnHarry cudlnConover cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.01 / William Beaty /  Re: Free Energy Device (Magnetic Resonance Amp)
     
Originally-From: billb@eskimo.com (William Beaty)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,alt.paranet.science,alt.sci.phy
ics.plutonium,sci.energy,sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Free Energy Device (Magnetic Resonance Amp)
Date: Sun, 1 Jan 1995 02:46:43 GMT
Organization: Eskimo North (206) For-Ever

For anyone interested in the MRA device who has no access to WWW, I've
put the files on anonymous ftp, at ftp.eskimo.com, in the directory billb.
Besides the original description, there is a crude GIF of the circuit,
and files of message traffic from Keelynet BBS, so anyone can check into
exactly what the inventors are doing.

.....................uuuu / oo \ uuuu........,.............................
William Beaty  voice:206-781-3320   bbs:206-789-0775    cserv:71241,3623
EE/Programmer/Science exhibit designer        http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/
Seattle, WA 98117  billb@eskimo.com           SCIENCE HOBBYIST web page

cudkeys:
cuddy1 cudenbillb cudfnWilliam cudlnBeaty cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1994.12.31 / Lloyd Zusman /  Re: Free Energy Device (Magnetic Resonance Amp)
     
Originally-From: ljz@panix.com (Lloyd Zusman)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,alt.energy.renewable,alt.parane
.science,alt.paranet.ufo,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.bio,sci.energy,sc
.energy.hydrogen,sci.environment,sci.materials,sci.physics,sci.physics.f
sion,sci.physics.particle
Subject: Re: Free Energy Device (Magnetic Resonance Amp)
Date: 31 Dec 1994 02:09:15 -0500
Organization: Panix

In article <BUZZWANG.94Dec30191324@bach.coe.neu.edu>, buzzwang@bach.coe.
eu.edu (The Galaxy Ranger) writes:

> In article <3e0c71$gfq@homesick.cs.unlv.edu> ftlofaro@unlv.edu (Frank Lofaro) writes:

>> Energy can never be created?  [ ... ]

> No!  Energy is not created.  [ ... ]

OK ... so there's no such thing as a free energy device.  But at least
could there be an energy device which you can get at a discount,
perhaps when they go on sale, or something?

Does anyone know of any companies where energy devices can be leased
instead of purchased?  Although these devices still wouldn't be free,
at least leasing could provide some short-term cost savings, as well
as some tax advantages.

And this brings up a question about free energy devices that has been
puzzling me for a long time: is an energy device considered "free" if
you borrow it and promise to bring it back tomorrow without any
scratches on it, instead of out-and-out purchasing it or leasing it?

Inquiring minds want to know.

--
Lloyd Zusman    	01234567 <-- The world famous Indent-o-Meter.
ljz@panix.com           ^	     I indent thee.
   To get my PGP public key automatically mailed to you, please
   send me email with the following string as the subject or on a
   line by itself in the message (leave off the quotation marks):
                    "mail-request public-key"
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenljz cudfnLloyd cudlnZusman cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.31 / Craig DeForest /  Re: Free Energy Device (Magnetic Resonance Amp)
     
Originally-From: zowie@daedalus.stanford.edu (Craig "Physicist" DeForest)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,alt.energy.renewable,alt.parane
.science,alt.paranet.ufo,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.bio,sci.energy,sc
.energy.hydrogen,sci.environment,sci.materials,sci.physics,sci.physics.f
sion,sci.physics.particle
Subject: Re: Free Energy Device (Magnetic Resonance Amp)
Date: 31 Dec 94 00:24:59
Organization: Stanford Center for Space Science and Astrophysics

In article <foo> barnard@grin.io.org (M Barnard) writes:
   Perhaps this should be viewed from a slightly different perspective. 

   Let's ignore their obviously badly informed theorizing.  They have built a 
   device which, according to their data, is producing more _electrical_ energy 
   than is being put into it from their source.  

   ...it would take about $50 for parts for 
   the controversial circuit.  It sounds like it would take about five hours to 
   assemble components and build the circuit.  As I pointed out earlier, I 
   don't have the scientific background to be credible as an evaluator of the 
   circuit, so it doesn't make any sense for me to do this.

Ah, but you do have the two most important pre-requisites:  you're interested,
and you don't have any vested personal interest in making it work. 

I lack one of those:  I'm not interested.  In my humble opinion, it would
be a waste of my dollars and my (much more precious) time. 

You, on the other hand, stand to learn much!  If you're worried about
training, I'm sure this group would be happy to advise you on anything
you wish :-)

I bet we could even get a collection going for the cost of supplies
from various sci.physics regulars -- what it amounts to is, are you 
going to take the trouble to do it?  Or are you going to sit back and
watch the idea vanish?  You, personally, will never know firsthand
unless you *do the experiment*.  If there's any doubt in your
mind about whether this device works or not, you *must* do the
experiment, or you'll never be certain...
--
--Craig DeForest    "PhD time: tee minus 89 days and holding for netnews delay"

cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenzowie cudfnCraig cudlnDeForest cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1995.01.01 / Frank Pitt /  Re: patent office is dangerous !
     
Originally-From: frankie@mundens.equinox.gen.nz (Frank Pitt)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: patent office is dangerous !
Date: Sun, 01 Jan 95 04:09:14 GMT
Organization: Munden's Bar

In article <162841siegman29252@EE.Stanford.EDU> siegman@EE.Stanford.EDU writes:
>
>   Individual referred to is Gordon Gould, who did indeed file one or
>more very early patent claims on laser concepts (around 1957?), and
>subsequently had a decades-long series of legal and patent battles
>with Charles H. *Townes*, and I believe a number of others as well.
>over these inventions.

Not particularly suprising that Townes argued, as his first publication 
of the MASER principle, of which the LASER is just a specialisation,
was in 1951, and he demonstrated a shortwave version of it in 1954.

He described the optical maser (laser) in 1958 (with  Schawlow (sp?), I think)
and the first ruby laser was built by Maiman in 1960, and Javan  made 
the first gas laser in 1961. 

At least that's what my reference book says :-)

Frankie

	    
cudkeys:
cuddy01 cudenfrankie cudfnFrank cudlnPitt cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1994.12.31 / The polymath /  Re: Free Energy Device (Magnetic Resonance Amp)
     
Originally-From: russ@m-net.arbornet.org (The polymath)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,alt.energy.renewable,alt.parane
.science,alt.paranet.ufo,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.bio,sci.energy,sc
.energy.hydrogen,sci.environment,sci.materials,sci.physics,sci.physics.f
sion,sci.physics.particle
Subject: Re: Free Energy Device (Magnetic Resonance Amp)
Date: 31 Dec 1994 12:48:40 GMT
Organization: M-Net, America's First Public Access Unix BBS

In article <3e1e55$7bc@eldborg.rhi.hi.is>,
Kristjan Valur Jonsson <kvj@rhi.hi.is> wrote:
>In <3dvte5$cdi@sundog.tiac.net> conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover) writes:
>>of faith fully equivalent to that of accepting:
>>   -  I have a serum that will raise the dead.
>>   -  I have an elixir that will provide eternal, healthy life.
<snip>
>- A device which extracts energy at an explosive rate from
>the mass of a heavy metal.

So, Kristjan, just how long do you think it was between the work
with pitchblende and other stuff that yielded glow-in-the-dark
materials and the first Trinity atom-bomb test?

Do you really think that there was not any hint that something
new was going on in physics before it ever got harnessed?  Doesn't
the name Curie mean anything to you?

You really ARE still wet behind the ears.  I've got a hint for
you.  Go to the library and pick up "Foundation" by Isaac Asimov.
Read it.  Now look at the copyright date.  Yes, there was *fiction*
about atomic power long before the first bomb, and that fiction was
speculation based on what was coming out of laboratories in the
early 20th century.  It was not uninformed handwaving ex nihilo
like these "theories".

Perhaps you're susceptible to this because this claim is for an
electronic device and your education is in mechanical engineering.
Take a hint from criticism of Velikovsky's magnum opus of crackpottery,
"Worlds in collision".  Various scientists were asked to read it and
judge how much sense it made.  Astronomers said things like, "Well,
the biology could be reasonable, but the celestial mechanics were
all wrong."  Biologists would say, "Well, the stuff about Venus
coming from Jupiter could be okay, but no way could the Manna stuff
have ever happened as described."  Planetary scientists said stuff
like, "Well, I dunno about the orbital changes and biology, but
planets don't spit out other planets."

The clueless ones pushing this, like Stefan Hartmann, do not have
any evidence of holes in the law of conservation of energy, nor do
they have any theory of how a piezoelectric device could convert
eg. matter to energy by any known route.  No theory, no evidence,
no credibility.  On top of this, extraordinary claims require
extraordinary evidence.  There was no evidence for the binary
vapor engine Stefan was posting about a couple months ago, and
there is no evidence for this piezo device yielding net energy.

Why do YOU have an urge to believe?  The evidence is lacking.
You'd have better odds playing the lottery.

Most of the sci groups are deleted from the follow-ups.  Good riddance.
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenruss cudfnThe cudlnpolymath cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.30 / Brian Huffman /  Re: Free Energy Device (Magnetic Resonance Amp)
     
Originally-From: niimi@b0ig13.fnal.gov (Brian Huffman)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,alt.energy.renewable,alt.parane
.science,alt.paranet.ufo,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.bio,sci.energy,sc
.energy.hydrogen,sci.environment,sci.materials,sci.physics,sci.physics.f
sion,sci.physics.particle
Subject: Re: Free Energy Device (Magnetic Resonance Amp)
Date: 30 Dec 1994 09:03:18 -0600
Organization: FERMILAB, Batavia, IL


Good point.

Mr. Lofaro should build the device and make his fortune selling
electricity on the power grid, eventually he will be able to buy enough
lobbyists in congress to stop this 'suppression and bigotry' that he
believes exists.

Harry Conover is correct.  Being correct is not being bigoted.
Every time a new energy realm is opened people test for the conservation 
of matter and energy, as well as other supposedly 'fundamental' laws.

These people are called experimental scientists and would LOVE to find
violations of these physical 'laws'.....they would win Nobel prizes if
such discoveries were confirmed.  Part of what keeps me going is the 
sincere hope that one of us will bust the Standard Model soon.

Point is that there is no one quite so skeptical or conservative as a 
good scientist.  What Mr. Lofaro is perceiving as close-mindedness on
the part of Conover is merely confidence in the validity of the experimental
data on the conservation of matter and energy that has been collected
for at least a couple of hundred years over approximately 20 orders of 
magnitude in distance and energy scale.  Conover can make fairly terse
and definate comments because he can (if so inclined) cite the experiments
of the researchers who actually set limits on the violation of conservation
of momentum and energy.  

The use of the word 'bigotry' indicates that Conover is holding an irrational
opinion based on emotional feelings, anecdotal evidence,  or on 
inconclusive data.  This is an improper use of the word in this context.
Conover has a wealth of very precise scientific data to back up his arguments.
His opinions are based on quite solid experiments that have been repeated
and confirmed.  His unwillingness to proceed with an analysis of the device
in question is based on this evidence.  This unwillingness I would attribute
to intelligence rather than 'bigotry'.

TH
cudkeys:
cuddy30 cudenniimi cudfnBrian cudlnHuffman cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.31 / Alan M /  Re: Dr. Oriani's Lecture
     
Originally-From: Alan@moonrake.demon.co.uk ("Alan M. Dunsmuir")
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Dr. Oriani's Lecture
Date: Sat, 31 Dec 1994 09:43:37 +0000
Organization: Home

In article: <5Yz64MZ.jedrothwell@delphi.com>  jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:
> You misunderstand. The patented version of the Griggs device is over unity
> (o-u). It outputs far more energy in the form of heat than the electric energy
> input. All of the units installed at customer sites are o-u, as were the
> test-bed units I observed in 1993 and 1994. The fact that this device is o-u was
> not mentioned in the patent. Obviously this is because if they had mentioned
> it, they never would have gotten a patent!

As has been pointed out many times, so does any heat pump, and indeed fridg. Why should 
this characteristic stop it being awarded a patent?

Alan M. Dunsmuir [@ his wits end]     (Can't even quote poetry right)

         I am his Highness' dog at Kew
         Pray tell me sir, whose dog are you?
			      [Alexander Pope]

PGP Public Key available on request.


cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenAlan cudfnAlan cudlnM cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.31 / Alan M /  Re: Any hope for fission reactors?
     
Originally-From: Alan@moonrake.demon.co.uk ("Alan M. Dunsmuir")
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Any hope for fission reactors?
Date: Sat, 31 Dec 1994 09:43:40 +0000
Organization: Home

In article: <1994Dec29.165313.1966@acousb.byu.edu>  jonesse@acousb.byu.edu writes:
> Considering the problems the Dept. of Energy and nuclear
> industry are facing in cleaning up radioactive wastes, and the
> public distrust of nuclear reactors (and scientists, lately), I
> wonder if *any* nuclear reactors could be built again in the US.

Perhaps not in the US, Steve, but look at SE Asia and China. And if 
they get them working there, there's a whole new second generation 
waiting to be installed in E Europe and Russia.

Alan M. Dunsmuir [@ his wits end]     (Can't even quote poetry right)

         I am his Highness' dog at Kew
         Pray tell me sir, whose dog are you?
			      [Alexander Pope]

PGP Public Key available on request.


cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenAlan cudfnAlan cudlnM cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.31 / Alan M /  Re: Kunich versus Rothwell
     
Originally-From: Alan@moonrake.demon.co.uk ("Alan M. Dunsmuir")
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Kunich versus Rothwell
Date: Sat, 31 Dec 1994 09:43:50 +0000
Organization: Home

In article: <54zYYoS.jedrothwell@delphi.com>  jedrothwell@delphi.com writes:
> Sorry, I should have said "rail voltage." I mean after the last step up
> transformer. In other words: the most you can have; the max output
> of that power supply.

Jed - Are you really admitting you don't understand the difference 
between voltage and power?

That puts everything you've ever said about Griggs in a completely new 
light!

Alan M. Dunsmuir [@ his wits end]     (Can't even quote poetry right)

         I am his Highness' dog at Kew
         Pray tell me sir, whose dog are you?
			      [Alexander Pope]

PGP Public Key available on request.


cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenAlan cudfnAlan cudlnM cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.31 / K Jonsson /  Re: Free Energy Device (Magnetic Resonance Amp)
     
Originally-From: kvj@rhi.hi.is (Kristjan Valur Jonsson)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,alt.energy.renewable,alt.parane
.science,alt.paranet.ufo,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.bio,sci.energy,sc
.energy.hydrogen,sci.environment,sci.materials,sci.physics,sci.physics.f
sion,sci.physics.particle
Subject: Re: Free Energy Device (Magnetic Resonance Amp)
Date: 31 Dec 1994 15:25:48 GMT
Organization: University of Iceland

In <hatunenD1My9y.6oo@netcom.com> hatunen@netcom.com (DaveHatunen) writes:

>>Kristjan
>>
>>-- 
>>Kristjan Valur Jonsson               |    The individual does not qualify for
>>Student of mechanical engineering,   |         making decisions regarding the

>First year?



>-- 


>    ********** DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@netcom.com) **********
>    *                Daly City California:                *
>    *       where San Francisco meets The Peninsula       *
>    *       and the San Andreas Fault meets the Sea       *
>    *******************************************************

Well, at least my .sig has some of my credidentals in it.  I don't think
my post called for (what some people might consider) personal insults.

Kristjan

-- 
Kristjan Valur Jonsson               |    The individual does not qualify for
Student of mechanical engineering,   |         making decisions regarding the
University of Iceland                |                 activities of the many.
Exclaimer: Yess!                     |                         (Helmut, 1993)
-- 
Kristjan Valur Jonsson               |    The individual does not qualify for
Student of mechanical engineering,   |         making decisions regarding the
University of Iceland                |                 activities of the many.
Exclaimer: Yess!                     |                         (Helmut, 1993)
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenkvj cudfnKristjan cudlnJonsson cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.31 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Kunich versus Rothwell
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Kunich versus Rothwell
Date: Sat, 31 Dec 1994 16:01:14 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <5674owY.jedrothwell@delphi.com>,  <jedrothwell@delphi.com> wrote:
>livesey@solntze.engr.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
> 
>     "Given that this "offhand" comment was precisely the kind of thing that
>     got the press excited about "cold fusion" in the first place, and given
>     that they knew they were talking to the press and that  such comments
>     would have the effect of attracting attention, it's not all that
>     unreasonable to ask how it all turned out."
> 
>I agree completely! It is reasonable to ask how it all turned out. I encourage
>you to ask, you should find out how it came out! The question is, how do you
>go about doing that? What steps do you take to learn how the cold fusion saga
>turned out, and what the prospects are for CF water heaters, cars, spacecraft
>etcetera. I recommend these steps:

     I recommend these steps:

     1.  Count the number of commercial 'cold fusion' offerings
         five years after we were assured that water heaters would
         be ready 'really really soon now'.
     2.  Ignore the whole subject.

     By now, it's clear that everything else is smoke and mirrors.

                         dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.31 / Cameron Bass /  Re: What is your opinion?
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: What is your opinion?
Date: Sat, 31 Dec 1994 16:05:23 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <5606oaa.jedrothwell@delphi.com>,  <jedrothwell@delphi.com> wrote:
>Andrew Palfreyman <palf@netcom.com> writes:
> 
>>Surely you beg a more fundamental question, and that is an existence
>>proof. Does it not strike you as odd that *nobody* has coupled the 
>>output to the input and generated a self-sustaining system? - or
>>connected several devices in series to produce the same effect?
> 
>Why do you ask? Does it strike you as odd that nobody has done this?
...
>If you
>read the scientific literature, it will soon be clear to you why this is
>impossible at the present stage of development, and what the prospects for
>achieving this in the future are.

     The reason:

          Net output is less than net input.

     Prospects for achieving a 'self-sustaining system':

          Zero.

                           dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.31 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Kunich versus Rothwell
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Kunich versus Rothwell
Date: Sat, 31 Dec 1994 16:13:25 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <5c6ZIUV.jedrothwell@delphi.com>,  <jedrothwell@delphi.com> wrote:
>Richard Schultz <schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu> writes:
> 
>>The point of my response -- to which Rothwell has not yet made a reply,
>>so perhaps he will explain exactly what he meant -- was as the previous
> 
>I responded and the damn response dissappeared into the cybernetic
>continuum. It never showed up in s.p.f. Okay, I'll respond again:
> 
>You know very well what I meant; I meant the rail voltage; the max you can
>get out of a given power supply. 

     Did they measure this or just read it off the box?

     Don't bother answering.  It's pretty clear that people who sample 
     a wildly boiling process every few minutes aren't interested 
     in the actual measurement, they read it off the box.

>Fleischmann's response to Jones was 100%
>clear on this point. Jones never responded because he is an evasive weasle,
>but facts are facts, you can never get more energy out of a power supply
>than you put in.

     Absolutely, you cannot get out more than you put in.  Unfortunately,
     it's pretty poor experimental technique to drive your power 
     supplies beyond their rating and expect predictable
     things to happen.  Of course, if they had sampled at some reasonable
     frequency, this might not be a problem. 

     As they apparently have no actual measurements of this process,
     I choose to believe that the power supply was supplying 1000 V.

     What amazing experimental technique! They have no way to show I'm wrong.

                               dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.31 /  jedrothwell@de /  Re: Kunich versus Rothwell
     
Originally-From: jedrothwell@delphi.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Kunich versus Rothwell
Date: Sat, 31 DEC 94 11:41:20 -0500
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)

I stated that in order to evaluate the commercial potential of CF it is best
to read the scientific papers and perform experiments. Reading tea leaves and
ignorant comments on the e-mail networks does not work -- you have to contact
EPRI or MITI or someone who has legitimate scientific information before you
can predict anything about CF. livesey@solntze.engr.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) asks
a strange question:
 
     "I don't seem to have to go to these lengths to check if someone has
     produced a gas-powered water-heater.  Why do I have to for a CF-powered
     one?"
 
If this was 1894 instead of 1994 and gas fired water heaters were still under
development, then you would have to go to great lengths to check if someone
had produced a successful device. If you want to evaluate the incandescent
electric light bulb today, you can purchase a bulb at any grocery store. But,
in the years between 1859 and 1879 the only place to see those bulbs was in
the laboratory, and in the house of Moses Farmer, Boston's leading electrical
engineer. If you want to know about the future prospects for solar energy
today, you should not limit your investigation to commercial devices. You need
to visit the laboratories, because solar technology is still undergoing rapid
and profound changes, unlike gas fired water heaters.
 
 
     "The claim was that "commercial use" of the supposed heater would begin
     in a year, five years ago, wasn't it?"
 
You misunderstand completely (and deliberately, I expect). The claim was
wrong. Pons -- who allegedly said this -- was too optimistic. He said it would
be one year, but it was two or three years instead. Commercial CF heaters did
not hit the market until Griggs began installing them (assuming his device
runs on CF). CF did manage to go commercial 50 years ahead of hot fusion!
People sometimes underestimate the difficulties they face in developing the
technology. In 1919 Anthony Fokker predicted that he would be able fly the
Atlantic to New York nonstop in a few years, but the first flight was not
until 1927.
 
Here is the key question for a serious scientist or investor: granted that
Pons missed his initial deadline, what should you do to evaluate the
technology now, today? Do you throw up your hands and dismiss the entire
technology because one scientist made a wrong guess at a press conference five
years ago? Do you say, "that one guess was wrong, so we should ignore all
subsequent experiments from all laboratories, everywhere in the world?" Is
that rational? Of course not. You would not judge the microcomputer industry
by looking at one overly optimistic product announcement from 1980. You look
at the machines *today* and you read the latest issue of Byte magazine. You do
not form opinions about a gigantic and complex field by looking exclusively at
one guess made five years ago.
 
If you want to evaluate CF, you must look at hard scientific data. Look at
quality papers, both peer reviewed and in conference proceedings. Look at
experimental data, not theory. Above all, pay no attention to opinions and hot
air from people like Kunich who have never read a paper or performed an
experiment. In 1908, you could have interviewed scientific experts at every
university and corporation in the U.S. and Europe, and they all would have
told you the Wrights were liars and frauds, they had not flown in 1903 and
they never would fly. The "experts" of 1908 claimed that the textbooks proved
heavier than air flight is impossible. None of them bothered to look at the
facts or to perform any experiments. They ignored the published papers, the
1906 patent, the photographs, the affidavits, and all the other proof that the
Wrights had flown.
 
- Jed
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudenjedrothwell cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
1994.12.31 / Cameron Bass /  Re: Free Energy Device
     
Originally-From: crb7q@watt.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Free Energy Device
Date: Sat, 31 Dec 1994 16:23:37 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <3e11n4$orl@watnews1.watson.ibm.com>,
prasad <c1prasad@watson.ibm.com> wrote:
>In article <3dvte5$cdi@sundog.tiac.net>, conover@max.tiac.net (Harry H Conover) writes:
>|> 
>|> When a device constructed by one or more laymen claims (as they continuously
>|> do) to overthrow and obsolete over 2,000 years of incrementally and painfully
>|> acquired scientific knowledge, why should a detailed analysis and criticism
>|> of the mechanism be expected or required?  
>
>Three reasons...

     The compelling reason against:

          Who wants to waste precious time doing a detailed refutation
          of the claims of myriad idiotic clowns who don't care about
          the science anyway?

>  First, the second law is the first scientific formulation of
>the impossibility of o/u devices etc, and dates back only to 1824. 

      Face it, this is forever in science.

                            dale bass
cudkeys:
cuddy31 cudencrb7q cudfnCameron cudlnBass cudmo12 cudqt4 cudszM cudyr1994 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Sun Jan  1 04:37:03 EST 1995
------------------------------
